Keritot 42

Chapter 42

א לאפוקי מת אף על גב דממליא ליה לא מטמא טומאת אוכלין משום דבטלה דעתו אצל כל אדם
1 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>
ב רב חנניא אמר אפילו תימא דהוי כזית הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שחיפהו בבצק
2 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> 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>
ג א"ה הכשר נמי ניבעי ה"מ באוכלין אחריני דלא מטמו לא במגע ולא במשא אבל הכא נהי דלא מטמא במגע דקמחפי בבצק במשא מיהת ליטמא דהא טעון ליה
3 - 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> 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> it may nevertheless transmit uncleanness by carrying, for it is after all carried.
ד לאפוקי מת דאף על גב דחיפהו בבצק מטמא טומאה חמורה דטומאה בוקעת ועולה בוקעת ויורדת
4 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>
ה אמר מר יצאו שרצים שאין בהן טומאה ולא שרץ מטמא במגע במשא לא מטמא
5 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'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. , which may denote 'wholly permitted' as well as 'always permitted'.');"><sup>7</sup></span> If that their heleb is permitted? Behold also the heleb of a beast of chas 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.
ו אמר מר יצא דם דגים ודם חגבים שכולן היתר מאי כולו היתר אילימא דחלבו מותר הרי חיה דחלבה מותר ודמה אסור ואלא משום דלית בהו איסור גיד הנשה והרי עוף דלית ביה איסור גיד הנשה ודמו אסור
6 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]?<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> 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> Said Abaye: It refers to its fluff whic is not subject to the law of kil'ayim.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fluff of fowl may be woven together with linen.');"><sup>10</sup></span> Said Rab Judah in the name of Rab: For an olive's bulk of the blood of reptiles one incurs the penalty of stripes.
ז אלא מאי כולו היתר דלא בעי שחיטה
7 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> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Ker. II; v. infra 22a.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ח אמר מר מה עוף שאין בו כלאים אף בהמה תלמוד לומר בהמה
8 What does 'but one is not liable for it' mean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Talmudic text is in slight disorder, but the sense is as given.');"><sup>13</sup></span> 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> for in the firs place this would be identical with the ruling of the first clause,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text, however, makes it clear that a different ruling is given in the second clause.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
ט כלאים דמאי אילימא כלאים דהרבעה וכלאים דחרישה והתנן חיה ועוף כיוצא בהן
9 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> - 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> 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>
י אלא אמר אביי שצימרו אין חייבין עליו משום כלאים
10 An objection was raised: [It has been taught:] The blood of fish and locust may deliberately be eaten!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'is permitted even in the first instance'.');"><sup>18</sup></span> This is when it is not collected;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is still in the flesh of the fish, so that no misunderstanding is possible.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
יא אמר רב יהודה אמר רב דם שרצים לוקין עליו בכזית מיתיבי דם הטחול דם הלב דם הכליות דם אברים הרי אלו בלא תעשה דם מהלכי שתים דם שרצים ורמשים אסור ואין חייבין עליו
11 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.<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> Said Rab Shesheth: In the case of human blood one is not even enjoined to refrain from it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., one may, as we have learnt above, deliberately swallow it.');"><sup>21</sup></span> 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
יב מאי אין חייבין עליו כרת אלאו מחייב
12 
יג חדא דהיינו רישא ועוד תנא מלאו נמי קא ממעט ליה דקתני יצא דם שרצים שאין בהן טומאה חמורה
13 
יד אמר רבי זירא התרו בו משום שרץ לוקה משום דם אינו לוקה
14 
טו אמר רב דם דגים שכינסו אסור מיתיבי דם דגים דם חגבים מותר ואפילו לכתחלה ההיא בשלא כינסו כי קא אמר רב בשכינסו
15 
טז דכוותה גבי מהלכי שתים בשלא כינסו מי אסור והא תניא דם שעל גבי ככר גוררו ואוכלו של בין השינים מוצצו ובולעו ואינו חושש
16 
יז אלא כי תניא ההיא מתניתא דאית ביה קשקשים כי קאמר רב אסור דלית ביה קשקשים
17 
יח אמר רב ששת דם מהלכי שתים אפילו מצות פרוש אין בו מיתיבי דם הטחול דם הלב דם הכליות דם אברים הרי אלו בלא תעשה דם מהלכי שתים דם שרצים ורמשים אסור ואין חייב עליו כי תניא אסור
18 
Previous ChapterNext Chapter