Chullin 267

ורמינהו

I can point out a contradiction to this.

על מנת שהמתנות שלי נותן לכל כהן שירצה

[It was taught: If he said,]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc., the priest when selling an animal to an Israelite.');">¹</span>

על מנת אחוץ קא רמית חוץ שיורא על מנת לאו שיורא

'On condition that the dues shall be given to me', he may nevertheless give them to any priest he chooses!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the condition is contrary to Scriptural law, since by Scriptural law the owner has a power of disposal of the dues to whom he will, and it is therefore null and void. The purchaser then can dispose of the dues as he wishes, but he is bound to give them, thus apparently in conflict with our MISHNAH:');">²</span>

ורמינהו

- Do you oppose the terms 'except' and 'on condition that' against each other?

על מנת שהמתנות שלי המתנות שלו

The term 'except' is a reservation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What was excepted did not form part of the sale, for the priest reserved these parts to himself.');">³</span>

בהא פליגי מר סבר

but the term on condition that' is no reservation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But merely a condition which, being contrary to Scriptural law, is null. V. Git. 82a.');">⁴</span>

על מנת שיורא הוא ומר סבר

There is, however, a further contradiction, [for it was taught: If he said.] 'On condition tha the dues shall be given to me', the dues must then be given to him!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus contradicting the first Baraitha.');">⁵</span>

על מנת לאו שיורא הוא:

- They differ in this: one holds that 'on condition that' is a reservation;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Tanna of the last quoted Baraitha regards the term on condition that' on all fours with the term 'except'.');">⁶</span>

אמר לו מכור לי בני מעיה וכו':

the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Tanna of the first Baraitha.');">⁷</span>

אמר רב

holds that 'on condition that' is no reservation.

לא שנו אלא ששקל לעצמו אבל שקל לו טבח הדין עם הטבח

IF A MAN SAID, 'SELL ME THE ENTRAILS OF A COW', etc. Rab said: They taught this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That where the entrails were sold by weight the seller must allow a reduction in the price on account of the priestly dues that were included; the implication being that the priest comes and claims the dues from the purchaser.');">⁸</span>

ורב אסי אמר

only where [the purchaser] weighed them for himself,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this case it was the purchaser who actually took away the priest's due, consequently the priest can only claim them from the purchaser and the latter in turn is entitled to an allowance in the purchase price.');">⁹</span>

אפי' שקל לו טבח הדין עמו

but if the butcher weighed them for him, then the [priest's] claim is against the butcher [also].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The priest, if he so pleases, can claim the dues from the seller (even though they are no longer in his possession) for he was also in the wrong, and he must make every effort to obtain them for the priest. V. B.K. 115a.');">¹⁰</span>

לימא בדרב חסדא קא מיפלגי דאמר רב חסדא

R'Assi said: Even though the butcher weighed them for him his claim is with him only.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The priest can only claim the dues from the person in whose possession they are, in this case from the purchaser.');">¹¹</span>

גזל ולא נתייאשו הבעלים ובא אחר ואכלו רצה מזה גובה רצה מזה גובה

Shall we say that they differ in the ruling of R'Hisda?

דמר אית ליה דרב חסדא ומר לית ליה דרב חסדא

For R'Hisda stated: If a person misappropriated (an article] and, before the owner gave up hope of recovering it, another person came and consumed it, the owner has the option of collecting payment from either the one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the one who robbed him.');">¹²</span>

לא דכולי עלמא אית להו דרב חסדא והכא במתנות כהונה נגזלות קא מיפלגי

or the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the one who later consumed the article; for so long as the owner has not given up hope of recovering it it is deemed to be his property wherever it happens to be, so that the one who consumed it also committed an act of theft.');">¹³</span>

דמר סבר

Now is it to be said that the one [Rab] agrees with R'Hisda and the other [R'Assi] does not agree with R'Hisda? - No, all agree with R'Hisda, but there they differ as to whether the priestly dues are subject to the law of theft, the one [Rab] holds that they are subject to the law of theft<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Accordingly the butcher when he sold them committed an act of theft for which he is held liable.');">¹⁴</span>

נגזלות ומר סבר

and the other [R'Assi] holds that they are not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since they are endowments by Divine Law they always remain the priest's property wherever they are, consequently the law of theft does not apply to them, but the person in whose possession they are is alone responsible for them to the priest.');">¹⁵</span>

אין נגזלות איכא דמתני לה להא שמעתא בפני עצמה רב אמר

Some report the above argument independently<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not in connection with our MISHNAH:');">¹⁶</span>

מתנות כהונה נגזלות ורב אסי אמר

thus: Rab said: The priestly dues are subject to the law of theft; R'Assi said: The priestly dues are not subject to the law of theft.

מתנות כהונה אין נגזלות:

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF A PROSELYTE HAD A COW AND HE SLAUGHTERED IT BEFORE HE BECAME A PROSELYTE, HE IS EXEMPT FROM GIVING THE PRIESTLY DUES; IF [HE SLAUGHTERED IT] AFTER HE BECAME A PROSELYTE, HE IS LIABLE; IF THERE WAS A DOUBT ABOUT IT, HE IS EXEMPT, FOR THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES UPON THE CLAIMANT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this case it would be upon the priest to show that the animal was slaughtered after the owner was converted to the Jewish faith.');">¹⁷</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> גר שנתגייר והיתה לו פרה

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>When R'Dimi came [from Palestine] he reported that R'Simeon B'Lakish pointed out the following contradiction to R'Johanan.

נשחטה עד שלא נתגייר פטור משנתגייר חייב

We have learnt: IF THERE WAS A DOUBT ABOUT IT, HE IS EXEMPT, which shows that the doubt is decided in favour of leniency.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in favour of the owner.');">¹⁸</span>

ספק פטור שהמוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה:

But there is a contradiction to this for we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pe'ah IV. 11.');">¹⁹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> כי אתא רב דימי אמר רמי ליה רבי שמעון בן לקיש לר' יוחנן

[The grain found] in ant-holes among the standing corn,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Rashi, that which is in front of the reapers, i.e., which the reapers have not yet reached, although they have begun to reap the field; but v. infra p. 762, n. 1, commentary of R. Samson of Sens.');">²⁰</span>

תנן ספק פטור

belongs to the owner;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The law of gleanings does not apply to it, for it is certain that the grain was carried into the holes by ants and did not fall therein at the time of reaping, since that part of the field has not yet been reaped.');">²¹</span>

אלמא ספיקא לקולא

[as for the grain found in ant-holes] behind the reapers,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to R. Samson of Sens, if only the reapers have started to reap even though they have not reached the standing corn around the ant-holes; q.v.');">²²</span>

ורמינהו חורי הנמלים שבתוך הקמה הרי אלו של בעל הבית ושלאחר הקוצרים העליונים לעניים והתחתונים של בעל הבית

the uppermost layer belongs to the poor, but what is beneath belongs to the owner.

רבי מאיר אומר

R'Meir says.

הכל לעניים שספק לקט לקט

It all belongs to the poor, since gleanings that are in doubt are deemed to be gleanings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Meir thus in a case of doubt decides against the owner, which view clearly contradicts that of our Mishnah which is also the view of R. hvbhnru Meir, for an anonymous Mishnah represents the view of R. Meir, v. Sanh. ');">²³</span>

אמר ליה

To this [R'Johanan] answered: Do not weary me [with your arguments], since I quote that [Mishnah] as the opinion of an individual;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is only the opinion of R. Judah b. Agra quoting R. Meir, and he is not to be relied upon. krg ic oh,pa krg ksg icw ir, ic');">²⁴</span>

אל תקניטני שבלשון יחיד אני שונה אותה

for it has been taught: R'Judah B'Agra says in the name of R'Meir: Gleanings that are in doubt are deemed to be gleanings, forgotten sheaves that are in doubt are deemed to be forgotten sheaves, and corners of the field that are in doubt are deemed to be corners of the field.

דתניא ר' יהודה בן אגרא אומר משום רבי מאיר

The other [Resh Lakish] retorted: Teach it even in Ben Taddal's<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A fictitious name for some foolish babbler (Jast.) . Variants are: a stammerer, cf. Ex. VI, 12; probably names of persons known to have been unreliable in all matters.');">²⁵</span>

ספק לקט לקט ספק שכחה שכחה ספק פאה פאה

name, [the difficulty, however, remains] for he adduces a reason for his view.

אמר לו

For Resh Lakish said,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Insert with MS.M., 'what is the reason of R. Judah b. Agra'?]');">²⁶</span>

אל תשנה אותה אלא בלשון בן תדל והא טעמא קאמר

It is written: Do justice to the afflic and poor;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. LXXXII, 3.');">²⁷</span>

דאמר ר"ש בן לקיש

what is meant by 'do justice'?

מאי דכתיב (תהלים פב, ג) עני ורש הצדיקו

Can it mean, [favour him] in his lawsuit?

מאי הצדיקו

Surely it is written: Thou shalt not favour a poor man in his cause!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXIII, 3.');">²⁸</span>

אילימא בדינים והא כתיב (שמות כג, ג) ודל לא תהדר בריבו

Rather it means: Be liberal with what is yours and give it to him!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in matters of doubt give the poor the benefit.');">²⁹</span>

אלא צדק משלך ותן לו

- Raba answered,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To reconcile the two Mishnahs.');">³⁰</span>

אמר רבא

Here the cow has the status of exemption [from dues], but the standing corn has the status of being subject [to the dues].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In every case of doubt we must refer to the status of the thing before the doubt arose (v. supra p. 46) , and the cow then belonged to a gentile when it was exempt from dues; the cornfield, on the other hand, being the property of an Israelite, has always been subject to the various dues to the poor.');">³¹</span>

הכא פרה בחזקת פטורה קיימא קמה בחזקת חיובא קיימא

Said Abaye to him: Behold the case of the dough [of a proselyte, of which we learnt]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hal. III, 6.');">³²</span>

אמר ליה אביי

If it was mixed before he became a proselyte he is exempt from giving the dough-offering; if after he became a proselyte, he is liable to give it; if there was a doubt about it, he is liable!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though at the time when the doubt arises the dough has the status of exemption from the dough-offering, for the dough of a gentile is exempt; this clearly conflicts with Raba's contention.');">³³</span>

והרי עיסה נעשית עד שלא נתגייר פטור מן החלה משנתגייר חייב ספק חייב

- He replied.

אמר ליה

Where the doubt concerns a religious prohibition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if the dough-offering is not given to the priest the whole dough is deemed to be tebel and forbidden to be eaten on the penalty of death at the hands of Heaven.');">³⁴</span>

ספק איסורא לחומרא ספק ממונא לקולא

we must take the more stringent view, where the doubt concerns a monetary matter we take the more lenient view.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The priestly dues are in no wise sacred and the omission to give them does not render the animal forbidden; consequently, it is only a monetary consideration, and in a case of doubt it is for the priest, the claimant, to establish his claim.');">³⁵</span>

דאמר רב חסדא וכן תני ר' חייא

For R'Hisda stated, and so also did R'Hiyya teach: Eight cases of doubt were cited in connection with a proselyte, in four he is held liable and in four he is held exempt; and these are they: with regard to his wife's sacrifice,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where there was a doubt whether his wife gave birth to a child before she became a proselyte or after. This case of doubt may involve a penalty of kareth, for if she gave birth after she became a proselyte she would then be obliged to bring a sacrifice consequent upon her childbirth');">³⁶</span>

שמונה ספקות נאמרו בגר ארבע לחיוב וארבע לפטור

the dough-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The doubt here being as stated in Mishnah Hal. III, 6. This case of doubt may involve the penalty of death at the hands of Heaven, v. supra n. 3.');">³⁷</span>

קרבן אשתו וחלה ובכור בהמה טמאה ובכור בהמה טהורה לחיוב

the firstling of an unclean animal,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where there was a doubt whether the proselyte's ass brought forth a firstling before his conversion or after. If after, then the foal is forbidden for all purposes until it is redeemed with a lamb (cf. Ex. XIII, 13) , which lamb had to be given to the priest; in this case of doubt, the proselyte must redeem the foal with a lamb, but he may withhold it from the priest; v. infra n. 20.');">³⁸</span> and the firstling of a clean animal,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The doubt here as in prec. note. This case of doubt may involve the penalty of kareth for slaughtering a firstling outside the Temple.');">³⁹</span> he is held liable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since these cases are matters which involve religious prohibitions and entail serious penalties, we must adopt the stricter view and impose the obligation upon the proselyte.');">⁴⁰</span>