(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


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.
2. ... covered the blood before the Shochet had a chance to perform the Mitzvah - then one is obligated to perform it oneself.
(c) In the same context, the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...
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 with disrespect]).

(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 Tzevakos'.

(c) The Tzedoki reacted to that - by requesting three days to counter Rebbi's answer.

(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 remains covered).

(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 is invisible).




(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 ...
2. ... sticks to the knife, which must first be scraped off (as we already learned earlier in the Perek).
(b) Rebbi Yehudah qualifies these final rulings - by confining them to where there is no other blood to cover.
(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 Machshir either.

(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 - is Metamei.

(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.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,