Chulin 88
Summary
- Today’s *shiur* learns מסכתא חולין דף פ"ח, beginning on דף פ"ז עמוד ב' at תנן התם, and moves from the טומאה status of liquids associated with a *met* into the sugyot of כיסוי הדם, including which blood must be covered and which materials qualify as “עפר.” The text frames a contradiction between a teaching that “כל משקה המת טהורים” and a ברייתא about משקים היוצאים מן הטמאים, resolves it by distinguishing categories of טומאה and explaining why חז"ל decree more where people are not *בדילי*, and then returns to כיסוי הדם with מחלוקות between רבי יהודה, רבנן, and רבן שמעון בן גמליאל about whether covering some blood suffices and whether the חיוב centers on דם הנפש. The משנה and ברייתות define acceptable cover materials, the גמרא explains why וכיסהו בעפר is not treated as a strict כלל ופרט limitation, and later applications include desert and travel scenarios, the Mordechai and Geonim’s advice, and the dispute between בית יוסף and רמ"א, along with thematic דרשות connecting עפר ואפר to אפר פרה and עפר סוטה and closing with interpretations from the בית הלוי, שם משמואל, and דובנא מגיד.
- Today’s learning begins by recalling צללתא דדמא and asking the הלכה status of that component within blood. The text introduces תנן התם as a source that is treated by the ראשונים as a ברייתא, stating that כל משקה המת טהורים and that liquids such as urine or a woman’s milk remaining in the body are טהור, חוץ מדמו. Tosafot asks why these liquids are not considered טמא from contact with the corpse, since a מת is אבי אבות הטומאה, and answers either that there is no explicit פסוק making the liquid טמא merely because it touched the מת, or that the case is where the liquid exits through a tube and never touches the corpse. The text states that דם of a מת is טמא and has טומאת אהל, and that even any מראה אדמומית is מטמא באהל.
- The גמרא challenges the rule that משקה המת are טהורים by bringing a ברייתא about משקה טבול יום and about משקים of other טמאים. The text defines a טבול יום as someone who immersed but still awaits הערב שמש and is categorized by the ראשונים as a שני לטומאה, unable to transmit to חולין or מעשר שני but able to transmit to תרומה and קדשים because of שלישי and רביעי levels. The text states that liquids have a special rule: when a liquid is a שני and touches something else, it makes the other item a שני as well, rather than stepping down. The ברייתא says that משקה טבול יום are like liquids he touches and do not transmit further, while other טמאים have outgoing liquids כמשקה הנוגע בהם, treated as תחילה, with an exception for secretions that the תורה defines as אב הטומאה, such as a זב’s זיבה, saliva, urine, or semen.
- The text reads the ברייתא’s “קלים” and “חמורים” as initially suggesting שרץ וזב versus מת, creating a contradiction with the earlier rule about a מת’s liquids, and answers that קלה means טומאת שרץ while חמורה means זב. The גמרא then asks why חז"ל decree on זב’s liquids but not on a מת’s liquids, and explains that people are not *בדילי* from זבים and may come to דאורייתא טומאה, while people are *בדילי* from a מת and do not need that גזירה. The text records that רבי עקיבא איגר asks why the contrast is phrased as זב versus מת rather than שרץ versus מת and that he does not answer. The ספר שערים בחול is cited for the broader principle that frequent contact leads to more גזירות, illustrated by נדה-related restrictions and by the gezeirah against meat and milk on the same table because each item is individually kosher and confusion is likely.
- The learning returns to פרק כיסוי הדם and the משנה of דם הניתז ושעל הסכין, where רבי יהודה requires scraping and covering. A ברייתא derives from וכיסהו that דם הניתז ושעל הסכין חייב לכסות, and רבי יהודה limits this to when there is no other blood, while if other blood exists one is פטור מלכסות this splattered or knife blood. The text states that this reflects רבי יהודה’s view that one fulfills the מצוה with מקצת דם, while noting that פוסקים require that the portion covered must be covered properly and permanently.
- Another ברייתא derives from וכיסה that שכל דמו חייב לכסות and includes dם splattered and blood on the neck, presenting the רבנן as requiring all blood. The text brings an אחרונים’ debate about whether, if not all blood is available, the רבנן still require covering all available blood or would exempt entirely, depending on whether the mitzvah attaches to each drop or is conditioned on having “all the blood.” רבן שמעון בן גמליאל says the חיוב applies when one did not cover דם הנפש, but once דם הנפש is covered one is פטור, and the text defines דם הנפש through the slaughter sequence of black blood and then red blood that שותת, then מקלח, then שותת again, with universal agreement that מקלח is דם הנפש and a question whether שותת is also דם הנפש. The text reports a מחלוקת ראשונים whether רבן שמעון בן גמליאל requires covering all דם הנפש or whether covering some דם הנפש suffices, and summarizes the conceptual positions as רבנן: דמו כל דמו; רבי יהודה: דמו אפילו מקצת דמו; רבן שמעון בן גמליאל: דמו המיוחד.
- The משנה lists acceptable materials for כיסוי הדם as זבל הדק, חול הדק, סיד, חרסית, ובבונה ובמגופה and ground earthenware items, and excludes זבל הגס, חול הגס, and לבנה ומגופה שלא כתשן, adding ולא יכפה עליו כלי. The text explains that the phrase ולא יכפה עליו כלי teaches not to hide the blood in a vessel to avoid the מצוה, since that is not fulfillment of כיסוי הדם, and instead one should leave the blood exposed and fulfill the מצוה properly. The text states that most ראשונים treat רבן שמעון בן גמליאל as summarizing the rule that a דבר המגדל צמחים is valid for כיסוי הדם and what does not grow plants is invalid.
- The גמרא defines חול הדק as sand so fine that a potter does not need to grind it, and alternatively defines חול הגס as sand so thick that a potter does need to grind it. The text reports that the difference between the two versions is a case where it does not require grinding but does require crumbling, and that רש"י explains one way while other ראשונים reverse the implications between the two versions.
- A ברייתא learns from בעפר that one cannot fulfill כיסוי הדם with stones or by placing a כלי over the blood, and then uses וכיסהו to include זבל הדק, חול הדק, שחיקת אבנים, שחיקת חרס, נעורת פשתן דקה, נסורת של חרשים דקה, וסיד וחרסית לבנה ומגופה שכתשה. The ברייתא then uses בעפר to exclude זבל הגס, חול הגס, שחיקת כלי מתכות, לבנה ומגופה שלא כתשה, and קמח, סובין, ומורסן, and explains that included items are מין עפר while excluded items are not.
- The גמרא challenges this by reading וכיסהו as a כלל and בעפר as a פרט and applying כלל ופרט אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט, which would limit the מצוה to literal עפר alone. The גמרא answers in the name of רב מרי that this is a כלל הצריך לפרט and therefore is not judged as a standard כלל ופרט. The text presents רש"י’s explanation that וכיסהו is ambiguous between covering by contact and covering like a lid, and בעפר is needed to define that the covering must be with a substance that contacts the blood. The text also presents Tosafot’s explanation that בעפר is needed to teach עפר למטה and עפר למעלה, since וכיסהו alone would imply only a top covering, so the פרט defines the basic halacha rather than restricting an already clear כלל.
- Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda teaches אין מכסין אלא בדבר שזורעין בו ומצמיח, excluding desert sand, and Rava calls this היי בורכא. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak defends the teaching by citing a ברייתא that a traveler in the desert without עפר should grind a gold coin and cover, and that someone on a boat without עפר should burn his garment and cover, and the text treats the desert case as evidence that desert earth is not usable because otherwise grinding gold would be unnecessary.
- The Mordechai quotes the Geonim that one should soak the blood into a garment and later, upon reaching available עפר, remove the blood and do כיסוי הדם. The בית יוסף rejects this because the גמרא does not propose it, and therefore the שולחן ערוך does not cite it, while the רמ"א does cite it and later מפרשים analyze the basis of the dispute. One explanation ties the disagreement to whether כיסוי requires all blood, since soaking will not collect all blood, with בית יוסף requiring all blood and the רמ"א accepting partial. Another explanation frames the dispute as whether the soaking is considered the first step of the מצוה such that one may even make a ברכה, with the רמ"א analogizing to “על ביעור חמץ” recited at בדיקת חמץ because the search begins the elimination process, while the בית יוסף rejects that framing. A third explanation cites the רמ"א in דרכי משה raising בל תשחית concerns about grinding gold, permitting the Mordechai’s approach when the coin exceeds the chicken’s value and permitting grinding when the chicken exceeds the coin, while the בית יוסף rules that there is no בל תשחית when spending value to do a מצוה; the text cites a מנחת יצחק responsum about discarding a non-פת ישראל sandwich when traveling to a place with פת ישראל, treating mitzvah fulfillment as not בל תשחית. The text also quotes a Mordechai that permits using snow, שלג, for כיסוי הדם and notes that everyone disagrees.
- The גמרא accepts אפר as עפר based on פרה אדומה, and asks for the source that ground gold is called עפר, answering with the פסוק ועפרות זהב לו. The text emphasizes that this applies specifically to ground gold and not other metals, aligning with the exclusion of שחיקת כלי מתכות. The text connects this to the ביטול חמץ נוסח לבטיל ולהוי כעפרא דארעא, explaining that saying merely כעפרא could imply gold-dust “עפר,” so one specifies כעפרא דארעא.
- A ברייתא records בית שמאי saying אין מכסין אלא בעפר, while בית הלל says מצינו אפר שקרוי עפר, citing ולקחו לטמא מעפר שרפת. בית שמאי answers that it is called עפר שרפה but not עפר סתמא. The text then reports an additional list of materials added as valid, including השחור, הכחול, ניקרא פוסלין, and יש אומרים אף הזרניך.
- Rava teaches that in the reward for אברהם אבינו’s statement ואנכי עפר ואפר, his descendants merit two מצוות, אפר פרה and עפר סוטה. The גמרא asks why עפר כיסוי הדם is not counted and answers that it is הכשר מצוה with no הנאה, since even without כיסוי הדם the animal remains permitted to eat and no טהרה benefit results, unlike אפר פרה and עפר סוטה where טהרה results. The text notes a question about the order, since the פסוק says עפר ואפר while the גמרא lists אפר פרה first, and answers that everyone needs אפר פרה while עפר סוטה is hoped never to be needed. The text also raises the question whether without אברהם’s statement there would be no פרה אדומה, and answers that Hashem would not leave people טמא forever, but that the statement merited an easier procedure.
- The בית הלוי explains that אפר has a past but no future while עפר has a future but no past, and that Hashem rewarded אברהם with מצוות addressing future purification through אפר פרה and clarifying the past through עפר סוטה. The שם משמואל explains a special פסוק about לויים’ טהרה by warning that לויים might become conceited because they did not participate in חטא העגל, so the Torah teaches they too are human and can become טמא. The text closes with a דובנא מגיד parable in which a modest distinguished person refuses the front seats, so the community elevates the back by placing other dignitaries there, paralleling how אברהם’s self-denigration as עפר ואפר is elevated by attaching מצוות to עפר and אפר and thereby revealing the true greatness of אברהם and the מצוות.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions