(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Chulin 133



(a) Rebbi Aba Amar Rav Huna Amar Rav ruled that the sinews in the cheek-bon are forbidden (seeing as they are full of blood), and that a Kohen who does not know how to remove them may not receive Matanos.

(b) We object to his second statement however, on the grounds that there will be no problem if the Kohen wants to eat it ...

1. ... roasted - since the fire will draw out the blood
2. ... cooked - since cutting and salting them will remove the blood, too.
(c) Rav Yosef asked Rava (or Rabah [in order to test him]) about a Kohen who grabs Matanos - whether this falls under the category of Chibuv Mitzvah or Bizayon Mitzvah.

(d) Based on the Pasuk "Ve'nasan", Rava replied - that the Yisrael is obligated to give the Matanos, and not the Kohen to take them.

(a) Abaye, who was a Kohen, initially used to grab the Matanos, until he heard Rava's D'rashah - upon which he switched to asking for them.

(b) He stopped doing that too however, when he learned Rebbi Meir's interpretation of the Pasuk "Va'yatu Acharei ha'Batza", which he explained to mean - that the sons of Shmuel used to ask for the Matnos Kehunah.

(c) So he began to merely accept the Matanos that he was offered.

(a) Abaye desisted from even accepting the Matanos, once he learned the Beraisa - with reference to the Lechem ha'Panim 'ha'Tzenu'im Moshchin es Yedeihem, ve'ha'Gargeranim Cholkim'.

(b) He broke with that custom every Erev Yom Kipur however - so that it should be publicly known that he was a Kohen.

(c) He did not rely on Duchening every day, because, due to his Shi'urim with his Talmidim, he did not manage to Duchen (see Mesores ha'Shas).

(a) Rav Yosef suggests that, in the Kohen's vicinity, there lives a Talmid-Chacham who is struggling for Parnasah - he should grant him the right to take the Matanos instead of him ...

(b) ... even before he has acquired them, provided it is a case of 'Makirei Kehunah' (where the Kohen in question is popular, and most locals automatically give him their Matanos).

(c) Rava asked the Sha'mes of Mar Yuchna b'rei de'Rav Chana bar Ada (or Bizna), who happened to be a Kohen - to grant him the right to take the Matanos instead of him.

(d) This was necessary, in spite of the fact that they were anyway preparing him and Rav Safra a 'third calf' - because he fancied a tongue (which would otherwise go to the Kohen together with the cheeks) in mustard.

(a) The significance of the Pasuk in Iyov that Rav Safra dreamt the following night was that teaching someone who does not properly grasp what he says, is compared to - wearing a frayed garment on a cold day?

(b) Rav Safra (who, like Rava, was a Talmid of Rav Yosef) thought that the Pasuk was referring to him - because, despite Rav Yosef's previous ruling (the source of Rava's actions) he had refused to partake of the tongue when it was served.

(c) Rav Yosef pointed out to him however, that his ruling did not apply here for two reasons. Firstly, because the Sha'mes (in that capacity) was bound to accede to the request of Rava (who was a great man [or he was referring to giving the Matanos to a Yisrael even before having acquired them]). Secondly - because his ruling was confined to a person who had Parnasah problems, which Rava did not.

(d) Even though Rav Safra's dream pertained to Rava, it was Rav Safra who dreamt it, and not Rava - because Rava was in Cherem, either on account of this episode, or because of the episode cited in Ta'anis (where he 'forced' Hashem (Kevayachol) to send rain in its wrong time.

(a) Based on the Pasuk there " ... Tochlehu Eish Lo Nupach, Yeira Sarid (Talmid-Chacham) be'Ohalo", Rav Dimi explained to Abaye that basically, the Pasuk in Iyov refers to someone who teaches a Talmid who is not worthy. Rav Yehudah Amar Rav says that someone who does - will fall into Gehinom.

(b) Based on the Pasuk "ki'Tzeror Even be'Margeimah, Kein Nosen li'Kesil Kavod", Rebbi Zeira Amar Rav says that someone who teaches a Talmid who is not worthy - is as if he has thrown a stone at Markulis (which is at best, a well-meaning gesture which is pure Avodah-Zarah).




(a) Our Mishnah 'ha'Mishtatef *Imahen* Tzarich Lirshom', implies both with a Kohen and with a Nochri. We query this however, from a Beraisa, which rules, that someone who enters into a partnership with a Nochri and someone who sells Pesulei ha'Mukdashin that he redeemed - do not require marking.

(b) The problem with ...

1. ... the suggestion that the Beraisa is speaking when the Nochri is actually a salesman in the butchery, in which case everybody already knows that he is a partner is - that in that case, the same ought to apply to a case when the Kohen is a partner, yet the Tana specifically requires marking, in a case where the Kohen is a partner (like our Mishnah).
2. ... the answer to this refutation, that some people will nevertheless think that the Kohen is buying meat is - that the same ought then to apply to a case where the Nochri is a partner, so why does the Tana differentiate between them?
3. ... the following suggestion that the Nochri is the cashier - by countering that in that case, why will the same not apply if the Kohen is the cashier?
(c) We resolve ...
1. ... the current Kashya - by pointing out that a Yisrael would safely employ a Kohen to handle the money, but not a Nochri (in which case everybody will know that he must be a partner).
2. ... the problem with the initial suggestion, that the Nochri is a salesman in the butchery (as an alternative answer), by differentiating between a Nochri - who is generally noisy and shouts a lot (so everyone will know that he is a partner) and the Kohen (who tends to be less assertive), allowing people to believe that he is merely purchasing meat, as we explained.
(a) Pesulei ha'Mukdashin are not subject to Matanos anyway, as we learned in our Mishnah, and the reason that the Beraisa needs to say that they don't need marking - is because of the intrinsic obligation to differentiate between them and Chulin, on account of Zilzul Kodshim (the degradation of Kodshim).

(b) And the reason that they do not require marking is - because they are already marked by the reservations pertaining to the sale.

(c) Rav Ada bar Ahavah reconciles the Beraisa with the Mishnah in Bechoros, which permits Shechting and selling Pesulei ha'Mukdashin in a butchery, and weighing them in the conventional manner, by establishing the Beraisa - exclusively by Bechor and Ma'aser, which are sold from the house and not weighed (as we will see in Bechoros).

(a) According to Rav Huna, someone who is a partner with a Nochri or with a Kohen in only the head of an animal, is Patur from Lechayayim; in only the leg, is Patur from the Zero'a; in only the innards, is Patur from the Keivah. Chiya bar Rav maintains - that whoever is Patur from one, is Patur from all three.

(b) The Beraisa rules that a Nochri or a Kohen who purchases one hundredth of the head, the leg or the innards - exempts the owner from having to give the Lechayayim, the Zero'a or the Keivah (respectively) to a Kohen.

(c) Besides another Beraisa, which specifically states that in such a case, he is Chayav to give Matanos from whichever ones the Nochri or the Kohen did not specify, we also object to the suggestion that when the Tana says 'Patur min ha'Lechi ... ', he means Patur from all of them - on the grounds that he should then have said so.

(d) Consequently - we remain with a Kashya on Chiya bar Rav.

(a) Chiya bar Rav's error was the result of a misunderstanding regarding a third Beraisa, which discusses the twenty-four Matnos Kehunah. Besides a 'K'lal u'P'rat', says the Tana - the Matnos Kehunah were also given with a 'B'ris Melach'.

(b) Consequently, he says, someone who observes the Matnos Kehunah - it is as if he upheld the 'K'lal u'P'rat' and the B'ris Melach, whereas someone who contravenes them - it is as if he contravened the 'K'lal u'P'rat' and the B'ris Melach.

(c) Bechor, Bikurim, Moram min ha'Todah u'me'Eil and Oros Kodshim are confined to Yerushalayim. Of the remaining twenty Matnos Kehunah ...

1. ... ten apply only in the Beis-Hamikdash and ...
2. ... ten anywhere in Eretz Yisrael.
(d) The Moram min ha'Todah comprises the Chazeh ve'Shok and one of each of the four kinds of loaves that accompanies the Korban. By ...
1. ... 'Moram me'Eil Nazir', the Tana means - the cooked Zero'a, one Chalah and one wafer of the two kinds of loaves that accompany his Korban.
2. ... 'Oros Kodshim', the Tana means the skin of an Olah, a Chatas and an Asham, which are distributed to the Kohanim in anywhere in Yerushalayim.
(a) After the Chatas Beheimah ve'Of, Asham Vaday ve'Taluy and the Log of oil of a Metzora, the remaining Kodshei Mikdash comprised one Shelamim and four kinds of Minchah. The ...
1. ... Shelamim - in question is the Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur (brought on Shavu'os, and which is Kodshei Kodshim).
2. ... two Menachos, after the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim - are the Sheyarei Menachos and the Minchas ha'Omer.
(b) Besides Terumah, Terumas Ma'aser and Chalah, the two Matnos Kehunah she'bi'Gevulin which the Kohen receives ...
1. ... from Chulin animals are - Matanos and Reishis ha'Gez.
2. ... connected with the Bechorah - are Bechor Adam and the lamb of Pidyon Peter Chamor.
(c) He also receives - Sadeh Achuzah (which the owner was Makdish and, when the owner failed to redeem it, the Gizbar sold it to someone else until the Yovel, when it goes to the Kohanim of that Mishmar; and Sadeh Charamim, which the owner declared Cherem, and which goes to the Kohanim immediately.

(d) The tenth and final Matanah of the Matnos Kehunah she'bi'Gevulim is Gezel ha'Ger - which goes to the Kohanim of that Mishmar, in the event that the Ganav swears that he is innocent, and admits after the Ger's death that he swore falsely.

(a) We now explain Chiya bar Rav's mistake, based on the fact that the Beraisa lists Matnos Kehunah as one - on account of which he thought that they are considered one, and whoever is Patur from one is Patur from the other.

(b) We prove however, that this is a fallacy - from Moram mi'Todah ve'Eil Nazir, which the Tana lists as one, even though it is obvious that they are two independent cases.

(c) And the Tana list each of the two sets as one - only because of the similarity between Moram mi'Todah and Eil Nazir on the one hand, and the three Matanos on the other.

(a) We ask what the Din will be if a Kohen says to a Yisrael 'ha'Rosh she'Lecha, ve'Kulah she'Li' - whether we go after the direct source of the Chiyuv (i.e. the head), which is in the hand of a Yisrael, making him Chayav, or after the animal, which is in the hands of the Kohen, making him Patur.

(b) And we resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa, where the Tana says in a case where a Nochri ...

1. ... or a Kohen hands his sheep to a Yisrael to shear off the wool - the Yisrael is Patur from Reishis ha'Gez (just like he would be Patur from Matanos in such a case).
2. ... sells the wool of his sheep (even before it has been shorn) - the purchaser is Patur from Reishis ha'Gez.
(c) The Tana adds that if on the other hand, someone were to purchase Matanos from the Kohen whilst the animal is still alive - he would be Chayav ...

(d) ... from which we see, that one Chayav Matanos, even though the animal belongs to a Nochri or a Kohen (resolving our She'eilah, in that we go after the direct source of the Chiyuv).

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,