הָרוֹצֶה שֶׁיִּתְעַשֵּׁר – יַעֲסוֹק בִּבְהֵמָה דַּקָּה. אֲמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״וְעַשְׁתְּרֹת צֹאנֶךָ״ – שֶׁמְּעַשְּׁרוֹת אֶת בַּעֲלֵיהֶן.

One who wishes to become wealthy should engage in raising small domesticated animals. Rav Ḥisda said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And the flocks [ ve’ashterot ] of your sheep” (Deuteronomy 7:13)? It means that sheep enrich [ me’ashrot ] their owners.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כָּסָא דְּחָרָשִׁין וְלָא כָּסָא דְּפוֹשְׁרִין. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי – בִּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת, אֲבָל בִּכְלֵי חֶרֶשׂ – לֵית לָן בָּהּ; וּבִכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת נַמִי לָא אֲמַרַן, אֶלָּא דְּלָא שָׁדֵי בְּהוּ צִיבַיָּא, אֲבָל שָׁדֵי בְּהוּ צִיבַיָּא – לֵית לָן בָּהּ; וְכִי לָא שָׁדֵי בְּהוּ צִיבַיָּא נַמִי לָא אֲמַרַן, אֶלָּא דְּלָא צְיַץ, אֲבָל צְיַץ – לֵית לָן בָּהּ.

The Gemara cites additional statements by Rabbi Yoḥanan providing practical advice. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is preferable to drink from a cup of witches and not to drink from a cup of lukewarm water, We said this only with regard to lukewarm water in metal vessels, but in earthenware vessels we have no problem with it. And even in metal vessels, we said that lukewarm water is unhealthy only in a case where one did not cast flavorings into the water, but if he cast flavorings into the water we have no problem with it. And even if one cast flavorings into the water, we said this only in a case where the water had not been boiled [ tzeyatz ], but if the water had been boiled we have no problem with it.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִי שֶׁהִנִּיחַ לוֹ אָבִיו מָעוֹת וְרוֹצֶה לְאַבְּדָן – יִלְבַּשׁ כְּלֵי פִשְׁתָּן, וְיִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בִּכְלֵי זְכוּכִית, וְיִשְׂכּוֹר פּוֹעֲלִים וְאַל יֵשֵׁב עִמָּהֶן. יִלְבּוֹשׁ כְּלֵי פִשְׁתָּן – בְּכִיתָּנָא רוּמִיתָא, וְיִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בִּכְלֵי זְכוּכִית – בְּזוּגִיתָא חִיוַּרְתָּא, וְיִשְׂכּוֹר פּוֹעֲלִים וְאַל יֵשֵׁב עִמָּהֶן – בְּתוֹרֵי, דְּנָפֵישׁ פְּסֵידַיְיהוּ.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In the case of one whose father bequeathed him a great deal of money and he seeks to lose it, he should wear linen garments, and should use glass vessels, and should hire laborers and not sit with them to supervise. The Gemara elaborates: He should wear linen garments; this is stated with regard to Roman linen, which becomes tattered quickly. He should use glass vessels; this is stated with regard to expensive white glass. And he should hire laborers and not sit with them; this applies to laborers who work with oxen, whose potential for causing damage is great if they are not supervised, as they will trample the crops.

דָּרַשׁ רַב עֲוִירָא, זִימְנִין אֲמַר לָהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמִּי, וְזִימְנִין אֲמַר לָהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַסִי: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״טוֹב אִישׁ חוֹנֵן וּמַלְוֶה יְכַלְכֵּל דְּבָרָיו בְּמִשְׁפָּט״ – לְעוֹלָם יֹאכַל אָדָם וְיִשְׁתֶּה פָּחוֹת מִמַּה שֶּׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ, וְיִלְבַּשׁ וְיִתְכַּסֶּה בְּמַה שֶּׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ, וִיכַבֵּד אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבָנָיו יוֹתֵר מִמַּה שֶּׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ; שֶׁהֵן תְּלוּיִין בּוֹ, וְהוּא תָּלוּי בְּמִי שֶׁאָמַר וְהָיָה הָעוֹלָם.

Rav Avira interpreted the following verse homiletically, but sometimes he said the interpretation in the name of Rabbi Ami and sometimes he said it in the name of Rabbi Asi: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Good is the man who is gracious and lends, who orders his affairs with justice” (Psalms 112:5)? It means to teach that a person should always eat and drink less than what is within his means, and he should dress and cover himself in accordance with his means, and he should honor his wife and children more than what is within his means; as they are dependent on him and he is dependent on the One Who spoke and the world was created.

דָּרַשׁ רַב עֵינָא אַפִּתְחָא דְּבֵי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט לַחוֹלֶה בְּשַׁבָּת – חַיָּיב לְכַסּוֹת. אֲמַר לְהוּ רַבָּה: אֶשְׁתּוֹמָא קָאָמַר, לִישְׁמְטוּהּ לְאָמוֹרֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: כּוֹי – אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין אוֹתוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב, וְאִם שָׁחֲטוּ – אֵין מְכַסִּין אֶת דָּמוֹ;

§ The mishna teaches that one may not slaughter a koy on a Festival since he may not cover its blood, as it is unclear whether there is an obligation by Torah law to do so. But if one transgressed and slaughtered a koy , one does not cover its blood. With regard to this, Rav Eina taught at the entrance to the house of the Exilarch: One who slaughters an undomesticated animal or a bird for a critically ill person on Shabbat, for whom it is permitted to slaughter, is obligated to cover its blood. Rabba said to those present: Rav Eina is saying an astonishing statement; remove his interpreter from before him. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: One may not slaughter a koy on a Festival, but if he slaughtered it, one does not cover its blood until after the Festival.

מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמַה מִּילָה שֶׁוַּדָּאָהּ דּוֹחֶה שַׁבָּת – אֵין סְפֵיקָהּ דּוֹחֶה יוֹם טוֹב, כִּסּוּי שֶׁאֵין וַדָּאוֹ דּוֹחֶה שַׁבָּת – אֵין דִּין שֶׁאֵין סְפֵקוֹ דּוֹחֶה יוֹם טוֹב?

Rabbi Yosei elaborates: This can be derived from an a fortiori inference: And if with regard to the mitzva of circumcision, concerning which a definite obligation overrides Shabbat, nevertheless its uncertain obligation does not override a Festival; then with regard to the mitzva of covering the blood, concerning which even a definite obligation does not override Shabbat, is it not logical that its uncertain obligation, e.g., covering the blood of a koy , would not override a Festival? Although circumcision involves an act of prohibited labor, one performs it on Shabbat for a male infant whose eighth day from birth occurs on Shabbat. But in a case where it is uncertain when the eighth day from birth occurs, it is forbidden to circumcise the child on a Festival. By contrast, covering the blood is never performed on Shabbat.

אָמַר לוֹ: תְּקִיעַת שׁוֹפָר בַּגְּבוּלִים תּוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁאֵין וַדָּאָהּ דּוֹחֶה שַׁבָּת, וּסְפֵיקָהּ דּוֹחֶה יוֹם טוֹב!

The Sages said to him in rebuttal: The sounding of the shofar in the provinces, i.e., outside the Temple, will prove that this a fortiori inference is incorrect. This is because its definite obligation does not override Shabbat and it is prohibited to sound the shofar on Rosh HaShana that falls on Shabbat; and yet its uncertain obligation overrides the Festival.

הֵשִׁיב רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר בְּרִיבִּי תְּשׁוּבָה: מַה לְּמִילָה – שֶׁכֵּן אֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת בְּלֵילֵי יָמִים טוֹבִים, תֹּאמַר בְּכִסּוּי שֶׁנּוֹהֵג בְּלֵילֵי יָמִים טוֹבִים?

Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Distinguished responded with another refutation of the a fortiori inference: It cannot be inferred from circumcision that an uncertain obligation of the mitzva of covering the blood does not override a Festival. What is notable about circumcision? It is notable in that it is not in effect on Festival nights, but is performed only during the daytime. Will you then say with regard to the mitzva of covering the blood, which is in effect on Festival nights, that it does not override a Festival? Perhaps, since the mitzva of covering the blood is in effect during both day and night, its uncertain obligation overrides a Festival as well.

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: זֶה אֶחָד מִן הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא: אֵין לִי עֲלֵיהֶם תְּשׁוּבָה, וְהֵשִׁיב רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר בְּרִיבִּי תְּשׁוּבָה.

In reference to Rabbi Elazar HaKappar’s refutation, Rabbi Abba says: This a fortiori inference drawn by Rabbi Yosei is one of the matters with regard to which Rabbi Ḥiyya says: I do not have any refutation for them, and Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Distinguished successfully responded with a refutation.

קָתָנֵי מִיהַת: כִּסּוּי שֶׁאֵין וַדָּאוֹ דּוֹחֶה שַׁבָּת; מַאי וַדָּאוֹ דְּכִסּוּי דְּלָא דָּחֵי שַׁבָּת, לָאו הַשּׁוֹחֵט לַחוֹלֶה בְּשַׁבָּת?

Rabba concludes his refutation of the statement of Rav Eina: In any event, the baraita teaches that definite obligations with regard to the mitzva of covering the blood do not override Shabbat. Now, what is a case of a definite obligation of covering the blood that does not override Shabbat? Is it not a case where one slaughters an undomesticated animal or a bird for a critically ill person on Shabbat? The baraita nevertheless teaches that one does not cover the blood, in contradiction to the ruling of Rav Eina.

וְדִלְמָא דְּעָבַר וְשָׁחַט!

The Gemara asks: But perhaps the baraita is referring to an instance where one transgressed Shabbat and slaughtered an animal for a healthy person. But in a case where one slaughtered an animal for an ill person, since it was permitted for him to slaughter the animal, perhaps he must cover the blood as well.

דּוּמְיָא דְּמִילָה, מַה מִּילָה – בִּרְשׁוּת, אַף כִּסּוּי נַמִי – בִּרְשׁוּת.

The Gemara responds: The baraita cannot be referring to such a case, since Rabbi Yosei compares it with circumcision. Therefore, it must be similar to the case of circumcision, in that just as the circumcision was performed with permission, as it is a mitzva to perform circumcision even if the eighth day falls on Shabbat, so too, the covering of the blood must be referring to a case where the slaughter was done with permission, i.e., for an ill person. Accordingly, the baraita poses a difficulty to the statement of Rav Eina.

אָמְרוּ לוֹ: תְּקִיעַת שׁוֹפָר בַּגְּבוּלִין תּוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁאֵין וַדָּאָהּ דּוֹחֶה שַׁבָּת וּסְפֵיקָהּ דּוֹחֶה יוֹם טוֹב. מַאי סְפֵיקָהּ?

§ The baraita states that the Sages said to Rabbi Yosei in refutation of his a fortiori inference: The sounding of the shofar in the provinces will prove that the inference is incorrect, since its definite obligation does not override Shabbat and its uncertain obligation overrides a Festival. The Gemara asks: What is its uncertain obligation that overrides a Festival?

אִילֵימָא סָפֵק חוֹל סָפֵק יוֹם טוֹב; הָשְׁתָּא וַדַּאי יוֹם טוֹב דָּחְיָא, סָפֵק יוֹם טוֹב סָפֵק חוֹל מִיבָּעֲיָא?

If we say that it is referring to uncertainty with regard to whether one of the two days of Rosh HaShana is a weekday or a Festival, this is unfeasible: Now that the sounding of the shofar overrides the definite Festival of Rosh HaShana, is it necessary to teach that it overrides a day with regard to which it is uncertain whether it is a Festival or a weekday? That is, if the uncertainty is with regard to the Festival itself, then this case should have no bearing on the halakha concerning the obligation to cover the blood of a koy on a Festival, since the latter occurs on a definite Festival.