A. And if [the priest or gentile who sold the beast to an Israelite] said, “[The beast is sold] except for the priestly gifts,” he [the one who slaughters (D)] is free of the priestly gifts [M. 10:3 G]. [134a] And they raised by way of contradiction [to M.]: [If a priest who sells the beast to an Israelite said that he sells it] on the condition that the gifts are mine, [the Israelite] may give them to any priest that he chooses.
B. Do you raise a contradiction from [a case where he stated] “on the condition” to [a case where he stated] “except for”? [They are different conditional modalities.] [The stipulation,] “Except for” leaves out a portion [from the transaction]. [The stipulation,] “On the condition” does not leave out [any portion from the transaction].
C. And they raised by way of contradiction [to A]: [If a priest who sells the beast to an Israelite said that he sells it] on the condition that the gifts are mine, the gifts are his.
D. [The two Tannaite traditions at A and C] disputed in regard to this principle: One master reasoned in accord with the view that “on the condition” leaves out [a portion from the transaction]. And the other master reasoned in accord with the view that “on the condition” does not leave out [a portion from the transaction].
A. [If] he said, “Sell me the intestines of the cow [= the maw],” and the priests' dues were in them, he gives them to the priest, and does not deduct their value from [what he pays] him. [If] he purchased it from him by weight, he gives them to the priest, and he does deduct their value [from what he pays] him [M. 10:3 H-I]. And said Rab, “The latter ruling pertains to a case in which the purchaser weighed it for himself, but if the butcher weighed it for him, then the priest would sue the butcher” [note: here there was no renunciation of title]. And R. Assi said, “Even if the butcher weighed it for him, the priest would sue the purchaser.”
B. Let us say they differ on the statement made by R. Hisda. For said R. Hisda, “If one stole something and, before the owner had despaired of getting it back, [at which point the thief acquires title to the object,] someone else came along and ate up what he stole, the owner has the choice of collecting the payment from the one or the other.” [Cf. b. B.Q. 115a.]
C. [Does this mean that] one master [Rab] holds in accord with the view of R. Hisda, and the other master [R. Assi] does not hold in accord with the view of R. Hisda?
D. No. They all hold in accord with the view of R. Hisda. And here [they dispute with regard to the principle of whether] priestly gifts can be stolen. One master [Rab] holds in accord with the view that priestly gifts can be stolen [so you must sue the butcher who stole them]. And the other master [R. Assi] holds in accord with the view that priestly gifts cannot be stolen [so you must sue the purchaser who has them].
E. There are those who taught this matter as an independent text: Rab holds in accord with the view that priestly gifts can be stolen [so you must sue the butcher who stole them]. And R. Assi holds in accord with the view that priestly gifts cannot be stolen [so you must sue the purchaser who has them].
Unit I.1 examines a premise of the M.-passage. II.1 stipulates a rule germane to M. (E). Unit II.2 gives a story and precedent related to M. (F). Unit II.3-4 present two teachings of Hisda regarding priestly gifts. II.5 give two more teachings of Hisda and a T.-text that contradicts one of them. II.6 is a miscellany. III.1 continues with second-level issues regarding acquiring the priestly gifts. III.2 gives second-level issues regarding assigning the ownership of the priestly gifts.
III.3 develops points out of the preceding tertiary to M.'s concern. IV.1 glosses F of the M.-passage and cites the relevant T.-text by way of contradiction, then harmonizes the two. IV.2 cites the continuation of the T.-text and a M.-text by way of contradiction, then harmonizes the two. IV.3 presents secondary rules on partnership with a priest and its implications regarding the gifts. It then cites relevant T.-texts to contradict a rule of Hiyya and explains how he erred. IV.4 gives a further clarification based on a T.-text. V.1 adds Tannaite contradictions to G of M. Unit VI.1 appends an Amoraic dispute on the application of the rules of H-I of M.
A. A convert who converted and had a cow — [if] it was slaughtered before he converted, it is free of priestly dues.
B. [If it was slaughtered] after he converted, it is liable.
C. [If it is a matter of] doubt, it is free of liability, for he who makes a claim against his fellow bears the burden of proof.
A. When R. Dimi came [from Israel] he said, “R. Simeon b. Laqish posed this contradiction to R. Yohanan: Our Mishnah teaches [at C] that a matter of doubt is free of liability. It seems [logical to conclude in accord with the rule that] a matter of doubt is resolved in accord with the more lenient position.”
B. But they posed this contradiction: [As regards] anthills in the midst of a standing [crop] — lo, [grain which falls into them] belongs to the householder, [for produce does not become subject to the law of gleanings until after the harvest]. After the harvesters [have gone through the field], the [grain at the] tops [of the anthills, which fell after the harvest, belongs] to the poor, while the [grain at the] bottoms [of the anthills, which probably fell before the harvest,] belongs to the householder. R. Meir says, “All [grain which falls into anthills after the harvesters have gone through the field belongs] to the poor, for produce which might be [subject to the law of] gleanings [produce which might have fallen after the harvest] is [deemed in fact to be subject to the law of] gleanings” [M. Peah 4:11]. [Accordingly, a matter of doubt is resolved in accord with the more stringent view.]
C. He [Yohanan] said to him, “Don't bother me [with your contradiction]. For I learned that this was a minority view [of one obscure teacher who cited a tradition from Meir].”
D. For it was taught on Tannaite authority: R. Judah b. Agra said in the name of R. Meir, “Produce which might have fallen after the harvest is deemed in fact to be subject to the law of gleanings; a sheaf which might have been forgotten after the harvest is deemed in fact to be subject to the law of the forgotten sheaf; produce which might be peah is deemed in fact to be subject to the law of peah.”
E. He [Resh Laqish] said to him, “Even if you attribute this to the most unreliable and eccentric source in the world, lo it states a valid basis for its rule.”
F. For said R. Simeon b. Laqish, “Why was it written, `Give justice to the weak and fatherless; [maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute]' (Ps. 82:3)? What does it mean to `give justice'? If you maintain that in judgments [you must be partial to the weak], lo it was written, `Nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his suit' (Exod. 23:3). Rather it means that you should do justice on your own and give him [benefit].
G. Said Raba, “Here [in the case of the doubt with regard to the priestly gifts from an animal belonging to a gentile who converted], the cow is subject to the presumption that it is free from liability. [However,] the grain standing in a field is subject to the presumption that it is liable [to the agricultural precepts].”
H. Said to him Abayye, “Lo [we have the following in the Mishnah]: A convert who converted [to Judaism] and had dough in his possession [at the time he converted], [if the dough] was prepared before he converted, it is exempt [from dough offering]. But [if it was prepared] after he converted, it is subject [to dough offering]. And if it is uncertain [whether the dough was prepared before or after he converted], it is subject [to dough offering][M. Hal. 3:6 A-D].”
I. He said to him, “[In] a case of doubt with regard to prohibitions, we are stringent. [In] a case of doubt with regard to monetary claims, we are lenient.” [Neusner, b. Ket. 73b: Raba said, “The Tannaite framer of our Mishnah-paragraph is in doubt, so he took the lenient rule in property, and the strict rule in matters of prohibition affecting personal status.”]
J. For said R. Hisda, and so too taught R. Hiyya, “Eight cases of doubt were stated with regard to a convert. In four he incurs liability. And in four he is freed of liability. Regarding [cases of doubt for] the sacrifice of his wife [after she gives birth], and dough-offering [as above, M. Hal. 3:6], and a firstling of an unclean animal, and a firstling of a clean animal [i.e., where there is doubt whether either was born after he converted and needs to be redeemed], for these he incurs liability. [134b] For first shearings, and the priestly gifts, and the redemption of a first-born son, and the redemption of a firstling of an ass [where there is doubt whether he converted after the obligation would have taken effect in each case], for these he is free of any liability [and the priest must prove his claim to collect it].”
K. When Rabin came [from Israel] he said, “He [Resh Laqish] raised a contradiction concerning [one rule for] grain standing in a field, [from another rule for] grain standing in a field.” [He did not raise any contradiction to the rules of liability for priestly gifts, contrary to A-C above.]
A. Levi planted in Kishor and there were no poor people to collect the gleanings. He came before R. Sheshet [for a ruling as to whether he could collect them himself]. He said to him, “[Scripture says,] `You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the Lord your God' (Lev. 19:10) — not for ravens and bats.”
B. They posed a question: They do not have to bring heave-offering [to a priest] neither from the granary to the city, nor from the wilderness to the settlement. But if there is no priest thereabouts, he must hire a beast and bring it in [to hold it for a priest] on account of [the need to prevent] the destruction of heave-offering. [Likewise they should bring in the gleanings and hold them for a poor person.]
C. [This is not a valid objection.] Heave-offering is different [from gleanings with regard to the law]. For it renders [all the grain forbidden] as a mixture [until it is separated]. And it is not adequate if he does not separate it.
D. But consider gifts [for a priest] that are not rendered forbidden in a mixture. And [to pursue the objection —] it was taught on Tannaite authority: In a place where they were accustomed to cook a calf to eat with its skin, one should not skin the shoulder [before giving the gift to the priest]. [In a place where they were accustomed] to skin the head, one should not skin the cheek [before giving it to the priest]. And if there is no priest thereabouts [to take the gifts], they may estimate their value [and hold the money for the priest] and eat them on account of the need to avoid causing loss to the priest. [Likewise they should bring in the gleanings and hold them for a poor person.]
E. [This is not a valid objection.] Gifts to the priest are different [from gleanings with regard to the law]. For it is written concerning them that they should be given [to the priest, Deut. 18:3]. And now as long as you come to this point, it is written also concerning heave-offering that it should be given [to the priest, Num. 18:12].
F. [But is this not a spurious argument? It repeats the phrase, “you shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner,” regarding gleanings, Lev. 19:10 and 23:22.] Why then do we need to teach an extra time, “you shall leave them”? In accord with what was taught on Tannaite authority: He who declares his vineyard to be ownerless and then gets up early in the morning and harvests the grapes is liable to leave for the poor the grapes that fall to the ground, the puny bunches, the forgotten ones, and the corner of the field, but is exempt from having to designate tithes [Neusner, b. B.Q. 28a].
A. There was a sack of gold dinars that came to the study hall [as a gift]. R. Ammi went ahead and took possession of them [as a priest]. Now how could he do this? Lo, is it not written, “They shall give [to the priest the shoulder and the two cheeks and the stomach]” (Deut. 18:3), and not that he should take it himself. R. Ammi also must have taken them on behalf of the poor.
B. And if you prefer, another possibility: [Ammi was an important person.] And the rule for an important person is different. As it was taught on Tannaite authority: “The priest who is chief among his brethren, [upon whose head the anointing oil is poured, and who has been consecrated to wear the garments, shall not let the hair of his head hang loose, nor rend his clothes]” (Lev. 21:10) — he must be chief among his brethren in beauty, wisdom and wealth. Others say, “Whence that if he does not have these, his brethren raise them up for him? It comes to teach, `The priest who is chief among his brethren.' Make him great from what belongs to his brethren”[cf. T. Kippurim 1:6 A-B]. [Based on this, R. Ammi acted properly.]
Unit I.1 presents an Amoraic dispute over the application of M.'s rules at C and discussion of decisions in certain case of doubts. I.2 gives secondary issues comparing gleanings to heave-offering and gifts to the priests. I.3 adds a miscellany.
D. What is the shoulder?
E. From the joint to the shoulder socket of the foreleg.
F. And that pertains also to the Nazirite (Num. 6:19).
G. And the corresponding part in the hind leg is the thigh.
H. R. Judah says, “The thigh is from the joint to the fleshy part of the hind leg.”
I. What is the cheek?
J. From the joint of the jaw to the knob of the windpipe [the tip of the thyroid cartilage, the whole lower jaw and the tongue].
A. Our rabbis taught on Tannaite authority: “The shoulder” (Deut. 18:3) — this is the right shoulder. You say it is the right shoulder. But perhaps it is only the left one [T. 9:12 A-B]? It comes to teach, “The shoulder.”
B. What is the reasoning of this deduction? In accord with what Raba said, “The thigh” [“Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the sinew of the thigh, because he touched the hollow of Jacob's thigh on the sinew of the hip” (Gen. 32:32)] refers to the right thigh. Here too “the shoulder” refers to the right shoulder. [Cf. T. 9:12 D: Since thigh is a gift to the priest, and the shoulder is a gift to the priest, just the thigh applies only to the right one, so the shoulder should apply only to the right one.]
C. “And the two cheeks” (Deut. 18:3) — what additional rule does it come to encompass? It adds that we include in the category the wool that is on the head of sheep and the hair that is on the beard of goats.
D. “And the stomach” (Deut. 18:3) — what additional rule does it come to encompass? It adds that we include in the category the fat that is attached to the stomach and the fat that is inside the stomach.
E. For said R. Joshua [T.: R. Judah], “The priests behaved in a generous spirit and would give it to the owner” [T. 9:11 H]. The basis for this was that it was their custom to do so. Lo, if it was not their custom [by law] it belongs to him [the priest].
A. The imaginative interpreters used to say [these gifts are given to the priest on account of the zealous act of Phineas the priest and symbolize aspects of it as follows]: “The shoulder” symbolizes the hand [of Phineas]. And so it states, “Taking a spear in his hand, [he went after the man of Israel into the inner room, and pierced both of them, the man of Israel and the woman, through her stomach. Thus the plague was stayed from the people of Israel]” (Num. 25:7-8). [For our purposes: He used his right hand to pierce, proving that it means the right shoulder (Rashi).]
B. “And the cheeks” symbolize the prayer [of Phineas]. And so it states, “Then Phineas stood up and interposed, [and the plague was stayed]” (Ps. 106:30).
C. “And the stomach” symbolizes its literal counterpart [in the story relating to Phineas]. And so it states, “[And pierced...] the woman through her stomach” (Num. 25:7).
D. And a Tannaite authority derived it [that it means the right shoulder] from this: “And the right thigh [you shall give to the priest an offering from the sacrifice of your peace offerings]” (Lev. 7:32). From this I would derive only that it is the right thigh [that one must give from a peace offering]. Whence do we derive that [one must give to the priest the right] shoulder of consecrated animals? [“And the priest shall take the shoulder of the ram, when it is boiled, and one unleavened cake out of the basket, and one unleavened wafer, and shall put them upon the hands of the Nazirite, after he has shaven the hair of his consecration” (Num. 6:19).] It comes to teach, “An offering” (Lev. 7:32). Whence do we derive that [one must give to the priest the right] shoulder [i.e., the priestly gift] of unconsecrated animals? It comes to teach, “You shall give” (Lev. 7:32).
A. What is the cheek? From the joint of the jaw to the knob of the windpipe [the tip of the thyroid cartilage, the whole lower jaw and the tongue][M. 10:4 I-J]. But lo it was taught on Tannaite authority: What is the cheek? One removes it from the place at which the animal is slaughtered, and the whole place where the animal is slaughtered with it [T. 9:11 D-E].
B. This is not a contradiction. [We may explain that] this one [view in M. represents the opinion of] the rabbis. And this one [view in T. represents the opinion of] R. Hanina b. Antigonos. For it was taught on Tannaite authority: [If] it slants downwards [that is, if one let the knife slide beyond the space prescribed for cutting, so that the windpipe was cut at or below the point where the thyroid cartilage narrows (b. Hul. 19a)], it is invalid. Testified R. Hanina b. Antigonos, [T. has: R. Hanania b. Antigonos declares] that if it slants downward, it is valid [T. 1:10 B-C, b. ul. 18b].
C. If you prefer, another explanation is that both [views in M. and T. represent the opinions] of the rabbis. And what then does with it mean? It means [that the place where the animal is slaughtered remains] with the animal [and does not go along with the cheek].