Talmud Bavli Hullin 130a-b - translation by Tzvee

Bavli Hullin Chapter Ten

                                                                                10:1

                A.            [The requirement to give to the priests] the shoulder, the two cheeks, and the maw (Deut. 18:3) applies (1) in the Land and outside of the Land, (2) in the time of the Temple and not in the time of the Temple, (3) to unconsecrated beasts, but not to consecrated beasts.

                B.            For it [the contrary to A3] might have appeared logical: Now, if unconsecrated animals, which are not liable for the breast and thigh [which are taken from peace offerings for the priests, (Lev. 7:31)], are liable for the [priestly] gifts [of the shoulder, cheeks, and maw], Holy Things, which are liable for the breast and thigh, logically should be liable to the priestly gifts.

                C.            Scripture therefore states, “And I have given them to Aaron the priest and to his sons as a due for ever” (Lev. 7:34) —

                D.            he has a right [in consecrated beasts] only to that which is explicitly stated [namely, the breast and thigh].

                                                                        10:2

                A.            All Holy Things in which a permanent blemish occurred before they were sanctified, and which were redeemed,

                B.            (1) are liable to the law of the firstling and for priestly gifts,

                C.            (2) and they go forth for unconsecrated purposes, to be sheared and to be used for labor,

                D.            (3) and their offspring and their milk are permitted after they are redeemed,

                E.            (4) and he who slaughters them outside of the sanctuary is free [of liability to punishment],

                F.            (5) and they are not subject to the law of the substitute,

                G.            (6) and if they died, they [the carcasses] are redeemed,

                H.            except for the firstling and tithe.

                I.             All [Holy Things] in which a permanent blemish occurred after they were sanctified or in which a transient blemish occurred before they were sanctified, and afterward a permanent blemish appeared in them, and which were redeemed

                J.             (1) are free of the law of the firstling and of the priestly gifts,

                K.            (2) and they do not go forth for unconsecrated purposes, to be sheared and to be used for labor,

                L.            (3) and their offspring and their milk are prohibited after they are redeemed,

                M.           (4) and he who slaughters them outside is liable [Aqiba, M. Zeb. 9:3],

                N.            (5) and they are subject to the law of the substitute,

                O.            (6) and if they died, they are to be buried.

I.1

A.            The basis [for the rule of A3] is that the Torah wrote, “[And I have given] them [to Aaron the priest and to his sons as a due for ever]” (Lev. 7:34). Lo, if not for this, would I have reasoned that Holy Things are liable to the priestly gifts [as Mishnah proposes in B]?

B.            One could have objected [to Mishnah's reasoning as follows:] Now, unconsecrated animals are liable to the law of the firstling [and are liable for the priestly gifts. This implies no logical conclusion regarding priestly gifts from Holy Things, which are not liable to the law of the firstling].

C.            You may derive the conclusion from the law regarding male animals. Now, male animals are liable to the rule of the first shearings [of wool, Deut. 18:4]. [That is, they are not liable to the law of the firstling, and are liable for priestly gifts. This implies it is logical that Holy Things, though not liable to the law of the firstling, are liable for priestly gifts].

D.            [One could have objected to Mishnah's reasoning as follows:] Take the case of he-goats. Now, he-goats enter the pen to be tithed [and are liable for the priestly gifts. This implies no logical conclusion regarding priestly gifts from Holy Things, which do not enter the pen to be tithed].

E.            [One could have objected to Mishnah's reasoning as follows:] Take the case of old he-goats. Now, old he-goats already entered the pen to be tithed [and are liable for the priestly gifts. This implies no logical conclusion regarding priestly gifts from Holy Things, which do not enter the pen to be tithed].

F.             [One could have objected to Mishnah's reasoning as follows:] Take the case of an animal that was purchased or orphaned. Now, regarding an animal that was purchased or orphaned, others of its kind enter the pen to be tithed [and are liable for the priestly gifts. This implies no logical conclusion regarding priestly gifts from Holy Things, which do not enter the pen to be tithed].

G.            But if you state the matter [to answer this last objection] that others of its own kind [enter the pen to be tithed], then regarding Holy Things, others of their own kind enter the pen to be tithed. [Accordingly, Mishnah needs to cite the verse to prove the matter.]

I.2

A.            But now let us argue [in the other direction]: Unconsecrated beasts should be liable for the breast and the thigh [like Holy Things] based on a logical inference a fortiori. Now, if Holy Things which are not liable to the priestly gifts, are liable for the breast and thigh, unconsecrated animals, which are liable to the priestly gifts, logically should be liable for the breast and thigh.

B.            Scripture says, “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 (= maw)]” (Deut. 18:3). “This” — yes. Anything else — no.

C.            But the basis [for the rule] is that the Torah wrote, “This.” Lo, if not for this, would I have reasoned that unconsecrated animals are liable for the breast and thigh?

D.            But lo, is it not necessary to wave them [the breast and thigh]? How could one wave them [the breast and thigh of an unconsecrated animal?] If [he waves them] outside [the Temple, this would contradict the verse], as it is written, “[He shall bring with his own hands the offerings by fire to the Lord; he shall bring the fat with the breast, that the breast may be waved as a wave offering] before the Lord” (Lev. 7:30).

E.            If [he waves them] inside [the Temple], he is bringing unconsecrated things into the court. Accordingly, it is impossible [to wave the breast and thigh of an unconsecrated animal].

F.             Why then do I need the word “This”? To subsume the rule of R. Hisda. For said R. Hisda, “One who damages the priestly gifts, or one who ate them, is free of liability to pay.”

I.3

A.            It was taught previously: Said R. Hisda, “One who damages the priestly gifts, or one who ate them, is free of liability to pay.”

B.            What is the basis for this rule? If you prefer, it is because it is written, “This” [limiting the liability to the objects themselves]. And if you prefer, it is because this is a case of a monetary claim for which there is no claimant. [No specific priest has a claim to the gifts.]

C.            They raised an objection: 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). This teaches us that the priestly gifts are [obtained by a priest] through a legal claim.

D.            To what legal claim does this statement pertain? Is it not the claim to obtain payment through the court? No, it pertains to the court's jurisdiction to govern their distribution.

E.            And this is in accord with the rule of R. Samuel bar Nahmani. For said Samuel bar Nahmani, said R. Yohanan, “On what basis do we say that they do not give gifts to a priest who is an am ha-arets? As it says, “And he commanded the people who lived in Jerusalem to give the portion due to the priests and the Levites, that they might give themselves to the law of the Lord” (II Chron. 31:4). All those who “give themselves to the law of the Lord” have a portion. All those who do not “give themselves to the law of the Lord” do not have a portion.

I.4

A.            Come and take note: R. Judah b. Betera says, “As a due” (Lev. 7:34) — this teaches us that the gifts are governed by a legal claim. You might infer that the breast and thigh are also governed by a legal claim. It comes to teach us, “This.”

B.            To what legal claim does this statement pertain? Is it not to the court's jurisdiction to govern their distribution? But do we not know this already regarding the breast and thigh? [And the same would pertain to the gifts.]

C.            Rather does it not then [pertain to] the claim to obtain payment [of the gifts] through the court?

D.            In that case, what are we dealing with? Where they were already in the possession [of the priest and the original owner stole them back]. But if they were already in his possession, then what needs to be said? [The law is clear concerning such a case.]

E.            [It must be that] they came into his possession unseparated [from the unconsecrated parts of the animal]. And this Tanna reasoned in accord with the view that, Gifts that were not [physically] separated are treated [as pertains to legal claims] as if they were separated.

I.5

A.            Come and take note: “A householder who was traveling from place to place and needs to collect gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah, or poor man's tithe, let him collect [what he needs]. And when he returns to his home, he should repay [the amount of produce he took as a poor person, for he never actually was poor],” the words of R. Eliezer [M. Peah 5:4 A-D]. [The conflicts with I.3 A.]

B.            Said R. Hisda, “An act of piety was taught here [and not a matter pertaining to a valid legal claim].”

C.            Said Raba, “It was taught on Tannaite authority that, he should repay, and you say, `An act of piety was taught here.' And furthermore from the words of R. Eliezer shall we arise and raise an objection?

D.            “Rather, consider the latter text of the Mishnah: But sages say, `[He need repay nothing, because in fact] he was a poor person when [he collected produce designated for the poor][M. Peah 5:4 E].'

E.            “The reason [he does not pay] is because he was a poor person. Lo if he was a rich person, he must pay. Why is that? Let him be [covered by this rule]: “One who damages the priestly gifts, or one who ate them, [is free of liability to pay, I.3 A].”

F.             Said R. Hisda, “An act of piety was taught here [and not a matter pertaining to a valid legal claim].”

I.6

A.            Come and take note: On what basis does a householder who ate from his unseparated produce, or a Levite who ate from his unseparated tithes [from which heave-offering had not been taken], on what basis do we say that he is free from repayment [to the priests]? It comes to teach, “The priests shall not profane the holy things of the people of Israel, which they offer to the Lord” (Lev. 22:15).

B.            You [the priests] have them from the time he separated [the heave-offering] and thereafter. Lo, from the time he separated and thereafter, from then on he must pay [if he consumes it]. Why is that? Let him be [covered by this rule]: “One who damages the priestly gifts, or one who ate them, [is free of liability to pay] [I.3 A].”