ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 87
CHULIN 86-90 - Sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor.
Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and
prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.
(a) Our Mishnah rules that if Shimon sees Reuven Shecht a bird and not
perform Kisuy ha'Dam - then he is obligated to perform it.
(b) The Tana also rules that if the wind ...
1. ... uncovered blood on which Kisuy ha'Dam was already performed - one is
Patur from covering it again.
(c) In the same context, the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...
2. ... covered the blood before the Shochet had a chance to perform the
Mitzvah - then one is obligated to perform it oneself.
1. ... "Ve'shafach ... Ve'chisah" - that Lechatchilah, the Mitzvah to cover
the blood is incumbent upon the Shochet.
2. ... "Va'omar li'Venei Yisrael" (with which the Parshah begins) - that
should the Shochet fail to do it, then whoever sees the blood uncovered is
obligated to perform it.
(a) Another Beraisa learn from "Ve'shafach ... Ve'chisah" - that one should
cover the blood with one's hand (with which one Shechted the animal), and
not with one's foot (the source of 'Bizuy Mitzvah' [not to treat a Mitzvah
(b) With regard to a case where Reuven Shechted a bird, and Shimon
preempted him, covering the blood before Reuven had a chance to do so,
Raban Gamliel in a Beraisa - obligated Shimon to pay ten gold coins.
(c) We ask whether the fine was to pay for the lost Miztvah or the lost
B'rachah. The ramifications of the She'eilah will become manifest - there
where Shimon 'steals', not the Mitzvah of Kisuy ha'Dam, but that of
Bensching (comprising not just one B'rachah, but four).
(a) And we resolve the She'eilah from an incident that occurred with Rebbi.
A certain Tzedoki tried to prove from the Pasuk "Ki Hinei Yotzer Harim
u'Vorei Ru'ach" - that the god who formed the mountains is not the same
god as the one who created the winds.
(b) Based on the end of the Pasuk "Hashem Tzevakos Sh'mo" - Rebbi answered
him, that there it is clear that both were created by the same 'Hashem
(c) The Tzedoki reacted to that - by requesting three days to counter
(d) Rebbi fasted three fasts - because not knowing what trouble the Tzedoki
would stir up, the situation was potentially dangerous.
(a) As Rebbi was about to break his fast, there was a knock at his front
door. Rebbi thinking that it was the Tzedoki who had come with a reply (and
who knows with what else), cited the Pasuk "Va'yitnu be'Varusi Rosh", which
means 'they embittered my meal'.
(b) In fact - it was a second Tzedoki at the front door, who brought him
the good news that the first Tzedoki, unable to find a suitable response to
Rebbi's explanation, had climbed on to the roof and jumped off.
(c) After accepting Rebbi's invitation to join him for his meal, the
Tzedoki chose- to Bensch over a Kos shel B'rachah rather than the forty
gold coins that Rebbi offered him.
(d) A Heavenly Voice proclaimed - that the Kos shel B'rachah is worth forty
gold coins (ten gold coins per B'rachah).
(e) Rebbi Yitzchak testified - that there were still members of that
Tzedoki's family sitting among the aristocrats of Rome, and that they were
known as the family of bar Luyanus.
(a) Someone who finds an object that he has already returned to the owner
before - is Chayav to return it again (even a hundred times, as implied by
the word "Hasheiv".
(b) Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava asked Rav Ashi why this should differ from the
Din in our Mishnah, which exempts a person who has performed Kisuy ha'Dam
from performing it a second time, should the wind uncover it. The latter
replied - that regarding Kisuy ha'Dam, the Torah writes "Ve'chisa*hu*
be'Afar", which implies a 'Miy'ut' (a preclusion).
(a) Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan qualifies the Din in our
Mishnah 'Kisahu ha'Ru'ach, Chayav Lechasos' - that one is only Chayav to
cover the blood if it actually became uncovered (but not as long as it
(b) We do not apply here the principle of 'Dichuy' ('Once Patur, always
Patur') - because we hold 'Ein Dichuy be'Mitzvos' ...
(c) ... though it does apply to an animal that is Pasul to be brought as a
Korban (which will remain Pasul, even after the P'sul has been removed).
(d) The difference between Rebbi Yochanan's ruling and the case in the
Beraisa 'ha'Shochet ve'Nivla Dam be'Karka, Chayav Lechasos' (even though
the blood was not subsequently uncovered) - lies in the fact that the
latter speaks in a case where the stain of blood remains visible (unlike
the case in our Mishnah to referred to by Rebbi Yochanan, where the blood
(a) Our Mishnah rules that the Dam Shechitah of a bird that became mixed up
with water - requires Kisuy as long as the mixture resembles blood.
(b) The Tana also rules that if blood became mixed up with red wine or with
the blood of a Beheimah or of a Chayah (which is not Dam ha'Nefesh) - we
view what it became up with as if it was water, and gauge whether it would
then resemble blood or water.
(c) Rebbi Yehudah holds - that blood cannot be Mevatel blood ('Miyn
be'Miyno Lo Bateil').
(a) Finally, the Tana rules that blood which ...
1. ... squirts on to the ground beyond the hole that one prepared for the
Dam Shechitah - is subject to Kisuy ha'Dam, as is the blood ...
(b) Rebbi Yehudah qualifies these final rulings - by confining them to
where there is no other blood to cover.
2. ... sticks to the knife, which must first be scraped off (as we already
learned earlier in the Perek).
(a) We learned the identical Mishnah in Zevachim with regard to the blood
of Kodshim that became mixed up with water, wine or blood of a Beheimah or
of a Chayah. Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan however, qualifies the
Mishnah - confining it to where the water fell into the blood. But where
the blood fell into the water - we will apply the principle 'Kama Kama
Bateil' (each drop becomes Bateil as it falls into the water, and will not
later combine with all the drops that fell in after it, even if they now
resemble blood ['Ein Chozer ve'Niy'ur']).
(b) Rav Papa explains that this distinction will not apply to our Mishnah -
because of the principle 'Ein Dichuy Eitzel Mitzvos' (as we learned on the
previous Amud), in which case the principle 'Chozer ve'Niy'ur' will apply.
(a) When Rav Yehudah Amar Rav says that 'it' atones, is Machshir Lekabel
Tum'ah and requires covering - he is referring to any part of the blood
that is red-looking.
(b) We conclude that although 'Mechaprin' and 'Chayavin be'Kisuy' are
already mentioned specifically in this regard in their respective Mishnayos
(as we just explained), Machshirin is not. The problem with ...
1. ... this is - that both blood and water are Machshir (so what difference
does it make whether it is red-looking or not)?
2. ... the suggestion that Rav is referring to a case where one mixed the
blood with rain-water is - that since he mixed them, he obviously wants the
water, and rain water that one wants is Machshir Lekabel Tum'ah.
(a) We therefore answer the Kashya - by establishing the case where the
blood became mixed together with rain water without the owner's knowledge
(and where he does not want the latter), and that is where we go after the
appearance of the mixture, as Rav Yehudah explains.
(b) Rebbi Asi from Naharbil establishes the case by 'Tzalelta de'Dama' -
which is the watery extract from the blood, which is not automatically
(c) Rebbi Yirmiyah establishes the case with regard to the Chiyuv Kareis
(for drinking blood, but not water). For that, othe mixture would need to
contain - at least a k'Zayis of real blood.
(a) We learned in a Beraisa that all the liquids that emerge from a Meis
are Tahor except for one - namely, blood.
(b) The Tana also says that every appearance of red that emerges from him -
(c) We query the initial statement of the Beraisa from a Mishnah in
T'vul-Yom, where the Tana compares all liquids that emerge from a T'vul-Yom
to liquids that touch it - which are Tahor.
(d) And the Mishnah adds that the liquids that emerge from all other
Teme'in, both minor and major - are compared to liquid that touches it,
which is Tamei.
(a) Initially, we interpret 'minor' - as a Sheretz and a Zav, and 'major' -
as a Meis ...
(b) ... creating a problem with the previous Beraisa - which declares all
liquids that emerge from a Meis, Tahor.
(c) To solve the problem, we re-interpret 'minor' - as a Sheretz, and
'major' - as a Zav.
(d) And the reason that Chazal decreed Tum'ah on the liquids of a Zav but
not on those of a Meis is - because people do not tend to keep their
distance from a Zav, whereas from a Meis they do.