ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 132
(a) According to Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, "Kohen" does not incorporate
Kohenes, but he learns 'Sasum min ha'Meforash' meaning - that seeing as the
Torah gives no indication by Matanos as to whether "Kohen" incorporates
Kohenes or not, we learn it from Minchah, where the Torah writes "B'nei
Aharon", to preclude B'nos Aharon.
(b) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov holds that on principle, "Kohen" precludes
Kohenes, but Matanos is different, because the Torah writes "Kohen" twice
("ve'Zeh Yih'yeh Mishpat ha'Kohanim ... " and "Ve'nasan la'Kohen") - and we
therefore apply the principle 'Ein Miy'ut Achar Miy'ut Ela Lerabos' (meaning
that one exclusion after the other comes to include).
(c) When we say that Rav Kahana (who was not a Kohen), Rav Papa and Rav Idi
bar Avin all ate Matanos because of their wives, we mean - that although
they were Yisre'eilim, they ate Zero'a, Lechayayim and Keivah of their
animals on account of their wives who were Kohanos.
(a) We already cited Mereimar, who ruled like Rav Chisda and like Rav.
According to Ravina, he also ruled like Ula - who used to give Matanos to
Kohanos, and like Rav Ada bar Ahavah.
(b) Rav Ada bar Ahavah ruled - that if a Leviyah gives birth to a Bechor, he
does not require Pidyon.
(c) This is the opinion of Mar b'rei de'Rav Yosef in Rav Ada bar Ahavah.
According to Rav Papa however, he is only Patur if his father is a Nochri,
but if he is a Yisrael, then the baby goes after his father, and he requires
(a) According to the Tana Kama in a Beraisa (which we already discussed in
'Oso ve'es B'no'), an animal that is Kil'ayim - a cross between a sheep and
a goat, or a Coy - a cross between a goat and a deer (a Beheimah and a
Chayah) is subject to Matanos.
(b) Rebbi Eliezer - agrees with regard to Kil'ayim, but not in the case of a
(c) We already established in 'Oso ve'es B'no' that Rebbi Eliezer and the
Chachamim must be arguing by a T'zvi that came on a she-goat, because in the
reverse case - one would be Patur even according to the Rabbanan (as we
(d) Both Tana'im are in doubt whether 'Chosheshin le'Zera ha'Av', and the
basis of their Machlokes is - whether we say "Seh", 'va'Afilu Miktzas Seh'
(the Rabbanan), or not (Rebbi Eliezer).
(a) The problem with the Rabbanan's ruling is - why the Coy should be
subject to full Matanos. Why can the owner not tell the Kohen that if he can
prove that we do not contend with Zera ha'Av, he will give him the Matanos.
(b) Rav Huna bar Chiya solves it - by establishing the Rabbanan's 'Chayav'
to mean half the Matanos.
(c) We query the Rabbanan further from another Beraisa, which gives a Coy
all the Chumros of both a Beheimah and a Chayah. It is like both a Beheimah
and a Chayah in that its blood and its Gid ha'Nasheh are forbidden. It is
compared to ...
1. ... a Beheimah (according to everybody) - inasmuch as its Cheilev is
(d) The Chachamim add that it is also subject to Matanos like a Beheimah.
According to Rebbi Eliezer - it is not.
2. ... a Chayah - inasmuch as its blood is Chayav Kisuy after Shechitah
(a) According to what we just learned, we ask, the Rabbanan ought to have
said 'Chayav be'Chatzi Matanos'. And we answer - that the reason that they
said S'tam 'Chayav' is because in the Reisha, by 'Chelbo' and 'Damo', they
said 'Chayav' S'tam, so they said the same in the Seifa by Matanos.
(b) They could not have said 'Chayav Chatzi ... ' with regard to Cheilev and
Dam - because it is a case Isur, and it is only in a case of Mamon that it
is possible to obligate the owner to pay half in a case of Safek.
(a) When Ravin arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he ruled in the name of Rebbi
Yochanan - that according to the Rabbanan, a Coy is subject to full Matanos.
(b) And he based this on a Beraisa, which learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Im Shor" - that a Beheimas Kil'ayim is subject to Matanos.
(c) Rebbi Eliezer learns from "Im Seh" - 'Lechalek', that one is Chayav
Matanos even for Shechting either an ox or a lamb (and that it is not
necessary to Shecht both in order to be Chayav).
2. ... "Im Seh" - that a Coy is Chayav Matanos, too.
(d) The Rabbanan learn 'Lechalek' from "me'es Zovchei ha'Zevach". Rebbi
Eliezer learns from there Rava's ruling - that 'ha'Din im ha'Tabach' (even
though he is not the owner, as we have already learned).
(a) Our Mishnah discusses a Bechor that gets mixed up among a hundred
animals. The Tana exempts them all from Matanos - provided a different
person Shechts each one, because each Shochet can then claim that the one
that he Shechted is the Bechor (and is therefore Patur from Matanos).
(b) If one person Shechts them all - then any one animal of his choice will
be Patur from Matanos.
(c) The Tana exempts someone who Shechts on behalf of a Kohen or a Nochri
from Matanos, as he does someone who is a partner with either of the two -
only in the latter case, he requires the Shochet to mark the animal in a way
that people will realize that it is not owned entirely by a Yisrael.
(d) We already discussed the difference between someone who asks to purchase
the innards of a cow containing the Matanos and someone who purchases it by
weight. In both cases, he is obligated to give the Matanos to the Kohen -
only in the latter case, he is permitted to deduct their value from the
(a) The problem with the ruling in our Mishnah exempting all the animals
from Matanos (because each one can say that his animal is the Bechor) is -
that in that case, why is he not obligated to give the Kohen either the
Matanos or the animal?
(b) Rav Oshaya therefore establishes the Mishnah in a case - where the Kohen
had already received the Bechor, and after it had become blemished, he sold
it back to the Yisrael.
(a) Our Mishnah exempts someone who Shechts on behalf of a Kohen or a Nochri
from Matanos. Rava extrapolates from the fact that the Tana does not simply
exempt a Kohen and a Nochri from Matanos - that 'ha'Din im ha'Tabach'
(meaning that the Kohen's claim is from the Shochet, though we learn at the
same time, that he is only Chayav to give the Matanos, there where the owner
is Chayav, too).
(b) Rava learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "me'es ha'Am", that the animal belonging to a Kohen is Patur from
(c) The inn-keeper of Rebbi Tivla was a Kohen who was struggling to make a
Parnasah. Rebbi advised him - to team up with a butcher who was a Yisrael,
who would be happy to enter into a partnership with him, because the fact
that he was a Kohen would exempt him from having to give Matanos.
2. ... "me'es Zovchei ha'Zevach" - that even if the Shochet is a Kohen, he
is Chayav to give Matanos (as long as he is not the owner).
(a) Rav Nachman instructed the Yisrael who subsequently entered into a
partnership with the inn-keeper - to give the Matanos.
(b) When the latter quoted Rebbi Tivla, who told that he would be Patur - he
overruled Rebbi Tivla, assuring the Shochet that he had proofs that would
negate whatever he said.
(c) And he based his ruling on a ruling of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi and the
Ziknei Darom, who rules - that a Kohen may Shecht (who has a share in the
animal due to his involvement in the Shechitah) without having to give
Matanos, for two or three weeks, but then he becomes Chayav, because by then
everyone will know that the Kohen is the Shochet, and not the real owner.
(d) And when Rebbi Tivla asked Rav Nachman why he did not even grant him the
concessions of Rebbi Acha bar Chanina (who quoted Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi) -
he replied that this case was worse, because he was Shechting in a shop, and
everyone already knew that the Kohen was the Shochet.
(a) When Rabah Rav Shilo said that the Shochtim of Hutzal had been
transgressing the Shama (Cherem) of Rav Chisda for twenty-two years, he was
referring to - a Shamta placed on a Kohen who Shechted without giving
Matanos (as we just discussed).
(b) The Beraisa rules that someone who transgresses a La'av receives
thirty-nine Malkos - whereas if he refuses to perform an Asei, Beis-Din beat
him until he relents (or dies).
(c) Consequently, by mentioning the time period, Rabah bar Shiloh could not
have meant to say that due to the fact that such a long time had elapsed
since they began to transgress, it was too late to enact the Shamta. He must
therefore have mentioned the time period - to teach us that, since they had
been transgressing for such a long period, no further warning was necessary.
(d) Rava and Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak - used to confiscate the belongings of
someone who refused to give Matanos (the one, the thigh of the animal, the
other, the Shochet's coat).
(a) According to Rav Chisda, one gives the Zero'a (the right fore-leg) to
one Kohen, the Lechayayim (the cheeks) to another and the Keivah two
(b) ... because, based on the Pasuk "ve'Nasan", one must give the Kohen a
portion that is Chashuv (which is why he did not break up the Zero'a and the
Lechayayim into to two, to give more Kohanim).
(c) We reconcile this with Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef, who came from Eretz
Yisrael and testified that he was accustomed to distributing the Matanos to
the Kohanim, bone by bone - by establishing the latter, by an ox (whereas
Rav Chisda was referring to a lamb or a goat).
(d) Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan forbids eating from an animal
before the Matanos have been separated, adding - that it is akin to eating
Tevel, only we reject that.
(a) The Pasuk in Korach (in connection with Matnos Kehunah) writes
"le'Mashchah", which means - 'li'Gedulah'.
(b) Rav Chisda learns from there - that one should eat Matnos Kehunah
roasted and with mustard.
(c) Rav Chisda also says that a Kohen who is not an expert in the
twenty-four Matnos Kehunah - does not receive the Matanos.
(d) We reject this however, in view of a statement of Rebbi Shimon in a
Beraisa, who holds that, for a Kohen to forfeit his rights to a portion of
Matnos Kehunah - he must deny that Hashem commanded the Avodah, but believes
that Moshe made it up.
(a) The Pasuk "ha'Makriv es Dam ha'Shelamim ... Lo Sih'yeh Shok ha'Yamin
le'Manah" - refers to the Avodah of Holachah.
(b) The Tana lists - another fourteen Avodos.
(c) 'Yetzikos, Belilos, Pesisos, Melichos, Tenufos and Hagashos' all
pertain - to the Korban Minchah.
(d) 'Pesisos' means - the breaking up into flour of those Menachos whose
Kemitzah was taken after they were baked (Machavas, Marcheshes and
(a) The Tana also includes 'Melikos, Kabalos and Haza'os'. 'Haza'os
includes - Zerikas ha'Dam and Haza'as ha'Dam, some of which were performed
inside the Heichal (such as on Yom Kipur), and some of them, outside.
(b) The Tana does not include Shechitah in the list - because a Zar is
eligible to perform it.
(c) After the Avodos ha'Korbanos, the Tana adds Hashka'as Sotah, Taharas
Metzora and Nesi'as Kapayim mi'bi'Fenim. The Avodos that the Tana inserts
that are not performed in the Beis-Hamikdash are - Arifas Eglah Arufah and
Nesi'as Kapayim mi'ba'Chutz.
(d) The Tana learns from "mi'B'nei Aharon" - that whoever is a ben Aharon
has a portion in the above.
(e) The Beraisa's final statement is - that any Kohen who accepts that the
above Avodos are from Hashem, is entitled to receive a portion in the
Matanos, from which we extrapolate that it is not necessary for him to be an
expert in them in order to merit a portion.