## Makkot Daf 14a

###### Makkot 14a:1
[Makkot 14a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/14a:1)

כִּדְאָמְרִינַן מֵעִיקָּרָא, שֶׁאִם עָשׂוּ תְּשׁוּבָה – בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל מַעְלָה מוֹחֲלִין לָהֶן. מַאי אָמְרַתְּ? הָא לָא עֲבוּד תְּשׁוּבָה? לָא פְּסִיקָא מִילְּתָא לְכָרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**as we stated initially, that if they repented the heavenly court absolves them** of the punishment of *karet*, and therefore this is not a case of two punishments for one transgression, and there is no exemption from lashes. **What do you say** in response, **that they did not** yet **repent?** Nevertheless, since **the matter is not clear-cut with regard to *karet*,** as perhaps they repented, they are therefore not exempt from lashes.


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

רַבִּי יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר: חַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת בַּכְּלָל הָיוּ, וְלָמָּה יָצָאת כָּרֵת בַּאֲחוֹתוֹ – לְדוּנוֹ בְּכָרֵת וְלֹא בְּמַלְקוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is taught in the *baraita* that **Rabbi Yitzḥak says: Those liable** to receive ***karet*** in cases of incest **were included in** the principle: “For anyone who performs any of these abominations, the souls who do so shall be excised from among their people” (Leviticus 18:29). **And why was** the punishment of ***karet*,** when administered to one who engages in intercourse **with his sister, excluded** from this verse and mentioned independently (Leviticus 20:17)? It is **to sentence him** to be punished **with *karet* and not to** be punished **with lashes.**


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

וְרַבָּנַן, כָּרֵת בַּאֲחוֹתוֹ לְמָה לִי? לְחַלֵּק, וְכִדְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שֶׁאִם עֲשָׂאָן כּוּלָּם בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד – חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** according to **the Rabbis,** i.e., Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva, who maintain that those liable to receive *karet* are flogged, **why do I** need ***karet*** to be written in the case of one who engages in intercourse **with his sister;** what does it teach? The Gemara answers: It teaches **to divide** the various prohibitions of sexual intercourse with forbidden relatives, **and is in accordance with** the statement **of Rabbi Yoḥanan, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says that if one performed all** the transgressions described in the passage in the Torah enumerating forbidden relatives **during one lapse of awareness,** he is **liable** to bring a separate sin-offering **for each and every one,** as one is liable to receive *karet* for each and every one.


###### Makkot 14a:4
[Makkot 14a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/14a:4)

וְרַבִּי יִצְחָק, לְחַלֵּק מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִוְּאֶל אִשָּׁה בְּנִדַּת טֻמְאָתָהּ, לְחַיֵּיב עַל כׇּל אִשָּׁה וְאִשָּׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** concerning **Rabbi Yitzḥak,** who derives the *halakha* that one who is liable to receive *karet* is not flogged from the fact that *karet* for one who engages in intercourse with his sister emerged from the generalization, **from where** does **he** derive the concept **to divide** the various prohibitions? The Gemara answers: **He derives it from** the verse written with regard to a menstruating woman: **“And to a woman in the separation of her impurity** you shall not approach” (Leviticus 18:19). From the superfluous expression “and to a woman,” Rabbi Yitzḥak derives **that one is liable for** intercourse with **each and every** forbidden **woman.**


###### Makkot 14a:5
[Makkot 14a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/14a:5)

וְרַבָּנַן נָמֵי, תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מֵהָא! אִין הָכִי נָמֵי. וְאֶלָּא, כָּרֵת דַּאֲחוֹתוֹ לְמָה לִי? לְחַיְּיבוֹ עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ וְעַל אֲחוֹת אָבִיו וְעַל אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** with regard to **the Rabbis as well, let them derive** the division of the prohibitions **from this** verse, rather than from the fact that *karet* for one who engages in intercourse with his sister emerged from the generalization. The Gemara answers: **Yes,** it **is indeed so,** they derive division from the verse with regard to a menstruating woman; **but rather,** the question again arises: **Why do I** need ***karet*** to be written in the case of one who engages in intercourse **with his sister;** what does it teach? The Gemara answers: It teaches **to render him liable** to bring three separate sin-offerings for engaging in intercourse **with his sister, and with his father’s sister, and with his mother’s sister,** during a single lapse of awareness.


###### Makkot 14a:6
[Makkot 14a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/14a:6)

פְּשִׁיטָא, הֲרֵי גּוּפִין מוּחְלָקִין, הֲרֵי שֵׁמוֹת מוּחְלָקִין! אֶלָּא, לְחַיְּיבוֹ עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ שֶׁהִיא אֲחוֹת אָבִיו שֶׁהִיא אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ. וְהֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ – בְּרַשִּׁיעָא בַּר רַשִּׁיעָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Isn’t the fact that he is liable to bring three sin-offerings **obvious?** The actions were performed with **separate bodies,** i.e., three different women, and those actions violated the **names** of three **separate** prohibitions; no derivation is required. **Rather,** it is **to render him liable** to bring three separate sin-offerings for engaging in intercourse **with his sister who is** also **his father’s sister** and **who is** also **his mother’s sister.** The Gemara inquires: **And how can you find these** circumstances? The Gemara answers: It is found **in** the case of **a wicked person, son of a wicked person.** How so? If a man engages in intercourse with his mother, and she bears him two daughters, and he then engages in intercourse with one of the daughters and fathers a son, that son could engage in intercourse with the other daughter, who is his half sister through his father, as well as being his father’s half sister and his mother’s half sister.


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

וְרַבִּי יִצְחָק, הָא מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר, דְּתַנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: שָׁאַלְתִּי אֶת רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בָּאִיטְלִיז שֶׁל עֵימָאוּם, שֶׁהָלְכוּ לִיקַּח בְּהֵמָה לְמִשְׁתֵּה בְנוֹ שֶׁל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: הַבָּא עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ שֶׁהִיא אֲחוֹת אָבִיו שֶׁהִיא אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ, מַהוּ? [אֵינוֹ] חַיָּיב עַל כּוּלָּן אֶלָּא אַחַת, אוֹ חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** with regard to **Rabbi Yitzḥak, from where does he** derive this? **He derives it by means of an *a fortiori*** inference, **as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Akiva says: I asked Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua** a question **in the meat market [*itliz*] of** the town of **Emmaus, where they went to purchase an animal for the** wedding **feast of Rabban Gamliel’s son.** Rabbi Akiva asked: In the case of **one who engages in intercourse with his sister who is** also **his father’s sister** and **who is** also **his mother’s sister, what is** the *halakha* with regard to bringing a sin-offering? Is **he liable** to bring **only one** sin-offering **for** engaging in intercourse that violated **all of** the prohibitions, **or** is **he liable** to bring a sin-offering **for each and every** prohibition that he violated when he engaged in intercourse with that woman?


###### Makkot 14a:8
[Makkot 14a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/14a:8)

אָמְרוּ לוֹ: זוֹ לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ, אֲבָל שָׁמַעְנוּ: הַבָּא עַל חָמֵשׁ נָשִׁים נִדּוֹת בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד, שֶׁחַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת, וְנִרְאִין דְּבָרִים מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה נִדָּה שֶׁהִיא שֵׁם אֶחָד – חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת, כָּאן שֶׁשְּׁלֹשָׁה שֵׁמוֹת – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua **said to him: We did not hear** the *halakha* in **that** case. **But we heard** the *halakha* in a similar case: **One who engages in intercourse with five menstruating women during one lapse of awareness** is **liable** to bring a sin-offering **for each and every one** of the women with whom he engaged in intercourse, **and it appears** with regard to the **matter** of your inquiry that he is liable to bring a sin-offering for each and every prohibition, **by means of an *a fortiori*** inference. How so? **If** in the case of **a menstruating woman, which** involves violation of the **name of one** prohibition, he is **liable for** intercourse with **each and every one, here, where** the woman is forbidden due to the **names** of **three** prohibitions, is it **not all the more so** logical that he is liable to bring three sin-offerings?


###### Makkot 14a:9
[Makkot 14a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/14a:9)

וְאִידָּךְ, קַל וָחוֹמֶר פְּרִיכָא הוּא: מָה לְנִדָּה, שֶׁכֵּן גּוּפִין מוּחְלָקִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **And** according to **the other** opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that liability for intercourse with each and every one is derived from an explicit verse, **it is a refuted *a fortiori*** inference: **What** is notable **about** the case of **a menstruating woman?** It is notable **in that** the actions were performed with **separate bodies,** i.e., different women, while in the case in question, the person engaged in intercourse with one woman.


###### Makkot 14a:10
[Makkot 14a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/14a:10)

וּלְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי, הַאי וַדַּאי קַל וָחוֹמֶר פְּרִיכָא הוּא! אֶלָּא, נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵ״אֲחֹתוֹ״ דְּסֵיפָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** according **to the other** opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak **too, this is certainly a refuted *a fortiori*** inference, from which no *halakha* can be derived. **Rather,** as for the *halakha* that a person is liable to bring three sin-offerings for engaging in intercourse with his sister who is also his father’s sister and who is also his mother’s sister, Rabbi Yitzḥak **derives it from** the phrase **“his sister”** written **in the latter clause** of that verse. The verse begins: “And a man who takes his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother…and they shall be excised…the nakedness of his sister he has revealed, he shall bear his transgression” (Leviticus 20:17). From the repetition of the term sister, it is derived that he is liable to bring a sin-offering for each and every prohibition that he violated.


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

וְאִידָּךְ, ״אֲחוֹתוֹ״ דְּסֵיפָא לְמָה לִי? לְחַיְּיבוֹ עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ בַּת אָבִיו וּבַת אִמּוֹ, לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין עוֹנְשִׁין מִן הַדִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** according to **the other** opinion of the Rabbis, who derive this *halakha* from the term “sister” at the beginning of the verse, **why do I** need the phrase **“his sister”** to be written **in the latter clause** of that verse; what does it teach? The Gemara answers: It teaches **to render him liable for** engaging in intercourse with **his sister** who is also **the daughter of his father and the daughter of his mother,** which comes **to say that one does not administer punishment based on** an *a fortiori* **inference.** Although the Torah specified liability for one who engaged in intercourse with his paternal sister and for one who engaged in intercourse with his maternal sister, an independent derivation is necessary for liability for one who engaged in intercourse with a woman who is both his paternal and his maternal sister.


###### Makkot 14a:12
[Makkot 14a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/14a:12)

וְאִידַּךְ? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא גָּמַר עוֹנֶשׁ מֵאַזְהָרָה. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, נָפְקָא לֵיהּ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** according to **the other** opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak, who derives another matter from the term “sister” in the latter verse, from where does he derive liability for one who engaged in intercourse with a woman who is both his paternal and his maternal sister? The Gemara answers: **If you wish, say he derives** the **punishment from the prohibition;** just as the prohibition includes intercourse with a woman who is both his paternal and his maternal sister, the same applies to the punishment. **And if you wish, say** instead that **he derives it**