Study Keritot folio 12B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
that the baraita is referring to a case of old impurity, where the witnesses said to him: You became impure yesterday, what is different about the cases of eating forbidden fat and entering the Temple while impure, where the Rabbis concede to R' Yehuda that one is not liable to bring a sin offering
Ravina said: Actually, the baraita can be referring to a case of old impurity, and nevertheless the Rabbis distinguish between one’s denial that he is impure and one’s denial that he ate or entered the Temple. The case is one where the witnesses say to him: You ate sacrificial meat while in a stat
Ravina elaborates: What would he say to them to explain his statement that he did not become impure? If he says: I immersed and I ate, then when he says this to them, his initial statement has been contradicted in any event with regard to his impurity imparted by contact. His initial claim that he
Rav Naḥman says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of R' Yehuda that even if two witnesses testify that a person became impure, and he claims that he did not become impure, he is deemed credible about himself more than the testimony of 100 people. Rav Yosef says: R' Yehuda said that he
Reish Lakish says: Although according to R' Meir one is liable to bring an offering based on the testimony of two witnesses that he ate forbidden fat even if he denied it, R' Meir concedes to the Rabbis that if two witnesses said to him: You had sex with an espoused female slave, and he says: I did