אמרו לו – even if one [witness] says to hm, “you ate forbidden fat,” and he is silent and doesn’t contradict him.

מביא חטאת – by his word.

שנים אומרים לו אכלת חלב – and even one-hundred [witnesses], but he contradicts them and says: “I am sure that I did not eat [prohibited fat],” he does not bring a sacrifice through their word, as it is written (Leviticus 4:28): “Or the sin of which he is guilty is brought to his knowledge,” and not that others would inform him.

רבי מאיר מחייב – but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir.

אם הביאוהו שנים כו' – as, for example, if they testified against him that he killed a person.

ם ירצה לומה מזיד הייתי – if he would want to exempt himself through a lie, he would be able to say, “I acted willfully” for a person who acts willfully is exempt from a sacrifice.

חלב וחלב – two olives of forbidden fat.

בהעלם אחד – but two acts of forgetfulness/brought to his knowledge, he would be liable on each one, for we hold that the acts of forgetfulness divide.

ממין אחד חייב – this comes to tell us that even though the two halves of olives are not from one tray/charity plate, , that is, from one cooked dish, but they are cooked separately, even so, ethey combine, because the plates do not separate.

כמה ישהה האוכלן – for the two halves of olives that we mentioned combine.

כאילו אוכלן קליות – we see them as if they had been broken into [thin] crumbs like parched corn and eat them one by one closely after the other, and in this we estimate if he ate one-half of an olive and he ceased and an hour ate another half-olive, but if he delayed from the beginning until the end in order to eat parched corn at close intervals to each other, they combine, but if he did not stop from eating, but rather that he delayed in chewing them and swallowing them, even the entire day, they combine, according to the words of Rabbi Meir.

וחכמים אומרים עד ישהה מתחילה ועד סוף כדי אכילת פרס (eating a piece/a certain quantity of bread) – meaning to say, even if he didn’t stop between eating one-half of an olive and the eating of the other half, but rather, that he delayed in chewing the two halves of olives [for the time it would take] in order to eat a piece of bread, from the beginning of eating until the end of swallowing, they combine. But more than [the time it would take] in order to eat a piece of bread, it would not combine. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

פרס – the language of breaking bread/piece of bread and reciting Birkat HaMazon. And this is one-half a loaf of the Eruv (i.e., to establish the joining of borders), from three loaves to a Kab, for each loave is eight eggs; it is found that one-half of a loaf is four eggs. Such is what my Rabbis have explained. But Maimonides states that it is three eggs worth.

אכל אוכלים טמאים – A person who consumes impure foods the equivalent one-half of a loaf which is two eggs, according to the interpretation of my Teachers. But, according to Maimonides, an egg and a half, his body is disqualified from eating heave-offering/Terumah (if he is a Kohen) until he immerses [in a Mikveh]. But the person who drinks one-fourth of a LOG of wine or enters into the Temple is liable for extirpation. But now, as we state, if he delayed in the eating of half-of loaf of ritually impure food or in the drinking of one-fourth of a LOG of ritually impure drinks, that would be considered as consuming one-half a loaf, they combine to the measurement and his body is disqualified from consuming heave-offering [if he is a Kohen]. But if he delayed more than this measure, they don’t combine. And the same law applies to the measurement of a quarter of a LOG of wine of entering into the Temple, for if he delayed in his drinking in order to eat half-a-loaf or less, he is liable; more than this, he is exempt.

אם הפסיק בה (if he interrupted) – and didn’t drink the entire quarter of a LOG at one clip and entered in the Temple, he is exempt, as it is written (Leviticus 10:9): “Drink no wine or other intoxicant, [you or your sons, when you enter the Tent of Meeting, that you may not die],” wine in the manner of his drunkenness. But if he doesn’t drink it at one clip, this is not the manner of his drunkenness. And similarly, if he placed water in it. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer. And these words refer to when he drinks an actual one-quarter of a LOG, but if he drank more than one-quarter of a LOG, Rabbi Eliezer admits that he is liable, even if he didn’t drink all of it at one clip.

ארבע חטאות – one is because of [eating] forbidden fat, and one is because of eating Holy Things while [in a state of] ritually impure, and one is because of a remnant/left over (i.e., part of an offering left over after the time permitted for it to be eaten), and one because it was on Yom Kippur, for we hold throughout the entire Torah, that a prohibition does not take effect upon another prohibition , these words refer to a mere prohibition, as for example, a person who consumes the carrion of n impure animal, he is not liable because of he carrion because it is a mere prohibition that is not inclusive, nor does it add [to the prohibition]. But here, a person who was from the outset ritually pure, he was prohibited to consume prohibited fat and permitted with the rest of the meat of Holy Things. If he became ritually impure, since he became prohibited as regards the rest of the pieces of the meat of Holy Things because of ritual impurity, he is prohibited also [to consume] the prohibited fat, even though he was forbidden from the outset, and that is, an inclusive prohibition, that the final prohibition includes and prohibits other things on a person that were permitted to him from the outset. But however, it doesn’t add a prohibition on a sacred object held in hand at the delivery of an oath, but rather on the person it adds a prohibition regarding other things, and whetting the appetite and measuring also for this in his prohibition. This forbidden fat becomes a left-over (i.e., after the time permitted for it to be eaten, which is a prohibition that adds, that ab initio for a regular Kohen, is prohibited but for the Most High is permitted, since when it became a left-over, added a prohibition on the piece [of meat] itself to be forbidden even to the Most High. But since the name of a left-over prohibition takes effect upon it to make it forbidden to the Most High, it also takes affect the title of left-over regarding an ordinary [Priest] to make it liable because of left-overs, even though that without this, it would be forbidden to the regular [Priest]. The [prohibition] of Yom Kippur occurs to it, since a prohibition was added regarding a person to prohibit him from [partaking of] non-consecrated things which were permitted to him prior to Yom Kippur, whetting the appetite and measuring for this prohibited fat of Holy Things explicitly to be liable for it because of the Day of Atonement.

ואשם אחד – the guilt-offering for misuse of consecrated articles that he benefitted from that which was consecrated [to the Temple] inadvertently. But even this prohibition adds on the sacred object that is held at the delivery of an oath, for prior to his sanctifying it, this forbidden fat was prohibited to eat, but permissible in deriving benefit, once it was sanctified, it becomes prohibited even for deriving benefit, and because the name of “dedicated to the Temple” takes effect on the forbidden fat to prohibit him from deriving benefit, it also takes effect to make him liable for eating it because he is benefitting from that which is dedicated to the Temple.

אם היה שבת והוציאו בפיו – while he was eating it [going from one domain to another].

חייב – [he is liable] also on he removal from one domain to another. Bur in the Gemara (Tractate Keritot 14a) it explains that this is what he said: If it was Yom Kippur that fell on the Sabbath and he took it out, he is liable for two [sins] on his removing it – because of the Sabbath and because of Yom Kippur, the two of them come as one, for at the time that he sanctified the day for Sabbath, he sanctified also for Yom Kippur. And just as there is an Eruv and removal [from one domain to another] for Shabbat, so too, there is an Eruv and removal [from one domain to another] on Yom Kippur. And the prohibition takes effect upon another prohibition with the prohibition at one time.

אינו מן השם – meaning to say the Tanna/teacher (i.e., Rabbi Meir) did not consider anything other than sin-offerings that come because of eating, but this is because of removal [from one domain to another].

בתו ואחותו – as, for example, he who has sexual intercourse with his mother and gives birth from this to a daughter, and she is his daughter and his sister from his mother, but his brother’s wife who was married to him prior to this and he died, and after his death, she married his father’s brother, and her father had sexual intercourse with her while she was a menstruant woman, and now we have the prohibition of his daughter and his sister that come as one. But even though she is illegitimate and prohibited to enter into the congregation/community [of the LORD], when she married to her father’s brother, the betrothal/Kiddushin was valid with her, because Kiddushin/betrothal takes effect in those who are liable for violating a negative commandment. Alternatively, if her father’s brothers were illegitimate/Mamzerim they are permitted to marry her ab initio, but she is prohibited to her father because of the prohibition of his brother’s wife because he is an additional prohibition, for at the outset, she was permitted to all the brothers of her father, and when she married to one of them, she became prohibited to all of the rest of the brothers [of her father], and because the name of brother’s wife takes effect regarding the rest of the brothers that she was permitted to him, the name of the brother’s wife also takes effect regarding her father to make her liable also because of the wife of his brothers. If his brother died and she married the brother of her father’s father, since it adds to her a prohibition regarding the rest of his father’s brothers, it adds to her the prohibition regarding himself. She would be a married woman, since she added a prohibition regarding the world (i.e., by being married), a prohibition added to her regarding him. If she became menstruous, since a prohibition was added regarding her husband, a prohibition was also added regarding him.

חייב עליה משום בת בתו וכלתו – as for example, when she married his son.

ואחות אשתו – when he married the daughter of his brother-in-law, who is the sister of his daughter’s daughter from/through the father.

ואשת אחיו – when his son died and she married the brother of this one.

ואשת אחי אביו – that his brother died and she married his father’s brother.

אם עבר הזקן (if the grandfather transgressed) – the father of this one, and he married her, and afterwards, he had sexual relations with her, e is liable even on the [prohibition of] the father’s wife. But even though she is the wife of his brother, for we obligate him to an entity because of the wife of his father’s brother, so we see that she is forbidden to him, to his father because of her being his brother’s wife and she has no marital status with her, what are we dealing with here? As for example, when she fellow before him for a levirate marriage from his brother, who died without children and he engaged in levirate marriage and married her, but this grandfather who sinned who is taught in the Mishnah, which is because she is to him only a second level prohibition, because of the daughter of his son’s daughter and because of the wife of his son, because from the words of the Scribes, both of them are secondary relationships. But if you say that she is his daughter-in-law, we obligate him to an entity because she is the brother’s wife, which is not a refutation/objection, for one could establish that she is the brother’s wife of his son from his mother, and not the daughter-in-law of the father, but rather, the wife of his stepson and she is permitted to him. But if you should say, what prohibition is there that is added with the daughter of his daughter, when his father sinned and married her, for she is liable to him also, because of the prohibition of being the wife of the father, This matter is asked in the Gemara (Tractate Keritot 14b) and they answered that there is a son to the grandfather and he is the brother of that one (the Gemara uses the illustration of Ishmael dying without children and Isaac, his brother, who is the father of Jacob, engaged in a levirate marriage with Ishmael’s wife; but even though she is the wife of the brother of Jacob his son (i.e., Esau), she is not his daughter-in-law, for we are speaking here of the brother of Jacob from the mother, for he was not the son of Isaac), for since a prohibition was added through her regarding that son because of her father’s wife, a prohibition was added also regarding him.

וכן הבא על בת אשתו – he is liable for her because of of these that he is liable with his daughter.

ועל בת בת אשתו – he is liable because of all of those that he is liable for engaging in sexual intercourse with the daughter of his daughter. But the daughter of his wife who is his sister is found with her. As, for example, that his father either raped or seduced a woman and through her gave birth to a daughter, and afterwards he married the raped or seduced wife of his father who is permitted to him, for that daughter is his sister or the daughter of his wife. But the daughter of his wife’s daughter and the siser of his wife is found, as for example, that the father of his wife had sexual relations with the daughter of his wife, and she gave birth to a daughter, that daughter is the daughter of his wife’s daughter and the sister of his wife.

משום חמותו וכלתו ואחות אשתו (because of his mother-in-law, his daughter-in-law and his wife’s sister) – the father who had sexual intercourse with his daughter and produced from her a daughter, Reuven married this daughter, her mother is prohibited to him because she is his mother-in-law and [because] she is his wife’s sister; If she married the son of Reuven, there is added to her the prohibition because of his daughter-in-law. If the son of Reuven died, or he divorced her and she married his brother, there is added to her the prohibition of being the wife of his brother. If his brother dies or he divorced her and she married his father’s brother, there is added to her the prohibition of being the wife of his father’s brother. If she merely married and she is a married woman and is menstruating. If Reuven had sexual relations with her while she was married and a menstruating woman, he is liable for her because of all of these prohibitions listed by name.

וכן הבא על אם חמותו – Laban has sexual relations with Dinah, the daughter of Leah his daughter, and he sires a daughter, whose name is Serah; the person (i.e., man) who marries Serah is forbidden to Leah because of the mother of his mother-in-law and because she is the sister of his wife, for Serah his wife and Leah are the daughters of Laban. If Leah is married to the daughter of the husband of Serah,, and becomes his daughter-in-law, and afterwards to his brother, and afterwards to the brother of his father, if the husband of Serah has sexual relations while she is a married woman and a menstruating woman, he is liable for her because of all of the categories mentioned.

ואם חמיו – Reuven has sexual relations with his grandmother, the wife of Laban, the mother of his mother Leah, and he sires a daughter and her name is Dinah, the person who marries Dinah will be forbidden to Leah, the mother of Reuven will be forbidden to him because of [the prohibition] of the mother of his father-in-law and because of the [prohibition] of the sister of his wife, for Dinah, his wife, and Leah, the mother of his father-in-law, both of them are the daughters of the wife of Laban. If she became his daughter-in-law and afterwards the wife of his brother and afterwards the wife of his father’s brother and a married woman and a menstruating woman, he is liable for her because of all of these categories mentioned.

הבא על חמותו חייב עליה כו' – The wife of Laban had two daughters, Leah and Rachel, and one son, whose name is Asher, and the name of Asher’s daughter is Serah, and one came from the marketplace and married Rachel and Yocheved the daughter of Leah and Serah the daughter of Asher, and afterwards, the person who marries these three women has sexual relations with the wife of Laban, he is liable on her account because of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law. Because of his mother-in-law, for she is the mother of Rachel his wife. And because of the mother of his mother-in-law, for she is the mother is Leah his mother-in-law. And because of the mother of his father-in-law, because she is the mother of Asher his father-in-law.

שלשתן שם אחד הם – in one Biblical verse it is written (see Leviticus 18:17 – “Do not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; nor shall you marry her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter and uncover her nakedness: they are kindred; it is depravity”) and one it is not. Therefore, there is no separation of sin-offerings between them. And this is the Halakha (i.e., only one sin-offering).

באיטליס – a marketplace where they sell meat there.

של אמאום – the name of a city.

הבא על אחותו וכו' – this is what he said: he who has sexual relations with his sister who is the sister of of his father and the sister of his mother, and we have found such a case, as, for example, when Reuven had sexual relations with his mother and fathered from her two daughters and then he returned and had sexual relations with one of these daughters and from her fathered a so, and the son had sexual relations with his sister, who is the sister of his father and the sister of his mother.

וחומר – And what if a person had sexual intercourse with five wives who are menstruating women which are one category (Leviticus 18:19): “Do not come near a woman during her period of uncleanness,” he would be liable for each and every one. A person who has sexual relations with his siter, who is the sister of his father and the sister of his mother, which are three categories, meaning to say, three negative commandments that are divided, is it not the case that he should be liable for each and every one? But this a fortiori is refuted/raises an objection, for how can five women who are menstruating be separate/distinct bodies? But the reason, is because as Scripture states (Leviticus 20:17): “He has uncovered the nakedness of his sister, etc.,” and it is an extra verse, for at the beginning of the verse, it is written “If a man marries his sister….so that he sees her nakedness, etc.” Why should he review further “that he has uncovered his sister’s nakedness,” but rather to teach about his sister who is the father’s sister and his mother’s sister, who is liable for each and every one.

אבר המדולדל בבהמה – most of it is detached and part of it is interwoven.

מהו – that he should become defiled because of [the prohibition of] a limb from a living animal, as if it was detached completely, but we hold in [Tractate Hullin, Chapter 9, Mishnah 8] “The Flesh and the Juice,” that a limb from a living animal defiles like a carrion. But a limb that is detached completely from a human being completely defiles like the dead person.

באבר המדולדל באדם – that it is partly interwoven, it is ritually pure.

מוכי שחין (afflicted with boils) - that their limbs are falling.

וחותכה – not because of ritual purity, for before this, it is also ritually pure, but rather so that it is not detestable on the Festival with a dangling limb.

שמניח בו כשערה – but doesn’t cut it off completely, so as to not defile the person who cuts it (i.e., the doctor) when he touches it at the time of its separation.

ותוחבו – to the limb.

בסירה – with a thorn that is attached the ground.

והוא – the sick person.

נמשך – and the limb is torn away on its own, and the sick person is not ritually impure because he pulls himself with strength at one clip and the limb is detached from im with power and there is no contact at the time of separation.

שהדברים קל וחומר – for just as a person is susceptible to ritual defilement while alive, the dangling limb from him is ritually pure, an animal which is not susceptible to ritual impurity while alive, is it not the case that the limb that is dangling from it is ritually pure?

באוכל מזבח אחד בחמשה תמחויין – with five cooked dishes separated from each other, he is liable for religious sacrilege if he consumed them prior to the sprinkling of their blood.

שהדברים קל וחומר – just as one altar where the bodies are not divided, one is obligated on each and every one because the dishes are divided, five sacrifices whose bodies are divided, is this not the case all the more so?

לא כך שאלן ר' עקיבא – for if he asked them about the slaughterer, what proof did they bring to him from the food, for it is possible to refute him: just as the food which is enjoyed, but rather, perforce, he didn’t ask Rabbi Akiva other than with left-over food from five sacrifices, and he also brought him a proof from food.

אם הלכה – that this is what you received from your Rabbi/Master, he is liable for [sacrilege] for each one of the sacrifices.

ואם לדין – that you learn it from an a fortiori from the laws of religious sacrilege, there is a response.

את המאכיל כאוכל – for if he gave food dedicated to the Temple to his fellow, he is liable as if he at him himself, for we hold that a person who removes something dedicated to be unconsecrated, he has committed sacrifice and not the individual to whom it is was given.

והמהנה כנהנה – with a matter that is not something eatable.

צריף את המעילה לזמן מרובה – meaning to say, and there is another stringency regarding religious sacrilege, that if he benefited today with half of a penny, and from here until a year with another half-penny, they combine to form a penny, as well that we make a profit from (Leviticus 5:14): “When a person commits a trespass, [being unwittingly remiss about any of the LORD’s sacred things],” he increased.

תאמר באכילת נותר – that we judge upon him that he doesn’t have one of these stringencies, and the matter is not made clear if Rabbi Yehoshua accepted that response or did not accept it. But the Halakhic decision is that a person who eats left-overs from five sacrifices in one act of forgetfulness is not liable other than for one sin-offering, and the dishes are not divided whether for leniency or stringency.

מלאכות הרבה מעין מלאכה אחת – many derivatives of one chief category [of work on Shabbat].

ובשבתות הרבה – those that he did on that Shabbat he did on other Sabbaths, and all of them were in one act of forgetfulness. But in the Gemara (Tractate Keritot 16a and continued on Keritot 16b) raises the objection: Why was it necessary that it mentioned [in the Mishnah] many Sabbaths and many and many derivatives, why did it [i.e., the Mishnah] take “derivatives” and not chief categories of labor? And it answers that Rabbi Akiva asked two things from him: One: A person who does one form of work on many Sabbaths and he knows that it is Shabbat, but that he held that this labor is permitted, meaning, willfully, regarding [knowledge of] Shabbat and Inadvertently regarding labors, and this is what he asked him: this [individual] that performed one [prohibited] form of work on two Sabbaths, shall we say that since that they are on two days, even though it is one act of forgetfulness, regarding the [prohibited] work, these Sabbaths would be like divided bodies of [forbidden] labor , that are not similar one to the other, as for example, that he sowed [a field] and repeated in one act of forgetfulness - that is a willful violation of Shabbat but an inadvertent [form of] labor, that he is liable for each and every one [of the labors], or they are not like divided bodies, and it is as if he performed through one act of forgetfulness one [forbidden] form of labor ten times and is not liable for each and every one, for one can’t say here that the days in-between are a knowledge [of the violation on Shabbat] to divide, for specifically, regarding the matter of an inadvertent [violation of] Shabbat there is the awareness to know that it was Shabbat, but regarding the inadvertent nature of the labors performed, there isn’t awareness until he studies. And further, they inquired of him, if he performed many derivative acts from one primary form of labor [of the thirty-nine mentioned in Tractate Shabbat, Chapter Seven, Mishnah Two], is he liable for one [violation only] or on each and every act [performed, and for this reason, it (i.e., the Mishnah) refers to derivatives [of the primary forms of labor].

אמר לו חייב על כל אחת ואחת – He (i.e., Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyranus) explained to him (i.e., Rabbi Akiva) that on both [questions], a stringent [response], that a person who performs one [forbidden] labor on many Sabbaths willfully disregarding Shabbat while the [individual prohibited] forms of labor are inadvertent, is liable for each and every Sabbath [when this particular prohibited labor is violated], for these Sabbaths are compared to divided bodies, and the derivates of these [forbidden] forms of labor are like [forbidden] forms of labor, and he is liable for each and every derivative, and even though they are from one chief category [of forbidden work], it is as if he did many chief categories of labor.

ומה נדה – in the Gemara (Tractate Keritot 17a) we state that it teaches menstruating women (i.e.. plural), he who has sexual relations with five menstruating women is liable for each and every act, for they are separated entities/bodies.

תוצאות הרבה – many different matters, as, for example, the Sabbath which has chief categories of labor and their derivatives. But [concerning] a menstruating woman, the only legal obligation that she has is [the prohibition] from sexual intercourse.

והנדה מוזהרת עליו – as it is written (Leviticus 20:18): “[If a man lies with a woman in her infirmity and uncovers her nakedness, he has laid bare her flow and she has exposed her blood flow;] both of them shall be cut off from among their people.”

הבא על הקטנה – He who has sexual relations with five menstruating minor [females] is liable for each and every one of them, even though the minor [female] is not warned [regarding this prohibition].

הבא על הבהמה יוכיח – [a male who has sexual intercourse with an animal] is liable for each and every act of sexual intercourse.

בהמה כשבת – meaning to say, just as I need to mention it regarding Shabbat, it is also necessary to mention it regarding [sexual intercourse] with animals. But Rabbi Akiva did not accept from Rabbi Eliezer [ben Hyrcanus], neither in the matter that he mentioned about one who does one chief form of labor on many Sabbaths that they are like separate bodies, nor regarding the matter of derivatives of primary forms of labor are like primary forms of labor. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.