The gift of the foreleg, cheeks and maw () of a kosher-slaughtered animal to a kohen is a positive commandment in the Hebrew Bible. The Shulchan Aruch rules that after the slaughter of animal by a shochet (kosher slaughterer), the shochet is required to separate the cuts of the foreleg, cheek and maw and give them to a kohen freely, without the kohen paying or performing any service.Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 61:1, 61:28
Hebrew Bible The source of the gift to the priest (Hebrew: kohen) is found in Deuteronomy:
Rabbinic interpretation
In rabbinical interpretation this is a positive commandment requiring the shochet (ritual slaughterer) to give the aforementioned parts of a kosher-slaughtered animal to a kohenShulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 61:1 (excluding sacrificial animals such as Korban Olah or the Pascal lamb). This giving is required to be free of both monetary and servicial compensation.Bekhorot 27a
These gifts are entirely mundane ("chullin"), and are not associated with all or part of the sacrificial offerings brought on the central altar in the Jerusalem temple.Mishna Chullin 10:1
The early Rabbinical authorities felt the need to specify the specific animal parts to be given due to confusion in understanding which animal parts the Torah verse refers to (for example which foreleg), and who is required to give them. The earliest extant Midrash on the above quoted text is found in the Sifri to Deuteronomy 18:3 which relays the following detail:
Foreleg: The right foreleg in its entirety (with the skin attached) Cheeks: The lower jaw with attached cheek flesh, tongue included Maw: The abomasum in its entirety
Applicability outside the Land of Israel
Mishnaic and Talmudic view The Mishnah,Mishnah Hullin 10:1 Talmud,Chullin 132b and SifreSifre to Deuteronomy 18:3, concluding as follows: תלמוד לומר אם שור אם שה, בין בארץ בין בחוץ לארץ; for an explanation of the Sifre's logic see Malbim to Sifre to Deuteronomy 18:3 state that the mitzvah applies both in the Land of Israel and in the diaspora. This is because the commandment is an obligation of the body, not of the land."Chovas HaKarka" versus "Chovas HaGuf"; see Rashi to Chullin 115b The Talmud cites cases of penalties being levied against both individual transgressors and entire communities for failure to give these gifts.
Strict views among the Geonim, Rishonim, and Achronim The view of Hai Gaon coincides with the Talmud regarding penalty, urging excommunication on those who do not carry out the commandment.Aguda to Chullin Ch. 152 ___edition/date?
The majority of rishonim ruled the giving of the gifts to be mandatory, though a minority dissented.
According to Maimonides, the giving of the gifts is completely mandatory outside Israel, and one who did not give them is liable for excommunication.Commentary to the Mishna, Chullin chapters 9:1, 10:4; Mishna Torah, Hilchot Bikkurim and Matnot Kehuna chapter 9
Nachmanides opined that any leniency applied to giving of the gifts outside the land would lead to forgetting entirely about the practice. He therefore stated that regardless of whether outside Israel the obligation comes from the Torah or from rabbinic law, the gifts must be given outside the land.Chidushei haRamban to Hullin 136b, text:
The Raavad: "The practice of being lenient does not go well (in my opinion)..one should not act on this unrully (lit. evil) custom of not giving the gifts. Behold, when dealing with gift giving Rabbis are authorized to levy penalties".The responsum is quoted in "Kaftor V'Ferach" and the responsa of Rabbi Yosef Corcous to Rambam Hilcos Bikkurim Chap. 9
The Mordechai wrote was that the gifts are to be given in the Diaspora, he argued against the logic of comparing ("Hekesh") the Gifts to the first-shearing of the Sheep ("Reishis Hagez").Chullin Ch. 736
The Vilna Gaon's shorthand comments on this topic are notably difficult to decipher. According to the commentary of Rabbi Shloma Leventhal of Jerusalem (published 2006),"Salmat Eliyahu" to Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah Ch. 61, Jerusalem 2006 the Vilna Gaon sided with Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg and differentiating between the gifts and Reshit HaGez, making the gifts halachically mandatory. It is also recorded by the Gra's pupils that he actively engaged in giving the gifts.[see here for a firsthand account: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=33900&st=&pgnum=30]
Rashi's responsum Rashi, in a responsum to Rabbi Yehuda the son of Rabbi Machir, attempted to justify the practice of the common folk withholding of the gift. Rashi cited the opinion of Rabbi Ilai I, who (as understood by the TalmudChullin 136a) believed that the commandment of reishit hagez does not apply outside Israel. Rashi then went a step further, saying that the priestly gifts (including foreleg, cheeks, maw) do not apply outside Israel, as the same logic applies to them as to reishit hagez. While the Talmud only mentions that Rabbi Ilai's ruling was accepted in practice (נהוג עלמא) in regard to reishit hagez,Chullin 136b Rashi notes that not only does Rabbi Ilai's logic allow the same leniency for priestly gifts, but the leniency was observed to be commonly practiced (חזינא מה דנהוג) in Rashi's surroundings regarding priestly gifts as well. Rashi notes that this leniency should not be taught even to individuals, but where it is practiced, a rabbi does not need to object to it. Rashi then states that in many communities where Jews dwell there is a complete lack of Kohanim, making the giving of the gifts technically impossible. Rashi concludes with praise of those who are scrupulous in making the effort and give the gifts nonetheless."Sefer Hapardes LeRashi", 118 (page 98 in 1924 edition edited by Chaim Yehudah Ehrenreich)
However, it has recently been established that the opinion cited in the Rashi commentary to Talmud Bavli (tractate Shabbos p. 10b) has been a later addition entered by persons other than Rashi himself.Based on the following reasons; Rashi records in his responsum that instruction to be lenient is not to be advertised, whereas insertion of the text found in Shabbos 10a instructs leniency to all students of the Talmud. The text, beginning from the words ואף על גב, until the words ולא משנינן מנהגא are not found in six original manuscripts of Rashi's commentary: Parma 1324/2087. Vatican no. 138, British Library or. 5975, Paris library no. 324, Beit hamedrash l'rabanim of NY rab. 718 and 84 It has been suggested that Rashi's pupils keyed in the text based on the above noted responsum. Some scholars denounce the insertion as leaving out Rashi's advocacy for giving the gifts as recorded in his responsum.
Meir of Rothenberg's response to Rashi Dealing with the issue of gift giving outside the land of Israel Meir of Rothenburg was by far the most lengthy and detailed of all opining rabbis. By analyzing the issue at supreme depth, and implicitly differing from Rashi's opinion, Meir reasoned that reliance on Rabbi Elai in the Mishnah for leniency or/and invoking a hekesh between reishith haGez and the gifts is invalid.
In Yemenite Jewry Based on the responsa of the leading Yemenite Rabbi, Rabbi Yachya Tzalach it is apparent that the common practice of giving the gifts was adhered to by common Yemenite Jewry, up and well into the nineteenth century:
Mitzvah detail and exemptions
As per the commandment, a slaughtering by an individualexcluding a Kohen, who is not required to give the gifts to another Kohen (if for personal use) -Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah Chap. 61 or a group both require the giving of the gifts.
Based on Talmudic sources, the giving of the gifts by any functioning kosher meat slaughter operation is required in all instances; including partnership (Jew and non-Jew owned) or if owned by a Kohen.Chullin 132b (quoted story concerning Rabbi Tavla), Prisha (quoted below), Rabbeinu Yerucham 20:3 see (in Hebrew): http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20269&st=&pgnum=359
The "marking" requirement The Mishna stipulates that in the event the animal is owned by a non-Jew at Shechita time, the buyer (if Jewish) is required to "mark", without detailing what type of mark or for what purpose this mark is to serve.Mishna Chullin Chap. 9
Maimonides, in explaining the Mishna, writes that the actual gifts are to be marked to differentiate them from the other sections of meat so that they be given to the Kohen (in line with the Maimonides' ruling in Mishneh Torah that a non-Kohen is Halachically forbidden from consuming the actual gifts). Rashi, by contrast, explains the marking requirement as an eye-catching technique visible to all viewers of the meat advertising that the slaughtered animal was non-Jew owned at Shechita time. The intention, explains Rashi, is to preempt the viewer from assuming that the non-Kohen owner of the animal is violating the requirement of giving the gifts.
Rabbinic exemptions and loopholes
Pro-leniency loopholes In the diaspora, due to the value of the actual gifts, leniency was sought in order to alleviate the high consumer end-cost of Kosher beef. The first recorded – and today still most popular – leniency produced involves a non-Jewish ownership or partnership of the animal at the time of slaughter as well as the Shochet commuting to the property of the non-Jew. Thus, at the slaughter time the animal is exempt.as the verse states "from the nation" thereby excluding non-Jews Next, the Jew decides on those portions he would like to purchase. This retroactive acquisition is termed Breira in Rabbinic terms. In this specific loophole the claim stated is ain Breira, i.e. the acquisition is not applied retroactively, hence rendering the animal non-Jew-owned at slaughter time.Raaviah to Chulin ch. 1126. Others opine that Breira is not the cause for leniency but only the fact that a non-Jew functions as a middleman (יד גוי באמצע). Claimants for leniency tout the Tur's concluding statement: "Rashi ruled that actual giving is not done in today's age and so wrote the Maharam of Rothenburg and this is what is acted on".Tur, Yoreh Deah Chap. 61 Claimants also point out the closing statement of the Shulchan Aruch which concludes that in action giving is not done outside the land.Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah Chap. 61 The lineage of a Kohen being called into question, since the issue is monetary: the rule of "on he who seeks to withdraw lies the burden of proof".
Counter-leniency arguments With leniency being common practice from time to time, the basis of inaction of the Mitzvah are called into question with the following counterclaims: The Mishna, when discussing partnering with a non-Jew, uses the single person form ("" as opposed to ""), thereby alluding that the practice is not all that common. Also alluding that mass partnering with a non-Jew with the intent of skirting the mitzvah is entirely not up for Mishnaic debate in terms of the clarity of liability. The Prisha (commentarian to Tur Shulchan Aruch) argues that partnering with a non-Jew with the intent to excuse the obligation of giving the gifts is "" ("trickery") which causes the Kohen to lose out on his rightful due.Prisha to Ch. 61 of Tur Yoreh Deah This claim is lent additional validity by the Ra"n's ruling that if one acquires the gifts from a non-Jew, the acquirer is obligated to give the gifts to the Kohen.Ra"n to Chullin Ch. 9, see also Tosafot ("Shehamatonot") to Chullin 136: for a similar view