Chullin Daf 131

All right, Daf kuf lamed alef, this is Tuesday's daf. We were talking about the din of Rav Chisda of hamazik matnas kehuna isha ochlin potur milashalim, either because the Torah said zeh or because it's momin she'ein lo ta'avon. And we are currently up to the fourth toshma to try to ask on shitas Rav Chisda, eight lines from the bottom of kuf lamed alef and bet. Toshma, the braisa says minayin leba'al habayis she'ochal peirosav tevalin? Where do we know that if a guy eats his own peiros when it's still tevel, when he was supposed to be mafresh trumos and ma'asros and he didn't, uchein Levi she'ochal ma'asrosav tevalin? Or likewise a Levi that eats ma'aser when it was still tevel because he's supposed to take off his trumas ma'aser to give it to a kohen. So minayin she'potur min hatashlum that he's takka potur from paying? Because if you think about he ate the trumos and ma'asros that was within that tevel? To talmud lomar, "Velo ye'ochal kol Yisrael asher yarimu." That they need to be mafresh, they need to be yarimu, separated. And the drash we make is ein lo ba'kohen ela mishas harama de'eilach. The kohen only has schus momin from the time of harama de'eilach. But what do you see from the braisa that mishas harama de'eilach mi'am mishalim? You would have to pay for it. So on my according to Rav Chisda that should not be true because lo havi kamazik matnas kehuna isha ochlin where according to Rav Chisda you're potur from paying. So the Gemara answers hachi nami, moving over tam alef to asur le'ochal ad de'itvei layu. This was the Gemara's suggestion at the end of yesterday's daf that maybe this kind of tevel actually came to the kohen besha'as while it was still tevel. De'iksuver haitana, "Matana she'lo hurma k'mishu hurma damya." In other words, it's as if there was already a hafrasha. So the kohen has schus momin. So don't tell me it's momin she'ein lo ta'avon. It is ta'avon because he has those schus momin already. Now what's the case that the tevel was in the kohen's reshus already? So Rashi gives us two pshatim. Rashi says the kohen was zocha from hefker and he got there first. Or lishana acharina zocha Rashi, I'm reading the Rashi at the top of the amud here, "She'masar la'as hateevel l'zakkos betrumasha ba'is." That the ba'al habayis gave it already to this kohen. Two different pshatim in Rashi. Now these two different pshatim in Rashi may be telling an important shaila about ta'avas hana'ah. This is the way the Pri Chadash explains it's brought by the Mareh Kohen that if you learn ta'avas hana'ah is not momin, meaning that the ba'al habayis really has no schus in the trumah of his Paris the coin who takes it can keep it and that could be Rashi's first shot that says that the trumah was hefker and it becomes the property of that first coin to take it regardless of whether or not he had the of the balum. If it is moment so the coin who would take that kind of trumah would have to give it back. That's why Rashi would say in the second shot that the balabatis needs to give that coin permission to take it. And like I said that's the that brings the the himself actually suggests a different idea that it might be totally in whether or not is a coin if that takes care of a as well. You may remember the night of who famously said no one has ever thought of this idea but this that's only to make it but still to give the proper share for the as well. Apparently the night of did not have a read the says this and this brings it not only but also from a and that could be two different days in Rashi whether or not that coin was from or whether or not it was given to him because he may still have not been as well. There's an important idea here from in the because the is saying here that as well and therefore this coin has a in these of course it doesn't take care of the to give the it's only that the coin has a that the coin has a moment in these but there's a whole component that has not yet been so okay but getting back to our now this is going to be number five under the says I'll say the king basically took the grain in somebody's because this guy must have owed the king a lot of money so if that grain was taken as payment he still now has the to be from other grain to give his but but let's say it doesn't take care of his to the king but it's a new loss that the king just took it so now now the is not to take extra because of that he can say well that ma'aser now taken by the king." But what do you see from the braisa? That where the grain was taken as a payment for the cheiv, the ba'al bayis will have to replace the trumah and ma'aser. I had that jaive with Rav Chisda. According to Rav Chisda, you don't have to replace the loss of your matnos kehuna. And for the gemara shani hasam, the komer star shilei. The owner's making money in the sense that he is now patur from paying off his cheivis with other money. So that mishtar shilei, the fact that he's making money off of the kayan, that's not going to allow him to say, "Sorry, tough luck. I don't have to pay you back." Tashma laskei kasha from the mishna that's coming up. Omer lay macharli bnei me'ah sh'aparah. Somebody tells the shochet, "Give me the kishkes of this cow." O hayo b'hein matnos kehuna, and within that bnei me'ah are matnos kehuna. Nice and the kayan. That lakeach should give that keiva to a kayan. D'eina m'naklin min adamim. And the shochet doesn't have to remove the value of that keiva from the purchase price. Even though the lakeach had to give that keiva to a kayan, he can't make the mocher, meaning the shochet, refund the money. Because he knew it was there. Because it's not part of the price of this meat. However, lokachei min ha'mishkal. Let's say you bought the cow by weight and the keiva is within that. So then nice and the kayan. The lakeach has to of course give the keiva to the kayan, but um m'naklin min adamim. The shochet has to now absorb the loss from that purchase price. Because he's buying it by weight. But frek the gemara, am I? Why do you have to give that keiva to the kayan at all? L'havei kamazik matnos kehuna o she'achlan. Let the shochet or the butcher or the seller here should be like a mazik matnos kehuna which paturs him. So he shouldn't need to be financially liable. To which the gemara answers, shani hasam, dis nu beinayu. They're right here. The matnos kehuna are right here. Rav Chisda is only saying when the matnos kehuna are no longer b'hein that you don't have to go ahead and pay back the lost value. And now another kasha on Rav Chisda. Tashma. The braisa says, "Tisha nichsei kayan." There are nine different zachin that are owned by the kayan. Now we'll see what nichsei kayan actually means in the gemara. And what are those nine? Trumah, u'trumas ma'aser, challah, reishis ha'gez, u'matnos that's the sh'rayei kayan b'keiva, v'hademai meaning the produce you buy from the am ha'aretz which chazal said you have to actually be ma'aser from. V'habikurim, v'hakeren. If somebody steals and swears falsely and then is made to yes to pay back a keren plus but now the Torah says in what way are they the love that's what we meant by that if a kind of he would get paid back as saying that to which the says light the kind can't get his money back and when we say it's only for the following the third paragraph of that next to kind of a kind it's their money it's like a gift and they can go ahead and buy and they can even pay back their debts we can get rid of that ex-wife and pay off this safer Torah and a kind could buy a safer Torah which seems strange because if you could buy a you certainly could pay for a safer Torah and Rashi even points out says on the first wide line here and the on the mission over there in explains that a not kosher animal even though you can't eat it yourself but you are allowed to swap it out for things that could be used to buy food but a safer Torah has even when you sell it that you're not allowed to sell it to acquire money to buy food so even though the mission talks about a it still has to tell us that the kind could buy a safer Torah that's the okay next topic let's discuss and they were there was a Levite he would the kids were being taken to a kind of the kids were the ones were taking the kind so this lady would go ahead and taking candy from a baby kind of thing he would take these from these kids also they were they told about this so said it's not enough for the lady that we don't take from him that he's from giving to give to the kind of money he also takes it from others now this that kind of said that we don't take from him that sounds a lot like that when a lady an animal could make him give these to a kind but chooses not to and to that asks what does actually hold if are which is what the Torah says is muchayev in matanos, so mishkol nami lishkol minayu, then we should make him give the matanos. And ilay ikru am, if he's not b'chlal am, so rachmana patranu. So, why is Rav saying it's not enough that we're not michayev him? I mean, that either he's muchayev or he's not muchayev. It's not what we're doing at all. Which the Gemara answers, "Misafkalei e ikru am ilay ikru am." It's a shaila in choshen mishpat. We don't know whether or not he's muchayev to give it. We don't know if he's b'chlal am. So, we have a klal of hamaitzi mechavero al av raya, so we're not going to force him to give it. >> But, one could think about the fact that sure, it's hamaitzi mechavero al av raya, but isn't there a safek mitzvah component that we should say safek d'oraisa l'chumra? Rav Shimon Shkop in Sha'arei of the Sha'arei Yashar discusses this as an example of perhaps when something is kind of defined by its muman, even though there is a safek mitzvah, you go basar the muman when you deal with it in Hilchos Sfeikos. But, this could also be part of Rav's point. It's not enough that we choose not to employ the safek d'oraisa l'chumra because we're going to go basar the safek muman to say hamaitzi mechavero al av raya. For example, the Gemara, Yosef bar Papa bar Kamra lo lo ashmeis. Rav Papa of teaching this that Rav was masupak if Levi'im are b'chlal am. Azei ver vidibarei Rav Papa, the braisa says, "Arba matanos aniyim sheb'kerem, there are four different matanos aniyim in a kerem in a vineyard. There's a peret, v'ha'oleles, a shichcha, v'afe'a. Dishalosh sheb't'vu'a, and there are three different matanos aniyim l'gabei grains. That's teruma, challa, a shichcha, v'afe'a. Shnayim sheb'ilan, there's two by trees. A shichcha v'afe'a. And kulan in b'heim ta'avis an al haba'alim, in all of them you can't choose who you want to give it to. You just have to leave it. V'afilu aniyim sheb'Yisrael meitzi'in b'yadei, and we're going to be michayev ba'alei batim to give these matanos aniyim even from other aniyim. Aniyim themselves have to give these matanos. But, ma'aser aniyim mishchalek b'seif bayis ay, that yeish bo ta'avis an al haba'alim, he has the choice of who he wants to give it to. He can pick his next door neighbor the ani if he wants to give it to him. He has that ta'avis an ay. V'afilu aniyim sheb'Yisrael meitzi'in ay se miyadei. V'sha'ar matanos kuna, and l'gabei the other matanos kuna, k'go Yisrael ay chayin v'keiva, ein meitzi'in ay se l'meikayin l'kain, v'l'meileivi l'leivi. And this, of course, is going to be the important line that we're going to be madayek from coming up. But, but the braisa says we're not going to make the cohen give a cohen or a levi to a levi." So, before we get into the kasha, let's first understand the muker for the halachas in this brysa. We know pe'ah is going to apply to a karem because we learn it from zayis tree of zayis shava. And we know that the zayis is chayiv to pe'ah dich seiv. Which chazal understand to mean that you can't take all of the olives from the tree because you're supposed to leave enough olives for the pe'ah of the matnos aniyim. So, in regard to the makaris for those halachas. There are three lagabei grains, halacha, turning over to maseches Again, makaris. The brysa continues and says There are two lagabei a tree. Don't take all of them. Don't take its glory. The kulan, the brysa continued and said You can't decide which aniyim should take the leket shichcha, etc. So, my ta'ama Because that ziv seiv by the Torah says you got to leave it. You don't get to make the call who gets to have it. Because as the saying goes, you can pick your friends, but you can't pick your aniyim. Even poor people have to give this matnos aniyim. Even a poor person can't take from his own matnos aniyim. He has to leave it for the other aniyim. Lagabei ma'aser ani, you can choose which ani to give it to. You have the say this enough. My time what's the difference because in the scenic debate, there's a special dinner by master only of the scenic. So I can choose who I want to give it to. Then the brightest said by feel only should be a strong my teen I say me all day the armor of a law. How do you know that we're going to make even a poor person give my son only because of the law says we got some go my law gear law gear may awesome. It's there a shove off liquor to the gear and by the gear which is regarding my son only my law alone was running on July that he can't take his own liquor of can move around only on July that he can't take his own my son only. And now we finally come to the part of the brightest that was really relevant to our Sugya. The Shaya madness Kahuna Kagoy in Israel my Kiva and my teen I say let me call in the coin but let me leave it the levy. My Shima have me leave it the coin my teen I say it sounds like the levy is more clear to give my tenderness to a coin. I'm my equal on vice dice a levy is more clear in my tenderness and he is the law of arm which the law says in the skin riot because Kagoy in Israel the law has riot. It's not talking about the actual Israel Kiva talking about Kagoy in Israel who my neon words are referring to that's my son only. Cuz yeah, the levy is more clear to give the my son only to the coin. tomorrow what are you talking about? My son only the levy who? My son only is the levy's. It can't mean that the my son only is being given to the coin. If the Gamara could have been in Azaria the Tanya cuz we have a different price that says Truma the coin of my son only in the levy. That's different Rabbi Akiva which is how we classically understand the law. But Rabbi Elazar in Azaria I'm here of the coin the my son only is allowed to be also given to a coin. Now I'm here to Omar Rabbi Elazar in Azaria of the coin but the coin the levy me Omar. He didn't say you give it to the coin to the exclusion of a levy. He just says you can also give it to the coin. So how can you say the brightest saying you got to give the my son only to a coin? To which the Gamara says in that is the law according to Rabbi Elazar because the bus of the coin Ezra after Ezra made the coin off cuz the levy didn't want to go up for by a shiny from bubble. So the coin army the levy don't get it anymore. It only goes to the coin. But I'm here to coin the levy of the new load. Ezra is only saying that the levy shouldn't get my son only. But Mish coming now me Omar. Do you ever see that we're going to take the my son only from them? You don't see that. Elek in Israel of the laser. What do we mean when we say Kagoy in Israel? That's who my neon that's racist I guess. That's going to be the whole next paragraph that we're going to learn about that is certainly the of a levy to give to a coyote. All right, bring another right whether or not are to give my son and ice because that cloud the prices says this is the rule called anything that is to a coyote to miss my server me Adam. We're going to take it from the levy but hold on and I beg to share as well as which is a nice me Adam. We're not going to take it from the levy. So what do you see from this that are not to give to because they're in the smack from the cash goes back to Rob. Why was he which is going to be the next one my name is my name is the Ezra. All right, so we're getting to the same punchline with a different touch my spring a riot from the mission coming up that if the shooting for a or for a guy there is no but maybe you guys are right that you guys are not like him and don't be calling me a levy. That's the wrong to make you should say holy hi doctor Israel's practice of a levy might what's going to be the by a levy Potter you listen to the mission should have listed it as a levy but also we have a price that says the but the levy Israel so you have to derive this is for sure that you see a levy is going to be a more you know what would say tonight he the whole thing is tonight that the price of says. I have a video of the God of all for his part on Yom Kippur the mission says that my name is my name is the part of the timer and I had it all my commercial those are all going to deal with the of those respective you have a coyote is my name is a Israel and you have a that's the price of the time you have another price that says you have a lot of we have two prices that don't seem to drive with each other so my love the master of the tunnel of that second price of all of them. Levi'im are considered Am, and therefore they're b'chlal already Yikha Per. But Omar Shavar Lo Ikru Am, and therefore he had freed up Yikha Per for the Avadim. So, you see it's a Machlokes Tanna'im. Then practically the Gemara, if you're telling me it's a Machlokes Tanna'im, so who did Rav hold like? The Rav is very like a high Tanna Lema. He is very like a high Tanna Lema. He should say who he holds like. To which the Gemara says that's gufu what Rav was masubik about masafka like a Tanna or Ikai Tanna. He didn't know who to hold like, and that was his safek, and that's why we went with the Machlokes Tanna'im. of Arayah for the Levi. And we're going to stop here and pick it up with Darsh Ramar for tomorrow.