Chulin 89
Summary
- A שיעור on מסכת חולין דף פט begins from דף פח עמוד א and moves from the reward for אברהם אבינו’s refusal to take spoils “אם מחוט ועד שרוך נעל” into the meanings of תכלת and תפילין as symbols of honesty, humility, and remembering Hashem, then develops a series of אגדתא teachings that praise self-effacement and silence in conflict while demanding active speech in דברי תורה, returns to הלכות כיסוי הדם with the principle מצוות לאו ליהנות ניתנו and its limits by עבודה זרה and by תורה, and concludes by opening the פרק of גיד הנשה with the משנה and a גמרא that explains the case of מוקדשין through ולדות קדשים and the question whether the איסור applies בשליל.
- A גמרא teaches that in the merit of אברהם אבינו saying “אם מחוט ועד שרוך נעל” after the war where he saved מלך סדום and refused even a string or shoelace from the captured property, his children merit two מצוות, חוט של תכלת and רצועה של תפילין. A group of מפרשים explain that אברהם אבינו refuses because he holds it does not belong to him, and they connect this to the requirement that the חוט של תכלת must be true תכלת rather than an imitation, and to a גמרא about trusting someone because he is wearing תפילין, so these items function as signs of honesty. רבי עקיבא איגר derives the הלכה of putting on the right shoe first but tying the left shoe first from the connection between “שרוך נעל” and תפילין, since תפילין are tied on the left. The משך חכמה explains that wearing טלית ותפילין specifically at שחרית fits אברהם אבינו’s special connection to תכלת and תפילין and the tradition that אברהם אבינו is מתקן תפילת שחרית.
- Some מפרשים resolve the tension between “בשכר” and the principle שכר מצוה בהאי עלמא ליכא by saying the rule denies material reward in this world but affirms שכר מצוה מצוה, that a מצוה brings another מצוה. Aברהם אבינו’s act creates a great קידוש השם with מלך סדום and therefore leads to being זוכה to two additional מצוות, תכלת and תפילין.
- The כלי יקר asks how the גמרא’s attribution of ציצית to אברהם אבינו fits with the מדרש that connects ציצית to שם and יפת covering נח. The כלי יקר answers that ציצית brings two protections, an antidote כנגד זנות and an antidote to עניות, so בזכות שם who covered his father’s ערווה ציצית protects from ערווה, and בזכות אברהם אבינו who does a money-related act of restraint it protects from poverty.
- A lesson is drawn that with a string and a strap, חוט של תכלת and רצועה של תפילין, one can do מצוות even with the most insignificant objects, paralleling that אברהם אבינו’s deed seems small because it is an act of not taking. A further line connects רצועה של תפילין to “וראו כל עמי הארץ כי שם ה' נקרא עליך,” and a ברייתא in the name of רבי אליעזר הגדול identifies this as תפילין שבראש that causes the nations to see the שם שדי and be held in check.
- The גמרא asks what is special about חוט של תכלת and answers with a ברייתא of רבי that תכלת differs because תכלת דומה לים, ים דומה לרקיע, רקיע דומה לאבן ספיר, and אבן ספיר דומה לכסא הכבוד, supported by the פסוקים “ויראו את אלקי ישראל ותחת רגליו כמעשה לבנת הספיר” and “כמראה אבן ספיר דמות כסא.” A question is raised why the chain is needed if תכלת is דומה לכסא הכבוד, and answers are offered that the resemblance is not exact so the ים is a more direct match that leads to the memory, that the existence of *kilazon* and *k’la ilan* requires recalling the sea-source to ensure authenticity, and that תורה is compared to מים and through תורה one comes to עבודת השם. A further pshat links this idea to “שושנת יעקב צהלה ושמחה בראותם יחד תכלת מרדכי,” explaining that ים represents low depths and כסא הכבוד represents the highest heights, and תכלת teaches that both extremes come from Hashem, which is presented as embodied by מרדכי who moves between being משנה למלך and facing “להשמיד להרוג ולאבד.”
- A teaching attributed to the כתב סופר explains the מדרש where קורח challenges משה רבנו with “טלית שכולה תכלת” by framing ציצית as a gift that keeps friendship remembered when physically distant. The כתב סופר says that קורח’s claim “כי כל העדה כולם קדושים” asserts כלל ישראל is כולה תכלת and needs no reminder, while משה רבנו insists that even then ציצית is needed as the גמרא taught to remember that Jews are from Hashem and must remember Hashem.
- A ברייתא states אמר רב אבא קשה גזל הנאכל, that stolen goods already consumed are very hard to return even though the תורה says והשיב את הגזלה, and it says that even צדיקים גמורים cannot return it. The verse “בלעדי רק אשר אכלו הנערים” is connected to אברהם אבינו’s refusal to take from מלך סדום while acknowledging what the נערים already consumed cannot be recovered, and the מהרש"א is cited that אברהם אבינו was not entitled to everything he captured but chose an extra measure not to take, yet could not impose that standard on others after consumption.
- A statement says that whenever one finds the words of רבי אלעזר בנו של רבי יוסי הגלילי in אגדתא, one should “עשה אזנך כאפרכסת,” and a mill image is explained as widening to take in and then separating chaff from grain so each word yields a lesson. Another pshat equates this to grain being the staple of life and teaches that the attitude toward דברי תורה should mirror the dependence on grain, since Torah is necessary to live.
- The פסוק “לא מרבכם מכל העמים חשק השם בכם” is explained as Hashem telling ישראל that even when He bestows greatness, “אתם ממעטים עצמכם לפני.” One pshat says Jews attribute success to זכות אבות rather than their own merits, and another says תלמידי חכמים become more aware of how little they know as they learn more. דברי אמת says Jews are called יהודים from מודה, admitting that everything comes from Hashem. The גמרא contrasts this with nations: Nimrod says “הבה נבנה לנו עיר,” Pharaoh says “מי השם,” Sennacherib says “מי בכל אלהי הארצות,” Nebuchadnezzar says “אעלה על במתי עב,” and חירם מלך צור says “מושב אלהים ישבתי בלב ימים,” and it adds an account that חירם builds a vast ocean structure and is ultimately captured and killed gruesomely by נבוכדנצר.
- A teaching in the name of the באבובער רב and the בעל שם explains “אל נקמות השם אל נקמות הופיע” by identifying *El* as strength and Hashem as מדת הרחמים and resolving the tension with a משל where a king responds to disrespect not with direct punishment but by bringing the offender into the palace, showing glory, and showering gifts until the offender feels deep shame. The same idea is applied to the words “משוך חסדך ליודעיך אל קנא ונוקם,” where the power of “אל קנא ונוקם” appears precisely through חסד and שפע that awaken recognition of what is owed to God.
- רבי יהונתן אייבשיץ is cited with a story of a man who appears deeply humble in ימים נוראים prayer but rejects an עליה by saying that being nothing applies only toward God and not toward people, and this is presented as contradicting the גמרא’s demand that humility must extend to everyone. The גמרא says “גדול שנאמר במשה ואהרן יותר ממה שנאמר באברהם,” contrasting “ואנכי עפר ואפר” with “ונחנו מה,” and several explanations are offered: משה’s humility is greater because he is raised in פרעה’s palace, or because אברהם speaks to Hashem while משה and אהרן speak to people who challenge them, or because אברהם needs some self-pride to confront an idolatrous world while משה and אהרן operate within believing ישראל, or because “ונחנו” implies their humility is contagious, or because they see all spiritual stature as solely from connection to Hashem rather than from self.
- The גמרא states that the world exists because of משה ואהרן, linking “ונחנו מה” to “תולה ארץ על בלימה.” רבי אלעזר says the world exists only for one who restrains himself in a fight, and רבי אבהו says it is one who makes himself as if he is nothing, tied to “ומתחת זרועות עולם.” רבי יצחק brings “האמנם אלם צדק תדברון מישרים תשפטו בני אדם” and ties it to דוד’s restraint when pursued by שאול, where he spares him in a cave and proves his lack of evil intent.
- Rav Zvid or Rav Acha bar Yirmiya says a person’s craft in this world is to make himself like a mute, and the חפץ חיים explains that this is an אומנות requiring practice like any profession. The גמרא then asks whether this applies to דברי תורה and answers “צדק תדברון,” and several explanations are given: בטחון limits over-investment in worldly effort but Torah should “consume” a person, a מדרש about a limited allotment of words is said not to restrict Torah speech, and the פוניבז'ער רב says that while one should not challenge in ordinary conflict, in Torah one must challenge to understand. The g’mara adds “יכול יגס דעתו” and answers “מישרים תשפטו בני אדם,” requiring humility even while speaking and engaging in Torah.
- The sugya returns to כיסוי הדם with a teaching that one may cover blood with the earth of עיר הנדחת. The objection is raised that it is איסורי הנאה, and Ze’iri answers that the case is “לאפר אפרה,” because the verse requires burning only items not lacking more than gathering and burning, excluding hard earth that requires digging and therefore is not subject to the burning prohibition in the same way. Rava gives an alternative basis, “מצוות לאו ליהנות ניתנו,” so using prohibited benefit material for a מצוה is not called enjoyment.
- A מחלוקת ראשונים is cited about doing a מצוה that also gives personal benefit, such as immersing in a hot day and cooling off, and it is said that פוסקים advise that לכתחילה one should avoid relying on מצוות לאו ליהנות ניתנו when personal enjoyment is involved. A case is given of someone forbidden by נדר from benefiting from another’s shofar where לכתחילה someone else should blow and he should hear. The אגלי טל of the אבני נזר is quoted as asking why learning תורה is restricted on תשעה באב and שבעה if מצוות are not for enjoyment, and he answers that תורה is an exception because enjoying learning, having a געשמאק, is part of the מצוה of תלמוד תורה. The same source brings a ראיה from the רמב"ם’s version of “לעולם יעסוק אדם בתורה ומצוות שלא לשמה” where the רמב"ם cites only תורה, explained as תורה’s “שלא לשמה” enjoyment being a component of the mitzvah unlike other מצוות.
- A case records that Ravina teaches the principle and Rav Chuma challenges from a ברייתא that says “שופר של עבודה זרה לא יתקע בו,” which is first read as a לכתחילה prohibition with בדיעבד validity. A parallel is raised for “לולב של עבודת כוכבים לא יטול,” again interpreted as לכתחילה only, until another ברייתא explicitly says that if one did blow or take, “לא יצא.” Rav Ashi resolves by distinguishing that shofar and lulav require a minimum שיעור and for עבודה זרה the object is treated as destroyed, “כתותי מיכתת שיעוריה,” so it lacks the שיעור, while כיסוי הדם has no such minimum and the crushed state is even helpful, “כתותי מיכתת מעלי לכיסוי.”
- The next פרק begins with the Torah’s ban “על כן לא יאכלו בני ישראל את גיד הנשה” from the episode of יעקב אבינו and the מלאך dislocating the גיד הנשה. The משנה rules that גיד הנשה applies in ארץ ובחוץ לארץ, בפני הבית ושלא בפני הבית, in חולין ובמוקדשין, in בהמה ובחיה, and in both ירך של ימין and ירך של שמאל, and it does not apply in עוף “מפני שאין לו כף.” A רשב"א is cited that the exclusion of birds implies the human sciatic nerve would be אסור because an אדם has a כף, even though eating human flesh is not permitted, and the משנה states it applies in שליל with רבי יהודה disagreeing and saying it does not apply in שליל and “חלבו מותר.” The משנה records a dispute whether a טבח is trusted on removing גיד הנשה, with רבי מאיר saying “אין הטבח נאמן” and חכמים saying they are נאמנים also on החלב, and a כרתי ופלתי is cited about a claim that גיד הנשה differs between male and female animals, though it is said that the accepted practice treats it the same.
- The גמרא asks why the משנה needs to say the איסור applies in מוקדשין, since הקדש does not remove the איסור, and it considers whether the point is double liability via יש בגיד כדי ליתן טעם, הקדש, and אין איסור חל על איסור. The גמרא then asserts that the משנה implies “אין בגידין טעם,” so one violates גיד but not מקדש because eating קדשים depends on taste, but it challenges this from a later משנה about ירק cooked with גיד הנשה that becomes forbidden if it gives taste, implying “יש בגידים נותן טעם.” The גמרא therefore reinterprets the case as “בוולד קדשים,” where the fetus is הקדש in utero and the תנא holds נוהג בשליל and that ולדות קדשים במעי אמן הן קדושים, so איסור גיד and איסור מקדש arrive simultaneously and can both apply “בהדי הדדי.” The גמרא objects that since the משנה’s end explicitly debates נוהג בשליל, the beginning should not be about שליל, and it answers that the opening statement “נוהג במקדשים” rests on the fetus case and the משנה then notes that the underlying premise of גיד applying in a fetus is itself the dispute of רבי יהודה and חכמים.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions