Study Keritot folio 17A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
And that which is taught in the second baraita, that Rabban Gamliel deems a person liable if he wrote two letters over two Shabbatot, can also be explained: It is referring to a case where he acts unwittingly in that he does not know it is Shabbat, and intentionally in that he knows his actions cons
But according to Rava, who says that R' Akiva, and presumably also Rabban Gamliel, holds that separate Shabbatot are considered as one single entity, how can both baraitot be explained?
The Talmud elaborates: Granted, that which is taught in the second baraita, that Rabban Gamliel deems one who writes a letter on each of two Shabbatot to be liable, is understandable. You can find both a case where one acted intentionally in that he knew it was Shabbat and unwittingly in that he di
But with regard to that which is taught in the first baraita, that one who writes a letter on each of two Shabbatot is exempt, in what case can you interpret it, i.e., in what circumstances would this ever apply? This ruling does not apply in this case, where he is aware that it is Shabbat but unaw
The Talmud explains that Rava could say to you that Rabban Gamliel holds in accordance with the opinion of R' Eliezer, who says: Shabbatot are comparable to separate entities, and therefore an individual who wrote one letter on one Shabbat and another letter on a different Shabbat is exempt.