(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 134



(a) We reconcile the ruling in our Mishnah 've'Im Amar Chutz min ha'Matanos, Patur min ha'Matanos' with the Beraisa 'al-M'nas she'ha'Matanos she'Li, Nosen le'Chol Kohen she'Yirtzeh' - by differentiating between 'Chutz', which is a Shiyur (meaning that the Kohen retained the Matanos for himself, absolving the purchaser from having to give the Kohen anything) and 'al-M'nas' - which is a stipulation (that the purchaser has to give him the Matanos, something which he is not empowered to stipulate), leaving the purchaser with the obligation to give the Matanos to whoever he sees fit.

(b) We reconcile this Beraisa with another Beraisa 'al-M'nas she'ha'Matanos she'Li, ha'Matanos she'Lo' - in that the latter Beraisa considers 'al-M'nas' to be a Shiyur like Chutz (and not a stipulation).

(c) We learned in the Seifa of our Mishnah 'Lakchan Heimenu be'Mishkal, Nosnan le'Kohen u'Menakeh Lo min ha'Damim'. Rav qualifies this ruling - by confining it to where the purchaser weighed it out himself, absolving the Shochet from liability (which is why the Kohen goes to the purchaser and not straight to the Tabach (in spite of the earlier ruling 'ha'Din im ha'Tabach').

(d) He would however, go straight to the Tabach - if the latter would weigh out the meat for him.

(a) According to Rav Asi however - the Kohen goes straight to the purchaser anyway (seeing as that is where the meat is).

(b) We suggest that Rav and Rav Asi argue over a ruling of Rav Chisda, who, in a case where Shimon eats something that Reuven stole, before the owner has been Meya'esh (despaired of retrieving it) - authorises the owner to claim his article from whichever of the two he pleases ...

(c) ... which is the opinion of Rav here; whereas Rav Asi disagrees with Rav Chisda, forcing the claimant to take from the second one.

(d) We reject this suggestion however, on the assumption that both opinions hold like Rav Chisda, in which case, the basis of their Machlokes is - whether Matnos Kehunah are subject to theft (Rav) or not (Rav Asi). If it is not, then the owner is obligated to go wherever the stolen object to retrieve it.

(e) The second Lashon - presents their Machlokes directly like we just explained it 'Rav Amar Matnos Kehunah Nigzalos; Rav Asi Amar ... '.

(a) Our Mishnah rules that a Ger who converted, and who owned a cow that he Shechted ...
1. ... before he converted - is Patur from Matanos.
2. ... after he converted - is Chayav Matanos.
(b) Whereas in a case where he is not sure when he Shechted the animal - we apply the principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro, Alav ha'Re'ayah (and he is Patur).
(a) When Rav Dimi arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he cited Resh Lakish's Kashya on our Mishnah from a Mishnah in Pe'ah. Firstly, he rules that any grains of corn that one finds in the ant-holes that are situated in the middle of the standing corn belong to the owner - because the Din of Leket only applies to grain that falls during the harvest (but not before).

(b) The Tana rules that as far as the grain in the ant-hills that are behind the harvesters is concerned - what is on top is Leket, whereas what is underneath belongs to the owner (because the ants desposited them there before the harvesters arrived).

(c) The discrepancy with our Mishnah however, lies in the Seifa, where Rebbi Meir rules 'ha'Kol la'Aniyim' - because he holds 'Safek Leket, Leket'.

(d) Resh Lakish asks from Rebbi Meir (despite the fact that the Rabbanan disagree with him) - because our Mishnah is a S'tam, and we have a principle 'S'tam Mishnah, Rebbi Meir' (see also Tosfos DH 'u'Reminhi'.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan replied 'Al Takniteini!' (not to provoke him) because he considers the Mishnah in Pe'ah to be a minority opinion (in Rebbi Meir).

(b) And he supported his answer with a Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehudah ben Agra quoting Rebbi Meir ruled - 'Safek Leket, Leket; Safek Shikchah, Shikchah; and Safek Pe'ah, Pe'ah.

(c) Resh Lakish did not accept Rebbi Yochanan's answer - as he explained 'Al Teshaneh Osah Ela be'Lashon ben Tadel' (even if he were to cite an idiot by the name of ben Tadel, he would accept it as Rebbi Meir's opinion, since Rebbi Meir did after all, give a sound reason.

(a) And Resh Lakish himself based this on a Pasuk in Tehilim "Ani va'Rash Hatzdiku", which cannot mean that one must always give the poor man right in a Din-Torah - since we have a Pasuk in Sh'mos which teaches us 'not to honor a poor man in his quarrels'.

(b) What the Pasuk therefore means is - that when is one is in doubt, one should give the poor man the benefit of the doubt, as we just explained.

(a) To resolve the discrepancy, Rava distinguishes between the case of Matanos, where the cow has a Chezkas P'tur (since the Ger was initially a Nochri) - and that of Pe'ah (where the corn has a Chezkas Chiyuv).

(b) Abaye queries Rava from a Mishnah in Chalah, which rules - that in a case where a Ger is not sure whether the dough that he made, he made before he converted or afterwards - is Chayav Chalah, even though, like Parah, it has a Chezkas P'tur.

(c) Rava reconciles the two Mishnahs however - by confining the leniency of Chezkas Parah to a case of Mamon, where the reason of 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah' is applicable; whereas the case of Safek Chalah is one of Isur (where there is even a Chiyuv Misah), where the reason does not apply (see Rashash).

(d) Rav Chisda (who is supported by a Beraisa learned by Rebbi Chiya) cites four cases of Safek Isur le'Chumra, and four cases of Safek Isur le'Kula. First on the list of le'Chumra is Korban Ishto. The case is - a man whose Giyores wife gave birth, and they are not sure whether she gave birth before or after the conversion.

(a) The reason that the Tana listed these eight cases is - because they are all cases of Safek before the Geirus or afterwards.

(b) Together with Chalah, we now have two of the cases le'Chumra. The other two are - Bechor Beheimah Temei'ah and Bechor Beheimah Tehorah.

(c) The problem with ...

1. ... 'Korban Ishto' (which involves a Safek Chulin la'Azarah) - is that the woman has a Din of a Safek Yoledes, who is Chayav Kareis if she eats Kodshim or enters the Azarah, and has therefore no option but to bring her Korban Yoledes.
2. ... 'Bechor Beheimah Tehorah' - is that it carries a Chiyuv Kareis should someone Shecht it outside the Azarah. Consequently, the Ger must allow the animal to graze in the meadow until it obtains a blemish, and he is then permitted to Shecht and eat it.
3. ... 'Bechor Beheimah Temei'ah' - is that it is Asur be'Hana'ah (according to the current opinion). Consequently, he has to redeem it with a lamb, which he is not obligated to give to the Kohen, since it is only Safek Mamon.
(d) Two of the cases le'Kula are Matanos and Reishis ha'Gez. The other two are - Pidyon ha'Ben (which is purely a monetary issue) and Pidyon Peter Chamor (the lamb in the case of Bechor Beheimah Temei'ah, which we just discussed).

(e) He asked him - from Kamah on to Kamah (i.e. from a Beraisa which clashes with the Mishnah in Pe'ah).




(a) When Levi once sowed his crops in Kishar, and there were no poor to take Leket, Shikchah and Pe'ah, Rav Sheishes quoted him the Pasuk in Kedoshim ' "le'Ani ve'la'Ger Ta'azov Osam", which he Darshened 've'Lo le'Orvim ve'Lo la'Atalefim' (not for the ravens and the bats).

(b) The Beraisa ...

1. ... exempts a person from transporting Terumah from the barn or from the desert to the city.
2. ... rules that in the same case where there is no Kohen in the area of the barn or the desert - he is Chayav to hire a cow, if need be, to transport it to the town.
(c) Initially, we reconcile Rav Sheishes with this Beraisa - by differentiate between Matnos Aniyim, which are purely Mamon, and are not Tevel, and Terumah - which is Tevel, and must therefore be separated.
(a) Another Beraisa discusses Matanos. The Tana forbids flaying ...
1. ... the Zero'a before giving it to the Kohen - where it is customary to boil it before eating it (so as to eat it together with its skin).
2. ... the Lechi, even there where it is customary to flay the head.
(b) And he also - permits the owner to eat the Matanos where there are no Kohanim, though he must then assess their value, and pay the Kohen later.

(c) Matanos are not subject to Tevel, as we have already learned, yet the owner is obligated to recompense the Kohen. We reconcile Rav Sheishes with this Beraisa - by differentiating between Matnos Aniyim, by which the Torah writes "Ta'azov", and Matanos, where it writes "Ve'nasan", obligating the owner to give them at all costs.

(d) As a result, we conclude - that the same reason will apply to answer the initial Kashya on Rav Sheishes from Terumah, where the Torah also writes a Lashon Nesinah, obligated the owner to give Terumah to the Kohen at all costs (and not just to separate it, like we answered at first).

(a) From the extra "Ta'azov" written by Matnos Aniyim, we learn the Halachah taught by the Beraisa - obligating someone who re-acquires his field after declaring it Hefker, to leave Peret (by grapes and Leket by corn), Olelos, Shikchah and Pe'ah ...

(b) ... but not Ma'asros.

(c) The problem with Rebbi Ami, who acquired the sack of gold coins that was sent to the Beis-Hamedrash for the Talmidim is - that the Torah writes "Ve'nasan", 've'Lo she'Yitol me'Atzmo'.

(d) Initially, we answer - that Rebbi Ami did not take the money for himself, but on behalf of the poor Talmidim.

(a) Alternatively, Rebbi Ami took the coins for himself, yet there was no problem - because he was an Adam Chashuv (i.e. the Rosh Yeshivah), and it is a Mitzvah incumbent upon the people to make him wealthy (to enhance his authority), and the prohibition of "Ve'nasan ... " did not apply to him.

(b) And we learn this from the Pasuk in Emor "ve'ha'Kohen ha'Gadol me'Echav" - which teaches us that the Kohen Gadol should be greater than his fellow Kohanim in looks, wisdom and wealth.

(c) In fact, Acherim extrapolates from the Pasuk that, where the Kohen Gadol is not wealthy - it is a Mitzvah for the other Kohanim to enrich him ...

(d) ... as is implied from the words "ve'ha'Kohen ha'Gadol me'Echav" 'Gadleihu me'shel Echav'.

(a) Our Mishnah defines ...
1. ... "Zero'a" as - from the knee joint to the shoulder bone, incorporating the calf and the thigh, and the same applies to ...
2. ... "Zero'a Besheilah" of Nazir and to ...
3. ... "Shok" of Shelamim.
(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah - 'Zero'a incorporates only the calf.

(c) "Lechayayim" includes both the upper and lower jaws, the tongue (in front) and the Pika shel Gargeres (the thyroid cartilage [but not the location of the Shechitah]) at the back.

(a) The Beraisa learns from the 'Hey' in "ha'Zero'a" - that one must give the Kohen the right foreleg, because the 'Hey' has connotations of the main one (like Rava Darshened with regard to Gid ha'Nasheh "ha'Yerech", 'ha'Meyumenes she'be'Yerech'), and the right is always considered more prominent than the left.

(b) The 'Hey' in ...

1. ... "ha'Lechayayim comes to include - the hair on the head of lambs and the beard on the chin of goats.
2. ... "ha'Keivah" comes to include - the Cheilev that surrounds the Keivah and the milk that is inside the stomach of a young animal.
(c) Rebbi Yehoshua (or Rebbi Yehudah) stated - that the Kohanim waived their rights to the latter, allowing the Yisre'eilim to retain it ...

(d) ... a proof that min ha'Din, it goes to the Kohanim.

(a) The Dorshei Chamuros (Darshanim) say that the Zero'a, the Lechayayim and the Keivah - represent Pinchas' arm wielding the sword, his Tefilah and the stomachs of Zimri and Kozbi that he pierced, respectively.

(b) The Pasuk writes in Tzav "ve'es Shok ha'Yamin Titnu Terumah la'Kohen", teaching us that it is the right Shok of Shelamim that goes to the Kohen. And the Tana learns that the same applies to ...

1. ... the Zero'a of Matnos Kehunah - from "Titnu".
2. ... the Zero'a Besheilah of Nazir - from "Terumah".
(a) We reconcile the Beraisa, which includes the Beis-ha'Shechitah in the Matanos, with our Mishnah, which lists only the Pikah - by establishing the latter like Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos, who considers the Pika shel Gargeres to be eligible for Shechitah (as we learned in the first Perek), whereas our Mishnah goes according to the Chachamim, as we explained.

(b) Alternatively, we establish both the Mishnah and the Beraisa according to the Rabbanan, and when they refer to Beis-ha'Shechitah - they are speaking about the parts that the owner takes, not the Kohen.

***** Hadran Alach 'ha'Zero'a veha'Lechayayim *****

Next daf


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