Keritot 23a (כג.) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yosei says:

Two people cannot bring a single guilt-offering

by making a stipulation between them [the reason will be explained at the end of the Mishna]. Rather, if the halakha is like the Sages, both are exempt; and if the halakha is like Rabbi Akiva, each one brings an uncertain 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 but does not know which one he ate; he brings an uncertain guilt-offering.

If he ate

also

the second one, he brings a sin-offering,

since it is now certain that he ate forbidden fat.

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

since each one is uncertain whether he ate forbidden fat.

Rabbi Shimon says: Both bring a single sin-offering

as partners, and they make a stipulation between them that the one who ate the forbidden fat grants the other his share in the sin-offering, and the entire sin-offering is offered on his behalf .

Rabbi Yosei says: Two people cannot bring a single sin-offering

by means of a stipulation. Rather, each one brings an uncertain guilt-offering.

c. If there were before him

a piece of forbidden fat

of non-sacred property

and a piece

of sacrificial

fat, and he ate one of them but does not know which one he ate, he brings an uncertain guilt-offering

because of the uncertainty whether he ate forbidden fat [and even according to Rabbi Akiva, who obligates one to bring an uncertain guilt-offering for uncertain sacrilege as well, he is nevertheless liable for only one uncertain guilt-offering, since there is here only one transgression: the uncertainty whether he ate forbidden fat or the uncertainty whether he ate sacrificial property] .

If he ate

also

the second one, he brings a sin-offering

for the forbidden fat

and a

sacrilege

definite

guilt-offering for the sacrificial property.

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

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

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

sacrilege guilt-offering jointly, and they stipulate between them that the one who ate the forbidden fat grants the other his share in the sin-offering, so that the entire sin-offering is offered on his behalf; and the one who ate the sacrificial property grants the other his share in the guilt-offering, so that the entire guilt-offering is offered on his behalf.

Rabbi Yosei says: Two people cannot bring one sin-offering and one guilt-offering,

but each one brings an uncertain 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, and he ate one of them but does not know which one he ate—

he brings a sin-offering.

For in any event he ate forbidden fat, whereas for the uncertainty concerning the piece of sacrificial property he does not bring an uncertain guilt-offering, since the Sages maintain that one does not bring an uncertain guilt-offering for uncertain sacrilege.

Rabbi Akiva says:

He brings

also an uncertain guilt-offering

in addition to the sin-offering, because of the uncertainty whether he ate a piece of sacrificial property. Rabbi Akiva follows his own view that one is liable for an uncertain guilt-offering for uncertain sacrilege.

If he ate

also

the second one, he brings two sin-offerings

for the two pieces of forbidden fat [when they involved two separate periods of unawareness, Shitah Mekubetzet, letter he],

and a

sacrilege

definite

guilt-offering for the piece of sacrificial forbidden fat.

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,

since each one ate forbidden fat.

Rabbi Akiva says: This one brings an uncertain guilt-offering and that one brings an uncertain guilt-offering

in addition to the sin-offering, since each one is uncertain whether he committed sacrilege.

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

for sacrilege

jointly

as partners.

Rabbi Yosei says: The two of them cannot 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,

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

he brings a sin-offering

for eating forbidden fat, since in any event he ate forbidden fat,

and an uncertain guilt-offering

for the uncertainty concerning eating notar.

If he ate the second one—

he brings three sin-offerings:

two sin-offerings because of forbidden fat [during two separate periods of unawareness], and one sin-offering because of notar [and in the Gemara it asks why he does not also bring a definite sacrilege 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 an uncertain guilt-offering

for the notar,

and that one brings a sin-offering and an uncertain 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: Any sin-offering that is brought

to atone

for a sin

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

cannot be brought by two people!

This excludes the sin-offering of those lacking atonement, such as a woman after childbirth, which is not brought for a sin but to permit the person to eat sacrificial food; Rabbi Yosei agrees that two people may bring it by means of a stipulation. Rabbi Yosei’s reason with regard to all sin-offerings is that it is written: “Or his sin becomes known to him,” indicating that he must have certain knowledge that he sinned before bringing the offering. Likewise, Rabbi Yosei holds that a definite guilt-offering requires knowledge at the outset [Ramban and Ba'al HaMa'or, Shabbat 71b], and therefore it is impossible to bring a sin-offering or a definite guilt-offering on the basis of uncertainty. This is not so with regard to those lacking atonement, for whom 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 cannot bring a single sin-offering.

Rava said to Rav Naḥman: According to Rabbi Yosei,

it is implied that specifically

a sin-offering is what the two of them do not bring. But the two of them do bring an uncertain guilt-offering,

and if so, this is difficult, for

that is the very opinion of 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 person too is liable for an uncertain guilt-offering, even though there is only one piece before him that is possibly forbidden fat; whereas according to Rabbi Yosei, only the first person is liable for an uncertain guilt-offering, but not the second, since liability for an uncertain guilt-offering requires that he eat “one piece out of two pieces.” And this is what Rabbi Yosei is saying: Two people cannot bring one sin-offering; rather, the first brings an uncertain guilt-offering and the second is exempt .

But it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei says: This one brings an uncertain guilt-offering and that one brings an uncertain guilt-offering,

so that “one piece out of two pieces” is not required. If so, this is the very opinion of the first tanna?!

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman:

This is what the tanna of our Mishna teaches us:

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 notar fat.

Rava said to Rav Naḥman:

With regard to what is taught 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, this is difficult:

Let him also bring a

sacrilege

definite guilt-offering, for

after all,

the notar is sacrificial property!

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman: What are we dealing with here?

The piece does not contain

of notar

the value of a peruta,

and there is no sacrilege 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,

we are dealing with a case where it contains the value of a peruta

in the piece of sacrificial property,

as is indicated.

For

it teaches

that he brings

a definite guilt-offering

because of sacrilege. Why, then, did you say here that the piece 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,

the notar,

is not worth a peruta.

Since it is not as fit for eating, as a considerable amount of time has elapsed.

Rava said to him:

But

in the Mishna above [13b],

“There is one who eats a single eating,” as it teaches there,

the piece

was notar, and it teaches

there that he

brings four sin-offerings and one

sacrilege

guilt-offering; after all, this shows that notar too 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 case

was one in which he ate it

in

a

large eating,

eating a great deal of it until he reached the value of a peruta;

whereas here

we are dealing with a case in which he ate it

in

a

small eating,

eating only a little, so that it was not worth a peruta .

And if you wish, say instead: Both cases involve meat from a large animal. This is not difficult: That case was during the rainy season,

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

Here, it is during the summer

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 notar fat ...

“If one person 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: Did Rabbi Shimon say that one prohibition can take effect upon another prohibition?!

For he obligates him to bring a sin-offering because of notar; how, then, can the prohibition of notar take effect upon the prohibition of forbidden fat?

But it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon says: One who eats an unslaughtered animal carcass on Yom Kippur is exempt

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

And we answer:

Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said:

What are we dealing with here?

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

He is liable for notar because of the kidney, since, as the kidney itself is not subject to the prohibition of forbidden fat, the prohibition of notar takes effect upon it; and he is liable for a sin-offering because of the forbidden fat.

And we challenge this:

But in the case of a kidney with its forbidden fat as well, it is already subject to the prohibition of “things destined for the altar,”

since the kidney is destined to be offered upon the altar and is forbidden to be eaten. How, then, 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 which one is liable to receive karet,

and it takes effect upon the less severe prohibition of things destined for the altar,

which involves only a negative commandment?

But carrion is a prohibition of lesser severity

as it entails only a negative commandment,

whereas Yom Kippur is a prohibition of greater severity

as it entails karet,

and does the prohibition of Yom Kippur not take effect, according to Rabbi Shimon,

upon

the prohibition of Yom Kippur, which is severe, taking effect upon carrion, which is lesser?!

And we answer:

Rather, with regard to sacrificial offerings, the Merciful One revealed that one prohibition can take effect upon another!

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