Study Keritot folio 12A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Rather, isn’t the baraita referring to a case of one witness, and it teaches that when he does not contradict the testimony of the witness, the witness is deemed credible? Learn from it that one witness can render a person liable to bring a sin offering if the person does not contradict the testimon
§ The Mishnah teaches that if two witnesses say that someone ate forbidden fat, and he denies it, R' Meir deems him liable to bring a sin offering. R' Meir said: This conclusion can be inferred a fortiori: If two witnesses could have brought him liability to receive the severe punishment of death,
A dilemma was raised before the rabbis: What is the reasoning of the Rabbis, who deem him exempt from bringing an offering? Is it because they hold that a person is deemed credible about himself more than the testimony of 100 people? Or perhaps it is because we say that since he could advance a mor
The Talmud asks: And what is the practical difference between the two possibilities? The Talmud answers: The difference is whether it is possible to resolve from it the case of ritual impurity, when witnesses testify that one became ritually impure before entering the Temple, and he claims that he
But if you say that the reasoning of the Rabbis is that he can say miggo, then the Rabbis would deem him exempt from the obligation to bring a sliding-scale offering in a case of old impurity, but in a case of new impurity he would be obligated to bring a sliding-scale offering. What is the reason?