ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
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 veha'Lechayayim ***
(a) Our Mishnah obligates the Mitzvah of Matanos (Zero'a, Lechayayim
ve'Keivah) under most circumstances, ba'Aretz u've'Chutz la'Aretz, bi'Fenei
ha'Bayis ve'she'Lo bi'Fenei ha'Bayis. The one exception is - Kodshim.
(b) The Tana finds it necessary to mention 'ba'Aretz u've'Chutz la'Aretz' -
because it is going to say 'be'Chulin Aval Lo be'Kodshim' (see Maharsha).
(c) 'she'Lo bi'Fenei ha'Bayis' means - when the Beis-Hamikdash is not
(a) The Tana learns from the Pasuk "va'Etein *Osam* le'Aharon ha'Kohen ...
" - that the Chazeh ve'Shok of Kodshim (Kalim) are given to the Kohanim, but
not other things (such as the Matanos).
(b) Otherwise, we would have learned that Kodshim (which are Chayav Chazeh
ve'Shok) are Chayav Matanos too 'Kal-va'Chomer' from Chulin (which are not
Chayav Chazeh ve'Shok).
(c) A Kodshim animal which is a Ba'al-Mum is Chayav Bechorah (if it gives
birth to a firstborn baby) and Matanos, and once redeemed, it goes out to
Chulin to be shorn and worked with, and its babies and milk are permitted -
provided the blemish preceded the Hekdesh.
(d) The Tana rules regarding the above animal that ...
1. ... if someone Shechts it ba'Chutz - he is Patur.
2. ... it is not subject to Temurah.
3. ... if it dies - it may be redeemed.
(a) The reason that is common to all these rulings is - that the animal is
not really Hekdesh (in fact, it is like declaring wood and stones Hekdesh).
(b) The two exceptions to the rule are - Bechor and Ma'aser, the two
categories of Kodshim which take effect even on a Ba'al-Mum.
(c) The Hekdesh takes effect on an animal with a blemish, even with regard
to other types of Hekdesh - if the blemish is a temporary one.
(a) The Seifa of the Mishnah teaches us that where the Hekdesh precedes the
blemish, all the above rulings are reversed.
The problem in the Seifa,
with the ruling 've'ha'Shochtan ba'Chutz Patur' is - that it clashes with
the principle that whatever is not fit be brought to the entrance of the
Ohel Mo'ed, is not subject to Shechutei Chutz.
(b) We therefore establish this ruling specifically by the blemish of 'Dukin
she'be'Ayin' (eyes-webb) - according to Rebbi Akiva, who holds that
Bedi'eved, if it is brought on the Mizbe'ach, it remains three.
(c) The reason for the ruling in the Seifa 'P'turin mi'Bechorah
u'mi'Matanos' is - because the Torah compares P'sulei ha'Mukdashin to a
deer and a gazelle, which is Patur from both.
(d) With regard to P'sulei ha'Mukdashin, we learn from the "Rak be'Chol Avas
1. ... Tizbach" - that their wool is forbidden, and that one may not work
2. ... v'Achalta" - that one may not feed them to the dogs.
3. ... Basar" - that the babies (with which they were pregnant before they
were redeemed) and their milk are forbidden.
(a) And we learn from the Pasuk "Tov be'Ra *O Ra be'Tov*" - that they are
subject to Temurah.
(b) The two reasons that govern the final Halachah that the animals in the
Seifa must be buried should they die - are 1. that Kodshim require
'Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah' (standing and being assessed before being
redeemed), and 2. because, as we already explained, P'sulei Hamukdashin may
not be fed to the dogs.
(c) We learned in the Mishnah that, if not for "Osam", we would learn
Matanos by Kodshim from Chulin. We refute the Pircha that Chulin are
different, since they are subject to the Mitzvah of ...
1. ... Bechor - by establishing the Limud by male Kodshim (which are not).
(d) And we refute the Pircha that even old Chulin goats ...
2. ... Reishis ha'Gez (even the males) - by adding that it is also a goat
(which does not produce wool).
3. ... Ma'aser Beheimah (even the goats) - by adding 'old', meaning that
they have already been Ma'asered.
1. ... once entered the pen to be Ma'asered - by switching the last answer
either to goats that were purchased or goats that are Yesomim (whose mothers
died as they were born, both of which are not subject to Ma'aser.
2. ... that were purchased or that were born Yesomim are of the species that
are subject to Ma'aser - by countering that in that case, so are Kodshim of
the species that that are subject to Ma'aser (Chulin).
(a) We then ask why Chulin (which are Chayav Matanos), are not subject to
the Mitzvah of Chazeh ve'Shok from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' - from Kodshim (which
(b) We learn from the Pasuk (in connection with the Matanos) "*ve'Zeh*
Yih'yeh Mishpat ha'Kohanim me'es ha'Am" - that they are only Chayav Matanos,
but not Chazeh ve'Shok.
(c) The problem with the suggestion that Chulin should be Chayav Chazeh
ve'Shok is - where they would then perform the prescribed Mitzvah of
Tenufah; they cannot perform it outside the Azarah, since the Torah requires
"Lifnei Hashem", whereas they cannot perform it inside, because they will
then be guilty of bringing Chulin inside the Azarah ...
(d) ... since this is not part of the Avodas ha'Korban (for Hashem), but for
the benefit of the Kohanim (since it permits them to eat the Chazeh
(a) We therefore conclude that "Zeh" is needed to teach us Rav Chisda's
Din - that someone who damages or eats Matnos Kehunah before having given
them to the Kohen, is Patur from paying.
(b) We learn this from "Zeh" - which implies that one is only obligated to
give the Matnos Kehunah to the Kohen as long as they are there (and he can
point at them, as we commonly Darshen from the word "Zeh").
(c) He might also be Patur from paying, because it is money which has no
claimants (since if any Kohen claims the money from him, he can always say
that he will give it to somebody else).
(a) The Beraisa describes the Matanos as 'Din'. If we interpreted this
literally (a Kashya on Rav Chisda), it would mean - that he must pay the
first Kohen who claims damages from him.
(b) We conclude however, that this is not the case. What he does mean is -
that the Beis-Din will instruct the people to give their Matanos to a Kohen
Chaver and not to a Kohen Am ha'Aretz.
(c) This is based on a statement of Rav Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi
Yonasan who said, based on the Pasuk (in connection with Matnos Kehunah and
Levi'ah) "Lema'an Yechezku be'Toras Hashem" - that only Kohanim and Levi'im
who strengthen the Torah of Hashem deserve to receive a portion, and not
(a) In another Beraisa, Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira reiterates that Matanos
are Din, and the word "Zeh" comes to preclude - Chazeh va'Shok.
(b) We cannot now interpret Din to mean 'Lecholko be'Dayanim' - because then
the Torah would not preclude Chazeh ve'Shok (which are also Matnos Kehunah).
(c) It must therefore means that he has to pay damages, and, to reconcile
this with Rav Chisda, we establish it - by where the Yisrael damaged the
Matanos after he had already given them to the Kohen.
(d) The problem with learning the Beraisa like this is - that it does then
contain anything new.
(a) So we establish the Beraisa - where he gave to the Kohen the entire
animal with the Matanos still inside.
(b) And the Chidush is - that we consider the Matanos as if they had been
separated, and the Kohen acquires them from Hefker.
(c) Nevertheless, he will not be Chayav for destroying the Chazeh ve'Shok -
because the Chazeh ve'Shok belong to the Beis Av that serves on that day,
and no other Kohen has a right to take them.
(a) Rebbi Eliezer in the Mishnah in Pe'ah - permits a wealthy man to take
Matnos Aniyim whilst he is traveling, though he is obligated to repay the
Aniyim upon his return.
(b) Bearing in mind that there are no claimants, Rav Chisda explains - that
this is Midas Chasidus (but not an obligation).
(c) We ask on this two Kashyos. One, how can Rav Chisda interpret 'Yeshalem'
as 'Midas Chasidus'. The other - how can we ask on Rav Chisda from Rebbi
Eliezer, when the Chachamim in the Seifa disagree with him.
(a) So we query Rav Chisda from the Rabbanan, who rule in the Seifa - that
he is Patur from paying the Aniyim upon his return, because he was
considered a poor man at the time.
(b) We now infer from their words - that if not for the fact that he was
considered a poor man at the time he would be Chayav, (despite the fact that
there are no claimants), a Kashya on Rav Chisda ...
(c) ... who answers - that this Beraisa too, is speaking when the Yisrael
and the Levi gave the Tevel to the Kohen, to teach us the principle 'Matanos
she'Lo Hurmu k'Mi she'Hurmu Damyan', as we explained earlier.
(a) The Beraisa exempts a Yisrael who ate his fruit, or a Levi his Ma'aser,
whilst it was still in a state of Tevel, from the Pasuk "ve'Lo Yechalelu es
Kodshei B'nei Yisrael Asher *Yarimu*", implying that the Kohen only acquires
Terumah from the time that it is separated, but not before.
(b) By 'Ma'aser that is in a state of Tevel, the Tana is referring to the
Terumas Ma'aser that the Levi is obligated to take from the Ma'aser that he
(c) We can infer from the Beraisa - once the Terumah has been separated, it
does belong to the Kohen, again a Kashya on Rav Chisda.
(d) Once again, we answer - by establishing the Beraisa when the Kohen
received the Terumah whilst it was still Tevel, as we already explained,
whereas the Pasuk is speaking about Tevel that is still in the possession of