Chullin 87a (פז.) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

How can these cases be compared?!

The matters are not similar! For there, with regard to Grace after Meals,

drinking and reciting the blessing cannot be done simultaneously!

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

here,

with regard to covering the blood, he does not divert his attention from slaughtering while covering, since

it is possible

to continue slaughtering even while 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 man who saw it is obligated

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

and it subsequently became exposed—he is

obligated to cover it!

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is written: “

And he shall pour

its blood

and cover it,”

and we derive:

The one who poured it,

that is, the slaughterer himself,

shall cover

the blood. And if

he slaughtered and did not cover, and another saw

the blood—

from where do we know that he is obligated to cover? It is stated

in the passage concerning covering the blood,

“And he shall say to the children of Israel,”

which indicates

a warning to all the children of Israel!

The mitzva of covering the blood is incumbent upon all of them, except that the obligation of the slaughterer takes precedence over that of every other person!

Another teaching: “And he shall pour and cover.”

And we derive:

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 so that mitzvot will not be contemptible to him.

10. Another teaching: “And he shall pour and cover.”

And we derive:

The one who poured it,

that is, the slaughterer himself—

he shall cover it! An incident

involving a man 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 he caused him by seizing the mitzva from him.

It was asked of them:

Are these ten gold coins for

the wage

of the

mitzva

that he took from him,

or

for

the wage

of the

blessing

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

What practical difference is there? In the case of Grace after Meals!

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

If you say

that the payment is for

the wage of the mitzva,

then there is only one mitzva

that he took from him,

and he owes him only ten gold coins.

But if you say

that the payment is for

the wage of the blessing,

then Grace after Meals contains four blessings, and therefore

it would be forty

gold coins.

What is the answer? Come and hear: A certain Sadducee said to Rabbi: He who formed the mountains did not create the wind, and he who created the wind did not form the mountains! [

meaning, Heaven forbid, there are two authorities]

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

at the end of the verse,

as it is written:

“The Lord of Hosts is His name!”

For He alone created all these things.

The Sadducee said

to Rabbi:

Give me a time,

give me

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

and challenge your answer.

Rabbi observed three fasts

and prayed that he would prevail in the debate. At the end of the three days,

when he wished to eat

a meal to restore himself after the fast,

his household said

to Rabbi:

The Sadducee

to whom you set a time

is standing at the door,

standing at the entrance.

He said

Rabbi to himself:

“They give gall for my food,”

making my meal bitter.

In the end, it became clear that the person standing at the entrance was not the same Sadducee who had debated with him; rather, another Sadducee had come, and

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

the first Sadducee,

and he fell from the roof and died!

He said to him

Rabbi to the Sadducee:

Would you like 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 the 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 the cup of blessing!

A Divine voice emerged and said: A cup of blessing—

is worth forty gold coins!

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

Rabbi Yitzhak said: It 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 Bar Livianus family.”

We learned in the Mishna:

If one covered it, and it became uncovered—

he is exempt from covering it!

Rav Aha, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi:

Why is he exempt? Is it

different from returning a lost item

which one must return even if he had already returned this lost item and it was lost again?

For the Master said:

It is stated

“return”

with regard to returning a lost item, to teach that one is obligated to do so

even one hundred times!

If so, with regard to covering as well, let us interpret what is written, “and he shall cover it,” to mean that one is obligated to cover it even one hundred times if the blood became uncovered after the covering!?

He said to him

Rav Ashi:

There,

with regard to returning a lost item,

no exclusion is written. Here,

with regard to covering the blood,

an exclusion is written.

As it is written,

“and he shall cover it,”

but it is not written “and he shall cover”; this indicates that he is obligated to perform only one covering, but if it becomes uncovered he is exempt.

We learned in the Mishna:

If the wind covered it,

he is obligated to cover it.

Rabba bar bar Hanna said that Rabbi Yohanan said: They taught

that he is obligated to cover it

only

when

it became uncovered again

after the wind had covered it.

But if it did not become uncovered again

and it remains covered by the wind,

he is exempt from covering it,

for it is presently covered and remains so.

And we challenge this:

What difference does it make if it became uncovered again? It has

already

been rejected

from the obligation of covering. Since, at the time it was covered, he was exempt from covering it, the blood was already rejected from the obligation of covering, and he should not become obligated again. We find this with regard to offerings: If an offering became disqualified for even one moment, then even if the disqualification is subsequently removed, the offering is no longer fit to be offered; rather, it remains rejected forever.

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: This indicates—

there is no disqualification through rejection with regard to mitzvot!

The principle of rejection applies only to offerings. Therefore, if the covering that the wind covered becomes exposed again, one must cover it again. And we raise an objection to Rabba bar bar Ḥana, who said that as long as the blood is covered by the wind, one is exempt from covering it:

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

he is obligated to cover it!

Even if it does not become exposed again, he covers it with the earth that covers the blood. If so, in the case where the wind covered it as well, he should cover it with earth! And we answer:

There

it is speaking

when its trace

of blood is still

recognizable!

It was not absorbed completely into the ground. Therefore, he is obligated to place a covering over the existing covering. But when the wind covered it, the blood is completely covered, and he is exempt from covering it, since it is already covered.

Mishna: a. Blood that is subject to the mitzva of covering that became mixed with water, with the water constituting the majority [and likewise throughout the Mishna] — if it contains in the blood mixed with the water the appearance of blood, the blood is not nullified by the water, and one is obligated to cover it! But if its appearance changed as a result of its being mixed with water, and the appearance of blood is no longer discernible, the blood is nullified by the water and one is exempt from covering it.

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

b. And if

the blood became mixed

with wine,

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

we regard it

the wine

as though it were water!

If the quantity of wine is such that, had that wine been water, the appearance of blood would still have been discernible in the mixture,

one is obligated to cover this mixture.

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 .