Chullin 130b (קל:) — the Talmud in English

Rather, if so [in the text],

this

brings non-sacred meat into the Temple courtyard!?

Therefore, it is impossible

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

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Rather,

this

“this”

that is written—

why do I need it?

After all, it is impossible to wave the breast and thigh of non-sacred meat, so why is an exclusion necessary? The Gemara explains: “And this” is needed

for the teaching of Rav Chisda. For Rav Chisda said: One who damages the gifts of the priesthood, or eats them, is exempt from payment!

And later it is said that some maintain that the source of Rav Chisda’s ruling is derived from “this.”

The essential statement itself: Rav Chisda said: One who damages the gifts of the priesthood, or eats them, is exempt from payment!

What is the reason?

If you wish, say:

It is because

it is written, “this,”

and we expound specifically “this”: While they exist, one is obligated to give them; but if they no longer physically exist—for example, they were damaged or he ate them—he is not obligated to make restitution

Rabbi Rashi explained that the obligation concerning the gifts of the priesthood applies only while they still exist, and that one is not obligated to pay restitution if he has destroyed them completely. Tosafot wrote that according to this reason there is not even an obligation to pay in order to discharge one’s duty before Heaven. In the longer work of the Shakh [section 61], it is written that according to this reason, even when one has permanently designated his gifts for a particular priest, he is exempt from payment if he loses the gifts. This implies that this is not merely a scriptural decree exempting him, but that a priest has no right to gifts that no longer exist, and therefore he is not required to pay money in their place. Later we will clarify the reason for Tosafot’s statement that there is an obligation to pay, in order to discharge one’s duty before Heaven, for damage to gifts of the priesthood [according to the reason that they have no claimant]: Is this because he bears a monetary obligation, but there is no one who can claim it, or is it payment for the actual loss he caused to the property of the tribe? Apparently, according to the second reason, he should be liable even if his exemption is derived from “this,” because he caused a loss by bringing it about that these gifts, which have been destroyed, would no longer have to be given. It must be said that there is an obligation only for the loss of money—for example, where the priest’s right has not lapsed, but the gifts cannot be given because the money no longer exists; that is, when the Israelite is not released from giving the gifts merely because they have been destroyed. But according to the reason that they are excluded by “this,” and he is not even obligated to give them to the priests who regularly receive his gifts, he has not caused a monetary loss, but rather the loss of the priest’s right itself to the gifts. For this he is not liable even in order to discharge his duty before Heaven. [And see the P’leiti [section 61, subsection 4], who states that according to this reason, even the owner is not obligated to pay the value of the benefit, for the owner’s power cannot be greater than that of the priest; this will be explained shortly.] And if you wish, say: It is because it is property without a claimant,

for if a priest were to claim it, the owner could say to him: “I wish to give it to another priest, not to you!”

Meytivi:

It is stated concerning the gifts:

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

this teaches that the gifts are subject to law,

meaning that judges address them and adjudicate matters concerning them.

For what halakhic purpose—

for what matter are judges needed? What,

is it not in order to extract them through the courts?

This implies that the first priest to claim the gifts can claim them in court and extract them from the Israelite

Kehillot Yaakov [37b] raised the difficulty: According to both Rashi and the Ran, when the gifts are physically in his possession, they are extracted from him. If so, the beraita can be understood as referring to that situation, in which the gifts are subject to law. He explained that the difficulty arises from the word “law,” whose meaning is monetary litigation; whereas when the gifts are in his possession, they are extracted from him as coercion to perform the mitzvot. If monetary law applied to them, he would be liable even if he ate or damaged them, because a monetary obligation toward an owner who claims against him would remain. According to this explanation, the difficulty applies only to the reason that he is exempt because the property has no claimant; according to the first reason, there is no difficulty. According to Maimonides— as Or Same’ach explained him—if it is unknown who will claim the property first, it is considered property without a claimant. Apparently, the Gemara’s difficulty cannot be explained as Rashi explained it, namely, “This proves that the first priest to claim them extracts them from his possession,” for even so it may be considered property without a claimant, since it is unknown who will claim it. The Gemara rejects this:

No,

the beraita’s intent in saying 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 am ha’aretz.

And this is in accordance with the teaching of Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani. For Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: From where is it derived that one does not give a gift to a priest who is an am ha’aretz? As it is stated: “And he said to the people, to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to give the portion

[the priestly portion]

to the priests 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. And one who does not strengthen himself in the Torah of the Lord”—

he has no portion.”

Therefore the judges instruct the owner to give the gifts to a Torah scholar and not to an am ha’aretz

Rabbi Shimshon and the Rosh in tractate Challah [4:9], and the Tosafot of the Rosh here, wrote that it is prohibited to give gifts to a priest who is an am ha’aretz, even impure teruma. As for what we learned there, that one gives the gifts to any priest he wishes, this refers to a priest who is a scholar but does not eat non-sacred food in a state of ritual purity; even to him they permitted giving only impure teruma, not pure teruma. However, Tosafot and the other early authorities [in our sugya and above, 104b] maintained that the prohibition applies only when a priest who is a scholar is present; one is not required to wait until such a priest arrives, and if he cannot find one, he may give the gifts to a priest who is an am ha’aretz. [And see the responsa of the Rashba V:239 and the glosses of Rachamim LeChayim, which discuss the matter at length. See also Tosafot Menachot 18b s.v. Modeh, and below 132b s.v. Velo, together with the notes there.] Maimonides [Laws of Terumot 6:2] wrote that the prohibition against giving pure teruma is lest the priest render it impure and eat it in impurity. The Mishna in Challah, however, discusses impure teruma, which may be given to any priest, and the Merkavat HaMishna wondered: In that Mishna we also learned that the other gifts may be given to any priest one wishes, whereas our sugya says that gifts are not given to an am ha’aretz. He therefore proposed that Maimonides’ text read: “One does not give teruma.” This is also the reading in Sanhedrin [90b] and in the She’iltot, parashat Korach. But our sugya implies that his explanation is not correct, since it derives this law from “And this shall be the law of the priests,” which is stated concerning the gifts. See his Commentary on the Mishna there, where he adopted the view that this prohibition is an act of piety. See also the explanation of the halakha there, which explains the words of the Merkavat HaMishna. See further Birkat Peretz, parashat Teruma, and BeGez Tzonekha, here. Ta shma: Rabbi Yehuda 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 verse therefore states: “This”!

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

The Gemara analyzes:

For what purpose

—for what matter—did they say that “the gifts are subject to law”?

If you say

that 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, excluding the breast and thigh? After all, it is also appropriate to say concerning them that “everyone who strengthens himself in the Torah of the Lord has a portion,” since the breast and thigh are also a “portion”!

Rather, is it not

with regard

to extracting them through the courts,

which implies that the gifts can be extracted through the courts!?

The Gemara rejects this:

Here we are dealing with a case in which the gifts came

already

into his possession,

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

The Gemara raises an objection:

If

it is speaking of a case

where they came into his possession, what is the purpose of stating this?

What is the novelty in the fact that they can be collected through the courts? It is obvious! They are the koen’s complete property!

And it explains: It is speaking of a case

where they came into the possession of the koen while they were still his untithed produce—

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

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

are considered as though they have been separated,

and therefore the koen acquired the gifts, since all the kohanim have an equal right to them, and he acquired them first. This is not so with regard to the breast and thigh, which belong specifically to the beit av serving in that watch; if they came into the possession of a koen while they had not yet been separated, he does not acquire them, and if the Israelite took them from him, they cannot be collected through the courts.

Ta shma: A homeowner

[a wealthy man]

who was traveling from place to place

[who was walking on the road], and needed food,

and

therefore

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

since he was now poor, as he had no food.

And when he returns

to his home—

he shall repay! The words of Rabbi Eliezer 10 .

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

Rav Ḥisda said:

No; in truth, gifts to the poor are property without claimants, and

a matter of pious conduct is stated here:

if he is pious, he should pay!

Rava said:

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

the tanna taught

the expression

“he shall repay,”

which means that the homeowner must pay against his will,

and you say

“a matter of pious conduct is stated here”!?

Furthermore,

is it reasonable that

Rabbi Eliezer is the source from which to arise and take one’s seat,

when the Sages disagreed with him!?

Rather,

the proof necessarily derives

from

what the Sages said in the

latter clause.

As we learned:

And the Sages say:

He need not repay when he returns, since

he was poor at that time

and took the gifts lawfully.

The reason

that he need not repay is because

he was poor

at that time;

but

an ordinary

wealthy person

who ate gifts to the poor unlawfully—

must repay!

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 payment?

And concerning this

Rav Ḥisda said

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

is a matter of pious conduct stated here:

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

Ta shma: From where is it derived that a homeowner

Israelite

who ate his produce while it was untithed

[before he separated its terumot],

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

and did not separate the tithe-offering—

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

The verse states: “And they shall not profane the sacred things of the Children of Israel that they shall set aside

for the Lord”—

you have no

[as a koen]

claim to them

—the gifts—

until the time of separation and thereafter.

One who eats untithed produce has not separated its gifts at all, and it follows that

but

if he ate them

from the time of separation and thereafter, at least—

he pays!

And

why

is he obligated to pay?

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