Chullin

the 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;1 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.2 ‘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,3 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.4 ‘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].5 ‘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.6 ‘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]:7 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’!8 — [It only stated,] ‘Such as the shoulder’, but not actually the shoulder; what is really meant is the First Tithe.9 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:10 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.11 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.12 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?13 — We must therefore say, such as the shoulder’, but not actually the shoulder; what is really meant is the first of the fleece.14 Come and hear: This is the general rule: Whatsoever is sacred,15 as terumah, the terumah of the Tithe, and the Dough-offering, is exacted from their hands,16 and whatsoever is not sacred, as the shoulder, the two cheeks and the maw, is not exacted from them!17 — [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.18 Come and hear: If a man slaughtered an animal for a priest or for a gentile, he is exempt from the dues.19 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!20 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:21 [Scripture says,] And he shall make atonement for the most holy place:22 this means [for transgression of the laws of uncleanness occurring in] the Holy of Holies; and the tent of meeting:22 this means in the Holy place; and the altar:22 this is to be taken in its usual sense;23 he shall make atonement:22 this means [for transgression of the laws of uncleanness occurring in] the various Temple courts; and for the priests:24 this is to be taken in its usual sense; and for all the people of the assembly:24 this means the Israelites; he shall make atonement:24 this means the Levites. And another [Baraitha] taught: He shall make atonement:24 this means [heathen] slaves.25 Surely then the Tannaim differ in this: one holds that they [the Levites] are included Under the term ‘the people’,26 and the other holds that they are not included Under ‘the people’.27 And Rab?28 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;29 and the law is also in accordance with R. Hisda's view.30 ‘Ulla used to give the priestly dues to the daughter of a priest.31 Raba raised the following objection to ‘Ulla. We have learnt:32 The meal-offering of a priest's daughter is eaten,33 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?34 — He replied: Master, 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. gleanings, and the interpretation is, that it is for the poor, too’ to leave the gleanings. 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. twenty-four instances do we find priests described as Levites, e.g., Ezek. XLIV, 15. 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. priest. because they are not included under the term ‘the people’. Why then was Rab in doubt about it? exacted from their own produce in favour of the priest. With regard to the shoulder, however, the matter is still in doubt. exempt since the animal belonged to the priest or to the gentile. V. infra 132a. 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. one prostration, cf. Sheb. 16a. Levites, consequently the reference serves to include heathen slaves. from making restitution; v. supra 130b. includes every one of priestly stock, even females. i.e., the memorial part thereof, had been burnt upon the altar.