Chullin 84b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yohanan said: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

One who wishes to become wealthy –

should occupy himself with small cattle!

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 of witches,

rather than

to drink

a cup of lukewarm water,

which harms the body.

And these words

that we say that they are harmful apply specifically when they are placed

in metal vessels. But in earthenware vessels –

we have no concern!

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

—that he did not put roots of grasses and spices into the lukewarm water;

but if he places herbs in them –

we have no concern!

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

that the water did not boil at the outset;

but

if it

has boiled –

we have no concern!

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

that is, one who inherited money and does not take care with it because he did not labor for it –

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

For if he does so, he will lose his money. And Rabbi Yohanan came to teach that a person should not do this, so that he should not come to monetary loss.

And we explain:

“Let him wear linen garments” –

with Roman linen

[it is expensive linen].

“And let him use glass vessels” –

with white glass

which is expensive.

“And let him hire workers and not sit with them” –

with oxen,

for he gives oxen to the workers to plow with them,

for their losses are great,

for they cause him great losses, because they do not supervise the plowing properly and also do not supervise the oxen; and through this the oxen become lean and injured.

Rav Avira expounded: At times he said it

this following exposition

in the name of Rabbi Ami, and at times he said it in the name of Rabbi Asi:

What is the meaning of that which is written, “A good man is gracious and lends –

he orders his affairs with justice,”

its explanation is: a person must arrange his actions in household expenditures so that they accord with the measure of his ability.

That

a person should always eat and drink –

less than what he has!

That is, he should spend for his sustenance less than his ability.

And let him dress and cover himself –

with what he has!

According to his ability, so that he should not be despised in the eyes of people.

And let him honor his wife

and his children –

more than what he has!

For he should even borrow money for their sustenance and clothing, according to

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

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

the purpose of a

sick person

who is in danger and needs to eat meat

on Shabbat is obligated to cover

the blood, even though there is desecration of Shabbat in this. Since Shabbat is overridden for the purpose of this slaughter, it is also overridden for the purpose of all the mitzvot that apply to that slaughter, such as covering the blood .

Rabbah said to them: “Astonishment,

a thing of astonishment

he is saying!

Let them remove his interpreter from him

—let them cut out his tongue!

[Another explanation: They should take from before him the amora who stands before him and makes known to the public what he expounds—in order to shame him!].

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei says: A koy—one may not slaughter it on a Festival,

since, because on a Festival one does not cover its blood, one should not slaughter it and nullify the mitzva of covering.

And if he slaughtered it –

one does not cover its blood

today! For one does not desecrate the Festival for the purpose of the mitzva of covering the blood of a koy, which is only doubtful .

And this matter is learned

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

[where the mitzva is certain]

overrides Shabbat, its doubt

of 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 should occur on Shabbat, even when it is certain, it does not override Shabbat,

is it not the law that its doubt,

such as covering the blood of a koy,

does not override the Festival!

They said to him

to Rabbi Yosei:

The sounding of the shofar

on Rosh Hashanah

in the provinces,

in every place [apart from the Temple, where they sound even on Shabbat]

will prove –

that its certainty does not override Shabbat.

For if Rosh Hashanah falls on Shabbat, they do not sound the shofar in the provinces, even though the mitzva is certain,

and its doubt overrides the Festival!

For even one who is obligated to sound the shofar only doubtfully is permitted to sound it on Rosh Hashanah, despite the prohibition of sounding on the Festival [when it is not for the purpose of a mitzva].

Thus we find that a doubtful mitzva overrides the Festival even though the certainty of that mitzva does not override Shabbat; if so, even doubtful covering of the blood should override the Festival. Why, then, do they not cover the blood of a koy on the Festival?

Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Great

[an honorific for a great person]

gave an answer

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

What is the case with circumcision,

for it is logical that its doubt does not override the Festival, since it has a leniency,

for it is not practiced on the nights of Festivals,

since circumcision is not performed at night.

Can you say the same concerning covering

the blood, which is more stringent than it,

which is practiced

even

on the nights of Festivals,

and therefore it should be said that even its doubt 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 things that he said

about which

Rabbi Hiyya said: “I have no answer to them!”

That is, they have no refutation; nevertheless,

Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Great gave an answer!

And Rabbah concludes his question concerning Rav Eina:

In any event, it teaches

in Rabbi Yosei’s words

“covering whose certainty does not override Shabbat.”

And Rabbah inferred:

What is “the certainty of covering does not override Shabbat”?

That is, in what manner is it possible that he would need to cover the blood of slaughtering on Shabbat?

Is it not

in the circumstance of

one who slaughters for a sick person on Shabbat!

And it is proved that it is prohibited to cover the blood of slaughtering that is performed permissibly [for the sake of a sick person] on Shabbat, and this is difficult for Rav Eina!?

And we answer: Perhaps

Rabbi Yosei spoke in a case

where he transgressed and slaughtered

on Shabbat for a healthy person. Only there does he not cover, since Shabbat was not overridden at all for this slaughter. But one who slaughters for a sick person, for whom Shabbat is overridden for the slaughter, may be said to have Shabbat overridden also with regard to the covering, in accordance with Rav Eina .

And we reject: It must be proved that Rabbi Yosei spoke of one who slaughtered for a sick person, for he learned a kal va-chomer for covering the blood from circumcision; if so, one must say that the covering is

similar to circumcision. Just as circumcision,

whose certainty overrides Shabbat, only

with permission,

when it is performed permissibly,

so too covering

is spoken of

with permission,

when the slaughtering was permissible. That is, when he slaughtered for a sick person; and it is proved that nevertheless the covering does not override Shabbat, and this is difficult for Rav Eina!

We learned in a beraita:

They said to him: The sounding of the shofar in the provinces will prove that its certainty does not override Shabbat, while its doubt overrides the Festival 19 .

And we inquire about it:

What is its doubt?

With regard to what doubtful mitzva of shofar is it speaking, which overrides the Festival?

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

as, for example, on the two days of Rosh Hashanah, when each of them is doubtful whether it is Rosh Hashanah or not [at the time when they sanctified the month according to the sighting of the moon and did not know whether witnesses had arrived], and it follows that the sounding of the shofar on both days is only because of doubt, and nevertheless overrides the Festival, then there is a difficulty—for the sanctity of the Festival itself is also doubtful. And

now, if a certain Festival is overridden

by the mitzva of shofar,

is it necessary to ask whether a doubtful Festival, a doubtful ordinary weekday,

should be overridden!? And one cannot prove from here that doubtful covering of the blood should override a certain Festival!?