רב זעירא בעי הכי אפילו אם תימצי לומר מקבלי מתנה הוו הא לא איבעיא לן דההיא מתנה אמר רחמנא דניתיב להו
Now, what should be the law?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Here where a priest received animals in payment for a robbery committed upon a proselyte.
');"><sup>13</sup></span> — Come and hear: Twenty-four priestly endowments were bestowed upon Aaron and his sons. All these were granted to him by means of a generalisation followed by a specification which was in its turn followed again by a generalisation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra, p. 364. [Generalisation: Num. XVIII, 8, where the priestly portions are referred to in general terms; specification: verses 9-18, where they are enumerated; second generalisation: verse 19, where they are again mentioned generally.]
');"><sup>14</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
