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.

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

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

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

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’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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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?

§ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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’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.

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.