Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
Chullin 87
הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם מִשְׁתֵּא וּבָרוֹכֵי בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי לָא אֶפְשָׁר, הָכָא אֶפְשָׁר דְּשָׁחֵיט בַּחֲדָא וּמְכַסֵּי בַּחֲדָא.
The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared? There, in the incident involving the students of Rav, it is impossible to drink and recite a blessing simultaneously. Accordingly, by requesting a cup over which to recite the blessing of Grace after Meals, they demonstrated their desire to cease drinking. Here, when one covers the blood of the undomesticated animal before slaughtering the bird, it is possible to slaughter the bird with the one hand and cover the blood of the undomesticated animal with the other one. Accordingly, the act of covering the blood of the undomesticated animal is not considered an interruption of the acts of slaughter, since they could have been performed simultaneously.
מַתְנִי׳ שָׁחַט וְלֹא כִּסָּה, וְרָאָהוּ אַחֵר – חַיָּיב לְכַסּוֹת. כִּסָּהוּ וְנִתְגַּלָּה – פָּטוּר מִלְּכַסּוֹת. (כִּסָּהוּ) [כִּסַּתּוּ] הָרוּחַ – חַיָּיב לְכַסּוֹת.
MISHNA: If one slaughtered an undomesticated animal or bird and did not cover the blood, and another person saw the uncovered blood, the second person is obligated to cover the blood. If one covered the blood and it was then uncovered, he is exempt from covering it again. If the wind blew earth on the blood and covered it, and it was consequently uncovered, he is obligated to cover the blood.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְשָׁפַךְ וְכִסָּה״ – מִי שֶׁשָּׁפַךְ יְכַסֶּה. שָׁחַט וְלֹא כִּסָּה, וְרָאָהוּ אַחֵר, מִנַּיִן שֶׁחַיָּיב לְכַסּוֹת? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וָאֹמַר לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ – אַזְהָרָה לְכׇל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth” (Leviticus 17:13), indicating that the one who poured out its blood, i.e., slaughtered the animal, shall cover it. If one slaughtered the animal or bird and did not cover the blood, and another person saw the uncovered blood, from where is it derived that the person who saw the blood is obligated to cover it? It is derived from the following verse, as it is stated: “Therefore I said to the children of Israel” (Leviticus 17:12), which is a warning to all the children of Israel to fulfill the mitzva of covering the blood.
תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״וְשָׁפַךְ וְכִסָּה״, בַּמֶּה שֶׁשָּׁפַךְ – בּוֹ יְכַסֶּה, שֶׁלֹּא יְכַסֶּנּוּ בָּרֶגֶל, שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ מִצְוֹת בְּזוּיוֹת עָלָיו. תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״וְשָׁפַךְ וְכִסָּה״, מִי שֶׁשָּׁפַךְ – הוּא יְכַסֶּנּוּ. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁשָּׁחַט, וְקָדַם חֲבֵירוֹ וְכִסָּה, וְחִיְּיבוֹ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לִיתֵּן לוֹ עֲשָׂרָה זְהוּבִים.
It is taught in another baraita: The verse states: “And he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth,” indicating that with that which he poured out the blood he shall cover it, i.e., he must use his hand, and he may not cover it with his foot, so that mitzvot will not be contemptible to him. It is taught in another baraita: The verse states: “And he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth,” indicating that the one who poured out the blood shall cover it. An incident occurred involving one who slaughtered an undomesticated animal or bird and another individual preempted him and covered the blood, and Rabban Gamliel deemed him obligated to give ten gold coins to the one who performed the act of slaughter.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: שְׂכַר מִצְוָה אוֹ שְׂכַר בְּרָכָה? לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְבִרְכַּת הַמָּזוֹן. אִי אָמְרַתְּ שְׂכַר מִצְוָה – אַחַת הִיא, וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ שְׂכַר בְּרָכָה – הָוְיָין אַרְבָּעִים. מַאי?
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Are these ten gold coins compensation for the stolen mitzva or are they compensation for the stolen blessing recited over the mitzva? The Gemara elaborates: What is the practical difference? The difference is with regard to a similar case involving Grace after Meals. If you say the coins are compensation for the mitzva, then with regard to Grace after Meals, since all its blessings constitute one mitzva, one would be obligated to give only ten gold coins. But if you say they are compensation for the lost blessing, then with regard to Grace after Meals the compensation is forty gold coins, since Grace after Meals comprises four blessings. What is the conclusion?
תָּא שְׁמַע, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא מִינָא לְרַבִּי: מִי שֶׁיָּצַר הָרִים לֹא בָּרָא רוּחַ, וּמִי שֶׁבָּרָא רוּחַ לֹא יָצַר הָרִים, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי הִנֵּה יוֹצֵר הָרִים וּבֹרֵא רוּחַ״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שׁוֹטֶה, שְׁפֵיל לְסֵיפֵיהּ דִּקְרָא – ״ה׳ צְבָאוֹת שְׁמוֹ״.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from an incident in which a certain heretic said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: He who created mountains did not create wind, and he who created wind did not create mountains; rather, each was created by a separate deity, as it is written: “For behold, He Who forms the mountains and He Who creates the wind” (Amos 4:13), indicating that there are two deities: One who forms the mountains and one who creates the wind. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Imbecile, go to the end of the verse, which states: “The Lord, the God of hosts, is His name.” The verse emphasizes that God is the One Who both forms and creates.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: נְקוֹט לִי זִימְנָא תְּלָתָא יוֹמֵי וּמַהְדַּרְנָא לָךְ תְּיוּבְתָּא. יְתֵיב רַבִּי תְּלָת תַּעֲנִיָּתָא. כִּי הֲוָה קָא בָּעֵי מִיבְרָא, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: מִינָא קָאֵי אַבָּבָא. אֲמַר: ״וַיִּתְּנוּ בְּבָרוּתִי רוֹשׁ וְגוֹ׳״.
The heretic said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Give me three days’ time and I will respond to you with a rebuttal of your claim. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi sat and fasted three days of fasting while awaiting the heretic, in order that he would not find a rebuttal. When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi wanted to have a meal at the conclusion of those three days, they said to him: That heretic is standing at the doorway. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi recited the following verse about himself: “They put gall into my food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink” (Psalms 69:22), i.e., my meal is embittered with the presence of this heretic.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רַבִּי, מְבַשֵּׂר טוֹבוֹת אֲנִי לָךְ, לֹא מָצָא תְּשׁוּבָה אוֹיִבְךָ וְנָפַל מִן הַגָּג וָמֵת. אָמַר לוֹ: רְצוֹנְךָ שֶׁתִּסְעוֹד אֶצְלִי? אָמַר לוֹ: הֵן. לְאַחַר שֶׁאָכְלוּ וְשָׁתוּ, אָמַר לוֹ: כּוֹס שֶׁל בְּרָכָה אַתָּה שׁוֹתֶה אוֹ אַרְבָּעִים זְהוּבִים אַתָּה נוֹטֵל? אָמַר לוֹ: כּוֹס שֶׁל בְּרָכָה אֲנִי שׁוֹתֶה. יָצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: כּוֹס שֶׁל בְּרָכָה שָׁוֶה אַרְבָּעִים זְהוּבִים.
When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi came to the door he saw that it was in fact a different heretic, not the one who asked for three days to prepare a rebuttal. This heretic said to him: Rabbi, I am a bearer of good tidings for you: Your enemy did not find a response, and he threw himself from the roof and died. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to the heretic: Since you have brought me good tidings, would you like to dine with me? The heretic said to him: Yes. After they ate and drank, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to the heretic: Would you like to drink the cup of blessing, i.e., the cup of wine over which the Grace after Meals is recited, or would you like to take forty gold coins instead, and I will recite the Grace after Meals? The heretic said to him: I will drink the cup of blessing. A Divine Voice emerged and said: The cup of blessing is worth forty gold coins. Evidently, each one of the blessings in the Grace after Meals is worth ten gold coins.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: עֲדַיִין יֶשְׁנָהּ לְאוֹתָהּ מִשְׁפָּחָה בֵּין גְּדוֹלֵי רוֹמִי, וְקוֹרְאִין אוֹתָהּ מִשְׁפַּחַת בַּר לוּיָאנוּס.
The Gemara adds: Rabbi Yitzḥak says: That family of the heretic who dined with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi still exists among the prominent families of Rome, and that family is called: The family of bar Luyyanus.
כִּסָּהוּ וְנִתְגַּלָּה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: מַאי שְׁנָא מֵהֲשָׁבַת אֲבֵדָה, דְּאָמַר מָר: ״הָשֵׁב״ – אֲפִילּוּ מֵאָה פְּעָמִים.
§ The mishna teaches that if one covered the blood and it was then uncovered he is not obligated to cover it again. Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: What is different about this case from the mitzva of returning a lost item, where the Master said: The verse states with regard to the obligation to return a lost item: “You shall return them to your brother” (Deuteronomy 22:1), even one hundred times?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם לָא כְּתִיב מִיעוּטָא, הָכָא כְּתִיב מִיעוּטָא ״וְכִסָּהוּ״.
Rav Ashi said to Rav Aḥa: There, in the verse discussing the obligation to return a lost item, a restriction is not written in the verse to limit the obligation. Here, in the verse discussing the obligation to cover the blood, a restriction is written, as the verse states: “And he shall cover it.” The usage of the term “it” indicates that one must cover the blood only one time.
כִּסָּהוּ הָרוּחַ. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁחָזַר וְנִתְגַּלָּה, אֲבָל לֹא חָזַר וְנִתְגַּלָּה – פָּטוּר מִלְּכַסּוֹת. וְכִי חָזַר וְנִתְגַּלָּה מַאי הָוֵי? הָא אִידְּחִי לֵיהּ! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת אֵין דִּיחוּי אֵצֶל מִצְוֹת.
§ The mishna teaches that if the wind blew earth on the blood and covered it one is obligated to cover the blood. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They taught this halakha only if the blood was again uncovered. But if the blood was not again uncovered one is exempt from the obligation to cover it. The Gemara asks: And when the blood was again uncovered, what of it? Isn’t it already rejected from the mitzva of covering since it was covered by the wind? Rav Pappa said: That is to say that there is no permanent rejection with regard to mitzvot. Although the wind covered the blood, the mitzva to cover it was not rendered null; rather, the mitzva simply could not be performed. Consequently, once the blood is again uncovered, the mitzva to cover the blood remains in place.
וּמַאי שְׁנָא מֵהָא דְּתַנְיָא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְנִבְלַע דָּם בַּקַּרְקַע – חַיָּיב לְכַסּוֹת. הָתָם כְּשֶׁרִשּׁוּמוֹ נִיכָּר.
The Gemara asks: But even if the wind covered the blood and it remained covered, why is one exempt from performing the mitzva of covering the blood? What is different about this case from that which is taught in a baraita: In a case where one slaughters an undomesticated animal or a bird and its blood is absorbed by the ground, one is obligated to cover the blood? The Gemara responds: There, the baraita is referring to a case where the impression of the blood is still recognizable, i.e., it was not entirely absorbed in the ground.
מַתְנִי׳ דָּם שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּמַיִם, אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ מַרְאִית דָּם – חַיָּיב לְכַסּוֹת. נִתְעָרֵב בְּיַיִן – רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ הוּא מַיִם. נִתְעָרֵב בְּדַם הַבְּהֵמָה
MISHNA: In a case of the blood of an undomesticated animal or bird that was mixed with water, if there is in the mixture the appearance of blood one is obligated to cover it. If the blood was mixed with wine one views the wine as though it is water, and if a mixture with that amount of water would have the appearance of blood one is obligated to cover it. Likewise, if the blood of an undomesticated animal or a bird was mixed with the blood of a domesticated animal, which one does not have to cover,
אוֹ בְּדַם הַחַיָּה – רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ הֵן מַיִם. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין דָּם מְבַטֵּל דָּם.
or with blood of the undomesticated animal that did not flow from the neck and does not require covering, one views the blood as though it is water. Rabbi Yehuda says: Blood does not nullify blood. Therefore, even if the undomesticated animal’s blood, which one must cover, is not recognizable in this mixture, he is obligated to cover the mixture nevertheless.
דָּם הַנִּיתָּז וְשֶׁעַל הַסַּכִּין – חַיָּיב לְכַסּוֹת. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אֵימָתַי? בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין שָׁם דָּם אֶלָּא הוּא, אֲבָל יֵשׁ שָׁם דָּם שֶׁלֹּא הוּא – פָּטוּר מִלְּכַסּוֹת.
With regard to blood that spurts outside the pit over which the animal was slaughtered, or onto a wall, and blood that remained on the slaughtering knife, one is obligated to cover it. Rabbi Yehuda said: When is this the halakha? When no blood remains there from the slaughter except that blood. But if blood remains there from the slaughter that is not that blood, he is exempt from covering it.
גְּמָ׳ תְּנַן הָתָם: דָּם שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּמַיִם, אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ מַרְאִית דָּם – כָּשֵׁר. נִתְעָרֵב בְּיַיִן – רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ הוּא מַיִם. נִתְעָרֵב בְּדַם בְּהֵמָה אוֹ בְּדַם הַחַיָּה – רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ הוּא מַיִם. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין דָּם מְבַטֵּל דָּם.
GEMARA: We learned in a mishna there (Zevaḥim 77b): In the case of blood of an offering fit for sacrifice that was mixed with water, if the mixture has the appearance of blood it is fit for sprinkling on the altar, even though the majority of the mixture is water. If the blood was mixed with red wine, one views the wine as though it is water. If that amount of water would leave the mixture with the appearance of blood it is fit for presentation. And likewise, if the blood was mixed with the blood of a non-sacred domesticated animal or the blood of a non-sacred undomesticated animal, one considers the non-sacred blood as though it is water. Rabbi Yehuda says: Blood does not nullify blood. Therefore, the priest presents the blood of the mixture on the altar.
אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁנָּפְלוּ מַיִם לְתוֹךְ דָּם, אֲבָל נָפַל דָּם לְתוֹךְ מַיִם – רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן בָּטֵל.
The mishna teaches that in a case where water became mixed with the blood of an offering, if the mixture has the appearance of blood it is fit, despite the fact that there is more water than blood. Concerning this Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They taught this halakha only in a case where the water fell into the blood. But in a case where the blood fell into the water, the first drop of blood, and then the next first drop of blood, are nullified in the water, i.e., each drop is nullified in turn. Consequently, the mixture is unfit for presentation, regardless of whether it has the appearance of blood.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: וּלְעִנְיַן כִּסּוּי אֵינוֹ כֵּן, אֵין דִּחוּי אֵצֶל מִצְוֹת.
Rav Pappa says: But with regard to the mitzva of covering the blood of birds or undomesticated animals that are slaughtered, it is not so. In this case, even if the blood fell into water the mitzva of covering applies to it, provided the mixture has the appearance of blood. The blood is not nullified by the water because there is no permanent rejection with regard to mitzvot other than those that relate to sacrificial rites. Therefore, its nullification was merely temporary, but once there is enough blood in the water it reassumes its status of blood.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל מַרְאֵה אַדְּמוּמִית – מְכַפְּרִין, וּמַכְשִׁירִין, וְחַיָּיבִין בְּכִסּוּי. מַאי קָמַשְׁמַע לַן? מְכַפְּרִין – תְּנֵינָא, חַיָּיבִין בְּכִסּוּי – תְּנֵינָא!
§ With regard to mixtures of blood and water, Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: All mixtures of blood and water that maintain a reddish hue are considered blood and effect atonement by being presented on the altar, and render food susceptible to contracting ritual impurity, and are included in the obligation of covering the blood provided that the blood is from the slaughter of an undomesticated animal or bird. The Gemara asks: What is Rav Yehuda teaching us? If he is teaching us that such mixtures effect atonement, we already learn this from the mishna in tractate Zevaḥim. And if he is teaching us that such mixtures are included in the obligation of covering the blood, we already learn this in the mishna here.
מַכְשִׁירִין אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ. מַכְשִׁירִין נָמֵי, אִי דָּם – אַכְשׁוֹרֵי מַכְשַׁר, אִי מַיָּא – אַכְשׁוֹרֵי מַכְשְׁרִי! לָא צְרִיכָא, שֶׁתִּמְּדוֹ בְּמֵי גְשָׁמִים.
Rather, it was necessary for Rav Yehuda to teach that such mixtures render food susceptible to contracting ritual impurity, as this was not taught in a mishna. The Gemara challenges: It is also unnecessary to teach that such mixtures render food susceptible to contracting ritual impurity. If the mixture has the status of blood it renders food susceptible, as does blood, and if the mixture has the status of water it renders food susceptible, as does water. The Gemara responds: No, this statement is necessary in a case where the blood was mixed with rainwater, which does not render food susceptible without the intent or desire of the owner of the food. If the mixture is considered blood it renders food susceptible.
מֵי גְשָׁמִים נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּשָׁקֵיל וְרָמֵי, אַחְשְׁבִינְהוּ. לָא צְרִיכָא, שֶׁנִּתְמְדוּ מֵאֲלֵיהֶן.
The Gemara challenges: With regard to rainwater as well, since one took it and placed it into a vessel containing blood, he has ascribed significance to the rainwater and it should be capable of rendering food susceptible. The Gemara responds: No, this statement is necessary in a case where the rainwater was mixed with the blood by itself, i.e., it was not gathered and poured purposefully.
רַבִּי אַסִּי מִנְּהַרְבִּיל אוֹמֵר: בִּצְלַלְתָּא דִּדְמָא. רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה מִדִּפְתִּי אָמַר: עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת, וְהוּא דְּאִיכָּא כְּזַיִת. בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: מְטַמְּאִים בְּאֹהֶל, וְהוּא דְּאִיכָּא רְבִיעִית.
Rabbi Asi of Neharbil says: The statement of Rav Yehuda is referring to blood plasma, i.e., if the plasma has a reddish hue due to the blood, it has the status of blood and can render food susceptible to contracting ritual impurity. Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti said: Consumption of this plasma is punishable by karet, as is the halakha with regard to one who consumes blood (see Leviticus 17:14), provided that there is at least one olive-bulk of actual blood. It was taught in a baraita: Blood plasma that issues from a corpse that has a reddish hue imparts ritual impurity in a tent, provided that there is at least a quarter-log of actual blood, which is the amount of a corpse’s blood that imparts ritual impurity.
תְּנַן הָתָם: כׇּל מַשְׁקֵה הַמֵּת טְהוֹרִין, חוּץ מִדָּמוֹ, וְכׇל מַרְאֵה אַדְּמוּמִית שֶׁבּוֹ מְטַמְּאִין בְּאֹהֶל. וּמַשְׁקֵה הַמֵּת טְהוֹרִין? וּרְמִינְהוּ: מַשְׁקֶה טְבוּל יוֹם, מַשְׁקִין הַיּוֹצְאִין מִמֶּנּוּ כְּמַשְׁקִין שֶׁנּוֹגֵעַ בָּהֶן,
We learned in a baraita elsewhere (Tosefta, Oholot 4:5): All liquids that issue from a corpse, e.g., teardrops or breastmilk, are ritually pure, except for its blood. And all liquids that issue from a corpse that contain a reddish hue of blood impart ritual impurity in a tent. The Gemara asks: But are liquids that issue from a corpse ritually pure? And raise a contradiction from a mishna (Tevul Yom 2:1): With regard to liquids that issue from one who immersed that day, liquids that issue from him have the same status as liquids that he touches.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Raanana, Israel
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
See video
Raanana, Israel
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Palo Alto, CA, United States
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Jerusalem, Israel
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Silver Spring, MD, United States
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
See video
Raanana, Israel
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Pennsylvania, United States
Los Angeles, United States
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Neve Daniel, Israel
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
Chullin 87
הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם מִשְׁתֵּא וּבָרוֹכֵי בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי לָא אֶפְשָׁר, הָכָא אֶפְשָׁר דְּשָׁחֵיט בַּחֲדָא וּמְכַסֵּי בַּחֲדָא.
The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared? There, in the incident involving the students of Rav, it is impossible to drink and recite a blessing simultaneously. Accordingly, by requesting a cup over which to recite the blessing of Grace after Meals, they demonstrated their desire to cease drinking. Here, when one covers the blood of the undomesticated animal before slaughtering the bird, it is possible to slaughter the bird with the one hand and cover the blood of the undomesticated animal with the other one. Accordingly, the act of covering the blood of the undomesticated animal is not considered an interruption of the acts of slaughter, since they could have been performed simultaneously.
מַתְנִי׳ שָׁחַט וְלֹא כִּסָּה, וְרָאָהוּ אַחֵר – חַיָּיב לְכַסּוֹת. כִּסָּהוּ וְנִתְגַּלָּה – פָּטוּר מִלְּכַסּוֹת. (כִּסָּהוּ) [כִּסַּתּוּ] הָרוּחַ – חַיָּיב לְכַסּוֹת.
MISHNA: If one slaughtered an undomesticated animal or bird and did not cover the blood, and another person saw the uncovered blood, the second person is obligated to cover the blood. If one covered the blood and it was then uncovered, he is exempt from covering it again. If the wind blew earth on the blood and covered it, and it was consequently uncovered, he is obligated to cover the blood.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְשָׁפַךְ וְכִסָּה״ – מִי שֶׁשָּׁפַךְ יְכַסֶּה. שָׁחַט וְלֹא כִּסָּה, וְרָאָהוּ אַחֵר, מִנַּיִן שֶׁחַיָּיב לְכַסּוֹת? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וָאֹמַר לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ – אַזְהָרָה לְכׇל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth” (Leviticus 17:13), indicating that the one who poured out its blood, i.e., slaughtered the animal, shall cover it. If one slaughtered the animal or bird and did not cover the blood, and another person saw the uncovered blood, from where is it derived that the person who saw the blood is obligated to cover it? It is derived from the following verse, as it is stated: “Therefore I said to the children of Israel” (Leviticus 17:12), which is a warning to all the children of Israel to fulfill the mitzva of covering the blood.
תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״וְשָׁפַךְ וְכִסָּה״, בַּמֶּה שֶׁשָּׁפַךְ – בּוֹ יְכַסֶּה, שֶׁלֹּא יְכַסֶּנּוּ בָּרֶגֶל, שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ מִצְוֹת בְּזוּיוֹת עָלָיו. תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״וְשָׁפַךְ וְכִסָּה״, מִי שֶׁשָּׁפַךְ – הוּא יְכַסֶּנּוּ. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁשָּׁחַט, וְקָדַם חֲבֵירוֹ וְכִסָּה, וְחִיְּיבוֹ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לִיתֵּן לוֹ עֲשָׂרָה זְהוּבִים.
It is taught in another baraita: The verse states: “And he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth,” indicating that with that which he poured out the blood he shall cover it, i.e., he must use his hand, and he may not cover it with his foot, so that mitzvot will not be contemptible to him. It is taught in another baraita: The verse states: “And he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth,” indicating that the one who poured out the blood shall cover it. An incident occurred involving one who slaughtered an undomesticated animal or bird and another individual preempted him and covered the blood, and Rabban Gamliel deemed him obligated to give ten gold coins to the one who performed the act of slaughter.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: שְׂכַר מִצְוָה אוֹ שְׂכַר בְּרָכָה? לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְבִרְכַּת הַמָּזוֹן. אִי אָמְרַתְּ שְׂכַר מִצְוָה – אַחַת הִיא, וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ שְׂכַר בְּרָכָה – הָוְיָין אַרְבָּעִים. מַאי?
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Are these ten gold coins compensation for the stolen mitzva or are they compensation for the stolen blessing recited over the mitzva? The Gemara elaborates: What is the practical difference? The difference is with regard to a similar case involving Grace after Meals. If you say the coins are compensation for the mitzva, then with regard to Grace after Meals, since all its blessings constitute one mitzva, one would be obligated to give only ten gold coins. But if you say they are compensation for the lost blessing, then with regard to Grace after Meals the compensation is forty gold coins, since Grace after Meals comprises four blessings. What is the conclusion?
תָּא שְׁמַע, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא מִינָא לְרַבִּי: מִי שֶׁיָּצַר הָרִים לֹא בָּרָא רוּחַ, וּמִי שֶׁבָּרָא רוּחַ לֹא יָצַר הָרִים, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי הִנֵּה יוֹצֵר הָרִים וּבֹרֵא רוּחַ״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שׁוֹטֶה, שְׁפֵיל לְסֵיפֵיהּ דִּקְרָא – ״ה׳ צְבָאוֹת שְׁמוֹ״.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from an incident in which a certain heretic said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: He who created mountains did not create wind, and he who created wind did not create mountains; rather, each was created by a separate deity, as it is written: “For behold, He Who forms the mountains and He Who creates the wind” (Amos 4:13), indicating that there are two deities: One who forms the mountains and one who creates the wind. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Imbecile, go to the end of the verse, which states: “The Lord, the God of hosts, is His name.” The verse emphasizes that God is the One Who both forms and creates.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: נְקוֹט לִי זִימְנָא תְּלָתָא יוֹמֵי וּמַהְדַּרְנָא לָךְ תְּיוּבְתָּא. יְתֵיב רַבִּי תְּלָת תַּעֲנִיָּתָא. כִּי הֲוָה קָא בָּעֵי מִיבְרָא, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: מִינָא קָאֵי אַבָּבָא. אֲמַר: ״וַיִּתְּנוּ בְּבָרוּתִי רוֹשׁ וְגוֹ׳״.
The heretic said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Give me three days’ time and I will respond to you with a rebuttal of your claim. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi sat and fasted three days of fasting while awaiting the heretic, in order that he would not find a rebuttal. When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi wanted to have a meal at the conclusion of those three days, they said to him: That heretic is standing at the doorway. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi recited the following verse about himself: “They put gall into my food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink” (Psalms 69:22), i.e., my meal is embittered with the presence of this heretic.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רַבִּי, מְבַשֵּׂר טוֹבוֹת אֲנִי לָךְ, לֹא מָצָא תְּשׁוּבָה אוֹיִבְךָ וְנָפַל מִן הַגָּג וָמֵת. אָמַר לוֹ: רְצוֹנְךָ שֶׁתִּסְעוֹד אֶצְלִי? אָמַר לוֹ: הֵן. לְאַחַר שֶׁאָכְלוּ וְשָׁתוּ, אָמַר לוֹ: כּוֹס שֶׁל בְּרָכָה אַתָּה שׁוֹתֶה אוֹ אַרְבָּעִים זְהוּבִים אַתָּה נוֹטֵל? אָמַר לוֹ: כּוֹס שֶׁל בְּרָכָה אֲנִי שׁוֹתֶה. יָצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: כּוֹס שֶׁל בְּרָכָה שָׁוֶה אַרְבָּעִים זְהוּבִים.
When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi came to the door he saw that it was in fact a different heretic, not the one who asked for three days to prepare a rebuttal. This heretic said to him: Rabbi, I am a bearer of good tidings for you: Your enemy did not find a response, and he threw himself from the roof and died. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to the heretic: Since you have brought me good tidings, would you like to dine with me? The heretic said to him: Yes. After they ate and drank, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to the heretic: Would you like to drink the cup of blessing, i.e., the cup of wine over which the Grace after Meals is recited, or would you like to take forty gold coins instead, and I will recite the Grace after Meals? The heretic said to him: I will drink the cup of blessing. A Divine Voice emerged and said: The cup of blessing is worth forty gold coins. Evidently, each one of the blessings in the Grace after Meals is worth ten gold coins.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: עֲדַיִין יֶשְׁנָהּ לְאוֹתָהּ מִשְׁפָּחָה בֵּין גְּדוֹלֵי רוֹמִי, וְקוֹרְאִין אוֹתָהּ מִשְׁפַּחַת בַּר לוּיָאנוּס.
The Gemara adds: Rabbi Yitzḥak says: That family of the heretic who dined with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi still exists among the prominent families of Rome, and that family is called: The family of bar Luyyanus.
כִּסָּהוּ וְנִתְגַּלָּה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: מַאי שְׁנָא מֵהֲשָׁבַת אֲבֵדָה, דְּאָמַר מָר: ״הָשֵׁב״ – אֲפִילּוּ מֵאָה פְּעָמִים.
§ The mishna teaches that if one covered the blood and it was then uncovered he is not obligated to cover it again. Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: What is different about this case from the mitzva of returning a lost item, where the Master said: The verse states with regard to the obligation to return a lost item: “You shall return them to your brother” (Deuteronomy 22:1), even one hundred times?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם לָא כְּתִיב מִיעוּטָא, הָכָא כְּתִיב מִיעוּטָא ״וְכִסָּהוּ״.
Rav Ashi said to Rav Aḥa: There, in the verse discussing the obligation to return a lost item, a restriction is not written in the verse to limit the obligation. Here, in the verse discussing the obligation to cover the blood, a restriction is written, as the verse states: “And he shall cover it.” The usage of the term “it” indicates that one must cover the blood only one time.
כִּסָּהוּ הָרוּחַ. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁחָזַר וְנִתְגַּלָּה, אֲבָל לֹא חָזַר וְנִתְגַּלָּה – פָּטוּר מִלְּכַסּוֹת. וְכִי חָזַר וְנִתְגַּלָּה מַאי הָוֵי? הָא אִידְּחִי לֵיהּ! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת אֵין דִּיחוּי אֵצֶל מִצְוֹת.
§ The mishna teaches that if the wind blew earth on the blood and covered it one is obligated to cover the blood. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They taught this halakha only if the blood was again uncovered. But if the blood was not again uncovered one is exempt from the obligation to cover it. The Gemara asks: And when the blood was again uncovered, what of it? Isn’t it already rejected from the mitzva of covering since it was covered by the wind? Rav Pappa said: That is to say that there is no permanent rejection with regard to mitzvot. Although the wind covered the blood, the mitzva to cover it was not rendered null; rather, the mitzva simply could not be performed. Consequently, once the blood is again uncovered, the mitzva to cover the blood remains in place.
וּמַאי שְׁנָא מֵהָא דְּתַנְיָא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְנִבְלַע דָּם בַּקַּרְקַע – חַיָּיב לְכַסּוֹת. הָתָם כְּשֶׁרִשּׁוּמוֹ נִיכָּר.
The Gemara asks: But even if the wind covered the blood and it remained covered, why is one exempt from performing the mitzva of covering the blood? What is different about this case from that which is taught in a baraita: In a case where one slaughters an undomesticated animal or a bird and its blood is absorbed by the ground, one is obligated to cover the blood? The Gemara responds: There, the baraita is referring to a case where the impression of the blood is still recognizable, i.e., it was not entirely absorbed in the ground.
מַתְנִי׳ דָּם שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּמַיִם, אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ מַרְאִית דָּם – חַיָּיב לְכַסּוֹת. נִתְעָרֵב בְּיַיִן – רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ הוּא מַיִם. נִתְעָרֵב בְּדַם הַבְּהֵמָה
MISHNA: In a case of the blood of an undomesticated animal or bird that was mixed with water, if there is in the mixture the appearance of blood one is obligated to cover it. If the blood was mixed with wine one views the wine as though it is water, and if a mixture with that amount of water would have the appearance of blood one is obligated to cover it. Likewise, if the blood of an undomesticated animal or a bird was mixed with the blood of a domesticated animal, which one does not have to cover,
אוֹ בְּדַם הַחַיָּה – רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ הֵן מַיִם. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין דָּם מְבַטֵּל דָּם.
or with blood of the undomesticated animal that did not flow from the neck and does not require covering, one views the blood as though it is water. Rabbi Yehuda says: Blood does not nullify blood. Therefore, even if the undomesticated animal’s blood, which one must cover, is not recognizable in this mixture, he is obligated to cover the mixture nevertheless.
דָּם הַנִּיתָּז וְשֶׁעַל הַסַּכִּין – חַיָּיב לְכַסּוֹת. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אֵימָתַי? בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין שָׁם דָּם אֶלָּא הוּא, אֲבָל יֵשׁ שָׁם דָּם שֶׁלֹּא הוּא – פָּטוּר מִלְּכַסּוֹת.
With regard to blood that spurts outside the pit over which the animal was slaughtered, or onto a wall, and blood that remained on the slaughtering knife, one is obligated to cover it. Rabbi Yehuda said: When is this the halakha? When no blood remains there from the slaughter except that blood. But if blood remains there from the slaughter that is not that blood, he is exempt from covering it.
גְּמָ׳ תְּנַן הָתָם: דָּם שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּמַיִם, אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ מַרְאִית דָּם – כָּשֵׁר. נִתְעָרֵב בְּיַיִן – רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ הוּא מַיִם. נִתְעָרֵב בְּדַם בְּהֵמָה אוֹ בְּדַם הַחַיָּה – רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ הוּא מַיִם. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין דָּם מְבַטֵּל דָּם.
GEMARA: We learned in a mishna there (Zevaḥim 77b): In the case of blood of an offering fit for sacrifice that was mixed with water, if the mixture has the appearance of blood it is fit for sprinkling on the altar, even though the majority of the mixture is water. If the blood was mixed with red wine, one views the wine as though it is water. If that amount of water would leave the mixture with the appearance of blood it is fit for presentation. And likewise, if the blood was mixed with the blood of a non-sacred domesticated animal or the blood of a non-sacred undomesticated animal, one considers the non-sacred blood as though it is water. Rabbi Yehuda says: Blood does not nullify blood. Therefore, the priest presents the blood of the mixture on the altar.
אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁנָּפְלוּ מַיִם לְתוֹךְ דָּם, אֲבָל נָפַל דָּם לְתוֹךְ מַיִם – רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן בָּטֵל.
The mishna teaches that in a case where water became mixed with the blood of an offering, if the mixture has the appearance of blood it is fit, despite the fact that there is more water than blood. Concerning this Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They taught this halakha only in a case where the water fell into the blood. But in a case where the blood fell into the water, the first drop of blood, and then the next first drop of blood, are nullified in the water, i.e., each drop is nullified in turn. Consequently, the mixture is unfit for presentation, regardless of whether it has the appearance of blood.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: וּלְעִנְיַן כִּסּוּי אֵינוֹ כֵּן, אֵין דִּחוּי אֵצֶל מִצְוֹת.
Rav Pappa says: But with regard to the mitzva of covering the blood of birds or undomesticated animals that are slaughtered, it is not so. In this case, even if the blood fell into water the mitzva of covering applies to it, provided the mixture has the appearance of blood. The blood is not nullified by the water because there is no permanent rejection with regard to mitzvot other than those that relate to sacrificial rites. Therefore, its nullification was merely temporary, but once there is enough blood in the water it reassumes its status of blood.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל מַרְאֵה אַדְּמוּמִית – מְכַפְּרִין, וּמַכְשִׁירִין, וְחַיָּיבִין בְּכִסּוּי. מַאי קָמַשְׁמַע לַן? מְכַפְּרִין – תְּנֵינָא, חַיָּיבִין בְּכִסּוּי – תְּנֵינָא!
§ With regard to mixtures of blood and water, Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: All mixtures of blood and water that maintain a reddish hue are considered blood and effect atonement by being presented on the altar, and render food susceptible to contracting ritual impurity, and are included in the obligation of covering the blood provided that the blood is from the slaughter of an undomesticated animal or bird. The Gemara asks: What is Rav Yehuda teaching us? If he is teaching us that such mixtures effect atonement, we already learn this from the mishna in tractate Zevaḥim. And if he is teaching us that such mixtures are included in the obligation of covering the blood, we already learn this in the mishna here.
מַכְשִׁירִין אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ. מַכְשִׁירִין נָמֵי, אִי דָּם – אַכְשׁוֹרֵי מַכְשַׁר, אִי מַיָּא – אַכְשׁוֹרֵי מַכְשְׁרִי! לָא צְרִיכָא, שֶׁתִּמְּדוֹ בְּמֵי גְשָׁמִים.
Rather, it was necessary for Rav Yehuda to teach that such mixtures render food susceptible to contracting ritual impurity, as this was not taught in a mishna. The Gemara challenges: It is also unnecessary to teach that such mixtures render food susceptible to contracting ritual impurity. If the mixture has the status of blood it renders food susceptible, as does blood, and if the mixture has the status of water it renders food susceptible, as does water. The Gemara responds: No, this statement is necessary in a case where the blood was mixed with rainwater, which does not render food susceptible without the intent or desire of the owner of the food. If the mixture is considered blood it renders food susceptible.
מֵי גְשָׁמִים נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּשָׁקֵיל וְרָמֵי, אַחְשְׁבִינְהוּ. לָא צְרִיכָא, שֶׁנִּתְמְדוּ מֵאֲלֵיהֶן.
The Gemara challenges: With regard to rainwater as well, since one took it and placed it into a vessel containing blood, he has ascribed significance to the rainwater and it should be capable of rendering food susceptible. The Gemara responds: No, this statement is necessary in a case where the rainwater was mixed with the blood by itself, i.e., it was not gathered and poured purposefully.
רַבִּי אַסִּי מִנְּהַרְבִּיל אוֹמֵר: בִּצְלַלְתָּא דִּדְמָא. רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה מִדִּפְתִּי אָמַר: עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת, וְהוּא דְּאִיכָּא כְּזַיִת. בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: מְטַמְּאִים בְּאֹהֶל, וְהוּא דְּאִיכָּא רְבִיעִית.
Rabbi Asi of Neharbil says: The statement of Rav Yehuda is referring to blood plasma, i.e., if the plasma has a reddish hue due to the blood, it has the status of blood and can render food susceptible to contracting ritual impurity. Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti said: Consumption of this plasma is punishable by karet, as is the halakha with regard to one who consumes blood (see Leviticus 17:14), provided that there is at least one olive-bulk of actual blood. It was taught in a baraita: Blood plasma that issues from a corpse that has a reddish hue imparts ritual impurity in a tent, provided that there is at least a quarter-log of actual blood, which is the amount of a corpse’s blood that imparts ritual impurity.
תְּנַן הָתָם: כׇּל מַשְׁקֵה הַמֵּת טְהוֹרִין, חוּץ מִדָּמוֹ, וְכׇל מַרְאֵה אַדְּמוּמִית שֶׁבּוֹ מְטַמְּאִין בְּאֹהֶל. וּמַשְׁקֵה הַמֵּת טְהוֹרִין? וּרְמִינְהוּ: מַשְׁקֶה טְבוּל יוֹם, מַשְׁקִין הַיּוֹצְאִין מִמֶּנּוּ כְּמַשְׁקִין שֶׁנּוֹגֵעַ בָּהֶן,
We learned in a baraita elsewhere (Tosefta, Oholot 4:5): All liquids that issue from a corpse, e.g., teardrops or breastmilk, are ritually pure, except for its blood. And all liquids that issue from a corpse that contain a reddish hue of blood impart ritual impurity in a tent. The Gemara asks: But are liquids that issue from a corpse ritually pure? And raise a contradiction from a mishna (Tevul Yom 2:1): With regard to liquids that issue from one who immersed that day, liquids that issue from him have the same status as liquids that he touches.
