Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 5, 2019 | ื”ืณ ื‘ืืœื•ืœ ืชืฉืขืดื˜

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

Keritot 15

The gemara deals with various cases in an attempt to discern what exactly causes one to be obligated separate sacrifices – is it different bodies, different names, different acts?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ืฉื—ื˜ื” ื•ืืช ื‘ืช ื‘ืชื” ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ืฉื—ื˜ ืืช ื‘ืชื” ืกื•ืคื’ ืืช ื”ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ืื•ืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืกื•ืคื’ ืฉืžื•ื ื™ื

If one slaughtered an animal and its daughterโ€™s daughter and afterward slaughtered the original animalโ€™s daughter, he incurs the forty lashes for transgressing the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its offspring on a single day (see Leviticus 22:28). Sumakhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: He incurs eighty lashes for slaughtering the third animal, as its mother and its daughter had already been slaughtered on that day. This indicates that Sumakhos also maintains that when a person commits a single act and thereby commits two transgressions that are derived from a single verse, he is liable to receive punishment for both violations.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื“ืœืžื ืœื ื”ื™ื ืขื“ ื›ืืŸ ืœื ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื ื•ืจื™ ื”ื›ื ืืœื ืžืฉื•ื ืฉืžื•ืช ืžื•ื—ืœืงื™ืŸ ื“ืžื™ืงืจื™ื ื—ืžื•ืชื• ื•ืžื™ืงืจื™ื ืื ื—ืžื•ืชื• ื•ืžื™ืงืจื™ื ืื ื—ืžื™ื•

Rava said: Perhaps it is not so, as Rabbi Yoแธฅanan ben Nuri would not agree with the ruling of Sumakhos. It is possible that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan ben Nuri says that one is liable to bring multiple sin offerings only here, in the case of one who engaged in intercourse with his mother-in-law, only due to the differentiated names of the prohibitions, as she is called his mother-in-law, and she is called his mother-in-lawโ€™s mother, and she is called his father-in-lawโ€™s mother, and the Torah prohibits each of these relationships separately.

ืื‘ืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ืื•ืชื• ื•ืืช ื‘ื ื• ื“ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ืื•ืชื• ื•ืืช ื‘ื ื• ืžื™ืงืจื™ื™ืŸ ื“ืื™ืŸ ืฉืžื•ืช ืžื•ื—ืœืงื™ืŸ ืœื

But with regard to the case of slaughtering a mother and its offspring in a single day, where all of the permutations are called: A mother and its offspring, as there are no differentiated names given in the Torah for slaughtering a mother animal and then its offspring or for slaughtering the offspring and subsequently its mother, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan ben Nuri might maintain that one is not liable to receive multiple sets of lashes.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื“ืœืžื ืขื“ ื›ืืŸ ืœื ืงืืžืจ ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ืืœื ื’ื‘ื™ ืื•ืชื• ื•ืืช ื‘ื ื• ื“ื’ื•ืคื™ืŸ ืžื•ื—ืœืงื™ืŸ

By contrast, Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said: Perhaps Sumakhos says that one is liable to receive two sets of lashes only with regard to the case of slaughtering a mother and its offspring on the same day, as there are differentiated bodies. Although he violated the same prohibition twice, he did so by slaughtering three different animals.

ืื‘ืœ ื”ื›ื ื“ืื™ืŸ ื’ื•ืคื™ืŸ ืžื•ื—ืœืงื™ืŸ ืื™ืžื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืฉืืจื” ื”ื ื” ื–ืžื” ื”ื™ื ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืขืฉืืŸ ืœื›ื•ืœืŸ ื–ืžื” ืื—ืช

But here, with regard to a mother-in-law, where there are not several differentiated bodies, as the man engaged in intercourse with only one woman, one might say that Sumakhos holds in accordance with the statement that Rabbi Abbahu says in the name of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, as Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: The verse that introduces the prohibitions against engaging in intercourse with oneโ€™s mother-in-law, oneโ€™s mother-in-lawโ€™s mother, and oneโ€™s father-in-lawโ€™s mother concludes with the phrase: โ€œThey are near kinswomen; it is lewdnessโ€ (Leviticus 18:17). This teaches that although these are different relationships, the verse rendered them all one single prohibition of lewdness, for which only a single sin offering is brought.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืฉืืœืชื™ ืืช ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื•ืืช ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืื™ื˜ืœื™ืก ืฉืœ ืขื™ืžืื•ื ืฉื”ืœื›ื• ืœื™ืงื— ื‘ื”ืžื” ืœืžืฉืชื” ื‘ื ื• ืฉืœ ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื”ื‘ื ืขืœ ืื—ื•ืชื• ื•ืขืœ ืื—ื•ืช ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืขืœ ืื—ื•ืช ืืžื• ืžื”ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืื—ืช ืขืœ ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช

MISHNA: Rabbi Akiva said: I asked Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua in the meat market [itlis] in Emmaus, where they went to purchase an animal for the wedding feast of the son of Rabban Gamliel: In the case of one who unwittingly engages in intercourse with his sister, and the sister of his father, and the sister of his mother, during one lapse of awareness, what is the halakha? Is he liable to bring one sin offering for all three prohibitions, or is he liable to bring a separate sin offering for each and every one of the prohibitions?

ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืœื ืฉืžืขื ื• ืื‘ืœ ืฉืžืขื ื• ื”ื‘ื ืขืœ ื—ืžืฉ ื ืฉื™ื• ื ื“ื•ืช ื‘ื”ืขืœื ืื—ืช ืฉื”ื•ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ื•ืจื•ืื” ืื ื™ ืฉื”ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ

They said to Rabbi Akiva: We did not hear a ruling from our teachers about that case, but we heard the following ruling: One who engages in intercourse with each of his five wives while they are menstruating, during one lapse of awareness, we heard that he is liable to bring a separate sin offering for having engaged in intercourse with each and every one of them. And it appears to me that these matters can be derived from an a fortiori inference: If he is liable to bring separate sin offerings for having engaged in intercourse with five menstruating women, who are forbidden by one prohibition, he should certainly be liable to bring separate sin offerings for having engaged in intercourse with his sister, the sister of his father, and the sister of his mother, who are forbidden by three separate prohibitions.

ื’ืžืณ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื›ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืžืื™ ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื”ืจื™ ืฉืžื•ืช ืžื•ื—ืœืงื™ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ื’ื•ืคื™ืŸ ืžื•ื—ืœืงื™ืŸ

GEMARA: The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to Rabbi Akivaโ€™s question: What are the circumstances about which Rabbi Akiva inquired? If we say that the circumstances are precisely as the mishna teaches them, that one unwittingly engaged in intercourse with his sister, and the sister of his father, and the sister of his mother, then for what purpose did Rabbi Akiva raise this dilemma before Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua? Arenโ€™t they differentiated names of prohibitions and arenโ€™t they also differentiated bodies? Since the man engaged in intercourse with three women, who are forbidden by three distinct prohibitions, it is obvious that he is obligated to bring three separate sin offerings.

ืืœื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ื”ื‘ื ืขืœ ืื—ื•ืช ืื‘ื™ื• ืฉื”ื™ื ืื—ื•ืช ืืžื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืื—ืช ืขืœ ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ืžื”ื• ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ืฉืžื•ืช ืžื•ื—ืœืงื™ืŸ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื”ืจื™ ืื™ืŸ ื’ื•ืคื™ืŸ ืžื•ื—ืœืงื™ืŸ

Rather, it must be that this is what the mishna is teaching: Rabbi Akiva asked: In the case of one who unwittingly engages in intercourse with his sister who is also the sister of his father and who is also the sister of his mother, is he liable to bring only one sin offering for violating all of those prohibitions, or is he liable to bring a separate sin offering for each and every one? What is the halakha? Do we say that they are differentiated names of prohibitions, and since he violated distinct prohibitions, he is liable to bring separate sin offerings? Or perhaps we say: It is not a case of differentiated bodies; since he engaged in intercourse with only one woman, he is liable to bring only a single sin offering.

ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืœื ืฉืžืขื ื• ืื‘ืœ ืฉืžืขื ื• ื”ื‘ื ืขืœ ื—ืžืฉ ื ืฉื™ื• ื ื“ื•ืช ื‘ื‘ืช ืื—ืช ืฉื”ื•ื ืฉื ืื—ื“ ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ืžืฉื•ื ื ื“ื”

And in response, they said to him: We did not hear a ruling from our teachers about that case, but we heard the following ruling: With regard to one who engages in intercourse with each of his five wives while they are menstruating, at the same time, i.e., during one lapse of awareness, which is five instances of violating one category of prohibition, we heard that he is liable to bring a separate sin offering for having engaged in intercourse with each and every one of them, due to the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with a menstruating woman.

ื•ืจืื™ื ื• ืฉื”ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ื•ืžื” ื”ื‘ื ืขืœ ื—ืžืฉ ื ืฉื™ื• ื ื“ื•ืช ื‘ื‘ืช ืื—ืช ืฉื”ื™ื ืฉื ืื—ืช ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ืื—ื•ืชื• ืฉื”ื™ื ืื—ื•ืช ืื‘ื™ื• ืฉื”ื™ื ืื—ื•ืช ืืžื• ืฉื”ืŸ ืฉืœืฉื” ืฉืžื•ืช ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ื”ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช

And it appears to us that these matters can be derived from an a fortiori inference: If one who engages in intercourse with his five wives while they are menstruating, at the same time, which is only one name of a prohibition, is nevertheless liable to bring a sin offering for each and every one of them, then in the case of one who engages in intercourse with his sister who is also the sister of his father and the sister of his mother, which are three separate prohibition names, is it not logical that he should be liable for each and every one of them?

ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืคืจืš ืžื” ืœื—ืžืฉ ื ื“ื•ืช ืฉื›ืŸ ื’ื•ืคื™ืŸ ืžื•ื—ืœืงื™ืŸ

The Gemara raises an objection: This line of reasoning can be refuted, as follows: What is notable about the case of five menstruating women that would render one liable to bring a separate sin offering for having intercourse with each one of them? It is notable in that they are differentiated bodies, which is not the case with regard to oneโ€™s sister who is also the sister of his father and the sister of his mother, as she is a single person.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืขืจื•ืช ืื—ืชื• ื’ืœื” ืœื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ืื—ื•ืชื• ืฉื”ื™ื ืื—ื•ืช ืื‘ื™ื• ืฉื”ื™ื ืื—ื•ืช ืืžื•

Rather, the reason one is liable to bring three separate sin offerings for engaging in intercourse with his sister who is also the sister of his mother and the sister of his father is that the verse states: โ€œAnd if a man takes his sisterโ€ฆand they shall be cut off [venikhretu] in the sight of the children of their people; he has uncovered his sisterโ€™s nakednessโ€ (Leviticus 20:17). The final clause in this verse serves to render him liable to receive three separate penalties of karet for intentional intercourse, or to bring three separate sin offerings for unwitting intercourse, with his sister who is also the sister of his father and who is the sister of his mother.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ื‘ืจ ืื”ื‘ื” ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ื‘ืจืฉื™ืขื ื‘ืจ ืจืฉื™ืขื ืฉื‘ื ืขืœ ืืžื• ื•ื”ื•ืœื™ื“ ืฉืชื™ ื‘ื ื•ืช ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื‘ื ืขืœ ืื—ืช ืžื”ืŸ ื•ื”ื•ืœื™ื“ ื‘ืŸ ื•ื‘ื ื‘ื ื• ืขืœ ืื—ื•ืช ืืžื• ืฉื”ื™ื ืื—ื•ืชื• ืฉื”ื™ื ืื—ื•ืช ืื‘ื™ื• ื“ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืจืฉื™ืขื ื‘ืจ ืจืฉื™ืขื

The Gemara explains how there could be a case where oneโ€™s sister is also the sister of his father and the sister of his mother: Rav Adda bar Ahava says: You find it in the case of a wicked man, the son of a wicked man. The case applies if a man engaged in intercourse with his mother and fathered two daughters, and then engaged in intercourse with one of those daughters and fathered a son, and his son engaged in intercourse with his motherโ€™s sister who is also his own sister, because they share a father, and who is also his fatherโ€™s sister. This individual is a wicked man, the son of a wicked man, as both he and his father engaged in incestuous relationships.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ื ืขืœื™ื” ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื‘ื ืขืœื™ื” ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื‘ื ืขืœื™ื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืœื ืื—ืช

ยง The Sages taught in a baraita: If one unwittingly engages in intercourse with a woman who is forbidden to him under the penalty of excision from the World-to-Come [karet], and then again engages in intercourse with her, and then yet again engages in intercourse with her, all during one lapse of awareness, he is liable to bring a separate sin offering for each and every one of the acts of intercourse with her. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. But the Rabbis say: He is liable to bring only one sin offering.

ื•ืžื•ื“ื™ื ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ื‘ื ืขืœ ื—ืžืฉ ื ืฉื™ื• ื ื“ื•ืช ื‘ื‘ืช ืื—ืช ืฉื”ื•ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื”ื•ื ื’ืจื ืœื”ืŸ

And the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Eliezer with regard to one who engages in intercourse with his five wives while they are menstruating, where the prohibition was violated unwittingly by both the man and the woman, at the same time, i.e., during one lapse of awareness, that he is liable for each and every one of them, since he caused each of them to be liable to bring a sin offering.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื”ื•ื ื’ืจื ืœื”ืŸ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื”ื•ื ื‘ื”ืขืœื ืื—ืช ื•ื”ื™ื ื‘ื—ืžืฉ ื”ืขืœืžื•ืช ื”ื•ื ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืœื ืื—ืช ื•ื”ื™ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ืช ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช

Rava said to Rav Naแธฅman: Do we really say that since he caused each of them to be liable to bring a sin offering, he himself is liable to bring five separate sin offerings? But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: If one unwittingly engages in intercourse five times with a woman who is forbidden to him, and he does so during one lapse of awareness, without realizing over the course of that time period that the act is forbidden, but she does so during five lapses of awareness, as she repeatedly became aware of the prohibition and then forgot it before the next transgression, he is liable to bring only one sin offering, but she is liable to bring a separate sin offering for each and every one of the five transgressions? In this case, although he caused her to bring several sin offerings, he himself brings only one sin offering.

ืืœื ืื™ืžื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื’ื•ืคื™ืŸ ืžื•ื—ืœืงื™ืŸ

Rather, one must say that this is the reason he brings five sin offerings for engaging in intercourse with his five wives while they were each menstruating, during one lapse of awareness: It is because they are differentiated bodies.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ืงืฆืจ ื•ืงืฆืจ ืžื” ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ

The Gemara discusses the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer that one who repeatedly engages in intercourse with a woman who is forbidden to him is liable to bring a separate sin offering for each act of intercourse, even if this all occurred in a single lapse of awareness. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one reaped a fig-bulk of grain on Shabbat, which is the measure for which one is liable to bring a sin offering, and then reaped another fig-bulk, in a single lapse of awareness, what would Rabbi Eliezer say?

ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื”ืชื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื”ื•ื ื“ืขื‘ื“ ืชืจืชื™ืŸ ื•ืืžื˜ื•ืœ ืœื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ื•ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื“ืขื‘ื“ ืชืจืชื™ืŸ

The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: Is the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer there, with regard to forbidden relations, that the sinner performed two separate prohibited acts, and therefore Rabbi Eliezer says he is liable to bring a separate sin offering for each and every one of the acts? If so, here too, where he performed two separate acts of reaping, he is liable to bring a separate sin offering for each act.

ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื˜ืขืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื”ืชื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื™ ืืคืฉืจ ืœื• ืœืขืจื‘ืŸ ืœื‘ื™ืื•ืช ื–ื• ื‘ื–ื• ืืžื˜ื•ืœ ืœื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ืื‘ืœ ืงืฆืจ ื›ื’ืจื•ื’ืจืช ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ืงืฆืจ ื›ื’ืจื•ื’ืจืช ื‘ื”ืขืœื ืื—ืช ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืืคืฉืจ ืœื• ืœืขืจื‘ ืฉืชื™ ื’ืจื•ื’ืจื•ืช ื‘ื‘ืช ืื—ืช ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืœื ืื—ืช ืžืื™

Or, perhaps the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer there, in the case of forbidden relations, is that it is impossible for the sinner to combine the acts of intercourse with one another, and therefore Rabbi Eliezer says that he is liable to bring a separate sin offering for each and every one of the acts of intercourse. But if one reaped a fig-bulk of grain, and then reaped another fig-bulk, in a single lapse of awareness, since it is possible for him to combine the two fig-bulks of grain together and reap them at the same time, he would be liable to bring only one sin offering. What is the correct explanation for Rabbi Eliezerโ€™s ruling?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื”ืชื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืขื‘ื“ ืชืจืชื™ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื ืขื‘ื“ ืชืจืชื™ ื•ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืืžืจ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื”ืชื ื“ืื™ ืืคืฉืจ ืœื• ืœืขืจื‘ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ืืคืฉืจ ืœื• ืœืขืจื‘ืŸ ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืœื ืื—ืช

Rabba said: The reason for the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer there, in the case of forbidden relations, is that the sinner performed two separate prohibited acts; and here too, he has performed two separate acts of reaping and is liable to bring two sin offerings. And Rav Yosef said: The reason for the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer there, in the case of forbidden relations, is that it is impossible for him to combine the two transgressions into a single act; but if it is possible for him to combine them, e.g., by reaping two fig-bulks of grain, he is liable to bring only one sin offering.

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœืจื‘ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื•ืœื“ื™ ืžืœืื›ื•ืช ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืื‘ื•ืช ืžืœืื›ื•ืช

Abaye raised an objection to the opinion of Rabba from a baraita: Each type of labor prohibited on Shabbat comprises acts that are primary categories of that labor and acts that are subcategories of that labor, both prohibited by Torah law. Rabbi Eliezer deems one liable to bring separate sin offerings for the performance of subcategories of prohibited labor on Shabbat in a situation where he also performed the corresponding primary categories of prohibited labor during the same lapse of awareness. For example, if one planted grain on Shabbat and then watered the field, which is a subcategory of the prohibited labor of planting, he is liable to bring two sin offerings.

ื”ื ืื‘ ื•ืื‘ ื‘ื‘ืช ืื—ืช ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืงืขื‘ื“ ืชืจืชื™ ืืžืื™ ืคื˜ื•ืจ

It may be inferred from this statement that: But if one performed a primary category of labor and then performed the same primary category at the same time, i.e., during the same lapse of awareness, he is exempt from bringing a second sin offering. But if you say that the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer in the case of one who engages in repeated acts of intercourse with a woman forbidden to him is because the sinner performed two separate prohibited acts, then why is one exempt from bringing a second sin offering for repeatedly performing a primary category of prohibited labor on Shabbat, when he too has performed distinct prohibited acts?

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื ื ื•ืจื‘ ื ื—ื•ืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื–ื›ืจื™ื” ืชืจื’ื™ืžื ื ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ

Mar, son of the Sages, said: Rav Naแธฅumi bar Zekharya and I interpreted the baraita as follows: What are we dealing with here, in the case where one is liable to bring two sin offerings for performing a primary category of prohibited labor and its subcategory?

ื‘ื“ืœื™ืช ื”ืžื•ื“ืœื™ืช ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ืชืื™ื ื” ื•ืงืฆืฆืŸ ื‘ื‘ืช ืื—ืช ืžืฉื•ื ื”ื›ื™ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืฉืžื•ืช ืžื•ื—ืœืงื™ืŸ ื•ื’ื•ืคื™ืŸ ืžื•ื—ืœืงื™ืŸ

It is a case of a climbing grapevine that is trellised over a fig tree, and he cut them both, the grapevine and the figs, at the same time, during one lapse of awareness. Detaching the figs is one of the primary categories of the prohibited labor of harvesting, while pruning the vine in order to use it as fuel for a fire is a subcategory of harvesting. Due to that reason Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring two sin offerings, since it is a case of differentiated names of prohibitions, as he violated both the primary category of the labor and a subcategory, and it is also a case of differentiated physical entities, as he detached figs and part of a grapevine.

ื“ื›ื•ื•ืชื” ืงืฆืจ ื•ืงืฆืจ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ื“ืžื™ืคื˜ืจ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉืงืฆืจ ืฉืชื™ ื’ืจื•ื’ืจื•ืช ื‘ื‘ืช ืื—ืช ืื‘ืœ ืงืฆืจ ื›ื’ืจื•ื’ืจืช ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ืงืฆืจ ื›ื’ืจื•ื’ืจืช ื—ื™ื™ื‘

In the corresponding situation, where one reaped a fig-bulk of grain on Shabbat and then reaped another fig-bulk in a single lapse of awareness, how can you find circumstances in which he is exempt from bringing a second sin offering? You find this in a situation where he reaped two fig-bulks simultaneously, in which case he performed only a single prohibited act. But if one reaped a fig-bulk of grain and then reaped another fig-bulk, he is liable to bring two sin offerings, as he performed two separate acts.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื•ืขื•ื“ ืฉืืœ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื‘ืจ ื”ืžื“ื•ืœื“ืœืช ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžื”ื• ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืœื ืฉืžืขื ื• ืื‘ืœ ืฉืžืขื ื• ืื‘ืจ ื”ืžื“ื•ืœื“ืœืช ื‘ืื“ื ืฉื”ื•ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื•ื›ืš ื”ื™ื•

MISHNA: And furthermore, Rabbi Akiva asked Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua in the meat market of Emmaus: What is the status of a dangling limb of an animal? Does it impart ritual impurity like a severed limb? They said to Rabbi Akiva: We have not heard a ruling from our teachers in that specific case, but we have heard with regard to a dangling limb of a person that it is ritually pure. And in this manner would

ืžื•ื›ื™ ืฉื—ื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ื”ื•ืœืš ืœื• ืขืจื‘ ืคืกื— ืืฆืœ ื”ืจื•ืคื ื•ื—ื•ืชื›ื• ืขื“ ืฉืžื ื™ื— ื‘ื• ื›ืฉืขืจื” ื•ืชื•ื—ื‘ื• ื‘ืกื™ืจื ื•ื ืžืฉืš ืžืžื ื•

the people afflicted with boils, whose limbs were dangling due to their affliction, act in Jerusalem: Each of them would go on Passover eve to the doctor, who would cut the affected limb almost completely until he would leave it connected by a hairbreadth of flesh, so that neither the doctor nor the afflicted would be rendered ritually impure by a severed limb. Then, the doctor would impale the limb on a thorn attached to the floor or the wall, and the afflicted would pull away from the thorn, thereby completely severing the limb.

ื•ื”ืœื” ืขื•ืฉื” ืคืกื—ื• ื•ื”ืจื•ืคื ืขื•ืฉื” ืคืกื—ื• ื•ืจื•ืื” ืื ื™ ืฉื”ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ

And that person afflicted with boils would perform the rite of his Paschal offering, and the doctor would perform the rite of his Paschal offering, as neither had come into contact with the limb once it was severed. In any case, as long as it was dangling, the limb did not impart impurity. And I consider that these matters can be derived from an a fortiori inference. If a personโ€™s limb, the impurity of which when amputated is severe, does not impart impurity when it is dangling, it is all the more so logical that an animalโ€™s limb, the impurity of which when amputated is lenient, does not impart impurity when it is dangling.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ืŸ ื”ืชื ื”ืžื•ื—ืง ืืช ื”ื›ืจื™ืฉื” ื•ื”ืกื•ื—ื˜ ื‘ืฉืขืจื• ื•ื‘ื›ืกื•ืชื• ืžืฉืงื” ืฉื‘ืชื•ื›ื• ืื™ื ื ื‘ื›ื™ ื™ื•ืชืŸ ื•ื”ื™ื•ืฆืื™ืŸ ืžืžื ื• ื”ืจื™ ื”ืŸ ื‘ื›ื™ ื™ื•ืชืŸ

GEMARA: We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Makhshirin 1:5): With regard to one who forcefully wipes rainwater from the surface of a leek or squeezes out water absorbed in his hair or in his clothing, the liquid that remains within it is not included under the rubric of the verse: โ€œIf water be put upon the seed, and some of their carcass fall on it, it is impure for youโ€ (Leviticus 11:38). Therefore, it cannot render food susceptible to contracting ritual impurity. But the liquid that is released from it, in this process of wiping or squeezing, is included under the rubric of the verse: โ€œIf water be put,โ€ and therefore it renders any food it touches susceptible to ritual impurity, as the person has accorded it significance.

ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื•ื›ืจื™ืฉื” ืขืฆืžื” ื”ื•ื›ืฉืจื” ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื‘ืฉืขืช ืคืจื™ืฉื” ืžืžื ื• ื”ื•ื›ืฉืจื”

Shmuel says: And the leek itself is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity. What is the reason for this? The reason is that at the moment of the waterโ€™s separation from the leek, the leek is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by the very water which is released from it.

ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ืขืจื‘ ืคืกื— ื”ื•ืœืš ืœื• ืืฆืœ ื›ื•ืณ ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืขืช ืคืจื™ืฉืชืŸ ื”ื•ื›ืฉืจ ื”ื ืื™ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื”ื•ื ืื‘ืจ ื”ืžื“ื•ืœื“ืœ ื‘ืฉืขืช ืคืจื™ืฉืชื• ืžืื“ื ื ื˜ืžื™ื™ื” ืœืื“ื

The Gemara raises an objection: But we learned in the mishna: A person afflicted with boils would go on Passover eve to the doctor to sever his dangling limb, and the doctor and the afflicted individual would remain pure. And if you say that at the moment of the waterโ€™s separation from the leek, the leek is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity, there is also a parallel situation in that case of the dangling limb; at the moment of its separation from the person with boils it should render that person ritually impure.

ื›ื“ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื‘ื ื™ืชื–ื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ืœ ื›ื—ืŸ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื‘ื ื™ืชื–ื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ืœ ื›ื—ืŸ

The Gemara answers: The explanation is as Rav Yosef says in a different context, that it is referring to a situation where the liquids are removed with great force. Here too, in the case of the dangling limb, it can be explained as referring to a situation where the limbs are removed with great force. Since the limb is pulled off in one powerful motion it is not considered to have touched the person after it was detached. By contrast, the water wiped off the leek is not discharged all at once, and therefore as the drops of water separate from the leek they render it susceptible to ritual impurity.

ื•ื”ื™ื›ื ืื™ืชืžืจ ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืื”ื ื–ื‘ ื•ื˜ืžื ืžืช ืฉื”ื™ื• ืžื”ืœื›ื™ื ื•ื™ืจื“ื• ืขืœื™ื”ื ื’ืฉืžื™ื ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืกื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื•ืจื“ื™ืŸ ืžืฆื“ ื”ืขืœื™ื•ืŸ ืœืฆื“ ื”ืชื—ืชื•ืŸ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื—ืฉื‘ื™ืŸ ืืœื ืฉื™ืฆืื• ืžื›ื•ืœืŸ

And where, i.e., in connection to which case, was this explanation of Rav Yosef stated? It was stated with regard to this baraita: If a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav] and one who is ritually impure through contact with a corpse were walking along and rain fell on them, although they squeeze the garments of one another in order to remove the water, those liquids that flow down from the upper section of a garment to the lower section remain pure. They do not become impure from contact with the impure person or his garments, as these liquids are not considered liquids that can become ritually impure unless they have emerged from those garments entirely.

ื™ืฆืื• ืžื›ื•ืœืŸ ื”ืจื™ ืžื›ืฉื™ืจื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื ื—ืฉื‘ื™ืŸ ืืœื ืœืื—ืจ ืฉื™ืฆืื• ืžื’ื•ืคื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื‘ื ื™ืชื–ื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ืœ ื›ื—ืŸ

Once the liquids have emerged from those garments entirely they render food susceptible to ritual impurity, as the people have accorded it significance by squeezing it out of their garments. But the water itself is still not impure, as it is considered liquid that is susceptible to ritual impurity only after it has completely emerged from the body of those garments. Rav Yosef said: The reason the water does not become impure when it separates from the garment is that the baraita is referring to a case where it is removed with great force.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื•ืขื•ื“ ืฉืืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ื—ืžืฉื” ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื‘ื”ืขืœื ืื—ืช ืžื”ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ืื• ืื—ืช ืขืœ ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืœื ืฉืžืขื ื•

MISHNA: And furthermore, Rabbi Akiva asked Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua: With regard to one who unwittingly slaughters five offerings outside the Temple during one lapse of awareness, what is the halakha? Is he liable to bring five sin offerings, one for each and every act of slaughter, or is he liable to bring one sin offering for all the acts of slaughter? They said to Rabbi Akiva: We have not heard a ruling from our teachers in that specific case.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืฉืžืขืชื™ ื‘ืื•ื›ืœ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืื—ื“ ืžื—ืžืฉื” ืชืžื—ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืขืœื ืื—ืช ืฉื”ื•ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ืžืฉื•ื ืžืขื™ืœื” ื•ืจื•ืื” ืื ื™ ืฉื”ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ

Rabbi Yehoshua said: I have heard with regard to one who eats meat from one offering from five different pots in which they were prepared, during one lapse of awareness, that he is liable to bring five guilt offerings, which are for the meat prepared in each and every pot, due to misuse of consecrated property. And I consider that these matters can be derived from an a fortiori inference: If one is liable to bring five guilt offerings for one offering prepared in five pots, all the more so is he liable to bring five sin offerings for slaughtering five offerings outside the Temple.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืœื ื›ืš ืฉืืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืืœื ื‘ืื•ื›ืœ ื ื•ืชืจ ืžื—ืžืฉื” ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื‘ื”ืขืœื ืื—ืช ืžื”ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืื—ืช ืขืœ ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืœื ืฉืžืขื ื•

Rabbi Shimon said: It was not that question that Rabbi Akiva asked them. Rather, it was with regard to one who eats notar from five offerings during one lapse of awareness. What is the halakha? Is he liable to bring one sin offering for all the offerings from which he ate notar, or is he liable to bring five sin offerings, one for each and every one of the offerings from which he ate notar? They said to Rabbi Akiva: We have not heard a ruling from our teachers in that specific case.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืฉืžืขืชื™ ื‘ืื•ื›ืœ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืื—ื“ ื‘ื—ืžืฉื” ืชืžื—ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืขืœื ืื—ืช ืฉื”ื•ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ืžืฉื•ื ืžืขื™ืœื” ื•ืจื•ืื” ืื ื™ ืฉื”ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ

Rabbi Yehoshua said: I have heard with regard to one who eats meat from one offering that was prepared in five different pots, during one lapse of awareness, that he is liable to bring separate guilt offerings for the meat prepared in each and every pot, due to misuse of consecrated property. And I consider that these matters can be derived from an a fortiori inference: If one is liable to bring five guilt offerings for one offering prepared in five pots, all the more so is he liable to bring five sin offerings for eating the notar of five separate offerings.

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื ื”ืœื›ื” ื ืงื‘ืœ ืื ืœื“ื™ืŸ ื™ืฉ ืชืฉื•ื‘ื” ืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ืฉื‘

Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yehoshua: If you are reporting a halakha that you received from your teachers with regard to one who eats notar from five offerings, we will accept it, but if it is based merely on the a fortiori inference from misuse of consecrated property, there is a response that refutes the inference. Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Akiva: Respond.

ืืžืจ ื•ืœื ืื ืืžืจืช ื‘ืžืขื™ืœื” ืฉืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืืช ื”ืžืื›ื™ืœ ื›ืื•ื›ืœ ื•ืืช ื”ืžื”ื ื” ื›ื ื”ื ื”

Rabbi Akiva said: And no; one cannot derive the halakha of notar through an a fortiori inference from misuse of consecrated property: If you said with regard to misuse of consecrated property that one is liable to bring five guilt offerings, perhaps that is because there are additional stringent elements unique to misuse. As, with regard to misuse, the Torah established that the status of one who feeds another person sacrificial meat is like that of one who eats sacrificial meat, and the status of one who gives benefit to another from consecrated property that is not food is like that of one who derives benefit himself, in that each is liable to bring a guilt offering for misuse.

ืฆื™ืจืฃ ืืช ื”ืžืขื™ืœื” ืœื–ืžืŸ ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ืชืืžืจ ื‘ื ื•ืชืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ืื—ืช ืžืืœื•

In addition, the Torah joined the misuse of consecrated property that was performed over an extended period, i.e., if one derived benefit worth half a peruta one day and half a peruta the next, he is liable to bring a guilt offering for misuse. Would you say the same with regard to notar, which has none of these halakhot?

ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ืงืฉื™ื ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ื›ื™ ืงื ืงืฉื™ื ืœื™ื” ืžื” ืจืื™ื” ืœืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืžืื•ื›ืœ ืžื” ืœืื•ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ื ื”ื ื”

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is difficult for Rabbi Shimon with the first version of Rabbi Akivaโ€™s question, that he insists that Rabbi Akiva had asked about one who eats notar from five offerings? The Gemara answers that this is what is difficult for him: If Rabbi Akiva asked about one who unwittingly sins by slaughtering, why is the answer derived from an unwitting sin involving eating? After all, what proof can be cited for a case of one who slaughters from a case of one who eats? What is notable about one who eats? It is notable in that he derives benefit from the act of eating, whereas one who slaughters does not derive physical benefit.

ืืœื ื›ืš ืฉืืœื• ื”ืื•ื›ืœ ื ื•ืชืจ ืžื—ืžืฉื” ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื‘ื”ืขืœื ืื—ืช ืžื”ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ืื• ืื—ืช ืขืœ ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืœื ืฉืžืขื ื•

Rather, he must have asked him this: In the case of one who eats notar from five offerings during one lapse of awareness, what is the halakha? Is he liable to bring a separate sin offering for each and every one of the offerings, or only one sin offering for all of them? They said to Rabbi Akiva: We have not heard a ruling from our teachers in that specific case.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืฉืžืขืชื™ ื‘ืื•ื›ืœ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืื—ื“ ืžื—ืžืฉื” ืชืžื—ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืขืœื ืื—ืช ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ืžืฉื•ื ืžืขื™ืœื” ื•ืจื•ืื” ืื ื™ ืฉื”ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ืžื” ืžื–ื‘ื— ืื—ื“ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื’ื•ืคื™ืŸ ืžื•ื—ืœืงื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ืžืฉื•ื ืชืžื—ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืžื•ื—ืœืงื™ืŸ ื—ืžืฉื” ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื“ื’ื•ืคื™ืŸ ืžื•ื—ืœืงื™ืŸ ืœื ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ

Rabbi Yehoshua said: I have heard with regard to one who eats meat from one offering from five different pots, during one lapse of awareness, that he is liable to bring a separate guilt offering for the meat prepared in each and every pot, due to misuse of consecrated property. And I consider that these matters may be derived from an a fortiori inference: Just as one who eats from one offering prepared in five pots, in which case the different parts of the offering do not come from differentiated physical entities, is liable to bring a separate guilt offering for the food prepared in each and every pot because he ate from differentiated pots, with regard to one who eats notar from five separate offerings, which are differentiated physical entities, is it not all the more so logical that he is liable to bring a separate sin offering for each and every offering?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืœื ื›ืš ืฉืืœื• ืืœื ื‘ืื•ื›ืœ (ืžื–ื‘ื— ืื—ื“) ื ื•ืชืจ ืžื—ืžืฉื” ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื‘ื”ืขืœื ืื—ืช ืžื”ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืื—ืช ืขืœ ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืœื ืฉืžืขื ื•

ยง The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon said: It was not that question that Rabbi Akiva asked them. Rather, it was with regard to one who eats notar from five offerings during one lapse of awareness. What is the halakha? Is he liable to bring one sin offering for all the offerings from which he ate notar, or is he liable to bring five sin offerings, one for each and every one of the offerings from which he ate notar? They said to Rabbi Akiva: We have not heard a ruling from our teachers in that specific case.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืžืขืชื™ ื‘ืื•ื›ืœ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืื—ื“ ื‘ื—ืžืฉื” ืชืžื—ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืฉื”ื•ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ืžืฉื•ื ืžืขื™ืœื” ื•ืจื•ืื” ืื ื™ ืฉื”ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื ื”ืœื›ื” ื ืงื‘ืœ ื›ื•ืณ

Rabbi Yehoshua said: I have heard with regard to one who eats meat from one offering from five different pots in which it was prepared, that he is liable to bring a separate guilt offering for the meat prepared in each and every pot, due to misuse of consecrated property. And I consider that these matters may be derived from an a fortiori inference. Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yehoshua: If you are reporting a halakha that you received from your teachers with regard to one who eats notar from five offerings we will accept it, but if it is based on the a fortiori logical inference from misuse of consecrated property there is a response that refutes the inference.

ืงื™ื‘ืœื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืœื”ื ืชืฉื•ื‘ื” ืžืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื• ืœื ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืชื ื™ื ืื›ืœ ื—ืžืฉ ื—ืชื™ื›ื•ืช ื ื•ืชืจ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืื—ื“ ื‘ื”ืขืœื ืื—ืช ื‘ื—ืžืฉื” ืชืžื—ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืื™ื ื• ืžื‘ื™ื ืืœื ื—ื˜ืืช ืื—ืช ื•ืขืœ ืœื ื”ื•ื“ืข ืฉืœื”ืŸ ืื™ื ื• ืžื‘ื™ื ืืœื ืืฉื ืชืœื•ื™ ืื—ืช

The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Yehoshua accept that refutation from Rabbi Akiva or not? The Gemara answers: Come and hear a proof in this regard, as it is taught in a baraita: If one ate five pieces of notar from one offering during one lapse of awareness, and the pieces were cooked in five different pots, he brings only one sin offering. And in a situation where it is not known to him with certainty whether he unwittingly ate from them, he brings only one provisional guilt offering, which is sacrificed by one who is uncertain whether he committed a sin that renders him liable to bring a sin offering.

ืžื—ืžืฉื” ืชืžื—ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื‘ื—ืžืฉ ื”ืขืœืžื•ืช ืžื‘ื™ื ื—ื˜ืืช ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ื•ืขืœ ืœื ื”ื•ื“ืข ืฉืœื”ืŸ ืžื‘ื™ื ืืฉื ืชืœื•ื™ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ืžื—ืžืฉื” ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื‘ื”ืขืœื ืื—ืช ื—ื™ื™ื‘

By contrast, if one ate notar from a single offering from five different pots during five separate lapses of awareness he brings a sin offering for each and every one, and in a situation where it is not known to him with certainty whether he unwittingly ate from them he brings a provisional guilt offering for each and every one. If he ate notar from five separate offerings during one lapse of awareness he is liable to bring a separate sin offering for each one, as he ate from differentiated physical entities.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืื›ืœ ื—ืžืฉ ื—ืชื™ื›ื•ืช ืžื—ืžืฉื” ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื‘ื”ืขืœื ืื—ืช ืื™ื ื• ืžื‘ื™ื ืืœื ื—ื˜ืืช ืื—ืช ื•ืขืœ ืกืคื™ืงืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืžื‘ื™ื ืืœื ืืฉื ืชืœื•ื™ ืื—ืช ื›ืœืœื• ืฉืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ื›ืœ ืฉื—ืœื•ืงื™ืŸ ื‘ื—ื˜ืื•ืช ื—ืœื•ืงื™ืŸ ื‘ืืฉืžื•ืช

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Even if he ate five pieces of notar from five separate offerings during one lapse of awareness he brings only one sin offering, as he transgressed one prohibition repeatedly during a single lapse of awareness. And if he is uncertain whether he unwittingly ate from them he brings only a single provisional guilt offering. The principle of the matter is that in any situation where oneโ€™s transgressions are differentiated with regard to sin offerings, i.e., when he is liable to bring multiple sin offerings if he knows that he unwittingly transgressed, they are differentiated with regard to provisional guilt offerings if he is unsure whether he unwittingly transgressed.

ืื›ืœ ื—ืžืฉ ื—ืชื™ื›ื•ืช ื‘ื—ืžืฉื” ืชืžื—ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืื—ื“ ืœืคื ื™ ื–ืจื™ืงืช ื“ืžื™ื ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื”ืขืœื ืื—ืช ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ืžืฉื•ื ืžืขื™ืœื”

If one ate five pieces of meat prepared in five separate pots from a single offering before the meat became permitted for consumption through the sprinkling of the blood on the altar, even if this occurred during a single lapse of awareness, he is liable to bring a separate guilt offering for the meat from each and every pot, due to misuse of consecrated property.

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Keritot 15

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Keritot 15

ืฉื—ื˜ื” ื•ืืช ื‘ืช ื‘ืชื” ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ืฉื—ื˜ ืืช ื‘ืชื” ืกื•ืคื’ ืืช ื”ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ืื•ืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืกื•ืคื’ ืฉืžื•ื ื™ื

If one slaughtered an animal and its daughterโ€™s daughter and afterward slaughtered the original animalโ€™s daughter, he incurs the forty lashes for transgressing the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its offspring on a single day (see Leviticus 22:28). Sumakhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: He incurs eighty lashes for slaughtering the third animal, as its mother and its daughter had already been slaughtered on that day. This indicates that Sumakhos also maintains that when a person commits a single act and thereby commits two transgressions that are derived from a single verse, he is liable to receive punishment for both violations.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื“ืœืžื ืœื ื”ื™ื ืขื“ ื›ืืŸ ืœื ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื ื•ืจื™ ื”ื›ื ืืœื ืžืฉื•ื ืฉืžื•ืช ืžื•ื—ืœืงื™ืŸ ื“ืžื™ืงืจื™ื ื—ืžื•ืชื• ื•ืžื™ืงืจื™ื ืื ื—ืžื•ืชื• ื•ืžื™ืงืจื™ื ืื ื—ืžื™ื•

Rava said: Perhaps it is not so, as Rabbi Yoแธฅanan ben Nuri would not agree with the ruling of Sumakhos. It is possible that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan ben Nuri says that one is liable to bring multiple sin offerings only here, in the case of one who engaged in intercourse with his mother-in-law, only due to the differentiated names of the prohibitions, as she is called his mother-in-law, and she is called his mother-in-lawโ€™s mother, and she is called his father-in-lawโ€™s mother, and the Torah prohibits each of these relationships separately.

ืื‘ืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ืื•ืชื• ื•ืืช ื‘ื ื• ื“ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ืื•ืชื• ื•ืืช ื‘ื ื• ืžื™ืงืจื™ื™ืŸ ื“ืื™ืŸ ืฉืžื•ืช ืžื•ื—ืœืงื™ืŸ ืœื

But with regard to the case of slaughtering a mother and its offspring in a single day, where all of the permutations are called: A mother and its offspring, as there are no differentiated names given in the Torah for slaughtering a mother animal and then its offspring or for slaughtering the offspring and subsequently its mother, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan ben Nuri might maintain that one is not liable to receive multiple sets of lashes.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื“ืœืžื ืขื“ ื›ืืŸ ืœื ืงืืžืจ ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ืืœื ื’ื‘ื™ ืื•ืชื• ื•ืืช ื‘ื ื• ื“ื’ื•ืคื™ืŸ ืžื•ื—ืœืงื™ืŸ

By contrast, Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said: Perhaps Sumakhos says that one is liable to receive two sets of lashes only with regard to the case of slaughtering a mother and its offspring on the same day, as there are differentiated bodies. Although he violated the same prohibition twice, he did so by slaughtering three different animals.

ืื‘ืœ ื”ื›ื ื“ืื™ืŸ ื’ื•ืคื™ืŸ ืžื•ื—ืœืงื™ืŸ ืื™ืžื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืฉืืจื” ื”ื ื” ื–ืžื” ื”ื™ื ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืขืฉืืŸ ืœื›ื•ืœืŸ ื–ืžื” ืื—ืช

But here, with regard to a mother-in-law, where there are not several differentiated bodies, as the man engaged in intercourse with only one woman, one might say that Sumakhos holds in accordance with the statement that Rabbi Abbahu says in the name of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, as Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: The verse that introduces the prohibitions against engaging in intercourse with oneโ€™s mother-in-law, oneโ€™s mother-in-lawโ€™s mother, and oneโ€™s father-in-lawโ€™s mother concludes with the phrase: โ€œThey are near kinswomen; it is lewdnessโ€ (Leviticus 18:17). This teaches that although these are different relationships, the verse rendered them all one single prohibition of lewdness, for which only a single sin offering is brought.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืฉืืœืชื™ ืืช ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื•ืืช ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืื™ื˜ืœื™ืก ืฉืœ ืขื™ืžืื•ื ืฉื”ืœื›ื• ืœื™ืงื— ื‘ื”ืžื” ืœืžืฉืชื” ื‘ื ื• ืฉืœ ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื”ื‘ื ืขืœ ืื—ื•ืชื• ื•ืขืœ ืื—ื•ืช ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืขืœ ืื—ื•ืช ืืžื• ืžื”ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืื—ืช ืขืœ ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช

MISHNA: Rabbi Akiva said: I asked Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua in the meat market [itlis] in Emmaus, where they went to purchase an animal for the wedding feast of the son of Rabban Gamliel: In the case of one who unwittingly engages in intercourse with his sister, and the sister of his father, and the sister of his mother, during one lapse of awareness, what is the halakha? Is he liable to bring one sin offering for all three prohibitions, or is he liable to bring a separate sin offering for each and every one of the prohibitions?

ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืœื ืฉืžืขื ื• ืื‘ืœ ืฉืžืขื ื• ื”ื‘ื ืขืœ ื—ืžืฉ ื ืฉื™ื• ื ื“ื•ืช ื‘ื”ืขืœื ืื—ืช ืฉื”ื•ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ื•ืจื•ืื” ืื ื™ ืฉื”ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ

They said to Rabbi Akiva: We did not hear a ruling from our teachers about that case, but we heard the following ruling: One who engages in intercourse with each of his five wives while they are menstruating, during one lapse of awareness, we heard that he is liable to bring a separate sin offering for having engaged in intercourse with each and every one of them. And it appears to me that these matters can be derived from an a fortiori inference: If he is liable to bring separate sin offerings for having engaged in intercourse with five menstruating women, who are forbidden by one prohibition, he should certainly be liable to bring separate sin offerings for having engaged in intercourse with his sister, the sister of his father, and the sister of his mother, who are forbidden by three separate prohibitions.

ื’ืžืณ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื›ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืžืื™ ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื”ืจื™ ืฉืžื•ืช ืžื•ื—ืœืงื™ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ื’ื•ืคื™ืŸ ืžื•ื—ืœืงื™ืŸ

GEMARA: The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to Rabbi Akivaโ€™s question: What are the circumstances about which Rabbi Akiva inquired? If we say that the circumstances are precisely as the mishna teaches them, that one unwittingly engaged in intercourse with his sister, and the sister of his father, and the sister of his mother, then for what purpose did Rabbi Akiva raise this dilemma before Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua? Arenโ€™t they differentiated names of prohibitions and arenโ€™t they also differentiated bodies? Since the man engaged in intercourse with three women, who are forbidden by three distinct prohibitions, it is obvious that he is obligated to bring three separate sin offerings.

ืืœื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ื”ื‘ื ืขืœ ืื—ื•ืช ืื‘ื™ื• ืฉื”ื™ื ืื—ื•ืช ืืžื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืื—ืช ืขืœ ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ืžื”ื• ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ืฉืžื•ืช ืžื•ื—ืœืงื™ืŸ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื”ืจื™ ืื™ืŸ ื’ื•ืคื™ืŸ ืžื•ื—ืœืงื™ืŸ

Rather, it must be that this is what the mishna is teaching: Rabbi Akiva asked: In the case of one who unwittingly engages in intercourse with his sister who is also the sister of his father and who is also the sister of his mother, is he liable to bring only one sin offering for violating all of those prohibitions, or is he liable to bring a separate sin offering for each and every one? What is the halakha? Do we say that they are differentiated names of prohibitions, and since he violated distinct prohibitions, he is liable to bring separate sin offerings? Or perhaps we say: It is not a case of differentiated bodies; since he engaged in intercourse with only one woman, he is liable to bring only a single sin offering.

ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืœื ืฉืžืขื ื• ืื‘ืœ ืฉืžืขื ื• ื”ื‘ื ืขืœ ื—ืžืฉ ื ืฉื™ื• ื ื“ื•ืช ื‘ื‘ืช ืื—ืช ืฉื”ื•ื ืฉื ืื—ื“ ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ืžืฉื•ื ื ื“ื”

And in response, they said to him: We did not hear a ruling from our teachers about that case, but we heard the following ruling: With regard to one who engages in intercourse with each of his five wives while they are menstruating, at the same time, i.e., during one lapse of awareness, which is five instances of violating one category of prohibition, we heard that he is liable to bring a separate sin offering for having engaged in intercourse with each and every one of them, due to the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with a menstruating woman.

ื•ืจืื™ื ื• ืฉื”ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ื•ืžื” ื”ื‘ื ืขืœ ื—ืžืฉ ื ืฉื™ื• ื ื“ื•ืช ื‘ื‘ืช ืื—ืช ืฉื”ื™ื ืฉื ืื—ืช ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ืื—ื•ืชื• ืฉื”ื™ื ืื—ื•ืช ืื‘ื™ื• ืฉื”ื™ื ืื—ื•ืช ืืžื• ืฉื”ืŸ ืฉืœืฉื” ืฉืžื•ืช ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ื”ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช

And it appears to us that these matters can be derived from an a fortiori inference: If one who engages in intercourse with his five wives while they are menstruating, at the same time, which is only one name of a prohibition, is nevertheless liable to bring a sin offering for each and every one of them, then in the case of one who engages in intercourse with his sister who is also the sister of his father and the sister of his mother, which are three separate prohibition names, is it not logical that he should be liable for each and every one of them?

ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืคืจืš ืžื” ืœื—ืžืฉ ื ื“ื•ืช ืฉื›ืŸ ื’ื•ืคื™ืŸ ืžื•ื—ืœืงื™ืŸ

The Gemara raises an objection: This line of reasoning can be refuted, as follows: What is notable about the case of five menstruating women that would render one liable to bring a separate sin offering for having intercourse with each one of them? It is notable in that they are differentiated bodies, which is not the case with regard to oneโ€™s sister who is also the sister of his father and the sister of his mother, as she is a single person.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืขืจื•ืช ืื—ืชื• ื’ืœื” ืœื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ืื—ื•ืชื• ืฉื”ื™ื ืื—ื•ืช ืื‘ื™ื• ืฉื”ื™ื ืื—ื•ืช ืืžื•

Rather, the reason one is liable to bring three separate sin offerings for engaging in intercourse with his sister who is also the sister of his mother and the sister of his father is that the verse states: โ€œAnd if a man takes his sisterโ€ฆand they shall be cut off [venikhretu] in the sight of the children of their people; he has uncovered his sisterโ€™s nakednessโ€ (Leviticus 20:17). The final clause in this verse serves to render him liable to receive three separate penalties of karet for intentional intercourse, or to bring three separate sin offerings for unwitting intercourse, with his sister who is also the sister of his father and who is the sister of his mother.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ื‘ืจ ืื”ื‘ื” ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ื‘ืจืฉื™ืขื ื‘ืจ ืจืฉื™ืขื ืฉื‘ื ืขืœ ืืžื• ื•ื”ื•ืœื™ื“ ืฉืชื™ ื‘ื ื•ืช ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื‘ื ืขืœ ืื—ืช ืžื”ืŸ ื•ื”ื•ืœื™ื“ ื‘ืŸ ื•ื‘ื ื‘ื ื• ืขืœ ืื—ื•ืช ืืžื• ืฉื”ื™ื ืื—ื•ืชื• ืฉื”ื™ื ืื—ื•ืช ืื‘ื™ื• ื“ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืจืฉื™ืขื ื‘ืจ ืจืฉื™ืขื

The Gemara explains how there could be a case where oneโ€™s sister is also the sister of his father and the sister of his mother: Rav Adda bar Ahava says: You find it in the case of a wicked man, the son of a wicked man. The case applies if a man engaged in intercourse with his mother and fathered two daughters, and then engaged in intercourse with one of those daughters and fathered a son, and his son engaged in intercourse with his motherโ€™s sister who is also his own sister, because they share a father, and who is also his fatherโ€™s sister. This individual is a wicked man, the son of a wicked man, as both he and his father engaged in incestuous relationships.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ื ืขืœื™ื” ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื‘ื ืขืœื™ื” ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื‘ื ืขืœื™ื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืœื ืื—ืช

ยง The Sages taught in a baraita: If one unwittingly engages in intercourse with a woman who is forbidden to him under the penalty of excision from the World-to-Come [karet], and then again engages in intercourse with her, and then yet again engages in intercourse with her, all during one lapse of awareness, he is liable to bring a separate sin offering for each and every one of the acts of intercourse with her. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. But the Rabbis say: He is liable to bring only one sin offering.

ื•ืžื•ื“ื™ื ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ื‘ื ืขืœ ื—ืžืฉ ื ืฉื™ื• ื ื“ื•ืช ื‘ื‘ืช ืื—ืช ืฉื”ื•ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื”ื•ื ื’ืจื ืœื”ืŸ

And the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Eliezer with regard to one who engages in intercourse with his five wives while they are menstruating, where the prohibition was violated unwittingly by both the man and the woman, at the same time, i.e., during one lapse of awareness, that he is liable for each and every one of them, since he caused each of them to be liable to bring a sin offering.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื”ื•ื ื’ืจื ืœื”ืŸ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ื”ื•ื ื‘ื”ืขืœื ืื—ืช ื•ื”ื™ื ื‘ื—ืžืฉ ื”ืขืœืžื•ืช ื”ื•ื ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืœื ืื—ืช ื•ื”ื™ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ืช ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช

Rava said to Rav Naแธฅman: Do we really say that since he caused each of them to be liable to bring a sin offering, he himself is liable to bring five separate sin offerings? But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: If one unwittingly engages in intercourse five times with a woman who is forbidden to him, and he does so during one lapse of awareness, without realizing over the course of that time period that the act is forbidden, but she does so during five lapses of awareness, as she repeatedly became aware of the prohibition and then forgot it before the next transgression, he is liable to bring only one sin offering, but she is liable to bring a separate sin offering for each and every one of the five transgressions? In this case, although he caused her to bring several sin offerings, he himself brings only one sin offering.

ืืœื ืื™ืžื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื’ื•ืคื™ืŸ ืžื•ื—ืœืงื™ืŸ

Rather, one must say that this is the reason he brings five sin offerings for engaging in intercourse with his five wives while they were each menstruating, during one lapse of awareness: It is because they are differentiated bodies.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ืงืฆืจ ื•ืงืฆืจ ืžื” ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ

The Gemara discusses the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer that one who repeatedly engages in intercourse with a woman who is forbidden to him is liable to bring a separate sin offering for each act of intercourse, even if this all occurred in a single lapse of awareness. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one reaped a fig-bulk of grain on Shabbat, which is the measure for which one is liable to bring a sin offering, and then reaped another fig-bulk, in a single lapse of awareness, what would Rabbi Eliezer say?

ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื”ืชื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื”ื•ื ื“ืขื‘ื“ ืชืจืชื™ืŸ ื•ืืžื˜ื•ืœ ืœื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ื•ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื“ืขื‘ื“ ืชืจืชื™ืŸ

The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: Is the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer there, with regard to forbidden relations, that the sinner performed two separate prohibited acts, and therefore Rabbi Eliezer says he is liable to bring a separate sin offering for each and every one of the acts? If so, here too, where he performed two separate acts of reaping, he is liable to bring a separate sin offering for each act.

ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื˜ืขืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื”ืชื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื™ ืืคืฉืจ ืœื• ืœืขืจื‘ืŸ ืœื‘ื™ืื•ืช ื–ื• ื‘ื–ื• ืืžื˜ื•ืœ ืœื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ืื‘ืœ ืงืฆืจ ื›ื’ืจื•ื’ืจืช ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ืงืฆืจ ื›ื’ืจื•ื’ืจืช ื‘ื”ืขืœื ืื—ืช ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืืคืฉืจ ืœื• ืœืขืจื‘ ืฉืชื™ ื’ืจื•ื’ืจื•ืช ื‘ื‘ืช ืื—ืช ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืœื ืื—ืช ืžืื™

Or, perhaps the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer there, in the case of forbidden relations, is that it is impossible for the sinner to combine the acts of intercourse with one another, and therefore Rabbi Eliezer says that he is liable to bring a separate sin offering for each and every one of the acts of intercourse. But if one reaped a fig-bulk of grain, and then reaped another fig-bulk, in a single lapse of awareness, since it is possible for him to combine the two fig-bulks of grain together and reap them at the same time, he would be liable to bring only one sin offering. What is the correct explanation for Rabbi Eliezerโ€™s ruling?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื”ืชื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืขื‘ื“ ืชืจืชื™ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื ืขื‘ื“ ืชืจืชื™ ื•ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืืžืจ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื”ืชื ื“ืื™ ืืคืฉืจ ืœื• ืœืขืจื‘ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ืืคืฉืจ ืœื• ืœืขืจื‘ืŸ ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืœื ืื—ืช

Rabba said: The reason for the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer there, in the case of forbidden relations, is that the sinner performed two separate prohibited acts; and here too, he has performed two separate acts of reaping and is liable to bring two sin offerings. And Rav Yosef said: The reason for the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer there, in the case of forbidden relations, is that it is impossible for him to combine the two transgressions into a single act; but if it is possible for him to combine them, e.g., by reaping two fig-bulks of grain, he is liable to bring only one sin offering.

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœืจื‘ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื•ืœื“ื™ ืžืœืื›ื•ืช ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืื‘ื•ืช ืžืœืื›ื•ืช

Abaye raised an objection to the opinion of Rabba from a baraita: Each type of labor prohibited on Shabbat comprises acts that are primary categories of that labor and acts that are subcategories of that labor, both prohibited by Torah law. Rabbi Eliezer deems one liable to bring separate sin offerings for the performance of subcategories of prohibited labor on Shabbat in a situation where he also performed the corresponding primary categories of prohibited labor during the same lapse of awareness. For example, if one planted grain on Shabbat and then watered the field, which is a subcategory of the prohibited labor of planting, he is liable to bring two sin offerings.

ื”ื ืื‘ ื•ืื‘ ื‘ื‘ืช ืื—ืช ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืงืขื‘ื“ ืชืจืชื™ ืืžืื™ ืคื˜ื•ืจ

It may be inferred from this statement that: But if one performed a primary category of labor and then performed the same primary category at the same time, i.e., during the same lapse of awareness, he is exempt from bringing a second sin offering. But if you say that the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer in the case of one who engages in repeated acts of intercourse with a woman forbidden to him is because the sinner performed two separate prohibited acts, then why is one exempt from bringing a second sin offering for repeatedly performing a primary category of prohibited labor on Shabbat, when he too has performed distinct prohibited acts?

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื ื ื•ืจื‘ ื ื—ื•ืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื–ื›ืจื™ื” ืชืจื’ื™ืžื ื ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ

Mar, son of the Sages, said: Rav Naแธฅumi bar Zekharya and I interpreted the baraita as follows: What are we dealing with here, in the case where one is liable to bring two sin offerings for performing a primary category of prohibited labor and its subcategory?

ื‘ื“ืœื™ืช ื”ืžื•ื“ืœื™ืช ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ืชืื™ื ื” ื•ืงืฆืฆืŸ ื‘ื‘ืช ืื—ืช ืžืฉื•ื ื”ื›ื™ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืฉืžื•ืช ืžื•ื—ืœืงื™ืŸ ื•ื’ื•ืคื™ืŸ ืžื•ื—ืœืงื™ืŸ

It is a case of a climbing grapevine that is trellised over a fig tree, and he cut them both, the grapevine and the figs, at the same time, during one lapse of awareness. Detaching the figs is one of the primary categories of the prohibited labor of harvesting, while pruning the vine in order to use it as fuel for a fire is a subcategory of harvesting. Due to that reason Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring two sin offerings, since it is a case of differentiated names of prohibitions, as he violated both the primary category of the labor and a subcategory, and it is also a case of differentiated physical entities, as he detached figs and part of a grapevine.

ื“ื›ื•ื•ืชื” ืงืฆืจ ื•ืงืฆืจ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ื“ืžื™ืคื˜ืจ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉืงืฆืจ ืฉืชื™ ื’ืจื•ื’ืจื•ืช ื‘ื‘ืช ืื—ืช ืื‘ืœ ืงืฆืจ ื›ื’ืจื•ื’ืจืช ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ืงืฆืจ ื›ื’ืจื•ื’ืจืช ื—ื™ื™ื‘

In the corresponding situation, where one reaped a fig-bulk of grain on Shabbat and then reaped another fig-bulk in a single lapse of awareness, how can you find circumstances in which he is exempt from bringing a second sin offering? You find this in a situation where he reaped two fig-bulks simultaneously, in which case he performed only a single prohibited act. But if one reaped a fig-bulk of grain and then reaped another fig-bulk, he is liable to bring two sin offerings, as he performed two separate acts.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื•ืขื•ื“ ืฉืืœ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื‘ืจ ื”ืžื“ื•ืœื“ืœืช ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžื”ื• ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืœื ืฉืžืขื ื• ืื‘ืœ ืฉืžืขื ื• ืื‘ืจ ื”ืžื“ื•ืœื“ืœืช ื‘ืื“ื ืฉื”ื•ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื•ื›ืš ื”ื™ื•

MISHNA: And furthermore, Rabbi Akiva asked Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua in the meat market of Emmaus: What is the status of a dangling limb of an animal? Does it impart ritual impurity like a severed limb? They said to Rabbi Akiva: We have not heard a ruling from our teachers in that specific case, but we have heard with regard to a dangling limb of a person that it is ritually pure. And in this manner would

ืžื•ื›ื™ ืฉื—ื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ื”ื•ืœืš ืœื• ืขืจื‘ ืคืกื— ืืฆืœ ื”ืจื•ืคื ื•ื—ื•ืชื›ื• ืขื“ ืฉืžื ื™ื— ื‘ื• ื›ืฉืขืจื” ื•ืชื•ื—ื‘ื• ื‘ืกื™ืจื ื•ื ืžืฉืš ืžืžื ื•

the people afflicted with boils, whose limbs were dangling due to their affliction, act in Jerusalem: Each of them would go on Passover eve to the doctor, who would cut the affected limb almost completely until he would leave it connected by a hairbreadth of flesh, so that neither the doctor nor the afflicted would be rendered ritually impure by a severed limb. Then, the doctor would impale the limb on a thorn attached to the floor or the wall, and the afflicted would pull away from the thorn, thereby completely severing the limb.

ื•ื”ืœื” ืขื•ืฉื” ืคืกื—ื• ื•ื”ืจื•ืคื ืขื•ืฉื” ืคืกื—ื• ื•ืจื•ืื” ืื ื™ ืฉื”ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ

And that person afflicted with boils would perform the rite of his Paschal offering, and the doctor would perform the rite of his Paschal offering, as neither had come into contact with the limb once it was severed. In any case, as long as it was dangling, the limb did not impart impurity. And I consider that these matters can be derived from an a fortiori inference. If a personโ€™s limb, the impurity of which when amputated is severe, does not impart impurity when it is dangling, it is all the more so logical that an animalโ€™s limb, the impurity of which when amputated is lenient, does not impart impurity when it is dangling.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ืŸ ื”ืชื ื”ืžื•ื—ืง ืืช ื”ื›ืจื™ืฉื” ื•ื”ืกื•ื—ื˜ ื‘ืฉืขืจื• ื•ื‘ื›ืกื•ืชื• ืžืฉืงื” ืฉื‘ืชื•ื›ื• ืื™ื ื ื‘ื›ื™ ื™ื•ืชืŸ ื•ื”ื™ื•ืฆืื™ืŸ ืžืžื ื• ื”ืจื™ ื”ืŸ ื‘ื›ื™ ื™ื•ืชืŸ

GEMARA: We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Makhshirin 1:5): With regard to one who forcefully wipes rainwater from the surface of a leek or squeezes out water absorbed in his hair or in his clothing, the liquid that remains within it is not included under the rubric of the verse: โ€œIf water be put upon the seed, and some of their carcass fall on it, it is impure for youโ€ (Leviticus 11:38). Therefore, it cannot render food susceptible to contracting ritual impurity. But the liquid that is released from it, in this process of wiping or squeezing, is included under the rubric of the verse: โ€œIf water be put,โ€ and therefore it renders any food it touches susceptible to ritual impurity, as the person has accorded it significance.

ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื•ื›ืจื™ืฉื” ืขืฆืžื” ื”ื•ื›ืฉืจื” ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื‘ืฉืขืช ืคืจื™ืฉื” ืžืžื ื• ื”ื•ื›ืฉืจื”

Shmuel says: And the leek itself is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity. What is the reason for this? The reason is that at the moment of the waterโ€™s separation from the leek, the leek is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by the very water which is released from it.

ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ืขืจื‘ ืคืกื— ื”ื•ืœืš ืœื• ืืฆืœ ื›ื•ืณ ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืขืช ืคืจื™ืฉืชืŸ ื”ื•ื›ืฉืจ ื”ื ืื™ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื”ื•ื ืื‘ืจ ื”ืžื“ื•ืœื“ืœ ื‘ืฉืขืช ืคืจื™ืฉืชื• ืžืื“ื ื ื˜ืžื™ื™ื” ืœืื“ื

The Gemara raises an objection: But we learned in the mishna: A person afflicted with boils would go on Passover eve to the doctor to sever his dangling limb, and the doctor and the afflicted individual would remain pure. And if you say that at the moment of the waterโ€™s separation from the leek, the leek is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity, there is also a parallel situation in that case of the dangling limb; at the moment of its separation from the person with boils it should render that person ritually impure.

ื›ื“ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื‘ื ื™ืชื–ื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ืœ ื›ื—ืŸ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื‘ื ื™ืชื–ื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ืœ ื›ื—ืŸ

The Gemara answers: The explanation is as Rav Yosef says in a different context, that it is referring to a situation where the liquids are removed with great force. Here too, in the case of the dangling limb, it can be explained as referring to a situation where the limbs are removed with great force. Since the limb is pulled off in one powerful motion it is not considered to have touched the person after it was detached. By contrast, the water wiped off the leek is not discharged all at once, and therefore as the drops of water separate from the leek they render it susceptible to ritual impurity.

ื•ื”ื™ื›ื ืื™ืชืžืจ ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืื”ื ื–ื‘ ื•ื˜ืžื ืžืช ืฉื”ื™ื• ืžื”ืœื›ื™ื ื•ื™ืจื“ื• ืขืœื™ื”ื ื’ืฉืžื™ื ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืกื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืืช ื–ื” ืžืฉืงื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื•ืจื“ื™ืŸ ืžืฆื“ ื”ืขืœื™ื•ืŸ ืœืฆื“ ื”ืชื—ืชื•ืŸ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื—ืฉื‘ื™ืŸ ืืœื ืฉื™ืฆืื• ืžื›ื•ืœืŸ

And where, i.e., in connection to which case, was this explanation of Rav Yosef stated? It was stated with regard to this baraita: If a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav] and one who is ritually impure through contact with a corpse were walking along and rain fell on them, although they squeeze the garments of one another in order to remove the water, those liquids that flow down from the upper section of a garment to the lower section remain pure. They do not become impure from contact with the impure person or his garments, as these liquids are not considered liquids that can become ritually impure unless they have emerged from those garments entirely.

ื™ืฆืื• ืžื›ื•ืœืŸ ื”ืจื™ ืžื›ืฉื™ืจื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื ื—ืฉื‘ื™ืŸ ืืœื ืœืื—ืจ ืฉื™ืฆืื• ืžื’ื•ืคื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื‘ื ื™ืชื–ื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ืœ ื›ื—ืŸ

Once the liquids have emerged from those garments entirely they render food susceptible to ritual impurity, as the people have accorded it significance by squeezing it out of their garments. But the water itself is still not impure, as it is considered liquid that is susceptible to ritual impurity only after it has completely emerged from the body of those garments. Rav Yosef said: The reason the water does not become impure when it separates from the garment is that the baraita is referring to a case where it is removed with great force.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื•ืขื•ื“ ืฉืืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ื—ืžืฉื” ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื‘ื”ืขืœื ืื—ืช ืžื”ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ืื• ืื—ืช ืขืœ ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืœื ืฉืžืขื ื•

MISHNA: And furthermore, Rabbi Akiva asked Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua: With regard to one who unwittingly slaughters five offerings outside the Temple during one lapse of awareness, what is the halakha? Is he liable to bring five sin offerings, one for each and every act of slaughter, or is he liable to bring one sin offering for all the acts of slaughter? They said to Rabbi Akiva: We have not heard a ruling from our teachers in that specific case.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืฉืžืขืชื™ ื‘ืื•ื›ืœ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืื—ื“ ืžื—ืžืฉื” ืชืžื—ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืขืœื ืื—ืช ืฉื”ื•ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ืžืฉื•ื ืžืขื™ืœื” ื•ืจื•ืื” ืื ื™ ืฉื”ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ

Rabbi Yehoshua said: I have heard with regard to one who eats meat from one offering from five different pots in which they were prepared, during one lapse of awareness, that he is liable to bring five guilt offerings, which are for the meat prepared in each and every pot, due to misuse of consecrated property. And I consider that these matters can be derived from an a fortiori inference: If one is liable to bring five guilt offerings for one offering prepared in five pots, all the more so is he liable to bring five sin offerings for slaughtering five offerings outside the Temple.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืœื ื›ืš ืฉืืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืืœื ื‘ืื•ื›ืœ ื ื•ืชืจ ืžื—ืžืฉื” ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื‘ื”ืขืœื ืื—ืช ืžื”ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืื—ืช ืขืœ ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืœื ืฉืžืขื ื•

Rabbi Shimon said: It was not that question that Rabbi Akiva asked them. Rather, it was with regard to one who eats notar from five offerings during one lapse of awareness. What is the halakha? Is he liable to bring one sin offering for all the offerings from which he ate notar, or is he liable to bring five sin offerings, one for each and every one of the offerings from which he ate notar? They said to Rabbi Akiva: We have not heard a ruling from our teachers in that specific case.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืฉืžืขืชื™ ื‘ืื•ื›ืœ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืื—ื“ ื‘ื—ืžืฉื” ืชืžื—ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืขืœื ืื—ืช ืฉื”ื•ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ืžืฉื•ื ืžืขื™ืœื” ื•ืจื•ืื” ืื ื™ ืฉื”ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ

Rabbi Yehoshua said: I have heard with regard to one who eats meat from one offering that was prepared in five different pots, during one lapse of awareness, that he is liable to bring separate guilt offerings for the meat prepared in each and every pot, due to misuse of consecrated property. And I consider that these matters can be derived from an a fortiori inference: If one is liable to bring five guilt offerings for one offering prepared in five pots, all the more so is he liable to bring five sin offerings for eating the notar of five separate offerings.

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื ื”ืœื›ื” ื ืงื‘ืœ ืื ืœื“ื™ืŸ ื™ืฉ ืชืฉื•ื‘ื” ืืžืจ ืœื• ื”ืฉื‘

Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yehoshua: If you are reporting a halakha that you received from your teachers with regard to one who eats notar from five offerings, we will accept it, but if it is based merely on the a fortiori inference from misuse of consecrated property, there is a response that refutes the inference. Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Akiva: Respond.

ืืžืจ ื•ืœื ืื ืืžืจืช ื‘ืžืขื™ืœื” ืฉืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืืช ื”ืžืื›ื™ืœ ื›ืื•ื›ืœ ื•ืืช ื”ืžื”ื ื” ื›ื ื”ื ื”

Rabbi Akiva said: And no; one cannot derive the halakha of notar through an a fortiori inference from misuse of consecrated property: If you said with regard to misuse of consecrated property that one is liable to bring five guilt offerings, perhaps that is because there are additional stringent elements unique to misuse. As, with regard to misuse, the Torah established that the status of one who feeds another person sacrificial meat is like that of one who eats sacrificial meat, and the status of one who gives benefit to another from consecrated property that is not food is like that of one who derives benefit himself, in that each is liable to bring a guilt offering for misuse.

ืฆื™ืจืฃ ืืช ื”ืžืขื™ืœื” ืœื–ืžืŸ ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ืชืืžืจ ื‘ื ื•ืชืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ืื—ืช ืžืืœื•

In addition, the Torah joined the misuse of consecrated property that was performed over an extended period, i.e., if one derived benefit worth half a peruta one day and half a peruta the next, he is liable to bring a guilt offering for misuse. Would you say the same with regard to notar, which has none of these halakhot?

ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ืงืฉื™ื ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ื›ื™ ืงื ืงืฉื™ื ืœื™ื” ืžื” ืจืื™ื” ืœืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืžืื•ื›ืœ ืžื” ืœืื•ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ื ื”ื ื”

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is difficult for Rabbi Shimon with the first version of Rabbi Akivaโ€™s question, that he insists that Rabbi Akiva had asked about one who eats notar from five offerings? The Gemara answers that this is what is difficult for him: If Rabbi Akiva asked about one who unwittingly sins by slaughtering, why is the answer derived from an unwitting sin involving eating? After all, what proof can be cited for a case of one who slaughters from a case of one who eats? What is notable about one who eats? It is notable in that he derives benefit from the act of eating, whereas one who slaughters does not derive physical benefit.

ืืœื ื›ืš ืฉืืœื• ื”ืื•ื›ืœ ื ื•ืชืจ ืžื—ืžืฉื” ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื‘ื”ืขืœื ืื—ืช ืžื”ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ืื• ืื—ืช ืขืœ ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืœื ืฉืžืขื ื•

Rather, he must have asked him this: In the case of one who eats notar from five offerings during one lapse of awareness, what is the halakha? Is he liable to bring a separate sin offering for each and every one of the offerings, or only one sin offering for all of them? They said to Rabbi Akiva: We have not heard a ruling from our teachers in that specific case.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืฉืžืขืชื™ ื‘ืื•ื›ืœ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืื—ื“ ืžื—ืžืฉื” ืชืžื—ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืขืœื ืื—ืช ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ืžืฉื•ื ืžืขื™ืœื” ื•ืจื•ืื” ืื ื™ ืฉื”ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ืžื” ืžื–ื‘ื— ืื—ื“ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื’ื•ืคื™ืŸ ืžื•ื—ืœืงื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ืžืฉื•ื ืชืžื—ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืžื•ื—ืœืงื™ืŸ ื—ืžืฉื” ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื“ื’ื•ืคื™ืŸ ืžื•ื—ืœืงื™ืŸ ืœื ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ

Rabbi Yehoshua said: I have heard with regard to one who eats meat from one offering from five different pots, during one lapse of awareness, that he is liable to bring a separate guilt offering for the meat prepared in each and every pot, due to misuse of consecrated property. And I consider that these matters may be derived from an a fortiori inference: Just as one who eats from one offering prepared in five pots, in which case the different parts of the offering do not come from differentiated physical entities, is liable to bring a separate guilt offering for the food prepared in each and every pot because he ate from differentiated pots, with regard to one who eats notar from five separate offerings, which are differentiated physical entities, is it not all the more so logical that he is liable to bring a separate sin offering for each and every offering?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืœื ื›ืš ืฉืืœื• ืืœื ื‘ืื•ื›ืœ (ืžื–ื‘ื— ืื—ื“) ื ื•ืชืจ ืžื—ืžืฉื” ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื‘ื”ืขืœื ืื—ืช ืžื”ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืื—ืช ืขืœ ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืœื ืฉืžืขื ื•

ยง The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon said: It was not that question that Rabbi Akiva asked them. Rather, it was with regard to one who eats notar from five offerings during one lapse of awareness. What is the halakha? Is he liable to bring one sin offering for all the offerings from which he ate notar, or is he liable to bring five sin offerings, one for each and every one of the offerings from which he ate notar? They said to Rabbi Akiva: We have not heard a ruling from our teachers in that specific case.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืžืขืชื™ ื‘ืื•ื›ืœ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืื—ื“ ื‘ื—ืžืฉื” ืชืžื—ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืฉื”ื•ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ืžืฉื•ื ืžืขื™ืœื” ื•ืจื•ืื” ืื ื™ ืฉื”ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื ื”ืœื›ื” ื ืงื‘ืœ ื›ื•ืณ

Rabbi Yehoshua said: I have heard with regard to one who eats meat from one offering from five different pots in which it was prepared, that he is liable to bring a separate guilt offering for the meat prepared in each and every pot, due to misuse of consecrated property. And I consider that these matters may be derived from an a fortiori inference. Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yehoshua: If you are reporting a halakha that you received from your teachers with regard to one who eats notar from five offerings we will accept it, but if it is based on the a fortiori logical inference from misuse of consecrated property there is a response that refutes the inference.

ืงื™ื‘ืœื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืœื”ื ืชืฉื•ื‘ื” ืžืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื• ืœื ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืชื ื™ื ืื›ืœ ื—ืžืฉ ื—ืชื™ื›ื•ืช ื ื•ืชืจ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืื—ื“ ื‘ื”ืขืœื ืื—ืช ื‘ื—ืžืฉื” ืชืžื—ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืื™ื ื• ืžื‘ื™ื ืืœื ื—ื˜ืืช ืื—ืช ื•ืขืœ ืœื ื”ื•ื“ืข ืฉืœื”ืŸ ืื™ื ื• ืžื‘ื™ื ืืœื ืืฉื ืชืœื•ื™ ืื—ืช

The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Yehoshua accept that refutation from Rabbi Akiva or not? The Gemara answers: Come and hear a proof in this regard, as it is taught in a baraita: If one ate five pieces of notar from one offering during one lapse of awareness, and the pieces were cooked in five different pots, he brings only one sin offering. And in a situation where it is not known to him with certainty whether he unwittingly ate from them, he brings only one provisional guilt offering, which is sacrificed by one who is uncertain whether he committed a sin that renders him liable to bring a sin offering.

ืžื—ืžืฉื” ืชืžื—ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื‘ื—ืžืฉ ื”ืขืœืžื•ืช ืžื‘ื™ื ื—ื˜ืืช ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ื•ืขืœ ืœื ื”ื•ื“ืข ืฉืœื”ืŸ ืžื‘ื™ื ืืฉื ืชืœื•ื™ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ืžื—ืžืฉื” ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื‘ื”ืขืœื ืื—ืช ื—ื™ื™ื‘

By contrast, if one ate notar from a single offering from five different pots during five separate lapses of awareness he brings a sin offering for each and every one, and in a situation where it is not known to him with certainty whether he unwittingly ate from them he brings a provisional guilt offering for each and every one. If he ate notar from five separate offerings during one lapse of awareness he is liable to bring a separate sin offering for each one, as he ate from differentiated physical entities.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืื›ืœ ื—ืžืฉ ื—ืชื™ื›ื•ืช ืžื—ืžืฉื” ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื‘ื”ืขืœื ืื—ืช ืื™ื ื• ืžื‘ื™ื ืืœื ื—ื˜ืืช ืื—ืช ื•ืขืœ ืกืคื™ืงืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืžื‘ื™ื ืืœื ืืฉื ืชืœื•ื™ ืื—ืช ื›ืœืœื• ืฉืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ื›ืœ ืฉื—ืœื•ืงื™ืŸ ื‘ื—ื˜ืื•ืช ื—ืœื•ืงื™ืŸ ื‘ืืฉืžื•ืช

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Even if he ate five pieces of notar from five separate offerings during one lapse of awareness he brings only one sin offering, as he transgressed one prohibition repeatedly during a single lapse of awareness. And if he is uncertain whether he unwittingly ate from them he brings only a single provisional guilt offering. The principle of the matter is that in any situation where oneโ€™s transgressions are differentiated with regard to sin offerings, i.e., when he is liable to bring multiple sin offerings if he knows that he unwittingly transgressed, they are differentiated with regard to provisional guilt offerings if he is unsure whether he unwittingly transgressed.

ืื›ืœ ื—ืžืฉ ื—ืชื™ื›ื•ืช ื‘ื—ืžืฉื” ืชืžื—ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืžื–ื‘ื— ืื—ื“ ืœืคื ื™ ื–ืจื™ืงืช ื“ืžื™ื ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื”ืขืœื ืื—ืช ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ืžืฉื•ื ืžืขื™ืœื”

If one ate five pieces of meat prepared in five separate pots from a single offering before the meat became permitted for consumption through the sprinkling of the blood on the altar, even if this occurred during a single lapse of awareness, he is liable to bring a separate guilt offering for the meat from each and every pot, due to misuse of consecrated property.

Scroll To Top