Chullin

Rabbi 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 BLOOD1 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].2 IT APPLIES [ONLY] TO WILD ANIMALS AND BIRDS, WHETHER THEY ARE AT ONE'S DISPOSAL OR NOT.3 IT APPLIES ALSO TO A KOY, FOR IT IS AN ANIMAL ABOUT WHICH THERE IS A DOUBT.4 IT MAY [THEREFORE] NOT BE SLAUGHTERED ON A FESTIVAL; AND IF IT WAS SLAUGHTERED [THEREON] ONE MAY NOT COVER UP ITS BLOOD.5 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];1 it does not say ‘’afar’ but ‘be-’afar’;6 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,7 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!8 And if he does not decide to leave it there, then it is an interposition!9 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?10 — [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.11 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?12 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 sacrifice13 it would indeed be so, but here [in our Mishnah] we are speaking of a bird consecrated for the Temple treasury.14 (Deut. XXII, 7). V. infra 138b. 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. ‘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. 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. 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.