Keritot 13a — the Talmud in English

Granted that

that

Rabbi Meir holds stringently,

and requires more than the time of eating a peras,

this is why it teaches

in the words of the Sages,

“until he lingers,”

which implies that he is never liable for lingering longer than the time of eating a peras, as Rabbi Meir says, but

until his lingering,

that his lingering should be only

within the time of eating a peras.

But if you say

that

Rabbi Meir holds leniently,

then

“and the Sages say: if he lingered”

should have been required

to say. For it would imply that they came to say that even if he interrupted in the middle of the eating, it joins together if he lingered only for the time of eating a peras, and not like Rabbi Meir, who is lenient and says that it does not join together when he interrupted.

Rather, is it not so? Learn from it: Rabbi Meir holds stringently.

And we conclude:

Learn from it!

Ravina’i said in the name of Shmuel: With forbidden fats and a carcass,

two half-olive measures do not join together to create liability for lashes

until he lingers from beginning to end

no longer than

within the time of eating a peras.

But concerning bodily disqualification, through eating half a peras of

impure foods,

or a quarter-log of

impure liquids,

even

if he ate or drank from them

the entire day,

they nevertheless join together

within the time of eating a peras

to disqualify the body of the person who eats or drinks them, so that that person is forbidden to eat teruma.

And we explain:

what is he saying,

Shmuel? For concerning bodily disqualification he said two contradictory things, since “the entire day” is certainly more than the time of eating a peras?

Rav Pappa said: This is what he is saying: even if

he eats the half-peras [approximately two eggs] of impure food or drinks the quarter-log

the entire day,

his body becomes disqualified from teruma.

And this is when he ate

or drank] every

olive-measure

of it

within the time of eating a peras,

so that he did not linger in eating the olive-measure longer than this. But between one olive-measure and another, even if he lingered the entire day, everything joins together to make half a peras.

He raised an objection:

It was taught in a beraita:

All foods

that are impure

join together to disqualify

the

body [the body] from eating teruma, when he ate all of them together

as half a peras,

and

within

a time of

the time of eating a peras

[the version of the Rashash].

And we infer:

Is it not that he ate

the entire

half

of the

peras within the time of eating a peras?

And this is difficult for Shmuel, who said that he need only eat each olive-measure of it within the time of eating a peras?

And we answer:

No!

Rather, it is dealing with a case where he

ate

each

olive-measure by olive-measure

of the half-peras

within the time of eating a peras.

He raised an objection:

It was taught in a beraita:

a.

All foods

that are impure

join together to disqualify the body

when he ate of them

as half a peras within the time of eating a peras.

How so? He ate

and interrupted,

and then returned and ate; if from the beginning of the first eating until the end of the last eating there is the time of eating a peras, they join together. More than this, they do not join together 20 .

b.

They did not permit

a person who

eats less than the measure

of impure foods [so that he is not impure]

to descend and immerse!

And below it explains the reason.

c.

He descended and immersed

after eating less than the measure,

and emerged, and completed it 21 ,

he ate more [impure foods within the time of eating a peras] and completed the measure—

what

he ate in the last eating joins to disqualify him from teruma, since the immersion, while he was pure, accomplished nothing to purify him from eating the impure food in an amount less than the measure

. d.

They permitted her, the pregnant woman,

a pregnant woman,

to eat

impure foods

less than the measure,

and afterward to eat teruma [which is forbidden to everyone. Tosafot, s.v. “They permitted”]—

because of the danger.

e.

All liquids

that are impure

join together to disqualify the body.

When he drank from all of them together

as a quarter-log within the time of eating a peras,

that is, he did not linger longer than the time of eating a peras

. How so? He drank and then drank again; if from the beginning of the first drinking until the end of the last drinking there is the time of eating a peras, they join together. More than this, they do not join together.

f.

They permitted her,

a nursing woman who became impure through

contact,

who touched

one impure through a corpse, to nurse

her

son, and her son

remained

pure.

Thus far is the wording of the beraita. And below the Gemara explains all the words of the beraita.

And we conclude concerning the objection:

In any event, it teaches: If from the beginning of the first eating until the end of the last eating there is the time of eating a peras, it joins. More than this, it does not join. This is a refutation of Ravina’i,

for here it explicitly teaches that the entire eating must be within the time of eating a peras, and not merely each olive-measure and each olive-measure—

a refutation!

The Master said: They did not permit one who eats less than the measure to descend and immerse.

And we inquire about it:

What is he saying?

What difference does it make to us if he immerses?

And we answer:

Rav Yehuda said: This is what he is saying: If he ate less than the measure, they did not permit him to descend and immerse,

because

if he descended, immersed, emerged, and completed it, it joins

to disqualify him from teruma, since the immersion accomplished nothing.

And

if we permit him to immerse,

he may come to say: My first immersion was effective,

and I became pure from the first eating. And the second eating will no longer join with it, and I am permitted to eat teruma.

And

he

does not know that immersion

is effective

only at the end,

after the impurity has descended upon him, and not before that.

It teaches

in the beraita:

They permitted the pregnant woman to eat less than the measure

of impure foods

because of the danger 24 .

And we ask: If

because of the danger,

then

she may eat even a great deal as well?!

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: This is what it teaches: They permitted the pregnant woman to eat less than the measure

of impure foods and afterward to eat teruma [when she has no food other than teruma, Tosafot], and

even a great deal

many times, each time less than the measure [with a separation equal to the time of eating a peras]

because of the danger.

And it informs us that even though she is in danger, nevertheless she should not eat a complete measure at once if this is sufficient for her, as is established: one feeds him the lesser and lesser [prohibition]. [See Aviezer Fifth, chapter 2 of the Laws of Shabbat, halakha 2] .

It teaches: They permitted a woman impure through contact with one impure through a corpse to nurse her son, and her son is pure.

And we inquire about it:

Why

is her son

pure?

Granted, the fact that the son did not become impure through his mother’s contact is understandable, since the mother is only first-degree impurity [having touched one impure through a corpse, who is a primary source of impurity], and first-degree impurity does not impart impurity to a person or vessels. But this is difficult:

since he nursed

from

her milk,

and the milk is impure because of its contact with the mother, then

he should have become impure

the son

from

the

milk,

like the law of one who eats half a peras of impure foods, who is rabbinically disqualified from teruma [and this milk is considered food and not a liquid, as explained below] .

And if you would say: It was not rendered fit,

that the milk was not rendered fit to receive impurity, since mother’s milk that the infant nurses is considered food because it is the infant’s food [Rabbeinu Gershom; see Rashi], and its law is like that of any food, which does not contract impurity until it is rendered fit to receive impurity through water or another liquid being placed upon it. And since the milk was not rendered fit and is not impure, therefore the infant who nurses it remains pure.

It is impossible to say so, for

it was indeed rendered fit

the milk

by the dirty drop

that is

upon the nipple!

That is, the drop of milk with which the opening of the nipple is soiled has the status of a liquid, since that drop is not designated for the infant’s food. Therefore it renders fit all the milk issuing from the nipple through its contact with it, and afterward the milk that the infant nurses [which is considered food] from the mother becomes impure. If so, why should the infant not become impure like a person who eats impure food?

And we answer:

Rav Nahman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha:

What are we dealing with here? For example,

the infant nursed

the infant

in one forceful draught,

with force, so that all the milk entered his mouth at once, and

he left no dirty drop upon the nipple

that would render the milk fit.

Rava said: There are two answers to this: One, that we see the infant’s mouth full of milk,

and if so, it is impossible that at least one drop of the milk did not spill from it onto the nipple.

And furthermore,

for

the place

of the

milk—

it is considered a spring.

If a woman has the status of a menstruant, the milk issuing from her breasts imparts impurity like the springs of one with a flux [such as his spittle and urine], which impart impurity like the person with a flux himself. And since it has the status of a “spring,” it is certainly a liquid and not food [even the milk in the infant’s mouth]. Therefore it does not require being rendered fit to receive impurity [according to the explanation of the Shita Mekubetzet, note 24].

For we learned: A woman’s milk

[of a pure woman]

imparts impurity,

renders [food] fit to receive impurity [according to Rashi, Shabbat 143b, s.v. “and did we not learn”],

whether

the milk issued

willingly, whether

it issued

unwillingly.

And we explain:

“Unwillingly”—

what is it? That he does not desire it!

The infant did not wish to nurse.

And it teaches

that it

imparts impurity!

For although all liquids render [food] fit only when the beginning of their formation was willingly [such as rain, whose falling a person desired], nevertheless a woman’s milk renders [food] fit even unwillingly. Necessarily, this is because it is considered a spring, and anything that has the status of a spring takes precedence over other liquids, rendering [food] fit even unwillingly [Tosafot Yeshanim] .

And still it is difficult: why is her son pure? But the milk became impure from the mother and returns and renders her son impure, since he drank impure liquids?

Rather, said Rava: this is the reason that her son is pure

because of a double doubt.

For it is a doubt

whether

he suckled the measure

of impure liquids that disqualify a person from teruma, namely a revi'it,

and it is a doubt

perhaps

he did not suckle

the measure.

And if you should say that he suckled

the measure, still

it is a doubt

whether

they suckled within

the time of

eating a pras

, a doubt

perhaps

they suckled in more than the time of eating a pras 30 .

And we raise an objection:

And

if

according to Rava

he holds that

the place of milk is a spring

and the milk is a liquid,

and does not require preparation

to become susceptible to impurity?!

But did we not learn: the woman

who is a niddah,

from whose breasts milk dripped, and it fell

the milk

into an oven—

the

oven is impure.

And this is difficult for us: with what was

the milk made susceptible so that it could receive impurity from the woman and render the oven impure?

And Rabbi Yohanan said: with the drop soiled on the opening of the breast,

which makes the rest of the milk susceptible [to impurity].

And if the milk were a spring, why does it require preparation? But it has inherent impurity by virtue of the category of the discharges of a niddah! Rather, certainly it has the status of food, and it renders [the oven] impure only because it received impurity from the woman—and this is difficult for Rava?!

And if you would say that Rava does not hold like Rabbi Yohanan,

and according to him, indeed, the milk is a spring and does not require preparation.

But it was taught

explicitly that it is not a spring:

You therefore find that there are nine liquids in a zav

that

are: sweat, foul mucus, and feces

of his—

pure from everything!

For there is no impurity upon them whatsoever, since they are neither liquids [that convey impurity] nor springs.