Parallel
חולין 132
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
I borrow your own argument, for in that passage are expressly mentioned Aaron and his sons. The school of R. Ishmael taught: unto the priest, but not unto the priest's daughter, for we may infer what is not explicitly stated from what is explicitly stated. The school of R. Eliezer b. Jacob taught: unto the priest, and even unto the priest's daughter, for we have here a limitation following a limitation, and the purpose of a double limitation is to extend the law. R. Kahana used to eat [the priestly dues] on account of his wife. R. Papa used to eat them on account of his wife. R. Yemar used to eat them on account of his wife. R. Idi b. Abin used to eat them on account of his wife. Rabina said: Meremar told me that the law was in accordance with Rab's view; that the law was in accordance with R. Hisda's view; that the law was in accordance with ‘Ulla's view; and that the law was in accordance with the view of R. Adda b. Ahaba that if a Levite's daughter gave birth to a firstborn son the child is exempt from the payment of the five sela's. Our Rabbis taught: The law of the shoulder, the two cheeks and the maw applies to a hybrid and to a koy. R. Eliezer says, A hybrid, the offspring of a he-goat and a ewe, is subject to these dues; the offspring of a he-goat and a hind is exempt from these dues. Let us consider the case. It has been established that with regard to the law of covering up the blood and also with regard to the priestly dues the dispute (between R. Eliezer and the Rabbis as to the koy] can arise only in the case where a hart covered a she-goat; for both R. Eliezer and the Rabbis are undecided whether or not to take into consideration the seed of the male parent, but they differ as to whether the term ‘sheep’ includes even that which is a sheep in part only: one maintains that the term ‘sheep’ includes even that which is a sheep in part only, the other maintains that we do not say that the term ‘sheep’ includes that which is a sheep in part only. Now R. Eliezer's view that [the offspring of a he-goat and a hind] is exempt from dues is clear, for he holds that the term ‘sheep’ does not include even that which is a sheep in part only. According to the Rabbis however [it is difficult]; for granting that they hold the view that the term ‘sheep’ includes even that which is a sheep in part only, he [the priest] should only be entitled to half the dues, for as to the other half the owner could say to him, ‘Bring proof that we do not take into consideration the seed of the male parent and then you can have it’! — R. Huna b. Hiyya answered that by ‘subject’ they meant subject to half the dues. R. Zera raised an objection. We have learnt: A koy is in some ways similar to cattle, and in some ways similar to wild animals, and in some ways it is similar to wild animals and to cattle. Thus, its fat is forbidden like the fat of cattle; its blood must be covered up like the blood of wild animals. ‘In some ways it is similar to cattle and to wild animals’, for the blood and the sciatic nerve thereof are forbidden like [the blood and the sciatic nerve of] cattle and wild animals. It is subject to the law of the shoulder, the two cheeks and the maw, like cattle; R. Eliezer declares it exempt [from these dues]. Now if it were so, it should state that it is subject to half the dues only! — Since it states the rule with regard to its fat and its blood, in which case it could not have stated half, it therefore does not state half [even with regard to the dues]. When Rabin came [from Palestine] he reported in the name of R. Johanan that a koy, according to the Rabbis, is subject to the whole of the dues. For it was taught: [Scripture could have stated] ‘ox’, wherefore does it state, whether it be ox? To include the hybrid. [Likewise it could have stated] ‘sheep’, wherefore does it state, whether it be sheep? To include the koy. According to R. Eliezer what is the purpose of ‘whether’? — It is necessary in order to ndicate disjunction. Then whence do the Rabbis derive the principle of disjunction? — From the verse: From them that slaughter a slaughtering. And to what purpose does R. Eliezer put this verse: From them that slaughter a slaughtering? — He requires it for Raba's teaching, for Raba said: The claim is made against the slaughterer. MISHNAH. IF A FIRSTLING GOT MIXED UP WITH A HUNDRED OTHER ANIMALS AND A HUNDRED [AND ONE] PERSONS SLAUGHTERED THEM ALL, THEY ARE ALL EXEMPT FROM THE DUES. IF ONE PERSON SLAUGHTERED THEM ALL, ONLY ONE ANIMAL IS EXEMPT FROM THE DUES. IF A MAN SLAUGHTERED AN ANIMAL FOR A PRIEST OR A GENTILE, HE IS EXEMPT FROM THE DUES; IF HE HAD A SHARE [IN THE ANIMAL] WITH THEM, HE MUST INDICATE THIS BY SOME SIGN. IF HE SAID, ‘EXCEPT THE DUES’, HE IS EXEMPT FROM GIVING THE DUES. IF A MAN SAID, SELL ME THE ENTRAILS OF A COW’, AND AMONG THEM WERE THE PRIESTLY DUES, HE MUST GIVE THEM TO A PRIEST AND [THE SELLER] NEED NOT ALLOW ANY REDUCTION IN THE PURCHASE PRICE ON THAT ACCOUNT. BUT IF HE BOUGHT THEM FROM HIM BY WEIGHT, HE MUST GIVE THEM TO A PRIEST, AND [THE SELLER] MUST ALLOW A REDUCTION IN THE PRICE ON THAT ACCOUNT. GEMARA. Why is this so? — The priest can surely approach him with a double claim saying [of each animal]. ‘If it is the firstling, it is all mine, and if it is not the firstling, then give me my dues!’
—
— R. Oshaia said: This [firstling] had already been received by the priest but when it suffered a blemish he sold it to an Israelite. IF A MAN SLAUGHTERED AN ANIMAL FOR A PRIEST OR A GENTILE HE IS EXEMPT FROM THE DUES. Why does not the Mishnah teach simply. ‘Priests and gentiles are exempt from giving the dues’? — Raba said: This proves that the claim is made against the slaughterer. Raba stated in his discourse, Scripture says: From the people, but not from the priests; but when it further says. From them that slaughter a slaughtering, I say, this includes even a slaughterer who is a priest. R. Tabla's host was a priest and in sore need. When he came to R. Tabla the latter said to him, ‘Go and take a share [in the animals] of the Israelite butchers, for since they will thereby be exempt from giving the dues they will give you a share with them’. R. Nahman, however, declared him liable to give the dues. Said he, ‘But R. Tabla has exempted me’. ‘Go at once’, ordered [R. Nahman.] ‘and give up the dues, or else I will put R. Tabla out of your mind’. Thereupon R. Tabla came before R. Nahman and said to him, ‘Why has the Master done so?’ He replied. ‘When R. Aha b. Hanina came from the schools in the South he reported that R. Joshua b. Levi and the elders of the South ruled that a priest who became a slaughterer was exempt from giving the dues for the first two or three weeks, but thereafter he was liable to give the dues’. ‘Then’, said the other, ‘why does not the Master at least deal with him in accordance with R. Aha b. Hanina’? He replied. ‘That is the ruling only when he has not set up a butcher's stall; but here he has set up a stall’. R. Hisda said: A priest [a butcher] who does not give the dues [to another priest] is to be put under the ban of the Lord God of Israel. Rabbah son of R. Shila, said: The butchers of Huzal have been under the ban of R. Hisda for the last twenty-two years. Now what is the point of this? Does it mean to say that we do not continue the ban? But it has been taught: This applies only to negative precepts, but in the case of positive precepts as, for instance, when a man is told, ‘Make a sukkah’, and he does not make it, or ‘Perform the commandment of the lulab’. and he does not perform it, he is flogged until his soul departs! — It means that we may penalize them [now] without warning; as when Raba penalized a man [by taking away from him] a side of meat, and R. Nahman b. Isaac penalized a man [by taking away from him] his cloak. R. Hisda also said: The [entire] shoulder is to be given to one [priest], the maw to another, and the two cheeks to two [priests]. But surely this is not so, for when R. Isaac b. Joseph came [from Palestine] he reported that in the West they even divide every bone [amongst a number of priests]! — That is only in the case of an ox. Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Johanan: It is forbidden to eat from an animal from which the priestly dues have not been taken. Rabbah b. Bar Hana also said in the name of R. Johanan: Whosoever eats from an animal from which the priestly dues have not been taken is as one who eats untithed produce. — The law, however, is not in accordance with him. R. Hisda said: The priestly dues may be eaten only roasted and with mustard. What is the reason? Because Scripture says: For a consecrated portion, that is, as a mark of eminence, [and must therefore be eaten] as kings take their food. R. Hisda also said: A priest who is not conversant with the twenty-four priestly endowments should not be given any gifts at all. This however is not right; for it has been taught: R. Simeon says. A priest who does not believe in the [Temple] service has no portion in the priesthood, for it is written: He among the sons of Aaron, that offereth the blood of the peace-offerings, and the fat, shall have the right thigh for a portion. I only know it with regard to this service; whence do I know it with regard to the fifteen other services in the Temple, viz., the rites of pouring, mingling, breaking into pieces, seasoning with salt, waving, bringing near, taking out the handful, and burning it, the rite of nipping off.36
—