Shabbat

it follows that the first clause treats of one kind of [commodity] and one tureen. But if it is one kind of [commodity] and one tureen, need it be stated?  — Said R. Huna: The circumstances here dealt with are e.g., that he was aware in between,  this agreeing with Rabban  Gamaliel, who maintained: Knowledge of half the standard quantity is of no consequence. It was stated: If one eats two olive-sized pieces of heleb in one state of unawareness, is apprised of the first and subsequently of the second, — R. Johanan maintains: He is liable to two [sin-offerings]; while Resh Lakish rules: He is liable to one only. R. Johanan maintains: He is liable [for the second], [deducing] for his sin … he shall bring [a sacrifice].  While Resh Lakish rules, He is not liable [for the second], [interpreting,] of his sin … and he shall be forgiven.  But according to Resh Lakish too, surely it is written, 'for his sin … he shall bring?' — That holds good after atonement.  But according to R. Johanan too, surely it is written, 'of his sin … and he shall be forgiven'? — That refers to one e.g., who ate an olive and a half [of heleb],  was apprised concerning the size of an olive,  and then ate again as much as half an olive in the unawareness of the second [half].  Now you might say, let these combine; therefore it  informs us [otherwise]. Rabina asked R. Ashi: Do they disagree where it [the eating of the second piece] became known to him before setting apart [a sacrifice] for the first, and they differ in this: one Master holds, Appraisements divide,  whilst the other Master holds, [Only] separations [of sacrifices] divide;  but if [he learnt of the second piece] after setting apart [a sacrifice for the first], Resh Lakish concedes to R. Johanan that he is liable to two. Or perhaps they disagree where it became known to him after the act of setting apart, and they differ in this: One Master holds, Separations [of sacrifices] divide, while the other Master holds, [Only] acts of atonement divide;  but if [he learnt of the second piece] before setting apart [a sacrifice for the first], R. Johanan concedes to Resh Lakish that he is liable only to one [sacrifice]. Or perhaps they differ in both cases? — Said he to him: It is logical that they differ in both cases. For should you think that they differ before the setting apart of a sacrifice, whereas after 'setting apart' Resh Lakish concedes to R. Johanan that he is liable to two sacrifices, — then instead of interpreting the verse as referring to after atonement, let him interpret it as referring to after 'setting apart'.  Whilst if they differ after 'setting apart', whereas before separation R. Johanan agrees with Resh Lakish that he is liable only to one [sacrifice]; — instead of interpreting the verse as referring to [one who ate] as much as an olive and a half, let him relate it to [apprisement of the second] before 'setting apart'? But perhaps that itself is in doubt, and it is hypothetically stated.  [Thus:] if you assume that they differ before 'setting apart', how can R. Johanan interpret the verse? As referring to [one who ate] the quantity of an olive and a half. And if you assume that they differ after separation, how can Resh Lakish interpret the verse? As referring to after atonement. 'Ulla said: On the view that a certain guilt-offering does not require previous knowledge: