Chullin

Whoso wishes to become rich should engage in [the breeding of] small cattle.1 R. Hisda said: Why the expression. The young [‘ashteroth] of thy flock?2 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 fortune3 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;4 ‘use glassware’, especially white glass;5 ‘and engage workmen and not be with them’, [especially to work with] oxen, which can cause much damage.6 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?7 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.8 Whereupon Rabbah said: He is talking nonsense; remove from him his Amora.9 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 Sabbath10 yet in a case of doubt does not even override the festival,11 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!12 They said to him: But the sounding of the Shofar in the provinces could prove otherwise,13 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.14 R. Eleazar ha-Kappar Beribbi15 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;16 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!17 But perhaps [it refers to the case] where one transgressed and slaughtered!18 — It must be under similar conditions as circumcision: as circumcision does not involve the transgression of a precept19 so the case of the covering up of the blood must not have involved the transgression of a precept.20 ‘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 expression suggests the reason for this opinion of R. Johanan. everything in connection with the slaughtering is permitted, even the covering up of the blood. cf. Dan. IV, 16. For Amora v. Glos. Another reading, quoted by Rashi and R. Gershom and supported by MS.M., is: rnte tnas ht. ‘If he says so in his own name remove etc.’. of Sabbath. V. Shab. XIX, 5. the ninth day; should this day happen to be a festival the circumcision is postponed to the tenth day. V. Shab. ibid. Jerusalem — Maim.) but not in any other place in the land of Israel. V. R.H. 29b. person of doubtful sex, must sound the Shofar; thus it is seen that a case of doubt overrides the festival restriction. nevertheless it is not set aside for covering up the blood. Thus R. ‘Ena stands refuted. forbidden to cover up the blood, but where the slaughtering was permitted it would also be permitted to cover up the blood. Shofar thereon. V. Jer. Bez. I, 3.