Foreleg, cheeks and maw

[4] 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.

The earliest extant Midrash on the above quoted text is found in the Sifri to Deuteronomy 18:3 which relays the following detail: The Mishnah,[6] Talmud,[7] and Sifre[8] state that the mitzvah applies both in the Land of Israel and in the diaspora.

Rashi cited the opinion of Rabbi Ilai I, who (as understood by the Talmud[17]) believed that the commandment of reishit hagez does not apply outside Israel.

While the Talmud only mentions that Rabbi Ilai's ruling was accepted in practice (נהוג עלמא) in regard to reishit hagez,[18] Rashi notes that not only does Rabbi Ilai's logic allow the same leniency for priestly gifts, but the leniency was observed to be commonly practiced (חזינא מה דנהוג) in Rashi's surroundings regarding priestly gifts as well.

Rashi then states that in many communities where Jews dwell there is a complete lack of Kohanim, making the giving of the gifts technically impossible.

By analyzing the issue at supreme depth, and implicitly differing from Rashi's opinion, Meir reasoned that reliance on Rabbi Elai in the Mishnah for leniency or/and invoking a hekesh between reishith haGez and the gifts is invalid.

Rashi, by contrast, explains the marking requirement as an eye-catching technique visible to all viewers of the meat advertising that the slaughtered animal was non-Jew owned at Shechita time.

The intention, explains Rashi, is to preempt the viewer from assuming that the non-Kohen owner of the animal is violating the requirement of giving the gifts.

In the diaspora, due to the value of the actual gifts, leniency was sought in order to alleviate the high consumer end-cost of Kosher beef.

With leniency being common practice from time to time, the basis of inaction of the Mitzvah are called into question with the following counterclaims: In terms of "Kosher" (in this instance adopting the literal meaning as "in line"[43] with the general and particular laws of the Torah) the Talmud and Rabbinic sages discuss various viewpoints as to whether the meat from an animal whose gifts have not been given may be eaten in part or if at all.

The Talmud, in examining the contextual meaning of "Piggul" quotes the view of Rabbi Nathan who maintains that Yechezkiel's claim was that he never consumed meat from an animal of which gifts were not given to a Kohen.

Rabbi Yochanan gasped and fell from his chair – just the thought of his fellow Jews in the Diaspora submitting to the strange decrees of the worshippers of Ahura Mazda left him in total shock.

"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 (despite this being an agreement frowned upon by early Rabbinic authorities who insisted the actual gifts are to be given and not monetary compensation).

[56] A modern effort of reviving the gifts in a practical manner has been somewhat successful in recent years with senior members of the Orthodox Union indicating positive action will be implemented.