Keritot 3:5-6

📖 Mishna

Mishna 3:5

משנה ג:ה

Hebrew:

יֵשׁ בָּא בִיאָה אַחַת וְחַיָּב עָלֶיהָ שֵׁשׁ חַטָּאוֹת. הַבָּא עַל בִּתּוֹ, חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם בִּתּוֹ וַאֲחוֹתוֹ וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו וְאֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו וְאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ וְנִדָּה. וְהַבָּא עַל בַּת בִּתּוֹ, חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם בַּת בִּתּוֹ וְכַלָּתוֹ וַאֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו וְאֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו וְאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ וְנִדָּה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אִם עָבַר הַזָּקֵן וּנְשָׂאָהּ, חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָב. וְכֵן הַבָּא עַל בַּת אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְעַל בַּת בַּת אִשְׁתּוֹ:

English:

There is a case where one can engage in a single act of intercourse and be liable to bring six sin offerings for it. How so? It is possible for one who engages in intercourse with his daughter to be liable due to having violated the prohibitions of engaging in intercourse with his daughter, his sister, the wife of his brother, the wife of his father’s brother, a married woman, and a menstruating woman. It is possible for one who engages in intercourse with his daughter’s daughter to be liable to bring sin offerings due to the unwitting violation of the prohibitions of engaging in intercourse with his daughter’s daughter, and his daughter-in-law, and the wife of his brother, and the wife of his father’s brother, and his wife’s sister, and a married woman, and a menstruating woman. Rabbi Yosei says: If the elder, i.e., the man’s father, who is the woman’s great-grandfather, transgressed and married her, the man would also be liable for engaging in intercourse with her due to the prohibition of intercourse with the wife of his father. And likewise, it is possible for one who engages in intercourse with the daughter of his wife to be liable to bring six sin offerings, similar to one who engages in intercourse with his own daughter, for violating the prohibitions against engaging in intercourse with his wife’s daughter, his sister, the wife of his brother, the wife of his father’s brother, a married woman, and a menstruating woman. And it is possible for one who engages in intercourse with his wife’s daughter’s daughter to be liable to bring seven sin offerings, similar to one who engages in intercourse with his own daughter’s daughter.

Claude on the Mishna:

This mishna continues the theme of maximum liabilities from one act, now applied to forbidden relations (arayot). The mishna constructs complex (and disturbing) genealogical scenarios to demonstrate how many prohibitions can overlap.

Case 1: Intercourse with one’s daughter = 6 sin offerings

How can one woman be all these things to him?

1. His daughter - He fathered her with his mother (incest)
2. His sister - Same mother
3. Wife of his brother - She married his brother
4. Wife of his father’s brother - She also married his uncle
5. A married woman - Currently married
6. A niddah - During menstruation

Case 2: Intercourse with daughter’s daughter = 7 sin offerings

The scenario becomes even more complex, adding:

• Daughter-in-law (his son married her)
• Wife’s sister (his wife’s sister through complicated genealogy)

Rabbi Yosei’s addition: If the man’s FATHER (the woman’s great-grandfather) transgressed and married her, add “wife of his father” - another prohibition!

The parallel cases: The mishna notes that identical scenarios apply to:

• Daughter of his wife (stepdaughter) = 6 offerings
• Daughter of wife’s daughter = 7 offerings

The pedagogical purpose: These extreme hypotheticals teach that:

1. Each distinct prohibition requires separate atonement
2. Family relationships can create multiple overlapping prohibitions
3. The Torah’s system of forbidden relations is comprehensive

Key Terms:

• בִּתּוֹ (bito) = His daughter
• אֲחוֹתוֹ (achoto) = His sister
• אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו (eshet achiv) = Wife of his brother
• אֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו (eshet achi aviv) = Wife of his father’s brother
• נִדָּה (niddah) = Menstruating woman
• כַּלָּתוֹ (kalato) = His daughter-in-law

Mishna 3:6

משנה ג:ו

Hebrew:

הַבָּא עַל חֲמוֹתוֹ, חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם חֲמוֹתוֹ וְכַלָּתוֹ וַאֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו וְאֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו וְאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ וְנִדָּה. וְכֵן הַבָּא עַל אֵם חֲמוֹתוֹ, וְעַל אֵם חָמִיו. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר, הַבָּא עַל חֲמוֹתוֹ, חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם חֲמוֹתוֹ וְאֵם חֲמוֹתוֹ וְאֵם חָמִיו. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, שְׁלָשְׁתָּן שֵׁם אֶחָד הֵן:

English:

It is possible for one who engages in intercourse with his mother-in-law to be liable to bring seven sin offerings for doing so, due to the unwitting violation of the prohibitions of engaging in intercourse with his mother-in-law, and his daughter-in-law, and the wife of his brother, and the wife of his father’s brother, and his wife’s sister, and a married woman, and a menstruating woman. And likewise, the same applies with regard to one who engages in intercourse with the mother of his father-in-law or with the mother of his mother-in-law. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri says: It is possible for one who engages in intercourse with his mother-in-law to be liable due to the unwitting violation of the prohibitions of engaging in intercourse with his mother-in-law, and the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law. The Rabbis said to him: Those three prohibitions are all one category of prohibition, derived from the same verse: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; you shall not take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter” (Leviticus 18:17). Consequently, one is not liable to bring separate sin offerings for violating these prohibitions.

Claude on the Mishna:

This mishna extends the analysis to in-law relationships.

Case: Intercourse with mother-in-law = 7 sin offerings

How can one woman be all these to him?

1. His mother-in-law - His wife’s mother
2. His daughter-in-law - Through complex genealogy, she’s also his son’s wife
3. Wife of his brother - She married his brother
4. Wife of his father’s brother - She married his uncle
5. His wife’s sister - Through marriage complications
6. A married woman - Currently married
7. A niddah - During menstruation

The same applies to the mother of his mother-in-law and the mother of his father-in-law.

Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri’s position: He argues that one could be liable for THREE separate prohibitions just within the mother-in-law category:

• Mother-in-law
• Mother of mother-in-law
• Mother of father-in-law

If she’s somehow all three, that would be three separate offerings!

The Sages’ response: “Shloshtam shem echad hen” - “All three are one name/category.” The Torah prohibition against a woman and her daughter/granddaughter (Lev. 18:17) covers all these relationships in ONE prohibition. You can’t bring separate offerings for multiple violations of the same verse.

The underlying principle: For multiple sin offerings, we need:

• Distinct verses
• Distinct prohibitions
• Not merely subcategories of one broader prohibition

Mother-in-law, grandmother-in-law, and great-grandmother-in-law are all derived from the same verse prohibiting “a woman and her daughter,” so they count as ONE violation, not three.

Key Terms:

• חֲמוֹתוֹ (chamoto) = His mother-in-law
• אֵם חֲמוֹתוֹ (eim chamoto) = Mother of his mother-in-law
• אֵם חָמִיו (eim chamiv) = Mother of his father-in-law
• שֵׁם אֶחָד (shem echad) = One name/category - derived from one source

⚖️ Halacha

Practical Law from this Mishna

These mishnayot establish the principle that multiple distinct prohibitions violated in one act require multiple offerings.

Multiple Prohibitions from One Act of Intercourse

Source in Mishna: 3:5-6

Rambam — Hilkhot Shegagot 4:3-5

The counting principle for forbidden relations:

Each biblically distinct prohibition requires its own sin offering. However:

• Prohibitions from the SAME verse count as one
• Prohibitions from DIFFERENT verses count separately

Maximum liabilities:

The “One Name” Principle

Source in Mishna: 3:6

Rambam — Hilkhot Shegagot 4:6

Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri’s view is rejected.

The halacha follows the Sages: Mother-in-law, mother of mother-in-law, and mother of father-in-law are all ONE prohibition because they derive from Leviticus 18:17.

General rule: When multiple relationships are prohibited by the same verse, violating them in one act creates only ONE liability for a sin offering, not multiple.

Application:

• A woman and her daughter = one prohibition
• A woman and her son’s daughter = same prohibition
• A woman and her daughter’s daughter = same prohibition

All are subcategories of “a woman and her daughter” (Lev. 18:17).

The Niddah Factor

Source in Mishna: 3:5-6

Rambam — Hilkhot Issurei Bi’ah 4:1

Every case in these mishnayot includes “niddah” as an additional liability. This is because the niddah prohibition:

• Derives from a separate verse (Lev. 18:19)
• Is a distinct category of prohibition
• Applies regardless of the family relationship

So any forbidden relation during niddah adds ONE more sin offering to whatever other prohibitions are violated.

Summary

Note: These laws demonstrate the Torah’s detailed system of forbidden relations and the principle that each violation requires separate atonement. They were relevant for sin offerings during Temple times.

🖼️ Visuals

Infographics for this mishna coming soon.