Chullin 130

Priests in ancient Israel did not own tribal land and were supported by obligatory “gifts” from the people, including portions of animals they slaughtered. The 10th chapter of Tractate Chullin opens with a mishnah that lists the specific parts of slaughtered animals that are designated for priests. But what if these parts are damaged or accidentally consumed? Surprisingly, Rav Hisda teaches that:

One who causes damage to gifts of the priesthood or who consumes them is exempt from having to pay a substitute to the priest.

Rav Hisda’s teaching is a bit unusual. Normally, when one consumes or damages property belonging to another, one is responsible for compensation. Often, this includes a penalty as well. According to Rav Hisda, however, that does not apply in the case of “food gifts” to the priests.

In the ensuing conversation, the Talmud cites a mishnah from Tractate Pe’ah (5:4) that raises a similar issue:

If a homeowner who was passing from place to place ran out of money while traveling and needed to take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, pe’ah, or the poor man’s tithe in order to sustain himself, he may take them. When he returns to his house, he must pay a poor person for whatever he took — this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And the rabbis say that the homeowner is not required to pay for what he took during his travels, as he was considered poor at that time.

Biblical law instructs farmers to leave behind certain kinds of produce for the poor. In this mishnah, a landowner who is not poor travels out of town and runs out of money. Without ready access to an ATM in this moment of need, he avails himself of the food that is designated for the poor. The question at hand is whether the landowner, who is a person of means, is obligated to pay forward the support that they received. Rabbi Eliezer suggests that, given the fact that they in fact do have resources, they are required to redistribute them to those who do not — in essence, restoring to the poor funds that they received but did not ultimately need. The rabbis disagree: The person was indeed in need when he took advantage of laws that provide for the poor. As a result, there is no need to make restitution after surviving his ordeal.

Generally speaking, the rabbis hold people responsible for paying for what they consume — especially if it rightly belongs to someone else. In the case of pe’ah, Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis disagree about the need for those with means to pay what they have taken in exigent circumstances. 

One might wonder why Rav Hisda lets the person who ate the priest’s food off the hook. The Gemara provides two possible reasons; both are technical.

The first is based on Deuteronomy 18:3, which establishes the obligation to give in the first place. The verse says, “This, then, shall be the priests’ due from the people: Everyone who offers a sacrifice, whether an ox or a sheep, must give the shoulder, the cheeks, and the stomach to the priest.” The rabbis hone in on the word “this” — which they take to mean “this and nothing else.” So if the shoulder, cheek or stomach is eaten by someone else, it cannot be replaced.

The second reason is that the obligation is to give the parts to a priest, but it can be any priest. That means that when the parts are eaten, they do not belong to a particular priest. With no specific claimant, there is no one to whom the person can make restitution.

The Talmud notes that a wealthy person who gleans from a field out of hunger is not legally bound to repay, but is urged to do so out of righteousness. Though the Talmud does not make the leap, this same moral logic could encourage anyone who consumes priestly meat to voluntarily compensate a priest.

Read all of Chullin 130 on Sefaria.

This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on September 7, 2026. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.