ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 133
(a) Rebbi Aba Amar Rav Huna Amar Rav ruled that the sinews in the cheek-bon
are forbidden (seeing as they are full of blood), and that a Kohen who does
not know how to remove them may not receive Matanos.
(b) We object to his second statement however, on the grounds that there
will be no problem if the Kohen wants to eat it ...
1. ... roasted - since the fire will draw out the blood
(c) Rav Yosef asked Rava (or Rabah [in order to test him]) about a Kohen who
grabs Matanos - whether this falls under the category of Chibuv Mitzvah or
2. ... cooked - since cutting and salting them will remove the blood, too.
(d) Based on the Pasuk "Ve'nasan", Rava replied - that the Yisrael is
obligated to give the Matanos, and not the Kohen to take them.
(a) Abaye, who was a Kohen, initially used to grab the Matanos, until he
heard Rava's D'rashah - upon which he switched to asking for them.
(b) He stopped doing that too however, when he learned Rebbi Meir's
interpretation of the Pasuk "Va'yatu Acharei ha'Batza", which he explained
to mean - that the sons of Shmuel used to ask for the Matnos Kehunah.
(c) So he began to merely accept the Matanos that he was offered.
(a) Abaye desisted from even accepting the Matanos, once he learned the
Beraisa - with reference to the Lechem ha'Panim 'ha'Tzenu'im Moshchin es
Yedeihem, ve'ha'Gargeranim Cholkim'.
(b) He broke with that custom every Erev Yom Kipur however - so that it
should be publicly known that he was a Kohen.
(c) He did not rely on Duchening every day, because, due to his Shi'urim
with his Talmidim, he did not manage to Duchen (see Mesores ha'Shas).
(a) Rav Yosef suggests that, in the Kohen's vicinity, there lives a
Talmid-Chacham who is struggling for Parnasah - he should grant him the
right to take the Matanos instead of him ...
(b) ... even before he has acquired them, provided it is a case of 'Makirei
Kehunah' (where the Kohen in question is popular, and most locals
automatically give him their Matanos).
(c) Rava asked the Sha'mes of Mar Yuchna b'rei de'Rav Chana bar Ada (or
Bizna), who happened to be a Kohen - to grant him the right to take the
Matanos instead of him.
(d) This was necessary, in spite of the fact that they were anyway preparing
him and Rav Safra a 'third calf' - because he fancied a tongue (which would
otherwise go to the Kohen together with the cheeks) in mustard.
(a) The significance of the Pasuk in Iyov that Rav Safra dreamt the
following night was that teaching someone who does not properly grasp what
he says, is compared to - wearing a frayed garment on a cold day?
(b) Rav Safra (who, like Rava, was a Talmid of Rav Yosef) thought that the
Pasuk was referring to him - because, despite Rav Yosef's previous ruling
(the source of Rava's actions) he had refused to partake of the tongue when
it was served.
(c) Rav Yosef pointed out to him however, that his ruling did not apply here
for two reasons. Firstly, because the Sha'mes (in that capacity) was bound
to accede to the request of Rava (who was a great man [or he was referring
to giving the Matanos to a Yisrael even before having acquired them]).
Secondly - because his ruling was confined to a person who had Parnasah
problems, which Rava did not.
(d) Even though Rav Safra's dream pertained to Rava, it was Rav Safra who
dreamt it, and not Rava - because Rava was in Cherem, either on account of
this episode, or because of the episode cited in Ta'anis (where he 'forced'
Hashem (Kevayachol) to send rain in its wrong time.
(a) Based on the Pasuk there " ... Tochlehu Eish Lo Nupach, Yeira Sarid
(Talmid-Chacham) be'Ohalo", Rav Dimi explained to Abaye that basically, the
Pasuk in Iyov refers to someone who teaches a Talmid who is not worthy. Rav
Yehudah Amar Rav says that someone who does - will fall into Gehinom.
(b) Based on the Pasuk "ki'Tzeror Even be'Margeimah, Kein Nosen li'Kesil
Kavod", Rebbi Zeira Amar Rav says that someone who teaches a Talmid who is
not worthy - is as if he has thrown a stone at Markulis (which is at best, a
well-meaning gesture which is pure Avodah-Zarah).
(a) Our Mishnah 'ha'Mishtatef *Imahen* Tzarich Lirshom', implies both with a
Kohen and with a Nochri. We query this however, from a Beraisa, which rules,
that someone who enters into a partnership with a Nochri and someone who
sells Pesulei ha'Mukdashin that he redeemed - do not require marking.
(b) The problem with ...
1. ... the suggestion that the Beraisa is speaking when the Nochri is
actually a salesman in the butchery, in which case everybody already knows
that he is a partner is - that in that case, the same ought to apply to a
case when the Kohen is a partner, yet the Tana specifically requires
marking, in a case where the Kohen is a partner (like our Mishnah).
(c) We resolve ...
2. ... the answer to this refutation, that some people will nevertheless
think that the Kohen is buying meat is - that the same ought then to apply
to a case where the Nochri is a partner, so why does the Tana differentiate
3. ... the following suggestion that the Nochri is the cashier - by
countering that in that case, why will the same not apply if the Kohen is
1. ... the current Kashya - by pointing out that a Yisrael would safely
employ a Kohen to handle the money, but not a Nochri (in which case
everybody will know that he must be a partner).
2. ... the problem with the initial suggestion, that the Nochri is a
salesman in the butchery (as an alternative answer), by differentiating
between a Nochri - who is generally noisy and shouts a lot (so everyone will
know that he is a partner) and the Kohen (who tends to be less assertive),
allowing people to believe that he is merely purchasing meat, as we
(a) Pesulei ha'Mukdashin are not subject to Matanos anyway, as we learned in
our Mishnah, and the reason that the Beraisa needs to say that they don't
need marking - is because of the intrinsic obligation to differentiate
between them and Chulin, on account of Zilzul Kodshim (the degradation of
(b) And the reason that they do not require marking is - because they are
already marked by the reservations pertaining to the sale.
(c) Rav Ada bar Ahavah reconciles the Beraisa with the Mishnah in Bechoros,
which permits Shechting and selling Pesulei ha'Mukdashin in a butchery, and
weighing them in the conventional manner, by establishing the Beraisa -
exclusively by Bechor and Ma'aser, which are sold from the house and not
weighed (as we will see in Bechoros).
(a) According to Rav Huna, someone who is a partner with a Nochri or with a
Kohen in only the head of an animal, is Patur from Lechayayim; in only the
leg, is Patur from the Zero'a; in only the innards, is Patur from the
Keivah. Chiya bar Rav maintains - that whoever is Patur from one, is Patur
from all three.
(b) The Beraisa rules that a Nochri or a Kohen who purchases one hundredth
of the head, the leg or the innards - exempts the owner from having to give
the Lechayayim, the Zero'a or the Keivah (respectively) to a Kohen.
(c) Besides another Beraisa, which specifically states that in such a case,
he is Chayav to give Matanos from whichever ones the Nochri or the Kohen did
not specify, we also object to the suggestion that when the Tana says 'Patur
min ha'Lechi ... ', he means Patur from all of them - on the grounds that he
should then have said so.
(d) Consequently - we remain with a Kashya on Chiya bar Rav.
(a) Chiya bar Rav's error was the result of a misunderstanding regarding a
third Beraisa, which discusses the twenty-four Matnos Kehunah. Besides a
'K'lal u'P'rat', says the Tana - the Matnos Kehunah were also given with a
(b) Consequently, he says, someone who observes the Matnos Kehunah - it is
as if he upheld the 'K'lal u'P'rat' and the B'ris Melach, whereas someone
who contravenes them - it is as if he contravened the 'K'lal u'P'rat' and
the B'ris Melach.
(c) Bechor, Bikurim, Moram min ha'Todah u'me'Eil and Oros Kodshim are
confined to Yerushalayim. Of the remaining twenty Matnos Kehunah ...
1. ... ten apply only in the Beis-Hamikdash and ...
(d) The Moram min ha'Todah comprises the Chazeh ve'Shok and one of each of
the four kinds of loaves that accompanies the Korban. By ...
2. ... ten anywhere in Eretz Yisrael.
1. ... 'Moram me'Eil Nazir', the Tana means - the cooked Zero'a, one Chalah
and one wafer of the two kinds of loaves that accompany his Korban.
2. ... 'Oros Kodshim', the Tana means the skin of an Olah, a Chatas and an
Asham, which are distributed to the Kohanim in anywhere in Yerushalayim.
(a) After the Chatas Beheimah ve'Of, Asham Vaday ve'Taluy and the Log of oil
of a Metzora, the remaining Kodshei Mikdash comprised one Shelamim and four
kinds of Minchah. The ...
1. ... Shelamim - in question is the Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur (brought on
Shavu'os, and which is Kodshei Kodshim).
(b) Besides Terumah, Terumas Ma'aser and Chalah, the two Matnos Kehunah
she'bi'Gevulin which the Kohen receives ...
2. ... two Menachos, after the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and the Lechem ha'Panim -
are the Sheyarei Menachos and the Minchas ha'Omer.
1. ... from Chulin animals are - Matanos and Reishis ha'Gez.
(c) He also receives - Sadeh Achuzah (which the owner was Makdish and, when
the owner failed to redeem it, the Gizbar sold it to someone else until the
Yovel, when it goes to the Kohanim of that Mishmar; and Sadeh Charamim,
which the owner declared Cherem, and which goes to the Kohanim immediately.
2. ... connected with the Bechorah - are Bechor Adam and the lamb of Pidyon
(d) The tenth and final Matanah of the Matnos Kehunah she'bi'Gevulim is
Gezel ha'Ger - which goes to the Kohanim of that Mishmar, in the event that
the Ganav swears that he is innocent, and admits after the Ger's death that
he swore falsely.
(a) We now explain Chiya bar Rav's mistake, based on the fact that the
Beraisa lists Matnos Kehunah as one - on account of which he thought that
they are considered one, and whoever is Patur from one is Patur from the
(b) We prove however, that this is a fallacy - from Moram mi'Todah ve'Eil
Nazir, which the Tana lists as one, even though it is obvious that they are
two independent cases.
(c) And the Tana list each of the two sets as one - only because of the
similarity between Moram mi'Todah and Eil Nazir on the one hand, and the
three Matanos on the other.
(a) We ask what the Din will be if a Kohen says to a Yisrael 'ha'Rosh
she'Lecha, ve'Kulah she'Li' - whether we go after the direct source of the
Chiyuv (i.e. the head), which is in the hand of a Yisrael, making him
Chayav, or after the animal, which is in the hands of the Kohen, making him
(b) And we resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa, where the Tana says in a
case where a Nochri ...
1. ... or a Kohen hands his sheep to a Yisrael to shear off the wool - the
Yisrael is Patur from Reishis ha'Gez (just like he would be Patur from
Matanos in such a case).
(c) The Tana adds that if on the other hand, someone were to purchase
Matanos from the Kohen whilst the animal is still alive - he would be Chayav
2. ... sells the wool of his sheep (even before it has been shorn) - the
purchaser is Patur from Reishis ha'Gez.
(d) ... from which we see, that one Chayav Matanos, even though the animal
belongs to a Nochri or a Kohen (resolving our She'eilah, in that we go after
the direct source of the Chiyuv).