Chullin Daf 133 (חולין דף קל״ג)
Daf: 133 | Amudim: 133a – 133b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (133a)
Segment 1
TYPE: ברייתא
The list of rites completed: receiving, sprinkling, sota, egla arufa, metzora, birkat kohanim.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְקַבָּלוֹת, הַזָּאוֹת, וְהַשְׁקָאַת סוֹטָה, וַעֲרִיפַת עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה, וְטׇהֳרַת מְצוֹרָע, וּנְשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם – בֵּין מִבִּפְנִים בֵּין מִבַּחוּץ, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מִבְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן״ – עֲבוֹדָה הָאֲמוּרָה לִבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן.
English Translation:
and the receiving of the blood in a vessel; and its sprinkling upon the altar, each offering according to its halakha; and the giving of water to a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [sota]; and the ritual of breaking a heifer’s neck in an untilled valley when a corpse is discovered and the murderer is unknown; and the purification of a leper; and the lifting of the hands for the Priestly Benediction, whether inside or outside the Temple; from where are these derived? The verse states: “Among the sons of Aaron,” indicating that this is the halakha with regard to any sacrificial rite that is stated to the sons of Aaron.
קלאוד על הדף:
The catalogue broken off at the end of 132b runs to its close. Beyond the conveying of the blood, the baraita includes the receiving of the blood in a vessel, the sprinklings, the giving of the sota waters, the breaking of the heifer’s neck, the purification of the metzora, and the lifting of the hands for the priestly blessing — and it notes that the blessing counts whether performed inside the Temple or outside it. All are gathered under the verse’s phrase mibnei Aharon, which the baraita reads as marking out any service assigned to the sons of Aharon.
Key Terms:
- מִבְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן = from among the sons of Aharon — the phrase gathering every priestly rite
- עֲרִיפַת עֶגְלָה = the breaking of the heifer’s neck, when a corpse is found and the killer is unknown
- נְשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם = the lifting of the hands for the priestly blessing
Segment 2
TYPE: דיוק
The inference completed: denial disqualifies, ignorance does not.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכׇל כֹּהֵן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה בָּהּ – אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק בַּכְּהוּנָּה. טַעְמָא דְּאֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה בָּהּ, הָא מוֹדֶה בָּהּ – אַף עַל גַּב דְּאֵינוֹ בָּקִי בָּהֶן.
English Translation:
And the Gemara explains the proof: The baraita teaches that any priest who does not believe in the validity of these rites has no portion in the gifts of the priesthood. It may be inferred that the reason the priest has no portion is that he does not believe in it, whereas if he does believe in it, even though he is not an expert in its halakhot, he receives a portion. This contradicts the opinion of Rav Ḥisda.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now extracts what it came for. The baraita disqualifies the priest who does not believe in the service; by implication, one who does believe receives his portion even if he is no expert in the details. That inference is precisely the refutation of Rav Chisda’s position from 132b, and it settles the point: what forfeits a share in the priesthood is denial, not ignorance.
Key Terms:
- טַעְמָא דְּ…הָא = the reason is that — a standard inference from a stated condition
Segment 3
TYPE: מימרא
Rav: the veins in the jaw are forbidden, so withhold it from a priest who cannot remove them.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא, אָמַר רַב: חוּטִין שֶׁבַּלְּחִי אֲסוּרִים, וְכׇל כֹּהֵן שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ לִיטְּלָן – אֵין נוֹתְנִין לוֹ מַתָּנָה.
English Translation:
With regard to priests who should not be given gifts of the priesthood, Rabbi Abba says that Rav Huna says that Rav says: The veins that are contained in the jaw of an animal are prohibited for consumption, due to the blood they contain. And one does not give the gift of the jaw to any priest who does not know how to remove the veins, as the priest might eat them.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav appears to reopen the question from a different angle. The chutin in the jaw hold blood and are forbidden, so a priest who does not know how to extract them should not be given the jaw at all, lest he come to eat blood. This is not Rav Chisda’s criterion of general learning but a narrow, practical competence tied to the specific gift.
Key Terms:
- חוּטִין (chutin) = the veins or sinews within the jaw, which retain blood
Segment 4
TYPE: דחייה
Rejected: any normal preparation removes the blood anyway.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלָא הִיא, אִי בְּטַוְיָא – מֵידָב דָּיְיבִי, וְאִי לְקִדְרָה – אִי דִּמְיחַתֵּךְ לְהוּ וּמָלַח לְהוּ – מֵידָב דָּיְיבִי.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes: But that is not so, i.e., one need not be concerned that the priest might consume the blood within the veins, as any method of preparing the jaw will remove the blood: If the priest prepares the jaw by roasting it, the blood will drain from the jaw due to the fire. And if he intends to place the jaws in a pot to cook them, if he cuts them and salts them, as one is required to do before cooking any meat, the blood will drain from them, and they will be permitted for consumption.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara dismisses the concern on culinary grounds. Roast the jaw and the fire draws the blood out; cook it in a pot and the required cutting and salting draw it out first. Since no ordinary method of preparation leaves the blood in place, the priest’s ignorance of the veins creates no real risk, and there is no reason to withhold the gift from him.
Key Terms:
- בְּטַוְיָא (b’tavya) = by roasting
- מֵידָב דָּיְיבִי = it drains away
- מְלִיחָה (melichah) = salting, required to draw out blood before cooking
Segment 5
TYPE: בעיא ופשיטה
Rav Yosef’s exam question: is seizing the gifts love of the mitzva or contempt?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: בָּדַק לַן רַב יוֹסֵף, הַאי כָּהֲנָא דְּחָטֵיף מַתְּנָתָא – חַבּוֹבֵי קָא מְחַבֵּב מִצְוָה, אוֹ זַלְזוֹלֵי קָא מְזַלְזֵל בְּמִצְוָה? וּפְשַׁטְנָא לֵיהּ ״וְנָתַן״ – וְלֹא שֶׁיִּטּוֹל מֵעַצְמוֹ.
English Translation:
§ With regard to the manner in which a priest takes gifts of the priesthood from their owners, Rava said: Rav Yosef examined us, his students, with the following question: A priest who seizes gifts of the priesthood from their owners, is he demonstrating fondness for the mitzva or is he demonstrating contempt for the mitzva? And I resolved this question for him from the verse: “That they shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw” (Deuteronomy 18:3). The term “that they shall give” indicates that the owner should give the gifts, and not that a priest should take them by himself. Accordingly, a priest who seizes the gifts from their owners is demonstrating contempt for the mitzva.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yosef tested his students with a genuinely two-sided question. A priest who snatches the gifts might be showing eagerness for the mitzva — or might be degrading it. Rava resolved it from the verse’s own verb: v’natan, ‘and he shall give’, which places the act with the owner. A gift that must be given cannot be taken, so seizing it is contempt.
Key Terms:
- חָטֵיף (chatif) = he seizes or snatches
- וְנָתַן (v’natan) = and he shall give — the owner gives; the priest does not take
- חַבּוֹבֵי / זַלְזוֹלֵי = showing affection for / showing contempt for a mitzva
Segment 6
TYPE: מעשה
Abaye’s self-portrait in stages: from snatching, to asking, to silence.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מֵרֵישׁ הֲוָה חָטֵיפְנָא מַתְּנָתָא, אָמֵינָא: חַבּוֹבֵי קָא מְחַבֵּיבְנָא מִצְוָה. כֵּיוָן דִּשְׁמַעְנָא לְהָא ״וְנָתַן״ – וְלֹא שֶׁיִּטּוֹל מֵעַצְמוֹ, מִיחְטָף לָא חָטֵיפְנָא, מֵימָר (אֲמַרִי) [אָמֵינָא]: הַבוּ לִי. וְכֵיוָן דִּשְׁמַעְנָא לְהָא דְּתַנְיָא: ״וַיִּטּוּ אַחֲרֵי הַבָּצַע״, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: בְּנֵי שְׁמוּאֵל חֶלְקָם שָׁאֲלוּ בְּפִיהֶם, מֵימָר נָמֵי לָא אָמֵינָא, וְאִי יָהֲבוּ לִי – שָׁקֵילְנָא.
English Translation:
Abaye, who was a priest, said: At first, I would seize gifts of the priesthood, as I said to myself that I am demonstrating fondness for the mitzva in this manner. Once I heard this interpretation: “That they shall give,” and not that he should take by himself, I did not seize them anymore. Instead, I would say to the owners of the gifts: Give me. And once I heard that which is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the sons of Samuel, who were Levites: “But turned aside after wealth” (I Samuel 8:3), and Rabbi Meir says: The sons of Samuel sinned when they asked for their portion, the first tithe given to the Levite, with their mouths, i.e., they demanded that the owners give them the first tithe. Abaye continued: After I heard that, I also did not say anything to the owners, but if they would give me gifts I would take them.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye, himself a kohen, narrates his own retreat in three steps, each triggered by a teaching he heard. First he snatched, believing it showed love of the mitzva. On hearing v’natan he stopped snatching and merely asked. Then he heard Rabbi Meir on the sons of Shmuel, who ‘turned aside after gain’ by requesting their tithe b’fihem, with their mouths — and he stopped asking too, taking only what was offered unbidden.
Key Terms:
- וַיִּטּוּ אַחֲרֵי הַבָּצַע = they turned aside after gain (I Shmuel 8:3)
- שָׁאֲלוּ בְּפִיהֶם = they asked with their mouths — the sin was in the asking
Segment 7
TYPE: מעשה
The fourth stage: taking nothing at all, except on erev Yom Kippur.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כֵּיוָן דִּשְׁמַעְנָא לְהָא דְּתַנְיָא: הַצְּנוּעִים מוֹשְׁכִין אֶת יְדֵיהֶם, וְהַגַּרְגְּרָנִים חוֹלְקִים – מִשְׁקָל נָמֵי לָא שָׁקֵילְנָא, לְבַר מִמַּעֲלֵי יוֹמָא דְכִיפּוּרֵי, לְאַחְזוֹקֵי נַפְשַׁאי בְּכָהֲנֵי.
English Translation:
Abaye said further: Once I heard that which is taught in a baraita with regard to the distribution of the shewbread among the priests: The modest ones [hatzenu’im] withdraw their hands and do not take, and the gluttons divide all the bread; I also did not take gifts even when they were offered to me, except for when they were given on the eve of Yom Kippur, when there was an abundance of gifts due to the many animals that were slaughtered, as it is a mitzva to eat that day. In that instance, I took the gifts in order to affirm myself among the priests, i.e., if I would never take gifts then my status as a priest might be called into question.
קלאוד על הדף:
A fourth teaching completes the retreat. Hearing that with the showbread hatzenu’im moshchin et yedeihem, the modest withdraw their hands while the greedy divide, Abaye stopped accepting even what was offered. He kept a single exception: erev Yom Kippur, when gifts were plentiful and eating is itself a mitzva, and he took l’achzokei nafshai b’chahanei — to keep his standing as a kohen on record.
Key Terms:
- הַצְּנוּעִים מוֹשְׁכִין אֶת יְדֵיהֶם = the modest withdraw their hands
- לְאַחְזוֹקֵי נַפְשַׁאי בְּכָהֲנֵי = to establish myself among the priests
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Why not simply duchen? Because his teaching schedule never let him.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלִפְרוֹס יְדֵיהּ! אַנְסֵיהּ לֵיהּ עִידָּנֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: But let him spread his hands for the Priestly Benediction throughout the year, as this will make it clear to all that he is in fact a priest. The Gemara responds: His schedule constrained him, as he was constantly involved in teaching Torah to his students, so much so that he would miss the time during which the community gathered in the synagogue for the Priestly Benediction.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara offers a simpler way for Abaye to publicise his priesthood: let him go up for the priestly blessing. The answer is quietly biographical — ansei leih idaneih, his time constrained him. Abaye was so occupied teaching his students that he would miss the moment when the congregation assembled for the blessing.
Key Terms:
- אַנְסֵיהּ לֵיהּ עִידָּנֵיהּ = his time compelled him — his schedule left no room
Segment 9
TYPE: מימרא
Rav Yosef: a priest may assign his gifts to a poor scholar in his neighbourhood.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הַאי כָּהֲנָא דְּאִית לֵיהּ צוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן בְּשִׁבָבוּתֵיהּ, וּדְחִיקָא לֵיהּ מִילְּתָא – לִיזַכֵּי לֵיהּ מַתְּנָתָא, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא אָתֵי לִידֵיהּ, בְּמַכָּרֵי כְּהוּנָּה וּלְוִיָּה.
English Translation:
Rav Yosef said: In a case where a priest who has a Torah scholar [tzurva merabbanan] living in his neighborhood and that Torah scholar is hard-pressed for money, let the priest grant his gifts to him, i.e., the priest may declare that those gifts he is destined to receive should be given to the poor Torah scholar. And even though the gifts have not yet come into his possession, he may grant them to the Torah scholar in a case where there are associates of the priesthood and the Levites, i.e., if that specific priest or Levite was well known in his neighborhood and has a standard arrangement with many people that they give him their gifts, as he is certain that he will be given them.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yosef turns the gifts to the support of Torah. A priest with a tzurva merabbanan nearby who is hard-pressed may assign him the gifts in advance. Ordinarily one cannot transfer what one does not yet hold, but this works b’makirei kehunah u’leviyah — where the priest has a settled circle of donors, so the gifts are effectively assured and the assignment has something to bite on.
Key Terms:
- צוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן = a young Torah scholar
- מַכָּרֵי כְּהוּנָּה = the priest’s regular donors, making receipt near-certain
Segment 10
TYPE: מעשה
Rava and Rav Safra at Mar Yochana’s table; Rava asks for the gifts.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רָבָא וְרַב סָפְרָא אִיקְּלַעוּ לְבֵי מָר יוֹחָנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חָנָא בַּר אַדָּא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ לְבֵי מָר יוֹחָנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חָנָא בַּר בִּיזְנָא. עָבֵיד לְהוּ עִגְלָא תִּילְתָּא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְשַׁמָּעֵיהּ: זַכִּי לַן מַתְּנָתָא, דִּבְעֵינָא לְמֵיכַל לִישָּׁנָא בְּחַרְדְּלָא.
English Translation:
With regard to the statement of Rav Yosef, the Gemara relates that Rava and Rav Safra visited the house of Mar Yoḥana, son of Rav Ḥana bar Adda, and some say they visited the house of Mar Yoḥana, son of Rav Ḥana bar Bizna. Mar Yoḥana prepared for them a third-born calf. Rava said to the attendant of Mar Yoḥana, who was a priest and would normally receive gifts of the priesthood from Mar Yoḥana: Grant us the gifts, as I wish to eat tongue with mustard, and the tongue along with the jaw is one of the gifts.
קלאוד על הדף:
The narrative that tests Rav Yosef’s ruling begins. Rava and Rav Safra were guests of Mar Yochana, who prepared an egla tilta for them. Rava asked the host’s attendant — a kohen who regularly received Mar Yochana’s gifts — to assign them over, saying plainly that he wanted to eat tongue with mustard, the tongue belonging with the jaw among the gifts.
Key Terms:
- עִגְלָא תִּילְתָּא = a third-grown calf, prized for its quality
- זַכִּי לַן = assign them to us
- לִישָּׁנָא בְּחַרְדְּלָא = tongue with mustard
Segment 11
TYPE: מעשה
Rava ate, Rav Safra abstained — and the verse came to Rav Safra in a dream.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
זַכִּי לֵיהּ. רָבָא אֲכַל, וְרַב סָפְרָא לָא אֲכַל. אַקְרְיוּהּ לְרַב סָפְרָא בְּחֶלְמָא: ״מַעֲדֶה בֶּגֶד בְּיוֹם קָרָה חֹמֶץ עַל נָתֶר וְשָׁר בַּשִּׁירִים עַל לֶב רָע״.
English Translation:
The attendant granted the gifts to him; Rava ate from them but Rav Safra did not eat. Following this incident, they read the following verse to Rav Safra in a dream: “As one that takes off a garment in cold weather, and as vinegar upon niter, so is he that sings songs to a heavy heart” (Proverbs 25:20). The verse can be interpreted allegorically as a chastisement of one who studies Torah but fails to understand it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The two sages diverged: Rava ate, Rav Safra did not. Afterwards a verse was proclaimed to Rav Safra in a dream — Mishlei 25:20, on removing a garment in cold weather and vinegar on natron, and singing songs to a heavy heart. A rebuke had clearly been issued, but its target was not yet clear, and Rav Safra assumed it was his own.
Key Terms:
- אַקְרְיוּהּ בְּחֶלְמָא = they read a verse to him in a dream — a form of heavenly rebuke
- נָתֶר (neter) = natron, a mineral spoiled by vinegar
Segment 12
TYPE: מעשה
Rav Yosef exonerates Rav Safra by narrowing his own ruling twice.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּלְמָא מִשּׁוּם דַּעֲבַרִי אַשְּׁמַעְתָּא דְּמָר אַקְרְיֻין הָכִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כִּי אֲמַרִי אֲנָא – בְּאַחֵר, שַׁמָּעָא – בְּעַל כֻּרְחֵיהּ מְזַכֵּי, וְכִי אֲמַרִי אֲנָא – לְמַאן דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר לֵיהּ, הָא אֶפְשָׁר לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
Rav Safra came before Rav Yosef and said to him: Perhaps because I transgressed the halakha of the Master they read this verse to me in chastisement. Rav Yosef said to him: No, you acted appropriately by refraining from consuming the gifts. When I said that a priest may grant the gifts to a Torah scholar, that was only with regard to a priest who grants them to another person of his own choosing. I did not permit this in the case of an attendant who grants the gifts to a dignified guest of the homeowner. The reason is that he grants the gifts against his will, as he feels pressured by the homeowner to acquiesce. And furthermore, when I said this halakha, it was only for one who cannot eat under another circumstance, as he is hard-pressed for money. In this incident, it was possible for Rava to consume his own meat with mustard, since Rava was not poor.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Safra asked whether he had erred against Rav Yosef’s own ruling, and Rav Yosef answered that he had not — his abstention was correct. He then limited his ruling on two fronts. It applied to a priest assigning gifts to a person of his own choosing, not to an attendant pressed into assigning them to his master’s distinguished guest, who consents b’al korcheih, under compulsion. And it applied to one who has no other option, whereas Rava was well able to eat his own meat with mustard.
Key Terms:
- בְּעַל כֻּרְחֵיהּ = against his will, under pressure
- דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר לֵיהּ = for whom it is not otherwise possible — the genuinely needy
Segment 13
TYPE: מעשה
So whom was the rebuke for? Rava — who was under censure and could not receive it.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֶלָּא מַאי טַעְמָא אַקְרְיֻין הָכִי? כְּלַפֵּי רָבָא! וְלַקְרְיוּהּ לְרָבָא? רָבָא נָזוּף הֲוָה.
English Translation:
Rav Safra asked Rav Yosef: But if so, what is the reason that they read this verse to me? Rav Yosef responded: The reading was directed not toward you but toward Rava, who ate from the gifts against my ruling. The Gemara objects: But let them read this verse to Rava himself in a dream. The Gemara responds: Rava was rebuked as a result of this incident and therefore was not granted heavenly communication. The verse was therefore proclaimed to Rav Safra instead.
קלאוד על הדף:
If Rav Safra was blameless, the Gemara asks why the verse came to him. Rav Yosef answers that it was aimed at Rava, who had eaten against the ruling. But then why not deliver it to Rava directly? Because Rava nazuf havah — Rava was under censure, and so cut off from heavenly communication. The rebuke had to reach him through his companion.
Key Terms:
- נָזוּף (nazuf) = under censure or rebuke, and so not addressed from Heaven
Segment 14
TYPE: שאלה ותשובה
Abaye asks Rav Dimi the verse’s plain meaning: teaching an unworthy student.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב דִּימִי: וּפְשָׁטֵיהּ דִּקְרָא בְּמַאי כְּתִיב? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּשׁוֹנֶה לְתַלְמִיד שֶׁאֵינוֹ הָגוּן.
English Translation:
In the preceding incident, the Gemara related that the verse: “As one that takes off a garment in cold weather, and as vinegar upon niter, so is he that sings songs to a heavy heart” (Proverbs 25:20), was proclaimed to Rav Safra in a dream. Abaye said to Rav Dimi: And with regard to what matter is the plain meaning of the verse written? Rav Dimi said to him: It is referring to one who teaches an unworthy student. In other words, just as one should remove a worn garment that has no use in cold weather, or just as vinegar upon niter ruins the niter, rendering it unusable, so too, there is no use in singing songs, i.e., teaching Torah, to an unworthy student who has a heavy heart, i.e., who does not intend to adhere to the halakhot he is taught.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye turns from the dream-reading to the verse itself and asks Rav Dimi what it means bipshuteih. The answer opens the aggadic passage that closes the amud: it speaks of one who teaches an unworthy student. As a garment is useless in the cold once removed, and as vinegar ruins natron, so Torah sung to a heart that will not receive it is worse than wasted.
Key Terms:
- פְּשָׁטֵיהּ דִּקְרָא = the plain meaning of the verse
- תַּלְמִיד שֶׁאֵינוֹ הָגוּן = an unworthy student, who will not live by what he learns
Segment 15
TYPE: מימרא
Rav: one who teaches an unworthy student falls into Gehinnom.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כׇּל הַשּׁוֹנֶה לְתַלְמִיד שֶׁאֵינוֹ הָגוּן – נוֹפֵל בְּגֵיהִנָּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״כׇּל חֹשֶׁךְ טָמוּן לִצְפּוּנָיו תְּאׇכְלֵהוּ אֵשׁ לֹא נֻפָּח יֵרַע שָׂרִיד בְּאׇהֳלוֹ״, וְאֵין ״שָׂרִיד״ אֶלָּא תַּלְמִיד חָכָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וּבַשְּׂרִידִים אֲשֶׁר ה׳ קֹרֵא״.
English Translation:
As Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Anyone who teaches Torah to an unworthy student falls into Gehenna, as it is stated: “All darkness is laid up for his treasures; a fire not blown by man shall consume him; it shall go ill with him that remains [yera sarid] in his tent” (Job 20:26), and sarid means nothing other than a Torah scholar, as it is stated: “And among the remnant [sarid] those whom the Lord shall call” (Joel 3:5). The word yera shares a root with the word ra, evil, and “yera sarid” is therefore understood to be referring to an unworthy student.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav states the danger in the sharpest terms, deriving it from Iyov 20:26 — yera sarid b’aholo. Since sarid elsewhere denotes a Torah scholar, as in Yoel 3:5, the phrase is read as evil befalling through the ‘remnant’ in one’s tent, that is, through the unworthy student one has raised. The teacher, not only the student, bears the consequence.
Key Terms:
- שָׂרִיד (sarid) = a remnant — read as a Torah scholar
- יֵרַע (yera) = it shall go ill — linked to רע, evil
Segment 16
TYPE: מימרא
Rabbi Zeira: it is like throwing a stone to Markulis.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב: כׇּל הַשּׁוֹנֶה לְתַלְמִיד שֶׁאֵינוֹ הָגוּן – כְּזוֹרֵק אֶבֶן לְמֶרְקוּלִיס, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּצְרוֹר אֶבֶן בְּמַרְגֵּמָה כֵּן נוֹתֵן לִכְסִיל כָּבוֹד״, וּכְתִיב: ״לֹא נָאוֶה לִכְסִיל תַּעֲנוּג״.
English Translation:
On a similar note, Rabbi Zeira says that Rav says: Anyone who teaches Torah to an unworthy student is considered like one who throws a stone to Markulis, as it is stated: “As a small stone in a heap of stones, so is he that gives honor to a fool” (Proverbs 26:8), and it is written: “Luxury is not seemly for a fool” (Proverbs 19:10).
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Zeira supplies a second and more startling image: teaching such a student is like casting a stone at Markulis, whose worship consisted precisely in stone-throwing. Honour given to a fool is not neutral but an act of service to something unworthy of it, supported by Mishlei 26:8 and 19:10. Torah placed in the wrong hands does not merely fail to elevate; it is misdirected worship.
Key Terms:
- מֶרְקוּלִיס (Markulis) = an idol worshipped by throwing stones at it
- כְּסִיל (kesil) = a fool, to whom honour is unbecoming
Segment 17
TYPE: קושיא
Back to the mishna: must one really mark an animal shared with a gentile?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהַמִּשְׁתַּתֵּף עִמָּהֶן צָרִיךְ לִרְשׁוֹם, וַאֲפִילּוּ עִם הַגּוֹי. וּרְמִינְהוּ: הַמִּשְׁתַּתֵּף עִם כֹּהֵן – צָרִיךְ לִרְשׁוֹם, וְהַמִּשְׁתַּתֵּף עִם הַגּוֹי וּפְסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁים – אֵין צָרִיךְ לִרְשׁוֹם!
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that one who enters into partnership with a priest or a gentile must mark the animal. The Gemara asks: And is one obligated to mark the animal even if he enters into partnership with a gentile? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: One who enters into partnership with a priest must mark the animal, but one who enters into partnership with a gentile and one who slaughters disqualified consecrated animals does not need to mark the animal.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to the mishna’s requirement that a partner yirshom, mark the animal, and immediately finds a contradiction. The mishna requires marking with a priest or a gentile alike; a baraita requires it only with a priest, exempting partnership with a gentile and disqualified consecrated animals. The resolution occupies the opening of 133b.
Key Terms:
- לִרְשׁוֹם (lirshom) = to mark the animal, so no one infers gifts were withheld
- פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין = consecrated animals disqualified and redeemed, hence exempt
Amud Bet (133b)
Segment 1
TYPE: תירוץ
First answer: the baraita speaks of a gentile sitting in the shop.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – דְּיָתֵיב גּוֹי אַמְּסַחְתָּא.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: Here, we are dealing with a case where the gentile is sitting in the butcher shop of the Israelite. In such a situation, it is evident that the gentile is in partnership with the Israelite and the animal need not be marked. By contrast, the mishna is referring to a case where the gentile does not sit in the shop.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara’s first resolution turns on visibility. The baraita exempts partnership with a gentile from marking because it pictures the gentile yateiv amsachta, seated in the butcher shop, where the partnership is plain to any customer. The mishna, requiring a mark, speaks of a gentile who does not sit there, so nothing outwardly signals the arrangement.
Key Terms:
- אַמְּסַחְתָּא (amsachta) = at the butcher shop, in public view
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא
But then the priest sitting in the shop should also be obvious.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דִּכְוָתַהּ גַּבֵּי כֹהֵן, דְּיָתֵיב אַמְּסַחְתָּא, אַמַּאי צָרִיךְ לִרְשׁוֹם? דְּאָמְרִי: בִּשְׂרָא קָא זָבֵין. אִי הָכִי, גּוֹי נָמֵי אָמְרִי: בִּשְׂרָא קָא זָבֵין!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: If so, then in the corresponding situation involving a priest, where the baraita teaches that one who enters into partnership with a priest must mark the animal, this must also be referring to a case where the priest sits in the butcher shop. Why, then, must one mark the animal? The Gemara responds: The fact that the priest sits in the shop does not indicate that he is in partnership with the Israelite, as people will say: He is in the shop because he is purchasing meat. The Gemara objects: If so, then in the case of the gentile as well, they will say that he is in the shop because he is purchasing meat.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer is pressed on its own logic. If sitting in the shop makes a partnership evident, the parallel case of a priest sitting there should equally need no mark. The Gemara distinguishes: of a priest people say bisra ka zavin, he is simply buying meat. But the objection returns at once — exactly the same could be said of the gentile.
Key Terms:
- בִּשְׂרָא קָא זָבֵין = he is buying meat — an innocent reading of his presence
Segment 3
TYPE: תירוץ וקושיא
Second attempt: the gentile sits by the cashbox — but the same objection recurs.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, דְּיָתֵיב גּוֹי אַכַּסְפְּתָא. דִּכְוָתַהּ גַּבֵּי כֹּהֵן דְּיָתֵיב אַכַּסְפְּתָא, אַמַּאי צָרִיךְ לִרְשׁוֹם? אָמְרִי: הֵמוֹנֵי הֵימְנֵיהּ, גּוֹי נָמֵי אָמְרִי: הֵמוֹנֵי הֵימְנֵיהּ!
English Translation:
Rather, here we are dealing with a case where the gentile sits by the safe into which the butcher places money received from his customers. In such a situation, it is evident that the gentile is in partnership with the Israelite, and therefore the animal need not be marked. The Gemara asks: If so, then the corresponding situation in the baraita involving a priest must also be a case where the priest sits by the safe. Why, then, must one mark the animal? The Gemara responds: The fact that the priest sits by the safe does not indicate that he is in partnership with the Israelite, as people will say: The butcher trusts him to protect the safe from theft. The Gemara asks: If so, then in the case of the gentile as well, they will say that he sits by the safe because the butcher trusts him.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second reading places the gentile akaspta, at the money chest, a position no mere customer occupies. Again the symmetry breaks it: a priest at the cashbox would be explained as trusted to guard it, hemonei heimneih — and the same explanation is available for the gentile. The Gemara has now failed twice by the same pattern.
Key Terms:
- אַכַּסְפְּתָא (akaspta) = at the cashbox or money chest
- הֵמוֹנֵי הֵימְנֵיהּ = he trusts him — an innocent reading of his access to the money
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
Resolved: a Jew does not entrust a gentile; or the gentile’s manner betrays him.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵין אֱמוּנָה בְּגוֹי. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: סְתַם גּוֹי מִפְּעָא פָּעֵי.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: It is not common for a Jew to place his trust in a gentile. If you wish, say instead that in both cases of the baraita the priest and the gentile sit in the butcher shop, not by the safe. It is evident that the gentile is in partnership with the Israelite, as an ordinary gentile partner yells at the seller, saying, for example: Do not sell an item for this price but for a different price. By contrast, a priest, even if he sits in the shop, would not question the practices of the salesman, due to his modesty, but would defer to the seller’s expertise. Accordingly, it is not evident that the priest is a partner, and the animal must therefore be marked.
קלאוד על הדף:
Two resolutions close the exchange. First, the trust explanation is unavailable for a gentile, since a Jew does not ordinarily place his money in a gentile’s keeping, so his presence at the chest can only mean partnership. Alternatively, both sit in the shop, and the difference is temperament: stam goy mifa pa’ei, a gentile partner shouts at the seller over prices, while a priest defers modestly and so gives nothing away.
Key Terms:
- אֵין אֱמוּנָה בְּגוֹי = one does not entrust his money to a gentile
- מִפְּעָא פָּעֵי = he shouts out — audibly asserting a partner’s authority
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא
How is a disqualified consecrated animal evident, given they are sold in the market?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר מָר: וּפְסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין אֵין צָרִיךְ לִרְשׁוֹם. אַלְמָא מוֹכְחָא מִלְּתָא, וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן: פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין נִמְכָּרִים בָּאִיטְלִיז, וְנִשְׁחָטִים בָּאִיטְלִיז, וְנִשְׁקָלִים בְּלִיטְרָא!
English Translation:
§ The Master said in the baraita: And the owner of disqualified consecrated animals, which were slaughtered after they were redeemed and became non-sacred, is exempt from the obligation to give the gifts, and one does not need to mark the animal. The Gemara objects: Apparently, it is an evident matter that this is a disqualified consecrated animal, and therefore one need not mark it. But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Bekhorot 31a): All disqualified consecrated animals are sold in the meat market [be’itliz], and are slaughtered in the meat market, and are weighed and sold by the litra, in the manner of non-sacred meat? Since disqualified consecrated animals are treated in the same manner as ordinary non-sacred animals, how is it evident that this is a disqualified consecrated animal?
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita’s third clause is now challenged. It exempts pesulei hamukdashin from marking, implying their status is self-evident. But a mishna in Bechorot teaches that such animals are sold in the itliz, slaughtered there, and weighed by the litra exactly like ordinary meat. If they are handled indistinguishably from chullin, nothing about them is evident.
Key Terms:
- אִיטְלִיז (itliz) = the public meat market
- לִיטְרָא (litra) = a weight measure, used for ordinary meat
Segment 6
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Adda bar Ahava: those sold inside the house — a firstborn and animal tithe.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּרְגְּמָא רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא, בְּאוֹתָן הַנִּמְכָּרִים בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: Rav Adda bar Ahava interpreted the baraita before Rav Pappa as referring to those disqualified consecrated animals that are sold from inside the house, i.e., a firstborn animal and an animal tithe, whose redemption payments belong to their owners, as their value has no sanctity. Since no gain would accrue to the Temple, the Sages prohibited one from selling these animals in the market, despite the fact one could have obtained a higher sale price there due to the high concentration of customers.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Adda bar Ahava resolves it before Rav Pappa by identifying which disqualified animals the baraita means: those sold b’toch habayit, from inside the house. A firstborn and an animal tithe cannot be sold in the market, because their redemption money belongs to the owner rather than to the Temple, so the Sages saw no reason to grant them the market’s higher prices. Being sold privately, their status is indeed evident.
Key Terms:
- בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת = inside the house, not in the public market
- בְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר = the firstborn and the animal tithe
Segment 7
TYPE: מחלוקת
Rav Huna vs. Chiyya bar Rav: does partnership in one limb exempt one gift or all?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: שׁוּתָּף בָּרֹאשׁ – פָּטוּר מִן הַלֶּחִי, שׁוּתָּף בַּיָּד – פָּטוּר מִן הַזְּרוֹעַ, שׁוּתָּף בִּבְנֵי מֵעַיִין – פָּטוּר מִן הַקֵּבָה. וְחִיָּיא בַּר רַב אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ שׁוּתָּף בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן – פָּטוּר מִכּוּלָּן.
English Translation:
§ With regard to gifts of the priesthood from animals owned in partnership, Rav Huna says: If an Israelite is a partner with a priest or gentile in only the head of the animal, he is exempt merely from the obligation to give the jaw, which is part of the head. He remains obligated to give the foreleg and the maw. If he is a partner with a priest or gentile in the leg and hoof of the animal, he is exempt only from the obligation to give the foreleg. If he is a partner with a priest or gentile in the innards, he is exempt merely from the obligation to give the maw. And Ḥiyya bar Rav says that even if the priest or gentile is a partner in only one of them, the Israelite is exempt from all of the gifts.
קלאוד על הדף:
A sharp dispute opens on the scope of the partnership exemption. Rav Huna matches gift to limb: a partner in the head is exempt from the jaw only, in the foreleg from the zeroa only, in the innards from the keiva only, remaining liable for the rest. Chiyya bar Rav holds that partnership in any one of them exempts from all three together.
Key Terms:
- שׁוּתָּף (shutaf) = a partner, here in a specified limb only
Segment 8
TYPE: מתיב
A baraita cited against Chiyya bar Rav: even a hundredth of a limb exempts.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵיתִיבִי: ״הָרֹאשׁ שֶׁלִּי וְכוּלָּהּ שֶׁלָּךְ״, וַאֲפִילּוּ אֶחָד מִמֵּאָה בָּרֹאשׁ – פָּטוּר. ״הַיָּד שֶׁלִּי וְכוּלָּהּ שֶׁלָּךְ״, אֲפִילּוּ אֶחָד מִמֵּאָה בַּיָּד – פָּטוּר. ״בְּנֵי מֵעַיִין שֶׁלִּי וְכוּלָּהּ שֶׁלָּךְ״, אֲפִילּוּ אֶחָד מִמֵּאָה בָּהֶן – פָּטוּר.
English Translation:
The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Ḥiyya bar Rav from a baraita: If a priest says to an Israelite butcher: Let us enter into a partnership in which the head of the animal is mine and the entire remainder is yours, even if the priest proposes that only one-hundredth of the head should be his, the Israelite is exempt. Similarly, if the priest offers: Let us enter into a partnership in which the leg and hoof of the animal are mine and the entire remainder is yours, even if the priest suggests that only one-hundredth of the leg and hoof will be his, the Israelite is exempt. And likewise, if the priest says: Let us enter into a partnership in which the innards of the animal are mine and the entire remainder is yours, even if the priest offers to take only one-hundredth of the innards, the Israelite is exempt.
קלאוד על הדף:
The challenge comes from a baraita that runs the three cases in parallel. If the priest says the head is mine and the rest yours — even a hundredth of the head — the Israelite is patur; and likewise for the foreleg and the innards. The bare word ‘exempt’ is the pivot, since the baraita does not say exempt from what.
Key Terms:
- אֶחָד מִמֵּאָה = one hundredth — the smallest share still creating partnership
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Read as exempt from that gift alone, or from all? The Gemara offers the latter.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי לָאו: פָּטוּר מִן הַלֶּחִי וְחַיָּיב בְּכוּלָּן, פָּטוּר מִן הַזְּרוֹעַ וְחַיָּיב בְּכוּלָּן, פָּטוּר מִן הַקֵּבָה וְחַיָּיב בְּכוּלָּן? לָא, פָּטוּר מִכּוּלָּן.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains the objection: What, is it not correct that the baraita is teaching that when the priest owns the head the butcher is exempt from giving the jaw, but obligated in giving all the rest, and likewise when the priest owns the leg and hoof, he is exempt from giving the foreleg but obligated in all the rest, and when the priest owns the innards, he is exempt from the maw and obligated in all the rest? This would contradict the opinion of Ḥiyya bar Rav. The Gemara responds: No; in each case the baraita means that he is exempt from all the gifts.
קלאוד על הדף:
The objection is spelled out. If the baraita means exempt from the jaw but liable for the rest, Chiyya bar Rav is refuted. The Gemara defends him by reading each clause as exempting from all the gifts — an answer that preserves his position but strains the wording.
Segment 10
TYPE: תיובתא
Two counters, and Chiyya bar Rav is conclusively refuted.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלִיתְנֵי פָּטוּר מִכּוּלָּן! וְעוֹד, תַּנְיָא: הָרֹאשׁ שֶׁלִּי וְכוּלָּהּ שֶׁלָּךְ – אֲפִילּוּ אֶחָד מִמֵּאָה בָּרֹאשׁ פָּטוּר מִן הַלֶּחִי וְחַיָּיב בְּכוּלָּן. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּחִיָּיא בַּר רַב, תְּיוּבְתָּא!
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: But if so, let the baraita teach explicitly that he is exempt from all the gifts, rather than simply stating that he is exempt. And furthermore, it is taught in another baraita that if a priest says to an Israelite butcher: Let us enter into a partnership in which the head of the animal is mine and the entire remainder is yours, even if the priest suggests that only one-hundredth of the head will be his, the butcher is exempt from the obligation to give the jaw but is obligated in giving all the rest. This baraita explicitly contradicts the opinion of Ḥiyya bar Rav. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Ḥiyya bar Rav is indeed a conclusive refutation.
קלאוד על הדף:
The defence collapses under two blows. First, had the baraita meant exemption from everything, it should have said so rather than leaving ‘exempt’ bare. Second, another baraita states the matter explicitly: partnership in the head exempts from the jaw v’chayav b’chulan, and he is liable for all the rest. The Gemara pronounces teyuvta d’Chiyya bar Rav, teyuvta — a conclusive refutation, and Rav Huna’s view stands.
Key Terms:
- תְּיוּבְתָּא (teyuvta) = a conclusive refutation, ending the position
Segment 11
TYPE: הסבר
Rav Chisda explains what misled Chiyya bar Rav: the baraita of twenty-four gifts.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הָא מַתְנִיתָא אַטְעִיתֵיהּ לְחִיָּיא בַּר רַב, דְּתַנְיָא: עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה הֵן, וְכוּלָּן נִיתְּנוּ לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו בִּכְלָל וּפְרָט וּבְרִית מֶלַח.
English Translation:
Rav Ḥisda said in explanation of the opinion of Ḥiyya bar Rav: This baraita misled Ḥiyya bar Rav, as it is taught in a baraita: There are twenty-four gifts of the priesthood, and all of them were given in the Torah to Aaron and his sons by a generalization and a detail, and with a covenant of salt. 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). After this generalization, the Torah proceeds to list the gifts in detail. Finally, after delineating all the gifts of the priesthood, the verse states: “It is an everlasting covenant of salt” (Numbers 18:19), assuring Aaron that just as a covenant of salt is unbreakable, so too, the gifts of the priesthood are eternal.
קלאוד על הדף:
Though refuted, Chiyya bar Rav’s reasoning is worth reconstructing, and Rav Chisda supplies it. He was misled by the great baraita of the twenty-four priestly gifts, which counts zeroa, lechayayim and keiva as a single item. The baraita states that all were given to Aharon and his sons bichlal uferat and with a covenant of salt — language of permanence drawn from Bamidbar 18.
Key Terms:
- בִּכְלָל וּפְרָט = by a generalisation and a detail — a hermeneutical structure
- בְּרִית מֶלַח = a covenant of salt — an unbreakable, everlasting covenant
Segment 12
TYPE: ברייתא
Fulfilling or violating the gifts counts as the whole covenant kept or broken.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כָּל הַמְקַיְּימָן – כְּאִילּוּ קִיֵּים בִּכְלָל וּפְרָט וּבְרִית מֶלַח, וְכׇל הָעוֹבֵר עֲלֵיהֶן – כְּאִילּוּ עוֹבֵר עַל בִּכְלָל וּפְרָט וּבְרִית מֶלַח.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: Therefore, anyone who fulfills the mitzva of giving the gifts of the priesthood is considered as though he fulfills all these mitzvot that are derived using the principle of a generalization and a detail, and as though he has upheld the covenant of salt. And anyone who violates the mitzva of giving the gifts of the priesthood is considered as though he violates all of the mitzvot derived by the principle of a generalization and a detail, and as though he has not upheld the covenant of salt.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita raises the stakes of a small obligation. One who fulfils the gifts is credited as though he upheld everything derived by that structure and the covenant of salt entire; one who violates them is charged as though he broke it all. The three limbs of an ox are made to carry the weight of the whole priestly covenant.
Key Terms:
- כׇּל הַמְקַיְּימָן = anyone who fulfils them
Segment 13
TYPE: ברייתא
The ten gifts eaten in the Temple.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: עֶשֶׂר בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְאַרְבַּע בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְעֶשֶׂר בַּגְּבוּלִים. עֶשֶׂר בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ: חַטָּאת, וְחַטַּאת הָעוֹף, אָשָׁם וַדַּאי, וְאָשָׁם תָּלוּי, וְזִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִבּוּר, וְלוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע, וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם, וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, וּשְׁיָרֵי מְנָחוֹת, וּמִנְחַת הָעוֹמֶר.
English Translation:
And these are the twenty-four gifts: Ten are consumed in the Temple, and four in Jerusalem, and ten in the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael. The ten gifts consumed only in the Temple are an animal sin offering; and a bird sin offering; and a definite guilt offering; and a provisional guilt offering; and communal peace offerings, i.e., the lambs that accompany the two loaves brought on Shavuot and which are considered offerings of the most sacred order; and the remainder of the log of oil that accompanies the guilt offering of a recovered leper; and the two loaves offering from the new wheat brought on Shavuot; and the shewbread; and the leftovers of meal offerings; and the omer meal offering, i.e., the measure of barley brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of Nisan.
קלאוד על הדף:
The enumeration begins: ten in the Temple, four in Yerushalayim, ten in the boundaries. The Temple ten are the animal and bird sin offerings, the definite and provisional guilt offerings, the communal peace offerings, the remainder of the metzora’s log of oil, the two loaves, the showbread, the leftovers of meal offerings, and the omer meal offering.
Key Terms:
- אָשָׁם תָּלוּי = a provisional guilt offering, for a doubtful transgression
- לוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע = the log of oil accompanying the metzora’s offering
Segment 14
TYPE: ברייתא
The four gifts eaten anywhere in Yerushalayim.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאַרְבַּע בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם: הַבְּכוֹרָה, וְהַבִּכּוּרִים, וּמוּרָם מִן הַתּוֹדָה וּמֵאֵיל נָזִיר, וְעוֹרוֹת קָדָשִׁים.
English Translation:
And these are the four gifts that the priests consume anywhere in Jerusalem: The unblemished firstborn of kosher animals; and the first fruits; and the portions separated for the priests from the thanks offering, i.e., the breast and thigh and one loaf from each of the four types of loaves brought with a thanks offerings: Cakes, wafers, cakes of fine flour, and leavened bread, and the portions separated from the nazirite’s ram, i.e., the boiled shoulder, a cake, and a wafer, in addition to the breast and thigh of any peace offering; and the hides of sacrificial animals brought as burnt offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings.
קלאוד על הדף:
Four gifts may be eaten anywhere in the city: the unblemished firstborn, the first fruits, the portions raised from the thanks offering and from the nazir’s ram, and the hides of consecrated animals. Note that the thanks offering and the nazir’s ram are counted here as one item — a detail the Gemara will use in a moment to dismantle Chiyya bar Rav’s inference.
Key Terms:
- מוּרָם (muram) = the portions raised off an offering for the priests
- עוֹרוֹת קָדָשִׁים = the hides of sacrificial animals
Segment 15
TYPE: ברייתא
The gifts of the boundaries, part one.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְעֶשֶׂר בַּגְּבוּלִים: תְּרוּמָה, וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר, וְחַלָּה, וְרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, וּמַתָּנוֹת, וּפִדְיוֹן הַבֵּן, וּפִדְיוֹן פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר.
English Translation:
And these are the ten gifts that the priests consume anywhere in the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael: Teruma, i.e., the portion of the produce designated for the priest; and teruma of the tithe; and ḥalla; and the first sheared wool; and the gifts of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw; and the five sela given as redemption of the firstborn son; and a sheep or goat given as redemption of the firstborn donkey.
קלאוד על הדף:
The list moves outside Yerushalayim to the gifts of the gevulin, which apply throughout the land: terumah, terumat ma’aser, challah, the first shearing, the matanot of foreleg, jaw and maw, the redemption of the firstborn son, and the redemption of the firstborn donkey. Our daf’s own subject appears here as a single entry among ten.
Key Terms:
- גְּבוּלִים (gevulin) = the boundaries — anywhere in Eretz Yisrael, outside the Temple
- רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז = the first shearing of the flock
- פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר = a firstborn donkey, redeemed with a sheep or goat
Segment 16
TYPE: ברייתא
The boundaries completed: ancestral field, dedicated field, and a convert’s robbery.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה, וּשְׂדֵה חֲרָמִים, וְגֶזֶל הַגֵּר.
English Translation:
The baraita continues the list: And a consecrated ancestral field that one did not redeem, which was sold to another by the Temple treasurer and is therefore given to the members of the priestly watch serving during the Jubilee Year; and a dedicated field; and payment for the robbery of a convert who died without heirs. If one takes an oath that he did not rob from a convert, and after the death of the convert he admits to having taken a false oath, he must pay the principal value of the stolen item and an additional one-fifth of the value, all of which is given to the priests.
קלאוד על הדף:
Three further gifts complete the ten: an ancestral field consecrated and left unredeemed, which passes to the priestly watch at the Jubilee; a field placed under cherem; and the restitution for robbing a convert who died leaving no heirs, principal plus a fifth, which has no claimant and so goes to the priests.
Key Terms:
- שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה = an ancestral field, consecrated and unredeemed
- שְׂדֵה חֲרָמִים = a dedicated field
- גֶּזֶל הַגֵּר = property robbed from a convert who left no heirs
Segment 17
TYPE: דחייה
The inference dismantled: items are grouped by similarity, not identity.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הוּא סָבַר: מִדְּקָא חָשֵׁיב לְהוּ לְמַתָּנוֹת בַּחֲדָא – חֲדָא נִינְהוּ, וְלָא הִיא! אַטּוּ מוּרָם מִתּוֹדָה וְאֵיל נָזִיר דְּקָא חָשֵׁיב לְהוּ כַּחֲדָא – מִשּׁוּם דַּחֲדָא נִינְהוּ?! אֶלָּא, כֵּיוָן דְּדָמְיָין לַהֲדָדֵי – חָשֵׁיב לְהוּ כַּחֲדָא, הָכִי נָמֵי: כֵּיוָן דְּדָמְיָין לַהֲדָדֵי – חֲשִׁיב לְהוּ כַּחֲדָא.
English Translation:
Rav Ḥisda explains how the baraita misled Ḥiyya bar Rav: He thought that from the fact that the tanna of the baraita counts the gifts of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw as one gift, they are treated as one gift, which means that if one is exempt from one of them he is exempt from all of them. But it is not so, as is that to say that the portions separated for the priests from the thanks offering and from the nazirite’s ram, which the tanna counts as one, are counted this way because they are one? Obviously, these are independent gifts. Rather, since they are similar to one another the tanna counts them as one. So too, with regard to the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, since they are similar to one another he counts them as one.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Chisda now shows why the grouping proves nothing. Chiyya bar Rav reasoned that since the baraita counts the three gifts as one, they must function as one. But the same baraita counts the thanks offering and the nazir’s ram together, and nobody imagines those are a single gift. Items are grouped because they resemble one another, not because they are one — so the three limbs remain three independent obligations.
Key Terms:
- דְּדָמְיָין לַהֲדָדֵי = because they resemble one another — the real basis of the grouping
Segment 18
TYPE: בעיא
The reverse case: the priest owns the animal, the Israelite owns the head.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הָרֹאשׁ שֶׁלְּךָ וְכוּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי, מַהוּ? בָּתַר חִיּוּבָא אָזְלִינַן, וְחִיּוּבָא גַּבֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא, אוֹ דִלְמָא בָּתַר עִיקַּר בְּהֵמָה אָזְלִינַן, וְעִיקַּר בְּהֵמָה דְּכֹהֵן הוּא?
English Translation:
§ With regard to animals owned in partnership with a priest, the Gemara relates that a dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a priest says to an Israelite butcher: Let us enter into partnership in ownership of a live animal, in which the head is yours and the entire remainder is mine, what is the halakha? Is the Israelite obligated to give the jaw to a priest when it is slaughtered? The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: Do we follow the obligation, i.e., the limbs of the animal which contain the gifts, and since the obligation is owned by the Israelite he is obligated? Or perhaps, we follow the principal part of the animal, and since the principal of the animal is in the possession of the priest, the Israelite is exempt?
קלאוד על הדף:
With Rav Huna’s view established, a new question arises from inverting the arrangement. If the head is the Israelite’s and the body the priest’s, is the Israelite liable for the jaw? Either we follow chiyuva, the limb carrying the obligation, which he owns; or we follow ikar behemah, the main body of the animal, which is the priest’s and exempt.
Key Terms:
- בָּתַר חִיּוּבָא = following the locus of the obligation — the limb itself
- עִיקַּר בְּהֵמָה = the principal body of the animal
Segment 19
TYPE: תא שמע
A proof from the first shearing: agents and buyers of a gentile’s wool.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: גּוֹי וְכֹהֵן שֶׁמָּסְרוּ צֹאנָם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לִגְזוֹז – פָּטוּר, הַלּוֹקֵחַ גֵּז צֹאנוֹ שֶׁל גּוֹי – פָּטוּר מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: With regard to a gentile or a priest who transferred his sheep to an Israelite to act as his agent to shear it, the Israelite is exempt from giving the first sheared wool to a priest. Similarly, one who purchases the shearing of the sheep of a gentile, even before the sheep was actually sheared, is exempt from giving the first sheared wool.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita on reishit hagez is brought to decide it. A gentile or priest who hands his flock to an Israelite to shear leaves him exempt, and one who buys the shearing of a gentile’s flock before it is shorn is likewise exempt from the first shearing.
Key Terms:
- רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז = the first of the shearing, given to the priest
Segment 20
TYPE: מסקנה
The stringency of the three gifts settles it: we follow the obligation.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְזֶה חוֹמֶר בִּזְרוֹעַ וּבַלְּחָיַיִם וּבְקֵבָה, יוֹתֵר מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בָּתַר חִיּוּבָא אָזְלִינַן, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
English Translation:
The baraita adds: And this, the halakha in a case where one purchases an item before the obligation of a certain gift of the priesthood takes effect, is a stringency that applies in the case of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw more so than in the case of the first sheared wool. In other words, one who purchases wool from a priest before it is shorn is exempt from giving first sheared wool, whereas one who purchases part of an animal from a priest before its slaughter is obligated to give any gifts contained within the purchased portion. Since this is the halakha even if the portion he purchased is not the principal part, similar to the stated case of one who purchases only the shearing of the sheep of a gentile, one can conclude from this baraita that we follow the obligation, i.e., the limbs of the animal that contain the gifts. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that this is correct.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita’s own closing comment supplies the answer. It calls this chomer — a stringency of the foreleg, jaw and maw beyond that of the first shearing: one who buys wool before shearing is exempt, but one who buys a part of an animal before slaughter is liable for whatever gifts that part contains. Since liability attaches even to a portion that is not the principal body, we follow the obligation. The Gemara affirms: shma minah.
Key Terms:
- חוֹמֶר (chomer) = a stringency, here of the gifts over the first shearing
- שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ = conclude from this — the question is resolved
Segment 21
TYPE: משנה
The mishna resumes: a sale reserving the gifts leaves the buyer exempt.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ ״חוּץ מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת״ – פָּטוּר מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches: And if a priest sold his animal to an Israelite and said that he is selling everything except for the gifts with it, the Israelite is exempt from the obligation to give the gifts, because they are not his.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf closes by returning to the mishna’s clause on a priest who sells his animal chutz min hamatanot. Because the gifts were never included in the sale, they never became the Israelite buyer’s to give, and he is exempt. The discussion of this clause carries over to 134a.
Key Terms:
- חוּץ מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת = except for the gifts — reserved out of the sale