Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 18, 2016 | ื˜ืดื• ื‘ืืœื•ืœ ืชืฉืขืดื•

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

Bava Kamma 110

If one steals from a convert, lies about it and then admits he lied, but the convert dies and has no heirs, one must return the item to the kohanim who are working on that week’s rotation,mishmar. ย The gemara discusses a range of halachot that deal with when things have to go to the kohanim on that week’s mishmar and what are cases where it can be given to a different kohen. ย  Since the returning of the item to the kohen is called by the Torah “an asham, a word that is also used in general to mean the guilt offering, therefore Rava brings various halachot that treat this payment with the same criteria as the guilt offering for example, it can’t be paid at night just as sacrifices can’t be brought at night. ย The gemara ends with a discussion about whether the payment to the kohanim is viewed as inheritance (they are in place of the convert’s inheritors) or as a gift and the ramifications are mentioned. ย The gemara concludes that is it viewed as a gift.

Study Guide Bava Kamma 110


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ื•ืื ื”ื™ื” ื–ืงืŸ ืื• ื—ื•ืœื” ื ื•ืชื ื” ืœื›ืœ ื›ื”ืŸ ืฉื™ืจืฆื” ื•ืขื‘ื•ื“ืชื” ื•ืขื•ืจื” ืœืื ืฉื™ ืžืฉืžืจ

The baraita continues: And if he was old or sick, so that he cannot perform the Temple service or eat from the offering, he gives it to any priest he wishes to sacrifice it, even to one not on his priestly watch, and performance of its service and its hide are given to the members of the priestly watch.

ื”ืื™ ื–ืงืŸ ืื• ื—ื•ืœื” ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ื“ืžืฆื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ืขื‘ื•ื“ืชื” ื•ืขื•ืจื” ื ืžื™ ืชื™ื”ื•ื™ ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ื•ืื™ ื“ืœื ืžืฆื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ืฉืœื™ื— ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžืฉื•ื™

The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of this old or sick priest? If he is in a condition that he is able to perform the Temple service, then performance of its service and its hide should be his as well, as the priest that sacrificed it was acting as his agent. And if he is in a condition that he is not able to perform the Temple service, how can he appoint an agent? The baraita stated that he may give it to any priest he wishes, indicating that he chooses which priest he will appoint as his agent.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืฉื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ื”ื“ื—ืง ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื“ื›ื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืœื™ื” ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ื”ื“ื—ืง ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื ื•ืžืฉื•ื™ ืฉืœื™ื— ืื›ื™ืœื” ื“ื›ื™ ืื›ื™ืœ ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ื”ื“ื—ืง ืื›ื™ืœื” ื’ืกื” ื”ื™ื ื•ืื›ื™ืœื” ื’ืกื” ืœืื• ื›ืœื•ื ื”ื•ื ืžืฉื•ื ื”ื›ื™ ืขื‘ื•ื“ืชื” ื•ืขื•ืจื” ืœืื ืฉื™ ืžืฉืžืจ

Rav Pappa said: The baraita is referring to a case where he is able to do it with difficulty. With regard to the Temple service, where the halakha is that if he performs it with difficulty it is still considered performance of the Temple service, he is therefore able to appoint an agent to do it for him. With regard to eating the offering, where the halakha says that if he eats it with difficulty it is excessive eating, and excessive eating is nothing, i.e., he does not thereby fulfill the mitzva to eat the sacrificial portion, he is not able to appoint an agent to eat it for him. Due to that reason, performance of its service and its hide are given to the members of the priestly watch.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืื ื”ื™ื” ื›ื”ืŸ ื˜ืžื ื‘ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื ื•ืชื ื” ืœื›ืœ ืžื™ ืฉื™ืจืฆื” ื•ืขื‘ื•ื“ืชื” ื•ืขื•ืจื” ืœืื ืฉื™ ืžืฉืžืจ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ื“ืื™ื›ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ื ื˜ืžืื™ื ืžื™ ืžืฆื• ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื•ืื™ ื“ืœื™ื›ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ื ืขื‘ื•ื“ืชื” ื•ืขื•ืจื” ืœืื ืฉื™ ืžืฉืžืจ ื”ื ื˜ืžืื™ื ื ื™ื ื”ื• ื•ืœื ืžืฆื• ืื›ืœื™

Rav Sheshet says: If a priest of the priestly watch was ritually impure, then with regard to a communal offering he gives it to any priest he wishes, and performance of its service and its hide are given to the members of the priestly watch. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances where this halakha applies? If there are ritually pure priests available, then can impure ones perform the Temple service, and by extension appoint an agent to perform it in their stead? And if there are no ritually pure priests there, as all members of the priestly watch are impure, is the performance of its service and its hide given to the members of the priestly watch? Even though communal offerings are sacrificed in such a circumstance, the priests are impure and are not able to eat the offering, even though they may sacrifice it.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืื™ืžื ืœื‘ืขืœื™ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืฉื‘ืื•ืชื• ืžืฉืžืจ

Rava said in explanation: Say that they are given to blemished but ritually pure priests who are on that priestly watch. Even though blemished priests are disqualified from performing the Temple service and therefore the offering must be sacrificed by impure priests, the blemished priests are permitted to eat the sacrifice, as they are ritually pure.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืื ื”ื™ื” ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืื•ื ืŸ ื ื•ืชื ื” ืœื›ืœ ื›ื”ืŸ ืฉื™ืจืฆื” ื•ืขื‘ื•ื“ืชื” ื•ืขื•ืจื” ืœืื ืฉื™ ืžืฉืžืจ ืžืื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ืชื ื™ื ื ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืžืงืจื™ื‘ ืื•ื ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื• ืื•ื›ืœ ื•ืื™ื ื• ื—ื•ืœืง ืœืื›ื•ืœ ืœืขืจื‘

Rav Ashi says: If a High Priest was an acute mourner, i.e., one whose immediate relative died on that day but had yet to be buried, and he had an offering to sacrifice on his own behalf, he gives the offering to any priest that he wishes to sacrifice it, and performance of its service and its hide are given to the members of the priestly watch. The Gemara asks: What is Rav Ashiโ€™s statement teaching us? We already learned in a baraita (Tosefta, Zevaแธฅim 11:3): A High Priest may sacrifice an offering even when he is an acute mourner, but he does not eat it during that day while he is an acute mourner and does not receive a portion of the sacrifice to eat at night after his acute mourning is finished. It follows from this baraita that since he sacrifices it by himself he is able to appoint another priest in his stead, and since he may not eat it, it is given to the priestly watch to eat. What, then, was the novelty of Rav Ashiโ€™s statement?

ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื›ื™ ื—ืก ืจื—ืžื ื ืขืœื™ื” ื“ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื™ ื”ื•ื ืื‘ืœ ืœืฉื•ื•ื™ื™ ืฉืœื™ื— ืœื ืžืฆื™ ืžืฉื•ื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara answers: It might enter your mind to say that when the Merciful One had compassion on the High Priest, permitting him to continue serving in the Temple even while in a state of acute mourning, it was for him to sacrifice; but with regard to appointing an agent, he is not able to appoint one. Therefore, Rav Ashi teaches us that he is able to appoint an agent, since he himself is permitted to perform the Temple service.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื’ื•ื–ืœ ืืช ื”ื’ืจ ื•ื ืฉื‘ืข ืœื• ื•ืžืช ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืžืฉืœื ืงืจืŸ ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืœื›ื”ื ื™ื ื•ืืฉื ืœืžื–ื‘ื— ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืื ืื™ืŸ ืœืื™ืฉ ื’ื•ืืœ ืœื”ืฉื™ื‘ ื”ืืฉื ืืœื™ื• ื”ืืฉื ื”ืžื•ืฉื‘ ืœื”ืณ ืœื›ื”ืŸ ืžืœื‘ื“ ืื™ืœ ื”ื›ืคืจื™ื ืืฉืจ ื™ื›ืคืจ ื‘ื• ืขืœื™ื•

MISHNA: With regard to one who robs a convert and takes a false oath denying having done so, and then the convert dies, the robber, in order to achieve repentance, pays the principal, i.e., the stolen item or, if it is no longer extant, its monetary value, and an additional one-fifth of its value to the priests, and presents a guilt-offering to the altar, as it is stated: โ€œBut if the man has no kinsman to whom restitution may be made for the guilt, the restitution for guilt that is made shall be the Lordโ€™s, even the priestโ€™s; besides the ram of the atonement, whereby atonement shall be made for himโ€ (Numbers 5:8).

ื”ื™ื” ืžืขืœื” ืืช ื”ื›ืกืฃ ื•ืืช ื”ืืฉื ื•ืžืช ื”ื›ืกืฃ ื™ื ืชืŸ ืœื‘ื ื™ื• ื•ื”ืืฉื ื™ืจืขื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ืกืชืื‘ ื•ื™ืžื›ืจ ื•ื™ืคืœื• ื“ืžื™ื• ืœื ื“ื‘ื” ื ืชืŸ ื”ื›ืกืฃ ืœืื ืฉื™ ืžืฉืžืจ ื•ืžืช ืื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ื™ื›ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ื ืžื™ื“ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืื™ืฉ ืืฉืจ ื™ืชืŸ ืœื›ื”ืŸ ืœื• ื™ื”ื™ื”

The mishna continues: If the robber was bringing the money and the guilt-offering up to Jerusalem and he died before paying the priests and bringing his offering, the money shall be given to the robberโ€™s children, and the animal designated for the guilt-offering shall graze until it becomes blemished and consequently disqualified from being sacrificed. And the animal shall then be sold and the money received for it shall be allocated for communal gift offerings. If the robber gave the money to the members of the priestly watch and then died before they sacrificed his guilt-offering, the heirs cannot remove the money from the priestsโ€™ possession, as it is stated: โ€œAnd every manโ€™s hallowed things shall be his; whatsoever any man gives to the priest, it shall be hisโ€ (Numbers 5:10).

ื ืชืŸ ื”ื›ืกืฃ ืœื™ื”ื•ื™ืจื™ื‘ ื•ืืฉื ืœื™ื“ืขื™ื” ื™ืฆื ืืฉื ืœื™ื”ื•ื™ืจื™ื‘ ื•ื›ืกืฃ ืœื™ื“ืขื™ื” ืื ืงื™ื™ื ื”ืืฉื ื™ืงืจื™ื‘ื•ื”ื• ื‘ื ื™ ื™ื“ืขื™ื” ื•ืื ืœื ื™ื—ื–ื™ืจ ื•ื™ื‘ื™ื ืืฉื ืื—ืจ ืฉื”ืžื‘ื™ื ื’ื–ื™ืœื• ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื”ื‘ื™ื ืืฉืžื• ื™ืฆื ื”ื‘ื™ื ืืฉืžื• ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื”ื‘ื™ื ื’ื–ื™ืœื• ืœื ื™ืฆื

The mishna continues: If the robber gave the money to the priestly watch of Joiarib and then gave the guilt-offering to the priestly watch of Jedaiah, the following priestly watch, to sacrifice on his behalf, he has fulfilled his obligation. By contrast, if he first gave the guilt-offering to the priestly watch of Joiarib and then gave the money to the priestly watch of Jedaiah, if the animal designated for the guilt-offering is extant, then members of the priestly watch of Jedaiah, who received the money, should sacrifice it. But if it is no longer extant because the priestly watch of Joiarib had already sacrificed it, he should return and bring another guilt-offering; for one who brings his stolen item to the priests before he brings his guilt-offering has fulfilled his obligation, but one who brings his guilt-offering before he brings his stolen item has not fulfilled his obligation.

ื ืชืŸ ืืช ื”ืงืจืŸ ื•ืœื ื ืชืŸ ืืช ื”ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืื™ืŸ ื”ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืžืขื›ื‘

Although he cannot sacrifice the offering before paying the principal, if he gave the principal but did not yet give the additional one-fifth payment, the lack of having given the additional one-fifth payment does not preclude sacrificing the offering.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืฉื ื–ื” ืงืจืŸ ื”ืžื•ืฉื‘ ื–ื” ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืื• ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ืืฉื ื–ื” ืื™ืœ

GEMARA: The Sages taught in explanation of the verse cited in the mishna: โ€œBut if the man has no kinsmanโ€ฆthe restitution for guilt that is made shall be the Lordโ€™s, even the priestโ€™sโ€ (Numbers 5:8): With regard to the word โ€œguilt,โ€ this is referring to the principal, i.e., the stolen item itself or its equivalent value; โ€œthe restitutionโ€ฆthat is made,โ€ this is referring to the additional one-fifth payment. Or perhaps this is not the proper interpretation of the verse. Rather, it should be interpreted: โ€œGuilt,โ€ this is referring to the ram of the guilt-offering.

ื•ืœืžืื™ ื ืคืงื ืžื™ื ื” ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ืžื“ืจื‘ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื’ื–ืœ ื”ื’ืจ ืฉื”ื—ื–ื™ืจื• ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ืœื ื™ืฆื ื”ื—ื–ื™ืจื• ื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ืœื ื™ืฆื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืฉื ืงืจื™ื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื

Before continuing the baraita the Gemara interrupts to clarify: And for what purpose does the baraita distinguish between the two interpretations of guilt, as in any event, both the principal and the guilt-offering must be brought? The Gemara explains: To exclude that which Rava holds, as Rava says: With regard to the stolen item of a convert that the robber returned at night, the robber did not fulfill his obligation. And similarly, if he returned it to him in halves, he did not fulfill his obligation. What is the reason? The Merciful One labeled the stolen item with the term โ€œguilt,โ€ teaching that just as a guilt-offering cannot be offered at night or in halves, so too, the stolen item cannot be returned at night or in halves.

ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืžืœื‘ื“ ืื™ืœ ื”ื›ืคืจื™ื ื”ื•ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืืฉื ื–ื” ืงืจืŸ

The baraita continues: When it says in that verse: โ€œBesides the ram of the atonementโ€ (Numbers 5:8), referring to the offering, you must say concerning the word โ€œguiltโ€ written earlier in the verse that this is referring to the principal.

ืชื ื™ื ืื™ื“ืš ืืฉื ื–ื” ืงืจืŸ ื”ืžื•ืฉื‘ ื–ื” ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืื• ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ืืฉื ื–ื” ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืœืžืื™ ื ืคืงื ืžื™ื ื” ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ืžืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืชื ืŸ ื ืชืŸ ืœื• ืืช ื”ืงืจืŸ ื•ืœื ื ืชืŸ ืœื• ืืช ื”ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืื™ืŸ ื”ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืžืขื›ื‘ ืื“ืจื‘ื” ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืžืขื›ื‘

It is taught in another baraita: With regard to the word โ€œguilt,โ€ this is referring to the principal; โ€œthe restitutionโ€ฆthat is made,โ€ this is referring to the additional one-fifth payment. Or perhaps this is not the proper interpretation of the verse. Rather, it should be interpreted: โ€œGuilt,โ€ this is referring to the additional one-fifth payment. Before continuing the baraita, the Gemara interrupts to clarify: For what purpose does the baraita distinguish between the two interpretations? The Gemara explains: To exclude that which the mishna teaches, as we learned in the mishna: If he gave him the principal but did not yet give him the additional one-fifth payment, the lack of having given the additional one-fifth payment does not preclude sacrificing the offering. If โ€œguiltโ€ is referring to the additional one-fifth payment, then, on the contrary, it would follow that the lack of having given the additional one-fifth payment precludes sacrificing the offering.

ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื”ืฉื™ื‘ ืืช ืืฉืžื• ื‘ืจืืฉื• ื•ื—ืžื™ืฉืชื• ื”ื•ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืืฉื ื–ื” ืงืจืŸ

The baraita continues: When it says in the previous verse: โ€œAnd he shall make restitution for his guilt in full, and add unto it the fifth part thereofโ€ (Numbers 5:7), you must say concerning the word โ€œguiltโ€ that this is referring to the principal.

ืชื ื™ื ืื™ื“ืš ืืฉื ื–ื” ืงืจืŸ ื”ืžื•ืฉื‘ ื–ื” ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื•ื‘ื’ื–ืœ ื”ื’ืจ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ ืื• ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ื”ืžื•ืฉื‘ ื–ื” ื›ืคืœ ื•ื‘ื’ื ื™ื‘ืช ื”ื’ืจ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื”ืฉื™ื‘ ืืช ืืฉืžื• ื‘ืจืืฉื• ื•ื—ืžื™ืฉืชื• ื”ืจื™ ื‘ืžืžื•ืŸ ื”ืžืฉืชืœื ื‘ืจืืฉ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ

It is taught in another baraita: With regard to the word โ€œguilt,โ€ this is referring to the principal; โ€œthe restitutionโ€ฆthat is made,โ€ this is referring to the additional one-fifth payment, and the verse is speaking of robbery of a convert. Or perhaps this is not the proper interpretation of the verse. Rather, it should be interpreted: โ€œThe restitutionโ€ฆthat is made,โ€ this is referring to double payment that a thief must pay, and the verse is speaking of theft from a convert. When it says in the previous verse: โ€œAnd he shall make restitution for his guilt in full, and add unto it the fifth part thereofโ€ (Numbers 5:7), the verse is speaking of money that is paid exactly according to the principal, and not double payment.

ื’ื•ืคื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื’ื–ืœ ื”ื’ืจ ืฉื”ื—ื–ื™ืจื• ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ืœื ื™ืฆื ื”ื—ื–ื™ืจื•ื”ื• ื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ืœื ื™ืฆื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืฉื ืงืจื™ื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื

ยง Having quoted Ravaโ€™s statement, the Gemara returns to discuss the matter itself. Rava says: With regard to the stolen item of a convert that the robber returned at night, the robber did not fulfill his obligation. And similarly, if he returned it to him in halves, he did not fulfill his obligation. What is the reason? The Merciful One labeled the stolen item with the term โ€œguilt,โ€ teaching that just as a guilt-offering cannot be offered at night or in halves, so too, the stolen item cannot be returned at night or in halves.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื’ื–ืœ ื”ื’ืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ืœื›ืœ ื›ื”ืŸ ื•ื›ื”ืŸ ืœื ื™ืฆื ื™ื“ื™ ื—ื•ื‘ืชื• ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ืืฉื ื”ืžื•ืฉื‘ ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื ื”ืฉื‘ื” ืœื›ืœ ื›ื”ืŸ ื•ื›ื”ืŸ

And Rava says: With regard to the stolen item of a convert that does not have the value of one peruta for each and every priest on the priestly watch, the robber did not fulfill his obligation by giving it to the priestly watch. What is the reason? As it is written: โ€œThe restitution for guilt that is made,โ€ meaning that the robber has not fulfilled his obligation to return the stolen item until there will be halakhically significant restitution made to each and every priest, minimally one peruta. If the stolen item was of less value than can be distributed with each priest in the watch receiving at least one peruta, the robber must add to the payment so that each priest receives one peruta.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ืœืžืฉืžืจืช ื™ื”ื•ื™ืจื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืฉ ื‘ื•

Based on this halakha, Rava raises a dilemma: If the stolen item does not have the value of one peruta for each priest on the priestly watch of Joiarib, which had many priests, but it has

ืœืžืฉืžืจืช ื™ื“ืขื™ื” ืžื”ื•

the value of one peruta for each priest on the priestly watch of Jedaiah, which had fewer priests, what is the halakha?

ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื“ื™ื”ื‘ื™ื” ืœื™ื“ืขื™ื” ื‘ืžืฉืžืจืช ื™ื“ืขื™ื” ื”ื ืื™ืช ื‘ื™ื”

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances with regard to which Rava raised his dilemma? If we say that the dilemma is raised in a case where he gave the money to the priestly watch of Jedaiah, during the time of the Temple service of the priestly watch of Jedaiah, there would be no dilemma. There is in this payment enough value for each priest to receive one peruta.

ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ื™ื”ื‘ื™ื” ืœื™ื“ืขื™ื” ื‘ืžืฉืžืจืชื• ื“ื™ื”ื•ื™ืจื™ื‘ ืžืื™ ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœืื• ืžืฉืžืจืชื• ื”ื•ื ื•ืœื ื›ืœื•ื ื”ื•ื ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ื—ื–ื™ ืœื™ื” ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืœื™ื“ืขื™ื” ืงืื™ ืชื™ืงื•

The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to raise the dilemma in a case where he gave it to the Jedaiah priestly watch during the time of the Temple service of the priestly watch of Joiarib; in that case, what is the halakha? The Gemara explains the two possibilities: Do we say that since it is not during Jedaiahโ€™s priestly watch, it is nothing, i.e., it is not a fulfillment of the mitzva to return the stolen item? Or perhaps we say that since it was not fit for the Joiarib priestly watch, as it was of insufficient value, from the outset it stands ready for the Jedaiah priestly watch, and by giving it to them he fulfilled the mitzva? The Gemara comments: The question shall stand unresolved.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ื—ืœืงื• ื’ื–ืœ ื”ื’ืจ ื›ื ื’ื“ ื’ื–ืœ ื”ื’ืจ

Rava raises another dilemma: With regard to priests, what is the halakha concerning whether they may divide among themselves the restitution for robbery of a convert, with some priests taking a larger share in exchange for taking a smaller share in the restitution for another robbery of a convert? In other words, can the priests arrange that one priest or several priests will receive the restitution for one robbery and another priest or several priests will receive the restitution for a different robbery another time?

ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืืฉื ืงืจื™ื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื ืžื” ืืฉื ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืœืงื™ืŸ ืืฉื ื›ื ื’ื“ ืืฉื ืืฃ ื’ื–ืœ ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืœืงื™ืŸ ื’ื–ืœ ื”ื’ืจ ื›ื ื’ื“ ื’ื–ืœ ื”ื’ืจ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื’ื–ืœ ื”ื’ืจ ืžืžื•ื ื ื”ื•ื

He explains the two possibilities: Do we say that the Merciful One labeled the stolen item with the term โ€œguilt,โ€ and therefore, just as with a guilt-offering the priests may not divide portions of a guilt-offering, with some priests taking a larger share in exchange for taking a smaller share in other portions of a guilt-offering, but rather all priests of the watch share in the sacrificial flesh, so too with the restitution for robbery: The priests may not divide the restitution for robbery of a convert, with some priests taking a larger share in exchange for taking a smaller share in the restitution for another robbery of a convert? Or perhaps the restitution for robbery of a convert paid to priests is not in fact an offering, but it is monetary restitution, and monetary restitution may be divided in this manner among the priests?

ื”ื“ืจ ืคืฉื˜ื” ืืฉื ืงืจื™ื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืžืชื ื™ ืœื” ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืœืงื™ืŸ ื’ื–ืœ ื”ื’ืจ ื›ื ื’ื“ ื’ื–ืœ ื”ื’ืจ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืฉื ืงืจื™ื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื

Rava then resolves it himself: The Merciful One labeled the stolen item with the term โ€œguilt,โ€ so it may not be divided in this manner. Rav Aแธฅa, son of Rava, teaches it explicitly as a ruling, and not as a dilemma and solution, that Rava says: Priests may not divide the restitution for robbery of a convert with some priests taking a larger share in exchange for taking a smaller share in the restitution for another robbery of a convert. What is the reason? The Merciful One labeled the stolen item with the term โ€œguilt.โ€

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื‘ื’ื–ืœ ื”ื’ืจ ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื• ืื• ืžืงื‘ืœื™ ืžืชื ื•ืช ื”ื•ื•

ยง Rava raises a dilemma: What is the status of priests with regard to the restitution for robbery of a convert? Are they considered heirs of the convert or are they recipients of gifts?

ืœืžืื™ ื ืคืงื ืžื™ื ื” ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื’ื–ืœ ื—ืžืฅ ืฉืขื‘ืจ ืขืœื™ื• ื”ืคืกื— ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื• ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื”ืื™ ื“ื™ืจืชื™ ืžื•ืจื™ืช ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืžืงื‘ืœื™ ืžืชื ื•ืช ื”ื•ื• ืžืชื ื” ืงืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื“ื ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืœื”ื• ื•ื”ื ืœื ืงื ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืœื”ื• ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ืขืคืจื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื•ื

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference? The Gemara answers: The difference would be in a case where one robbed a convert of leavened bread, and then Passover elapsed over it, rendering it an item from which one is prohibited to derive benefit and therefore valueless. If you say that the priests are heirs, this is what they inherit: Only that which the robber bequeaths to them, and the priests receive the valueless leavened bread as is. And if you say that they are recipients of gifts, it is a gift that the Merciful One is saying that the robber should give to them, and this robber is not giving them anything, for it is merely dust. Therefore, the robber should have to pay the priests what the value of the bread had been at the time of the robbery.

ืจื‘ ื–ืขื™ืจื ื‘ืขื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืื ืชื™ืžืฆื™ ืœื•ืžืจ ืžืงื‘ืœื™ ืžืชื ื” ื”ื•ื• ื”ื ืœื ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœืŸ ื“ื”ื”ื™ื ืžืชื ื” ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื“ื ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืœื”ื•

Rav Zeira raises the dilemma like this: Even if you say that they are recipients of gifts, this question, i.e., whether a robber of leavened bread over which Passover then elapsed fulfills the mitzva to return the stolen item even in this devalued state, is not our dilemma, as this is certainly a fulfillment of the obligation. For this stolen item is the gift with regard to which the Merciful One states in the Torah that the robber should give it to the priests.

ืืœื ื›ื™ ืงืžื‘ืขื™ื ืœืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื ืคืœื• ืœื• ืขืฉืจ ื‘ื”ืžื•ืช ื‘ื’ื–ืœ ื”ื’ืจ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืœืืคืจื•ืฉื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืžืขืฉืจ ืื• ืœื

Rav Zeira continues: Rather, when we have a dilemma whether the priests are considered as heirs or as recipients of gifts, the practical difference arises in a case where ten animals came into the priestโ€™s possession for payment of robbery of a convert. The dilemma is: Are they obligated to separate tithe from them, or not?

ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื• ื“ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืงื ื• ื‘ืชืคื™ืกืช ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืžืงื‘ืœื™ ืžืชื ื•ืช ื”ื•ื• ื•ืชื ืŸ ื”ืœื•ืงื— ื•ื”ื ื™ืชืŸ ืœื• ื‘ืžืชื ื” ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืžืขืฉืจ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžืื™

The Gemara explains the two possibilities: Perhaps they are heirs, in which case they will be obligated, for the Master said in a mishna (Bekhorot 56b) that if heirs acquired animals in the jointly held property of the estate, i.e., the heirs jointly owned the animals as the inheritance had yet to be divided, they are obligated to separate tithes from animals born to those animals, and the same will apply to the priests. Or perhaps they are recipients of gifts, and we learned in a mishna (Bekhorot 55b): One who purchases an animal or one who has an animal given to him as a gift is exempt from the obligation to separate the animal tithe, and the same will apply to the priests. What is the halakha in this case?

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืืจื‘ืข ืžืชื ื•ืช ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื ื™ืชื ื• ืœืื”ืจืŸ ื•ืœื‘ื ื™ื• ื•ื›ื•ืœืŸ ื ื™ืชื ื• ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื•ืคืจื˜ ื•ื›ืœืœ ื•ื‘ืจื™ืช ืžืœื—

The Gemara answers: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from a baraita (Tosefta, แธคalla 2:7โ€“10): Twenty-four priestly gifts were given to Aaron and to his sons, and all of them were given with a derivation from a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization; and with a covenant of salt. The verses in the book of Numbers, chapter 18, detail the gifts of the priesthood. The first verse (18:8) is written in general terms, followed by verses listing the actual gifts (9โ€“18), followed by a final verse written in general terms. The method of interpreting verses written in this manner is one of the thirteen hermeneutical principles. Additionally, the phrase: โ€œCovenant of salt,โ€ is written in the final verse (18:19), and is referring to all of the gifts of the priesthood.

ื›ืœ ื”ืžืงื™ื™ืžืŸ ื›ืื™ืœื• ืžืงื™ื™ื ื›ืœืœ ื•ืคืจื˜ ื•ื›ืœืœ ื•ื‘ืจื™ืช ืžืœื— ื›ืœ ื”ืขื•ื‘ืจ ืขืœื™ื”ื ื›ืื™ืœื• ืขื•ื‘ืจ ืขืœ ื›ืœืœ ื•ืคืจื˜ ื•ื›ืœืœ ื•ื‘ืจื™ืช ืžืœื—

This serves to teach that anyone who fulfills the mitzva of giving the gifts of the priesthood is considered as if he fulfills the entire Torah, which is interpreted using the principle of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization; and as if he has brought all of the offerings, concerning which there is a covenant of salt. And anyone who violates the mitzva of giving the gifts of the priesthood is considered as if he violates the entire Torah, which is interpreted using the principle of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization; and as if he has not brought all of the offerings, concerning which there is a covenant of salt.

ื•ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ืขืฉืจ ื‘ืžืงื“ืฉ ื•ืืจื‘ืข ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ื•ืขืฉืจ ื‘ื’ื‘ื•ืœื™ื ืขืฉืจ ื‘ืžืงื“ืฉ ื—ื˜ืืช ื‘ื”ืžื” ื•ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ื•ืืฉื ื•ื“ืื™ ื•ืืฉื ืชืœื•ื™ ื•ื–ื‘ื—ื™ ืฉืœืžื™ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื•ืœื•ื’ ืฉืžืŸ ืฉืœ ืžืฆื•ืจืข ื•ืžื•ืชืจ ื”ืขื•ืžืจ ื•ืฉืชื™ ื”ืœื—ื ื•ืœื—ื ื”ืคื ื™ื ื•ืฉื™ืจื™ ืžื ื—ื•ืช

The baraita continues: And these are the twenty-four gifts: There are ten in the Temple, and four in Jerusalem, and ten in the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael. The ten gifts that the priests consume only in the Temple are an animal sin-offering; and a bird sin-offering; and a definite guilt-offering; and a provisional guilt-offering; and communal peace-offerings, i.e., lambs offered on Shavuot; and a log of oil that accompanies the guilt-offering of a recovered leper; and the surplus of the omer, i.e., what remains of the measure of barley brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of Nisan; and the two loaves, i.e., the public offering of two loaves from the new wheat offered on Shavuot; and the shewbread; and the leftovers of grain-offerings, after the priests have offered the required handful.

ื•ืืจื‘ืข ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ื”ื‘ื›ื•ืจื” ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื›ื•ืจื™ื ื•ื”ืžื•ืจื ืžืŸ ื”ืชื•ื“ื” ื•ืื™ืœ ื ื–ื™ืจ ื•ืขื•ืจื•ืช ืงื“ืฉื™ื

The baraita continues: And the four gifts that the priests consume anywhere in Jerusalem: The firstborn of kosher animals; and the first fruits; and the portions separated for the priests from the thanks-offering and the naziriteโ€™s ram; and hides of consecrated animals.

ื•ืขืฉืจื” ื‘ื’ื‘ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืชืจื•ืžื” ื•ืชืจื•ืžืช ืžืขืฉืจ ื•ื—ืœื” ื•ืจืืฉื™ืช ื”ื’ื– ื•ื”ืžืชื ื•ืช ื•ืคื“ื™ื•ืŸ ื”ื‘ืŸ ื•ืคื“ื™ื•ืŸ ืคื˜ืจ ื—ืžื•ืจ ื•ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื•ืฉื“ื” ื—ืจืžื™ื ื•ื’ื–ืœ ื”ื’ืจ

The baraita continues: And ten gifts that the priests consume anywhere in the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael: Teruma, i.e., the portion of the produce designated for the priest; and teruma of the tithe, which the Levite separates from the tithe he receives and gives to a priest; and แธฅalla, i.e., the portion of dough of the five main grains designated for the priest; and the first of the sheared wool; and the gifts of non-sacrificial, slaughtered animals, namely, the right foreleg, the cheeks, and the maw; and money given for the redemption of the firstborn son; and a sheep or goat given as redemption of the firstborn donkey; and a consecrated ancestral field the priests receive in the Jubilee Year; and a dedicated field; and payment for robbery of a convert who died without heirs.

ื•ืงื ืงืจื™ ืžื™ื”ืช ืžืชื ื” ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืžืงื‘ืœื™ ืžืชื ื•ืช ื”ื•ื• ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

The Gemara infers from the wording of the baraita: And this baraita, in any event, labels the payment for robbery of a convert a gift. The Gemara suggests: Conclude from this baraita that the priests who receive it are considered recipients of gifts, and not heirs. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that this is so.

ื ืชืŸ ืืช ื”ื›ืกืฃ ืœืื ืฉื™ ืžืฉืžืจ [ื•ื›ื•ืณ] ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื›ืกืฃ ืžื›ืคืจ ืžื—ืฆื” ื“ืื™ ืœื ืžื›ืคืจ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืžื”ื“ืจ ืœื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืื“ืขืชื ื“ื”ื›ื™ ืœื ื™ื”ื‘ ืœื™ื”

ยง The mishna teaches: If he gave the money to the members of the priestly watch and then died before they sacrificed his guilt-offering, the heirs cannot remove the money from the priestsโ€™ possession. Abaye said: Learn from this mishna that monetary restitution for the robbery atones for half of the sin, for if it does not atone at all, and atonement is not achieved until the guilt-offering is sacrificed, I would say that in the case of robbery of a convert, if the guilt-offering is not brought the priest returns the money to the robberโ€™s heirs. What is the reason I would say this? Because he did not give the money to the priests with this intention of giving the money and not achieving atonement at all, and it would be a mistaken transaction.

ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื—ื˜ืืช ืฉืžืชื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื” ืชื™ืคื•ืง ืœื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื“ืื“ืขืชื ื“ื”ื›ื™ ืœื ืืคืจืฉื” ืืžืจื™ ื—ื˜ืืช ืฉืžืชื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื” ื”ืœื›ืชื ื’ืžื™ืจื™ ืœื” ื“ืœืžื™ืชื” ืื–ืœื

The Gemara asks: If that is so, it would follow that a sin-offering whose owners have died, leaving no one to bring the offering, should be transferred to non-sacred status, as the robber did not separate the animal as an offering with this intention of its not being sacrificed to atone for his sin. The Sages say in response: In the case of a sin-offering whose owners have died, the Sages learned this halakha through tradition that the animal is left to die.

ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ืืฉื ืฉืžืชื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื• ืœื™ืคื•ืง ืœื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื“ืื“ืขืชื ื“ื”ื›ื™ ืœื ืืคืจืฉื™ื” ืืฉื ื ืžื™ ื”ืœื›ืชื ื’ืžื™ืจื™ ืœื” ื›ืœ ืฉื‘ื—ื˜ืืช ืžืชื” ื‘ืืฉื ืจื•ืขื”

The Gemara asks: If that is so, a guilt-offering whose owner has died should be transferred to non-sacred status, as the owner did not separate the animal as an offering with this intention of it not being sacrificed to atone for his sin. The Gemara answers: With regard to a guilt-offering, the Sages also learned this halakha through tradition: Any occurrence that, if it occurs with regard to a sin-offering the animal is placed in isolation for it to die, if it occurs with regard to a guilt-offering the animal is left to graze until it develops a blemish precluding its use as an offering, at which point it can be redeemed.

ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื™ื‘ืžื” ืฉื ืคืœื” ืœืคื ื™ ืžื•ื›ื” ืฉื—ื™ืŸ ืชื™ืคื•ืง ื‘ืœื ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื“ืื“ืขืชื ื“ื”ื›ื™ ืœื ืงื“ืฉื” ืขืฆืžื” ื”ืชื ืื ืŸ ืกื”ื“ื™

The Gemara asks: If that is so, then in the case of a woman whose husband died childless [yevama], who happened before her late husbandโ€™s brother who was afflicted with boils to enter levirate marriage with him, should go out free to marry without being required to perform the ritual through which the yavam frees the yevama of her levirate bonds [แธฅalitza]. For she did not betroth herself to this manโ€™s deceased brother with this intention of having a levirate bond with a man afflicted with boils. The Gemara answers: There, it is clear to us

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Kamma 110

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 110

ื•ืื ื”ื™ื” ื–ืงืŸ ืื• ื—ื•ืœื” ื ื•ืชื ื” ืœื›ืœ ื›ื”ืŸ ืฉื™ืจืฆื” ื•ืขื‘ื•ื“ืชื” ื•ืขื•ืจื” ืœืื ืฉื™ ืžืฉืžืจ

The baraita continues: And if he was old or sick, so that he cannot perform the Temple service or eat from the offering, he gives it to any priest he wishes to sacrifice it, even to one not on his priestly watch, and performance of its service and its hide are given to the members of the priestly watch.

ื”ืื™ ื–ืงืŸ ืื• ื—ื•ืœื” ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ื“ืžืฆื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ืขื‘ื•ื“ืชื” ื•ืขื•ืจื” ื ืžื™ ืชื™ื”ื•ื™ ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ื•ืื™ ื“ืœื ืžืฆื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ืฉืœื™ื— ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืžืฉื•ื™

The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of this old or sick priest? If he is in a condition that he is able to perform the Temple service, then performance of its service and its hide should be his as well, as the priest that sacrificed it was acting as his agent. And if he is in a condition that he is not able to perform the Temple service, how can he appoint an agent? The baraita stated that he may give it to any priest he wishes, indicating that he chooses which priest he will appoint as his agent.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืฉื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ื”ื“ื—ืง ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื“ื›ื™ ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืœื™ื” ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ื”ื“ื—ืง ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื ื•ืžืฉื•ื™ ืฉืœื™ื— ืื›ื™ืœื” ื“ื›ื™ ืื›ื™ืœ ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ื”ื“ื—ืง ืื›ื™ืœื” ื’ืกื” ื”ื™ื ื•ืื›ื™ืœื” ื’ืกื” ืœืื• ื›ืœื•ื ื”ื•ื ืžืฉื•ื ื”ื›ื™ ืขื‘ื•ื“ืชื” ื•ืขื•ืจื” ืœืื ืฉื™ ืžืฉืžืจ

Rav Pappa said: The baraita is referring to a case where he is able to do it with difficulty. With regard to the Temple service, where the halakha is that if he performs it with difficulty it is still considered performance of the Temple service, he is therefore able to appoint an agent to do it for him. With regard to eating the offering, where the halakha says that if he eats it with difficulty it is excessive eating, and excessive eating is nothing, i.e., he does not thereby fulfill the mitzva to eat the sacrificial portion, he is not able to appoint an agent to eat it for him. Due to that reason, performance of its service and its hide are given to the members of the priestly watch.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืื ื”ื™ื” ื›ื”ืŸ ื˜ืžื ื‘ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื ื•ืชื ื” ืœื›ืœ ืžื™ ืฉื™ืจืฆื” ื•ืขื‘ื•ื“ืชื” ื•ืขื•ืจื” ืœืื ืฉื™ ืžืฉืžืจ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ื“ืื™ื›ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ื ื˜ืžืื™ื ืžื™ ืžืฆื• ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื•ืื™ ื“ืœื™ื›ื ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ื ืขื‘ื•ื“ืชื” ื•ืขื•ืจื” ืœืื ืฉื™ ืžืฉืžืจ ื”ื ื˜ืžืื™ื ื ื™ื ื”ื• ื•ืœื ืžืฆื• ืื›ืœื™

Rav Sheshet says: If a priest of the priestly watch was ritually impure, then with regard to a communal offering he gives it to any priest he wishes, and performance of its service and its hide are given to the members of the priestly watch. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances where this halakha applies? If there are ritually pure priests available, then can impure ones perform the Temple service, and by extension appoint an agent to perform it in their stead? And if there are no ritually pure priests there, as all members of the priestly watch are impure, is the performance of its service and its hide given to the members of the priestly watch? Even though communal offerings are sacrificed in such a circumstance, the priests are impure and are not able to eat the offering, even though they may sacrifice it.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืื™ืžื ืœื‘ืขืœื™ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืฉื‘ืื•ืชื• ืžืฉืžืจ

Rava said in explanation: Say that they are given to blemished but ritually pure priests who are on that priestly watch. Even though blemished priests are disqualified from performing the Temple service and therefore the offering must be sacrificed by impure priests, the blemished priests are permitted to eat the sacrifice, as they are ritually pure.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืื ื”ื™ื” ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืื•ื ืŸ ื ื•ืชื ื” ืœื›ืœ ื›ื”ืŸ ืฉื™ืจืฆื” ื•ืขื‘ื•ื“ืชื” ื•ืขื•ืจื” ืœืื ืฉื™ ืžืฉืžืจ ืžืื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ืชื ื™ื ื ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืžืงืจื™ื‘ ืื•ื ืŸ ื•ืื™ื ื• ืื•ื›ืœ ื•ืื™ื ื• ื—ื•ืœืง ืœืื›ื•ืœ ืœืขืจื‘

Rav Ashi says: If a High Priest was an acute mourner, i.e., one whose immediate relative died on that day but had yet to be buried, and he had an offering to sacrifice on his own behalf, he gives the offering to any priest that he wishes to sacrifice it, and performance of its service and its hide are given to the members of the priestly watch. The Gemara asks: What is Rav Ashiโ€™s statement teaching us? We already learned in a baraita (Tosefta, Zevaแธฅim 11:3): A High Priest may sacrifice an offering even when he is an acute mourner, but he does not eat it during that day while he is an acute mourner and does not receive a portion of the sacrifice to eat at night after his acute mourning is finished. It follows from this baraita that since he sacrifices it by himself he is able to appoint another priest in his stead, and since he may not eat it, it is given to the priestly watch to eat. What, then, was the novelty of Rav Ashiโ€™s statement?

ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื›ื™ ื—ืก ืจื—ืžื ื ืขืœื™ื” ื“ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื™ ื”ื•ื ืื‘ืœ ืœืฉื•ื•ื™ื™ ืฉืœื™ื— ืœื ืžืฆื™ ืžืฉื•ื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara answers: It might enter your mind to say that when the Merciful One had compassion on the High Priest, permitting him to continue serving in the Temple even while in a state of acute mourning, it was for him to sacrifice; but with regard to appointing an agent, he is not able to appoint one. Therefore, Rav Ashi teaches us that he is able to appoint an agent, since he himself is permitted to perform the Temple service.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื’ื•ื–ืœ ืืช ื”ื’ืจ ื•ื ืฉื‘ืข ืœื• ื•ืžืช ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืžืฉืœื ืงืจืŸ ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืœื›ื”ื ื™ื ื•ืืฉื ืœืžื–ื‘ื— ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืื ืื™ืŸ ืœืื™ืฉ ื’ื•ืืœ ืœื”ืฉื™ื‘ ื”ืืฉื ืืœื™ื• ื”ืืฉื ื”ืžื•ืฉื‘ ืœื”ืณ ืœื›ื”ืŸ ืžืœื‘ื“ ืื™ืœ ื”ื›ืคืจื™ื ืืฉืจ ื™ื›ืคืจ ื‘ื• ืขืœื™ื•

MISHNA: With regard to one who robs a convert and takes a false oath denying having done so, and then the convert dies, the robber, in order to achieve repentance, pays the principal, i.e., the stolen item or, if it is no longer extant, its monetary value, and an additional one-fifth of its value to the priests, and presents a guilt-offering to the altar, as it is stated: โ€œBut if the man has no kinsman to whom restitution may be made for the guilt, the restitution for guilt that is made shall be the Lordโ€™s, even the priestโ€™s; besides the ram of the atonement, whereby atonement shall be made for himโ€ (Numbers 5:8).

ื”ื™ื” ืžืขืœื” ืืช ื”ื›ืกืฃ ื•ืืช ื”ืืฉื ื•ืžืช ื”ื›ืกืฃ ื™ื ืชืŸ ืœื‘ื ื™ื• ื•ื”ืืฉื ื™ืจืขื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ืกืชืื‘ ื•ื™ืžื›ืจ ื•ื™ืคืœื• ื“ืžื™ื• ืœื ื“ื‘ื” ื ืชืŸ ื”ื›ืกืฃ ืœืื ืฉื™ ืžืฉืžืจ ื•ืžืช ืื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ื™ื›ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ื ืžื™ื“ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืื™ืฉ ืืฉืจ ื™ืชืŸ ืœื›ื”ืŸ ืœื• ื™ื”ื™ื”

The mishna continues: If the robber was bringing the money and the guilt-offering up to Jerusalem and he died before paying the priests and bringing his offering, the money shall be given to the robberโ€™s children, and the animal designated for the guilt-offering shall graze until it becomes blemished and consequently disqualified from being sacrificed. And the animal shall then be sold and the money received for it shall be allocated for communal gift offerings. If the robber gave the money to the members of the priestly watch and then died before they sacrificed his guilt-offering, the heirs cannot remove the money from the priestsโ€™ possession, as it is stated: โ€œAnd every manโ€™s hallowed things shall be his; whatsoever any man gives to the priest, it shall be hisโ€ (Numbers 5:10).

ื ืชืŸ ื”ื›ืกืฃ ืœื™ื”ื•ื™ืจื™ื‘ ื•ืืฉื ืœื™ื“ืขื™ื” ื™ืฆื ืืฉื ืœื™ื”ื•ื™ืจื™ื‘ ื•ื›ืกืฃ ืœื™ื“ืขื™ื” ืื ืงื™ื™ื ื”ืืฉื ื™ืงืจื™ื‘ื•ื”ื• ื‘ื ื™ ื™ื“ืขื™ื” ื•ืื ืœื ื™ื—ื–ื™ืจ ื•ื™ื‘ื™ื ืืฉื ืื—ืจ ืฉื”ืžื‘ื™ื ื’ื–ื™ืœื• ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื”ื‘ื™ื ืืฉืžื• ื™ืฆื ื”ื‘ื™ื ืืฉืžื• ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื”ื‘ื™ื ื’ื–ื™ืœื• ืœื ื™ืฆื

The mishna continues: If the robber gave the money to the priestly watch of Joiarib and then gave the guilt-offering to the priestly watch of Jedaiah, the following priestly watch, to sacrifice on his behalf, he has fulfilled his obligation. By contrast, if he first gave the guilt-offering to the priestly watch of Joiarib and then gave the money to the priestly watch of Jedaiah, if the animal designated for the guilt-offering is extant, then members of the priestly watch of Jedaiah, who received the money, should sacrifice it. But if it is no longer extant because the priestly watch of Joiarib had already sacrificed it, he should return and bring another guilt-offering; for one who brings his stolen item to the priests before he brings his guilt-offering has fulfilled his obligation, but one who brings his guilt-offering before he brings his stolen item has not fulfilled his obligation.

ื ืชืŸ ืืช ื”ืงืจืŸ ื•ืœื ื ืชืŸ ืืช ื”ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืื™ืŸ ื”ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืžืขื›ื‘

Although he cannot sacrifice the offering before paying the principal, if he gave the principal but did not yet give the additional one-fifth payment, the lack of having given the additional one-fifth payment does not preclude sacrificing the offering.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืฉื ื–ื” ืงืจืŸ ื”ืžื•ืฉื‘ ื–ื” ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืื• ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ืืฉื ื–ื” ืื™ืœ

GEMARA: The Sages taught in explanation of the verse cited in the mishna: โ€œBut if the man has no kinsmanโ€ฆthe restitution for guilt that is made shall be the Lordโ€™s, even the priestโ€™sโ€ (Numbers 5:8): With regard to the word โ€œguilt,โ€ this is referring to the principal, i.e., the stolen item itself or its equivalent value; โ€œthe restitutionโ€ฆthat is made,โ€ this is referring to the additional one-fifth payment. Or perhaps this is not the proper interpretation of the verse. Rather, it should be interpreted: โ€œGuilt,โ€ this is referring to the ram of the guilt-offering.

ื•ืœืžืื™ ื ืคืงื ืžื™ื ื” ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ืžื“ืจื‘ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื’ื–ืœ ื”ื’ืจ ืฉื”ื—ื–ื™ืจื• ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ืœื ื™ืฆื ื”ื—ื–ื™ืจื• ื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ืœื ื™ืฆื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืฉื ืงืจื™ื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื

Before continuing the baraita the Gemara interrupts to clarify: And for what purpose does the baraita distinguish between the two interpretations of guilt, as in any event, both the principal and the guilt-offering must be brought? The Gemara explains: To exclude that which Rava holds, as Rava says: With regard to the stolen item of a convert that the robber returned at night, the robber did not fulfill his obligation. And similarly, if he returned it to him in halves, he did not fulfill his obligation. What is the reason? The Merciful One labeled the stolen item with the term โ€œguilt,โ€ teaching that just as a guilt-offering cannot be offered at night or in halves, so too, the stolen item cannot be returned at night or in halves.

ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืžืœื‘ื“ ืื™ืœ ื”ื›ืคืจื™ื ื”ื•ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืืฉื ื–ื” ืงืจืŸ

The baraita continues: When it says in that verse: โ€œBesides the ram of the atonementโ€ (Numbers 5:8), referring to the offering, you must say concerning the word โ€œguiltโ€ written earlier in the verse that this is referring to the principal.

ืชื ื™ื ืื™ื“ืš ืืฉื ื–ื” ืงืจืŸ ื”ืžื•ืฉื‘ ื–ื” ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืื• ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ืืฉื ื–ื” ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืœืžืื™ ื ืคืงื ืžื™ื ื” ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ืžืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืชื ืŸ ื ืชืŸ ืœื• ืืช ื”ืงืจืŸ ื•ืœื ื ืชืŸ ืœื• ืืช ื”ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืื™ืŸ ื”ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืžืขื›ื‘ ืื“ืจื‘ื” ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืžืขื›ื‘

It is taught in another baraita: With regard to the word โ€œguilt,โ€ this is referring to the principal; โ€œthe restitutionโ€ฆthat is made,โ€ this is referring to the additional one-fifth payment. Or perhaps this is not the proper interpretation of the verse. Rather, it should be interpreted: โ€œGuilt,โ€ this is referring to the additional one-fifth payment. Before continuing the baraita, the Gemara interrupts to clarify: For what purpose does the baraita distinguish between the two interpretations? The Gemara explains: To exclude that which the mishna teaches, as we learned in the mishna: If he gave him the principal but did not yet give him the additional one-fifth payment, the lack of having given the additional one-fifth payment does not preclude sacrificing the offering. If โ€œguiltโ€ is referring to the additional one-fifth payment, then, on the contrary, it would follow that the lack of having given the additional one-fifth payment precludes sacrificing the offering.

ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื”ืฉื™ื‘ ืืช ืืฉืžื• ื‘ืจืืฉื• ื•ื—ืžื™ืฉืชื• ื”ื•ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืืฉื ื–ื” ืงืจืŸ

The baraita continues: When it says in the previous verse: โ€œAnd he shall make restitution for his guilt in full, and add unto it the fifth part thereofโ€ (Numbers 5:7), you must say concerning the word โ€œguiltโ€ that this is referring to the principal.

ืชื ื™ื ืื™ื“ืš ืืฉื ื–ื” ืงืจืŸ ื”ืžื•ืฉื‘ ื–ื” ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื•ื‘ื’ื–ืœ ื”ื’ืจ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ ืื• ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ื”ืžื•ืฉื‘ ื–ื” ื›ืคืœ ื•ื‘ื’ื ื™ื‘ืช ื”ื’ืจ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื”ืฉื™ื‘ ืืช ืืฉืžื• ื‘ืจืืฉื• ื•ื—ืžื™ืฉืชื• ื”ืจื™ ื‘ืžืžื•ืŸ ื”ืžืฉืชืœื ื‘ืจืืฉ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ

It is taught in another baraita: With regard to the word โ€œguilt,โ€ this is referring to the principal; โ€œthe restitutionโ€ฆthat is made,โ€ this is referring to the additional one-fifth payment, and the verse is speaking of robbery of a convert. Or perhaps this is not the proper interpretation of the verse. Rather, it should be interpreted: โ€œThe restitutionโ€ฆthat is made,โ€ this is referring to double payment that a thief must pay, and the verse is speaking of theft from a convert. When it says in the previous verse: โ€œAnd he shall make restitution for his guilt in full, and add unto it the fifth part thereofโ€ (Numbers 5:7), the verse is speaking of money that is paid exactly according to the principal, and not double payment.

ื’ื•ืคื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื’ื–ืœ ื”ื’ืจ ืฉื”ื—ื–ื™ืจื• ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ืœื ื™ืฆื ื”ื—ื–ื™ืจื•ื”ื• ื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ืœื ื™ืฆื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืฉื ืงืจื™ื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื

ยง Having quoted Ravaโ€™s statement, the Gemara returns to discuss the matter itself. Rava says: With regard to the stolen item of a convert that the robber returned at night, the robber did not fulfill his obligation. And similarly, if he returned it to him in halves, he did not fulfill his obligation. What is the reason? The Merciful One labeled the stolen item with the term โ€œguilt,โ€ teaching that just as a guilt-offering cannot be offered at night or in halves, so too, the stolen item cannot be returned at night or in halves.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื’ื–ืœ ื”ื’ืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ืœื›ืœ ื›ื”ืŸ ื•ื›ื”ืŸ ืœื ื™ืฆื ื™ื“ื™ ื—ื•ื‘ืชื• ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ืืฉื ื”ืžื•ืฉื‘ ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื ื”ืฉื‘ื” ืœื›ืœ ื›ื”ืŸ ื•ื›ื”ืŸ

And Rava says: With regard to the stolen item of a convert that does not have the value of one peruta for each and every priest on the priestly watch, the robber did not fulfill his obligation by giving it to the priestly watch. What is the reason? As it is written: โ€œThe restitution for guilt that is made,โ€ meaning that the robber has not fulfilled his obligation to return the stolen item until there will be halakhically significant restitution made to each and every priest, minimally one peruta. If the stolen item was of less value than can be distributed with each priest in the watch receiving at least one peruta, the robber must add to the payment so that each priest receives one peruta.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ืœืžืฉืžืจืช ื™ื”ื•ื™ืจื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืฉ ื‘ื•

Based on this halakha, Rava raises a dilemma: If the stolen item does not have the value of one peruta for each priest on the priestly watch of Joiarib, which had many priests, but it has

ืœืžืฉืžืจืช ื™ื“ืขื™ื” ืžื”ื•

the value of one peruta for each priest on the priestly watch of Jedaiah, which had fewer priests, what is the halakha?

ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื“ื™ื”ื‘ื™ื” ืœื™ื“ืขื™ื” ื‘ืžืฉืžืจืช ื™ื“ืขื™ื” ื”ื ืื™ืช ื‘ื™ื”

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances with regard to which Rava raised his dilemma? If we say that the dilemma is raised in a case where he gave the money to the priestly watch of Jedaiah, during the time of the Temple service of the priestly watch of Jedaiah, there would be no dilemma. There is in this payment enough value for each priest to receive one peruta.

ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ื™ื”ื‘ื™ื” ืœื™ื“ืขื™ื” ื‘ืžืฉืžืจืชื• ื“ื™ื”ื•ื™ืจื™ื‘ ืžืื™ ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœืื• ืžืฉืžืจืชื• ื”ื•ื ื•ืœื ื›ืœื•ื ื”ื•ื ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ื—ื–ื™ ืœื™ื” ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืœื™ื“ืขื™ื” ืงืื™ ืชื™ืงื•

The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to raise the dilemma in a case where he gave it to the Jedaiah priestly watch during the time of the Temple service of the priestly watch of Joiarib; in that case, what is the halakha? The Gemara explains the two possibilities: Do we say that since it is not during Jedaiahโ€™s priestly watch, it is nothing, i.e., it is not a fulfillment of the mitzva to return the stolen item? Or perhaps we say that since it was not fit for the Joiarib priestly watch, as it was of insufficient value, from the outset it stands ready for the Jedaiah priestly watch, and by giving it to them he fulfilled the mitzva? The Gemara comments: The question shall stand unresolved.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ื—ืœืงื• ื’ื–ืœ ื”ื’ืจ ื›ื ื’ื“ ื’ื–ืœ ื”ื’ืจ

Rava raises another dilemma: With regard to priests, what is the halakha concerning whether they may divide among themselves the restitution for robbery of a convert, with some priests taking a larger share in exchange for taking a smaller share in the restitution for another robbery of a convert? In other words, can the priests arrange that one priest or several priests will receive the restitution for one robbery and another priest or several priests will receive the restitution for a different robbery another time?

ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืืฉื ืงืจื™ื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื ืžื” ืืฉื ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืœืงื™ืŸ ืืฉื ื›ื ื’ื“ ืืฉื ืืฃ ื’ื–ืœ ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืœืงื™ืŸ ื’ื–ืœ ื”ื’ืจ ื›ื ื’ื“ ื’ื–ืœ ื”ื’ืจ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื’ื–ืœ ื”ื’ืจ ืžืžื•ื ื ื”ื•ื

He explains the two possibilities: Do we say that the Merciful One labeled the stolen item with the term โ€œguilt,โ€ and therefore, just as with a guilt-offering the priests may not divide portions of a guilt-offering, with some priests taking a larger share in exchange for taking a smaller share in other portions of a guilt-offering, but rather all priests of the watch share in the sacrificial flesh, so too with the restitution for robbery: The priests may not divide the restitution for robbery of a convert, with some priests taking a larger share in exchange for taking a smaller share in the restitution for another robbery of a convert? Or perhaps the restitution for robbery of a convert paid to priests is not in fact an offering, but it is monetary restitution, and monetary restitution may be divided in this manner among the priests?

ื”ื“ืจ ืคืฉื˜ื” ืืฉื ืงืจื™ื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืžืชื ื™ ืœื” ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื›ื”ื ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืœืงื™ืŸ ื’ื–ืœ ื”ื’ืจ ื›ื ื’ื“ ื’ื–ืœ ื”ื’ืจ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืืฉื ืงืจื™ื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื

Rava then resolves it himself: The Merciful One labeled the stolen item with the term โ€œguilt,โ€ so it may not be divided in this manner. Rav Aแธฅa, son of Rava, teaches it explicitly as a ruling, and not as a dilemma and solution, that Rava says: Priests may not divide the restitution for robbery of a convert with some priests taking a larger share in exchange for taking a smaller share in the restitution for another robbery of a convert. What is the reason? The Merciful One labeled the stolen item with the term โ€œguilt.โ€

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื‘ื’ื–ืœ ื”ื’ืจ ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื• ืื• ืžืงื‘ืœื™ ืžืชื ื•ืช ื”ื•ื•

ยง Rava raises a dilemma: What is the status of priests with regard to the restitution for robbery of a convert? Are they considered heirs of the convert or are they recipients of gifts?

ืœืžืื™ ื ืคืงื ืžื™ื ื” ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื’ื–ืœ ื—ืžืฅ ืฉืขื‘ืจ ืขืœื™ื• ื”ืคืกื— ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื• ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื”ืื™ ื“ื™ืจืชื™ ืžื•ืจื™ืช ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืžืงื‘ืœื™ ืžืชื ื•ืช ื”ื•ื• ืžืชื ื” ืงืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื“ื ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืœื”ื• ื•ื”ื ืœื ืงื ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืœื”ื• ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ืขืคืจื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื•ื

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference? The Gemara answers: The difference would be in a case where one robbed a convert of leavened bread, and then Passover elapsed over it, rendering it an item from which one is prohibited to derive benefit and therefore valueless. If you say that the priests are heirs, this is what they inherit: Only that which the robber bequeaths to them, and the priests receive the valueless leavened bread as is. And if you say that they are recipients of gifts, it is a gift that the Merciful One is saying that the robber should give to them, and this robber is not giving them anything, for it is merely dust. Therefore, the robber should have to pay the priests what the value of the bread had been at the time of the robbery.

ืจื‘ ื–ืขื™ืจื ื‘ืขื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืื ืชื™ืžืฆื™ ืœื•ืžืจ ืžืงื‘ืœื™ ืžืชื ื” ื”ื•ื• ื”ื ืœื ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœืŸ ื“ื”ื”ื™ื ืžืชื ื” ืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ื“ื ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืœื”ื•

Rav Zeira raises the dilemma like this: Even if you say that they are recipients of gifts, this question, i.e., whether a robber of leavened bread over which Passover then elapsed fulfills the mitzva to return the stolen item even in this devalued state, is not our dilemma, as this is certainly a fulfillment of the obligation. For this stolen item is the gift with regard to which the Merciful One states in the Torah that the robber should give it to the priests.

ืืœื ื›ื™ ืงืžื‘ืขื™ื ืœืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื ืคืœื• ืœื• ืขืฉืจ ื‘ื”ืžื•ืช ื‘ื’ื–ืœ ื”ื’ืจ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืœืืคืจื•ืฉื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ืžืขืฉืจ ืื• ืœื

Rav Zeira continues: Rather, when we have a dilemma whether the priests are considered as heirs or as recipients of gifts, the practical difference arises in a case where ten animals came into the priestโ€™s possession for payment of robbery of a convert. The dilemma is: Are they obligated to separate tithe from them, or not?

ื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื• ื“ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืงื ื• ื‘ืชืคื™ืกืช ื”ื‘ื™ืช ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืžืงื‘ืœื™ ืžืชื ื•ืช ื”ื•ื• ื•ืชื ืŸ ื”ืœื•ืงื— ื•ื”ื ื™ืชืŸ ืœื• ื‘ืžืชื ื” ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืžืขืฉืจ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžืื™

The Gemara explains the two possibilities: Perhaps they are heirs, in which case they will be obligated, for the Master said in a mishna (Bekhorot 56b) that if heirs acquired animals in the jointly held property of the estate, i.e., the heirs jointly owned the animals as the inheritance had yet to be divided, they are obligated to separate tithes from animals born to those animals, and the same will apply to the priests. Or perhaps they are recipients of gifts, and we learned in a mishna (Bekhorot 55b): One who purchases an animal or one who has an animal given to him as a gift is exempt from the obligation to separate the animal tithe, and the same will apply to the priests. What is the halakha in this case?

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ืืจื‘ืข ืžืชื ื•ืช ื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื ื™ืชื ื• ืœืื”ืจืŸ ื•ืœื‘ื ื™ื• ื•ื›ื•ืœืŸ ื ื™ืชื ื• ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื•ืคืจื˜ ื•ื›ืœืœ ื•ื‘ืจื™ืช ืžืœื—

The Gemara answers: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from a baraita (Tosefta, แธคalla 2:7โ€“10): Twenty-four priestly gifts were given to Aaron and to his sons, and all of them were given with a derivation from a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization; and with a covenant of salt. The verses in the book of Numbers, chapter 18, detail the gifts of the priesthood. The first verse (18:8) is written in general terms, followed by verses listing the actual gifts (9โ€“18), followed by a final verse written in general terms. The method of interpreting verses written in this manner is one of the thirteen hermeneutical principles. Additionally, the phrase: โ€œCovenant of salt,โ€ is written in the final verse (18:19), and is referring to all of the gifts of the priesthood.

ื›ืœ ื”ืžืงื™ื™ืžืŸ ื›ืื™ืœื• ืžืงื™ื™ื ื›ืœืœ ื•ืคืจื˜ ื•ื›ืœืœ ื•ื‘ืจื™ืช ืžืœื— ื›ืœ ื”ืขื•ื‘ืจ ืขืœื™ื”ื ื›ืื™ืœื• ืขื•ื‘ืจ ืขืœ ื›ืœืœ ื•ืคืจื˜ ื•ื›ืœืœ ื•ื‘ืจื™ืช ืžืœื—

This serves to teach that anyone who fulfills the mitzva of giving the gifts of the priesthood is considered as if he fulfills the entire Torah, which is interpreted using the principle of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization; and as if he has brought all of the offerings, concerning which there is a covenant of salt. And anyone who violates the mitzva of giving the gifts of the priesthood is considered as if he violates the entire Torah, which is interpreted using the principle of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization; and as if he has not brought all of the offerings, concerning which there is a covenant of salt.

ื•ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ืขืฉืจ ื‘ืžืงื“ืฉ ื•ืืจื‘ืข ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ื•ืขืฉืจ ื‘ื’ื‘ื•ืœื™ื ืขืฉืจ ื‘ืžืงื“ืฉ ื—ื˜ืืช ื‘ื”ืžื” ื•ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ื•ืืฉื ื•ื“ืื™ ื•ืืฉื ืชืœื•ื™ ื•ื–ื‘ื—ื™ ืฉืœืžื™ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื•ืœื•ื’ ืฉืžืŸ ืฉืœ ืžืฆื•ืจืข ื•ืžื•ืชืจ ื”ืขื•ืžืจ ื•ืฉืชื™ ื”ืœื—ื ื•ืœื—ื ื”ืคื ื™ื ื•ืฉื™ืจื™ ืžื ื—ื•ืช

The baraita continues: And these are the twenty-four gifts: There are ten in the Temple, and four in Jerusalem, and ten in the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael. The ten gifts that the priests consume only in the Temple are an animal sin-offering; and a bird sin-offering; and a definite guilt-offering; and a provisional guilt-offering; and communal peace-offerings, i.e., lambs offered on Shavuot; and a log of oil that accompanies the guilt-offering of a recovered leper; and the surplus of the omer, i.e., what remains of the measure of barley brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of Nisan; and the two loaves, i.e., the public offering of two loaves from the new wheat offered on Shavuot; and the shewbread; and the leftovers of grain-offerings, after the priests have offered the required handful.

ื•ืืจื‘ืข ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ื”ื‘ื›ื•ืจื” ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื›ื•ืจื™ื ื•ื”ืžื•ืจื ืžืŸ ื”ืชื•ื“ื” ื•ืื™ืœ ื ื–ื™ืจ ื•ืขื•ืจื•ืช ืงื“ืฉื™ื

The baraita continues: And the four gifts that the priests consume anywhere in Jerusalem: The firstborn of kosher animals; and the first fruits; and the portions separated for the priests from the thanks-offering and the naziriteโ€™s ram; and hides of consecrated animals.

ื•ืขืฉืจื” ื‘ื’ื‘ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืชืจื•ืžื” ื•ืชืจื•ืžืช ืžืขืฉืจ ื•ื—ืœื” ื•ืจืืฉื™ืช ื”ื’ื– ื•ื”ืžืชื ื•ืช ื•ืคื“ื™ื•ืŸ ื”ื‘ืŸ ื•ืคื“ื™ื•ืŸ ืคื˜ืจ ื—ืžื•ืจ ื•ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื•ืฉื“ื” ื—ืจืžื™ื ื•ื’ื–ืœ ื”ื’ืจ

The baraita continues: And ten gifts that the priests consume anywhere in the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael: Teruma, i.e., the portion of the produce designated for the priest; and teruma of the tithe, which the Levite separates from the tithe he receives and gives to a priest; and แธฅalla, i.e., the portion of dough of the five main grains designated for the priest; and the first of the sheared wool; and the gifts of non-sacrificial, slaughtered animals, namely, the right foreleg, the cheeks, and the maw; and money given for the redemption of the firstborn son; and a sheep or goat given as redemption of the firstborn donkey; and a consecrated ancestral field the priests receive in the Jubilee Year; and a dedicated field; and payment for robbery of a convert who died without heirs.

ื•ืงื ืงืจื™ ืžื™ื”ืช ืžืชื ื” ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืžืงื‘ืœื™ ืžืชื ื•ืช ื”ื•ื• ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

The Gemara infers from the wording of the baraita: And this baraita, in any event, labels the payment for robbery of a convert a gift. The Gemara suggests: Conclude from this baraita that the priests who receive it are considered recipients of gifts, and not heirs. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that this is so.

ื ืชืŸ ืืช ื”ื›ืกืฃ ืœืื ืฉื™ ืžืฉืžืจ [ื•ื›ื•ืณ] ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื›ืกืฃ ืžื›ืคืจ ืžื—ืฆื” ื“ืื™ ืœื ืžื›ืคืจ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืžื”ื“ืจ ืœื™ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืื“ืขืชื ื“ื”ื›ื™ ืœื ื™ื”ื‘ ืœื™ื”

ยง The mishna teaches: If he gave the money to the members of the priestly watch and then died before they sacrificed his guilt-offering, the heirs cannot remove the money from the priestsโ€™ possession. Abaye said: Learn from this mishna that monetary restitution for the robbery atones for half of the sin, for if it does not atone at all, and atonement is not achieved until the guilt-offering is sacrificed, I would say that in the case of robbery of a convert, if the guilt-offering is not brought the priest returns the money to the robberโ€™s heirs. What is the reason I would say this? Because he did not give the money to the priests with this intention of giving the money and not achieving atonement at all, and it would be a mistaken transaction.

ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื—ื˜ืืช ืฉืžืชื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื” ืชื™ืคื•ืง ืœื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื“ืื“ืขืชื ื“ื”ื›ื™ ืœื ืืคืจืฉื” ืืžืจื™ ื—ื˜ืืช ืฉืžืชื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื” ื”ืœื›ืชื ื’ืžื™ืจื™ ืœื” ื“ืœืžื™ืชื” ืื–ืœื

The Gemara asks: If that is so, it would follow that a sin-offering whose owners have died, leaving no one to bring the offering, should be transferred to non-sacred status, as the robber did not separate the animal as an offering with this intention of its not being sacrificed to atone for his sin. The Sages say in response: In the case of a sin-offering whose owners have died, the Sages learned this halakha through tradition that the animal is left to die.

ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ืืฉื ืฉืžืชื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื• ืœื™ืคื•ืง ืœื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื“ืื“ืขืชื ื“ื”ื›ื™ ืœื ืืคืจืฉื™ื” ืืฉื ื ืžื™ ื”ืœื›ืชื ื’ืžื™ืจื™ ืœื” ื›ืœ ืฉื‘ื—ื˜ืืช ืžืชื” ื‘ืืฉื ืจื•ืขื”

The Gemara asks: If that is so, a guilt-offering whose owner has died should be transferred to non-sacred status, as the owner did not separate the animal as an offering with this intention of it not being sacrificed to atone for his sin. The Gemara answers: With regard to a guilt-offering, the Sages also learned this halakha through tradition: Any occurrence that, if it occurs with regard to a sin-offering the animal is placed in isolation for it to die, if it occurs with regard to a guilt-offering the animal is left to graze until it develops a blemish precluding its use as an offering, at which point it can be redeemed.

ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื™ื‘ืžื” ืฉื ืคืœื” ืœืคื ื™ ืžื•ื›ื” ืฉื—ื™ืŸ ืชื™ืคื•ืง ื‘ืœื ื—ืœื™ืฆื” ื“ืื“ืขืชื ื“ื”ื›ื™ ืœื ืงื“ืฉื” ืขืฆืžื” ื”ืชื ืื ืŸ ืกื”ื“ื™

The Gemara asks: If that is so, then in the case of a woman whose husband died childless [yevama], who happened before her late husbandโ€™s brother who was afflicted with boils to enter levirate marriage with him, should go out free to marry without being required to perform the ritual through which the yavam frees the yevama of her levirate bonds [แธฅalitza]. For she did not betroth herself to this manโ€™s deceased brother with this intention of having a levirate bond with a man afflicted with boils. The Gemara answers: There, it is clear to us

Scroll To Top