Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 8, 2019 | 讞壮 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Keritot 18

Are you obligated in a hanging guilt offering if there was doubt regarding one piece or only if there were two pieces (and it is known that one was forbidden and one was not and is it unclear which one he/she ate)? What is the logic of each of the opinions? Can one voluntarily offer a hangling guilt offering even if there is no particular potential sin? If there is knowledge in between acts that one may have eaten something forbidden and therefore one brings multiple hanging guilt offerings, if it is later determined that both were actually forbidden and is now olbigated to bring a sin offering to complete the atonement, is one obligated one or two offerings?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 住驻拽 讘谉 转砖注讛 诇专讗砖讜谉 讗讜 讘谉 砖讘注讛 诇讗讞专讜谉 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讛讜诇讚 讻砖专 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗

The Gemara raised an objection to Rabbi Zeira from a baraita: If one consummates a levirate marriage with his yevama and seven months later she gives birth, there is uncertainty whether the child is nine months old and is the offspring of the first husband, or whether the child is only seven months old and is the offspring of the latter husband, i.e., the yavam. In such a case he must divorce her, but the offspring is of unflawed lineage. And to atone for the possibility that they engaged in forbidden intercourse, they are each obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering. The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 谞诪爪讗 注诇 砖诇讛 讗转讬讜诐 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘拽专讘谉 谞诪爪讗 注诇 砖诇讛 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讟诪讗讬谉 诪住驻拽 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛拽专讘谉 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗

The Gemara raised another objection to Rabbi Zeira from a mishna (Nidda 14a): If blood was found on her cloth immediately after intercourse, the woman and her husband are impure for seven days and are each liable to bring a sin offering. If blood was found on her cloth after time passed, they are both impure due to uncertainty and they are exempt from bringing the sin offering. And it is taught with regard to this last case that they are each liable to bring a provisional guilt offering. The Gemara again answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 砖转讬 讞转讬讻讜转 讗讞转 砖诇 讞诇讘 讜讗讞转 砖诇 砖讜诪谉 讜讗讻诇 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讜 诪讛谉 讗讻诇 讞讬讬讘 讞转讬讻讛 住驻拽 砖诇 讞诇讘 住驻拽 砖诇 砖讜诪谉 讜讗讻诇讛 驻讟讜专

Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: In a case where one had two pieces of fat before him, one of permitted fat and one of forbidden fat, and he ate one of them and he does not know which of them he ate, he is obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering. But if there was only one piece before him and it was uncertain if it is of forbidden fat and uncertain if it is of permitted fat, and he ate it, he is exempt.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 拽住讘专 砖转讬 讞转讬讻讜转 讗讬拽讘注 讗讬住讜专讗 讞转讬讻讛 讗讞转 诇讗 拽讘注讛 讗讬住讜专讗

Rav Na岣an said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rav? He holds that one is liable in the case of two pieces because the prohibition was established, i.e., there was definitely a prohibited piece before him, and nevertheless he proceeded to eat one of them. By contrast, he is exempt in the case of one uncertain piece, as the prohibition was not established.

诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 讗讬拽讘注 讗讬住讜专讗 诇砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讘专专 讗讬住讜专讬讛

The Gemara asks: What difference is there between the reasoning for Rav鈥檚 opinion given by Rav Na岣an, that one is liable in the case of two pieces because the prohibition was established, and the reasoning given by Rabbi Zeira, that if there is one piece it is impossible to identify its prohibition?

讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 砖转讬 讞转讬讻讜转 讗讞转 砖诇 讞诇讘 讜讗讞转 砖诇 砖讜诪谉 讜讘讗 讙讜讬 讜讗讻诇 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讘讗 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讻诇 讗转 讛砖谞讬讛 诇专讘讗 诇讬讻讗 诪爪讜讜转 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讗讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讘专专 讗讬住讜专讬讛 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讬拽讘注 讗讬住讜专讗

The Gemara answers: The difference between them is in a case where someone had two pieces of fat before him, one of forbidden fat and one of permitted fat. And a gentile came and ate the first piece, and then a Jew came and ate the second piece. According to Rava he is exempt, because at the time when the Jew ate the uncertain piece there was only one piece present, which does not fulfill the requirement of two items, as derived from the word mitzvot in the verse. According to Rabbi Zeira he is exempt because it is impossible to identify its prohibition, as both pieces are gone. But according to Rav Na岣an he is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering, as the presence of a prohibition was established, i.e., there was definitely a forbidden piece there at one point.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻讜讬 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讞诇讘讜 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讗 讘注讬 拽讘讬注讜转讗 诇讗讬住讜专讗

Rava raised an objection to Rav Na岣an from a baraita. Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to a koy, one is obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering for eating its fat. Rav Na岣an answered: Rabbi Eliezer does not require the prohibition to be established in order for one to be obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 住驻拽 讘谉 转砖注讛 诇专讗砖讜谉 讗讜 讘谉 砖讘注讛 诇讗讞专讜谉 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讛讜诇讚 讻砖专 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗

Rava raised another objection to Rav Na岣an from a baraita: If one consummates a levirate marriage with his yevama and seven months later she gives birth, there is uncertainty whether the child is nine months old and is the offspring of the first husband, or whether the child is only seven months old and is the offspring of the latter husband, and therefore he must divorce her; but the offspring is of unflawed lineage. And they are each obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering. Once again, the Gemara responds: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 谞诪爪讗 注诇 砖诇讜 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘拽专讘谉 谞诪爪讗 注诇 砖诇讛 讗转讬讜诐 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘拽专讘谉 谞诪爪讗 注诇 砖诇讛 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讟诪讗讬诐 诪住驻拽 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛拽专讘谉 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讗砖诐 转诇讜讬

Rava raised a final objection to Rav Na岣an from a mishna: If blood was found on his cloth, the woman and her husband are both ritually impure for seven days and they are each liable to bring a sin offering. If blood was found on her cloth immediately after intercourse, they are impure for seven days and are each liable to bring a sin offering. If it was found on her cloth after time passed, they are both impure due to uncertainty and they are exempt from bringing the sin offering. And it is taught with regard to this last case that they each is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering.

讗讬砖转讬拽 诇讘转专 讚谞驻拽 讗诪专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讚讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚诇讗 讘注讬 拽讘讬注讜转讗 诇讗讬住讜专讗

When presented with this last objection, Rav Na岣an was silent and did not reply. After Rava left he said: What is the reason I did not say to him, i.e., I should have said to him, that in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who does not require the prohibition to be established in order for one to be obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering.

讚转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讘讞讜抓 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉

As it is taught in a baraita: If one slaughters an animal designated as a provisional guilt offering outside the Temple, Rabbi Meir deems him obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering and the Rabbis deem him exempt. Rabbi Meir deems him obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering despite the fact that it is possible the owner of the first provisional guilt offering never violated any transgression and therefore was never obligated to bring his provisional guilt offering. This demonstrates that according to Rabbi Meir it is not necessary for the prohibition to be established for one to be obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering.

讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘砖讬讟转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 拽讗讬

The Gemara asks: But why did Rav Na岣an say that he could have responded to Rava鈥檚 contradiction by claiming the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir? Let him say to him that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as was the response to the previous objections. The Gemara explains that this is what Rav Na岣an is teaching us: That the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Meir is that he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says an established prohibition is not required for one to be obligated in a provisional guilt offering.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞转讬讻讛 住驻拽 砖诇 讞诇讘 住驻拽 砖诇 砖讜诪谉 讜讗讻诇讛 讘讗谞讜 诇诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐

Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: If there was a piece of fat before someone and it was uncertain if it is of forbidden fat and uncertain if it is of permitted fat, and he ate it, we have arrived at the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis. In a mishna on 25a, Rabbi Eliezer states that one may bring a voluntary provisional guilt offering whenever he pleases. The Rabbis disagree and maintain that a provisional guilt offering may be brought only in a case of actual uncertainty whether one performed a sin for which he would be liable to bring a sin offering.

诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讻讬 讗讻诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 谞诪讬 讚讛转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪转谞讚讘 讗讚诐 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讘讻诇 讬讜诐

The Gemara asks: Why did Rav specifically choose a case where one ate the item of uncertain status in order to exemplify the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer? Even if he had not eaten anything, Rabbi Eliezer would also permit him to bring a provisional guilt offering, as we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: A person may volunteer to bring a provisional guilt offering every day.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诇讬讘讗 讚讘讘讗 讘谉 讘讜讟讗 讚转谞谉 讗诇讗 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 讛诪转谉 注讚 砖转讻谞住 诇讘讬转 住驻拽

Rav Ashi said: Rav mentioned a case involving the consumption of an item whose status is uncertain in order to teach the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer in accordance with the opinion of Bava ben Buta, as we learned in the mishna: They said about Bava ben Buta that he would volunteer to bring a provisional guilt offering every day except for the day after Yom Kippur, as Yom Kippur atones for all uncertain sins. He said: If they would have allowed me to do so I would have brought a provisional guilt offering even on that day. But they say to him: Wait until you enter into a situation of potential uncertainty. For this reason Rav presents a scenario where an item whose status is uncertain was consumed, in order to allow for the potential uncertainty that would justify bringing a provisional guilt offering.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 砖转讬 讞转讬讻讜转 讗讞转 砖诇 砖讜诪谉 讜讗讞转 砖诇 讞诇讘 讘讗 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讻诇 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讘讗 讙讜讬 讜讗讻诇 讗转 讛砖谞讬讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讻谉 讻诇讘 讜讻谉 注讜专讘 讘讗 讙讜讬 讜讗讻诇 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讘讗 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讻诇 讗转 讛砖谞讬讛 驻讟讜专 讜专讘讬 诪讞讬讬讘

The Sages taught in a baraita: In a case where one had before him two pieces of fat, one of permitted fat and one of forbidden fat, if a Jew came and ate the first piece and then a gentile came and ate the second, the Jew is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering. And the same applies if a dog ate the second piece and the same is true if a raven ate it. But if a gentile came and ate the first piece and then a Jew came and ate the second piece, the Jew is exempt, because at the time that he ate the uncertain piece there was only one item of uncertainty. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems him obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering, as he does not maintain that two items are required for one to be obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering.

讗讻诇 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讘砖讜讙讙 讜讛砖谞讬讛 讘诪讝讬讚 讞讬讬讘 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讘诪讝讬讚 讜讛砖谞讬讛 讘砖讜讙讙 驻讟讜专 讜专讘讬 诪讞讬讬讘 讗讻诇 砖转讬讛谉 讘诪讝讬讚 驻讟讜专 诪讻诇讜诐

The baraita continues: If the Jew ate the first piece unwittingly and the second intentionally, he is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering for the first piece. But if he ate the first piece intentionally and the second piece unwittingly, he is exempt, because at the time that he ate the second piece, only one piece was present. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems him obligated to bring an offering. If he ate both of them intentionally, he is exempt from bringing anything.

砖转讬讛谉 讘砖讜讙讙 砖谞讬讛谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讛砖谞讬 诇讗 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 讗诇讗 砖讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 驻讟讜专 拽讘注转 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讘讞讟讗转

The baraita concludes: If two Jews each ate one of two items, each of them unwittingly, each of them is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering, albeit for different reasons. The first is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering in case he ate the forbidden piece. By contrast, the second one is not strictly obligated by law, as he unwittingly ate the uncertain piece when there was no other piece present. Rather, the reason he is obligated is that if you say he is exempt, you have in effect established that the first individual is obligated to bring a sin offering. One might think that the second individual is exempt because he definitely ate the permitted piece, which would mean the first one ate the forbidden piece and he must therefore bring a sin offering.

讜诪谞讜 讗讬 专讘讬 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 讜诪谉 讛讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讗讬 专讘谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 谞拽讘注 专讗砖讜谉 讘讞讟讗转 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇砖谞讬 讗讬讬转讬 讞讜诇讬谉 诇注讝专讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬

The Gemara asks: And in accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, why does the baraita say the second individual is obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering merely as a precaution and not by law? It is certainly by law that the second is obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains that one is obligated even for an uncertainty involving a single item. If it is in accordance with the Rabbis, can it be correct that merely in order to prevent a misunderstanding and ensure that we do not establish the first one as obligated to bring a sin offering, that we would say to the second individual: Bring and slaughter a non-sacred animal in the Temple courtyard? After all, he is not obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering. Rav Ashi said in response:

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪转谞讚讘 讗讚诐 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讛讬诇讻讱 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讬讬转讬 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讜讗转谞讬 讗讬 讗讻诇 专讗砖讜谉 砖讜诪谉 讛讜讗 讗讻诇 讞诇讘 诇讬讛讜讬 讻驻专讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讬讛讜讬 谞讚讘讛

It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says a person may volunteer to bring a provisional guilt offering every day. Therefore, we say to the second person: Volunteer and bring a provisional guilt offering, to prevent the first individual from bringing an unwarranted sin offering. And he should stipulate: If the first person ate the piece of permitted fat, that means that he himself ate the forbidden fat and consequently the offering should be an atonement for his own transgression. And if not, i.e., if the first person ate the forbidden fat and he himself committed no transgression, let it be a gift offering.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讻诇 住驻拽 讞诇讘 讜谞讜讚注 诇讜 住驻拽 讞诇讘 讜谞讜讚注 诇讜 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 讻砖诐 砖诪讘讬讗 讞讟讗转 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讻讱 诪讘讬讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

The Sages taught in a baraita: A person unwittingly ate a piece of fat about which it was uncertain whether it was forbidden fat or permitted fat, and he was subsequently informed of its questionable status. He then unwittingly ate another piece of fat about which it was uncertain whether it was forbidden fat or permitted fat, and he was again informed of its questionable status. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that just as he would be liable to bring a sin offering for each and every one if he was later informed that they were all pieces of forbidden fat, so too, in these cases of uncertainty he must bring a provisional guilt offering for each and every one.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗 讗诇讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗讞讚 砖谞讗诪专 注诇 砖讙讙转讜 讗砖专 砖讙讙 讗驻讬诇讜 注诇 砖讙讙讜转 讛专讘讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda; Rabbi Elazar; and Rabbi Shimon all say: He is obligated to bring only one provisional guilt offering, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement for him concerning the unwitting error which he committed unwittingly and he shall be forgiven鈥 (Leviticus 5:18). It is derived from the verse鈥檚 double mention of his unwitting status, for which he is liable to bring one offering, that a person is obligated to bring only one offering even for many unwitting sins, despite the fact that he was informed of the uncertainty in between each instance of consumption.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻讗谉 砖谞讛 专讘讬 讬讚讬注讜转 住驻拽 诪讞诇拽讜转 诇讞讟讗讜转

With regard to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 statement in the baraita, Rabbi Zeira says: Here Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught a principle with regard to the obligation to bring sin offerings for several unwitting transgressions: Knowledge of the questionable status of an uncertain case prior to each subsequent transgression divides them into obligations to bring multiple sin offerings when one later learns that he definitely committed unwitting transgressions. In the case of the baraita, as he was informed prior to each instance of consumption of the uncertain status of the fat he ate before his subsequent consumption of uncertain fat, he is obligated to bring a sin offering for each instance of consumption if he later discovers he actually sinned.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讬讚讬注讜转 住驻拽 诪讞诇拽讜转 诇讞讟讗讜转 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讻砖诐 砖讗诐 讛讬转讛 诇讜 讬讚讬注讛 讜讚讗讬 诪讘讬讗 讞讟讗转 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讻讱 讗诐 讛讬转讛 诇讜 讬讚讬注转 住驻拽 诪讘讬讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

Rava says: Knowledge of uncertainty prior to each possible transgression does not divide them into obligations to bring multiple sin offerings. Rather, this is what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is teaching in the baraita: Just as if he had had definite knowledge prior to each instance of consumption that the piece he ate was prohibited before eating each subsequent piece he would have been liable to bring a sin offering for each and every one, so too, if he had knowledge of the uncertain status of the piece he ate before eating each subsequent piece, he is obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering for each and every one. According to Rava, uncertain knowledge does not divide the unwitting transgressions to the extent that one is obligated to bring multiple sin offerings. Only definite knowledge renders one liable to bring multiple sin offerings.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讗转 诇讗 转住讘专讗 讚讬讚讬注讜转 住驻拽 诪讞诇拽讜转 诇讞讟讗讜转 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讬讚讬注讜转 讗讬谉 诪讞诇拽讜转 诇讞讟讗讜转 讜讞讟讗转 讗讞转 诪讘讬讗 讗诪讗讬 诪讘讬讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

Abaye said to Rava: And you? Do you not hold that knowledge of uncertainty prior to committing each transgression divides them with regard to the obligation to bring sin offerings for each one? As, if it enters your mind to say that knowledge of uncertainty prior to committing each transgression does not divide them with regard to multiple sin offerings, and therefore one brings only one sin offering, why does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi rule that he brings a provisional guilt offering for each and every one, when he had knowledge of uncertainty prior to each instance of consumption?

讜讛转谞讬讗 讻诇诇讜 砖诇 讚讘专 讻诇 砖讞诇讜拽讬谉 讘讞讟讗讜转 讞诇讜拽讬谉 讘讗砖诪讜转

After all, isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The principle with regard to the matter is as follows: In any case where separate transgressions are divided for the purpose of determining liability to bring multiple sin offerings, they are also considered divided for the purpose of determining liability to bring multiple provisional guilt offerings in cases of uncertainty. If one does not bring several sin offerings in a case of definite transgression, he is not obligated to bring several provisional guilt offerings in a case of uncertainty either.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘专 讞谞谉 诇讗讘讬讬 讜诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 讬讚讬注讜转 住驻拽 诪讞诇拽讜转 诇讞讟讗讜转 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讗讻诇 讻讝讬转 讞诇讘 诇驻谞讬 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讜讻讝讬转 讞诇讘 讗讞专 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讘诪拽讜诐 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 拽讗讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讘讬讗 砖转讬 讞讟讗讜转

Rava bar 岣nan said to Abaye: And according to you, that you said knowledge of uncertainty prior to each transgression divides them into obligations to bring separate sin offerings, if that is so, what would you say about the following case: Someone ate an olive-bulk of forbidden fat before Yom Kippur and another olive-bulk of forbidden fat after Yom Kippur. Since Yom Kippur itself stands in place of a provisional guilt offering, i.e., it atones for any prior uncertain transgression, if he later learned that both pieces were in fact forbidden fat, would you say that so too, Yom Kippur divides the two actions and that he is obligated to bring two sin offerings?

讛讗 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞转 讗讻诇讬谞讜谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诪讗谉 诇讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 注诇 讚诇讗 诪转讬讚注 诇讬讛 讚讬诇诪讗 讜讛讜讗 讚诪转讬讚注 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讛讜讚注 讜诇讗 讛讜讚注 转谞谉

But this cannot be correct, as he ate both of them in a single lapse of awareness and there was no knowledge of sin to divide them. Rather, it stands to reason that like Yom Kippur, knowledge of uncertainty does not divide transgressions into multiple sin offering obligations. Abaye said to Rava bar 岣nan: That case in which Yom Kippur occurred in between transgressions is not comparable to having knowledge of uncertainty between each transgression. Who shall say to us that Yom Kippur atones for sins that were unknown to him? Perhaps it atones only for sins that were known to him. Rava said to him in reply: We learned this explicitly in a mishna (Shevuot 2b): Yom Kippur atones for sins whether one became aware of them before Yom Kippur or did not become aware of them.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘专 讞谞谉 诇讗讘讬讬 诪讛 讗讬诇讜 讗讻诇 讻讝讬转 讞诇讘 砖讞专讬转 讘讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讜讻讝讬转 讞诇讘 讘诪谞讞讛 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘 砖转讬 讞讟讗讜转

The Gemara cites another version of the difficulty raised against Abaye鈥檚 opinion: Some say that Rava bar 岣nan said to Abaye: Since Yom Kippur serves to divide the two acts of consumption into two obligations, similar to knowledge of the questionable status of fat according to Abaye, what is the halakha in the following case: If one ate an olive-bulk of forbidden fat on the morning of Yom Kippur and an olive-bulk of forbidden fat in the afternoon of Yom Kippur, so too would he be obligated to bring two sin offerings? This cannot be correct, as both olive-bulks were consumed in a single lapse of awareness.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诪讗谉 诇讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讻诇 砖注转讗 诪讻驻专 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讜诇讬讛 讬讜诪讗 诪讗讜专转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 转专讚讗 转谞讬讗 讛专讬 砖讘讗 诇讬讚讜 住驻拽 注讘讬专讛 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 注诐 讞砖讬讻讛 驻讟讜专 砖讻诇 讛讬讜诐 诪讻驻专

Abaye said to Rava bar 岣nan: Who shall say to us that Yom Kippur provides atonement at every hour of the day? Perhaps the entire day as a single unit serves to provide atonement only when it begins, in the evening? Rabba bar bar 岣na said to him: Fool [terada]! It is taught in a mishna (25a): With regard to one who encountered uncertainty concerning whether he performed a sin on Yom Kippur, even if it was at nightfall at the end of the day, he is exempt, as the entire day atones for uncertain sins.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗讻诇 讜砖转讛 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞转 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讞讟讗转 讗讞转 讜讛讗 讘讬谉 讗讻讬诇讛 诇砖转讬讬讛 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 砖讛讜转 讘讬讜诐 讚诪转讬讬讚注 诇讬讛 讜讻驻专 诇讬讛 讚讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讘诪拽讜诐 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 拽讗讬 讜拽转谞讬 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讞讟讗转 讗讞转

Rav Idi bar Avin raises another objection to Abaye鈥檚 opinion from a mishna (Yoma 81a): If one ate and drank unwittingly on Yom Kippur in one lapse of awareness, e.g., he forgot it was Yom Kippur, he is liable to bring only one sin offering. But according to Abaye he should be liable to bring two sin offerings, as between the eating and the drinking it is impossible that there was no interval of even a minimal amount of time during the day. That interval of time would allow him to gain knowledge of the possible transgression, and therefore it should serve to atone for him, as Yom Kippur stands in place of a provisional guilt offering. And yet it is taught in the mishna: He is liable to bring only one sin offering.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讬讚讬注讜转 住驻拽 诪讞诇拽讜转 诇讞讟讗讜转 诇讬讞讬讬讘 砖转讬 讞讟讗讜转 讗诪专讬 讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗

Rav Idi bar Avin concludes his objection: And if it enters your mind that knowledge of uncertainty prior to each possible transgression divides them into obligations to bring separate sin offerings for each one, this lapse of time on Yom Kippur should serve to divide his two transgressions and therefore he should be liable to bring two sin offerings. The Sages say in response: When Rabbi Zeira said that knowledge of uncertainty prior to each unwitting transgression divides them into obligations to bring separate sin offerings, he was clarifying the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. By contrast, this mishna, which indicates that the passage of time on Yom Kippur does not divide transgressions into obligations for separate sin offerings, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

讜讛讗 诪讚住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚拽转谞讬 砖转讛 爪讬专 讗讜 诪讜专讬讬住 驻讟讜专 讛讗 讞讜诪抓 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara objects: But from the fact that the latter clause of that mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, it follows that the first clause is also in accordance with his opinion. This is significant, as that same mishna later teaches (Yoma 81a): If on Yom Kippur one drank the salty liquid in which fish are pickled, or fish brine [morayes], he is exempt. One can infer: But if he drank vinegar he is liable.

讜诪谞讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讞讜诪抓 讗讬谉 诪砖讬讘 讗转 讛谞驻砖 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 讞讜诪抓 诪砖讬讘 讗转 讛谞驻砖 讜诪讚住讬驻讗 专讘讬 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 专讘讬 讗诪专讬 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 专讬砖讗 专讘谞谉

And who is the tanna of the mishna? It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita: Vinegar does not revive the spirit, i.e., it does not have the status of a beverage, and therefore one who drinks it on Yom Kippur is exempt. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that vinegar does revive the spirit and is therefore considered like a beverage. And from the fact that the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the first clause must also be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The Sages say in response: That is not necessarily so, as one can say the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi whereas the first clause is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 讗讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讗讻诇 诇诪讞专 谞讛谞讛 讛讬讜诐 谞讛谞讛 诇诪讞专 讗讻诇 讛讬讜诐 谞讛谞讛 诇诪讞专 谞讛谞讛 讛讬讜诐 讗讻诇 诇诪讞专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 诪谞讬谉 砖讛谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讝讛 注诐 讝讛

Rava raised another objection to Abaye from a baraita: One is obligated to bring a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property only if he derived benefit of at least the value of one peruta from the property. If one unwittingly ate from consecrated property today and ate again tomorrow, or if he derived benefit from consecrated property today and again derived benefit tomorrow, or if he ate from the property today and derived benefit from it tomorrow, or if he derived benefit from it today and ate from it tomorrow, even if the time between them was as long as from now until three years later, from where is it derived that they combine with each other to amount to one peruta-worth of benefit and thereby render him obligated to bring a guilt offering?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转诪注诇 诪注诇 专讬讘讛 讜讗诪讗讬 讛讗 讻讬驻专 注诇讬讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

The baraita answers that the verse states: 鈥淚f anyone commits a misuse [tim鈥檕l ma鈥檃l]鈥 (Leviticus 5:15). The double verb [tim鈥檕l ma鈥檃l] extended the obligation to bring a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property to a case where the value of individual instances of misuse at different times amount to a total of one peruta. Rava concludes his objection: But why should that be the halakha according to Abaye, who maintains that knowledge of uncertainty, and similarly the day of Yom Kippur, which has the same effect as a provisional guilt offering, divides his actions into separate entities? When the second misuse occurs after Yom Kippur, isn鈥檛 his sin atoned for by Yom Kippur? Since his acts of possible transgression are divided, how can they combine to the value of one peruta?

讗诪专讬 讻讬 诪讻驻专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 注诇 讗讬住讜专讗 注诇 诪诪讜谞讗 诇讗 诪讻驻专

The Sages say in response: When does Yom Kippur atone for sins? Only with regard to ritual prohibitions. But it does not atone with regard to monetary matters. Misuse of consecrated property entails a monetary obligation to restore the value of the principal with the addition of one-fifth. Since Yom Kippur does not exempt one from the monetary obligation entailed by a sin, the two acts of misuse combine to render one obligated to bring a guilt offering.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬 诪讻驻专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 注诇 讻讜诇讬讛 砖讬注讜专讗 注诇 驻诇讙讗 讚砖讬注讜专讗 诇讗 诪讻驻专

The Gemara suggests another answer. If you wish, say instead: When does Yom Kippur atone for sins? It atones for sins only if they were committed in their full measure, but it does not atone for sins that one transgressed only by half of their full measure. Consequently, Yom Kippur does not atone for misuse of consecrated property of the value of less than one peruta, which is why the two acts of misuse combine.

讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻讗谉 砖谞讛 专讘讬 讬讚讬注讜转 住驻拽 诪讞诇拽讜转 诇讞讟讗讜转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讬讚讬注讜转 住驻拽 诪讞诇拽讜转 诇讞讟讗讜转

搂 The Gemara cites the opinions of other amora鈥檌m with regard to this matter. Similarly, like Rabbi Zeira, Reish Lakish says: Here, in his statement in the baraita above, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught that knowledge of uncertain status prior to each possible transgression divides them into separate obligations to bring sin offerings for each one. And like Rava, Rabbi Yo岣nan disagrees and says: Knowledge of uncertainty does not divide them into obligations to bring separate sin offerings.

讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讻砖诐 砖讗诐 讛讬转讛 诇讜 讬讚讬注讛 讜讚讗讬 诪讘讬讗 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讻讱 讗诐 讛讬转讛 诇讜 讬讚讬注转 住驻拽 诪讘讬讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

Rather, this is what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is teaching in the baraita: Just as if he had had definite knowledge prior to each instance of unwitting consumption he would bring a sin offering for each and every one, so too, if he had had knowledge of the uncertainty of each piece prior to his subsequent instance of unwitting consumption he would be obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering for each and every one. But knowledge of uncertainty prior to each instance of consumption does not render him obligated to bring multiple sin offerings if he later finds out they were all definitely prohibited.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽讗 转诇讬 诇讗砖诐 讘讞讟讗转 讗诇讗 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讞讟讗转 讘讗砖诐 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, this is why the baraita is formulated in a manner that indicates the halakha of a provisional guilt offering is dependent upon the halakhot governing the sin offering. Just as knowledge of an unwitting transgression renders one liable to bring a sin offering, so too, knowledge of uncertainty renders one liable to bring a provisional guilt offering. But according to Reish Lakish, the baraita should have taught that the halakha of a sin offering is dependent upon the knowledge of uncertainty necessary to render one liable to bring a provisional guilt offering, rather than the other way around. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is difficult.

讜专诪讬 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专诪讬 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚转谞讬讗 砖谞讬 砖讘讬诇讬谉 讗讞讚 讟诪讗 讜讗讞讚 讟讛讜专 讜讛诇讱 讘专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 谞讻谞住 讘砖谞讬 讜谞讻谞住 讞讬讬讘

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from one statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan to another statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan, and it likewise raises a contradiction from one statement of Reish Lakish to another statement of Reish Lakish. As it is taught in a baraita: There are two paths: one is ritually impure due to a corpse that is buried there and the other one is ritually pure, and it is unknown which path is which. If an individual walked on the first path and did not yet enter the Temple, and then he walked on the second path and afterward unwittingly entered the Temple, being that he certainly contracted ritual impurity after walking down both paths he is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering for entering the Temple in a state of ritual impurity.

讛诇讱 讘专讗砖讜谉 讜谞讻谞住 驻讟讜专 讘砖谞讬 讜谞讻谞住 讞讬讬讘 讛诇讱 讘专讗砖讜谉 讜谞讻谞住 讜讛讝讛 讜砖谞讛 讜讟讘诇 讜讛诇讱 讘砖谞讬 讜谞讻谞住 讞讬讬讘

The baraita continues: If he walked on the first path and entered the Temple he is exempt from bringing an offering. But if he then walked on the second path and afterward entered the Temple he is obligated to bring a sin offering, as he was definitely impure on one of the occasions that he entered the Temple. If he walked on the first path and entered the Temple, and subsequently went through the process of ritual purification, i.e., he received the sprinkling of the ashes of the red heifer on the third day and again on the seventh day, and immersed, and then walked on the second path and entered the Temple, he is liable to bring a sin offering, as he definitely entered the Temple while ritually impure, either on the first occasion or on the second.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Keritot 18

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Keritot 18

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 住驻拽 讘谉 转砖注讛 诇专讗砖讜谉 讗讜 讘谉 砖讘注讛 诇讗讞专讜谉 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讛讜诇讚 讻砖专 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗

The Gemara raised an objection to Rabbi Zeira from a baraita: If one consummates a levirate marriage with his yevama and seven months later she gives birth, there is uncertainty whether the child is nine months old and is the offspring of the first husband, or whether the child is only seven months old and is the offspring of the latter husband, i.e., the yavam. In such a case he must divorce her, but the offspring is of unflawed lineage. And to atone for the possibility that they engaged in forbidden intercourse, they are each obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering. The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 谞诪爪讗 注诇 砖诇讛 讗转讬讜诐 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘拽专讘谉 谞诪爪讗 注诇 砖诇讛 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讟诪讗讬谉 诪住驻拽 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛拽专讘谉 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗

The Gemara raised another objection to Rabbi Zeira from a mishna (Nidda 14a): If blood was found on her cloth immediately after intercourse, the woman and her husband are impure for seven days and are each liable to bring a sin offering. If blood was found on her cloth after time passed, they are both impure due to uncertainty and they are exempt from bringing the sin offering. And it is taught with regard to this last case that they are each liable to bring a provisional guilt offering. The Gemara again answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 砖转讬 讞转讬讻讜转 讗讞转 砖诇 讞诇讘 讜讗讞转 砖诇 砖讜诪谉 讜讗讻诇 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讜 诪讛谉 讗讻诇 讞讬讬讘 讞转讬讻讛 住驻拽 砖诇 讞诇讘 住驻拽 砖诇 砖讜诪谉 讜讗讻诇讛 驻讟讜专

Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: In a case where one had two pieces of fat before him, one of permitted fat and one of forbidden fat, and he ate one of them and he does not know which of them he ate, he is obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering. But if there was only one piece before him and it was uncertain if it is of forbidden fat and uncertain if it is of permitted fat, and he ate it, he is exempt.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 拽住讘专 砖转讬 讞转讬讻讜转 讗讬拽讘注 讗讬住讜专讗 讞转讬讻讛 讗讞转 诇讗 拽讘注讛 讗讬住讜专讗

Rav Na岣an said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rav? He holds that one is liable in the case of two pieces because the prohibition was established, i.e., there was definitely a prohibited piece before him, and nevertheless he proceeded to eat one of them. By contrast, he is exempt in the case of one uncertain piece, as the prohibition was not established.

诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 讗讬拽讘注 讗讬住讜专讗 诇砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讘专专 讗讬住讜专讬讛

The Gemara asks: What difference is there between the reasoning for Rav鈥檚 opinion given by Rav Na岣an, that one is liable in the case of two pieces because the prohibition was established, and the reasoning given by Rabbi Zeira, that if there is one piece it is impossible to identify its prohibition?

讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 砖转讬 讞转讬讻讜转 讗讞转 砖诇 讞诇讘 讜讗讞转 砖诇 砖讜诪谉 讜讘讗 讙讜讬 讜讗讻诇 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讘讗 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讻诇 讗转 讛砖谞讬讛 诇专讘讗 诇讬讻讗 诪爪讜讜转 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讗讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讘专专 讗讬住讜专讬讛 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讬拽讘注 讗讬住讜专讗

The Gemara answers: The difference between them is in a case where someone had two pieces of fat before him, one of forbidden fat and one of permitted fat. And a gentile came and ate the first piece, and then a Jew came and ate the second piece. According to Rava he is exempt, because at the time when the Jew ate the uncertain piece there was only one piece present, which does not fulfill the requirement of two items, as derived from the word mitzvot in the verse. According to Rabbi Zeira he is exempt because it is impossible to identify its prohibition, as both pieces are gone. But according to Rav Na岣an he is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering, as the presence of a prohibition was established, i.e., there was definitely a forbidden piece there at one point.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻讜讬 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讞诇讘讜 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讗 讘注讬 拽讘讬注讜转讗 诇讗讬住讜专讗

Rava raised an objection to Rav Na岣an from a baraita. Rabbi Eliezer says: With regard to a koy, one is obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering for eating its fat. Rav Na岣an answered: Rabbi Eliezer does not require the prohibition to be established in order for one to be obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 住驻拽 讘谉 转砖注讛 诇专讗砖讜谉 讗讜 讘谉 砖讘注讛 诇讗讞专讜谉 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讛讜诇讚 讻砖专 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗

Rava raised another objection to Rav Na岣an from a baraita: If one consummates a levirate marriage with his yevama and seven months later she gives birth, there is uncertainty whether the child is nine months old and is the offspring of the first husband, or whether the child is only seven months old and is the offspring of the latter husband, and therefore he must divorce her; but the offspring is of unflawed lineage. And they are each obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering. Once again, the Gemara responds: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 谞诪爪讗 注诇 砖诇讜 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘拽专讘谉 谞诪爪讗 注诇 砖诇讛 讗转讬讜诐 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘拽专讘谉 谞诪爪讗 注诇 砖诇讛 诇讗讞专 讝诪谉 讟诪讗讬诐 诪住驻拽 讜驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛拽专讘谉 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讗砖诐 转诇讜讬

Rava raised a final objection to Rav Na岣an from a mishna: If blood was found on his cloth, the woman and her husband are both ritually impure for seven days and they are each liable to bring a sin offering. If blood was found on her cloth immediately after intercourse, they are impure for seven days and are each liable to bring a sin offering. If it was found on her cloth after time passed, they are both impure due to uncertainty and they are exempt from bringing the sin offering. And it is taught with regard to this last case that they each is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering.

讗讬砖转讬拽 诇讘转专 讚谞驻拽 讗诪专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讚讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚诇讗 讘注讬 拽讘讬注讜转讗 诇讗讬住讜专讗

When presented with this last objection, Rav Na岣an was silent and did not reply. After Rava left he said: What is the reason I did not say to him, i.e., I should have said to him, that in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who does not require the prohibition to be established in order for one to be obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering.

讚转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讘讞讜抓 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉

As it is taught in a baraita: If one slaughters an animal designated as a provisional guilt offering outside the Temple, Rabbi Meir deems him obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering and the Rabbis deem him exempt. Rabbi Meir deems him obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering despite the fact that it is possible the owner of the first provisional guilt offering never violated any transgression and therefore was never obligated to bring his provisional guilt offering. This demonstrates that according to Rabbi Meir it is not necessary for the prohibition to be established for one to be obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering.

讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘砖讬讟转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 拽讗讬

The Gemara asks: But why did Rav Na岣an say that he could have responded to Rava鈥檚 contradiction by claiming the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir? Let him say to him that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as was the response to the previous objections. The Gemara explains that this is what Rav Na岣an is teaching us: That the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Meir is that he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says an established prohibition is not required for one to be obligated in a provisional guilt offering.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞转讬讻讛 住驻拽 砖诇 讞诇讘 住驻拽 砖诇 砖讜诪谉 讜讗讻诇讛 讘讗谞讜 诇诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐

Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: If there was a piece of fat before someone and it was uncertain if it is of forbidden fat and uncertain if it is of permitted fat, and he ate it, we have arrived at the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis. In a mishna on 25a, Rabbi Eliezer states that one may bring a voluntary provisional guilt offering whenever he pleases. The Rabbis disagree and maintain that a provisional guilt offering may be brought only in a case of actual uncertainty whether one performed a sin for which he would be liable to bring a sin offering.

诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讻讬 讗讻诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 谞诪讬 讚讛转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪转谞讚讘 讗讚诐 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讘讻诇 讬讜诐

The Gemara asks: Why did Rav specifically choose a case where one ate the item of uncertain status in order to exemplify the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer? Even if he had not eaten anything, Rabbi Eliezer would also permit him to bring a provisional guilt offering, as we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: A person may volunteer to bring a provisional guilt offering every day.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诇讬讘讗 讚讘讘讗 讘谉 讘讜讟讗 讚转谞谉 讗诇讗 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 讛诪转谉 注讚 砖转讻谞住 诇讘讬转 住驻拽

Rav Ashi said: Rav mentioned a case involving the consumption of an item whose status is uncertain in order to teach the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer in accordance with the opinion of Bava ben Buta, as we learned in the mishna: They said about Bava ben Buta that he would volunteer to bring a provisional guilt offering every day except for the day after Yom Kippur, as Yom Kippur atones for all uncertain sins. He said: If they would have allowed me to do so I would have brought a provisional guilt offering even on that day. But they say to him: Wait until you enter into a situation of potential uncertainty. For this reason Rav presents a scenario where an item whose status is uncertain was consumed, in order to allow for the potential uncertainty that would justify bringing a provisional guilt offering.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讬讜 诇驻谞讬讜 砖转讬 讞转讬讻讜转 讗讞转 砖诇 砖讜诪谉 讜讗讞转 砖诇 讞诇讘 讘讗 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讻诇 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讘讗 讙讜讬 讜讗讻诇 讗转 讛砖谞讬讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讻谉 讻诇讘 讜讻谉 注讜专讘 讘讗 讙讜讬 讜讗讻诇 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讘讗 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讻诇 讗转 讛砖谞讬讛 驻讟讜专 讜专讘讬 诪讞讬讬讘

The Sages taught in a baraita: In a case where one had before him two pieces of fat, one of permitted fat and one of forbidden fat, if a Jew came and ate the first piece and then a gentile came and ate the second, the Jew is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering. And the same applies if a dog ate the second piece and the same is true if a raven ate it. But if a gentile came and ate the first piece and then a Jew came and ate the second piece, the Jew is exempt, because at the time that he ate the uncertain piece there was only one item of uncertainty. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems him obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering, as he does not maintain that two items are required for one to be obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering.

讗讻诇 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讘砖讜讙讙 讜讛砖谞讬讛 讘诪讝讬讚 讞讬讬讘 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讘诪讝讬讚 讜讛砖谞讬讛 讘砖讜讙讙 驻讟讜专 讜专讘讬 诪讞讬讬讘 讗讻诇 砖转讬讛谉 讘诪讝讬讚 驻讟讜专 诪讻诇讜诐

The baraita continues: If the Jew ate the first piece unwittingly and the second intentionally, he is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering for the first piece. But if he ate the first piece intentionally and the second piece unwittingly, he is exempt, because at the time that he ate the second piece, only one piece was present. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems him obligated to bring an offering. If he ate both of them intentionally, he is exempt from bringing anything.

砖转讬讛谉 讘砖讜讙讙 砖谞讬讛谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讛砖谞讬 诇讗 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 讗诇讗 砖讗诐 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 驻讟讜专 拽讘注转 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讘讞讟讗转

The baraita concludes: If two Jews each ate one of two items, each of them unwittingly, each of them is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering, albeit for different reasons. The first is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering in case he ate the forbidden piece. By contrast, the second one is not strictly obligated by law, as he unwittingly ate the uncertain piece when there was no other piece present. Rather, the reason he is obligated is that if you say he is exempt, you have in effect established that the first individual is obligated to bring a sin offering. One might think that the second individual is exempt because he definitely ate the permitted piece, which would mean the first one ate the forbidden piece and he must therefore bring a sin offering.

讜诪谞讜 讗讬 专讘讬 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 讜诪谉 讛讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讗讬 专讘谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 谞拽讘注 专讗砖讜谉 讘讞讟讗转 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇砖谞讬 讗讬讬转讬 讞讜诇讬谉 诇注讝专讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬

The Gemara asks: And in accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, why does the baraita say the second individual is obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering merely as a precaution and not by law? It is certainly by law that the second is obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains that one is obligated even for an uncertainty involving a single item. If it is in accordance with the Rabbis, can it be correct that merely in order to prevent a misunderstanding and ensure that we do not establish the first one as obligated to bring a sin offering, that we would say to the second individual: Bring and slaughter a non-sacred animal in the Temple courtyard? After all, he is not obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering. Rav Ashi said in response:

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪转谞讚讘 讗讚诐 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讛讬诇讻讱 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讬讬转讬 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讜讗转谞讬 讗讬 讗讻诇 专讗砖讜谉 砖讜诪谉 讛讜讗 讗讻诇 讞诇讘 诇讬讛讜讬 讻驻专讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讬讛讜讬 谞讚讘讛

It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says a person may volunteer to bring a provisional guilt offering every day. Therefore, we say to the second person: Volunteer and bring a provisional guilt offering, to prevent the first individual from bringing an unwarranted sin offering. And he should stipulate: If the first person ate the piece of permitted fat, that means that he himself ate the forbidden fat and consequently the offering should be an atonement for his own transgression. And if not, i.e., if the first person ate the forbidden fat and he himself committed no transgression, let it be a gift offering.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讻诇 住驻拽 讞诇讘 讜谞讜讚注 诇讜 住驻拽 讞诇讘 讜谞讜讚注 诇讜 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 讻砖诐 砖诪讘讬讗 讞讟讗转 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讻讱 诪讘讬讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

The Sages taught in a baraita: A person unwittingly ate a piece of fat about which it was uncertain whether it was forbidden fat or permitted fat, and he was subsequently informed of its questionable status. He then unwittingly ate another piece of fat about which it was uncertain whether it was forbidden fat or permitted fat, and he was again informed of its questionable status. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that just as he would be liable to bring a sin offering for each and every one if he was later informed that they were all pieces of forbidden fat, so too, in these cases of uncertainty he must bring a provisional guilt offering for each and every one.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗 讗诇讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗讞讚 砖谞讗诪专 注诇 砖讙讙转讜 讗砖专 砖讙讙 讗驻讬诇讜 注诇 砖讙讙讜转 讛专讘讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda; Rabbi Elazar; and Rabbi Shimon all say: He is obligated to bring only one provisional guilt offering, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement for him concerning the unwitting error which he committed unwittingly and he shall be forgiven鈥 (Leviticus 5:18). It is derived from the verse鈥檚 double mention of his unwitting status, for which he is liable to bring one offering, that a person is obligated to bring only one offering even for many unwitting sins, despite the fact that he was informed of the uncertainty in between each instance of consumption.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻讗谉 砖谞讛 专讘讬 讬讚讬注讜转 住驻拽 诪讞诇拽讜转 诇讞讟讗讜转

With regard to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 statement in the baraita, Rabbi Zeira says: Here Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught a principle with regard to the obligation to bring sin offerings for several unwitting transgressions: Knowledge of the questionable status of an uncertain case prior to each subsequent transgression divides them into obligations to bring multiple sin offerings when one later learns that he definitely committed unwitting transgressions. In the case of the baraita, as he was informed prior to each instance of consumption of the uncertain status of the fat he ate before his subsequent consumption of uncertain fat, he is obligated to bring a sin offering for each instance of consumption if he later discovers he actually sinned.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讬讚讬注讜转 住驻拽 诪讞诇拽讜转 诇讞讟讗讜转 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讻砖诐 砖讗诐 讛讬转讛 诇讜 讬讚讬注讛 讜讚讗讬 诪讘讬讗 讞讟讗转 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讻讱 讗诐 讛讬转讛 诇讜 讬讚讬注转 住驻拽 诪讘讬讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

Rava says: Knowledge of uncertainty prior to each possible transgression does not divide them into obligations to bring multiple sin offerings. Rather, this is what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is teaching in the baraita: Just as if he had had definite knowledge prior to each instance of consumption that the piece he ate was prohibited before eating each subsequent piece he would have been liable to bring a sin offering for each and every one, so too, if he had knowledge of the uncertain status of the piece he ate before eating each subsequent piece, he is obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering for each and every one. According to Rava, uncertain knowledge does not divide the unwitting transgressions to the extent that one is obligated to bring multiple sin offerings. Only definite knowledge renders one liable to bring multiple sin offerings.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讗转 诇讗 转住讘专讗 讚讬讚讬注讜转 住驻拽 诪讞诇拽讜转 诇讞讟讗讜转 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讬讚讬注讜转 讗讬谉 诪讞诇拽讜转 诇讞讟讗讜转 讜讞讟讗转 讗讞转 诪讘讬讗 讗诪讗讬 诪讘讬讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

Abaye said to Rava: And you? Do you not hold that knowledge of uncertainty prior to committing each transgression divides them with regard to the obligation to bring sin offerings for each one? As, if it enters your mind to say that knowledge of uncertainty prior to committing each transgression does not divide them with regard to multiple sin offerings, and therefore one brings only one sin offering, why does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi rule that he brings a provisional guilt offering for each and every one, when he had knowledge of uncertainty prior to each instance of consumption?

讜讛转谞讬讗 讻诇诇讜 砖诇 讚讘专 讻诇 砖讞诇讜拽讬谉 讘讞讟讗讜转 讞诇讜拽讬谉 讘讗砖诪讜转

After all, isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The principle with regard to the matter is as follows: In any case where separate transgressions are divided for the purpose of determining liability to bring multiple sin offerings, they are also considered divided for the purpose of determining liability to bring multiple provisional guilt offerings in cases of uncertainty. If one does not bring several sin offerings in a case of definite transgression, he is not obligated to bring several provisional guilt offerings in a case of uncertainty either.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘专 讞谞谉 诇讗讘讬讬 讜诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 讬讚讬注讜转 住驻拽 诪讞诇拽讜转 诇讞讟讗讜转 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讗讻诇 讻讝讬转 讞诇讘 诇驻谞讬 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讜讻讝讬转 讞诇讘 讗讞专 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讘诪拽讜诐 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 拽讗讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讘讬讗 砖转讬 讞讟讗讜转

Rava bar 岣nan said to Abaye: And according to you, that you said knowledge of uncertainty prior to each transgression divides them into obligations to bring separate sin offerings, if that is so, what would you say about the following case: Someone ate an olive-bulk of forbidden fat before Yom Kippur and another olive-bulk of forbidden fat after Yom Kippur. Since Yom Kippur itself stands in place of a provisional guilt offering, i.e., it atones for any prior uncertain transgression, if he later learned that both pieces were in fact forbidden fat, would you say that so too, Yom Kippur divides the two actions and that he is obligated to bring two sin offerings?

讛讗 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞转 讗讻诇讬谞讜谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诪讗谉 诇讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 注诇 讚诇讗 诪转讬讚注 诇讬讛 讚讬诇诪讗 讜讛讜讗 讚诪转讬讚注 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讛讜讚注 讜诇讗 讛讜讚注 转谞谉

But this cannot be correct, as he ate both of them in a single lapse of awareness and there was no knowledge of sin to divide them. Rather, it stands to reason that like Yom Kippur, knowledge of uncertainty does not divide transgressions into multiple sin offering obligations. Abaye said to Rava bar 岣nan: That case in which Yom Kippur occurred in between transgressions is not comparable to having knowledge of uncertainty between each transgression. Who shall say to us that Yom Kippur atones for sins that were unknown to him? Perhaps it atones only for sins that were known to him. Rava said to him in reply: We learned this explicitly in a mishna (Shevuot 2b): Yom Kippur atones for sins whether one became aware of them before Yom Kippur or did not become aware of them.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘专 讞谞谉 诇讗讘讬讬 诪讛 讗讬诇讜 讗讻诇 讻讝讬转 讞诇讘 砖讞专讬转 讘讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讜讻讝讬转 讞诇讘 讘诪谞讞讛 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讬讞讬讬讘 砖转讬 讞讟讗讜转

The Gemara cites another version of the difficulty raised against Abaye鈥檚 opinion: Some say that Rava bar 岣nan said to Abaye: Since Yom Kippur serves to divide the two acts of consumption into two obligations, similar to knowledge of the questionable status of fat according to Abaye, what is the halakha in the following case: If one ate an olive-bulk of forbidden fat on the morning of Yom Kippur and an olive-bulk of forbidden fat in the afternoon of Yom Kippur, so too would he be obligated to bring two sin offerings? This cannot be correct, as both olive-bulks were consumed in a single lapse of awareness.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诪讗谉 诇讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讻诇 砖注转讗 诪讻驻专 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讜诇讬讛 讬讜诪讗 诪讗讜专转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 转专讚讗 转谞讬讗 讛专讬 砖讘讗 诇讬讚讜 住驻拽 注讘讬专讛 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 注诐 讞砖讬讻讛 驻讟讜专 砖讻诇 讛讬讜诐 诪讻驻专

Abaye said to Rava bar 岣nan: Who shall say to us that Yom Kippur provides atonement at every hour of the day? Perhaps the entire day as a single unit serves to provide atonement only when it begins, in the evening? Rabba bar bar 岣na said to him: Fool [terada]! It is taught in a mishna (25a): With regard to one who encountered uncertainty concerning whether he performed a sin on Yom Kippur, even if it was at nightfall at the end of the day, he is exempt, as the entire day atones for uncertain sins.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗讻诇 讜砖转讛 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞转 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讞讟讗转 讗讞转 讜讛讗 讘讬谉 讗讻讬诇讛 诇砖转讬讬讛 讗讬 讗驻砖专 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 砖讛讜转 讘讬讜诐 讚诪转讬讬讚注 诇讬讛 讜讻驻专 诇讬讛 讚讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讘诪拽讜诐 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 拽讗讬 讜拽转谞讬 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讞讟讗转 讗讞转

Rav Idi bar Avin raises another objection to Abaye鈥檚 opinion from a mishna (Yoma 81a): If one ate and drank unwittingly on Yom Kippur in one lapse of awareness, e.g., he forgot it was Yom Kippur, he is liable to bring only one sin offering. But according to Abaye he should be liable to bring two sin offerings, as between the eating and the drinking it is impossible that there was no interval of even a minimal amount of time during the day. That interval of time would allow him to gain knowledge of the possible transgression, and therefore it should serve to atone for him, as Yom Kippur stands in place of a provisional guilt offering. And yet it is taught in the mishna: He is liable to bring only one sin offering.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讬讚讬注讜转 住驻拽 诪讞诇拽讜转 诇讞讟讗讜转 诇讬讞讬讬讘 砖转讬 讞讟讗讜转 讗诪专讬 讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗

Rav Idi bar Avin concludes his objection: And if it enters your mind that knowledge of uncertainty prior to each possible transgression divides them into obligations to bring separate sin offerings for each one, this lapse of time on Yom Kippur should serve to divide his two transgressions and therefore he should be liable to bring two sin offerings. The Sages say in response: When Rabbi Zeira said that knowledge of uncertainty prior to each unwitting transgression divides them into obligations to bring separate sin offerings, he was clarifying the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. By contrast, this mishna, which indicates that the passage of time on Yom Kippur does not divide transgressions into obligations for separate sin offerings, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

讜讛讗 诪讚住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚拽转谞讬 砖转讛 爪讬专 讗讜 诪讜专讬讬住 驻讟讜专 讛讗 讞讜诪抓 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara objects: But from the fact that the latter clause of that mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, it follows that the first clause is also in accordance with his opinion. This is significant, as that same mishna later teaches (Yoma 81a): If on Yom Kippur one drank the salty liquid in which fish are pickled, or fish brine [morayes], he is exempt. One can infer: But if he drank vinegar he is liable.

讜诪谞讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讞讜诪抓 讗讬谉 诪砖讬讘 讗转 讛谞驻砖 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 讞讜诪抓 诪砖讬讘 讗转 讛谞驻砖 讜诪讚住讬驻讗 专讘讬 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 专讘讬 讗诪专讬 住讬驻讗 专讘讬 专讬砖讗 专讘谞谉

And who is the tanna of the mishna? It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita: Vinegar does not revive the spirit, i.e., it does not have the status of a beverage, and therefore one who drinks it on Yom Kippur is exempt. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that vinegar does revive the spirit and is therefore considered like a beverage. And from the fact that the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the first clause must also be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The Sages say in response: That is not necessarily so, as one can say the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi whereas the first clause is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 讗讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讗讻诇 诇诪讞专 谞讛谞讛 讛讬讜诐 谞讛谞讛 诇诪讞专 讗讻诇 讛讬讜诐 谞讛谞讛 诇诪讞专 谞讛谞讛 讛讬讜诐 讗讻诇 诇诪讞专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 诪谞讬谉 砖讛谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讝讛 注诐 讝讛

Rava raised another objection to Abaye from a baraita: One is obligated to bring a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property only if he derived benefit of at least the value of one peruta from the property. If one unwittingly ate from consecrated property today and ate again tomorrow, or if he derived benefit from consecrated property today and again derived benefit tomorrow, or if he ate from the property today and derived benefit from it tomorrow, or if he derived benefit from it today and ate from it tomorrow, even if the time between them was as long as from now until three years later, from where is it derived that they combine with each other to amount to one peruta-worth of benefit and thereby render him obligated to bring a guilt offering?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转诪注诇 诪注诇 专讬讘讛 讜讗诪讗讬 讛讗 讻讬驻专 注诇讬讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

The baraita answers that the verse states: 鈥淚f anyone commits a misuse [tim鈥檕l ma鈥檃l]鈥 (Leviticus 5:15). The double verb [tim鈥檕l ma鈥檃l] extended the obligation to bring a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property to a case where the value of individual instances of misuse at different times amount to a total of one peruta. Rava concludes his objection: But why should that be the halakha according to Abaye, who maintains that knowledge of uncertainty, and similarly the day of Yom Kippur, which has the same effect as a provisional guilt offering, divides his actions into separate entities? When the second misuse occurs after Yom Kippur, isn鈥檛 his sin atoned for by Yom Kippur? Since his acts of possible transgression are divided, how can they combine to the value of one peruta?

讗诪专讬 讻讬 诪讻驻专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 注诇 讗讬住讜专讗 注诇 诪诪讜谞讗 诇讗 诪讻驻专

The Sages say in response: When does Yom Kippur atone for sins? Only with regard to ritual prohibitions. But it does not atone with regard to monetary matters. Misuse of consecrated property entails a monetary obligation to restore the value of the principal with the addition of one-fifth. Since Yom Kippur does not exempt one from the monetary obligation entailed by a sin, the two acts of misuse combine to render one obligated to bring a guilt offering.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬 诪讻驻专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 注诇 讻讜诇讬讛 砖讬注讜专讗 注诇 驻诇讙讗 讚砖讬注讜专讗 诇讗 诪讻驻专

The Gemara suggests another answer. If you wish, say instead: When does Yom Kippur atone for sins? It atones for sins only if they were committed in their full measure, but it does not atone for sins that one transgressed only by half of their full measure. Consequently, Yom Kippur does not atone for misuse of consecrated property of the value of less than one peruta, which is why the two acts of misuse combine.

讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻讗谉 砖谞讛 专讘讬 讬讚讬注讜转 住驻拽 诪讞诇拽讜转 诇讞讟讗讜转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讬讚讬注讜转 住驻拽 诪讞诇拽讜转 诇讞讟讗讜转

搂 The Gemara cites the opinions of other amora鈥檌m with regard to this matter. Similarly, like Rabbi Zeira, Reish Lakish says: Here, in his statement in the baraita above, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught that knowledge of uncertain status prior to each possible transgression divides them into separate obligations to bring sin offerings for each one. And like Rava, Rabbi Yo岣nan disagrees and says: Knowledge of uncertainty does not divide them into obligations to bring separate sin offerings.

讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讻砖诐 砖讗诐 讛讬转讛 诇讜 讬讚讬注讛 讜讚讗讬 诪讘讬讗 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讻讱 讗诐 讛讬转讛 诇讜 讬讚讬注转 住驻拽 诪讘讬讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

Rather, this is what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is teaching in the baraita: Just as if he had had definite knowledge prior to each instance of unwitting consumption he would bring a sin offering for each and every one, so too, if he had had knowledge of the uncertainty of each piece prior to his subsequent instance of unwitting consumption he would be obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering for each and every one. But knowledge of uncertainty prior to each instance of consumption does not render him obligated to bring multiple sin offerings if he later finds out they were all definitely prohibited.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽讗 转诇讬 诇讗砖诐 讘讞讟讗转 讗诇讗 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讞讟讗转 讘讗砖诐 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, this is why the baraita is formulated in a manner that indicates the halakha of a provisional guilt offering is dependent upon the halakhot governing the sin offering. Just as knowledge of an unwitting transgression renders one liable to bring a sin offering, so too, knowledge of uncertainty renders one liable to bring a provisional guilt offering. But according to Reish Lakish, the baraita should have taught that the halakha of a sin offering is dependent upon the knowledge of uncertainty necessary to render one liable to bring a provisional guilt offering, rather than the other way around. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is difficult.

讜专诪讬 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专诪讬 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚转谞讬讗 砖谞讬 砖讘讬诇讬谉 讗讞讚 讟诪讗 讜讗讞讚 讟讛讜专 讜讛诇讱 讘专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 谞讻谞住 讘砖谞讬 讜谞讻谞住 讞讬讬讘

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from one statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan to another statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan, and it likewise raises a contradiction from one statement of Reish Lakish to another statement of Reish Lakish. As it is taught in a baraita: There are two paths: one is ritually impure due to a corpse that is buried there and the other one is ritually pure, and it is unknown which path is which. If an individual walked on the first path and did not yet enter the Temple, and then he walked on the second path and afterward unwittingly entered the Temple, being that he certainly contracted ritual impurity after walking down both paths he is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering for entering the Temple in a state of ritual impurity.

讛诇讱 讘专讗砖讜谉 讜谞讻谞住 驻讟讜专 讘砖谞讬 讜谞讻谞住 讞讬讬讘 讛诇讱 讘专讗砖讜谉 讜谞讻谞住 讜讛讝讛 讜砖谞讛 讜讟讘诇 讜讛诇讱 讘砖谞讬 讜谞讻谞住 讞讬讬讘

The baraita continues: If he walked on the first path and entered the Temple he is exempt from bringing an offering. But if he then walked on the second path and afterward entered the Temple he is obligated to bring a sin offering, as he was definitely impure on one of the occasions that he entered the Temple. If he walked on the first path and entered the Temple, and subsequently went through the process of ritual purification, i.e., he received the sprinkling of the ashes of the red heifer on the third day and again on the seventh day, and immersed, and then walked on the second path and entered the Temple, he is liable to bring a sin offering, as he definitely entered the Temple while ritually impure, either on the first occasion or on the second.

Scroll To Top