Study Shevuot folio 19A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
the Torah needs to write both “domesticated animal” and “undomesticated animal” in the verse “or the carcass of a non-kosher undomesticated animal, or the carcass of a non-kosher domesticated animal” to teach that halakha that the school of R' Yehuda HaNasi taught (see 7a), “creeping animal” is also
The Talmud asks: And R' Eliezer, who maintains that in general it is not necessary that the unwitting transgressor know precisely which prohibition he violated, what does he do with the words “in which he sinned,” the words from which R' Yehoshua learned that there is no liability to bring an offer
Until now the Talmud has discussed Ḥizkiyya’s understanding of the practical difference between the opinions of R' Eliezer and R' Akiva in the Mishnah. And R' Yoḥanan says: There is no halakhic difference between R' Eliezer and R' Akiva, as they both agree that one must know the exact source of his
Rava asked Rav Naḥman: According to both R' Eliezer and R' Akiva, if one had a lapse of awareness of both this and that, his having contracted ritual impurity and his having entered the Temple, what is the halakha? Rav Naḥman said to him: He has a lapse of awareness about his impurity, and theref
Rav Ashi said: We observe his behavior. If he leaves the Temple because of the impurity, i.e., when he is told that he is impure, it is clear that the lapse of awareness that he had is about the impurity, and he is liable. And if he leaves because of the Temple, i.e., when he is told that he is i