The Talmud has been discussing the portions of butchered animals reserved for priests. Thus far, we’ve been assuming that those priests are male. But at the bottom of yesterday’s daf, we learned that:
Ulla would give gifts to a kohenet.
Today, the term kohenet, female priest, usually refers to a woman who has been ordained by the Kohenet Hebrew Priestess Institute, which operated for nearly 20 years in the first quarter of the 21st century. But that is obviously not what Ulla is talking about. In the context of the Talmud’s discussion, it becomes clear that he is actually referring to the daughter of a kohen, what in most other contexts is called a bat kohen.
Ulla’s teaching is weird for a number of reasons beyond word choice. First, in most instances, when the Torah mentions priests, the rabbis interpret this as referring only to men who were eligible to serve in the Temple. Second, the Torah states that daughters of priests lose their priestly status and their access to terumah, priestly gifts, if they get married to or have children with an Israelite (Leviticus 22:12–13). And even if they are married to a priest, then presumably the gifts are going to the priestly household, and not just the woman. Third, Ulla is no feminist. He is perhaps most famous for his dramatic encounter with Yalta, the wife of Rav Nahman, in Berakhot 51a. While eating a meal with Yalta’s husband, Ulla rejects the idea that women can drink from the cup of blessing over which the Grace after Meals is said, and instead insists that women receive that blessing by being the “cups” for their husband. Yalta memorably disagrees and smashes 400 wine barrels to a maker her point. In that story, Ulla does not come across as a feminist icon.
If there is no biblical basis for feeding Jewish women of priestly lineage with these portions, and if Ulla has no feminist agenda, why would he say this? Ulla points to Leviticus 6:7, “And this is the ritual of the grain offering: Aaron’s sons shall present it before God, in front of the altar.” He explains that in these verses about performing sacrifices, Aaron’s sons are specifically mentioned. Ulla concludes that in other biblical texts in which sons are not specified, priestly daughters are also included. Sons are not named explicitly in Deuteronomy 18:3, which lays out the priestly gifts — therefore it must include daughters.
Is this a compelling derivation? The Talmud next explores earlier rabbinic opinions which address this topic.
The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: a priest and not a female priest, and let one derive an unspecified reference from the explicit.
The school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov taught: a priest — a female priest. It is a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression, and a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression — only to amplify.
These two positions are really about which interpretive principle to apply to the case of priestly gifts. Rabbi Yishmael’s school thinks that sincethe Torah sometimes specifies that priests are sons, we should read every mention of priests as referring only to males. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s school disagrees. He notes that Deuteronomy 18:3 mentions priests twice, which his school reads as a double negative. And a double negative is really a positive, so daughters of priests are included in the priestly gifts.
The Talmud concludes its discussion of this question with resounding support for Ulla’s opinion:
Rav Kahana partook on account of his wife. Rav Pappa partook on account of his wife, Rav Yeimar partook on account of his wife and Rav Idi bar Avin partook on account of his wife.
A number of important rabbis agree with Ulla and indeed eat priestly gifts given to their families because their wives are of priestly lineage. Maimonides even rules according to Ulla’s position.
Is this a case of the rabbis ruling in such a way as to benefit them, since now, if they marry the daughter of a priest, they will receive priestly gifts to which they would not otherwise be entitled? Is this another case where the rabbis work to disempower the (male) priests as part of larger leadership struggles in the post-Temple world of late antiquity? Or is this a genuine debate about hermeneutics (the nitty-gritty of textual interpretation)? Honestly, I don’t know. But however we read Ulla’s position and later halakhah, this discussion is a reminder that elements of how we were raised continue to affect our lives whatever happens when we reach adulthood. We shape, and are shaped by, our families in ways that continue to impact our resources, our choices and our relationships with each other.
Read all of Chullin 132 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on September 9, 2026. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
Curious Minds Welcome. Whatever you're wondering about Judaism, My Jewish Learning has an answer, and it's free because readers like you make it so. Give to open more doors for Jewish discovery.
