Daf 131 — Chullin 131 Summary

Chullin 131 – Good Morning Raboisai Matanos Kehunah – Can a Kohen Demand Payment? If the Matanos Were Eaten We continue yesterday’s discussion of Zero’a, Lechayayim and Keivah. If a Yisrael: • Should have given the Matanos to a Kohen • But ate or destroyed them first does he have to pay their value? One reason to exempt him is: • Mamon she’ein lo tov’im. No particular Kohen can claim: • “Those Matanos were mine.” The owner could have chosen: • Any Kohen. Therefore no individual Kohen can sue him in Beis Din. Terumah and Maaser A Quick Review The Gemara compares this to Terumos and Maasros. From produce: • Terumah goes to a Kohen. • Maaser Rishon goes to a Levi. • The Levi separates Terumas Maaser from his Maaser and gives it to a Kohen. • In years three and six, Maaser Ani is given instead of Maaser Sheni. Before these gifts are properly separated: • The produce is Tevel. What If the Owner Ate the Tevel? A Beraisa discusses someone who: • Ate produce before separating its required gifts. The Gemara examines whether he must: • Compensate the Kohen. This appears relevant to our question: If the Kohen has no specific claim because of Mamon she’ein lo tov’im: • Why should payment ever be required? The Kohen Took It Himself The Gemara answers with a case similar to yesterday. The owner had produce: • In the possession of a Kohen. The Kohen went ahead and: • Separated or took the portion intended for Kehunah. Since the gift was already destined to be given: • His taking can create a stronger claim. This again relates to the concept that gifts awaiting separation can sometimes be treated: • As though they have already been separated. The King Took the Produce Did the Owner Owe the King Money? Another Beraisa discusses: • Government or royal officials taking a person's produce. The ruling depends on why they took it. If the king simply confiscated it: • The owner does not have to replace the Terumos and Maasros. But if the produce was taken: • To pay the owner's personal debt or tax obligation then: • He must separate replacement Maasros. Why? If the owner owed the money: • He benefited from the produce being taken. Part of the produce that should have gone to: • The Kohen or Levi was effectively used: • To pay his personal debt. Therefore: • His own obligation to separate the gifts remains. This does not prove that a particular Kohen: • Could have sued him. Rather: • The owner himself remains obligated to fulfil the Mitzvah. Selling Meat to a Kohen The Keivah Is Included Suppose a Kohen purchases: • An entire section of the animal and the Keivah is included. If he agreed to purchase: • The entire section as - is the seller can charge: • The agreed price. But if he buys a quantity of meat and part of what he receives is: • The Keivah that already belongs among the Matanos the seller must: • Give him the Keivah • And deduct its value from the price. Why Must He Give It? Doesn't Mamon she’ein lo tov’im mean: • No Kohen can demand it? The answer is: • The actual Keivah is still present. Mamon she’ein lo tov’im helps when: • The gift has already been consumed or destroyed • And a Kohen wants monetary compensation. But when the actual Matanah is: • Still in front of us the owner must: • Give the Matanah itself. The Gifts of Kehunah Examples of Matnos Kehunah The Gemara lists various gifts received by Kohanim, including: • Terumah • Terumas Maaser • Challah • Reishis HaGez • Zero’a, Lechayayim and Keivah • The relevant portion of Demai • Bikkurim • Gezel HaGer and its Chomesh. These different gifts do not all have: • Identical monetary rules. Demai What Is Demai? Demai is produce purchased from: • An Am Ha’aretz where there is uncertainty whether: • The necessary Maasros were properly separated. The main concern in our discussion is: • Terumas Maaser which ultimately belongs to: • The Kohen. Therefore the appropriate portion must: • Be separated. Gezel HaGer Stolen Money With No Heirs If someone: • Stole from a Ger • Denied it and swore falsely • And the Ger subsequently died without heirs the repayment ultimately goes to: • The Kohanim. The Gemara describes it as: • Nichsei Kohen – the Kohen's property. What Does “His Property” Teach? This does not necessarily mean: • A particular Kohen can sue before acquiring it. Rather, once the Kohen receives it: • It becomes fully his property. Unlike certain sacred gifts with restrictions: • He can use it for ordinary personal purposes. He can even: • Pay debts with it • Use it toward a Kesubah • Or purchase ordinary property with it. The Levi Who Grabbed Matanos A Levi Was Taking Zero’a, Lechayayim V’Keivah The Gemara tells of a Levi who would: • Grab the Matanos intended for Kohanim. Rav strongly criticized him: • It is enough that we do not take Matanos from him. • He should certainly not be grabbing the Kohanim's Matanos! This introduces the major question: Does a Levi himself have to give: • Zero’a, Lechayayim V’Keivah? Is a Levi Included in “Ha’Am”? The Pasuk Says “Me’eis Ha’Am” The Torah says: • Zeh mishpat hakohanim me’eis ha’am. The Kohanim receive the Matanos from: • “Ha’Am” – the nation. Certainly: • A Yisrael is included. The question is: • Is a Levi included in “Ha’Am”? If yes: • A Levi must give Matanos. If no: • He is exempt. Rav Was Unsure Rav's unusual language now makes sense. Why say to the Levi: • “It is enough that we don't take Matanos from you”? If a Levi is definitely exempt: • There is nothing special about not taking them. If he is definitely obligated: • We should force him to give them. The answer: • Misapka lei – Rav was unsure. He had a Safek whether: • Levi is included in “Ha’Am.” Therefore: • We cannot take the Matanos from him because of the Safek. But the Levi certainly should not: • Grab the Kohen's gifts for himself. Four Gifts From a Vineyard Matnos Aniyim The Gemara brings a Beraisa listing gifts to the poor. A vineyard has four: • Peret – individual grapes that fall during harvesting • Olelos – deficient grape clusters • Shikchah – produce forgotten during harvesting • Peah – the corner left for the poor. Other Produce Other types of produce have fewer of these gifts because: • Some of these laws are unique to vineyards. For example: • Ordinary produce can have Leket, Shikchah and Peah. • Trees can have Shikchah and Peah. The exact gifts depend on: • The type of produce. The Owner Cannot Choose the Ani “Ta’azov” – Leave It With gifts such as: • Leket • Shikchah • Peah • Peret • Olelos the owner cannot decide: • Which poor person should receive them. He must: • Leave them. Whoever is entitled can: • Come and take them. Even an Ani Must Leave Them If the field owner himself is poor: • He cannot keep these gifts for himself. He must still: • Leave them for other Aniyim. The Torah's obligation applies: • Even to an Ani who owns the field. Maaser Ani Is Different The Owner Chooses the Recipient Maaser Ani in years: • Three • And six works differently. The owner separates: • Ten percent for the poor. Here: • He can choose which Ani receives it. This is because the Torah describes it as: • Nesinah – giving. The owner therefore has: • Tovas Hana’ah, the right to choose the recipient. A Poor Owner Still Gives Maaser Ani Even if the owner himself is: • An Ani he must separate: • Maaser Ani and give it: • To another Ani. He cannot simply: • Pay himself. Back to the Levi “Other Matnos Kehunah” The Beraisa then discusses: • Other gifts of Kehunah and uses the phrase: • Kegon Zero’a, Lechayayim V’Keivah. It appears to say: • A Kohen does not give to another Kohen. • A Levi does not give to another Levi. This seems to imply: • A Levi does give these Matanos to a Kohen. If so: • Levi is included in “Ha’Am.” That would resolve Rav's Safek. The Gemara Rejects the Proof The Gemara answers that: • “Kegon Zero’a, Lechayayim V’Keivah” does not necessarily mean: • Those actual three gifts. Rather: • It refers to another similar type of gift. The Gemara explores what gift the Beraisa means. Maybe Maaser Rishon? Maaser Rishon Goes to a Levi One possibility is: • Maaser Rishon. But that immediately raises a problem: Maaser Rishon normally goes: • To the Levi! Why would we describe it as: • Something taken from a Levi? Rebbe Elazar Ben Azaryah Rebbe Elazar ben Azaryah holds: • Maaser Rishon can also be given to a Kohen. A Kohen is also: • From Shevet Levi. So the Gemara considers whether: • This could explain the Beraisa. Ezra’s Penalty The Levi’im Did Not Come With Ezra The Gemara recalls that when Ezra returned to Eretz Yisrael: • He found that the Levi’im had not joined as expected. Ezra therefore: • Penalized the Levi’im regarding Maaser Rishon. The Gemara discusses the nature of this penalty: • Whether Maaser was redirected to Kohanim • Or whether Kohanim were added as possible recipients. Still No Proof Even if Ezra penalized the Levi’im: • That does not necessarily mean Maaser was forcibly taken from a Levi who already possessed it. Therefore: • This still does not resolve whether a Levi is included in “Ha’Am” for Zero’a, Lechayayim V’Keivah. Maybe Reishis HaGez? Another Possibility The Gemara therefore suggests that the Beraisa's example might actually refer to: • Reishis HaGez. A Levi must give: • Reishis HaGez to a Kohen. The wording there does not depend on: • “Ha’Am.” Therefore: • It provides no proof regarding our Matanos. Gifts With Kedushah Another Beraisa A Beraisa distinguishes: Gifts with inherent Kedushah, such as: • Terumah • Terumas Maaser can be: • Taken from a Levi when required. But gifts without this type of Kedushah, such as: • Zero’a, Lechayayim V’Keivah are not necessarily: • Taken from him. This appears to support: • The possibility that a Levi is not included in “Ha’Am.” But the Gemara again explains the Beraisa in a way that: • Does not conclusively resolve Rav's Safek. Shechting for a Kohen, Non - Jew or Levi Another Attempted Proof The Gemara brings a Beraisa: If someone shechts an animal belonging to: • A Kohen • Or a non - Jew he is exempt from giving: • Zero’a, Lechayayim V’Keivah. The wording appears to imply: • If he shechts for a Levi, he is obligated. That would prove: • Levi is included in “Ha’Am.” The Inference Is Rejected The Gemara answers that the contrast may simply be: • Kohen or non - Jew – exempt • Yisrael – obligated. The Beraisa may not be addressing: • Levi at all. Therefore: • Rav's Safek remains. A Tannaitic Dispute About “Ha’Am” Are Levi’im Part of “Ha’Am”? The Gemara finally shows that this question is connected to: • A machlokes Tannaim. The discussion comes from: • The Yom Kippur atonement process and the different groups included in the pesukim. One opinion understands: • “Ha’Am” as specifically Yisraelim • With Levi’im treated separately. Another understands: • Levi’im as included together with Yisraelim. The Result for Matanos This creates the exact question we have been discussing. If Levi’im are included in: • Ha’Am then they are obligated in: • Zero’a, Lechayayim V’Keivah. If they are not included: • They are exempt. Rav was uncertain: • Which Tannaitic position to follow. Therefore: • We cannot forcibly take the Matanos from a Levi. Rav’s Practical Ruling Rav therefore treats the case as: • A Safek. Since we cannot prove that the Levi has the monetary obligation: • We do not take the Matanos from him. This is why Rav said of the Levi who was grabbing the Kohanim's Matanos: • It is enough that we don't take them from him! Key Chazarah • If Zero’a, Lechayayim V’Keivah were already eaten or destroyed, a particular Kohen generally cannot demand payment because they are Mamon she’ein lo tov’im. • If the actual Matanah still exists, it must be given; Mamon she’ein lo tov’im does not permit keeping the gift itself. • Produce taken to satisfy the owner's personal debt can leave him obligated to replace the required Terumos and Maasros because he benefited from their use. • The Gemara reviews Terumah, Terumas Maaser, Challah, Reishis HaGez, Matanos, Demai, Bikkurim and Gezel HaGer. • The major question of the Daf is whether a Levi is included in “Ha’Am” and therefore obligated in Zero’a, Lechayayim V’Keivah. • Rav had a Safek and therefore would not forcibly take the Matanos from a Levi. • A vineyard has four Matnos Aniyim: Peret, Olelos, Shikchah and Peah. • With these gifts the owner cannot choose the recipient; they must be left for eligible Aniyim. • Even an Ani who owns the field must leave these gifts for others. • Maaser Ani is different: the owner chooses which Ani receives it, but a poor owner must still give it to another Ani. • The Gemara attempts to resolve the Levi question from Maaser Rishon, Ezra's penalty, Reishis HaGez and several Beraisos, but the proofs are rejected. • A machlokes Tannaim exists whether Levi’im are included in “Ha’Am.” • Rav remains unsure which view to follow, so the Matanos cannot be taken from a Levi because of the Safek. Catch up, review, download previous Dafim & more: https://www.dafchazarah.co.uk Now available as an app (Apple, Google & Amazon): https://dafchazarah.co.uk/download Sponsor a day: https://dafchazarah.co.uk/sponsor לעילוי נשמת אמי מורתי רות בת הרב מנחם מנדל