Daf Yomi

A Dutch Treat

“Money That Has No Claimants’

(Chulin 131b-132a)

Rav Chisda on our daf (131b) states that should a Yisrael destroy or eat one of the Matnos Kehuna – priestly gifts (such as the foreleg or the jaw of the animal) – before he gives it to the kohen, he is exempt from offering any compensation to the priestly tribe for their loss. According to the Gemara’s second explanation of Rav Huna’s ruling, as long as the priestly gifts remain in the Yisrael’s possession, their legal status is “mammon she’ein lo tov’im” – money that has no claimants. Rashi (s.v. “She’ein lo tov’im”) explains that since the priestly gifts are not automatically the property of any individual kohen, he may say to the kohen standing before him, “I am going to give it to another kohen and not to you.” Therefore, if he damages it or eats it, he is under no obligation to make restitution.

Question of an Issur

There is a dispute as to whether this rule of “mammon she’ein lo tov’im” exempts one from an issur – namely, damaging Matnos Kehuna. Tosafos (s.v. “Ve’eiba’is eima”) state that even though Beis Din cannot exact payment, one still must answer to the Divine court. Therefore, this Yisrael is duty-bound to make restitution to any kohen (obviously one of his own choice). Ran, on our daf, maintains that there is not even an issur that was violated, and as such there is no obligation to make restitution to any kohen.

Seized Grain

The Gemara (132a) cites a Baraisa: “If it happened that a government official seized a Jew’s untithed grain (tevel), in the event that the seizure was for an outstanding debt, the Jew is obligated to reimburse the kohen for the ma’aser (from other grain, according to Rashi). The Gemara questions how this is so since Matnos Kehuna are mammon she-ein lahem tov’im; thus, there shouldn’t be any obligation to reimburse. The Gemara answers that since the Jew profited from the untithed grain, in that its seizure satisfied an outstanding debt, he is thus required to replace the seized grain with other grain.

May Have Fasted

Tosafos (s.v. “sha’ani ha’sam…”) ask why, according to the logic of this Baraisa, does Rav Chisda exempt a Jew who ate Matnos Kehuna from reimbursing the kohen? After all, he too has profited, since he ate it instead of other food in his possession. Tosafos answer that the case is not comparable, as we may argue that he could have fasted and, if so, would not have eaten any other food.

Caveat Hostis

Terumas HaDeshen (siman 317 and cited in his ruling by Rema, Choshen Mishpat 246:17) rules that if one said to his friend, “Come join me for a meal” [note that he did not say, “Be my guest”], he may demand payment for the food. (Rema cites this halacha in relation to a father-in-law’s responsibility to support his daughter and son-in-law beyond a specified time). Maharit (Even Ha’ezer 21) asks in light of [the latter] Tosafos, why not consider the possibility that the friend might have fasted?

Ketzos HaChoshen (Choshen Mishpat 246:sk2.) differentiates, as he notes the fine line between the two: While one profits, the other derives benefit – hana’ah. Regarding one who ate the Matnot Kehuna, which is like money that has no claimants, we may argue that he might just as well have fasted. But regarding one who sat down with a friend and ate the friend’s food, he derived enjoyment, and therefore, whether he would have otherwise fasted is of no relevance. Surely, he willingly joined in the repast. One must discern an invitation from a Dutch treat.