## Keritot Daf 3b

###### Keritot 3b:1
[Keritot 3b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/3b:1)

אֶלָּא בְּאוֹמֵר מוּתָּר, דְּעַד כָּאן לָא קָבָעֵי מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵרַב נַחְמָן אֶלָּא אִי חֲדָא מִחַיַּיב אִי תַּרְתֵּי מִחַיַּיב, אָבֵל מִיפְּטַר לִגְמָרֵי לָא בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it is referring to a case **where one says** to himself that this is **permitted.** He is under the impression that idol worship is permitted, and his unwitting act was the result of ignorance, not forgetfulness. **As, Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman** with regard to Shabbat **only** so it could be determined **whether to deem** one who is unaware of both the essence of Shabbat and the specific prohibited labors **liable** to bring **one** sin offering, **or whether to deem** him **liable** to bring **two** sin offerings. **But** as for the possibility to **exempt him completely,** he did **not raise** such **a dilemma before him.**


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

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ בְּתִינוֹק שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה לְבֵין הַגּוֹיִם, דְּיָדַע דַּאֲסִירָא עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְהָנֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לָא יָדַע דַּאֲסִירָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa says: You find** an act performed unwittingly with regard to idol worship **in** the case of **a child who was taken captive among the gentiles** and never taught about the Torah, **as** he **knows that idol worship** in general is **prohibited, but** with regard to **these** particular objects of **idol worship** that he is worshipping, he does **not know that they are prohibited.**


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

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא בְּגָדוֹל – כְּגוֹן דְּקָא טָעֵי בְּהָדֵין קְרָא: ״לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן אִתִּי אֱלֹהֵי כֶסֶף וֵאלֹהֵי זָהָב וְגוֹ׳״ סָבַר: כִּי אֲסִירָא הִשְׁתַּחֲוָאָה לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה דְּכֶסֶף וְזָהָב, אֲבָל דְּמִינֵי אַחֲרִינֵי שַׁרְיָא, דְּהַיְינוּ שִׁגְגַת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וּזְדוֹן עֲבוֹדוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead: **You** may **even say** this ruling is stated **with regard to an adult,** i.e., one who was not captured by gentiles as a child, and it is speaking of a case **where he erred with regard to this verse: “You shall not make with Me gods of silver and gods of gold,** you shall not make for yourselves” (Exodus 20:20). This person **thinks** that **when bowing** to an idol is **prohibited** it applies only **to** an object of **idol worship** fashioned **of silver or gold; but** with regard to objects fashioned **of other substances,** such as wood or stone, it is **permitted. And that is** a case of an action that is **unwitting with regard to idol worship but intentional with regard to** the prohibited **rites.**


###### Keritot 3b:4
[Keritot 3b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/3b:4)

רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב בִּיבִי אָמַר: תַּנָּא שֵׁם שַׁבָּת וְשֵׁם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה קָתָנֵי. מִמַּאי? מִדְּקָתָנֵי: הַבָּא עַל אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ וְעַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, וְהָא יֵשׁ בִּתּוֹ מֵאֲנוּסָתוֹ, דְּלָא קָתָנֵי לַהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said** a different interpretation of the mishna **in the name of Rav Beivai:** The ***tanna* teaches the** general **category of Shabbat and the** general **category of idol worship,** without mentioning the details of how many sin offerings one would be liable to bring for transgressing each prohibition. The Gemara asks: **From where** can one infer this is the case? **From** the fact **that** the mishna **teaches: One who engages in intercourse with a woman and her daughter, or with a married woman. But there is** the case of **one’s daughter from the woman he raped, which** the mishna **does not teach.** The case of a daughter from the woman one raped is included in the category of intercourse with a woman and her daughter, yet it is not taught explicitly. Evidently, it is included in the general category of intercourse with a woman and her daughter.


###### Keritot 3b:5
[Keritot 3b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/3b:5)

אָמְרִי: דִּכְתִיבָן קָתָנֵי, דְּלָא כְּתִיבָן לָא קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **say** in response to this inference: The *tanna* of the mishna **teaches** those prohibitions **that are written** explicitly in the Torah; he **does not teach** those prohibitions **that are not written** explicitly but are derived from the verses. That is the reason he does not teach the case of intercourse with a daughter from the woman one raped; it is not because he is teaching only general categories.


###### Keritot 3b:6
[Keritot 3b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/3b:6)

וְהָאִיכָּא בַּת אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבַת בִּתָּהּ וּבַת בְּנָהּ, דִּכְתִיבָא, וְלָא קָתָנֵי! אֶלָּא: שֵׁם אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ קָתָנֵי? הָכִי נָמֵי: שֵׁם שַׁבָּת וְשֵׁם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this explanation: **But there is** the case of **one’s wife’s daughter, and the daughter of her daughter, and the daughter of her son, which are written** explicitly, **and** yet the *tanna* **does not teach** them. **Rather,** you must say that **he teaches the** general **category of** intercourse with **a woman and her daughter,** which includes those cases. **So too, he teaches the** general **category of Shabbat and the** general **category of idol worship.**


###### Keritot 3b:7
[Keritot 3b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/3b:7)

רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא רָמֵי דִּילֵיהּ אַדִּילֵיהּ: מִי אָמַר רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי הָכִי, שֵׁם שַׁבָּת קָתָנֵי וְשֵׁם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה קָתָנֵי? וְהָאִיתְּמַר: הַמַּעֲלֶה אֵבְרֵי פְּנִים בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב, אֵבְרֵי חוּץ בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, raises a contradiction** between one statement **of** Rav Beivai bar Abaye **and** another statement **of his: Did Rav Beivai bar Abaye** actually **say this,** that the *tanna* **teaches the** general **category of Shabbat and teaches the** general **category of idol worship? But wasn’t it stated: One who offers up the limbs of** an offering slaughtered **inside** the Temple **outside** the Temple, i.e., he slaughtered the animal within the Sanctuary in accordance with *halakha* but sacrificed its limbs on an altar outside the Temple, he is **liable** to bring a sin offering if he did so unwittingly. Likewise, if he sacrifices **limbs of** an offering slaughtered **outside** the Temple **outside** the Temple, he is **liable.**


###### Keritot 3b:8
[Keritot 3b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/3b:8)

וְקַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ לְרַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי: ״אִי הָכִי, הָא דִּתְנַן: שְׁלֹשִׁים וָשֵׁשׁ כָּרֵיתוֹת בְּתוֹרָה – תְּלָתִין וּשְׁבַע נִינְהוּ, דְּאִיכָּא הַמַּעֲלֶה וְהַמַּעֲלֶה!״ מַאי קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ? נִישְׁנֵי: שֵׁם הַעֲלָאָה קָתָנֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Beivai bar Abaye** raised **a difficulty: If so,** consider **that which we learned** in the mishna: There are **thirty-six** cases **in the Torah** with regard to which one who performs the action intentionally is liable to receive ***karet*. They are** actually **thirty-seven, as there is** the case of **one who offers up** the limbs of an offering slaughtered inside the Temple outside the Temple, **and one who offers up** limbs of an offering slaughtered outside the Temple outside the Temple. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, explains the contradiction: If Rav Beivai bar Abaye maintains that the *tanna* of the mishna does not tally all the relevant prohibitions but states general categories, **what** is **difficult to him? Let him answer** that **he teaches the category of offering up** in the clause: One who slaughters offerings and who sacrifices them outside the Temple. The *tanna* would not then need to list these individual transgressions.


###### Keritot 3b:9
[Keritot 3b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/3b:9)

מִי דָּמֵי? שַׁבָּת וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה תְּנָא יָתְהוֹן אַבִּינְכֵיהוֹן, גַּבַּי כָּרֵיתוֹת, דְּאִירְיָא, מְשַׁנֵּי: ״שֵׁם שַׁבָּת קָתָנֵי שֵׁם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה קָתָנֵי״, גַּבֵּי הַעֲלָאָה, מִי תְּנָא יָתְהוֹן בִּינְכֵיהוֹן דְּשַׁנִּי הָכִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Are** these cases **comparable?** In the cases of **Shabbat and idol worship** the *tanna* **taught** their details **in their places [*abeinekheihon*],** on *Shabbat* 73a and *Sanhedrin* 60b, respectively. Consequently, **with regard to *karet*, where it is necessary** to mention them as part of a list of prohibitions that are punishable by *karet*, Rav Beivai bar Abaye **answers** that the *tanna* **teaches the category of Shabbat and teaches the category of idol worship,** but he did not need to specify the details in this manner. By contrast, **with regard to bringing up** an offering, **does** the *tanna* **teach them** in **their place,** so **that** Rav Beivai bar Abaye can **answer** in **this** manner?


###### Keritot 3b:10
[Keritot 3b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/3b:10)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה מֵרַבִּי זֵירָא: שְׁתֵּי כָּרֵיתוֹת וְלָאו אֶחָד, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שׁוֹחֵט וְהֶעֱלָה קָאָמְרַתְּ? הָנֵי שְׁנֵי לָאוִין נִינְהוּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It was stated earlier that Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Oshaya says: Anywhere you find two different prohibitions but only one punishment of *karet* is stated for both of them you should divide the sin offering between them, i.e., if one transgressed both prohibitions unwittingly he is liable to bring a sin offering for each. In a similar vein, **Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma before Rabbi Zeira:** If there are **two** punishments of ***karet* and** only **one prohibition** written with regard to a certain act, **what is** the *halakha*? Is one liable to bring a separate sin offering for each act? Rabbi Zeira **said to him: Are you saying** this in reference to one **who slaughters** offerings outside the Temple **and** one **who offered up** the limbs of offerings outside the Temple? These do not match your description, as **these are two** separate **prohibitions.**


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

אִי לְמַאן דְּגָמַר מִגְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה – נֶאֱמַר כָּאן הֲבָאָה וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן הֲבָאָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Zeira elaborates: **If** one considers the matter **according to the one who derives** the prohibition **from a verbal analogy,** it is as though both prohibitions are written explicitly. As **it is stated here** an expression of **bringing:** “Or who slaughters it outside the camp, and to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it” (Leviticus 17:3–4), **and it is stated there** an expression of **bringing:** “Who sacrifices a burnt offering or sacrifice, and to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it” (Leviticus 17:8–9).


###### Keritot 3b:12
[Keritot 3b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/3b:12)

מָה לְהַלָּן לֹא עָנַשׁ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִזְהִיר – אַף כָּאן לֹא עָנַשׁ, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִזְהִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Since there is a verbal analogy linking slaughtering an offering outside the Temple to sacrificing one outside the Temple, it follows that **just as there,** with regard to sacrificing, the Torah **did not** prescribe **punishment unless** it explicitly **prohibited** the act, as it is written: “Take heed to yourself, lest you sacrifice your burnt offerings in every place that you see” (Deuteronomy 12:13), **so too here,** with regard to slaughtering, the Torah **did not** prescribe **punishment unless** it explicitly **prohibited** the act as a separate prohibition.


###### Keritot 3b:13
[Keritot 3b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/3b:13)

לְמַאן דְּמַיְיתֵי לַהּ בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ – אָמַר קְרָא: ״שָׁם תַּעֲלֶה... וְשָׁם תַּעֲשֶׂה״, מַקִּישׁ שְׁחִיטָה לְהַעֲלָאָה, מָה הַעֲלָאָה לֹא עָנַשׁ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִזְהִיר, אַף שְׁחִיטָה לֹא עָנַשׁ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִזְהִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If one considers the matter **according to the one who derives** the prohibition **from a juxtaposition,** it is also as though both prohibitions are written explicitly. The juxtaposition is that **the verse states: “There you shall sacrifice** your burnt offerings **and there you shall do** all that I command you” (Deuteronomy 12:14). Here the verse **juxtaposes slaughtering,** in the phrase: “And there you shall do,” **to offering up.** This teaches that **just as there,** with regard to offering up, the Torah **did not** prescribe **punishment unless** it explicitly **prohibited** the act, **so too here,** with regard to slaughtering, the Torah **did not** prescribe **punishment unless** it explicitly **prohibited** the act. Whether one derives the prohibition by verbal analogy or juxtaposition, it is considered as though the Torah explicitly wrote a prohibition with regard to slaughtering, and therefore this would not meet the criteria of Rabbi Yirmeya’s dilemma.


###### Keritot 3b:14
[Keritot 3b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/3b:14)

דִּלְמָא שְׁתֵּי מִיתוֹת וְלָאו אֶחָד קָאָמְרַתְּ? מָה הִיא – אוֹב וְיִדְּעוֹנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Zeira continues to address Rabbi Yirmeya: **Perhaps you are stating** your dilemma with regard to **two** prohibitions punishable by the **death** penalty **and** only **one prohibition** is written with regard to them, and your dilemma is whether one brings two sin offerings if one transgressed both unwittingly, despite the fact that only one prohibition is written with regard to both acts. **What is** such a circumstance? This applies in the case of **a necromancer,** who raises up the spirit of the dead, **and a sorcerer,** who places a certain bone in his mouth for it to speak of its own accord (see Leviticus 20:6, 27).


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ דְּהָא פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ. דְּתָנוּ גַּבֵּי סַנְהֶדְרִין: בַּעַל אוֹב וְיִדְּעוֹנִי, וְקַשְׁיָא לַן, וּמַאי שְׁנָא גַּבֵּי סְקִילוֹת תָּנֵי יִדְּעוֹנִי, וְגַבֵּי כָּרֵיתוֹת לָא תָּנֵי יִדְּעוֹנִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Zeira further **said to** Rabbi Yirmeya: This should not be a dilemma, **as this** matter is **a dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish. As** the Sages **taught** a *baraita*, where they list those liable to be executed by stoning, **in** tractate ***Sanhedrin*** (53a): **A necromancer and a sorcerer, and** the following presents **a difficulty to us: And what is different with regard to stonings** that the *tanna* **teaches** the case of **a sorcerer, but** the *tanna* **does not teach** the case of **a sorcerer with regard to** the list of transgressions punishable by ***karet*,** thereby indicating that one is liable to bring only a single sin offering for both transgressions?


###### Keritot 3b:16
[Keritot 3b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/3b:16)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הוֹאִיל וּשְׁנֵיהֶם בְּלָאו אֶחָד נֶאֶמְרוּ. וְנֵימָא יִדְּעוֹנִי, וְלָא נֵימָא בַּעַל אוֹב! קָסָבַר: הוֹאִיל וּפָתַח הַכָּתוּב בְּבַעַל אוֹב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** The *tanna* in tractate *Karetot* does not count the case of the sorcerer on its own **since both** the sorcerer and the necromancer **were stated in one prohibition:** “Do not turn to the necromancers and the sorcerers” (Leviticus 19:31); therefore, there is no separate obligation to bring an offering for each of them. The Gemara clarifies: **And let** the *tanna* **say** the case of **a sorcerer and let him not say** the case of **a necromancer,** rather than the reverse. The Gemara explains: The *tanna* **maintains** that **since the verse opened with** the case of **a necromancer,** it is proper to list that transgression and omit the case of a sorcerer.


###### Keritot 3b:17
[Keritot 3b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/3b:17)

וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: הוֹאִיל וְאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Reish Lakish says:** The case of the sorcerer is not included in the list of transgressions punishable by *karet* **since it does not involve an action,** but only speech, through the use of a bone, and one does not bring a sin offering for a prohibition that does not involve an action. The Gemara asks: **And** as for **Reish Lakish, what is the reason he does not state** an explanation **in accordance with** the explanation of **Rabbi Yoḥanan?**


###### Keritot 3b:18
[Keritot 3b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/3b:18)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: דְּהָא חֲלוּקִין הֵן בְּמִיתוֹת. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר לְךָ: חֲלוּקָּה דְלָאו – הָוֵי חֲלוּקָּה, חֲלוּקָּה דְמִיתָה – לָא הָוְיָא חֲלוּקָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said:** Reish Lakish disagrees with the explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan **because** the cases of a necromancer and a sorcerer **are divided** in the verse **with regard to** the issue of the **death** penalty, i.e., one is liable to receive the death penalty for transgressing either prohibition, as it is stated: “And a man also or a woman, who are a necromancer or a sorcerer shall be put to death” (Leviticus 20:27). Consequently, one would be liable to bring a separate sin offering for the unwitting transgression of either prohibition were it not for the fact that sorcery does not involve an action. **And Rabbi Yoḥanan** could **say to you** that **a division of a prohibition is** considered **a division** that leads to separate sin offerings, whereas **a division of** separate **death** penalties **is not** considered **a division** in this regard.


###### Keritot 3b:19
[Keritot 3b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/3b:19)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ? קָסָבַר: מַאן תַּנָּא כָּרֵיתוֹת – רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, דְּאָמַר לָא בָּעִינַן מַעֲשֶׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further asks: **And** as for **Rabbi Yoḥanan, what is the reason he does not state** an explanation **in accordance with** the explanation of **Reish Lakish,** who says the prohibition with regard to a sorcerer is not counted because it does not involve an action? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan **maintains: Who** is the *tanna* who **taught** the list of those liable to receive ***karet*? It is Rabbi Akiva, who says: An action is not required** for one to be liable to bring a sin offering.


###### Keritot 3b:20
[Keritot 3b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/3b:20)

וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ? נְהִי דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לָא בָּעֵי מַעֲשֵׂה רַבָּה, מַעֲשֵׂה זוּטָא בָּעֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** as for **Reish Lakish,** how does he respond to this claim? He could say that **although Rabbi Akiva does not require a significant action** for one to be liable to bring a sin offering, nevertheless he **does require a minor action.** The transgression of a sorcerer involves no action, as the voice emerges of its own accord, and therefore even Rabbi Akiva would not hold one liable to bring a sin offering for the unwitting violation of this prohibition.


###### Keritot 3b:21
[Keritot 3b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/3b:21)

בַּעַל אוֹב, מַאי מַעֲשֶׂה אִית בֵּיהּ? הֲקָשַׁת זְרוֹעוֹתָיו הָוֵי מַעֲשֶׂה. מְגַדֵּף, מַאי מַעֲשֶׂה אִית בֵּיהּ? עֲקִימַת שְׂפָתָיו הָוֵי מַעֲשֶׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: In the case of **a necromancer, what action is there in** this transgression? The Gemara answers: **The striking of his arms** against each other to raise the spirit of the dead **is** considered **an action.** The Gemara further asks: In the case of one who **blasphemes,** who merely speaks, **what action is there in** this transgression? Since Rabbi Akiva holds that an unwitting blasphemer is liable to bring a sin offering, this apparently indicates that no action at all is necessary. The Gemara answers: **The twisting of his lips** while he speaks **is** considered **an action.**


###### Keritot 3b:22
[Keritot 3b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/3b:22)

קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתִּין: הֲקָשַׁת זְרוֹעוֹתָיו הָוֵי מַעֲשֶׂה זוּטָא אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבָּנַן. מֵיתִיבִי: בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה, כְּגוֹן שֶׁזִּיבַּח, וְקִיטֵּר, וְנִיסֵּךְ, וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָה. וְקַשְׁיָא לַן, הִשְׁתַּחֲוָאָה לֵית בַּהּ מַעֲשֶׂה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: It **enters our mind** that **the striking of** the necromancer’s **arms** against each other **is** considered **a minor action even according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** and they would deem him liable. The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita*: **With regard to idol worship, one is liable** to be punished **only for a matter that involves an action, for example where one slaughtered** an offering, **or burned** incense, **or poured** a libation, **or bowed. And** the following matter poses **a difficulty to us: Bowing does not involve an action.**


###### Keritot 3b:23
[Keritot 3b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/3b:23)

וְאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, דְּאָמַר לָא בָּעִינַן מַעֲשֶׂה. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, כְּפִיפַת קוֹמָתוֹ הָוֵי מַעֲשֶׂה. מִכְּלָל דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אַלִּיבָּא דְרַבָּנַן כְּפִיפַת קוֹמָתוֹ לְרַבָּנַן לָא הָוֵי מַעֲשֶׂה. הֲקָשַׁת זְרוֹעוֹתָיו הָוֵי מַעֲשֶׂה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Reish Lakish said:** In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** *baraita*? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, who says: An action is not required** for one to be liable to bring a sin offering for transgressing a prohibition. **And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: You** may **even say** that the *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis,** as **the bending of his height** when he bows **is** considered **an action.** One can conclude from here **by inference that Reish Lakish maintains** that **according to** the opinion **of the Rabbis, the bending of his height is not** considered **an action.** If so, can it be said that **the striking of his arms** against each other, which is less of a movement than bending one’s height, **is** considered **an action?**


###### Keritot 3b:24
[Keritot 3b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/3b:24)

וְאֶלָּא כִּי קָאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ הֲקָשַׁת זְרוֹעוֹתָיו הָוֵי מַעֲשֶׂה זוּטָא, אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אֲבָל לְרַבָּנַן לָא הָוֵי מַעֲשֶׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But rather,** you must explain that **when Reish Lakish says the striking of his arms** against each other **is** considered **a minor action,** he is speaking only **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Akiva; but according to** the opinion **of the Rabbis** it **is not** considered **an action.**


###### Keritot 3b:25
[Keritot 3b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/3b:25)

אִי הָכִי, אַמַּאי תָּנֵי: יָצָא מְגַדֵּף שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה? נִיתְנֵי: יָצָא מְגַדֵּף וּבַעַל אוֹב! חֲדָא מִתַּרְתֵּי קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **If so,** that the Rabbis hold that the necromancer does not perform an action, **why** does the mishna **teach** that the Rabbis say: The list in the mishna is **excluding** one who **blasphemes, as he does not perform an action,** but rather he sins with speech. **Let it teach** instead: The list in the mishna is **excluding** one who **blasphemes and a necromancer.** The Gemara answers: The *tanna* **teaches one of two** examples that the Rabbis could have mentioned.


###### Keritot 3b:26
[Keritot 3b:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/3b:26)

וְלִיתְנֵי בַּעַל אוֹב וְלָא לִיתְנֵי מְגַדֵּף! מְגַדֵּף אִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּכְתִיב כָּרֵת דִּילֵיהּ בִּמְקוֹם קׇרְבָּן, אֵימָא מוֹדֶה לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this explanation: **But** if that is so, **let** the mishna **teach** the statement of the Rabbis with regard to **a necromancer and let it not teach** the statement of the Rabbis with regard to one who **blasphemes.** The Gemara answers: It **was necessary for** the *tanna* to mention one who **blasphemes,** as it might **enter your mind to say: Since its** punishment of ***karet* is written in the place** where the verse discusses **an offering** (see Numbers 15:28–30), one might **say** that in this case the Rabbis **concede to Rabbi Akiva** that one is liable to bring a sin offering despite the fact that no action is involved. To counter this, the mishna specifically mentions the exclusion of one who blasphemes to **teach us that** this is **not** the case.


###### Keritot 3b:27
[Keritot 3b:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/3b:27)

עוּלָּא אָמַר: בַּעַל אוֹב דְּקָתָנֵי בִּמְקַטֵּר לַשֵּׁד. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבָא: אִם כֵּן, הַיְינוּ עוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: מְקַטֵּר לַשֵּׁד עַל מְנָת לְחַבְּרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ulla said:** The reason the Rabbis did not state: Excluding one who blasphemes and a necromancer, is that the action of the **necromancer that** the mishna **teaches** is referring **to** one who **burns** incense **to a demon** in order to raise the dead, which is a full-fledged action. **Rava objects to this** answer from Ulla: **If so,** i.e., if the necromancer burns incense to a demon, **this is** the same as **an idol worshipper,** which is already mentioned in the mishna. **Rather, Rava said:** The mishna is referring to one who **burns** incense **to a demon in order to gather it** together with other demons, i.e., he does not burn incense to a demon by means of a rite but in a manner of sorcery, to bring the demons to one place to then make use of them.


###### Keritot 3b:28
[Keritot 3b:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/3b:28)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אִם כֵּן, הָיִינוּ חוֹבֵר חָבֶר! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה חוֹבֵר חָבֶר כְּגוֹן זֶה, בִּסְקִילָה. וְאֶלָּא חוֹבֵר חֶבֶר דִּבְלָאו – הֵדֵין הוּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rava: **If so, this is** the same as **a *ḥover ḥever*,** one who gathers together, which is stated in the Torah as a separate prohibition (Deuteronomy 18:11) and which is a prohibition that does not carry the punishment of *karet*. Rava **said to him:** It is true that such an individual is also a *ḥover ḥever*, but **the Torah stated: A *ḥover ḥever* such as this,** who gathers demons together, is included in the category of a necromancer and therefore his punishment is death **by stoning,** and transgressing this prohibition also results in *karet*. Abaye inquired: **But** then the case of **a *ḥover ḥever*, which** is **a prohibition** that does not entail *karet*, **what** is **it?**


###### Keritot 3b:29
[Keritot 3b:29](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/3b:29)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״וְחוֹבֵר חָבֶר״ – אֶחָד חוֹבֵר גָּדוֹל וְאֶחָד חוֹבֵר קָטָן, וַאֲפִילּוּ חוֹבֵר לִנְחָשִׁים וְעַקְרַבִּים – חַיָּיב. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַאי מַאן דְּבָעֵי לְמִיצְמַד זִיבּוּרָא וְעַקְרַבָּא – אָסוּר, וְאִי קָאָתוּ בָּתְרֵיהּ – שְׁרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava **said to** Abaye: **As it is taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the verse: **“And a *ḥover ḥaver*”** (Deuteronomy 18:11), this is referring to both **one** who uses sorcery and thereby **gathers large** beasts into one place, **and** also to **one** who **gathers small** beasts into one place, **and even** to one who **gathers** into one place **snakes and scorpions;** all of these individuals are **liable.** With regard to this prohibition **Abaye says:** In the case of **this one, who** through sorcery **wants to gather** together **a hornet and a scorpion,** this is **prohibited. But if they are pursuing him** and he merely seeks to defend himself, it is **permitted.**


###### Keritot 3b:30
[Keritot 3b:30](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/3b:30)

לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר כְּפִיפַת קוֹמָתוֹ הָוֵי מַעֲשֵׂה, עֲקִימַת

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **According to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says the bending of one’s height is** considered **an action, the twisting of**