Chullin

I can point out a contradiction to this. [It was taught: If he said,]1 ‘On condition that the dues shall be given to me’, he may nevertheless give them to any priest he chooses!2 — Do you oppose the terms ‘except’ and ‘on condition that’ against each other? The term ‘except’ is a reservation,3 but the term on condition that’ is no reservation.4 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!5 — They differ in this: one holds that ‘on condition that’ is a reservation;6 the other7 holds that ‘on condition that’ is no reservation. IF A MAN SAID, ‘SELL ME THE ENTRAILS OF A COW’, etc. Rab said: They taught this8 only where [the purchaser] weighed them for himself,9 but if the butcher weighed them for him, then the [priest's] claim is against the butcher [also].10 R. Assi said: Even though the butcher weighed them for him his claim is with him only.11 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 one12 or the other.13 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 theft14 and the other [R. Assi] holds that they are not.15 Some report the above argument independently16 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.17 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.18 But there is a contradiction to this, for we have learnt:19 [The grain found] in ant-holes among the standing corn,20 belongs to the owner;21 [as for the grain found in ant-holes] behind the reapers,22 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.23 To this [R. Johanan] answered: Do not weary me [with your arguments], since I quote that [Mishnah] as the opinion of an individual;24 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's25 name, [the difficulty, however, remains] for he adduces a reason for his view. For Resh Lakish said,26 It is written: Do justice to the afflicted and poor;27 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!28 Rather it means: Be liberal with what is yours and give it to him!29 — Raba answered,30 Here the cow has the status of exemption [from dues], but the standing corn has the status of being subject [to the dues].31 Said Abaye to him: Behold the case of the dough [of a proselyte, of which we learnt]:32 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!33 — He replied. Where the doubt concerns a religious prohibition34 we must take the more stringent view, where the doubt concerns a monetary matter we take the more lenient view.35 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,36 the dough-offering,37 the firstling of an unclean animal,38 and the firstling of a clean animal,39 he is held liable;40 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. dues that were included; the implication being that the priest comes and claims the dues from the purchaser. from the purchaser and the latter in turn is entitled to an allowance in the purchase price. he was also in the wrong, and he must make every effort to obtain them for the priest. V. B.K. 115a. deemed to be his property wherever it happens to be, so that the one who consumed it also committed an act of theft. 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. Jewish faith. have begun to reap the field; but v. infra p. 762, n. 1, commentary of R. Samson of Sens. fall therein at the time of reaping, since that part of the field has not yet been reaped. standing corn around the ant-holes; q.v. 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. VI, 12; ksg icw ir, ic probably names of persons known to have been unreliable in all matters. 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. the dough of a gentile is exempt; this clearly conflicts with Raba's contention. on the penalty of death at the hands of Heaven. consequently, it is only a monetary consideration, and in a case of doubt it is for the priest, the claimant, to establish his claim. 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. hands of Heaven, v. supra n. 3. 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. outside the Temple. stricter view and impose the obligation upon the proselyte.