חולין 130 — Soncino English Talmud

¹MISHNAH. THE LAW OF THE SHOULDER AND THE TWO CHEEKS AND THE MAW IS IN FORCE BOTH WITHIN THE HOLY LAND AND OUTSIDE IT, BOTH DURING THE EXISTENCE OF THE TEMPLE AND AFTER IT, IN RESPECT OF UNCONSECRATED ANIMALS BUT NOT CONSECRATED ANIMALS. FOR IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ARGUED THUS, IF UNCONSECRATED ANIMALS, WHICH ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF THE BREAST AND THE THIGH, ARE SUBJECT TO THESE DUES, HOW MUCH MORE ARE CONSECRATED ANIMALS, WITH ARE SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF THE BREAST AND THE THIGH, SUBJECT ALSO TO THESE DUES! SCRIPTURE THEREFORE STATES, AND I HAVE GIVEN THEM UNTO AARON THE PRIEST AND UNTO HIS SONS AS A DUE FOR EVER; ONLY WHAT IS MENTIONED IN THIS PASSAGE SHALL BE HIS. ALL CONSECRATED ANIMALS WHICH HAD CONTRACTED A PERMANENT PHYSICAL BLEMISH BEFORE THEY WERE CONSECRATED AND HAVE BEEN REDEEMED ARE SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF THE FIRSTLING AND TO THESE DUES, AND LIKE UNCONSECRATED ANIMALS THEY MAY BE SHORN AND MAY BE PUT TO WORK, AND AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN REDEEMED THEIR YOUNG AND THEIR MILK ARE PERMITTED, AND HE WHO SLAUGHTERED THEM OUTSIDE THE SANCTUARY IS NOT LIABLE, AND THEY DO NOT RENDER WHAT WAS SUBSTITUTED FOR THEM [HOLY]. AND IF THEY DIED THEY MAY BE REDEEMED. THE FIRSTLING AND THE TITHE OF CATTLE ARE EXCEPTED. ALL [CONSECRATED ANIMALS] WHICH HAD CONTRACTED A PERMANENT BLEMISH AFTER THEY WERE CONSECRATED, OR IF THEY HAD CONTRACTED A PASSING BLEMISH BEFORE THEY WERE CONSECRATED AND SUBSEQUENTLY [AFTER CONSECRATION] CONTRACTED A PERMANENT BLEMISH, AND HAVE BEEN REDEEMED, ARE EXEMPT FROM THE LAW OF THE FIRSTLING, AND FROM THESE DUES, AND THEY MAY NOT, LIKE UNCONSECRATED ANIMALS, BE SHORN OR PUT TO WORK, AND [EVEN] AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN REDEEMED THEIR YOUNG AND THEIR MILK ARE FORBIDDEN, AND HE WHO SLAUGHTERED THEM OUTSIDE THE SANCTUARY IS LIABLE, AND THEY RENDER WHAT WAS SUBSTITUTED FOR THEM [HOLY], AND IF THEY DIED THEY MUST BE BURIED. GEMARA. The reason is that Scripture stated them, but without it I should have argued that consecrated animals are subject to these dues; but surely the argument [of the Mishnah] can be refuted thus: That is so of unconsecrated animals since they are [also] subject to the law of the Firstling! — It might have been inferred from male unconsecrated animals. But [it can also be refuted thus]. That is so of males since they are [also] subject to the precept of the First of the Fleece! — It might then have been inferred from he-goats. But [it might be argued,] that is so of he-goats since they [also] enter the stall to be tithed! — It might then have been inferred from old [he-goats]. But [it might be argued,] that is so of old [he-goats] since they have in the past entered the stall to be tithed! — It might then have been inferred from a bought or orphaned animal. But [it might be argued.] that is so of bought or orphaned animals since their kind enters the stall to be tithed! — ‘Their kind’! you say; then it is the same with consecrated animals too,for their kind enters the stall to be tithed. But can it not be inferred that unconsecrated animals are subject to the precept of the breast and the thigh from the following a fortiori argument? Thus: if consecrated animals, which are not subject to the priestly dues, are subject to the precept of the breast and the thigh, how much more are unconsecrated animals which are subject to the priestly dues subject also to the precept of the breast and the thigh! The verse therefore reads: And this shall be the priests’ due; ‘this’, yes, but nothing else. Now the reason is that Scripture stated ‘this’, but without it I should have said that unconsecrated animals are subject to the precept of the breast and the thigh. But is not the rite of ‘waving’ essential? And where can they be waved? Outside [the Sanctuary]? But it is written: Before the Lord.33^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ

^ᵃnote:Deut. XVIII, 3: And this shall be the priests’ due from the people, from them that slaughter a slaughtering whether it be ox or sheep, that they shall give unto the priest the shoulder and the two cheeks and the maw.
^ᵇnote:Lev. VII, 29ff. This law clearly refers to animal offerings only.
^ᶜnote:Ibid. 34.
^ᵈnote:Thus of consecrated animals the breast and the thigh only pertain to the priest but not the shoulder etc.
^ᵉnote:Such animals can only be regarded as consecrated for their value (ohns ,ause) for they are unfit for sacrifice by reason of their blemish.
^ᶠnote:They are now like ordinary unconsecrated animals in every respect.
^ᵍnote:And if they now bear a male firstling, even though the animal became pregnant before redemption, it belongs to the priest; cf. Num. XVIII, 15-28.
^ʰnote:But this is not so with consecrated animals which contracted a permanent blemish after consecration and have been redeemed. To such the provisions of Deut. XII, 15 apply; thus they are regarded as the gazelle and the hart and are exempt from the law of firstling and from the priestly dues; they may be slaughtered and eaten but may not be put to any labour; and their products, as wool, milk and young, are forbidden.
^ⁱnote:Even though the animal became pregnant before it was redeemed and brought forth its young after redemption; cf. Bek. 14a.
^ʲnote:V. p. 732, n. 8.
^ᵏnote:Even before they were redeemed.
^ˡnote:For although the expression, ‘A good for a bad or a bad for a good’, in connection with the law of Substitution (Lev. XXVII, 10) has been interpreted to mean an unblemished for a blemished animal, this applies only to a consecrated animal that later suffered a blemish, but not to a blemished animal that was later consecrated; cf. Bek. 14b.
^ᵐnote:Even though they are fit now only for dogs’ food; for the rule (Bek. 15a), ‘One must not redeem consecrated animals in order to feed dogs therewith’, does not apply to these animals, since they were never regarded as consecrated themselves (;udv ,ause), but only as consecrated for their value (ohns ,ause). Moreover this Tanna is of the opinion that whatsoever is consecrated for value only need not be made to stand when being redeemed, as is the case with animal offerings when being redeemed on account of a blemish (v. Lev. XXVII, 11,12).
^ⁿnote:These are holy in all circumstances; for the male firstling is still holy even though born blemished; likewise the tenth beast is designated holy, whether it is blemished or not.
^ᵒnote:These were themselves consecrated for sacrifice and the provisions of Deut. XII, 15 apply; v. supra p. 732, n. 8.
^ᵖnote:It is assumed that the animal became pregnant before it was redeemed and brought forth its young after redemption; v. Bek. 14a.
^ᵠnote:Even though because of their blemish they are not fit for sacrifice in the Sanctuary. In Bek. 16a the unfitness is explained as arising out of a slight blemish, e.g., a thin filmy veil over the eye, and the view adopted is that of R. Akiba who holds that a consecrated animal with such a blemish if already offered upon the altar must not be taken down.
^ʳnote:Before they were redeemed.
^ˢnote:V. supra p. 733, n. 5. For one must not redeem consecrated animals in order to feed dogs therewith; alternatively because they cannot stand while being redeemed.
^ᵗnote:Why consecrated animals are not subject to the priestly dues of the shoulder and the two cheeks and the maw.
^ᵘnote:Lev. VII, 34; V. Mishnah.
^ᵛnote:Viz., that they are subject to the priestly dues.
^ʷnote:Whereas consecrated animals are not subject to the law of the Firstling, consequently they should neither be subject to the priestly dues.
^ˣnote:That consecrated animals, were it not for the express verse which excludes them, should also be subject to the priestly dues.
^ʸnote:These, being males, are not subject to the law of the Firstling, and yet are subject to the priestly dues; similarly consecrated animals although not subject to the law of the Firstling should nevertheless be subject to the priestly dues.
^ᶻnote:V. Deut. XVIII, 4. This law, however, does not apply to he-goats, nor to consecrated animals. Likewise the priestly dues should not apply to consecrated animals.
^ᵃᵃnote:I.e., arc subject to the law of cattle tithe (cf. Lev. XXVII, 32); consecrated animals, however, are exempt from the cattle tithe.
^ᵃᵇnote:Which have passed through the gate for tithing. Such an animal is no more subject to the law of cattle tithe, yet is subject to the priestly dues; I would then say the same of consecrated animals.
^ᵃᶜnote:These are exempt from the cattle tithe, v. Bek. 55b, 57a. By ‘orphaned’ is meant a beast whose dam died whilst bearing it. The argument in the latter part of the prec. n. applies here too.
^ᵃᵈnote:I.e., unconsecrated animals.
^ᵃᵉnote:Hence the argument from bought and orphaned animals would have been conclusive to include consecrated animals within the law of the priestly dues; accordingly the verse quoted in the Mishnah is necessary to exclude them.
^ᵃᶠnote:Deut. XVIII, 3. No other dues but those mentioned in this verse are to be exacted from unconsecrated animals.
^ᵃᵍnote:Lev. VII, 30.

²Inside [the Sanctuary]? Then he is bringing what is unconsecrated into the Temple court. It is therefore inapplicable; wherefore then do I require [the word] ‘this’? — For R. Hisda's teaching. For R. Hisda said: If a man destroyed or consumed the priestly dues [before they were given to the priest] he is not liable to make restitution. [To turn to] the main text: ‘R. Hisda said: If a man destroyed or consumed the priestly dues [before they were given to the priest] he is not liable to make restitution’. For what reason? If you wish I can say, because it is written [the word] this; or if you prefer I can say, because it is property which has no definite claimant. An objection was raised: [The verse,] And this shall be the priests’ due [mishpat], teaches that the dues are a matter of right. What is the effect of this? Is it not that they can be claimed in court? — No, it is that they are to be distributed by the [advice of the] court. And this is in agreement with R. Samuel b. Nahmani; for R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan: Whence do we know that one should not give any dues to a priest an ‘am ha-arez? From the verse: Moreover he commanded the people that dwelt in Jerusalem to give the portion of the priests and the Levites, that they might hold fast to the law of the Lord,’ whosoever holds fast to the law of the Lord has a portion, and whosoever does not hold fast to the law of the Lord has no portion. Come and hear: R. Judah b. Bathyra says: The expression ‘due’, [mishpat], teaches that the dues are a matter of right. I might say that the breast and the thigh are also a matter of right, the text therefore states: And this. Now what is the effect of this rule? Is it that they are to be distributed by [the advice of] the court? Then surely the breast and thigh are also to be distributed by the [advice of the] court. It must therefore mean that they can be claimed in court! — We are dealing here with the case where they had come into [the priest's] possession. But if they had come into his possession already then this is obvious! They came into his possession unseparated, and this Tanna is of the opinion that priestly dues although not separated [from the bulk] are regarded as virtually separated. Come and hear: If a householder was travelling from place to place and is obliged to take the gleanings, the forgotten sheaf, or the corners of the field, or the Poorman's Tithe, he may take them, and when he returns to his house he must make restitution; so R. Eliezer. — R. Hisda said: They taught this Only as a rule of conduct for the pious. Said Raba: But the Tanna stated ‘he must make restitution’, how then can one say that this was stated here only as a rule of conduct for the pious? Moreover, can any objection be raised from the statement of R. Eliezer? Indeed it was from the following clause [that the objection was raised] viz., But the Sages say: He was a poor man at that time. Now this is so only because he was a poor man, but had he been a rich man he would have had to make restitution; but why? Is this not a case of a man destroying or consuming the priestly dues? Whereupon R. Hisda answered: They taught this only as a rule of conduct for the pious. Come and hear: Whence do we know that if an owner consumed his produce without having separated the tithes, or if a Levite consumed his tithe without having separated the priestly tithe therefrom, he is exempt from making restitution? Because Scripture says: And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they set apart unto the Lord; thou hast a right to them only after they have been set apart. It follows, however, that after they have been set apart, [if a man consumed them] he would be liable to make restitution; but why? Is this not a case of a man destroying or consuming the priestly gifts? — Here too [we must suppose that]^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ

^ᵃʰnote:And this is forbidden Biblically, v. Tosaf s.v. ht.
^ᵃⁱnote:To exclude unconsecrated animals from the precept of the breast and the thigh seeing that the indispensability of the rite of ‘waving’ makes it inapplicable to them.
^ᵃʲnote:The rule is derived from the word ‘this’ (v. infra), which implies that these portions if in existence must be given to the priest, but if destroyed there is no obligation to compensate the priest for them.
^ᵃᵏnote:For to every priest that claims them the owner could say that he proposed to give them to another priest.
^ᵃˡnote:Deut. XVIII, 3. Heb. ypan. In this verse it is translated as ‘due’, but generally it means ‘judgment, right’. The use of this word in connection with these portions signifies that they are regarded as a legal right.
^ᵃᵐnote:Lit., ‘to collect them by (order of) the judges’. I.e., a priest can claim them in court from an owner who withholds them; thus conflicting with R. Hisda who regards these dues as property without any claimants.
^ᵃⁿnote:I.e., the court guides the owner as to the distribution of his dues, that he should not give them to the unworthy.
^ᵃᵒnote:V. Glos. In general the ignorant and irreligious people.
^ᵃᵖnote:II Chron. XXXI, 4.
^ᵃᵠnote:For also these dues should not be given to an unworthy priest.
^ᵃʳnote:I.e., a priest can claim the dues of the shoulder, the two cheeks and the maw from an owner; contra R. Hisda. This legal right was expressly excluded from the law of the breast and the thigh as any claim to them would hardly be contested, for, since they formed part of the atonement of the sacrifice, the owner would certainly not withhold them.
^ᵃˢnote:The claim in connection with the dues of the shoulder etc. referred to arises when they were stolen from the possession of the priest to whom they had already been given.
^ᵃᵗnote:That they can be claimed and recovered in court.
^ᵃᵘnote:The entire animal came into the possession of the priest and, as the dues have no particular owner, this priest acquired the property in them even though they had not yet been separated from the animal.
^ᵃᵛnote:This, however, cannot be said with regard to the dues of the breast and thigh, for these are not free to all priests but are restricted to that division of priests on duty in the Temple at the time of the sacrifice.
^ᵃʷnote:Lev. XIX, 9.
^ᵃˣnote:Deut. XXIV, 19.
^ᵃʸnote:This was due in the third and sixth years of the Sabbatical cycle in lieu of the Second Tithe, and was to be distributed among the poor. Deut. XIV, 28, 29.
^ᵃᶻnote:He must pay for the amount he had consumed to the first poor man who claims it. This clearly conflicts with R. Hisda's teaching.
^ᵇᵃnote:Pe'ah V, 4.
^ᵇᵇnote:Strictly he is not bound to make any restitution, and his doing so is only in the nature of a pious and charitable act.
^ᵇᶜnote:Clearly a legal ruling!
^ᵇᵈnote:Surely not; for R. Hisda need not find himself in agreement with R. Eliezer seeing that R. Eliezer's view is disputed by the Sages. But see Tosaf. s.v. tb, at end.
^ᵇᵉnote:And therefore he need not make restitution.
^ᵇᶠnote:In which case R. Hisda expressly said that he need not make restitution for none could claim it from him.
^ᵇᵍnote:Lit., ‘in a state of tebel’ (mixture).
^ᵇʰnote:Even though he may be liable to death at the hands of Heaven for eating it, cf. Sanh. 83a.
^ᵇⁱnote:Lev. XXII, 15.
^ᵇʲnote:Sc., the priest.