חולין 131 — Soncino English Talmud

¹they came into his possession unseparated [from the bulk], and this Tanna is also of the opinion that priestly dues although not yet separated [from the bulk] are regarded as virtually separated. Come and hear: If the king's officers seized the corn in a man's granary, if it was on account of a debt due from him he must give tithe for it, but if it was by reason of confiscation he is under no obligation to give tithe for it! — There the case is different, because they confer some advantage on him. Come and hear: If a man said: ‘Sell me the entrails of a cow’, and among them were the priestly dues, he [the purchaser] must give them to a priest, and [the seller] need not allow any reduction in the purchase price on that account. But if he bought them from him by weight, he must give them to a priest and [the seller] must allow a reduction in the price on that account. But why? Is it not like the case of a man destroying or consuming the priestly dues? — There it is different, because they are actually in existence. Come and hear: The following nine things are the property of the priest: Terumah, the terumah of the tithe, the dough-offering, the first of the fleece, the dues, the [terumah of the tithe of] dem'ai, the firstfruits, the principal and the added fifth. In what respect [are they considered the property of the priest]? Surely in that they can be claimed in court! — No, but as we have learnt: Why did they say that [the firstfruits] are the property of the priest? Because with them he may buy slaves, immovable property and unclean cattle, and a creditor can take them in payment of his debt, or a woman in payment of her kethubah, and [he may also buy with them] a scroll of the Law. There was once a Levite who used to snatch the priestly dues. When this was reported to Rab, he said: Is it not enough for him that We do not take the dues from his own [slaughtering], but he must also snatch them? But what was Rab's view? If they [Levites] are included within the term ‘the people’ we should exact the dues from them too; and if they are not included within the term ‘the people’ then the Divine Law has exempted them? — Rab was in doubt whether they are included within the term ‘the people’ or not. R. Papa was once sitting and reciting the above statement, whereupon R. Idi b. Abin raised this objection against R. Papa. [It was taught:] The four gifts [assigned by the Torah] to the poor in a vineyard, namely the fallen grapes, the small clusters, the forgotten cluster, and the corner [of the vineyard], and the three in a cornfield, namely the gleanings, the forgotten sheaf, and the corners of the field, and the two in the fruit of the tree, namely the forgotten fruits and the corner of the tree — with regard of these, the owners have not the benefit of disposal; and even from the poorest in Israel they are exacted. With regard to the Poorman's Tithe which is distributed in the house, the owner has the benefit of disposal, and it is exacted even from the poorest in Israel. The other priestly dues, such as the shoulder and the two cheeks and the maw, are not exacted from one priest in favour of another priest nor from one Levite in favour of another Levite. ‘The four gifts to the poor in the vineyard, namely the fallen grapes, the small clusters, the forgotten cluster, and the corner’ — for it is written: And thou shalt not glean the small clusters of thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather the fallen fruit of thy vineyard. And it is written: When thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard thou shalt not glean the small clusters after thee; and R. Levi said: ‘After thee’ implies that which is forgotten. As to the corner (of the vineyard] this is inferred by the use of the expression ‘after thee’ both here [with regard to a vineyard] and also with regard to the olive-tree; for it is written: When thou beatest thine olive-tree thou shalt not go over the boughs after thee, and a Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael expressed it thus: Thou shalt not cut off the crown thereof. ‘The three in the cornfield, namely the gleanings. [^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ

^ᵃnote:The whole produce having been entrusted to the priest's keeping, the priest forthwith acquired the property in the tithes, and whosoever deprives him of them must certainly make restitution.
^ᵇnote:From other produce, just as when a man sells produce he must also give the tithe for it. This, however, shows that the tithe is claimable and that the obligation is enforced by the court; it cannot mean that the obligation is merely a religious one for then it would not be insisted upon that he give the tithe for it seeing that he has neither the produce nor its value.
^ᶜnote:,urpbt. V. Git. (Sonc. ed.) p. 190, n. 2.
^ᵈnote:The obligation is therefore a religious one, yet he must give the tithe for it because he has this benefit that his debt has been cleared. V. supra p. 738, n. 9; and Tosaf. s.v. hbta.
^ᵉnote:Sc., the maw.
^ᶠnote:V. infra 132a. In the first case the transaction implicitly excluded the maw for it is common knowledge that the maw belongs to the priest, hence it was not included in the sale; in the second case, however, the maw was included in the weight sold, and since it was not the seller's to sell the price must be reduced to that extent.
^ᵍnote:Why should the purchaser have to give the dues to the priest?
^ʰnote:And the priest may use them for any purpose whatsoever. This is only part of the list of twenty-four endowments bestowed upon the priests; v. infra 133b, and B.K. 110b. In point of fact there are fifteen priestly gifts which are the absolute property of the priest to be used for any purpose; but Rashi suggests that these fifteen are comprehended within the nine mentioned in the text; v. Rash s.v. vga,. R. Han. reads ‘seven’, in the text; v. Tosaf. s.v. d"v.
^ⁱnote:Cf. Num. XVIII, 12; v. Glos.
^ʲnote:To be given by the Levites; ibid. 26.
^ᵏnote:Ibid. XV, 18-21.
^ˡnote:Deut. XVIII, 4.
^ᵐnote:Ibid. 3. Sc., the shoulder and the two cheeks and the maw.
^ⁿnote:The produce bought from an ‘am ha-arez was regarded as dem'ai, doubtful, for he could not be trusted as to the separation of the tithes. They were trusted, however, with regard to the separation of the terumah, for this had a higher degree of sanctity. Therefore the purchaser who scrupulously observes the law of tithing must separate from dem'ai (a) ‘the terumah of the tithe’, i.e., the portion due to the priest out of the First Tithe, and (b) the Second Tithe.
^ᵒnote:Ex. XXIII, 19; and Deut. XXVI, 1ff.
^ᵖnote:The restitution, (consisting of the principal and an additional fifth) that is to be made for robbery committed upon a proselyte who died without issue belongs to the priest. Cf. Num. V, 7, 8.
^ᵠnote:Thus conflicting with R. Hisda's view.
^ʳnote:Bik. III, 12.
^ˢnote:Generally meaning the statutory sum that the husband undertakes to pay to his wife in the event of his death or of his divorcing her. V. Intro. to Kethuboth, Sonc. ed., p. xi.
^ᵗnote:In the Mishnah Bik., the text reads ‘as (the creditors may also do with) a scroll of the Law’. V. Rashi here s.v. ,"xu.
^ᵘnote:From children who were carrying them to the priest's home.
^ᵛnote:I.e., when he slaughters his own animal we do not compel him to give the dues to a priest. The tone of Rab's remark implies that this was a concession to them by the Rabbis.
^ʷnote:Deut. XVIII, 3: And this shall be the priests’ due from the people.
^ˣnote:What then did Rah mean by suggesting that they were favoured in that it was not insisted upon that they give the dues? V. supra n. 6, end.
^ʸnote:And therefore no priest could claim the dues from Levites without bringing evidence to prove they latter are subject to this law.
^ᶻnote:That Rab was in doubt whether Levites were subject to this law or not.
^ᵃᵃnote:To give them to whomsoever he wishes, but they are to be left on the field free to all the poor, and the first poor person that collects them acquires them.
^ᵃᵇnote:If he is in possession of a field he is bound to leave these gifts for the poor.
^ᵃᶜnote:Tosef. Pe'ah II. The Gemara proceeds first to interpret this Baraitha, proving the Biblical source for each of these gifts to the poor, and later on reverts to the objection raised by R. Idi against R. Papa.
^ᵃᵈnote:Lev. XIX, 10: kkgu, tk, Thou shalt not remove the ,ukkug i.e., the small clusters. yrp, I.e , single grapes that fall off during ‘the grape gathering
^ᵃᵉnote:Deut. XXIV, 21.
^ᵃᶠnote:For the law of the forgotten sheaf or cluster applies only to what has been left ‘after’ i.e., behind one, but not to what is still in front of one; cf. Pe'ah VI, 4, and B.M. 12a
^ᵃᵍnote:Deut. XXIV 20.
^ᵃʰnote:I.e., one must not remove the last berries from the extremities or corners’ of the tree. By an inference made from the common expression ‘after thee’, the law of the ‘corners stated in connection with the olive-tree applies also to a vineyard.

²the forgotten sheaf, and the corners of the field’ — for it is written: And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corner of thy field; neither shalt thou gather the gleaning of thy harvest; and it is written: When thou reapest thy harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go back to fetch it. ‘The two in the fruit of the tree, namely the forgotten fruits and the corner [of the tree]’ — for it is written: When thou beatest thine olive-tree thou shalt not go over the boughs after thee, and a Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael expressed it thus: Thou shalt not cut off the crown thereof; and the expression ‘after thee’ refers to the forgotten fruits. ‘With regard to all of these the owners have not the benefit of disposal’ — because the term ‘leaving’ is used in connection with them. ‘And even from the poorest in Israel they are exacted’ — for it is written: Neither shalt thou gather the gleaning of thy harvest; thou shalt leave them for the poor and the stranger: this is an admonition to a poor man [who himself owns a field] in regard to his own [gleanings]. ‘With regard to the poorman s Tithe which is distributed in the house, the owner has the benefit of disposal’ — because the term ‘giving’ is used in connection with it. ‘And it is exacted even from the poorest in Israel’ — for R. Ila'a said: An inference is to be made by means of the common expression ‘for the stranger’ from the other [dues to the poor]: as with the other dues there is an admonition to a poor man in regard to his own, so here [with regard to the Poorman's Tithe] there is an admonition to a poor man in regard to his own. ‘The other priestly dues, such as the shoulder, the two cheeks and the maw, are not exacted from one priest in favour of another priest, nor from one Levite in favour of another Levite’ — it follows, however, that they may be exacted from a Levite in favour of a priest; apparently because they are included within the term ‘the people’! — [It only stated,] ‘Such as the shoulder’, but not actually the shoulder; what is really meant is the First Tithe. But is not the First Tithe due to the Levite? — The view expressed here is that of R. Eleazar b. ‘Azariah; for it has been taught: Terumah belongs to the priest, the First Tithe to the Levite; so R. Akiba. R. Eleazar b. ‘Azariah says. It belongs to the priest also. But R. Eleazar b. ‘Azariah said: ‘to the priest also’! Did he say, to the priest and not to the Levite? — Yes, after Ezra had penalized them. Perhaps Ezra had penalized them that one should not give it [the First Tithe] to them, but did he intend that it should be taken away from them? — We must therefore say, such as the shoulder’, but not actually the shoulder; what is really meant is the first of the fleece. Come and hear: This is the general rule: Whatsoever is sacred, as terumah, the terumah of the Tithe, and the Dough-offering, is exacted from their hands, and whatsoever is not sacred, as the shoulder, the two cheeks and the maw, is not exacted from them! — [It states,] ‘Such as the shoulder’ but not actually the shoulder; what is meant is the First Tithe, and this refers [to the state of things] after Ezra had penalized them. Come and hear: If a man slaughtered an animal for a priest or for a gentile, he is exempt from the dues. It follows, does it not, that for a Levite or an Israelite he is liable? — Say not, ‘it follows that for a Levite or an Israelite he is liable’, but rather, it follows that for an Israelite he is liable. But for a Levite [you say] he is exempt, in that case the Mishnah should have taught thus: If a man slaughtered an animal for a Levite or a gentile he is exempt from the dues! Moreover it has been taught [in a Baraitha]: If a man slaughtered an animal for a priest or a gentile, he is exempt from the dues, but if he slaughtered for a Levite or an Israelite, he is liable. Surely this is a refutation of Rab's view! — Rab can reply that it is a matter of dispute between Tannaim. For it has been taught: [Scripture says,] And he shall make atonement for the most holy place: this means [for transgression of the laws of uncleanness occurring in] the Holy of Holies; and the tent of meeting: this means in the Holy place; and the altar: this is to be taken in its usual sense; he shall make atonement: this means [for transgression of the laws of uncleanness occurring in] the various Temple courts; and for the priests: this is to be taken in its usual sense; and for all the people of the assembly: this means the Israelites; he shall make atonement: this means the Levites. And another [Baraitha] taught: He shall make atonement: this means [heathen] slaves. Surely then the Tannaim differ in this: one holds that they [the Levites] are included Under the term ‘the people’, and the other holds that they are not included Under ‘the people’. And Rab? If he agrees with the one Tanna he should have ruled accordingly, and if he agrees with the other Tanna he should have ruled accordingly? — Rab was in doubt whether to accept the ruling of the one Tanna or of the other. Meremar stated in a discourse: The law is in accordance with Rab's view; and the law is also in accordance with R. Hisda's view. ‘Ulla used to give the priestly dues to the daughter of a priest. Raba raised the following objection to ‘Ulla. We have learnt: The meal-offering of a priest's daughter is eaten, but the meal-offering of a priest may not be eaten. Now if you say that ‘priest’ includes a priest's daughter too, is it not written: And every meal-offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eaten? — He replied: Master,^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ

^ᵃⁱnote:Lev. XXIII, 22.
^ᵃʲnote:Deut. XXIV, 19.
^ᵃᵏnote:Ibid. 20. V. supra p. 741, n. 8.
^ᵃˡnote:In some contexts the expression used is ‘thou shalt leave them for the poor’, e.g., Lev. XIX, 10, XXIII, 22; and in others the expression used is ‘it shall be for the stranger’, e.g., Deut. XXIV, 19, 20, 21. It is clear therefore that the poor man has a claim to them whilst they are in the field, hence there is no right for the owner of the field to collect them, bring them into his house and distribute them according to his discretion among the poor.
^ᵃᵐnote:In the Hebrew of the verse: Lev. XXIII, 22, ‘for the poor’ follows immediately upon the command to leave the gleanings, and the interpretation is, that it is for the poor, too’ to leave the gleanings.
^ᵃⁿnote:Cf. Deut. XXVI, 22.
^ᵃᵒnote:Cf. Lev. XXIII, 22, and Deut. ibid.
^ᵃᵖnote:This is in conflict with Rab who was in doubt about it.
^ᵃᵠnote:The expression ‘such as the shoulder’ was stated as an example of the priestly dues, but what was specially meant was the First Tithe (v. Num. XVIII, 21) which according to this teaching, could be taken away from the Levite in favour of the priest.
^ᵃʳnote:Yeb. 86a; Keth. 26a; B.B. 81b.
^ᵃˢnote:For although the Torah expressly granted the First Tithe to the Levites, the priests were not thereby excluded, for in twenty-four instances do we find priests described as Levites, e.g., Ezek. XLIV, 15.
^ᵃᵗnote:Because the Levites did not go up with him in the return to Judea from the Babylonian exile, Ezra deprived them of the tithe; v. Yeb. 86b. There is no express reference to this in the Books of Ezra or Nehemiah; v. Rashi s.v. r,c. It has been suggested that Mal. III, 10: Bring ye the whole tithe into the Temple treasury, refers to this new institution of Ezra; for according to Jewish tradition, Malachi is identified with Ezra (v. Meg. 15a). Cf. Tosaf. Yeb. 86b, s.v. hbpn.
^ᵃᵘnote:It surely was not intended that the Levites were bound to give the First Tithe of their own produce to the priests.
^ᵃᵛnote:This law (Deut. XVIII, 4) certainly applies to Levites too’ and the due is exacted from the Levite in favour of the priest.
^ᵃʷnote:I.e., forbidden to non-priests.
^ᵃˣnote:From the Levites in favour of the priests.
^ᵃʸnote:This clearly shows that the Levites are not under any obligation to give the shoulder etc. to the priests, obviously because they are not included under the term ‘the people’. Why then was Rab in doubt about it?
^ᵃᶻnote:The suggestion therefore is that although the Levites are not to be given the First Tithe any more, it is not to be exacted from their own produce in favour of the priest. With regard to the shoulder, however, the matter is still in doubt.
^ᵇᵃnote:Although the claim for these dues is usually made upon the slaughterer (v. infra 132b), in this case the slaughterer is exempt since the animal belonged to the priest or to the gentile. V. infra 132a.
^ᵇᵇnote:And needless to say that it is so where the animal belonged to a priest.
^ᵇᶜnote:Yoma 61a; Sheb. 23b; Men. 92a.
^ᵇᵈnote:Lev. XVI, 33. The bullock and the goat prescribed in the sacrificial service of the Day of Atonement make atonement for all transgressions of the rules of uncleanness occurring in the several parts of the Temple precincts, e.g., if any person entered the Temple court in a state of levitical uncleanness; and the atonement is extended to include every section of the community. Cf. Sheb. 13b.
^ᵇᵉnote:I.e., if a priest whilst serving at the altar became unclean and stayed there for a period co-extensive with the time of one prostration, cf. Sheb. 16a.
^ᵇᶠnote:V. p. 744, n. 6.
^ᵇᵍnote:Who are also in need of atonement.
^ᵇʰnote:Sc., the Tanna of the latter Baraitha. It is therefore unnecessary to have a special reference in the verse to include Levites, consequently the reference serves to include heathen slaves.
^ᵇⁱnote:Sc., the Tanna of the first Baraitha; it was therefore necessary to include Levites expressly.
^ᵇʲnote:How is it that he was in doubt?
^ᵇᵏnote:That we do not exact the priestly dues from Levites.
^ᵇˡnote:That whosoever destroys or consumes the priestly dues, before they ever came into the hand of the priest, is exempt from making restitution; v. supra 130b.
^ᵇᵐnote:Even though she is married to an Israelite; for the precept And they shall give unto the priest (Deut. XVIII, 3) includes every one of priestly stock, even females.
^ᵇⁿnote:Sot. 23a.
^ᵇᵒnote:The residue of her meal-offering, and so also of that of an Israelite, was eaten by the priests after that the handful, i.e., the memorial part thereof, had been burnt upon the altar.
^ᵇᵖnote:Lev. VI, 16.