from your burden [mitunakh], i.e., from that which you raise your objection, I can cite a proof for my practice: With regard to the meal offering of a priest, both Aaron and his sons are written in the passage discussing this offering: ''And this is the law of the meal offering: The sons of Aaron shall offer it before the Lord, in front of the altar'' (Leviticus 6:7). The verse emphasizes that these halakhot apply only to male priests and not to their daughters. This indicates that when the verse refers merely to priests, even their daughters are included. Accordingly, one may give gifts of the priesthood to the daughter of a priest.

The Gemara cites the opinions of various tanna’im with regard to the practice of Ulla: The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Anywhere that the Torah mentions a priest with regard to gifts of the priesthood, it is referring specifically to a priest and not a female priest, and let one derive the meaning of an unspecified reference to a priest from the explicit verse that states with regard to meal offerings: ''Aaron and his sons.'' This verse indicates that any reference to a priest excludes a priest’s daughter.

The school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov taught: In general, the reference to a priest in a verse serves to exclude a priest’s daughter. But when the verse mentions a priest with regard to gifts of the priesthood, it means to include even a female priest. This is because the verse mentions priests twice: ''And this shall be the priests’ due from the people, from them that perform a slaughter, whether it be ox or sheep, that they shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw'' (Deuteronomy 18:3). Since each reference to a priest excludes the daughter of a priest, this verse is a case of a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression, and there is a hermeneutical principle that a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression serves only to amplify the halakha and include additional cases, in this instance, the daughter of a priest.

The Gemara relates that Rav Kahana, who was an Israelite, partook of gifts of the priesthood on account of his wife, who was the daughter of a priest. Similarly, Rav Pappa partook of gifts of the priesthood on account of his wife, Rav Yeimar partook of gifts on account of his wife, and Rav Idi bar Avin partook of them on account of his wife.

Ravina said: Mareimar said to me that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav that it is uncertain whether or not Levites are obligated to give the gifts of the priesthood, and consequently, gifts are not removed from their possession to be given to the priests. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥisda that one who damages or consumes gifts of the priesthood is exempt from payment. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ulla that gifts of the priesthood may be given to the daughter of a priest.

And in a case not previously discussed but related to the opinion of Ulla, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Adda bar Ahava with regard to a female Levite, i.e., the daughter of a Levite, who gave birth to a firstborn boy, even if she is married to an Israelite, that her son is exempt from the obligation to give five sela to the priest for his redemption, as the child is considered the son of a Levite, and Levites are exempt from this obligation.

§ The Gemara cites a dispute with regard to the gifts of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw. The Sages taught in a baraita: The obligation to give the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw applies even to a hybrid animal and to the animal known as a koy. Rabbi Eliezer says: A hybrid that results from the mating of a goat and a ewe is obligated to have gifts of the priesthood given from it, while a hybrid that results from the mating of a goat and a doe is exempt from having gifts of the priesthood given from it. This is because the verse states with regard to gifts of the priesthood: ''Whether it be an ox or sheep'' (Deuteronomy 18:3), i.e., a domesticated animal, and a doe is not a domesticated animal.

The Gemara asks: Now, we maintain (see 79b–80a) with regard to the mitzvot of covering the blood and giving the gifts of the priesthood that you do not find that Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree except in the case of an animal born from a deer that mates with a female goat. And both Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis are uncertain whether one needs to be concerned with its paternity when determining the species of a hybrid animal, which would mean that this animal is part domesticated and part undomesticated, or whether one does not need to be concerned with paternity and the species of an animal is determined entirely by the species of its mother, in which case it is a domesticated animal.

And they disagree with regard to whether the obligation of the gifts applies to a sheep and even an animal that is partially a sheep, i.e., partially domesticated. One Sage, the Rabbis, holds that the obligation applies to a sheep and even an animal that is partially a sheep; and one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that we do not say that the obligation applies to a sheep and even an animal that is partially a sheep.

The Gemara concludes its question: Granted, it is understandable that Rabbi Eliezer deems the owner of a hybrid exempt from the mitzva to give the priestly gifts, as he holds that only in the case of a sheep is one obligated to give gifts of the priesthood, but not with regard to animals that are only partially sheep. But according to the opinion of the Rabbis, though indeed they hold that sheep and even animals that are partially sheep are subject to the obligation of giving gifts of the priesthood, let the priest take only half of the gifts. And with regard to the other half, let the owner of the animal say to him: Bring proof that one need not be concerned with its paternity and then you may take the other half. Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya said in response: What do the Rabbis mean when they say that the owner of this animal is obligated? They mean that he is obligated in half of the gifts.

Rabbi Zeira raises an objection to this response from a baraita: In the case of a koy, with regard to which it is uncertain whether it is a domesticated animal or an undomesticated one, there are ways in which its halakhot correspond to those of a domesticated animal, and there are ways in which its halakhot correspond to those of an undomesticated animal. And there are ways in which its halakhot correspond to those of both an undomesticated animal and a domesticated animal.

The baraita elaborates: How so? Its fat is forbidden like the forbidden fat of a domesticated animal, unlike that of an undomesticated one. And one is obligated to cover its blood from slaughter with dirt, like the blood of an undomesticated animal. And there are ways in which its halakhot correspond to both those of a domesticated animal and an undomesticated animal, as its blood and its sciatic nerve are forbidden like those of a domesticated animal and an undomesticated animal. And its owner is obligated to give the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw from it to the priest, as in the case of domesticated animals. And Rabbi Eliezer deems the owner of a koy exempt from the mitzva to give the gifts.

Rabbi Zeira asks: And if it is so that the Rabbis mean that the owner of a koy is obligated to give half of the gifts, then the baraita should have said that he is obligated to give half of the gifts from it. The Gemara responds: Since the tanna taught that its fat and its blood are forbidden, with regard to which it could not teach that half of its blood or half of its fat are forbidden, as it is impossible that half of it is forbidden while the other half is permitted, due to that reason the tanna did not teach that the owner of a koy is obligated in half of the gifts.

The Gemara relates that when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: According to the Rabbis, a koy is obligated to have all of the gifts of the priesthood given from it. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the gifts of the priesthood: ''Whether it be an ox or sheep'' (Deuteronomy 18:3). Since the verse needed to state only ''ox,'' why must the verse state: ''Whether it be an ox''? This phrase serves to include a hybrid in the obligation to give the gifts of the priesthood. And since the verse needed to state only ''sheep,'' why must the verse state: ''Or sheep''? This phrase serves to include the koy in the obligation to give the gifts.

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who deems the owners of a koy and the offspring of a hybrid exempt from giving gifts of the priesthood from these animals, why do I need this phrase: ''Whether it be an ox or sheep''? The Gemara responds: He requires it to divide between an ox and a sheep, indicating that one is obligated with regard to either animal alone. Were it not for this phrase, one might have concluded that he is obligated to give the gifts only after slaughtering both an ox and a sheep. The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, who derive other halakhot from this phrase, from where do they derive to divide between an ox and a sheep? The Gemara responds: They derive it from the phrase: ''From them that perform a slaughter'' (Deuteronomy 18:3), which indicates that the obligation to give the gifts applies even to one animal.

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Eliezer, what does he do with this phrase: ''From them that perform a slaughter,'' i.e., what does he derive from it? The Gemara responds: He requires it for a statement of Rava, as Rava said: If a priest seeks to claim gifts of the priesthood in court, the priest issues his demand with the butcher, even if the animal itself belongs to another individual.

MISHNA: With regard to a blemished firstborn animal, which one may slaughter and eat without being required to give the foreleg, jaw, and maw to the priest, that was intermingled with one hundred non-sacred animals, from which one is required to give those gifts, in a case when one hundred different people slaughter all of them, each slaughtering one animal, one exempts them all from giving the gifts, as each could claim that the animal that he slaughtered was the firstborn. If one person slaughtered them all, one exempts one of the animals for him.

One who slaughters the animal of a priest for the priest or the animal of a gentile for the gentile is exempt from the obligation to give the gifts of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw. And an Israelite who enters into partnership with a priest or a gentile must mark the animal to indicate that it is jointly owned and exempt from the obligation to give the gifts. And if a priest sold his animal to an Israelite and said: The animal is sold except for the gifts with it, the Israelite is exempt from the obligation to give the gifts, as they are not his.

If the Israelite said to the one slaughtering the animal: Sell me the innards of a cow, and there were gifts included with it, i.e., the maw, the purchaser gives them to the priest and he does not deduct the value of the gifts from the money that he pays him. If he bought the innards from the slaughterer by weight, the purchaser gives the gifts, i.e., the maw, to the priest and deducts the value of the gifts from the money that he pays him.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if a firstborn animal was intermingled with one hundred non-sacred animals, each belonging to a different person, all of the animals are excluded from the obligation to give the gifts, due to the uncertainty of which animal is the firstborn. The Gemara asks: But why is this the halakha? Let the priest come upon each slaughterer with a claim from two sides, i.e., let the priest say to him: If this animal is a firstborn, it is completely mine; and if it is not a firstborn but is instead a non-sacred animal, then give me my gifts.