Keritot 41

Chapter 41

א אוציא דם שרצים שאין בהם טומאה חמורה אוציא דם ביצים שאין מין בשר דם דגים דם חגבים שכולו היתר
1 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>
ב (ויקרא ז, כו) לעוף ולבהמה אי מה עוף שאין בה כלאים אף בהמה שאין בה כלאים ת"ל ולבהמה
2 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> 'Whether it be of fowl or of beast';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The question is implied: Why two specifications. ohtkf');"><sup>3</sup></span> 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>
ג אי מה בהמה שאינה באם על הבנים אף עוף שאינו באם על הבנים תלמוד לומר לעוף ולבהמה
3 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> therefore 'beast' is added. 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>
ד ואימא כל דם כלל עוף ובהמה פרט כלל ופרט אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט עוף ובהמה אין מידי אחרינא לא
4 so should be included only those fowl that are not subject to the law concerning the mother and its young.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., unclean fowls.');"><sup>7</sup></span> Therefore both 'fowl' and 'beast' had to be stated.
ה (ויקרא ז, כז) נפש אשר תאכל כל דם חזר וכלל כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט
5 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>
ו והא לא דמי כללא בתרא לכללא קמא כללא קמא לאו כללא בתרא כרת
6 'Whosoever eateth any blood'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 27.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ז האי תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל כללי ופרטי דרשינן מן הדין גוונא ואף על גב דלא דמי כללא בתרא לכללא קמא
7 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>
ח אמר מר 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'
8 But is not the last generalisation different from the first, in that the first contains a mere prohibition whils the last comprises the penalty of kareth?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');"><sup>11</sup></span> - 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>
ט אף כל דקתני לאיתויי מאי
9 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.'
י אמר רב אדא בר אבין לאתויי דמו של כוי מאי קסבר אי קסבר כוי ספיקא הוא איצטריך קרא למיסר ספיקא אלא קסבר כוי בריה בפני עצמו הוא
10 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> 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?<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> - 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'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 23.');"><sup>15</sup></span> Whence that its nebelah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a carcass of an unslaughtered or non-ritually slaughtered animal. V. Glos.');"><sup>16</sup></span> [is forbidden]? - From the text, 'all nebelah',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut XIV, 21.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
יא אשכחן דמו חלבו מנלן (ויקרא ז, כג) מכל חלב נבלתו מנלן (דברים יד, כא) מכל נבלה
11 Whence that its gid ha-nasheh<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the nervus ischiadicus, forbidden in accordance with Gen. XXXII, 33.');"><sup>18</sup></span> [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> 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'.
יב גיד הנשה מנלן (בראשית לב, לג) בכף הירך תליה רחמנא והא אית ליה כף הירך
12 A contradiction was pointed out. [We have learnt:]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Uk. III, 2.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
יג טומאתו ושחיטה מנלן סברא מדלכל מילי רבייה רחמנא כבהמה טומאתו ושחיטתו נמי כבהמה
13 [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> Upon this the question was raised: 'Wherefore does it require intention?
יד אמר מר אוציא דם מהלכי שתים שיש בהן טומאה חמורה ואין בהן טומאה קלה ורמינהי החותך מן האדם צריך מחשבה והכשר
14 Let the cutting express his intention!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And by that act alone it should be susceptible to uncleanness.');"><sup>22</sup></span> 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!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Toh. VIII, 6.');"><sup>23</sup></span>
טו וקשיא לן מחשבה למה לי תעשה חתיכה שלו מחשבה ואר"ל בחותכו לכלב ומחשבה לכלב לאו מחשבה היא
15 - 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. 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> - 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> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus cattle, too, are subject to weighty uncleanness only.');"><sup>26</sup></span>
טז ולא והתנן כלל אמרו בטומאה כל המיוחד לאכול אדם טמא עד שיפסל מאכילת כלב
16 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> - 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>
יז ההוא לאסוקי טומאה מיניה דכיון דמעיקרא הוה חזי לאדם לאסוקי מטומאה עד שיפסל מאכילת כלב הכא לאחותי ליה טומאה אי חזי לאדם חזי לכלב אי לא חזי לאדם לא חזי לכלב
17 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> - 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>
יח מ"מ קתני מחשבה ומחשבה לטומאה קלה היא ה"מ מחיים אבל לאחר מיתה טמא הוא טומאה חמורה
18 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> 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>
יט דכוותה גבי בהמה לאחר מיתה אי בשר מטמא טומאה חמורה ואם דם מטמא טומאה חמורה
19 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].
כ דתנן דם נבילות בית שמאי מטהרין ובית הלל מטמאין
20 
כא לא נצרכא אלא לכדתנן נבלת בהמה טמאה בכל מקום נבלת עוף הטהור בכפרים צריך מחשבה ואין צריך הכשר
21 
כב נבלת בהמה טהורה בכל מקום ונבלת עוף טהור וחלב בשוקים אין צריכין לא מחשבה ולא הכשר
22 
כג וא"ל רב לרבי חייא מחשבה למה לי לטומאה קלה היא גופה טומאה היא א"ל כגון דאיכא פחות מכזית נבילה וצרפה לפחות מכביצה אוכלין דהאי והאי הוי כביצה
23 
כד אי הכי ליבעי נמי הכשר דהא תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל (ויקרא יא, לז) על כל זרע אשר יזרע מה זרעים מיוחדין שאין סופן לטמא טומאה חמורה וצריך הכשר אף כל שאין סופן לטמא טומאה חמורה צריך הכשר
24 
כה א"ל ה"מ באוכלין דעלמא דלית בו פחות מכזית נבלה אבל הכא דאיכא בגויה פחות מכזית נבילה כיון דאילו מצרף ליה כזית לא בעי הכשר
25 
Previous ChapterNext Chapter