Keritot 21a — the Talmud in English

I will exclude the blood of creeping creatures, which do not have severe impurity,

for creeping creatures convey impurity only through contact.

I will exclude the blood of eggs, which

the eggs

are not a type of flesh .

I will exclude the blood of fish

and

the blood of locusts, all of which is permitted,

as they are permitted without slaughter .

And therefore it is written,

“of birds and of animals.”

For if only “of birds” had been written, I would say:

Just as a bird that has no forbidden mixture,

the forbidden mixture of garments, since the bird’s feathers are not included in wool and are permitted with linen,

so too an animal

would have its blood forbidden only if it

has no forbidden mixture

in its wool, such as an ox or goat. But a sheep, whose wool is forbidden in a mixture, would not have its blood forbidden.

The verse states, “and of animals” —

all animals are included in the prohibition.

And if only “and of animals” had been written, I would say:

Just as an animal is not subject to “a mother with the children,”

for it has no mitzva of sending away the mother bird,

so too a bird,

specifically a bird

that is not subject to “a mother with the children,”

such as an impure bird, for which there is no sending away of the mother bird. But the blood of a pure bird would not be forbidden .

The verse states —

“of birds and of animals.”

And we inquire concerning it:

Let us say, “any blood” —

a generalization; “bird and animal” —

a specification.

It would be

a generalization, a specification,

and we expound:

the generalization includes only what is in the specification!

That is,

bird and animal, yes; anything else —

no!?

And we answer: It is written afterward,

“A person who eats any blood

— and that person shall be cut off from among his people!” And through this

the verse returned

and

generalized.

If so, it is

a generalization, a specification, and a generalization.

Additional matters are then learned from it, but

you may derive only what is similar to the specification,

and only something that in general is not similar to the specification is excluded by this exposition.

And we object:

But the final generalization is not similar to the initial generalization.

For

the initial generalization,

in which it is written, “You shall not eat any blood,” involves only

a prohibition

and no karet, whereas in

the final generalization

it is written that there is

karet

— how can we expound them as two different generalizations through a generalization, specification, and generalization? And we answer:

This

tanna —

the tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael

is.

For he holds [in Tractate Chullin 66a]:

that generalizations and specifications are expounded in this manner,

in such a way,

even though the final generalization is not similar to the initial generalization.

The Master said: A generalization, a specification, and a generalization —

you may derive only what is similar to the specification. Just as the specification explicitly refers to something that has minor impurity and severe impurity, has prohibition and permission, and is a type of flesh, so too everything that has minor minor impurity and severe impurity, and so forth.

And we inquire concerning it:

“So too everything,” as it teaches

in the beraita —

what does it bring in?

For there was no need to include a wild animal, since a wild animal is included within an animal; what else is there to include?

And we answer:

Rav Idi bar Avin said: It brings in the blood of a kוי.

And we object:

What does he hold? If he holds that a kוי is a doubt,

whether it is an animal or a wild animal, then

is a verse necessary to prohibit a doubtful case?!

For in either event its blood is forbidden, whether it is an animal or whether it is a wild animal.

And we answer:

Rather, he holds that a kוי is a species unto itself,

and is neither an animal nor a wild animal; therefore a verse is necessary to prohibit its blood.

And we inquire concerning it:

We have found its blood

to be forbidden for eating from this exposition of a generalization, specification, and generalization.

Its fat —

from where do we know

that it is forbidden? For it is not included among animals whose fat is forbidden.

And we answer: We derive it

from “all fat.” “All” serves to include the kוי.

And we inquire concerning it:

Its carcass,

which you said is a creature of its own kind,

which you said is a species unto itself —

from where do we know

that it is forbidden for eating?

And we answer:

From “every carcass.”

And we inquire concerning it:

The sciatic nerve

of the kוי —

from where do we know

that it is forbidden for eating?

And we answer:

The Merciful One made it dependent upon “the hollow of the thigh,”

as it is stated: “Therefore the children of Israel shall not eat the sciatic nerve that is upon the hollow of the thigh,”

and

the kוי

has the hollow of the thigh!

For the flesh upon its thighbone is round like a hollow.

And we inquire concerning it:

Its impurity,

that its carcass conveys impurity,

and

that it requires

slaughter — from where do we know?

And we answer:

It is logical.

It is

since for every matter the Merciful One included it like an animal;

therefore with regard to

its impurity and its slaughter as well, it is like an animal

.

The Master said: “I will exclude the blood of bipeds, which do not have minor impurity.”

And we juxtapose an objection:

We learned in Tractate Uktzin:

One who cuts

flesh

from a human being

who is alive

requires intention,

that he intend it to be for human consumption [by a gentile], and only then does the status of “food” apply to it, so that it can receive impurity. For it is not customary to eat human flesh.

And

likewise the flesh cut from the living being requires

preparation,

so that it becomes prepared to receive impurity through water being placed upon it, like every food that does not receive impurity until it has been prepared .

And we raise a difficulty: Why do I need intention?

For

the act

of

his cutting

the flesh from the body of the human being

is intention!

For the very fact that he cut the flesh from the human being gives it importance, since presumably he cut it for human consumption.

And Reish Lakish said:

What are we dealing with here?

With one who cuts it

in order to feed it

to a dog, for intention for a dog is not intention!

It has still not thereby acquired the status of food.

And we object:

And

is it the case that intention for a dog

is not

intention?!

But we learned: They stated a general principle regarding purity: Everything designated for human food

and upon which the status of “food” has taken effect is

impure

with the impurity of foods if it becomes impure. And even if it deteriorates and is no longer fit for human consumption, it remains in its state of impurity

until it becomes unfit for a dog’s consumption [

Maimonides; and according to the Raavad, even if it has not become impure, it has the status of “food” for receiving impurity until it becomes unfit for a dog’s consumption]. It is apparent that food for a dog has the status of “food”; if so, why should intention for a dog alone not suffice for the status of “food” to take effect?

And we answer:

that one—

which had already become impure. And the issue is

to remove impurity from it,

to strip its impurity from it; and therefore we say:

since initially it was fit for a person,

then

to remove it from impurity,

the impurity is not removed

until it becomes unfit for a dog to eat.

But

here,

where the flesh of the person that he cut has not yet become impure, but we are considering whether

to cause impurity to rest upon it,

so that it will receive impurity, therefore:

if it is fit for a person, it is not.

If it is not fit for a person, it is not! [For the Raavad, the explanation is that there, since it had already been fit for human consumption and the status of food had descended upon it for receiving impurity, it does not cease from receiving impurity until it becomes unfit for a dog to eat; but here, since it had never yet been fit to receive impurity, it must specifically be fit for human consumption] .

And we conclude the refutation:

in any event, it teaches

that the flesh of a person requires

“thought.”

And “thought”

to designate it as food is only in relation

to

receiving food impurity, for

it is a light impurity.

And why did the beraita say that among two-legged beings there is no light impurity?

And we answer:

this applies during life

of the person, when there is upon his flesh only food impurity.

But after death—

he is impure with severe impurity

of a corpse.

And we object: If so,

correspondingly, regarding an animal,

for which you said that there is in it light impurity, this must likewise be

after death,

analogously to a person. But after death,

if [whether]

its flesh

of it

causes severe impurity

like a carcass,

and if [and whether]

its blood

of it also

causes severe impurity

like a carcass?!

For we learned:

that Beit Hillel hold as follows:

the blood of carcasses—

Beit Shammai declare pure

from carcass impurity,

and Beit Hillel declare impure .

And we answer: It is indeed speaking of after death. And

it was necessary

to state the distinction between a person and an animal

only with regard to what we learned:

The carcass of an impure animal

is not considered food

anywhere,

and even in cities, where there is a multitude of people, there are none who would buy it as food, since people are not accustomed to eat the carcass of an impure animal, for it is more repulsive. And likewise,

the carcass of a pure bird in villages

specifically, where there is no multitude of people, it is not common for the carcass of a bird to be considered there as something designated for eating. [But in cities there will be people among the masses who will buy it for eating, and therefore in cities it is considered food.] Therefore, in both cases,

thought is required

so that the flesh will have the status of food and be fit to receive food impurity. [And below he asks: why is receiving impurity needed, since the carcass itself causes impurity?] But—

and preparation is not required

of placing water upon them, nor even preparation through contact with a creeping creature. That is, even if no impurity has touched them at all, they cause food impurity on account of themselves and cause other food that touched them to become impure. And the reason is:

We derive below that anything whose eventual status is to cause severe impurity does not require preparation with water or contact with a creeping creature in order that it itself cause food impurity. Now, a carcass has severe impurity in it, for it causes a person to become impure even through carrying; therefore it causes food impurity without preparation through placing water upon it and without touching a creeping creature.

The carcass of a pure animal

is considered food

everywhere,

since it is designated for consumption by gentiles.

And

likewise

the carcass of a pure bird, and

likewise

the fat

of the carcass of a pure animal

in marketplaces [cities] where wealthy people are found whose practice is to eat birds and fat—

[that is, in cities] where wealthy people are found who are accustomed to eating birds and fat—

they do not require

either

thought and

not

preparation

in order that they cause food impurity. [The carcass does not require preparation, as stated, because its eventual status is to cause severe impurity. And the fat, although it does not have carcass impurity [as we derive from the verse, which states, “And the fat of a carcass may be used for any work”] and requires contact with a creeping creature in order to cause others to become impure, nevertheless does not require preparation with water, since here we are speaking of fat from a slaughtered animal, which the blood of slaughtering prepared.]

And Rav said to Rabbi Hiyya:

“Thought”

concerning the carcass of an impure animal, in order to designate it as food—

why is it needed?

Necessarily,

for light impurity.

That is,

it is effective for it

the thought

to make it

the carcass

food,

so that there will be in it the capacity

to cause

other food to become impure through

impurity of contact.

But let it be difficult:

is this itself not impure?!

For it is a carcass and causes others to become impure [even through carrying], even without the status of food having been imposed upon it?!

He said to him

Rabbi Hiyya: What are we dealing with here?

For example, there is less than an olive-bulk of a carcass,

which does not cause carcass impurity,

and it is joined to less than an egg-bulk of food

that is impure, for this food too, in itself, does not cause food impurity, since it lacks the requisite measure,

this and that

together

constitute an egg-bulk.

Therefore, only if he formed the intention concerning the carcass that a person should eat it does the status of “food” rest upon it, and through this it joins with the other food to complete the measure of an egg-bulk, and they cause food impurity. [According to the Rambam, the food that joins with it also does not require preparation with water or contact with a creeping creature. And Tosafot, Bava Kamma 77a, wrote in the name of Rashi that the food requires contact with a creeping creature, and the same applies to preparation with water. And see Hazon Ish, Uktzin 5:10, who reasons that the joining food requires preparation, and left the words of the Rambam requiring further examination.]

Rav said to him:

If so,

that we are speaking of a case in which there is no olive-bulk in the carcass itself—

it should also require preparation

through the arrival of water and contact with a creeping creature. For here one cannot say that its eventual status is to cause severe impurity in its capacity as a carcass?!

For the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

with regard to the law of preparing food to receive impurity by placing water upon it, it is stated: “And if any of their carcass falls

upon any sowing seed that is sown.”

And we expound:

Just as seeds are distinguished

by this

that their eventual status is not to cause severe impurity,

for food can never be a primary source of impurity and can never cause a person or vessels to become impure,

and requires preparation

with water and contact with something that will render it impure,

so too, anything whose eventual status is not to cause severe impurity

alone

requires preparation

with water and that impurity touch it. But something whose eventual status is to cause severe impurity does not require preparation; rather, it causes food impurity on account of itself, even before the severe impurity has descended upon it.

And why does it teach in the Mishna that the carcass [even if it does not contain an olive-bulk] does not require preparation?

Rabbi Hiyya said to him:

Rav:

This applies

when preparation is required:

with ordinary foods, in which there is no less than an olive-bulk of a carcass.

But here, where there is within it

that is, where the food itself is

less than an olive-bulk of a carcass, since if he were to join it

that is, if he were to add to the carcass until

an olive-bulk, it would not require preparation, now too

when the carcass is only less than an olive-bulk,

it does not require preparation [But with regard to the need for thought in order to make it food, we do not say this reasoning. Since it is less than an olive-bulk, it does not cause impurity as a carcass, but only in the capacity of food. Nevertheless, preparation is not required, for regarding the principle that “its eventual status is to cause severe impurity,” it is sufficient that if it were an olive-bulk it would cause severe impurity, so that even now it does not require preparation] .

And now we conclude by resolving the beraita above, which teaches that an animal has light impurity but two-legged beings do not: it is indeed speaking of after death, and in a case such as this, where there was less than an olive-bulk of a carcass and it was joined to less than an egg-bulk of food. And it should not be difficult that, if so, two-legged beings too can have light impurity—for example, where there was less than an olive-bulk of the flesh of the dead, which does not cause impurity in the capacity of a corpse, but if he formed the intention concerning it for human consumption, it joins with less than an egg-bulk of food?