Chullin

— We must suppose in this case that the gentile was sitting by the butcher's stall.1 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.2 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].3 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.4 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;5 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!6 — R. Adda b. Ahabah suggested before R. Papa that our case refers only to those animals that are sold in the house.7 R. Huna said: If he8 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,]9 ‘The head shall be mine and the rest yours’, or even [if he said], ‘One hundredth part of the head [shall be mine]’, he10 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:11 There are twenty-four priestly endowments, all bestowed upon Aaron and his sons first in general terms12 and then specified separately,13 and [finally confirmed] by a covenant of salt.14 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,15 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.16 the log of oil of the leper,17 the two loaves,18 the shewbread,19 the remnant of the meal-offerings, the remnant of the ‘Omer.20 The four [that are enjoyed] in Jerusalem are: the firstling, the firstfruits, that which is taken away as a heave-offering from the thank-offering21 and from the ram of the Nazirite,22 and the hides of the [most] holy sacrifices.23 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,24 the redemption of the firstling of an ass,25 the field of possession,26 the devoted field,27 and [the restitution for] robbery committed upon a proselyte.28 Now he29 thought that since ‘the [priestly] dues’ were counted as one [item in the list], they are considered one;30 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],31 ‘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,32 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, he33 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.34 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. 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. the meat is not sold in the market place like ordinary meat. which have been redeemed are treated in every way like ordinary animals. 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. belong to the donors; v. Zeb. 103b. 645-6. Part of this list is also found supra 131a. the animal. And since the head belongs to the Israelite he is liable to give the two cheeks to the priest. to give the dues; hence it is clear that the obligation rests upon the part of the animal bought.