חולין 87 — Soncino English Talmud

¹There is no comparison [between the two]. For there it is impossible to drink and say Grace simultaneously. but here it is possible to slaughter with one hand and to cover up the blood with the other. MISHNAH. IF A PERSON SLAUGHTERED AND DID NOT COVER UP THE BLOOD. AND ANOTHER PERSON SAW IT, THE OTHER MUST COVER IT UP. IF HE COVERED IT UP AND IT BECAME UNCOVERED, HE NEED NOT COVER IT UP AGAIN. IF THE WIND COVERED IT UP, HE MUST COVER IT UP AGAIN. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: [It is written,] He shall pour out . . . and cover it: that is, he who poured out the blood shall cover it up. If he slaughtered and did not cover it and another person saw it, whence do we know that the other person must cover it up? It therefore says: Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, this is a warning to all the children of Israel. Another [Baraitha] taught: He shall pour out . . . and cover it: that is, with that with which he poured it out he shall cover it. He must not cover it with his foot, so that precepts be not treated with contempt by him. Another [Baraitha] taught: ‘He shall pour out . . . and cover it’: that is, he who poured it out shall cover it up. It once happened that a person slaughtered but another anticipated him and covered up the blood, and R. Gamaliel condemned the latter to pay ten gold coins. The question was raised: Was this the reward for [being deprived of the performance of] the commandment or for [being deprived of] the Benediction? But where would there be any practical difference [between these two views]? In the case of the Grace after meals. If you say that it was the reward for [being deprived of the performance of] the commandment, then here there is also but one [commandment]; but if you say that it was the reward for [being deprived of] the Benediction, then here the reward should be forty gold coins. What is the answer then? — Come and hear from the following incident. A certain min once said to Rabbi, ‘He who formed the mountains did not create the wind, and he who created the wind did not form the mountains, for it is written: For, lo, He that formeth the mountains and createth the wind’. He replied. ‘You fool, turn to the end of the verse: The Lord, [the God] of hosts, is His name’. Said the other: ‘Give me three days’ time and I will bring back an answer to you’. Rabbi spent those three days in fasting; thereafter, as he was about to partake of food he was told. ‘There is a inn waiting at the door’. Rabbi exclaimed, ‘Yea they put poison into my food.’ Said he [the min]. ‘My Master, I bring you good tidings; your opponent could find no answer and so threw himself down from the roof and died’. He said: ‘Would you dine with me?’ He replied. ‘Yes’. After they had eaten and drunk, he [Rabbi] said to him, ‘Will you drink the cup of wine over which the Benedictions of the Grace [after meals] have been said, or would you rather have forty gold coins?’ He replied: ‘I would rather drink the cup of wine’. Thereupon there came forth a Heavenly Voice and said: The cup of wine over [which] the Benedictions [of Grace have been said] is worth forty gold coins. R. Isaac said: The family [of that min] is still to be found amongst the notables of Rome and is named ‘The family of Bar Luianus IF HE COVERED IT UP AND IT BECAME UNCOVERED [HE NEED NOT COVER IT UP AGAIN]. R. Aha the son of Raba said to R. Ashi: In what way is this different from the obligation to return lost property? For the Master has said,’ Thou shalt return’ implies even a hundred times! — He replied. In that case there is no limiting qualification, but here there is written a limiting qualification, [namely]: And he shall cover it. IF THE WIND COVERED IT UP [HE MUST COVER IT UP AGAIN]. Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Johanan: This is the rule only if it had become uncovered, but if it had not become uncovered he need not cover it up. But what should it matter even if it had become uncovered? Has not the precept suffered a disability? — R. Papa answered: This proves that the law of disability does not apply to precepts. And why is it different from the following which was taught: If a person slaughtered and the blood was absorbed in the earth he must nevertheless cover it up? — In that case there were traces of it visible. MISHNAH. IF THE BLOOD BECAME MIXED WITH WATER AND IT STILL HAS THE COLOUR OF BLOOD, IT MUST BE COVERED UP. IF IT BECAME MIXED WITH WINE, [THE WINE] IS TO BE REGARDED AS THOUGH IT WAS WATER. IF IT BECAME MIXED WITH THE BLOOD OF CATTLE20^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ

^ᵃnote:Therefore the expressed desire to say the Grace intimates that the meal is definitely at an end, so that if anything more is brought to the table there must be made over it a special Benediction.
^ᵇnote:And he need not have diverted his mind from the slaughtering at all for both can be done simultaneously.
^ᶜnote:And it became uncovered. V. Gemara.
^ᵈnote:Lev. XVII, 13.
^ᵉnote:Ibid. 14.
^ᶠnote:I.e., with the hand.
^ᵍnote:For depriving the slaughterer of the reward that would have been his had he covered the blood.
^ʰnote:Which consists of four Benedictions.
^ⁱnote:So MS.M. (v. Glos.). Cur. ed: a Sadducee.
^ʲnote:Amos IV, 13.
^ᵏnote:Ps. LXIX, 22. Rabbi thought that it was that same min who had argued with him three days previously. Var. lec. add: ‘At last it was found that it was not the same but another min’.
^ˡnote:Deut. XXII, 1.
^ᵐnote:v. B.M. 31a.
^ⁿnote:‘It’ implies once only.
^ᵒnote:By having been once discharged. For had it not become uncovered there would be no further obligation to cover it up, hence by the first covering up the precept has been fulfilled and so discharged.
^ᵖnote:V. Suk. 33a.
^ᵠnote:In other words, the blood was covered up by the earth as by the wind in our Mishnah, yet the Baraitha teaches that he must cover it up.
^ʳnote:But where the blood had entirely been absorbed in the ground and no traces were visible there is no obligation to cover it up.
^ˢnote:And if there was in the mixture that quantity of wine which, had it been water, would not have changed the appearance of the blood, it must then be covered up.
^ᵗnote:Which does not require to he covered up.

²OR WITH THE BLOOD OF A WILD ANIMAL, IT IS TO BE REGARDED AS THOUGH IT WAS WATER. R. JUDAH SAYS, BLOOD CANNOT NEUTRALIZE BLOOD. THE BLOOD WHICH SPURTED OUT AND THAT WHICH IS UPON THE KNIFE MUST ALSO BE COVERED UP. R. JUDAH SAYS, WHEN IS THIS THE CASE? WHEN THERE IS NO OTHER BLOOD BUT THAT; BUT WHEN THERE IS OTHER BLOOD BESIDES THIS, IT NEED NOT BE COVERED UP. GEMARA. We have learnt elsewhere: If the blood [of a sacrifice] became mixed with water and it still has the colour of blood, it is valid. If it became mixed with wine, it must be regarded as though it was water. If it became mixed with the blood of [unconsecrated] cattle or of a wild animal, it must be regarded as though it was water. R. Judah says: Blood cannot neutralize blood. R. Hiyya said in the name of R. Johanan: This ruling applies only to the case where the water fell into the blood, but where the blood fell into the water each drop became neutralized [as it fell into the water]. R. Papa said: But it is not so with regard to the law of ‘covering up’, for the law of disability does not apply to precepts. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: As long as it is of a reddish colour it makes atonement, it renders susceptible to uncleanness, and it must be covered up. What does he teach us? We have learnt it with regard to its validity for atonement and we have also learnt it with regard to the obligation of covering up’! — The statement that it renders susceptible to uncleanness, was necessary. But even that statement [is unnecessary], for if it is blood it renders susceptible to uncleanness, and if it is water it renders susceptible to uncleanness! — It was only necessary to be stated for the case where it [the blood] was mixed with rain water. But even in the case of rain water since it was collected [in a vessel] and poured [into the blood] it was surely intended for the purpose! — It was necessary only in the case where they were mixed without human effort. R. Assi of Neharbel says. It refers to the thin blood. R. Jeremiah of Difti said: He incurs the penalty of Kareth, but only if there was an olive's bulk. In a Baraitha it was taught: It renders unclean [men and vessels that are] in the tent, but only if there was a quarter [log]. We have learnt elsewhere: All liquids that issue from a corpse are clean excepting blood. As long as it has a reddish colour it will render unclean [men and vessels that are] in the tent. [Do you say then that] the liquids that issue from a corpse are clean? But I can point out a contradiction, for we have learnt: The liquids that issue from a tebul yom are like the liquids which he touches:^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ

^ᵘnote:Either the blood of a wild animal which had been obtained by the opening of a vein (Rashi) or the blood of a forbidden wild animal (Maim.).
^ᵛnote:Even if there was only the minutest quantity of the blood of a wild animal mixed with the blood of cattle, the former is not neutralized nor loses its identity in the mixture, but the whole mixture must be covered up; for R. Judah is of the opinion that in a mixture of like kinds one element can never neutralize the other, no matter in what proportion they are to each other.
^ʷnote:Zeb. 87b.
^ˣnote:For sprinkling upon the altar.
^ʸnote:That in a mixture of blood and water, if the appearance of the whole is like blood it is valid.
^ᶻnote:For then each drop of water as it falls into the blood becomes neutralized and is lost; and only when so much water falls into the blood so that the whole mixture assumes the appearance of water is it rendered invalid.
^ᵃᵃnote:And even if there fell into the water so large a quantity of blood as to give to the whole the appearance of blood, it is unfit for its purpose; for as each drop fell into the water it became neutralized and immediately lost its validity for the purposes of ritual sprinkling, and it cannot regain it even though the whole mixture has the colour of blood.
^ᵃᵇnote:The obligation of ‘covering up’ was only suspended but not discharged, consequently if the whole has the appearance of blood the obligation attaches to it.
^ᵃᶜnote:Blood which was mixed with water.
^ᵃᵈnote:When sprinkled upon the altar,
^ᵃᵉnote:I.e., if it fell upon foodstuffs; cf. Lev. XI, 38.
^ᵃᶠnote:Lit., ‘the tamad (the mixture of water and lees) was made with rain water’, a phrase from the argument in B.B. 97a. Rain water cannot render foodstuffs susceptible to uncleanness except where it was intended for some purpose or use, a reservation which does not apply to blood.
^ᵃᵍnote:Sc. the blood and the rain water. In this case, therefore, as the rain water by itself cannot render susceptible to uncleanness, only if the mixture has the colour of blood will it render susceptible to uncleanness.
^ᵃʰnote:Nehar Bil, east of Bagdad.
^ᵃⁱnote:t,kkm When blood congeals there settles at the base a clear watery liquid. This liquid will only render susceptible to uncleanness if it has the colour of blood.
^ᵃʲnote:Who eats of this thin blood.
^ᵃᵏnote:Of normal blood in addition to this clear blood. So Rashi and Tosaf. The statement however is strangely expressed for the net result is that for drinking this thin watery blood by itself one does not incur the penalty of Kareth. V. Torath Hayyim a.l.; also Responsa of Hatham Sofer, Yoreh Deah 70.
^ᵃˡnote:Sc. this thin watery blood if it issued from a corpse.
^ᵃᵐnote:Cf. n. 4.
^ᵃⁿnote:This is no Mishnah although it is introduced by the usual Mishnaic expression in. It is found in Tosef. Ohol. IV, and Tosaf. Maksh. III.
^ᵃᵒnote:E.g., tears and the milk from a woman's breast.
^ᵃᵖnote:T.Y. II, 1.
^ᵃᵠnote:A person who has immersed himself in a mikweh in the daytime but technically does not become clean until after sunset. He is regarded as unclean in the second degree.