Wednesday Shiur Summary

Last night we fleshed out the discussion of the mishna in Chulin.  As a quick review

a) If you covered blood of a bird or חיה -- and it then became exposed, you are exempt from covering it again
b) If however, it was initially covered by the wind, you are obligated to cover it.

Raba Bar Bar Chana qualifies the SEIFA of this mishna: he says that the obligation to cover the blood is only if the wind blew the dirt off the blood.  If however, it remained covered (due to the initial wind) the mishna exempts you from covering it.

What is the Gemara's point by citing this mishna + commentary?

To question R. Yirmiya's question of יש או אין דיחוי אצל מצוות

How does this mishna serve as a kashya on R. Yirmiya?

Says the Gemara: Why in the Seifa, does the uncovering of the blood generate an obligation to re-cover that blood???? After all, once it was אידחי - exempt from covering (by virtue of the fact that it was covered by the wind) it should be אידחי forever!!  (in other words, this seems to be a case where dichui should play itself out - and you should have no obligation to cover it once it was exposed!)

R. Pappa explains: This mishna proves that there is no dichui in the world of mitzvot.  If there was dichui, then you would be exempt from re-covering the blood even when the wind blew the dirt off!!!

IF SO, WE SEE FROM THIS MISHNA THAT THERE IS NO DICHUI - AND R. YIRMIYA SHOULD NOT HAVE ASKED HIS QUESTION; RATHER, HE SHOULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD ON HIS OWN THAT THE HADAS WITH THE SNIPPED OFF HEAD AND THE REPLACEMENT BERRY IS KOSHER, BECAUSE MITZVOT CAN BECOME RELEVANT AGAIN, EVEN AFTER BEING "NIDCHE"..