Makkot 14a — the Talmud in English

As we said initially,

although indeed they do not impose two punishments [two wickednesses] simultaneously, the punishment of karet in addition to lashes is not considered punishment of “two wickednesses,” since

if they performed

those liable to karet

repentance—

the heavenly court pardons them.

What do you say—

perhaps you will say that this is not sufficient for them to be considered exempt from karet at the time of the administration of the lashes, for now

they have not done

they have still not done

repentance?

This is not an argument.

Since they can now repent and become exempt from karet—

the matter is not certainly destined for karet,

the liability for the punishment of karet is not absolute, but rather it is dependent and pending upon their repentance; therefore, we do not exempt them now from lashes on account of “two wickednesses.”

Rabbi Yitzhak

disagrees and

says:

All

those liable for karet in general

were included in the passage of forbidden sexual relations,

and why did the karet concerning his sister leave

to be written separately? In order to say that there is

to judge him with karet

alone

and not with lashes!

And we challenge:

But the Rabbis,

Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva, who disagree with Rabbi Yitzhak—

the karet

that the Torah stated

concerning his sister, why do I need it?

After all, his sister is included among all the forbidden sexual relations!?

And we answer: The special karet stated concerning his sister left the general category

to divide!

So that you should not say: Since all the forbidden sexual relations are written under one karet, if one transgresses all of them unwittingly, in one lapse of awareness, he is liable for only one sin-offering for all of them. Therefore, his sister left the general category, both to teach concerning itself that if he has intercourse with her among the other relations carrying karet, he is liable to a separate sin-offering for her, and to teach concerning the entire general category that for each and every forbidden relation one is liable to a separate sin-offering, even if he committed in one lapse of awareness several distinct transgressions of forbidden sexual relations.

And as Rabbi Yohanan.

For Rabbi Yohanan said: If he performed them all in one lapse of awareness—

he is liable

for a sin-offering

for each and every one.

But now the Gemara raises an objection from the opposite direction:

And Rabbi Yitzhak,

who learns from the karet written concerning his sister that those liable for karet are liable only for the punishment of karet and do not receive lashes—

to divide

and to make one liable for a separate sin-offering for each forbidden relation—

from where does he derive it?

And we answer:

He derives it from “

And to a woman during the impurity of her

menstruation

do not approach.”

Since it was not written, “And to a menstruant do not approach,” but Scripture added “and to a woman,” Scripture teaches

to make one liable for each and every woman

for a separate sin-offering.

But from now it is again difficult for Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael:

But the Rabbis, too, should derive it from this,

from “And to a woman during the impurity of her menstruation do not approach”!?

And we say:

Indeed, so.

Indeed, they too learn the division of the offerings for each forbidden relation from the verse “and to a woman” stated concerning a menstruant.

But then,

the fact that

the karet of his sister left the general category

in order to divide,

why do I need it?—

In order

to make him liable

for a separate offering for each forbidden relation even in the case of one who transgresses several prohibitions of forbidden sexual relations that are of one “designation,” such as when he has intercourse

with his sister, and with his father’s sister, and with his mother’s sister,

for all of them have one designation, that of “sister.” And Scripture comes to say that if he had intercourse with all three in one lapse of awareness, he is liable for each and every one.

And we challenge:

It is obvious!

For it is obvious that a man who has intercourse with these three forbidden relations is liable for a separate offering for each and every one, and they are like all the forbidden relations that we learned from the verse concerning a menstruant, to divide them and make one liable for karet for each prohibition separately! For

the bodies are separate,

as they are three women, and

there are

also

separate designations

of forbidden sexual relations! And each one carries its liability by a different prohibition, and it is obvious that their punishment is not one karet for all of them.

Rather,

we establish the teaching from his sister

to make liable

one who has intercourse

with his sister who is

also

his father’s sister,

and

who is

also

his mother’s sister,

so that he is liable for three sin-offerings for intercourse with this one woman.

And

we explain:

How can you find it? With a thoroughly wicked person, son of a thoroughly wicked person.

That is, he had intercourse with his mother and fathered two daughters, and then returned and had intercourse with one of the daughters, who were also his sisters, and fathered a son from her. For this son, the second daughter is forbidden both because she is his mother’s sister, and because she is his paternal half-sister, and because she is his father’s sister, since she was born from his father’s wife. Therefore, if he had intercourse with her unwittingly, he is liable for three sin-offerings.

And we challenge from the opposite direction:

And Rabbi Yitzhak,

according to whom the extra mention of “his sister” is needed to teach that those liable for karet do not receive lashes,

from where does he derive this

that a thoroughly wicked person, son of a thoroughly wicked person, is liable for three sin-offerings? For the Rabbis learned this from the extra mention of “his sister.”

And we answer:

He derives it by means of a kal va-chomer.

For we learned: Rabbi Akiva said: I asked Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Yehoshua in the meat market of Emmaus, when they went to purchase an animal for the banquet of Rabban Gamaliel’s son: One who has intercourse with his sister who is his father’s sister, who is his mother’s sister—what is the law?

Is he

liable

for one sin-offering

for all of them, or is he liable

for a sin-offering

for each and every one? And they said to me:

This halakha

we have not heard. But we have heard

the halakha in a similar case:

One who has intercourse with five menstruant women in one lapse of awareness is liable for each and every one.

And

from here

it appears

that the

matter

is that a thoroughly wicked person, son of a thoroughly wicked person, is liable for three sin-offerings,

by a kal va-chomer

from the liability of one who has intercourse with five menstruant women:

And if a menstruant, who is one designation, entails liability for each and every one,

here, where he had intercourse with his sister who is his father’s sister who is his mother’s sister,

in whom there are three

separate designations, all the more so

that he should be liable for three!

But the other one,

Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael, who required a teaching from Scripture to make a thoroughly wicked person, son of a thoroughly wicked person, liable for three sin-offerings, held that the

kal va-chomer

from five menstruant women is a kal va-chomer

that is refutable

.

For it can be rejected, by saying:

What is special about a menstruant? That the bodies are separate.

And therefore he is liable for each and every one.

But his sister who is his father’s sister and his mother’s sister is one body, and he should be liable for only one, even though there are three designations in her. Therefore, a verse is needed to make him liable.

The Gemara asks:

And the other one as well,

Rabbi Yitzhak, who did not learn from the verse “his sister” to teach concerning a thoroughly wicked person, son of a thoroughly wicked person, because he relied upon the kal va-chomer—after all, he too agrees that

this

kal va-chomer

is certainly a refutable kal va-chomer.

Rather, he derives it from “his sister” in the latter passage,

for at the end of the verse it is written an additional “his sister”: “He has uncovered the nakedness of his sister.” And from this extra expression he makes a thoroughly wicked person, son of a thoroughly wicked person, liable for three sin-offerings.

And we return to the Rabbis:

And the other one—what do I need “his sister” in the latter passage for?

After all, the case of a thoroughly wicked person, son of a thoroughly wicked person, is learned from “his sister” in the passage of Aharei Mot?

And we establish it:

To make him liable for a sister

who is

his father’s daughter and his mother’s daughter,

and although the prohibition of his paternal sister but not his maternal sister, and likewise his maternal sister but not his paternal sister, is explicit, and we know by a kal va-chomer that his sister from his father and mother is forbidden, the verse comes, through the extra mention of “his sister,” to prohibit her—

in order

to say that punishments are not imposed on the basis of logical inference.

And a verse is needed to prohibit her, even though we know by a kal va-chomer that she is forbidden.

And again we return to Rabbi Yitzhak:

And the other one,

from where does he obtain the punishment for his sister from his father and mother? After all, punishments are not imposed on the basis of logical inference!?

If you wish, say: He derives the punishment from the warning.

For concerning the warning for his sister who is his sister from his father and mother, there is the extra expression “She is your sister.”

And he learned the law of the punishment from the warning: Just as Scripture did not distinguish, in the warning, between his sister from his father [or his sister from his mother] and his sister from his father and mother, so too with regard to the punishment, he is liable also for his sister from his father and mother, just as he is liable for his sister from his father or his sister from his mother. Therefore, a verse was not needed for this, and it is not because he “learned it from logical inference.”