Chullin 85a — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

Rather,

the doubt concerning the mitzva of sounding the shofar that overrides a Festival is in a case in which the listener is

a doubtfully male person or a doubtfully female person

[who is exempt from the mitzva of shofar], for even he is permitted to sound it, and even on a definite Festival, and although the mitzva in which he is obligated is only a matter of doubt.

And once it has become clear what the question was that they raised against Rabbi Yose from the doubt concerning the sounding of the shofar, it may be said that Rabbi Yose does not concern himself with this refutation, because

Rabbi Yose follows his own reasoning—

for he said: A definite woman may also sound it!

She is permitted to sound it on Rosh HaShanah even though she is certainly exempt from sounding the shofar; all the more so, one concerning whom it is uncertain whether he is obligated in shofar is permitted to sound it, and this is not because the doubtful mitzva overrides the Festival. And one cannot prove from this concerning covering the blood, for it is forbidden to cover on a Festival the blood of one who is certainly exempt from covering, such as the blood of an animal. If so, it may be said that also the kוי, since it is uncertain whether it is obligated in covering, its covering does not override the Festival.

For it was taught:

And we find that this is Rabbi Yose’s view at the beginning of the section in which the obligation of placing the hands on the offering is explained. It says, “Speak to the Children of Israel.” And we expound:

The Children of Israel place their hands

on the offerings,

but the daughters of Israel do not place their hands!

For a woman who brought an offering does not place her hands upon it.

Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon say: Women,

even though they are exempt from placing the hands, nevertheless

place their hands—

as a voluntary act!

For if they wish to place their hands on the offering, they have permission to place their hands, and we do not say that since they are exempt, they are performing service with consecrated offerings through their placing of the hands. And the same is true that according to Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon, women are permitted to sound the shofar even though sounding it without need is forbidden on a Festival.

Ravina said:

Even

according to what the Rabbis say

that a woman is forbidden to sound the shofar on Rosh HaShanah,

there is also a refutation

of this answer that they gave Rabbi Yose concerning his kal va-chomer—that the sounding of the shofar by one who is doubtfully male or doubtfully female proves that it is permitted on a Festival, and necessarily the doubtful mitzva overrides the Festival—for it is possible to refute the proof:

What is true of sounding the shofar,

whose doubtful case overrides the Festival,

for its definite case overrides Shabbat in the Temple!

For in the Temple they sound the shofar on Rosh HaShanah even when it is Shabbat; therefore its doubtful case overrides the Festival, even outside the Temple.

Can you say the same concerning covering—

which does not exist at all!

For nowhere does its definite case override Shabbat, and therefore it may be said that its doubtful case does not override the Festival.

We learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Distinguished replied: What is true of circumcision, for it is not practiced on the nights of Festivals!

And we ask: Is it only

on the nights of Festivals that it is not

practiced, but

on other nights it is practiced!?

But circumcision is not performed on any of the nights.

And we answer:

Rather,

this is what he is saying:

What is true of circumcision, for it is not practiced at night as it is during the day; can you say the same concerning covering, which is practiced at night as it is during the day. Rabbi Abba said: This is one of the matters concerning which Rabbi Hiyya said: I have no answer for them! And Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Distinguished supplied an answer.

Mishna:

a.

One who slaughters

a wild animal or bird,

and it is found to be tereifa 4 .

And one who slaughters for

the sake of

idolatry,

and one who slaughters non-sacred animals inside,

in the Temple courtyard,

and consecrated offerings,

the bird offerings,

outside

the Temple courtyard.

Or he slaughtered

a wild animal or bird liable to stoning,

such as one that killed a person or one with which bestiality was performed, and their judgment was completed that they should be stoned, and he slaughtered them before the stoning.

For all these are forbidden for eating even after their slaughter.

Rabbi Meir obligates

one to cover their blood,

but the Sages exempt!

Because it is “an unfit slaughter,” that is, it does not permit the meat for eating, and therefore it does not have the status of “slaughter,” and they are exempt from covering the blood.

b.

One who slaughters and it became an unslaughtered carcass in his hand,

because the slaughter was invalidated without the intention of the slaughterer, or

one who killed the animal by piercing it,

who killed the animal,

or one who tore out

the organs in the neck of the animal intentionally, and killed it,

is exempt from covering,

even according to Rabbi Meir, because there is no slaughter here at all.

Gemara:

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Rabbi saw

[when arranging the Mishna]

the words of Rabbi Meir in “that one and its offspring,”

for in the previous chapter as well Rabbi Meir and the Sages disagreed in the Mishna concerning the law of an unfit slaughter, whether it is considered slaughtering with regard to the prohibition of “that one and its offspring”; and since Rabbi found Rabbi Meir’s words convincing concerning the law of one who slaughters “that one and its offspring,” that he should be liable for lashes even for an unfit slaughter, therefore

he taught it,

the view of Rabbi Meir,

in the language “the Sages,”

for there it wrote in the Mishna, “And the Sages obligate,” and this means Rabbi Meir.

And

the words of

Rabbi Shimon,

who disagrees with Rabbi Meir concerning this law and holds that an unfit slaughter is not called slaughtering, appeared convincing to Rabbi

concerning covering the blood, where he taught

the view of Rabbi Shimon in our Mishna

in the language “the Sages,”

for our Mishna says, “And the Sages exempt” from covering the blood in an unfit slaughter [and below it will be explained why Rabbi found the words of one convincing here and those of the other here].

And we inquire:

What is the reason of Rabbi Meir concerning “that one and its offspring”?

And we answer:

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: He derived

a gzera shava,

“slaughtering”—

“slaughtering,” “that one and its offspring”

from slaughtering outside,

from consecrated offerings that were slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard [for in both of them the expression “slaughtering” is written].

Just as there,

in slaughtering outside,

an unfit slaughter is called slaughtering,

for every slaughter of consecrated offerings outside is an unfit slaughter, since the consecrated offerings are forbidden for eating after being slaughtered outside, and nevertheless their slaughter is considered slaughtering, since the Torah imposed excision for this slaughter,

so here too,

in “that one and its offspring,”

also—

an unfit slaughter is called slaughtering!

And we inquire:

And Rabbi Shimon,

who said concerning “that one and its offspring” that an unfit slaughter is not called slaughtering,

what is his reason?

And we answer:

Rabbi Mani bar Patish said: He derived

from what is stated concerning Joseph, who said to the one in charge of his house to bring his brothers home, “and

slaughter an animal, slaughter it, and prepare it,”

6 . Just as there,

the slaughtering was

slaughtering

that was

fit

for eating, for it is written, “for the men shall eat with me,”

so here,

in “that one and its offspring,” the slaughtering mentioned there is specifically

fit slaughtering 7 .

And we inquire:

And Rabbi Meir too—

should he derive from “

slaughter

an animal, slaughter it”!? And we answer: Rabbi Meir holds:

We derive “slaughtering” from “slaughtering,” but we do not derive “slaughtering” from “killing by slaughter.” 8 .

And we object:

What practical difference is there?

That is, even if the words are not actually similar, nevertheless one may derive a gzera shava, since their meanings are equal!? For

the school of Rabbi Ishmael taught:

It is written concerning the afflictions of houses

“And the priest shall return,”

and elsewhere in the same section it is written

“And the priest shall come,”

and we derive one gzera shava from the other, because

this “returning” is that “coming”!

That is, “returning” and “coming” are one matter, and one may derive one from the other by a gzera shava even though they are two different words; so why did Rabbi Meir not derive “slaughtering” from “killing by slaughter”?

And we answer:

These words:

that they derive a gzera shava even through words that are not entirely similar —

where there is no [word] similar to it!

That there is no possibility of deriving the gzera shava between two words that are similar to one another.

But

if

there is [a word] similar to it —

from the one similar to it we derive!

For one must prefer the gzera shava that is between two words that are truly similar to one another over a gzera shava between two words that are not entirely similar.

And we raise an objection against it:

And Rabbi Shimon, too, should derive “

the same one and its offspring”

from slaughtering outside [the Temple],

and why did he prefer to derive it from “slaughter, slaughter”?

And we explain: Rabbi Shimon held:

One derives “

the same one and its offspring” from “slaughter, slaughter,” because they are

non-sacred from non-sacred,

for both of them concern non-sacred matters.

But one does not derive “

the same one and its offspring” from slaughtering outside [the Temple], because they are

non-sacred from sacred.

For the law of slaughtering outside [the Temple] applies only to sacred [animals].

And Rabbi Meir,

who derived “the same one and its offspring” from slaughtering outside [the Temple], held that this is not considered a derivation of “non-sacred from sacred,” because

is it so that the prohibition of

“

the same one and its

offspring” applies only to non-sacred [animals], and

in sacred [animals], does it not apply as well!?

And we conclude:

This is what Rabbi Hiyya said: Rabbi regarded Rabbi Meir’s words concerning “the same one and its offspring” and recited them in the language of the Sages,

for because this claim of Rabbi Meir was correct, Rabbi regarded his words favorably and established them in the language of “the Sages.”

We raise another objection against it:

What is Rabbi Meir’s reason concerning covering the blood?

And we answer:

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: He derived

a gzera shava

“pouring” —

“pouring,”

covering the blood

from slaughtering outside [the Temple]!

[For in both of them the expression “pouring” is stated.]

Just as there

in slaughtering outside [the Temple],

an invalid slaughter is called slaughter, so too here,

in covering the blood —

an invalid slaughter is called slaughter!

And Rabbi Shimon,

who said that an invalid slaughter is not called slaughter with regard to covering the blood, [held that] his reason is that concerning covering the blood

“which may be eaten” is written,

and its meaning is specifically a slaughter that permits [the animal] to be eaten.

And Rabbi Meir

will say to you:

That

verse, “which may be eaten” —

it came to exclude an impure bird,

which is not subject to covering

at all!

Since it is not fit for eating in any respect. But a pure bird, which is fit for eating, was not excluded by “which may be eaten,” even in a case where the slaughter is invalid.

And Rabbi Shimon

held:

What is the reason that an impure bird

was excluded by “which may be eaten”? Because

it is not fit for eating.

If so, the slaughter of

a tereifa

[and likewise every invalid slaughter]

also

must be excluded, for the tereifa

is not fit for eating!

And we conclude:

And this is what Rabbi Hiyya said: Rabbi regarded Rabbi Shimon’s words concerning covering the blood and recited them in the language of the Sages,

for this claim of Rabbi Shimon was correct, and therefore Rabbi regarded his words favorably.