Keritot 21b — the Talmud in English

And we said:

to exclude a dead person,

for

even though he fills it

the less-than-an-egg-bulk of food with less than an olive-bulk of the dead person

it does not impart food impurity

even through thought that he will eat it,

because a person’s opinion is nullified beside the opinion of all people!

[Because people are not accustomed to eating the flesh of a dead person. Rabbeinu Gershom.] And the status of “food” will never apply to the flesh of the dead person.

Rav Hananya said: Even if you say

that this which it teaches, that a carcass requires thought, is speaking

where it is an olive-bulk

of a carcass, nevertheless it is not difficult why it requires thought, since it itself imparts severe impurity. For

with what are we dealing here? For example, where he covered it

that olive-bulk of carcass

with dough

of less than an egg-bulk, and the carcass completes it to an egg-bulk. Since the carcass in itself cannot impart impurity through contact, as it is covered by dough, it therefore requires thought, so that the status of “food” should apply to it, and then it will impart food impurity together with the dough.

And we challenge:

If so—

should preparation also be required?!

For in such a manner it cannot impart severe impurity.

And we answer:

This applies

when preparation is required

with regard to other foods, which do not impart

severe impurity

neither through contact nor through carrying.

But here,

with regard to the flesh of a carcass that he covered,

although it does not impart impurity through contact

as a carcass, because

it is covered with dough,

nevertheless

through carrying at least it becomes impure

the one carrying it, according to the law of one who carries a carcass.

For he is carrying it,

for he carries the flesh of the carcass even when it is covered with dough. Therefore it is considered “destined ultimately to impart severe impurity,” and consequently, even though now, when it is covered, it imparts only food impurity through contact, it nevertheless does not require preparation.

And the beraita that teaches that an animal has lesser impurity is likewise speaking of this case: He covered an olive-bulk of carcass with dough. And

to exclude

the flesh of a

dead person,

that is, a two-legged creature, in which lesser impurity is altogether impossible.

For even though he covered it

the flesh of the dead person

with dough, it imparts severe impurity

as a dead person, because

the impurity

of a dead person

breaks through and rises, breaks through and descends,

beyond the dough covering it.

The Master said: “Excluded are creeping creatures, which do not have severe impurity.”

And we inquire about it:

A

for

not

is there severe impurity among creeping creatures? After all,

a creeping creature imparts impurity through contact

even to a person and to vessels?

And we answer:

Through carrying, at least, it does not impart impurity

the creeping creature.

The Master said: “Excluded are the blood of fish and the blood of locusts, all of which are permitted.”

And we inquire about it:

What is meant by ‘all of it is permitted’?

If you say that its milk

of fish and locusts

is permitted, behold, an undomesticated animal whose milk is permitted, and

nevertheless

its blood is forbidden,

and if so, the blood of fish and locusts should also be forbidden?

Rather,

say

because there is not in them

in fish and locusts

a prohibition of the sciatic nerve—and behold, a bird does not have a prohibition of the sciatic nerve, yet its blood is forbidden?

And we answer:

Rather, what is meant by ‘all of it is permitted’? That fish and locusts do not require

the fish and locusts

slaughter

as do an undomesticated animal and a bird.

The Master said: “Just as a bird does not have diverse kinds, so too an animal; Scripture states, ‘And for an animal.’”

And we inquire about it:

Diverse kinds of what?

Which diverse kinds do not apply to a bird?

If you say diverse kinds of mating and diverse kinds of plowing

of two species together,

but we learned

in tractate Bava Kamma:

An undomesticated animal and a bird—

are like them!

For diverse kinds of plowing and of mating apply to them, as with an animal?

And we answer:

Rather, said Abaye:

this is what he is saying:

If one made yarn from it

of a bird—its feather,

one is not liable for it on account of diverse kinds,

diverse kinds of garments, if he wove it with flax.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: For the blood of creeping creatures, one is flogged for an olive-bulk.

A challenge was raised:

It was taught:

The blood of the spleen, the blood of the heart, the blood of the kidneys, the blood of the limbs—these are subject only to a prohibition,

but not to karet, because they are not the blood of the soul.

The blood of two-legged creatures, the blood of creeping creatures and crawling creatures, is forbidden, but one is not liable for it,

even lashes. And this is difficult for Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav, who says that one is flogged for the blood of creeping creatures. And we answer:

What is meant by ‘one is not liable for it,’ as it teaches?

That is

karet

specifically,

but

for a

prohibition one is liable.

And we challenge:

One.

That is, the first clause,

The law concerning the blood of limbs in a human being and in animals is the same, so why did the tan­ nay divide them into two clauses?

Furthermore,

for

this tan­ nay

of the beraita at the beginning of our chapter

also excludes it by its wording

the blood of creeping creatures.

For it teaches: “Excluded is the blood of creeping creatures, which do not have severe impurity!”

And at the beginning of the beraita it says, “You shall not eat any blood,” implying that it was also excluded from the prohibition?

And we answer:

Rather, said Rabbi Zeira:

this that Rav says that one is flogged for the blood of creeping creatures means that if they warned him

on account of

eating the prohibition of

a creeping creature, he is flogged.

For the blood of a creeping creature is forbidden like its flesh. But if

they warned him on account of

the prohibition of

blood, he is not flogged,

because the blood of a creeping creature was excluded even from the prohibition of blood.

Rav said: Fish blood that one collected,

gathering it in a vessel,

is forbidden

by rabbinic law, so that people should not come to permit the blood of an animal, for they resemble one another.

A challenge was raised:

It was taught in the final clause of the above beraita:

The blood of fish, the blood of locusts, is permitted, even initially!

And this is difficult for Rav?

And we answer:

That

is speaking

when he did not collect it.

And

when Rav says

that it is forbidden, he means

when he collected it.

And we challenge: If so,

with regard to two-legged creatures similarly,

for it teaches earlier in that same beraita that it is forbidden, it too is speaking

when he did not collect it.

And

is it forbidden

in such a case?!

But it was taught: Blood that is upon a loaf—

he scrapes it off

the blood from the loaf,

and

afterward

he eats it,

the loaf. And blood

between the teeth—

he sucks it and swallows it and need not be concerned,

because it is still attached to the person’s body.

And the wording “he scrapes it off” implies that even the blood upon the loaf is not actually forbidden, since he did not collect it; rather, there is merely a mitzva to scrape it off. Necessarily, this that the beraita teaches that the blood of two-legged creatures is forbidden refers to when he collected it. If so, the blood of fish that is permitted is permitted even when he collected it. And this is difficult for Rav?

And we answer:

Rather,

actually,

when that teaching was taught, that teaching

which teaches that the blood of fish is permitted even initially, it was even when he collected it, and this is a case

where there are

within the blood

scales

from the fish. Through this it is recognizable that this blood is fish blood, and there is no concern that people will come to permit animal blood. And

when Rav says

that it is

forbidden,

it is a case

where there are no scales in it,

so it is not recognizable what blood it is, and therefore it is forbidden.

Rav Sheshet said: Human blood does not even contain a mitzva of “separation,”

“separation,”

a mere mitzva of separation,

is not in it.

A challenge was raised:

It was taught:

The blood of the spleen, the blood of milk, the blood of the kidneys, the blood of the limbs—these are subject to a prohibition. The blood of two-legged creatures, the blood of creeping creatures and crawling creatures, is forbidden, but one is not liable for it.

It follows that the blood of two-legged creatures does have a prohibition?