Chullin 87

הכי השתא התם משתא וברוכי בהדי הדדי לא אפשר הכא אפשר דשחיט בחדא ומכסי בחדא

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.

מתני׳ שחט ולא כסה וראהו אחר חייב לכסות כסהו ונתגלה פטור מלכסות כסהו הרוח חייב לכסות

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.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן ושפך וכסה מי ששפך יכסה שחט ולא כסה וראהו אחר מנין שחייב לכסות שנאמר ואמר לבני ישראל אזהרה לכל בני ישראל

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.

תניא אידך ושפך וכסה במה ששפך בו יכסה שלא יכסנו ברגל שלא יהיו מצות בזויות עליו תניא אידך ושפך וכסה מי ששפך הוא יכסנו מעשה באחד ששחט וקדם חבירו וכסה וחייבו רבן גמליאל ליתן לו עשרה זהובים

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.

איבעיא להו שכר מצוה או שכר ברכה למאי נפקא מינה לברכת המזון אי אמרת שכר מצוה אחת היא ואי אמרת שכר ברכה הויין ארבעים מאי

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?

תא שמע דאמר ליה ההוא מינא לרבי מי שיצר הרים לא ברא רוח ומי שברא רוח לא יצר הרים דכתיב כי הנה יוצר הרים וברא רוח אמר ליה שוטה שפיל לסיפיה דקרא ה׳ צבאות שמו

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.

אמר ליה נקוט לי זימנא תלתא יומי ומהדרנא לך תיובתא יתיב רבי תלת תעניתא כי הוה קא בעי מיברך אמרו ליה מינא קאי אבבא אמר ויתנו בברותי רוש וגו׳

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.

אמר ליה רבי מבשר טובות אני לך לא מצא תשובה אויבך ונפל מן הגג ומת אמר לו רצונך שתסעוד אצלי אמר לו הן לאחר שאכלו ושתו אמר לו כוס של ברכה אתה שותה או ארבעים זהובים אתה נוטל אמר לו כוס של ברכה אני שותה יצתה בת קול ואמרה כוס של ברכה ישוה ארבעים זהובים

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.

אמר רבי יצחק עדיין ישנה לאותה משפחה בין גדולי רומי וקוראין אותה משפחת בר לויאנוס

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.

כסהו ונתגלה אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי מאי שנא מהשבת אבדה דאמר מר השב אפילו מאה פעמים

§ 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?

אמר ליה התם לא כתיב מיעוטא הכא כתיב מיעוטא וכסהו

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.

כסהו הרוח אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן לא שנו אלא שחזר ונתגלה אבל לא חזר ונתגלה פטור מלכסות וכי חזר ונתגלה מאי הוי הא אידחי ליה אמר רב פפא זאת אומרת אין דיחוי אצל מצות

§ 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.

ומאי שנא מהא דתניא השוחט ונבלע דם בקרקע חייב לכסות התם כשרשומו ניכר

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.

מתני׳ דם שנתערב במים אם יש בו מראית דם חייב לכסות נתערב ביין רואין אותו כאילו הוא מים נתערב בדם הבהמה

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,

או בדם החיה רואין אותו כאילו הן מים רבי יהודה אומר אין דם מבטל דם

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.

דם הניתז ושעל הסכין חייב לכסות אמר רבי יהודה אימתי בזמן שאין שם דם אלא הוא אבל יש שם דם שלא הוא פטור מלכסות

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.

גמ׳ תנן התם דם שנתערב במים אם יש בו מראית דם כשר נתערב ביין רואין אותו כאילו הוא מים נתערב בדם בהמה או בדם החיה רואין אותו כאילו הוא מים רבי יהודה אומר אין דם מבטל דם

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.

אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן לא שנו אלא שנפלו מים לתוך דם אבל נפל דם לתוך מים ראשון ראשון בטל

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.

אמר רב פפא ולענין כסוי אינו כן אין דחוי אצל מצות

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.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל כל מראה אדמומית מכפרין ומכשירין וחייבין בכסוי מאי קמשמע לן מכפרין תנינא חייבין בכסוי תנינא

§ 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.

מכשירין איצטריכא ליה מכשירין נמי אי דם אכשורי מכשר אי מיא אכשורי מכשרי לא צריכא שתמדו במי גשמים

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.

מי גשמים נמי כיון דשקיל ורמי אחשבינהו לא צריכא שנתמדו מאליהן

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.

רבי אסי מנהרביל אומר בצללתא דדמא רבי ירמיה מדפתי אמר ענוש כרת והוא דאיכא כזית במתניתא תנא מטמאים באהל והוא דאיכא רביעית

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.

תנן התם כל משקה המת טהורין חוץ מדמו וכל מראה אדמומית שבו מטמאין באהל ומשקה המת טהורין ורמינהו משקה טבול יום משקין היוצאין ממנו כמשקין שנוגע בהן

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.