Halakhah for Chullin 259:30

אי אבראי (ויקרא ז, ל) לפני ה' כתיב

But [it can also be refuted thus]. That is so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that they are subject to the priestly dues.');">²²</span> of males since they are [also] subject to the precept of the First of the Fleece!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut. XVIII, 4. This law, however, does not apply to he-goats, nor to consecrated animals. Likewise the priestly dues should not apply to consecrated animals.');">²⁶</span> - It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That consecrated animals, were it not for the express verse which excludes them, should also be subject to the priestly dues.');">²⁴</span> might then have been inferred from he-goats. But [it might be argued,] that is so of he-goats since they [also] enter the stall to be tithed!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., arc subject to the law of cattle tithe (cf. Lev. XXVII, 32) ; consecrated animals, however, are exempt from the cattle tithe.');">²⁷</span> - It might then have been inferred from old<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which have passed through the gate for tithing. Such an animal is no more subject to the law of cattle tithe, yet is subject to the priestly dues; I would then say the same of consecrated animals.');">²⁸</span> [he-goats]. But [it might be argued,] that is so of ol [he-goats] since they have in the past entered the stall to be tithed! - It might then have been inferred from a bought or orphaned animal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These are exempt from the cattle tithe, v. Bek. 55b, 57a. By 'orphaned' is meant a beast whose dam died whilst bearing it. The argument in the latter part of the prec. n. applies here too.');">²⁹</span> But [it might be argued.] that is so of bought or orphaned animals since their kind enters the stall to be tithed! - 'Their kind'! you say; then it is the same with consecrated animals too,fo their kind<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., unconsecrated animals.');">³⁰</span> enters the stall to be tithed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the argument from bought and orphaned animals would have been conclusive to include consecrated animals within the law of the priestly dues; accordingly the verse quoted in the Mishnah is necessary to exclude them.');">³¹</span> But can it not be inferred that unconsecrated animals are subject to the precept of the breast and the thigh from the following a fortiori argument? Thus: if consecrated animals, which are not subject to the priestly dues, are subject to the precept of the breast and the thigh, how much more are unconsecrated animals which are subject to the priestly dues subject also to the precept of the breast and the thigh! The verse therefore reads: And this shall be the priests' due;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVIII, 3. No other dues but those mentioned in this verse are to be exacted from unconsecrated animals.');">³²</span> 'this', yes, but nothing else. Now the reason is that Scripture stated 'this', but without it I should have said that unconsecrated animals are subject to the precept of the breast and the thigh. But is not the rite of 'waving' essential?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 30.');">³³</span> And where can they be waved? Outside [the Sanctuary]? But it is written: Before the Lord.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 30.');">³³</span>

Sefer HaChinukh