## Chullin Daf 130b

###### Chullin 130b:1
[Chullin 130b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/130b:1)

אִי אַגַּוַּאי – קָא מְעַיֵּיל חוּלִּין לָעֲזָרָה, הִלְכָּךְ לָא אֶפְשָׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If** it is suggested that they should be waved **inside** the Temple, that too cannot be correct, because one who waves them inside the Temple thereby **brings a non-sacred** animal **into the** Temple **courtyard. Therefore,** since it is **not possible** to perform the procedure of giving the breast and thigh with non-sacred animals, it is not necessary for a verse to teach that the giving of the breast and thigh does not apply to such animals.


###### Chullin 130b:2
[Chullin 130b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/130b:2)

אֶלָּא ״זֶה״ לְמָה לִי? לְכִדְרַב חִסְדָּא, דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הַמַּזִּיק מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה אוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלָן – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if that is so, **why do I** need the verse to state: **“This** shall be the priests’ due” (Deuteronomy 18:3)? The Gemara answers: The verse is necessary **for that which Rav Ḥisda** taught, **as Rav Ḥisda said: One who causes damage** to **gifts of the priesthood, or who consumed them** before they were given to the priests, is **exempt from** having **to pay** to the priest, as the verse states: “This shall be the priests’ due,” which indicates that only the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw themselves, not their replacements, are given to the priests.


###### Chullin 130b:3
[Chullin 130b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/130b:3)

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הַמַּזִּיק מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה, אוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלָן – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. מַאי טַעְמָא? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא דִּכְתִיב ״זֶה״, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ מָמוֹן שֶׁאֵין לוֹ תּוֹבְעִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara analyzes **the** matter **itself: Rav Ḥisda said** that **one who causes damage** to **gifts of the priesthood or who consumed them** is **exempt from** having **to pay** a substitute to the priest. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason? If you wish, say that** it is because **“this” is written** in the verse, indicating that only the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw themselves are given to the priests, as explained above. **And if you wish, say** instead that it is **because it is money that has no claimants.** Since one may give the gifts to any priest, no single priest can issue a claim on them.


###### Chullin 130b:4
[Chullin 130b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/130b:4)

מֵיתִיבִי: ״וְזֶה יִהְיֶה מִשְׁפַּט הַכֹּהֲנִים״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַמַּתָּנוֹת דִּין. לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? לָאו לְהוֹצִיאָן בְּדַיָּינִין? לָא, לְחוֹלְקָן בְּדַיָּינִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita*. The verse states: **“And this shall be the priests’ due [*mishpat*]”** (Deuteronomy 18:3), which **teaches that the gifts** given to the priests are considered **a judgment,** as *mishpat* can mean judgment. The Gemara continues: **With regard to what *halakha*** are the gifts a judgment? Is it **not with regard to extracting** them **through judges,** i.e., a priest may claim them in court and the court will order the individual to give the gifts to that priest? If so, the gifts are considered to be money that has claimants. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **No,** they are a judgment **with regard to distributing them through judges,** i.e., the court dictates to the owner to which type of priests he should give the gifts.


###### Chullin 130b:5
[Chullin 130b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/130b:5)

וְכִדְרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי, דְּאָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין נוֹתְנִין מַתָּנָה לְכֹהֵן עַם הָאָרֶץ? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר לָעָם לְיוֹשְׁבֵי יְרוּשָׁלִַם לָתֵת מְנָת לַכֹּהֲנִים וְלַלְוִיִּם לְמַעַן יֶחֶזְקוּ בְּתוֹרַת ה׳״, כׇּל הַמַּחְזִיק בְּתוֹרַת ה׳ – יֵשׁ לוֹ מְנָת, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ מַחֲזִיק בְּתוֹרַת ה׳ – אֵין לוֹ מְנָת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** this is **in accordance with that which Rav Shmuel bar Naḥmani** taught, **as Rav Shmuel bar Naḥmani said** that **Rabbi Yonatan said: From where** is it derived **that one does not give a gift** of the priesthood **to a priest** who is **an *am ha’aretz*?** It is derived from a verse, **as it is stated: “And he commanded the people who dwelled in Jerusalem to give the portion of the priests and of the Levites, so that they may firmly adhere to the Torah of the Lord”** (II Chronicles 31:4). This indicates that **anyone who firmly adheres to the Torah of the Lord has a portion, and one who does not firmly adhere to the Torah of the Lord does not have a portion.**


###### Chullin 130b:6
[Chullin 130b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/130b:6)

תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא אוֹמֵר: ״מִשְׁפָּט״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַמַּתָּנוֹת דִּין. יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק דִּין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״זֶה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof with regard to the statement of Rav Ḥisda from a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says** that the phrase “And this shall be the priests’ **due” teaches that the gifts** of the priesthood are **a judgment.** One **might** have thought that the gifts of the **breast and thigh** are **also a judgment.** Therefore, **the verse states: “This,”** to teach that only the gifts of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw are called a judgment.


###### Chullin 130b:7
[Chullin 130b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/130b:7)

לְמַאי? אִילֵימָא לְחוֹלְקוֹ בְּדַיָּינִין – אַטּוּ חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק לָאו בְּדַיָּינִין מִיחַלְּקוּ? אֶלָּא לָאו (להוציא) [לְהוֹצִיאוֹ] בְּדַיָּינִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes this *baraita*: **With regard to what** matter is this *halakha* stated? **If we say** that it is **with regard to distributing** them **through judges, is that to say** that the **breast and thigh are not distributed through judges?** These are also called a “portion” (II Chronicles 31:4), and therefore the court determines to which priests they should be given, as stated above. **Rather, is it not** stated **with regard to extracting** them **through judges?** If so, one can infer from the *baraita* that gifts of the priesthood can be extracted in court by a priest, which contradicts the statement of Rav Ḥisda.


###### Chullin 130b:8
[Chullin 130b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/130b:8)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, דַּאֲתוֹ לִידֵיהּ. אִי דַּאֲתוֹ לִידֵיהּ, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? דַּאֲתוֹ לִידֵיהּ בְּטִבְלַיְיהוּ, וְקָסָבַר הַאי תַּנָּא: מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמוּ – כְּמִי שֶׁהוּרְמוּ דָּמְיָין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Here, we are dealing with** a case **where** the gifts already **came into** the priest’s **possession,** and the owner stole them from him. The *baraita* teaches that the priest may claim them in court and the court will order that they be returned to him. The Gemara asks: **If** this is a case **where they came into his possession, what** is the purpose **of stating** that the priest may claim them in court? That is obvious, as they already belong to him. The Gemara responds: The *baraita* is referring to a case **where they came into his possession while they** were still **untithed,** i.e., the priest received the entire animal before the gifts were separated, **and this *tanna* holds** that **gifts that have not been separated are considered as though they have been separated.** Accordingly, the gifts belong to the priest, and if the owner takes them from him against his will it is considered theft.


###### Chullin 130b:9
[Chullin 130b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/130b:9)

תָּא שְׁמַע: בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁהָיָה עוֹבֵר מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם, וְצָרִיךְ לִיטּוֹל לֶקֶט, שִׁכְחָה, וּפֵאָה, וּמַעְשַׂר עָנִי – נוֹטֵל, וְלִכְשֶׁיַּחְזוֹר יְשַׁלֵּם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof with regard to the statement of Rav Ḥisda from a mishna (*Pe’a* 5:4): In the case of **a homeowner who was passing from place to place,** and he ran out of money while traveling **and needs to take gleanings, forgotten** sheaves, ***pe’a*, or the poor man’s tithe** in order to sustain himself, he may **take** them, **and when he returns** to his house **he will pay** a poor person for whatever he took; this is **the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.** The mishna teaches that a poor person may extract payment for that which the homeowner took, despite the fact that he never had possession of the gifts. This ruling apparently contradicts the statement of Rav Ḥisda.


###### Chullin 130b:10
[Chullin 130b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/130b:10)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מִדַּת חֲסִידוּת שָׁנוּ כָּאן. אָמַר רָבָא: תַּנָּא תָּנֵי ״יְשַׁלֵּם״, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ מִדַּת חֲסִידוּת שָׁנוּ כָּאן?! וְעוֹד, מִדְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לֵיקוּם וְלֹיתֵוב?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥisda said:** The mishna **taught an attribute of piety here,** i.e., strictly speaking a poor person has no right to claim any amount from the homeowner for what he took. **Rava said** in bewilderment: **The *tanna* taught** explicitly that **he will pay, and you say** that he **taught an attribute of piety here? And furthermore, should** one **arise and raise an objection from** the statement **of Rabbi Eliezer?** The *halakha* is not in accordance with his opinion.


###### Chullin 130b:11
[Chullin 130b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/130b:11)

אֶלָּא מִסֵּיפָא, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: עָנִי הָיָה בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה, טַעְמָא דְּעָנִי, הָא עָשִׁיר – מְשַׁלֵּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the objection is **from the latter clause** of the mishna: **And the Rabbis say** that the homeowner is not required to pay for what he took during his travels, as **he was** considered **poor at that time.** It may be inferred that the **reason** he is exempt from payment is only **that** he was considered **poor** at the time, **but** if he were considered **wealthy,** he would have to **pay** the poor people who issue a claim against him in court, as he was not entitled to those gifts.


###### Chullin 130b:12
[Chullin 130b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/130b:12)

אַמַּאי? לֶיהֱוֵי כְּמַזִּיק מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה אוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלָן! אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מִדַּת חֲסִידוּת שָׁנוּ כָּאן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the objection: But **why** must he pay? **Let it be** considered **like** a case where one **causes damage to gifts of the priesthood or consumes them,** with regard to which Rav Ḥisda states that he is not required to pay the priest. The opinion of the Rabbis apparently contradicts the statement of Rav Ḥisda. **Rav Ḥisda says:** Even if the homeowner was considered wealthy at the time he is not required to pay, and the Rabbis who obligated him to pay **taught an attribute of piety here.**


###### Chullin 130b:13
[Chullin 130b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/130b:13)

תָּא שְׁמַע: מִנַּיִן לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁאָכַל פֵּירוֹתָיו טְבָלִין, וְכֵן לֵוִי שֶׁאָכַל מַעְשְׂרוֹתָיו טְבָלִים, מִנַּיִן שֶׁפָּטוּר מִן הַתַּשְׁלוּמִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת קׇדְשֵׁי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יָרִימוּ״ – אֵין לְךָ בָּהֶן אֶלָּא מִשְּׁעַת הֲרָמָה וְאֵילָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from a *baraita*: **From where** is it derived **with regard to a homeowner who consumed his produce** while it was **untithed,** i.e., neither *teruma* nor the first tithe had been separated, **and similarly,** with regard to **a Levite who consumed his tithes** while they were **untithed,** i.e., *teruma* of the tithe had not been separated, **from where** is it derived **that** he is **exempt from payment? The verse states: “And they shall not profane the sacred things of the children of Israel, which they set apart** to the Lord” (Leviticus 22:15). This teaches that **you,** the priest, **have** rights **to them only from the time of separation onward.** Since the produce was eaten before *teruma* was separated from it, the priest cannot claim payment for it in court.


###### Chullin 130b:14
[Chullin 130b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/130b:14)

הָא מִשְּׁעַת הֲרָמָה וְאֵילָךְ מִיהָא מְשַׁלֵּם, אַמַּאי? לֶיהֱוֵי כְּמַזִּיק מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה אוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלָן! הָכָא נָמֵי

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers from this ruling: This indicates that if it was consumed **from the time of separation onward,** the priest may **in any event** claim payment for the *teruma* in court, and the one who consumed it must **pay.** But **why** must one pay? **Let it be like** a case where one **causes damage to gifts of the priesthood or consumes them,** with regard to which Rav Ḥisda states that he is exempt from payment. The Gemara responds: **Here too,**