1 Rather the case of doubt is whether the person [that is sounding the Shofar] is a man or a woman. R. Jose however [does not regard this as a refutation for he] is of the opinion that even a woman may sound [the Shofar on the Festival]. For it was taught: The sons of Israel lay on [their hands upon the head of the sacrifice] but the daughters of Israel do not lay on their hands. R. Jose and R. Simeon say. Daughters of Israel lay on their hands of free choice. Rabina said: Even the argument of the Rabbis can be refuted thus: You may say so of the sounding of the Shofar, since in the Temple in a case of certainty it overrides the Sabbath,’ will you say likewise of the covering up of the blood which in no Circumstances [overrides the Sabbath]? ‘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.’ Is it only on the night of a festival that it is not allowed but on other nights it is allowed? — Render thus: You may say so of circumcision since it is not allowed by night as by day; will you say likewise of the covering up of the blood which is allowed by night as by day? 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. MISHNAH. IF A PERSON SLAUGHTERED [A WILD ANIMAL OR A BIRD] AND IT WAS FOUND TO BE TREFAH. OR IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT UNTO IDOLS, OR IF HE SLAUGHTERED THAT WHICH WAS UNCONSECRATED INSIDE THE SANCTUARY OR THAT WHICH WAS CONSECRATED OUTSIDE, OR IF HE SLAUGHTERED A WILD ANIMAL OR A BIRD THAT WAS CONDEMNED TO BE STONED — R. MEIR SAYS THAT HE IS BOUND [TO COVER UP THE BLOOD]. BUT THE SAGES SAY THAT HE IS EXEMPT. IF HE SLAUGHTERED [A WILD ANIMAL OR A BIRD] AND IT BECAME NEBELAH UNDER HIS HAND OR IF HE STABBED T OR TORE AWAY [THE ORGANS OF ITS THROAT], HE IS EXEMPT FROM COVERING UP [THE BLOOD]. GEMARA. R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan. Rabbi approved of R. Meir's view in connection with the law of ‘It and its young’ and stated it in the Mishnah as the view of ‘the Sages’, and he approved of R. Simeon's view in connection with the law of covering up the blood and stated it in our Mishnah as the view of ‘the Sages’. What is the reason for R. Meir's view with regard to the law of ‘It and its young’? — R. Joshua b. Levi answered: He derives it by an inference made from the term ‘slaughtering’, used both here and in connection with the slaughtering of consecrated animals outside [the Sanctuary]; as in the latter case a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit for food is deemed a slaughtering, so here [in connection with It and its young] a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit for food is deemed a slaughtering. And what is the reason for R. Simeon's view? — R. Mani b. Pattish answered: He derives it by analogy from the verse: And slay the beasts and prepare the meat,; as there the slaughtering rendered [the animals] fit for food, so here the slaughtering must render [the animal] fit for food. Why does not R. Meir infer it by analogy from ‘And slay the beasts’? — One may infer ‘slaughtering’ from ‘slaughtering’, but one may not infer ‘slaughtering’ from ‘slaying’. But what does this [variation] matter? Was it not taught in the school of R. Ishmael that in the verse: And the priest shall come again. And the priest shall come in, the expression ‘coming again’ and ‘coming in’ have the same import [for purposes of deduction]? — This [variation] is [of no consequence] only where there is no alternative analogy based on identical expressions, but where there is an alternative analogy based on identical expressions we must then make the inference from the identical expressions. And why does not R. Simeon infer it by analogy from the law of consecrated animals slaughtered outside the Sanctuary? — One may infer by analogy unconsecrated animals from unconsecrated animals, but not unconsecrated from consecrated. And [is this not an objection against] R. Meir? — [No, for] does not the law of ‘It and its young’ apply also to consecrated animals? It was on account of this [reply] that R. Hiyya [b. Abba] said that Rabbi approved of R. Meir's view in connection with the law of ‘It and its young’ and stated it in the Mishnah as the view of ‘the Sages’. What is the reason for R. Meir's view with regard to the law of covering up the blood? — R. Simeon b. Lakish answered: He derives it by an inference made from the term ‘pour out’ used both here and in connection with consecrated animals slaughtered outside the Sanctuary; as in the latter case a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit for food is deemed a slaughtering, so here [in connection with covering up the blood] a slaughtering which does not render fit for food is deemed a slaughtering. And [is not this against] R. Simeon? — [No, for] it is written: That may be eaten. And R. Meir? — It serves to exclude unclean birds [from the law of covering up the blood]. And R. Simeon? — Why is it that an unclean bird is excluded? Because it may not be eaten; then a trefah too may not be eaten. It was on account of this [reply] that R. Hiyya [b. Abba] said that Rabbi approved of R. Simeon's view in connection with the law of covering up the blood and stated it in our Mishnah as the view of ‘the Sages’. R. Abba said,ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷ
2 Not for all things did R. Meir say that a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit for food is deemed a slaughtering. Indeed R. Meir would agree that such a slaughtering does not render [the animal] permitted to be eaten. Similarly, not for all things did R. Simeon say that a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit for food is no slaughtering. Indeed R. Simeon would agree that such a slaughtering renders [the animal] clean so that it be not nebelah. The Master stated: ‘Not for all things did R. Meir say that a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit for food is deemed a slaughtering. Indeed R. Meir would agree that such a slaughtering does not render [the animal] permitted to be eaten’. Is not this obvious? Would a trefah [animal] be permitted [to be eaten] by its slaughtering? — It was only necessary to be stated concerning the case where one slaughtered a trefah animal and found in its womb a living nine months’ foetus. Now I might have argued, since R. Meir maintains that a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit for food is deemed a slaughtering, that the slaughtering of its dam should serve for it too, and it should not require slaughtering; he therefore teaches us [that it is not so]. How could you have thought so? Does not R. Meir hold that a living animal extracted [out of its slaughtered dam's womb] requires slaughtering? — This was necessary to be stated since Rabbi agrees with R. Meir [in one matter] and with the Rabbis [in another]. He agrees with R. Meir that a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit for food is deemed a slaughtering. And he agrees with the Rabbis that the slaughtering of its dam renders it permitted. Now since the Rabbis hold that the slaughtering of its dam renders it permitted, then [in this case, too, where the dam was a trefah I would say that] the slaughtering of the dam should serve for it too and it should not require slaughtering; he therefore teaches us [that it is not so]. ‘Not for all things did R. Simeon say that a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit for food is no slaughtering. Indeed R. Simeon would agree that such a slaughtering renders the animal clean so that it be not nebelah’. Is not this obvious? For Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab, (others say. It was so taught in a Baraitha.) It is written: And if there dieth of the beasts, [he that toucheth the carcass thereof shall be unclean], that is to say, some beasts convey uncleanness and some do not; and which are they [that do not convey uncleanness]? They are trefah animals which have been slaughtered! — It was only necessary to be stated concerning the case where one slaughtered an unconsecrated animal which was a trefah in the Temple Court. For it was taught: If one slaughtered a trefah animal, or if one slaughtered an animal and it was found to be trefah, both being unconsecrated, in the Temple Court, R. Simeon permits to derive benefit therefrom, but the Sages forbid it. Now I might have argued, since R. Simeon holds that one is permitted to derive benefit therefrom, that there was no slaughtering at all, consequently it is not even rendered clean that it be not nebelah; he therefore teaches us [that it is not so]. R. Papa said to Abaye. Is R. Simeon of the opinion that unconsecrated [animals slaughtered] in the Temple Court are [forbidden] Biblically? — He replied: Yes, he is. For we have learnt: R. Simeon says: Unconsecrated [animals which were slaughtered] in the Temple Court must be burned by fire; so, too, a wild animal that was slaughtered in the Temple Court. Now, if you say that they are forbidden Biblically, we therefore forbid wild animals on account of cattle; but if you say that they are forbidden Rabbinically, it is indeed difficult. For was not the reason for [the Rabbis forbidding cattle] that one might not fall into the error of eating consecrated food outside the Sanctuary? This in itself is a precautionary measure; shall we come and superimpose a precautionary measure upon a precautionary measure? The flax of R. Hiyya was infested with worms, and he came to Rabbi [for advice]. Rabbi said to him, ‘Take a bird and slaughter it over the tub of water, so that the worms will smell the blood and depart’. But how was he permitted to do so? Surely it has been taught: If a man slaughtered, even though he requires the blood for use, he must nevertheless cover it up. What then should he do [so that he may use the blood]? He should either stab it or tear away the organs! — When R. Dimi came [from Palestine] he reported that he [Rabbi] said to him [R. Hiyya], ‘Go and make it trefah [and then slaughter it]’. When Rabin came [from Palestine] he reported that he said to him, ‘Go and stab it [at the throat]’. Why does not he who says that he told him ‘Go and make it trefah’, accept the other view that he told him ‘Go and stab it’? If you say because he [Rabbi] is of the opinion that by Biblical law a bird does not require to be slaughtered, and therefore stabbing is all the slaughtering that is required, but [this cannot be, for] it has been taught: Rabbi says. The verse: And thou shalt slaughter . . . as I have commanded thee, teaches us that Moses was instructed concerning the gullet and the windpipe, that the greater part of one of these organs in the case of birds and of both organs in the case of cattle [is required]? —ˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡᵃᵐᵃⁿ