## Shabbat Daf 71a

###### Shabbat 71a:1
[Shabbat 71a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/71a:1)

קְצִירָה גּוֹרֶרֶת קְצִירָה, וּטְחִינָה גּוֹרֶרֶת טְחִינָה. אֲבָל נוֹדַע לוֹ עַל קְצִירָה שֶׁל זְדוֹן שַׁבָּת וְשִׁגְגַת מְלָאכוֹת — קְצִירָה גּוֹרֶרֶת קְצִירָה וּטְחִינָה שֶׁעִמָּהּ, וּטְחִינָה שֶׁכְּנֶגְדָּהּ בִּמְקוֹמָהּ עוֹמֶדֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Nevertheless, in that case, the sin-offering that atoned for the unwitting act of **reaping,** which he performed when his action was unwitting with regard to Shabbat, **draws** with it atonement for the second unwitting act of **reaping,** which he performed when his action was unwitting with regard to the prohibited labor, and for which he also was liable to bring a sin-offering. **And** similarly, the sin-offering that atoned for the unwitting act of **grinding,** which he performed when his action was unwitting with regard to Shabbat, **draws** with it atonement for the unwitting act of **grinding,** which he performed when his action was unwitting with regard to the prohibited labor. Since the offering was sacrificed after he had committed both transgressions, he attains atonement with one sacrifice, even though he performed several forms of the transgression in a single lapse of awareness. **However,** if the order of events in that case was different in that **he became aware of reaping** performed when his action was **intentional** with regard to **Shabbat and** his action was **unwitting** with regard to **the prohibited labors,** and he set aside an offering to atone for his unwitting transgression, and only afterward he became aware that he had performed the labors of reaping and grinding when his actions were unwitting with regard to Shabbat, the sin-offering that he brings for the **reaping draws** with it atonement for the previous **reaping and** the **concomitant grinding.** As far as the lapse of awareness with regard to Shabbat is concerned, reaping and grinding are considered like one sin, and atonement for one atones for the other. **And the parallel grinding** that he performed together with the latter reaping **remains in its place,** i.e., he does not attain atonement for that transgression. When he becomes aware of it, he brings a separate offering for atonement.


###### Shabbat 71a:2
[Shabbat 71a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/71a:2)

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: טְחִינָה נָמֵי גּוֹרֶרֶת טְחִינָה, שֵׁם טְחִינָה אַחַת הִיא. וּמִי אִית לֵיהּ לְרָבָא גְּרִירָה? וְהָא אִיתְּמַר: אָכַל שְׁנֵי זֵיתֵי חֵלֶב בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד, וְנוֹדַע לוֹ עַל אַחַת מֵהֶן, וְחָזַר וְאָכַל כְּזַיִת בְּהֶעְלֵמוֹ שֶׁל שֵׁנִי. אָמַר רָבָא: הֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן עַל רִאשׁוֹן — רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי מִתְכַּפְּרִין, שְׁלִישִׁי אֵינוֹ מִתְכַּפֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: Grinding also draws** the latter **grinding** with it, as **the designation of grinding is one.** Since he attained atonement for one act of grinding, atonement is attained for the second act of grinding as well, as they were performed in one lapse of awareness, and he became aware only after the acts were completed. The Gemara asks: **And is Rava of** the opinion that atonement can be attained by means of **drawing? Wasn’t it stated** that there is a dispute with regard to that matter in a case where one unwittingly **ate two olive**-bulks **of forbidden fat in one lapse of awareness,** e.g., he ate two pieces of forbidden fat from different parts of an animal in the belief that they were permitted fat? One is liable to bring a sin-offering for that transgression. **And** in a case where **he became aware** that **one of** the olive-bulks was forbidden fat, **and then ate a** third **olive-bulk** while still in the midst **of the lapse of awareness of** the **second** piece of forbidden fat, i.e., he had not yet become aware that the second of the original olive-bulks was indeed prohibited and after eating the third olive-bulk, he became aware of both the second and the third pieces of fat. **Rava said:** If **he brought a sacrifice for** the **first, atonement is attained** for the transgressions of the **first and second** olive-bulks, since he ate both in one lapse of awareness. However, **atonement is not attained** for the **third** because awareness of the first olive-bulk interposes.


###### Shabbat 71a:3
[Shabbat 71a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/71a:3)

הֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן עַל הַשְּׁלִישִׁי — שְׁלִישִׁי וְשֵׁנִי מִתְכַּפְּרִין, רִאשׁוֹן אֵינוֹ מִתְכַּפֵּר. הֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן עַל הָאֶמְצָעִי — נִתְכַּפְּרוּ כּוּלָּן. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ הֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן עַל אֶחָד מֵהֶן — נִתְכַּפְּרוּ כּוּלָּן. בָּתַר דְּשַׁמְעַהּ מֵאַבָּיֵי, סַבְרַהּ: אִי הָכִי, טְחִינָה נָמֵי תִּגְרֹר לִטְחִינָה! גְּרִירָה אִית לֵיהּ, גְּרִירָה דִגְרִירָה לֵית לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If he brought a sacrifice for the third** after he became aware that he had sinned, **atonement is attained** for the transgressions of the **third and second,** since both were performed in one lapse of awareness. However, **atonement is not attained** for the transgression of the **first,** which occurred in a separate lapse of awareness. **If he brought a sacrifice for the middle one, atonement is attained for all,** since both the first and third olive-bulks have a lapse of awareness common with the second. **Abaye said: Even if he brought a sacrifice for** any **one of them, atonement is attained** for **all of them** by means of drawing. Since he attained atonement for one of the olive-bulks, that atonement draws with it atonement for the other olive-bulks with which it shared a lapse of awareness. In any case, apparently Rava is not of the opinion that atonement draws with it atonement. How, then, does he say that atonement for reaping draws with it atonement for other acts of reaping? The Gemara answers: **After he heard** this *halakha* **from Abaye**, **he adopted it.** The Gemara raises a difficulty: **If so,** if Rava accepts the principle of drawing, by that same principle **grinding should also draw** with it **grinding.** The Gemara answers: There is a difference. Although **he is of** the opinion that atonement can be attained by means of **drawing, he is not of** the opinion that atonement that was attained through **drawing** can draw additional atonement through **drawing.** Atonement for the initial transgression of grinding was only attained by means of being drawn by the atonement for reaping. Rava holds that it cannot then proceed to draw atonement for the latter act of grinding.


###### Shabbat 71a:4
[Shabbat 71a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/71a:4)

מִילְּתָא דִּפְשִׁיטָא לְהוּ לְאַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא מִבַּעְיָא לְרַבִּי זֵירָא. דְּבָעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא מֵרַבִּי אַסִּי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה מֵרַבִּי זֵירָא: קָצַר וְטָחַן חֲצִי גְרוֹגֶרֶת בְּשִׁגְגַת שַׁבָּת וּזְדוֹן מְלָאכוֹת, וְחָזַר וְקָצַר וְטָחַן חֲצִי גְרוֹגֶרֶת בִּזְדוֹן שַׁבָּת וְשִׁגְגַת מְלָאכוֹת, מַהוּ שֶׁיִּצְטָרְפוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חֲלוּקִין לַחֲטָאוֹת, וְלֹא מִצְטָרְפִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **A matter that** was **obvious to Abaye and Rava was a dilemma for Rabbi Zeira.** In a case where one’s action was intentional with regard to Shabbat and unwitting with regard to the labors, and in a case where one’s action was unwitting with regard to Shabbat and intentional with regard to the labors, he is liable to bring only one sin-offering for the unwitting violation of Shabbat. This was not obvious to Rabbi Zeira, **as Rabbi Zeira raised a dilemma before Rabbi Asi, and others say** that **Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma before Rabbi Zeira:** If **one reaped and ground** grain in the measure of **half a dried fig-bulk,** and his action was **unwitting with regard to Shabbat and intentional with regard to the prohibited labors.** He is certainly not liable by Torah law because he reaped and ground less than the minimum measure for liability. **And then he reaped or ground** grain in the amount of **half a dried fig-bulk** and his action was **intentional with regard to Shabbat and unwitting with regard to the prohibited labors, do they join** together to constitute the minimum measure that determines liability to bring a sin-offering when he becomes aware that he sinned? **He said to him:** They **are separate with regard to sin-offerings,** i.e., if one reaped and ground the minimum measure that determines liability, he is liable to bring two sin-offerings, **and** therefore **they do not join** together to constitute the minimum measure.


###### Shabbat 71a:5
[Shabbat 71a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/71a:5)

וְכׇל הֵיכָא דַּחֲלוּקִין לַחֲטָאוֹת לָא מִצְטָרְפִי? וְהָתְנַן: אָכַל חֵלֶב וְחֵלֶב בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אָכַל חֵלֶב וָדָם וְנוֹתָר וּפִגּוּל בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד — חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת, זֶה חוֹמֶר בְּמִינִין הַרְבֵּה מִמִּין אֶחָד. וְזֶה חוֹמֶר בְּמִין אֶחָד מִמִּינִין הַרְבֵּה: שֶׁאִם אָכַל חֲצִי זַיִת וְחָזַר וְאָכַל חֲצִי זַיִת מִמִּין אֶחָד — חַיָּיב, מִשְּׁנֵי מִינִין — פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And wherever they are separate with regard to sin-offerings,** do **they not join** together? **Didn’t we learn** in a mishna: If **one ate** one piece of **forbidden fat and** then ate another piece of **forbidden fat,** each larger than the measure for liability, **in one lapse of awareness, he is liable** to bring **only one** sin-offering? In the next case in the mishna, four items are listed. If one eats them unwittingly he is liable to bring a sin-offering. If **he ate forbidden fat, and blood, and *notar*,** sacrifices that remained after the time when they may be eaten has expired, **and *piggul*,** sacrifices that were invalidated due to inappropriate intent while being offered, **in one lapse of awareness, he is liable** to bring a sin-offering **for each and every one. That is the stricture** that applies **to many types** of prohibitions relative **to one,** the same, **type. And this is the stricture of one type** relative **to many types: That if one ate half an olive**-bulk, **and then ate** another **half an olive**-bulk **from one type, he is liable** because the two half measures join to constitute a single measure. **And** if he ate two halves of an olive-bulk **from two types, he is exempt.**


###### Shabbat 71a:6
[Shabbat 71a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/71a:6)

וְהָוֵינַן בַּהּ: מִמִּין אֶחָד חַיָּיב צְרִיכָא לְמֵימַר? וְאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מִשּׁוּם בַּר תּוּטֵנִי: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּגוֹן שֶׁאֲכָלוֹ בִּשְׁנֵי תַמְחוּיִין, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הִיא, דְּאָמַר תַּמְחוּיִין מְחַלְּקִין. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֵּין לְקוּלָּא בֵּין לְחוּמְרָא — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דִּלְקוּלָּא לָא אָמַר, לְחוּמְרָא קָאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And we discussed** this mishna: When we learned of one who ate two halves of an olive-bulk **from one type,** was it **necessary to say** that he **is liable?** That is obvious. **And Reish Lakish said in the name of** the Sage, **bar Tutni: With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with a case **where he ate** two halves of an olive-bulk **from two dishes,** where each half was prepared separately, **and this is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua, who said** that **dishes separate.** One who eats two olive-bulks of prohibited food that was prepared in two different dishes in the course of one lapse of awareness is liable to bring a sin-offering for each one. **Lest you say** that **Rabbi Yehoshua stated** his opinion that dishes separate **both as a leniency and as a stricture,** and therefore one who ate two halves of an olive-bulk from two dishes would be exempt, the mishna **teaches us that** Rabbi Yehoshua **did not state** his opinion **as a leniency. He stated** his opinion **as a stricture.**


###### Shabbat 71a:7
[Shabbat 71a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/71a:7)

וְהָא הָכָא דַּחֲלוּקִין לַחֲטָאוֹת, וְקָא מִצְטָרְפִי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מָר אַרֵישָׁא מַתְנֵי לַהּ וְקַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ. אֲנַן אַסֵּיפָא מַתְנִינַן לַהּ, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא לַן: מִשְּׁנֵי מִינִין פָּטוּר, צְרִיכָה לְמֵימַר? וְאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מִשּׁוּם בַּר תּוּטֵנִי לְעוֹלָם מִמִּין אֶחָד. וְאַמַּאי קָרֵי לֵיהּ ״שְׁנֵי מִינִין״ — שֶׁאֲכָלוֹ בִּשְׁנֵי תַמְחוּיִין, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הִיא דְּאָמַר תַּמְחוּיִין מְחַלְּקִין. וְהָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֵּין לְקוּלָּא בֵּין לְחוּמְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But here,** where they are **separate** with regard to the number of **sin-offerings,** i.e., according to Rabbi Yehoshua one who eats an olive-bulk from each of the two dishes is liable to bring two sin-offerings, **and,** nevertheless, the two halves of an olive-bulk from the two dishes **join** together and constitute a full measure and render him liable to bring a sin-offering. Rabbi Zeira **said** to Rabbi Yirmeya: **The Master taught** Reish Lakish’s response **with regard to the first clause** of the mishna, **and it is difficult for him. We taught** Reish Lakish’s response **with regard to the latter clause** of the mishna, **and it is not difficult for us.** When we learned in the latter clause of the mishna: One who ate two halves of an olive-bulk **from two types,** was it **necessary to say** that he **is exempt?** That is obvious. **Reish Lakish said in the name of bar Tutni: Actually,** it is referring even to a case where the prohibition was **from one type** of food. **And why** then **does** the mishna **call it two types?** Because **he eats it in** the **two** separate **dishes** in which it was prepared. **And** this ruling is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua, who said** that **dishes separate. And this teaches us** that **Rabbi Yehoshua stated** his opinion that dishes separate **both as a leniency and as a stricture.**


###### Shabbat 71a:8
[Shabbat 71a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/71a:8)

מִדְּסֵיפָא מִין אֶחָד וּשְׁנֵי תַמְחוּיִין,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From** the fact **that the latter** clause is referring to **one type** of food **and** a case where the two halves of an olive-bulk were prepared in **two dishes,** as explained above,