Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Rav Chisda rules that anyone who destroys or eats priestly gifts (zero’a, lechayayim, keva) prior to distribution is exempt from financial restitution, whether derived from the word “zeh” in the verse or because these gifts constitute property with no specific claimant (mamon she-ein lo tove’in). The Gemara raises seven challenges from various Tannaitic sources (including rulings on other priestly gifts and poor-person’s gifts)—some directed against Rav Chisda’s overall exemption from restitution, and others against the explanation that it constitutes property with no specific claimant. The Gemara resolves all of these challenges, upholding Rav Chisda’s position.
The Gemara then turns to evaluate whether Levites are obligated to give priestly gifts when slaughtering their own non-sacred animals. Rav remains in doubt as to whether Levites are legally included in the biblical description of “from the nation” (me’et ha-am) or whether their tribe’s distinct status exempts them from giving matanot; consequently, while Levites are technically obligated to give them, this obligation cannot be legally enforced against them. The Gemara presents three challenges against Rav’s uncertainty from explicit braitot, but answers all of them, leaving Rav’s underlying doubt intact.
Mareimar rules halakhically in accordance with both Rav Chisda and Rav’s doubt.
Finally, Ulla permitted giving priestly gifts to a kohen’s daughter, even if she is married to an Israelite. Rava challenges Ulla’s ruling from the laws regarding the meal-offering (minchah) of a kohen’s daughter, which differs from that of a male kohen in that it is not completely burned on the altar, demonstrating that her status as a priestess is not entirely identical.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Chullin is sponsored by Judi Felber in honor of the Hadran Community. “During my first cycle of Daf Yomi, just as we began Masechet Chullin, my son was injured while serving in the IDF. Throughout those two and a half months of difficulty and uncertainty, my fellow learners never left my side. With profound gratitude to the community that held me, encouraged me, and ensured I could keep up with the Daf during those trying times.”
Chullin 131
דַּאֲתוֹ לִידֵיהּ בְּטִבְלַיְיהוּ, וְקָסָבַר הַאי תַּנָּא: מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמוּ – כְּמִי שֶׁהוּרְמוּ דָּמְיָין.
the baraita is referring to a case where they came into the priest’s possession while they were still untithed, and this tanna holds that gifts that have not been separated are considered as though they have been separated. In such a case, the priest obtained rights to the ownerless gifts by seizing them first. Although when he seized the produce it was still untithed, the portion of the produce that is to be separated has the status of teruma. Accordingly, one who consumes such produce is required to pay the priest.
תָּא שְׁמַע: הֲרֵי שֶׁאָנְסוּ בֵּית הַמֶּלֶךְ גׇּרְנוֹ, אִם בְּחוֹבוֹ – חַיָּיב לְעַשֵּׂר, אִם בְּאַנְפָּרוּת – פָּטוּר מִלְּעַשֵּׂר.
The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear another proof with regard to the statement of Rav Ḥisda from a baraita: In a case where the household of the king seized one’s threshing floor by force, if they took it as payment of his debt owed to the king, then he is obligated to tithe other grain in accordance with the amount he would have tithed before the grain was seized. Since he was already obligated to tithe the grain before it was seized, it is considered as though the grain was sold in an untithed state. If they took it without reason [anparot], then he is exempt from tithing. The fact that one is required to tithe grain seized as payment of a debt indicates that the tithe is considered money that has claimants, from which it follows that a priest may extract payment of the tithe from him. Again, this apparently contradicts the statement of Rav Ḥisda.
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּקָא מִשְׁתָּרְשִׁי לֵיהּ.
The Gemara rejects this proof: It is different there, since if one is not required to tithe grain seized as payment of a debt, this would mean that the seizure causes benefit for him, as he will be exempt from tithing grain that he was previously obligated to tithe. It is for this reason that the baraita rules that one must tithe other grain instead of the seized grain, not because a priest could have issued a claim against him in court.
תָּא שְׁמַע, אָמַר לוֹ: מְכוֹר לִי בְּנֵי מֵעֶיהָ שֶׁל פָּרָה, וְהָיָה בָּהֶן מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה – נוֹתְנָן לַכֹּהֵן, וְאֵינוֹ מְנַכֶּה לוֹ מִן הַדָּמִים. לָקַח הֵימֶנּוּ בְּמִשְׁקָל – נוֹתְנָן לַכֹּהֵן, וּמְנַכֶּה לוֹ מִן הַדָּמִים.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (132a): If an Israelite says to a butcher: Sell me the innards of a particular cow, and there were gifts of the priesthood included with it, i.e., the maw, that were not yet given to the priest, the purchaser must give them to the priest, and the butcher may not deduct the value of the gifts from the money that the purchaser pays him, as it is assumed that the gifts were not included in the sale. If he purchased the innards from the butcher by weight, the purchaser must give the gifts to the priest, and the butcher deducts the value of the gifts from the money that the Israelite pays him.
אַמַּאי? לֶיהֱוֵי כְּמַזִּיק מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה אוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלָן! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאִיתַנְהוּ בְּעֵינַיְהוּ.
The Gemara asks: Why must the buyer give the maw to the priest? Let the butcher’s sale of the maw be considered like a case where one causes damage to gifts of the priesthood or consumes them, with regard to which Rav Ḥisda states that one is exempt from payment. This mishna apparently contradicts Rav Ḥisda’s statement. The Gemara rejects this: It is different there, as the gifts are intact, i.e., they are distinct items in their own right. In such a case, the gifts must be given to the priest. By contrast, Rav Ḥisda is discussing cases in which the gifts are not distinguishable objects at the time.
תָּא שְׁמַע: תִּשְׁעָה נִכְסֵי כֹהֵן – תְּרוּמָה, וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר, וְחַלָּה, רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, וּמַתָּנוֹת, וְהַדְּמַאי, וְהַבִּכּוּרִים, וְהַקֶּרֶן, וְהַחוֹמֶשׁ.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof: Nine items are the property of a priest: Teruma, teruma of the tithe, ḥalla, the portion of dough given to the priest, the first sheared wool, gifts of the priesthood, doubtfully tithed produce [demai], first fruits, the principal value of the property of a convert, and the additional one-fifth. The two are paid to the priest in a case where the property of a convert was stolen and the thief took an oath that he did not steal it, and after the convert died the thief admitted to taking a false oath.
לְמַאי, לָאו לְהוֹצִיאָן בְּדַיָּינִין? לָא, לִכְדִתְנַן: לָמָה אָמְרוּ נִכְסֵי כֹהֵן? שֶׁקּוֹנֶה בָּהֶן עֲבָדִים וְקַרְקָעוֹת וּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה, וּבַעַל חוֹב נוֹטְלָן בְּחוֹבוֹ, וְאִשָּׁה בִּכְתוּבָּתָהּ, וְסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה.
The Gemara explains the proof: With regard to what matter are these items considered the property of a priest? Is it not with regard to extracting them with judges, which would contradict the opinion of Rav Ḥisda? The Gemara responds: No, it is with regard to that which we learned in a mishna (Bikkurim 3:12): To what end did they say that these items are the property of a priest? It means that a priest may purchase with them slaves and lands and a non-kosher animal; and a lender takes them as payment of his debt; and if the wife of a priest is divorced from him, she takes them as payment of her marriage contract; and a priest may purchase a Torah scroll with them.
הָהוּא לֵיוָאָה דַּהֲוָה חָטֵף מַתְּנָתָא, אֲתוֹ אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לְרַב, אֲמַר לְהוּ: לָא מִסָּתְיֵיהּ דְּלָא שָׁקְלִינַן מִינֵּיהּ, אֶלָּא מִיחְטָף נָמֵי חָטֵיף?!
§ The Gemara relates: There was a certain Levite who would snatch gifts of the priesthood from children who were delivering them to the priests on their fathers’ behalf. They came and told Rav about this Levite. Rav said to them: Is it not enough that when he slaughters his own animals we do not take the gifts of the priesthood from him, but he also snatches gifts that are being delivered to priests?
וְרַב, אִי אִיקְּרוֹ ״עַם״ – מִשְׁקָל נָמֵי לִשְׁקוֹל מִינַּיְיהוּ. אִי לָא אִיקְּרוֹ ״עַם״ – רַחֲמָנָא פַּטְרִינְהוּ!
Rav’s comment indicates that in his opinion there are grounds to take the gifts from Levites, but nevertheless they are not taken. The Gemara asks: And what does Rav maintain in this regard? If he maintains that Levites are called part of the “people,” then let one take the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw from them as well, as the verse states: “From the people, from them that perform a slaughter, whether it be ox or sheep, they shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw” (Deuteronomy 18:3). And if they are not called part of the people, then the Merciful One has exempted them from giving those gifts, and there would be no grounds to take the gifts from them.
מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ אִי אִיקְּרוֹ ״עַם״ אִי לָא אִיקְּרוֹ ״עַם״.
The Gemara responds: Rav is uncertain whether or not they are called part of the people. Therefore, he exempts the Levites from giving their own gifts, in accordance with the principle that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.
יָתֵיב רַב פָּפָּא וְקָאָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא, אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין לְרַב פָּפָּא: אַרְבַּע מַתְּנוֹת עֲנִיִּים שֶׁבַּכֶּרֶם – הַפֶּרֶט, וְהָעוֹלֵלוֹת, וְהַשִּׁכְחָה, וְהַפֵּאָה; וְשָׁלֹשׁ שֶׁבַּתְּבוּאָה – הַלֶּקֶט, וְהַשִּׁכְחָה, וְהַפֵּאָה; שְׁנַיִם שֶׁבָּאִילָן – הַשִּׁכְחָה וְהַפֵּאָה.
The Gemara relates that Rav Pappa was sitting and saying this halakha in the name of Rav. Rav Idi bar Avin raised an objection to Rav Pappa from a baraita, with regard to the uncertainty of Rav: Four gifts are left to the poor from the produce of a vineyard: The individual fallen grapes [peret], and the incompletely formed clusters of grapes [olelot], and the forgotten clusters, and pe’a. And three gifts are left to the poor from grain: The gleanings, i.e., sheaves that fell during the harvest, and the forgotten sheaves, and the pe’a. Two gifts are left to the poor from the fruit of a tree: The forgotten fruits and the pe’a.
כּוּלָּן אֵין בָּהֶם טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה לַבְּעָלִים, וַאֲפִילּוּ עָנִי שֶׁבְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ.
The baraita elaborates: With regard to all of these gifts, the owner of the produce does not have the benefit of discretion. This is the benefit accrued from giving a gift to an individual of one’s choice, e.g., giving teruma or tithes to whichever priest or Levite that one chooses. Instead, a poor person who takes possession of these gifts becomes their rightful owner. And even a poor person of Israel who owns a vineyard, field, or tree must leave these gifts for all other poor people; and if he does not do so, the court removes them from his possession.
מַעְשַׂר עָנִי הַמִּתְחַלֵּק בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ – יֵשׁ בּוֹ טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה לַבְּעָלִים, וַאֲפִילּוּ עָנִי שֶׁבְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּדוֹ, וּשְׁאָר מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה, כְּגוֹן הַזְּרוֹעַ וְהַלְּחָיַיִם וְהַקֵּבָה – אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָן מִיָּדוֹ, לֹא מִכֹּהֵן לְכֹהֵן וְלֹא מִלֵּוִי לְלֵוִי.
By contrast, with regard to the poor man’s tithe, which is distributed from within one’s house, unlike other gifts to the poor that are left in the field for them to take, the owner has the benefit of discretion. And even in the case of a poor person in Israel, if he fails to separate the poor man’s tithe from his produce, the court removes it from his possession. And with regard to other gifts of the priesthood, such as the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw, the court does not remove them, neither from a priest to give to another priest, nor from a Levite to give to another Levite.
אַרְבַּע מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁבַּכֶּרֶם: הַפֶּרֶט, וְהָעוֹלֵלוֹת, וְהַשִּׁכְחָה, וְהַפֵּאָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְכַרְמְךָ לֹא תְעוֹלֵל וּפֶרֶט כַּרְמְךָ לֹא תְלַקֵּט״.
Before Rav Idi bar Avin explains his objection, the Gemara cites the sources for the halakhot of the baraita: The baraita teaches that four gifts are left to the poor from the produce of a vineyard: The peret, and the olelot, and the forgotten clusters, and the pe’a, as it is written: “And you shall not glean [te’olel] your vineyard, neither shall you gather the fallen fruit [peret] of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and for the stranger” (Leviticus 19:10).
וּכְתִיב: ״כִּי תִבְצֹר כַּרְמְךָ לֹא תְעוֹלֵל אַחֲרֶיךָ״, אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי: ״אַחֲרֶיךָ״ – זוֹ שִׁכְחָה.
And it is also written: “When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, you shall not glean it [te’olel] after you; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow” (Deuteronomy 24:21). And Rabbi Levi says that with regard to the term “after you,” this is a reference to forgotten clusters, as the halakha is that clusters that were passed over by the harvester have the status of forgotten clusters, whereas those that remain in front of him do not have that status.
פֵּאָה – גָּמַר ״אַחֲרֶיךָ״ ״אַחֲרֶיךָ״ מִזַּיִת, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי תַחְבֹּט זֵיתְךָ לֹא תְפָאֵר אַחֲרֶיךָ״, וְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: שֶׁלֹּא תִּטּוֹל תִּפְאַרְתּוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ.
The halakha that the mitzva of pe’a applies to one’s vineyard is derived by a verbal analogy between the term “after you” in that verse and the term “after you” from another verse concerning an olive tree. As it is written: “When you beat your olive tree, you shall not go over the boughs [tefa’er] after you; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow” (Deuteronomy 24:20); and the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that the term “You shall not go over the boughs” means that you should not take all of its splendor [tiferet] from it; rather, you should leave a portion of the olives for the poor. So too, one must leave a portion of one’s vineyard as pe’a for the poor.
שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁבַּתְּבוּאָה: הַלֶּקֶט,
The Gemara continues: The baraita teaches that three gifts are left to the poor from grain: The gleanings,
הַשִּׁכְחָה, וְהַפֵּאָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבְקֻצְרְכֶם אֶת קְצִיר אַרְצְכֶם לֹא תְכַלֶּה פְּאַת שָׂדְךָ בְּקֻצְרֶךָ וְלֶקֶט קְצִירְךָ וְגוֹ׳״, ״כִּי תִקְצֹר קְצִירְךָ בְשָׂדֶךָ וְשָׁכַחְתָּ עֹמֶר בַּשָּׂדֶה״.
and the forgotten sheaves, and the pe’a. As it is written: “And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corner of [pe’at] your field, neither shall you gather the gleaning of your harvest; you shall leave them for the poor, and for the stranger” (Leviticus 23:22). And it is also written: “When you reap your harvest in your field and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to fetch it; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow” (Deuteronomy 24:19).
שְׁנַיִם שֶׁבָּאִילָן: הַשִּׁכְחָה וְהַפֵּאָה, דִּכְתִיב ״כִּי תַחְבֹּט זֵיתְךָ לֹא תְפָאֵר אַחֲרֶיךָ״, וְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: שֶׁלֹּא תִּטּוֹל תִּפְאַרְתּוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ, ״אַחֲרֶיךָ״ – זוֹ שִׁכְחָה.
The baraita taught that two gifts are left to the poor from the produce of a tree: The forgotten fruits and the pe’a, as it is written: “When you beat your olive tree, you shall not go over the boughs [tefa’er] after you; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow” (Deuteronomy 24:20), and the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that the phrase: “You shall not go over the boughs,” means that you should not take all of its splendor [tiferet] from it; rather, you should leave a portion of the olives for the poor as pe’a. Additionally, when the verse states: “After you,” this is a reference to forgotten fruits.
וְכוּלָּן אֵין בָּהֶן טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה לִבְעָלִים, מַאי טַעְמָא? ״עֲזִיבָה״ כְּתִיבָא בְּהוּ.
The Gemara continues its analysis of the baraita. And with regard to all of the gifts left to the poor, the owner of the produce does not have the benefit of discretion, i.e., the right to distribute the gifts to poor people of his choosing. Instead, any poor person who takes possession of these gifts becomes their rightful owner. What is the reason for this halakha? It is because the requirement of leaving is written with regard to them, e.g., in the verse that states: “You shall leave them” (Leviticus 23:22).
וַאֲפִילּוּ עָנִי שֶׁבְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּדוֹ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלֶקֶט קְצִירְךָ לֹא תְלַקֵּט לֶעָנִי וְלַגֵּר תַּעֲזֹב אֹתָם״, לְהַזְהִיר עָנִי עַל שֶׁלּוֹ.
The baraita also stated: And even a poor person of Israel who owns a vineyard, field, or tree must leave these gifts for all poor people, and if he does not, the court removes them from his possession. This is derived from a verse, as it is written: “Neither the gleaning of your harvest shall you gather; for the poor you shall leave them, and for the stranger” (Leviticus 23:22). Since the verse juxtaposes the words “the poor” to the mitzva in the previous clause, this serves to warn a poor person that he must also separate these gifts from his own produce.
וּמַעְשַׂר עָנִי הַמִּתְחַלֵּק בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת יֵשׁ בּוֹ טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה לַבְּעָלִים, מַאי טַעְמָא? ״נְתִינָה״ כְּתִיבָא בֵּיהּ.
And the baraita teaches with regard to the poor man’s tithe that is distributed from within his house that the owner has the benefit of discretion. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this halakha? It is because the requirement of giving is written with regard to it, as the verse states: “When you have made an end of tithing all the tithe of your increase in the third year, which is the year of tithing, and you shall give it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the fatherless, and to the widow, that they may eat within your gates, and be satisfied” (Deuteronomy 26:12). Consequently, in this case it is not left for the poor but is actively given to them.
וַאֲפִילּוּ עָנִי שֶׁבְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּדוֹ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא: גָּמַר ״לַגֵּר״ ״לַגֵּר״ מֵהָתָם, מָה לְהַלָּן מוּזְהָר עָנִי עַל שֶׁלּוֹ, אַף כָּאן מוּזְהָר עָנִי עַל שֶׁלּוֹ.
The baraita states: And even in the case of a poor person in Israel, if he fails to separate the poor man’s tithe from his produce, the court removes it from his possession. The Gemara explains that this is as Rabbi Ile’a said: This is derived from a verbal analogy between the term “to the stranger” stated with regard to the poor man’s tithe in the verse cited previously, and the term “to the stranger” from there, the mitzva to leave gleanings for the poor. Just as there, with regard to the mitzva to leave gleanings, a poor person is warned that he must leave gleanings from the produce of his own fields, so too here, with regard to the mitzva to separate the poor man’s tithe, a poor person is warned to separate it from his own fields.
וּשְׁאָר מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה, כְּגוֹן הַזְּרוֹעַ וְהַלְּחָיַיִם וְהַקֵּבָה, אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָן לֹא מִכֹּהֵן לְכֹהֵן וְלֹא מִלֵּוִי לְלֵוִי. הָא מִלֵּוִי לְכֹהֵן מוֹצִיאִין, אַלְמָא אִיקְּרוּ ״עַם״.
The baraita taught: And with regard to other gifts of the priesthood, such as the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw, the court does not remove them, neither from a priest to give to another priest nor from a Levite to give to another Levite. Rav Idi bar Avin now explains his objection: It may be inferred that the court does remove the gifts from a Levite to give to a priest. Evidently, Levites are called part of the “people.” Accordingly, since the verse states: “And this shall be the priests’ due from the people” (Deuteronomy 18:3), the gifts of the priesthood may be removed from the possession of Levites. Why, then, was Rav uncertain with regard to their status?
כְּגוֹן הַזְּרוֹעַ וְלֹא זְרוֹעַ, וּמַאי נִיהוּ – מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן.
The Gemara responds: The baraita is not referring to the actual gifts of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw themselves. Rather, it is referring to a gift that is like the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, but not the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw themselves. And what is this? It is the first tithe.
מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן דְּלֵוִי הוּא? כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, דְּתַנְיָא: תְּרוּמָה לַכֹּהֵן, מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן לַלֵּוִי, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמֵר: אַף לַכֹּהֵן.
The Gemara asks: But the first tithe is given to the Levite. Why would it be removed from his possession? The Gemara responds: The baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, as it is taught in another baraita: Teruma is given to the priest, whereas the first tithe is given to the Levite; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: The first tithe is given to the priest as well, despite the fact that the Torah states that it is given to the Levite, as priests are often called Levites in the Torah.
אֵימַר דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אַף לַכֹּהֵן, לַכֹּהֵן וְלֹא לַלֵּוִי מִי אָמַר? אִין, לְבָתַר דְּקַנְסִינְהוּ עֶזְרָא.
The Gemara asks: Say that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said that the first tithe is given to the priest as well; but did he say that it is given exclusively to the priest and not to the Levite? The Gemara responds: Yes; although generally the first tithe is not removed from the possession of a Levite and given to a priest, the baraita is referring to first tithe in the period after Ezra penalized the Levites for their unwillingness to return to Eretz Yisrael from Babylonia, as he decreed that they should no longer be given the first tithe.
אֵימַר דְּקַנְסִינְהוּ עֶזְרָא – דְּלָא יָהֲבִינַן לְהוּ מִשְׁקַל מִינַּיְיהוּ מִי אָמַר?! אֶלָּא, כְּגוֹן זְרוֹעַ וְלֹא זְרוֹעַ, וּמַאי נִיהוּ – רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז.
The Gemara persists: One can say that Ezra penalized them and decreed that we should not give them first tithe, but did he say that first tithe should even be taken from them and given to the priests? Rather, explain instead that the baraita is referring to a gift that is like the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, but is not actually the foreleg, the jaw, or the maw. And what is this? It is the first sheared wool, with regard to which the verse states: “And the first of the fleece of your sheep, you shall give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4). Since the verse does not state that the first fleece is taken from the “people,” even Levites are obligated to give their first shearing to the priest, and it may be removed from their possession to that end.
תָּא שְׁמַע, זֶה הַכְּלָל: כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא בִּקְדוּשָּׁה, כְּגוֹן תְּרוּמָה וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר וְחַלָּה – מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָן מִיָּדָם, וְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּקְדוּשָּׁה, כְּגוֹן הַזְּרוֹעַ וְהַלְּחָיַיִם וְהַקֵּבָה – אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּדָם.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof with regard to the uncertainty of Rav from a baraita. This is the principle: With regard to any item that is of sanctity, i.e., that may not be consumed by a non-priest, such as teruma, and teruma of the tithe, and ḥalla, the court removes it from the possession of a Levite in order to give it to the priests. And with regard to any item that is not of sanctity, such as the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw, which are given from a non-sacred animal, the court does not remove it from the possession of the Levites to give to the priests. Evidently, Levites are not called part of the “people,” and therefore they are exempt from giving the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw.
כְּגוֹן זְרוֹעַ וְלֹא זְרוֹעַ, וּמַאי נִיהוּ – מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן, וּלְבָתַר דְּקַנְסִינְהוּ עֶזְרָא.
The Gemara rejects this proof: The baraita is referring to a gift that is like the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, but is not actually the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw themselves. And what is this? It is first tithe, and the baraita is dealing with first tithe in the period after Ezra penalized the Levites and decreed that the first tithe should be given to the priests rather than the Levites. Nevertheless, if a Levite received the first tithe it may not be removed from his possession, since this penalty was not included in Ezra’s decree.
תָּא שְׁמַע: הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְכֹהֵן וּלְגוֹי – פָּטוּר מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת, הָא לְלֵוִי וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל – חַיָּיב? לָא תֵּימָא הָא לְלֵוִי וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל חַיָּיב, אֶלָּא אֵימָא: הָא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל – חַיָּיב.
The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: An Israelite who slaughters an animal for a priest or for a gentile is exempt from giving the gifts, as priests and gentiles are exempt from this obligation. The Gemara infers: This indicates that if an Israelite slaughtered an animal for a Levite or for an Israelite, he is obligated to give the gifts, and they may be removed from his possession to that end. Evidently, Levites are called part of the “people,” and Rav should not have been uncertain with regard to their status. The Gemara rejects this proof: Do not say that one should infer that if an Israelite slaughtered an animal for a Levite or for an Israelite he is obligated to give the gifts. Rather, say merely that if an Israelite slaughtered an animal for another Israelite, he is obligated to give the gifts.
אֲבָל לְלֵוִי מַאי פָּטוּר? אִי הָכִי, לִיתְנֵי ״הַשּׁוֹחֵט לַלֵּוִי וְלַגּוֹי פָּטוּר מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת״. וְעוֹד, הָא תַּנְיָא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט לַכֹּהֵן וְלַגּוֹי – פָּטוּר מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת, לַלֵּוִי וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל – חַיָּיב! תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב.
The Gemara asks: But if so, when one slaughters an animal for a Levite, what is the halakha? Is one exempt? If so, let the baraita teach: One who slaughters an animal for a Levite or for a gentile is exempt from giving the gifts, and it would be obvious that this is also the halakha when one slaughters for a priest. And furthermore, isn’t it taught explicitly in a baraita that one who slaughters for a priest or for a gentile is exempt from giving the gifts, whereas one who slaughters for a Levite or for an Israelite is obligated to give the gifts? This baraita apparently constitutes a conclusive refutation of the uncertainty of Rav.
אָמַר לְךָ רַב: תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְכִפֶּר אֶת מִקְדַּשׁ הַקֹּדֶשׁ״ – זֶה לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים.
The Gemara responds: Rav could say to you that although this baraita is in fact contrary to his opinion, the question of whether or not Levites are called part of the “people” is a dispute between tanna’im. As it is taught in a baraita that the verse states with regard to the Yom Kippur Temple service: “And he shall make atonement for the most holy place, and he shall make atonement for the Tent of Meeting and for the altar; and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly” (Leviticus 16:33). The baraita explains: “And he shall make atonement for the most holy place”; this is referring to the innermost sanctum, i.e., the bull and goat offerings brought on Yom Kippur atone for ritual impurity occurring inside the Holy of Holies.
״אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״ – זֶה הֵיכָל, ״מִזְבֵּחַ״ – כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ, ״יְכַפֵּר״ – אֵלּוּ עֲזָרוֹת, ״כֹּהֲנִים״ – כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ, ״עַם הַקָּהָל״ – אֵלּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל, ״יְכַפֵּר״ – אֵלּוּ הַלְוִיִּם.
The baraita continues: “Tent of Meeting”; this is referring to the Sanctuary, i.e., the offerings atone for impurity occurring inside the Sanctuary. “Altar”; this is understood in accordance with its plain meaning, i.e., the offerings atone for one who performs sacrificial rites on the altar in a state of ritual impurity. “He shall make atonement”; this is referring to the Temple courtyards, i.e., the offerings atone for impurity occurring there. “For the priests”; this is understood in accordance with its plain meaning, indicating that the offerings atone for a priest who unwittingly enters the courtyard while impure. “And for all the people of the assembly”; these are the Israelites. “He shall make atonement”; this is referring to the Levites.
וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״יְכַפֵּר״ – אֵלּוּ עֲבָדִים. מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר אִיקְּרוֹ ״עַם״, וּמָר סָבַר לָא אִיקְּרוֹ ״עַם״.
And it is taught in another baraita: “He shall make atonement”; this is referring to Canaanite slaves in the possession of Jews. These slaves are obligated in certain mitzvot and are therefore in need of atonement. The Gemara analyzes these sources: Why doesn’t the tanna of this baraita interpret the term “He shall make atonement” as a reference to Levites? What, is it not that they disagree about this, as one Sage, the tanna of the second baraita, holds that Levites are called part of the “people” and are therefore included in the clause “the people of the assembly,” and consequently, the term “he shall make atonement” is not required to include the Levites but instead serves to include Canaanite slaves. And by contrast, one Sage, the tanna of the first baraita, holds that they are not called part of the “people,” which means that the term “He shall make atonement” is required to include Levites.
וְרַב, אִי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ כְּהַאי תַּנָּא – לֵימָא, וְאִי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ כְּהַאי תַּנָּא – לֵימָא! מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ אִי כְּהַאי תַּנָּא אִי כְּהַאי תַּנָּא.
The Gemara asks: But if this is a dispute between tanna’im, why is Rav uncertain with regard to the status of Levites? If he holds in accordance with this tanna, let him say that the halakha is in accordance with him, and if he holds in accordance with that tanna, let him say that the halakha is in accordance with him. The Gemara responds: Rav is uncertain whether the halakha is in accordance with this tanna or in accordance with that tanna.
דְּרַשׁ מָרִימָר: הִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב, וְהִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא.
Mareimar taught: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav that it is uncertain whether or not Levites are called part of the “people.” Consequently, the court may not compel Levites to give the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw to the priests. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, who said that one who damages or consumes gifts of the priesthood is exempt from payment.
עוּלָּא הֲוָה יָהֵיב מַתְּנָתָא לְכָהַנְתָּא, אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְעוּלָּא: מִנְחַת כֹּהֶנֶת – נֶאֱכֶלֶת, מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן – אֵינָהּ נֶאֱכֶלֶת.
§ With regard to the gifts of the priesthood, the Gemara relates that Ulla would give gifts of the priesthood to a female priest, i.e., the daughter of a priest, even if she was married to an Israelite. Rava raised an objection to the practice of Ulla from a baraita: The remainder of a meal offering of a female priest is consumed, just like the remainder of the meal offering of an Israelite. But the remainder of a meal offering of a priest is not consumed, as the verse states: “And every meal offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:16).
וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ ״כֹּהֵן״ וַאֲפִילּוּ כֹּהֶנֶת, וְהָכְתִיב: ״וְכׇל מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן כָּלִיל תִּהְיֶה לֹא תֵאָכֵל״! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רַבִּי,
Rava explains his objection: And if you say that one may give gifts of a priest even to a female priest, because when the verse mentions a priest it is referring even to the daughter of a priest, but isn’t it written: “And every meal offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eaten”? Why, then, is the remainder of a meal offering of the daughter of a priest consumed? Ulla said to him in response: My teacher,
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Chullin Daf 125-131-Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
Hullin 131: Are the Levites Part of the Jewish People?
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
Tel Aviv, Israel
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, United States
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
New York, United States
Oceanside NY, United States
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
California, United States
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Maale Adumim, Israel
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Jerusalem, Israel
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
Minneapolis, MN, United States
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
Blacksburg, United States
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
Chullin 131
דַּאֲתוֹ לִידֵיהּ בְּטִבְלַיְיהוּ, וְקָסָבַר הַאי תַּנָּא: מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמוּ – כְּמִי שֶׁהוּרְמוּ דָּמְיָין.
the baraita is referring to a case where they came into the priest’s possession while they were still untithed, and this tanna holds that gifts that have not been separated are considered as though they have been separated. In such a case, the priest obtained rights to the ownerless gifts by seizing them first. Although when he seized the produce it was still untithed, the portion of the produce that is to be separated has the status of teruma. Accordingly, one who consumes such produce is required to pay the priest.
תָּא שְׁמַע: הֲרֵי שֶׁאָנְסוּ בֵּית הַמֶּלֶךְ גׇּרְנוֹ, אִם בְּחוֹבוֹ – חַיָּיב לְעַשֵּׂר, אִם בְּאַנְפָּרוּת – פָּטוּר מִלְּעַשֵּׂר.
The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear another proof with regard to the statement of Rav Ḥisda from a baraita: In a case where the household of the king seized one’s threshing floor by force, if they took it as payment of his debt owed to the king, then he is obligated to tithe other grain in accordance with the amount he would have tithed before the grain was seized. Since he was already obligated to tithe the grain before it was seized, it is considered as though the grain was sold in an untithed state. If they took it without reason [anparot], then he is exempt from tithing. The fact that one is required to tithe grain seized as payment of a debt indicates that the tithe is considered money that has claimants, from which it follows that a priest may extract payment of the tithe from him. Again, this apparently contradicts the statement of Rav Ḥisda.
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּקָא מִשְׁתָּרְשִׁי לֵיהּ.
The Gemara rejects this proof: It is different there, since if one is not required to tithe grain seized as payment of a debt, this would mean that the seizure causes benefit for him, as he will be exempt from tithing grain that he was previously obligated to tithe. It is for this reason that the baraita rules that one must tithe other grain instead of the seized grain, not because a priest could have issued a claim against him in court.
תָּא שְׁמַע, אָמַר לוֹ: מְכוֹר לִי בְּנֵי מֵעֶיהָ שֶׁל פָּרָה, וְהָיָה בָּהֶן מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה – נוֹתְנָן לַכֹּהֵן, וְאֵינוֹ מְנַכֶּה לוֹ מִן הַדָּמִים. לָקַח הֵימֶנּוּ בְּמִשְׁקָל – נוֹתְנָן לַכֹּהֵן, וּמְנַכֶּה לוֹ מִן הַדָּמִים.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (132a): If an Israelite says to a butcher: Sell me the innards of a particular cow, and there were gifts of the priesthood included with it, i.e., the maw, that were not yet given to the priest, the purchaser must give them to the priest, and the butcher may not deduct the value of the gifts from the money that the purchaser pays him, as it is assumed that the gifts were not included in the sale. If he purchased the innards from the butcher by weight, the purchaser must give the gifts to the priest, and the butcher deducts the value of the gifts from the money that the Israelite pays him.
אַמַּאי? לֶיהֱוֵי כְּמַזִּיק מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה אוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלָן! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאִיתַנְהוּ בְּעֵינַיְהוּ.
The Gemara asks: Why must the buyer give the maw to the priest? Let the butcher’s sale of the maw be considered like a case where one causes damage to gifts of the priesthood or consumes them, with regard to which Rav Ḥisda states that one is exempt from payment. This mishna apparently contradicts Rav Ḥisda’s statement. The Gemara rejects this: It is different there, as the gifts are intact, i.e., they are distinct items in their own right. In such a case, the gifts must be given to the priest. By contrast, Rav Ḥisda is discussing cases in which the gifts are not distinguishable objects at the time.
תָּא שְׁמַע: תִּשְׁעָה נִכְסֵי כֹהֵן – תְּרוּמָה, וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר, וְחַלָּה, רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, וּמַתָּנוֹת, וְהַדְּמַאי, וְהַבִּכּוּרִים, וְהַקֶּרֶן, וְהַחוֹמֶשׁ.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof: Nine items are the property of a priest: Teruma, teruma of the tithe, ḥalla, the portion of dough given to the priest, the first sheared wool, gifts of the priesthood, doubtfully tithed produce [demai], first fruits, the principal value of the property of a convert, and the additional one-fifth. The two are paid to the priest in a case where the property of a convert was stolen and the thief took an oath that he did not steal it, and after the convert died the thief admitted to taking a false oath.
לְמַאי, לָאו לְהוֹצִיאָן בְּדַיָּינִין? לָא, לִכְדִתְנַן: לָמָה אָמְרוּ נִכְסֵי כֹהֵן? שֶׁקּוֹנֶה בָּהֶן עֲבָדִים וְקַרְקָעוֹת וּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה, וּבַעַל חוֹב נוֹטְלָן בְּחוֹבוֹ, וְאִשָּׁה בִּכְתוּבָּתָהּ, וְסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה.
The Gemara explains the proof: With regard to what matter are these items considered the property of a priest? Is it not with regard to extracting them with judges, which would contradict the opinion of Rav Ḥisda? The Gemara responds: No, it is with regard to that which we learned in a mishna (Bikkurim 3:12): To what end did they say that these items are the property of a priest? It means that a priest may purchase with them slaves and lands and a non-kosher animal; and a lender takes them as payment of his debt; and if the wife of a priest is divorced from him, she takes them as payment of her marriage contract; and a priest may purchase a Torah scroll with them.
הָהוּא לֵיוָאָה דַּהֲוָה חָטֵף מַתְּנָתָא, אֲתוֹ אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לְרַב, אֲמַר לְהוּ: לָא מִסָּתְיֵיהּ דְּלָא שָׁקְלִינַן מִינֵּיהּ, אֶלָּא מִיחְטָף נָמֵי חָטֵיף?!
§ The Gemara relates: There was a certain Levite who would snatch gifts of the priesthood from children who were delivering them to the priests on their fathers’ behalf. They came and told Rav about this Levite. Rav said to them: Is it not enough that when he slaughters his own animals we do not take the gifts of the priesthood from him, but he also snatches gifts that are being delivered to priests?
וְרַב, אִי אִיקְּרוֹ ״עַם״ – מִשְׁקָל נָמֵי לִשְׁקוֹל מִינַּיְיהוּ. אִי לָא אִיקְּרוֹ ״עַם״ – רַחֲמָנָא פַּטְרִינְהוּ!
Rav’s comment indicates that in his opinion there are grounds to take the gifts from Levites, but nevertheless they are not taken. The Gemara asks: And what does Rav maintain in this regard? If he maintains that Levites are called part of the “people,” then let one take the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw from them as well, as the verse states: “From the people, from them that perform a slaughter, whether it be ox or sheep, they shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw” (Deuteronomy 18:3). And if they are not called part of the people, then the Merciful One has exempted them from giving those gifts, and there would be no grounds to take the gifts from them.
מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ אִי אִיקְּרוֹ ״עַם״ אִי לָא אִיקְּרוֹ ״עַם״.
The Gemara responds: Rav is uncertain whether or not they are called part of the people. Therefore, he exempts the Levites from giving their own gifts, in accordance with the principle that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.
יָתֵיב רַב פָּפָּא וְקָאָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא, אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין לְרַב פָּפָּא: אַרְבַּע מַתְּנוֹת עֲנִיִּים שֶׁבַּכֶּרֶם – הַפֶּרֶט, וְהָעוֹלֵלוֹת, וְהַשִּׁכְחָה, וְהַפֵּאָה; וְשָׁלֹשׁ שֶׁבַּתְּבוּאָה – הַלֶּקֶט, וְהַשִּׁכְחָה, וְהַפֵּאָה; שְׁנַיִם שֶׁבָּאִילָן – הַשִּׁכְחָה וְהַפֵּאָה.
The Gemara relates that Rav Pappa was sitting and saying this halakha in the name of Rav. Rav Idi bar Avin raised an objection to Rav Pappa from a baraita, with regard to the uncertainty of Rav: Four gifts are left to the poor from the produce of a vineyard: The individual fallen grapes [peret], and the incompletely formed clusters of grapes [olelot], and the forgotten clusters, and pe’a. And three gifts are left to the poor from grain: The gleanings, i.e., sheaves that fell during the harvest, and the forgotten sheaves, and the pe’a. Two gifts are left to the poor from the fruit of a tree: The forgotten fruits and the pe’a.
כּוּלָּן אֵין בָּהֶם טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה לַבְּעָלִים, וַאֲפִילּוּ עָנִי שֶׁבְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ.
The baraita elaborates: With regard to all of these gifts, the owner of the produce does not have the benefit of discretion. This is the benefit accrued from giving a gift to an individual of one’s choice, e.g., giving teruma or tithes to whichever priest or Levite that one chooses. Instead, a poor person who takes possession of these gifts becomes their rightful owner. And even a poor person of Israel who owns a vineyard, field, or tree must leave these gifts for all other poor people; and if he does not do so, the court removes them from his possession.
מַעְשַׂר עָנִי הַמִּתְחַלֵּק בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ – יֵשׁ בּוֹ טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה לַבְּעָלִים, וַאֲפִילּוּ עָנִי שֶׁבְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּדוֹ, וּשְׁאָר מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה, כְּגוֹן הַזְּרוֹעַ וְהַלְּחָיַיִם וְהַקֵּבָה – אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָן מִיָּדוֹ, לֹא מִכֹּהֵן לְכֹהֵן וְלֹא מִלֵּוִי לְלֵוִי.
By contrast, with regard to the poor man’s tithe, which is distributed from within one’s house, unlike other gifts to the poor that are left in the field for them to take, the owner has the benefit of discretion. And even in the case of a poor person in Israel, if he fails to separate the poor man’s tithe from his produce, the court removes it from his possession. And with regard to other gifts of the priesthood, such as the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw, the court does not remove them, neither from a priest to give to another priest, nor from a Levite to give to another Levite.
אַרְבַּע מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁבַּכֶּרֶם: הַפֶּרֶט, וְהָעוֹלֵלוֹת, וְהַשִּׁכְחָה, וְהַפֵּאָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְכַרְמְךָ לֹא תְעוֹלֵל וּפֶרֶט כַּרְמְךָ לֹא תְלַקֵּט״.
Before Rav Idi bar Avin explains his objection, the Gemara cites the sources for the halakhot of the baraita: The baraita teaches that four gifts are left to the poor from the produce of a vineyard: The peret, and the olelot, and the forgotten clusters, and the pe’a, as it is written: “And you shall not glean [te’olel] your vineyard, neither shall you gather the fallen fruit [peret] of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and for the stranger” (Leviticus 19:10).
וּכְתִיב: ״כִּי תִבְצֹר כַּרְמְךָ לֹא תְעוֹלֵל אַחֲרֶיךָ״, אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי: ״אַחֲרֶיךָ״ – זוֹ שִׁכְחָה.
And it is also written: “When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, you shall not glean it [te’olel] after you; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow” (Deuteronomy 24:21). And Rabbi Levi says that with regard to the term “after you,” this is a reference to forgotten clusters, as the halakha is that clusters that were passed over by the harvester have the status of forgotten clusters, whereas those that remain in front of him do not have that status.
פֵּאָה – גָּמַר ״אַחֲרֶיךָ״ ״אַחֲרֶיךָ״ מִזַּיִת, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי תַחְבֹּט זֵיתְךָ לֹא תְפָאֵר אַחֲרֶיךָ״, וְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: שֶׁלֹּא תִּטּוֹל תִּפְאַרְתּוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ.
The halakha that the mitzva of pe’a applies to one’s vineyard is derived by a verbal analogy between the term “after you” in that verse and the term “after you” from another verse concerning an olive tree. As it is written: “When you beat your olive tree, you shall not go over the boughs [tefa’er] after you; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow” (Deuteronomy 24:20); and the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that the term “You shall not go over the boughs” means that you should not take all of its splendor [tiferet] from it; rather, you should leave a portion of the olives for the poor. So too, one must leave a portion of one’s vineyard as pe’a for the poor.
שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁבַּתְּבוּאָה: הַלֶּקֶט,
The Gemara continues: The baraita teaches that three gifts are left to the poor from grain: The gleanings,
הַשִּׁכְחָה, וְהַפֵּאָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבְקֻצְרְכֶם אֶת קְצִיר אַרְצְכֶם לֹא תְכַלֶּה פְּאַת שָׂדְךָ בְּקֻצְרֶךָ וְלֶקֶט קְצִירְךָ וְגוֹ׳״, ״כִּי תִקְצֹר קְצִירְךָ בְשָׂדֶךָ וְשָׁכַחְתָּ עֹמֶר בַּשָּׂדֶה״.
and the forgotten sheaves, and the pe’a. As it is written: “And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corner of [pe’at] your field, neither shall you gather the gleaning of your harvest; you shall leave them for the poor, and for the stranger” (Leviticus 23:22). And it is also written: “When you reap your harvest in your field and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to fetch it; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow” (Deuteronomy 24:19).
שְׁנַיִם שֶׁבָּאִילָן: הַשִּׁכְחָה וְהַפֵּאָה, דִּכְתִיב ״כִּי תַחְבֹּט זֵיתְךָ לֹא תְפָאֵר אַחֲרֶיךָ״, וְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: שֶׁלֹּא תִּטּוֹל תִּפְאַרְתּוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ, ״אַחֲרֶיךָ״ – זוֹ שִׁכְחָה.
The baraita taught that two gifts are left to the poor from the produce of a tree: The forgotten fruits and the pe’a, as it is written: “When you beat your olive tree, you shall not go over the boughs [tefa’er] after you; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow” (Deuteronomy 24:20), and the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that the phrase: “You shall not go over the boughs,” means that you should not take all of its splendor [tiferet] from it; rather, you should leave a portion of the olives for the poor as pe’a. Additionally, when the verse states: “After you,” this is a reference to forgotten fruits.
וְכוּלָּן אֵין בָּהֶן טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה לִבְעָלִים, מַאי טַעְמָא? ״עֲזִיבָה״ כְּתִיבָא בְּהוּ.
The Gemara continues its analysis of the baraita. And with regard to all of the gifts left to the poor, the owner of the produce does not have the benefit of discretion, i.e., the right to distribute the gifts to poor people of his choosing. Instead, any poor person who takes possession of these gifts becomes their rightful owner. What is the reason for this halakha? It is because the requirement of leaving is written with regard to them, e.g., in the verse that states: “You shall leave them” (Leviticus 23:22).
וַאֲפִילּוּ עָנִי שֶׁבְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּדוֹ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלֶקֶט קְצִירְךָ לֹא תְלַקֵּט לֶעָנִי וְלַגֵּר תַּעֲזֹב אֹתָם״, לְהַזְהִיר עָנִי עַל שֶׁלּוֹ.
The baraita also stated: And even a poor person of Israel who owns a vineyard, field, or tree must leave these gifts for all poor people, and if he does not, the court removes them from his possession. This is derived from a verse, as it is written: “Neither the gleaning of your harvest shall you gather; for the poor you shall leave them, and for the stranger” (Leviticus 23:22). Since the verse juxtaposes the words “the poor” to the mitzva in the previous clause, this serves to warn a poor person that he must also separate these gifts from his own produce.
וּמַעְשַׂר עָנִי הַמִּתְחַלֵּק בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת יֵשׁ בּוֹ טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה לַבְּעָלִים, מַאי טַעְמָא? ״נְתִינָה״ כְּתִיבָא בֵּיהּ.
And the baraita teaches with regard to the poor man’s tithe that is distributed from within his house that the owner has the benefit of discretion. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this halakha? It is because the requirement of giving is written with regard to it, as the verse states: “When you have made an end of tithing all the tithe of your increase in the third year, which is the year of tithing, and you shall give it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the fatherless, and to the widow, that they may eat within your gates, and be satisfied” (Deuteronomy 26:12). Consequently, in this case it is not left for the poor but is actively given to them.
וַאֲפִילּוּ עָנִי שֶׁבְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּדוֹ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא: גָּמַר ״לַגֵּר״ ״לַגֵּר״ מֵהָתָם, מָה לְהַלָּן מוּזְהָר עָנִי עַל שֶׁלּוֹ, אַף כָּאן מוּזְהָר עָנִי עַל שֶׁלּוֹ.
The baraita states: And even in the case of a poor person in Israel, if he fails to separate the poor man’s tithe from his produce, the court removes it from his possession. The Gemara explains that this is as Rabbi Ile’a said: This is derived from a verbal analogy between the term “to the stranger” stated with regard to the poor man’s tithe in the verse cited previously, and the term “to the stranger” from there, the mitzva to leave gleanings for the poor. Just as there, with regard to the mitzva to leave gleanings, a poor person is warned that he must leave gleanings from the produce of his own fields, so too here, with regard to the mitzva to separate the poor man’s tithe, a poor person is warned to separate it from his own fields.
וּשְׁאָר מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה, כְּגוֹן הַזְּרוֹעַ וְהַלְּחָיַיִם וְהַקֵּבָה, אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָן לֹא מִכֹּהֵן לְכֹהֵן וְלֹא מִלֵּוִי לְלֵוִי. הָא מִלֵּוִי לְכֹהֵן מוֹצִיאִין, אַלְמָא אִיקְּרוּ ״עַם״.
The baraita taught: And with regard to other gifts of the priesthood, such as the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw, the court does not remove them, neither from a priest to give to another priest nor from a Levite to give to another Levite. Rav Idi bar Avin now explains his objection: It may be inferred that the court does remove the gifts from a Levite to give to a priest. Evidently, Levites are called part of the “people.” Accordingly, since the verse states: “And this shall be the priests’ due from the people” (Deuteronomy 18:3), the gifts of the priesthood may be removed from the possession of Levites. Why, then, was Rav uncertain with regard to their status?
כְּגוֹן הַזְּרוֹעַ וְלֹא זְרוֹעַ, וּמַאי נִיהוּ – מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן.
The Gemara responds: The baraita is not referring to the actual gifts of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw themselves. Rather, it is referring to a gift that is like the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, but not the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw themselves. And what is this? It is the first tithe.
מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן דְּלֵוִי הוּא? כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, דְּתַנְיָא: תְּרוּמָה לַכֹּהֵן, מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן לַלֵּוִי, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמֵר: אַף לַכֹּהֵן.
The Gemara asks: But the first tithe is given to the Levite. Why would it be removed from his possession? The Gemara responds: The baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, as it is taught in another baraita: Teruma is given to the priest, whereas the first tithe is given to the Levite; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: The first tithe is given to the priest as well, despite the fact that the Torah states that it is given to the Levite, as priests are often called Levites in the Torah.
אֵימַר דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אַף לַכֹּהֵן, לַכֹּהֵן וְלֹא לַלֵּוִי מִי אָמַר? אִין, לְבָתַר דְּקַנְסִינְהוּ עֶזְרָא.
The Gemara asks: Say that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said that the first tithe is given to the priest as well; but did he say that it is given exclusively to the priest and not to the Levite? The Gemara responds: Yes; although generally the first tithe is not removed from the possession of a Levite and given to a priest, the baraita is referring to first tithe in the period after Ezra penalized the Levites for their unwillingness to return to Eretz Yisrael from Babylonia, as he decreed that they should no longer be given the first tithe.
אֵימַר דְּקַנְסִינְהוּ עֶזְרָא – דְּלָא יָהֲבִינַן לְהוּ מִשְׁקַל מִינַּיְיהוּ מִי אָמַר?! אֶלָּא, כְּגוֹן זְרוֹעַ וְלֹא זְרוֹעַ, וּמַאי נִיהוּ – רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז.
The Gemara persists: One can say that Ezra penalized them and decreed that we should not give them first tithe, but did he say that first tithe should even be taken from them and given to the priests? Rather, explain instead that the baraita is referring to a gift that is like the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, but is not actually the foreleg, the jaw, or the maw. And what is this? It is the first sheared wool, with regard to which the verse states: “And the first of the fleece of your sheep, you shall give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4). Since the verse does not state that the first fleece is taken from the “people,” even Levites are obligated to give their first shearing to the priest, and it may be removed from their possession to that end.
תָּא שְׁמַע, זֶה הַכְּלָל: כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא בִּקְדוּשָּׁה, כְּגוֹן תְּרוּמָה וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר וְחַלָּה – מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָן מִיָּדָם, וְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּקְדוּשָּׁה, כְּגוֹן הַזְּרוֹעַ וְהַלְּחָיַיִם וְהַקֵּבָה – אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּדָם.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof with regard to the uncertainty of Rav from a baraita. This is the principle: With regard to any item that is of sanctity, i.e., that may not be consumed by a non-priest, such as teruma, and teruma of the tithe, and ḥalla, the court removes it from the possession of a Levite in order to give it to the priests. And with regard to any item that is not of sanctity, such as the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw, which are given from a non-sacred animal, the court does not remove it from the possession of the Levites to give to the priests. Evidently, Levites are not called part of the “people,” and therefore they are exempt from giving the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw.
כְּגוֹן זְרוֹעַ וְלֹא זְרוֹעַ, וּמַאי נִיהוּ – מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן, וּלְבָתַר דְּקַנְסִינְהוּ עֶזְרָא.
The Gemara rejects this proof: The baraita is referring to a gift that is like the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, but is not actually the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw themselves. And what is this? It is first tithe, and the baraita is dealing with first tithe in the period after Ezra penalized the Levites and decreed that the first tithe should be given to the priests rather than the Levites. Nevertheless, if a Levite received the first tithe it may not be removed from his possession, since this penalty was not included in Ezra’s decree.
תָּא שְׁמַע: הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְכֹהֵן וּלְגוֹי – פָּטוּר מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת, הָא לְלֵוִי וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל – חַיָּיב? לָא תֵּימָא הָא לְלֵוִי וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל חַיָּיב, אֶלָּא אֵימָא: הָא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל – חַיָּיב.
The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: An Israelite who slaughters an animal for a priest or for a gentile is exempt from giving the gifts, as priests and gentiles are exempt from this obligation. The Gemara infers: This indicates that if an Israelite slaughtered an animal for a Levite or for an Israelite, he is obligated to give the gifts, and they may be removed from his possession to that end. Evidently, Levites are called part of the “people,” and Rav should not have been uncertain with regard to their status. The Gemara rejects this proof: Do not say that one should infer that if an Israelite slaughtered an animal for a Levite or for an Israelite he is obligated to give the gifts. Rather, say merely that if an Israelite slaughtered an animal for another Israelite, he is obligated to give the gifts.
אֲבָל לְלֵוִי מַאי פָּטוּר? אִי הָכִי, לִיתְנֵי ״הַשּׁוֹחֵט לַלֵּוִי וְלַגּוֹי פָּטוּר מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת״. וְעוֹד, הָא תַּנְיָא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט לַכֹּהֵן וְלַגּוֹי – פָּטוּר מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת, לַלֵּוִי וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל – חַיָּיב! תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב.
The Gemara asks: But if so, when one slaughters an animal for a Levite, what is the halakha? Is one exempt? If so, let the baraita teach: One who slaughters an animal for a Levite or for a gentile is exempt from giving the gifts, and it would be obvious that this is also the halakha when one slaughters for a priest. And furthermore, isn’t it taught explicitly in a baraita that one who slaughters for a priest or for a gentile is exempt from giving the gifts, whereas one who slaughters for a Levite or for an Israelite is obligated to give the gifts? This baraita apparently constitutes a conclusive refutation of the uncertainty of Rav.
אָמַר לְךָ רַב: תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְכִפֶּר אֶת מִקְדַּשׁ הַקֹּדֶשׁ״ – זֶה לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים.
The Gemara responds: Rav could say to you that although this baraita is in fact contrary to his opinion, the question of whether or not Levites are called part of the “people” is a dispute between tanna’im. As it is taught in a baraita that the verse states with regard to the Yom Kippur Temple service: “And he shall make atonement for the most holy place, and he shall make atonement for the Tent of Meeting and for the altar; and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly” (Leviticus 16:33). The baraita explains: “And he shall make atonement for the most holy place”; this is referring to the innermost sanctum, i.e., the bull and goat offerings brought on Yom Kippur atone for ritual impurity occurring inside the Holy of Holies.
״אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״ – זֶה הֵיכָל, ״מִזְבֵּחַ״ – כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ, ״יְכַפֵּר״ – אֵלּוּ עֲזָרוֹת, ״כֹּהֲנִים״ – כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ, ״עַם הַקָּהָל״ – אֵלּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל, ״יְכַפֵּר״ – אֵלּוּ הַלְוִיִּם.
The baraita continues: “Tent of Meeting”; this is referring to the Sanctuary, i.e., the offerings atone for impurity occurring inside the Sanctuary. “Altar”; this is understood in accordance with its plain meaning, i.e., the offerings atone for one who performs sacrificial rites on the altar in a state of ritual impurity. “He shall make atonement”; this is referring to the Temple courtyards, i.e., the offerings atone for impurity occurring there. “For the priests”; this is understood in accordance with its plain meaning, indicating that the offerings atone for a priest who unwittingly enters the courtyard while impure. “And for all the people of the assembly”; these are the Israelites. “He shall make atonement”; this is referring to the Levites.
וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״יְכַפֵּר״ – אֵלּוּ עֲבָדִים. מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר אִיקְּרוֹ ״עַם״, וּמָר סָבַר לָא אִיקְּרוֹ ״עַם״.
And it is taught in another baraita: “He shall make atonement”; this is referring to Canaanite slaves in the possession of Jews. These slaves are obligated in certain mitzvot and are therefore in need of atonement. The Gemara analyzes these sources: Why doesn’t the tanna of this baraita interpret the term “He shall make atonement” as a reference to Levites? What, is it not that they disagree about this, as one Sage, the tanna of the second baraita, holds that Levites are called part of the “people” and are therefore included in the clause “the people of the assembly,” and consequently, the term “he shall make atonement” is not required to include the Levites but instead serves to include Canaanite slaves. And by contrast, one Sage, the tanna of the first baraita, holds that they are not called part of the “people,” which means that the term “He shall make atonement” is required to include Levites.
וְרַב, אִי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ כְּהַאי תַּנָּא – לֵימָא, וְאִי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ כְּהַאי תַּנָּא – לֵימָא! מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ אִי כְּהַאי תַּנָּא אִי כְּהַאי תַּנָּא.
The Gemara asks: But if this is a dispute between tanna’im, why is Rav uncertain with regard to the status of Levites? If he holds in accordance with this tanna, let him say that the halakha is in accordance with him, and if he holds in accordance with that tanna, let him say that the halakha is in accordance with him. The Gemara responds: Rav is uncertain whether the halakha is in accordance with this tanna or in accordance with that tanna.
דְּרַשׁ מָרִימָר: הִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב, וְהִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא.
Mareimar taught: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav that it is uncertain whether or not Levites are called part of the “people.” Consequently, the court may not compel Levites to give the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw to the priests. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, who said that one who damages or consumes gifts of the priesthood is exempt from payment.
עוּלָּא הֲוָה יָהֵיב מַתְּנָתָא לְכָהַנְתָּא, אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְעוּלָּא: מִנְחַת כֹּהֶנֶת – נֶאֱכֶלֶת, מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן – אֵינָהּ נֶאֱכֶלֶת.
§ With regard to the gifts of the priesthood, the Gemara relates that Ulla would give gifts of the priesthood to a female priest, i.e., the daughter of a priest, even if she was married to an Israelite. Rava raised an objection to the practice of Ulla from a baraita: The remainder of a meal offering of a female priest is consumed, just like the remainder of the meal offering of an Israelite. But the remainder of a meal offering of a priest is not consumed, as the verse states: “And every meal offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:16).
וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ ״כֹּהֵן״ וַאֲפִילּוּ כֹּהֶנֶת, וְהָכְתִיב: ״וְכׇל מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן כָּלִיל תִּהְיֶה לֹא תֵאָכֵל״! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רַבִּי,
Rava explains his objection: And if you say that one may give gifts of a priest even to a female priest, because when the verse mentions a priest it is referring even to the daughter of a priest, but isn’t it written: “And every meal offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eaten”? Why, then, is the remainder of a meal offering of the daughter of a priest consumed? Ulla said to him in response: My teacher,
