Chullin

with 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,1 he is exempt.2 When Rabin came [from Palestine] he reported that he had pointed out to him a contradiction with regard to the standing corn itself. 3 Levi4 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,5 but not for ravens and bats.6 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;7 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!8 — In the case of terumah it is different, for [without setting apart the terumah] the whole is forbidden,9 and therefore one has no choice but to set it apart.10 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,11 one should not remove the skin from the shoulder;12 moreover, where the custom is to remove the skin from the head one should not remove the skin from the cheeks.12 If there is no priest [to whom to give these dues], one must estimate their value13 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.14 And now that you have suggested this, you may also say that in regard to terumah the term ‘giving’ is used.15 For what purpose then do I require the additional expression ‘Thou shalt leave them’?16 — 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. 17 There once arrived at the Beth Hamidrash [a gift of] a bag of [golden] denars,18 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,19 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.20 For it has been taught: The verse: And the priest that is highest among his brethren,21 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,21 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;22 AND THIS IS THE SAME FOR THE NAZIRITE.23 THE CORRESPONDING PART OF THE HIND LEG IS CALLED THE THIGH.24 R. JUDAH SAYS, THE THIGH EXTENDS FROM THE JOINT UP TO THE FLESHY PART OF THE LEG.25 WHAT COUNTS AS ‘THE CHEEK? FROM THE JOINT OF THE JAW TO THE PROMINENCE OF THE WINDPIPE.26 GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: The shoulder,27 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’28 means the right thigh, so ‘The shoulder’ means the right shoulder. And for what purpose is ‘The cheeks’ stated?29 — 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?29 — To include the fat that lies upon the stomach and the fat within the stomach.30 For R. Joshua31 said: The priests were in the habit of being generous with this32 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 symbol33 used to say: ‘The shoulder’34 represents the hand [of Phinehas], for it is written: And took a spear in his hand.35 ‘The cheeks’ represent his prayer, for so it is written: Then stood up Phinehas and prayed.36 ‘The maw’ — this is to be taken in its literal sense, for so it is written: And the woman through her stomach.37 A Tanna derives it from the following: It is written: And the right thigh;38 from this I only know the right thigh, whence do I know this of the shoulder of consecrated animals?39 Because the text states: As a heave-offering.38 And whence do I know this of the shoulder of unconsecrated animals?40 Because the text states: Ye shall give.41 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!42 — 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.43 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 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. 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. account are they to be left in the open field to be consumed by birds. 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. Heaven. 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. thereon. gifts to the poor too? dues for the poor, is it not? 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. make him ‘the greatest among his brethren’. together with the breast was to be given to the priest from every peace-offering, cf. Lev. VII, 32. ckju should be read ckju, i.e., the milk within the stomach; and from Rashi (in MSS.) this would appear to be the meaning. passage is quite independent of what has gone before. I, pp. 291-333, 503, 531. away God's wrath from Israel. V. Num. XXV, 6ff. right one. 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. 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.