## Keritot Daf 15b

###### Keritot 15b:1
[Keritot 15b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15b:1)

מוּכֵּי שְׁחִין עוֹשִׂין בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, הוֹלֵךְ לוֹ עֶרֶב פֶּסַח אֵצֶל הָרוֹפֵא, וְחוֹתְכוֹ עַד שֶׁמַּנִּיחַ בּוֹ כְּשַׂעֲרָה, וְתוֹחֲבוֹ בְּסִירָא, וְנִמְשָׁךְ מִמֶּנּוּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
the people **afflicted with boils,** whose limbs were dangling due to their affliction, **act in Jerusalem:** Each of them **would go on Passover eve to the doctor,** who **would cut** the affected limb almost completely **until he would leave** it connected **by a hairbreadth** of flesh, so that neither the doctor nor the afflicted would be rendered ritually impure by a severed limb. Then, the doctor would **impale** the limb **on a thorn** attached to the floor or the wall, **and** the afflicted **would pull away from** the thorn, thereby completely severing the limb.


###### Keritot 15b:2
[Keritot 15b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15b:2)

וְהַלָּה, עוֹשֶׂה פִּסְחוֹ וְהָרוֹפֵא עוֹשֶׂה פִּסְחוֹ, וְרוֹאֶה אֲנִי שֶׁהַדְּבָרִים קַל וָחוֹמֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And that** person afflicted with boils **would perform** the rite of **his Paschal offering, and the doctor would perform** the rite of **his Paschal offering,** as neither had come into contact with the limb once it was severed. In any case, as long as it was dangling, the limb did not impart impurity. **And I consider that these matters** can be derived from **an *a fortiori*** inference. If a person’s limb, the impurity of which when amputated is severe, does not impart impurity when it is dangling, it is all the more so logical that an animal’s limb, the impurity of which when amputated is lenient, does not impart impurity when it is dangling.


###### Keritot 15b:3
[Keritot 15b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15b:3)

**גְּמָ׳** תְּנַן הָתָם: הַמּוֹחֵק אֶת הַכְּרֵישָׁה, וְהַסּוֹחֵט בִּשְׂעָרוֹ וּבִכְסוּתוֹ – מַשְׁקִין שֶׁבְּתוֹכוֹ אֵינָם בְּ״כִי יוּתַּן״, וְהַיּוֹצְאִין מִמֶּנּוּ הֲרֵי הֵן בְּ״כִי יוּתַּן״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **We learned** in a mishna **elsewhere** (*Makhshirin* 1:5): With regard to **one who** forcefully **wipes** rainwater from the surface of **a leek or squeezes out** water absorbed **in his hair or in his clothing, the liquid that** remains **within it is not** included **under** the rubric of the verse: **“If** water **be put** upon the seed, and some of their carcass fall on it, it is impure for you” (Leviticus 11:38). Therefore, it cannot render food susceptible to contracting ritual impurity. **But** the liquid **that is released from it,** in this process of wiping or squeezing, **is** included **under** the rubric of the verse: **“If** water **be put,”** and therefore it renders any food it touches susceptible to ritual impurity, as the person has accorded it significance.


###### Keritot 15b:4
[Keritot 15b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15b:4)

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: וּכְרֵישָׁה עַצְמָהּ הוּכְשְׁרָה, מַאי טַעְמָא? בִּשְׁעַת פְּרִישָׁה מִמֶּנּוּ הוּכְשְׁרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Shmuel says: And the leek itself is rendered susceptible** to ritual impurity. **What is the reason** for this? The reason is that **at the moment of** the water’s **separation** from the leek, the leek **is rendered susceptible** to ritual impurity by the very water which is released from it.


###### Keritot 15b:5
[Keritot 15b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15b:5)

וְהָתְנַן: עֶרֶב פֶּסַח הוֹלֵךְ לוֹ אֵצֶל כּוּ׳. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁעַת פְּרִישָׁתָן הוּכְשַׁר, הָא אִיכָּא נָמֵי הָהוּא אֵבֶר הַמְדוּלְדָּל, בִּשְׁעַת פְּרִישָׁתוֹ מֵאָדָם – נְטַמְּיֵיהּ לְאָדָם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection: **But we learned** in the mishna: A person afflicted with boils **would go on Passover eve to** the doctor to sever his dangling limb, and the doctor and the afflicted individual would remain pure. **And if you say** that **at the moment of** the water’s **separation** from the leek, the leek **is rendered susceptible** to ritual impurity, **there is also** a parallel situation in **that** case of the **dangling limb; at the moment of its separation from the person** with boils **it should render that person ritually impure.**


###### Keritot 15b:6
[Keritot 15b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15b:6)

כִּדְקָאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: בְּנִיתָּזִין בְּכׇל כֹּחָן, הָכָא נָמֵי, בְּנִיתָּזִין בְּכׇל כֹּחָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The explanation is **as Rav Yosef says** in a different context, that it is referring **to** a situation where the liquids **are removed with great force. Here too,** in the case of the dangling limb, it can be explained as referring **to** a situation where the limbs **are removed with great force.** Since the limb is pulled off in one powerful motion it is not considered to have touched the person after it was detached. By contrast, the water wiped off the leek is not discharged all at once, and therefore as the drops of water separate from the leek they render it susceptible to ritual impurity.


###### Keritot 15b:7
[Keritot 15b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15b:7)

וְהֵיכָא אִיתְּמַר דְּרַב יוֹסֵף? אַהָא: זָב וּטְמֵא מֵת שֶׁהָיוּ מְהַלְּכִים וְיָרְדוּ עֲלֵיהֶם גְּשָׁמִים, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁסּוֹחֲטִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, מַשְׁקִין הַיּוֹרְדִין מִצַּד הָעֶלְיוֹן לְצַד הַתַּחְתּוֹן – טְהוֹרִים, שֶׁאֵין מְחַשְּׁבִין אֶלָּא שֶׁיָּצְאוּ מִכּוּלָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And where,** i.e., in connection to which case, **was** this explanation **of Rav Yosef stated?** It was stated **with regard to this** *baraita*: If **a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [*zav*] and one** who is **ritually impure** through contact with **a corpse were walking** along **and rain fell on them, although they squeeze** the garments of **one another** in order to remove the water, those **liquids that flow down from the upper section** of a garment **to the lower section** remain **pure.** They do not become impure from contact with the impure person or his garments, **as** these liquids **are not considered** liquids that can become ritually impure **unless they have emerged from** those garments **entirely.**


###### Keritot 15b:8
[Keritot 15b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15b:8)

יָצְאוּ מִכּוּלָּן – הֲרֵי מַכְשִׁירִין, שֶׁאֵין נֶחְשָׁבִין אֶלָּא לְאַחַר שֶׁיָּצְאוּ מִגּוּפוֹ. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: בְּנִיתָּזִין בְּכׇל כֹּחָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Once the liquids **have emerged from** those garments **entirely they render** food **susceptible** to ritual impurity, as the people have accorded it significance by squeezing it out of their garments. But the water itself is still not impure, **as it is considered** liquid that is susceptible to ritual impurity **only after it has** completely **emerged from the body** of those garments. **Rav Yosef said:** The reason the water does not become impure when it separates from the garment is that the *baraita* is referring **to** a case where **it is removed with great force.**


###### Keritot 15b:9
[Keritot 15b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15b:9)

**מַתְנִי׳** וְעוֹד (שָׁאֲלוּ) [שְׁאֵלָן] רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט חֲמִשָּׁה זְבָחִים בַּחוּץ בְּהֶעְלֵם (אַחַת) [אֶחָד] מַהוּ? חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת, אוֹ אַחַת עַל כּוּלָּן? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **And furthermore, Rabbi Akiva asked** Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua: With regard to **one who** unwittingly **slaughters five offerings outside** the Temple **during one lapse of awareness, what is** the *halakha*? Is he **liable** to bring five sin offerings, one **for each and every** act of slaughter, **or** is he liable to bring **one** sin offering **for all** the acts of slaughter? **They said to** Rabbi Akiva: **We have not heard** a ruling from our teachers in that specific case.


###### Keritot 15b:10
[Keritot 15b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15b:10)

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: שָׁמַעְתִּי בְּאוֹכֵל מִזֶּבַח אֶחָד מֵחֲמִשָּׁה תַּמְחוּיִין בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת מִשּׁוּם מְעִילָה, וְרוֹאֶה אֲנִי שֶׁהַדְּבָרִים קַל וָחוֹמֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehoshua said: I have heard with regard to one who eats** meat **from one offering from five** different **pots** in which they were prepared, **during one lapse of awareness, that he is liable** to bring five guilt offerings, which are **for** the meat prepared in **each and every** pot, **due to misuse** of consecrated property. **And I consider that these matters** can be derived from **an *a fortiori*** inference: If one is liable to bring five guilt offerings for one offering prepared in five pots, all the more so is he liable to bring five sin offerings for slaughtering five offerings outside the Temple.


###### Keritot 15b:11
[Keritot 15b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15b:11)

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: לֹא כָּךְ שָׁאַל(ו) רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אֶלָּא בְּאוֹכֵל נוֹתָר מֵחֲמִשָּׁה זְבָחִים בְּהֶעְלֵם (אַחַת) [אֶחָד] מַהוּ? חַיָּיב אַחַת עַל כּוּלָּן, אוֹ חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon said:** It was **not that** question that **Rabbi Akiva asked** them. **Rather,** it was **with regard to one who eats *notar* from five offerings during one lapse of awareness. What is** the *halakha*? Is he **liable** to bring **one** sin offering **for all** the offerings from which he ate *notar*, **or** is he **liable** to bring five sin offerings, one **for each and every one** of the offerings from which he ate *notar*? **They said to** Rabbi Akiva: **We have not heard** a ruling from our teachers in that specific case.


###### Keritot 15b:12
[Keritot 15b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15b:12)

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: שָׁמַעְתִּי בְּאוֹכֵל מִזֶּבַח אֶחָד בַּחֲמִשָּׁה תַּמְחוּיִין בְּהֶעְלֵם (אַחַת) [אֶחָד] שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת מִשּׁוּם מְעִילָה, וְרוֹאֶה אֲנִי שֶׁהַדְּבָרִים קַל וָחוֹמֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehoshua said: I have heard with regard to one who eats** meat **from one offering** that was prepared **in five** different **pots, during one lapse of awareness, that he is liable** to bring separate guilt offerings **for** the meat prepared in **each and every** pot, **due to misuse** of consecrated property. **And I consider that these matters** can be derived from **an *a fortiori*** inference: If one is liable to bring five guilt offerings for one offering prepared in five pots, all the more so is he liable to bring five sin offerings for eating the *notar* of five separate offerings.


###### Keritot 15b:13
[Keritot 15b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15b:13)

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: אִם הֲלָכָה – נְקַבֵּל, אִם לָדִין – יֵשׁ תְּשׁוּבָה. אָמַר לוֹ: הָשֵׁב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Akiva said to** Rabbi Yehoshua: **If** you are reporting **a *halakha*** that you received from your teachers with regard to one who eats *notar* from five offerings, **we will accept** it, but **if** it is based merely **on** the *a fortiori* **inference** from misuse of consecrated property, **there is a response** that refutes the inference. Rabbi Yehoshua **said to** Rabbi Akiva: **Respond.**


###### Keritot 15b:14
[Keritot 15b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15b:14)

אָמַר: וְלֹא אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִּמְעִילָה, שֶׁעָשָׂה בָּהּ אֶת הַמַּאֲכִיל כָּאוֹכֵל וְאֶת הַמְהַנֶּה כַּנֶּהֱנֶה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Akiva **said: And no;** one cannot derive the *halakha* of *notar* through an *a fortiori* inference from misuse of consecrated property: **If you said with regard to misuse** of consecrated property that one is liable to bring five guilt offerings, perhaps that is because there are additional stringent elements unique to misuse. **As, with regard to** misuse, the Torah **established** that the status of **one who feeds** another person sacrificial meat is **like** that of **one who eats** sacrificial meat, **and** the status of **one who gives benefit** to another from consecrated property that is not food is **like** that of **one who derives benefit** himself, in that each is liable to bring a guilt offering for misuse.


###### Keritot 15b:15
[Keritot 15b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15b:15)

צֵירֵף אֶת הַמְּעִילָה לִזְמַן מְרוּבֶּה, תֹּאמַר בְּנוֹתָר, שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַחַת מֵאֵלּוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In addition, the Torah **joined the misuse** of consecrated property that was performed **over an extended period,** i.e., if one derived benefit worth half a *peruta* one day and half a *peruta* the next, he is liable to bring a guilt offering for misuse. **Would you say** the same **with regard to *notar*, which has none of these** *halakhot*?


###### Keritot 15b:16
[Keritot 15b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15b:16)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? הָכִי קָא קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ: מָה רְאָיָה לְשׁוֹחֵט מֵאוֹכֵל? מָה לְאוֹכֵל שֶׁכֵּן נֶהֱנֶה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **What** is **difficult for Rabbi Shimon** with the first version of Rabbi Akiva’s question, that he insists that Rabbi Akiva had asked about one who eats *notar* from five offerings? The Gemara answers that **this** is what is **difficult for him:** If Rabbi Akiva asked about one who unwittingly sins by slaughtering, why is the answer derived from an unwitting sin involving eating? After all, **what proof** can be cited **for** a case of **one who slaughters from** a case of **one who eats? What** is notable **about one who eats?** It is notable **in that he derives benefit** from the act of eating, whereas one who slaughters does not derive physical benefit.


###### Keritot 15b:17
[Keritot 15b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15b:17)

אֶלָּא כָּךְ (שָׁאֲלוּ) [שְׁאֵלָן]: הָאוֹכֵל נוֹתָר מֵחֲמִשָּׁה זְבָחִים בְּהֶעְלֵם (אַחַת) [אֶחָד], מַהוּ? חַיָּיב בְּכׇל אַחַת וְאַחַת, אוֹ אַחַת עַל כּוּלָּן? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, he** must have **asked him this:** In the case of **one who eats *notar* from five offerings during one lapse of awareness, what is** the *halakha*? Is he **liable** to bring a separate sin offering **for each and every one** of the offerings, **or** only **one** sin offering **for all of them? They said to** Rabbi Akiva: **We have not heard** a ruling from our teachers in that specific case.


###### Keritot 15b:18
[Keritot 15b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15b:18)

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: שָׁמַעְתִּי בְּאוֹכֵל מִזֶּבַח אֶחָד מֵחֲמִשָּׁה תַּמְחוּיִין בְּהֶעְלֵם (אַחַת) [אֶחָד] שֶׁחַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת מִשּׁוּם מְעִילָה, וְרוֹאֶה אֲנִי שֶׁהַדְּבָרִים קַל וָחוֹמֶר – מָה מִזֶּבַח אֶחָד שֶׁאֵין גּוּפִין מוּחְלָקִין חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת מִשּׁוּם תַּמְחוּיִין מוּחְלָקִין, חֲמִשָּׁה זְבָחִים דְּגוּפִין מוּחְלָקִין לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehoshua said: I have heard with regard to one who eats** meat **from one offering from five** different **pots, during one lapse of awareness, that** he is **liable** to bring a separate guilt offering **for** the meat prepared in **each and every** pot, **due to misuse** of consecrated property. **And I consider that these matters** may be derived from **an *a fortiori*** inference: **Just as** one who eats **from one offering** prepared in five pots, **in** which case the different parts of the offering do **not** come from **differentiated physical entities,** is **liable** to bring a separate guilt offering **for** the food prepared in **each and every** pot **because** he ate from **differentiated pots,** with regard to one who eats *notar* from **five** separate **offerings, which** are **differentiated physical entities,** is it **not all the more so** logical that he is liable to bring a separate sin offering for each and every offering?


###### Keritot 15b:19
[Keritot 15b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15b:19)

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: לֹא כָּךְ שָׁאַל(ו), אֶלָּא בְּאוֹכֵל (מזבח אחד) נוֹתָר מֵחֲמִשָּׁה זְבָחִים בְּהֶעְלֵם (אַחַת) [אֶחָד], מַהוּ? חַיָּיב אַחַת עַל כּוּלָּן, אוֹ חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **Rabbi Shimon said:** It was **not that** question that Rabbi Akiva **asked** them. **Rather,** it was **with regard to one who eats *notar* from five offerings during one lapse of awareness. What is** the *halakha*? Is he **liable** to bring **one** sin offering **for all** the offerings from which he ate *notar*, **or** is he **liable** to bring five sin offerings, one **for each and every one** of the offerings from which he ate *notar*? **They said to** Rabbi Akiva: **We have not heard** a ruling from our teachers in that specific case.


###### Keritot 15b:20
[Keritot 15b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15b:20)

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: שָׁמַעְתִּי בְּאוֹכֵל מִזֶּבַח אֶחָד בַּחֲמִשָּׁה תַּמְחוּיִין, שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת מִשּׁוּם מְעִילָה, וְרוֹאֶה אֲנִי שֶׁהַדְּבָרִים קַל וָחוֹמֶר. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: אִם הֲלָכָה נְקַבֵּל כּוּ׳

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehoshua said: I have heard with regard to one who eats** meat **from one offering from five** different **pots** in which it was prepared, **that he is liable** to bring a separate guilt offering **for** the meat prepared in **each and every** pot, **due to misuse** of consecrated property. **And I consider that these matters** may be derived from **an *a fortiori*** inference. **Rabbi Akiva said to** Rabbi Yehoshua: **If** you are reporting **a *halakha*** that you received from your teachers with regard to one who eats *notar* from five offerings **we will accept** it, but if it is based on the *a fortiori* logical inference from misuse of consecrated property there is a response that refutes the inference.


###### Keritot 15b:21
[Keritot 15b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15b:21)

קַיבְּלַהּ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְהָא תְּשׁוּבָה מֵרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹ לָא? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא: אָכַל חָמֵשׁ חֲתִיכוֹת נוֹתָר מִזֶּבַח אֶחָד בְּהֶעְלֵם (אַחַת) [אֶחָד] בַּחֲמִשָּׁה תַּמְחוּיִין – אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא אֶלָּא חַטָּאת אַחַת, וְעַל לֹא הוֹדַע שֶׁלָּהֶן אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא אֶלָּא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Did Rabbi Yehoshua accept that refutation from Rabbi Akiva or not?** The Gemara answers: **Come** and **hear** a proof in this regard, **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: If one **ate five pieces of *notar* from one offering during one lapse of awareness,** and the pieces were cooked **in five** different **pots, he brings only one sin offering. And in** a situation where it is **not known** to him with certainty whether he unwittingly ate **from them, he brings only one provisional guilt offering,** which is sacrificed by one who is uncertain whether he committed a sin that renders him liable to bring a sin offering.


###### Keritot 15b:22
[Keritot 15b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15b:22)

מֵחֲמִשָּׁה תַּמְחוּיִין בַּחֲמִשָּׁ[ה] הֶעְלֵמוֹת – מֵבִיא חַטָּאת עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת, וְעַל לֹא הוֹדַע שֶׁלָּהֶן מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. מֵחֲמִשָּׁה זְבָחִים בְּהֶעְלֵם (אַחַת) [אֶחָד] – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
By contrast, if one ate *notar* from a single offering **from five** different **pots during five** separate **lapses of awareness he brings a sin offering for each and every one, and in** a situation where it is **not known** to him with certainty whether he unwittingly ate **from them he brings a provisional guilt offering for each and every one.** If he ate *notar* **from five** separate **offerings during one lapse of awareness** he is **liable** to bring a separate sin offering for each one, as he ate from differentiated physical entities.


###### Keritot 15b:23
[Keritot 15b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15b:23)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ אָכַל חָמֵשׁ חֲתִיכוֹת מֵחֲמִשָּׁה זְבָחִים בְּהֶעְלֵם (אַחַת) [אֶחָד] – אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא אֶלָּא חַטָּאת אֶחָת, וְעַל סְפֵיקָן אֵין מֵבִיא אֶלָּא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי אֶחָד. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר: כֹּל שֶׁחֲלוּקִין בְּחַטָּאוֹת – חֲלוּקִין בַּאֲשָׁמוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Even** if he **ate five pieces** of *notar* **from five** separate **offerings during one lapse of awareness he brings only one sin offering,** as he transgressed one prohibition repeatedly during a single lapse of awareness. **And** if he is **uncertain** whether he unwittingly ate from **them** he **brings only a single provisional guilt offering. The principle of the matter** is that in **any** situation **where** one’s transgressions are **differentiated with regard to sin offerings,** i.e., when he is liable to bring multiple sin offerings if he knows that he unwittingly transgressed, **they are differentiated with regard to** provisional **guilt offerings** if he is unsure whether he unwittingly transgressed.


###### Keritot 15b:24
[Keritot 15b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15b:24)

אָכַל חָמֵשׁ חֲתִיכוֹת בַּחֲמִשָּׁה תַּמְחוּיִין מִזֶּבַח אֶחָד לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים, אֲפִילּוּ בְּהֶעְלֵם (אַחַת) [אֶחָד] – חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת מִשּׁוּם מְעִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If one **ate five pieces** of meat prepared **in five** separate **pots from a single offering before** the meat became permitted for consumption through the **sprinkling of the blood** on the altar, **even** if this occurred **during a single lapse of awareness,** he is **liable** to bring a separate guilt offering **for** the meat from **each and every** pot, **due to misuse** of consecrated property.