Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 8, 2019 | 讙壮 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Chullin 132

More laws regarding gifts of priests.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诪讟讜谞讱 讗讛专谉 讜讘谞讬讜 讻转讜讘讬谉 讘驻专砖讛

from your burden [mitunakh], i.e., from that which you raise your objection, I can cite a proof for my practice: With regard to the meal offering of a priest, both Aaron and his sons are written in the passage discussing this offering: 鈥淎nd this is the law of the meal offering: The sons of Aaron shall offer it before the Lord, in front of the altar鈥 (Leviticus 6:7). The verse emphasizes that these halakhot apply only to male priests and not to their daughters. This indicates that when the verse refers merely to priests, even their daughters are included. Accordingly, one may give gifts of the priesthood to the daughter of a priest.

讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 转谞讗 讻讛谉 讜诇讗 讻讛谞转 讜讬诇诪讜讚 住转讜诐 诪谉 讛诪驻讜专砖

The Gemara cites the opinions of various tanna鈥檌m with regard to the practice of Ulla: The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Anywhere that the Torah mentions a priest with regard to gifts of the priesthood, it is referring specifically to a priest and not a female priest, and let one derive the meaning of an unspecified reference to a priest from the explicit verse that states with regard to meal offerings: 鈥淎aron and his sons.鈥 This verse indicates that any reference to a priest excludes a priest鈥檚 daughter.

讚讘讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 转谞讗 讻讛谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻讛谞转 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 讗讞专 诪讬注讜讟 讜讗讬谉 诪讬注讜讟 讗讞专 诪讬注讜讟 讗诇讗 诇专讘讜转

The school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov taught: In general, the reference to a priest in a verse serves to exclude a priest鈥檚 daughter. But when the verse mentions a priest with regard to gifts of the priesthood, it means to include even a female priest. This is because the verse mentions priests twice: 鈥淎nd this shall be the priests鈥 due from the people, from them that perform a slaughter, whether it be ox or sheep, that they shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:3). Since each reference to a priest excludes the daughter of a priest, this verse is a case of a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression, and there is a hermeneutical principle that a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression serves only to amplify the halakha and include additional cases, in this instance, the daughter of a priest.

专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗讻诇 讘砖讘讬诇 讗砖转讜 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讻诇 讘砖讘讬诇 讗砖转讜 专讘 讬讬诪专 讗讻诇 讘砖讘讬诇 讗砖转讜 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗讻诇 讘砖讘讬诇 讗砖转讜

The Gemara relates that Rav Kahana, who was an Israelite, partook of gifts of the priesthood on account of his wife, who was the daughter of a priest. Similarly, Rav Pappa partook of gifts of the priesthood on account of his wife, Rav Yeimar partook of gifts on account of his wife, and Rav Idi bar Avin partook of them on account of his wife.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬 诪专讬诪专 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚注讜诇讗

Ravina said: Mareimar said to me that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav that it is uncertain whether or not Levites are obligated to give the gifts of the priesthood, and consequently, gifts are not removed from their possession to be given to the priests. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav 岣sda that one who damages or consumes gifts of the priesthood is exempt from payment. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ulla that gifts of the priesthood may be given to the daughter of a priest.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诇讜讬讛 砖讬诇讚讛 讘谞讛 驻讟讜专 诪讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐

And in a case not previously discussed but related to the opinion of Ulla, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Adda bar Ahava with regard to a female Levite, i.e., the daughter of a Levite, who gave birth to a firstborn boy, even if she is married to an Israelite, that her son is exempt from the obligation to give five sela to the priest for his redemption, as the child is considered the son of a Levite, and Levites are exempt from this obligation.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讝专讜注 讜讛诇讞讬讬诐 讜讛拽讘讛 谞讜讛讙讬诐 讘讻诇讗讬诐 讜讘讻讜讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇讗讬诐 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛注讝 讜诪谉 讛专讞诇 讞讬讬讘 讘诪转谞讜转 诪谉 讛转讬讬砖 讜诪谉 讛爪讘讬讬讛 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪转谞讜转

搂 The Gemara cites a dispute with regard to the gifts of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw. The Sages taught in a baraita: The obligation to give the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw applies even to a hybrid animal and to the animal known as a koy. Rabbi Eliezer says: A hybrid that results from the mating of a goat and a ewe is obligated to have gifts of the priesthood given from it, while a hybrid that results from the mating of a goat and a doe is exempt from having gifts of the priesthood given from it. This is because the verse states with regard to gifts of the priesthood: 鈥淲hether it be an ox or sheep鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:3), i.e., a domesticated animal, and a doe is not a domesticated animal.

诪讻讚讬 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚诇注谞讬谉 讻住讜讬 讛讚诐 讜诪转谞讜转 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讘爪讘讬 讛讘讗 注诇 讛转讬讬砖讛 讜讘讬谉 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讬谉 诇专讘谞谉 诪住驻拽讗 诇讛讜 讗讬 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讝专注 讛讗讘 讗讬 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉

The Gemara asks: Now, we maintain (see 79b鈥80a) with regard to the mitzvot of covering the blood and giving the gifts of the priesthood that you do not find that Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree except in the case of an animal born from a deer that mates with a female goat. And both Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis are uncertain whether one needs to be concerned with its paternity when determining the species of a hybrid animal, which would mean that this animal is part domesticated and part undomesticated, or whether one does not need to be concerned with paternity and the species of an animal is determined entirely by the species of its mother, in which case it is a domesticated animal.

讜讘砖讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽爪转 砖讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 砖讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽爪转 砖讛 讜诪专 住讘专 砖讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽爪转 砖讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

And they disagree with regard to whether the obligation of the gifts applies to a sheep and even an animal that is partially a sheep, i.e., partially domesticated. One Sage, the Rabbis, holds that the obligation applies to a sheep and even an animal that is partially a sheep; and one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that we do not say that the obligation applies to a sheep and even an animal that is partially a sheep.

讘砖诇诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚驻讟专 拽住讘专 砖讛 讜诇讗 诪拽爪转 砖讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘谞谉 谞讛讬 谞诪讬 讚拽住讘专讬 砖讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽爪转 砖讛 驻诇讙讗 诇砖拽讜诇 讜讗讬讚讱 驻诇讙讗 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讚讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讝专注 讛讗讘 讜砖拽讜诇 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬讬讗 诪讗讬 讞讬讬讘 谞诪讬 讚拽讗 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讘讞爪讬 诪转谞讜转

The Gemara concludes its question: Granted, it is understandable that Rabbi Eliezer deems the owner of a hybrid exempt from the mitzva to give the priestly gifts, as he holds that only in the case of a sheep is one obligated to give gifts of the priesthood, but not with regard to animals that are only partially sheep. But according to the opinion of the Rabbis, though indeed they hold that sheep and even animals that are partially sheep are subject to the obligation of giving gifts of the priesthood, let the priest take only half of the gifts. And with regard to the other half, let the owner of the animal say to him: Bring proof that one need not be concerned with its paternity and then you may take the other half. Rav Huna bar 岣yya said in response: What do the Rabbis mean when they say that the owner of this animal is obligated? They mean that he is obligated in half of the gifts.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻讜讬 讬砖 讘讜 讚专讻讬诐 砖讜讬谉 诇讘讛诪讛 讜讬砖 讘讜 讚专讻讬诐 砖讜讬谉 诇讞讬讛 讜讬砖 讘讜 讚专讻讬诐 砖讜讬谉 诇讞讬讛 讜诇讘讛诪讛

Rabbi Zeira raises an objection to this response from a baraita: In the case of a koy, with regard to which it is uncertain whether it is a domesticated animal or an undomesticated one, there are ways in which its halakhot correspond to those of a domesticated animal, and there are ways in which its halakhot correspond to those of an undomesticated animal. And there are ways in which its halakhot correspond to those of both an undomesticated animal and a domesticated animal.

讻讬爪讚 讞诇讘讜 讗住讜专 讻讞诇讘 讘讛诪讛 讜讚诪讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讻住讜转 讻讚诐 讛讞讬讛 讚专讻讬诐 砖讜讬谉 诇讘讛诪讛 讜诇讞讬讛 砖讚诪讜 讜讙讬讚讜 讗住讜专讬谉 讻讘讛诪讛 讜讞讬讛 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讝专讜注 讜诇讞讬讬诐 讜讛拽讘讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜讟专

The baraita elaborates: How so? Its fat is forbidden like the forbidden fat of a domesticated animal, unlike that of an undomesticated one. And one is obligated to cover its blood from slaughter with dirt, like the blood of an undomesticated animal. And there are ways in which its halakhot correspond to both those of a domesticated animal and an undomesticated animal, as its blood and its sciatic nerve are forbidden like those of a domesticated animal and an undomesticated animal. And its owner is obligated to give the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw from it to the priest, as in the case of domesticated animals. And Rabbi Eliezer deems the owner of a koy exempt from the mitzva to give the gifts.

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讞讬讬讘 讘讞爪讬 诪转谞讜转 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 讞诇讘讜 讜讚诪讜 讚诇讗 诪转谞讬 讞爪讬 讞爪讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诇讗 拽讗 转谞讬 讞爪讬

Rabbi Zeira asks: And if it is so that the Rabbis mean that the owner of a koy is obligated to give half of the gifts, then the baraita should have said that he is obligated to give half of the gifts from it. The Gemara responds: Since the tanna taught that its fat and its blood are forbidden, with regard to which it could not teach that half of its blood or half of its fat are forbidden, as it is impossible that half of it is forbidden while the other half is permitted, due to that reason the tanna did not teach that the owner of a koy is obligated in half of the gifts.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讜讬 诇专讘谞谉 讞讬讬讘 讘讻讜诇讛讜 诪转谞讜转 讚转谞讬讗 砖讜专 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诐 砖讜专 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讻诇讗讬诐 砖讛 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诐 砖讛 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讻讜讬

The Gemara relates that when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: According to the Rabbis, a koy is obligated to have all of the gifts of the priesthood given from it. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the gifts of the priesthood: 鈥淲hether it be an ox or sheep鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:3). Since the verse needed to state only 鈥渙x,鈥 why must the verse state: 鈥淲hether it be an ox鈥? This phrase serves to include a hybrid in the obligation to give the gifts of the priesthood. And since the verse needed to state only 鈥渟heep,鈥 why must the verse state: 鈥淥r sheep鈥? This phrase serves to include the koy in the obligation to give the gifts.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗讬 讗诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讞诇拽 讜专讘谞谉 诇讞诇拽 诪谞讗 诇讛讜 谞驻拽讗 诇讛讜 诪讗转 讝讘讞讬 讛讝讘讞

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who deems the owners of a koy and the offspring of a hybrid exempt from giving gifts of the priesthood from these animals, why do I need this phrase: 鈥淲hether it be an ox or sheep鈥? The Gemara responds: He requires it to divide between an ox and a sheep, indicating that one is obligated with regard to either animal alone. Were it not for this phrase, one might have concluded that he is obligated to give the gifts only after slaughtering both an ox and a sheep. The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, who derive other halakhot from this phrase, from where do they derive to divide between an ox and a sheep? The Gemara responds: They derive it from the phrase: 鈥淔rom them that perform a slaughter鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:3), which indicates that the obligation to give the gifts applies even to one animal.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗讬 诪讗转 讝讘讞讬 讛讝讘讞 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讚讬谉 注诐 讛讟讘讞

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Eliezer, what does he do with this phrase: 鈥淔rom them that perform a slaughter,鈥 i.e., what does he derive from it? The Gemara responds: He requires it for a statement of Rava, as Rava said: If a priest seeks to claim gifts of the priesthood in court, the priest issues his demand with the butcher, even if the animal itself belongs to another individual.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讻讜专 砖谞转注专讘 讘诪讗讛 讘讝诪谉 砖诪讗讛 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讗转 讻讜诇谉 驻讜讟专讬诐 讗转 讻讜诇谉 讗讞讚 砖讜讞讟 讗转 讻讜诇谉 驻讜讟专讬诐 诇讜 讗讞讚

MISHNA: With regard to a blemished firstborn animal, which one may slaughter and eat without being required to give the foreleg, jaw, and maw to the priest, that was intermingled with one hundred non-sacred animals, from which one is required to give those gifts, in a case when one hundred different people slaughter all of them, each slaughtering one animal, one exempts them all from giving the gifts, as each could claim that the animal that he slaughtered was the firstborn. If one person slaughtered them all, one exempts one of the animals for him.

讛砖讜讞讟 诇讻讛谉 讜诇讙讜讬 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪转谞讜转 讜讛诪砖转转祝 注诪讛谉 爪专讬讱 砖讬专砖讜诐 讜讗诐 讗诪专 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛诪转谞讜转 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪转谞讜转

One who slaughters the animal of a priest for the priest or the animal of a gentile for the gentile is exempt from the obligation to give the gifts of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw. And an Israelite who enters into partnership with a priest or a gentile must mark the animal to indicate that it is jointly owned and exempt from the obligation to give the gifts. And if a priest sold his animal to an Israelite and said: The animal is sold except for the gifts with it, the Israelite is exempt from the obligation to give the gifts, as they are not his.

讗诪专 诪讻讜专 诇讬 讘谞讬 诪注讬讛 砖诇 驻专讛 讜讛讬讜 讘讛谉 诪转谞讜转 谞讜转谞谉 诇讻讛谉 讜讗讬谞讜 诪谞讻讛 诇讜 诪谉 讛讚诪讬诐 诇拽讞谉 讛讬诪谞讜 讘诪砖拽诇 谞讜转谞谉 诇讻讛谉 讜诪谞讻讛 诇讜 诪谉 讛讚诪讬诐

If the Israelite said to the one slaughtering the animal: Sell me the innards of a cow, and there were gifts included with it, i.e., the maw, the purchaser gives them to the priest and he does not deduct the value of the gifts from the money that he pays him. If he bought the innards from the slaughterer by weight, the purchaser gives the gifts, i.e., the maw, to the priest and deducts the value of the gifts from the money that he pays him.

讙诪壮 讜讗诪讗讬 讬讘讗 注诇讬讜 讻讛谉 诪砖谞讬 爪讚讚讬谉 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讘讻讜专 讛讜讗 讻讜诇讬讛 讚讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讻讜专 讛讜讗 讛讘 诇讬 诪转谞转讗讬

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if a firstborn animal was intermingled with one hundred non-sacred animals, each belonging to a different person, all of the animals are excluded from the obligation to give the gifts, due to the uncertainty of which animal is the firstborn. The Gemara asks: But why is this the halakha? Let the priest come upon each slaughterer with a claim from two sides, i.e., let the priest say to him: If this animal is a firstborn, it is completely mine; and if it is not a firstborn but is instead a non-sacred animal, then give me my gifts.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讘讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讻讛谉 讜诪讻专讜 诇讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讜诪讜

Rav Oshaya says in response: In general, a priest may issue such a claim. But the mishna is dealing with a case where the firstborn came into the possession of the priest when it was unblemished and thereafter it developed a permanent blemish, and the priest sold it to an Israelite in its blemished state. In such a case, the priest may not demand that the owner give him the entire animal with the claim that it is a firstborn, as he already received it once as a firstborn.

讛砖讜讞讟 诇讻讛谉 讜诇讙讜讬 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪转谞讜转 讜诇讬转谞讬 讻讛谉 讜讙讜讬 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛诪转谞讜转 讗诪专 专讘讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讛讚讬谉 注诐 讛讟讘讞

搂 The mishna teaches that one who slaughters the animal of a priest for the priest or the animal of a gentile for the gentile is exempt from the obligation to give the gifts of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw. The Gemara suggests: And let the tanna simply teach that a priest and a gentile are exempt from the obligation to give the gifts. Rava says in explanation: That is to say, i.e., the wording of the mishna indicates, that the demand of a priest who seeks to claim gifts of the priesthood is with the butcher, not with the owner of the animal. Even if the butcher is himself a priest, if he slaughters an animal on behalf of an Israelite he is obligated to give the gifts.

讚专砖 专讘讗 诪讗转 讛注诐 讜诇讗 诪讗转 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诪讗转 讝讘讞讬 讛讝讘讞 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讟讘讞 讻讛谉 讘诪砖诪注

The Gemara adds: Rava also interpreted the verse in such a manner. The verse states: 鈥淭his shall be the priests鈥 due from the people, from them that perform a slaughter, whether it be ox or sheep, that they shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:3). The verse specifies that the gifts are taken 鈥渇rom the people,鈥 and not from the priests. When the verse states: 鈥淔rom them that perform a slaughter,鈥 indicating that the gifts are given by anyone who slaughters an animal, you must say that this teaches that even a butcher who is a priest is included in the obligation to give the gifts.

讗讜砖驻讬讝讬讻谞讬讛 讚专讘讬 讟讘诇讗 讻讛谉 讛讜讛 讜讛讜讛 讚讞讬拽 诇讬讛 诪诇转讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讟讘诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讗讬砖转转祝 讘讛讚讬 讟讘讞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讚诪讙讜 讚诪驻讟专讬 诪诪转谞转讗 诪砖转转驻讬 讘讛讚讱

搂 The mishna teaches that the obligation to give the gifts of the priesthood does not apply to an animal jointly owned by an Israelite and a priest. The Gemara relates that the host [ushpizikhnei] of Rabbi Tavla was a priest and he was hard-pressed for money. He came before Rabbi Tavla to ask for advice. Rabbi Tavla said to him: Go and enter into a partnership with those Israelite butchers, to obtain part ownership of their animals, as since they will be exempt from the obligation to give the gifts on account of this partnership, they will agree to enter into a business partnership with you free of charge.

讞讬讬讘讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讟讘诇讗 驻讟专谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讗驻讬拽 讜讗讬 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞讗 诇讱 专讘讬 讟讘诇讗 诪讗讜谞讱

The priest heeded the advice of Rabbi Tavla and entered into a partnership with an Israelite butcher. Nevertheless, Rav Na岣an obligated the butcher to give the gifts of the priesthood from the animals he slaughtered. The priest said to Rav Na岣an: But Rabbi Tavla exempted us from this obligation. Rav Na岣an said to him: Go remove the gifts of the priesthood that are in your possession and give them to a priest, and if you will not do so, I will remove Rabbi Tavla from your ear [me鈥檜nakh], i.e., I will refute his basis for deeming you exempt.

讗讝诇 专讘讬 讟讘诇讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讘讬讚 诪专 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讚专讜诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讝拽谞讬 讚专讜诐 讗诪专讜 讻讛谉 讟讘讞 砖转讬诐 讜砖诇砖 砖讘转讜转 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪转谞讜转 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讞讬讬讘 讘诪转谞讜转

Rabbi Tavla came before Rav Na岣an and said to him: What is the reason that the Master has done this and ruled in contradiction to the mishna? Rav Na岣an said to him: I ruled in this manner, as when Rabbi A岣 bar 岣nina of the south came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and all the elders of the south said: With regard to a priest who becomes a butcher, for the first two or three weeks he is exempt from the obligation to give the gifts, as he has not yet established himself in the community as a butcher. But from this point forward he is obligated to give the gifts, as he is now known as a butcher.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪专 诪讬讛转 讻专讘讬 讗讞讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚诇讗 拽讘注 诪住讞转讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讛讗 拽讘注 诪住讞转讗

Rabbi Tavla said to Rav Na岣an: And let the Master at least do for the priest in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi A岣 bar 岣nina and exempt him from giving the gifts for the first three weeks of his partnership. Rav Na岣an said to him: This statement of Rabbi A岣 bar 岣nina applies only when the priest did not immediately establish a butcher shop. In such a case, the priest is exempt until he becomes known as a recognized butcher. But here, he has already established a butcher shop and is therefore obligated to give the gifts without delay.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讗讬 讻讛谞讗 讚诇讗 诪驻专讬砖 诪转谞转讗 诇讬讛讜讬 讘砖诪转讗 讚讗诇讛讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 砖讬诇讗 讛谞讬 讟讘讞讬 讚讛讜爪诇 拽讬讬诪讬 讘砖诪转讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讗 注砖专讬诐 讜转专转讬 砖谞讬谉

Rav 岣sda said: With regard to a priest who slaughters an animal and does not separate gifts of the priesthood from them for another priest, let him be under the excommunication of the God of Israel. Rabba bar Rav Sheila said: These butchers of the city of Huzal have remained under the excommunication of Rav 岣sda these last twenty-two years, as they have continuously refused to separate gifts of the priesthood for this period.

诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚转讜 诇讗 诪砖诪转讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪爪讜转 诇讗 转注砖讛 讗讘诇 讘诪爪讜转 注砖讛 讻讙讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 注砖讛 住讜讻讛 讜讗讬谞讜 注讜砖讛 诇讜诇讘 讜讗讬谞讜 注讜砖讛 注砖讛 爪讬爪讬转 讜讗讬谞讜 注讜砖讛 诪讻讬谉 讗讜转讜 注讚 砖转爪讗 谞驻砖讜

The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha did Rabba bar Rav Sheila state that the butchers of Huzal have been under excommunication for twenty-two years? If we say that we do not excommunicate them for a period any longer than twenty-two years, but isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: In what case is this statement, that one is not excommunicated for committing a transgression, said? It is said with regard to a prohibition, for which one is liable to receive a relatively severe punishment, e.g., death or karet. But with regard to one who refuses to perform a positive mitzva, e.g., the court says to him: Perform the mitzva of sukka, and he does not do so, or: Perform the mitzva of taking the lulav, and he does not do so, or: Prepare ritual fringes for your garments, and he does not do so, the court strikes him an unlimited number of times, even until his soul departs. Accordingly, the butchers of Huzal should remain under excommunication indefinitely until they separate the gifts.

讗诇讗 讚拽谞住讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讘诇讗 讗转专讬讬转讗 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘讗 拽谞讬住 讗讟诪讗 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 拽谞讬住 讙诇讬诪讗

Rather, Rabba bar Rav Sheila means that because the butchers of Huzal have refused to give the gifts for so many years, we fine them even without forewarning. There was a case like this of a person who refused to give the gifts of the priesthood to a priest, where Rava fined him by taking the entire thigh of his animal and giving it to a priest. Similarly, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k fined an individual who refused to give the gifts of the priesthood to a priest by taking his cloak and giving it to a priest.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讝专讜注 诇讗讞讚 讜拽讘讛 诇讗讞讚 诇讞讬讬诐 诇砖谞讬讬诐 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讘诪注专讘讗 驻诇讙讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讙专诪讗 讙专诪讗

And Rav 岣sda also says with regard to gifts of the priesthood: The foreleg is given to one priest and the maw is given to one priest, while the jaw is given to two priests. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But when Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef came to Babylonia from Eretz Yisrael he said: In the West, Eretz Yisrael, we divide the gifts bone by bone, each of which is given to two priests.

讛转诐 讘讚转讜专讗

The Gemara explains: There, in the case dealt with in Eretz Yisrael, the gifts were of a large bull. The Torah states: 鈥淭hat they shall give to the priest鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:3). The use of the term 鈥済ive鈥 indicates that the gift given should be a substantial one. Even when one limb of the large bull was divided between two priests, each received a substantial portion. This is not the case with regard to the gifts of smaller animals, where each limb is not large enough to provide two substantial portions.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗住讜专 诇讗讻讜诇 诪讘讛诪讛 砖诇讗 讛讜专诪讛 诪转谞讜转讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讛讗讜讻诇 诪讘讛诪讛 砖诇讗 讛讜专诪讛 诪转谞讜转讬讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讗讜讻诇 讟讘诇讬诐 讜诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛

Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is prohibited to partake of a slaughtered animal whose gifts have not yet been separated. Furthermore, Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Anyone who partakes of an animal whose gifts have not yet been separated is considered as though he consumes untithed produce. But the Gemara states: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪转谞讜转 讻讛讜谞讛 讗讬谉 谞讗讻诇讜转 讗诇讗 爪诇讬 讜讗讬谉 谞讗讻诇讜转 讗诇讗 讘讞专讚诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇诪砖讞讛 诇讙讚讜诇讛 讻讚专讱 砖讛诪诇讻讬诐 讗讜讻诇讬诐

Rav 岣sda says: Gifts of the priesthood may be consumed only when they are roasted, and they may be consumed only with mustard seasoning. What is the reason for this halakha? The verse states: 鈥淎nd the Lord spoke to Aaron: And I, behold, I have given you the charge of My gifts; of all the consecrated items of the children of Israel to you have I given them for prominence, and to your sons, as an eternal portion鈥 (Numbers 18:8). The term 鈥渇or prominence鈥 means that the portions were given to the priests as a mark of greatness. Accordingly, they should be eaten in a manner that kings eat, i.e., roasted and with mustard.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注 诪转谞讜转 讻讛讜谞讛 讻诇 讻讛谉 砖讗讬谞讜 讘拽讬 讘讛谉 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 诪转谞讛 讜诇讗讜 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讻讛谉 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜讚讛 讘注讘讜讚讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讞诇拽 讘讻讛讜谞讛 砖谞讗诪专 讛诪拽专讬讘 讗转 讚诐 讛砖诇诪讬诐 讜讗转 讛讞诇讘 诪讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 诇讜 转讛讬讛 砖讜拽 讛讬诪讬谉 诇诪谞讛

And Rav 岣sda says: One may not give a gift to any priest who is not an expert in the halakhot pertaining to all twenty-four gifts of the priesthood. The Gemara notes: But this is not correct, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: Any priest who does not believe in the validity of the Temple service has no portion in any of the gifts given to the priesthood, as it is stated: 鈥淗e among the sons of Aaron, who offers [hamakriv] the blood of the peace offerings, and the fat, shall have the right thigh for a portion鈥 (Leviticus 7:33). The word 鈥hamakriv,鈥 which literally means: Who brings it close, indicates that only one who believes in the validity of conveying the blood to the altar is entitled to receive the right thigh of the offering, as only one who believes in the rite would perform it.

讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讝讛 讘诇讘讚 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 注讘讜讚讜转 讻讙讜谉 讛讬爪讬拽讜转 讜讛讘诇讬诇讜转 讜讛驻转讬转讜转 讜讛诪诇讬讞讜转 转谞讜驻讜转 讜讛讙砖讜转 [讜讛拽诪讬爪讜转] 讛拽讟专讜转 (讜讛诪爪讬讜转) [讜讛诪诇讬拽讜转]

The baraita continues: I have derived only that a priest does not have a share in the priestly gifts if he does not believe in this rite of conveying of the blood alone. From where do I derive to include fifteen additional sacrificial rites, such as the rites of a meal offering, i.e., the pouring of the oil and the mixing of the oil and the subsequent pouring of the oil; and the crumbling of meal offerings prepared in a shallow or deep pan or in an oven, whose handfuls are removed after they are baked and subsequently crumbled; and the salting of meal offerings (see Leviticus 2:13); and the waving of certain meal offerings; and the bringing of certain meal offerings to the southwestern corner of the altar before a handful is removed; and the removal of the handful; and the burning of offerings on the altar; and the squeezing of a bird offering to extract its blood; and the pinching of the nape of the neck of a bird offering;

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 132

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 132

诪讟讜谞讱 讗讛专谉 讜讘谞讬讜 讻转讜讘讬谉 讘驻专砖讛

from your burden [mitunakh], i.e., from that which you raise your objection, I can cite a proof for my practice: With regard to the meal offering of a priest, both Aaron and his sons are written in the passage discussing this offering: 鈥淎nd this is the law of the meal offering: The sons of Aaron shall offer it before the Lord, in front of the altar鈥 (Leviticus 6:7). The verse emphasizes that these halakhot apply only to male priests and not to their daughters. This indicates that when the verse refers merely to priests, even their daughters are included. Accordingly, one may give gifts of the priesthood to the daughter of a priest.

讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 转谞讗 讻讛谉 讜诇讗 讻讛谞转 讜讬诇诪讜讚 住转讜诐 诪谉 讛诪驻讜专砖

The Gemara cites the opinions of various tanna鈥檌m with regard to the practice of Ulla: The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Anywhere that the Torah mentions a priest with regard to gifts of the priesthood, it is referring specifically to a priest and not a female priest, and let one derive the meaning of an unspecified reference to a priest from the explicit verse that states with regard to meal offerings: 鈥淎aron and his sons.鈥 This verse indicates that any reference to a priest excludes a priest鈥檚 daughter.

讚讘讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 转谞讗 讻讛谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻讛谞转 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 讗讞专 诪讬注讜讟 讜讗讬谉 诪讬注讜讟 讗讞专 诪讬注讜讟 讗诇讗 诇专讘讜转

The school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov taught: In general, the reference to a priest in a verse serves to exclude a priest鈥檚 daughter. But when the verse mentions a priest with regard to gifts of the priesthood, it means to include even a female priest. This is because the verse mentions priests twice: 鈥淎nd this shall be the priests鈥 due from the people, from them that perform a slaughter, whether it be ox or sheep, that they shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:3). Since each reference to a priest excludes the daughter of a priest, this verse is a case of a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression, and there is a hermeneutical principle that a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression serves only to amplify the halakha and include additional cases, in this instance, the daughter of a priest.

专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗讻诇 讘砖讘讬诇 讗砖转讜 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讻诇 讘砖讘讬诇 讗砖转讜 专讘 讬讬诪专 讗讻诇 讘砖讘讬诇 讗砖转讜 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗讻诇 讘砖讘讬诇 讗砖转讜

The Gemara relates that Rav Kahana, who was an Israelite, partook of gifts of the priesthood on account of his wife, who was the daughter of a priest. Similarly, Rav Pappa partook of gifts of the priesthood on account of his wife, Rav Yeimar partook of gifts on account of his wife, and Rav Idi bar Avin partook of them on account of his wife.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬 诪专讬诪专 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚注讜诇讗

Ravina said: Mareimar said to me that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav that it is uncertain whether or not Levites are obligated to give the gifts of the priesthood, and consequently, gifts are not removed from their possession to be given to the priests. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav 岣sda that one who damages or consumes gifts of the priesthood is exempt from payment. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ulla that gifts of the priesthood may be given to the daughter of a priest.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诇讜讬讛 砖讬诇讚讛 讘谞讛 驻讟讜专 诪讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐

And in a case not previously discussed but related to the opinion of Ulla, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Adda bar Ahava with regard to a female Levite, i.e., the daughter of a Levite, who gave birth to a firstborn boy, even if she is married to an Israelite, that her son is exempt from the obligation to give five sela to the priest for his redemption, as the child is considered the son of a Levite, and Levites are exempt from this obligation.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讝专讜注 讜讛诇讞讬讬诐 讜讛拽讘讛 谞讜讛讙讬诐 讘讻诇讗讬诐 讜讘讻讜讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇讗讬诐 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛注讝 讜诪谉 讛专讞诇 讞讬讬讘 讘诪转谞讜转 诪谉 讛转讬讬砖 讜诪谉 讛爪讘讬讬讛 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪转谞讜转

搂 The Gemara cites a dispute with regard to the gifts of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw. The Sages taught in a baraita: The obligation to give the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw applies even to a hybrid animal and to the animal known as a koy. Rabbi Eliezer says: A hybrid that results from the mating of a goat and a ewe is obligated to have gifts of the priesthood given from it, while a hybrid that results from the mating of a goat and a doe is exempt from having gifts of the priesthood given from it. This is because the verse states with regard to gifts of the priesthood: 鈥淲hether it be an ox or sheep鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:3), i.e., a domesticated animal, and a doe is not a domesticated animal.

诪讻讚讬 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚诇注谞讬谉 讻住讜讬 讛讚诐 讜诪转谞讜转 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讘爪讘讬 讛讘讗 注诇 讛转讬讬砖讛 讜讘讬谉 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讬谉 诇专讘谞谉 诪住驻拽讗 诇讛讜 讗讬 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讝专注 讛讗讘 讗讬 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉

The Gemara asks: Now, we maintain (see 79b鈥80a) with regard to the mitzvot of covering the blood and giving the gifts of the priesthood that you do not find that Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree except in the case of an animal born from a deer that mates with a female goat. And both Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis are uncertain whether one needs to be concerned with its paternity when determining the species of a hybrid animal, which would mean that this animal is part domesticated and part undomesticated, or whether one does not need to be concerned with paternity and the species of an animal is determined entirely by the species of its mother, in which case it is a domesticated animal.

讜讘砖讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽爪转 砖讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 砖讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽爪转 砖讛 讜诪专 住讘专 砖讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽爪转 砖讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

And they disagree with regard to whether the obligation of the gifts applies to a sheep and even an animal that is partially a sheep, i.e., partially domesticated. One Sage, the Rabbis, holds that the obligation applies to a sheep and even an animal that is partially a sheep; and one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that we do not say that the obligation applies to a sheep and even an animal that is partially a sheep.

讘砖诇诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚驻讟专 拽住讘专 砖讛 讜诇讗 诪拽爪转 砖讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘谞谉 谞讛讬 谞诪讬 讚拽住讘专讬 砖讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽爪转 砖讛 驻诇讙讗 诇砖拽讜诇 讜讗讬讚讱 驻诇讙讗 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讚讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讝专注 讛讗讘 讜砖拽讜诇 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬讬讗 诪讗讬 讞讬讬讘 谞诪讬 讚拽讗 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讘讞爪讬 诪转谞讜转

The Gemara concludes its question: Granted, it is understandable that Rabbi Eliezer deems the owner of a hybrid exempt from the mitzva to give the priestly gifts, as he holds that only in the case of a sheep is one obligated to give gifts of the priesthood, but not with regard to animals that are only partially sheep. But according to the opinion of the Rabbis, though indeed they hold that sheep and even animals that are partially sheep are subject to the obligation of giving gifts of the priesthood, let the priest take only half of the gifts. And with regard to the other half, let the owner of the animal say to him: Bring proof that one need not be concerned with its paternity and then you may take the other half. Rav Huna bar 岣yya said in response: What do the Rabbis mean when they say that the owner of this animal is obligated? They mean that he is obligated in half of the gifts.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻讜讬 讬砖 讘讜 讚专讻讬诐 砖讜讬谉 诇讘讛诪讛 讜讬砖 讘讜 讚专讻讬诐 砖讜讬谉 诇讞讬讛 讜讬砖 讘讜 讚专讻讬诐 砖讜讬谉 诇讞讬讛 讜诇讘讛诪讛

Rabbi Zeira raises an objection to this response from a baraita: In the case of a koy, with regard to which it is uncertain whether it is a domesticated animal or an undomesticated one, there are ways in which its halakhot correspond to those of a domesticated animal, and there are ways in which its halakhot correspond to those of an undomesticated animal. And there are ways in which its halakhot correspond to those of both an undomesticated animal and a domesticated animal.

讻讬爪讚 讞诇讘讜 讗住讜专 讻讞诇讘 讘讛诪讛 讜讚诪讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讻住讜转 讻讚诐 讛讞讬讛 讚专讻讬诐 砖讜讬谉 诇讘讛诪讛 讜诇讞讬讛 砖讚诪讜 讜讙讬讚讜 讗住讜专讬谉 讻讘讛诪讛 讜讞讬讛 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讝专讜注 讜诇讞讬讬诐 讜讛拽讘讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜讟专

The baraita elaborates: How so? Its fat is forbidden like the forbidden fat of a domesticated animal, unlike that of an undomesticated one. And one is obligated to cover its blood from slaughter with dirt, like the blood of an undomesticated animal. And there are ways in which its halakhot correspond to both those of a domesticated animal and an undomesticated animal, as its blood and its sciatic nerve are forbidden like those of a domesticated animal and an undomesticated animal. And its owner is obligated to give the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw from it to the priest, as in the case of domesticated animals. And Rabbi Eliezer deems the owner of a koy exempt from the mitzva to give the gifts.

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讞讬讬讘 讘讞爪讬 诪转谞讜转 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 讞诇讘讜 讜讚诪讜 讚诇讗 诪转谞讬 讞爪讬 讞爪讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诇讗 拽讗 转谞讬 讞爪讬

Rabbi Zeira asks: And if it is so that the Rabbis mean that the owner of a koy is obligated to give half of the gifts, then the baraita should have said that he is obligated to give half of the gifts from it. The Gemara responds: Since the tanna taught that its fat and its blood are forbidden, with regard to which it could not teach that half of its blood or half of its fat are forbidden, as it is impossible that half of it is forbidden while the other half is permitted, due to that reason the tanna did not teach that the owner of a koy is obligated in half of the gifts.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讜讬 诇专讘谞谉 讞讬讬讘 讘讻讜诇讛讜 诪转谞讜转 讚转谞讬讗 砖讜专 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诐 砖讜专 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讻诇讗讬诐 砖讛 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诐 砖讛 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讻讜讬

The Gemara relates that when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: According to the Rabbis, a koy is obligated to have all of the gifts of the priesthood given from it. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the gifts of the priesthood: 鈥淲hether it be an ox or sheep鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:3). Since the verse needed to state only 鈥渙x,鈥 why must the verse state: 鈥淲hether it be an ox鈥? This phrase serves to include a hybrid in the obligation to give the gifts of the priesthood. And since the verse needed to state only 鈥渟heep,鈥 why must the verse state: 鈥淥r sheep鈥? This phrase serves to include the koy in the obligation to give the gifts.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗讬 讗诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讞诇拽 讜专讘谞谉 诇讞诇拽 诪谞讗 诇讛讜 谞驻拽讗 诇讛讜 诪讗转 讝讘讞讬 讛讝讘讞

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who deems the owners of a koy and the offspring of a hybrid exempt from giving gifts of the priesthood from these animals, why do I need this phrase: 鈥淲hether it be an ox or sheep鈥? The Gemara responds: He requires it to divide between an ox and a sheep, indicating that one is obligated with regard to either animal alone. Were it not for this phrase, one might have concluded that he is obligated to give the gifts only after slaughtering both an ox and a sheep. The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, who derive other halakhot from this phrase, from where do they derive to divide between an ox and a sheep? The Gemara responds: They derive it from the phrase: 鈥淔rom them that perform a slaughter鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:3), which indicates that the obligation to give the gifts applies even to one animal.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗讬 诪讗转 讝讘讞讬 讛讝讘讞 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讚讬谉 注诐 讛讟讘讞

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Eliezer, what does he do with this phrase: 鈥淔rom them that perform a slaughter,鈥 i.e., what does he derive from it? The Gemara responds: He requires it for a statement of Rava, as Rava said: If a priest seeks to claim gifts of the priesthood in court, the priest issues his demand with the butcher, even if the animal itself belongs to another individual.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讻讜专 砖谞转注专讘 讘诪讗讛 讘讝诪谉 砖诪讗讛 砖讜讞讟讬谉 讗转 讻讜诇谉 驻讜讟专讬诐 讗转 讻讜诇谉 讗讞讚 砖讜讞讟 讗转 讻讜诇谉 驻讜讟专讬诐 诇讜 讗讞讚

MISHNA: With regard to a blemished firstborn animal, which one may slaughter and eat without being required to give the foreleg, jaw, and maw to the priest, that was intermingled with one hundred non-sacred animals, from which one is required to give those gifts, in a case when one hundred different people slaughter all of them, each slaughtering one animal, one exempts them all from giving the gifts, as each could claim that the animal that he slaughtered was the firstborn. If one person slaughtered them all, one exempts one of the animals for him.

讛砖讜讞讟 诇讻讛谉 讜诇讙讜讬 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪转谞讜转 讜讛诪砖转转祝 注诪讛谉 爪专讬讱 砖讬专砖讜诐 讜讗诐 讗诪专 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛诪转谞讜转 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪转谞讜转

One who slaughters the animal of a priest for the priest or the animal of a gentile for the gentile is exempt from the obligation to give the gifts of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw. And an Israelite who enters into partnership with a priest or a gentile must mark the animal to indicate that it is jointly owned and exempt from the obligation to give the gifts. And if a priest sold his animal to an Israelite and said: The animal is sold except for the gifts with it, the Israelite is exempt from the obligation to give the gifts, as they are not his.

讗诪专 诪讻讜专 诇讬 讘谞讬 诪注讬讛 砖诇 驻专讛 讜讛讬讜 讘讛谉 诪转谞讜转 谞讜转谞谉 诇讻讛谉 讜讗讬谞讜 诪谞讻讛 诇讜 诪谉 讛讚诪讬诐 诇拽讞谉 讛讬诪谞讜 讘诪砖拽诇 谞讜转谞谉 诇讻讛谉 讜诪谞讻讛 诇讜 诪谉 讛讚诪讬诐

If the Israelite said to the one slaughtering the animal: Sell me the innards of a cow, and there were gifts included with it, i.e., the maw, the purchaser gives them to the priest and he does not deduct the value of the gifts from the money that he pays him. If he bought the innards from the slaughterer by weight, the purchaser gives the gifts, i.e., the maw, to the priest and deducts the value of the gifts from the money that he pays him.

讙诪壮 讜讗诪讗讬 讬讘讗 注诇讬讜 讻讛谉 诪砖谞讬 爪讚讚讬谉 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讘讻讜专 讛讜讗 讻讜诇讬讛 讚讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讻讜专 讛讜讗 讛讘 诇讬 诪转谞转讗讬

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if a firstborn animal was intermingled with one hundred non-sacred animals, each belonging to a different person, all of the animals are excluded from the obligation to give the gifts, due to the uncertainty of which animal is the firstborn. The Gemara asks: But why is this the halakha? Let the priest come upon each slaughterer with a claim from two sides, i.e., let the priest say to him: If this animal is a firstborn, it is completely mine; and if it is not a firstborn but is instead a non-sacred animal, then give me my gifts.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讘讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讻讛谉 讜诪讻专讜 诇讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讜诪讜

Rav Oshaya says in response: In general, a priest may issue such a claim. But the mishna is dealing with a case where the firstborn came into the possession of the priest when it was unblemished and thereafter it developed a permanent blemish, and the priest sold it to an Israelite in its blemished state. In such a case, the priest may not demand that the owner give him the entire animal with the claim that it is a firstborn, as he already received it once as a firstborn.

讛砖讜讞讟 诇讻讛谉 讜诇讙讜讬 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪转谞讜转 讜诇讬转谞讬 讻讛谉 讜讙讜讬 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪谉 讛诪转谞讜转 讗诪专 专讘讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讛讚讬谉 注诐 讛讟讘讞

搂 The mishna teaches that one who slaughters the animal of a priest for the priest or the animal of a gentile for the gentile is exempt from the obligation to give the gifts of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw. The Gemara suggests: And let the tanna simply teach that a priest and a gentile are exempt from the obligation to give the gifts. Rava says in explanation: That is to say, i.e., the wording of the mishna indicates, that the demand of a priest who seeks to claim gifts of the priesthood is with the butcher, not with the owner of the animal. Even if the butcher is himself a priest, if he slaughters an animal on behalf of an Israelite he is obligated to give the gifts.

讚专砖 专讘讗 诪讗转 讛注诐 讜诇讗 诪讗转 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诪讗转 讝讘讞讬 讛讝讘讞 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讟讘讞 讻讛谉 讘诪砖诪注

The Gemara adds: Rava also interpreted the verse in such a manner. The verse states: 鈥淭his shall be the priests鈥 due from the people, from them that perform a slaughter, whether it be ox or sheep, that they shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:3). The verse specifies that the gifts are taken 鈥渇rom the people,鈥 and not from the priests. When the verse states: 鈥淔rom them that perform a slaughter,鈥 indicating that the gifts are given by anyone who slaughters an animal, you must say that this teaches that even a butcher who is a priest is included in the obligation to give the gifts.

讗讜砖驻讬讝讬讻谞讬讛 讚专讘讬 讟讘诇讗 讻讛谉 讛讜讛 讜讛讜讛 讚讞讬拽 诇讬讛 诪诇转讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讟讘诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讗讬砖转转祝 讘讛讚讬 讟讘讞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讚诪讙讜 讚诪驻讟专讬 诪诪转谞转讗 诪砖转转驻讬 讘讛讚讱

搂 The mishna teaches that the obligation to give the gifts of the priesthood does not apply to an animal jointly owned by an Israelite and a priest. The Gemara relates that the host [ushpizikhnei] of Rabbi Tavla was a priest and he was hard-pressed for money. He came before Rabbi Tavla to ask for advice. Rabbi Tavla said to him: Go and enter into a partnership with those Israelite butchers, to obtain part ownership of their animals, as since they will be exempt from the obligation to give the gifts on account of this partnership, they will agree to enter into a business partnership with you free of charge.

讞讬讬讘讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讟讘诇讗 驻讟专谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讗驻讬拽 讜讗讬 诇讗 诪驻拽讬谞讗 诇讱 专讘讬 讟讘诇讗 诪讗讜谞讱

The priest heeded the advice of Rabbi Tavla and entered into a partnership with an Israelite butcher. Nevertheless, Rav Na岣an obligated the butcher to give the gifts of the priesthood from the animals he slaughtered. The priest said to Rav Na岣an: But Rabbi Tavla exempted us from this obligation. Rav Na岣an said to him: Go remove the gifts of the priesthood that are in your possession and give them to a priest, and if you will not do so, I will remove Rabbi Tavla from your ear [me鈥檜nakh], i.e., I will refute his basis for deeming you exempt.

讗讝诇 专讘讬 讟讘诇讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讘讬讚 诪专 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讚专讜诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讝拽谞讬 讚专讜诐 讗诪专讜 讻讛谉 讟讘讞 砖转讬诐 讜砖诇砖 砖讘转讜转 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪转谞讜转 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讞讬讬讘 讘诪转谞讜转

Rabbi Tavla came before Rav Na岣an and said to him: What is the reason that the Master has done this and ruled in contradiction to the mishna? Rav Na岣an said to him: I ruled in this manner, as when Rabbi A岣 bar 岣nina of the south came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and all the elders of the south said: With regard to a priest who becomes a butcher, for the first two or three weeks he is exempt from the obligation to give the gifts, as he has not yet established himself in the community as a butcher. But from this point forward he is obligated to give the gifts, as he is now known as a butcher.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪专 诪讬讛转 讻专讘讬 讗讞讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚诇讗 拽讘注 诪住讞转讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讛讗 拽讘注 诪住讞转讗

Rabbi Tavla said to Rav Na岣an: And let the Master at least do for the priest in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi A岣 bar 岣nina and exempt him from giving the gifts for the first three weeks of his partnership. Rav Na岣an said to him: This statement of Rabbi A岣 bar 岣nina applies only when the priest did not immediately establish a butcher shop. In such a case, the priest is exempt until he becomes known as a recognized butcher. But here, he has already established a butcher shop and is therefore obligated to give the gifts without delay.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讗讬 讻讛谞讗 讚诇讗 诪驻专讬砖 诪转谞转讗 诇讬讛讜讬 讘砖诪转讗 讚讗诇讛讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 砖讬诇讗 讛谞讬 讟讘讞讬 讚讛讜爪诇 拽讬讬诪讬 讘砖诪转讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讗 注砖专讬诐 讜转专转讬 砖谞讬谉

Rav 岣sda said: With regard to a priest who slaughters an animal and does not separate gifts of the priesthood from them for another priest, let him be under the excommunication of the God of Israel. Rabba bar Rav Sheila said: These butchers of the city of Huzal have remained under the excommunication of Rav 岣sda these last twenty-two years, as they have continuously refused to separate gifts of the priesthood for this period.

诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚转讜 诇讗 诪砖诪转讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪爪讜转 诇讗 转注砖讛 讗讘诇 讘诪爪讜转 注砖讛 讻讙讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讜 注砖讛 住讜讻讛 讜讗讬谞讜 注讜砖讛 诇讜诇讘 讜讗讬谞讜 注讜砖讛 注砖讛 爪讬爪讬转 讜讗讬谞讜 注讜砖讛 诪讻讬谉 讗讜转讜 注讚 砖转爪讗 谞驻砖讜

The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha did Rabba bar Rav Sheila state that the butchers of Huzal have been under excommunication for twenty-two years? If we say that we do not excommunicate them for a period any longer than twenty-two years, but isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: In what case is this statement, that one is not excommunicated for committing a transgression, said? It is said with regard to a prohibition, for which one is liable to receive a relatively severe punishment, e.g., death or karet. But with regard to one who refuses to perform a positive mitzva, e.g., the court says to him: Perform the mitzva of sukka, and he does not do so, or: Perform the mitzva of taking the lulav, and he does not do so, or: Prepare ritual fringes for your garments, and he does not do so, the court strikes him an unlimited number of times, even until his soul departs. Accordingly, the butchers of Huzal should remain under excommunication indefinitely until they separate the gifts.

讗诇讗 讚拽谞住讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讘诇讗 讗转专讬讬转讗 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘讗 拽谞讬住 讗讟诪讗 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 拽谞讬住 讙诇讬诪讗

Rather, Rabba bar Rav Sheila means that because the butchers of Huzal have refused to give the gifts for so many years, we fine them even without forewarning. There was a case like this of a person who refused to give the gifts of the priesthood to a priest, where Rava fined him by taking the entire thigh of his animal and giving it to a priest. Similarly, Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k fined an individual who refused to give the gifts of the priesthood to a priest by taking his cloak and giving it to a priest.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讝专讜注 诇讗讞讚 讜拽讘讛 诇讗讞讚 诇讞讬讬诐 诇砖谞讬讬诐 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讘诪注专讘讗 驻诇讙讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讙专诪讗 讙专诪讗

And Rav 岣sda also says with regard to gifts of the priesthood: The foreleg is given to one priest and the maw is given to one priest, while the jaw is given to two priests. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But when Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef came to Babylonia from Eretz Yisrael he said: In the West, Eretz Yisrael, we divide the gifts bone by bone, each of which is given to two priests.

讛转诐 讘讚转讜专讗

The Gemara explains: There, in the case dealt with in Eretz Yisrael, the gifts were of a large bull. The Torah states: 鈥淭hat they shall give to the priest鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:3). The use of the term 鈥済ive鈥 indicates that the gift given should be a substantial one. Even when one limb of the large bull was divided between two priests, each received a substantial portion. This is not the case with regard to the gifts of smaller animals, where each limb is not large enough to provide two substantial portions.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗住讜专 诇讗讻讜诇 诪讘讛诪讛 砖诇讗 讛讜专诪讛 诪转谞讜转讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讛讗讜讻诇 诪讘讛诪讛 砖诇讗 讛讜专诪讛 诪转谞讜转讬讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讗讜讻诇 讟讘诇讬诐 讜诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛

Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is prohibited to partake of a slaughtered animal whose gifts have not yet been separated. Furthermore, Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Anyone who partakes of an animal whose gifts have not yet been separated is considered as though he consumes untithed produce. But the Gemara states: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪转谞讜转 讻讛讜谞讛 讗讬谉 谞讗讻诇讜转 讗诇讗 爪诇讬 讜讗讬谉 谞讗讻诇讜转 讗诇讗 讘讞专讚诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇诪砖讞讛 诇讙讚讜诇讛 讻讚专讱 砖讛诪诇讻讬诐 讗讜讻诇讬诐

Rav 岣sda says: Gifts of the priesthood may be consumed only when they are roasted, and they may be consumed only with mustard seasoning. What is the reason for this halakha? The verse states: 鈥淎nd the Lord spoke to Aaron: And I, behold, I have given you the charge of My gifts; of all the consecrated items of the children of Israel to you have I given them for prominence, and to your sons, as an eternal portion鈥 (Numbers 18:8). The term 鈥渇or prominence鈥 means that the portions were given to the priests as a mark of greatness. Accordingly, they should be eaten in a manner that kings eat, i.e., roasted and with mustard.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注 诪转谞讜转 讻讛讜谞讛 讻诇 讻讛谉 砖讗讬谞讜 讘拽讬 讘讛谉 讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 诪转谞讛 讜诇讗讜 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讻讛谉 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讜讚讛 讘注讘讜讚讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讞诇拽 讘讻讛讜谞讛 砖谞讗诪专 讛诪拽专讬讘 讗转 讚诐 讛砖诇诪讬诐 讜讗转 讛讞诇讘 诪讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 诇讜 转讛讬讛 砖讜拽 讛讬诪讬谉 诇诪谞讛

And Rav 岣sda says: One may not give a gift to any priest who is not an expert in the halakhot pertaining to all twenty-four gifts of the priesthood. The Gemara notes: But this is not correct, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: Any priest who does not believe in the validity of the Temple service has no portion in any of the gifts given to the priesthood, as it is stated: 鈥淗e among the sons of Aaron, who offers [hamakriv] the blood of the peace offerings, and the fat, shall have the right thigh for a portion鈥 (Leviticus 7:33). The word 鈥hamakriv,鈥 which literally means: Who brings it close, indicates that only one who believes in the validity of conveying the blood to the altar is entitled to receive the right thigh of the offering, as only one who believes in the rite would perform it.

讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讝讛 讘诇讘讚 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 注讘讜讚讜转 讻讙讜谉 讛讬爪讬拽讜转 讜讛讘诇讬诇讜转 讜讛驻转讬转讜转 讜讛诪诇讬讞讜转 转谞讜驻讜转 讜讛讙砖讜转 [讜讛拽诪讬爪讜转] 讛拽讟专讜转 (讜讛诪爪讬讜转) [讜讛诪诇讬拽讜转]

The baraita continues: I have derived only that a priest does not have a share in the priestly gifts if he does not believe in this rite of conveying of the blood alone. From where do I derive to include fifteen additional sacrificial rites, such as the rites of a meal offering, i.e., the pouring of the oil and the mixing of the oil and the subsequent pouring of the oil; and the crumbling of meal offerings prepared in a shallow or deep pan or in an oven, whose handfuls are removed after they are baked and subsequently crumbled; and the salting of meal offerings (see Leviticus 2:13); and the waving of certain meal offerings; and the bringing of certain meal offerings to the southwestern corner of the altar before a handful is removed; and the removal of the handful; and the burning of offerings on the altar; and the squeezing of a bird offering to extract its blood; and the pinching of the nape of the neck of a bird offering;

Scroll To Top