Keritot 23a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yosei says: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

two people do not bring one guilt-offering

by making a condition between them [and the reason will be explained at the end of the Mishna], אלא if according to the opinion of the Sages, both are exempt; if according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, each one brings a provisional guilt-offering.

b. If there were before him

a piece of

non-sacred fat and

a piece of forbidden fat. He ate one of them and does not know which one he ate, he brings a provisional guilt-offering.

If he ate

also

the second one, he brings a sin-offering,

for now it is certain that he ate forbidden fat.

If one person ate the first, and another came and ate the second, this one brings a provisional guilt-offering and that one brings a provisional guilt-offering,

for each one is uncertain whether perhaps he ate forbidden fat.

Rabbi Shimon says: both bring one sin-offering

jointly, and they make a condition between them that whoever ate the forbidden fat, his fellow’s portion in the sin-offering is forgiven for him, and the entire sin-offering is offered on his behalf.

Rabbi Yosei says: two people do not bring one sin-offering

by means of a condition. Rather, each one brings a provisional guilt-offering.

c. If there were before him

a piece of forbidden fat

of non-sacred property and

a piece

of sacrificial

fat, he ate one of them and does not know which one he ate, he brings a provisional guilt-offering

because of the uncertainty of eating forbidden fat [and even according to Rabbi Akiva, who obligates a provisional guilt-offering also for uncertain misuse, in any event he is liable for only one provisional guilt-offering, for there is here only one transgression: uncertainty whether he ate forbidden fat or uncertainty whether he ate sacrificial property].

If he ate

also

the second one, he brings a sin-offering

for the forbidden fat

and a

misuse

definite

guilt-offering for the sacrificial property.

If one person ate the first, and another came and ate the second, this one brings a provisional guilt-offering and that one brings a provisional guilt-offering.

For each one is uncertain whether perhaps he ate forbidden fat [and likewise according to Rabbi Akiva, each one is uncertain whether perhaps he ate forbidden fat or sacrificial property].

Rabbi Shimon says: both bring a sin-offering and a

misuse guilt-offering jointly, and they make a condition between them that whoever ate the forbidden fat, his fellow will forgive him his portion in the sin-offering and the entire sin-offering will be offered on his behalf; and whoever ate the sacrificial property, his fellow will forgive him his portion in the guilt-offering and the entire guilt-offering will be offered on his behalf.

Rabbi Yosei says: two people do not bring one sin-offering and guilt-offering,

rather each one brings a provisional guilt-offering.

d. If there were before him

a piece of forbidden fat

of non-sacred property and

a piece of forbidden fat

of

sacrificial property, he ate one of them and does not know which one he ate—

he brings a sin-offering.

For whichever way you consider it, he ate forbidden fat. But for the uncertainty of a piece of sacrificial property he does not bring a provisional guilt-offering, since the Sages, according to their position, hold that one does not bring a provisional guilt-offering for uncertain misuse.

Rabbi Akiva says:

he brings

also a provisional guilt-offering

in addition to the sin-offering, for the uncertainty whether perhaps he ate a piece of sacrificial property. For Rabbi Akiva follows his position that one is liable for a provisional guilt-offering for uncertain misuse.

If he ate

also

the second one, he brings two sin-offerings

for the two pieces of forbidden fat [when they were in two separate periods of unawareness, Shita Mekubetzet, note 5],

and a

misuse

definite

guilt-offering for the piece of forbidden fat belonging to sacrificial property.

If one person ate the first, and another came and ate the second, this one brings a sin-offering and that one brings a sin-offering,

for each one ate forbidden fat.

Rabbi Akiva says: this one brings a provisional guilt-offering and that one brings a provisional guilt-offering

in addition to the sin-offering, for each one is uncertain whether perhaps he committed misuse.

Rabbi Shimon says: this one brings a sin-offering and that one brings a sin-offering

because of eating forbidden fat,

and both bring one guilt-offering

of misuse

jointly

as partners.

Rabbi Yosei says: the two of them do not bring one guilt-offering.

e. If there were before him

a piece of forbidden fat

of non-sacred property and

a piece of forbidden fat

of

notar

from the offering,

he ate one of them and does not know which one he ate—

he brings a sin-offering

for eating forbidden fat, since whichever way you consider it, he ate forbidden fat,

and a provisional guilt-offering

for the uncertainty of eating notar.

If he ate the second one—

he brings three sin-offerings:

two sin-offerings because of forbidden fat [in two periods of unawareness], and one sin-offering because of notar [and in the Gemara it asks why he does not also bring a misuse guilt-offering for the notar].

If one person ate the first, and another came and ate the second—

this one brings a sin-offering

for the forbidden fat

and a provisional guilt-offering

for the notar,

and that one brings a sin-offering and a provisional guilt-offering.

Rabbi Shimon says: this one brings a sin-offering and that one brings a sin-offering

because of eating forbidden fat,

and both bring one sin-offering

for the notar jointly.

Rabbi Yosei says: every sin-offering that comes

to atone

for a sin [and the same applies to a definite guilt-offering, Rabbeinu Gershom]

[and the same applies to a definite guilt-offering; Rabbeinu Gershom]

two people do not bring it!

And this excludes the sin-offering of those lacking atonement, such as a woman after childbirth, which does not come for a sin but rather to permit her to eat sacrificial food; Rabbi Yosei concedes that two people bring it by means of a condition. For Rabbi Yosei’s reason concerning all sin-offerings is that it is written, “or his sin becomes known to him”; this implies that he must have certain knowledge that he sinned before bringing the offering. And likewise, Rabbi Yosei holds that a definite guilt-offering requires knowledge at the outset [Ramban and Ba'al Ha-Maor, Shabbat 71b]. Therefore it is impossible to bring a sin-offering or a definite guilt-offering on account of uncertainty. This is not so with those lacking atonement, for knowledge at the outset is not required. Gemara above, 7b.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

a piece of non-sacred property and a piece of forbidden fat—

Rabbi Yosei says: two people do not bring one sin-offering.

Rava said to Rav Naḥman: According to Rabbi Yosei,

it is implied that specifically

a sin-offering is what both of them do not bring. But they both bring a provisional guilt-offering,

and if so, this is difficult, for

is this not the first tanna?!

And if you would say: “one piece out of two pieces” is the difference between them,

for according to the first tanna the second one is also liable for a provisional guilt-offering, even though there is before him only one piece that is uncertainly forbidden fat, whereas according to Rabbi Yosei only the first one is liable for a provisional guilt-offering and the second one is exempt, since for liability for a provisional guilt-offering we require that he eat “one piece out of two pieces”—and this is what Rabbi Yosei is saying: two people do not bring one sin-offering; rather, the first brings a provisional guilt-offering and the second is exempt.

And was it not taught: Rabbi Yosei says: this one brings a provisional guilt-offering and that one brings a provisional guilt-offering,

that we do not require “one piece out of two pieces”? And if so, this is the first tanna?!

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman:

this teaches us

the tanna of our Mishna:

who is the first tanna? Rabbi Yosei!

We learned in the Mishna:

a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of sacrificial property

etc.,

, a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of sacrificial forbidden fat, etc., a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of forbidden fat that is notar.

Rava said to Rav Naḥman:

This that it teaches in the Mishna, concerning a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of notar, that if he ate the second one he brings three sin-offerings—is difficult:

let him also bring a

misuse

definite guilt-offering, for

is not the

notar sacrificial property?

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman: Here with what are we dealing?

That it does not contain

in the piece of notar

the value of a peruta,

and there is no misuse for less than the value of a peruta.

Rava said to him:

But initially,

in the preceding clause of the Mishna, concerning a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of sacrificial property,

where it contains the value of a peruta

in the piece of sacrificial property

we are dealing.

For

it teaches

that he brings

a definite guilt-offering

because of misuse. Why, here, did you say that we are dealing with a case in which it does not contain the value of a peruta?

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman:

That piece

in the first clause

is not notar—

it is worth a peruta. But this

piece,

which is notar—

it is not worth a peruta.

Since it is not so fit for eating, because a long time has passed over it.

Rava said to him:

But

in the Mishna above [13b],

“There is one who eats one eating,” as it teaches concerning it

that the piece

was notar, and it teaches

there that he

brings four sin-offerings and one

misuse guilt-offering

—behold, even notar can be worth a peruta?!

so it is possible for leftover meat also to be worth a peruta, is it not?

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman:

That one,

for example, he ate it

with

an eating

of a large amount.

He ate a great deal of it, until it reached the value of a peruta;

here,

we are dealing with one who ate it

with

an eating

of a small amount,

for he ate only a little, and it does not contain the value of a peruta.

And if you wish, say: both are concerning a small amount. And it is not difficult: that one was in the rainy season,

when the meat does not spoil even after time has passed.

Here, in the hot season,

when the meat has already spoiled and is not worth a peruta.

We learned in the Mishna: a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of forbidden fat that is notar ...

If one ate the first ...

Rabbi Shimon says: this one brings a sin-offering and that one brings a sin-offering, and both bring one sin-offering.

Rava said to Rav Naḥman: And did Rabbi Shimon say that one prohibition takes effect upon another prohibition?!

For he obligates a sin-offering because of notar. How does the prohibition of notar take effect upon the prohibition of forbidden fat?

But was it not taught: Rabbi Shimon says: one who eats an animal carcass on Yom Kippur is exempt

from karet for Yom Kippur, since the prohibition of Yom Kippur does not take effect upon the prior prohibition of an animal carcass [and even if it became a carcass on Yom Kippur itself, nevertheless it had been forbidden because of a limb from a living animal on the eve of Yom Kippur, and the prohibition of Yom Kippur does not take effect upon the prohibition of a limb from a living animal]. Thus, Rabbi Shimon holds that one prohibition does not take effect upon another prohibition?!

And we answer:

Rav Shisha, son of Rav Idi, said:

Here with what are we dealing?

For example, he ate a kidney with its forbidden fat.

For because of the kidney he is liable for notar: since the prohibition of forbidden fat does not apply to it, the prohibition of notar takes effect upon it; and for the forbidden fat he brings a sin-offering because of forbidden fat.

And we challenge:

But even a kidney with its forbidden fat—there is upon it the prohibition of “ascents”

since the kidney is brought up to be offered upon the altar and is forbidden for eating; so how can the prohibition of notar come and take effect upon it?!

And if you would say that Rabbi Shimon holds that notar is a severe prohibition,

for one is liable for it for karet,

and it takes effect upon the lenient prohibition of “ascents,”

which is only a negative commandment?

And is carrion a prohibition of lenient severity

being only a negative commandment,

while Yom Kippur is a prohibition of stringent severity

having karet,

and does it not come

to Rabbi Shimon

that the prohibition of Yom Kippur, which is stringent, takes effect upon carrion, which is lenient?!

And we answer:

Rather, with regard to sacrificial matters, the Merciful One revealed that one prohibition takes effect upon another prohibition!

Therefore, the prohibition of notar takes effect upon the prohibition of forbidden fat.