Keritot 2a — the Talmud in English

Our Mishna lists the transgressions for which the Torah obligates the punishment of karet for performing them deliberately. And the reason that Rabbi arranged these laws in the Order of Kodashim is because, for the great majority of them, if one performed them inadvertently, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for them. The rule is: every prohibition whose deliberate performance makes one liable to karet entails bringing a sin-offering for its inadvertent performance. The punishment of karet is stated only with regard to a transgression of a prohibition, except for the mitzvot of circumcision and the Paschal offering, which, although they are mitzvot of positive action alone, nevertheless a person who refrains from performing them is liable to the punishment of karet. But if he transgressed them inadvertently, he does not bring a sin-offering. Another condition for becoming liable for a sin-offering is that the transgression involve an action. [This condition is according to the Sages, and we find tannaim who disagree and impose liability even without an action.] In all the transgressions enumerated in the Mishna there is an action, except for the blasphemer, which is not considered an action, as will be explained below. It follows that in all the cases of karet enumerated below in the Mishna there is liability for a sin-offering, except for the Paschal offering and circumcision. And according to the Sages, also except for the blasphemer. All liabilities of karet for a transgression of a prohibition are stated with regard to one who transgressed deliberately, but without witnesses having warned him [for example, he knew on his own that for this matter one is liable to karet]. But if they warned him, there are prohibitions for which one is liable to stoning, and there are those for which one is liable to burning or strangulation. And there are those for which one is liable to lashes. Whoever receives lashes for a transgression that he committed is absolved from the punishment of karet stated for it. But if he transgressed inadvertently, he is liable to a sin-offering for them. With regard to the Paschal offering and circumcision, which are mitzvot of positive action, there is no other punishment besides karet, even if they warned him. Mishna:

Thirty-six cases of karet

are stated

in the Torah ,

and these are: a)

one who has intercourse with his mother.

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

c)

and with his daughter-in-law

[his son’s wife].

And “inadvertence with regard to forbidden relations” is, for example, when 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.

d)

one who has intercourse with a male.

e)

and with an animal.

And their inadvertence is: he thought he was having intercourse with his wife in an unnatural manner, and it turned out that it was a male or an animal.

f)

and a woman who brings the animal upon herself.

And her inadvertence is that she thought she was bringing a human being upon herself, and she brought an animal.

The tanna began with the forbidden relations that are punishable by stoning—which is the most severe of the four forms of court-imposed execution [whose order of severity is: stoning, burning, killing, and strangulation]. And he interrupted the enumeration of the forbidden relations with one who has intercourse with a male and with an animal, although they 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. Afterwards he returned to enumerate the forbidden relations that are punishable by burning, and after them he enumerated the forbidden relations that are punishable by strangulation.

g)

one who has intercourse with a woman and her daughter.

His wife’s daughter, and his wife’s mother. Included in this is one who has intercourse with his wife’s daughter’s daughter, and with his wife’s son’s daughter. And likewise his mother-in-law’s mother and his father-in-law’s mother. All of them 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 a warning is liable to burning].

Included in this liability of karet are also 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 of karet stated with regard to them.

h)

and with a married woman

[one who has intercourse with her after a warning is liable to strangulation] .

i) one who has intercourse with his sister.

And a married woman [

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

j)

and with his father’s sister.

k)

and with his mother’s sister.

l)

and with his wife’s sister.

m)

and with his brother’s wife

[even after his brother divorced her, or died and left a son—at which point she does not fall before him for levirate marriage].

n)

and with his father’s brother’s wife

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

And “his mother’s brother’s wife” is not to be read in the Mishna. For she is not prohibited by Torah law at all; rather, she is included among the “secondaries,” who are prohibited by the words of the Sages.

o)

and with a menstruating woman.

And her inadvertence is that he thought she was pure, and it turned out that she was impure.

And in all these there is no court-imposed execution, 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 After the Death]. And at the conclusion of that portion a punishment of karet encompassing all of them is stated, as it is written there (Leviticus 18:29): “For whoever shall do any of all these abominations shall be cut off.”

p)

and the blasphemer

[They disagree about its interpretation in the Gemara (page 7b): some say it means one who blesses the Name [that is, curses, Heaven forfend, toward Above], and some say it means one who sings and chants for idolatry] .

The prohibition of one who blesses the Name is derived from that which is written (Exodus 22:27): “You shall not curse God.” And the punishment of karet is learned from that which is written (Numbers 15:30): “But the person who acts with a high hand, whether native or stranger, he blasphemes the Lord, and that person shall be cut off.”

The Gemara (page 7b) records a dispute regarding its interpretation: Some say that it means one who blesses God—that is, God forbid, curses Heaven—and some say that it means one who sings and chants for an idol] .

And his inadvertence is that he thought he was blessing a Name of two letters [for which he is not liable to karet [as they said in Sanhedrin, page 56a], and he blessed the Name of four letters].

q)

and one who worships idols.

The prohibition is as it is written (Exodus 34:14): “You shall not bow down to another god.” And karet is as it is written (Numbers 15:31): “Because he has despised the word of the Lord, he shall surely be cut off.” And we expound in Sanhedrin (page 99a) that this speaks of one who worships idols, who despises the word of the Lord—for the Children of Israel heard the utterance, “You shall have no other gods before Me,” from the mouth of the Omnipotent.

For every type of idolatry one is liable for each of the four forms of worship: slaughtering for idolatry, burning incense, libation, or bowing down to idolatry. And likewise one is liable for every idolatry if he worships it through its distinctive form of worship, such as one who throws a stone at Mercury.

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

r)

and one who gives of his offspring to Molech.

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

And his inadvertence is that he thought he was passing another person through, and he passed his son through.

s)

and a practitioner of ov

[who performs sorcery to bring up the dead so that he speaks from his armpits]. And according to Rabbi Yoḥanan in the Gemara (page 3b), this also includes a practitioner of yideoni [sorcery in which one places in his mouth a bone of an animal called a “known one,” and the bone speaks on its own], and the tanna did not enumerate it because both were stated in one prohibition and were included together in the same karet, and if he inadvertently did both, he brings only one sin-offering. And according to Reish Lakish, the tanna did not enumerate yideoni because it is not considered an action at all, and he is not liable for a sin-offering even if he performed it independently. For there is no liability for a sin-offering for a transgression that does not involve an action.

And the prohibition of a practitioner of ov and yideoni is as it is written (Leviticus 19:31): “Do not turn to the ovot or the yideonim.” And karet is from that which is written (there 20:6): “And the soul that turns to the ovot and the yideonim, I shall cut off.”

And the inadvertence of a practitioner of ov is that he intended to perform another type of sorcery, for which there is no liability of karet.

t)

and one who desecrates Shabbat.

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

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

All those enumerated from the blasphemer through one who desecrates Shabbat are punishable by stoning when he performed them deliberately and after a warning. And from here until the end of the Mishna, all are punishable by karet alone, and after a warning they receive lashes.

u)

and an impure person who ate sacred food

[sacrificial meat or the remnants of a meal-offering]. The prohibition of an impure person who eats sacred food is from that which is written (Leviticus 22:4): “He shall not eat of the sacred things until he is pure.” And karet is from that which is written (there, verse 3): “Say to them for your generations: any man of all your offspring who approaches the sacred things which the Children of Israel sanctify to the Lord, while his impurity is upon him, that soul shall be cut off.”

And his inadvertence is that he thought this was ordinary non-sacred meat.

v)

and one who enters the Sanctuary

while he is

impure.

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

And his inadvertence is that he thought this was another building.

w)

and one who eats forbidden fat

of an animal. The prohibition of one who eats forbidden fat or blood is from that which is written (Leviticus 3:17): “You shall eat neither any fat nor any blood.” And karet for eating forbidden fat is from that which is written (there 7:25): “For whoever eats the fat of the animal from which an offering is brought to the Lord, the soul that eats it shall be cut off.”

And his inadvertence is that he thought this was ordinary fat.

x)

and

one who eats

blood

of an animal. It too is subject to the aforementioned prohibition. And karet is from that which is written (Leviticus 17:14): “For the soul of all flesh—its blood is its soul; whoever eats it shall be cut off.”

And the inadvertence is that he thought this was a spleen, or the blood of locusts, or the blood of fish.

y)

and

one who eats

leftover sacrificial meat

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

The prohibition is from that which is written (Exodus 29:34): “And you shall burn what remains of the meat in fire; it shall not be eaten.” Karet is from that which is written (Leviticus 19:8): “And one who eats it shall bear his sin, for he has profaned the sacred thing of the Lord, and that soul shall be cut off.”

And inadvertently, he thought that this was a valid sacrifice. And likewise with pigul.

z)

and

one who eats

pigul

[the meat of a sacrifice concerning which, during one of its ritual services, he formed the intention to perform that service in order to cast 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 from that which is written (Exodus 29:34): “And if any of the flesh of the inauguration-offering remains, it shall not be eaten, for it is sacred” [so it should be read. And this requires examination, since they did not emend it in Rashi]. And we expound (Pesachim 24a): Everything within the sacred realm that becomes disqualified—this gives a prohibition against eating it. And karet is from that which is written (Leviticus 7:18): “And the soul that eats from it shall bear its iniquity.” And we learn a gzera shava, “iniquity” and “iniquity,” from leftover sacrificial meat [where it is written, “and one who eats it shall bear his iniquity”]. Just as leftover sacrificial meat is punishable by karet, so pigul is punishable by karet.

aa)

and one who slaughters

a sacrifice outside the Temple courtyard. And they disagree in the Gemara from where they learn a prohibition for one who slaughters outside. There is one who says that they learn it by a gzera shava, “bringing” and “bringing,” from one who brings a sacrifice up on an altar outside, concerning which it is written (Leviticus 17:10): “And he shall not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.” And 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 for bringing up an offering one is not punished with karet unless he was warned by a prohibition, as it is written (Deuteronomy 12:13): “Beware for yourself, lest you bring up your burnt-offerings in every place that you see,” so with slaughtering one is not punished unless he was warned by a prohibition.

And there is one who says that they learn it from a juxtaposition of slaughtering outside to bringing up outside. For it is written (there, verse 14): “There you shall bring up, and there you shall perform,” juxtaposing performance [slaughtering] to bringing up.

And karet is written (Leviticus 17:3–4): “Or which he slaughters, and he did not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and it shall be cut off.”

And his inadvertence is that he thought it was an ordinary animal, and therefore slaughtered it outside.

ab)

and one who brings up

a sacrifice

outside

the Temple courtyard. The prohibition is as it is written (Deuteronomy 12:13): “Beware for yourself, lest you bring up your burnt-offerings in every place that you see.” And everywhere that “beware,” “lest,” or “do not” is stated, it is nothing other than a prohibition. And karet is as it is written (Leviticus 17:9–10): “Whoever brings up a burnt-offering or sacrifice, and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, shall be cut off.”

And his inadvertence is that he offered it outside on a communal altar, and thought that the prohibition against offering on an altar outside applied only to a private altar.

ac)

and one who eats leaven on Passover.

The prohibition is as it is written (Exodus 12:20): “You shall not eat any leavened substance.” And karet is as it is written (there, verse 15): “For whoever eats leaven, that soul shall be cut off.”

And his inadvertence is that he thought the day was not the festival of Passover.

ad)

and one who eats

on the Day of Atonement:

A prohibition with regard to eating on the Day of Atonement is not written explicitly in the Torah; rather, it is learned by a gzera shava, “affliction” and “affliction.” With regard to eating on the Day of Atonement it is written (Leviticus 23:29): “Any soul that is not afflicted on this very day shall be cut off,” and with regard to affliction it is written (Deuteronomy 22:24): “Because he afflicted the wife of his fellow.” Just as there one is not punished with death unless he was warned by a prohibition, so with one who eats on the Day of Atonement, he is not punished with karet unless he was warned by a prohibition.

And karet is from that which is written: “Any soul that is not afflicted shall be cut off.” And affliction means refraining from eating. It is learned from the affliction stated elsewhere (Deuteronomy 8:3): “And He afflicted you and made you hungry.” Just as there the affliction is hunger, so here the meaning of affliction is hunger.

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

and unintentionally—because he thought that the day was an ordinary weekday. And likewise regarding performing labor on Yom Kippur.

No)

and one who performs labor on Yom Kippur.

He is liable for a negative commandment, as it is written (Leviticus 23:28): “And you shall not perform any labor on this very day.” And for karet, as it is written (there, 30): “And I shall destroy that soul,” and this is karet.

32)

and one who compounds the anointing oil.

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

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

And unintentionally—when he intended other spices, and it turned out that they were the spices stated for the anointing oil. And likewise regarding the incense.

33)

and one who compounds the incense.

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

34)

and one who applies the anointing oil

that Moses made in the wilderness.

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

And unintentionally—because he thought it was another oil. [So wrote the Chafetz Chaim, of blessed memory, in Likutei Halakhot].

All those enumerated until here are negative-commandment mitzvot for which one is liable to karet, and unintentionally one is liable for a sin-offering.

35)

and the Paschal offering,

when one refrains from offering the Paschal offering.

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 of the Paschal offering, as it is written (Deuteronomy 16:2): “And you shall slaughter the Paschal offering.” And karet, as it is written (Numbers 9:13): “But the man who is pure and refrains from making the Paschal offering, that soul shall be cut off.”

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

And unintentionally, there is no liability for a sin-offering for them, for a sin-offering comes only for a negative commandment, as we derive in the Gemara (folio 3).

For these

[for the negative commandments above]

one is liable for their intentional violation to karet, and for their unintentional violation to a fixed sin-offering

. And this is learned from idolatry, as it is written (Numbers 15:22–28): “And if you err and do not perform all these commandments—and he shall bring a year-old female goat as a sin-offering.” And the Sages explained that this refers to idolatry, as it is written, “all the commandments,” and this is idolatry, which is equivalent to all the commandments. And from here we learn: Just as for idolatry one is liable for its intentional violation to karet and for its unintentional violation to a sin-offering, so too, everyone for whose intentional violation one is liable to karet, for his unintentional violation one is liable to a sin-offering. [In Horayot, folio 8, they disputed whether this is learned by means of gzera shava or by means of an analogy].

And for “

not known

by them”

[where it is uncertain whether he transgressed them unintentionally, such as when his wife and his sister are before him, and he had relations with one of them but does not know with which one he had relations], he is liable for

a provisional guilt-offering.

[For every transgression for which one is liable for a fixed sin-offering, if it is certain to him that he transgressed it, in a case where it did not become known to him, but he is uncertain whether he transgressed or did not transgress, he brings a provisional guilt-offering. And it is called “provisional” because this sacrifice suspends and protects him from afflictions as long as it has not become known to him that he sinned, but it does not atone for him with complete atonement. And if afterward it becomes known to him that he sinned, he brings a sin-offering].

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

for if he is uncertain whether perhaps he entered the Sanctuary while impure with bodily impurity, or perhaps ate sacred things while he was impure with bodily impurity, he does not bring a provisional guilt-offering—

because he

is liable for such a transgression, if he knew with certainty that he had transgressed it,

for a

sacrifice [sin-offering]

that rises and falls,

[that is, the sacrifice is not fixed, but depends upon the means available to the one obligated: the wealthy person brings an animal sacrifice, the poor person brings a bird sacrifice, and the poorest brings a meal-offering from fine flour], and therefore he does not bring a provisional guilt-offering for “not known.”

For anyone who does not bring a fixed sin-offering when it is “known” [that is, when it becomes known to him that he certainly transgressed], does not bring a provisional guilt-offering when it is “not known,”

the words of Rabbi Meir.

[Who holds that one is liable for a sin-offering for all of them—even a blasphemer].

And the Sages say: Even a blasphemer

does not bring a sin-offering or a provisional guilt-offering. Because

it is stated

in the passage of the sin-offering that comes for idolatry (Numbers 15:29): “

One Torah shall there be for you for one who acts unintentionally” -

a blasphemer is excluded, for he performs no action,

but speaks, and speech is not considered an action!