Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Keritot

Keritot 15 for kids: A Dangling Limb

כריתות ט״ו

🐄 This daf asks when several forbidden acts count separately. Rabbi Akiva also asks whether a dangling limb of an animal can make someone ritually impure.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Keritot 15a in Daf QuestOpen Keritot 15b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Keritot 15

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Keritot 15 in simple English

Rashi on Keritot 15a, in English Tab translation (28)
  1. He slaughtered it and its daughter’s daughter — He has not yet violated the prohibition.
  2. And afterward slaughtered its daughter — The daughter of the first animal. By slaughtering this third animal, he commits two violations: he has slaughtered it after its mother, the first animal, and after its offspring, the second animal. Therefore, according to Sumakhos, he receives eighty lashes, even though both violations have the same name.
  3. Because the animals are distinct — The slaughter of the first and second animals creates two violations when he slaughters the third. But in the case under discussion, there are no distinct bodies.
  4. Perhaps he follows Rabbi Abbahu — In the case under discussion, however, the older woman is forbidden to him on three grounds—through her daughter, her daughter’s daughter, and her son’s daughter—but there are no distinct bodies.
  5. One prohibition of lewdness — For a single act of intercourse with a woman who is also her own daughter and her daughter’s daughter and son’s daughter, he is liable only once, unlike the ruling in the mishna. These relationships correspond to his mother-in-law, his mother-in-law’s mother, and his father-in-law’s mother.
  6. In the meat market — A market.
  7. Emmaus — The name of the town.
  8. One who engages in intercourse with his sister, and so on — This is explained in the Gemara.
  9. The prohibitions have distinct names — Three separate prohibitions apply to them.
  10. Names — Prohibitions.
  11. One name — The prohibition, “Do not approach a menstruating woman.”
  12. Who is also his father’s sister — As explained below, this is possible when he is the descendant of a wicked man, himself the descendant of a wicked man.
  13. He has uncovered his sister’s nakedness — As explained in the first chapter, this verse is additional and serves as the basis for this teaching.
  14. Engaged in intercourse with her — He engaged in intercourse with one of the forbidden women and then did so again during the same lapse of awareness.
  15. With five menstruating women — During one lapse of awareness.
  16. Since he caused them — Each woman must bring a sin offering, making five offerings in all, so he too must bring five. But if he engages in intercourse five times with one forbidden woman during one lapse of awareness, she brings only one offering, and so does he.
  17. He was in one lapse of awareness — Whether he engaged in intercourse with five different forbidden women or five times with each one.
  18. And they were in five lapses of awareness — Each woman became aware between each of her five acts of intercourse. He is liable for only one offering per woman, while each woman is liable for five, one for each act. Thus, even though he caused each woman to owe five offerings, he owes only one per woman. Some texts instead read, “He was in one lapse of awareness and she was in five lapses of awareness,” referring more delicately to a single forbidden woman; that reading is commendable.
  19. He reaped — He reaped a dried fig’s worth on Shabbat, the minimum amount for liability, and then reaped that amount again during the same lapse of awareness. What would Rabbi Eliezer say?
  20. Two acts of intercourse cannot be combined — They must therefore be counted separately. But two dried figs can be reaped together, in a single act.
  21. Rabbi Eliezer holds one liable for derivative labors alongside primary labors — If someone performs a primary labor and its derivative during one lapse of awareness, he is liable twice. But for two acts of a primary labor, such as reaping twice, he is liable only once.
  22. What case are we dealing with here — What is the case in which Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling implies that two acts of a primary labor incur only one liability?
  23. With a vine — A grapevine trained on a support.
  24. Trained over a fig tree — The fig tree bore figs, but the vine had no grapes. He needed to cut the vine for firewood and, in one act, cut both a fig and a vine branch. He is liable twice: for reaping the fig, a primary labor, and for pruning the branch for firewood, a derivative of reaping. Although he cut them in one act, the labors have different names—primary and derivative—and involve two distinct trees.
  25. The corresponding case of reaping and reaping — The inference that two acts of a primary labor incur only one liability refers to reaping two dried figs in one act. He has not performed two separate acts, nor are there distinct bodies or distinct names of labor. But if he reaps once and then reaps again during the same lapse of awareness, Rabbi Eliezer holds him liable twice.
  26. A dangling limb on an animal — Most of the limb has been severed, but it remains attached by a little skin.
  27. What is its status? — Does it impart ritual impurity as a limb severed from a living animal, as though it were completely detached? The chapter “The Hide and the Broth” (Chullin 128b) establishes that such a limb imparts impurity like an animal carcass.
  28. A limb — A limb completely severed from a person imparts impurity like a corpse, as taught in “The Hide and the Broth” (Chullin 129b). A dangling limb that remains partly attached does not impart impurity.
Tosafot on Keritot 15a, in English Tab translation (7)
  1. Sumakhos says this only about slaughtering an animal and its offspring, where distinct animals are involved. Likewise, if a man married two women and had intercourse with a third woman who was a maternal sister of one wife and a paternal sister of the other, Sumakhos would hold him liable for both violations.
  2. They went to buy an animal for the feast — This shows their praise: although they were busy, they still engaged in Torah study.
  3. These are distinct prohibitions — Earlier, in the discussion of forbidden relationships, a verse using the word “woman” was needed to establish separate liability for each woman, even though they were distinct people. Nevertheless, Rabbi Akiva considered it obvious that one is liable separately for each distinct person.
  4. One could challenge: What is special about his five wives? — Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua, who made the a fortiori inference, hold that liability depends only on the names of the prohibitions.
  5. He has uncovered his sister’s nakedness — Rabbenu Baruch asked: Why not cite the punishment of karet stated for one’s sister, which the Sages use for this purpose, instead of citing the verse used by Rabbi Yitzhak? The answer is that this verse makes the point more plainly. Similar cases appear in Sanhedrin 34b and Megillah 20a.
  6. To impose liability for his sister, etc. — One should not ask why the verse is read as a case in which all three relationships are forms of sisterhood, rather than entirely different relationships, such as granddaughter and daughter-in-law: the verse speaks of sisterhood. But a difficulty remains: How do we know the prohibitions took effect simultaneously, rather than one being a broader prohibition or adding a new restriction?
  7. A dangling limb on a person is ritually pure — In the chapter “The Hide and the Gravy,” the law for an animal is derived from creeping creatures. But how do we know that a dangling limb on a person is pure?
Rashi on Keritot 15b, in English Tab translation (27)
  1. People afflicted with boils — Their limbs are falling off.
  2. And cuts it — Not to make him pure, for he was already pure, but so that the dangling limb will not be unsightly during the festival.
  3. Leaving a hairbreadth — The doctor does not cut the limb off completely, lest he become impure by touching it as it separates.
  4. And impales it — The doctor impales the limb on a thorn attached to the ground or a wall. The patient then pulls away, and the limb comes off by itself.
  5. An a fortiori inference — The Gemara explains: A person can become impure while alive, yet a dangling human limb does not impart impurity. All the more so for an animal, which cannot become impure while alive.
  6. One who wipes a leek — He crushes the leek.
  7. One who squeezes water from his hair — For example, someone leaving the bathhouse dries himself with a towel.
  8. The liquids within it — Water absorbed in the leek does not count as water that can render food susceptible to impurity, because while absorbed it has no significance.
  9. But what comes out of it does count — If the water falls on seeds, it renders them susceptible to impurity.
  10. And the leek itself — Once the water comes out, the leek becomes susceptible to impurity, even if the water does not touch it again afterward.
  11. It should render the person impure — That is, the person afflicted with boils.
  12. When they fly off with full force — He pulls away forcefully, so the limb comes off without touching him as it separates. Water, by contrast, leaves a leek gently and, once outside it, touches the leek before falling to the ground.
  13. A zav or one impure through contact with a corpse was walking along when rain fell — The rain fell on their clothes. Even if the zav himself squeezed his garment downward, the water flowing through it remains pure and does not impart impurity to someone who touches it: it is still destined to be absorbed by the garment’s lower edge.
  14. Once they have left the entire garment, they render food susceptible — If the water falls on seeds, it renders them susceptible to impurity. The water itself remains pure and does not make the seeds impure unless the zav touches it after it has fully left the garment. The later words ‘only after they leave his body’ should be omitted from the text.
  15. Mishna: Liable — For misuse of consecrated property, separately for each dish, if he ate before the blood was sprinkled.
  16. An a fortiori inference — The Gemara explains it.
  17. If it is a received ruling — If your teacher taught you that he is liable for each offering, we will accept it from you.
  18. But if it is an inference — If you derive it by an a fortiori inference from misuse of consecrated property, there is an objection.
  19. One who feeds another is like one who eats — Someone who gives consecrated food to another is liable for misuse as though he ate it himself: the one who transfers consecrated property to ordinary use is liable, not the recipient.
  20. One who gives another a benefit is like one who benefits — This applies to consecrated property that is not food.
  21. Acts of misuse are combined over a long period — If someone benefits today by half the value of a peruta and again, even three years later, by half a peruta, the amounts combine to require an offering.
  22. Gemara: What troubled Rabbi Shimon? — How does eating an offering before its blood is sprinkled provide proof about slaughtering an offering outside the Temple?
  23. It was not known — Five pieces of leftover sacrificial meat and five permissible pieces were before him, and he did not know which five he ate.
  24. In five lapses of awareness — If he ate leftover meat from one offering in five separate lapses of awareness, he is liable five times, because the lapses divide the acts.
  25. From five offerings — If he ate leftover meat from five offerings during one lapse of awareness, he is liable five times because the offerings are distinct. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Eliezer agree with the view attributed to Rabbi Akiva in Rabbi Shimon’s version of the mishna.
  26. But if he ate five pieces, etc. — This returns to the first tanna, who spoke earlier of five pieces of notar from one offering. He means: In the case of misuse of consecrated property, I agree that separate dishes create separate liabilities.
  27. Before the sprinkling of the blood — The law of misuse of consecrated property applies. But once the blood has been sprinkled, the offering has become permitted to the priests, so that law no longer applies to it. This is stated explicitly in Menachot 47b.
Tosafot on Keritot 15b, in English Tab translation (8)
  1. One who wipes a leek — Rashi explains that he crushes it. But then the liquid would be leek juice, which cannot make food susceptible to impurity. Rashi also explains that the person squeezed water from his hair after leaving a bathhouse. Why, then, does the water still in his hair not count under “if water be put”? He wanted it there initially, and the Mishnah says that liquid initially wanted retains that status even if it is no longer wanted. Rabbi Isaac therefore explains that rain fell on them; the water was not wanted until it was squeezed out.
  2. One who wipes a leek — Rashi explains that he crushes it, apparently referring to the leek’s juice. But fruit juice cannot make food susceptible to impurity, since it is not classed as a qualifying liquid. Rabbi Isaac ben Abraham explains that he smooths the leek with his finger or fingernail to remove rainwater from it, like someone squeezing water from his hair or clothing.
  3. What comes out of it, once it has come out, counts under “if water be put” — Water removed to prevent damage to a wall does not count, because the person did not want the water to come there. Here, too, he did not initially want the water. Nevertheless, by pressing it out himself, he gives it significance.
  4. When they are flung off with full force — In the chapter “The Hide and the Gravy,” the Gemara does not give this answer when it asks whether the impurity involves contact with a concealed part of the body. We must say that this follows a dispute between Ulla and Ravina in the chapter “An Animal Having Difficulty Giving Birth”; the answer here follows Ravina.
  5. From the upper part to the lower part, they remain pure — Rashi explains that this is because the water will ultimately be absorbed into the garment. But the Gemara says that earthenware pieces that absorbed impure liquids make an oven impure when it is heated, because the liquids come out—even though the pieces will absorb them again afterward. Rather, the water remains pure here because, while it is on the garments, it is not wanted, as with the water on the leek.
  6. One who eats leftover sacrificial meat from five offerings — This is unlike a man who has relations with five women during one lapse of awareness, who is liable for each one according to everyone. In that case there are two prohibitions for each act: he is forbidden to her, and she is forbidden to him, as explained later.
  7. One who gives another the benefit is like one who benefits — The Gemara could equally have said that one who benefits is like one who eats, unlike the law of leftover sacrificial meat. But since it said that one who feeds another is like one who eats, it likewise said that one who gives another the benefit is like one who benefits.
  8. He combined the acts of misuse — The Gemara could also have asked: What was Rabbi Akiva’s question? Since he challenged Rabbi Yehoshua’s statement, he had plainly accepted it.

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Kerisus, Kritot, Kerithoth 15.