Chulin 133
Summary
- Today’s *shiur* on מסכת חולין דף קל"ג, beginning דף קל"ב עמוד ב', presents the הלכות of the 24 מתנות כהונה and rejects an initial assumption that lack of expertise alone disqualifies a כהן from receiving them, replacing it with a standard tied to whether the כהן is מודה בעבודה. The text sets out multiple definitions of כל כהן שאינו מודה בעבודה among רש"י, the ריטב"א, the חפץ חיים, and later אחרונים, and it distinguishes between exclusion from עבודה and exclusion from all מתנות כהונה. It then moves through practical applications: handling חוטי דם in the לחיים and לשון, the impropriety of a כהן grabbing or even requesting מתנות, Abaye’s changing practice as he learns successive ברייתות, and guidance about channeling מתנות to a poor תלמיד חכם through מכירי כהונה. The later sugya addresses סימון meat in partnerships, פסולי המוקדשין sales, exemptions when a כהן or עובד כוכבים owns parts of the animal, a rejected position that partial partnership exempts from all gifts, and a final distinction (as explained by Rav Shach in אבי עזרי) between ראשית הגז as an obligation on the animal and זרוע לחיים וקיבה as an obligation on the specific parts.
- A teaching states that the Torah says עשרים וארבע מתנות כהונה and that כל כהן שאינו בקי בהם אין לו חלק במתנות שלא יקבל from the מתנות כהונה, understood as referring back to Rav Chisda’s rule that the מתנות כהונה are eaten למשחה כדרך שמלכים אוכלים. A rebuttal declares ולאו מילתא היא and brings a ברייתא of רבי שמעון that כל כהן שאינו מודה בעבודה has no share. A פסוק, המקריב את דם השלמים ואת החלב מבני אהרן לו תהיה שוק הימין למנה, yields an initial limitation to the מקריב of שלמים, and then מבני אהרן expands it to many עבודות so that עבודה המסורה לבני אהרן requires that the כהן be מודה בה, while a כהן who is מודה בה remains eligible אף על גב דאין בקי בהן.
- Rashi defines אינו מודה בעבודה as a כהן claiming the עבודה is something משה רבינו himself came up with and was not told by Hashem. The Ritva challenges this as too broad because such denial would make him a כופר בעיקר with broader disqualification, and instead explains אינו מודה בעבודה as a כהן who does not treat the עבודה as mandatory and does not grasp its importance. The Chafetz Chaim defines אינו מודה בעבודה as a כהן who does not learn הלכות עבודה, and therefore withholds proper respect, leading to אין לו חלק בכהונה regarding the עבודה. The כלי חמדה, with the חתם סופר aligned, explains it as one who thinks הקדוש ברוך הוא gave the עבודה only as a concession because the גוים had pagan worship, and such a belief makes him undeserving of a חלק in כהונה. The text frames a further dispute about whether אין לו חלק בכהונה means only exclusion from the עבודה and כפרות while still entitling him to זרוע לחיים וקיבה, or whether it excludes him from any מתנות כהונה as well, and it contrasts consequences attributed to רש"י’s approach versus the ריטב"א’s approach.
- The sugya extends the requirement of הודאה to a wide list of עבודות: היציקות, הבלילות, והפסיסות, והמליחות, תנופות, והגשות, והקמיצה, והקטרות, המליקה, הזאות, השקאת סוטה, עריפת עגלה ערופה, וטהרת המצורע, and נשיאת כפיים דוכנינג בין מבפנים בין מבחוץ. The Me’iri summarizes that when two כהנים are available, a בקי is preferred over an אינו בקי, but when no other כהן exists the עבודה is given even to an אינו בקי if he is מודה בה. The Me’iri also states that a כהן שאינו מודה בהן never receives the מתנות כהונה even if no alternative כהן is available. Rav Wosner שליט"א in שאלות ותשובות שבט הלוי connects this to the מנהג in פדיון הבן to seek a כהן מיוחס who is also a ירא שמים and a תלמיד חכם so he is certainly a כהן המודה בעבודה.
- Rav Abba in the name of Rav Huna in the name of Rav teaches חוטנו שבלהי and says a כהן who אינו יודע ליטלן should not receive the מתנה of לחיים, with the מפרשים noting that not only the לחיים but also the tongue included in זרוע לחיים וקיבה has חוטי דם. The Gemara rejects this with ולא היא, explaining that roasting draws out blood and cooking works through cutting and salting, described as אי לקדרה אי דמחתך להו ומלח להו. The אחרונים explain the case as a כהן who knows there is an issue of veins but does not know how to remove them, and the Gemara teaches there is no concern because once he knows blood must be removed, the process is manageable. Tosafos holds that even for roasting some cutting should be done, and the text states that this is the מנהג to make cuts even when broiling.
- Rava reports that Rav Yosef tested them about a כהן who grabs מתנות כהונה, and the conclusion is drawn from the פסוק ונתן ולא שיטול מאליו that grabbing is improper. The Rishonim extend this rule beyond מתנות כהונה to תרומה and מעשר ראשון. Rashi frames חטף as grabbing from a child carrying the gifts, and the Chatam Sofer explains that grabbing from the owner would be outright theft because of טובת הנאה, while grabbing after assignment to a particular כהן or his שליח would also be theft, so the case is one without גניבה but with a question of proper conduct, and the Rishonim add that the כהן should inform the owner afterward.
- Abaye says he originally grabbed, believing חבובי קמחבבנא מצוה, and then stopped after learning ונתנה ולא שיטול מעצמו. Abaye says he still used to request, then stopped even asking after learning the ברייתא about בני שמואל and ויטו אחרי הבצע, with רבי מאיר explaining בני שמואל חלקם שאלו בפיהם, and the text records views that either one may never ask for מתנות כהונה or that the criticism applies particularly to prestigious figures whose request cannot realistically be refused. Abaye then says he would take if given, and then stops taking after learning the Yoma account that after שמעון הצדיק, הצנועים מושכין את ידיהם and only גרגרנים חולקים, with the explanation tied to receiving less than a כזית and the concern that there is no fulfillment and grabbing is improper. The text raises a פסח analogy and reports that פוסקים rule one who cannot eat a כזית מצה should still eat what he can, with the ערוך השולחן distinguishing לחם הפנים, which is not an individual obligation, from מצה, which is an obligation on each person, and it cites the רמ"א that this sugya teaches one should never fight for a מצוה, even for גלילה despite הגולל נוטל שכר כנגד כולם.
- Abaye takes מתנות כהונה only on ערב יום כיפור, described as לבר ממעלי יומא דכיפורי דחזקו ביה כהנא, so it not be forgotten that he is a כהן. The text records a מחלוקת ראשונים whether this was because crowds were seeking gifts due to the מצוה to eat on ערב יום כיפור or because ערב יום כיפור was quieter and avoided competition, and it cites the פרי חדש that Abaye even requested then to show publicly he was a כהן. The Gemara asks why he did not instead establish his status by נשיאת כפיים, and answers אנסלא אידמי with explanations that he was giving a שיעור during *davening* time or that he could not duchen due to illness and bathroom needs, while noting that duchenning suffices only for someone already known locally as a כהן.
- Rav Yosef rules that if a כהן has a צורבא מרבנן neighbor who is financially pressed, he should arrange for the ישראל to give the מתנות directly to that תלמיד חכם, even if the gifts never come to the כהן’s hand, grounded in מכירי כהונה ולוייה. Rashi explains this as a prominent כהן who would otherwise receive the town’s gifts so other כהנים effectively have no chance, while others treat it as a special תקנת דרבנן for מכירי כהונה. The text gives reasons to prefer direct giving: the תלמיד חכם may refuse to accept “charity” from a כהן but accept from the owner who must give it away, or the כהן may have already fulfilled צדקה obligations and face limits if he first takes possession. The text records a מחלוקת הפוסקים whether this can work when the owner himself is the עני תלמיד חכם, with פתחי תשובה bringing differing views.
- Rava and Rav Safra visit Mar Yochana (two name versions are given) who prepares an עגלא תילתא, with multiple interpretations of the term reported. Rava instructs the כהן waiter to acquire the tongue on his behalf so he can eat לישנא בחרדלא, and Rava eats while Rav Safra refuses. Rav Safra then dreams a verse from Mishlei and consults Rav Yosef, who says Rav Safra acted correctly because Rav Yosef’s permission applies when the כהן acts voluntarily and when the recipient needs it, whereas here the waiter acts under pressure to please guests and the situation is not one of need. The Gemara explains that the verse was directed at Rava but appeared to Rav Safra because Rava was נזוף, with Rashi giving reasons including either this incident itself or the Ta’anis episode involving King Shapur, Ifras Hormiz, summer rain, and divine displeasure expressed through a dream warning about snakes.
- Abaye asks Rav Dimi for the simple meaning of the verse, and he explains it refers to teaching a תלמיד שאינו הגון. Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav states that one who teaches a תלמיד שאינו הגון falls into גיהנום, with proofs from verses including כל חשך טמון לצפוניו and ואין שריד אלא תלמיד חכם from ובשרידים אשר ה' קורא, and the מפרשים explain this as reputational and causal blame rather than literal punishment for the teacher. The text defines תלמיד שאינו הגון as either one who does not intend to follow what he learns or one who learns תורה שלא לשמה, and it adds the comparison that teaching such a student is כזורק אבן למרקוליס, since the act seems constructive but functions as wrongdoing. The text resolves the tension with בראתי יצר הרע בראתי לו תורה תבלין by defining the disqualifying case as someone with no intention to use learning positively, and it cites the שולחן ערוך הרב that one should not seek such a student out but may continue a public שיעור even if such a person attends, while later פוסקים including מנחת יצחק and אגרות משה permit teaching in institutions despite imperfect leadership or families because the teacher can exert positive influence.
- The Mishnah requires one who partners with a כהן or a גוי to make a sign on the meat, and the Gemara contrasts this with a ברייתא that exempts סימון for partnership with an עובד כוכבים in פסולי מוקדשין. The answer sets the case as one where the עובד כוכבים is visibly positioned, first at the store entrance and then specifically at the cash area, because his role is obvious, while a כהן’s presence can be explained away as shopping or as being “trusted” (אמרי המוני הימנוהו). The Gemara answers that people do not attribute “trust” to an עובד כוכבים, and adds that סתם עובד כוכבים מפיק קלא, with the Rambam explaining that he publicizes the partnership broadly, creating a dispute whether the עובד כוכבים must be physically present in the store to remove the סימון requirement.
- A statement that for פסולי המוקדשין no סימן is needed implies the status is obvious, yet a Mishnah allows פסולי המוקדשין to be sold and weighed normally in the market. Rav Adda bar Ahava explains before Rav Papa that the case is those sold within the home, and the Rishonim distinguish between a disqualified korban sold for proceeds to הקדש, which should be sold in the market for best value, and a בכור בעל מום sold by the כהן, which may be sold only at home. The home-sale context makes it evident that the meat is פסולי המוקדשין.
- Rav Papa rules that partnership in the head exempts from לחי, partnership in the foreleg exempts from זרוע, and partnership in the intestines exempts from קיבה, with אחרונים limiting this to ownership in the general region rather than a specific identified subpart. The text notes that taking a כהן or עובד כוכבים as a partner only in these three gifts to evade obligations is deemed an הערמה and may still incur liability. Rav Chiya bar Avin asserts that even partnership in one of the three exempts from all, and the Gemara challenges this with a ברייתא and concludes תיובתא דחייא בר רב תיובתא, reinforced by a second ברייתא explicitly distinguishing exemption only for the retained organ. Rav Chisda attributes the mistaken view to the ברייתא that counts the gifts as grouped, and then rejects the “all-or-nothing” inference by comparing the grouping of מורם תודה ואיל נזיר, which are listed together despite not being one obligation, because items that resemble each other are counted together.
- A ברייתא enumerates עשרים וארבע מתנות כהונה and says they are given to אהרן ולבניו בכלל ופרט וברית מלח, with reward framed as if one fulfills כלל ופרט וברית מלח and transgression framed as if one violates them. The ten in the Mikdash are חטאת, חטאת העוף, אשם ודאי, אשם תלוי, זבחי שלמי ציבור, לוג שמן של מצורע, שתי הלחם, לחם הפנים, שירי מנחות, and מנחת העומר. The four in Jerusalem are הבכורה, הביכורים, מורם מן התודה ואיל נזיר, and עורות קדשים. The ten in the provinces are תרומה, תרומת מעשר, חלה, ראשית הגז, מתנות הזרוע והלחיים והקיבה, פדיון הבן, פדיון פטר חמור, שדה אחוזה, שדה חרמים, and גזל הגר.
- A question asks whether liability follows the obligated part in hand or the primary animal ownership when a כהן retains most of the animal but the ישראל owns the head. A proof is brought from ראשית הגז cases where a Jew shearing an עובד כוכבים’s flock or buying the wool is פטור, and it states that זרוע ולחיים וקיבה are more stringent than ראשית הגז because if the relevant parts are sold to a ישראל while the rest remains with the seller, the ישראל is still חייב in the gifts. The conclusion is that liability follows the obligated part, דבתר חיובא אזלינן. Rav Shach in אבי עזרי explains that ראשית הגז is an obligation on the animal such that primary non-Jewish or priestly ownership removes liability, while זרוע לחיים וקיבה is an obligation on the specific parts, so ישראל possession of those parts creates the obligation to give them to the כהן.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions