חולין 134:1 — Soncino English Talmud

I can point out a contradiction to this. [It was taught: If he said,] ‘On condition that the dues shall be given to me’, he may nevertheless give them to any priest he chooses! — Do you oppose the terms ‘except’ and ‘on condition that’ against each other? The term ‘except’ is a reservation, but the term on condition that’ is no reservation. There is, however, a further contradiction, [for it was taught: If he said.] ‘On condition that the dues shall be given to me’, the dues must then be given to him! — They differ in this: one holds that ‘on condition that’ is a reservation; the other holds that ‘on condition that’ is no reservation. IF A MAN SAID, ‘SELL ME THE ENTRAILS OF A COW’, etc. Rab said: They taught this only where [the purchaser] weighed them for himself, but if the butcher weighed them for him, then the [priest's] claim is against the butcher [also]. R. Assi said: Even though the butcher weighed them for him his claim is with him only. Shall we say that they differ in the ruling of R. Hisda? For R. Hisda stated: If a person misappropriated (an article] and, before the owner gave up hope of recovering it, another person came and consumed it, the owner has the option of collecting payment from either the one or the other. Now is it to be said that the one [Rab] agrees with R. Hisda and the other [R. Assi] does not agree with R. Hisda? — No, all agree with R. Hisda, but there they differ as to whether the priestly dues are subject to the law of theft, the one [Rab] holds that they are subject to the law of theft and the other [R. Assi] holds that they are not. Some report the above argument independently thus: Rab said: The priestly dues are subject to the law of theft; R. Assi said: The priestly dues are not subject to the law of theft. MISHNAH. IF A PROSELYTE HAD A COW AND HE SLAUGHTERED IT BEFORE HE BECAME A PROSELYTE, HE IS EXEMPT FROM GIVING THE PRIESTLY DUES; IF [HE SLAUGHTERED IT] AFTER HE BECAME A PROSELYTE, HE IS LIABLE; IF THERE WAS A DOUBT ABOUT IT, HE IS EXEMPT, FOR THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES UPON THE CLAIMANT. GEMARA. When R. Dimi came [from Palestine] he reported that R. Simeon b. Lakish pointed out the following contradiction to R. Johanan. We have learnt: IF THERE WAS A DOUBT ABOUT IT, HE IS EXEMPT, which shows that the doubt is decided in favour of leniency. But there is a contradiction to this, for we have learnt: [The grain found] in ant-holes among the standing corn, belongs to the owner; [as for the grain found in ant-holes] behind the reapers, the uppermost layer belongs to the poor, but what is beneath belongs to the owner. R. Meir says. It all belongs to the poor, since gleanings that are in doubt are deemed to be gleanings. To this [R. Johanan] answered: Do not weary me [with your arguments], since I quote that [Mishnah] as the opinion of an individual; for it has been taught: R. Judah b. Agra says in the name of R. Meir: Gleanings that are in doubt are deemed to be gleanings, forgotten sheaves that are in doubt are deemed to be forgotten sheaves, and corners of the field that are in doubt are deemed to be corners of the field. The other [Resh Lakish] retorted: Teach it even in Ben Taddal's name, [the difficulty, however, remains] for he adduces a reason for his view. For Resh Lakish said, It is written: Do justice to the afflicted and poor; what is meant by ‘do justice’? Can it mean, [favour him] in his lawsuit? Surely it is written: Thou shalt not favour a poor man in his cause! Rather it means: Be liberal with what is yours and give it to him! — Raba answered, Here the cow has the status of exemption [from dues], but the standing corn has the status of being subject [to the dues]. Said Abaye to him: Behold the case of the dough [of a proselyte, of which we learnt]: If it was mixed before he became a proselyte he is exempt from giving the dough-offering; if after he became a proselyte, he is liable to give it; if there was a doubt about it, he is liable! — He replied. Where the doubt concerns a religious prohibition we must take the more stringent view, where the doubt concerns a monetary matter we take the more lenient view. For R. Hisda stated, and so also did R. Hiyya teach: Eight cases of doubt were cited in connection with a proselyte, in four he is held liable and in four he is held exempt; and these are they: with regard to his wife's sacrifice, the dough-offering, the firstling of an unclean animal, and the firstling of a clean animal, he is held liable;40^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^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ

^ᵃnote:Sc., the priest when selling an animal to an Israelite.
^ᵇnote:For the condition is contrary to Scriptural law, since by Scriptural law the owner has a power of disposal of the dues to whom he will, and it is therefore null and void. The purchaser then can dispose of the dues as he wishes, but he is bound to give them, thus apparently in conflict with our Mishnah.
^ᶜnote:What was excepted did not form part of the sale, for the priest reserved these parts to himself.
^ᵈnote:But merely a condition which, being contrary to Scriptural law, is null. V. Git. 82a.
^ᵉnote:Thus contradicting the first Baraitha.
^ᶠnote:The Tanna of the last quoted Baraitha regards the term on condition that’ on all fours with the term ‘except’.
^ᵍnote:The Tanna of the first Baraitha.
^ʰnote:That where the entrails were sold by weight the seller must allow a reduction in the price on account of the priestly dues that were included; the implication being that the priest comes and claims the dues from the purchaser.
^ⁱnote:In this case it was the purchaser who actually took away the priest's due, consequently the priest can only claim them from the purchaser and the latter in turn is entitled to an allowance in the purchase price.
^ʲnote:The priest, if he so pleases, can claim the dues from the seller (even though they are no longer in his possession) for he was also in the wrong, and he must make every effort to obtain them for the priest. V. B.K. 115a.
^ᵏnote:The priest can only claim the dues from the person in whose possession they are, in this case from the purchaser.
^ˡnote:I.e., the one who robbed him.
^ᵐnote:I.e., the one who later consumed the article; for so long as the owner has not given up hope of recovering it it is deemed to be his property wherever it happens to be, so that the one who consumed it also committed an act of theft.
^ⁿnote:Accordingly the butcher when he sold them committed an act of theft for which he is held liable.
^ᵒnote:For since they are endowments by Divine Law they always remain the priest's property wherever they are, consequently the law of theft does not apply to them, but the person in whose possession they are is alone responsible for them to the priest.
^ᵖnote:And not in connection with our Mishnah.
^ᵠnote:In this case it would be upon the priest to show that the animal was slaughtered after the owner was converted to the Jewish faith.
^ʳnote:I.e., in favour of the owner.
^ˢnote:Pe'ah IV. 11.
^ᵗnote:According to Rashi, that which is in front of the reapers, i.e., which the reapers have not yet reached, although they have begun to reap the field; but v. infra p. 762, n. 1, commentary of R. Samson of Sens.
^ᵘnote:The law of gleanings does not apply to it, for it is certain that the grain was carried into the holes by ants and did not fall therein at the time of reaping, since that part of the field has not yet been reaped.
^ᵛnote:According to R. Samson of Sens, if only the reapers have started to reap even though they have not reached the standing corn around the ant-holes; q.v.
^ʷnote:R. Meir thus in a case of doubt decides against the owner, which view clearly contradicts that of our Mishnah which is also the view of R. Meir, for an anonymous Mishnah represents the view of R. Meir, v. Sanh. 86a (Sonc. ed.) p. 566. V., however, Tosaf. s.v. hvbhnru.
^ˣnote:It is only the opinion of R. Judah b. Agra quoting R. Meir, and he is not to be relied upon.
^ʸnote:A fictitious name for some foolish babbler (Jast.). Variants are: krg ic a stammerer, cf. oh,pa krg Ex. VI, 12; ksg icw ir, ic probably names of persons known to have been unreliable in all matters.
^ᶻnote:[Insert with MS.M., ‘what is the reason of R. Judah b. Agra’?]
^ᵃᵃnote:Ps. LXXXII, 3.
^ᵃᵇnote:Ex. XXIII, 3.
^ᵃᶜnote:I.e., in matters of doubt give the poor the benefit.
^ᵃᵈnote:To reconcile the two Mishnahs.
^ᵃᵉnote:In every case of doubt we must refer to the status of the thing before the doubt arose (v. supra p. 46), and the cow then belonged to a gentile when it was exempt from dues; the cornfield, on the other hand, being the property of an Israelite, has always been subject to the various dues to the poor.
^ᵃᶠnote:Hal. III, 6.
^ᵃᵍnote:Even though at the time when the doubt arises the dough has the status of exemption from the dough-offering, for the dough of a gentile is exempt; this clearly conflicts with Raba's contention.
^ᵃʰnote:For if the dough-offering is not given to the priest the whole dough is deemed to be tebel and forbidden to be eaten on the penalty of death at the hands of Heaven.
^ᵃⁱnote:The priestly dues are in no wise sacred and the omission to give them does not render the animal forbidden; consequently, it is only a monetary consideration, and in a case of doubt it is for the priest, the claimant, to establish his claim.
^ᵃʲnote:Where there was a doubt whether his wife gave birth to a child before she became a proselyte or after. This case of doubt may involve a penalty of kareth, for if she gave birth after she became a proselyte she would then be obliged to bring a sacrifice consequent upon her childbirth (cf. Lev. XII); and if she failed to do so and ate consecrated food she would be liable to the penalty of kareth.
^ᵃᵏnote:The doubt here being as stated in Mishnah Hal. III, 6. This case of doubt may involve the penalty of death at the hands of Heaven, v. supra n. 3.
^ᵃˡnote:Where there was a doubt whether the proselyte's ass brought forth a firstling before his conversion or after. If after, then the foal is forbidden for all purposes until it is redeemed with a lamb (cf. Ex. XIII, 13), which lamb had to be given to the priest; in this case of doubt, the proselyte must redeem the foal with a lamb, but he may withhold it from the priest; v. infra n. 20.
^ᵃᵐnote:The doubt here as in prec. note. This case of doubt may involve the penalty of kareth for slaughtering a firstling outside the Temple.
^ᵃⁿnote:Since these cases are matters which involve religious prohibitions and entail serious penalties, we must adopt the stricter view and impose the obligation upon the proselyte.