Bava Kamma 110

Bava Kamma 110

וְאִם הָיָה זָקֵן אוֹ חוֹלֶה – נוֹתְנָהּ לְכׇל כֹּהֵן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה, וַעֲבוֹדָתָהּ וְעוֹרָהּ לְאַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁמָר.

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

הַאי זָקֵן אוֹ חוֹלֶה, הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּמָצֵי עָבֵיד עֲבוֹדָה – עֲבוֹדָתָהּ וְעוֹרָהּ נָמֵי תֶּיהְוֵי דִּידֵיהּ! וְאִי דְּלָא מָצֵי עָבֵיד עֲבוֹדָה – שָׁלִיחַ הֵיכִי מְשַׁוֵּי?

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

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: שֶׁיָּכוֹל לַעֲשׂוֹת עַל יְדֵי הַדְּחָק. עֲבוֹדָה – דְּכִי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ עַל יְדֵי הַדְּחָק עֲבוֹדָה הִיא, וּמְשַׁוֵּי שָׁלִיחַ; אֲכִילָה – דְּכִי אָכֵיל עַל יְדֵי הַדְּחָק אֲכִילָה גַּסָּה הִיא, וַאֲכִילָה גַּסָּה לָאו כְּלוּם הוּא; מִשּׁוּם הָכִי עֲבוֹדָתָהּ וְעוֹרָהּ לְאַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁמָר.

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

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: אִם הָיָה כֹּהֵן טָמֵא בְּקׇרְבַּן צִבּוּר – נוֹתְנָהּ לְכׇל מִי שֶׁיִּרְצֶה, וַעֲבוֹדָתָהּ וְעוֹרָהּ לְאַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁמָר. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּאִיכָּא טְהוֹרִים, טְמֵאִים מִי מָצוּ עָבְדִי?! וְאִי דְּלֵיכָּא טְהוֹרִים, עֲבוֹדָתָהּ וְעוֹרָהּ לְאַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁמָר?! הָא טְמֵאִים נִינְהוּ, וְלָא מָצוּ אָכְלִי!

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

אָמַר רָבָא, אֵימָא: לְבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין טְהוֹרִין שֶׁבְּאוֹתוֹ מִשְׁמָר.

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

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אִם הָיָה כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל אוֹנֵן – נוֹתְנָהּ לְכׇל כֹּהֵן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה, וַעֲבוֹדָתָהּ וְעוֹרָהּ לְאַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁמָר. מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? תְּנֵינָא: כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מַקְרִיב אוֹנֵן, וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק לֶאֱכוֹל לָעֶרֶב!

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

סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: כִּי חָס רַחֲמָנָא עֲלֵיהּ דְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל – לְקָרוֹבֵי הוּא, אֲבָל לְשַׁוּוֹיֵי שָׁלִיחַ – לָא מָצֵי מְשַׁוֵּי; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

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

מַתְנִי׳ הַגּוֹזֵל אֶת הַגֵּר, וְנִשְׁבַּע לוֹ, וָמֵת – הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ לַכֹּהֲנִים, וְאָשָׁם לַמִּזְבֵּחַ; שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאִם אֵין לָאִישׁ גּוֹאֵל לְהָשִׁיב הָאָשָׁם אֵלָיו, הָאָשָׁם הַמּוּשָׁב לַה׳ לַכֹּהֵן, מִלְּבַד אֵיל הַכִּפֻּרִים אֲשֶׁר יְכַפֶּר בּוֹ עָלָיו״.

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

הָיָה מַעֲלֶה אֶת הַכֶּסֶף וְאֶת הָאָשָׁם, וָמֵת – הַכֶּסֶף יִנָּתֵן לְבָנָיו, וְהָאָשָׁם יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֵב – וְיִמָּכֵר, וְיִפְּלוּ דָּמָיו לִנְדָבָה. נָתַן הַכֶּסֶף לְאַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁמָר, וָמֵת – אֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁין יְכוֹלִין לְהוֹצִיא מִיָּדָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן לַכֹּהֵן – לוֹ יִהְיֶה״.

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

נָתַן הַכֶּסֶף לִיהוֹיָרִיב, וְאָשָׁם לִידַעְיָה – יָצָא. אָשָׁם לִיהוֹיָרִיב וְכֶסֶף לִידַעְיָה – אִם קַיָּים הָאָשָׁם, יַקְרִיבוּהוּ בְּנֵי יְדַעְיָה; וְאִם לֹא, יַחֲזִיר וְיָבִיא אָשָׁם אַחֵר. שֶׁהַמֵּבִיא גְּזֵילוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא אֲשָׁמוֹ – יָצָא; הֵבִיא אֲשָׁמוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא גְּזֵילוֹ – לֹא יָצָא.

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

נָתַן אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְלֹא נָתַן אֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ – אֵין הַחוֹמֶשׁ מְעַכֵּב.

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

גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אָשָׁם״ – זֶה קֶרֶן, ״הַמּוּשָׁב״ – זֶה חוֹמֶשׁ. אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא: ״אָשָׁם״ – זֶה אַיִל?

GEMARA: The Sages taught in explanation of the verse cited in the mishna: “But if the man has no kinsman…the restitution for guilt that is made shall be the Lord’s, even the priest’s” (Numbers 5:8): With regard to the word “guilt,” this is referring to the principal, i.e., the stolen item itself or its equivalent value; “the restitution…that is made,” this is referring to the additional one-fifth payment. Or perhaps this is not the proper interpretation of the verse. Rather, it should be interpreted: “Guilt,” this is referring to the ram of the guilt-offering.

וּלְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרָבָא, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: גֶּזֶל הַגֵּר שֶׁהֶחְזִירוֹ בַּלַּיְלָה – לֹא יָצָא. הֶחְזִירוֹ חֲצָאִין – לֹא יָצָא. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״אָשָׁם״ קַרְיֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא.

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

כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״מִלְּבַד אֵיל הַכִּפֻּרִים״, הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: ״אָשָׁם״ – זֶה קֶרֶן.

The baraita continues: When it says in that verse: “Besides the ram of the atonement” (Numbers 5:8), referring to the offering, you must say concerning the word “guilt” written earlier in the verse that this is referring to the principal.

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״אָשָׁם״ – זֶה קֶרֶן, ״הַמּוּשָׁב״ – זֶה חוֹמֶשׁ. אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא: ״אָשָׁם״ – זֶה חוֹמֶשׁ? לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִמַּתְנִיתִין, דִּתְנַן: נָתַן לוֹ אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְלֹא נָתַן לוֹ אֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ – אֵין הַחוֹמֶשׁ מְעַכֵּב. אַדְּרַבָּה, חוֹמֶשׁ מְעַכֵּב.

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

כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת אֲשָׁמוֹ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ, וַחֲמִישִׁתוֹ״, הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: ״אָשָׁם״ – זֶה קֶרֶן.

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

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״אָשָׁם״ – זֶה קֶרֶן, ״הַמּוּשָׁב״ – זֶה חוֹמֶשׁ; וּבְגֶזֶל הַגֵּר הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא: ״הַמּוּשָׁב״ – זֶה כֶּפֶל, וּבִגְנֵיבַת הַגֵּר הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת אֲשָׁמוֹ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ, וַחֲמִישִׁתוֹ״ – הֲרֵי בְּמָמוֹן הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּם בָּרֹאשׁ הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

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

גּוּפָא – אָמַר רָבָא: גֶּזֶל הַגֵּר שֶׁהֶחְזִירוֹ בַּלַּיְלָה – לֹא יָצָא. הֶחְזִירוּהוּ חֲצָאִין – לֹא יָצָא. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״אָשָׁם״ קַרְיֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא.

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

וְאָמַר רָבָא: גֶּזֶל הַגֵּר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה לְכׇל כֹּהֵן וְכֹהֵן – לֹא יָצָא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ. מַאי טַעְמָא? דִּכְתִיב: ״הָאָשָׁם הַמּוּשָׁב״ – עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא הֲשָׁבָה לְכׇל כֹּהֵן וְכֹהֵן.

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

בָּעֵי רָבָא: אֵין בּוֹ לְמִשְׁמֶרֶת יְהוֹיָרִיב וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ

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

לְמִשְׁמֶרֶת יְדַעְיָה, מַהוּ?

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

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּיַהֲבֵיהּ לִידַעְיָה בְּמִשְׁמֶרֶת יְדַעְיָה – הָא אִית בֵּיהּ!

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

לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּיַהֲבֵיהּ לִידַעְיָה בְּמִשְׁמַרְתּוֹ דִּיהוֹיָרִיב. מַאי? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דְּלָאו מִשְׁמַרְתּוֹ הוּא – וְלָא כְּלוּם הוּא; אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא חֲזֵי לֵיהּ מֵעִיקָּרָא – לִידַעְיָה קָאֵי? תֵּיקוּ.

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

בָּעֵי רָבָא: כֹּהֲנִים, מַהוּ שֶׁיַּחְלְקוּ גֶּזֶל הַגֵּר כְּנֶגֶד גֶּזֶל הַגֵּר?

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

מִי אָמְרִינַן: ״אָשָׁם״ קַרְיֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא – מָה אָשָׁם אֵין חוֹלְקִין אָשָׁם כְּנֶגֶד אָשָׁם, אַף גֶּזֶל אֵין חוֹלְקִין גֶּזֶל הַגֵּר כְּנֶגֶד גֶּזֶל הַגֵּר; אוֹ דִּלְמָא, גֶּזֶל הַגֵּר מָמוֹנָא הוּא?

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

הֲדַר פַּשְׁטַהּ: ״אָשָׁם״ קַרְיֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא. רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא מַתְנֵי לַהּ בְּהֶדְיָא – אָמַר רָבָא: כֹּהֲנִים אֵין חוֹלְקִין גֶּזֶל הַגֵּר כְּנֶגֶד גֶּזֶל הַגֵּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״אָשָׁם״ קַרְיֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא.

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

בָּעֵי רָבָא: כֹּהֲנִים בְּגֶזֶל הַגֵּר – יוֹרְשִׁין הָווּ, אוֹ מְקַבְּלֵי מַתָּנוֹת הָווּ?

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

לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? כְּגוֹן שֶׁגָּזַל חָמֵץ שֶׁעָבַר עָלָיו הַפֶּסַח. אִי אָמְרַתְּ יוֹרְשִׁין הָווּ – הַיְינוּ הַאי דְּיָרְתִי מוֹרֵית. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ מְקַבְּלֵי מַתָּנוֹת הָווּ – מַתָּנָה קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא דְּנִיתֵּיב לְהוּ, וְהָא לָא קָא יָהֵיב לְהוּ מִידֵּי – דְּעַפְרָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא.

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

רַב זְעֵירָא בָּעֵי הָכִי: אֲפִילּוּ אִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר מְקַבְּלֵי מַתָּנָה הָווּ, הָא – לָא אִיבַּעְיָא לַן, דְּהַהִיא מַתָּנָה אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא דְּנִיתֵּיב לְהוּ.

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

אֶלָּא כִּי קָמִבַּעְיָא לַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לוֹ עֶשֶׂר בְּהֵמוֹת בְּגֶזֶל הַגֵּר. [מִי] מִחַיְּיבִי לְאַפְרוֹשֵׁי מִינַּיְיהוּ מַעֲשֵׂר, אוֹ לָא?

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

יוֹרְשִׁין הָווּ – דְּאָמַר מָר: קָנוּ בִּתְפִיסַת הַבַּיִת – חַיָּיבִין; אוֹ דִלְמָא מְקַבְּלֵי מַתָּנוֹת הָווּ – וּתְנַן: הַלּוֹקֵחַ וְהַנִּיתָּן לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה – פָּטוּר מִמַּעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה. מַאי?

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

תָּא שְׁמַע: עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה נִיתְּנוּ לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו, וְכוּלָּן נִיתְּנוּ בִּכְלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל, וּבְרִית מֶלַח.

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

כׇּל הַמְקַיְּימָן – כְּאִילּוּ מְקַיֵּים כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל וּבְרִית מֶלַח, כׇּל הָעוֹבֵר עֲלֵיהֶם – כְּאִילּוּ עוֹבֵר עַל כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל וּבְרִית מֶלַח.

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

וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: עֶשֶׂר בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְאַרְבַּע בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְעֶשֶׂר בַּגְּבוּלִים. עֶשֶׂר בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ – חַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה, וְחַטַּאת הָעוֹף, וְאָשָׁם וַדַּאי, וְאָשָׁם תָּלוּי, וְזִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִבּוּר, וְלוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע, וּמוֹתַר הָעוֹמֶר, וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם, וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, וּשְׁיָרֵי מְנָחוֹת.

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

וְאַרְבַּע בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם – הַבְּכוֹרָה, וְהַבִּיכּוּרִים, וְהַמּוּרָם מִן הַתּוֹדָה וְאֵיל נָזִיר, וְעוֹרוֹת קֳדָשִׁים.

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

וַעֲשָׂרָה בַּגְּבוּלִין: תְּרוּמָה, וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר, וְחַלָּה, וְרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, וְהַמַּתָּנוֹת, וּפִדְיוֹן הַבֵּן, וּפִדְיוֹן פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר, וּשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה, וּשְׂדֵה חֲרָמִים, וְגֶזֶל הַגֵּר.

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

וְקָא קָרֵי מִיהַת ״מַתָּנָה״ – שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מְקַבְּלֵי מַתָּנוֹת הָווּ! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

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

נָתַן אֶת הַכֶּסֶף לְאַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁמָר [וְכוּ׳]. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, כֶּסֶף מְכַפֵּר מֶחֱצָה. דְּאִי לָא מְכַפֵּר, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מַהְדַּר לְיוֹרְשִׁין. מַאי טַעְמָא? אַדַּעְתָּא דְּהָכִי לָא יְהַב לֵיהּ.

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

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, חַטָּאת שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ תִּיפּוֹק לְחוּלִּין – דְּאַדַּעְתָּא דְּהָכִי לָא אַפְרְשַׁהּ! אָמְרִי: חַטָּאת שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ, הִלְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ דִּלְמִיתָה אָזְלָא.

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

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, אָשָׁם שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּעָלָיו לִיפּוֹק לְחוּלִּין – דְּאַדַּעְתָּא דְּהָכִי לָא אַפְרְשֵׁיהּ! אָשָׁם נָמֵי הִלְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לָהּ – כֹּל שֶׁבַּחַטָּאת מֵתָה, בְּאָשָׁם רוֹעֶה.

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

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, יְבָמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לִפְנֵי מוּכֵּה שְׁחִין תִּיפּוֹק בְּלָא חֲלִיצָה, דְּאַדַּעְתָּא דְּהָכִי לֹא קִדְּשָׁה עַצְמָהּ! הָתָם אֲנַן סָהֲדִי

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