## Keritot Daf 21a

###### Keritot 21a:1
[Keritot 21a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/21a:1)

אוֹצִיא דַּם שְׁרָצִים – שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה. אוֹצִיא דַּם בֵּיצִים – שֶׁאֵין מִין בָּשָׂר, דַּם דָּגִים דַּם חֲגָבִים – שֶׁכּוּלּוֹ הֶיתֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**I will** likewise **exclude** the **blood of creeping animals, which do not have a severe** form of **ritual impurity.** Impurity transmitted to a person by the carcass of a creeping animal does not render clothing impure, whereas impurity transmitted by the carcass of an animal or bird does render one’s clothing impure. **I will** also **exclude the blood of eggs, as** they **are not a type of meat,** and finally I will exclude **the blood of fish** and **the blood of grasshoppers, as they are entirely permitted,** as explained on 21b.


###### Keritot 21a:2
[Keritot 21a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/21a:2)

״לָעוֹף וְלַבְּהֵמָה״? אִי מָה עוֹף שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ כִּלְאַיִם, אַף בְּהֵמָה – שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ כִּלְאַיִם! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְלַבְּהֵמָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: The verse states: “And you shall consume no manner of blood, **whether it is of bird or of animal,** in any of your dwellings” (Leviticus 7:26). The verse mentions both “bird” and “animal,” because **if** the verse had stated only “bird,” one might have said that **just as a bird** is a creature **concerning which** the prohibition of **diverse kinds** does **not** apply, as will be explained, **so too,** the prohibition against consuming blood applies only to **an animal concerning which** the prohibition of **diverse kinds** does **not** apply, whereas the blood of other animals is not forbidden. Therefore, **the verse states: “Or of animal.”**


###### Keritot 21a:3
[Keritot 21a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/21a:3)

אִי מָה בְּהֵמָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ בְּאֵם עַל הַבָּנִים, אַף עוֹף שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּאֵם עַל הַבָּנִים! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לָעוֹף וְלַבְּהֵמָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And **if** the verse had mentioned only “animal,” one might have said that **just as an animal is not** included **in** the prohibition against taking the **mother** bird **with** her **young** (see Deuteronomy 22:6–7), **so too, a bird** whose blood is forbidden is that **which is not** included **in** the prohibition against taking the **mother** bird **with the young,** i.e., non-kosher birds, whereas the blood of kosher birds is permitted. Therefore, **the verse states: “Whether it is of bird or of animal.”**


###### Keritot 21a:4
[Keritot 21a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/21a:4)

וְאֵימָא: ״כׇּל דָּם״ – כָּלַל, ״עוֹף וּבְהֵמָה״ – פָּרַט, כְּלָל וּפְרָט, אֵין בַּכְּלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁבַּפְּרָט, עוֹף וּבְהֵמָה – אִין, מִידִּי אַחֲרִינָא – לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But say** that the verse should be interpreted as follows: The phrase **“no manner of blood”** is **a generalization,** and the mention of **“bird or animal” is a detail.** This is **a generalization and a detail,** and the hermeneutical principle in such cases is that **the generalization includes only what** is mentioned **in the detail.** Consequently, with regard to **a bird and an animal, yes,** it is prohibited to consume their blood, but with regard to **anything else,** the prohibition does **not** apply.


###### Keritot 21a:5
[Keritot 21a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/21a:5)

״נֶפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכַל כׇּל דָּם״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל, כְּלָל וּפְרָט וְכָלַל, אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that when the next verse states: **“Whoever consumes any blood,** that soul shall be cut off from his people” (Leviticus 7:27), **it then generalized** again. Therefore, this is a case of **a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization,** in which case the relevant hermeneutical principle dictates that **you may deduce** that the verse is referring **only** to items **similar to the detail.** Accordingly, the verse includes everything that has the following three components, as stated above: The capacity for both a light form of ritual impurity and a severe form of ritual impurity; the possibility of being forbidden or permitted; and categorization as a type of meat.


###### Keritot 21a:6
[Keritot 21a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/21a:6)

וְהָא לָא דָּמֵי כְּלָלָא בָּתְרָא לִכְלָלָא קַמָּא, כְּלָלָא קַמָּא לָאו, כְּלָלָא בָּתְרָא כָּרֵת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But the last generalization is not similar to the first generalization. The first generalization,** where it states: “You shall consume no manner of blood,” indicates a regular **prohibition,** punishable by lashes, whereas **the last generalization,** where it states: “That soul shall be cut off from his people,” indicates that the prohibition is punishable by ***karet*.** Consequently, the hermeneutical principle for cases of a generalization, a detail, and a generalization should not apply.


###### Keritot 21a:7
[Keritot 21a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/21a:7)

הַאי תַּנָּא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל [בְּרִיבּוּיֵי וּמִיעוּטֵי וּ]כְלָלֵי וּפְרָטֵי דָּרְשִׁינַן מִן הָדֵין גַּוְונָא, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא דָּמֵי כְּלָלָא בָּתְרָא לִכְלָלָא קַמָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **This *tanna*,** whose opinion is recorded in this *baraita*, is of **the school of Rabbi Yishmael,** who maintains that **we expound generalizations and details** even **in a case** like **this, even though the last generalization is not similar to the first generalization.**


###### Keritot 21a:8
[Keritot 21a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/21a:8)

אָמַר מָר: כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְעֵין הַפְּרָט, מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ טוּמְאָה קַלָּה וְטוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה, וְיֵשׁ בָּהֶ[ן] אִיסּוּר וְהֶיתֵּר וְיֵשׁ בָּהֶן מִין בָּשָׂר, אַף כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ טוּמְאָה קַלָּה וְטוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה וְכוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further analyzes the *baraita*. **The Master said** that there is **a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization,** and therefore **you may deduce** that the verse is referring **only** to items **similar to the detail. Just as the detail is explicit** in that it is referring to **an item that has** the capacity for both **a light** form of **impurity and a severe** form of **impurity, and it has** the possibility of being **forbidden or permitted, and it is a type of meat, so too, every item that has** the capacity for both **a light** form of **ritual impurity and a severe form of ritual impurity,** and has the possibility of being forbidden or permitted, and is a type of meat, is included in the prohibition against consuming blood.


###### Keritot 21a:9
[Keritot 21a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/21a:9)

״אַף כֹּל״ דְּקָתָנֵי לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** does this phrase: **So too every** item, **which** the *baraita* **teaches,** serve **to include** beyond birds and animals, which are mentioned explicitly in the verse? After all, the blood of human beings, creeping animals, fish, and grasshoppers have already been excluded from the prohibition.


###### Keritot 21a:10
[Keritot 21a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/21a:10)

אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אָבִין: לְאֵתוֹיֵי דָּמוֹ שֶׁל כּוֹי. מַאי קָסָבַר? אִי קָסָבַר כּוֹי סְפֵיקָא הוּא, אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְמֵיסַר סְפֵיקָא? אֶלָּא קָסָבַר כּוֹי בְּרִיָּה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Adda bar Avin said:** It serves **to include** the **blood of a *koy*,** an animal that is not definitively categorized as either a domesticated animal or an undomesticated animal. The Gemara asks: **What** does Rav Adda bar Avin **maintain** in this regard? **If he maintains** that **a *koy* is an uncertain** case, **is a verse necessary to teach** the *halakha* in a case of **uncertainty? Rather,** Rav Adda bar Avin **maintains** that the *koy* **is a distinct entity,** i.e., it is not in the category of domesticated animals or undomesticated animals, and therefore its *halakha* must be taught.


###### Keritot 21a:11
[Keritot 21a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/21a:11)

אַשְׁכְּחַן דָּמוֹ, חֶלְבּוֹ מְנָלַן? ״מִכׇּל חֵלֶב״. נִבְלָתוֹ מְנָלַן? ״מִכׇּל נְבֵלָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **We found** a source for the prohibition against consuming the **blood of** a *koy*. **From where do we** derive that **its fat** is also forbidden? The Gemara answers that this is derived **from** the verse: “You shall not eat **any [*kol*] fat”** (Leviticus 7:23). The additional word “*kol*” serves to include the fat of a *koy* as being forbidden. The Gemara inquires further: **From where do we** derive that **its carcass** is prohibited? The Gemara answers that this is derived **from** the verse: “You shall not eat **any [*kol*] animal carcass”** (Deuteronomy 14:21). Here too, the additional word “*kol*” serves to include the carcass of a *koy* as being prohibited.


###### Keritot 21a:12
[Keritot 21a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/21a:12)

גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה מְנָלַן? בְּכַף הַיָּרֵךְ תַּלְיֵהּ רַחֲמָנָא, וְהָא אִית לֵיהּ כַּף הַיָּרֵךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive that **the sciatic nerve** of a *koy* is prohibited? The Gemara answers that **the Merciful One rendered** the prohibition of the sciatic nerve **dependent on** the presence of **the spoon of the thigh,** as it is stated: “Therefore the children of Israel shall not eat the sciatic nerve which is upon the spoon of the thigh” (Genesis 32:33), **and this** *koy* **has a spoon [*kaf* ] of the thigh,** i.e., a round protrusion of flesh in its thigh that is shaped like a spoon.


###### Keritot 21a:13
[Keritot 21a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/21a:13)

טוּמְאָתוֹ וּשְׁחִיטָה, מְנָלַן? סְבָרָא, מִדִּלְכֹל מִילֵּי רַבְּיֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא כִּבְהֵמָה, טוּמְאָתוֹ וּשְׁחִיטָתוֹ נָמֵי כִּבְהֵמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further asks: **From where do we** derive the **impurity** status of the carcass of a *koy*, **and** that ritual **slaughter** renders its meat permitted for consumption? The Gemara answers that these *halakhot* are derived by logical **reasoning: From** the fact **that in all** the **matters** mentioned above **the Merciful One included** the *koy* and rendered it **like a domesticated animal,** it is logical that the *halakhot* concerning **its impurity and its slaughter** are **also like** those concerning **a domesticated animal.**


###### Keritot 21a:14
[Keritot 21a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/21a:14)

אָמַר מָר: אוֹצִיא דַּם מְהַלְּכֵי שְׁתַּיִם, שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה וְאֵין בָּהֶן טוּמְאָה קַלָּה. וּרְמִינְהִי: הַחוֹתֵךְ מִן הָאָדָם – צָרִיךְ מַחְשָׁבָה וְהֶכְשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara continues to analyze the *baraita*. **The Master said** in the *baraita*: **I will** therefore **exclude** the **blood of bipeds, as they have** the capacity for **a severe** form of **impurity,** the impurity of a corpse, **but they do not have** the capacity for **a light** form of **impurity,** since the *halakhot* of the impurity of food do not apply to human flesh. **But** one can **raise a contradiction** from a mishna (*Okatzin* 3:2): With regard to **one who cuts** flesh **from** a living **person** for food, there are two conditions under which it becomes impure with the impurity of food: First, the flesh **requires intent** to eat it or feed it to others, **and** second, it must **be rendered susceptible** to impurity by coming into contact with water or one of the other six liquids that render food items susceptible to impurity.


###### Keritot 21a:15
[Keritot 21a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/21a:15)

וְקַשְׁיָא לַן: מַחְשָׁבָה לְמָה לִי? תֵּעָשֶׂה חֲתִיכָה שֶׁלּוֹ מַחְשָׁבָה! וְאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: בְּחוֹתְכוֹ לַכֶּלֶב, וּמַחְשָׁבָה לַכֶּלֶב לָאו מַחְשָׁבָה הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Before explaining the contradiction between this mishna and the *baraita* cited above, the Gemara seeks to clarify the mishna itself: **And** the following was **difficult for us: Why do I** need **intent? Let his** act of **cutting serve as intent** to eat the flesh. **And Reish Lakish said:** This is referring **to one who cuts** the flesh in order to feed it **to a dog, and intent** to feed it **to a dog is not** considered **intent** to use the flesh as food.


###### Keritot 21a:16
[Keritot 21a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/21a:16)

וְלָא? וְהָתְנַן, כְּלָל אָמְרוּ בְּטוּמְאָה: כֹּל הַמְיוּחָד לֶאֱכוֹל אָדָם – טָמֵא, עַד שֶׁיִּפָּסֵל מֵאֲכִילַת כֶּלֶב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** is intent to feed a dog **not** considered intent to use the flesh as food? **But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Teharot* 8:6): The Sages **stated a principle with regard to ritual impurity:** With regard to **any** food **that is** assumed to be **food designated** for **a person,** once it becomes impure with the impurity of food, it remains **impure until it is rendered unfit to be consumed by a dog?**


###### Keritot 21a:17
[Keritot 21a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/21a:17)

הָהוּא לְאַסּוֹקֵי טוּמְאָה מִינֵּיהּ, דְּכֵיוָן דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא הֲוָה חֲזֵי לְאָדָם, לְאַסּוֹקֵי מִטּוּמְאָה עַד שֶׁיִּפָּסֵל מֵאֲכִילַת כֶּלֶב. הָכָא לְאַחוֹתֵי לֵיהּ טוּמְאָה, אִי חֲזֵי לְאָדָם – חֲזֵי לְכֶלֶב, אִי לָא חֲזֵי לְאָדָם – לָא חֲזֵי לְכֶלֶב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **That** mishna is referring **to removing impurity from it. Since** the food **was initially fit to** be eaten by **a person,** its status of **impurity** cannot be **removed from** it **until it is rendered unfit to be consumed by a dog.** By contrast, **here,** with regard to one who cuts flesh, the mishna is referring **to granting it** susceptibility to **impurity.** In this case, **if** it is **fit for a person** then it is **fit for a dog,** i.e., it is susceptible to the impurity of food; **if** it is **not fit for a person, it is not fit for a dog,** i.e., it is not susceptible to ritual impurity.


###### Keritot 21a:18
[Keritot 21a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/21a:18)

מִכׇּל מָקוֹם קָתָנֵי מַחְשָׁבָה, וּמַחְשָׁבָה – לְטוּמְאָה קַלָּה הִיא! הָנֵי מִילֵּי מֵחַיִּים, אֲבָל לְאַחַר מִיתָה – טָמֵא הוּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara addresses the contradiction between the mishna in *Teharot* and the *baraita* cited above: **In any case,** that mishna **teaches** that human flesh requires **intent, and intent is for a light** form of **ritual impurity,** i.e., this requirement of intent is necessary only for the flesh to become susceptible to ritual impurity as a food item. This apparently contradicts the claim of the *baraita* that the impurity of food items does not apply to human flesh. The Gemara answers: **This statement** of the mishna that human flesh is susceptible to impurity as a food item applies **while** the person **is alive. But after death** his corpse **is impure** by **a severe** form of **impurity** and is no longer susceptible to impurity as a food item, and that is the meaning of the *baraita*.


###### Keritot 21a:19
[Keritot 21a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/21a:19)

דִּכְווֹתַהּ גַּבֵּי בְּהֵמָה לְאַחַר מִיתָה, אִי בָּשָׂר – מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה, וְאִם דָּם – מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: The *baraita* contrasts animals, which are susceptible to both light and more severe forms of impurity, and people, who are susceptible only to severe ritual impurity, and the Gemara has explained the *baraita* as referring to a human being after death. But **in the corresponding** situation **with regard to an animal after death, if** one is referring to its **meat,** then it **transmits impurity** by **a severe** form of **impurity,** the impurity of a carcass, **and if** one is referring to its **blood,** it likewise **transmits impurity** by **a severe** form of **ritual impurity,** and not a light form of ritual impurity.


###### Keritot 21a:20
[Keritot 21a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/21a:20)

דִּתְנַן: דַּם נְבֵילוֹת – בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מְטַהֲרִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְטַמְּאִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As we learned** in a mishna (*Eduyyot* 5:1): With regard to **the blood of** animal **carcasses, Beit Shammai deem** it **pure, and Beit Hillel deem** it **impure** just like the carcass itself, which transmits severe ritual impurity. Why, then, does the *baraita* differentiate between people and animals and indicate that dead animals are susceptible to a light form of ritual impurity?


###### Keritot 21a:21
[Keritot 21a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/21a:21)

לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לִכְדִתְנַן: נִבְלַת בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה בְּכׇל מָקוֹם, נִבְלַת [הָ]עוֹף הַטָּהוֹר בַּכְּפָרִים – צָרִיךְ מַחְשָׁבָה, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ הֶכְשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The statement of the *baraita* that animals are susceptible to a light form of impurity after death while people are not **is necessary only for that which we learned** in a mishna with regard to the impurity of food (*Okatzin* 3:3): **A carcass of a non-kosher animal,** e.g., a horse or donkey, found **in any location,** and likewise an unslaughtered **carcass of a kosher bird** found **in villages,** where there are not many people and it is unlikely to be eaten, **require** express **intent** to be eaten in order for them to be considered food and susceptible to impurity of food. But **they are not required** to come into contact with a liquid in order to be **rendered susceptible** to impurity.


###### Keritot 21a:22
[Keritot 21a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/21a:22)

נִבְלַת בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה בְּכׇל מָקוֹם, וְנִבְלַת עוֹף טָהוֹר וְחֵלֶב בַּשְּׁוָקִים – אֵין צְרִיכִין לֹא מַחְשָׁבָה וְלֹא הֶכְשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
By contrast, **the carcass of a kosher animal anywhere, and the unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird or** forbidden **fat** found **in marketplaces,** will presumably be eaten, and therefore they **require neither intent** to be eaten **nor** contact with liquid in order to be **rendered susceptible** to impurity.


###### Keritot 21a:23
[Keritot 21a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/21a:23)

וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב לְרַבִּי חִיָּיא: מַחְשָׁבָה, לְמָה לִי לְטוּמְאָה קַלָּה? הִיא גּוּפַהּ טוּמְאָה הִיא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּגוֹן דְּאִיכָּא פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת נְבֵילָה, וְצֵרְפָהּ לְפָחוֹת מִכְּבֵיצָה אוֹכָלִין, דְּהַאי וְהַאי הָוֵי כְּבֵיצָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: Why do I** need **intent for** a carcass to be eaten so that it will be considered food and therefore susceptible to the impurity of food, which is **a light** form of **ritual impurity?** After all, the carcass **itself is** already impure with a severe form of **impurity.** Rabbi Ḥiyya **said to** Rav: It is necessary for a case **where there is less than an olive-bulk** of the **carcass,** which is not susceptible to the impurity of a carcass, **and one combined it with less than an egg-bulk** of **food,** so **that this and that** together **are an egg-bulk,** which is the minimum amount of food that is susceptible to food impurity.


###### Keritot 21a:24
[Keritot 21a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/21a:24)

אִי הָכִי, לִיבְעֵי נָמֵי הֶכְשֵׁר, דְּהָא תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״עַל כׇּל זֶרַע [זֵרוּעַ] אֲשֶׁר יִזָּרֵעַ״ – מָה זְרָעִים מְיוּחָדִין שֶׁאֵין סוֹפָן לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה וְצָרִיךְ הֶכְשֵׁר, אַף כֹּל שֶׁאֵין סוֹפָן לְטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה צָרִיךְ הֶכְשֵׁר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav raised a difficulty to Rabbi Ḥiyya: **If so,** that less than an olive-bulk of an animal carcass does not transmit impurity, **it should also require** contact with a liquid in order to be **rendered susceptible** to impurity as a food. **As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught** that with regard to the impurity of foods, the verse states: **“Upon any sowing seed which is to be sown”** (Leviticus 11:37), which teaches: **Just as seeds are unique** in **that they will not ultimately become impure** with **a severe** form of **ritual impurity and** they **require** contact with liquid in order to be **rendered susceptible** to impurity, **so too, anything that will not ultimately become impure** with **a severe** form of **ritual impurity requires** contact with liquid in order to be **rendered susceptible** to impurity.


###### Keritot 21a:25
[Keritot 21a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/21a:25)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בָּאוֹכָלִין דְּעָלְמָא, דְּלֵית בְּהוּ פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת נְבֵלָה, אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּאִיכָּא בְּגַוֵּיהּ פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת נְבֵילָה, כֵּיוָן דְּאִילּוּ מְצָרֵף לֵיהּ כְּזַיִת – לָא בָּעֵי הֶכְשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Ḥiyya **said to** Rav: **This statement** applies **to foods in general, which do not contain less than an olive-bulk of an animal carcass. But here, where** the food **does contain less than an olive-bulk of an animal carcass,** the *halakha* is different: **Since** it would be impure with a severe form of ritual impurity **if one were to add to** the amount of animal carcass so that there would be a full **olive-bulk,** it **does not require** contact with a liquid in order **to be rendered susceptible** to impurity. In any case, this *halakha* that less than an olive-bulk of a carcass combines with less than an egg-bulk of food to equal a full egg-bulk that is susceptible to food impurity, applies only to the flesh of an animal,