Chullin 130b — the Talmud in English

If it is not joined

inside, this

is bringing unconsecrated [meat] into the Temple precincts!?

Therefore, it is impossible

to say that unconsecrated [animals] are obligated in [the gift of] the breast and thigh.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Rather,

this

“this”

that is written,

why do I need it?

After all, it is impossible to wave the breast and thigh of unconsecrated [animals], so why do I need an exclusion? The Gemara explains: “And this” is necessary

for that of Rav Hisda. For Rav Hisda said: One who damages the gifts of the priesthood or eats them is exempt from paying!

And below they said that there are those who say that the source of Rav Hisda’s ruling is expounded from “and this.”

The matter itself: Rav Hisda said: One who damages the gifts of the priesthood or eats them is exempt from paying!

What is the reason?

If you wish, say:

because

it is written, “this,”

and we expound specifically “this”: while they exist, he is obligated to give them; but if they no longer exist in their substance, such as when they were damaged or he ate them, he is not obligated to make repayment.

And if you wish, say: because it is property that has no claimant,

for if a priest were to claim it from him, he could say to him: I wish to give it to another priest, and not to you!

It was objected:

It is stated concerning the gifts:

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

this teaches that the gifts are subject to law,

that judges attend to them to adjudicate their affairs.

For what halakhic purpose?

For what matter are judges needed? What,

is it not to extract them through the courts!

And it implies that the first priest who claims the gifts can claim them in court and extract them from the Israelite.

The Gemara rejects this:

No,

the meaning of the beraita’s statement that “the gifts are subject to law” is with regard

to dividing them through the courts.

The judges say to the Israelite: Give the gifts to this priest, who is a scholar, and not to that priest, who is an ignoramus.

And this is like [the statement of] Rav Shmuel bar Naḥmani. For Rav Shmuel bar Naḥmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: From where [do we know] that one does not give a gift to an ignorant priest? As it is stated: “And he said to the people, to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to give the portion of the priests

[the priestly portion]

and the Levites, so that they may strengthen themselves in the Torah of the Lord.”

And we expound:

“Everyone who strengthens himself in the Torah of the Lord”—

he has a portion. But one who does not strengthen himself in the Torah of the Lord—

he has no portion.

And therefore the judges instruct one to give the gifts to a Torah scholar and not to an ignoramus.

Come and hear: Rabbi Judah ben Beteira says:

The verse “And this shall be

the law

of the priests”

teaches that the gifts are subject to law!

One might have thought

—perhaps you would say—

even the breast and thigh are subject to law

as well?

The text says, “this”!

Specifically this—the gifts of the foreleg, jaws, and maw mentioned in the passage—are subject to law, but not the breast and thigh.

The Gemara infers:

For what

matter did they say, “the gifts are subject to law”?

If you say

it is with regard to the requirement

to divide them through the courts, are the breast and thigh not divided through the courts

because we expound “this” specifically, and not the breast and thigh!? After all, it is also fitting to say concerning them that “everyone who strengthens himself in the Torah of the Lord has a portion,” for the breast and thigh are also a “portion”!

Rather, is it not

with regard

to extracting them through the courts,

and it implies that the gifts are extracted through the courts!?

The Gemara rejects this:

Here, with what are we dealing? With [a case in which] they came

the gifts already

into the possession

of a priest. He had already received them from an Israelite, and afterward this Israelite, who now holds them, robbed them from him. In such a case, they are certainly property that has a claimant, for the priest had already acquired them.

The Gemara asks:

if

it is speaking of a case

where they came into his possession, what is it teaching?

What is the novelty in this—that they may be taken through the courts? It is obvious! For they are the priest’s complete property!

And it explains: It is speaking of a case

where they came into the possession of the priest while they were still untithed—

while the animal was still tevel [before its gifts had been separated],

and this tannai holds that gifts that have not been separated—

are considered as though they had been separated,

and therefore the priest acquired the gifts, since all the priests have an equal right to them, and he acquired them first. This is not so with the breast and thigh, which belong specifically to that paternal family serving in that mishmar: if they came into the possession of a priest while they had not yet been separated, he does not acquire them, and if the Israelite took them from him, they cannot be taken through the courts.

Ta shma: A householder [A0030] [a wealthy man]

[a wealthy man]

who was passing from place to place

[who was traveling], and needed food,

and

therefore

needed to take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, the corner of the field, and the tithe for the poor—he takes them,

since at present he is poor, for he has no food.

And when he returns

to his home—

he shall pay! The words of Rabbi Eliezer 10 .

It is proven that gifts to the poor are “property that has claimants,” and a poor person who comes first can claim them. If so, priestly gifts, too, should be considered “property that has claimants.”

Rav Chisda said:

No; in truth, gifts to the poor are property that has no claimants, and

a matter of piety is taught here,

that if he is pious, he shall pay!

Rava said:

It is impossible to establish the beraita in this manner, for

the tannai teaches

the wording

“he shall pay,”

and its meaning is that the householder must pay against his will,

yet you say

“a matter of piety is taught here”!?

Furthermore,

is it the case that

from Rabbi Eliezer we should get up and return it,

when the Rabbis dispute him!?

Rather,

necessarily, the proof is

from

what the Rabbis said in the

final clause.

For we learned:

And the Sages say:

He need not pay when he returns, since

he was poor at that time

and took the gifts lawfully.

The reason

that he need not pay is because

he was poor

at that time;

but

an ordinary

wealthy person

who ate gifts to the poor unlawfully—

pays!

And

why? Let him be like one who damages priestly gifts or eats them,

whose law, as explained above, is that he is exempt from paying?

And concerning this

Rav Chisda said

that this is not a question, because the reason that a wealthy person pays

a matter of piety is taught here,

that if he is pious, he must pay in order to fulfill his obligation before Heaven.

Ta shma: From where is it derived concerning a householder

an Israelite

who ate his produce while it was tevel [A0128] [whose terumot had not been separated],

[because he had not separated its terumot],

and likewise a Levite who ate his tithes while they were tevel

and had not separated the tithe of the tithe—

from where is it derived that he is exempt from payment?

The verse states: “And they shall not profane the holy things of the Children of Israel that they will raise up

to Hashem”—

you have nothing

[for the priest]

in them

—in the gifts—

except from the time of raising them and onward.

And one who eats tevel has not raised his gifts at all, and it follows,

but

if he ate them

from the time of raising them and onward, at least—

he pays!

And

why

is he obligated to pay?

Let him be like one who damages priestly gifts or eats them!?