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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 16, 2020 | 讻状讘 讘讗讬讬专 转砖状驻

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

Iyar is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in memory of Yosef ben Zvi HaKohen, Dr. Joseph Kahane z"l and Yehuda Aryeh Leib ben Yisachar Dov Barash, Ari Adler z"l.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by聽the students at the Emerging Scholars of Yeshivat Maharat in聽honor of Rabbanit Michelle and all your work!

Shabbat 71

Today’s shiur is dedicated in memory of Yosef ben Tzvi HaCohen z”l by Aviva and Benny Adler.聽

Can one combine an act where one forgot it was Shabbat and another where one forgot melachot were forbidden, and bring one sacrifice for both? There are varying opinions. If one cannot combine them and one needs to bring separate sacrifices, does that mean one cannot combine a half shiur of each to obligated one in sacrifices? Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree regarding one who ate two olive bulks of forbidden fats without realizing it was forbidden but with separate moments of realization of the sin – can one bring one sacrifice to cover both? There is a discussion regarding in what cases they disagree.

拽爪讬专讛 讙讜专专转 拽爪讬专讛 讜讟讞讬谞讛 讙讜专专转 讟讞讬谞讛 讗讘诇 谞讜讚注 诇讜 注诇 拽爪讬专讛 砖诇 讝讚讜谉 砖讘转 讜砖讙讙转 诪诇讗讻讜转 拽爪讬专讛 讙讜专专转 拽爪讬专讛 讜讟讞讬谞讛 砖注诪讛 讜讟讞讬谞讛 砖讻谞讙讚讛 讘诪拽讜诪讛 注讜诪讚转

Nevertheless, in that case, the sin-offering that atoned for the unwitting act of reaping, which he performed when his action was unwitting with regard to Shabbat, draws with it atonement for the second unwitting act of reaping, which he performed when his action was unwitting with regard to the prohibited labor, and for which he also was liable to bring a sin-offering. And similarly, the sin-offering that atoned for the unwitting act of grinding, which he performed when his action was unwitting with regard to Shabbat, draws with it atonement for the unwitting act of grinding, which he performed when his action was unwitting with regard to the prohibited labor. Since the offering was sacrificed after he had committed both transgressions, he attains atonement with one sacrifice, even though he performed several forms of the transgression in a single lapse of awareness. However, if the order of events in that case was different in that he became aware of reaping performed when his action was intentional with regard to Shabbat and his action was unwitting with regard to the prohibited labors, and he set aside an offering to atone for his unwitting transgression, and only afterward he became aware that he had performed the labors of reaping and grinding when his actions were unwitting with regard to Shabbat, the sin-offering that he brings for the reaping draws with it atonement for the previous reaping and the concomitant grinding. As far as the lapse of awareness with regard to Shabbat is concerned, reaping and grinding are considered like one sin, and atonement for one atones for the other. And the parallel grinding that he performed together with the latter reaping remains in its place, i.e., he does not attain atonement for that transgression. When he becomes aware of it, he brings a separate offering for atonement.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讟讞讬谞讛 谞诪讬 讙讜专专转 讟讞讬谞讛 砖诐 讟讞讬谞讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讜诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讗 讙专讬专讛 讜讛讗 讗讬转诪专 讗讻诇 砖谞讬 讝讬转讬 讞诇讘 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞讚 讜谞讜讚注 诇讜 注诇 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜讞讝专 讜讗讻诇 讻讝讬转 讘讛注诇诪讜 砖诇 砖谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬 诪转讻驻专讬谉 砖诇讬砖讬 讗讬谞讜 诪转讻驻专

Abaye said: Grinding also draws the latter grinding with it, as the designation of grinding is one. Since he attained atonement for one act of grinding, atonement is attained for the second act of grinding as well, as they were performed in one lapse of awareness, and he became aware only after the acts were completed. The Gemara asks: And is Rava of the opinion that atonement can be attained by means of drawing? Wasn鈥檛 it stated that there is a dispute with regard to that matter in a case where one unwittingly ate two olive-bulks of forbidden fat in one lapse of awareness, e.g., he ate two pieces of forbidden fat from different parts of an animal in the belief that they were permitted fat? One is liable to bring a sin-offering for that transgression. And in a case where he became aware that one of the olive-bulks was forbidden fat, and then ate a third olive-bulk while still in the midst of the lapse of awareness of the second piece of forbidden fat, i.e., he had not yet become aware that the second of the original olive-bulks was indeed prohibited and after eating the third olive-bulk, he became aware of both the second and the third pieces of fat. Rava said: If he brought a sacrifice for the first, atonement is attained for the transgressions of the first and second olive-bulks, since he ate both in one lapse of awareness. However, atonement is not attained for the third because awareness of the first olive-bulk interposes.

讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 讛砖诇讬砖讬 砖诇讬砖讬 讜砖谞讬 诪转讻驻专讬谉 专讗砖讜谉 讗讬谞讜 诪转讻驻专 讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 讛讗诪爪注讬 谞转讻驻专讜 讻讜诇谉 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 谞转讻驻专讜 讻讜诇谉 讘转专 讚砖诪注讛 诪讗讘讬讬 住讘专讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讟讞讬谞讛 谞诪讬 转讙专专 诇讟讞讬谞讛 讙专讬专讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讙专讬专讛 讚讙专讬专讛 诇讬转 诇讬讛

If he brought a sacrifice for the third after he became aware that he had sinned, atonement is attained for the transgressions of the third and second, since both were performed in one lapse of awareness. However, atonement is not attained for the transgression of the first, which occurred in a separate lapse of awareness. If he brought a sacrifice for the middle one, atonement is attained for all, since both the first and third olive-bulks have a lapse of awareness common with the second. Abaye said: Even if he brought a sacrifice for any one of them, atonement is attained for all of them by means of drawing. Since he attained atonement for one of the olive-bulks, that atonement draws with it atonement for the other olive-bulks with which it shared a lapse of awareness. In any case, apparently Rava is not of the opinion that atonement draws with it atonement. How, then, does he say that atonement for reaping draws with it atonement for other acts of reaping? The Gemara answers: After he heard this halakha from Abaye, he adopted it. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, if Rava accepts the principle of drawing, by that same principle grinding should also draw with it grinding. The Gemara answers: There is a difference. Although he is of the opinion that atonement can be attained by means of drawing, he is not of the opinion that atonement that was attained through drawing can draw additional atonement through drawing. Atonement for the initial transgression of grinding was only attained by means of being drawn by the atonement for reaping. Rava holds that it cannot then proceed to draw atonement for the latter act of grinding.

诪讬诇转讗 讚驻砖讬讟讗 诇讛讜 诇讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 诪讘注讬讗 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讚讘注讬 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪专讘讬 讗住讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪专讘讬 讝讬专讗 拽爪专 讜讟讞谉 讞爪讬 讙专讜讙专转 讘砖讙讙转 砖讘转 讜讝讚讜谉 诪诇讗讻讜转 讜讞讝专 讜拽爪专 讜讟讞谉 讞爪讬 讙专讜讙专转 讘讝讚讜谉 砖讘转 讜砖讙讙转 诪诇讗讻讜转 诪讛讜 砖讬爪讟专驻讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞诇讜拽讬谉 诇讞讟讗讜转 讜诇讗 诪爪讟专驻讬谉

The Gemara comments: A matter that was obvious to Abaye and Rava was a dilemma for Rabbi Zeira. In a case where one鈥檚 action was intentional with regard to Shabbat and unwitting with regard to the labors, and in a case where one鈥檚 action was unwitting with regard to Shabbat and intentional with regard to the labors, he is liable to bring only one sin-offering for the unwitting violation of Shabbat. This was not obvious to Rabbi Zeira, as Rabbi Zeira raised a dilemma before Rabbi Asi, and others say that Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma before Rabbi Zeira: If one reaped and ground grain in the measure of half a dried fig-bulk, and his action was unwitting with regard to Shabbat and intentional with regard to the prohibited labors. He is certainly not liable by Torah law because he reaped and ground less than the minimum measure for liability. And then he reaped or ground grain in the amount of half a dried fig-bulk and his action was intentional with regard to Shabbat and unwitting with regard to the prohibited labors, do they join together to constitute the minimum measure that determines liability to bring a sin-offering when he becomes aware that he sinned? He said to him: They are separate with regard to sin-offerings, i.e., if one reaped and ground the minimum measure that determines liability, he is liable to bring two sin-offerings, and therefore they do not join together to constitute the minimum measure.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讞诇讜拽讬谉 诇讞讟讗讜转 诇讗 诪爪讟专驻讬 讜讛转谞谉 讗讻诇 讞诇讘 讜讞诇讘 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞讚 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讗讻诇 讞诇讘 讜讚诐 讜谞讜转专 讜驻讙讜诇 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讝讜 讞讜诪专 讘诪讬谞讬谉 讛专讘讛 诪诪讬谉 讗讞讚 讜讝讜 讞讜诪专 讘诪讬谉 讗讞讚 诪诪讬谞讬谉 讛专讘讛 砖讗诐 讗讻诇 讞爪讬 讝讬转 讜讞讝专 讜讗讻诇 讞爪讬 讝讬转 诪诪讬谉 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘 诪砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬谉 驻讟讜专

The Gemara asks: And wherever they are separate with regard to sin-offerings, do they not join together? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: If one ate one piece of forbidden fat and then ate another piece of forbidden fat, each larger than the measure for liability, in one lapse of awareness, he is liable to bring only one sin-offering? In the next case in the mishna, four items are listed. If one eats them unwittingly he is liable to bring a sin-offering. If he ate forbidden fat, and blood, and notar, sacrifices that remained after the time when they may be eaten has expired, and piggul, sacrifices that were invalidated due to inappropriate intent while being offered, in one lapse of awareness, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for each and every one. That is the stricture that applies to many types of prohibitions relative to one, the same, type. And this is the stricture of one type relative to many types: That if one ate half an olive-bulk, and then ate another half an olive-bulk from one type, he is liable because the two half measures join to constitute a single measure. And if he ate two halves of an olive-bulk from two types, he is exempt.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪诪讬谉 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘 爪专讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讜讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 讘专 转讜讟谞讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讗讻诇讜 讘砖谞讬 转诪讞讜讬讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 转诪讞讜讬讬谉 诪讞诇拽讬谉 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘讬谉 诇拽讜诇讗 讘讬谉 诇讞讜诪专讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇拽讜诇讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讞讜诪专讗 拽讗诪专

And we discussed this mishna: When we learned of one who ate two halves of an olive-bulk from one type, was it necessary to say that he is liable? That is obvious. And Reish Lakish said in the name of the Sage, bar Tutni: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where he ate two halves of an olive-bulk from two dishes, where each half was prepared separately, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who said that dishes separate. One who eats two olive-bulks of prohibited food that was prepared in two different dishes in the course of one lapse of awareness is liable to bring a sin-offering for each one. Lest you say that Rabbi Yehoshua stated his opinion that dishes separate both as a leniency and as a stricture, and therefore one who ate two halves of an olive-bulk from two dishes would be exempt, the mishna teaches us that Rabbi Yehoshua did not state his opinion as a leniency. He stated his opinion as a stricture.

讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚讞诇讜拽讬谉 诇讞讟讗讜转 讜拽讗 诪爪讟专驻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讗专讬砖讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讜拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讗谞谉 讗住讬驻讗 诪转谞讬谞谉 诇讛 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 诇谉 诪砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬谉 驻讟讜专 爪专讬讻讛 诇诪讬诪专 讜讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 讘专 转讜讟谞讬 诇注讜诇诐 诪诪讬谉 讗讞讚 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛 砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬谉 砖讗讻诇讜 讘砖谞讬 转诪讞讜讬讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 转诪讞讜讬讬谉 诪讞诇拽讬谉 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘讬谉 诇拽讜诇讗 讘讬谉 诇讞讜诪专讗

But here, where they are separate with regard to the number of sin-offerings, i.e., according to Rabbi Yehoshua one who eats an olive-bulk from each of the two dishes is liable to bring two sin-offerings, and, nevertheless, the two halves of an olive-bulk from the two dishes join together and constitute a full measure and render him liable to bring a sin-offering. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yirmeya: The Master taught Reish Lakish鈥檚 response with regard to the first clause of the mishna, and it is difficult for him. We taught Reish Lakish鈥檚 response with regard to the latter clause of the mishna, and it is not difficult for us. When we learned in the latter clause of the mishna: One who ate two halves of an olive-bulk from two types, was it necessary to say that he is exempt? That is obvious. Reish Lakish said in the name of bar Tutni: Actually, it is referring even to a case where the prohibition was from one type of food. And why then does the mishna call it two types? Because he eats it in the two separate dishes in which it was prepared. And this ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who said that dishes separate. And this teaches us that Rabbi Yehoshua stated his opinion that dishes separate both as a leniency and as a stricture.

诪讚住讬驻讗 诪讬谉 讗讞讚 讜砖谞讬 转诪讞讜讬讬谉

The Gemara asks: From the fact that the latter clause is referring to one type of food and a case where the two halves of an olive-bulk were prepared in two dishes, as explained above,

诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 诪讬谉 讗讞讚 讜转诪讞讜讬 讗讞讚 诪讬谉 讗讞讚 讜转诪讞讜讬 讗讞讚 爪专讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬转讛 诇讜 讬讚讬注讛 讘讬谞转讬讬诐 讜专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讬讚讬注讛 诇讞爪讬 砖讬注讜专:

by inference, the first clause in the mishna is referring to one type of food and one dish. The problem is then more difficult. In a case where one ate two halves of an olive-bulk from one type of food and in one dish, was it necessary to say that he is liable? That is obvious. Rav Huna said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where he had a period of awareness between eating the two half olive-bulks. After eating the first half of an olive-bulk, he became aware that he had eaten food that was prohibited. Then he became unaware again and ate the second half of an olive-bulk. Although, with regard to sacrifices, awareness usually serves as a line of demarcation between unwitting transgressions performed prior to the period of awareness and unwitting transgressions performed thereafter, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel who said: There is no awareness for half a measure. Since one is not liable to bring a sacrifice for half a measure, the fact that one became aware between consumption of the two halves of an olive-bulk is of no significance and does not demarcate between the two half-measures with regard to liability to bring a sin-offering.

讗讬转诪专 讗讻诇 砖谞讬 讝讬转讬 讞诇讘 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞讚 讜谞讜讚注 诇讜 注诇 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜讞讝专 讜谞讜讚注 诇讜 注诇 讛砖谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讞讟讗转讜 讜讛讘讬讗 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 诪讞讟讗转讜 讜谞住诇讞 诇讜

A dispute between amora鈥檌m was stated: With regard to one who ate two olive-bulks of forbidden fat in one lapse of awareness, and became aware of the transgression of eating the first olive-bulk, and then became aware of the transgression of eating the second, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: He is liable to bring two sin-offerings, one offering for each transgression. And Reish Lakish said: He is liable to bring only one. Both Sages cite proofs for their opinions. Rabbi Yo岣nan said that he is liable as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he shall offer for his sin that he sinned鈥and he shall bring the ox鈥 (Leviticus 4:3-4), indicating that he is liable to bring a separate sacrifice for each sin. And Reish Lakish said he is exempt, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the priest shall atone for him from his sin, and it shall be forgiven for him鈥 (Leviticus 4:26), indicating that even if he atoned from his sin, i.e., for part of his sin and not all of his sin, the entire transgression is forgiven.

讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讻转讬讘 注诇 讞讟讗转讜 讜讛讘讬讗 讛讛讜讗 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讜诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 诪讞讟讗转讜 讜谞住诇讞 诇讜 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讗讻诇 讻讝讬转 讜诪讞爪讛 讜谞讜讚注 诇讜 注诇 讻讝讬转 讜讞讝专 讜讗讻诇 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讗讞专 讘讛注诇诪讜 砖诇 砖谞讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬爪讟专驻讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: And how can Reish Lakish say that one sin-offering is sufficient? Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淔or his sinand he shall bring鈥? The Gemara answers: That verse refers to a case where he only became aware of the second sin after attaining atonement for the first. However, if he became aware prior to atonement, he is required to bring only one sin-offering. The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yo岣nan, too, how can he say that one is liable to bring two sin-offerings? Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淔rom his sin, and it shall be forgiven for him? The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Yo岣nan, with what are we dealing here? It is a case where one ate an olive-bulk and a half, and he became aware of his transgression of eating a single olive-bulk, and then he ate another half of an olive-bulk in the course of the lapse of awareness of the second half of an olive-bulk that he ate together with the whole olive-bulk. Lest you say that the two halves of an olive-bulk should join together, and he is liable to bring an additional sin-offering, the verse teaches us that in that case he is exempt because he has already atoned for part of his transgression.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讚讗讬转讬讚注 诇讬讛 拽讜讚诐 讛驻专砖讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讬讚讬注讜转 诪讞诇拽讜转 讜诪专 住讘专 讛驻专砖讜转 诪讞诇拽讜转 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专 讛驻专砖讛 诪讜讚讬 诇讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讚讗讬转讬讚注 诇讬讛 诇讗讞专 讛驻专砖讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讛驻专砖讜转 诪讞诇拽讜转 讜诪专 住讘专 讻驻专讜转 诪讞诇拽讜转 讗讘诇 拽讜讚诐 讛驻专砖讛 诪讜讚讬 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讘讬谉 讘讝讜 讜讘讬谉 讘讝讜 诪讞诇讜拽转

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: In the dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish, they disagree in a case where one became aware of the second transgression prior to designating an animal for the first sin-offering, and this is the point over which they disagree: That one Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, holds that periods of awareness separate. Since one became aware of his sins at two different stages, he is liable to bring two sin-offerings. And one Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that only designations of animals for sacrifices separate. However, if one became aware of the second transgression after designation of the animal for the first sin-offering, Reish Lakish agrees with Rabbi Yo岣nan that he is liable to bring two sin-offerings. Or, perhaps they are disagreeing in a case where he became aware of the second sin after designating an animal for the first sin-offering, and this is the point over which they disagree: That one Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, holds that designations separate; and one Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that only atonements separate. Only after the sin-offering has been sacrificed on the altar and the sinner has obtained atonement can it be said that the sacrifice鈥檚 capacity to atone is spent and cannot atone for a sin of which he became aware afterward. However, if he became aware of the second sin prior to designation of the sacrifice, Rabbi Yo岣nan agrees with Reish Lakish that he is liable to bring only one sin-offering. Or, perhaps, the dispute between them is both in this case, before designation, and in that case, after designation.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪住转讘专讗 讘讬谉 讘讝讜 讜讘讬谉 讘讝讜 诪讞诇讜拽转 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 拽讜讚诐 讛驻专砖讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专 讛驻专砖讛 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讗讚诪讜拽讬诐 诇讬讛 拽专讗 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 诇讜拽诪讬讛 诇讗讞专 讛驻专砖讛 讜讗讬 讗讞专 讛驻专砖讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讗讘诇 拽讜讚诐 讛驻专砖讛 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讗讚诪讜拽讬 诇讬讛 拽专讗 讘讻讝讬转 讜诪讞爪讛 诇讜拽诪讬讛 拽讜讚诐 讛驻专砖讛

Rav Ashi said to him: It is reasonable to say that the dispute is both in this case and in that case. As, should it enter your mind that they disagree only in a case where he became aware of the second sin prior to designation of an animal for the first sin-offering, and in a case where he became aware after designation Reish Lakish agrees with Rabbi Yo岣nan that he is liable to bring two sin-offerings, then rather than establishing the verse that posed a difficulty to Reish Lakish鈥檚 opinion in a case where one became aware of the second sin after atonement for the first, let him establish it in a case where one became aware of the transgression after designation of an animal for the first sin-offering. And similarly, if you say that they disagree only in a case where he became aware of the second sin after designation, and in a case where he became aware prior to designation Rabbi Yo岣nan agrees with Reish Lakish that he is only liable to bring one sin-offering, then rather than establishing the verse that posed a difficulty to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion in a case where he ate an olive-bulk and a half, let him establish it in a case where he became aware of the transgression prior to designation.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 住驻讜拽讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讜讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 拽讗诪专 讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 拽讜讚诐 讛驻专砖讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讬讻讬 诪讜拽讬 诇讬讛 诇拽专讗 讘讻讝讬转 讜诪讞爪讛 讜讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 诇讗讞专 讛驻专砖讛 驻诇讬讙讬 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讬讻讬 诪讜拽讬 诇讬讛 诇拽专讗 讘诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛:

Ravina does not accept this proof, as, in his opinion, it is flawed: And perhaps there is uncertainty with regard to this matter, and he spoke employing the style of: If you wish to say. If you wish to say that they disagree in a case where he became aware of the second sin prior to designation, then how does Rabbi Yo岣nan establish the verse? He establishes the verse in a case where one ate an olive-bulk and a half. And if you wish to say they disagree in a case where he became aware of the second sin after designation, then how does Reish Lakish establish the verse? He establishes the verse in a case where one became aware of the second sin after attaining atonement.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗砖诐 讜讚讗讬 诇讗 讘注讬讗 讬讚讬注讛 讘转讞讬诇讛

Ulla said: According to the one who said that in order to designate a definite guilt-offering, a sacrifice brought by one who committed a robbery, misused sacred objects, or had relations with a designated maidservant, one does not require prior knowledge that he definitely sinned,

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by聽the students at the Emerging Scholars of Yeshivat Maharat in聽honor of Rabbanit Michelle and all your work!

Iyar is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in memory of Yosef ben Zvi HaKohen, Dr. Joseph Kahane z"l and Yehuda Aryeh Leib ben Yisachar Dov Barash, Ari Adler z"l.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

daf yomi One week at a time (1)

Shabbat 68-74 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7W4SpfJpg4
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 71: When Eating Fat Is Literally a Sin

R. Yochanan vs. Resh Lakish on the number of sin-offerings one brings upon eating "chelev," the prohibited fats. Delving in,...

Shabbat 71

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 71

拽爪讬专讛 讙讜专专转 拽爪讬专讛 讜讟讞讬谞讛 讙讜专专转 讟讞讬谞讛 讗讘诇 谞讜讚注 诇讜 注诇 拽爪讬专讛 砖诇 讝讚讜谉 砖讘转 讜砖讙讙转 诪诇讗讻讜转 拽爪讬专讛 讙讜专专转 拽爪讬专讛 讜讟讞讬谞讛 砖注诪讛 讜讟讞讬谞讛 砖讻谞讙讚讛 讘诪拽讜诪讛 注讜诪讚转

Nevertheless, in that case, the sin-offering that atoned for the unwitting act of reaping, which he performed when his action was unwitting with regard to Shabbat, draws with it atonement for the second unwitting act of reaping, which he performed when his action was unwitting with regard to the prohibited labor, and for which he also was liable to bring a sin-offering. And similarly, the sin-offering that atoned for the unwitting act of grinding, which he performed when his action was unwitting with regard to Shabbat, draws with it atonement for the unwitting act of grinding, which he performed when his action was unwitting with regard to the prohibited labor. Since the offering was sacrificed after he had committed both transgressions, he attains atonement with one sacrifice, even though he performed several forms of the transgression in a single lapse of awareness. However, if the order of events in that case was different in that he became aware of reaping performed when his action was intentional with regard to Shabbat and his action was unwitting with regard to the prohibited labors, and he set aside an offering to atone for his unwitting transgression, and only afterward he became aware that he had performed the labors of reaping and grinding when his actions were unwitting with regard to Shabbat, the sin-offering that he brings for the reaping draws with it atonement for the previous reaping and the concomitant grinding. As far as the lapse of awareness with regard to Shabbat is concerned, reaping and grinding are considered like one sin, and atonement for one atones for the other. And the parallel grinding that he performed together with the latter reaping remains in its place, i.e., he does not attain atonement for that transgression. When he becomes aware of it, he brings a separate offering for atonement.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讟讞讬谞讛 谞诪讬 讙讜专专转 讟讞讬谞讛 砖诐 讟讞讬谞讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讜诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讗 讙专讬专讛 讜讛讗 讗讬转诪专 讗讻诇 砖谞讬 讝讬转讬 讞诇讘 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞讚 讜谞讜讚注 诇讜 注诇 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜讞讝专 讜讗讻诇 讻讝讬转 讘讛注诇诪讜 砖诇 砖谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬 诪转讻驻专讬谉 砖诇讬砖讬 讗讬谞讜 诪转讻驻专

Abaye said: Grinding also draws the latter grinding with it, as the designation of grinding is one. Since he attained atonement for one act of grinding, atonement is attained for the second act of grinding as well, as they were performed in one lapse of awareness, and he became aware only after the acts were completed. The Gemara asks: And is Rava of the opinion that atonement can be attained by means of drawing? Wasn鈥檛 it stated that there is a dispute with regard to that matter in a case where one unwittingly ate two olive-bulks of forbidden fat in one lapse of awareness, e.g., he ate two pieces of forbidden fat from different parts of an animal in the belief that they were permitted fat? One is liable to bring a sin-offering for that transgression. And in a case where he became aware that one of the olive-bulks was forbidden fat, and then ate a third olive-bulk while still in the midst of the lapse of awareness of the second piece of forbidden fat, i.e., he had not yet become aware that the second of the original olive-bulks was indeed prohibited and after eating the third olive-bulk, he became aware of both the second and the third pieces of fat. Rava said: If he brought a sacrifice for the first, atonement is attained for the transgressions of the first and second olive-bulks, since he ate both in one lapse of awareness. However, atonement is not attained for the third because awareness of the first olive-bulk interposes.

讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 讛砖诇讬砖讬 砖诇讬砖讬 讜砖谞讬 诪转讻驻专讬谉 专讗砖讜谉 讗讬谞讜 诪转讻驻专 讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 讛讗诪爪注讬 谞转讻驻专讜 讻讜诇谉 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 谞转讻驻专讜 讻讜诇谉 讘转专 讚砖诪注讛 诪讗讘讬讬 住讘专讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讟讞讬谞讛 谞诪讬 转讙专专 诇讟讞讬谞讛 讙专讬专讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讙专讬专讛 讚讙专讬专讛 诇讬转 诇讬讛

If he brought a sacrifice for the third after he became aware that he had sinned, atonement is attained for the transgressions of the third and second, since both were performed in one lapse of awareness. However, atonement is not attained for the transgression of the first, which occurred in a separate lapse of awareness. If he brought a sacrifice for the middle one, atonement is attained for all, since both the first and third olive-bulks have a lapse of awareness common with the second. Abaye said: Even if he brought a sacrifice for any one of them, atonement is attained for all of them by means of drawing. Since he attained atonement for one of the olive-bulks, that atonement draws with it atonement for the other olive-bulks with which it shared a lapse of awareness. In any case, apparently Rava is not of the opinion that atonement draws with it atonement. How, then, does he say that atonement for reaping draws with it atonement for other acts of reaping? The Gemara answers: After he heard this halakha from Abaye, he adopted it. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, if Rava accepts the principle of drawing, by that same principle grinding should also draw with it grinding. The Gemara answers: There is a difference. Although he is of the opinion that atonement can be attained by means of drawing, he is not of the opinion that atonement that was attained through drawing can draw additional atonement through drawing. Atonement for the initial transgression of grinding was only attained by means of being drawn by the atonement for reaping. Rava holds that it cannot then proceed to draw atonement for the latter act of grinding.

诪讬诇转讗 讚驻砖讬讟讗 诇讛讜 诇讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 诪讘注讬讗 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讚讘注讬 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪专讘讬 讗住讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪专讘讬 讝讬专讗 拽爪专 讜讟讞谉 讞爪讬 讙专讜讙专转 讘砖讙讙转 砖讘转 讜讝讚讜谉 诪诇讗讻讜转 讜讞讝专 讜拽爪专 讜讟讞谉 讞爪讬 讙专讜讙专转 讘讝讚讜谉 砖讘转 讜砖讙讙转 诪诇讗讻讜转 诪讛讜 砖讬爪讟专驻讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞诇讜拽讬谉 诇讞讟讗讜转 讜诇讗 诪爪讟专驻讬谉

The Gemara comments: A matter that was obvious to Abaye and Rava was a dilemma for Rabbi Zeira. In a case where one鈥檚 action was intentional with regard to Shabbat and unwitting with regard to the labors, and in a case where one鈥檚 action was unwitting with regard to Shabbat and intentional with regard to the labors, he is liable to bring only one sin-offering for the unwitting violation of Shabbat. This was not obvious to Rabbi Zeira, as Rabbi Zeira raised a dilemma before Rabbi Asi, and others say that Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma before Rabbi Zeira: If one reaped and ground grain in the measure of half a dried fig-bulk, and his action was unwitting with regard to Shabbat and intentional with regard to the prohibited labors. He is certainly not liable by Torah law because he reaped and ground less than the minimum measure for liability. And then he reaped or ground grain in the amount of half a dried fig-bulk and his action was intentional with regard to Shabbat and unwitting with regard to the prohibited labors, do they join together to constitute the minimum measure that determines liability to bring a sin-offering when he becomes aware that he sinned? He said to him: They are separate with regard to sin-offerings, i.e., if one reaped and ground the minimum measure that determines liability, he is liable to bring two sin-offerings, and therefore they do not join together to constitute the minimum measure.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讞诇讜拽讬谉 诇讞讟讗讜转 诇讗 诪爪讟专驻讬 讜讛转谞谉 讗讻诇 讞诇讘 讜讞诇讘 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞讚 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讗讻诇 讞诇讘 讜讚诐 讜谞讜转专 讜驻讙讜诇 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讝讜 讞讜诪专 讘诪讬谞讬谉 讛专讘讛 诪诪讬谉 讗讞讚 讜讝讜 讞讜诪专 讘诪讬谉 讗讞讚 诪诪讬谞讬谉 讛专讘讛 砖讗诐 讗讻诇 讞爪讬 讝讬转 讜讞讝专 讜讗讻诇 讞爪讬 讝讬转 诪诪讬谉 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘 诪砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬谉 驻讟讜专

The Gemara asks: And wherever they are separate with regard to sin-offerings, do they not join together? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna: If one ate one piece of forbidden fat and then ate another piece of forbidden fat, each larger than the measure for liability, in one lapse of awareness, he is liable to bring only one sin-offering? In the next case in the mishna, four items are listed. If one eats them unwittingly he is liable to bring a sin-offering. If he ate forbidden fat, and blood, and notar, sacrifices that remained after the time when they may be eaten has expired, and piggul, sacrifices that were invalidated due to inappropriate intent while being offered, in one lapse of awareness, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for each and every one. That is the stricture that applies to many types of prohibitions relative to one, the same, type. And this is the stricture of one type relative to many types: That if one ate half an olive-bulk, and then ate another half an olive-bulk from one type, he is liable because the two half measures join to constitute a single measure. And if he ate two halves of an olive-bulk from two types, he is exempt.

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛 诪诪讬谉 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘 爪专讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讜讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 讘专 转讜讟谞讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讗讻诇讜 讘砖谞讬 转诪讞讜讬讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 转诪讞讜讬讬谉 诪讞诇拽讬谉 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘讬谉 诇拽讜诇讗 讘讬谉 诇讞讜诪专讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇拽讜诇讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讞讜诪专讗 拽讗诪专

And we discussed this mishna: When we learned of one who ate two halves of an olive-bulk from one type, was it necessary to say that he is liable? That is obvious. And Reish Lakish said in the name of the Sage, bar Tutni: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where he ate two halves of an olive-bulk from two dishes, where each half was prepared separately, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who said that dishes separate. One who eats two olive-bulks of prohibited food that was prepared in two different dishes in the course of one lapse of awareness is liable to bring a sin-offering for each one. Lest you say that Rabbi Yehoshua stated his opinion that dishes separate both as a leniency and as a stricture, and therefore one who ate two halves of an olive-bulk from two dishes would be exempt, the mishna teaches us that Rabbi Yehoshua did not state his opinion as a leniency. He stated his opinion as a stricture.

讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚讞诇讜拽讬谉 诇讞讟讗讜转 讜拽讗 诪爪讟专驻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讗专讬砖讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讜拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讗谞谉 讗住讬驻讗 诪转谞讬谞谉 诇讛 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 诇谉 诪砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬谉 驻讟讜专 爪专讬讻讛 诇诪讬诪专 讜讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪砖讜诐 讘专 转讜讟谞讬 诇注讜诇诐 诪诪讬谉 讗讞讚 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讬 诇讬讛 砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬谉 砖讗讻诇讜 讘砖谞讬 转诪讞讜讬讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 转诪讞讜讬讬谉 诪讞诇拽讬谉 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘讬谉 诇拽讜诇讗 讘讬谉 诇讞讜诪专讗

But here, where they are separate with regard to the number of sin-offerings, i.e., according to Rabbi Yehoshua one who eats an olive-bulk from each of the two dishes is liable to bring two sin-offerings, and, nevertheless, the two halves of an olive-bulk from the two dishes join together and constitute a full measure and render him liable to bring a sin-offering. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yirmeya: The Master taught Reish Lakish鈥檚 response with regard to the first clause of the mishna, and it is difficult for him. We taught Reish Lakish鈥檚 response with regard to the latter clause of the mishna, and it is not difficult for us. When we learned in the latter clause of the mishna: One who ate two halves of an olive-bulk from two types, was it necessary to say that he is exempt? That is obvious. Reish Lakish said in the name of bar Tutni: Actually, it is referring even to a case where the prohibition was from one type of food. And why then does the mishna call it two types? Because he eats it in the two separate dishes in which it was prepared. And this ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who said that dishes separate. And this teaches us that Rabbi Yehoshua stated his opinion that dishes separate both as a leniency and as a stricture.

诪讚住讬驻讗 诪讬谉 讗讞讚 讜砖谞讬 转诪讞讜讬讬谉

The Gemara asks: From the fact that the latter clause is referring to one type of food and a case where the two halves of an olive-bulk were prepared in two dishes, as explained above,

诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 诪讬谉 讗讞讚 讜转诪讞讜讬 讗讞讚 诪讬谉 讗讞讚 讜转诪讞讜讬 讗讞讚 爪专讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬转讛 诇讜 讬讚讬注讛 讘讬谞转讬讬诐 讜专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讬讚讬注讛 诇讞爪讬 砖讬注讜专:

by inference, the first clause in the mishna is referring to one type of food and one dish. The problem is then more difficult. In a case where one ate two halves of an olive-bulk from one type of food and in one dish, was it necessary to say that he is liable? That is obvious. Rav Huna said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where he had a period of awareness between eating the two half olive-bulks. After eating the first half of an olive-bulk, he became aware that he had eaten food that was prohibited. Then he became unaware again and ate the second half of an olive-bulk. Although, with regard to sacrifices, awareness usually serves as a line of demarcation between unwitting transgressions performed prior to the period of awareness and unwitting transgressions performed thereafter, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel who said: There is no awareness for half a measure. Since one is not liable to bring a sacrifice for half a measure, the fact that one became aware between consumption of the two halves of an olive-bulk is of no significance and does not demarcate between the two half-measures with regard to liability to bring a sin-offering.

讗讬转诪专 讗讻诇 砖谞讬 讝讬转讬 讞诇讘 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞讚 讜谞讜讚注 诇讜 注诇 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜讞讝专 讜谞讜讚注 诇讜 注诇 讛砖谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讞讟讗转讜 讜讛讘讬讗 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 诪讞讟讗转讜 讜谞住诇讞 诇讜

A dispute between amora鈥檌m was stated: With regard to one who ate two olive-bulks of forbidden fat in one lapse of awareness, and became aware of the transgression of eating the first olive-bulk, and then became aware of the transgression of eating the second, Rabbi Yo岣nan said: He is liable to bring two sin-offerings, one offering for each transgression. And Reish Lakish said: He is liable to bring only one. Both Sages cite proofs for their opinions. Rabbi Yo岣nan said that he is liable as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he shall offer for his sin that he sinned鈥and he shall bring the ox鈥 (Leviticus 4:3-4), indicating that he is liable to bring a separate sacrifice for each sin. And Reish Lakish said he is exempt, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the priest shall atone for him from his sin, and it shall be forgiven for him鈥 (Leviticus 4:26), indicating that even if he atoned from his sin, i.e., for part of his sin and not all of his sin, the entire transgression is forgiven.

讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讻转讬讘 注诇 讞讟讗转讜 讜讛讘讬讗 讛讛讜讗 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讜诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 诪讞讟讗转讜 讜谞住诇讞 诇讜 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讗讻诇 讻讝讬转 讜诪讞爪讛 讜谞讜讚注 诇讜 注诇 讻讝讬转 讜讞讝专 讜讗讻诇 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讗讞专 讘讛注诇诪讜 砖诇 砖谞讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬爪讟专驻讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: And how can Reish Lakish say that one sin-offering is sufficient? Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淔or his sinand he shall bring鈥? The Gemara answers: That verse refers to a case where he only became aware of the second sin after attaining atonement for the first. However, if he became aware prior to atonement, he is required to bring only one sin-offering. The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yo岣nan, too, how can he say that one is liable to bring two sin-offerings? Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淔rom his sin, and it shall be forgiven for him? The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Yo岣nan, with what are we dealing here? It is a case where one ate an olive-bulk and a half, and he became aware of his transgression of eating a single olive-bulk, and then he ate another half of an olive-bulk in the course of the lapse of awareness of the second half of an olive-bulk that he ate together with the whole olive-bulk. Lest you say that the two halves of an olive-bulk should join together, and he is liable to bring an additional sin-offering, the verse teaches us that in that case he is exempt because he has already atoned for part of his transgression.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讚讗讬转讬讚注 诇讬讛 拽讜讚诐 讛驻专砖讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讬讚讬注讜转 诪讞诇拽讜转 讜诪专 住讘专 讛驻专砖讜转 诪讞诇拽讜转 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专 讛驻专砖讛 诪讜讚讬 诇讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讚讗讬转讬讚注 诇讬讛 诇讗讞专 讛驻专砖讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讛驻专砖讜转 诪讞诇拽讜转 讜诪专 住讘专 讻驻专讜转 诪讞诇拽讜转 讗讘诇 拽讜讚诐 讛驻专砖讛 诪讜讚讬 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讘讬谉 讘讝讜 讜讘讬谉 讘讝讜 诪讞诇讜拽转

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: In the dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish, they disagree in a case where one became aware of the second transgression prior to designating an animal for the first sin-offering, and this is the point over which they disagree: That one Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, holds that periods of awareness separate. Since one became aware of his sins at two different stages, he is liable to bring two sin-offerings. And one Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that only designations of animals for sacrifices separate. However, if one became aware of the second transgression after designation of the animal for the first sin-offering, Reish Lakish agrees with Rabbi Yo岣nan that he is liable to bring two sin-offerings. Or, perhaps they are disagreeing in a case where he became aware of the second sin after designating an animal for the first sin-offering, and this is the point over which they disagree: That one Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, holds that designations separate; and one Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that only atonements separate. Only after the sin-offering has been sacrificed on the altar and the sinner has obtained atonement can it be said that the sacrifice鈥檚 capacity to atone is spent and cannot atone for a sin of which he became aware afterward. However, if he became aware of the second sin prior to designation of the sacrifice, Rabbi Yo岣nan agrees with Reish Lakish that he is liable to bring only one sin-offering. Or, perhaps, the dispute between them is both in this case, before designation, and in that case, after designation.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪住转讘专讗 讘讬谉 讘讝讜 讜讘讬谉 讘讝讜 诪讞诇讜拽转 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 拽讜讚诐 讛驻专砖讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专 讛驻专砖讛 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讞讬讬讘 砖转讬诐 讗讚诪讜拽讬诐 诇讬讛 拽专讗 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 诇讜拽诪讬讛 诇讗讞专 讛驻专砖讛 讜讗讬 讗讞专 讛驻专砖讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讗讘诇 拽讜讚诐 讛驻专砖讛 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讗讚诪讜拽讬 诇讬讛 拽专讗 讘讻讝讬转 讜诪讞爪讛 诇讜拽诪讬讛 拽讜讚诐 讛驻专砖讛

Rav Ashi said to him: It is reasonable to say that the dispute is both in this case and in that case. As, should it enter your mind that they disagree only in a case where he became aware of the second sin prior to designation of an animal for the first sin-offering, and in a case where he became aware after designation Reish Lakish agrees with Rabbi Yo岣nan that he is liable to bring two sin-offerings, then rather than establishing the verse that posed a difficulty to Reish Lakish鈥檚 opinion in a case where one became aware of the second sin after atonement for the first, let him establish it in a case where one became aware of the transgression after designation of an animal for the first sin-offering. And similarly, if you say that they disagree only in a case where he became aware of the second sin after designation, and in a case where he became aware prior to designation Rabbi Yo岣nan agrees with Reish Lakish that he is only liable to bring one sin-offering, then rather than establishing the verse that posed a difficulty to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 opinion in a case where he ate an olive-bulk and a half, let him establish it in a case where he became aware of the transgression prior to designation.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 住驻讜拽讬 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讜讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 拽讗诪专 讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 拽讜讚诐 讛驻专砖讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讬讻讬 诪讜拽讬 诇讬讛 诇拽专讗 讘讻讝讬转 讜诪讞爪讛 讜讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 诇讗讞专 讛驻专砖讛 驻诇讬讙讬 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讬讻讬 诪讜拽讬 诇讬讛 诇拽专讗 讘诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛:

Ravina does not accept this proof, as, in his opinion, it is flawed: And perhaps there is uncertainty with regard to this matter, and he spoke employing the style of: If you wish to say. If you wish to say that they disagree in a case where he became aware of the second sin prior to designation, then how does Rabbi Yo岣nan establish the verse? He establishes the verse in a case where one ate an olive-bulk and a half. And if you wish to say they disagree in a case where he became aware of the second sin after designation, then how does Reish Lakish establish the verse? He establishes the verse in a case where one became aware of the second sin after attaining atonement.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗砖诐 讜讚讗讬 诇讗 讘注讬讗 讬讚讬注讛 讘转讞讬诇讛

Ulla said: According to the one who said that in order to designate a definite guilt-offering, a sacrifice brought by one who committed a robbery, misused sacred objects, or had relations with a designated maidservant, one does not require prior knowledge that he definitely sinned,

Scroll To Top