Giving of the forleg cheeks and abomasum outside of Israel

This article is about commandments in Judaism. For a complete list of all commandments, see taryag.

The giving of the Foreleg Cheeks and Abomasum (Hebrew: זְּרועַ לְּחָיַיִם וְקֵּיבָה) is a positive Mitzvah requiring the giving of the aforementioned parts of a kosher-slaughtered animal to a Kohein, this giving is required to be free both of monetary and servicial compensation

Contrary to popular belief these gifts are entirely mundane (chullin) and are not associated with all or part of the sacrificial offerings brought on the central altar in the Jerusalem temple.

Source of the Mitzvah

The source of the Mitzvah is explicitly stated in Deuteronomy 18:3: "and thus shall be the quota of the kohanim from the nation, from those who slaughter the slaughtering should give to the kohein the foreleg cheeks and abomasum"

Rabbinic interpretation of the parts to be given

The early Rabbinical authorities felt the need to specify the specific animal parts to be given due to confusion in understanding which animal parts are to be given (for example which foreleg) and whom is required to give them.

The earliest extant Midrash on the above quoted text is found in the Sifri which relays the following detail:

Foreleg

The right foreleg in its entirety (with the skin attached)

Cheeks

The lower Jaw with attached Cheek flesh, Tongue included

Abomasum

The Abomasum in its entirety

Time and Place of the Mitzvah

Mishnaic view

The Mishna states that the application of this Mitzvah is nonindependent on if the temple in Jerusalem is erect. likewise, it is non dependent on whether the animal is slaughtered in or outside the land of Israel, as the gift are to given nonetheless.

Talmudic and Gaonic view

The Talmudic view coincides with that of the Mishna requiring the giving even outside the land of Israel. The basis of this view is due to the Mitzvah not being a obligation of the land but an obligation of the body ("chovas hakarka" versus "chovas haguf" see the beginning of the final chapter of Tractate Chullin).

The Talmud delves further than the Mishna in terms of citing instances of penalties being levied against both individual transgressors and entire communities.

The Gaonic view coincides with the Talmud in the aspect of penalty levying with Rabbi Hai Gaon enacting excommunication on those refraining from exercising the Mitzvah.

View of the Rishonim

Amongst the myriad of opinions expressed by the Rishonim most fall back to either the Rambam Ramban and Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg responsa or Rashi's responsa, with the latter taking a don't-ask-don't tell approach to the widespread lack of excersing the Mitzvah outside the land of Israel

Rashi's responsa

Rashi's responsa -in an attempt to justify the practice of the common folk withholding of the gift, gives backing to a lone talmudic opinion of the tanna rabbi elai which invokes a comparison (hekesh) between the Mitzvah of Giving the Foreleg Cheeks and Abomasum and Trumah being that Trumah is nonapplicable outside of Israel hence the fca are likewise exempt, Rashi's responsa also states that many communities where Jews dwell there is a complete lack of Kohanim.

The Ramban and Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg

The Ramban opined that any leniency applied to giving of the gifts outside the land would lead to forgetting entirely about the practice. He therefore stated the gifts are to be given outside the land.

Dealing with the issue of outside the land Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg was by far the most lengthy and detailed of all opining Rabbis. By analizing the issue at supreme depth Rabbi Meir offered multiple reasons proving that reliance on Rabbi Elai for leniency is invalid.

In Yemenite Jewry

Based on the responsa of the leading Yemenite rabbis it is clear that the common practice of the original Mitzvah was adhered to, up and well into the sixteenth century.

Mitzvah detail and exemptions

Slaughtering for personal consumption

As per the commandment a slaughtering by an individual or a group both require the giving of the gifts.

Commercial slaughtering

Based on Talmudic sources the giving of the gifts by any functioning kosher meat operation is required in all instances even if partnership owned or if owned by a kohein. Additionally the Rabbis forbade commercial permanent partnering with non-Jew with the intention to invoke a permanent state of exemption.

Rabbinic exemptions and loopholes

In the diaspora due to the high cost of the actual gifts leniency's where sought in order to alleviate the high consumer end-cost cost of kosher beef.

• The first recorded -and today still most popular- leniency produced involves a non-Jewish ownership or partnership of the animal at the time of slaughter as well as the ritual slaughterer commuting to the property of the non Jew. Thus, at the slaughter time the animal is exempt. Next, the Jew decides on those portions he would like to purchase. this retroactive acquisition is termed Breirah in Rabbinic terms. In this specific loophole the claim stated is ain breirah i.e. the acquisition is not applied retroactively hence rendering the animal non-Jew owned at slaughter time.

• The lineage of a Kohein being called into question since the issue is monetary the rule of "on he who seeks to withdraw lies the burden of proof"

With leniency being common practice from time to time the basis of inaction of the Mitzvah are called into question with the following counterclaims:

• The Mishna -when discussing partnering, uses the single person form ("המשתתף" as opposed to "המשתתפים") thereby alluding that the practice is not all that common. Also alluding that mass partnering with a non Jew with the intent of skirting the mitzvah is entirely not up for Mishnaic debate in terms of the clarity of liabilty.

• Counter claimants further state that the "Ain Breirah" explanation is inapplicable since in this instance one of two scenarios will play out for certain; either the animal will be deemed as Glatt Kosher or not. Being that most animals (70-90%) are indeed found to be Glatt Kosher the acquisition of the animal is likely (more than 50%). Thus, to state "Breirah" is more fitting for this scenario. Henceforth, the animal becomes retroactively Jew-owned at the time of slaughter.

• Where the non-Jew to bring the animal to Jewish property the exemption would be invalid, a minor detail easily looked over with a permanent mindset of gift exemption in place.

• Partenering with a Non Jew may require instances where the partner -in case the animal will not be found as kosher, demands the slaughterer make certain statements just prior to the Shechita so the animal could be sold to adherents of other religions. causing the question of a "hefsek" in between the blessing the slaughterer is to make and the Shechita being performed, hence making both non jewish partnering and ownership undesirable.

• A specific Kohein's lineage is immaterial since the Mitzvah is on the giver (and not for the Kohein to withdraw), hence the burden of locating a "lineage verifiable" Kohein rests on the giver.

The Mitzvah in modern practice

In Israel

Per the investigation conducted by Rabbi Yaakov Epstien in 2005 many Jewish owned slaughterhouses enter a binding agreement with a group of pre-screened Kohanim, with whom monetary compensation is offered in place of the original gifts.

In the Diaspora

By and large in the diaspora today most Jews -even ultra-orthodox, are unaware of the Mitzvah entirely. plausible explanation has been given by the famous Jerusalem rabbi and Maimonides commentator Rabbi Yosef Corcous as follows;

• Rabbinically, a Kohein is to refrain from requesting the gifts since they are to be given by will. Hence without a call for claimage it is assumed that the Kohanim implicitly forgive the gifts.
• an Israelite married to a Kohein's daughter is exempt, as is a Levi causing neighbors of the non-giver's to assume that the gifts are not required to be given entirely.

The response often cited by today's Rabbi's when confronted by queries into the modern day inaction of this Mitzvah is simply that the animal is owned by a non Jew at the time of slaughter.

The pious viewpoint

From a somewhat pious prospective and disregarding the common practice of reliance on questioned rabbinic loopholes, it has been the practice of select "chassidim" to take the stricter approach in giving the gifts and even furthermore not eating the meat from an animal from which the gifts where not given.

This view is quoted by popular Rabbis as recent as Rabbi Yonason Eibshitz, The Chasam Sofer, and the Vilna Gaon.

See also

• Torah
• 613 Mitzvot
• Halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai

External links

• Maimonides Sefer HaMitzvot (Hebrew Fulltext)

• Video of Rabbi Ratzabi (of Bnei Brak) giving the Gifts וידיאו נתינת המתנות בשמחה