Previous daf

1)

(a) According to Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, "Kohen" does not incorporate Kohenes, but he learns 'Sasum min ha'Meforash' meaning - that seeing as the Torah gives no indication by Matanos as to whether "Kohen" incorporates Kohenes or not, we learn it from Minchah, where the Torah writes "B'nei Aharon", to preclude B'nos Aharon.

(b) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov holds that on principle, "Kohen" precludes Kohenes, but Matanos is different, because the Torah writes "Kohen" twice ("ve'Zeh Yih'yeh Mishpat ha'Kohanim ... " and "Ve'nasan la'Kohen") - and we therefore apply the principle 'Ein Miy'ut Achar Miy'ut Ela Lerabos' (meaning that one exclusion after the other comes to include).

(c) When we say that Rav Kahana (who was not a Kohen), Rav Papa and Rav Idi bar Avin all ate Matanos because of their wives, we mean - that although they were Yisre'eilim, they ate Zero'a, Lechayayim and Keivah of their animals on account of their wives who were Kohanos.

(a) We already cited Mereimar, who ruled like Rav Chisda and like Rav. According to Ravina, he also ruled like Ula - who used to give Matanos to Kohanos, and like Rav Ada bar Ahavah.

(b) Rav Ada bar Ahavah ruled - that if a Leviyah gives birth to a Bechor, he does not require Pidyon.

(c) This is the opinion of Mar b'rei de'Rav Yosef in Rav Ada bar Ahavah. According to Rav Papa however, he is only Patur if his father is a Nochri, but if he is a Yisrael, then the baby goes after his father, and he requires Pidyon.

(a) According to the Tana Kama in a Beraisa (which we already discussed in 'Oso ve'es B'no'), an animal that is Kil'ayim - a cross between a sheep and a goat, or a Coy - a cross between a goat and a deer (a Beheimah and a Chayah) is subject to Matanos.

(b) Rebbi Eliezer - agrees with regard to Kil'ayim, but not in the case of a Coy.

(c) We already established in 'Oso ve'es B'no' that Rebbi Eliezer and the Chachamim must be arguing by a T'zvi that came on a she-goat, because in the reverse case - one would be Patur even according to the Rabbanan (as we explained there).

(d) Both Tana'im are in doubt whether 'Chosheshin le'Zera ha'Av', and the basis of their Machlokes is - whether we say "Seh", 'va'Afilu Miktzas Seh' (the Rabbanan), or not (Rebbi Eliezer).

(a) The problem with the Rabbanan's ruling is - why the Coy should be subject to full Matanos. Why can the owner not tell the Kohen that if he can prove that we do not contend with Zera ha'Av, he will give him the Matanos.

(b) Rav Huna bar Chiya solves it - by establishing the Rabbanan's 'Chayav' to mean half the Matanos.

(c) We query the Rabbanan further from another Beraisa, which gives a Coy all the Chumros of both a Beheimah and a Chayah. It is like both a Beheimah and a Chayah in that its blood and its Gid ha'Nasheh are forbidden. It is compared to ...

1. ... a Beheimah (according to everybody) - inasmuch as its Cheilev is forbidden.
2. ... a Chayah - inasmuch as its blood is Chayav Kisuy after Shechitah

(d) The Chachamim add that it is also subject to Matanos like a Beheimah. According to Rebbi Eliezer - it is not.

(a) According to what we just learned, we ask, the Rabbanan ought to have said 'Chayav be'Chatzi Matanos'. And we answer - that the reason that they said S'tam 'Chayav' is because in the Reisha, by 'Chelbo' and 'Damo', they said 'Chayav' S'tam, so they said the same in the Seifa by Matanos.

(b) They could not have said 'Chayav Chatzi ... ' with regard to Cheilev and Dam - because it is a case Isur, and it is only in a case of Mamon that it is possible to obligate the owner to pay half in a case of Safek.

(a) When Ravin arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he ruled in the name of Rebbi Yochanan - that according to the Rabbanan, a Coy is subject to full Matanos.

(b) And he based this on a Beraisa, which learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Im Shor" - that a Beheimas Kil'ayim is subject to Matanos.
2. ... "Im Seh" - that a Coy is Chayav Matanos, too.

(c) Rebbi Eliezer learns from "Im Seh" - 'Lechalek', that one is Chayav Matanos even for Shechting either an ox or a lamb (and that it is not necessary to Shecht both in order to be Chayav).

(d) The Rabbanan learn 'Lechalek' from "me'es Zovchei ha'Zevach". Rebbi Eliezer learns from there Rava's ruling - that 'ha'Din im ha'Tabach' (even though he is not the owner, as we have already learned).

(a) Our Mishnah discusses a Bechor that gets mixed up among a hundred animals. The Tana exempts them all from Matanos - provided a different person Shechts each one, because each Shochet can then claim that the one that he Shechted is the Bechor (and is therefore Patur from Matanos).

(b) If one person Shechts them all - then any one animal of his choice will be Patur from Matanos.

(c) The Tana exempts someone who Shechts on behalf of a Kohen or a Nochri from Matanos, as he does someone who is a partner with either of the two - only in the latter case, he requires the Shochet to mark the animal in a way that people will realize that it is not owned entirely by a Yisrael.

(d) We already discussed the difference between someone who asks to purchase the innards of a cow containing the Matanos and someone who purchases it by weight. In both cases, he is obligated to give the Matanos to the Kohen - only in the latter case, he is permitted to deduct their value from the cost.

(a) The problem with the ruling in our Mishnah exempting all the animals from Matanos (because each one can say that his animal is the Bechor) is - that in that case, why is he not obligated to give the Kohen either the Matanos or the animal?

(b) Rav Oshaya therefore establishes the Mishnah in a case - where the Kohen had already received the Bechor, and after it had become blemished, he sold it back to the Yisrael.

9)

(a) Our Mishnah exempts someone who Shechts on behalf of a Kohen or a Nochri from Matanos. Rava extrapolates from the fact that the Tana does not simply exempt a Kohen and a Nochri from Matanos - that 'ha'Din im ha'Tabach' (meaning that the Kohen's claim is from the Shochet, though we learn at the same time, that he is only Chayav to give the Matanos, there where the owner is Chayav, too).

(b) Rava learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "me'es ha'Am", that the animal belonging to a Kohen is Patur from Matanos.
2. ... "me'es Zovchei ha'Zevach" - that even if the Shochet is a Kohen, he is Chayav to give Matanos (as long as he is not the owner).

(c) The inn-keeper of Rebbi Tivla was a Kohen who was struggling to make a Parnasah. Rebbi advised him - to team up with a butcher who was a Yisrael, who would be happy to enter into a partnership with him, because the fact that he was a Kohen would exempt him from having to give Matanos.

(a) Rav Nachman instructed the Yisrael who subsequently entered into a partnership with the inn-keeper - to give the Matanos.

(b) When the latter quoted Rebbi Tivla, who told that he would be Patur - he overruled Rebbi Tivla, assuring the Shochet that he had proofs that would negate whatever he said.

(c) And he based his ruling on a ruling of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi and the Ziknei Darom, who rules - that a Kohen may Shecht (who has a share in the animal due to his involvement in the Shechitah) without having to give Matanos, for two or three weeks, but then he becomes Chayav, because by then everyone will know that the Kohen is the Shochet, and not the real owner.

(d) And when Rebbi Tivla asked Rav Nachman why he did not even grant him the concessions of Rebbi Acha bar Chanina (who quoted Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi) - he replied that this case was worse, because he was Shechting in a shop, and everyone already knew that the Kohen was the Shochet.

(a) When Rabah Rav Shilo said that the Shochtim of Hutzal had been transgressing the Shama (Cherem) of Rav Chisda for twenty-two years, he was referring to - a Shamta placed on a Kohen who Shechted without giving Matanos (as we just discussed).

(b) The Beraisa rules that someone who transgresses a La'av receives thirty-nine Malkos - whereas if he refuses to perform an Asei, Beis-Din beat him until he relents (or dies).

(c) Consequently, by mentioning the time period, Rabah bar Shiloh could not have meant to say that due to the fact that such a long time had elapsed since they began to transgress, it was too late to enact the Shamta. He must therefore have mentioned the time period - to teach us that, since they had been transgressing for such a long period, no further warning was necessary.

(d) Rava and Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak - used to confiscate the belongings of someone who refused to give Matanos (the one, the thigh of the animal, the other, the Shochet's coat).

(a) According to Rav Chisda, one gives the Zero'a (the right fore-leg) to one Kohen, the Lechayayim (the cheeks) to another and the Keivah two Kohanim ...

(b) ... because, based on the Pasuk "ve'Nasan", one must give the Kohen a portion that is Chashuv (which is why he did not break up the Zero'a and the Lechayayim into to two, to give more Kohanim).

(c) We reconcile this with Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef, who came from Eretz Yisrael and testified that he was accustomed to distributing the Matanos to the Kohanim, bone by bone - by establishing the latter, by an ox (whereas Rav Chisda was referring to a lamb or a goat).

(d) Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan forbids eating from an animal before the Matanos have been separated, adding - that it is akin to eating Tevel, only we reject that.

(a) The Pasuk in Korach (in connection with Matnos Kehunah) writes "le'Mashchah", which means - 'li'Gedulah'.

(b) Rav Chisda learns from there - that one should eat Matnos Kehunah roasted and with mustard.

(c) Rav Chisda also says that a Kohen who is not an expert in the twenty-four Matnos Kehunah - does not receive the Matanos.

(d) We reject this however, in view of a statement of Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa, who holds that, for a Kohen to forfeit his rights to a portion of Matnos Kehunah - he must deny that Hashem commanded the Avodah, but believes that Moshe made it up.

(a) The Pasuk "ha'Makriv es Dam ha'Shelamim ... Lo Sih'yeh Shok ha'Yamin le'Manah" - refers to the Avodah of Holachah.

(b) The Tana lists - another fourteen Avodos.

(c) 'Yetzikos, Belilos, Pesisos, Melichos, Tenufos and Hagashos' all pertain - to the Korban Minchah.

(d) 'Pesisos' means - the breaking up into flour of those Menachos whose Kemitzah was taken after they were baked (Machavas, Marcheshes and Ma'afeh-Tanur).

(a) The Tana also includes 'Melikos, Kabalos and Haza'os'. 'Haza'os includes - Zerikas ha'Dam and Haza'as ha'Dam, some of which were performed inside the Heichal (such as on Yom Kipur), and some of them, outside.

(b) The Tana does not include Shechitah in the list - because a Zar is eligible to perform it.

(c) After the Avodos ha'Korbanos, the Tana adds Hashka'as Sotah, Taharas Metzora and Nesi'as Kapayim mi'bi'Fenim. The Avodos that the Tana inserts that are not performed in the Beis-Hamikdash are - Arifas Eglah Arufah and Nesi'as Kapayim mi'ba'Chutz.

(d) The Tana learns from "mi'B'nei Aharon" - that whoever is a ben Aharon has a portion in the above.

(e) The Beraisa's final statement is - that any Kohen who accepts that the above Avodos are from Hashem, is entitled to receive a portion in the Matanos, from which we extrapolate that it is not necessary for him to be an expert in them in order to merit a portion.