V.1
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].
VI.1
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.
10:4
A-C
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.
I.1
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.]
I.2
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].
I.3
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.
10:4
D-J
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].
I.1
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].
I.2
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).
II.1
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].
No comments:
Post a Comment
I welcome your comments.