Talmud for Keritot 4:2

כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאִם אָכַל חֵלֶב וְחֵלֶב בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא חַטָּאת אַחַת, כָּךְ עַל לֹא הוֹדַע שֶׁלָּהֶן אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא אֶלָּא אָשָׁם אֶחָד. אִם הָיְתָה יְדִיעָה בֵינְתַיִם, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּא מֵבִיא חַטָּאת עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת, כָּךְ הוּא מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאִם אָכַל חֵלֶב וְדָם נוֹתָר וּפִגּוּל בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד, חַיָּב עַל כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד, כָּךְ עַל לֹא הוֹדַע שֶׁלָּהֶן מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי עַל כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. חֵלֶב וְנוֹתָר לְפָנָיו, אָכַל אַחַד מֵהֶם וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אֵיזֶה מֵהֶם אָכַל. אִשְׁתּוֹ נִדָּה וַאֲחוֹתוֹ עִמּוֹ בַבַּיִת, שָׁגַג בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ בְּאֵיזוֹ מֵהֶן שָׁגָג. שַׁבָּת וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים וְעָשָׂה מְלָאכָה בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת וְאֵין יָדוּעַ בְּאֵיזֶה מֵהֶם עָשָׂה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵּב חַטָּאת, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פּוֹטֵר. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ עַל הָעוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת, שֶׁהוּא פָטוּר, שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר, מִקְצָת מְלָאכָה עָשָׂה מֵהַיּוֹם, וּמִקְצָתָהּ לְמָחָר. וְעַל מַה נֶּחְלְקוּ, עַל הָעוֹשֶׂה בְּתוֹךְ הַיּוֹם וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם בְּשַׁבָּת עָשָׂה וְאִם בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים עָשָׂה. אוֹ עַל הָעוֹשֶׂה וְאֵין יָדוּעַ מֵעֵין אֵיזוֹ מְלָאכָה עָשָׂה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵּב חַטָּאת, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פּוֹטֵר. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, פּוֹטְרוֹ הָיָה רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אַף מֵאָשָׁם תָּלוּי:

Just like a person who ate forbidden fat twice under one spell of unawareness is liable for only one Chattat [an offering brought to expiate sin], so too, when they are not known [the individual is not certain he sinned], he is liable for only one Asham Talui. If he became aware in the interim [between the two acts, that he might have sinned] he brings a separate Asham Talui for each [act], just as he would bring a separate Chattat for each [act]. Just like if one ate forbidden fat, and blood, and Notar [a sacrifice that becomes unfit due to being unconsumed past the permitted time], and Piggul [a sacrifice that becomes unfit due to the intention of the officiating priest while offering it, to consume it after its permitted time] under one spell of unawareness, he is liable for [a Chattat] for each one; so too, when they are not known, one brings a separate Asham Talui for each [forbidden food]. [If] forbidden fat and Notar [sat] before an individual and he ate one of them but does not know which one of them he ate; [or if] one's Niddah [a woman who has menstruated and is thereby impure] wife and his sister were with him in his house, and he unthinkingly had relations with one of them and does not know with whom he unthinkingly had relations; [or if] Shabbat and Yom Kippur [fell on consecutive days] and one performed Melakhah at dusk [between the days] and does not know on which day he acted: Rabbi Eliezer deems [him] liable for a Chattat, but Rabbi Yehoshua exempts [him]. Rabbi Yose said: They do not disagree that [a person] who did Melakhah at dusk is exempt since I can say that he performed part of the Melakhah on one day and part on the following day. About what do they disagree? About one who did Melakhah during the day [itself] but does not know whether he did it on Shabbat or he did it on Yom Kippur; or where he did [Melakhah] and does not know what category the Melakhah he did [falls into]: Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable for a Chattat, but Rabbi Yehoshua exempts [him]. Rabbi Yehudah said:Rabbi Yehoshua even exempts him from an Asham Talui

Jerusalem Talmud Horayot

If he ate a full olive sized piece⁸⁰Kosher food, which only is forbidden on the Day of Atonement. but there is doubt whether he ate it on the Day of Atonement or before the Day of Atonement. The atonement atones for the doubt⁸¹Cf. Chapter 1, Note 19.. Whether he ate it on the Day of Atonement or after the Day of Atonement. The colleagues say, atonement atones for the doubt⁸²If the food was eaten in the twilight at the end of the Day of Atonement and the next day already had started, no sin was committed (Lev. 23:32). If it still was the day of Atonement, doctrine is that in the absence of a scapegoat the end of the day provides the Atonement [Yoma 8:8 45c l. 15; Ševuot 1:9 33c l. 3, lacunary Sanhedrin 10:1 Note 34; Tosefta Kippurim 4:17].. Rebbi Mattaniah said, the atonement atones only for doubt of the kinds of blood⁸³R. Mattaniah holds that the Day of Atonement only eliminates a suspended reparation sacrifice which certainly was due. But in the case where the doubt arises whether it was the Day of Atonement or not, there is no prior obligation and, therefore, it cannot be eliminated.. A Mishnah supports the colleagues: “Sabbath and the Day of Atonement and he worked in twilight.⁸⁴Mishnah Keritut 4:2. The Mishnah deals with a case which is impossible in our computed calendar, where the Day of Atonement was either Friday or Sunday and somebody was doing some forbidden work during the twilight between the days. R. Joshua, the overriding authority, holds that in this case no suspended sacrifice is due since one may assume that part of the work was done on the day of Atonement; this part of an unintended sin then is eliminated, leaving an incomplete work for the Sabbath which needs no sacrifice (Note 60). This shows that the colleagues are correct in extending the power of the Day of Atonement.” As you take it, if it was the Day of Atonement, it atoned. If it was weekday, it is permitted. But did we not state “he ate”⁸⁵The questioner thinks that the food in question was forbidden fat. In that case, the Day of Atonement cannot eliminate the obligation of a suspended sacrifice for the following night. The answer is that in contrast to the cases considered earlier, one supposes that kosher food was eaten.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, eating permitted [food].

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Horayot

Does Rebbi Joḥanan agree that if the first one was still in existence it is pushed aside⁹²R. Yose ben R. Abun will show that the often repeated statement that “everybody agrees” is false; R. Johanan disagrees; the explanation given in Note 36 has to be amended.? What should be done with it? Rebbi Yasa said, it is suspended for atonement⁹³These two sentences are copied from the previous statement; they are copied to point out that R. Zeˋira’s statement is disregarded since it would lead to a complication in R. Simeon ben Laqish’s statement.. Therefore Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun discussed it. If he ate five times the volume of an olive⁹⁴While he ate the five pieces, he was oblivious either of the fact that these were forbidden fat or of the law that certain kinds of fat are forbidden. Then he was informed of the forbidden character of these pieces one by one and immediately after each information dedicated an animal but did not sacrifice yet.; the first became known to him and he brought a sacrifice. The second, and he brought a sacrifice. The third, and he offered a sacrifice. The fourth, and he offered a sacrifice. The fifth, and he offered a sacrifice. Rebbi Joḥanan said, his sin is atoned for by the first which precedes the eating of all of them; the remainder shall fall to voluntary offerings⁹⁵The argument is the same as in the case of three pieces discussed earlier; one constructs a case for five only because for R. Joḥanan in the case of three only one animal was needed. One could have done with four pieces.
For R. Joḥanan, the validity of the dedication of the first animal can be extended to cover all five pieces. The other four animals cannot be used, but dedicated animals cannot become undedicated. They are sent to graze until they either develop a defect which makes them unfit for the altar or they exceed the age limit for sacrificial animals (Mishnah Parah 1:1) when they can be sold and the money used for voluntary elevation offerings.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, his sin is atoned for by the last which follows the eating of all of them; the others shall be set aside⁹⁶Since for him dedications cannot be extended, only the last animal can legitimately be sacrificed. The others have to be sent to graze.. Rav Ḥisda and Rav Hamnuna. Rav Ḥisda like Rebbi Joḥanan; Rav Hamnuna like Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rav Ḥisda remarked to Rav Hamnuna, there is a Mishnah which seems to support you and disagrees with me⁹⁷Mishnah Keritut 4:2.: “If there was awareness in between, just as he brings a purification sacrifice for each single one, so he brings a suspended reparation sacrifice for each single one⁹⁸Since temporary oblivion is a prerequisite for the possibility of a purification sacrifice, sins committed when there was an interval of awareness between them cannot be atoned for by one and the same sacrifice. This rule is extended to suspended sacrifices. Since in the case in question the selection of new sacrifices was in response to information, one should read the Mishnah as forbidding the extension of the meaning of dedications..” If he had stated the reparation sacrifice and stopped⁹⁹The formulation of the Mishnah and the explanation given in the preceding Note are all wrong. The verses introducing purification sacrifices emphasize that these atone only for unintentional sins. The requirement of oblivion is only mentioned for the suspended reparation sacrifice (Lev. 5:17). The Mishnah should have mentioned suspended sacrifices first. Since purification sacrifices were mentioned first, the Mishnah cannot be read as referring to the effect of information after the fact, only to information reaching the person between two intrinsically forbidden acts.! Rebbi Ḥinena said, even so, for all eventualities you may say so¹⁰⁰Rav Hisda’s objection is well taken. The formulation of the Mishnah is elliptic. One should read it as follows: “Just as he brings a purification sacrifice for each single one if there was awareness of certainty in between, so he brings a suspended reparation sacrifice for each single one if there was awareness of doubt in between.”.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse