Bavli Hullin Chapter Ten
10:1
A. [The requirement to give to the
priests] the shoulder, the two cheeks, and the maw (Deut. 18:3) applies (1) in
the Land and outside of the Land, (2) in the time of the Temple and not in the
time of the Temple, (3) to unconsecrated beasts, but not to consecrated beasts.
B. For it [the contrary to A3] might
have appeared logical: Now, if unconsecrated animals, which are not liable for
the breast and thigh [which are taken from peace offerings for the priests,
(Lev. 7:31)], are liable for the [priestly] gifts [of the shoulder, cheeks, and
maw], Holy Things, which are liable
for the breast and thigh, logically should be liable to the priestly gifts.
C. Scripture therefore states, “And I
have given them to Aaron the priest and to his sons as a due for ever” (Lev.
7:34) —
D. he has a right [in consecrated
beasts] only to that which is explicitly stated [namely, the breast and thigh].
10:2
A. All Holy Things in which a permanent
blemish occurred before they were sanctified, and which were redeemed,
B. (1) are liable to the law of the
firstling and for priestly gifts,
C. (2) and they go forth for
unconsecrated purposes, to be sheared and to be used for labor,
D. (3) and their offspring and their
milk are permitted after they are redeemed,
E. (4) and he who slaughters them
outside of the sanctuary is free [of liability to punishment],
F. (5) and they are not subject to the
law of the substitute,
G. (6) and if they died, they [the
carcasses] are redeemed,
H. except for the firstling and tithe.
I. All [Holy Things] in which a
permanent blemish occurred after they were sanctified or in which a transient
blemish occurred before they were sanctified, and afterward a permanent blemish
appeared in them, and which were redeemed
J. (1) are free of the law of the
firstling and of the priestly gifts,
K. (2) and they do not go forth for
unconsecrated purposes, to be sheared and to be used for labor,
L. (3) and their offspring and their
milk are prohibited after they are redeemed,
M. (4) and he who slaughters them
outside is liable [Aqiba, M. Zeb. 9:3],
N. (5) and they are subject to the law
of the substitute,
O. (6) and if they died, they are to be
buried.
I.1
A. The
basis [for the rule of A3] is that the Torah wrote, “[And I have given]
them [to Aaron the priest and to his sons as a due for ever]” (Lev. 7:34). Lo, if not for this, would I have reasoned
that Holy Things are liable to the priestly gifts [as Mishnah proposes in B]?
B. One
could have objected [to Mishnah's reasoning as follows:] Now, unconsecrated
animals are liable to the law of the firstling [and are liable for the priestly
gifts. This implies no logical conclusion regarding priestly gifts from Holy
Things, which are not liable to the law of the firstling].
C. You
may derive the conclusion from the law regarding male animals. Now, male
animals are liable to the rule of the first shearings [of wool, Deut. 18:4].
[That is, they are not liable to the law of the firstling, and are liable for
priestly gifts. This implies it is logical that Holy Things, though not liable
to the law of the firstling, are liable for priestly gifts].
D. [One
could have objected to Mishnah's reasoning as follows:] Take the case of
he-goats. Now, he-goats enter the pen to be tithed [and are liable for the
priestly gifts. This implies no logical conclusion regarding priestly gifts
from Holy Things, which do not enter the pen to be tithed].
E. [One
could have objected to Mishnah's reasoning as follows:] Take the case of old
he-goats. Now, old he-goats already entered the pen to be tithed [and are
liable for the priestly gifts. This implies no logical conclusion regarding
priestly gifts from Holy Things, which do not enter the pen to be tithed].
F. [One
could have objected to Mishnah's reasoning as follows:] Take the case of an
animal that was purchased or orphaned. Now, regarding an animal that was
purchased or orphaned, others of its kind enter the pen to be tithed [and are
liable for the priestly gifts. This implies no logical conclusion regarding
priestly gifts from Holy Things, which do not enter the pen to be tithed].
G. But
if you state the matter [to answer this last objection] that others of its own
kind [enter the pen to be tithed], then regarding Holy Things, others of their
own kind enter the pen to be tithed. [Accordingly, Mishnah needs to cite
the verse to prove the matter.]
I.2
A. But
now let us argue [in the other direction]: Unconsecrated beasts should be
liable for the breast and the thigh [like Holy Things] based on a logical
inference a fortiori. Now, if Holy Things which are not liable to the
priestly gifts, are liable for the breast and thigh, unconsecrated animals,
which are liable to the priestly gifts, logically should be liable for the
breast and thigh.
B. Scripture says, “And this shall be
the priests' due [from the people, from those offering a sacrifice, whether it
be ox or sheep: They shall give to the priest the shoulder and the two cheeks
and the stomach (= maw)]” (Deut. 18:3). “This” — yes. Anything else — no.
C. But
the basis [for the rule] is that the Torah wrote, “This.” Lo, if not for this, would I have reasoned
that unconsecrated animals are liable for the breast and thigh?
D. But
lo, is it not necessary to wave them [the breast and thigh]? How could one wave
them [the breast and thigh of an unconsecrated animal?] If [he waves them]
outside [the Temple, this would contradict the verse], as it is written, “[He
shall bring with his own hands the offerings by fire to the Lord; he shall
bring the fat with the breast, that the breast may be waved as a wave offering]
before the Lord” (Lev. 7:30).
E. If
[he waves them] inside [the Temple], he is bringing unconsecrated things into
the court. Accordingly, it is impossible [to wave the breast and thigh of an
unconsecrated animal].
F. Why
then do I need the word “This”? To subsume the rule of R. Hisda. For said
R. Hisda, “One who damages the priestly gifts, or one who ate them, is free of
liability to pay.”
I.3
A. It
was taught previously: Said R. Hisda, “One who damages the priestly gifts,
or one who ate them, is free of liability to pay.”
B. What
is the basis for this rule? If you prefer, it is because it is written, “This”
[limiting the liability to the objects themselves]. And if you prefer, it is because this is a case of a monetary claim for
which there is no claimant. [No specific priest has a claim to the gifts.]
C. They
raised an objection: And this shall be the priests' due [from the people,
from those offering a sacrifice, whether it be ox or sheep: they shall give to
the priest the shoulder and the two cheeks and the stomach]” (Deut. 18:3). This
teaches us that the priestly gifts are [obtained by a priest] through a legal
claim.
D. To
what legal claim does this statement pertain? Is it not the claim to obtain
payment through the court? No, it pertains to the court's jurisdiction to
govern their distribution.
E. And
this is in accord with the rule of R. Samuel bar Nahmani. For said Samuel bar
Nahmani, said R. Yohanan, “On what basis do we say that they do not give gifts
to a priest who is an am ha-arets? As it says, “And he commanded the people
who lived in Jerusalem to give the portion due to the priests and the Levites,
that they might give themselves to the law of the Lord” (II Chron. 31:4). All
those who “give themselves to the law of the Lord” have a portion. All those
who do not “give themselves to the law of the Lord” do not have a portion.
I.4
A. Come
and take note: R. Judah b. Betera says, “As a due” (Lev. 7:34) — this
teaches us that the gifts are governed by a legal claim. You might infer that
the breast and thigh are also governed by a legal claim. It comes to teach us,
“This.”
B. To
what legal claim does this statement pertain? Is it not to the court's
jurisdiction to govern their distribution? But do we not know this already
regarding the breast and thigh? [And the same would pertain to the gifts.]
C. Rather
does it not then [pertain to] the claim to obtain payment [of the gifts]
through the court?
D. In
that case, what are we dealing with? Where they were already in the possession
[of the priest and the original owner stole them back]. But if they were
already in his possession, then what needs to be said? [The law is clear concerning
such a case.]
E. [It
must be that] they came into his possession unseparated [from the unconsecrated
parts of the animal]. And this Tanna reasoned in accord with the view that,
Gifts that were not [physically] separated are treated [as pertains to legal
claims] as if they were separated.
I.5
A. Come
and take note: “A householder who
was traveling from place to place and needs to collect gleanings, forgotten
sheaves, peah, or poor man's tithe,
let him collect [what he needs]. And when he returns to his home, he should
repay [the amount of produce he took as a poor person, for he never actually
was poor],” the words of R. Eliezer [M. Peah 5:4 A-D]. [The conflicts with
I.3 A.]
B. Said R. Hisda, “An act of piety was
taught here [and not a matter pertaining to a valid legal claim].”
C. Said
Raba, “It was taught on Tannaite authority that, he should repay, and you say, `An act of piety was taught here.'
And furthermore from the words of R. Eliezer shall we arise and raise an
objection?
D. “Rather,
consider the latter text of the Mishnah: But sages say, `[He need repay nothing, because in fact] he was a poor
person when [he collected produce designated for the poor][M. Peah 5:4 E].'
E. “The
reason [he does not pay] is because he was a poor person. Lo if he was a
rich person, he must pay. Why is that?
Let him be [covered by this rule]: “One who damages the priestly gifts, or
one who ate them, [is free of liability to pay, I.3 A].”
F. Said R. Hisda, “An act of piety was
taught here [and not a matter pertaining to a valid legal claim].”
I.6
A. Come
and take note: On what basis does a householder who ate from his
unseparated produce, or a Levite who ate from his unseparated tithes [from
which heave-offering had not been taken], on what basis do we say that he is
free from repayment [to the priests]? It comes to teach, “The priests shall not
profane the holy things of the people of Israel, which they offer to the Lord”
(Lev. 22:15).
B. You [the priests] have them from the
time he separated [the heave-offering] and thereafter. Lo, from the time he
separated and thereafter, from then on he must pay [if he consumes it]. Why is that? Let him be [covered by this
rule]: “One who damages the priestly gifts, or one who ate them, [is free
of liability to pay] [I.3 A].”
No comments:
Post a Comment