Chullin 262

השכחה והפאה דכתיב (ויקרא כג, כב) ובקוצרכם את קציר ארצכם לא תכלה פאת שדך בקוצרך ולקט קצירך וגו'

the forgotten sheaf, and the corners of the field' - for it is written: And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corner of thy field; neither shalt thou gather the gleaning of thy harvest;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIII, 22.');">¹</span>

(דברים כד, יט) כי תקצור קצירך בשדך ושכחת עומר בשדה

and it is written: When thou reapest thy harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go back to fetch it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIV, 19.');">²</span>

שנים שבאילן

'The two in the fruit of the tree, namely the forgotten fruits and the corner [of the tree]' - for it is written: When thou beatest thine olive-tree thou shalt not go over the boughs after thee,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 20. V. supra p. 741, n. 8.');">³</span>

השכחה והפאה דכתיב (דברים כד, כ) כי תחבוט זיתך לא תפאר אחריך ותנא דבי ר' ישמעאל

and a Tanna of the School of R'Ishmael expressed it thus: Thou shalt not cut off the crown thereof; and the expression 'after thee' refers to the forgotten fruits.'

שלא תטול תפארתו ממנו

With regard to all of these the owners have not the benefit of disposal' - because the term 'leaving' is used in connection with them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In some contexts the expression used is 'thou shalt leave them for the poor', e.g., Lev. XIX, 10, XXIII, 22; and in others the expression used is 'it shall be for the stranger', e.g., Deut. XXIV, 19, 20, 21. It is clear therefore that the poor man has a claim to them whilst they are in the field, hence there is no right for the owner of the field to collect them, bring them into his house and distribute them according to his discretion among the poor.');">⁴</span>

אחריך זה שכחה

'And even from the poorest in Israel they are exacted' - for it is written: Neither shalt thou gather the gleaning of thy harvest; thou shalt leave them for the poor and the stranger: this is an admonition to a poor man [who himself owns a field] in regard to his own [gleanings].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Hebrew of the verse: Lev. XXIII, 22, 'for the poor' follows immediately upon the command to leave the gleanings, and the interpretation is, that it is for the poor, too' to leave the gleanings.');">⁵</span>

וכולן אין בהן טובת הנאה לבעלים

'With regard to the poorman s Tithe which is distributed in the house, the owner has the benefit of disposal' - because the term 'giving' is used in connection with it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Deut. XXVI, 22.');">⁶</span>

מאי טעמא

'And it is exacted even from the poorest in Israel' - for R'Ila'a said: An inference is to be made by means of the common expression 'for the stranger' from the other [dues to the poor]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XXIII, 22, and Deut. ibid.');">⁷</span>

עזיבה כתיבא בהו

as with the other dues there is an admonition to a poor man in regard to his own, so here [with regard to the Poorman's Tithe] there is an admonition to a poor man in regard to his own.'

ואפי' עני שבישראל מוציאין אותו מידו דכתיב ולקט קצירך לא תלקט לעני ולגר תעזוב אותם להזהיר עני על שלו

The other priestly dues, such as the shoulder, the two cheeks and the maw, are not exacted from one priest in favour of another priest, nor from one Levite in favour of another Levite' - it follows, however, that they may be exacted from a Levite in favour of a priest; apparently because they are included within the term 'the people'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is in conflict with Rab who was in doubt about it.');">⁸</span>

ומעשר עני המתחלק בתוך הבית יש בו טובת הנאה לבעלים

- [It only stated,] 'Such as the shoulder', but not actually the shoulder; what is really meant is the First Tithe.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression 'such as the shoulder' was stated as an example of the priestly dues, but what was specially meant was the First Tithe (v. Num. XVIII, 21) which according to this teaching, could be taken away from the Levite in favour of the priest.');">⁹</span>

מאי טעמא

But is not the First Tithe due to the Levite? - The view expressed here is that of R'Eleazar B''Azariah; for it has been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yeb. 86a; Keth. 26a; B.B. 81b.');">¹⁰</span>

נתינה כתיבא ביה

Terumah belongs to the priest, the First Tithe to the Levite; so R'Akiba.

ואפי' עני שבישראל מוציאין אותו מידו דאמר ר' אילעא

R'Eleazar B''Azariah says.

גמר לגר לגר מהתם מה להלן מוזהר עני על שלו אף כאן מוזהר עני על שלו

It belongs to th priest also.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For although the Torah expressly granted the First Tithe to the Levites, the priests were not thereby excluded, for in twenty-four instances do we find priests described as Levites, e.g., Ezek. XLIV, 15.');">¹¹</span>

ושאר מתנות כהונה כגון הזרוע והלחיים והקבה אין מוציאין אותן לא מכהן לכהן ולא מלוי ללוי הא מלוי לכהן מוציאין אלמא איקרו עם

But R'Eleazar B''Azariah said: 'to the priest also'! Did he say, to the priest and not to the Levite? - Yes, after Ezra had penalized them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the Levites did not go up with him in the return to Judea from the Babylonian exile, Ezra deprived them of the tithe; v. Yeb. 86b. r,c There is no express reference to this in the Books of Ezra or Nehemiah; v. Rashi s.v. It has been suggested that Mal. III, 10: Bring ye the whole tithe into the Temple treasury, refers to this new institution of Ezra; for according to Jewish tradition, Malachi is identified with Ezra (v. hbpn Meg. 15a) . Cf. Tosaf. Yeb. 86b, s.v. .');">¹²</span>

כגון הזרוע ולא זרוע ומאי ניהו מעשר ראשון

Perhaps Ezra had penalized them that one should not give it [the First Tithe] to them, but did he intend that it should be taken away from them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It surely was not intended that the Levites were bound to give the First Tithe of their own produce to the priests.');">¹³</span>

מעשר ראשון דלוי הוא

- We must therefore say, such as the shoulder', but not actually the shoulder; what is really meant is the first of the fleece.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This law (Deut. XVIII, 4) certainly applies to Levites too' and the due is exacted from the Levite in favour of the priest.');">¹⁴</span>

כרבי אלעזר בן עזריה דתניא

Come and hear: This is the general rule: Whatsoever is sacred,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., forbidden to non-priests.');">¹⁵</span>

תרומה לכהן מעשר ראשון ללוי דברי ר' עקיבא

as terumah, the terumah of the Tithe, and the Dough-offering, is exacted from their hands,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the Levites in favour of the priests.');">¹⁶</span>

ר' אלעזר בן עזריה אומר

and whatsoever is not sacred, as the shoulder, the two cheeks and the maw, is not exacted from them!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This clearly shows that the Levites are not under any obligation to give the shoulder etc. to the priests, obviously because they are not included under the term 'the people'. Why then was Rab in doubt about it?');">¹⁷</span>

אף לכהן

- [It states,] 'Such as the shoulder' but not actually the shoulder; what is meant is the First Tithe, and this refers [to the state of things] after Ezra had penalized them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The suggestion therefore is that although the Levites are not to be given the First Tithe any more, it is not to be exacted from their own produce in favour of the priest. With regard to the shoulder, however, the matter is still in doubt.');">¹⁸</span>

אימר דאמר ר' אלעזר בן עזריה אף לכהן לכהן ולא ללוי מי אמר

Come and hear: If a man slaughtered an animal for a priest or for a gentile, he is exempt from the dues.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although the claim for these dues is usually made upon the slaughterer (v. infra 132b) , in this case the slaughterer is exempt since the animal belonged to the priest or to the gentile. V. infra 132a.');">¹⁹</span>

אין לבתר דקנסינהו עזרא

It follows, does it not, that for a Levite or an Israelite he is liable? - Say not, 'it follows that for a Levit Israelite he is liable', but rather, it follows that for an Israelite he is liable.

אימר דקנסינהו עזרא דלא יהבינן להו משקל מינייהו מי אמר

But for a Levite [you say] h exempt, in that case the Mishnah should have taught thus: If a man slaughtered an animal for a Levite or a gentile he is exempt from the dues!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And needless to say that it is so where the animal belonged to a priest.');">²⁰</span>

אלא כגון זרוע ולא זרוע ומאי ניהו ראשית הגז

Moreover it has been taught [in a Baraitha]: If a man slaughtered an animal for a priest or a gentile, he is exempt from the dues, but if he slaughtered for a Levite or an Israelite he is liable.

ת"ש זה הכלל

Surely this is a refutation of Rab's view! - Rab can reply that it is a matter of dispute between Tannaim.

כל דבר שהוא בקדושה כגון תרומה ותרומת מעשר וחלה מוציאין אותן מידם

For it has been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yoma 61a; Sheb. 23b; Men. 92a.');">²¹</span>

וכל דבר שאינו בקדושה כגון הזרוע והלחיים והקבה אין מוציאין אותו מידם

[Scripture says,] And he shall make atonement for the most holy place:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 33. The bullock and the goat prescribed in the sacrificial service of the Day of Atonement make atonement for all transgressions of the rules of uncleanness occurring in the several parts of the Temple precincts, e.g., if any person entered the Temple court in a state of levitical uncleanness; and the atonement is extended to include every section of the community. Cf. Sheb. 13b.');">²²</span>

כגון זרוע ולא זרוע ומאי ניהו מעשר ראשון ולבתר דקנסינהו עזרא

this means [for transgression of the laws of uncleanness occurring in] the Holy of Holies; and the tent of meeting:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 33. The bullock and the goat prescribed in the sacrificial service of the Day of Atonement make atonement for all transgressions of the rules of uncleanness occurring in the several parts of the Temple precincts, e.g., if any person entered the Temple court in a state of levitical uncleanness; and the atonement is extended to include every section of the community. Cf. Sheb. 13b.');">²²</span>

ת"ש

this means in the Holy place; and the altar:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 33. The bullock and the goat prescribed in the sacrificial service of the Day of Atonement make atonement for all transgressions of the rules of uncleanness occurring in the several parts of the Temple precincts, e.g., if any person entered the Temple court in a state of levitical uncleanness; and the atonement is extended to include every section of the community. Cf. Sheb. 13b.');">²²</span>

השוחט לכהן ולעובד כוכבים פטור מן המתנות

this is to be taken in its usual sense;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if a priest whilst serving at the altar became unclean and stayed there for a period co-extensive with the time of one prostration, cf. Sheb. 16a.');">²³</span>

הא ללוי ולישראל חייב

he shall make atonement:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 33. The bullock and the goat prescribed in the sacrificial service of the Day of Atonement make atonement for all transgressions of the rules of uncleanness occurring in the several parts of the Temple precincts, e.g., if any person entered the Temple court in a state of levitical uncleanness; and the atonement is extended to include every section of the community. Cf. Sheb. 13b.');">²²</span>

לא תימא

this means [for transgression of the laws of uncleanness occurring in] the various Temple courts; and for the priests:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 744, n. 6.');">²⁴</span>

הא ללוי ולישראל חייב אלא אימא

this is to be taken in its usual sense; and for all the people of the assembly:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 744, n. 6.');">²⁴</span>

הא לישראל חייב

this means the Israelites; he shall make atonement:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 744, n. 6.');">²⁴</span>

אבל ללוי מאי פטור

this means the Levites.

אי הכי ליתני השוחט ללוי ולעובד כוכבים פטור מן המתנות

And another [Baraitha] taught: He shall make atonement:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 744, n. 6.');">²⁴</span>

ועוד הא תניא

this means [heathen] slaves.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who are also in need of atonement.');">²⁵</span>

השוחט לכהן ולעובד כוכבים פטור מן המתנות ללוי ולישראל חייב תיובתא דרב

Surely then the Tannaim differ in this: one holds that they [the Levites] are included Under the term 'the people',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc., the Tanna of the latter Baraitha. It is therefore unnecessary to have a special reference in the verse to include Levites, consequently the reference serves to include heathen slaves.');">²⁶</span>

אמר לך רב

and the other holds that they are not included Under 'the people'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc., the Tanna of the first Baraitha; it was therefore necessary to include Levites expressly.');">²⁷</span>

תנאי היא דתניא

And Rab?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How is it that he was in doubt?');">²⁸</span>

(ויקרא טז, לג) וכפר את מקדש הקדש זה לפני ולפנים אהל מועד זה היכל מזבח כמשמעו יכפר אלו עזרות כהנים כמשמעו עם הקהל אלו ישראל יכפר אלו הלוים

If he agrees with the one Tanna he should have ruled accordingly, and if he agrees with the other Tanna he should have ruled accordingly? - Rab was in doubt whether to accept the ruling of the one Tanna or of the other.

ותניא אידך

Meremar stated in a discourse: The law is in accordance with Rab's view;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That we do not exact the priestly dues from Levites.');">²⁹</span>

יכפר אלו עבדים מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר איקרו עם ומר סבר לא איקרו עם

and the law is also in accordance with R'Hisda's view.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That whosoever destroys or consumes the priestly dues, before they ever came into the hand of the priest, is exempt from making restitution; v. supra 130b.');">³⁰</span>

ורב אי סבירא ליה כהאי תנא לימא ואי סבירא ליה כהאי תנא לימא

'Ulla used to give the priestly dues to the daughter of a priest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though she is married to an Israelite; for the precept And they shall give unto the priest (Deut. XVIII, 3) includes every one of priestly stock, even females.');">³¹</span>

מספקא ליה אי כהאי תנא אי כהאי תנא

Raba raised the following objection to 'Ulla.

דרש מרימר

We have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sot. 23a.');">³²</span>

הלכתא כוותיה דרב והלכתא כוותיה דרב חסדא

The meal-offering of a priest's daughter is eaten,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The residue of her meal-offering, and so also of that of an Israelite, was eaten by the priests after that the handful, i.e., the memorial part thereof, had been burnt upon the altar.');">³³</span>

עולא הוה יהיב מתנתא לכהנתא

but the meal-offering of a priest may not be eaten.

איתיביה רבא לעולא

Now if you say that 'priest' includes a priest's daughter too, is it not written: And every meal-offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eaten?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 16.');">³⁴</span>

מנחת כהנת נאכלת מנחת כהן אינה נאכלת

- He replied: Master,

ואי אמרת כהן ואפילו כהנת והכתיב (ויקרא ו, טז) וכל מנחת כהן כליל תהיה לא תאכל

אמר ליה

רבי