Chullin

Inside [the Sanctuary]? Then he is bringing what is unconsecrated into the Temple court.1 It is therefore inapplicable; wherefore then do I require [the word] ‘this’?2 — For R. Hisda's teaching. For R. Hisda said: If a man destroyed or consumed the priestly dues [before they were given to the priest] he is not liable to make restitution.3 [To turn to] the main text: ‘R. Hisda said: If a man destroyed or consumed the priestly dues [before they were given to the priest] he is not liable to make restitution’. For what reason? If you wish I can say, because it is written [the word] this; or if you prefer I can say, because it is property which has no definite claimant.4 An objection was raised: [The verse,] And this shall be the priests’ due [mishpat],5 teaches that the dues are a matter of right. What is the effect of this? Is it not that they can be claimed in court?6 — No, it is that they are to be distributed by the [advice of the] court.7 And this is in agreement with R. Samuel b. Nahmani; for R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan: Whence do we know that one should not give any dues to a priest an ‘am ha-arez?8 From the verse: Moreover he commanded the people that dwelt in Jerusalem to give the portion of the priests and the Levites, that they might hold fast to the law of the Lord,’9 whosoever holds fast to the law of the Lord has a portion, and whosoever does not hold fast to the law of the Lord has no portion. Come and hear: R. Judah b. Bathyra says: The expression ‘due’, [mishpat], teaches that the dues are a matter of right. I might say that the breast and the thigh are also a matter of right, the text therefore states: And this.5 Now what is the effect of this rule? Is it that they are to be distributed by [the advice of] the court? Then surely the breast and thigh are also to be distributed by the [advice of the] court.10 It must therefore mean that they can be claimed in court!11 — We are dealing here with the case where they had come into [the priest's] possession.12 But if they had come into his possession already then this is obvious!13 They came into his possession unseparated,14 and this Tanna is of the opinion that priestly dues although not separated [from the bulk] are regarded as virtually separated.15 Come and hear: If a householder was travelling from place to place and is obliged to take the gleanings,16 the forgotten sheaf,17 or the corners of the field,16 or the Poorman's Tithe,18 he may take them, and when he returns to his house he must make restitution;19 so R. Eliezer.20 — R. Hisda said: They taught this Only as a rule of conduct for the pious.21 Said Raba: But the Tanna stated ‘he must make restitution’,22 how then can one say that this was stated here only as a rule of conduct for the pious? Moreover, can any objection be raised from the statement of R. Eliezer?23 Indeed it was from the following clause [that the objection was raised] viz., But the Sages say: He was a poor man at that time.24 Now this is so only because he was a poor man, but had he been a rich man he would have had to make restitution; but why? Is this not a case of a man destroying or consuming the priestly dues?25 Whereupon R. Hisda answered: They taught this only as a rule of conduct for the pious. Come and hear: Whence do we know that if an owner consumed his produce without having separated the tithes,26 or if a Levite consumed his tithe without having separated the priestly tithe therefrom,26 he is exempt from making restitution?27 Because Scripture says: And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they set apart unto the Lord;28 thou29 hast a right to them only after they have been set apart. It follows, however, that after they have been set apart, [if a man consumed them] he would be liable to make restitution; but why? Is this not a case of a man destroying or consuming the priestly gifts? — Here too [we must suppose that] rite of ‘waving’ makes it inapplicable to them. the priest, but if destroyed there is no obligation to compensate the priest for them. of this word in connection with these portions signifies that they are regarded as a legal right. them; thus conflicting with R. Hisda who regards these dues as property without any claimants. legal right was expressly excluded from the law of the breast and the thigh as any claim to them would hardly be contested, for, since they formed part of the atonement of the sacrifice, the owner would certainly not withhold them. possession of the priest to whom they had already been given. acquired the property in them even though they had not yet been separated from the animal. are restricted to that division of priests on duty in the Temple at the time of the sacrifice. distributed among the poor. Deut. XIV, 28, 29. Hisda's teaching. by the Sages. But see Tosaf. s.v. tb, at end.