7. 1. The law of The sinew of the hip 3 is binding both in the Land [of Israel] and outside the Land, both during the time of the Temple and after the time of the Temple; both for unconsecrated beasts and for animal- offerings; moreover it applies to cattle and to wild animals, to the right thigh or to the left. But it does not apply to birds since they have no hollow [of the thigh]. It applies also to a foetus. R. Judah says: It does not apply to a foetus. The fat thereof4 is permitted; and butchers are not accounted trustworthy5 in what concerns the sinew of the hip. So R. Meir. But the Sages say: They are accounted trustworthy in what concerns both the sinew and the fat.
2. One may send to a gentile the thigh wherein is the sinew of the hip, since its place is known. If a man removes the sinew of the hip he must remove all of it. R. Judah says: [Only enough] to fulfil the command to remove it.
3. If a man ate an olive’s bulk of the sinew of the hip he incurs the Forty Stripes. If he ate it and it was less than an olive’s bulk he is still culpable. If he ate an olive’s bulk from the one thigh and an olive’s bulk from the other he incurs eighty stripes. R. Judah says: He incurs forty only.
4. If a thigh was cooked together with the sinew of the hip and there was enough of it to give its flavour, it is forbidden. How should it be measured As though it was flesh [cooked] with turnips.6 5. If the sinew of the hip was cooked together with other sinews and it was recognizable [it must be removed and] the rest are forbidden if there was enough of it to give its flavour, but if [the sinew of the hip was] not [recog¬ nizable] all are forbidden, and the broth [is forbidden only] if [the sinew] leaves its flavour. So, too, with a piece of carrion flesh; so, too, with a piece of unclean fish that is cooked together with other pieces; if it was recog¬ nizable [it must be removed and] the rest are forbidden if there was enough of it to give its flavour; but if [it was] not [recognizable] all are forbidden, 3 Gen. 32”. * Of the foetus.
s To have removed it, since this adds to their labour.
6 The sinew renders the rest forbidden if it is of such bulk in proportion to the rest that if it were flesh and the rest turnips the turnips would be flavoured by the flesh. This bulk is estimated at one-sixtieth.
524 FIFTH DIVISION: KODASHIM and the broth [is forbidden only] if [the piece of carrion or unclean fish] leaves its flavour.
6. [The law of the sinew of the hip] applies to clean beasts and not to un¬ clean. R. Judah says: To unclean also. R. Judah said: Was not the sinew of the hip forbidden from the time of the sons of Jacob when unclean beasts were still permitted to them? They answered: It was enjoined from mount Sinai, but written down its its [present] place.
8. i. No flesh may be cooked in milk1 excepting the flesh of fish and locusts; and no flesh may be served up on the table together with cheese excepting the flesh of fish and locusts. If a man vowed to abstain from flesh, he is permitted the flesh of fish and locusts. A fowl2 may be served up on the table together with cheese, but it may not be eaten with it. So the School of Shammai. And the School of Hillel say: It may neither be served up with it nor eaten with it. R. Jose said: This is one of the cases where the School of Shammai followed the more lenient and the School of Hillel the more stringent ruling. Of what manner of table did they speak? Of a table whereat men eat; but on a table whereon the food is arrayed a man may put the one beside the other without scruple.
2. A man may tie up flesh and cheese in the same cloth provided that they do not touch one another. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: Two passing guests3 may eat at the same table, the one flesh and the other cheese, without scruple.
3. If a drop of milk fell upon a piece [of flesh that was cooking in a pot] and there was enough to give its flavour to that piece, [that piece] is for¬ bidden. If a man stirred the pot and there was enough to give the flavour [of the milk] to [all that was in] the pot, it is forbidden. A man should cut open the udder and empty out its milk; but if he has not cut it open he has not transgressed the law. He should cut open the heart and empty out its blood; but if he has not cut it open he has not transgressed the law. If a man served up a fowl and cheese on the table together, he does not trans¬ gress the negative command.
4. It is forbidden to cook or to benefit at all from the flesh of a clean beast together with the milk of a clean beast; but it is permitted to cook or to benefit from the flesh of a clean beast together with the milk of an unclean beast, or the flesh of an unclean beast together with the milk of a clean beast. R. Akiba says: Wild animals and birds are not [included in the pro¬ hibition] according to the Law, for three times4 it is written, Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk, thereby excluding, in particular, wild animals and birds and unclean beasts. R. Jose the Galilean says: It is written, Ye shall not eat of anything that dieth of itself f and [in the same verse] it is also written, Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk; [therefore] whatso¬ ever is forbidden under the law of anything that dieth of itself, it is forbidden to seethe the same in milk. It might be inferred that a bird, which also is forbidden under the law of carrion, is forbidden to be seethed in milk; but Scripture says, In its mother's milk; thus a bird is excluded since it has no mother's milk.
5. [The milk in] the stomach of [a beast that was slaughtered by] a gentile 1 To avoid the possibility of transgressing the thrice repeated law (Ex. 2313; 34-''; Deut. 1421) against seething a kid in its mother’s milk.
2 Eduy. 52, 3 Strangers to one another.
or [in the stomach of] carrion is forbidden. If a man curdled [milk] with the skin of the stomach of a validly slaughtered beast, and there was enough to give its flavour, it is forbidden. [The milk in] the stomach of a valid beast which it had sucked from a terefah beast is forbidden. [The milk in] the stomach of a terefah beast which it had sucked from a valid beast is permitted, since it is absorbed in its intestines.
6. Sometimes greater stringency applies to fat than to blood; and some¬ times greater stringency applies to blood than to fat. Greater stringency applies to fat since it is subject to the law of Sacrilege,1 and since by reason of it a man may become culpable through [transgression of the laws of] Refuse, Remnant, and uncleanness;2 but it is not so with blood. And greater stringency applies to blood, since the [law forbidding] blood3 applies to cattle, wild animals, and birds, whether unclean or clean; but the [law for¬ bidding] fat4 applies to clean cattle alone.
9. 1. The hide, grease, sediment, flayed -off flesh, bones and sinews, horns and hoofs5 are included together [to make up the quantity that suffices] to convey food-uncleanness, but not [to make up the quantity that suffices to convey] carrion-uncleanness. In like manner, if a man slaughtered an unclean beast for a gentile and it still jerks [its limbs], it can convey food- uncleanness6 but it only conveys carrion-uncleanness after it is dead or has its head chopped off.7 [Scripture] has prescribed more conditions that convey food-uncleanness than that convey carrion-uncleanness. R. Judah says: If sufficient pieces of flayed-off flesh were collected together to make up an olive’s bulk, one may thereby become culpable.8 * 2. With these [that follow], their skin’ is deemed one with their flesh10 [in what concerns uncleanness]: the skin of a man, the skin of the domestic pig (R. Jose says: The skin also of a wild pig), the skin of the hump of a young camel, the skin of the head of a young calf, the skin of the hooves, 1 1 the skin of the genitals, the skin of a foetus, the skin beneath the fat tail, and the skin of the gecko, the chameleon, the lizard, and the land -crocodile. R. Judah says: The lizard is accounted like to the weasel. But when their hides have been treated or trampled upon to render them fit for use they become clean, save only the skin of a man. R. Johanan b. Nuri says: The skin of the eight creeping things1 2 is deemed to be skin [and not one with their flesh].
3. Such time as a man flays cattle or wild animals, clean or unclean, small or large, the skin still counts as a connective [with the carcase] in what concerns uncleanness, so that it can contract uncleanness and convey un¬ cleanness; [this applies if the hide was being flayed] for a covering, [so long as there remains still unsevered] enough to preserve a hold [on the carcase]; [and if it was being flayed] for a water-skin, until the breast has been flayed; or, if it was being flayed from the feet upwards, until the whole hide [is 5 Zeb. 34; Toh. i*. Flesh and edible portions that adhere to or are contained in any of these can be included with other flesh to make up a total of an egg’s bulk which, if the flesh is unclean, can convey uncleanness to the eater, or to make up the total of an olive’s bulk which, if the flesh is carrion, conveys uncleanness to him who touches or carries it.
*> If it was touched by anything unclean.
7 When it becomes carrion. Lev. 11**.
s If he touched them and they were unclean and he entered the Temple. The Cambridge text reads ’none may thereby become liable’. * Through its being soft and thin.
10 And the skin is susceptible to uncleanness even after being severed from the flesh.
11 The skin of the last joint that remains after the beast is flayed.
526 FIFTH DIVISION. KODASHIM severed]. The skin that is on the neck, according to R. Johanan b. Nuri, does not count as a connective [with the hide that is already flayed];1 but the Sages say: It counts as a connective until the whole hide is flayed.
4. If there remained an olive’s bulk of flesh2 on the hide and a man touched a shred of it3 that jutted forth, or a hair on the opposite side, he becomes unclean. If there were two [separate] half-olives’ bulk of flesh on it, they convey uncleanness by carrying but not by contact.4 So R. Ishmael. R. Akiba says: Neither by contact nor by carrying. But R. Akiba agrees that if there were two pieces each of a half-olive’s bulk, and a man thrust through them both with a chip and shifted them, he becomes unclean. Why does R. Akiba declare him clean who only touches the hide? Because [they are reckoned as part of the hide and] the hide renders them negligible [in their scantness].
5. If a man touched a marrow-bone from a corpse, or a marrow-bone of an animal-offering, whether it was stopped up or hollowed out, he becomes unclean. If he touched a marrow-bone of a carcase or of a creeping thing, if it was stopped up he remains clean; but if it was at all hollowed out it conveys uncleanness by contact. Whence do we learn that [it conveys un-, cleanness] also by carrying? Scripture says: He that toucheths and He also\ that beareth;b what comes within the scope of uncleanness by contact comes also within the scope of uncleanness by carrying; and what does not come within the scope of uncleanness by contact does not come within the scope of uncleanness by carrying.
6. The egg of a creeping thing in which the young is already fashioned is clean. If it is at all pierced it is unclean. If a man touched the flesh in a mouse7 (which is half flesh and half earth) he becomes unclean; but if he touched the earth, he remains clean. R. Judah says: Also if he touched the earth that is over against the flesh he becomes unclean.
7. If on a beast a member8 or any flesh hangs loose,9 they are susceptible to food-uncleanness while they continue in their place,10 but they need" to i be rendered susceptible to uncleanness by a liquid. 12 If the beast was slaughtered they are rendered susceptible through the blood. So R. Meir. R. Simeon says: They are not rendered susceptible. If the beast died of itself the flesh must [first] be rendered susceptible to uncleanness by a liquid; the member conveys uncleanness by virtue of being a member [severed] from the living creature: it does not convey uncleanness by virtue of being carrion. So R. Meir. But R. Simeon declares it clean [in both respects].
8. If a member or any flesh hangs loose on a man, they are clean. If the man died the flesh is clean; the member conveys uncleanness by virtue of being a member from a living creature: it does not convey uncleanness by virtue of being a member of a corpse. 13 So R. Meir. But R. Simeon declares it clean [in both respects].
I And to which it is still attached. 2 Torn off with the hide, and in one place.
J The flesh (Rashi, Bert., Tif. Yis); or the hide (Maim.).
♦ Since in carrying, a whole olive’s bulk at a time is carried; but in touching, only half an olive’s bulk at a time is touched. s Lev. n”. 6 Lev. ii".
7 A kind of mouse that is generated from the earth itself.
8 With its bone, flesh, and sinews. * Broken or cut but not wholly severed.
10 Whereas, if wholly severed, they would convey carrion-uncleanness.
11 Cambridge text: ‘they do not need*.
II See Maksh. 6*; Lev. tt“. 15 Cf. Eduy. 6’.
10. i. The law of the shoulder and the two cheeks and the maw1 is binding both in the Land [of Israel] and outside the Land, both during the time of the Temple and after the time of the Temple; it applies to unconsecrated beasts but not to animal-offerings. It might have been argued: If unconse¬ crated beasts (which are not subject to the law of the breast and the thigh)2 are subject to these [other three] dues, must we not therefore conclude that animal-offerings (which are subject to the law of the breast and the thigh) are subject also to these [other three] dues? But Scripture says, And I have given them unto Aaron the priest and unto his sons as a due for ever;3 only what is there prescribed pertains to him.
2. All animal-offerings4 which before they were dedicated suffered a lasting blemish and have been redeemed are subject to the law of the First¬ ling5 and [Priests’] Dues,6 and like unconsecrated beasts they can be shorn and used for labour, and their young and their milk are permitted for use after they have been redeemed; and he that slaughters them outside [the Temple Court] is not culpable, and the Law of the Substitute7 does not apply to them, and if they died of themselves they may be redeemed, save only a Firstling and Tithe [of Cattle].8 All [animal-offerings] which after they were dedicated suffered a blemish, or which suffered only a passing blemish before they were dedicated, and there afterward arose in them a lasting blemish, and they were redeemed — they are not subject to the law of the Firstling and [Priests'] Dues, and they may not, like unconsecrated beasts, be shorn or used for labour, and their young and their milk are for¬ bidden even after they have been redeemed; and he that slaughters them outside [the Temple Court] is culpable; the law of the Substitute applies to them, and if they die of themselves they must be buried.
3. If a Firstling9 was confused among a hundred [other beasts] and a hundred [and one] persons slaughtered them all, they are all exempt10 [from Priests’ Dues]; if one person slaughtered them all, he is exempt [from Priests’ Dues] for one beast alone. If a man slaughtered a beast for a priest or a gentile, he is exempt from Priests’ Dues; and if he was a jointholder with them this must be shown by some token. If he had said,11 ‘Apart from the [Priests’] Dues’, he is exempt from giving the Dues.12 If a man said: ‘Sell me the entrails of a cow’, and among them were Priests’ Dues,13 he must give them to the priest, and he may take naught off the price. But if he bought them from him by weight, he must give the Priests’ Dues to a priest and he14 must take it off the price.
4. If a proselyte had a cow and it was slaughtered before he became a proselyte, he is exempt; if it was slaughtered afterward, he is liable; if the 1 Deut. 1 8’. Whoever slaughters an ox or a sheep must give these portions as the Priests' Dues.
2 Which (Lev. 7*1) are taken from the Peace-offerings and given to the priests.
5 If they bear a male firstling (Num. iS1*"1*) this belongs to the priest.
6 When, after being redeemed, they are slaughtered as common food, the priest must be given ‘the shoulder and the two cheeks and the maw’.
9 Which had, according to the Law, been given to the priest, but, having a blemish, was found unfit to be offered and consumed by the priest, and was therefore sold by him.
10 Since any one of the owners can allege that what he had slaughtered was the Firstling, which was exempt from Priests’ Dues.
1 1 A priest or gentile when he sold the beast to an Israelite.
*2 Since they nad not become the property of the Israelite who bought the beast.
13 e.g. the maw, and, if, as was customary, the head was included with the entrails, the two cheeks also. >4 The seller.
FIFTH DIVISION: KODASHIM matter is in doubt, he is exempt, for on him that would exact aught from his fellow lies the burden of proof.1 What counts as ‘the shoulder’? From the bend of the knee to the shoulder-socket of the fore-leg; such, too, is ‘the shoulder’ that is prescribed for the Nazirite.2 And the corresponding part of the hind-leg is called ‘the thigh’. R. Judah says: By ‘the thigh’ is meant from the bend of the knee to the fleshy part of the hind-leg. What counts as ‘the cheek’? From the bend of the jaw to the knob of the windpipe.3 11. 1. [The law of] the first of the fleece* is binding both in the Land [of Israel] and outside the Land, both during the time of the Temple and after the time of the Temple, for unconsecrated beasts but not for animal- offerings. Greater stringency applies to the law of the shoulder and the two cheeks and the maw, than to the law of the first of the fleece, since the law of the shoulder and the two cheeks and the maw applies to herds and flocks, whether many or few, but the law of the first of the fleece applies only to sheep, and only when they are many.
2. And how many [must they be]? The School of Shammai say: Two sheep; for it is written, A man shall nourish a young cow and two sheep. 5 And the School of Hillel say: Five; for it is written, And five sheep ready dressed.6 R. Dosa b. Harkinas says:7 Five sheep that have fleeces each of a mina 8 and a half are subject to the law of the first of the fleece. But the Sages say: Five sheep, however much may be their fleeces. And how much must a man give him?9 Five selas' weight in Judea (which is ten selas in Galilee),10 bleached and not in dirty state, enough to make therefrom a small garment, as it is written, Thou shalt give to him;11 there shall be in it enough to count as ‘a gift’. If a man could not give it before he dyed it, he is exempt from the I obligation; if he had bleached it but not dyed it he is liable. If a man bought the fleeces of the sheep of a gentile he is exempt from the law of the first of the fleece. If he bought the fleeces of his fellow’s sheep and the seller kept back aught of the fleece, the seller is liable; otherwise the buyer is liable. If he had two kinds, dark and white, and he sold him the dark but not the white, or [if he sold him the fleeces] of the males but not of the females, each must give [the first of the fleece] for himself.
12. 1. [The law to] let [ the dam] go from the nest12 is binding both in the Land [of Israel] and outside the Land, both during the time of the Temple and after the time of the Temple, for unconsecrated birds but not for Bird- offerings. Greater stringency applies to the law to cover up the blood than to the law to let [the dam ] go from the nest; for the law to cover up the blood applies both to wild animals and to birds, whether captive or not captive; but the law to let [the dam] go from the nest applies only to birds and only to them that are not captive. Which are they that are not captive? The like of geese and fowls that make their nests in a plantation; but if they made their nests within a house (so, too, Herodian doves)13 the law to let [the dam] go does not apply.
2. The law to let [the dam] go does not apply to an unclean bird. If an un¬ clean bird sat on the eggs of a clean bird, or a clean bird on the eggs of an ® Explained as: How much, when there are many priests, must the owner of the sheep give to each of the priests?
unclean bird, the law to let [ the dam ] go does not apply- With a cock partridge1 R. Eliezer declares the law binding, but the Sages declare it not binding.
3. If the dam hovered over the nest and her wings touched the nest a man must let her go; if they do not touch the nest he is not bound to let her go. If there was there but one nestling or one egg, one is bound to let [the dam ] go; for it is written, a bird’s nest'd any manner of bird’s nest. If there were nestlings there able to fly, or spoilt eggs, one is not bound to let [ the dam] go, for it is written, And the dam sitting upon the young or upon the eggs; as the nestlings are such that are like to live, so the eggs must be such that are like to live; thus eggs that are spoilt are excluded. And as the eggs are such that need their dam, so the nestlings must be such that need their dam; thus such that can fly are excluded. If a man let the dam go and she returned and he again let her go and she returned, even four or five times, the law' is still binding, for it is written. Thou shalt in any wise3 let the dam go. If a man had said, ‘I will take the dam and let the young go’, he must still let [her] go, for it is written, Thou shalt in anywise let the dam go. If he took the young and then restored them to the nest, and afterward the dam returned to them, he is exempt from the law to let [the dam] go.
4. If4 a man took the dam and her young, R. Judah says: He incurs the [Forty] Stripes; and he need not [then] let the dam go. But the Sages say: He must let the dam go, and he does not incur the [Forty] Stripes. This is the general rule: [By transgression of] any negative command whereunto is joined a further command to rise up and do, a man does not incur the [Forty] Stripes.
5. A man may not take the dam and her young even for the sake of cleansing the leper.5 If then of so light a precept concerning what is worth but an issor* the Law has said that it may be well with thee and that thou mayest prolong thy days,1 how much more [shall the like reward be given] for [the fulfilment of] the weightier precepts of the Law!
1. 1. If a man bought of a gentile the unborn young of his ass or sold the like to him (though this is forbidden),9 or if he was a jointholder with him, or if he had received [asses] from him or delivered [asses] to him [to rear and to share with him in the increase], he is exempt from the law of Firstlings, for it is written, [All the firstborn] in Israel;10 but not the firstborn pertaining toothers. Priests and levites are exempt” [by reason of the inference] from the less to the greater: If in the wilderness the [firstborn of] Israelites were exempt [by reason of the levites],12 how much more must their own [first¬ born] be exempt!
2. If a cow bore young that was like to an ass, or if an ass bore young that 1 Jer. 1711 is, literally, ‘as the partridge sitteth on an egg which he hath not laid’.
8 See Ex. 13*. ‘Sanctify unto me all the firstborn...both of man and beast; it is mine’. See also 13**, ‘All that openeth the womb...the males shall be the Lord’s’. Cf. Ex. 22”' *•; 341*"** (‘the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb’), Num. 181*"1*; Deut. is1*'”. “ Pes. 4*; A. Zar. 1*. >® Num. 3**.
II From the redemption of firstborn sons. See below, 2’.
J.M9 530 FIFTH DIVISION: KODASHIM was like to a horse, it is exempt from the law of Firstlings, for twice is it written, The firstling of an ass,1 The firstling of an ass,z [therefore the law of the Firstling applies] only if the mother is an ass and if what is bom is an ass. How does this apply in what concerns [forbidden] food? If a clean beast bore young that was like to an unclean beast it is permitted for food; but if an unclean beast bore young that was like to a clean beast it is for¬ bidden for food, for what issues from an unclean beast is unclean, and what issues from a clean beast is clean. If an unclean fish swallowed a clean fish3 this is permitted for food; but if a clean fish swallowed an unclean fish this is forbidden for food, since it was not bred from the other.
3. If an ass that had not before borne young bore two males [and it was not known which was the Firstling], [the owner] need give but one lamb to the priest; if it bore a male and a female, he must set apart a lamb for him¬ self;4 if two asses that had not before borne young bore two males, [the owner] must give two larnbs to the priest; if they bore a male and a female, or two males and a female, he need give but one lamb to the priest; but if two females and a male, or two males and two females, the priest can claim nothing.
4. If there was one which had not and another which had before borne young, and they bore two males,5 [the owner] must give one lamb to the priest; if they bore a male and a female he must set apart one lamb for him¬ self. For6 it is written, And every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamby [it may be] from the sheep or from the goats, male or female, large or small, unblemished or blemished. With it8 he may redeem more Firstlings; it may enter into the pen to be tithed;9 but if it dies10 [only the priests] may derive benefit therefrom.