Keritot 15b — the Talmud in English

And this is how ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

those afflicted with boils

whose limbs are falling from their bodies

would act in Jerusalem: On the eve of Passover, he would go to the physician, who would cut

the dangling limb [not for reasons of ritual purity, since as long as the limb remains attached it does not impart impurity, but so that it would not be repulsive during the Festival because of the dangling limb, Rashi] . And he would not cut it off completely, so that the limb would not render the physician impure when it separated from the body; rather, he would cut

until he left

it attached

by a thread’s breadth, and would insert it

the limb

into a thorn

stuck in the ground or in a wall,

and

the ill person

would pull himself away from it

with force until the limb detached on its own, so that the ill person would not touch the limb with his body after its detachment.

And the other one,

the one afflicted with boils,

would perform his Paschal offering, and the physician would perform his Paschal offering.

Since neither of them touched the limb after it separated from the body.

And we see that this is a kal va-chomer

that if a dangling limb of a human being is pure, all the more so that of an animal; and the Gemara will explain what the kal va-chomer is.

Gemara:

And we explain:

What is the kal va-chomer? What is the case with a human being, who imparts impurity during his lifetime

who can contract impurity while still alive;

the dangling limb attached to him is pure. In the case of an animal, which does not impart impurity

which cannot contract impurity

during its lifetime, is it not certainly the case that a dangling limb attached to it is pure?

We learned there

in tractate Makhshirin:

One who crushes the leek,

who pounds a vegetable containing liquids,

and one who wrings

the water that is

in his hair

after washing,

or in his garment

after drying himself with it—the

liquid contained within it,

within the leek, the hair, or the garment—

is not regarded as having been applied willingly [from the wording of the verse: “And if water be put upon seed, and any of their carcasses fall thereon, it is impure for you,” from which we learn that produce is rendered susceptible to impurity only through water coming upon it]. These liquids do not render the food they touch susceptible to ritual impurity, because they are not considered significant liquids, since they are absorbed .

и не подготавливает пищу, которой она коснулась, к восприятию ритуальной нечистоты. Это следует из выражения Писания: «И если вода будет налита на семя, и упадёт на него что-либо из их падали, оно нечисто для вас»; отсюда мы учим, что пища подготавливается к восприятию ритуальной нечистоты только в результате попадания на неё воды. Эти воды не имеют статуса жидкости, поскольку они были впитаны .

And

the liquids

that emerge from it are regarded as having been applied willingly.

If they touch food, they render it susceptible to ritual impurity.

Shmuel said: And

the

leek itself

is rendered susceptible

when the liquid emerges from it, even though it did not touch the liquid after it emerged.

And we explain:

What is the reason?

Since

at the time of the separation

of the liquid

from it, it was rendered susceptible,

because at that moment of separation the leek touched the liquid .

And we raise an objection:

But didn’t we learn

in the Mishna:

On the eve of Passover, he goes to the physician, who cuts it,

and he himself remains pure?

And if you say that it was rendered susceptible at the time of its separation, here too, that dangling limb—

at the time of its separation from

the

person

afflicted with boils—

should render the person impure

through his touching the limb at the moment of its separation?

And we answer:

As Rav Yosef said: In a case where they are thrown off with all their force. Here too: In a case where they are thrown off with all their force

as he pulls himself rapidly away from the limb and does not manage to touch it, unlike liquid that emerges slowly from the leek. At the time of its emergence, when it has the power to render food susceptible, it touches the leek.

And we explain:

And where was

this statement

of Rav Yosef stated?

With regard to this:

As it was taught:

A zav and one rendered impure by a corpse who were walking along the road, and rain fell upon them,

then

even though they wring

the

liquids

that is, the rainwater

that fell

upon their garments, and they move it with their hands

from the upper side

of the garment

to the lower side,

so that they themselves touch the water, nevertheless the water is

pure ,

because

they are not considered significant!

The rainwater wrung from their garments is not considered significant as water, since it is destined to be absorbed by the lower hem of the garment.

Rather,

only

after the water has emerged

from

the

garment

entirely is it considered significant .

она приобретает значение .

Once they have emerged from the entire garment, these

water

have

become significant, in that they acquire the status of water and

render susceptible

food to contract ritual impurity,

and

they themselves remain

pure,

because they did not touch the zav or his garment after emerging from the garment.

And concerning this

Rav Yosef said:

that is, specifically

in a case where they are thrown off with all their force,

where the water was removed from the garment rapidly and did not manage to touch the garment of the zav at the time of its separation from him.

Mishna:

And Rabbi Akiva further asked

them:

One who slaughters five offerings outside

the Temple

in one lapse of awareness, what is the law?

Does he

incur liability for each and every one, or

does he incur liability for only one sin-offering

for all of them?

They said to him: We have not heard! [Although in the previous Mishna Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua said that one who has intercourse with five menstruating women incurs liability for each one, there is nevertheless a distinction: specifically with regard to human beings do we say that separate bodies divide the acts, whereas separate animal bodies do not divide them, Raavad, Torat Kohanim. See also Tosafot Yeshanim].

Rabbi Yehoshua said: I have heard

something similar

with regard to one who eats from one offering

before its blood was sprinkled on the altar

in five serving-vessels,

five forms of eating [and the Gemara explains this],

in one lapse of awareness, that he incurs liability for each and every one

of the acts of eating from the serving-vessels,

because of

the guilt-offering for

misuse of sacred property.

And I see that this is a kal va-chomer,

for if the serving-vessels divide the acts of eating into five liabilities for sin-offerings, all the more so separate animals divide the five acts of slaughter into five liabilities for sin-offerings.

Rabbi Shimon said: Rabbi Akiva did not ask in this manner!

Rather,

his question was

about one who eats notar from five offerings,

an olive-bulk from each one,

in one lapse of awareness—

what is the law?

Does he

incur one liability for

all five acts of eating

or does he incur liability for each and every one?

They said to him: We have not heard!

Rabbi Yehoshua said: I have heard that one who eats from one offering in five serving-vessels in one lapse of awareness incurs liability for each and every one—a guilt-offering

because of misuse of sacred property.

And I see that this is a kal va-chomer.

There is room to discuss whether, even when he ate them literally at one time, Rabbi Yehoshua holds that he must bring five sin-offerings, or whether this applies specifically when he ate them one after another. For although all of them were eaten in one lapse of awareness, nevertheless, since their bodies are distinct, he would be liable for two. But when he ate them literally at one time, there is only one act, for even according to the view that one who eats two olive-bulks of forbidden fat at one time is liable for two sin-offerings, when he eats them literally at one time he is liable for only one, as the Rashba wrote in Shabbat [93b]. See below [15a]. It follows that even when the bodies are distinct, he would be liable for only one. In truth, Minḥat Ḥinukh already addressed this fundamental inquiry, but he discussed it according to the view of Tosafot Rid, who holds that everyone agrees that separate bodies divide the acts with regard to animals during their lifetimes; thus, if one removed forbidden fat from five living animals and ate it, he would be liable for five sin-offerings [this will, with God’s help, be explained below, 16a note 85]. Minḥat Ḥinukh was uncertain whether this law applies even when he ate them literally at one time. See Afikei Yam [2:6]. Rabbi Akiva said

to Rabbi Yehoshua:

If it is a halakha,

that this is what you received from your teachers, that one incurs liability for each and every offering because of notar,

we will accept

it. But

if it is an inference,

that you derive a kal va-chomer on your own,

there is an answer

to this kal va-chomer!

He said to him,

Rabbi Yehoshua:

Answer it!

He said to him,

Rabbi Akiva:

No!

Notar cannot be derived from misuse of sacred property.

For if you say with regard to misuse of sacred property

that the serving-vessels divide the acts, this is because

the verse made the one who feeds

another person sacred property

as one who eats it,

and he is liable for the guilt-offering for misuse

just as

if he himself

ate .

And it made one who provides benefit

to another person from sacred property, with an item that is not food, liable for a guilt-offering

just as

if he himself

benefited, [for this is the law of misuse of sacred property: the first person who removes sacred property into non-sacred use commits the misuse, and thereby the sacred property becomes non-sacred and is no longer subject to misuse].

There is another stringency with regard to misuse of sacred property: if one

combines acts of misuse over a long period,

benefiting today from sacred property worth half a pruta and, after a long time, benefiting from an additional half-pruta’s worth, they combine to make a pruta [the measure for liability for misuse], and he must bring a guilt-offering for misuse.

Can you say the same with regard to notar, which lacks even one of

all

these features!

Only one who himself eats notar is liable for a sin-offering, not one who feeds it to others; and he is liable only if he eats an olive-bulk at one time, not if he eats two half-olive-bulks with a lengthy interruption between them. Therefore, it logically follows that he is not liable for each and every one even when eating from five offerings .

Gemara:

And we consider the matter:

What difficulty did Rabbi Shimon have

with the wording of the first tanna concerning Rabbi Akiva’s question, which concerned slaughtering five offerings outside?

And we answer:

This was his difficulty:

if the question concerned one who slaughters outside, why did Rabbi Yehoshua answer him by bringing proof from eating sacred food?

What proof

is that

for one who slaughters

outside

from one who eats

from five serving-vessels of consecrated meat, who is liable for a guilt-offering for misuse for each serving-vessel? For one can refute the comparison:

What is the case with one who eats, for he derives benefit

from his eating; therefore it is logical that he should be liable for each offering, whereas one who slaughters does not derive benefit from his slaughtering .

Rather, this is what

Rabbi Akiva

asked: One who eats notar from five offerings in one lapse of awareness, what is the law?

Does he

incur liability for each and every one, or one liability for all of them? They said to him: We have not heard!

Rabbi Yehoshua said: I have heard that one who eats from one offering in five serving-vessels in one lapse of awareness incurs liability for each and every one,

a guilt-offering

because of misuse of sacred property.

And I see that this is a kal va-chomer.

And

if

one who eats from

one offering, where there are no

separate

bodies,

nevertheless

incurs liability for each and every one,

and

because serving-vessels divide the acts, then one who eats notar from

five offerings,

which

have

—

incurs liability for each and every offering.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Akiva said to him: If it is a halakha, we will accept it.

And we consider the matter:

Did Rabbi Yehoshua accept this answer from Rabbi Akiva, or not?

Come and hear: As it was taught: One who ate five pieces of notar from one offering, in one lapse of awareness, in five serving-vessels—

he brings only one sin-offering. And for their uncertain status,

when he is uncertain whether the five pieces he ate [in the manner described above] were notar or valid pieces,

he brings only one provisional guilt-offering.

And if he ate the notar in five pieces,

in five unawarenesses—

he brings a sin offering for each and every one

of the acts of eating, because the unawarenesses divide them.

And if he ate five pieces of notar

from five sacrifices,

then

even

if he ate them

in one unawareness, he is liable for each and every one. And for the cases in which their transgressions were not known, he brings one provisional guilt offering for each and every one.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, say: Even if he ate five pieces from five sacrifices in one unawareness, he brings only one sin offering.

And for their uncertainties,

when he is uncertain whether what he ate was notar or permitted,

he brings only one provisional guilt offering.

The general principle is: whenever they are divided with regard to sin offerings,

so that he brings a separate sin offering for each one,

they are divided

also

with regard to provisional guilt offerings

[according to everyone].

And the first tanna, who said above, concerning one who ate from five bowls, that he brings only one sin offering, agrees with regard to the offering for me'ila that if he

ate five pieces in five bowls of one sacrifice before the sprinkling of the blood

even in one unawareness, he is liable for each and every one

of the bowls

because of me'ila 84 .

And now we conclude with regard to the proof whether Rabbi Yehoshua received it from Rabbi Akiva or not: