## Keritot Daf 7a

###### Keritot 7a:1
[Keritot 7a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/7a:1)

בַּת כֹּהֵן שֶׁנִּישֵּׂאת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאָכְלָה בִּתְרוּמָה – מְשַׁלֶּמֶת אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְאֵינָהּ מְשַׁלֶּמֶת אֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ, וּמִיתָתָהּ בִּשְׂרֵיפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to **the daughter of a priest who married an Israelite and** then unwittingly **partook of *teruma*, she pays the principal,** as a thief would, as she partook of *teruma* to which she owns no rights. **But she does not pay the** additional **one-fifth** payment, which is the fine paid by an Israelite who partakes of *teruma* unwittingly (see Leviticus 22:14). This is because she is not completely disqualified from the priesthood, since if she becomes widowed or divorced without having borne children she will again be permitted to partake of *teruma*. **And** if she commits adultery **her death** penalty is administered **by burning,** as is the *halakha* with regard to the daughter of a priest (see Leviticus 21:9).


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

נִיסֵּת לְאֶחָד מִן הַפְּסוּלִין – מְשַׁלֶּמֶת קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ, וּמִיתָתָהּ בְּחֶנֶק, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
By contrast, if **she married one of those who are unfit** for her to marry due to his lineage, thereby disqualifying herself from the priesthood for the future, **she pays** the **principal and** the additional **one-fifth** payment, **and her death** is **by strangulation,** as is the *halakha* with regard to Israelite women. This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.**


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

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אַחַת זוֹ וְאַחַת זוֹ מְשַׁלֶּמֶת [אֶת] הַקֶּרֶן וְאֵינָהּ מְשַׁלֶּמֶת [אֶת] הַחוֹמֶשׁ, וּמִיתָתָהּ בִּשְׂרֵיפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis say:** In **both this** case **and that** case, whether she was married to an Israelite or to one unfit for her to marry, **she pays the principal but she does not pay the** additional **one-fifth** payment, **and her death** is **by burning,** as she previously had the status of a daughter of the priesthood. This opinion of the Rabbis is presumably that of Rabbi Yehuda, who is usually the disputant of Rabbi Meir. As explained with regard to the anointing of a king, Rabbi Yehuda requires that the individual in question must have the status of a stranger, i.e., not a High Priest or a king, from beginning to end.


###### Keritot 7a:4
[Keritot 7a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/7a:4)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מַחְלוֹקֶת בִּנְתִינַת שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה וּבְשִׁינּוּיֵי דְּשַׁנִּינַן, אֲבָל נְתִינָה דְּעָלְמָא – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל כְּזַיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef said** the **dispute** between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda applies **to the placing of the anointing oil, and** it is explained **by** those **answers that we answered** earlier, that according to Rabbi Meir one is liable for the placing of any amount, as the verse uses an expression of applying, whereas according to Rabbi Yehuda one is liable only if one places oil that is the volume of an olive-bulk. **But** with regard to **placing in general,** e.g., the prohibition not to place frankincense on the meal offering of a sinner (see Leviticus 5:11), **everyone agrees** one is liable for placing only the volume of **an olive-bulk.**


###### Keritot 7a:5
[Keritot 7a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/7a:5)

גּוּפָא. תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בְּסָךְ – יֶשְׁנוֹ בְּבַל יִיסָךְ, וְכׇל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּסָךְ – אֵינוֹ בְּבַל יִיסָךְ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שַׁפִּיר קָאָמְרַתְּ, ״לֹא יִיסָךְ״ כְּתִיב, וּקְרִי בֵּיהּ ״לֹא יַסִּיךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses **the** matter **itself: A *tanna* teaches** a *baraita* **before Rabbi Elazar: Anyone included in** the obligation not to **apply** anointing oil to himself or others **is** likewise **included** as the object of: **It shall not be applied,** i.e., it is prohibited to apply the oil to him. **And anyone not included in** the obligation not **to apply** anointing oil to himself or others **is not included** as the object of: **It shall not be applied.** Rabbi Elazar **said to** that *tanna*: **You are saying well,** as **it is written:** “Upon the flesh of a person **it shall not be applied [*lo yisakh*]”** (Exodus 30:32), **and** you **read into** the verse: ***Lo yasikh*,** he shall not apply it to others. This dual reading indicates that one who is commanded not to apply the oil is the same as the one upon whom it is prohibited to apply the oil, as stated by the *tanna*.


###### Keritot 7a:6
[Keritot 7a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/7a:6)

תָּנֵי רַב חֲנַנְיָה קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא: מִנַּיִן לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁנָּטַל מִשֶּׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה שֶׁעַל רֹאשׁוֹ וְנָתַן עַל בְּנֵי מֵעָיו, מִנַּיִן שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עַל בְּשַׂר אָדָם לֹא יִיסָךְ״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: מַאי שְׁנָא מֵהָא דְּתַנְיָא: כֹּהֵן שֶׁסָּךְ בְּשֶׁמֶן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה, בֶּן בִּתּוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִתְעַגֵּל בּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Ḥananya taught** a *halakha* **before Rava: From where** is it derived **with regard to a High Priest who took from the anointing oil that is on his head and placed it on his stomach; from where** is it derived **that he is liable?** It is derived from a verse, **as it is stated: “Upon the flesh of a person it shall not be applied”** (Exodus 30:32). **Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: What is different between** this case and **that which is taught** in a *baraita*: In the case of **a priest who applied *teruma* oil** to himself, **the Israelite son of his daughter may rub against [*mitaggel*]** this oil **without concern** that he might be deriving benefit from *teruma*?


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם, ״וּמֵתוּ בוֹ כִּי יְחַלְּלֻהוּ״ כְּתִיב – כֵּיוָן דְּחַלְּלֵיהּ הָא אִיתַּחַיל, אֲבָל גַּבֵּי שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה כְּתִיב: ״כִּי נֵזֶר [שֶׁמֶן מִשְׁחַת] אֱלֹהָיו עָלָיו״ – ״שֶׁמֶן מִשְׁחָה״ קַרְיֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּאִיתֵיהּ עָלָיו לָא אִיתַּחַיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ashi **said to him: There,** with regard to *teruma* oil, **it is written: “They will die through it if they profane it”** (Leviticus 22:9), and **since** the priest **has** already **profaned** the oil by using it, it is considered **profaned. But with regard to the anointing oil it is written: “For the consecration** of the anointing oil of **His God is upon him”** (Leviticus 21:12). **The Merciful One calls it anointing oil** even at this stage, to teach **that even though it is upon** the High Priest it is **not** considered **profaned,** and instead remains sacred.


###### Keritot 7a:8
[Keritot 7a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/7a:8)

עַל אֵלּוּ חַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹנוֹ כּוּ׳. קָתָנֵי: חוּץ מִמְּטַמֵּא מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו. מִמַּאי מַפֵּיק לֵיהּ? הָכִי קָתָנֵי: חוּץ מִמִּטַּמֵּא מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו, שֶׁאֵין מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **For** any of **these** prohibitions, **one is liable** to receive *karet* **for its intentional** violation and to bring a sin offering for its unwitting violation. And for violation in a case where it is unknown to him whether he transgressed, he is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering. The Gemara notes that the mishna further **teaches:** This is the *halakha* for all the transgressions listed above **except for one who defiles the Temple,** i.e., he enters the Temple while ritually impure **or** renders **its consecrated items** ritually impure. The Gemara asks: **From what** *halakha* **does** the *tanna* **exclude** these cases? After all, one who enters the Temple while impure or renders its consecrated items impure is also liable to receive *karet*. The Gemara answers: **This** is what the mishna **is teaching: Except for one who defiles the Temple or** renders **its consecrated items** ritually impure, **as** he **does not bring a provisional guilt offering.**


###### Keritot 7a:9
[Keritot 7a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/7a:9)

וְנִיתְנֵי נָמֵי: חוּץ מִמִּי שֶׁעָבַר עָלָיו יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים, שֶׁאֵין מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי! אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: כִּי קָתָנֵי, הֵיכָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ לַחֲטָאֵהּ וְרַחֲמָנָא פַּטְרֵיהּ. עָבַר עָלָיו יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים לֵיתֵיהּ לַחֲטָאֵהּ, דְּקָא כַפַּר לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **And let** the mishna **also teach: Except for one who** sinned and **Yom Kippur passed, as** he too **does not bring a provisional guilt offering. Reish Lakish said: When** the *tanna* **teaches** these exceptions he is referring to those cases **where there is a sin and** nevertheless **the Merciful One exempts him** from bringing a provisional guilt offering. By contrast, in a case where **Yom Kippur passed, there is no** remaining **sin, as** Yom Kippur **atoned for him,** i.e., for his sin.


###### Keritot 7a:10
[Keritot 7a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/7a:10)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: בִּמְבַעֵט, דְּקָאָמַר: אֵין יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר, דְּאִי הָדַר בֵּיהּ בָּתַר יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים, בָּעֵי לְאֵיתוֹיֵי אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ סָבַר: מְבַעֵט נָמֵי מְכַפַּר עֲלֵיהּ יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan said:** The mishna is referring **to one who rejects** the atonement of Yom Kippur, **who says: Yom Kippur does not atone** for one’s sins. In this situation Yom Kippur does not atone for him, which means **that if he retracted** from his sinful ways **after Yom Kippur** he is **required to bring a provisional guilt offering.** Therefore, it cannot be listed in the exceptions stated in the mishna. The Gemara notes: **And Reish Lakish** does not explain the mishna in this manner, as **he maintains** that **even** with regard to **one who rejects** its atonement, **Yom Kippur atones for his** sins.


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

וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא: הָאוֹמֵר: ״לֹא יִתְכַּפֵּר לִי חַטָּאתִי״, אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֵינָהּ מְכַפֶּרֶת, רָבָא אָמַר: מְכַפֶּרֶת. הֵיכָא דְּאָמַר: ״לֹא תִּיקְרַב״ – דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּלָא מְכַפְּרָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״יַקְרִיב אוֹתוֹ״ – לִרְצוֹנוֹ. כִּי פְּלִיגִי, דְּאָמַר: ״תִּיקְרַב וְלֹא תְּכַפֵּר״, אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֵין מְכַפֶּרֶת, דְּהָא אָמַר לֹא תְּכַפֵּר. רָבָא אָמַר: מְכַפֶּרֶת, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר תִּיקְרַב – כַּפָּרָה מִמֵּילָא (אָתֵי).

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And** their dispute is **with regard to** the issue that is the subject of **the dispute** between later *amora’im*: Concerning **one who says: My sin offering,** which is sacrificed for me, **should not atone for me, Abaye said:** This sin offering **does not atone** for him. **Rava said: It atones** for him. The Gemara explains: In a case **where he said:** I do **not** want it **to be sacrificed, everyone agrees that it does not atone** for him, **as it is written: “He shall bring it in accordance with his will”** (Leviticus 1:3), which indicates that if the offering is brought against his will it is not effective. **Where they disagree** is **when he says:** The sin offering **should be sacrificed but it should not atone** for me. **Abaye said:** It **does not atone** for him, **as he said** that **it should not atone** for him. **Rava said: It does atone** for him, as **once he says** it **should be sacrificed,** the **atonement comes by itself.**


###### Keritot 7a:12
[Keritot 7a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/7a:12)

וַהֲדַר בֵּיהּ רָבָא, כִּדְתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל יְהֵא יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר עַל שָׁבִין וְעַל שֶׁאֵין שָׁבִין? וְדִין הוּא, וּמָה חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם מְכַפְּרִין וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר, מָה חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם אֵין מְכַפְּרִין אֶלָּא עַל הַשָּׁבִין אַף יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים אֵין מְכַפֵּר אֶלָּא עַל הַשָּׁבִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And Rava retracted** his opinion, **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: One **might** have thought that **Yom Kippur atones for those who repent and for those who do not repent.** The *baraita* elaborates: **And there is a logical inference** to negate this assertion: **Just as a sin offering and a guilt offering atone, and** likewise **Yom Kippur atones, just as a sin offering and a guilt offering atone only for those who repent, so too, Yom Kippur atones only for those who repent.**


###### Keritot 7a:13
[Keritot 7a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/7a:13)

לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּחַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם, שֶׁאֵין מְכַפְּרִין עַל הַמֵּזִיד כַּשּׁוֹגֵג, תֹּאמַר בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, שֶׁמְּכַפֵּר עַל הַמֵּזִיד כַּשּׁוֹגֵג. וְהוֹאִיל וּמְכַפֵּר עַל הַמֵּזִיד כַּשּׁוֹגֵג, מְכַפֵּר עַל שָׁבִין וְעַל שֶׁאֵין שָׁבִין! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אַךְ״, חָלַק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* rejects this opinion: **No, if you said** this is the *halakha* **with regard to a sin offering and a guilt offering, which do not atone for intentional** sins **as** they do for **unwitting** sins, **shall you** also **say** that this is the *halakha* **with regard to Yom Kippur, which does atone for intentional** sins **as** it does for **unwitting** sins? Yom Kippur effects atonement even in cases where offerings do not. **And since** it is the case that the atonement of Yom Kippur is far-reaching in that **it atones for intentional** sins **as** it does for **unwitting** sins, it follows that it **may atone** both **for those who repent and for those who do not repent.** To dispel this notion, **the verse states: “Yet** on the tenth day of this month it is Yom Kippur” (Leviticus 23:27). By means of the word “yet,” the verse **divided** and limited the atonement of Yom Kippur so that it atones only for those who repent. This concludes the *baraita*.


###### Keritot 7a:14
[Keritot 7a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/7a:14)

מַאי ״שָׁבִין״ וְ״שֶׁאֵין שָׁבִין״? אִלֵּימָא ״שָׁבִין״ – שׁוֹגֵג, ״לֹא שָׁבִין״ – מֵזִיד, הָא קָתָנֵי: לֹא אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּחַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם כּוּ׳!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes this *baraita*. **What** is the meaning of: **Those who repent and those who do not repent? Shall we say those who repent** are those whose transgressions were **unwitting,** whereas **those who do not repent** are those whose transgressions were **intentional?** This cannot be the case, as the *baraita* **teaches: No, if you said** this is the *halakha* with regard to **a sin offering and a guilt offering,** which do not atone for intentional sins as they do for unwitting sins. Since the *baraita* is referring to the concepts of intentional and unwitting sins in this clause, the categories of those who repent and do not repent must have another meaning.


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

אֶלָּא, כִּי הָא דְּעוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָכַל חֵלֶב וְהִפְרִישׁ קׇרְבָּן, וְנִשְׁתַּמֵּד וְחָזַר בּוֹ, הוֹאִיל וְנִדְחָה – יִדָּחֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the category of those who do not repent is **like that which Ulla says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan** says: If one unwittingly **ate** forbidden **fat and separated an offering** for this sin, **and became an apostate and subsequently retracted** his apostasy, nevertheless, **since** the offering **was rejected** from being sacrificed while he was an apostate, **it shall** remain **rejected.** Accordingly, the *baraita* is suggesting that the same applies to one who became an apostate and Yom Kippur passed: Even if he retracts his apostasy, the following Yom Kippur should not atone for his transgression.


###### Keritot 7a:16
[Keritot 7a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/7a:16)

נְהִי דְּאִידְּחִי קׇרְבָּן, גַּבְרָא בַּר כַּפָּרָה הוּא! אֶלָּא ״שָׁבִין״ – דְּאָמַר: ״יְכַפֵּר עָלַי חַטָּאתִי״, ״שֶׁאֵין שָׁבִין״ – דְּאָמַר: ״לֹא תְּכַפֵּר עָלַי חַטָּאתִי״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this interpretation: Granted, the **offering is rejected** from the altar, and therefore it cannot be sacrificed at a later stage. But the **man** himself **is fit for atonement,** and he can bring another sin offering. The Gemara suggests another interpretation of the *baraita*: **Rather,** it must be that the category of **those who repent** is referring to one **who says: My sin offering should atone for me, and** the category of **those who do not repent** is referring to one **who says: My sin offering should not atone for me.** The Gemara comments: **Conclude from** the *baraita* that a sin offering does not atone for one who states beforehand: My sin offering should not atone for me, in contradiction of the earlier statement of Rava. Since Rava was aware of this *baraita*, he must have retracted his opinion.


###### Keritot 7a:17
[Keritot 7a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/7a:17)

וּרְמִינְהִי: יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר אֶלָּא עַל שֶׁנִּתְעַנָּה בּוֹ וְלֹא עָשָׂה בּוֹ מְלָאכָה וּקְרָאוֹ מִקְרָא קוֹדֶשׁ, לֹא נִתְעַנָּה בּוֹ וְעָשָׂה בּוֹ מְלָאכָה וְלֹא קְרָאוֹ מִקְרָא קוֹדֶשׁ יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא יוֹם כִּיפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים הוּא״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם. וְתַרְוַיְיהוּ סְתָם סִיפְרָא הוּא, קַשְׁיָין אַהֲדָדֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues its analysis of this *baraita* by comparing it to another *baraita*. **And** the Sages **raise a contradiction:** One **might** have thought that **Yom Kippur shall atone only for** one **who fasted on it and did not perform labor on it and declared it a holy convocation.** With regard to one who **did not fast on it, or performed labor on it, or did not declare it a holy convocation,** one **might** have thought that **Yom Kippur shall not atone** for him. To counter this **the verse states:** “Yet on the tenth day of this seventh month **it is Yom Kippur”** (Leviticus 23:27); the additional emphasis of “it is” serves to teach that the day atones **in any case.** The ruling of this *baraita* disputes the one cited earlier, which states that Yom Kippur atones only for those who repent, **and both** are **unattributed** *baraitot* in the ***Sifra*.** They **are difficult,** as they contradict **each other.**


###### Keritot 7a:18
[Keritot 7a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/7a:18)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא – רַבִּי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָא – רַבִּי אַלִּיבָּא דִּידֵיהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: כׇּל עֲבֵירוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, בֵּין עָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה וּבֵין לֹא עָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה – יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said:** This is **not difficult. This** first *baraita* **is** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Yehuda,** and **that** second *baraita* **is** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **in accordance with his own** opinion. **As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** For **all transgressions that are** stated **in the Torah, whether one repented or whether one did not repent, Yom Kippur atones.**


###### Keritot 7a:19
[Keritot 7a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/7a:19)

חוּץ מִפּוֹרֵק עוֹל, וּמְגַלֶּה פָּנִים בַּתּוֹרָה, וּמֵפֵר בְּרִית בָּשָׂר, שֶׁאִם עָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה – יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר, וְאִם לָאו – אֵין יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi continues: This is the *halakha* **except for** one **who divests** himself of the **yoke** of God, by denying His existence, **and one who** impudently **reveals facets of the Torah** in a manner that departs from their true meaning, **and one who nullifies the covenant of** the **flesh,** i.e., circumcision. **With regard to** these, **if one repented, Yom Kippur atones, and if not, Yom Kippur does not atone.** This indicates that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, Yom Kippur atones even if one did not repent.


###### Keritot 7a:20
[Keritot 7a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/7a:20)

רָבָא אָמַר: הָא וְהָא רַבִּי אַלִּיבָּא דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ, וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי בַּעֲבֵירוֹת דְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים גּוּפֵיהּ – דְּלָא מְכַפַּר. דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, כָּרֵת דְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים לְרַבִּי, כֵּיוָן דִּבְכֹל שַׁעְתָּא וְשַׁעְתָּא מְכַפַּר, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** Both **this** *baraita* **and that** *baraita* are the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **in accordance with his own** opinion, that Yom Kippur atones even for those who do not repent, **but** even **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **concedes** that **with regard to** the **transgressions of** violating **Yom Kippur itself,** e.g., if one ate or performed labor on Yom Kippur, **that** Yom Kippur **does not atone** for those transgressions. He must necessarily concede this point, **as if you do not say so,** then **according to Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, with regard to the punishment of ***karet* for** transgressing the prohibitions of **Yom Kippur, since each and every hour** of the day **atones** for one’s sins, **how can you find** the application of *karet* in this case?


###### Keritot 7a:21
[Keritot 7a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/7a:21)

וּמַאי קוּשְׁיָא? דִּילְמָא דַּעֲבַד עֲבִידְתָּא כּוּלֵּי לֵילְיָא וּבַהֲדֵי עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר מִית, דְּלָא הֲוָה יְמָמָא דִּלְכַפַּר לֵיהּ! תִּינַח כָּרֵת דְּלֵילְיָא, כָּרֵת דִּימָמָא הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this proof: **And what is the difficulty? Perhaps** you find a case **where he performed labor the entire night** of Yom Kippur **and died at dawn, as** in such a case **there was no daytime** of Yom Kippur, which is the part of Yom Kippur that effects atonement, **to atone for him.** The Gemara asks: That **works out well** with regard to the punishment of ***karet* for** transgressing at **night;** but with regard to ***karet* for** transgressing at **daytime, how can you find these** circumstances, i.e., how can he be liable to receive *karet* for transgressing in the day?


###### Keritot 7a:22
[Keritot 7a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/7a:22)

וּמַאי קוּשְׁיָא? דִּילְמָא בַּהֲדֵי דְּקָאָכַל נַהֲמָא חֲנַקְתֵּיהּ אוּמְצָא, דְּלָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ שְׁהוּת בִּימָמָא דִּלְכַפַּר לֵיהּ. אִי נָמֵי, דַּעֲבַד עֲבִידְתֵּיהּ סָמוּךְ לִשְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה. אִי נָמֵי, בַּהֲדֵי דְּעָבֵיד עֲבִידְתֵּיהּ פַּסְקֵיהּ מָרָא לְשָׁקֵיהּ וּמִית, דְּלָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ שְׁהוּת בִּימָמָא דִּלְכַפַּר לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **And what is the difficulty? Perhaps while eating bread he choked on** a chunk of **meat** he ate with it, and died, **as there was not enough time in the day** after his transgression **to atone for him. Alternatively,** it is referring to a case **where he performed labor close to sunset; alternatively,** it is referring to a case where **as he was performing labor, the hoe** with which he was working **cut his thigh and he died, as** in these cases too **there was no time** in the day after his transgression **to atone for him,** either because it was no longer Yom Kippur or because he died immediately.


###### Keritot 7a:23
[Keritot 7a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/7a:23)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אַף הַמְגַדֵּף כּוּ׳. מַאי אַף הַמְגַדֵּף שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **And the Rabbis say:** The *halakha* is the same, i.e., there is no obligation to bring a sin offering, **even** with regard to **the one who blasphemes,** as it is stated with regard to the sin offering: “You shall have one law for him who performs the action unwittingly” (Numbers 15:29), excluding one who blasphemes, as he does not perform an action but sins with speech. The Gemara asks: **What** caused the Rabbis to specify: **Even** one who **blasphemes, as he does not perform an action?** Why do the Rabbis mention this explanation?


###### Keritot 7a:24
[Keritot 7a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/7a:24)

רַבָּנַן שְׁמַעוּ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא דְּתָנֵי בַּעַל אוֹב וְלָא תָּנֵי יִדְּעוֹנִי, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: מַאי שְׁנָא דְּלָא מַיְיתֵי קׇרְבָּן, מִשּׁוּם דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ מַעֲשֶׂה? מְגַדֵּף נָמֵי לֵית בֵּיהּ מַעֲשֶׂה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **The Rabbis heard that Rabbi Akiva teaches** in his list of those who must bring a sin offering **a necromancer, and he does not teach a sorcerer** in his list, and therefore **they said to him: What is different** about a sorcerer **that he does not bring an offering?** It must be **due to** the fact **that** his transgression **does not involve an action.** If so, with regard to the sin of one who **blasphemes as well,** it **does not involve an action.**


###### Keritot 7a:25
[Keritot 7a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/7a:25)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מְגַדֵּף מֵבִיא קׇרְבָּן, הוֹאִיל וְנֶאֱמַר בּוֹ כָּרֵת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, וְאוֹמֵר: ״וְנָשָׂא חֶטְאוֹ״. וּכְלָלָא הוּא, כֹּל הֵיכָא דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ כָּרֵת מַיְיתֵי קׇרְבָּן? וְהָא פֶּסַח וּמִילָה דִּכְתִיב בְּהוּ כָּרֵת וְלָא מַיְיתֵי קׇרְבָּן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 1:1): One who unwittingly **blasphemes brings an offering, since *karet* is stated with regard to it.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And** the verse **states:** “Whoever curses his God **shall bear his sin”** (Leviticus 24:15), as the Gemara will explain. The Gemara asks: **And is it** an established **principle** that **wherever it is written *karet* with regard to** a mitzva, one who violates it unwittingly **brings an offering? But there** is the case of the mitzva of the **Paschal offering, and** the mitzva of **circumcision, as** the punishment of ***karet* is written** for failing to perform **them, and** yet **one does not bring an offering** for failing to perform these mitzvot unwittingly.