THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
CHULIN 81-84 - 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.
1) LEAVING "NOSAR" UNTIL THE MORNING
QUESTION: The Beraisa proves that Rebbi Yehudah maintains that a Hasra'as
Safek is a valid Hasra'ah from the fact that he rules that one who leaves
over the meat of the Korban Pesach until the morning is not punished with
Malkus, because the Isur is a Lav ha'Nitak l'Aseh -- there is a Mitzvas Aseh
to burn the leftover meat. RASHI (DH Ba ha'Kasuv) explains that if not for
the reason that it is a Lav ha'Nitak l'Aseh, one would have received Malkus
even though the Hasra'ah that he receives is only a Hasra'as Safek, because
at any moment after the Hasra'ah he might eat the meat and not transgress
2) THE FIRST DAY OF SUKOS
Why, though, can there not be a definite Hasra'ah in such a case? When the
Hasra'ah is given at the very last moment of the night, the person has only
that moment to eat the meat and avoid transgressing, and thus the Hasra'as
is a definite Hasra'ah, for if he does not eat the meat at that moment he
certainly will transgress the Isur!
ANSWER: Even when Hasra'ah is given at a time that we think is the last
possible moment for him to start eating the meat and avoid transgressing the
Isur, he can reply that he is a fast eater and he still has time, after that
moment, to start eating and avoid transgressing the Isur. A moment later,
when we give him Hasra'ah again, he can reply that it is too late -- there
is no way for him to avoid transgressing the Isur, since he cannot finish
the meat even if he tries. Thus it is impossible for the witnesses to know
exactly when the last moment of the day is at which the Korban can be eaten
in order for them to give a proper Hasra'ah. (M. Kornfeld)
QUESTION: The Mishnah says that there are four times during the year at
which a seller must inform the buyer of an animal that the animal's mother
or child was also sold on that day. One of these days is the last day of the
festival of Sukos. Why does the Mishnah not mention the first day of Sukos?
There is no less of a Mitzvah to eat meat on that day of Yom Tov than on any
other day of Yom Tov!
3) "YESH LO REVACH"
(a) TOSFOS (DH uch'Divrei) explains that at the beginning of Sukos, people
are very busy preparing the Sukah and the Arba'as ha'Minim and they do not
have time to involve themselves with the Shechitah of large animals on that
(b) TOSFOS in Avodah Zarah (5b, DH Erev) gives another answer. Tosfos there
explains that each of the for days mentioned in the Mishnah is unique in
that people celebrate on these days more than on other festival days. The
last day of Sukos represents Hashem's special love for the Jews (see Sukah
55b). The first day of Pesach is the day on which we were freed from bondage
in Mitzrayim and Hashem took us to be His servants. On Shavuos, we celebrate
because we received the Torah (see Pesachim 68b). On Rosh Hashanah, it was
common to eat large meals as a sign for a good year (see Horayos 12a). On
the first day of Sukos, though, there is no reason to have larger meals than
In the Mishnah, Rebbi Yehudah states that a seller is obligated to inform
the buyer of an animal that he has already sold the animal's mother or child
only when there is no "Revach," in order to prevent the buyer from
inadvertently transgressing the prohibition of "Oso v'Es Beno." When there
is "Revach," the seller is not required to inform the buyer. What is
(a) RASHI (DH she'Ein and DH Aval) explains that when there was no lengthy
time period between the sale of the mother and the sale of the child (i.e.
they were sold on the same day), the seller is obligated to inform the buyer
about the earlier sale of the mother or child, because we assume that each
buyer purchases the animal for the sake of slaughtering it right away. If,
however, there was a considerable period of time between the sale of the
first animal and the sale of the second (i.e. the first animal was sold on a
different day), then the seller is not required to inform the buyer that
someone else bought the mother or child of this animal, for we are not
concerned that they will slaughter the animals on the same day.
(b) RABEINU GERSHOM explains that "Revach" refers to how soon before Yom Tov
the purchase was made. When the two animals were sold on the same day, but
there are still a number of days before Yom Tov arrives, the seller is not
required to inform the buyer that the mother or child of this animal was
already sold. Since there is "Revach" -- considerable time left before Yom
Tov -- we do not assume that the two buyers will slaughter the two animals
on the same day. In contrast, when both animals are purchased on Erev Yom
Tov, the seller is required to inform the buyer. Since there is no time left
before Yom Tov (there is no "Revach"), it is reasonable to assume that both
buyers intend to slaughter their animals on that day.
(c) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Shechitah 12:15) explains that the seller must
inform the buyer only when he sees that the buyer is hurried, and it is near
the end of the day. In such a case the seller must assume that the buyer
wants to slaughter the animal right away, since he is not taking his time to
choose an animal at his leisure, but rather he is rushing. When there is a
lot of time until the end of the day, and the buyer does not seem rushed,
then we do not assume that he plans to slaughter the animal on that day, and
thus the seller does not need to inform the buyer that the animal's mother
or child was sold on that day.
The SHILTEI GIBORIM disagrees. When we see a person rushing to buy at the
end of the day, then we may assume that he is buying the animal for the
*next* day, because there is not enough time left in the day to properly
slaughter and skin the animal. Hence, it is more reasonable to assume that
the animals will be slaughtered on the same day when they are purchased at
the beginning of the day. (Z. Wainstein)
4) RECITING A "BERACHAH" FOR A "SAFEK MITZVAH"
OPINIONS: The Mishnah states that one must perform Kisuy ha'Dam for the
blood of a Koy because of the doubt that a Koy might be a Chayah.
5) HALACHAH: PREPARING EARTH FOR "KISUY HA'DAM"
When performing Kisuy ha'Dam for a Safek Chayah such as a Koy, must one
recite a Berachah? Similarly, whenever one performs a Safek Mitzvah, must
one recite a Berachah for the Mitzvah?
(a) The ROSH (6:1) quotes RABEINU YONAH who rules that one must recite a
Berachah when performing Kisuy ha'Dam with the blood of a Koy, even though
the requirement to perform Kisuy ha'Dam is a Safek. He proves this from the
Gemara in Shabbos (23a) that says that the reason we do not recite a
Berachah when separating Ma'aser from produce of Demai is because the
requirement to separate Ma'aser from Demai is a Safek d'Rabanan. This
implies that when we perform an act of a Mitzvah because of a Safek
d'Oraisa, we must recite a Berachah. Since Kisuy ha'Dam of a Koy is a Safek
d'Oraisa, we recite a Berachah.
Similarly, the RA'AVAD (Hilchos Milah 3:6) rules that we recite a Berachah
when performing a Bris on an Androginus (a person with both male and female
reproductive organs), for whom there is a doubt whether such a person is a
male, a female, or a new gender.
(b) The ROSH argues with the proof of Rabeinu Yonah from the Gemara in
Shabbos. The Gemara in Shabbos means that even though we recite a Berachah
for a Mitzvah that is a Takanah d'Rabanan, we nevertheless do not recite a
Berachah for separating Ma'aser from Demai, because the Rabanan enacted the
Takanah to separate Ma'aser only as a result of a Safek.
The ROSH maintains that since one can fulfill a Mitzvah without reciting the
Berachah, one should not recite a Berachah when performing a Safek Mitzvah.
The RAMBAM (Hilchos Milah 3:6) also rules that we do not recite a Berachah
for a Safek Mitzvah. This is the view of most Poskim. (Z. Wainstein)
OPINIONS: Rebbi Zeira teaches that when performing the Mitzvah of Kisuy
ha'Dam, one must place earth both beneath the blood, and on top of the
blood, of the slaughtered bird or Chayah. Does this mean that one must
actively designate earth by picking it up and placing it on the ground to be
used for Kisuy ha'Dam?
6) A "CHAYAH" SLAUGHTERED IN THE PLACE THAT A "BEHEMAH" WAS SLAUGHTERED
(a) RASHI earlier (31a, DH d'Mazmin; see Insights there) implies that the
earth must be literally *placed* underneath the blood, or at least
*pronounced* as earth of Kisuy. If earth just happens to be where the blood
falls, then the Mitzvah has not been fulfilled. Rashi's source is the
statement in the Gemara earlier (31a) that relates that Rebbi Yonah bar
Tachlifa had to "prepare" the earth in the valley for Kisuy.
(b) TOSFOS here (DH Tzarich) and the ROSH (2:8, 6:10) find Rashi's assertion
difficult to accept. They maintain that as long as there is earth underneath
the blood, the Mitzvah has been fulfilled, and there is no need to
specifically designate the earth for that purpose.
The SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 28:5) records both opinions. The SHACH points out
that if one did not prepare the earth verbally before the Kisuy, there is no
need to perform another Kisuy. (M. Kornfeld)
QUESTION: The Mishnah states that the Mitzvah of Kisuy ha'Dam does not apply
to birds of Kodshim. The Gemara suggests that the reason is because it is
necessary to place earth beneath the blood as well as on top of it, and this
cannot be done on the Mizbe'ach. Adding earth permanently to the Mizbe'ach
would constitute enlarging the Mizbe'ach, which is forbidden, and adding
earth temporarily to the Mizbe'ach would constitute a separation between the
blood and the Mizbe'ach.
The Gemara asks that even though one cannot place earth underneath the blood
on the Mizbe'ach, this should not prevent the Mitzvah of Kisuy ha'Dam from
being performed. Kisuy ha'Dam is valid even when one places earth only on
top of the blood when it is not possible to place it underneath the blood!
The proof that such a Kisuy ha'Dam is valid is from the Beraisa in which
Rebbi Yonasan ben Yosef rules that one who slaughters a Chayah and
afterwards a Behemah, one is exempt from performing Kisuy ha'Dam with the
blood of the Chayah. RASHI (DH Patur) explains that one is exempt because
the blood of the Behemah is already covering the blood of the Chayah, and
thus there is nothing to cover. Rebbi Yonasan ben Yosef continues and says
that if one first slaughters a Behemah and then a Chayah, one must perform
Kisuy ha'Dam. This proves that even though one cannot place earth underneath
the blood of the Chayah (because it is already on top of the blood of the
Behemah), nevertheless one is still obligated to do Kisuy ha'Dam.
Does the Halachah follow the opinion of Rebbi Yonasan ben Yosef? If one is
unable to place earth beneath the blood, is he still obligated to perform
(a) Many of the Rishonim, such as the RIF, RAMBAM, ROSH, and RASHBA, do not
record the ruling of Rebbi Yonasan ben Yosef at all. This implies that they
maintain that the Halachah does not follow his opinion. Why, though, do
these Rishonim rule this way?
1. The HAGAHOS MAIMONIYOS (Hilchos Shechitah 14:6) suggests that the Rambam
does not rule like Rebbi Yonasan ben Yosef because the Mishnah later (87a)
disagrees with him. The Mishnah there states that when the blood of a bird
or Chayah became mixed with the blood of a Behemah, one still must cover the
blood of the bird or Chayah. This is not like the ruling of Rebbi Yonasan
ben Yosef, because, according to the Mishnah, even when the blood is mixed
up, one still is required to do Kisuy ha'Dam, even if the blood of the
Behemah is above the blood of the Chayah. Since there is a dispute between
the Mishnah and the Beraisa, the Halachah follows the Mishnah.
2. The SHACH (YD 28:20) cites TOSFOS (DH Shochat) who questions the ruling
of Rebbi Yonasan ben Yosef. Why should one be exempt from Kisuy ha'Dam when
one slaughters the Behemah after the Chayah? One should be required to
scrape away the blood of the Behemah and then cover the blood of the Chayah
with earth! Tosfos asks further that in a case in which one first
slaughtered a Behemah and then slaughtered a Chayah, why is it not possible
to place earth underneath the blood? One should scrape away the blood of
both animals and then place earth underneath!
The Shach asserts that the Rishonim who omit the ruling of Rebbi Yonasan ben
Yosef answer the questions of Tosfos by explaining that Rebbi Yonasan argues
with the Mishnah (87b) cited here in our Sugya that states that the blood on
the Shechitah knife must also be covered. The Gemara explains that this must
mean that one is required to scrape off the blood from the knife. Rebbi
Yonasan, though, maintains that one does not need to scrape off the blood;
it suffices to place earth on the blood while it is still on the knife.
Since the Halachah is in accordance with the Mishnah that one must scrape
off the blood from the knife and cover it, it follows that the Halachah does
not follow the view of Rebbi Yonasan who maintains that one is not required
to scrape off the blood. Similarly, one is not required to scrape away the
blood of the Behemah in order to cover the blood of the Chayah underneath,
and one is not required to scrape away the blood of both animals in order to
place earth underneath.
(b) The TUR and SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 28:14) rule in accordance with Rebbi
Yonasan ben Yosef.
Moreover, the Shach concludes that it is possible that the Rishonim who omit
Rebbi Yonasan's ruling omit it not because they disagree with it, but
rather, on the contrary, they maintain that his ruling is obvious and it is
not necessary to codify it. According to this view, everyone agrees that the
Halachah is that one is not required to do Kisuy ha'Dam when the blood of
the Behemah is on top of the blood of the Chayah, and one is required to do
Kisuy ha'Dam even when one is unable to place earth underneath the blood but
can cover only the blood on top with earth. (D. Bloom)