(Mishnah): There are two primary Yedi'os (awarenesses) of Tum'ah. There are four in all:

He knew that he became Tamei, then forgot the Tum'ah, and remembered the Kodesh - or, he forgot about the Kodesh, and remembered the Tum'ah - or, he forgot both [Tum'ah and the Kodesh], and ate Kodesh, and did not know, and after he ate he found out. He must bring an Oleh v'Yored.

He knew that he became Tamei, then forgot the Tum'ah, and remembered the Mikdash - or, he forgot about the Mikdash, and remembered the Tum'ah - or, he forgot both, and he entered the Mikdash, and did not know, and after he left he found out. He must bring an Oleh v'Yored.

(Gemara - R. Yirmeyah) Question: Surely, at the end he must know that he is liable a Korban. Does the same apply to the first Yedi'ah?

Answer: We learn from the following [Beraisa]. If there are two paths, one is Tamei and one is Tahor, and he went on one of them and entered the Mikdash and left, and he received Haza'ah [of Mei Chatas on day three] and again [on day seven] and immersed, and went on the second path and entered the Mikdash and left, he is liable;

Did he know that he is liable a Korban?! (Surely not. Each time, he was Safek Tamei!)

Rebuttal (Reish Lakish): [The Beraisa] is R. Yishmael, who says that one is liable for Helam Tum'ah and for Helam Mikdash. (He is liable for Helam Mikdash even if he was unaware of the Tum'ah.)

(R. Bun bar Chiyah): We thought to say that R. Yishmael said so when he is sure that he is Tamei, and the Mikdash was hidden from him, and he entered the Mikdash, but if he was Safek Tamei, Safek Tahor, and forgot the Mikdash and entered the Mikdash, no (he is exempt).

However, since Reish Lakish said that it is R. Yishmael, who says that one is liable for Helam Tum'ah and for Helam Mikdash, this teaches that even if he is Safek Tamei and Safek Tahor, and he forgot the Mikdash and entered the Mikdash, he is liable.

(R. Yochanan): (The Beraisa is like everyone.) It is because Safek Yedi'ah is like Yedi'ah.

Consequence: If when he does not know whether he is Tamei or Tahor, you say that it is [like] Vadai Yedi'ah - when he knows Vadai that he is Tamei, but he does not know whether or not one is Chayav Korban, all the more so it is Yedi'ah!

Question: If he became Tamei, and he became unsure, is this like Helam Tum'ah, and he is liable?

Question: [This is obvious! Reish Lakish] holds about this like he taught [above, that Safek Yedi'ah is not like Yedi'ah], and [R. Yochanan] holds about this like he taught [above, that it is]!

Answer: (It is not obvious, for elsewhere they taught oppositely.) If he ate five k'Zeisim and found out a Safek about each of them [whether it was Chelev, before he ate the next], and afterwards he found out Vadai, Reish Lakish says that knowing the Safek fixes it for Chata'os (it is like Vadai Yedi'ah, to separate the He'elamos), and R. Yochanan says that knowing the Safek does not fix it for Chata'os. (We explained this like HAGAHOS R. DINAR.)

(R. Yosi bei R. Bun citing R. Shmuel): Reish Lakish agrees about a Kohen Mashi'ach, that Yedi'as Safek does not fix him for Chatas;

Source: "Ka'Chatas ka'Asham" - one who brings Asham Taluy, his Yedi'as Safek fixes him for Chatas. One who does not bring Asham Taluy, his Yedi'as Safek does not divide for Chatas.

Question: Reish Lakish contradicts himself! There he said that Yedi'as Safek fixes for Chatas, and here he said that Yedi'as Safek does not fix for Chatas! (He established the Beraisa about two paths only like R. Yishmael. If he held that Yedi'as Safek is Yedi'ah, he would have established it like everyone, like R. Yochanan did.)

Answer: There, since [Yedi'as Safek obligates Asham Taluy,] his Asham fixes him [for Chatas]. Here, what do you have [to fix him? There is no Asham Taluy for Tum'as Mikdash v'Kodoshav!]

Question: R. Yochanan contradicts himself! There (one who ate five k'Zeisim and found out a Safek about each before he ate the next), he said that Yedi'as Safek does not fix for Chata'os. Here he said so (the Beraisa is like everyone, for Yedi'as Safek is Yedi'ah)!

Answer: R. Yochanan said so (Yedi'as Safek is Yedi'ah) only regarding the first Yedi'ah [for Oleh v'Yored], which does not obligate a Korban. (We explained this like KORBAN HA'EDAH.)

(R. Yochanan): Any Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Rabim is Tahor, but we do not permit him to do (l'Chatchilah, rather, we tell him to immerse).

Question (Mishnah): Any Safek that is Tahor for Terumah, it is Tahor for Chatas (Parah Adumah). Any Safek for which Terumah is Teluyah (Safek; we do not eat or burn it), for Chatas we spill (the ashes or water, and do not use them);

Inference: Nothing is Taluy for Chatas - either it is truly Tamei, or truly Tahor! (This teaches that Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Rabim is truly Tahor!)

Answer (R. Zeira): The Mishnah discusses something that does not come due to the Korban. R. Yochanan discusses something that comes due to the Korban.

All agree that if one [had Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Rabim] and [perhaps] transgressed and made [Taharos], they are Tehorim. (HAGAHOS R. DINAR - "All" refers to Yosi ben Yo'ezer and his opponent, who argue about Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Rabim. The Gemara assumes that R. Yochanan taught this.)

Contradiction: R. Yochanan contradicts himself! There he said that if transgressed and did [amidst Safek Tum'ah], it is Tamei. Here he said that if transgressed and did, it is Tahor!

Answer: [The former] discusses Reshus ha'Yachid. [The latter] discusses Reshus ha'Rabim.

If you would say that both of them discuss Reshus ha'Yachid, Reish Lakish would contradict himself, and R. Yochanan would contradict himself!

They argued about a Nazir who became Tamei through Tum'as ha'Tehom (a Tum'ah that no one knew about it). R. Yochanan says, the Nazir does not shave [and bring Korban Nazir Tamei and begin again from the beginning, for Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Yachid is like Safek Tamei]. Reish Lakish says, the Nazir shaves [because Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Yachid is Vadai Tamei. We explained this like NO'AM YERUSHALMI.]

Above, R. Yochanan said [that the Beraisa of two paths is] because Safek Yedi'ah [at the beginning] is like Yedi'ah (to help obligate a Korban at the end);

Even if the first [Yedi'ah was of Tum'as] Sheretz, and the second [of Tum'as] Mes, or the first was before he became sane, and the second after he became sane, or the first was before he brought two hairs [of adulthood], and the second after he brought two hairs [he is liable. Ohr Some'ach Shegagos 11:4 - at first he thought that he touched flesh of a Sheretz, and later found that it was of a Mes. In the latter two cases, he was exempt from Mitzvos at the first Yedi'ah. Even so, the Yedi'ah helps to obligate a Korban afterwards.]

If he became Tamei from a Mes and knew, and Tamei from a Sheretz and did not know [and entered the Mikdash], there is no Shem of light Tum'ah where there is is severe Tum'ah (the Tum'as Sheretz had no effect on him. We do not say that since there was Helam Sheretz, he is liable.)

Question: If he became Tamei from a Mes and did not know, and from a Sheretz and did not know, and afterwards he found out about the Sheretz [and entered the Mikdash] and afterwards found out about the Mes, because he found out about the Sheretz first, is he like one who has light Tum'ah where there is severe Tum'ah (there was initial Yedi'ah of Tum'as Sheretz, so he brings a Korban)?

Or, because Tum'as Mes came first, Tum'as Sheretz and its Yedi'ah are pushed off [have no effect], and there is no light Tum'ah where there is severe Tum'ah (so he is exempt)?

If he became Tamei from a Mes and knew, and from a Sheretz and knew, and entered the Mikdash in Helam of the Mes (but he remembered Tum'as Sheretz), he is liable. If he entered in Helam of the Sheretz (but he remembered Tum'as Mes), he is exempt. (We explained this like KORBAN HA'EDAH.)

If he descended to immerse from severe Tum'ah, and a light Tum'ah was near him (touching him the entire time, unknown to him, he become Tahor from the severe Tum'ah, and) the light Tum'ah is in place of it).

What is the consequence of this? If he immersed and entered the Mikdash, he is exempt. (The severe Tum'ah left, and there was no initial Yedi'ah of the light Tum'ah.)

If he descended to immerse from light Tum'ah, and a severe Tum'ah was near him (touching him...), the severe Tum'ah is not in place of it (the light Tum'ah never went away).

What is the consequence of this? If he immersed and entered the Mikdash, he is liable (since there was initial Yedi'ah of the light Tum'ah).

Inference: [This is only in the first case, when the latter is more lenient, but if he went to immerse] from severe Tum'ah and [another] severe Tum'ah was near (touching him the entire time), no (the first Tum'ah never left. If he went to immerse) from light Tum'ah and [another] light Tum'ah was near, no (the first Tum'ah never left. We explained this like SHA'AREI YOSHER (Sha'arei Chazakos 21), citing the GRACH).

Question: If he descended to immerse from severe Tum'ah, and was near [exposed to Tum'ah of] Sechachos or Pera'os (branches or protrusions that tower over Tum'ah), since R. Yochanan said in the name of R. Yanai "all of them are Torah regarding Terumah", is it like severe Tum'ah (so the first Tum'ah does not go away)?

Or, since a Nazir does not shave for them, it is like light Tum'ah?