Chullin 87a — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

How can these be compared!?

Surely the matters are not similar! For there, with the Grace after Meals,

drinking and reciting the blessing together are impossible!

For when he recites the Grace after Meals, he cannot drink at that time, and therefore, when he decided to recite it and said, “Bring [food] so that we may recite the blessing,” he intended to stop drinking further. But

here,

with covering the blood, he does not divert his attention from slaughtering during the covering, for

it is possible

to continue slaughtering even during the covering, by

slaughtering

with one hand

and covering with one

hand.

Mishna:

If one slaughtered and did not cover the blood, and another

man

saw

the blood—

the one who saw it is obligated

the man who saw it

to cover it!

If he covered it, and it became exposed

afterward,

he is exempt from covering it

again! But if

the wind covered it

the blood, and it subsequently became exposed—

he is obligated to cover it!

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is written: “

And he poured

its blood

and he covered,”

and we expound:

The one who poured

that is, the slaughterer himself,

shall cover

the blood! And if

he slaughtered and did not cover, and another saw

the blood—

from where is it derived that he is obligated to cover? As it is said

in the section of covering the blood,

“And he says to the Children of Israel,”

which indicates

a warning to all the Children of Israel!

For the mitzva of covering the blood is imposed upon all of them, except that the obligation of the slaughterer precedes that of every other person!

Another teaching: “And he poured and he covered.”

And we expound:

With that with which he poured,

that is, with the hand with which he slaughters—

with it he shall cover!

He should not cover it with his foot!

And the reason for this

is that the mitzvot should not be contemptible to him

10. Another teaching: “And he poured and he covered.”

And we expound:

The one who poured,

that is, the slaughterer himself—

he shall cover it! An incident

occurred involving one who slaughtered, and his fellow preceded him and covered

the blood,

and Rabban Gamliel obligated him to give him

the slaughterer

ten gold coins

as compensation for the loss that he caused him by snatching the mitzva from him.

It was asked of them:

are these ten gold coins for

the payment

of the

mitzva

that he took from him,

or

for

the payment

of the

blessing that is recited over the covering, since he also took the blessing from him?

What practical difference does it make? For the Grace after Meals! How much must one who snatched the Grace after Meals from another pay?

What practical difference is there? With regard to Grace after Meals!

If one snatched Grace after Meals from his fellow, how much must he pay?

If you say

that the payment is for

the payment for a mitzva,

it is one mitzva

alone

that he took from him, and he is liable to him for only ten gold coins.

And if you say

that the payment is for

the payment for a blessing,

there are four blessings in Grace after Meals, and therefore

there are forty

gold coins.

What is it? Come and hear: A certain Sadducee said to Rabbi: The One who formed mountains did not create wind, and the One who created wind did not form mountains!

[That is, there are two authorities, Heaven forfend.]

As it is written: “For behold, He forms mountains and creates wind.”

He said to him

Rabbi to the Sadducee:

“Fool! Lower yourself,”

lower your eyes and look

“to the end of the verse,”

as it is written,

“The Lord of Hosts is His name!”

For He alone created all these.

The Sadducee said to him

to Rabbi:

“Set me a time,”

give me a period of

“three days, and I will return to you a refutation,”

and I will raise an objection to your answer.

Rabbi sat in three fasts

and prayed that they should prevail in the debate. At the end of the three days,

when he wished to eat

to restore himself with a meal after the fast,

his household said to him

Rabbi:

“The Sadducee”

to whom you set a time

“is standing at the door!”

He is standing at the entrance.

Rabbi said

to himself:

“They have placed wormwood in my food,”

for they are embittering my meal.

In the end it became clear that the one standing at the door was not the same Sadducee who had debated with him, but rather another Sadducee had come, and

he said to him: “Rabbi! I bring you good news! Your enemy has found no answer,”

the first Sadducee,

“and he fell from the roof and died!”

He said to him

Rabbi to the Sadducee:

“Do you wish to dine with me? He said to him: Yes!”

After they ate and drank, he said to him

Rabbi to the Sadducee:

“Are you drinking a cup of blessing!?”

That is, do you wish to join us and fulfill your obligation through Grace after Meals,

“or are you taking forty gold coins”

in exchange for relinquishing Grace after Meals!?

He said to him

the Sadducee:

“I am drinking a cup of blessing!”

A heavenly voice went forth and said: “A cup of blessing”—

“is worth forty gold coins!”

From here it is proven that one who snatches a blessing from his fellow must pay him ten gold coins. For Rabbi wanted to pay the Sadducee forty gold coins for Grace after Meals, because it contains four blessings.

Rabbi Yitzhak said: There still exists

[it remains]

that family

of the one who brought the news to Rabbi

among the nobles of Rome, and they call it “the family of Bar Livai.”

We learned in the Mishna:

“He covered it, and it became exposed”—

he is exempt from covering it!

Rav Aha, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi

: Why is he exempt? Is it not

different from returning a lost object

for which he is obligated to return it even if he already returned this lost object and it was lost again?

For the Master said:

It is written

“return”

with regard to returning a lost object, to teach that he is obligated

“even one hundred times!”

And if so, regarding covering too, let us interpret what is written, “and he shall cover it,” to mean that he is obligated to cover it even one hundred times if the blood became exposed after the covering!?

He said to him

Rav Ashi:

There—

with regard to returning a lost object—

no exclusion is written. Here,

with regard to covering the blood,

an exclusion is written.

For it is written

“and he shall cover it,”

and it is not written “and he shall cover”; this implies that he is obligated only for one covering, but if it became exposed, he is exempt.

We learned in the Mishna:

“The wind covered it”;

he is obligated to cover it.

Rabba bar bar Hannah said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: They taught

that he is obligated to cover it

only

when

it became exposed again

after the wind covered it.

But if it did not become exposed again,

rather it is still covered because of the wind,

he is exempt from covering it,

for now it is covered and remains covered.

And we object:

But what difference does it make if it became exposed again? It

had already

been rejected

from covering? Since when it was covered he was exempt from covering it, the blood had already been rejected from the obligation of covering, and he would no longer become obligated. As we find with offerings, that if an offering became disqualified for one moment, then even though the disqualification was subsequently removed, the offering is no longer fit for sacrifice; rather, it is rejected forever.

And we resolve it:

Rav Pappa said: This is to say—

there is no disqualification through deferral with regard to mitzvot!

For it is only with regard to sacrifices that the disqualification of deferral was stated . And therefore, if the covering that the wind covered becomes uncovered again, he must cover it again . And we raise an objection against Rabbah bar bar Ḥana, who said that as long as the blood is covered because of the wind, he is exempt from covering it:

And how is this different from that which was taught in a beraita: One who slaughters and the blood is absorbed into the ground—

is obligated to cover it!

And even if it did not become uncovered again, he covers it with the earth that covers the blood. If so, also when the wind covered it, let him cover it with earth!? And we resolve:

There

it is speaking

when its trace

of the blood is still

recognizable!

For it was not absorbed completely into the ground; therefore, he is obligated to cover over the covering. But when the wind covered it, since the blood is completely covered, he is exempt from covering it, for it is already covered .

Mishna:

a.

Blood

for which there is an obligation of covering,

that became mixed

with water, and the water is the majority [and likewise throughout the Mishna] —

if it has

in the blood mixed with the water

the appearance of blood,

the blood is not nullified in the water, and

he is obligated to cover it!

But if its appearance changed as a result of its being mixed with water, and the appearance of the blood is not recognizable, the blood is nullified in the water, and he is exempt from covering it.

b. And if

the blood became mixed

the blood

with wine,

whose color is red like the color of blood, and the appearance of the blood is not recognizable in it—

we view it,

the wine,

as though it were water!

For if the quantity of the wine is such that, had that wine been water, the appearance of blood would still be recognizable in the mixture, he is obligated to cover this mixture .