B. He said to him, “Rabbi, [132a] let me turn it back on you. Aaron and his sons are specified in the passage [excluding thereby the daughter of a priest: “And the rest of it Aaron and his sons shall eat; it shall be eaten unleavened in a holy place; in the court of the tent of meeting they shall eat it” (Lev. 6:16). “This is the offering which Aaron and his sons shall offer to the Lord on the day when he is anointed: a tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a regular cereal offering, half of it in the morning and half in the evening” (Lev. 6:20). In other instances, mention of a priest subsumes the daughter of a priest.]
C. The House of R. Ishmael taught: [“And this shall be the priests' due from the people, from those offering a sacrifice, whether it be ox or sheep: they shall give to the priest the shoulder and the two cheeks and the stomach” (Deut. 18:3).] “The priest” — [means] not the priest-girl. We may derive [the rule that applies in a verse where his sons are] not specified from [the rule that applies in the verse where his sons are] stated explicitly.
D. The House of R. Eliezer B. Jacob taught: “The priest” — [means] even the priest-girl. [The passage at Deut. 18:3 states “priest” twice] and this is an exclusion followed by another exclusion. [And the principle is that] an exclusion [to a rule] followed by another exclusion only comes to include [something in the rule, i.e., the priest-girl].
E. R. Kahana ate [priestly dues] on account of his wife [who was a priest-girl]. R. Pappa ate on account of his wife. R. Yemar ate on account of his wife. R. Idi bar Abin ate on account of his wife.
F. Said Rabina, said to me Meremar, “The law follows in accord with the view of Rab [at I.11]. And the law follows in accord with the view of R. Hisda [at I.5F]. And the law follows in accord with Ulla [I.12]. And the law follows in accord with R. Ada bar Ahava [that] a levite-girl that give birth to a son is free from the obligation to pay five selas [to a priest to redeem him, cf. b. Bekhorot 47a].”
A. Our rabbis taught: [The requirement to give to the priest] the shoulder, the two cheeks, and the maw [M. ul. 10:1 A] applies to hybrid beasts and to the koy. R. Eleazar [b.'s text has Eliezer] says, “To the hybrid beast born of ewe and the goat it does apply. To that of the koy — he who lays claim against his fellow must bring proof [of the validity of his claim]” [T. ul. 9:1]. What is the case? We hold the rule that with regard to the matter of covering the blood and gifts [to the priest] we find [that the obligation applies for a koy] only in the case of a deer that mated with a [female] goat. For both in accord with the view of the rabbis and of R. Eliezer there is a doubt about whether or not we take into account the seed of the sire. And they dispute over whether or not we say the specification that it be a sheep [to be liable to the prohibition means] that [an animal that is] partly a sheep [is included].
B. One master reasons in accord with the view that the specification that it be a sheep [to be liable to the prohibition means] we do say that [an animal that is] partly a sheep [is included]. And the other master reasons in accord with the view that the specification that it be a sheep [to be liable to the prohibition means] we do not say that [an animal that is] partly a sheep [is included]. [See b. ul. 80a, Zahavy, ullin, vol. II, p. 223.]
C. It makes perfect sense according to the view of R. Eliezer who says that it be exempt [from the obligation to give the gifts] to say that he reasons in accord with the view that the specification that it be a sheep [to be liable to the prohibition means] we do not say that [an animal that is] partly a sheep [is included].
D. But in accord with the view of the rabbis [it does not make sense]. Suppose that they reason in accord with the view that the specification that it be a sheep [to be liable to the prohibition means] we do say that [an animal that is] partly a sheep [is included]. The [priest] may take half [of the gifts that derive from the sheep]. And regarding the other half, let us say to him [the priest] that he should bring evidence that we do not take account of the seed of the sire and take [the gifts].
E. Said R. Huna bar Hiyya, “What does it mean `liable'? It also means to say just `liable' to half the gifts.”
A. R. Zira raised an objection: A koy — there are ways in which it is like a wild animal, and there are ways in which it is like a domesticated animal; and there are ways in which it is like both a domesticated animal and a wild animal; [and there are ways it is like neither a domesticated animal nor a wild animal][cf. M. Bik. 2:8-9].
B. How so? Its fat is forbidden [for consumption] as [is] the fat of a domesticated animal (Lev. 7:25)[M. Bik. 2:10 B]. And its blood must be covered up like the blood of a wild animal [M. Bik. 2:9 A](Lev. 17:13, M. Hul. 6:1ff.)
C. The ways that it is like [both] domesticated and wild animals: its blood and sinew of the hip are prohibited, like those of [both] a domesticated and wild animals.
D. And [it is like a domesticated animal since] it is subject to [the gifts to the priest] of the shoulder, cheeks and stomach. R. Eliezer exempts [it from the gifts to the priest] [M. Bik. 2:10 E-F].
E. [So Zira objects] if we maintain the view [of sages according to Hiyya at II.1 E above], it should have stated [in M.], “It is subject to half” [the gifts to the priests].
F. [We may respond to Zira that] since it taught the rule regarding forbidden fat [in M. Bik. 2:10 A] and blood, where it could not teach that half [the fat is prohibited and] half [the fat is permitted], therefore it did not teach that [it is subject to] half [the gifts to the priests].
A. When Rabin came [from Israel] he said in the name of R. Yohanan, “A koy in accord with the view of the rabbis is subject completely to the gifts [to the priests].”
B. As it was taught on Tannaite authority: [“And this shall be the priests' due from the people, from those offering a sacrifice, whether it be ox or whether it be sheep: they shall give to the priest the shoulder and the two cheeks and the stomach” (Deut. 18:3) — it should have stated] “ox”. What does it come to teach us [by stating] “whether it be ox”? It includes the case of the hybrid. [It should have stated] “sheep”. What does it come to teach us [by stating] “whether it be sheep”? It includes the case of the koy.
C. And [in accord with the view of] R. Eliezer [at II.1 A] why do I need to state this [extra language] “whether it be”? He reasons that we need it to separate [ox and sheep in the verse so that one does not think that only when one offers both is one liable to the gifts to the priests].
D. And [in accord with the view of] the rabbis on what basis do we separate [ox and sheep in the verse]? We derive it from [the language], “from those offering a sacrifice (Deut. 18:3).”
E. And R. Eliezer, what does he do with this [language], “from those offering a sacrifice”? He reasons that we need [the language in the verse] in accord with the view of Raba. For said Raba, “The claim [of the priests for gifts] must be brought against the butcher who slaughters the animal.”
Units I.1-2 provide the scriptural basis for the rule of M. and spell out its logical implications. I.3-4 develop questions out of Hisda's rule in I.2 F. Unit I.5 gives a contradiction to Hisda's rule from M. Peah. Units I.6-12 develop further questions out of the foregoing. II.1 cites the relevant T.-text and clarifies its premises. II.2-3 develop further questions out of the foregoing regarding the koy-animal.
A. A [blemished] firstling which was mixed up among a hundred [other unconsecrated beasts] —
B. When a hundred [people, in addition to the owner of the firstling] slaughter all [one hundred and one] of them,
C. they render all of them free [of priestly dues].
D. [If] one slaughters all of them, they free one for him.
E. He who slaughters for a priest or for a gentile — it is free [of requirement to give the priestly dues].
F. And one who is a partner with them has to give some indication [that the animal is exempt from the priestly dues].
G. And if [the priest or gentile who sold the beast to an Israelite] said, “[The beast is sold] except for the priestly gifts,” he [the one who slaughters (D)] is free of the priestly gifts.
H. [If] he said, “Sell me the intestines of the cow [= the maw],” and the priests' dues were in them, he gives them to the priest, and does not deduct their value from [what he pays] him.
I. [If] he purchased it from him by weight, he gives them to the priest, and he does deduct their value [from what he pays] him.
A. [Referring to the rule of A-C exempting all the mixed animals from liability to priestly dues] why is this the case? Let the priest come and argue [that he has a right to the gifts] from both sides of the question. Let him maintain, “If this one is a firstling, then it is entirely mine. And if it is not a firstling, then give me my gifts from it.”
B. [132b] Said R. Oshaia, “[The case is where the firstling] had already come into the possession of a priest. And he had sold it to an Israelite after it became blemished.” [The priest cannot maintain both sides of the question in this case.]
A. He who slaughters for a priest or for a gentile — it is free [of requirement to give the priestly dues][M. 10:3 E]. Let it teach: A priest or a gentile are free of [the requirement to give] priestly dues.
B. Said Raba, “This informs us that the claim [of the priests for gifts] must be brought against the butcher who slaughters the animal.”
C. Raba interpreted [the verse as follows]: [“And this shall be the priests' due from the people, from those offering a sacrifice, whether it be ox or sheep: they shall give to the priest the shoulder and the two cheeks and the stomach” (Deut. 18:3)] — “from the people” — and not from the priests; “from those offering a sacrifice” — [based on this language] you may state, “Even if the butcher who slaughters is a priest, he is subsumed [under the obligation to give gifts provided he slaughters for a nonpriest].”
A. The host of R. Tabla was a priest and was strapped for funds. He came before R. Tabla [for business advice]. He said to him, “Go form a partnership with an Israelite butcher. For since this will free them from [liability to] gifts [to the priest [for all the animals that they slaughter] they will [be willing] to form a partnership with you.”
B. R. Nahman declared them [the host and his partner] liable [to the priestly gifts]. He [the host] said to him [Nahman], “But lo, R. Tabla freed us [from this obligation.” He [Nahman] said to him, “Go remove [the priestly dues and give them to the priests]. And if you do not, I will remove R. Tabla from your community.”
C. R. Tabla went and appealed the matter to R. Nahman. He [Tabla] said to him, “On what basis did the master do this?” He said to him, “When R. Aha bar Hanina came from the South [he said], `Said R. Joshua b. Levi, “The Elders of the South said that a priest who is a butcher — for two or three weeks [we grant that] he is free from [the obligation to give] gifts [to the priest]. After that, he is liable [to the priestly gifts].”'”
D. He [Tabla] said to him, “Then let the master act in accord with the opinion of R. Aha bar Hanina [and grant an exemption of two or three weeks].” He [Nahman] said to him, “This concern [of the Elders of the South] applies where [the priest-butcher] did not establish a business [but slaughtered only on an ad hoc basis]. But here [in the case before us] lo, he established a business [and therefore he cannot receive any exemption].”
A. Said R. Hisda, “Any priest who does not separate priestly gifts will be under the ban [of excommunication] of the God of Israel.”
B. Said Rabbah bar R. Shila, “These butchers of Huzal have been under the ban of R. Hisda for twenty-two years.” What is the legal implication of this statement? If you say that [it means] they no longer need to enforce the ban, lo [this is contradicted by an explicit rule] taught on Tannaite authority: Under what circumstances [do they no longer enforce a ban]? Where it involves [a case where a person violated] a prohibition. But [where it was issued because a person failed to fulfill] a commandment, such as a case where they instructed a person to build a sukkah, and he does not do it; or where they instructed a person to [take hold of] a lulab, and he does not do it; or where they instructed a person to put fringes [on his garment], and he does not do it. [In all these cases] they may administer lashes to him until he dies. [Accordingly, they should not suspend the ban on the butcher.]
C. Rather [it does not mean that after this time they lift the ban on the butchers of Huzal. But it means that] they may penalize them without further warning. This accords with [the action of] Raba who penalized [a butcher by confiscating his] meat, and [with the action of] R. Nahman bar Yitzhak who penalized [a butcher by confiscating] his mantle.
A. And said R. Hisda, “[One may distribute the gifts to the priests as follows]: the shoulder to one priest, the maw to another priest, the cheeks to two other priests.”
B. Is this accurate? But lo, when R. Yitzhak bar Joseph came [from Israel] he said, “In the West they [hold the view that you even may] divide each bone between two priests.” [They explained] that pertains only to an ox [where all the portions are larger].
C. Said Rabbah bar bar Hannah, said R. Yohanan, “It is prohibited to eat from an animal from which the gifts have not been taken.”
D. And said Rabbah bar bar Hannah, said R. Yohanan, “Anyone who eats from an animal from which the gifts have not been taken, it is as if he eats tebel [i.e., produce from which tithes and heave-offering have not been separated].”
E. And the law does not follow in accord with his view.
A. Said R. Hisda, “The priestly gifts are eaten only roasted and only with mustard.” What is the basis for this view? Scripture says, “[Then the Lord said to Aaron, `And behold, I have given you whatever is kept of the offerings made to me, all the consecrated things of the people of Israel;] I have given them to you as a portion, [and to your sons as a perpetual due]'” (Num. 18:8). [The language used (mšhh) implies that it be a sign of] greatness, that he eat it like the kings eat it [i.e., roasted and with mustard].
B. And said R. Hisda, “There are twenty-four gifts to the priests. Any priest who is not knowledgeable in them, does not receive any gifts.” But this is not an authoritative statement. For it was taught on Tannaite authority: R. Simeon says, “Any priest who does not accept all the rites of the priesthood, does not have a share with the priests.” As it says, “He among the sons of Aaron who offers the blood of the peace offerings and the fat shall have the right thigh for a portion” (Lev. 7:33).
C. I [explicitly] learn from this [verse] only these [rites of sprinkling the blood and offering the fat]. Whence do we include [in the disqualification] the fifteen rites [of the priests] such as pouring [the oil on the fine flour of the meal-offering (Lev. 2:1)], and mixing [the oil with the flour (Lev. 2:4)], and breaking into pieces, and seasoning with salt, and waving [of certain kinds of meal-offerings (cf. M. Men. 5:5-6)] and bringing them near (Lev. 2:8), and taking the fistful [of the meal-offerings (Lev. 2:2)], and burning [of the offerings], and pinching off [the necks of the bird-offerings (Lev. 1:15, 5:8)], [133a] and receiving [the blood of the sacrificial victims (II Chron. 29:22)], and sprinkling [the blood of sacrificial victims on the altar (Lev. 1:5)], and making the suspected adulteress drink [the bitter waters (Num. 5:12 ff.)], and breaking the heifer's neck (Deut. 21), and purifying the leper (Lev. 14), and raising the hands [to bless the people] both inside and outside [the Temple] (Lev. 9:22, Num. 6:22 ff.)?