Beitzah 8b — the Talmud in English

And we challenge: Indeed, the words of the Mishna that one may not slaughter a koy can be explained as referring to a case where there is no possibility of covering [the blood], and the tanna teaches us that one does not set aside the doubt concerning the mitzva of covering the blood because of the joy of the festival.

But the end of the tanna’s words still presents a difficulty:

But from the fact that the latter clause teaches, “And if he slaughtered

А из того, что в конце он учит: «А если зарезали его,

it, he may not cover its blood,” it follows—

this proves that

in

a case

where he has

a permitted possibility of covering [the blood]

we are dealing.

идет речь.

For if he had no permitted possibility of covering [the blood], and it were forbidden to cover [it] in a prohibited manner, 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, whose covering is a doubtful mitzva, one may not cover its blood.

And from the fact that the tanna placed his statement in the case of a koy, which is doubtful, it is proved that we are dealing with a case where he has a permitted possibility of covering [the blood]. Thus our question returns: why, in fact, should he not cover [it] in a permitted manner!?

Rather, Rabba said:

this is how the words of the Mishna are to be explained:

Ashes of a stove

or earth into which a spike has been thrust

— it is prepared

from before the festival only

for

the purpose of the mitzva of covering definite blood

and not doubtful blood.

заведомо принадлежащей дикой птице крови.

And it is not

prepared

by

a person for covering doubtful blood

!

And therefore the tanna spoke of a koy and not of a definite wild animal , for in the case of a definite wild animal it is permitted to cover its blood with ashes of a stove or with prepared earth.

And we wonder: since a person designates the earth for all his needs, then

for

covering doubtful blood

what

сомнительного случая

is the reason that it does not suffice

to bring in the ashes or the earth?

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

he is making a hole

when taking it for covering the blood — this cannot be said.

For even when taking earth to cover the blood of a

definite wild animal, he is also making a hole!

Rather,

should you say that for the sake of covering definite blood there is no prohibition in making the hole,

in accordance with Rabbi Abba,

who said above [on page 8a] that it is considered destructive, and together with the reason of the mitzva of covering [or the joy of the festival], his act does not involve even a prohibition 3a ().

You will not thereby explain anything, for

here too,

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

in accordance with Rabbi Abba

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

Rather,

should you say: blood of

a doubtful [animal]—what is the reason

that he should not cover [it] with ashes or prepared ashes?

Perhaps he will grind,

perhaps there will be clods in it and he will crush them

, This too is not an answer, for if so the question again arises:

In a definite case too, let us decree

that he may not cover [the blood]

because of grinding!?

And we answer:

A definite case

is different, and they did not decree concerning it, because in most cases there is no need to crush clods; and even if it happens that there are clods there, one may not prohibit the covering, since

when he crushes

he will not thereby transgress a Torah prohibition, for

the

mitzva of

the positive commandment

of covering the blood

comes and overrides the negative commandment

of grinding clods on the festival

. But the doubtful mitzva of covering the blood does not override the prohibition of grinding clods.

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

And we reject this:

I would say that we say, “The positive commandment comes and overrides the negative commandment,”

such as 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 lesion of leprosy.

Alternatively, a linen sheet,

a linen garment, which one is permitted to wear

with ritual fringes

of wool, which together constitute kilayim, and the mitzva of ritual fringes overrides the prohibition of kilayim.

This is because

at the time

when

he uproots

the prohibition of the

negative commandment—

«не делай», —

he establishes the positive commandment,

for at that moment the person fulfills the positive commandment.

But

here,

in crushing the clods,

at the time when he uproots the negative commandment,

at the time when he uproots the negative commandment by crushing the clods—

he does not establish the positive commandment!

He does not fulfill the mitzva of covering the blood, but only afterward, and here there is no rule that a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment.

If so, the question returns: even in the slaughtering of a definite wild animal, its slaughter should not be permitted, lest he come to the prohibition of grinding before he fulfills the mitzva of covering the blood!

And we answer:

That—

это

is not difficult!

It is possible to establish the words of the Mishna, that it is permitted to slaughter, only with the qualification

that while he crushes,

immediately, at the time of the crushing,

he covers,

he covers the blood, for then the positive commandment comes and overrides the negative commandment

. And we challenge:

In the end, the festival

is also a prohibition of

a positive commandment

[as it is said concerning it, “A complete rest”]

and

also a prohibition of

a negative

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

and a positive commandment!?

If so, it should be forbidden to crush earth even for the sake of the mitzva of covering definite blood, and why were they concerned about crushing only in the case of a koy, and not in the case of a definite wild animal?

Therefore the Gemara explains that in truth the Sages were not concerned about crushing clods,

but

thus

Rava said: they were concerned in the case of a koy because of the prohibition of muktze, since one who prepares

ashes of a stove—

his intention

пепел очага,

is

only

for

covering a

definite wild animal, and his intention is not for a doubtful [animal]

such as a koy; consequently, the ashes are not “prepared” for covering a koy

And Rav Yehuda holds likewise: when a person prepared earth, he prepared it for a definite use, and did not prepare it for a doubtful use, such as covering the blood of a kוי; therefore, the Mishna poses no difficulty for him.

And he follows

this line of reasoning

Rava

in accordance with

his own view:

For Rava said: If one brought earth

into his house on the eve of a Festival in order

to cover excrement

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

it is permitted to cover bird blood with it

if he had intended on the eve of the Festival to slaughter that bird. Since preparing the earth to cover the child’s excrement was preparation for a possible need, it certainly serves the definite need he had in mind when slaughtering the bird.

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

bird blood

of a bird that he intended to slaughter on the Festival -

it is forbidden to cover excrement with it

that the child may produce on the Festival. The bringing of the earth is not considered preparation even for placing excrement in a spot that he finds repulsive, since it is uncertain whether the child will defecate in such a place. When a person has a definite use in mind, he does not have a doubtful use in mind.

The Nehardeans said: Even if one brought earth to cover

bird blood with it -

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

поскольку почти наверняка младенец испачкает место в праздник, его подготовка пригодна и для этой цели .

The Gemara now brings another dispute concerning preparing earth for covering blood:

In the West

in the Land of Israel,

they disputed about it

as will be explained below:

Rabbi Yosei bar Hama and Rabbi Zeira.

And some say

that the dispute was between

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

One said: A kוי is like excrement,

and earth brought to cover excrement, which is a possible future need, is also prepared for covering the blood of a kוי, whose blood is likewise a doubtful case.

And one said:

The uncertainty concerning a

כוי is not like excrement,

since it is nearly certain that one will need to cover excrement with earth. Therefore, it is forbidden to cover the blood of a kוי with earth prepared for excrement.

It may be concluded

and proved

that it was Rava who said

that excrement is a doubtful use, and therefore he also said that

“a kוי is like excrement”:

For Rava said: If one brought earth to cover excrement with it -

it is permitted to cover bird blood with it.

But if one brought earth to cover

bird blood -

it is forbidden to cover excrement with it,

because it is a doubtful use. Earth prepared for a definite use is not prepared for a doubtful use. 9a

And we conclude:

It may be concluded!

Rami, son of Rabbi Yeiva, said:

The reason for a kוי

that we do not cover

its blood on the Festival -

is a decree due to concern that people will permit its fat.

Perhaps, when people see that its blood is covered, they will mistakenly conclude that it is certainly a wild animal and will permit the consumption of its fat, since the fat of a wild animal is permitted. Therefore, the Sages prohibited covering its blood, so that people would not come to the severe prohibition of consuming forbidden fat.

And we challenge this:

If so,

why did they decree only on the Festival? Surely

even on

an ordinary

weekday as well

they should have decreed that one may not cover its blood, so that people would not come to permit its fat!

And we answer:

On an ordinary weekday, people say

that those who see the blood of a kוי being covered understand that he is not doing so for the mitzva of covering the blood. Rather, he is pouring earth over it because

to clean

his

courtyard

from the blood,

he needs to do so, and they will not infer from the covering that the law of the kוי is that of a definite wild animal.

But on the Festival, no one cleans his courtyard, and people will attribute the act to the mitzva of covering the blood and will come to permit its fat.

And we reject this answer, for if so, if one

slaughtered on an ordinary weekday

in a refuse area,

where he would not be covering the blood in order to clean his courtyard,

what can be said,

and why did they not decree that he may not cover the blood there, out of concern that people would come to permit its fat?

Likewise, if

the slaughterer himself

came

to ask

whether to cover the blood of a kוי on an ordinary weekday, and if he were instructed to cover it there would be concern that he would mistakenly permit its fat -

what can be said?

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

Rather,

this is the distinction:

On an ordinary weekday,

the Sages did not prohibit covering the blood of a kוי, because people will not mistakenly conclude that it is certainly a wild animal. They will say that

perhaps it is also doubtful

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

the Sages say to him

the slaughterer:

“Go, trouble yourself and cover it.”

But if people see the blood of a kוי being covered

on the Festival,

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

if it is doubtful

to the Sages whether it requires covering -

would the Sages say to him, ‘Go and trouble yourself’

on the Festival

‘and cover it’

even though the matter is doubtful? They will conclude that it is certainly a wild animal and will permit its fat.

Rabbi Zeira taught: It was not the blood of a כוי alone that they said may not be covered on the Festival, even with ash from a stove, because perhaps it is a domesticated animal, and he is exerting himself to cover blood for which there is no mitzva. Rather, even if one slaughtered on the Festival

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

a domesticated animal, a wild animal, and a bird,

and

their blood became mixed with one another,

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

it is forbidden to cover it on the Festival,

because one must also trouble himself to cover blood that is not subject to covering; 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, because he would then have to exert himself with additional thrusts to cover also the blood of the domesticated animal, which is exempt from covering.

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 thrust—

it is permitted,

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

And we raise an objection:

Is it obvious

that it is permitted to cover with one thrust, for he is not exerting unnecessary effort, since he would have needed at least one thrust for the purpose of covering the blood of the wild animal?

And we answer:

Lest you say, one thrust was decreed

not to cover with it the blood of a mixture—

is it because

people will come to err and permit covering with

two thrusts, it teaches us

that they were not concerned about this.

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

and had to cover the 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.