Chulin 86
Summary
- Today’s שיעור is לזכר נשמת רב יעקב צבי קופייצקי זכרונו לברכה, and it learns מסכת חולין דף פו beginning on דף פה עמוד ב with רבי’s instruction to רב חייא in a case of a moth falling into flax, then develops the halachic problem of needing blood while still being obligated in כיסוי הדם, the solutions of making the act an invalid שחיטה or avoiding שחיטה, and the principle that שחיטה שאינה ראויה לא שמה שחיטה for כיסוי הדם. It applies these sugyos to practical psak questions about slaughtering for non-Jews, when to make ברכות on שחיטה versus כיסוי הדם, why certain killing methods prevent mistaken reliance on the meat, and why the moth-flax story can still happen despite statements that רבי חייא’s arrival ended damage to flax. It then moves to the משנה about חרש שוטה וקטן, the different rulings for כיסוי הדם and אותו ואת בנו, the Gemara’s explanation of רבי מאיר’s stance through רוב, מיעוט, and חזקה, רבי’s contradictory rulings and which is last, and finally the דין that one כיסוי can cover many חיות and עופות together, with רבי יהודה’s dissent and the דרשות of חיה או עוף and דמו.
- Today's שיעור states that רב חייא נפלה יניבא בכתני, a moth fell into linen or flax, and the way to drive moths away is by pouring blood onto the flax. It states that רב חייא came before רבי, and רבי told him שקול עוף ושחטיה אבבתא דמיא so that the moths will smell the blood and leave. It brings the מפרשים’ question that one may not שחט over a body of water and answers with two תירוצים that the restriction is only by flowing water and by clear water, while here it is a pool and not clear because the flax is soaking in it.
- The Gemara asks היכי עביד הכי based on a ברייתא that השוחט וצריך לדם חייב לכסות, so slaughtering for blood still creates a חיוב כיסוי הדם. It states that if a person needs blood he should do או נחרי או יקרי, killing in a way that is clearly a disqualified שחיטה so there is no חיוב כיסוי הדם. It records the מפרשים’ question that כיסוי הדם can be fulfilled by covering only part of the blood, and answers that this is a מחלוקת and he held one must cover all the blood, or that even if not obligated it is the right thing to cover all the blood, or that the needed blood is דם הנפש which is the first blood and must be covered so there is no remaining blood to use for כיסוי at that point.
- The שיעור states that the sugya shows that even if one slaughters when he does not need the meat, he is obligated in כיסוי הדם. It brings a dispute among פוסקים whether an animal for a non-Jewish customer should still be slaughtered via שחיטה rather than killed another way, with an explanation that שחיטה is either a מצוה or the most humane way to kill, while noting that in a case like the Gemara where there is a reason not to שחט, one should not. It states the psak that if one slaughtered knowing the animal or bird is not for Jewish consumption, he does not make a ברכה on the שחיטה, yet if he then performs כיסוי הדם he makes a ברכה on כיסוי הדם because the מצוה of כיסוי הדם applies under all circumstances described here.
- The שיעור explains that the Gemara’s options of נחרו or עקרו avoid confusion because someone might see a bird killed by a Jew and mistakenly assume it was slaughtered properly and eat it, and even a visible slaughtered carcass cannot reveal whether there was a שהייה. It states that these methods make it obvious it is not כשר so nobody will eat it. It asks why not simply kill a non-כשר bird, and answers that this blood method works only with כשר birds.
- The שיעור cites a מדרש that ties כיסוי הדם to the episode of קין and הבל, where קין brought linen or flax and was rejected while הבל brought animals, and קין killed הבל and then buried him after learning burial from birds. It states that because קין learned burial from birds, the מצוה כיסוי הדם came into place for birds, and it links linen to birds specifically where there is a מצוה כיסוי הדם, meaning כשר birds.
- The Gemara records two versions, כי אתא רב דימי אמר צא טרף אמר ליה and כי אתא רבין אמר צא נחרהו אמר ליה, and then analyzes why each version did not use the other. It rejects the attempt to explain צא טרף as based on דאין שחיטה לעוף מן התורה because רבי’s דרשה of כאשר צויתיך teaches the halachic requirements of שחיטה including וברוב אחד בעוף. It brings רבי עקיבא איגר’s point that the Gemara’s silence serves as a ראיה that even if שחיטה were only מדרבנן there would still be a חיוב כיסוי הדם, and then explains the Gemara’s resolution that each version is phrased as לא מיבעיא קאמר. It states that the teaching is that for כיסוי הדם, שחיטה שאינה ראויה לא שמה שחיטה, so there is no חיוב כיסוי הדם not only when one kills without שחיטה but even when the act is an improper שחיטה.
- The Gemara asks the reverse question on the version צא נחור, and it cites that רבי agrees in כיסוי הדם with רבי שמעון that שחיטה שאינה ראויה לא שמה שחיטה. It answers again with לא מיבעיא קאמר, stating that even a טריפה slaughtering would exempt from כיסוי, but the instruction צא נחור teaches that one should not conclude that אין שחיטה לעוף מן התורה and that killing is a valid substitute requiring כיסוי. It presents this as teaching כרבי יצחק בר שמואל that birds require proper slaughtering and mere killing does not create a valid שחיטה.
- The Gemara challenges the story by citing that after בני הגולה ascended, disasters stopped and ולא לקה פשתנם, and it states that this refers to רבי חייא ובניו. It brings the explanation from כתובות that רבי חייא is remembered for credit because without him תורה would have been forgotten, and it describes his method of planting linen, selling it, buying animals, slaughtering them, gathering children with meat, writing ששה סדרי משנה on hides, and teaching so they teach each other. It answers that his זכות helped the world but not himself, paralleling the בת קול about חנינא בני where all the world is sustained in his merit while he subsists on minimal חרובין.
- The שיעור brings the בעל שם’s explanation that a צדיק is a צינור like a pipe that channels benefit to others without needing it himself. It states a simple explanation that a צדיק is satisfied with little, and it adds רב חיים שמואלביץ’s focus on די לו that he does not need more. It presents the תורת חיים explanation that the world contains מידת הדין and מידת הרחמים, that a צדיק is equal to the rest of the world, and that the צדיק accepts מידת הדין so the rest receive מידת הרחמים, making it necessary that it be specifically די לו.
- The שיעור cites the כתב סופר’s explanation that והאספסוף refers to great people and their תאוה for luxuries leaves others lacking, and it cites the ישמח משה that ודורשי ה' לא יחסרו כל טוב means when צדיקים view what they have as good enough, others receive abundance. It states a פירוש that Hashem did not give the keys of פרנס, שובע, and רעב to מלאכים because only Hashem truly knows who is the real צדיק who determines such outcomes.
- The שיעור quotes the ספר חסידים that one who prays for another and needs the same thing is answered first, proven from אברהם’s prayer for אבימלך leading to שרה’s pregnancy, and it answers that praying for a non-Jew is not obligatory and counts as extra, unlike caring for a fellow Jew. It then cites the דברי אמת and the ריז'ינער that Hebrew distinguishes מזונות as minimal sustenance from פרנסה as plenty, explaining כל העולם כולו ניזון בשביל חנינא בני as meaning that if the צדיק has only מזונות then others will have only מזונות, while ensuring צדיקים have פרנסה yields פרנסה בשפע for כלל ישראל.
- The משנה states that חרש שוטה וקטן ששחטו ואחרים רואין אותם חייב לכסות, but if they slaughtered בין הם לבין עצמן one is פטור מלכסות. It explains the inference that others means at least two, despite עד אחד נאמן באיסורין, because where there is a concern of improper practice certainty requires two observers. It cites רש"י that the observers should do the כיסוי הדם, showing that לכתחילה a חרש שוטה וקטן should not perform כיסוי הדם because a מצוה should be done by one מחויב במצוות, and it applies this to כפרות where people often do כיסוי הדם even though they did not slaughter.
- The שיעור states that the obligation of כיסוי הדם belongs to the שוחט, and when a non-shochet performs it he does so as the shochet’s שליח. It presents a method suggested by פוסקים where the owner appoints the שוחט as his שליח for שחיטה so that both מצוות are considered his and he personally performs כיסוי הדם. It cites the חזון איש that a woman can do כיסוי הדם as well, and it states that this creates no problem even if she did not do the שחיטה.
- The משנה states that for אותו ואת בנו, if חרש שוטה וקטן slaughtered with observers it is forbidden to slaughter after them, while without observers רבי מאיר permits and חכמים forbid, and חכמים agree there is no מלקות because it is ספק. The Gemara asks why חכמים do not dispute the first case but do dispute the latter, answers that requiring כיסוי would signal a proper שחיטה and lead to eating the meat, and then questions why the same concern does not apply in the latter case. It answers that people will attribute the avoidance of slaughtering to not needing meat, then challenges that blood-covering could be attributed to cleanliness but notes cases like slaughtering at an אשפה or consulting a רב. It concludes that רבנן argue on the entire משנה and were simply allowing רבי מאיר to speak first, meaning the rabbinic stance is to be stringent: avoid eating, do כיסוי הדם, and refrain from אותו ואת בנו.
- The Gemara explains רבי מאיר as holding the unsupervised slaughter is נבילה, and it gives the reason that their acts are mostly מקולקלים. It challenges why רוב is needed since רבי מאיר generally חייש למיעוטא and could combine מיעוט with חזקה of חזקת אינה זבוחה to undermine a רוב. It supports this method from a משנה of תינוק next to עיסה where רבי מאיר is מטהר by combining the מיעוט with the dough’s חזקת טהרה against the רוב. It answers that rules in ספק טומאה with a קטן differ because a קטן lacks דעת לישאל and ספק טומאה may be treated as טהור, while here the ספק concerns איסור and requires reliance on רוב to treat the act as certainly invalid for practical obligations like כיסוי הדם and אותו ואת בנו.
- The Gemara reports that הורה רבי כרבי מאיר and also הורה רבי כחכמים and asks which was later. It tells the story of רב אבא בריה דרב חייא בר אבא and רבי זירא standing outside the בית מדרש, רב אמי rebuking them not to be outside during learning time, רבי זירא returning inside, and his complaint לא שבקתון דאשייליה לסבא because he thought רב אבא might know from his father who reviewed learning with רבי יוחנן. It then brings a proof from a message sent by רבי אלעזר לגולה that הורה רבי כרבי מאיר, concluding this was the later ruling.
- The משנה states that one כיסוי suffices for מאה חיות במקום אחד, for מאה עופות במקום אחד, and for חיה ועוף במקום אחד, with רבי יהודה disagreeing. It explains why by חיות the wording is בדיעבד, because a חיה may be found טריפה while עופות are usually כשרים so delaying כיסוי is less risky. It records an אחרונים debate whether one may eat from a bird after שחיטה before כיסוי when many birds are being slaughtered with one later כיסוי. It raises the modern slaughterhouse question whether a small covering can count for thousands of birds if not all blood is physically covered, citing the שבט הלוי הרב וואזנר that one must cover all the blood and הרב משה שטרנבוך in שאלות ותשובות תשובות והנהגות that mingled blood is treated as one unit so covering part suffices.
- A ברייתא derives that חיה כל and עוף כל include both many and few, establishing one כיסוי for many. It states רבי יהודה’s rule that if one slaughters both, he covers the חיה first and then slaughters the עוף, deriving it from חיה או עוף as a directive not to combine. It presents the חכמים’ response from כי נפש כל בשר דמו בנפשו הוא, and the Gemara explains that חיה או עוף is needed to teach separation of חיוב that either species alone obligates כיסוי, while רבי יהודה derives that from מדמו. It concludes that חכמים read דמו as implying much blood, supported by the phrase דמו כל נפשו בנפשו הוא, and therefore they use או as available to allow combining חיה and עוף under one כיסוי.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions