## Chullin Daf 132a

###### Chullin 132a:1
[Chullin 132a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/132a:1)

מִטּוּנָךְ: ״אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו״ כְּתוּבִין בַּפָּרָשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**from your burden [*mitunakh*],** i.e., from that which you raise your objection, I can cite a proof for my practice: With regard to the meal offering of a priest, both **Aaron and his sons are written in the passage** discussing this offering: “And this is the law of the meal offering: The sons of Aaron shall offer it before the Lord, in front of the altar” (Leviticus 6:7). The verse emphasizes that these *halakhot* apply only to male priests and not to their daughters. This indicates that when the verse refers merely to priests, even their daughters are included. Accordingly, one may give gifts of the priesthood to the daughter of a priest.


###### Chullin 132a:2
[Chullin 132a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/132a:2)

דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תָּנָא: ״כֹּהֵן״ – וְלֹא כֹּהֶנֶת, וְיִלְמוֹד סָתוּם מִן הַמְפוֹרָשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites the opinions of various *tanna’im* with regard to the practice of Ulla: **The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:** Anywhere that the Torah mentions a priest with regard to gifts of the priesthood, it is referring specifically to **a priest and not a female priest, and** let one **derive** the meaning of **an unspecified** reference to a priest **from the explicit** verse that states with regard to meal offerings: “Aaron and his sons.” This verse indicates that any reference to a priest excludes a priest’s daughter.


###### Chullin 132a:3
[Chullin 132a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/132a:3)

דְּבֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב תָּנָא: ״כֹּהֵן״, וַאֲפִילּוּ כֹּהֶנֶת – הָוֵי מִיעוּט אַחַר מִיעוּט, וְאֵין מִיעוּט אַחַר מִיעוּט אֶלָּא לְרַבּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov taught:** In general, the reference to a priest in a verse serves to exclude a priest’s daughter. But when the verse mentions **a priest** with regard to gifts of the priesthood, it means to include **even a female priest.** This is because the verse mentions priests twice: “And this shall be the priests’ due from the people, from them that perform a slaughter, whether it be ox or sheep, that they shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw” (Deuteronomy 18:3). Since each reference to a priest excludes the daughter of a priest, this verse **is** a case of **a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression, and** there is a hermeneutical principle that **a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression** serves **only to amplify** the *halakha* and include additional cases, in this instance, the daughter of a priest.


###### Chullin 132a:4
[Chullin 132a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/132a:4)

רַב כָּהֲנָא אָכַל בִּשְׁבִיל אִשְׁתּוֹ, רַב פָּפָּא אָכַל בִּשְׁבִיל אִשְׁתּוֹ, רַב יֵימַר אָכַל בִּשְׁבִיל אִשְׁתּוֹ, רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין אָכַל בִּשְׁבִיל אִשְׁתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that **Rav Kahana,** who was an Israelite, **partook** of gifts of the priesthood **on account of his wife,** who was the daughter of a priest. Similarly, **Rav Pappa partook** of gifts of the priesthood **on account of his wife, Rav Yeimar partook** of gifts **on account of his wife,** and **Rav Idi bar Avin partook** of them **on account of his wife.**


###### Chullin 132a:5
[Chullin 132a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/132a:5)

אָמַר רָבִינָא: אֲמַר לִי מָרִימָר, הִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב, וְהִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא, וְהִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּעוּלָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said: Mareimar said to me** that **the *halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rav** that it is uncertain whether or not Levites are obligated to give the gifts of the priesthood, and consequently, gifts are not removed from their possession to be given to the priests. **And the *halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rav Ḥisda** that one who damages or consumes gifts of the priesthood is exempt from payment. **And the *halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Ulla** that gifts of the priesthood may be given to the daughter of a priest.


###### Chullin 132a:6
[Chullin 132a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/132a:6)

וְהִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: לְוִיָּה שֶׁיָּלְדָה – בְּנָהּ פָּטוּר מֵחֲמֵשׁ סְלָעִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** in a case not previously discussed but related to the opinion of Ulla, **the *halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rav Adda bar Ahava** with regard to **a female Levite,** i.e., the daughter of a Levite, **who gave birth** to a firstborn boy, even if she is married to an Israelite, that **her son is exempt from** the obligation to give **five *sela*** to the priest for his redemption, as the child is considered the son of a Levite, and Levites are exempt from this obligation.


###### Chullin 132a:7
[Chullin 132a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/132a:7)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַזְּרוֹעַ וְהַלְּחָיַיִם וְהַקֵּבָה נוֹהֲגִים בְּכִלְאַיִם וּבְכוֹי. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: כִּלְאַיִם הַבָּא מִן הָעֵז וּמִן הָרָחֵל – חַיָּיב בְּמַתָּנוֹת, מִן הַתַּיִישׁ וּמִן הַצְּבִיָּיה – פָּטוּר מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites a dispute with regard to the gifts of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw. **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: The obligation to give **the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw applies** even **to a hybrid** animal **and to** the animal known as **a *koy*. Rabbi Eliezer says: A hybrid** that **results from** the mating of **a goat and a ewe is obligated to** have **gifts** of the priesthood given from it, while a hybrid that results **from** the mating of **a goat and a doe is exempt from** having **gifts** of the priesthood given from it. This is because the verse states with regard to gifts of the priesthood: “Whether it be an ox or sheep” (Deuteronomy 18:3), i.e., a domesticated animal, and a doe is not a domesticated animal.


###### Chullin 132a:8
[Chullin 132a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/132a:8)

מִכְּדֵי קַיְימָא לַן דִּלְעִנְיַן כִּסּוּי הַדָּם וּמַתָּנוֹת לָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לֵיהּ אֶלָּא בִּצְבִי הַבָּא עַל הַתְּיָישָׁה, וּבֵין לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֵּין לְרַבָּנַן מְסַפְּקָא לְהוּ אִי חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְזֶרַע הָאָב, אִי אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Now, we maintain** (see 79b–80a) **with regard to** the mitzvot of **covering the blood and** giving the **gifts** of the priesthood that **you do not find** that Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree **except in** the case of an animal born from **a deer that mates with a female goat. And both Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis are uncertain whether one** needs **to be concerned with its paternity** when determining the species of a hybrid animal, which would mean that this animal is part domesticated and part undomesticated, or **whether one does not** need to be **concerned** with paternity and the species of an animal is determined entirely by the species of its mother, in which case it is a domesticated animal.


###### Chullin 132a:9
[Chullin 132a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/132a:9)

וּבְשֶׂה וַאֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת שֶׂה קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר: ״שֶׂה״ – וַאֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת שֶׂה, וּמָר סָבַר: ״שֶׂה״ וַאֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת שֶׂה לָא אָמְרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** they **disagree with regard to** whether the obligation of the gifts applies to **a sheep and even** an animal that is **partially a sheep,** i.e., partially domesticated. One **Sage,** the Rabbis, **holds** that the obligation applies to **a sheep and even** an animal that is **partially a sheep; and** one **Sage,** Rabbi Eliezer, **holds** that **we do not say** that the obligation applies to **a sheep and even** an animal that is **partially a sheep.**


###### Chullin 132a:10
[Chullin 132a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/132a:10)

בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דְּפָטַר, קָסָבַר ״שֶׂה״ וְלֹא מִקְצָת שֶׂה, אֶלָּא לְרַבָּנַן, נְהִי נָמֵי דְּקָסָבְרִי ״שֶׂה״ וַאֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת שֶׂה, פַּלְגָא לִשְׁקוֹל, וְאִידָּךְ פַּלְגָא לֵימָא לֵיהּ: אַיְיתִי רְאָיָה דְּאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְזֶרַע הָאָב וּשְׁקוֹל! אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִיָּיא: מַאי חַיָּיב נָמֵי דְּקָא אָמַר – חַיָּיב בַּחֲצִי מַתָּנוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes its question: **Granted,** it is understandable that **Rabbi Eliezer deems** the owner of a hybrid **exempt** from the mitzva to give the priestly gifts, as **he holds** that only in the case of **a sheep** is one obligated to give gifts of the priesthood, **but not** with regard to animals that are only **partially sheep. But according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis, though indeed they hold** that **sheep and even** animals that are **partially sheep** are subject to the obligation of giving gifts of the priesthood, **let** the priest **take** only **half** of the gifts. **And** with regard to **the other half, let** the owner of the animal **say to him: Bring proof that one** need **not be concerned with its paternity and** then you may **take** the other half. **Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya said** in response: **What** do the Rabbis mean **when they say** that the owner of this animal is **obligated?** They mean that he is **obligated in half of the gifts.**


###### Chullin 132a:11
[Chullin 132a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/132a:11)

מֵתִיב רַבִּי זֵירָא: כּוֹי – יֵשׁ בּוֹ דְּרָכִים שָׁוִין לַבְּהֵמָה, וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ דְּרָכִים שָׁוִין לַחַיָּה, וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ דְּרָכִים שָׁוִין לַחַיָּה וְלַבְּהֵמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira raises an objection** to this response from a *baraita*: In the case of **a *koy*,** with regard to which it is uncertain whether it is a domesticated animal or an undomesticated one, **there are ways** in which its *halakhot* **correspond to** those of **a domesticated animal, and there are ways** in which its *halakhot* **correspond to** those of **an undomesticated animal. And there are ways in** which its *halakhot* **correspond to** those of both **an undomesticated animal and a domesticated animal.**


###### Chullin 132a:12
[Chullin 132a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/132a:12)

כֵּיצַד? חֶלְבּוֹ אָסוּר כַּחֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה, וְדָמוֹ חַיָּיב לְכַסּוֹת כְּדַם הַחַיָּה, דְּרָכִים שָׁוִין לַבְּהֵמָה וְלַחַיָּה – שֶׁדָּמוֹ וְגִידוֹ אֲסוּרִין כִּבְהֵמָה וְחַיָּה, וְחַיָּיב בִּזְרוֹעַ וּלְחָיַיִם וְהַקֵּבָה, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹטֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* elaborates: **How so? Its fat is forbidden like** the forbidden **fat** of **a domesticated animal,** unlike that of an undomesticated one. **And** one is **obligated to cover its blood** from slaughter with dirt, **like the blood** of **an undomesticated animal.** And there are **ways** in which its *halakhot* **correspond to** both those of **a domesticated animal and an undomesticated animal, as its blood and its sciatic nerve are forbidden like** those of **a domesticated animal and an undomesticated animal. And** its owner is **obligated** to give the **foreleg, the jaw, and the maw** from it to the priest, as in the case of domesticated animals. **And Rabbi Eliezer deems** the owner of a *koy* **exempt** from the mitzva to give the gifts.


###### Chullin 132a:13
[Chullin 132a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/132a:13)

וְאִם אִיתָא, חַיָּיב בַּחֲצִי מַתָּנוֹת מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא חֶלְבּוֹ וְדָמוֹ, דְּלָא מִתְּנֵי ״חֲצִי״ ״חֲצִי״, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי לָא קָא תָנֵי ״חֲצִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Zeira asks: **And if it is so** that the Rabbis mean that the owner of a *koy* is obligated to give half of the gifts, then the *baraita* **should have** said that he is **obligated to** give **half of the gifts** from it. The Gemara responds: **Since** the *tanna* **taught** that **its fat and its blood** are forbidden, with regard to **which it** could **not teach** that **half** of its blood or **half** of its fat are forbidden, as it is impossible that half of it is forbidden while the other half is permitted, **due to that** reason the *tanna* **did not teach** that the owner of a *koy* is obligated in **half** of the gifts.


###### Chullin 132a:14
[Chullin 132a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/132a:14)

כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כּוֹי לְרַבָּנַן חַיָּיב בְּכוּלְּהוּ מַתָּנוֹת, דְּתַנְיָא: ״שׁוֹר״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִם שׁוֹר״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַכִּלְאַיִם. ״שֶׂה״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִם שֶׂה״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַכּוֹי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that **when Ravin came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: According to the Rabbis, a *koy* is obligated to** have **all of the gifts** of the priesthood given from it. **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states with regard to the gifts of the priesthood: “Whether it be an ox or sheep” (Deuteronomy 18:3). Since the verse needed to state only **“ox,” why** must **the verse state: “Whether it be an ox”?** This phrase serves **to include a hybrid** in the obligation to give the gifts of the priesthood. And since the verse needed to state only **“sheep,” why** must **the verse state: “Or sheep”?** This phrase serves **to include the *koy*** in the obligation to give the gifts.


###### Chullin 132a:15
[Chullin 132a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/132a:15)

וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הַאי ״אִם״ לְמָה לִי? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְחַלֵּק. וְרַבָּנַן, לְחַלֵּק מְנָא לְהוּ? נָפְקָא לְהוּ מֵ״אֵת זוֹבְחֵי הַזֶּבַח״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** according to the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer,** who deems the owners of a *koy* and the offspring of a hybrid exempt from giving gifts of the priesthood from these animals, **why do I** need **this** phrase: **“Whether** it be an ox or sheep”? The Gemara responds: **He requires it to divide** between an ox and a sheep, indicating that one is obligated with regard to either animal alone. Were it not for this phrase, one might have concluded that he is obligated to give the gifts only after slaughtering both an ox and a sheep. The Gemara asks: **And the Rabbis,** who derive other *halakhot* from this phrase, **from where do they** derive **to divide** between an ox and a sheep? The Gemara responds: **They derive it** from the phrase: **“From them that perform a slaughter”** (Deuteronomy 18:3), which indicates that the obligation to give the gifts applies even to one animal.


###### Chullin 132a:16
[Chullin 132a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/132a:16)

וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הַאי ״מֵאֵת זוֹבְחֵי הַזֶּבַח״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרָבָא, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: הַדִּין עִם הַטַּבָּח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And Rabbi Eliezer, what does he do with this** phrase: **“From them that perform a slaughter,”** i.e., what does he derive from it? The Gemara responds: **He requires it for** a statement **of Rava, as Rava said:** If a priest seeks to claim gifts of the priesthood in court, the priest issues his **demand with the butcher,** even if the animal itself belongs to another individual.


###### Chullin 132a:17
[Chullin 132a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/132a:17)

**מַתְנִי׳** בְּכוֹר שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּמֵאָה, בִּזְמַן שֶׁמֵּאָה שׁוֹחֲטִין אֶת כּוּלָּן – פּוֹטְרִים אֶת כּוּלָּן, אֶחָד שׁוֹחֵט אֶת כּוּלָּן – פּוֹטְרִים לוֹ אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to a blemished **firstborn** animal, which one may slaughter and eat without being required to give the foreleg, jaw, and maw to the priest, **that was intermingled with one hundred** non-sacred animals, from which one is required to give those gifts, in a case **when one hundred** different people **slaughter all of them,** each slaughtering one animal, one **exempts them all** from giving the gifts, as each could claim that the animal that he slaughtered was the firstborn. If **one** person **slaughtered them all,** one **exempts one** of the animals **for him.**


###### Chullin 132a:18
[Chullin 132a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/132a:18)

הַשּׁוֹחֵט לַכֹּהֵן וְלַגּוֹי – פָּטוּר מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת, וְהַמִּשְׁתַּתֵּף עִמָּהֶן – צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּרְשׁוֹם, וְאִם אָמַר: ״חוּץ מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת״ – פָּטוּר מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**One who slaughters** the animal of a priest **for the priest or** the animal of a gentile **for the gentile is exempt from** the obligation to give **the gifts** of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw. **And** an Israelite **who enters into partnership with** a priest or a gentile **must mark** the animal to indicate that it is jointly owned and exempt from the obligation to give the gifts. **And if** a priest sold his animal to an Israelite and **said:** The animal is sold **except for the gifts** with it, the Israelite is **exempt from** the obligation to give **the gifts,** as they are not his.


###### Chullin 132a:19
[Chullin 132a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/132a:19)

אָמַר: ״מְכוֹר לִי בְּנֵי מֵעֶיהָ שֶׁל פָּרָה״, וְהָיוּ בָּהֶן מַתָּנוֹת – נוֹתְנָן לַכֹּהֵן, וְאֵינוֹ מְנַכֶּה לוֹ מִן הַדָּמִים. לְקָחָן הֵימֶנּוּ בְּמִשְׁקָל – נוֹתְנָן לַכֹּהֵן, וּמְנַכֶּה לוֹ מִן הַדָּמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If the Israelite **said** to the one slaughtering the animal: **Sell me the innards of a cow, and there were gifts** included **with it,** i.e., the maw, the purchaser **gives them to the priest and he does not deduct** the value of the gifts **from the money** that he pays **him.** If **he bought** the innards **from** the slaughterer **by weight,** the purchaser **gives** the gifts, i.e., the maw, **to the priest and deducts** the value of the gifts **from the money** that he pays **him.**


###### Chullin 132a:20
[Chullin 132a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/132a:20)

**גְּמָ׳** וְאַמַּאי? יָבֹא עָלָיו כֹּהֵן מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִין, וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: אִי בְּכוֹר הוּא – כּוּלֵּיהּ דִּידִי הוּא, וְאִי לָאו בְּכוֹר הוּא – הַב לִי מַתְּנָתַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that if a firstborn animal was intermingled with one hundred non-sacred animals, each belonging to a different person, all of the animals are excluded from the obligation to give the gifts, due to the uncertainty of which animal is the firstborn. The Gemara asks: **But why** is this the *halakha*? **Let the priest come upon** each slaughterer with a claim **from two sides,** i.e., **let** the priest **say to him: If** this animal **is a firstborn, it is completely mine; and if it is not a firstborn** but is instead a non-sacred animal, then **give me my gifts.**