Study Keritot folio 16A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
The Talmud notes: And yet in the final case in the baraita, it does not teach that in a situation where he is uncertain whether he ate from it he brings a provisional guilt offering. Whose opinion is this? If we say it is the opinion of R' Akiva, let him also teach in the last clause: For a case whe
Rather, isn’t the baraita in accordance with the opinion of R' Yehoshua, who disagrees with the opinion of R' Akiva and holds that one is not liable to bring a provisional guilt offering for uncertainty about misuse of consecrated property? And it teaches that one who eats notar from one offering c
The Talmud responds: But on the contrary, one can infer otherwise from the latter clause of the baraita, which teaches: If he ate from 5 separate offerings, even during one lapse of awareness, he is liable to bring a separate sin offering for each and every one. One can conclude from this statem
Rather, what is there to say about this baraita? It must be said that it is a dispute between tanna’im, that there is a tanna who maintains that R' Yehoshua accepted R' Akiva’s refutation, and there is a tanna who maintains that R' Yehoshua did not accept it.
But once the baraita is interpreted in accordance with two different tanna’im, you may even say that the earlier clause of the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of R' Akiva and not R' Yehoshua. And this tanna of the baraita holds in accordance with the opinion of R' Akiva in one matter and d