חולין 132:1 — Soncino English Talmud

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!’^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^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ

^ᵃnote:Lit., ‘from your burden’; i.e., the other words in the passage quoted by you confute you.
^ᵇnote:Ibid. 13. But elsewhere, wherever ‘priest’ alone is mentioned, it includes even the priest's daughter, as in the case of the priestly dues.
^ᶜnote:Deut. XVIII, 3, in reference to the priestly dues.
^ᵈnote:With regard to the meal-offering of priests the Torah expressly states ‘Aaron and his sons’, in order to exclude the priest's daughters, and this serves as a guiding principle suggesting that whenever Scripture mentions ‘priest’ the priest's daughter is excluded.
^ᵉnote:In the passage dealing with the priestly dues there occur the words ‘priests’ and ‘priest’, and inasmuch as each serves as a limitation to exclude the priest's daughter, the result is that the successive limitations actually amplify the scope of the law and include the priest's daughter.
^ᶠnote:Who was the daughter of a priest. The meaning is that the giving of the priestly dues to the husband of a priest's daughter is a proper fulfilment of the obligation (R. Nissim).
^ᵍnote:V. supra p. 745.
^ʰnote:That one may give the priestly dues to the daughter of a priest.
^ⁱnote:The sum prescribed for the redemption of the firstborn son; cf. Num. XVIII, 25, 26. It is established law (cf. Bek. 13a) that where either one of the parents is of priestly stock or where the father is a Levite, the firstborn son is exempt from redemption. R. Adda b. Ahaba here extends the rule of exemption even where the mother is the daughter of a Levite. V. Bek. 47a.
^ʲnote:V. supra p. 443.
^ᵏnote:A permitted animal, about which the Rabbis were undecided whether it was to be classed in the category of cattle or of wild beasts.
^ˡnote:For ‘the offspring of a he-goat and a hind’ Rashal substitutes ‘the koy’.
^ᵐnote:V. supra 80a, pp. 444-5 and notes thereon.
^ⁿnote:The Sages.
^ᵒnote:R. Eliezer.
^ᵖnote:And as this offspring is at most only a part sheep by reason of its sire it is exempt entirely from dues.
^ᵠnote:Even in the case of the offspring of a hart and a she-goat.
^ʳnote:Strictly the Rabbis did not use the expression ‘subject’ at all; they only ruled that the law of the shoulder etc. applied to a koy, and it is now suggested that by ‘applied’ they meant only as to half the dues.
^ˢnote:Bik. II, 8.
^ᵗnote:That according to the Rabbis the koy is only subject to half the dues.
^ᵘnote:But of course it is only subject to half the dues.
^ᵛnote:Deut. XVIII, 3. The particle ot (im) is unnecessarily stated before ox and sheep.
^ʷnote:That these portions are due when one slaughters either an ox or a sheep; without the particles ‘im it might have been said that these portions are due only when one slaughters an ox and a sheep.
^ˣnote:Ibid. jcz ‘slaughtering’ is in the singular; so that the slaughtering of one animal imposes the obligation of the dues.
^ʸnote:The priest when claiming his dues makes his claim upon the slaughterer, although the latter may have slaughtered animals belonging to other people.
^ᶻnote:I.e., every animal belonged to a different person, or better, each person slaughtered his own animal.
^ᵃᵃnote:For each owner-slaughterer can rebut the priest's claim by saying that what he had slaughtered was the firstling which is exempt from priestly dues.
^ᵃᵇnote:I.e., the animals all belonged to one person.
^ᵃᶜnote:I.e., the animal belonged to a priest or a gentile.
^ᵃᵈnote:That all may know that he shares the animal with the priest or the gentile and on that account he is exempt from giving the dues.
^ᵃᵉnote:A priest or a gentile when selling the animal to an Israelite.
^ᵃᶠnote:The purchaser is exempt from giving the dues for they had not become his property at all.
^ᵃᵍnote:V. supra 131a.
^ᵃʰnote:That, in the first clause, all the animals are exempt from the dues because of the firstling that is mixed up with them.
^ᵃⁱnote:Lit., ‘from two sides’.