Keritot 13aכריתות י״ג א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Keritot 13a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
13aי״ג א

אי אמרת בשלמא רבי מאיר לחומרא היינו דקתני עד שישהא עד דשהי דיליה כדי אכילת פרס

Granted, if you say that Rabbi Meir issued his ruling as a stringency, and that one is liable even if he ate the olive-bulk over a long period of time, this is the reason that the tanna teaches that the Rabbis say: Unless the amount of time he expends, meaning: Unless his expenditure of time is no more than the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread, he is exempt.

אלא אי אמרת ר' מאיר לקולא וחכ"א אם שהה מיבעי ליה אלא לאו ש"מ ר' מאיר לחומרא ש"מ

But if you say that Rabbi Meir issued his ruling as a leniency, meaning that if one interrupts in the middle of eating he is exempt, the tanna should have stated: And the Rabbis say: If he expended more than the time it takes to eat a half-loaf, he is exempt, which would indicate that if he expended less than this amount of time he is liable, even if he interrupted his eating in the middle. Rather, isn’t it correct to conclude from it that Rabbi Meir issued his ruling as a stringency? The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that this is correct.

אמר רבנאי אמר שמואל בחלבים ובנבילה עד שישהא מתחלה ועד סוף בכדי אכילת פרס אוכלים טמאים שקצים ורמשים ומשקין אפילו כל היום כולו בכדי אכילת פרס

§ Ravnai says that Shmuel says: With regard to forbidden fats and with regard to an unslaughtered animal carcass, one is liable for eating an olive-bulk even with interruptions unless the time he expends from beginning to end is more than the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis in the mishna. If he ate impure foods in the volume of a quarter-loaf of bread, or he ate repugnant creatures or creeping animals, or drank a quarter-log of impure liquids, he becomes impure and may not partake of teruma, even if consumption extended for the entire day, provided that they are eaten within the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread.

מאי קאמר אמר רב פפא הכי קאמר אפילו כל היום כולו והוא שאכל כזית בכדי אכילת פרס

The Gemara asks: What is Shmuel saying? Rav Pappa said that this is what he is saying: Even if he eats the quarter-loaf of food over the course of the entire day he becomes impure, but that is the halakha only where he ate each olive-bulk within the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread.

מיתיבי כל האוכלין מצטרפין לפסול הגוייה בכחצי פרס מאי לאו דאכליה לחצי פרס בכדי אכילת פרס לא דאכל כזית כזית בכדי אכילת פרס

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: All impure foods combine together to disqualify one’s body from eating teruma if he ate a quarter-loaf of the impure food. What, is this not referring to a case where he ate the quarter-loaf within the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread? The Gemara explains: No, it is referring to a case where he ate each olive-bulk within the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread, but he ate the full quarter-loaf in longer than that amount of time.

מיתיבי כל האוכלין מצטרפין לפסול את הגוייה בכחצי פרס בכדי אכילת פרס כיצד אכל וחזר ואכל אם יש מתחלת אכילה ראשונה ועד סוף אכילה אחרונה כדי אכילת פרס מצטרפין יותר מכאן אין מצטרפין

The Gemara raises an objection from another baraita: All impure foods combine to disqualify one’s body from eating teruma if he ate a quarter-loaf of the impure food within the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. How so? In a case where he ate and then ate again, if from the beginning of the first period of eating until the end of the last period of eating there is no more than the amount of time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread, they combine together. If the time spent eating is more than that, they do not combine together.

לא התירו לאכול פחות מכשיעור לירד ולטבול ירד וטבל ועלה והשלימו מצטרף התירו לה לעוברה לאכול פחות מכשיעור מפני הסכנה

The baraita continues: The Sages did not permit one who ate less than the minimum measure of impure foods, i.e., a quarter-loaf, to descend and to immerse in a ritual bath. If he descended, immersed, ascended, and then ate more impure food and thereby completed consumption of the full measure of a quarter-loaf, this second act combines with his previous consumption of impure food and renders the person unfit to consume teruma, despite the immersion in the interim. The Sages permitted a pregnant woman to eat less than the minimum measure due to the danger of her miscarrying.

כל המשקין מצטרפין לפסול את הגוייה ברביעית בכדי אכילת פרס כיצד שתה וחזר ושתה אם יש מתחלת שתיה ראשונה ועד סוף שתיה אחרונה כדי אכילת פרס מצטרפין יותר מכאן אין מצטרפין

All impure liquids combine to disqualify one’s body from eating teruma if one consumes a quarter-log within the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread.How so? In a case where he drank and then drank again, and in total he drank a quarter-log, if from the beginning of the first act of drinking until the end of the last act of drinking there is no more than the amount of time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread, they combine together. But if the period of drinking is more than that amount of time, they do not combine.

הותרו לה למגע טמא מת להניק בנה ובנה טהור

With regard to a woman who has the status of first-degree impurity because she came into contact with one who was impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, the Sages permitted her to nurse her child, and her child remains pure. If the child touches teruma he does not render it disqualified, despite having consumed milk that presumably became impure upon leaving the body of the mother. This concludes the baraita.

קתני מיהת אם יש מתחלת אכילה ראשונה ועד סוף אכילה בכדי אכילת פרס מצטרף תיובתא דרבנאי תיובתא

The Gemara explains its objection from the baraita: In any event, the baraita taught that if from the beginning of the first period of eating until the end of the last period of eating there is no more than the amount of time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread, they combine together. This apparently contradicts the opinion of Ravnai, who says that if one eats a quarter-loaf of impure food in total and ate each olive-bulk within the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread, his acts of eating combine together and he is disqualified from consuming teruma. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Ravnai is a conclusive refutation.

אמר מר לא התירו לו לאכול פחות מכשיעור לירד ולטבול מאי קאמר

§ The Gemara further discusses the baraita. The Master said above: The Sages did not permit one who ate less than the minimum measure of impure foods, i.e., a quarter-loaf, to descend and to immerse in a ritual bath. The Gemara asks: What is he saying; why is this prohibited?

אמר רב יהודה הכי קאמר אכל פחות מכשיעור לא התירו לו לירד ולטבול שאם ירד וטבל ועלה והשלימו מצטרף ואתי למימר אהני לי טבילה קמייתא ואין יודע שאין טבילה אלא באחרונה

Rav Yehuda said that this is what the tanna in the baraita is saying: If he ate less than the minimum measure that causes impurity, the Sages did not permit him to descend and immerse. As, if he would descend and immerse and ascend and eat more impure food and thereby complete the full measure of a quarter-loaf within the time it takes to eat a half-loaf, all the impure food he ate would combine together to disqualify him from eating teruma; and yet he might come to say: My first immersion following my first consumption of impure food was effective for me, and no additional immersion is required now that I ate merely another half-measure of impure food. But in fact, he does not know that immersion is effective in purifying him only at the end, and that if he now makes contact with teruma he will render it disqualified. Therefore, the Sages prohibited immersion in such a case to prevent one from reaching this erroneous conclusion.

קתני התירו לה לעוברה לאכול פחות מכשיעור מפני הסכנה מפני הסכנה אפילו טובא נמי תיכול אמר רב פפא הכי קתני הותרו לה לעוברה פחות מכשיעור אפילו טובא מפני הסכנה

The Gemara analyzes another statement from the baraita: It was taught that the Sages permitted a pregnant woman to eat less than the minimum measure due to the danger of her miscarrying. Under the assumption that she is permitted to eat only less than the measure but not a full measure, the Gemara objects: Since it is permitted for her due to the danger, let her even eat a lot, i.e., more than the measure. Rav Pappa said that this is what the baraita is teaching: They permitted a pregnant woman to eat less than the measure of an olive-bulk within the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread, even if she ultimately eats a lot in this manner, due to the danger of her miscarrying.

קתני התירו למגע טמא מת להניק את בנה ובנה טהור אמאי טהור כיון דיינק חלב איטמי ליה מחלב

The Gemara further discusses the baraita: It was taught that with regard to a woman who came in contact with one who was impure due to a corpse, the Sages permitted her to nurse her child, and her child remains pure and may therefore be fed teruma. The Gemara asks: Why is he pure? Once he nurses from the milk of his mother, he becomes impure from the milk.

וכי תימא לא איתכשר נתכשר בטיפה מלוכלכת על פי הדד אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה שינק בתקיפה אחת לא הניח טיפה מלוכלכת על פי הדד

And if you would say that the mother’s milk was not rendered susceptible to impurity because it never came into contact with a liquid, which is necessary in order to render a food item susceptible to impurity, that is not so, as it is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity due to the drop of milk that is smeared on the nipple. Since this drop is not consumed by the child, it attains the status of a liquid rather than a food, and it subsequently renders the rest of the milk that passes through the nipple susceptible to impurity. Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: The baraita is referring to a case where the child nursed with one strong suck, and therefore it did not leave a drop of milk smeared on the nipple.

אמר רבא שתי תשובות בדבר חדא דקחזינא לפומיה דינוקא דמלא חלב ועוד מקום חלב מעיין הוא

Rava said: There are two refutations of this statement: One is that we see that the mouth of the infant is filled with milk, which means that it is impossible for it to have sucked so powerfully that it immediately swallowed all the milk without leaving a drop on the nipple. And furthermore, the mother’s milk does not need to be rendered susceptible to impurity like other foods in order to become impure and transmit impurity. This is because the location from which the milk emerges is a spring, i.e., it has the same status as the woman’s body. Therefore, if the woman is impure, her milk is also impure.

דקתני חלב אשה מטמא בין לרצון ובין שלא לרצון בהמה אינה מטמא אלא לרצון

Rava elaborates: As a mishna (Makhshirin 6:8) teaches: A woman’s milk renders food with which it comes into contact susceptible to impurity, whether it emerges to the satisfaction of the infant or not to its satisfaction. By contrast, the milk of an animal renders food susceptible to impurity only if it emerges to the satisfaction of the animal’s owner.

מאי לאו שלא לרצון דלא ניחא ליה וקתני מטמא

What, is it not correct to say that when the mishna states that the milk emerged not to the satisfaction of the infant, it means that the milk is not amenable to him at that time, and yet the mishna teaches that it renders food susceptible to impurity? Since liquids generally render foods susceptible to impurity only if they come in contact with the food with the owner’s approval, it is clear that a woman’s milk has a different status than other foods or liquids. This means that it need not come into contact with a liquid in order to become impure or to impart impurity to another item. The question therefore remains: Why does the child remain pure when he drinks this impure liquid?

אלא אמר רבא היינו טעמא דבנה טהור דספק ינק כשיעור וספק לא ינק ואם תמצא לומר ינק ספק ינקו באכילת פרס ספק ינקו ביותר מכדי אכילת פרס

Rather, Rava said that this is the reason that her child remains pure: The reason is that it is uncertain whether it nursed the measure of milk necessary to disqualify it from consuming teruma, or whether it did not nurse a sufficient amount of milk. And even if you say that it nursed a sufficient amount of milk, it is still uncertain whether it nursed the required amount of milk within the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread, or whether it nursed that amount in more than the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread and therefore is not disqualified from consuming teruma.

ולרבא מקום חלב מעיין הוא ולא צריך הכשר

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rava, is it correct that the location from which the milk emerges is considered like a spring, and therefore if the woman is impure the milk is also impure, and it does not need to be rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by contact with a liquid?

והתנן האשה שנטף חלב מדדיה ונפל לאויר תנור תנור טמא וקשיא לן במאי איתכשר ואמר רבי יוחנן בטיפה מלוכלכת ע"פ הדד

But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Kelim 8:11): In the case of a menstruating woman who had milk dripping from her nipples, and it fell into the airspace of an oven, the oven becomes impure. And this poses a difficulty for us: In what way was the milk rendered susceptible to impurity, such that it can become impure or render the oven impure? And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It was rendered susceptible by the drop of milk smeared on the nipple. Apparently, Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that a woman’s milk must be rendered susceptible in order to contract impurity.

וכי תימא רבא לא סבר לה כר' יוחנן והתניא נמצאת אתה אומר תשעה משקין בזוב הזיעה וליחה סרוחה וריעי טהורין מכולם דמעת עינו ודם מגפתו

And if you would say that Rava does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, as one amora is permitted to disagree with another, but isn’t it taught in a baraita: You are found saying that there are nine liquids with regard to a zav: The sweat, ill-smelling pus, and liquid excrement are more pure than all of them, i.e., they do not become impure and do not render other items susceptible to impurity. The tears that emerge from his eye, and the blood that emerges from his wound,