Chullin 132a (קלב.) — the Talmud in English

He said to him: Rabbi,

your burden

[the burden of your argument, with which you seek to make things difficult for me]: this beraita is actually proof of my position! 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 indicates specifically the sons of Aaron and not the daughters of Aaron. But generally, wherever “kohen” is written, such as with regard to the gifts, the tanna did not distinguish between a male kohen and a female kohen. And it is demonstrated that “kohen” includes even a female kohen, and that is why 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 derived

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

from the explicit

that is, the “kohen” written with regard to the meal-offering, where it specifically means 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 due of the kohanim,” indicating specifically kohanim and not female kohanim; and at the end of the verse it is written: “And he shall give the foreleg to the kohen,” also indicating 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, since he held that “kohen” includes even a female kohen.

And likewise

Rav Pappa ate on behalf of his wife.

Rav Yemar ate on behalf of his wife.

Rav Idi bar Avin ate on behalf of his wife.

Ravina said: Marimar said to me

regarding these halakhot:

The halakha is in accordance with Rav,

who said that the gifts are not taken 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 [because 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

a mixed-breed and to a koy.

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

is obligated in the gifts

as we have said. But if it was born

from a he-goat and a doe —

it is exempt from the gifts,

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

And we challenge this:

Since we have established

(above, 80a)

that with regard to covering the blood and the gifts, the dispute of Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis can be found

only

in the case of a deer that mated with a she-goat,

and according to both Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis it is uncertain 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 the father’s seed into consideration

and say that the offspring entirely follows its mother, And

if

we say: “sheep,” even a part of a sheep,

it is obligated

—they disagree:

One Master,

the Rabbis,

holds

that we say:

“sheep,” even a part of a sheep,

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

And the other Master,

Rabbi Eliezer,

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

and therefore it is exempt, because perhaps the father’s seed is taken into consideration and there is only a part of a sheep on account of the she-goat.

Now,

it is understandable that Rabbi Eliezer exempts it —

he holds

that we say

“sheep,” but not a part of a sheep. But as for the Rabbis, although they hold “sheep,” even a part of a sheep,

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

“Let him take half!”

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:

That is indeed so.

What does the statement that the Rabbis also say “obligated”

mean? —

Obligated in half the gifts!

Rabbi Zeira raised an objection: A koy has characteristics in which it is identical to a domesticated animal, characteristics in which it is identical to a non-domesticated animal, and characteristics in which it is identical to both a non-domesticated and a domesticated animal.

What are the circumstances?

Characteristics in which it is identical to a domesticated animal:

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

for the fat of a non-domesticated animal is permitted.

And

it has characteristics in which it is identical to a non-domesticated animal:

its blood must be covered like the blood of a non-domesticated animal,

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

And it has

characteristics in which it is identical to both a non-domesticated and a domesticated animal: its blood and its sinew

[the sciatic nerve]

are forbidden like those of a domesticated and a non-domesticated 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 this was not taught 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, then here too

it should have said: “It is obligated in half the gifts”

as the statement.

And we answer:

Since he taught

that it resembles a domesticated animal with regard to

its fat, and

resembles a non-domesticated animal with regard to

its blood, and did not teach

with regard to them

“half and half,”

for it is impossible that half its fat should be permitted and half forbidden, and the same applies to its blood,

for that reason he did not teach

with regard to the gifts

“half.”

When Ravin came, he said that Rabbi Yohanan said: According to

the opinion of

the Rabbis, a koy is obligated in all the gifts.

As it was taught:

With regard to the gifts it is written

“ox,”

and

what does the Torah teach by stating “if an ox”?

Why was this word “if” written?

To include a mixed-breed!

And it is written

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

And we challenge:

And Rabbi Eliezer,

who exempts kilayim and a koy from the gifts,

why do I need this “if”?

He does not derive from it that one is liable for the gifts?

And we answer:

He needs it to indicate division!

For if “if” had not been written, you might have thought that he is not liable for the gifts until he slaughters both an ox and a sheep. It therefore teaches us by saying “if” an ox, “if” a sheep, that the cases are divided: if he slaughtered only one of them, he is liable!

And we challenge:

And the Rabbis,

this derivation of

division—from where do they derive it?

And we answer:

They derive it

from the verse

“from those who slaughter the slaughtered animal,”

which indicates that even if he slaughtered only one animal, either an ox or a sheep, he is liable!

And we challenge:

And Rabbi Eliezer, what does he do with this

verse

“from those who slaughter the slaughtered animal”?

After all, he derives the division from “if”?

And we answer:

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

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

the law is

that the priest’s claim is

against the slaughterer,

since the gifts are now in his possession, and the slaughterer cannot say to the priest: “You are not my litigant, for 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, certainly the priest no longer has a claim against him, since they are no longer in his possession]. And this law is derived from the verse “from those who slaughter the slaughtered animal,” since “those who slaughter the slaughtered animal” refers to the slaughterer, indicating that the gifts are taken from the slaughterer.

Mishna:

A firstborn

belonging to an Israelite

that became mixed with one hundred

other animals,

when one hundred

people

slaughter them all,

each one slaughtering a single animal,

they exempt them all

from the gifts, since each of the one hundred slaughterers can say: “I slaughtered the firstborn, and I am exempt.” [Since a firstborn is exempt from the gifts, because the sanctity of the gifts does not take effect upon the sanctity of a firstborn] .

But if

one person slaughters them all—

they do not

exempt him

except for

one,

since one of the animals is certainly a firstborn and is exempt from the gifts, and he can designate one of the animals and say: “This is the firstborn.” But with regard to the other animals, he is liable for the gifts, since the liability depends on the slaughterer [as we said above, the law is with the slaughterer], and here, since one person slaughtered all of them, he certainly slaughtered the animals that are liable.

One who slaughters for a priest or for a gentile —

is exempt from the gifts, and

an Israelite

who partners with them [

with the priest and the gentile]

must mark [

he must make a sign on the animal] so that observers will understand that the entire animal does not belong to the Israelite, but is jointly owned with a gentile] .

And if

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

except for the gifts

in it,”

the Israelite is exempt

from the gifts

from the gifts,

since they belong not to him but to the priest.

He said

to the slaughterer: “Israelite to the slaughterer:

Sell me the innards of a cow, and if there were gifts among them, give them

the Israelite

to a priest, and do not deduct their value

from the price

from the money

that he paid, since he knew that the innards contained gifts.

But if

he purchased them from him by weight—

that is, a pound of meat for a certain price, and the slaughterer weighed the abomasum for him as well—

he gives them

the Israelite

to a priest,

since they do not belong to him,

and the slaughterer deducts

from him

from the money,

since he sold him something that did not belong to him.

Gemara:

And we challenge:

But why

do they exempt them all?

Let the

priest

come against

each of the slaughterers

from two sides [

with two claims],

and say to him

with regard to each animal as follows:

If it is a firstborn,

this animal, then

it is entirely mine

;

and if it is not a firstborn, give me my gift [

my priestly gifts]?