Beitzah — Daf 8b

והא מדקתני סיפא ואם שחטו אין מכסין את דמו מכלל (דרישא) בדאית ליה עסקינן

אלא אמר רבה אפר כירה מוכן לודאי ואין מוכן לספק

לספק מאי טעמא לא דקא עביד גומא ודאי נמי קא עביד גומא אלא כדר' אבא הכא נמי כדר' אבא

אלא ספק מאי טעמא דלמא עביד כתישה ודאי נמי נגזור משום כתישה ודאי כי קא עביד כתישה אתי עשה ודחי את לא תעשה

אימר דאמרינן אתי עשה ודחי את לא תעשה כגון מילה בצרעת א"נ סדין בציצית

דבעידנא דקא מעקר לאו קא מוקים לעשה הכא בעידנא דקא מעקר לאו לא מוקים עשה הא לא קשיא דבהדי דכתיש קא מכסי

סוף סוף יום טוב עשה ולא תעשה הוא ואין עשה דוחה את לא תעשה ועשה

אלא אמר רבא אפר כירה דעתו לודאי ואין דעתו לספק

ואזדא רבא לטעמיה דאמר רבא הכניס עפר לכסות בו צואה מותר לכסות בו דם צפור דם צפור אסור לכסות בו צואה

נהרבלאי אמרי אפילו הכניס עפר לכסות בו דם צפור מותר לכסות בו צואה

אמרי במערבא פליגי בה ר' יוסי בר חמא ור' זירא ואמרי לה רבא בריה דרב יוסף בר חמא ור' זירא חד אמר כוי הרי הוא כצואה וחד אמר כוי אינו כצואה

תסתיים דרבא הוא דאמר כוי הרי הוא כצואה דאמר רבא הכניס עפר לכסות בו צואה מותר לכסות בו דם צפור דם צפור אסור לכסות בו צואה תסתיים

רמי בריה דרב ייבא אמר כוי היינו טעמא דלא מכסינן גזירה משום התרת חלבו

אי הכי אפילו בחול נמי בחול אמרי לנקר חצרו הוא צריך

שחט באשפה מאי איכא למימר בא לימלך מאי איכא למימר

אלא בחול [אי נמי] מספקא אמרי ליה רבנן זיל טרח וכסי ביום טוב אי מספקא מי אמרי ליה רבנן זיל טרח וכסי

תני רבי זירא לא כוי בלבד אמרו אלא אפילו שחט בהמה חיה ועוף ונתערבו דמן זה בזה אסור לכסותו ביום טוב

אמר רבי יוסי בר יאסיניאה לא שנו אלא שאין יכול לכסותו בדקירה אחת אבל יכול לכסותו בדקירה אחת מותר

פשיטא מהו דתימא נגזר דקירה אחת אטו שתי דקירות קמ"ל

אמר) רבה שחט צפור מערב יו"ט אין מכסין אותו ביו"ט

But surely since he teaches at the end [of the clause] ‘and if he did slaughter it, he may not cover its blood’, understand from this that [we are] speaking of a case where he has [earth in readiness]!1 — Therefore answered Rabbah: The ashes of the hearth2 are regarded as mukan for [the covering of blood of] animals about which there is no doubt, but they are not regarded as mukan with respect to animals about which there is some doubt [whether their blood requires covering]. Why are they not [considered mukan in respect of the blood of the animal] about which there is a doubt? because he would be making a hole [in the ashes on the Festival]! Then in the case of an animal [game] about which there is no doubt, he would also be making a hole? But [why would it not be regarded as making a hole in the ashes]? because it is in accordance with R. Abba!3 Than here also it is in accordance with R. Abba!4 And if [you say that] the reason [why he may not use them to cover the blood of an animal about which there is] a doubt is that he may cause a crumbling [of the earth],5 we should enact a preventive measure on account of crumbling of the earth even in the case of definite [game]? — In the case of [animals] about which there is no doubt, even if he crumbles the earth [it is permitted]; for the positive command [to cover the blood] comes and overrides the negative command.6 But when do we say that a positive command overrides7 a negative command, [only in cases] like ‘circumcision in leprosy’8 or ‘a linen garment with [woolen] fringes’,9 where the infringement of the negative command is at the same time as the fulfillment of the of the positive command!10 — This presents no difficulty, for simultaneously with the crumbling of the earth he covers the blood. But after all, [in] a Festival there exists both a positive and a negative command,11 and a positive command cannot override both a positive and negative command! — Therefore answered Raba: ashes of the hearth [or anything like it] are intended for a definite case of game but not for a doubt.12 And Raba follows [here] his opinion [expressed elsewhere]. For Raba said: If one brought in earth [before the Festival] to cover therewith excrement [of a child], he may cover therewith the blood of a bird;13 [to cover therewith] the blood of a bird he may not cover therewith the excrement [of a child].14 The Neharbeleans15 say: Even if one brought in earth to cover therewith the blood of a bird, he may [also] cover therewith the excrement [of a child].16 In the West17 they say: R. Jose Hama and R. Zera — some say, Raba the son of R. Jose b. Hama and R. Zera — differ therein; one says: koy is analogous to excrement,18 and the other says: koy is not analogous to excrement.19 It may be proved that it was Raba who said that koy is analogous to excrement; for Raba said: If one brought in earth to cover therewith excrement [of a child], he may cover therewith the blood of a bird, [but if he brought it earth to cover therewith] the blood of a bird, he may not cover therewith the excellent [of a child].20 Conclude from this [that it was Raba]. Rami the son of R. Yabba said: The reason why we are not allowed to cover [the blood of] a koy is that it is a preventive measure against permitting the use of its suet.21 If it is so, [it should be prohibited] even on a weekday! — On a weekday people will say because he wants to clean his court.22 What is there to be said if he slaughtered [the koy] on a dust-heap?23 [And further] what will you say if one comes to ask advice?24 — On a weekday even if there is any doubt the Rabbis would tell him: Go, take trouble and cover [the blood]; but on a Festival, if there is a doubt, would the Rabbis tell him: Go, take trouble and cover [the blood]!25 R. Zera learnt: it is not only with respect to a koy that the Rabbis said [thus]; but even if one slaughtered cattle, game and poultry and their blood became mingled, it is [also] prohibited to cover [such mingled blood] on a Festival.26 Said R. Jose b. Jasiniah: This was only said when one cannot cover it [the mingled blood] with one thrust of the shovel;27 but if one can cover it with one thrust of the shovel, it is permitted. But is not this self-evident?28 — You might assume that we should prohibit [even] one shovelful lest perchance [he might go on to use] two shovelfuls, so he informs us [that one is allowed]. Rabbah said: If one slaughtered a bird on the eve of the Festival [and omitted to cover the blood], one may not cover it on the Festival;29 not cover the blood of an animal which certainly requires covering. The original question therefore remains, viz., why should he not cover the blood of the koy either according to the teaching of Rab Judah or with the ashes of the earth? XVII, 10ff) has to take place even though a leprous spot is on the foreskin. garment of heterogeneous materials. command of ‘resting’, cf. ibid. XXIII, 39. of any prohibition involved, but because it is assumed that he had intended to use them only for such animals as definitely require the covering of their blood]. beforehand to kill on that day. Therefore if he prepared the earth to use for a contingency. how much more should he be permitted to use it for that which he definitely decided. case of contingency. Obermeyer, p. 269. Babylon. Cf. Ber. 2b. But V. Sanh. 17b. dung is similar to the uncertainty with respect to the koy. koy which is absolutely uncertain. allow to cover its blood, people might regard it as game. of food. The cleansing of a court is no exception. asking the question, on being told that he is to cover its blood, himself coming to the conclusion that he may regard the koy as game and thus eat its suet. would be unnecessary work. cattle. eaten in spite of the breach of the positive command to cover the blood.