כריתות 13 — Soncino English Talmud

¹Now, if you say that R. Meir's view is in the direction of stringency, it is right that it reads: HE MUST TAKE . . . NO MORE, meaning that he is not liable unless he takes no more time than is required for the eating of a peras; but if you say R. Meir's view is in the direction of leniency, it should have read ‘But the Rabbis say: If he has taken as much time as is required . . .’. It is thus proved that R. Meir's view is in the direction of stringency. It is indeed proved. Said Rabanai in the name of Samuel: For heleb and nebelah he must take from the beginning to the end [of the meal] no more time than is required for the eating of a peras; for unclean food, reptiles and unclean drinks, he may take even the whole day, as much as is required for the eating of a peras. What does this mean? — Said R. Papa, thus: Even the whole day so long as he ate an olive-size within the time required for the eating of a peras. An objection was raised: All kinds of food combine one with the other to half a peras to render the body unfit. Now does this not mean that he has to eat the half-peras within the time required for the eating of a peras? — No, he has to eat an olive-size within the time required for a peras. An objection was raised: All kinds of food combine one with the other to a half-peras, consumed within the time required for a peras, in order to render the body unfit. How is this? If he ate and then ate again, if from the beginning of the first meal to the end of the last no more time has passed than is required for the eating of a peras, they combine with one another; if more they do not combine. It is not permitted to one who ate less than the requisite quantity to immerse; if he did immerse and then ate the complementary quantity to the standard size, the meals combine one with the other. A pregnant woman is permitted to eat a quantity smaller than the standard size, because of her serious position. All kinds of beverage combine one with the other to a quarter [of a log], consumed within the time required for the eating of a peras, in order to render the body unfit. How is this? If he drank and then drank again, if from the beginning of the first drink to the end of the last no more time has passed than is required for the eating of a peras, they combine with one another; if more they do not. [She] who has been in contact with one unclean by a dead body is permitted to nurse her baby, and the baby remains clean. It states at all events, ‘If from the beginning of the first meal to the end of the last no more time has passed than is required for the eating of a peras, they combine with one another’. Is this not in contradiction to Rabanai's statement? — Indeed it is. The Master says: ‘It is not permitted to one who ate less than the requisite quantity to immerse’. What does this mean? — Said Rab Judah: This is what it means: If one ate less than the requisite quantity, he is not permitted to immerse, for if he should eat afterwards the complementary quantity, which combines with the first, he might assume that the preceding immersion is of avail, not knowing that an immersion is valid only at the end. It is stated, ‘A pregnant woman is permitted to eat a quantity smaller than the standard size, because of her serious position’. If by reason of her serious position, she should be permitted to eat even more! — Said R. Papa: Read thus, A pregnant woman is permitted to eat even more, yet in quantities smaller than the standard size, because of her serious position. It says, ‘[She] who has been in contact with one unclean by a dead body is permitted to nurse her baby, and the baby remains clean.’ Why is it clean? Since it has sucked in milk it should be unclean through the milk. And should you say it was not prepared, [I would reply,] It is prepared by the drop which moistens the nipple! — Answered R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: It sucked with great pull so that no drop was formed to moisten the nipple. Said Raba: l have two objections to raise: firstly we see that a child's mouth is filled with milk, and then, the milk-source has the status of a ‘well’, as we have learnt: The milk of a woman renders things unclean whether [it was drawn] purposely or unintentionally, while the milk of a cow renders things unclean only when brought forth intentionally. Now does not ‘unintentionally’ mean that the child has no pleasure in it; and yet it says that it renders things unclean! — Rather said Raba: The reason why the child remains clean is that it is doubtful whether it has sucked in the requisite quantity or not; and even if it did, it is still doubtful whether it was done within the time required for the eating of a peras or during a longer period. But how can Raba maintain that the milk-source has the status of a ‘well’? Have we not learnt: If milk drips from the breast of a [menstruant] woman and falls upon an oven, the oven is unclean? Whereupon it was asked, wherewith has the milk become ‘prepared’ for uncleanness? and R. Johanan replied: By the drop with which the nipple is moistened. And if you say that Raba disagrees with R. Johanan, has it not been taught: ‘It is thus found that there are nine kinds of liquids of a gonorrhea-ridden person: sweat, ill-smelling discharge and secretion, are altogether clean; the tears of his eyes, the blood of his wound^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ

^ᵃnote:I.e., the time-limit suggested by R. Meir is less than that laid down by the Rabbis, so that the Rabbis in their retort to R. Meir demand a prolongation of the time-limit.
^ᵇnote:V. Glos.
^ᶜnote:E.g., if he ate two half olive-sizes of heleb.
^ᵈnote:Half a peras or a quarter of a log respectively renders him who ate it unfit to eat sacred food.
^ᵉnote:I.e., each olive-size of the standard quantity of half a peras has been eaten within the time required for a peras.
^ᶠnote:Me'il. 17b.
^ᵍnote:This is soon explained.
^ʰnote:I.e., unclean food; v. Tosaf.
^ⁱnote:Rabanai's view is thus refuted.
^ʲnote:Why should he not be permitted to immerse, even though the immersion is in vain?
^ᵏnote:For it is permitted to break the law of the Torah in the case of danger to life.
^ˡnote:The milk is unclean of the second degree; it is therefore not capable of rendering persons unclean through contact, but he who drinks thereof a half-peras is unfit to partake of sacred food.
^ᵐnote:All foodstuffs must be ‘prepared’, i.e., rendered fit for uncleanness, by being moistened with certain liquids. The milk coming from the body is considered foodstuff, and in the absence of such preparation should be clean.
^ⁿnote:The drop with which the nipple is moistened is not regarded as food, since it is not destined to be consumed, and can therefore act as a liquid to ‘prepare’ the rest of the milk for uncleanness.
^ᵒnote:One drop at least must have adhered to the nipple.
^ᵖnote:The milk has not the status of ordinary food or drink, but that of a secretion from the body, and forms part thereof. When the body is unclean, the milk is ipso facto unclean too. No ‘preparation’ is thus necessary. ‘Well’ means here a secreting organ.
^ᵠnote:Maksh. VI, 8. Things are regarded as ‘prepared’ for uncleanness by being moistened with a liquid only if the moistening was to the satisfaction of the owner or worker.
^ʳnote:As we learn here that the milk of a woman is unclean and conveys its uncleanness to other things even if it came forth not to the satisfaction of the owner or worker (here the child), it cannot bear the status of ordinary food that requires ‘preparation’. It must thus possess the character of a secretion from the body.
^ˢnote:Kel. VIII, 11.
^ᵗnote:We thus see that in contradiction to Raba ‘preparation’ is needed.
^ᵘnote:Such as pus.
^ᵛnote:They do not cause uncleanness through contact.

²and the milk of a woman, in the quantity of a fourth of a log contract uncleanness as a liquid; saliva, flux and urine contract the more severe uncleanness in the smallest quantity’? Now, if it was true, as you say, that the milk-source has the status of a ‘well’, milk too should contract the more severe uncleanness in the smallest quantity, like flux and saliva. It is thus proved that the milk-source of a woman has not the status of a ‘well’. But, then, what of the contradiction between this Baraitha and [the Mishnah quoted by] Raba [that the milk of a woman] ‘renders things unclean whether drawn purposely or unintentionally’? — Do you indeed think, as has hitherto been assumed, that ‘unintentionally’ means that the child had no pleasure in it? No, ‘unintentionally’ means ‘generally’, for it is accepted that the child has its mind upon the milk; but if the child indicates that he has no pleasure in it, it is indeed clean. IF ONE EATS UNCLEAN EDIBLES etc. Why is it conditional upon the elapse of a certain time, as it reads, IF . . . TIME HAS ELAPSED? — Said Rab Judah: Thus it is to be understood: If one eats unclean edibles or drinks unclean drinks, or if [a priest] drinks a quarter of a log of wine, spending thereon the time required for the eating of a peras, and then enters the Temple precincts, he is guilty. R. ELEAZAR SAYS etc. Our Rabbis taught: Drink no wine nor strong drink; I might think any quantity, and even if taken from the vat, therefore the text states ‘strong drink’; he is guilty only if the quantity suffices to make him drunk. Which is the quantity capable of causing intoxication? A fourth of a log of wine of forty days’ standing. Why then has ‘wine’ been mentioned? To tell you that one is cautioned in regard to the smallest quantity, and one is cautioned also in regard to [wine] drawn from the vat. R. Judah says: It reads ‘wine’; from here we know only ‘wine’, whence do we know other intoxicating drinks? It therefore reads ‘and strong drink’. If so, why has ‘wine’ been stated? Wine involves the death penalty, other drinks involve only [the disregard of] a warning. R. Eleazar says: Drink no wine and [drink no] strong drink: Drink it not in the manner which causes intoxication; if, however, he interrupts or dilutes it with any quantity of water, he is not guilty. Wherein do they differ? — The first Tanna holds: We draw an inference from the nazirite by the common expression ‘strong drink’; R. Judah does not hold this inference; while R. Eleazar holds that what ‘strong drink’ implies is something intoxicating. With whom does the following dictum comply: ‘If one eats pressed figs from Keilah, or drinks honey or milk, and then enters the Sanctuary and performs the Temple service, he is liable to lashes’? With R. Judah. Said R. Judah son of Ahotai: The halachah is in accordance with R. Eleazar. Also Rab spoke of R. Eleazar as the most distinguished of the Sages. R. Aha of Huzal had a vow in regard to his wife. He came before R. Ashi. Said the latter to him: Go now and come back to-morrow, for Rab appointed no interpreter from the commencement of the festival till the end of the following day, on account of intoxication. Replied the former: But did not Rab say, The halachah is according to R. Eleazar, while you dilute your wine with water? — Said he, There is no difficulty: his saying refers to a fourth of a log exactly, while I had more than a fourth. Our Rabbis have taught: And that ye may put difference between the holy and the common, refers to vows of worth, or vows of valuation, or to things devoted or consecrated; between the unclean and the clean refers to the laws of uncleanness and purity; that ye may teach refers to decisions [concerning forbidden things]; all the statutes refers to the expositions of the Law; which the Lord hath spoken refers to traditions passed on [from Sinai]; by the hand of Moses refers to the Gemara. I might include also the Mishnah,therefore it reads ‘that ye may teach’. R. Jose b. Judah says: I might include also the Gemara, therefore it reads, ‘that ye may teach’. According to whom is that which has been taught: ‘Excluded is the decision that a [dead] reptile is unclean and a [dead] frog clean, which may be given also by one who is intoxicated with wine’? May we assume that it conforms with R. Jose b. Judah's view and not with that of the Rabbis? — No, it may conform also with the view of the Rabbis, but this problem is so simple that one may say, go read it at school. Said Rab: The halachah is in accordance with R. Jose b. Judah. But surely Rab did not appoint an interpreter from the commencement of a festival to the end of the following day on account of intoxication? — Different it is with Rab who gave also decisions: But then why not appoint the interpreter and lay down the rule that no decisions be given? — Where Rab sat it was impossible to avoid giving decisions. MISHNAH. ONE MAY BY ONE ACT OF EATING BECOME LIABLE TO FOUR SIN-OFFERINGS AND ONE GUILT-OFFERING; VIZ., IF ANY UNCLEAN PERSON EATS HELEB WHICH WAS AT THE SAME TIME THE NOTHAR OF AN OFFERING, AND [IT WAS ON] THE DAY OF ATONEMENT. R. MEIR SAYS: IF IT WAS THE SABBATH AND HE CARRIED IT OUT [OF PRIVATE POSSESSION], HE IS LIABLE [TO YET ANOTHER SIN-OFFERING]. BUT THEY SAID TO HIM: THIS IS OF A DIFFERENT DENOMINATION.32^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ

^ʷnote:I.e., to convey uncleanness only to food and liquids.
^ˣnote:I.e., to defile human beings and vessels.
^ʸnote:If we say that the milk is unclean even when brought forth against the child's interest in contradiction to the laws ruling the ‘preparation’ for uncleanliness of liquids, we are obliged to infer therefrom that the milk has the status of a ‘well’ and not of a liquid. The right interpretation is, however, that even when the child does not express its pleasure at the bringing forth of the milk, it is unclean, for it is assumed that it is nevertheless done to its satisfaction.
^ᶻnote:The condition concerning the time is mentioned in the Mishnah text after the entering of the Sanctuary. It is therefore assumed that it implies that it is necessary for the priest to stay in the Temple precincts for a time required for the eating of a peras. This is, of course, against the accepted law.
^ᵃᵃnote:Lev. X, 9 with reference to priests.
^ᵃᵇnote:I.e., before the fermentation is completed.
^ᵃᶜnote:The literal translation of rfa ‘strong drink’ is ‘intoxicating drink’.
^ᵃᵈnote:But not punishable with death. ‘Death’ here denotes death at the hands of Heaven.
^ᵃᵉnote:A textual analogy is drawn on the basis of the word ‘strong drink’ which occurs in connection with the priest, Lev. X, 9 and the nazirite, Num. VI, 3, where the produce of the vine only is prohibited.
^ᵃᶠnote:In Judea; v. I Sam. XXIII, 1.
^ᵃᵍnote:In Naz. 4a this dictum is explicitly mentioned in the name of R. Judah.
^ᵃʰnote:He vowed not to derive any benefit from her.
^ᵃⁱnote:To ask for the absolution of the vow.
^ᵃʲnote:The interpreter's task was to expound at length that which the Tanna taught in brief; v. Glos. s.v. Amora.
^ᵃᵏnote:I.e., from the termination of the first meal on the eve of the festival to the end of the following day. His meals on holy days were accompanied by wine, and Rab therefore refused to give any legal decision. R. Aha appeared before R. Ashi on a festival.
^ᵃˡnote:Who holds only pure wine is prohibited.
^ᵃᵐnote:Lev. X, 10. This passage follows immediately upon the prohibition for the priest to drink wine. It is therefore assumed to imply that to give a decision in a state of intoxication is forbidden.
^ᵃⁿnote:V. ‘Ar. 2a.
^ᵃᵒnote:Lit., excommunicated’; i.e., a form of renouncing one's rights upon property and assigning it for the use of the Temple or the priests.
^ᵃᵖnote:I.e., all the valuations in connection therewith must not be undertaken in a state of intoxication.
^ᵃᵠnote:Ibid. 11.
^ᵃʳnote:Or, that ye may decide. As the Mishnah does not always contain the last word of the law, decisions are based upon the discussions in the Gemara rather than the Mishnah.
^ᵃˢnote:Viz., the study of the Talmud. Only the actual giving of judgment in a state of intoxication is punishable, but not the mere preoccupation with the law.
^ᵃᵗnote:These decisions are so obvious, being explicitly mentioned in the Torah, that an error is not feared.
^ᵃᵘnote:I.e., even youngsters who study only the Pentateuch should know it; v. Sanh. 33b.
^ᵃᵛnote:Viz., that to study in a state of intoxication is permitted.
^ᵃʷnote:This proves that even to lecture on the law is forbidden.
^ᵃˣnote:Rab was an authority recognised everywhere, and questions came before him at all times.
^ᵃʸnote:He is liable to a sin-offering each for eating sacred food in a state of uncleanness, for eating keleb, for eating nothar and for partaking of food on the Day of Atonement. The guilt-offering is to atone for the sacrilegious use of Temple property. Nothar is the portion of a sacrifice left over beyond the prescribed time, which has to be burnt.
^ᵃᶻnote:Viz. , in his mouth.
^ᵇᵃnote:To carry on the Sabbath from private property to the public thoroughfare or vice versa is subject to an offering.
^ᵇᵇnote:The transgression is not caused by eating.