Keritot

where it had been separated,1 whilst in the instance of Rab it had not been separated; as it has 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. Some there are who report the statement of Rab Shesheth with reference to that which has been taught: I might have thought that he who drinks human milk transgresses a prohibition, and this might be supported by the following a fortiori conclusion: if the milk of an unclean animal is forbidden, although with regard to uncleanness by contact it follows the lenient ruling,2 how much more should the milk of those that walk on two legs, who follow the stringent view regarding uncleanness by contact, be forbidden! The text therefore teaches, This is unclean unto you:3 this is unclean; human milk, however, is not unclean but clean. I might exclude only milk in relation to which the law is not constant,4 but not blood in relation to which the law is constant, therefore the text teaches, ‘This is unclean unto you’: this is unclean; human blood, however, is not unclean but clean. Upon this remarked Rab Shesheth: ‘One is not even enjoined to refrain from it’. We have learnt elsewhere: The heart must be torn and its blood removed; if he had not torn it, he has nevertheless not transgressed.5 Said R. Zera in the name of Rab: This holds good only with regard to the heart of a fowl which is not as big as an olive's bulk in all; the heart of a beast, however, which comprises an olive's bulk, is forbidden and [whoso eats it] incurs the penalty of kareth. 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 things is forbidden, but one is not liable for it!6 — That which is there taught7 refers to the blood within;8 Rab, however, refers to blood that came from elsewhere.9 But is not the blood within identical With the blood of a limb?10 — And even according to you, is not the blood of the kidneys men tioned in addition to the blood of a limb? You must thus admit that the one is stated and then the other;11 then say here, too, that the one is stated and then the other. [It says:] ‘From elsewhere’ — From where? — Said R. Zera: It absorbs it with the last breath. 12 ...OF THE BLOOD [OF THE ARTERIES] WHEREBY LIFE ESCAPES, HE IS LIABLE. It has been stated: What is the definition of ‘the blood of arteries upon which life depends’?13 R. Johanan says: That which gushes forth; Resh Lakish says: From the black drop onward.14 An objection was raised: Which is the blood of arteries whereby life escapes? That which gushes forth, to the exclusion of secondary blood, because it flows gently.15 May we not assume that the first as well as the last blood that flow gently16 are regarded as secondary blood; and this is then in contradiction to Resh Lakish? — No, only the blackened blood is excluded, but the first and the last blood, though flowing gently, are regarded as life blood.17 An objection was raised: Which is regarded as life blood?18 That which gushes forth, to the exclusion of the first and last blood, which flow gently. This is in contradiction to Resh Lakish! — He might retort: Tannaim differ on this point, as has been taught: Which is regarded as life blood? That which gushes forth. This is the view of R. Eliezer. R. Simeon holds: From the black drop onward. The School of R. Ishmael taught: The text ‘And drink the blood of the slain’:19 excludes the gushing blood from rendering plants susceptible to uncleanness. R. Jeremiah put the following query before R. Zera: What is the law if one drew blood from an animal and received it in two vessels? For [the blood which is] in the first vessel, according to all views one is liable;20 but what of that in the second; is one liable for it or not? — He replied: Therein differ R. Johanan and Resh Lakish, as has been stated: If one drew blood from an animal and received it in two vessels, Resh Lakish says: He is liable to two sin-offerings;21 R. Johanan says: He is liable to one sin-offering only. R. JUDAH HOLDS, HE IS LIABLE FOR SECONDARY BLOOD. Said R. Eleazar: R. Judah admits, however, with reference to atonement, for it is written: For it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life:22 the blood whereby life escapes causes atonement, the blood whereby life does not escape does not cause atonement. Said Rab Nahman b. Isaac: We have also learnt in confirmation thereof, for it has been taught: [It would have sufficed had the text stated,] Blood, why does it say, Any manner of blood?23 Because Scripture reads: ‘For it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life’; from this we only learn that the blood of consecrated animals whereby life escapes and which makes atonement, [is forbidden], whence do we know that blood of unconsecrated animals and secondary blood [are forbidden]? Because it reads: ‘Any manner of blood’. And [it is established that] an anonymous [tradition in the] Sifra24 represents the view of R. Judah.25 MISHNAH. FOR DOUBTFUL MISAPPROPRIATION OF SACRED PROPERTY R. AKIBA DECLARES ONE LIABLE TO A SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING; WHILE THE SAGES DECLARE HIM EXEMPT.26 R. AKIBA, HOWEVER, ADMITS THAT HE NEED NOT MAKE RESTITUTION27 UNTIL HE BECOMES AWARE [OF HIS TRESPASS], WHEN HE MUST BRING WITH IT AN UNCONDITIONAL GUILT-OFFERING. SAID R. TARFON: WHEREFORE SHOULD HE BRING TWO GUILT-OFFERINGS?28 LET HIM RATHER RESTORE THE CAPITAL TOGETHER WITH THE FIFTH, OFFER A GUILT-OFFERING OF THE VALUE OF TWO SELA'S29 AND STIPULATE: IF I DID COMMIT SACRILEGE, HERE IS MY RESTITUTION AND THIS MY GUILT-OFFERING; AND IF THE SACRILEGE WAS DOUBTFUL, LET THE MONEY BE A FREEWILL GIFT AND THE [OFFERING A] SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING; SINCE THAT WHICH IS OFFERED FOR A KNOWN [TRESPASS] IS OF THE SAME KIND AS THAT OFFERED FOR A DOUBTFUL ONE.30 SAID R. AKIBA: HIS31 WORDS SEEM PLAUSIBLE IN THE CASE OF A MINOR MISAPPROPRIATION; BUT IF HIS DOUBT RELATED TO THE MISAPPROPRIATION OF A HUNDRED MANEHS, WOULD IT NOT BE MORE ADVANTAGEOUS FOR HIM TO BRING A GUILT-OFFERING32 FOR TWO SELA'S RATHER THAN RESTORE OUT OF DOUBT THE SUM OF A HUNDRED MANEHS? R. AKIBA INDEED AGREES WITH R. TARFON IN THE CASE OF A MINOR MISAPPROPRIATION. which is still within the body may deliberately be consumed. unclean through menstruation or gonorrhoea, and transmits the uncleanness to other objects. Blood, however, is forbidden in all cases. cattle-is subject to a prohibition, whilst Rab holds it is subject to kareth. expression is used in the second clause and not in relation to the blood of the heart. second stage it begins after a while to gush forth with force and when the pressure had ceased the stream weakens and the blood oozes gently. There is thus at the beginning as well as the end a period when the blood escapes in a gentle flow. According to R. Johanan, only the blood that escapes with force is considered the life blood; according to Resh Lakish it is all blood that escapes after the last black drop even when flowing gently. before and after the gushing blood. liquid with regard to qualification for uncleanness; ‘life blood’, however, does not qualify. sacrifices, which causes atonement, I might have thought that the whole prohibition was confined to such blood. atonement. involve a suspensive guilt-offering in the case of doubt. Sacrilege, however, is subject to an ordinary guilt-offering. silver shekels in the plural. another ordinary guilt-offering. The risk amounts to two sela's only, whilst according to R. Tarfon he might lose a hundred muneh2.