Igud HaKohanim Historical Record

Meeting with OU Rabbinic Leadership Regarding Zeroa, Lechayayim and Keiva

Applying the Torah commandment of giving the זרוע לחיים וקיבה to the Kohen

About this historical record: The account below was written by Rabbi Peretz Rivkin following the July 31, 2015 meeting and reflects his record of the discussion. It is not an official transcript or statement issued by the Orthodox Union.

The original meeting notes have been preserved substantially as written. Only obvious spelling, punctuation, grammar, capitalization, and formatting have been corrected. Editorial source notes added later by Igud HaKohanim are clearly identified and do not alter the historical meeting account.

Attendees	Rabbi Genack (OU), Rabbi Klarburg (OU), Rabbi Rivkin (Igud HaKohanim)
Location	OU Headquarters — 11 Broadway, New York, NY
Date	15 Menachem Av 5775 / July 31, 2015
Time	11:30 AM
Topic	Applying the mitzvah of giving the זרוע לחיים וקיבה to the Kohen

Igud HaKohanim book on Zeroa, Lechayayim and Keiva — Igud HaKohanim’s 194-page book on the Torah-designated priestly gifts of the foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum.

Original note: These highlights are written according to Rabbi Rivkin’s notes and memory and may not be wholly accurate.

Discussion of the Mechaber

Rabbi Genack researched the Mechaber’s opinion (Yoreh De’ah 61:21) and noticed that the התחייבות in chutz la’aretz is the first opinion quoted, thus indicating that the mitzvah is fully applicable bezman hazeh and in chutz la’aretz. We then discussed the Mechaber’s derech of paskening like שלושת עמודי העולם — the Rif, Rambam, and Rosh — and that this psak is in line with the Rambam and Rif. Rabbi Genack then queried as to the opinion of the Rosh. Upon verifying his opinion in the Gemara Chullin and Kitzur Piskei HaRosh, it became apparent that he too applies this mitzvah in chutz la’aretz.

2026 source note: The underlying source position recorded here is strongly supported. The Mishnah states that the gifts apply בארץ ובחוצה לארץ, בפני הבית ושלא בפני הבית. Rambam expressly rules that the obligation applies in every time and place. Rif preserves the universal rule in his treatment of the chapter, and the Rosh likewise opens his rulings with it. Rabbi Yosef Karo’s own responsum in Avkat Rokhel 10 provides particularly important evidence that his personal source-based conclusion favored separation and delivery of the gifts.

Rabbi Genack then queried Rabbi Klarburg what is done about it. Rabbi Klarburg replied that nothing is done, as the Mechaber states וכן נהגו like the second opinion. Rabbi Genack then stated that the Mechaber in fact opines as per his first opinion. Rabbi Genack then instructed that action be implemented but did not specify a specific course of action.

Historical clarification: The statement that Rabbi Genack instructed that action be implemented is preserved here as Rabbi Rivkin recorded the meeting. It should not be read as an official OU resolution or policy statement unless independently confirmed by OU records or another participant.

Rashi, Shabbat 10b, and the Manuscript Question

Rabbi Rivkin pointed out the discrepancy between Rashi’s responsa and Rashi’s פירוש to Shabbat 10b, with the latter lacking Rashi’s opinion of אורויי לא מורינן (“we do not instruct”) to be lenient in chutz la’aretz. He noted that its arichus does not fit naturally into the flow of the sugya, that it is out of line with Rashi’s usual derech in Gemara as a parshan rather than a posek, and that its more natural place would appear to have been in perek HaZeroa of Maseches Chullin rather than Maseches Shabbat. Rabbi Rivkin further noted that the Rashi manuscripts to Shabbat examined in connection with his research lacked the extended passage entirely.

Rabbi Klarburg entertained the thought that the madpissim may have doctored the Rashi, yet pointed out that the Tur — who lived prior to the first printing of Shabbat — also quotes Rashi as opining that the mitzvah is inapplicable in chutz la’aretz. Rabbi Rivkin pointed out how the Tur also quotes the Maharam of Rothenburg as opining that the mitzvah is inapplicable, whereas the responsa of the Maharam show his adamancy about its applicability and conclude וכל עדת ישראל יעשו אותו.

2026 source note — Rashi manuscripts: The manuscript issue raised at the meeting is genuine and significant. Igud HaKohanim’s book reproduces or identifies multiple manuscript witnesses of Rashi on Shabbat in which the long paragraph found in the standard printed Rashi at Shabbat 10b is absent, including witnesses held by the Jewish Theological Seminary, Bibliothèque nationale de France, British Library, Parma, and the Vatican Library. The academically careful formulation is that the extended passage is absent from the manuscript witnesses examined for the study; this should not be broadened to a claim about every extant manuscript without a complete manuscript census.

2026 source note — “doctored”: The word “doctored” is preserved above because it is part of Rabbi Rivkin’s record of what was discussed at the meeting. Subsequent source examination does not establish deliberate alteration by the early printers. The Tur already attributes the underlying position to Rashi before the age of the Bomberg printed Talmud. The evidence is therefore more consistent with the possibility that material deriving from a Rashi responsum or related Rashi tradition entered one branch of the Shabbat commentary before printing and was later incorporated into the standard printed text.

2026 source note — Rashi’s responsum: Rashi’s independently transmitted responsum is important because it distinguishes between tolerating an established lenient practice and affirmatively instructing that leniency. Its language includes אורויי נמי לא מורינן, whereas the printed Rashi on Shabbat concludes with language protecting the established custom. The responsum is also independently transmitted through medieval sources, strengthening its value as a control text for comparison with the printed commentary.

2026 source note — Maharam: The Maharam material presented in Igud HaKohanim’s book strongly supports the report that Maharam regarded the gifts as applicable outside the Land of Israel. The responsum contains the conclusion דמתנות נוהגות אף בחוצה לארץ and later reports a similar position in the name of Rav Hai Gaon. Beit Yosef was already aware of the apparent tension between the Tur’s presentation and the Maharam material and distinguished between Maharam’s legal position and the lenient practice that had become established.

Rabbi Genack then stated that nonetheless the Rosh and Mechaber clearly pasken that it is applicable, and instructed that the mitzvah begin to be acted upon as relevant to the two slaughterhouses supervised by the OU where the animals belong to Yisroelim.

Historical clarification: The reference to two OU-supervised slaughterhouses is part of Rabbi Rivkin’s historical meeting record. Independent confirmation would require contemporaneous OU documentation, correspondence, meeting notes, or corroboration from another attendee.

Questions Raised but Not Addressed at the Meeting

Ownership of Animals Slaughtered for the Jewish Market

Rabbi Rivkin then brought up the mitzvah’s applicability when slaughtering a goy’s animal when the shochet’s intent is not for the goy’s consumption but for Klal Yisroel, as per the difficulty of applying אין ברירה to be meikel with regards to a מצוות עשה של תורה, more so when doing so on a massive scale with intent to market to the ציבור הרחב — an act which Chazal sought to preempt through תקנת זקני דרום. This issue was not addressed at this meeting.

2026 source note: The sources clearly recognize genuine non-Jewish ownership at the time of slaughter as an exemption. The further argument raised at the meeting — that large-scale commercial slaughter intentionally directed toward the Jewish market may require additional analysis — remains dependent on the exact ownership and contractual structure. תקנת זקני דרום provides an important analogy showing that Chazal were attentive to the commercial use of status-based exemptions, but the Gemara’s direct case concerns a Kohen operating commercially and does not itself decide every case of non-Jewish ownership.

Reshimah

Rabbi Rivkin mentioned the law of reshimah (se’if 25) and the Rambam’s פירוש that this is to be done so the actual foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum stay there with the goy and do not come into the Yisroel’s reshus. This issue was not addressed at this meeting.

2026 source note: This statement is preserved because it forms part of Rabbi Rivkin’s meeting record. The precise Rambam source supporting this particular explanation of reshimah should be cited directly before the proposition is treated as independently verified. The codified sources also indicate an important publicity or identification function for the mark, since in some circumstances the visible presence of the exempt partner removes the need for marking.

Receiving and Consuming the Actual Gifts

Rabbi Rivkin also brought up the mitzvah of Kohanim to consume the actual parts צלי וחרדל (roasted and with mustard), whereas substituting the said parts for money removes this option for all Kohanim. This issue was not replied to at this meeting.

2026 source note: Chazal and the Rishonim discuss receiving and consuming the priestly gifts למשחה, with roasted meat and mustard appearing as the classic expression of distinguished consumption. The historical point above is straightforward: a Kohen who receives only money cannot personally receive and eat those actual Torah-designated portions. At the same time, the sources recognize monetary valuation in particular circumstances, such as when no Kohen is available. That exceptional mechanism should be distinguished from a routine commercial system that replaces physical delivery even where organized delivery to Kohanim is practical.

Authority of an Individual Kohen

Rabbi Rivkin also brought up the חסרון יפוי כח (lack of authority) of any Kohen to “sell” these gifts on behalf of all Kohanim, and that a Kohen chaver — whom the Mechaber in se’if 7 gives precedence in receiving the gifts — would never give up this mitzvah of צלי וחרדל in lieu of money. This issue was not replied to at this meeting.

2026 source note: The underlying agency question remains significant. An individual Kohen is not automatically the authorized representative of every Kohen and cannot simply be assumed to possess power to extinguish the Torah-designated entitlement of the entire class. At the same time, the source literature recognizes particular mechanisms involving designated recipients, acquired rights, agency, and makirei kehuna. Any modern waiver or sale arrangement therefore requires examination of the actual agreement and the legal mechanism it claims to create.

Distribution and למשחה

Rabbi Rivkin pointed out that only when actual gifts are given to the Kohanim can they be מקיים the mitzvah of למשחה as our forefathers did, and thus precedence should be given to those Kohanim who agree to consume the gifts in this manner. And, since the actual disbursement of the gifts to Kohanim chaverim is decided by Beis Din (Gemara Chullin), they should bear this important act in mind when deciding the chalukah.

2026 source note: Chazal recognize communal and judicial roles in regulating the distribution of priestly gifts, alongside the ordinary right and responsibility of the giver to deliver them to an eligible Kohen. The meeting statement is preserved as originally recorded; the more precise source-based conclusion is that Beis Din may play an important role in organized communal distribution rather than that every individual act of distribution must necessarily be adjudicated by Beis Din.

Meeting adjourned

Source Context Added by Igud HaKohanim

The discussion recorded above did not occur in a vacuum. The Torah states:

וְנָתַן לַכֹּהֵן הַזְּרֹעַ וְהַלְּחָיַיִם וְהַקֵּבָה
Devarim 18:3

The Mishnah in Chullin states that the foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum apply בארץ ובחוצה לארץ, בפני הבית ושלא בפני הבית — in the Land and outside the Land, in the presence of the Temple and apart from its immediate service. Rambam expressly codifies the gifts as applying in every time and place. Rif and Rosh preserve the universal rule in their treatment of the chapter. Rabbi Yosef Karo, in addition to placing universal applicability first in Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De’ah 61:21, addresses the matter directly in Avkat Rokhel 10.

At the same time, the classical source record also preserves a significant contrary diaspora practice associated with Rashi and later authorities. The purpose of reproducing this meeting is not to conceal that historical practice but to preserve an important discussion concerning the strength of the primary obligation sources and their practical application.

Igud HaKohanim’s Institutional Position

Igud HaKohanim regards Zeroa, Lechayayim and Keiva as a living Torah obligation and works toward an orderly system in which the actual portions due to the Kohen are separated and delivered to Kohanim.

The Torah assigns the foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum themselves to the Kohen. The responsibility is therefore placed upon the slaughter and meat-distribution system to separate and deliver the portions properly; the Kohen should not have to appear at a slaughterhouse and pursue what the Torah already designates as his due.

Igud HaKohanim distinguishes between exceptional source-recognized valuation procedures and a standing commercial system in which money, waivers, ownership devices, or contractual arrangements routinely replace physical delivery. Where organized delivery to Kohanim is practical, Igud HaKohanim’s institutional position is that the actual portions should be separated and delivered.

Principal Sources Relevant to the Meeting

Devarim 18:3
Mishnah Chullin, Chapter 10
Talmud Bavli, Chullin, Perek HaZeroa
Talmud Bavli, Shabbat 10b
Rif, Chullin, Perek HaZeroa
Rambam, Hilchot Bikkurim u’Matnot Kehuna, Chapter 9
Piskei HaRosh, Chullin, Perek HaZeroa
Tur, Yoreh De’ah 61
Beit Yosef, Yoreh De’ah 61
Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 61
Avkat Rokhel, Responsum 10
Responsa of Rashi concerning the practice outside the Land of Israel
Responsa of Maharam of Rothenburg concerning Zeroa, Lechayayim and Keiva

Research status: Igud HaKohanim continues to preserve and review the source material connected with this subject. Particularly valuable for the historical record are the original 2015 meeting recording or contemporaneous notes, any related OU correspondence, full manuscript citations for the Rashi witnesses, the early Tur manuscript cited in the book, the exact Rambam source underlying the reshimah discussion, and original slaughterhouse or Kohen-waiver agreements relevant to the modern application questions.