Chullin

MISHNAH. THE LAW OF THE SHOULDER AND THE TWO CHEEKS AND THE MAW1 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,2 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;3 ONLY WHAT IS MENTIONED IN THIS PASSAGE SHALL BE HIS.4 ALL CONSECRATED ANIMALS WHICH HAD CONTRACTED A PERMANENT PHYSICAL BLEMISH BEFORE THEY WERE CONSECRATED5 AND HAVE BEEN REDEEMED6 ARE SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF THE FIRSTLING7 AND TO THESE DUES, AND LIKE UNCONSECRATED ANIMALS THEY MAY BE SHORN AND MAY BE PUT TO WORK,8 AND AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN REDEEMED THEIR YOUNG9 AND THEIR MILK ARE PERMITTED,10 AND HE WHO SLAUGHTERED THEM11 OUTSIDE THE SANCTUARY IS NOT LIABLE, AND THEY11 DO NOT RENDER WHAT WAS SUBSTITUTED FOR THEM [HOLY].12 AND IF THEY DIED THEY MAY BE REDEEMED.13 THE FIRSTLING14 AND THE TITHE OF CATTLE14 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,15 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 YOUNG16 AND THEIR MILK ARE FORBIDDEN, AND HE WHO SLAUGHTERED THEM OUTSIDE THE SANCTUARY IS LIABLE,17 AND THEY18 RENDER WHAT WAS SUBSTITUTED FOR THEM [HOLY], AND IF THEY DIED THEY MUST BE BURIED.19 GEMARA. The reason20 is that Scripture stated them,21 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 so22 of unconsecrated animals since they are [also] subject to the law of the Firstling!23 — It24 might have been inferred from male unconsecrated animals.25 But [it can also be refuted thus]. That is so22 of males since they are [also] subject to the precept of the First of the Fleece!26 — It24 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!27 — It might then have been inferred from old28 [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.29 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 kind30 enters the stall to be tithed.31 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;32 ‘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?33 And where can they be waved? Outside [the Sanctuary]? But it is written: Before the Lord.33 be ox or sheep, that they shall give unto the priest the shoulder and the two cheeks and the maw. by reason of their blemish. priest; cf. Num. XVIII, 15-28. 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. Bek. 14a. (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. 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). tenth beast is designated holy, whether it is blemished or not. v. Bek. 14a. 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. because they cannot stand while being redeemed. to the priestly dues. priestly dues. consecrated animals although not subject to the law of the Firstling should nevertheless be subject to the priestly dues. dues should not apply to consecrated animals. cattle tithe. subject to the priestly dues; I would then say the same of consecrated animals. bearing it. The argument in the latter part of the prec. n. applies here too. within the law of the priestly dues; accordingly the verse quoted in the Mishnah is necessary to exclude them.