## Chullin Daf 85a

###### Chullin 85a:1
[Chullin 85a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/85a:1)

אֶלָּא סְפֵק אִישׁ סְפֵק אִשָּׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it must be that the **uncertainty** in the case of the sounding of the shofar concerns whether a particular individual is **a man** or **a woman,** e.g., a *tumtum*, whose sexual organs are indeterminate. Although a woman is not obligated in the mitzva of sounding the shofar, a *tumtum* is in fact obligated, despite the uncertainty of sex. It is therefore possible to derive from the sounding of the shofar that if one slaughters a *koy*, an animal whose status as a domesticated or undomesticated animal is uncertain, on a Festival, one covers its blood.


###### Chullin 85a:2
[Chullin 85a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/85a:2)

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: אִשָּׁה וַדָּאִית נָמֵי תָּקְעָה. דְּתַנְיָא: בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל סוֹמְכִין, וְלֹא בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל סוֹמְכוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And Rabbi Yosei,** who does not accept this refutation, conforms **to his** standard line of **reasoning, as he says:** One who is **definitely a woman may also sound** the shofar on Rosh HaShana. **As it is taught** in a *baraita* concerning the verse that discusses a burnt offering: “Speak to the sons of Israel…and he shall place his hands upon the head of the burnt offering” (Leviticus 1:2–4). The verse indicates that **the sons of Israel place** their hands upon the head of an offering, **but the daughters of Israel do notplace** their hands.


###### Chullin 85a:3
[Chullin 85a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/85a:3)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: נָשִׁים סוֹמְכוֹת רְשׁוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say:** It is **optional** for **women** to **place** their hands on the head of an offering before it is slaughtered. Even though women are not obligated to place their hands, doing so is not considered to be performing labor with a sacrificial item, an act normally prohibited, despite the fact that one performs the placing of the hands by leaning with all of his weight on the animal. Similarly, Rabbi Yosei holds that although women are not obligated in the sounding of the shofar, it is optional for them to sound it, and it is not considered a desecration of the Festival.


###### Chullin 85a:4
[Chullin 85a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/85a:4)

אָמַר רָבִינָא: וּלְמַאי דְּקָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן נָמֵי אִית לֵיהּ פִּירְכָא, מָה לִתְקִיעַת שׁוֹפָר שֶׁכֵּן וַדָּאָהּ דּוֹחֶה שַׁבָּת בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, תֹּאמַר בְּכִיסּוּי דְּלֵיתֵיהּ כְּלָל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said: And** even according **to what the Sages said,** that a woman may not sound the shofar on Rosh HaShana but a *tumtum* is nevertheless obligated due to uncertainty, **there is a refutation** to their claim **as well.** One cannot derive from this that the obligation to cover the blood of a *koy* overrides a Festival. **What** is notable **about the sounding of the shofar?** It is notable in **that its definite** obligation **overrides Shabbat in the Temple,** as it was sounded in the Temple even when Rosh HaShana occurred on Shabbat, and it is therefore understandable that its uncertain obligation overrides a Festival as well. **Can you say** the same **with regard to** the mitzva of **covering** the blood, **which does not** override Shabbat in **any** instance?


###### Chullin 85a:5
[Chullin 85a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/85a:5)

הֵשִׁיב רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר בְּרִיבִּי: מָה לְמִילָה שֶׁכֵּן אֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת בְּלֵילֵי יָמִים טוֹבִים. בְּלֵילֵי יָמִים טוֹבִים הוּא דְּלָא נָהֲגָא, בִּשְׁאָר לֵילֵי נָהֲגָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues its analysis of the *baraita*: **Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Distinguished responded** with another refutation to Rabbi Yosei’s *a fortiori* inference: One cannot infer from the mitzva of circumcision that an uncertain obligation to cover the blood of a *koy* does not override a Festival. **What** is notable **about circumcision?** It is notable in **that it is not in effect on Festival nights.** Can you say the same with regard to the mitzva of covering the blood, which is in effect on Festival nights? The Gemara asks: Does Rabbi Elazar HaKappar mean to say **that** the mitzva of circumcision **is not in effect** only **on Festival nights,** but **it is in effect on other,** non-Festival **nights?** Isn’t circumcision always performed during the day?


###### Chullin 85a:6
[Chullin 85a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/85a:6)

אֶלָּא, מָה לְמִילָה – שֶׁכֵּן אֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת בַּלֵּילוֹת כְּבַיָּמִים, תֹּאמַר בְּכִסּוּי – שֶׁנּוֹהֵג בַּלֵּילוֹת כְּבַיָּמִים! אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: זֶה אֶחָד מִן הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא אֵין עֲלֵיהֶן תְּשׁוּבָה, וְהֵשִׁיב רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי תְּשׁוּבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Rather,** Rabbi Elazar HaKappar meant the following: **What** is notable **about circumcision?** It is notable in **that it is not in effect at night as** it is **by day. Can you say** a similar *halakha* **with regard to** the mitzva of **covering** the blood, **which is in effect at night as** it is **by day? Rabbi Abba said: This** *a fortiori* inference drawn by Rabbi Yosei is **one of the matters** with regard to **which Rabbi Ḥiyya says** that **there is no refutation for them, and Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Distinguished** successfully **responded** with **a refutation.**


###### Chullin 85a:7
[Chullin 85a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/85a:7)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְנִמְצֵאת טְרֵיפָה, וְהַשּׁוֹחֵט לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְהַשּׁוֹחֵט חוּלִּין בִּפְנִים וְקָדָשִׁים בַּחוּץ, חַיָּה וָעוֹף הַנִּסְקָלִים – רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּיב, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **one who slaughters** an undomesticated animal or a bird **and it is discovered to be an animal with a wound that would have caused it to die within twelve months [*tereifa*];** and in the case of **one who slaughters** an undomesticated animal or a bird **for** the sake of **idol worship; and** in the case of **one who slaughters a non-sacred** animal or bird **inside** the Temple courtyard **or a sacrificial** bird **outside** the Temple courtyard; or in the case of one who slaughters **an undomesticated animal or a bird that** was sentenced to **be stoned,** e.g., for killing a person; in all these cases, even though it is prohibited to eat any of these animals or birds, **Rabbi Meir deems** one **obligated** to cover their blood, **and the Rabbis deem** one **exempt** from doing so because, in their opinion, slaughter that is not fit to render the meat permitted for consumption is not considered an act of slaughter.


###### Chullin 85a:8
[Chullin 85a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/85a:8)

הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְנִתְנַבְּלָה בְּיָדוֹ, הַנּוֹחֵר וְהַמְעַקֵּר – פָּטוּר מִלְּכַסּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**One who slaughters** an animal or bird **and it became a carcass by his hand,** i.e., the slaughter was performed incorrectly, and **one who stabs** the animal or bird, **and one who tears loose** the windpipe and the gullet, are **exempt from covering** the blood, as no act of slaughter took place, and one is obligated to cover blood only after a valid slaughter.


###### Chullin 85a:9
[Chullin 85a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/85a:9)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רָאָה רַבִּי דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל רַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּאוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ, וּשְׁנָאוֹ בִּלְשׁוֹן חֲכָמִים, וּדְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּכִסּוּי הַדָּם, וּשְׁנָאוֹ בִּלְשׁוֹן חֲכָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** With regard to the dispute in the mishna about whether an act of slaughter that is not fit to render the meat permitted renders one obligated to cover the blood, **Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, the redactor of the Mishna, **saw** as correct **the statement of Rabbi Meir,** that ineffective slaughter is considered an act of slaughter, **with regard to** the prohibition against slaughtering **a mother and its offspring** on the same day, **and taught** that *halakha* in the mishna (81b) **using the term: The Rabbis,** so that it would be accepted. **And** he saw as correct the statement **of Rabbi Shimon,** that ineffective slaughter is not considered an act of slaughter **with regard to** the mitzva of **covering the blood, and taught** that *halakha* in the mishna here **using the term: The Rabbis.**


###### Chullin 85a:10
[Chullin 85a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/85a:10)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּאוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ? אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: גָּמַר שְׁחִיטָה שְׁחִיטָה מִשְּׁחוּטֵי חוּץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the reason that Rabbi Meir** holds that ineffective slaughter is considered an act of slaughter in the case of **a mother and its offspring? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said:** He **derives** his opinion by means of a verbal analogy of the terms **slaughter** and **slaughter, from** the case of sacrificial animals **slaughtered outside** the Temple. The verse states with regard to a mother and its offspring: “It and its offspring you shall not slaughter [*lo tishḥatu*] in one day” (Leviticus 22:28), and the verse states with regard to sacrificial animals: “Or that is slaughtered [*yishḥat*] outside the camp” (Leviticus 17:3).


###### Chullin 85a:11
[Chullin 85a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/85a:11)

מָה הָתָם – שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה שְׁמָהּ שְׁחִיטָה, אַף הָכָא נָמֵי – שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה שְׁמָהּ שְׁחִיטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Accordingly, **just as there,** with regard to one who slaughters an offering outside the Temple it is a case of **slaughter that is not fit** to render the meat permitted, as one is prohibited from deriving any benefit from such meat, and it **is** nevertheless **considered** an act of **slaughter** to render one liable for slaughtering it outside the Temple, **so too here,** in the case of a mother and its offspring, an act of **slaughter that is not fit** to render the meat permitted **is considered** an act of **slaughter,** and one is liable.


###### Chullin 85a:12
[Chullin 85a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/85a:12)

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַבִּי מָנִי בַּר פַּטִּישׁ: גָּמַר מִ״טְּבוֹחַ טֶבַח וְהָכֵן״, מָה לְהַלָּן שְׁחִיטָה רְאוּיָה, אַף כָּאן שְׁחִיטָה רְאוּיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** as for **Rabbi Shimon, what is the reason** he holds that an ineffective slaughter is not considered an act of slaughter? **Rabbi Mani bar Pattish said:** Rabbi Shimon **derives** his opinion **from** the verse: **“Slaughter [*tevo’aḥ*] and prepare;** for the men shall dine with me at noon” (Genesis 43:16). **Just as there,** the verse is referring to an act of **slaughter** that is **fit** to render the meat permitted, **so too here,** in the case of a mother and its offspring, only an act of **slaughter** that is **fit** to render the meat permitted is considered an act of slaughter.


###### Chullin 85a:13
[Chullin 85a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/85a:13)

וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר נָמֵי, לִיגְמַר מִ״טְּבוֹחַ״? דָּנִין שְׁחִיטָה מִשְּׁחִיטָה, וְאֵין דָּנִין שְׁחִיטָה מִטְּבִיחָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **And** as for **Rabbi Meir as well, let him derive from “*tevo’aḥ*”** that only an effective slaughter is considered an act of slaughter. The Gemara responds: According to Rabbi Meir, **one derives** the *halakha* with regard to a term of ***sheḥita* from** another instance of a term of ***sheḥita*, and one does not derive** the *halakha* with regard to the term of ***sheḥita* from** the term of ***teviḥa*.**


###### Chullin 85a:14
[Chullin 85a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/85a:14)

מָה נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? הָא תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְשָׁב הַכֹּהֵן״ ״וּבָא הַכֹּהֵן״ – זוֹ הִיא שִׁיבָה זוֹ הִיא בִּיאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Being that both terms refer to slaughter, **what is the difference** which one is used; **didn’t the school of Rabbi Yishmael teach** a verbal analogy with regard to leprosy of houses: The verse states: **“And the priest shall return [*veshav*]** on the seventh day” (Leviticus 14:39), and another verse with regard to the priest’s visit seven days later states: **“And the priest shall come [*uva*]** and look” (Leviticus 14:44). **This returning** and **this coming** have the same meaning and one can therefore derive by verbal analogy that the *halakha* that applies if the leprosy had spread at the conclusion of the first week applies if it had spread again by the end of the following week.


###### Chullin 85a:15
[Chullin 85a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/85a:15)

הָנֵי מִילֵּי – הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ, אֲבָל אִיכָּא דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ – מִדְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ יָלְפִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **This statement** of the school of Rabbi Yishmael applies only **where there are no** other terms **that are identical to it** from which one could derive a verbal analogy. **But** if **there is** another term **that is identical to it, we derive** the verbal analogy **from** the term **that is identical to it.** Accordingly, Rabbi Meir derives a verbal analogy from the instance of *sheḥita* that appears with regard to sacrificial animals that are slaughtered outside the Temple.


###### Chullin 85a:16
[Chullin 85a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/85a:16)

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן נָמֵי לִיגְמַר מִשְּׁחוּטֵי חוּץ? דָּנִין חוּלִּין מֵחוּלִּין, וְאֵין דָּנִין חוּלִּין מִקֳּדָשִׁים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **And** as for **Rabbi Shimon as well, let him derive from** the case of sacrificial animals that were **slaughtered outside** the Temple that ineffective slaughter is considered an act of slaughter. The Gemara responds: Rabbi Shimon holds that **one derives** the *halakha* with regard to the slaughter of **non-sacred** animals **from** another instance of the slaughter of **non-sacred** animals, **and one does not derive** the *halakha* with regard to the slaughter of **non-sacred** animals **from** an instance of the slaughter of **sacrificial** animals. The prohibition against slaughtering a mother and its offspring on the same day is stated primarily with regard to non-sacred animals (see 78a).


###### Chullin 85a:17
[Chullin 85a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/85a:17)

וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר: אַטּוּ אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ בְּקָדָשִׁים מִי לָא נָהֵיג? הַיְינוּ דְּקָאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא: רָאָה רַבִּי דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל רַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּאוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ, וּשְׁנָאוֹ בִּלְשׁוֹן חֲכָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **And Rabbi Meir** would respond: **Is this to say** that the prohibition against slaughtering **a mother and its offspring** on the same day **does not apply to sacrificial** animals? Rather, since the prohibition also applies to sacrificial animals, one can derive its *halakha* from the case of sacrificial animals that were slaughtered outside the Temple. The Gemara comments: **This is** what **Rabbi Ḥiyya** was referring to when he **said** that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **saw** as correct **the statement of Rabbi Meir with regard to** the *halakha* of **a mother and its offspring, and taught it** in the mishna **using the term: The Rabbis.**


###### Chullin 85a:18
[Chullin 85a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/85a:18)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּכִסּוּי הַדָּם? אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: גָּמַר שְׁפִיכָה שְׁפִיכָה מִשְּׁחוּטֵי חוּץ, מָה לְהַלָּן – שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה שְׁמָהּ שְׁחִיטָה, אַף כָּאן – שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה שְׁמָהּ שְׁחִיטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara resumes its discussion of the dispute in the mishna: **What is the reason that Rabbi Meir** holds one is obligated **in** the mitzva of **covering the blood** in a case of ineffective slaughter? **Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said:** Rabbi Meir **derives** this from a verbal analogy between the terms **pouring** and **pouring, from** the case of a sacrificial animal that was **slaughtered outside** the Temple courtyard. One verse states with regard to covering the blood: “And he shall pour out its blood” (Leviticus 17:13), and one verse states with regard to sacrificial animals slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard: “He has poured blood” (Leviticus 17:4). Accordingly, **just as there,** with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, it is a case of **slaughter that is not fit** to render the meat permitted but **is** nevertheless **considered** an act of **slaughter, so too here,** with regard to covering the blood, an act of **slaughter that is not fit** to render the meat permitted **is considered** an act of **slaughter.**


###### Chullin 85a:19
[Chullin 85a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/85a:19)

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: ״אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל״ כְּתִיב, וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר: הָהוּא לְמַעוֹטֵי עוֹף טָמֵא הוּא דַּאֲתָא, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: עוֹף טָמֵא מַאי טַעְמָא – דְּלָאו בַּר אֲכִילָה הוּא, טְרֵפָה נָמֵי – לָאו בַּר אֲכִילָה הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **And Rabbi Shimon** would respond: It is **written** with regard to covering the blood: “An undomesticated animal or bird **that may be eaten”** (Leviticus 17:13), indicating that the verse is referring specifically to slaughter fit to render the meat permitted for consumption. **And Rabbi Meir** holds: **That** phrase **comes to exclude a ritually impure bird** from the mitzva of covering the blood. **And Rabbi Shimon** would respond: **What is the reason an impure bird** is not included in the mitzva of covering the blood? It is **because it is not fit for consumption.** If so, **a *tereifa*** should **also** not be included in the mitzva of covering the blood, since **it is** also **not fit for consumption.**


###### Chullin 85a:20
[Chullin 85a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/85a:20)

וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא: רָאָה רַבִּי דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּכִסּוּי הַדָּם, וּשְׁנָאוֹ בִּלְשׁוֹן חֲכָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And this is what Rabbi Ḥiyya is saying** when he said that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **saw** as correct **the statement of Rabbi Shimon with regard to** the *halakha* of **covering the blood, and taught it** in the mishna **using the term: The Rabbis.**


###### Chullin 85a:21
[Chullin 85a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/85a:21)

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Abba says:**