Talmud - Hullin 133b חולין קל״ג ב׳

The Gemara responds: Here, we are dealing with a case where the gentile is sitting in the butcher shop of the Israelite. In such a situation, it is evident that the gentile is in partnership with the Israelite and the animal need not be marked. By contrast, the mishna is referring to a case where the gentile does not sit in the shop.

The Gemara asks: If so, then in the corresponding situation involving a priest, where the baraita teaches that one who enters into partnership with a priest must mark the animal, this must also be referring to a case where the priest sits in the butcher shop. Why, then, must one mark the animal? The Gemara responds: The fact that the priest sits in the shop does not indicate that he is in partnership with the Israelite, as people will say: He is in the shop because he is purchasing meat. The Gemara objects: If so, then in the case of the gentile as well, they will say that he is in the shop because he is purchasing meat.

Rather, here we are dealing with a case where the gentile sits by the safe into which the butcher places money received from his customers. In such a situation, it is evident that the gentile is in partnership with the Israelite, and therefore the animal need not be marked. The Gemara asks: If so, then the corresponding situation in the baraita involving a priest must also be a case where the priest sits by the safe. Why, then, must one mark the animal? The Gemara responds: The fact that the priest sits by the safe does not indicate that he is in partnership with the Israelite, as people will say: The butcher trusts him to protect the safe from theft. The Gemara asks: If so, then in the case of the gentile as well, they will say that he sits by the safe because the butcher trusts him.

The Gemara responds: It is not common for a Jew to place his trust in a gentile. If you wish, say instead that in both cases of the baraita the priest and the gentile sit in the butcher shop, not by the safe. It is evident that the gentile is in partnership with the Israelite, as an ordinary gentile partner yells at the seller, saying, for example: Do not sell an item for this price but for a different price. By contrast, a priest, even if he sits in the shop, would not question the practices of the salesman, due to his modesty, but would defer to the seller’s expertise. Accordingly, it is not evident that the priest is a partner, and the animal must therefore be marked.

§ The Master said in the baraita: And the owner of disqualified consecrated animals, which were slaughtered after they were redeemed and became non-sacred, is exempt from the obligation to give the gifts, and one does not need to mark the animal. The Gemara objects: Apparently, it is an evident matter that this is a disqualified consecrated animal, and therefore one need not mark it. But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Bekhorot 31a): All disqualified consecrated animals are sold in the meat market [be’itliz], and are slaughtered in the meat market, and are weighed and sold by the litra, in the manner of non-sacred meat? Since disqualified consecrated animals are treated in the same manner as ordinary non-sacred animals, how is it evident that this is a disqualified consecrated animal?

The Gemara responds: Rav Adda bar Ahava interpreted the baraita before Rav Pappa as referring to those disqualified consecrated animals that are sold from inside the house, i.e., a firstborn animal and an animal tithe, whose redemption payments belong to their owners, as their value has no sanctity. Since no gain would accrue to the Temple, the Sages prohibited one from selling these animals in the market, despite the fact one could have obtained a higher sale price there due to the high concentration of customers.

§ With regard to gifts of the priesthood from animals owned in partnership, Rav Huna says: If an Israelite is a partner with a priest or gentile in only the head of the animal, he is exempt merely from the obligation to give the jaw, which is part of the head. He remains obligated to give the foreleg and the maw. If he is a partner with a priest or gentile in the leg and hoof of the animal, he is exempt only from the obligation to give the foreleg. If he is a partner with a priest or gentile in the innards, he is exempt merely from the obligation to give the maw. And Ḥiyya bar Rav says that even if the priest or gentile is a partner in only one of them, the Israelite is exempt from all of the gifts.

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Ḥiyya bar Rav from a baraita: If a priest says to an Israelite butcher: Let us enter into a partnership in which the head of the animal is mine and the entire remainder is yours, even if the priest proposes that only one-hundredth of the head should be his, the Israelite is exempt. Similarly, if the priest offers: Let us enter into a partnership in which the leg and hoof of the animal are mine and the entire remainder is yours, even if the priest suggests that only one-hundredth of the leg and hoof will be his, the Israelite is exempt. And likewise, if the priest says: Let us enter into a partnership in which the innards of the animal are mine and the entire remainder is yours, even if the priest offers to take only one-hundredth of the innards, the Israelite is exempt.

The Gemara explains the objection: What, is it not correct that the baraita is teaching that when the priest owns the head the butcher is exempt from giving the jaw, but obligated in giving all the rest, and likewise when the priest owns the leg and hoof, he is exempt from giving the foreleg but obligated in all the rest, and when the priest owns the innards, he is exempt from the maw and obligated in all the rest? This would contradict the opinion of Ḥiyya bar Rav. The Gemara responds: No; in each case the baraita means that he is exempt from all the gifts.

The Gemara suggests: But if so, let the baraita teach explicitly that he is exempt from all the gifts, rather than simply stating that he is exempt. And furthermore, it is taught in another baraita that if a priest says to an Israelite butcher: Let us enter into a partnership in which the head of the animal is mine and the entire remainder is yours, even if the priest suggests that only one-hundredth of the head will be his, the butcher is exempt from the obligation to give the jaw but is obligated in giving all the rest. This baraita explicitly contradicts the opinion of Ḥiyya bar Rav. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Ḥiyya bar Rav is indeed a conclusive refutation.

Rav Ḥisda said in explanation of the opinion of Ḥiyya bar Rav: This baraita misled Ḥiyya bar Rav, as it is taught in a baraita: There are twenty-four gifts of the priesthood, and all of them were given in the Torah to Aaron and his sons by a generalization and a detail, and with a covenant of salt. The verse states: “And the Lord spoke to Aaron: And I, behold, I have given you the charge of My gifts; of all the consecrated items of the children of Israel to you have I given them for prominence, and to your sons, as an eternal portion” (Numbers 18:8). After this generalization, the Torah proceeds to list the gifts in detail. Finally, after delineating all the gifts of the priesthood, the verse states: “It is an everlasting covenant of salt” (Numbers 18:19), assuring Aaron that just as a covenant of salt is unbreakable, so too, the gifts of the priesthood are eternal.

The baraita continues: Therefore, anyone who fulfills the mitzva of giving the gifts of the priesthood is considered as though he fulfills all these mitzvot that are derived using the principle of a generalization and a detail, and as though he has upheld the covenant of salt. And anyone who violates the mitzva of giving the gifts of the priesthood is considered as though he violates all of the mitzvot derived by the principle of a generalization and a detail, and as though he has not upheld the covenant of salt.

And these are the twenty-four gifts: Ten are consumed in the Temple, and four in Jerusalem, and ten in the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael. The ten gifts consumed only in the Temple are an animal sin offering; and a bird sin offering; and a definite guilt offering; and a provisional guilt offering; and communal peace offerings, i.e., the lambs that accompany the two loaves brought on Shavuot and which are considered offerings of the most sacred order; and the remainder of the log of oil that accompanies the guilt offering of a recovered leper; and the two loaves offering from the new wheat brought on Shavuot; and the shewbread; and the leftovers of meal offerings; and the omer meal offering, i.e., the measure of barley brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of Nisan.

And these are the four gifts that the priests consume anywhere in Jerusalem: The unblemished firstborn of kosher animals; and the first fruits; and the portions separated for the priests from the thanks offering, i.e., the breast and thigh and one loaf from each of the four types of loaves brought with a thanks offerings: Cakes, wafers, cakes of fine flour, and leavened bread, and the portions separated from the nazirite’s ram, i.e., the boiled shoulder, a cake, and a wafer, in addition to the breast and thigh of any peace offering; and the hides of sacrificial animals brought as burnt offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings.

And these are the ten gifts that the priests consume anywhere in the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael: Teruma, i.e., the portion of the produce designated for the priest; and teruma of the tithe; and ḥalla; and the first sheared wool; and the gifts of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw; and the five sela given as redemption of the firstborn son; and a sheep or goat given as redemption of the firstborn donkey.

The baraita continues the list: And a consecrated ancestral field that one did not redeem, which was sold to another by the Temple treasurer and is therefore given to the members of the priestly watch serving during the Jubilee Year; and a dedicated field; and payment for the robbery of a convert who died without heirs. If one takes an oath that he did not rob from a convert, and after the death of the convert he admits to having taken a false oath, he must pay the principal value of the stolen item and an additional one-fifth of the value, all of which is given to the priests.

Rav Ḥisda explains how the baraita misled Ḥiyya bar Rav: He thought that from the fact that the tanna of the baraita counts the gifts of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw as one gift, they are treated as one gift, which means that if one is exempt from one of them he is exempt from all of them. But it is not so, as is that to say that the portions separated for the priests from the thanks offering and from the nazirite’s ram, which the tanna counts as one, are counted this way because they are one? Obviously, these are independent gifts. Rather, since they are similar to one another the tanna counts them as one. So too, with regard to the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, since they are similar to one another he counts them as one.

§ With regard to animals owned in partnership with a priest, the Gemara relates that a dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a priest says to an Israelite butcher: Let us enter into partnership in ownership of a live animal, in which the head is yours and the entire remainder is mine, what is the halakha? Is the Israelite obligated to give the jaw to a priest when it is slaughtered? The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: Do we follow the obligation, i.e., the limbs of the animal which contain the gifts, and since the obligation is owned by the Israelite he is obligated? Or perhaps, we follow the principal part of the animal, and since the principal of the animal is in the possession of the priest, the Israelite is exempt?

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: With regard to a gentile or a priest who transferred his sheep to an Israelite to act as his agent to shear it, the Israelite is exempt from giving the first sheared wool to a priest. Similarly, one who purchases the shearing of the sheep of a gentile, even before the sheep was actually sheared, is exempt from giving the first sheared wool.

The baraita adds: And this, the halakha in a case where one purchases an item before the obligation of a certain gift of the priesthood takes effect, is a stringency that applies in the case of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw more so than in the case of the first sheared wool. In other words, one who purchases wool from a priest before it is shorn is exempt from giving first sheared wool, whereas one who purchases part of an animal from a priest before its slaughter is obligated to give any gifts contained within the purchased portion. Since this is the halakha even if the portion he purchased is not the principal part, similar to the stated case of one who purchases only the shearing of the sheep of a gentile, one can conclude from this baraita that we follow the obligation, i.e., the limbs of the animal that contain the gifts. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that this is correct.

§ The mishna teaches: And if a priest sold his animal to an Israelite and said that he is selling everything except for the gifts with it, the Israelite is exempt from the obligation to give the gifts, because they are not his.

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

Chullin 133b examines whether a butcher must mark meat sold in partnership with a gentile or a priest based on where they sit in the shop.