Chullin 83b (פג:) — the Talmud in English

It is stated here, “one day,” and it is stated in the account of Creation, “one day.” Just as the “one day” stated in the account of Creation has the day follow the night, so too, the “one day” stated with regard to “that one and its offspring” has the day follow the night! Rabbi says: “One day”

implies

a special day!

And in what way is it special? In that it

requires a public proclamation!

For the seller must announce: “I sold its mother!” or “I sold its daughter!”

From here they said: On four occasions during the year, one who sells an animal to another must inform him.

We have completed the chapter “An Animal and Its Offspring.”

Mishna:

The obligation of

covering the blood,

which is a Torah mitzva to cover the blood of slaughter with earth ,

applies

both

in the Land of Israel and

both

outside the Land of Israel.

Both

when the Temple is standing,

when the Temple existed,

and

both

when the Temple is not standing.

And it

applies to non-sacred animals, but not to consecrated animals!

For the birds of sacrificial sanctity, such as a bird sin-offering and a bird burnt-offering, are not subject to covering of the blood of their pinah.

And it applies to wild animals and birds,

but not to domesticated animals!

And it applies

to animals that are available,

to wild animals and birds raised at home and available for slaughter at any time,

and to those that are not available,

to wild animals and birds that are not available to him but must be captured .

And it applies to a koy, because it is uncertain

whether it is a wild animal or a domesticated animal; therefore, one must be stringent and cover its blood .

One may not slaughter it,

the koy,

on a Festival,

because on a Festival one does not cover its blood, as will be explained shortly. Therefore, one should not slaughter it ab initio, so as not to nullify the mitzva of covering the blood, which applies to a koy because of the uncertainty, as stated above .

But if one slaughtered it,

the koy on a Festival,

one does not cover its blood

on that day, because moving earth for the purpose of covering the blood involves desecration of the Festival, and one may not desecrate the Festival for the sake of covering its blood, since its obligation exists only because of the uncertainty .

Gemara:

And we raise a question concerning this: Why

is the blood of consecrated animals not

subject to covering?

Perhaps it is because of the statement of Rabbi Zeira. For Rabbi Zeira said: One who slaughters

must place earth beneath

the blood; that is, he should not slaughter on hard ground, but should place soft earth on the ground before slaughtering ,

and earth above

in order to cover the blood with it,

as it is stated: “And he shall pour out its blood

and cover it with earth,”

and we interpret the verse:

“Earth”

is not stated,

which would imply that the blood need be covered with earth only from above,

but “with earth,”

which implies that the blood must be enclosed by earth on all sides.

This teaches that one who slaughters must place earth below and earth above!

But here,

with the blood of consecrated animals,

it is impossible

to place earth beneath it, for the procedure of offering bird sacrifices is that they are killed by pinah, their blood is sprinkled, and the blood remaining in their necks is pressed out onto the wall of the altar. If so,

what should he do?

Let him place

earth on the wall of the altar before pressing out the blood,

and make it lose its separate status

there; that is, he should fix it there so that it remains there permanently. If so,

he is adding stones

to the altar, and one may not add to the altar's dimensions , for

it is written

that King David said to his son Solomon:

“Everything

in writing, from the hand of the Lord, was bestowed upon me with understanding!”

For he was told prophetically the entire form of the Temple's construction and its dimensions, and they may not be altered.

But if

he does not make it lose its separate status

there, but instead places the earth on the altar with the intention of removing it afterward [and consequently the earth is not considered part of the altar, so its dimensions have not been increased], then this earth

constitutes an interposition

between the sacrificial blood and the altar, whereas the blood must be pressed out onto the wall of the altar! [Had he made the earth lose its separate status there, it would not have interposed, because the earth itself would have been considered part of the altar.] Since there is no way to fulfill the mitzva of covering the blood with earth beneath the blood, he is entirely exempt from covering the blood, even from above.

And we challenge this:

Granted that below it is impossible

to fulfill the mitzva of covering the blood of consecrated animals, but

above,

there

is

a possibility of covering it with earth [without making the earth lose its separate status there; and it is irrelevant that he does not nullify it, since the earth above does not interpose between the blood and the altar]. If so,

let him perform the covering! Indeed, we find that where it is impossible to fulfill the mitzva of covering below, one covers at least from above.

Indeed, we find that where it is impossible to fulfill the commandment of covering below, one covers at least from above.

Is it not taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef says: If one slaughtered a wild animal and afterward slaughtered a domesticated animal,

and the blood of the domesticated animal [which is not subject to covering] flowed over the blood of the wild animal,

he is exempt from covering

the blood of the wild animal, because it is impossible to cover it: the blood of the domesticated animal covers it, and the mitzva has been nullified .

But if one slaughtered

a domesticated animal, and afterward a wild animal

12, he is obligated to cover

the blood of the wild animal from above, even though below he did not cover the wild animal's blood with earth [for he placed the wild animal's blood upon the blood of the domesticated animal]! Thus, when it is impossible to cover from below, one covers at least from above. If so, why should he not also cover the blood of consecrated animals from above!?

And we answer: There,

in accordance with Rabbi Zeira. For Rabbi Zeira said: Any

meal offering

that is fit for kneading,

meaning, one for which the vessel used to knead the meal offering does not contain more than sixty esronot of fine flour [for up to this quantity, the flour and oil can be kneaded together in a single vessel]

the kneading does not invalidate it!

Thus, even if he did not actually knead the fine flour with the oil, the meal offering is valid, since it is fit to be kneaded.

But any offering that is not fit for kneading,

such as a meal offering containing more than sixty esronot of fine flour, in which the flour and oil cannot be properly kneaded together—

the kneading does invalidate it!

That is, the meal offering is invalid, since it is not fit for the fulfillment of the mitzva of kneading.

The same can also be used to resolve our matter. One cannot challenge this from the law concerning “the blood of a wild animal upon the blood of a domesticated animal,” which must be covered from above. There, the absence of the covering below does not invalidate it, since the blood of the wild animal was fit to be covered below: he could have placed earth over the blood of the domesticated animal before slaughtering the wild animal. Therefore, we do not say that because the blood was not covered below, the mitzva of covering it is entirely nullified and he need not cover it even from above. But with regard to the blood of consecrated animals, which was never fit to be covered below, the covering below does invalidate it. Since it was never possible to fulfill the mitzva of covering it below, the mitzva of covering it was entirely nullified. Therefore, we learned in the Mishna that the mitzva of covering the blood does not apply to consecrated animals.

And we challenge:

Let him drag it

the blood of the offering from upon the altar, after it had been placed there and its mitzva had been performed, and place the blood below the altar on the ground,

and cover it,

thereby fulfilling the mitzva of covering the blood?

Did we not learn: Blood that splashes

far away at the time of slaughter,

and

blood

that is upon the knife

used for slaughter—

one is obligated to cover it! This evidently means that he drags

the blood from the knife in order to cover the blood below as well

and covers it,

and if so,

here too, let him drag

the blood from the altar to the ground

and cover it!?

And we answer:

If this is referring to

birds of

sacrificial consecrated property,

which are offered upon the altar,

so too

they are obligated in covering! That is, he drags the blood from the altar below and covers it there. But

here,

in our Mishna,

with what are we dealing?

With regard to which consecrated animals did we state that their consecrated blood is exempt from the mitzva of covering?

With consecrated property designated for Temple maintenance!

They were consecrated on the condition that they be sold and that the proceeds be used for the maintenance of the Temple. These birds are forbidden to benefit from as long as they have not been redeemed. If he slaughtered them, it is an “unfit slaughter,” which does not permit them to be eaten, and it is not considered slaughter. Therefore, the blood does not require covering. [This is unlike animals consecrated as sacrificial offerings, whose slaughter [pinching] is considered fit, since the offerings are eaten by the priests [in the case of the bird sin offering].