Bava Kamma 220:1

למשמרת ידעיה מהו

for the division of Jedaiah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which consisted of not so many priests. ');">¹</span> What are the circumstances? If we suppose that he paid it to Jedaiah during the time [of service] of the division of Jedaiah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which consisted of not so many priests. ');">¹</span>

היכי דמי אילימא דיהביה לידעיה במשמרת ידעיה הא אית ביה

surely in such a case the amount is sufficient?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the priests of the division; why at all consider the number of the priests of a different division? ');">²</span> — No, we must suppose that he paid it to Jedaiah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which consisted of not so many priests. ');">¹</span>

לא צריכא דיהביה לידעיה במשמרתו דיהויריב מאי מי אמרינן כיון דלאו משמרתו הוא ולא כלום הוא או דלמא כיון דלא חזי ליה מעיקרא לידעיה קאי תיקו

during the time of the division of Jehoiarib. Now, what would be the law? Shall we say that since it was not in the time of his division, the restoration is of no avail, or perhaps since it would not do for Jehoiarib it was destined from the very outset to go to Jedaiah? — Let this stand undecided. Raba again asked: May the priests set [one payment for] a robbery committed upon a proselyte against another [payment for a] robbery committed upon a proselyte? Shall we say that since the Divine Law designated it <i>trespass</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 643, n. 8. ');">³</span>

בעי רבא כהנים מהו שיחלקו גזל הגר כנגד גזל הגר

therefore, just as in the case of a trespass offering, one trespass offering can not be set against another trespass offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But each offering is distributed among all the priests of the division; v. Kid, 531 and Men. 73a. ');">⁴</span> so also in the case of [payment for] a robbery committed upon a proselyte, one [payment for] robbery committed upon a proselyte cannot be set against another [payment for] robbery committed upon a proselyte<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But each payment would have to be shared by all the priests of the division. ');">⁵</span>

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, ');">⁶</span>

הדר פשטה אשם קרייה רחמנא רב אחא בריה דרבא מתני לה בהדיא אמר רבא כהנים אין חולקין גזל הגר כנגד גזל הגר מ"ט אשם קרייה רחמנא:

or in the capacity of recipients of endowments? A practical difference arises where e.g., the robber misappropriated leaven and Passover meanwhile passed by.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rendering the leaven forbidden for any use; v. supra p. 561 and Pes. II. 2. ');">⁷</span> If now you maintain that they are in the capacity of heirs, it will follow that what they inherited they will have,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., whether they would be able to make use of it or not. ');">⁸</span>

בעי רבא כהנים בגזל הגר יורשין הוו או מקבלי מתנות הוו

whereas if you maintain that they are recipients of endowments, the Divine Law surely ordered the giving of an endowment, and in this case nothing would be given them since the leaven is considered [in the eye of the law] as being mere ashes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Tem. VII, 5. ');">⁹</span> R. Ze'ira put the question thus: Even if you maintain that they are recipients of endowments, then still no question arises, since it is this endowment [originally due to the proselyte] which the Divine Law has enjoined to be bestowed upon them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The priests could thus never be in a better position then the proselyte himself. ');">¹⁰</span>

למאי נפקא מינה כגון שגזל חמץ שעבר עליו הפסח אי אמרת יורשין הוו היינו האי דירתי מורית ואי אמרת מקבלי מתנות הוו מתנה קאמר רחמנא דניתיב להו והא לא קא יהיב להו מידי דעפרא בעלמא הוא

What, however, is doubtful to us is where e.g., ten animals fell to the portion of a priest as [payment for] robbery committed upon a proselyte. Is he then under an obligation to set aside a tithe<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with Lev. XXVII, 32. ');">¹¹</span> or not? Are they [the priests] heirs, in which case the dictum of the master applies that [where] heirs have bought animals out of the funds of the general estate they would be liable [to tithe], or are they perhaps endowment recipients in which case we have learnt 'He who buys animals or receives them as a gift is exempt from the law of tithing animals'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf, Bek. IX, 3. ');">¹²</span>

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. ');">¹³</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.] ');">¹⁴</span>

אלא כי קמבעיא לן כגון שנפלו לו עשר בהמות בגזל הגר מחייבי לאפרושי מינייהו מעשר או לא

and a <i>covenant of salt</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Num. XVIII, 8-19. ');">¹⁵</span> so that to fulfil them is like fulfilling [the whole law which is expounded by] generalisation, specification and generalisation and [like offering all the sacrifices forming] the covenant of salt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. II, 13. ');">¹⁶</span>

יורשין הוו דאמר מר קנו בתפיסת הבית חייבין או דלמא מקבלי מתנות הוו ותנן הלוקח והניתן לו במתנה פטור ממעשר בהמה מאי

whereas to transgress them is like transgressing [the whole Torah which is expounded by] generalisation, specification and generalisation, and [all the sacrifices forming] the covenant of salt. They are these: Ten to be partaken in the precincts of the Temple, four in Jerusalem and ten within the borders [of the Land of Israel]. The ten in the precincts of the Temple are: A sin offering of an animal,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. VI, 17-23. ');">¹⁷</span> a sin offering of a fowl,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. V, 8. ');">¹⁸</span>

ת"ש עשרים וארבע מתנות כהונה ניתנו לאהרן ולבניו וכולן ניתנו בכלל ופרט וכלל וברית מלח

a trespass offering for a known sin,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For which cf. ibid. V, 14-16; 20-26; ibid. XIX, 20-22 a.e. ');">¹⁹</span> a trespass offering for a doubtful sin,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. V, 17-19. ');">²⁰</span>

כל המקיימן כאילו מקיים כלל ופרט וכלל וברית מלח כל העובר עליהם כאילו עובר על כלל ופרט וכלל וברית מלח

the peace offering of the congregation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXIII, 19-20. ');">²¹</span> the <i>log</i> of oil in the case of a leper,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XIV, 12. ');">²²</span>

ואלו הן עשר במקדש וד' בירושלים ועשר בגבולים עשר במקדש חטאת בהמה וחטאת העוף ואשם ודאי ואשם תלוי וזבחי שלמי צבור ולוג שמן של מצורע ומותר העומר ושתי הלחם ולחם הפנים ושירי מנחות

the remnant of the Omer,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'Sheaf' referred to in Lev. XXIII, 10-12; the remainder of this meal offering after the handful of flour has been taken and sacrificed, is subject to Lev. VI, 9-11. ');">²³</span> the two loaves,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Referred to in Lev. XXIII, 17. ');">²⁴</span>

וארבע בירושלים הבכורה והביכורים והמורם מן התודה ואיל נזיר ועורות קדשים

the shew bread<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dealt with in Ex. XXV, 30 and Lev. XXIV, 5-9. ');">²⁵</span> and the remnant of meal offerings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. II, 3 ');">²⁶</span>

ועשרה בגבולין תרומה ותרומת מעשר וחלה וראשית הגז והמתנות ופדיון הבן ופדיון פטר חמור ושדה אחוזה ושדה חרמים וגזל הגר

The four in Jerusalem are: the firstling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 17-18. ');">²⁷</span> the first of the first fruits,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ex. XXIII, 19 and Num. XVIII, 13; v, also Deut. XII, 17 and XXVI, 2-10. ');">²⁸</span>

וקא קרי מיהת מתנה ש"מ מקבלי מתנות הוו ש"מ:

the portions separated in the case of the thank offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 11-14. ');">²⁹</span> and in the case of the ram of the Nazirite<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. VI, 14-20. ');">³⁰</span>

נתן את הכסף לאנשי משמר [וכו']: אמר אביי ש"מ כסף מכפר מחצה דאי לא מכפר הוה אמינא מהדר ליורשין מ"ט אדעתא דהכי לא יהב ליה

and the skins of [the most] holy sacrifices.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as of the burnt and of the sin and of the trespass offerings; for the skins of the minor sacrifices belong to the donors; v, Zeb. 103b. ');">³¹</span> The ten to be partaken in the borders [of the Land of Israel] are: <i>terumah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Num. XVIII, 12; v. Glos. ');">³²</span>

אלא מעתה חטאת שמתו בעליה תיפוק לחולין דאדעתא דהכי לא אפרשה אמרי חטאת שמתו בעליה הלכתא גמירי לה דלמיתה אזלא

the <i>terumah</i> of the tithe,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. ibid. 25-29. ');">³³</span> <i>hallah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the first of the dough; v. Num. XV, 18-21. ');">³⁴</span>

אלא מעתה אשם שמתו בעליו ליפוק לחולין דאדעתא דהכי לא אפרשיה אשם נמי הלכתא גמירי לה כל שבחטאת מתה באשם רועה

the first of the fleece,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVIII, 4. ');">³⁵</span> the portions<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the gifts'; v. Deut. ibid. 3. ');">³⁶</span>

אלא מעתה יבמה שנפלה לפני מוכה שחין תיפוק בלא חליצה דאדעתא דהכי לא קדשה עצמה התם אנן סהדי

[of unconsecrated animals], the redemption of the son,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 15-16. ');">³⁷</span> the redemption of the firstling of an ass,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XIII, 13. ');">³⁸</span> a field of possession,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XXVII, 16-21. ');">³⁹</span> a field devoted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 14. ');">⁴⁰</span> and [payment for a] robbery committed upon a proselyte.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hul. 133b. Tosef. Hal. II. ');">⁴¹</span> Now, since it is here designated an 'endowment', this surely proves that the priests are endowment recipients in this respect.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the payment for robbery committed upon a proselyte. ');">⁴²</span> This proves it. BUT IF HE HAD ALREADY GIVEN THE MONEY TO THE MEMBERS OF THE DIVISION etc. Abaye said: We may infer from this that the giving of the money effects half of the atonement: for if it has no [independent] share in the atonement, I should surely say that it ought to be returned to the heirs, on the ground that he would never have parted with the money upon such an understanding.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to obtain no atonement and yet lose the money. ');">⁴³</span> But if this could be argued, why should a sin offering whose owner died not revert to the state of unconsecration,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then should it be destined by law to die as stated in Tem. II, 2. ');">⁴⁴</span> for the owner would surely not have set it aside upon such an understanding?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it should be unable to serve any purpose and yet remain consecrated. ');">⁴⁵</span> — It may however be said that regarding a sin offering whose owner died there is a <i>halachah</i> handed down by tradition that it should be left to die.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No stipulation to the contrary could therefore be of any avail; cf. e.g. Pe'ah VI, 11 and B.M. VII, 11. ');">⁴⁶</span> But again, according to your argument, why should a trespass offering whose owner died not revert to the state of unconsecration,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then should it be kept on the pastures until it will become blemished, as also stated supra p. 642. ');">⁴⁷</span> as the owner would surely not have set it aside upon such an understanding? — With regard to a trespass offering there is similarly a <i>halachah</i> handed down by tradition that whenever [an animal, if set aside as] a sin offering would be left to die, [if set aside as] a trespass offering it would be subject to the law of pasturing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No stipulation to the contrary could therefore be of any avail; cf. e.g. Pe'ah VI, 11 and B.M. VII, 11. ');">⁴⁶</span> But still, according to your argument why should a deceased brother's wife on becoming bound to one affected with leprosy not be released [even] without the act of <i>halizah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the loosening of his shoe, as required in Deut. XXV, 9; cf. Glos, ');">⁴⁸</span> for surely she would not have consented to betroth herself<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And as the retrospective annulment of the betrothal would be not on account of the death of the husband but on account of his brother being a leper, this case, unlike that of the sin offering or trespass offering referred to above, could not be subject to Pe'ah VI, 11 and B.M. VII, 11. ');">⁴⁹</span> upon this understanding?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to become bound to (the husband's brother who was) a leper; cf. Keth. VII, 10. ');">⁵⁰</span> — In that case we all can bear witness<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The brother who died but who had no deformity. ');">⁵¹</span>