Chullin 134b (קלד:) — the Talmud in English

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

and the lamb of

the redemption of a firstborn donkey,

in all these cases there is no prohibition, but only a monetary uncertainty. Therefore, we follow

the

lenient position and

exempt

in a case of uncertainty.

When Ravin came, he said:

There is another Mishna that Reish Lakish found, in which it is taught that Rabbi Meir exempts

the standing grain

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

Or

our Mishna concerning

standing grain

from which it is uncertain whether it is leket—fallen gleanings—teaches that it is leket. He raised this difficulty before Rabbi Yoḥanan. Rabbi Yoḥanan replied to him: I teach it in the singular, as above.

Levi sowed grain in Kishar

[a place-name],

and there were not

poor people

there to collect the gleanings. He came before Rav Sheshet

to ask what he should do with the leket.

Rav Sheshet said to him:

It is written: “

For the poor and the convert you shall leave them,”

which indicates specifically for the poor and the convert,

and not

that you should leave them in the field

for the ravens, and not

that you should leave them

for the bats.

Therefore, you need not leave the leket in the field.

The Gemara raises an objection: One does not bring

[the Israelite is not required to trouble himself to bring it]

teruma from the threshing floor to the city

to the priest,

and

likewise

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

priest in the threshing floor or in the wilderness

to

take it,

he hires an animal 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:

Teruma is different, as it renders the produce tevel!

The entire crop is tevel and forbidden until the teruma is separated,

and it is impossible not to separate it,

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

The Gemara asks:

But what of the gifts

to the priests,

which do not render the animal tevel,

as the rest of the animal is not forbidden until he gives the gifts?

And it was taught: In a place where the practice is to scald calves,

where they were accustomed to scald them in boiling water and eat them with the hide, although 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 exposition from the verse], in that place

he may not skin the foreleg

and give it to the priest; rather, he gives it together with the hide. This is an expression of generosity in the practice adopted toward the priests.

In a place where the practice is

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

but rather gives it together with the hide, for below we derive that one must give the priest the wool on the heads of sheep, and all the more so one must give him the hide.

And if there is no priest there

to whom to give the gifts,

one appraises them monetarily,

estimating the value of the gifts,

and eats them,

while the Israelite gives the money to the first priest who comes. They do this

because of the priest’s loss.

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

And we reject this:

The priestly gifts are different, for

the term

“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

teruma as well,

you can resolve the matter in this manner: teruma differs from leket because

“giving” is written concerning it. 7 .

And we raise an objection:

But rather

the word

“you shall leave” is superfluous

as it is written concerning gleanings:

why do I need it,

if not to say that, when there are no poor people, he must set aside the gleanings until he finds a poor person

? We say: No. Rather,

it teaches as it was taught:

one who declares

his vineyard ownerless and, the next morning, [in the morning]

in the morning]

stands and harvests 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 pe'a,

as concerning all of them it is written “you shall leave” in a superfluous manner,

and he is exempt from tithes 9 .

A certain sack of dinars [a sack of gold dinars]

a sack of gold dinars]

that arrived at the study hall,

having been sent from elsewhere for the members of the yeshiva.

Rabbi Ami promptly acquired them [Although the dinars had been sent for the members of the yeshiva, Rabbi Ami had to acquire them on behalf of poor people who were not members of the yeshiva, Lev Aryeh].

Although the coins had been sent for the members of the academy, Rabbi Ami had to acquire them on behalf of 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

with regard to the gifts to the poor,

“and he shall give,”

and we expound this:

and not that he should take it himself!?

We explain:

Rabbi Ami also

did not acquire it for himself; rather,

he acquired it for the poor 10 .

Alternatively, one can say: A distinguished person is different,

for he is permitted to acquire it for himself in order to become wealthy.

As it was taught:

It is written,

“And the High Priest who is greater than his brothers.”

And we derive from this:

He must be greater than his brothers in appearance, wisdom, and wealth.

Others say: From where do we know that, if he has none of his own,

his brothers

the priests make him wealthy?

The verse states:

“And the High Priest who is greater than 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,

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

And its corresponding limb in the leg

is the

thigh

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

Rabbi Yehuda says: The thigh

is

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

Which is the cheek?

From the joint of the cheek to the protuberance of the windpipe.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

The fact that it is written, “And he shall give 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 states: “The foreleg.”

And we inquire:

What is the indication?

How is it derived from the word “the foreleg” that it is the right one?

We explain:

As Rava said

with regard to the sciatic nerve: We derive from the superfluous letter heh in

“the thigh”

that it is

the most capable 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 capable of the forelegs.

And the fact that it is written,

“and the cheeks”—what does

this superfluous letter heh come

to include? The wool on the heads of sheep and the hair on the beards of goats,

which must be given to a priest.

And the fact that it is written,

“and the maw”—what does

this superfluous letter heh come

to include? The fat on the maw and the fat inside the maw.

And proof of this is from what

Rabbi Yehoshua said: Priests were accustomed to treat it

—the fat on the maw and the fat inside the maw—

generously, and they gave it to the owners

13 . The reason is that they were accustomed to do so;

this implies that

if they were not accustomed

it belongs to him

[the priest]

. We see that by Torah law it must be given to a priest, and we derive this from the superfluous letter heh in “the maw.”

We see that by Torah law it must be given to a priest, and this is derived from the extra letter heh.

Those who expound hidden matters

[obscure biblical verses]

would say

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

“The foreleg,”

which is a hand—

corresponding to the hand

of Phinehas, through which the covenant of eternal priesthood was granted to him.

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

And which hand wages war? You must say: the right hand! We see from here that the right foreleg is given to the priest.

“And the cheeks,”

which are given to the priest—

corresponding to prayer

[which is recited with the mouth, that is, the cheeks] of Phinehas.

And so it says: “And Phinehas stood up and prayed.”

“The maw,”

which is given to the priest—

in its plain sense,

corresponding to the maw in the deed of Phinehas.

And so it says: “And the woman through her maw.”

And the tanna

of the beraita

brings a proof for it from here,

that the foreleg is the right one:

It is written concerning offerings of well-being: “And

the right thigh

you shall give as a teruma.”

I have derived only the right thigh,

concerning which it is explicitly written 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 states:

Since an additional word is written concerning offerings of well-being,

“you shall give.”

The foreleg of unconsecrated animals,

of the gifts of the priesthood—

from where

do we know that it is the right one?

The verse states:

Since an additional word is written concerning offerings of well-being,

“a teruma”

[Our version has the order reversed; see the note in the margin of the page].

We learned in our Mishna:

“Which is the cheek? From the joint of the cheek to the protuberance of the windpipe.”

And we challenge this:

But was it taught

with regard to the cheek among the gifts of the priesthood:

“He takes it, together with the place of slaughter,”

which is lower, toward the body, than the protuberance of the windpipe?

And we answer:

It is not difficult. This

teaching of the Mishna is the view of

the Sages,

whereas

that

teaching of the beraita is the view of

Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus

.

As it was taught: An animal whose throat was cut above the proper place,

that is, an animal slaughtered above the entrance to the gullet—

is unfit.

Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus testified concerning an animal whose throat was cut above the proper place that it is fit.

If so, in every case, according to everyone—both the Mishna and the beraita—the cheek is given up to the protuberance of the windpipe. The beraita follows Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus, who maintains that one may slaughter at the protuberance of the windpipe [that is, in the case of an animal whose throat was cut above the proper place], and therefore it calls that location “the place of slaughter.” The Mishna follows the Sages, who maintain that one may not slaughter there, and therefore it teaches “up to the protuberance of the windpipe” and does not call that location “the place of slaughter.”

Alternatively, if you wish, say: Both this and that are the opinion of the Rabbis; and what is

that which was taught in the baraita, “He takes it, and the slaughtering site

with it—

with it, meaning with the animal,

he said: The slaughtering site remains with the animal, while the jaw is given up to the protuberance of the trachea, and no farther.

We have completed the chapter “The Foreleg and the Jaws.”