חולין 134 — Soncino English Talmud

¹I can point out a contradiction to this. [It was taught: If he said,] ‘On condition that the dues shall be given to me’, he may nevertheless give them to any priest he chooses! — Do you oppose the terms ‘except’ and ‘on condition that’ against each other? The term ‘except’ is a reservation, but the term on condition that’ is no reservation. There is, however, a further contradiction, [for it was taught: If he said.] ‘On condition that the dues shall be given to me’, the dues must then be given to him! — They differ in this: one holds that ‘on condition that’ is a reservation; the other holds that ‘on condition that’ is no reservation. IF A MAN SAID, ‘SELL ME THE ENTRAILS OF A COW’, etc. Rab said: They taught this only where [the purchaser] weighed them for himself, but if the butcher weighed them for him, then the [priest's] claim is against the butcher [also]. R. Assi said: Even though the butcher weighed them for him his claim is with him only. Shall we say that they differ in the ruling of R. Hisda? For R. Hisda stated: If a person misappropriated (an article] and, before the owner gave up hope of recovering it, another person came and consumed it, the owner has the option of collecting payment from either the one or the other. Now is it to be said that the one [Rab] agrees with R. Hisda and the other [R. Assi] does not agree with R. Hisda? — No, all agree with R. Hisda, but there they differ as to whether the priestly dues are subject to the law of theft, the one [Rab] holds that they are subject to the law of theft and the other [R. Assi] holds that they are not. Some report the above argument independently thus: Rab said: The priestly dues are subject to the law of theft; R. Assi said: The priestly dues are not subject to the law of theft. MISHNAH. IF A PROSELYTE HAD A COW AND HE SLAUGHTERED IT BEFORE HE BECAME A PROSELYTE, HE IS EXEMPT FROM GIVING THE PRIESTLY DUES; IF [HE SLAUGHTERED IT] AFTER HE BECAME A PROSELYTE, HE IS LIABLE; IF THERE WAS A DOUBT ABOUT IT, HE IS EXEMPT, FOR THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES UPON THE CLAIMANT. GEMARA. When R. Dimi came [from Palestine] he reported that R. Simeon b. Lakish pointed out the following contradiction to R. Johanan. We have learnt: IF THERE WAS A DOUBT ABOUT IT, HE IS EXEMPT, which shows that the doubt is decided in favour of leniency. But there is a contradiction to this, for we have learnt: [The grain found] in ant-holes among the standing corn, belongs to the owner; [as for the grain found in ant-holes] behind the reapers, the uppermost layer belongs to the poor, but what is beneath belongs to the owner. R. Meir says. It all belongs to the poor, since gleanings that are in doubt are deemed to be gleanings. To this [R. Johanan] answered: Do not weary me [with your arguments], since I quote that [Mishnah] as the opinion of an individual; for it has been taught: R. Judah b. Agra says in the name of R. Meir: Gleanings that are in doubt are deemed to be gleanings, forgotten sheaves that are in doubt are deemed to be forgotten sheaves, and corners of the field that are in doubt are deemed to be corners of the field. The other [Resh Lakish] retorted: Teach it even in Ben Taddal's name, [the difficulty, however, remains] for he adduces a reason for his view. For Resh Lakish said, It is written: Do justice to the afflicted and poor; what is meant by ‘do justice’? Can it mean, [favour him] in his lawsuit? Surely it is written: Thou shalt not favour a poor man in his cause! Rather it means: Be liberal with what is yours and give it to him! — Raba answered, Here the cow has the status of exemption [from dues], but the standing corn has the status of being subject [to the dues]. Said Abaye to him: Behold the case of the dough [of a proselyte, of which we learnt]: If it was mixed before he became a proselyte he is exempt from giving the dough-offering; if after he became a proselyte, he is liable to give it; if there was a doubt about it, he is liable! — He replied. Where the doubt concerns a religious prohibition we must take the more stringent view, where the doubt concerns a monetary matter we take the more lenient view. For R. Hisda stated, and so also did R. Hiyya teach: Eight cases of doubt were cited in connection with a proselyte, in four he is held liable and in four he is held exempt; and these are they: with regard to his wife's sacrifice, the dough-offering, the firstling of an unclean animal, and the firstling of a clean animal, he is held liable;40^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^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ

^ᵃnote:Sc., the priest when selling an animal to an Israelite.
^ᵇnote:For the condition is contrary to Scriptural law, since by Scriptural law the owner has a power of disposal of the dues to whom he will, and it is therefore null and void. The purchaser then can dispose of the dues as he wishes, but he is bound to give them, thus apparently in conflict with our Mishnah.
^ᶜnote:What was excepted did not form part of the sale, for the priest reserved these parts to himself.
^ᵈnote:But merely a condition which, being contrary to Scriptural law, is null. V. Git. 82a.
^ᵉnote:Thus contradicting the first Baraitha.
^ᶠnote:The Tanna of the last quoted Baraitha regards the term on condition that’ on all fours with the term ‘except’.
^ᵍnote:The Tanna of the first Baraitha.
^ʰnote:That where the entrails were sold by weight the seller must allow a reduction in the price on account of the priestly dues that were included; the implication being that the priest comes and claims the dues from the purchaser.
^ⁱnote:In this case it was the purchaser who actually took away the priest's due, consequently the priest can only claim them from the purchaser and the latter in turn is entitled to an allowance in the purchase price.
^ʲnote:The priest, if he so pleases, can claim the dues from the seller (even though they are no longer in his possession) for he was also in the wrong, and he must make every effort to obtain them for the priest. V. B.K. 115a.
^ᵏnote:The priest can only claim the dues from the person in whose possession they are, in this case from the purchaser.
^ˡnote:I.e., the one who robbed him.
^ᵐnote:I.e., the one who later consumed the article; for so long as the owner has not given up hope of recovering it it is deemed to be his property wherever it happens to be, so that the one who consumed it also committed an act of theft.
^ⁿnote:Accordingly the butcher when he sold them committed an act of theft for which he is held liable.
^ᵒnote:For since they are endowments by Divine Law they always remain the priest's property wherever they are, consequently the law of theft does not apply to them, but the person in whose possession they are is alone responsible for them to the priest.
^ᵖnote:And not in connection with our Mishnah.
^ᵠnote:In this case it would be upon the priest to show that the animal was slaughtered after the owner was converted to the Jewish faith.
^ʳnote:I.e., in favour of the owner.
^ˢnote:Pe'ah IV. 11.
^ᵗnote:According to Rashi, that which is in front of the reapers, i.e., which the reapers have not yet reached, although they have begun to reap the field; but v. infra p. 762, n. 1, commentary of R. Samson of Sens.
^ᵘnote:The law of gleanings does not apply to it, for it is certain that the grain was carried into the holes by ants and did not fall therein at the time of reaping, since that part of the field has not yet been reaped.
^ᵛnote:According to R. Samson of Sens, if only the reapers have started to reap even though they have not reached the standing corn around the ant-holes; q.v.
^ʷnote:R. Meir thus in a case of doubt decides against the owner, which view clearly contradicts that of our Mishnah which is also the view of R. Meir, for an anonymous Mishnah represents the view of R. Meir, v. Sanh. 86a (Sonc. ed.) p. 566. V., however, Tosaf. s.v. hvbhnru.
^ˣnote:It is only the opinion of R. Judah b. Agra quoting R. Meir, and he is not to be relied upon.
^ʸnote:A fictitious name for some foolish babbler (Jast.). Variants are: krg ic a stammerer, cf. oh,pa krg Ex. VI, 12; ksg icw ir, ic probably names of persons known to have been unreliable in all matters.
^ᶻnote:[Insert with MS.M., ‘what is the reason of R. Judah b. Agra’?]
^ᵃᵃnote:Ps. LXXXII, 3.
^ᵃᵇnote:Ex. XXIII, 3.
^ᵃᶜnote:I.e., in matters of doubt give the poor the benefit.
^ᵃᵈnote:To reconcile the two Mishnahs.
^ᵃᵉnote:In every case of doubt we must refer to the status of the thing before the doubt arose (v. supra p. 46), and the cow then belonged to a gentile when it was exempt from dues; the cornfield, on the other hand, being the property of an Israelite, has always been subject to the various dues to the poor.
^ᵃᶠnote:Hal. III, 6.
^ᵃᵍnote:Even though at the time when the doubt arises the dough has the status of exemption from the dough-offering, for the dough of a gentile is exempt; this clearly conflicts with Raba's contention.
^ᵃʰnote:For if the dough-offering is not given to the priest the whole dough is deemed to be tebel and forbidden to be eaten on the penalty of death at the hands of Heaven.
^ᵃⁱnote:The priestly dues are in no wise sacred and the omission to give them does not render the animal forbidden; consequently, it is only a monetary consideration, and in a case of doubt it is for the priest, the claimant, to establish his claim.
^ᵃʲnote:Where there was a doubt whether his wife gave birth to a child before she became a proselyte or after. This case of doubt may involve a penalty of kareth, for if she gave birth after she became a proselyte she would then be obliged to bring a sacrifice consequent upon her childbirth (cf. Lev. XII); and if she failed to do so and ate consecrated food she would be liable to the penalty of kareth.
^ᵃᵏnote:The doubt here being as stated in Mishnah Hal. III, 6. This case of doubt may involve the penalty of death at the hands of Heaven, v. supra n. 3.
^ᵃˡnote:Where there was a doubt whether the proselyte's ass brought forth a firstling before his conversion or after. If after, then the foal is forbidden for all purposes until it is redeemed with a lamb (cf. Ex. XIII, 13), which lamb had to be given to the priest; in this case of doubt, the proselyte must redeem the foal with a lamb, but he may withhold it from the priest; v. infra n. 20.
^ᵃᵐnote:The doubt here as in prec. note. This case of doubt may involve the penalty of kareth for slaughtering a firstling outside the Temple.
^ᵃⁿnote:Since these cases are matters which involve religious prohibitions and entail serious penalties, we must adopt the stricter view and impose the obligation upon the proselyte.

²with regard to the first of the fleece, the priestly dues, the redemption of his firstborn son, and the redemption of the firstling of an ass, he is exempt. When Rabin came [from Palestine] he reported that he had pointed out to him a contradiction with regard to the standing corn itself. Levi once sowed grain in Kishor, and there were no poor to collect the gleanings, so he came before R. Shesheth. He told him: It is written: Thou shalt leave them for the poor and the stranger, but not for ravens and bats. An objection was raised: One is not obliged to bring in the terumah from the threshing-floor into the town, nor from the desert into the inhabited place; if, however, there is no priest there [in the district], one must hire a cow and bring it in, for otherwise there would be a waste of terumah! — In the case of terumah it is different, for [without setting apart the terumah] the whole is forbidden, and therefore one has no choice but to set it apart. But take the case of the priestly dues they do not render the whole forbidden, nevertheless it has been taught: Where the custom is only to scrape away [with boiling water the hair] of calves, one should not remove the skin from the shoulder; moreover, where the custom is to remove the skin from the head one should not remove the skin from the cheeks. If there is no priest [to whom to give these dues], one must estimate their value and then eat them, so that there should be no loss to the priest! — In the case of the priestly dues it is different, for in regard to them the term giving is used. And now that you have suggested this, you may also say that in regard to terumah the term ‘giving’ is used. For what purpose then do I require the additional expression ‘Thou shalt leave them’? — For the following teaching: If a man renounced the ownership of his vineyard and rose early on the following morning and gathered the grapes, he is liable to the laws of the fallen grapes, the small clusters, the forgotten clusters, and the corners [of the vineyard], but he is exempt from the tithe. There once arrived at the Beth Hamidrash [a gift of] a bag of [golden] denars, whereupon R. Ammi came in first and acquired them. But how may he do such a thing? Is it not written. And they shall give, but he shall not take it himself? — R. Ammi acquired them on behalf of the poor. Or, if you wish, you may say that in the case of an eminent person it is different. For it has been taught: The verse: And the priest that is highest among his brethren, implies that he shall be highest among his brethren in beauty, in wisdom and in wealth. Others say: Whence is it proved that if he does not possess any wealth, his brethren, the priests, shall make him great? Because Scripture says: And the priest that is highest by reason of his brethren, that is, he must be made the highest [by reason of gifts] from his brethren. MISHNAH. WHAT COUNTS AS ‘THE SHOULDER’? FROM THE JOINT UP TO THE SHOULDER-SOCKET OF THE FORELIMB; AND THIS IS THE SAME FOR THE NAZIRITE. THE CORRESPONDING PART OF THE HIND LEG IS CALLED THE THIGH. R. JUDAH SAYS, THE THIGH EXTENDS FROM THE JOINT UP TO THE FLESHY PART OF THE LEG. WHAT COUNTS AS ‘THE CHEEK? FROM THE JOINT OF THE JAW TO THE PROMINENCE OF THE WINDPIPE. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: The shoulder, that is, the right shoulder. You say it is the right shoulder, but perhaps it is the left? Scripture therefore says: ‘The shoulder’. How is this implied? — As Raba said: ‘The thigh’ means the right thigh, so ‘The shoulder’ means the right shoulder. And for what purpose is ‘The cheeks’ stated? — To include the wool Upon the head of sheep and the hair of the beard of goats. And for what purpose is ‘The maw’ stated? — To include the fat that lies upon the stomach and the fat within the stomach. For R. Joshua said: The priests were in the habit of being generous with this and used to return it to the owners. The only reason [for returning it] is that they were in the habit [of doing so], but had they not been of this habit it certainly would have belonged to them. The interpreters of Scripture by symbol used to say: ‘The shoulder’ represents the hand [of Phinehas], for it is written: And took a spear in his hand. ‘The cheeks’ represent his prayer, for so it is written: Then stood up Phinehas and prayed. ‘The maw’ — this is to be taken in its literal sense, for so it is written: And the woman through her stomach. A Tanna derives it from the following: It is written: And the right thigh; from this I only know the right thigh, whence do I know this of the shoulder of consecrated animals? Because the text states: As a heave-offering. And whence do I know this of the shoulder of unconsecrated animals? Because the text states: Ye shall give. WHAT COUNTS AS ‘THE CHEEK’? FROM THE JOINT OF THE JAW TO THE PROMINENCE OF THE WINDPIPE. But it has been taught: One should cut it away and the place of slaughtering should go with it! — This is no contradiction, for the one [our Mishnah] gives the opinion of the Rabbis, and the other [the Baraitha] the opinion of R. Hanina b. Antigonus. For it was taught: Any deflection [of the knife outside the top ring] invalidates the slaughtering. R. Hanina b. Antigonus testified that a deflection is permitted. Or, if you wish, you may say that both statements accord with the opinion of the Rabbis, for ‘with it’ [in the Baraitha] means with the [rest of the] animal.44^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^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ^ᵇʸ^ᵇᶻ^ᶜᵃ^ᶜᵇ^ᶜᶜ^ᶜᵈ^ᶜᵉ^ᶜᶠ

^ᵃᵒnote:Sc., the lamb used for redeeming the firstling of the ass; v. supra n. 7.
^ᵃᵖnote:In all these cases the doubt was whether at the material time, i.e., when the obligation to make these presents to the priest fell due, this man was already a proselyte or not. Since, however, these are all monetary considerations we adopt the lenient view and leave it to the priest who is the claimant to establish his claim.
^ᵃᵠnote:I.e., that Resh Lakish had pointed out to R. Johanan a contradiction between R. Meir's views with regard to standing corn, and not, as reported by R. Dimi, a contradiction between R. Meir's views with regard to standing corn and the priestly dues. According to Rabin's report Resh Lakish had adduced a Baraitha concerning standing corn in which R. Meir's view was in direct conflict with that expressed by him in Mishnah Pe'ah IV, 11. R. Johanan, however, made the same answer as reported above, viz., that the latter Mishnah was taught by an individual.
^ᵃʳnote:[Probably Levi b. Hama; v. D.S. note a.l.]
^ᵃˢnote:Lev. XIX, 10.
^ᵃᵗnote:So that where there are no poor the gleanings may be gathered by the owner and consumed by him, but on no account are they to be left in the open field to be consumed by birds.
^ᵃᵘnote:The priest must go and fetch it himself.
^ᵃᵛnote:The owner must then bring it in and store it for the priest (no doubt he could claim his expenses from the priest, cf. Maim. Yad, Terumoth XII, 17); the same should also be the rule with the dues to the poor, i.e., the owner should collect and keep them for the poor, but not consume them himself.
^ᵃʷnote:kcy ‘mixed’, i.e., untithed produce, which is forbidden to be eaten under the penalty of death at the hands of Heaven.
^ᵃˣnote:And since one must set it apart in order to render the rest of the produce permitted, it becomes one's duty also to keep it in store fur the priest; but this is not the case with gleanings, for the produce is under no restriction even though the gleanings were not left.
^ᵃʸnote:And cook it together with its skin and eat it. V. Alfasi for a variant in the text and the comment of R. Nissim thereon.
^ᵃᶻnote:But one should give it to the priest with the skin upon it.
^ᵇᵃnote:And set aside the money to be given to the first priest that claims it. This should be the case, should it not, with the gifts to the poor too?
^ᵇᵇnote:Cf. Deut. XVIII, 3. It is thus one's duty to give them to the priest, even though no priests are available at the time.
^ᵇᶜnote:Cf. Num. XVIII, 12.
^ᵇᵈnote:This expression is found in Lev. XIX, 10 and also in XXIII, 22. Surely its purpose is to teach that one must keep the dues for the poor, is it not?
^ᵇᵉnote:For although ownerless property or property that has been renounced by its owner is free from these poor laws, in this case the original owner has by his conduct resumed the ownership of the vineyard and is therefore liable to these poor laws. This is inferred from the superfluous expression ‘Thou shalt leave them’, which, as shown supra 131a ff (v. Rashi), refers only to the poor laws but not to the tithe. For the special connotation of each of these terms and their Biblical sources v. supra ibid. and notes thereon. V. also B.K. 28a, and Ned. 44b.
^ᵇᶠnote:A coin, v. Glos.
^ᵇᵍnote:Deut. XVIII, 3.
^ᵇʰnote:R. Ammi as head of the Academy was permitted to acquire the money for himself; indeed, it is a duty upon all to make him ‘the greatest among his brethren’.
^ᵇⁱnote:Lev. XXI, 10.
^ᵇʲnote:I.e., from the carpus to the scapula; it thus consists of two bones, the radius and the humerus. V. Diagram of ox.
^ᵇᵏnote:Cf. Num. VI, 19: ‘the shoulder of the ram’.
^ᵇˡnote:I.e., from the tarsus to the innominate bone; this also consists of two bones, the tibia and the femur. This portion together with the breast was to be given to the priest from every peace-offering, cf. Lev. VII, 32.
^ᵇᵐnote:I.e., it consists of one bone only, viz. the tibia.
^ᵇⁿnote:I.e., the tip of the thyroid cartilage. This extent includes the whole of the lower jaw and the tongue.
^ᵇᵒnote:Deut. XVIII, 3. gurzv.
^ᵇᵖnote:Gen. XXXII, 33. V. supra 91a. The implication is from the additional v ‘the’, in each case.
^ᵇᵠnote:I.e., the additional v, the.
^ᵇʳnote:The fat upon the greater and lesser curvatures of the stomach; v. Tur. Yoreh De'ah c. LXI. Perhaps the second ckju should be read ckju, i.e., the milk within the stomach; and from Rashi (in MSS.) this would appear to be the meaning.
^ᵇˢnote:Probably R. Joshua b. Levi; so MS .M. In many MSS. (v. Bah) ‘For’ at the head of this passage is omitted, and the passage is quite independent of what has gone before.
^ᵇᵗnote:Sc., the supplementary portions of the stomach. Cf. Taz, Yoreh De'ah c. LXI, sub-sec. 7.
^ᵇᵘnote:,urunj harus, in MS.M. ,unuar harus. See the exhaustive discussion of Lauterbach in JQR. (N.S.) I, pp. 291-333, 503, 531.
^ᵇᵛnote:These portions were granted to the priests as a reward for Phinehas's zealous act in slaying Zimri, and so turned away God's wrath from Israel. V. Num. XXV, 6ff.
^ᵇʷnote:Ibid. 7. Presumably in his right hand, consequently it is the right shoulder that is to be given.
^ᵇˣnote:Ps. CVI, 30.
^ᵇʸnote:Num. XXV, 8.
^ᵇᶻnote:Lev. VII, 32.
^ᶜᵃnote:That the shoulder which is taken as a heave-offering from the sacrifice of the Nazirite (cf. Num. VI, 19) shall be the right one.
^ᶜᵇnote:I.e., of the priestly dues.
^ᶜᶜnote:Lev. ibid. Whatsoever is given shall be from the right side.
^ᶜᵈnote:This apparently implies that a part of the area prescribed for slaughtering must be included in ‘the cheek’. This however is not the case according to the description of ‘the cheek’ in our Mishnah, for the tip of the thyroid cartilage, which is the limit described in the Mishnah, is surely not within the area prescribed for slaughtering.
^ᶜᵉnote:V. supra 18b. According to R. Hanina b. Antigonus the tip of the thyroid cartilage is within the area prescribed for slaughtering. It must be observed that with regard to the extent of the cheek that is given to the priest there is no difference of opinion between R. Hanina and the Rabbis.
^ᶜᶠnote:But it is not included in the portion of ‘the cheek’.