Chullin 132b — the Talmud in English

Rav Oshaya said:

Actually, in the case of an ordinary firstborn animal that became mixed up, the priest can come upon it from two sides. And with what are we dealing here?

With one who brought

that firstborn animal previously

into the possession of a priest,

for they gave it to him as a firstborn, and a permanent blemish occurred in it,

and he sold it

the priest

to an Israelite with its blemish,

for the priest cannot claim it by virtue of its being a firstborn, since it had already been given to a priest; but he is exempt from the gifts.

We learned in our Mishna:

One who slaughters for a priest or for a gentile is exempt from the gifts.

The Gemara challenges the wording “one who slaughters for a priest”: the reason for exempting them from the gifts is that priests and gentiles are not called “people” with regard to their obligation in the gifts,

and

if so, it would be appropriate

to teach

as follows:

A priest or a gentile is exempt from the gifts?

Rava said: This indicates that

the wording of the Mishna, “one who slaughters for a priest,” comes to teach that specifically when he slaughters for a priest or a gentile, the slaughterer is exempt from giving the gifts. But if he slaughters for an Israelite,

the claim

of the priest

is with the slaughterer,

who claims from the slaughterer and not from the Israelite .

Rava expounded:

It is said concerning the priestly gifts that the priest takes them

“from the people,”

and it indicates that gifts are taken only “from the people”

and not from priests,

because priests are not called a people .

But

when it says

in that same verse concerning the slaughterer,

“from those who slaughter the slaughtered animal,”

you must say that even a priest-slaughterer is included,

that is, even a priest who is a slaughterer for the purpose of selling animals is obligated in the gifts [but if he slaughtered an animal for his own needs, he is exempt, because he himself is not called a people] .

Rav Tavla’s host was a priest, and the matter was pressing for him

[he was poor and in straitened circumstances].

He came before Rav Tavla. He said to him:

Rav Tavla said to him:

Go, enter into a partnership

[make a partnership]

with Israelite slaughterers,

and they will wish to enter into a partnership with you, because

since

[through the fact]

they are exempt from the gift,

for one who enters into a partnership with a priest is exempt from the gifts, as we learned in our Mishna—

“Enter into a partnership with you!” He went and entered into a partnership with an Israelite. Rav Naḥman obligated

that Israelite in the gifts .

He said to him:

that Israelite said to Rav Naḥman:

But Rav Tavla exempted us

[exempted me]?

He said to him:

Rav Naḥman said to him:

Go, take out

these gifts from beneath your hand

! And if not,

you do not take them out willingly,

I shall bring Rav Tavla out against you,

that is, I shall refute all his proofs!

Rav Tavla went before Rav Naḥman. He said to him:

Rav Tavla said to him:

Why did the master act thus

to make him take the gifts out?

He said to him:

Rav Naḥman said to him: Because

when Rav Aḥa bar Ḥanina came from the South, he said: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and all the Elders of the South said: A priest who became a slaughterer, for the first two or three weeks

[weeks]

is exempt

from

the gifts,

for it is not yet evident that he has become a permanent slaughterer. But

from then onward,

if he continued to be a slaughterer—

he is obligated in the gifts!

Therefore I obligated the Israelite who entered into a partnership with the priest.

He said to him:

Rav Tavla said to him:

At least let the master treat him in accordance with Rav Aḥa bar Ḥanina,

and exempt him for the first two or three weeks?

He said to him: This applies

when they give him two or three weeks—specifically in a case

where he did not establish

for himself

a butcher shop

[a shop for selling meat].

But here, he has established a butcher shop,

and therefore I obligated him immediately .

Rav Ḥisda said: This priest who does not separate the gift

to give it to another priest,

let him be under the ban of the God of Israel!

Rabba bar Rav Sheila said: These slaughterers of Huzal

who were priests and did not separate the priestly gifts—

have been under Rav Ḥisda’s ban for twenty-two years!

They have already been subject to the ban for twenty-two years .

The Gemara asks:

For what halakhic matter

did Rabba bar Sheila say this?

If you say

that he meant to teach

that we no longer place them under the ban,

since they had already been under the ban for twenty-two years,

but it was taught: When are these words said,

that one does not excommunicate him [see Rashi, Ketubot 86a],

in the case of a negative commandment

for which one who transgresses is liable to karet or death, and “he stands with the greater punishment,”

but in the case of a positive commandment, such as when they say to him, “Make a sukka!” and he does not do it; “Take a lulav!” and he does not do it; “Make tzitzit!” and he does not do it—they strike him until his soul departs!

Rather

necessarily, Rabba bar Rav Shila came to teach that since they remained under excommunication for twenty-two years,

we impose a penalty upon them without prior warning

[a warning]; but were it not for this, it would have been necessary to warn them before the excommunication.

For it was like that which Rabba would impose as a penalty: a thigh

[he would take the entire thigh and give it to a kohen] from one who did not wish to give the gifts.

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak

would

impose a penalty of a cloak

upon one who did not wish to give the gifts.

And Rav Hisda said:

This is how the priestly gifts are divided:

The foreleg

is given

to

one

kohen. And the stomach

is given

to one. The cheeks

are given

to two

[two kohanim, one cheek to each].

The Gemara raises an objection:

Is that so? But when Rav Yitzhak bar Yosef came, he said: In the West we divide them

—the priestly gifts—

bone by bone!

For each bone we divide among two kohanim.

The Gemara answers:

There—

the statement of Rav Yitzhak bar Yosef concerns

a bull

[a large ox], whose limbs are very large; and even if they divided each bone between two kohanim, there would be a sufficient measure for giving. But with a small animal, if each limb were divided in two, there would not be a sufficient measure for giving. And the Merciful One said, “And he shall give it to the kohen,” implying that one must give a substantial gift.

Rabba bar bar Hanna said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: It is forbidden to eat from an animal whose gifts have not been separated!

Rabba bar bar Hanna said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Anyone who eats from an animal whose gifts have not been separated—

it is as though he eats untithed produce!

Just as one who eats untithed produce from which its tithes have not been separated!

And the halakha is not in accordance with him

—Rabba bar bar Hanna—and he is not considered to be eating untithed produce.

Rav Hisda said: The priestly gifts

may be eaten only roasted, and may be eaten only with mustard 12.

What is the reason?

Because

the verse says

concerning the priestly gifts, “I have given them to you

for anointing,” and “‘for anointing’” implies

for distinction

for distinction

[for the translation of the word “for anointing” is “for greatness,” meaning distinction], and this is

in the manner in which kings eat,

roasted and with mustard.

And Rav Hisda said: The twenty-four priestly gifts

[which will be enumerated below],

any kohen who is not expert in them

how they are eaten with distinction,

is not given a gift.

And the Gemara rejects this ruling and says:

And it is not a matter! For it was taught: Rabbi Shimon says: Any kohen who does not acknowledge the service,

saying: “It was not Hashem who commanded the sacrifices to be offered; rather, Moses invented them from his heart” ,

has no share in the priesthood,

since he does not take a share in sacred offerings.

And the source for this is from what

is stated: “The one who offers the blood of the peace-offering and the fat from the sons of Aaron

—

for him shall the right thigh be a portion,”

and they expounded it to mean that only one who acknowledges the services takes a share in sacred offerings.

I have only [learned]

one who does not acknowledge

this,

in this service. “The one who offers,” that is, carrying—

only,

does not take a share in sacred offerings.

From where is it to include fifteen services

16, such as the pourings and the mixings,

in which he puts oil into the meal-offering and mixes it, and then pours oil over it again in order to fulfill the mitzva of pouring,

and the breaking into pieces,

in which he breaks the meal-offerings into pieces after baking them,

and the saltings,

in which he would put salt on the meal-offerings,

wave-offerings,

for there are meal-offerings that require waving, moving them back and forth,

and presentations,

for there are meal-offerings that require presentation, where he would place it in a vessel and bring it to the southwestern corner of the altar, opposite the point of the corner,

and the taking of the handfuls,