Chullin Daf 87 (חולין דף פ״ז)
Daf: 87 | Amudim: 87a – 87b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (87a)
Segment 1
TYPE: תירוץ
The cases differ: one cannot drink and bless at once, but one can slaughter with one hand and cover with the other
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם מִשְׁתֵּא וּבָרוֹכֵי בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי לָא אֶפְשָׁר, הָכָא אֶפְשָׁר דְּשָׁחֵיט בַּחֲדָא וּמְכַסֵּי בַּחֲדָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared? There, in the incident involving the students of Rav, it is impossible to drink and recite a blessing simultaneously. Accordingly, by requesting a cup over which to recite the blessing of Grace after Meals, they demonstrated their desire to cease drinking. Here, when one covers the blood of the undomesticated animal before slaughtering the bird, it is possible to slaughter the bird with the one hand and cover the blood of the undomesticated animal with the other one. Accordingly, the act of covering the blood of the undomesticated animal is not considered an interruption of the acts of slaughter, since they could have been performed simultaneously.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf opens by resolving 86b’s challenge to Rabbi Chanina. The cup-of-Grace rule is no precedent: there, drinking and reciting Grace are physically incompatible, so requesting the cup declares the drinking over — a true severance requiring a new blessing. Here, covering the animal’s blood and slaughtering the bird are compatible — one can slaughter with one hand and cover with the other — so the interposed covering is no interruption, and Rabbi Chanina’s ruling stands: one blessing serves both slaughters even for Rabbi Yehuda.
Key Terms:
- מִשְׁתֵּא וּבָרוֹכֵי בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי לָא אֶפְשָׁר = drinking and blessing cannot be done together — the incompatibility that makes the cup-request a severance
- דְּשָׁחֵיט בַּחֲדָא וּמְכַסֵּי בַּחֲדָא = he slaughters with one [hand] and covers with the other — compatible acts create no interruption
Segment 2
TYPE: משנה
One who slaughtered and did not cover — another who saw it must cover; covered and uncovered — exempt; wind-covered — obligated
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ שָׁחַט וְלֹא כִּסָּה, וְרָאָהוּ אַחֵר – חַיָּיב לְכַסּוֹת. כִּסָּהוּ וְנִתְגַּלָּה – פָּטוּר מִלְּכַסּוֹת. (כִּסָּהוּ) [כִּסַּתּוּ] הָרוּחַ – חַיָּיב לְכַסּוֹת.
English Translation:
MISHNA: If one slaughtered an undomesticated animal or bird and did not cover the blood, and another person saw the uncovered blood, the second person is obligated to cover the blood. If one covered the blood and it was then uncovered, he is exempt from covering it again. If the wind blew earth on the blood and covered it, and it was consequently uncovered, he is obligated to cover the blood.
קלאוד על הדף:
The new mishna teaches three rules about the covering obligation’s persistence. First, the mitzva is not personal to the slaughterer: if he failed to cover and another saw the blood, the observer is obligated to cover it. Second, once the blood was covered and then became uncovered, there is no obligation to cover again — the mitzva was fulfilled. Third, if the wind covered the blood with earth and it was then uncovered, one is obligated to cover it — the wind’s covering was never a fulfillment, and the Gemara will refine exactly when this obligation applies.
Key Terms:
- כִּסָּהוּ וְנִתְגַּלָּה = he covered it and it became uncovered — the mitzva, once performed, is not owed again
- כִּסַּתּוּ הָרוּחַ = the wind covered it — a covering without human agency
Segment 3
TYPE: ברייתא
The slaughterer covers — but ‘I said to the children of Israel’ obligates everyone
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְשָׁפַךְ וְכִסָּה״ – מִי שֶׁשָּׁפַךְ יְכַסֶּה. שָׁחַט וְלֹא כִּסָּה, וְרָאָהוּ אַחֵר, מִנַּיִן שֶׁחַיָּיב לְכַסּוֹת? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וָאֹמַר לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ – אַזְהָרָה לְכׇל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth” (Leviticus 17:13), indicating that the one who poured out its blood, i.e., slaughtered the animal, shall cover it. If one slaughtered the animal or bird and did not cover the blood, and another person saw the uncovered blood, from where is it derived that the person who saw the blood is obligated to cover it? It is derived from the following verse, as it is stated: “Therefore I said to the children of Israel” (Leviticus 17:12), which is a warning to all the children of Israel to fulfill the mitzva of covering the blood.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita grounds the mishna’s first rule. ‘And he shall pour out its blood and cover it’ assigns the mitzva to the one who poured — the slaughterer covers first. But if he did not, the preceding verse — ‘therefore I said to the children of Israel’ (Vayikra 17:12) — is a charge to all of Israel: any Jew who sees uncovered blood of a valid slaughter is obligated to cover it. The mitzva has a designated owner but a universal fallback.
Key Terms:
- מִי שֶׁשָּׁפַךְ יְכַסֶּה = the one who poured shall cover — primary responsibility rests with the slaughterer
- אַזְהָרָה לְכׇל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל = a charge to all the children of Israel — the mitzva devolves on whoever encounters the blood
Segment 4
TYPE: ברייתות ומעשה
Cover with the hand, not the foot — mitzvot must not be treated with contempt; and the ten gold coins of Rabban Gamliel
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״וְשָׁפַךְ וְכִסָּה״, בַּמֶּה שֶׁשָּׁפַךְ – בּוֹ יְכַסֶּה, שֶׁלֹּא יְכַסֶּנּוּ בָּרֶגֶל, שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ מִצְוֹת בְּזוּיוֹת עָלָיו. תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״וְשָׁפַךְ וְכִסָּה״, מִי שֶׁשָּׁפַךְ – הוּא יְכַסֶּנּוּ. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁשָּׁחַט, וְקָדַם חֲבֵירוֹ וְכִסָּה, וְחִיְּיבוֹ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לִיתֵּן לוֹ עֲשָׂרָה זְהוּבִים.
English Translation:
It is taught in another baraita: The verse states: “And he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth,” indicating that with that which he poured out the blood he shall cover it, i.e., he must use his hand, and he may not cover it with his foot, so that mitzvot will not be contemptible to him. It is taught in another baraita: The verse states: “And he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth,” indicating that the one who poured out the blood shall cover it. An incident occurred involving one who slaughtered an undomesticated animal or bird and another individual preempted him and covered the blood, and Rabban Gamliel deemed him obligated to give ten gold coins to the one who performed the act of slaughter.
קלאוד על הדף:
Two more baraitot mine the same verse. First: ‘with that which he poured he shall cover’ — with the hand that wielded the knife, not with the foot, so that mitzvot not be contemptible in one’s eyes: the manner of performance expresses reverence for the mitzva itself. Second: the one who poured shall cover — and the famous incident: one slaughtered, and another preempted him and covered the blood; Rabban Gamliel obligated the interloper to pay the slaughterer ten gold coins. Snatching another’s mitzva is an actionable wrong.
Key Terms:
- שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מִצְוֹת בְּזוּיוֹת עָלָיו = that mitzvot not be contemptible to him — performing a mitzva with the foot degrades it
- עֲשָׂרָה זְהוּבִים = ten gold coins — Rabban Gamliel’s award for a snatched mitzva
Segment 5
TYPE: איבעיא
Are the ten coins the value of the mitzva or of the blessing? The difference: Grace after Meals — ten or forty
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: שְׂכַר מִצְוָה אוֹ שְׂכַר בְּרָכָה? לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְבִרְכַּת הַמָּזוֹן. אִי אָמְרַתְּ שְׂכַר מִצְוָה – אַחַת הִיא, וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ שְׂכַר בְּרָכָה – הָוְיָין אַרְבָּעִים. מַאי?
English Translation:
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Are these ten gold coins compensation for the stolen mitzva or are they compensation for the stolen blessing recited over the mitzva? The Gemara elaborates: What is the practical difference? The difference is with regard to a similar case involving Grace after Meals. If you say the coins are compensation for the mitzva, then with regard to Grace after Meals, since all its blessings constitute one mitzva, one would be obligated to give only ten gold coins. But if you say they are compensation for the lost blessing, then with regard to Grace after Meals the compensation is forty gold coins, since Grace after Meals comprises four blessings. What is the conclusion?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara probes Rabban Gamliel’s award: is it compensation for the stolen mitzva or for the stolen blessing that accompanies it? The practical difference arises with Birkat HaMazon: if the award is per mitzva, one who preempts another’s Grace owes ten coins — it is one mitzva; if per blessing, he owes forty, for Grace comprises four blessings. The question awaits resolution from an unexpected quarter.
Key Terms:
- שְׂכַר מִצְוָה אוֹ שְׂכַר בְּרָכָה = compensation for the mitzva or for the blessing — the unit of the award
- בִּרְכַּת הַמָּזוֹן = Grace after Meals — four blessings, the test case that separates ten from forty
Segment 6
TYPE: מעשה (תא שמע)
A heretic challenges Rebbi: ‘He who forms mountains did not create wind’ — and is answered from the verse’s end
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא מִינָא לְרַבִּי: מִי שֶׁיָּצַר הָרִים לֹא בָּרָא רוּחַ, וּמִי שֶׁבָּרָא רוּחַ לֹא יָצַר הָרִים, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי הִנֵּה יוֹצֵר הָרִים וּבֹרֵא רוּחַ״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שׁוֹטֶה, שְׁפֵיל לְסֵיפֵיהּ דִּקְרָא – ״ה׳ צְבָאוֹת שְׁמוֹ״.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from an incident in which a certain heretic said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: He who created mountains did not create wind, and he who created wind did not create mountains; rather, each was created by a separate deity, as it is written: “For behold, He Who forms the mountains and He Who creates the wind” (Amos 4:13), indicating that there are two deities: One who forms the mountains and one who creates the wind. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Imbecile, go to the end of the verse, which states: “The Lord, the God of hosts, is His name.” The verse emphasizes that God is the One Who both forms and creates.
קלאוד על הדף:
The resolution comes wrapped in a story. A heretic argued for two deities from Amos 4:13 — ‘He Who forms the mountains and He Who creates the wind’ — two verbs, two creators. Rebbi’s reply: fool, read to the end of the verse — ‘Hashem, the God of hosts, is His name.’ One Name governs both verbs; the prophet’s own conclusion refutes the dualist reading. The exchange models the classic defense against sectarian proof-texts: complete the citation.
Key Terms:
- יוֹצֵר הָרִים וּבֹרֵא רוּחַ = ‘He Who forms mountains and creates wind’ (Amos 4:13) — the heretic’s two-creator prooftext
- שְׁפֵיל לְסֵיפֵיהּ דִּקְרָא = ‘go down to the end of the verse’ — the refutation lies in the citation’s own conclusion
Segment 7
TYPE: המשך המעשה
The heretic demands three days for a rebuttal; Rebbi fasts, and the knock at the door embitters his meal
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: נְקוֹט לִי זִימְנָא תְּלָתָא יוֹמֵי וּמַהְדַּרְנָא לָךְ תְּיוּבְתָּא. יְתֵיב רַבִּי תְּלָת תַּעֲנִיָּתָא. כִּי הֲוָה קָא בָּעֵי מִיבְרָא, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: מִינָא קָאֵי אַבָּבָא. אֲמַר: ״וַיִּתְּנוּ בְּבָרוּתִי רוֹשׁ וְגוֹ׳״.
English Translation:
The heretic said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Give me three days’ time and I will respond to you with a rebuttal of your claim. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi sat and fasted three days of fasting while awaiting the heretic, in order that he would not find a rebuttal. When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi wanted to have a meal at the conclusion of those three days, they said to him: That heretic is standing at the doorway. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi recited the following verse about himself: “They put gall into my food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink” (Psalms 69:22), i.e., my meal is embittered with the presence of this heretic.
קלאוד על הדף:
The heretic asked for three days to devise a rebuttal, and Rebbi sat in fasting all three days, praying that no rebuttal be found. As he was about to break his fast, they told him: a heretic stands at the door. Rebbi applied to himself the verse ‘they put gall in my food’ (Tehillim 69:22) — the confrontation had come to sour even his first meal. The scene sets up the reversal that follows.
Key Terms:
- תְּלָת תַּעֲנִיָּתָא = three fasts — Rebbi’s days of fasting that the heretic find no rebuttal
- וַיִּתְּנוּ בְּבָרוּתִי רוֹשׁ = ‘they put gall in my food’ (Tehillim 69:22) — the meal embittered at its very start
Segment 8
TYPE: סיום המעשה
Good tidings, a shared meal, and the choice: the cup of blessing or forty gold coins — the bat kol fixes its worth
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רַבִּי, מְבַשֵּׂר טוֹבוֹת אֲנִי לָךְ, לֹא מָצָא תְּשׁוּבָה אוֹיִבְךָ וְנָפַל מִן הַגָּג וָמֵת. אָמַר לוֹ: רְצוֹנְךָ שֶׁתִּסְעוֹד אֶצְלִי? אָמַר לוֹ: הֵן. לְאַחַר שֶׁאָכְלוּ וְשָׁתוּ, אָמַר לוֹ: כּוֹס שֶׁל בְּרָכָה אַתָּה שׁוֹתֶה אוֹ אַרְבָּעִים זְהוּבִים אַתָּה נוֹטֵל? אָמַר לוֹ: כּוֹס שֶׁל בְּרָכָה אֲנִי שׁוֹתֶה. יָצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: כּוֹס שֶׁל בְּרָכָה שָׁוֶה אַרְבָּעִים זְהוּבִים.
English Translation:
When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi came to the door he saw that it was in fact a different heretic, not the one who asked for three days to prepare a rebuttal. This heretic said to him: Rabbi, I am a bearer of good tidings for you: Your enemy did not find a response, and he threw himself from the roof and died. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to the heretic: Since you have brought me good tidings, would you like to dine with me? The heretic said to him: Yes. After they ate and drank, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to the heretic: Would you like to drink the cup of blessing, i.e., the cup of wine over which the Grace after Meals is recited, or would you like to take forty gold coins instead, and I will recite the Grace after Meals? The heretic said to him: I will drink the cup of blessing. A Divine Voice emerged and said: The cup of blessing is worth forty gold coins. Evidently, each one of the blessings in the Grace after Meals is worth ten gold coins.
קלאוד על הדף:
At the door stood a different heretic bearing news: your antagonist found no rebuttal and threw himself from the roof. Rebbi invited him to dine, and after the meal posed a choice: drink the cup of blessing, or take forty gold coins while I recite Grace? He chose the cup. A Divine Voice declared: the cup of blessing is worth forty gold coins. The dilemma is resolved: the award is per blessing — ten coins each for the four blessings of Grace — confirming that Rabban Gamliel’s ten coins were the value of the single blessing over covering the blood.
Key Terms:
- כּוֹס שֶׁל בְּרָכָה = the cup of blessing — the wine over which Grace after Meals is recited
- שָׁוֶה אַרְבָּעִים זְהוּבִים = worth forty gold coins — ten per blessing, resolving the dilemma in favor of skhar beracha
Segment 9
TYPE: מימרא
Rabbi Yitzchak: that family still stands among the nobility of Rome — the house of bar Luyyanus
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: עֲדַיִין יֶשְׁנָהּ לְאוֹתָהּ מִשְׁפָּחָה בֵּין גְּדוֹלֵי רוֹמִי, וְקוֹרְאִין אוֹתָהּ מִשְׁפַּחַת בַּר לוּיָאנוּס.
English Translation:
The Gemara adds: Rabbi Yitzḥak says: That family of the heretic who dined with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi still exists among the prominent families of Rome, and that family is called: The family of bar Luyyanus.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yitzchak appends a historical footnote: the family of the heretic who dined with Rebbi and chose the cup of blessing still exists among the great families of Rome, called the house of bar Luyyanus. The choice of blessing over gold left a mark on generations — the Gemara tracks the reward of one moment of honoring a blessing across centuries.
Key Terms:
- מִשְׁפַּחַת בַּר לוּיָאנוּס = the family of bar Luyyanus — the Roman house descended from the heretic who chose the cup
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא
Why is covered-and-uncovered exempt, when a lost item must be returned even a hundred times?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּסָּהוּ וְנִתְגַּלָּה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשִׁי: מַאי שְׁנָא מֵהֲשָׁבַת אֲבֵדָה, דְּאָמַר מָר: ״הָשֵׁב״ – אֲפִילּוּ מֵאָה פְּעָמִים.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that if one covered the blood and it was then uncovered he is not obligated to cover it again. Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: What is different about this case from the mitzva of returning a lost item, where the Master said: The verse states with regard to the obligation to return a lost item: “You shall return them to your brother” (Deuteronomy 22:1), even one hundred times?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara turns to the mishna’s second rule. Rav Acha son of Rava asks Rav Ashi: why, once the blood was covered and became uncovered, is there no further obligation? In the laws of returning lost property the Master taught: ‘hashev teshivem’ — return it even a hundred times. Why does the covering mitzva not likewise renew each time the blood is exposed?
Key Terms:
- הָשֵׁב אֲפִילּוּ מֵאָה פְּעָמִים = ‘return — even a hundred times’ — the lost-item obligation renews without limit
Segment 11
TYPE: תירוץ
There no restriction is written; here the Torah wrote ‘and he shall cover it’ — once
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם לָא כְּתִיב מִיעוּטָא, הָכָא כְּתִיב מִיעוּטָא ״וְכִסָּהוּ״.
English Translation:
Rav Ashi said to Rav Aḥa: There, in the verse discussing the obligation to return a lost item, a restriction is not written in the verse to limit the obligation. Here, in the verse discussing the obligation to cover the blood, a restriction is written, as the verse states: “And he shall cover it.” The usage of the term “it” indicates that one must cover the blood only one time.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ashi answers from the texts: by lost property no limiting term appears, so the obligation recurs indefinitely. By covering, the Torah wrote the restrictive ‘v’chisahu’ — ‘and he shall cover it’ — the suffix teaching one covering. Once performed, the mitzva is discharged; later exposure creates no new duty. The scope of a mitzva’s persistence is set by its wording.
Key Terms:
- וְכִסָּהוּ = ‘and he shall cover it’ — the singular suffix read as a restriction: one covering discharges the duty
Segment 12
TYPE: מימרא וקושיא
Wind-covered blood: obligated only if re-exposed — and Rav Pappa’s principle: there is no permanent rejection for mitzvot
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּסָּהוּ הָרוּחַ. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁחָזַר וְנִתְגַּלָּה, אֲבָל לֹא חָזַר וְנִתְגַּלָּה – פָּטוּר מִלְּכַסּוֹת. וְכִי חָזַר וְנִתְגַּלָּה מַאי הָוֵי? הָא אִידְּחִי לֵיהּ! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת אֵין דִּיחוּי אֵצֶל מִצְוֹת.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that if the wind blew earth on the blood and covered it one is obligated to cover the blood. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They taught this halakha only if the blood was again uncovered. But if the blood was not again uncovered one is exempt from the obligation to cover it. The Gemara asks: And when the blood was again uncovered, what of it? Isn’t it already rejected from the mitzva of covering since it was covered by the wind? Rav Pappa said: That is to say that there is no permanent rejection with regard to mitzvot. Although the wind covered the blood, the mitzva to cover it was not rendered null; rather, the mitzva simply could not be performed. Consequently, once the blood is again uncovered, the mitzva to cover the blood remains in place.
קלאוד על הדף:
On the mishna’s third rule, Rabba bar bar Chana quotes Rabbi Yochanan: the obligation after a wind-covering applies only where the blood became uncovered again; while it remains wind-covered, one is exempt. The Gemara presses: once the wind covered it, the blood was rejected (nidcheh) from the mitzva — why does re-exposure revive the duty? Rav Pappa answers with a principle: ein dichuy etzel mitzvot — there is no permanent rejection with regard to mitzvot. The wind’s covering only suspended the mitzva; the blood’s reappearance restores it.
Key Terms:
- אֵין דִּיחוּי אֵצֶל מִצְוֹת = there is no rejection with regard to mitzvot — a mitzva suspended by circumstance revives when the obstacle passes
- אִידְּחִי = it was rejected — the sacrificial-law concept of permanent disqualification that Rav Pappa denies for mitzvot
Segment 13
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Why is enduring wind-cover exempt, when absorbed blood must still be covered? Because there the mark remains
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמַאי שְׁנָא מֵהָא דְּתַנְיָא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְנִבְלַע דָּם בַּקַּרְקַע – חַיָּיב לְכַסּוֹת. הָתָם כְּשֶׁרִשּׁוּמוֹ נִיכָּר.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But even if the wind covered the blood and it remained covered, why is one exempt from performing the mitzva of covering the blood? What is different about this case from that which is taught in a baraita: In a case where one slaughters an undomesticated animal or a bird and its blood is absorbed by the ground, one is obligated to cover the blood? The Gemara responds: There, the baraita is referring to a case where the impression of the blood is still recognizable, i.e., it was not entirely absorbed in the ground.
קלאוד על הדף:
But why should blood that remains wind-covered be exempt at all? A baraita teaches that blood absorbed into the ground must still be covered! The distinction: the baraita speaks of blood whose impression is still recognizable (rishumo nikar) — visible blood is coverable blood. Wind-covered blood shows nothing on the surface; with no recognizable mark there is nothing to cover, unless and until it is exposed again.
Key Terms:
- נִבְלַע דָּם בַּקַּרְקַע = blood absorbed into the ground — still covered, if its mark shows
- רִשּׁוּמוֹ נִיכָּר = its impression is recognizable — the visibility standard that keeps the obligation alive
Segment 14
TYPE: משנה
Blood mixed with water, wine, or a domesticated animal’s blood: the appearance test and the as-if-water device
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ דָּם שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּמַיִם, אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ מַרְאִית דָּם – חַיָּיב לְכַסּוֹת. נִתְעָרֵב בְּיַיִן – רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ הוּא מַיִם. נִתְעָרֵב בְּדַם הַבְּהֵמָה
English Translation:
MISHNA: In a case of the blood of an undomesticated animal or bird that was mixed with water, if there is in the mixture the appearance of blood one is obligated to cover it. If the blood was mixed with wine one views the wine as though it is water, and if a mixture with that amount of water would have the appearance of blood one is obligated to cover it. Likewise, if the blood of an undomesticated animal or a bird was mixed with the blood of a domesticated animal, which one does not have to cover,
קלאוד על הדף:
The perek’s next mishna addresses mixtures. Blood mixed with water: if the mixture retains the appearance of blood (marit dam), one must cover it. Mixed with wine — which is red and would mask the blood — one views the wine as if it were water: if that volume of water would leave the blood’s appearance intact, covering is required. The same device applies when covering-blood is mixed with blood not subject to covering — a domesticated animal’s blood — as the mishna completes overleaf.
Key Terms:
- מַרְאִית דָּם = the appearance of blood — the operative test for mixtures
- רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ הוּא מַיִם = one views it as if it were water — the legal fiction neutralizing look-alike liquids
Amud Bet (87b)
Segment 1
TYPE: משנה (המשך)
The as-if-water rule for same-color blood; Rabbi Yehuda: blood does not nullify blood
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אוֹ בְּדַם הַחַיָּה – רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ הֵן מַיִם. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין דָּם מְבַטֵּל דָּם.
English Translation:
or with blood of the undomesticated animal that did not flow from the neck and does not require covering, one views the blood as though it is water. Rabbi Yehuda says: Blood does not nullify blood. Therefore, even if the undomesticated animal’s blood, which one must cover, is not recognizable in this mixture, he is obligated to cover the mixture nevertheless.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna’s continuation: covering-blood mixed with a beheima’s blood, or with an undomesticated animal’s blood that itself needs no covering (such as blood that did not flow from the neck), is judged by the same fiction — view the exempt blood as water, and if the covering-blood’s appearance would survive, cover. Rabbi Yehuda dissents: ein dam mevatel dam — blood does not nullify blood. Like species cannot nullify one another, so even when the covering-blood is visually swamped by other blood, the obligation stands.
Key Terms:
- אֵין דָּם מְבַטֵּל דָּם = blood does not nullify blood — Rabbi Yehuda’s rule that like does not nullify like (min b’mino)
Segment 2
TYPE: משנה (סיום)
Spurted blood and knife blood are covered — Rabbi Yehuda: only when no other blood is there
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דָּם הַנִּיתָּז וְשֶׁעַל הַסַּכִּין – חַיָּיב לְכַסּוֹת. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אֵימָתַי? בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין שָׁם דָּם אֶלָּא הוּא, אֲבָל יֵשׁ שָׁם דָּם שֶׁלֹּא הוּא – פָּטוּר מִלְּכַסּוֹת.
English Translation:
With regard to blood that spurts outside the pit over which the animal was slaughtered, or onto a wall, and blood that remained on the slaughtering knife, one is obligated to cover it. Rabbi Yehuda said: When is this the halakha? When no blood remains there from the slaughter except that blood. But if blood remains there from the slaughter that is not that blood, he is exempt from covering it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna’s final clause: blood that spurted beyond the slaughtering pit, and blood remaining on the knife, must be covered — the mitzva follows the slaughter-blood wherever it lands. Rabbi Yehuda qualifies: when? When that is the only blood present; but if other blood from the slaughter is there and was covered, the stray blood is exempt — covering part of the slaughter’s blood discharges the whole.
Key Terms:
- דָּם הַנִּיתָּז וְשֶׁעַל הַסַּכִּין = blood that spurted and blood on the knife — slaughter-blood outside the main pool
- אֵימָתַי = ‘when?’ — Rabbi Yehuda’s qualification limiting the clause to blood standing alone
Segment 3
TYPE: משנה ממסכת זבחים
The parallel mishna in Zevachim: the same mixture rules govern sacrificial blood fit for the altar
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ תְּנַן הָתָם: דָּם שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּמַיִם, אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ מַרְאִית דָּם – כָּשֵׁר. נִתְעָרֵב בְּיַיִן – רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ הוּא מַיִם. נִתְעָרֵב בְּדַם בְּהֵמָה אוֹ בְּדַם הַחַיָּה – רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ הוּא מַיִם. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין דָּם מְבַטֵּל דָּם.
English Translation:
GEMARA: We learned in a mishna there (Zevaḥim 77b): In the case of blood of an offering fit for sacrifice that was mixed with water, if the mixture has the appearance of blood it is fit for sprinkling on the altar, even though the majority of the mixture is water. If the blood was mixed with red wine, one views the wine as though it is water. If that amount of water would leave the mixture with the appearance of blood it is fit for presentation. And likewise, if the blood was mixed with the blood of a non-sacred domesticated animal or the blood of a non-sacred undomesticated animal, one considers the non-sacred blood as though it is water. Rabbi Yehuda says: Blood does not nullify blood. Therefore, the priest presents the blood of the mixture on the altar.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara cites the twin mishna (Zevachim 77b): sacrificial blood mixed with water is fit for presentation on the altar if it retains the appearance of blood; mixed with wine or with non-sacred blood, one views the alien liquid as if it were water; and Rabbi Yehuda says blood does not nullify blood. The identical architecture in the sacrificial realm invites the comparison the Gemara now draws — and the divergence it will locate.
Key Terms:
- כָּשֵׁר = fit — valid for presentation on the altar despite the admixture
Segment 4
TYPE: מימרא
Rabbi Yochanan: only where water fell into blood — blood dripped into water is nullified drop by drop
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁנָּפְלוּ מַיִם לְתוֹךְ דָּם, אֲבָל נָפַל דָּם לְתוֹךְ מַיִם – רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן בָּטֵל.
English Translation:
The mishna teaches that in a case where water became mixed with the blood of an offering, if the mixture has the appearance of blood it is fit, despite the fact that there is more water than blood. Concerning this Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They taught this halakha only in a case where the water fell into the blood. But in a case where the blood fell into the water, the first drop of blood, and then the next first drop of blood, are nullified in the water, i.e., each drop is nullified in turn. Consequently, the mixture is unfit for presentation, regardless of whether it has the appearance of blood.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba quotes Rabbi Yochanan’s limitation on the Zevachim rule: it was taught only where water fell into blood — the blood was always the standing body, and it survives if its appearance survives. But where blood fell into water, each first drop is nullified as it enters (rishon rishon batel): the standing water swallows the blood drop by drop, and the mixture is unfit for the altar even if enough blood eventually turns it red. Sequence, not just proportion, determines the mixture’s identity.
Key Terms:
- רִאשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן בָּטֵל = each first bit is nullified in turn — incremental nullification of the entering liquid
- נָפַל דָּם לְתוֹךְ מַיִם = blood fell into water — the direction of mixing that dooms sacrificial blood
Segment 5
TYPE: מימרא
Rav Pappa: for covering it is not so — there is no rejection with regard to mitzvot
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: וּלְעִנְיַן כִּסּוּי אֵינוֹ כֵּן, אֵין דִּחוּי אֵצֶל מִצְוֹת.
English Translation:
Rav Pappa says: But with regard to the mitzva of covering the blood of birds or undomesticated animals that are slaughtered, it is not so. In this case, even if the blood fell into water the mitzva of covering applies to it, provided the mixture has the appearance of blood. The blood is not nullified by the water because there is no permanent rejection with regard to mitzvot other than those that relate to sacrificial rites. Therefore, its nullification was merely temporary, but once there is enough blood in the water it reassumes its status of blood.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa exports his principle from the amud aleph: for the mitzva of covering, the drop-by-drop nullification does not apply. Even blood that fell into water must be covered, provided the final mixture bears the appearance of blood. The nullification of the early drops was only a temporary suspension — ein dichuy etzel mitzvot — and once the accumulating blood restores the appearance of blood, the mitzva attaches. Sacrificial disqualification is permanent; mitzva-suspension is not.
Key Terms:
- וּלְעִנְיַן כִּסּוּי אֵינוֹ כֵּן = but for covering it is not so — the mitzva revives where the offering would remain unfit
Segment 6
TYPE: מימרא וקושיא
Shmuel: every reddish appearance atones, renders susceptible, and requires covering — but what is new?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל מַרְאֵה אַדְּמוּמִית – מְכַפְּרִין, וּמַכְשִׁירִין, וְחַיָּיבִין בְּכִסּוּי. מַאי קָמַשְׁמַע לַן? מְכַפְּרִין – תְּנֵינָא, חַיָּיבִין בְּכִסּוּי – תְּנֵינָא!
English Translation:
§ With regard to mixtures of blood and water, Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: All mixtures of blood and water that maintain a reddish hue are considered blood and effect atonement by being presented on the altar, and render food susceptible to contracting ritual impurity, and are included in the obligation of covering the blood provided that the blood is from the slaughter of an undomesticated animal or bird. The Gemara asks: What is Rav Yehuda teaching us? If he is teaching us that such mixtures effect atonement, we already learn this from the mishna in tractate Zevaḥim. And if he is teaching us that such mixtures are included in the obligation of covering the blood, we already learn this in the mishna here.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yehuda quotes Shmuel’s triple rule: any mixture retaining a reddish appearance (marei admumit) — atones when presented on the altar, renders food susceptible to impurity (machshir), and is subject to the covering obligation. The Gemara immediately audits the list: ‘atones’ we learned in Zevachim; ‘requires covering’ we learned in our mishna. What does Shmuel add?
Key Terms:
- כׇּל מַרְאֵה אַדְּמוּמִית = any reddish appearance — the visual threshold at which a mixture is still ‘blood’
- מַכְשִׁירִין = render susceptible — a liquid’s power to enable food to contract ritual impurity
Segment 7
TYPE: תירוץ וקושיא
The news is hechsher — in the case of rainwater mixed with blood
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַכְשִׁירִין אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ. מַכְשִׁירִין נָמֵי, אִי דָּם – אַכְשׁוֹרֵי מַכְשַׁר, אִי מַיָּא – אַכְשׁוֹרֵי מַכְשְׁרִי! לָא צְרִיכָא, שֶׁתִּמְּדוֹ בְּמֵי גְשָׁמִים.
English Translation:
Rather, it was necessary for Rav Yehuda to teach that such mixtures render food susceptible to contracting ritual impurity, as this was not taught in a mishna. The Gemara challenges: It is also unnecessary to teach that such mixtures render food susceptible to contracting ritual impurity. If the mixture has the status of blood it renders food susceptible, as does blood, and if the mixture has the status of water it renders food susceptible, as does water. The Gemara responds: No, this statement is necessary in a case where the blood was mixed with rainwater, which does not render food susceptible without the intent or desire of the owner of the food. If the mixture is considered blood it renders food susceptible.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer: the needed teaching is machshirin. But this too seems trivial — if the mixture is blood it renders susceptible as blood, and if water, as water! The refinement: the case is blood diluted (timmedu) with rainwater, which renders food susceptible only when it was used with intent. Shmuel teaches that if the mixture retains the appearance of blood, it renders susceptible as blood — no intent needed.
Key Terms:
- מֵי גְשָׁמִים = rainwater — which is machshir only with the owner’s intent
- שֶׁתִּמְּדוֹ = that it was diluted — blood extended with rainwater like diluted wine
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ
The dilution happened by itself — no act of intent ascribed significance to the water
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵי גְשָׁמִים נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּשָׁקֵיל וְרָמֵי, אַחְשְׁבִינְהוּ. לָא צְרִיכָא, שֶׁנִּתְמְדוּ מֵאֲלֵיהֶן.
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: With regard to rainwater as well, since one took it and placed it into a vessel containing blood, he has ascribed significance to the rainwater and it should be capable of rendering food susceptible. The Gemara responds: No, this statement is necessary in a case where the rainwater was mixed with the blood by itself, i.e., it was not gathered and poured purposefully.
קלאוד על הדף:
One more turn: if a person mixed the rainwater in, his very act ascribes significance to the water (achshevinhu) and it would render susceptible as water regardless. The final setting: the rainwater mixed with the blood by itself — no human act, no intent, no significance ascribed. There Shmuel’s rule does the work: a reddish appearance makes the mixture blood, and it renders food susceptible as blood.
Key Terms:
- אַחְשְׁבִינְהוּ = he ascribed significance to them — deliberate use confers machshir status on water
- שֶׁנִּתְמְדוּ מֵאֲלֵיהֶן = they were diluted by themselves — an unintended mixture, the only case where the rule is needed
Segment 9
TYPE: מימרות
Blood plasma: karet for an olive-bulk, and tent-impurity with a quarter-log
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי אַסִּי מִנְּהַרְבִּיל אוֹמֵר: בִּצְלַלְתָּא דִּדְמָא. רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה מִדִּפְתִּי אָמַר: עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת, וְהוּא דְּאִיכָּא כְּזַיִת. בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: מְטַמְּאִים בְּאֹהֶל, וְהוּא דְּאִיכָּא רְבִיעִית.
English Translation:
Rabbi Asi of Neharbil says: The statement of Rav Yehuda is referring to blood plasma, i.e., if the plasma has a reddish hue due to the blood, it has the status of blood and can render food susceptible to contracting ritual impurity. Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti said: Consumption of this plasma is punishable by karet, as is the halakha with regard to one who consumes blood (see Leviticus 17:14), provided that there is at least one olive-bulk of actual blood. It was taught in a baraita: Blood plasma that issues from a corpse that has a reddish hue imparts ritual impurity in a tent, provided that there is at least a quarter-log of actual blood, which is the amount of a corpse’s blood that imparts ritual impurity.
קלאוד על הדף:
The discussion narrows to tzlalta d’dema — blood plasma. Rabbi Asi of Neharbil reads Shmuel’s rule as addressing plasma: if it retains a reddish hue it is blood for hechsher. Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti extends it to the gravest register: consuming such plasma is punishable by karet, provided an olive-bulk of actual blood is present. And a baraita teaches: a corpse’s plasma with a reddish hue imparts impurity in a tent, provided a quarter-log of actual blood is present. The appearance test now spans kashrut, karet, and the laws of corpse-impurity.
Key Terms:
- צְלַלְתָּא דִּדְמָא = blood plasma — the clear serum that separates from blood
- עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת = punishable by karet — consuming blood at Torah-level severity
- רְבִיעִית = a quarter-log — the minimum measure of a corpse’s blood that imparts tent-impurity
Segment 10
TYPE: סוגיא חדשה
Liquids of a corpse are pure except its blood — and the contradiction from the tevul yom
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תְּנַן הָתָם: כׇּל מַשְׁקֵה הַמֵּת טְהוֹרִין, חוּץ מִדָּמוֹ, וְכׇל מַרְאֵה אַדְּמוּמִית שֶׁבּוֹ מְטַמְּאִין בְּאֹהֶל. וּמַשְׁקֵה הַמֵּת טְהוֹרִין? וּרְמִינְהוּ: מַשְׁקֶה טְבוּל יוֹם, מַשְׁקִין הַיּוֹצְאִין מִמֶּנּוּ כְּמַשְׁקִין שֶׁנּוֹגֵעַ בָּהֶן,
English Translation:
We learned in a baraita elsewhere (Tosefta, Oholot 4:5): All liquids that issue from a corpse, e.g., teardrops or breastmilk, are ritually pure, except for its blood. And all liquids that issue from a corpse that contain a reddish hue of blood impart ritual impurity in a tent. The Gemara asks: But are liquids that issue from a corpse ritually pure? And raise a contradiction from a mishna (Tevul Yom 2:1): With regard to liquids that issue from one who immersed that day, liquids that issue from him have the same status as liquids that he touches.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf closes opening a new inquiry. The Tosefta (Oholot) teaches: all liquids issuing from a corpse — tears, milk — are pure, except its blood; and any reddish appearance in them imparts tent-impurity. The Gemara challenges from the mishna in Tevul Yom: liquids issuing from one who immersed that day have the status of liquids he touches — apparently bodily liquids do carry impurity. The contradiction between the corpse’s pure liquids and the tevul yom’s impure ones stands unresolved as the daf ends, continuing on 88a.
Key Terms:
- מַשְׁקֵה הַמֵּת = the liquids of a corpse — pure, except for its blood
- טְבוּל יוֹם = one who immersed that day — retaining light impurity until nightfall, the source of the contradiction