Keritot

and the milk of a woman, in the quantity of a fourth of a log contract uncleanness as a liquid;1 saliva, flux and urine contract the more severe uncleanness2 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’?3 — 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,4 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;5 I might think any quantity, and even if taken from the vat,6 therefore the text states ‘strong drink’; he is guilty only if the quantity suffices to make him drunk.7 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.8 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’;9 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,10 or drinks honey or milk, and then enters the Sanctuary and performs the Temple service, he is liable to lashes’? With R. Judah.11 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.12 He came before R. Ashi.13 Said the latter to him: Go now and come back to-morrow, for Rab appointed no interpreter14 from the commencement of the festival till the end of the following day,15 on account of intoxication. Replied the former: But did not Rab say, The halachah is according to R. Eleazar,16 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,17 refers to vows of worth, or vows of valuation,18 or to things devoted19 or consecrated;20 between the unclean and the clean17 refers to the laws of uncleanness and purity; that ye may teach21 refers to decisions [concerning forbidden things]; all the statutes21 refers to the expositions of the Law; which the Lord hath spoken21 refers to traditions passed on [from Sinai]; by the hand of Moses21 refers to the Gemara. I might include also the Mishnah,therefore it reads ‘that ye may teach’.22 R. Jose b. Judah says: I might include also the Gemara,23 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,24 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.25 Said Rab: The halachah is in accordance with R. Jose b. Judah.26 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?27 — 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.28 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.29 R. MEIR SAYS: IF IT WAS THE SABBATH AND HE CARRIED IT OUT30 [OF PRIVATE POSSESSION], HE IS LIABLE [TO YET ANOTHER SIN-OFFERING].31 BUT THEY SAID TO HIM: THIS IS OF A DIFFERENT DENOMINATION.32 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. 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. X, 9 and the nazirite, Num. VI, 3, where the produce of the vine only is prohibited. holy days were accompanied by wine, and Rab therefore refused to give any legal decision. R. Aha appeared before R. Ashi on a festival. assumed to imply that to give a decision in a state of intoxication is forbidden. Temple or the priests. the discussions in the Gemara rather than the Mishnah. mere preoccupation with the law. 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.