## Keritot Daf 18a

###### Keritot 18a:1
[Keritot 18a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/18a:1)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: סָפֵק בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה לָרִאשׁוֹן אוֹ בֶּן שִׁבְעָה לָאַחֲרוֹן – יוֹצִיא, וְהַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר, וְחַיָּיב בְּאָשָׁם תָּלוּי. הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raised an objection to** Rabbi Zeira from a *baraita*: If one consummates a levirate marriage with his *yevama* and seven months later she gives birth, there is **uncertainty whether** the child **is nine** months **old** and is the offspring **of the first** husband, or **whether** the child is only **seven** months **old** and is the offspring **of the latter** husband, i.e., the *yavam*. In such a case **he must divorce her, but the offspring is** of **unflawed** lineage. **And** to atone for the possibility that they engaged in forbidden intercourse, they are each **obligated** to bring **a provisional guilt offering.** The Gemara answers: In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** *baraita*? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer.**


###### Keritot 18a:2
[Keritot 18a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/18a:2)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raised** another **objection to** Rabbi Zeira from a mishna (*Nidda* 14a): If blood **was found on her** cloth **immediately** after intercourse, the woman and her husband **are 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 and they are exempt from** bringing **the** sin **offering. And it is taught with regard to** this last case that they are each **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 18a:3
[Keritot 18a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/18a:3)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Naḥman says** that **Rabba bar Avuh 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 it was **uncertain** if it is **of** forbidden **fat** and **uncertain** if it is **of** permitted **fat, and he ate it,** he is **exempt.**


###### Keritot 18a:4
[Keritot 18a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/18a:4)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַב? קָסָבַר: שְׁתֵּי חֲתִיכוֹת – אִיקְּבַע אִיסּוּרָא, חֲתִיכָה אַחַת – לָא (קָבְעָה) [אִיקְּבַע] אִיסּוּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said: What is the reason** for the opinion **of Rav? He holds** that one is liable in the case of **two pieces** because the **prohibition was established,** i.e., there was definitely a prohibited piece before him, and nevertheless he proceeded to eat one of them. By contrast, he is exempt in the case of **one** uncertain **piece,** as **the prohibition was not established.**


###### Keritot 18a:5
[Keritot 18a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/18a:5)

מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין אִיקְּבַע אִיסּוּרָא לְשֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְבָרֵר אִיסּוּרֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** difference **is there between** the reasoning for Rav’s opinion given by Rav Naḥman, that one is liable in the case of two pieces because the **prohibition was established,** and the reasoning given by Rabbi Zeira, **that** if there is one piece **it is impossible to identify its prohibition?**


###### Keritot 18a:6
[Keritot 18a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/18a:6)

אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁתֵּי חֲתִיכוֹת, אַחַת שֶׁל חֵלֶב וְאַחַת שֶׁל שׁוּמָּן, וּבָא גּוֹי וְאָכַל אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, וּבָא יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָכַל אֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה, לְרָבָא – לֵיכָּא ״מִצְווֹת״ בְּעִידָּנָא דַּאֲכַל יִשְׂרָאֵל. לְרַבִּי זֵירָא – אִי אֶפְשָׁר לְבָרֵר אִיסּוּרֵיהּ. לְרַב נַחְמָן – אִיקְּבַע אִיסּוּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The difference **between them** is in a case **where** someone **had two pieces** of fat **before him, one of** forbidden **fat and one of** permitted **fat. And a gentile came and ate the first piece, and** then **a Jew came and ate the second** piece. **According to Rava** he is exempt, because **at the time when the Jew ate** the uncertain piece there was only one piece present, which does **not** fulfill the requirement of two items, as derived from the word ***mitzvot*** in the verse. **According to Rabbi Zeira** he is exempt because **it is impossible to identify its prohibition,** as both pieces are gone. But **according to Rav Naḥman** he is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering, as the presence of a **prohibition was established,** i.e., there was definitely a forbidden piece there at one point.


###### Keritot 18a:7
[Keritot 18a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/18a:7)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: כּוֹי – חַיָּיבִין עַל חֶלְבּוֹ אָשָׁם תָּלוּי! רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לָא בָּעֵי קְבִיעוּתָא לְאִיסּוּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman** from a *baraita*. **Rabbi Eliezer says:** With regard to **a *koy*, one is obligated to** bring **a provisional guilt offering for** eating **its fat.** Rav Naḥman answered: **Rabbi Eliezer does not require the prohibition to be established** in order for one to be obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering.


###### Keritot 18a:8
[Keritot 18a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/18a:8)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: סָפֵק בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה לָרִאשׁוֹן, אוֹ בֶּן שִׁבְעָה לָאַחֲרוֹן – יוֹצִיא וְהַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר, וְחַיָּיבִין בְּאָשָׁם תָּלוּי! הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava **raised** another **objection to** Rav Naḥman from a *baraita*: If one consummates a levirate marriage with his *yevama* and seven months later she gives birth, there is **uncertainty whether** the child **is nine** months **old** and is the offspring **of the first** husband, or **whether** the child is only **seven** months **old** and is the offspring **of the latter** husband, and therefore **he must divorce her; but the offspring is** of **unflawed** lineage. **And they are** each **obligated** to bring **a provisional guilt offering.** Once again, the Gemara responds: In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** *baraita*? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer.**


###### Keritot 18a:9
[Keritot 18a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/18a:9)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: נִמְצָא עַל שֶׁלּוֹ – טְמֵאִין וְחַיָּיבִין בַּקׇּרְבָּן, נִמְצָא עַל שֶׁלָּהּ אֹתְיוֹם – טְמֵאִין וְחַיָּיבִין בַּקׇּרְבָּן, נִמְצָא עַל שֶׁלָּהּ לְאַחַר זְמַן – טְמֵאִים מִסָּפֵק וּפְטוּרִין מִן הַקׇּרְבָּן, וְתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: וְחַיָּיבִין בְּאָשָׁם תָּלוּי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava **raised** a final **objection to** Rav Naḥman from a mishna: If blood **was found on his** cloth, the woman and her husband are both **ritually impure** for seven days **and they are** each **liable** to bring a sin **offering.** If blood **was found on her** cloth **immediately** after intercourse, **they are impure** for seven days **and are** each **liable** to bring a sin **offering.** If it **was found on her** cloth **after time** passed, they are both **impure due to uncertainty and they are exempt from** bringing **the** sin **offering. And** it **is taught with regard to** this last case that they each is **liable to** bring **a provisional guilt offering.**


###### Keritot 18a:10
[Keritot 18a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/18a:10)

אִישְׁתִּיק. לְבָתַר דִּנְפַק אֲמַר: מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אֲמַרִי לֵיהּ דְּהָא מַנִּי רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּלָא בָּעֵי קְבִיעוּתָא לְאִיסּוּרָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
When presented with this last objection, Rav Naḥman **was silent** and did not reply. **After** Rava **left he said: What is the reason I did not say to him,** i.e., I should have said to him, **that** in accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** mishna? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, who does not require the prohibition to be established** in order for one to be obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering.


###### Keritot 18a:11
[Keritot 18a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/18a:11)

דְּתַנְיָא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אָשָׁם תָּלוּי בַּחוּץ – רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּיב, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita*: If **one slaughters** an animal designated as **a provisional guilt offering outside** the Temple, **Rabbi Meir deems** him **obligated** to bring a provisional guilt offering **and the Rabbis deem** him **exempt.** Rabbi Meir deems him obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering despite the fact that it is possible the owner of the first provisional guilt offering never violated any transgression and therefore was never obligated to bring his provisional guilt offering. This demonstrates that according to Rabbi Meir it is not necessary for the prohibition to be established for one to be obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering.


###### Keritot 18a:12
[Keritot 18a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/18a:12)

וְאַמַּאי? לֵימָא לֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא! הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּשִׁיטַת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר קָאֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But why** did Rav Naḥman say that he could have responded to Rava’s contradiction by claiming the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir? **Let him say to him that** the mishna **is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer,** as was the response to the previous objections. The Gemara explains that **this** is what Rav Naḥman **is teaching us: That** the reason for the ruling of **Rabbi Meir** is that he **holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer,** who says an established prohibition is not required for one to be obligated in a provisional guilt offering.


###### Keritot 18a:13
[Keritot 18a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/18a:13)

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ אָמַר רַב: חֲתִיכָה, סָפֵק שֶׁל חֵלֶב סָפֵק שֶׁל שׁוּמָּן, וַאֲכָלָהּ – בָּאנוּ לְמַחֲלוֹקֶת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וַחֲכָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabba bar Avuh says** that **Rav says:** If there was **a piece** of fat before someone and it was **uncertain** if it is **of** forbidden **fat** and **uncertain** if it is **of** permitted **fat, and he ate it, we have arrived at the dispute** between **Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis.** In a mishna on 25a, Rabbi Eliezer states that one may bring a voluntary provisional guilt offering whenever he pleases. The Rabbis disagree and maintain that a provisional guilt offering may be brought only in a case of actual uncertainty whether one performed a sin for which he would be liable to bring a sin offering.


###### Keritot 18a:14
[Keritot 18a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/18a:14)

לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, מַאי אִירְיָא כִּי אַכְלַהּ? אֲפִילּוּ לָא אַכְלַהּ נָמֵי! דְּהָתְנַן: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: מִתְנַדֵּב אָדָם אָשָׁם תָּלוּי בְּכׇל יוֹם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Why** did Rav **specifically** choose a case **where one ate** the item of uncertain status in order **to** exemplify the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer? Even** if he had **not eaten** anything, Rabbi Eliezer would **also** permit him to bring a provisional guilt offering, **as we learned** in the mishna that **Rabbi Eliezer says: A person may volunteer** to bring **a provisional guilt offering every day.**


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

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אַלִּיבָּא דְּבָבָא בֶּן בּוּטָא, דִּתְנַן: אֶלָּא אוֹמְרִים לוֹ: הַמְתֵּן עַד שֶׁתִּכָּנֵס לְבֵית סָפֵק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said:** Rav mentioned a case involving the consumption of an item whose status is uncertain in order to teach the ruling of **Rabbi Eliezer in accordance with** the opinion **of Bava ben Buta, as we learned** in the mishna: They said about Bava ben Buta that he would volunteer to bring a provisional guilt offering every day except for the day after Yom Kippur, as Yom Kippur atones for all uncertain sins. He said: If they would have allowed me to do so I would have brought a provisional guilt offering even on that day. **But they say to him: Wait until you enter into a situation of potential uncertainty.** For this reason Rav presents a scenario where an item whose status is uncertain was consumed, in order to allow for the potential uncertainty that would justify bringing a provisional guilt offering.


###### Keritot 18a:16
[Keritot 18a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/18a:16)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הָיוּ לְפָנָיו שְׁתֵּי חֲתִיכוֹת, אַחַת שֶׁל שׁוּמָּן וְאַחַת שֶׁל חֵלֶב, בָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָכַל אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, בָּא גּוֹי וְאָכַל אֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה – חַיָּיב, וְכֵן כֶּלֶב, וְכֵן עוֹרֵב. בָּא גּוֹי וְאָכַל אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, בָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָכַל אֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה – פָּטוּר. וְרַבִּי מְחַיֵּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: In a case where **one had before him two pieces** of fat, **one of** permitted **fat and one of** forbidden **fat,** if **a Jew came and ate the first** piece and then **a gentile came and ate the second,** the Jew is **liable** to bring a provisional guilt offering. **And the same** applies if **a dog** ate the second piece **and the same** is true if **a raven** ate it. But if **a gentile came and ate the first** piece and then **a Jew came and ate the second** piece, the Jew is **exempt,** because at the time that he ate the uncertain piece there was only one item of uncertainty. **And Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **deems** him **obligated** to bring a provisional guilt offering, as he does not maintain that two items are required for one to be obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering.


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

אָכַל אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה בְּשׁוֹגֵג, וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה בְּמֵזִיד – חַיָּיב. הָרִאשׁוֹנָה בְּמֵזִיד, וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה בְּשׁוֹגֵג – פָּטוּר, וְרַבִּי מְחַיֵּיב. אָכַל שְׁתֵּיהֶן בְּמֵזִיד – פָּטוּר מִכְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: If the Jew **ate the first** piece **unwittingly and the second intentionally,** he is **liable** to bring a provisional guilt offering for the first piece. But if he ate **the first** piece **intentionally and the second** piece **unwittingly,** he is **exempt,** because at the time that he ate the second piece, only one piece was present. **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **deems** him **obligated** to bring an offering. If he **ate both of them intentionally,** he is **exempt from** bringing **anything.**


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

שְׁתֵּיהֶן בְּשׁוֹגֵג – שְׁנֵיהֶן חַיָּיבִין. הַשֵּׁנִי לֹא מִן הַדִּין, אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם אַתָּה אוֹמֵר פָּטוּר – קָבַעְתָּ אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה בְּחַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* concludes: If two Jews each ate one of **two** items, each **of them unwittingly, each of them is liable** to bring a provisional guilt offering, albeit for different reasons. The first is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering in case he ate the forbidden piece. By contrast, **the second** one is **not** strictly obligated **by law,** as he unwittingly ate the uncertain piece when there was no other piece present. **Rather,** the reason he is obligated is **that if you say** he is **exempt, you have** in effect **established** that **the first** individual is obligated **to** bring **a sin offering.** One might think that the second individual is exempt because he definitely ate the permitted piece, which would mean the first one ate the forbidden piece and he must therefore bring a sin offering.


###### Keritot 18a:19
[Keritot 18a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/18a:19)

וּמַנּוּ? אִי רַבִּי – מִן הַדִּין וּמִן הַדִּין הוּא! אִי רַבָּנַן – מִשּׁוּם דְּלֹא נִקְבַּע רִאשׁוֹן בְּחַטָּאת, נֵימָא לֵיהּ לְשֵׁנִי: אַיְיתִי חוּלִּין לָעֲזָרָה?! אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** in accordance **with whose** opinion is this ruling? **If** it is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, why does the *baraita* say the second individual is obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering merely as a precaution and not by law? **It is certainly by law** that the second is obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains that one is obligated even for an uncertainty involving a single item. **If** it is in accordance with **the Rabbis,** can it be correct that merely **in order** to prevent a misunderstanding and ensure **that we do not establish** the **first** one as obligated to bring **a sin offering,** that **we would say to the second** individual: **Bring** and slaughter **a non-sacred animal in the** Temple **courtyard?** After all, he is not obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering. **Rav Ashi said** in response: