(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 P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

Chulin 130

CHULIN 128-130 - dedicated by Mrs. Rita Grunberger of Queens, N.Y., in loving memory of her husband, Reb Yitzchok Yakov ben Eliyahu Grunberger. Irving Grunberger helped many people quietly in an unassuming manner and is dearly missed by all who knew him. His Yahrzeit is 10 Sivan (which coincides with the study of Chulin 128 this year).

***** PEREK HA'ZERO'A *****


(a) (Unspecified 'Matanos' refers to the Zero'a, Lechayim and Kevah (upper two bones of the foreleg, the jaw and stomach; one who slaughters a Chulin Behemah gives them to a Kohen).
(b) (Mishnah): Zero'a, Lechayim and Kevah apply in Eretz Yisrael and Chutz la'Aretz, whether or not the Mikdash stands, to Chulin but not to Kodshim.
(c) Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer should obligate Matanos from Kodshim!
1. Chazeh v'Shok (chest and thigh) of Chulin are not given to Kohanim, but Matanos are - Chazeh v'Shok of Kodshim are given to Kohanim, all the more so Matanos should be given!
(d) Rejection: "Va'Eten Osam" - [from Shelamim,] Kohanim receive only Chazeh v'Shok.
(e) If an animal with a permanent blemish was made Hekdesh, after it is redeemed the following apply:
1. Kedushas Bechor (if it bears a firstborn male); Matanos; one may shear it and work with it; its offspring and milk are permitted;
2. Before redemption, one who slaughters it outside (of the Mikdash) is exempt; its Temurah is not Kodesh; if it dies, we redeem it.
3. These apply to all Korbanos except for Bechor and Ma'aser.
(f) If an animal got a permanent blemish only *after* it was Hukdash (even if it had a temporary blemish beforehand), after it is redeemed:
1. Kedushas Bechor does not apply; it is exempt from Matanos; one may not shear it nor work with it; its offspring and milk are forbidden;
2. Before redemption, one who slaughters it outside is liable; its Temurah is Kodesh; if it dies, we bury it (it may not be redeemed).
(g) (Gemara) Inference: The Torah had to write "Osam", otherwise, Matanos would apply to Kodshim.
(h) Question: We cannot learn from Chulin, for Kedushas Bechor applies to Chulin!
(i) Answer: We learn from Chulin males (there is no Kedushah to the firstborn of a male animal).
(j) Question: We cannot learn from Chulin males, for Reishis ha'Gez applies to them!
(k) Answer: We learn from male goats, Reishis ha'Gez does not apply to them.
(l) Question: We cannot learn from male goats, for Ma'aser applies to them!
(m) Answer: We learn from old (male goats - Ma'aser only applies to first year animals).
(n) Question: We cannot learn from old animals, for Ma'aser once applied to them!
(o) Answer: We learn from a bought animal or an animal whose mother died at birth (Ma'aser does not apply to them).
(p) Question: We cannot learn from them, for Ma'aser applies to their species!
(q) Answer: Ma'aser also applies to the same species as Kodshim!
(r) Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer should teach that Chazeh v'Shok of Chulin are given to Kohanim:
1. Matanos do not apply to Kodshim, but Chazeh v'Shok do - Matanos apply to Chulin, all the more so Chazeh v'Shok apply!
(s) Rejection: "v'Zeh Yiheyeh Mishpat ha'Kohanim" - only Matanos apply to Chulin, not Chazeh v'Shok.
(t) Objection: Why is a verse needed? Chazeh v'Shok could not apply to Chulin, for Tenufah (waving) is required;
1. Tenufah cannot be done outside the Mikdash - it must be "Lifnei Hash-m"!

2. Tenufah cannot be done in the Mikdash - it is forbidden to bring Chulin into the Mikdash (Rashi - unless needed for the Avodah; Tosfos - in a way similar to Avodah).
(u) Answer: Rather, the verse teaches Rav Chisda's law.
1. (Rav Chisda): If one damages or eats Matanos Kehunah (things that must be given to Kohanim), he is exempt.
(a) Question: What is Rav Chisda's reason?
(b) Answer #1: He learns from "V'Zeh Yihyeh Mishpat ha'Kohanim" (intact Matanos Kehunah are given, not compensation for damaging them).
(c) Answer #2: No one can claim compensation (the damager can say, I will pay a different Kohen).
(d) Question (Beraisa): "v'Zeh Yiheyeh Mishpat ha'Kohanim" - this teaches that Beis Din enforces the Matanos.
1. Suggestion: This means that Beis Din makes a damager pay (to the first Kohen who claims from him)!
(e) Answer: No, it means that Beis Din forces a Yisrael to give the Matanos to a learned Kohen.
1. (Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani): We do not give Matanos to an ignoramus Kohen - "Lema'an Yechezku b'Soras Hash-m".
(f) Question (Beraisa - R. Yehudah ben Beseira): "Mishpat" - this teaches that Beis Din enforces the Matanos.
1. Suggestion: Perhaps Beis Din enforces even Chazeh v'Shok!
2. Rejection: "v'Zeh" (only the Matanos).
3. Question: Regarding what does Beis Din enforce the Matanos?
i. Suggestion: They make a Yisrael give to a learned Kohen.
ii. Rejection: That also applies to Chazeh v'Shok!
4. Answer: Rather, Beis Din makes a damager pay.
(g) Answer: The case is, the Kohen received them (and then a Yisrael damaged them).
(h) Question: If he already received them, obviously one who damages them is liable!
(i) Answer: The case is, he received the animal before the Matanos were separated - the Tana teaches that Matanos are considered separated even before they are separated.
(j) Question (Mishnah - R. Eliezer): If a rich person away from home has no money, he may take Matanos Aniyim (Leket, Shichchah and Pei'ah, which are left for the poor); when he gets home, he must pay.
(k) Answer (Rav Chisda): This is Midas Chasidus (it is beyond the letter of the law).
(l) Objection #1 (Rava): "He must pay" connotes letter of the law, not Midas Chasidus!
(m) Objection #2 (Rava): Rav Chisda would not need to answer for R. Eliezer, the Halachah follows Chachamim!
(n) (Rava): Rather, the question was from Chachamim (in that Mishnah).
(o) Question (Mishnah - Chachamim): When he gets home he is exempt, for he was poor at the time.
1. Inference: Had he been rich at the time, he would be liable!
(p) Answer (Rav Chisda): This is Midas Chasidus.
(a) Question (Beriasa): If a Yisrael ate Tevel, or a Levi ate Ma'aser that is Tevel to Terumas Ma'aser (Terumas Ma'aser was not separated from it), he is exempt;
1. "Asher Yarimu" - Terumah belongs to the Kohen only after it is separated.
2. Inference: Had he eaten it after it was separated, he would be liable!
3. According to Rav Chisda, he should be exempt!
(b) Answer: Here also, the Kohen received the Tevel before the Yisrael or Levi ate it.
1. The Tana holds that Terumah is considered separated even before it is separated.
Next daf


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