Gift to the Kohen [or Koheness] the foreleg, the jaw (and cheek / tongue) and the maw of slaughtered animals.

---

SMG

The verse[i] states וזה יהיה משפט הכהנים מאת העם מאת זובחי הזבח אם שור אם שה, ונתן לכהן הזרע והלחיים והקבה, and we learnt in the Gemara[ii], and all the mainstay details of the Mitzva are stated there, what is considered the forearm: that is from the first joint (shoulder) until the palm of the hand [hoof] – meaning there are two limbs[1] connected one to the other. And the Mishna concludes there that this definition applies to the Nazir [see positive Mitzva 127 on the sacrificial obligations of the Nazir when he concludes his term]. The corresponding limb in the hind leg of the animal is called the שוק, which [also] is from the first joint [in the shoulder] until the palm of the foot [hoof]. What is the jaw – that is from the joint [of the lower jaw] until the פיקה של גרגרת – the upper ring of the windpipe, including the tongue in between. All that belongs to the Kohen. The Mitzva is performed by giving the right leg, as the term הזרוע means[2] the rightmost of the legs. As for the term והלחיים, what purpose is that [term stated] for – that includes the woold on the heads of the sheep, and the hair of the beards of the goats – we do not remove nor skin them. Instead, the gift is given with its skin and hair. And the term והקבה, what purpose is that [term stated] for, this includes the fat within the stomach and on the stomach. Meaning, that which is in excess and hardened [on the stomach]. [Rabbi Yehoshua stated] The Kohanim though have already engaged in the custom of leaving the stomach to the owners.[3]

Whether one slaughters for the purpose of consumption by an אדם – a Jew[4], non-Jews or dogs, or if it was slaughtered to be used to treat illness – in all these cases, the slaughtering[5] renders the gifts obligatory. Animals owned by partners are also obligated, as it says in the verse זובחי הזבח.[6] Kohanim are exempt from [giving] these gifts, as it says in the verse מאת העם. It is a case of Halaĉic doubt if Levi’im are included in the term עם or not, therefore, Kohanim should not take the gifts from them, but if the Kohen did, he should not return it. This applies to cases where the animal is slaughtered for personal use[7]. But, if it was slaughtered to be sold in the market, the Gemara[iii] concludes there that we wait two or three weeks[8]. Thereafter, we forcibly take the gifts and give them to other[9] Kohanim. If a person establishes butchers shop to sell meat, we do not wait but force him to give the gifts immediately. If he refuses to do so, we place him in excommunication until he gives [the gifts to the Kohanim].

An animal from which its gifts have not been made [to the Kohanim] is still permitted to eat from, as it is not similar to the laws of Tevel – since, the gifts to the Kohen are distinguishable[10]. The gifts themselves though are forbidden to be eaten, unless the Kohen grants explicit permission to do so. Rav Ĉisda said[iv] that if one transgressed and ate them, or damaged them, or sold them, he is not obligated to repay since this is a financial act which has no known[11] claimants. We also learnt in the Gemara[v], if one tells the butcher, ‘sell [to me] the innards of this cow’ amongst which were included gifts to the Kohen, he [the buyer] is obligated to give those to the Kohen, and he cannot reduce the price [he agreed to] by the value [of the gift to the Kohen]. If he purchased by weight, then he [still] gives the gift to the Kohen, but he can offset the assigned value [based on the weight of the gift] from the agreed upon price with the butcher. One who sends meat to his friend and included in there was a gift to the Kohen, he need not be concerned[12] that the recipient will violate this Mitzva and steal the gifts. In a place where there is no Kohen, one ‘elevates the gifts to money’ [exchanges them for money] and can then eat them, because [failing to do so will cause financial losses to the Kohanim] and then, he gives the funds to any Kohen.[13] Rava said, one may give all the gifts to a single Kohen, or if he wishes to divide up the gifts, he should not give one a half-stomach or a half a forearm. Rather, he should give one Kohen the entire forearm, and one Kohen the entire maw. The jaw can be divided into two though. [Rava’s reasoning is], as it says in the verse תתן לו, that each recipient should receive enough to be considered a gift. If this was from an ox [which is a large animal], then he can cut it into pieces [so long as each piece is] respectable. The Kohanim only eat these roasted with mustard, as it says in the verse[vi] למשכה – in a way of greatness, in the way kings would eat. The Gemara concludes there that the Kohen should not grab his gifts, nor should he verbalize a request for them. He should only take them if they are given to him honorably. A Koheness [the daughter of a Kohen] may eat of these gifts, even though she is married to a regular Jew[14], because there is no holiness inherent in these at all. We also learnt there that these gifts apply in all places, including outside of the land of Israel, and even not during the time of the Base Hamikdash. And they apply only to mundane animals and not to sanctified animals.

And Rashi explained[vii] since the world over, the custom has been to follow Rabbi Ila’I regarding the first of the shearings’ [see positive Mitzva 143], which only applies to those [shearing’s conducted] in the land of Israel, and we say that he had the same custom also with these gifts, therefore we do not change the custom. It is appropriate[15] to provide a reason for this; that Rabbi Ila’I derived both of these from the concept of נתינה used by Teruma [in our case, where the verse states ונתן לכהן] – just like he establishes that the First Shearing [only applies in the land of Israel], so too he uses the גזירת שוה to apply this rule to these gifts, learned from Teruma to other concepts in the Gemara[viii].

---

[1] Upper and lower arm/leg.

[2] Meaning the verse could have stated its listing without adding the letter ה before each of the items on the list. The addition of the letter ה implies a distinction among items of similar terms.

[3] And therefore, the distinction of what fats are exactly included with the stomach or not are irrelevant, as it is all given as a gift by the Kohanim to the owners.

[4] The SMG uses the term here of לאכילת אדם, which I would normally translate as human consumption. However, he continues within the same listing to include both אכילת גוים and אכילת כלבים – which implies that the SMG is hinting at the famous teaching of אתם קרואים אדם – the Jewish people are given the appellation of אדם, and non-Jews are not.

This phrase though, while popularized by the Zohar, is also found in the Gemara [Yevamos 61a] דתניא, וכן היה רבי שמעון בן יוחי אומר: קברי עובדי כוכבים אינן מטמאין באהל, שנאמר: ‘ואתנה צאני צאן מרעיתי אדם אתם’, אתם קרויין אדם, ואין עובדי כוכבים קרויין אדם. See also Gem. Bava Metzia 114b, where Eliyahu was spotted in a non-Jewish cemetery.

While, as noted, there are examples of this in the Gemara, it is still an extremely unusual phrase. Presumably, he is deliberately quoting the Tosefta Ĉulin 9, which has his exact phrase, word for word. However, since there is no Halaĉic difference in what type of Human consumes the animal, or even if it is for human consumption, I find the SMG’s choice to quote the Tosefta in full somewhat astounding if not deliberately defiant.

This phrase extremely unusual – especially when used in a Mitzva completely divorced from the situations in which the Gemara discusses the concept. The juxtaposition to אכילת גוים leaves no other interpretation other than אדם can only refer to Jews – and considering the time the SMG lived in, with persecution from non-Jewish censors something that was an everyday occurrence, to casually drop in a phrase which a non-Jew could misconstrue as implying that Jews don’t consider them to be human seems highly dangerous and unusual. Especially considering he was an active participant in the Disputation of Paris in 1240 where apostate Nicholas Donin had dragged the leading rabbis of France before the King to defend the Talmud against charges of blasphemy and anti-Gentile racism. Donin’s prosecution leaned heavily on passages that allegedly stripped non-Jews of their humanity. This trial directly resulted in the catastrophic Burning of the Talmud in Paris in 1242.

That this phrase survived censorship of that type, is very unusual.

[5] of an animal owned by a Jew

[6] The verse uses the plural, which includes when partners slaughter an animal.

[7] This calls into question what we said previously that this law applies to animals slaughtered by a non-Jew. If a non-Jew is slaughtering an animal for personal use, then how is a non-Jew obligated in this Mitzva? If he is not slaughtering it for personal use, then why include him in the listing of categories as to when the obligation is in effect?

Think about it.

[8] To see if his customer’s will voluntarily give the gifts to the Kohanim.

[9] This word seems strange. Why “other” Kohanim? Perhaps this comes to counter what might be a claim where the seller claims that his buyers are indeed giving the gifts to the Kohanim, and the fact that these Kohanim don’t know about that, does not mean the Mitzva is not being performed. This though is unacceptable. If he cannot identify and support who is receiving the gifts, then they are expropriated by the courts to ensure he is not making up claims.

[10] Unlike grain, where each grain is basically fungible.

[11] Since no matter which Kohen comes to make the claim, the one who caused the financial loss can state – ‘you are not the Kohen to whom the gift would have been given to.’

[12] Presumably because the gifts are easily recognizable and will not get mixed up with other body parts, so that the recipient can claim ignorance.

[13] I would argue, that in the case where there are no Kohanim, the gift of the maw etc. must also be exchanged for funds. Even though if there would be a Kohen, he would regift that back to the owners, here, there is no Kohen to do so, and therefore, the owner cannot rely on what a Kohen might do as a generosity, and must instead convert that to money as well – which he gives to any Kohen he wishes.

[14] This implies that one may give these gifts to her directly – instead of to a male Kohen. Nor would there seem to be a need to verbalize the requirement that her non-Kohen husband should have no part in this, because the Torah made that clear on its own. Nor can we say that she is eating that which was given to her brother Kohanim or her father, because in that case she is stealing, as she is no longer a part of their household.

This is in fact what Ula himself said in the Gemara, based on the term used in the verse משפט הכהנים. See also Rambam ביכורים 9:18, and Shulĉan Aruĉ Yoreh Daya 61:11.

This term משפט הכהנים is used only this once in Ĉumash. The only other time it is used is during the times of Ayli the Kohen, his sons, who were impious, abused their position as Kohanim, and took that which did not belong to them, as it says in the verse [Shmuel I 2:13] ומשפט הכהנים את העם, כל איש זבח זבח ובא נער הכהן כבשל הבשר והמלג שלש השנים בידו… – and “the Law of the Kohanim” with the nation – any man who slaughtered a sacrifice, the Kohen’s lad would come when they were cooking the meat, with his three-pronged fork in hand. The sons of Ayli abused their position and took what they wanted from the people by coercion or by force.

What is interesting to me is that the prophet uses the same phrase ומשפט הכהנים. Perhaps implying that during that time period, Ula’s derivation had either not been codified or perhaps hadn’t been known, allowing the sons of Ayli license to interpret the verse as they wished – to abuse their power.

And it is Ula who discusses this, the one who did not objectify women. See Gem. Shabbos 13a.

[15] Since a custom cannot develop to uproot a Mitzva from the Torah, there must be a Halaĉic reason why the custom is given any credence.

---

[i] Devarim 18:3

[ii] Gem. Ĉulin 134b

[iii] Gem. Ĉulin 132b

[iv] Gem. Ĉulin 130b

[v] Gem. Ĉulin 132a

[vi] Bamidbar 18:8

[vii] See Rashi הוה נקיט Gem. Shabbos 10b. See also Rashi כרבי אלעי Gem. Ĉulin 136b and Tosefos ולישלח Gem. Shabbos 139a

[viii] See Gem. Ĉulin 136a

---

AMUDAY SHLOMO

The Amuday Shlomo is incomplete, and does not comment on this Mitzva.

---

RASHI

Rashi provides the following commentary on the verse:

• מאת העם – and not from the Kohanim.[i]
• אם שור אם שה – this excludes a wild animal.
• הזרע – from the carpus to the shoulder blade, which is called espalde’on [in old French]
• הלחיים – together with the tongue. Those who taught symbolism would say, [the symbolic nature of these gifts to the Kohanim correspond to[1] the following]
  • זרוע corresponding to the “hand” as in the verse[ii] ויקח רמח בידו.
  • לחיים corresponding to “prayer” as in the verse[iii] ויעמד פנחס ויפלל.
  • והקבה corresponding to the “womb” as in the verse[iv] האשה אל קבתה.

---

[1] Each of these are in remembrance of part of the story of Pinĉas, when he stood up to the prince of the tribe of Shimon, and killed him for having sex with a non-Jewish woman in public. As a result, he personally was granted the status of a Kohen. And those who teach symbolism note that these gifts correspond to verses associated with that action. See Gem. Ĉulin 134b

---

[i] See Gem. Ĉulin 132b

[ii] Bamidbar 25:7

[iii] Tehillim 106:30

[iv] Bamidbar 25:8

---

Discussion by the SMS

There is no indication if these gifts apply only when the slaughtered animal ends up being Kosher or not. What if there was a problem with the lungs, and the animal wasn’t Kosher?

I would argue that since the gift is not limited to consumable materials, e.g., it includes the beards of goats, therefore the gift should apply even when the animal slaughtered is not Kosher.

I do not think we can extend this argument to non-Kosher species though. One might think you could, so long as (as Rashi notes) the animal is domesticated. But the examples given of שור and שה are only Kosher. Furthermore, the verse uses the term זבח which is also used to mean a sacrifice – which is exclusive to Kosher animals.