Keritot כריתות

Tractate Karetot is called by this name because it discusses those transgressions for which the Torah imposed the punishment of excision, karet. The nature of this punishment is discussed by the talmudic Sages and the early and later commentaries. Various definitions have been suggested, e.g., an untimely death, dying childless, or excision from the World-to-Come. In any case, it is clear that this punishment is not administered by the earthly court but by God. Despite its name, tractate Karetot does not discuss the definition of karet itself, but rather the practical significance of transgressing a prohibition carrying that punishment. When an individual unwittingly transgresses one of these prohibitions he is liable to bring a sin offering, and if he is uncertain whether he transgressed the prohibition he must sacrifice a provisional guilt offering. As Rashi states at the beginning of his commentary to the tractate, with regard to all these prohibitions the punishment of karet applies if one transgressed intentionally but without forewarning. If he was forewarned, his punishment, either capital punishment or lashes, is imposed by the court. The halakha is that an offering is brought only for an unwitting transgression, although there are certain exceptions (see 9a, 25b).

The fact that a sin offering is brought specifically for an unwitting transgression is an indication of several basic features of the relationship between the sin and its atonement. First, an offering can atone only for unwitting transgressions, not for intentional violations. Second, even a transgression committed unwittingly is a sin, to the extent that it harms the sinner's spiritual stature and requires atonement. This is especially evident in the case of a provisional guilt offering, where one is unsure whether he transgressed at all and yet must take this possibility into account and act accordingly by bringing an offering.

Third, although he is a sinner, atonement is possible for him by means of an offering, even with regard to transgressions so serious they entail the punishment of karet had they been violated intentionally.

Tractate Karetot focuses, therefore, on the sin offering and the provisional guilt offering. It does not discuss the status of and sacrificial rites pertaining to these offerings themselves; those are discussed in the fifth and eleventh chapters of tractate Zevahim and the fourth chapter of tractate Temura. Rather, its concern is the prohibitions whose violations lead to liability to bring these offerings, and the conditions under which one is obligated to sacrifice them.

the sin offering

The sin offering discussed in this tractate is the fixed sin offering, also called the sin offering of forbidden fat. This sin offering differs in several ways from other offerings that provide atonement. It should be noted that while discussing this particular sin offering the tractate also addresses various other types of sin offerings, both those that are brought for transgressing a prohibition and those that serve to complete a purification process, the common denominator of which is the concept of atonement in the broad meaning of the term. One can summarize the discussions on the fixed sin offering in this tractate under four headings: The prohibitions for which one must bring this sin offering; the definition of an unwitting sin; the awareness of the sin; and the number of offerings that one is obligated to bring.

1. The prohibitions

The passage in Numbers (15:27-31) that discusses the sin offering teaches that there is a connection between the sin offering brought for an unwitting sin and the punishment of karet. Namely, if a prohibition is punishable by karet when transgressed intentionally, one who transgresses it unwittingly is liable to bring a sin offering. The first mishna in the tractate provides a list of prohibitions for which one is liable to receive karet. Approximately half of these prohibitions are acts of sexual intercourse. The rest are transgressions involving the desecration of God's name, i.e., blasphemy and idol worship; the desecration of Shabbat and the major festivals of Yom Kippur and Passover; and transgressions that involve the Temple and its consecrated items, i.e., their defilement through ritual impurity, the preparation of the anointing oil and the incense for non-sacred use, and the application of the anointing oil. In addition, there are several prohibitions discussed in this tractate concerning consumption, namely with regard to forbidden fat, blood, leftover sacrificial meat of an offering after the time designated for eating has elapsed [notar], and meat of an offering whose sacrificial rites were performed with the intent to sacrifice it or eat it beyond its designated time [piggul]. One brings a sin offering only for the unwitting transgression of a prohibition, but not for the failure to perform a positive mitzva for whose neglect one is liable to receive karet, i.e., the Paschal offering and circumcision. Even in the case of prohibitions, one brings a sin offering only for those sins that involve an action.

After determining which prohibitions result in the obligation to bring a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly, it is necessary to define precisely the acts for which the Torah renders one liable. In this regard the tractate discusses several fundamental principles. For example, it discusses the precise definition of intercourse (10b) and the act of eating with regard to prohibitions of consumption, both the amount as well as the manner and duration of eating (12b). Certain transgressions require their own special definitions, e.g., the prohibitions pertaining to the anointing oil and the incense (5a-7a), and the detailed discussion in the fifth chapter (20b-22b) concerning the prohibition against consuming blood.

2. The unwitting sin

A key factor in the obligation to bring a sin offering is the lapse of awareness, as one is liable to bring a sin offering only if the transgression was unwitting. There are two ways in which one can transgress unwittingly: First, if he errs with regard to the halakha, i.e., he mistakenly thinks the action he is performing is permitted. According to some commentaries, even in this case it is necessary for him to have some prior knowledge of the prohibition itself; otherwise, he is considered to have acted due to circumstances beyond his control and is exempt from bringing an offering. The second way in which one can transgress unwittingly is if he is aware of the prohibition but is mistaken about reality, e.g., he thinks he is eating permitted fat and is actually eating forbidden fat.

Although the Torah renders one liable to bring an offering for an unwitting transgression, this applies only in those cases where he performed the action he intended, under the assumption that it was permitted. By contrast, if one intended to perform one action and performed another, he is classified as one who acts unawares and is exempt from bringing a sin offering. The fourth chapter includes a complex discussion concerning the details of this principle, e.g., whether one who intended to perform a prohibited act is likewise exempt if he did not do precisely what he had intended. The conclusion is that whoever performed a prohibited act with an object he did not intend to use is exempt from bringing a sin offering, provided his intention involved an item of a different type, for example one who meant to pick grapes on Shabbat and harvested figs instead.

The Sages further state that the exemption of one who acts unawares from the obligation to bring an offering applies only to Shabbat, where creative labors alone are prohibited, and therefore one is liable only if he performs the act that he intended. This is not so with regard to prohibitions of consumption and sexual intercourse, as even one who acts unawares derives benefit and is therefore liable (see 19b).

3. Awareness of the sin

A fundamental principle of the liability to bring a sin offering and its atonement is awareness and acknowledgement of the sin, as indicated by the verse: “If his sin, which he has sinned, be known to him” (Leviticus 4:28). In this context the Sages said that a sin offering atones only for those who repent (see 7a), and that one who brings an offering must confess his sins over it (Yoma 36a). Consequently, if one is informed by a witness that he sinned but he denies the accusation, he does not bring a sin offering. There is an extensive discussion at the beginning of the third chapter as to whether two witnesses can render one liable to bring a sin offering despite his denials, since they can even render him liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment, or whether for the purposes of atonement for his own actions one is deemed more credible than even one hundred witnesses (see 12a). Another inquiry with regard to awareness of the sin is how precise this knowledge must be, as some claim it is enough for one to have general knowledge of his sin to render him liable to bring a sin offering and thereby achieve atonement. The halakha is that one may bring a sin offering only if he is aware of the precise circumstances of his transgression.

4. The number of offerings

A considerable portion of the discussions concerning the liability to bring sin offerings involves the question of how many offerings one must bring if he unwittingly committed a single transgression on several occasions, or if he transgressed several prohibitions unwittingly.

In principle, the number of sin offerings one must bring is determined not by the number of times he performed the prohibited act, but by the number of lapses of awareness and the number of prohibitions he violated. If, for example, one ate food forbidden by a single prohibition on many occasions in one lapse of awareness, since he did not discover his error between each occasion he brings only one sin offering. If one ate forbidden food unwittingly and was informed of his mistake, and forgot the prohibition and ate a second time, he must bring a separate sin offering for each act of consumption. Likewise, if one ate food forbidden by different prohibitions in a single lapse of awareness, as he did not know that any of the food items were prohibited, he brings a sin offering for each and every prohibition he violated. It is also possible for one to be liable to bring several sin offerings for a single act of consumption, if more than one prohibition applies to that food. The same is true of acts of forbidden intercourse, as a woman can be prohibited to a man by several familial relationships. In this manner one can be rendered liable to bring up to seven sin offerings, or nine according to some opinions, for a single act of intercourse (see 14b).

It is important to establish the boundaries between different prohibitions, as one brings a separate sin offering only for those violations that fall under different categories of prohibitions, whether this is explicitly stated in the Torah or learned by oral tradition. There are also certain cases where one is liable to bring a single sin offering despite the fact that he performed a transgression with different items, e.g., one ate the forbidden fat of an ox, a sheep, and a goat.

A special halakha applies with regard to the transgression of performing labor on Shabbat, and also to the prohibition against idol worship (see 3a-b), as one who knows it is Shabbat and unwittingly performed multiple labors must bring a separate sin offering for each labor; whereas if he was unwitting with regard to the prohibition itself, i.e., he was unaware that it was Shabbat, he brings only one sin offering. The same halakha applies if one performs numerous prohibited labors subsumed under a single category of labor. The third chapter includes a thorough discussion of one who performs many labors on many Shabbatot by these two forms of unwitting sin.

the provisional guilt offering

A separate discussion in this tractate is devoted to the issue of the provisional guilt offering and the relationship between this offering and the sin offering. Whereas there is no fundamental disagreement among the Sages as to the reasons for bringing a sin offering, there are differences of opinion with regard to the provisional guilt offering. Some maintain this guilt offering is brought for every uncertain violation of a prohibition in the Torah, and that one can bring a provisional guilt offering even as an entirely voluntary offering, without any uncertain transgression. Nevertheless, the halakha is that a provisional guilt offering is sacrificed only for an uncertain case involving a prohibition whose intentional performance entails karet and whose unwitting violation obligates one to bring a sin offering. If one later discovers that he did in fact transgress, he must bring a sin offering.

Accordingly, this guilt offering is called provisional, because it grants only a provisional reprieve until it is determined whether or not one actually sinned, or because it does not provide complete atonement, but provisionally protects one from punishment if he in fact transgressed. From this perspective, there is a certain similarity between the provisional guilt offering and Yom Kippur, and accordingly the Sages rule that one who is obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering and Yom Kippur has passed is exempt from that obligation. By contrast, those liable to bring sin offerings and other types of guilt offerings must bring their offerings even after Yom Kippur has passed, as Yom Kippur does not atone for known sins where one has other means of atoning for his action.

The provisional guilt offering does not atone for every type of uncertainty. This leads to two opposing but complementary ramifications: On the one hand, an individual brings a provisional guilt offering only if it is possible that he did not sin at all and is entirely exempt. If he definitely sinned but does not know which prohibition he violated he does not bring a provisional guilt offering, as it is stated with regard to this offering: “He does not know it” (Leviticus 5:17), which excludes one who is aware that he sinned. On the other hand, the halakha is that one is obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering only if a prohibited item was certainly present before him, e.g., there were two pieces of meat, one permitted and the other forbidden, and he ate one of them. If there was only one piece of meat of uncertain status before him and he ate it, he is exempt, as the presence of a definitely prohibited item is required from the outset.

The scope of liability with regard to the provisional guilt offering is similar to that of the sin offering: In any situation where a sinner would be liable to bring one sin offering or several when his sin becomes known to him, depending on the number of lapses of awareness or prohibitions he violated, one whose sin is uncertain must bring the corresponding number of provisional guilt offerings. All the same, if one was involved in several instances of uncertain transgression and he discovered that he definitely sinned, his awareness of the uncertainties does not divide between the sins to render him liable to bring separate sin offerings for each one.

As stated earlier, the fixed sin offering and the provisional guilt offering are the main topics of this tractate, which deals with liability to receive karet. In addition to these matters, the tractate also discusses offerings that involve atonement, including those sin offerings that are not brought to atone for a sin but to complete a purification process and enable the owner to partake of sacrificial meat, as well as other types of offerings brought for transgressions, e.g., guilt offerings and sliding-scale offerings. The halakhot of these offerings serve to emphasize the unique characteristics of the fixed sin offering. The tractate also discusses in detail the guilt offering of an espoused Canaanite maidservant, which is the only offering in the Torah that serves to atone for an act of intercourse that is not included in the chapter concerning forbidden relatives. The analysis of this special offering and the comparison between this case and the case of forbidden relatives in general completes the discussions on forbidden intercourse.

Tractate Karetot comprises the central discussions in the Talmud concerning the anointing oil, including the anointing of High Priests and kings, as well as the blending of the incense in the Temple. The tractate also focuses at length on the prohibition against consuming blood, which is punishable by karet. Also discussed are several matters involving ritual impurity, especially the impurity of foods, as well as the definition of eating with regard to Torah obligations, the prohibition for those who have drunk wine against entering and serving in the Temple or issuing halakhic rulings, and several matters of aggada.

Tractate Karetot consists of six chapters.

Chapter One discusses those transgressions for the unwitting violation of which one must bring a fixed sin offering, and the sin offering of a woman after childbirth.

Chapter Two discusses other types of sin offerings, and the guilt offering of an espoused Canaanite maidservant.

Chapter Three analyzes those cases where informing an individual that he has sinned leads to his liability to bring a sin offering, and in what circumstances a person is obligated to bring more than one sin offering.

Chapter Four focuses on the type of uncertainty for which one must bring a provisional guilt offering, and the definition of the awareness that leads to liability to bring a sin offering.

Chapter Five examines the prohibition against consuming blood.

Chapter Six returns to the matter of the provisional guilt offering in order to clarify when it is brought, and it also analyzes the halakhot of the sliding-scale offering.