מי אמרינן אשם קרייה רחמנא מה אשם אין חולקין אשם כנגד אשם אף גזל אין חולקין גזל הגר כנגד גזל הגר או דלמא גזל הגר ממונא הוא
or perhaps [since payment for] robbery committed upon a proselyte is a matter of money, [it should not be subject to this restriction]? He however subsequently decided that [as] the Divine Law termed it trespass, [it should follow the same rule]. R. Aha the son of Raba stated this explicitly. Raba said: The priests have no right to set one [payment for a] robbery committed upon a proselyte against another [payment for] robbery committed upon a proselyte, the reason being that the Divine Law termed it trespass. Raba asked: Are the priests in relation to [the payment for] robbery committed upon a proselyte in the capacity of heirs<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the proselyte so far as this liability is concerned,
');"><sup>6</sup></span>
Tosefta Demai
[With respect to] spiced oils (i.e., aromatics made with spices typically subject to tithing), Bet Shammai holds [the mixture] liable and Bet Hillel exempts it (cf. Dem. 1:3). Rabbi Nathan said, "Bet Hillel did not exempt [tithing spiced oils] except as to balsam oil." Others say in the name of Rabbi Natan, "Bet Hillel rendered liable rose oil." [With respect to] replacements for heave offerings, or repayments of the value [of the produce] plus a fifth (i.e., the payment for which someone who consumes Terumah unwittingly is liable, see Ter. 6:1), or the surplus of the omer [offered on the 16th of Nissan], or the two loaves [from the new wheat offered on Shavuot], or the showbreads, or the leftovers of the grain offerings [after the priests have offered the required handful]" (see Bava Kamma 110b:14), Rabbi Shimon ben Yehudah says in the name of Rabbi Shimon, "Bet Shammai rendered liable and Bet Hillel exempted [these agricultural gifts]." And anyone who designates [any of these agricultural gifts] for second tithe, what he has done is done (i.e., there is no punishment but the sages do not approve).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
