POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf
Chulin 36
CHULIN 36 (6 Adar) - dedicated by the Feldman family in memory of their
father, the Tzadik Harav Yisrael Azriel ben Harav Chaim (Feldman) of
Milwaukee.
|
1) WHICH BLOOD IS "MACHSHIR"?
(a) (Beraisa - Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): "He will drink the
blood of corpses" - this excludes blood that flows (from
a dying animal), which is not Machshir.
(b) (Beraisa - Rebbi): An animal was slaughtered; some of the
blood fell on a gourd - it is Huchshar;
1. R. Chiya says, Tolin (we suspend - this will be
explained).
(c) (R. Oshiya): Since Rebbi and R. Chiya argue, we join R.
Shimon's opinion that blood is not Machshir, and this is
the majority ruling.
(d) (Rav Papa): Rebbi and R. Chiya agree, if the blood is
still on the gourd at the end of slaughter, it is
Huchshar;
1. They argue when the blood was cleaned off before the
second Siman was cut.
i. Rebbi holds, (we consider that) slaughter
begins from the first incision, all blood that
comes out is blood of slaughter;
ii. R. Chiya holds that only one moment is
considered slaughter, when slaughter is
completed. Before this, all blood (e.g. that
fell on the gourd) is like blood of a wound,
which is not Machshir. When slaughter is
completed, the blood (that already came out) is
considered blood of slaughter;
iii. 'Tolin' means, we suspend the law of the gourd
until the end of slaughter, if blood is still
on the gourd, it is Huchshar.
(e) Question: Why did R. Oshiya say that that we join R.
Shimon's opinion to R. Chiya's? R. Chiya says that the
blood is Machshir, R. Shimon says that it is not!
(f) Answer: If the blood was cleaned off the gourd before
completion of the slaughter, they agree that it was not
Huchshar; therefore, the Halachah follows them against
Rebbi.
(g) (Rav Ashi): 'Tolin' implies that we will never resolve
the doubt;
1. R. Chiya is unsure what the law is when the blood is
cleaned off before slaughter is finished - he does
not know when slaughter begins.
2. 'Tolin' means, we neither eat nor burn the gourd (if
it is Terumah, and it touched something Tamei).
(h) Question: Why did R. Oshiya say that we join R. Shimon's
opinion to R. Chiya's? R. Chiya is in doubt, R. Shimon
says that the blood is not Machshir!
(i) Answer: Both agree that we do not burn the gourd, they
are a majority against Rebbi. In such a case, Tolin, we
neither eat nor burn it.
2) IS "CHIBAS HA'KODESH" FULLY "MACHSHIR"?
(a) Question (Reish Lakish): A (part of - Rashi) a Minchah
(flour-offering) was never kneaded with oil (so it was
not Huchshar) - if it becomes Tamei, can it make other
foods Tamei?
1. Does Chibas ha'Kodesh (a stringency of Kodshim that
is Machshir Kodesh without any liquid) only Machshir
to become Pasul, or is it Machshir to become Tamei
(to Metamei other foods), like regular Hechsher?
(b) Answer #1 (R. Elazar - Beraisa): "Any food that will be
eaten (upon which water will come)" - only food which
water comes upon is Huchshar.
1. Question: Reish Lakish agrees that only water (or
other drinks) are Machshir (Chulin) - he only asks
if Chibas ha'Kodesh is like water falling on the
Kodesh!
2. Answer: R. Elazar knew that; the Beraisa teaches
that Chibas ha'Kodesh is not like water falling on
the Kodesh,
i. We learn Hechsher from "When water will be put
upon produce";
ii. Question: Why must it also say "Of any food
that is eaten"?
36b---------------------------------------36b
iii. Suggestion: This excludes Chibas ha'Kodesh,
i.e. it is not like water falling on the
Kodesh.
iv. Rejection: No - one verse teaches about Tum'as
Mes (it only applies after Hechsher), the other
teaches (the same) about Tum'as Sheratzim.
v. If we only had a verse about Tum'as Mes, one
might have thought that no Hechsher is needed
for Tum'as Sheratzim, since it is stringent
(even a lentil's size of a Sheretz is Metamei);
vi. If we only had a verse about Tum'as Sheratzim,
one might have thought that no Hechsher is
needed for Tum'as Mes, since it is stringent
(it is Metamei for seven days).
vii. Therefore, neither verse is free to exclude
Chibas ha'Kodesh.
(c) Objection (against R. Elazar, and Answer #2 - Rav Yosef -
Mishnah - R. Shimon): The meat is Huchshar through the
slaughter.
1. The Hechsher is even to Metamei other foods, even
though water never came upon the meat. (The same
applies to Chibas ha'Kodesh!)
(d) Answer (Abaye): (Reish Lakish's question and R. Elazar's
answer pertain to the law mid'Oraisa;) the Mishnah
teaches that mid'Rabanan, Chibas ha'Kodesh is like water
falling on the Kodesh.
(e) Question (R. Zeira - Beraisa - Shamai): If one picks
grapes to make wine, they are Huchshar (even though he is
unhappy about the juice which comes out, for it is lost);
1. Hillel says, they are not Huchshar. Hillel later
retracted and agreed with Shamai.
2. The Hechsher is even to Metamei other foods, even
though he never wanted liquid to fall on the grapes.
(The same applies to Chibas ha'Kodesh!)
(f) Answer (Abaye): Mid'Rabanan, Chibas ha'Kodesh is like
water falling on the Kodesh.
(g) Objection (Rav Yosef): You answered R. Zeira and myself
by saying that mid'Rabanan, it is as if water came upon
them - but Reish Lakish only asked if mid'Rabanan, it is
as if water came upon the Kodesh!
(h) Answer (Abaye): If it was only mid'Rabanan, we would not
burn Terumah or Kodshim that touched the meat, we would
just not eat it - do you really think that Reish Lakish
asked about this?!
1. Rather, he asked if we burn what touches the meat -
he is unsure if mid'Oraisa, it is as if water came
upon the Kodesh!
3) THE SOURCE FOR CHIBAS "HA'KODESH"
(a) Question: If Chibas ha'Kodesh is mid'Oraisa, what is the
source for it?
1. Suggestion: "(Kodesh) meat that will touch anything
Tamei (may not be eaten)" - this teaches that meat
of Korbanos is Huchshar.
2. Question: How did it become Huchshar?
i. Suggestion: It became Huchshar through its
blood.
ii. Rejection: R. Chiya bar Aba taught, "You will
pour (the blood) on the ground like water" -
only water which is poured on the ground is
Machshir (to exclude blood of Korbanos, which
is collected in a vessel)!
3. Answer #1: It became Huchshar through liquids of the
Mitbach (the place in the Mikdash where the meat is
rinsed).
4. Rejection: But R. Yosi bar Chanina taught, liquids
in the Mitbach are Tehorim (do not become Tamei) -
further, they are not even Machshir!
i. Suggestion: Perhaps he only referred to blood
of the Mitbach (not the other liquids).
ii. Rejection: He said, the *liquids* (*are*
Tehorim)!
5. Answer #2: The meat is Huchshar through Chibas
ha'Kodesh.
6. Rejection: Perhaps the Hechsher was (not through
Chibas ha'Kodesh, rather,) like Rav Yehudah
established.
i. (Rav Yehudah): The Korban was taken through a
river, and it was still wet when it was
slaughtered.
(b) Answer: We learn Chibas ha'Kodesh from the end of the
verse - "*And the* meat" - this includes wood and
frankincense (that they can become Tamei).
1. Question: But these are not foods!
2. Answer: Because of Chibas ha'Kodesh, they are
considered foods, they are Mekabel Tum'ah -
likewise, Chibas ha'Kodesh is Machshir Kodesh meat
without a liquid!
(c) Question: What is the conclusion regarding Reish Lakish's
question, does Chibas ha'Kodesh only Machshir to become
Pasul, or even to become Tamei?
(d) This question is unresolved.
Next daf
|