The Gemara challenges: But even if the mishna is dealing with birds consecrated for Temple maintenance, let one redeem them after they were slaughtered and then cover their blood. The Gemara responds: This is not feasible, because in order to redeem a consecrated animal we require setting and valuating, i.e., the animal must be stood before a priest in order to evaluate it and only then is it redeemed (see Leviticus 27:11–12). A slaughtered bird cannot be stood before the priest; consequently, it cannot be redeemed.

The Gemara asks: But if the mishna is dealing with birds consecrated for Temple maintenance, in accordance with whose opinion is the mishna? If one suggests the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: Everything, i.e., animals consecrated both for the altar and for Temple maintenance, was included in the requirement of setting and valuating, and therefore the slaughtered birds may not be redeemed, this cannot be so. Doesn’t he also say that slaughter that is not fit to render the meat permitted is nevertheless considered a halakhic act of slaughter that requires the covering of the blood? If so, one should be obligated to cover the blood of the bird even if it is not redeemed.

The Gemara continues: And if one suggests the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: Slaughter that is not fit to render the meat permitted is not considered a halakhic act of slaughter and therefore the bird would require redemption in order to cover its blood, this cannot be so. Doesn’t he also say that animals consecrated for Temple maintenance were not included in the requirement of setting and valuating? If so, let one redeem the slaughtered birds and cover their blood.

Rav Yosef said in reconciliation of this dilemma: The mishna’s ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and he formulates the mishna in accordance with the opinions of different tanna’im: With regard to the status of an act of slaughter that is not fit to render the meat permitted he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, while with regard to the requirement of setting and valuating he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Therefore, since one cannot redeem a bird that was consecrated for Temple maintenance once it has been slaughtered, there is no obligation to cover its blood, as the slaughter was not fit to render the meat permitted.

And if you wish, say instead that the entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that birds consecrated for Temple maintenance may be redeemed even after their slaughter. And although it would seem that their slaughter is fit to render the meat permitted and that one should therefore be obligated in the mitzva of covering the blood, it is different here, as the verse states: “And he shall pour out its blood and cover it” (Leviticus 17:13). By juxtaposing “pour out” to “cover,” the verse indicates that the obligation to cover the blood applies only to blood that is lacking only pouring and covering, without any intervening step. Excluded is this blood of birds consecrated for Temple maintenance, which is lacking pouring, redeeming, and covering.

The Gemara notes: And now that you have arrived at this explanation, you may even say that the mishna is referring to birds consecrated for the altar. As for the question asked earlier: Why not let one scrape the blood from the altar and then cover it? The verse states: “And he shall pour out its blood and cover it,” indicating that the obligation to cover the blood applies only to blood that is lacking only pouring and covering, without any intervening step. Excluded is this blood of bird offerings, which is lacking pouring, scraping, and covering.

The Gemara cites another source for the exclusion of consecrated animals from the requirement of covering their blood: Mar bar Rav Ashi said that the verse states with regard to the mitzva of covering the blood: “An undomesticated animal or bird” (Leviticus 17:13). The juxtaposition of these two species intimates an analogy between them: Just as the undomesticated animal referred to in the verse is not consecrated, as undomesticated animals are never fit for sacrifice, so too, the bird referred to in the verse is not consecrated.

The Gemara asks: If it is so that the halakhot of slaughtering a bird are derived from those of an undomesticated animal, then say: Just as the verse is referring to an undomesticated animal, whose species cannot be consecrated as an offering, so too, the verse is referring only to a bird whose species cannot be consecrated as an offering. Therefore, I will exclude even non-sacred doves and pigeons, whose species can be consecrated.

The Gemara rejects this possibility: No, the juxtaposition indicates that the halakha with regard to the slaughter of birds is entirely like that of an undomesticated animal. Therefore, just as in the case of an undomesticated animal, you did not differentiate between its various species and all non-sacred animals are included in the mitzva, so too, with regard to the bird mentioned in the verse, you should not differentiate between its various species.

§ Concerning the halakha that covering the blood does not apply to a domesticated animal, the Gemara says that Ya’akov the heretic said to Rava: We maintain that an undomesticated animal, e.g., a deer, is included in the category of a domesticated animal with regard to the characteristics necessary to determine whether the animal is kosher, i.e., it chews its cud and has split hooves (see Deuteronomy 14:4–6). If so, I will also say that a domesticated animal is included in the category of an undomesticated animal with regard to the mitzva of covering the blood.

Rava said to him: With regard to your claim, the verse states in reference to the blood of a domesticated animal: “You may slaughter of your cattle and of your sheep…but be strong not to eat the blood…you shall pour it out on the ground, like water” (Deuteronomy 12:21–24). Accordingly, just as water does not require covering, so too, this blood of a domesticated animal does not require covering.

The Gemara asks: If that is so, that the verse equates the blood of a domesticated animal with water, then let one immerse ritually impure items in it to purify them, just as he can immerse them in water. The Gemara responds: The verse states: “But a spring or a cistern, or a gathering of water shall be pure” (Leviticus 11:36). The exclusionary term: “But,” indicates that only concerning these bodies of water, yes, they render pure an impure item, while something else, e.g., blood, does not.

The Gemara challenges: But perhaps one can say that this matter, i.e., the exclusionary term in the verse, serves only to exclude other liquids that are not called water. But with regard to blood, which is called water, as the verse states: “You shall pour it out on the ground, like water,” one may indeed immerse ritually impure items in it.

The Gemara responds: Two exclusions are written in the verse discussing ritually purifying waters: A spring of water, and: A cistern of water. The term “water” is understood as being attached to each of the bodies mentioned in the verse. The additional exclusion serves to exclude blood.

The Gemara challenges: Say that both this phrase, a spring of water, and that phrase, a cistern of water, serve to exclude other liquids, and not blood, whereby one phrase is to exclude flowing liquids that are not water from having the status of a spring, which renders an item ritually pure even when it is flowing; and one phrase serves to exclude gathered liquids that are not water from having the status of a ritual bath, which renders an item pure only when the water in the ritual bath is gathered.

The Gemara responds: Three exclusions are written in the verse: A spring of water, to exclude flowing liquids; and: A cistern of water, to exclude gathered liquids; and: A gathering of water, to exclude blood.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to covering the blood: “And any man of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, who traps a trapping of an undomesticated animal or bird that may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth” (Leviticus 17:13). I have derived only that one is obligated to cover the blood of an undomesticated animal or bird that one traps. From where is it derived that undomesticated animals or birds that are already considered trapped on their own, such as geese and chickens that do not roam freely, are also included in the mitzva of covering the blood?

The verse states “a trapping” to indicate that in any case, one is obligated to cover the blood of an undomesticated animal. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “Who traps,” if it is not to be understood literally? The baraita explains: The Torah taught that it is a desired mode of behavior that a person should consume meat only with this mode of preparation. That is, just as the meat that one traps is not readily available, so too, one should not become accustomed to consuming meat.

In a similar vein, the Sages taught in a baraita that the verse states: “When the Lord, your God, expands your boundary…according to every craving of your soul you may eat meat” (Deuteronomy 12:20). The Torah taught that it is a desired mode of behavior that a person should consume meat due only to appetite. That is, one should consume meat only when he feels a need to eat it.

The baraita continues: One might have thought that a person may purchase meat from the marketplace and consume it. Therefore, the next verse states: “And you may slaughter of your cattle and of your flock,” indicating that one should consume the meat of animals of his own flock, not those purchased in the marketplace. One might have thought that a person may slaughter all of his cattle, i.e., his only cow, and consume the meat, or slaughter all of his flock, i.e., his only sheep, and consume the meat. Therefore, the verse states: “Of your cattle,” indicating some, but not all of, your cattle; “of your flock,” but not all of your flock.

From here, Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria said: One who has one hundred dinars should purchase a litra of vegetables for his stewpot [lefaso]; one who has one thousand dinars should purchase a litra of fish for his stewpot; one who has five thousand dinars should purchase a litra of meat for his stewpot; and if one has ten thousand dinars, his servants should place a pot of meat on the stove for him every day. The Gemara asks: And with regard to these other individuals mentioned by Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria, when, i.e., how often, should they consume meat? The Gemara responds: Every Shabbat eve.

Rav says: We must be concerned for the statement of the elder, i.e., Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria, and be thrifty with our expenditure on food items. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Abba, i.e., Rav, was from a family of particularly healthy individuals, and was able to subsist on the modest diet suggested by Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria. But with regard to people such as us, who are not as healthy, one who has even one peruta in his pocket should hasten with it to the storekeeper and purchase food. Two generations later, Rav Naḥman said: With regard to people such as us, who are physically weaker than those in previous generations, not only do we not delay the purchase of food items, we even borrow money to purchase food and eat.

The Gemara continues its discussion with regard to one’s livelihood: The verse states: “The lambs will be for your clothing, and goats the worth of a field. And there will be goats’ milk enough for your food, for the food of your household; and sustenance for your maidens” (Proverbs 27:26–27). “The lambs will be for your clothing” indicates that your clothing should be produced from the shearings of lambs, i.e., purchase lambs from whose wool you can produce clothing. “And goats the worth of a field” indicates that a person should always seek to sell a field and purchase goats in order to benefit from their milk, wool, and offspring, and a person should not sell goats and purchase a field instead. “And there will be goats’ milk enough” indicates that it is sufficient for a person that he be sustained from the milk of kids and lambs that are in his house.

“For your food, for the food of your household” indicates that your food comes before the food of your household, i.e., one must first ensure that he has food for himself before providing for others. With regard to the phrase: “And sustenance for your maidens,” Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman, said: The verse indicates that you must give sustenance to your youth, i.e., to your children. From here, the Torah taught that it is a desired mode of behavior that a person should not accustom his son to eat meat and drink wine; rather, he should teach his children to eat less expensive foods.

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: