וְאִ֨ישׁ אִ֜ישׁ מִבֵּ֣ית יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל וּמִן־הַגֵּר֙ הַגָּ֣ר בְּתוֹכָ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר יֹאכַ֖ל כָּל־דָּ֑ם וְנָתַתִּ֣י פָנַ֗י בַּנֶּ֙פֶשׁ֙ הָאֹכֶ֣לֶת אֶת־הַדָּ֔ם וְהִכְרַתִּ֥י אֹתָ֖הּ מִקֶּ֥רֶב עַמָּֽהּ׃
Sinumang tao mula sa sambahayan ni Israel, o mula sa mga dayuhang naninirahan sa gitna nila, na kakain ng anumang dugo, itututok Ko ang Aking mukha laban sa taong kumakain ng dugo, at ihihiwalay Ko siya mula sa gitna ng kanyang bayan.
Sifra
1) (Vayikra 17:10) ("And a man, a man, from the house of Israel and from the stranger that sojourns among them, that shall eat any blood — I shall set My face against the soul that eats the blood, and I shall cut it off from the midst of its people.") "Israel": (the congregation of) Israel; "the stranger": proselytes; "that sojourns": to include the wives of proselytes; "in their midst": to include women and bondsmen.
Sifra
2) If so, (i.e., if all have been accounted for) why is it written "a man, a man"? R. Elazar b. R. Shimon said: To include the child of an Israelite (mother) by a gentile or by a bondsman.
Sifra
3) "that shall eat any blood": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 17:11) "For the life of the flesh is in the blood; (and I have given it to you upon the altar to atone for your souls"), I might think that one is liable only for blood of the soul (i.e., the blood of shechitah, by which the soul leaves) in consecrated animals. Whence do I derive (the same for) the blood of the soul in chullin (non-consecrated animals), and residual blood in chullin and residual blood in consecrated animals? From "that shall eat any blood." These are the words of R. Yehudah. The sages say: For all of these he is not liable (kareth) except for "blood of the soul" alone.