## Keritot Daf 21b

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

לְאַפּוֹקֵי מֵת, אַף עַל גַּב דִּמְמַלֵּיא לֵיהּ – לָא מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אוֹכָלִין, מִשּׁוּם דְּבָטְלָה דַּעְתּוֹ אֵצֶל כׇּל אָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**to the exclusion of** less than an olive-bulk of a human **corpse.** With regard to a human corpse, **even if one completes its** amount to an egg-bulk, it **does not become impure** by the **impurity of food, because his intention is** rendered **irrelevant by** the opinions of **all** other **people,** since people do not eat human corpses. This explains why the *baraita* stated that animals are susceptible to light and severe forms of ritual impurity whereas people are susceptible only to severe ritual impurity.


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

רַב חֲנַנְיָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא דְּהָוֵי כְּזַיִת, הָכָא בְמַאי עָסְקִינַן? כְּגוֹן שֶׁחִיפָּהוּ בְּבָצֵק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥananya said:** With regard to the assertion that the carcass of a non-kosher animal becomes susceptible to the impurity of food only if one intends to eat it, **you may even say that** the piece of the carcass **is an olive-bulk. What are we dealing with here?** We are dealing with a case **where one covered it with** less than an egg-bulk of **dough.** Since it is covered with dough the carcass cannot come into contact with anything else in order to transmit impurity to it, and since there is less than an egg-bulk of dough, the dough itself is not susceptible to the impurity of food. But if the carcass and the dough combined are a full egg-bulk, they are susceptible to the impurity of food and can transmit that impurity to other food items.


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

אִי הָכִי, הֶכְשֵׁר נָמֵי נִיבְעֵי! הָנֵי מִילֵּי בָּאוֹכָלִין אַחֲרִינֵי, דְּלָא מְטַמּוּ לָא בְּמַגָּע וְלָא בְּמַשָּׂא. אֲבָל הָכָא, נְהִי דְּלָא מְטַמֵּא בְּמַגָּע, דְּקָמְחַפֵּי בְּבָצֵק, בְּמַשָּׂא מִיהַת לִיטַמֵּא, דְּהָא טָעֵון לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **If so, let it also require** contact with a liquid in order **to be rendered susceptible** to the impurity of food. The Gemara responds: **That statement** applies **with regard to other** kinds of **food, which do not transmit impurity** at all, **neither through** direct **contact nor through carrying. But here, granted that** the piece of animal carcass **does not transmit impurity through contact, as it is covered with dough, it should at least transmit impurity through carrying, as it is laden upon him,** despite the fact that he does not touch it.


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

לְאַפּוֹקֵי מֵת, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּחִיפָּהוּ בְּבָצֵק מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה, דְּטוּמְאָה בּוֹקַעַת וְעוֹלָה בּוֹקַעַת וְיוֹרֶדֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
According to Rav Ḥananya, it is in this regard that a light form of impurity, the impurity of food, applies to an animal after death. This is **to the exclusion of** a human **corpse, as even if one covered it with dough it transmits a severe** form of **ritual impurity, as** the **impurity** of a corpse **breaks through and ascends,** and **breaks through and descends,** even when it is covered.


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

אָמַר מָר: יָצְאוּ שְׁרָצִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן טוּמְאָה. וְלָא? שֶׁרֶץ מְטַמֵּא בְּמַגָּע! בְּמַשָּׂא לָא מְטַמֵּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara continues to analyze the *baraita* cited above (20b–21a). **The Master said:** The blood of **creeping animals** has been **excluded, as they do not have** a severe form of **impurity.** The Gemara asks: **And** do creeping animals **not** have a severe form of impurity? After all, by Torah law the carcass of **a creeping animal transmits impurity through contact.** The Gemara answers that even so, **it does not transmit impurity through carrying,** in the manner of an animal carcass.


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

אָמַר מָר: יָצָא דַּם דָּגִים וְדַם חֲגָבִים שֶׁכּוּלּוֹ הֶיתֵּר. מַאי כּוּלּוֹ הֶיתֵּר? אִילֵימָא דְּחֶלְבּוֹ מוּתָּר – הֲרֵי חַיָּה דְּחֶלְבָּהּ מוּתָּר וְדָמָהּ אָסוּר! וְאֶלָּא: מִשּׁוּם דְּלֵית בְּהוּ אִיסּוּר גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה? וַהֲרֵי עוֹף דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ אִיסּוּר גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה, וְדָמוֹ אָסוּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Master said** in the *baraita*: The **blood of fish and** the **blood of grasshoppers** have been **excluded, as they are entirely permitted.** The Gemara asks: **What** is the meaning of the clause: **They are entirely permitted? If we say** it is referring to the fact **that** all the **fat** of fish and grasshoppers is **permitted,** one may respond that all the **fat of an undomesticated animal** is also **permitted, and** yet **its blood is forbidden.And** if you say: **Rather,** fish and grasshoppers are referred to as entirely permitted **because the prohibition of the sciatic nerve does not apply to them,** this is also untenable; **but** in the case of **a bird there is no prohibition** against eating **the sciatic nerve and** even so, **its blood** is **forbidden.**


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

אֶלָּא מַאי כּוּלּוֹ הֶיתֵּר – דְּלָא בָּעֵי שְׁחִיטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, what** is the meaning of the statement that fish and grasshoppers **are entirely permitted?** This is referring to the *halakha* **that** fish and grasshoppers **do not require** ritual **slaughter** to permit their consumption.


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

אָמַר מָר: מָה עוֹף שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כִּלְאַיִם, אַף בְּהֵמָה – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּהֵמָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Master said** in the *baraita*: If the verse had stated only “bird,” one might have said that **just as a bird** is a creature with regard to **which** the prohibition of **diverse kinds does not** apply, **so too,** the prohibition of consuming blood applies only to **an animal** that is not subject to the prohibition of diverse kinds, whereas the blood of other animals is not forbidden. Therefore, **the verse states: “Of animal.”**


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

כִּלְאַיִם דְּמַאי? אִילֵּימָא כִּלְאַיִם דְּהַרְבָּעָה וְכִלְאַיִם דַּחֲרִישָׁה, וְהָתְנַן: חַיָּה וָעוֹף כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **To which** form of **diverse kinds** is this referring? **If we say** that it is the prohibition against **mating diverse kinds** together, **or** the prohibition against **plowing diverse kinds** together, that is difficult: **But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (*Bava Kamma* 54b): Similarly, **undomesticated animals and birds** are subject to the same *halakhot* **as them,** i.e., just as it is prohibited to plow with or to mate two species of domesticated animals together, the same applies to undomesticated animals and birds. Consequently, these prohibitions apply to all animals.


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

אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שֶׁצִּימְרוֹ אֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם כִּלְאַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Abaye said that** the *baraita* is referring to **its wool,** i.e., its feathers, and indicating that **one is not liable for** mixing **it** with linen **due to** the prohibition of **diverse kinds.** The prohibition of diverse kinds in clothing applies only to mixing sheep wool with linen, but not to the hair or feathers of other animals and birds.


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

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: דַּם שְׁרָצִים לוֹקִין עָלָיו בִּכְזַיִת. מֵיתִיבִי: דַּם הַטְּחוֹל, דַּם הַלֵּב, דַּם הַכְּלָיוֹת, דַּם אֵבָרִים – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. דַּם מְהַלְּכֵי שְׁתַּיִם, דַּם שְׁרָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים – אָסוּר, וְאֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says:** With regard to the **blood of creeping animals, one is flogged for** consuming **it in** the amount of **an olive-bulk.** The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita*: With regard to **blood of the spleen, blood of the heart, blood of the kidneys,** and **blood of limbs,** all **these are** forbidden for consumption **by** a regular **prohibition,** punishable by lashes, but their consumption is not punishable by *karet*. By contrast, the **blood of bipeds,** i.e., human beings, and the **blood of creeping animals and crawling things** are **forbidden but one is not liable for** their consumption. This indicates that one is not even flogged for consuming the blood of creeping animals.


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

מַאי אֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו – כָּרֵת, אֲ[בָל]

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **What** is the meaning of the clause: **One is not liable for** its consumption? It means that one is not liable to receive ***karet*** for consuming it, but one **is liable for** violating **a prohibition.**


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

חֲדָא, דְּהַיְינוּ רֵישָׁא. וְעוֹד, תַּנָּא מִלָּאו נָמֵי קָא מְמַעֵט לֵיהּ, דְּקָתָנֵי: יָצָא דַּם שְׁרָצִים, שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן טוּמְאָה חֲמוּרָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this answer: **One** reason this is not a good explanation is **that this is** the same as **the first clause.** The first clause of the *baraita* lists types of blood whose consumption is a violation of a regular prohibition and is not punishable by *karet*. Clearly, the latter clause cannot also be referring to types of blood in the same category. **And furthermore, a *tanna* excludes** consumption of this blood **from** a regular **prohibition as well, as** the *baraita* cited earlier **teaches:** The **blood of creeping animals** has been **excluded, as it does not have a severe** form of **ritual impurity.**


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

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: הִתְרוּ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם שֶׁרֶץ – לוֹקֶה, מִשּׁוּם דָּם – אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira said:** When Rav said that one is flogged for consuming the blood of creeping animals, he meant that if witnesses **forewarned him** that if he consumes the blood he will be liable **due to** the prohibition of eating **a creeping animal,** then **he is flogged.** The reason is that the prohibition against eating a creeping animal includes its blood. But if they forewarned him that he will be liable **due to** the prohibition of consuming **blood, he is not flogged.**


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

אָמַר רַב: דַּם דָּגִים שֶׁכִּינְּסוֹ – אָסוּר. מֵיתִיבִי: דַּם דָּגִים, דַּם חֲגָבִים – מוּתָּר, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה! הָהִיא בְּשֶׁלֹּא כִּינְּסוֹ, כִּי קָא אָמַר רַב – בְּשֶׁכִּינְּסוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav says: Fish blood that one collected** in a receptacle is **prohibited** for consumption because it would look as though one is consuming the blood of an animal or bird. The Gemara **raises an objection** from the latter clause of the *baraita* cited above: The **blood of fish** and the **blood of grasshoppers are permitted, and** this indicates that they are permitted **even *ab initio*.** The Gemara answers: **That** *baraita* is referring to a case **where he did not collect** the blood in a receptacle; **when Rav said** that it is prohibited, he was referring to a situation **where he did collect** the blood in a receptacle.


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

דִּכְווֹתַהּ גַּבֵּי מְהַלְּכֵי שְׁתַּיִם – בְּשֶׁלֹּא כִּינְּסוֹ, מִי אָסוּר? וְהָא תַּנְיָא: דָּם שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי כִּכָּר – גּוֹרְרוֹ וְאוֹכְלוֹ, שֶׁל בֵּין הַשִּׁינַּיִם – מוֹצְצוֹ וּבוֹלְעוֹ וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this answer: **In the corresponding** situation **with regard to** the **blood of bipeds,** which the *baraita* states is forbidden, the case must also be one **where one did not collect** the blood in a receptacle. In such a case, **is** the blood really **forbidden? But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: If some human **blood was on a loaf** of bread, one **scrapes off** the blood **and** then he **may eat** the bread. But with regard to blood that is **between** one’s **teeth, he may suck it and swallow it without concern,** as the blood is permitted if it has not been removed from the body. This indicates that even human blood that has not been collected in a receptacle is permitted.


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

אֶלָּא: כִּי תַּנְיָא הַהִיא מַתְנִיתָא – דְּאִית בֵּיהּ קַשְׂקַשִּׂים, כִּי קָאָמַר רַב אָסוּר – דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ קַשְׂקַשִּׂים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the *baraita* rules that fish blood is permitted even when it has been collected in a receptacle, and **when that *baraita* is taught,** it is referring to a case **where there are scales in it** and therefore it is clearly fish blood. By contrast, **when Rav said** that it is **prohibited**, he was referring to a case **where there are no scales in** the blood, and therefore it is not evident that it is fish blood.


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

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: דַּם מְהַלְּכֵי שְׁתַּיִם – אֲפִילּוּ מִצְוַת פְּרוֹשׁ אֵין בּוֹ. מֵיתִיבִי: דַּם הַטְּחוֹל, דַּם הַלֵּב, דַּם הַכְּלָיוֹת, דַּם אֵבָרִים – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. דַּם מְהַלְּכֵי שְׁתַּיִם, דַּם שְׁרָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים – אָסוּר וְאֵין חַיָּיבִ[ין] עָלָיו! כִּי תַּנְיָא אָסוּר –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet says:** With regard to the **blood** of **bipeds, there is not even a command to abstain** from consuming it *ab initio*. The Gemara **raises an objection** from the *baraita*: **Blood of the spleen, blood of the heart, blood of the kidneys,** and **blood of limbs,** all **these are** forbidden for consumption **by** a regular **prohibition.** By contrast, the **blood of bipeds,** i.e., human beings, and the **blood of creeping animals and crawling things** are **forbidden but one is not liable for** their consumption. The Gemara answers: **When** it **is taught** in that *baraita* that human blood **is forbidden,** that is referring to a case