(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 138

CHULIN 137-140 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for these Dapim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.



(a) The Beraisa interprets the statement in our Mishnah requiring the Yisrael to give the Kohen five Sela'im in Yehudah *bleached* - to mean that he must give sufficient wool to the Kohen that, after the Kohen has bleached it, he is left with five Sela'im.

(b) Our Mishnah requires that one gives the Kohen five Sela'im of wool from which he can manufacture a small garment - i.e. an Avneit (the smallest of the Bigdei Kehunah), since the Torah writes (immediately following Reishis ha'Gez) "La'amod Leshareis".

(c) Five Sela'im of wool will suffice to manufacture the Avneit - only because the Avneit was made out of wool and linen (Sha'atnez [as we shall soon see]).

(a) The Tana knows that the Pasuk is referring to a Avneit and not to the Me'il (the cloak worn by the Kohen Gadol) - because of the principle 'Tafasta Merubeh Lo Tafasta' (meaning that when in doubt, it is better to adopt the smaller Shi'ur, which is included in the larger one, and cannot therefore be wrong).

(b) We query the Tana's Shi'ur of Avneit - seeing as the Pasuk might well be referring to the small woolen hat that the Kohen Gadol wore, over which the threads of the Tzitz were placed (and which was smaller than the belt).

(c) Based on the Pasuk (following "La'amod Leshareis") "Hu u'Vanav Kol ha'Yamim", we answer that it must also be fit for the Kohen Hedyot to wear, which the woolen hat is not.

(d) The problem that creates, even if the garment is the Avneit is - that the Avneit that the Kohen Gadol wore (which was made of wool and linen) was not the one that was worn by the Kohen Hedyot either, so why is it any better to establish our Mishnah by an Avneit than by a woolen hat?

(a) When we confine the problem to those who equate the Avneit of the Kohen Hedyot with that of the Kohen Gadol, we mean - that the Avneit worn by the Kohen Hedyot during the year was the same as the linen one worn by the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur (though this was not the same one that the latter wore during the year).

(b) There is no problem according to those hold that the Avneit of the Kohen Hedyot did not resemble that of the Kohen Gadol - because that means that it was made of wool and linen, like that of the Kohen Gadol all the year round.

(c) We solve the problem - by saying 'Shem Avnet ba'Olam', meaning it is sufficient for the wool to enough to produce an Avneit for the Kohen Gadol (during the rest of the year) and the fact that the Kohen Hedyot wears an Avneit too, satisfies the requirement of "Hu u'Vanav" (even though it is not the Avneit that contains wool).

(a) According to Rav Chisda, if the owner sheared one sheep at a time and sold it, he is Chayav Reishis ha'Gez - because at the time that he sheared it, it conformed with "Gez Tzoncha".

(b) Rebbi Nasan bar Hoshaya rules - that he is Patur, because at the time that the Shi'ur is completed, it is not "Gez Tzoncha" of the owner of the wool.

(c) We extrapolate from our Mishnah, which exempts someone who purchases the wool from a Nochri, from Reishis ha'Gez - that if the Nochri was Makneh him the sheep for its wool, he would be Chayav ...

(d) ... even though after each shearing, the sheep is returned to the Nochri, so that it is not "Gez Tzono" (a Kashya on Rebbi Nasan bar Hoshaya).

(e) Rav Chisda answers the Kashya (on behalf of his disputant) - by establishing the case where the Nochri is Makneh him all the sheep until they have all been shorn.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if Reuven sells his wool, but retains a Shi'ur Reishis ha'Gez, he alone remains Chayav to give Reishis ha'Gez. Rav Chisda establishes the Mishnah - like Rebbi Yehudah ...

(b) ... in a Mishnah in Pe'ah, where, in a case where Reuven sells Shimon 'Kalchei Ilan' (some trees together with the fruit - since the field as such is a Sadeh Lavan [in which crops grow] and not a Sadeh Ilan) in his field, Shimon is obligated to leave Pe'ah on each tree - due to the fact that he did not acquire any land.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah qualifies the Tana Kama's ruling - by confining it to where Reuven did not retain any trees. Because where he did, the Pe'ah that he leaves in the corner of the field covers the trees too (even the ones that he sold).

(a) Rava queries Rav Chisda on the basis of Rav Chisda's own statement - establishing this very Mishnah (in Pe'ah) where Reuven already began to harvest his field (before he sold the trees), and he is Chayav on the entire field because at that point, he could have left Pe'ah on it all.

(b) Nevertheless, he is not Chayav if he did not retain any trees - because he no longer owns any fruit on which the Chiyuv should take effect.

(c) We cannot apply the same S'vara to Reishis ha'Gez in our Mishnah - because the S'vara there is based on the Pasuk "u've'Kutzrechem es K'tzir Artz'chem", connecting the obligation to leave Pe'ah with the actual harvesting of the field; whereas by Reishis ha'Gez, the Torah does not write 'bi'Gezazchem Tzoncha', but "Gez Tzoncha", implying that the Chiyuv only comes when the shearing is completed, and not when he begins to shear the sheep.

(a) Rava therefore establishes our Mishnah like the Tana in 'ha'Zero'a ve'ha'Lechayayim' 'Amar Lo M'chor Li B'nei Me'ehah ... Nosnan le'Kohen ve'Eino Menakeh Lo min ha'Damim ... '. Based on that Mishnah, where Reuven ...
1. ... retained the Shi'ur Chiyuv, he is obligated to give the Kohen Reishis ha'Gez - because we assume that he did not sell Shimon the rights of the Kohen (but retained them himself).
2. ... did not retain the Shi'ur, Shimon is obligated to do so - for the same reason; because we assume that Reuven did not sell him the Kohen's rights.
(b) In the latter case, we cannot attribute Shimon's Chiyuv to the fact that the Mitzvah lies with him - because it is not "Gez Tzoncha".

(c) The basic difference between Rav Chisda's explanation and that of Rava is - that according to the latter, if Reuven were to stipulate that he sold Shimon even the right of the Kohen, then the Kohen would have no claim either in the Reisha nor in the Seifa, seeing as he sold it before the shearing was completed; whereas according to Rav Chisda, his stipulation would make no difference to the Halachah.

***** Hadran Alach 'Reishis ha'Gez' *****



***** Perek Shilu'ach ha'Kein *****


(a) We learned in our Mishnah that Shilu'ach ha'Kein, like Matanos and Reishis ha'Gez, applies in all circumstances - except to a Kodshim bird, which is Patur.

(b) Kisuy ha'Dam, besides applying to Chayos as well as birds - pertains to a bird that has been prepared, which Shilu'ach ha'Kein does not.

(c) Geese and chickens - that nested in an orchard are subject to Shilu'ach ha'Kein (but not those that nested in a house).


1. Doves are not subject to Shilu'ach ha'Kein - if they are brought up tame.
2. Birds are not subject to Shilu'ach ha'Kein - if they are of a Tamei species.
(a) Neither a Tamei bird sitting on the eggs of a Tahor one, nor a Tahor bird sitting on the eggs of a Tamei one - are subject to Shilu'ach ha'Kein.

(b) According to Rebbi Eliezer, a male Korei - a Tahor species of bird that sits on the eggs of other birds, is subject to Shilu'ach ha'Kein...

(c) ... because it is accustomed to doing so, and is considered like the mother.

(d) The Chachamim say - that it is Patur from Shilu'ach ha'Kein (as will be explained in the Sugya).

(a) Rebbi Avin and Rebbi Meyashe state that in all the Mishnahs of Kisuy ha'Dam, Oso ve'es B'no, Gid ha'Nasheh, Matanos, Reishis ha'Gez and Shilo'ach ha'Kein except for one, the Mishnah's insertion of 'ba'Aretz u've'Chutz la'Aretz' and 'bi'Fenei ha'Bayis ve'she'Lo bi'Fenei ha'Bayis' is superfluous. One of them said it of one case, the other one said it of the other - and there is no dispute in the matter.

(b) 'ba'Aretz u've'Chutz la'Aretz' is superfluous in most of the cases - because seeing as the Mitzvos are not connected with Eretz Yisrael, why would we have thought otherwise?

(c) Nevertheless, the Tana needs to insert it by Reishis ha'Gez - to preclude the opinion of Rebbi Ilai who learns from Terumah that it does not apply in Chutz la'Aretz (as we learned earlier).

(d) Even though Rebbi Ilai learns Matanos from Reishis ha'Gez in this regard, we only mention the latter - because it is in that connection that he specifically stated the ruling.

(a) What makes it necessary to mention 'bi'Fenei ha'Bayis ve'she'Lo bi'Fenei ha'Bayis' by Oso ve'es B'no - is the fact that Oso ve'es B'no is written in the Parshah of Kodshim, creating the impression that the Isur only applies when there are Kodshim, but not when there is no Beis-Hamikdash.

(b) Both Rebbi Avin and Rebbi Meyashe however, stated that wherever the Tana inserts 'be'Chulin u've'Mukdashin' (i.e. by Oso ve'es B'no) it is necessary to do so, with the exception of Gid ha'Nasheh. It is ...

1. ... necessary to insert it by Oso ve'es B'no - because that is where it is written, as we just explained.
2. ... not necessary to insert it by Gid ha'Nasheh however - because why on earth would we even think that when one declares the animal Hekdesh, the Isur of Gid ha'Nasheh will simply dissipate?
(c) True, we establish the latter case by V'lados Kodshim, which does teach us a Chidush, as we explained in 'Gid ha'Nasheh'. Yet Rebbi Avin and Rebbi Meyashe describe it as superfluous - to teach us that one can leave the Mishnah as it is (by the Kodshim itself), and even though there is no Chidush, it is no worse than 'ba'Aretz u've'Chutz la'Aretz' and 'bi'Fenei ha'Bayis ve'she'Lo bi'Fenei ha'Bayis' which, as we explained, are also superfluous, and which the Tana only mentions because of the respective cases which are not.
(a) In connection with our Mishnah ('be'Chulin Aval Lo be'Mukdashin'), we learn from the Pasuk "Shale'ach Teshalach es ha'Eim ... " - that a bird belonging to Hekdesh is not subject to Shilu'ach ha'Kein, because one cannot fulfil the Mitzvah of sending it away.

(b) Ravina extrapolates from there that a Tahor bird that killed a person - is not subject to Shilu'ach ha'Kein either (since it is has to be put to death).

(c) The problem with Ravina's case is - that seeing as such a bird is put to death by Beis-Din, how can it be in a tree with its young.

(d) So we establish it - where it just killed someone, and has not yet been taken 'into custody', though it is a Mitzvah for anyone who can, to do so, in order to enable the Mitzvah of "u'Bi'arta ha'Ra mi'Kirbecha" to be put into practice.

Next daf


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