Chulin 134
Summary
- The שיעור learns מסכת חולין דף קל"ד beginning from דף קל"ג עמוד ב' and explains how wording in a sale determines whether *zeroa*, *leḥayayim*, and *keivah* remain with a כהן seller or must be given by the ישראל buyer, how invalid תנאים interact with the sale’s validity, and how competing ברייתות are reconciled by treating *al menat* either as a תנאי or as *ḥutz*. The גמרא then analyzes who the כהן can claim the מתנות from when innards are sold by weight, links that to whether מתנות כהונה are treated as “stealable,” and moves to ספק cases by a גר, contrasting ספק ממון with ספק איסור and contrasting חזקות with the principle of *safek leket leket*. The sugya extends to practical rules when no כהן or no עניים are present, and it closes by defining the anatomical boundaries of *zeroa* and *leḥayayim*, proving the *zeroa* is the right foreleg, and resolving a contradiction about whether the בית השחיטה is included in the *leḥayayim*.
- The משנה rules that if a כהן sells an animal to a ישראל and says *ḥutz* מן המתנות, the ישראל is פטור מן המתנות and the *zeroa*, *leḥayayim*, and *keivah* remain the כהן’s property because they are excluded from the sale. The גמרא challenges this from a ברייתא where the כהן sells on condition *al menat* שהמתנות שלי, yet the ישראל gives the מתנות to any כהן he wishes, because *al menat* is not a *shiyur* and the טובת הנאה belongs to the animal’s owner. Rashi explains the stipulation fails because the choice of which כהן receives the מתנות remains with the ישראל, so the seller cannot reserve that right through a תנאי.
- The ראשונים ask why the sale is not void if the condition is ignored, and Tosafot answers that the condition was not formulated so that failure would nullify the sale, with the מפרשים explaining that the כהן recognizes the condition cannot determine the sale’s validity. The Ḥazon Ish explains the כהן cannot know whether the condition is met until after שחיטה, since the חיוב of מתנות begins only then, so the seller does not make the sale contingent in a way that would undo it. Tosafot also explains the condition fails as *matneh al mah shekatuv baTorah*, because the Torah assigns the choice of כהן to the ישראל, and although the rule is debated in דיני ממונות, the ראשונים treat this as emanating from a מצוה and therefore within the rule. The Ritva explains either that this is an invalid תנאי under halakhic rules of תנאים or that חז"ל invalidate this תנאי because it should not have been made.
- A second ברייתא states that if the כהן stipulates the מתנות are his, the מתנות are indeed his, and the גמרא says the ברייתות disagree. One תנא holds *al menat* is understood *ad’ata de-shiyur*, so it functions like *ḥutz* and the מתנות are excluded from the sale. The other תנא holds *al menat lav shiyur hu*, so it is treated as a תנאי, and in this context the תנאי is not valid, leaving the ישראל with the טובת הנאה and the right to give the מתנות to any כהן.
- The משנה teaches that if someone buys the innards by weight and then gives the *keivah* to the כהן, he deducts its value from the butcher, which implies the buyer gives the *keivah* and then settles financially. Rav says the case is only when the buyer weighed for himself, but if the butcher weighed, the כהן’s claim can be against the butcher as well, and Rashi says the כהן may claim from either party. Rav Asi says even if the butcher weighed, the כהן’s claim is only against the buyer because the claim goes to where the *keivah* is, and the *keivah* is in the buyer’s possession. The Ḥatam Sofer limits this entire discussion to when the *keivah* still exists, based on the earlier teaching of Rav Ḥisda.
- The גמרא suggests Rav follows Rav Ḥisda’s rule that when one steals and the owners have not despaired and another eats it, the victim may collect from either the thief or the eater, while Rav Asi rejects that dual-claim model. The גמרא rejects this and instead makes the dispute about whether מתנות כהונה are treated as נגזלות, with one view treating one who takes them like a גזלן and applying the theft framework, and the other view treating them as אינן נגזלות because they are *mi-shulḥan gavoah* and not conventional property. A separate version presents this directly as an independent מחלוקת: Rav says מתנות כהונה נגזלות and Rav Asi says מתנות כהונה אינן נגזלות.
- The משנה rules that a גר with an animal slaughtered before גיור is פטור from מתנות, slaughtered after גיור is חייב, and if ספק when the שחיטה occurred he is פטור due to *ha-motzi me-ḥavero alav ha-ra’ayah*. The מפרשים explain the חידוש that even if the גר wanted the שחיטה delayed to become obligated, if it occurred before גיור he is still פטור, and even if he requested slaughter before גיור to be exempt, if it occurred after גיור he is still חייב. Reish Lakish challenges רבי יוחנן by contrasting this leniency with the משנה in פאה and רבי מאיר’s rule that *safek leket leket*, and רבי יוחנן answers that the stringent formulation is taught only as a יחיד view, as in the ברייתא of רבי יהודה בן אגרא בשם רבי מאיר. Reish Lakish insists the משנה has a reason grounded in the verse עני ורש הצדיקו, interpreting it as צדק משלך ותן לו rather than favoring the poor in court, and the שיעור links this theme to the מדרש about *oto tzaddik* אברהם אבינו and to the prayer phrase לך השם הצדקה ולנו בושת הפנים.
- Rava answers that the cow is *be-ḥezkat p’turah* because it began under non-Jewish status, while the standing crop is *be-ḥezkat ḥiyuv* because it began obligated, so the outcomes follow the initial חזקה. The מפרשים and אחרונים debate whether the decisive factor is *ḥezkat patur* or *ḥezkat ḥiyuv*, and Rav Shimon Shkop frames the חזקה as a דין in the person rather than in the animal or field. The שיעור reports an approach that the verse-based stringency of Reish Lakish operates even against a רוב for obligations that certainly exist, but it does not create an obligation where it is unknown whether a חיוב ever applied, and this is attributed to Rav Baruch Taam.
- Abaye challenges from dough and חלה, where a ספק whether it was made before or after גיור yields ספק חייב rather than פטור. The גמרא answers that חלה involves ספק איסור because the dough is טבל until חלה is taken, while מתנות כהונה are a ממון obligation since a ישראל may eat *zeroa*, *leḥayayim*, and *keivah* absent payment. The principle applied is ספק איסורא לחומרא and ספק ממונא לקולא, preserving *ha-motzi me-ḥavero alav ha-ra’ayah* for monetary ספק.
- Rav Ḥisda teaches, and Rav Ḥiyya teaches as well, that there are eight ספק cases for a גר, four treated לחיוב and four לפטור. The גמרא lists cases treated stringently when an איסור consequence exists, including the קרבנות of יולדת because without bringing them she cannot eat קדשים, while noting that a חטאת העוף offered in ספק cannot be eaten by כהנים because perhaps it is not a valid obligation and מליקה would render it a נבילה for non-offering purposes. The list includes חלה, בכור בהמה טמאה redeemed with a שה to avoid עריפה while not giving the sheep absent proof, and בכור בהמה טהורה handled by waiting until it becomes a בעל מום to avoid חולין בעזרה. The sugya also counts ראשית הגז, מתנות, פדיון הבן, and פדיון פטר חמור among cases treated לפטור as monetary ספק where payment to a כהן requires proof.
- The Ḥatam Sofer rules that because the Torah teaches stringency in ספק of מתנות עניים through צדק משלך ותן לו, someone who donated but does not recall which צדקה or how much must go לחומרא. The פוסקים rule that in ספק lineage cases affecting פדיון הבן for people from behind the Iron Curtain, a פדיון הבן is still performed because most people are ישראלים and the רוב creates a חיוב. Ravin reports a different version of the earlier sugya’s presentation while continuing the same line of analysis.
- Levi plants in Kishah with no עניים to take gifts, and Rav Sheshet derives from לעני ולגר תעזוב אותם ולא לעורב ולא לעטלפים that one need not leave gifts for animals when no recipients exist. The ראשונים dispute whether the gifts must still be designated and then reclaimed or whether no designation is required, and this affects whether later-arriving עניים can demand separation. A ברייתא requires transporting תרומה when no כהן is present by renting a donkey משום הפסד תרומה, and the גמרא distinguishes תרומה because it creates טבל until separated. A further ברייתא about מתנות כהונה rules that if no כהן is present one assesses their value and eats them משום הפסד כהן, and the גמרא grounds this in “נתינה כתיבא ביה” from ונתן לכהן הזרוע והלחיים והקיבה, then extends that logic back to תרומה because it too uses נתינה.
- The gמרא asks why the Torah repeats תעזוב and answers with a ברייתא about one who is מפקיר his vineyard and then rises early and harvests it, becoming חייב in פרט, עוללות, שכחה, and פאה but remaining פטור מן המעשרות. The ראשונים qualify that this חיוב arises when he reclaims ownership of the field, while reclaiming only the fruit does not restore the חיוב of לקט, שכחה, and פאה.
- A sack of money arrives at the בית מדרש and Rav Ami acquires it, raising the challenge from ונתן ולא שיטול לעצמו. The גמרא answers that Rav Ami acquires it to distribute fairly beyond the בית מדרש group, or alternatively that an *adam ḥashuv* is different because delivery to such a person is understood to be given into his control. The proof is from the requirement that the כהן גדול be elevated “והכהן הגדול מאחיו” and that other כהנים enrich him, expressed as גדלהו משל אחיו. The Bnei Yissaschar explains that the leader is called פרנס because once supported and wealthy he becomes a משפיע פרנסה to others.
- The משנה defines *zeroa* as the foreleg from the joint of the *arkuvah* to the *kaf shel yad*, understood as the upper two bones and surrounding meat, and it states that the *zeroa* of the nazir’s offering is the same place. The משנה teaches that the *shok* is the corresponding segment in the hind leg, and רבי יהודה defines it lower, from the *arkuvah* joint to *tzomet ha-gid* of the leg. The משנה defines *leḥi* from the jaw joint to the opening of the trachea.
- A ברייתא teaches that *ha-zeroa* means the right foreleg, and Rava derives this from רבי יהודה’s earlier reading of הירך as the right thigh, applying the same “*ha-*” emphasis to *ha-zeroa*. The “*ha-*” in והלחיים includes wool on the head of sheep and hair on the beard of goats as part of the matanah. The term *keivah* includes the fats on the *keivah* and what is inside it, with Rashi describing milk inside while other ראשונים interpret it as internal fat, and the Arukh HaShulḥan notes that even inedible fats are given and the כהנים sell them for proceeds. The תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל reports that כהנים נהגו בו עין יפה and allow owners to keep it, and the sugya infers this permissibility depends on that practice because it is not explicit in the Torah.
- Doreshi Ḥamurot explain *zeroa* corresponds to the hand of Pinchas who took the spear בידו, *leḥayayim* corresponds to תפילה from ויעמד פנחס ויפלל, and *keivah* corresponds by wordplay to ואת האשה אל קבתה. The מפרשים explain that Pinchas uniquely “earns” these gifts as בדין הוא שיטול שכרו, unlike כהנים who receive them as a designated gift. Another derivation ties right-sidedness to shok ha-yamin in שלמים, extends to the nazir’s consecrated *zeroa* via תרומה language, and derives חולין *zeroa* via תתנו.
- A ברייתא states the כהן takes the בית השחיטה with the *leḥayayim*, challenging the משנה’s endpoint at the opening of the trachea. The גמרא answers either that the ברייתא follows רבי חנינא בן תרדיון who holds *hagramah* is כשרה and thus the shechitah area extends, while the משנה follows רבנן who hold it פסולה, or that both follow רבנן and “בית השחיטה עמה” means it remains with the animal and stays by the ישראל rather than joining the jaw-gift. The sugya closes with הדרן עלך זרוע ולחיים repeated three times.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions