פרק כלל גדול: מקורות התנאיים

(7) Rabbi Akiva said: I asked Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Yehoshua at the meat-market of Emmaus where they went to buy beef for the wedding feast of Rabban Gamaliel's son: What [is the ruling if] one had relations with his sister, and his father's sister, and his mother's sister under one spell of unawareness? Is he liable for one [sacrifice] for all of them, or one [sacrifice each] for each of them? And they said to me: We have not heard [any teaching about this matter], but we have heard that if one had relations with his five wives who were Niddot under one spell of unawareness, he is liable for each [act], and it seems to us that [your case may be understood by employing] a fortiori reasoning.

(8) Rabbi Akiva further asked them: What [is the ruling regarding impurity] of a limb hanging loose from [the body of a living] animal? They said to him: We have not heard [any teaching about this matter], but we have heard that a limb hanging loose from [the body of] a man is pure. This is what one afflicted with boils would do in Jerusalem. On the eve of Pesach he would go to the doctor who would cut [the limb] until only a barley-corn [size of flesh] remained. He then stuck it on a thorn and tore himself away from it. Both he [the patient] and the doctor could [subsequently] bring their Passover offerings. And it seems to us that [your case may be understood by employing] a fortiori reasoning.

(9) Rabbi Akiva further asked them: What [is the ruling if] one slaughtered five sacrifices outside [the Temple precincts] under one spell of unawareness? Is he liable for one [sacrifice] for all of them, or one [sacrifice each] for each of them? They said to him: We have not heard [any teaching about this matter]. Rabbi Yehoshua said: I have heard that [if] one eats five dishes from one sacrifice under one spell of unawareness, he is liable for a [sacrifice] of Me'ilah [misuse of consecrated property] for each one of them, and it seems to me that [your case may be understood by employing] a fortiori reasoning. Rabbi Shimon said: This was not what Rabbi Akiva asked, but rather: What [is the ruling if] one ate Notar from five sacrifices under one spell of unawareness? Is he liable for one [sacrifice] for all of them, or one [sacrifice each] for each of them? They said to him: We have not heard [any teaching about this matter]. Rabbi Yehoshua said: I have heard that [if] one eats five dishes from one sacrifice under one spell of unawareness, he is liable for a [sacrifice] of Me'ilah for each one of them, and it seems to me that [your case may be understood by employing] a fortiori reasoning. Rabbi Akiva said: If this is a [received] law we shall accept it; but if it is a logical deduction, there is a rebuttal. He said to him: Rebut then! He said to him: No, though you say this with regard to Me'ilah where one who feeds another is as [responsible] as the one who eats, and the one who leads others to benefit is as [responsible] as the one who benefits; [and furthermore, small quantities are] reckoned together in [a case of] Me'ilah [even after the lapse of time]; can you say so with [regard to] Notar where none of these [laws applies]?

(10) Rabbi Akiva said: I asked Rabbi Eliezer: What [is the ruling] if one performs many acts within the same category of Melakhah [a constructive activity forbidden on Shabbat and festivals] on many Shabbatot under one spell of unawareness? Is he liable for one [sacrifice] for all of them, or one [sacrifice each] for each of them? He said to me: [We can reason through] a fortiori reasoning [that] he is liable for one [sacrifice] for each of them. If with regard to a Niddah [a woman who has menstruated and is thereby impure], for whom there are neither many categories nor many [possibilities to be liable for] chata'ot, one is still liable for each [act of congress with her, in the case of] Shabbat for which there are many categories [of activity] and many [possibilities to be liable for] chata'ot, is it not logical that one should be liable for each one? I said to him: No, though you say so regarding Niddah, that has two warnings, for he is warned regarding the Niddah, and the Niddah is warned regarding the man; can you say so regarding Shabbat which has just one warning? He said to me: One who has relations with [Niddah] minors [which is a prohibition] with just one warning will prove [the point since] he is liable for each one. I said to him: No, though you say so regarding one who has relations with minors, there even though there is no [prohibition] for them [that is, from the girls' perspective] now, there is [a prohibition] for them later; will you say so regarding Shabbat where there is no [second warning] either now nor later? He said to me: One who has relations with with an animal will prove [the point]. I said to him: [The reasoning regarding] an animal is comparable to [that regarding] Shabbat.

(1) They [the Sages] stated a major rule they with respect to Shabbat: [If] one [entirely] forgot the principle of Shabbat, and performed many Melakhot [constructive activities forbidden on Shabbat and festivals] on many Shabbatot, he is only liable for one Chattat [an offering brought to expiate sin]. [If] one was aware of the principle of Shabbat, but performed many Melakhot on many Shabbatot he is liable for [one Chattat] for every Shabbat. [If] one knew it was Shabbat and performed many Melakhot on many Shabbatot, he is liable [to bring a separate a Chattat] for every principal Melakhah. [If] one performed many Melakhot all of which stem from the same principal Melakhah, he is bound to bring but one Chattat.

(1) They [the Sages] stated a major rule they with respect to Shabbat: [If] one [entirely] forgot the principle of Shabbat, and performed many Melakhot [constructive activities forbidden on Shabbat and festivals] on many Shabbatot, he is only liable for one Chattat [an offering brought to expiate sin]. [If] one was aware of the principle of Shabbat, but performed many Melakhot on many Shabbatot he is liable for [one Chattat] for every Shabbat. [If] one knew it was Shabbat and performed many Melakhot on many Shabbatot, he is liable [to bring a separate a Chattat] for every principal Melakhah. [If] one performed many Melakhot all of which stem from the same principal Melakhah, he is bound to bring but one Chattat.