## Keritot Daf 2b

###### Keritot 2b:1
[Keritot 2b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/2b:1)

**גְּמָ׳** מִנְיָינָא לְמָה לִי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שֶׁאִם עֲשָׂאָן כּוּלָּן בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת – חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need the mishna to state this **tally** of cases where one who performs the action is liable to receive *karet*? Why does it state a number? All thirty-six are listed in the mishna, and one could simply count them to discover how many there are. **Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** By listing the tally, the mishna is teaching **that if one performed all of them in** the course of **one lapse of awareness,** he is **liable** to receive punishment **for each and every one,** i.e., to bring thirty-six sin offerings.


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

וְתוּ, הָא דִּתְנַן: אֲבוֹת מְלָאכוֹת אַרְבָּעִים חָסֵר אַחַת, מִנְיָינָא לְמָה לִי? שֶׁאִם עֲשָׂאָן כּוּלָּן בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת – חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And furthermore,** with regard to **that which we learned** in a mishna (*Shabbat* 73a): The **primary categories of labor** are **forty-less-one; why do I** need this **tally** of forty-less-one? The Gemara answers: By listing the tally the mishna is teaching **that if one performed all of** the prohibited labors **in one lapse of awareness** during which he was unaware of the prohibition involved, he is **liable** to bring a sin offering **for each and every one.**


###### Keritot 2b:3
[Keritot 2b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/2b:3)

תּוּ, הָא דִּתְנַן: אַרְבָּעָה מְחוּסְּרֵי כַּפָּרָה, מִנְיָינָא לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: And **furthermore,** with regard to **that which we learned** in a mishna (8b): There are **four** people **who have not yet** brought **an atonement** offering to complete their purification process and may not eat sacrificial meat until they bring the requisite offerings. The mishna then teaches: And these are the people who have not yet brought an atonement offering: The *zav*, and the *zava*, and the woman after childbirth, and the leper. **Why do I** need this **tally** of four?


###### Keritot 2b:4
[Keritot 2b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/2b:4)

לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, דְּאָמַר: חֲמִשָּׁה הָוֵי, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: גֵּר מְחוּסַּר כַּפָּרָה עַד שֶׁיִּזָּרֵק דָּם עָלָיו, אַהָכִי תְּנָא אַרְבָּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: By listing the tally, the mishna serves **to exclude** the opinion **of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who says there are five** such individuals. **As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: A convert** is also **one who has not yet** brought **an atonement** offering and he may not partake of sacrificial meat, although he was circumcised and immersed in a ritual bath, **until the priest sprinkles** the **blood** of his offering on the altar **on his** behalf. It is **for this** reason that the mishna **teaches four,** to emphasize that there are not five such people.


###### Keritot 2b:5
[Keritot 2b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/2b:5)

תּוּ, הָא דִּתְנַן: אַרְבָּעָה מְבִיאִין עַל הַזָּדוֹן כִּשְׁגָגָה, מִנְיָינָא לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: And **furthermore,** with regard to **that which we learned** in that same mishna (8b): And there are **four who bring** an offering **for the intentional** transgression of a prohibition **as** they do for **the unwitting** transgression of a prohibition: One who engages in intercourse with a designated maidservant (see Leviticus 19:20–22), a nazirite who became ritually impure (see Numbers 6:9–12), one who takes a false oath that he does not know testimony on behalf of another (Leviticus 5:1), and one who takes a false oath on a deposit, i.e., that that an item belonging to another is not in his possession (Leviticus 5:21–26). **Why do I** need this **tally** of four?


###### Keritot 2b:6
[Keritot 2b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/2b:6)

לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: שְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן – לֹא נִיתָּן זְדוֹנָהּ לְכַפָּרָה, אַהָכִי תְּנָא אַרְבָּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: By listing the tally, the mishna serves **to exclude** the opinion **of Rabbi Shimon. As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Shimon says: The intentional** transgressor who takes a false **oath on a deposit is not given** the opportunity **for atonement** by bringing an offering. It is **for this** reason that the mishna **teaches four,** to emphasize that taking a false oath on a deposit is included in this list.


###### Keritot 2b:7
[Keritot 2b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/2b:7)

תּוּ, הָא דִּתְנַן: חֲמִשָּׁה מְבִיאִין קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד עַל עֲבֵירוֹת הַרְבֵּה, מִנְיָינָא לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: And **furthermore,** with regard to **that which we learned** in a mishna (9a): There are **five** people who **bring one offering for several transgressions,** i.e., for violating the same transgression several times; and the mishna then teaches: These individuals bring one offering for several transgressions: One who engages in several acts of intercourse with an espoused maidservant; a nazirite who became ritually impure via several instances of ritual impurity; one who issues a warning to his wife with regard to entering into seclusion with several men; a leper who was afflicted with several instances of leprosy; and a woman who gave birth to several offspring. **Why do I** need this **tally** of five?


###### Keritot 2b:8
[Keritot 2b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/2b:8)

מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא בָּעֵי לְמִיתְנָא סֵיפָא: נָזִיר אִם נִטְמָא טוּמְאוֹת הַרְבֵּה, וּמַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ כְּגוֹן דְּאִיטַּמִּי בִּשְׁבִיעִי וְחָזַר וְנִטְמָא בַּשְּׁבִיעִי, וּמַנִּי? רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּאָמַר: נְזִירוּת דְּטָהֲרָה, מִן שְׁבִיעִי הוּא דְּחָיֵיל עֲלֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The *tanna* of the mishna lists the tally **because** he **wants to teach the latter clause:** This also applies to **a nazirite if he became ritually impure with several** instances **of ritual impurity.** The tally of five includes the case of a nazirite. The Gemara explains what the novelty of this case is: **And you find this,** that a nazirite can contract ritual impurity several times consecutively, in a case **where he became ritually impure on the seventh** day **and,** after undergoing the purification process, **again became ritually impure on the seventh** day. **And** in accordance with **whose** opinion is it? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who says** that **the naziriteship of purity,** i.e., the naziriteship one must observe afresh after his purification, **takes effect on** the nazirite **from** the **seventh** day of his purification process.


###### Keritot 2b:9
[Keritot 2b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/2b:9)

דְּאִי תֵּאמַר רַבִּי הִיא, כֵּיוָן דִּנְזִירוּת דְּטׇהֳרָה עַד שְׁמִינִי לָא חָיְילָא עֲלֵיהּ, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **As, if you say** the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, that is difficult: **Since** he says **that** the **naziriteship of purity does not take effect on** the nazirite **until** the **eighth** day, **how can you find** a case in which **these** circumstances apply, i.e., that a nazirite can be considered impure with several instances of ritual impurity in the same term of naziriteship?


###### Keritot 2b:10
[Keritot 2b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/2b:10)

אִי דְּנִטְמָא בִּשְׁבִיעִי וְחָזַר וְנִטְמָא בִּשְׁבִיעִי – כּוּלַּהּ חֲדָא טוּמְאָה אֲרִיכְתָּא הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains why, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, this is not possible: **If** this case involves a nazirite **who became ritually impure on the seventh** day, **and,** after undergoing the purification process, **again became ritually impure on the seventh** day, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would hold that **all these** impurities **are** in fact one instance of **long ritual impurity.** His reasoning is that the nazirite never reached the eighth day, which would renew his observance of naziriteship in purity. If so, the mishna would not refer to this as a case of multiple impurities.


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

וְאִי דְּנִטְמָא בַּשְּׁמִינִי וְחָזַר וְנִטְמָא בַּשְּׁמִינִי, כֵּיוָן דְּיָצָא בְּשָׁעָה הָרְאוּיָה לְהָבִיא בָּהּ קׇרְבָּן, חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת! אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** the mishna is referring to a nazirite **who became ritually impure on the eighth** day **and,** after undergoing the purification process, **again became ritually impure on the eighth** day, the ruling of the mishna would not apply either. **Since he left** his state of impurity **at an appropriate time to bring** his **offering,** as he can bring his offering on the eighth day, it is not considered a continuation of the previous ritual impurity and he is **liable** to bring a separate offering **for each and every** instance of impurity. **Rather, conclude from it** that this mishna **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda.** It is to emphasize this fact that the mishna lists the tally.


###### Keritot 2b:12
[Keritot 2b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/2b:12)

מַאי רַבִּי וּמַאי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְקִדַּשׁ אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא״ – בְּיוֹם הֲבָאַת קׇרְבְּנוֹתָיו, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּיוֹם תִּגְלַחְתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is the source of this opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **and what** is the source of this opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda?** The Gemara answers: **As it is taught** in a *baraita* with regard to a verse that discusses a nazirite who became ritually impure and brought two birds to the Temple: “And the priest shall prepare one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering, and make atonement for him, for he sinned by the soul, **and he shall sanctify his head that same day”** (Numbers 6:11). The verse is referring **to the day of the bringing of his offerings,** which is the eighth day of his purification; this is **the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says** the verse is referring **to the day of his shaving,** i.e., the seventh day of his purification.


###### Keritot 2b:13
[Keritot 2b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/2b:13)

תּוּ, הָא דִּתְנַן: חֲמִשָּׁה מְבִיאִין קׇרְבַּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד, מִנְיָינָא לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to its series of questions concerning the mention of tallies in *mishnayot*. The Gemara asks: And **furthermore,** with regard to **that which we learned** in a mishna (9a): And there are **five** people who **bring a sliding-scale offering,** which is determined by the financial status of the sinner; and the mishna then teaches (10b): These bring a sliding-scale offering: One brings such an offering for hearing the voice of an oath, and for a false oath of the utterance of the lips, and for the defiling of the Temple and its sacred foods, and the woman after childbirth, and the leper. **Why do I** need this **tally** of five?


###### Keritot 2b:14
[Keritot 2b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/2b:14)

מִשּׁוּם דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: נָשִׂיא כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. חֲמִשָּׁה לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דְּאָמַר: נָשִׂיא מֵבִיא שָׂעִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The *tanna* of the mishna lists the tally **because** of the *halakha* taught in the latter clause, **as the latter clause teaches,** in a different mishna (*Horayot* 8b): The court is not liable for issuing a ruling with regard to the hearing of a voice, or for a false oath of the utterance of the lips, or for the defiling of the Temple and its sacred foods. The status of the **king is like** that of the court and he is exempt from bringing an offering in these cases. It is for this reason the mishna teaches **five, to exclude** the opinion **of Rabbi Eliezer, who says** that **a king brings a goat,** i.e., a fixed sin offering, instead of a sliding-scale offering for the defiling of the Temple and its sacred foods.


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

תּוּ, הָא דִּתְנַן: אַרְבָּעָה אֲבוֹת נְזִיקִין, מִנְיָנָא לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: And **furthermore,** with regard to **that which we learned** in a mishna (*Bava Kamma* 2a): There are **four primary categories of damage:** The category of Ox, the category of Pit, the category of *Maveh*, and the category of Fire. **Why do I** need this **tally** of four?


###### Keritot 2b:16
[Keritot 2b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/2b:16)

לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא, דְּאָמַר: שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר אֲבוֹת נְזִיקִין הֵן. וּלְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא, מִנְיָינָא לְמָה לִי? לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא, דְּאָמַר: עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה אֲבוֹת נְזִיקִין. וּלְרַבִּי חִיָּיא מִנְיָנָא לְמָה לִי? לְאַפּוֹקֵי מָסוֹר וּמְפַגֵּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: By listing the tally, the mishna serves **to exclude** the opinion **of Rabbi Oshaya, who says** (*Tosefta*, *Bava Kamma* 9:1): **There are thirteen primary categories of damage. And according to Rabbi Oshaya, why do I** need this **tally** of thirteen? By listing the tally, he serves **to exclude** the opinion **of Rabbi Ḥiyya, who says: There are twenty-four primary categories of damage. And according to Rabbi Ḥiyya, why do I** need this **tally** of twenty-four? By listing the tally, he serves **to exclude** the case of **an informer** who causes the authorities to confiscate the property of another, **and** a priest **who renders** another’s offering ***piggul*,** as Rabbi Ḥiyya concedes that these are not included in the primary categories of damage.


###### Keritot 2b:17
[Keritot 2b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/2b:17)

אָמַר מָר: שֶׁאִם עֲשָׂאָן כּוּלָּן בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת – חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to discuss the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan. **The Master said** earlier: By listing the tally, the mishna is teaching **that if he performed all of them,** i.e., he unwittingly violated every prohibition, **in** the course of **one lapse of awareness,** he is **liable** to receive punishment **for each and every one,** i.e., to bring thirty-six sin offerings.


###### Keritot 2b:18
[Keritot 2b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/2b:18)

בִּשְׁלָמָא פָּטוּר לִגְמָרֵי לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי כׇּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה מִכֹּל הַתּוֹעֵבֹת הָאֵלֶּה וְנִכְרְתוּ״. אֶלָּא אֵימָא: עֲבַר חֲדָא – נִתְחַיֵּיב חֲדָא, עֲבַר כּוּלְּהוּ בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the prohibitions against engaging in forbidden intercourse: **Granted, you cannot say** that one who unwittingly violates every prohibition against engaging in forbidden intercourse is **entirely exempt, as it is written: “For whoever shall do any of these abominations,** the souls that do them **shall be cut off** from among their people” (Leviticus 18:29), and as they all are punishable by *karet* he is liable to bring a sin offering for his unwitting transgression. **But** why not **say** that if he **transgressed one** prohibition **he becomes liable** to bring **one** sin offering, and likewise if he **transgressed all of them in one lapse of awareness** he **is liable** to bring **only one** sin offering.


###### Keritot 2b:19
[Keritot 2b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/2b:19)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לְכָךְ יָצְאָה כָּרֵת בַּאֲחוֹתוֹ – לְחַלֵּק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** It is **for this** reason that ***karet*** which one incurs for engaging in intercourse **with one’s sister** is **singled out** and mentioned independently of the other acts of forbidden intercourse (Leviticus 20:17). This serves **to separate** the prohibitions and teach that one is liable to receive a separate punishment of *karet* or to bring a sin offering for each individual prohibition against forbidden intercourse.


###### Keritot 2b:20
[Keritot 2b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/2b:20)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי, אֵימָא: אֲחוֹתוֹ דִּפְרַט קְרָא – נִיחַיַּיב חֲדָא עֲלַהּ, וְכוּלָּן כֵּיוָן דִּבְהֶעְלֵם אַחַת – לָא נִיחַיַּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Beivai bar Abaye objects to this:** Why not **say:** With regard to one who engages in intercourse with **his sister, which the verse detailed** separately, **he becomes liable** to bring **one** sin offering **for it, but** with regard to **all** the other acts of forbidden intercourse, **once** he transgressed all of them **in one lapse of awareness he becomes liable** to bring **only one** sin offering for all of them.


###### Keritot 2b:21
[Keritot 2b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/2b:21)

וּלְרַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי, מִי לֵית לֵיהּ הֲדָא דְּתַנְיָא: כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁהָיָה בַּכְּלָל וְיָצָא מִן הַכְּלָל לְלַמֵּד, לֹא לְלַמֵּד עַל עַצְמוֹ יָצָא אֶלָּא לְלַמֵּד עַל הַכְּלָל כּוּלּוֹ יָצָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **And according to Rav Beivai bar Abaye, does he not** accept **that** hermeneutical principle **which is taught** in a *baraita*: **Any matter that was included in a generalization, but was singled out to teach** a *halakha*, **was singled out to teach** that *halakha* **not** only **about itself but to teach** that *halakha* **about the entire generalization.**


###### Keritot 2b:22
[Keritot 2b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/2b:22)

כֵּיצַד? ״וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכַל בָּשָׂר וְגוֹ׳״, וַהֲלֹא שְׁלָמִים בִּכְלָל הַקֳּדָשִׁים הָיוּ. לָמָּה יָצְאוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* explains: **How so?** The verse states: **“But the soul that eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings** that belong to the Lord, with his ritual impurity upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people” (Leviticus 7:20). **But weren’t peace offerings included in the** general category of all **sacrificial** offerings; **why,** then, were **they** explicitly **singled out** in this verse?


###### Keritot 2b:23
[Keritot 2b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/2b:23)

לְהַקִּישׁ אֲלֵיהֶן: מָה שְּׁלָמִים שֶׁהֵן קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ וְחַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן – אַף כׇּל שֶׁהֵן קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן, יָצְאוּ קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* answers: They were singled out **to juxtapose** the *halakha* of other offerings **to them,** teaching: **Just as peace offerings** are unique in **that they are consecrated for the altar and** one is **liable** to receive *karet* **for** partaking of **them** while impure, **so too,** with regard to **all** food **that is consecrated for the altar,** one is **liable** to receive *karet* **for** partaking of **them** while impure. This **excludes** from this *halakha* items that are **consecrated for Temple maintenance.** The same reasoning should apply to the singling out of the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with one’s sister, as it teaches that one is liable separately for all the categories of forbidden relations.


###### Keritot 2b:24
[Keritot 2b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/2b:24)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב בִּיבִי: בַּר מִינַּהּ. לָאו מִי אָמְרַתְּ הָתָם יָצְאוּ קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Beivai** bar Abaye **said to** the Sage who raised this difficulty: The discussion of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement should be held **apart from that** *baraita*. As, **didn’t you say there** that the comparison to peace offerings **excludes** items that are **consecrated for Temple maintenance?** The matter that was singled out teaches its *halakha* only with regard to cases that are similar to it. The same reasoning should apply with regard to the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with one’s sister.


###### Keritot 2b:25
[Keritot 2b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/2b:25)

הָכָא נָמֵי: מָה אֲחוֹתוֹ מְיוּחֶדֶת שֶׁהִיא עֶרְוָה וְאֵין לָהּ הֶיתֵּר בְּחַיֵּי אוֹסְרָהּ, אַף כֹּל שֶׁאֵין לָהּ הֶיתֵּר בְּחַיֵּי אוֹסְרָהּ, יָצְאָה אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ הֶיתֵּר בְּחַיֵּי בַעֲלָהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Beivai elaborates: **Here too, just as** the case of **one’s sister is unique** in **that she is a forbidden relative who cannot be permitted during the** entire **life of** the one **who prohibits her,** i.e., her brother, as she will always be his sister, **so too,** the *halakha* that one is liable to bring a sin offering for the transgression of each prohibition applies to **any** forbidden relative **who cannot be permitted in the life of** the one **who prohibits her.** This **excludes a married woman, who can be permitted in the life of** the one who prohibits her, i.e., **her husband,** as their relationship can be terminated by means of divorce. If so, one would not be liable to bring a separate sin offering for each instance of engaging in intercourse with a married woman, whereas Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that one is liable to bring a sin offering for violating each of the prohibitions listed in the mishna, including the one concerning a married woman.


###### Keritot 2b:26
[Keritot 2b:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/2b:26)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָה וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, אָמַר קְרָא: ״כִּי כׇּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה מִכֹּל הַתּוֹעֵבֹת וְגוֹ׳״, הוֹאִיל וְכָךְ הִקִּישׁ הוּא, הוּקְשׁוּ כׇּל הָעֲרָיוֹת כּוּלָּן לַאֲחוֹתוֹ: מָה אֲחוֹתוֹ חַיָּיבִין עָלֶיהָ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ, אַף כֹּל חַיָּיבִין עָלֶיהָ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yona said** in response, **and some say** this was stated by **Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: The verse states: “For whoever shall do any of these abominations,** the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people” (Leviticus 18:29). **Since this is a juxtaposition,** it means that in this verse **all of those with whom relations are forbidden are juxtaposed to** the case of **one’s sister,** written in that passage, as follows: **Just as** with regard to **one’s sister** he is **liable** to bring a separate sin offering **for** engaging in intercourse with **her alone, so too,** with regard to any one of **all** the cases of forbidden relations, one is **liable** to bring a separate sin offering **for** engaging in intercourse with that woman **alone.** When a *halakha* is derived by juxtaposition the cases do not have to be entirely similar.


###### Keritot 2b:27
[Keritot 2b:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/2b:27)

וּלְרַבִּי יִצְחָק דְּאָמַר: חַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת בִּכְלָל הָיוּ, וְלָמָּה יָצְאָה כָּרֵת בַּאֲחוֹתוֹ – לְדוּנָהּ בְּכָרֵת וְלֹא בְּמַלְקוֹת,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But** this presents a difficulty **according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yitzḥak, who says:** All **those liable** to receive ***karet*** in cases of incest **were included in** the principle: “For whoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the people who commit them shall be cut off from among their people” (Leviticus 18:29). **And why was *karet*** incurred by engaging in intercourse with **one’s sister singled out** in Leviticus 20:17? It was singled out **to judge it,** so that the transgressors receive the punishment **of *karet* and not** the punishment **of lashes.** Although they have violated a prohibition, which generally carries the punishment of lashes, they are not flogged, as they are liable to receive the more severe punishment of *karet*.


###### Keritot 2b:28
[Keritot 2b:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/2b:28)

לְחַלֵּק מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״וְּאֶל אִשָּׁה בְּנִדַּת טוּמְאָתָהּ לֹא תִקְרַב״ – לְחַלֵּק עַל כׇּל אִשָּׁה וְאִשָּׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the difficulty: **From where does** Rabbi Yitzḥak learn **to separate** the prohibitions and teach that one is liable to receive a separate punishment of *karet* or to bring a sin offering for each violation of the prohibition against forbidden intercourse? Unlike Rabbi Yoḥanan, he cannot derive it from the above verse, as he learns this aforementioned *halakha* from that verse. The Gemara answers: **He derives** it **from** the verse: **“And you shall not approach a woman** to uncover her nakedness **as long as she is impure by her menstruation”** (Leviticus 18:19). Since the verse could have stated simply: And you shall not approach a menstruating woman, the lengthy expression of: “A woman…as long as she is impure by her menstruation,” serves **to separate** the transgressions and render him liable to receive a punishment **for each and every woman** with whom he engaged in forbidden sexual intercourse.


###### Keritot 2b:29
[Keritot 2b:29](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/2b:29)

וְרַבָּנַן נָמֵי, תִּיפּוֹק לְהוּ מִ״וְּאֶל אִשָּׁה בְּנִדַּת טוּמְאָתָהּ״! אִין הָכִי נָמֵי. אֶלָּא כָּרֵת דַּאֲחוֹתוֹ לְמַאי אָתָא? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְחַלֵּק עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ וְעַל אֲחוֹת אָבִיו וְעַל אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **And** with regard to **the Rabbis,** who disagree with Rabbi Yitzḥak, **let them also derive** this *halakha* that one is liable to receive a separate punishment of *karet* or to bring a sin offering for each violation of the prohibition against forbidden intercourse **from** the verse cited by Rabbi Yitzḥak: **“And** you shall not approach **a woman** to uncover her nakedness **as long as she is impure by her menstruation.”** The Gemara answers: **Yes, it is indeed so.** The Gemara asks: **But** if they derive that *halakha* from the same source as Rabbi Yitzḥak, **for what** purpose does the specific instance of ***karet*** stated **with regard to one’s sister come?** The Gemara answers: The Rabbis **require** it **to separate** the transgressions and render one liable to bring a separate sin offering for engaging in intercourse **with his sister, and** for engaging in intercourse **with his father’s sister, and** for engaging in intercourse **with his mother’s sister,** in a single lapse of awareness.


###### Keritot 2b:30
[Keritot 2b:30](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/2b:30)

הָנֵי לְמָה לְהוּ לְחַלֵּק? הֲרֵי שֵׁמוֹת מוּחְלָקִין וַהֲרֵי גּוּפִים מוּחְלָקִים! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: לְחַלֵּק עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ שֶׁהִיא אֲחוֹת אָבִיו וְשֶׁהִיא אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Why** is it necessary for the verse **to separate** the transgressions and render one liable to bring a separate sin offering with regard to **these** forbidden relatives? **Aren’t they separate categories** of prohibitions, **and aren’t they separate bodies,** i.e., three different people? It is obvious that each act of intercourse will require a separate sin offering. **Rather, say** as follows: The verse serves **to separate** the transgressions and render one liable to bring a separate sin offering for unwittingly engaging in intercourse **with his sister who is** also **his father’s sister and who is** also **his mother’s sister,** i.e., one is liable to bring three sin offerings despite the fact that all three prohibitions are violated through one act of intercourse with the same person.


###### Keritot 2b:31
[Keritot 2b:31](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/2b:31)

וְרַבִּי יִצְחָק, הָא מִילְּתָא מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִן סֵיפָא דִּקְרָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״עֶרְוַת אֲחֹתוֹ גִּלָּה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara turns its attention to the other opinion: **And** with regard to **Rabbi Yitzḥak, from where does he** derive **this matter?** The Gemara answers: **He derives** it **from the latter clause of the verse, as it is written: “He has uncovered his sister’s nakedness”** (Leviticus 20:17). This seemingly superfluous phrase teaches this *halakha*.


###### Keritot 2b:32
[Keritot 2b:32](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/2b:32)

וְרַבָּנַן, ״אֲחֹתוֹ״ דְּסֵיפָא דִּקְרָא מַאי עָבְדִי לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further asks: **And** with regard to **the Rabbis,** concerning this mention of **“his sister” in the latter clause of the verse, what do they do with it?** The Gemara answers: **They require** it