Bava Kamma

This would imply that R. Jose the Galilean maintained that even to himself  he could remit it. Now, if that is so, how could a case ever arise that restitution for robbery committed upon a proselyte  should be made to the priests  as ordained in the Divine Law? — Said Raba: We are dealing here with a case where one robbed a proselyte and [falsely] denied to him on oath [that he had done so], and the proselyte having died the robber confessed subsequently, on the proselyte's death,  so that at the time he made confession God  acquired title to it  and granted it to the priests. Rabina asked: What would be the law where a proselytess was robbed? Shall we say that when the Divine Law says 'man'  it does not include 'woman' or perhaps this is only the Scriptural manner of speaking? — Said R. Aaron to Rabina: Come and hear: It was taught: '[The] man';  this tells me only that the law applies to a man; whence do I know that it applies also to a woman? When it is further stated 'That the trespass be restored'  we have two cases mentioned.  But if so, why was 'man' specifically mentioned? To show that only in the case of [a person who has reached] manhood  is it necessary to investigate whether he had kinsmen  or not, but in the case of a minor it is not necessary, since it is pretty certain that he could have no 'redeemers'. Our Rabbis taught: Unto the Lord even to the priest  means that the Lord acquired title to it  and granted it to the priest  of that [particular] division. You say 'to the priest of that [particular] division', but perhaps it is not so, but to any priest whom the robber prefers? — Since it is further stated, Beside the ram of atonement whereby he shall make an atonement for him,  it proves that Scripture referred to the priest of that [particular] division. Our Rabbis taught: In the case where the robber was a priest, how do we know that he is not entitled to say: Since the payment would [in any case] have to go to the priests, now that it is in my possession it should surely remain mine? Cannot he argue that if he has a title to payment which is in the possession of others,  all the more should he have a title to payment which he has in his own possession? R. Nathan put the argument in a different form: Seeing that a thing in which he had no share until it actually entered his possession cannot be taken from him once it has entered his possession,  does it not stand to reason that a thing  in which he had a share  even before it came into his possession cannot be taken from him once it has come into his possession?  This, however, is not so: for while this may be true  of a thing in which he had no share, since in that case just as he had no share in it, so has nobody else any share in it, it is not necessarily true  of the proceeds of robbery where just as he has a share in it, so also have others a share in it.  The [payment for] robbery must therefore be taken away from his possession and shared out to all his bretheren the priests. But is it not written: And every man's hallowed things shall be his?  — We are dealing here with a priest who was [levitically] defiled.  But if the priest was defiled, could there be anything in which he should have a share?  — [The fact is that] the ruling  is derived by the analogy of the term, 'To the priest'  to a similar term 'To the priest' occurring in the case of a field of [Permanent] possession,  as taught:  What is the point of the words the [permanent] possession thereof?  [The point is this:] How can we know that if a field which would [in due course] have to fall to the priests in the jubilee  but was redeemed by one of the priests, he should not have the right to say, 'Since the field is destined to fall to the priests in the jubilee and as it is already in my possession it should remain mine, as is indeed only reasonable to argue, for since I have a title to a field in the possession of others, should this not be the more so when the field is in my own possession?' The text therefore significantly says. As a field devoted, the [permanent] possession thereof shall be the priest's, to indicate that a field of [permanent] possession  remains with him, whereas this [field]  will not remain with him.  What then is to be done with it? It is taken from him and shared out to all his brethren the priests. Our Rabbis taught: Whence can we learn that a priest is entitled to come and sacrifice his offerings at any time and on any occasion he prefers? It is significantly stated, And come with all the desire of his mind … and shall minister.  But whence can we learn that the fee for the sacrificial operation  and the skin of the animal will belong to him? It is stated: And every man's hallowed thing shall be his,  so that if he was blemished,  he has to give the offering to a priest of that particular division, while the fee for the operation and the skin will belong to him,