Talmud - Hullin 130b חולין ק״ל ב׳

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Chullin 130b explores exemption from repaying damaged or consumed priestly gifts, examining whether these portions count as unclaimed property or judicial claims.