Chulin 133

וְקַבָּלוֹת, הַזָּאוֹת, וְהַשְׁקָאַת סוֹטָה, וַעֲרִיפַת עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה, וְטׇהֳרַת מְצוֹרָע, וּנְשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם – בֵּין מִבִּפְנִים בֵּין מִבַּחוּץ, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מִבְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן״ – עֲבוֹדָה הָאֲמוּרָה לִבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן.

and the receiving of the blood in a vessel; and its sprinkling upon the altar, each offering according to its halakha; and the giving of water to a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [sota]; and the ritual of breaking a heifer’s neck in an untilled valley when a corpse is discovered and the murderer is unknown; and the purification of a leper; and the lifting of the hands for the Priestly Benediction, whether inside or outside the Temple; from where are these derived? The verse states: “Among the sons of Aaron,” indicating that this is the halakha with regard to any sacrificial rite that is stated to the sons of Aaron.

וְכׇל כֹּהֵן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה בָּהּ – אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק בַּכְּהוּנָּה. טַעְמָא דְּאֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה בָּהּ, הָא מוֹדֶה בָּהּ – אַף עַל גַּב דְּאֵינוֹ בָּקִי בָּהֶן.

And the Gemara explains the proof: The baraita teaches that any priest who does not believe in the validity of these rites has no portion in the gifts of the priesthood. It may be inferred that the reason the priest has no portion is that he does not believe in it, whereas if he does believe in it, even though he is not an expert in its halakhot, he receives a portion. This contradicts the opinion of Rav Ḥisda.

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא, אָמַר רַב: חוּטִין שֶׁבַּלְּחִי אֲסוּרִים, וְכׇל כֹּהֵן שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ לִיטְּלָן – אֵין נוֹתְנִין לוֹ מַתָּנָה.

With regard to priests who should not be given gifts of the priesthood, Rabbi Abba says that Rav Huna says that Rav says: The veins that are contained in the jaw of an animal are prohibited for consumption, due to the blood they contain. And one does not give the gift of the jaw to any priest who does not know how to remove the veins, as the priest might eat them.

וְלָא הִיא, אִי בְּטַוְיָא – מֵידָב דָּיְיבִי, וְאִי לְקִדְרָה – אִי דִּמְיחַתֵּךְ לְהוּ וּמָלַח לְהוּ – מֵידָב דָּיְיבִי.

The Gemara notes: But that is not so, i.e., one need not be concerned that the priest might consume the blood within the veins, as any method of preparing the jaw will remove the blood: If the priest prepares the jaw by roasting it, the blood will drain from the jaw due to the fire. And if he intends to place the jaws in a pot to cook them, if he cuts them and salts them, as one is required to do before cooking any meat, the blood will drain from them, and they will be permitted for consumption.

אָמַר רָבָא: בָּדַק לַן רַב יוֹסֵף, הַאי כָּהֲנָא דְּחָטֵיף מַתְּנָתָא – חַבּוֹבֵי קָא מְחַבֵּב מִצְוָה, אוֹ זַלְזוֹלֵי קָא מְזַלְזֵל בְּמִצְוָה? וּפְשַׁטְנָא לֵיהּ ״וְנָתַן״ – וְלֹא שֶׁיִּטּוֹל מֵעַצְמוֹ.

§ With regard to the manner in which a priest takes gifts of the priesthood from their owners, Rava said: Rav Yosef examined us, his students, with the following question: A priest who seizes gifts of the priesthood from their owners, is he demonstrating fondness for the mitzva or is he demonstrating contempt for the mitzva? And I resolved this question for him from the verse: “That they shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw” (Deuteronomy 18:3). The term “that they shall give” indicates that the owner should give the gifts, and not that a priest should take them by himself. Accordingly, a priest who seizes the gifts from their owners is demonstrating contempt for the mitzva.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מֵרֵישׁ הֲוָה חָטֵיפְנָא מַתְּנָתָא, אָמֵינָא: חַבּוֹבֵי קָא מְחַבֵּיבְנָא מִצְוָה. כֵּיוָן דִּשְׁמַעְנָא לְהָא ״וְנָתַן״ – וְלֹא שֶׁיִּטּוֹל מֵעַצְמוֹ, מִיחְטָף לָא חָטֵיפְנָא, מֵימָר (אֲמַרִי) [אָמֵינָא]: הַבוּ לִי. וְכֵיוָן דִּשְׁמַעְנָא לְהָא דְּתַנְיָא: ״וַיִּטּוּ אַחֲרֵי הַבָּצַע״, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: בְּנֵי שְׁמוּאֵל חֶלְקָם שָׁאֲלוּ בְּפִיהֶם, מֵימָר נָמֵי לָא אָמֵינָא, וְאִי יָהֲבוּ לִי – שָׁקֵילְנָא.

Abaye, who was a priest, said: At first, I would seize gifts of the priesthood, as I said to myself that I am demonstrating fondness for the mitzva in this manner. Once I heard this interpretation: “That they shall give,” and not that he should take by himself, I did not seize them anymore. Instead, I would say to the owners of the gifts: Give me. And once I heard that which is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the sons of Samuel, who were Levites: “But turned aside after wealth” (I Samuel 8:3), and Rabbi Meir says: The sons of Samuel sinned when they asked for their portion, the first tithe given to the Levite, with their mouths, i.e., they demanded that the owners give them the first tithe. Abaye continued: After I heard that, I also did not say anything to the owners, but if they would give me gifts I would take them.

כֵּיוָן דִּשְׁמַעְנָא לְהָא דְּתַנְיָא: הַצְּנוּעִים מוֹשְׁכִין אֶת יְדֵיהֶם, וְהַגַּרְגְּרָנִים חוֹלְקִים – מִשְׁקָל נָמֵי לָא שָׁקֵילְנָא, לְבַר מִמַּעֲלֵי יוֹמָא דְכִיפּוּרֵי, לְאַחְזוֹקֵי נַפְשַׁאי בְּכָהֲנֵי.

Abaye said further: Once I heard that which is taught in a baraita with regard to the distribution of the shewbread among the priests: The modest ones [hatzenu’im] withdraw their hands and do not take, and the gluttons divide all the bread; I also did not take gifts even when they were offered to me, except for when they were given on the eve of Yom Kippur, when there was an abundance of gifts due to the many animals that were slaughtered, as it is a mitzva to eat that day. In that instance, I took the gifts in order to affirm myself among the priests, i.e., if I would never take gifts then my status as a priest might be called into question.

וְלִפְרוֹס יְדֵיהּ! אַנְסֵיהּ לֵיהּ עִידָּנֵיהּ.

The Gemara challenges: But let him spread his hands for the Priestly Benediction throughout the year, as this will make it clear to all that he is in fact a priest. The Gemara responds: His schedule constrained him, as he was constantly involved in teaching Torah to his students, so much so that he would miss the time during which the community gathered in the synagogue for the Priestly Benediction.

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הַאי כָּהֲנָא דְּאִית לֵיהּ צוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן בְּשִׁבָבוּתֵיהּ, וּדְחִיקָא לֵיהּ מִילְּתָא – לִיזַכֵּי לֵיהּ מַתְּנָתָא, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא אָתֵי לִידֵיהּ, בְּמַכָּרֵי כְּהוּנָּה וּלְוִיָּה.

Rav Yosef said: In a case where a priest who has a Torah scholar [tzurva merabbanan] living in his neighborhood and that Torah scholar is hard-pressed for money, let the priest grant his gifts to him, i.e., the priest may declare that those gifts he is destined to receive should be given to the poor Torah scholar. And even though the gifts have not yet come into his possession, he may grant them to the Torah scholar in a case where there are associates of the priesthood and the Levites, i.e., if that specific priest or Levite was well known in his neighborhood and has a standard arrangement with many people that they give him their gifts, as he is certain that he will be given them.

רָבָא וְרַב סָפְרָא אִיקְּלַעוּ לְבֵי מָר יוֹחָנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חָנָא בַּר אַדָּא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ לְבֵי מָר יוֹחָנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חָנָא בַּר בִּיזְנָא. עָבֵיד לְהוּ עִגְלָא תִּילְתָּא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְשַׁמָּעֵיהּ: זַכִּי לַן מַתְּנָתָא, דִּבְעֵינָא לְמֵיכַל לִישָּׁנָא בְּחַרְדְּלָא.

With regard to the statement of Rav Yosef, the Gemara relates that Rava and Rav Safra visited the house of Mar Yoḥana, son of Rav Ḥana bar Adda, and some say they visited the house of Mar Yoḥana, son of Rav Ḥana bar Bizna. Mar Yoḥana prepared for them a third-born calf. Rava said to the attendant of Mar Yoḥana, who was a priest and would normally receive gifts of the priesthood from Mar Yoḥana: Grant us the gifts, as I wish to eat tongue with mustard, and the tongue along with the jaw is one of the gifts.

זַכִּי לֵיהּ. רָבָא אֲכַל, וְרַב סָפְרָא לָא אֲכַל. אַקְרְיוּהּ לְרַב סָפְרָא בְּחֶלְמָא: ״מַעֲדֶה בֶּגֶד בְּיוֹם קָרָה חֹמֶץ עַל נָתֶר וְשָׁר בַּשִּׁירִים עַל לֶב רָע״.

The attendant granted the gifts to him; Rava ate from them but Rav Safra did not eat. Following this incident, they read the following verse to Rav Safra in a dream: “As one that takes off a garment in cold weather, and as vinegar upon niter, so is he that sings songs to a heavy heart” (Proverbs 25:20). The verse can be interpreted allegorically as a chastisement of one who studies Torah but fails to understand it.

אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּלְמָא מִשּׁוּם דַּעֲבַרִי אַשְּׁמַעְתָּא דְּמָר אַקְרְיֻין הָכִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כִּי אֲמַרִי אֲנָא – בְּאַחֵר, שַׁמָּעָא – בְּעַל כֻּרְחֵיהּ מְזַכֵּי, וְכִי אֲמַרִי אֲנָא – לְמַאן דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר לֵיהּ, הָא אֶפְשָׁר לֵיהּ.

Rav Safra came before Rav Yosef and said to him: Perhaps because I transgressed the halakha of the Master they read this verse to me in chastisement. Rav Yosef said to him: No, you acted appropriately by refraining from consuming the gifts. When I said that a priest may grant the gifts to a Torah scholar, that was only with regard to a priest who grants them to another person of his own choosing. I did not permit this in the case of an attendant who grants the gifts to a dignified guest of the homeowner. The reason is that he grants the gifts against his will, as he feels pressured by the homeowner to acquiesce. And furthermore, when I said this halakha, it was only for one who cannot eat under another circumstance, as he is hard-pressed for money. In this incident, it was possible for Rava to consume his own meat with mustard, since Rava was not poor.

וְאֶלָּא מַאי טַעְמָא אַקְרְיֻין הָכִי? כְּלַפֵּי רָבָא! וְלַקְרְיוּהּ לְרָבָא? רָבָא נָזוּף הֲוָה.

Rav Safra asked Rav Yosef: But if so, what is the reason that they read this verse to me? Rav Yosef responded: The reading was directed not toward you but toward Rava, who ate from the gifts against my ruling. The Gemara objects: But let them read this verse to Rava himself in a dream. The Gemara responds: Rava was rebuked as a result of this incident and therefore was not granted heavenly communication. The verse was therefore proclaimed to Rav Safra instead.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב דִּימִי: וּפְשָׁטֵיהּ דִּקְרָא בְּמַאי כְּתִיב? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּשׁוֹנֶה לְתַלְמִיד שֶׁאֵינוֹ הָגוּן.

In the preceding incident, the Gemara related that the verse: “As one that takes off a garment in cold weather, and as vinegar upon niter, so is he that sings songs to a heavy heart” (Proverbs 25:20), was proclaimed to Rav Safra in a dream. Abaye said to Rav Dimi: And with regard to what matter is the plain meaning of the verse written? Rav Dimi said to him: It is referring to one who teaches an unworthy student. In other words, just as one should remove a worn garment that has no use in cold weather, or just as vinegar upon niter ruins the niter, rendering it unusable, so too, there is no use in singing songs, i.e., teaching Torah, to an unworthy student who has a heavy heart, i.e., who does not intend to adhere to the halakhot he is taught.

דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כׇּל הַשּׁוֹנֶה לְתַלְמִיד שֶׁאֵינוֹ הָגוּן – נוֹפֵל בְּגֵיהִנָּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״כׇּל חֹשֶׁךְ טָמוּן לִצְפּוּנָיו תְּאׇכְלֵהוּ אֵשׁ לֹא נֻפָּח יֵרַע שָׂרִיד בְּאׇהֳלוֹ״, וְאֵין ״שָׂרִיד״ אֶלָּא תַּלְמִיד חָכָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וּבַשְּׂרִידִים אֲשֶׁר ה׳ קֹרֵא״.

As Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Anyone who teaches Torah to an unworthy student falls into Gehenna, as it is stated: “All darkness is laid up for his treasures; a fire not blown by man shall consume him; it shall go ill with him that remains [yera sarid] in his tent” (Job 20:26), and sarid means nothing other than a Torah scholar, as it is stated: “And among the remnant [sarid] those whom the Lord shall call” (Joel 3:5). The word yera shares a root with the word ra, evil, and “yera sarid” is therefore understood to be referring to an unworthy student.

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב: כׇּל הַשּׁוֹנֶה לְתַלְמִיד שֶׁאֵינוֹ הָגוּן – כְּזוֹרֵק אֶבֶן לְמֶרְקוּלִיס, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּצְרוֹר אֶבֶן בְּמַרְגֵּמָה כֵּן נוֹתֵן לִכְסִיל כָּבוֹד״, וּכְתִיב: ״לֹא נָאוֶה לִכְסִיל תַּעֲנוּג״.

On a similar note, Rabbi Zeira says that Rav says: Anyone who teaches Torah to an unworthy student is considered like one who throws a stone to Markulis, as it is stated: “As a small stone in a heap of stones, so is he that gives honor to a fool” (Proverbs 26:8), and it is written: “Luxury is not seemly for a fool” (Proverbs 19:10).

וְהַמִּשְׁתַּתֵּף עִמָּהֶן צָרִיךְ לִרְשׁוֹם, וַאֲפִילּוּ עִם הַגּוֹי. וּרְמִינְהוּ: הַמִּשְׁתַּתֵּף עִם כֹּהֵן – צָרִיךְ לִרְשׁוֹם, וְהַמִּשְׁתַּתֵּף עִם הַגּוֹי וּפְסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁים – אֵין צָרִיךְ לִרְשׁוֹם!

§ The mishna teaches that one who enters into partnership with a priest or a gentile must mark the animal. The Gemara asks: And is one obligated to mark the animal even if he enters into partnership with a gentile? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: One who enters into partnership with a priest must mark the animal, but one who enters into partnership with a gentile and one who slaughters disqualified consecrated animals does not need to mark the animal.

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – דְּיָתֵיב גּוֹי אַמְּסַחְתָּא.

The Gemara responds: Here, we are dealing with a case where the gentile is sitting in the butcher shop of the Israelite. In such a situation, it is evident that the gentile is in partnership with the Israelite and the animal need not be marked. By contrast, the mishna is referring to a case where the gentile does not sit in the shop.

דִּכְוָתַהּ גַּבֵּי כֹהֵן, דְּיָתֵיב אַמְּסַחְתָּא, אַמַּאי צָרִיךְ לִרְשׁוֹם? דְּאָמְרִי: בִּשְׂרָא קָא זָבֵין. אִי הָכִי, גּוֹי נָמֵי אָמְרִי: בִּשְׂרָא קָא זָבֵין!

The Gemara asks: If so, then in the corresponding situation involving a priest, where the baraita teaches that one who enters into partnership with a priest must mark the animal, this must also be referring to a case where the priest sits in the butcher shop. Why, then, must one mark the animal? The Gemara responds: The fact that the priest sits in the shop does not indicate that he is in partnership with the Israelite, as people will say: He is in the shop because he is purchasing meat. The Gemara objects: If so, then in the case of the gentile as well, they will say that he is in the shop because he is purchasing meat.

אֶלָּא הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, דְּיָתֵיב גּוֹי אַכַּסְפְּתָא. דִּכְוָתַהּ גַּבֵּי כֹּהֵן דְּיָתֵיב אַכַּסְפְּתָא, אַמַּאי צָרִיךְ לִרְשׁוֹם? אָמְרִי: הֵמוֹנֵי הֵימְנֵיהּ, גּוֹי נָמֵי אָמְרִי: הֵמוֹנֵי הֵימְנֵיהּ!

Rather, here we are dealing with a case where the gentile sits by the safe into which the butcher places money received from his customers. In such a situation, it is evident that the gentile is in partnership with the Israelite, and therefore the animal need not be marked. The Gemara asks: If so, then the corresponding situation in the baraita involving a priest must also be a case where the priest sits by the safe. Why, then, must one mark the animal? The Gemara responds: The fact that the priest sits by the safe does not indicate that he is in partnership with the Israelite, as people will say: The butcher trusts him to protect the safe from theft. The Gemara asks: If so, then in the case of the gentile as well, they will say that he sits by the safe because the butcher trusts him.

אֵין אֱמוּנָה בְּגוֹי. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: סְתַם גּוֹי מִפְּעָא פָּעֵי.

The Gemara responds: It is not common for a Jew to place his trust in a gentile. If you wish, say instead that in both cases of the baraita the priest and the gentile sit in the butcher shop, not by the safe. It is evident that the gentile is in partnership with the Israelite, as an ordinary gentile partner yells at the seller, saying, for example: Do not sell an item for this price but for a different price. By contrast, a priest, even if he sits in the shop, would not question the practices of the salesman, due to his modesty, but would defer to the seller’s expertise. Accordingly, it is not evident that the priest is a partner, and the animal must therefore be marked.

אָמַר מָר: וּפְסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין אֵין צָרִיךְ לִרְשׁוֹם. אַלְמָא מוֹכְחָא מִלְּתָא, וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן: פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין נִמְכָּרִים בָּאִיטְלִיז, וְנִשְׁחָטִים בָּאִיטְלִיז, וְנִשְׁקָלִים בְּלִיטְרָא!

§ The Master said in the baraita: And the owner of disqualified consecrated animals, which were slaughtered after they were redeemed and became non-sacred, is exempt from the obligation to give the gifts, and one does not need to mark the animal. The Gemara objects: Apparently, it is an evident matter that this is a disqualified consecrated animal, and therefore one need not mark it. But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Bekhorot 31a): All disqualified consecrated animals are sold in the meat market [be’itliz], and are slaughtered in the meat market, and are weighed and sold by the litra, in the manner of non-sacred meat? Since disqualified consecrated animals are treated in the same manner as ordinary non-sacred animals, how is it evident that this is a disqualified consecrated animal?

תַּרְגְּמָא רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא, בְּאוֹתָן הַנִּמְכָּרִים בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת.

The Gemara responds: Rav Adda bar Ahava interpreted the baraita before Rav Pappa as referring to those disqualified consecrated animals that are sold from inside the house, i.e., a firstborn animal and an animal tithe, whose redemption payments belong to their owners, as their value has no sanctity. Since no gain would accrue to the Temple, the Sages prohibited one from selling these animals in the market, despite the fact one could have obtained a higher sale price there due to the high concentration of customers.

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: שׁוּתָּף בָּרֹאשׁ – פָּטוּר מִן הַלֶּחִי, שׁוּתָּף בַּיָּד – פָּטוּר מִן הַזְּרוֹעַ, שׁוּתָּף בִּבְנֵי מֵעַיִין – פָּטוּר מִן הַקֵּבָה. וְחִיָּיא בַּר רַב אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ שׁוּתָּף בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן – פָּטוּר מִכּוּלָּן.

§ With regard to gifts of the priesthood from animals owned in partnership, Rav Huna says: If an Israelite is a partner with a priest or gentile in only the head of the animal, he is exempt merely from the obligation to give the jaw, which is part of the head. He remains obligated to give the foreleg and the maw. If he is a partner with a priest or gentile in the leg and hoof of the animal, he is exempt only from the obligation to give the foreleg. If he is a partner with a priest or gentile in the innards, he is exempt merely from the obligation to give the maw. And Ḥiyya bar Rav says that even if the priest or gentile is a partner in only one of them, the Israelite is exempt from all of the gifts.

מֵיתִיבִי: ״הָרֹאשׁ שֶׁלִּי וְכוּלָּהּ שֶׁלָּךְ״, וַאֲפִילּוּ אֶחָד מִמֵּאָה בָּרֹאשׁ – פָּטוּר. ״הַיָּד שֶׁלִּי וְכוּלָּהּ שֶׁלָּךְ״, אֲפִילּוּ אֶחָד מִמֵּאָה בַּיָּד – פָּטוּר. ״בְּנֵי מֵעַיִין שֶׁלִּי וְכוּלָּהּ שֶׁלָּךְ״, אֲפִילּוּ אֶחָד מִמֵּאָה בָּהֶן – פָּטוּר.

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Ḥiyya bar Rav from a baraita: If a priest says to an Israelite butcher: Let us enter into a partnership in which the head of the animal is mine and the entire remainder is yours, even if the priest proposes that only one-hundredth of the head should be his, the Israelite is exempt. Similarly, if the priest offers: Let us enter into a partnership in which the leg and hoof of the animal are mine and the entire remainder is yours, even if the priest suggests that only one-hundredth of the leg and hoof will be his, the Israelite is exempt. And likewise, if the priest says: Let us enter into a partnership in which the innards of the animal are mine and the entire remainder is yours, even if the priest offers to take only one-hundredth of the innards, the Israelite is exempt.

מַאי לָאו: פָּטוּר מִן הַלֶּחִי וְחַיָּיב בְּכוּלָּן, פָּטוּר מִן הַזְּרוֹעַ וְחַיָּיב בְּכוּלָּן, פָּטוּר מִן הַקֵּבָה וְחַיָּיב בְּכוּלָּן? לָא, פָּטוּר מִכּוּלָּן.

The Gemara explains the objection: What, is it not correct that the baraita is teaching that when the priest owns the head the butcher is exempt from giving the jaw, but obligated in giving all the rest, and likewise when the priest owns the leg and hoof, he is exempt from giving the foreleg but obligated in all the rest, and when the priest owns the innards, he is exempt from the maw and obligated in all the rest? This would contradict the opinion of Ḥiyya bar Rav. The Gemara responds: No; in each case the baraita means that he is exempt from all the gifts.

וְלִיתְנֵי פָּטוּר מִכּוּלָּן! וְעוֹד, תַּנְיָא: הָרֹאשׁ שֶׁלִּי וְכוּלָּהּ שֶׁלָּךְ – אֲפִילּוּ אֶחָד מִמֵּאָה בָּרֹאשׁ פָּטוּר מִן הַלֶּחִי וְחַיָּיב בְּכוּלָּן. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּחִיָּיא בַּר רַב, תְּיוּבְתָּא!

The Gemara suggests: But if so, let the baraita teach explicitly that he is exempt from all the gifts, rather than simply stating that he is exempt. And furthermore, it is taught in another baraita that if a priest says to an Israelite butcher: Let us enter into a partnership in which the head of the animal is mine and the entire remainder is yours, even if the priest suggests that only one-hundredth of the head will be his, the butcher is exempt from the obligation to give the jaw but is obligated in giving all the rest. This baraita explicitly contradicts the opinion of Ḥiyya bar Rav. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Ḥiyya bar Rav is indeed a conclusive refutation.

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הָא מַתְנִיתָא אַטְעִיתֵיהּ לְחִיָּיא בַּר רַב, דְּתַנְיָא: עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה הֵן, וְכוּלָּן נִיתְּנוּ לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו בִּכְלָל וּפְרָט וּבְרִית מֶלַח.

Rav Ḥisda said in explanation of the opinion of Ḥiyya bar Rav: This baraita misled Ḥiyya bar Rav, as it is taught in a baraita: There are twenty-four gifts of the priesthood, and all of them were given in the Torah to Aaron and his sons by a generalization and a detail, and with a covenant of salt. The verse states: “And 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” (Numbers 18:8). After this generalization, the Torah proceeds to list the gifts in detail. Finally, after delineating all the gifts of the priesthood, the verse states: “It is an everlasting covenant of salt” (Numbers 18:19), assuring Aaron that just as a covenant of salt is unbreakable, so too, the gifts of the priesthood are eternal.

כָּל הַמְקַיְּימָן – כְּאִילּוּ קִיֵּים בִּכְלָל וּפְרָט וּבְרִית מֶלַח, וְכׇל הָעוֹבֵר עֲלֵיהֶן – כְּאִילּוּ עוֹבֵר עַל בִּכְלָל וּפְרָט וּבְרִית מֶלַח.

The baraita continues: Therefore, anyone who fulfills the mitzva of giving the gifts of the priesthood is considered as though he fulfills all these mitzvot that are derived using the principle of a generalization and a detail, and as though he has upheld the covenant of salt. And anyone who violates the mitzva of giving the gifts of the priesthood is considered as though he violates all of the mitzvot derived by the principle of a generalization and a detail, and as though he has not upheld the covenant of salt.

וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: עֶשֶׂר בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְאַרְבַּע בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְעֶשֶׂר בַּגְּבוּלִים. עֶשֶׂר בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ: חַטָּאת, וְחַטַּאת הָעוֹף, אָשָׁם וַדַּאי, וְאָשָׁם תָּלוּי, וְזִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִבּוּר, וְלוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע, וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם, וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, וּשְׁיָרֵי מְנָחוֹת, וּמִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר.

And these are the twenty-four gifts: Ten are consumed in the Temple, and four in Jerusalem, and ten in the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael. The ten gifts consumed only in the Temple are an animal sin offering; and a bird sin offering; and a definite guilt offering; and a provisional guilt offering; and communal peace offerings, i.e., the lambs that accompany the two loaves brought on Shavuot and which are considered offerings of the most sacred order; and the remainder of the log of oil that accompanies the guilt offering of a recovered leper; and the two loaves offering from the new wheat brought on Shavuot; and the shewbread; and the leftovers of meal offerings; and the omer meal offering, i.e., the measure of barley brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of Nisan.

וְאַרְבַּע בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם: הַבְּכוֹרָה, וְהַבִּכּוּרִים, וּמוּרָם מִן הַתּוֹדָה וּמֵאֵיל נָזִיר, וְעוֹרוֹת קָדָשִׁים.

And these are the four gifts that the priests consume anywhere in Jerusalem: The unblemished firstborn of kosher animals; and the first fruits; and the portions separated for the priests from the thanks offering, i.e., the breast and thigh and one loaf from each of the four types of loaves brought with a thanks offerings: Cakes, wafers, cakes of fine flour, and leavened bread, and the portions separated from the nazirite’s ram, i.e., the boiled shoulder, a cake, and a wafer, in addition to the breast and thigh of any peace offering; and the hides of sacrificial animals brought as burnt offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings.

וְעֶשֶׂר בַּגְּבוּלִים: תְּרוּמָה, וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר, וְחַלָּה, וְרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, וּמַתָּנוֹת, וּפִדְיוֹן הַבֵּן, וּפִדְיוֹן פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר.

And these are the ten gifts that the priests consume anywhere in the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael: Teruma, i.e., the portion of the produce designated for the priest; and teruma of the tithe; and ḥalla; and the first sheared wool; and the gifts of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw; and the five sela given as redemption of the firstborn son; and a sheep or goat given as redemption of the firstborn donkey.

וּשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה, וּשְׂדֵה חֲרָמִים, וְגֶזֶל הַגֵּר.

The baraita continues the list: And a consecrated ancestral field that one did not redeem, which was sold to another by the Temple treasurer and is therefore given to the members of the priestly watch serving during the Jubilee Year; and a dedicated field; and payment for the robbery of a convert who died without heirs. If one takes an oath that he did not rob from a convert, and after the death of the convert he admits to having taken a false oath, he must pay the principal value of the stolen item and an additional one-fifth of the value, all of which is given to the priests.

הוּא סָבַר: מִדְּקָא חָשֵׁיב לְהוּ לְמַתָּנוֹת בַּחֲדָא – חֲדָא נִינְהוּ, וְלָא הִיא! אַטּוּ מוּרָם מִתּוֹדָה וְאֵיל נָזִיר דְּקָא חָשֵׁיב לְהוּ כַּחֲדָא – מִשּׁוּם דַּחֲדָא נִינְהוּ?! אֶלָּא, כֵּיוָן דְּדָמְיָין לַהֲדָדֵי – חָשֵׁיב לְהוּ כַּחֲדָא, הָכִי נָמֵי: כֵּיוָן דְּדָמְיָין לַהֲדָדֵי – חֲשִׁיב לְהוּ כַּחֲדָא.

Rav Ḥisda explains how the baraita misled Ḥiyya bar Rav: He thought that from the fact that the tanna of the baraita counts the gifts of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw as one gift, they are treated as one gift, which means that if one is exempt from one of them he is exempt from all of them. But it is not so, as is that to say that the portions separated for the priests from the thanks offering and from the nazirite’s ram, which the tanna counts as one, are counted this way because they are one? Obviously, these are independent gifts. Rather, since they are similar to one another the tanna counts them as one. So too, with regard to the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, since they are similar to one another he counts them as one.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הָרֹאשׁ שֶׁלְּךָ וְכוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי, מַהוּ? בָּתַר חִיּוּבָא אָזְלִינַן, וְחִיּוּבָא גַּבֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא, אוֹ דִלְמָא בָּתַר עִיקַּר בְּהֵמָה אָזְלִינַן, וְעִיקַּר בְּהֵמָה דְּכֹהֵן הוּא?

§ With regard to animals owned in partnership with a priest, the Gemara relates that a dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a priest says to an Israelite butcher: Let us enter into partnership in ownership of a live animal, in which the head is yours and the entire remainder is mine, what is the halakha? Is the Israelite obligated to give the jaw to a priest when it is slaughtered? The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: Do we follow the obligation, i.e., the limbs of the animal which contain the gifts, and since the obligation is owned by the Israelite he is obligated? Or perhaps, we follow the principal part of the animal, and since the principal of the animal is in the possession of the priest, the Israelite is exempt?

תָּא שְׁמַע: גּוֹי וְכֹהֵן שֶׁמָּסְרוּ צֹאנָם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לִגְזוֹז – פָּטוּר, הַלּוֹקֵחַ גֵּז צֹאנוֹ שֶׁל גּוֹי – פָּטוּר מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: With regard to a gentile or a priest who transferred his sheep to an Israelite to act as his agent to shear it, the Israelite is exempt from giving the first sheared wool to a priest. Similarly, one who purchases the shearing of the sheep of a gentile, even before the sheep was actually sheared, is exempt from giving the first sheared wool.

וְזֶה חוֹמֶר בִּזְרוֹעַ וּבַלְּחָיַיִם וּבְקֵבָה, יוֹתֵר מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בָּתַר חִיּוּבָא אָזְלִינַן, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

The baraita adds: And this, the halakha in a case where one purchases an item before the obligation of a certain gift of the priesthood takes effect, is a stringency that applies in the case of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw more so than in the case of the first sheared wool. In other words, one who purchases wool from a priest before it is shorn is exempt from giving first sheared wool, whereas one who purchases part of an animal from a priest before its slaughter is obligated to give any gifts contained within the purchased portion. Since this is the halakha even if the portion he purchased is not the principal part, similar to the stated case of one who purchases only the shearing of the sheep of a gentile, one can conclude from this baraita that we follow the obligation, i.e., the limbs of the animal that contain the gifts. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that this is correct.

וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ ״חוּץ מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת״ – פָּטוּר מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת.

§ The mishna teaches: And if a priest sold his animal to an Israelite and said that he is selling everything except for the gifts with it, the Israelite is exempt from the obligation to give the gifts, because they are not his.