## Chullin Daf 87a

###### Chullin 87a:1
[Chullin 87a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/87a:1)

הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם מִשְׁתֵּא וּבָרוֹכֵי בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי לָא אֶפְשָׁר, הָכָא אֶפְשָׁר דְּשָׁחֵיט בַּחֲדָא וּמְכַסֵּי בַּחֲדָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 87a:2
[Chullin 87a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/87a:2)

**מַתְנִי׳** שָׁחַט וְלֹא כִּסָּה, וְרָאָהוּ אַחֵר – חַיָּיב לְכַסּוֹת. כִּסָּהוּ וְנִתְגַּלָּה – פָּטוּר מִלְּכַסּוֹת. (כִּסָּהוּ) [כִּסַּתּוּ] הָרוּחַ – חַיָּיב לְכַסּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 87a:3
[Chullin 87a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/87a:3)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְשָׁפַךְ וְכִסָּה״ – מִי שֶׁשָּׁפַךְ יְכַסֶּה. שָׁחַט וְלֹא כִּסָּה, וְרָאָהוּ אַחֵר, מִנַּיִן שֶׁחַיָּיב לְכַסּוֹת? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וָאֹמַר לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ – אַזְהָרָה לְכׇל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 87a:4
[Chullin 87a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/87a:4)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Chullin 87a:5
[Chullin 87a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/87a:5)

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?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?


###### Chullin 87a:6
[Chullin 87a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/87a:6)

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״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 87a:7
[Chullin 87a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/87a:7)

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׳״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 87a:8
[Chullin 87a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/87a:8)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 87a:9
[Chullin 87a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/87a:9)

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: עֲדַיִין יֶשְׁנָהּ לְאוֹתָהּ מִשְׁפָּחָה בֵּין גְּדוֹלֵי רוֹמִי, וְקוֹרְאִין אוֹתָהּ מִשְׁפַּחַת בַּר לוּיָאנוּס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Chullin 87a:10
[Chullin 87a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/87a:10)

כִּסָּהוּ וְנִתְגַּלָּה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: מַאי שְׁנָא מֵהֲשָׁבַת אֲבֵדָה, דְּאָמַר מָר: ״הָשֵׁב״ – אֲפִילּוּ מֵאָה פְּעָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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?**


###### Chullin 87a:11
[Chullin 87a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/87a:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם לָא כְּתִיב מִיעוּטָא, הָכָא כְּתִיב מִיעוּטָא ״וְכִסָּהוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 87a:12
[Chullin 87a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/87a:12)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Chullin 87a:13
[Chullin 87a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/87a:13)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא מֵהָא דְּתַנְיָא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְנִבְלַע דָּם בַּקַּרְקַע – חַיָּיב לְכַסּוֹת. הָתָם כְּשֶׁרִשּׁוּמוֹ נִיכָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Chullin 87a:14
[Chullin 87a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/87a:14)

**מַתְנִי׳** דָּם שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּמַיִם, אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ מַרְאִית דָּם – חַיָּיב לְכַסּוֹת. נִתְעָרֵב בְּיַיִן – רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ הוּא מַיִם. נִתְעָרֵב בְּדַם הַבְּהֵמָה

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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,