Mishnah Chullin 10:3-4

Sugya Map: Gifts of the Priesthood (Chullin 10:3-4)

• Issue: Defining the scope and application of matanot kehuna (gifts of the priesthood) – the foreleg, jaw, and maw – from non-sacred animals.
• Nafka Mina:
  • Applicability inside and outside Eretz Yisrael.
  • Applicability in the presence and absence of the Beit Hamikdash.
  • Distinction between sacred and non-sacred animals.
  • Impact of blemishes and redemption on the status of sacrificial animals.
  • Situations of admixture and ownership affecting the obligation.
  • Precise definition of the physical parts constituting the gifts.
• Primary Sources:
  • Mishnah Chullin 10:3-4
  • Torah: Vayikra 7:32-34 (basis for breast and thigh), Devarim 18:3 (foreleg, jaw, maw)
  • Gemara Chullin 134a-135b (primary source for detailed analysis and debates)
  • Rambam, Hilchot Ma'aser Sheni, Chapter 3 (deals with redemption of blemished animals)
  • Rambam, Hilchot Bikkurim, Chapter 4 (deals with gifts of the priesthood)

---

Text Snapshot

Mishnah Chullin 10:3:

"The foreleg, the jaw, and the maw apply in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, in the presence of the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple, to non-sacred animals, but not to sacrificial animals. It is necessary to emphasize that it does not apply to sacrificial animals, as by right it should be inferred a fortiori: If non-sacred animals, which are not obligated to have the breast and thigh taken from them and given to the priest, are obligated to have gifts of the priesthood given from them, then with regard to sacrificial animals, which are obligated to have the breast and thigh given from them, is it not right that they should be obligated to have gifts of the priesthood given from them? Therefore, the verse states: “For the breast of waving and the thigh of giving I have taken of the children of Israel from the sacrifice of the peace offerings, and have given them to Aaron the priest and to his sons as a due forever from the children of Israel” (Leviticus 7:34), from which it is derived that the priest has only that which is stated with regard to that matter, i.e., the breast and the thigh, and not the foreleg, the jaw and the maw.

• Leshon Nuance: The Mishnah begins by establishing the scope of the obligation using broad locational and temporal modifiers ("in Eretz Yisrael and outside...", "in the presence... and not in the presence..."). The phrase "It is necessary to emphasize" (צורך לומר) highlights a point that might otherwise be assumed or incorrectly derived. The qal vachomer (a fortiori) argument is explicitly laid out, followed by the pasuk that serves as the mafchia (limitation). The phrase "only that which is stated with regard to that matter" (אלא מה שנאמר בו) is crucial for limiting the priest's entitlement to only what is explicitly mentioned (breast and thigh) in the specified verse.

Mishnah Chullin 10:4:

"All sacrificial animals in which a permanent blemish preceded their consecration do not assume inherent sanctity, and only their value is consecrated. And once they were redeemed, they are obligated in the mitzva of a firstborn, i.e., their offspring are subject to being counted a firstborn, and in the gifts of the priesthood, and they can emerge from their sacred status and assume non-sacred status with regard to being shorn and with regard to being utilized for labor, as it is prohibited to shear animals with sacred status or utilize them for labor. And their offspring and their milk are permitted after their redemption. And one who slaughters these animals outside the Temple courtyard is exempt from karet, and those animals do not render an animal that was a substitute for them consecrated. And if these animals died before they were redeemed, they may be redeemed and fed to dogs. Although typically sacrificial animals that were redeemed may not be fed to the dogs, in this case it is permitted. This is the halakha with regard to all animals except for the firstborn animal and the animal tithe, whose sanctity is inherent, even when a permanent blemish preceded their consecration. With regard to all sacrificial animals whose consecration preceded their blemish, or who had a temporary blemish prior to their consecration and afterward developed a permanent blemish and they were redeemed, they are exempt from the mitzva of a firstborn, and from the gifts of the priesthood, and they do not emerge from their sacred status and assume non-sacred status with regard to being shorn and with regard to being utilized for labor. And their offspring, which were conceived prior to redemption, and their milk, are prohibited after their redemption. And one who slaughters them outside the Temple courtyard is liable to receive karet, and those animals render an animal that was a substitute for them consecrated. And if these animals died before they were redeemed, they may not be redeemed and fed to dogs; rather, they must be buried.

• Leshon Nuance: This section introduces a complex dichotomy based on the timing of the blemish relative to consecration, and the type of blemish (permanent vs. temporary). Key phrases include "a permanent blemish preceded their consecration" (מום שעקר קודם הקדשתן), "only their value is consecrated" (ערכן מקודש), "emerge from their sacred status" (יוצאין ממקדשין), and the contrasting "consecration preceded their blemish" (הקדשתן קדמה למום). The ramifications are stark, affecting obligations like bikkurim (though the Mishnah mentions bechor and ma'aser here, which are related forms of inherent sanctity), the permissibility of shearing/labor, the status of offspring/milk, and the consequences of slaughter outside the courtyard. The concluding clauses about the firstborn and ma'aser animal highlight their unique inherent sanctity.

---

Readings

This sugya grapples with the precise definition and application of matanot kehuna – specifically, the foreleg, jaw, and maw. While the Torah (Devarim 18:3) obligates an Israelite slaughtering an animal to give these parts to the kohen, the Mishnah here details the conditions under which this obligation applies, and crucially, when it does not. The core of the discussion revolves around the distinction between non-sacred and sacrificial animals, and the nuanced status of sacrificial animals based on blemishes and redemption.

Rambam: Clarifying the Status of Blemished Sacrificial Animals

Maimonides, in his Mishneh Torah, dedicates significant attention to these laws. In Hilchot Bikkurim, Chapter 4, he synthesizes the laws of the priestly gifts. Regarding the core principle that the gifts apply to non-sacred animals but not sacrificial ones, he states:

"The foreleg, jaw, and maw are gifts for the priest from every animal that is permitted to eat and is slaughtered in its proper place. This applies to every animal, whether it is a wild animal or a domesticated animal, and whether it is a male or female. And it applies in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, and in the presence of the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple. And it applies to non-sacred animals, but not to sacrificial animals."¹

This echoes the Mishnah's opening statement, emphasizing the broad applicability to chullin (non-sacred animals). The Rambam then explains why sacrificial animals are exempt, referencing the same verse as the Mishnah:

"For it is stated, 'For the breast of waving and the thigh of heave-offering I have taken from the children of Israel from the offerings of their sacrifices of well-being, and have given them to Aaron the priest and to his sons as a due forever from the children of Israel' (Leviticus 7:34). This teaches us that the priest has only the breast and the thigh from the sacrifices, and not the foreleg, jaw, and maw."²

The Rambam's commentary on the Mishnah provides further clarification, especially on the complex scenarios presented in the latter half of the Mishnah. Concerning the admixture of a blemished firstborn animal with non-sacred animals:

"A firstborn [animal] that came to the priest's hand because the firstborn belongs to the priest, as explained in the introduction to this order, and a permanent blemish occurred in the priest's possession, and he sold it to an Israelite – this firstborn animal is not obligated in the gifts at all. Afterwards, it became mixed with others in the possession of an Israelite, and its status is as previously mentioned. And what is said: 'exempt from the gifts' means the slaughterer is exempt, because the principal obligation rests with the slaughterer, and he is the one who is designated for the gifts. Even if it were a priest, they would be taken from him and given to another."³

This commentary unpacks the scenario of a blemished firstborn. The key is that if the blemish occurred while it was still in the priest's possession (or if it was sold to an Israelite after it was blemished in the priest's possession), its sanctity is diminished, and it is no longer considered a fully sacred animal for the purpose of giving the gifts. This interpretation hinges on the concept that its value, not its inherent sanctity, was consecrated.

Tosafot: The Principle of "The Law is with the Slaughterer"

Tosafot, in their characteristic style of engaging with and extending the Gemara's discussions, offer crucial insights into the underlying principles. Their commentary on the Mishnah's statement that "one who slaughters for a priest or for a gentile is exempt from the gifts" is particularly illuminating. The Gemara (Chullin 135a) derives this from the verse "from the sacrifices of the people" (מאת זובחי הזבח), implying the slaughterer of the people's animals is obligated, not when slaughtering for a priest or gentile. Tosafot elaborates on the Gemara's conclusion, "The law is with the slaughterer" (הדין עם הטבח):

"The law is with the slaughterer, meaning the priest can claim his gifts from the slaughterer. We learn from the Gemara, as it is written 'from the sacrificers of the sacrifice' [Vayikra 7:34], which implies even a priest slaughtering an Israelite's animal is included. And they infer from the word 'm' (מאת) which is superfluous, as it could have said 'from the people sacrificers of the sacrifice'. And Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai writes in the Beit Yosef, Siman 61, in the name of the Rashba, that the principle 'the law is with the slaughterer' means he cannot push off the priest by saying 'you are not the claimant against me', but it does not mean that if he gave them to the owner or another, he would be liable, as we have learned that one who damages priestly gifts is exempt."⁴

This Tosafot highlights a fundamental principle: the primary obligation to provide the gifts rests on the slaughterer. Even if the animal belongs to a priest or a gentile, the act of slaughtering an Israelite's animal triggers the obligation for the slaughterer to give the gifts. However, this doesn't mean the slaughterer can simply give them to anyone; the priest has a claim against the slaughterer. Furthermore, the principle of mezikah (damaging) is relevant here – one who damages priestly gifts is not liable to replace them, indicating the gifts have a unique status.

Tosafot also grapples with the rabbinic extension of the law:

"And what the Rav writes, 'and even a priest... if he is a slaughterer...', it is by rabbinic decree that when he slaughters, he must give priestly gifts even for his own animal, so that Israelite slaughterers will not become accustomed to partnering with priests to be exempt from the gifts. But for up to three Shabbats [in which he slaughters for himself], it is not decreed, as it can be said he is slaughtering for himself, and the rabbis did not decree, and it remains according to Torah law. And from then on, they decreed. And when he sets aside [for himself] on a platter, it is immediately apparent that he is not slaughtering for himself, and therefore they decreed immediately."⁵

This passage from Tosafot addresses the concern that priests might collude with slaughterers to avoid giving the gifts. The rabbinic decree imposes the obligation even on a priest slaughtering his own animal, with certain exceptions (like slaughtering for oneself for a short period, where the act might be seen as more personal and less indicative of intent to evade the obligation). The act of setting aside the gifts on a platter is a clear sign of intent to fulfill the obligation, thus negating the rabbinic leniency. This demonstrates a proactive approach by the Sages to safeguard the matanot kehuna.

---

Friction

The Mishnah presents a complex set of rules regarding the obligation to give the priestly gifts (foreleg, jaw, maw). The primary friction arises from the seemingly contradictory ramifications of blemishes and redemption on sacrificial animals, and the distinction between inherent sanctity versus value sanctity.

The Kushya: The Case of the Blemished Firstborn and Ma'aser Animal

The Mishnah states: "All sacrificial animals in which a permanent blemish preceded their consecration... once they were redeemed, they are obligated in... the gifts of the priesthood... This is the halakha with regard to all animals except for the firstborn animal and the animal tithe, whose sanctity is inherent, even when a permanent blemish preceded their consecration."

This presents a significant puzzle. We are told that a blemished animal whose blemish preceded its consecration, once redeemed, becomes obligated in the priestly gifts. This implies a shift from a non-obligatory state (due to being a blemished sacrificial animal) to an obligatory one. However, the Mishnah immediately contrasts this with the firstborn and ma'aser animals. Even if a permanent blemish preceded their consecration, and even after redemption, they remain exempt from the gifts.

The friction lies in reconciling these two statements. If redemption makes other blemished sacrificial animals obligated, why does it not do so for the firstborn and ma'aser? What is the fundamental difference in their sanctity that prevents this transition?

The Mishnah itself offers a clue: "except for the firstborn animal and the animal tithe, whose sanctity is inherent..." This suggests that the sanctity of firstborn and ma'aser animals is of a different quality or degree than other sacrificial animals, even those that were consecrated with a pre-existing blemish.

The Gemara (Chullin 134b-135a) delves deeply into this. It explains that the sanctity of firstborn and ma'aser animals is so profound that it is considered kodesh gemur (complete sanctity) from the outset, irrespective of blemishes. When such an animal is blemished, it can be slaughtered and eaten (after redemption, if necessary), but this does not diminish its inherent sanctity in a way that would obligate it in the priestly gifts. The gifts, as derived from Vayikra 7:34, are explicitly linked to peace offerings (זבחי שלמים), not to the unique category of firstborn and ma'aser.

Conversely, for other sacrificial animals where a permanent blemish preceded consecration, the Gemara explains that only their value is consecrated (ar'chan makudash). Once redeemed, they essentially revert to the status of chullin (non-sacred animals) regarding their use and obligations, thus becoming subject to the laws of priestly gifts applicable to chullin. The redemption transforms them from a consecrated but non-sacrificial item (due to the blemish) into something that behaves like chullin for practical purposes, including the obligation of gifts.

The Terutz: The Nature of Sanctity – Inherent vs. Value

The resolution lies in understanding two fundamental categories of sanctity:

1. Inherent Sanctity (קדושה עצמית): This applies to animals like the firstborn and ma'aser behemot. Their sanctity is intrinsic, mandated by Torah law from the moment they are born or designated. Even if they develop a blemish, this does not negate their fundamental status as consecrated animals that are meant for the Kohen or for specific purposes. This inherent sanctity, the Gemara implies, is not subject to the same rules of conversion to chullin status upon redemption as other consecrated animals. The verse limiting the gifts to the breast and thigh of peace offerings is the decisive factor here; firstborn and ma'aser are not peace offerings in this context.

2. Value Sanctity (קדושת דמים / ערכן מקודש): This applies to animals consecrated by vow or other means, where a blemish preceded their consecration. In such cases, the animal itself cannot be offered as a sacrifice. What is consecrated is its monetary value. Upon redemption, this consecrated value is paid to the Temple treasury, and the animal itself reverts to a status akin to chullin. Because it is now effectively chullin, it is subject to the laws of priestly gifts.

Therefore, the distinction is not merely about redemption but about the nature of the sanctity. The inherent sanctity of the firstborn and ma'aser animal remains even after redemption, and the specific pasuk (Leviticus 7:34) concerning the breast and thigh of peace offerings does not extend to them. Their exemption from the gifts is thus a direct consequence of their unique, inherent consecrated status and the specific Torah verses defining the gifts. The other animals, whose sanctity was primarily based on their value and became effectively chullin upon redemption, fall under the general rule for chullin animals concerning the gifts.

This interpretation is supported by the fact that these animals are also subject to the same rules regarding slaughter outside the courtyard (liable to karet for the latter group, exempt for the former) and the consecration of substitutes, further underscoring the differing natures of their sanctity.

---

Intertext

Tanakh: The Source of the Obligation and its Limitation

The entire discussion hinges on the interplay between two Torah passages:

• Devarim 18:3: "And this shall be the due of the people from the priests, from them that offer sacrifice, whether it be ox or sheep, and they shall give unto the priest the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw." (וְהָיָה הַדֶּבֶר לַכֹּהֵן, מִן-הָעֹלֶה, וּמִן-הַזֶּבַח, יִתְּנוּ לַכֹּהֵן--אֵת-הַשּׁוֹק, וְאֶת-הַלְּחָיַיִם, וְאֶת-הַקָּבָה). This verse establishes the obligation to give the specified parts. The word "olah" (burnt offering) here is perplexing in the context of non-sacrificial animals, but the Gemara (Chullin 134b) interprets it broadly to include any slaughtering act from which the priest is entitled to a portion. The key is the list of parts: hashok (the foreleg), halchey'ayim (the jaws), and hakavah (the maw).

• Vayikra 7:34: "For the breast of waving and the thigh of heave-offering I have taken of the children of Israel from the sacrifice of the peace offerings, and have given them unto Aaron the priest and unto his sons as a due for ever from the children of Israel." (כִּי אֶת-חֲזֵה הַתְּנוּפָה וְאֵת שׁוֹק הַתְּרוּמָה לָקַחְתִּי מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִזִּבְחֵי שְׁלֹמֵיהֶם, וָאֶתֵּן אֹתָם לְאַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן וּלְבָנָיו, לְחֹק עוֹלָם, מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל). This verse, as the Mishnah points out, explicitly grants the priest the "breast of waving" and the "thigh of heave-offering" from peace offerings. The chiddush (novelty) of this verse, as interpreted by the Sages, is that it limits the priest's entitlement from sacrifices to only these parts from peace offerings. By implication, it excludes the foreleg, jaw, and maw from sacrificial animals, and by extension, it defines the scope of the gifts only to non-sacrificial animals, as the Mishnah argues via qal vachomer.

The tension between these two verses is central: Devarim lists specific parts for the priest, while Vayikra limits the priest's share from sacrifices to other specific parts. The Mishnah and Gemara resolve this by understanding Devarim as referring to non-sacrificial animals, and Vayikra as defining what is not given from sacrificial animals.

Shulchan Aruch: Practical Halacha

The Shulchan Aruch codifies these laws, reflecting the complex distinctions. In Yoreh De'ah 61:1, it states:

"The foreleg, jaw, and maw are gifts for the priest from every animal that is permitted to eat and is slaughtered in its proper place. This applies to any animal, whether wild or domestic, male or female, and it applies in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, and in the presence of the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple. It applies to non-sacred animals, but not to sacrificial animals."⁶

This directly mirrors the opening of our Mishnah. Further sections elaborate on the nuances, such as the status of animals slaughtered by a priest for himself or a gentile, and the rules for blemished animals. For instance, in YD 61:10, it discusses animals with blemishes that preceded their consecration:

"If a permanent blemish preceded the consecration of a sacrificial animal, only its value is consecrated. If it was redeemed, it is obligated in the gifts of the priesthood, and it is permitted to shear it and use it for labor. And its offspring and milk are permitted after redemption. And if it died before redemption, it may be redeemed and fed to dogs."⁷

This codification directly reflects the complex rules of Mishnah 10:4, distinguishing between animals whose sanctity is inherent and those whose sanctity is based on value. The practical application of these rules, especially concerning ownership and the definition of the specific parts, is meticulously laid out, demonstrating the enduring relevance of these ancient distinctions.

---

Psak/Practice

The halakha derived from this sugya has several practical implications, primarily in the realm of ritual slaughter and priestly entitlements.

• The Primary Obligation: The fundamental psak is that the foreleg, jaw, and maw are obligatory gifts from the slaughter of chullin (non-sacred animals) to the kohen. This applies universally, regardless of location or the presence of the Temple.
• Sacrificial Animals: Sacrificial animals are generally exempt. The pasuk in Vayikra 7:34 serves as the definitive limitation, restricting the priest's entitlement from sacrifices to the breast and thigh of peace offerings.
• Blemished Animals: The status of blemished sacrificial animals is complex.
  • If a permanent blemish preceded consecration, and the animal is redeemed, it becomes obligated in the priestly gifts, behaving like chullin.
  • However, firstborn and ma'aser animals, due to their inherent sanctity, remain exempt from the gifts even after redemption, as the Torah's definition of gifts does not extend to them.
• Ownership and Slaughter: The obligation rests with the slaughterer. If an Israelite slaughters an animal for a priest or a gentile, the Israelite slaughterer is exempt. Conversely, if a priest or gentile slaughters an animal for an Israelite, the priest/gentile slaughterer is exempt, and the Israelite owner is the one responsible for the gifts.
• Partnership: Entering into partnership with a priest or gentile requires clear marking to indicate the animal is jointly owned and thus exempt from the gifts.
• Definition of Parts: The precise anatomical definitions of the foreleg and jaw are important for accurate identification and fulfillment of the mitzvah.

In contemporary practice, where there are no active kohanim receiving these gifts from every slaughter, and the Temple is absent, the practical application is largely historical or theological. However, in contexts where kohanim are recognized and animals are slaughtered under appropriate rabbinic supervision, the principles remain relevant for identifying and potentially setting aside these parts. The discussions on ownership and partnership also hold relevance in communal slaughterhouses or when dealing with various ownership structures.

---

Takeaway

The meticulous delineation of matanot kehuna reveals a profound theological architecture, where specific physical parts become conduits for the relationship between the people and the priesthood, rooted in the very structure of Torah law. The distinction between inherent sanctity and value sanctity, particularly concerning blemished sacrificial animals, showcases the Sages' remarkable ability to navigate textual ambiguities and construct a coherent, nuanced halachic system.