חולין 87:2 — Soncino English Talmud

OR 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:^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ

^ᵃnote: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.).
^ᵇnote: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.
^ᶜnote:Zeb. 87b.
^ᵈnote:For sprinkling upon the altar.
^ᵉnote:That in a mixture of blood and water, if the appearance of the whole is like blood it is valid.
^ᶠnote: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.
^ᵍnote: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.
^ʰnote: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.
^ⁱnote:Blood which was mixed with water.
^ʲnote:When sprinkled upon the altar,
^ᵏnote:I.e., if it fell upon foodstuffs; cf. Lev. XI, 38.
^ˡnote: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.
^ᵐnote: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.
^ⁿnote:Nehar Bil, east of Bagdad.
^ᵒnote: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.
^ᵖnote:Who eats of this thin blood.
^ᵠnote: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.
^ʳnote:Sc. this thin watery blood if it issued from a corpse.
^ˢnote:Cf. n. 4.
^ᵗnote: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.
^ᵘnote:E.g., tears and the milk from a woman's breast.
^ᵛnote:T.Y. II, 1.
^ʷnote: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.