Keritot

Now, if you say that R. Meir's view is in the direction of stringency,1 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 nebelah2 he must take from the beginning to the end [of the meal]3 no more time than is required for the eating of a peras; for unclean food, reptiles and unclean drinks,4 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. 5 An objection was raised: All kinds of food combine one with the other to half a peras to render the body unfit.6 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;7 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 quantity8 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. 9 The Master says: ‘It is not permitted to one who ate less than the requisite quantity to immerse’. What does this mean?10 — 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!11 — 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.12 And should you say it was not prepared,13 [I would reply,] It is prepared by the drop which moistens the nipple!14 — 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,15 and then, the milk-source has the status of a ‘well’,16 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.17 Now does not ‘unintentionally’ mean that the child has no pleasure in it; and yet it says that it renders things unclean!18 — 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?19 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.20 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 discharge21 and secretion, are altogether clean;22 the tears of his eyes, the blood of his wound R. Meir demand a prolongation of the time-limit. but he who drinks thereof a half-peras is unfit to partake of sacred food. milk coming from the body is considered foodstuff, and in the absence of such preparation should be clean. can therefore act as a liquid to ‘prepare’ the rest of the milk for uncleanness. When the body is unclean, the milk is ipso facto unclean too. No ‘preparation’ is thus necessary. ‘Well’ means here a secreting organ. moistening was to the satisfaction of the owner or worker. 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.