[84a] But why not let him redeem it and then cover the blood [since the act of slaughter would then be valid]? [You cannot do this because] you need to assess and appraise [the value of the animal by bringing it to a priest before you redeem it]. And in accord with whose view is this? If you say that it is in accord with the view of R. Meir who said that all cases [of Holy Things] fall under the rule of having to be assessed and appraised, lo he said, “An act of slaughter that is improper, is a valid act of slaughter.” [He must cover the blood in any case.]
I. And if it is in accord with the view of R. Simeon who said [cf. b. 80a], “An act of slaughter that is improper, is not a valid act of slaughter,” lo, he said that all cases do not fall under the rule of having to be assessed and appraised.
J. Said R. Joseph, “It is in accord with the view of Rabbi. And he concurs with both Tannaite authorities. With regard to an act of slaughter that is improper he holds in accord with the view of R. Simeon [that it is not a valid act of slaughter]. And with regard to the need to assess and appraise [before redeeming the animal] he holds in accord with the view of R. Meir [that all cases fall under the rule].”
K. And another possibility: The entire matter is in accord with the views of R. Simeon. This case is different [from the ordinary case] because Scripture said, “[He] shall pour out [its blood] and cover it [with dust]” (Lev. 17:13). [This subsumes under the rule] any [Holy Thing] that is lacking only pouring and covering. This excludes that which is lacking pouring, redeeming and covering.
L. But now that you have reached this point in the argument, you should maintain even regarding Holy Things [i.e., birds] that are consecrated to the altar [that the rule applies only to] that which is lacking only pouring and covering. This excludes that which is lacking pouring, scraping and covering.
M. Mar bar R. Ashi said, “Scripture said, `Any beast or bird' (ibid.). Just as a wild beast cannot be consecrated [to the altar], so too [we cannot refer here to] a bird that is consecrated to the altar.” If [you wish to argue against this you may say] what is the case regarding wild animals? There are none of its kind that can be consecrated. So too regarding birds [we refer only to those] whose kind cannot be consecrated. This would exclude turtle doves and young pigeons whose kind can be consecrated.
N. No [this is not a valid argument]. [Birds] must be like wild animals [in all respects with regard to the law for the logic of the argument to hold]. What is the case with regard to wild animals? You do not distinguish [between kinds that are and are not consecrated]. So too for birds you should not distinguish [between kinds that are and are not consecrated]. [In any case we deal here with unconsecrated birds (Rashi).]
A. Jacob the heretic said to Raba, “We have the principle that a wild animal is included under the rule for beasts with regard to the tokens [of cleanness] [cf. b. 71a]. It would make sense to maintain also that the beast is included under the rule for wild animals with regard to [the obligation] to cover [the blood].”
B. He said to him, “On your account Scripture stated, `[Only you shall not eat the blood]; you shall pour it out upon the earth like water' (Deut. 12:16).” What is the case regarding water? You do not have to cover it up. So too this [blood of a beast] you also do not have to cover it up.
C. But on this basis we should infer that they may immerse in it [i.e., in a pool filled with blood to remove uncleanness]. Scripture stated, “Nevertheless a spring or a cistern holding water shall be clean; [but whatever touches their carcass shall be unclean]” (Lev. 11:36). These [pools of water] yes [do render objects clean through immersion]. Other kinds [of pools] do not.
D. But it would makes sense to maintain that this concern applies to exclude other kinds of liquids that are not compared to water. But blood, that is compared to water should be also [valid for immersion]. [This is not the case because] two exclusions were written in the verse: a spring of water and a cistern of water. But it would make sense to say that both of these exclude other liquids [as valid]. One excludes water that streamed [into a pool] and one excludes water that was gathered to be held [in a pool]. [This is not the case because] three exclusions were written in the verse: a spring of water, a cistern of water, and a holding of water.
A. Our rabbis taught on Tannaite authority: “[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 with dust]” (Lev. 17:13). I have only [the rule that he cover the blood] for those that he “takes in hunting.” What is the basis [for the rule] for those that are already taken and make themselves ready, such as geese and chickens? It comes to teach, “in hunting” implying any way [he takes them they are subject to the rule]. If so what does it come to teach by stating “who takes”? The Torah taught proper behavior. For a person should eat meat only after this kind of [extensive] preparation. [One should not eat meat often lest he become poor (Rashi).] [Cf. T. Arak. 4:28.]
A. Our rabbis taught on Tannaite authority: “When the Lord your God enlarges your territory, [as he has promised you, and you say, `I will eat flesh,' because you crave flesh, you may eat as much flesh as you desire]” (Deut. 12:20). The Torah taught proper behavior. A person should eat meat only when he craves it.
B. You might infer that a person may buy meat from the market place [any time he desires] and eat it. It comes to teach, “[If the place which the Lord your God will choose to put his name there is too far from you], then you may kill any of your herd or your flock, [which the Lord has given you, as I have commanded you; and you may eat within your towns as much as you desire]” (Deut. 12:21).
C. You might infer that he may kill all his herd and eat it or kill all his flock and eat it. It comes to teach, “Of your herd” — and not all your herd; “[Of] your flock” — and not all your flock. [Cf. T. Arak. 4:26.]
D. Based on this said R. Eleazar b. Azariah, “Whoever has a maneh should buy a litra of vegetables for his stew. If he has ten manehs he should buy a litra of fish for his stew. If he has fifty manehs he should buy a litra of meat for his stew. If he has one hundred manehs they should cook up a stew for him every day.” [Cf. T. Arak. 4:27.]
E. And for the others [who have less than a hundred] when should they [cook up a stew]? On every Sabbath eve.
F. Said Rab, “We must show concern for the words of an elder [i.e., for the view Eleazar and make do on a modest diet].” Said R. Yohanan, “Abba [Rab] was from a healthy family [who could thrive on this diet]. But we [are not]. Whoever has a penny in his pocket should run and take it to the storekeeper [and not wait in accord with Eleazar's teaching].” Said R. Nahman, “But we [are not like that]. We borrow to eat.”
A. [We have this related exposition about self-sufficiency based on these two verses in Proverbs: “The lambs will provide your clothing, and the goats the price of a field. There will be enough goats' milk for your food, for the food of your household and maintenance for your maidens” (Prov. 27:26-27).] “The lambs will provide your clothing,” [means] from the shearing of your lambs you should make your clothes. “And the goats the price of a field,” [means] a person in general may sell his field to buy goats. But he may not sell his goats to buy a field. “There will be enough goats' milk” [means] it is enough if a person sustains himself through the milk of goats and lambs that are in his household. “For your food, for the food of your household” [means] your food should take precedence over the food for your household.
B. “And maintenance for your maidens” — said Mar Zutra the son of R. Nahman, “Provide maintenance for your maidens. From this stipulation the Torah taught us proper behavior. For a person should not teach his child [to expect to have] meat and wine.”
C. Said R. Yohanan, [84b] “A person who wishes to become wealthy should breed small animals.” Said R. Hisda, “What is the implication of that which is written, `The increase of your cattle' (Deut. 7:13)? [It means that breeding cattle] increases the wealth of the owners.”
D. And said R. Yohanan, “It is better to drink a cup of magical potion than to drink a cup of warm water. And this concern applies to [water in] a metal vessel. But we do not have this concern regarding a clay vessel. And we say this only regarding a metal vessel that had no roots [of herbs and spices] in it. But if it had roots in it we do not have this concern. And we say this only where they put no roots in it and where they did not boil [the water first]. But where they did boil it we do not have this concern.”
E. And said R. Yohanan, “If a person's father left him money and he wants to lose it, let him wear linen garments and use glass utensils and hire workers but not sit with them [to oversee them]. Let him wear linen garments [such as] Roman linen. And let him use glass utensils [such as] white glassware. And let him hire workers but not sit with them [such as] those that work with oxen who can cause great loss [if not supervised properly].”
A. R. Avira expounded, sometimes he said this in the name of R. Ammi and sometimes he said this in the name of R. Assi, “What is the meaning of what is written, `It is well with the man who deals generously and lends, who conducts his affairs with justice' (Ps. 112:5)? A person should always eat and drink [on a standard] lower than his means. And he should dress and clothe himself in accord with his means. And he should respect his wife and children [on a standard that is] beyond his means. For they depend on him and he depends on the one who spoke and brought the world into being.”
B. R. Ayna expounded at the gate of the house of the Exilarch: “One who slaughters [a bird] on the Sabbath on behalf of a person who is ill is liable to cover [the blood with dust].” Rabbah said to them, “Mute him!” He meant, “Take his amora away from him.”
C. For it was taught on Tannaite authority [T. 6:1 C-6:3, with some variations]: R. Yose says, “As to a koy: they do not slaughter it on the festival, because it is a matter of doubt, but if they have slaughtered it, they do not cover up its blood” [M. Hul. 6:1 C-D].
D. This is based on an argument a fortiori. [Said R. Yose], “Now [consider that] for circumcision, in a case that is certain it overrides the Sabbath, [while] what is a matter of doubt... does not override the festival. [Then concerning] the covering up of the blood, [that in a case that is certain] does not override the Sabbath, logically in a matter of doubt [surely it] should not override the festival.”
E. They said to him, “The sounding of the shofar in the provinces [when the New Year falls on a Sabbath day] will prove [the contrary]... For even though when it is a matter of certainty, it does not override the Sabbath, [but] when it is a matter of doubt, it [still] does override the festival.”
F. Answered [R. Hiyya the son of] R. Eleazar Haqqappar Beribbi, “Now the distinctive reason that circumcision [in a matter of doubt] does not override the festival [is that when it is certainly required it does not override the nights of festivals]. But will you say so in the case of the covering up of the blood, [for when it is certainly required], it overrides the nights of festival. [Since when it is certainly required it overrides the nights of a festival, it is logical that when it is a matter of doubt it should override the festival.]”
G. Said R. Abba, “This is one of the matters to which R. Hiyya did say there is no answer, and R. Eleazar Haqqappar Beribbi supplied the answer.”
H. It was taught there [D] in any case: [Then concerning] the covering up of the blood, [that in a case that is certain] does not override the Sabbath, what is the case of a matter of certainty regarding the covering up of the blood that does not override the Sabbath? Is it not the case of one who slaughters on the Sabbath on behalf of a person who is ill?
I. Bur perhaps this is where he violated the prohibition and slaughtered [on the Sabbath]. [No, this cannot be.] It must be a case that is comparable to the case of circumcision [on the Sabbath]. Just as for circumcision he is permitted [to perform the act] so too for the case of covering the blood it must be where he was permitted [to slaughter the animal. Accordingly, it must be that he did it for a person who was ill].
J. [Reverting now to E above]: They said to him, “The sounding of the shofar in the provinces [when the New Year falls on a Sabbath day] will prove [the contrary]... For even though when it is a matter of certainty, it does not override the Sabbath, [but] when it is a matter of doubt, it [still] does override the festival.” What is the case of a matter of doubt? If we say there is a doubt about whether it is a weekday or a festival day, let us now consider the matter. If it overrides a day that is certainly a festival day, is there any question that it overrides a day about which there is a doubt whether it is a weekday or a festival day?