Talmud Bavli Hullin 133a-b - translation by Tzvee

 D.           It comes to teach, “Among the sons of Aaron.” [This implies that he is excluded from] any rite that is performed by the sons of Aaron [T. Demai 2:6-7].

E.            And [it states] any priest who does not accept [the rites], does not have a share with the priests. The implication is that [this applies only to a priest] who does not accept [a rite]. Lo, if he accepted it, even if he was not knowledgeable in it, [he has a share with the priests, contrary to Hisda at B].

II.6

A.            Said R. Abba, said R. Huna, said Rab, “The veins of the cheek are prohibited [on account of the blood that they contain]. And to any priest who does not know how to remove them, they do not give to him [the cheek] as a gift.”

B.            But this is not so [that the veins are prohibited]. For if they roast [the cheek, then the blood] drains out. And if they cook it in a pot, if he first cuts it and salts it, [the blood] drains out.

III.1

A.            Said Raba, “R. Joseph tested us [with this question]: A priest who grabbed priestly gifts — is he showing his esteem for the commandment or is he making a mockery of the commandment?” And we answered [the question as follows]: [It says,] “They shall give [to the priest the shoulder and the two cheeks and the stomach]” (Deut. 18:3) — [it does not say that] he should take them himself. [Accordingly, if he does grab them, he is making a mockery of the commandment.]

B.            Said Abayye, “At first I used to grab the priestly gifts. I reasoned that I was showing my esteem for the commandment. After I heard [the teaching], `They shall give' [it does not say that] he should take them himself, I no longer grabbed the priestly gifts. I used to say to others, `Bring them to me.' After I heard this that was taught on Tannaite authority, `[Yet his sons did not walk in his ways, but turned aside after gain;] they took bribes [and perverted justice]' (I Sam. 8:3). R. Meir said, `The sons of Samuel [took bribes] by asking for their portions [of the priestly gifts].' [After hearing this teaching] I no longer said to others [to bring them to me]. I reasoned that if they brought them to me, I would accept them. After I heard this that was taught on Tannaite authority, `Modest people draw back their hands but the greedy ones took their portion,' I no longer said that if they brought them to me, I would accept them. Except on the eve of the Day of Atonement [I would take them] to assert myself as a priest.”

C.            But [to assert himself as a priest] could he not raise his hands [in synagogue to bless the people]? He never had the opportunity to do that.

III.2

A.            Said R. Joseph, “A priest, in whose neighborhood there is a rabbinic scholar who is strapped for funds [and the priest wants to help him], he may assign to him priestly gifts, even if he did not yet receive them, as long as he is recognized among the priests and levites.”

B.            Raba and R. Safra came to the house of Mar Yohana the son of R. Hanna bar Ada, and some say [that they came to] the house of Mar Yohana the son of R. Hama bar Bizna, and he made for them a one-third [grown] calf. Said Raba to the servant, “Assign the gifts to me since I wish to eat the tongue [roasted] with mustard.” He assigned them to him. Raba ate it and R. Safra did not eat it. R. Safra dreamed [that night that he heard] the recitation of the verse, “He who sings songs to a heavy heart is like one who takes off a garment on a cold day, and like vinegar on a wound” (Prov. 25:20).

C.            He went before R. Joseph [for an interpretation of the dream]. He said to him, “Perhaps it is because I violated the tradition of the master [A, above] that I heard this [in my dream].” He said to him, “What I said pertains to a third party [who assigns another's gifts]. But a servant may assign them even against the person's will. And what I said pertains to one who was in need [of material assistance]. Lo you were not in need of assistance. [Accordingly, you did not violate my tradition.]”

D.            Rather why then did he hear this [verse in his dream]? It reflected on [the actions of] Raba [who did not understand the teaching of R. Joseph]. Then why did Raba not hear it [in his own dream]? Raba was subject to rebuke [at the time and could not receive reports in his dreams].

III.3

A.            Said Abayye to R. Dimi, “To what [situation] does scripture obviously refer [in Prov. 25:20 above at B]?” He said to him, “[It refers to one] who teaches a student who is not suitable.”

B.            For said R. Judah, said Rab, “One who teaches a student who is not suitable, descends into Hell. As it says, `Utter darkness is laid up for his treasures; a fire not blown upon will devour him; what is left (sryd) in his tent will be consumed' (Job 20:26).”

C.            “What is left (sryd)” — this can only refer to a disciple of the sages. As it says, “And among the survivors (srydym) shall be those whom the Lord calls” (Joel 2:32 RSV).

D.            Said R. Zira, said Rab, “One who teaches a student who is not suitable, is like one who casts a stone before Mercury [i.e., performs an act of worship to an idol]. As it says, `Like one who binds the stone in the sling is he who gives honor to a fool' (Prov. 26:8). And it is written, `It is not fitting for a fool to live in luxury, much less for a slave to rule over princes' (Prov. 19:10).

IV.1

A.            And one who is a partner with them has to give some indication [that the animal is exempt from the priestly dues][M. 10:3 F]. And even if [he is a partner with] a gentile [he must give some indication].

B.            And they raised a contradiction [from T.]: One who is a partner with a priest must give some indication. One who is partner with a gentile, or [one who is partner in] a Holy Thing that became invalid, does not have to give some indication. [Neusner: And a partner of priests who are invalid for consecrated purposes does not have to make a mark] [T. 9:5 D-F].

C.            In that case what are we dealing with? That the gentile was sitting next to the weighing scales [i.e., the butcher's kiosk, and it is obvious that he is a partner].

D.            Likewise [why not say] regarding the priest, that he was sitting next to the weighing scales [and that it was obvious that he was a partner]? Why then does he have to give some indication? Because people may say he is [sitting there because he is] buying meat [from the butcher].

E.            If this is the case, [concerning] the gentile [that is sitting next to the kiosk], they may say that he is buying meat.

F.             In that case what are we dealing with? That the gentile was sitting next to the cash box [i.e., the butcher's kiosk, and it is obvious that he is a partner].

G.            Likewise [why not say] regarding the priest, that he was sitting next to the cash box [and that it was obvious that he was a partner]? Why then does he have to give some indication? Because people may say he [the priest] is [sitting there because the butcher] trusted him.

H.            If this is the case, [concerning] the gentile [that is sitting next to the kiosk], they may say that he [the butcher] trusted him. [But this is not the case because we have a principle that] there is no trust among gentiles.

I.             If you prefer, another possibility [we may explain this on the basis of the principle that] the ordinary gentile speaks up [when he does business. Thus people should be able to tell if he is a partner.]

IV.2

A.            Said the master, [One who is a partner with a priest must give some indication. One who is partner with a gentile, or one who is partner in] a Holy Thing that became invalid, does not have to give some indication [T. 9:5 D-F]. It seems logical to conclude] that the matter [of its status] is readily evident [because it is not sold in the same manner as unconsecrated meat].

B.            But lo, we taught on Tannaite authority in the Mishnah [that it is sold the same way as ordinary meat]: All invalidated Holy Things [after they have been redeemed] are sold in the marketplace, and are slaughtered in the marketplace, and are weighed by the litra [M. Bekh. 5:1 A-C]. R. Ada bar Ahava resolved [this contradiction] before R. Pappa [by explaining that our text in T. refers only to Holy Things] that are sold from one's house [such as the firstling and the tithe of cattle].

IV.3

A.            Said R. Huna, “[If the priest was] a partner in the head [of the animal], then it is exempt from the gift of the cheeks. If he was a partner in the foreleg, then it is exempt from the gift of the shoulder. If he is a partner in the entrails, then it is exempt from the gift of the stomach.”

B.            And Hiyya bar Rab said, “Even [if the priest was] a partner in only one of these [parts of the animal], it is exempt from all [the gifts].”

C.            They raised an objection [to the view of Hiyya]: ([If] a priest said to him, “It is entirely yours, but the foreleg is mine,” even if one among a hundred are in the foreleg, it is exempt from the gifts of the shoulder. [If] he said, “The whole shoulder is yours, and the head is mine,” even one among a hundred, it is exempt from the gift of the cheek. [If he said], “The whole cheek is yours, and the intestines are mine,” even if one in a hundred are among the intestines, it is exempt from the requirement to give the maw [T. 9:6].) [If a priest said], “The head is mine and all the rest is yours” or “One-hundredth part of the head [is mine],” it is exempt [from the gift of the cheeks]. [If a priest said], “The foreleg is mine and all the rest is yours” or “One-hundredth part of the foreleg [is mine],” it is exempt [from the gift of the shoulder]. [If a priest said], “The entrails are mine and all the rest is yours” or “One-hundredth part of the entrails [are mine],” it is exempt [from the gift of the stomach].

D.            Is it not the case that this means [in each case respectively] that it is exempt from the gift of the cheeks but liable to the rest of them; that it is exempt from the gift of the shoulder, but liable to the rest of them; that it is exempt from the gift of the stomach, but liable to the rest of them?

E.            No. It means he is exempt from all of them. And let it be taught that he is exempt from all of them.

F.             It was taught further on Tannaite authority [more specifically]: [If a priest said], “The head is mine and all the rest is yours” or “One-hundredth part of the head [is mine],” it is exempt from the gift of the cheeks and liable to the rest of them.

G.            The question raised concerning the view of Hiyya bar Rab is a decisive question.

H.            Said R. Hisda, “Lo a Tannaite teaching misdirected Hiyya bar Rab.” For it was taught on Tannaite authority [text from T. follows]: Twenty-four gifts for the priesthood were given to Aaron and his sons, and all of them were granted through a generalization (Num. 18:8) followed by a particularization (Num. 18:9-18) followed by a gener-alization (Num. 18:19), and `a covenant of salt' (Num. 18:8-19), so that if one carries them out, it is as though he has carried out the entirety of the generalization, particularization, and generalization, covering all sacrifices that comprise the covenant of salt; and to violate them is to violate the entirety of the generalization, particularization, and generalization, covering all sacrifices that comprise the covenant of salt. These are they: ten to be eaten inside the Temple, four in Jerusalem, ten within the borders of the Land of Israel. Ten to be eaten in the precincts of the Temple: a sin offering of an animal, sin offering of a bird, guilt offering for a known sin, guilt offering for a sin that is subject to doubt, peace offering of the community, log of oil in the case of a person afflicted with the skin ailment, residue of the wave offering, two loaves, show bread, and residue of meal offerings. The four to be eaten in Jerusalem: the firstling, first of the first fruits, portions separated from the thank offering for the priesthood and the ram of the Nazirite, and the hides of most Holy Things. The ten to be eaten within the borders of the Land of Israel: food designated as priestly rations [heave-offering], the priestly rations taken up from the tithe, dough offering, first fleece, portions of the unconsecrated animals assigned to the priesthood, the beast that serves for the redemption of the first born son, the beast that serves for the redemption of the firstling of an ass, a field of possession, a field that has been devoted, and what has been handed over in restitution for a robbery committed against a proselyte [T. Hal. 2:1ff.].

I.             He [Hiyya] reasoned in accord with the view that since all the gifts were reckoned as one item [on the list in T. Hal.], that they are treated as one [with regard to determining whether one is liable to them]. And this is not so. Is it the case that portions separated from the thank offering for the priesthood and the ram of the Nazirite are reckoned as one item because they are treated as one [with regard to the law]?

J.             Rather [it is the case that] because they were similar articles, they were reckoned as one item. Here too [regarding the gifts for the priest] because they were similar articles, they were reckoned as one item [on the list]. [Accordingly Hiyya should have derived no proof from this source.]

IV.4

A.            They posed a question: [If a priest said to an Israelite], “The head is yours and all the rest is mine” [i.e., the reverse of the case in C above], what is the law [regarding the liability to give the cheeks to the priest]? Do we consider the legal status the [part of the animal where the] liability [rests]? And the [part of the animal where the] liability [rests] belongs to an Israelite [and hence he is liable to give the cheeks to the priest]? Or perhaps we consider the legal status of the major part of the animal. And the major part of the animal belongs to the priest [so he would not be liable to give the cheeks to the priest].

B.            Come and take note: A priest and a gentile who gave their beast to an Israelite — it is free [of the first of the fleece]. He who purchases the [first] fleece of a gentile — it is free of the first of the fleece. This rule is more strict for the [shoulder and] two cheeks and maw than for the first of the fleece [T. 10:2]. We derive from this that we consider the legal status of the [part of the animal where the] liability [rests]. We derive this [conclusion].