Beitzah 8b (ח:) — the Talmud in English

And we challenge this: Indeed, the Mishna’s statement that one may not slaughter a koy can be explained as referring to a case in which there is no possibility of covering the blood, and the tanna teaches that one may not set aside the uncertain mitzva of covering the blood for the sake of the joy of the festival.

Yet the latter part of the tanna’s statement still presents a difficulty:

But from the fact that the latter clause teaches, “And if one slaughtered it -

one may not cover its blood,” it follows -

this proves that

in

a case

where he has

a permitted possibility of covering it

we are dealing.

For if he has no permitted possibility of covering it, and covering it in a prohibited manner is forbidden, the tanna should have taught that even in the case of a definite wild animal one may not cover its blood in a prohibited manner; and we would know that all the more so in the case of a koy, where covering its blood is an uncertain mitzva, one may not cover its blood.

And from the fact that the tanna stated his ruling with regard to a koy, which is uncertain, it is evident that he is speaking of a case in which there is a permitted possibility of covering it. The original question therefore returns: Why, in fact, should he not cover it in the permitted manner?!

Rather, Rabba said:

This is how the words of the Mishna should be explained:

Ash from a stove

or earth into which a shovel has been thrust -

is prepared

before the festival only

for

the purpose of the mitzva of covering the blood of a

definite

animal. And it is not

prepared by a person

for covering the blood of an

uncertain animal

! Therefore, the tanna spoke of a koy and not of a definite wild animal

, because in the case of a definite wild animal it is permitted to cover its blood with stove ash or prepared earth.

And we raise an objection: Since a person designates the earth for all his needs, then

for

covering the blood of an

uncertain animal -

for what reason does

taking the ash or earth not suffice?

Perhaps you will say that this is not because of the prohibition of muktze, but because

he is making a hole

when taking it to cover the blood! This cannot be said.

For even when taking earth to cover the blood of a

definite animal, he is likewise making a hole!

Rather,

perhaps you will say that for the sake of covering the blood of a definite animal there is no prohibition against making a hole,

as Rabbi Abba

said above [on page 8a], that he is considered to be causing damage, and together with the reason of the mitzva of covering [or the joy of the festival], his act does not involve even the prohibition of a labor not required for its own purpose 3a ().

This does not resolve anything, because

here too,

in the case of a koy, we should permit him to make a hole

as Rabbi Abba

[for even if a combination with the need of a mitzva is required, an uncertain mitzva is also an obligation and is considered a need].

Rather,

perhaps you will say: With regard to blood whose status is

uncertain, for what reason

should he not cover it with ash or prepared ash,

lest he perform crushing,

lest there be clods in it and he crush them .

This too is not a resolution, for if so, the following difficulty again arises:

In a definite case as well, should we not decree

that he may not cover

because of crushing?!

And we answer:

A definite case

is different, and they did not decree in that case, because ordinarily there is no need to crush clods. And even if it happens that there are clods there, covering should not be prohibited, since

when he performs crushing -

he will not thereby violate a Torah prohibition, because

the

mitzva of

the positive commandment

of covering the blood

comes and overrides the prohibition

of crushing clods on the festival .

But the uncertain mitzva of covering the blood does not override the prohibition against crushing clods.

Therefore, they decreed that one may not cover even with loose earth, lest he come to crush clods.

And we reject this:

I can say that we say, “The positive commandment comes and overrides the prohibition,”

for example, in the case of the mitzva of

circumcision in

a place where there is a lesion of

leprosy,

where the mitzva of circumcision overrides the prohibition against cutting off the leprous lesion.

Alternatively, a linen sheet

a linen garment, which one is permitted to wear

with ritual fringes

of wool, which together constitute sha'atnez, and the mitzva of ritual fringes overrides the prohibition against sha'atnez.

This is because

at the time

when

he uproots

the prohibition of the

prohibition,

he fulfills the positive commandment,

as the person fulfills the positive commandment at that very time.

But

here,

with the crushing of clods,

at the time when he uproots the prohibition,

while he is uprooting the prohibition by crushing the clods,

he does not fulfill the positive commandment!

He fulfills the mitzva of covering the blood only afterward, and therefore the principle that a positive commandment overrides a prohibition does not apply here.

If so, the question returns: Even in the case of slaughtering a definite wild animal, its slaughter should not be permitted, lest it lead to the prohibition of crushing before he fulfills the mitzva of covering the blood!

And we answer:

That -

is not difficult!

The words of the Mishna can be established as permitting slaughter only with the following qualification:

while he crushes,

at the very time of crushing,

he covers,

he covers the blood, so that the positive commandment comes and overrides the prohibition .

And we ask:

Ultimately, a festival

also involves a prohibition of

a positive commandment

[as it is stated, “a cessation”]

and

also involves a prohibition of

a

negative commandment. And a positive commandment does not override a prohibition

and a positive commandment!

If so, it should be prohibited to crush earth even for the sake of the mitzva of covering the blood in a definite case. Why, then, was concern for crushing raised only in the case of a koy and not in the case of a definite wild animal?

The Gemara therefore explains that in truth the Sages were not concerned about the crushing of clods.

Rather,

this is what

Rava said: They were concerned in the case of a koy because of the prohibition of muktze. One who prepares

stove ash -

his intention

is

only

for

covering a

definite wild animal, and he has no intention for an uncertain animal, such as a koy. It follows that the ash is not “prepared” for covering a koy .

And so too Rav Yehuda holds: if a person prepared earth, he prepares it for a definite use, but he does not prepare it for a use that is uncertain, such as covering the blood of a koy; and the Mishna poses no difficulty for him.

And this statement of

him proceeds

Rava

in accordance with

his own reasoning:

For Rava said: If one brought earth

into the house on the eve of a Festival in order

to cover excrement

of a child, should the child happen to defecate in the house on the Festival -

it is permitted to cover with it the blood of a bird

that he had intended on the eve of the Festival to slaughter, since designating the earth to cover the child’s excrement is designation for a possible eventuality, and certainly that designation is effective for his definite intention to slaughter the bird.

But if one brought earth on the eve of the Festival for covering the

blood of a bird

that he intends to slaughter on the Festival -

it is prohibited to cover excrement with it

that the child may produce on the Festival, because bringing in the earth is not considered preparation even for the possibility that he will need to remove excrement from a place where it will be repulsive to him, since it is uncertain whether the child will defecate in such a place. When a person’s mind is focused on a definite eventuality, it is not focused on an uncertain one.

The Nehardeans said: Even if one brought earth to cover

the blood of a bird -

it is permitted to cover excrement with it, since it is almost certain that the child will soil the house on the Festival, and his designation is therefore effective for this purpose as well.

it is permitted to cover excrement with it, since it is almost certain that the child will soil the house on the Festival, and his designation is therefore effective for this purpose as well.

The Gemara now brings another dispute concerning the preparation of earth for covering:

They said in the West

in Eretz Yisrael:

They disputed it,

concerning the matter that will be explained below,

Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥama and Rabbi Zeira.

And some say

that they said: They disputed it,

Rava, son of Rav Yosef bar Ḥama, and Rabbi Zeira.

One said: A koy is like excrement,

and earth brought in for covering excrement, which is an eventuality that may occur, is prepared also for covering the blood of a koy, which is an uncertain obligation.

And one said:

the uncertainty of a

koy is not like excrement,

since it is almost certain that one will need to cover excrement with earth. Therefore, it is prohibited to cover the blood of a koy with earth prepared for excrement.

It can be concluded

and demonstrated that

it was Rava who said

that excrement is an uncertainty, and therefore he also said that

“a koy is like excrement,”

for Rava said: If one brought earth to cover excrement -

it is permitted to cover the blood of a bird with it.

But if one brought earth to cover

the blood of a bird -

it is prohibited to cover excrement with it,

because it is an uncertainty. Earth prepared for a definite eventuality is not prepared for an uncertain one. 9a ().

And we conclude:

It can be concluded!

Rami, son of Rabbi Yeiva, said

A koy is the

reason that we do not cover

its blood on the Festival -

a decree due to the possibility that one might permit its fat.

Perhaps, when people see that its blood is being covered, they will mistakenly conclude that it is certainly a non-domesticated animal and permit its fat for consumption, since the fat of a non-domesticated animal is permitted to eat. Therefore, the Sages prohibited covering its blood, lest this lead to the prohibitive karet transgression of eating forbidden fat.

We challenge this:

If so,

why did they decree only on the Festival? Surely

even on

a weekday

as well

it would be appropriate to decree that one may not cover its blood, so that people would not come to permit its fat!

We answer:

On a weekday, they say

that the people who see the blood of the koy being covered will understand that he is not doing so for the mitzva of covering the blood. Rather, he is scattering earth over it because

to clean

his

courtyard

of the blood’s filth

is what he needs,

and they will not infer from the covering that the legal status of the koy is that of a definite non-domesticated animal.

But on the Festival, a person does not clean his courtyard, and they will attribute the covering to the mitzva of covering the blood, and will come to permit its fat.

We reject this answer, for if so, when he

slaughtered

on a weekday

in a refuse area,

where, if he covers the blood there, people will not say that he is doing so to clean his courtyard -

what is there to say,

why did they not decree that he may not cover it there, out of concern that people might come to permit its fat?

Likewise, if

the slaughterer came

himself

to ask

whether he should cover the koy’s blood on a weekday, and if they instruct him to cover it there is concern that he will mistakenly come to permit its fat -

what is there to say?

Why should we not instruct him not to cover it, because of the decree lest he come to permit its fat?!

Rather,

the distinction is as follows:

On a weekday,

the Sages did not prohibit covering the blood of a koy, because people will not mistakenly conclude that a koy is certainly a non-domesticated animal. They will say that

perhaps it is also uncertain

to the Sages whether the blood of a koy requires covering; nevertheless,

the Sages say to him

the slaughterer:

Go, trouble yourself and cover it.

But if people see that the blood of a koy is covered

on the Festival,

they will mistakenly come to permit its fat. For they will reason that

if it is uncertain

to the Sages whether it requires covering -

would the Sages say to him, “Go, trouble yourself”

on the Festival

“and cover it”

for an uncertain obligation? They will conclude that it is certainly a non-domesticated animal and will permit its fat.

Rabbi Zeira taught: It was not

the blood of a

koy alone that they said

may not be covered on the Festival, even with stove ash, lest it be a domesticated animal and he exert himself to cover blood for which there is no mitzva.

Rather, even if he slaughtered

on the Festival

a domesticated animal, a non-domesticated animal, and a bird,

and

their blood became mixed with one another,

so that the mixture contains the blood of a definite non-domesticated animal, which requires covering -

it is prohibited to cover it on the Festival,

because he must also trouble himself to cover blood that is not obligated to be covered, since he must cover the entire mixture of blood.

Rabbi Yosei bar Yasinaya said: They taught

that one may not cover the blood mixture

only when he cannot cover it with a single thrust of the spade,

since then he is exerting himself with the additional thrusts in order to cover also the blood of the domesticated animal, which is exempt from covering.

But

if

he can cover it with one stabbing—

it is permitted,

since he is not exerting unnecessary effort to cover the blood of the animal, which is exempt from covering .

We raise an objection:

Is it not obvious

that it is permitted to cover with one stabbing? After all, he is not exerting unnecessary effort, since he needed at least one stabbing for the purpose of covering the blood of the wild animal.

And we answer:

Lest one say that they decreed that even one stabbing

not be used to cover the blood of the mixture—

is it so

because people might err and permit covering with

two stabbings, it teaches us

that they were not concerned about this.

Rabba said: If one slaughtered a bird on the eve of Yom Tov

and had to cover its blood before Yom Tov but did not cover it then —

one may not cover it on Yom Tov

but only after Yom Tov, and one does not exert himself to cover it even with prepared earth .