Chullin 132b (קלב:) — the Talmud in English

Rav Oshaya said:

In truth, in the case of an ordinary firstborn animal that became intermingled with other animals, the priest can approach it from two sides. And with what are we dealing here?

With one who brought

that firstborn animal earlier

into the possession of a priest,

as it had been given to him as a firstborn animal, and an irreversible blemish developed in it,

and he sold it

the priest

to an Israelite with its blemish,

so that the priest cannot claim it from him as a firstborn animal, since it had already been given to a priest; but he is exempt from the gifts.

We learned in our Mishna:

One who slaughters an animal belonging to a priest or to a gentile is exempt from the gifts.

The Gemara challenges the wording “one who slaughters for a priest”: The reason that they are exempt from the gifts is that priests and gentiles are not called “the 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 teaches

that the wording of the Mishna, “one who slaughters for a priest,” teaches 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 against the slaughterer,

who makes his claim against the slaughterer and not against the Israelite .

Rava expounded:

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

“from the people,”

which implies that gifts are taken only “from the people”

and not from priests,

because priests are not called the people .

But

when it says

in that same verse concerning the slaughterer,

“from those who slaughter the slaughtered animal,”

you must say that this includes even a priestly slaughterer,

meaning that even a priest who is a slaughterer 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 the people.]

Rav Tavla’s host was a priest, and he was hard-pressed financially

[he was poor and in difficult circumstances].

He came before Rav Tavla. Rav Tavla said to him

Rav Tavla:

Go and enter into a partnership

[form a partnership]

with Israelite slaughterers,

and they will be willing to make a partnership with you, because

since

[inasmuch as]

they are exempt from the gifts,

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

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

that Israelite to give the gifts .

That Israelite said

to Rav Naḥman:

“But Rav Tavla exempted us”

[me]?

Rav Naḥman said

to him:

“Go and remove

these gifts from your possession

! And if not,

you do not remove them willingly,

I will remove Rav Tavla from your support,

meaning, I will refute all his proofs!

Rav Tavla went before Rav Naḥman. He said to him

Rav Tavla:

“Why has my master acted in this manner,”

to make him remove the gifts?

He said to him

Rav Naḥman: It is 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 becomes a slaughterer, for the first two or three weeks

[weeks]

is exempt

he is

from the gifts,

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

from that point onward,

if he continues to work as a slaughterer—

he is obligated in the gifts!

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

Rav Tavla said

to him:

“At least let my master apply the ruling of Rav Aḥa bar Ḥanina to him,”

and exempt him for the first two or three weeks?

He said to him: This applies

—that he is given two or three weeks—only in a case where he

has not established

for himself

a butcher shop

[a shop 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 Hutzal

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 under the ban for twenty-two years .

And the Gemara asks:

“For what halakhic purpose”

did Rabba bar Sheila say this?

If you say

that he meant to teach

that we no longer excommunicate them,

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

but it was taught: In what circumstances does this statement apply

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

with regard to a negative commandment

for which one who violates it is liable to karet or death, and he stands liable for the more severe penalty,

but with regard to a positive commandment—for example, when they say to him: “Make a sukka!” and he does not do so; “Take a lulav!” and he does not do so; “Make tzitzit!” and he does not do so—they strike him until his soul departs!

Rather,

necessarily, Rabba bar Rav Sheila came to teach that, since they had remained under a ban for twenty-two years,

we penalize them without a warning

[a formal warning]; were it not for this, they would have to be warned before being placed under the ban.

As in the case of Rabba, who would confiscate 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 Naḥman bar Yitzḥak

would

confiscate a cloak

from one who did not wish to give the gifts.

And Rav Ḥisda said:

This is how the priestly gifts are divided:

The foreleg

is given

to

one

kohen, and the maw

is given

to one. The cheeks

are given

to two

[two kohanim, one cheek to each].

The Gemara asks:

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

the priestly gifts

bone by bone!

For each bone we divide between two kohanim.

The Gemara answers:

There—

the statement of Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef concerns

a bull

[a large ox], whose limbs are very large. Even if each bone were divided between two kohanim, it would contain the required measure for giving. But in the case of a small animal, if each limb were divided between two, it would not contain the required measure for giving. And the Merciful One said: “And he shall give it to the kohen,” implying that one must give a worthy gift.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is prohibited to eat from an animal whose gifts have not been separated!

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Anyone who eats from an animal whose gifts have not been separated—

it is as though he eats untithed produce!

Like one who eats untithed produce from which its terumot have not been separated!

But the halakha is not in accordance with his statement

of Rabba bar bar Ḥana, and it is not considered as though he eats untithed produce.

Rav Ḥisda 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 greatness,”

and “for greatness” means

for distinction

[for the Aramaic translation of “for greatness” is “for distinction,” meaning greatness]. That is,

in the manner in which kings eat,

roasted and with mustard.

And Rav Ḥisda said: The twenty-four priestly gifts

[which will be enumerated below],

any kohen who is not familiar with them

how they are to be eaten in a manner of greatness,

is not given a gift.

The Gemara rejects this ruling and says:

But this is not so! As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: Any koen who does not acknowledge the sacrificial service,

saying: “It was not God who commanded the sacrifices to be offered; rather, Moses fabricated them on his own,”

has no share in the priesthood,

as he does not receive a share of the sacred offerings.

The source for this is

as it is stated: “The one who offers the blood of the peace-offerings and the fat from among the descendants of Aaron

—

shall have the right thigh as a portion,”

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

I have derived only

one who does not acknowledge

this,

this service. “The one who offers,” that is, the service of conveying the blood

alone,

and he does not receive a share of the sacred offerings.

From where is it derived that the fifteen services

16 , such as the pouring and mixing,

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

the breaking,

in which he breaks the meal-offerings after they have been baked,

the salting,

in which he places salt on the meal-offerings,

the waving,

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

and the presenting,

as there are meal-offerings that require presenting: he places it in a vessel and brings it to the southwestern corner of the altar, opposite the edge of the corner,

and the taking of the handful,