He who cohabits with his mother-in-law may be liable for her as his mother-in-law, his daughter-in-law, his wife’s sister, his brother’s wife, his father’s brother’s wife, a married woman, and a menstruant. And so is he who cohabits with his motherin-law’s mother or his father-in-law’s mother. R’ Yochanan ben Nuri says: He who cohabits with his mother-in-law can be liable for her as his mother-in-law, his mother-in-law’s mother, and his father-in-law’s mother. They said to him: The three of them are of one denomination.

Said R’ Akiva: I asked Rabban Gamliel and R’ Yehoshua in the meat market of Emmaus when they went to purchase an animal for Rabban Gamliel’s son’s feast: One who cohabits with his sister, his father’s sister, and his mother’s sister, in one lapse of awareness — what is he [liable for]? Is he liable to one [chatas] for all of them or one for each? And they replied to me: [This] we have not heard, but we have heard that one who cohabits with his five menstruous wives, in a single lapse of awareness, is liable for each one, and we believe that the matter is a kal vachomer.

R’ Akiva asked them further: A dangling limb of an animal — what is it [considered]? They replied to him: [This] we have not heard, but we have heard that a dangling limb of a human is tahor, for so were the lepers in Jerusalem wont to do: He would go to a surgeon on the eve of Pesach, and [the latter would] sever it until he would leave over a barleycorn’s breadth and impale it on a thorn, and he would pull away from it. Then, that person would make his pesach [-offering] and the surgeon would make his pesach [-offering], and we believe that the matter is a kal vachomer.

R’ Akiva asked them further: [If] one slaughters five offerings outside [the Temple] in one lapse of awareness — what is the ruling? Is he liable to one [chatas] for all of them or one for each? They replied to him: [This] we have not heard. Said R’ Yehoshua: I have heard that one who eats of one offering in five dishes in one lapse of awareness is liable for a me’ilah offering for each one, and I believe that the matter is a kal vachomer. Said R’ Shimon: R’ Akiva did not ask them about such a case, rather if one ate leftover of five offerings in one lapse of awareness — what is [he liable for]? Is he liable to one for all of them or one for each one? They replied to him: We have not heard. Said R’ Yehoshua: I have heard that if one eats from one offering in five dishes, he is liable for a me’ilah offering for each one, and I believe that the matter is a kal vachomer. Said R’ Akiva: If [this is] an accepted halachah, we will accept [it], but if [it is] a logical deduction, there is a refutation. He said to him: Refute [it]. He replied to him: No, if you say [that] in the case of me’ilah, in which [the Torah] made the one who gives to eat as though he were eating, and the one who bestows benefit as though he were receiving benefit, [and the Torah] reckoned together the me’ilah over a long period of time, can you say [the same] regarding the case of the leftover offering, which has none of these [stringencies]?