Chullin Daf 134 (חולין דף קל״ד)
Daf: 134 | Amudim: 134a – 134b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (134a)
Segment 1
TYPE: קושיא
A baraita on ‘al menat’ seems to contradict the mishna’s ‘chutz’.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּרְמִינְהוּ: ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁהַמַּתָּנוֹת שֶׁלִּי״ – נוֹתֵן לְכׇל כֹּהֵן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה!
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: But one can raise a contradiction from a baraita: If a priest sells his animal to an Israelite and stipulates: I am selling it on the condition that the gifts are mine, the Israelite is not obligated to give the gifts to that priest. Rather, he gives the gifts to any priest that he wants. Since the priest sold his animal, the priest cannot issue a condition involving the gifts, as they no longer belong to him but to the entire tribe of priests. The baraita indicates that the Israelite is nevertheless obligated to give the gifts, which apparently contradicts the ruling of the mishna.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna’s ruling that a priest may sell his animal while reserving the gifts is challenged from a baraita. There a priest sells al menat that the gifts are his, and the ruling is that the buyer gives them to any priest he likes — the seller’s stipulation is simply ignored. If a reservation is effective in the mishna, why is it ineffective here?
Key Terms:
- עַל מְנָת (al menat) = on the condition that — a stipulation attached to a sale
- חוּץ (chutz) = except for — language that holds something back from the sale
Segment 2
TYPE: תירוץ
The distinction: ‘chutz’ retains, ‘al menat’ merely stipulates.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״עַל מְנָת״ אַ״חוּץ״ קָא רָמֵית? ״חוּץ״ – שִׁיּוּרָא, ״עַל מְנָת״ – לָאו שִׁיּוּרָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: Do you raise a contradiction from a baraita that discusses a case where the priest states: On the condition that the gifts are mine, with regard to the case of the mishna, where the priest states: Except for the gifts? That is not a contradiction, as the word except is a term of retention, i.e., the priest retains the gifts and does not sell them to the Israelite. By contrast, the term: On the condition, is not one of retention, as the priest does not keep the gifts for himself but instead stipulates that the buyer must give the gifts to him. The priest is not authorized to issue such a stipulation and it is therefore disregarded entirely, and because the Israelite owns the gifts he must give them to a priest.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer turns on the difference between two legal formulas. Chutz is shiyura, a retention: the gifts never enter the sale, so they remain the priest’s and the buyer owes nothing. Al menat is not a retention but a condition imposed on property that has already passed; a priest has no standing to direct where another’s gifts must go, so the stipulation is void and the buyer, who now owns the gifts, must give them to a priest of his choosing.
Key Terms:
- שִׁיּוּרָא (shiyura) = a retention — something held back and never sold
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
A second baraita rules the opposite; the two are a tannaitic dispute.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּרְמִינְהוּ: ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁהַמַּתָּנוֹת שֶׁלִּי״ – הַמַּתָּנוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ! בְּהָא פְּלִיגִי: מָר סָבַר ״עַל מְנָת״ – שִׁיּוּרָא הוּא, וּמָר סָבַר ״עַל מְנָת״ – לָאו שִׁיּוּרָא הוּא.
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: But one may raise a contradiction against the previous baraita from another baraita: If a priest sells his animal to an Israelite and stipulates: I am selling it on the condition that the gifts are mine, the gifts are his and the Israelite must give the gifts to that priest. The Gemara responds: There is a dispute between the tanna’im of these baraitot, and they disagree with regard to this matter: One Sage, the tanna of the second baraita, holds that the term: On the condition, is one of retention, and the priest therefore retains possession of the gifts. And one Sage, the tanna of the first baraita, holds that: On the condition, is not a term of retention, and the priest is not authorized to stipulate that the buyer must give the gifts to him.
קלאוד על הדף:
A further baraita rules that with al menat the gifts are his, flatly contradicting the first. The Gemara does not reconcile them but assigns them to opposing tannaim: one holds al menat is a retention, the other holds it is not. The mishna’s chutz is uncontroversial; only the weaker formula is disputed.
Segment 4
TYPE: מחלוקת
Rav vs. Rav Asi: may the priest claim the maw from the butcher too?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר לוֹ: מְכוֹר לִי בְּנֵי מֵעֶיהָ וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁשָּׁקַל לְעַצְמוֹ, אֲבָל שָׁקַל לוֹ טַבָּח – הַדִּין עִם הַטַּבָּח. וְרַב אַסִּי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ שָׁקַל לוֹ טַבָּח – הַדִּין עִמּוֹ.
English Translation:
§ The mishna teaches that if one said to a butcher: Sell me the innards of a cow that you slaughtered, and there were gifts, i.e., the maw, included with it, the buyer gives the gifts to the priest and does not deduct its value from the money that he pays to the butcher. If he bought the innards by weight, the buyer gives the maw to the priest and deducts its value from the money he pays to the butcher. With regard to innards purchased by weight, Rav says: The Sages taught that the buyer gives the maw to the priest only when the buyer weighed the innards for himself when purchasing them. In such a case, the priest claims the maw from the buyer. But if the butcher weighed the innards for the buyer, the judgment is also with the butcher, i.e., the priest may claim the maw from either the butcher or the buyer. And Rav Asi says: Even if the butcher weighed the innards for the buyer, the judgment is with the buyer alone.
קלאוד על הדף:
Returning to the mishna’s clause on buying innards, Rav limits it to where the buyer weighed them himself — there the priest claims from him. But if the butcher weighed them out, the claim lies with the butcher as well, so the priest may collect from either. Rav Asi holds that even then the claim lies with the buyer alone.
Key Terms:
- שָׁקַל (shakal) = he weighed out
- הַדִּין עִם = the claim lies against
Segment 5
TYPE: הוה אמינא
Are they disputing Rav Chisda’s rule on a robbed item consumed by another?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לֵימָא בִּדְרַב חִסְדָּא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: גָּזַל וְלֹא נִתְיָיאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים, וּבָא אַחֵר וַאֲכָלוֹ – רָצָה מִזֶּה גּוֹבֶה, רָצָה מִזֶּה גּוֹבֶה. דְּמָר אִית לֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא, וּמָר לֵית לֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree with regard to a statement of Rav Ḥisda, as Rav Ḥisda said: In a case where one robbed another of an item, and the owners had not despaired of retrieving it, and another person came and consumed the stolen item, if the owner wants, he may collect the value of the stolen item from this one, the robber, and if he wants, he may collect from that one who consumed it. The suggestion is that one Sage, Rav, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, and he therefore holds that the priest may claim the maw from either the buyer or the butcher; and one Sage, Rav Asi, does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, and the priest may therefore claim the maw from the buyer alone.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara first proposes that the dispute is about Rav Chisda’s ruling: where a robber takes an item, the owner has not despaired, and a third party consumes it, the owner may collect from either. On this reading Rav accepts Rav Chisda and Rav Asi rejects him.
Key Terms:
- לֹא נִתְיָיאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים = the owners had not despaired — so ownership never lapsed
Segment 6
TYPE: דחייה
Rejected: both accept Rav Chisda; they differ on whether gifts can be stolen.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אִית לְהוּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא, וְהָכָא בְּמַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה נִגְזָלוֹת קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר נִגְזָלוֹת, וּמַר סָבַר אֵין נִגְזָלוֹת.
English Translation:
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No; everyone holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, and here they disagree with regard to whether or not gifts of the priesthood can be stolen. As one Sage, Rav, holds that they can be stolen, and accordingly the robber remains responsible for them even if they are consumed by another. Consequently, if the butcher weighed the innards, the priest may claim the gifts from either the butcher or the buyer. And one Sage, Rav Asi, holds that gifts of the priesthood cannot be stolen. Since technically one cannot steal the gifts, the obligation to return them to the priest rests solely on the one in physical possession of them. Accordingly, the priest may claim the gifts from the buyer alone, as the gifts are in his custody.
קלאוד על הדף:
The proposal is set aside. Both sages accept Rav Chisda; what divides them is whether matnot kehunah nigzalot, whether the priestly gifts are subject to the laws of theft at all. Rav holds they are, so the butcher who passed them on stays liable alongside the buyer. Rav Asi holds they are not, so liability rests only on whoever physically holds them.
Key Terms:
- נִגְזָלוֹת (nigzalot) = subject to being stolen — i.e. governed by the laws of theft
Segment 7
TYPE: גרסה אחרת
Some transmit the dispute as a freestanding principle.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ: רַב אָמַר: מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה נִגְזָלוֹת, וְרַב אַסִּי אָמַר: מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה אֵין נִגְזָלוֹת.
English Translation:
The Gemara notes that some teach this halakha, that there is a dispute between Rav and Rav Asi as to whether or not gifts of the priesthood can be stolen, by itself, i.e., as an independent dispute between them rather than in explanation of another dispute: Rav says that gifts of the priesthood can be stolen, and Rav Asi says that gifts of the priesthood cannot be stolen.
קלאוד על הדף:
An alternative tradition detaches the argument from the mishna entirely and reports it as a bare disagreement of principle: Rav says the gifts can be stolen, Rav Asi says they cannot. The same dispute, stated abstractly rather than as an explanation of the innards case.
Segment 8
TYPE: משנה
A new mishna: the convert’s cow, and doubt resolved leniently.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר וְהָיְתָה לוֹ פָּרָה, נִשְׁחֲטָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְגַּיֵּיר – פָּטוּר, מִשֶּׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר – חַיָּיב, סָפֵק – פָּטוּר, שֶׁהַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה.
English Translation:
MISHNA: In the case of a convert who converted and he had a cow, if the cow was slaughtered before he converted, he is exempt from giving the gifts to the priest. If the animal was slaughtered after he converted, the convert is obligated to give the gifts. If there is uncertainty whether it was slaughtered before or after the conversion, the convert is exempt, as the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.
קלאוד על הדף:
The final mishna of the masechet turns to a convert who owned a cow. Slaughtered before his conversion, it is exempt; after, it is obligated. Where the timing is uncertain he is exempt, on the standard rule hamotzi mechavero alav hara’ayah — the burden of proof lies on the one seeking to extract. The rest of the amud probes why doubt is treated leniently here.
Key Terms:
- הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה = the burden of proof is on the claimant
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא
Reish Lakish to Rabbi Yochanan: our mishna is lenient in doubt.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אֲמַר: רָמֵי לֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן – תְּנַן: ״סָפֵק פָּטוּר״, אַלְמָא סְפֵיקָא לְקוּלָּא.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if there is an uncertainty whether an individual is obligated to give gifts of the priesthood, he is exempt from giving them. In this regard, the Gemara relates that when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised a contradiction to Rabbi Yoḥanan: We learned in the mishna that when there is an uncertainty one is exempt from giving the gifts. Evidently, in cases of uncertainty the halakha is to be lenient.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Dimi reports the exchange from Eretz Yisrael. Reish Lakish presses Rabbi Yochanan from our mishna’s plain ruling: doubt exempts, so sfeika l’kula, uncertainty is resolved leniently. That will now be set against a mishna in Pe’ah where doubt is resolved stringently.
Key Terms:
- סְפֵיקָא לְקוּלָּא = in doubt, rule leniently
Segment 10
TYPE: מקור
The Pe’ah mishna on grain in ant holes.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּרְמִינְהוּ: חוֹרֵי הַנְּמָלִים שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הַקָּמָה – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, וְשֶׁלְּאַחַר הַקּוֹצְרִים – הָעֶלְיוֹנִים לַעֲנִיִּים, וְהַתַּחְתּוֹנִים שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת.
English Translation:
But one can raise a contradiction from that which is taught in another mishna (Pe’a 4:11) with regard to gleanings left for the poor: In a case of grain found in ant holes that are inside the standing crop in an area of the field that was not harvested, these are the property of the owner of the field, as this grain does not have the status of gleanings. And in the case of grain found in ant holes that are behind the harvesters in an already harvested area, the upper wheat stalks, i.e., those stalks found at the mouth of the holes, belong to the poor, as they are assumed to be gleanings that fell from the bundles when that area was harvested, and the lower wheat inside the holes are the property of the owner, since it is possible that they were collected by the ants before the harvest and are not gleanings.
קלאוד על הדף:
The contrasting source concerns grain found in ant holes. Within the standing crop it belongs to the owner, since no harvest has yet occurred there. Behind the harvesters, the upper grain goes to the poor as presumed leket, while the lower grain stays the owner’s, since ants may have carried it down before the harvest.
Key Terms:
- לֶקֶט (leket) = gleanings — stalks dropped during harvest, left for the poor
- קָמָה (kamah) = standing grain, not yet harvested
Segment 11
TYPE: מקור
Rabbi Meir: doubtful leket is leket — the stringent view.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: הַכֹּל לַעֲנִיִּים, שֶׁסְּפֵק לֶקֶט – לֶקֶט.
English Translation:
Rabbi Meir says: Everything goes to the poor, as grain whose status as gleanings is uncertain is considered gleanings. According to Rabbi Meir, the halakha is stringent in the case of an uncertainty with regard to gifts left for the poor. This apparently contradicts the mishna’s statement that one is lenient in the case of an uncertainty with regard to gifts of the priesthood, as these gifts are similar in this regard to gifts left for the poor. Since any unattributed mishna is considered to be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, this is apparently a contradiction with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Meir.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Meir rules that everything goes to the poor, since sfek leket leket, doubtful gleanings count as gleanings. Because an anonymous mishna is normally taken to follow Rabbi Meir, our mishna’s leniency appears to contradict his own stringency here.
Key Terms:
- סְפֵק לֶקֶט לֶקֶט = doubtful gleanings are gleanings
Segment 12
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Yochanan: that ruling is transmitted only in a single voice.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַל תַּקְנִיטֵנִי, שֶׁבִּלְשׁוֹן יָחִיד אֲנִי שׁוֹנֶה אוֹתָהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן אַגְרָא אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: סְפֵק לֶקֶט – לֶקֶט, סְפֵק שִׁכְחָה – שִׁכְחָה, סְפֵק פֵּאָה – פֵּאָה.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: Do not trouble me with this contradiction, as I teach that baraita in the singular, i.e., it is not certain that this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir; rather, it is merely the claim of one Sage that this is Rabbi Meir’s opinion. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra says in the name of Rabbi Meir: Grain whose status as gleanings is uncertain is considered gleanings; grain whose status as forgotten sheaves is uncertain is considered forgotten sheaves; and grain whose status as pe’a is uncertain is considered pe’a. Therefore, one should not raise a contradiction to the mishna from the statement of a single Sage claiming to represent the opinion of Rabbi Meir.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yochanan deflects the contradiction rather than resolving it. Al taknieini — do not vex me — for I teach that ruling bilshon yachid, as the report of one individual: it is Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra who attributes to Rabbi Meir the stringency across leket, shichechah and pe’ah. An attribution resting on a single transmitter cannot be set against an anonymous mishna.
Key Terms:
- בִּלְשׁוֹן יָחִיד = in the singular — as one individual’s attribution
- שִׁכְחָה (shichechah) = forgotten sheaves, left for the poor
Segment 13
TYPE: קושיא
Reish Lakish: the stringency has a reason of its own.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר לוֹ אַל תִּשְׁנֶה אוֹתָהּ אֶלָּא בִּלְשׁוֹן בֶּן תַּדָּל, וְהָא טַעְמָא קָאָמַר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״עָנִי וָרָשׁ הַצְדִּיקוּ״? מַאי ״הַצְדִּיקוּ״?
English Translation:
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Even if you teach that baraita only in a language whereby a certain imbecile named ben Tedal states that this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, a question remains, as isn’t there a stated reason for stringency in cases of uncertainties with regard to gifts left for the poor? As Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Do justice to the afflicted and destitute” (Psalms 82:3)? Specifically, what is the meaning of “do justice”?
קלאוד על הדף:
Reish Lakish is unsatisfied. Even if the attribution were as weak as the report of the fool ben Tedal, there is an independent reason for stringency with the poor, which he grounds in Tehillim 82:3 — ani varash hatzdiku, do justice to the poor and destitute.
Key Terms:
- בֶּן תַּדָּל = ben Tedal — a byword for an unreliable transmitter
Segment 14
TYPE: דרשה
‘Hatzdiku’ cannot mean court favouritism, so it means give from your own.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִילֵּימָא בְּדִינִים, וְהָא כְּתִיב ״וְדָל לֹא תֶהְדַּר בְּרִיבוֹ״? אֶלָּא, צַדֵּק מִשֶּׁלְּךָ וְתֵן לוֹ.
English Translation:
If we say that it means that one should do justice in judgments, i.e., a judge should sway judgments in favor of the afflicted and destitute, but isn’t it written: “Neither shall you favor a poor man in his cause” (Exodus 23:3)? Rather, the verse is teaching that in cases of uncertainty with regard to gifts left for the poor, be righteous with that which is yours and give it to the poor. Why, then, is the halakha stringent in the case of gifts left for the poor but lenient with regard to gifts to priests?
קלאוד על הדף:
The verse cannot be telling judges to favour the poor, since the Torah expressly forbids that at Shemot 23:3. It must therefore mean tzadek mishelcha v’ten lo — be righteous with what is yours and give it to him. Where the poor are concerned, doubt is resolved by generosity from one’s own property. Why then is doubt over the priestly gifts resolved leniently?
Key Terms:
- צַדֵּק מִשֶּׁלְּךָ וְתֵן לוֹ = be righteous with what is yours and give to him
Segment 15
TYPE: תירוץ
Rava: the two cases start from opposite presumptions.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: הָכָא, פָּרָה בְּחֶזְקַת פְּטוּרָה קָיְימָא, קָמָה בְּחֶזְקַת חִיּוּבָא קָיְימָא.
English Translation:
Rava said in response: Here, in the case of gifts of the priesthood, the halakha is lenient because the cow of a convert maintains the presumptive status of exemption, as the obligation of the gifts did not apply to the cow before the convert converted. By contrast, the halakha is stringent in the case of the gifts left for the poor, as the standing crop maintains the presumptive status of obligation.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava resolves it by chazakah. The convert’s cow stands b’chezkat peturah, in a presumption of exemption, since the obligation never applied to it while he was a gentile. Standing grain stands b’chezkat chiyuva, in a presumption of obligation, since the field was always liable. Doubt does not decide either case; the prior presumption does.
Key Terms:
- חֶזְקַת פְּטוּרָה = a presumption of exemption
- חֶזְקַת חִיּוּבָא = a presumption of obligation
Segment 16
TYPE: קושיא
Abaye: then why is the convert’s dough obligated in challah when doubtful?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וַהֲרֵי עִיסָּה נַעֲשֵׂית עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְגַּיֵּיר – פָּטוּר מִן הַחַלָּה, מִשֶּׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר – חַיָּיב, סָפֵק – חַיָּיב.
English Translation:
Abaye said to Rava: But with regard to the dough of a convert, the halakha is that if it was prepared before he converted he is exempt from separating ḥalla from this dough, and if it was prepared after he converted, he is obligated to separate ḥalla from it. And if there is an uncertainty as to whether the dough was prepared before or after his conversion, he is obligated, despite the fact that dough prepared by a gentile is exempt from ḥalla. Why isn’t the convert exempt from separating ḥalla just as he is exempt from giving gifts of the priesthood in the case of an uncertainty, as both the dough and the cow maintain a presumptive status of exemption?
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye objects from a parallel case. A convert’s dough made before conversion is exempt from challah and after it is obligated — yet in doubt he is obligated. The dough begins in exactly the same presumption of exemption as the cow, so Rava’s distinction should exempt it too.
Key Terms:
- עִיסָּה (issah) = dough, subject to the obligation of challah
Segment 17
TYPE: תירוץ
Rava: doubt in prohibition is stringent, doubt in money is lenient.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: סְפֵק אִיסּוּרָא לְחוּמְרָא, סְפֵק מָמוֹנָא לְקוּלָּא.
English Translation:
Rava said to Abaye: There is a difference between ḥalla and gifts of the priesthood. Although the dough maintains the presumptive status of exemption, here there is also uncertainty with regard to a prohibition, as a non-priest who consumes ḥalla is liable to receive the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven. And whenever there is an uncertainty with regard to a prohibition, the halakha is to be stringent. Conversely, uncertainties with regard to gifts of the priesthood involve no prohibition and are strictly monetary, and whenever there is an uncertainty with regard to monetary matters, the halakha is to be lenient. Consequently, one relies on the presumptive status of exemption in the case of a cow, and the convert is exempt from giving the gifts to the priest.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava’s answer introduces the principle that governs the whole sugya: sfek issura l’chumra, sfek mamona l’kula. Challah carries a prohibition, since a non-priest who eats it is liable to death at the hand of Heaven, so doubt is resolved stringently. The priestly gifts are purely monetary, so doubt is resolved leniently and the presumption of exemption holds.
Key Terms:
- סְפֵק אִיסּוּרָא לְחוּמְרָא = doubt in a prohibition is resolved stringently
- סְפֵק מָמוֹנָא לְקוּלָּא = doubt in a monetary matter is resolved leniently
Segment 18
TYPE: ברייתא
Rav Chisda and Rabbi Chiyya: eight doubts of the convert, four each way.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דַּאֲמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, וְכֵן תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: שְׁמוֹנָה סְפֵקוֹת נֶאֶמְרוּ בַּגֵּר, אַרְבַּע לְחִיּוּב וְאַרְבַּע לִפְטוּר.
English Translation:
As Rav Ḥisda said, and Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches likewise: Eight instances of uncertainties were stated with regard to the convert; in four instances the halakha is that there is an obligation, and in the other four instances the halakha is that there is an exemption.
קלאוד על הדף:
The principle is now shown to organise a whole set of cases. Eight uncertainties are enumerated for a convert — four resolved stringently and four leniently — and the division tracks exactly the line Rava drew between prohibition and money.
Key Terms:
- שְׁמוֹנָה סְפֵקוֹת = eight uncertainties enumerated for the convert
Segment 19
TYPE: ברייתא
The four stringent cases, each carrying a prohibition.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
קׇרְבַּן אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְחַלָּה, וּבְכוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה, וּבְכוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה – לְחִיּוּב.
English Translation:
These are the four instances where the halakha is stringent: The first is an uncertainty with regard to the offering of one’s wife who gave birth, where it is uncertain whether she gave birth before her conversion and she is exempt from bringing an offering, or after her conversion and she is obligated. This case involves a prohibition, as a woman who does not bring her atonement offering is liable to receive karet for consuming sanctified items. And the second case is an uncertainty with regard to the obligation to separate ḥalla from his dough, which also involves a prohibition, as explained above. And the third case is an uncertainty with regard to a male firstborn non-kosher animal, i.e., a firstborn donkey, where it is uncertain if it was born before or after the owner’s conversion, which involves the prohibition against deriving benefit from it before its redemption. And the fourth case of an uncertainty is with regard to a male firstborn of a kosher animal, where it is uncertain if it was born before or after the owner’s conversion, where one can be liable to receive karet for slaughtering it outside the Temple courtyard. In these four cases, the halakha is that there is an obligation.
קלאוד על הדף:
The four obligated cases are his wife’s post-partum offering, challah, the firstborn of a non-kosher animal, and the firstborn of a kosher animal. Each involves an issur rather than mere money — karet for eating sanctified food without atonement, death at the hand of Heaven for challah, the ban on benefit from an unredeemed firstborn donkey, and karet for slaughtering a firstborn outside the courtyard. The four lenient cases open 134b.
Key Terms:
- קׇרְבַּן אִשְׁתּוֹ = his wife’s offering after childbirth
- בְּכוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה = the firstborn of a non-kosher animal — a donkey, requiring redemption
Amud Bet (134b)
Segment 1
TYPE: ברייתא
The four lenient cases, all purely monetary.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז וְהַמַּתָּנוֹת, וּפִדְיוֹן הַבֵּן, וּפִדְיוֹן פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר – לִפְטוּר.
English Translation:
And these are the four uncertainties with regard to a convert where the halakha is lenient: The first is an uncertainty with regard to the first sheared wool of one’s sheep, where it is uncertain whether they were shorn before or after his conversion. And the second is whether or not the obligation of giving the gifts of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw applies to his animal. And the third is an uncertainty with regard to the obligation to give five sela for the mitzva of the redemption of the firstborn son, where it is uncertain if he was born before or after the owner’s conversion. And the last is an uncertainty with regard to the redemption of a firstborn donkey by means of a sheep or a goat, where it is uncertain if it was born before or after the owner’s conversion. In each of these instances, the uncertainty is only with regard to monetary matters, and therefore the halakha is that one is exempt.
קלאוד על הדף:
The list completes with the four exemptions: the first shearing, the gifts of foreleg, jaw and maw, the redemption of the firstborn son, and the redemption of a firstborn donkey. Not one carries a prohibition; each is a claim for money or its equivalent, so the convert’s presumption of exemption stands and doubt resolves in his favour.
Key Terms:
- רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז = the first shearing, given to the priest
- פִּדְיוֹן הַבֵּן = redemption of a firstborn son, five sela to a priest
Segment 2
TYPE: גרסה אחרת
Ravin’s version: the contradiction was crop against crop.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין, אָמַר: קָמָה אַקָּמָה רְמִי לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
In connection to the previous discussion between Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan, the Gemara relates that when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said a slightly different version of the above discussion: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised the contradiction to the opinion of Rabbi Meir from a baraita that states that Rabbi Meir exempts the standing crop of a convert from the obligation to leave gleanings for the poor when it is uncertain whether the crop was harvested before or after his conversion. This baraita is in contradiction to the baraita that likewise discusses the standing crop: Grain whose status as gleanings is uncertain is considered gleanings. Rabbi Yoḥanan resolved this contradiction by explaining that the second baraita is the opinion of Rabbi Meir only according to Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ravin brings back a different recension of the same exchange. On his telling, Reish Lakish set standing crop against standing crop — a baraita exempting a convert’s crop in doubt against the baraita that doubtful gleanings are gleanings — and Rabbi Yochanan gave the same answer, that the stringent ruling is only Rabbi Meir as reported by Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra.
Key Terms:
- קָמָה אַקָּמָה = standing crop against standing crop
Segment 3
TYPE: מעשה
Levi’s field at Kishar had no poor to take the gleanings.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לֵוִי זְרַע בְּכִישָׁר, וְלָא הֲווֹ עֲנִיִּים לְמִשְׁקַל לֶקֶט. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״לֶעָנִי וְלַגֵּר תַּעֲזֹב אֹתָם״, וְלֹא לְעוֹרְבִים וְלֹא לַעֲטַלֵּפִים.
English Translation:
§ With regard to gifts left for the poor, the Gemara relates that Levi sowed crops in his field in Kishar, but there were no poor people in Kishar to take gleanings from his field. Levi came before Rav Sheshet to ask what should be done with the gleanings. Rav Sheshet said to him: The verse states with regard to the mitzvot of pe’a and gleanings: “You shall leave them for the poor and for the stranger” (Leviticus 23:22), and not for the ravens nor for the bats. Since there are no poor people to take the gleanings, you should take them for yourself.
קלאוד על הדף:
A practical case follows. Levi sowed at Kishar where there were no poor to collect the leket, and asked Rav Sheshet what to do. The answer is a pointed reading of Vayikra 23:22: le’ani v’lager ta’azov otam — leave them for the poor and the stranger, and not for the ravens and not for the bats. With no poor present, the owner may take them himself.
Key Terms:
- וְלֹא לְעוֹרְבִים וְלֹא לַעֲטַלֵּפִים = and not for the ravens nor for the bats
Segment 4
TYPE: מתיב
An objection from terumah, which must be carried to a priest.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵיתִיבִי: אֵין מְבִיאִין תְּרוּמָה, לֹא מִגּוֹרֶן לָעִיר, וְלֹא מִמִּדְבָּר לַיִּשּׁוּב, וְאִם אֵין שָׁם כֹּהֵן – שׂוֹכֵר פָּרָה וּמְבִיאָהּ, מִפְּנֵי הֶפְסֵד תְּרוּמָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: The owner of a field does not need to expend the effort to bring teruma, neither from the threshing floor to the city nor from the wilderness to a settled area, in order to give it to a priest. Rather, the priest must travel to the field to receive the teruma. And if there is no priest there, at the threshing floor or in the wilderness, to receive the teruma, the owner must hire a cow and bring the teruma to the city, due to the loss of teruma that would occur if it were left in the field. According to this baraita, the owner of the field should likewise be obligated to do the same with gleanings.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita on terumah appears to demand the opposite. The owner need not carry terumah from the threshing floor to the city, but if no priest is present he must hire a cow and bring it, mipnei hefsed terumah, to prevent its loss. If terumah must be transported to reach a priest, gleanings ought to be preserved for the poor rather than reclaimed.
Key Terms:
- מִפְּנֵי הֶפְסֵד תְּרוּמָה = to prevent the loss of terumah
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ
Terumah differs: unseparated, it renders the whole crop tevel.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שָׁאנֵי תְּרוּמָה, דְּטָבְלָה, וְלָא סַגִּיא דְּלָא מַפְרֵישׁ לַהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: Teruma is different, in that if it is not separated it causes the entire crop to be considered untithed, and it is therefore not possible for one not to separate teruma from the crop. By contrast, gleanings do not render the remaining crop prohibited for consumption, and therefore it is not necessary to set them aside and remove them.
קלאוד על הדף:
The first distinction is that terumah tavlah — until it is separated the entire crop is forbidden as untithed, so separation is unavoidable and its disposal must be arranged. Gleanings impose no such disability on the remaining harvest, so nothing compels the owner to preserve them.
Key Terms:
- טָבְלָה (tavlah) = it renders the produce tevel, forbidden until separated
Segment 6
TYPE: קושיא
But the priestly gifts are not tevel, and still must not be skinned.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וַהֲרֵי מַתָּנוֹת, דְּלָא טָבְלִי, וְתַנְיָא: מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לִמְלוֹג בַּעֲגָלִים – לֹא יַפְשִׁיט אֶת הַזְּרוֹעַ.
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: But what about the case of the gifts of the priesthood, which do not render the rest of the animal untithed, i.e., they do not prohibit the entire animal in consumption before they are separated. And nevertheless it is taught in a baraita: In a place where they were accustomed to put the meat of slaughtered calves in boiling water in order to remove the hairs from the skin, and then eat the meat with the skin still attached to the flesh, one may not skin the foreleg before giving it to the priest. Rather, he gives it with its skin intact.
קלאוד על הדף:
The distinction is immediately tested against our own subject. The gifts do not render the animal tevel, yet a baraita rules that where the custom is to scald calves rather than flay them, one may not skin the foreleg before handing it over — the priest receives it with its hide.
Key Terms:
- לִמְלוֹג (limlog) = to scald in hot water, removing hair without flaying
Segment 7
TYPE: ברייתא
Nor skin the jaw; and with no priest present, the gifts are valued and eaten.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְהַפְשִׁיט אֶת הָרֹאשׁ – לֹא יַפְשִׁיט אֶת הַלֶּחִי, וְאִם אֵין שָׁם כֹּהֵן – מַעֲלִין אוֹתָן בְּדָמִים וְאוֹכְלָן, מִפְּנֵי הֶפְסֵד כֹּהֵן.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: Similarly, in a place where people are accustomed to skin the head of an animal, one may not skin the cheek of the jaw of an animal before giving it to the priest, but must give it with its skin intact so that the priest may use the skin as he wishes. And if there is no priest available to receive the gifts, the gifts are appraised by their monetary value, and the owner may eat them and gives their monetary value to a priest at the next available time, due to the loss that would otherwise be incurred by the priest. Evidently, one must expend effort to ensure that a priest receives the gifts despite the fact that they do not render the entire animal untithed. Why is the halakha different with regard to gleanings?
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita continues in the same vein for the jaw, and then supplies the decisive clause: where no priest is available, the gifts are appraised, the owner eats them, and he pays their value to a priest later — mipnei hefsed kohen, to prevent the priest’s loss. Here the obligation clearly survives the priest’s absence, unlike Rav Sheshet’s ruling on gleanings.
Key Terms:
- מַעֲלִין אוֹתָן בְּדָמִים = they are appraised at their monetary value
- מִפְּנֵי הֶפְסֵד כֹּהֵן = to prevent loss to the priest
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ
The gifts are different because ‘netinah’ is written of them.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שָׁאנֵי מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה, דִּנְתִינָה כְּתִיבָא בֵּיהּ. הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי, תְּרוּמָה נָמֵי נְתִינָה כְּתִיבָא בֵּיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: The halakha is different in the case of gifts of the priesthood, as a term of giving is written with regard to it: “That they shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw” (Deuteronomy 18:3). This teaches that one must actively give the gifts to a priest, whereas no equivalent term is written with regard to gleanings. The Gemara adds: Now that you have arrived at this explanation with regard to gifts of the priesthood, one can likewise explain that the reason teruma must be brought to a locale where there is a priest is likewise due to the fact that a term of giving is written with regard to it: “The first fruits of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the first sheared wool of your sheep you shall give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4), not because teruma renders the crop untithed.
קלאוד על הדף:
The real distinction emerges, and it is verbal rather than conceptual. Of the gifts the Torah writes v’natan — an explicit term of giving — which imposes an active duty to convey them to a priest. Having reached that, the Gemara revises its earlier answer: terumah too is governed by a term of giving, so the tevel explanation was never needed.
Key Terms:
- נְתִינָה כְּתִיבָא בֵּיהּ = a term of giving is written of it
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא
Then what is the extra ‘ta’azov’ doing?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֶלָּא ״תַּעֲזֹב״ יַתִּירָא לְמָה לִי?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the verse to state an extra term of leaving with regard to gleanings? One verse states: “Neither shall you gather the gleaning of your harvest, and your vineyard you shall not harvest completely, and the fallen fruit of your vineyard you shall not gather; you shall leave them for the poor and for the stranger” (Leviticus 19:9–10), and another verse states: “Neither shall you gather the gleaning of your harvest; you shall leave them for the poor and for the stranger” (Leviticus 23:22). Doesn’t this additional mention of leaving indicate that even if there are no poor people to take the gleanings, the owner must collect them and ensure that a poor person can claim them?
קלאוד על הדף:
If gleanings lack a term of giving, the Gemara asks what the repeated ta’azov is for. Vayikra states the leaving-formula twice, at 19:9-10 and 23:22, and the redundancy might well teach that the owner must preserve the gleanings even when no poor are present — which would overturn Rav Sheshet.
Key Terms:
- תַּעֲזֹב (ta’azov) = you shall leave — the formula governing gifts to the poor
Segment 10
TYPE: תירוץ
The extra word teaches the reclaimed ownerless vineyard.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְכִדְתַנְיָא: הַמַּפְקִיר אֶת כַּרְמוֹ, וְלַשַּׁחַר הִשְׁכִּים וּבְצָרוֹ – חַיָּיב בְּפֶרֶט וּבְעוֹלֵלוֹת וּבְשִׁכְחָה וּבְפֵאָה, וּפָטוּר מִן הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: No, the extra term of leaving is required for that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who declares his vineyard ownerless, and in the morning awoke and reclaimed the ownerless vineyard and harvested the grapes, he is obligated in the mitzva of leaving individual fallen grapes for the poor [peret], and in the mitzva of leaving incompletely formed clusters of grapes for the poor [olelot], and in the mitzva of leaving forgotten clusters, and in the mitzva of pe’a. And he is exempt from the obligation to separate the tithes from the grapes, as the vineyard had been ownerless. The baraita rules that he is obligated in the gifts for the poor despite the halakha that the obligation to leave these gifts does not apply to an ownerless vineyard. It is derived from the additional mention of leaving that the obligation of gifts to the poor applies even to an ownerless field of this type.
קלאוד על הדף:
The redundancy is spent elsewhere. A baraita rules that one who declares his vineyard ownerless and then rises early to harvest it himself is liable for peret, olelot, shichechah and pe’ah, though exempt from tithes. Ownerless produce would normally escape the poor-gifts entirely; the extra ta’azov brings this case back in, and so is unavailable to answer the question about absent poor.
Key Terms:
- הַמַּפְקִיר (hamafkir) = one who renders his property ownerless
- פֶּרֶט וְעוֹלֵלוֹת = fallen grapes and undeveloped clusters, left for the poor
Segment 11
TYPE: מעשה
Rabbi Ami seizes a sack of dinars sent to the study hall.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָהוּא שַׂקָּא דְּדִינָרֵי דַּאֲתָא לְבֵי מִדְרְשָׁא, קָדֵים רַבִּי אַמֵּי וּזְכָה בָּהֶן. וְהֵיכִי עָבֵיד הָכִי? וְהָא כְּתִיב ״וְנָתַן״ וְלֹא שֶׁיִּטּוֹל מֵעַצְמוֹ! רַבִּי אַמֵּי נָמֵי לַעֲנִיִּים זָכָה בָּהֶן.
English Translation:
§ In relation to the discussion of a case where the owner of a field takes gifts left for the poor for himself, the Gemara relates that there was a certain sack of dinars that was brought to the study hall to provide financial assistance for the students. Rabbi Ami rushed and acquired them. The Gemara asks: And how can he act in this manner? But isn’t it written with regard to gifts of the priesthood: “That they shall give to the priest” (Deuteronomy 18:3), and the Sages derived from the verse that a priest should receive the gifts and he should not take them by himself. The same applies to gifts for the poor as well. The Gemara responds: Rabbi Ami too did not take the gifts for himself. Rather, he acquired them for the poor.
קלאוד על הדף:
A striking story tests the principle that gifts are given rather than taken. A sack of dinars arrived at the beit midrash for the students, and Rabbi Ami moved first and acquired it. The Gemara objects from the very verse used on 133a — v’natan, and not that he take by himself. The first answer is that Rabbi Ami acquired it not for himself but on behalf of the poor.
Key Terms:
- שַׂקָּא דְּדִינָרֵי = a sack of dinars
- קָדֵים (kadim) = he moved first, preempting others
Segment 12
TYPE: תירוץ
Alternatively, a distinguished person is different.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אָדָם חָשׁוּב שָׁאנֵי, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְהַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל מֵאֶחָיו״ – שֶׁיְּהֵא גָּדוֹל מֵאֶחָיו בְּנוֹי, בְּחָכְמָה, וּבְעוֹשֶׁר.
English Translation:
And if you wish, say instead that the halakha with regard to a distinguished person such as Rabbi Ami, who was the head of the yeshiva, is different, and he may acquire the gifts for himself. As it is taught in a baraita that the verse: “And the priest who is greater than his brethren” (Leviticus 21:10), indicates that the High Priest should be greater than his priestly brethren in beauty, in wisdom, and in wealth.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second answer concedes that he took it for himself and justifies it: adam chashuv shani. The support is a baraita on Vayikra 21:10, that the High Priest must be greater than his brothers in beauty, wisdom and wealth — eminence carries a claim to material standing rather than merely permitting it.
Key Terms:
- אָדָם חָשׁוּב שָׁאנֵי = a distinguished person is different
Segment 13
TYPE: ברייתא
And if he lacks wealth, his brethren must supply it.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם אֵין לוֹ, שֶׁאֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים מְגַדְּלִין אוֹתוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל מֵאֶחָיו״ – גַּדְּלֵהוּ מִשֶּׁל אֶחָיו.
English Translation:
Others say: From where is it derived that if the High Priest does not have property of his own, his brethren the priests elevate him and render him wealthy from their own property? The verse states: “And the priest who is greater than his brethren,” i.e., they must elevate him from the property of his brethren. Since the members of the study hall are required to enrich Rabbi Ami from their own property, it is certainly permitted for him to take these gifts for himself.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita’s second clause completes the argument. If the High Priest has no wealth of his own, gadlehu mishel echav — his brother priests elevate him from their own property. Since the members of the study hall were themselves obliged to enrich its head, Rabbi Ami taking the sack was not seizure but the discharge of their duty.
Key Terms:
- גַּדְּלֵהוּ מִשֶּׁל אֶחָיו = elevate him from his brothers’ property
Segment 14
TYPE: משנה
The closing mishna defines the zeroa and the lechi.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ אֵיזֶהוּ הַזְּרוֹעַ? מִן הַפֶּרֶק שֶׁל אַרְכוּבָּה עַד כַּף שֶׁל יָד, וְהוּא שֶׁל נָזִיר, וּכְנֶגְדּוֹ בָּרֶגֶל – שׁוֹק. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שׁוֹק מִן הַפֶּרֶק שֶׁל אַרְכוּבָּה עַד סוֹבֶךְ שֶׁל רֶגֶל. אֵי זֶהוּ לֶחִי? מִן הַפֶּרֶק שֶׁל לֶחִי עַד פִּיקָה שֶׁל גַּרְגֶּרֶת.
English Translation:
MISHNA: What is the definition of the foreleg that is given to the priests as one of the gifts? It is the part of the leg from the joint of the lower knee until the rounded protrusion surrounding the thigh bone of the foreleg; and that is the foreleg mentioned in the Torah with regard to the nazirite: “And the priest shall take the foreleg of the ram when it is cooked” (Numbers 6:19). And the parallel in the hind leg is the thigh that is given to the priest from the peace offering, which is also from the joint of the lower knee until the rounded protrusion surrounding the thigh bone. Rabbi Yehuda says: The thigh is from the joint of the lower knee until the upper knee joint, which connects the middle and upper parts of the leg. What is the definition of the jaw? It is from the joint of the lower jaw beneath the temples and downward until the upper ring of the windpipe.
קלאוד על הדף:
The masechet’s final mishna turns from who and whether to what, defining the boundaries of the gifts. The zeroa runs from the knee joint to the shoulder socket, and it is the same cut given from the nazir’s ram, its hind-leg counterpart being the shok. Rabbi Yehuda measures the shok differently. The lechi runs from the jaw joint down to the ring of the windpipe.
Key Terms:
- זְרוֹעַ (zeroa) = the foreleg, from the knee joint to the shoulder
- שׁוֹק (shok) = the thigh, its counterpart in the hind leg
- פִּיקָה שֶׁל גַּרְגֶּרֶת = the ring of the windpipe
Segment 15
TYPE: ברייתא
The definite article shows the right foreleg is meant.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַזְּרוֹעַ – זֶה זְרוֹעַ יָמִין. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר זֶה זְרוֹעַ יָמִין, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא זְרוֹעַ שְׂמֹאל? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הַזְּרוֹעַ״.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the gifts of the priesthood: “That they shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw” (Deuteronomy 18:3). “The foreleg”; this is the right foreleg of the animal. The baraita continues: Do you say that this is the right foreleg, or is it only the left foreleg? The verse states: “The foreleg.” The definite article indicates that the verse is referring to the right foreleg.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks which foreleg the Torah means. A baraita answers that hazeroa with the definite article specifies the right, and stages the alternative explicitly — or is it the left? — before rejecting it.
Key Terms:
- זְרוֹעַ יָמִין = the right foreleg
Segment 16
TYPE: הסבר
The derivation, on the model of Rava on ‘hayarech’.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא? כִּדְאָמַר רָבָא: ״הַיָּרֵךְ״ – הַמְיוּמֶּנֶת שֶׁבַּיָּרֵךְ, הָכָא נָמֵי: ״הַזְּרוֹעַ״ – הַמְיוּמָּן שֶׁבַּזְּרוֹעַ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What is the biblical derivation for this, i.e., how is it understood from the definite article that the verse is referring to the right foreleg? The Gemara responds: It is derived like that which Rava said with regard to the verse: “Therefore the children of Israel do not eat the sciatic nerve which is upon the hollow of the thigh” (Genesis 32:33). The definite article indicates that this is referring to the most important thigh. Here too, the definite article in the term “the foreleg” indicates that the verse is referring to the most important foreleg, i.e., the right foreleg.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks what the definite article actually proves, and answers by analogy to Rava on the sciatic nerve: hayarech denotes hameyumenet, the more favoured of the two thighs. So here hazeroa denotes the favoured foreleg, which is the right.
Key Terms:
- הַמְיוּמָּן (hameyuman) = the favoured or right-hand one
Segment 17
TYPE: ברייתא
The other definite articles: wool of the head, hair of the beard, and the fats.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״וְהַלְּחָיַיִם״ לְמַאי אֲתָא? לְהָבִיא צֶמֶר שֶׁבְּרֹאשׁ כְּבָשִׂים, וְשֵׂעָר שֶׁבִּזְקַן תְּיָישִׁים. ״וְהַקֵּבָה״ לְמַאי אֲתָא? לְהָבִיא חֵלֶב שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי הַקֵּבָה, וְחֵלֶב שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הַקֵּבָה. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: כֹּהֲנִים נָהֲגוּ בּוֹ עַיִן יָפָה וּנְתָנוּהוּ לַבְּעָלִים. טַעְמָא דְּנָהֲגוּ, הָא לֹא נָהֲגוּ – דִּידֵיהּ הוּא.
English Translation:
The Gemara continues: And in the term “and the jaw,” for what purpose does the definite article come, i.e., what halakha does it teach? It serves to include wool that is on the head of lambs and hair that is in the beard of goats in the obligation to give the jaw to the priest. And in the term “and the maw,” for what purpose does the definite article come? It serves to include fat that is on the maw and fat that is inside the maw in the obligation to give the maw to the priest. As Rabbi Yehoshua said: Priests behaved generously with fat that is on the maw and they gave it to its owner, i.e., they relinquished their right to receive it. The Gemara infers: The reason this fat was not given to the priests is that they behaved generously, but had they not behaved generously, the fat would be his, the priest’s.
קלאוד על הדף:
Each remaining definite article is put to work. V’halechayayim includes the wool on lambs’ heads and the hair of goats’ beards, so the jaw is given with what grows on it. V’hakeivah includes the fat on and within the maw. Rabbi Yehoshua notes that the priests waived that fat ayin yafah, with a generous eye, returning it to the owners — from which it follows that it was theirs to waive.
Key Terms:
- עַיִן יָפָה (ayin yafah) = a generous eye — waiving what one is entitled to
Segment 18
TYPE: אגדה
Dorshei chamurot: the three gifts correspond to the act of Pinchas.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דּוֹרְשֵׁי חֲמוּרוֹת הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: הַזְּרוֹעַ – כְּנֶגֶד הַיָּד, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וַיִּקַּח רוֹמַח בְּיָדוֹ״.
English Translation:
The Gemara cites a homiletical idea with regard to the gifts of the priesthood: The interpreters of Torah symbolism [dorshei ḥamurot] would say with regard to the reason why the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw are given to the priests: The foreleg corresponds to the hand of Pinehas, son of Elazar the priest, who killed Zimri, son of Salu, thereby bringing an end to the plague that was ravaging the children of Israel. And it likewise states in the verse: “And he took a spear in his hand” (Numbers 25:7).
קלאוד על הדף:
The homilists supply a reason for these three parts in particular, reading them onto the act of Pinchas at Shittim. The zeroa answers to his hand, as the verse says he took a spear in his hand. The passage is one of the best known in the masechet, turning a schedule of dues into a memorial.
Key Terms:
- דּוֹרְשֵׁי חֲמוּרוֹת = the interpreters of symbolic meanings
Segment 19
TYPE: אגדה
The jaw for his prayer, the maw as its plain sense.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּלְחָיַיִם – כְּנֶגֶד תְּפִלָּה, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וַיַּעֲמֹד פִּינְחָס וַיְפַלֵּל״, קֵבָה – כְּמִשְׁמָעָהּ, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְאֶת הָאִשָּׁה אֶל קֳבָתָהּ״.
English Translation:
And the jaw corresponds to the prayer [tefilla] offered by Pinehas during the aforementioned incident. And so it states in the verse: “Then stood up Pinehas, and wrought judgment [vayefallel], and so the plague was stayed. And that was counted to him for righteousness, to all generations forever” (Psalms 106:30). The maw is as its plain meaning in the verses describing the incident, and it likewise states: “And he thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel” (Numbers 25:8).
קלאוד על הדף:
The reading completes: the lechayayim correspond to prayer, from vaya’amod Pinchas vayefallel, and the keivah is taken at face value from v’et ha’ishah el kovatah. The priesthood’s perpetual dues are thus traced to a single moment of zeal that stayed a plague — hand, mouth and belly, each answered by its portion.
Key Terms:
- וַיְפַלֵּל (vayefallel) = and he prayed, or executed judgment — read here as prayer
Segment 20
TYPE: ברייתא
A second derivation, from the peace offering’s right thigh.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְתַנָּא מַיְיתֵי לַהּ מֵהָכָא: ״שׁוֹק הַיָּמִין״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שׁוֹק הַיָּמִין, זְרוֹעַ מוּקְדָּשִׁין מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תְּרוּמָה״. זְרוֹעַ חוּלִּין מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תִּתְּנוּ״.
English Translation:
The Gemara above cited a source for the halakha that the right foreleg is given to the priest. The Gemara notes: And the tanna of the following baraita cites this halakha from here: The verse states with regard to the gift to the priest from a peace offering: “And the right thigh you shall give to the priest as a gift from your sacrifices of peace offerings” (Leviticus 7:32). I have derived only that the right thigh of a peace offering is given to the priest. From where do I derive that the right foreleg of the sacrificial ram of the nazirite is given to the priest? The verse states: “You shall give to the priest as a gift.” And from where is it derived that the right foreleg of a non-sacred animal is also given as a gift to the priest? The verse states: “You shall give.”
קלאוד על הדף:
Another tanna reaches the same conclusion by a chain of extensions from Vayikra 7:32. Shok hayamin gives only the peace offering’s right thigh; terumah extends it to the foreleg of consecrated animals, i.e. the nazir’s ram; and titnu extends it further to the foreleg of non-sacred animals, which is our subject.
Key Terms:
- שׁוֹק הַיָּמִין = the right thigh of a peace offering
Segment 21
TYPE: קושיא
The mishna’s boundary for the jaw conflicts with a baraita.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵיזֶהוּ לֶחִי – מִן הַפֶּרֶק שֶׁל לְחִי וְעַד פִּיקָּה שֶׁל גַּרְגֶּרֶת, וְהָתַנְיָא: נוֹטְלָהּ וּבֵית שְׁחִיטָה עִמָּהּ?
English Translation:
§ The mishna taught: What is definition of the jaw? It is from the joint of the jaw beneath the temples and below until the upper ring of the windpipe. The Gemara objects: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that when one removes the jaw from the animal to give to the priest, he removes it and the area of slaughter on the throat with it? The area of slaughter is beyond the upper ring of the windpipe.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna stops the jaw at the ring of the windpipe, but a baraita has the priest take it u’veit shechitah imah, together with the place of slaughter, which lies beyond that ring. The two rulings draw the line in different places.
Key Terms:
- בֵּית שְׁחִיטָה = the place of slaughter on the throat
Segment 22
TYPE: תירוץ
Not difficult: the mishna is the Rabbis, the baraita R’ Chanina ben Antigonus.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא רַבָּנַן, וְהָא רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. Everyone agrees that the priest receives only the part until the upper ring of the windpipe, and the difference between the two rulings is that this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus.
קלאוד על הדף:
The conflict is assigned to differing views about where valid slaughter may occur. The mishna follows the Rabbis; the baraita follows Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus, for whom the region up to the ring counts as the place of slaughter.
Segment 23
TYPE: ברייתא
The underlying dispute over mugremet.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּתַנְיָא: מוּגְרֶמֶת פְּסוּלָה, הֵעִיד רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס עַל מוּגְרֶמֶת שֶׁהִיא כְּשֵׁרָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains that this is as it is taught in a baraita: The slaughter of an animal in such a manner that the knife is diverted to an area above the place of slaughter on its throat is not valid. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus testified with regard to the slaughter of an animal when the knife is diverted that it is valid (see 18b). The baraita calls the area of the jaw until the upper ring of the windpipe the area of slaughter, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus, who maintains that it is also a valid area for slaughter.
קלאוד על הדף:
The supporting baraita supplies that dispute. Slaughter with the knife diverted above the proper place — mugremet — is invalid, but Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus testified that it is valid, a ruling already met on daf 18b. His broader definition of the slaughtering area is what lets the baraita describe the jaw as taken with it.
Key Terms:
- מוּגְרֶמֶת (mugremet) = slaughter with the knife diverted above the valid area
Segment 24
TYPE: תירוץ
Or: both are the Rabbis, and ‘with it’ means it stays with the animal.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא וְהָא רַבָּנַן, וּמַאי ״עִמָּהּ״? עִמָּהּ דִּבְהֵמָה.
English Translation:
And if you wish, say instead that this mishna and that baraita are both in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and what does the baraita mean when it says: With it? It means that the area of slaughter remains with the animal, i.e., it remains with the owner and is not given to the priest.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second resolution keeps both texts with the Rabbis by rereading a single word. Imah does not mean the place of slaughter goes to the priest with the jaw, but that it remains imah dibhemah, with the animal and so with the owner. The masechet’s last legal move is a two-word reinterpretation that dissolves the contradiction entirely.
Key Terms:
- עִמָּהּ דִּבְהֵמָה = with the animal — remaining with the owner
הדרן עלך הזרוע והלחיים
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַזְּרוֹעַ וְהַלְּחָיַיִם.
English Translation:
Hadran alach HaZeroa VeHaLechayayim — we shall return to you, the perek of The Foreleg and the Jaw.
קלאוד על הדף:
With these words the perek HaZeroa VeHaLechayayim closes — the tenth of the twelve perakim of Chullin. The masechet continues with Reishit HaGez, on the first shearing of the flock, and then with Shiluach HaKen, running on to daf 142a. The hadran is not a legal statement but a formula of parting and return — hadran alach, we shall come back to you — expressing the learner’s intention that a perek completed is not a perek finished with. The perek that ends here opened on daf 130a with the obligation of the zeroa, lechayayim and keiva, and it closes fittingly on the homiletic reading of those same three gifts as the hand, the prayer and the belly of Pinchas, so that the last word on a set of monetary dues is an act of zeal that stayed a plague.
Key Terms:
- הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ (hadran alach) = we shall return to you — the formula marking the completion of a perek
- הַזְּרוֹעַ וְהַלְּחָיַיִם = The Foreleg and the Jaw — the name of the tenth perek, after its opening words