Mishnah.org Logo

Today's Mishnah Yomi

Kerisos 3:7 - 3:8

The Mishnah Yomi for Tuesday, February 24, 2026 is Kerisos 3:7 - 3:8

Mishnah 1

Mishnayos Kerisos Perek 3 Mishnah 7

כריתות פרק ג׳ משנה ז׳

7
Rabbi Akiva said: I asked Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua in the meat market [itlis] in Emmaus, where they went to purchase an animal for the wedding feast of the son of Rabban Gamliel: In the case of one who unwittingly engages in intercourse with his sister, and the sister of his father, and the sister of his mother, during one lapse of awareness, what is the halakha? Is he liable to bring one sin offering for all three prohibitions, or is he liable to bring a separate sin offering for each and every one of the prohibitions? They said to Rabbi Akiva: We did not hear a ruling from our teachers about that case, but we heard the following ruling: One who engages in intercourse with each of his five wives while they are menstruating, during one lapse of awareness, we heard that he is liable to bring a separate sin offering for having engaged in intercourse with each and every one of them. And it appears to me that these matters can be derived from an a fortiori inference: If he is liable to bring separate sin offerings for having engaged in intercourse with five menstruating women, who are forbidden by one prohibition, he should certainly be liable to bring separate sin offerings for having engaged in intercourse with his sister, the sister of his father, and the sister of his mother, who are forbidden by three separate prohibitions.
אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, שָׁאַלְתִּי אֶת רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְאֶת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בָּאִטְלִיס שֶׁל אֶמָּאוֹם, שֶׁהָלְכוּ לִקַּח בְּהֵמָה לְמִשְׁתֵּה בְנוֹ שֶׁל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, הַבָּא עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ וְעַל אֲחוֹת אָבִיו וְעַל אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד מַהוּ, חַיָּב אַחַת עַל כֻּלָּן, אוֹ אַחַת עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת, וְאָמְרוּ לִי, לֹא שָׁמָעְנוּ. אֲבָל שָׁמַעְנוּ, הַבָּא עַל חָמֵשׁ נָשָׁיו נִדּוֹת בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד, שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. וְרוֹאִין אָנוּ שֶׁהַדְּבָרִים קַל וָחֹמֶר:
ז׳

באיטליס – a marketplace where they sell meat there.

של אמאום – the name of a city.

הבא על אחותו וכו' – this is what he said: he who has sexual relations with his sister who is the sister of of his father and the sister of his mother, and we have found such a case, as, for example, when Reuven had sexual relations with his mother and fathered from her two daughters and then he returned and had sexual relations with one of these daughters and from her fathered a so, and the son had sexual relations with his sister, who is the sister of his father and the sister of his mother.

וחומר – And what if a person had sexual intercourse with five wives who are menstruating women which are one category (Leviticus 18:19): “Do not come near a woman during her period of uncleanness,” he would be liable for each and every one. A person who has sexual relations with his siter, who is the sister of his father and the sister of his mother, which are three categories, meaning to say, three negative commandments that are divided, is it not the case that he should be liable for each and every one? But this a fortiori is refuted/raises an objection, for how can five women who are menstruating be separate/distinct bodies? But the reason, is because as Scripture states (Leviticus 20:17): “He has uncovered the nakedness of his sister, etc.,” and it is an extra verse, for at the beginning of the verse, it is written “If a man marries his sister….so that he sees her nakedness, etc.” Why should he review further “that he has uncovered his sister’s nakedness,” but rather to teach about his sister who is the father’s sister and his mother’s sister, who is liable for each and every one.

באטליס. שוק שמוכרים שם בשר:

של אמאום. שם העיר:

הבא על אחותו וכו׳ הכי קאמר, הבא על אחותו שהיא אחות אביו ואחות אמו. ומשכחת לה, כגון שבא ראובן על אמו והוליד ממנה שתי בנות וחזר ובא על אחת מבנותיו אלו והוליד ממנה בן, ובא הבן על אחותו שהיא אחות אביו ואחות אמו:

שהדברים קל וחומר. ומה הבא על חמש נשיו נדות שהם שם אחד, לנדה לא תקרב, חייב על כל אחת ואחת. הבא על אחותו שהיא אחות אביו ואחות אמו שהן שלשה שמות כלומר שלשה לאוין מחולקין, אינו דין שיהא חייב על כל אחת ואחת. והאי קל וחומר פריכא הוא, דמה לחמש נשים נדות שהן גופים מוחלקים. אלא טעמא, משום דאמר קרא (ויקרא כ׳:י״ז) ערות אחותו גלה וגו׳, וקרא יתירא הוא, דברישיה דקרא כתיב ואיש אשר יקח את אחותו וראה את ערותה וגו׳, למה לי למהדר תו ערות אחותו גלה, אלא ללמד על אחותו שהיא אחות אביו ואחות אמו שחייב על כל אחת ואחת:

Mishnah 2

Mishnayos Kerisos Perek 3 Mishnah 8

כריתות פרק ג׳ משנה ח׳

8
And furthermore, Rabbi Akiva asked Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua in the meat market of Emmaus: What is the status of a dangling limb of an animal? Does it impart ritual impurity like a severed limb? They said to Rabbi Akiva: We have not heard a ruling from our teachers in that specific case, but we have heard with regard to a dangling limb of a person that it is ritually pure. And in this manner would the people afflicted with boils, whose limbs were dangling due to their affliction, act in Jerusalem: Each of them would go on Passover eve to the doctor, who would cut the affected limb almost completely until he would leave it connected by a hairbreadth of flesh, so that neither the doctor nor the afflicted would be rendered ritually impure by a severed limb. Then, the doctor would impale the limb on a thorn attached to the floor or the wall, and the afflicted would pull away from the thorn, thereby completely severing the limb. And that person afflicted with boils would perform the rite of his Paschal offering, and the doctor would perform the rite of his Paschal offering, as neither had come into contact with the limb once it was severed. In any case, as long as it was dangling, the limb did not impart impurity. And I consider that these matters can be derived from an a fortiori inference. If a person’s limb, the impurity of which when amputated is severe, does not impart impurity when it is dangling, it is all the more so logical that an animal’s limb, the impurity of which when amputated is lenient, does not impart impurity when it is dangling.
וְעוֹד שְׁאָלָן רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. אֵבָר הַמְדֻלְדָּל בִּבְהֵמָה, מַהוּ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ. אֲבָל שָׁמַעְנוּ בְּאֵבָר הַמְדֻלְדָּל בְּאָדָם, שֶׁהוּא טָהוֹר. שֶׁכָּךְ הָיוּ מֻכֵּי שְׁחִין שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם עוֹשִׂין, הוֹלֵךְ לוֹ עֶרֶב פֶּסַח אֵצֶל הָרוֹפֵא וְחוֹתְכוֹ עַד שֶׁהוּא מַנִּיחַ בּוֹ כִשְׂעֹרָה, וְתוֹחֲבוֹ בְסִירָה, וְהוּא נִמְשָׁךְ מִמֶּנּוּ, וְהַלָּה עוֹשֶׂה פִסְחוֹ, וְהָרוֹפֵא עוֹשֶׂה פִסְחוֹ. וְרוֹאִין אָנוּ שֶׁהַדְּבָרִים קַל וָחֹמֶר:
ח׳

אבר המדולדל בבהמה – most of it is detached and part of it is interwoven.

מהו – that he should become defiled because of [the prohibition of] a limb from a living animal, as if it was detached completely, but we hold in [Tractate Hullin, Chapter 9, Mishnah 8] “The Flesh and the Juice,” that a limb from a living animal defiles like a carrion. But a limb that is detached completely from a human being completely defiles like the dead person.

באבר המדולדל באדם – that it is partly interwoven, it is ritually pure.

מוכי שחין (afflicted with boils) - that their limbs are falling.

וחותכה – not because of ritual purity, for before this, it is also ritually pure, but rather so that it is not detestable on the Festival with a dangling limb.

שמניח בו כשערה – but doesn’t cut it off completely, so as to not defile the person who cuts it (i.e., the doctor) when he touches it at the time of its separation.

ותוחבו – to the limb.

בסירה – with a thorn that is attached the ground.

והוא – the sick person.

נמשך – and the limb is torn away on its own, and the sick person is not ritually impure because he pulls himself with strength at one clip and the limb is detached from im with power and there is no contact at the time of separation.

שהדברים קל וחומר – for just as a person is susceptible to ritual defilement while alive, the dangling limb from him is ritually pure, an animal which is not susceptible to ritual impurity while alive, is it not the case that the limb that is dangling from it is ritually pure?

אבר המדולדל בבהמה. תלוש רובו ומעורה במקצתו:

מהו. שיטמא משום אבר מן החי כאילו נתלש לגמרי. וקיימא לן בהעור והרוטב, דאבר מן החי מטמא כנבילה. ואבר הנתלש מן האדם לגמרי מטמא כמת:

באבר המדולדל באדם. שמעורה קצת, טהור:

מוכי שחין. שאבריהן נופלין:

וחותכה. לא משום טהרה, שקודם לכן נמי טהור. אלא שלא יהא מאוס ברגל באבר המדולדל:

שמניח בו כשערה. ואינו חותכו לגמרי, שלא יטמא את החותכו שנוגע בו בשעת פרישה:

ותוחבו. לאבר:

בסירה. בקוץ המחובר לקרקע:

והוא. החולה:

נמשך. ונתלש האבר מאליו. והחולה אינו טמא לפי שמושך עצמו בכח בבת אחת והאבר נתלש ממנו בכח וליכא נגיעה בשעת פרישה:

שהדברים קל וחומר. ומה אדם שמקבל טומאה מחיים, האבר המדולדל ממנו טהור, בהמה שאינה מקבלת טומאה מחיים אינו דין שיהא האבר המדולדל ממנה טהור:

Mishnah Yomi FAQ

Still have a question? Contact Us