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,