Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Chulin, 36

1) BLOOD THAT FELL ON A GOURD

QUESTION: The Gemara quotes a Beraisa in which Rebbi and Rebbi Chiya argue concerning a case of a gourd onto which blood fell from an animal during Shechitah. Rebbi says that the blood is Machshir the gourd to be Mekabel Tum'ah, and Rebbi Chiya says "Tolin."

Rav Papa explains that Rebbi and Rebbi Chiya argue only in a case in which the blood was wiped off of the gourd before the Shechitah was completed. They are arguing about when the effective part of Shechitah takes place -- at the start of the Shechitah, or only at the conclusion of the Shechitah. Rebbi maintains "Yeshnah li'Shechitah mi'Techilah v'Ad Sof" -- "the entire act of slaughtering, from beginning to end (and not just the final bit of the Shechitah), constitutes Shechitah." Accordingly, the blood that comes out of the animal at the beginning of Shechitah is considered Dam Shechitah and is Machshir. Rebbi Chiya maintains "Einah li'Shechitah Ela leva'Sof" -- "the act of Shechitah is not considered to be Shechitah until the end." Accordingly, the blood that comes out of the animal at the beginning of Shechitah is not Dam Shechitah, but Dam Makah (Dam Magefaso, the blood of a wound) and is not Machshir. "Tolin" means that we must wait until the Shechitah is completed, and if, at that point, the blood is still on the gourd, then it is Machshir.

Rebbi Chiya's opinion implies that the blood that fell from the animal at the beginning of Shechitah is considered retroactively to be Dam Shechitah once the Shechitah is completed.

However, if the blood is considered retroactively to be Dam Shechitah, then why is it not Machshir even in the case in which it was wiped off of the gourd before the Shechitah ended? If the Shechitah makes the blood into Dam Shechitah retroactively, then the blood should be Machshir even when it was wiped off before the Shechitah was completed!

ANSWER: The RAN addresses a similar question. The Gemara earlier (29b) says that if two people performed the Shechitah of a Parah Adumah one after the other, according to the opinion that "Einah li'Shechitah Ela leva'Sof" only the second person is subject to the laws of Tum'ah that apply to one who slaughters a Parah Adumah. If, however, we consider the Shechitah to be valid retroactively from its beginning, then the clothing of the first person should also become Tamei once the second person finishes the Shechitah, since the first person's act is also considered a valid act of Shechitah retroactively!

The Ran answers that, in truth, we do not consider the beginning of the Shechitah to be effective retroactively. Rather, the Shechitah is effective only at the end of the act of Shechitah.

Why, then, does Rebbi Chiya say that the blood that fell onto the gourd at the beginning of the Shechitah will be Machshir when the Shechitah is completed (and the blood is still on the gourd)? Rebbi Chiya understands that as long as the blood comes from a proper *act* of Shechitah, even though that act is not effective (since it was the beginning of Shechitah and not the end), the blood is still considered Dam Shechitah and is Machshi r. However, it is Machshir only when it is still upon the object at the time that the Shechitah becomes effective (i.e. at the end of the Shechitah). Why, though, must it still be on the object?

The Ran explains that the verse from which we learn the principle of Hechsher is, "You shall spill it (the blood of the animal) upon the ground" (Devarim 12:16). The Gemara earlier (33a) learns from this verse that "blood that is spilled on the ground like water is Machshir" (to exclude the blood of Kodshim, which is collected in a receptacle). The straightforward meaning of the verse is that the blood of a domesticated animal (Behemah) does not need Kisuy ha'Dam, in contrast to the blood of a bird and a Chayah (wild animal). With regard to the blood of a bird and a Chayah, the Mitzvah of Kisuy ha'Dam applies to all of the blood, even to the blood that came out at the beginning of Shechitah.

Accordingly, when the verse says, "You shall spill it upon the ground," teaching that the blood of an animal is Machshir, it is also referring to all of the blood of the animal, even the blood that comes out at the beginning of Shechitah. However, blood will be Machshir only when it is like water, as the Gemara (33a) derives from the verse. At the time that water is Machshir an object to become Tamei, it is *known* to be a Machshir. Blood, too, must be known to be a Machshir at the time that it is Machshir the object to become Tamei. If, at the time that the blood fell on the object, it was not known as a Machshir (since, at that moment, it was Dam Makah), and it was then wiped away, it will not be Machshir retroactively when the Shechitah is completed. This is the reasoning of Rebbi Chiya, according to Rav Papa's explanation. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker) (See also YOSEF DA'AS.)

36b

QUESTION: Rav Yosef attempts to prove from Rebbi Shimon's statement in the Mishnah (33a) that Chibas ha'Kodesh is able to be Machshir the object of Kodshim to become Tamei such that it will be Metamei other objects that it touches. Rebbi Shimon states that the Shechitah of an animal is Machshir the animal to be Mekabel Tum'ah. As RASHI explains, since the Mishnah is discussing the Shechitah of Chulin, the only type of Tum'ah with which it can become Tamei is Tum'ah that will make other objects Tamei (since Chulin does not become Pasul from being eaten). If Shechitah works to make a Chulin animal Tamei such that it can be Metamei other objects, then Chibas ha'Kodesh also works to make a Kodshim animal Tamei.

Rav Yosef's proof is not clear. While it is true that Chulin that becomes Tamei does not become prohibited to eat (even if it is Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh, according to some opinions), it certainly is prohibited to *cause* Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh to become Tamei and to eat it (see, however, RAMBAN). This indeed is what Rebbi Shimon is saying in the Mishnah, when he says that since the Shechitah is Machshir the animal to become Tamei, one may not eat it while his hands are Tamei! What, then, is the proof that the animal becomes Huchshar with regard to making other things become Tamei? Perhaps the Hechsher works only to make it prohibited to be Metamei the animal and thereby prohibit it from being eating while one's hands are Tamei!

Moreover, the Gemara's proof from the case of "ha'Botzer la'Gas" is difficult to understand. Rebbi Zeira attempts to prove that Chibas ha'Kodesh is an effective Machshir for Tum'ah from Shamai's ruling (and Hillel's ruling, according to his later retraction) regarding one who picks grapes in order to make wine. When one picks grapes and some of their juice comes out, the grapes become Huchshar, even though the owner is not pleased that the juice came out. The Hechsher is effective even to be Metamei other foods, because, otherwise, there is no relevance in the fact that grapes of Chulin become Huchshar for Tum'ah. The same would apply to Chibas ha'Kodesh.

What is the Gemara's proof from that case? In that case, too, perhaps the grapes become Huchshar only with regard to becoming Tamei themselves, but not with regard to being able to be Metamei other foods. Even though the grapes themselves may be eaten even though they are Tamei, the Terumah (that is Tamei) that is separated from them afterwards may not be eaten. Perhaps that is the extent to which the grapes become Tamei, and they do not become Tamei to be Metamei other foods! (RASHASH)

ANSWERS:

(a) RASHI (DH v'Afilu) writes that when Chulin becomes Tamei, "there is no Pesul of the food that prohibits it to be eaten." Similarly, when the Gemara earlier (36a) asks that perhaps Chibas ha'Kodesh is effective only "to invalidate itself," Rashi there (DH l'Ifsulei Gufei) writes that this means "to make it prohibited to be eaten."

It seems that Rashi maintains that according to the possibility that Chibas ha'Kodesh does not make the Kodesh able to be Metamei other foods, the Tum'ah caused by Chibas ha'Kodesh is not a real Tum'ah. It is only an "Isur Achilah," a prohibition against eating the object. Therefore, with regard to Chulin (even Chulin she'Na'asu Al Taharas ha'Kodesh), Chibas ha'Kodesh is not applicable, since it cannot create an Isur Achilah for Chulin. (Chibas ha'Kodesh would apply only if it would be able to make the Chulin be Metamei other foods.) Although it is prohibited to make Chulin become Tamei, one would not be violating this prohibition with Chibas ha'Kodesh, because Chibas ha'Kodesh (according to the possibility that it does not make the food able to be Metamei other foods) is not Tum'ah, but rather it is only an Isur Achilah, which does not take effect on Chulin (since Chulin is certainly permitted to be eaten).

(b) The RASHASH understands the Gemara's proof differently. He says that the word "Huchshar" implies that it becomes fit to become Tamei and to be Metamei other foods. The Tum'ah of Chibas ha'Kodesh alone, however, is never referred to as "Huchshar" in the Mishnah or Beraisa. Since the Mishnah quoted here uses the term "Huchshar," it must mean that the object becomes Huchshar to make other foods Tamei.

This is also the explanation of the RASHBA (the Rashash did not have the commentary of the Rashba). (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

QUESTION: The Gemara refutes the source for the principle that Chibas ha'Kodesh is able to be Machshir the meat of a Korban to be Mekabel Tum'ah, saying that perhaps the Korban became Huchshar in the manner described by Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel. Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel says that a cow that was designated as a Korban Shelamim that was passed through a river, and was still wet when it was slaughtered, is fit to become Tamei because of the water that is on it.

Why does Rav Yehudah mention specifically a Korban Shelamim? The same should apply to any type of Korban!

ANSWER:

(a) RASHI (DH Shel Zivchei Shelamim) gives two reasons why Rav Yehudah refers specifically to a Korban Shelamim. First, the verse that discusses the Tum'ah of the meat of a Korban is discussing the Korban Shelamim.

(b) Second, Rashi says that since the hide of the Korban Shelamim belongs to its owner, it is a common practice for the owner to walk his Shelamim through water prior to Shechitah in order to facilitate the removal of the hide after Shechitah (see Beitzah 40a). (This also explains how the water can be Machshir the flesh to be Mekabel Tum'ah. In order for a liquid to be Machshir the item it touches, the owner must be pleased that his item became wet.)

(c) The KETZOS HA'CHOSHEN (407:1) offers a different explanation. The RAMBAM (Hilchos Tum'as Ochlin 12:1) rules that in order for a liquid to be Machshir a food to be Mekabel Tum'ah, the item must become wet with the consent of the owner. Even if someone else is pleased that the item became wet, it will not become Huchshar for Tum'ah unless the owner consents (see Insights to Chulin 31:3). How, then, in the case of a Korban, can the animal become Huchshar for Tum'ah? The animal now belongs to Hekdesh! The Ketzos ha'Choshen answers that the Gemara here must be following the opinion of Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili, who maintains that Kodshim Kalim (such as Shelamim, as opposed to Chatas or Olah) are the property of their owners. This is why Rav Yehudah specifically mentions "Zivchei Shelamim"; only such Korbanos are the property of their owners and can become Muchshar with the owners' consent, according to the RAMBAM. (Z. Wainstein)