The Eddie B. Sit edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, specifically the tractate Masechet Chullin, has been dedicated by our good friend Mr. Joey Jamal and his wife in honor of their son Jack's engagement to Shirley Sutton. May it be, with G-d's help, that they should get married at a good and auspicious time and that the merit of the study we are about to engage in over the next several months in Masechet Chullin should bring them much joy, peace in the home, prosperity, and all blessings. Amen.
Today we are studying Daf Kuf Lamed Bet, which is being learned for the elevation of the souls of Avraham ben Esther and Rabbi Moshe ben Luna. May their souls find rest in the Garden of Eden, Amen. We begin today’s daf on Daf Kuf Lamed Aleph Amud Bet and we start with the phrase ta shma.
The text reads approximately thirteen lines down, after the text widens: Ta shma, hasochet l'kohen o l'oved kochavim patur min hamatanot. This indicates that if a person slaughters an animal for a kohen or for an oved kochavim (gentile), he is exempt from the gifts. Thus, he is not chayav to give the matanot.
The Gemara then draws a distinction: Ha l'Levi u'l'Yisrael chayav. This implies that if one slaughters for a Yisrael or a Levi, he is chayav to give the matanot. Therefore, it must be that a kohen and an oved kochavim are not chayav in matanot. This leads us to conclude that a Levi is included among the people, referred to as am.
We know from yesterday’s daf that Rav had a doubt: is a Levi called am, and therefore is he chayav to give the matanot, or is he not considered am? Consequently, he stated that one cannot take matanot from a Levi because hamotzi mechavero alav hara'ayah—the burden of proof lies upon the one who claims. Here it is implied that if one slaughters for a kohen or a goy, he does not have to give matanot. However, if one slaughters for a Levi, he must give the matanot.
Conclusively, it must be that he is considered am. This raises a question against Rav. The Gemara answers: Lo tema ha l'Levi u'l'Yisrael chayav ela ema ha l'Yisrael chayav. Do not make such a strong distinction. We should minimize the distinction and simply state that for a kohen and a goy it is no, while for a Yisrael it is yes.
The Gemara continues: Aval l'Levi mai patur? What do you want to imply, that the Levi is exempt from the matanot? If so, then include Levi in the list, stating that he is patur from the matanot. Why did you not include Levi in the list if he is patur? But it is explicitly stated in a baraita that when one slaughters for a kohen or for a goy, he is patur from the matanot, while for a Levi and a Yisrael, he is chayav in the matanot.
This presents a contradiction to Rav. The Gemara responds: Amar lach Rav: Tanna'ei hi. What do you want from me? This is a disagreement among the Tannaim on this subject. I follow the Tanna who states that one is patur, while this Tanna states that one is chayav.
The Gemara then asks: De'tanya. Now we know that on Yom Kippur, the korbanot brought were for kapparah for the tumah of the Mikdash. If anyone entered the Beit HaMikdash during the year in a state of tumah or brought korbanot in a state of tumah, the korbanot of Yom Kippur serve to atone for the tumah of the Mikdash.
The Gemara asks: Who receives this kapparah? It states, V'chiper et mikdash ha'kodesh. What is mikdash ha'kodesh? This refers to the inner sanctum. The Ohel Mo’ed refers to the outer sanctuary, and the mizbeach refers to the altar. If someone entered the mizbeach in a state of tumah, he will be atoned for, as stated in the verse, elu azarot. This refers to the outer courtyards. It also mentions the kohanim in a similar manner. Who are we discussing? The kohanim if they entered the Beit HaMikdash in a state of tumah.
Then the verse states, Am ha'kahal. Who is this referring to? This refers to elu Yisrael. The verse states Yechaper. Who is included in Yechaper? This includes the Leviim. Each word serves to teach us something, and according to Rav, we have a special derashah that includes the Leviim, indicating they also receive kapparah for any tumah of the Mikdash that they had.
The Gemara continues with another baraita that states Yechaper elu avadim. This rabbi does not include the Leviim in the term Yechaper. Instead, he includes avadim. If a eved kena’ani has tumah, he is atoned for. Thus, we see the disagreement here. What is the core disagreement? Are they called am or not?
One Rabbi learns from the verse that states Yechaper, including the Leviim. This implies that even though the verse states Am ha'kahal, it must be that am does not include the Leviim. The second Rabbi learns from the word Yechaper, including avadim. Therefore, he must learn the Leviim from Am ha'kahal. Consequently, we have a disagreement among the Tannaim regarding whether the Leviim are called am or not.
This is relevant to our disagreement regarding matanot. Who is obligated to give the matanot? It states that the am gives the matanot. If you hold that the Leviim are called am, then they are chayav. Rav must hold that they are not, and one opinion holds that they are not called am, hence they do not have to give the matanot.
Rav, if he holds like this Tanna, should he not say so? The Gemara states that he is uncertain if he follows this Tanna or that Tanna. Therefore, he holds that the Leviim are patur from matanot, not based on certainty, but rather due to doubt.
Rav’s opinion is that the Leviim are patur from matanot because of the uncertainty regarding whether they are included in am. The law follows Rav, indicating that we indeed have a doubt regarding whether the Leviim are included in am or not, and therefore they are patur from the matanot.
Additionally, the law follows Rav Chisda, who stated that if one damages the matanot kehuna, he is patur from payment because there are no claimants. If one takes matanot kehuna and burns them, why is he patur? Because there are no specific claimants. Each kohen that comes to court could argue, “Hey, you took my matanot.” “Is it your matanot? I could have given it to another kohen.” Thus, since there is no claimant, mamon she-ein lo tove'ah, he is not chayav.
Ulla would give his matanot to a female kohen. Even a female kohen married to a Yisrael, he would give the matanot. This stems from the understanding that when it states venatnah la-kohen, Ulla learns that kohen does not exclusively mean male, but includes female kohen as well.
The Gemara states that Rava challenged Ulla: “A minchat kohen is not eaten, while a minchat kohenet is eaten.” If you say that kohen includes kohenet, then how can you say that a minchat kohen is not eaten? The law of a minchat kohen is that there is no eating; it must be burned completely. A regular mincha allows for a portion to be eaten. When the Torah states that a minchat kohen is entirely burned, it seems to suggest that kohen refers specifically to males.
Rav Kahana, who was not a kohen, even though his name indicates he was, was a Yisrael. He would eat based on the principle of ishto k'gufo, meaning his wife, a kohenet, would receive the matanot, and he would eat based on that principle.
Rav Pappa also ate based on his wife, a kohenet. Rav Yeimar similarly would eat based on his wife, a kohenet. Rav Idi bar Avin also ate based on his wife, a kohenet. Ravina stated that the halacha follows Rav, and we have already established that Leviim do not have to give matanot because it is a doubt if they are included in am.
Halacha number two follows Rav Chisda: If you damage the matanot of a kohen, you do not have to pay because there are no claimants. Halacha number three follows Ulla: You may give the matanot to a daughter of a kohen. The fourth halacha, which we have not yet seen, follows Rav Adda bar Ahava: If a leviya gives birth to a son, she is patur from chamesh sela'im in pidyon. Even though the mother is a leviya and the father is a Yisrael, the newborn is patur from the five sela'im.
Now we transition to the laws of matanot kehuna concerning crossbreeds. The laws of matanot apply to a behema, but not to a chaya. If one crossbreeds a behema on the father’s side and a chaya on the mother’s side, or vice versa, the question arises: Are you chayav in matanot or not?
It is clear that animals must be classified based on the mother, as the mother is the one that bore it. However, there exists a disagreement regarding whether we also consider the father’s side. The Gemara states: Tanu Rabbanan. The zeroa, chalavim, and keivah are applicable to kilayim. This refers to two animals that have been grafted together. While it may be a violation to do so, the bottom line is that you have produced an animal from two animals, and therefore you are chayav in matanot.
In the case of a koy, which is a mixture of a behema and a chaya, Rabbi Eliezer states that it is patur from matanot. The Gemara will analyze this distinction further. The Gemara states that we already know from Masechet Beitzah that regarding kisuy hadam and matanot, we do not find it except in the case of a tzvi that has mated with a tayishah.
It states that on Yom Tov, one is not allowed to slaughter a koy. Why? Because shechitah is permitted on Yom Tov. Why can’t I slaughter a koy on Yom Tov? Because I might be chayav in kisuy hadam. If you are chayav in kisuy hadam, then you might not be chayav, and we do not want you to, if you are not chayav, to perform kisuy hadam and thus desecrate Yom Tov.
However, if one does slaughter it, im avar veshachato, he does not cover its blood. Why? Because it may be a behema, which is patur, and you will not desecrate Yom Tov out of doubt. Even though it is technically a rabbinic prohibition, we do not want to put you in a situation that might lead to a rabbinic prohibition.
The Gemara continues: Bishlama, I understand Rabbi Eliezer, who maintains that he is patur because he holds that seh does not mean mikzat seh. This is a mikzat seh, and therefore I am patur in such a case. But what about the Rabbanan who say that even mikzat seh requires giving matanot? Why should I have to give full matanot? I should only have to give half the matanot because I am only giving from the seh side.
The Gemara explains: You are correct. Amar Rav Huna bar Chiya: “What do you mean chayav? You are chayav half of the matanot.” The Gemara then challenges: Metivei Rabbi Zeira: The koy has characteristics of both a behema and a chaya. Therefore, when it comes to chelev, we treat it like a behema, meaning the chelev of a koy is assur. When it comes to blood, you must cover it like a chaya.
When it comes to dam and the gid hanasheh, it is assur like a behema and a chaya. The koy is therefore chayav in matanot. Rabbi Eliezer, however, states that he is patur. If he is patur from the matanot, why does it say full matanot? It should say half, as it is a crossbreed.
The Gemara responds that since it did not say half for blood and chelev, it does not state half for matanot either. However, it would still be half. The Gemara states that the same applies to kisuy hadam, for you would think you only need to cover half the blood. Since you have the same doubt regarding the matanot, you should only need to cover half the blood.
The Gemara concludes that the koy is chayav in full matanot. The verse states im shor. This extra word includes the koy. The verse continues with im seh, which also indicates that even in the case of a koy, you must give full matanot.
Rabbi Eliezer asks, “What do I need the extra word im for?” The Gemara responds that it teaches that one would think you are only chayav in matanot if you slaughter a shor and a seh. How do I know that even if you slaughter just one, you must still give matanot? Therefore, im shor and im seh are necessary to clarify this point.
The Gemara continues to discuss the implications of zovchei hazavach. It states that the one who slaughters is the one to whom the kohen has a claim. This means that if a butcher slaughters an animal, the claim is against him, not the owner. Therefore, the verse states me'eit zovchei hazavach, indicating that the claim is against the one who performed the slaughter.
The Gemara now returns to the previous mishna, discussing the bechor. Even if a bechor has a mum, it is still patur from matanot. The mishna states that if a bechor is mixed up with a hundred other animals, and a hundred people are slaughtering them, all are patur from matanot because each can claim, “This is my bechor.”
However, if one person slaughters all of them, he is only patur from one animal and must give matanot on the others. The Gemara questions why a kohen would not come to claim from both sides, stating, “If it is a bechor, it is all mine, and if it is not, I should receive the matanot.”
The Gemara answers that if a kohen had already received the bechor and subsequently sold it to a Yisrael, the kohen has given up his rights to the matanot. Therefore, if it is a bechor, he does not have to give it to the kohen because it was given to him previously.
The Gemara continues: The shochet for a kohen and a goy is patur from matanot. The Gemara questions why it states, “The one who slaughters for a kohen and for a goy is patur.” It should simply state that kohen and goy are patur from matanot.
The Gemara replies that this indicates that the obligation lies with the butcher. The one who slaughters is the one against whom the kohen has a claim, which is why the text states “the one who slaughters.”
Rava states that the obligation is from the am and not from the kohanim. The Torah specifies that matanot must be given from the am, which implies that kohanim who slaughter do not have to give matanot to other kohanim because kohanim are not included in am.
However, the verse states me'eit zovchei hazavach, which means that even a kohen who slaughters must give matanot if he is slaughtering to sell to others. If a kohen is slaughtering for himself, he is patur, but if he is slaughtering to sell, he must give matanot.
Rabbi Tabla, a kohen, was struggling and sought advice from Rabbi Tabla. The advice given was to partner with Jewish butchers, as this would exempt them from giving matanot. Rabbi Nachman saw this and told the butchers they were still required to give matanot.
The butchers argued that Rabbi Tabla had told them they were exempt. Rabbi Nachman insisted that they must give matanot and warned them that if they did not comply, he would disregard Rabbi Tabla’s authority. Rabbi Tabla then approached Rabbi Nachman, questioning why he acted this way.
Rabbi Nachman explained that a kohen who slaughters for sale must give matanot, and although the first two weeks of slaughtering may be exempt, once it is established as a business, he must comply. The Gemara concludes that a kohen who does not separate matanot should be excommunicated for failing to fulfill this obligation.
Rav Huna bar Rav Shila noted that the butchers in Hutzal had been under excommunication for twenty-two years for not giving matanot. The Gemara questions the validity of this excommunication, stating that while one can be excommunicated for not fulfilling a prohibition, for a positive commandment, one must continue to enforce compliance until the individual repents.
The Gemara concludes that since they have been unrepentant for so long, the rabbis can enter their homes and reclaim their property without prior warning, as they have proven themselves unworthy of the usual due process.
Rav Nachman would take the thigh of the animal from those who did not give matanot and give it to the kohen. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak would take the robe of those who failed to give matanot and do the same. This was done without warning due to their repeated disobedience.
Rav Hisda stated that one can distribute the matanot among multiple kohanim. For example, one can give the zeroa to one kohen, the keivah to another, and the chalavim to two kohanim. In Eretz Yisrael, they would even break the portions down further into smaller pieces for distribution.
The Gemara concludes that while one can give matanot to multiple kohanim, it must be done in a respectful manner, ensuring that the portions are significant enough to be considered appropriate gifts.
Rav Yochanan stated that it is forbidden to eat an animal from which the matanot have not been separated, equating it to tevel. This means that if one consumes an animal without the matanot being given, it is as if they are consuming tevel.
Rav Hisda concluded that matanot kehuna must be eaten roasted and with mustard, as it was considered a dignified way to eat. This practice is traced back to the custom of Avraham Avinu, who served his guests mustard, indicating it was a sign of respect.
In conclusion, the discussion on the laws surrounding matanot serves to highlight the importance of fulfilling these obligations with care and respect, emphasizing the sanctity of the kohen and the gifts due to them.