Chullin 130a (קל.) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

The mitzva of giving

the foreleg, the cheeks, and the maw 1 ,

which are given to a priest when one slaughters an animal,

applies in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael

2 , both in the presence of the Temple

when the Temple is standing,

and not in the presence of the Temple

when it is not standing.

And they apply

to non-sacred animals

specifically

but not to consecrated animals.

There was

reason for us to derive

by means of a

[kal va-chomer]:

If non-sacred animals, which are not obligated in

the giving of

the breast and the thigh

which are given to the priest when shelamim are slaughtered,

are obligated in the gifts

of the foreleg, cheeks, and maw,

then with regard to consecrated animals, which are obligated in the breast and the thigh, is it not logical that they should be

also be

obligated in the gifts?

The verse states

as it is written concerning the breast and the thigh: “

And I have given them to Aaron the priest and to his sons as an eternal statute.”

And we derive: “them” specifically.

The priest has no

portion from the shelamim

other than what is stated in the passage,

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

Any consecrated animals whose permanent blemish preceded their consecration

[that is, one consecrated an animal in which a permanent blemish had developed before he consecrated it] are treated like one who consecrated wood and stones for their value, for they have no bodily sanctity at all, since when they were consecrated they were unfit for the altar .

And

therefore, once they have been

redeemed,

they are completely non-sacred animals, and they are

obligated in the firstborn law,

and are obligated

in the gifts

of the priesthood,

and emerge

through their redemption

to

become

non-sacred animals

entirely, 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 are permitted after their redemption

[unlike animals that developed blemishes after they were consecrated, whose shearing is forbidden and whose offspring is forbidden], as follows.

And one who slaughters them outside

the Temple courtyard is

exempt.

And they do not effect substitution,

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

And if they die

before they are redeemed,

they shall be redeemed

[even though they are fit only to be fed to dogs. Although we hold that consecrated animals may not be redeemed in order to feed them to dogs, Rashi wrote that this applies specifically to consecrated animals whose consecration preceded their blemish. But these, whose blemish preceded their consecration, are considered like wood and stones and may be redeemed for the purpose of feeding dogs].

Except for the firstborn

and the tithe,

for even when their blemish preceded their consecration, full sanctity takes effect upon them!

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

And with regard to the animal tithe it is written: “The tenth shall be holy; he shall not inspect whether it is good or bad.” We derive: “good”—that is, unblemished; “bad”—that is, blemished.

But

in every case where the consecration preceded the blemish, or

where

a temporary blemish preceded their consecration,

a temporary blemish is considered as though it were absent ,

and afterward they developed a permanent blemish—

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

For it is stated with regard to consecrated animals that developed blemishes and were redeemed that their status shall be “like the gazelle and the hart,” and the gazelle and hart are exempt from the firstborn law, since the mitzva of the firstborn was stated specifically with regard to cattle and sheep.

And

they are likewise exempt

from the gifts

of the foreleg, cheeks, and maw, for the word “sheep” is stated with regard to them—excluding the gazelle and the hart.

And they do not emerge into non-sacred status

through redemption

to be shorn and worked,

for it is stated concerning animals disqualified from consecrated use: “You shall slaughter and eat,” teaching that only slaughtering and eating are permitted with them, but shearing and working them are not permitted.

Their offspring,

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

and their milk are forbidden after their redemption.

And those who slaughter them outside

before they have been redeemed—

are liable.

This applies specifically when the disqualification is of such a nature that, had the animal ascended the altar, it would not be removed,

and they effect temura

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

And if they die

on their own, without having slaughtered them,

they are to be buried

and may not be fed to dogs [either because consecrated animals may not be redeemed in order to feed them to dogs, or because redemption requires standing and valuation, and once they have died it is impossible to stand them up in order to value them].

Gemara:

The Gemara infers from the Mishna: It seems that

the reason

consecrated animals are not liable for the gifts is only

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

by means of the kal va-chomer that the Mishna discusses from non-sacred animals?

The Gemara raises an objection to this:

What is distinctive about non-sacred animals? They are liable for the firstborn,

and therefore they are liable for the gifts. By contrast, consecrated animals are exempt from the firstborn, and therefore it is also more reasonable to exempt them from the gifts.

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

Let

consecrated animals be derived by a kal va-chomer

from males

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

The Gemara refutes this, saying that it would not be possible to derive the law for consecrated animals from males of non-sacred animals:

What is distinctive about males

of non-sacred animals?

They are liable for the first shearing,

unlike consecrated animals.

However, this refutation is rejected, since it is still possible to derive the law for consecrated animals

from he-goats,

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

The Gemara again refutes this:

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

that is, they are liable for the animal tithe, unlike consecrated animals, which are exempt from the animal tithe, as it is written concerning the tithe: “shall be holy,” and not an animal that is already holy?

This refutation too is rejected, for had consecrated animals not been excluded, they could have been derived by a kal va-chomer

from

he-goats

that are old,

since 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.

The Gemara again attempts to refute this kal va-chomer:

What is distinctive about the old animals? They

have already

entered the pen to be tithed;

can you say the same with regard to consecrated animals, which never entered the pen to be tithed?

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

from an animal purchased,

as one who purchases ten animals from the marketplace is not liable for the animal tithe. For it is written, “your cattle and your flocks,” and we derive that an animal purchased from the marketplace is exempt.

And

likewise, it is possible to derive the law by a kal va-chomer from an

orphan

whose mother died at the time of its birth, which is exempt from the animal tithe [as we derive that the law of the animal tithe is like the law of consecrated animals, and an orphan is unfit to be consecrated, as it is written: “and it shall be seven days under its mother”—excluding an orphan whose mother died at the time of its birth, which was never under its mother at all].

The Gemara further refutes this:

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

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

to be tithed,

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

The Gemara rejects this refutation: You say, “They enter

among their own kind?”

That is not a valid refutation, since

with regard to consecrated animals as well,

it can be considered that

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

that is, together with non-sacred animals. Therefore, had consecrated animals not been excluded from the gifts by the word “them,” we would have obligated consecrated animals as well by a kal va-chomer from non-sacred animals.

The Gemara asks:

And should non-sacred animals be liable for the breast and thigh by a kal va-chomer? If consecrated animals, which are not liable for the gifts,

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

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 only because the Merciful One wrote “this”;

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

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

But

the breast and thigh

require waving

11, and

the breast and thigh of non-sacred animals—

where could they be waved?

If outside, [

outside,] then “

before the Lord” is written,

that is, inside!