Chullin 132b

אָמַר רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: בְּבָא לִידֵי כֹּהֵן וּמְכָרוֹ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמוּמוֹ.

Rav Oshaya says in response: In general, a priest may issue such a claim. But the mishna is dealing with a case where the firstborn came into the possession of the priest when it was unblemished and thereafter it developed a permanent blemish, and the priest sold it to an Israelite in its blemished state. In such a case, the priest may not demand that the owner give him the entire animal with the claim that it is a firstborn, as he already received it once as a firstborn.

הַשּׁוֹחֵט לַכֹּהֵן וְלַגּוֹי, פָּטוּר מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת. וְלִיתְנֵי: כֹּהֵן וְגוֹי פְּטוּרִין מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת? אָמַר רָבָא: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת, הַדִּין עִם הַטַּבָּח.

§ The mishna teaches that one who slaughters the animal of a priest for the priest or the animal of a gentile for the gentile is exempt from the obligation to give the gifts of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw. The Gemara suggests: And let the tanna simply teach that a priest and a gentile are exempt from the obligation to give the gifts. Rava says in explanation: That is to say, i.e., the wording of the mishna indicates, that the demand of a priest who seeks to claim gifts of the priesthood is with the butcher, not with the owner of the animal. Even if the butcher is himself a priest, if he slaughters an animal on behalf of an Israelite he is obligated to give the gifts.

דָּרֵשׁ רָבָא: ״מֵאֵת הָעָם״ – וְלֹא מֵאֵת הַכֹּהֲנִים, כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״מֵאֵת זוֹבְחֵי הַזֶּבַח״ – הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר אֲפִילּוּ טַבָּח כֹּהֵן בַּמַּשְׁמָע.

The Gemara adds: Rava also interpreted the verse in such a manner. The verse states: “This shall be the priests’ due from the people, from them that perform a slaughter, whether it be ox or sheep, that they shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw” (Deuteronomy 18:3). The verse specifies that the gifts are taken “from the people,” and not from the priests. When the verse states: “From them that perform a slaughter,” indicating that the gifts are given by anyone who slaughters an animal, you must say that this teaches that even a butcher who is a priest is included in the obligation to give the gifts.

אוּשְׁפִּיזְכָנֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי טַבְלָא כֹּהֵן הֲוָה, וַהֲוָה דְּחִיק לֵיהּ מִלְּתָא. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי טַבְלָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל אִישְׁתַּתַּף בַּהֲדֵי טַבָּחֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, דְּמִגּוֹ דְּמִפַּטְרִי מִמַּתְּנָתָא, מִשְׁתַּתְּפִי בַּהֲדָךְ.

§ The mishna teaches that the obligation to give the gifts of the priesthood does not apply to an animal jointly owned by an Israelite and a priest. The Gemara relates that the host [ ushpizikhnei ] of Rabbi Tavla was a priest and he was hard-pressed for money. He came before Rabbi Tavla to ask for advice. Rabbi Tavla said to him: Go and enter into a partnership with those Israelite butchers, to obtain part ownership of their animals, as since they will be exempt from the obligation to give the gifts on account of this partnership, they will agree to enter into a business partnership with you free of charge.

חַיְּיבֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְהָא רַבִּי טַבְלָא פַּטְרַן! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל אַפֵּיק, וְאִי לָא – מַפֵּיקְנָא לָךְ רַבִּי טַבְלָא מֵאוּנָּךְ.

The priest heeded the advice of Rabbi Tavla and entered into a partnership with an Israelite butcher. Nevertheless, Rav Naḥman obligated the butcher to give the gifts of the priesthood from the animals he slaughtered. The priest said to Rav Naḥman: But Rabbi Tavla exempted us from this obligation. Rav Naḥman said to him: Go remove the gifts of the priesthood that are in your possession and give them to a priest, and if you will not do so, I will remove Rabbi Tavla from your ear [ me’unakh ], i.e., I will refute his basis for deeming you exempt.

אֲזַל רַבִּי טַבְלָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי טַעְמָא עָבֵיד מָר הָכִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דְּכִי אֲתָא רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא מִדָּרוֹמָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, זִקְנֵי דָרוֹם אָמְרוּ: כֹּהֵן טַבָּח – שְׁתַּיִם וְשָׁלֹשׁ שַׁבָּתוֹת פָּטוּר מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ חַיָּיב בְּמַתָּנוֹת.

Rabbi Tavla came before Rav Naḥman and said to him: What is the reason that the Master has done this and ruled in contradiction to the mishna? Rav Naḥman said to him: I ruled in this manner, as when Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina of the south came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and all the elders of the south said: With regard to a priest who becomes a butcher, for the first two or three weeks he is exempt from the obligation to give the gifts, as he has not yet established himself in the community as a butcher. But from this point forward he is obligated to give the gifts, as he is now known as a butcher.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְלַעֲבֵיד לֵיהּ מָר מִיהַת כְּרַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּלָא קְבַע מְסַחְתָּא, אֲבָל הָכָא הָא קְבַע מְסַחְתָּא.

Rabbi Tavla said to Rav Naḥman: And let the Master at least do for the priest in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina and exempt him from giving the gifts for the first three weeks of his partnership. Rav Naḥman said to him: This statement of Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina applies only when the priest did not immediately establish a butcher shop. In such a case, the priest is exempt until he becomes known as a recognized butcher. But here, he has already established a butcher shop and is therefore obligated to give the gifts without delay.

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הַאי כָּהֲנָא דְּלָא מַפְרֵישׁ מַתְּנָתָא – לֶיהֱוֵי בְּשַׁמְתָּא דֶּאֱלָהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב שֵׁילָא: הָנֵי טַבָּחֵי דְּהוּצָל קָיְימִי בְּשַׁמְתָּא דְּרַב חִסְדָּא הָא עֶשְׂרִים וְתַרְתֵּי שְׁנִין.

§ Rav Ḥisda said: With regard to a priest who slaughters an animal and does not separate gifts of the priesthood from them for another priest, let him be under the excommunication of the God of Israel. Rabba bar Rav Sheila said: These butchers of the city of Huzal have remained under the excommunication of Rav Ḥisda these last twenty-two years, as they have continuously refused to separate gifts of the priesthood for this period.

לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אִילֵּימָא דְּתוּ לָא מְשַׁמְּתִינַן לְהוּ – וְהָא תַּנְיָא: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּמִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, אֲבָל בְּמִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה, כְּגוֹן אוֹמְרִים לוֹ ״עֲשֵׂה סוּכָּה״ וְאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה, ״לוּלָב״ וְאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה, ״עֲשֵׂה צִיצִית״ וְאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה – מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשׁוֹ!

The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha did Rabba bar Rav Sheila state that the butchers of Huzal have been under excommunication for twenty-two years? If we say that we do not excommunicate them for a period any longer than twenty-two years, but isn’t it taught in a baraita : In what case is this statement, that one is not excommunicated for committing a transgression, said? It is said with regard to a prohibition, for which one is liable to receive a relatively severe punishment, e.g., death or karet . But with regard to one who refuses to perform a positive mitzva, e.g., the court says to him: Perform the mitzva of sukka , and he does not do so, or: Perform the mitzva of taking the lulav , and he does not do so, or: Prepare ritual fringes for your garments, and he does not do so, the court strikes him an unlimited number of times, even until his soul departs. Accordingly, the butchers of Huzal should remain under excommunication indefinitely until they separate the gifts.

אֶלָּא, דְּקָנְסִינַן לְהוּ בְּלָא אַתְרַיְיתָא, כִּי הָא דְּרָבָא קָנֵיס אַטְמָא, רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק קָנֵיס גְּלִימָא.

Rather, Rabba bar Rav Sheila means that because the butchers of Huzal have refused to give the gifts for so many years, we fine them even without forewarning. There was a case like this of a person who refused to give the gifts of the priesthood to a priest, where Rava fined him by taking the entire thigh of his animal and giving it to a priest. Similarly, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak fined an individual who refused to give the gifts of the priesthood to a priest by taking his cloak and giving it to a priest.

וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: זְרוֹעַ לְאֶחָד, וְקֵבָה לְאֶחָד, לְחָיַיִם לִשְׁנַיִים. אִינִי? וְהָא כִּי אֲתָא רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר: בְּמַעְרְבָא פָּלְגִינַן לְהוּ גַּרְמָא גַּרְמָא!

§ And Rav Ḥisda also says with regard to gifts of the priesthood: The foreleg is given to one priest and the maw is given to one priest, while the jaw is given to two priests. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But when Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef came to Babylonia from Eretz Yisrael he said: In the West, Eretz Yisrael, we divide the gifts bone by bone, each of which is given to two priests.

הָתָם בִּדְתוֹרָא.

The Gemara explains: There, in the case dealt with in Eretz Yisrael, the gifts were of a large bull. The Torah states: “That they shall give to the priest” (Deuteronomy 18:3). The use of the term “give” indicates that the gift given should be a substantial one. Even when one limb of the large bull was divided between two priests, each received a substantial portion. This is not the case with regard to the gifts of smaller animals, where each limb is not large enough to provide two substantial portions.

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָסוּר לֶאֱכוֹל מִבְּהֵמָה שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמָה מַתְּנוֹתֶיהָ. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל הָאוֹכֵל מִבְּהֵמָה שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמָה מַתְּנוֹתֶיהָ – כְּאִילּוּ אוֹכֵל טְבָלִים, וְלֵית הִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ.

§ Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is prohibited to partake of a slaughtered animal whose gifts have not yet been separated. Furthermore, Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Anyone who partakes of an animal whose gifts have not yet been separated is considered as though he consumes untithed produce. But the Gemara states: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan.

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה אֵין נֶאֱכָלוֹת אֶלָּא צָלִי, וְאֵין נֶאֱכָלוֹת אֶלָּא בְּחַרְדָּל. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״לְמׇשְׁחָה״ – לִגְדוּלָּה, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַמְּלָכִים אוֹכְלִים.

Rav Ḥisda says: Gifts of the priesthood may be consumed only when they are roasted, and they may be consumed only with mustard seasoning. What is the reason for this halakha ? The verse states: “And the Lord spoke to Aaron: And I, behold, I have given you the charge of My gifts; of all the consecrated items of the children of Israel to you have I given them for prominence, and to your sons, as an eternal portion” (Numbers 18:8). The term “for prominence” means that the portions were given to the priests as a mark of greatness. Accordingly, they should be eaten in a manner that kings eat, i.e., roasted and with mustard.

וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה, כׇּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּקִי בָּהֶן – אֵין נוֹתְנִין לוֹ מַתָּנָה. וְלָאו מִילְּתָא הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כׇּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה בָּעֲבוֹדָה – אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק בַּכְּהוּנָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הַמַּקְרִיב אֶת דַּם הַשְּׁלָמִים וְאֶת הַחֵלֶב מִבְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן לוֹ תִהְיֶה שׁוֹק הַיָּמִין לְמָנָה״.

And Rav Ḥisda says: One may not give a gift to any priest who is not an expert in the halakhot pertaining to all twenty-four gifts of the priesthood. The Gemara notes: But this is not correct, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: Any priest who does not believe in the validity of the Temple service has no portion in any of the gifts given to the priesthood, as it is stated: “He among the sons of Aaron, who offers [ hamakriv ] the blood of the peace offerings, and the fat, shall have the right thigh for a portion” (Leviticus 7:33). The word “ hamakriv ,” which literally means: Who brings it close, indicates that only one who believes in the validity of conveying the blood to the altar is entitled to receive the right thigh of the offering, as only one who believes in the rite would perform it.

אֵין לִי אֶלָּא זֶה בִּלְבַד, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה עֲבוֹדוֹת, כְּגוֹן: הַיְּצִיקוֹת, וְהַבְּלִילוֹת, וְהַפְּתִיתוֹת, וְהַמְּלִיחוֹת, תְּנוּפוֹת, וְהַגָּשׁוֹת, [וְהַקְּמִיצוֹת], הַקְטָרוֹת, (וְהַמְּצִיּוֹת), [וְהַמְּלִיקוֹת],

The baraita continues: I have derived only that a priest does not have a share in the priestly gifts if he does not believe in this rite of conveying of the blood alone. From where do I derive to include fifteen additional sacrificial rites, such as the rites of a meal offering, i.e., the pouring of the oil and the mixing of the oil and the subsequent pouring of the oil; and the crumbling of meal offerings prepared in a shallow or deep pan or in an oven, whose handfuls are removed after they are baked and subsequently crumbled; and the salting of meal offerings (see Leviticus 2:13); and the waving of certain meal offerings; and the bringing of certain meal offerings to the southwestern corner of the altar before a handful is removed; and the removal of the handful; and the burning of offerings on the altar; and the squeezing of a bird offering to extract its blood; and the pinching of the nape of the neck of a bird offering;