Keritot 42
לאפוקי מת אף על גב דממליא ליה לא מטמא טומאת אוכלין משום דבטלה דעתו אצל כל אדם
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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A morsel less than an olive's bulk of nebelah is potentially liable to weighty uncleanness and therefore not on the 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.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
רב חנניא אמר
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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The dough itself was less than an egg's bulk but together with the olive's bulk of nebelah the whole amounted to an egg's bulk. This quantity can now convey food uncleanness.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
אפילו תימא דהוי כזית הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שחיפהו בבצק
If so, it should also require preparation!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it will at no time convey weighty uncleanness. It therefore requires preparation, I.e. moistening, according to the rule of the School of R. Ishmael.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
א"ה הכשר נמי ניבעי
- This holds good only with regard to other foodstuffs, which transmit uncleanness neither by contact not by carrying;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unclean foodstuffs cannot render a person unclean, either by contact or by carrying.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ה"מ באוכלין אחריני דלא מטמו לא במגע ולא במשא
in this instance, however, granted that it does not transmit uncleanness by contact, because it is covered with dough;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Direct contact with the nebelah is thus impossible.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
לאפוקי מת דאף על גב דחיפהו בבצק מטמא טומאה חמורה דטומאה בוקעת ועולה בוקעת ויורדת
An exception, however, is the flesh 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though the morsel of the corpse is buried or covered up it still transmits uncleanness to whatsoever is above or 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="" a="" reptile="" transmit="" uncleanness="" by="" contact?="" -="" it="" not,="" however,="" carrying'.="" this="" addition="" is="" struck="" out="" rashi.="" r,hv="" ukuf');"=""><sup>6</sup></span>
יצא דם דגים ודם חגבים שכולן היתר
Which kind of kil'ayim [is meant]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Torah forbids four types of kil'ayim or 'diverse kinds': (a) sowing a vineyard with diverse kinds or a field with 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.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
מאי כולו היתר
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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.K. 54b. Among the laws enumerated as applying equally to cattle, beasts and fowl, is expressly mentioned the law of kil'ayim.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
אלא מאי כולו היתר
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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'thou shalt not do'; involving the penalty of stripes.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
מה עוף שאין בו כלאים אף בהמה תלמוד לומר
This cannot mean [that one is not liable for it] to kareth, but only to a prohibition,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'thou shalt not do'; involving the penalty of stripes.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
כלאים דמאי
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!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the blood of reptiles is excluded from the text that contains the prohibition of blood, viz., Lev. VII, 23.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
אילימא כלאים דהרבעה וכלאים דחרישה והתנן
- Replied R'Zera: If the warning related to reptiles, he incurs stripes; if to blood, he is exempt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The blood of a reptile is prohibited as being part of the flesh, cf. supra 4b; as blood, however, it is not subject to a 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.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
חיה ועוף כיוצא בהן
Said Rab: The blood of fish collected [in a vessel] is forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When alone in a vessel it might be mistaken for the blood of cattle; it is therefore forbidden for appearance sake.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
דם שרצים לוקין עליו בכזית
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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Baraitha speaks in fact of collected blood throughout. It is therefore right that the blood of man in these 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.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
דם הטחול דם הלב דם הכליות דם אברים הרי אלו בלא תעשה
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