English Translation

We conclude that the gift of the foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum is applicable also outside the Land of Israel. We do not follow Rabbi Ilai’s ruling except with regard to Reishit HaGez, and not with regard to the foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum.

Since the Talmud does not state נהוג עלמא (“everyone acts this way”) regarding both the gifts of the foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum and Reishit HaGez — and Rabbi Nachman bar Yitzchak himself, who said נהוג, would penalize the shochet who did not give the gifts — there is no room to say that he was merely being stringent beyond the letter of the law even though he was not required to do so.

Nor is there room to say that there are different places — that some lands outside Israel are obligated to give while others are not — since the Talmud said נהוג, implying a general practice.

Rather, we are pressed to say that regarding Reishit HaGez everyone acts according to Rabbi Ilai, but not regarding the gift of the foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum, as I will explain.

Another proof is that we find many recorded instances in which, in Bavel, they gave the foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum, while we do not find recorded instances in which an Amora gave Reishit HaGez.

Another proof is found in the chapter of שילוח הקן (Chullin 138b): “Anywhere the Mishnah states, ‘both in the Land of Israel and outside the Land of Israel,’ it is unnecessary to mention this, aside from Reishit HaGez,” where it is necessary in order to counter Rabbi Ilai, who says that Reishit HaGez applies only in the Land of Israel.

If so, why did the Talmud not also state, “aside from the foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum,” in order to counter Rabbi Ilai? Moreover, the Talmud should have had an even greater reason to mention the foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum, since the chapter discussing the laws of Zeroa, Lechayayim and Keiva — chapter 10 — precedes the chapter of Reishit HaGez — chapter 11.

And since in the chapter of HaZeroa we are taught “in the Land of Israel and outside the Land of Israel” in order to oppose the opinion of Rabbi Ilai, then the Tanna seemingly repeated unnecessarily “in the Land of Israel and outside the Land of Israel” in the chapter of Reishit HaGez, since from the chapter of HaZeroa we already heard the opposition to Rabbi Ilai. Both are rooted in the same reasoning, and one who agrees with him should seemingly agree in both places, while one who disagrees with him should disagree in both places.

Or, say instead: anywhere that we learn in the Mishnah “in the Land of Israel and outside the Land of Israel” is unnecessary, aside from the giving of the foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum and Reishit HaGez, in order to oppose the opinion of Rabbi Ilai in both instances.

Rather, we are pressed to say that “in the Land of Israel and outside the Land of Israel,” which we find in the chapter of HaZeroa, is considered by the Talmud to be unnecessary because it is obvious that the halacha does not follow Rabbi Ilai there, and there is no one who agrees with him, since his reasoning is not accepted. But regarding Reishit HaGez it is necessary, since his reasoning is sound and we agree with him regarding it, although the Tanna of our Mishnah did not agree with him.

And the reason? It appears to me that regarding Reishit HaGez we agree with him because there is a comparison joining Terumah and Reishit HaGez, and the same term, נתינה, is written by the Torah regarding both of them.

And when it is said that we learn (יליף) “netinah” from “netinah,” this is not necessarily a full Gezeirah Shavah, but rather a derivation teaching that the giving of Reishit HaGez should be like that of Terumah, since the same term is shared by both. Thus, just as Terumah is not applicable outside the Land of Israel, so too Reishit HaGez.

Or likewise, from another angle, there may be a full Gezeirah Shavah using the term “netinah” — “netinah” — from Terumah, since here it is written תתן and regarding Challah it is written תתנו, the terms being sufficiently similar to one another. But regarding the foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum the Torah uses the term ונתן, which is different from both the תתן of Reishit HaGez and the תתנו of Challah.

And we do not compare the term ונתן found regarding the foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum to לך נתתים למשחה found in Parashat Korach — although it is written there near אך בכור שור, and we do learn laws regarding the foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum from there: just as Bechor applies outside the Land of Israel, so too the foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum.

Thus, we are pressed to connect the foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum with לך נתתים למשחה, since if you would not say so, from where does Rabbi Yochanan derive that the Kohen should eat the foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum roasted and with mustard? Is it from the term למשחה? Parashat Korach does not explicitly mention the gifts of the foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum.

So, likewise, from this reasoning we learn the giving of the foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum outside the Land of Israel from the laws of Bechor, as I have explained.

And even though we could entertain the notion of exempting the mitzvah of giving the foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum to a Kohen outside Israel from נתתי לך (Bamidbar 18:8) — just as Terumah is not given outside the Land of Israel, so too the foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum — this does not hold. For ונתן and נתינה are comparable to נתתים, yet not entirely comparable to one side or entirely comparable to the other. In any event, where there is a question whether to follow the lenient or stringent comparison of similar terms, we compare them in accordance with the stringent view.

And another great proof: in the chapter of Reishit HaGez (Chullin 136a) it is asked: “If so, just as with Terumah, should the foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum apply only in the Land of Israel?” And it is replied: “Yes, for we have learned: Rabbi Ilai says, ‘The foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum are not practiced outside the Land of Israel.’ And so would Rabbi Ilai say that Reishit HaGez is practiced only in the Land of Israel. What is Rabbi Ilai’s reason? He derives נתינה from Terumah — just as with Terumah… so too Reishit HaGez.”

Now, this is quite difficult to me: he opened his statement discussing the foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum, but gives his reasoning with regard to Reishit HaGez.

According to my explanation, it all fits well. We do not agree with Rabbi Ilai regarding his comparison of the foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum, but only with his ruling concerning Reishit HaGez itself. Thus, Rava was not concerned with explaining Rabbi Ilai’s reasoning regarding the foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum, but only his reasoning regarding Reishit HaGez, because that is the point upon which we agree with him — namely, that Reishit HaGez is compared with Terumah.

Moreover, there is room to bring proof from the work of the Alfasi. He explained this matter at length, yet omitted the chapter of Reishit HaGez. And this is the method of the Alfasi: to write only that from which a practical ruling emerges and to omit that from which no ruling emerges.

We thus see that he agrees that the foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum are practiced nowadays, but not Reishit HaGez.

And everyone should separate them and be cautious regarding them because of the curse of Rabbi Chisda, who said: “That Kohen-shochet who does not give the foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum should be excommunicated from י״י אלהי ישראל” — and all the more so a Yisroel shochet who does not give the gifts.

For the foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum are practiced outside the Land of Israel, and the entire congregation of Israel shall do it.
וכל עדת ישראל יעשו אותו

Related Sources

• Devarim 18:3 — the Torah commandment to give the foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum to the Kohen.
• Chullin 136a — Rabbi Ilai, Terumah, Reishit HaGez, and the priestly gifts.
• Chullin 138b — the Mishnah’s formulation concerning applicability in the Land of Israel and outside it.