Bechorot 16 – Saving Offspring of Redeemed Animals

If a consecrated animal became blemished and was redeemed, its offspring are forbidden. Of course, if the animal gave birth after redemption, its offspring is completely permitted, but here it was pregnant when it was redeemed. What can you now do with the offspring? We cannot bring it as a sacrifice, since it was born from a mother that was a disqualified and therefore rejected sacrifice. Neither can we redeem it, because the offspring never became a sacrifice. Therefore, said Rav Huna, they have to be locked in a room and left to die. However, in Israel they said that one should sanctify the fetus before birth, to be the same sacrifice type as its mother, and then the redemption of its mother won't affect it and it will be a fit sacrifice.

If one accepts animals from an idolater as fixed-income investment, that is, they will share in the offspring, but he promises to later return the fixed sum, the cost of the animals at the start of the deal – the animals are exempt from the laws of firstborn, because the idolater has a lien on them and can claim them in lieu of payment.

Art: John Frederick Herring, Jnr. - Animals In A Farm Yard

Bechorot 15 – If a Consecrated Animal Became Blemished

If an animal was consecrated, but afterwards developed a blemish and was redeemed, it never completely goes back to its previous state: it is exempt from the laws of firstborn, and one does not have to give gifts from it to a kohen, that is, foreleg, jaws, and abomasum. Why is this? The Torah said about a redeemed sacrifice, “You can eat it, like a deer or an ibex.” The extra word “deer” teaches us that it is not subject to the laws of firstborn, just as a deer is not subject to them, and the extra word “ibex” - that the kohen's gifts need not be given – just as they need not be given from an ibex.

The redeemed animal cannot be shorn or put to work, and its milk is prohibited. Why? The Torah said, “you may slaughter it” - but not shear it or work with it, “for its meat” - but not drink its milk. Finally, “and you will eat” teaches that you may not give it to your dogs. In general, an animal that's once been a consecrated may not be redeemed with the purpose of feeding it to the dogs.

Art: Winslow Homer - Dogs In A Boat

Bechorot 14 – Consecrating Animals with a Blemish

An offering must be without blemish, and even consecrating a blemished animal is forbidden. Actually, if one consecrates a blemished animal as a sacrifice, no consecration occurs at all, but if he says, “I am consecrating this blemished animal in order that it be sold, and a sacrifice brought with the money,” then, although he violated a prohibition, the animal needs to be redeemed.

After redemption it is again liable to the law of firstborn (that's the connection of this ruling to "Bechorot"), it may be shorn and put to work, and its offspring is permitted. Now, if the offspring was born after redemption, obviously it is permitted, and if it was born before the redemption, it should be forbidden, because it is unblemished, fit for a sacrifice! However, its law cannot be more strict than that of its mother's - who is permitted.

If it dies, its carcass may still be redeemed. But usually for redemption the animal needs to stand up, which a dead animal cannot do! However, this is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who requires standing only for real sacrifices. Those who disagree with him would indeed disallow redemption and require the animal to be buried.

Art: William Gowe Ferguson - Still-Life with Dead Game

Bechorot 13 – Firstborn of a Kosher Animal

If one designated a sheep for the redemption of a firstborn donkey, and the sheep died, the owner is responsible to replace it with another lamb, just as a father of a firstborn boy is responsible to replace the redemption money, should be it lost before it reaches the kohen – this is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. However, the Sages say that the owner is not responsible for the replacement lamb, just as he is not responsible for the second tithe, which, if lost, need not be replaced.

If one buys the fetus of an idolaters cow or sells him his own cow's fetus – although he is not allowed to do so, or buys the cow jointly with an idolater – the cow is exempt from the law of firstborn, because the Torah said “all firstborn in Israel” – but not in other nations.

By contrast, the kohanim and Levites are included in the obligation of the firstborn of kosher animals. They were only excluded from the redemption of their sons and donkeys. Thus, a kohen who owns a cow, sheep or goat that gives birth to a male as it first offspring brings it as an offering.

Art: Willem Romeijn - Cow, Goats and Sheep in a Meadow

Bechorot 12 – What is Not Good for Redeeming a Firstborn Donkey

One cannot use the following to redeem a firstborn donkey: a calf, a wild animal, a slaughtered animal - even a slaughtered sheep, a sick animal - terefah, a hybrid - even an offspring of a male goat and a female sheep, or a koy - an offspring of a deer and a goat. Rabbi Eliezer allows redemption with a hybrid, because both a goat and a sheep separately can be used.

Can we redeem a firstborn donkey with a live fetus found in a womb of a slaughtered sheep? Is it a live sheep, good for a redemption, or, since it does not require proper slaughter, it is considered as meat already slaughtered, not valid for redemption? Can one use a mutant – an animal that is similar to a different species? Is it close enough to hybrid, which is forbidden? Can one use a disqualified sacrifice? Since the sanctity of a donkey cannot possibly go over to the sacrifice, the redemption is not possible, or does this sanctity just fly away? Can one use the produce of the seventh (Shemittah) year for redemption? Is it closer to prohibited commerce or to permitted food?

Art: William Snr Luker - Deer In The New Forest

Bechorot 11 – How Much for a Firstborn Donkey?

The preferred method of redeeming a firstborn donkey is to give the kohen a sheep. A generous person gives a sheep worth 4 zuz, stingy – 2 zuz, and average – 3 zuz, and a zuz is $50. However, even a very lean sheep worth $10 will also make the redemption. Alternatively, one can give anything of value, even cooked vegetables, but then the amount should be equal to the worth of the donkey.

If one redeems his fellow's firstborn donkey, it is valid. Does he acquire the donkey? Do we say that it is similar to consecrated property, and the redeemer acquires it, or do we say that it still belongs to the owner, since he could have redeemed it with a very cheap sheep? The answer comes from the rule about stealing a firstborn donkey. If a thief were to steal it, he would pay the owner double, the usual penalty for stealing from an individual, and not single, the penalty for stealing consecrated property. We see then that it belongs to the owner, and we can conclude that it is not like consecrated property, and that the redeemer does not acquire it.

Art: Vincent Van Gogh - Still Life With Vegetables And Fruit

Bechorot 10 – If The Firstborn Donkey Is Not Redeemed...

If one does not wish to redeem his firstborn donkey, he must decapitate it with a butcher's cleaver, from the back of the neck. Rabbah said: “Even Rabbi Shimon, who permits using the firstborn donkey before redeeming it with a sheep, agrees that after decapitation it can't be used. What is the reason? Compare it to a calf that was decapitated to atone for an unsolved murder case; this calf was buried in the valley and not used. So too the decapitated donkey cannot be used.”

How does Rabbah know Rabbi Shimon's opinion? Because in the list of foods that can become impure Rabbi Shimon does not include the meat of a decapitated donkey. We must conclude that Rabbi Shimon deems it forbidden for benefit, thus, one cannot sell it even for others to eat. However, the Talmud rejects his proof: perhaps donkey meat is not food simply because people don't usually eat it? This attack is parried: the prohibition of the Torah to eat it elevates it to the status of food.

And Rabbah? “Since he caused loss to a kohen, his donkey should now be lost to him” describes the position of Rabbi Shimon.

Art: Ebenezer Newman Downard - A Donkey At A Gate

Bechorot 9 – A Case of Uncertain Firstborn Donkey

If one has a female donkey that had not previously given birth, and it bore two males, he gives one lamb to a kohen as redemption. Although he does not know which one is the firstborn, but one of them is, and it needs redemption. If it bore a male and a female, then it could be that the male is the firstborn, in which case redemption is needed, but it could also be that the female was born first, and then redemption is not required. Accordingly, he separates a sheep as a possible redemption, but keeps it, because the kohen cannot prove that the sheep belongs to him by right. As always in money matters, the burden of proof is on the claimant, who in this case is the kohen.

Before the firstborn donkey is redeemed, it is forbidden for benefit – so says Rabbi Yehudah. What is his reason? – Is there anything that requires redemption that would be permitted to use before redemption? – Certainly not! However, Rabbi Shimon says that it is permitted. What is his reason? – Is there anything whose redemption (sheep) is permitted to use while it itself is forbidden? Of course not!

Art: John Singer Sargent - Donkeys in a Desert

Bechorot 8 – The Gestation of a Snake

All creatures copulate face to back, except for fish, man, and snakes. Why are these different? – Because they were addressed by the Divine Presence: some people were prophets, fish – in the incident with Jonah, and snake – in Paradise.

The snake was cursed more than all the beasts, and its pregnancy lasts seven times longer than that of a donkey, that is, seven years. Caesar said to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya, “How long is the gestation of a snake?” Rabbi Yehoshua answered, “Seven years.” Caesar then said, “But the philosophers of Athens mated the snakes, and they bore young only after three years!” Rabbi Yehoshua answered, “Those snakes had already been pregnant four years before the Athenians began to study them.” Caesar was not satisfied, “But these snakes copulated when mated by the Athenians, so they could not be pregnant!” Rabbi Yehoshua answered, “The snakes copulate even during pregnancy, as do people.” The Caesar said, “But the Athenians are wise, and can be trusted in their scientific findings!” Rabbi Yehoshua answered, “We the Jewish Sages are wiser than they.”

Caesar then asked Rabbi Yehoshua to go, best the Athenians in argument, and bring them to Rome. Rabbi Yehoshua successfully evaded all dangers, answered all twelve problems, and tricked them into boarding his ship. He also took some earth from Athens. When he came to Rome, the Caesar saw they they were meek, and said, “These are not they, for the Athenian philosophers are arrogant!” Rabbi Yehoshua tossed some earth upon them, they regained their self-assurance and grew haughty toward the emperor.

Art: Jan van Kessel - The Enemies of Snakes

Bechorot 7 – Why Is Milk Kosher?

The rule that “whatever comes from kosher is kosher” includes milk. But how do we know that milk is allowed for consumption, given that other parts taken from a live animal are forbidden? Is it because mixture of meat and milk is forbidden, and therefore milk must be permitted? – No, it might be permitted only for benefit. Is it because of Solomon's words “Let the milk of goats be sufficient for your food...” - perhaps that, too, is only to sell it and buy food. Rather, it is because David brought for his brothers cheese made from milk. And if you say there too that he wanted them to sell it – is war the time for trade? Alternatively, it is because Israel is praised as land flowing with milk.

If a non-kosher fish swallowed a kosher fish, the kosher fish is still permitted to be eaten, and if a kosher fish swallowed a non-kosher fish, the non-kosher is prohibited to be eaten – provided that the fish inside was not spawned. Kosher fish lay eggs, and non-kosher spawn their young; all creatures that bear live young suckle them, while all that lay eggs gather food to feed their hatchlings, except for the bat which, though it lays eggs, nevertheless suckles its young; dolphins reproduce as humans, and some say, with humans. Which dolphins are we talking about? – Mermaids whom human males can impregnate.

Art: George Willoughby Maynard - Mermaids

Bechorot 6 – Mutants

Following rulings discuss the laws of mutants (known as “one that resembles something else”) - first, as they apply to firstborn, and then as they apply to kosher and non-kosher animals.

If a cow bore a firstborn resembling a donkey, or a donkey bore a firstborn resembling a horse, it is exempt from the laws of firstborn. The Torah said, “Firstborn of a donkey,” and then repeated, “Firstborn of a donkey” to tell us that the offspring must resemble his mother, a donkey.

What is the status of such an animal for consumption, for example, if a cow bore a calf that resembles a donkey? If a kosher animal bore an offspring resembling a non-kosher animal, it is still permitted for consumption, even if it is lacking kosher signs. Conversely, if a non-kosher animal bore an offspring resembling a kosher animal, it is forbidden for consumption. Here is the rule: a product of that which is non-kosher is itself non-kosher, and the product of that which is kosher is itself kosher.

Art: Karel Dujardin - A White Horse, A Cow And A Donkey In A Landscape

Bechorot 5 – Were Firstborn Sanctified in the Desert?

Rabbi Yochanan said that the firstborn were sanctified in the desert, since the Merciful One said “Sanctify for Me every firstborn,” but Resh Lakish said that they were not, as in the phrase “When God brings you to the land of Canaanites... you will set apart every firstborn to God”  – then, but not prior to that.

Rabbi Yochanan, “But the firstborn brought sacrifices in the desert, before the Tabernacle was built!?” Resh Lakish: “These were firstborn born in Egypt, but not born in the desert. In fact, I have a question against you from your proof: the Tabernacle was built one year after the Exodus, so how could one-year-old firstborn bring sacrifices?” Now, that is so obvious, how could Rabbi Yochanan ask such a question? He answers, “If there was no firstborn sanctification in the desert, the previous one also ceased.”

Kuntrukos the Roman minister asked Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, “There were two hundred talents of silver collected, but only one hundred was used. Moses your teacher must have been a thief, a kidnapper who hid half the people, or he just could not count.” Rabban Yochanan replied, “Moses our teacher was a trustworthy treasurer and a skilled accountant. However, the talent of the Temple was twice the size of the common unit, thus, the 200 talents collected were only 100 in terms of the Temple units.” How does he know that? From Ezekiel's phrase, “Sixty shekels will be a talent for you,” whereas a regular talent was only thirty shekels.

Art: George Cruikshank I - The thief  - Jonathan Wild Thief Turned Thief Taker Throwing Richard Trenchard Down The Well

Bechorot 4 – How Firstborn Lost Their Position

Since the times of Adam sacrificial service was performed by the firstborn. Jacob, who was born second, had to buy this right from Esau. This was still the practice when Jews came out of Egypt. However, when the firstborn worshiped the Golden Calf, they lost their privilege and were superseded by the Levites, the only group who did not participate.

To transfer the Temple rights of the firstborn to the Levites, the firstborn were counted, and the Levites were taken as an exchange for them. Of the total number of 22,300 Levites, 300 were themselves first-born, and could not be used to redeem the other firstborn, so 300 firstborn had to redeem themselves with money.

We can see that the Levites and the Kohanim (who are members of the tribe of Levy) are exempt from the laws of firstborn with the "a fortiori" reasoning: if they could exempt other firstborn, then certainly they can exempt themselves. The firstborn donkeys are mentioned by the Torah in the same phrase with the human firstborn to tell us that their law is the same, that is, the Levites are free from the obligation of the firstborn donkey.

Art: Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema - The Death Of The First Born

Bechorot 3 – Selling an Animal to a Non-Jew

We learned that although selling an animal to a non-Jew removes it from the laws of firstborn, in general it is forbidden to do so. Why? Some say that since a Jew does not make his animal work on Shabbat, and the non-Jew does, we should not remove the animal from the Shabbat observance. Others say that once an animal is completely owned by a non-Jew, its Shabbat observance should not concern us. Rather, if one is allowed to sell livestock, eventually he may come to rent it out, and then the Jew will have caused his animal to work on Shabbat. Finally, some say that “forbidden to do so” refers here to removing the animal from the sanctity of the firstborn. (Nowadays the custom is to permit this).

Rabbi Yehudah allows selling an animal with a broken leg, because it can’t work anyway. What would he say about selling a firstborn fetus? Is it allowed, because it can’t work now, or is it prohibited, because it will be able to work later? Since in another place he gives the reason “because it cannot heal,” and this reason does not apply to a fetus, we deduce that he prohibits it.

Art: Sydney S. Morrish - Sabbath Evening In A Shepherd's Cottage

Bechorot 2 – The Laws of a Firstborn Donkey

Since the Jewish firstborn did not die in Egypt, they are given a special status. A firstborn donkey has to be redeemed with a sheep or a goat, which is then given to a kohen. A firstborn kosher animal, if it is a male, has to be given to a kohen, who then brings it as a sacrifice. A firstborn human male is redeemed by giving money to a kohen. Today the law of a firstborn still applies, but in the absence of a Temple, animals are made exempt from this law by joint ownership of the mother animal with a non-Jew.

The teacher will first discuss the exemptions from the law of the firstborn, and in these he will start with the donkey, because its laws are simpler.

If one buys a fetus of an idolater’s donkey, or he sells his donkey’s fetus, even though he is not allowed to do this, the fetus is exempt from the law of the firstborn. The same is true for various kinds of joint ownership, because the Torah said “all firstborn in Israel,” – but not owned jointly with a non-Jew.

Art: Eduard Karl Gustav Lebrecht Pistorius - The Donkey Seller

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