Parallel
חולין 86
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
This is a case of ‘it goes without saying’. It goes without saying that [the advice]. ‘Go and stab it’ [is good] for in that case there is no slaughtering at all. But against [the advice]. ‘Go and make it trefah’, one might argue and say that a slaughtering which does not render fit for food is nevertheless deemed a slaughtering, consequently its blood must be covered up; he therefore teaches us as R. Hiyya b. Abba [reported above]. And why does not he who says that Rabbi told him, ‘Go and stab it’, accept the other view that he told him, ‘Go and make it trefah’? Should you say because he [Rabbi] is of the opinion that a slaughtering which does not render fit for food is deemed a slaughtering. [this cannot be, for] R. Hiyya b. Abba reported in the name of R. Johanan that Rabbi approved of R. Simeon's view in connection with the law of covering up the blood and therefore stated it in our Mishnah as the view of ‘the Sages’! — This is a case of ‘it goes without saying’. Thus, it goes without saying [that the advice] ‘Go and make it trefah’ [is good], for a slaughtering which does not render the animal fit for food is no slaughtering. But against [the advice] ‘Go and stab it’ one might argue and say that by Biblical law a bird does not require to be slaughtered, and stabbing is all the slaughtering that is required, consequently the blood must be covered up; he therefore teaches us [that this cannot be so because of the verse] ‘As I have commanded thee’. How came it that his flax was infested with worms? Did not Rabin b. Abba (others say. R. Abin b. Shabba) declare that from the time that the people of the Exile came up [to Palestine] there ceased to be [in Palestine] shooting stars, earthquakes, storms and thunders, their wines never turned sour and their flax was never blighted; and the Rabbis set their eyes upon R. Hiyya and his sons? — Their merits benefitted the whole world but not themselves. Even as Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: Every day a Heavenly Voice goes forth and proclaims, ‘The whole world is provided with food only on account of my son Hanina, while my son Hanina is satisfied with one kab of carob fruit from one Sabbath eve to the other’. MISHNAH. IF A DEAF-MUTE, AN IMBECILE OR A MINOR SLAUGHTERED WHILE OTHERS WATCHED THEM, ONE MUST COVER UP THE BLOOD; BUT IF THEY WERE ALONE. ONE NEED NOT COVER IT UP. SIMILARLY WITH THE LAW OF ‘IT AND ITS YOUNG’: IF THESE SLAUGHTERED WHILE OTHERS WATCHED THEM, IT IS FORBIDDEN TO SLAUGHTER AFTER THEM [THE YOUNG]; BUT IF THEY WERE ALONE. R. MEIR PERMITS TO SLAUGHTER AFTER THEM [THE YOUNG]. BUT THE RABBIS FORBID IT; THEY AGREE, HOWEVER. THAT IF A PERSON DID SLAUGHTER [AFTER THEM], HE HAS NOT INCURRED FORTY STRIPES. GEMARA. As to the Rabbis why is it that in the first clause they do not dissent and in the second clause they do? — Because in the first clause, if they were to say that the blood must be covered up, people might think that the slaughtering was a valid one and would even eat of what they slaughtered. Then in the second clause too, since the Rabbis say that it is forbidden to slaughter [the young] after them, people might think that the slaughtering was a valid one and would even eat of what they slaughtered! — In the second clause people would say that he does not need any meat. Then in the first clause, too, people might say [that he is covering up the blood] only to keep his yard clean? — Could this be said if he slaughtered on a dunghill? or could this be said if he came to ask for a ruling? — But according to your own argument, even in the case of the second clause, what would you say if he came to ask for a ruling? Rather we must say that the Rabbis differ with the whole teaching [of the Mishnah], but they merely waited until R. Meir had completely stated his case and then they expressed their dissent. Now as to the view of the Rabbis, it is clear that they apply [in a case of doubt] the stricter rule; but what is the reason for R. Meir's ruling? — R. Jacob stated in the name of R. Johanan that, according to R. Meir, one would be culpable for [eating] nebelah [if one were to eat] of their slaughtering. Why is it?R. Ammi answered: Because in the majority of cases what they do is bungled. R. Papa said to R. Huna the son of R. Joshua (others say: R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said to R. Papa). Why in the majority of cases? The same would be the result if [this were so] only in a minority of cases, for since R. Meir takes into account the minority, by adding the minority to the presumption the majority is shaken? For we have learnt: If a child was found by the side of dough with a piece of dough in his hand, R. Meir declares it clean but the Rabbis declare it unclean, because it is a child's nature to meddle. And we asked. What is R. Meir's reason? [And the answer was given,] He is of the opinion that most children meddle but a minority do not; now this dough is presumed to be clean,
—
therefore by adding the minority to the presumption the majority is shaken! — If they said in a case of doubt concerning uncleanness that it is clean, will they also say in a case of doubt concerning a prohibition that it is permitted? Rabbi decided a case according to the view of R. Meir, and Rabbi also decided a case according to the view of the Rabbis. Now which was the later decision? — Come and hear [it from the following incident]. R. Abba the son of R. Hiyya b. Abba and R. Zera were standing in the open square in Caesarea at the entrance of the Beth-Hamidrash. R. Ammi came out and found them standing there and said,’Have I not told you that during sessions at the House of Study you shall not stand outside? There may be someone within who is in difficulty about a matter and there might be a disturbance’. Thereupon R. Zera went in [to the House of Study] but R. Abba did not. Now inside they were sitting and considering the question. Which was the later decision? R. Zera said to them, ‘[What a pity] you did not let me ask that old man about this. He might have heard something about this from his father [R. Hiyya b. Abba] and his father from R. Johanan, for R. Hiyya b. Abba used to revise his study in the presence of R. Johanan every thirty days’. What has been decided about the matter? — Come and hear it from the message which R. Eleazar had sent to the Exile, ‘Rabbi decided in accordance with R. Meir’. Now had he not decided according to the Rabbis too? It must be, therefore, that this was the later decision. This proves it. MISHNAH. IF A PERSON SLAUGHTERED A HUNDRED WILD ANIMALS IN ONE PLACE, ONE COVERING SUFFICES FOR ALL; IF [HE SLAUGHTERED] A HUNDRED BIRDS IN ONE PLACE, ONE COVERING SUFFICES FOR ALL; IF [HE SLAUGHTERED] A WILD ANIMAL AND A BIRD IN ONE PLACE, ONE COVERING SUFFICES FOR BOTH. R. JUDAH SAYS. IF HE SLAUGHTERED A WILD ANIMAL HE SHOULD COVER UP ITS BLOOD AND THEN SLAUGHTER THE BIRD [AND COVER IT UP ALSO]. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: [The expression] wild animal includes all wild animals, whether many or few; [the expression] bird includes all birds, whether many or few. Hence they said: If a person slaughtered a hundred wild animals in one place, one covering suffices for all; if [he slaughtered] a hundred birds in one place, one covering suffices for all, if [he slaughtered] a wild animal and a bird in one place one covering suffices for both. R. Judah says: If he slaughtered a wild animal he must [first] cover up its blood and then slaughter the bird, for it is written: Any wild animal or bird. They replied. But it also says. For as to the life of all flesh, the blood thereof is all one with the life thereof. What did they mean by this reply? This is what the Rabbis meant: Is not the particle ‘or’ required to show disjunction? And R. Judah? — He derives the principle of disjunction from the expression the blood thereof. And the Rabbis? — They say that the expression ‘the blood thereof’ means [the blood] of many, as it is written: For as to the life of all flesh, the blood thereof is all one with the life thereof. R. Hanina said: R. Judah agrees that with regard to the Benediction he has only to say one Benediction. Rabina asked R. Aha the son of Raba (others say: R. Aha the son of Raba asked R. Ashi). In what way is this different from the incident concerning Rab's disciples? For R. Berona and R. Hananel, the disciples of Rab, were sitting at a meal and R. Yeba the elder was waiting on them. They said to him, ‘Let us say the Grace [after meals]’, and immediately after they said to him, ‘Pass [the cup of wine] that we may drink’. Thereupon R. Yeba said to them, ‘Thus said Rab: As soon as a man says "Let us say the Grace", it is forbidden to drink wine.’ In this case, too, since he must first attend to the covering up of the blood he is bound to say another Benediction! —
—