Chullin Daf 132 (חולין דף קל״ב)
Daf: 132 | Amudim: 132a – 132b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (132a)
Segment 1
TYPE: תירוץ
Ulla answers Rav Sheshet from his own objection: the meal offering proves the opposite.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִטּוּנָךְ: ״אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו״ כְּתוּבִין בַּפָּרָשָׁה.
English Translation:
from your burden [mitunakh], i.e., from that which you raise your objection, I can cite a proof for my practice: With regard to the meal offering of a priest, both Aaron and his sons are written in the passage discussing this offering: “And this is the law of the meal offering: The sons of Aaron shall offer it before the Lord, in front of the altar” (Leviticus 6:7). The verse emphasizes that these halakhot apply only to male priests and not to their daughters. This indicates that when the verse refers merely to priests, even their daughters are included. Accordingly, one may give gifts of the priesthood to the daughter of a priest.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ulla turns the objection back on its author — mitunakh, from your own burden. Rav Sheshet had challenged Ulla’s practice of giving gifts to a kohenet, and Ulla replies from the meal offering of a priest, where the Torah troubles itself to write both Aharon and his sons (Vayikra 6:7). If an unqualified mention of kohanim already excluded daughters, that specification would be wasted. The very need to say ‘Aharon and his sons’ where daughters are meant to be excluded proves that a bare reference to kohanim includes them.
Key Terms:
- מִטּוּנָךְ (mitunakh) = from your own burden — an answer drawn from the questioner’s own proof
- כֹּהֶנֶת (kohenet) = the daughter of a priest
- מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן = the meal offering of a priest, entirely burned rather than eaten
Segment 2
TYPE: ברייתא
The school of Rabbi Yishmael: a bare ‘kohen’ excludes the daughter.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תָּנָא: ״כֹּהֵן״ – וְלֹא כֹּהֶנֶת, וְיִלְמוֹד סָתוּם מִן הַמְפוֹרָשׁ.
English Translation:
The Gemara cites the opinions of various tanna’im with regard to the practice of Ulla: The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Anywhere that the Torah mentions a priest with regard to gifts of the priesthood, it is referring specifically to a priest and not a female priest, and let one derive the meaning of an unspecified reference to a priest from the explicit verse that states with regard to meal offerings: “Aaron and his sons.” This verse indicates that any reference to a priest excludes a priest’s daughter.
קלאוד על הדף:
The school of Rabbi Yishmael reads the evidence in exactly the opposite direction from Ulla. Wherever the Torah says kohen regarding the gifts it means a male priest and not a kohenet, and the explicit case of the meal offering is the key that unlocks every unspecified case — yilmod satum min hameforash, let the ambiguous be derived from the explicit. This is a standard hermeneutical move, and here it yields a ruling directly against Ulla’s practice.
Key Terms:
- סָתוּם (satum) = an unspecified or ambiguous verse
- מְפוֹרָשׁ (meforash) = an explicit verse, used to interpret the ambiguous one
Segment 3
TYPE: ברייתא
The school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov: two exclusions amplify and include the kohenet.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּבֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב תָּנָא: ״כֹּהֵן״, וַאֲפִילּוּ כֹּהֶנֶת – הָוֵי מִיעוּט אַחַר מִיעוּט, וְאֵין מִיעוּט אַחַר מִיעוּט אֶלָּא לְרַבּוֹת.
English Translation:
The school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov taught: In general, the reference to a priest in a verse serves to exclude a priest’s daughter. But when the verse mentions a priest with regard to gifts of the priesthood, it means to include even a female priest. This is because the verse mentions priests twice: “And this shall be the priests’ due from the people, from them that perform a slaughter, whether it be ox or sheep, that they shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw” (Deuteronomy 18:3). Since each reference to a priest excludes the daughter of a priest, this verse is a case of a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression, and there is a hermeneutical principle that a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression serves only to amplify the halakha and include additional cases, in this instance, the daughter of a priest.
קלאוד על הדף:
The school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov supports Ulla by counting words. Devarim 18:3 mentions kohanim twice — ‘the priests’ due’ and ‘they shall give to the priest’ — and since each mention on its own would exclude a daughter, the verse is a miut achar miut, a restriction following a restriction. The established rule is that such doubling does not restrict twice over but amplifies, so the second exclusion cancels the first and the kohenet is brought back in. Ulla now has a tannaitic source on each side of him, and the Gemara will shortly rule in his favour.
Key Terms:
- מִיעוּט אַחַר מִיעוּט = a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression
- אֵין מִיעוּט אַחַר מִיעוּט אֶלָּא לְרַבּוֹת = the principle that such doubling serves to include, not to exclude
Segment 4
TYPE: מעשה
Four Amoraim, all Israelites, ate the gifts through their wives.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב כָּהֲנָא אָכַל בִּשְׁבִיל אִשְׁתּוֹ, רַב פָּפָּא אָכַל בִּשְׁבִיל אִשְׁתּוֹ, רַב יֵימַר אָכַל בִּשְׁבִיל אִשְׁתּוֹ, רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין אָכַל בִּשְׁבִיל אִשְׁתּוֹ.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates that Rav Kahana, who was an Israelite, partook of gifts of the priesthood on account of his wife, who was the daughter of a priest. Similarly, Rav Pappa partook of gifts of the priesthood on account of his wife, Rav Yeimar partook of gifts on account of his wife, and Rav Idi bar Avin partook of them on account of his wife.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara turns from argument to practice, and the practice is unanimous. Rav Kahana, Rav Pappa, Rav Yeimar and Rav Idi bar Avin were all Israelites married to daughters of priests, and all four ate the priestly gifts bishvil ishto, on account of the wife. The repetition of the identical phrase four times is the point: this was not one sage’s idiosyncrasy but settled behaviour among the leading Amoraim, and it presupposes Ulla’s ruling that a kohenet retains her claim to the gifts even when married to an Israelite.
Key Terms:
- בִּשְׁבִיל אִשְׁתּוֹ (bishvil ishto) = on account of his wife — eating by virtue of her priestly descent
Segment 5
TYPE: הלכה
Mareimar’s ruling: the halacha follows Rav, Rav Chisda, and Ulla.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבִינָא: אֲמַר לִי מָרִימָר, הִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב, וְהִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא, וְהִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּעוּלָּא.
English Translation:
Ravina said: Mareimar said to me that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav that it is uncertain whether or not Levites are obligated to give the gifts of the priesthood, and consequently, gifts are not removed from their possession to be given to the priests. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥisda that one who damages or consumes gifts of the priesthood is exempt from payment. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ulla that gifts of the priesthood may be given to the daughter of a priest.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ravina transmits Mareimar’s threefold ruling, which closes the sugyot that have run since daf 130. The halacha follows Rav, so the status of Levites remains in doubt and the court does not extract the gifts from them; it follows Rav Chisda, so one who damages or consumes the gifts pays nothing; and it follows Ulla, so the gifts may be given to a kohenet. The third ruling vindicates both Ulla’s practice and the four Amoraim of the previous segment.
Key Terms:
- הִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ = the halacha is in accordance with him
Segment 6
TYPE: הלכה
A fourth ruling: the son of a Levite woman is exempt from pidyon haben.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: לְוִיָּה שֶׁיָּלְדָה – בְּנָהּ פָּטוּר מֵחֲמֵשׁ סְלָעִים.
English Translation:
And in a case not previously discussed but related to the opinion of Ulla, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Adda bar Ahava with regard to a female Levite, i.e., the daughter of a Levite, who gave birth to a firstborn boy, even if she is married to an Israelite, that her son is exempt from the obligation to give five sela to the priest for his redemption, as the child is considered the son of a Levite, and Levites are exempt from this obligation.
קלאוד על הדף:
Mareimar adds a fourth ruling that rides on the same principle as the third. Rav Adda bar Ahava held that a leviyah, a Levite’s daughter, who bears a firstborn son is exempt from the five sela of redemption even when her husband is an Israelite. The logic mirrors Ulla exactly: priestly and Levitical standing pass through the mother for these purposes and are not extinguished by marriage out. Having accepted that a kohenet keeps her gifts, the Gemara accepts that a leviyah keeps her exemption.
Key Terms:
- לְוִיָּה (leviyah) = the daughter of a Levite
- חֲמֵשׁ סְלָעִים = the five sela given to a priest to redeem a firstborn son
Segment 7
TYPE: ברייתא
A new sugya: do the gifts apply to a hybrid animal and to the koy?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַזְּרוֹעַ וְהַלְּחָיַיִם וְהַקֵּבָה נוֹהֲגִים בְּכִלְאַיִם וּבְכוֹי. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: כִּלְאַיִם הַבָּא מִן הָעֵז וּמִן הָרָחֵל – חַיָּיב בְּמַתָּנוֹת, מִן הַתַּיִישׁ וּמִן הַצְּבִיָּיה – פָּטוּר מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara cites a dispute with regard to the gifts of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw. The Sages taught in a baraita: The obligation to give the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw applies even to a hybrid animal and to the animal known as a koy. Rabbi Eliezer says: A hybrid that results from the mating of a goat and a ewe is obligated to have gifts of the priesthood given from it, while a hybrid that results from the mating of a goat and a doe is exempt from having gifts of the priesthood given from it. This is because the verse states with regard to gifts of the priesthood: “Whether it be an ox or sheep” (Deuteronomy 18:3), i.e., a domesticated animal, and a doe is not a domesticated animal.
קלאוד על הדף:
A fresh topic opens, running to the end of the amud. The Rabbis hold that the foreleg, jaw and maw are given from a kilayim and from a koy alike. Rabbi Eliezer distinguishes: a hybrid of goat and ewe is obligated, since both parents are domesticated, but a hybrid of goat and doe is exempt, because the verse specifies ‘ox or sheep’ and a doe is a wild animal. The dispute will turn on whether an animal that is only partly a sheep counts as a sheep at all.
Key Terms:
- כִּלְאַיִם (kilayim) = a hybrid, the offspring of two different species
- כּוֹי (koy) = an animal of doubtful status, possibly domesticated and possibly wild
- צְבִיָּיה (tzeviyah) = a doe — a wild animal, whose offspring is not simply a sheep
Segment 8
TYPE: הקדמה
Framing the dispute: both sides are uncertain about paternity.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִכְּדֵי קַיְימָא לַן דִּלְעִנְיַן כִּסּוּי הַדָּם וּמַתָּנוֹת לָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לֵיהּ אֶלָּא בִּצְבִי הַבָּא עַל הַתְּיָישָׁה, וּבֵין לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֵּין לְרַבָּנַן מְסַפְּקָא לְהוּ אִי חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְזֶרַע הָאָב, אִי אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Now, we maintain (see 79b–80a) with regard to the mitzvot of covering the blood and giving the gifts of the priesthood that you do not find that Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree except in the case of an animal born from a deer that mates with a female goat. And both Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis are uncertain whether one needs to be concerned with its paternity when determining the species of a hybrid animal, which would mean that this animal is part domesticated and part undomesticated, or whether one does not need to be concerned with paternity and the species of an animal is determined entirely by the species of its mother, in which case it is a domesticated animal.
קלאוד על הדף:
Before pressing its question the Gemara fixes the terms established back on 79b-80a. The only case in which Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis actually differ over both covering the blood and the gifts is a deer that mates with a female goat. And crucially, neither side knows whether choshshin l’zera ha’av, whether paternity determines species. Both are in genuine doubt, so the disagreement cannot be about that; it must lie elsewhere.
Key Terms:
- חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְזֶרַע הָאָב = we are concerned for the seed of the father — paternity affects the offspring’s species
- כִּסּוּי הַדָּם = covering the blood, required for a wild animal but not a domesticated one
Segment 9
TYPE: הסבר
The real dispute: is a partial sheep a sheep?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּבְשֶׂה וַאֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת שֶׂה קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר: ״שֶׂה״ – וַאֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת שֶׂה, וּמָר סָבַר: ״שֶׂה״ וַאֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת שֶׂה לָא אָמְרִינַן.
English Translation:
And they disagree with regard to whether the obligation of the gifts applies to a sheep and even an animal that is partially a sheep, i.e., partially domesticated. One Sage, the Rabbis, holds that the obligation applies to a sheep and even an animal that is partially a sheep; and one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that we do not say that the obligation applies to a sheep and even an animal that is partially a sheep.
קלאוד על הדף:
With paternity set aside as a shared uncertainty, the Gemara locates the true disagreement. The Rabbis hold seh va’afilu miktzat seh — the verse’s ‘sheep’ covers even an animal that is only partly a sheep. Rabbi Eliezer denies it: ‘sheep’ means a sheep. The dispute is therefore about the reach of a single word rather than about zoology.
Key Terms:
- מִקְצָת שֶׂה (miktzat seh) = partially a sheep — an animal only half of whose parentage is domesticated
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
If the Rabbis obligate, why not only half? Rav Huna bar Chiyya: indeed only half.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דְּפָטַר, קָסָבַר ״שֶׂה״ וְלֹא מִקְצָת שֶׂה, אֶלָּא לְרַבָּנַן, נְהִי נָמֵי דְּקָסָבְרִי ״שֶׂה״ וַאֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת שֶׂה, פַּלְגָא לִשְׁקוֹל, וְאִידָּךְ פַּלְגָא לֵימָא לֵיהּ: אַיְיתִי רְאָיָה דְּאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְזֶרַע הָאָב וּשְׁקוֹל! אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִיָּיא: מַאי חַיָּיב נָמֵי דְּקָא אָמַר – חַיָּיב בַּחֲצִי מַתָּנוֹת.
English Translation:
The Gemara concludes its question: Granted, it is understandable that Rabbi Eliezer deems the owner of a hybrid exempt from the mitzva to give the priestly gifts, as he holds that only in the case of a sheep is one obligated to give gifts of the priesthood, but not with regard to animals that are only partially sheep. But according to the opinion of the Rabbis, though indeed they hold that sheep and even animals that are partially sheep are subject to the obligation of giving gifts of the priesthood, let the priest take only half of the gifts. And with regard to the other half, let the owner of the animal say to him: Bring proof that one need not be concerned with its paternity and then you may take the other half. Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya said in response: What do the Rabbis mean when they say that the owner of this animal is obligated? They mean that he is obligated in half of the gifts.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses the Rabbis’ position. Rabbi Eliezer is coherent — no partial sheep, no gift. But if the Rabbis really obligate a half-sheep, the priest should be able to claim only the half that is certainly obligated, while for the other half the owner may invoke hamotzi mechavero alav hara’ayah and demand proof that paternity is irrelevant. Rav Huna bar Chiyya resolves it by narrowing the claim: when the Rabbis say ‘obligated’ they mean obligated in half the gifts, not all of them.
Key Terms:
- חֲצִי מַתָּנוֹת = half of the gifts — the portion whose obligation is certain
- אַיְיתִי רְאָיָה (ayti ra’ayah) = bring proof — the burden lies on the one who would extract
Segment 11
TYPE: מתיב
Rabbi Zeira objects from the baraita on the koy’s threefold status.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵתִיב רַבִּי זֵירָא: כּוֹי – יֵשׁ בּוֹ דְּרָכִים שָׁוִין לַבְּהֵמָה, וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ דְּרָכִים שָׁוִין לַחַיָּה, וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ דְּרָכִים שָׁוִין לַחַיָּה וְלַבְּהֵמָה.
English Translation:
Rabbi Zeira raises an objection to this response from a baraita: In the case of a koy, with regard to which it is uncertain whether it is a domesticated animal or an undomesticated one, there are ways in which its halakhot correspond to those of a domesticated animal, and there are ways in which its halakhot correspond to those of an undomesticated animal. And there are ways in which its halakhot correspond to those of both an undomesticated animal and a domesticated animal.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Zeira challenges Rav Huna bar Chiyya from a baraita that catalogues the koy. Because its status as domesticated or wild is genuinely unresolved, its halachot fall into three classes: those matching a domesticated animal, those matching a wild one, and those it shares with both. The objection will come from where the gifts are placed within that scheme.
Key Terms:
- דְּרָכִים שָׁוִין = ways in which its laws correspond to another category
Segment 12
TYPE: ברייתא
The baraita’s details: fat forbidden, blood covered, and the gifts obligated.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כֵּיצַד? חֶלְבּוֹ אָסוּר כַּחֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה, וְדָמוֹ חַיָּיב לְכַסּוֹת כְּדַם הַחַיָּה, דְּרָכִים שָׁוִין לַבְּהֵמָה וְלַחַיָּה – שֶׁדָּמוֹ וְגִידוֹ אֲסוּרִין כִּבְהֵמָה וְחַיָּה, וְחַיָּיב בִּזְרוֹעַ וּלְחָיַיִם וְהַקֵּבָה, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹטֵר.
English Translation:
The baraita elaborates: How so? Its fat is forbidden like the forbidden fat of a domesticated animal, unlike that of an undomesticated one. And one is obligated to cover its blood from slaughter with dirt, like the blood of an undomesticated animal. And there are ways in which its halakhot correspond to both those of a domesticated animal and an undomesticated animal, as its blood and its sciatic nerve are forbidden like those of a domesticated animal and an undomesticated animal. And its owner is obligated to give the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw from it to the priest, as in the case of domesticated animals. And Rabbi Eliezer deems the owner of a koy exempt from the mitzva to give the gifts.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita fills in its own categories. The koy’s fat is forbidden as if it were domesticated; its blood must be covered as if it were wild; and its blood and sciatic nerve are forbidden on either accounting. Then the crucial clause: it is obligated in the foreleg, jaw and maw, with Rabbi Eliezer exempting. The baraita states the obligation flatly, with no fraction.
Key Terms:
- חֵלֶב (chelev) = forbidden fat, prohibited in domesticated animals only
- גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה = the sciatic nerve, forbidden in both categories
Segment 13
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Why did the baraita not say ‘half’? Because of the clauses that admit no halves.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִם אִיתָא, חַיָּיב בַּחֲצִי מַתָּנוֹת מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא חֶלְבּוֹ וְדָמוֹ, דְּלָא מִתְּנֵי ״חֲצִי״ ״חֲצִי״, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי לָא קָא תָנֵי ״חֲצִי״.
English Translation:
Rabbi Zeira asks: And if it is so that the Rabbis mean that the owner of a koy is obligated to give half of the gifts, then the baraita should have said that he is obligated to give half of the gifts from it. The Gemara responds: Since the tanna taught that its fat and its blood are forbidden, with regard to which it could not teach that half of its blood or half of its fat are forbidden, as it is impossible that half of it is forbidden while the other half is permitted, due to that reason the tanna did not teach that the owner of a koy is obligated in half of the gifts.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Zeira drives the objection home: if the obligation is really only half, the baraita should have said so. The Gemara answers stylistically rather than substantively. The same clause had already taught that the koy’s fat and blood are forbidden, and those are all-or-nothing prohibitions — one cannot forbid half a quantity of blood. Having set a pattern with no fractions in it, the tanna did not introduce one for the gifts alone.
Key Terms:
- אַיְּידֵי (ayidi) = since, on account of — a stylistic explanation for a tanna’s wording
Segment 14
TYPE: מימרא
Rabbi Yochanan: the koy is obligated in all the gifts, from a doubled verse.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כּוֹי לְרַבָּנַן חַיָּיב בְּכוּלְּהוּ מַתָּנוֹת, דְּתַנְיָא: ״שׁוֹר״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִם שׁוֹר״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַכִּלְאַיִם. ״שֶׂה״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִם שֶׂה״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַכּוֹי.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates that when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: According to the Rabbis, a koy is obligated to have all of the gifts of the priesthood given from it. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the gifts of the priesthood: “Whether it be an ox or sheep” (Deuteronomy 18:3). Since the verse needed to state only “ox,” why must the verse state: “Whether it be an ox”? This phrase serves to include a hybrid in the obligation to give the gifts of the priesthood. And since the verse needed to state only “sheep,” why must the verse state: “Or sheep”? This phrase serves to include the koy in the obligation to give the gifts.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ravin brings Rabbi Yochanan from Eretz Yisrael with a different answer altogether: according to the Rabbis the koy owes all the gifts, not half. The proof is exegetical. Devarim 18:3 could have said simply ‘ox’ and ‘sheep’, but says im shor and im seh; the superfluous im in the first includes the hybrid and in the second includes the koy. Full inclusion by verse, not partial inclusion by doubt.
Key Terms:
- אִם שׁוֹר / אִם שֶׂה = ‘whether an ox’ / ‘or a sheep’ — the extra word is read as an amplification
Segment 15
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
What does Rabbi Eliezer do with ‘im’? He needs it to separate ox from sheep.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הַאי ״אִם״ לְמָה לִי? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְחַלֵּק. וְרַבָּנַן, לְחַלֵּק מְנָא לְהוּ? נָפְקָא לְהוּ מֵ״אֵת זוֹבְחֵי הַזֶּבַח״.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who deems the owners of a koy and the offspring of a hybrid exempt from giving gifts of the priesthood from these animals, why do I need this phrase: “Whether it be an ox or sheep”? The Gemara responds: He requires it to divide between an ox and a sheep, indicating that one is obligated with regard to either animal alone. Were it not for this phrase, one might have concluded that he is obligated to give the gifts only after slaughtering both an ox and a sheep. The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, who derive other halakhot from this phrase, from where do they derive to divide between an ox and a sheep? The Gemara responds: They derive it from the phrase: “From them that perform a slaughter” (Deuteronomy 18:3), which indicates that the obligation to give the gifts applies even to one animal.
קלאוד על הדף:
If the Rabbis spend the two instances of im on the hybrid and the koy, Rabbi Eliezer must account for them otherwise, and the Gemara supplies it: he needs the word lechalek, to divide, so that one is liable for slaughtering an ox alone or a sheep alone rather than only both together. The Rabbis, having used im elsewhere, derive that division instead from ‘from them that perform a slaughter’.
Key Terms:
- לְחַלֵּק (lechalek) = to divide — to establish that each animal obligates independently
Segment 16
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
And Rabbi Eliezer’s use of ‘those who slaughter’: Rava’s ruling on the butcher.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הַאי ״מֵאֵת זוֹבְחֵי הַזֶּבַח״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרָבָא, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: הַדִּין עִם הַטַּבָּח.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Eliezer, what does he do with this phrase: “From them that perform a slaughter,” i.e., what does he derive from it? The Gemara responds: He requires it for a statement of Rava, as Rava said: If a priest seeks to claim gifts of the priesthood in court, the priest issues his demand with the butcher, even if the animal itself belongs to another individual.
קלאוד על הדף:
The symmetry is completed. Since Rabbi Eliezer has spent im on dividing ox from sheep, the phrase ‘from them that perform a slaughter’ is free for him, and he applies it to Rava’s ruling that hadin im hataba — the priest’s claim lies against the butcher, not the owner. Every word is now assigned on both readings, and this ruling will return on 132b as the key to the mishna’s wording.
Key Terms:
- הַדִּין עִם הַטַּבָּח = the claim is with the butcher — he bears the obligation to give
Segment 17
TYPE: משנה
A blemished firstborn mixed into a hundred: how the exemption is distributed.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ בְּכוֹר שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּמֵאָה, בִּזְמַן שֶׁמֵּאָה שׁוֹחֲטִין אֶת כּוּלָּן – פּוֹטְרִים אֶת כּוּלָּן, אֶחָד שׁוֹחֵט אֶת כּוּלָּן – פּוֹטְרִים לוֹ אֶחָד.
English Translation:
MISHNA: With regard to a blemished firstborn animal, which one may slaughter and eat without being required to give the foreleg, jaw, and maw to the priest, that was intermingled with one hundred non-sacred animals, from which one is required to give those gifts, in a case when one hundred different people slaughter all of them, each slaughtering one animal, one exempts them all from giving the gifts, as each could claim that the animal that he slaughtered was the firstborn. If one person slaughtered them all, one exempts one of the animals for him.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new mishna opens the final section of the perek. A blemished firstborn carries no obligation of gifts, so when one is lost among a hundred ordinary animals each slaughterer can plead that his was the firstborn. If a hundred different people each slaughter one, all hundred are exempt, since every one of them holds a valid uncertainty. But if a single person slaughters all hundred, he can claim the exemption once only — one animal among his hundred goes free and the remaining ninety-nine owe their gifts.
Key Terms:
- בְּכוֹר (bechor) = a firstborn animal, which once blemished may be eaten without giving the gifts
- נִתְעָרֵב (nit’arev) = became intermingled, creating an unresolvable doubt
Segment 18
TYPE: משנה
Exemptions: slaughtering for a priest or gentile, partnership, and a reserved sale.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַשּׁוֹחֵט לַכֹּהֵן וְלַגּוֹי – פָּטוּר מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת, וְהַמִּשְׁתַּתֵּף עִמָּהֶן – צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּרְשׁוֹם, וְאִם אָמַר: ״חוּץ מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת״ – פָּטוּר מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת.
English Translation:
One who slaughters the animal of a priest for the priest or the animal of a gentile for the gentile is exempt from the obligation to give the gifts of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw. And an Israelite who enters into partnership with a priest or a gentile must mark the animal to indicate that it is jointly owned and exempt from the obligation to give the gifts. And if a priest sold his animal to an Israelite and said: The animal is sold except for the gifts with it, the Israelite is exempt from the obligation to give the gifts, as they are not his.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna continues with three further exemptions. One who slaughters for a priest or for a gentile gives no gifts, since neither owner is subject to them. An Israelite in partnership with either must yirshom, mark the animal, so that observers do not conclude that gifts are being withheld from an ordinary Israelite carcass. And a priest selling his animal may reserve the gifts explicitly, in which case the Israelite buyer never acquires them and owes nothing.
Key Terms:
- יִרְשׁוֹם (yirshom) = he must mark the animal, to prevent a mistaken inference
- חוּץ מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת = except for the gifts — a reservation excluding them from the sale
Segment 19
TYPE: משנה
Buying innards: when the value of the maw is deducted and when it is not.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר: ״מְכוֹר לִי בְּנֵי מֵעֶיהָ שֶׁל פָּרָה״, וְהָיוּ בָּהֶן מַתָּנוֹת – נוֹתְנָן לַכֹּהֵן, וְאֵינוֹ מְנַכֶּה לוֹ מִן הַדָּמִים. לְקָחָן הֵימֶנּוּ בְּמִשְׁקָל – נוֹתְנָן לַכֹּהֵן, וּמְנַכֶּה לוֹ מִן הַדָּמִים.
English Translation:
If the Israelite said to the one slaughtering the animal: Sell me the innards of a cow, and there were gifts included with it, i.e., the maw, the purchaser gives them to the priest and he does not deduct the value of the gifts from the money that he pays him. If he bought the innards from the slaughterer by weight, the purchaser gives the gifts, i.e., the maw, to the priest and deducts the value of the gifts from the money that he pays him.
קלאוד על הדף:
The final clause of the mishna turns on what the buyer actually paid for. If he asked simply for the innards of a cow and the maw came with them, he hands the maw to the priest and deducts nothing, because the gift was never the seller’s to sell and its value was never in the price. If he bought the innards by weight, the maw’s weight was priced into the sale, so he gives the gift away and deducts its value from what he owes. This same clause was cited as an objection on daf 131.
Key Terms:
- בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם = innards
- קֵבָה (keiva) = the maw, the fourth stomach — one of the three gifts
- בְּמִשְׁקָל (b’mishkal) = by weight — so the gift’s weight entered the purchase price
Segment 20
TYPE: קושיא
Why not a claim from two sides? The priest wins either way.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ וְאַמַּאי? יָבֹא עָלָיו כֹּהֵן מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִין, וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: אִי בְּכוֹר הוּא – כּוּלֵּיהּ דִּידִי הוּא, וְאִי לָאו בְּכוֹר הוּא – הַב לִי מַתְּנָתַאי.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if a firstborn animal was intermingled with one hundred non-sacred animals, each belonging to a different person, all of the animals are excluded from the obligation to give the gifts, due to the uncertainty of which animal is the firstborn. The Gemara asks: But why is this the halakha? Let the priest come upon each slaughterer with a claim from two sides, i.e., let the priest say to him: If this animal is a firstborn, it is completely mine; and if it is not a firstborn but is instead a non-sacred animal, then give me my gifts.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara opens its analysis of the mishna with an obvious difficulty. The uncertainty over which animal is the firstborn ought to help the priest, not the slaughterer, since he can advance a migo shnei tzedadim — a claim from both sides. If this is the firstborn, the whole animal is mine; and if it is not, then give me the gifts. Either way the priest collects something, so why does the mishna exempt everyone?
Key Terms:
- מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִין = from two sides — a claim that succeeds on either resolution of the doubt
Amud Bet (132b)
Segment 1
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Oshaya: the mishna speaks of a firstborn the priest already received and sold on.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: בְּבָא לִידֵי כֹּהֵן וּמְכָרוֹ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמוּמוֹ.
English Translation:
Rav Oshaya says in response: In general, a priest may issue such a claim. But the mishna is dealing with a case where the firstborn came into the possession of the priest when it was unblemished and thereafter it developed a permanent blemish, and the priest sold it to an Israelite in its blemished state. In such a case, the priest may not demand that the owner give him the entire animal with the claim that it is a firstborn, as he already received it once as a firstborn.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Oshaya answers the two-sided claim by narrowing the mishna’s case. In general a priest could indeed argue both ways, but here the firstborn had already come into a priest’s hands unblemished, developed a permanent blemish, and been sold to an Israelite. Having already collected it once as a firstborn, no priest can now claim the whole animal, and only the ordinary claim for the gifts remains — which the uncertainty defeats.
Key Terms:
- בְּמוּמוֹ (b’mumo) = in its blemished state, once it may be eaten as ordinary meat
Segment 2
TYPE: דיוק
Why ‘one who slaughters for’ rather than simply ‘a priest is exempt’? Rava’s answer.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַשּׁוֹחֵט לַכֹּהֵן וְלַגּוֹי, פָּטוּר מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת. וְלִיתְנֵי: כֹּהֵן וְגוֹי פְּטוּרִין מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת? אָמַר רָבָא: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת, הַדִּין עִם הַטַּבָּח.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that one who slaughters the animal of a priest for the priest or the animal of a gentile for the gentile is exempt from the obligation to give the gifts of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw. The Gemara suggests: And let the tanna simply teach that a priest and a gentile are exempt from the obligation to give the gifts. Rava says in explanation: That is to say, i.e., the wording of the mishna indicates, that the demand of a priest who seeks to claim gifts of the priesthood is with the butcher, not with the owner of the animal. Even if the butcher is himself a priest, if he slaughters an animal on behalf of an Israelite he is obligated to give the gifts.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara reads the mishna’s wording closely. It could have said flatly that a priest and a gentile are exempt; instead it says ‘one who slaughters for a priest or for a gentile’, shifting attention to the slaughterer. Rava extracts the principle already met on 132a: hadin im hataba, the claim lies against the butcher. The exemption follows the owner, but the obligation attaches to whoever does the slaughtering — so a priest butchering for an Israelite must still give the gifts.
Key Terms:
- זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת (zot omeret) = this teaches — a principle inferred from precise wording
Segment 3
TYPE: דרשה
Rava’s derivation: ‘from the people’ and ‘from those who slaughter’ together.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דָּרֵשׁ רָבָא: ״מֵאֵת הָעָם״ – וְלֹא מֵאֵת הַכֹּהֲנִים, כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״מֵאֵת זוֹבְחֵי הַזֶּבַח״ – הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר אֲפִילּוּ טַבָּח כֹּהֵן בַּמַּשְׁמָע.
English Translation:
The Gemara adds: Rava also interpreted the verse in such a manner. The verse states: “This shall be the priests’ due from the people, from them that perform a slaughter, whether it be ox or sheep, that they shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw” (Deuteronomy 18:3). The verse specifies that the gifts are taken “from the people,” and not from the priests. When the verse states: “From them that perform a slaughter,” indicating that the gifts are given by anyone who slaughters an animal, you must say that this teaches that even a butcher who is a priest is included in the obligation to give the gifts.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava anchors the principle in the verse. ‘From the people’ (Devarim 18:3) excludes priests, which alone would exempt any priest from the gifts. But the same verse continues ‘from them that perform a slaughter’, and that clause sweeps in whoever does the slaughtering. Read together, the two phrases mean that a priest is exempt for his own animal yet obligated as a butcher acting for an Israelite.
Key Terms:
- מֵאֵת הָעָם = from the people — and not from the priests
- מֵאֵת זוֹבְחֵי הַזֶּבַח = from those who slaughter — extending the obligation to the butcher
Segment 4
TYPE: מעשה
Rabbi Tavla advises his impoverished priestly host to become a partner of butchers.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אוּשְׁפִּיזְכָנֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי טַבְלָא כֹּהֵן הֲוָה, וַהֲוָה דְּחִיק לֵיהּ מִלְּתָא. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי טַבְלָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל אִישְׁתַּתַּף בַּהֲדֵי טַבָּחֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, דְּמִגּוֹ דְּמִפַּטְרִי מִמַּתְּנָתָא, מִשְׁתַּתְּפִי בַּהֲדָךְ.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that the obligation to give the gifts of the priesthood does not apply to an animal jointly owned by an Israelite and a priest. The Gemara relates that the host [ushpizikhnei] of Rabbi Tavla was a priest and he was hard-pressed for money. He came before Rabbi Tavla to ask for advice. Rabbi Tavla said to him: Go and enter into a partnership with those Israelite butchers, to obtain part ownership of their animals, as since they will be exempt from the obligation to give the gifts on account of this partnership, they will agree to enter into a business partnership with you free of charge.
קלאוד על הדף:
An extended narrative begins. Rabbi Tavla’s ushpizichnei, his host, was a priest in financial straits, and Rabbi Tavla offered him a scheme built on the mishna’s partnership exemption: become a part-owner with Israelite butchers. Since a jointly owned animal is exempt from the gifts, the butchers gain by the arrangement and would take him on for nothing. The advice is legally elegant, and Rav Nachman is about to reject it.
Key Terms:
- אוּשְׁפִּיזְכָנֵיהּ (ushpizichnei) = his host, the one with whom he lodged
- מִגּוֹ דְּמִפַּטְרִי = since they would be exempted — the butchers’ incentive to accept the partner
Segment 5
TYPE: מעשה
Rav Nachman obligates anyway and threatens to remove Rabbi Tavla from his ear.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חַיְּיבֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְהָא רַבִּי טַבְלָא פַּטְרַן! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל אַפֵּיק, וְאִי לָא – מַפֵּיקְנָא לָךְ רַבִּי טַבְלָא מֵאוּנָּךְ.
English Translation:
The priest heeded the advice of Rabbi Tavla and entered into a partnership with an Israelite butcher. Nevertheless, Rav Naḥman obligated the butcher to give the gifts of the priesthood from the animals he slaughtered. The priest said to Rav Naḥman: But Rabbi Tavla exempted us from this obligation. Rav Naḥman said to him: Go remove the gifts of the priesthood that are in your possession and give them to a priest, and if you will not do so, I will remove Rabbi Tavla from your ear [me’unakh], i.e., I will refute his basis for deeming you exempt.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Nachman ruled against the scheme and obligated the butcher despite the partnership. When the priest protested that Rabbi Tavla had exempted them, Rav Nachman answered with a memorable idiom: hand over the gifts, or mafiknah lach Rabbi Tavla me’unach — I will remove Rabbi Tavla from your ear, that is, I will dislodge the authority you are leaning on.
Key Terms:
- מַפֵּיקְנָא לָךְ … מֵאוּנָּךְ = I will remove him from your ear — I will refute the authority you rely on
Segment 6
TYPE: מעשה
Rabbi Tavla confronts Rav Nachman, who cites the elders of the south.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲזַל רַבִּי טַבְלָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי טַעְמָא עָבֵיד מָר הָכִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דְּכִי אֲתָא רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא מִדָּרוֹמָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, זִקְנֵי דָרוֹם אָמְרוּ: כֹּהֵן טַבָּח – שְׁתַּיִם וְשָׁלֹשׁ שַׁבָּתוֹת פָּטוּר מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ חַיָּיב בְּמַתָּנוֹת.
English Translation:
Rabbi Tavla came before Rav Naḥman and said to him: What is the reason that the Master has done this and ruled in contradiction to the mishna? Rav Naḥman said to him: I ruled in this manner, as when Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina of the south came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and all the elders of the south said: With regard to a priest who becomes a butcher, for the first two or three weeks he is exempt from the obligation to give the gifts, as he has not yet established himself in the community as a butcher. But from this point forward he is obligated to give the gifts, as he is now known as a butcher.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Tavla came in person to ask why Rav Nachman had ruled against an explicit mishna. Rav Nachman’s source was a tradition brought north by Rabbi Acha bar Chanina in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and the elders of the south: a priest who takes up butchering is exempt for the first two or three weeks, while he is not yet publicly known as a butcher, but obligated thereafter. The exemption is temporary and rests on public perception.
Key Terms:
- זִקְנֵי דָרוֹם = the elders of the south, in Eretz Yisrael
- שְׁתַּיִם וְשָׁלֹשׁ שַׁבָּתוֹת = two or three weeks
Segment 7
TYPE: מעשה
Rabbi Tavla asks for at least the three-week grace; Rav Nachman refuses.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְלַעֲבֵיד לֵיהּ מָר מִיהַת כְּרַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּלָא קְבַע מְסַחְתָּא, אֲבָל הָכָא הָא קְבַע מְסַחְתָּא.
English Translation:
Rabbi Tavla said to Rav Naḥman: And let the Master at least do for the priest in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina and exempt him from giving the gifts for the first three weeks of his partnership. Rav Naḥman said to him: This statement of Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina applies only when the priest did not immediately establish a butcher shop. In such a case, the priest is exempt until he becomes known as a recognized butcher. But here, he has already established a butcher shop and is therefore obligated to give the gifts without delay.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Tavla retreats to a minimal request: grant the man at least the two or three weeks the southern elders allow. Rav Nachman refuses even that, drawing a distinction of his own. The grace period applies only where the priest has not yet kava masachta, established a butcher shop; a man who sets up shop immediately is publicly a butcher from the first day and owes the gifts at once.
Key Terms:
- קְבַע מְסַחְתָּא (kava masachta) = he established a butcher shop — fixing his public identity as a butcher
Segment 8
TYPE: מימרא
Rav Chisda’s ban, and the butchers of Huzal under it for twenty-two years.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הַאי כָּהֲנָא דְּלָא מַפְרֵישׁ מַתְּנָתָא – לֶיהֱוֵי בְּשַׁמְתָּא דֶּאֱלָהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב שֵׁילָא: הָנֵי טַבָּחֵי דְּהוּצָל קָיְימִי בְּשַׁמְתָּא דְּרַב חִסְדָּא הָא עֶשְׂרִים וְתַרְתֵּי שְׁנִין.
English Translation:
§ Rav Ḥisda said: With regard to a priest who slaughters an animal and does not separate gifts of the priesthood from them for another priest, let him be under the excommunication of the God of Israel. Rabba bar Rav Sheila said: These butchers of the city of Huzal have remained under the excommunication of Rav Ḥisda these last twenty-two years, as they have continuously refused to separate gifts of the priesthood for this period.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Chisda placed under the ban of the God of Israel any priest who slaughters and fails to separate the gifts for another priest — the priest-butcher is not exempt merely because he is himself entitled to gifts. Rabba bar Rav Sheila then reports that the butchers of Huzal had stood under that excommunication for twenty-two years, having refused throughout.
Key Terms:
- שַׁמְתָּא (shamta) = excommunication, a ban
- הוּצָל (Huzal) = a Babylonian town near Neharde’a
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא
What is the point of ‘twenty-two years’? Not that the ban expires.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אִילֵּימָא דְּתוּ לָא מְשַׁמְּתִינַן לְהוּ – וְהָא תַּנְיָא: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּמִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, אֲבָל בְּמִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה, כְּגוֹן אוֹמְרִים לוֹ ״עֲשֵׂה סוּכָּה״ וְאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה, ״לוּלָב״ וְאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה, ״עֲשֵׂה צִיצִית״ וְאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה – מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשׁוֹ!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha did Rabba bar Rav Sheila state that the butchers of Huzal have been under excommunication for twenty-two years? If we say that we do not excommunicate them for a period any longer than twenty-two years, but isn’t it taught in a baraita: In what case is this statement, that one is not excommunicated for committing a transgression, said? It is said with regard to a prohibition, for which one is liable to receive a relatively severe punishment, e.g., death or karet. But with regard to one who refuses to perform a positive mitzva, e.g., the court says to him: Perform the mitzva of sukka, and he does not do so, or: Perform the mitzva of taking the lulav, and he does not do so, or: Prepare ritual fringes for your garments, and he does not do so, the court strikes him an unlimited number of times, even until his soul departs. Accordingly, the butchers of Huzal should remain under excommunication indefinitely until they separate the gifts.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks what the number is doing in the report. If it means that a ban lapses after twenty-two years, a baraita refutes it: the limits on coercion apply to prohibitions, but for a positive commandment — build a sukka, take a lulav, make tzitzit — the court strikes the refuser without limit, even until his soul departs. The gifts are a positive commandment, so the ban should stand indefinitely.
Key Terms:
- מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה = a positive commandment, enforced without limit
- עַד שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשׁוֹ = until his soul departs — the unbounded coercion applied to a positive mitzva
Segment 10
TYPE: תירוץ
Rather: such entrenched refusal licenses a fine without forewarning.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, דְּקָנְסִינַן לְהוּ בְּלָא אַתְרַיְיתָא, כִּי הָא דְּרָבָא קָנֵיס אַטְמָא, רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק קָנֵיס גְּלִימָא.
English Translation:
Rather, Rabba bar Rav Sheila means that because the butchers of Huzal have refused to give the gifts for so many years, we fine them even without forewarning. There was a case like this of a person who refused to give the gifts of the priesthood to a priest, where Rava fined him by taking the entire thigh of his animal and giving it to a priest. Similarly, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak fined an individual who refused to give the gifts of the priesthood to a priest by taking his cloak and giving it to a priest.
קלאוד על הדף:
The number marks entrenchment, not expiry. After so many years of refusal the court may fine such men bela atrayata, without the forewarning normally required. Two precedents follow: Rava fined a man an entire thigh, and Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak fined another his cloak, in each case handing the confiscated item to a priest.
Key Terms:
- בְּלָא אַתְרַיְיתָא = without forewarning
- אַטְמָא (atma) = a thigh
- גְּלִימָא (gelima) = a cloak
Segment 11
TYPE: מימרא וקושיא
Rav Chisda on dividing the gifts, challenged from the practice in Eretz Yisrael.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: זְרוֹעַ לְאֶחָד, וְקֵבָה לְאֶחָד, לְחָיַיִם לִשְׁנַיִים. אִינִי? וְהָא כִּי אֲתָא רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר: בְּמַעְרְבָא פָּלְגִינַן לְהוּ גַּרְמָא גַּרְמָא!
English Translation:
§ And Rav Ḥisda also says with regard to gifts of the priesthood: The foreleg is given to one priest and the maw is given to one priest, while the jaw is given to two priests. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But when Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef came to Babylonia from Eretz Yisrael he said: In the West, Eretz Yisrael, we divide the gifts bone by bone, each of which is given to two priests.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Chisda rules on how many priests may share one animal’s gifts: the foreleg to one, the maw to one, and the jaw — of which there are two — to two, making four recipients. Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef reports a contrary practice from Eretz Yisrael, where the gifts were divided garma garma, bone by bone, yielding more recipients than Rav Chisda allows.
Key Terms:
- גַּרְמָא גַּרְמָא = bone by bone — a finer division of the gifts
- מַעְרְבָא (ma’arava) = the West, meaning Eretz Yisrael
Segment 12
TYPE: תירוץ
There it was a large bull, where each portion remains substantial.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָתָם בִּדְתוֹרָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: There, in the case dealt with in Eretz Yisrael, the gifts were of a large bull. The Torah states: “That they shall give to the priest” (Deuteronomy 18:3). The use of the term “give” indicates that the gift given should be a substantial one. Even when one limb of the large bull was divided between two priests, each received a substantial portion. This is not the case with regard to the gifts of smaller animals, where each limb is not large enough to provide two substantial portions.
קלאוד על הדף:
The contradiction dissolves on the size of the animal. In Eretz Yisrael the case was a bull, large enough that even a subdivided limb still gave each priest a worthwhile portion. The verse says the gifts shall be given, and a gift must be substantial; with a smaller animal the same division would leave portions too meagre to count as giving.
Key Terms:
- בִּדְתוֹרָא (b’detora) = in the case of a bull
- נְתִינָה (netinah) = giving — which requires a portion of meaningful size
Segment 13
TYPE: מימרא
Rabbi Yochanan forbids eating before the gifts are separated — but the halacha differs.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָסוּר לֶאֱכוֹל מִבְּהֵמָה שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמָה מַתְּנוֹתֶיהָ. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל הָאוֹכֵל מִבְּהֵמָה שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמָה מַתְּנוֹתֶיהָ – כְּאִילּוּ אוֹכֵל טְבָלִים, וְלֵית הִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ.
English Translation:
§ Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is prohibited to partake of a slaughtered animal whose gifts have not yet been separated. Furthermore, Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Anyone who partakes of an animal whose gifts have not yet been separated is considered as though he consumes untithed produce. But the Gemara states: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabba bar bar Chana transmits two statements of Rabbi Yochanan: it is forbidden to eat from an animal whose gifts have not been separated, and one who does so is as though he eats tevel, untithed produce. The Gemara then flatly rejects both — v’leit hilchata kevatei. The obligation to give is real, but it does not render the meat forbidden in the interim.
Key Terms:
- טְבָלִים (tevalim) = untithed produce, forbidden until tithes are separated
- וְלֵית הִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ = the halacha is not in accordance with him
Segment 14
TYPE: מימרא
Rav Chisda: the gifts are eaten roasted and with mustard, as kings eat.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה אֵין נֶאֱכָלוֹת אֶלָּא צָלִי, וְאֵין נֶאֱכָלוֹת אֶלָּא בְּחַרְדָּל. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״לְמׇשְׁחָה״ – לִגְדוּלָּה, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַמְּלָכִים אוֹכְלִים.
English Translation:
Rav Ḥisda says: Gifts of the priesthood may be consumed only when they are roasted, and they may be consumed only with mustard seasoning. What is the reason for this halakha? The verse states: “And the Lord spoke to Aaron: And I, behold, I have given you the charge of My gifts; of all the consecrated items of the children of Israel to you have I given them for prominence, and to your sons, as an eternal portion” (Numbers 18:8). The term “for prominence” means that the portions were given to the priests as a mark of greatness. Accordingly, they should be eaten in a manner that kings eat, i.e., roasted and with mustard.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Chisda rules that the gifts should be eaten roasted and with mustard. The source is lemoshcha in Bamidbar 18:8, which he reads as ligdulah, for greatness: the gifts were granted to the priests as a mark of distinction, and should therefore be eaten in the manner of kings. The priestly portion is not merely sustenance but an emblem of rank.
Key Terms:
- לְמׇשְׁחָה (lemoshcha) = for anointing — read as ‘for greatness’
- לִגְדוּלָּה (ligdulah) = for prominence, as a mark of distinction
Segment 15
TYPE: מימרא ודחייה
Rav Chisda would withhold gifts from an ignorant priest; the Gemara rejects it.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה, כׇּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁאֵינוֹ בָּקִי בָּהֶן – אֵין נוֹתְנִין לוֹ מַתָּנָה. וְלָאו מִילְּתָא הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כׇּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה בָּעֲבוֹדָה – אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק בַּכְּהוּנָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הַמַּקְרִיב אֶת דַּם הַשְּׁלָמִים וְאֶת הַחֵלֶב מִבְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן לוֹ תִהְיֶה שׁוֹק הַיָּמִין לְמָנָה״.
English Translation:
And Rav Ḥisda says: One may not give a gift to any priest who is not an expert in the halakhot pertaining to all twenty-four gifts of the priesthood. The Gemara notes: But this is not correct, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: Any priest who does not believe in the validity of the Temple service has no portion in any of the gifts given to the priesthood, as it is stated: “He among the sons of Aaron, who offers [hamakriv] the blood of the peace offerings, and the fat, shall have the right thigh for a portion” (Leviticus 7:33). The word “hamakriv,” which literally means: Who brings it close, indicates that only one who believes in the validity of conveying the blood to the altar is entitled to receive the right thigh of the offering, as only one who believes in the rite would perform it.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Chisda holds that a priest unversed in the twenty-four priestly gifts should not be given one. The Gemara rejects this — v’lav milta hi — and produces Rabbi Shimon’s baraita as the correct criterion. What disqualifies is not ignorance but denial: a priest who does not acknowledge the validity of the Temple service has no share, as the verse assigns the right thigh to the one who offers the blood and the fat.
Key Terms:
- עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה = the twenty-four priestly gifts
- הַמַּקְרִיב (hamakriv) = the one who offers — read as requiring belief in the service
- וְלָאו מִילְּתָא הִיא = and this is not correct
Segment 16
TYPE: ברייתא
Extending the disqualification: fifteen further rites, the list breaking off mid-daf.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵין לִי אֶלָּא זֶה בִּלְבַד, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה עֲבוֹדוֹת, כְּגוֹן: הַיְּצִיקוֹת, וְהַבְּלִילוֹת, וְהַפְּתִיתוֹת, וְהַמְּלִיחוֹת, תְּנוּפוֹת, וְהַגָּשׁוֹת, [וְהַקְּמִיצוֹת], הַקְטָרוֹת, (וְהַמְּצִיּוֹת), [וְהַמְּלִיקוֹת],
English Translation:
The baraita continues: I have derived only that a priest does not have a share in the priestly gifts if he does not believe in this rite of conveying of the blood alone. From where do I derive to include fifteen additional sacrificial rites, such as the rites of a meal offering, i.e., the pouring of the oil and the mixing of the oil and the subsequent pouring of the oil; and the crumbling of meal offerings prepared in a shallow or deep pan or in an oven, whose handfuls are removed after they are baked and subsequently crumbled; and the salting of meal offerings (see Leviticus 2:13); and the waving of certain meal offerings; and the bringing of certain meal offerings to the southwestern corner of the altar before a handful is removed; and the removal of the handful; and the burning of offerings on the altar; and the squeezing of a bird offering to extract its blood; and the pinching of the nape of the neck of a bird offering;
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita widens its rule beyond the conveying of the blood. Fifteen further services are included — the pourings, mixings and crumblings of meal offerings, the salting, waving and bringing near, the removal of the handful, the burning, the squeezing of a bird offering and the pinching of its nape. A priest who denies the validity of any of these forfeits his share. The list is still unfinished when the daf ends, continuing on 133a.
Key Terms:
- יְצִיקוֹת / בְּלִילוֹת / פְּתִיתוֹת = the pouring, mixing and crumbling of meal offerings
- קְמִיצָה (kemitzah) = the removal of the handful from a meal offering
- מְלִיקָה (melikah) = pinching the nape of a bird offering’s neck