Kerisos 3:3 - 3:4

כמה ישהה האוכלן – for the two halves of olives that we mentioned combine.

כאילו אוכלן קליות – we see them as if they had been broken into [thin] crumbs like parched corn and eat them one by one closely after the other, and in this we estimate if he ate one-half of an olive and he ceased and an hour ate another half-olive, but if he delayed from the beginning until the end in order to eat parched corn at close intervals to each other, they combine, but if he did not stop from eating, but rather that he delayed in chewing them and swallowing them, even the entire day, they combine, according to the words of Rabbi Meir.

וחכמים אומרים עד ישהה מתחילה ועד סוף כדי אכילת פרס (eating a piece/a certain quantity of bread) – meaning to say, even if he didn’t stop between eating one-half of an olive and the eating of the other half, but rather, that he delayed in chewing the two halves of olives [for the time it would take] in order to eat a piece of bread, from the beginning of eating until the end of swallowing, they combine. But more than [the time it would take] in order to eat a piece of bread, it would not combine. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

פרס – the language of breaking bread/piece of bread and reciting Birkat HaMazon. And this is one-half a loaf of the Eruv (i.e., to establish the joining of borders), from three loaves to a Kab, for each loave is eight eggs; it is found that one-half of a loaf is four eggs. Such is what my Rabbis have explained. But Maimonides states that it is three eggs worth.

אכל אוכלים טמאים – A person who consumes impure foods the equivalent one-half of a loaf which is two eggs, according to the interpretation of my Teachers. But, according to Maimonides, an egg and a half, his body is disqualified from eating heave-offering/Terumah (if he is a Kohen) until he immerses [in a Mikveh]. But the person who drinks one-fourth of a LOG of wine or enters into the Temple is liable for extirpation. But now, as we state, if he delayed in the eating of half-of loaf of ritually impure food or in the drinking of one-fourth of a LOG of ritually impure drinks, that would be considered as consuming one-half a loaf, they combine to the measurement and his body is disqualified from consuming heave-offering [if he is a Kohen]. But if he delayed more than this measure, they don’t combine. And the same law applies to the measurement of a quarter of a LOG of wine of entering into the Temple, for if he delayed in his drinking in order to eat half-a-loaf or less, he is liable; more than this, he is exempt.

אם הפסיק בה (if he interrupted) – and didn’t drink the entire quarter of a LOG at one clip and entered in the Temple, he is exempt, as it is written (Leviticus 10:9): “Drink no wine or other intoxicant, [you or your sons, when you enter the Tent of Meeting, that you may not die],” wine in the manner of his drunkenness. But if he doesn’t drink it at one clip, this is not the manner of his drunkenness. And similarly, if he placed water in it. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer. And these words refer to when he drinks an actual one-quarter of a LOG, but if he drank more than one-quarter of a LOG, Rabbi Eliezer admits that he is liable, even if he didn’t drink all of it at one clip.

ארבע חטאות – one is because of [eating] forbidden fat, and one is because of eating Holy Things while [in a state of] ritually impure, and one is because of a remnant/left over (i.e., part of an offering left over after the time permitted for it to be eaten), and one because it was on Yom Kippur, for we hold throughout the entire Torah, that a prohibition does not take effect upon another prohibition , these words refer to a mere prohibition, as for example, a person who consumes the carrion of n impure animal, he is not liable because of he carrion because it is a mere prohibition that is not inclusive, nor does it add [to the prohibition]. But here, a person who was from the outset ritually pure, he was prohibited to consume prohibited fat and permitted with the rest of the meat of Holy Things. If he became ritually impure, since he became prohibited as regards the rest of the pieces of the meat of Holy Things because of ritual impurity, he is prohibited also [to consume] the prohibited fat, even though he was forbidden from the outset, and that is, an inclusive prohibition, that the final prohibition includes and prohibits other things on a person that were permitted to him from the outset. But however, it doesn’t add a prohibition on a sacred object held in hand at the delivery of an oath, but rather on the person it adds a prohibition regarding other things, and whetting the appetite and measuring also for this in his prohibition. This forbidden fat becomes a left-over (i.e., after the time permitted for it to be eaten, which is a prohibition that adds, that ab initio for a regular Kohen, is prohibited but for the Most High is permitted, since when it became a left-over, added a prohibition on the piece [of meat] itself to be forbidden even to the Most High. But since the name of a left-over prohibition takes effect upon it to make it forbidden to the Most High, it also takes affect the title of left-over regarding an ordinary [Priest] to make it liable because of left-overs, even though that without this, it would be forbidden to the regular [Priest]. The [prohibition] of Yom Kippur occurs to it, since a prohibition was added regarding a person to prohibit him from [partaking of] non-consecrated things which were permitted to him prior to Yom Kippur, whetting the appetite and measuring for this prohibited fat of Holy Things explicitly to be liable for it because of the Day of Atonement.

ואשם אחד – the guilt-offering for misuse of consecrated articles that he benefitted from that which was consecrated [to the Temple] inadvertently. But even this prohibition adds on the sacred object that is held at the delivery of an oath, for prior to his sanctifying it, this forbidden fat was prohibited to eat, but permissible in deriving benefit, once it was sanctified, it becomes prohibited even for deriving benefit, and because the name of “dedicated to the Temple” takes effect on the forbidden fat to prohibit him from deriving benefit, it also takes effect to make him liable for eating it because he is benefitting from that which is dedicated to the Temple.

אם היה שבת והוציאו בפיו – while he was eating it [going from one domain to another].

חייב – [he is liable] also on he removal from one domain to another. Bur in the Gemara (Tractate Keritot 14a) it explains that this is what he said: If it was Yom Kippur that fell on the Sabbath and he took it out, he is liable for two [sins] on his removing it – because of the Sabbath and because of Yom Kippur, the two of them come as one, for at the time that he sanctified the day for Sabbath, he sanctified also for Yom Kippur. And just as there is an Eruv and removal [from one domain to another] for Shabbat, so too, there is an Eruv and removal [from one domain to another] on Yom Kippur. And the prohibition takes effect upon another prohibition with the prohibition at one time.

אינו מן השם – meaning to say the Tanna/teacher (i.e., Rabbi Meir) did not consider anything other than sin-offerings that come because of eating, but this is because of removal [from one domain to another].