Study Shevuot folio 4B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
“And it was concealed,” which indicates, by inference, that initially he had been aware, and nevertheless the verse continues to state: “And he was aware” (Leviticus 5:3). It emerges that the verse refers here to two different periods of awareness, one before the transgression and one afterward.
The Talmud asks: We have found with regard to cases of one’s awareness of the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods that R' Yehuda HaNasi has explained his own reasoning and it accords with the opinion of R' Yishmael. With regard to oaths, where he has not explained his own reasoning, from
The Talmud presents another formulation of the preceding comment: The Talmud asks: We have found an explicit statement of R' Yehuda HaNasi with regard to cases of one’s awareness of the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods indicating that he holds in accordance with the opinion of R' Yish
The Talmud explains the logical reasoning: What is the reason that R' Akiva deems one liable for oaths pertaining to the past? The reason is that he expounds verses using the method of amplifications and restrictions (see 26a). R' Yehuda HaNasi also expounds verses using the method of amplification
The Talmud demonstrates its point: As it is taught in a baraita: R' Yehuda HaNasi says that one can redeem a woman’s firstborn son with any item worth 5 shekels, except for promissory notes. And the Rabbis say that one can redeem a woman’s firstborn son with any item worth 5 shekels, except for Cana