The scholars derived from this a principle: whatever is severed from a living being takes the same ruling as its carcass with respect to lawfulness and unlawfulness, and purity and impurity (1). Since the corpse of a human being is pure, any limb severed from him is likewise pure.

It is remarkable, however, that the scholars say: “Whatever is separated from a human being is pure, except for one thing: blood. It is impure, though a small amount of it is excused” (2). This is because blood is neither urine nor feces, for urine and feces are the waste products of food and drink from which the body derives no benefit. They said: Blood is neither a waste product devoid of benefit nor part of the body itself, which blood nourishes; rather, it lies somewhere between the two. Therefore, we gave it an intermediate ruling: it is neither like a severed limb nor like urine and feces. Thus, it is impure, though a small amount of it is excused.

Many scholars, however, hold that human blood is pure. They argue that if a limb does not become impure by being detached, then blood is even more deserving of this ruling. There is no evidence that human blood is impure, except for that which exits from the two private passages, such as menstrual blood, for evidence has established its impurity (3).

If it is asked: What is the relevance of this issue—“Whatever falls from him of a