Chullin Daf 84 (חולין דף פ״ד)
Daf: 84 | Amudim: 84a – 84b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (84a)
Segment 1
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Let one redeem the slaughtered birds and cover their blood! Redemption requires setting and valuating
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלִיפְרְקִינְהוּ וְלִיכַסִּינְהוּ? בָּעֵינַן הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: But even if the mishna is dealing with birds consecrated for Temple maintenance, let one redeem them after they were slaughtered and then cover their blood. The Gemara responds: This is not feasible, because in order to redeem a consecrated animal we require setting and valuating, i.e., the animal must be stood before a priest in order to evaluate it and only then is it redeemed (see Leviticus 27:11–12). A slaughtered bird cannot be stood before the priest; consequently, it cannot be redeemed.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf continues 83b’s discussion, where the mishna’s exclusion of mukdashin from kisui hadam was assigned to birds consecrated for Temple maintenance. The Gemara asks: even so, let one redeem the slaughtered birds — removing their sanctity — and then cover their blood. The answer: redemption of consecrated animals requires ha’amada v’ha’aracha, setting the animal before the priest and valuating it (Vayikra 27:11-12). A slaughtered bird can no longer be stood before the priest, so it cannot be redeemed, and its meat remains forbidden.
Key Terms:
- הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה = setting and valuating — the animal must be stood before a priest and assessed as a precondition for redemption
- פְּדִיָּיה = redemption — transferring sanctity from a consecrated item to money, rendering the item non-sacred
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא
In accordance with whom? Not Rabbi Meir — he holds an unfit slaughter is still slaughter
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּכְמַאן? אִי כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר: הַכֹּל הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה – הָאָמַר: שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה שְׁמָהּ שְׁחִיטָה!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But if the mishna is dealing with birds consecrated for Temple maintenance, in accordance with whose opinion is the mishna? If one suggests the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: Everything, i.e., animals consecrated both for the altar and for Temple maintenance, was included in the requirement of setting and valuating, and therefore the slaughtered birds may not be redeemed, this cannot be so. Doesn’t he also say that slaughter that is not fit to render the meat permitted is nevertheless considered a halakhic act of slaughter that requires the covering of the blood? If so, one should be obligated to cover the blood of the bird even if it is not redeemed.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer immediately generates an attribution problem. If the mishna follows Rabbi Meir, who holds that everything — both altar consecrations and Temple-maintenance consecrations — was included in the requirement of setting and valuating (so the slaughtered bird indeed cannot be redeemed), there is a contradiction from his other principle: Rabbi Meir holds shechita she’einah re’uya shmah shechita — an unfit slaughter still counts as halachic slaughter. On his view the covering obligation should apply regardless of whether the bird can be redeemed.
Key Terms:
- שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה שְׁמָהּ שְׁחִיטָה = an unfit slaughter is considered slaughter — Rabbi Meir’s position, which would obligate covering even for forbidden meat
Segment 3
TYPE: המשך הקושיא
Nor Rabbi Shimon — he exempts Temple-maintenance consecrations from setting and valuating
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לֹא שְׁמָהּ שְׁחִיטָה – הָאָמַר: לֹא הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה?
English Translation:
The Gemara continues: And if one suggests the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: Slaughter that is not fit to render the meat permitted is not considered a halakhic act of slaughter and therefore the bird would require redemption in order to cover its blood, this cannot be so. Doesn’t he also say that animals consecrated for Temple maintenance were not included in the requirement of setting and valuating? If so, let one redeem the slaughtered birds and cover their blood.
קלאוד על הדף:
The other candidate fails symmetrically. Rabbi Shimon holds an unfit slaughter is not slaughter — which would explain exempting the unredeemed bird from covering — but he also holds that Temple-maintenance consecrations were never included in the requirement of setting and valuating. On his view the slaughtered bird can simply be redeemed after the fact, its meat becomes permitted, and the covering obligation should apply. Neither tanna, taken whole, yields the mishna.
Key Terms:
- לֹא הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה = were not included in setting and valuating — so even a slaughtered animal of bedek habayit can be redeemed
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Yosef: the mishna is Rebbi, combining positions from different tannaim
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: רַבִּי הִיא, וְנָסֵיב לַהּ אַלִּיבָּא דְתַנָּאֵי; בִּשְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה – סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, בְּהַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה – סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר.
English Translation:
Rav Yosef said in reconciliation of this dilemma: The mishna’s ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and he formulates the mishna in accordance with the opinions of different tanna’im: With regard to the status of an act of slaughter that is not fit to render the meat permitted he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, while with regard to the requirement of setting and valuating he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Therefore, since one cannot redeem a bird that was consecrated for Temple maintenance once it has been slaughtered, there is no obligation to cover its blood, as the slaughter was not fit to render the meat permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yosef resolves the dilemma with a striking editorial observation: the mishna is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s own formulation, and he assembled it aliba d’tannaei — adopting one element from each tanna. On unfit slaughter he rules like Rabbi Shimon (it is not slaughter), and on setting and valuating he rules like Rabbi Meir (it bars redemption of the slaughtered bird). The combination produces the mishna: the bird cannot be redeemed, its slaughter therefore cannot yield permitted meat, and no covering is required.
Key Terms:
- נָסֵיב לַהּ אַלִּיבָּא דְתַנָּאֵי = he formulates it according to different tannaim — Rebbi weaves the mishna from components of distinct tannaitic positions
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ נוסף
Alternatively, all Rabbi Shimon: ‘he shall pour out and cover’ excludes blood lacking an intervening redemption
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כּוּלַּהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, וְשָׁאנֵי הָכָא דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״וְשָׁפַךְ וְכִסָּה״, מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחוּסָּר אֶלָּא שְׁפִיכָה וְכִסּוּי, יָצָא זֶה שֶׁמְחוּסָּר שְׁפִיכָה פְּדִיָּיה וְכִסּוּי.
English Translation:
And if you wish, say instead that the entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that birds consecrated for Temple maintenance may be redeemed even after their slaughter. And although it would seem that their slaughter is fit to render the meat permitted and that one should therefore be obligated in the mitzva of covering the blood, it is different here, as the verse states: “And he shall pour out its blood and cover it” (Leviticus 17:13). By juxtaposing “pour out” to “cover,” the verse indicates that the obligation to cover the blood applies only to blood that is lacking only pouring and covering, without any intervening step. Excluded is this blood of birds consecrated for Temple maintenance, which is lacking pouring, redeeming, and covering.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second resolution keeps the whole mishna as Rabbi Shimon: even granting that the bird can be redeemed after slaughter, the verse’s phrasing excludes it. ‘And he shall pour out its blood and cover it’ (Vayikra 17:13) juxtaposes pouring directly to covering, teaching that the mitzva applies only to blood lacking nothing but pouring and covering. The blood of a Temple-maintenance bird is lacking pouring, redemption, and covering — an intervening step — so it stands outside the mitzva entirely.
Key Terms:
- מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחוּסָּר אֶלָּא שְׁפִיכָה וְכִסּוּי = that which lacks only pouring and covering — the verse’s juxtaposition admits no intervening step between them
Segment 6
TYPE: מסקנא
With this derivation, even altar consecrations are excluded — pouring, scraping, and covering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ, מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְחוּסָּר אֶלָּא שְׁפִיכָה וְכִסּוּי – יָצָא זֶה, שֶׁמְחוּסָּר שְׁפִיכָה, גְּרִירָה, וְכִסּוּי.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes: And now that you have arrived at this explanation, you may even say that the mishna is referring to birds consecrated for the altar. As for the question asked earlier: Why not let one scrape the blood from the altar and then cover it? The verse states: “And he shall pour out its blood and cover it,” indicating that the obligation to cover the blood applies only to blood that is lacking only pouring and covering, without any intervening step. Excluded is this blood of bird offerings, which is lacking pouring, scraping, and covering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara notes the new derivation’s power: now that the exclusion rests on the intervening-step principle, the mishna can even be speaking of birds consecrated for the altar. The earlier challenge (83b) — let one scrape the blood off the altar and cover it — dissolves: that blood is lacking pouring, scraping, and covering, an intervening step, and is excluded by the same verse. The laborious tannaitic attribution of Rav Yosef becomes unnecessary, and the mishna’s exclusion of mukdashin stands across the board — as the Rambam later codifies.
Key Terms:
- גְּרִירָה = scraping — gathering the blood off the altar, the intervening step that removes altar birds from the mitzva
Segment 7
TYPE: דרשה
Mar bar Rav Ashi: ‘an undomesticated animal or bird’ — just as the chaya is never consecrated, so the bird
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: אָמַר קְרָא ״חַיָּה אוֹ עוֹף״, מָה חַיָּה אֵינָהּ קֹדֶשׁ, אַף עוֹף אֵינוֹ קֹדֶשׁ.
English Translation:
The Gemara cites another source for the exclusion of consecrated animals from the requirement of covering their blood: Mar bar Rav Ashi said that the verse states with regard to the mitzva of covering the blood: “An undomesticated animal or bird” (Leviticus 17:13). The juxtaposition of these two species intimates an analogy between them: Just as the undomesticated animal referred to in the verse is not consecrated, as undomesticated animals are never fit for sacrifice, so too, the bird referred to in the verse is not consecrated.
קלאוד על הדף:
Mar bar Rav Ashi supplies an independent source for excluding consecrated birds: the verse pairs ‘chaya o of’ — an undomesticated animal or bird. The juxtaposition creates an analogy: just as the chaya of the verse is not consecrated — undomesticated animals are categorically unfit for the altar — so the bird of the verse is not consecrated. Kisui hadam was written from the outset about non-sacred creatures.
Key Terms:
- חַיָּה אוֹ עוֹף = ‘an undomesticated animal or bird’ (Vayikra 17:13) — the juxtaposition that grounds the analogy
- הֶקֵּשׁ = juxtaposition-analogy — two items joined in one verse share each other’s laws
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא
If so, exclude doves and pigeons, whose species can be consecrated!
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי מָה חַיָּה שֶׁאֵין בְּמִינוֹ קֹדֶשׁ, אַף עוֹף שֶׁאֵין בְּמִינוֹ קֹדֶשׁ, אוֹצִיא תּוֹרִין וּבְנֵי יוֹנָה, שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּמִינָן קֹדֶשׁ!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: If it is so that the halakhot of slaughtering a bird are derived from those of an undomesticated animal, then say: Just as the verse is referring to an undomesticated animal, whose species cannot be consecrated as an offering, so too, the verse is referring only to a bird whose species cannot be consecrated as an offering. Therefore, I will exclude even non-sacred doves and pigeons, whose species can be consecrated.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara tests the analogy’s reach: if the bird is compared to the chaya, perhaps the comparison extends to species-level consecrability — just as no species of chaya can ever be consecrated, the verse should cover only birds whose species cannot be consecrated. That would exclude even non-sacred turtledoves and young pigeons, the very species brought as bird offerings — an absurd narrowing of the mitzva.
Key Terms:
- תּוֹרִין וּבְנֵי יוֹנָה = turtledoves and young pigeons — the only bird species fit for the altar, hence the test case
Segment 9
TYPE: תירוץ
No — like the chaya, make no distinctions within the category
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא, כְּחַיָּה – מָה חַיָּה לֹא חִלַּקְתָּ בָּהּ, אַף עוֹף לֹא תַּחְלוֹק בּוֹ.
English Translation:
The Gemara rejects this possibility: No, the juxtaposition indicates that the halakha with regard to the slaughter of birds is entirely like that of an undomesticated animal. Therefore, just as in the case of an undomesticated animal, you did not differentiate between its various species and all non-sacred animals are included in the mitzva, so too, with regard to the bird mentioned in the verse, you should not differentiate between its various species.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara rejects the narrowing by redirecting the analogy: the comparison teaches uniformity, not species-screening. Just as with the chaya you did not distinguish between its species — every non-sacred undomesticated animal requires covering — so with the bird, do not distinguish between species. Every non-sacred bird, including doves and pigeons, is within the mitzva; only actually consecrated birds are excluded.
Key Terms:
- לֹא חִלַּקְתָּ בָּהּ = ‘you did not differentiate’ — the analogy transmits the chaya’s internal uniformity to birds
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא של מין
Yaakov the heretic to Rava: if a chaya is a beheima for kashrut signs, let a beheima be a chaya for covering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ יַעֲקֹב מִינָאָה לְרָבָא: קַיְימָא לַן חַיָּה בִּכְלַל בְּהֵמָה לְסִימָנִין, אֵימָא נָמֵי בְּהֵמָה בִּכְלַל חַיָּה לְכִסּוּי.
English Translation:
§ Concerning the halakha that covering the blood does not apply to a domesticated animal, the Gemara says that Ya’akov the heretic said to Rava: We maintain that an undomesticated animal, e.g., a deer, is included in the category of a domesticated animal with regard to the characteristics necessary to determine whether the animal is kosher, i.e., it chews its cud and has split hooves (see Deuteronomy 14:4–6). If so, I will also say that a domesticated animal is included in the category of an undomesticated animal with regard to the mitzva of covering the blood.
קלאוד על הדף:
A challenge from outside the beit midrash: Yaakov the min argues from the Torah’s own taxonomy. We hold that the chaya is included in the category of beheima with regard to the signs of kashrut — cud-chewing and split hooves apply to both (Devarim 14). Symmetry would suggest the reverse inclusion: let the beheima be included in the category of chaya with regard to covering the blood, obligating kisui hadam for cattle and sheep as well.
Key Terms:
- חַיָּה בִּכְלַל בְּהֵמָה לְסִימָנִין = the undomesticated animal is included among domesticated animals for the kashrut signs
- מִינָאָה = a heretic — here, a challenger testing the coherence of the halachic system
Segment 11
TYPE: תשובה
Rava: ‘you shall pour it out on the ground like water’ — and water needs no covering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עָלֶיךָ אָמַר קְרָא ״עַל הָאָרֶץ תִּשְׁפְּכֶנּוּ כַּמָּיִם״, מָה מַיִם לָא בָּעֵי כִּסּוּי, אַף הַאי נָמֵי לָא בָּעֵי כִּסּוּי.
English Translation:
Rava said to him: With regard to your claim, the verse states in reference to the blood of a domesticated animal: “You may slaughter of your cattle and of your sheep…but be strong not to eat the blood…you shall pour it out on the ground, like water” (Deuteronomy 12:21–24). Accordingly, just as water does not require covering, so too, this blood of a domesticated animal does not require covering.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava answers from an explicit verse about non-sacrificial slaughter of cattle and sheep: ‘you shall pour it (the blood) out on the ground, like water’ (Devarim 12:24). The comparison is decisive: just as water requires no covering, the blood of a domesticated animal requires no covering. The asymmetry between chaya and beheima is not an inference to be reversed but the Torah’s own explicit statement.
Key Terms:
- עַל הָאָרֶץ תִּשְׁפְּכֶנּוּ כַּמָּיִם = ‘you shall pour it out on the ground like water’ — the verse that frees domesticated-animal blood from covering
Segment 12
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
If blood is like water, let one immerse impure items in it! The verse limits purification to actual water
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, יַטְבִּילוּ בּוֹ? אָמַר קְרָא: ״אַךְ מַעְיָן וּבוֹר מִקְוֵה מַיִם יִהְיֶה טָהוֹר״, הָנֵי אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא לָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: If that is so, that the verse equates the blood of a domesticated animal with water, then let one immerse ritually impure items in it to purify them, just as he can immerse them in water. The Gemara responds: The verse states: “But a spring or a cistern, or a gathering of water shall be pure” (Leviticus 11:36). The exclusionary term: “But,” indicates that only concerning these bodies of water, yes, they render pure an impure item, while something else, e.g., blood, does not.
קלאוד על הדף:
The comparison invites a reductio: if the Torah equates this blood with water, one should be able to immerse ritually impure items in a pool of it, as in a mikveh. The Gemara blocks this from the verse defining valid immersion: ‘but a spring or a cistern, a gathering of water, shall be pure’ (Vayikra 11:36) — the restrictive ‘but’ (ach) teaches that these render pure, and nothing else does.
Key Terms:
- יַטְבִּילוּ בּוֹ = ‘let them immerse in it’ — the reductio drawn from equating blood with water
- אַךְ = ‘but’ — a restrictive particle that limits the law to the items listed
Segment 13
TYPE: קושיא
Perhaps the exclusion targets only liquids not called water — but blood is called water!
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵימָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְמַעוֹטֵי שְׁאָר מַשְׁקִין, דְּלָא אִיקְּרוֹ מַיִם, אֲבָל דָּם דְּאִיקְּרִי מַיִם – הָכִי נָמֵי?
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: But perhaps one can say that this matter, i.e., the exclusionary term in the verse, serves only to exclude other liquids that are not called water. But with regard to blood, which is called water, as the verse states: “You shall pour it out on the ground, like water,” one may indeed immerse ritually impure items in it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The challenge sharpens: perhaps the verse’s restriction excludes only other liquids — wine, oil, milk — which are never called water. Blood, however, is called water by the Torah itself (‘you shall pour it out… like water’), so perhaps it survives the exclusion and remains valid for immersion.
Key Terms:
- דְּאִיקְּרִי מַיִם = ‘which is called water’ — blood’s scriptural nickname, the basis for exempting it from the exclusion
Segment 14
TYPE: תירוץ
Two exclusions are written: a spring of water, a cistern of water
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תְּרֵי מִיעוּטֵי כְּתִיבִי: ״מַעְיָן מַיִם״ ״וּבוֹר מַיִם״.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: Two exclusions are written in the verse discussing ritually purifying waters: A spring of water, and: A cistern of water. The term “water” is understood as being attached to each of the bodies mentioned in the verse. The additional exclusion serves to exclude blood.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara answers by counting the verse’s restrictive phrases: ‘water’ attaches separately to each item — ma’yan mayim, a spring of water, and bor mayim, a cistern of water. One restriction excludes liquids never called water; the additional restriction excludes even blood, which borrows the name.
Key Terms:
- תְּרֵי מִיעוּטֵי = two exclusions — each occurrence of ‘water’ in the verse independently restricts
Segment 15
TYPE: קושיא
Say both exclusions target other liquids — one for flowing, one for gathered!
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵימָא: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי לְמַעוֹטֵי שְׁאָר מַשְׁקִין, חַד לְמַעוֹטֵי זוֹחֲלִין, וְחַד לְמַעוֹטֵי מְכוּנָּסִין!
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: Say that both this phrase, a spring of water, and that phrase, a cistern of water, serve to exclude other liquids, and not blood, whereby one phrase is to exclude flowing liquids that are not water from having the status of a spring, which renders an item ritually pure even when it is flowing; and one phrase serves to exclude gathered liquids that are not water from having the status of a ritual bath, which renders an item pure only when the water in the ritual bath is gathered.
קלאוד על הדף:
The count is challenged: perhaps both restrictions are needed for other liquids, addressing the two modes of purification — one excludes flowing liquids from the status of a spring (which purifies even while flowing), and one excludes gathered liquids from the status of a mikveh (which purifies only when collected). If so, no exclusion remains to remove blood.
Key Terms:
- זוֹחֲלִין = flowing liquids — a spring purifies even as its water flows
- מְכוּנָּסִין = gathered liquids — a mikveh purifies only as a standing collection
Segment 16
TYPE: תירוץ
Three exclusions are written: spring of water, cistern of water, gathering of water
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תְּלָתָא מִיעוּטֵי כְּתִיבִי: ״מַעְיָן מַיִם״, ״וּבוֹר מַיִם״, ״מִקְוֵה מַיִם״.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: Three exclusions are written in the verse: A spring of water, to exclude flowing liquids; and: A cistern of water, to exclude gathered liquids; and: A gathering of water, to exclude blood.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara completes the arithmetic: the verse contains three restrictive attachments of ‘water’ — a spring of water, a cistern of water, and a mikveh (gathering) of water. Two serve to exclude other liquids in their two modes, flowing and gathered; the third excludes blood. The reductio is fully dismantled: blood is ‘like water’ for pouring on the ground, not for the laws of purification.
Key Terms:
- מִקְוֵה מַיִם = ‘a gathering of water’ — the third restrictive phrase, which excludes blood from immersion
Segment 17
TYPE: ברייתא
‘Who traps’ — from where are geese and chickens, already trapped, included?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אֲשֶׁר יָצוּד״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אֲשֶׁר יָצוּד, נִצּוֹדִין וְעוֹמְדִין מֵאֲלֵיהֶן מִנַּיִן, כְּגוֹן אֲוָוזִין וְתַרְנְגוֹלִים?
English Translation:
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to covering the blood: “And any man of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, who traps a trapping of an undomesticated animal or bird that may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth” (Leviticus 17:13). I have derived only that one is obligated to cover the blood of an undomesticated animal or bird that one traps. From where is it derived that undomesticated animals or birds that are already considered trapped on their own, such as geese and chickens that do not roam freely, are also included in the mitzva of covering the blood?
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita examines the verse’s hunting language: ‘who traps a trapping of an undomesticated animal or bird’ (Vayikra 17:13). Read literally, the mitzva would cover only animals actually hunted. From where do we include animals that stand trapped on their own — domesticated fowl such as geese and chickens, which never needed hunting?
Key Terms:
- נִצּוֹדִין וְעוֹמְדִין מֵאֲלֵיהֶן = ‘trapped and standing on their own’ — creatures already in hand, needing no hunt
Segment 18
TYPE: ברייתא (המשך)
‘A trapping’ includes all; ‘who traps’ teaches restraint in eating meat
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״צֵיד״, מִכׇּל מָקוֹם. אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֲשֶׁר יָצוּד״? לִמְּדָה תּוֹרָה דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ, שֶׁלֹּא יֹאכַל אָדָם בָּשָׂר אֶלָּא בַּהַזְמָנָה הַזֹּאת.
English Translation:
The verse states “a trapping” to indicate that in any case, one is obligated to cover the blood of an undomesticated animal. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “Who traps,” if it is not to be understood literally? The baraita explains: The Torah taught that it is a desired mode of behavior that a person should consume meat only with this mode of preparation. That is, just as the meat that one traps is not readily available, so too, one should not become accustomed to consuming meat.
קלאוד על הדף:
The word tzeid — ‘a trapping’ — extends the mitzva to every case, hunted or home-raised. The seemingly superfluous ‘who traps’ is then redirected to ethics: the Torah taught derech eretz, proper conduct — a person should eat meat only with this preparation, i.e., as something obtained with effort, like the hunter’s catch, not as a staple casually consumed. With this, the daf pivots from the laws of covering blood to a remarkable aggadic sequence on restraint, livelihood, and household priorities.
Key Terms:
- לִמְּדָה תּוֹרָה דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ = the Torah taught proper conduct — a verse read as behavioral guidance rather than legal obligation
- בַּהַזְמָנָה הַזֹּאת = ‘with this preparation’ — meat as an occasional, effortful acquisition, not routine fare
Segment 19
TYPE: ברייתא
‘When Hashem expands your boundary’ — eat meat only out of appetite
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כִּי יַרְחִיב ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֶת גְּבֻלְךָ״ – לִמְּדָה תּוֹרָה דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ, שֶׁלֹּא יֹאכַל אָדָם בָּשָׂר אֶלָּא לְתֵאָבוֹן.
English Translation:
In a similar vein, the Sages taught in a baraita that the verse states: “When the Lord, your God, expands your boundary…according to every craving of your soul you may eat meat” (Deuteronomy 12:20). The Torah taught that it is a desired mode of behavior that a person should consume meat due only to appetite. That is, one should consume meat only when he feels a need to eat it.
קלאוד על הדף:
A companion baraita reads the meat-permission verse the same way: ‘When Hashem your God expands your boundary… according to every craving of your soul you may eat meat’ (Devarim 12:20). The Torah taught derech eretz: eat meat only l’te’avon, out of genuine appetite — when the body actually craves it — and in proportion to prosperity (‘when He expands your boundary’), not as an entitlement independent of means or need.
Key Terms:
- לְתֵאָבוֹן = out of appetite — meat is for genuine craving, not habitual consumption
Segment 20
TYPE: ברייתא (המשך)
‘Of your cattle’ — and not all your cattle; slaughter from your own, and sparingly
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָכוֹל יִקַּח אָדָם מִן הַשּׁוּק וְיֹאכַל? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְזָבַחְתָּ מִבְּקָרְךָ וּמִצֹּאנְךָ״. יָכוֹל יִזְבַּח כׇּל בְּקָרוֹ וְיֹאכַל, כָּל צֹאנוֹ וְיֹאכַל? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מִבְּקָרְךָ״ – וְלֹא כׇּל בְּקָרְךָ, ״מִצֹּאנְךָ״ – וְלֹא כׇּל צֹאנְךָ.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: One might have thought that a person may purchase meat from the marketplace and consume it. Therefore, the next verse states: “And you may slaughter of your cattle and of your flock,” indicating that one should consume the meat of animals of his own flock, not those purchased in the marketplace. One might have thought that a person may slaughter all of his cattle, i.e., his only cow, and consume the meat, or slaughter all of his flock, i.e., his only sheep, and consume the meat. Therefore, the verse states: “Of your cattle,” indicating some, but not all of, your cattle; “of your flock,” but not all of your flock.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita continues drawing conduct from the verse’s wording. ‘And you shall slaughter of your cattle and of your flock’ — from your own animals, not from the marketplace, teaching a person to live from what he owns. And the partitive ‘of’ teaches proportion: of your cattle — and not all your cattle; of your flock — and not all your flock. A person should not liquidate his productive assets, his herd, for the sake of his table.
Key Terms:
- מִבְּקָרְךָ וְלֹא כׇּל בְּקָרְךָ = ‘of your cattle — and not all your cattle’ — eat from capital’s yield, never consume the capital itself
Segment 21
TYPE: מימרא
Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria’s sliding scale: vegetables, fish, meat — and for the rest, Shabbat eve
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִכָּאן אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה: מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מָנֶה – יִקַּח לְפָסוֹ לִיטְרָא יָרָק, עֲשָׂרָה מָנֶה – יִקַּח לְפָסוֹ לִיטְרָא דָּגִים, חֲמִשִּׁים מָנֶה – יִקַּח לְפָסוֹ לִיטְרָא בָּשָׂר, מֵאָה מָנֶה – יִשְׁפְּתוּ לוֹ קְדֵרָה בְּכׇל יוֹם. וְאִינָךְ אֵימַת? מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת לְעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת.
English Translation:
From here, Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria said: One who has one hundred dinars should purchase a litra of vegetables for his stewpot [lefaso]; one who has one thousand dinars should purchase a litra of fish for his stewpot; one who has five thousand dinars should purchase a litra of meat for his stewpot; and if one has ten thousand dinars, his servants should place a pot of meat on the stove for him every day. The Gemara asks: And with regard to these other individuals mentioned by Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria, when, i.e., how often, should they consume meat? The Gemara responds: Every Shabbat eve.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria converts the baraita’s principle into a household budget: one who has a hundred dinars buys a litra of vegetables for his pot; a thousand — a litra of fish; five thousand — a litra of meat; only at ten thousand does a pot of meat go on the stove daily. The Gemara asks when those below the top tier do eat meat, and answers: from Shabbat eve to Shabbat eve — weekly, in honor of Shabbat, whatever the budget.
Key Terms:
- לְפָסוֹ = for his stewpot — the measure of daily fare
- מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת לְעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת = from Shabbat eve to Shabbat eve — meat as a weekly Shabbat honor for the ordinary household
Segment 22
TYPE: מימרות האמוראים
Rav: heed the elder. Rabbi Yochanan: our generation should run the peruta to the grocer. Rav Nachman: we borrow and eat
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב: צְרִיכִין אָנוּ לָחוֹשׁ לְדִבְרֵי זָקֵן. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אַבָּא מִמִּשְׁפַּחַת בְּרִיאִים הֲוָה, אֲבָל כְּגוֹן אָנוּ, מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ פְּרוּטָה בְּתוֹךְ כִּיסוֹ – יְרִיצֶנָּה לַחֶנְוָונִי. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: כְּגוֹן אָנוּ לוֹוִין וְאוֹכְלִין.
English Translation:
Rav says: We must be concerned for the statement of the elder, i.e., Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria, and be thrifty with our expenditure on food items. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Abba, i.e., Rav, was from a family of particularly healthy individuals, and was able to subsist on the modest diet suggested by Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria. But with regard to people such as us, who are not as healthy, one who has even one peruta in his pocket should hasten with it to the storekeeper and purchase food. Two generations later, Rav Naḥman said: With regard to people such as us, who are physically weaker than those in previous generations, not only do we not delay the purchase of food items, we even borrow money to purchase food and eat.
קלאוד על הדף:
Three generations calibrate the ideal to reality. Rav says: we must be concerned for the words of the elder, Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria, and spend frugally. Rabbi Yochanan counters: Abba (Rav) came from a family of the robust, who could thrive on austerity; people like us — whoever has a peruta in his pocket should run it to the storekeeper and eat. Rav Nachman goes further: people like us borrow to eat. Health, not just piety, sets the measure — a strikingly humane qualification of the ascetic ideal.
Key Terms:
- צְרִיכִין אָנוּ לָחוֹשׁ לְדִבְרֵי זָקֵן = ‘we must be concerned for the elder’s words’ — Rav’s deference to Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria’s frugality
- לוֹוִין וְאוֹכְלִין = ‘we borrow and eat’ — for the physically weaker generation, nourishment overrides thrift
Segment 23
TYPE: דרשה
The lambs for your clothing, goats over a field, and milk enough — the economics of Mishlei
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״כְּבָשִׂים לִלְבוּשֶׁךָ״ – מִגֵּז כְּבָשִׂים יְהֵא מַלְבּוּשֶׁךָ, ״וּמְחִיר שָׂדֶה עַתּוּדִים״ – לְעוֹלָם יִמְכּוֹר אָדָם שָׂדֶה וְיִקַּח עַתּוּדִים, וְאַל יִמְכּוֹר אָדָם עַתּוּדִים וְיִקַּח שָׂדֶה. ״וְדֵי חֲלֵב עִזִּים״ – דַּיּוֹ לְאָדָם שֶׁיִּתְפַּרְנֵס מֵחֲלֵב גְּדָיִים וּטְלָאִים שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ.
English Translation:
The Gemara continues its discussion with regard to one’s livelihood: The verse states: “The lambs will be for your clothing, and goats the worth of a field. And there will be goats’ milk enough for your food, for the food of your household; and sustenance for your maidens” (Proverbs 27:26–27). “The lambs will be for your clothing” indicates that your clothing should be produced from the shearings of lambs, i.e., purchase lambs from whose wool you can produce clothing. “And goats the worth of a field” indicates that a person should always seek to sell a field and purchase goats in order to benefit from their milk, wool, and offspring, and a person should not sell goats and purchase a field instead. “And there will be goats’ milk enough” indicates that it is sufficient for a person that he be sustained from the milk of kids and lambs that are in his house.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara expounds Mishlei 27:26-27 as a program for household economics. ‘The lambs will be for your clothing’ — dress from your flock’s shearings. ‘And goats the worth of a field’ — always sell a field to buy goats, never sell goats to buy a field: livestock yields milk, wool, and offspring continuously, while land is slow and illiquid. ‘And there will be goats’ milk enough’ — let a man be sustained from the milk of the kids and lambs in his own house, living from yield rather than principal.
Key Terms:
- לְעוֹלָם יִמְכּוֹר אָדָם שָׂדֶה וְיִקַּח עַתּוּדִים = ‘let a man always sell a field and buy goats’ — prefer productive, liquid assets over prestige holdings
Segment 24
TYPE: דרשה (המשך)
Your bread before your household’s; and do not accustom your son to meat and wine
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״לְלַחְמְךָ לְלֶחֶם בֵּיתֶךָ״ – לַחְמְךָ קוֹדֶם לְלֶחֶם בֵּיתֶךָ. ״וְחַיִּים לְנַעֲרוֹתֶיךָ״ – אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן: תֵּן חַיִּים לְנַעֲרוֹתֶיךָ, מִיכָּן לִמְּדָה תּוֹרָה דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ שֶׁלֹּא יְלַמֵּד אָדָם אֶת בְּנוֹ בָּשָׂר וְיַיִן.
English Translation:
“For your food, for the food of your household” indicates that your food comes before the food of your household, i.e., one must first ensure that he has food for himself before providing for others. With regard to the phrase: “And sustenance for your maidens,” Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman, said: The verse indicates that you must give sustenance to your youth, i.e., to your children. From here, the Torah taught that it is a desired mode of behavior that a person should not accustom his son to eat meat and drink wine; rather, he should teach his children to eat less expensive foods.
קלאוד על הדף:
The exposition concludes with priorities. ‘For your food, for the food of your household’ — your food comes first: a person must secure his own sustenance before assuming burdens for others. ‘And sustenance [chayim] for your maidens’ — Mar Zutra son of Rav Nachman reads: give life-discipline to your young. From here the Torah taught derech eretz: a person should not accustom his son to meat and wine — do not raise children on luxuries they may not be able to sustain.
Key Terms:
- לַחְמְךָ קוֹדֶם לְלֶחֶם בֵּיתֶךָ = ‘your bread precedes your household’s bread’ — secure your own base before providing beyond it
- שֶׁלֹּא יְלַמֵּד אָדָם אֶת בְּנוֹ בָּשָׂר וְיַיִן = one should not train his son in meat and wine — do not habituate children to luxury
Segment 25
TYPE: מימרא (נמשכת)
Rabbi Yochanan begins a statement — completed on the next amud
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן:
English Translation:
Rabbi Yoḥanan says:
קלאוד על הדף:
The amud ends mid-sentence: ‘Rabbi Yochanan says’ — the dictum itself opens amud bet. This is the first of a series of Rabbi Yochanan’s practical counsels on wealth and health that carry the daf’s aggadic thread forward: the statement, completed overleaf, will advise how one becomes wealthy.
Key Terms:
- אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן = ‘Rabbi Yochanan says’ — the daf breaks mid-attribution; the teaching follows on 84b
Amud Bet (84b)
Segment 1
TYPE: מימרא
Who wishes to become wealthy should raise small livestock; sheep enrich their owners
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָרוֹצֶה שֶׁיִּתְעַשֵּׁר יַעֲסוֹק בִּבְהֵמָה דַּקָּה. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״וְעַשְׁתְּרֹת צֹאנְךָ״ – שֶׁמְּעַשְּׁרוֹת אֶת בַּעֲלֵיהֶן.
English Translation:
One who wishes to become wealthy should engage in raising small domesticated animals. Rav Ḥisda said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And the flocks [ve’ashterot] of your sheep” (Deuteronomy 7:13)? It means that sheep enrich [me’ashrot] their owners.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yochanan’s statement completes: one who wishes to become wealthy should engage in raising small livestock — sheep and goats, the productive assets praised from Mishlei on the previous amud. Rav Chisda adds a wordplay from the Torah’s blessing: ‘and the ashterot of your sheep’ (Devarim 7:13) — the flocks are called ashterot because they me’ashrot, enrich, their owners.
Key Terms:
- בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה = small livestock — sheep and goats, continuously yielding milk, wool, and offspring
- וְעַשְׁתְּרֹת צֹאנְךָ = ‘the flocks of your sheep’ — expounded: they enrich (me’ashrot) their owners
Segment 2
TYPE: מימרא
Better a cup of witches than a cup of lukewarm water — with three qualifications
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כָּסָא דְּחָרָשִׁין, וְלָא כָּסָא דְּפוֹשְׁרִין. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּכְלִי מַתָּכוֹת, אֲבָל בִּכְלִי חֶרֶשׂ לֵית לַן בַּהּ. וּבִכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת נָמֵי לָא אֲמַרַן, אֶלָּא דְּלָא שָׁדֵי בְּהוּ צִיבַיָּא, אֲבָל שָׁדֵי בְּהוּ צִיבַיָּא לֵית לַן בַּהּ. וְכִי לָא שָׁדֵי בְּהוּ צִיבַיָּא נָמֵי לָא אֲמַרַן, אֶלָּא דְּלָא צִיץ, אֲבָל צִיץ לֵית לַן בַּהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara cites additional statements by Rabbi Yoḥanan providing practical advice. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is preferable to drink from a cup of witches and not to drink from a cup of lukewarm water, which is extremely unhealthy. Rabbi Yoḥanan qualifies his statement: We said this only with regard to lukewarm water in metal vessels, but in earthenware vessels we have no problem with it. And even in metal vessels, we said that lukewarm water is unhealthy only in a case where one did not cast flavorings into the water, but if he cast flavorings into the water we have no problem with it. And even if one cast flavorings into the water, we said this only in a case where the water had not been boiled [tzeyatz], but if the water had been boiled we have no problem with it.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yochanan turns to health: better to drink from a cup of witches than from a cup of lukewarm water — hyperbole branding tepid water a genuine danger. The Gemara immediately calibrates: the concern applies only in metal vessels, not earthenware; and even in metal, only if no flavorings were cast in; and even without flavorings, only if the water was never boiled. Boiled, flavored, or clay-stored lukewarm water is harmless. The Gemara treats health guidance with full halachic precision.
Key Terms:
- כָּסָא דְּחָרָשִׁין וְלָא כָּסָא דְּפוֹשְׁרִין = ‘a cup of witches and not a cup of lukewarm water’ — deliberate hyperbole about tepid water’s danger
- צִיבַיָּא = flavorings — herbs or spices cast into the water, neutralizing the concern
Segment 3
TYPE: מימרא
How to squander an inheritance: Roman linen, white glass, and unsupervised ox-laborers
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִי שֶׁהִנִּיחַ לוֹ אָבִיו מָעוֹת וְרוֹצֶה לְאַבְּדָן – יִלְבַּשׁ כְּלֵי פִשְׁתָּן, וְיִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בִּכְלֵי זְכוּכִית, וְיִשְׂכּוֹר פּוֹעֲלִים וְאַל יֵשֵׁב עִמָּהֶן. יִלְבּוֹשׁ כְּלֵי פִשְׁתָּן – בְּכִיתָּנָא רוֹמִיתָא. וְיִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בִּכְלֵי זְכוּכִית – בְּזוּגִּיתָא חִיוָּרְתָּא. וְיִשְׂכּוֹר פּוֹעֲלִים וְאַל יָשַׁב עִמָּהֶן – בְּתוֹרֵי דִּנְפִישׁ פְּסֵידַיְיהוּ.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In the case of one whose father bequeathed him a great deal of money and he seeks to lose it, he should wear linen garments, and should use glass vessels, and should hire laborers and not sit with them to supervise. The Gemara elaborates: He should wear linen garments; this is stated with regard to Roman linen, which becomes tattered quickly. He should use glass vessels; this is stated with regard to expensive white glass. And he should hire laborers and not sit with them; this applies to laborers who work with oxen, whose potential for causing damage is great if they are not supervised, as they will trample the crops.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yochanan’s third counsel is framed as sardonic advice: one who inherited money and wishes to destroy it should wear linen garments, use glass vessels, and hire laborers without sitting with them. The Gemara decodes each: Roman linen, which tatters quickly; white glass, expensive and fragile; and ox-laborers, whose unsupervised damage is the greatest — trampled crops and broken furrows. Read in reverse, it is a manual of wealth preservation: durable goods, modest vessels, and personal supervision of one’s workers.
Key Terms:
- כִּיתָּנָא רוֹמִיתָא = Roman linen — luxurious, quick to wear out
- בְּתוֹרֵי דִּנְפִישׁ פְּסֵידַיְיהוּ = with oxen, whose potential loss is great — unsupervised plow-hands are the fastest route to ruin
Segment 4
TYPE: דרשה
Eat below your means, dress within them, honor wife and children beyond them
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דָּרֵשׁ רַב עַוִּירָא, זִימְנִין אָמַר לַהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי, וְזִימְנִין אָמַר לַהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַסִּי: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״טוֹב אִישׁ חוֹנֵן וּמַלְוֶה יְכַלְכֵּל דְּבָרָיו בְּמִשְׁפָּט״? לְעוֹלָם יֹאכַל אָדָם וְיִשְׁתֶּה פָּחוֹת מִמַּה שֶּׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ, וְיִלְבַּשׁ וְיִתְכַּסֶּה בְּמַה שֶּׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ, וִיכַבֵּד אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָנָיו יוֹתֵר מִמַּה שֶּׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ, שֶׁהֵן תְּלוּיִין בּוֹ וְהוּא תָּלוּי בְּמִי שֶׁאָמַר וְהָיָה הָעוֹלָם.
English Translation:
Rav Avira interpreted the following verse homiletically, but sometimes he said the interpretation in the name of Rabbi Ami and sometimes he said it in the name of Rabbi Asi: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Good is the man who is gracious and lends, who orders his affairs with justice” (Psalms 112:5)? It means to teach that a person should always eat and drink less than what is within his means, and he should dress and cover himself in accordance with his means, and he should honor his wife and children more than what is within his means; as they are dependent on him and he is dependent on the One Who spoke and the world was created.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Avira — sometimes in Rabbi Ami’s name, sometimes Rabbi Asi’s — expounds ‘Good is the man who is gracious and lends, who orders his affairs with justice’ (Tehillim 112:5): a person should always eat and drink less than his means, dress and cover himself according to his means, and honor his wife and children beyond his means. The reason is the daf’s most quoted line: they are dependent on him, and he is dependent on the One Who spoke and the world came into being.
Key Terms:
- יְכַלְכֵּל דְּבָרָיו בְּמִשְׁפָּט = ‘orders his affairs with justice’ — calibrated household spending as a form of righteousness
- שֶׁהֵן תְּלוּיִין בּוֹ וְהוּא תָּלוּי בְּמִי שֶׁאָמַר וְהָיָה הָעוֹלָם = they depend on him, and he depends on the Creator — the theological ground for generosity beyond one’s means
Segment 5
TYPE: מימרא וקושיא
Rav Eina: one who slaughters for the ill on Shabbat covers the blood. Rabba: astonishing! Rabbi Yosei’s baraita
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דָּרֵשׁ רַב עֵינָא אַפִּתְחָא דְּבֵי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט לַחוֹלֶה בְּשַׁבָּת חַיָּיב לְכַסּוֹת. אֲמַר לְהוּ רַבָּה: אֶשְׁתּוֹמָא קָאָמַר, לִישְׁמְטוּהּ לְאָמוֹרֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: כּוֹי אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין אוֹתוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב, וְאִם שְׁחָטוֹ אֵין מְכַסִּין אֶת דָּמוֹ.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that one may not slaughter a koy on a Festival since he may not cover its blood, as it is unclear whether there is an obligation by Torah law to do so. But if one transgressed and slaughtered a koy, one does not cover its blood. With regard to this, Rav Eina taught at the entrance to the house of the Exilarch: One who slaughters an undomesticated animal or a bird for a critically ill person on Shabbat, for whom it is permitted to slaughter, is obligated to cover its blood. Rabba said to those present: Rav Eina is saying an astonishing statement; remove his interpreter from before him. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: One may not slaughter a koy on a Festival, but if he slaughtered it, one does not cover its blood until after the Festival.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf returns to halacha. Rav Eina taught publicly, at the Exilarch’s gate, that one who permissibly slaughters an undomesticated animal or bird for a dangerously ill person on Shabbat is obligated to cover its blood. Rabba reacted sharply: he is saying something astonishing — remove his interpreter (the amora who broadcast his lecture) from him. Rabba’s proof is the baraita of Rabbi Yosei: a koy is not slaughtered on Yom Tov, and if slaughtered, its blood is not covered — whose reasoning, unfolded next, presupposes that even definite covering never overrides Shabbat.
Key Terms:
- אַפִּתְחָא דְּבֵי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא = at the entrance of the Exilarch’s house — a most public venue for a lecture
- לִישְׁמְטוּהּ לְאָמוֹרֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ = ‘remove his interpreter from him’ — Rabba’s dramatic demand to silence the errant public teaching
Segment 6
TYPE: קל וחומר
Rabbi Yosei’s inference: if definite circumcision overrides Shabbat but its doubt does not override Yom Tov…
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה מִילָה שֶׁוַּדָּאָהּ דּוֹחֶה שַׁבָּת, אֵין סְפֵיקָהּ דּוֹחֶה יוֹם טוֹב, כִּסּוּי שֶׁאֵין וַדָּאוֹ דּוֹחֶה שַׁבָּת, אֵין דִּין שֶׁאֵין סְפֵקוֹ דּוֹחֶה יוֹם טוֹב?
English Translation:
Rabbi Yosei elaborates: This can be derived from an a fortiori inference: And if with regard to the mitzva of circumcision, concerning which a definite obligation overrides Shabbat, nevertheless its uncertain obligation does not override a Festival; then with regard to the mitzva of covering the blood, concerning which even a definite obligation does not override Shabbat, is it not logical that its uncertain obligation, e.g., covering the blood of a koy, would not override a Festival? Although circumcision involves an act of prohibited labor, one performs it on Shabbat for a male infant whose eighth day from birth occurs on Shabbat. But in a case where it is uncertain when the eighth day from birth occurs, it is forbidden to circumcise the child on a Festival. By contrast, covering the blood is never performed on Shabbat.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yosei grounds the koy ruling in an a fortiori argument. Circumcision in its definite case overrides Shabbat — a boy definitely eighth-day is circumcised even on Shabbat — yet its uncertain case (a birth at twilight, making the eighth day doubtful) does not override even Yom Tov. Covering the blood, whose definite case does not override Shabbat at all, surely should not have its uncertain case — the koy — override Yom Tov. The premise Rabba needs is embedded here: definite kisui does not override Shabbat.
Key Terms:
- מִילָה שֶׁוַּדָּאָהּ דּוֹחֶה שַׁבָּת = circumcision, whose definite obligation overrides Shabbat — the strong baseline of the inference
- אֵין סְפֵקוֹ דּוֹחֶה יוֹם טוֹב = its uncertain case does not override the Festival — the conclusion sought for the koy
Segment 7
TYPE: פירכא
The Sages: shofar in the provinces disproves the inference
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר לוֹ: תְּקִיעַת שׁוֹפָר בִּגְבוּלִים תּוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁאֵין וַדָּאָהּ דּוֹחֶה שַׁבָּת, וּסְפֵיקָהּ דּוֹחֶה יוֹם טוֹב!
English Translation:
The Sages said to him in rebuttal: The sounding of the shofar in the provinces, i.e., outside the Temple, will prove that this a fortiori inference is incorrect. This is because its definite obligation does not override Shabbat and it is prohibited to sound the shofar on Rosh HaShana that falls on Shabbat; and yet its uncertain obligation overrides the Festival.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Sages rebut with a counterexample: the sounding of the shofar outside the Temple. Its definite obligation does not override Shabbat — when Rosh Hashana falls on Shabbat the shofar is silent in the provinces — and yet its uncertain obligation overrides Yom Tov. A mitzva can thus be weaker than circumcision on Shabbat and still have its doubtful case override a Festival; the kal vachomer’s architecture fails.
Key Terms:
- תְּקִיעַת שׁוֹפָר בִּגְבוּלִים = shofar sounding in the provinces — outside the Temple, silenced on Shabbat yet sounded in doubtful cases on Yom Tov
Segment 8
TYPE: פירכא (חיזוק)
Rabbi Elazar HaKappar: circumcision does not apply at night — covering does
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֵשִׁיב רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר בְּרִיבִּי תְּשׁוּבָה: מָה לְמִילָה שֶׁכֵּן אֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת בְּלֵילֵי יָמִים טוֹבִים, תֹּאמַר בְּכִסּוּי שֶׁנּוֹהֵג בְּלֵילֵי יָמִים טוֹבִים!
English Translation:
Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Distinguished responded with another refutation of the a fortiori inference: It cannot be inferred from circumcision that an uncertain obligation of the mitzva of covering the blood does not override a Festival. What is notable about circumcision? It is notable in that it is not in effect on Festival nights, but is performed only during the daytime. Will you then say with regard to the mitzva of covering the blood, which is in effect on Festival nights, that it does not override a Festival? Perhaps, since the mitzva of covering the blood is in effect during both day and night, its uncertain obligation overrides a Festival as well.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Distinguished adds an independent refutation: the inference from circumcision is structurally flawed. Circumcision is notable in that it does not apply on Festival nights — it is a daytime-only mitzva — while covering the blood applies on Festival nights as well. A mitzva of broader temporal reach may well be stronger, and its doubtful case might override the Festival; nothing can be inferred from the narrower mitzva of circumcision.
Key Terms:
- אֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת בְּלֵילֵי יָמִים טוֹבִים = does not apply on Festival nights — circumcision’s daytime limitation, which breaks the analogy
- בְּרִיבִּי = the Distinguished — an honorific for a great scholar of the generation
Segment 9
TYPE: מימרא
Rabbi Abba: Rabbi Chiyya could not refute this inference — Rabbi Elazar HaKappar did
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: זֶה אֶחָד מִן הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא ״אֵין לִי עֲלֵיהֶם תְּשׁוּבָה״, וְהֵשִׁיב רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר בְּרִיבִּי תְּשׁוּבָה.
English Translation:
In reference to Rabbi Elazar HaKappar’s refutation, Rabbi Abba says: This a fortiori inference drawn by Rabbi Yosei is one of the matters with regard to which Rabbi Ḥiyya says: I do not have any refutation for them, and Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Distinguished successfully responded with a refutation.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Abba records the argument’s afterlife in the academy: this kal vachomer of Rabbi Yosei was one of the matters of which Rabbi Chiyya said ‘I have no refutation for them’ — and Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Distinguished refuted it. The Gemara preserves not only the law but the intellectual scoreboard: an argument that silenced Rabbi Chiyya fell to a sharper analysis.
Key Terms:
- אֵין לִי עֲלֵיהֶם תְּשׁוּבָה = ‘I have no refutation for them’ — Rabbi Chiyya’s concession, overturned by Rabbi Elazar HaKappar
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא (סיום ראיית רבה)
In any event: what definite covering does not override Shabbat, if not slaughtering for the ill?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
קָתָנֵי מִיהַת, כִּסּוּי שֶׁאֵין וַדָּאוֹ דּוֹחֶה שַׁבָּת. מַאי וַדָּאוֹ דְּכִסּוּי דְּלָא דָּחֵי שַׁבָּת? לָאו הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְחוֹלֶה בְּשַׁבָּת?
English Translation:
Rabba concludes his refutation of the statement of Rav Eina: In any event, the baraita teaches that definite obligations with regard to the mitzva of covering the blood do not override Shabbat. Now, what is a case of a definite obligation of covering the blood that does not override Shabbat? Is it not a case where one slaughters an undomesticated animal or a bird for a critically ill person on Shabbat? The baraita nevertheless teaches that one does not cover the blood, in contradiction to the ruling of Rav Eina.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabba’s proof against Rav Eina now closes. Whatever the fate of the kal vachomer, the baraita’s premise stands: definite covering does not override Shabbat. What case of definite covering on Shabbat exists? Slaughter on Shabbat is otherwise forbidden — the only permitted case is one who slaughters for a dangerously ill person. The baraita must mean that even then the blood is not covered — flatly contradicting Rav Eina’s public ruling.
Key Terms:
- קָתָנֵי מִיהַת = ‘in any event it teaches’ — extracting the baraita’s undisputed premise even after its argument was refuted
Segment 11
TYPE: דחייה
Perhaps the baraita speaks of one who transgressed and slaughtered?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְדִלְמָא דְּעָבַר וְשָׁחַט?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But perhaps the baraita is referring to an instance where one transgressed Shabbat and slaughtered an animal for a healthy person. But in a case where one slaughtered an animal for an ill person, since it was permitted for him to slaughter the animal, perhaps he must cover the blood as well.
קלאוד על הדף:
A defense of Rav Eina is floated: perhaps the baraita’s case of Shabbat slaughter is one who transgressed — slaughtering unlawfully for a healthy person. In that case the blood is indeed not covered, for the act was forbidden; but one who slaughtered with permission, for the ill, might well be obligated to cover. The premise would then say nothing against Rav Eina.
Key Terms:
- דְּעָבַר וְשָׁחַט = ‘where he transgressed and slaughtered’ — unlawful Shabbat slaughter, whose covering no one would permit
Segment 12
TYPE: תירוץ
It must parallel circumcision: just as that is with permission, so the covering case is with permission
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דּוּמְיָא דְּמִילָה: מָה מִילָה בִּרְשׁוּת, אַף כִּסּוּי נָמֵי בִּרְשׁוּת.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: The baraita cannot be referring to such a case, since Rabbi Yosei compares it with circumcision. Therefore, it must be similar to the case of circumcision, in that just as the circumcision was performed with permission, as it is a mitzva to perform circumcision even if the eighth day falls on Shabbat, so too, the covering of the blood must be referring to a case where the slaughter was done with permission, i.e., for an ill person. Accordingly, the baraita poses a difficulty to the statement of Rav Eina.
קלאוד על הדף:
The defense fails on the baraita’s own comparison. Rabbi Yosei set covering against circumcision, and the analogy demands parallel cases: just as the circumcision performed on Shabbat is done with permission — it is a mitzva overriding Shabbat — so the covering case must be one where the slaughter was done with permission, i.e., for a dangerously ill person. Even then, the baraita rules, the blood is not covered on Shabbat. Rav Eina’s ruling stands refuted.
Key Terms:
- דּוּמְיָא דְּמִילָה = parallel to circumcision — the baraita’s own analogy forces the permitted-slaughter reading
- בִּרְשׁוּת = with permission — an act sanctioned ab initio, not a transgression
Segment 13
TYPE: ציטוט לניתוח
The Sages’ shofar rebuttal is re-quoted for analysis
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמְרוּ לוֹ: תְּקִיעַת שׁוֹפָר בַּגְּבוּלִין תּוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁאֵין וַדָּאָהּ דּוֹחֶה שַׁבָּת, וּסְפֵיקָהּ דּוֹחֶה יוֹם טוֹב.
English Translation:
The baraita states that the Sages said to Rabbi Yosei in refutation of his a fortiori inference: The sounding of the shofar in the provinces will prove that the inference is incorrect, since its definite obligation does not override Shabbat and its uncertain obligation overrides a Festival.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now returns to the Sages’ rebuttal of Rabbi Yosei in order to dissect it: the sounding of the shofar in the provinces proves the inference wrong, since its definite obligation does not override Shabbat and its uncertain obligation overrides a Festival. Before accepting the counterexample, the Gemara must identify what ‘uncertain shofar obligation overriding Yom Tov’ actually means — the analysis that begins in the next segment and carries onto 85a.
Key Terms:
- תּוֹכִיחַ = ‘will prove’ — the formula introducing a counterexample that breaks a kal vachomer
Segment 14
TYPE: קושיא
What is the uncertainty? If a doubtful Festival day — that is obvious from the definite one!
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי סְפֵיקָהּ? אִילֵּימָא סָפֵק חוֹל סָפֵק יוֹם טוֹב – הַשְׁתָּא וַדַּאי יוֹם טוֹב דָּחֲיָא, סָפֵק יוֹם טוֹב סָפֵק חוֹל מִיבַּעְיָא?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What is its uncertain obligation that overrides a Festival? If we say that it is referring to uncertainty with regard to whether one of the two days of Rosh HaShana is a weekday or a Festival, this is unfeasible: Now that the sounding of the shofar overrides the definite Festival of Rosh HaShana, is it necessary to teach that it overrides a day with regard to which it is uncertain whether it is a Festival or a weekday? That is, if the uncertainty is with regard to the Festival itself, then this case should have no bearing on the halakha concerning the obligation to cover the blood of a koy on a Festival, since the latter occurs on a definite Festival.
קלאוד על הדף:
The analysis opens by eliminating the obvious reading. If the shofar’s ‘uncertain case’ means a day doubtfully Yom Tov, doubtfully weekday — the second day of Rosh Hashana — the proof collapses into triviality: now that shofar-sounding overrides the definite Festival day of Rosh Hashana itself, need we be taught it overrides a doubtful one? For the rebuttal to have force, the uncertainty must lie elsewhere — and identifying it, with its consequences for the koy, continues on 85a.
Key Terms:
- סָפֵק חוֹל סָפֵק יוֹם טוֹב = doubtfully weekday, doubtfully Festival — the second-day uncertainty rejected as too obvious to teach
- מִיבַּעְיָא = ‘need it be said?’ — the formula exposing a reading as trivially redundant