Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
The Mishna rules that the priestly gifts of the foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum (zeroa, lechayayim, v’keiva) apply both in the Land of Israel and abroad, during the Temple period and after its destruction, regarding non-sacred animals (chullin), but not consecrated animals (mukdashin). Although a logical inference (kal v’chomer) suggests consecrated animals should require gifts since they require the breast and thigh (chazeh v’shok), scripture excludes them by specifying that kohanim receive from consecrated animals only what is explicitly written in that context because of the limiting word “otam”. The Mishna differentiates between two cases of animals with blemishes based on the underlying nature of their sanctity. In the first category, if a permanent blemish preceded consecration, the animal only attains monetary sanctity (kedushat damim); once redeemed, it remains obligated in priestly gifts and firstborn animal (bechora), and its shearing, work, offspring, and milk are permitted. In the second category, if consecration preceded the permanent blemish, the animal possesses intrinsic bodily sanctity (kedushat haguf). Even after redemption, the animal is exempt from priestly gifts and bechora, its shearing and work remain forbidden, and its offspring and milk are prohibited.
Analyzing the Mishna, the Gemara asks how one could have even thought that consecrated animals (kodshim) might be obligated in priestly gifts (matanot), given that non-sacred animals (chullin) initially seem to possess various unique severities. After addressing a slew of suggestions for stringency, they ultimately establish that no true element of stringency exists in chullin that does not also exist within the broader category of kodshim, it validates the need for a scriptural derivation. Conversely, the Gemara asks whether chullin should be obligated in the breast and thigh (chazeh v’shok) through a reverse kal v’chomer, since chullin possess the obligation of matanot which kodshim lack. Although the Gemara initially attempts to exclude chullin from chazeh v’shok using the word “zeh” in “v’zeh yihyeh mishpat hakohanim”, it rejects this derivation and prefers to explain the reason for the exemption based on the fact that waving (tenufah) is practically impossible for chullin: performing it outside violates the requirement of “lifnei Hashem”, while performing it inside violates the prohibition against bringing non-sacred items into the Temple courtyard (chullin ba’azara).
With “zeh” freed from excluding non sacred items from the law of chazeh v’shok, it is applied to Rav Chisda’s ruling that one who damages or consumes priestly gifts prior to their distribution is exempt from financial restitution. The Gemara explains that this exemption is either derived directly from the word “zeh” in the verse, or an alternative reasoning is brought—that priestly gifts constitute property with no specific claimant (mamon she’ein lo tove’in).
The Gemara presents several challenges against the second explanation of Rav Chisda’s exemption from restitution and some against Rav Chisda’s exemption.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Rhondda May in honor of Lisa Elon. “To my longtime chevruta, grateful for our learning together.”
Chullin 130
מַתְנִי׳ הַזְּרוֹעַ וְהַלְּחָיַיִם וְהַקֵּבָה נוֹהֲגִין בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת, בַּחוּלִּין אֲבָל לֹא בַּמּוּקְדָּשִׁין.
MISHNA: The mitzva to give the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw of slaughtered animals to the priests, known as the gifts of the priesthood, applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, in the presence of the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple, and it applies to non-sacred animals, but not to sacrificial animals.
שֶׁהָיָה בַּדִּין, וּמָה אִם הַחוּלִּין, שֶׁאֵינָן חַיָּיבִים בְּחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק – חַיָּיבִים בְּמַתָּנוֹת, קָדָשִׁים, שֶׁחַיָּיבִים בְּחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁחַיָּיבִים בְּמַתָּנוֹת?
It is necessary to emphasize that it does not apply to sacrificial animals, as by right it should be inferred a fortiori: If non-sacred animals, which are not obligated to have the breast and thigh taken from them and given to the priest, are obligated to have gifts of the priesthood given from them, then with regard to sacrificial animals, which are obligated to have the breast and thigh given from them, is it not right that they should be obligated to have gifts of the priesthood given from them?
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וָאֶתֵּן אֹתָם לְאַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן וּלְבָנָיו לְחׇק עוֹלָם״ – אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁאָמוּר בָּעִנְיָן.
Therefore, the verse states: “For the breast of waving and the thigh of giving I have taken of the children of Israel from the sacrifice of the peace offerings, and have given them to Aaron the priest and to his sons as a due forever from the children of Israel” (Leviticus 7:34), from which it is derived that the priest has only that which is stated with regard to that matter, i.e., the breast and the thigh, and not the foreleg, the jaw and the maw.
כׇּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים שֶׁקָּדַם מוּם קָבוּעַ לְהֶקְדֵּשָׁן, וְנִפְדּוּ – חַיָּיבִין בַּבְּכוֹרָה וּבַמַּתָּנוֹת, וְיוֹצְאִין לְחוּלִּין לְהִגָּזֵז וּלְהֵעָבֵד, וּוְלָדָן וַחֲלָבָן מוּתָּר לְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנָן.
All sacrificial animals in which a permanent blemish preceded their consecration do not assume inherent sanctity, and only their value is consecrated. And once they were redeemed, they are obligated in the mitzva of a firstborn, i.e., their offspring are subject to being counted a firstborn, and in the gifts of the priesthood, and they can emerge from their sacred status and assume non-sacred status with regard to being shorn and with regard to being utilized for labor, as it is prohibited to shear animals with sacred status or utilize them for labor. And their offspring and their milk are permitted after their redemption.
וְהַשּׁוֹחֲטָן בַּחוּץ פָּטוּר, וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה, וְאִם מֵתוּ – יִפָּדוּ, חוּץ מִן הַבְּכוֹר וּמִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר.
And one who slaughters these animals outside the Temple courtyard is exempt from karet, and those animals do not render an animal that was a substitute for them consecrated. And if these animals died before they were redeemed, they may be redeemed and fed to dogs. Although typically sacrificial animals that were redeemed may not be fed to the dogs, in this case it is permitted. This is the halakha with regard to all animals except for the firstborn animal and the animal tithe, whose sanctity is inherent, even when a permanent blemish preceded their consecration.
כֹּל שֶׁקָּדַם הֶקְדֵּשָׁן אֶת מוּמָן, אוֹ מוּם עוֹבֵר קוֹדֵם לְהֶקְדֵּשָׁן, וּלְאַחַר מִכָּאן נוֹלַד לָהֶם מוּם קָבוּעַ, וְנִפְדּוּ – פְּטוּרִין מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה וּמִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת, וְאֵינָן יוֹצְאִין לְחוּלִּין לְהִגָּזֵז וּלְהֵעָבֵד.
With regard to all sacrificial animals whose consecration preceded their blemish, or who had a temporary blemish prior to their consecration and afterward developed a permanent blemish and they were redeemed, they are exempt from the mitzva of a firstborn, and from the gifts of the priestood, and they do not emerge from their sacred status and assume non-sacred status with regard to being shorn and with regard to being utilized for labor.
וּוְלָדָן וַחֲלָבָן אָסוּר לְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנָן, וְהַשּׁוֹחֲטָן בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב, וְעוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה, וְאִם מֵתוּ – יִקָּבֵרוּ.
And their offspring, which were conceived prior to redemption, and their milk, are prohibited after their redemption. And one who slaughters them outside the Temple courtyard is liable to receive karet, and those animals render an animal that was a substitute for them consecrated. And if these animals died before they were redeemed, they may not be redeemed and fed to dogs; rather, they must be buried.
גְּמָ׳ טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״אוֹתָם״, הָא לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה אָמֵינָא קָדָשִׁים חַיָּיבִין בְּמַתָּנוֹת?
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the verse: “And have given them to Aaron the priest and to his sons” (Leviticus 7:34), indicates that only the breast and thigh, which are the subject of that verse, are given from sacrificial animals to the priest, but gifts of the priesthood are not given from sacrificial animals. The Gemara infers: The reason sacrificial animals are not included in the mitzva of gifts of the priesthood is due to the fact that the Merciful One writes: “Them,” in reference to the breast and the thigh of sacrificial animals. But were it not for this, I would say by a fortiori inference that sacrificial animals are obligated to have gifts of the priesthood given from them.
אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְחוּלִּין שֶׁכֵּן חַיָּיבִין בִּבְכוֹרָה!
The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to derive this halakha from a verse? The a fortiori inference can be refuted as follows: What is unique about non-sacred animals? They are unique in that they are obligated in the mitzva of a firstborn, whereas sacrificial animals are exempt. Therefore, the a fortiori inference stated in the mishna should not apply.
תֵּיתֵי מִזְּכָרִים – מָה לִזְכָרִים, שֶׁכֵּן חַיָּיבִין בְּרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז!
The Gemara responds: One could derive that the mitzva to give the gifts of the priesthood applies to sacrificial animals through an a fortiori inference from non-sacred male animals, which do not give birth to offspring and whose owners are therefore exempt from counting their offspring a firstborn, and nevertheless are subject to the giving of the gifts of the priesthood. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: What is unique about non-sacred male animals? They are unique in that they are obligated to have the first sheared wool given to the priest from them.
מִתְּיָישִׁים – מָה לִתְיָישִׁים, שֶׁכֵּן נִכְנָסִין לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר!
The Gemara persists: One can derive that the obligation applies to sacrificial animals by an a fortiori inference from male goats, whose owners are exempt from counting their offspring a firstborn as well as from the first sheared wool, and yet are subject to the obligation of gifts of the priesthood. The Gemara rejects this claim as well: What is unique about male goats? They are unique in that they enter the pen to be tithed for the animal tithe, whereas sacrificial animals are not subject to the animal tithe.
מִזְּקֵנִים – מָה לִזְקֵנִים, שֶׁכֵּן נִכְנְסוּ לְדִיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר!
The Gemara further suggests that one can derive the obligation of sacrificial animals having the breast and thigh given from them by a fortiori inference from old male goats, which have already entered the pen in order to be tithed. Consequently, the obligation of the animal tithe, the obligation of counting the offspring a firstborn, and the first sheared wool do not apply. The Gemara rejects this suggestion as well: What is unique about old male goats? They are unique in that they have entered the pen to be tithed, which is not the case with regard to sacrificial animals.
מִלָּקוּחַ וְיָתוֹם – מָה לְלָקוּחַ וְיָתוֹם, שֶׁכֵּן נִכְנָסִין בְּמִינָן לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר!
The Gemara again suggests that perhaps one can derive the obligation of giving gifts of the priesthood with regard to sacrificial animals by an a fortiori inference from a purchased animal, to which the obligation of the animal tithe never applies. Or perhaps it can be derived from an orphaned animal, born after the death of its mother, which is also not subject to the obligation of animal tithe. The Gemara rejects this claim: What is unique about a purchased animal or an orphaned animal? They are unique in that although they themselves do not enter the pen, animals of their type enter the pen to be tithed.
בְּמִינָן קָאָמְרַתְּ? קֳדָשִׁים נָמֵי, בְּמִינָן נִכְנָסִין לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר.
The Gemara responds: You say that it is significant that animals of their type enter the pen? With regard to sacrificial animals as well, non-sacred animals of their type enter the pen to be tithed. Accordingly, one can claim a fortiori that the mitzva to give the gifts applies to sacrificial animals, and it is only due to the verse that they are exempt.
וְיִהְיוּ חוּלִּין חַיָּיבִין בְּחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה קָדָשִׁים, שֶׁאֵין חַיָּיבִים בְּמַתָּנוֹת, חַיָּיבִין בְּחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק; חוּלִּין, שֶׁחַיָּיבִין בְּמַתָּנוֹת, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁחַיָּיבִין בְּחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק?
§ The Gemara challenges: And now that it has been established that the obligation of the gifts of the priesthood does not apply to sacrificial animals, non-sacred animals should be obligated to have the breast and thigh given from them by an a fortiori inference: If sacrificial animals, which are not obligated to have gifts of the priesthood given from them, are nevertheless obligated to have the breast and thigh given from them, then with regard to non-sacred animals, which are obligated to have gifts of the priesthood given from them, is it not right that they should be obligated to have the breast and thigh given from them?
אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְזֶה יִהְיֶה מִשְׁפַּט הַכֹּהֲנִים״, ״זֶה״ – אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא – לָא.
The Gemara responds that the verse states: “And this shall be the priests’ due from the people, from them that perform a slaughter, whether it be an ox or sheep, that they shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw” (Deuteronomy 18:3). The verse indicates that “this,” the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, yes, is given to the priests, but another item, i.e., the breast and thigh, is not given to the priests from non-sacred slaughtered animals.
אֶלָּא טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״זֶה״, הָא לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה אָמֵינָא חוּלִּין חַיָּיבִין בְּחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק? וְהָא בָּעֵי תְּנוּפָה, הֵיכָא לִינוּפִינְהוּ? אִי אַבָּרַאי – ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ כְּתִיב,
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But this derivation indicates that the reason the giving of the breast and thigh does not apply to non-sacred animals is that the Merciful One writes “this,” from which it may be inferred if not for this, I would say that one is obligated to give the breast and thigh from non-sacred animals. But the procedure for giving the breast and thigh requires waving, and where would one wave the breast and thigh of a non-sacred animal? If it is suggested that one wave them outside the Temple, that cannot be done, as it is written: “That the breast may be waved for a wave offering before the Lord” (Leviticus 7:30), indicating that they must be waved inside the Temple.
אִי אַגַּוַּאי – קָא מְעַיֵּיל חוּלִּין לָעֲזָרָה, הִלְכָּךְ לָא אֶפְשָׁר.
If it is suggested that they should be waved inside the Temple, that too cannot be correct, because one who waves them inside the Temple thereby brings a non-sacred animal into the Temple courtyard. Therefore, since it is not possible to perform the procedure of giving the breast and thigh with non-sacred animals, it is not necessary for a verse to teach that the giving of the breast and thigh does not apply to such animals.
אֶלָּא ״זֶה״ לְמָה לִי? לְכִדְרַב חִסְדָּא, דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הַמַּזִּיק מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה אוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלָן – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם.
The Gemara asks: But if that is so, why do I need the verse to state: “This shall be the priests’ due” (Deuteronomy 18:3)? The Gemara answers: The verse is necessary for that which Rav Ḥisda taught, as Rav Ḥisda said: One who causes damage to gifts of the priesthood, or who consumed them before they were given to the priests, is exempt from having to pay to the priest, as the verse states: “This shall be the priests’ due,” which indicates that only the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw themselves, not their replacements, are given to the priests.
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הַמַּזִּיק מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה, אוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלָן – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. מַאי טַעְמָא? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא דִּכְתִיב ״זֶה״, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ מָמוֹן שֶׁאֵין לוֹ תּוֹבְעִים.
§ The Gemara analyzes the matter itself: Rav Ḥisda said that one who causes damage to gifts of the priesthood or who consumed them is exempt from having to pay a substitute to the priest. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? If you wish, say that it is because “this” is written in the verse, indicating that only the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw themselves are given to the priests, as explained above. And if you wish, say instead that it is because it is money that has no claimants. Since one may give the gifts to any priest, no single priest can issue a claim on them.
מֵיתִיבִי: ״וְזֶה יִהְיֶה מִשְׁפַּט הַכֹּהֲנִים״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַמַּתָּנוֹת דִּין. לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? לָאו לְהוֹצִיאָן בְּדַיָּינִין? לָא, לְחוֹלְקָן בְּדַיָּינִין.
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita. The verse states: “And this shall be the priests’ due [mishpat]” (Deuteronomy 18:3), which teaches that the gifts given to the priests are considered a judgment, as mishpat can mean judgment. The Gemara continues: With regard to what halakha are the gifts a judgment? Is it not with regard to extracting them through judges, i.e., a priest may claim them in court and the court will order the individual to give the gifts to that priest? If so, the gifts are considered to be money that has claimants. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, they are a judgment with regard to distributing them through judges, i.e., the court dictates to the owner to which type of priests he should give the gifts.
וְכִדְרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי, דְּאָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין נוֹתְנִין מַתָּנָה לְכֹהֵן עַם הָאָרֶץ? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר לָעָם לְיוֹשְׁבֵי יְרוּשָׁלִַם לָתֵת מְנָת לַכֹּהֲנִים וְלַלְוִיִּם לְמַעַן יֶחֶזְקוּ בְּתוֹרַת ה׳״, כׇּל הַמַּחְזִיק בְּתוֹרַת ה׳ – יֵשׁ לוֹ מְנָת, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מַחֲזִיק בְּתוֹרַת ה׳ – אֵין לוֹ מְנָת.
And this is in accordance with that which Rav Shmuel bar Naḥmani taught, as Rav Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: From where is it derived that one does not give a gift of the priesthood to a priest who is an am ha’aretz? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “And he commanded the people who dwelled in Jerusalem to give the portion of the priests and of the Levites, so that they may firmly adhere to the Torah of the Lord” (II Chronicles 31:4). This indicates that anyone who firmly adheres to the Torah of the Lord has a portion, and one who does not firmly adhere to the Torah of the Lord does not have a portion.
תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא אוֹמֵר: ״מִשְׁפָּט״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַמַּתָּנוֹת דִּין. יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק דִּין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״זֶה״.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof with regard to the statement of Rav Ḥisda from a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says that the phrase “And this shall be the priests’ due” teaches that the gifts of the priesthood are a judgment. One might have thought that the gifts of the breast and thigh are also a judgment. Therefore, the verse states: “This,” to teach that only the gifts of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw are called a judgment.
לְמַאי? אִילֵימָא לְחוֹלְקוֹ בְּדַיָּינִין – אַטּוּ חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק לָאו בְּדַיָּינִין מִיחַלְּקוּ? אֶלָּא לָאו (להוציא) [לְהוֹצִיאוֹ] בְּדַיָּינִין.
The Gemara analyzes this baraita: With regard to what matter is this halakha stated? If we say that it is with regard to distributing them through judges, is that to say that the breast and thigh are not distributed through judges? These are also called a “portion” (II Chronicles 31:4), and therefore the court determines to which priests they should be given, as stated above. Rather, is it not stated with regard to extracting them through judges? If so, one can infer from the baraita that gifts of the priesthood can be extracted in court by a priest, which contradicts the statement of Rav Ḥisda.
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, דַּאֲתוֹ לִידֵיהּ. אִי דַּאֲתוֹ לִידֵיהּ, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? דַּאֲתוֹ לִידֵיהּ בְּטִבְלַיְיהוּ, וְקָסָבַר הַאי תַּנָּא: מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמוּ – כְּמִי שֶׁהוּרְמוּ דָּמְיָין.
The Gemara responds: Here, we are dealing with a case where the gifts already came into the priest’s possession, and the owner stole them from him. The baraita teaches that the priest may claim them in court and the court will order that they be returned to him. The Gemara asks: If this is a case where they came into his possession, what is the purpose of stating that the priest may claim them in court? That is obvious, as they already belong to him. The Gemara responds: The baraita is referring to a case where they came into his possession while they were still untithed, i.e., the priest received the entire animal before the gifts were separated, and this tanna holds that gifts that have not been separated are considered as though they have been separated. Accordingly, the gifts belong to the priest, and if the owner takes them from him against his will it is considered theft.
תָּא שְׁמַע: בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁהָיָה עוֹבֵר מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם, וְצָרִיךְ לִיטּוֹל לֶקֶט, שִׁכְחָה, וּפֵאָה, וּמַעְשַׂר עָנִי – נוֹטֵל, וְלִכְשֶׁיַּחְזוֹר יְשַׁלֵּם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof with regard to the statement of Rav Ḥisda from a mishna (Pe’a 5:4): In the case of a homeowner who was passing from place to place, and he ran out of money while traveling and needs to take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, pe’a, or the poor man’s tithe in order to sustain himself, he may take them, and when he returns to his house he will pay a poor person for whatever he took; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. The mishna teaches that a poor person may extract payment for that which the homeowner took, despite the fact that he never had possession of the gifts. This ruling apparently contradicts the statement of Rav Ḥisda.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מִדַּת חֲסִידוּת שָׁנוּ כָּאן. אָמַר רָבָא: תַּנָּא תָּנֵי ״יְשַׁלֵּם״, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ מִדַּת חֲסִידוּת שָׁנוּ כָּאן?! וְעוֹד, מִדְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לֵיקוּם וְלֹיתֵוב?
Rav Ḥisda said: The mishna taught an attribute of piety here, i.e., strictly speaking a poor person has no right to claim any amount from the homeowner for what he took. Rava said in bewilderment: The tanna taught explicitly that he will pay, and you say that he taught an attribute of piety here? And furthermore, should one arise and raise an objection from the statement of Rabbi Eliezer? The halakha is not in accordance with his opinion.
אֶלָּא מִסֵּיפָא, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: עָנִי הָיָה בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה, טַעְמָא דְּעָנִי, הָא עָשִׁיר – מְשַׁלֵּם.
Rather, the objection is from the latter clause of the mishna: And the Rabbis say that the homeowner is not required to pay for what he took during his travels, as he was considered poor at that time. It may be inferred that the reason he is exempt from payment is only that he was considered poor at the time, but if he were considered wealthy, he would have to pay the poor people who issue a claim against him in court, as he was not entitled to those gifts.
אַמַּאי? לֶיהֱוֵי כְּמַזִּיק מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה אוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלָן! אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מִדַּת חֲסִידוּת שָׁנוּ כָּאן.
The Gemara explains the objection: But why must he pay? Let it be considered like a case where one causes damage to gifts of the priesthood or consumes them, with regard to which Rav Ḥisda states that he is not required to pay the priest. The opinion of the Rabbis apparently contradicts the statement of Rav Ḥisda. Rav Ḥisda says: Even if the homeowner was considered wealthy at the time he is not required to pay, and the Rabbis who obligated him to pay taught an attribute of piety here.
תָּא שְׁמַע: מִנַּיִן לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁאָכַל פֵּירוֹתָיו טְבָלִין, וְכֵן לֵוִי שֶׁאָכַל מַעְשְׂרוֹתָיו טְבָלִים, מִנַּיִן שֶׁפָּטוּר מִן הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת קׇדְשֵׁי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יָרִימוּ״ – אֵין לְךָ בָּהֶן אֶלָּא מִשְּׁעַת הֲרָמָה וְאֵילָךְ.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to a homeowner who consumed his produce while it was untithed, i.e., neither teruma nor the first tithe had been separated, and similarly, with regard to a Levite who consumed his tithes while they were untithed, i.e., teruma of the tithe had not been separated, from where is it derived that he is exempt from payment? The verse states: “And they shall not profane the sacred things of the children of Israel, which they set apart to the Lord” (Leviticus 22:15). This teaches that you, the priest, have rights to them only from the time of separation onward. Since the produce was eaten before teruma was separated from it, the priest cannot claim payment for it in court.
הָא מִשְּׁעַת הֲרָמָה וְאֵילָךְ מִיהָא מְשַׁלֵּם, אַמַּאי? לֶיהֱוֵי כְּמַזִּיק מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה אוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלָן! הָכָא נָמֵי
The Gemara infers from this ruling: This indicates that if it was consumed from the time of separation onward, the priest may in any event claim payment for the teruma in court, and the one who consumed it must pay. But why must one pay? Let it be like a case where one causes damage to gifts of the priesthood or consumes them, with regard to which Rav Ḥisda states that he is exempt from payment. The Gemara responds: Here too,
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Chullin Daf 125-131-Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Panama, Panama
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Pennsylvania, United States
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Hashmonaim, Israel
Oceanside NY, United States
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Berlin, Germany
Los Angeles, United States
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
Oceanside NY, United States
See video
Raanana, Israel
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Elkins Park, United States
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
אפרת, Israel
Chullin 130
מַתְנִי׳ הַזְּרוֹעַ וְהַלְּחָיַיִם וְהַקֵּבָה נוֹהֲגִין בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת, בַּחוּלִּין אֲבָל לֹא בַּמּוּקְדָּשִׁין.
MISHNA: The mitzva to give the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw of slaughtered animals to the priests, known as the gifts of the priesthood, applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, in the presence of the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple, and it applies to non-sacred animals, but not to sacrificial animals.
שֶׁהָיָה בַּדִּין, וּמָה אִם הַחוּלִּין, שֶׁאֵינָן חַיָּיבִים בְּחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק – חַיָּיבִים בְּמַתָּנוֹת, קָדָשִׁים, שֶׁחַיָּיבִים בְּחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁחַיָּיבִים בְּמַתָּנוֹת?
It is necessary to emphasize that it does not apply to sacrificial animals, as by right it should be inferred a fortiori: If non-sacred animals, which are not obligated to have the breast and thigh taken from them and given to the priest, are obligated to have gifts of the priesthood given from them, then with regard to sacrificial animals, which are obligated to have the breast and thigh given from them, is it not right that they should be obligated to have gifts of the priesthood given from them?
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וָאֶתֵּן אֹתָם לְאַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן וּלְבָנָיו לְחׇק עוֹלָם״ – אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁאָמוּר בָּעִנְיָן.
Therefore, the verse states: “For the breast of waving and the thigh of giving I have taken of the children of Israel from the sacrifice of the peace offerings, and have given them to Aaron the priest and to his sons as a due forever from the children of Israel” (Leviticus 7:34), from which it is derived that the priest has only that which is stated with regard to that matter, i.e., the breast and the thigh, and not the foreleg, the jaw and the maw.
כׇּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים שֶׁקָּדַם מוּם קָבוּעַ לְהֶקְדֵּשָׁן, וְנִפְדּוּ – חַיָּיבִין בַּבְּכוֹרָה וּבַמַּתָּנוֹת, וְיוֹצְאִין לְחוּלִּין לְהִגָּזֵז וּלְהֵעָבֵד, וּוְלָדָן וַחֲלָבָן מוּתָּר לְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנָן.
All sacrificial animals in which a permanent blemish preceded their consecration do not assume inherent sanctity, and only their value is consecrated. And once they were redeemed, they are obligated in the mitzva of a firstborn, i.e., their offspring are subject to being counted a firstborn, and in the gifts of the priesthood, and they can emerge from their sacred status and assume non-sacred status with regard to being shorn and with regard to being utilized for labor, as it is prohibited to shear animals with sacred status or utilize them for labor. And their offspring and their milk are permitted after their redemption.
וְהַשּׁוֹחֲטָן בַּחוּץ פָּטוּר, וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה, וְאִם מֵתוּ – יִפָּדוּ, חוּץ מִן הַבְּכוֹר וּמִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר.
And one who slaughters these animals outside the Temple courtyard is exempt from karet, and those animals do not render an animal that was a substitute for them consecrated. And if these animals died before they were redeemed, they may be redeemed and fed to dogs. Although typically sacrificial animals that were redeemed may not be fed to the dogs, in this case it is permitted. This is the halakha with regard to all animals except for the firstborn animal and the animal tithe, whose sanctity is inherent, even when a permanent blemish preceded their consecration.
כֹּל שֶׁקָּדַם הֶקְדֵּשָׁן אֶת מוּמָן, אוֹ מוּם עוֹבֵר קוֹדֵם לְהֶקְדֵּשָׁן, וּלְאַחַר מִכָּאן נוֹלַד לָהֶם מוּם קָבוּעַ, וְנִפְדּוּ – פְּטוּרִין מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה וּמִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת, וְאֵינָן יוֹצְאִין לְחוּלִּין לְהִגָּזֵז וּלְהֵעָבֵד.
With regard to all sacrificial animals whose consecration preceded their blemish, or who had a temporary blemish prior to their consecration and afterward developed a permanent blemish and they were redeemed, they are exempt from the mitzva of a firstborn, and from the gifts of the priestood, and they do not emerge from their sacred status and assume non-sacred status with regard to being shorn and with regard to being utilized for labor.
וּוְלָדָן וַחֲלָבָן אָסוּר לְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנָן, וְהַשּׁוֹחֲטָן בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב, וְעוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה, וְאִם מֵתוּ – יִקָּבֵרוּ.
And their offspring, which were conceived prior to redemption, and their milk, are prohibited after their redemption. And one who slaughters them outside the Temple courtyard is liable to receive karet, and those animals render an animal that was a substitute for them consecrated. And if these animals died before they were redeemed, they may not be redeemed and fed to dogs; rather, they must be buried.
גְּמָ׳ טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״אוֹתָם״, הָא לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה אָמֵינָא קָדָשִׁים חַיָּיבִין בְּמַתָּנוֹת?
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the verse: “And have given them to Aaron the priest and to his sons” (Leviticus 7:34), indicates that only the breast and thigh, which are the subject of that verse, are given from sacrificial animals to the priest, but gifts of the priesthood are not given from sacrificial animals. The Gemara infers: The reason sacrificial animals are not included in the mitzva of gifts of the priesthood is due to the fact that the Merciful One writes: “Them,” in reference to the breast and the thigh of sacrificial animals. But were it not for this, I would say by a fortiori inference that sacrificial animals are obligated to have gifts of the priesthood given from them.
אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְחוּלִּין שֶׁכֵּן חַיָּיבִין בִּבְכוֹרָה!
The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to derive this halakha from a verse? The a fortiori inference can be refuted as follows: What is unique about non-sacred animals? They are unique in that they are obligated in the mitzva of a firstborn, whereas sacrificial animals are exempt. Therefore, the a fortiori inference stated in the mishna should not apply.
תֵּיתֵי מִזְּכָרִים – מָה לִזְכָרִים, שֶׁכֵּן חַיָּיבִין בְּרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז!
The Gemara responds: One could derive that the mitzva to give the gifts of the priesthood applies to sacrificial animals through an a fortiori inference from non-sacred male animals, which do not give birth to offspring and whose owners are therefore exempt from counting their offspring a firstborn, and nevertheless are subject to the giving of the gifts of the priesthood. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: What is unique about non-sacred male animals? They are unique in that they are obligated to have the first sheared wool given to the priest from them.
מִתְּיָישִׁים – מָה לִתְיָישִׁים, שֶׁכֵּן נִכְנָסִין לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר!
The Gemara persists: One can derive that the obligation applies to sacrificial animals by an a fortiori inference from male goats, whose owners are exempt from counting their offspring a firstborn as well as from the first sheared wool, and yet are subject to the obligation of gifts of the priesthood. The Gemara rejects this claim as well: What is unique about male goats? They are unique in that they enter the pen to be tithed for the animal tithe, whereas sacrificial animals are not subject to the animal tithe.
מִזְּקֵנִים – מָה לִזְקֵנִים, שֶׁכֵּן נִכְנְסוּ לְדִיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר!
The Gemara further suggests that one can derive the obligation of sacrificial animals having the breast and thigh given from them by a fortiori inference from old male goats, which have already entered the pen in order to be tithed. Consequently, the obligation of the animal tithe, the obligation of counting the offspring a firstborn, and the first sheared wool do not apply. The Gemara rejects this suggestion as well: What is unique about old male goats? They are unique in that they have entered the pen to be tithed, which is not the case with regard to sacrificial animals.
מִלָּקוּחַ וְיָתוֹם – מָה לְלָקוּחַ וְיָתוֹם, שֶׁכֵּן נִכְנָסִין בְּמִינָן לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר!
The Gemara again suggests that perhaps one can derive the obligation of giving gifts of the priesthood with regard to sacrificial animals by an a fortiori inference from a purchased animal, to which the obligation of the animal tithe never applies. Or perhaps it can be derived from an orphaned animal, born after the death of its mother, which is also not subject to the obligation of animal tithe. The Gemara rejects this claim: What is unique about a purchased animal or an orphaned animal? They are unique in that although they themselves do not enter the pen, animals of their type enter the pen to be tithed.
בְּמִינָן קָאָמְרַתְּ? קֳדָשִׁים נָמֵי, בְּמִינָן נִכְנָסִין לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר.
The Gemara responds: You say that it is significant that animals of their type enter the pen? With regard to sacrificial animals as well, non-sacred animals of their type enter the pen to be tithed. Accordingly, one can claim a fortiori that the mitzva to give the gifts applies to sacrificial animals, and it is only due to the verse that they are exempt.
וְיִהְיוּ חוּלִּין חַיָּיבִין בְּחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה קָדָשִׁים, שֶׁאֵין חַיָּיבִים בְּמַתָּנוֹת, חַיָּיבִין בְּחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק; חוּלִּין, שֶׁחַיָּיבִין בְּמַתָּנוֹת, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁחַיָּיבִין בְּחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק?
§ The Gemara challenges: And now that it has been established that the obligation of the gifts of the priesthood does not apply to sacrificial animals, non-sacred animals should be obligated to have the breast and thigh given from them by an a fortiori inference: If sacrificial animals, which are not obligated to have gifts of the priesthood given from them, are nevertheless obligated to have the breast and thigh given from them, then with regard to non-sacred animals, which are obligated to have gifts of the priesthood given from them, is it not right that they should be obligated to have the breast and thigh given from them?
אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְזֶה יִהְיֶה מִשְׁפַּט הַכֹּהֲנִים״, ״זֶה״ – אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא – לָא.
The Gemara responds that the verse states: “And this shall be the priests’ due from the people, from them that perform a slaughter, whether it be an ox or sheep, that they shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw” (Deuteronomy 18:3). The verse indicates that “this,” the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, yes, is given to the priests, but another item, i.e., the breast and thigh, is not given to the priests from non-sacred slaughtered animals.
אֶלָּא טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״זֶה״, הָא לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה אָמֵינָא חוּלִּין חַיָּיבִין בְּחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק? וְהָא בָּעֵי תְּנוּפָה, הֵיכָא לִינוּפִינְהוּ? אִי אַבָּרַאי – ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ כְּתִיב,
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But this derivation indicates that the reason the giving of the breast and thigh does not apply to non-sacred animals is that the Merciful One writes “this,” from which it may be inferred if not for this, I would say that one is obligated to give the breast and thigh from non-sacred animals. But the procedure for giving the breast and thigh requires waving, and where would one wave the breast and thigh of a non-sacred animal? If it is suggested that one wave them outside the Temple, that cannot be done, as it is written: “That the breast may be waved for a wave offering before the Lord” (Leviticus 7:30), indicating that they must be waved inside the Temple.
אִי אַגַּוַּאי – קָא מְעַיֵּיל חוּלִּין לָעֲזָרָה, הִלְכָּךְ לָא אֶפְשָׁר.
If it is suggested that they should be waved inside the Temple, that too cannot be correct, because one who waves them inside the Temple thereby brings a non-sacred animal into the Temple courtyard. Therefore, since it is not possible to perform the procedure of giving the breast and thigh with non-sacred animals, it is not necessary for a verse to teach that the giving of the breast and thigh does not apply to such animals.
אֶלָּא ״זֶה״ לְמָה לִי? לְכִדְרַב חִסְדָּא, דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הַמַּזִּיק מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה אוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלָן – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם.
The Gemara asks: But if that is so, why do I need the verse to state: “This shall be the priests’ due” (Deuteronomy 18:3)? The Gemara answers: The verse is necessary for that which Rav Ḥisda taught, as Rav Ḥisda said: One who causes damage to gifts of the priesthood, or who consumed them before they were given to the priests, is exempt from having to pay to the priest, as the verse states: “This shall be the priests’ due,” which indicates that only the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw themselves, not their replacements, are given to the priests.
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הַמַּזִּיק מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה, אוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלָן – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. מַאי טַעְמָא? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא דִּכְתִיב ״זֶה״, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ מָמוֹן שֶׁאֵין לוֹ תּוֹבְעִים.
§ The Gemara analyzes the matter itself: Rav Ḥisda said that one who causes damage to gifts of the priesthood or who consumed them is exempt from having to pay a substitute to the priest. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? If you wish, say that it is because “this” is written in the verse, indicating that only the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw themselves are given to the priests, as explained above. And if you wish, say instead that it is because it is money that has no claimants. Since one may give the gifts to any priest, no single priest can issue a claim on them.
מֵיתִיבִי: ״וְזֶה יִהְיֶה מִשְׁפַּט הַכֹּהֲנִים״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַמַּתָּנוֹת דִּין. לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? לָאו לְהוֹצִיאָן בְּדַיָּינִין? לָא, לְחוֹלְקָן בְּדַיָּינִין.
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita. The verse states: “And this shall be the priests’ due [mishpat]” (Deuteronomy 18:3), which teaches that the gifts given to the priests are considered a judgment, as mishpat can mean judgment. The Gemara continues: With regard to what halakha are the gifts a judgment? Is it not with regard to extracting them through judges, i.e., a priest may claim them in court and the court will order the individual to give the gifts to that priest? If so, the gifts are considered to be money that has claimants. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, they are a judgment with regard to distributing them through judges, i.e., the court dictates to the owner to which type of priests he should give the gifts.
וְכִדְרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי, דְּאָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין נוֹתְנִין מַתָּנָה לְכֹהֵן עַם הָאָרֶץ? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר לָעָם לְיוֹשְׁבֵי יְרוּשָׁלִַם לָתֵת מְנָת לַכֹּהֲנִים וְלַלְוִיִּם לְמַעַן יֶחֶזְקוּ בְּתוֹרַת ה׳״, כׇּל הַמַּחְזִיק בְּתוֹרַת ה׳ – יֵשׁ לוֹ מְנָת, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מַחֲזִיק בְּתוֹרַת ה׳ – אֵין לוֹ מְנָת.
And this is in accordance with that which Rav Shmuel bar Naḥmani taught, as Rav Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: From where is it derived that one does not give a gift of the priesthood to a priest who is an am ha’aretz? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “And he commanded the people who dwelled in Jerusalem to give the portion of the priests and of the Levites, so that they may firmly adhere to the Torah of the Lord” (II Chronicles 31:4). This indicates that anyone who firmly adheres to the Torah of the Lord has a portion, and one who does not firmly adhere to the Torah of the Lord does not have a portion.
תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא אוֹמֵר: ״מִשְׁפָּט״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַמַּתָּנוֹת דִּין. יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק דִּין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״זֶה״.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof with regard to the statement of Rav Ḥisda from a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says that the phrase “And this shall be the priests’ due” teaches that the gifts of the priesthood are a judgment. One might have thought that the gifts of the breast and thigh are also a judgment. Therefore, the verse states: “This,” to teach that only the gifts of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw are called a judgment.
לְמַאי? אִילֵימָא לְחוֹלְקוֹ בְּדַיָּינִין – אַטּוּ חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק לָאו בְּדַיָּינִין מִיחַלְּקוּ? אֶלָּא לָאו (להוציא) [לְהוֹצִיאוֹ] בְּדַיָּינִין.
The Gemara analyzes this baraita: With regard to what matter is this halakha stated? If we say that it is with regard to distributing them through judges, is that to say that the breast and thigh are not distributed through judges? These are also called a “portion” (II Chronicles 31:4), and therefore the court determines to which priests they should be given, as stated above. Rather, is it not stated with regard to extracting them through judges? If so, one can infer from the baraita that gifts of the priesthood can be extracted in court by a priest, which contradicts the statement of Rav Ḥisda.
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, דַּאֲתוֹ לִידֵיהּ. אִי דַּאֲתוֹ לִידֵיהּ, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? דַּאֲתוֹ לִידֵיהּ בְּטִבְלַיְיהוּ, וְקָסָבַר הַאי תַּנָּא: מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמוּ – כְּמִי שֶׁהוּרְמוּ דָּמְיָין.
The Gemara responds: Here, we are dealing with a case where the gifts already came into the priest’s possession, and the owner stole them from him. The baraita teaches that the priest may claim them in court and the court will order that they be returned to him. The Gemara asks: If this is a case where they came into his possession, what is the purpose of stating that the priest may claim them in court? That is obvious, as they already belong to him. The Gemara responds: The baraita is referring to a case where they came into his possession while they were still untithed, i.e., the priest received the entire animal before the gifts were separated, and this tanna holds that gifts that have not been separated are considered as though they have been separated. Accordingly, the gifts belong to the priest, and if the owner takes them from him against his will it is considered theft.
תָּא שְׁמַע: בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁהָיָה עוֹבֵר מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם, וְצָרִיךְ לִיטּוֹל לֶקֶט, שִׁכְחָה, וּפֵאָה, וּמַעְשַׂר עָנִי – נוֹטֵל, וְלִכְשֶׁיַּחְזוֹר יְשַׁלֵּם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof with regard to the statement of Rav Ḥisda from a mishna (Pe’a 5:4): In the case of a homeowner who was passing from place to place, and he ran out of money while traveling and needs to take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, pe’a, or the poor man’s tithe in order to sustain himself, he may take them, and when he returns to his house he will pay a poor person for whatever he took; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. The mishna teaches that a poor person may extract payment for that which the homeowner took, despite the fact that he never had possession of the gifts. This ruling apparently contradicts the statement of Rav Ḥisda.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מִדַּת חֲסִידוּת שָׁנוּ כָּאן. אָמַר רָבָא: תַּנָּא תָּנֵי ״יְשַׁלֵּם״, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ מִדַּת חֲסִידוּת שָׁנוּ כָּאן?! וְעוֹד, מִדְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לֵיקוּם וְלֹיתֵוב?
Rav Ḥisda said: The mishna taught an attribute of piety here, i.e., strictly speaking a poor person has no right to claim any amount from the homeowner for what he took. Rava said in bewilderment: The tanna taught explicitly that he will pay, and you say that he taught an attribute of piety here? And furthermore, should one arise and raise an objection from the statement of Rabbi Eliezer? The halakha is not in accordance with his opinion.
אֶלָּא מִסֵּיפָא, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: עָנִי הָיָה בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה, טַעְמָא דְּעָנִי, הָא עָשִׁיר – מְשַׁלֵּם.
Rather, the objection is from the latter clause of the mishna: And the Rabbis say that the homeowner is not required to pay for what he took during his travels, as he was considered poor at that time. It may be inferred that the reason he is exempt from payment is only that he was considered poor at the time, but if he were considered wealthy, he would have to pay the poor people who issue a claim against him in court, as he was not entitled to those gifts.
אַמַּאי? לֶיהֱוֵי כְּמַזִּיק מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה אוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלָן! אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מִדַּת חֲסִידוּת שָׁנוּ כָּאן.
The Gemara explains the objection: But why must he pay? Let it be considered like a case where one causes damage to gifts of the priesthood or consumes them, with regard to which Rav Ḥisda states that he is not required to pay the priest. The opinion of the Rabbis apparently contradicts the statement of Rav Ḥisda. Rav Ḥisda says: Even if the homeowner was considered wealthy at the time he is not required to pay, and the Rabbis who obligated him to pay taught an attribute of piety here.
תָּא שְׁמַע: מִנַּיִן לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁאָכַל פֵּירוֹתָיו טְבָלִין, וְכֵן לֵוִי שֶׁאָכַל מַעְשְׂרוֹתָיו טְבָלִים, מִנַּיִן שֶׁפָּטוּר מִן הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת קׇדְשֵׁי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יָרִימוּ״ – אֵין לְךָ בָּהֶן אֶלָּא מִשְּׁעַת הֲרָמָה וְאֵילָךְ.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to a homeowner who consumed his produce while it was untithed, i.e., neither teruma nor the first tithe had been separated, and similarly, with regard to a Levite who consumed his tithes while they were untithed, i.e., teruma of the tithe had not been separated, from where is it derived that he is exempt from payment? The verse states: “And they shall not profane the sacred things of the children of Israel, which they set apart to the Lord” (Leviticus 22:15). This teaches that you, the priest, have rights to them only from the time of separation onward. Since the produce was eaten before teruma was separated from it, the priest cannot claim payment for it in court.
הָא מִשְּׁעַת הֲרָמָה וְאֵילָךְ מִיהָא מְשַׁלֵּם, אַמַּאי? לֶיהֱוֵי כְּמַזִּיק מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה אוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלָן! הָכָא נָמֵי
The Gemara infers from this ruling: This indicates that if it was consumed from the time of separation onward, the priest may in any event claim payment for the teruma in court, and the one who consumed it must pay. But why must one pay? Let it be like a case where one causes damage to gifts of the priesthood or consumes them, with regard to which Rav Ḥisda states that he is exempt from payment. The Gemara responds: Here too,
