Chullin 142 – Reward for the Mitzvot

One may not take the mother bird while on her young even if he needs her to purify the leper and allow him to enter the Temple. This is true even though he wants to send her away as part of the purification ritual. By sending the bird away he loses a small amount of money, and still the Torah promised “that it will be good for you and you will live long.” How much more so does this apply to the difficult commandments of the Torah.

Rabbi Yakov said that “good and long life” can only mean the next world, not this one. In fact, the mention of the reward is itself a proof of the resurrection of the dead, because only in the next world is the true reward possible. For if you don’t say so, what about a son whom his father asked to send away the mother bird, and while performing this mitzvah and respecting his parent, for which long life is promised, he fell from the tree and died?

But perhaps such an incident could never happen? – Rabbi Yakov saw it. But perhaps he had bad thoughts? – God does not count bad thoughts as deeds. But perhaps he was thinking about idol worship, where thoughts are counted as deeds? – The mitzvahs should have protected him from such thoughts. Since they did not, this proves that there is no reward for them in this world.

But how could he die while performing a mitzvah; those sent to perform a mitzvah are not harmed, even on the way back!? – The ladder was shaky, and in a place of danger this rule does not work. Acher, the famous Sage turned bad, was the grandfather of Rabbi Yakov. Had he heard his grandson’s explanation, he might not have sinned: "so that it will be good with you" refers to a world that is truly good, and “so that your days will be prolonged” refers to life in a world that is truly long.

Art: Giovanni Battista Tiepolo - The entrance to a large barn, a ladder leaning against the wall to the left

Chullin 141 – How To Send The Mother Bird Away

If the mother bird was flying above the nest, as long as her wings are touching the nest, he is still obligated to send her away, but if the wings are not touching, he is exempt. This is derived from the special word for sitting, “rovetzet” that the Torah used, literally, crouching.

If there were fledgling chicks in the nest or infertile eggs, he does not send the mother bird away. The chicks must be like the eggs, dependent on their mother, and the eggs like the chicks, viable. If one sent the mother bird away and she returned, he is still obligated to send her away, any number of times.

If one violated the commandment and took the mother bird, he incurs lashes, like for any negative commandment – these are the words of Rabbi Yehudah. However, the Sages say that he does not incur lashes, because of a general rule: any negative commandment , if it is followed a positive commandment can be corrected with this positive act. Here too, the Torah said, “Do not take the mother… send her away,” so sending her away afterwards helps.

Art: Martin Johnson Heade - Two Ruby Throats by their Nest

Chullin 140 –Sending Away The Mother on Non-Kosher Birds

One does not need to send away the mother-bird of a non-kosher variety before taking her eggs. The Torah used a special word for “bird” – “tzippor,” which is used only for kosher birds.

If a nonkosher bird is sitting on eggs of a kosher bird, or vice versa, one does not have to send her away. Now, we understand the nonkosher bird case – it is non-kosher, as we just learned, even if it sits on kosher eggs, but what’s the problem with the kosher bird on nonkosher eggs? – The Torah said “and the young you will take for yourself” and here, since they are nonkosher, you can only take them for someone else.

 Rabbi Yirmiyah asked, “If the bird sits on unattached feathers which are on the eggs, is it considered sitting on the eggs or no, and does one have to send her way?" – No answer was found. Male partridges characteristically sit on other birds’ eggs, does one have to send him away? Rabbi Eliezer indeed says “yes,” but the Sages say “no.”

Art: Jacomo (or Victor, Jacobus) Victors - Still Life Of Two Courting Doves, A Partridge And Her Chicks

Chullin 139 – Does Sending Away Mother Bird Apply to Sacrifices?

Sending away the mother bird does not apply to sacrifices. However, how could this case occur? If one consecrated birds that are his, he was never obligated to send away their mother, because he needs to find the birds by chance. And if he found them and consecrated, they do not become consecrated, because they do not belong to him! Should we say that he lifted the chicks and consecrated them, then returned them to the nest? Then again he is not obligated to send away the mother bird.

Rav said, “The case is where he consecrated the birds, but they flew away, and he found them,” and Shmuel said “He consecrated his hen as money for the Temple, and it flew away and nested elsewhere.” It is understandable why Shmuel does not agree to Rav, because Shmuel’s explanation is wider in scope, but why does Rav not agree to Shmuel? Rav will say that when a hen flies away, its monetary sanctity disappears. And Shmuel? He will answer that the hen is still consecrated in the wild, because “To God belong the earth and its fullness.”

Art: Bela Spanyi - Flock Of Birds At Sunset

Chullin 138 – Sending Away the Mother Bird

If one buys a fleece of a flock, then if he left any fleece with the seller, the seller is obligated to give the first fleece, and if he bought it all – he is obligated. Why should it be, it seems to make no difference if he left any or not!? Really, the obligation of the first fleece is always with the original owner. If he is left with some fleece, it is clear that he kept it so that he can give it to a kohen. If he sold all of it, we assume that he simply means that the buyer will give the kohen’s portion, acting as his agent.

If one chances upon a bird’s nest, with a mother bird sitting on the eggs or on the young, he should not take the mother with the young, but he should send her away. The somewhat similar commandment of covering the blood is stricter: it applies to wild animals and birds, whether the birds are prepared or not, while sending away the mother bird applies only to birds, and only if they are "not prepared," but come your way by chance, not like chicken that nested in one's house.

Art: John Anster Fitzgerald - Fairies In A Bird's Nest

Chullin 137 – First Fleece – Only Wool of Sheep, not of Goats

We learned that the kohen's gifts are strict: they apply to all animals, many or few, while the first fleece is more lenient. But there is yet another stringency: kohen's gifts do not apply to a sick animal (terefah), why is this not mentioned? – Because the author of our ruling is Rabbi Shimon, who says that the first fleece also does not apply to sheep that are terefah either – because the Torah used the same word “give” here and in discussing animal tithe; the tithed animal “walks under the rod” and terefah sometimes cannot walk.

The first fleece is given to a kohen only from sheep, because the word "shearing" used by the Torah only applies to sheep, and goat hair is “plucked.” This meaning of the word "shearing" becomes clear from the book of Job: “from the fleece of my sheep he warmed himself.”

“Any amount” of fleece that the Sages require to be given to a kohen was only said in contrast to Rabbi Yose's eight pounds, but really they mean about five times less than that, and there are four opinions about their opinion.

Art: Paolo Veronese (Caliari) - Portrait of a Man in a Fur Coat

Chullin 136 - Kohen's Gifts According to Rabbi Ilai

When the Torah say “your” in singular, it refers both to each individual Jew, and to the whole Jewish people. Therefore, the law it discusses applies to an individual as well as to a partnership. For example, when it says, “The first of your (singular) fleece give to a kohen,” this applies also to sheep of partners. Rabbi Ilai disagrees and holds that “your” in singular refers to an individual, but partners shearing their flock need not give the first fleece to a kohen.

Furthermore, in talking about the first of the fleece, the Torah uses the word “give,” and the same word is used in describing the kohen's portion of the grain. This, according to Rabbi Ilai, tells us that just as the kohen's portion of grain is given only in Israel, so too the first fleece is given only in Israel.

Finally, the same word "give" is used in describing kohen's gifts. And, just as the kohen's portion of the grain is given only in Israel, it should follow that according to Rabbi Ilai, the kohen's gifts are given only in Israel. Rabbi Yose said, “Indeed, that is the opinion of Rabbi Ilai.”

Art: George Lambert - Weighing The Fleece

Chullin 135 - The First of the Fleece

Another gift given to a kohen is the first of the fleece. Since the Torah said, “And the first of the fleece of your flock you shall give to him (the kohen),” whenever one shears his sheep, he must give part of the fleece to a kohen. This mitzvah is not connected to land, and thus applies both inside of Israel and outside. It also applies whether the Temple is standing or not. However, since the Torah said “your flock”, we understand that the flock of the Temple is not included, and thus one does not give to a kohen fleece from sacrifices.

The previously discussed gifts of foreleg, jaw, and abomasum are more stringnent in that they apply to sheep and cows, whether many or few. In contrast, the first of the fleece only applies to a flock of sheep, and to a significant shearing. What is a flock? Two sheep according to Bait Shammai, and five sheep according to Bait Hillel. What is a significant shearing? Rabbi Dosa says, “Five sheep each giving one-and-a-half maneh of wool, which amounts to eight pounds,” but the Sages say, “Five sheep shorn in any amount.”

Art: John Frederick Tayler - Sheep Shearing

Chullin 134 – The Owner of the Cow Converted

If someone converted to Judaism and he owned a cow, then if the cow was slaughtered before he converted, he is exempt from giving kohen's gifts from that cow, and if the cow was slaughtered after his conversion, he is obligated to give them. If it is uncertain which came first, he is exempt – because the burden of proof of ownership falls on the kohen who cannot prove it with certainty.

What exactly constitutes the foreleg given to a kohen? – From the carpus (knee) to the shoulder blade. The foreleg of a nazir's offering, coming from a ram, which is cooked and waved, is defined the same way. So is that portion of the hind leg which is given to a kohen from each peace offering. Rabbi Yehudah says that only the middle part of the thigh is given to a kohen.

What is a jaw? The portion that extends from the joint of the jaw to the opening of the trachea, and the tongue is included with it. Actually both jaws are meant. The kohanim merited the gifts because of Pinchas, who threw the spear with his right arm, and prayed with his jaws.

Art: Max Liebermann - Farmer and Cow

Chullin 133 – Which Kohen Gets the Gifts

The kohanic gifts, such as the foreleg, must be eaten roasted and with mustard, like kings usually eat, since the Torah gave them “for greatness.” Alternatively, one eats them in any manner he likes, again, like kings. Rav Chisda said, “Any kohen who does not know the laws of all twenty-four kohanic gifts (like the one just stated) is not given the gifts.” But we learned that any kohen who does not accept the kohanic services should not be given gifts, so his acceptance is the criteria, not his knowledge?! – With this, Rav Chisda is disproved.

Abaye, who was a kohen, said, “At first I would grab the gifts, to show love for the mitzva. Once I learned the phrase 'the owner will give', I understood that it is improper to grab, and started asking for them instead. After I learned that the sons of Shmuel 'turned aside after monetary gain' by asking for their portion, I would only take if given. When I learned about the Bread of Vision that the discreet kohanim would withdraw their hands, and only gluttons took, I do not even take, except on the day before Yom Kippur, to remind the people that I am a kohen.”

Art: Gabriel Metsu - The Feast Of The Bean King

Chullin 132 – Gifts for the Daughter of a Kohen

Ulla used to give kohen's gifts to a kohenet – a daughter of a kohen. Why? When the Torah told to give the gifts to a kohen, we understand that a kohenet is excluded. However, when it said the word “kohen” again, this is a double exclusion, which always means an inclusion, and a kohenet is now included. Rav Pappa was married to a kohenet, and people would bring him kohen's gifts.

A first male of kosher animal is normally given to a kohen. If one firstborn became mingled with a hundred animals belonging to different people, and each owner slaughters his animal, nobody gives kohen's gifts. Each owner can claim that it is he who is slaughtering the firstborn, and kohen's gifts are not applicable to his animal. Even though the majority of the animals are obligated in kohen's gifts, in money matters we do not follow the majority, but the prevailing rule is that one who wants to extract money from his fellow needs to bring a proof to his claim, and here the kohen looses. However, if one person slaughters all of the animals, he needs to give kohen's gifts from all but one animal.

Art: Eugène Verboeckhoven - A Panoramic Summer Landscape With Cattle Grazing In A Meadow By A Windmill

Chullin 131 – One Who Damages or Eats the Kohen's Gifts

We learned that the foreleg, jaw, and abomasum of a slaughtered animal are a kohen's portion and should be given to him. However, Rav Chisda said that if one damages or eats these gifts, he does not have to pay. That is because the Torah said “This shall be his due” - meaning, only while “this” due is extant. The Talmud challenges Rav Chisda's ruling seven times, but Rav Chisda defends it each and every time.

For example, if a person of means runs out of funds while in travel, he is allowed to take the poor people's portion, that is, grain that fell, was forgotten, or remained at the corners of a field and was designated by the Torah for the poor. Still, when he comes back home, he needs to send the money to the poor people of that place, in order to repay them. By the same token, one should repay the kohen for his gifts that he damaged or ate!? Rav Chisda answers that to repay the poor is a decent act, but not a requirement, and the same goes for the kohen's gift.

Art: Alessandro Sani - A Gift From Grandpa

Chullin 130 – Foreleg, Jaws and Abomasum

The foreleg, jaws, and abomasum of a slaughtered animal are a portion of a kohen; one should separate them and give them to the kohen of his choice. This law is called “the law of gifts.” It does not depend upon land, and therefore should apply inside of the Land of Israel and outside, whether the Temple is standing or not. However, in practice people follow the more lenient opinion of Rabbi Ilai.

The law of the gifts applies to regular animals but not to consecrated ones. Actually, one could decide that it does apply to the consecrated animals, with the following “a fortiori” argument: since unconsecrated animals, which are not subject to the law of breast and thigh – which must be, in the case of peace offering, given to the kohen and his family to eat – are nevertheless subject to the law of gifts, then consecrated animal, which are subject to the law of breast and thigh, must surely be subject to the law of gifts! To dispel this notion, the Torah said, “I have given them (breast and thighs) as gifts" – meaning, only “them” but not the foreleg, jaw, and abomasum.

Art: Pieter de Grebber - Elisha Refusing Gifts From Naaman

Chullin 129 – Dangling Limb of a Person

One day Rabbi Assi did not go to the study hall. Afterwards, he met Rabbi Zeira and asked him, “What was said in the study hall?” Rabbi Zeira answered, “And what's your problem?” Rabbi Assi said, “We learned that if one first has a thought to eat a piece of meat, and then cuts it off a limb severed from a live animal, that piece of meat accepts ritual impurity of foods. But why? It was not prepared for impurity by becoming wet!” However, Rabbi Assi was missing another principle: “If something can acquire a severe impurity that can even make people impure, it does not need preparation to become impure itself.”

The limb or flesh that are dangling from a living person are ritually pure: since the person is still alive, they are considered part of him. If he dies, the flesh is pure, but the limb conveys impurity as a limb from a live person, not a dead person. What's the difference, if both have the impurity of the dead? In the first case, a small piece of flesh from this limb does not convey impurity, but in the second it does.

Art: Arie de Vois - The Wanton Student

Chullin 128 – Why Argue About a Dangling Limb?

Normally, food can become ritually impure only if it has ever previously been wet. Can the act of slaughter be considered as making the meat wet and thus ready for ritual impurity? Consider the case of a dangling limb. The slaughter of an animal prepares its dangling limb for food impurity – that is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, but Rabbi Shimon disagrees. There are six possible reasons for their disagreement.

1. Can the animal itself be considered a handle for the dangling limb? If it can, it prepares the limb for impurity.
2. Since one cannot lift the animal by its dangling limb, are they considered really connected? If yes, slaughter prepares for impurity.
3. All agree that a handle transmits impurity, but does it also transmit preparation for impurity?
4. At the time of the slaughtered nobody planned to eat the prohibited limb, and afterwards they decided to feed it to someone who disregards the prohibition. Is this effective?
5. If only the last moment of the cut accomplished slaughters, then wiping blood on the limb during slaughtered does not prepare it.
6. If the blood does not touch the limb, is it still considered as if it did?

Art: Gustave Caillebotte - Rib Of Beef

Chullin 127 - “Dangling” Limb and Flesh

A “limb” consists of meat, sinews, and bones, whereas “flesh” is meat without sinews and bones. When these are completely severed from a living animal, both are forbidden to be eaten. The difference between them is that the limb is a source of impurity which it can transmit to others, while the flesh is only food, albeit forbidden, so it can receive impurity but does not generate it.

If a limb or flesh is mostly severed from an animal but not completely, they are called “dangling.” In this state, they are ready to receive the food impurity, however, as with all foods, they must first be “prepared” for it by becoming wet. If the animal is then slaughtered, the blood of the slaughtered is considered to have prepared them, even if it did not touch them.

If the animal dies without kosher slaughter, the dangling limb or flesh are considered to have been separated from it a moment prior to the animal's death. Consequently, the flesh received no impurity from the carcass, having had no contact with it, while the limb is prohibited as a limb from a live animal.

Art: Pieter Gysels- Still Life with Vegetables, Meat, Fruit and Game

Chullin 126 – An Egg of a Reptile

The Torah lists eight special reptiles, such as lizard and snail, and it also includes other small animals in the list, such as weasel and mouse, calling them the collective name of “crawlers,” but we will refer to them for simplicity as reptiles.

As a rule, a “protector” of a substance conveys impurity, but only when the substance itself is accessible to touch. For example, an egg of a reptile in which an embryo has been formed is pure and does not convey impurity, because the embryo is not accessible to touch. On the other hand, if the eggshell is punctured even a small amount, it does convey impurity.

There was a species of a mouse that does not reproduce sexually but is generated spontaneously from the earth, much as maggots from decaying food. If this mouse died while it was halfway formed, with one side of it flesh and the other still earth, one who touches the flesh of it is impure, but one who touches the earth of it is pure. Rabbi Yehudah says, “One who touches the earth opposite the flesh is also impure.”

Art: Willem Van Aelst - Still-Life with Mouse and Candle

Chullin 125 – Bone with Marrow

If one touches a marrow bone of a human corpse, he receives the impurity of the dead body. Actually, that is true even if the bone does not contain marrow, but since the rules below will mention specifically marrow bones, our teacher (Tanna) chose to start with it, for symmetry. As little as a barley-corn of a human bone transmits impurity. This impurity requires the ashes of the red heifer and two immersions in the mikvah, for the person to be purified.

The bone marrow of a sacrifice that became a leftover also conveys impurity. In contrast to the impurity of the human bone, this impurity is decreed by the Sages. They wanted the priests to be alacritous in their duties and eat the sacrifices on time, not leaving them over. They also wanted to prevent the priests from taking personal revenge on the people by bringing their sacrifices with the wrong intent of eating them beyond allotted time – and intent that would ruin the sacrifice. The Sages thus decreed impurity on the hand of the priests for these violations, which would deter them, since they would not be able to continue their service for the day.

Art: David The Younger Teniers - Sausage-making

Chullin 124 – Pieces of Meat on a Hide

If a hide has an olive's volume of dead meat (nevelah) attached to it, that piece of meat is ritually impure. If one touches it through a sliver attached to it, the sliver acts as a handle and transmits impurity to the person. A hair on the other side of the hide is regarded as a protector to the meat and transmits impurity from it, since it goes through the hide.

If there were two half-olive volumes of meat attached to the hide, they add up when they are carried, and thus transmit impurity to the one who carries the hide. However, if one touches them, even at the same time, he does not become impure, because these are two separate acts of contact – these are the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiva says that the two half-olive volumes of meat are nullified by the hide and do not transmit impurity at all. That is because through his actions of separating meat from the hide, the butcher showed that he does not consider the pieces significant. Even Rabbi Akiva agrees that if one stuck the two pieces of meat on a splinter and moved them, he becomes impure.

Art: Bartolomeo Passerotti - The Butcher's Shop

Chullin 123 – Flaying

The hide of an animal, although not in the same category as its flesh, can nevertheless transmit ritual impurity to and from the animal. In the case of a kosher animal, a person might be impure, and he may transmit his impurity to the carcass. In the case of a non-kosher animal, its meat is ritually impure, and it may transmit impurity to the person working with it.

If one is flaying a dead animal, whether domestic or wild, kosher or non-kosher, small or large, and his goal is to make a spread out of it, he first cuts the hide from head to hindquarters. The beginning of flaying is the hardest, and until he peels enough hide to grasp the carcass, the hide is considered a handle, and it transmits impurity both ways. If he wants to make a leather flask and strips the hide whole from the neck, the hardest is flaying the breast, so until the breast the hide is considered a handle and it conveys impurity. However, if in flaying for a flask, he begins from the hind legs, then all of the flayed hide is considered a handle, until he flays the breast.

Art: Vincent Van Gogh - Still Life With Four Stone Bottles Flask And White Cup