## Keritot Daf 18b

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

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: מִתְנַדֵּב אָדָם אָשָׁם תָּלוּי בְּכׇל יוֹם. הִילְכָּךְ, אָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: אַיְיתִי אָשָׁם תָּלוּי וְאַתְנִי: אִי אָכַל רִאשׁוֹן שׁוּמָּן, הוּא אָכַל חֵלֶב – לֶיהֱוֵי כַּפָּרָה, וְאִי לָא – לֶיהֱוֵי נְדָבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer, who says a person may volunteer** to bring **a provisional guilt offering every day. Therefore, we say to** the second person: Volunteer and **bring a provisional guilt offering,** to prevent the first individual from bringing an unwarranted sin offering. **And** he should **stipulate: If** the **first** person **ate** the piece of permitted **fat,** that means that **he** himself **ate** the forbidden **fat** and consequently the offering **should be an atonement** for his own transgression. **And if not,** i.e., if the first person ate the forbidden fat and he himself committed no transgression, **let it be a gift** offering.


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

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אָכַל סְפֵק חֵלֶב וְנוֹדַע לוֹ, סְפֵק חֵלֶב וְנוֹדַע לוֹ – רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אוֹמֵר אֲנִי, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמֵּבִיא חַטָּאת עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת – כָּךְ מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: A person unwittingly **ate** a piece of fat about which it was **uncertain** whether it was **forbidden fat** or permitted fat, **and he was** subsequently **informed** of its questionable status. He then unwittingly ate another piece of fat about which it was **uncertain** whether it was **forbidden fat** or permitted fat, **and he was** again **informed** of its questionable status. **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says: I say** that **just as he** would be liable to **bring a sin offering for each and every one** if he was later informed that they were all pieces of forbidden fat, **so too,** in these cases of uncertainty **he** must **bring a provisional guilt offering for each and every one.**


###### Keritot 18b:3
[Keritot 18b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/18b:3)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: אֵין מֵבִיא אֶלָּא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי אֶחָד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ אֲשֶׁר שָׁגָג״ – אֲפִילּוּ עַל שְׁגָגוֹת הַרְבֵּה אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אֶחָת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda; Rabbi Elazar; and Rabbi Shimon** all **say:** He is obligated to **bring only one provisional guilt offering, as it is stated:** “And the priest shall make atonement **for him concerning the unwitting error which he committed unwittingly** and he shall be forgiven” (Leviticus 5:18). It is derived from the verse’s double mention of his unwitting status, for which he is liable to bring one offering, that a person is **obligated** to bring **only one** offering **even for many unwitting sins,** despite the fact that he was informed of the uncertainty in between each instance of consumption.


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

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: כָּאן שָׁנָה רַבִּי: יְדִיעוֹת סָפֵק מְחַלְּקוֹת לְחַטָּאוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s statement in the *baraita*, **Rabbi Zeira says: Here Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **taught** a principle with regard to the obligation to bring sin offerings for several unwitting transgressions: **Knowledge of** the questionable status of **an uncertain** case prior to each subsequent transgression **divides** them into obligations **to** bring multiple **sin offerings** when one later learns that he definitely committed unwitting transgressions. In the case of the *baraita*, as he was informed prior to each instance of consumption of the uncertain status of the fat he ate before his subsequent consumption of uncertain fat, he is obligated to bring a sin offering for each instance of consumption if he later discovers he actually sinned.


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

רָבָא אָמַר: אֵין יְדִיעוֹת סָפֵק מְחַלְּקוֹת לְחַטָּאוֹת, אֶלָּא הָכִי קָתָנֵי: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאִם הָיְתָה לוֹ יְדִיעָה וַדַּאי מֵבִיא חַטָּאת עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת, כָּךְ אִם הָיְתָה לוֹ יְדִיעַת סָפֵק מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says: Knowledge of uncertainty** prior to each possible transgression **does not divide** them **into** obligations to bring multiple **sin offerings. Rather, this** is what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **is teaching** in the *baraita*: **Just as if he had had definite knowledge** prior to each instance of consumption that the piece he ate was prohibited before eating each subsequent piece he would have been liable to **bring a sin offering for each and every one, so too, if he had knowledge of** the **uncertain** status of the piece he ate before eating each subsequent piece, he is obligated to **bring a provisional guilt offering for each and every one.** According to Rava, uncertain knowledge does not divide the unwitting transgressions to the extent that one is obligated to bring multiple sin offerings. Only definite knowledge renders one liable to bring multiple sin offerings.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְאַתְּ לָא תִּסְבְּרָא דִּידִיעוֹת סָפֵק מְחַלְּקוֹת לְחַטָּאוֹת? דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ יְדִיעוֹת אֵין מְחַלְּקוֹת לְחַטָּאוֹת, וְחַטָּאת אַחַת מֵבִיא, אַמַּאי מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rava: **And you? Do you not hold that knowledge of uncertainty** prior to committing each transgression **divides** them with regard to the obligation **to** bring **sin offerings** for each one? **As, if it enters your mind** to say that **knowledge of uncertainty** prior to committing each transgression does **not divide** them **with regard to** multiple **sin offerings, and** therefore one **brings** only **one sin offering, why** does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi rule that he **brings a provisional guilt offering for each and every one,** when he had knowledge of uncertainty prior to each instance of consumption?


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

וְהָתַנְיָא, כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר: כֹּל שֶׁחֲלוּקִין בְּחַטָּאוֹת – חֲלוּקִין בַּאֲשָׁמוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
After all, **isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: The **principle with regard to** the **matter** is as follows: In **any** case **where** separate transgressions are **divided for** the purpose of determining liability to bring multiple **sin offerings,** they are also considered **divided for** the purpose of determining liability to bring multiple provisional **guilt offerings** in cases of uncertainty. If one does not bring several sin offerings in a case of definite transgression, he is not obligated to bring several provisional guilt offerings in a case of uncertainty either.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא בַּר חָנָן לְאַבָּיֵי: וּלְדִידָךְ, דְּאָמְרַתְּ יְדִיעוֹת סָפֵק מְחַלְּקוֹת לְחַטָּאוֹת, אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, אָכַל כְּזַיִת חֵלֶב לִפְנֵי יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים וּכְזַיִת חֵלֶב אַחַר יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים, וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים בִּמְקוֹם אָשָׁם תָּלוּי קָאֵי – הָכִי נָמֵי דְּמֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava bar Ḥanan said to Abaye: And according to you, that you said knowledge of uncertainty** prior to each transgression **divides** them into obligations **to** bring separate **sin offerings, if that is so,** what would you say about the following case: Someone **ate an olive-bulk of** forbidden **fat before Yom Kippur and** another **olive-bulk of** forbidden **fat after Yom Kippur.** Since **Yom Kippur** itself **stands in place of a provisional guilt offering,** i.e., it atones for any prior uncertain transgression, if he later learned that both pieces were in fact forbidden fat, would you say that **so too,** Yom Kippur divides the two actions and **that** he is obligated to **bring two sin offerings?**


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

הָא בְּהֶעְלֵם (אַחַת) [אֶחָד] אַכְלִינּוּן! אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וּמַאן לֵימָא לַן דְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים מְכַפַּר עַל דְּלָא מִתְיְדַע לֵיהּ? דִּילְמָא וְהוּא דְּמִתְיְדַע לֵיהּ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: הוֹדַע וְלֹא הוֹדַע תְּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** this cannot be correct, as **he ate** both of **them in a single lapse of awareness** and there was no knowledge of sin to divide them. Rather, it stands to reason that like Yom Kippur, knowledge of uncertainty does not divide transgressions into multiple sin offering obligations. **Abaye said to** Rava bar Ḥanan: That case in which Yom Kippur occurred in between transgressions is not comparable to having knowledge of uncertainty between each transgression. **Who shall say to us that Yom Kippur atones for** sins **that were unknown to him? Perhaps** it atones only for sins **that were known to him. Rava said to him** in reply: **We learned** this explicitly in a mishna (*Shevuot* 2b): Yom Kippur atones for sins whether **one became aware** of them before Yom Kippur **or did not become aware** of them.


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

אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא בַּר חָנָן לְאַבָּיֵי: מָה אִילּוּ אָכַל כְּזַיִת חֵלֶב שַׁחֲרִית בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים וּכְזַיִת חֵלֶב בְּמִנְחָה בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּמִיחַיַּיב שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites another version of the difficulty raised against Abaye’s opinion: **Some say** that **Rava bar Ḥanan said to Abaye:** Since Yom Kippur serves to divide the two acts of consumption into two obligations, similar to knowledge of the questionable status of fat according to Abaye, **what** is the *halakha* in the following case: **If** one **ate an olive-bulk of** forbidden **fat** on the **morning of Yom Kippur and an olive-bulk of** forbidden **fat in** the **afternoon of Yom Kippur, so too** would he **be obligated** to bring **two sin offerings?** This cannot be correct, as both olive-bulks were consumed in a single lapse of awareness.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וּמַאן לֵימָא לַן דְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים כֹּל שַׁעְתָּא מְכַפַּר? דִּילְמָא כּוּלֵּיהּ יוֹמָא מֵאוּרְתָּא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חַנָּה: תְּרָדָא, תַּנְיָא: הֲרֵי שֶׁבָּא לְיָדוֹ סְפֵק עֲבֵירָה בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים אֲפִילּוּ עִם חֲשֵׁיכָה – פָּטוּר, שֶׁכׇּל הַיּוֹם מְכַפֵּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rava bar Ḥanan: **Who shall say to us that Yom Kippur provides atonement at every hour** of the day? **Perhaps the entire day** as a single unit serves to provide atonement only when it begins, **in the evening? Rabba bar bar Ḥana said to him: Fool [*terada*]! It is taught** in a mishna (25a): With regard to **one who encountered uncertainty** concerning whether he performed **a sin on Yom Kippur, even if** it was **at nightfall** at the end of the day, he is **exempt, as the entire day atones** for uncertain sins.


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

מֵתִיב רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין: אָכַל וְשָׁתָה בְּהֶעְלֵם (אַחַת) [אֶחָד] – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא חַטָּאת אַחַת. וְהָא בֵּין אֲכִילָה לִשְׁתִיָּיה אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּלֹא הֲוָה שְׁהוּת בַּיּוֹם, דְּמִתְיְידַע לֵיהּ וְכַפַּר לֵיהּ, דְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים בִּמְקוֹם אָשָׁם תָּלוּי קָאֵי, וְקָתָנֵי: ״אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא חַטָּאת אֶחָת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Idi bar Avin raises** another **objection** to Abaye’s opinion from a mishna (*Yoma* 81a): If **one ate and drank** unwittingly on Yom Kippur **in one lapse of awareness,** e.g., he forgot it was Yom Kippur, **he is liable** to bring **only one sin offering. But** according to Abaye he should be liable to bring two sin offerings, as **between** the **eating and** the **drinking it is impossible that there was no** interval of even a minimal amount of **time during the day. That** interval of time would allow **him to** gain **knowledge** of the possible transgression, **and** therefore it should serve to **atone for him, as Yom Kippur stands in place of a provisional guilt offering. And** yet **it is taught** in the mishna: **He is liable** to bring **only one sin offering.**


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

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ יְדִיעוֹת סָפֵק מְחַלְּקוֹת לְחַטָּאוֹת, לִיחַיַּיב שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת! אָמְרִי: כִּי אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא – לְרַבִּי, הָא – רַבָּנַן הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Idi bar Avin concludes his objection: **And if it enters your mind** that **knowledge** of **uncertainty** prior to each possible transgression **divides** them into obligations **to** bring separate **sin offerings** for each one, this lapse of time on Yom Kippur should serve to divide his two transgressions and therefore **he should be liable** to bring **two sin offerings.** The Sages **say** in response: **When Rabbi Zeira said** that knowledge of uncertainty prior to each unwitting transgression divides them into obligations to bring separate sin offerings, he was clarifying the opinion **of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. By contrast, **this** mishna, which indicates that the passage of time on Yom Kippur does not divide transgressions into obligations for separate sin offerings, **is** in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis.**


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

וְהָא מִדְּסֵיפָא רַבִּי הִיא, דְּקָתָנֵי: שָׁתָה צִיר אוֹ מוּרְיָיס – פָּטוּר. הָא חוֹמֶץ – חַיָּיב,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But from** the fact that **the latter clause** of that mishna **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, it follows that the first clause is also in accordance with his opinion. This is significant, **as** that same mishna later **teaches** (*Yoma* 81a): If on Yom Kippur one **drank** the salty **liquid** in which fish are pickled, **or fish brine [*morayes*],** he is **exempt.** One can infer: **But** if he drank **vinegar** he is **liable.**


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

וּמַנִּי? רַבִּי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: חוֹמֶץ אֵין מֵשִׁיב אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אוֹמֵר אֲנִי, חוֹמֶץ מֵשִׁיב אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ. וּמִדְּסֵיפָא רַבִּי, רֵישָׁא נָמֵי רַבִּי! אָמְרִי: סֵיפָא – רַבִּי, רֵישָׁא – רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And who is** the *tanna* of the mishna? **It is Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Vinegar does not revive the spirit,** i.e., it does not have the status of a beverage, and therefore one who drinks it on Yom Kippur is exempt. **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says: I say** that **vinegar does revive the spirit** and is therefore considered like a beverage. **And from** the fact that **the latter clause** is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **the first clause** must **also** be in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. The Sages **say** in response: That is not necessarily so, as one can say **the latter clause** is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi whereas **the first clause** is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis.**


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

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא: אָכַל הַיּוֹם אָכַל לְמָחָר, נֶהֱנָה הַיּוֹם נֶהֱנָה לְמָחָר, אָכַל הַיּוֹם נֶהֱנָה לְמָחָר, נֶהֱנָה הַיּוֹם אָכַל לְמָחָר, וַאֲפִילּוּ מִכָּאן וְעַד שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים, מִנַּיִן שֶׁהֵן מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raised** another **objection** to Abaye from a *baraita*: One is obligated to bring a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property only if he derived benefit of at least the value of one *peruta* from the property. If one unwittingly **ate** from consecrated property **today** and **ate** again **tomorrow,** or if he **derived benefit** from consecrated property **today** and again **derived benefit tomorrow,** or if he **ate** from the property **today** and **derived benefit** from it **tomorrow,** or if he **derived benefit** from it **today** and **ate** from it **tomorrow, even** if the time between them was as long as **from now until three years** later, **from where** is it derived **that they combine with each other** to amount to one *peruta*-worth of benefit and thereby render him obligated to bring a guilt offering?


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

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תִּמְעוֹל מַעַל״ – רִיבָּה. וְאַמַּאי, הָא כַּיפַּר עֲלֵיהּ יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* answers that **the verse states:** “If anyone **commits a misuse [*tim’ol ma’al*]”** (Leviticus 5:15). The double verb [*tim’ol ma’al*] **extended** the obligation to bring a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property to a case where the value of individual instances of misuse at different times amount to a total of one *peruta*. Rava concludes his objection: **But why** should that be the *halakha* according to Abaye, who maintains that knowledge of uncertainty, and similarly the day of Yom Kippur, which has the same effect as a provisional guilt offering, divides his actions into separate entities? When the second misuse occurs after Yom Kippur, **isn’t his** sin **atoned** for **by Yom Kippur?** Since his acts of possible transgression are divided, how can they combine to the value of one *peruta*?


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

אָמְרִי: כִּי מְכַפַּר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים – עַל אִיסּוּרָא, עַל מָמוֹנָא לָא מְכַפַּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **say** in response: **When** does **Yom Kippur atone** for sins? Only **with regard to ritual prohibitions.** But it does **not atone with regard to monetary matters.** Misuse of consecrated property entails a monetary obligation to restore the value of the principal with the addition of one-fifth. Since Yom Kippur does not exempt one from the monetary obligation entailed by a sin, the two acts of misuse combine to render one obligated to bring a guilt offering.


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

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כִּי מְכַפַּר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים – עַל כּוּלֵּיהּ שִׁיעוּרָא, עַל פַּלְגָא דְּשִׁיעוּרָא לָא מְכַפַּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests another answer. **If you wish, say** instead: **When does Yom Kippur atone** for sins? It atones for sins only if they were committed **in their full measure,** but it does **not atone for** sins that one transgressed only by **half of** their full **measure.** Consequently, Yom Kippur does not atone for misuse of consecrated property of the value of less than one *peruta*, which is why the two acts of misuse combine.


###### Keritot 18b:20
[Keritot 18b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/18b:20)

וְכֵן אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: כָּאן שָׁנָה רַבִּי: יְדִיעוֹת סָפֵק מְחַלְּקוֹת לְחַטָּאוֹת. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֵין יְדִיעוֹת סָפֵק מְחַלְּקוֹת לְחַטָּאוֹת,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites the opinions of other *amora’im* with regard to this matter. **Similarly,** like Rabbi Zeira, **Reish Lakish says: Here,** in his statement in the *baraita* above, **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **taught** that **knowledge of uncertain** status prior to each possible transgression **divides** them into separate obligations **to** bring **sin offerings** for each one. And like Rava, **Rabbi Yoḥanan** disagrees and **says: Knowledge of uncertainty does not divide** them into obligations **to** bring separate **sin offerings.**


###### Keritot 18b:21
[Keritot 18b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/18b:21)

אֶלָּא הָכִי קָתָנֵי: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאִם הָיְתָה לוֹ יְדִיעָה וַדַּאי מֵבִיא עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת, כָּךְ אִם הָיְתָה לוֹ יְדִיעַת סָפֵק מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, this** is what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **is teaching** in the *baraita*: **Just as if he had had definite knowledge** prior to each instance of unwitting consumption **he** would **bring** a sin offering **for each and every one, so too, if he had had knowledge of** the **uncertainty** of each piece prior to his subsequent instance of unwitting consumption he would be obligated to **bring a provisional guilt offering for each and every one.** But knowledge of uncertainty prior to each instance of consumption does not render him obligated to bring multiple sin offerings if he later finds out they were all definitely prohibited.


###### Keritot 18b:22
[Keritot 18b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/18b:22)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, הַיְינוּ דְּקָא תָלֵי לְאָשָׁם בְּחַטָּאת. אֶלָּא לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, חַטָּאת בְּאָשָׁם מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ! קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, this is** why the *baraita* is formulated in a manner that indicates the *halakha* of **a provisional guilt offering is dependent upon** the *halakhot* governing the **sin offering.** Just as knowledge of an unwitting transgression renders one liable to bring a sin offering, so too, knowledge of uncertainty renders one liable to bring a provisional guilt offering. **But according to Reish Lakish,** the *baraita* **should have taught** that the *halakha* of **a sin offering** is **dependent upon** the knowledge of uncertainty necessary to render one liable to bring a provisional **guilt offering,** rather than the other way around. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is **difficult.**


###### Keritot 18b:23
[Keritot 18b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/18b:23)

וְרָמֵי דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַדְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְרָמֵי דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. אַדְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּתַנְיָא: שְׁנֵי שְׁבִילִין, אֶחָד טָמֵא וְאֶחָד טָהוֹר, וְהָלַךְ בָּרִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא נִכְנַס, בַּשֵּׁנִי וְנִכְנַס – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction from** one statement of **Rabbi Yoḥanan to** another statement **of Rabbi Yoḥanan, and** it likewise **raises a contradiction from** one statement of **Reish Lakish to** another statement **of Reish Lakish. As it is taught** in a *baraita*: There are **two paths: one** is **ritually impure** due to a corpse that is buried there **and** the other **one** is **ritually pure, and** it is unknown which path is which. If an individual **walked on the first** path **and did not** yet **enter** the Temple, **and** then he walked **on the second** path **and** afterward unwittingly **entered** the Temple, being that he certainly contracted ritual impurity after walking down both paths he is **liable** to bring a sliding-scale offering for entering the Temple in a state of ritual impurity.


###### Keritot 18b:24
[Keritot 18b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/18b:24)

הָלַךְ בָּרִאשׁוֹן וְנִכְנַס – פָּטוּר, בַּשֵּׁנִי וְנִכְנַס – חַיָּיב. הָלַךְ בָּרִאשׁוֹן וְנִכְנַס, וְהִזָּה וְשָׁנָה וְטָבַל, וְהָלַךְ בַּשֵּׁנִי וְנִכְנַס – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: If he **walked on the first** path **and entered** the Temple he is **exempt** from bringing an offering. But if he then walked **on the second** path **and** afterward **entered** the Temple he is **obligated** to bring a sin offering, as he was definitely impure on one of the occasions that he entered the Temple. If he **walked on the first** path **and entered** the Temple, **and** subsequently went through the process of ritual purification, i.e., he received the **sprinkling** of the ashes of the red heifer on the third day **and again** on the seventh day, **and immersed, and** then **walked on the second** path **and entered** the Temple, he is **liable** to bring a sin offering, as he definitely entered the Temple while ritually impure, either on the first occasion or on the second.