Chullin 130a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

The mitzva of giving

the foreleg, the cheeks, and the maw 1 ,

which are given to a koen when they slaughter an animal,

applies in the Land and outside the Land,

whether the Temple is standing —

when the Temple exists,

or when the Temple is not standing —

when it does not exist.

And they apply

with unconsecrated animals

specifically

but not with consecrated animals.

It would have been

possible for us to reason

by the rule [by a kal va-chomer]:

[of an a-fortiori inference]:

If unconsecrated animals, which are not obligated in

the giving of

the breast and thigh,

which are given to the koen when peace-offerings are slaughtered,

are obligated in the gifts

of the foreleg, cheeks, and maw ,

then consecrated animals, which are obligated in the breast and thigh, is it not the case that they should be

also be

obligated in the gifts?

The verse says

for it is written concerning the breast and thigh: “

And I gave them to Aaron the koen and to his sons as an eternal statute.”

And we derive: “them,” specifically;

he has no

portion from the peace-offerings

other than what is stated in the passage,

namely the breast and thigh, and not the foreleg, cheeks, and maw.

All consecrated animals whose permanent defect preceded their consecration

[that is, one consecrated an animal in which a permanent defect had occurred before he consecrated it], their law is like that of one who consecrated wood and stones for their monetary value, for they have no bodily sanctity at all, since when he consecrated them they were unfit for the altar .

And

therefore, after they

were redeemed,

their status is that of completely unconsecrated animals, and they are

obligated in the firstborn status,

and obligated

in the gifts

of the kohanim,

and they emerge

through their redemption

to

become

unconsecrated animals

completely, even

to be shorn and worked

[to work with them],

and their offspring,

which was conceived before the redemption and born after the redemption,

and their milk is permitted after their redemption

[unlike when they developed defects after they were consecrated, in which case they are forbidden to be shorn and their offspring is forbidden], as follows.

And one who slaughters them outside

the Temple courtyard

— is exempt.

And they do not make a substitution,

for if one exchanged this animal for another, even before they were redeemed, we do not say that both it and its substitute become consecrated.

And if they died

before they were redeemed —

they are redeemed

[even though they are fit only to be fed to dogs; and although we maintain that one does not redeem consecrated animals in order to feed them to dogs, Rashi wrote that this applies specifically to consecrated animals whose consecration preceded their defect, but these, whose defect preceded their consecration, are considered like wood and stones and are redeemed for the purpose of feeding dogs].

Except for the firstborn

and the tithe,

for even in a case where the defect preceded their consecration, complete sanctity takes effect upon them!

The reason for this is that the sanctity of the firstborn depends on the womb, for it is consecrated from its mother’s womb, whether it is unblemished or whether it has a defect.

And concerning the animal tithe it is written: “The tenth shall be holy; he shall not inspect whether it is good or bad,” and we derive: “good” means unblemished, “bad” means defective.

But

all those whose consecration preceded their defect, or

in which there occurred

a temporary defect before their consecration,

a temporary defect is considered as though it were absent ,

and afterward a permanent defect occurred in them —

and they were redeemed, they are exempt from the firstborn status.

For it is stated concerning consecrated animals that developed defects and were redeemed that their law shall be “like the gazelle and like the deer,” and the gazelle and deer are exempt from the firstborn status, since the mitzva of the firstborn was stated specifically with cattle and flocks.

And

they are also exempt

from the gifts

of the foreleg, cheeks, and maw, concerning which “sheep” is stated—and not the gazelle and the deer.

And they do not emerge into unconsecrated status

through redemption

to be shorn and worked,

for it is stated concerning disqualified consecrated animals, “You shall slaughter and eat,” to teach that they have only the permission of slaughtering and eating, but shearing and working have not been permitted with them.

Their offspring,

which was conceived before the redemption and born after the redemption ,

and their milk is forbidden after their redemption.

And those who slaughter them outside

before they have been redeemed —

are liable.

And this is specifically in a situation where the disqualification is such that, had it ascended to the altar, it would not have been taken down,

and they effect substitution

before their redemption, for it is written concerning substitution: “good for bad or bad for good.” This indicates that the law of substitution applies to an animal with a permanent blemish that was initially “good” and became “bad”; but when its blemish preceded its consecration, we learned above that one does not effect substitution, because it was “bad” from the outset.

And if they die

of themselves, since he did not slaughter them,

they are to be buried

and they may not be fed to dogs [either because consecrated animals may not be redeemed in order to feed them to dogs, or because appraisal and valuation are required for redemption, and when they have died it is impossible to stand them up in order to appraise them].

Gemara:

The Gemara infers: It is implied in the Mishna that

the reason

that consecrated animals are not liable for the gifts is only because

the Merciful One wrote “them.” Had this not been so, I would have said that consecrated animals are liable for the gifts

just as the Mishna discusses a kal va-chomer from non-sacred animals?

And it raises an objection to this:

There is grounds to refute it: What is so about non-sacred animals? They are liable for the firstborn,

and therefore they are liable for the gifts. This is not so with consecrated animals, which are exempt from the firstborn; therefore, it is also easier to exempt them from the gifts.

The Gemara answers: Had consecrated animals not been excluded by “them,” I would have said:

Let it come

to establish the liability of consecrated animals by a kal va-chomer

from males

of non-sacred animals, for although the stringency that they are liable for the firstborn cannot be stated, since they do not give birth, nevertheless they were made liable for the gifts; all the more so, consecrated animals should be liable for the gifts.

And the Gemara refutes this, saying that it is impossible to derive from males of non-sacred animals to consecrated animals, for

what is so about males

of non-sacred animals

is that they are liable for the first shearing,

which is not so with consecrated animals?

However, this refutation is rejected, for it is still possible to derive the liability of consecrated animals

from he-goats

—males of non-sacred animals—which have neither the firstborn nor the first shearing, and nevertheless are liable for the gifts.

And the Gemara again refutes:

What is so about he-goats? They enter the pen to be tithed,

that is, they are liable for animal tithe, which is not so with consecrated animals, which are exempt from animal tithe, as it is written concerning tithe, “it shall be holy,” but not one that is already holy?

And this refutation too is rejected: For had consecrated animals not been excluded, they would have been derived by a kal va-chomer

from

he-goats

that are old

of non-sacred animals, for they have already been tithed and do not need to enter the pen again to be tithed, and nevertheless they are liable for the gifts.

And the Gemara again attempts to refute this kal va-chomer:

What is so about the old ones is that they

have already

entered the pen to be tithed;

can you say this with regard to consecrated animals, which never entered to be tithed?

However, this refutation too is rejected, for it is still possible to derive by a kal va-chomer the liability of consecrated animals

from an animal purchased,

for one who purchases ten animals from the marketplace is not liable for animal tithe. For it is written, “your cattle and your flocks,” and we exclude one purchased from the marketplace in order to exempt it.

And

similarly, it is possible to derive by a kal va-chomer from

an orphan

whose mother died at the time of birth, which is exempt from animal tithe [for we expound that the law of animal tithe is like the law of consecration, and an orphan is not fit for consecration, as it is written, “and it shall be seven days under its mother”—excluding an orphan whose mother died at the time of birth, which was never under its mother at all].

And the Gemara further refutes:

What is so about the purchased animal and the orphan? They enter among their kind

—that is, non-sacred animals that are neither purchased nor orphans—into the pen

to be tithed,

whereas consecrated animals do not enter at all to be tithed, and therefore they should be exempt from the gifts?

And it rejects that this may be refuted: You said, “They enter

among their kind”?

This is not a refutation, for

with consecrated animals as well,

it is considered that

they enter among their kind into the pen to be tithed,

that is, among non-sacred animals. Therefore, had consecrated animals not been excluded from the gifts by the writing of “them,” we would also have made consecrated animals liable by a kal va-chomer from non-sacred animals.

The Gemara raises an objection:

And should non-sacred animals be liable for the breast and the thigh by a kal va-chomer! What is so about consecrated animals, which are not liable for the gifts,

is that they are liable for the breast and the thigh; non-sacred animals, which are liable for the gifts, is it not logical that they should be liable for the breast and the thigh?

The Gemara answers:

The verse says

with regard to the gifts:

“And this shall be the due of the priests”—this

—the gifts—

yes; anything else

no!

The Gemara asks:

But the reason is that the Merciful One wrote “this,”

and only for this reason do we not derive non-sacred animals from consecrated animals with regard to the breast and the thigh;

had this not been so, I would have said that non-sacred animals are liable for the breast and the thigh!?

But

the breast and the thigh

require waving

11, and

the breast and the thigh of non-sacred animals

where shall we wave them?

If outside, [

outside], then

“before the Lord” is written,

that is, inside!