Shabbat 142

מכלל דרישא מין אחד ותמחוי אחד מין אחד ותמחוי אחד צריכא למימר אמר רב הונא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהיתה לו ידיעה בינתיים ורבן גמליאל היא דאמר אין ידיעה לחצי שיעור:

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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely his culpability is obvious! ');">¹</span> — Said R. Huna: The circumstances here dealt with are e.g., that he was aware in between,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he had eaten heleb. ');">²</span>

איתמר אכל שני זיתי חלב בהעלם אחד ונודע לו על הראשון וחזר ונודע לו על השני ר' יוחנן אמר חייב שתים וריש לקיש אמר אינו חייב אלא אחת רבי יוחנן אמר חייב (ויקרא ד, ג) על חטאתו והביא וריש לקיש אמר פטור (ויקרא ד, כו) מחטאתו ונסלח לו

this agreeing with Rabban<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A higher title than 'Rabbi'. ');">³</span> Gamaliel, who maintained: Knowledge of half the standard quantity is of no consequence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it does not separate two acts of eating, when in each case only half the standard quantity to create liability is consumed. ');">⁴</span>

וריש לקיש הכתיב על חטאתו והביא ההוא לאחר כפרה ולרבי יוחנן נמי הכתיב מחטאתו ונסלח לו הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שאכל כזית ומחצה ונודע לו על כזית וחזר ואכל כחצי זית אחר בהעלמו של שני מהו דתימא ליצטרפו קמ"ל

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&nbsp;… he shall bring [a sacrifice].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 28, q.v. I.e., for each sin a separate sacrifice is required. ');">⁵</span> While Resh Lakish rules, He is not liable [for the second], [interpreting,] of his sin&nbsp;… and he shall be forgiven.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 35. 'Of' (Heb. n ) is interpreted partitively: i.e., even if he offers a sacrifice for part of his sin only, he is forgiven for the whole. ');">⁶</span>

א"ל רבינא לרב אשי דאיתידע ליה קודם הפרשה פליגי ובהא פליגי דמר סבר ידיעות מחלקות ומר סבר הפרשות מחלקות אבל לאחר הפרשה מודי ליה ריש לקיש לר' יוחנן דחייב שתים או דילמא דאיתידע ליה לאחר הפרשה פליגי ובהא פליגי דמר סבר הפרשות מחלקות ומר סבר כפרות מחלקות אבל קודם הפרשה מודי ליה ר' יוחנן לריש לקיש דאינו חייב אלא אחת או דילמא בין בזו ובין בזו מחלוקת

But according to Resh Lakish too, surely it is written, 'for his sin&nbsp;… he shall bring?' — That holds good after atonement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he offends a second time after having atoned for the first, he must make atonement again. ');">⁷</span> But according to R. Johanan too, surely it is written, 'of his sin&nbsp;… and he shall be forgiven'? — That refers to one e.g., who ate an olive and a half [of heleb],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At once, though the heleb was not in one piece. ');">⁸</span>

א"ל מסתברא בין בזו ובין בזו מחלוקת דאי סלקא דעתך קודם הפרשה פליגי אבל לאחר הפרשה מודה ליה ריש לקיש לר' יוחנן דחייב שתים אדמוקים ליה קרא לאחר כפרה לוקמיה לאחר הפרשה ואי אחר הפרשה פליגי אבל קודם הפרשה מודה ליה רבי יוחנן לריש לקיש דאינו חייב אלא אחת אדמוקי ליה קרא בכזית ומחצה לוקמיה קודם הפרשה

was apprised concerning the size of an olive,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That that amount of the fat was heleb. ');">⁹</span> and then ate again as much as half an olive in the unawareness of the second [half].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was eaten the first time. ');">¹⁰</span>

ודילמא ספוקי מספקא ליה ואם תימצי לומר קאמר אם תימצי לומר קודם הפרשה פליגי בה רבי יוחנן היכי מוקי ליה לקרא בכזית ומחצה ואם תימצי לומר לאחר הפרשה פליגי ריש לקיש היכי מוקי ליה לקרא בלאחר כפרה:

Now you might say, let these combine; therefore it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The verse quoted by Resh Lakish. ');">¹¹</span> informs us [otherwise].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in n. 2. ');">¹²</span>

אמר עולא למאן דאמר אשם ודאי לא בעיא ידיעה בתחילה

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the knowledge first obtained concerning one piece separates this piece from the second, and necessitates a sacrifice for each. ');">¹³</span> whilst the other Master holds, [Only] separations [of sacrifices] divide;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since a sacrifice was not set apart — i.e., separated — until he learnt of the second piece, it atones for both. ');">¹⁴</span> 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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. 3. ');">¹⁵</span> 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'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even before it was actually sacrificed. ');">¹⁶</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and he says, " should="" you="" say".'="" ');"="">¹⁷</span> [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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There are two classes of guilt-offerings (Heb. asham, pl. ashamoth): (i) A guilt-offering of doubt. This is due when one is doubtful if he has committed a sin which, when certainly committed, entails a sin-offering. (ii) A certain guilt-offering. This is due for the undoubted commission of certain offences, viz., (a) robbery (after restoration is made, v. Lev. V, 25); (b) misappropriation of sacred property to secular uses (Lev. V, 16); (c) coition with a bondmaid betrothed to another (Lev. XIX, 21); (d) a nazirite's interrupting of the days of his purity by permitting himself to be ritually defiled (Num. VI, 12); and (e) a leper's guilt-offering (Lev. XIV, 12). Now with respect to b, the Rabbis hold that no guilt-offering is incurred for doubtful misappropriation, whilst R. Akiba and R. Tarfon hold that one can bring a guilt-offering conditionally, stating: 'If I learn at some future date that I was definitely guilty, let this be accounted now as a certain guilt-offering. But if I am destined to remain in doubt, let this be a guilt-offering of doubt'. Thus on the first hypothesis a certain guilt-offering is brought, though at the time one has no knowledge whether he has actually sinned. — This follows Tosaf. Rashi holds that R. Akiba and R. Tarfon differ in this very question. ');">¹⁸</span>