Chullin 83b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi says: “one day”

implies

the special day!

And what is its distinctiveness? That it is

requires a proclamation!

For the seller is obligated to announce: “Its mother I sold! Or its daughter I sold!” .

From here they said: During four periods of the year, one who sells an animal to his fellow must inform him.

We shall return to you, chapter “That One and Its Offspring.”

Mishna:

The obligation of

covering the blood,

that it is a mitzva from the Torah to cover the blood of slaughter with earth ,

applies

whether

in the Land and

whether

outside the Land.

Whether

in the presence of the Temple,

when the Temple was in existence,

and

whether

not in the presence of the Temple.

And it applies

to non-sacred animals but not to consecrated animals!

For consecrated birds, such as a bird sin-offering and a bird burnt-offering, the blood of their pinching is not subject to covering.

And it applies to a wild animal and to a bird,

but not to livestock!

And it applies

to one that is ready,

to a wild animal and a bird that grow in the house and are ready for slaughter at any time,

and to one that is not ready,

to wild animals and birds that are not ready for him, but he must hunt them .

And it applies to a koy, because it is a doubt

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

And one does not slaughter it,

the koy,

on a Festival

since on a Festival one does not cover its blood, as explained shortly. Therefore one should not slaughter it initially, so as not to nullify the mitzva of covering the blood, which is obligatory for a koy because of the doubt, as stated above .

And if he slaughtered it,

the koy on a Festival—

one does not cover its blood

on that day, because transporting the earth for the purpose of covering the blood involves profaning the Festival, and one may not profane the Festival for the purpose of covering its blood, for its mitzva exists only because of the doubt .

Gemara:

And we raise a discussion concerning it: The blood

of consecrated animals—for what reason is it not

subject to covering?

If you say it is because of Rabbi Zeira. For Rabbi Zeira said: One who slaughters—

must place earth below

the blood! That is, he should not slaughter on hard ground, but should place soft earth on the ground before the slaughter ,

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 derive:

“earth”

was not stated

in a way that would imply that the blood should be covered with earth only from above,

but “with earth,”

which implies that the blood should be enveloped with earth on all its sides.

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

But here,

with the blood of consecrated animals,

it is impossible

to place earth below, for the order of offering bird sacrifices is that they are pinched, their blood is sprinkled, and the blood in their necks is pressed out against 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 nullify it

the earth there—that is, establish it as earth there so that it will remain there forever. But then

he is adding stones

to the altar, and one may not add to the dimensions of the altar , for

it is written:

which King David said to his son Solomon:

“Everything—

in writing from the hand of the Lord, He made me understand!”

For he was told by prophecy the entire form of the work of the Temple and its dimensions, and they may not be changed.

But if

he does not nullify it

the earth there, but places the earth on the altar with the intention of removing it afterward [and through this the earth will not be considered part of the altar, and consequently its dimensions will not be increased], then this earth will

constitute an intervening substance

between the blood of the offering and the altar, whereas the blood must be pressed out against the wall of the altar! [But had he nullified the earth there, it would not have constituted an intervening substance, since the earth itself would be considered part of the altar.] Since it is impossible to fulfill the mitzva of covering the blood with earth below, he is entirely exempt from covering the blood, even from above.

And we raise an objection:

Granted that below it is impossible

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

above,

behold, it is

possible

to cover it with earth [without nullifying the earth there, and it does not matter to us that he does not nullify it, for the earth above does not intervene between the blood and the altar]; if so,

let him perform the covering?

And indeed we find this: where it is impossible to fulfill the mitzva of covering below, one covers, at least, from above.

Was it not taught: Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef says: If one slaughtered a wild animal, and afterward slaughtered livestock,

and the blood of the livestock [which is not subject to covering] was poured 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, for the blood of the livestock covers it and the mitzva has been nullified .

But if he slaughtered

livestock, 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 blood of the wild animal with earth [for he placed the blood of the wild animal upon the blood of the livestock]! It follows that if 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: Everything

of the meal-offering

that is fit for mixing,

that is, where there are not more than sixty esronot of fine flour in the vessel in which the meal-offering is mixed [for up to this quantity the fine flour and the oil can be mixed together in one vessel]

the mixing does not invalidate it!

For even if, in practice, he did not mix the fine flour with the oil, the meal-offering is valid, since it is fit to be mixed.

And anything that is not fit for mixing,

in a meal-offering in which there are more than sixty esronot of fine flour, where the fine flour and the oil in it cannot be mixed well—

the mixing invalidates it!

That is, the meal-offering is invalid, since it is not fit for fulfilling in it the mitzva of mixing.

And also in our matter it is possible to answer in this manner. For one should not raise an objection from the law of “the blood of a wild animal upon the blood of a domesticated animal,” which one is obligated to cover from above. For there the covering below does not invalidate it, since the blood of the wild animal was fit for covering below, as he could have placed earth on the blood of the domesticated animal before slaughtering the wild animal. Therefore, we do not say that because of the absence of the covering below, the mitzva of covering is completely nullified for it, and that he would not need to cover it even from above. But with consecrated blood, which was never fit for covering below, the covering below does invalidate it. Since it was never possible to fulfill in it the mitzva of covering below, the mitzva of covering was completely nullified! Therefore, we learned in the Mishna that the covering of the blood does not apply to consecrated animals.

And we raise an objection:

Let him drag it,

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

and let him cover it,

and thereby fulfill in it 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

of slaughter—

one is obligated to cover it! This shows that he drags

the blood from upon the knife [in order to cover the blood also from below ]

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 it is

the birds of

consecrated animals of the altar,

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 which consecrated animals did we say that their consecrated blood is exempt from the covering of the blood?

With consecrated animals for the maintenance of the Temple!

For he consecrated them on the condition that they be sold and that the proceeds be used for the needs of the maintenance of the Temple. And these birds are forbidden in benefit as long as they have not been redeemed; and if he slaughtered them, it is “slaughter that is not fit,” which does not permit them for eating, and the designation of slaughter does not apply to it, and therefore the blood does not require covering. [Unlike consecrated animals of the altar, whose slaughter [pinching] is considered fit slaughter, for the offerings are eaten by the priests [in the case of the bird sin-offering].