## Shevuot Daf 19a

###### Shevuot 19a:1
[Shevuot 19a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/19a:1)

דְּבָעֵי לְמִיכְתַּב בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה לְכִדְרַבִּי, כָּתֵיב נָמֵי שֶׁרֶץ. כִּדְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: כָּל פָּרָשָׁה שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה וְנִשְׁנֵית, לֹא נִשְׁנֵית אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל דָּבָר שֶׁנִּתְחַדֵּשׁ בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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 **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi taught (see 7a), **“creeping animal” is also written,** even though there is no novel element taught by the addition of that term. This is **in accordance with what was taught** in **the school of Rabbi Yishmael: Every passage** in the Torah **that was stated and repeated was repeated only for the novel element introduced therein.** It is the style of the Torah to repeat an entire passage to teach even one additional *halakha*, in this case, that which was taught by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.


###### Shevuot 19a:2
[Shevuot 19a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/19a:2)

וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הַאי ״בָּהּ״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? פְּרָט לַמִּתְעַסֵּק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And Rabbi 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 Rabbi Yehoshua learned that there is no liability to bring an offering unless he knows precisely which sin he committed? The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Eliezer, these words emphasize the fact that one is liable only when he intends to do the prohibited act, **to the exclusion of one who acts unawares** and has no intention to perform the action. That is to say, if one was preoccupied with another matter and, acting unawares, he transgressed a prohibition, he is not liable to bring a sin-offering.


###### Shevuot 19a:3
[Shevuot 19a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/19a:3)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מַשְׁמָעוּת דּוֹרְשִׁין אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. וְכֵן אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת מַשְׁמָעוּת דּוֹרְשִׁין אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ – דְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת מַחְלֵיף דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וּדְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Until now the Gemara has discussed Ḥizkiyya’s understanding of the practical difference between the opinions of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva in the mishna. **And Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** There is no halakhic difference between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva, as they both agree that one must know the exact source of his ritual impurity. The difference **between them** is limited to **the interpretation of the meaning** of the verses, i.e., they disagree about the source in the Torah for this *halakha*. **And similarly,** it can be reasoned that **Rav Sheshet says:** The difference **between them** is limited to **the interpretation of the meaning** of the verses, **as Rav Sheshet would switch** the opinion **of Rabbi Eliezer for** that of **Rabbi Akiva and** that **of Rabbi Akiva for** that of **Rabbi Eliezer.** He was not meticulous in his attributions of the respective opinions, as he held that there is no halakhic difference between them.


###### Shevuot 19a:4
[Shevuot 19a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/19a:4)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵרַב נַחְמָן: הֶעְלֵם זֶה וְזֶה בְּיָדוֹ, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲרֵי הֶעְלֵם טוּמְאָה בְּיָדוֹ, וְחַיָּיב. אַדְּרַבָּה – הֲרֵי הֶעְלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ, וּפָטוּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava asked Rav Naḥman:** According to both Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi 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 therefore he is **liable.** The Gemara disputes this: **On the contrary, he has a lapse of awareness about the Temple, and** he should therefore be **exempt.**


###### Shevuot 19a:5
[Shevuot 19a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/19a:5)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: חָזֵינַן; אִי מִטּוּמְאָה קָא פָרֵישׁ – הֲרֵי הֶעְלֵם טוּמְאָה בְּיָדוֹ, וְחַיָּיב. אִי מִמִּקְדָּשׁ קָא פָרֵישׁ – הֲרֵי הֶעְלֵם מִקְדָּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ, וּפָטוּר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: כְּלוּם פֵּרֵישׁ מִמִּקְדָּשׁ – אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה; כְּלוּם פֵּרֵישׁ מִטּוּמְאָה – אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם מִקְדָּשׁ! אֶלָּא לָא שְׁנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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 in the Temple, then **the lapse of awareness** that **he had is about the Temple, and** he is **exempt. Ravina said to Rav Ashi:** There is no indication from here; **didn’t he leave because** he became aware of the **Temple only because** he became aware also **of the impurity?** Otherwise, why would he leave the Temple? And **didn’t he leave because** he became aware of the **impurity only because** he became aware also of the **Temple?** Otherwise, why would he leave the Temple? **Rather, there is no difference,** so there is no indication from here.


###### Shevuot 19a:6
[Shevuot 19a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/19a:6)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁנֵי שְׁבִילִין, אֶחָד טָמֵא וְאֶחָד טָהוֹר; וְהָלַךְ בָּרִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא נִכְנַס, בַּשֵּׁנִי וְנִכְנַס – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara begins a discussion about another topic related to awareness of impurity. **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: If there were **two paths** in a certain place, **one** of them **impure,** as a corpse was buried there, **and** the other **one pure,** but it was not clear which of the two paths was impure, **and** someone **walked on the first** path **and did not** then **enter** the Temple, and then afterward he walked **on the second** path, forgot that he was ritually impure, **and entered** the Temple, he is **liable** to bring a sin-offering, since he certainly contracted impurity on one of the paths and entered the Temple in a state of impurity.


###### Shevuot 19a:7
[Shevuot 19a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/19a:7)

הָלַךְ בָּרִאשׁוֹן וְנִכְנַס, הִזָּה וְשָׁנָה וְטָבַל, וְאַחַר כָּךְ הָלַךְ בַּשֵּׁנִי וְנִכְנַס – חַיָּיב. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה פּוֹטֵר בְּכוּלָּן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **he walked on the first** path **and entered** the Temple, and on the third day he was **sprinkled** with waters of purification to purify him from the uncertain impurity imparted by a corpse, **and** on the seventh day he was sprinkled upon **again, and he immersed** himself in a ritual bath, thereby completing his purification, **and** then **afterward he walked on the second** path **and entered** the Temple, he is **liable** to bring a sin-offering, since one of the paths was certainly impure and he entered the Temple after having walked on it. **Rabbi Shimon deems him exempt** in this latter case, because neither time that he entered the Temple was it certain that he was impure, the first time because he might not yet have become impure, and the second time because he might already have purified himself. **And Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, in the name of Rabbi Shimon, deems him exempt in all of** these cases.


###### Shevuot 19a:8
[Shevuot 19a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/19a:8)

בְּכוּלָּן –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Does Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda really exempt him **in all of** these cases,