Question: Although it is Metamei be'Maga ...

Answer: It is not however, Metamei either be'Masa or Begadim (See Shitah Mekubetzes 27).

Question #2: Rabeinu Baruch asks (See Shitah Mekubetzes 28) why it does not preclude them all in one Tzad; namely, that they (Of and Beheimah) subject to Isur and Heter (See Olas Shlomoh)?

Question #2: And the blood of eggs and locusts it could have precluded in that they are not subject to Tum'ah Chamurah?

Answer: Because the Heter mentioned in the Gemara is more obvious.

Distinction: When the Mishnah in Perek Oso ve'es B'no (Chulin, Daf 80a) states that 'A Coy is an independent Beryah (species) and the Chachamim did not decide whether it is a type of Chayah or a type of Beheimah ...

Distinction (cont.): That 'Beryah' is not the same as the Beryah here ...

Reason: Since it says 'And the Chachamim did not decide' ...

Distinction (concl.): Whereas here 'Beryah bi'Fenei Atzmah' means that it is neither a Chayah nor a Beheimah.

Proof: Because if it was one or the other, it would not be necessary to include its blood.

Precedent: Similarly, in the case in Yoma (Daf 74a) "Kol Cheilev", 'to include a Coy and Chatzi Shi'ur', and it says there that 'A Coy is a Beryah bi'Fenei Atzmah', it does not mean that it is a Safek Chayah or Beheimah ...

Reason: Because then it would not need a Pasuk to declare its Cheilev Asur (See marginal note and Shitah Mekubetzes 28).

Implied Question: It could just as well have answered - that he cut it off for a cure ...

Answer: Only it is coming to teach us that even if he cuts it off to give to a dog it requires Machshavah, to preclude from the opinion of the questioner.

Clarification: It could not have said a k'Zayis which he combined ...

Clarification (cont.): In which the Machshavah would be effective for that k'Beitzah to render Tamei other food, even if it only touched it (the pice of Neveilah only via the combination, and it do not need to touch the piece of Neveilah itself ...

Reason #1: Because then when the Gemara says 'Just as a Beheimah has only Tum'ah Kalah' - implying that there is such a thing as Neveilah that is only Tum'as Ochlin ...

Reason #1 (cont.): Whereas if it was a k'Zayis, it would be subject to Tum'ah Chamurah (as well).

Reason #2: Moreover, when the Mishnah that the Gemara cited in connection with it - says 'Beheimah Teme'ah be'Chol Makom ve'Nivlas Of Tahor ... ' ...

Reason #2 (cont.): It implies that the Neveilah of a Beheimah is compared to that of a Tahor bird (See Olas Shlomoh) - in that it requires Machshavah, like it.

Conclusion: That explains why it says less than a k'Zayis.

Clarification: He declines to establish the case like Rebbi Chiya established it ...

Reason #1: Since it is a Dochek to say that if he would have combined it with a k'Zayis, it would not have required Hechsher ...

Reason #1 (cont.): Because then, by the same token, one can say that if he would not have covered it with dough, it would not require a Hechsher.

Clarification (cont.): And he did not want to answer like Rebbi Chiya, but that 'Now too, it is Metamei be'Masa'.

Reason #2: Moreover, Rebbi Chiya's explanation is a Dochek inasmuch as Tum'ah Chamurah and Tum'ah Kalah are speaking in two different cases, Tum'ah Chamurah by a k'Zayis and Tum'ah Kalah, by less than a k'Zayis.

Reason #2 (cont.): Whereas Rav Chananya is able to establish them both by a k'Zayis - and where he covered it with dough, in which case it is Chamurah regarding Masa, and Kalah, regarding Maga.

La'av Davka: And when he says that 'It can be speaking even a k'Zayis', the Lashon is not accurate, since it implies that he concedes by less than a k'Zayis

La'av Davka (Reason): And this is not correct, as Tosfos just explained.

Clarification: Because in the Beraisa of the blood of fish it also mentions that the blood of human beings is Asur, and since when is it Asur if it is not 'loose'?

Clarification (cont.): Seeing as we learned in a Beraisa 'The blood between the teeth one may suck without any problem'?

Rashi : Rashi explains that there is not even a Mitzvah to separate from it ...

Reason: Because otherwise, how can the Gemara query Rav ...

Reason (cont.): Granted, blood between the teeth is permitted, because it cannot be seen and because it has not come out, whereas there, where it has come out, it is Asur even though it has not gathered - as the Tana says 'Blood that is on a loaf, one must scrape off'?

Conclusion: Hence Rashi explains 'Blood that is on a loaf, one must scrape off' - because although there is no Isur, there is a Mitzvah to separate from it.

Implied Question: Nevertheless the Gemara asks ...

Answer: That Rav says Asur, whereas it implies here that there that there is only a Mitzvah of separation, even where it can be seen and it has come out.

Introduction to Question: The Mitzvah to separate is a proer Isur, in which case the Kashya is from the Seifa ...

Question: What is then the Kashya? It is different there, by blood between the teeth - because it is blood that has not come out, whereas the blood of human-beings' that came out is forbidden even if he did not gather it? ...

Question (cont.): And the equivalent by the blood of a fish is permitted even if it came out ...

Alternative Question: Or perhaps when the Tana says that 'He may suck it and swallow it - it is because he knows that it came from there, whereas when it forbids the blood of humans, it speaks where he does not know where it came from ...

Alternative Question (cont.): But where one's finger is dripping blood it is permitted, since it comes from there, and there is no Safek that it might be the blood of a Beheimah or of a Chayah?

Answer: Rabeinu Baruch therefore explains the Gemara's Kashya - 'In the equivalent case by humans where one did not gather it, is it forbidden?' as follows ...

Introduction to Gemara's Question: It would be fine if the blood of fish was permitted even if one gathered it, and the equivalent by humans would be forbidden ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): In which case, the Chidush would be that human blood is Asur even where it has been gathered - meaning that even if it has been gathered, it needs to teach us the Isur by human-beings ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): It would then be in order not to mention the Heter by humans - such as where it has not come out, since the main statement is with regard to where it is gathered ...

Introduction to Question (concl.): But since the Tana rules that the blood of fish that is gathered is Asur, when he forbids the blood of humans, it must be speaking where it is not gathered, which must be the case, seeing as the blood of fish is permitted - and if it is gathered it is forbidden ...

Question: And since the Isur of human blood mentioned by the Tana is where it is not gathered, he ought to have rather taught us the Tzad Heter of human blood, in the same way as he teaches us the Heter of fish blood - if there would be such a Heter ...

Question (cont.): This is a proof that human blood has no Heter whatsoever, even if it has not come out.

Question (concl.): That is why the Gemara asks from the Beraisa that permits sucking the blood between the teeth without any problem' ...

Question (concl.): In that case, why did the Tana not draw a distinction by human blood?

Answer: And the Gemara answers that 'The Beraisa is speaking where there are scales with the blood ... ' - and the Tana is justified in not mentioning the Heter by human blood, by which there are no scales,

Halachah: From here we can imply that there is no Isur by the blood of fish unless it is gathered and there are no scales.

Clarification: The Gemara is asking that there is no Kareis.

Clarification: The Gemara establishes it by the heart of a bird which does not measure k'Zayis, but which is nevertheless Asur, according to the opinion in Yoma (Daf 73b) that holds 'Chatzi Shi'ur is Asur min ha'Torah' ...

Clarification (cont.): Consequently it is Asur but there is no Malkos, since it does not measure a k'Zayis.

Refuted Text: We do not have the text 'Ki kKatani Ein Chayavin alav' ...

Refutation: Because the Tana does not say that in connection with the heart,

Question: Why does the Gemara ask from the Beraisa and not from the Mishnah, which specifically states 'Dam ha'Techol Dam ha'Leiv Ein Chayavin alav

Answer: Because it is possible to establish it by the heart of a bird, which one cannot do with the Beraisa ...

Reason: Where it says 'Harei Eilu be'Lo Sa'aseh' ...

Answer (cont.): Implying that it is referring to an animal ...

Reason: Because by a bird Chatzi Shi'ur is not subject to Malkos.