Chullin 132a — the Talmud in English

He said to him: Rabbi, ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

your argument

—the very argument with which you are coming to make things difficult for me—provides proof for my words from that beraita! For we see that specifically there the tanna distinguished between a male kohen and a female kohen, and the reason is that

“Aaron and his sons” are written in the passage,

as it is written: “And this is the law of the meal-offering: the sons of Aaron shall bring it,” which implies specifically the sons of Aaron and not the daughters of Aaron. But elsewhere, where “kohen” is written, such as with the gifts, the tanna did not distinguish between a male kohen and a female kohen. And it is proven that “kohen” includes even a female kohen, and therefore he did not distinguish [based on Tosafot, Zevahim 32b].

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: “Kohen”—

but not a female kohen,

even with regard to the gifts.

And let the unspecified be learned—

that is, the unspecified “kohen” written with regard to the gifts, where it was not explained whether a female kohen is included or not—

from the explicit—

that is, the “kohen” written with regard to the meal-offering, where it is specifically a male kohen and not a female kohen, since “the sons of Aaron” is written, and not the daughters of Aaron.

The school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov taught

with regard to the gifts:

“Kohen”—

even a female kohen!

What is the reason?

At the beginning of the verse it is written: “And this shall be the law of the kohanim,” which implies specifically kohanim and not female kohanim, while at the end of the verse it is written: “And he shall give to the kohen the foreleg, etc.,” which likewise implies specifically a male kohen.

This is a limitation following a limitation, and a limitation following a limitation serves only to include

1. Rav Kahana

who was an Israelite,

ate

the gifts of the priesthood

on behalf of his wife

who was a female kohen, for he held that “kohen” includes even a female kohen.

And likewise

Rav Pappa ate on behalf of his wife.

Rav Yeimar ate on behalf of his wife.

Rav Idi bar Avin ate on behalf of his wife.

Ravina said: Marimar said to me

these halakhot:

The halakha is in accordance with Rav,

who said that the gifts are not removed from the Levites.

And the halakha is in accordance with Rav Hisda,

who said that one who damages the gifts of the priesthood or eats them is exempt.

And the halakha is in accordance with Ulla,

who said that the gifts are given to a female kohen .

And the halakha is in accordance with Rav Adda bar Ahava

who said:

When a female Levite gives birth, her son is exempt from five sela’im

for the redemption of the firstborn son [for he holds that the son of a female Levite is like the son of a Levite, and the son of a Levite is exempt, as we say in tractate Bekhorot] .

The Sages taught: The foreleg, the cheeks, and the maw apply to

the animal of

mixed species and to the koy.

Rabbi Eliezer says: A mixed-species animal born from a goat and a ewe—

is obligated in the gifts,

as we said. But if it was born

from a he-goat and a doe —

it is exempt from the gifts,

for with regard to the gifts “a sheep” is written, but not a deer! And the Rabbis of the first clause hold that it is obligated even in this case.

And we challenge this:

Since it is established for us

[above, 80a]

that with regard to covering the blood and the gifts, their dispute

between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis

can be found only with regard to a deer that mated with a she-goat

5, and according to both Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis it is uncertain to them whether we take into consideration the father’s seed,

so that it is partly a deer and partly a she-goat,

or whether we do not take it into consideration

and say that the entire offspring follows the mother,

And if

we say:

“sheep,” even part of a sheep,

it is obligated,

they disagree: one master,

the Rabbis,

holds

that we say

“sheep,” even part of a sheep,

and therefore even if we say that we take the father’s seed into consideration, and there is only part of a sheep, from the she-goat—it is obligated.

And the other master,

Rabbi Eliezer,

holds: “sheep,” even part of a sheep, we do not say,

and therefore it is exempt, for perhaps we take the father’s seed into consideration, and there is only a part of a sheep from the she-goat.

And now,

granted that Rabbi Eliezer, who exempts,

holds

that we say

“sheep,” but not part of a sheep.” But according to the Rabbis, even though they hold “sheep,” even part of a sheep,

why does the kohen take all the gifts? Let us say:

“Half”—

let him take! And the other half

he should not give him; rather

let him say to him

the Israelite to the kohen:

“Bring proof that we do not take the father’s seed into consideration, and take it!”

Rav Huna bar Hiyya said:

Indeed so;

what is meant also by “is obligated,” which

the Rabbis say?

It is obligated in half the gifts!

Rabbi Zeira raised an objection: A koy has aspects in which it is like a domesticated animal, aspects in which it is like a wild animal, and aspects in which it is like both a wild animal and a domesticated animal.

How so?

It is like a domesticated animal:

its fat is forbidden like the fat of a domesticated animal,

for the fat of a wild animal is permitted.

And

it has aspects in which it is like a wild animal:

its blood must be covered like the blood of a wild animal,

unlike the blood of a domesticated animal, which need not be covered.

And it has

aspects in which it is like both a wild animal and a domesticated animal: its blood and its sinew

[the sciatic sinew]

are forbidden like those of a domesticated animal and a wild animal.

And it is obligated in the foreleg, the cheeks, and the maw like a domesticated animal

[see Tosafot, s.v. “its fat,” which explains why it did not teach this together with the other matter in which it resembles a domesticated animal].

And Rabbi Eliezer exempts

the koy from the gifts.

And if it is so,

that when the Rabbis obligate a koy in the gifts, they mean half the gifts, here too

it should have needed to say: “It is obligated in half the gifts”!

That is what it should have said.

And we answer:

Since it taught

that which resembles a domesticated animal in

its fat, and

that which resembles a wild animal in

its blood, and it did not teach

with regard to them

“half, half,”

for it is impossible that half its fat should be permitted and half forbidden, and likewise with its blood,

therefore it did not teach

with regard to the gifts

“half.”

When Ravin came, he said that Rabbi Yohanan said: With regard to a koy, according to

the words of

the Rabbis, it is obligated in all the gifts.

For it was taught:

It is written concerning the gifts:

“Ox,”

and

what does “if an ox” come to teach?

Why was this “if” written?

To include mixed species! And it is written:

“sheep”; what does “if a sheep” come to teach? To include the koy!

“sheep.” What does the Torah teach by stating “if a sheep”? To include a koy!

And we challenge:

And as for Rabbi Eliezer,

who exempted mixed species and a kוי from the gifts,

why do I need this “if”?

For he does not derive from it that one is obligated in the gifts?

And we answer:

He needs it to divide!

For if he had not written “if,” it might enter your mind to say that he is not obligated in the gifts until he slaughters both an ox and a sheep; it teaches us that “if” an ox, “if” a sheep, serves to divide, so that if he slaughtered one of them—he is obligated!

And we challenge:

And as for the Rabbis,

this exposition of

“to divide”—from where do they derive it?

And we answer:

They derive it

from the verse

“from those who slaughter the slaughter,”

which implies that even if he slaughtered one slaughtered animal, either an ox or a sheep, he is obligated!

And we challenge:

And as for Rabbi Eliezer, this

verse

“from those who slaughter the slaughter”—what does he do with it?

For he derives the exposition “to divide” from “if”?

And we answer:

He needs it for that which Rava said, for Rava said:

If a slaughterer slaughtered an animal for an Israelite, and a priest came to claim the gifts from this animal,

the law is that

that the priest’s claim is

against the slaughterer,

because the gifts are now in his possession. The slaughterer cannot say to the priest: “You have no claim against me, because the animal is not mine.” Rather, the priest takes the gifts wherever they are found intact. [But if the priest gave the gifts to an Israelite or sold them, the priest certainly no longer has a claim against the slaughterer, since the gifts are no longer in his possession.] This law is derived from the verse “from those who slaughter the slaughtered animal,” because “those who slaughter the slaughtered animal” refers to the slaughterer, and it implies that the gifts are taken from the slaughterer.

Mishna:

A firstborn

of an Israelite,

that became mixed with one hundred

other animals,

when one hundred

people

slaughter them all,

each one slaughtering one animal,

they exempt them all

from the gifts, for each one of the one hundred slaughterers can say: “I slaughtered the firstborn, and I am exempt”

But if

one person slaughters them all—

there is no

exemption for him

except

one,

for one of the animals is certainly the firstborn and is exempt from the gifts, and he can say about one of the animals: “This is the firstborn.” But with regard to the other animals he is obligated in the gifts, for the obligation depends upon the slaughterer [as we said above, that the law is with the slaughterer], and here, since one person slaughtered all of them, he certainly slaughtered the animals that are subject to the obligation .

One who slaughters for a priest or for a gentile

is exempt from the gifts, and

an Israelite

who enters into a partnership with them

[with the priest and the gentile]

must mark it

so that those who see will understand that the entire animal does not belong to the Israelite, but is in partnership with a gentile .

And if

a priest said to an Israelite: “I am selling you this animal

except for the gifts

that are in it,

the Israelite is exempt

the Israelite

from the gifts,

because they do not belong to him, but to the priest.

He said

an Israelite to the slaughterer:

“Sell me the entrails of a cow, and there are gifts among them; he gives them”

the Israelite

does not deduct their value

the value of the gifts

from the money

that he paid, for he knew that there were gifts among the entrails.

But if

he bought them from him by weight

that is, a litra of meat for such-and-such money, and the slaughterer weighed the stomach for him as well,

he gives them

the Israelite

a priest,

for they do not belong to him,

and the slaughterer deducts for him

their value

from the money,

for he sold him something that does not belong to him.

Gemara:

And we challenge:

And why

do they exempt them all?

Let the

the

priest

come against each one of the slaughterers

from two sides ,

[with two claims],

and let him say to him

concerning each animal as follows:

If it is a firstborn

this animal, behold,

it is entirely mine

!

And if it is not a firstborn, give me my gift ?

[my priestly gifts].