Chullin 84b (פד:) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yohanan said:

Tochnoe raspolozhenie stranitsy")

One who wishes to become wealthy—

should engage in raising small livestock!

Rav Hisda said: What is the meaning of that which is written, “and the flocks of your sheep”?

Its explanation is:

that

the sheep

make their owners wealthy. 11 .

And Rabbi Yohanan said:

It is preferable to drink

a cup of sorcery,

a cup prepared by sorceresses,

rather than

to drink

a cup of lukewarm water,

which harms the body.

And this statement

that we say that lukewarm water is harmful applies specifically when it is placed

in metal vessels. But when it is in earthenware vessels—

we have no concern!

And even with regard to metal vessels, we said this only when one does not place herbs in them,

meaning that he did not put the roots of plants and spices into the lukewarm water;

but if he places herbs in them—

we have no concern!

And even when one does not place herbs in them, we said this only when the water has not boiled,

meaning that the water did not boil initially;

but

if it

boiled—

we have no concern!

And Rabbi Yohanan said: One whose father left him money and who wishes to squander it,

that is, one who inherited money and does not value it because he did not labor for it—

let him wear linen garments, use glass vessels, hire laborers, and not sit with them!

If he does so, he will lose his money. Rabbi Yohanan thereby teaches that a person should not behave in this manner and thereby come to financial loss.

And we explain:

“Let him wear linen garments”—

Roman linen

[it is expensive linen].

“And use glass vessels”—

white glass,

which is expensive.

“And hire laborers and not sit with them”—

with oxen,

meaning that he gives the laborers oxen with which to plow,

because their losses are great,

as they cause him considerable losses, since they do not properly supervise either the plowing or the oxen, and consequently the oxen become thin and injured.

Rav Avira expounded: Sometimes he attributed this exposition

the following exposition

in the name of Rabbi Ami, and sometimes he attributed it in the name of Rabbi Asi:

What is the meaning of that which is written: “Good is the man who is gracious and lends—

he conducts his affairs with justice”?

Its explanation is that a person must regulate his household expenditures so that they correspond to his means.

That

a person should always eat and drink—

less than he possesses!

That is, he should spend on his food less than his means permit.

And he should dress and cover himself—

with what he possesses!

According to his means, so that he will not be disgraced in the eyes of others.

And he should honor his wife

and his children—

more than he possesses!

He should even borrow money for their sustenance and clothing,

because they depend upon him, whereas he depends upon the One who spoke and brought the world into being!

Rav Eina expounded at the entrance to the house of the Exilarch: One who slaughters for the sake of a

nuzhd

sick person

who is dangerously ill and needs to eat meat

on Shabbat is obligated to cover

the blood, even though this entails a desecration of Shabbat. Since Shabbat is set aside for the sake of this slaughter, it is also set aside for all the mitzvot associated with that slaughter, such as covering the blood .

Rabba said to them: “Astonishing,

a remarkable thing

he is saying!”

Let them remove his interpreter from him—

let them cut out his tongue!

[Another explanation: They should remove from before him the amora who stands before him and announces publicly what he expounds—in order to embarrass him!].

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei says: One may not slaughter a koy on a Festival,

since, as its blood is not covered on a Festival, one should not slaughter it and nullify the mitzva of covering.

And if one slaughtered it—

one does not cover its blood

that day, because one may not desecrate the Festival for the mitzva of covering the blood of a koy, which is only a matter of doubt .

This matter is derived

by means of a kal va-chomer: Just as circumcision, whose certainty

[in a case where the mitzva is certain]

overrides Shabbat, its doubtful status

with regard to fulfilling the mitzva of circumcision

does not override

even

the Festival. Covering the blood, whose certainty does not override Shabbat,

for if the mitzva of covering the blood occurs on Shabbat, even when it is certain, it does not override Shabbat,

is it not the case that its doubtful status,

such as covering the blood of a koy,

does override the Festival!

They said to him

to Rabbi Yosei:

The sounding of the shofar

on Rosh HaShana

in the outlying areas,

everywhere [apart from the Temple, where the shofar is sounded even on Shabbat],

will prove—

that its certainty does not override Shabbat.

If Rosh HaShana occurs on Shabbat, the shofar is not sounded in the outlying areas, even though the mitzva is certain,

yet its doubtful status overrides the Festival!

Even one who is obligated to sound the shofar only due to a doubt may sound it on Rosh HaShana, despite the prohibition against sounding the shofar on a Festival [when it is not for the sake of a mitzva].

We find, then, that a doubtful mitzva overrides the Festival even though the certain performance of that mitzva does not override Shabbat. If so, even doubtful covering of the blood should override the Festival; why, then, does one not cover the blood of a koy on a Festival?

Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Distinguished

[an honorific for a prominent person]

replied

to Rabbi Yosei’s kal va-chomer from circumcision:

What is the case with circumcision?

It is logical that its doubtful status does not override the Festival, because it has a leniency,

as it is not practiced on the nights of Festivals,

since circumcision is not performed at night.

Can you say the same with regard to covering

the blood, which is more stringent than circumcision,

as it is practiced

even

on the nights of Festivals,

and therefore one should say that even its doubtful status should override the Festival!

Rabbi Abba said:

This kal va-chomer that Rabbi Yosei made from circumcision to covering the blood—

is one of the matters concerning which

emu

Rabbi Hiyya said: I have no answer to them!

That is, no refutation can be brought against them. Nevertheless,

Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Distinguished replied with an answer!

And Rabba concludes his question concerning Rav Eina:

In any event, it teaches

in Rabbi Yosei’s statement

“covering whose certainty does not override Shabbat.”

And Rabba inferred:

What does “whose certainty of covering does not override Shabbat” mean?

That is, in what situation could it be necessary to cover the blood of an animal slaughtered on Shabbat?

Is it not

a case of

one who slaughters for a sick person on Shabbat!

This proves that it is prohibited to cover the blood of a slaughter performed permissibly [for the sake of a sick person] on Shabbat, which is difficult for Rav Eina !

And we answer: Perhaps

Rabbi Yosei spoke of a case

in which one transgressed and slaughtered

on Shabbat for a healthy person. It is specifically there that he does not cover, since Shabbat was not set aside at all for this slaughter. But in the case of one who slaughters for a sick person, where Shabbat is set aside for the slaughter, one may say that it is also set aside with regard to covering, in accordance with Rav Eina .

And we reject this: It can be proved that Rabbi Yosei spoke of slaughtering for a sick person, since he derived a kal va-chomer for covering the blood from circumcision. If so, the covering must be

analogous to circumcision. Just as circumcision

whose certainty overrides Shabbat does so only

permissibly,

when it is performed in a permitted manner,

so too covering

is being discussed

permissibly,

as the slaughter was permitted. That is, it was slaughtered for the sake of a sick person. This proves that nevertheless covering does not override Shabbat, which is difficult for Rav Eina!

We learned in a beraita:

They said to him: The sounding of the shofar in the outlying areas will prove that its certainty does not override Shabbat, whereas its doubtful status overrides the Festival 19 .

And we inquire:

What is the doubtful case?

What doubtful mitzva of shofar is under discussion that it overrides the Festival?

If you say it is a doubt whether it is an ordinary weekday or a Festival,

such as the two days of Rosh HaShana, each of which is possibly Rosh HaShana and possibly not [at a time when the new month was sanctified on the basis of sighting the moon, and it was not known whether witnesses had arrived], and consequently sounding the shofar on both days is only due to a doubt, yet it overrides the Festival, this is difficult—for the sanctity of the Festival day itself is also doubtful.

Now, if a certain Festival permits

the mitzva of shofar,

is it necessary to say that a doubtful Festival or an ordinary weekday permits it,

that it should override the prohibition!? Therefore no proof can be brought from here that doubtful covering of the blood should override a certain Festival!