Keritot

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.1 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.2 If so, it should also require preparation!3 — This holds good only with regard to other foodstuffs, which transmit uncleanness neither by contact not by carrying;4 in this instance, however, granted that it does not transmit uncleanness by contact, because it is covered with dough;5 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.6 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’?7 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]?8 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?9 Said Abaye: It refers to its fluff which is not subject to the law of kil'ayim.10 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;11 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.12 What does ‘but one is not liable for it’ mean?13 This cannot mean [that one is not liable for it] to kareth, but only to a prohibition,11 for in the first place this would be identical with the ruling of the first clause,14 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!15 — Replied R. Zera: If the warning related to reptiles, he incurs stripes; if to blood, he is exempt. 16 Said Rab: The blood of fish collected [in a vessel] is forbidden.17 An objection was raised: [It has been taught:] The blood of fish and locust may deliberately be eaten!18 This is when it is not collected;19 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.20 Said Rab Shesheth: In the case of human blood one is not even enjoined to refrain from it.21 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 same footing as seed. It, therefore, does not require moistening. Moreover, as an edible, it is also subject to light uncleanness if joined together with other food. The flesh of a man, however, is not capable of being regarded as food even if the person concerned expressed that intention, for it is against the natural conception of society to lend to it the character of food. egg's bulk. This quantity can now convey food uncleanness. rule of the School of R. Ishmael. below it. The fact that it is wrapped in dough is therefore no hindrance in the transmission of its uncleanness. Some edd. add here: ‘The Master said, "I must exclude reptiles for they are not subject to (weighty) uncleanness". But does not a reptile transmit uncleanness by contact? — It does not, however, by carrying’. This addition is struck out by Rashi. diverse kinds of seed; (b) allowing cattle to gender with diverse kinds; (c) ploughing with diverse kinds of beasts; and (d) wearing a garment wherein wool and linen are mingled together. V. Lev. XIX, 19, and Deut. XXII, 9 — 11. of kil'ayim. special prohibition. It therefore depends on the warning, which has to be precise and comprehensive, that was administered to the transgressor at the time of eating, as to whether he incurs stripes or not. circumstances is forbidden. In the instance relating to the blood of fish it is permitted, because there were still scales in the blood which clearly indicated its origin, and no misunderstanding is possible.