THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
1) EATING "MATNOS KEHUNAH" ON EREV YOM KIPUR
QUESTION: The Gemara quotes a Beraisa that says that the modest Kohanim
would not take a portion of the Lechem ha'Panim. Abaye conducted himself
like this Beraisa, except on Erev Yom Kipur, when he would take a portion
of the Matnos Kehunah in order to confirm his status as a Kohen. What was
special about Erev Yom Kipur?
2) WHY ABAYE DID NOT PERFORM "NESI'AS KAPAYIM"
ANSWER: TOSFOS (DH l'Bar) explains that since Erev Yom Kipur is considered
a festive day (83a) on which many Matanos were brought to the Beis
ha'Mikdash, large numbers of Kohanim would gather around to receive the
Matanos. Therefore, if a Kohen did not partake of the Matanos on that day,
his status as a Kohen would be questioned.
OPINIONS: The Gemara asks why Abaye needed to eat Matnos Kehunah on Erev
Yom Kipur in order to confirm his status as a Kohen. Why did he not simply
perform Birkas Kohanim throughout the year, which would confirm his status
as a Kohen? The Gemara answers that he was "prevented" from performing
Birkas Kohanim. In what way was he prevented?
3) "MAKIREI KEHUNAH"
(a) RASHI (DH Ansei) explains that Abaye's obligation to his students kept
him occupied at the time that Birkas Kohanim was recited. (See MAGEN
AVRAHAM OC 128:16, who points out that there is no obligation for a single
Kohen to recite Birkas Kohanim, although he certainly may do so.
Accordingly, perhaps Abaye was the only Kohen there, and thus he was not
obligated to take time from his students to perform Birkas Kohanim.)
(b) The RIF explains that he was prevented from performing Birkas Kohanim
because he had chronic stomach problems.
QUESTION: Rav Yosef says that Kohanim who are "Makirei Kehunah" (the
Kohanim who have friends and relatives who usually give them their Matnos
Kehunah; see Background to the Daf) may help poor Talmidei Chachamim by
granting to the Talmidei Chachamim a share of the Matnos Kehunah that they
receive, even before they receive them.
Why are Makirei Kehunah able to transfer ownership of the Matanos to
Talmidei Chachamim even before they even acquire ownership themselves?
(a) RASHI (Gitin 30a, DH b'Makirei) explains that since a Yisrael always
gives his Matnos Kehunah to one particular Kohen, all other Kohanim
despair of receiving those Matanos, and thus the Matanos become the
property of the Kohen who usually receives them. The Acharonim explain
that Rashi means that Matnos Kehunah are the common property of all
Kohanim; when all of the Kohanim except for the Makirei Kehunah relinquish
their claim of ownership to the Matanos, the Matanos remain in the hands
of the Makirei Kehunah (see REBBI AKIVA EIGER to Bava Metzia 21b).
(b) TOSFOS (Bava Basra 123b, DH Hacha) explains that when a Yisrael
usually gives his Matnos Kehunah to one particular Kohen, it is viewed as
though the Yisrael has promised to give all of the Matanos to that
particular Kohen. Although promises are normally not binding in monetary
law when not accompanied by a formal act of acquisition, the Gemara in
Bava Metzia (49a) teaches that when one promises to give his friend a
"Matanah Mu'etes" (a small gift), he is expected to keep his word and may
not retract from the agreement. Even if the Matnos Kehunah amount to a
large amount of produce, they are not worth more than "a slight amount" to
the Yisrael who has separated them, since he still must give them to a
Kohen and may not keep them.
4) MARKING MEAT OWNED IN PART BY A KOHEN
OPINIONS: The Mishnah (132a) states that when a Yisrael is a partner with
a Kohen or a Nochri in the ownership of an animal, he is not required to
separate Matnos Kehunah from the animal, but he must make a sign on the
animal to show that it is partially owned by a Kohen or Nochri (so that
people will know why he is not separating Matnos Kehunah). The Gemara (end
of 133a) asks that a Beraisa states that one must make a special sign only
when one's partner is a Kohen, but not when one's partner is a Nochri.
5) HIDES OF "KODSHIM"
The Gemara first suggests that the Beraisa is discussing a case in which
the Kohen or Nochri are sitting in the place where the Jew is selling the
meat. The Gemara rejects that answer, because in such a case there should
be no difference between a Kohen and a Nochri; in both cases, it should
not be necessary to mark the meat. The Gemara concludes that the Beraisa
is discussing a case in which the Kohen and Nochri are sitting on the
cashbox. People do not realize that the Kohen is a partner in the
ownership of the animal; they think he is there to guard the money.
Therefore, one must make a sign on the meat. In contrast, when one's
Nochri partner is sitting on the cashbox, people realize that he must be a
partner in the meat, because a Jew would not otherwise trust a Nochri to
guard his money. Alternatively, the Gemara answers that a Nochri tells
people about the partnership, and therefore word gets around, even without
a sign, that the meat is owned in part by a Nochri.
What is the Halachah with regard to marking meat that is partially owned
by a Kohen or by a Nochri?
(a) RASHI (DH Iy Ba'is Eima) explains that when the Gemara says that a
Nochri spreads the word that he owns part of the animal, it is referring
to a case in which the Nochri is sitting in the store when the meat is
being sold. Acting as the proprietor's "helper," the Nochri loudly
suggests changes in the price of the meat. The Kohen, in contrast, in the
same position acts much more modestly and does not appear to be an owner
of the store or of the meat, and thus it is not known that he owns the
meat and a sign is necessary.
This also seems to be the opinion of the RASHBA, RAN, and others. The
SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 61:25) writes that while the meat of a Kohen partner
always needs a sign, that of a Nochri partner who sits in the store does
not need a sign.
(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Bikurim 9:10) argues that when a Kohen is in the
store helping the proprietor run the business, no sign is required on the
meat. One never needs a sign with a Nochri partner, since he talks a lot
about his business and word gets out that he is a partner with the Jew.
We can understand the Rambam's statement about the Nochri, since this is
the straightforward way to read the Gemara. However, the Rambam's
statement about a Kohen is difficult to understand, because the Gemara
never says that the partner of a Kohen does not have to make a sign. What
is the Rambam's source for this statement?
1. The KESEF MISHNEH answers that the Rambam understands that, according
to the Gemara's second answer, the Beraisa is discussing a Kohen or Nochri
partner who was never in the store. Since the Kohen was never in the
store, it is necessary to put a sign on the meat. In contrast, a Nochri
always talks and gets the word out that he is a partner, even when he is
never in the store.
Why, then, does our Mishnah say that meat partially owned by a Nochri
requires a sign? The Kesef Mishneh answers that the Rambam maintains that
when the Mishnah says, "... and those who are partners with them need a
sign," it is referring only to Kohanim, not to Nochrim. The Mishnah is
discussing a case in which the Kohen is not in the store. When he is in
the store and sitting on the cashbox, the Mishnah agrees that his Yisrael
partner does not need to make a sign on the meat.
2. The PRI CHADASH (YD 61:25) writes that the Rambam understands that the
Mishnah holds that a Nochri partner, like a Kohen, does not exempt a Jew
from making a sign on the meat when the Nochri is never in the store. When
a Nochri partner comes in and out of the store, or he helps deal with the
customers, no sign is needed in accordance with the second answer of the
Gemara, because the Nochri will always tell people about the partnership
when he is involved in some way with the store. According to the second
explanation, a Kohen only exempts his partner from a sign when he sits
near or on the cashbox. (See the Pri Chadash there who explains how this
Gemara is to be reconciled with the Gemara earlier (132b) that says that
an animal owned partially by a Kohen is *not* exempt at all from Matnos
Kehunah.) (Y. Montrose)
QUESTION: The Beraisa lists all of the different types of Matnos Kehunah,
dividing them into three groups: ten that are given to the Kohanim to be
eaten in the Mikdash (the Azarah), four that are distributed to the
Kohanim to be used in Yerushalayim, and ten that are given to Kohanim in
all other places. The Beraisa mentions the hides of Kodshim as one of the
Matnos Kehunah distributed in Yerushalayim.
The hides of Kodshim are removed from the animals in the Azarah. Why,
then, are they not included in the list of Matnos Kehunah that are
distributed in the Mikdash? (TOSFOS DH v'Oros)
(a) RASHI in Bava Kama (110b, DH v'Oros) explains that the Beraisa
includes in the category of Matnos Kehunah that were distributed in the
Mikdash only those Matanos that would become Pasul if removed from the
Mikdash. Hides do not become Pasul when removed from the Mikdash.
(b) The TOSFOS HA'ROSH answers that even though the hides were skinned in
the Mikdash, the hides normally were distributed in Yerushalayim.