Chullin 84a (פד.) — the Talmud in English

And we challenge:

Let him redeem them,

for it is possible to redeem them from their consecrated status after slaughter, and they would then be permitted to be eaten ,

and cover them,

since it would now become retroactively clear that this was fit slaughter, and the blood is subject to covering?

And we answer: It is not possible to redeem consecrated animals after slaughter, because

we require standing and valuation

at the time of redemption: the animal must be made to stand before the koэн so that he can value it. After slaughter, when the animal cannot stand, it can no longer be redeemed .

And we challenge: It emerges that the Gemara’s answer depends upon two assumptions: a. that an unfit slaughter is not considered slaughter; b. that consecrated property designated for Temple maintenance has the same law as sacrificial consecrated property, in that it too can be redeemed only through standing and valuation. Apparently, then, it is difficult:

In accordance with whom

does the tanna of our Mishna hold?

If it is in accordance with Rabbi Meir, who said: Everything was included in

the law of

standing and valuation,

both sacrificial consecrated property and consecrated property designated for Temple maintenance,

did

Rabbi Meir not say:

An unfit slaughter

[that does not permit eating]

is considered slaughter!?

And if so, the slaughter of consecrated animals that have not been redeemed should also be subject to covering.

If it is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, who said: An unfit slaughter is not considered slaughter, did

Rabbi Shimon not say: Consecrated property designated for Temple maintenance

was not included in the law of standing and valuation,

but specifically sacrificial consecrated property was included, whereas consecrated property designated for Temple maintenance can be redeemed even without standing and valuation, and even after death? If so, why should he not redeem them after slaughter and cover their blood!?

And we answer:

Rav Yosef said:

Our Mishna—

it is Rabbi!

the compiler of the Mishna.

And he adopted it in accordance with

two

tannaim,

and Rabbi taught the law of our Mishna, that the mitzva of covering the blood does not apply to consecrated animals, because he follows the two tannaim cited above, applying the view of one tanna to each law.

With regard to unfit slaughter—

he follows Rabbi Shimon,

that it is not considered slaughter.

And with regard to standing and valuation—

he follows Rabbi Meir,

that consecrated property designated for Temple maintenance is also included in the law of standing and valuation.

And if you wish, say: The entire

Mishna

is Rabbi Shimon!

Although according to Rabbi Shimon it is possible to redeem consecrated property designated for Temple maintenance even after slaughter, nevertheless there is no obligation to cover the blood even after its redemption.

Here it is different,

with regard to covering,

as the verse says: “And he shall pour and cover,”

and we expound:

One who lacks nothing but pouring and covering

—who can cover the blood immediately after pouring it [that is, after slaughter]—is subject to covering;

this excludes this one,

the blood of consecrated property designated for Temple maintenance,

which lacks pouring, redemption, and covering.

After slaughter, it is still not fit for covering until it is first redeemed, and the Torah did not obligate such blood to be covered.

Now that you have arrived at this

interpretation, if so

even say

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

sacrificial consecrated property,

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

One who lacks nothing but pouring and covering

is subject to covering;

this excludes this one, which lacks pouring, dragging, and covering!

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

Mar bar Rav Ashi said:

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

the verse says

with regard to covering the blood,

“wild animal or bird,”

and we expound:

Just as a wild animal is not consecrated,

since a wild animal is not offered as a sacrifice upon the altar,

so too, a bird

is subject to covering only if it

is not consecrated 5 .

And we challenge Mar bar Rav Ashi:

Perhaps

[we should expound it as follows]:

Just as a wild animal

is something

whose species has no consecrated member,

as it is impossible for a sacrifice to come from the species of wild animals, so too, a bird is subject to covering only when it is a species that has no consecrated member, such as geese and chickens, from which no sacrifice is offered.

I would exclude

from the mitzva of covering

turtledoves and the sons of doves,

even when they are unconsecrated, because

their species does have a consecrated member,

as it is possible to offer a sacrifice from this species?

And we answer:

No!

The bird is judged

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

by species, but all species of wild animals are obligated in covering the blood,

so too, do not distinguish among birds

by species; rather, all species are equal. If they are consecrated, they are exempt from covering, and if they are non-sacred, they are obligated in covering.

Jacob the heretic said to Rava: We hold that a wild animal is included within the category of domesticated animal with regard

to

the distinguishing signs!

The distinguishing signs stated in the Torah are only the signs of a kosher domesticated animal; no signs were stated concerning a wild animal to identify 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 within the category of domesticated animal, and the signs of a kosher domesticated animal are also the signs of a kosher wild animal. If so,

say likewise: A domesticated animal is included within the category of wild animal [as we also find in Scripture that a domesticated animal is called a “wild animal”], and the law of a domesticated animal should be like that of a wild animal

say likewise: A domesticated animal is included within the category of wild animal [as we also find in Scripture that a domesticated animal is called a “wild animal”], and the law of a domesticated animal should be like that of a wild animal

with

regard

to covering,

so that even a domesticated animal should be obligated in covering the blood?

He said to him,

Rava:

The verse states concerning you,

with regard to the blood of a domesticated animal:

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

And we derive:

Just as water does not require covering, so too this

blood of a domesticated animal

also does not require covering!

And we raise a difficulty:

If that is so,

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

should one immerse in it

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

And we answer:

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

shall be pure”!

And it indicates:

These

yes,

for only water purifies [as is implied by the verse, since the passage concerning creeping animals appears before this verse, indicating that one who becomes impure through them becomes pure through a spring], but

anything else,

including even the blood of a domesticated animal,

no!

And we object:

Say that 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 the ritually impure person?!

And we answer:

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

for “water” is stated with regard both to the “spring” and to the “pit,” and they expound the verses as though “water” had been stated twice; the second exclusion comes to exclude blood, in addition to the other liquids.

And we object:

Say that both

of the two exclusions of “water” come

only to exclude other liquids

and nothing else.

One

comes to exclude

other liquids that are

flowing.

That is, a ritual bath in which there were twenty-one se’a of rainwater, for the law is that one may add nineteen se’a of drawn water [which is invalid for a ritual bath] and thereby complete it to forty se’a, provided that one does not pour it directly into the ritual bath, but rather next to the ritual bath, at a distance of three handbreadths, so that from there it flows over the ground into the ritual 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 gathered

liquids, meaning that if one did not make them flow, but immersed in them while they were gathered in one place, they do not purify , and it still remains difficult: From where do we learn that the blood of a domesticated animal is to be excluded?

And we answer:

Three exclusions are written: “a spring of water”

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

[The word “water” is stated with regard to all three.] 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 he hunts

a wild animal or a bird.”

I have derived only

that one is obligated to cover the blood of

“when he hunts,”

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

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

do we know that they are obligated in covering?

The verse states: “hunting”—

in any event!

Even living creatures that do not require hunting are obligated in covering the blood.

If so, what does the verse teach by saying “when he 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 for him, like game, which is not always available to him. In other words, he should not eat meat regularly, so that he will not come to poverty .

The Sages taught:

It is written:

“When the Lord your God expands 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 with an appetite!

That is, when he is satiated and eats only out of desire, which is not a large meal; but he should not eat a great deal while he is still hungry in order to satisfy his hunger, for then his eating will be excessive.

Perhaps a person may take

meat

from the market and eat it? The verse states: “And you shall slaughter from your cattle and from your flocks.”

Specifically, if he has cattle and sheep in his herd; but if not, he should not purchase meat from the market .

Perhaps he may slaughter all his cattle and eat,

or slaughter

all his sheep 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 a maneh

[one hundred zuz]

should purchase for his pot

[from the term ilpas, meaning a cooking pot], that is, for cooking in his pot—

a litra of vegetables!

And if he is wealthier, so that he has

ten maneh, he should purchase for his pot a litra of fish!

And if he has

fifty maneh, he should purchase for his pot a litra of meat!

And if he has

one hundred maneh, he should cook

a pot of meat

every day!

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

And we raise a difficulty:

And these others,

those concerning whom it was said that they should purchase a litra of fish and 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 Shabbat eve!

This quantity should suffice for them for a week.

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

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

Rabbi Yohanan said: Abba

[an honorific designation for Rav]—

was from a family of healthy people,

and therefore he was able to conduct his eating in accordance with Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya.

But people such as us,

who are not healthy—

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

and purchase food for himself! For if he economizes on his food, he will become ill and require assistance from others.

Rav Naḥman said: People such as us,

in the generation after Rabbi Yohanan, when we have become even weaker—even if we do not have a peruta in our pocket—

we borrow

money

and eat!

And the Gemara derives from verses in Proverbs [chapter 27] the order of priorities in household finances.

It is stated:

“Lambs

for your clothing.”

Its meaning is that a person should purchase sheep, and

from the shearing

of the

sheep shall be your clothing!

[And he should suffice with woolen clothing, and not acquire expensive silk garments.]

It is stated:

“And the price of a field

is goats”—

with the price of a field that he sells, he should purchase flocks of sheep.

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

It is stated:

“And sufficient is the milk of goats.”

Its meaning is:

It is sufficient for a person to support himself with the milk of kids and lambs that are 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 conjunctive “and” was not stated, this indicates that

“your bread”

precedes “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 precedence over him.

It is stated:

“And life for your maidens.” Rabbi Zeira the 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 life, so that they will suffice with simple foods.

From here the Torah taught proper conduct, that a person should not teach his child

to eat

meat and wine.