Daf 130 — Chullin 130 Summary

Chullin 130 – Good Morning Raboisai New Perek – Zero’a, Lechayayim V’Keivah The Three Matanos The new Perek begins with the Mitzvah of Matanos Kehunah from every regular animal that is shechted. The owner gives the Kohen three parts: • Zero’a – the foreleg • Lechayayim – the cheeks/jaw • Keivah – the stomach. These are commonly referred to simply as: • Matanos. The Mishnah teaches that this applies to Chullin, but not to animals brought as Korbanos. This Applies Outside the Beis Hamikdash These Matanos are not dependent on: • The Beis Hamikdash • Or the Korban service. They apply to: • Ordinary animals that are shechted. Reb E li mentioned that this is presented as a Mitzvah that applies today, including outside Eretz Yisrael, although he notes that there is another opinion regarding Chutz La’aretz. Why Not Give Matanos From Kodshim? Chullin – Yes; Kodshim – No The Mishnah says: • Chullin – Chayav in Matanos • Mukdashim – Patur. Even a Korban where much of the meat eventually belongs to its owner: • Does not require Zero’a, Lechayayim and Keivah. But the Gemara asks: Why not? The Kal Vachomer From Chazeh V’Shok A Korban Shelamim already requires giving the Kohen: • Chazeh – the breast • Shok – the thigh. Regular Chullin does not require these. So we could argue: If Chullin, which does not require Chazeh V’Shok, nevertheless requires: • Zero’a • Lechayayim • Keivah then Kodshim, which already has the additional requirement of Chazeh V’Shok, should certainly require: • The three Matanos as well. That would give the Kohen: • Five gifts. “V’Etain Osam” – Only These The Torah therefore says regarding Chazeh V’Shok: • V’Etain osam. “Osam” teaches: • These gifts • And not the additional three Matanos. Therefore Kodshim: • Gives Chazeh V’Shok • But not Zero’a, Lechayayim V’Keivah. Kedushas HaGuf vs Kedushas Damim Two Very Different Types of Hekdesh The Mishnah now distinguishes between two forms of Kedushah. Kedushas HaGuf: • The actual animal becomes inherently Kadosh as a Korban. Kedushas Damim: • Only its monetary value is dedicated to Hekdesh. This difference becomes extremely important after: • Pidyon – redemption. A Baal Mum Before Hekdesh Suppose an animal already had: • A permanent Mum before it was made Hekdesh. Since it could never become a valid Korban: • It receives only Kedushas Damim. It can then be: • Redeemed. After Pidyon: • It returns to ordinary Chullin. What Happens After Pidyon? Since it is now completely Chullin: • It is subject to Bechor. • It is subject to Zero’a, Lechayayim V’Keivah. • Its wool may be sheared. • It may be worked. • Its offspring are permitted. • Its milk is permitted. In other words: • Its previous monetary Kedushah leaves no continuing Kedushas HaGuf after redemption. No Temurah An animal that only had Kedushas Damim: • Does not create Temurah. Temurah applies where: • An animal itself has genuine Kedushas HaGuf and someone attempts to substitute another animal for it. If It Dies, It Can Be Redeemed Because this animal never had true Kedushas HaGuf: • If it dies before Pidyon • It can still be redeemed. This is another indication that: • Its Kedushah was essentially monetary. Bechor and Maaser Are Different Their Kedushah Is Inherent The Mishnah excludes: • Bechor • Maaser Behemah from these rules. Their Kedushah is not merely created through: • A person verbally dedicating them. Rather: • Their Kedushah comes automatically through their Torah status. Therefore: • Even a Mum does not make them ordinary Kedushas Damim animals. Maaser Behemah Maaser Behemah applies when: • Eligible animals born in one’s possession are passed through • And every tenth animal becomes Kadosh. The transcript emphasizes: • Animals merely purchased do not automatically enter the same Maaser process. This distinction becomes important later in the Gemara’s Kal Vachomer. Kedushas HaGuf Before the Mum The Opposite Case Now suppose the animal was: • Initially fit as a Korban • Made Hekdesh • And only afterwards developed a permanent Mum. This animal already acquired: • Kedushas HaGuf. It can now be redeemed because of its Mum, but after redemption it becomes: • Pesulei HaMukdashim. Its Kedushah does not completely disappear. Traces of Kedushah Remain Therefore, even after Pidyon: • It is not subject to Bechor. • It is exempt from the Matanos. • Its wool may not be sheared. • It may not be worked. • Its offspring can remain prohibited. • Its milk remains prohibited. The key distinction: Kedushas Damim: • Disappears completely through Pidyon. Kedushas HaGuf: • Leaves continuing Kedushah even after Pidyon. Shechting Before Pidyon If an animal with Kedushas HaGuf develops a Mum and is then: • Shechted outside the Beis Hamikdash before Pidyon the laws remain connected to its status as: • Genuine Hekdesh. This contrasts with an animal which: • Had a Mum before it was ever made Hekdesh. Back to the Kal Vachomer Maybe Chullin Has a Special Chumrah The Gemara now attacks the earlier Kal Vachomer. Perhaps Chullin requires the three Matanos because: • Chullin has certain special obligations that Kodshim does not. For example: • Bechor. A firstborn Chullin animal: • Becomes Bechor. Perhaps that explains why Chullin also requires: • Zero’a, Lechayayim and Keivah. A Male Animal The Gemara answers: Look at: • A male animal. A male: • Cannot give birth • And therefore has no personal possibility of producing a Bechor. Nevertheless, when shechted: • It requires the three Matanos. So Bechor cannot be the explanation. Reishis HaGez The Gemara suggests another Chumrah of Chullin: • Reishis HaGez – the first shearing given to a Kohen. Perhaps this explains: • Why Chullin requires the Matanos. But again: • We can find animals where that obligation does not apply • Yet the three Matanos still do. Maaser Behemah Another at tempted distinction is: • Maaser Behemah. Ordinary eligible animals can enter: • The Maaser Behemah process. Animals belonging to Hekdesh: • Do not. Perhaps this makes Chullin more stringent. The Gemara again looks for examples where: • Maaser does not apply • Yet Matanos still do. Purchased Animals and an Orphan The Gemara discusses cases such as: • Lekuach – an animal that was purchased • Yasom – an orphaned animal. These can be excluded from: • Maaser Behemah. Yet their broader category cannot be used successfully to destroy the Kal Vachomer. The Kal Vachomer Survives After testing the various possibilities: • Bechor • Reishis HaGez • Maaser • Purchased animals • Orphans the Gemara does not find a sufficient Pircha. Therefore the original Kal Vachomer remains strong. That is why the Torah needs: • “Osam” to teach that Kodshim receives: • Chazeh V’Shok only and not: • Zero’a, Lechayayim V’Keivah. Should Chullin Require Five Gifts? The Reverse Kal Vachomer The Gemara now reverses the argument. If Chullin is stringent enough to require: • Zero’a • Lechayayim • Keivah perhaps it should also require: • Chazeh • Shok. Why shouldn't every Chullin animal require: • Five gifts? “Zeh” – Only These Three The Torah says regarding Matanos Kehunah: • Zeh mishpat hakohanim. “Zeh” teaches: • These are the gifts. Meaning: • Zero’a • Lechayayim • Keivah but not: • Chazeh V’Shok. Therefore Chullin requires: • Three gifts, not five. Why Is “Zeh” Necessary? Chazeh V’Shok Require Tenufah The Gemara asks: Could Chazeh V’Shok even apply to Chullin? With Korbanos they require: • Tenufah – waving before Hashem. That procedure belongs: • In the Beis Hamikdash. If Chazeh V’Shok were taken from ordinary Chullin: • Where would their Tenufah take place? This itself seems to make the idea impossible. The Gemara therefore examines: • What additional law “Zeh” teaches. If You Ate the Matanos Must You Pay the Kohen? Suppose someone was required to give: • Zero’a, Lechayayim and Keivah but instead: • Ate them • Destroyed them • Or otherwise made them unavailable. Does he now have to: • Pay a Kohen their value? The Gemara discusses two reasons why he may be exempt. “Zeh” – Only While They Exist One explanation derives from: • Zeh. The obligation is to give: • This actual gift while it exists. Once the Matanos have been: • Consumed or destroyed there may no longer be: • A monetary replacement obligation. Mamon She’ein Lo Tov’im The second reason is: • Mamon she’ein lo tov’im. The Matanos are owed to: • A Kohen. But before a particular Kohen acquires them: • No individual Kohen can say, “They are specifically mine.” The owner could have chosen: • A different Kohen. Therefore there is: • No specific claimant who can demand payment. A Difference Between the Two Reasons These two explanations are not identical. According to “Zeh”: • Once the actual Matanos are gone, there may be no remaining obligation at all. According to Mamon She’ein Lo Tov’im: • There may still be an obligation toward Shamayim • But no particular Kohen has the legal standing to collect it. “Mishpat HaKohanim” – There Is a Din Can Beis Din Get Involved? The Torah calls the Matanos: • Mishpat hakohanim. The Gemara asks whether this means: • There is an enforceable Din in Beis Din. If no particular Kohen can claim the Matanos: • What exactly would Beis Din enforce? Giving to the Proper Kohanim One explanation is that Beis Din determines: • How the Matanos should be distributed. The transcript emphasizes that preference should be given to: • Kohanim who are involved in Torah. The Matanos are not simply: • Distributed without consideration. A Kohen Takes the Matanos Himself The Animal Was in the Kohen’s Possession The Gemara gives an interesting case. A Yisrael asks a Kohen: • To hold or store his animal. The Kohen then: • Takes the Zero’a, Lechayayim and Keivah for himself without waiting for the owner to give them. Can the owner: • Demand them back? Matnos Shelo Hurmu K’Mi Shehurmu The discussion depends on the principle: • Matnos shelo hurmu k’mi shehurmu damyan. Something which: • Is destined to be separated and given can sometimes be viewed halachically as though: • It has already been separated. This affects whether: • The Kohen’s taking creates an acquisition • And whether Beis Din can intervene. A Wealthy Traveller Takes Tzedakah Temporarily Poor The Gemara compares this to a wealthy person: • Travelling from place to place • With no access to his money or food. At that moment: • He needs assistance. He may take: • Leket, Shikchah, Peah • And Maaser Ani. The question is: When he reaches home and regains access to his wealth: • Must he repay what he took? Rebbe Eliezer and the Chachamim Rebbe Eliezer says: • He should repay. The Chachamim say: • Ani hayah b’osah sha’ah. At that moment: • He genuinely was poor. Therefore: • His taking was legitimate. Is Repayment an Actual Obligation? The Gemara considers whether Rebbe Eliezer's requirement to repay is: • A strict monetary obligation or: • Midas Chasidus – the proper conduct for someone who can later afford to return it. The conclusion in the transcript understands the repayment in this context as: • Midas Chasidus. The comparison helps explain why property owed generally to: • Kohanim • Or poor people can be difficult for one particular individual to collect. Key Chazarah • The new Perek begins with Zero’a, Lechayayim V’Keivah – the three Matanos given from Chullin to a Kohen. • Kodshim does not require these three Matanos; instead certain Korbanos have Chazeh V’Shok. • A Kal Vachomer could have required all five gifts from Kodshim, so “Osam” teaches only Chazeh V’Shok. • An animal with a Mum before Hekdesh receives only Kedushas Damim and becomes complete Chullin after Pidyon. • An animal which received Kedushas HaGuf before developing a Mum retains Kedushah even after Pidyon as Pesulei HaMukdashim. • Therefore it remains restricted in shearing, work, offspring and milk, and is exempt from the ordinary Matanos. • Bechor and Maaser have inherent Kedushah and are different from ordinary Kedushas Damim. • The Gemara tests the Kal Vachomer through Bechor, Reishis HaGez, Maaser, Lekuach and Yasom, but the Kal Vachomer survives. • “Zeh mishpat hakohanim” teaches that Chullin gives the three Matanos, not Chazeh V’Shok. • If the Matanos are eaten or destroyed, one reason for exemption from payment is “Zeh”; another is Mamon She’ein Lo Tov’im – no individual Kohen can prove that the money is specifically owed to him. • These two reasons differ because Mamon She’ein Lo Tov’im may leave an obligation toward Shamayim even though no particular Kohen can collect. • “Mishpat hakohanim” leads to the discussion of Beis Din and proper distribution of the Matanos. • The Gemara discusses Matnos Shelo Hurmu K’Mi Shehurmu – gifts awaiting separation can sometimes be treated as though already separated. • A wealthy traveller without access to his resources may temporarily take gifts for the poor. The Chachamim say, “Ani hayah b’osah sha’ah” – at that moment he was genuinely poor. • The transcript concludes that later repayment in this case is a matter of Midas Chasidus. 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