ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 136
CHULIN 136 - A Daf has been dedicated by Rabbi and Mrs. Yacov Lipschutz
and family of Monsey NY in memory of Rabbi Lipschutz's parents, Yehoshua
Heshel ben Yitzchak (Yahrzeit: 26 Iyar) and Leah bas Rivka (Yarhzeit: 29
Iyar), and towards the full recovery of Yehoshua Heshel ben Ayeleth.
(a) Still citing Rava in Rebbi Ilai, the Pasuk "Ma'asar Degancha" precludes
crops that are owned be'Shutfus Nochri from Ma'aser Sheini, and
"Ma'asroseichem" includes crops that are owned be'Shutfus Yisrael. With
regard to Matanos, we initially think that Rebbi Ilai learns "Nesinah"
"Nesinah" from Reishis ha'Gez - that Shutfus Yisrael renders the owner Patur
(b) ... in which case he would learn from "me'es Zovchei ha'Zevach" - that
he remains Chayav.
(c) We refute all that however, on the grounds that he would rather learn
the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from Terumah - that Shutfus Yisrael does not exempt
him from Matanos ...
(d) ... and from "me'es Zovchei ha'Zevach" he learns - Rava's Din ('ha'Din
(a) Seeing as the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Bikurei Kol Asher be'Artzam" comes to include land of Shutfim in the
Din of Shutfus - "Asher Tavi *me'Artz'cha*" confines Bikurim to the fruit of
Eretz Yisrael (precluding the fruit of Chutz la'Aretz).
(b) ... a. because it is public property that belongs even to people who
live overseas, and b. because it is not a residential abode.
2. ... "Al Kanfei Bigdeihem" comes to include a garment of Shutfim in the
Din of Tzitzis - Rav Yehudah learns from "Al Arba Kanfos *K'suscha*" that a
borrowed Tallis (up to thirty days) is Patur from Tzitzis.
3. ... "Ki Yipol ha'Nofel Mimenu" comes to include a roof belonging to
Shutfim in the Din of Ma'akah (building a parapet around the roof), we learn
from the Pasuk there "le'Gagecha" - that the roof of a Shul and a Beis
ha'Medrash is Patur ...
(c) Rav Bibi bar Abaye cites a Beraisa where Rebbi Ilai specifically exempts
an animal belonging to Shutfin from the Din of Bechorah (disproving Rava).
Assuming that he learns it from "Bekarcha ve'Tzoncha", he explains the Pasuk
"Bekarchem ve'Tzonchem" - to refer to refer to the whole of Yisrael (all the
(d) Rav Chanina from Sura too, proves Rava wrong from another Beraisa, where
Rebbi Ilai exempts a Beheimah of Shutfim from Matanos. Assuming that he
learns it "Nesinah" "Nesinah" from Reishis ha'Gez, the Kashya on Rava is -
that if according to Rebbi Ilai, Shutfus in a field does not exempt the
owner from Terumah, then Rebbi Ilai should rather learn the
'Gezeirah-Shavah' from Terumah le'Chumra, than from Reishis ha'Gez le'Kula
(as we have already explained).
(a) Seeing as we just concluded that Rebbi Ilai learns Matanos "Nesinah"
"Nesinah" from Terumah - Matanos also apply only in Eretz Yisrael, but not
in Chutz la'Aretz (as Rebbi Ilai specifically learns in a Beraisa) ...
(b) ... and he says the same about Reishis ha'Gez - since, as Rava explains,
he learns Reishis ha'Gez from Terumah with the same 'Gezeirah-Shavah'
(seeing as 'Nesinah' is written there too).
(c) Abaye asked Rava that, if Rebbi Ilai learns Reishis ha'Gez from Terumah
(as we just explained), then it ought to be subject to Tevel, Misah
(be'Meizid) and a Chomesh (be'Shogeg). Rava replied by citing three Pesukim.
He proved from the Pasuk...
1. ... "*ve'Reishis* Gez Tzoncha *Titen Lo*" - that it only becomes Asur
from the time that it is first shorn, and not before. Otherwise, having
written Reishis D'gancha ... ", the Torah should have continued "ve'Gez
Tzoncha" (and omitted the second Reishis).
(d) When Rava said to Abaye 'Amar K'ra "Reishis", Ein Lecha Bo Ela Reishis
Bil'vad', he was coming to answer the Kashya - that some form of Ma'aser
Rishon and Sheini would follow to Reishis ha'Gez, just like it follows
2. ... "u'Meisu Bo" - that only Terumah carries a Chiyuv Misah, but not
3. ... "Ve'yasaf Alav" - that only Terumah is subject to a Chomesh, but not
(a) We learn from the Pasuk "ha'Yotzei ha'Sadeh Shanah Shanah" - that the
crops of each year must be Ma'asered independently.
(b) We can extrapolate from the Beraisa, which rules that one cannot combine
the wool of two sheep one year and three sheep the next to render it subject
to Reishis ha'Gez - that the wool of five sheep that one sheared in
different years does.
(c) We reconcile this with another Beraisa, which does not even combine the
wool of five sheep that one sheared in different years - by establishing the
first Beraisa like the Chachamim, and the second, like Rebbi Ilai, who
learns Reishis ha'Gez from Terumah (that one cannot combine the wool that
was shorn in different years).
(a) When we say that with regard to Terumah 'Gadel be'Chiyuv, Chayav; Gadel
bi'Petur, Patur', we mean - that what grew in the Reshus of the Yisrael is
Chayav, and what grew in the Reshus of the Nochri is Patur (as we will now
(b) The source for this lies in a Beraisa. Everyone agrees that, even
though land in Syria is subject to Ma'asros, a Nochri who purchases a field
there removes the Chiyuv ('Yesh Kinyan le'Nochri ... ') - because Syria does
not have the Kedushah of Eretz Yisrael, and the Chiyuv to Ma'aser its crops
is only mi'de'Rabbanan (who were more lenient regarding the Chiyuv).
(c) The Tana rules that in a case where someone purchased a field in Syria
from a Nochri before the crops had grown to one third of their full size -
he is Chayav to Ma'aser the crops once they are fully grown.
(d) If he purchased it after that, Rebbi Akiva obligates him to Ma'aser what
grows from then on. The Chachamim rule - that he is exempt.
(e) Assuming that we rule 'Ein Kinyan le'Akum be'Eretz Yisrael ... ', the
Din in the equivalent case in Eretz Yisrael will be - that the Yisrael is
always Chayav to Ma'aser all the crops.
(a) Our Mishnah exempts someone who purchases the shearings of a sheep
belonging to a Nochri (because one is only Chayav on the wool of a sheep
that belongs to a bar Chiyuva), implying that - if one were to purchase the
sheep he would be Chayav, even though the wool grew bi'Petur ...
(b) ... creating a problem - in that we just learned that according to Rebbi
Ilai, the Din of Reishis ha'Gez follows the Halachos of Terumah (and the
wool in question ought not to be subject to Reishis ha'Gez).
(c) We answer - that the author of our Mishnah is not Rebbi Ilai.
(a) The Tana Kama - forbids Ma'asering black and white figs or two different
kinds of wheat on one another.
(b) According to Rebbi Yitzchak Amar Rebbi Elazar, this is the opinion of
Beis Shamai. Beis Hillel permits it - because, in Rebbi Yitzchak's opinion,
Beis Hillel considers all kinds of figs and all kinds of wheat as one
(c) In any event, we can extrapolate from here - that one cannot Ma'aser
from one species on to another.
(d) We now ask - that according to Rebbi Ilai (who learns Reishis ha'Gez
from Terumah) the same ought to apply to Reishis ha'Gez.
(a) Initially, based on the Din of Reuven who purchased from Shimon all his
white or gray sheep, we try to prove from our Mishnah (whose author must be
Rebbi Ilai) - that Reishis ha'Gez has the same Din as Terumah, regarding
giving from one kind on to the other.
(b) We refute this proof from the Seifa however, 'Zecharim Aval Lo
Nekeivos' - where the Tana says exactly the same thing (Zeh Yiten le'Atzmo
... '), even though male and female animals cannot be considered as two
(c) So when the Tana rules 'Zeh Nosen le'Atzmo ... ' - he is merely advising
the seller (on whom the entire onus of giving Reishis ha'Gez falls) to
purchase the (inferior) gray wool or the (not so soft) wool of the males
(that he would have given as Reishis ha'Gez) from the purchaser, and give it
to the Kohen, rather than give him the better quality white wool or softer
wool of the ewes to cover his obligation.
(d) In that case, our Mishnah holds that one *is* permitted to give from one
kind of wool on another (not like Terumah) - like the Rabbanan of Rebbi Ilai
(like whom we have already established the Reisha of the Mishnah).
(a) One is permitted to give the Kohen - as much Terumah as one wishes,
provided something recognizable remains ("Reishis", 'she'Shirehah Nikarin').
(b) The Mishnah in Chalah rules that if someone declares the entire ...
1. ... barn-full of corn, Terumah, or the entire ...
(c) ... implying that if he declares all his wool Reishis ha'Gez, it is
2. ... dough, Chalah - his declaration is invalid ...
(d) A Beraisa, on the hand, rules - that it is not valid. Clearly then, the
Mishnah holds like the Rabbanan, and the Beraisa, like Rebbi Ilai.
(a) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak states that nowadays, the Minhag is like three
Zekeinim, one of them Rebbi Ilai with regard Reishis ha'Gez - who confines
the Mitzvah of Reishis ha'Gez to Eretz Yisrael ...
(b) ... and the same applies to Matanos.
(c) The second Zaken whose ruling we have adopted is Rebbi Yehudah ben
Beseira, who said 'Ein Divrei Torah Mekablin Tum'ah', by which he means -
that a Ba'al Keri (someone who had an emission), does not need to Tovel in a
Mikvah in order to learn Torah (or to Daven).
(d) And the third Zaken is Rebbi Yashiyah, who rules - that one only
transgresses the La'av of K'lai ha'Kerem if one sows wheat, barley and
grape-seeds in one throw (see Tosfos 82b DH 'La'afuki').
(a) Our Mishnah lists the Chumros of Matanos over Reishis ha'Gez. We ask why
the Tana does not also list the one Chumra of Reishis ha'Gez over Matanos -
that it applies to the wool of a Tereifah animal (whilst Matanos does not
[due to the D'rashah "Titen Lo", 've'Lo le'Kalbo') .
(b) To answer this Kashya, Ravina establishes the author of our Mishnah as
Rebbi Shimon - who exempts the wool of a Tereifah from Reishis ha'Gez as
(c) According to Ravina, Rebbi Shimon learns it "Nesinah" "Nesinah" from
Matanos. We object to that however, in that if that is the source - then we
ought to also learn "Nesinah" "Nesinah" from Terumah (though it is not clear
why we assume this), to exempt a sheep in Chutz la'Aretz from Reishis ha'Gez
(like Rebbi Ilai [yet our Mishnah does not do so]).
(d) So we establish Rebbi Shimon's source as Ma'aser Beheimah - from which
he learns the P'tur of Reishis ha'Gez by a Tereifah - with the
'Gezeirah-Shavah' of "Tzon" "Tzon".
(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Kol Asher Ya'avor Tachas ha'Shevet" - that
since there are certain Tereifos (such as where the entire leg has been
severed) which are unable to pass through the pen to be Ma'asered, all
Tereifos are Patur from Ma'aser.
(b) A Bechor Tereifah on the other hand - is Kadosh (since it is its exit
from the womb that sanctifies it, irrespective of its physical status).
(c) This poses a Kashya on the Limud "Tzon" "Tzon" from Ma'aser - since we
should rather then learn the Gezeirah-Shavah "Tzon" "Tzon" from Bechor
(le'Chumra) than from Ma'aser (le'Kula).
(a) We answer that it is more logical to learn Reishis ha'Gez from Ma'aser
because it possesses seven similarities to it: 'Zecharim, Temei'in,
bi'Merubin, me'Rechem, Adam, Pashut, Lifnei ha'Dibur'. 'Zecharim' means -
that, unlike Bechor, *they* apply to female animals as well.
(b) Reishis ha'Gez and Ma'aser apply even to Tamei animals and they require
at least five and ten animals, respectively, in order to be Chayav.
'me'Rechem' means - the obligation to give them to the Kohen begins
immediately at birth.
(c) Neither of them applies to Adam and neither of them were commanded
before Matan Torah (in all of which Bechor is different). 'Pashut' means -
that both Ma'aser and Reishis ha'Gez do not pertain to a Bechor.
(d) On the other hand, we counter, Reishis ha'Gez is similar to Bechor in
eight things: 'Yasom, she'Lakchu be'Shutfus Nasnu, bi'Fenei, Kohen,
bi'Kedushah, u'Mechirah'. Bechor, we say, like Reishis ha'Gez, applies even
to a Yasom Yasom (whose mother died as it was born). A Bechor that is a
Yasom - is sent into the meadow until obtains a blemish, when it may be
Shechted and eaten even by a Zar.
(a) Bechor and Reishis ha'Gez both apply to 'Laku'ach, be'Shutfus, Nasnu',
but not Ma'aser. These three mean - purchased, shared and received as a gift
1. ... 'bi'Fenei' means - that they apply even when the Beis-ha'Mikdash is
not standing, and ...
(c) 'bi'Kedushah' means that they do not need to be sanctified (one because
it is Chulin, the other, because it is automatically sanctified). It might
also mean - that *they* are the property of the Kohen even to be Mekadesh a
woman with them (whereas Ma'aser is not [since the Torah writes by it "Lo
Yimacher ve'Lo Yiga'el"]).
2. ... 'Kohen' - that they are both Matnos Kehunah.
(d) We reject this explanation however - on the grounds that that D'rashah
pertains exclusively to after the Shechitah, when the Korban belongs to
Hashem, but before the Shechitah, Ma'aser is the property of the owner,
even to be Mekadesh a woman (as we learned in a Mishnah in Kidushin).
(a) Finally, 'Mechirah' means - that the Kohen may sell Reishis ha'Gez and
Bechor, but the owner may not sell Ma'aser (as the Torah writes "Lo
(b) It would seem to be more logical to learn Reishis ha'Gez from Bechor
rather than from Ma'aser - since there are more similarities between them.
(c) Yet we opt to learn it from Ma'aser - because the similarity 'Pashut
mi'Pashut' overrides all the similarities that exist between Bechor and