## Keritot Daf 12b

###### Keritot 12b:1
[Keritot 12b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/12b:1)

בְּטוּמְאָה יְשָׁנָה, מַאי שְׁנָא חֲלָבִין וּבִיאַת מִקְדָּשׁ דְּמוֹדוּ לֵיהּ, דְּאִם רָצָה יֹאמַר: ״מֵזִיד הָיִיתִי״? טוּמְאָה יְשָׁנָה נָמֵי מְתָרֵץ דִּיבּוּרֵיהּ, דְּאִם רָצָה יֹאמַר: ״לֹא עָמַדְתִּי בְּטוּמְאָתִי אֶלָּא טָבַלְתִּי״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
that the *baraita* is referring **to** a case of **old impurity,** where the witnesses said to him: You became impure yesterday, **what is different** about the cases of eating forbidden **fat and entering the Temple** while impure, **where** the Rabbis **concede to** Rabbi Yehuda that one is not liable to bring a sin offering even though his denial is contradicted by two witnesses? He is exempt **since if he wished, he could say: I** did so **intentionally.** Therefore, his denial can be interpreted to mean: My eating the forbidden fat or entering the Temple was not unwitting but intentional. If so, if he denies that he is in a state of **old impurity,** he can **also explain his statement, since if he wished, he could say** that he meant: **I did not remain in my** state of **ritual impurity, but** rather **I immersed** in a ritual bath.


###### Keritot 12b:2
[Keritot 12b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/12b:2)

אָמַר רָבִינָא: לְעוֹלָם בְּטוּמְאָה יְשָׁנָה, וּכְגוֹן דְּאָמְרִי לֵיהּ עֵדִים: אָכַלְתָּ קָדָשִׁים בְּטוּמְאַת הַגּוּף, וְהוּא אָמַר לְהוֹן: ״לֹא נִטְמֵאתִי״, דְּהָכָא לָא מְתָרֵיץ דִּיבּוּרֵיהּ. דְּלֵיכָּא לְמֵימַר לֹא עָמַדְתִּי בְּטוּמְאָה אֲבָל טָבַלְתִּי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said: Actually,** the *baraita* can be referring **to** a case of **old impurity,** and nevertheless the Rabbis distinguish between one’s denial that he is impure and one’s denial that he ate or entered the Temple. The case is one **where the witnesses say to him: You ate sacrificial** meat while **in** a state of **physical impurity, and he says to them: I did not become impure.** The reason he is liable to bring an offering is **that here he cannot explain his statement, as one cannot say** that the phrase: I did not become impure, can be explained to mean: **I did not remain in** a state **of impurity but** rather **I immersed.**


###### Keritot 12b:3
[Keritot 12b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/12b:3)

מַאי אָמַר לְהוֹן? ״טָבַלְתִּי וְאָכַלְתִּי״, כִּי אָמַר לְהוֹן הָכִי, אִיתַּכְחַשׁ לֵיהּ דִּבּוּרֵיהּ קַמָּא מִיהָא בְּטוּמְאַת מַגָּעוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Ravina elaborates: **What** would he **say to them** to explain his statement that he did not become impure? If he says: **I immersed and I ate,** then **when he says this to them, his initial statement has been contradicted in any event with regard to his impurity** imparted by **contact.** His initial claim that he did not become impure has not been adjusted with regard to this matter, and that claim was contradicted by the two witnesses.


###### Keritot 12b:4
[Keritot 12b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/12b:4)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לֹא אֲמָרָהּ [רַבִּי יְהוּדָה] אֶלָּא בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ וּלְעַצְמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman says:** The ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda** that even if two witnesses testify that a person became impure, and he claims that he did not become impure, he is deemed credible about himself more than the testimony of one hundred people. **Rav Yosef says:** Rabbi Yehuda **said** that he is deemed credible when he states that he is pure against the testimony of witnesses **only when** the person is **by himself and** only **with regard to himself,** but as far as others are concerned, he is regarded as impure.


###### Keritot 12b:5
[Keritot 12b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/12b:5)

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי מֵאִיר לַחֲכָמִים, שֶׁאִם אָמְרוּ לוֹ שְׁנַיִם: בָּעַלְתָּ שִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר: לֹא בָּעַלְתִּי – מְהֵימַן, דְּאִי בָּעֵי אָמַר לְהוֹן: לֹא גָּמַרְתִּי בִּיאָתִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Reish Lakish says:** Although according to Rabbi Meir one is liable to bring an offering based on the testimony of two witnesses that he ate forbidden fat even if he denied it, **Rabbi Meir concedes to the Rabbis that if two** witnesses **said to him: You engaged in sexual intercourse with an espoused maidservant, and he says: I did not engage in sexual intercourse, he is deemed credible, since if he wishes,** he can **say to them: I did not complete my** act of **intercourse,** in which case, as stated earlier (10b), he is not liable to bring a guilt offering.


###### Keritot 12b:6
[Keritot 12b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/12b:6)

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי מֵאִיר לַחֲכָמִים בְּנָזִיר טָמֵא, שֶׁאָמְרוּ לוֹ שְׁנַיִם: נִטְמֵאתָ, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר: לֹא נִטְמֵאתִי – פָּטוּר, דְּאִי בָּעֵי אָמַר: נִשְׁאַלְתִּי עַל נִזְירִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Likewise, **Rav Sheshet says: Rabbi Meir concedes to the Rabbis in** the case of **an impure nazirite,** i.e., one **to whom two** witnesses **said: You became impure** and are therefore liable to bring a sin offering, **and he says: I did not become impure,** that he is **exempt, since if he wishes, he can say: I requested** from a halakhic authority to dissolve **my nazirite vow,** and he dissolved it. Therefore, it was permitted for me to become impure. Nazirites are prohibited from becoming impure with the impurity imparted by a corpse, whereas non-nazirites may come into contact with a corpse.


###### Keritot 12b:7
[Keritot 12b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/12b:7)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי מֵאִיר לַחֲכָמִים, שֶׁאִם אָמְרוּ לוֹ שְׁנַיִם: יוֹדֵעַ אַתָּה בְּעֵדוּת פְּלוֹנִי, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר: לֹא יָדַעְתִּי – פָּטוּר, דְּאִי בָּעֵי אָמַר: לֹא נִתְכַּוַּונְתִּי לְעֵדוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Likewise, **Abaye says: Rabbi Meir concedes to the Rabbis that if two** witnesses **said to** a person: **You know testimony about so-and-so, and he says: I do not know,** and he takes an oath to this effect, he is **exempt** from bringing an offering for taking a false oath of testimony. The reason is **that if he wishes,** he can **say:** I did witness the event, but **I had not intended to** offer **testimony,** in which case he is exempt from bringing an offering for taking a false oath of testimony.


###### Keritot 12b:8
[Keritot 12b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/12b:8)

אָכַל חֵלֶב וָחֵלֶב בְּהֶעְלֵם (אַחַת) [אֶחָד]. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא: אַמַּאי אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא חַטָּאת אַחַת וְהָא שְׁנֵי זֵיתֵי חֵלֶב אָכַל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if one unwittingly **ate** an olive-bulk of forbidden **fat and** then ate another olive-bulk of forbidden **fat during one lapse of awareness,** he is liable to bring only one sin offering. **Rabbi Zeira objects to this: Why is he liable** to bring **only one sin offering? But didn’t he eat two olive-bulks of** forbidden **fat?**


###### Keritot 12b:9
[Keritot 12b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/12b:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: הֶעְלֵמוֹת מְחוּלָּקוֹת, וְהָכָא הֶעְלֵם אֶחָד הוּא דְּאִיכָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rabbi Zeira: One is liable to bring two sin offerings only when he ate the olive-bulks of forbidden fat during **separate lapses of awareness,** e.g., he ate forbidden fat when he was unaware that it was prohibited, and subsequently became aware of the prohibition and then forgot about it and ate another olive-bulk of forbidden fat. This is derived from the verse: “If his sin, which he has sinned, is known to him, then he shall bring for his offering a goat, a female without blemish, for his sin which he has sinned” (Leviticus 4:28). **But here there is** only **one lapse of awareness.**


###### Keritot 12b:10
[Keritot 12b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/12b:10)

אִיכָּא דְּמַקְשֵׁי לֵיהּ הָכִי: טַעְמָא דְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד, הָא בִּשְׁתֵּי הֶעְלֵמוֹת חַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם. אַמַּאי? שֵׁם חֵלֶב אֶחָד הוּא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: הֶעְלֵמוֹת מְחוּלָּקִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites a different version of the discussion between Rabbi Zeira and Abaye. **There are** those **who** claim that Rabbi Zeira **raised** his **difficulty** to Abaye **in this** manner: **The reason that** one is liable to bring only one sin offering for his two transgressions of eating forbidden fat is **that** both acts took place during **one lapse of awareness; but** if he ate forbidden fat **in two lapses of awareness,** he is liable to bring **two** sin offerings. But **why? It** is **one category** of prohibition of forbidden **fat** that he has violated, and therefore he should bring only one sin offering. **Abaye said to** Rabbi Zeira: With regard to bringing sin offerings, **separate lapses** of awareness render him liable to bring multiple offerings.


###### Keritot 12b:11
[Keritot 12b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/12b:11)

אָכַל חֵלֶב וָדָם פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר – חַיָּיב כּוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If **one ate** forbidden **fat, and blood, and *piggul*, and *notar*** in one lapse of awareness, he is **liable** to bring a sin offering for each and every one of them. In a case where one ate half an olive-bulk and then ate another half olive-bulk during one lapse of awareness, if the two half olive-bulks were both from one type of forbidden food, he is liable to bring a sin offering. If they were from two types, he is exempt.


###### Keritot 12b:12
[Keritot 12b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/12b:12)

מִמִּין אֶחָד חַיָּיב, פְּשִׁיטָא! אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מִשּׁוּם בַּר תּוּטֵינִי: כְּגוֹן שֶׁאֲכָלוֹ בִּשְׁנֵי תַמְחוּיִין, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: דְּאָמַר תַּמְחוּיִין מְחוּלָּקִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: The ruling that if one ate two halves of an olive-bulk **of one type** of food he is **liable** to bring a sin offering is **obvious,** as he ate an olive-bulk of a forbidden food. **Reish Lakish said in the name of bar Tutini:** This is referring to a case **where he ate** them from **two dishes, and** it is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Yehoshua, who says** that eating food from distinct **dishes differentiates** his acts of consumption and renders them separate transgressions.


###### Keritot 12b:13
[Keritot 12b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/12b:13)

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ – לָא שְׁנָא לְקוּלָּא, וְלָא שְׁנָא לְחוּמְרָא. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּחַיָּיב, אַלְמָא: לְחוּמְרָא אָמַר, לְקוּלָּא לָא אָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This ruling was necessary **lest you say** that **when Rabbi Yehoshua says** that separate dishes render his acts separate transgressions, it **is no different** if this principle results in **a leniency and** it **is no different** if it results in **a stringency.** Therefore, the mishna **teaches us that** if he ate two half olive-bulks from two dishes, he is **liable** to bring a sin offering. **Evidently,** Rabbi Yehoshua **says** that eating food from separate dishes renders his acts of consumption separate transgressions only when this principle produces **a stringency,** but he **did not say** it as **a leniency.**


###### Keritot 12b:14
[Keritot 12b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/12b:14)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמַר עַל סֵיפָא: מִשְּׁנֵי מִינִין – פָּטוּר. פְּשִׁיטָא! אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מִשּׁוּם בַּר תּוּטֵינִי: כְּגוֹן שֶׁאֲכָלוֹ בִּשְׁנֵי תַמְחוּיִין, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: דְּאָמַר תַּמְחוּיִין מְחוּלָּקִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who say** that this discussion referred **to the latter clause** of the mishna: In a case where one ate half an olive-bulk and then ate another half olive-bulk during one lapse of awareness, if they were **from two types** of food, he is **exempt.** The Gemara asks: Isn’t that **obvious,** as he did not eat an entire olive-bulk of one type? **Reish Lakish said in the name of bar Tutini:** The mishna is referring to a case **where** he ate an olive-bulk of one type, but **he ate it in two dishes, and** it is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Yehoshua, who says** that eating food from separate **dishes differentiates** his acts of consumption and renders them separate transgressions.


###### Keritot 12b:15
[Keritot 12b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/12b:15)

דְּמַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: כִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ – לְחוּמְרָא אָמַר, לְקוּלָּא לָא אָמַר. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: מִשְּׁנֵי מִינִין פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This ruling was necessary **lest you say** that **when Rabbi Yehoshua says** that separate dishes render his acts separate transgressions, he **says** it only when it results in **a stringency,** but **he does not say** it when it results in **a leniency.** Therefore, the mishna **teaches us** that if he ate an olive-bulk **from two types** of food, he is **exempt.**


###### Keritot 12b:16
[Keritot 12b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/12b:16)

מַאי מִשְּׁנֵי מִינִין? מִמִּין אֶחָד הוּא, וְאַמַּאי קָרֵי לֵיהּ שְׁנֵי מִינִים – מִשּׁוּם דַּאֲכָלוֹ בִּשְׁנֵי תַמְחוּיִין, וְקָתָנֵי: פָּטוּר, אַלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא לְקוּלָּא וְלָא שְׁנָא לְחוּמְרָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **What** does the mishna mean when it states the case of eating **from two types** of food? **It** is actually a case of two half olive-bulks **from one** type of food; **and why** does the *tanna* **call it two types?** It is **because he ate it in two dishes,** half an olive-bulk in each dish, **and** the mishna **teaches** that he is **exempt. Evidently,** it **is no different** if it results in **a leniency and** it **is no different** if it results in **a stringency;** in both cases **Rabbi Yehoshua says** that separate dishes render one’s acts of consumption separate transgressions.


###### Keritot 12b:17
[Keritot 12b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/12b:17)

מִדְּסֵיפָא מִין אֶחָד וּשְׁנֵי תַמְחוּיִין, רֵישָׁא מִין אֶחָד וְתַמְחוּי אֶחָד. פְּשִׁיטָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **From** the fact that in **the latter clause,** when the mishna refers to two types of food it actually means **one type** of food **but** the case is where one ate it from **two dishes,** one can infer that when **the former clause** states that if one ate two half olive-bulks of one type of food he is liable to bring a sin offering, it must mean that it is **one type** of food **and** one ate it from **one dish.** But if so, why is it necessary to state this *halakha*; isn’t it **obvious?**


###### Keritot 12b:18
[Keritot 12b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/12b:18)

אָמַר רָבִינָא: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה לוֹ יְדִיעָה בֵּינְתַיִים, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, דְּאָמַר: אֵין יְדִיעָה לַחֲצִי שִׁיעוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said:** The mishna is referring to a case **where** he ate the two half olive-bulks but **he had** a period of **awareness in the interim,** e.g., he unwittingly ate half an olive-bulk of forbidden fat, then he became aware that he had done so, and subsequently he unwittingly ate another half an olive-bulk of forbidden fat. **And** the mishna is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabban Gamliel, who says: There is no awareness for a half-measure.** If one unwittingly performed a half-measure of a prohibited act and then became aware of his transgression, and then again unwittingly performed another half-measure of the prohibited act, his awareness in the interim does not prevent the two acts from combining. Accordingly, in the case here, it is as though he ate a full olive-bulk during one lapse of awareness.


###### Keritot 12b:19
[Keritot 12b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/12b:19)

דִּתְנַן: הַכּוֹתֵב שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת בִּשְׁתֵּי הֶעְלֵמוֹת, אַחַת שַׁחֲרִית וְאַחַת עַרְבִית – רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מִחַיַּיב, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As we learned** in a mishna (*Shabbat* 105a): With regard to **one who writes two letters** on Shabbat, which is the minimum that one must write in order to be rendered liable for this prohibited labor, and he did so unwittingly **in two** separate **lapses of awareness, one** letter in **the morning and one** letter **in the afternoon, Rabban Gamliel deems** him **liable** to bring a sin offering for writing on Shabbat, **and the Rabbis deem** him **exempt.**


###### Keritot 12b:20
[Keritot 12b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/12b:20)

רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סָבַר: אֵין יְדִיעָה לַחֲצִי שִׁיעוּר, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: יֵשׁ יְדִיעָה לַחֲצִי שִׁיעוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The basis of this dispute is that **Rabban Gamliel holds** that **there is no awareness for a half-measure.** Therefore, the fact that he became aware of his transgression after writing the first letter is of no significance. His awareness does not divide between the first act of writing a letter and the second act of writing a letter. **And the Rabbis hold: There is awareness for a half-measure.** Consequently, the two half-measures are considered to have been performed during separate lapses of awareness, and they do not combine to render him liable to bring a sin offering.


###### Keritot 12b:21
[Keritot 12b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/12b:21)

**מַתְנִי׳** כַּמָּה יִשְׁהֶא בָּאוֹכָלִין? כְּאִילּוּ אוֹכֵל קְלָיוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁהֶא מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף כְּדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **How much** time **can one expend** while eating an olive-bulk **of** forbidden **food** and still be liable for violating the prohibition? The duration is calculated **as though he were eating toasted grain,** which one eats one kernel at a time. If he eats the olive-bulk of forbidden food within the amount of time it would take to eat an olive-bulk of toasted grain, he is liable. This is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Unless** the amount of time **he expends from beginning to end** is more than the time it takes **to eat a half-loaf [*peras*]** of bread, he is **liable.**


###### Keritot 12b:22
[Keritot 12b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/12b:22)

אָכַל אוֹכָלִין טְמֵאִין וְשָׁתָה מַשְׁקִין טְמֵאִין, שָׁתָה רְבִיעִית יַיִן וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְשָׁהָה כְּדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס – חַיָּיב, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אִם פָּסֵק בָּהּ אוֹ אִם נָתַן בּוֹ מַיִם כׇּל שֶׁהוּא – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Likewise, one who **ate** a quarter-loaf of **ritually impure foods or drank** a quarter-*log* of **ritually impure liquids** within the amount of time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread is rendered unfit to partake of *teruma*, the portion of the produce designated for priests, until he becomes pure. Similarly, if one **drank a quarter**-***log* of wine and entered the Temple, and he remained** there for the time it takes **to eat a half-loaf** of bread, he is **liable. Rabbi Elazar says: If he interrupted** his drinking of the quarter-*log* of wine **or if he placed any amount of water into** the wine, he is **exempt.**


###### Keritot 12b:23
[Keritot 12b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/12b:23)

**גְּמָ׳** אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: רַבִּי מֵאִיר, לְחוּמְרָא קָאָמַר אוֹ לְקוּלָּא קָאָמַר? לְחוּמְרָא קָאָמַר, וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: כְּאִילּוּ אוֹכֵל קְלָיוֹת, דַּאֲפִילּוּ כּוּלֵּיהּ יוֹמָא. וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּמִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף יוֹתֵר מִכְּדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס, כֵּיוָן דִּמְשִׁיכָה אֲכִילְתֵיהּ – מִחַיַּיב. וַאֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן: דְּעַד שֶׁיִּשְׁהֶא בִּכְדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס הוּא דְּחַיָּיב יוֹתֵר מִכְּדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: Does **Rabbi Meir state** his opinion, that the duration of time is calculated as though one were eating toasted grain, **as a stringency or** does **he state** it **as a leniency?** The Gemara elaborates: **Does he state it as a stringency, and this** is what he **is teaching:** The duration is calculated **as though he were eating toasted grain** a little at a time, and therefore **even** if it takes him **the entire day** to consume an olive-bulk of the forbiden food, **and even though from beginning to end** he expends **more than** the time it takes **to eat a half-loaf** of bread, **since** he consumed a full olive-bulk in one **extended** act of **eating, he is liable; and the Rabbis said to him that unless he expends** less than the time it takes **to eat a half-loaf** of bread, **he is liable,** but if he expends **more than** the time it takes **to eat a half-loaf** of bread, he is **exempt?**


###### Keritot 12b:24
[Keritot 12b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/12b:24)

אוֹ דִלְמָא לְקוּלָּא קָאָמַר, דְּהָכִי קָתָנֵי: כְּאִילּוּ אוֹכֵל קְלָיוֹת, וְהוּא דְּלָא אַיפְסֵיק בֵּינֵי וּבֵינֵי, אֲבָל דְּאַיפְסֵיק בֵּינֵי וּבֵינֵי, אַף עַל גַּב דְּמִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף בִּכְדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס – פָּטוּר. וְאָמְרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן: כֵּיוָן דְּמִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף בִּכְדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס הוּא – חַיָּיב?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or perhaps** Rabbi Meir **says** his opinion **as a leniency, as this** is what he **is teaching:** The duration is calculated **as though he were eating toasted grain, which is** eaten continuously one kernel after another, and therefore he is liable only if **he did not interrupt** at all **in between** his bites. **But** if **he interrupted in between** them, then **although** the duration **from beginning to end** was less than the time it takes **to eat a half-loaf** of bread, he is **exempt; and the Rabbis said to him: Since** the amount of time **from beginning to end is** less than the time it takes **to eat a half-loaf** of bread, he is **liable,** despite the interruptions.


###### Keritot 12b:25
[Keritot 12b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/12b:25)

תָּא שְׁמַע: וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: עֵד שֶׁיִּשְׁהֶא בִּכְדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests a resolution: **Come** and **hear** the mishna: **And the Rabbis say: Unless** the amount of time **he expends from beginning to end** is the time it takes **to eat a half-loaf** of bread.