C. Here
too [131a] [it must be that] they came into his possession unseparated [from the
unconsecrated produce]. 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 [cf. I.4 E].
I.7
A. Come
and take note: Lo, if the royal administration seized a person’s grain in
the granary, if it was on account of a debt that he owed, he has to tithe the
grain [this is then a kind of sale], but if it was on the count of a missed
installment payment, he is exempt from having to tithe [cf. b. Git. 44a].
B. That
case is different because he profits [from the transaction. His debt is paid.
Hence he must separate tithe.]
I.8
A. Come
and take note: [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. Hul. 10:3
H-I]. 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].”
B. That
case is different. For the items are still physically present.
I.9
A. Come
and take note: There are nine holdings of the priest: Heave-offering, and
heave-offering of tithes, and dough-offering, and the first shearings, and the
gifts, and demai, and first fruits,
and the principal and the added fifth. Is
it not that on this basis one may make a claim for them in court? No, it is on
this basis that we have that which is taught on Tannaite authority in the
Mishnah: Why have sages said, “The
firstfruits are like the property of the priest [M. Bik. 2:1]?” Because [the
priest] may use them to purchase slaves, real estate, or an unclean animal [M.
M.S. 1:7], and a creditor may extract them in [payment for the priest's debt],
and the [ex]-wife [of a priest may take them in payment of the alimony which is
specified] in her marriage contract, just as [they may take] a Torah scroll [in
payment][M. Bik. 3:12 A-E].
B. A
certain Levite used to grab priestly gifts for himself. They went and told Rab.
He said to them, “It does not suffice that we do not take these from him. Now
he goes out and grabs them for himself.”
C. And [what is the view on this matter
of] Rab? If they [i.e., Levites] are
subsumed in the category of “People” [the verse is: “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)] we should surely
take [the gifts] from them. And if they are not subsumed in the category “People”
then the Torah has freed them from the
liability [to give the gifts]. He was in doubt as to whether or not they are
subsumed in the category “People.” [Since there is doubt as to the law, Rab
freed them from liability.]
D. R.
Pappa sat [in session] and stated this tradition [concerning Rab's doubt on
this matter]. R. Idi bar Abin raised an objection to R. Pappa [based on this
text]: [There are] four gifts [that
must be designated for the poor] from [the produce of] a vineyard: separated
grapes, forgotten sheaves, peah, and
defective clusters. [There are] three [gifts that must be designated for the
poor] from [a field of] grain: gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and peah. [There are] two [gifts that must
be designated for the poor] from [the fruit of] a tree: forgotten sheaves, and peah. None of these [gifts to the poor]
may [be given to a specific poor person] as a favor. Even a poor Israelite —
they take [any] produce [given to him as a favor] from his hand. Poorman's
tithe that is distributed in the house may [be given to a specific poor person]
as a favor. Even a poor Israelite — they take [any] produce [given to him as a
favor] from his hand. But any other
gifts, [that are designated for] the priesthood, such as the shoulder, the two
cheeks, and the stomach of a sacrificial animal [that are given to the Levites
as simple gifts], may [be given to a specific Levite or priest] as a favor. And
the householder may give them to whichever priest he wishes. They may not take
a priestly [gift] from a priest [to whom it has been given as a favor] to give
it to another, nor a Levitical [gift] from a Levite [to whom it has been given
as a favor] to give it to another [T. Peah 2:13]. [Before considering the
objection to R. Pappa, the Talmud digresses to interpret the text, E-Q.]
E. [There
are] four gifts [that must be designated for the poor] from [the produce of] a
vineyard: separated grapes, forgotten sheaves, peah, and defective clusters. As it is written, “And you shall not strip your vineyard bare,
neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; [you shall leave
them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the Lord your God]” (Lev. 19:10).
And it is written, “When you gather
the grapes of your vineyard, you shall not glean it afterward; it shall be for
the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow” (Deut. 24:21).
F. Said R. Levi, “`Afterward' — this
refers to [the obligation in a vineyard to leave] forgotten sheaves.”
G. [The basis in scripture for
liability to] peah [in a vineyard] is
derived from the common use of the word “afterward” [here in this verse and in
the verse concerning] olives: “When you beat your olive trees, you shall not go
over the boughs afterward [`hryk];
[it shall be for the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow” (Deut. 24:20).
H. And the House of R. Ishmael taught:
“[`You shall not go over the boughs' teaches us] that you shall not take the
majesty from it.” [This is a play on the Hebrew words tp`r, tp`rtw].
I. [There are] three [gifts that must be designated for the poor] from [a
field of] grain: gleanings, forgotten sheaves, [131b] and peah. As it is written, “And when you reap the
harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field to its very border, nor
shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest; [you shall leave them for
the poor and for the stranger: I am the Lord your God]” (Lev. 23:22). And it is written, “When you reap your
harvest in your field, and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, you shall not
go back to get it; [it shall be for the sojourner, the fatherless, and the
widow; that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands]”
(Deut. 24:19).
J. [There are] two [gifts that must be designated for the poor] from [the
fruit of] a tree: forgotten sheaves, and peah.
As it is written, “When you beat
your olive trees, you shall not go over the boughs afterward [`hryk]; [it shall be for the sojourner,
the fatherless, and the widow]” (Deut. 24:20).
K. And the House of R. Ishmael taught:
“[`You shall not go over the boughs' teaches us] that you shall not take the
majesty from it.” [This is a play on the Hebrew words tp`r, tp`rtw].
L. “Afterward” — this [teaches that the
rule of] forgotten sheaves [applies here].
M. None
of these [gifts to the poor] may [be given to a specific poor person] as a
favor. What is the basis for this
rule? Because concerning these it is written in terms of leaving them
[passively for the poor, not giving them actively to a specific person for some
benefit].
N. Even
a poor Israelite — they take [any] produce [given to him as a favor] from his hand.
As it is written, “Nor shall you
gather the gleanings after your harvest; you shall leave them for the poor and
for the stranger: [I am the Lord your God]” (Lev. 23:22). This informs the poor
person concerning his own [produce he received as a favor that they may take it
away].
O. Poorman's
tithe that is distributed in the house may [be given to a specific poor person]
as a favor. What is the basis for
this rule? Because concerning this it is written in terms of giving them
[actively to the poor].
P. Even a poor Israelite — they take [any] produce [given to him as a
favor] from his hand. For said R.
Ilai, “We derive this rule from the common use of the phrase `for the
stranger [= sojourner, gr]' [in Lev.
23:22 and Deut. 26:12: “When you have finished paying all the tithe of your
produce in the third year, which is the year of tithing, giving it to the
Levite, the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, that they may eat within
your towns and be filled” (Deut. 26:12)]. Just
as we find there that the poor person is informed [of his obligations]
concerning his own [produce], so too here, the poor person is informed [of his
obligations] concerning his own produce.
Q. But
any other gifts, [that are designated for] the priesthood, such as the
shoulder, the two cheeks, and the stomach of a sacrificial animal [that are
given to the Levites as simple gifts, may be given to a specific Levite or
priest as a favor. And the householder may give them to whichever priest he
wishes.] They may not take a priestly [gift] from a priest [to whom it has been
given as a favor] to give it to another, nor a Levitical [gift] from a Levite
[to whom it has been given as a favor] to give it to another. Lo, [this implies that] they may take it
from a Levite to give it to a priest. It seems [logical to conclude on this
basis] that they are subsumed in the category “People” [in contradiction to
the statement at C above].
R. [We may respond to this objection by
pointing out that the text states] such
as the shoulder [meaning] not specifically the shoulder. And what is it [that the text refers to]?
First tithes.
S. [But do not] first tithes belong to
the Levite [alone]? The present rule accords with the view of R. Eleazar b.
Azariah.
T. As
it was taught on Tannaite authority: “Heave-offering goes to the priest and
first tithe to the Levite,” the words of R. Aqiba. R. Eleazar b. Azariah says,
“[First tithe goes] even to the priest.”
U. Say
what? For said R. Eleazar b. Azariah, “Even to the priest.” Did he say, “To
the priest and not to the Levite”?
V. Yes.
After Ezra penalized them [for not returning from the exile].
W. Say
what? Ezra penalized them, so we do not give them [first tithes]. Does that
imply that we may take [tithes] away from them? [Accordingly this
interpretation must be rejected.]
X. [Alternatively, we may respond to
the objection at Q by pointing out that the text states] such as the shoulder [meaning] not specifically the shoulder. And what is it [that the text refers to]?
The [gift of the] first fleece.
I.10
A. Come
and take note: This is the general rule: anything that is holy, such as
heave-offering, and heave-offering of tithes, and dough-offering, they take [any] produce [given to him as a
favor] from their hands. And anything that is not holy, such as the shoulder, the two cheeks, and
the stomach of a sacrificial animal [that are given to the Levites as simple
gifts, may be given to a specific Levite or priest as a favor. And the
householder may give them to whichever priest he wishes.] They may not take it
from their hands.
B. [The text states] such as the shoulder [meaning] not
specifically the shoulder. And what is it
[that the text refers to]? First tithes. And this is after Ezra penalized [the Levites].
I.11
A. Come
and take note: He who slaughters for
a priest or for a gentile — it is free [of requirement to give the priestly
dues][M. 10:3 E]. Lo [this implies that if he slaughters] for a Levite or
for an Israelite, he is liable. No, it
does not make sense to maintain that if he slaughters for a Levite or for
an Israelite, he is liable. Rather it
makes sense to maintain that if he slaughters for an Israelite he is
liable. But for a Levite, what is the rule? He is free [of the requirement].
B. If this is the case, let it teach,
He who slaughters for a Levite or for a gentile — it is free [of the
requirement]. And furthermore, lo it was
taught on Tannaite authority, He who
slaughters for a priest or for a gentile — it is free [of requirement to give
the priestly dues][M. 10:3 E]. Lo [this implies that if he slaughters] for
a Levite or for an Israelite, he is liable. The
question raised concerning the view of Rab is a decisive question.
C. Rab can say to you [by way of
response], “This [issue in dispute] is [analogous to] a dispute between
Tannaite authorities.”
D. As
it was taught on Tannaite authority:
“He shall make atonement for the sanctuary” (Lev. 16:33), this refers to
the inner sanctum. “And he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting,” this
refers to the sanctuary. “And for the altar,” this means what it says. “And he
shall make atonement,” this refers to the courtyards. “For the priests,” this
means what it says. “And for all the people of the assembly,” this refers to
the Israelites. “And he shall make atonement,” this refers also to the Levites.
E. And
there is another Tannaite teaching: “And he shall make atonement,” this
refers also to the slaves. Is it not the
case that they dispute regarding this principle? One master reasons in accord
with the view that they are subsumed under the category “People.” And the other master reasons in accord with
the view that they are not subsumed under the category “People.”
F. And
[what is the view of] Rab? If he reasons in accord with one Tannaite authority,
let him state the matter. And if he reasons in accord with the other Tannaite
authority, let him state the matter. [It must be that] he was in doubt whether
[to reason in accord with the view] of the one or of the other.
G. Meremar
expounded: The law follows in accord with the view of Rab [here] and the law
follows in accord with the view of R. Hisda [above, I.5 F].
I.12
A. Ulla
used to give his gifts to a priest-girl [who was married to an Israelite]. Raba
raised an objection to Ulla: The
meal-offering of a priest-girl is eaten, the meal-offering of a priest is not
eaten [M. Sotah 3:6 D]. And if you
say that “priest” means even a priest-girl, lo is it not written, “And
every meal-offering of a priest shall be wholly burned, it shall not be eaten”
(Lev. 6:23)?
No comments:
Post a Comment