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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 18, 2016 | 讟状讜 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

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. 聽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. 聽 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. 聽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. 聽The gemara concludes that is it viewed as a gift.

Study Guide Bava Kamma 110

讜讗诐 讛讬讛 讝拽谉 讗讜 讞讜诇讛 谞讜转谞讛 诇讻诇 讻讛谉 砖讬专爪讛 讜注讘讜讚转讛 讜注讜专讛 诇讗谞砖讬 诪砖诪专

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.

讛讗讬 讝拽谉 讗讜 讞讜诇讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诪爪讬 注讘讬讚 注讘讜讚讛 注讘讜讚转讛 讜注讜专讛 谞诪讬 转讬讛讜讬 讚讬讚讬讛 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 注讘讬讚 注讘讜讚讛 砖诇讬讞 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讜讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖讬讻讜诇 诇注砖讜转 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讚讞拽 注讘讜讚讛 讚讻讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讚讞拽 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜诪砖讜讬 砖诇讬讞 讗讻讬诇讛 讚讻讬 讗讻讬诇 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讚讞拽 讗讻讬诇讛 讙住讛 讛讬讗 讜讗讻讬诇讛 讙住讛 诇讗讜 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 注讘讜讚转讛 讜注讜专讛 诇讗谞砖讬 诪砖诪专

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.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗诐 讛讬讛 讻讛谉 讟诪讗 讘拽专讘谉 爪讘讜专 谞讜转谞讛 诇讻诇 诪讬 砖讬专爪讛 讜注讘讜讚转讛 讜注讜专讛 诇讗谞砖讬 诪砖诪专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讬讻讗 讟讛讜专讬诐 讟诪讗讬诐 诪讬 诪爪讜 注讘讚讬 讜讗讬 讚诇讬讻讗 讟讛讜专讬诐 注讘讜讚转讛 讜注讜专讛 诇讗谞砖讬 诪砖诪专 讛讗 讟诪讗讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讜诇讗 诪爪讜 讗讻诇讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 砖讘讗讜转讜 诪砖诪专

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诐 讛讬讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讗讜谞谉 谞讜转谞讛 诇讻诇 讻讛谉 砖讬专爪讛 讜注讘讜讚转讛 讜注讜专讛 诇讗谞砖讬 诪砖诪专 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪拽专讬讘 讗讜谞谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜诇拽 诇讗讻讜诇 诇注专讘

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 Ashi鈥檚 statement teaching us? We already learned in a baraita (Tosefta, Zeva岣m 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 Ashi鈥檚 statement?

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 讞住 专讞诪谞讗 注诇讬讛 讚讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诇拽专讜讘讬 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 诇砖讜讜讬讬 砖诇讬讞 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪砖讜讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讙讜讝诇 讗转 讛讙专 讜谞砖讘注 诇讜 讜诪转 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖诇诐 拽专谉 讜讞讜诪砖 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讜讗砖诐 诇诪讝讘讞 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 诇讗讬砖 讙讜讗诇 诇讛砖讬讘 讛讗砖诐 讗诇讬讜 讛讗砖诐 讛诪讜砖讘 诇讛壮 诇讻讛谉 诪诇讘讚 讗讬诇 讛讻驻专讬诐 讗砖专 讬讻驻专 讘讜 注诇讬讜

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: 鈥淏ut 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 Lord鈥檚, even the priest鈥檚; besides the ram of the atonement, whereby atonement shall be made for him鈥 (Numbers 5:8).

讛讬讛 诪注诇讛 讗转 讛讻住祝 讜讗转 讛讗砖诐 讜诪转 讛讻住祝 讬谞转谉 诇讘谞讬讜 讜讛讗砖诐 讬专注讛 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘 讜讬诪讻专 讜讬驻诇讜 讚诪讬讜 诇谞讚讘讛 谞转谉 讛讻住祝 诇讗谞砖讬 诪砖诪专 讜诪转 讗讬谉 讛讬讜专砖讬谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗讬砖 讗砖专 讬转谉 诇讻讛谉 诇讜 讬讛讬讛

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 robber鈥檚 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 priests鈥 possession, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd every man鈥檚 hallowed things shall be his; whatsoever any man gives to the priest, it shall be his鈥 (Numbers 5:10).

谞转谉 讛讻住祝 诇讬讛讜讬专讬讘 讜讗砖诐 诇讬讚注讬讛 讬爪讗 讗砖诐 诇讬讛讜讬专讬讘 讜讻住祝 诇讬讚注讬讛 讗诐 拽讬讬诐 讛讗砖诐 讬拽专讬讘讜讛讜 讘谞讬 讬讚注讬讛 讜讗诐 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讜讬讘讬讗 讗砖诐 讗讞专 砖讛诪讘讬讗 讙讝讬诇讜 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讘讬讗 讗砖诪讜 讬爪讗 讛讘讬讗 讗砖诪讜 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讘讬讗 讙讝讬诇讜 诇讗 讬爪讗

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.

谞转谉 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜诇讗 谞转谉 讗转 讛讞讜诪砖 讗讬谉 讛讞讜诪砖 诪注讻讘

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗砖诐 讝讛 拽专谉 讛诪讜砖讘 讝讛 讞讜诪砖 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讗砖诐 讝讛 讗讬诇

GEMARA: The Sages taught in explanation of the verse cited in the mishna: 鈥淏ut if the man has no kinsman鈥he restitution for guilt that is made shall be the Lord鈥檚, even the priest鈥檚鈥 (Numbers 5:8): With regard to the word 鈥済uilt,鈥 this is referring to the principal, i.e., the stolen item itself or its equivalent value; 鈥渢he restitution鈥hat is made,鈥 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: 鈥淕uilt,鈥 this is referring to the ram of the guilt-offering.

讜诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讙讝诇 讛讙专 砖讛讞讝讬专讜 讘诇讬诇讛 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛讞讝讬专讜 讞爪讗讬谉 诇讗 讬爪讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗砖诐 拽专讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗

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 鈥済uilt,鈥 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.

讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诪诇讘讚 讗讬诇 讛讻驻专讬诐 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讗砖诐 讝讛 拽专谉

The baraita continues: When it says in that verse: 鈥淏esides the ram of the atonement鈥 (Numbers 5:8), referring to the offering, you must say concerning the word 鈥済uilt鈥 written earlier in the verse that this is referring to the principal.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗砖诐 讝讛 拽专谉 讛诪讜砖讘 讝讛 讞讜诪砖 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讗砖诐 讝讛 讞讜诪砖 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚转谞谉 谞转谉 诇讜 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜诇讗 谞转谉 诇讜 讗转 讛讞讜诪砖 讗讬谉 讛讞讜诪砖 诪注讻讘 讗讚专讘讛 讞讜诪砖 诪注讻讘

It is taught in another baraita: With regard to the word 鈥済uilt,鈥 this is referring to the principal; 鈥渢he restitution鈥hat is made,鈥 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: 鈥淕uilt,鈥 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 鈥済uilt鈥 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.

讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛砖讬讘 讗转 讗砖诪讜 讘专讗砖讜 讜讞诪讬砖转讜 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讗砖诐 讝讛 拽专谉

The baraita continues: When it says in the previous verse: 鈥淎nd he shall make restitution for his guilt in full, and add unto it the fifth part thereof鈥 (Numbers 5:7), you must say concerning the word 鈥済uilt鈥 that this is referring to the principal.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗砖诐 讝讛 拽专谉 讛诪讜砖讘 讝讛 讞讜诪砖 讜讘讙讝诇 讛讙专 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讛诪讜砖讘 讝讛 讻驻诇 讜讘讙谞讬讘转 讛讙专 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛砖讬讘 讗转 讗砖诪讜 讘专讗砖讜 讜讞诪讬砖转讜 讛专讬 讘诪诪讜谉 讛诪砖转诇诐 讘专讗砖 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

It is taught in another baraita: With regard to the word 鈥済uilt,鈥 this is referring to the principal; 鈥渢he restitution鈥hat is made,鈥 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: 鈥淭he restitution鈥hat is made,鈥 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: 鈥淎nd he shall make restitution for his guilt in full, and add unto it the fifth part thereof鈥 (Numbers 5:7), the verse is speaking of money that is paid exactly according to the principal, and not double payment.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讙讝诇 讛讙专 砖讛讞讝讬专讜 讘诇讬诇讛 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛讞讝讬专讜讛讜 讞爪讗讬谉 诇讗 讬爪讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗砖诐 拽专讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗

搂 Having quoted Rava鈥檚 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 鈥済uilt,鈥 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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讙讝诇 讛讙专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诇讻诇 讻讛谉 讜讻讛谉 诇讗 讬爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 讛讗砖诐 讛诪讜砖讘 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讛砖讘讛 诇讻诇 讻讛谉 讜讻讛谉

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: 鈥淭he restitution for guilt that is made,鈥 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.

讘注讬 专讘讗 讗讬谉 讘讜 诇诪砖诪专转 讬讛讜讬专讬讘 讜讬砖 讘讜

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

诇诪砖诪专转 讬讚注讬讛 诪讛讜

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

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讬讛讘讬讛 诇讬讚注讬讛 讘诪砖诪专转 讬讚注讬讛 讛讗 讗讬转 讘讬讛

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.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讬讛讘讬讛 诇讬讚注讬讛 讘诪砖诪专转讜 讚讬讛讜讬专讬讘 诪讗讬 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗讜 诪砖诪专转讜 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讬讚注讬讛 拽讗讬 转讬拽讜

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 Jedaiah鈥檚 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.

讘注讬 专讘讗 讻讛谞讬诐 诪讛讜 砖讬讞诇拽讜 讙讝诇 讛讙专 讻谞讙讚 讙讝诇 讛讙专

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?

诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗砖诐 拽专讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诪讛 讗砖诐 讗讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讗砖诐 讻谞讙讚 讗砖诐 讗祝 讙讝诇 讗讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讙讝诇 讛讙专 讻谞讙讚 讙讝诇 讛讙专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讙讝诇 讛讙专 诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讗

He explains the two possibilities: Do we say that the Merciful One labeled the stolen item with the term 鈥済uilt,鈥 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?

讛讚专 驻砖讟讛 讗砖诐 拽专讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讘讛讚讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讛谞讬诐 讗讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讙讝诇 讛讙专 讻谞讙讚 讙讝诇 讛讙专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗砖诐 拽专讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗

Rava then resolves it himself: The Merciful One labeled the stolen item with the term 鈥済uilt,鈥 so it may not be divided in this manner. Rav A岣, 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 鈥済uilt.鈥

讘注讬 专讘讗 讻讛谞讬诐 讘讙讝诇 讛讙专 讬讜专砖讬谉 讛讜讜 讗讜 诪拽讘诇讬 诪转谞讜转 讛讜讜

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?

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讙讝诇 讞诪抓 砖注讘专 注诇讬讜 讛驻住讞 讗讬 讗诪专转 讬讜专砖讬谉 讛讜讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讗讬 讚讬专转讬 诪讜专讬转 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诪拽讘诇讬 诪转谞讜转 讛讜讜 诪转谞讛 拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讚谞讬转讬讘 诇讛讜 讜讛讗 诇讗 拽讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讛讜 诪讬讚讬 讚注驻专讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

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.

专讘 讝注讬专讗 讘注讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 诪拽讘诇讬 诪转谞讛 讛讜讜 讛讗 诇讗 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讚讛讛讬讗 诪转谞讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讚谞讬转讬讘 诇讛讜

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.

讗诇讗 讻讬 拽诪讘注讬讗 诇谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞驻诇讜 诇讜 注砖专 讘讛诪讜转 讘讙讝诇 讛讙专 诪讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗驻专讜砖讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪注砖专 讗讜 诇讗

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 priest鈥檚 possession for payment of robbery of a convert. The dilemma is: Are they obligated to separate tithe from them, or not?

讬讜专砖讬谉 讛讜讜 讚讗诪专 诪专 拽谞讜 讘转驻讬住转 讛讘讬转 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪拽讘诇讬 诪转谞讜转 讛讜讜 讜转谞谉 讛诇讜拽讞 讜讛谞讬转谉 诇讜 讘诪转谞讛 驻讟讜专 诪诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 诪讗讬

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?

转讗 砖诪注 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注 诪转谞讜转 讻讛讜谞讛 谞讬转谞讜 诇讗讛专谉 讜诇讘谞讬讜 讜讻讜诇谉 谞讬转谞讜 讘讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讜讘专讬转 诪诇讞

The Gemara answers: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from a baraita (Tosefta, 岣lla 2:7鈥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 (9鈥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: 鈥淐ovenant of salt,鈥 is written in the final verse (18:19), and is referring to all of the gifts of the priesthood.

讻诇 讛诪拽讬讬诪谉 讻讗讬诇讜 诪拽讬讬诐 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讜讘专讬转 诪诇讞 讻诇 讛注讜讘专 注诇讬讛诐 讻讗讬诇讜 注讜讘专 注诇 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讜讘专讬转 诪诇讞

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.

讜讗诇讜 讛谉 注砖专 讘诪拽讚砖 讜讗专讘注 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜注砖专 讘讙讘讜诇讬诐 注砖专 讘诪拽讚砖 讞讟讗转 讘讛诪讛 讜讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讜讗砖诐 讜讚讗讬 讜讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讜讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬 爪讘讜专 讜诇讜讙 砖诪谉 砖诇 诪爪讜专注 讜诪讜转专 讛注讜诪专 讜砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讜诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讜砖讬专讬 诪谞讞讜转

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.

讜讗专讘注 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讛讘讻讜专讛 讜讛讘讬讻讜专讬诐 讜讛诪讜专诐 诪谉 讛转讜讚讛 讜讗讬诇 谞讝讬专 讜注讜专讜转 拽讚砖讬诐

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 nazirite鈥檚 ram; and hides of consecrated animals.

讜注砖专讛 讘讙讘讜诇讬谉 转专讜诪讛 讜转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讜讞诇讛 讜专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讜讛诪转谞讜转 讜驻讚讬讜谉 讛讘谉 讜驻讚讬讜谉 驻讟专 讞诪讜专 讜砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讜砖讚讛 讞专诪讬诐 讜讙讝诇 讛讙专

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 岣lla, 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.

讜拽讗 拽专讬 诪讬讛转 诪转谞讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪拽讘诇讬 诪转谞讜转 讛讜讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

谞转谉 讗转 讛讻住祝 诇讗谞砖讬 诪砖诪专 [讜讻讜壮] 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻住祝 诪讻驻专 诪讞爪讛 讚讗讬 诇讗 诪讻驻专 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讛讚专 诇讬讜专砖讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讚注转讗 讚讛讻讬 诇讗 讬讛讘 诇讬讛

搂 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 priests鈥 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 robber鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讞讟讗转 砖诪转讜 讘注诇讬讛 转讬驻讜拽 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讚讗讚注转讗 讚讛讻讬 诇讗 讗驻专砖讛 讗诪专讬 讞讟讗转 砖诪转讜 讘注诇讬讛 讛诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讚诇诪讬转讛 讗讝诇讗

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.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讗砖诐 砖诪转讜 讘注诇讬讜 诇讬驻讜拽 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讚讗讚注转讗 讚讛讻讬 诇讗 讗驻专砖讬讛 讗砖诐 谞诪讬 讛诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讻诇 砖讘讞讟讗转 诪转讛 讘讗砖诐 专讜注讛

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.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讬讘诪讛 砖谞驻诇讛 诇驻谞讬 诪讜讻讛 砖讞讬谉 转讬驻讜拽 讘诇讗 讞诇讬爪讛 讚讗讚注转讗 讚讛讻讬 诇讗 拽讚砖讛 注爪诪讛 讛转诐 讗谞谉 住讛讚讬

The Gemara asks: If that is so, then in the case of a woman whose husband died childless [yevama], who happened before her late husband鈥檚 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 [岣litza]. For she did not betroth herself to this man鈥檚 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 month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

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

讜讗诐 讛讬讛 讝拽谉 讗讜 讞讜诇讛 谞讜转谞讛 诇讻诇 讻讛谉 砖讬专爪讛 讜注讘讜讚转讛 讜注讜专讛 诇讗谞砖讬 诪砖诪专

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.

讛讗讬 讝拽谉 讗讜 讞讜诇讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诪爪讬 注讘讬讚 注讘讜讚讛 注讘讜讚转讛 讜注讜专讛 谞诪讬 转讬讛讜讬 讚讬讚讬讛 讜讗讬 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 注讘讬讚 注讘讜讚讛 砖诇讬讞 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讜讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖讬讻讜诇 诇注砖讜转 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讚讞拽 注讘讜讚讛 讚讻讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讚讞拽 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜诪砖讜讬 砖诇讬讞 讗讻讬诇讛 讚讻讬 讗讻讬诇 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讚讞拽 讗讻讬诇讛 讙住讛 讛讬讗 讜讗讻讬诇讛 讙住讛 诇讗讜 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 注讘讜讚转讛 讜注讜专讛 诇讗谞砖讬 诪砖诪专

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.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗诐 讛讬讛 讻讛谉 讟诪讗 讘拽专讘谉 爪讘讜专 谞讜转谞讛 诇讻诇 诪讬 砖讬专爪讛 讜注讘讜讚转讛 讜注讜专讛 诇讗谞砖讬 诪砖诪专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讬讻讗 讟讛讜专讬诐 讟诪讗讬诐 诪讬 诪爪讜 注讘讚讬 讜讗讬 讚诇讬讻讗 讟讛讜专讬诐 注讘讜讚转讛 讜注讜专讛 诇讗谞砖讬 诪砖诪专 讛讗 讟诪讗讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讜诇讗 诪爪讜 讗讻诇讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 砖讘讗讜转讜 诪砖诪专

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诐 讛讬讛 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讗讜谞谉 谞讜转谞讛 诇讻诇 讻讛谉 砖讬专爪讛 讜注讘讜讚转讛 讜注讜专讛 诇讗谞砖讬 诪砖诪专 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪拽专讬讘 讗讜谞谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜诇拽 诇讗讻讜诇 诇注专讘

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 Ashi鈥檚 statement teaching us? We already learned in a baraita (Tosefta, Zeva岣m 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 Ashi鈥檚 statement?

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 讞住 专讞诪谞讗 注诇讬讛 讚讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诇拽专讜讘讬 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 诇砖讜讜讬讬 砖诇讬讞 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪砖讜讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讙讜讝诇 讗转 讛讙专 讜谞砖讘注 诇讜 讜诪转 讛专讬 讝讛 诪砖诇诐 拽专谉 讜讞讜诪砖 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讜讗砖诐 诇诪讝讘讞 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 诇讗讬砖 讙讜讗诇 诇讛砖讬讘 讛讗砖诐 讗诇讬讜 讛讗砖诐 讛诪讜砖讘 诇讛壮 诇讻讛谉 诪诇讘讚 讗讬诇 讛讻驻专讬诐 讗砖专 讬讻驻专 讘讜 注诇讬讜

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: 鈥淏ut 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 Lord鈥檚, even the priest鈥檚; besides the ram of the atonement, whereby atonement shall be made for him鈥 (Numbers 5:8).

讛讬讛 诪注诇讛 讗转 讛讻住祝 讜讗转 讛讗砖诐 讜诪转 讛讻住祝 讬谞转谉 诇讘谞讬讜 讜讛讗砖诐 讬专注讛 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘 讜讬诪讻专 讜讬驻诇讜 讚诪讬讜 诇谞讚讘讛 谞转谉 讛讻住祝 诇讗谞砖讬 诪砖诪专 讜诪转 讗讬谉 讛讬讜专砖讬谉 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讛讜爪讬讗 诪讬讚诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗讬砖 讗砖专 讬转谉 诇讻讛谉 诇讜 讬讛讬讛

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 robber鈥檚 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 priests鈥 possession, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd every man鈥檚 hallowed things shall be his; whatsoever any man gives to the priest, it shall be his鈥 (Numbers 5:10).

谞转谉 讛讻住祝 诇讬讛讜讬专讬讘 讜讗砖诐 诇讬讚注讬讛 讬爪讗 讗砖诐 诇讬讛讜讬专讬讘 讜讻住祝 诇讬讚注讬讛 讗诐 拽讬讬诐 讛讗砖诐 讬拽专讬讘讜讛讜 讘谞讬 讬讚注讬讛 讜讗诐 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讜讬讘讬讗 讗砖诐 讗讞专 砖讛诪讘讬讗 讙讝讬诇讜 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讘讬讗 讗砖诪讜 讬爪讗 讛讘讬讗 讗砖诪讜 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讘讬讗 讙讝讬诇讜 诇讗 讬爪讗

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.

谞转谉 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜诇讗 谞转谉 讗转 讛讞讜诪砖 讗讬谉 讛讞讜诪砖 诪注讻讘

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗砖诐 讝讛 拽专谉 讛诪讜砖讘 讝讛 讞讜诪砖 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讗砖诐 讝讛 讗讬诇

GEMARA: The Sages taught in explanation of the verse cited in the mishna: 鈥淏ut if the man has no kinsman鈥he restitution for guilt that is made shall be the Lord鈥檚, even the priest鈥檚鈥 (Numbers 5:8): With regard to the word 鈥済uilt,鈥 this is referring to the principal, i.e., the stolen item itself or its equivalent value; 鈥渢he restitution鈥hat is made,鈥 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: 鈥淕uilt,鈥 this is referring to the ram of the guilt-offering.

讜诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讙讝诇 讛讙专 砖讛讞讝讬专讜 讘诇讬诇讛 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛讞讝讬专讜 讞爪讗讬谉 诇讗 讬爪讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗砖诐 拽专讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗

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 鈥済uilt,鈥 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.

讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诪诇讘讚 讗讬诇 讛讻驻专讬诐 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讗砖诐 讝讛 拽专谉

The baraita continues: When it says in that verse: 鈥淏esides the ram of the atonement鈥 (Numbers 5:8), referring to the offering, you must say concerning the word 鈥済uilt鈥 written earlier in the verse that this is referring to the principal.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗砖诐 讝讛 拽专谉 讛诪讜砖讘 讝讛 讞讜诪砖 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讗砖诐 讝讛 讞讜诪砖 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚转谞谉 谞转谉 诇讜 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜诇讗 谞转谉 诇讜 讗转 讛讞讜诪砖 讗讬谉 讛讞讜诪砖 诪注讻讘 讗讚专讘讛 讞讜诪砖 诪注讻讘

It is taught in another baraita: With regard to the word 鈥済uilt,鈥 this is referring to the principal; 鈥渢he restitution鈥hat is made,鈥 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: 鈥淕uilt,鈥 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 鈥済uilt鈥 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.

讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛砖讬讘 讗转 讗砖诪讜 讘专讗砖讜 讜讞诪讬砖转讜 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讗砖诐 讝讛 拽专谉

The baraita continues: When it says in the previous verse: 鈥淎nd he shall make restitution for his guilt in full, and add unto it the fifth part thereof鈥 (Numbers 5:7), you must say concerning the word 鈥済uilt鈥 that this is referring to the principal.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗砖诐 讝讛 拽专谉 讛诪讜砖讘 讝讛 讞讜诪砖 讜讘讙讝诇 讛讙专 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讛诪讜砖讘 讝讛 讻驻诇 讜讘讙谞讬讘转 讛讙专 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讛砖讬讘 讗转 讗砖诪讜 讘专讗砖讜 讜讞诪讬砖转讜 讛专讬 讘诪诪讜谉 讛诪砖转诇诐 讘专讗砖 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

It is taught in another baraita: With regard to the word 鈥済uilt,鈥 this is referring to the principal; 鈥渢he restitution鈥hat is made,鈥 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: 鈥淭he restitution鈥hat is made,鈥 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: 鈥淎nd he shall make restitution for his guilt in full, and add unto it the fifth part thereof鈥 (Numbers 5:7), the verse is speaking of money that is paid exactly according to the principal, and not double payment.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讙讝诇 讛讙专 砖讛讞讝讬专讜 讘诇讬诇讛 诇讗 讬爪讗 讛讞讝讬专讜讛讜 讞爪讗讬谉 诇讗 讬爪讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗砖诐 拽专讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗

搂 Having quoted Rava鈥檚 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 鈥済uilt,鈥 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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 讙讝诇 讛讙专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诇讻诇 讻讛谉 讜讻讛谉 诇讗 讬爪讗 讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 讛讗砖诐 讛诪讜砖讘 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讛砖讘讛 诇讻诇 讻讛谉 讜讻讛谉

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: 鈥淭he restitution for guilt that is made,鈥 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.

讘注讬 专讘讗 讗讬谉 讘讜 诇诪砖诪专转 讬讛讜讬专讬讘 讜讬砖 讘讜

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

诇诪砖诪专转 讬讚注讬讛 诪讛讜

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

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讬讛讘讬讛 诇讬讚注讬讛 讘诪砖诪专转 讬讚注讬讛 讛讗 讗讬转 讘讬讛

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.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讬讛讘讬讛 诇讬讚注讬讛 讘诪砖诪专转讜 讚讬讛讜讬专讬讘 诪讗讬 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗讜 诪砖诪专转讜 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讬讚注讬讛 拽讗讬 转讬拽讜

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 Jedaiah鈥檚 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.

讘注讬 专讘讗 讻讛谞讬诐 诪讛讜 砖讬讞诇拽讜 讙讝诇 讛讙专 讻谞讙讚 讙讝诇 讛讙专

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?

诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗砖诐 拽专讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诪讛 讗砖诐 讗讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讗砖诐 讻谞讙讚 讗砖诐 讗祝 讙讝诇 讗讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讙讝诇 讛讙专 讻谞讙讚 讙讝诇 讛讙专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讙讝诇 讛讙专 诪诪讜谞讗 讛讜讗

He explains the two possibilities: Do we say that the Merciful One labeled the stolen item with the term 鈥済uilt,鈥 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?

讛讚专 驻砖讟讛 讗砖诐 拽专讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讘讛讚讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讛谞讬诐 讗讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讙讝诇 讛讙专 讻谞讙讚 讙讝诇 讛讙专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗砖诐 拽专讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗

Rava then resolves it himself: The Merciful One labeled the stolen item with the term 鈥済uilt,鈥 so it may not be divided in this manner. Rav A岣, 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 鈥済uilt.鈥

讘注讬 专讘讗 讻讛谞讬诐 讘讙讝诇 讛讙专 讬讜专砖讬谉 讛讜讜 讗讜 诪拽讘诇讬 诪转谞讜转 讛讜讜

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?

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讙讝诇 讞诪抓 砖注讘专 注诇讬讜 讛驻住讞 讗讬 讗诪专转 讬讜专砖讬谉 讛讜讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讗讬 讚讬专转讬 诪讜专讬转 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诪拽讘诇讬 诪转谞讜转 讛讜讜 诪转谞讛 拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讚谞讬转讬讘 诇讛讜 讜讛讗 诇讗 拽讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讛讜 诪讬讚讬 讚注驻专讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

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.

专讘 讝注讬专讗 讘注讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 诪拽讘诇讬 诪转谞讛 讛讜讜 讛讗 诇讗 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讚讛讛讬讗 诪转谞讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讚谞讬转讬讘 诇讛讜

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.

讗诇讗 讻讬 拽诪讘注讬讗 诇谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞驻诇讜 诇讜 注砖专 讘讛诪讜转 讘讙讝诇 讛讙专 诪讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗驻专讜砖讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪注砖专 讗讜 诇讗

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 priest鈥檚 possession for payment of robbery of a convert. The dilemma is: Are they obligated to separate tithe from them, or not?

讬讜专砖讬谉 讛讜讜 讚讗诪专 诪专 拽谞讜 讘转驻讬住转 讛讘讬转 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪拽讘诇讬 诪转谞讜转 讛讜讜 讜转谞谉 讛诇讜拽讞 讜讛谞讬转谉 诇讜 讘诪转谞讛 驻讟讜专 诪诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 诪讗讬

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?

转讗 砖诪注 注砖专讬诐 讜讗专讘注 诪转谞讜转 讻讛讜谞讛 谞讬转谞讜 诇讗讛专谉 讜诇讘谞讬讜 讜讻讜诇谉 谞讬转谞讜 讘讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讜讘专讬转 诪诇讞

The Gemara answers: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from a baraita (Tosefta, 岣lla 2:7鈥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 (9鈥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: 鈥淐ovenant of salt,鈥 is written in the final verse (18:19), and is referring to all of the gifts of the priesthood.

讻诇 讛诪拽讬讬诪谉 讻讗讬诇讜 诪拽讬讬诐 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讜讘专讬转 诪诇讞 讻诇 讛注讜讘专 注诇讬讛诐 讻讗讬诇讜 注讜讘专 注诇 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讜讘专讬转 诪诇讞

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.

讜讗诇讜 讛谉 注砖专 讘诪拽讚砖 讜讗专讘注 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜注砖专 讘讙讘讜诇讬诐 注砖专 讘诪拽讚砖 讞讟讗转 讘讛诪讛 讜讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讜讗砖诐 讜讚讗讬 讜讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讜讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬 爪讘讜专 讜诇讜讙 砖诪谉 砖诇 诪爪讜专注 讜诪讜转专 讛注讜诪专 讜砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讜诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 讜砖讬专讬 诪谞讞讜转

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.

讜讗专讘注 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讛讘讻讜专讛 讜讛讘讬讻讜专讬诐 讜讛诪讜专诐 诪谉 讛转讜讚讛 讜讗讬诇 谞讝讬专 讜注讜专讜转 拽讚砖讬诐

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 nazirite鈥檚 ram; and hides of consecrated animals.

讜注砖专讛 讘讙讘讜诇讬谉 转专讜诪讛 讜转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讜讞诇讛 讜专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讜讛诪转谞讜转 讜驻讚讬讜谉 讛讘谉 讜驻讚讬讜谉 驻讟专 讞诪讜专 讜砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讜砖讚讛 讞专诪讬诐 讜讙讝诇 讛讙专

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 岣lla, 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.

讜拽讗 拽专讬 诪讬讛转 诪转谞讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪拽讘诇讬 诪转谞讜转 讛讜讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

谞转谉 讗转 讛讻住祝 诇讗谞砖讬 诪砖诪专 [讜讻讜壮] 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻住祝 诪讻驻专 诪讞爪讛 讚讗讬 诇讗 诪讻驻专 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讛讚专 诇讬讜专砖讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讚注转讗 讚讛讻讬 诇讗 讬讛讘 诇讬讛

搂 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 priests鈥 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 robber鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讞讟讗转 砖诪转讜 讘注诇讬讛 转讬驻讜拽 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讚讗讚注转讗 讚讛讻讬 诇讗 讗驻专砖讛 讗诪专讬 讞讟讗转 砖诪转讜 讘注诇讬讛 讛诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讚诇诪讬转讛 讗讝诇讗

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.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讗砖诐 砖诪转讜 讘注诇讬讜 诇讬驻讜拽 诇讞讜诇讬谉 讚讗讚注转讗 讚讛讻讬 诇讗 讗驻专砖讬讛 讗砖诐 谞诪讬 讛诇讻转讗 讙诪讬专讬 诇讛 讻诇 砖讘讞讟讗转 诪转讛 讘讗砖诐 专讜注讛

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.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讬讘诪讛 砖谞驻诇讛 诇驻谞讬 诪讜讻讛 砖讞讬谉 转讬驻讜拽 讘诇讗 讞诇讬爪讛 讚讗讚注转讗 讚讛讻讬 诇讗 拽讚砖讛 注爪诪讛 讛转诐 讗谞谉 住讛讚讬

The Gemara asks: If that is so, then in the case of a woman whose husband died childless [yevama], who happened before her late husband鈥檚 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 [岣litza]. For she did not betroth herself to this man鈥檚 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