## Keritot Daf 22b

###### Keritot 22b:1
[Keritot 22b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/22b:1)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְאִם נֶפֶשׁ״ – לְחַיֵּיב עַל סְפֵק מְעִילוֹת אָשָׁם תָּלוּי, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** With regard to the issue of whether one brings a provisional guilt offering for an uncertain misuse of consecrated property, **the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: Immediately following the passage in the Torah discussing a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property the Torah introduces the *halakhot* of a provisional guilt offering by stating: **“And if anyone** sin” (Leviticus 5:17). The term “and” serves **to render** one **liable** to bring **a provisional guilt offering for uncertain misuse** of consecrated property; this is **the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis deem** him **exempt** in such a case.


###### Keritot 22b:2
[Keritot 22b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/22b:2)

לֵימָא בְּהָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: לְמֵדִין עֶלְיוֹן מִתַּחְתּוֹן, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: אֵין לְמֵדִין עֶלְיוֹן מִתַּחְתּוֹן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say that they disagree about this** following method of halakhic derivation: **That Rabbi Akiva holds** that when the Torah connects two topics with the term “and” **one learns** the *halakhot* of the **earlier** passage **from** those in the **later** passage. Consequently, it can be derived that one who is uncertain about whether he misused consecrated property must bring a provisional guilt offering. **And the Rabbis hold** that **one does not learn** the *halakhot* in the **earlier** passage **from** those of the **later** passage.


###### Keritot 22b:3
[Keritot 22b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/22b:3)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לְמֵדִין עֶלְיוֹן מִתַּחְתּוֹן, דְּאִם כֵּן, צָפוֹן בְּבֶן בָּקָר לָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לְהוּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said:** In fact, **everyone** agrees that **one learns** the *halakhot* of the **earlier** passage **from** those of the **later** passage, **as if** one does not say **so, you will not find** a source for the requirement **that a young bull** brought as a burnt offering must be slaughtered in the **north** section of the Temple courtyard. This is derived from the fact that the Torah states the *halakhot* of a young bull brought as a burnt offering (Leviticus 1:3–9) and then states: “And if his offering is of the flock, from the sheep or from the goats, as a burnt offering, an unblemished male he shall present it, and he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar northward” (Leviticus 1:10–11).


###### Keritot 22b:4
[Keritot 22b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/22b:4)

אֶלָּא הָכָא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן דְּפָטְרִי: דִּגְמִירִי ״מִצְוֹת״ ״מִצְוֹת״ מֵחַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, here,** in the case of one who is uncertain whether he misused consecrated property, **this is** the **reason that the Rabbis deem** him **exempt** from bringing a provisional guilt offering: It is **because they derive** the details of the *halakha* with regard to the provisional guilt offering written in the verse: “And if anyone sin, and perform one of all the **commandments** of the Lord that are not to be performed” (Leviticus 5:17), by means of a verbal analogy **from** the verse stated with regard to **a sin offering:** “And if any one of the common people sin through error, in his performance of any of the **commandments** of the Lord that may not be performed” (Leviticus 4:27).


###### Keritot 22b:5
[Keritot 22b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/22b:5)

מָה לְהַלָּן דָּבָר שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹנוֹ כָּרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת, וְעַל סְפֵיקוֹ אָשָׁם תָּלוּי, אַף כֹּל שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹנוֹ כָּרֵת וְעַל סְפֵקוֹ חַטָּאת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ אָשָׁם תָּלוּי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The verbal analogy indicates that **just as there,** the sin offering is brought only for **an act that renders one liable to** be punished with ***karet* for its intentional** violation **and** liable to bring **a sin offering for its unwitting** violation, **and** to bring **a provisional guilt offering for its uncertain** violation, **so too,** for **every** transgression **for which one is liable to** be punished with ***karet* for its intentional** violation **and** one is liable to bring **a sin offering for its unwitting** violation, one is also liable to bring **a provisional guilt offering for its uncertain** violation.


###### Keritot 22b:6
[Keritot 22b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/22b:6)

לְאַפּוֹקֵי מְעִילָה, דְּאֵין חַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹנוֹ כָּרֵת, דְּתַנְיָא: הֵזִיד בִּמְעִילָה – רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: בְּמִיתָה, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בְּאַזְהָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This verbal analogy serves **to exclude misuse** of consecrated property from the transgressions for which one would bring a provisional guilt offering in a case of uncertainty, **as one is not liable** to receive ***karet* for its intentional** violation. **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **one who intentionally misused** a consecrated item, **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says** that he is liable to the punishment of **death** at the hand of Heaven. **And the Rabbis say:** He has violated a standard **prohibition,** and is flogged. Everyone agrees that he is not liable to receive *karet*.


###### Keritot 22b:7
[Keritot 22b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/22b:7)

וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: כִּי יָלְפִינַן ״מִצְוֹת״ ״מִצְוֹת״ מֵחַטַּאת חֵלֶב, לְהָכִי הוּא דְּיָלְפִינַן: מָה לְהַלָּן בִּקְבוּעָה, אַף כָּאן בִּקְבוּעָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And** with regard to the verbal analogy cited above as the source of the opinion of the Rabbis, **Rabbi Akiva holds** the following: **When we derive** the *halakhot* of provisional guilt offerings based upon the term **“the commandments of”** used in that context (Leviticus 5:17) and the identical expression **“the commandments of”** stated with regard to **a sin offering** brought for the consumption of forbidden **fat** (Leviticus 4:27), i.e., a standard sin offering, it is **for this** purpose **that we derive it: Just as there,** the verse is referring **to a fixed** sin offering, **so too here,** with regard to the provisional guilt offering, one brings it only for the uncertain transgression **of** a sin for which one would be liable to bring **a fixed** offering.


###### Keritot 22b:8
[Keritot 22b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/22b:8)

לְאַפּוֹקֵי עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד, דְּלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This serves **to exclude** transgressions for which one brings **a sliding-scale** sin offering, i.e., the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, taking a false oath of testimony, and violating an oath (see Leviticus 5:1–13). Since one who unwittingly violated these prohibitions brings an animal, bird, or meal offering depending on his financial status, if he is uncertain whether he violated one of these prohibitions he does **not** bring a provisional guilt offering.


###### Keritot 22b:9
[Keritot 22b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/22b:9)

וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: אֵין גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה לְמֶחֱצָה. מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: יֵשׁ גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה לְמֶחֱצָה? אֶלָּא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אֵין גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה לְמֶחֱצָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis** disagree with Rabbi Akiva and **hold** that **there is no verbal analogy for half** of a matter. Once a verbal analogy is accepted, the two cases are treated as entirely similar, which in this case means that the provisional guilt offering is brought only for a sin punishable by *karet* for its intentional violation. The Gemara asks: Should one conclude **by inference that Rabbi Akiva holds** that **there is a verbal analogy for half** of a matter? There is no record of any *tanna* maintaining this opinion. **Rather, everyone agrees that there is no verbal analogy for half** of a matter.


###### Keritot 22b:10
[Keritot 22b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/22b:10)

אֶלָּא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דַּאֲמַר קְרָא: ״וְאִם נֶפֶשׁ״ – וָיו מוֹסִיף עַל עִנְיָן רִאשׁוֹן, וְיִלְמַד עֶלְיוֹן מִתַּחְתּוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, this is** the **reason** for the opinion **of Rabbi Akiva, as the verse states** with regard to the provisional guilt offering: **“And if anyone** sin” (Leviticus 5:17). The term “and” in the form of the letter ***vav*, adds to the previous matter.** When a sentence begins with the conjunction *vav*, it is a continuation of the previous discussion, **and** therefore the *halakhot* of the **earlier** passage, in this case misuse of consecrated property, **are learned from the later** passage. Consequently, one brings a provisional guilt offering even for uncertain misuse of consecrated property.


###### Keritot 22b:11
[Keritot 22b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/22b:11)

וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: תַּחְתּוֹן הוּא דְּגָמַר מֵעֶלְיוֹן לְאָשָׁם בְּכֶסֶף שְׁקָלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis maintain** that it is the *halakhot* of the **later** passage that **are derived from the earlier** passage. Consequently, the ram brought **for** a provisional **guilt offering** must be **worth** at least two **silver shekels,** just like the ram brought as a guilt offering in a case where one is certain that he misused consecrated property (see Leviticus 5:15).


###### Keritot 22b:12
[Keritot 22b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/22b:12)

וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: אֵין הֶיקֵּשׁ לְמֶחֱצָה. מִכְּלָל דְּרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: יֵשׁ הֶיקֵּשׁ לְמֶחֱצָה? וְהָא קַיְימָא לַן דְּאֵין הֶיקֵּשׁ לְמֶחֱצָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** how would **Rabbi Akiva** respond to this opinion? He **holds** that **there is no juxtaposition for half** of a matter. Consequently, one must also derive the *halakhot* of the earlier passage from the later passage, and one is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering for uncertain misuse of consecrated property. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Should one conclude **by inference that the Rabbis hold** that **there is a juxtaposition for half** of a matter? **But** this is difficult, because **we maintain** as a principle **that there is no juxtaposition for half** of a matter.


###### Keritot 22b:13
[Keritot 22b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/22b:13)

דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אֵין הֶיקֵּשׁ לְמֶחֱצָה, וְהָכָא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן: דִּגְמִירִי ״מִצְוֹת״ ״מִצְוֹת״, אַפְּקֵיהּ מֵהֶקֵּישָׁא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rather, **everyone** agrees that **there is no juxtaposition for half** of a matter. **And here, this is** the **reason** for the opinion **of the Rabbis, as they derive** from the verbal analogy of the expression **“the commandments of** the Lord” (Leviticus 5:17) stated with regard to the provisional guilt offering and the identical expression **“the commandments of** the Lord” (Leviticus 4:27) stated with regard to the sin offering that one is not liable to bring a provisional guilt offering for uncertain misuse of consecrated property. One does not derive the *halakhot* of the earlier passage based upon the later passage, as this aspect of the comparison has been explicitly **excluded from** the comparison of these two passages based upon their **juxtaposition.**


###### Keritot 22b:14
[Keritot 22b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/22b:14)

וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אָשָׁם בְּכֶסֶף שְׁקָלִים נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״זֹּאת תּוֹרַת הָאָשָׁם״ – תּוֹרָה אַחַת לְכׇל הָאֲשָׁמוֹת, לְאָשָׁם דִּבְכֶסֶף שְׁקָלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Akiva derives** the *halakha* that the provisional **guilt offering** must be worth at least two **silver shekels from** the verse: **“This is the law of the guilt offering”** (Leviticus 7:1). This teaches that there is **one law for all of the guilt offerings,** and therefore each **guilt offering** must be **worth** at least two **silver shekels.** Since it is not necessary for him to derive this *halakha* from the juxtaposition of the passages concerning misuse of consecrated property and the provisional guilt offering, and the verbal analogy cannot entirely negate the comparison indicated by this juxtaposition, Rabbi Akiva derives from the juxtaposition that one is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering for uncertain misuse of consecrated property.


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

וְרַבָּנַן? אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הָאָשָׁם״, אִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב ״וְאִם נֶפֶשׁ״ – וָיו מוֹסִיף עַל עִנְיָן רִאשׁוֹן, וְיִלְמַד תַּחְתּוֹן מֵעֶלְיוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis** would reply that **even though it is written: “This is the law of the guilt offering,”** nevertheless it **was necessary** for the verse **to write: “And if anyone** sin,” in which the letter ***vav* adds to the previous matter and** indicates that the *halakhot* of the **later** passage **are learned from the earlier** passage. This teaches that a provisional guilt offering must be worth at least two silver shekels.


###### Keritot 22b:16
[Keritot 22b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/22b:16)

וְאִי מִ״זֹּאת תּוֹרַת הָאָשָׁם״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: כִּי אָמֵינָא תּוֹרָה אַחַת לְכׇל אֲשָׁמוֹת – הָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּשְׁאָר אֲשָׁמוֹת וַדָּאִין,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** you would say that this could be derived **from** the verse: **“This is the law of the guilt offering,”** that is impossible, as **I would say: When I say** that there is **one law for all of the guilt offerings, that statement** applies only **to other definite guilt offerings.** In other words, just as the guilt offering for definite misuse of consecrated property must be worth at least two silver shekels, the same applies to all definite guilt offerings.


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

אֲבָל אָשָׁם תָּלוּי, כֵּיוָן דְּעַל סְפֵק חֵלֶב קָאָתֵי, אֵימָא: לָא יְהֵא סְפֵיקוֹ חָמוּר מִוַּדָּאוֹ, מָה וַדָּאוֹ – חַטָּאת בַּת דַּנְקָא, אַף סְפֵיקוֹ – אָשָׁם בַּר דַּנְקָא, אַהָכִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא: ״וְאִם נֶפֶשׁ״ – וָיו מוֹסִיף עַל עִנְיָן רִאשׁוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** with regard to the **provisional guilt offering, since it comes for an uncertain** violation, e.g., in a case where one is uncertain whether he ate forbidden **fat,** one might **say** that the offering one brings for **its uncertain** violation **should not be** more **stringent than** the offering one brings for **its definite** violation: **Just as** for **its definite** violation one may bring **a sin offering worth** even **one-sixth [*danka*]** of a dinar, **so too,** for **its uncertain** violation one may bring **a guilt offering worth** even **one-sixth** of a dinar. It is **for this** reason that **the Merciful One wrote: “And if anyone** sin,” in which the letter ***vav* adds to the previous matter.** By contrast, since Rabbi Akiva does not derive the requirement for a provisional guilt offering to be worth at least two silver shekels from this verse, he derives from it that one brings a provisional guilt offering in a case of uncertain misuse of consecrated property.


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

נִיחָא לְמַאן דְּדָרֵישׁ ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הָאָשָׁם״, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּלָא דָּרֵישׁ ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הָאָשָׁם״, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? יָלֵיף ״בְּעֶרְכְּךָ״ ״בְּעֶרְכְּךָ״ מֵאֲשַׁם מְעִילוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **This works out well according to the one who expounds** the verse: **“This is the law of the guilt offering,”** as Rabbi Akiva derives from here that a provisional guilt offering must be worth at least two silver shekels. **But according to the one who does not expound** the verse: **“This is the law of the guilt offering,” what is there to say?** From where does he derive that all guilt offerings must have the same minimum value? The Gemara answers that **he derives** it from a verbal analogy between the term **“your valuation”** stated with regard to other guilt offerings (see Leviticus 5:18, 5:25), and the identical term **“your valuation”** (Leviticus 5:15) **from** the case of **a guilt offering for misuse** of consecrated property, which the verse indicates must be worth at least two silver shekels.


###### Keritot 22b:19
[Keritot 22b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/22b:19)

אֲשַׁם שִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה, לָא כְּתִב בֵּהּ ״בְּעֶרְכְּךָ״! יָלְפִינַן בְּ״אֵיל״

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: What is the source of this *halakha* with regard to the **guilt offering** for engaging in intercourse with **an espoused maidservant, about which** the term **“your valuation”** is **not written** in the Torah? The Gemara answers: **We derive** it **from** a verbal analogy between the word **“ram”** (Leviticus 5:15) in the verse about a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property and the word **“ram”** (Leviticus 19:21) in a verse concerning the espoused maidservant.


###### Keritot 22b:20
[Keritot 22b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/22b:20)

מוֹדֶה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא כּוּ׳ וְאִם סָפֵק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **Rabbi Akiva concedes** that one does not bring payment for his misuse of consecrated property until it becomes known to him that he is guilty of misuse, as then he brings a definite guilt offering with his payment. Rabbi Tarfon said: One brings payment for misuse and its additional payment of one-fifth, and a guilt offering worth two *sela*, and says: If it is certain that I misused consecrated property, this is payment for my misuse and this is my definite guilt offering. **And if** it is **uncertain** whether I misused consecrated property, the money is a contribution to the Temple fund for the purchase of communal offerings and the guilt offering is provisional.


###### Keritot 22b:21
[Keritot 22b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/22b:21)

מַאי קָאָמַר? אָמַר רָבָא, תְּנִי: אִם בִּסְפֵיקוֹ עוֹמֵד לְעוֹלָם – יְהֵא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי, שֶׁמִּמִּין שֶׁהֵבִיא עַל הוֹדַע, מְבִיאוֹ עַל שֶׁלֹּא הוֹדַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: According to Rabbi Tarfon, **what is** this individual **saying?** How can he say: If it is uncertain, when he clearly is uncertain about whether he misused consecrated property? **Rava said** that one should **teach** the mishna as follows: **If its uncertainty persists forever,** this offering **should be a provisional guilt offering,** whereas if it becomes known that I misused consecrated property, this should be a regular guilt offering. This is an effective stipulation, **as** the offering **one brings** in a case where it is **known** to him that he misused consecrated property is **from** the same **species** as the offering **he brings** in a case where it is **unknown** to him whether he misused consecrated property.


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

סוֹף סוֹף, כִּי מִתְיְדַע לֵיהּ בָּעֵי לְאֵיתוֹיֵי אָשָׁם וַדַּאי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **Ultimately,** even according to Rabbi Tarfon one cannot necessarily avoid bringing two guilt offerings. Since at the time when he brought his first offering he was uncertain whether he had misused consecrated property, **when it becomes known to him** that he misused consecrated property **he is required to bring a definite guilt offering.**


###### Keritot 22b:23
[Keritot 22b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/22b:23)

אָמַר רָבָא: מִדִּבְרֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם נִלְמַד – אָשָׁם וַדַּאי לָא בָּעֵי יְדִיעָה לְכַתְּחִלָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In response to this question **Rava said: From the statement of both of** the *tanna’im*, i.e., Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva, it can **be learned** that **a definite guilt offering does not require knowledge** that the individual definitely sinned ***ab initio*.** Consequently, as long as it eventually becomes known that he sinned, he has fulfilled his obligation to bring a definite guilt offering.


###### Keritot 22b:24
[Keritot 22b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/22b:24)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהֵבִיאָה חַטַּאת הָעוֹף, עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִמְלְקָה נוֹדַע לָהּ שֶׁיָּלְדָה וַדַּאי – תַּעֲשֶׂינָּה וַדַּאי, שֶׁמִּמִּין שֶׁהִיא מְבִיאָה עַל הוֹדַע, מְבִיאָה עַל לֹא הוֹדַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** Apropos the previous case in which one brings the same type of animal when liability is certain as when liability is uncertain, this mishna teaches: With regard to **a woman who brought a bird sin offering** in a case of uncertainty whether she miscarried a fetus that would have rendered her liable to bring a sin offering or whether what she expelled would not render her liable to bring an offering, in which case this sin offering may not be eaten by priests, the *halakha* is as follows: If **before** the nape of the neck of the bird **was pinched it became known to her that she certainly gave birth,** i.e., miscarried, in a manner that obligates her to bring a sin offering, **she should render** the offering **a definite** sin offering, **as from the** same **type** of animal **that she brings** a sin offering **for** a case where it is **known** to her that she miscarried, **she brings** a sin offering **for** a case where it is **unknown** to her.


###### Keritot 22b:25
[Keritot 22b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/22b:25)

חֲתִיכָה שֶׁל חוּלִּין וַחֲתִיכָה שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ, אָכַל אַחַת מֵהֶן וְאֵין יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן אָכַל – פָּטוּר, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מְחַיֵּיב אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. אָכַל אֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה – מֵבִיא אָשָׁם וַדַּאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna resumes discussion of the provisional guilt offering. If one had **a piece of non-sacred** meat **and a piece of sacrificial** meat, and **he ate one of them and does not know which of them he ate,** he is **exempt** from the obligation to bring a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property. **Rabbi Akiva deems** him **liable** to bring **a provisional guilt offering,** in accordance with his opinion in the previous mishna that one brings a provisional guilt offering even in a case of uncertainty with regard to misuse. If he then **ate the second** piece, **he brings a definite guilt offering,** as it is certain that he ate the sacrificial meat.


###### Keritot 22b:26
[Keritot 22b:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/22b:26)

אָכַל אֶחָד אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וּבָא אַחֵר וְאָכַל אֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה – זֶה מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי וְזֶה מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: שְׁנֵיהֶן מְבִיאִין אָשָׁם אֶחָד. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **one** person **ate the first** piece **and another** person **came and ate the second** piece, **this** first person **brings a provisional guilt offering and that** second person **brings a provisional guilt offering;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon says: Both of them bring one** definite **guilt offering** as partners, and they stipulate that the one who ate the non-sacred meat grants his share of the animal to the one who ate the sacrificial meat, and the guilt offering is sacrificed on his behalf. **Rabbi Yosei says:**