חולין 133 — Soncino English Talmud

¹of receiving [the blood in a vessel], and sprinkling it, the ceremony of giving the water to a woman suspected of adultery, of breaking the heifer's neck, of purifying the leper, and of raising the hands [for the priestly benediction] both inside (the Temple] and outside? The text therefore states, among the sons of Aaron, that is, every service ordained for the sons of Aaron. Hence, a priest who does not believe in the [Temple] services has no portion in the priesthood. Now the reason for this is that he does not believe in them, but if he does believe in them although he is not conversant with them [he is entitled to the priestly dues]. R. Abba said in the name of R. Huna who said it in the name of Rab: The veins in the cheek are forbidden, and a priest who does not know how to remove them should not be given this portion. But this is not correct, for if [the meat is] roasted then the blood will run out, and if [it is] cooked in a pot, having first been cut up and salted, then the blood will have run out. Raba said: R. Joseph once tested us [by the following question]: If a priest snatches the priestly dues, is this a token of his zeal for the precept or of his contempt for the precept? And we replied, [Scripture says.] They shall give, but he shall not take it himself. Abaye said: At first I used to snatch the priestly dues for I said to myself. ‘I am showing my zeal for the precept’, but when I heard the teaching, ‘"They shall give", but he shall not take it himself’, I would no more snatch it, but would say to all, ‘Give them to me’. And when I heard the teaching [of the following Baraitha] which was taught: ‘They turned aside after lucre: R. Meir said: Samuel's sons used to ask for the portions themselves’, I decided not to ask for them but would accept them if they were given to me. And when I heard the following [Baraitha] which was taught: ‘The modest withdrew their hands from it but the greedy took it’, I decided not to accept them at all, save on the day before the Day of Atonement so as to establish myself as one of the priests. But he could have raised his hands [for the priestly benediction]? — Time pressed him. R. Joseph said: A priest in whose neighbourhood there lives a scholar who is in sore need, may assign to him the priestly dues even though they have not yet come into his hands; provided [the priest] is popular among the priests and Levites. Raba and R. Safra once visited the house of Mar Yuhna the son of R. Hana b. Adda (others say, the house of Mar Yuhna the son of R. Hana b. Bizna), and he prepared for them a third-born calf. Thereupon Raba said to the attendant [who waited upon them]: ‘Assign to me the dues, for I wish to eat the tongue with mustard’. He assigned them to him. Raba ate it, but R. Safra would not eat it. There came to R. Safra the following verse in a dream: As one that taketh off a garment in cold weather, and as vinegar upon nitre, so is he that singeth songs to a heavy heart. He then came before R. Joseph and said to him, ‘Perhaps it was because I did not do in accordance with the Master's teaching that this verse came to me?’ But he [R. Joseph] replied. ‘I said it of a stranger only, but an attendant perforce must assign it; moreover I said it in respect of one who is needy, but here it was not a case of need’. ‘Then why did this verse appear to me?’ — ‘It referred to Raba’. ‘Then why did it not appear to Raba?’ ‘He was under Divine censure’. Abaye said to R. Dimi: To what does the plain meaning of the [above] verse refer? — He replied: To one who teaches a disciple that is unworthy. For Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab: Whosoever teaches a disciple that is unworthy will fall into Gehinnom, as it is written: All darkness is laid up for his treasures; a fire not blown by man shall consume him that hath an unworthy remnant [sarid] in his tent; and ‘sarid’ can refer only to the scholar, as it is written: And among the remnant [u-baseridim] those whom the Lord shall call. R. Zera said in the name of Rab: Whosoever teaches a disciple that is unworthy is as one that throws a stone at a Merculis, for it is written: As a small stone in a heap of stones, so is he that giveth honour to a fool; and ‘honour’ is nothing but the Torah as it is written: The wise shall inherit honour; and The perfect shall inherit good. R. Hama b. Hanina said: Whosoever does good to one that does not appreciate it is as one that throws a stone at a Merculis, for it is written: As a small stone in a heap of stones, so is he that giveth honour to a fool; and it is also written: Luxury is not seemly for a fool. IF HE HAD A SHARE [IN THE ANIMAL] WITH THEM, HE MUST INDICATE THIS BY SOME SIGN. [This is so, apparently] even with a gentile. But I can point out a contradiction, for it has been taught: If a man shares [the animal] with a priest he must indicate this by a sign; if he shares it with a gentile, or if the animal was a consecrated animal that had become unfit for a sacrifice, there is no need to indicate this by a sign!^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^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ

^ᵃnote:Either upon the veil of the Holy of Holies, or upon the altar.
^ᵇnote:Num. V, 24.
^ᶜnote:Deut. XXI, 4.
^ᵈnote:Lev. XIV, 2ff.
^ᵉnote:Num. VI, 22-27.
^ᶠnote:I.e., in Synagogues.
^ᵍnote:Lev. VII, 33.
^ʰnote:This clearly refutes R. Hisda's statement.
^ⁱnote:On account of the blood that is in them.
^ʲnote:Cf. supra 93a re the veins in the fore-limb.
^ᵏnote:From children who are taking it to another priest.
^ˡnote:Deut. XVIII, 3.
^ᵐnote:Hence it is wrong to seize it.
^ⁿnote:I Sam. VIII, 3.
^ᵒnote:Yoma 39a, in connection with the distribution of the shew-bread among the priests, and conditions in the Temple after the death of Simeon the Just.
^ᵖnote:That it should not be forgotten that he was a priest.
^ᵠnote:In the Synagogue service and this would have proved him to be a priest.
^ʳnote:He was always occupied in study with his pupils that he could not find the time to take part in the priestly benediction. According to ‘Aruch and Alfasi, Abaye used to suffer from intestinal troubles and this debarred him from participating in the priestly benediction.
^ˢnote:And the scholar may collect the dues from the people.
^ᵗnote:vbuvf hrhfn. Lit., ‘acquaintances of priesthood’. One who can count upon receiving dues from many people, and therefore, having as it were a presumptive ownership of the dues, he can assign them even though he has not actually received them.
^ᵘnote:Or, a calf in its third year, or one that has reached a third of its growth.
^ᵛnote:Who was a priest and who usually received the priestly dues from his master.
^ʷnote:The tongue constitutes part of the two cheeks to be given to the priest.
^ˣnote:He held that the attendant could not assign what he had not yet received.
^ʸnote:Prov. XXV, 20. R. Safra felt humiliated that this verse should have been applied to him; for the latter part of the verse implies that it is useless to teach one who has no understanding.
^ᶻnote:Stated supra.
^ᵃᵃnote:To his master's guests; in such a case they in whose favour the dues were assigned would not acquire them.
^ᵃᵇnote:Because of his conduct in this incident, or because he had incurred the divine displeasure by demanding rain from Heaven, cf. Ta'an. 24b.
^ᵃᶜnote:The place of punishment of the wicked in the hereafter; hell.
^ᵃᵈnote:Job XX, 26. All darkness i.e., Gehinnom, and a fire not blown by man i.e., the fires of hell, are prepared for him who has an unworthy scholar ( shra gr) in his tent.
^ᵃᵉnote:Joel III, 5: ohshracu.
^ᵃᶠnote:I.e., an idolater. Mercurius, a Roman divinity, identified with the Greek Hermes, the patron deity of wayfarers. Worship of this deity consisted in the setting up of stones, two beside each other and one above them, cf. A.Z. 49b, and sometimes simply in throwing stones at the figure; cf. Sanh. 60b.
^ᵃᵍnote:Prov. XXVI. 8. The words in the text following this verse until the end of this same verse quoted in the subsequent passage are omitted in the current editions. It is an obvious scribal omission, and the text has been supplied from MS.M.; the passage in full is also to be found in the ‘En Jacob.
^ᵃʰnote:Ibid. III, 35.
^ᵃⁱnote:Ibid. XXVIII, 10. The logic of the argument must be followed up thus: And ‘good’ is nothing but Torah, as it is said: For I give you good doctrine, forsake ye not my Torah (ibid. IV, 2). Cf. Aboth VI, 3.
^ᵃʲnote:Ibid. XIX, 10.
^ᵃᵏnote:I.e., it is necessary to indicate by some sign the existing partnership between the Jew and the gentile.
^ᵃˡnote:By reason of a physical blemish and which has been redeemed. Such an animal is exempt from the priestly dues, v. supra 130a.

²— We must suppose in this case that the gentile was sitting by the butcher's stall. But then in the case of the priest we must also suppose the same circumstances, that he sat by the stall; why then is it necessary to indicate [the partnership] by a sign? — Because people might say that he is only buying meat. Then in the case of a gentile, too, people might say that he is only buying meat, will they not? — We must suppose in this case that the gentile was sitting by the till. Then in the case of the priest we must suppose the same circumstances, that he sat by the till, why is it necessary to indicate by a sign? — Because people might say that he merely trusted him [the priest]. Then in the case of a gentile, too, people might say that he merely trusted him? — There is no trust among heathens. If you wish, however, I can say, a gentile [partner] usually makes himself heard. The Master stated: ‘If the animal was a consecrated animal that had become unfit for sacrifice, there is no need to indicate this by a sign’. This shows that it is evident to all; but we have learnt: Consecrated animals that have become unfit for sacrifice may [after they have been redeemed] be sold in the market, may be slaughtered in the market, and may be weighed out by the pound! — R. Adda b. Ahabah suggested before R. Papa that our case refers only to those animals that are sold in the house. R. Huna said: If he has a share in the head of the animal only, one is exempt from giving the cheeks; if he has a share in the forelimb, one is exempt from giving the shoulder; and if he has a share in the entrails, one is exempt from giving the maw. Hiyya b. Rab said: Even if he has only a share in one of these parts one is nevertheless exempt from all [the dues]. An objection was raised: [If he said,] ‘The head shall be mine and the rest yours’, or even [if he said], ‘One hundredth part of the head [shall be mine]’, he is exempt. ‘The fore-limb shall be mine and the rest yours’, or even ‘One’ hundredth part of the fore-limb [shall be mine]’, he is exempt. ‘The entrails shall be mine and the rest yours’, or even ‘One hundredth part of the entrails [shall be mine]’, he is exempt. Now this means, does it not, that he is exempt from the cheeks but liable to give the others; likewise that he is exempt from the shoulder but liable to give the others; and so also that he is Exempt from the maw but liable to give the others? — No, it means, he is exempt from all the dues. Then why does it not [expressly] state, ‘He is exempt from all the dues’? Furthermore, it has been expressly taught: [If he said.] ‘The head shall be mine and the rest yours’, or even ‘One hundredth part of the head [shall be mine]’, he is exempt from giving the cheeks but he is liable to give the others! — This is surely a refutation of the view of Hiyya b. Rab. It is a refutation. R. Hisda said: The following Baraitha misled Hiyya b. Rab. For it was taught: There are twenty-four priestly endowments, all bestowed upon Aaron and his sons first in general terms and then specified separately, and [finally confirmed] by a covenant of salt. Whosoever observes them is as though he observes [the whole Torah which is expounded by] generalizations and specifications and [the sacrifices which were confirmed by] a covenant of salt, and whosoever neglects them is as though he neglects [the whole Torah which is expounded by] generalizations and specifications and [the sacrifices which were confirmed by] a covenant of salt. And these are they: Ten [that are to be eaten] within the precincts of the Temple, four [that are enjoyed] in Jerusalem, and ten [that are given to them] within the borders [of the Land of Israel]. The ten [that are to be eaten] within the precincts of the Temple are: the sin-offering of an animal, the sin-offering of a bird, the guilt-offering for a known sin, the guilt-offering for a doubtful sin, the peace-offerings of the congregation. the log of oil of the leper, the two loaves, the shewbread, the remnant of the meal-offerings, the remnant of the ‘Omer. The four [that are enjoyed] in Jerusalem are: the firstling, the firstfruits, that which is taken away as a heave-offering from the thank-offering and from the ram of the Nazirite, and the hides of the [most] holy sacrifices. The ten [that are given to them] within the borders [of the Land of Israel] are: the terumah, the terumah of the tithe, the dough-offering, the first of the fleece, the [priestly] dues, the redemption of the [firstborn] son, the redemption of the firstling of an ass, the field of possession, the devoted field, and [the restitution for] robbery committed upon a proselyte. Now he thought that since ‘the [priestly] dues’ were counted as one [item in the list], they are considered one; but it is not the case, for can it be said that ‘what is taken away as a heave-offering from the thank-offering and from the ram of the Nazirite’ are considered one merely because they are counted as one item? Surely they are counted as one item because they are similar to each other; then in this case too, they are counted as one item only because they are similar to each other. The question was raised: What is the law [if he said], ‘The head shall be yours and all the rest shall be mine’? Do we have regard to the part of the animal on which the obligation rests and this part belongs to the Israelite, or do we have regard to the major portion of the animal and this belongs to the priest? — Come and hear: If a gentile or a priest delivered sheep to an Israelite to shear them, he is exempt [from the first of the fleece]. If a man bought the fleeces of a flock belonging to a gentile, he Is exempt from the first of the fleece. In this respect the law of the shoulder and the two cheeks and the maw is more strict than the law of the first of the fleece. This proves that we have regard to the part of the animal upon which the obligation rests. This proves it. IF HE SAID, ‘EXCEPT THE DUES’, HE IS EXEMPT FROM GIVING THE DUES.^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ

^ᵃᵐnote:And this in itself is a manifest indication to all that the gentile has a share in the business.
^ᵃⁿnote:This is even stronger evidence that the gentile is a partner.
^ᵃᵒnote:To guard the till, but it does not necessarily imply that the priest has a share in the business.
^ᵃᵖnote:The circumstances were, as suggested at first, that the gentile was sitting by the butcher's stall, and so too in the case of the priest. But there is this distinction: a gentile partner would not look on in silence but would interfere in the business done by his Jewish partner, protesting from time to time at the price his partner allows, so that it would be obvious to all that the gentile has a share in the business. This, however, is not the case with a priest who is a partner in the business.
^ᵃᵠnote:That the animal is an animal unfit for sacrifice and has been redeemed. This is indicated, no doubt, by the fact that the meat is not sold in the market place like ordinary meat.
^ᵃʳnote:Lit., ‘by the litra’ (the weight of one pound). It is evident from this Mishnah (Bek. V, 1) that consecrated animals which have been redeemed are treated in every way like ordinary animals.
^ᵃˢnote:E.g., the Firstling and Cattle Tithe (cf. Bek. V, 1). In other words, the dictum of the Master that there is no need for any indication in the case of consecrated animals that became unfit refers only to the Firstling and the Cattle Tithe, for these may not, under any circumstances, be sold in the market but only in the house.
^ᵃᵗnote:Sc., the priest or the gentile.
^ᵃᵘnote:Sc., the priest or the gentile when selling the animal to an Israelite.
^ᵃᵛnote:The Israelite.
^ᵃʷnote:B.K. 110b; Tosef. Hal. II.
^ᵃˣnote:Cf. Num. XVIII, 8: All the hallowed things of the children of Israel unto thee have I given them.
^ᵃʸnote:Num. XVIII, 9-19.
^ᵃᶻnote:Ibid. 19. I.e., a permanent covenant.
^ᵇᵃnote:Cf. Lev. II. 13.
^ᵇᵇnote:Offered on the Feast of Weeks, cf. Lev. XXIII, 19.
^ᵇᶜnote:Used for his purification rite; v. ibid. XIV, 10ff.
^ᵇᵈnote:Brought on the Feast of Weeks, ibid. XXIII, 17.
^ᵇᵉnote:Cf. Ex. XXV, 30; Lev. XXIV, 5-9.
^ᵇᶠnote:Lit., ‘sheaf’, referred to in Lev. XXIII, 10ff.
^ᵇᵍnote:Sc., the breast and the thigh and the four loaves; cf. ibid. VII, 11-14.
^ᵇʰnote:Sc., the sodden shoulder, an unleavened cake and wafer; cf. Num. VI. 19.
^ᵇⁱnote:The hides of burnt-offerings, sin-offerings and guilt-offerings; cf. Lev. VII, 8. The hides of the lesser holy sacrifices belong to the donors; v. Zeb. 103b.
^ᵇʲnote:I.e., the prescribed sum of five shekels; cf. Num. XVIII, 15-16.
^ᵇᵏnote:With a sheep; v. Ex. XIII, 13.
^ᵇˡnote:Cf. Lev. XXVII, 16-21.
^ᵇᵐnote:Num. XVIII, 14.
^ᵇⁿnote:I.e., the principal and the additional fifth, cf. Num. V, 7, 8. This list is also to be found in B.K. 110b, Sonc. ed., p. 645-6. Part of this list is also found supra 131a.
^ᵇᵒnote:Hiyya b. Rab.
^ᵇᵖnote:So that he that is exempt from one portion is exempt from all.
^ᵇᵠnote:Sc., the priest when selling to an Israelite the head of an animal only.
^ᵇʳnote:At the time of slaughtering when the obligation to give the portions falls due the Israelite is the owner of the head of the animal. And since the head belongs to the Israelite he is liable to give the two cheeks to the priest.
^ᵇˢnote:Sc., the Israelite.
^ᵇᵗnote:For if an Israelite bought the portions of an animal from a priest from which the priestly dues are taken he is bound to give the dues; hence it is clear that the obligation rests upon the part of the animal bought.