Keritot 13a (יג.) — the Talmud in English

Granted, if you say

that

Rabbi Meir is stringent,

as he holds one liable when he consumes more than the time required to eat a peras,

this is what is meant by

the statement of the Sages,

“until he lingers,”

which implies that he is never liable if he lingers for more than the time required to eat a peras, as Rabbi Meir holds, but

until his lingering,

meaning that his lingering should be only

for the time required to eat a peras.

But if you say

that

Rabbi Meir is lenient,

then

“and the Sages say: If he lingered”—

it should have said

that this means that they came to say that even if he interrupted his eating midway, the amounts join together if he lingered only for the time required to eat a peras, contrary to the lenient position of Rabbi Meir, who holds that they do not join if he interrupted his eating.

Rather, is it not evident from here that Rabbi Meir is stringent?

And we conclude:

Indeed, learn from it!

Ravina'i said in the name of Shmuel: In the case of forbidden fats and an unslaughtered animal,

two half-olive-bulk portions do not join together to render one liable for lashes

unless he lingers from beginning to end

no longer than

the time required to eat a peras.

But with regard to ritual impurity of the body, through eating a half-peras of

impure foods,

or drinking a quarter-log of

impure liquids,

even

if he ate or drank them

throughout the entire day,

they join together

within the time required to eat a peras

to render the body of the person who eats or drinks them impure, so that he is prohibited from eating teruma.

And we explain:

What is Shmuel saying?

For with regard to ritual impurity of the body, he stated two contradictory things, since “throughout the entire day” is certainly longer than the time required to eat a peras.

Rav Pappa said: This is what he is saying: Even

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

throughout the entire day,

his body becomes disqualified from eating teruma.

But this is when he ate

[or drank] every

olive-bulk

of it

within the time required to eat a peras,

so that he did not take longer than this to eat each olive-bulk. But between one olive-bulk and the next, even if he lingered throughout the entire day, everything joins together to constitute a half-peras.

The following objection was raised:

It was taught in a beraita:

All

the impure

foods join together to disqualify

the

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

as half a peras

and

within

the time of

eating a peras [the version of the Rashash].

[the version of the Rashash].

And we analyze this:

Is it not referring to one who ate the

entire

half

of the

peras within the time required to eat a peras?

But this is difficult for Shmuel, who said that it is necessary only to eat each olive-bulk of it within the time required to eat a peras.

And we answer:

No!

Rather, it is referring to one

who ate

each

olive-bulk by olive-bulk

of the half-peras

within the time required to eat a peras.

The following objection was raised:

It was taught in a beraita:

a.

All

the impure

foods join together to disqualify the body

when he ate of them

half a peras within the time required to eat a peras.

How so? If he ate

and interrupted,

and then resumed eating: If from the beginning of the first eating until the end of the last eating there was the time required to eat a peras, they join together. If more than this time elapsed, they do not join together. 20 .

b.

They did not permit

a person

who eats less than the measure

of impure foods [who is not impure]

to descend and immerse!

The reason is explained below.

c.

He descended and immersed

after eating less than the measure,

and emerged and completed it 21 ,

that is, he ate more [impure foods within the time required to eat a peras] and completed the measure—

what he ate during the last eating

joins together to disqualify him from eating teruma, since the immersion, performed while he was pure, accomplished nothing in purifying him from the consumption of impure food in an amount less than the measure .

d.

They permitted a pregnant woman

a pregnant woman

to eat

impure foods

in an amount less than the measure,

and afterward to eat teruma [which is prohibited to everyone in such circumstances; Tosafot, s.v. hitiru]—

because of the danger.

e.

All

the impure

liquids join together to disqualify the body.

When he drank from all of them together

in the measure of a quarter-log within the time required to eat a peras,

that is, he did not linger longer than the time required to eat a peras .

How so? If he drank and then drank again: If from the beginning of the first drinking until the end of the last drinking there was the time required to eat a peras, they join together. If more than this time elapsed, they do not join together.

vi.

They permitted a

nursing woman who became impure through

contact,

who touched a

person impure through contact with a corpse, to nurse

her

son, and her son

remained

pure.

This concludes the wording of the beraita. Below, the Gemara explains every statement of the beraita.

And we conclude the objection:

In any event, it is taught: If from the beginning of the first eating until the end of the last eating there was the time required to eat a peras, they join together. If more than this time elapsed, they do not join together. This is a refutation of Ravina'i,

for here it is explicitly taught that the entire eating must take place within the time required to eat a peras, and not merely that each olive-bulk must be eaten within that period—

a refutation!

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

We inquire about this:

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 one ate less than the measure, they did not permit him to descend and immerse,

because

if he descended, immersed, emerged, and completed it, the amounts join together

to disqualify him from eating 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. The second eating will therefore not join with it, and I am permitted to eat teruma.

But

he

does not know that immersion is effective

only

at the end,

after impurity has descended upon him, and not beforehand.

It is taught

in the beraita:

They permitted a pregnant woman to eat less than the measure

of impure foods

because of the danger. 24 .

And we ask:

If it is because of the danger,

then

she should even be permitted to eat a great deal!

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: This is what it teaches: They permitted a 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],

even a great deal

many times, each time less than the measure [with an interval of the time required to eat a peras]

because of the danger.

And it teaches us that although she is in danger, nevertheless she should not eat a full measure at once if less is sufficient for her, in accordance with the established principle that one feeds a person the less severe option first. [See Aviazer the Fifth, Laws of Shabbat, chapter 2, halakha 2] .

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

We inquire about this:

Why

is her son

pure?

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

Since he nurses

from his mother's

milk,

and the milk is impure because it came into contact with the mother, then

he should become impure

the son

from

the

milk,

as is the law of one who eats half a peras of impure foods, through which he is disqualified by rabbinic decree from eating teruma [and this milk is considered food rather than a liquid, as explained below] .

And if you would say that it was not rendered susceptible,

that the milk was not rendered susceptible to contracting impurity—since breast milk nursed by an infant is considered food, because it is the infant's nourishment [Rabbeinu Gershom; see also Rashi], and its law is like that of any food, which does not contract impurity until it has been rendered susceptible to impurity through water or another liquid being placed upon it—then, since the milk was not rendered susceptible and is not impure, the infant who nurses it remains pure.

This cannot be said. For

it was indeed rendered susceptible

the milk

by the soiled drop

that is

on the nipple!

That is, the drop of milk with which the nipple is soiled has the status of a liquid, since that drop is not intended as food for the infant. Therefore, it renders all the milk issuing from the nipple susceptible through contact with it, after which 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 Rabba bar Avuha:

What are we dealing with here? It is a case, for example,

where the infant nursed

the milk

in one forceful draw,

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

he did not leave a soiled drop on the nipple

that could render the milk susceptible.

Rava said: There are two refutations of this: First, I see that the infant's mouth is filled with milk,

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

Furthermore,

the

place

of the

milk—

it is considered a spring.

For if the woman has the status of a zava, the milk issuing from her breasts imparts impurity like the flows of a man with a gonorrheal discharge [such as his saliva and urine], which impart impurity like the zav himself. Since the milk has the status of a “flow,” it is certainly a liquid rather than food [even the milk in the infant's mouth], and therefore it does not require being rendered susceptible to impurity [based on the Shita Mekubetzet, note 24].

As we learned: A woman's milk

[when she is pure]

imparts impurity

and renders objects susceptible to contracting impurity [based on Rashi, Shabbat 143b, s.v. vehatanan],

whether

the milk issued

with

desire or issued

without desire.

And we explain:

“Without desire”—

what does this mean? That she does not want it!

The infant did not want to nurse.

And it teaches

that it

imparts impurity!

Although all liquids render objects susceptible only when their initial formation was with desire [for example, rainwater, when a person desired its falling], nevertheless, a woman's milk renders objects susceptible even without desire. Necessarily, this is because it is considered a flow, and anything that has the status of a flow takes precedence over other liquids, rendering objects susceptible even without desire [Tosafot Yeshanim] .

And still, why is her son pure? After all, the milk became impure through the mother and then renders her son impure, since he drank impure liquids?

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

because of a compound uncertainty.

For it is uncertain

whether

he nursed the requisite amount

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

and it is uncertain

perhaps

he did not nurse

the requisite amount.

And even if you say that he nursed

the requisite amount, it is still

uncertain

whether

they nursed within

the time of

eating a pras

, or perhaps

they

nursed over a period longer than the time of eating a pras 30 .

And we challenge this:

But

if

Rava

holds that

the place of milk is a spring,

and the milk is considered a liquid,

it does not require susceptibility

to receive ritual impurity?!

And yet we learned: A woman

who is a menstruant,

from whose breasts milk dripped and fell

the milk

into the airspace of an oven—

the

oven becomes impure.

And we find this difficult: By what was the milk rendered susceptible

to receive impurity from the woman and render the oven impure?

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

which renders the rest of the milk susceptible .

And if the milk were a spring, why would it require susceptibility? After all, it has intrinsic impurity by virtue of the laws of the menstrual springs. Rather, it certainly has the status of food and becomes impure only because it received impurity from the woman; and this is difficult for Rava?!

And if you would say that Rava does not agree with Rabbi Yohanan,

and according to him the milk is indeed a spring and does not require susceptibility—

but it is explicitly taught

that it is not a spring:

You thereby find that there are nine liquids in a zav

that are:

sweat, foul mucus, and his excrement

—

entirely pure!

For no impurity applies to them, since they are neither liquids nor springs.