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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 5, 2019 | 讛壮 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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"

砖讞讟讛 讜讗转 讘转 讘转讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 砖讞讟 讗转 讘转讛 住讜驻讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讜驻讙 砖诪讜谞讬诐

If one slaughtered an animal and its daughter鈥檚 daughter and afterward slaughtered the original animal鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 讛讬讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讛讻讗 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 砖诪讜转 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉 讚诪讬拽专讬讗 讞诪讜转讜 讜诪讬拽专讬讗 讗诐 讞诪讜转讜 讜诪讬拽专讬讗 讗诐 讞诪讬讜

Rava said: Perhaps it is not so, as Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri would not agree with the ruling of Sumakhos. It is possible that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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-law鈥檚 mother, and she is called his father-in-law鈥檚 mother, and the Torah prohibits each of these relationships separately.

讗讘诇 讙讘讬 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 讚讻讜诇讛讜 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 诪讬拽专讬讬谉 讚讗讬谉 砖诪讜转 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉 诇讗

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 Yo岣nan ben Nuri might maintain that one is not liable to receive multiple sets of lashes.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讚诇诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 住讜诪讻讜住 讗诇讗 讙讘讬 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 讚讙讜驻讬谉 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉

By contrast, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讗讬谉 讙讜驻讬谉 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉 讗讬诪讗 讻专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讗专讛 讛谞讛 讝诪讛 讛讬讗 讛讻转讜讘 注砖讗谉 诇讻讜诇谉 讝诪讛 讗讞转

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 Yo岣nan, as Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The verse that introduces the prohibitions against engaging in intercourse with one鈥檚 mother-in-law, one鈥檚 mother-in-law鈥檚 mother, and one鈥檚 father-in-law鈥檚 mother concludes with the phrase: 鈥淭hey are near kinswomen; it is lewdness鈥 (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.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 砖讗诇转讬 讗转 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讗转 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘讗讬讟诇讬住 砖诇 注讬诪讗讜诐 砖讛诇讻讜 诇讬拽讞 讘讛诪讛 诇诪砖转讛 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讘讗 注诇 讗讞讜转讜 讜注诇 讗讞讜转 讗讘讬讜 讜注诇 讗讞讜转 讗诪讜 诪讛讜 讞讬讬讘 讗讞转 注诇 讻讜诇谉 讗讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

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?

讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 砖诪注谞讜 讗讘诇 砖诪注谞讜 讛讘讗 注诇 讞诪砖 谞砖讬讜 谞讚讜转 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞转 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讜专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 砖讛讚讘专讬诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专

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.

讙诪壮 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻讚拽转谞讬 诪讗讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讛专讬 砖诪讜转 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉 讛专讬 讙讜驻讬谉 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉

GEMARA: The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 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? Aren鈥檛 they differentiated names of prohibitions and aren鈥檛 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.

讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛讘讗 注诇 讗讞讜转 讗讘讬讜 砖讛讬讗 讗讞讜转 讗诪讜 讞讬讬讘 讗讞转 注诇 讻讜诇谉 讗讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛专讬 砖诪讜转 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛专讬 讗讬谉 讙讜驻讬谉 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉

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.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 砖诪注谞讜 讗讘诇 砖诪注谞讜 讛讘讗 注诇 讞诪砖 谞砖讬讜 谞讚讜转 讘讘转 讗讞转 砖讛讜讗 砖诐 讗讞讚 砖讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 谞讚讛

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.

讜专讗讬谞讜 砖讛讚讘专讬诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讛讘讗 注诇 讞诪砖 谞砖讬讜 谞讚讜转 讘讘转 讗讞转 砖讛讬讗 砖诐 讗讞转 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讗讞讜转讜 砖讛讬讗 讗讞讜转 讗讘讬讜 砖讛讬讗 讗讞讜转 讗诪讜 砖讛谉 砖诇砖讛 砖诪讜转 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

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?

讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇讞诪砖 谞讚讜转 砖讻谉 讙讜驻讬谉 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉

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 one鈥檚 sister who is also the sister of his father and the sister of his mother, as she is a single person.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 注专讜转 讗讞转讜 讙诇讛 诇讞讬讬讘 注诇 讗讞讜转讜 砖讛讬讗 讗讞讜转 讗讘讬讜 砖讛讬讗 讗讞讜转 讗诪讜

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: 鈥淎nd if a man takes his sister鈥nd they shall be cut off [venikhretu] in the sight of the children of their people; he has uncovered his sister鈥檚 nakedness鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘专砖讬注讗 讘专 专砖讬注讗 砖讘讗 注诇 讗诪讜 讜讛讜诇讬讚 砖转讬 讘谞讜转 讜讞讝专 讜讘讗 注诇 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜讛讜诇讬讚 讘谉 讜讘讗 讘谞讜 注诇 讗讞讜转 讗诪讜 砖讛讬讗 讗讞讜转讜 砖讛讬讗 讗讞讜转 讗讘讬讜 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 专砖讬注讗 讘专 专砖讬注讗

The Gemara explains how there could be a case where one鈥檚 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 mother鈥檚 sister who is also his own sister, because they share a father, and who is also his father鈥檚 sister. This individual is a wicked man, the son of a wicked man, as both he and his father engaged in incestuous relationships.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讜讞讝专 讜讘讗 注诇讬讛 讜讞讝专 讜讘讗 注诇讬讛 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转

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.

讜诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讘讗 注诇 讞诪砖 谞砖讬讜 谞讚讜转 讘讘转 讗讞转 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜讗 讙专诐 诇讛谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜讗 讙专诐 诇讛谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讜讗 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞转 讜讛讬讗 讘讞诪砖 讛注诇诪讜转 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讜讛讬讗 讞讬讬讘转 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

Rava said to Rav Na岣an: 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 isn鈥檛 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.

讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讙讜驻讬谉 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉

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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 拽爪专 讜拽爪专 诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

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?

讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讗 讚注讘讚 转专转讬谉 讜讗诪讟讜诇 诇讛讻讬 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讜讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚注讘讚 转专转讬谉

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.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讜 诇注专讘谉 诇讘讬讗讜转 讝讜 讘讝讜 讗诪讟讜诇 诇讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讗讘诇 拽爪专 讻讙专讜讙专转 讜讞讝专 讜拽爪专 讻讙专讜讙专转 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞转 讻讬讜谉 讚讗驻砖专 诇讜 诇注专讘 砖转讬 讙专讜讙专讜转 讘讘转 讗讞转 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 诪讗讬

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 Eliezer鈥檚 ruling?

讗诪专 专讘讛 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚注讘讚 转专转讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛讗 注讘讚 转专转讬 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛转诐 讚讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讜 诇注专讘谉 讗讘诇 讗驻砖专 诇讜 诇注专讘谉 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转

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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讞讬讬讘 注诇 讜诇讚讬 诪诇讗讻讜转 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讘讜转 诪诇讗讻讜转

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.

讛讗 讗讘 讜讗讘 讘讘转 讗讞转 驻讟讜专 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪砖讜诐 讚拽注讘讚 转专转讬 讗诪讗讬 驻讟讜专

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?

讗诪专 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘谞谉 讗谞讗 讜专讘 谞讞讜诪讬 讘专 讝讻专讬讛 转专讙讬诪谞讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉

Mar, son of the Sages, said: Rav Na岣mi 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?

讘讚诇讬转 讛诪讜讚诇讬转 注诇 讙讘讬 转讗讬谞讛 讜拽爪爪谉 讘讘转 讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诪讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜砖诪讜转 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉 讜讙讜驻讬谉 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉

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.

讚讻讜讜转讛 拽爪专 讜拽爪专 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚诪讬驻讟专 讻讙讜谉 砖拽爪专 砖转讬 讙专讜讙专讜转 讘讘转 讗讞转 讗讘诇 拽爪专 讻讙专讜讙专转 讜讞讝专 讜拽爪专 讻讙专讜讙专转 讞讬讬讘

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讜注讜讚 砖讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讘专 讛诪讚讜诇讚诇转 讘讘讛诪讛 诪讛讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 砖诪注谞讜 讗讘诇 砖诪注谞讜 讗讘专 讛诪讚讜诇讚诇转 讘讗讚诐 砖讛讜讗 讟讛讜专 讜讻讱 讛讬讜

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

诪讜讻讬 砖讞讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讛讜诇讱 诇讜 注专讘 驻住讞 讗爪诇 讛专讜驻讗 讜讞讜转讻讜 注讚 砖诪谞讬讞 讘讜 讻砖注专讛 讜转讜讞讘讜 讘住讬专讗 讜谞诪砖讱 诪诪谞讜

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.

讜讛诇讛 注讜砖讛 驻住讞讜 讜讛专讜驻讗 注讜砖讛 驻住讞讜 讜专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 砖讛讚讘专讬诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专

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 person鈥檚 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 animal鈥檚 limb, the impurity of which when amputated is lenient, does not impart impurity when it is dangling.

讙诪壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 讛诪讜讞拽 讗转 讛讻专讬砖讛 讜讛住讜讞讟 讘砖注专讜 讜讘讻住讜转讜 诪砖拽讛 砖讘转讜讻讜 讗讬谞诐 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉 讜讛讬讜爪讗讬谉 诪诪谞讜 讛专讬 讛谉 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉

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: 鈥淚f water be put upon the seed, and some of their carcass fall on it, it is impure for you鈥 (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: 鈥淚f water be put,鈥 and therefore it renders any food it touches susceptible to ritual impurity, as the person has accorded it significance.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讻专讬砖讛 注爪诪讛 讛讜讻砖专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘砖注转 驻专讬砖讛 诪诪谞讜 讛讜讻砖专讛

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 water鈥檚 separation from the leek, the leek is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by the very water which is released from it.

讜讛转谞谉 注专讘 驻住讞 讛讜诇讱 诇讜 讗爪诇 讻讜壮 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖注转 驻专讬砖转谉 讛讜讻砖专 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 谞诪讬 讛讛讜讗 讗讘专 讛诪讚讜诇讚诇 讘砖注转 驻专讬砖转讜 诪讗讚诐 谞讟诪讬讬讛 诇讗讚诐

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 water鈥檚 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.

讻讚拽讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘谞讬转讝讬谉 讘讻诇 讻讞谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘谞讬转讝讬谉 讘讻诇 讻讞谉

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.

讜讛讬讻讗 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讛讗 讝讘 讜讟诪讗 诪转 砖讛讬讜 诪讛诇讻讬诐 讜讬专讚讜 注诇讬讛诐 讙砖诪讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖住讜讞讟讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 诪砖拽讬谉 讛讬讜专讚讬谉 诪爪讚 讛注诇讬讜谉 诇爪讚 讛转讞转讜谉 讟讛讜专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讞砖讘讬谉 讗诇讗 砖讬爪讗讜 诪讻讜诇谉

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.

讬爪讗讜 诪讻讜诇谉 讛专讬 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 砖讗讬谉 谞讞砖讘讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 砖讬爪讗讜 诪讙讜驻讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘谞讬转讝讬谉 讘讻诇 讻讞谉

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讜注讜讚 砖讗诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讞诪砖讛 讝讘讞讬诐 讘讞讜抓 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞转 诪讛讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讗讜 讗讞转 注诇 讻讜诇谉 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 砖诪注谞讜

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 砖诪注转讬 讘讗讜讻诇 诪讝讘讞 讗讞讚 诪讞诪砖讛 转诪讞讜讬讬谉 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞转 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 诪注讬诇讛 讜专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 砖讛讚讘专讬诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 讻讱 砖讗诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诇讗 讘讗讜讻诇 谞讜转专 诪讞诪砖讛 讝讘讞讬诐 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞转 诪讛讜 讞讬讬讘 讗讞转 注诇 讻讜诇谉 讗讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 砖诪注谞讜

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 砖诪注转讬 讘讗讜讻诇 诪讝讘讞 讗讞讚 讘讞诪砖讛 转诪讞讜讬讬谉 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞转 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 诪注讬诇讛 讜专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 砖讛讚讘专讬诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专

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.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诐 讛诇讻讛 谞拽讘诇 讗诐 诇讚讬谉 讬砖 转砖讜讘讛 讗诪专 诇讜 讛砖讘

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.

讗诪专 讜诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘诪注讬诇讛 砖注砖讛 讘讛 讗转 讛诪讗讻讬诇 讻讗讜讻诇 讜讗转 讛诪讛谞讛 讻谞讛谞讛

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.

爪讬专祝 讗转 讛诪注讬诇讛 诇讝诪谉 诪专讜讘讛 转讗诪专 讘谞讜转专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗讞转 诪讗诇讜

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?

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讻讬 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讛 专讗讬讛 诇砖讜讞讟 诪讗讜讻诇 诪讛 诇讗讜讻诇 砖讻谉 谞讛谞讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is difficult for Rabbi Shimon with the first version of Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 讻讱 砖讗诇讜 讛讗讜讻诇 谞讜转专 诪讞诪砖讛 讝讘讞讬诐 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞转 诪讛讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讗讜 讗讞转 注诇 讻讜诇谉 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 砖诪注谞讜

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 砖诪注转讬 讘讗讜讻诇 诪讝讘讞 讗讞讚 诪讞诪砖讛 转诪讞讜讬讬谉 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞转 砖讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 诪注讬诇讛 讜专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 砖讛讚讘专讬诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讛 诪讝讘讞 讗讞讚 砖讗讬谉 讙讜驻讬谉 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 转诪讞讜讬讬谉 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉 讞诪砖讛 讝讘讞讬诐 讚讙讜驻讬谉 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

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?

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 讻讱 砖讗诇讜 讗诇讗 讘讗讜讻诇 (诪讝讘讞 讗讞讚) 谞讜转专 诪讞诪砖讛 讝讘讞讬诐 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞转 诪讛讜 讞讬讬讘 讗讞转 注诇 讻讜诇谉 讗讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 砖诪注谞讜

搂 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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 砖诪注转讬 讘讗讜讻诇 诪讝讘讞 讗讞讚 讘讞诪砖讛 转诪讞讜讬讬谉 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 诪注讬诇讛 讜专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 砖讛讚讘专讬诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诐 讛诇讻讛 谞拽讘诇 讻讜壮

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.

拽讬讘诇讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讛讗 转砖讜讘讛 诪专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 讗讻诇 讞诪砖 讞转讬讻讜转 谞讜转专 诪讝讘讞 讗讞讚 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞转 讘讞诪砖讛 转诪讞讜讬讬谉 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 讗诇讗 讞讟讗转 讗讞转 讜注诇 诇讗 讛讜讚注 砖诇讛谉 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 讗诇讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗讞转

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.

诪讞诪砖讛 转诪讞讜讬讬谉 讘讞诪砖 讛注诇诪讜转 诪讘讬讗 讞讟讗转 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讜注诇 诇讗 讛讜讚注 砖诇讛谉 诪讘讬讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 诪讞诪砖讛 讝讘讞讬诐 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞转 讞讬讬讘

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.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讻诇 讞诪砖 讞转讬讻讜转 诪讞诪砖讛 讝讘讞讬诐 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞转 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 讗诇讗 讞讟讗转 讗讞转 讜注诇 住驻讬拽谉 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗 讗诇讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗讞转 讻诇诇讜 砖诇 讚讘专 讻诇 砖讞诇讜拽讬谉 讘讞讟讗讜转 讞诇讜拽讬谉 讘讗砖诪讜转

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 one鈥檚 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.

讗讻诇 讞诪砖 讞转讬讻讜转 讘讞诪砖讛 转诪讞讜讬讬谉 诪讝讘讞 讗讞讚 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞转 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 诪注讬诇讛

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 month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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

砖讞讟讛 讜讗转 讘转 讘转讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 砖讞讟 讗转 讘转讛 住讜驻讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讜驻讙 砖诪讜谞讬诐

If one slaughtered an animal and its daughter鈥檚 daughter and afterward slaughtered the original animal鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 讛讬讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讛讻讗 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 砖诪讜转 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉 讚诪讬拽专讬讗 讞诪讜转讜 讜诪讬拽专讬讗 讗诐 讞诪讜转讜 讜诪讬拽专讬讗 讗诐 讞诪讬讜

Rava said: Perhaps it is not so, as Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri would not agree with the ruling of Sumakhos. It is possible that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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-law鈥檚 mother, and she is called his father-in-law鈥檚 mother, and the Torah prohibits each of these relationships separately.

讗讘诇 讙讘讬 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 讚讻讜诇讛讜 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 诪讬拽专讬讬谉 讚讗讬谉 砖诪讜转 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉 诇讗

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 Yo岣nan ben Nuri might maintain that one is not liable to receive multiple sets of lashes.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讚诇诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 住讜诪讻讜住 讗诇讗 讙讘讬 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 讚讙讜驻讬谉 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉

By contrast, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讗讬谉 讙讜驻讬谉 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉 讗讬诪讗 讻专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讗专讛 讛谞讛 讝诪讛 讛讬讗 讛讻转讜讘 注砖讗谉 诇讻讜诇谉 讝诪讛 讗讞转

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 Yo岣nan, as Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The verse that introduces the prohibitions against engaging in intercourse with one鈥檚 mother-in-law, one鈥檚 mother-in-law鈥檚 mother, and one鈥檚 father-in-law鈥檚 mother concludes with the phrase: 鈥淭hey are near kinswomen; it is lewdness鈥 (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.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 砖讗诇转讬 讗转 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讗转 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘讗讬讟诇讬住 砖诇 注讬诪讗讜诐 砖讛诇讻讜 诇讬拽讞 讘讛诪讛 诇诪砖转讛 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讘讗 注诇 讗讞讜转讜 讜注诇 讗讞讜转 讗讘讬讜 讜注诇 讗讞讜转 讗诪讜 诪讛讜 讞讬讬讘 讗讞转 注诇 讻讜诇谉 讗讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

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?

讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 砖诪注谞讜 讗讘诇 砖诪注谞讜 讛讘讗 注诇 讞诪砖 谞砖讬讜 谞讚讜转 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞转 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讜专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 砖讛讚讘专讬诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专

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.

讙诪壮 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻讚拽转谞讬 诪讗讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讛专讬 砖诪讜转 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉 讛专讬 讙讜驻讬谉 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉

GEMARA: The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 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? Aren鈥檛 they differentiated names of prohibitions and aren鈥檛 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.

讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛讘讗 注诇 讗讞讜转 讗讘讬讜 砖讛讬讗 讗讞讜转 讗诪讜 讞讬讬讘 讗讞转 注诇 讻讜诇谉 讗讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛专讬 砖诪讜转 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛专讬 讗讬谉 讙讜驻讬谉 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉

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.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 砖诪注谞讜 讗讘诇 砖诪注谞讜 讛讘讗 注诇 讞诪砖 谞砖讬讜 谞讚讜转 讘讘转 讗讞转 砖讛讜讗 砖诐 讗讞讚 砖讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 谞讚讛

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.

讜专讗讬谞讜 砖讛讚讘专讬诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讛讘讗 注诇 讞诪砖 谞砖讬讜 谞讚讜转 讘讘转 讗讞转 砖讛讬讗 砖诐 讗讞转 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讗讞讜转讜 砖讛讬讗 讗讞讜转 讗讘讬讜 砖讛讬讗 讗讞讜转 讗诪讜 砖讛谉 砖诇砖讛 砖诪讜转 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

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?

讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇讞诪砖 谞讚讜转 砖讻谉 讙讜驻讬谉 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉

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 one鈥檚 sister who is also the sister of his father and the sister of his mother, as she is a single person.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 注专讜转 讗讞转讜 讙诇讛 诇讞讬讬讘 注诇 讗讞讜转讜 砖讛讬讗 讗讞讜转 讗讘讬讜 砖讛讬讗 讗讞讜转 讗诪讜

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: 鈥淎nd if a man takes his sister鈥nd they shall be cut off [venikhretu] in the sight of the children of their people; he has uncovered his sister鈥檚 nakedness鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘专砖讬注讗 讘专 专砖讬注讗 砖讘讗 注诇 讗诪讜 讜讛讜诇讬讚 砖转讬 讘谞讜转 讜讞讝专 讜讘讗 注诇 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜讛讜诇讬讚 讘谉 讜讘讗 讘谞讜 注诇 讗讞讜转 讗诪讜 砖讛讬讗 讗讞讜转讜 砖讛讬讗 讗讞讜转 讗讘讬讜 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 专砖讬注讗 讘专 专砖讬注讗

The Gemara explains how there could be a case where one鈥檚 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 mother鈥檚 sister who is also his own sister, because they share a father, and who is also his father鈥檚 sister. This individual is a wicked man, the son of a wicked man, as both he and his father engaged in incestuous relationships.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讗 注诇讬讛 讜讞讝专 讜讘讗 注诇讬讛 讜讞讝专 讜讘讗 注诇讬讛 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转

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.

讜诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讘讗 注诇 讞诪砖 谞砖讬讜 谞讚讜转 讘讘转 讗讞转 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜讗 讙专诐 诇讛谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜讗 讙专诐 诇讛谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讜讗 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞转 讜讛讬讗 讘讞诪砖 讛注诇诪讜转 讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讜讛讬讗 讞讬讬讘转 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

Rava said to Rav Na岣an: 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 isn鈥檛 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.

讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讙讜驻讬谉 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉

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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 拽爪专 讜拽爪专 诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

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?

讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讗 讚注讘讚 转专转讬谉 讜讗诪讟讜诇 诇讛讻讬 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讜讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚注讘讚 转专转讬谉

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.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讜 诇注专讘谉 诇讘讬讗讜转 讝讜 讘讝讜 讗诪讟讜诇 诇讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讗讘诇 拽爪专 讻讙专讜讙专转 讜讞讝专 讜拽爪专 讻讙专讜讙专转 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞转 讻讬讜谉 讚讗驻砖专 诇讜 诇注专讘 砖转讬 讙专讜讙专讜转 讘讘转 讗讞转 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 诪讗讬

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 Eliezer鈥檚 ruling?

讗诪专 专讘讛 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚注讘讚 转专转讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛讗 注讘讚 转专转讬 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛转诐 讚讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讜 诇注专讘谉 讗讘诇 讗驻砖专 诇讜 诇注专讘谉 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转

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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讞讬讬讘 注诇 讜诇讚讬 诪诇讗讻讜转 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讘讜转 诪诇讗讻讜转

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.

讛讗 讗讘 讜讗讘 讘讘转 讗讞转 驻讟讜专 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪砖讜诐 讚拽注讘讚 转专转讬 讗诪讗讬 驻讟讜专

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?

讗诪专 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘谞谉 讗谞讗 讜专讘 谞讞讜诪讬 讘专 讝讻专讬讛 转专讙讬诪谞讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉

Mar, son of the Sages, said: Rav Na岣mi 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?

讘讚诇讬转 讛诪讜讚诇讬转 注诇 讙讘讬 转讗讬谞讛 讜拽爪爪谉 讘讘转 讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诪讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜砖诪讜转 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉 讜讙讜驻讬谉 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉

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.

讚讻讜讜转讛 拽爪专 讜拽爪专 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚诪讬驻讟专 讻讙讜谉 砖拽爪专 砖转讬 讙专讜讙专讜转 讘讘转 讗讞转 讗讘诇 拽爪专 讻讙专讜讙专转 讜讞讝专 讜拽爪专 讻讙专讜讙专转 讞讬讬讘

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讜注讜讚 砖讗诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讘专 讛诪讚讜诇讚诇转 讘讘讛诪讛 诪讛讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 砖诪注谞讜 讗讘诇 砖诪注谞讜 讗讘专 讛诪讚讜诇讚诇转 讘讗讚诐 砖讛讜讗 讟讛讜专 讜讻讱 讛讬讜

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

诪讜讻讬 砖讞讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讛讜诇讱 诇讜 注专讘 驻住讞 讗爪诇 讛专讜驻讗 讜讞讜转讻讜 注讚 砖诪谞讬讞 讘讜 讻砖注专讛 讜转讜讞讘讜 讘住讬专讗 讜谞诪砖讱 诪诪谞讜

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.

讜讛诇讛 注讜砖讛 驻住讞讜 讜讛专讜驻讗 注讜砖讛 驻住讞讜 讜专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 砖讛讚讘专讬诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专

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 person鈥檚 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 animal鈥檚 limb, the impurity of which when amputated is lenient, does not impart impurity when it is dangling.

讙诪壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 讛诪讜讞拽 讗转 讛讻专讬砖讛 讜讛住讜讞讟 讘砖注专讜 讜讘讻住讜转讜 诪砖拽讛 砖讘转讜讻讜 讗讬谞诐 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉 讜讛讬讜爪讗讬谉 诪诪谞讜 讛专讬 讛谉 讘讻讬 讬讜转谉

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: 鈥淚f water be put upon the seed, and some of their carcass fall on it, it is impure for you鈥 (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: 鈥淚f water be put,鈥 and therefore it renders any food it touches susceptible to ritual impurity, as the person has accorded it significance.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讻专讬砖讛 注爪诪讛 讛讜讻砖专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘砖注转 驻专讬砖讛 诪诪谞讜 讛讜讻砖专讛

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 water鈥檚 separation from the leek, the leek is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by the very water which is released from it.

讜讛转谞谉 注专讘 驻住讞 讛讜诇讱 诇讜 讗爪诇 讻讜壮 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖注转 驻专讬砖转谉 讛讜讻砖专 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 谞诪讬 讛讛讜讗 讗讘专 讛诪讚讜诇讚诇 讘砖注转 驻专讬砖转讜 诪讗讚诐 谞讟诪讬讬讛 诇讗讚诐

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 water鈥檚 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.

讻讚拽讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘谞讬转讝讬谉 讘讻诇 讻讞谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘谞讬转讝讬谉 讘讻诇 讻讞谉

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.

讜讛讬讻讗 讗讬转诪专 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讛讗 讝讘 讜讟诪讗 诪转 砖讛讬讜 诪讛诇讻讬诐 讜讬专讚讜 注诇讬讛诐 讙砖诪讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖住讜讞讟讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 诪砖拽讬谉 讛讬讜专讚讬谉 诪爪讚 讛注诇讬讜谉 诇爪讚 讛转讞转讜谉 讟讛讜专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讞砖讘讬谉 讗诇讗 砖讬爪讗讜 诪讻讜诇谉

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.

讬爪讗讜 诪讻讜诇谉 讛专讬 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 砖讗讬谉 谞讞砖讘讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 砖讬爪讗讜 诪讙讜驻讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘谞讬转讝讬谉 讘讻诇 讻讞谉

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讜注讜讚 砖讗诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讞诪砖讛 讝讘讞讬诐 讘讞讜抓 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞转 诪讛讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讗讜 讗讞转 注诇 讻讜诇谉 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 砖诪注谞讜

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 砖诪注转讬 讘讗讜讻诇 诪讝讘讞 讗讞讚 诪讞诪砖讛 转诪讞讜讬讬谉 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞转 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 诪注讬诇讛 讜专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 砖讛讚讘专讬诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 讻讱 砖讗诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诇讗 讘讗讜讻诇 谞讜转专 诪讞诪砖讛 讝讘讞讬诐 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞转 诪讛讜 讞讬讬讘 讗讞转 注诇 讻讜诇谉 讗讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 砖诪注谞讜

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 砖诪注转讬 讘讗讜讻诇 诪讝讘讞 讗讞讚 讘讞诪砖讛 转诪讞讜讬讬谉 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞转 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 诪注讬诇讛 讜专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 砖讛讚讘专讬诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专

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.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诐 讛诇讻讛 谞拽讘诇 讗诐 诇讚讬谉 讬砖 转砖讜讘讛 讗诪专 诇讜 讛砖讘

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.

讗诪专 讜诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘诪注讬诇讛 砖注砖讛 讘讛 讗转 讛诪讗讻讬诇 讻讗讜讻诇 讜讗转 讛诪讛谞讛 讻谞讛谞讛

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.

爪讬专祝 讗转 讛诪注讬诇讛 诇讝诪谉 诪专讜讘讛 转讗诪专 讘谞讜转专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗讞转 诪讗诇讜

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?

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讻讬 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讛 专讗讬讛 诇砖讜讞讟 诪讗讜讻诇 诪讛 诇讗讜讻诇 砖讻谉 谞讛谞讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is difficult for Rabbi Shimon with the first version of Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 讻讱 砖讗诇讜 讛讗讜讻诇 谞讜转专 诪讞诪砖讛 讝讘讞讬诐 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞转 诪讛讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讗讜 讗讞转 注诇 讻讜诇谉 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 砖诪注谞讜

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 砖诪注转讬 讘讗讜讻诇 诪讝讘讞 讗讞讚 诪讞诪砖讛 转诪讞讜讬讬谉 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞转 砖讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 诪注讬诇讛 讜专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 砖讛讚讘专讬诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讛 诪讝讘讞 讗讞讚 砖讗讬谉 讙讜驻讬谉 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 转诪讞讜讬讬谉 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉 讞诪砖讛 讝讘讞讬诐 讚讙讜驻讬谉 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

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?

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 讻讱 砖讗诇讜 讗诇讗 讘讗讜讻诇 (诪讝讘讞 讗讞讚) 谞讜转专 诪讞诪砖讛 讝讘讞讬诐 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞转 诪讛讜 讞讬讬讘 讗讞转 注诇 讻讜诇谉 讗讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗 砖诪注谞讜

搂 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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 砖诪注转讬 讘讗讜讻诇 诪讝讘讞 讗讞讚 讘讞诪砖讛 转诪讞讜讬讬谉 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 诪注讬诇讛 讜专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 砖讛讚讘专讬诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诐 讛诇讻讛 谞拽讘诇 讻讜壮

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.

拽讬讘诇讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讛讗 转砖讜讘讛 诪专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬讗 讗讻诇 讞诪砖 讞转讬讻讜转 谞讜转专 诪讝讘讞 讗讞讚 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞转 讘讞诪砖讛 转诪讞讜讬讬谉 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 讗诇讗 讞讟讗转 讗讞转 讜注诇 诇讗 讛讜讚注 砖诇讛谉 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 讗诇讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗讞转

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.

诪讞诪砖讛 转诪讞讜讬讬谉 讘讞诪砖 讛注诇诪讜转 诪讘讬讗 讞讟讗转 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讜注诇 诇讗 讛讜讚注 砖诇讛谉 诪讘讬讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 诪讞诪砖讛 讝讘讞讬诐 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞转 讞讬讬讘

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.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讻诇 讞诪砖 讞转讬讻讜转 诪讞诪砖讛 讝讘讞讬诐 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞转 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 讗诇讗 讞讟讗转 讗讞转 讜注诇 住驻讬拽谉 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗 讗诇讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗讞转 讻诇诇讜 砖诇 讚讘专 讻诇 砖讞诇讜拽讬谉 讘讞讟讗讜转 讞诇讜拽讬谉 讘讗砖诪讜转

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 one鈥檚 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.

讗讻诇 讞诪砖 讞转讬讻讜转 讘讞诪砖讛 转诪讞讜讬讬谉 诪讝讘讞 讗讞讚 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞转 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 诪砖讜诐 诪注讬诇讛

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