Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 22, 2019 | 讬状讝 讘讗讚专 讗壮 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Chullin 87

Who is obligated to cover the blood? If the wind covers it, is one exempt? If someone “steals” a mitzva from someone else, is he obligated to compensate him/her? If one obligated to cover the blood if it got mixed up with water or some other substance? On what does it depend? Are these the same criteria as for spriknling聽blood on the altar, “wetting” something in order to render it susceptible to impurities and impurities from the聽blood of a dead body?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 诪砖转讗 讜讘专讜讻讬 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 诇讗 讗驻砖专 讛讻讗 讗驻砖专 讚砖讞讬讟 讘讞讚讗 讜诪讻住讬 讘讞讚讗

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.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讞讟 讜诇讗 讻住讛 讜专讗讛讜 讗讞专 讞讬讬讘 诇讻住讜转 讻住讛讜 讜谞转讙诇讛 驻讟讜专 诪诇讻住讜转 讻住讛讜 讛专讜讞 讞讬讬讘 诇讻住讜转

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜砖驻讱 讜讻住讛 诪讬 砖砖驻讱 讬讻住讛 砖讞讟 讜诇讗 讻住讛 讜专讗讛讜 讗讞专 诪谞讬谉 砖讞讬讬讘 诇讻住讜转 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗诪专 诇讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗讝讛专讛 诇讻诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth鈥 (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: 鈥淭herefore I said to the children of Israel鈥 (Leviticus 17:12), which is a warning to all the children of Israel to fulfill the mitzva of covering the blood.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讜砖驻讱 讜讻住讛 讘诪讛 砖砖驻讱 讘讜 讬讻住讛 砖诇讗 讬讻住谞讜 讘专讙诇 砖诇讗 讬讛讬讜 诪爪讜转 讘讝讜讬讜转 注诇讬讜 转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讜砖驻讱 讜讻住讛 诪讬 砖砖驻讱 讛讜讗 讬讻住谞讜 诪注砖讛 讘讗讞讚 砖砖讞讟 讜拽讚诐 讞讘讬专讜 讜讻住讛 讜讞讬讬讘讜 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讬转谉 诇讜 注砖专讛 讝讛讜讘讬诐

It is taught in another baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth,鈥 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: 鈥淎nd he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth,鈥 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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖讻专 诪爪讜讛 讗讜 砖讻专 讘专讻讛 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 讗讬 讗诪专转 砖讻专 诪爪讜讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 砖讻专 讘专讻讛 讛讜讬讬谉 讗专讘注讬诐 诪讗讬

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?

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪讬谞讗 诇专讘讬 诪讬 砖讬爪专 讛专讬诐 诇讗 讘专讗 专讜讞 讜诪讬 砖讘专讗 专讜讞 诇讗 讬爪专 讛专讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讛谞讛 讬讜爪专 讛专讬诐 讜讘专讗 专讜讞 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讜讟讛 砖驻讬诇 诇住讬驻讬讛 讚拽专讗 讛壮 爪讘讗讜转 砖诪讜

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: 鈥淔or behold, He Who forms the mountains and He Who creates the wind鈥 (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: 鈥淭he Lord, the God of hosts, is His name.鈥 The verse emphasizes that God is the One Who both forms and creates.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞拽讜讟 诇讬 讝讬诪谞讗 转诇转讗 讬讜诪讬 讜诪讛讚专谞讗 诇讱 转讬讜讘转讗 讬转讬讘 专讘讬 转诇转 转注谞讬转讗 讻讬 讛讜讛 拽讗 讘注讬 诪讬讘专讱 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讗 拽讗讬 讗讘讘讗 讗诪专 讜讬转谞讜 讘讘专讜转讬 专讜砖 讜讙讜壮

The heretic said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Give me three days鈥 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: 鈥淭hey put gall into my food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink鈥 (Psalms 69:22), i.e., my meal is embittered with the presence of this heretic.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 诪讘砖专 讟讜讘讜转 讗谞讬 诇讱 诇讗 诪爪讗 转砖讜讘讛 讗讜讬讘讱 讜谞驻诇 诪谉 讛讙讙 讜诪转 讗诪专 诇讜 专爪讜谞讱 砖转住注讜讚 讗爪诇讬 讗诪专 诇讜 讛谉 诇讗讞专 砖讗讻诇讜 讜砖转讜 讗诪专 诇讜 讻讜住 砖诇 讘专讻讛 讗转讛 砖讜转讛 讗讜 讗专讘注讬诐 讝讛讜讘讬诐 讗转讛 谞讜讟诇 讗诪专 诇讜 讻讜住 砖诇 讘专讻讛 讗谞讬 砖讜转讛 讬爪转讛 讘转 拽讜诇 讜讗诪专讛 讻讜住 砖诇 讘专讻讛 讬砖讜讛 讗专讘注讬诐 讝讛讜讘讬诐

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 注讚讬讬谉 讬砖谞讛 诇讗讜转讛 诪砖驻讞讛 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇讬 专讜诪讬 讜拽讜专讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 诪砖驻讞转 讘专 诇讜讬讗谞讜住

The Gemara adds: Rabbi Yitz岣k 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.

讻住讛讜 讜谞转讙诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛砖讘转 讗讘讚讛 讚讗诪专 诪专 讛砖讘 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讛 驻注诪讬诐

搂 The mishna teaches that if one covered the blood and it was then uncovered he is not obligated to cover it again. Rav A岣, 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: 鈥淵ou shall return them to your brother鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:1), even one hundred times?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 诇讗 讻转讬讘 诪讬注讜讟讗 讛讻讗 讻转讬讘 诪讬注讜讟讗 讜讻住讛讜

Rav Ashi said to Rav A岣: 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: 鈥淎nd he shall cover it.鈥 The usage of the term 鈥渋t鈥 indicates that one must cover the blood only one time.

讻住讛讜 讛专讜讞 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讞讝专 讜谞转讙诇讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讞讝专 讜谞转讙诇讛 驻讟讜专 诪诇讻住讜转 讜讻讬 讞讝专 讜谞转讙诇讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讛讗 讗讬讚讞讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讗讬谉 讚讬讞讜讬 讗爪诇 诪爪讜转

搂 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 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檛 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.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讜谞讘诇注 讚诐 讘拽专拽注 讞讬讬讘 诇讻住讜转 讛转诐 讻砖专砖讜诪讜 谞讬讻专

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讚诐 砖谞转注专讘 讘诪讬诐 讗诐 讬砖 讘讜 诪专讗讬转 讚诐 讞讬讬讘 诇讻住讜转 谞转注专讘 讘讬讬谉 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讜讗 诪讬诐 谞转注专讘 讘讚诐 讛讘讛诪讛

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,

讗讜 讘讚诐 讛讞讬讛 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻讗讬诇讜 讛谉 诪讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讚诐 诪讘讟诇 讚诐

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鈥檚 blood, which one must cover, is not recognizable in this mixture, he is obligated to cover the mixture nevertheless.

讚诐 讛谞讬转讝 讜砖注诇 讛住讻讬谉 讞讬讬讘 诇讻住讜转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 砖诐 讚诐 讗诇讗 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 讬砖 砖诐 讚诐 砖诇讗 讛讜讗 驻讟讜专 诪诇讻住讜转

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.

讙诪壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 讚诐 砖谞转注专讘 讘诪讬诐 讗诐 讬砖 讘讜 诪专讗讬转 讚诐 讻砖专 谞转注专讘 讘讬讬谉 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讜讗 诪讬诐 谞转注专讘 讘讚诐 讘讛诪讛 讗讜 讘讚诐 讛讞讬讛 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讜讗 诪讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讚诐 诪讘讟诇 讚诐

GEMARA: We learned in a mishna there (Zeva岣m 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖谞驻诇讜 诪讬诐 诇转讜讱 讚诐 讗讘诇 谞驻诇 讚诐 诇转讜讱 诪讬诐 专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 讘讟诇

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 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜诇注谞讬谉 讻住讜讬 讗讬谞讜 讻谉 讗讬谉 讚讞讜讬 讗爪诇 诪爪讜转

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 诪专讗讛 讗讚诪讜诪讬转 诪讻驻专讬谉 讜诪讻砖讬专讬谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讻住讜讬 诪讗讬 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪讻驻专讬谉 转谞讬谞讗 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讻住讜讬 转谞讬谞讗

搂 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 Zeva岣m. 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.

诪讻砖讬专讬谉 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 谞诪讬 讗讬 讚诐 讗讻砖讜专讬 诪讻砖专 讗讬 诪讬讗 讗讻砖讜专讬 诪讻砖专讬 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 砖转诪讚讜 讘诪讬 讙砖诪讬诐

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.

诪讬 讙砖诪讬诐 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚砖拽讬诇 讜专诪讬 讗讞砖讘讬谞讛讜 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 砖谞转诪讚讜 诪讗诇讬讛谉

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.

专讘讬 讗住讬 诪谞讛专讘讬诇 讗讜诪专 讘爪诇诇转讗 讚讚诪讗 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪讚驻转讬 讗诪专 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讜讛讜讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讝讬转 讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 诪讟诪讗讬诐 讘讗讛诇 讜讛讜讗 讚讗讬讻讗 专讘讬注讬转

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鈥檚 blood that imparts ritual impurity.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讻诇 诪砖拽讛 讛诪转 讟讛讜专讬谉 讞讜抓 诪讚诪讜 讜讻诇 诪专讗讛 讗讚诪讜诪讬转 砖讘讜 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讗讛诇 讜诪砖拽讛 讛诪转 讟讛讜专讬谉 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诪砖拽讛 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 诪砖拽讬谉 讛讬讜爪讗讬谉 诪诪谞讜 讻诪砖拽讬谉 砖谞讜讙注 讘讛谉

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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 87

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 87

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 诪砖转讗 讜讘专讜讻讬 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 诇讗 讗驻砖专 讛讻讗 讗驻砖专 讚砖讞讬讟 讘讞讚讗 讜诪讻住讬 讘讞讚讗

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.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讞讟 讜诇讗 讻住讛 讜专讗讛讜 讗讞专 讞讬讬讘 诇讻住讜转 讻住讛讜 讜谞转讙诇讛 驻讟讜专 诪诇讻住讜转 讻住讛讜 讛专讜讞 讞讬讬讘 诇讻住讜转

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜砖驻讱 讜讻住讛 诪讬 砖砖驻讱 讬讻住讛 砖讞讟 讜诇讗 讻住讛 讜专讗讛讜 讗讞专 诪谞讬谉 砖讞讬讬讘 诇讻住讜转 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗诪专 诇讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗讝讛专讛 诇讻诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth鈥 (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: 鈥淭herefore I said to the children of Israel鈥 (Leviticus 17:12), which is a warning to all the children of Israel to fulfill the mitzva of covering the blood.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讜砖驻讱 讜讻住讛 讘诪讛 砖砖驻讱 讘讜 讬讻住讛 砖诇讗 讬讻住谞讜 讘专讙诇 砖诇讗 讬讛讬讜 诪爪讜转 讘讝讜讬讜转 注诇讬讜 转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讜砖驻讱 讜讻住讛 诪讬 砖砖驻讱 讛讜讗 讬讻住谞讜 诪注砖讛 讘讗讞讚 砖砖讞讟 讜拽讚诐 讞讘讬专讜 讜讻住讛 讜讞讬讬讘讜 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讬转谉 诇讜 注砖专讛 讝讛讜讘讬诐

It is taught in another baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth,鈥 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: 鈥淎nd he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth,鈥 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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖讻专 诪爪讜讛 讗讜 砖讻专 讘专讻讛 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讘专讻转 讛诪讝讜谉 讗讬 讗诪专转 砖讻专 诪爪讜讛 讗讞转 讛讬讗 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 砖讻专 讘专讻讛 讛讜讬讬谉 讗专讘注讬诐 诪讗讬

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?

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪讬谞讗 诇专讘讬 诪讬 砖讬爪专 讛专讬诐 诇讗 讘专讗 专讜讞 讜诪讬 砖讘专讗 专讜讞 诇讗 讬爪专 讛专讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讛谞讛 讬讜爪专 讛专讬诐 讜讘专讗 专讜讞 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讜讟讛 砖驻讬诇 诇住讬驻讬讛 讚拽专讗 讛壮 爪讘讗讜转 砖诪讜

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: 鈥淔or behold, He Who forms the mountains and He Who creates the wind鈥 (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: 鈥淭he Lord, the God of hosts, is His name.鈥 The verse emphasizes that God is the One Who both forms and creates.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞拽讜讟 诇讬 讝讬诪谞讗 转诇转讗 讬讜诪讬 讜诪讛讚专谞讗 诇讱 转讬讜讘转讗 讬转讬讘 专讘讬 转诇转 转注谞讬转讗 讻讬 讛讜讛 拽讗 讘注讬 诪讬讘专讱 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讗 拽讗讬 讗讘讘讗 讗诪专 讜讬转谞讜 讘讘专讜转讬 专讜砖 讜讙讜壮

The heretic said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Give me three days鈥 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: 鈥淭hey put gall into my food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink鈥 (Psalms 69:22), i.e., my meal is embittered with the presence of this heretic.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 诪讘砖专 讟讜讘讜转 讗谞讬 诇讱 诇讗 诪爪讗 转砖讜讘讛 讗讜讬讘讱 讜谞驻诇 诪谉 讛讙讙 讜诪转 讗诪专 诇讜 专爪讜谞讱 砖转住注讜讚 讗爪诇讬 讗诪专 诇讜 讛谉 诇讗讞专 砖讗讻诇讜 讜砖转讜 讗诪专 诇讜 讻讜住 砖诇 讘专讻讛 讗转讛 砖讜转讛 讗讜 讗专讘注讬诐 讝讛讜讘讬诐 讗转讛 谞讜讟诇 讗诪专 诇讜 讻讜住 砖诇 讘专讻讛 讗谞讬 砖讜转讛 讬爪转讛 讘转 拽讜诇 讜讗诪专讛 讻讜住 砖诇 讘专讻讛 讬砖讜讛 讗专讘注讬诐 讝讛讜讘讬诐

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 注讚讬讬谉 讬砖谞讛 诇讗讜转讛 诪砖驻讞讛 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇讬 专讜诪讬 讜拽讜专讗讬谉 讗讜转讛 诪砖驻讞转 讘专 诇讜讬讗谞讜住

The Gemara adds: Rabbi Yitz岣k 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.

讻住讛讜 讜谞转讙诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛砖讘转 讗讘讚讛 讚讗诪专 诪专 讛砖讘 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讛 驻注诪讬诐

搂 The mishna teaches that if one covered the blood and it was then uncovered he is not obligated to cover it again. Rav A岣, 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: 鈥淵ou shall return them to your brother鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:1), even one hundred times?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 诇讗 讻转讬讘 诪讬注讜讟讗 讛讻讗 讻转讬讘 诪讬注讜讟讗 讜讻住讛讜

Rav Ashi said to Rav A岣: 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: 鈥淎nd he shall cover it.鈥 The usage of the term 鈥渋t鈥 indicates that one must cover the blood only one time.

讻住讛讜 讛专讜讞 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讞讝专 讜谞转讙诇讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讞讝专 讜谞转讙诇讛 驻讟讜专 诪诇讻住讜转 讜讻讬 讞讝专 讜谞转讙诇讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讛讗 讗讬讚讞讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讗讬谉 讚讬讞讜讬 讗爪诇 诪爪讜转

搂 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 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檛 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.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讜谞讘诇注 讚诐 讘拽专拽注 讞讬讬讘 诇讻住讜转 讛转诐 讻砖专砖讜诪讜 谞讬讻专

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讚诐 砖谞转注专讘 讘诪讬诐 讗诐 讬砖 讘讜 诪专讗讬转 讚诐 讞讬讬讘 诇讻住讜转 谞转注专讘 讘讬讬谉 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讜讗 诪讬诐 谞转注专讘 讘讚诐 讛讘讛诪讛

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,

讗讜 讘讚诐 讛讞讬讛 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻讗讬诇讜 讛谉 诪讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讚诐 诪讘讟诇 讚诐

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鈥檚 blood, which one must cover, is not recognizable in this mixture, he is obligated to cover the mixture nevertheless.

讚诐 讛谞讬转讝 讜砖注诇 讛住讻讬谉 讞讬讬讘 诇讻住讜转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 砖诐 讚诐 讗诇讗 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 讬砖 砖诐 讚诐 砖诇讗 讛讜讗 驻讟讜专 诪诇讻住讜转

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.

讙诪壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 讚诐 砖谞转注专讘 讘诪讬诐 讗诐 讬砖 讘讜 诪专讗讬转 讚诐 讻砖专 谞转注专讘 讘讬讬谉 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讜讗 诪讬诐 谞转注专讘 讘讚诐 讘讛诪讛 讗讜 讘讚诐 讛讞讬讛 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讜讗 诪讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讚诐 诪讘讟诇 讚诐

GEMARA: We learned in a mishna there (Zeva岣m 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖谞驻诇讜 诪讬诐 诇转讜讱 讚诐 讗讘诇 谞驻诇 讚诐 诇转讜讱 诪讬诐 专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 讘讟诇

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 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜诇注谞讬谉 讻住讜讬 讗讬谞讜 讻谉 讗讬谉 讚讞讜讬 讗爪诇 诪爪讜转

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻诇 诪专讗讛 讗讚诪讜诪讬转 诪讻驻专讬谉 讜诪讻砖讬专讬谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讻住讜讬 诪讗讬 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪讻驻专讬谉 转谞讬谞讗 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讻住讜讬 转谞讬谞讗

搂 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 Zeva岣m. 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.

诪讻砖讬专讬谉 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 谞诪讬 讗讬 讚诐 讗讻砖讜专讬 诪讻砖专 讗讬 诪讬讗 讗讻砖讜专讬 诪讻砖专讬 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 砖转诪讚讜 讘诪讬 讙砖诪讬诐

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.

诪讬 讙砖诪讬诐 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚砖拽讬诇 讜专诪讬 讗讞砖讘讬谞讛讜 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 砖谞转诪讚讜 诪讗诇讬讛谉

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.

专讘讬 讗住讬 诪谞讛专讘讬诇 讗讜诪专 讘爪诇诇转讗 讚讚诪讗 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪讚驻转讬 讗诪专 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讜讛讜讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讝讬转 讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 诪讟诪讗讬诐 讘讗讛诇 讜讛讜讗 讚讗讬讻讗 专讘讬注讬转

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鈥檚 blood that imparts ritual impurity.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讻诇 诪砖拽讛 讛诪转 讟讛讜专讬谉 讞讜抓 诪讚诪讜 讜讻诇 诪专讗讛 讗讚诪讜诪讬转 砖讘讜 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讗讛诇 讜诪砖拽讛 讛诪转 讟讛讜专讬谉 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诪砖拽讛 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 诪砖拽讬谉 讛讬讜爪讗讬谉 诪诪谞讜 讻诪砖拽讬谉 砖谞讜讙注 讘讛谉

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.

Scroll To Top