Bava Kamma 218

מכלל דרבי יוסי הגלילי סבר אפילו לנפשיה נמי מצי מחיל אלא גזל הגר דקאמר רחמנא נתינה לכהנים היכי משכחת לה

This would imply that R. Jose the Galilean maintained that even to himself<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 635. n. I. ');">¹</span> he could remit it. Now, if that is so, how could a case ever arise that restitution for robbery committed upon a proselyte<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who subsequently died without legal issue. ');">²</span>

אמר רבא הכא במאי עסקינן כשגזל את הגר ונשבע לו ומת הגר והודה לאחר מיתה דבעידנא דאודי קנאו השם ונתנו לכהנים

should be made to the priests<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since the proselyte died without leaving legal issue, why should the robber not acquire title to the payment due for the robbery which is in his possession. ');">³</span> as ordained in the Divine Law? — Said Raba: We are dealing here with a case where one robbed a proselyte and [falsely] denied to him on oath [that he had done so], and the proselyte having died the robber confessed subsequently, on the proselyte's death,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if the confession was made prior to his death the amount to be paid would have become a liability as a debt upon the robber and would thus become remitted through the subsequent death of the proselyte; cf. supra p. 283. ');">⁴</span>

בעי רבינא גזל הגיורת מהו (במדבר ה, ו) איש אמר רחמנא ולא אשה או דלמא אורחיה דקרא הוא

so that at the time he made confession God<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the Name'. ');">⁵</span> acquired title to it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Men. 45b. ');">⁶</span>

אמר ליה רב אהרן לרבינא תא שמע דתניא איש אין לי אלא איש אשה מנין כשהוא אומר (במדבר ה, ח) המושב הרי כאן שנים

and granted it to the priests.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 636, n. 3. ');">⁷</span> Rabina asked: What would be the law where a proselytess was robbed? Shall we say that when the Divine Law says 'man'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 636, n. 3. ');">⁷</span>

א"כ מה ת"ל איש איש אתה צריך לחזור אחריו אם יש לו גואלים אם לאו קטן אי אתה צריך לחזור אחריו בידוע שאין לו גואלין

it does not include 'woman' or perhaps this is only the Scriptural manner of speaking? — Said R. Aaron to Rabina: Come and hear: It was taught: '[The] man';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 636, n. 3. ');">⁷</span> this tells me only that the law applies to a man; whence do I know that it applies also to a woman? When it is further stated 'That the trespass be restored'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 636, n. 3. ');">⁷</span>

תנו רבנן (במדבר ה, ח) לה' לכהן קנאו השם ונתנו לכהן שבאותו משמר אתה אומר לכהן שבאותו משמר או אינו אלא לכל כהן שירצה כשהוא אומר (במדבר ה, ח) מלבד איל הכפורים אשר יכפר בו עליו הרי לכהן שבאותו משמר הכתוב מדבר

we have two cases mentioned.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Either because the term expressing 'recompense' or because the term expressing 'trespass' occurs there twice in the text (Rashi). — This solves the question propounded by R. Aaron. ');">⁸</span> But if so, why was 'man' specifically mentioned? To show that only in the case of [a person who has reached] manhood<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a proselyte who died after having already come of age. ');">⁹</span>

ת"ר הרי שהיה גוזל כהן מנין שלא יאמר הואיל ויוצא לכהנים והרי הוא תחת ידי יהא שלי ודין הוא אי בשל אחרים הוא זוכה בשל עצמו לא כ"ש

is it necessary to investigate whether he had kinsmen<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., descendants, for his ancestors and collateral relatives are not entitled to inherit him; v. Kid. 17b. ');">¹⁰</span> or not, but in the case of a minor it is not necessary, since it is pretty certain that he could have no 'redeemers'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. also Sanh. 68a-69b. ');">¹¹</span>

רבי נתן אומר בלשון אחר ומה דבר שאין לו חלק בו עד שיכנס ברשותו כשיכנס לרשותו אינו יכול להוציאו מידו דבר שיש לו חלק בו עד שלא יכנס ברשותו משנכנס לרשותו אינו דין דאין אחר יכול להוציאו מידו

Our Rabbis taught: <i>Unto the Lord even to the priest</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 636, n. 3. ');">¹²</span> means that the Lord acquired title to it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 637, n. 7. ');">¹³</span>

לא אם אמרת בדבר שאין לו חלק בו שכשם שאין לו חלק בו כך אין לאחרים חלק בו תאמר בגזל שכשם שיש לו חלק בו כך יש לאחרים חלק בו אלא גזילו יוצא מתחת ידו ומתחלק לכל אחיו הכהנים

and granted it to the priest<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On duty at the time of restoration. The priests were divided into twenty-four panels; v. I. Chron. XXIV, 1-18. ');">¹⁴</span> of that [particular] division. You say 'to the priest of that [particular] division', but perhaps it is not so, but to any priest whom the robber prefers? — Since it is further stated, <i>Beside the ram of atonement whereby he shall make an atonement for him</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 636, n. 3. ');">¹²</span>

והכתיב (במדבר ה, י) ואיש את קדשיו לו יהיו הכא במאי עסקינן בכהן טמא

it proves that Scripture referred to the priest of that [particular] division. Our Rabbis taught: In the case where the robber was a priest, how do we know that he is not entitled to say: Since the payment would [in any case] have to go to the priests, now that it is in my possession it should surely remain mine? Cannot he argue that if he has a title to payment which is in the possession of others,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [For as soon as the robbery of a proselyte is placed in the charge of a particular division, all priests of that division share a title to it.] ');">¹⁵</span>

אי בכהן טמא דבר שיש לו חלק בו מי אית ליה אלא אתיא לכהן לכהן משדה אחוזה

all the more should he have a title to payment which he has in his own possession? R. Nathan put the argument in a different form: Seeing that a thing in which he had no share until it actually entered his possession cannot be taken from him once it has entered his possession,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [A priest may come and offer his own sacrifice at any time and retain the flesh and skin for himself without sharing it with the priests of the division on duty. Once he however gave it to another priest who hitherto had no title to it, he cannot reclaim it of him.] ');">¹⁶</span> does it not stand to reason that a thing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as payment for a robbery committed upon a proselyte. ');">¹⁷</span>

דתניא (ויקרא כז, כא) אחוזתו מה ת"ל מנין לשדה היוצאה לכהנים ביובל וגאלה אחד מן הכהנים מנין שלא יאמר הואיל ויוצאה לכהנים ביובל והרי היא תחת ידי תהא שלי

in which he had a share<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As soon as it was restored to anyone of the division. ');">¹⁸</span> even before it came into his possession cannot be taken from him once it has come into his possession?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the case where the priest himself was the robber. ');">¹⁹</span>

ודין הוא בשל אחרים אני זוכה בשל עצמי לא כ"ש

This, however, is not so: for while this may be true<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a priest may retain for himself the priestly portions in his possession. ');">²⁰</span> of a thing in which he had no share, since in that case just as he had no share in it, so has nobody else any share in it, it is not necessarily true<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a priest may retain for himself the priestly portions in his possession. ');">²⁰</span>

ת"ל (ויקרא כז, כא) כשדה החרם לכהן תהיה אחוזתו אחוזה שלו ואין זו שלו הא כיצד יוצאה מתחת ידו ומתחלקת לכל אחיו הכהנים:

of the proceeds of robbery where just as he has a share in it, so also have others a share in it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 638, n. 8. ');">²¹</span> The [payment for] robbery must therefore be taken away from his possession and shared out to all his bretheren the priests. But is it not written: And every man's hallowed things shall be his?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 10. So that the right to sacrifice the trespass offering would be his. The flesh therefore consequently belongs to him, in which case the payment for the robbery should similarly remain with him. ');">²²</span>

תנו רבנן מנין לכהן שבא ומקריב קרבנותיו בכל עת ובכל שעה שירצה תלמוד לומר (דברים יח, ו) ובא בכל אות נפשו ושרת

— We are dealing here with a priest who was [levitically] defiled.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And as he is thus unable himself to sacrifice the trespass offering he cannot retain the payment. ');">²³</span> But if the priest was defiled, could there be anything in which he should have a share?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Zeb. XII, 1; how then comes it to be stated in the text that he would be entitled to a share as soon as it was restored to any one of the division? ');">²⁴</span>

ומניין שעבודתה ועורה שלו תלמוד לומר (במדבר ה, י) ואיש את קדשיו לו יהיו הא כיצד אם היה בעל מום נותנה לכהן שבאותו משמר ועבודתה ועורה שלו

— [The fact is that] the ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a priest may not retain for himself the payment for a robbery he committed upon a proselyte, though he himself had a right to the sacrifice and the whole of the flesh. ');">²⁵</span> is derived by the analogy of the term, <i>'To the priest'</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 636, n. 3. ');">²⁶</span> to a similar term 'To the priest' occurring in the case of a field of [Permanent] possession,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XXVII, 21. ');">²⁷</span> as taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Ar. 25b. ');">²⁸</span> What is the point of the words the [permanent] possession thereof?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XXVII, 21. ');">²⁷</span> [The point is this:] How can we know that if a field which would [in due course] have to fall to the priests in the jubilee<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XXVII, 21. ');">²⁷</span> but was redeemed by one of the priests, he should not have the right to say, 'Since the field is destined to fall to the priests in the jubilee and as it is already in my possession it should remain mine, as is indeed only reasonable to argue, for since I have a title to a field in the possession of others, should this not be the more so when the field is in my own possession?' The text therefore significantly says. As a field devoted, the [permanent] possession thereof shall be the priest's, to indicate that a field of [permanent] possession<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which belonged as such to his father and was inherited by him; cf. Rashi' Ar. 25b. ');">²⁹</span> remains with him, whereas this [field]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which he redeemed from the Temple treasury. ');">³⁰</span> will not remain with him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the arrival of the jubilee. ');">³¹</span> What then is to be done with it? It is taken from him and shared out to all his brethren the priests. Our Rabbis taught: Whence can we learn that a priest is entitled to come and sacrifice his offerings at any time and on any occasion he prefers? It is significantly stated, And come with all the desire of his mind&nbsp;… and shall minister.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVIII, 6-7. ');">³²</span> But whence can we learn that the fee for the sacrificial operation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the reward of the service thereof'. I.e., the priestly portions thereof. ');">³³</span> and the skin of the animal will belong to him? It is stated: <i>And every man's hallowed thing shall be his</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V. 10. ');">³⁴</span> so that if he was blemished,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus himself unable to sacrifice but able to partake of the portions in accordance with Lev. XXI, 17-22. ');">³⁵</span> he has to give the offering to a priest of that particular division, while the fee for the operation and the skin will belong to him,