Chullin 84a — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection:

Let him redeem them,

for it is possible to redeem them from consecration after slaughter, and they will be permitted for eating ,

and let him cover them,

since it has now become clear retroactively that it was fit slaughter, and the blood is obligated in covering?

And we answer: One does not redeem consecrated animals after slaughter, because

we require standing and valuation

at the time of redemption: he must make the animal stand before the priest so that he may value it. After slaughter, when the animal cannot stand, it is no longer possible to redeem it .

And we raise an objection, for it follows that the Gemara’s answer depends upon two assumptions: A. that slaughter that is not fit is not called slaughter; B. that consecrated animals for the maintenance of the Temple have the same law as consecrated animals of the altar, in that they too are redeemed only through standing and valuation. It is apparently difficult, then:

According to whom

does the tanna in our Mishna hold?

If it is according to Rabbi Meir, who said: Everything was included in

the law of

standing and valuation,

both consecrated animals of the altar and consecrated animals for the maintenance of the Temple,

did Rabbi Meir not say

Rabbi Meir:

Slaughter that is not fit

[which does not permit eating]

is called slaughter!?

And if so, the slaughter of consecrated animals that have not been redeemed is also obligated in covering.

If it is according to Rabbi Shimon, who said: Slaughter that is not fit is not called slaughter, did

Rabbi Shimon not say: Consecrated animals for the maintenance of the Temple

were not included in standing and valuation,

but specifically consecrated animals of the altar; whereas consecrated animals for the maintenance of the Temple may be redeemed even without standing and valuation, and even after death. If so, why should he not redeem them after their slaughter and cover their blood!?

And we answer:

Rav Yosef said:

Our Mishna—

it is Rabbi!

who arranged the Mishna.

And he adopted it according to

two

tannaim,

and Rabbi taught the law of our Mishna, that the covering of the blood does not apply to consecrated animals, because he holds like the two tannaim mentioned above, in each law like a different tanna.

With regard to slaughter that is not fit—

he holds like Rabbi Shimon,

that it is not slaughter. And

with regard to standing and valuation—

he holds like Rabbi Meir,

that consecrated animals for the maintenance of the Temple are also included in standing and valuation.

And if you wish, say: The entire

Mishna

is Rabbi Shimon!

And although according to Rabbi Shimon it is possible to redeem consecrated animals for the maintenance of the Temple even after slaughter, nevertheless they are not obligated in covering even after their redemption. For

here it is different,

with regard to covering,

for the verse says, “And he shall pour out and cover,”

and we expound:

One who lacks nothing other than pouring and covering

—who can cover the blood immediately after pouring [that is, slaughter]—is obligated in covering;

this one is excluded,

the blood of consecrated animals for the maintenance of the Temple,

which lacks pouring, redemption, and covering.

For after slaughter it is still not fit for covering until it is first redeemed, and concerning such blood the Torah did not obligate that it require covering.

And now that you have arrived at this,

for this exposition, if so,

even say

that our Mishna, which exempts consecrated animals from covering the blood, is dealing with

consecrated animals of the altar,

the Gemara’s earlier question can still be resolved, for it is possible to drag the blood from the altar and cover it outside the altar—because one should expound:

One who lacks nothing other than pouring and covering

is subject to covering;

this one is excluded, who lacks pouring, dragging, and covering!

Since with consecrated animals of the altar it is impossible to fulfill the mitzva of covering the blood immediately after slaughter while it is upon the altar, unless he first drags the blood from the altar and places it upon the ground and fulfills the mitzva of covering below first, therefore he is exempt from covering!

Mar bar Rav Ashi said:

The reason that our Mishna exempts consecrated animals from covering the blood is because

the verse says

with regard to covering the blood

“wild animal or bird,”

and we expound:

Just as a wild animal is not consecrated,

for a wild animal is not offered as an offering upon the altar,

so too, a bird

is obligated in covering only if it

is not consecrated 5 .

And we raise an objection to Mar bar Rav Ashi:

Perhaps

[we should expound it in this manner]:

Just as a wild animal

is something

whose species has no consecrated form,

for it is impossible that there be an offering from the species of wild animal, so too, a bird is obligated in covering only when it is a bird whose species has no consecrated form, such as geese and chickens, from which no offering is brought.

I would exclude

from the mitzva of covering

turtledoves and young pigeons,

even when they are nonconsecrated, since

their species has a consecrated form,

for it is possible to offer an offering from this species?

And we answer:

No!

The bird is governed

like a wild animal. Just as you did not distinguish among wild animals

between one species and another, but all species of wild animal are subject to covering,

so too, do not distinguish among birds

between one species and another. Rather, all species have the same law: if they are consecrated, they are exempt from covering, and if they are unconsecrated, they are subject to covering.

Jacob the heretic said to Rava: It is established for us that a wild animal is included among domesticated animals with regard

to

the identifying signs!

The Torah stated identifying signs only for a kosher domesticated animal, but it did not state signs for a wild animal by which to know which wild animal is kosher. Rather, since we find in Scripture that a wild animal is called a “domesticated animal,” we learn that a wild animal is included among domesticated animals, and the identifying signs of a kosher domesticated animal are also the identifying signs of a kosher wild animal. If so,

say as well: A domesticated animal is included among a wild animal [since we also find in Scripture that a domesticated animal is called a “living creature”], and let the law of a domesticated animal be like that of a wild animal

[поскольку и это мы находим в Писании: домашнее животное называется «диким животным»], и пусть закон домашнего животного будет как закон дикого животного

with regard

to

covering,

so that a domesticated animal, too, would be subject to covering its blood?

He said to him:

Rava:

The verse says concerning you,

with regard to the blood of a domesticated animal:

“You shall pour it on the ground like water”!

And we expound this verse:

Just as water does not require covering, so too this

blood of a domesticated animal

does not require covering!

And we raise a difficulty:

If that is so,

since the blood of a domesticated animal is called “water,”

let them immerse in it

an impure person, just as one immerses in the water of a ritual bath!?

And we answer:

The verse says: “But a spring and a pit, a ritual pool of water,

shall be pure”!

This indicates that

these

yes,

only water purifies, [as the verse indicates: immediately before this verse, the passage concerning creeping animals is stated, meaning that one who became impure through them becomes pure through a spring], but

anything else,

including even the blood of a domesticated animal,

no!

And we object:

Perhaps this applies only to exclude other liquids

that do not purify like water because

they are not called “water”; but blood, which is called “water,” should indeed

purify an impure person!?

And we answer:

Two exclusions are written: “a spring of water” and “a pit of water,”

for “water” is stated both with regard to the “spring” and with regard to the “pit.” The verse is therefore expounded as though “water” had been stated twice, and the second exclusion comes to exclude blood, in addition to other liquids.

And we object:

Perhaps both of them,

the two exclusions of “water,” come

only to exclude other liquids

that are specifically of this type.

One

comes to exclude

other liquids that are

flowing.

This refers to a ritual bath containing twenty-one se'a of rainwater, into which one may add nineteen se'a of drawn water [which is invalid for use in a ritual bath] and thereby complete the bath to forty se'a, provided that one does not pour the drawn water directly into the bath, but pours it near the bath, at a distance of three handbreadths, from where it flows over the ground into the bath. The verse comes to exclude other liquids: if they were drawn and made to flow into the ritual bath, they do not complete the ritual bath.

And one

comes to exclude collected liquids,

for if one did not make them flow, but immersed in them while they were collected in one place, they do not purify. The difficulty nevertheless remains: from where do we learn that the blood of a domesticated animal is excluded?

And we answer:

Three exclusions are written: “a spring of water”

7 , and “a pit of water,” “a ritual pool of water.”

The word “water” is stated with regard to all three, and the third exclusion comes to exclude the blood of a domesticated animal, which does not purify.

The Sages taught:

It is written in the passage concerning covering the blood:

“When one hunts

a wild animal or a bird.”

I would know

that one is obligated to cover the blood only when it says

“when one hunts,”

meaning specifically when one hunts a wild animal or bird and slaughters it. But with regard to creatures that a person does not need to hunt because they are

already caught and available, such as geese and chickens, from where

do we know that they are subject to covering?

The verse states “hunting”—

in any event!

Thus, even creatures that do not require hunting are subject to covering their blood.

If so, why does the verse say “when one hunts”?

The Torah taught proper conduct—

that a person should eat meat only when it is obtained in this manner!

That is, he should eat it only when the opportunity arises, like hunting, which is not always available. In other words, he should not eat meat regularly, so that he will not become impoverished.

The Sages taught:

It is written:

“When the Lord your God enlarges your boundary

and you say, ‘I will eat meat, because your soul desires to eat meat.’”

The Torah taught proper conduct, that a person should eat meat only when he desires it!

That is, when he is already satiated and eats only because of a desire that does not entail much eating. But he should not eat a great deal while he is still hungry in order to satisfy his hunger, since that would be excessive eating.

One might think that a person may take

meat

from the market and eat it. The verse states: “From your cattle and from your flocks.”

This means specifically that if he has cattle and sheep in his herd, he may eat; otherwise, he should not buy meat from the market.

One might think that he may slaughter all his cattle and eat,

or slaughter

all his flocks and eat,

meaning that if he has only one ox or one sheep, he should slaughter it.

The verse states: “From your cattle,” and not all your cattle; “from your flocks,” and not all your flocks!

From here Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: One who has one maneh [

one hundred zuz]

should spend on his pot [

from the word for a cooking pot], meaning, for cooking in his pot,

a litra of vegetables!

If he is wealthier and has

ten maneh, he should spend on his pot a litra of fish!

And if he has

fifty maneh, he should spend on his pot a litra of meat!

And if he has

one hundred maneh, he should set on the fire,

that is, cook, a pot of meat

every day!

This is in accordance with what was stated above: a person should eat meat only if he is wealthy.

And we raise a difficulty:

And these people,

those concerning whom it was said that they should purchase a litra of fish or meat,

when

will they eat the fish and meat? Do they purchase a litra of meat and fish every day?

And we explain:

From one Shabbat eve to the next!

That single litra should suffice for them for the entire week.

Rav said: We must heed the words of the elder,

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who says that one should suffice with only simple foods.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Father [

a respectful designation for Rav]

was from a family of healthy people,

and therefore he could conduct his eating in accordance with Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya.

But people such as us,

who are not healthy,

if one has even a single peruta in his pocket, he should hurry with it to the shopkeeper

and buy food for himself! If he economizes on his food, he will become ill and have to depend on others.

Rav Naḥman said: People such as us,

in the generation after Rabbi Yoḥanan, when we had grown even weaker—even if we have no peruta in our pockets—

we borrow

money

and eat!

The Gemara, the Talmudic discussion of the Mishna, now derives from verses in Proverbs [chapter 27] the order of priorities in household finances.

It is stated:

“Lambs

for your clothing.”

The explanation is that a person should purchase sheep, and

from the shearing

of the

sheep will come your clothing! [

He should make do with woolen clothing and should not purchase expensive silk clothing.]

It is stated:

“And the price of a field

is rams,”

meaning that with the money from selling a field, he should purchase flocks of sheep.

From here they said: A person should always sell a field and purchase rams, but a person should not sell rams and purchase a field, because flocks of sheep multiply quickly, and one can also satisfy his needs from them.

It is stated:

“And sufficient is the milk of goats.”

The explanation is:

It is enough for a person to support himself from the milk of the kids and lambs in his household,

and he should not slaughter them and eat the meat.

It is stated:

“For your bread, for the bread of your household,”

and since the conjunction “and” was not stated, this indicates that

“your bread”

comes before “the bread of your household”!

Therefore, if the milk of the goats is sufficient for the bread of his household, he should provide for himself first, so that he will have the strength to go out to work and support them. But with regard to clothing, it is explained below that the members of his household take priority over him.

It is stated:

“And life for your maidens.” Rabbi Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman,

said: This is the meaning of the verse:

Give life to your maidens!

Teach the members of your household ways of living by which they will make do with simple foods.

From here the Torah taught proper conduct: a person should not teach his son

to eat

meat and wine.