As it was taught on Tannaite authority: [The verse says:] “And you shall let none of it remain until the morning, anything that remains until the morning you shall burn” (Exod. 12:10). [83a] “The verse comes to connect a commandment to a prohibition to tell us that they do not incur stripes for violating it [i.e., for letting it remain past the appointed time],” the words of R. Judah. R. Jacob says, “This is not the reason [that they do not incur stripes for violating it]. But it is because [violating] the prohibition [of leaving over the sacrifice] does not require an overt act. And [we have a principle that for violating] any prohibition that does not require an overt act, they do not incur stripes.”
A. Come and take note: [If] he ate two sinews from two thighs form two beasts, he incurs eighty stripes. R. Judah says, “He incurs only forty stripes” [T. 7:5 E-F]. What is the situation? If we say that [he ate in two acts] one after the other and he received two warnings, then what is the basis for the view of R. Judah who says he incurs forty stripes and no more? But it is obvious that the case is that he ate them [both] at once and with one warning. And in accord with whose view is that of the first Tanna? If we say in accord with the opinion of the rabbis that dispute the view of Sumkhos, let us now consider the matter. What is the case there [in our Mishnah]? There are separate entities and the rabbis exempted him [from multiple punishments]. Here [where he performs the acts all at once] is it not more logical to conclude [that he be exempt from multiple punishments]?
B. Then rather do we not interpret [the rule] in accord with the view of Sumkhos? No. It is consistent to say that we interpret that it is a case [where he performed the acts] one after the other and [how do we respond to] what was stated, “What is the basis for the view of R. Judah [who says he incurs forty stripes and no more?]” The case in question must be on where there was not an olive's bulk.
C. For it was taught on Tannaite authority: [If] he ate it and it does not contain an olive's bulk, lo, this one is liable [M. Hul. 3:3 B]. R. Judah declares exempt until there will be an olive's bulk therein [T. 7:5 C-D].
I.1 explores the premises of the scriptural and logical bases of Mishnah's rules. II.1 identifies the operative principle of the view of Sumkhos in Mishnah and explores its application to secondary cases. II.2 then cites a related rule from a Tosefta-text and seeks to align its views with those of our Mishnah. II.3 continues this inquiry.
R. At four seasons in the year does he who sells a beast to his fellow have to inform him, “Its mother did I sell for slaughter, its daughter did I sell for slaughter,” and these are they: (1) On the eve of the last festival day of the Festival [of Sukkot;] (2) on the eve of the first festival day of Passover; (3) on the eve of Aseret [Shabuot], (4) and on the eve of the New Year.
S. And in accord with the opinion of R. Yosé the Galilean, “Also on the eve of the Day of Atonement in Galilee.”
T. Said R. Judah,“Under what circumstances? When there is no space of time [between sales]. But if there is a space of time [between sales] he does not need to inform him.”
U. And R. Judah agrees in the case of one who sells the dam to the bridegroom and the daughter to the bride, that he needs to inform him.
V. For it is certain that both will slaughter [them] on the same day.
A. At these four seasons do they force the butcher to slaughter [an animal] against his will.
B. Even if it was an ox worth a thousand denars, and the purchaser has only one denar, they force him to slaughter it.
C. Therefore if it dies, the loss is that of the customer.
D. But on the rest of the days of the year, it is not so.
E. Therefore if it dies, the loss is that of the seller.
A. It was taught on Tannaite authority: If they did not inform him, he may go and slaughter and does not have refrain [from slaughtering in any way].
A. Said R. Judah,“Under what circumstances? When there is no space of time [between sales]. But if there is a space of time [between sales] he does not need to inform him.” And R. Judah agrees in the case of one who sells the dam to the bridegroom and the daughter to the bride, that he needs to inform him. For it is certain that both will slaughter [them] on the same day [M. 5:3 T-V]. Why must I teach, the dam to the bridegroom and the daughter to the bride? This teaches us a novel point about one matter incidental to another. That is, it is normal that the house of the bridegroom makes a more elaborate [celebration] than the house of the bride. [Because the Mishnah speaks of a case where the bridegroom slaughter the dam and the bride slaughter the offspring.]
A. At these four seasons do they force the butcher to slaughter [an animal] against his will [M. 5:4 A]. But lo, he did not yet draw it [the animal toward him as a means of acquiring possession]. [Therefore the customer should not take any loss contrary to C.] Said R. Huna, said Rab, “[We deal with a case where] he did draw it to him.”
B. If this is so then consider the last text of the Mishnah: But on the rest of the days of the year, it is not so. Therefore if it dies, the loss is that of the seller [D-E]. But lo [why is this the case]? He already drew it to him [thus acquiring it]!
C. Said R. Samuel bar Yitzhak, “It is consistent to say that he did not draw it to him. And the case in question is one where he became the owner through the action of another party.”
D. At these four seasons, since it is a benefit for him [to own the animal, we act in accord with the principle,] they may accept a benefit on behalf of a person [even] in his absence. But during the rest of the days of the year, since it is a loss to him [they do not accept it on his behalf in accord with the principle,] they may not accept a loss on behalf of a person in his absence.
E. R. Eleazar says, said R. Yohanan, “At these four seasons the sages supported their words with the authority of the Torah.” For said R. Yohanan, “On the basis of the law of the Torah money effects acquisition of title in a transfer of property [while a formal act of drawing does not (b. Bekh. 13b)].” And on what basis did they [the rabbis] say that an act of drawing effects acquisition? It is a decree [to protect the buyer] lest he[ the seller] say to him, “Your wheat was burned up in a fire in the attic.”
I.1 extends the rule of Mishnah. II.1 derives a minor point from a criticism of the Mishnah-paragraph. II.1 is a brief inquiry into the premises of Mishnah.
A. [Concerning the phrase], “One day” which is stated in connection with “it and its young” [with regard to the law this means] the day [accords] with the preceding night.
B. This did Simeon b. Zoma expound: “It is stated with reference to the works of creation, `One day' (Gen. 1:5), and it is stated with reference to `it and its young,' `One day' (Lev. 22:28). Just as `One day' stated with reference to the works of creation means [as to the law] the day [accords] with the preceding night, so `One day' stated with reference to `it and its young' [means] the day [accords] with the preceding night.”
A. Our rabbis taught on Tannaite authority: R. Simeon b. Zoma expounded this: Because the entire context [of the rules of our prohibition] speaks only about Holy Things, and because in regard to Holy Things the night follows the day, you might infer that even here that is the case [that the night follows the day]. [Therefore] it is stated here, 'One day' and stated with reference to the works of creation, `One day.' Just as `One day' stated with reference to the works of creation means [as to the law] the day [accords] with the preceding night, so `One day' stated with reference to `it and its young' [means] the day [accords] with the preceding night.
B. [83b] Rabbi says, “`One day' means [to specify] the special requirement of the one day on which you must announce [four times a year that you sold the mother to be slaughtered, warning thereby the buyer of the offspring not to slaughter it on that day].” Based on this [teaching] they said, At four seasons in the year does he who sells a beast to his fellow have to inform him, [“Its mother did I sell for slaughter, its daughter did I sell for slaughter”] [M. 5:3 R].
I.1 clarifies the premise of the Mishnah.
Bavli ullin Chapter Six Folios 83B-89B
A. [The requirement to] cover up the blood applies in the Land and abroad, (2) in the time of the Temple and not in the time of the Temple, (3) in the case of unconsecrated beasts, but not in the case of Holy Things.
B. And it applies (4) to a wild beast and a bird, (5) to that which is captive and to that which is not captive.
C. And it applies (6) to a koy, because it is a matter of doubt [whether it is wild or domesticated].
D. And they do not slaughter it [a koy] on the festival. But if one has slaughtered it, they do not cover up its blood.
A. On what basis does [the rule] not apply to Holy Things?Do you say it is on account of the view of R. Zira? For said R. Zira, “One who slaughters must put dust below and dust above [the blood]. For it says, `[Any man also of the people of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, who takes in hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten] shall pour out its blood and cover it in dust' (Lev. 17:13). It does not say `with dust,' but it does say, `in dust.' This teaches us that the one who slaughters must put dust below and dust above [the blood].”
B. And here [in the case of Holy Things] it is not possible [to cover it above and below with dust]. What are his options? If he puts [dust on the altar] and declares it null [he thereby violates the prohibition against] adding on to the structure [of the altar]. And it is written [that you cannot change the structures of the Temple], “And this he made clear by the writing from the hand of the Lord concerning it, all the work to be done according to the plan” (I Chron. 28:19).
C. If he does not declare it null, then it [the dust underneath] will interpose [between the blood and the altar and invalidate the sacrifice].
D. Let it be the case then that below it is not possible [to cover the blood of a Holy Thing with dust]. But above it is possible to cover it with dust [in accord with the following]. Was it [the following] not taught on Tannaite authority? R. Jonathan b. Joseph says, “If one slaughtered a wild animal and afterward one slaughtered a beast, he is exempt from the obligation to cover the blood [of the wild animal since the blood of the beast covers it]. [If one slaughtered] a beast and afterward [one slaughtered] a wild animal, he is liable to cover the blood [of the wild animal even though the blood of the beast lies beneath it.” [Here too he should have to cover with dust above it even if he does not place dust below it.]
E. And this accords with the principle of R. Zira. For said R. Zira, “For anything that is suitable for mixing, the absence of the act of mixing does not impede [the effectiveness of the mixture]. And for anything that is not suitable for mixing, the absence of the act of mixing does impede [the effectiveness of the mixture] [b. Men. 103b, b. B.B. 81b].” [In these cases it would have been suitable to put dust below the wild animal's blood. For Holy Things it would not be suitable to put dust below because it would invalidate the sacrifice.]
F. But why not let him scrape it [the blood off the altar, move it away], and cover it?And [in accord with this] was it not taught on Tannaite authority in the Mishnah: Blood that splashes and what is on the knife, one is liable to cover it up [M. 6:6 A-B]? It seems logical to conclude that implies he may scrape it off and cover it. Here too let us scrape it off and cover it.
G. If we are dealing with Holy Things brought upon the altar, that is indeed the case. In our case what are we dealing with? With Holy Things that are consecrated property of the Temple treasury [that may not be eaten by anyone until they are redeemed. Thus the act of slaughter accomplishes no change in the status of the animal as food and is invalid.]