## Keritot Daf 17b

###### Keritot 17b:1
[Keritot 17b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/17b:1)

אֵין בּוֹ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
whether **there is not** the measure that determines liability **in** the piece he ate, he must bring a provisional guilt offering.


###### Keritot 17b:2
[Keritot 17b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/17b:2)

שׁוּמָּן וָחֵלֶב לְפָנָיו, וְאָכַל אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן אָכַל, אִשְׁתּוֹ וַאֲחוֹתוֹ עִמּוֹ בַּבַּיִת, שָׁגַג בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּאֵיזוֹ מֵהֶן שָׁגַג, שַׁבָּת וְיוֹם חוֹל, וְעָשָׂה מְלָאכָה בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּאֵיזֶה מֵהֶן עָשָׂה – מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If one has a piece of permitted **fat and** a piece of forbidden **fat before him and he ate one of them and he does not know which of them he ate;** or if **his wife and his sister** were **with him in the house** and **he unwittingly** engaged in intercourse **with one of them and he does not know with which of them he unwittingly** engaged in intercourse; or if he confused **Shabbat and a weekday and he performed labor** prohibited on Shabbat **on one of** the days **and he does not know on which of them he performed** the labor, in all of those cases he is liable to **bring a provisional guilt offering.**


###### Keritot 17b:3
[Keritot 17b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/17b:3)

כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאִם אָכַל חֵלֶב וָחֵלֶב בְּהֶעְלֵם (אַחַת) [אֶחָד] אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא חַטָּאת אַחַת, כֵּן עַל לֹא הוֹדַע שֶׁלָּהֶן אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא אֶלָּא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Just as** in a case **where one** unknowingly **ate** a piece of forbidden **fat and** then another piece of forbidden **fat in a single lapse of awareness** he is **liable** to bring **only one sin offering, so too, in** a case where their status is **unknown** to him and he ate them both unwittingly during a single lapse in awareness, he is **liable** to bring **only one provisional guilt offering.**


###### Keritot 17b:4
[Keritot 17b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/17b:4)

אִם הָיְתָה יְדִיעָה בֵּינָתַיִם, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּא מֵבִיא חַטָּאת עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת, כָּךְ מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But **if** he **had** gained **knowledge between** the first and second instance of eating that there is a possibility the fat might be prohibited, then the *halakha* is different: **Just as he** would be liable to **bring a sin offering for each and every** piece when he gained knowledge of their prohibited status in between each act of consumption, **so too,** he must **bring a provisional guilt offering for each and every** instance in which he consumed food that might be forbidden after learning of their uncertain status in between each unwitting act of consumption.


###### Keritot 17b:5
[Keritot 17b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/17b:5)

כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאָכַל חֵלֶב וָדָם וּפִיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת, כָּךְ עַל לֹא הוֹדַע שֶׁלָּהֶן מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Just as** in a case **where one ate** forbidden **fat, and blood, and *piggul*, and *notar* in one lapse of awareness he is liable** to bring a sin offering **for each and every one, so too, with regard** to a case where **their** status is **unknown** to him and he ate them unwittingly during one lapse of awareness, he must **bring a provisional guilt offering for each and every** item.


###### Keritot 17b:6
[Keritot 17b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/17b:6)

**גְּמָ׳** אִיתְּמַר, רַב אַסִּי אָמַר: חֲתִיכָה אַחַת שָׁנִינוּ, סָפֵק שֶׁל חֵלֶב סָפֵק שֶׁל שׁוּמָּן. חִיָּיא בַּר רַב אָמַר: חֲתִיכָה מִשְׁתֵּי חֲתִיכוֹת שָׁנִינוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** With regard to the mishna’s mention of one who ate a piece of fat whose status was uncertain, it **was stated** that **Rav Asi says: We learned** that one is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering in the case of **one** single **piece** that is **uncertain** if it is **of** forbidden **fat** and **uncertain** if it is **of** permitted **fat. Ḥiyya bar Rav** disagreed and **said: We learned** this *halakha* in the case of an uncertainty involving one **piece out of two pieces,** one of which is forbidden fat and the other permitted fat, but in the case of a single piece, one who consumes it is not liable to bring an offering.


###### Keritot 17b:7
[Keritot 17b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/17b:7)

בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? רַב אַסִּי סָבַר: יֵשׁ אֵם לַמָּסוֹרֶת, ״מִצְוַת״ כְּתִיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara inquires: **With regard to what** matter do Rav Asi and Ḥiyya bar Rav **disagree?** The Gemara answers: It is stated in a verse discussing the obligation to bring a provisional guilt offering: “And if anyone sin, and do any of the commandments [*mitzvot*] of the Lord that are not to be done, though does not know it; yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:17). **Rav Asi holds:** The **tradition** of the manner in which the verses in the Torah are written **is authoritative,** and one derives *halakhot* based on the spelling of the words. Therefore, the obligation to bring a provisional guilt offering applies only when there is uncertainty with regard to a single piece, because the word **is written** as “***mitzvat*,”** in the singular form.


###### Keritot 17b:8
[Keritot 17b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/17b:8)

וְחִיָּיא בַּר רַב אָמַר: יֵשׁ אֵם לַמִּקְרָא, ״מִצְווֹת״ קָרֵינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Ḥiyya bar Rav says:** The **vocalization** of the Torah **is authoritative,** meaning that one derives *halakhot* based on the pronunciation of the words, even if it diverges from the spelling. Therefore, since **we read** the word in the plural, as ***mitzvot*,** the obligation to bring a provisional guilt offering applies only when two pieces are present.


###### Keritot 17b:9
[Keritot 17b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/17b:9)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא לְרַב אַסִּי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ חִיָּיא בַּר רַב לְרַב אַסִּי: חֵלֶב וְשׁוּמָּן לְפָנָיו וְאָכַל אַחַת מֵהֶן מַאי לַָאו מִדְּסֵיפָא שְׁתֵּי חֲתִיכוֹת, רֵישָׁא נָמֵי שְׁתֵּי חֲתִיכוֹת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna raised an objection to Rav Asi, and some say** it was **Ḥiyya bar Rav** who raised the objection **to Rav Asi:** The latter clause in the mishna states: If one has a piece of permitted **fat and** a piece of forbidden **fat before him and he ate one of them. What, is it not** correct to infer **from** the fact that **the latter clause** of the mishna is referring to **two pieces** that **the first clause,** which introduces the topic, is **also** referring to **two pieces?**


###### Keritot 17b:10
[Keritot 17b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/17b:10)

אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב: לָא תֵּיזְלוּ בָּתַר אִיפְּכָא, דְּיָכוֹל לְשַׁנּוֹיֵי לְכוּ: סֵיפָא בִּשְׁתֵּי חֲתִיכוֹת רֵישָׁא בַּחֲתִיכָה אַחַת. אִי הָכִי, יֵשׁ לוֹמַר: חֲתִיכָה אַחַת מִחַיַּיב, שְׁתֵּי חֲתִיכוֹת צְרִיכָא לְמֵימַר? זוֹ וְאֵין צָרִיךְ (לְמֵימַר) [לוֹמַר] זוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav said to them: Do not go after the opposite,** i.e., do not cite a proof from a source that could be understood in the reverse manner, **as** Rav Asi **can answer you** by claiming that whereas **the latter clause** is referring **to two pieces, the first clause** is referring **to one piece.** The Gemara questions this claim: **If so, one can say** that once the mishna has taught that the consumption of **one piece** of fat that might be forbidden **renders** him **obligated** to bring a provisional guilt offering, does it **need to be said** that the same applies in a case involving **two pieces,** where one of them is definitely forbidden? The Gemara answers that the mishna is employing the style: **This, and it is unnecessary to say that,** i.e., it first teaches the more difficult and novel case, then teaches the easier, more straightforward one.


###### Keritot 17b:11
[Keritot 17b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/17b:11)

וּלְחִיָּיא בַּר רַב דְּאָמַר: מִדְּסֵיפָא בִּשְׁתֵּי חֲתִיכוֹת, רֵישָׁא נָמֵי בִּשְׁתֵּי חֲתִיכוֹת, מִיתְנָא תַּרְתֵּי לְמָה לִי? פָּרוֹשֵׁי קָא מְפָרֵשׁ: סָפֵק אָכַל סָפֵק לֹא אָכַל חֵלֶב – מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי, כֵּיצַד? כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה חֵלֶב וְשׁוּמָּן לְפָנָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to** the opinion of **Ḥiyya bar Rav, who says** that **from** the fact that **the latter clause** of the mishna is referring to **two pieces, the first clause** is **also** is referring **two pieces, why do I** need **two** clauses to teach the same *halakha*? The Gemara answers that the mishna **is explaining** itself, as follows: If there is **uncertainty** whether **one ate** forbidden fat and **uncertainty** whether **one did not eat** forbidden **fat,** he must **bring a provisional guilt offering. How so? For example,** in a case **where there was** forbidden **fat and** permitted **fat before him,** and he ate one of them.


###### Keritot 17b:12
[Keritot 17b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/17b:12)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁתֵּי חֲתִיכוֹת, אַחַת שֶׁל שׁוּמָּן וְאַחַת שֶׁל חֵלֶב, אָכַל אַחַת מֵהֶן וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזוֹ מֵהֶן אָכַל – חַיָּיב חֲתִיכָה אַחַת, סָפֵק שֶׁל חֵלֶב סָפֵק שֶׁל שׁוּמָּן וַאֲכָלָהּ – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites a series of virtually identical statements attributed to Rav, followed by different rationales for his opinion, after each of which it raises several objections from a *baraita* or a mishna. **Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says:** In a case where **one had two pieces** of fat **before him, one of** permitted **fat and one of** forbidden **fat,** if **he ate one of them and he does not know which of them he ate,** he is **obligated** to bring a provisional guilt offering. But if there was only **one piece** before him and there was **uncertainty** whether it was **of** forbidden **fat** and **uncertainty** whether it was **of** permitted **fat, and he ate it,** he is **exempt.**


###### Keritot 17b:13
[Keritot 17b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/17b:13)

אָמַר רָבָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַב? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְעָשָׂה אַחַת מִכׇּל מִצְוֹת ה׳ בִּשְׁגָגָה״ – עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁגּוֹג בִּשְׁתַּיִם, ״מִצְוַת״ כְּתִיב, ״מִצְווֹת״ קָרֵינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: What is the reason** for the opinion **of Rav?** He derives it from **that** which **the verse states:** “And if anyone sin, **and do any of the commandments [*mitzvot*] of the Lord** that are not to be done, **though he does not know it;** yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 4:22). Rav derives from the plural *mitzvot* that one is not liable to bring a provisional guilt offering **until he is unwitting with regard to** one of **two** items, which in this case is two pieces of fat. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it **written “*mitzvat*,”** in the singular form? The Gemara answers: **We read** it as ***mitzvot*,** in the plural. In other words, according to Rava, Rav maintains that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative.


###### Keritot 17b:14
[Keritot 17b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/17b:14)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: כּוֹי – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו אָשָׁם תָּלוּי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye raised an objection to** Rava from a *baraita*. **Rabbi Eliezer says:** With regard to **a *koy*,** a kosher animal with characteristics of both a domesticated animal and a non-domesticated animal, **one is obligated to** bring **a provisional guilt offering for** eating **its** fat. The prohibition of forbidden fats applies only to those of a domesticated animal; the corresponding fats are permitted in the case of a non-domesticated animal. Since a *koy* is of uncertain status, one must bring a provisional guilt offering for eating its fat. Evidently, one is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering even in a case where there was uncertainty involving a single item.


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

אָמַר לוֹ: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: יֵשׁ אֵם לַמָּסוֹרֶת, ״מִצְוַת״ כְּתִיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava **said to** Abaye: **Rabbi Eliezer holds** that the **tradition** of the manner in which the verses in the Torah are written **is authoritative.** Consequently, as the singular form **“*mitzvat*” is written,** he maintains that a provisional guilt offering must be brought in a case of uncertainty involving a single item, such as the fat of a *koy*.


###### Keritot 17b:16
[Keritot 17b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/17b:16)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: סָפֵק בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה לָרִאשׁוֹן אוֹ בֶּן שִׁבְעָה לָאַחֲרוֹן – יוֹצִיא, וְהַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raised an objection to** Rav from a *baraita*: If one consummates levirate marriage with his *yevama* and seven months later she gives birth, there is **uncertainty whether** the child **is nine** months **old,** i.e., counting from conception, and is the offspring **of the first** husband, which would mean the levirate bond did not take effect, or **whether** the child is only **seven** months **old** and is the offspring **of the latter** husband, i.e., the *yavam*, not the deceased, in which case the levirate bond did take effect. In such a situation, due to the possibility that she is forbidden to him as his brother’s wife, **he must divorce her. But the offspring is** of **unflawed** lineage, as whether it was born from the first or the second husband, its conception involved no transgression.


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

וְחַיָּיב בְּאָשָׁם תָּלוּי. הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* concludes: **And** to atone for the possibility that they engaged in forbidden intercourse they are each **obligated** to bring **a provisional guilt offering.** This indicates that one is obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering even when the uncertainty involves a single item. The Gemara answers: In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** *baraita*? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer,** who, as stated above, maintains that one is obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering for uncertainty involving a single item.


###### Keritot 17b:18
[Keritot 17b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/17b:18)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: נִמְצָא עַל שֶׁלּוֹ – טְמֵאִין, וְחַיָּיבִין בַּקׇּרְבָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raised** another **objection to** Rav from a mishna (*Nidda* 14a): It is the custom of Jewish women to engage in intercourse with their husbands with two cloths, one for her husband to wipe himself with to see if any of her blood is on him after intercourse, and one for her to check herself to ascertain after intercourse whether her menstrual flow has begun. If after intercourse blood **was found on his** cloth, the woman and her husband **are** both **ritually impure** for seven days, in accordance with the *halakha* of a menstruating woman and a man who engages in intercourse with her, **and they are** each **liable to** bring a sin **offering** for unwittingly performing an action punishable by *karet*.


###### Keritot 17b:19
[Keritot 17b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/17b:19)

עַל שֶׁלָּהּ אֹתְיוֹם – טְמֵאִין וְחַיָּיבִין בַּקׇּרְבָּן. נִמְצָא עַל שֶׁלָּהּ לְאַחַר זְמַן – טְמֵאִין מִסָּפֵק וּפְטוּרִין מִן הַקׇּרְבָּן, וְתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: חַיָּיב מִשּׁוּם אָשָׁם תָּלוּי! הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: If blood **was found on her** cloth **immediately [*otyom*]** after intercourse, the woman and her husband are likewise **ritually impure** for seven days **and are** each **liable to** bring a sin **offering.** If blood **was found on her** cloth **after time** passed, they are both **impure due to uncertainty,** as it is possible the blood appeared only after intercourse, **and they are exempt from** bringing **the** sin **offering. And it is taught with regard to** this last case in the mishna: They are each nevertheless **liable to** bring **a provisional guilt offering.** The Gemara again answers: In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** mishna? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer.**


###### Keritot 17b:20
[Keritot 17b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/17b:20)

אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא אָמַר רַב: הָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁתֵּי חֲתִיכוֹת, אַחַת שֶׁל חֵלֶב וְאַחַת שֶׁל שׁוּמָּן, וְאָכַל אַחַת מֵהֶן וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן אָכַל – חַיָּיב. חֲתִיכָה, סָפֵק שֶׁל שׁוּמָּן סָפֵק שֶׁל חֵלֶב וַאֲכָלָהּ – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Ḥiyya says** that **Rav says:** In a case where **one had two pieces** of fat **before him, one of** permitted **fat and one of** forbidden **fat, and he ate one of them and he does not know which of them he ate,** he is **obligated** to bring a provisional guilt offering. But if there was only one **piece** before him and there was **uncertainty** whether it was **of** permitted **fat** and **uncertainty** whether it was **of** forbidden **fat, and he ate it,** he is **exempt.**


###### Keritot 17b:21
[Keritot 17b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/17b:21)

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַב? קָסָבַר: שְׁתֵּי חֲתִיכוֹת אֶפְשָׁר לְבָרֵר אִיסּוּרָן, חֲתִיכָה אַחַת אִי אֶפְשָׁר לְבָרֵר אִיסּוּרָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira said: What is the reason** for the ruling **of Rav? He holds** one is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering only in a case involving **two pieces,** as **it is possible to identify its prohibition.** As, an expert might later examine the remaining piece and determine whether or not one ate the prohibited piece. By contrast, in a case of uncertainty involving only **one piece, it is impossible to identify its prohibition** and ascertain whether one ate a forbidden or permitted piece of fat.


###### Keritot 17b:22
[Keritot 17b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/17b:22)

מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין טַעְמָא דְּרָבָא לְטַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי זֵירָא? אִיכָּא בֵינַיְיהוּ כְּזַיִת וּמֶחֱצָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** difference **is there between** the **reason** given earlier **by Rava** for Rav’s ruling and the **reason** stated here **by Rabbi Zeira?** The Gemara answers: The difference **between** them is a case where there were two pieces before a person, one measuring **an olive-bulk and** the other measuring **one-half** of an olive-bulk. Since according to *halakha* a measure of less than an olive-bulk is of no relevance in such a case, it is considered as though only one piece is present before him.


###### Keritot 17b:23
[Keritot 17b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/17b:23)

לְרָבָא – לֵיכָּא ״מִצְווֹת״ וּפָטוּר, לְרַבִּי זֵירָא – אֶפְשָׁר לְבָרֵר אִיסּוּרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **According to Rava,** who contends that Rav maintains that the plural vocalization of the Torah is authoritative, this **is not** a case of uncertainty involving two items, as required by the plural form ***mitzvot*, and** therefore he is **exempt.** By contrast, **according to Rabbi Zeira,** this is a case where **it is possible to identify its prohibition** by examining the remaining piece, and he is therefore obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering.


###### Keritot 17b:24
[Keritot 17b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/17b:24)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה לְרַבִּי זֵירָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: כּוֹי, חַיָּיבִין עַל חֶלְבּוֹ אָשָׁם תָּלוּי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר: לָא בָּעֵינַן לְבָרֵר אִיסּוּרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya raised an objection to Rabbi Zeira** from a *baraita*. **Rabbi Eliezer says:** With regard to **a *koy*, one is obligated** to bring **a provisional guilt offering for** eating **its fat.** Evidently, one must bring a provisional guilt offering even in a case where the uncertainty involves only a single item. Rabbi Zeira **said to** Rabbi Yirmeya: **Rabbi Eliezer holds we do not require** a case where it is possible **to identify its prohibition** in order for one to be obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering.