Komentarz do Chullin 6:9

כיסוי הדם כו' – because it was necessary to teach [in the Mishnah] with non-consecrated–profane things but not with sanctified–dedicated things, it took all of them.

Introduction Leviticus 17:13 states, “And if any Israelite or any stranger who resides among them hunts down (or traps) an animal or a bird that may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth.” From this verse we learn that when a person slaughters a wild animal such as a deer or a bird, he must pour out the blood and cover it with earth. Our chapter deals with the details concerning this mitzvah.

במוקדשין – the sin-offering of fowl and the burnt-offering of fowl, and similarly things sanctified for the repair of the Temple, if he transgressed and slaughtered them, they do not require covering [of the blood].

[The law of] “covering up the blood” applies both within the land of Israel and outside it, both during the existence of the Temple and after it, The law concerning covering up the blood applies in all times and in all places. It is not dependent upon the existence of the Temple or the land of Israel.

ונוהג בחיה ובעוף – to exclude cattle as you would not say that the cattle is included among wildlife, and we derive it from what it is written regarding a firstborn having a blemish (Deuteronomy 15:23): “ [Only you must not partake of its blood;] you shall pour it out on the ground like water.” Just as water does not require covering, even the blood of cattle do not require covering.

It applies to unconsecrated animal, but not consecrated animals. The law applies only to unconsecrated animals. Obviously this is true for game animals, because they can never be sacrificed. It is also true of birds which can be either a hatat or an olah. In such cases, there is no mitzvah to cover the blood with earth.

במזומן – fowl that grows in the house.

It applies [only] to wild animals and birds, whether they are at one's disposal or not. It applies only to wild animals and birds and not to domesticated beasts. However, it applies to these animals whether they are already trapped and at one’s disposal or not. One might have thought that since the verse says, “when one hunts/traps” that the rule applies only to wild animals and birds that were trapped.

ונוהג בכוי – it is a creature of its own and the Sages did not determine if it is [a kind of] wildlife that would require covering [of the blood], [or] if it is cattle and does not require covering [of its blood].

It applies also to a koy, for it is an animal about which there is a doubt. The rabbis did not know whether to classify the koy as a wild animal or as a domesticated beast (see Bikkurim 2:8-11). Therefore, one has to deal with it stringently, and apply to it laws that govern both domesticated and wild animals. If one slaughters a koy, he must cover the blood, lest it is a hayah (a wild animal).

ואין שוחטין אותו ביו"ט – because perhaps it requires covering [of its blood] and out of doubt, we don’t violate [the sanctity] of the Yom Tov–Jewish holy day.

It may [therefore] not be slaughtered on a festival; and if it was slaughtered [on a festival] one may not cover up its blood. One cannot slaughter a koy on a festival because it is forbidden carry the dirt to cover up the blood, because the dirt is muktzeh (off-limits on Shabbat and Yom Tov). Note that if a koy was known to be a hayah, it could be slaughtered because the dirt would definitely be needed. However, since the koy might not be a hayah, it might not need to have its blood covered and therefore, carrying the dirt might be a violation of muktzeh. If it was slaughtered, the blood should not be covered on Yom Tov. Rather, he must wait until evening.

ואם שחטו ביו"ט אין מכסים את דמו – and even if there was dust prepared or ashes, lest the person who sees it will say that it is definitely wildlife and therefore, he covered its blood on the Jewish holy day, and he will come to permit its fat.

רבי מאיר מחייב – for he holds that ritual slaughter that is inappropriate is called ritual slaughter.

Introduction This mishnah is very similar to 5:3, so see above for more references.

וחכמים פוטרים – as they hold that [inappropriate ritual slaughter] is not called ritual slaughter, and the Halakha is according to the Sages.

If a person slaughtered [a wild animal or a bird] and it was found to be terefah, or if he slaughtered [it as an offering] to idols, or if he slaughtered that which was unconsecrated inside the sanctuary or that which was consecrated outside, or if he slaughtered a wild animal or a bird that was condemned to be stoned: Rabbi Meir makes him liable to cover up the blood; But the sages make him exempt. In all of these cases, the animal was slaughtered with the proper technique, but nevertheless it could not be eaten. Most of these categories were explained above in 5:3. This mishnah adds two categories: a consecrated bird slaughtered outside the Temple or an unconsecrated bird or wild animal slaughtered inside the Temple. In both cases, the animal/bird cannot be eaten. Rabbi Meir holds that since the animal was slaughtered, the blood must be covered. In other words, the mitzvah of covering the blood is not dependent upon the edibility of the animal. The other sages hold that slaughtering causes one to be liable to cover the blood only if the animal is made edible by the slaughtering. Slaughtering that is ineffective is not considered to be slaughtering (this is like Rabbi Shimon in 5:3).

In these cases he didn’t even slaughter the animal, at least not properly. Therefore, he is not liable to cover the blood because covering the blood is a mitzvah only for an animal that was slaughtered.

ואחרים רואין אותם – for in that manner, their ritual slaughter was fit.

Introduction In the beginning of the tractate we learned that if a deaf-mute, an imbecile (someone who is either crazy or perhaps retarded) or a minor slaughter an animal, the slaughtering is valid, but only if someone else watches them. If no one is watching, then we can assume that they did not slaughter in a valid fashion and the animal cannot be eaten. Our mishnah deals with the issues of covering the blood and the prohibition of “it and its young” when it comes to these three categories of people.

חייבים לכסות – those others that see them are liable to cover [the blood] as it is taught further on. If he ritually slaughtered and did not cover [the blood] and another saw him, he is liable to cover [the blood].

If a deaf-mute, an imbecile or a minor slaughtered while others watched them, one must cover up the blood; But if they were alone, they are exempt from covering it up. If other people watched the deaf-mute, imbecile or minor slaughter a wild animal or bird, and they saw that it was done in a valid fashion, then they are liable to cover up the blood. Since their slaughtering is valid, there would be no reason for them to be exempt from this obligation. However, if they were alone, then their slaughtering is not valid and they are exempt from covering up the blood, as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah.

פטור מלכסות – Rabbi Meir said regarding it that he holds that the ritual slaughter of a deaf-mute, imbecile and–or a minor, among themselves, is complete carrion–not slaughtered according to the ritual rules, since most of their acts are corrupted. But the Rabbis dispute that of Rabbi Meir whether at the beginning [of the Mishnah] or at the end [of the Mishnah], but rather they observe him until he completes the matter and then return to dispute him, for the Rabbis think that it is doubtful carrion–not slaughtered according to the ritual rules, but not verifiable carrion. Therefore, regarding the matter of covering [the blood], they are obligated to cover [the blood], and they don’t do ritual slaughter after them of the animal and its young (see Leviticus 22:28), lest it is a good–valid ritual slaughtering. But the Halakha is according to Rabbi Meir.

Similarly for the matter of “it and its young”: if they slaughtered while others watched them, it is forbidden to slaughter after them [the mother/young], But if they were alone: Rabbi Meir permits to slaughter after them [the mother/young]. But the rabbis forbid it. They agree, that if a person did slaughter [after them], he has not incurred forty lashes. As is the rule with the covering of the blood, if other people see a deaf-mute, imbecile or minor slaughter an animal it is forbidden to slaughter the mother/offspring because the first animal was slaughtered in a valid fashion. If they were alone, then Rabbi Meir holds that the second animal (the mother/offspring) can be slaughtered because we can assume that the first one was not slaughtered properly. However, the other rabbis hold that one should not slaughter the second animal lest the first animal was properly slaughtered. According to the Talmud, the other rabbis disagree with the halakhah in section one as well they must cover the blood because the slaughtering might have been done in a proper fashion. In other words, when a deaf-mute, imbecile or minor slaughters an animal without witnesses, we can’t eat the animal lest it not be valid. However, we have to also take into consideration that it was slaughtered correctly and therefore the blood must be covered and it is forbidden to slaughter the mother/offspring on the same day. While the rabbis say that one should not slaughter the second animal, if one does, he is not liable for the forty lashes because it is not certain that the first animal was slaughtered properly. In order for someone to incur a punishment, it must be certain that he transgressed, and in this case there is no way to ascertain whether the first animal was slaughtered properly.

שחט חיה יכסנה ואחר כך ישחוט את העוף – as it is written (Leviticus 17:13): “[And if any Israelite or any stranger who resides among them hunts down] an animal or a bird [that may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth],” he interrupts from this one to the other one to put on a covering for each and every one. But the Rabbis think this or they require him to divide it, for it not, I would have said that there is no need to cover [the blood] unless he ritually slaughtered both of them. But everyone admits that regarding the blessing, he doesn’t recite other than one blessing, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

If a person slaughtered a hundred wild animals in one place, one covering suffices for all. If [he slaughtered] a hundred birds in one place, one covering suffices for all. If one slaughters multiple animals of the same type, he is liable to cover up the blood only once. He need not cover up the blood for each animal individually.

וראהו אחר חייב לכסות – as it is written in the portion of the covering of the blood, [and I say] (Leviticus 17:12): “[Therefore I say] to the Israelite people: [No person among you shall partake of blood],” this Mitzvah–commandment applies to all the Israelite people.

If [he slaughtered] a wild animal and a bird in one place, one covering suffices for both. Rabbi Judah says: if he slaughtered a wild animal he should cover up its blood and then slaughter the bird [and cover it up also]. According to the first opinion, the same applies to slaughtering wild animals and birds. All of the blood from both types can be covered together. Rabbi Judah disagrees, and says that if there are two different types that require the covering of blood, birds and wild animals, then the blood of each must be covered up separately. He would agree, though, that one can cover up all of the birds’ blood at one time and all of the animals’ blood at one time.

כסהו הרוח חייב לכסות – this Mishnah was learned only that he returned and it was revealed–exposed, but if he did not return and it was revealed, he is exempt from covering [the blood].

If a person slaughtered and did not cover up the blood and another person saw it, the other must cover it up. The mitzvah of covering the blood of a slaughtered bird or wild animal is incumbent upon everyone, not just the person who slaughtered the animal. Therefore, if someone sees it, he must cover it up.

If he covered it up and it became uncovered, he need not cover it up again. Once the mitzvah has been fulfilled, if the blood becomes uncovered, it need not be fulfilled again. In other words, the mitzvah is to cover the blood and not to make sure that the blood is covered.

If the wind covered it up, he must cover it up again. The Talmud explains that after the wind covers the blood it becomes uncovered. Since no one actually fulfilled the mitzvah, if it becomes uncovered again, he must cover it up.

נתערב ביין – which is red and the appearance of the blood is not recognized in it.

Introduction Our mishnah deals with blood that comes out of a slaughtered bird or wild animal that then becomes mixed up with something else, either water, wine or blood.

רואין אותו – [we view that] wine as if [it is] water, for if the appearance of blood was recognized in the water according to this measurement, he would be liable to cover [the blood].

If the blood became mixed with water and it still has the color of blood, it must be covered up. If the blood becomes so mixed up with water, that it no longer has reddish color, then it is no longer considered to be blood and it need not be covered up. But if it still has the color of blood, it must be covered, despite the fact that there is water mixed in.

נתערב בדם בהמה – which is not something covered, and the majority of it is the blood of a cattle.

If it became mixed with wine, [the wine] is to be regarded as though it was water. Wine has the same color, more or less, as blood, so we can’t say that if the mixture has the color of blood then it must be covered up. Therefore, if there is enough wine such that if it was water there would no longer be the color of blood, then he need not cover it up. This is what it means when the mishnah states that the wine is regarded as water.

או בדם חיה – the blood bled by an animal–beast of chase or deer.

If it became mixed with the blood of a beast or with the blood of a wild animal, it is to be regarded as though it was water. Rabbi Judah says: blood does not annul other blood. The blood of a domesticated beast (cow, sheep or goat) need not be covered. If the blood of a wild animal or bird is mixed up with the blood of a beast, then we apply the same test as we did with blood that was mixed with wine. If there is enough wild animal or bird blood such that if the beast’s blood was water the mixture would still look like blood, then he must cover it up. This section has some very puzzling words “or with the blood of a wild animal.” The blood of a wild animal must be covered and therefore this line makes no sense in this context. Albeck suggests that it is here by mistake, due to the similarity between this mishnah and Zevahim 8:6 where the words “the blood of a wild animal” do make sense. Rashi suggests that the blood of the wild animal came out not by slaughtering, while the Rambam suggests that the wild animal referred to here is not a kosher one. Neither suggestion is convincing. Rabbi Judah says that blood can never annul the presence of other blood. While an overwhelming amount of wine or water could exempt a small amount of blood from having to be covered, the same cannot be said about blood. In general, Rabbi Judah holds that when two like things are mixed, the problematic thing (for instance nevelah meat mixed in with kosher meat) can never be annulled.

רואין אותו – that it is not required to cover [the blood], as if it were water, but if this blood is from the ritual slaughter of an animal–beast of chase and fowl and it is recognized, one is required to cover it.

אין דם מבטל דם – and even if the appearance of blood is not recognized in the water like the blood of this cattle, the blood of animals–beasts of chase are not nullified, for he holds that a mixture of homogeneous things (of which one is forbidden), the rule of neutralization by quantity takes no effect (see Talmud Hullin 100a). But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

דם הניתז – on the back of the wall.

Introduction Our mishnah deals with whether all blood must be covered up or just some of it.

אימתי – it comes to explain but not to dispute.

The blood which spurted out and that which is upon the knife must also be covered up. “Blood which is spurted out” refers to blood that is found at some distance from the place where the animal was slaughtered. Such blood and blood that is found on the knife must also be covered up.

Rabbi Judah says: when is this the case? When there is no other blood but that; but when there is other blood besides this, it need not be covered up. Rabbi Judah limits the above law to cases where this is the only blood. If this is the only blood with which to fulfill the commandment of covering the blood, then this blood must be used. But if there is other blood, at the place of slaughter, then he should use that blood and the blood on the knife or found elsewhere need not be covered. In mishnayot like this one, it is hard to tell whether there is a debate or whether Rabbi Judah is simply explaining the first clause. If there is a debate, then we might understand that there are two concepts with regard to covering the blood. According to the first opinion, all blood must be covered, regardless of where it is. The blood, the life force of the animal, cannot be left in the open. Perhaps doing so would involve some sort of danger. In contrast, Rabbi Judah says that there is a mitzvah to cover the blood, but not that all blood must be covered. The purpose of covering the blood is, perhaps, to atone for the killing of the animal, the taking of a life. In that case, someone must cover some of the blood as a symbolic act, but he need not cover all of it.

Introduction The Torah states that the blood should be covered with “earth (afar).” The rabbis expand this to include anything in which plants grow, just as they grow in earth. The blood may not be covered with something in which plants do not grow.

With what may one cover up [the blood] and with what may one not cover it up?
One may cover it up with fine dung, with fine sand, with lime, with white clay, or a brick or an earthenware stopper [of a cask] that have been ground into powder. All of these substances fit into the category of “earth” because plants may grow in them. Hence, they can be used to cover the blood.

But one may not cover it up with coarse dung or coarse sand, or with a brick or an earthenware stopper [of a cask] that have not been ground into powder. In contrast, these substances are coarser or completely solid and hence cannot be used to cover the blood. We see that the criterion for whether a substance is usable is not merely the nature of the substance itself but also the state that it is in.

Nor may one cover it with a vessel. Covering the blood with a vessel does not fulfill the mitzvah.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel stated a general rule: one may cover it with anything in which plants would grow; but one may not cover it with anything in which plants would not grow. This is the general rule that governs the reasoning behind the laws above.