## Keritot Daf 11a

###### Keritot 11a:1
[Keritot 11a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11a:1)

שֶׁעָשָׂה בָּהּ אֶת הַמֵּזִיד כַּשּׁוֹגֵג.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**That** the Torah **established her** status so that **the** one who engages in intercourse with her **intentionally is like the** one who does so **unwittingly,** as both are liable to bring a guilt offering, whereas one who engages in intercourse with those with whom relations are forbidden is liable to bring a sin offering only when he does so unwittingly.


###### Keritot 11a:2
[Keritot 11a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11a:2)

אֵיזוֹ שִׁפְחָה? כֹּל שֶׁחֶצְיָהּ שִׁפְחָה וְחֶצְיָהּ בַּת חוֹרִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהׇפְדֵּה לֹא נִפְדָּתָה״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: זוֹ הִיא שִׁפְחָה וַדָּאִית. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: כׇּל עֲרָיוֹת מְפוֹרָשׁוֹת, וְשִׁיּוּר אֵין לָנוּ אֶלָּא חֶצְיָהּ שִׁפְחָה וְחֶצְיָהּ בַּת חוֹרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Who is** the espoused **maidservant** in question? It is **any** woman **who is half-maidservant half-free woman,** i.e., a maidservant who belonged to two masters, one of whom liberated her, **as it is stated: “And she was redeemed and not redeemed”** (Leviticus 19:20), which means that she was partially but not completely redeemed. This is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yishmael says:** An espoused maidservant is a full-fledged **maidservant** whose status is **certain,** as the language of the verse does not mean redeemed and not redeemed; it is simply a way of stating that she was not redeemed. **Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: All those with whom relations are forbidden** are **enumerated** in the Torah, **and we have no exception other than one who is half-maidservant half-free woman.**


###### Keritot 11a:3
[Keritot 11a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11a:3)

**גְּמָ׳** מְנָלַן דְּהִיא לָקְיָ[א] וְהוּא לָא לָקֵי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״בִּקּוֹרֶת תִּהְיֶה״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהִיא לוֹקָה. יָכוֹל שְׁנֵיהֶן לוֹקִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תִּהְיֶה״ – הִיא לוֹקֶה וְהוּא אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that in the case of an espoused maidservant the Torah did not equate the man with the woman. The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive **that she is flogged and** that **he is not flogged? As the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: “And if a man lies carnally with a woman, and she is a maidservant designated for a **man…there shall be an inspection [*bikkoret tihye*]”** (Leviticus 19:20). This **teaches that she is flogged.** And as one **might** have thought that **both are flogged, the verse states: “There shall be [*tihye*],”** in the feminine, to teach that **she is flogged and he is not flogged.**


###### Keritot 11a:4
[Keritot 11a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11a:4)

וּמִנַּיִן דְּהָדֵין ״בִּקּוֹרֶת״ לִישָּׁנָא דְּמַלְקוּת הוּא? אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: ״תְּהֵא בֵּקָרָאֵי״, כִּדְתַנְיָא: גְּדוֹל הַדַּיָּינִין מַקְרִא, שֵׁנִי מוֹנֶה, שְׁלִישִׁי אוֹמֵר: הַכֵּהוּ. רַב אָשֵׁי אוֹמַר: ״בְּבִיקּוּר תִּהְיֶה״, כְּדִתְנַן: אֵין אוֹמְדִין אוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא מַכּוֹת הָרְאוּיוֹת לְהִשְׁתַּלֵּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And from where** is it derived **that this** word **inspection [*bikkoret*] is a term for flogging? Rabbi Yitzḥak said:** It indicates that **she shall be** subjected **to the reciting of [*bikra’ei*]** the verses, **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: The procedure for administering lashes is that before each lash is administered, **the eldest** or most prominent **of the** three **judges recites** the relevant verses in the Torah; the **second-**eldest one **counts** the lashes; and the **third says** to the attendant: **Strike him. Rav Ashi says** that it indicates that **she shall be** subject **to an assessment [*bikkur*], as we learned** in a mishna (*Makkot* 22a): **One assesses** the number of lashes that the one sentenced to be flogged is capable of withstanding, but **only by** a number of **lashes fit to be** divided by **three.** This teaches that the assessment is an essential part of the flogging procedure.


###### Keritot 11a:5
[Keritot 11a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11a:5)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בִּזְמַן שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה לוֹקָה – הָאִישׁ מֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן, אֵין הָאִשָּׁה לוֹקָה – אֵין הָאִישׁ מֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן. מְנָלַן? אָמַר רָבָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאִישׁ כִּי יִשְׁכַּב אֶת אִשָּׁה שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע וְהִיא שִׁפְחָה נֶחֱרֶפֶת לְאִישׁ וְהׇפְדֵּה לֹא נִפְדָּתָה אוֹ חוּפְשָׁה לֹא נִתַּן לָהּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **At the time that,** i.e., in any case where, **the woman is flogged, the man brings an offering.** In a case where **the woman is not flogged, the man does not bring an offering.** The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive this? **Rava said** that it is **as it is written: “And if a man lies carnally with a woman, and she is a maidservant designated for a man, and not at all redeemed, nor was freedom given her;** there shall be an inspection…He shall bring his guilt offering unto the Lord” (Leviticus 19:20–21).


###### Keritot 11a:6
[Keritot 11a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11a:6)

מִכְּדִי עַד הָכָא בְּאִישׁ קָא מִשְׁתַּעֵי קְרָא, נִכְתּוֹב: ״וְהֵבִיא אֶת אֲשָׁמוֹ לַה׳״, וּלְבַסּוֹף לִכְתּוֹב ״בִּקּוֹרֶת תִּהְיֶה״. אַמַּאי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא בְּרֵישָׁא: ״בִּקּוֹרֶת תִּהְיֶה״ וּלְבַסּוֹף כְּתַב: ״וְהֵבִיא אֶת אֲשָׁמוֹ לַה׳״? הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִם בִּקּוֹרֶת תִּהְיֶה הִיא – ״וְהֵבִיא אֶת אֲשָׁמוֹ לַה׳״, וְאִם לֹא תִּהְיֶה בִּקּוֹרֶת – לֹא יָבִיא הוּא אֶת אֲשָׁמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Since until here, the verse is dealing with a man, let it** first **write: “He shall bring his guilt offering unto the Lord,” and at the end let it write: “There shall be an inspection.” Why did the Merciful One first write: “There shall be an inspection,” and at the end write: “He shall bring his guilt offering unto the Lord”?** The Gemara explains that **this** is what the verse **is saying: If there will be an inspection,** meaning that the woman is to be flogged, then **“he shall bring his guilt offering unto the Lord.” But if there will not be an inspection,** then **he shall not bring his guilt offering.**


###### Keritot 11a:7
[Keritot 11a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11a:7)

אֵימָא, הוּא מַעֲטֵיהּ קְרָא, אֲבָל הִיא תִּילְקֵי וְתַיְתֵי קׇרְבָּן! – ״וְהֵבִיא אֶת אֲשָׁמוֹ לַה׳״ כְּתִיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: You can **say** that **the verse** in fact **excludes him** from being flogged due to the use of the term “there shall be,” thereby limiting his liability to bring a guilt offering; **but** even so, **she** should be **flogged and** also **bring an offering.** The Gemara explains: **“He shall bring his guilt offering unto the Lord,” is written** in the verse, instead of merely: He shall bring a guilt offering. This teaches that only he, and not she, brings a guilt offering.


###### Keritot 11a:8
[Keritot 11a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11a:8)

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא עַל שִׁפְחָה בְּעוּלָה בִּלְבָד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהִיא שִׁפְחָה נֶחֱרֶפֶת לְאִישׁ״. וּמַאי מַשְׁמַע, דְּהַאי ״נֶחֱרֶפֶת״ לִישָּׁנָא דְּשַׁנּוֹיֵי הוּא? דִּכְתִיב ״וַתִּשְׁטַח עָלָיו הָרִיפוֹת״. וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: ״אִם תִּכְתּוֹשׁ הָאֱוִיל בַּמַּכְתֵּשׁ בְּתוֹךְ הָרִיפוֹת בַּעֱלִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yitzḥak says: Actually, he is liable only** in a case where he engages in intercourse with **a non-virgin maidservant, as it is stated: “And she is a maidservant designated [*neḥerefet*] for a man.” And from where may** it **be inferred that this** word **“designated [*neḥerefet*],” is a term of change,** i.e., that she has already changed from her status as a virgin to that of a non-virgin? Rabbi Yitzḥak explains: **As it is written: “And strewed groats [*harifot*] thereon”** (II Samuel 17:19). Since groats are grains that have been crushed or otherwise changed from their original form, the linguistic correlation between *harifot* and *neḥerefet* indicates that both terms are referring to some form of change. **And if you wish, say** that it is inferred from the verse: **“Though you should bray a fool in a mortar with a pestle among groats [*harifot*]”** (Proverbs 27:22).


###### Keritot 11a:9
[Keritot 11a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11a:9)

״וַיִּתְּנוּ יָדָם לְהוֹצִיא נְשֵׁיהֶם וַאֲשֵׁמִים אֵיל צֹאן עַל אַשְׁמָתָם״, אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכּוּלָּן שְׁפָחוֹת חֲרוּפוֹת בָּעֲלוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is stated in another verse: “And among the sons of the priests there were found some that had married foreign women, namely: Of the sons of Jeshua, son of Jozadak, and his brethren, Maaseiah, and Eliezer, and Jarib, and Gedaliah. **And they gave their hand that they would divorce their wives; and being guilty, a ram of the flock for their guilt”** (Ezra 10:18–19). **Rav Ḥisda said:** This **teaches that they had all engaged in intercourse with espoused maidservants,** as guilt offerings are brought for engaging in intercourse only with an espoused maidservant.


###### Keritot 11a:10
[Keritot 11a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11a:10)

אֵיזוֹהִי שִׁפְחָה כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְהׇפְדֵּה״, יָכוֹל כּוּלָּהּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא נִפְדָּתָה״. יָכוֹל לֹא נִפְדָּתָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהׇפְדֵּה״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **Which is** the espoused **maidservant?** According to Rabbi Yehuda, it is any woman who is half-maidservant and half-free woman, whereas Rabbi Yishmael maintains that it is referring to a full-fledged maidservant. In relation to this dispute, **the Sages taught** in a *baraita* that deals with the verse: **“And she was redeemed”** (Leviticus 19:20): One **might** have thought that this means she was **entirely** redeemed. Therefore, **the verse states:** “And she was redeemed **and not redeemed,”** to teach that she was not entirely redeemed. If so, one **might** have thought that she **was not redeemed** at all. Therefore, **the verse states: “And she was redeemed,”** to teach that it is discussing a maidservant who was partially redeemed.


###### Keritot 11a:11
[Keritot 11a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11a:11)

הָא כֵיצַד? פְּדוּיָה וְאֵינָהּ פְּדוּיָה – חֶצְיָהּ שִׁפְחָה וְחֶצְיָיהּ בַּת חוֹרִין וּמְאוֹרֶסֶת לְעֶבֶד עִבְרִי, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: בְּשִׁפְחָה כְּנַעֲנִית הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, וּמְאוֹרֶסֶת לְעֶבֶד עִבְרִי. אִם כֵּן מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהׇפְדֵּה לֹא נִפְדָּתָה״? דִּבְּרָה תוֹרָה כִלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* asks: **How so?** The *baraita* answers: The verse is referring to a maidservant who was both **redeemed and not redeemed,** as **half of her is a maidservant** owned by one master who did not redeem her, **and half of her is a free woman,** as the partner who previously owned the other half of her has freed her, **and she is betrothed to a Hebrew slave.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yishmael says** that **the verse is speaking of a Canaanite maidservant** who was not redeemed at all **and** who **is engaged to a Hebrew slave. If so, why** must **the verse state: “And she was redeemed and not redeemed”?** The repetition is not halakhically significant; it is there because **the Torah spoke in the language of people,** and the phrase simply means: And she was not at all redeemed.


###### Keritot 11a:12
[Keritot 11a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11a:12)

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמֵר: כׇּל עֲרָיוֹת מְפוֹרָשׁוֹת לָנוּ, מְשׁוּיָּיר לָנוּ חֶצְיָהּ שִׁפְחָה וְחֶצְיָהּ בַּת חוֹרִין וּמְאוֹרֶסֶת לְעֶבֶד עִבְרִי. אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: ״לֹא יוּמְתוּ כִּי לֹא חוּפָּשָׁה״ – בְּשִׁפְחָה כְּנַעֲנִית הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, וּמְאוֹרֶסֶת לְעֶבֶד כְּנַעֲנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: All those with whom relations are forbidden are enumerated for us** explicitly in the Torah. The only case which is **excluded for us** from that generalization **is a half-maidservant half-free woman who is betrothed to a Hebrew slave. And *Aḥerim* say** that when it states: **“They shall not be put to death because she was not free,” the verse is speaking about a Canaanite maidservant who is betrothed to a Canaanite slave.**


###### Keritot 11a:13
[Keritot 11a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11a:13)

לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, בִּשְׁלָמָא ״וְהׇפְדֵּה לֹא נִפְדָּתָה״ – כִּדְקָתָנֵי: דִּבְּרָה תּוֹרָה כִלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם, אֶלָּא דְּקָתָנֵי: מְאוֹרֶסֶת לְעֶבֶד עִבְרִי, מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי לֹא חוּפָּשָׁה״, מִכְּלָל דְּהוּא חוּפַּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **According to Rabbi Yishmael, granted** that the phrase **“and she was redeemed and not redeemed”** is referring simply to a Canaanite maidservant, **as it is taught** in the *baraita*: **The Torah spoke in the language of people. But from where do we** derive **that** which **is taught,** i.e., that **she is betrothed** specifically **to a Hebrew slave?** The Gemara explains that it is **as it is written:** “They shall not be put to death, **because she was not free”** (Leviticus 19:20). **By inference,** it may be concluded **that he,** the man to whom she is betrothed, **is free.** A Hebrew slave is not the property of his owner, but is merely obligated to serve him for a period of time.


###### Keritot 11a:14
[Keritot 11a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11a:14)

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה הַיְינוּ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא! לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל קָאָמַר: לְדִידִי, בְּעָלְמָא כְּווֹתָיךְ סְבִירָא לֵיהּ דְּדִבְּרָה תוֹרָה כִלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם, וְהָכָא שָׁאנֵי. מִכְּדֵי כְּתִיב לֵיהּ קְרָא: ״כִּי לֹא חוּפָּשָׁה״, ״וְהׇפְדֵּה לֹא נִפְדָּתָה״ לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינָּה לְהָכִי אֲתָא, לְחֶצְיָהּ שִׁפְחָה וְחֶצְיָהּ בַּת חוֹרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection: The opinion of **Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya is** identical to the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva.** Why was it stated separately in the *baraita*? The Gemara explains: It is because Rabbi Elazar **is saying to Rabbi Yishmael: According to me, in general I hold in accordance with your** opinion, **that the Torah spoke in the language of people. But here it is different, since it is** also **written in the verse: “Because she was not free.”** If so, **why do I** need the phrase **“and she is redeemed and not redeemed”? Conclude from it that it comes for this** purpose, **to** teach that the verse is referring to a woman who is **half-maidservant half-free woman.**


###### Keritot 11a:15
[Keritot 11a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11a:15)

לַאֲחֵרִים, בִּשְׁלָמָא ״וְהׇפְדֵּה לֹא נִפְדָּתָה״, קָסָבַר: דִּבְּרָה תּוֹרָה כִלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם, אֶלָּא הָא דְּעֶבֶד כְּנַעֲנִי מְנָלַן? אֲמַר קְרָא: ״כִּי לֹא חוּפָּשָׁה״, אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְדִידַהּ – תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְדִידֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further objects: **According to *Aḥerim*, granted** that the phrase **“and she was redeemed and not redeemed”** is referring to a Canaanite maidservant, **as they** too **maintain** that **the Torah spoke in the language of people. But from where do we** derive **that** she is betrothed to **a Canaanite slave?** The Gemara explains that the **verse states: “Because she was not free,”** and **if it is not needed** for the **matter of her** status as a maidservant, as it is already established that she is not free, **apply it** to the **matter of his** status as a slave.


###### Keritot 11a:16
[Keritot 11a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11a:16)

**מַתְנִי׳** כׇּל עֲרָיוֹת, אֶחָד גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד קָטָן – קָטָן פָּטוּר, אֶחָד עֵר וְאֶחָד יָשֵׁן – יָשֵׁן פָּטוּר, אֶחָד שׁוֹגֵג וְאֶחָד מֵזִיד – שׁוֹגֵג בְּחַטָּאת וּמֵזִיד בְּהִכָּרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** This mishna cites an additional difference between the status of an espoused maidservant and the status of forbidden relatives. In **all** cases of intercourse with **those with whom relations are forbidden,** if **one is an adult and one is a minor,** the **minor is exempt;** if **one is awake and one is sleeping,** the **sleeping** one is **exempt;** if **one** commits the act **unwittingly and one** does so **intentionally,** the one who did so **unwittingly** is liable **to** bring **a sin offering and** the one who did so **intentionally** is liable to be punished **with *karet*.** By contrast, in a case of intercourse with an espoused maidservant, the man is liable to bring a guilt offering only if the woman is flogged, and that is the case only if she was an adult, awake, and committed the sin intentionally.


###### Keritot 11a:17
[Keritot 11a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11a:17)

**גְּמָ׳** וְהָכָא, חַיָּיב קָטָן? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, הָכִי קָתָנֵי: כׇּל עֲרָיוֹת, אֶחָד גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד קָטָן – קָטָן פָּטוּר וְגָדוֹל חַיָּיב, וְהָכָא – גָּדוֹל נָמֵי פָּטוּר, מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּהָא מִקַּשְׁיָין אַהֲדָדֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that in all instances of intercourse with those with whom relations are forbidden, a minor is exempt. The Gemara asks: **And** is that to say that **here,** in the case of an espoused maidservant, **a minor is liable?** But a minor is exempt from all liabilities in the Torah. **Rav Yehuda said: This** is what the mishna **is teaching:** In **all** cases of intercourse with **those with whom relations are forbidden,** if **one is an adult and one is a minor, the minor is exempt and the adult is liable. But here,** in the case of an espoused maidservant, **the adult is also exempt. What is the reason?** Their punishments are linked, **as they are juxtaposed to each other** in the verse: “There shall be an inspection…and he shall bring his guilt offering unto the Lord” (Leviticus 19:20–21).


###### Keritot 11a:18
[Keritot 11a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11a:18)

כׇּל עֲרָיוֹת, אֶחָד נֵיעוֹר וְאֶחָד יָשֵׁן – פָּטוּר. וְכָאן, יָשֵׁן נָמֵי חַיָּיב? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, הָכִי קָתָנֵי: כׇּל עֲרָיוֹת, אֶחָד נֵיעוֹר וְאֶחָד יָשֵׁן – יָשֵׁן פָּטוּר וְנֵיעוֹר חַיָּיב, וְכָאן – אֲפִילּוּ נֵיעוֹר פָּטוּר, מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּמִקַּשְׁיָין אַהֲדָדֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches: In **all** cases of intercourse with **those with whom relations are forbidden,** if **one is awake and one is sleeping,** the one who is sleeping is **exempt.** The Gemara asks: **And** is that to say that **here** the one who is **sleeping is liable? Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said: This** is what the mishna **is teaching:** In **all** cases of intercourse with **those with whom relations are forbidden,** if **one is awake and one is sleeping,** the one who is **sleeping is exempt and** the one who is **awake is liable. But here, even the one** who is **awake is exempt. What is the reason?** Their punishments are linked, **as they are juxtaposed to each other** in the verse: “There shall be an inspection…and he shall bring his guilt offering unto the Lord” (Leviticus 19:20–21).


###### Keritot 11a:19
[Keritot 11a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11a:19)

תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: עָשׂוּ גּוֹמֵר כִּמְעָרֶה, מִתְכַּוֵּין כְּשֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין, כְּדַרְכָּהּ כְּשֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ, נֵיעוֹר כְּיָשֵׁן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A *tanna* taught** a *baraita* **before Rav Sheshet:** The Sages **rendered one who completes** the act of intercourse **like one who engages in the initial stage** of intercourse; **one who** commits the act **intentionally like one who** does so **unintentionally;** one who engages in intercourse in **a typical** manner **like** one who engages in intercourse in **an atypical manner,** i.e., anal intercourse; and **one who is awake like one who is sleeping.**


###### Keritot 11a:20
[Keritot 11a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11a:20)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי קָאָמְרַתְּ? אִי בְּשִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה קָתָנֵי, אַמַּאי עָשׂוּ גּוֹמֵר כִּמְעָרֶה? גּוֹמֵר בְּשִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה מִיחַיַּיב, מְעָרֶה לָא מִיחַיַּיב! וְתוּ: מִתְכַּוֵּין כְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְכַּוֵּין, אִי מִכַּוְּונָה – מִיחַיְּיבָא, אִי לָא – לָא מִיחַיְּיבָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Sheshet **said to him: What are you saying? If** you **are teaching** this with regard to **an espoused maidservant, why** would you say that **they rendered one who completes** the act **like one who engages in the initial stage** of intercourse? This is not the case, as **one who completes** the act **with an espoused maidservant is liable,** but **one who engages in the initial stage** of intercourse **is not liable. And furthermore,** they did not make **one who** commits the act **intentionally like one who** does so **unintentionally: If she intended it,** she **is liable** to receive lashes; **if** she did **not** intend it, she **is not liable.**


###### Keritot 11a:21
[Keritot 11a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11a:21)

וּכְדַרְכָּהּ כְּשֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ נָמֵי, כְּדַרְכָּהּ בְּשִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה מִיחַיַּיב, וְשֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ לָא מִיחַיַּיב, מַאי טַעְמָא? ״שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע״ כְּתִיב! וּמַאי נֵיעוֹר כְּיָשֵׁן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** they **also** did not render engaging in intercourse **in a typical** manner **like** doing so **in an atypical manner:** One who engages in intercourse **in a typical** manner **with an espoused maidservant is liable, and** one who does so **in an atypical manner is not liable. What is the reason? It is written: “Lies carnally [*shikhvat zera*],”** and the literal meaning of this term is referring to intercourse that can lead to procreation, as *zera* means seed. **And** finally, in **what** way can it be said that they rendered **one who is awake like one who is sleeping?** One who is sleeping is always exempt, as the circumstances are beyond his control. Consequently, it seems that the *baraita* cannot be referring to intercourse with an espoused maidservant.


###### Keritot 11a:22
[Keritot 11a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11a:22)

וְאִי בִּשְׁאָר עֲרָיוֹת קָא תָנֵי, עָשׂוּ גּוֹמֵר כִּמְעָרֶה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** you **teach** this *baraita* in relation to intercourse **with all those others with whom relations are forbidden,** how is it that **they rendered one who completes** the act **like one who engages in the initial stage** of intercourse?