Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Kerisus, 13

1) CONSIDERING SEPARATE ACTS OF EATING AS A SINGLE ACTION

OPINIONS: In the Mishnah (12b), Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim argue with regard to how long one may delay while eating a forbidden food and still be liable. Rebbi Meir maintains that he may delay for as long as it takes a person to eat finely-ground crumbs. The Chachamim maintain that he is liable only if the delay from beginning to end was less than Kedei Achilas Peras (within the time needed to eat half a loaf).

There are two basic ways to understand the Machlokes in the Mishnah.

(a) RASHI (DH l'Chumra) explains that Rebbi Meir's words, "k'Ilu Achal Kelayos," is a description of a length of *time*. It is the amount of time that it takes to eat one Peras (two k'Zesim) of finely-ground crumbs. If a person ate the Peras of Isur within the time span of "k'Ilu Achal Kelayos," he is Chayav even if he paused between the eating of the two k'Zesim.

The Chachamim argue and maintain that only when he eats the two k'Zesim within Kedei Achilas Peras is he Chayav.

(b) The RAMBAM (in Perush ha'Mishnayos) explains that Rebbi Meir is describing a *type* of eating, and not an amount of time for eating. If the offender ate the two k'Zesim continuously -- even if it took from morning until evening, then he is Chayav. If, however, he paused in his act of eating, then Rebbi Meir agrees with the Chachamim that the two k'Zesim must be eaten within Kedei Achilas Peras in order for him to be Chayav. (That is, according to Rebbi Meir we take into account the time of the actual chewing. The Chachamim require that the time from the beginning of the first k'Zayis until the end of the second k'Zayis take no more than Kedei Achilas Peras, including the time that it takes to chew them.)

QUESTION: The Gemara quotes a Beraisa that says that the Rabanan permitted a pregnant woman to eat a partial Shi'ur of Tum'ah on account of danger (her health will be in danger if she does not eat food that she craves).

Why does the Beraisa need to give a special allowance for a pregnant woman to eat Tum'ah in order to avoid danger to her life? Even though eating more than a Shi'ur will make her Tamei, there is no Isur to eat Tamei foods and become Tamei!

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS (DH Hetiru) answers that the Beraisa is referring to a case in which the pregnant woman craves to eat Terumah after eating the Tamei food. It is certainly forbidden to eat Terumah while one is Tamei, but since the pregnant woman ate only a partial Shi'ur of Tum'ah, she may eat Terumah afterwards. If not for the danger to her health, she would not be permitted to eat a partial Shi'ur of Tum'ah and then to eat Terumah, due to an Isur d'Rabanan that prohibits eating Terumah after eating even less than a Shi'ur of Tum'ah (SEFAS EMES).

(b) RABEINU GERSHOM understands that the Beraisa is discussing an entirely different case. According to Rabeinu Gershom, the Beraisa is referring to a pregnant woman who smells food on Yom Kipur and craves the food. Because of Piku'ach Nefesh, she is permitted to eat the food on Yom Kipur. (It is not clear why this Halachah is mentioned in the middle of a Beraisa discussing laws of Tum'ah and Taharah.)

How does Rabeinu Gershom explain the continuation of the Gemara? The Gemara continues and asks that if she is in danger, then she should be permitted to eat even more than just a partial Shi'ur! The Gemara answers that she indeed may eat even a Shi'ur, but she must make sure not to eat a Shi'ur of food within Kedei Achilas Peras. Why, though, must she avoid eating within Kedei Achilas Peras, if her life is in danger?

The ROSH (Yoma 82a) writes that if her physical condition requires that she eat a lot of food within Kedei Achilas Peras on Yom Kipur, she certainly may eat what she needs, for Piku'ach Nefesh overrides Yom Kipur. The Gemara is saying that a pregnant woman is generally not in such a condition that she must eat so much, so fast.

The SEFER HA'CHINUCH (#313) implies that the Gemara is referring to a case in which the pregnant woman is not in absolute danger. Rather, she is merely very weak, and thus she may eat a Shi'ur of food but only by pausing so that she not eat a Shi'ur within Kedei Achilas Peras. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

QUESTION: Rava states that the milk of a nursing woman who is a "Maga Tamei Mes" (touched someone who was Tamei with Tum'as Mes) does not need Hechsher in order to become Tamei. Accordingly, a baby who drinks a Revi'is of milk from such a woman should become Tamei, just as anyone becomes Tamei when he eats or drinks a Shi'ur of Tamei food. Rava infers that the milk does not need Hechsher from a Mishnah that says that the milk of a woman, even the milk that comes out unintentionally, can become Tamei, even though it had no Hechsher (see RASHI, DH she'Lo).

However, it is not clear *why* a mother's milk does not need Hechsher. Why is milk different from all other foods?

ANSWERS:

(a) RASHI (DH v'Od) says that the milk of a woman who is a Maga Tamei Mes is Metamei like the milk of a Nidah. The Torah teaches that the milk of a Nidah is Metamei like her limbs are Metamei. This is called the Tum'ah of a "Ma'ayan," which is Tamei without Hechsher.

Rashi himself (DH k'Shi'ur) agrees that there is no other Tum'as Ma'ayan other than the Tum'ah of a Nidah or Zavah. A Maga Tamei Mes does *not* have Tum'as Ma'ayan. Besides the fact that the Torah not teach that Tum'as Ma'ayan applies to a Maga Tamei Mes, we know that a Maga Tamei Mes who touches another person does not make the other person Tamei. Consequently, any fluid that comes from her certainly should not be Metamei another person! What, then, does Rashi mean when he compares the Tum'ah of the milk of a Maga Tamei Mes to the Tum'as Ma'ayan of a Nidah?

The Acharonim (see ARUCH LA'NER, MAYIM KEDOSHIM) explain that Rava is teaching that the milk of a woman is not viewed as something separate from her body, but rather it is viewed as a part of her body (as Rashi mentions, "as one of her limbs"). Since it is part of her, it has an inherent Tum'ah, and one who drinks it is drinking something that is Tamei, and thus he becomes Tamei. Hechsher is necessary only when something must first attain the status of "food" ("Ochel") in order to become Tamei. A liquid that is inherently Tamei does not need Hechsher. It is this point that we prove from Ma'ayan of a Nidah. If her milk would not be considered part of her, then it would not be possible to consider to be a Ma'ayan (like saliva or urine); it would need to emerge from the body, attain a status of food with Hechsher, and, after touching the outside of the Nidah's body, it would be Metamei only like an object that *touched* a Nidah (and not like a Nidah herself). >From the fact that the Torah tells us that milk is Metamei just like the Nidah herself, we see that the milk is a liquid that has the inherent Tum'ah of the woman from whom it came, and it does not need Hechsher in order to be Metamei the one who drinks it.

(b) TOSFOS (according to the CHAZON ISH, beginning of Machshirin) understands that mid'Oraisa, the milk of a Maga Tamei Mes needs Hechsher. However, since the milk of a Nidah is Metamei without Hechsher because of the Gezeiras ha'Kasuv of Ma'ayan, the Rabanan decreed that the milk of a Maga Tamei Mes is also Metamei without Hechsher, in order to prevent confusing the two. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

13b

QUESTION: The Beraisa quotes the verse, "Yayin v'Shechar Al Tesht" -- "Do not drink wine or any other intoxicant" (Vayikra 10:9), which commands the Kohen not to enter the Beis ha'Mikdash while under the influence of an intoxicating beverage. The Beraisa asks that perhaps one is liable for entering the Mikdash after drinking any amount of wine. The Beraisa explains that the word "Yayin" forbids entering the Mikdash after drinking any amount, but one is not Chayav for doing so.

The words of the Beraisa are difficult to understand. First, why would we have thought that one would be Chayav for entering the Mikdash after drinking the smallest amount of wine? "Drinking" is always defined as having a Shi'ur of a Revi'is. Why should we think that "drinking" wine and entering the Mikdash is different?

Second, why would we have thought that drinking any amount is *not* forbidden with an Azharah? We know that, according to Rebbi Yochanan (Yoma 73b), "Chatzi Shi'ur Asur Min ha'Torah" -- even a partial Shi'ur of an Isur is forbidden mid'Oraisa (but one is not punished for it).

ANSWER: When the Torah says, "Do not drink wine...," it is not saying that *drinking wine* is forbidden. There is nothing inherently wrong with drinking wine. Rather, the Torah is prohibiting entering the Beis ha'Mikdash while one is in a certain state (intoxication). The rule that "drinking" is always defined as having a Shi'ur of a Revi'is applies only when the act of drinking is itself Asur, but not when the act of drinking is merely a condition of the Isur (such as in this case, where the Isur is entering the Beis ha'Mikdash in a state of intoxication). This answers the first question.

Regarding the second question, once we learn from a verse that the Torah forbids only wine that has the ability to intoxicate, we can understand the Beraisa's question that perhaps one is permitted to walk into the Beis ha'Mikdash, even l'Chatchilah, after drinking the smallest amount of wine. This is because the principle that "Chatzi Shi'ur Asur Min ha'Torah" applies only where the first half of the item is Asur, but it needs more of the same in order to make the person Chayav. In the case of the Isur of entering the Beis ha'Mikdash intoxicated, one who drinks less than a Shi'ur of wine has done no Isur whatsoever; a partial Shi'ur is not Asur at all, because it is not the drinking of the wine that is Asur (but rather entering the Beis ha'Mikdash while intoxicated). (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)