Chullin

OR WITH THE BLOOD OF A WILD ANIMAL,1 IT IS TO BE REGARDED AS THOUGH IT WAS WATER. R. JUDAH SAYS, BLOOD CANNOT NEUTRALIZE BLOOD.2 THE BLOOD WHICH SPURTED OUT AND THAT WHICH IS UPON THE KNIFE MUST ALSO BE COVERED UP. R. JUDAH SAYS, WHEN IS THIS THE CASE? WHEN THERE IS NO OTHER BLOOD BUT THAT; BUT WHEN THERE IS OTHER BLOOD BESIDES THIS, IT NEED NOT BE COVERED UP. GEMARA. We have learnt elsewhere:3 If the blood [of a sacrifice] became mixed with water and it still has the colour of blood, it is valid.4 If it became mixed with wine, it must be regarded as though it was water. If it became mixed with the blood of [unconsecrated] cattle or of a wild animal, it must be regarded as though it was water. R. Judah says: Blood cannot neutralize blood. R. Hiyya said in the name of R. Johanan: This ruling5 applies only to the case where the water fell into the blood,6 but where the blood fell into the water each drop became neutralized [as it fell into the water].7 R. Papa said: But it is not so with regard to the law of ‘covering up’, for the law of disability does not apply to precepts.8 Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: As long as it9 is of a reddish colour it makes atonement,10 it renders susceptible to uncleanness,11 and it must be covered up. What does he teach us? We have learnt it with regard to its validity for atonement and we have also learnt it with regard to the obligation of covering up’! — The statement that it renders susceptible to uncleanness, was necessary. But even that statement [is unnecessary], for if it is blood it renders susceptible to uncleanness, and if it is water it renders susceptible to uncleanness! — It was only necessary to be stated for the case where it [the blood] was mixed with rain water.12 But even in the case of rain water since it was collected [in a vessel] and poured [into the blood] it was surely intended for the purpose! — It was necessary only in the case where they were mixed without human effort.13 R. Assi of Neharbel14 says. It refers to the thin blood.15 R. Jeremiah of Difti said: He16 incurs the penalty of Kareth, but only if there was an olive's bulk.17 In a Baraitha it was taught: It18 renders unclean [men and vessels that are] in the tent, but only if there was a quarter [log]. 19 We have learnt elsewhere:20 All liquids21 that issue from a corpse are clean excepting blood. As long as it18 has a reddish colour it will render unclean [men and vessels that are] in the tent. [Do you say then that] the liquids that issue from a corpse are clean? But I can point out a contradiction, for we have learnt:22 The liquids that issue from a tebul yom23 are like the liquids which he touches: forbidden wild animal (Maim.). is not neutralized nor loses its identity in the mixture, but the whole mixture must be covered up; for R. Judah is of the opinion that in a mixture of like kinds one element can never neutralize the other, no matter in what proportion they are to each other. falls into the blood so that the whole mixture assumes the appearance of water is it rendered invalid. unfit for its purpose; for as each drop fell into the water it became neutralized and immediately lost its validity for the purposes of ritual sprinkling, and it cannot regain it even though the whole mixture has the colour of blood. appearance of blood the obligation attaches to it. Rain water cannot render foodstuffs susceptible to uncleanness except where it was intended for some purpose or use, a reservation which does not apply to blood. uncleanness, only if the mixture has the colour of blood will it render susceptible to uncleanness. susceptible to uncleanness if it has the colour of blood. for the net result is that for drinking this thin watery blood by itself one does not incur the penalty of Kareth. V. Torath Hayyim a.l.; also Responsa of Hatham Sofer, Yoreh Deah 70. Tosaf. Maksh. III. sunset. He is regarded as unclean in the second degree.