Chullin Daf 130 (חולין דף ק״ל)
Daf: 130 | Amudim: 130a – 130b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (130a)
Segment 1
TYPE: משנה
A new perek opens: the three priestly gifts apply everywhere and always, but only to non-sacred animals.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ הַזְּרוֹעַ וְהַלְּחָיַיִם וְהַקֵּבָה נוֹהֲגִין בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת, בַּחוּלִּין אֲבָל לֹא בַּמּוּקְדָּשִׁין.
English Translation:
MISHNA: The mitzva to give the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw of slaughtered animals to the priests, known as the gifts of the priesthood, applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, in the presence of the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple, and it applies to non-sacred animals, but not to sacrificial animals.
קלאוד על הדף:
The tenth chapter of Chullin, Ha’Zroa VeHalechayayim, begins here, and its opening mishna sets the scope of the matnot kehuna — the foreleg, the jaw and the maw given to a kohen from every animal slaughtered for ordinary use. Three pairs of terms map that scope: in Eretz Yisrael and outside it, in the presence of the Temple and in its absence, and in chullin but not in mukdashin. The first two pairs make the obligation unusually broad for a priestly gift, while the third supplies the limitation the Gemara will spend the entire amud justifying.
Key Terms:
- זְרוֹעַ לְחָיַיִם וְקֵבָה = the foreleg, the jaw and the maw — the three priestly gifts
- מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה = the gifts of the priesthood
- חוּלִּין / מוּקְדָּשִׁין = non-sacred animals / consecrated animals
Segment 2
TYPE: קל וחומר
By logic, sacrificial animals should have been included all the more.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שֶׁהָיָה בַּדִּין, וּמָה אִם הַחוּלִּין, שֶׁאֵינָן חַיָּיבִים בְּחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק – חַיָּיבִים בְּמַתָּנוֹת, קָדָשִׁים, שֶׁחַיָּיבִים בְּחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁחַיָּיבִים בְּמַתָּנוֹת?
English Translation:
It is necessary to emphasize that it does not apply to sacrificial animals, as by right it should be inferred a fortiori: If non-sacred animals, which are not obligated to have the breast and thigh taken from them and given to the priest, are obligated to have gifts of the priesthood given from them, then with regard to sacrificial animals, which are obligated to have the breast and thigh given from them, is it not right that they should be obligated to have gifts of the priesthood given from them?
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna anticipates that its own exclusion looks arbitrary, and states the inference that would have overturned it. Non-sacred animals are exempt from chazeh v’shok, the breast and thigh, yet they owe the three gifts; sacrificial animals do owe breast and thigh, so they should surely owe the gifts as well. The reasoning runs from the lighter case to the weightier in the standard form, and it is strong enough that only a verse can stop it.
Key Terms:
- חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק = the breast and the thigh — the priestly portions of a peace offering
- שֶׁהָיָה בַּדִּין = for by right it should have been inferred — introducing an a fortiori argument
Segment 3
TYPE: דרשה
The verse says God gave ‘them’ — only what that passage names.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וָאֶתֵּן אֹתָם לְאַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן וּלְבָנָיו לְחׇק עוֹלָם״ – אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁאָמוּר בָּעִנְיָן.
English Translation:
Therefore, the verse states: “For the breast of waving and the thigh of giving I have taken of the children of Israel from the sacrifice of the peace offerings, and have given them to Aaron the priest and to his sons as a due forever from the children of Israel” (Leviticus 7:34), from which it is derived that the priest has only that which is stated with regard to that matter, i.e., the breast and the thigh, and not the foreleg, the jaw and the maw.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna blocks the inference with a single word. Vayikra 7:34 states that God took the breast and thigh and gave otam, them, to Aharon and his sons — and the restrictive pronoun confines the priest to what that passage actually specifies. From a sacrificial animal he receives breast and thigh and nothing further, so the foreleg, jaw and maw are excluded despite the logic.
Key Terms:
- אוֹתָם (otam) = them — the restrictive pronoun limiting the priest to what the passage names
- אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁאָמוּר בָּעִנְיָן = he has only what is stated in that matter
Segment 4
TYPE: משנה
A blemish preceding consecration: only value is consecrated, and redemption restores ordinary status.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כׇּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים שֶׁקָּדַם מוּם קָבוּעַ לְהֶקְדֵּשָׁן, וְנִפְדּוּ – חַיָּיבִין בַּבְּכוֹרָה וּבַמַּתָּנוֹת, וְיוֹצְאִין לְחוּלִּין לְהִגָּזֵז וּלְהֵעָבֵד, וּוְלָדָן וַחֲלָבָן מוּתָּר לְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנָן.
English Translation:
All sacrificial animals in which a permanent blemish preceded their consecration do not assume inherent sanctity, and only their value is consecrated. And once they were redeemed, they are obligated in the mitzva of a firstborn, i.e., their offspring are subject to being counted a firstborn, and in the gifts of the priesthood, and they can emerge from their sacred status and assume non-sacred status with regard to being shorn and with regard to being utilized for labor, as it is prohibited to shear animals with sacred status or utilize them for labor. And their offspring and their milk are permitted after their redemption.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna turns to a second subject, consecrated animals that were blemished. Where a permanent blemish preceded consecration, the animal never acquired inherent sanctity — only its monetary value was consecrated. Once redeemed it behaves as an ordinary animal again: obligated in bechora and in the priestly gifts, released for shearing and labor, its offspring and milk permitted. The gifts thus follow the animal’s practical status rather than its history.
Key Terms:
- מוּם קָבוּעַ = a permanent blemish
- בְּכוֹרָה (bechora) = the law of the firstborn animal
- לְהִגָּזֵז וּלְהֵעָבֵד = to be shorn and to be worked — both forbidden with consecrated animals
Segment 5
TYPE: משנה
Such animals carry no karet for outside slaughter and may be redeemed even if they died.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהַשּׁוֹחֲטָן בַּחוּץ פָּטוּר, וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה, וְאִם מֵתוּ – יִפָּדוּ, חוּץ מִן הַבְּכוֹר וּמִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר.
English Translation:
And one who slaughters these animals outside the Temple courtyard is exempt from karet, and those animals do not render an animal that was a substitute for them consecrated. And if these animals died before they were redeemed, they may be redeemed and fed to dogs. Although typically sacrificial animals that were redeemed may not be fed to the dogs, in this case it is permitted. This is the halakha with regard to all animals except for the firstborn animal and the animal tithe, whose sanctity is inherent, even when a permanent blemish preceded their consecration.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna completes the lenient case. Slaughtering such an animal outside the courtyard carries no karet, it does not generate temura if one attempts a substitution, and if it died before redemption it may still be redeemed and fed to dogs — a leniency not otherwise extended to redeemed consecrated animals. The firstborn and the animal tithe are excepted throughout, since their sanctity is inherent and arises regardless of any prior blemish.
Key Terms:
- תְּמוּרָה (temura) = substitution — consecrating a second animal in place of a consecrated one
- כָּרֵת (karet) = excision — the penalty for slaughtering a consecrated animal outside the courtyard
- בְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר = the firstborn and the animal tithe — exceptions whose sanctity is inherent
Segment 6
TYPE: משנה
Consecration preceding the blemish: redemption does not restore ordinary status.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כֹּל שֶׁקָּדַם הֶקְדֵּשָׁן אֶת מוּמָן, אוֹ מוּם עוֹבֵר קוֹדֵם לְהֶקְדֵּשָׁן, וּלְאַחַר מִכָּאן נוֹלַד לָהֶם מוּם קָבוּעַ, וְנִפְדּוּ – פְּטוּרִין מִן הַבְּכוֹרָה וּמִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת, וְאֵינָן יוֹצְאִין לְחוּלִּין לְהִגָּזֵז וּלְהֵעָבֵד.
English Translation:
With regard to all sacrificial animals whose consecration preceded their blemish, or who had a temporary blemish prior to their consecration and afterward developed a permanent blemish and they were redeemed, they are exempt from the mitzva of a firstborn, and from the gifts of the priesthood, and they do not emerge from their sacred status and assume non-sacred status with regard to being shorn and with regard to being utilized for labor.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mirror case reverses every consequence. Where consecration came first, or where a merely temporary blemish preceded it and a permanent one developed later, the animal acquired real sanctity — and redemption does not undo that. Such animals remain exempt from bechora and from the priestly gifts, and are still barred from shearing and labor.
Key Terms:
- מוּם עוֹבֵר = a temporary blemish — one that will heal
- קָדַם הֶקְדֵּשָׁן אֶת מוּמָן = their consecration preceded their blemish
Segment 7
TYPE: משנה
And their offspring, milk and disposal remain under the stricter rule.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּוְלָדָן וַחֲלָבָן אָסוּר לְאַחַר פִּדְיוֹנָן, וְהַשּׁוֹחֲטָן בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב, וְעוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה, וְאִם מֵתוּ – יִקָּבֵרוּ.
English Translation:
And their offspring, which were conceived prior to redemption, and their milk, are prohibited after their redemption. And one who slaughters them outside the Temple courtyard is liable to receive karet, and those animals render an animal that was a substitute for them consecrated. And if these animals died before they were redeemed, they may not be redeemed and fed to dogs; rather, they must be buried.
קלאוד על הדף:
The stringencies are enumerated in parallel to the lenient case. Offspring conceived before redemption and the animal’s milk remain forbidden; slaughtering outside the courtyard carries karet; the animal does generate temura; and if it died it must be buried rather than redeemed. The two clauses together make the mishna a compact table of how the moment of consecration relative to the blemish governs everything that follows.
Key Terms:
- יִקָּבֵרוּ (yikaveru) = they must be buried — rather than redeemed and used
- וְלָדָן וַחֲלָבָן = their offspring and their milk
Segment 8
TYPE: דיוק
The Gemara infers: without the verse, the inference would have prevailed.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״אוֹתָם״, הָא לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה אָמֵינָא קָדָשִׁים חַיָּיבִין בְּמַתָּנוֹת?
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the verse: “And have given them to Aaron the priest and to his sons” (Leviticus 7:34), indicates that only the breast and thigh, which are the subject of that verse, are given from sacrificial animals to the priest, but gifts of the priesthood are not given from sacrificial animals. The Gemara infers: The reason sacrificial animals are not included in the mitzva of gifts of the priesthood is due to the fact that the Merciful One writes: “Them,” in reference to the breast and the thigh of sacrificial animals. But were it not for this, I would say by a fortiori inference that sacrificial animals are obligated to have gifts of the priesthood given from them.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara opens by reading the mishna’s own logic back at it. If a verse is required to exclude sacrificial animals, then the a fortiori inference must otherwise have been sound — which is a substantive claim about how strong that reasoning is. The rest of the amud tests whether it really is.
Key Terms:
- טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא = the reason is that the Merciful One wrote — isolating what a verse accomplishes
- הֲוָה אָמֵינָא = I would have said — the conclusion reached without the verse
Segment 9
TYPE: פירכא
But the inference is refutable: non-sacred animals are uniquely obligated in bechora.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְחוּלִּין שֶׁכֵּן חַיָּיבִין בִּבְכוֹרָה!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to derive this halakha from a verse? The a fortiori inference can be refuted as follows: What is unique about non-sacred animals? They are unique in that they are obligated in the mitzva of a firstborn, whereas sacrificial animals are exempt. Therefore, the a fortiori inference stated in the mishna should not apply.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara immediately challenges the premise. An a fortiori inference fails if the lighter case carries a stringency the weightier case lacks, and non-sacred animals do: they are subject to bechora, while sacrificial animals are not. The inference is therefore refuted on its own terms, and no verse should have been necessary — which turns the mishna’s derivation into a problem requiring the search that follows.
Key Terms:
- אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ = it can be refuted — breaking an inference by an unshared stringency
- מָה לְחוּלִּין שֶׁכֵּן = what is notable about non-sacred animals? that they…
Segment 10
TYPE: הוה אמינא
Derive it from male animals instead — refuted by the first shearing.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תֵּיתֵי מִזְּכָרִים – מָה לִזְכָרִים, שֶׁכֵּן חַיָּיבִין בְּרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז!
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: One could derive that the mitzva to give the gifts of the priesthood applies to sacrificial animals through an a fortiori inference from non-sacred male animals, which do not give birth to offspring and whose owners are therefore exempt from counting their offspring a firstborn, and nevertheless are subject to the giving of the gifts of the priesthood. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: What is unique about non-sacred male animals? They are unique in that they are obligated to have the first sheared wool given to the priest from them.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara begins a search for a case of non-sacred animal that lacks the stringency just identified, so the inference can be rebuilt from it. Male animals never bear offspring and so are free of bechora, yet they still owe the gifts — a promising base. But they carry a different stringency, reishit hagez, the obligation of the first shearing, and the inference fails again.
Key Terms:
- רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז = the first shearing — wool given to the priest
- תֵּיתֵי מִזְּכָרִים = let it be derived from males
Segment 11
TYPE: הוה אמינא
Then from male goats — refuted because they enter the pen for tithe.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִתְּיָישִׁים – מָה לִתְיָישִׁים, שֶׁכֵּן נִכְנָסִין לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר!
English Translation:
The Gemara persists: One can derive that the obligation applies to sacrificial animals by an a fortiori inference from male goats, whose owners are exempt from counting their offspring a firstborn as well as from the first sheared wool, and yet are subject to the obligation of gifts of the priesthood. The Gemara rejects this claim as well: What is unique about male goats? They are unique in that they enter the pen to be tithed for the animal tithe, whereas sacrificial animals are not subject to the animal tithe.
קלאוד על הדף:
The search narrows. Male goats are free of both bechora and the shearing obligation, since goats are not shorn, and yet they owe the gifts. But they enter the pen to be tithed for ma’aser behema, a stringency sacrificial animals do not share, so the inference is refuted a third time.
Key Terms:
- תְּיָישִׁים (teyashim) = male goats
- נִכְנָסִין לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר = they enter the pen to be tithed — for the animal tithe
Segment 12
TYPE: הוה אמינא
Then from old male goats — refuted because they already entered the pen.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִזְּקֵנִים – מָה לִזְקֵנִים, שֶׁכֵּן נִכְנְסוּ לְדִיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר!
English Translation:
The Gemara further suggests that one can derive the obligation of sacrificial animals having the breast and thigh given from them by a fortiori inference from old male goats, which have already entered the pen in order to be tithed. Consequently, the obligation of the animal tithe, the obligation of counting the offspring a firstborn, and the first sheared wool do not apply. The Gemara rejects this suggestion as well: What is unique about old male goats? They are unique in that they have entered the pen to be tithed, which is not the case with regard to sacrificial animals.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara narrows once more to old male goats, past the age at which the tithe obligation could still attach. But the refutation adapts: they have entered the pen, and that past liability is itself the stringency. The pattern is by now unmistakable, each candidate stripped of one obligation only for another to be found.
Key Terms:
- זְקֵנִים (zekenim) = old ones — animals past the age of tithe liability
- נִכְנְסוּ (nichnesu) = they entered — in the past tense, marking prior liability
Segment 13
TYPE: הוה אמינא
Then from a purchased or orphaned animal — refuted because their type enters the pen.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִלָּקוּחַ וְיָתוֹם – מָה לְלָקוּחַ וְיָתוֹם, שֶׁכֵּן נִכְנָסִין בְּמִינָן לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר!
English Translation:
The Gemara again suggests that perhaps one can derive the obligation of giving gifts of the priesthood with regard to sacrificial animals by an a fortiori inference from a purchased animal, to which the obligation of the animal tithe never applies. Or perhaps it can be derived from an orphaned animal, born after the death of its mother, which is also not subject to the obligation of animal tithe. The Gemara rejects this claim: What is unique about a purchased animal or an orphaned animal? They are unique in that although they themselves do not enter the pen, animals of their type enter the pen to be tithed.
קלאוד על הדף:
The last candidates are the lakuach, an animal bought rather than born to the owner, and the yatom, one born after its mother died. Neither was ever subject to the animal tithe. The refutation stretches to meet them: even if these particular animals never enter the pen, animals of their type do. That widening of the criterion is what the Gemara is about to exploit.
Key Terms:
- לָקוּחַ (lakuach) = a purchased animal — exempt from the animal tithe
- יָתוֹם (yatom) = an orphaned animal — born after its mother died
- בְּמִינָן (b’minan) = of their type / their species
Segment 14
TYPE: מסקנא
The Gemara turns the last refutation around: sacrificial animals also have their type in the pen.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּמִינָן קָאָמְרַתְּ? קֳדָשִׁים נָמֵי, בְּמִינָן נִכְנָסִין לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: You say that it is significant that animals of their type enter the pen? With regard to sacrificial animals as well, non-sacred animals of their type enter the pen to be tithed. Accordingly, one can claim a fortiori that the mitzva to give the gifts applies to sacrificial animals, and it is only due to the verse that they are exempt.
קלאוד על הדף:
The chain closes with an elegant reversal. If the operative criterion is that animals of one’s type enter the pen, then sacrificial animals satisfy it too — non-sacred animals of the same species enter the pen for tithe. The refutation, stretched to defeat the previous candidate, has been widened until it no longer excludes the very case it was meant to exclude. The inference therefore stands, and the mishna’s verse is genuinely required.
Key Terms:
- בְּמִינָן קָאָמְרַתְּ = you say, of their type? — turning an opponent’s criterion back on him
- קֳדָשִׁים נָמֵי = sacrificial animals too
Segment 15
TYPE: קושיא
The mirror question: should non-sacred animals then owe breast and thigh?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְיִהְיוּ חוּלִּין חַיָּיבִין בְּחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה קָדָשִׁים, שֶׁאֵין חַיָּיבִים בְּמַתָּנוֹת, חַיָּיבִין בְּחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק; חוּלִּין, שֶׁחַיָּיבִין בְּמַתָּנוֹת, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁחַיָּיבִין בְּחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק?
English Translation:
§ The Gemara challenges: And now that it has been established that the obligation of the gifts of the priesthood does not apply to sacrificial animals, non-sacred animals should be obligated to have the breast and thigh given from them by an a fortiori inference: If sacrificial animals, which are not obligated to have gifts of the priesthood given from them, are nevertheless obligated to have the breast and thigh given from them, then with regard to non-sacred animals, which are obligated to have gifts of the priesthood given from them, is it not right that they should be obligated to have the breast and thigh given from them?
קלאוד על הדף:
Having established the exclusion in one direction, the Gemara runs the inference in the other. If sacrificial animals owe breast and thigh despite being exempt from the three gifts, then non-sacred animals, which do owe the gifts, should owe breast and thigh all the more. The symmetry of the argument is exact, and it needs its own answer.
Key Terms:
- וְיִהְיוּ חוּלִּין חַיָּיבִין = and let non-sacred animals be obligated
- אֵינוֹ דִּין = is it not right? — the concluding formula of an a fortiori argument
Segment 16
TYPE: דרשה
The verse says ‘and this shall be the priests’ due’ — this and nothing else.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְזֶה יִהְיֶה מִשְׁפַּט הַכֹּהֲנִים״, ״זֶה״ – אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא – לָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds that the verse states: “And this shall be the priests’ due from the people, from them that perform a slaughter, whether it be an ox or sheep, that they shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw” (Deuteronomy 18:3). The verse indicates that “this,” the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, yes, is given to the priests, but another item, i.e., the breast and thigh, is not given to the priests from non-sacred slaughtered animals.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer is another restrictive word. Devarim 18:3 introduces the gifts with vezeh yihyeh mishpat hakohanim, and this shall be the priests’ due, before naming the foreleg, the jaw and the maw. Zeh, this — yes; anything else — no. Two words in two verses thus fence the two categories apart, otam keeping the gifts out of sacrificial animals and zeh keeping breast and thigh out of non-sacred ones.
Key Terms:
- וְזֶה יִהְיֶה מִשְׁפַּט הַכֹּהֲנִים = and this shall be the priests’ due (Devarim 18:3)
- זֶה אִין מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא לָא = this, yes; anything else, no
Segment 17
TYPE: קושיא
But waving non-sacred breast and thigh is impossible — so why a verse?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״זֶה״, הָא לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה אָמֵינָא חוּלִּין חַיָּיבִין בְּחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק? וְהָא בָּעֵי תְּנוּפָה, הֵיכָא לִינוּפִינְהוּ? אִי אַבָּרַאי – ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ כְּתִיב,
English Translation:
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But this derivation indicates that the reason the giving of the breast and thigh does not apply to non-sacred animals is that the Merciful One writes “this,” from which it may be inferred if not for this, I would say that one is obligated to give the breast and thigh from non-sacred animals. But the procedure for giving the breast and thigh requires waving, and where would one wave the breast and thigh of a non-sacred animal? If it is suggested that one wave them outside the Temple, that cannot be done, as it is written: “That the breast may be waved for a wave offering before the Lord” (Leviticus 7:30), indicating that they must be waved inside the Temple.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara questions whether zeh was needed for that purpose at all. Giving breast and thigh requires tenufa, waving, and a non-sacred animal cannot undergo it. Not outside the Temple, since the verse specifies waving lifnei Hashem, before the Lord. The other half of the impossibility opens 130b.
Key Terms:
- תְּנוּפָה (tenufa) = waving — the ceremony required for the breast and thigh
- לִפְנֵי ה׳ = before the Lord — requiring the Temple precinct
Amud Bet (130b)
Segment 1
TYPE: תירוץ
Nor inside, which would bring non-sacred animals into the courtyard — so it is simply impossible.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי אַגַּוַּאי – קָא מְעַיֵּיל חוּלִּין לָעֲזָרָה, הִלְכָּךְ לָא אֶפְשָׁר.
English Translation:
If it is suggested that they should be waved inside the Temple, that too cannot be correct, because one who waves them inside the Temple thereby brings a non-sacred animal into the Temple courtyard. Therefore, since it is not possible to perform the procedure of giving the breast and thigh with non-sacred animals, it is not necessary for a verse to teach that the giving of the breast and thigh does not apply to such animals.
קלאוד על הדף:
The objection completes. Waving inside the Temple is equally barred, since it would require bringing chullin la’azara, non-sacred animals into the Temple courtyard, which is forbidden. With neither location available the procedure cannot be performed at all, and the Torah does not need a verse to exclude what is already impossible. So zeh must be doing different work.
Key Terms:
- חוּלִּין לָעֲזָרָה = non-sacred animals into the Temple courtyard — forbidden
- לָא אֶפְשָׁר = it is impossible
Segment 2
TYPE: מסקנא
Zeh teaches Rav Chisda’s ruling: one who damages or eats the gifts owes nothing.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא ״זֶה״ לְמָה לִי? לְכִדְרַב חִסְדָּא, דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הַמַּזִּיק מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה אוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלָן – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But if that is so, why do I need the verse to state: “This shall be the priests’ due” (Deuteronomy 18:3)? The Gemara answers: The verse is necessary for that which Rav Chisda taught, as Rav Chisda said: One who causes damage to gifts of the priesthood, or who consumed them before they were given to the priests, is exempt from having to pay to the priest, as the verse states: “This shall be the priests’ due,” which indicates that only the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw themselves, not their replacements, are given to the priests.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara redirects the word to a substantive and surprising ruling. Zeh — this, the foreleg, jaw and maw themselves — teaches that only those specific parts are owed, never a monetary substitute. Rav Chisda draws the consequence: one who damages the gifts or consumes them before handing them over is exempt from paying the kohen anything at all. The obligation attaches to the parts, not to their value.
Key Terms:
- הַמַּזִּיק מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה = one who damages the priestly gifts
- פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם = he is exempt from paying
- רַב חִסְדָּא = Rav Chisda, a Babylonian amora of the third generation
Segment 3
TYPE: גופא
The ruling examined: either from the verse, or because it is money with no claimant.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הַמַּזִּיק מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה, אוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלָן – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. מַאי טַעְמָא? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא דִּכְתִיב ״זֶה״, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ מָמוֹן שֶׁאֵין לוֹ תּוֹבְעִים.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara analyzes the matter itself: Rav Chisda said that one who causes damage to gifts of the priesthood or who consumed them is exempt from having to pay a substitute to the priest. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? If you wish, say that it is because “this” is written in the verse, indicating that only the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw themselves are given to the priests, as explained above. And if you wish, say instead that it is because it is money that has no claimants. Since one may give the gifts to any priest, no single priest can issue a claim on them.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara takes up Rav Chisda’s statement gufa, in its own right, and offers a second possible basis. Beyond the derivation from zeh, the exemption may rest on mamon she’ein lo tov’im — money that has no claimants. Since the owner may give the gifts to whichever kohen he chooses, no individual kohen can establish standing to sue. That reasoning is conceptual rather than exegetical, and the objections that follow test both grounds.
Key Terms:
- מָמוֹן שֶׁאֵין לוֹ תּוֹבְעִים = money that has no claimants — no one with standing to sue
- גּוּפָא (gufa) = the matter itself — returning to examine a cited statement
Segment 4
TYPE: מיתיבי
A baraita reads “mishpat” as judgment — answered as distribution, not extraction.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵיתִיבִי: ״וְזֶה יִהְיֶה מִשְׁפַּט הַכֹּהֲנִים״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַמַּתָּנוֹת דִּין. לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? לָאו לְהוֹצִיאָן בְּדַיָּינִין? לָא, לְחוֹלְקָן בְּדַיָּינִין.
English Translation:
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita. The verse states: “And this shall be the priests’ due [mishpat]” (Deuteronomy 18:3), which teaches that the gifts given to the priests are considered a judgment, as mishpat can mean judgment. The Gemara continues: With regard to what halakha are the gifts a judgment? Is it not with regard to extracting them through judges, i.e., a priest may claim them in court and the court will order the individual to give the gifts to that priest? If so, the gifts are considered to be money that has claimants. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, they are a judgment with regard to distributing them through judges, i.e., the court dictates to the owner to which type of priests he should give the gifts.
קלאוד על הדף:
The first objection turns on the word mishpat in the same verse, which can mean a legal judgment as well as a due. A baraita reads it to mean the gifts are a matter of din, court business — which would imply a kohen can sue for them and that they do have claimants. The Gemara answers that the courts are involved in distributing the gifts, directing to which kohanim they should go, not in extracting them for any particular claimant.
Key Terms:
- מִשְׁפָּט (mishpat) = a due, or a judgment — the ambiguity the baraita exploits
- לְהוֹצִיאָן / לְחוֹלְקָן בְּדַיָּינִין = to extract them / to distribute them through judges
Segment 5
TYPE: מימרא
Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani: the gifts are not given to an unlearned kohen.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכִדְרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי, דְּאָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין נוֹתְנִין מַתָּנָה לְכֹהֵן עַם הָאָרֶץ? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר לָעָם לְיוֹשְׁבֵי יְרוּשָׁלִַם לָתֵת מְנָת לַכֹּהֲנִים וְלַלְוִיִּם לְמַעַן יֶחֶזְקוּ בְּתוֹרַת ה׳״, כׇּל הַמַּחְזִיק בְּתוֹרַת ה׳ – יֵשׁ לוֹ מְנָת, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מַחֲזִיק בְּתוֹרַת ה׳ – אֵין לוֹ מְנָת.
English Translation:
And this is in accordance with that which Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani taught, as Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: From where is it derived that one does not give a gift of the priesthood to a priest who is an am ha’aretz? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “And he commanded the people who dwelled in Jerusalem to give the portion of the priests and of the Levites, so that they may firmly adhere to the Torah of the Lord” (II Chronicles 31:4). This indicates that anyone who firmly adheres to the Torah of the Lord has a portion, and one who does not firmly adhere to the Torah of the Lord does not have a portion.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer is supported by a related ruling that shows courts genuinely do supervise distribution. Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani in the name of Rabbi Yonatan derives from II Divrei HaYamim 31:4 — where the portion was given to the kohanim and Levites so that they may hold fast to the Torah of the Lord — that one does not give the gifts to a kohen who is an am ha’aretz, one who does not engage with Torah study. Whoever holds fast to the Torah has a portion; whoever does not, does not. The gifts are tied to the function they support.
Key Terms:
- עַם הָאָרֶץ = an unlearned person, one who does not engage in Torah study
- לְמַעַן יֶחֶזְקוּ בְּתוֹרַת ה׳ = so that they may hold fast to the Torah of the Lord
- מְנָת (menat) = a portion
Segment 6
TYPE: תא שמע
Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira presses the same word harder.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא אוֹמֵר: ״מִשְׁפָּט״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַמַּתָּנוֹת דִּין. יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק דִּין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״זֶה״.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof with regard to the statement of Rav Chisda from a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says that the phrase “And this shall be the priests’ due” teaches that the gifts of the priesthood are a judgment. One might have thought that the gifts of the breast and thigh are also a judgment. Therefore, the verse states: “This,” to teach that only the gifts of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw are called a judgment.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second objection comes from Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, who reads mishpat as establishing that the gifts are a judgment and then uses zeh to exclude breast and thigh from that status. The structure of his derivation implies that the gifts really are subject to court extraction, since otherwise there would be nothing for zeh to exclude.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא = a tanna of the era before the destruction of the Temple
- יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ = one might have thought even — introducing an overbroad reading
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
His derivation only works if “judgment” means extraction.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְמַאי? אִילֵימָא לְחוֹלְקוֹ בְּדַיָּינִין – אַטּוּ חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק לָאו בְּדַיָּינִין מִיחַלְּקוּ? אֶלָּא לָאו לְהוֹצִיאוֹ בְּדַיָּינִין.
English Translation:
The Gemara analyzes this baraita: With regard to what matter is this halakha stated? If we say that it is with regard to distributing them through judges, is that to say that the breast and thigh are not distributed through judges? These are also called a “portion” (II Chronicles 31:4), and therefore the court determines to which priests they should be given, as stated above. Rather, is it not stated with regard to extracting them through judges? If so, one can infer from the baraita that gifts of the priesthood can be extracted in court by a priest, which contradicts the statement of Rav Chisda.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara spells out why the objection bites. If mishpat meant only distribution, the exclusion of breast and thigh would be pointless, since those are distributed by courts as well. So Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira must mean extraction — and that contradicts Rav Chisda directly.
Key Terms:
- אַטּוּ חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק לָאו בְּדַיָּינִין מִיחַלְּקוּ = are the breast and thigh not distributed through judges?
- אֶלָּא לָאו = rather, is it not — forcing the remaining reading
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ
The baraita concerns gifts already in the kohen’s hand while still untithed.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, דַּאֲתוֹ לִידֵיהּ. אִי דַּאֲתוֹ לִידֵיהּ, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? דַּאֲתוֹ לִידֵיהּ בְּטִבְלַיְיהוּ, וְקָסָבַר הַאי תַּנָּא: מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמוּ – כְּמִי שֶׁהוּרְמוּ דָּמְיָין.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: Here, we are dealing with a case where the gifts already came into the priest’s possession, and the owner stole them from him. The baraita teaches that the priest may claim them in court and the court will order that they be returned to him. The Gemara asks: If this is a case where they came into his possession, what is the purpose of stating that the priest may claim them in court? That is obvious, as they already belong to him. The Gemara responds: The baraita is referring to a case where they came into his possession while they were still untithed, i.e., the priest received the entire animal before the gifts were separated, and this tanna holds that gifts that have not been separated are considered as though they have been separated. Accordingly, the gifts belong to the priest, and if the owner takes them from him against his will it is considered theft.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara answers by narrowing the baraita’s case. It speaks of gifts that had already reached the kohen’s possession while the animal was still b’tivlaihu, untithed — the whole animal handed over before the parts were separated. That tanna holds matanot shelo hurmu k’mi shehurmu damyan, gifts not yet separated are treated as though already separated, so the parts were legally the kohen’s from the moment he received the animal. Taking them back is theft, and a court will order their return — which says nothing about a kohen suing for gifts he never held.
Key Terms:
- בְּטִבְלַיְיהוּ (b’tivlaihu) = in their untithed state — before the gifts were separated
- מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמוּ כְּמִי שֶׁהוּרְמוּ = gifts not separated are as though separated
Segment 9
TYPE: תא שמע
A third objection from the mishna in Pe’a: the traveler who takes gifts of the poor.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁהָיָה עוֹבֵר מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם, וְצָרִיךְ לִיטּוֹל לֶקֶט, שִׁכְחָה, וּפֵאָה, וּמַעְשַׂר עָנִי – נוֹטֵל, וְלִכְשֶׁיַּחְזוֹר יְשַׁלֵּם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof with regard to the statement of Rav Chisda from a mishna (Pe’a 5:4): In the case of a homeowner who was passing from place to place, and he ran out of money while traveling and needs to take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, pe’a, or the poor man’s tithe in order to sustain himself, he may take them, and when he returns to his house he will pay a poor person for whatever he took; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. The mishna teaches that a poor person may extract payment for that which the homeowner took, despite the fact that he never had possession of the gifts. This ruling apparently contradicts the statement of Rav Chisda.
קלאוד על הדף:
The third challenge comes from an entirely different area of law. A mishna in Pe’a rules that a homeowner traveling who runs out of funds may take leket, shichecha, pe’a and ma’aser ani, the agricultural gifts left for the poor — and Rabbi Eliezer holds that when he returns home he must repay. If the poor can claim repayment for gifts they never possessed, the same should hold for kohanim and the priestly gifts.
Key Terms:
- לֶקֶט שִׁכְחָה וּפֵאָה = gleanings, forgotten sheaves and the corner of the field — gifts to the poor
- מַעְשַׂר עָנִי = the poor man’s tithe
Segment 10
TYPE: תירוץ ודחייה
Rav Chisda calls it a measure of piety; Rava is incredulous.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מִדַּת חֲסִידוּת שָׁנוּ כָּאן. אָמַר רָבָא: תַּנָּא תָּנֵי ״יְשַׁלֵּם״, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ מִדַּת חֲסִידוּת שָׁנוּ כָּאן?! וְעוֹד, מִדְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לֵיקוּם וְלֹיתֵוב?
English Translation:
Rav Chisda said: The mishna taught an attribute of piety here, i.e., strictly speaking a poor person has no right to claim any amount from the homeowner for what he took. Rava said in bewilderment: The tanna taught explicitly that he will pay, and you say that he taught an attribute of piety here? And furthermore, should one arise and raise an objection from the statement of Rabbi Eliezer? The halakha is not in accordance with his opinion.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Chisda answers that the mishna teaches middat chasidut, a measure of piety rather than strict law — the traveler is not legally liable, only encouraged to repay. Rava objects with unusual sharpness on two counts: the tanna used the plain word yeshalem, he shall pay, which is the language of obligation and not of pious counsel; and in any case Rabbi Eliezer’s view is not the accepted halacha, so why raise an objection from it at all. Both points are fair, and the Gemara accepts the second by restating the challenge.
Key Terms:
- מִדַּת חֲסִידוּת = a measure of piety — conduct beyond the letter of the law
- יְשַׁלֵּם (yeshalem) = he shall pay — the language of legal obligation
- לֵיקוּם וְלֹיתֵוב = should one arise and object — from a view that is not the halacha
Segment 11
TYPE: קושיא
Restated from the Rabbis’ clause: a wealthy man would have to pay.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא מִסֵּיפָא, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: עָנִי הָיָה בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה, טַעְמָא דְּעָנִי, הָא עָשִׁיר – מְשַׁלֵּם.
English Translation:
Rather, the objection is from the latter clause of the mishna: And the Rabbis say that the homeowner is not required to pay for what he took during his travels, as he was considered poor at that time. It may be inferred that the reason he is exempt from payment is only that he was considered poor at the time, but if he were considered wealthy, he would have to pay the poor people who issue a claim against him in court, as he was not entitled to those gifts.
קלאוד על הדף:
The objection is rebuilt on firmer ground. The Rabbis in that mishna exempt the traveler because he was poor at that time — and that reasoning implies that a man who was wealthy would indeed have to repay. Since the Rabbis are the accepted view, Rava’s second objection is answered and the challenge to Rav Chisda now stands on authoritative footing.
Key Terms:
- עָנִי הָיָה בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה = he was poor at that time
- הָא עָשִׁיר מְשַׁלֵּם = but a wealthy man pays — the implied contrast
Segment 12
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Chisda gives the same answer again: a measure of piety.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַמַּאי? לֶיהֱוֵי כְּמַזִּיק מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה אוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלָן! אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מִדַּת חֲסִידוּת שָׁנוּ כָּאן.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains the objection: But why must he pay? Let it be considered like a case where one causes damage to gifts of the priesthood or consumes them, with regard to which Rav Chisda states that he is not required to pay the priest. The opinion of the Rabbis apparently contradicts the statement of Rav Chisda. Rav Chisda says: Even if the homeowner was considered wealthy at the time he is not required to pay, and the Rabbis who obligated him to pay taught an attribute of piety here.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Chisda holds his ground and applies the identical answer to the Rabbis’ clause. Even a wealthy traveler bears no legal liability; the repayment the Rabbis contemplate is pious conduct rather than an enforceable debt. That he invokes middat chasidut twice, after Rava has already challenged the move once, marks how much weight the principle carries in his system.
Key Terms:
- אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא = Rav Chisda said — repeating his resolution
- שָׁנוּ כָּאן = they taught here — identifying the register of a ruling
Segment 13
TYPE: תא שמע
A fourth objection: one who eats his own untithed produce is exempt.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: מִנַּיִן לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁאָכַל פֵּירוֹתָיו טְבָלִין, וְכֵן לֵוִי שֶׁאָכַל מַעְשְׂרוֹתָיו טְבָלִים, מִנַּיִן שֶׁפָּטוּר מִן הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת קׇדְשֵׁי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יָרִימוּ״ – אֵין לְךָ בָּהֶן אֶלָּא מִשְּׁעַת הֲרָמָה וְאֵילָךְ.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to a homeowner who consumed his produce while it was untithed, i.e., neither teruma nor the first tithe had been separated, and similarly, with regard to a Levite who consumed his tithes while they were untithed, i.e., teruma of the tithe had not been separated, from where is it derived that he is exempt from payment? The verse states: “And they shall not profane the sacred things of the children of Israel, which they set apart to the Lord” (Leviticus 22:15). This teaches that you, the priest, have rights to them only from the time of separation onward. Since the produce was eaten before teruma was separated from it, the priest cannot claim payment for it in court.
קלאוד על הדף:
The final challenge comes from a baraita about untithed produce. A homeowner who ate his own produce before separating teruma and tithes, or a Levite who ate his tithes before separating terumat ma’aser, is exempt from payment — derived from Vayikra 22:15, which speaks of the sacred things which they set apart, teaching that the kohen has rights only from the moment of separation onward.
Key Terms:
- טֶבֶל (tevel) = untithed produce, from which the required portions have not been separated
- מִשְּׁעַת הֲרָמָה וְאֵילָךְ = from the time of separation onward
Segment 14
TYPE: קושיא
But after separation he would pay — and the daf breaks off mid-answer.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָא מִשְּׁעַת הֲרָמָה וְאֵילָךְ מִיהָא מְשַׁלֵּם, אַמַּאי? לֶיהֱוֵי כְּמַזִּיק מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה אוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלָן! הָכָא נָמֵי
English Translation:
The Gemara infers from this ruling: This indicates that if it was consumed from the time of separation onward, the priest may in any event claim payment for the teruma in court, and the one who consumed it must pay. But why must one pay? Let it be like a case where one causes damage to gifts of the priesthood or consumes them, with regard to which Rav Chisda states that he is exempt from payment. The Gemara responds: Here too,
קלאוד על הדף:
The objection is drawn out: if the exemption applies only before separation, then after separation the kohen evidently can claim payment in court — which is precisely the case Rav Chisda exempts. The Gemara begins its reply with hacha nami, here too, and the page ends before the answer is given. The resolution appears on 131a.
Key Terms:
- הָכָא נָמֵי = here too — the opening of an answer the daf leaves unfinished
- מְשַׁלֵּם (meshalem) = he pays