Komentarz do Powtórzonego Prawa 18:3

מאת העם [AND THIS SHALL BE THE PRIESTS’ DUE] FROM THE PEOPLE — but not from the priest (i.e. if a priest slaughters animals for his own use he is exempt from giving these dues to another priest) (Sifrei Devarim 165:3; cf. Chullin 132b).

AND THIS SHALL BE THE PRIESTS’ DUE FROM THE PEOPLE. This is a new commandment not mentioned in [the preceding books of] the Torah, for, in the wilderness where they did not slaughter oxen or sheep except as peace-offerings, He did not mention it because it does not apply to consecrated animals. Now, as they were about to enter the Land, he declared it to them for the first time. This is the sense of the expression [And this shall be the priests’ due from the people] from them that slaughter the animal. That is to say, when they will slaughter an animal as I have permitted you, [as it is said], then thou mayest slaughter of thy herd and of thy flock as I have commanded thee, and thou mayest eat in thy gates¹³⁸Above, 12:21. [you shall give the priest his due the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw]. He did not allocate this [gift of the shoulder, cheeks, and maw] to Aaron in the section, And the Eternal said unto Aaron¹³⁹Numbers 18:9. [wherein the other priestly gifts are enumerated], although there He assigned the heave-offerings and the first-fruits [despite the fact that they, like the gifts in the verse before us] apply only in the Land. The reason [for mentioning them there] is that there He stated all things that He gave the priests in sacred matters, for even things “devoted” are holy.¹⁴⁰Ibid., Verse 14. See Leviticus 27:28. But the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw, and the first of the fleece¹⁴¹Verse 4. [mentioned here] are completely unconsecrated, since there are no special laws regarding them aside from the commandment of giving them to the priest. Similarly He did not mention there [in the chapter of the priestly gifts] the law of property wrongfully taken from a proselyte [which reverts to the priests¹⁴²Numbers 5:8. if the proselyte died without leaving an heir, and the reason this law is not mentioned in the chapter of the priestly gifts is, as explained concerning the gift in the verse before us, that the reverted property of the proselyte is not sacred].
But according to the interpretation of our Rabbis, all [of the twenty-four priestly gifts] are alluded to there [in the section, And the Eternal said unto Aaron].¹³⁹Numbers 18:9. Thus they have said:¹⁴³Sifre, Korach 117. “The first part of them¹⁴⁴Numbers 18:12. — this refers to the first of the fleece. Which they give¹⁴⁴Numbers 18:12. — this refers to the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw.¹⁴⁵This interpretation is evidently based on the fact [as explained above] that in this particular priestly gift the commandment consists solely in “giving” it, but otherwise no sanctity attaches thereto. Unto the Eternal¹⁴⁴Numbers 18:12. — this refers to the dough-offering.”¹⁴⁶Of the dough-offering it is said, ye shall set apart a portion for a gift ‘unto the Eternal’ (ibid., 15:19). If so, this also is an explanatory commandment [and not a new one].
Based on a Midrash [a homiletic explanation] the Sages have said¹⁴⁷Chullin 134b. [that the shoulder, cheeks, and maw were awarded to the priests in the merit of the deed of Phinehas]: “The shoulder because he took a spear in his hand;¹⁴⁸Numbers 25:7. the two cheeks because of his prayer, as it is said, Then stood up Phinehas and prayed etc.;¹⁴⁹Psalms 106:30. the maw because of what it states, and he thrust both of them through etc. and the woman through her body.”¹⁵⁰Numbers 25:8. Now, [if we are to say that this priestly gift had already been suggested in the section containing G-d’s words to Aaron, which occurred long before the story of Phinehas, we must say] on the basis of this Midrash that the merit that was destined [to be Phinehas’] was alluded to [in that section], and [G-d] rewarded the entire tribe for the merit of Phinehas’ when he [Phinehas] earned the privilege of being a priest with them.
And the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] said in the Moreh Nebuchim¹⁵¹The Guide of the Perplexed III, 39. that the cheeks [are given to the priests] because they are the first part of the body [of the animal], the shoulder is the first of the extremities of the body, and the maw is the first of the inwards, for the first of them all is given to the ministers of the Most High in His honor.

וזה יהיה משפט הכהנים, “and this shall be the allotted share of the priests;” Nachmanides writes that this is a commandment which does not again appear in the Torah. In Parshat Korach (Numbers 18,8-20) where the allotments to the priests are enumerated; what follows now has not been mentioned, as in the desert every animal that had been slaughtered had first been consecrated as an offering. Only after בשר תאוה, meat of a secular character, will be permissible, after settlement in the land of Israel, will gifts from such animals be mandatory even though the animal from which they were taken had never been consecrated. This is the reason that the Torah describes the owners of such non-consecrated animals as זובחי הזבח, “the ones who perform a slaughter.” In other words, whenever Israelites have occasion to slaughter one of their animals, the parts described in this chapter are to be given to one of the priests. In chapter 18 of Numbers the gifts to the priests revolve around the concept of חרם, matters segregated from the community at large on pain of various penalties. This is also why the topic of גזל הגר, restitution of property stolen from a convert who died before he could have left behind natural heirs, is not included in Numbers chapter 18. There is an aggadah in Chulin 134 in which the origin of these gifts is traced to the valiant deed of Pinchas, son of the High Priest Eleazar, and symbolic meaning is attached to each of these animal parts listed here. According to Maimonides the jaw given to the priests symbolizes a portion of the head of the animal’s body, whereas the front leg symbolizes the first limb that is partially detached from the rump. Gifts to the priests always symbolize the “first” or “best” of something.

וזה יהיה משפט הכהנים, “and this is to be “dues” of the priests.” The reason this paragraph follows the previous one is that in that paragraph we have been told already that the Levites have no regular heritage, i.e. that they do not share in the distribution of the land. Now the Torah tells us that the statutes defining the portions of the animals slaughtered and the harvest allocated to the priests are in lieu of the “landed heritage” allocated to the other tribes. Our sages in Chulin 132 interpret the words מאת העם, from the people, as “exclusive of the priests.”

But not from the kohanim. Kohanim are exempt from having to give the gifts from their animals to another kohein. There is an uncertainty whether Levites are included in “the people” and [therefore we apply the rule that] the burden of proof is upon the person who wants to remove something from his fellow. Therefore they are exempt from giving but if people took [these gifts from them], they do not have to return [them].

וזה יהיה משפט הכהנים, The Pidyon Haben procedure: The father recites two blessings, על פדיון הבן and שהחיינו and gives 5 selaim to the priest. The priest pronounces the blessing over the cup of wine, i.e. בורא פרי הגפן when a firstborn is redeemed; he pronounces the blessing over the myrtle branch, בורא עצי בשמים, (during the same ceremony) and he also recites the benediction containing the words אשר קדש עובר במעי אמו ולארבעים יום חלק אבריו מאתים וארבעים ושמונה אברים, ואחר כך נפח בו נשמה שנאמר: ויפח באפיו נשמת חיים (Genesis 2,7) עור ובשר הלבישו ובעצמות וגדים סככו (Job 10,11). וצוה לו מאכל ומשתה דבש וחלב להתענג, וזימן לו שני מלאכים לשמרו בתוך מעי אמו שנאמר (Job 10,12) חיים וחסד עשית עמדי ופקדך שמרה רוחי. [The above version is found on page 330/331 in פדיון הבן כהלכתו based on versions used in the period of the Geonim. Ed.]
The translation of the long benediction is as follows: (after the customary introductory formula) “Who has sanctified the fetus in the womb of his mother, and Who after completion of forty days of pregnancy furnished the fetus with 248 limbs and blew into him a living soul, as per Genesis 2,7 ‘He blew into his nose a living soul, so that man became a living creature.’ He covered the limbs with skin and tendons, as we know from Job 10,11-12, and commanded food for the fetus consisting out of milk and honey for him to enjoy. He arranged for two angels to protect him while within his mother’s womb, something we also know from these verses in Job, Job commending G’d for having watched over his spirit while in his mother’s womb.”
Following these benedictions by the priest, the father of the baby recites the following: “this is my firstborn son, and I have been commanded to redeem him in Exodus 13,13. May it be the will of the Lord our G’d that just as You have given his father the opportunity to redeem him, so you will grant him the opportunity to bring him to the studying of Torah, the marriage canopy, and the performance of good deeds.” He concludes with the benediction “Who sanctifies the firstborn of His people Israel through their being redeemed.” At that point the priest receives the silver coins and places them over the head of the baby, saying: “this in lieu of this, this as an exchange for this; this has been given secular status by means of this. May this one enter into a realm of life of Torah and reverence for Heaven.” The priest then places his hand on top of the baby and recites the well known priestly blessing (Numbers 6,24), followed by a wish for the baby to enjoy long life taken from Proverbs 3,2, as well as other verses in the same vein.

V. 3. וזה יהיה משפט וגו׳ wir haben bereits bemerkt, dass dies nur ein der Priesterschaft im allgemeinen zugesprochenes Recht ist, das aber von keinem Priester gerichtlich geltend gemacht werden kann, אין להוציאן בדיינין, sie sind ממון שאין לו תובעין, es gibt keinen darauf absolut Berechtigten, daher auch keinen Kläger (Chulin daselbst). — הכהנים: auch eine כהנת, eine mit einem Nichtkohen verheiratete Kohentochter bleibt berechtigt (daselbst 131 b; vergl. כהנת ולויה bei בכור; Bamidbar S. 32). מאת העם מאת העם מאת זובחי זבח: ob auch לוים hierunter begriffen sind, ist zweifelhaft (daselbst 131 a). הדין עם הטבח :מאת זובחי זבח, dem שוחט liegt die moralische Verpflichtung auf, die Abgabe der מתנות von dem Verpflichteten an einen כהן zu vermitteln (Chulin 132 b). פרט לטרפה :זבח, das Tier muss zum זבח, zum Mahle tauglich sein. Auf einem sich als טרפה ergebenden Tiere ruht die Abgabepflicht nicht. אם שור אם שה, mit Ausschluss einer חיה.

מאת זובחי הזבח, “from those that offer a sacrifice.” The Torah refers to the priests slaughtering the animal in question. The word זבח is not to be understood literally as the sacrifice, [which is either owned by an individual or is a communal offering. Ed.] The reason that must be so is that the portions of the animal assigned for the priest by the Torah, i.e. a foreleg, the stomach and the jaws, are not animals that have been sanctified as offerings, but are animals that were slaughtered privately, after offering sacrifices on private altars was no longer permitted, and they could be slaughtered only in the town where either the Tabernacle or the Temple stood.

וזה יהיה משפט הכהנים “and this will be the priests’ due;” after denying the priests ancestral land, the Torah proceeds to tell us how the priests were compensated. They receive the foreleg as payment for performing the slaughter;they receive the cheekbones as payment for blessing the people, and they receive the stomach as reward for performing the examinations required to make sure that the animal was not blemished internally. (Talmud, tractate Chulin folio 136)

אם שור אם שה WHETHER IT BE ONE OF THE HERD OR ONE OF THE FLOCK — this excludes an undomesticated beast (חיה).

This excludes wild animals. Otherwise, the verse should have said בהמה (animal) without specifying, and that would have implied everything, whether an ox or a sheep. [And the reason why the verse specifies] Rashi explains [that] if Scripture had written “animal” without specifying, it would have implied a wild animal as well because a חיה (wild animal) is included in the word בהמה (animal). Therefore the verse says, “Whether an ox or a sheep,” [because] “This excludes wild animals.”

הזרוע: die beiden oberen Glieder des Vorderbeins, dem menschlichen Arm entsprechend, daher: לחי ,הלחיים .זרוע von לחה, verwandt mit לאה ,להה, chaldäisch: לעה, angestrengt arbeiten, sich ermüden (vergl. יגע), der das Kauen und Sprechen vermittelnde Unterkiefer, die beiden Unterkieferknochen mit der Zunge. — הקבה, von קוב, verwandt mit יקב (wie טוב und יטב), die Kelter: der Labmagen der Wiederkäuer, in welchem die in einen dünnen Brei verwandelte Nahrung ihre vollendete Verdauung erhält.

זובחי, the plural mode is used here in order to include animals owned by partners.

הזרע THE SHOULDER is the portion from the knee-joint to the shoulder-blade that is called espalte in old French (cf. Rashi on Chullin 134b).

From the carpus to the shoulder blade, espaldon in Old French. And shoivil in German.

והלחיים THE TWO CHEEKS — together with the tongue. — Those who interpret the Bible text symbolically (cf. Chullin 134b) said: The זרוע of the animals, (termed יד in later Hebrew), became the due of the priests as a reward for the “hand’’ (יד) which Phineas, the priest, raised against the wrong-doers, as it is said. (Numbers 25:7) “and he took a javelin in his hand”; the “cheek-bones” together with the tongue are a reward for the prayer he offered, as it is said, (Psalms 106:30) “Then stood up Phineas and prayed”; והקבה AND THE MAW — as a reward for his act described thus (Numbers 25:8): “[And he thrust both of them through, the man of Israel] and the woman in her stomach (קבתה) (Chullin 134b).

Including the tongue. Otherwise, why would the kohein want the bone of the jaw? But certainly it is together with the tongue. Also, it seems to that since the jaw is given as a representation of prayer as Rashi explains, we therefore also give the tongue which is the main organ of speech.

Those expounding Scriptural selections. [I.e.] the meaning of the written verses (Bava Kama 82a).

The foreleg represents the hand, etc. Meaning, the kohanim merited [to receive] the foreleg which represents the hand of Pinchas as it says, “And he took, etc.”