Chullin 134b — the Talmud in English

The first shearing, the gifts, and the redemption of the firstborn son,

and the lamb of

the redemption of the firstborn donkey,

in all these there is no prohibition, but only a monetary doubt; and therefore we follow in them

the

lenient position, and he is

exempt

in a case of doubt.

When Ravin came, he said:

There is another baraita that Resh Lakish found, in which it is taught that Rabbi Meir exempted

the standing grain

of a convert when it is uncertain whether it was harvested before he converted or afterward,

or

our Mishna of

standing grain

which is a doubtful leket is leket—he presented it to Rabbi Yohanan. And Rabbi Yohanan answered him: I recite it in the singular wording, as above.

Levi sowed in Kishar

(a place-name),

and there were not

there

poor people to take the leket. He came before Rav Sheshet

to ask what he should do with the leket.

He said to him

Rav Sheshet: It is written,

“For the poor person and for the convert you shall leave them,”

this implies specifically for the poor person and for the convert,

and not

that you should leave them in the field

for ravens, and not

that you should leave them

for bats;

therefore you do not need to leave the leket in the field.

He raised an objection: They do not bring

[the Israelite need not trouble himself to bring it]

terumah from the threshing floor to the city

to the priest,

and

likewise

not from the wilderness to an inhabited place. And if there is no

in the threshing floor or in the wilderness

priest

to take them,

he hires an ox and brings it

[the produce] to the city

because of the priest’s loss 4.

If so, here too the Israelite should bring the leket to the city and give it to the poor!?

And we answer:

Terumah is different, for it renders [the produce] tevel!

For all the produce is tevel and forbidden until he separates the terumah,

and it is not possible not to separate it,

since he is obligated to separate it in order to permit the produce.

And we challenge:

But what of the gifts

of the priesthood,

which do not render [the produce] tevel,

for the rest of the animal is not forbidden until he gives the gifts,

as it is taught: In a place where they are accustomed to scald calves,

for they were accustomed to scald them in boiling water and eat them with the hide, even though in other places one need not give the hide to the priest [for we do not find that the hide of the foreleg was included by a verse], in that place

he may not skin the foreleg

and give it to the priest, but rather he gives it with the hide; and this is a generous practice that they adopted with regard to priests.

In a place where they are accustomed

to skin the head, he may not skin the cheek,

but rather he gives it with the hide, for below we include that he must give the priest the wool that is on the head of sheep, and all the more so he must give him the hide.

And if there is no priest there

to give him the gifts,

they are valued in money,

for he assesses the value of the gifts,

and he eats them

the Israelite, and he gives the money to the first priest who comes. And they do this

because of the priest’s loss.

We see that the Israelite must trouble himself so that the gifts reach the hand of a priest.

And we reject this:

The gifts of the priesthood are different, for

the expression

“giving” is written concerning them,

and therefore the obligation to give them to a priest rests upon him.

And we say:

Now that you have arrived at this,

with regard to

terumah as well

you can explain it in this manner: terumah is different from leket because

“giving” is written concerning it 7.

And we raise an objection:

But rather

the expression

“you shall leave” is superfluous

which is written concerning gleanings—

why do I need it,

is it not to say that if there are no poor, he should put the gleanings away until he finds a poor person

?

And we say: No. Rather,

it is

as it was taught in a beraita: One who declares his vineyard ownerless

in the morning

stood and harvested it 8 ,

even though ownerless property is exempt from the gifts to the poor, here he is

liable for individual grapes, incompletely formed clusters, forgotten produce, and the corner of the field,

for concerning all of them “you shall leave” is written superfluously,

and he is exempt from tithes 9 .

That sack of dinars

a sack of gold dinars

that came to the house of study,

which they had sent from another place for the members of the academy.

Rabbi Ami preceded [others] and acquired them

[Although they had sent the dinars for the members of the academy, Rabbi Ami needed to acquire them for poor people who were not members of the academy, Lev Aryeh].

And we raise an objection:

How could he do this? Is it not written

concerning gifts to the poor,

“and he shall give,”

and we expound:

and not that he should take for himself!?

And we explain:

Rabbi Ami too

did not acquire them for himself, but

he acquired them for the poor 10 .

And if you wish, say instead: an important person is different,

for he is permitted to acquire for himself, so that he will be great in wealth.

For it was taught in a beraita:

It is written,

“And the high priest from among his brothers.”

And we expound from it:

that he should be greater than his brothers in appearance, in wisdom, and in wealth.

Others say: From where [do we know] that if he does not have

anything of his own,

his priestly brothers make him great?

The verse says:

“And the high priest from among his brothers”—

make him great from what belongs to his brothers!

make him greater from his brothers’ property!

Mishna:

Which is the foreleg?

From the joint of the knee to the palm of the hand,

that is, the broad bone of the shoulder.

And it is

also the foreleg

of a nazirite,

for it is written concerning it that they wave “the cooked foreleg.”

And its counterpart in the leg—

it is the

shank

mentioned with regard to peace offerings, which likewise consists of two bones, from the joint of the knee to the hip socket, that is, the entire thigh.

Rabbi Judah says: The shank

is

from the joint of the knee to the fork of the leg.

Which is the jaw?

From the joint of the jaw to the knob of the windpipe.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

The one concerning which it is written, “And he shall give the foreleg to the priest”—

“the foreleg”—

this is the right foreleg.

You say that this is the right foreleg, or

perhaps

it is only the left foreleg?

The verse says: “the foreleg.”

And we inquire:

What is the indication?

From where is it learned from the word “the foreleg” that it is the right one?

And we explain:

As Rava said

concerning the sciatic nerve, that we derive from the superfluous letter heh in

“the thigh”

that it is

the most skillful of the thighs,

that is, the right one.

Here too,

we derive from the superfluous letter heh in

“the foreleg”

that it is

the most skillful of the forelegs.

And this that is written,

“and the jaws”—what does it come for,

this superfluous letter heh?

To include the wool on the heads of sheep and the hair in the beards of goats,

which must be given to the priest.

And this that is written,

“and the maw”—what does it come for,

this superfluous letter heh?

To include the fat that is upon the maw and the fat that is inside the maw.

And proof of this is from what

Rabbi Joshua said: The priests practiced with regard to it

—the fat that is upon the maw and that is inside the maw—

generosity, and gave it to the owners 13 . The reason is that they practiced this,

but had they not practiced it,

it implies that

it would belong to him,

to the priest

,

itself.

We see that by Torah law it must be given to the priest, and we derive it from the superfluous letter heh.

Those who expound hidden matters

[obscure verses]

would say

that from here we learn that the “foreleg” is the right one:

The foreleg,

which is a hand—

corresponding to the hand

of Pinhas, for this was the eternal covenant of priesthood given to him.

And so it says: “And he took a spear in his hand.”

And which hand performs warfare? You must say—the right hand! We see from here that the right foreleg is given to the priest.

And the jaws,

which are given to the priest—

corresponding to prayer

[which is said with the mouth, namely the jaws] of Pinhas.

And so it says: “And Pinhas stood and prayed.”

The maw,

which is given to the priest—

according to its plain meaning,

corresponding to the maw in the deed of Pinhas.

And so it says: “And the woman at his maw.”

And the tanna

of the beraita

brings it from here

that the foreleg is the right one:

It is written concerning peace offerings: “And the

right shank

you shall give as a contribution.”

I have only the right shank,

since it is explicitly written concerning it that it is the right one.

The foreleg of consecrated animals

of a nazirite’s ram—

from where

do we know that it is the right one?

The verse says

since a superfluous expression is written concerning peace offerings,

“you shall give.”

The foreleg of non-sacred animals

of the gifts of the priesthood—

from where

do we know that it is the right one?

The verse says

since a superfluous expression is written concerning peace offerings,

“a contribution”

[our version has the reverse; see the note in the margin].

We learned in our Mishna:

“Which is the jaw? From the joint of the jaw to the knob of the windpipe.”

And we object:

But it was taught

concerning the jaw of the gifts of the priesthood:

“He takes it, together with the slaughtering-house,”

which is farther downward, toward the body, than the knob of the windpipe?

And we answer:

There is no difficulty; this

of the Mishna

is the Rabbis,

and

that

of the beraita

is Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus.

It is as it was taught in a beraita:

An animal slaughtered above the proper place,

that is, an animal slaughtered above the swallowing passage—

is unfit.

Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus testified concerning an animal slaughtered above the proper place that it is fit.

If so, in every case, according to everyone—both the Mishna and the beraita—the jaw is given up to the knob of the windpipe. Rather, the beraita follows Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus, who holds that it is possible to slaughter at the knob of the windpipe [that is, in the case of an animal slaughtered above the proper place], and therefore calls that place “the slaughtering-house”; while the Mishna follows the Rabbis, who hold that one does not slaughter there, and therefore teaches “up to the knob of the windpipe” and does not call that place “the slaughtering-house.”

And if you wish, say: Here and here are the Rabbis, and what is [the meaning of]

this that was taught in the beraita: “He takes it and the place of slaughter”

with it—

with it, of the animal

he says: the place of slaughter remains with the animal, and the jaw is given up to the ring of the windpipe and no further.

We shall return to you, chapter The Foreleg and the Jaws.