Chullin 263
אהרן ובניו כתובין בפרשה
for in that passage are expressly mentioned Aaron and his sons.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 13. But elsewhere, wherever 'priest' alone is mentioned, it includes even the priest's daughter, as in the case of the priestly dues.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
כהן ולא כהנת וילמוד סתום מן המפורש
but not unto the priest's daughter, for we may infer what is not explicitly stated from what is explicitly stated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With regard to the meal-offering of priests the Torah expressly states 'Aaron and his sons', in order to exclude the priest's daughters, and this serves as a guiding principle suggesting that whenever Scripture mentions 'priest' the priest's daughter is excluded.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
כהן ואפילו כהנת הוי מיעוט אחר מיעוט ואין מיעוט אחר מיעוט אלא לרבות
and even unto the priest's daughter, for we have here a limitation following a limitation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the passage dealing with the priestly dues there occur the words 'priests' and 'priest', and inasmuch as each serves as a limitation to exclude the priest's daughter, the result is that the successive limitations actually amplify the scope of the law and include the priest's daughter.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
אמר רבינא אמר לי מרימר
R'Kahana used to eat [the priestly dues] on account of his wife.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was the daughter of a priest. The meaning is that the giving of the priestly dues to the husband of a priest's daughter is a proper fulfilment of the obligation (R. Nissim) .');"><sup>6</sup></span>
כלאים הבא מן העז ומן הרחל חייב במתנות (מן התייש ומן הצבייה) פטור מן המתנות
that the law was in accordance with 'Ulla's view;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That one may give the priestly dues to the daughter of a priest.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
מכדי קי"ל דלענין כסוי הדם ומתנות לא משכחת ליה אלא בצבי הבא על התיישה ובין לרבי אליעזר בין לרבנן מספקא להו אי חוששין לזרע האב אי אין חוששין ובשה ואפילו מקצת שה קמיפלגי
and that the law was in accordance with the view of R'Adda B'Ahaba that if a Levite's daughter gave birth to a firstborn son the child is exempt from the payment of the five sela's.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sum prescribed for the redemption of the firstborn son; cf. Num. XVIII, 25, 26. It is established law (cf. Bek. 13a) that where either one of the parents is of priestly stock or where the father is a Levite, the firstborn son is exempt from redemption. R. Adda b. Ahaba here extends the rule of exemption even where the mother is the daughter of a Levite. V. Bek. 47a.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
שה ואפי' מקצת שה ומר סבר
The law of the shoulder, the two cheeks and the maw applies to a hybrid and to a koy.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A permitted animal, about which the Rabbis were undecided whether it was to be classed in the category of cattle or of wild beasts.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
שה ואפילו מקצת שה לא אמרינן
R'Eliezer says, A hybrid, the offspring of a he-goat and a ewe, is subject to these dues; the offspring of a he-goat and a hind<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For 'the offspring of a he-goat and a hind' Rashal substitutes 'the koy'.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
אייתי ראיה דאין חוששין לזרע האב ושקול
that with regard to the law of covering up the blood and also with regard to the priestly dues the dispute (between R'Eliezer and the Rabbis as to the koy] can arise only in the case where a hart covered a she-goat; for both R'Eliezer and the Rabbis are undecided whether or not to take into consideration the seed of the male parent, but they differ as to whether the term 'sheep' includes even that which is a sheep in part only: one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Sages.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
מתיב רבי זירא
Now R'Eliezer's view that [the offspring of a he-goat and a hind] is exempt from dues is clear, for he holds that the term 'sheep' does not include even that which is a sheep in part only.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And as this offspring is at most only a part sheep by reason of its sire it is exempt entirely from dues.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
כוי יש בו דרכים שוין לבהמה ויש בו דרכים שוין לחיה ויש בו דרכים שוין לחיה ולבהמה
According to the Rabbis however [it is difficult]; for granting that they hold the view that the term 'sheep' includes even that which is a sheep in part only, he [the priest] should only be entitled to half the dues,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even in the case of the offspring of a hart and a she-goat.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
כיצד
for as to the other half the owner could say to him, 'Bring proof that we do not take into consideration the seed of the male parent and then you can have it'! - R'Huna B'Hiyya answered that by 'subject' they meant subject to half the dues.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Strictly the Rabbis did not use the expression 'subject' at all; they only ruled that the law of the shoulder etc. applied to a koy, and it is now suggested that by 'applied' they meant only as to half the dues.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
איידי דתנא חלבו ודמו דלא מתני חצי חצי משום הכי לא קא תני חצי
It is subject to the law of the shoulder, the two cheek and the maw, like cattle; R'Eliezer declares it exempt [from these dues].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bik. II, 8.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
כוי לרבנן חייב בכולהו מתנות דתניא
it should state that it is subject to half the dues only! - Since it states the rule with regard to its fat and its blood, which case it could not have stated half, it therefore does not state half [even with regard to the dues].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But of course it is only subject to half the dues. ot');"><sup>21</sup></span>
שה מה ת"ל (דברים יח, ג) אם שה לרבות את הכוי
For it was taught: [Scripture could have stated] 'ox', wherefore does it state, whether it be ox?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVIII, 3. The particle (im) is unnecessarily stated before ox and sheep.');"><sup>22</sup></span>
מבעי ליה לכדרבא דאמר רבא
ndicate disjunction.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That these portions are due when one slaughters either an ox or a sheep; without the particles 'im it might have been said that these portions are due only when one slaughters an ox and a sheep. jcz');"><sup>23</sup></span>
הדין עם הטבח:
Then whence do the Rabbis derive the principle of disjunction? - From the verse: From them that slaughter a slaughtering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 'slaughtering' is in the singular; so that the slaughtering of one animal imposes the obligation of the dues.');"><sup>24</sup></span>
<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> בכור שנתערב במאה בזמן שמאה שוחטין את כולן פוטרים את כולן
And to what purpose does R'Eliezer put this verse: From them that slaughter a slaughtering? - He requires it for Raba's teaching, for Raba said: The claim is made against the slaughterer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The priest when claiming his dues makes his claim upon the slaughterer, although the latter may have slaughtered animals belonging to other people.');"><sup>25</sup></span>
אחד שוחט את כולן פוטרים לו אחד
<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF A FIRSTLING GOT MIXED UP WITH A HUNDRED OTHER ANIMALS AND A HUNDRED [AND ONE] PERSONS SLAUGHTERED THEM ALL,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., every animal belonged to a different person, or better, each person slaughtered his own animal.');"><sup>26</sup></span>
השוחט לכהן ולעובד כוכבים פטור מן המתנות והמשתתף עמהן צריך שירשום
THEY ARE ALL EXEMPT FROM THE DUES.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For each owner-slaughterer can rebut the priest's claim by saying that what he had slaughtered was the firstling which is exempt from priestly dues.');"><sup>27</sup></span>
<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ואמאי
HE IS EXEMPT FROM THE DUES; IF HE HAD A SHARE [IN THE ANIMAL] WITH THEM, HE MUST INDICATE THIS BY SOME SIGN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That all may know that he shares the animal with the priest or the gentile and on that account he is exempt from giving the dues.');"><sup>30</sup></span>
אי בכור הוא כוליה דידי הוא ואי לאו בכור הוא הב לי מתנתאי
SAID, 'EXCEPT THE DUES', HE IS EXEMPT FROM GIVING THE DUES.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The purchaser is exempt from giving the dues for they had not become his property at all.');"><sup>32</sup></span> IF A MAN SAID, SELL ME THE ENTRAILS OF A COW', AND AMONG THEM WERE THE PRIESTLY DUES, HE MUST GIVE THEM TO A PRIEST AND [THE SELLER] NEED NOT ALLOW ANY REDUCTION IN THE PURCHASE PRICE ON THAT ACCOUNT. BUT IF HE BOUGHT THEM FROM HIM BY WEIGHT, HE MUST GIVE THEM TO A PRIEST, AND [THE SELLER] MUST ALLOW A REDUCTION IN THE PRICE ON THAT ACCOUNT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 131a.');"><sup>33</sup></span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Why is this so?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That, in the first clause, all the animals are exempt from the dues because of the firstling that is mixed up with them.');"><sup>34</sup></span> - The priest can surely approach him with a double claim<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from two sides'.');"><sup>35</sup></span> saying [of each animal].' If it is the firstling, it is all mine, and if it is not the firstling, then give me my dues!'