ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
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
(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
(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
1. ... before he converted - is Patur from 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
2. ... after he converted - is Chayav Matanos.
(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
(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
(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
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
(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.
(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.
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.
(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).
(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.
2. ... the Lechi, even there where it is customary to flay the head.
(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 ...
(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah - 'Zero'a incorporates only the calf.
2. ... "Zero'a Besheilah" of Nazir and to ...
3. ... "Shok" of Shelamim.
(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.
(c) Rebbi Yehoshua (or Rebbi Yehudah) stated - that the Kohanim waived their
rights to the latter, allowing the Yisre'eilim to retain it ...
2. ... "ha'Keivah" comes to include - the Cheilev that surrounds the Keivah
and the milk that is inside the stomach of a young animal.
(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.
***** Hadran Alach 'ha'Zero'a veha'Lechayayim *****
(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.