Bava Kamma

for the division of Jedaiah?  What are the circumstances? If we suppose that he paid it to Jedaiah during the time [of service] of the division of Jedaiah,  surely in such a case the amount is sufficient?  — No, we must suppose that he paid it to Jedaiah  during the time of the division of Jehoiarib. Now, what would be the law? Shall we say that since it was not in the time of his division, the restoration is of no avail, or perhaps since it would not do for Jehoiarib it was destined from the very outset to go to Jedaiah? — Let this stand undecided. Raba again asked: May the priests set [one payment for] a robbery committed upon a proselyte against another [payment for a] robbery committed upon a proselyte? Shall we say that since the Divine Law designated it trespass,  therefore, just as in the case of a trespass offering, one trespass offering can not be set against another trespass offering,  so also in the case of [payment for] a robbery committed upon a proselyte, one [payment for] robbery committed upon a proselyte cannot be set against another [payment for] robbery committed upon a proselyte  or perhaps [since payment for] robbery committed upon a proselyte is a matter of money, [it should not be subject to this restriction]? He however subsequently decided that [as] the Divine Law termed it trespass, [it should follow the same rule]. R. Aha the son of Raba stated this explicitly. Raba said: The priests have no right to set one [payment for a] robbery committed upon a proselyte against another [payment for] robbery committed upon a proselyte, the reason being that the Divine Law termed it trespass. Raba asked: Are the priests in relation to [the payment for] robbery committed upon a proselyte in the capacity of heirs  or in the capacity of recipients of endowments? A practical difference arises where e.g., the robber misappropriated leaven and Passover meanwhile passed by.  If now you maintain that they are in the capacity of heirs, it will follow that what they inherited they will have,  whereas if you maintain that they are recipients of endowments, the Divine Law surely ordered the giving of an endowment, and in this case nothing would be given them since the leaven is considered [in the eye of the law] as being mere ashes.  R. Ze'ira put the question thus: Even if you maintain that they are recipients of endowments, then still no question arises, since it is this endowment [originally due to the proselyte] which the Divine Law has enjoined to be bestowed upon them.  What, however, is doubtful to us is where e.g., ten animals fell to the portion of a priest as [payment for] robbery committed upon a proselyte. Is he then under an obligation to set aside a tithe  or not? Are they [the priests] heirs, in which case the dictum of the master applies that [where] heirs have bought animals out of the funds of the general estate they would be liable [to tithe], or are they perhaps endowment recipients in which case we have learnt 'He who buys animals or receives them as a gift is exempt from the law of tithing animals'?  Now, what should be the law?  — Come and hear: Twenty-four priestly endowments were bestowed upon Aaron and his sons. All these were granted to him by means of a generalisation followed by a specification which was in its turn followed again by a generalisation  and a covenant of salt  so that to fulfil them is like fulfilling [the whole law which is expounded by] generalisation, specification and generalisation and [like offering all the sacrifices forming] the covenant of salt,  whereas to transgress them is like transgressing [the whole Torah which is expounded by] generalisation, specification and generalisation, and [all the sacrifices forming] the covenant of salt. They are these: Ten to be partaken in the precincts of the Temple, four in Jerusalem and ten within the borders [of the Land of Israel]. The ten in the precincts of the Temple are: A sin offering of an animal,  a sin offering of a fowl,  a trespass offering for a known sin,  a trespass offering for a doubtful sin,  the peace offering of the congregation,  the log of oil in the case of a leper,  the remnant of the Omer,  the two loaves,  the shew bread  and the remnant of meal offerings.  The four in Jerusalem are: the firstling.  the first of the first fruits,  the portions separated in the case of the thank offering  and in the case of the ram of the Nazirite  and the skins of [the most] holy sacrifices.  The ten to be partaken in the borders [of the Land of Israel] are: terumah,  the terumah of the tithe,  hallah,  the first of the fleece,  the portions  [of unconsecrated animals], the redemption of the son,  the redemption of the firstling of an ass,  a field of possession,  a field devoted,  and [payment for a] robbery committed upon a proselyte.  Now, since it is here designated an 'endowment', this surely proves that the priests are endowment recipients in this respect.  This proves it. BUT IF HE HAD ALREADY GIVEN THE MONEY TO THE MEMBERS OF THE DIVISION etc. Abaye said: We may infer from this that the giving of the money effects half of the atonement: for if it has no [independent] share in the atonement, I should surely say that it ought to be returned to the heirs, on the ground that he would never have parted with the money upon such an understanding.  But if this could be argued, why should a sin offering whose owner died not revert to the state of unconsecration,  for the owner would surely not have set it aside upon such an understanding?  — It may however be said that regarding a sin offering whose owner died there is a halachah handed down by tradition that it should be left to die.  But again, according to your argument, why should a trespass offering whose owner died not revert to the state of unconsecration,  as the owner would surely not have set it aside upon such an understanding? — With regard to a trespass offering there is similarly a halachah handed down by tradition that whenever [an animal, if set aside as] a sin offering would be left to die, [if set aside as] a trespass offering it would be subject to the law of pasturing.  But still, according to your argument why should a deceased brother's wife on becoming bound to one affected with leprosy not be released [even] without the act of halizah,  for surely she would not have consented to betroth herself  upon this understanding?  — In that case we all can bear witness