חולין קלא

חולין קלא

דאתו לידיה בטבלייהו וקסבר האי תנא מתנות שלא הורמו כמי שהורמו דמיין

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.

תא שמע הרי שאנסו בית המלך גרנו אם בחובו חייב לעשר אם באנפרות פטור מלעשר

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.

שאני התם דקא משתרשי ליה

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.

תא שמע אמר לו מכור לי בני מעיה של פרה והיה בהן מתנות כהונה נותנן לכהן ואינו מנכה לו מן הדמים לקח הימנו במשקל נותנן לכהן ומנכה לו מן הדמים

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.

אמאי ליהוי כמזיק מתנות כהונה או שאכלן שאני התם דאיתנהו בעיניהו

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.

ת”ש תשעה נכסי כהן תרומה ותרומת מעשר וחלה ראשית הגז ומתנות והדמאי והבכורים והקרן והחומש

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.

למאי לאו להוציאן בדיינין לא לכדתנן למה אמרו נכסי כהן שקונה בהן עבדים וקרקעות ובהמה טמאה ובעל חוב נוטלן בחובו ואשה בכתובתה וספר תורה

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.

ההוא ליואה דהוה חטף מתנתא אתו אמרו ליה לרב אמר להו לא מסתייה דלא שקלינן מיניה אלא מיחטף נמי חטיף

§ 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?

ורב אי איקרו עם משקל נמי לשקול מינייהו

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).

אי לא איקרו עם רחמנא פטרינהו מספקא ליה אי איקרו עם אי לא איקרו עם

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.

יתיב רב פפא וקאמר לה להא שמעתא איתיביה רב אידי בר אבין לרב פפא ארבע מתנות עניים שבכרם הפרט והעוללות והשכחה והפאה ושלש שבתבואה הלקט והשכחה והפאה שנים שבאילן השכחה והפאה

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.

כולן אין בהם טובת הנאה לבעלים ואפילו עני שבישראל מוציאין מידו

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, 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.

מעשר עני המתחלק בתוך ביתו יש בו טובת הנאה לבעלים ואפי’ עני שבישראל מוציאין אותו מידו ושאר מתנות כהונה כגון הזרוע והלחיים והקבה אין מוציאין אותן (מידו) לא מכהן לכהן ולא מלוי ללוי

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.

ארבע מתנות שבכרם הפרט והעוללות והשכחה והפאה דכתיב (ויקרא יט, י) וכרמך לא תעולל ופרט כרמך לא תלקט

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).

וכתיב (דברים כד, כא) כי תבצור כרמך לא תעולל אחריך אמר ר’ לוי אחריך זו שכחה

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.

פאה גמר אחריך אחריך מזית דכתיב (דברים כד, כ) כי תחבוט זיתך לא תפאר אחריך ותנא דבי ר’ ישמעאל שלא תטול תפארתו ממנו

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.

שלשה שבתבואה הלקט

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

השכחה והפאה דכתיב (ויקרא כג, כב) ובקוצרכם את קציר ארצכם לא תכלה פאת שדך בקוצרך ולקט קצירך וגו’ (דברים כד, יט) כי תקצור קצירך בשדך ושכחת עומר בשדה

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).

שנים שבאילן השכחה והפאה דכתיב (דברים כד, כ) כי תחבוט זיתך לא תפאר אחריך ותנא דבי ר’ ישמעאל שלא תטול תפארתו ממנו אחריך זה שכחה

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.

וכולן אין בהן טובת הנאה לבעלים מאי טעמא עזיבה כתיבא בהו

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).

ואפי’ עני שבישראל מוציאין אותו מידו דכתיב ולקט קצירך לא תלקט לעני ולגר תעזוב אותם להזהיר עני על שלו

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.

ומעשר עני המתחלק בתוך הבית יש בו טובת הנאה לבעלים מאי טעמא נתינה כתיבא ביה

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.

ואפי’ עני שבישראל מוציאין אותו מידו דאמר ר’ אילעא גמר לגר לגר מהתם מה להלן מוזהר עני על שלו אף כאן מוזהר עני על שלו

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.

ושאר מתנות כהונה כגון הזרוע והלחיים והקבה אין מוציאין אותן לא מכהן לכהן ולא מלוי ללוי הא מלוי לכהן מוציאין אלמא איקרו עם

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?

כגון הזרוע ולא זרוע ומאי ניהו מעשר ראשון

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.

מעשר ראשון דלוי הוא כרבי אלעזר בן עזריה דתניא תרומה לכהן מעשר ראשון ללוי דברי ר’ עקיבא ר’ אלעזר בן עזריה אומר אף לכהן

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.

אימר דאמר ר’ אלעזר בן עזריה אף לכהן לכהן ולא ללוי מי אמר אין לבתר דקנסינהו עזרא

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.

אימר דקנסינהו עזרא דלא יהבינן להו משקל מינייהו מי אמר אלא כגון זרוע ולא זרוע ומאי ניהו ראשית הגז

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.

ת”ש זה הכלל כל דבר שהוא בקדושה כגון תרומה ותרומת מעשר וחלה מוציאין אותן מידם וכל דבר שאינו בקדושה כגון הזרוע והלחיים והקבה אין מוציאין אותו מידם

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.

כגון זרוע ולא זרוע ומאי ניהו מעשר ראשון ולבתר דקנסינהו עזרא

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.

ת”ש השוחט לכהן ולעובד כוכבים פטור מן המתנות הא ללוי ולישראל חייב לא תימא הא ללוי ולישראל חייב אלא אימא הא לישראל חייב

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.

אבל ללוי מאי פטור אי הכי ליתני השוחט ללוי ולעובד כוכבים פטור מן המתנות ועוד הא תניא השוחט לכהן ולעובד כוכבים פטור מן המתנות ללוי ולישראל חייב תיובתא דרב

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.

אמר לך רב תנאי היא דתניא (ויקרא טז, לג) וכפר את מקדש הקדש זה לפני ולפנים

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.

אהל מועד זה היכל מזבח כמשמעו יכפר אלו עזרות כהנים כמשמעו עם הקהל אלו ישראל יכפר אלו הלוים

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.

ותניא אידך יכפר אלו עבדים מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר איקרו עם ומר סבר לא איקרו עם

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.

ורב אי סבירא ליה כהאי תנא לימא ואי סבירא ליה כהאי תנא לימא מספקא ליה אי כהאי תנא אי כהאי תנא

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.

דרש מרימר הלכתא כוותיה דרב והלכתא כוותיה דרב חסדא

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.

עולא הוה יהיב מתנתא לכהנתא איתיביה רבא לעולא מנחת כהנת נאכלת מנחת כהן אינה נאכלת

§ 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).

ואי אמרת כהן ואפילו כהנת והכתיב (ויקרא ו, טז) וכל מנחת כהן כליל תהיה לא תאכל אמר ליה רבי

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,