Chulin 87
Summary
- Today’s shiur learns מסכת חולין דף פז beginning on פו עמוד ב at the fifth wide line אמר רב חנינא, develops the dispute between the תנא קמא and רבי יהודה about whether שחיטת חיה ועוף together requires separate כיסוי הדם or one combined כיסוי, and focuses on how interruptions affect ברכות. The shiur presents major ראשונים on whether רב חנינא means one ברכה for successive שחיטות despite an intervening כיסוי and whether a new ברכה is needed for כיסוי itself, compares this to the דין of הב לברוך in a סעודה and the concept of הפסק, and brings practical applications from the רי"ף, תוספות, משנה ברורה, שולחן ערוך הרב, and a תשובה from רב אלישיב. The shiur then moves through the משנה and ברייתות on who must do כיסוי הדם, covering that became uncovered, covering by wind and אין דיחוי אצל מצות, mixtures of דם with מים/יין/דם בהמה, the parallel sugya in זבחים about זריקה and ראשון ראשון בטל, and concludes with laws of בצלאלתא דדמא regarding כרת and טומאת אהל.
- Today’s learning begins with the earlier מחלוקת that everyone agrees one כיסוי covers many חיות and one כיסוי covers many עופות, while the חכמים and רבי יהודה disagree whether שחיטת חיה ועוף together can wait for one כיסוי or requires separate כיסוי for each. Rav Chanina says רבי יהודה agrees לענין ברכה שאינו מברך אלא ברכה אחת, so even if רבי יהודה requires כיסוי between the חיה and the עוף, the שחיטה continues under one ברכה.
- Most ראשונים explain that Rav Chanina means no new ברכה on the second שחיטה even though כיסוי intervenes, but a new ברכה is still said on the second כיסוי. The ריטב"א explains that all animals are present for the שחיטה ברכה, while the דם for כיסוי does not exist until after slaughter so each כיסוי needs its own ברכה. Other ראשונים say כיסוי is secondary to שחיטה so כיסוי cannot be a הפסק between two שחיטות, while שחיטה can be a הפסק between two כיסויים. A third explanation says שחיטה is not necessarily done purely as a מצוה but also for practical eating, while כיסוי is only for מצוה purposes, so a הפסק affects כיסוי more strongly. The ראבי"ה reverses this and says no new ברכה on כיסוי but separate ברכות on שחיטה because of גופים מחולקים, while the shiur reports that most ראשונים hold one ברכה suffices for everything, even through שחיטה כיסוי שחיטה כיסוי.
- The גמרא compares Rav Chanina’s ruling to the teaching of רב ברונא ורב חנינא תלמידי דרב where saying הב לברוך makes it forbidden to continue drinking without another ברכה. Most ראשונים explain the requirement is a new ברכה ראשונה, while some say one must first make a ברכה אחרונה and then a new ברכה ראשונה, and the halacha distinguishes a case where they washed מים אחרונים, which ends the meal and requires ברכה אחרונה before restarting. The משנה ברורה and שולחן ערוך הרב add that deciding to end or deciding to eat only a certain amount can require a new ברכה ראשונה if one continues, while a תשובה from רב אלישיב limits this by saying modern decisions are often not firm like earlier times. The shiur notes the גמרא’s question is why כיסוי should not be a הפסק like הב לברוך, and the תורת חיים explains that even if one intends to continue later, declaring הב לברוך still creates a הפסק, so intent to continue does not remove the question in the שחיטה case. The גמרא answers that in a סעודה משתי וברוכי בהדי הדדי לא אפשר, while in שחיטה it is possible דשחט בחדא מחזיק בחדא, so the inability to do two actions simultaneously creates a stronger הפסק than an interruption where simultaneous action is possible.
- The רי"ף applies the principle that when two actions cannot be done simultaneously it is a הפסק to the סדר, requiring a separate בורא פרי הגפן on each of the ארבע כוסות because the הגדה cannot be said while drinking. Tosafos challenges this from cases like davening during a meal or making a ברכה on thunder during a meal, where one also cannot eat while performing the interruption yet no new ברכה is made. Tosafos answers that הפסק is only when there is intention to end the meal, and without intent to end, an interruption does not force a new ברכה.
- The shiur applies the הפסק discussion to a שוחט who speaks between שחיטות, where all agree one may not interrupt between the ברכה and the first שחיטה and speech לצורך שחיטה is not a הפסק, but unrelated speech is a מחלוקת ראשונים. The פרי חדש advises the שוחט to intend that the ברכה only lasts as long as he does not speak so that speaking ends the ברכה and forces a new one, and the shiur parallels this to a טלית case on ימים נוראים where one may want the ברכה to expire upon removing the טלית. The תבואות שור rejects making such תנאים because a תנאי cannot create a חיוב ברכה where none exists. The explanation hinges on whether each animal carries its own חיוב ברכה with חז"ל allowing aggregation, or whether the entire session is one act of שחיטה with one intrinsic חיוב ברכה.
- The משנה rules that if someone שחט ולא כיסה and another sees the exposed blood, the observer חייב לכסות. Rabbi Akiva Eiger asks what this adds beyond the earlier case of a חרש שוטה וקטן where a second person does כיסוי, and the answer is that the earlier משנה establishes that such a supervised שחיטה creates a כיסוי obligation, while this משנה teaches that even though the primary חיוב belongs to the שוחט, another must cover if the שוחט refuses. The משנה also teaches that if one covered properly and it became uncovered, פטור מלכסות, and that if the wind covered it one may be exempt while it remains covered, but if it becomes uncovered then the דין changes.
- A ברייתא derives from ושפך וכיסה that מי ששפך יכסה, meaning the שוחט should do the כיסוי. The shiur addresses the practice of asking others to do כיסוי, especially by כפרות, against the backdrop of מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו, and brings a פוסקים’ approach that when the מצוה will be done more honorably by someone else it is acceptable. The proof comes from Yosef’s brothers being asked to carry the ארון yet Moshe Rabbeinu doing it for greater כבוד המת, and the shiur distinguishes this from ד' מינים where there is no “goal” outcome to be enhanced, while כיסוי הדם and כבוד המת are goal-oriented מצוות where the best performance of the goal governs. Another ברייתא interprets במה ששפך בו יכסה to forbid covering with one’s foot so that מצוות are not treated ביזוי, and some ראשונים require using the hand while the רמב"ם allows using an implement such as the סכין in an honorable way. The חת"ם סופר explains the specific emphasis here by quoting a מדרש that גויים worshiped the blood, so one might think to degrade it to reject idolatry, and the גמרא teaches that even this must be done as an honored מצוה.
- A ברייתא teaches that if someone else precedes the שוחט and does כיסוי, רבן גמליאל obligates him to pay י' זהובים. The shiur presents sources proposed for the number ten, including the jewelry given to רבקה and the ten-gold measure associated with a ברכה, and the measure of כף אחת עשרה זהב מלאה קטורת showing a מצוה valued at ten. A fundamental מחלוקת ראשונים defines whether this is a monetary obligation or a קנס, with the נפקא מינה of מודה בקנס פטור, and the shiur states that בזמן הזה בתי דין do not collect it and explains that even if viewed as an obligation it is not a conventional financial loss claim. The shiur adds that if the deprived party seizes the money he may keep it as stated by ראשונים and in שלחן ערוך. The גמרא asks whether the payment is for שכר מצוה or שכר ברכה, and uses ברכת המזון as a test case, where שכר מצוה yields ten but שכר ברכה yields forty for four ברכות, including הטוב והמטיב as a דרבנן enactment.
- The גמרא brings an episode where a צדוקי claims two gods from the phrase כי הנה יוצר הרים ובורא רוח, and רבי refutes him by pointing to the end ה' צבאות שמו as a single Name, with a note that the phrase ה' צבאות שמו in מעריב prevents such error. The צדוקי asks for three days to respond, רבי fasts out of concern for חילול ה', and another צדוקי later reports that the challenger found no answer and died. רבי invites this צדוקי to eat and then offers him either כוס של ברכה אתה שותה or ארבע מאות זוזי שקלת, framed as giving the guest the right to bench while not wanting the צדוקי to bench, and the sugya concludes with a בת קול stating כוס של ברכה שווה ארבעים זוזים, establishing payment tied to ברכה. The ש"ך explains payment is only for taking away the opportunity to say the ברכה or to answer אמן, since גדול העונה אמן יותר מן המברך, and Tosafos applies this to cases like an עליה where if the person remains present and answers אמן there is no claim. The sugya ends with אמר ר' יצחק that the family still exists among the גדולי רומי and is called משפחת בית לומנוס, and the shiur draws the lesson that one should never despair of a Jew because the צדוקי valued ברכת המזון over money.
- The רא"ש rules that if a father honored a specific מוהל and another person performed the מילה, the deprived honoree does not receive י' זוזים. The רא"ש holds that if the father himself was to perform the bris and was deprived, he would have a claim, but once the father is not doing it, the mitzvah belongs to all of כלל ישראל as shown by the דין that בית דין must ensure the bris if the father fails. The shiur notes that some פוסקים infer from this that if the father can be a מוהל he may have not just first rights but an obligation to do it.
- The גמרא asks why uncovered blood after covering is not like השבת אבידה where השב אפילו מאה פעמים. Rav Ashi answers that by אבידה there is no limiting word, while here the תורה writes a מיעוט, וכסהו, implying once. The shiur adds a מוסר application that the obligation of השבת אבידה models not giving up on helping another Jew return to the right way, since השב even repeatedly applies.
- Rabbi Yochanan rules that wind-covering exempts only if the covering later becomes uncovered, while if it stays covered פטור מלכסות. אחרונים dispute whether this counts as the מצוה being “done” or merely removes the obligation because the blood is already covered. The גמרא challenges from דיחוי in קדשים and answers with Rav Papa that אין דיחוי אצל מצות, distinguishing mitzvos from sacrificial disqualification rules. The גמרא then asks from a case where blood was swallowed into the ground yet one must cover, and answers that there רישומו ניכר so it is not truly covered, whereas wind-covering is effective coverage until it is revealed again.
- The משנה rules that blood mixed with water requires כיסוי only if it retains מראית דם. Blood mixed with wine is judged by imagining the wine as water and checking whether the mixture would still appear as blood, and the shiur notes that פוסקים measure “red enough” by the shade that would render a woman a נדה. Blood mixed with דם בהמה or with blood from a חיה without a חיוב כיסוי is also evaluated as if the other liquid were water. רבי יהודה disagrees in the blood-on-blood case and rules אין דם מבטל דם. The משנה adds that דם הניתז ושעל הסכין חייב לכסות, and רבי יהודה limits this to when no other blood is available, while if other blood exists one covers with that and is exempt from scraping.
- The גמרא cites a משנה in זבחים with parallel rules for זריקה, where if the mixture retains מראית דם it is כשר, and wine and other blood are judged as if water, with רבי יהודה again holding אין דם מבטל דם. רבי יוחנן limits the דין to מים falling into דם, where each water drop is בטל, but if דם falls into water then ראשון ראשון בטל and the mixture is invalid for זריקה even if it appears red. Rav Papa distinguishes that לעניין כיסוי the order does not matter because אין דיחויי אצל מצוות, so as long as it has מראית דם the obligation remains.
- Shmuel teaches that any מראה אדמומית can be used for כפרה through זריקת הדם, can be מכשיר for טומאה susceptibility, and is חייב בכיסוי. The גמרא says the novelty is מכשירים, and explains that the case is rainwater where מי גשמים only מכשיר if one wants it. The answer clarifies that the mixture became combined מאליהם, so the rainwater would not be מכשיר unless the reddish appearance gives it the status of דם.
- Rav Asi from Nehardea identifies בצלאלתא דדמא as the clear liquid around blood. Rav Yehuda of Difti rules that eating it incurs כרת if it contains a כזית of real blood. A ברייתא teaches that it is מטמא באהל like blood of the dead if it contains a רביעית of real blood mixed within it.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions