Chullin 260
אלא זה למה לי
It is therefore inapplicable; wherefore then do I require [the word] 'this'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To exclude unconsecrated animals from the precept of the breast and the thigh seeing that the indispensability of the rite of 'waving' makes it inapplicable to them.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
המזיק מתנות כהונה או שאכלן פטור מלשלם
For R'Hisda said: If a man destroyed or consumed the priestly dues [before they were given to the priest] he is not liable to make restitution.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rule is derived from the word 'this' (v. infra) , which implies that these portions if in existence must be given to the priest, but if destroyed there is no obligation to compensate the priest for them.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
מאי טעמא
If you wish I can say, because it is written [the word] this; or if you prefer I can say, because it is property which has no definite claimant.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For to every priest that claims them the owner could say that he proposed to give them to another priest. ypan');"><sup>4</sup></span>
איבעית אימא
An objection was raised: [The verse,] And this shall be the priests' due [mishpat],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVIII, 3. Heb. In this verse it is translated as 'due', but generally it means 'judgment, right'. The use of this word in connection with these portions signifies that they are regarded as a legal right.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
מיתיבי
Is it not that they can be claimed in court?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to collect them by (order of) the judges'. I.e., a priest can claim them in court from an owner who withholds them; thus conflicting with R. Hisda who regards these dues as property without any claimants.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
(דברים יח, ג) וזה יהיה משפט הכהנים מלמד שהמתנות דין
- No, it is that they are to be distributed by the [advice of the] court.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the court guides the owner as to the distribution of his dues, that he should not give them to the unworthy.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
למאי הלכתא לאו להוציאן בדיינין
And this is in agreement with R'Samuel B'Nahmani; for R'Samuel B'Nahmani said in the name of R'Jonathan: Whence do we know that one should not give any dues to a priest an 'am ha-arez?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. In general the ignorant and irreligious people.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
לא לחולקן בדיינין וכדרב שמואל בר נחמני
From the verse: Moreover he commanded the people that dwelt in Jerusalem to give the portion of the priests and the Levites, that they might hold fast to the law of the Lord,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' II Chron. XXXI, 4.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
מנין שאין נותנין מתנה לכהן ע"ה שנאמר (דברי הימים ב לא, ד) ויאמר לעם ליושבי ירושלים לתת מנת לכהנים וללוים למען יחזקו בתורת ה' כל המחזיק בתורת ה' יש לו מנת
Come and hear: R'Judah B'Bathyra says: The expression 'due', [mishpat], teaches that the dues are a matter of right.
ושאינו מחזיק בתורת ה' אין לו מנת
I might say that the breast and the thigh are also a matter of right, the text therefore states And this.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVIII, 3. Heb. In this verse it is translated as 'due', but generally it means 'judgment, right'. The use of this word in connection with these portions signifies that they are regarded as a legal right.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
משפט מלמד שהמתנות דין
Is it that they are to be distributed by [the advice of] the co Then surely the breast and thigh are also to be distributed by the [advice of the] court.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For also these dues should not be given to an unworthy priest.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יכול אפי' חזה ושוק דין
It must therefore mean that they can be claimed in court!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a priest can claim the dues of the shoulder, the two cheeks and the maw from an owner; contra R. Hisda. This legal right was expressly excluded from the law of the breast and the thigh as any claim to them would hardly be contested, for, since they formed part of the atonement of the sacrifice, the owner would certainly not withhold them.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ת"ל
- We are dealing here with the case where they had come into [the priest's] possession.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The claim in connection with the dues of the shoulder etc. referred to arises when they were stolen from the possession of the priest to whom they had already been given.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
למאי
They came into his possession unseparated,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The entire animal came into the possession of the priest and, as the dues have no particular owner, this priest acquired the property in them even though they had not yet been separated from the animal.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
אילימא לחולקו בדיינין אטו חזה ושוק לאו בדיינין מיחלקו
and this Tanna is of the opinion that priestly dues although not separated [from the bulk] are regarded as virtually separated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This, however, cannot be said with regard to the dues of the breast and thigh, for these are not free to all priests but are restricted to that division of priests on duty in the Temple at the time of the sacrifice.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
דאתו לידיה בטבלייהו וקסבר האי תנא
or the Poorman's Tithe,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This was due in the third and sixth years of the Sabbatical cycle in lieu of the Second Tithe, and was to be distributed among the poor. Deut. XIV, 28, 29.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
מתנות שלא הורמו כמי שהורמו דמיין
he may take them, and when he returns to his house he must make restitution;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He must pay for the amount he had consumed to the first poor man who claims it. This clearly conflicts with R. Hisda's teaching.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
בעל הבית שהיה עובר ממקום למקום וצריך ליטול לקט שכחה ופאה ומעשר עני נוטל ולכשיחזור ישלם דברי רבי אליעזר
- R'Hisda said: They taught this Only as a rule of conduct for the pious.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Strictly he is not bound to make any restitution, and his doing so is only in the nature of a pious and charitable act.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
אמר רבא
Moreover, can any objection be raised from the statement of R'Eliezer?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not; for R. Hisda need not find himself in agreement with R. Eliezer seeing that R. Eliezer's view is disputed by the Sages. But see tb, Tosaf. s.v. at end.');"><sup>23</sup></span>
תנא תני ישלם ואת אמרת מדת חסידות שנו כאן
Indeed it was from the following clause [that the objection was raised] viz. , But the Sages say: He was a poor man at that time.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore he need not make restitution.');"><sup>24</sup></span>
אלא מסיפא
Is this not a case of a man destroying or consuming the priestly dues?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case R. Hisda expressly said that he need not make restitution for none could claim it from him.');"><sup>25</sup></span>
עני היה באותה שעה טעמא דעני הא עשיר משלם אמאי
Come and hear: Whence do we know that if an owner consumed his produce without having separated the tithes,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in a state of tebel' (mixture) .');"><sup>26</sup></span>
מנין לבעל הבית שאכל פירותיו טבלין וכן לוי שאכל מעשרותיו טבלים מנין שפטור מן התשלומין ת"ל (ויקרא כב, טו) ולא יחללו את קדשי בני ישראל אשר ירימו אין לך בהן אלא משעת הרמה ואילך הא משעת הרמה ואילך מיהא משלם אמאי
hast a right to them only after they have been set apart.