Chullin

Rather the case of doubt is whether the person [that is sounding the Shofar] is a man or a woman.1 R. Jose however [does not regard this as a refutation for he] is of the opinion that even a woman2 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]3 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.4 Rabina said: Even the argument of the Rabbis can be refuted thus: You may say so of the sounding of the Shofar,5 since in the Temple in a case of certainty it overrides the Sabbath,’6 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?7 — Render thus: You may say so of circumcision since it is not allowed by night as by day;8 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 STONED9 — R. MEIR SAYS THAT HE IS BOUND [TO COVER UP THE BLOOD]. BUT THE SAGES SAY THAT HE IS EXEMPT.10 IF HE SLAUGHTERED [A WILD ANIMAL OR A BIRD] AND IT BECAME NEBELAH UNDER HIS HAND OR IF HE STABBED8 T11 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 view12 in connection with the law of ‘It and its young’ and stated it in the Mishnah13 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 here14 and in connection with the slaughtering of consecrated animals outside [the Sanctuary];14 as in the latter case a slaughtering which does not render [the animal] fit for food15 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,;16 as there the slaughtering rendered [the animals] fit for food,17 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.18 And the priest shall come in,18 the expression ‘coming again’ and ‘coming in’ have the same import [for purposes of deduction]?19 — 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’20 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.21 And R. Meir?22 — It serves to exclude unclean birds [from the law of covering up the blood]. And R. Simeon?22 — Why is it that an unclean bird is excluded? Because it may not be eaten; then a trefah too may not be eaten.23 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, Likewise a woman may sound the Shofar on the New Year even though she is not obliged to do so. 15. 16. slaughtering (adopting R. Simeon's view), and the law of covering up the blood does not apply. blood, with reference to a consecrated animal slaughtered outside the Sanctuary.