Daf 134 — Chullin 134 Summary

Chullin 134 – Good Morning Raboisai The 24 Matnos Kehunah Chiya Bar Rav’s Mistake Yesterday we learned that Chiya Bar Rav thought: • If a Kohen is a partner in one of the three Matanos – Zero’a, Lechayayim or Keivah • The entire animal is exempt from all three. Rav Chisda explains where he made his mistake. The three gifts are often grouped together and called: • “Matanos” – one category. Chiya Bar Rav therefore thought: • They are treated as one Halachah. But this is incorrect: • Each Matanah is treated separately. The 24 Gifts Given to Kohanim A Beraisa teaches that there are: • 24 Matnos Kehunah. They were given to Aharon and his descendants through: • Klal • Prat • And Bris Melach. The Torah calls it a: • Bris Melach – a covenant of salt. Just as salt endures: • The covenant of Matnos Kehunah remains with the Kohanim. Giving the Gifts Upholds the Covenant Someone who properly gives the Matnos Kehunah: • Fulfils the Torah’s Klal, Prat and Bris Melach. Someone who refuses to give them: • Violates this covenant. The 24 gifts are divided into three groups: • 10 in the Beis Hamikdash • 4 in Yerushalayim • 10 outside Yerushalayim. Ten Gifts in the Beis Hamikdash Kodshei Kodashim The Kohanim receive portions from various Korbanos and Menachos in the Beis Hamikdash. The list includes: • Chatas Behemah • Chatas Ha’Of • Asham Vadai • Asham Talui • Zivchei Shalmei Tzibbur • Log Shemen Shel Metzora • Shtei HaLechem • Lechem HaPanim • Shirayim of Menachos • Shirayim of the Minchas HaOmer. These make up: • The ten Matnos Kehunah within the Mikdash. Asham Vadai and Asham Talui Asham Vadai is brought: • Where the person definitely has the relevant obligation. Asham Talui is brought where: • A person is uncertain whether he committed an Aveirah requiring a Chatas. For example: • There were two pieces, one Cheilev and one permitted fat • And he ate one but does not know which. The Asham Talui: • Protects him while the matter remains uncertain. The Kohanim receive: • Their appropriate portions from these Korbanos. Four Gifts in Yerushalayim The Yerushalayim Gifts The Beraisa lists: • Bechor • Bikkurim • Portions of the Korban Todah • Portions of the Ayil Nazir • Hides of Kodshim. But that looks like: • Five! The Gemara explains that: • Todah and Ayil Nazir are counted together as one category. Why Are Todah and Ayil Nazir Counted Together? They are: • Separate Korbanos • With separate Halachos. But because their Kohen portions are similar: • The Beraisa groups them together. This becomes the proof against: • Chiya Bar Rav. Two separate things can be: • Counted as one item in a list without becoming: • One Halachic unit. Ten Gifts Outside Yerushalayim The Remaining Matnos Kehunah The ten gifts that can apply outside Yerushalayim include: • Terumah • Terumas Maaser • Challah • Reishis HaGez • Zero’a, Lechayayim and Keivah • Pidyon HaBen • Pidyon Peter Chamor • Sedei Achuzah • Sedei Charamim • Gezel HaGer. Importantly: • Zero’a, Lechayayim and Keivah are counted as one entry – “Matanos.” But they remain: • Three separate gifts. The Proof Against Chiya Bar Rav This explains his mistake. He saw: • Zero’a, Lechayayim and Keivah counted as: • One of the 24 gifts. He therefore thought: • Partnership in one exempts all three. But Todah and Ayil Nazir prove otherwise: • Two separate obligations can be counted together merely because they are similar. Therefore: • “Matanos” being one entry does not combine the three into one Halachic unit. The Kohen Sells Only the Head Who Determines the Chiyuv? Suppose a Kohen owns an animal and sells a Yisrael: • Only the head while keeping: • The rest of the animal. The Yisrael now owns: • The part containing the Lechayayim. Must he give the Lechayayim to a Kohen? The question is: Do we follow: • The ownership of the main animal or: • The ownership of the particular Matanah? We Follow the Particular Part The Gemara proves: • We look at the part containing the Matanah. Therefore if the Yisrael owns: • The head he is obligated in: • The Lechayayim even though: • The Kohen still owns most of the animal. This reinforces yesterday’s conclusion: • Each Matanah stands independently. Comparison to Reishis HaGez Buying the Wool The Gemara compares this to: • Reishis HaGez. If a Yisrael buys: • The wool of a Kohen’s sheep the laws can depend on: • Who owns the sheep itself. But Matanos are more stringent: • If the Yisrael purchases the actual part containing the Matanah, the obligation can fall on him. “Chutz” vs “Al Menas” The Kohen Sells the Animal but Keeps the Matanos Suppose a Kohen says: • “I am selling you this animal except for the Matanos.” This is: • Chutz – an exclusion. The Kohen has effectively: • Never sold those parts. They remain: • His. “On Condition You Give Me the Matanos” But what if he says: • “I sell you the whole animal on condition that you give me the Matanos”? This is: • Al Menas – a condition. Now the question is: Did he: • Retain ownership of the Matanos or did he: • Sell the entire animal and merely impose a condition? That distinction has: • Practical consequences. A Machlokes Tannaim The Gemara explains that this depends on: • A Machlokes. One view understands Al Menas as: • Shiura shiyer – he retained that portion for himself. The other understands it as: • A condition attached to a complete sale. This is different from: • Chutz where the excluded portion was clearly: • Never included in the sale. Buying the Innards The Keivah Was Included We return to the Mishnah: Someone buys: • The innards of an animal. Among them is: • The Keivah which must be given to a Kohen. If the buyer purchased the meat: • By weight he gives the Keivah to the Kohen and: • Claims its value back from the butcher. If it was not sold by weight: • He cannot necessarily claim a refund. Who Did the Weighing? Rav teaches that this distinction applies where: • The buyer himself weighed the meat. But if: • The butcher weighed it for him then: • HaDin im HaTabach. The Kohen can direct his claim: • Against the butcher as well. An Unusual Choice of Whom to Claim From This creates an unusual situation. The Kohen may potentially claim: • The actual Keivah from the buyer or: • Against the butcher who improperly sold it. The Gemara compares this to: • A Ganav • And someone who later receives or consumes the stolen property. The question is whether: • Both can become responsible or whether the claim follows: • The property itself. Rav Assi Disagrees Rav Assi says: • The Kohen follows the Matanah itself. If the Keivah is currently: • With the purchaser the Kohen should claim it: • From him. The Gemara connects this disagreement to the broader question: • Whether Matnos Kehunah are subject to Gezeilah in the ordinary monetary sense. A Ger Who Owned a Cow When Was It Shechted? The next Mishnah discusses: • A non - Jew who owned a cow and then converted. If the cow was shechted: • Before the Geirus – Patur from Matanos. • After the Geirus – Chayav. But what if it is uncertain: • Whether the Shechitah happened before or after the Geirus? The Mishnah rules: • Patur. Hamotzi Meichaveiro Alav HaRa’ayah Why is he Patur? Because the Kohen is trying to: • Take property from the owner. Therefore: • Hamotzi meichaveiro alav hara’ayah. The Kohen would need to prove: • That the Shechitah occurred after the Geirus. Without proof: • The owner keeps the Matanos. This establishes an important principle: • A Safek involving the monetary Matanos is treated Lekula for the owner. Safek Leket A Contradiction From Matnos Aniyim The Gemara challenges this from: • Leket. If grain is found in an ant hole: • Grain clearly gathered before harvesting belongs to the owner. • Grain clearly dropped during harvesting can be Leket belonging to the poor. But when there is a Safek: • Rebbe Meir says Safek Leket – Leket. Meaning: • Give it to the Aniyim. Why there do we rule: • Against the owner while by the Ger’s Matanos we rule: • For the owner? “Tzedek Mishelcha V’Ten Lo” Rebbe Meir derives his ruling from: • Tzedek mishelcha v’ten lo. The idea is: When dealing with the poor: • Be generous from your own property • And give to them. This is not the ordinary rule of: • Giving preferential treatment to an Ani in Beis Din. The Torah says: • V’dal lo sehedar b’rivo – do not favour a poor person merely because he is poor. Rather, this is: • A special Halachah concerning Matnos Aniyim. It Is a Daas Yachid The Gemara explains that: • Safek Leket Leket is not necessarily: • The universally accepted rule. It represents: • An individual Tannaitic opinion. Therefore it does not overturn: • Our Mishnah’s ordinary monetary principle. Chazakas Chiyuv Rava’s Explanation Rava gives another distinction. The Ger’s cow began in a state of: • Clear exemption. Before the owner converted: • There was definitely no obligation of Matanos. When the timing becomes uncertain: • We retain the original Chazakas Patur. By Leket, however: • The standing crop is in a framework of obligations to the poor. Therefore: • The Safek can be treated differently. A Ger and Challah When Was the Dough Made? Abaye challenges Rava from a similar case. A non - Jew prepares dough and then converts. If the dough was made: • Before Geirus – Patur from Challah. • After Geirus – Chayav. But if there is a Safek: • The ruling is Chayav. Why? The dough should seemingly also have: • A Chazakas Patur from before the Geirus. Issura L’Chumra, Mamona L’Kula Rava answers with the fundamental distinction: • Safek Issur – L’Chumra. • Safek Mamon – L’Kula. Challah involves: • An Issur. Therefore: • In a Safek we are stringent. Zero’a, Lechayayim and Keivah involve: • A monetary gift to the Kohen. Therefore: • The owner can retain them in a Safek unless the Kohen proves his claim. Eight Safekos of a Ger Four Chayav and Four Patur The Gemara brings a Beraisa involving: • Various Safek obligations surrounding a Ger. The obligations divide into: • Cases treated strictly because they involve Issur • And cases treated leniently because they are primarily monetary. Examples of the stricter group include: • Challah • Bechor Behemah • Peter Chamor and other obligations with an Issur element. The Monetary Cases The more purely monetary gifts include examples such as: • Reishis HaGez • Matanos • The monetary aspect of Pidyon Peter Chamor. In these: • The Safek is treated Lekula for the owner. The central rule remains: • Issura L’Chumra • Mamona L’Kula. Levi’s Field With No Poor People Nobody Came for the Leket Levi planted grain in a place where: • There were no poor people to take the Leket. What should he do? The Torah says: • The gifts are for the Ani and Ger. They are not intended: • For birds or animals. Therefore if there are genuinely: • No eligible poor people available he does not have to: • Preserve the Leket indefinitely for them. Does He Have to Transport It Elsewhere? He does not have to: • Hire transport • Travel to another city • And deliver the Matnos Aniyim there. The Torah says: • Ta’azov – leave them. If there is nobody there to collect: • His obligation does not require this extra expense and effort. Why Is Terumah Different? Terumah Must Be Separated What if there is: • No Kohen nearby to receive Terumah? Terumah is different because: • Without separating it, the produce remains Tevel. Therefore: • The Terumah must be separated even when: • No Kohen is immediately available. This is an Issur: • Not merely a monetary obligation. What About Zero’a, Lechayayim and Keivah? The Torah Says “V’Nasan” Matanos are different from Leket. Even if: • No Kohen is immediately available the Torah specifically says: • V’nasan – he shall give. Therefore the owner must: • Preserve the Matanos • Or realize their value so that the Kohen can eventually receive: • What is owed. Keeping the Matanos Fresh If local practice is: • To leave the hide on the Zero’a the owner should not remove it unnecessarily because: • It helps preserve the Kohen’s gift. Likewise with: • The Lechayayim. The Matanah should be maintained: • In a proper usable condition for the Kohen. If No Kohen Is Available If the actual meat cannot practically be preserved until: • A Kohen is found the owner can: • Sell it • Keep the value • And later give that money to a Kohen. This fulfils the special requirement of: • Nesinah. Why “Ta’azov” Is Repeated A Field Made Hefker The Gemara asks why: • Ta’azov – “you shall leave” is repeated regarding Matnos Aniyim. It teaches an additional case. Suppose someone declares: • His entire field Hefker hoping to avoid: • Leket • Shikchah • Peah • Peret • Or Olelos and then: • Reacquires the field himself. The trick does not work. The Poor Still Receive Their Gifts Even though the owner temporarily made the field: • Hefker he remains obligated in: • The Matnos Aniyim. The Torah’s repeated: • Ta’azov prevents a person from using Hefker: • To evade his obligations to the poor. The Kohen Gadol Must Be “Gadol” A Bag of Money The Gemara discusses a bag of money that came for: • The Kohanim. A Kohen was able to take it: • For an appropriate communal purpose. This leads into the requirement that the: • Kohen Gadol should truly be: • Gadol me’echav – greater than his fellow Kohanim. Greater in Torah, Appearance and Wealth Ideally the Kohen Gadol should be distinguished: • B’noi – in appearance • B’choach – in strength • B’chochmah – in wisdom • B’osher – in wealth. If he is suitable for the position but: • Is not wealthy the other Kohanim contribute: • From their own money until: • He becomes wealthier than they are. This fulfils: • Gadleihu mishel echav – make him great from the resources of his brothers. Key Chazarah • Chiya Bar Rav mistakenly treated Zero’a, Lechayayim and Keivah as one Halachic unit because they are counted together as “Matanos.” • The 24 Matnos Kehunah are divided into 10 in the Mikdash, 4 in Yerushalayim and 10 outside Yerushalayim. • Bris Melach represents the enduring covenant of Matnos Kehunah. • Todah and Ayil Nazir are separate obligations even though they are counted together, proving that items grouped in a list do not necessarily become one Halachic unit. • Therefore partnership in one of the three Matanos does not automatically exempt the other two. • If a Yisrael buys the head from a Kohen, he becomes obligated in the Lechayayim even though the Kohen owns the rest of the animal. • “Chutz” means the Kohen actually excludes and retains part of the animal; “Al Menas” is a condition, with a Machlokes whether it also constitutes Shiura Shiyer. • If a buyer purchases the innards by weight, the Keivah must be given to the Kohen and its value can be recovered. • If the butcher weighed it, Rav says HaDin im HaTabach – the Kohen can have a claim against the butcher as well. • A Ger’s cow shechted before Geirus is Patur, after Geirus is Chayav, and in a Safek is Patur. • The monetary rule is Hamotzi meichaveiro alav hara’ayah. • Rebbe Meir says Safek Leket Leket, but this is treated as a Daas Yachid. • Challah in a Safek is different because Issura L’Chumra, whereas monetary Matanos are Mamona L’Kula. • Matnos Aniyim need not be transported elsewhere when there are no Aniyim available. • Terumah must still be separated because otherwise the produce remains Tevel. • Zero’a, Lechayayim and Keivah have a special requirement of “V’nasan,” so their value must ultimately reach a Kohen even if none is presently available. • Declaring a field Hefker and then reclaiming it cannot be used to avoid Matnos Aniyim. • The Kohen Gadol should be distinguished in appearance, strength, wisdom and wealth. If necessary, his fellow Kohanim contribute to make him wealthy – Gadleihu mishel echav. 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