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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 7, 2019 | 讘壮 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Chullin 131

Rav Hisda says that if someone destroys or eats the gifts for the priest (foreleg, jaw or maw – part of the stomach), one does not need to financially compensate a priest for it. Seven sources are raised to question this opinion but all are answered. Rav is unsure whether Levites are considered part of the nation and therefore obligated in giving the gifts to the priests, like the rest of the nation. Three questions are raised against his opinion and are answered.


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

讚讗转讜 诇讬讚讬讛 讘讟讘诇讬讬讛讜 讜拽住讘专 讛讗讬 转谞讗 诪转谞讜转 砖诇讗 讛讜专诪讜 讻诪讬 砖讛讜专诪讜 讚诪讬讬谉

the baraita is referring to a case where they came into the priest鈥檚 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讛专讬 砖讗谞住讜 讘讬转 讛诪诇讱 讙专谞讜 讗诐 讘讞讜讘讜 讞讬讬讘 诇注砖专 讗诐 讘讗谞驻专讜转 驻讟讜专 诪诇注砖专

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear another proof with regard to the statement of Rav 岣sda from a baraita: In a case where the household of the king seized one鈥檚 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 岣sda.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚拽讗 诪砖转专砖讬 诇讬讛

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讗诪专 诇讜 诪讻讜专 诇讬 讘谞讬 诪注讬讛 砖诇 驻专讛 讜讛讬讛 讘讛谉 诪转谞讜转 讻讛讜谞讛 谞讜转谞谉 诇讻讛谉 讜讗讬谞讜 诪谞讻讛 诇讜 诪谉 讛讚诪讬诐 诇拽讞 讛讬诪谞讜 讘诪砖拽诇 谞讜转谞谉 诇讻讛谉 讜诪谞讻讛 诇讜 诪谉 讛讚诪讬诐

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.

讗诪讗讬 诇讬讛讜讬 讻诪讝讬拽 诪转谞讜转 讻讛讜谞讛 讗讜 砖讗讻诇谉 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗讬转谞讛讜 讘注讬谞讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: Why must the buyer give the maw to the priest? Let the butcher鈥檚 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 岣sda states that one is exempt from payment. This mishna apparently contradicts Rav 岣sda鈥檚 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 岣sda is discussing cases in which the gifts are not distinguishable objects at the time.

转讗 砖诪注 转砖注讛 谞讻住讬 讻讛谉 转专讜诪讛 讜转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讜讞诇讛 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讜诪转谞讜转 讜讛讚诪讗讬 讜讛讘讻讜专讬诐 讜讛拽专谉 讜讛讞讜诪砖

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof: Nine items are the property of a priest: Teruma, teruma of the tithe, 岣lla, 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.

诇诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讛讜爪讬讗谉 讘讚讬讬谞讬谉 诇讗 诇讻讚转谞谉 诇诪讛 讗诪专讜 谞讻住讬 讻讛谉 砖拽讜谞讛 讘讛谉 注讘讚讬诐 讜拽专拽注讜转 讜讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 谞讜讟诇谉 讘讞讜讘讜 讜讗砖讛 讘讻转讜讘转讛 讜住驻专 转讜专讛

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 岣sda? 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.

讛讛讜讗 诇讬讜讗讛 讚讛讜讛 讞讟祝 诪转谞转讗 讗转讜 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 诪住转讬讬讛 讚诇讗 砖拽诇讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讛 讗诇讗 诪讬讞讟祝 谞诪讬 讞讟讬祝

搂 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鈥 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?

讜专讘 讗讬 讗讬拽专讜 注诐 诪砖拽诇 谞诪讬 诇砖拽讜诇 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜

Rav鈥檚 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 鈥減eople,鈥 then let one take the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw from them as well, as the verse states: 鈥淔rom 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鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:3).

讗讬 诇讗 讗讬拽专讜 注诐 专讞诪谞讗 驻讟专讬谞讛讜 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗讬拽专讜 注诐 讗讬 诇讗 讗讬拽专讜 注诐

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. 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.

讬转讬讘 专讘 驻驻讗 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讗专讘注 诪转谞讜转 注谞讬讬诐 砖讘讻专诐 讛驻专讟 讜讛注讜诇诇讜转 讜讛砖讻讞讛 讜讛驻讗讛 讜砖诇砖 砖讘转讘讜讗讛 讛诇拽讟 讜讛砖讻讞讛 讜讛驻讗讛 砖谞讬诐 砖讘讗讬诇谉 讛砖讻讞讛 讜讛驻讗讛

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鈥檃. 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鈥檃. Two gifts are left to the poor from the fruit of a tree: The forgotten fruits and the pe鈥檃.

讻讜诇谉 讗讬谉 讘讛诐 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 诇讘注诇讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 注谞讬 砖讘讬砖专讗诇 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪讬讚讜

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鈥檚 choice, e.g., giving teruma or tithes to whichever priest or Levite that one chooses. Instead, 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.

诪注砖专 注谞讬 讛诪转讞诇拽 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讬砖 讘讜 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 诇讘注诇讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 注谞讬 砖讘讬砖专讗诇 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讬讚讜 讜砖讗专 诪转谞讜转 讻讛讜谞讛 讻讙讜谉 讛讝专讜注 讜讛诇讞讬讬诐 讜讛拽讘讛 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 诪讬讚讜 诇讗 诪讻讛谉 诇讻讛谉 讜诇讗 诪诇讜讬 诇诇讜讬

By contrast, with regard to the poor man鈥檚 tithe, which is distributed from within one鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

讗专讘注 诪转谞讜转 砖讘讻专诐 讛驻专讟 讜讛注讜诇诇讜转 讜讛砖讻讞讛 讜讛驻讗讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻专诪讱 诇讗 转注讜诇诇 讜驻专讟 讻专诪讱 诇讗 转诇拽讟

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鈥檃, as it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall not glean [te鈥檕lel] your vineyard, neither shall you gather the fallen fruit [peret] of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and for the stranger鈥 (Leviticus 19:10).

讜讻转讬讘 讻讬 转讘爪专 讻专诪讱 诇讗 转注讜诇诇 讗讞专讬讱 讗诪专 专讘讬 诇讜讬 讗讞专讬讱 讝讜 砖讻讞讛

And it is also written: 鈥淲hen you gather the grapes of your vineyard, you shall not glean it [te鈥檕lel] after you; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:21). And Rabbi Levi says that with regard to the term 鈥渁fter you,鈥 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.

驻讗讛 讙诪专 讗讞专讬讱 讗讞专讬讱 诪讝讬转 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 转讞讘讟 讝讬转讱 诇讗 转驻讗专 讗讞专讬讱 讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 砖诇讗 转讟讜诇 转驻讗专转讜 诪诪谞讜

The halakha that the mitzva of pe鈥檃 applies to one鈥檚 vineyard is derived by a verbal analogy between the term 鈥渁fter you鈥 in that verse and the term 鈥渁fter you鈥 from another verse concerning an olive tree. As it is written: 鈥淲hen you beat your olive tree, you shall not go over the boughs [tefa鈥檈r] after you; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:20); and the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that the term 鈥淵ou shall not go over the boughs鈥 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鈥檚 vineyard as pe鈥檃 for the poor.

砖诇砖讛 砖讘转讘讜讗讛 讛诇拽讟

The Gemara continues: The baraita teaches that three gifts are left to the poor from grain: The gleanings,

讛砖讻讞讛 讜讛驻讗讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘拽爪专讻诐 讗转 拽爪讬专 讗专爪讻诐 诇讗 转讻诇讛 驻讗转 砖讚讱 讘拽爪专讱 讜诇拽讟 拽爪讬专讱 讜讙讜壮 讻讬 转拽爪专 拽爪讬专讱 讘砖讚讱 讜砖讻讞转 注诪专 讘砖讚讛

and the forgotten sheaves, and the pe鈥檃. As it is written: 鈥淎nd when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corner of [pe鈥檃t] your field, neither shall you gather the gleaning of your harvest; you shall leave them for the poor, and for the stranger鈥 (Leviticus 23:22). And it is also written: 鈥淲hen 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鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:19).

砖谞讬诐 砖讘讗讬诇谉 讛砖讻讞讛 讜讛驻讗讛 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 转讞讘讟 讝讬转讱 诇讗 转驻讗专 讗讞专讬讱 讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 砖诇讗 转讟讜诇 转驻讗专转讜 诪诪谞讜 讗讞专讬讱 讝讛 砖讻讞讛

The baraita taught that two gifts are left to the poor from the produce of a tree: The forgotten fruits and the pe鈥檃, as it is written: 鈥淲hen you beat your olive tree, you shall not go over the boughs [tefa鈥檈r] after you; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:20), and the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that the phrase: 鈥淵ou shall not go over the boughs,鈥 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鈥檃. Additionally, when the verse states: 鈥淎fter you,鈥 this is a reference to forgotten fruits.

讜讻讜诇谉 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 诇讘注诇讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讝讬讘讛 讻转讬讘讗 讘讛讜

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: 鈥淵ou shall leave them鈥 (Leviticus 23:22).

讜讗驻讬诇讜 注谞讬 砖讘讬砖专讗诇 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讬讚讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇拽讟 拽爪讬专讱 诇讗 转诇拽讟 诇注谞讬 讜诇讙专 转注讝讘 讗转诐 诇讛讝讛讬专 注谞讬 注诇 砖诇讜

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: 鈥淣either the gleaning of your harvest shall you gather; for the poor you shall leave them, and for the stranger鈥 (Leviticus 23:22). Since the verse juxtaposes the words 鈥渢he poor鈥 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.

讜诪注砖专 注谞讬 讛诪转讞诇拽 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讬砖 讘讜 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 诇讘注诇讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 谞转讬谞讛 讻转讬讘讗 讘讬讛

And the baraita teaches with regard to the poor man鈥檚 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: 鈥淲hen 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鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:12). Consequently, in this case it is not left for the poor but is actively given to them.

讜讗驻讬诇讜 注谞讬 砖讘讬砖专讗诇 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讬讚讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讙诪专 诇讙专 诇讙专 诪讛转诐 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪讜讝讛专 注谞讬 注诇 砖诇讜 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪讜讝讛专 注谞讬 注诇 砖诇讜

The baraita states: And even in the case of a poor person in Israel, if he fails to separate the poor man鈥檚 tithe from his produce, the court removes it from his possession. The Gemara explains that this is as Rabbi Ile鈥檃 said: This is derived from a verbal analogy between the term 鈥渢o the stranger鈥 stated with regard to the poor man鈥檚 tithe in the verse cited previously, and the term 鈥渢o the stranger鈥 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鈥檚 tithe, a poor person is warned to separate it from his own fields.

讜砖讗专 诪转谞讜转 讻讛讜谞讛 讻讙讜谉 讛讝专讜注 讜讛诇讞讬讬诐 讜讛拽讘讛 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 诇讗 诪讻讛谉 诇讻讛谉 讜诇讗 诪诇讜讬 诇诇讜讬 讛讗 诪诇讜讬 诇讻讛谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗诇诪讗 讗讬拽专讜 注诐

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 鈥減eople.鈥 Accordingly, since the verse states: 鈥淎nd this shall be the priests鈥 due from the people鈥 (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?

讻讙讜谉 讛讝专讜注 讜诇讗 讝专讜注 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉

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.

诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 讚诇讜讬 讛讜讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 转专讜诪讛 诇讻讛谉 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 诇诇讜讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诇讻讛谉

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.

讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗祝 诇讻讛谉 诇讻讛谉 讜诇讗 诇诇讜讬 诪讬 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讘转专 讚拽谞住讬谞讛讜 注讝专讗

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.

讗讬诪专 讚拽谞住讬谞讛讜 注讝专讗 讚诇讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛讜 诪砖拽诇 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专 讗诇讗 讻讙讜谉 讝专讜注 讜诇讗 讝专讜注 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝

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: 鈥淎nd the first of the fleece of your sheep, you shall give him鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:4). Since the verse does not state that the first fleece is taken from the 鈥減eople,鈥 even Levites are obligated to give their first shearing to the priest, and it may be removed from their possession to that end.

转讗 砖诪注 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 讘拽讚讜砖讛 讻讙讜谉 转专讜诪讛 讜转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讜讞诇讛 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 诪讬讚诐 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 讘拽讚讜砖讛 讻讙讜谉 讛讝专讜注 讜讛诇讞讬讬诐 讜讛拽讘讛 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讬讚诐

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 岣lla, 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 鈥減eople,鈥 and therefore they are exempt from giving the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw.

讻讙讜谉 讝专讜注 讜诇讗 讝专讜注 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讘转专 讚拽谞住讬谞讛讜 注讝专讗

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鈥檚 decree.

转讗 砖诪注 讛砖讜讞讟 诇讻讛谉 讜诇讙讜讬 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪转谞讜转 讛讗 诇诇讜讬 讜诇讬砖专讗诇 讞讬讬讘 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讗 诇诇讜讬 讜诇讬砖专讗诇 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 诇讬砖专讗诇 讞讬讬讘

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 鈥減eople,鈥 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.

讗讘诇 诇诇讜讬 诪讗讬 驻讟讜专 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讬转谞讬 讛砖讜讞讟 诇诇讜讬 讜诇讙讜讬 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪转谞讜转 讜注讜讚 讛讗 转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讞讟 诇讻讛谉 讜诇讙讜讬 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪转谞讜转 诇诇讜讬 讜诇讬砖专讗诇 讞讬讬讘 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讻驻专 讗转 诪拽讚砖 讛拽讚砖 讝讛 诇驻谞讬 讜诇驻谞讬诐

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 鈥減eople鈥 is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. As it is taught in a baraita that the verse states with regard to the Yom Kippur Temple service: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Leviticus 16:33). The baraita explains: 鈥淎nd he shall make atonement for the most holy place鈥; 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.

讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讝讛 讛讬讻诇 诪讝讘讞 讻诪砖诪注讜 讬讻驻专 讗诇讜 注讝专讜转 讻讛谞讬诐 讻诪砖诪注讜 注诐 讛拽讛诇 讗诇讜 讬砖专讗诇 讬讻驻专 讗诇讜 讛诇讜讬诐

The baraita continues: 鈥淭ent of Meeting鈥; this is referring to the Sanctuary, i.e., the offerings atone for impurity occurring inside the Sanctuary. 鈥淎ltar鈥; 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. 鈥淗e shall make atonement鈥; this is referring to the Temple courtyards, i.e., the offerings atone for impurity occurring there. 鈥淔or the priests鈥; this is understood in accordance with its plain meaning, indicating that the offerings atone for a priest who unwittingly enters the courtyard while impure. 鈥淎nd for all the people of the assembly鈥; these are the Israelites. 鈥淗e shall make atonement鈥; this is referring to the Levites.

讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讬讻驻专 讗诇讜 注讘讚讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讗讬拽专讜 注诐 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讗讬拽专讜 注诐

And it is taught in another baraita: 鈥淗e shall make atonement鈥; 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鈥檛 the tanna of this baraita interpret the term 鈥淗e shall make atonement鈥 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 鈥減eople鈥 and are therefore included in the clause 鈥渢he people of the assembly,鈥 and consequently, the term 鈥渉e shall make atonement鈥 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 鈥減eople,鈥 which means that the term 鈥淗e shall make atonement鈥 is required to include Levites.

讜专讘 讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讻讛讗讬 转谞讗 诇讬诪讗 讜讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讻讛讗讬 转谞讗 诇讬诪讗 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讻讛讗讬 转谞讗 讗讬 讻讛讗讬 转谞讗

The Gemara asks: But if this is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, 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.

讚专砖 诪专讬诪专 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗

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 鈥減eople.鈥 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 岣sda, who said that one who damages or consumes gifts of the priesthood is exempt from payment.

注讜诇讗 讛讜讛 讬讛讬讘 诪转谞转讗 诇讻讛谞转讗 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇注讜诇讗 诪谞讞转 讻讛谞转 谞讗讻诇转 诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 讗讬谞讛 谞讗讻诇转

搂 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: 鈥淎nd every meal offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 6:16).

讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讻讛谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻讛谞转 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 讻诇讬诇 转讛讬讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬

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鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd every meal offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eaten鈥? Why, then, is the remainder of a meal offering of the daughter of a priest consumed? Ulla said to him in response: My teacher,

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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!

Chullin 131

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 131

讚讗转讜 诇讬讚讬讛 讘讟讘诇讬讬讛讜 讜拽住讘专 讛讗讬 转谞讗 诪转谞讜转 砖诇讗 讛讜专诪讜 讻诪讬 砖讛讜专诪讜 讚诪讬讬谉

the baraita is referring to a case where they came into the priest鈥檚 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讛专讬 砖讗谞住讜 讘讬转 讛诪诇讱 讙专谞讜 讗诐 讘讞讜讘讜 讞讬讬讘 诇注砖专 讗诐 讘讗谞驻专讜转 驻讟讜专 诪诇注砖专

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear another proof with regard to the statement of Rav 岣sda from a baraita: In a case where the household of the king seized one鈥檚 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 岣sda.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚拽讗 诪砖转专砖讬 诇讬讛

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讗诪专 诇讜 诪讻讜专 诇讬 讘谞讬 诪注讬讛 砖诇 驻专讛 讜讛讬讛 讘讛谉 诪转谞讜转 讻讛讜谞讛 谞讜转谞谉 诇讻讛谉 讜讗讬谞讜 诪谞讻讛 诇讜 诪谉 讛讚诪讬诐 诇拽讞 讛讬诪谞讜 讘诪砖拽诇 谞讜转谞谉 诇讻讛谉 讜诪谞讻讛 诇讜 诪谉 讛讚诪讬诐

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.

讗诪讗讬 诇讬讛讜讬 讻诪讝讬拽 诪转谞讜转 讻讛讜谞讛 讗讜 砖讗讻诇谉 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗讬转谞讛讜 讘注讬谞讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: Why must the buyer give the maw to the priest? Let the butcher鈥檚 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 岣sda states that one is exempt from payment. This mishna apparently contradicts Rav 岣sda鈥檚 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 岣sda is discussing cases in which the gifts are not distinguishable objects at the time.

转讗 砖诪注 转砖注讛 谞讻住讬 讻讛谉 转专讜诪讛 讜转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讜讞诇讛 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讜诪转谞讜转 讜讛讚诪讗讬 讜讛讘讻讜专讬诐 讜讛拽专谉 讜讛讞讜诪砖

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof: Nine items are the property of a priest: Teruma, teruma of the tithe, 岣lla, 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.

诇诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讛讜爪讬讗谉 讘讚讬讬谞讬谉 诇讗 诇讻讚转谞谉 诇诪讛 讗诪专讜 谞讻住讬 讻讛谉 砖拽讜谞讛 讘讛谉 注讘讚讬诐 讜拽专拽注讜转 讜讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 谞讜讟诇谉 讘讞讜讘讜 讜讗砖讛 讘讻转讜讘转讛 讜住驻专 转讜专讛

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 岣sda? 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.

讛讛讜讗 诇讬讜讗讛 讚讛讜讛 讞讟祝 诪转谞转讗 讗转讜 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 诪住转讬讬讛 讚诇讗 砖拽诇讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讛 讗诇讗 诪讬讞讟祝 谞诪讬 讞讟讬祝

搂 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鈥 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?

讜专讘 讗讬 讗讬拽专讜 注诐 诪砖拽诇 谞诪讬 诇砖拽讜诇 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜

Rav鈥檚 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 鈥減eople,鈥 then let one take the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw from them as well, as the verse states: 鈥淔rom 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鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:3).

讗讬 诇讗 讗讬拽专讜 注诐 专讞诪谞讗 驻讟专讬谞讛讜 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讗讬拽专讜 注诐 讗讬 诇讗 讗讬拽专讜 注诐

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. 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.

讬转讬讘 专讘 驻驻讗 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讗专讘注 诪转谞讜转 注谞讬讬诐 砖讘讻专诐 讛驻专讟 讜讛注讜诇诇讜转 讜讛砖讻讞讛 讜讛驻讗讛 讜砖诇砖 砖讘转讘讜讗讛 讛诇拽讟 讜讛砖讻讞讛 讜讛驻讗讛 砖谞讬诐 砖讘讗讬诇谉 讛砖讻讞讛 讜讛驻讗讛

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鈥檃. 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鈥檃. Two gifts are left to the poor from the fruit of a tree: The forgotten fruits and the pe鈥檃.

讻讜诇谉 讗讬谉 讘讛诐 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 诇讘注诇讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 注谞讬 砖讘讬砖专讗诇 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪讬讚讜

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鈥檚 choice, e.g., giving teruma or tithes to whichever priest or Levite that one chooses. Instead, 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.

诪注砖专 注谞讬 讛诪转讞诇拽 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讬砖 讘讜 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 诇讘注诇讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 注谞讬 砖讘讬砖专讗诇 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讬讚讜 讜砖讗专 诪转谞讜转 讻讛讜谞讛 讻讙讜谉 讛讝专讜注 讜讛诇讞讬讬诐 讜讛拽讘讛 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 诪讬讚讜 诇讗 诪讻讛谉 诇讻讛谉 讜诇讗 诪诇讜讬 诇诇讜讬

By contrast, with regard to the poor man鈥檚 tithe, which is distributed from within one鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

讗专讘注 诪转谞讜转 砖讘讻专诐 讛驻专讟 讜讛注讜诇诇讜转 讜讛砖讻讞讛 讜讛驻讗讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻专诪讱 诇讗 转注讜诇诇 讜驻专讟 讻专诪讱 诇讗 转诇拽讟

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鈥檃, as it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall not glean [te鈥檕lel] your vineyard, neither shall you gather the fallen fruit [peret] of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and for the stranger鈥 (Leviticus 19:10).

讜讻转讬讘 讻讬 转讘爪专 讻专诪讱 诇讗 转注讜诇诇 讗讞专讬讱 讗诪专 专讘讬 诇讜讬 讗讞专讬讱 讝讜 砖讻讞讛

And it is also written: 鈥淲hen you gather the grapes of your vineyard, you shall not glean it [te鈥檕lel] after you; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:21). And Rabbi Levi says that with regard to the term 鈥渁fter you,鈥 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.

驻讗讛 讙诪专 讗讞专讬讱 讗讞专讬讱 诪讝讬转 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 转讞讘讟 讝讬转讱 诇讗 转驻讗专 讗讞专讬讱 讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 砖诇讗 转讟讜诇 转驻讗专转讜 诪诪谞讜

The halakha that the mitzva of pe鈥檃 applies to one鈥檚 vineyard is derived by a verbal analogy between the term 鈥渁fter you鈥 in that verse and the term 鈥渁fter you鈥 from another verse concerning an olive tree. As it is written: 鈥淲hen you beat your olive tree, you shall not go over the boughs [tefa鈥檈r] after you; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:20); and the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that the term 鈥淵ou shall not go over the boughs鈥 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鈥檚 vineyard as pe鈥檃 for the poor.

砖诇砖讛 砖讘转讘讜讗讛 讛诇拽讟

The Gemara continues: The baraita teaches that three gifts are left to the poor from grain: The gleanings,

讛砖讻讞讛 讜讛驻讗讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘拽爪专讻诐 讗转 拽爪讬专 讗专爪讻诐 诇讗 转讻诇讛 驻讗转 砖讚讱 讘拽爪专讱 讜诇拽讟 拽爪讬专讱 讜讙讜壮 讻讬 转拽爪专 拽爪讬专讱 讘砖讚讱 讜砖讻讞转 注诪专 讘砖讚讛

and the forgotten sheaves, and the pe鈥檃. As it is written: 鈥淎nd when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corner of [pe鈥檃t] your field, neither shall you gather the gleaning of your harvest; you shall leave them for the poor, and for the stranger鈥 (Leviticus 23:22). And it is also written: 鈥淲hen 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鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:19).

砖谞讬诐 砖讘讗讬诇谉 讛砖讻讞讛 讜讛驻讗讛 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 转讞讘讟 讝讬转讱 诇讗 转驻讗专 讗讞专讬讱 讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 砖诇讗 转讟讜诇 转驻讗专转讜 诪诪谞讜 讗讞专讬讱 讝讛 砖讻讞讛

The baraita taught that two gifts are left to the poor from the produce of a tree: The forgotten fruits and the pe鈥檃, as it is written: 鈥淲hen you beat your olive tree, you shall not go over the boughs [tefa鈥檈r] after you; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:20), and the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that the phrase: 鈥淵ou shall not go over the boughs,鈥 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鈥檃. Additionally, when the verse states: 鈥淎fter you,鈥 this is a reference to forgotten fruits.

讜讻讜诇谉 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 诇讘注诇讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讝讬讘讛 讻转讬讘讗 讘讛讜

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: 鈥淵ou shall leave them鈥 (Leviticus 23:22).

讜讗驻讬诇讜 注谞讬 砖讘讬砖专讗诇 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讬讚讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇拽讟 拽爪讬专讱 诇讗 转诇拽讟 诇注谞讬 讜诇讙专 转注讝讘 讗转诐 诇讛讝讛讬专 注谞讬 注诇 砖诇讜

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: 鈥淣either the gleaning of your harvest shall you gather; for the poor you shall leave them, and for the stranger鈥 (Leviticus 23:22). Since the verse juxtaposes the words 鈥渢he poor鈥 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.

讜诪注砖专 注谞讬 讛诪转讞诇拽 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讬砖 讘讜 讟讜讘转 讛谞讗讛 诇讘注诇讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 谞转讬谞讛 讻转讬讘讗 讘讬讛

And the baraita teaches with regard to the poor man鈥檚 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: 鈥淲hen 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鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:12). Consequently, in this case it is not left for the poor but is actively given to them.

讜讗驻讬诇讜 注谞讬 砖讘讬砖专讗诇 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讬讚讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讙诪专 诇讙专 诇讙专 诪讛转诐 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪讜讝讛专 注谞讬 注诇 砖诇讜 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪讜讝讛专 注谞讬 注诇 砖诇讜

The baraita states: And even in the case of a poor person in Israel, if he fails to separate the poor man鈥檚 tithe from his produce, the court removes it from his possession. The Gemara explains that this is as Rabbi Ile鈥檃 said: This is derived from a verbal analogy between the term 鈥渢o the stranger鈥 stated with regard to the poor man鈥檚 tithe in the verse cited previously, and the term 鈥渢o the stranger鈥 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鈥檚 tithe, a poor person is warned to separate it from his own fields.

讜砖讗专 诪转谞讜转 讻讛讜谞讛 讻讙讜谉 讛讝专讜注 讜讛诇讞讬讬诐 讜讛拽讘讛 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 诇讗 诪讻讛谉 诇讻讛谉 讜诇讗 诪诇讜讬 诇诇讜讬 讛讗 诪诇讜讬 诇讻讛谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗诇诪讗 讗讬拽专讜 注诐

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 鈥減eople.鈥 Accordingly, since the verse states: 鈥淎nd this shall be the priests鈥 due from the people鈥 (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?

讻讙讜谉 讛讝专讜注 讜诇讗 讝专讜注 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉

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.

诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 讚诇讜讬 讛讜讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 转专讜诪讛 诇讻讛谉 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 诇诇讜讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诇讻讛谉

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.

讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗祝 诇讻讛谉 诇讻讛谉 讜诇讗 诇诇讜讬 诪讬 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讘转专 讚拽谞住讬谞讛讜 注讝专讗

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.

讗讬诪专 讚拽谞住讬谞讛讜 注讝专讗 讚诇讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛讜 诪砖拽诇 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专 讗诇讗 讻讙讜谉 讝专讜注 讜诇讗 讝专讜注 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝

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: 鈥淎nd the first of the fleece of your sheep, you shall give him鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:4). Since the verse does not state that the first fleece is taken from the 鈥減eople,鈥 even Levites are obligated to give their first shearing to the priest, and it may be removed from their possession to that end.

转讗 砖诪注 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 讘拽讚讜砖讛 讻讙讜谉 转专讜诪讛 讜转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讜讞诇讛 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 诪讬讚诐 讜讻诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 讘拽讚讜砖讛 讻讙讜谉 讛讝专讜注 讜讛诇讞讬讬诐 讜讛拽讘讛 讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪讬讚诐

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 岣lla, 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 鈥減eople,鈥 and therefore they are exempt from giving the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw.

讻讙讜谉 讝专讜注 讜诇讗 讝专讜注 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讘转专 讚拽谞住讬谞讛讜 注讝专讗

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鈥檚 decree.

转讗 砖诪注 讛砖讜讞讟 诇讻讛谉 讜诇讙讜讬 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪转谞讜转 讛讗 诇诇讜讬 讜诇讬砖专讗诇 讞讬讬讘 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讗 诇诇讜讬 讜诇讬砖专讗诇 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 诇讬砖专讗诇 讞讬讬讘

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 鈥減eople,鈥 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.

讗讘诇 诇诇讜讬 诪讗讬 驻讟讜专 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讬转谞讬 讛砖讜讞讟 诇诇讜讬 讜诇讙讜讬 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪转谞讜转 讜注讜讚 讛讗 转谞讬讗 讛砖讜讞讟 诇讻讛谉 讜诇讙讜讬 驻讟讜专 诪谉 讛诪转谞讜转 诇诇讜讬 讜诇讬砖专讗诇 讞讬讬讘 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讻驻专 讗转 诪拽讚砖 讛拽讚砖 讝讛 诇驻谞讬 讜诇驻谞讬诐

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 鈥減eople鈥 is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. As it is taught in a baraita that the verse states with regard to the Yom Kippur Temple service: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Leviticus 16:33). The baraita explains: 鈥淎nd he shall make atonement for the most holy place鈥; 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.

讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讝讛 讛讬讻诇 诪讝讘讞 讻诪砖诪注讜 讬讻驻专 讗诇讜 注讝专讜转 讻讛谞讬诐 讻诪砖诪注讜 注诐 讛拽讛诇 讗诇讜 讬砖专讗诇 讬讻驻专 讗诇讜 讛诇讜讬诐

The baraita continues: 鈥淭ent of Meeting鈥; this is referring to the Sanctuary, i.e., the offerings atone for impurity occurring inside the Sanctuary. 鈥淎ltar鈥; 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. 鈥淗e shall make atonement鈥; this is referring to the Temple courtyards, i.e., the offerings atone for impurity occurring there. 鈥淔or the priests鈥; this is understood in accordance with its plain meaning, indicating that the offerings atone for a priest who unwittingly enters the courtyard while impure. 鈥淎nd for all the people of the assembly鈥; these are the Israelites. 鈥淗e shall make atonement鈥; this is referring to the Levites.

讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讬讻驻专 讗诇讜 注讘讚讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讗讬拽专讜 注诐 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 讗讬拽专讜 注诐

And it is taught in another baraita: 鈥淗e shall make atonement鈥; 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鈥檛 the tanna of this baraita interpret the term 鈥淗e shall make atonement鈥 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 鈥減eople鈥 and are therefore included in the clause 鈥渢he people of the assembly,鈥 and consequently, the term 鈥渉e shall make atonement鈥 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 鈥減eople,鈥 which means that the term 鈥淗e shall make atonement鈥 is required to include Levites.

讜专讘 讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讻讛讗讬 转谞讗 诇讬诪讗 讜讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讻讛讗讬 转谞讗 诇讬诪讗 诪住驻拽讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讻讛讗讬 转谞讗 讗讬 讻讛讗讬 转谞讗

The Gemara asks: But if this is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, 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.

讚专砖 诪专讬诪专 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗

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 鈥減eople.鈥 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 岣sda, who said that one who damages or consumes gifts of the priesthood is exempt from payment.

注讜诇讗 讛讜讛 讬讛讬讘 诪转谞转讗 诇讻讛谞转讗 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇注讜诇讗 诪谞讞转 讻讛谞转 谞讗讻诇转 诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 讗讬谞讛 谞讗讻诇转

搂 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: 鈥淎nd every meal offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 6:16).

讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讻讛谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻讛谞转 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 讻诇讬诇 转讛讬讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬

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鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd every meal offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eaten鈥? Why, then, is the remainder of a meal offering of the daughter of a priest consumed? Ulla said to him in response: My teacher,

Scroll To Top