Keritot

: TWO PERSONS CANNOT BRING ONE GUILT-OFFERING.1 IF THERE WAS A PIECE OF HELEB AND A PIECE OF UNCONSECRATED [PERMITTED FAT], AND A PERSON ATE ONE OF THEM AND DOES NOT KNOW WHICH, HE IS LIABLE TO A SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING; IF HE THEN ATE THE SECOND PIECE, HE IS LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING. IF HE ATE THE ONE [PIECE] AND ANOTHER CAME AND ATE THE OTHER, EACH OF THEM IS LIABLE TO A SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING. R. SIMEON SAYS: THEY TOGETHER BRING ONE SIN-OFFERING.2 SAID R. JOSE: TWO PERSONS CANNOT BRING ONE SIN-OFFERING. IF THERE WAS A PIECE OF HELEB AND A PIECE OF CONSECRATED [PERMITTED FAT], AND A PERSON ATE ONE OF THEM AND DOES NOT KNOW WHICH, HE IS LIABLE TO A SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING; IF HE THEN ATE THE SECOND PIECE, HE IS LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING AND AN UNCONDITIONAL GUILT-OFFERING.3 IF HE ATE THE ONE PIECE AND ANOTHER CAME AND ATE THE OTHER, EACH OF THEM BRINGS A SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING. R. SIMEON HOLDS: THEY TOGETHER BRING A SIN-OFFERING AND A GUILT-OFFERING.2 SAID R. JOSE: TWO PERSONS CANNOT TOGETHER BRING ONE SIN-OFFERING AND ONE GUILT-OFFERING. IF THERE WAS A PIECE OF UNCONSECRATED HELEB AND A PIECE OF CONSECRATED HELEB,4 AND A PERSON ATE ONE OF THEM AND DOES NOT KNOW WHICH, HE IS LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING. R. AKIBA SAID: ALSO TO A SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING. IF HE THEN ATE THE SECOND PIECE, HE IS LIABLE TO TWO SIN-OFFERINGS5 AND ONE UNCONDITIONAL GUILT-OFFERING. IF HE ATE THE ONE PIECE AND ANOTHER CAME AND ATE THE OTHER, EACH OF THEM IS LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING.’ R. AKIBA SAYS: EACH OF THEM BRINGS [IN ADDITION] A SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING. R. SIMEON HOLDS: EACH OF THEM BRINGS A SIN-OFFERING AND TOGETHER THEY BRING ONE GUILT-OFFERING. SAID R. JOSE: TWO PERSONS CANNOT BRING ONE GUILT-OFFERING. IF THERE WAS A PIECE OF HELEB AND A PIECE OF HELEB [WHICH WAS AT THE SAME TIME] NOTHAR, AND A PERSON ATE ONE OF THEM AND DOES NOT KNOW WHICH, HE IS LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING AND TO A SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING;6 IF HE THEN ATE THE SECOND PIECE, HE IS LIABLE TO THREE SIN-OFFERINGS.7 IF HE ATE THE ONE PIECE AND ANOTHER CAME AND ATE THE OTHER, EACH OF THEM BRINGS A SIN-OFFERING AND A SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING. R. SIMEON HOLDS: EACH OF THEM BRINGS A SIN-OFFERING AND TOGETHER THEY BRING A SIN-OFFERING. SAID R. JOSE: NO SIN-OFFERING THAT IS BROUGHT FOR THE EXPIATION OF SIN8 CAN BE OFFERED BY TWO PERSONS. GEMARA. Said Raba to R. Nahman: According to R. Jose it is only a sin-offering that cannot be brought by two persons, but a suspensive guilt-offering can be brought by two persons. Is this, then, not identical with the view of the first Tanna? And should you say they differ as to whether one out of two pieces is required,9 [I would reply,] has it not been taught: R. Jose holds that each of them10 brings a suspensive guilt offering? He replied: What he wishes to let us know is that the first Tanna is R. Jose. IF A PIECE OF HELEB AND A PIECE OF CONSECRATED [PERMITTED FAT]..., A PIECE OF UNCONSECRATED HELEB AND A PIECE OF CONSECRATED HELEB..., A PIECE OF HELEB AND A PIECE OF HELEB [WHICH WAS AT THE SAME TIME] NOTHAR etc. Said Raba to Rab Nahman: Let him also bring an unconditional guilt-offering, for the nothar is at the same time consecrated [food]? — He replied: [It is a case where] the food was not worth a perutah.11 But do not the preceding instances12 relate to food worth a perutah, for it is stated, HE MUST BRING AN UNCONDITIONAL GUILT-OFFERING? — He replied: In that instance since it was not nothar, it was worth a perutah.13 But what [of the Mishnah] ‘One may by one act of eating ...’14 which speaks of nothar as one of the trespasses involved, nevertheless it states that he is liable to four sin-offerings and one guilt-offering? — That [Mishnah] refers to a large meal, ours to a scanty meal; alternatively that [Mishnah] relates to the winter season and ours to the summer season. 15 IF ONE PERSON ATE ONE PIECE etc. Said Raba to Rab Nahman: And does R. Simeon indeed hold that a prohibition can take effect on an existing prohibition;16 has it not been taught: R. Simeon says, He who eats nebelah on the Day of Atonement is exempt?17 — Said R. Shesheth son of Idi: [Our Mishnah] refers to one who ate the kidney with the heleb attached thereto.18 But even in the case of the kidney with the heleb attached thereto is it not subject to prohibition relating to things offered [upon the altar]?19 How, then, can the prohibition regarding nothar take effect on it? And should you argue that R. Simeon maintains that the prohibition relating to nothar is a stringent20 one and therefore takes effect on the existing lighter prohibition regarding things offered [upon the altar], [I might retort], behold the prohibition of nebelah is light and that of the Day of Atonement is stringent, and yet the latter does not take effect on the former! — One must say that in connection with consecrated things the Divine Law has revealed that one prohibition can take effect on an existing prohibition, the case of doubt he brings a suspensive guilt-offering even according to the Sages, because of the doubt relating to the first piece. character. sin-offering, viz., for the eating of heleb. than that of heleb, although it was forbidden before it became nothar. For nothar v. Glos. In case of doubt as to which of them he ate, he brings a sin-offering, to which he is at all events liable, and a suspensive guilt-offering by reason of the doubt relating to nothar. offered by a woman after confinement, v. supra 7b. suspensive guilt-offering, although when the second one ate his piece the presence of something forbidden was not established; R. Jose will hold that only the first is liable, because of the two pieces before him one was definitely forbidden, but the second is exempt. the heleb present) and to a guilt-offering to expiate the sacrilege he committed. The second piece must, accordingly, have been worth a perutah; why should we not assume the same in the concluding instance? is to expiate the trespass of sacrilege. The piece of nothar must of necessity have been worth a perutah. trespass of the law of nothar. Now, before it became nothar it was already forbidden as heleb; how can the second prohibition take effect upon something already prohibited? eating on the Day of Atonement, for this prohibition cannot take effect. himself liable to the prohibition of heleb as well as nothar, the first by reason of the heleb, the second because of the kidney. altar are only subject to a mere prohibition.