Parallel
חולין 84
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
And why should he not redeem it and then cover up [its blood]? — Because [in order to redeem a consecrated living thing] it must be stood up and appraised [by the priest]. According to whom is this teaching? If according to R. Meir, who said that all [consecrated living things] are subject to the law of standing up whilst being appraised, but he holds, does he not, that a slaughtering which does not render fit [for food] is a proper slaughtering? And if according to R. Simeon, who said that a slaughtering which does not render fit for food is no slaughtering, but he holds, does he not, that not all are subject to the law of standing up whilst being appraised? — R. Joseph answered: The Tanna of our Mishnah is Rabbi who incorporates the views of both these Tannaim: with regard to a slaughtering which does not render fit [for food] he adopts the view of R. Simeon, and with regard to the law of standing up whilst being appraised he adopts the view of R. Meir. Alternatively, you may say, the entire Mishnah is in conformity with the views of R. Simeon, but it is different here, for the verse reads: And he shall pour out . . . and cover it, implying that the law [of ‘covering up’] applies only to that case which requires pouring out and covering up, but not to this case which requires pouring out, redeeming and covering up. And now that you have adopted this argument, you might even say that our Mishnah refers also to birds consecrated for sacrifice, for the law [of ‘covering up’] applies only to those that require pouring out and covering up, but not to those that require pouring out, scraping away [from off the altar] and covering up. Mar son of R. Ashi said, [The reason is because] Scripture says. Any wild animal or bird, and just as it cannot refer to a consecrated wild animal so it cannot refer to a consecrated bird. But [I might say] just as the law refers to wild animals none of which can be consecrated, so it only refers to those birds which cannot be consecrated, hence I would exclude turtle doves and young pigeons since they can be consecrated! — This cannot be, for it is likened to the wild animal, and just as in the case of wild animals you make no distinctions, so in the case of birds you ought not to make any distinctions. Jacob the Min said to Raba: It is established that the term ‘cattle’ includes wild animals with regard to the characteristics [of cleanness]; should I not say then that the term ‘wild animal’ includes cattle with regard to the law of covering up [the blood]? — He replied. To [confute] such as you the verse says: Thou shalt pour it out upon the earth as water, and as water does not require to be covered up, so [the blood of] cattle does not require to be covered up. If so, one should be allowed to immerse [unclean things] in it! — Scripture says. Nevertheless a fountain or a cistern, any gathering of water shall be clean; only these [render clean], but any other [liquid] does not. Perhaps this [verse] only excludes other liquids which are not described as water, but blood, since it is described as water, should be allowed [for purposes of immersion]! — There are two limiting qualifications, viz., ‘a fountain’ of water and ‘a cistern’ of water. Perhaps both [these limitations] serve to exclude other liquids, one excluding liquids in a running state and the other liquids when collected! — There are three limiting qualifications, viz., ‘a fountain’ of water, ‘a cistern’ of water, and ‘any gathering of water’. Our Rabbis taught: [It is written,] who taketh in hunting. I only know from this [that the law applies to] that which is taken in hunting, whence would I know that it also applies to such as are always taken hunting, e.g., geese and fowl? The text therefore adds a hunting; the law thus applies to all cases. Why then does Scripture say. ‘Who taketh in hunting’? The Torah teaches a rule of conduct, that a person should not eat meat except after such preparation as this. Our Rabbis taught: When the Lord thy God shall enlarge thy border, as He hath promised thee, and thou shalt say: I will eat flesh. The Torah here teaches a rule of conduct, that a person should not eat meat unless he has a special appetite for it. I might think that this means that a person should buy [meat] in the market and eat it, the text therefore states: Then thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock. I might then think that this means that he should kill all his herd and eat and all his flock and eat, the text therefore states: ‘Of thy herd’, and not all thy herd; ‘of thy flock’ and not all thy flock. Hence R. Eleazar b. ‘Azariah said: A man who has a maneh may buy for his stew a litra of vegetables; if he has ten maneh he may buy for his stew a litra of fish; if he has fifty maneh he may buy for his stew a litra of meat; if he has a hundred maneh he may have a pot set on for him every day. And [how often for] the others? From Sabbath eve to Sabbath eve. Said Rab: We must defer to the opinion of the Elder. R. Johanan said: Abba comes from a healthy family, but as for us, whosoever amongst us has a penny in his purse should hasten with it to the shop-keeper. R. Nahman said: As for us, we must even borrow to eat. The lambs are for thy clothing: of the fleece of your own lambs should be your clothing. ‘And the goats the price of the field’: a person should always sell his field and buy goats rather then sell his goats and buy a field. ‘And there will be goats’ milk enough’: it is enough for a person to sustain himself with the milk of the goats and lambs in his home. ‘For thy food, for the food of thy household’: your own sustenance comes first, before the sustenance of your household. ‘And life for thy maidens’: Mar Zutra the son of R. Nahman said: Discipline your maidens in the way of life; hence the Torah teaches a rule of conduct that a parent should not accustom his son to flesh and wine. R. Johanan said,
—
Whoso wishes to become rich should engage in [the breeding of] small cattle. R. Hisda said: Why the expression. The young [‘ashteroth] of thy flock? Because they enrich [me'asheroth] their owners. R. Johanan also said: Rather [drink] a cupful of witchcraft than a cupful of lukewarm water; that is so only if it is in a metal vessel, but in an earthenware vessel it does no harm. Moreover, even in a metal vessel we say [it is harmful] only if no spice roots were thrown into it, but if some spice roots were thrown into it it does no harm. Moreover, even if no spice roots were thrown into it we say [it is harmful] only if the water had not been boiled, but once it had boiled it can do no harm. R. Johanan also said: If a person is left a fortune by his parents and wishes to dissipate it, let him wear linen garments, use glassware, and engage workmen and not be with them. ‘Let him wear linen garments, especially of Roman linen; ‘use glassware’, especially white glass; ‘and engage workmen and not be with them’, [especially to work with] oxen, which can cause much damage. R. ‘Awira used to give the following exposition (sometimes quoting it in the name of R. Ammi and sometimes in the name of R. Assi): What is the meaning of the verse: Well is it with the man that dealeth graciously, that ordereth his affairs rightfully? A man should always eat and drink less than his means allow, clothe himself in accordance with means, and honour his wife and children more than his means allow, for they are dependent upon him and he is dependent upon ‘Him who spake and the world came into being’. R. ‘Ena lectured at the entrance of the Exilarch's house, viz., If a person slaughtered [a bird] on the Sabbath for an invalid, he must cover up its blood. Whereupon Rabbah said: He is talking nonsense; remove from him his Amora. For it has been taught: R. Jose says. A koy may not be slaughtered on a festival, and if it was slaughtered its blood may not be covered up, by reason of the following a fortiori argument: If circumcision which in a case of certainty overrides the Sabbath yet in a case of doubt does not even override the festival, the covering up of the blood which even in a case of certainty does not override the Sabbath will surely not override the festival in a case of doubt! They said to him: But the sounding of the Shofar in the provinces could prove otherwise, for even though in a case of certainty it does not override the Sabbath yet it does override the festival in a case of doubt. R. Eleazar ha-Kappar Beribbi raised this objection against the argument [of R. Jose]: You may say so of circumcision since it is not allowed on the night of a festival; will you then say the same of the covering up of the blood which is allowed on the night of a festival? (R. Abba said: This is one of the instances about which R. Hiyya had said: ‘I have no objection to raise against it’, but R. Eleazar ha-Kappar Beribbi did find an objection.) Now it actually was stated above, ‘The covering up of the blood which even in a case of certainty does not override the Sabbath’. To what does the ruling that the covering up of the blood even In a case of certainty does not override the Sabbath refer? No doubt, to the case where one slaughtered on the Sabbath for an invalid! But perhaps [it refers to the case] where one transgressed and slaughtered! — It must be under similar conditions as circumcision: as circumcision does not involve the transgression of a precept so the case of the covering up of the blood must not have involved the transgression of a precept. ‘They said to him: But the sounding of the Shofar in the provinces could prove otherwise, for even though in a case of certainty it does not override the Sabbath yet it does override the festival in a case of doubt’. What is this case of doubt? Is it the doubt whether the day is a Holy day or a weekday? But surely, if it [the sounding of the Shofar] overrides a certain Holy day, is there any question about a doubtful Holy day?21
—