📖 SATURDAY PRAYER: KETER-YESHIVAT HAVERIM יְשִׁיבָה חברים – BABYLONIAN TALMUD p133

READING: BETWEEN MIDNIGHT AND DAWN OF SATURDAY

Assuming, however, that in the second instance (when he forgot about the prohibition of the acts
of labor) he (at some later time) recollected only having reaped (but forgot that he also ground),
and having set aside the sin-offering he became liable for on account of his transgression in the
first instance (when he forgot about the Sabbath), he atones for the reaping and grinding on the
first Sabbath and for the reaping on the second Sabbath, but not for the grinding on the second
Sabbath; hence (after also recollecting that he had ground) he must bring an additional sinoffering.
Abayi, however, says: The one sin-offering atones for all, because the grinding, which
he atones for in the first instance, also carries with it the grinding in the second instance. Why
so? For the reason that in both instances the acts atoned for are analogous. (When a sin-offering
was brought, a confession was made. In citing the sin committed in the first instance grinding
was mentioned and applies also to the grinding in the second instance. Therefore no additional
sin-offering is necessary.)
It was taught: If one has eaten tallow (which is prohibited) on two different occasions, and at
both times the tallow was the equivalent (in size) of an olive (or larger); and afterward he was
reminded of the first occasion, and later on of the second occasion also, what is the law in his
case? R. Johanan says: He must bring two sin-offerings. Why so? Because he recollected the
transgressions at different times. Resh Lakish,
however, says: He need bring only one sin-offering. What is R. Johanan’s reason? Because it is
written [Lev. iv. 28]: “For his sin, which he hath committed,” and he adduces therefrom that for
every sin committed one must bring a separate sin-offering, and Resh Lakish holds according to
the passage [ibid. 26], “Concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him,” and claims that it being
one and the same sin, only one sin-offering is sufficient. But what will Resh Lakish do with the
verse, “For his sin which he hath committed”? That refers to the sin-offering which had already
been brought, and therefore could not apply to a later sin. And what about R. Johanan and the
passage, “Concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven”? R. Johanan explains this as follows: If a
man ate tallow equivalent (in size) to an olive and a half, and later ate another piece the size of
half an olive. Afterward he recollected having eaten tallow, but thought that it was the size of
one olive, might some not say that the remaining piece eaten in the first instance should be
added to the piece eaten in the second instance, and thus constitute another piece the equivalent
(in size) to an olive, and make him liable for another sin-offering? Therefore the passage which
means: After once having obtained forgiveness for the transgression on the first occasion the
second cannot be counted in with the first.