Chullin 86b (פו:) — the Talmud in English

Add the minority

that do not handle the dough

to the presumption,

since both the presumption and the minority render the dough pure

and the majority is thereby weakened!

For the majority that “most infants handle [the dough]” is not powerful enough to render the dough impure .

Thus, Rabbi Meir held: “Add the minority to the presumption.” If so, why did Rabbi Ami need to say that the reason for Rabbi Meir’s ruling is that most of their actions are defective? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Meir’s reason for declaring the dough pure is not that “adding the minority to the presumption” establishes the action as certainly having occurred or not occurred. Rather, Rabbi Meir holds that when there are two sides—on the one hand, a majority, and on the other hand, a minority and a presumption—the matter is an equal doubt. Therefore, one must distinguish between a doubt concerning the dough, which is a doubt of ritual impurity, and a doubt concerning slaughter, which is a doubt concerning a prohibition.

For if they said that a doubt of impurity is treated leniently, would they say that a doubt concerning a prohibition is permitted!?

That is, the dough is to be declared pure because the infant regarding whom we are uncertain whether he touched the dough is a “matter concerning which there is no awareness to ask,” and they learned from the sota that in the case of anything concerning which there is no awareness to ask, its doubt is pure . By contrast, in the case of the slaughter performed by a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, if we were to say that Rabbi Meir holds that most of their actions are proper, their slaughter would be doubtful as to whether it is valid—even though there is a minority whose actions are not proper, together with the presumption that the slaughter is prohibited and therefore invalid. Consequently, with regard to “that animal and its offspring,” it would be prohibited to slaughter after the deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor, since one must be stringent in every case of a doubt concerning a prohibition. And since it is evident that Rabbi Meir permits slaughtering after them, Rabbi Ami inferred from this that Rabbi Meir holds that most of their actions are defective, and therefore their slaughter is considered certainly invalid .

Rabbi ruled in accordance with Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi ruled

on another occasion

in accordance with the Rabbis,

in their dispute in our Mishna.

The Gemara asks:

Which of them was the later ruling?

Which of the two rulings did Rabbi issue last, thereby retracting his first ruling, so that we may rely upon it in practice?

Come and hear: Rabbi Elazar sent [a message] to the Diaspora: “Rabbi ruled in accordance with Rabbi Meir!”

from the house of study

He found

Rabbi Ami Rabbi Abba and Rabbi Zeira standing at the entrance.

He said to them

Rabbi Ami:

“Did I not tell you: During the time of study in the house of study, do not stand outside!

I already told you not to stand outside during the time of study in the house of study,

lest there be someone who needs a matter of halakha,

lest a person come to ask something in the house of study,

and they become distracted!”

For it is possible that the Sages in the house of study will not have a clear answer and will be distracted from their study in order to answer his question, whereas if you had been there, you could have answered him on the basis of the tradition you possess.

Rabbi Zeira entered

the house of study,

but Rabbi Abba did not enter!

They were

sitting

the Sages in the house of study

and were asking: Which of them

did Rabbi state

last?

Rabbi Zeira said to them: “You did not leave me [the opportunity] to ask the elder.”

When I was standing outside with Rabbi Abba, I did not know that you were discussing this question inside; had I known, I would have asked Rabbi Abba

perhaps he heard it from his father

who was Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba,

and his father from Rabbi Yohanan! For Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba

who, as stated, was Rabbi Abba’s father, was frequently in the presence of Rabbi Yohanan, and

every thirty days

he would

review his learning

review his learning

before Rabbi Yohanan,

and perhaps he heard an answer to this question from Rabbi Yohanan.

What was concluded

concerning this question—which ruling did Rabbi issue last?

Come and hear: Rabbi Elazar sent to the Diaspora: “Rabbi ruled in accordance with Rabbi Meir!”

This is apparently difficult:

But

Rabbi

also ruled in accordance with the Rabbis,

so why did he not inform them of this ruling as well?

Rather, is it not to be inferred from this that the statement

“he ruled in accordance with Rabbi Meir”

was the later one!

And it is this ruling upon which one should rely in practice; therefore, he did not inform them of the other ruling.

And we conclude:

We may infer from this!

Mishna:

If one slaughtered one hundred wild animals in one place,

he need not perform the covering after each slaughter; rather,

one covering suffices for all of them!

When he finishes slaughtering all the wild animals, he covers them all at once .

Similarly, if one slaughtered

one hundred birds in one place—

one covering suffices for all of them!

And even if one slaughtered

a wild animal and a bird in one place—

one covering suffices for all of them!

Rabbi Yehuda

disagrees with the first tanna concerning the last case and

says:

If he

slaughtered a wild animal

and a bird in one place, he should not wait until he has finished slaughtering both; rather,

he should cover it

the blood of the wild animal first,

and afterward slaughter the bird

and cover its blood .

Gemara:

The Sages taught: “Wild animal”

as written in the Torah in the passage concerning the covering of the blood

includes “

wild animal”

both many and few!

That is, whether one slaughtered many wild animals or only one wild animal.

And similarly,

“bird,”

as written concerning the covering of the blood,

includes “

bird”

both many and few!

From here they said: If one slaughtered one hundred wild animals in one place—

one covering suffices for all of them!

If one slaughtered

one hundred birds in one place—

one covering suffices for all of them!

If one slaughtered

a wild animal and a bird in one place—

one covering suffices for all of them!

Rabbi Yehuda says: If one slaughtered a wild animal—

he should cover it

first,

and afterward slaughter the bird. As it is stated: “Whether wild animal or bird,”

since Scripture interrupted between them with the word “or,” we learn that each one requires a covering of its own.

They said to him

the Rabbis to Rabbi Yehuda:

But it says: “For the soul of every flesh—its blood is in its soul”!?

The Gemara asks:

What were they replying to him

the Rabbis to Rabbi Yehuda? How can this verse establish whether one covering suffices for all of them or whether each one requires a covering of its own?

We explain:

This is what the Rabbis said to him: This “or”

which is written between “wild animal” and “bird” does not come to teach that each one requires a covering of its own, as you say. Rather,

it is needed—

to divide!

Had “or” not been written, I would say that one is obligated in covering only if he slaughtered both a wild animal and a bird. Therefore, it says “wild animal or bird,” to teach that even if he slaughtered only one of them, he is obligated in covering. But in any event, if he slaughtered both, one covering suffices for all of them!

And Rabbi Yehuda

replied to the Rabbis:

The division

between a wild animal and a bird is learned from the verse “When anyone hunts an animal, whether wild animal or bird …

and spills its

blood

and covers it with earth.”

It is derived

from there! Since “its blood” is stated in the singular, this implies that whether it is a wild animal or a bird, each one separately requires covering. Necessarily, then, the “or” stated between wild animal and bird teaches that there is not one covering for all of them; rather, each one requires a covering of its own.

And the Rabbis

replied to Rabbi Yehuda: One cannot learn division from “its blood.” For

“its blood”

can include many!

The expression “its blood” can refer to many bloods, as

it is written: “For the soul of every flesh—its blood is in its soul,”

where the Torah uses the expression “its blood” concerning the many bloods of “every flesh.” If so, I could still say that one is obligated in covering their blood only if he slaughtered both a wild animal and a bird. Therefore, the Torah wrote “or” to divide, teaching that if he slaughtered either one of them, it requires covering. But one cannot learn from “or” that if he slaughtered both, each one requires a covering of its own; rather, one may say that one covering suffices for all of them.

Rabbi Hanina said: Rabbi Yehuda agreed

that although he interrupts with the act of covering the blood between slaughtering the wild animal and slaughtering the bird, nevertheless,

with regard to the blessing

recited over slaughtering ,

he recites only one blessing!

The blessing he recited initially over slaughtering the wild animal also applies to slaughtering the bird, and he need not recite another blessing over it. This is because the covering between the wild animal and the bird is not considered an interruption .

Ravina said to Rav Aḥa, son of Rava. And some say:

he said to him,

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: What is different about

this case from

the case involving Rav’s disciples? Rav Bruna and Rav Ḥananel, Rav’s disciples, were sitting at a meal. Rav Yeiva the Elder stood over them

and served them during the meal.

They said to him—

Rav’s disciples said to Rav Yeiva the Elder:

Give

us a cup of wine

to recite the blessing!

for the cup of blessing for Birkat Hamazon. And afterward they reconsidered their decision.

They went back and said to him—

Give

us a cup of wine

to drink,

so that we may drink from it!

Rav Yeiva the Elder said to them: Rav said as follows: Once one says, “Give us [wine] to recite the blessing,”

anyone who says this has revealed his intention that he has concluded his meal, and

he is prohibited from drinking wine

until he first recites a blessing over the wine, [“Who creates the fruit of the vine] because this drinking does not join the original meal! Therefore, Ravina wondered: Just as saying, “Give us [wine] to recite the blessing,” is considered an interruption and the conclusion of the meal,

here too, once he has become occupied with the covering

of the wild animal, the covering is considered an interruption and a diversion of attention from the previous slaughter, and when he subsequently comes to slaughter the bird—

he becomes obligated to recite a blessing

over its slaughtering!?