Beraisa (R. Yosi): One may not cover the blood of a Koy that was slaughtered on Yom Tov, as it is doubtful if it is required. If Milah, that when it is certainly the 8th day it overrides Shabbos, but if it is doubtful it does not override Yom Tov; covering the blood, that when the obligation is certain it does not override Shabbos, certainly if its obligation is doubtful it should not override Yom Tov.

Question: Is it permitted to slaughter on Shabbos? (How could the Beraisa mention that the certain obligation to cover the blood does not override Shabbos?)

Answer (R. Yosa himself / R. Yosa bei R. Bun quoting R. Yochanan): He slaughtered for a dangerously sick person.

Question to R. Yosa: We can disprove it from the case of blowing the Shofar outside of the Temple on Rosh Hashanah. Even when the obligation is certain, it does not override Shabbos, but if the obligation is doubtful, it overrides Yom Tov...?

Question: What is the case of doubtful obligation - (Two days of Rosh Hoshanah are observed, because of a doubt as to which day is actually Yom Tov - whichever day it actually is, let him blow) - If it is a weekday (so there is certainly no prohibition involved in blowing), he should blow and if it is Yom Tov, he should blow?!

Answer (R. Chaninah quoting R. Acha(: The doubt is because it is an Androgenus who is blowing (and it is doubtful whether an Androgenus is male or female).

Support - Beraisa: An Androgenus can cause another Androgenus to fulfil his obligation (i.e. blow for someone else), but cannot cause another type of person to fulfil his obligation. A Tumtum (one whose organs are covered with skin and it cannot be seen whether they are male or female) cannot cause anyone to fulfil their obligation (even another Tumtum, as perhaps this Tumtum is female and the other one is male).

Question (R. Yosi): If the case is when an Androgenus blows the Shofar, would R. Chiya have told R. Yosa that there is no way to answer it? (Rather, ideally an Androgenus cannot blow.)

As R. Avin said: This is one of the four cases about which R. Chiya the Great would say that there is no answer (and this is one of them).

R. Elazar son of R. Elazar Hakapar responds: If Milah, that when its obligation is doubtful it does not override Yom Tov, when its obligation is certain it does not override the night of Yom Tov; covering the blood, that when its obligation is certain it overrides the night of Yom Tov, certainly when its obligation is doubtful, it overrides Yom Tov!

This matter remained unresolved because of the question of R. Chiya the Great. The later Rabbanim remained with the same question that the earlier Rabbanan had asked.

According to R. Acha (who said that the Chachamim successfully responded from Androgenus), it is ideal for an Androgenus to blow the Shofar for another Androgenus.

According to R. Yosa (who said that it was not a valid response) it is not ideal.

The Mishnah had taught: They both agree that if he [already] slaughtered (without preparing the earth), he should dig with a spade and cover it, as ash from the stove is considered prepared for this.

This refers to when the ashes were burnt before Yom Tov, but he may not use ashes that were burnt on Yom Tov.

This is only the case when he has not yet slaughtered, but if he has already slaughtered, it is better to take ashes burnt on Yom Tov, rather than dig with a spade and cover.

Chevraya: The positive Mitzvah (of covering the blood) overrides the negative Mitzvah (of refraining from Melacha on Yom Tov).

According to R. Yona who said that a positive Mitzvah overrides a negative Mitzvah, it is fine, as this applies even if the two Mitzvos are not written together in the Torah.

Question: But according to R. Yosi who said that a positive Mitzvah only overrides a negative Mitzvah when they are written together, (why did they permit Melacha on Yom Tov in order to cover?)

Answer: Since he began the Mitzvah of slaughtering, we tell him to finish it.

Question (R. Zeira): If a monkey carved a bowl on Yom Tov, is it Muktzah?

Answer (R. Yosa bei R. Bun): R. Zeira and Rav Hamnuna disagreed - one said that it is Muktzah, the other one said that it is permitted.

The reason for the one who prohibits is because it is like Muktzah (fruit) that dried and he was not aware of it.

The reason for the one who permits it because it is like Tevel (untithed produce) that was accidently tithed.

Question: According to the one who permits, would one be able to use the area of the groove on the groundmade by the bowl.

Answer: One may never use the space on the ground, lest he come to flatten the ground.