Monday, Week 2 of the Headless Hadas/Niktam Rosho Succah 33a

In our last shiur, on Thursday evening, we delved deeper into the question being asked by the Gemara and began to analyze the answer.

A quick review:

The Gemara has raised a kushya on R. Yirmiya: What prompted him to wonder about the status of a hadas that was "niktam" and then grew back a berry once Yom Tov entered? After all, a mishna in Chulin (after being elucidated by Raba Bar Bar Chana and R. Pappa) establishes "eyn dichui etzel mitzvot" - and therefore, the hadas - even though it entered Yom Tov in a state of "psul" - nevertheless would become kosher once the berry grows back.  In other words, a mitzvah object can recover from being temporarily invalidated for a mitzvah.

In the case of the mishna in Chulin, we are not exactly dealing with a "mitzvah object" but rather with a situation in which the mitzvah is either available or unavailable to you.

Reisha of that mishna: If you covered the blood (of a chaya or of) and it later became uncovered, you are exempt from recovering it.

Seifa of that mishna: If the wind initially covered the blood, you are obligated to cover it.

Now, we noted (especially with those talmidim who engaged in the Chazara on Sunday) that the seifa of the mishna must be explained more fully.  How could you be obligated to cover the blood once it's covered???

Possibility #1:
You are required to place another layer on top of the dirt.
I explained to several students yesterday that, in my view, this cannot be the pshat.  Why? Since the blood is already covered, your adding a layer on would not be deemed to be "covering" it.  This can perhaps be compared to a Sofer who has written the name of Hashem in a Sefer Torah without having the intention of being "mekadesh" that name.  It wouldn't help for the Sofer to write another layer on top of the first one.  It's redundant - and does not constitute a "re-writing" of the name!

Possibility #2:

You are required to uncover the dirt that blew on SO THAT YOU CAN RE-COVER IT.

As I explained to those during the Chazara session, this is a defensible reading of the text.  Perhaps you have to be proactive, and create the framework within which you can now fulfill the mitzvah?!

As you can see from the Gemara, the authoritative understanding of this mishna, as elucidated by Raba Bar Bar Chana is not in line with #2, but is......

Possibility #3

You are only required to recover the blood in the event that it becomes uncovered on its own.  You can see from Raba Bar Bar Chana's "lo shanu elah"etc that this is what he is saying.

The Gemara in Chulin, quoted by our Gemara ("V'havinan ba")  then asked a rhetorical question on the Seifa: why would there be an obligation to cover the blood if it became uncovered - "Ho'il V'idchei idchei" - once it has become covered, and the mitzvah opportunity has disappeared, there should seemingly be no requirement to perform the mitzvah!

The Gemara in Chulin, ie Rav Pappa there: "This means that there is no dichui in mitzvot" So, coming full circle, to review: Why was R. Yirmiya in doubt? Does the mishna in Chulin (with commentary) not establish "eyn dichui"?

OUR Gemara's answer:

R. Yirmiya was unsure of Rav Pappa's diyuk/inference - WAS RAV PAPPA MAKING THE PROPER INFERENCE IN CHULIN?

Where we ended off:  Was the TANNA sure of the principle of "eyn dichui" - or perhaps......

Thought Question:

Before tonight's shiur, see if you can make your way thru the next couple of lines of the Gemara - and ask yourself: how could the Tanna in Chulin's psak still be understood WITHOUT HIM SUBSCRIBING DEFINITIVELY TO EYN DICHUI? 

In your efforts to understand the Gemara, please ask yourselves: when would eyn dichui create a Chumrah (stringency) and when would it create a Kulah (leniency)?