## Keritot Daf 15a

###### Keritot 15a:1
[Keritot 15a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15a:1)

שְׁחָטָהּ וְאֶת בַּת בִּתָּהּ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט אֶת בִּתָּהּ – סוֹפֵג אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים. סוֹמְכוֹס אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: סוֹפֵג שְׁמוֹנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **one slaughtered** an animal **and its daughter’s daughter and afterward slaughtered** the original animal’s **daughter, he incurs the forty** lashes for transgressing the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its offspring on a single day (see Leviticus 22:28). **Sumakhos says in the name of Rabbi Meir: He incurs eighty** lashes for slaughtering the third animal, as its mother and its daughter had already been slaughtered on that day. This indicates that Sumakhos also maintains that when a person commits a single act and thereby commits two transgressions that are derived from a single verse, he is liable to receive punishment for both violations.


###### Keritot 15a:2
[Keritot 15a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15a:2)

אָמַר רָבָא: דִּלְמָא לָא הִיא, עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי הָכָא אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם שֵׁמוֹת מוּחְלָקִין, דְּמִיקַּרְיָא חֲמוֹתוֹ, וּמִיקַּרְיָא אֵם חֲמוֹתוֹ, וּמִיקַּרְיָא אֵם חָמִיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: Perhaps it is not so,** as Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri would not agree with the ruling of Sumakhos. It is possible that **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says** that one is liable to bring multiple sin offerings **only here,** in the case of one who engaged in intercourse with his mother-in-law, **only due to** the **differentiated names** of the prohibitions, **as she is called his mother-in-law, and she is called his mother-in-law’s mother, and she is called his father-in-law’s mother,** and the Torah prohibits each of these relationships separately.


###### Keritot 15a:3
[Keritot 15a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15a:3)

אֲבָל גַּבֵּי אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ, דְּכוּלְּהוּ ״אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ״ מִיקַּרְיָין, דְּאֵין שֵׁמוֹת מוּחְלָקִין – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But with regard to** the case of slaughtering **a mother and its offspring** in a single day, **where all of** the permutations **are called: A mother and its offspring, as there are no differentiated names** given in the Torah for slaughtering a mother animal and then its offspring or for slaughtering the offspring and subsequently its mother, Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri might maintain that one is **not** liable to receive multiple sets of lashes.


###### Keritot 15a:4
[Keritot 15a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15a:4)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: דִּלְמָא עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר סוֹמְכוֹס אֶלָּא גַּבֵּי אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ, דְּגוּפִין מוּחְלָקִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
By contrast, **Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Perhaps Sumakhos says** that one is liable to receive two sets of lashes **only with regard to** the case of slaughtering **a mother and its offspring** on the same day, **as** there are **differentiated bodies.** Although he violated the same prohibition twice, he did so by slaughtering three different animals.


###### Keritot 15a:5
[Keritot 15a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15a:5)

אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּאֵין גּוּפִין מוּחְלָקִין, אֵימָא כְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״שַׁאֲרָה הֵנָּה זִמָּה הִיא״, הַכָּתוּב עֲשָׂאָן לְכוּלָּן זִמָּה אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But here,** with regard to a mother-in-law, **where** there are **not** several **differentiated bodies,** as the man engaged in intercourse with only one woman, one might **say** that Sumakhos **holds in accordance with** the statement that **Rabbi Abbahu says** in the name of **Rabbi Yoḥanan, as Rabbi Abbahu says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The verse that introduces the prohibitions against engaging in intercourse with one’s mother-in-law, one’s mother-in-law’s mother, and one’s father-in-law’s mother concludes with the phrase: **“They are near kinswomen; it is lewdness”** (Leviticus 18:17). This teaches that although these are different relationships, **the verse rendered them all one** single prohibition of **lewdness,** for which only a single sin offering is brought.


###### Keritot 15a:6
[Keritot 15a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15a:6)

**מַתְנִי׳** אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: שָׁאַלְתִּי אֶת רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְאֶת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בָּאִיטְלֵיס שֶׁל עֵימָאוּם, שֶׁהָלְכוּ לִיקַּח בְּהֵמָה לְמִשְׁתֵּה בְנוֹ שֶׁל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, הַבָּא עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ וְעַל אֲחוֹת אָבִיו וְעַל אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ, מַהוּ? חַיָּיב אַחַת עַל כּוּלָּן, אוֹ חַיָּיב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Rabbi Akiva said: I asked Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua in the meat market [*itlis*] in Emmaus, where they went to purchase an animal for the** wedding **feast of the son of Rabban Gamliel:** In the case of **one who** unwittingly **engages in intercourse with his sister, and the sister of his father, and the sister of his mother,** during one lapse of awareness, **what is** the *halakha*? Is he **liable** to bring **one** sin offering **for all** three prohibitions, **or** is he **liable** to bring a separate sin offering **for each and every one** of the prohibitions?


###### Keritot 15a:7
[Keritot 15a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15a:7)

לוֹ: לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ, אֲבָל שָׁמַעְנוּ: הַבָּא עַל חָמֵשׁ נָשָׁיו נִדּוֹת בְּהֶעְלֵם (אַחַת) [אֶחָד], שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת, (וְרוֹאֶה אֲנִי) [וְרוֹאִין אָנוּ] שֶׁהַדְּבָרִים קַל וָחֹמֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**They said to** Rabbi Akiva: **We did not hear** a ruling from our teachers about that case, **but we heard** the following ruling: **One who engages in intercourse with** each of **his five wives** while they are **menstruating, during one lapse of awareness,** we heard **that he is liable** to bring a separate sin offering **for** having engaged in intercourse with **each and every one** of them. **And it appears to me that these matters** can be derived from **an *a fortiori*** inference: If he is liable to bring separate sin offerings for having engaged in intercourse with five menstruating women, who are forbidden by one prohibition, he should certainly be liable to bring separate sin offerings for having engaged in intercourse with his sister, the sister of his father, and the sister of his mother, who are forbidden by three separate prohibitions.


###### Keritot 15a:8
[Keritot 15a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15a:8)

**גְּמָ׳** הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא כִּדְקָתָנֵי, מַאי תִּיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ? הֲרֵי שֵׁמוֹת מוּחְלָקִין, הֲרֵי גּוּפִין מוּחְלָקִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to Rabbi Akiva’s question: **What are the circumstances** about which Rabbi Akiva inquired? **If we say** that the circumstances are precisely **as** the mishna **teaches** them, that one unwittingly engaged in intercourse with his sister, and the sister of his father, and the sister of his mother, then for **what** purpose did Rabbi Akiva **raise this dilemma** before Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua? **Aren’t they differentiated names** of prohibitions and **aren’t they** also **differentiated bodies?** Since the man engaged in intercourse with three women, who are forbidden by three distinct prohibitions, it is obvious that he is obligated to bring three separate sin offerings.


###### Keritot 15a:9
[Keritot 15a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15a:9)

אֶלָּא הָכִי קָתָנֵי: הַבָּא עַל אֲחוֹת אָבִיו שֶׁהִיא אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ, חַיָּיב אַחַת עַל כּוּלָּן, אוֹ חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: הֲרֵי שֵׁמוֹת מוּחְלָקִין, אוֹ דִלְמָא הֲרֵי אֵין גּוּפִין מוּחְלָקִין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it must be that **this** is what the mishna **is teaching:** Rabbi Akiva asked: In the case of **one who** unwittingly **engages in intercourse with** his sister who is also **the sister of his father** and **who is** also **the sister of his mother,** is he **liable** to bring only **one** sin offering **for** violating **all of those** prohibitions, **or is he liable** to bring a separate sin offering **for each and every one? What is** the *halakha*? **Do we say** that **they are differentiated names** of prohibitions, and since he violated distinct prohibitions, he is liable to bring separate sin offerings? **Or perhaps** we say: **It is not** a case of **differentiated bodies;** since he engaged in intercourse with only one woman, he is liable to bring only a single sin offering.


###### Keritot 15a:10
[Keritot 15a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15a:10)

אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ, אֲבָל שָׁמַעְנוּ: הַבָּא עַל חָמֵשׁ נָשָׁיו נִדּוֹת בְּבַת אַחַת, שֶׁהוּא שֵׁם אֶחָד, שֶׁחַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת מִשּׁוּם נִדָּה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And in response, **they said to him: We did not hear** a ruling from our teachers about that case, **but we heard** the following ruling: With regard to **one who engages in intercourse with** each of **his five wives** while they are **menstruating, at the same time,** i.e., during one lapse of awareness, **which is** five instances of violating **one category** of prohibition, we heard **that** he is **liable** to bring a separate sin offering **for** having engaged in intercourse with **each and every one** of them, **due to** the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with **a menstruating woman.**


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

וְרָאִינוּ שֶׁהַדְּבָרִים קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה הַבָּא עַל חָמֵשׁ נָשָׁיו נִדּוֹת בְּבַת אַחַת, שֶׁהִיא שֵׁם אַחַת – חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת, אֲחוֹתוֹ שֶׁהִיא אֲחוֹת אָבִיו שֶׁהִיא אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ, שֶׁהֵן שְׁלֹשָׁה שֵׁמוֹת – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it appears to us that these matters** can be derived from **an *a fortiori*** inference: **If one who engages in intercourse with his five wives** while they are **menstruating, at the same time, which is** only **one name** of a prohibition, is nevertheless **liable** to bring a sin offering **for each and every one** of them, then in the case of one who engages in intercourse with **his sister who is** also **the sister of his father** and **the sister of his mother, which are three** separate prohibition **names, is it not logical that he should be liable for each and every one** of them?


###### Keritot 15a:12
[Keritot 15a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15a:12)

אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְחָמֵשׁ נִדּוֹת – שֶׁכֵּן גּוּפִין מוּחְלָקִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection: This line of reasoning **can be refuted,** as follows: **What** is notable **about** the case of **five menstruating women** that would render one liable to bring a separate sin offering for having intercourse with each one of them? It is notable **in that** they are **differentiated bodies,** which is not the case with regard to one’s sister who is also the sister of his father and the sister of his mother, as she is a single person.


###### Keritot 15a:13
[Keritot 15a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15a:13)

אֶלָּא אָמַר קְרָא: ״עֶרְוַת אֲחוֹתוֹ גִלָּה״, לְחַיֵּיב עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ שֶׁהִיא אֲחוֹת אָבִיו שֶׁהִיא אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the reason one is liable to bring three separate sin offerings for engaging in intercourse with his sister who is also the sister of his mother and the sister of his father is that **the verse states:** “And if a man takes his sister…and they shall be cut off [*venikhretu*] in the sight of the children of their people; **he has uncovered his sister’s nakedness”** (Leviticus 20:17). The final clause in this verse serves **to render him liable** to receive three separate penalties of *karet* **for** intentional intercourse, or to bring three separate sin offerings for unwitting intercourse, with **his sister who is** also **the sister of his father** and **who is the sister of his mother.**


###### Keritot 15a:14
[Keritot 15a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15a:14)

אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ בְּרַשִּׁיעָא בַּר רַשִּׁיעָא, שֶׁבָּא עַל אִמּוֹ וְהוֹלִיד שְׁתֵּי בָּנוֹת, וְחָזַר וּבָא עַל אַחַת מֵהֶן וְהוֹלִיד בֵּן, וּבָא בְּנוֹ עַל אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ, שֶׁהִיא אֲחוֹתוֹ, שֶׁהִיא אֲחוֹת אָבִיו, דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ רַשִּׁיעָא בַּר רַשִּׁיעָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains how there could be a case where one’s sister is also the sister of his father and the sister of his mother: **Rav Adda bar Ahava says: You find it in** the case of **a wicked man, the son of a wicked man.** The case applies if a man **engaged in intercourse with his mother and fathered two daughters, and then engaged in intercourse with one of those** daughters **and fathered a son, and his son engaged in intercourse with his mother’s sister who is** also **his** own **sister,** because they share a father, and who **is** also **his father’s sister.** This individual **is a wicked man, the son of a wicked man,** as both he and his father engaged in incestuous relationships.


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

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בָּא עָלֶיהָ, וְחָזַר וּבָא עָלֶיהָ, וְחָזַר וּבָא עָלֶיהָ – חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אֶחָת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: If one unwittingly **engages in intercourse with** a woman who is forbidden to him under the penalty of excision from the World-to-Come [*karet*], **and then** again **engages in intercourse with her, and then** yet again **engages in intercourse with her,** all during one lapse of awareness, he is **liable** to bring a separate sin offering **for each and every one** of the acts of intercourse with her. This is **the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. But the Rabbis say: He is liable** to bring **only one** sin offering.


###### Keritot 15a:16
[Keritot 15a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15a:16)

וּמוֹדִים חֲכָמִים לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּבָא עַל חָמֵשׁ נָשָׁיו נִדּוֹת בְּבַת אַחַת, שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת, הוֹאִיל וְהוּא גָּרַם לָהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Eliezer with regard to one who engages in intercourse with his five wives** while they are **menstruating,** where the prohibition was violated unwittingly by both the man and the woman, **at the same time,** i.e., during one lapse of awareness, **that he is liable for each and every one** of them, **since he caused** each of **them** to be liable to bring a sin offering.


###### Keritot 15a:17
[Keritot 15a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15a:17)

אָמַר רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: מִי אָמְרִינַן ״הוֹאִיל וְהוּא גָּרַם לָהֶן״? וְהָתַנְיָא: הוּא בְּהֶעְלֵם (אַחַת) [אֶחָד] וְהִיא בַּחֲמִשָּׁה הֶעְלֵמוֹת – הוּא אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת וְהִיא חַיֶּיבֶת עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Do we** really **say** that **since he caused** each of **them** to be liable to bring a sin offering, he himself is liable to bring five separate sin offerings? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: If one unwittingly engages in intercourse five times with a woman who is forbidden to him, and **he** does so **during one lapse of awareness,** without realizing over the course of that time period that the act is forbidden, **but she** does so **during five lapses** of awareness, as she repeatedly became aware of the prohibition and then forgot it before the next transgression, **he is liable** to bring **only one** sin offering, **but she is liable** to bring a separate sin offering **for each and every one** of the five transgressions? In this case, although he caused her to bring several sin offerings, he himself brings only one sin offering.


###### Keritot 15a:18
[Keritot 15a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15a:18)

אֶלָּא אֵימָא: הוֹאִיל וְגוּפִין מוּחְלָקִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** one must **say** that this is the reason he brings five sin offerings for engaging in intercourse with his five wives while they were each menstruating, during one lapse of awareness: It is **because** they are **differentiated bodies.**


###### Keritot 15a:19
[Keritot 15a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15a:19)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ, קָצַר וְקָצַר – מָה לִי אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer that one who repeatedly engages in intercourse with a woman who is forbidden to him is liable to bring a separate sin offering for each act of intercourse, even if this all occurred in a single lapse of awareness. **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: If one **reaped** a fig-bulk of grain on Shabbat, which is the measure for which one is liable to bring a sin offering, **and** then **reaped** another fig-bulk, in a single lapse of awareness, **what** would **Rabbi Eliezer say?**


###### Keritot 15a:20
[Keritot 15a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15a:20)

טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הָתָם מִשּׁוּם דְּהוּא דַּעֲבַד תַּרְתֵּין, וְאַמְּטוּל (ל)הָכִי אָמַר: חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת, וְהָכָא נָמֵי דַּעֲבַד תַּרְתֵּין,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: Is **the reason for** the ruling of **Rabbi Eliezer there,** with regard to forbidden relations, **that** the sinner **performed two** separate prohibited acts, **and therefore** Rabbi Eliezer **says** he is **liable** to bring a separate sin offering **for each and every one** of the acts? If so, **here too, where he performed two** separate acts of reaping, he is liable to bring a separate sin offering for each act.


###### Keritot 15a:21
[Keritot 15a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15a:21)

אוֹ דִּלְמָא טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הָתָם מִשּׁוּם דְּאִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לְעָרְבָן לְבִיאוֹת זוֹ בָּזוֹ, אַמְּטוּל (לְ)הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת, אֲבָל קָצַר כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת וְחָזַר וְקָצַר כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת בְּהֶעְלֵם (אַחַת) [אֶחָד], כֵּיוָן דְּאֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לְעָרֵב שְׁתֵּי גְּרוֹגְרוֹת בְּבַת אַחַת אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אֶחָת, מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or, perhaps the reason** for the ruling **of Rabbi Eliezer there,** in the case of forbidden relations, is **that it is impossible for** the sinner **to combine the** acts of **intercourse with one another,** and **therefore Rabbi Eliezer says** that he is **liable** to bring a separate sin offering **for each and every one** of the acts of intercourse. **But** if one **reaped a fig-bulk** of grain, **and then reaped** another **fig-bulk, in a single lapse of awareness, since it is possible for him to combine the two fig-bulks** of grain together and reap them **at the same time, he** would be **liable** to bring **only one** sin offering. **What** is the correct explanation for Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling?


###### Keritot 15a:22
[Keritot 15a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15a:22)

אָמַר רַבָּה: טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הָתָם – מִשּׁוּם דַּעֲבַד תַּרְתֵּי, הָכָא נָמֵי הָא עֲבַד תַּרְתֵּי. וְרַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הָתָם – דְּאִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לְעָרְבָן, אֲבָל אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לְעָרְבָן – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אֶחָת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba said: The reason** for the ruling **of Rabbi Eliezer there,** in the case of forbidden relations, is **that** the sinner **performed two** separate prohibited acts; and **here too, he has performed two** separate acts of reaping and is liable to bring two sin offerings. **And Rav Yosef said: The reason** for the ruling **of Rabbi Eliezer there,** in the case of forbidden relations, is **that it is impossible for him to combine** the two transgressions into a single act; **but** if it is **possible for him to combine them,** e.g., by reaping two fig-bulks of grain, **he is liable** to bring **only one** sin offering.


###### Keritot 15a:23
[Keritot 15a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15a:23)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַבָּה: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵּיב עַל וַלְדֵי מְלָאכוֹת בִּמְקוֹם אֲבוֹת מְלָאכוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye raised an objection to** the opinion of **Rabba** from a *baraita*: Each type of labor prohibited on Shabbat comprises acts that are primary categories of that labor and acts that are subcategories of that labor, both prohibited by Torah law. **Rabbi Eliezer deems** one **liable** to bring separate sin offerings **for** the performance of **subcategories** of prohibited **labor** on Shabbat **in a situation** where he also performed the corresponding **primary categories of** prohibited **labor** during the same lapse of awareness. For example, if one planted grain on Shabbat and then watered the field, which is a subcategory of the prohibited labor of planting, he is liable to bring two sin offerings.


###### Keritot 15a:24
[Keritot 15a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15a:24)

הָא אָב וְאָב, בְּבַת אַחַת – פָּטוּר. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מִשּׁוּם דְּקָעָבֵד תַּרְתֵּי, אַמַּאי פָּטוּר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It may be inferred from this statement that: **But** if one performed **a primary category** of labor **and** then performed the same **primary category at the same time,** i.e., during the same lapse of awareness, he is **exempt** from bringing a second sin offering. **But if you say** that **the reason** for the ruling **of Rabbi Eliezer** in the case of one who engages in repeated acts of intercourse with a woman forbidden to him is **because** the sinner **performed two** separate prohibited acts, then **why** is one **exempt** from bringing a second sin offering for repeatedly performing a primary category of prohibited labor on Shabbat, when he too has performed distinct prohibited acts?


###### Keritot 15a:25
[Keritot 15a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15a:25)

אָמַר מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבָּנַן: אֲנָא וְרַב נְחוּמִי בַּר זְכַרְיָה תַּרְגֵּימְנָא: הָכָא בְמַאי עָסְקִינַן –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar, son of the Sages, said: Rav Naḥumi bar Zekharya and I interpreted** the *baraita* as follows: **What are we dealing with here,** in the case where one is liable to bring two sin offerings for performing a primary category of prohibited labor and its subcategory?


###### Keritot 15a:26
[Keritot 15a:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15a:26)

בְּדָלִית הַמּוּדְלֵית עַל גַּבֵּי תְּאֵינָה וּקְצָצָן בְּבַת אַחַת, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי מְחַיֵּיב רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הוֹאִיל וְשֵׁמוֹת מוּחְלָקִין וְגוּפִין מוּחְלָקִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is a case **of a climbing grapevine that is trellised over a fig tree, and he cut them** both, the grapevine and the figs, **at the same time,** during one lapse of awareness. Detaching the figs is one of the primary categories of the prohibited labor of harvesting, while pruning the vine in order to use it as fuel for a fire is a subcategory of harvesting. **Due to that** reason **Rabbi Eliezer deems** him **liable** to bring two sin offerings, **since** it is a case of **differentiated names** of prohibitions, as he violated both the primary category of the labor and a subcategory, **and** it is also a case of **differentiated physical entities,** as he detached figs and part of a grapevine.


###### Keritot 15a:27
[Keritot 15a:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15a:27)

דִּכְווֹתַהּ קָצַר וְקָצַר, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ דְּמִיפְּטַר? כְּגוֹן שֶׁקָּצַר שְׁתֵּי גְּרוֹגְרוֹת בְּבַת אַחַת, אֲבָל קָצַר כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת וְחָזַר וְקָצַר כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In the corresponding** situation, where one **reaped** a fig-bulk of grain on Shabbat **and** then **reaped** another fig-bulk in a single lapse of awareness, **how can you find** circumstances in **which he is exempt** from bringing a second sin offering? You find this in a situation **where he reaped two fig-bulks simultaneously,** in which case he performed only a single prohibited act. **But** if one **reaped a fig-bulk** of grain **and then reaped** another **fig-bulk,** he is **liable** to bring two sin offerings, as he performed two separate acts.


###### Keritot 15a:28
[Keritot 15a:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/15a:28)

**מַתְנִי׳** וְעוֹד שָׁאַל רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: אֵבֶר הַמְדֻולְדָּל בַּבְּהֵמָה, מַהוּ? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ, אֲבָל שָׁמַעְנוּ אֵבֶר הַמְדֻולְדָּל בָּאָדָם שֶׁהוּא טָהוֹר, וְכָךְ הָיוּ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **And furthermore, Rabbi Akiva asked** Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua in the meat market of Emmaus: **What is** the status of **a dangling limb of an animal?** Does it impart ritual impurity like a severed limb? **They said to** Rabbi Akiva: **We have not heard** a ruling from our teachers in that specific case, **but we have heard** with regard to **a dangling limb of a person that it is ritually pure. And** in **this** manner **would**