Keritot 2a (ב.) — the Talmud in English

Our Mishna enumerates the list of transgressions for which the Torah imposes the punishment of karet when they are committed intentionally. The reason Rabbi arranged these laws in the Order of Kodashim is that, in the great majority of cases, if one committed them inadvertently, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for them. The general rule is: With regard to every prohibition against an action for which one who deliberately commits it is liable to karet, one brings a sin-offering for committing it inadvertently. The punishment of karet is stated only with regard to transgressions of prohibitions, except for the mitzvot of circumcision and the Paschal offering. Although these are positive mitzvot בלבד, nevertheless, one who refrains from performing them is liable to the punishment of karet. However, if he violated them inadvertently, he does not bring a sin-offering. An additional condition for liability to a sin-offering is that the transgression involve an action. [This condition is in accordance with the opinion of the Sages, but we find tannaim who disagree and hold one liable even when there is no action.] All the transgressions enumerated in the Mishna involve an action, except for the blasphemer, whose act is not considered an action, as will be explained below. It follows that for all the cases of karet enumerated below in the Mishna, there is liability to bring a sin-offering, except for the Paschal offering and circumcision. According to the Sages, the blasphemer is also excluded. All liabilities for karet for transgressing a prohibition apply to one who committed the transgression intentionally, but without witnesses having warned him [for example, he knew on his own that this act carries liability to karet]. However, if they warned him, there are prohibitions for which one is liable to stoning, and others for which one is liable to burning or strangulation. There are also some for which one is liable to lashes. Anyone who receives lashes for a transgression he committed is exempt from the punishment of karet stated for it. However, if he committed it inadvertently, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. In the cases of the Paschal offering and circumcision, which are positive mitzvot, there is no other punishment besides karet, even if witnesses warned him. Mishna:

Thirty-six cases of karet

were stated

in the Torah ,

and these are: 1)

One who has intercourse with his mother.

b) and with his father’s wife even if she is not his mother.

2)

And with his father’s wife,

even if she is not his mother.

3)

And with his daughter-in-law [his son’s wife].

his son’s wife].

“Inadvertence with regard to forbidden relations” means, for example, that he had intercourse with a woman because he thought she was his wife, and it turned out that she was one of the forbidden relations.

4)

One who has intercourse with a male.

5)

And with an animal.

Their inadvertence is, for example, that he thought he was having intercourse with his wife in an unnatural manner, but it turned out to be a male or an animal.

6)

And a woman who brings an animal upon herself.

Her inadvertence is that she thought she was bringing a person upon herself, but brought an animal.

The tanna began with the forbidden relations punishable by stoning, which is the most severe of the four forms of execution by a court [whose order of severity is: stoning, burning, decapitation, and strangulation]. He interrupted the enumeration of the forbidden relations with intercourse with a male and with an animal, even though these are not forbidden relations—for they are not women forbidden to him—in order to include together all the prohibitions of intercourse that are punishable by stoning. He then returned to enumerate the forbidden relations punishable by burning, and after them enumerated those punishable by strangulation.

7)

One who has intercourse with a woman and her daughter.

This includes his wife’s daughter and his wife’s mother. It also includes intercourse with his wife’s daughter’s daughter and his wife’s son’s daughter. Likewise, his mother-in-law’s mother and his father-in-law’s mother are included. All of these are included in one verse (Leviticus 18:17): “You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; you shall not take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter” [and one who has intercourse with them after being warned is liable to burning].

The liability for this karet also includes his daughter, his daughter’s daughter, and his son’s daughter. That is, when he has intercourse with his daughter from his wife, he is liable on account of his wife’s daughter, in addition to the prohibition and the independent liability for karet stated with regard to them.

8)

And a married woman [with whom one who has intercourse after being warned is liable to strangulation] .

one who has intercourse with her after witnesses warned him is liable to strangulation] .

9)

One who has intercourse with his sister.

10)

And with his father’s sister.

11)

And with his mother’s sister.

12)

And with his wife’s sister.

13)

And with his brother’s wife [

even after his brother divorced her, or after he died leaving a son, in which case she does not fall before him for yibbum].

14)

And with his father’s brother’s wife [

even after his father’s brother divorced her or died].

“His mother’s brother’s wife” is not the correct reading in the Mishna, since she is not forbidden by Torah law at all; rather, she is included among the secondary forbidden relations, which are prohibited by rabbinic ordinance.

15)

And with a menstruating woman.

Her inadvertence is that he thought she was ritually pure, but she turned out to be impure.

In all these cases there is no execution by a court, but only karet; and one who has intercourse with them in the presence of witnesses and after a warning is liable to lashes.

Up to this point, the tanna enumerated the prohibitions of intercourse in which a prohibition is explicitly stated, each one separately [in the portion of Aharei Mot]. At the conclusion of that portion, the punishment of karet is stated as applying to all of them, as it is written (Leviticus 18:29): “For anyone who shall commit any of these abominations shall be cut off.”

16)

And the blasphemer [

The Gemara (2:7) records a dispute concerning its interpretation: some say this is one who blesses the Name [that is, Heaven forbid, curses God]; and some say it is one who sings and chants for idolatry] .

The prohibition against blessing God is derived from that which is written (Exodus 22:27): “You shall not curse God.” The punishment of karet is derived from that which is written (Numbers 15:30): “But the person who acts defiantly, whether native or sojourner, blasphemes the Lord; that person shall be cut off.”

His inadvertence is that he intended to bless the Name consisting of two letters [for which he is not liable to karet [as they said in Sanhedrin 56]], but blessed the Name consisting of four letters.

17)

And one who worships idols.

The prohibition is as it is written (Exodus 34:14): “You shall not bow down to another god.” And the punishment of karet is as it is written (Numbers 15:31): “Because he has despised the word of the Lord, and has breached His commandment; that person shall surely be cut off.” We expound in Sanhedrin (99a) that this refers to one who worships idols, who disparages the word of God, for the Children of Israel heard the utterance “You shall have no other gods before Me” from the mouth of the Almighty.

For every type of idolatry, one is liable for each of the four forms of worship: slaughtering an offering to an idol, burning an offering to it, pouring a libation to it, or bowing down to it. Likewise, one is liable for any form of idolatry if he worships it through the form of worship unique to it, such as one who throws a stone at Markulis.

His inadvertence is, for example, that he thought only slaughtering and burning were prohibited, but not bowing or pouring a libation, and he bowed or poured a libation.

18)

And one who gives of his offspring to Molech.

The prohibition is derived from that which is written (Leviticus 18:21): “And you shall not give any of your offspring to pass them over to Molech.” Or it is derived from that which is written (Deuteronomy 18:10): “There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or daughter pass through fire.” And the punishment of karet is derived from that which is written (Leviticus 20:2–5): “Any man of the Children of Israel who gives any of his offspring to Molech shall surely be put to death. I will set My face against that man and cut him off.”

His inadvertence is that he thought he was causing another person to pass through the fire, but caused his son to pass through it.

19)

And one who practices ov [

who performs sorcery to bring up the dead so that he will speak from his armpits]. According to Rabbi Yohanan in the Gemara (3b), this also includes a yideoni [sorcery in which one places in his mouth a bone of an animal called a “yideoni,” and the bone speaks on its own]. The tanna did not enumerate it because both are stated under one prohibition and are included together under the same karet; and if one inadvertently committed both, he brings only one sin-offering. According to Reish Lakish, the tanna did not enumerate yideoni because it is not considered an action at all, and one is not liable to a sin-offering even if he performed it by itself, since there is no liability to a sin-offering for a transgression that involves no action.

The prohibition against one who practices ov or yideoni is as it is written (Leviticus 19:31): “Do not turn to the ovot or the yideonim.” And the punishment of karet is derived from that which is written (there 20:6): “And the person who turns to the ovot and the yideonim . . . I will cut him off.”

The inadvertence of one who practices ov is that he intended to perform another type of sorcery, for which there is no liability to karet.

20)

And one who desecrates Shabbat.

The prohibition is as it is written (Exodus 20:10): “You shall not perform any labor.” And the punishment of karet is as it is written (there 31:14): “For anyone who performs labor on it shall be cut off.”

Her inadvertence is that he thought the day was an ordinary weekday.

All those enumerated from the blasphemer through one who desecrates Shabbat are liable to stoning when they committed the act intentionally and after a warning. From this point until the end of the Mishna, all are liable only to karet, and when warned, they receive lashes.

21)

And one who is impure and eats sacred food [

the meat of a sacrifice or the remainder of a meal-offering]. The prohibition against an impure person eating sacred food is derived from that which is written (Leviticus 22:4): “He shall not eat of the sacred things until he becomes pure.” And the punishment of karet is derived from that which is written (there, verse 3): “Say to them throughout your generations: Any man among your descendants who, while impure, approaches the sacred things . . . that person shall be cut off.”

His inadvertence is that he thought this was ordinary, non-sacred meat.

22)

And one who enters the Temple

while

impure.

The prohibition is derived from that which is written (Leviticus 12:4): “She shall not enter the Sanctuary until the days of her purification are completed.” It is likewise written (Numbers 5:3): “They shall not defile their camps.” And the punishment of karet is derived from that which is written (Numbers 19:20): “A person who becomes impure and does not purify himself shall be cut off from the congregation, for he has defiled the Sanctuary of the Lord.”

His inadvertence is that he thought this was another building.

23)

And one who eats forbidden fat

of an animal. The prohibition against eating forbidden fat or blood is derived from that which is written (Leviticus 3:17): “You shall eat neither any fat nor any blood.” The karet for eating forbidden fat is derived from that which is written (there 7:25): “For anyone who eats the fat of the animal from which an offering may be brought . . . that person who eats it shall be cut off.”

His inadvertence is that he thought it was ordinary fat.

24)

And

one who eats

blood

of an animal. He too violates the aforementioned prohibition. The punishment of karet is derived from that which is written (Leviticus 17:14): “For the life of every creature—its blood is its life; anyone who eats it shall be cut off.”

His inadvertence is that he thought it was spleen, or the blood of locusts, or the blood of fish.

25)

And

one who eats

notar [

the meat of a sacrifice that remained after the time allotted for eating it].

The prohibition is derived from that which is written (Exodus 29:34): “You shall burn the remainder in fire; it shall not be eaten.” The punishment of karet is derived from that which is written (Leviticus 19:8): “One who eats it shall bear his iniquity, for he has profaned what is sacred to the Lord; that person shall be cut off.”

When done inadvertently, this means that he thought it was a valid sacrifice. The same applies to pigul.

26)

And

one who eats

pigul [

the meat of a sacrifice with regard to which, during one of its services, he had the intention of performing that service in order to sprinkle its blood or burn its fat on the following day, or in order to eat of its meat after the time allotted for eating it].

The prohibition is derived from that which is written (Exodus 29:34): “And if any of the flesh of the ordination offering remains, it shall not be eaten, for it is sacred” [this is the correct reading; and it is difficult that it was not emended in Rashi]. We expound (Pesahim 24a): Anything in sacred property that became disqualified is subject to a prohibition against eating it. The punishment of karet is derived from that which is written (Leviticus 7:18): “The person who eats of it shall bear his iniquity.” A gezeira shava is derived between the terms “iniquity” and “iniquity” from notar, where it is written: “One who eats it shall bear his iniquity.” Just as notar carries liability to karet, so too pigul carries liability to karet.

27)

And one who slaughters

a sacrifice outside the Temple courtyard. The Gemara disputes the source for the prohibition against slaughtering outside. One opinion derives it through a gezeira shava, “bringing” and “bringing,” from offering a sacrifice on an altar outside, concerning which it is written (Leviticus 17:10): “And he did not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.” With regard to slaughtering outside, it is written (there, verse 4): “And he did not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.” Just as one who offers an offering outside is not punished by karet unless he has first been warned by a prohibition, as it is written (Deuteronomy 12:13): “Beware lest you offer your burnt offerings in every place that you see,” so too, one who slaughters outside is not punished unless he has first been warned by a prohibition.

And one opinion derives it from a juxtaposition of slaughtering outside with offering outside. It is written (there, verse 14): “There you shall offer your burnt offerings, and there you shall perform,” juxtaposing performing [slaughtering] with offering.

The punishment of karet is written (Leviticus 17:3–4): “Or who slaughters it, and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting . . . that person shall be cut off.”

His inadvertence is that he thought it was an unconsecrated animal, and therefore slaughtered it outside.

28)

And one who offers

a sacrifice

outside

the Temple courtyard. The prohibition is derived from that which is written (Deuteronomy 12:13): “Beware lest you offer your burnt offerings in every place that you see.” Wherever the expressions “beware,” “lest,” or “do not” are stated, they constitute a prohibition. And the punishment of karet is as it is written (Leviticus 17:9–10): “Whoever offers a burnt offering or sacrifice and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting . . . shall be cut off.”

His inadvertence is that he offered it outside on a communal altar, thinking that the prohibition against offering on an altar outside applied only to a private altar.

29)

And one who eats leavened bread on Passover.

The prohibition is derived from that which is written (Exodus 12:20): “You shall not eat anything leavened.” And the punishment of karet is derived from that which is written (there, verse 15): “For anyone who eats leavened bread, that person shall be cut off.”

His inadvertence is that he thought it was not the festival of Passover.

30)

And one who eats

on Yom Kippur:

The prohibition against eating on Yom Kippur is not written explicitly in the Torah; rather, it is derived through a gezeira shava, “affliction” and “affliction.” With regard to eating on Yom Kippur, it is written (Leviticus 23:29): “Any person who is not afflicted on that very day shall be cut off.” And with regard to the affliction of a woman, it is written (Deuteronomy 22:24): “Because he afflicted his fellow’s wife.” Just as there one is not punished with death unless he has first been warned by a prohibition, so too, one who eats on Yom Kippur is not punished by karet unless he has first been warned by a prohibition.

The punishment of karet is derived from that which is written: “Any person who is not afflicted shall be cut off.” And affliction means refraining from eating. This is derived from the affliction mentioned elsewhere (Deuteronomy 8:3): “He afflicted you and let you hunger.” Just as there the affliction means hunger, so here too the meaning of affliction is hunger.

And unwittingly—because he thought that today was an ordinary weekday. And the same applies to performing labor on Yom Kippur.

No)

and one who performs labor on Yom Kippur.

He violates a negative commandment, as it is written (Leviticus 23:28): “You shall perform no labor on this very day.” And there is karet, as it is written (ibid. 30): “I will destroy that soul,” and this is karet.

32)

and one who compounds the oil.

One who compounds oil according to the formula of the anointing oil that Moses made.

He violates a negative commandment, as it is written (Exodus 30:32): “You shall not make any like it, according to its formula.” And there is karet, as it is written (ibid. 33): “Any man who compounds anything like it shall be cut off from his people.”

And unwittingly—when he intended to use other spices, but it turned out that they were the spices specified for the anointing oil. And the same applies to the incense.

33)

and one who compounds the incense.

One who makes it according to the formula of the incense of the Temple, in order to smell it.

The negative commandment is as it is written (ibid. 37): “The incense that you shall make according to its formula, you shall not make for yourselves.” And there is karet, as it is written (ibid. 38): “Any man who makes anything like it, in order to smell it, shall be cut off from his people.”

34)

and one who anoints himself with the anointing oil

that Moses made in the wilderness.

The negative commandment is as it is written (ibid. 32): “It shall not be poured upon human flesh.” And there is karet, as it is written (ibid. 33): “Whoever puts any of it upon an outsider shall be cut off from his people.”

And unwittingly—because he thought that it was another oil. [So wrote the Hafetz Hayyim, of blessed memory, in Likkutei Halakhot].

All those enumerated thus far are negative commandments for which one is liable to karet, and for unwitting transgression one is liable to a ḥatat.

35)

and the Paschal offering,

when one refrains from offering the Paschal sacrifice.

36)

and circumcision,

when one refrains from circumcising himself.

Both of them

are positive commandments

for which one is liable to karet .

The positive commandment concerning the Paschal offering is as it is written (Deuteronomy 16:2): “You shall sacrifice the Passover offering.” And there is karet, as it is written (Numbers 9:13): “But the man who is pure and refrains from making the Passover offering, that soul shall be cut off.”

The positive commandment concerning circumcision is as it is written (Leviticus 12:3): “And on the eighth day, the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.” And there is karet, as it is written (Genesis 17:14): “An uncircumcised male whose foreskin has not been circumcised, that soul shall be cut off.”

And in an unwitting case there is no liability for a ḥatat in these matters, since a ḥatat is brought only for a negative commandment, as we derive in the Gemara (3.

). For these [

the negative commandments listed above]

one is liable to karet for intentional transgression, and for unwitting transgression one is liable to a

fixed . and this is learned from idolatry, as it is written (Numbers 15:22–28): “And when you unwittingly fail and do not perform all these commandments—you shall bring a year-old goat as a sin-offering.” And the Sages explained that this refers to idolatry, since it is written “all these commandments,” meaning idolatry, which is equivalent to all the commandments. And from here we learn: Just as for idolatry one is liable to karet for intentional transgression and to a ḥatat for unwitting transgression, so too, for every transgression for which one is liable to karet for intentional transgression, one is liable to a ḥatat for unwitting transgression. [In Horayot 8a, they disagree whether this is learned by means of gzera shava or by means of a juxtaposition].

And for "

a case not known"

concerning them [

where he is uncertain whether he unwittingly transgressed one of them—for example, his wife and his sister are before him, he has relations with one of them, and he does not know with which one he had relations], he is liable for

an asham talui. [

For every transgression for which one brings a fixed ḥatat when he is certain that he transgressed, if he is not aware of what happened but is uncertain whether he transgressed, he brings an asham talui. It is called “dependent” because this sacrifice suspends judgment and protects him from suffering as long as he has not learned that he sinned, but it does not provide complete atonement for him. If he subsequently learns that he sinned, he brings a ḥatat].

Except for one who renders the Sanctuary and its sacred offerings impure,

for if he is uncertain whether he entered the Temple while impure with bodily impurity, or whether he ate sacred offerings while impure with bodily impurity, he does not bring an asham talui—

because he

would be liable for such a transgression, if he knew with certainty that he had transgressed,

for a

sacrifice [a ḥatat]

that varies according to means, [

meaning that the sacrifice is not fixed, but depends on the means available to the liable person: a wealthy person brings an animal sacrifice, a poor person brings a bird sacrifice, and the poorest person brings an offering of fine flour], and therefore he does not bring an asham talui in a case of “not known.”

"Anyone who does not bring a fixed ḥatat in a case of “known”—that is, when he learns that he certainly transgressed—does not bring an asham talui in a case of “not known,”

the words of Rabbi Meir. [

who holds that one is liable for a ḥatat for all of them—even one who blasphemes].

And the Sages say: Even one who blasphemes

does not bring a ḥatat or an asham talui.

For it is stated in the passage concerning a ḥatat brought for idolatry (Numbers 15:29): "

in the section concerning a sin-offering brought for idolatry:

There shall be one law for you for one who acts unwittingly" \-

excluding one who blasphemes, who performs no action,

but merely speaks, and speech is not considered an action!