Pisqa’ 165127H:196; JN2:36-38. 1. “Now, this shall be the compensation of the Priests from the people. . . the shoulder, the cheeks, and the maw” (Dt.18:3)— this teaches that the Priestly-gifts are doled out by judges.128The word-play that governs here is derived from the biblical term, mishpat, which here means a just distribution of the Priestly-gifts. The root of mishpat is sh-p-t (to judge). This establishes an exegetical equivalence of the Hebrew for “judge” (shofet) and the common Aramaic term preferred by sages, dayyan.
2. Is it possible to say that even consecrated-offerings stand under obligation for the Priestly-gifts? Now, reason dictates this! Just as one [slaughtering a] common animal [for food], is under no obligation to offer the breast or fore-leg— but remains under obligation for the Priestly-gifts [of shoulder, cheeks, and maw], isn’t it reasonable that one making Consecrated-offerings— who is under obligation to offer the breast and fore-leg— should also remain under obligation for Priestly-gifts?129//M.Hul.10:1. The Teaching states: “This shall be the compensation of the Priests” (Dt.18:3)— [given from Consecrated-offerings, but not from common meat].
“From those slaughtering an obligatory offering” (Dt.18:3)— the Priest has a claim to it only at the moment of slaughter. On this basis they taught: A proselyte who converted, and had a cow which had been slaughtered— prior to the conversion, [insofar as he was a gentile at the time of the slaughter], he is exempt [from the Priestly-gifts]; after the conversion, [insofar as he was an Israelite at the time of the slaughter], he stands under obligation. If there is a doubt about the timing of the slaughter— he is exempt, [under the principle that] the burden of proof is borne by the claimant.130=M.Hul.10:4.
4. “Whether an ox or a sheep” (Dt.18:3)— include in the rule Priestly-gifts from an animal of incompatible species. “Whether an ox or a sheep” (Dt.18:3)— [include in the rule] an animal slaughtered in the Land or beyond the Land. Doesn’t reason dictate as much? He is under obligation here [for the Priestly-gift], and he is also under obligation for the Finest131“Finest” here renders Heb: r’eishit, which can also mean “first,” as in “First shearing.” Cf. Pisqa’ 166.4.-fleece (Dt.18:5). Now, we have found that an obligation to offer the Finest-fleece is in force both in the Land and beyond the Land. So, too, should the obligation to offer Priestly-gifts be in force both in the Land and beyond the Land! Or, perhaps we can try this approach? He is under obligation here [for the Priestly-gifts], and he is also under obligation to offer [a Tithe of] “the finest of your grain, your must, and your oil” (Dt.18:4). Just as the obligation to offer [a Tithe of] “the finest” is in force only in the Land, so, too, should the obligation to offer the Priestly-gifts be in force only in the Land!
But, let us compare the key terms! We may draw an inference to a matter that is not dependent on the Land or on a consecrated animal, from another matter that is not dependent on the Land or on a consecrated an animal. Therefore, the obligation to offer “the finest” [as Tithe] has no bearing on this matter, since it is dependent on the Land and on consecration of an object.
Or, perhaps, we can try this approach? We draw an inference about a matter that applies to both a large and small class [of individuals], only from another matter that applies to both a large and small class [of individuals]. Therefore, the obligation for the Finest-Fleece has no bearing on this, for it applies only when there are [five or more132This is the Hillelite opinion at M. Hul.11:2 and Pisqa’ 166.4 below.] sheep.
6. R. Judah says: The Close Readers134Hebrew: dorshei reshumot. Literally: “expounders of hints.” Presumably, a group attracted to allegorical exegesis of some kind. Hammer renders: “those who interpret the law metaphorically.” (H:196); Neusner: “those who interpret matters in a figurative way” (JN2:38). Some mss variants and B. Hul.134b’s parallel text reads: dorshei khamurot (“exopunders of difficulties”), interpreted by Rashi, loc. cit., as: expounders of “obscure scriptures.” teach that [the All-Present] gave the shoulder [to the Priests] to compensate the hand [offered by Phineas]. And, indeed, He says: “Then Phineas arose in the midst of the community, and he took a spear in his hand” (Nu.25:7). He gave [to the Priesthood] the cheeks, to compensate the prayer offered by Phineas. And so He says: “Then Phineas stood and prayed” (Ps.106:30). He gave [to the Priesthood] the maw to compensate the belly of Kosbi b. Tzur, as it is said: “And he speared them both—the Israelite man and the woman—through her belly” (Nu.25:8)
(דברים יח ג) וְזֶה יִהְיֶה מִשְׁפַּט הַכֹּהֲנִים – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַמַּתָּנוֹת יוֹצְאוֹת בְּדַיָּנִים.
Pisqa’ 165127H:196; JN2:36-38.
1. “Now, this shall be the compensation of the Priests from the people. . .
the shoulder, the cheeks, and the maw” (Dt.18:3)—
this teaches that the Priestly-gifts
are doled out by judges.128The word-play that governs here is derived from the biblical term, mishpat, which here means a just distribution of the Priestly-gifts. The root of mishpat is sh-p-t (to judge). This establishes an exegetical equivalence of the Hebrew for “judge” (shofet) and the common Aramaic term preferred by sages, dayyan.
יָכוֹל אַף קָדָשִׁים יִהְיוּ חַיָּבִים בְּמַתָּנוֹת? וְדִין הוּא: וּמָה חֻלִּין, שֶׁאֵין חַיָּבִים בְּחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק, חַיָּבִים בַּמַּתָּנוֹת – קָדָשִׁים, שֶׁחַיָּבִים בְּחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיְּהוּ חַיָּבִים בַּמַּתָּנוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: וְזֶה יִהְיֶה מִשְׁפַּט הַכֹּהֲנִים.
2. Is it possible to say that
even consecrated-offerings
stand under obligation for the Priestly-gifts?
Now, reason dictates this!
Just as one [slaughtering a] common animal [for food],
is under no obligation to offer the breast or fore-leg—
but remains under obligation for the Priestly-gifts
[of shoulder, cheeks, and maw],
isn’t it reasonable that
one making Consecrated-offerings—
who is under obligation to offer the breast and fore-leg—
should also remain under obligation for Priestly-gifts?129//M.Hul.10:1.
The Teaching states:
“This shall be the compensation of the Priests” (Dt.18:3)—
[given from Consecrated-offerings, but not from common meat].
מֵאֵת הָעָם – וְלֹא מֵאֵת אֲחֵרִים. מֵאֵת הָעָם – וְלֹא מֵאֵת הַכֹּהֲנִים.
“From the people” (Dt.18:3)—
but not from [gentile] others.
“From the people” (Dt.18:3)—
but not from Priests.
מֵאֵת זֹבְחֵי הַזֶּבַח – פְּרָט לַטְּרֵפָה.
3. “From those slaughtering an obligatory offering” (Dt.18:3)—
this precludes [sacrificial use of an]
an animal which is mauled [and about to die].
מֵאֵת זֹבְחֵי הַזֶּבַח – אֵין לוֹ בּוֹ אֶלָּא בִּשְׁעַת זְבִיחָה בִּלְבַד. מִכָּן אָמְרוּ (חולין פ״י מ״ד): גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּר וְהָיְתָה לוֹ פָּרָה, נִשְׁחֲטָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְגַּיֵּר – פָּטוּר; מִשֶּׁנִּתְגַּיֵּר – חַיָּב. סָפֵק – פָּטוּר, הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה.
“From those slaughtering an obligatory offering” (Dt.18:3)—
the Priest has a claim to it
only at the moment of slaughter.
On this basis they taught:
A proselyte who converted,
and had a cow which had been slaughtered—
prior to the conversion,
[insofar as he was a gentile at the time of the slaughter],
he is exempt [from the Priestly-gifts];
after the conversion,
[insofar as he was an Israelite at the time of the slaughter],
he stands under obligation.
If there is a doubt about the timing of the slaughter—
he is exempt,
[under the principle that]
the burden of proof is borne by the claimant.130=M.Hul.10:4.
אִם שׁוֹר אִם שֶׂה – לְרַבּוֹת כִּלְאַיִם, אִם שׁוֹר אִם שֶׂה – בֵּין בָּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. וַהֲלֹא דִין הוּא: חִיֵּיב כָּאן וְחִיֵּיב בְּרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז; מַה מָּצִינוּ בְּרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, נוֹהֵג בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – אַף מַתָּנוֹת נוֹהֲגוֹת בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ! אוֹ כַּלֵּךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: חִיֵּיב כָּאן וְחִיֵּיב בִּתְרוּמַת רֵאשִׁית; מַה תְּרוּמַת רֵאשִׁית, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא בָּאָרֶץ – אַף מַתָּנוֹת אֵינָן נוֹהֲגוֹת אֶלָּא בָּאָרֶץ!
4. “Whether an ox or a sheep” (Dt.18:3)—
include in the rule
Priestly-gifts from an animal of incompatible species.
“Whether an ox or a sheep” (Dt.18:3)—
[include in the rule]
an animal slaughtered in the Land or beyond the Land.
Doesn’t reason dictate as much?
He is under obligation here [for the Priestly-gift],
and he is also under obligation
for the Finest131“Finest” here renders Heb: r’eishit, which can also mean “first,” as in “First shearing.” Cf. Pisqa’ 166.4.-fleece (Dt.18:5).
Now, we have found that
an obligation to offer the Finest-fleece
is in force both in the Land and beyond the Land.
So, too, should the obligation to offer Priestly-gifts
be in force both in the Land and beyond the Land!
Or, perhaps we can try this approach?
He is under obligation here [for the Priestly-gifts],
and he is also under obligation to offer [a Tithe of]
“the finest of your grain, your must, and your oil” (Dt.18:4).
Just as the obligation to offer [a Tithe of]
“the finest” is in force only in the Land,
so, too, should the obligation to offer the Priestly-gifts
be in force only in the Land!
נִרְאֶה לְמִי דוֹמֶה? דָּנִים דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין תָּלוּי בָּאָרֶץ וּבַקֹּדֶשׁ מִדָּבָר שֶׁאֵין תָּלוּי בָּאָרֶץ וּבַקֹּדֶשׁ, וְאַל תּוֹכִיחַ תְּרוּמַת רֵאשִׁית, שֶׁהִיא תְּלוּיָה בָּאָרֶץ וּבַקֹּדֶשׁ.
But, let us compare the key terms!
We may draw an inference to a matter
that is not dependent on the Land
or on a consecrated animal,
from another matter
that is not dependent on the Land
or on a consecrated an animal.
Therefore, the obligation to offer “the finest”
[as Tithe] has no bearing on this matter,
since it is dependent on the Land
and on consecration of an object.
אוֹ כַּלֵּךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: דָּנִים דָּבָר שֶׁנּוֹהֵג בֵּין בַּמְרֻבֶּה בֵּין בַּמּוּעָט מִדָּבָר שֶׁנּוֹהֵג בַּמְרֻבֶּה וּבַמּוּעָט, וְאַל יוֹכִיחַ רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בַּמְרֻבֶּה.
Or, perhaps, we can try this approach?
We draw an inference about a matter
that applies to both a large and small class
[of individuals],
only from another matter
that applies to both a large and small class
[of individuals].
Therefore, the obligation for the Finest-Fleece
has no bearing on this,
for it applies only when there are [five or more132This is the Hillelite opinion at M. Hul.11:2 and Pisqa’ 166.4 below.] sheep.
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: אִם שׁוֹר אִם שֶׂה, בֵּין בָּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ.
Regarding the Priestly-gifts
the Teaching states:
“Whether an ox or a sheep” (Dt.18:3)—
from the Land or beyond the Land.
וְנָתַן לַכֹּהֵן – לַכֹּהֵן עַצְמוֹ.
5. “And he shall give to the Priest” (Dt.18:3)—
he gives it to the Priest himself
[and not to an agent].
הַזְּרוֹעַ – זְרוֹעַ שֶׁל יָמִין.
“The shoulder” (Dt.18:3)—
that is, the right shoulder.133=T. Hul. 9:12.
וְהַלְּחָיַיִם – זֶה לְחִי הַתַּחְתּוֹן.
“And the cheeks” (Dt.18:3)—
this means, the lower cheeks.
וְהַקֵּבָה – כְּמַשְׁמָעָהּ.
“And the maw” (Dt.18:3)—
this is the conventional term.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, דּוֹרְשֵׁי רְשׁוּמוֹת אוֹמְרִים: נָתַן לוֹ זְרוֹעַ תַּחַת הַיָּד, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר (במדבר כה ז): ״וַיָּקָם מִתּוֹךְ הָעֵדָה וַיִּקַּח רֹמַח בְּיָדוֹ״; וְהַלְּחָיַיִם תַּחַת תְּפִלָּה, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר (תהלים קו ל) ״וַיַּעֲמֹד פִּינְחָס וַיְפַלֵּל״; הַקֵּבָה תַּחַת קֵיבָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר כה ח): ״וְאֶל הָאִשָּׁה אֶל קֳבָתָהּ״!
6. R. Judah says:
The Close Readers134Hebrew: dorshei reshumot. Literally: “expounders of hints.” Presumably, a group attracted to allegorical exegesis of some kind. Hammer renders: “those who interpret the law metaphorically.” (H:196); Neusner: “those who interpret matters in a figurative way” (JN2:38). Some mss variants and B. Hul.134b’s parallel text reads: dorshei khamurot (“exopunders of difficulties”), interpreted by Rashi, loc. cit., as: expounders of “obscure scriptures.” teach that
[the All-Present] gave the shoulder [to the Priests]
to compensate the hand [offered by Phineas].
And, indeed, He says:
“Then Phineas arose in the midst of the community,
and he took a spear in his hand” (Nu.25:7).
He gave [to the Priesthood] the cheeks,
to compensate the prayer offered by Phineas.
And so He says:
“Then Phineas stood and prayed” (Ps.106:30).
He gave [to the Priesthood] the maw
to compensate the belly of Kosbi b. Tzur,
as it is said:
“And he speared them both—the Israelite man and the woman—through her belly” (Nu.25:8)