Chulin 130
Summary
- A שיעור in מסכת חולין דף קל begins a new פרק הזרוע והלחיים about מתנות כהונה, centering on the חיוב to give the כהן the זרוע לחיים וקיבה from slaughtered animals and the broader framework of כ"ד מתנות כהונה. A פשט from רב זלמן סורוצקין ties the order זרוע לחיים וקיבה to the act of eating and to recognizing that health and sustenance come from השם, while the הלכה is presented with major disputes about whether the חיוב applies in חוץ לארץ, whether it is מדאורייתא or דרבנן בזמן הזה, and whether a ברכה is said. The משנה and גמרא analyze why קדשים are excluded from זרוע לחיים וקיבה and why חולין are excluded from חזה ושוק, then pivot to רב חסדא’s rule that one who damages or eats מתנות כהונה is פטור מלשלם as ממון שאין לו תובעין, with major ראשונים and אחרונים debating the rationale, practical obligations, and ethical liability. The sugya uses ברייתות to define when דיינים become involved, establishes preference rules about giving to תלמידי חכמים and avoiding a כהן עם הארץ, and compares these principles to מתנות עניים and the question of repayment when someone takes while traveling.
- A new פרק begins that, along with the next פרק, focuses primarily on מתנות כהונה and states that there are כ"ד מתנות כהונה. A משנה focuses on זרוע לחיים וקיבה, with a working identification that זרוע is the foreleg, לחיים are the cheeks or jaw, and קיבה is the stomach, and these parts from every slaughtered animal must be given to the כהן. A גמרא later connects these parts to an incident with פנחס involving זמרי בן סלוא and כזבי בת צור.
- A פשט from רב זלמן סורוצקין links זרוע לחיים וקיבה to eating and to the idea that giving portions parallels תרומות ומעשרות as a sign that what is gathered and consumed comes from השם. A rationale frames זרוע as the hands that lift food, לחיים as chewing with teeth, and קיבה as digestion, so giving these parts to the כהן represents recognition of השם in the entire process of eating. A question raised by מפרשים about why the תורה and חז״ל list זרוע before לחיים is answered by following the order of eating rather than the visual order on an animal.
- A משנה states הזרוע לחיים וקיבה נוהגים בארץ ובחוץ לארץ, and רש"י is presented as implying this is obvious because the מצוה is not a מצוה תלויה בארץ. A later view of רבי אלעאי holds that the חיוב is only in ארץ ישראל by linking it to תרומות ומעשרות, which apply to produce of ארץ ישראל. A שולחן ערוך brings two opinions, first that it applies in ארץ ישראל and חוץ לארץ and second that it applies only in ארץ ישראל, and it records וכן נהגו, describing a common מנהג to practice it only in ארץ ישראל.
- A report states that some אחרונים were מחמיר to give זרוע לחיים וקיבה even in חוץ לארץ, naming the גר"א and the חתם סופר as having done so. A תשובה from the מהרש"ם says that one who wants to be מחמיר does not appear to be acting wrongly and can do it. A lenient approach is supported by ראשונים who restrict the חוץ לארץ חיוב to countries near ארץ ישראל and exclude distant countries, paralleling a concept found by תרומות ומעשרות.
- A line of reasoning attributed to פוסקים applies רבי אלעאי’s linkage to תרומות ומעשרות to suggest that where there is no חיוב of תרומות ומעשרות מדאורייתא, as there is not בזמן הזה even in ארץ ישראל, there would not be a חיוב of זרוע לחיים וקיבה in ארץ ישראל מדאורייתא either. A practical נפקא מינא is framed that if the current obligation is entirely דרבנן, then uncertainties become ספק דרבנן and are treated with ספק דרבנן לקולא. A presentation ties this approach to the impression that the שולחן ערוך follows רבי אלעאי.
- A מחלוקת is presented about whether a ברכה is recited when giving the מתנות. A position attributed to the גר"א requires a ברכה, while other פוסקים deny a ברכה for two reasons. A first reason says ברכה is associated with acts that remove an איסור such as תרומות ומעשרות, where produce is טבל and there is a חיוב מיתה to eat it before separation, while failure to remove זרוע לחיים וקיבה does not create an איסור to eat the animal. A second reason says no ברכה is made on something not fully in one’s control, and acceptance depends on the כהן being agreeable to receive the מתנות.
- A משנה rules that זרוע לחיים וקיבה apply בארץ and בחוץ לארץ and apply בפני הבית ושלא בפני הבית. A משנה limits the חיוב to חולין but not to מקדשים, so one who is מקדיש an animal has no חיוב of זרוע לחיים וקיבה. A contrast is drawn to ראשית הגז as a מתנת כהונה that is clearly limited to חולין, while זרוע לחיים וקיבה require the משנה’s clarification.
- A proposed קל וחומר argues that if חולין, which are not obligated in חזה ושוק, are obligated in מתנות, then קדשים, which are obligated in חזה ושוק, should certainly be obligated in מתנות. A פסוק is applied, ונתתי אותם לאהרן הכהן ולבניו חק עולם, to exclude קדשים from זרוע לחיים וקיבה through the word אותם, limiting כהנים to חזה ושוק. A תירוץ explains that חזה ושוק are not treated as a ישראל giving a gift but as משולחן גבוה קזכו, so the responsibility to give additional מתנות is not automatically discharged by the כהן’s portion of a קרבן.
- A distinction is drawn between קדושת הגוף, where an animal is dedicated to be offered, and קדושת דמים, where only monetary value is dedicated, including cases of giving money or giving an animal that is a בעל מום and cannot be offered. A claim attributed to ראשונים says that although a בעל מום is sold and proceeds used for a קרבן, one who is מקדיש a בעל מום for a קרבן violates an איסור unless expressly for בדק הבית, and if he clearly intends that the בעל מום itself be offered, the statement is meaningless and not הקדש. A משנה states that where מום קבוע precedes הקדש and the animal is later redeemed, it becomes חולין fully, is חייבים בבכורה for later offspring, is subject to חיוב מתנות when no longer הקדש, may be shorn and worked, and its milk and offspring are permitted after redemption, including a case where conception occurs during הקדש but birth occurs after redemption.
- A rule states that because קדושת דמים is not קדושת הגוף, שחוטי חוץ does not apply and תמורה does not apply. A rule allows redemption after death in this category, with exceptions חוץ מן הבכור ומן המעשר, because a בכור remains a בכור even if blemished and a מעשר remains מעשר even if blemished, with the consequence that healthy בכור is offered while blemished בכור is eaten by כהנים and blemished מעשר is labeled but not offered. A contrasting category describes animals that were healthy at הקדש or had only מום עובר before הקדש and later developed מום קבוע, were redeemed, and remain פטורים מן הבכורה ומן המתנות and cannot be shorn or worked, with their offspring and milk prohibited after redemption when conceived in קדושה. A rule states that for such פסולי המוקדשין that die before redemption, they are buried, with רש"י giving reasons of העמדה והערכה and אין פודים הקדש להאכילן לכלבים.
- A גמרא asserts that without אותם one would obligate קדשים in מתנות by קל וחומר and then attacks the קל וחומר by claiming חולין are more stringent because they are חייבים בבכורה. A response rejects that because male animals have no בכורה, then raises ראשית הגז as a חולין-only stringency, then rejects it via goats, then raises מעשר בהמה as חולין-only, then rejects it via old animals and then via לוקח and יתום, and then restores relevance by treating the issue as based on species membership. A conclusion states that the קל וחומר stands and therefore the פסוק of אותם is needed to exclude קדשים from זרוע לחיים וקיבה.
- A גמרא proposes that if קדשים lacking מתנות still require חזה ושוק, then חולין that have מתנות should require חזה ושוק, and it answers with a פסוק וזה יהיה משפט הכהנים, using זה to limit the Torah obligation to the specific מתנות and not חזה ושוק. A further question says that even without the פסוק there cannot be חזה ושוק by חולין because חזה ושוק require תנופה, תנופה must be before Hashem in the עזרה, and bringing חולין into the עזרה creates the problem of חולין בעזרה so the procedure is impossible. A note ties this sugya to the מחלוקת ראשונים whether חולין בעזרה is דאורייתא or דרבנן, with a defense that even if entry alone is דרבנן, doing an עבודה such as תנופה is certainly דאורייתא.
- A teaching of רב חסדא states that one who damages or eats מתנות כהונה is פטור מלשלם. A גמרא gives two rationales, one deriving from the word זה and one from ממון שאין לו תובעין, where no specific כהן can claim the property because the giver can say he was not obligated to give that particular כהן. A נפקא מינא is attributed to תוספות and the רא"ש that under the זה rationale there is no payment regardless, while under ממון שאין לו תובעין the technical exemption leaves a moral obligation to pay, while the ר״ן is presented as disputing and denying an obligation even as מידת חסידות.
- A חוות דעת is cited that the actor still does wrongdoing and is a גזלן, while the sugya addresses whether there is a דין תורה claim. A סטייפלר offers a framework that under תוספות a collective claim by all כהנים would create liability because the act deprives the שבט כהונה, while under the ר"ן the מתנות are treated as הפקר לכהנים, meaning it is ownerless property limited to כהנים and therefore creates no דין תורה claim even under ממון שאין לו תובעין. A חתם סופר distinguishes מתנות כהונה from earmarked צדקה funds by stating that מתנות כהונה are specific animal parts that cannot be substituted, while money can be replaced, so one who misuses designated צדקה money must replace it.
- A ברייתא reads וזה יהיה משפט הכהנים and says מלמד שהמתנות לדין, and the גמרא rejects interpreting it as forcing payment through courts, reading it as לחלקן בדיינים, meaning courts determine proper recipients. A teaching of רב שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יונתן states that מתנה is not given to a כהן עם הארץ, derived from a פסוק about חזקיהו that ties giving portions to those who strengthen themselves in תורת ה'. A rationale states that courts do not force people to perform a מצוה, so judicial involvement is framed as allocation rather than coercion.
- A statement says the מתנות should be given to תלמידי חכמים and that giving to an עם הארץ is wrong but still valid as a gift, as cited from דרכי תשובה. A rule attributed to ראשונים prefers a poor עם הארץ over a wealthy תלמיד חכם. A view attributed to the רשב"א says the rule does not strongly apply בזמן הזה because the חיוב is not more than דרבנן according to some פוסקים and because כהנים lack definitive יחוס, so one need not be overly strict.
- A שבט סופר explains the system by comparing it to שמח זבולון בצאתך ויששכר באהליך, portraying כהנים as leaders and רבנים and the מתנות as communal support for לומדי תורה. A question is raised about giving to a כהנת in light of the preference for תלמידי חכמים, and answers are given that the תלמיד חכם preference is weaker בזמן הזה, that a woman may be married to a תלמיד חכם, and that a woman can be a תלמיד חכם.
- A ברייתא of רבי יהודה בן בתירה says משפט מלמד שהמתנות דין and limits that by saying זה excludes חזה ושוק from דין, noting that חזה ושוק are part of a קרבן tied to כפרה. A גמרא rejects reading the ברייתא as distribution-only because חזה ושוק also could be distributed, and it reads the ברייתא as enabling extraction by court only when the מתנות already came into the כהן’s possession. A resolution says the case is where the כהן acquired the animal and the מתנות were not separated, and the תנא holds מתנה שלא הורמה כמי שהורמה דמיין, so the portions are treated as already designated and subject to legal claim.
- A comparison is brought from a ברייתא about a בעל הבית traveling who takes לקט שכחה ופאה or מעשר עני and later repays according to רבי אליעזר, with a dispute between the סטייפלר and רב חיים קניבסקי about whether he may take only what he needs or has the full status of an עני with no limit. A statement attributes to רב חסדא that the repayment is מידת חסידות, while רבא challenges that language because the ברייתא says ישלם, and attention shifts to the חכמים who say עני היה באותה שעה and thus no repayment. A conclusion attributes to רב חסדא that even when a wealthy person takes improperly, repayment is only מידת חסידות because it is ממון שאין לו תובעין, and an אחרונים-based explanation frames רבי אליעזר as introducing a third category where someone temporarily without access takes as a loan and therefore should repay.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions