Parallel
כריתות 21
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
I must also exclude the blood of reptiles, for they are not subject to weighty uncleanness; I must further exclude the blood found in eggs,for they are not of the category of flesh, and the blood of fish and of locusts, for they are always permitted. ‘Whether it be of fowl or of beast’; if ‘fowl’ [alone was mentioned, I might have said], as this is not subject to kil'ayim, so should be included only those animals that are not subject to kil'ayim; therefore ‘beast’ is added. If ‘beast’ [alone was mentioned, I might have said], as this is not subject to the law concerning the mother and its young, so should be included only those fowl that are not subject to the law concerning the mother and its young. Therefore both ‘fowl’ and ‘beast’ had to be stated. But why not argue thus: ‘Any manner of blood’ is a generalisation, ‘whether it be fowl or beast’ is a specification; and whenever a generalisation is followed by a specification it is meant to comprise only the instances of the specification; consequently fowl and beast are included but no other things? ‘Whosoever eateth any blood’ represents a second generalisation; and whenever a generalisation is followed by a specification and then again by a generalisation, all things similar to the specification are to be included. But is not the last generalisation different from the first, in that the first contains a mere prohibition whilst the last comprises the penalty of kareth? — This Tanna agrees with the School of R. Ishmael, who apply the rules relating to generalisations and specifications even though the last generalisation is unlike the first. The Master said: ‘[Here we have] a generalisation followed by a specification and then again by a generalisation, [in which case] all things similar to the specification are to be included; just as the instances of the specification are characterised in that they are subject both to light and to weighty uncleanness, and are [at times] forbidden and [at times] permitted, and are of the category of flesh, so all are included which are subject to light and to weighty uncleanness, etc.’. What does the term ‘all’ serve to include? — Said Rab Adda b. Abin: It includes the blood of a koy. What is his opinion [with regard to the koy]? If he holds that the koy is a doubtful creature, do we need a special text to forbid [the blood of an animal] about which there is doubt? — He holds that the koy is a [class of] animal of its own. We have now learnt about its blood, whence do we know that its heleb [is forbidden]? — From the text, ‘all heleb’. Whence that its nebelah [is forbidden]? — From the text, ‘all nebelah’, Whence that its gid ha-nasheh [is forbidden]? — The Divine Law defines it as [the sinew] ‘upon the hollow of the thigh’, and this, too, has a ‘hollow of the thigh’, Whence do we know that [its nebelah] causes uncleanness, and that it requires slaughtering? — This stands to reason; since the Divine Law has placed it on the same footing as cattle in respect of all other laws, it is also like cattle in regard to uncleanness and slaughtering. The Master said: ‘I must therefore exclude the blood of those that walk on two legs, for they are subject to weighty uncleanness and not to light uncleanness’. A contradiction was pointed out. [We have learnt:] [The flesh which] one cut from off a man re quires both intention and preparation. Upon this the question was raised: ‘Wherefore does it require intention? Let the cutting express his intention!’ And Resh Lakish replied: He cut it for the use of a dog, and such a purpose is not a proper intention. Is this indeed so? Surely we have learnt: They laid down this general rule concerning uncleanness: Everything that serves as food for man [and became unclean] remains unclean until it becomes unfit to be food for dogs! — This ruling relates to the annulment of existing uncleanness, [the argument being,] since it was at one time fit for man its uncleanness does not depart unless it has become unfit for a dog; that other instance, however, relates to the state in which it can receive uncleanness; [we therefore say,] if it is fit for man it is fit for a dog; if it is unfit for a man it is unfit for a dog. It states, at all events, that [with flesh of man] intention is required; though intention is essential only for light uncleanness! — This is so [while the man is] alive, but after death there is indeed weighty uncleanness only. But, then, the corresponding dictum relating to cattle must, accordingly, also refer to the time after death. Now, if the flesh is meant, it surely conveys weighty uncleanness; if the blood, it too conveys weighty uncleanness, as we have learnt: The blood of a dead animal is clean, according to Beth Shammai; Beth Hillel say: It is unclean! — It speaks of an instance similar to that which we have learnt [in a Mishnah:] The carcass of an unclean beast anywhere and the carcass of a clean bird in the villages require intention and not preparation. Rab remarked thereupon to R. Hiyya: Wherefore is an intention required to qualify it for light uncleanness, is it not already unclean? — The latter replied: It is a case where there was less than an olive's bulk of nebelah joined to another edible, which was less than an egg's bulk, but together they made up an egg's bulk. But, then, preparation should also be required, for the School of R. Ishmael have taught: The text, [If aught of their carcass fall] upon any sowing seed, which is to be sown, implies: as seed is characterised in that it will at no time convey weighty uncleanness and requires preparation, so everything that will at no time convey weighty uncleanness requires preparation! — He replied: This holds good in cases where the edibles have not joined to them less than an olive's bulk of nebelah; in our instance, however, the food has joined to it less than an olive's bulk of nebelah, and since it would require no preparation if it [the nebelah] was made up to a full olive's bulk, [so it requires no preparation even now].
—
An exception, however, is the flesh of a dead man, for even though it is joined [to a foodstuff to make up the requisite egg's bulk] it does not convey food uncleanness, for his view is set aside by general opinion. R. Hanania said: You may also say that there was a whole olive's bulk [of nebelah], but in this case it was entirely covered with dough. If so, it should also require preparation! — This holds good only with regard to other foodstuffs, which transmit uncleanness neither by contact not by carrying; in this instance, however, granted that it does not transmit uncleanness by contact, because it is covered with dough; it may nevertheless transmit uncleanness by carrying, for it is after all carried. An exception, however, is the flesh of a dead man, for even though it is covered with dough it will convey weighty uncleanness, for its uncleanness breaks through and rises and breaks through and descends. The Master said: ‘I must exclude the blood of fish and of locusts, for they are always permitted’. What is the meaning of ‘always permitted’? If that their heleb is permitted? Behold also the heleb of a beast of chase is permitted and yet its blood is forbidden! If that the prohibition of the gid ha-nasheh is not applicable to them? Behold also the fowl is not subject to the law of gid ha-nasheh, and yet its blood is forbidden! — ‘Always permitted’ means rather that they do not require slaughtering. The Master said: ‘If "fowl" [alone was mentioned, I might have said], as this is not subject to kil'ayim, so should be included only those animals [that are not subject to kil'ayim]; therefore the text teaches "beast".’ Which kind of kil'ayim [is meant]? If that relating to breeding diverse kinds or to ploughing with diverse kinds, have we not learnt: Beasts and fowl are subject to similar laws? Said Abaye: It refers to its fluff which is not subject to the law of kil'ayim. Said Rab Judah in the name of Rab: For an olive's bulk of the blood of reptiles one incurs the penalty of stripes. An objection was raised: [It has been taught:] The blood of the spleen, or of the heart or of the kidneys, or of any other limb is subject to a prohibition; the blood of those that walk on two legs or that of reptiles and creeping creatures is forbidden, but one is not liable for it. What does ‘but one is not liable for it’ mean? This cannot mean [that one is not liable for it] to kareth, but only to a prohibition, for in the first place this would be identical with the ruling of the first clause, and secondly the Tanna expressly excludes it even from a prohibition, as we have learnt: I must exclude the blood of reptiles for they are not subject to weighty uncleanness! — Replied R. Zera: If the warning related to reptiles, he incurs stripes; if to blood, he is exempt. Said Rab: The blood of fish collected [in a vessel] is forbidden. An objection was raised: [It has been taught:] The blood of fish and locust may deliberately be eaten! This is when it is not collected; whilst Rab speaks of collected blood. Then the clause relating to those that walk on two legs would likewise refer to uncollected blood; but is such blood at all forbidden; has it not been taught: The blood found on a loaf of bread must be scraped away and the loaf may be eaten; that between the teeth may be sucked and swallowed without hesitation? — In the instance of that Baraitha [the blood] contained [fish] scales; Rab, on the other hand, who rules that it is forbidden, refers to a case where there were no [fish] scales. Said Rab Shesheth: In the case of human blood one is not even enjoined to refrain from it. An objection was raised: [It was taught:] The blood of the spleen, or of the heart or of the kidneys or of any other limb is subject to a prohibition; the blood of those that walk on two legs or that of reptiles and creeping things is forbidden, but one is not liable for it! — The ruling of the Baraitha that it is forbidden refers to the case
—