Chullin 87b — the Talmud in English

c.

Was mixed

the blood that is obligated in covering

with the blood of a domesticated animal,

which is exempt from covering,

or with the blood of a wild animal

that came from it while it was alive and not at the time of slaughter , which is not obligated in covering—

we regard it

the blood of the domesticated animal or the wild animal

as though it were water,

and estimate whether the appearance of blood would be discernible in such a quantity of water.

Rabbi Judah says:

a type mixed with its own type is not nullified! Therefore

no blood nullifies blood!

And even if a drop of blood obligated in covering became mixed into a large quantity of blood not obligated in covering, all the mixed blood is obligated in covering.

d.

Blood that spatters

far away,

and

blood

that is upon the knife

of slaughter

is obligated in covering 31.

Rabbi Judah said: When

is one obligated to cover the blood that spattered and the blood on the knife?

When there is no blood

other

than it

alone.

But

if

there is blood there that is not it,

that there is other blood there with which he can fulfill the mitzva of covering—

he is exempt from covering

the blood that spattered and the blood on the knife! For there is no obligation to cover all the blood; rather, once he covered part of the blood, he has fulfilled his obligation.

Gemara:

We learned there

in tractate Zevachim [73b]:

Blood

of an offering designated to be sprinkled upon the altar

that became mixed with water—

if there is in it

in the blood mixed with the water

the appearance of blood,

it is

fit

for sprinkling.

And if

it became mixed

the blood

with wine—

we regard it,

the wine,

as though it were water.

And if

it became mixed

the blood of the offering

with the blood of a domesticated animal

of non-sacred status,

or with the blood of the wild animal

that is not offered upon the altar—

we regard it,

the blood of the domesticated animal or the wild animal,

as though it were water!

Rabbi Judah says:

In a mixture of the blood of an offering with the blood of a non-sacred animal, even if the blood of the offering is exceedingly small, it is not nullified. For

no blood nullifies blood,

and the mixed blood is fit for sprinkling.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: They taught only

in the Mishna in tractate Zevachim that a mixture of water and blood is fit for sprinkling even if the majority is water [as long as the mixture has the appearance of blood], but only in a case

where water fell into blood,

so that each drop and drop of water that falls into the blood is nullified in the blood . Therefore, as long as the water has not increased to the point that the appearance of blood is nullified from the mixture, it is fit for sprinkling.

But

if

blood fell into water [and the falling of the blood into the water did not occur all at once, but in a thin stream], we say—

мы говорим:

the first is nullified first!

For each and every drop of the first drops, immediately when it falls into the water, before it has the measure sufficient to give the water the appearance of blood, is nullified in the majority of the water. Therefore, even when the later drops subsequently join it, and together with the first drops give the water the appearance of blood, the first drops do not return and awaken in order to join the later drops and become fit for sprinkling. Since they were once rejected from offering, when there was no appearance of blood in the water, they are no longer fit for sprinkling ever .

Rav Pappa said: And concerning

the mitzva of

covering

the blood—

it is not so!

Rather, even if blood obligated in covering fell into water, we do not say that the first is nullified first. Rather, the first drops, which initially fell into the water and were nullified, return and awaken after the additional blood joins them and together they give the water the appearance of blood, and from now on they are obligated in covering. For

there is no rejection with regard to mitzvot!

For only concerning sacred offerings do we say that once they were rejected once, they are rejected forever .

Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel:

The blood of sacred offerings that is mixed with water—

all

the time that there is in the mixture

a reddish appearance—

provides atonement.

For the mixture is fit for sprinkling upon the altar and for providing atonement.

And renders fit,

for if non-sacred blood was mixed with water, it renders food fit to receive impurity. [For the law is that no food receives impurity unless it was first made fit to receive impurity. Its making fit is through moistening the food once with water or other liquids, from which point it is “made fit” to receive impurity. And even if afterward the water dried from it].

[And below the Gemara asks why the appearance of blood in the water is needed concerning making fit to receive impurity, for even water by itself renders fit]?

And are obligated in covering,

as long as there is a reddish appearance.

And we raised it:

What does he teach us

Rabbi Judah?

If he wishes to teach us that through its sprinkling it

“provides atonement,”

this has already been

taught

in the Mishna in Zevachim, that as long as there is the appearance of blood, it is fit for sprinkling.

And if he wishes to teach us that they are

“obligated in covering,”

this has already been

taught

in our Mishna!?

And we answer:

“And renders fit” was necessary for him

to teach us that even concerning making fit, everything depends on the appearance of blood. We did not find this law in the Mishna.

And we object:

“And renders fit” also

there is no need to teach us, for even if it does not have a reddish appearance, it renders food fit to receive impurity. For

if it is blood,

this mixture

does render fit,

and

if it is water,

it also

renders fit,

for water too has the power to render food fit?

And we answer:

It is necessary

rather in a case

where he measured it.

That is, he mixed the blood

with rainwater

that does not render food fit. For water [and all liquids] has the power to render fit only if importance was first given to it by a person’s intention to use this water for some purpose. But rainwater, for which no person expressed a need, does not render fit. And when it became mixed with blood [which a person needed], only the blood has the power to render fit; therefore specifically when there is a reddish appearance in the mixture of rainwater, the blood in the mixture renders food fit .

And we object:

This rainwater

also

also

renders fit by itself. For

since he took it and placed it,

having taken it and placed it into the vessel in which the blood was found—

he assigned it importance!

It became important through this, and the question again arises: why is it necessary that the water have the reddish appearance of blood!?

And we answer:

It is necessary,

rather

that they were measured by themselves!

The rainwater became mixed with the blood on its own, without a person making any use of it so that it would become important.

Rabbi Asi of Naharbail says:

This statement of Rav Judah in the name of Shmuel, that anything having a reddish appearance has the status of blood, does not deal with blood mixed with water, but rather

with the watery blood-substance!

With the water that separates from the blood. When the blood coagulates, its thin part separates from it, which is clear like water. And that water, called the watery blood-substance, if it has a reddish appearance, has the status of blood concerning all the laws above. [But if it does not have a reddish appearance, it is of no benefit even concerning making fit, since it is neither blood nor water.]

Rav Yirmeya of Difti said:

One who eats from the watery blood-substance is

liable to karet

like anyone who eats blood.

And this—

when there is an olive-volume

of actual blood mixed into the watery blood-substance [and even if there is a reddish appearance in the watery blood-substance, one is not liable to karet for it by itself, for liability to karet applies only to actual blood].

In a teaching it was taught:

The watery blood-substance of blood from a corpse

conveys impurity through a tent,

as long as it has a reddish appearance.

And this—

when there is a quarter-log

of actual blood mixed within it, for this is the measure of blood that conveys impurity through a tent [for also concerning impurity through a tent, the watery blood-substance itself does not convey impurity, but actual blood].

We learned there

[in the Tosefta]:

Every liquid

that emerges from

the corpse,

such as the tear of its eye, and a woman’s milk—

is pure!

Except for its blood.

And every reddish appearance in it,

that is, the shade of the blood of the blood of the dead; as long as there is an appearance of blood in them, they are

imparting impurity under a tent.

And we raised it as a difficulty:

But

are

the liquids of the dead pure?

And they raised an objection:

we learned in the Mishna:

A liquid

that issues from a person who is

a tevul yom—

its status is

like the liquids that he touches,

as he goes on to explain.