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.

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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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