חולין 131:1 — Soncino English Talmud

they 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.