Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Keritot

Keritot 3 for kids: Counting the Offerings

כריתות ג׳

📜 This daf asks when one mistake calls for one sin offering and when it calls for more. The Sages study the anointing oil, Shabbat, and idol worship.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Keritot 3a in Daf QuestOpen Keritot 3b 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 3

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Keritot 3 in simple English

Rashi on Keritot 3a, in English Tab translation (31)
  1. Punishment is not imposed by inference — We do not say: If the Torah punishes intercourse with a sister who shares only one parent, all the more so must it punish intercourse with a sister who shares both parents.
  2. Alternatively — Rabbi Yitzḥak also holds that punishment is not imposed by inference. He derives the punishment for intercourse with a sister who shares both parents from the prohibition: Just as the Torah prohibits her like other forbidden relatives, it punishes intercourse with her like intercourse with them. As explained in tractate Makkot, the prohibition is derived from the verse: “Your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter” teaches only a sister who shares one parent. How do we know it includes a sister who shares both? The verse continues, “She is your sister; you shall not uncover her nakedness.”
  3. Rabbi Elazar said that the sin offerings are separate — If a person commits both acts during one lapse of awareness, he must bring two sin offerings.
  4. Karet for intercourse with his sister — Why does the Torah state this punishment separately for her?
  5. Gloss — If separate prohibitions establish separate liabilities, no additional verse is needed to distinguish intercourse with a sister who is also his father’s sister and his mother’s sister: three prohibitions already apply to her.
  6. This is the correct reading: “For Rabbi Yitzḥak, according to his view; for the Rabbis, they need it for a sister who shares both parents, to teach that punishment is not imposed by inference.” The entire verse was written for the words “his sister” at its end. A passage may be repeated for a single new teaching.
  7. For Rabbi Yitzḥak, he needs it, and so forth — Omit the text through “at the end.” It is a mistaken explanation by students. End of gloss.
  8. And one is liable for each separately — If he commits them during one lapse of awareness, he is liable for each one.
  9. What is the tanna counting? — We said above that the list teaches liability when someone commits all the offenses. How could one person become liable for thirty-four sin offerings?
  10. A man — He is the one who has intercourse with an animal.
  11. A woman — For example, she could have intercourse with her son, her husband’s son, her father-in-law, her son-in-law, and an animal; likewise for the other cases.
  12. One who has intercourse with a male or an animal — Neither offense involves a woman as the offender. One cannot raise this question about the Passover offering or circumcision: they were not listed for their sin offerings, since they do not require one. As explained below, a sin offering applies only to a violation of a prohibition.
  13. And this is Rabbi Yishmael’s view — As stated in the chapter “Four Death Penalties.”
  14. But since the tanna teaches — The blasphemer is included among the offenses punishable by karet to teach that he must bring an offering. Below, this is attributed to Rabbi Akiva, who says at the end of the chapter that a blasphemer must bring an offering. So the beginning of the list must also follow Rabbi Akiva.
  15. As Rabbi Abbahu said — In the chapter “Four Death Penalties,” he derives the prohibition for a male who is the passive partner from “There shall not be a male prostitute,” and its punishment through an analogy to “There were also male prostitutes in the land.” Why is a separate prohibition needed here, when no separate prohibition is stated for a woman who is the passive partner in forbidden intercourse? Because she too derives pleasure from intercourse, she is included among “the persons who do” the act. A male who is the passive partner does not derive pleasure in that way, so he needs a separate prohibition. The verse speaks of males; a male’s passive intercourse with an animal is not called prostitution.
  16. Rabbi Elazar said — The list counts offenses one man could commit. As for your objection about a woman who is the passive partner in intercourse with an animal: the tanna counts thirty-three sin offerings that one man could incur during one lapse of awareness. He includes that case, along with the Passover offering and circumcision, to complete the list of offenses punishable by karet.
  17. The person who acts with a high hand — The verse speaks of idol worship.
  18. Just as idol worship requires refraining from a prohibited act — Its deliberate violation incurs karet and its unwitting violation requires a sin offering, as the preceding verse says: “a year-old female goat for a sin offering.”
  19. So too, every prohibition requiring one to refrain from an act — Its deliberate violation incurs karet and its unwitting violation requires a sin offering.
  20. There are thirty-nine — The tanna should list seventy-five offenses punishable by karet.
  21. The tanna teaches unawareness of Shabbat — The person thinks the day is a weekday.
  22. And awareness of the prohibited labors — He knows these labors are forbidden on Shabbat. Even if he performs every primary category of labor, he owes only one sin offering, since he had only one lapse of awareness. The mishna counts the karet offenses according to their liability for sin offerings.
  23. “These” that count as one — Scripture says “and does one of these,” using “from one” where it could have said “one.” This teaches that sometimes one offense counts as “these,” requiring several sin offerings, and sometimes several offenses count as one, requiring a single sin offering.
  24. Unawareness of Shabbat but awareness of the prohibited labors — Even if he performs many labors, he owes only one sin offering.
  25. Awareness of Shabbat — He knows the day is Shabbat.
  26. Unaware of the labors — He does not know that these labors are forbidden, but he knows at least one Sabbath rule, such as the prohibition against going beyond the Sabbath boundary.
  27. One that is many — For one commandment, such as observing the Sabbath, he is liable to bring several sin offerings.
  28. Unaware that it is the Sabbath, but aware of the forbidden labors, is preferable — The Mishnah teaches this case to show that even though he knowingly performed the labors, he is still liable for one sin offering. Alternatively, this case gives a definite result: Once he is unaware that it is the Sabbath, he is liable for at least one sin offering, even if he is also unaware that the labors are forbidden. But unawareness of the labors does not always make him liable for an offering for each one: If he is also unaware that it is the Sabbath, the tractate Shabbat (70a) says he is liable for only one. This reading is more plausible, since the Mishnah likewise counts only one offering for idol worship. It must be discussing someone unaware of the prohibition of idol worship but aware of its forms of worship; if he were unaware that those forms of worship were forbidden, the four acts of slaughtering, burning incense, pouring a libation, and bowing would make him liable for four offerings.
  29. His heart is directed to Heaven — Even if he bows to Heaven in a house of idol worship, he has committed no prohibition and owes no sin offering.
  30. Read it this way: If he did not accept it as a deity, it is nothing — Since his bowing was not done as idol worship, it has no significance.
  31. Rather — He bowed to an idol out of love or fear of a person, thinking idol worship for those reasons was permitted. This is called acting knowingly with regard to the act because he intended to worship.
Tosafot on Keritot 3a, in English Tab translation (3)
  1. To teach that punishment is not imposed by an a fortiori inference — But earlier, the verse about his sister seems needed to establish separate liability when she is also his father’s sister and so on. Why is he liable even once, if punishment cannot be inferred this way? Perhaps that liability can be learned from the explicit verse here. Yet a later mishna says that someone can incur several liabilities through a single act of eating. Why might the greater severity not instead exempt him? And if this case is the source, his sister is different: her prohibition has no exception. Some answer that here there is only the prohibition concerning a sister, made more severe by her being related through both parents rather than one. In the eating case, other prohibitions can take effect because they encompass additional cases, add a restriction, or take effect simultaneously. But why is the a fortiori inference from granddaughter to a daughter born of rape considered merely a clarification, rather than an inferred warning? Because a granddaughter’s relationship comes through the daughter—there can be no granddaughter without a daughter. A sister, by contrast, can share only one parent with him.
  2. According to Rabbi Yishmael, who derives it, and so on — How can the mishna apply? The prohibition ‘There shall be no male prostitute’ carries no stated punishment of karet, so how could its violation require a sin offering? Since karet is stated for intercourse with a male, there are two prohibitions and one punishment of karet.
  3. To complete the list of offenses punishable by karet — If so, why not also list a man who has another male penetrate him and one who has an animal penetrate him?
Rashi on Keritot 3b, in English Tab translation (36)
  1. Rather, he thinks it is permitted — to worship idols. He is unaware that idol worship is forbidden and that these acts of worship are forbidden.
  2. Rava asked Rav Naḥman only this — in Sanhedrin, he asked about someone unaware of both Shabbat and its prohibited labors.
  3. Rav Pappa says this can occur with a child taken captive among gentiles — the child is unaware that these particular idols are forbidden, but has since heard that performing the four forms of worship for them is forbidden. Most people know those forms of worship are forbidden.
  4. Unaware that it is idol worship — he thinks a wooden object cannot be an idol.
  5. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said in the name of Rav Beivai — the mishna also includes someone who knows it is Shabbat but is unaware of its prohibited labors. It does not list more cases because it is concerned only with categories punishable by karet.
  6. It teaches the category of Shabbat and the category of idol worship — each category contains many individual cases.
  7. But there is his daughter by a woman he raped, which is not written explicitly — her prohibition is derived through the linked words “they” and “lewdness,” as explained at the end of the first chapter of Ḥagiga.
  8. Rav Aḥa raised a contradiction — between two statements of Rav Beivai.
  9. But wasn’t it stated — in the chapter “One Who Slaughters” in Zevaḥim?
  10. Limbs from inside — from an offering slaughtered in the Temple courtyard.
  11. Limbs from outside — from a sacrificial animal slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard.
  12. Rav Beivai found this difficult — since there are two kinds of offering up outside the Temple, why does the mishna in Keritot not list both: offering up limbs from an animal slaughtered inside, and offering up limbs from one slaughtered outside?
  13. Are Shabbat and idol worship comparable? — The number of liabilities for Shabbat is taught in Shabbat, and those for idol worship in Sanhedrin.
  14. In their places — in the tractates devoted to those subjects.
  15. And regarding Keritot, where they appear incidentally — the mishna is merely listing categories punishable by karet, so one can answer that it names the categories of Shabbat and idol worship.
  16. But regarding offering up a sacrifice — we find no other place where a mishna teaches its two forms.
  17. Rabbi Yirmeya asked: What is the ruling? — If someone did both acts during one lapse of awareness, is he liable for one sin offering or two? Do separate punishments of karet distinguish sin offerings as separate prohibitions do?
  18. Slaughtering and offering up — each has a separate punishment of karet in the portion of Aḥarei Mot, but only offering up has an explicit prohibition: “Take care lest you offer your burnt offerings in any place.” “Take care” and “lest” express a prohibition. “They shall no longer slaughter their sacrifices” is interpreted in Zevaḥim as referring to slaughtering an animal for Merculis.
  19. A verbal analogy — Zevaḥim links slaughtering and offering up through the phrase about bringing an offering to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. Just as the Torah states a punishment and a prohibition for offering up, it does so for slaughtering.
  20. And there you shall do — this also refers to slaughtering.
  21. A medium and a yidoni — the Torah states death for either one, giving them distinct death penalties, but states one prohibition for both. They are also subject to a sin offering, since karet is stated for turning to mediums. The question is whether their distinct death penalties require two sin offerings when both are done during one lapse of awareness.
  22. This is the dispute involving Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish — in Sanhedrin, it emerges that both hold one is liable for only one offering, since the two acts are stated in one prohibition. That is why the mishna lists only one of them: its list of acts punishable by karet counts liabilities for sin offerings.
  23. Because it involves no action — a yidoni is therefore not subject to a sin offering. A medium does perform an action: he strikes his arms together and speaks from his armpit.
  24. A yidoni — places in his mouth a bone of an animal called a yadua and speaks.
  25. For they have distinct death penalties — were it not for the fact that a yidoni involves no action, those penalties would distinguish the acts for sin offerings too, and the mishna would have had to list both.
  26. It follows Rabbi Akiva — he says later, in Keritot 4a, that a blasphemer brings an offering, because he does not require a physical act.
  27. Although he does not require a substantial act — as shown by his inclusion of the blasphemer.
  28. The initial assumption — Since Reish Lakish calls striking one’s arms together an act, and the Rabbis in the Mishnah disagree about the blasphemer but not about the medium, this seems to show that even the Rabbis consider it an act.
  29. His karet — the blasphemer’s punishment of karet. In the passage about an offering for unwitting idol worship, the Torah says, “If a person sins unwittingly, he shall bring a yearling goat.” The same passage says of one who acts defiantly, “that person shall be cut off,” referring to the blasphemer. One might therefore think that, because his karet appears alongside the offering, a blasphemer must bring an offering even without performing an act. The teaching “the blasphemer is excluded” rules this out.
  30. Ulla said — The Rabbis do not disagree about the medium because the case is not one of striking his arms together, but of burning incense to the prince of demons.
  31. In order to enlist him — so that the prince of demons will join him and help with his sorcery, not because he worships him as a god.
  32. That is casting a spell — it is punishable neither by karet nor by death, but is prohibited by a negative commandment.
  33. Casting a spell in this manner — by burning incense to the prince of demons.
  34. A large charm — one that draws large animals together and joins them by sorcery.
  35. A small charm — one who whispers to small animals and joins them together by sorcery.
  36. Even a wasp and a scorpion — although they are insignificant, whispering charms over them is forbidden.
Tosafot on Keritot 3b, in English Tab translation (3)
  1. Perhaps two death penalties, etc. — The verse says, “They shall be put to death ... their blood is upon them.” But the plural “they shall be put to death” does not establish separate liability. For forbidden sexual relations, too, the Torah says “they shall be cut off” in the plural, yet a separate verse is needed to establish separate liability.
  2. Since it involves no action — This is puzzling: Above, the Gemara says the tanna listed three cases to complete the count of offenses punishable by karet. Evidently, he includes offenses even when they do not require a sin offering. So he should also list the yiddeoni, a type of diviner, since it is at least punishable by karet.
  3. And if they come after him, it is permitted — This is puzzling: If his life is in danger, permission is obvious, since nothing stands in the way of saving a life. If his life is not in danger, why is it permitted?

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 3.