Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 3, 2019 | 讙壮 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讟

  • This month is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross z'l, on his 1st yahrzeit

Keritot 13

If one eats two half olive bulks, what is the time frame in which they will be considered combined in order to obligate? Is it different from one who eats impure foods/drink and is then considered having second degree impurity? The rabbis didn’t allow one who ate less than a shiur (regarding impurity) to go to the mikveh – why? They allowed a pregnant woman to eat less than a shiur out of danger – what is the case and why not more than that? The rabbis allowed a nursing mother with first degree impurity to nurse her child without the child becoming impure – why? What is the status of breastmilk of an impure woman – is it like a flow (more severe impurity) or not? A priest who has drunk can’t come into the temple – what are the details of this prohibition?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讞讜诪专讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 注讚 砖讬砖讛讗 注讚 讚砖讛讬 讚讬诇讬讛 讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住


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.


讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇拽讜诇讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗诐 砖讛讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讞讜诪专讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


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鈥檛 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.


讗诪专 专讘谞讗讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讞诇讘讬诐 讜讘谞讘讬诇讛 注讚 砖讬砖讛讗 诪转讞诇讛 讜注讚 住讜祝 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讟诪讗讬诐 砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 讜诪砖拽讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住


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.


诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 讜讛讜讗 砖讗讻诇 讻讝讬转 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住


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.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讻诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇驻住讜诇 讛讙讜讬讬讛 讘讻讞爪讬 驻专住 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗讻诇讬讛 诇讞爪讬 驻专住 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 诇讗 讚讗讻诇 讻讝讬转 讻讝讬转 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住


The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: All impure foods combine together to disqualify one鈥檚 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.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讻诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇驻住讜诇 讗转 讛讙讜讬讬讛 讘讻讞爪讬 驻专住 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 讻讬爪讚 讗讻诇 讜讞讝专 讜讗讻诇 讗诐 讬砖 诪转讞诇转 讗讻讬诇讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜注讚 住讜祝 讗讻讬诇讛 讗讞专讜谞讛 讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讬讜转专 诪讻讗谉 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉


The Gemara raises an objection from another baraita: All impure foods combine to disqualify one鈥檚 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.


诇讗 讛转讬专讜 诇讗讻讜诇 驻讞讜转 诪讻砖讬注讜专 诇讬专讚 讜诇讟讘讜诇 讬专讚 讜讟讘诇 讜注诇讛 讜讛砖诇讬诪讜 诪爪讟专祝 讛转讬专讜 诇讛 诇注讜讘专讛 诇讗讻讜诇 驻讞讜转 诪讻砖讬注讜专 诪驻谞讬 讛住讻谞讛


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.


讻诇 讛诪砖拽讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇驻住讜诇 讗转 讛讙讜讬讬讛 讘专讘讬注讬转 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 讻讬爪讚 砖转讛 讜讞讝专 讜砖转讛 讗诐 讬砖 诪转讞诇转 砖转讬讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜注讚 住讜祝 砖转讬讛 讗讞专讜谞讛 讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讬讜转专 诪讻讗谉 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉


All impure liquids combine to disqualify one鈥檚 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.


讛讜转专讜 诇讛 诇诪讙注 讟诪讗 诪转 诇讛谞讬拽 讘谞讛 讜讘谞讛 讟讛讜专


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.


拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讗诐 讬砖 诪转讞诇转 讗讻讬诇讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜注讚 住讜祝 讗讻讬诇讛 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 诪爪讟专祝 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘谞讗讬 转讬讜讘转讗


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.


讗诪专 诪专 诇讗 讛转讬专讜 诇讜 诇讗讻讜诇 驻讞讜转 诪讻砖讬注讜专 诇讬专讚 讜诇讟讘讜诇 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专


搂 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?


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讻诇 驻讞讜转 诪讻砖讬注讜专 诇讗 讛转讬专讜 诇讜 诇讬专讚 讜诇讟讘讜诇 砖讗诐 讬专讚 讜讟讘诇 讜注诇讛 讜讛砖诇讬诪讜 诪爪讟专祝 讜讗转讬 诇诪讬诪专 讗讛谞讬 诇讬 讟讘讬诇讛 拽诪讬讬转讗 讜讗讬谉 讬讜讚注 砖讗讬谉 讟讘讬诇讛 讗诇讗 讘讗讞专讜谞讛


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.


拽转谞讬 讛转讬专讜 诇讛 诇注讜讘专讛 诇讗讻讜诇 驻讞讜转 诪讻砖讬注讜专 诪驻谞讬 讛住讻谞讛 诪驻谞讬 讛住讻谞讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讟讜讘讗 谞诪讬 转讬讻讜诇 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛讜转专讜 诇讛 诇注讜讘专讛 驻讞讜转 诪讻砖讬注讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 讟讜讘讗 诪驻谞讬 讛住讻谞讛


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.


拽转谞讬 讛转讬专讜 诇诪讙注 讟诪讗 诪转 诇讛谞讬拽 讗转 讘谞讛 讜讘谞讛 讟讛讜专 讗诪讗讬 讟讛讜专 讻讬讜谉 讚讬讬谞拽 讞诇讘 讗讬讟诪讬 诇讬讛 诪讞诇讘


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.


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇讗 讗讬转讻砖专 谞转讻砖专 讘讟讬驻讛 诪诇讜讻诇讻转 注诇 驻讬 讛讚讚 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讘转拽讬驻讛 讗讞转 诇讗 讛谞讬讞 讟讬驻讛 诪诇讜讻诇讻转 注诇 驻讬 讛讚讚


And if you would say that the mother鈥檚 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 Na岣an 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.


讗诪专 专讘讗 砖转讬 转砖讜讘讜转 讘讚讘专 讞讚讗 讚拽讞讝讬谞讗 诇驻讜诪讬讛 讚讬谞讜拽讗 讚诪诇讗 讞诇讘 讜注讜讚 诪拽讜诐 讞诇讘 诪注讬讬谉 讛讜讗


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鈥檚 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鈥檚 body. Therefore, if the woman is impure, her milk is also impure.


讚拽转谞讬 讞诇讘 讗砖讛 诪讟诪讗 讘讬谉 诇专爪讜谉 讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 诇专爪讜谉 讘讛诪讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗 讗诇讗 诇专爪讜谉


Rava elaborates: As a mishna (Makhshirin 6:8) teaches: A woman鈥檚 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鈥檚 owner.


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 砖诇讗 诇专爪讜谉 讚诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讜拽转谞讬 诪讟诪讗


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鈥檚 approval, it is clear that a woman鈥檚 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?


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚讘谞讛 讟讛讜专 讚住驻拽 讬谞拽 讻砖讬注讜专 讜住驻拽 诇讗 讬谞拽 讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讬谞拽 住驻拽 讬谞拽讜 讘讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 住驻拽 讬谞拽讜 讘讬讜转专 诪讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住


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.


讜诇专讘讗 诪拽讜诐 讞诇讘 诪注讬讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 爪专讬讱 讛讻砖专


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?


讜讛转谞谉 讛讗砖讛 砖谞讟祝 讞诇讘 诪讚讚讬讛 讜谞驻诇 诇讗讜讬专 转谞讜专 转谞讜专 讟诪讗 讜拽砖讬讗 诇谉 讘诪讗讬 讗讬转讻砖专 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讟讬驻讛 诪诇讜讻诇讻转 注诇 驻讬 讛讚讚


But didn鈥檛 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 Yo岣nan said: It was rendered susceptible by the drop of milk smeared on the nipple. Apparently, Rabbi Yo岣nan maintains that a woman鈥檚 milk must be rendered susceptible in order to contract impurity.


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 专讘讗 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 谞诪爪讗转 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 转砖注讛 诪砖拽讬谉 讘讝讜讘 讛讝讬注讛 讜诇讬讞讛 住专讜讞讛 讜专讬注讬 讟讛讜专讬谉 诪讻讜诇诐 讚诪注转 注讬谞讜 讜讚诐 诪讙驻转讜


And if you would say that Rava does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, as one amora is permitted to disagree with another, but isn鈥檛 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,


讜讞诇讘 讗砖讛 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 讘专讘讬注讬转 专讜拽讜 讝讜讘讜 讜诪讬诪讬 专讙诇讬讜 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗


and the milk of a woman who is a zava transmit impurity of liquids where there is a quarter-log. The saliva, gonorrhea-like discharge of a zav, and urine transmit severe impurity in any amount.


讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诪拽讜诐 讞诇讘 诪注讬讬谉 讞诇讘 谞诪讬 谞讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讻讝讜讘讜 讜专讜拽讜 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪拽讜诐 讞诇讘 讗砖讛 诇讗讜 诪注讬讬谉 讛讜讗


And if you say in accordance with the opinion of Rava that the location from which the milk emerges is considered a spring, then milk also should transmit severe impurity in any amount, like the gonorrhea-like discharge of a zav and his saliva. Rather, conclude from it that the location from which the milk of a woman emerges is not considered to be a spring, and the milk must be rendered susceptible to impurity in order to become impure or transmit impurity.


讗讬 讛讻讬 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 诪转谞讬转讗 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讟诪讗 讘讬谉 诇专爪讜谉 讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 诇专爪讜谉


The Gemara objects: If so, this mishna in Makhshirin cited earlier (13a), which Rava said supports his opinion, is difficult, as it states that a woman鈥檚 milk renders food susceptible to impurity whether it emerged to the satisfaction of the infant or not to his satisfaction. The mishna is difficult, as food is generally rendered susceptible to impurity only when the liquid comes into contact with it to the owner鈥檚 satisfaction.


诪讬 住讘专转 砖诇讗 诇专爪讜谉 讚讗诪专 讚诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪讗讬 砖诇讗 诇专爪讜谉 讚讗诪专 讚讚注转讬讛 讚转讬谞讜拽 拽专讬讘讗 诇讙讘讬 讞诇讘 讗讘诇 讗诪专 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讟讛讜专


The Gemara explains: Do you maintain that the term: Not to their satisfaction, that the mishna states, means that the emergence of the milk is not amenable to him? No; rather, what is the meaning of the expression: Not to his satisfaction, that the mishna states? It means that the child did not indicate whether he desires the milk or not, but as a child鈥檚 mind is close to milk, i.e., he generally enjoys the milk, an explicit indication of interest or satisfaction is unnecessary in order for the milk to be susceptible to ritual impurity or to render other food items impure. But if he says, i.e., indicates, explictly that the milk is not amenable to him, then the milk is not susceptible to ritual impurity, and it remains pure.


讗讻诇 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讻讜壮 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖讛讬讬讛 讚拽转谞讬 讜砖讛讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗讻诇 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉 讜砖转讛 诪砖拽讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉 讜砖转讛 专讘讬注讬转 讬讬谉 讜砖讛讛 讘讗讻讬诇转谉 讜讘砖转讬讬转谉 讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 讜谞讻谞住 诇诪拽讚砖 讞讬讬讘


The mishna teaches that if one ate one quarter-loaf of ritually impure foods or drank a quarter-log of ritually impure liquids, or if one drank a quarter-log of wine, and he entered the Temple and remained there for the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread, he is liable. The Gemara objects: Why do I need him to remain in the Temple in order to be liable, such that it teaches: And remained there? Rav Yehuda said that this is what the mishna is teaching: In the case of one who ate a quarter-loaf of ritually impure foods or drank a quarter-log of impure liquids, or drank a quarter-log of wine, and remained involved in eating them or drinking them for no more than the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread, and then entered the Temple, he is liable.


专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讬谉 讜砖讻专 讗诇 转砖转 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讙转讜


搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Elazar says: If one interrupted his drinking of the quarter-log of wine, or if he placed any amount of water into the wine, he is exempt. The Sages taught in a baraita: When the Torah instructs Aaron the High Priest: 鈥淒rink no wine nor intoxicating drink, you, nor your sons with you, when you go into the Tent of Meeting, that you shall not die鈥 (Leviticus 10:9), one might have thought that this applies even if he drank any amount, and even if he drank wine from its press, i.e., wine that has not finished fermenting.


转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜砖讻专 讗讬谉 讗住讜专 讗诇讗 讻讚讬 诇砖讻专 讜讻诪讛 讻讚讬 诇砖讻专 专讘讬注讬转 讬讬谉 讘谉 讗专讘注讬诐 讬讜诐


Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淣or intoxicating drink,鈥 indicating that only the consumption of a quantity of wine sufficient to intoxicate is prohibited. And how much wine is sufficient to intoxicate? It is a minimum of a quarter-log of wine that is forty days old, which has already fermented.


讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬讬谉 诇讜诪专 诇讱 砖诪讜讝讛专讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讜诪讜讝讛专讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪讙转讜


If so, why must the verse state 鈥渨ine,鈥 when the term 鈥渋ntoxicating drink鈥 would have sufficed? It is to tell you that although one is not liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven for it, it is prohibited to drink any amount of it, even less than a quarter-log, and then enter the Temple; and similarly, it is prohibited to drink it from its press and then enter the Temple, and one who does so is liable to be flogged, as is the case with any other prohibition by Torah law.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讬讬谉 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讬讬谉 砖讗专 诪砖讻专讬谉 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜砖讻专 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬讬谉 注诇 讛讬讬谉 讘诪讬转讛 讜注诇 砖讗专 诪砖拽讬谉 讘讗讝讛专讛


Rabbi Yehuda says: From the word 鈥渨ine鈥 I have derived only that wine is forbidden; from where is it derived that other intoxicating beverages are forbidden as well? The verse states: 鈥淣or intoxicating drink.鈥 If so, why must the verse state 鈥渨ine鈥? This comes to teach that for entering the Temple after drinking wine one is liable to receive the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven, but for entering after drinking other intoxicating drinks, one violates only a regular prohibition.


专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讬谉 讗诇 转砖转 讜砖讻专 讗诇 转砖转讛讜 讻讚专讱 砖讻专讜转讜 讛讗 讗诐 讛驻住讬拽 讘讜 讗讜 谞转谉 诇转讜讻讜 诪讬诐 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 驻讟讜专


Rabbi Elazar says that the verse is interpreted to mean: Wine you shall not drink, and intoxicating drink, meaning that you shall not drink it in the manner of its being intoxicating. But if one interrupted his drinking, or placed any amount of water into it and drank it, he is exempt.


讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讙诪专讬谞谉 砖讻专 砖讻专 诪谞讝讬专


The Gemara explains: With regard to what do they disagree? The first tanna holds: We learn by verbal analogy that the term 鈥渋ntoxicating drink鈥 is referring to wine, from the term 鈥渋ntoxicating drink鈥 mentioned with regard to a nazirite in the verse: 鈥淗e shall abstain from wine and intoxicating drink鈥 (Numbers 6:3). There it is referring only to wine (see Nazir 4a).


讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讬诇讬祝 砖讻专 砖讻专 诪谞讝讬专 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 住讘专 诪讗讬 砖讻专 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讗 诪砖讻专


But Rabbi Yehuda does not derive that the term 鈥渋ntoxicating drink鈥 refers only to wine by the verbal analogy from the term 鈥渋ntoxicating drink鈥 stated with regard to a nazirite. Consequently, he interprets the word as referring to an intoxicating drink that is not wine. And Rabbi Elazar holds: What is the meaning of the phrase: 鈥淲ine and intoxicating drink鈥? It is not referring to two separate items, but rather to wine in the manner that it intoxicates.


讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讻诇 讚讘讬诇讛 拽注讬诇讬转 讜砖转讛 讚讘砖 讗讜 讞诇讘 讜谞讻谞住 诇诪拽讚砖 讜砖讬诪砖 诇讜拽讛 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗讞讜转讗讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜拽专讬 专讘 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讟讜讘讬谞讗 讚讞讻讬诪讬


The Gemara comments: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in the following baraita: In the case of one who ate a sweet dried fig from Ke鈥檌la, or drank honey or milk, all of which can have an intoxicating effect, and he entered the Temple and performed the Temple service, he is flogged. In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that any item which intoxicates is included in the prohibition. Rav Yehuda bar A岣tai says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, and Rav referred to Rabbi Elazar as the most gratified of the Sages, as the halakha is in accordance with his opinion.


专讘 讗讞讗 讚讛讜爪诇 讛讜讛 谞讬讚专讗 注诇讛 讚讘讬转讛讜 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讜转讗 诇诪讞专 讚专讘 诇讗 诪讜拽讬 讗诪讜专讗 注诇讬讛 诪讬讜诪讗 讟讘讗 诇讞讘专讬讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讻专讜转


The Gemara relates that Rav A岣 of the city of Huzal had taken a vow not to derive benefit from his wife. He came before Rav Ashi to request that he dissolve the vow. Rav Ashi said to him: Go now and come back tomorrow, as I have just drunk wine, and it is prohibited for me to issue a halakhic ruling, as Rav would not place a disseminator before him to communicate his lectures to the masses from the meal of one Festival day until the other, i.e., the next morning, due to drunkenness. Since it was customary to drink wine during Festival meals, Rav would not deliver public lectures on Festival days, as one who has consumed wine may not issue halakhic rulings.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜诪专 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 专诪讬 讘讬讛 诪讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘专讘讬注讬转 讛讗 讘讬讜转专 诪讻讚讬 专讘讬注讬转


Rav A岣 said to him: But doesn鈥檛 Rav say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar that if one diluted the wine he drank with water and entered the Temple he is exempt; and the Master is one who puts water into his wine? Rav Ashi said to him: That is not difficult; that ruling of Rabbi Elazar applies in a case where one drank precisely a quarterlog of wine, whereas in this case I drank more than a quarterlog of wine. In such a case one does not maintain a clear mind even if he mixed in a small amount of water.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜诇讛讘讚讬诇 讘讬谉 讛拽讚砖 讜讘讬谉 讛讞诇 讗诇讜 讚诪讬谉 讜注专讻讬谉 讞专诪讬谉 讜讛拽讚砖讜转


搂 In the continuation of the passage in which the Torah prohibits a priest from entering the Temple after drinking wine, the verse states: 鈥淎nd that you may differentiate between the sacred and the common, and between the impure and the pure; and that you may instruct the children of Israel in all the statutes which the Lord has spoken to them by the hand of Moses鈥 (Leviticus 10:10鈥11). The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd that you may differentiate between the sacred and the common.鈥 These terms are referring to the halakhot of values and valuations, dedications and consecrations, and the verse is teaching that it is prohibited to issue a ruling concerning these matters after drinking wine.


讘讬谉 讛讟诪讗 讜讘讬谉 讛讟讛讜专 讗诇讜 讟诪讗讜转 讜讟讛专讜转 讜诇讛讜专转 讝讜 讛讜专讗讛 讗转 讻诇 讛讞拽讬诐 讗诇讜 诪讚专砖讜转 讗砖专 讚讘专 讛壮 讝讜 讛诇讻讛 讘讬讚 诪砖讛 讝讛 转诇诪讜讚


鈥淏etween the impure and the pure鈥; these terms indicate that it is prohibited for one who drank wine to render decisions with regard to ritually impure items and ritually pure items. 鈥淎nd that you may instruct鈥; this is referring to issuing a ruling about what is permitted or prohibited. 鈥淎ll the statutes鈥; this is referring to the halakhic expositions of the Torah. 鈥淲hich the Lord has spoken鈥; this is referring to halakha transmitted orally to Moses from Sinai. 鈥淏y the hand of Moses鈥; this is referring to the Talmud, the deliberations on the Oral Law, from which halakhic conclusions are derived. It is prohibited to teach any of these subjects after drinking wine.


讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讛诪砖谞讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇讛讜专转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 转诇诪讜讚 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇讛讜专转


One might have thought that it is prohibited to teach even Mishna after drinking wine. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd that you may instruct,鈥 indicating that the prohibition is limited to material that provides practical halakhic instruction, whereas one does not derive practical rulings from the Mishna. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: One might have thought that even teaching Talmud is prohibited. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd that you may instruct,鈥 indicating that the prohibition is limited to issuing halakhic rulings, but it does not include teaching material such as Talmud, although halakhic conclusions may be derived from it.


讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬爪讗 砖专抓 讟诪讗 讜爪驻专讚注 讟讛讜专 砖砖转讜讬讬 讬讬谉 诪讜专讬谉 讘讛谉 讛讜专讗讛 谞讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讝讬诇 拽专讬 讘讬 专讘 讛讜讗


The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in a baraita: The rulings that a carcass of a creeping animal is ritually impure and that a carcass of a frog is pure are excluded from this principle, as those who have drunk wine may issue a halakhic ruling about these matters. Let us say that this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who says it is permitted to teach Talmud, and these conclusions are obvious from the Talmud, and that it is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara responds: You may even say that it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and that this case is different, as it is a topic that one could go learn in a children鈥檚 school, and teaching is not considered issuing a halakhic ruling.


讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讗 专讘 诇讗 诪讜拽讬诐 讗诪讜专讗 诪讬讜诪讗 讟讘讗 诇讞讘专讬讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讻专讜转 砖讗谞讬 专讘 讚讗讜专讬 诪讜专讬 讜谞讬拽诐 讚诇讗 诇讜专讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讬转讬讘 专讘 诇讗 住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘诇讗 讛讜专讗讛


Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, that it is permitted to teach material from which halakha may be derived, but it is prohibited to issue halakhic rulings. The Gemara objects: But Rav himself would not place a disseminator before him to communicate his lectures to the masses from the meal of one Festival day until the other, i.e., the next morning, due to drunkenness. The Gemara explains: Rav is different, as he would issue halakhic rulings during his lectures. The Gemara further objects: And let him place a disseminator and deliver a lecture but not issue halakhic rulings. The Gemara explains: Wherever Rav sits and delivers a lecture, it is not possible for him to do so without issuing a halakhic ruling.


诪转谞讬壮 讬砖 讗讜讻诇 讗讻讬诇讛 讗讞转 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 讗专讘注讛 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗砖诐 讗讞讚 讟诪讗 砖讗讻诇 讞诇讘 讜讛讬讛 谞讜转专 诪谉 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐


MISHNA: There is a case where one can perform a single act of eating an olive-bulk of food and be liable to bring four sin offerings and one guilt offering for it. How so? This halakha applies to one who is ritually impure who ate forbidden fat, and it was left over from a consecrated offering after the time allotted for its consumption [notar], on Yom Kippur. He is liable to bring sin offerings for eating forbidden fat and notar, for eating the meat of an offering while impure, and for eating on Yom Kippur. He is also liable to bring a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property.


专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 砖讘转 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谞讜 诪谉 讛砖诐


Rabbi Meir says: If it was Shabbat and he carried it out from a private domain to a public domain while eating it, he would be liable to bring an additional sin offering for performing prohibited labor on Shabbat. The Rabbis said to him: That liability is not from the same type of prohibition, as it is not due to the act of eating, and therefore, it should not be counted.


  • This month is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross z'l, on his 1st yahrzeit

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Keritot 13

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Keritot 13

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讞讜诪专讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 注讚 砖讬砖讛讗 注讚 讚砖讛讬 讚讬诇讬讛 讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住


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.


讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇拽讜诇讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗诐 砖讛讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讞讜诪专讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


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鈥檛 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.


讗诪专 专讘谞讗讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讞诇讘讬诐 讜讘谞讘讬诇讛 注讚 砖讬砖讛讗 诪转讞诇讛 讜注讚 住讜祝 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讟诪讗讬诐 砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 讜诪砖拽讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住


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.


诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 讜讛讜讗 砖讗讻诇 讻讝讬转 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住


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.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讻诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇驻住讜诇 讛讙讜讬讬讛 讘讻讞爪讬 驻专住 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗讻诇讬讛 诇讞爪讬 驻专住 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 诇讗 讚讗讻诇 讻讝讬转 讻讝讬转 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住


The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: All impure foods combine together to disqualify one鈥檚 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.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讻诇 讛讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇驻住讜诇 讗转 讛讙讜讬讬讛 讘讻讞爪讬 驻专住 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 讻讬爪讚 讗讻诇 讜讞讝专 讜讗讻诇 讗诐 讬砖 诪转讞诇转 讗讻讬诇讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜注讚 住讜祝 讗讻讬诇讛 讗讞专讜谞讛 讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讬讜转专 诪讻讗谉 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉


The Gemara raises an objection from another baraita: All impure foods combine to disqualify one鈥檚 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.


诇讗 讛转讬专讜 诇讗讻讜诇 驻讞讜转 诪讻砖讬注讜专 诇讬专讚 讜诇讟讘讜诇 讬专讚 讜讟讘诇 讜注诇讛 讜讛砖诇讬诪讜 诪爪讟专祝 讛转讬专讜 诇讛 诇注讜讘专讛 诇讗讻讜诇 驻讞讜转 诪讻砖讬注讜专 诪驻谞讬 讛住讻谞讛


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.


讻诇 讛诪砖拽讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇驻住讜诇 讗转 讛讙讜讬讬讛 讘专讘讬注讬转 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 讻讬爪讚 砖转讛 讜讞讝专 讜砖转讛 讗诐 讬砖 诪转讞诇转 砖转讬讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜注讚 住讜祝 砖转讬讛 讗讞专讜谞讛 讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讬讜转专 诪讻讗谉 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉


All impure liquids combine to disqualify one鈥檚 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.


讛讜转专讜 诇讛 诇诪讙注 讟诪讗 诪转 诇讛谞讬拽 讘谞讛 讜讘谞讛 讟讛讜专


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.


拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讗诐 讬砖 诪转讞诇转 讗讻讬诇讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜注讚 住讜祝 讗讻讬诇讛 讘讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 诪爪讟专祝 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘谞讗讬 转讬讜讘转讗


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.


讗诪专 诪专 诇讗 讛转讬专讜 诇讜 诇讗讻讜诇 驻讞讜转 诪讻砖讬注讜专 诇讬专讚 讜诇讟讘讜诇 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专


搂 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?


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讻诇 驻讞讜转 诪讻砖讬注讜专 诇讗 讛转讬专讜 诇讜 诇讬专讚 讜诇讟讘讜诇 砖讗诐 讬专讚 讜讟讘诇 讜注诇讛 讜讛砖诇讬诪讜 诪爪讟专祝 讜讗转讬 诇诪讬诪专 讗讛谞讬 诇讬 讟讘讬诇讛 拽诪讬讬转讗 讜讗讬谉 讬讜讚注 砖讗讬谉 讟讘讬诇讛 讗诇讗 讘讗讞专讜谞讛


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.


拽转谞讬 讛转讬专讜 诇讛 诇注讜讘专讛 诇讗讻讜诇 驻讞讜转 诪讻砖讬注讜专 诪驻谞讬 讛住讻谞讛 诪驻谞讬 讛住讻谞讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讟讜讘讗 谞诪讬 转讬讻讜诇 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛讜转专讜 诇讛 诇注讜讘专讛 驻讞讜转 诪讻砖讬注讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 讟讜讘讗 诪驻谞讬 讛住讻谞讛


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.


拽转谞讬 讛转讬专讜 诇诪讙注 讟诪讗 诪转 诇讛谞讬拽 讗转 讘谞讛 讜讘谞讛 讟讛讜专 讗诪讗讬 讟讛讜专 讻讬讜谉 讚讬讬谞拽 讞诇讘 讗讬讟诪讬 诇讬讛 诪讞诇讘


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.


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇讗 讗讬转讻砖专 谞转讻砖专 讘讟讬驻讛 诪诇讜讻诇讻转 注诇 驻讬 讛讚讚 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讘转拽讬驻讛 讗讞转 诇讗 讛谞讬讞 讟讬驻讛 诪诇讜讻诇讻转 注诇 驻讬 讛讚讚


And if you would say that the mother鈥檚 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 Na岣an 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.


讗诪专 专讘讗 砖转讬 转砖讜讘讜转 讘讚讘专 讞讚讗 讚拽讞讝讬谞讗 诇驻讜诪讬讛 讚讬谞讜拽讗 讚诪诇讗 讞诇讘 讜注讜讚 诪拽讜诐 讞诇讘 诪注讬讬谉 讛讜讗


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鈥檚 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鈥檚 body. Therefore, if the woman is impure, her milk is also impure.


讚拽转谞讬 讞诇讘 讗砖讛 诪讟诪讗 讘讬谉 诇专爪讜谉 讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 诇专爪讜谉 讘讛诪讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讟诪讗 讗诇讗 诇专爪讜谉


Rava elaborates: As a mishna (Makhshirin 6:8) teaches: A woman鈥檚 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鈥檚 owner.


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 砖诇讗 诇专爪讜谉 讚诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讜拽转谞讬 诪讟诪讗


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鈥檚 approval, it is clear that a woman鈥檚 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?


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚讘谞讛 讟讛讜专 讚住驻拽 讬谞拽 讻砖讬注讜专 讜住驻拽 诇讗 讬谞拽 讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讬谞拽 住驻拽 讬谞拽讜 讘讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 住驻拽 讬谞拽讜 讘讬讜转专 诪讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住


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.


讜诇专讘讗 诪拽讜诐 讞诇讘 诪注讬讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 爪专讬讱 讛讻砖专


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?


讜讛转谞谉 讛讗砖讛 砖谞讟祝 讞诇讘 诪讚讚讬讛 讜谞驻诇 诇讗讜讬专 转谞讜专 转谞讜专 讟诪讗 讜拽砖讬讗 诇谉 讘诪讗讬 讗讬转讻砖专 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讟讬驻讛 诪诇讜讻诇讻转 注诇 驻讬 讛讚讚


But didn鈥檛 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 Yo岣nan said: It was rendered susceptible by the drop of milk smeared on the nipple. Apparently, Rabbi Yo岣nan maintains that a woman鈥檚 milk must be rendered susceptible in order to contract impurity.


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 专讘讗 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 谞诪爪讗转 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 转砖注讛 诪砖拽讬谉 讘讝讜讘 讛讝讬注讛 讜诇讬讞讛 住专讜讞讛 讜专讬注讬 讟讛讜专讬谉 诪讻讜诇诐 讚诪注转 注讬谞讜 讜讚诐 诪讙驻转讜


And if you would say that Rava does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, as one amora is permitted to disagree with another, but isn鈥檛 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,


讜讞诇讘 讗砖讛 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 诪砖拽讬谉 讘专讘讬注讬转 专讜拽讜 讝讜讘讜 讜诪讬诪讬 专讙诇讬讜 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗


and the milk of a woman who is a zava transmit impurity of liquids where there is a quarter-log. The saliva, gonorrhea-like discharge of a zav, and urine transmit severe impurity in any amount.


讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诪拽讜诐 讞诇讘 诪注讬讬谉 讞诇讘 谞诪讬 谞讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讻讝讜讘讜 讜专讜拽讜 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪拽讜诐 讞诇讘 讗砖讛 诇讗讜 诪注讬讬谉 讛讜讗


And if you say in accordance with the opinion of Rava that the location from which the milk emerges is considered a spring, then milk also should transmit severe impurity in any amount, like the gonorrhea-like discharge of a zav and his saliva. Rather, conclude from it that the location from which the milk of a woman emerges is not considered to be a spring, and the milk must be rendered susceptible to impurity in order to become impure or transmit impurity.


讗讬 讛讻讬 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 诪转谞讬转讗 讜讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讟诪讗 讘讬谉 诇专爪讜谉 讜讘讬谉 砖诇讗 诇专爪讜谉


The Gemara objects: If so, this mishna in Makhshirin cited earlier (13a), which Rava said supports his opinion, is difficult, as it states that a woman鈥檚 milk renders food susceptible to impurity whether it emerged to the satisfaction of the infant or not to his satisfaction. The mishna is difficult, as food is generally rendered susceptible to impurity only when the liquid comes into contact with it to the owner鈥檚 satisfaction.


诪讬 住讘专转 砖诇讗 诇专爪讜谉 讚讗诪专 讚诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪讗讬 砖诇讗 诇专爪讜谉 讚讗诪专 讚讚注转讬讛 讚转讬谞讜拽 拽专讬讘讗 诇讙讘讬 讞诇讘 讗讘诇 讗诪专 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讟讛讜专


The Gemara explains: Do you maintain that the term: Not to their satisfaction, that the mishna states, means that the emergence of the milk is not amenable to him? No; rather, what is the meaning of the expression: Not to his satisfaction, that the mishna states? It means that the child did not indicate whether he desires the milk or not, but as a child鈥檚 mind is close to milk, i.e., he generally enjoys the milk, an explicit indication of interest or satisfaction is unnecessary in order for the milk to be susceptible to ritual impurity or to render other food items impure. But if he says, i.e., indicates, explictly that the milk is not amenable to him, then the milk is not susceptible to ritual impurity, and it remains pure.


讗讻诇 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉 讜讻讜壮 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖讛讬讬讛 讚拽转谞讬 讜砖讛讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗讻诇 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉 讜砖转讛 诪砖拽讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉 讜砖转讛 专讘讬注讬转 讬讬谉 讜砖讛讛 讘讗讻讬诇转谉 讜讘砖转讬讬转谉 讻讚讬 讗讻讬诇转 驻专住 讜谞讻谞住 诇诪拽讚砖 讞讬讬讘


The mishna teaches that if one ate one quarter-loaf of ritually impure foods or drank a quarter-log of ritually impure liquids, or if one drank a quarter-log of wine, and he entered the Temple and remained there for the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread, he is liable. The Gemara objects: Why do I need him to remain in the Temple in order to be liable, such that it teaches: And remained there? Rav Yehuda said that this is what the mishna is teaching: In the case of one who ate a quarter-loaf of ritually impure foods or drank a quarter-log of impure liquids, or drank a quarter-log of wine, and remained involved in eating them or drinking them for no more than the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread, and then entered the Temple, he is liable.


专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讬谉 讜砖讻专 讗诇 转砖转 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讙转讜


搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Elazar says: If one interrupted his drinking of the quarter-log of wine, or if he placed any amount of water into the wine, he is exempt. The Sages taught in a baraita: When the Torah instructs Aaron the High Priest: 鈥淒rink no wine nor intoxicating drink, you, nor your sons with you, when you go into the Tent of Meeting, that you shall not die鈥 (Leviticus 10:9), one might have thought that this applies even if he drank any amount, and even if he drank wine from its press, i.e., wine that has not finished fermenting.


转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜砖讻专 讗讬谉 讗住讜专 讗诇讗 讻讚讬 诇砖讻专 讜讻诪讛 讻讚讬 诇砖讻专 专讘讬注讬转 讬讬谉 讘谉 讗专讘注讬诐 讬讜诐


Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淣or intoxicating drink,鈥 indicating that only the consumption of a quantity of wine sufficient to intoxicate is prohibited. And how much wine is sufficient to intoxicate? It is a minimum of a quarter-log of wine that is forty days old, which has already fermented.


讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬讬谉 诇讜诪专 诇讱 砖诪讜讝讛专讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讜诪讜讝讛专讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪讙转讜


If so, why must the verse state 鈥渨ine,鈥 when the term 鈥渋ntoxicating drink鈥 would have sufficed? It is to tell you that although one is not liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven for it, it is prohibited to drink any amount of it, even less than a quarter-log, and then enter the Temple; and similarly, it is prohibited to drink it from its press and then enter the Temple, and one who does so is liable to be flogged, as is the case with any other prohibition by Torah law.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讬讬谉 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讬讬谉 砖讗专 诪砖讻专讬谉 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜砖讻专 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬讬谉 注诇 讛讬讬谉 讘诪讬转讛 讜注诇 砖讗专 诪砖拽讬谉 讘讗讝讛专讛


Rabbi Yehuda says: From the word 鈥渨ine鈥 I have derived only that wine is forbidden; from where is it derived that other intoxicating beverages are forbidden as well? The verse states: 鈥淣or intoxicating drink.鈥 If so, why must the verse state 鈥渨ine鈥? This comes to teach that for entering the Temple after drinking wine one is liable to receive the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven, but for entering after drinking other intoxicating drinks, one violates only a regular prohibition.


专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬讬谉 讗诇 转砖转 讜砖讻专 讗诇 转砖转讛讜 讻讚专讱 砖讻专讜转讜 讛讗 讗诐 讛驻住讬拽 讘讜 讗讜 谞转谉 诇转讜讻讜 诪讬诐 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 驻讟讜专


Rabbi Elazar says that the verse is interpreted to mean: Wine you shall not drink, and intoxicating drink, meaning that you shall not drink it in the manner of its being intoxicating. But if one interrupted his drinking, or placed any amount of water into it and drank it, he is exempt.


讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讙诪专讬谞谉 砖讻专 砖讻专 诪谞讝讬专


The Gemara explains: With regard to what do they disagree? The first tanna holds: We learn by verbal analogy that the term 鈥渋ntoxicating drink鈥 is referring to wine, from the term 鈥渋ntoxicating drink鈥 mentioned with regard to a nazirite in the verse: 鈥淗e shall abstain from wine and intoxicating drink鈥 (Numbers 6:3). There it is referring only to wine (see Nazir 4a).


讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讬诇讬祝 砖讻专 砖讻专 诪谞讝讬专 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 住讘专 诪讗讬 砖讻专 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讗 诪砖讻专


But Rabbi Yehuda does not derive that the term 鈥渋ntoxicating drink鈥 refers only to wine by the verbal analogy from the term 鈥渋ntoxicating drink鈥 stated with regard to a nazirite. Consequently, he interprets the word as referring to an intoxicating drink that is not wine. And Rabbi Elazar holds: What is the meaning of the phrase: 鈥淲ine and intoxicating drink鈥? It is not referring to two separate items, but rather to wine in the manner that it intoxicates.


讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讻诇 讚讘讬诇讛 拽注讬诇讬转 讜砖转讛 讚讘砖 讗讜 讞诇讘 讜谞讻谞住 诇诪拽讚砖 讜砖讬诪砖 诇讜拽讛 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讗讞讜转讗讬 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜拽专讬 专讘 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讟讜讘讬谞讗 讚讞讻讬诪讬


The Gemara comments: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in the following baraita: In the case of one who ate a sweet dried fig from Ke鈥檌la, or drank honey or milk, all of which can have an intoxicating effect, and he entered the Temple and performed the Temple service, he is flogged. In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that any item which intoxicates is included in the prohibition. Rav Yehuda bar A岣tai says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, and Rav referred to Rabbi Elazar as the most gratified of the Sages, as the halakha is in accordance with his opinion.


专讘 讗讞讗 讚讛讜爪诇 讛讜讛 谞讬讚专讗 注诇讛 讚讘讬转讛讜 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讜转讗 诇诪讞专 讚专讘 诇讗 诪讜拽讬 讗诪讜专讗 注诇讬讛 诪讬讜诪讗 讟讘讗 诇讞讘专讬讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讻专讜转


The Gemara relates that Rav A岣 of the city of Huzal had taken a vow not to derive benefit from his wife. He came before Rav Ashi to request that he dissolve the vow. Rav Ashi said to him: Go now and come back tomorrow, as I have just drunk wine, and it is prohibited for me to issue a halakhic ruling, as Rav would not place a disseminator before him to communicate his lectures to the masses from the meal of one Festival day until the other, i.e., the next morning, due to drunkenness. Since it was customary to drink wine during Festival meals, Rav would not deliver public lectures on Festival days, as one who has consumed wine may not issue halakhic rulings.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜诪专 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 专诪讬 讘讬讛 诪讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘专讘讬注讬转 讛讗 讘讬讜转专 诪讻讚讬 专讘讬注讬转


Rav A岣 said to him: But doesn鈥檛 Rav say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar that if one diluted the wine he drank with water and entered the Temple he is exempt; and the Master is one who puts water into his wine? Rav Ashi said to him: That is not difficult; that ruling of Rabbi Elazar applies in a case where one drank precisely a quarterlog of wine, whereas in this case I drank more than a quarterlog of wine. In such a case one does not maintain a clear mind even if he mixed in a small amount of water.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜诇讛讘讚讬诇 讘讬谉 讛拽讚砖 讜讘讬谉 讛讞诇 讗诇讜 讚诪讬谉 讜注专讻讬谉 讞专诪讬谉 讜讛拽讚砖讜转


搂 In the continuation of the passage in which the Torah prohibits a priest from entering the Temple after drinking wine, the verse states: 鈥淎nd that you may differentiate between the sacred and the common, and between the impure and the pure; and that you may instruct the children of Israel in all the statutes which the Lord has spoken to them by the hand of Moses鈥 (Leviticus 10:10鈥11). The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd that you may differentiate between the sacred and the common.鈥 These terms are referring to the halakhot of values and valuations, dedications and consecrations, and the verse is teaching that it is prohibited to issue a ruling concerning these matters after drinking wine.


讘讬谉 讛讟诪讗 讜讘讬谉 讛讟讛讜专 讗诇讜 讟诪讗讜转 讜讟讛专讜转 讜诇讛讜专转 讝讜 讛讜专讗讛 讗转 讻诇 讛讞拽讬诐 讗诇讜 诪讚专砖讜转 讗砖专 讚讘专 讛壮 讝讜 讛诇讻讛 讘讬讚 诪砖讛 讝讛 转诇诪讜讚


鈥淏etween the impure and the pure鈥; these terms indicate that it is prohibited for one who drank wine to render decisions with regard to ritually impure items and ritually pure items. 鈥淎nd that you may instruct鈥; this is referring to issuing a ruling about what is permitted or prohibited. 鈥淎ll the statutes鈥; this is referring to the halakhic expositions of the Torah. 鈥淲hich the Lord has spoken鈥; this is referring to halakha transmitted orally to Moses from Sinai. 鈥淏y the hand of Moses鈥; this is referring to the Talmud, the deliberations on the Oral Law, from which halakhic conclusions are derived. It is prohibited to teach any of these subjects after drinking wine.


讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讛诪砖谞讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇讛讜专转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 转诇诪讜讚 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇讛讜专转


One might have thought that it is prohibited to teach even Mishna after drinking wine. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd that you may instruct,鈥 indicating that the prohibition is limited to material that provides practical halakhic instruction, whereas one does not derive practical rulings from the Mishna. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: One might have thought that even teaching Talmud is prohibited. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd that you may instruct,鈥 indicating that the prohibition is limited to issuing halakhic rulings, but it does not include teaching material such as Talmud, although halakhic conclusions may be derived from it.


讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬爪讗 砖专抓 讟诪讗 讜爪驻专讚注 讟讛讜专 砖砖转讜讬讬 讬讬谉 诪讜专讬谉 讘讛谉 讛讜专讗讛 谞讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讝讬诇 拽专讬 讘讬 专讘 讛讜讗


The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in a baraita: The rulings that a carcass of a creeping animal is ritually impure and that a carcass of a frog is pure are excluded from this principle, as those who have drunk wine may issue a halakhic ruling about these matters. Let us say that this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who says it is permitted to teach Talmud, and these conclusions are obvious from the Talmud, and that it is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara responds: You may even say that it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and that this case is different, as it is a topic that one could go learn in a children鈥檚 school, and teaching is not considered issuing a halakhic ruling.


讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讗 专讘 诇讗 诪讜拽讬诐 讗诪讜专讗 诪讬讜诪讗 讟讘讗 诇讞讘专讬讛 诪砖讜诐 砖讻专讜转 砖讗谞讬 专讘 讚讗讜专讬 诪讜专讬 讜谞讬拽诐 讚诇讗 诇讜专讬 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讬转讬讘 专讘 诇讗 住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘诇讗 讛讜专讗讛


Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, that it is permitted to teach material from which halakha may be derived, but it is prohibited to issue halakhic rulings. The Gemara objects: But Rav himself would not place a disseminator before him to communicate his lectures to the masses from the meal of one Festival day until the other, i.e., the next morning, due to drunkenness. The Gemara explains: Rav is different, as he would issue halakhic rulings during his lectures. The Gemara further objects: And let him place a disseminator and deliver a lecture but not issue halakhic rulings. The Gemara explains: Wherever Rav sits and delivers a lecture, it is not possible for him to do so without issuing a halakhic ruling.


诪转谞讬壮 讬砖 讗讜讻诇 讗讻讬诇讛 讗讞转 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 讗专讘注讛 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗砖诐 讗讞讚 讟诪讗 砖讗讻诇 讞诇讘 讜讛讬讛 谞讜转专 诪谉 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐


MISHNA: There is a case where one can perform a single act of eating an olive-bulk of food and be liable to bring four sin offerings and one guilt offering for it. How so? This halakha applies to one who is ritually impure who ate forbidden fat, and it was left over from a consecrated offering after the time allotted for its consumption [notar], on Yom Kippur. He is liable to bring sin offerings for eating forbidden fat and notar, for eating the meat of an offering while impure, and for eating on Yom Kippur. He is also liable to bring a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property.


专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 砖讘转 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谞讜 诪谉 讛砖诐


Rabbi Meir says: If it was Shabbat and he carried it out from a private domain to a public domain while eating it, he would be liable to bring an additional sin offering for performing prohibited labor on Shabbat. The Rabbis said to him: That liability is not from the same type of prohibition, as it is not due to the act of eating, and therefore, it should not be counted.


Scroll To Top