Parshas Eikev 5786
- Torah Tavlin
- Jul 31
- 3 min read
חולין דף פז. "עשרה זהובים"
The braisa brings a story where one was שוחט an animal and someone else came and did the כיסוי הדם, so ר' גמליאל was מחייב him to pay the שוחט עשרה זהובים for chapping (חטף) away his מצוה. Tosfos says, he would not be able to compensate the שוחט for the loss by giving him another bird and letting him שחט it and do the כיסוי, because that would be a new מצוה, but the original mitzvah is gone and it’s a מעוות שלא יוכל לתקן. The Gemara asks: is the compensation for the loss of the שכר מצוה, or is it payment for the loss of the ברכה on the כיסוי? The נפק"מ would be if one was חטף the opportunity to lead ברהמ"ז. If the י' זהובים is for the loss of שכר מצוה, he owes him י' זהובים; if it is for the loss of שכר ברכה, there are 4 ברכות in ברהמ"ז, so he should be liable to pay 40 זהובים? To answer this shaila, the Gemara brings a story where רבי asked a צדוקי: do you want to lead bentching or receive 40 זהובים instead? The צדוקי refused the money. At which point a בת קול said - כוס של ברכה שוה ארבעים זהובים. The ריטב"א learns (in רש"י) that רבי offered the צדוקי the 04 זהובים to leave the premises and not even be there to answer אמן, because העונה אמן is כמברך and רבי didn’t want him getting any שכר at all. The ריטב"א brings ר"ת that used this סברא, where one was called up for an aliya and someone else chapped it from him, ר"ת exonerated the חוטף from י' זהובים because the victim could’ve answered אמן to the ברכה and would’ve been considered like the מברך, so איהו דאפסיד אנפשיה. The ריטב"א adds, we see י' זהובים is charged for chapping a ברכה even on a מצוה דרבנן, because the 4th bracha in ברהמ"ז (הטוב והמטיב) is דרבנן and ר"ג charged 40 זהובים. [יו"ד ס' כח,ח'] שו"ע paskens that if the שוחט doesn’t do כיסוי and one is there and sees this, he is מחוייב to do the כיסוי. The ט"ז is מדייק in the טור, that our חוטף is חייב י' זהובים because he is also מחוייב in מצות כיסוי and when he chaps it, he is יוצא, just the שוחט has קדימה. But if the הלכה would be that only the שוחט has the מצוה, then the חוטף would not be חייב י' זהובים, because this payment is only when the חוטף is מקיים the מצוה he chapped. But if he just caused a person to lose the מצוה but he himself wasn’t even יוצא, he would be a מזיק and י' זהובים wouldn’t apply! [ב"ק צא:] תוס' quotes our Gemara and says it’s מוכח that י' זהובים is for שכר ברכות. What about שכר מצוה? Tosfos answers that י' זהובים incorporates both. תוס' brings that someone was called up for an aliya, and someone else chapped away the aliya. ר"ת paskened that the חוטף should repay him by giving him a תרנגולת to שחט. These 2 ברכות (שחיטה, כיסוי) will replace the 2 ברכות התורה that he swiped from him. The ר"י says ולא נראה, if so why by us did ר"ג charge י' זהובים and not tell him to supply him with a תרנגולת? He adds that ר"ת elsewhere paskened (brought above by ריטב"א) that a חוטף ברכות is פטור because the victim could’ve answered אמן. The [כח,מ'] פרישה says, ר"ג had to charge י' זהובים because the bracha on כיסוי wasn’t made out loud, so the victim couldn’t say אמן. עיין סמ"ע [חו"מ שפב,א] his translation on כמו שיראו הדיינים. עיין תורת חיים [ב"ק] why 10 zehuvim.