The Eddie B Sit edition presents an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, focusing on the tractate Masechet Keritut. This Masechet has been dedicated to the success of Simcha bat Dina, Rivka bat Dina, Moshe ben Dina, and Aryeh ben Dina, and in honor of and for the success of Dina bat Rivka. May the Holy One, Blessed be He, grant them success in all their endeavors, wealth, honor, good health, and all blessings. We also extend our gratitude to our sponsor of the Masechet, Rabbi Chaim Dana, may the Lord protect him and grant him favor and good sense in the eyes of God and man, Amen.
We begin Masechet Keritut on Daf Bet. Today's daf is being studied for the elevation of the soul of Avraham ben Esther and Yosef ben Sabut. May the spirit of the Lord rest upon them in the Garden of Eden, Amen.
We start with the Mishna: "There are thirty-six cases of Karet in the Torah." The first case is that of a person who has relations with his mother, referred to as Haba al ha'em. The second case involves a man's father’s wife, Ve'al eshet av, even though she is not his mother. The third case is with his daughter-in-law, Ve'al hakala, even if his son is no longer married to her. The fourth case involves a male, Haba al hazachur, which refers to homosexual relations. The fifth case pertains to an animal, Ve'al habehema, and the sixth case involves a woman bringing the animal upon her, Ve'isha hamavia habehema aleha.
The next case is when a person has relations with a woman and her daughter, Haba al ha'isha uvitah. This refers to the daughter of his wife or the granddaughter of his wife, or even the mother of his wife, or the grandmother of his wife. All these cases are included in the term isha uvitah.
The Mishna continues: "And a married woman, Ve'eshet ish, is someone who has relations with a married woman." The next case is with his sister, Haba al achoto, followed by his father's sister, Ve'al achot aviv, his mother's sister, Ve'al achot imo, and his wife's sister, Ve'al achot ishto. This last case applies only while his wife is alive, as after her death, it becomes permissible for him to marry his wife’s sister. The Mishna also mentions relations with his brother's wife, Ve'al eshet achiv, which remains forbidden even if he divorces her, as well as relations with his aunt, Ve'al eshet achi aviv.
Furthermore, the Mishna discusses relations with a woman during her menstrual period, Ve'al hanida, the act of cursing the name of God, Vehamigadef, worshiping idols, Ve'oved avodat kochavim, and giving one's offspring to Molech, Vehanoten mizar'o l'molech. It also includes engaging in witchcraft, Uva'al ov, and desecrating the Sabbath, Umechalel Shabbat. Additionally, it addresses a person who is impure and eats sacred offerings, Vetame she'achal kodesh, and one who enters the Temple when impure, Vehabah el hamikdash tame.
Moreover, it discusses eating forbidden fats, Ve'ochel chelev, blood, Vedam, leftovers of offerings after their time, Venotar, and offerings rendered invalid due to improper thoughts, Pigul. The Mishna mentions someone who slaughters an animal and brings it outside the Temple courtyard, Vehashochet uma'ale bachutz, eating leavened bread on Passover, Ve'ochel chametz bePesach, and someone who eats or performs work on Yom Kippur, Ve'ochel ve'oseh melacha beYom Hakippurim. Finally, it mentions someone who duplicates the anointing oil, v'hamfatem et hashemen, and someone who duplicates the incense, v'hamfatem et haketoret, as well as someone who anoints themselves with the anointing oil, v'hasach beshemen hamishcha.
The Mishna concludes with the case of someone who refrains from bringing the Passover offering, v'hapesach, and someone who refrains from performing circumcision, v'hamilah, which are both positive commandments. The Mishna states: "For these, one is liable for Karet if done intentionally, al elu chayavim al zedono karet, and if done unintentionally, they are liable for a sin offering, v'al shigagato chatat. If one is unsure whether they transgressed or not, they bring a pending guilt offering, asham talui. Except for one who rendered the Temple and its offerings impure, chutz min hametameh mikdash v'kodashav, as there is no pending guilt offering for them, since they are liable for a different type of offering, oleh veyored, as stated by Rabbi Meir.
The Sages say that even the one who curses is exempt from a sin offering, af amegadef patur min chatat, as it is stated: "One Torah shall be for you for the one who acts unintentionally," Torah achat yihye lachem l'oseh bishgagah. This excludes the one who curses, as it is merely a verbal act and not an action.
Now, this concludes the Mishna. If you look on your daf, you will see we have two sides of Rashi. We will start from the beginning, the right column, top. I will read these Rashis quickly to cover all these cases. The Mishna states that all these cases of Keritut refer to one who acted intentionally, kol hanakh keritut bemazid, without prior warning. However, if there was a warning from witnesses, some are subject to death by strangulation, yesh mehem bechenek, while others are subject to stoning, v'yesh mehem beskila, and others to lashes, v'yesh mehem malkut. If done unintentionally, one is liable for a sin offering, u'beshogeg bechatat.
The Mishna emphasizes that it initially began with the cases of illicit relations, em v'eshet av, and all those other cases of his father’s wife and daughter-in-law. It then interjects with the cases of relations with a male or an animal, v'hadar pasik vetani benei u'venei haba al hazachar v'al habehemah. Then it returns to the cases of isha uvitah. The question arises: why didn't it list all the cases of illicit relations together? The reason is that we hold in Sanhedrin that all those cases mentioned at the beginning—relations with a mother, father’s wife, and daughter-in-law—are punishable by stoning, d'chol hani d'nakat beresha em v'eshet av v'kallah, as these are severe cases.
This is why they were listed first, as they are punishable by stoning, which is the most severe of the capital punishments, as stated in Masechet Sanhedrin. Moving on, regarding the case of isha uvitah, Rashi explains that this includes her granddaughter and her daughter, as well as his mother-in-law and grandmother, all of which are included in this prohibition.
In the case of megadef, what constitutes megadef? There are those who say it refers to one who curses with a name of two letters. If one intends to curse with the two-letter name and mistakenly curses with the four-letter name, he is only liable for cursing the four-letter name, as the prohibition specifically applies to that name.
This concludes the Mishna on this subject. The Gemara will now discuss the cases further. The Gemara begins with the question: why must the number thirty-six be specified? The Gemara answers that it teaches us that if one transgressed all thirty-six in one lapse of awareness, she'im asaan kulan behe'elem echad, he is liable for each one individually, chayav al kol achat ve'achat.
Later, we will learn that if someone transgresses the same sin multiple times without realizing it, they are only liable for one sin offering, chayav chatat. Therefore, the Mishna specifies thirty-six to clarify that if one commits different transgressions without realizing it, they are liable for one sin offering per transgression.
Furthermore, it states that in the case of the Shabbat tractate, where there are forty creative acts listed, minus one, it also specifies the number for the same reasoning. The Gemara then poses another question regarding the four individuals who are liable to bring a sin offering, arbaa mechusarei kapparah, until they bring their offering, they are forbidden from consuming sacred items or entering the Temple.
The question arises: why specify four? The Gemara answers that it is to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, who states that there are five cases. Thus, the Mishna clarifies that we do not follow Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s opinion.
As we continue through the Gemara, we learn that if a person commits a transgression while being warned, they are liable for a sin offering, even if they acted intentionally. The Gemara emphasizes that the punishment of Karet applies to those who act without awareness, and thus, the number thirty-six serves to clarify liability.
In conclusion, the Mishna and the Gemara provide a thorough exploration of the cases of Karet, illustrating the distinctions between intentional and unintentional actions, as well as the specific prohibitions that lead to such severe consequences. This careful examination of the laws not only highlights the gravity of these transgressions but also serves as a guide for proper conduct in accordance with Torah law.