חולין 83 — Soncino English Talmud

¹Scripture here came and provided a positive precept as a remedy for the [disregarded] prohibition to indicate that the prohibition is not punishable by stripes: so R. Judah. R. Jacob says. This is not the reason, but because it is a prohibition which involves no action [in the contravention thereof], and any prohibition which involves no action [in the contravention thereof] is not punishable by stripes. Come and hear: If a person ate two sciatic nerves from the two [right] thighs of two animals, he has incurred eighty stripes. R. Judah says: He has only incurred forty stripes. Now what are the circumstances of the case? If you say [that he ate them] one after the other and that there were two warnings, then what is the reason of R. Judah who says that he has incurred forty stripes and no more? Obviously then [he ate them] together and there was only one warning. Now whose view is expressed by the first Tanna? If you say that of the Rabbis who differ with Symmachos, but surely if there [in our Mishnah] where there are separate prohibitions the Rabbis exempt [the wrongdoer from an additional penalty], how much more so in this case. Hence it is, no doubt, that of Symmachos! — No. I maintain [that he ate them] one after the other; but when you ask, ‘Then what is R. Judah's reason?’ [I reply that] in this case one was not as much as an olive's bulk. For it has been taught: If a person ate [the whole of] it but it was not as much as an olive's bulk, he is liable. R. Judah says, [He is not liable] unless it was as much as an olive's bulk. MISHNAH. AT FOUR PERIODS IN THE YEAR HE WHO SELLS A BEAST TO ANOTHER MUST INFORM HIM, I SOLD TO-DAY ITS DAM TO BE SLAUGHTERED’, OR. ‘I SOLD TO-DAY ITS YOUNG TO BE SLAUGHTERED’, NAMELY, ON THE EVE OF THE LAST DAY OF THE FEAST [OF TABERNACLES], ON THE EVE OF THE FIRST DAY OF PASSOVER, ON THE EVE OF PENTECOST, AND ON THE EVE OF THE NEW YEAR; ACCORDING TO R. JOSE THE GALILEAN, ALSO ON THE EVE OF THE DAY OF ATONEMENT, IN GALILEE. R. JUDAH SAYS, THIS IS SO, ONLY WHEN THERE WAS NO INTERVAL, BUT IF THERE WAS AN INTERVAL. HE NEED NOT INFORM HIM. YET R. JUDAH AGREES THAT IF HE SOLD THE DAM TO THE BRIDEGROOM AND THE YOUNG TO THE BRIDE, HE MUST INFORM THEM OF IT, FOR IT IS CERTAIN THAT THEY WILL EACH SLAUGHTER [THEIR BEAST] ON THE SAME DAY. AT THESE FOUR PERIODS A BUTCHER CAN BE COMPELLED TO SLAUGHTER A BEAST AGAINST HIS WILL; EVEN IF THE OX WAS WORTH A THOUSAND DENARS AND THE PURCHASER HAS ONLY [PAID] A DENAR, THE BUTCHER IS COMPELLED TO SLAUGHTER IT. THEREFORE IF THE ANIMAL DIED, THE LOSS FALLS UPON THE PURCHASER. AT OTHER TIMES OF THE YEAR IT IS NOT SO, THEREFORE IF THE ANIMAL DIED, THE LOSS FALLS UPON THE SELLER. GEMARA. A Tanna taught: If he did not inform him, he [the Purchaser] may go and slaughter it without any hesitation whatsoever. R. JUDAH SAYS, THIS IS SO . . . [IF HE SOLD THE DAM TO THE BRIDEGROOM], etc. Why does he particularly state THE DAM TO THE BRIDEGROOM and THE YOUNG TO THE BRIDE? — He incidentally tells us that it is the proper thing for the bridegroom's family to make [greater festivities] than the bride's family. AT THESE FOUR PERIODS, etc. But he [the purchaser] has not drawn it into his possession? — R. Huna answered: We must assume that he had done so. If so, why [does it say] in the last clause, AT OTHER TIMES OF THE YEAR IT IS NOT SO; THEREFORE IF THE ANIMAL DIED THE LOSS FALLS UPON THE SELLER? But he has already drawn [the animal] into his possession? — R. Samuel son of R. Isaac answered: In fact he had not drawn it into his possession, but here the case was that the seller had transferred [a portion to the purchaser] through a third party. Now at these four periods it is an advantage for him [to have meat], and it is an established rule that one may act to another's advantage in his absence; whereas at other times of the year it is a disadvantage for him and one may not act to another's disadvantage save in his presence. R. Eliezer answered in the name of R. Johanan that at these four periods the Rabbis adopted the Biblical law. For R. Johanan has said: By Biblical law, [the payment of] money confers title. Why then was it decreed that only meshikah confers title? As a precautionary measure, lest he [the vendor] say to him [the purchaser]. ‘Your wheat was burnt in the loft’. MISHNAH. THE ‘ONE DAY’ MENTIONED IN CONNECTION WITH THE LAW OF ‘IT AND ITS YOUNG’ MEANS THE DAY AND THE NIGHT PRECEDING IT. THIS WAS EXPOUNDED BY R. SIMEON B. ZOMA: THE EXPRESSION ‘ONE DAY’ IS MENTIONED IN CONNECTION WITH THE CREATION AND ALSO IN CONNECTION WITH THE LAW OF ‘IT AND ITS YOUNG’. AS THE ‘ONE DAY’ MENTIONED IN CONNECTION WITH THE CREATION MEANS THE DAY AND THE NIGHT PRECEDING IT, SO TOO THE ‘ONE DAY’ MENTIONED IN CONNECTION WITH THE LAW OF ‘IT AND ITS YOUNG’ MEANS THE DAY AND THE NIGHT PRECEDING IT. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: This was expounded by R. Simeon b. Zoma: Since the whole passage deals only with the laws concerning consecrated animals, and with regard to consecrated matters [a day means] the day and the night following it, I might have thought that here also it is the same, it is therefore written here ‘one day’ and also ‘one day’ in connection with the Creation, as the ‘one day’ mentioned in connection with the Creation means the day and the night preceding it, so, too, the ‘one day’ mentioned in connection with the law of ‘It and its young’ means the day and the night preceding it.^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ

^ᵃnote:Lit., ‘after’.
^ᵇnote:But were it not for the remedial act provided for by Scripture the infringement of this prohibition would entail stripes, even though the warning in this case is a dubious one, for whenever warned the offender could reply. ‘It is still night and I have yet time to eat it’.
^ᶜnote:Lit., ‘not of the same denomination’. That is not the reason why the transgression of this prohibition is not punishable by stripes.
^ᵈnote:V. Mak. 4b, 16a, and elsewhere.
^ᵉnote:That he only incurs forty stripes.
^ᶠnote:The sciatic nerve of one animal was as much as an olive's bulk but not that of the other. (See Rashi.) According to R. Judah, therefore, he only incurs forty stripes. According to the Rabbis, however, if a man ate the entire sciatic nerve, even though in all it was not as much as an olive's bulk, being a distinct entity, he is liable. The Rabbis therefore hold that in the above case he incurs eighty stripes.
^ᵍnote:Tosef. Hul. VII; Tosef. Mak. III.
^ʰnote:It is presumed that on these special days animals would be slaughtered on the day that they are bought, so as to have meat prepared for the Festival that is on the following day. This information is necessary in order to avoid the slaughtering of the dam and its young on the same day
^ⁱnote:The last day of the Feast of Tabernacles was regarded as a festival by itself and was observed with special celebrations and feasting. On the eve of the commencement of the Feast of Tabernacles, Israelites are usually preoccupied with the erection of ‘booths’ and would not find time for purchasing and slaughtering animals.
^ʲnote:Where it was the custom to indulge in much feasting, including meat dishes, before the Fast.
^ᵏnote:Of a day between the sale of one animal and the other; i.e., both were sold on the same day.
^ˡnote:A coin. V. Glos.
^ᵐnote:The purchaser had already paid a denar to buy a denar's worth of meat.
^ⁿnote:Lit., ‘it has died to the purchaser’. He cannot demand the return of his denar or claim meat to that value.
^ᵒnote:For the mere payment of money does not, according to Rabbinic enactment, effect an irrevocable sale.
^ᵖnote:Lit., ‘to trouble’. Accordingly the larger animal, the dam, is sold to the bridegroom's family.
^ᵠnote:Why should the purchaser bear any of the loss since he has not become the legal owner of his portion? V. n. 7.
^ʳnote:So that the purchaser has acquired legal ownership of his portion; consequently he must bear any loss.
^ˢnote:In honour of the Festival.
^ᵗnote:Kid. 23a and elsewhere.
^ᵘnote:To spend money on meat.
^ᵛnote:vfhan, lit., ‘drawing’ into one's possession, thereby obtaining ownership.
^ʷnote:Were the purchaser to be regarded as the owner of the goods upon the payment of the purchase money even though the goods had not left the vendor's possession, the latter would not trouble to save them if they caught fire. The Rabbis therefore decreed that the ownership should not pass until there had been a meshikah by the purchaser, for then the purchaser would usually carry away the goods with him.
^ˣnote:Lev. XXII, 28.
^ʸnote:If therefore a man slaughtered the dam at night, he may not slaughter its young the whole of the following day. On the other hand, if he slaughtered the dam during the day, he may as soon as the night sets in slaughter the young.
^ᶻnote:Gen. I, 5; where it reads: And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
^ᵃᵃnote:For in the preceding verse (Lev. XXII, 27) it reads: And thenceforth it may be accepted for an offering made by fire unto the Lord.
^ᵃᵇnote:For in connection with the eating of sacrificial meat it is written (ibid. VII, 15). It shall be eaten on the day of his offering; he shall not leave any of it until the morning. Thus it may be eaten the whole of the night following the day.

²Rabbi says: One day means a special day, on which an announcement [with regard to ‘It and its young’] must be made. Hence [the Rabbis] have said: At four periods of the year he who sells a beast to another must inform him [of the sale of its dam or of its young]. MISHNAH. THE [LAW OF] COVERING UP THE BLOOD IS IN FORCE BOTH WITHIN THE [HOLY] LAND AND OUTSIDE IT, BOTH DURING THE EXISTENCE OF THE TEMPLE AND AFTER IT, IN RESPECT OF UNCONSECRATED [ANIMALS OR BIRDS] BUT NOT CONSECRATED [BIRDS]. IT APPLIES [ONLY] TO WILD ANIMALS AND BIRDS, WHETHER THEY ARE AT ONE'S DISPOSAL OR NOT. IT APPLIES ALSO TO A KOY, FOR IT IS AN ANIMAL ABOUT WHICH THERE IS A DOUBT. IT MAY [THEREFORE] NOT BE SLAUGHTERED ON A FESTIVAL; AND IF IT WAS SLAUGHTERED [THEREON] ONE MAY NOT COVER UP ITS BLOOD. GEMARA. Why does it not apply to consecrated [birds]? Is it because of R. Zera's teaching? For R. Zera said: He who slaughters [a bird or a wild animal] must place dust underneath [the blood] and dust above it, for it is written: He shall pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust [be-’afar]; it does not say ‘’afar’ but ‘be-’afar’; this is to indicate that he who slaughters must place dust underneath [the blood] and dust above it. And here [in the case of consecrated birds] this is not possible; for how should he do it? If he were to place [dust upon the altar] and decide to leave it there, he is thereby adding to the structure [of the altar], and it is written: All this, (said David, do I give thee) in writing, as the Lord hath made me wise by His hand upon me! And if he does not decide to leave it there, then it is an interposition! But granted that it is not possible [to place dust] underneath [the blood], surely it is possible [to place dust] above it, why then should he not cover it up? Has it not been taught: R. Jonathan b. Joseph says: If a man slaughtered a wild animal and then he slaughtered cattle, he is exempt from covering up the blood; if he slaughtered cattle and then a wild animal he must cover up the blood? — [The reason is] because of R. Zera's principle. For R. Zera stated: Wherever proper mingling is possible the mingling is not indispensable, but wherever proper mingling is not possible the mingling is indispensable. And why should he not scrape away the blood [from off the altar] and cover it up? Have we not learnt: The blood which spurted out and that which is upon the knife must also be covered up? It is clear therefore that he must scrape it away and cover it up; here too he should scrape it away [from off the altar] and cover it up? — If it was [a bird] consecrated for sacrifice it would indeed be so, but here [in our Mishnah] we are speaking of a bird consecrated for the Temple treasury.14^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ

^ᵃᶜnote:V. Lev. XVII, 13.
^ᵃᵈnote:I.e., the sin- or burnt-offerings of birds.
^ᵃᵉnote:I.e., whether they are wild or domesticated. This is in contradistinction from the law of ‘Letting the mother bird go’ (Deut. XXII, 7). V. infra 138b.
^ᵃᶠnote:Whether it is a kind of cattle or a kind of wild animal. V. supra p. 436, n. 2.
^ᵃᵍnote:Because of its doubt one may not desecrate the festival by covering up its blood if it had been slaughtered.
^ᵃʰnote:V. supra p. 163, n. 1. Heb. rpgc
^ᵃⁱnote:Lit., ‘renounce it’, so that it becomes part of the altar.
^ᵃʲnote:I Chron. XXVIII, 19.
^ᵃᵏnote:Interposing between the blood of the bird sacrifice and the altar, and this would disqualify the service.
^ᵃˡnote:Although in this case there is no dust beneath the blood of the wild animal, for it lies above the blood of the cattle, it must nevertheless be covered up on top. Likewise the blood of a bird sacrifice upon the altar should have to be covered up on top.
^ᵃᵐnote:V. Men. 103b. It has been taught that one may not bring a meal offering consisting of sixty-one ‘esronim (plural of ‘issaron, the tenth part of an ephah) in one vessel for it cannot be mingled thoroughly with the prescribed log of oil. Now although it is established that the meal-offering is valid even though the flour and oil had not been mixed, it must, declared R. Zera, be in the condition in which it could be mixed if so desired, but if it cannot be mixed the meal-offering, is invalid. This principle of R. Zera is applied here: the requirement of placing dust underneath the blood can be dispensed with so long as it is possible to do so if desired, but in the case of a consecrated bird, where it is not permissible to place dust upon the altar underneath the blood, this requirement becomes indispensable.
^ᵃⁿnote:Infra 87b.
^ᵃᵒnote:Lit., consecrated for the altar’. E.g., a sin-offering of a bird, which may be eaten by priests after the sacrificial rites had been performed with it. In this case the blood of the sacrifice, after it has been drained out on the altar, must be scraped away and covered up.
^ᵃᵖnote:Lit., ‘for the repair of the House’, i.e., for the general purposes of the Temple. As the slaughtering of this bird does not render it fit to be eaten, for it is forbidden for all purposes, the slaughtering is no slaughtering (v. supra 80a bot., the opinion of R. Simeon), consequently the law of covering up the blood does not apply.