1

The laws concerning inadvertent consumption of foods are the same as those concerning inadvertent intimate relations. Therefore if one partook of the same type of forbidden food many times in one lapse of awareness, he is only liable for one sin-offering even though there were many days in the interim.

What is implied? One partook of forbidden fat on a given day and did so also on the following day, and the day following that in one state of lapsed awareness, he is liable for only one sin-offering, even if they were cooked in different pots. If, by contrast, one inadvertently partook of an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat, he became aware of the transgression and then again inadvertently partook of an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat and became aware of the transgression, he is liable for each time he ate. For gaining awareness causes each inadvertent transgression to be considered as distinct.

If one partook of half an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat and then partook of another half of an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat in one state of lapsed awareness, they are joined together, even though they were cooked and served in different pots and he made an interruption between partaking of them. For the different pots do not cause the inadvertent transgressions to be considered as distinct. This applies provided he did not take more than the time to eat three eggs between the two times he ate, as explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot. Just as anything eaten in this time is combined to comprise a minimum measure to make a person who did so willfully liable for lashes, so too, anything eaten in this time is combined to comprise a minimum measure to make a person who did so inadvertently liable to bring a sacrifice.

א

דִין שִׁגְגַת הַמַּאֲכָלוֹת כְּדִין שִׁגְגַת הַבְּעִילוֹת. לְפִיכָךְ אִם אָכַל אֲכִילוֹת הַרְבֵּה מִשֵּׁם אֶחָד בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בֵּינֵיהֶן יָמִים רַבִּים אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא חַטָּאת אַחַת. כֵּיצַד. אָכַל חֵלֶב הַיּוֹם וְאָכַל חֵלֶב לְמָחָר וְחֵלֶב לְמָחָר בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה תַּמְחוּיִין אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אֲבָל אִם אָכַל כְּזַיִת חֵלֶב וְנוֹדַע לוֹ וְחָזַר וְאָכַל כְּזַיִת חֵלֶב וְנוֹדַע לוֹ. חַיָּב עַל כָּל אֲכִילָה וַאֲכִילָה שֶׁהַיְדִיעוֹת מְחַלְּקוֹת הַשְּׁגָגוֹת. אָכַל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת חֵלֶב וְחָזַר וְאָכַל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת חֵלֶב בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן שֵׁנִי תַּמְחוּיִין וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִפְסִיק בֵּינֵיהֶן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מִצְטָרְפִין וּמֵבִיא חַטָּאת. שֶׁאֵין הַתַּמְחוּיִין מְחַלְּקִין. וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁהֶה בֵּינֵיהֶן יוֹתֵר מִכְּדֵי אֲכִילַת שָׁלֹשׁ בֵּיצִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת מַאֲכָלוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת. שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁמִּצְטָרֵף הַשִּׁעוּר לְמֵזִיד לְמַלְקוֹת כָּךְ מִצְטָרֵף הַשִּׁעוּר לְשׁוֹגֵג לְקָרְבָּן:

2

If a person partook of notar from five different sacrifices, an olive-sized portion from each sacrifice, in one lapse of awareness, he is liable for only one sin-offering, even if he partook of them in five different pots. The rationale is that they are all included in one prohibition and the different pots do not cause the inadvertent transgressions to be considered as distinct. Nor do the different bodies of the sacrifices cause the inadvertent transgressions to be considered as distinct. There is no difference whether one partakes of meat that is notar from one sacrifice or from many sacrifices.

Similarly, when one slaughters five sacrificial animals outside the Temple Courtyard in one lapse of awareness, he is only liable for one sin-offering. To what can the matter be compared? To one who bows down to five forbidden images in one lapse of awareness.

ב

אָכַל נוֹתָר מֵחֲמִשָּׁה זְבָחִים כְּזַיִת מִכָּל זֶבַח בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֲכָלָן בַּחֲמִשָּׁה תַּמְחוּיִין אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא חַטָּאת אַחַת שֶׁכֻּלָּן שֵׁם אֶחָד הֵן וְהַתַּמְחוּיִין אֵינָן מְחַלְּקִין. וְגוּפֵי הַזְּבָחִים אֵינָן מְחַלְּקִין. שֶׁאֶחָד הָאוֹכֵל בָּשָׂר מִזְּבָחִים רַבִּים אוֹ מִזֶּבַח אֶחָד. וְכֵן הַשּׁוֹחֵט חֲמִשָּׁה זְבָחִים בַּחוּץ בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת. אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא חַטָּאת אַחַת. הָא לְמָה זֶה דּוֹמֶה לְמִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לְחָמֵשׁ צוּרוֹת בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת:

3

If one let the blood of his animal and received it in two cups and drank them both in one lapse of awareness, he is liable for only one sin-offering.

ג

הִקִּיז דָּם לִבְהֶמְתּוֹ וְקִבְּלוֹ בִּשְׁנֵי כּוֹסוֹת וּשְׁתָאָן בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא אֶלָּא חַטָּאת אַחַת:

4

When a person eats foods that are forbidden because of different prohibitions in one lapse of awareness, he is liable for one sin-offering for every type of prohibition.

What is implied? One partook of an olive-sized portion of each of the following: forbidden fat, blood, notar, and piggul, in one lapse of awareness must bring four sin-offerings. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

Anyone who eats a single olive-sized portion of food that is forbidden because of many different prohibitions in one lapse of awareness must bring a sin-offering for every prohibition, provided the prohibitions either cause the entity to be forbidden to additional people, the scope of the latter prohibition encompasses other entities together with the entity that was originally prohibited, or the two prohibitions take effect at the same time.

For this reason, if a person who is ritually impure partook of an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat that was notar on Yom Kippur, he must bring four sin-offerings and a guilt-offering: one sin-offering, because he was impure and he partook of consecrated food, one, because he partook of forbidden fat, one, because he partook of notar, and one, because he ate on Yom Kippur, provided another food is combined with this olive-sized portion so that it comprises a date-sized portion. And he must bring a guilt-offering for the misappropriation of consecrated property, for he inadvertently derived benefit from consecrated property.

ד

הָאוֹכֵל מַאֲכָלוֹת הַרְבֵּה מִשֵּׁמוֹת הַרְבֵּה בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת חַיָּב עַל כָּל שֵׁם וְשֵׁם. כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָכַל חֵלֶב וְדָם וְנוֹתָר וּפִגּוּל כְּזַיִת מִכָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת מֵבִיא אַרְבַּע חַטָּאוֹת. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בְּאֵלּוּ. וְכֵן הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת אֶחָד שֶׁנִּתְקַבְּצוּ בּוֹ שֵׁמוֹת הַרְבֵּה בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת. אִם נִתְקַבְּצוּ בְּאִסּוּר מוֹסִיף אוֹ בְּאִסּוּר כּוֹלֵל אוֹ בְּאִסּוּר בַּת אַחַת חַיָּב עַל כָּל שֵׁם וְשֵׁם. לְפִיכָךְ הַטָּמֵא שֶׁאָכַל כְּזַיִת חֵלֶב וְנוֹתָר בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים. מֵבִיא אַרְבַּע חַטָּאוֹת וְאָשָׁם. חַטָּאת אַחַת מִשּׁוּם טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל קוֹדֶשׁ. וְאַחַת מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל חֵלֶב. וְאַחַת מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל נוֹתָר. וְאַחַת מִשּׁוּם יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּצְטָרֵף אֹכֶל אַחֵר עִם כְּזַיִת זֶה עַד שֶׁיַּשְׁלִימוֹ לִכְכוֹתֶבֶת. וּמֵבִיא אָשָׁם וַדַּאי לִמְעִילָה שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶהֱנָה מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ בִּשְׁגָגָה:

5

When a person eats and drinks on Yom Kippur in one lapse of awareness, he is only liable for one sin-offering. Eating and drinking is considered as a single act.

ה

הָאוֹכֵל וְשׁוֹתֶה בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא חַטָּאת אַחַת. אֲכִילָה וּשְׁתִיָּה אַחַת הִיא:

6

When a person performs a forbidden labor on Yom Kippur that falls on the Sabbath, he is liable for two sin-offerings, because they are two prohibitions that take effect at the same time.

ו

הָעוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת חַיָּב שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן שְׁנֵי אִסּוּרִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד:

7

When a person eats a half of an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat and half an olive-sized portion of blood in one lapse of awareness, he is not liable for an offering. Just as the prohibitions are not combined to make one liable for lashes, as explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot, so too, they are not combined to make him liable for a sacrifice.

ז

אָכַל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת חֵלֶב וְכַחֲצִי זַיִת דָּם בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת אֵינוֹ חַיָּב קָרְבָּן. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין הָאִסּוּרִין מִצְטָרְפִין לַמַּלְקוֹת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת מַאֲכָלוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת כָּךְ אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין לְקָרְבָּן:

8

When a person inadvertently partook of half an olive-sized portion of a forbidden substance and then became aware of his transgression, but forgot and partook of another half an olive-sized portion of the same substance in a second lapse of awareness, he is not liable for an offering. The rationale is that he became aware in the interim and awareness causes a distinction to be made even with regard to half the required measure.

Similarly, if one wrote one letter on the Sabbath inadvertently and then became aware of the matter and then forgot and then wrote another letter next to the first in a second lapse of awareness, he is not liable for a sin-offering. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

In a like vein, if a person transferred an article two cubits in the public domain on the Sabbath inadvertently, transferred it another two cubits in conscious violation of the Sabbath laws and then transferred it two cubits inadvertently, he is liable if he transferred it by throwing it. The rationale is not that his gaining awareness after half the measure is not significant, but rather that, after throwing the article, he is unable to bring it back. Therefore the awareness he gained in the interim is of no avail. If he transferred the article by passing it, he is exempt, because gaining awareness after half the required measure has been completed is significant.

ח

אָכַל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת וְנוֹדַע לוֹ וְחָזַר וְשָׁכַח וְאָכַל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת אַחֵר בְּהֶעְלֵם שֵׁנִי פָּטוּר. שֶׁהֲרֵי נוֹדַע לוֹ בֵּינְתַיִם וְיֵשׁ יְדִיעָה לַחֲצִי שִׁעוּר. וְכֵן אִם כָּתַב אוֹת אַחַת [בְּשַׁבָּת] בִּשְׁגָגָה וְנוֹדַע לוֹ וְחָזַר וְשָׁכַח וְכָתַב אוֹת שְׁנִיָּה סְמוּכָה לָהּ בְּהֶעְלֵם שֵׁנִי פָּטוּר מִקָּרְבַּן חַטָּאת. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְכֵן אִם הוֹצִיא שְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת בְּשׁוֹגֵג וּשְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת בְּמֵזִיד וּשְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת בְּשׁוֹגֵג. אִם בִּזְרִיקָה חַיָּב. לֹא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין יְדִיעָה לַחֲצִי שִׁעוּר אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין בְּיָדוֹ לְהַחְזִירָהּ. לְפִיכָךְ לֹא הוֹעִילָה לוֹ הַיְדִיעָה שֶׁבֵּינְתַיִם. וְאִם בְּהַעֲבָרָה פָּטוּר שֶׁיֵּשׁ יְדִיעָה לַחֲצִי שִׁעוּר כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:

9

The following rules apply when a person ate an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat and then a second olive-sized portion of forbidden fat in one lapse of awareness. If he became aware of the first transgression and then became aware of the second, he must bring two sin-offerings, because the difference in his becoming aware of the transgressions creates a distinction even though he did not set a side a sacrificial animal yet. If, however, he became aware of both of them at the same time, he should bring only one sin-offering. Similarly, it appears to me that the law is the same with regard to forbidden sexual relations.

ט

הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת חֵלֶב וּכְזַיִת חֵלֶב בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת וְנוֹדַע לוֹ עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן וְחָזַר וְנוֹדַע לוֹ עַל הַשֵּׁנִי מֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת שֶׁהַיְדִיעוֹת מְחַלְּקוֹת וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא הִפְרִישׁ הַקָּרְבָּן. אֲבָל אִם נוֹדַע לוֹ עַל שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאַחַת מֵבִיא חַטָּאת אַחַת. וְכֵן יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁהוּא הַדִּין בִּבְעִילוֹת:

10

If one ate an olive-sized portion and a half of forbidden fat in a single lapse of awareness, then became aware that he partook of the olive-sized portion and then, partook of another half of an olive-sized portion while he is unaware of partaking of the other half, he is only liable for one sin-offering. The rationale is that the second half of an olive-sized portion is not combined with the first half, even though it was eaten during its lapse of awareness, because he had become aware of part of the transgression performed in the initial lapse of awareness.

י

אָכַל כְּזַיִת וּמֶחֱצָה בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת וְנוֹדַע לוֹ עַל כְּזַיִת וְחָזַר וְאָכַל חֲצִי זַיִת בְּהֵעָלְמוֹ שֶׁל שֵׁנִי. אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא חַטָּאת אַחַת. שֶׁאֵין חֲצִי זַיִת הָאַחֲרוֹן מִצְטָרֵף לָרִאשׁוֹן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בְּהֵעָלְמוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי נוֹדַע לוֹ עַל מִקְצָת הַעֲלָמָה רִאשׁוֹנָה:

11

A person partook of two olive-sized portions of forbidden fat and then became aware of eating one of them. He then partook of another olive-sized portion while he was unaware of the second transgression and then brought a sin-offering to atone for the first transgression. The first and the second transgressions are atoned for by this sacrifice, but not the third. Instead, when he becomes aware of it, he should bring another sin-offering.

If he brought a sin-offering for the third transgression, it secures atonement for the second and the third, because they both were committed during a single lapse of awareness, but atonement for the first is not secured by this sacrifice.

If he brought a sin-offering for the middle transgression, atonement is secured for all three. The rationale is that both the first and the third were performed during the same lapse of awareness that involved the second. Hence when he becomes aware of the first and the third transgressions, he does not have to bring an additional sin-offering.

יא

אָכַל שְׁנֵי זֵיתֵי חֵלֶב בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת וְנוֹדַע לוֹ עַל אַחַת מֵהֶן וְחָזַר וְאָכַל כְּזַיִת אַחֵר בְּהֵעָלְמוֹ שֶׁל שֵׁנִי וְהֵבִיא חַטָּאת עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן. רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי מִתְכַּפְּרִין אֲבָל שְׁלִישִׁי לֹא נִתְכַּפֵּר. אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁיִּוָּדַע לוֹ עָלָיו יָבִיא חַטָּאת אַחֶרֶת. הֵבִיא חַטָּאת עַל הַשְּׁלִישִׁי. שְׁלִישִׁי וְשֵׁנִי מִתְכַּפְּרִין שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת. וְרִאשׁוֹן לֹא נִתְכַּפֵּר בְּחַטָּאת זוֹ. הֵבִיא חַטָּאת עַל הָאֶמְצָעִי. שְׁלָשְׁתָּן מִתְכַּפְּרִין. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָרִאשׁוֹן וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי בְּהֵעָלְמוֹ שֶׁל אֶמְצָעִי. וּכְשֶׁיִּוָּדַע לּוֹ עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן וְעַל הַשְּׁלִישִׁי אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא חַטָּאת אַחֶרֶת:

12

A person ate one of two pieces of fat, one, kosher and one, forbidden and he was unsure whether he had eaten the permitted fat or the forbidden fat and then he ate another piece in a similar mixture and again he was unsure whether he had eaten the permitted fat or the forbidden fat. If, afterwards, he gained definitive knowledge that he ate forbidden fat on both occasions, he is only liable for one sin-offering. Although the lack of certainty concerning whether or not he transgressed is sufficient to create a distinction with regard to a tentative guilt-offering, it is not considered as gaining awareness to require a distinction between the sin-offerings brought for atonement.

יב

מִי שֶׁאָכַל חֲתִיכָה מִשְּׁתֵי חֲתִיכוֹת וְנִסְתַּפֵּק לוֹ אִם אָכַל חֵלֶב אוֹ שֻׁמָּן וְאָכַל חֲתִיכָה אַחֶרֶת מִשְּׁתֵי חֲתִיכוֹת וְנִסְתַּפֵּק לוֹ אִם אָכַל חֵלֶב אוֹ שֻׁמָּן וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹדַע לוֹ בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁחֵלֶב אָכַל בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה וּבַשְּׁנִיָּה. אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא חַטָּאת אַחַת. שֶׁיְּדִיעַת סָפֵק שֶׁהָיְתָה לוֹ בֵּינְתַיִם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּחַלֶּקֶת לַאֲשָׁמוֹת אֵינָהּ מְחַלֶּקֶת לְחַטָּאוֹת: