Pisqa’ 165¹

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.²

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?³

The Teaching states:

“This shall be the compensation of the Priests” (Dt.18:3)—

[given from Consecrated-offerings, but not from common meat].

“From the people” (Dt.18:3)—

but not from [gentile] others.

“From the people” (Dt.18:3)—

but not from Priests.

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].

“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.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 Finest⁵-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 more⁶] sheep.

Regarding the Priestly-gifts

the Teaching states:

“Whether an ox or a sheep” (Dt.18:3)—

from the Land or beyond the Land.

5

“And he shall give to the Priest” (Dt.18:3)—

he gives it to the Priest himself

[and not to an agent].

 

“The shoulder” (Dt.18:3)—

that is, the right shoulder.⁷

“And the cheeks” (Dt.18:3)—

this means, the lower cheeks.

“And the maw” (Dt.18:3)—

this is the conventional term.

6

R. Judah says:

The Close Readers⁸ 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)

1. H:196; JN2:36-38.
2. The 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.
3. //M.Hul.10:1.
4. =M.Hul.10:4.
5. “Finest” here renders Heb: r’eishit, which can also mean “first,” as in “First shearing.” Cf. Pisqa’ 166.4.
6. This is the Hillelite opinion at M. Hul.11:2 and Pisqa’ 166.4 below.
7. =T. Hul. 9:12.
8. Hebrew: 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.”