Keritot 13A

אי אמרת בשלמא רבי מאיר לחומרא, היינו דקתני: ״עד שישהא״, עד דשהי[ה] דיליה כדי אכילת פרס.

Granted, if you say that R' 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.

אלא אי אמרת רבי מאיר לקולא, ״וחכמים אומרים: אם שהה״ מיבעי ליה! אלא לאו שמע מינה: רבי מאיר לחומרא? שמע מינה.

But if you say that R' 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’t it correct to conclude from it that R' Meir issued his ruling as a stringency? The Talmud affirms: Conclude from it that this is correct.

אמר רבנאי אמר שמואל: בחלבים ובנבילה עד שישהא מתחלה ועד סוף בכדי אכילת פרס. אוכלים טמאים, שקצים ורמשים ומשקין ⁠– אפילו כל היום כולו בכדי אכילת פרס.

§ 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 Mishnah. If he ate impure foods in the volume of 1/4th-loaf of bread, or he ate repugnant creatures or creeping animals, or drank 1/4th-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.