Keritot 21b (כא:) — the Talmud in English

And we say:

to exclude a corpse,

as

even though one fills it

—the less-than-an-egg-bulk of food—with less than an olive-bulk of a corpse

it does not impart ritual impurity as food

even through the thought that one will eat it,

because his opinion is disregarded in relation to that of all other people! [Since people are not accustomed to eating the flesh of a dead human being. Rabbenu Gershom.] And the status of “food” will never apply to the flesh of a corpse.

.

Rav Ḥananya said: You may even say

that the statement that a carcass requires intent is discussing a case

where there is an olive-bulk

of a carcass. Nevertheless, there is no difficulty as to why it requires intent, despite the fact that it itself imparts severe impurity. For

here, with what are we dealing? With a case where he covered it

—that olive-bulk of carcass—

with dough,

less than an egg-bulk, and the carcass completes it to an egg-bulk. In itself, the carcass cannot impart impurity through contact, since it is covered by the dough. Therefore, it requires intent for the status of “food” to apply to it, after which it will impart food impurity together with the dough.

And we raise an objection:

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

either through contact or through carrying.

But here,

in the case of the flesh of a carcass that he covered,

although it does not impart impurity through contact

in its capacity as a carcass, because

it is covered with dough,

nevertheless,

through carrying, at least, it imparts impurity

to the one carrying it, as does one who carries a carcass.

For he is carrying it,

since he carries the flesh of the carcass even when it is covered with dough. Therefore, it is considered “destined to impart severe impurity.” Consequently, although now, while it is covered, it imparts only food impurity through contact, it nevertheless does not require preparation.

The beraita that teaches that an animal possesses lesser impurity is likewise dealing with this circumstance: He covered an olive-bulk of carcass with dough. And

to exclude

flesh of a

corpse,

that is, the flesh of bipeds, with regard to which lesser impurity is entirely impossible.

For even though he covered

the flesh of the corpse

with dough, it imparts severe impurity

in its capacity as a corpse, because

the impurity

of a corpse

pierces upward and pierces downward,

through the dough covering it.

The Master said: “It excludes creeping animals, which do not possess severe impurity.”

We inquire about this:

And

if

not,

does a creeping animal not possess severe impurity? But

a creeping animal imparts impurity through contact

even to a person and to vessels!

And we answer:

At least, it does not impart impurity through carrying,

the creeping animal.

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

We inquire about this:

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

If you say that their milk

—of fish and locusts—

is permitted, then wild animals, whose milk is permitted, nevertheless

their blood is forbidden,

and

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

Rather,

say that it is

because they do not have

the prohibition of the sciatic nerve,

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

And we answer:

Rather, what is meant by ‘all of it is permitted’? It means that they do not require

fish and locusts

slaughter

as do wild animals and birds.

The Master said: “Just as a bird does not have the prohibition of diverse kinds, so too an animal; the verse states: ‘and for an animal.’”

We inquire about this:

What diverse kinds

are meant? Which prohibition of diverse kinds does not apply to a bird?

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

of two species together,

but we learned

in tractate Bava Kamma:

Wild animals and birds—

are like them!

The prohibitions of diverse kinds of plowing and mating apply to them just as they do to animals.

And we answer:

Rather, Abaye said:

This is what it means:

If one spun

the wool of a bird—that is, its feathers—

he is not liable for the prohibition of diverse kinds,

the diverse kinds of clothing, if he wove them together with linen.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: For the blood of creeping animals, one is flogged for an olive-bulk.

Meytivi:

It was taught in a beraita:

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

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

The blood of bipeds, the blood of creeping animals and crawling creatures—is forbidden, but one is not liable for it,

even to lashes. This is difficult for Rav Yehuda who said in the name of Rav that one is flogged for the blood of creeping animals. And we answer:

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

It means

karet

specifically;

but

for a

prohibition he is liable.

And we raise an objection:

One

[objection], namely, the first clause:

For the law concerning the blood of the limbs in a human being and in animals is identical. Why, then, did the tanna divide them into two separate clauses?

Furthermore,

indeed,

this tanna

of the beraita at the beginning of our chapter

also excludes it through the term ‘all,’

the blood of creeping animals.

For it teaches: “It excludes the blood of creeping animals, which do not possess severe impurity!”

And at the beginning of the beraita it states, “You shall not eat any blood,” indicating that it too was excluded even from the prohibition?

And we answer:

Rather, Rabbi Zeira said:

When Rav said that one is flogged for the blood of creeping animals, he meant that if they warned him

because of

the prohibition against eating

a creeping animal, he is flogged.

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

they warned him because of

the prohibition of

blood, he is not flogged,

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

Rav said: The blood of fish that one collected,

that is, gathered in a vessel,

is forbidden

by rabbinic law, so that people will not come to permit the blood of animals, since they resemble one another.

Meytivi:

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

The blood of fish and the blood of locusts are permitted, even ab initio!

This is difficult for Rav.

And we answer:

That

statement is discussing a case

where he did not collect it.

And

when Rav said

that it is forbidden, he meant

where he collected it.

And we raise an objection: If so,

with regard to bipeds likewise,

the statement in that same beraita cited earlier that their blood is forbidden is also discussing a case

where he did not collect it.

And

is it forbidden

in such a case?!

But it was taught in a beraita: “Blood that is on a loaf of bread

he scrapes off

the blood from the loaf,

and

afterward

he eats

the loaf. And blood

between the teeth—

he may suck it and swallow it, and need not be concerned,

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

The wording “he scrapes it off” indicates that even the blood on the loaf is not actually forbidden, since he did not collect it; rather, there is merely a mitzva to scrape it off. It necessarily follows that the beraita’s statement that the blood of bipeds is forbidden refers to a case where it was collected. If so, the blood of fish that is permitted is permitted even when it was collected. This is difficult for Rav.

And we answer:

Rather,

actually,

when that beraita was taught,

which teaches that the blood of fish is permitted even ab initio, it was referring even to a case where it was collected, and this is a case

where there are

within the blood

scales

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

when Rav said

that it is

forbidden,

he was referring to a case

where there are no scales in it,

so it is not apparent what kind of blood it is; therefore, it is forbidden.

Rav Sheshet said: The blood of bipeds does not even involve a mitzva of

abstention,

merely a general mitzva to refrain,

at all.

Meytivi:

It was taught in a beraita:

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

Thus, the blood of bipeds does involve a prohibition.