Keritot 41
אוציא דם שרצים שאין בהם טומאה חמורה אוציא דם ביצים שאין מין בשר דם דגים דם חגבים שכולו היתר
I must also exclude the blood of reptiles, for they are not subject to weighty uncleanness;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though a person is rendered unclean when coming into contact with a reptile, he does not transmit this uncleanness to his clothes.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
(ויקרא ז, כו) לעוף ולבהמה אי מה עוף שאין בה כלאים אף בהמה שאין בה כלאים
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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., they do not require slaughtering.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ולבהמה
if 'fowl' [alone was mentioned, I might have said], as this is not subject to kil'ayim,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. i.e., the prohibition of wearing a material of a mixture of wool and linen. V. Lev. XIX, 19. The fluff of the fowl is not subject to this law.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
אי מה בהמה שאינה באם על הבנים אף עוף שאינו באם על הבנים
so should be included only those animals that are not subject to kil'ayim;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., cattle and goat, whose hair, too, is not subject to that law. Sheep would be excluded, for its wool is subject to the law of kil'ayim.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
לעוף ולבהמה
If 'beast' [alone was mentioned, I might have said], as this is not subje to the law concerning the mother and its young,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXII, 6f. This law applies only to clean fowl.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
(ויקרא ז, כז) נפש אשר תאכל כל דם חזר וכלל כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט
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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the hermeneutical rule of generalisation and specification, v. Shabu. (Sonc. ed) p. 12, n. 3.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
האי תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל כללי ופרטי דרשינן מן הדין גוונא ואף על גב דלא דמי כללא בתרא לכללא קמא
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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., those possessing the same characteristics as the instances of the specifications, as expounded above in connection with the law of blood.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש דבר שיש בו טומאה קלה וטומאה חמורה ויש בה איסור והיתר ויש בהן מין בשר אף כל דבר שיש בו טומאה קלה וטומאה חמורה וכו'
- 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.K. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
אף כל דקתני לאיתויי מאי
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 instance 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.'
אמר רב אדא בר אבין
What does the term 'all' serve to include? - Said Rab Adda B'Abin: It includes the blood of a koy.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a cross between a goat and a gazelle, about which the Sages were in doubt whether it belonged to the category of 'cattle' or of 'beast of chase'; v. Glos.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
מאי קסבר
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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not. The Divine law is not in doubt as to the status of the koy.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
(ויקרא ז, כג) מכל חלב
[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',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus every animal is included, for this law is to remind us of the incident of the text. For the exclusion of birds, however, v. Hul. 92b.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
נבלתו מנלן
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.
טומאתו ושחיטה מנלן
[The flesh which] one cut from off a man re quires both intention and preparation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The flesh is susceptible to uncleanness only if it had been cut off with the express intention of using it as food, and after it had been 'prepared', i.e. moistened by a liquid which renders it susceptible to uncleanness.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
החותך מן האדם צריך מחשבה והכשר
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!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Toh. VIII, 6.');"><sup>23</sup></span>
וקשיא לן
- 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 i for a man it is unfit for a dog.
מחשבה למה לי
It states, at all events, that [with flesh of man] intention is required; thoug intention is essential only for light uncleanness!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We thus learn that also the flesh of man is capable of light uncleanness, contrary to the above conclusion.');"><sup>24</sup></span>
תעשה חתיכה שלו מחשבה
- This is so [while the man is] alive, but after death there is indeed weighty uncleanness only.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The discussion above relates, therefore, to the flesh of a dead man, when no light uncleanness is possible.');"><sup>25</sup></span>
בחותכו לכלב ומחשבה לכלב לאו מחשבה היא ולא
Now, if the flesh is meant, it surely conveys weighty uncleanness; if the blood, it too conveys weighty uncleanness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus cattle, too, are subject to weighty uncleanness only.');"><sup>26</sup></span>
והתנן כלל אמרו בטומאה
as we have learnt: The blood of a dead animal is clean, according to Beth Shammai; Beth Hillel say: It is unclean!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Ed. V, 1. The decision is in accordance with Beth Hillel, that the blood of a carcass is, like its flesh, contaminated with weighty uncleanness.');"><sup>27</sup></span>
כל המיוחד לאכול אדם טמא עד שיפסל מאכילת כלב
- 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Uk. III, 3. Intention to use the flesh as food is required whenever it is normally not eaten by the people. The carcass of unclean cattle is eaten neither in town nor in villages. That of a clean bird is not likely to find a consumer in a village. Some edd. add here the second sentence of the quoted Mishnah: 'The carcass of a clean beast anywhere and that of a clean bird or the heleb (of cattle) in the markets require neither intention nor preparation.');"><sup>28</sup></span>
ההוא לאסוקי טומאה מיניה דכיון דמעיקרא הוה חזי לאדם לאסוקי מטומאה עד שיפסל מאכילת כלב
Rab remarked thereupon to R'Hiyya: Wherefore is an intention required to qualify it for light uncleanness, is it not already unclean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is nebelah.');"><sup>29</sup></span>
הכא לאחותי ליה טומאה אי חזי לאדם חזי לכלב אי לא חזי לאדם לא חזי לכלב
- The latter replied: It is a case where there was less than an olive's bulk of nebelah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The minimum quantity for nebelah uncleanness is an olive's bulk.');"><sup>30</sup></span>
מ"מ קתני מחשבה ומחשבה לטומאה קלה היא
joined to another edible, which was less than an egg's bulk, but together they made up an egg's bulk.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There was not the requisite quantity of nebelah. It is, therefore, not in itself unclean, but the portion of nebelah may combine with the other edible to the requisite size of an egg's bulk, which is the standard for food uncleanness. The intention is therefore essential to render the morsel of nebelah an edible, and thus capable of combination with the other food.');"><sup>31</sup></span>
ה"מ מחיים אבל לאחר מיתה טמא הוא טומאה חמורה
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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 37. This text lays down the law that foodstuffs must first be made wet by a liquid in order to be susceptible to uncleanness. Seed is the specified instance in the Torah, and seed is at no time capable of weighty uncleanness. Moreover, the morsel of nebelah cannot defile with weighty uncleanness, since it is less than an olive's bulk.');"><sup>32</sup></span>
דכוותה גבי בהמה לאחר מיתה אי בשר מטמא טומאה חמורה ואם דם מטמא טומאה חמורה דתנן
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].