Bava Kamma 109b (קט:) — the Talmud in English

And we challenge Rava based on the fact that he established the mishnayot specifically in accordance with Rabbi Akiva and did not explain them in accordance with Rav Sheshet, who said that even according to Rabbi Yosei one can distinguish between one who waives the debt for others and one who waives it for himself. This implies

from

his words that

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds that he can waive it even for himself.

And even if the father, or the convert who was robbed, did not convert the debt into a loan owed to him, he can waive it for himself.

But with regard to the robbery of a convert, concerning which the Torah said

that the principal and the additional fifth have the status of

a gift to the priests, how can this be found?

The robber could acquire the convert’s money after the convert’s death and waive the debt for himself, and then he would no longer need to remove the stolen item from his possession.

Rava said: Here we are dealing with a case such as

one who robbed a convert

and took an oath to him

denying that he had robbed him,

and

afterward

the convert died, and he confessed after the convert’s death; for at the time that he confessed,

at the moment of his confession, immediately,

the Name acquired it and gave it to the priests.

Therefore, the robber can no longer acquire the money, since the priests had already acquired it.

But if he confessed during the convert’s lifetime, the stolen property becomes like a loan in his possession, and at the time of the convert’s death the robber acquires the money and need not give it to the priests.

Ravina raised a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to the robbery of a female convert

when he took an oath to her denying that he had robbed her, and afterward she died and he confessed?

What is the law ?

Do we say that since it is written, “And if the man has no redeemer” etc., we expound:

“Man,” said the Merciful One,

meaning that one who robs him must pay the priests,

but not a woman

whom he robbed?

Or perhaps this is merely the usual wording of the verse,

and one who robs a female convert, swears falsely to her, and she dies must also pay the principal and the additional fifth to the priests.

Rav Aharon said to Ravina: Come and hear, as it was taught:

The verse states: “And if the man has no redeemer to restore the guilt to him, the guilt restored to the Lord shall be the priest’s” etc. It says “man”;

I have derived only

one who robbed

a man.

If one robbed

a woman

and swore falsely to her, and she died,

from where

do we know that he must pay the principal and the additional fifth to the priests?

When it says

“to restore the guilt to him,”

“the guilt restored

to the Lord shall be the priest’s,” we expound the fact that the language of restoration is written twice, as it is taught: “to restore” and “restored” . We learn

that there are two here:

two restorations, one referring to a man and one referring to a woman. From here it follows that even the stolen property of a female convert must be restored to a priest.

If so, what does the verse teach by saying “man”

if a woman is not excluded from the requirement of giving it to a priest?

You must search for him

before giving the principal and the additional fifth to a priest:

whether he has redeemers—

sons—

and if not,

but

with regard to a minor, you need not search for him, since it is certain that he has no redeemers,

because he cannot father children.

The Sages taught:

It is stated: “The guilt restored”

“to the Lord, to the priest.”

The Sages explained:

The Name acquired

the principal and the additional fifth,

and gave them to the priest who

serves

in that

period, in the

watch

at the Temple.

You say

that the robber gives the principal and the additional fifth

to the priest of that watch, or

perhaps

not

so,

but

the robber may give it

to any priest he wishes,

even when that priest is not standing and serving?

When it says

at the conclusion of the verse,

“Besides the ram of the atonement, with which he shall make atonement for him, behold,”

it indicates that the money must be given together with the offering of the guilt-offering. It necessarily follows that the money must be given

to the priest of that watch,

the watch

about which the verse is speaking.

The Sages taught: If there was

a

robber

who robbed a

priest

and swore to him that he had not robbed him, and after the convert died, the time arrived for the watch of that priest, the robber, to serve in the Temple, and he confessed that he had robbed the convert and sworn falsely,

from where

do we know that this priest may not say,

“Since

the principal and the additional fifth

go out to the priests, and they are

now

in my possession,

I will leave them in my possession and

they will be mine”?

And it is a logical inference

that it should be as he says, for

if it concerns the property of others

—who robbed converts, swore falsely, and brought their principal and additional fifth to the watch in which this priest serves—

he acquires

their money together with the other members of the watch; if so,

with regard to his own property, is it not all the more so

that he acquires it for himself?

Rabbi Natan stated the matter in another formulation:

The reason that, according to strict law, a priest who robbed a convert and confessed when the time of his watch arrived would acquire all the stolen property and would not need to give the principal and the additional fifth to his fellow priests is as follows:

And with regard to an item in which he has no

portion

in it,

for example, if another priest, who is not of the watch serving at that time, brought his offering to the Temple, the priests of that watch have no portion whatsoever in that offering

until it enters his possession—

meaning, until the priest who offers it voluntarily gives the offering to the members of the watch. From the time the priest who offers it hands his offering over to the members of the watch, it belongs to them, and any priest

when a portion of it enters his possession

may no longer have that portion of the offering

taken away from him by

another priest,

since it has already been acquired by him.

, because he has already acquired it—

An item in which he has a portion,

even

before it enters his possession:

for example, when an Israelite brings the stolen property of a convert to the priests, the money is considered the property of the priests even before it reaches their possession. Therefore, the priest who committed the robbery acquires the property of others together with the other priests of the watch even before the money comes into his hands. If so,

once

the money enters

his possession,

for example, when he himself robbed the convert and the convert died, surely

is it not the law that no

priest

can take it away from him,

and that he acquired it immediately upon confessing?

And we reject this:

No,

a priest has no right to take the stolen property of a convert for himself.

If you say

—indeed, we find

with regard to an item in which he has no

portion

in it

that after it reaches the priest’s hands, he acquires it completely and it is not taken from him, as in the case of a priest who handed his offering over to the members of the watch, which the priests acquired and which is not taken from their hands,

this cannot establish that a priestly robber acquires the stolen property of a convert that is in his possession. The reason that the priest who acquires a priest’s offering does not have it taken from him is that,

since

before the offering was handed over to the members of the watch,

just as he has no

priest who ultimately acquires it had no

portion in it

before it reached his hands,

so too the others have no portion in it.

Therefore, no one else can take it from the priest who acquired it, since no one has a stronger claim to that offering.

Can you say that with regard to a

priest who

robbed

the convert,

that just as he has

the priestly robber

a portion in it—

in the principal and the additional fifth—

so the others have

the other members of the watch

a portion in it

even before the money reaches their hands? It follows that he has no permission to retain the money with him,

but his stolen property must leave his possession and be divided among all his fellow priests.

And he asks:

But it is written

[Numbers 5:10]:

“And each man’s sacred gifts shall be his.”

And we will expound below that a priest may offer his own offerings whenever he wishes, and their meat and hide belong to him. Thus, when the priest who robbed the convert offers his guilt-offering, he acquires all the meat of the offering. And we have an established principle that to the one to whom the offering is given, the principal and the additional fifth are also given. If so, the priestly robber should acquire all the stolen property in his possession and should not give it to his fellow priests.

And we answer: This statement in the beraita, that the priest does not acquire the principal and the additional fifth,

here, with what are we dealing? With an impure priest.

Since he does not acquire the offering, he likewise does not acquire the principal and the additional fifth. But a pure priest acquires all the stolen property and does not share it with his fellow priests.

And we reject this:

If

the beraita is dealing

with an impure priest,

how could Rabbi Natan derive by a kal va-chomer from an item in which he has no portion to

an item in which he has a portion,

and

does he have

the impure priest any portion in the principal and the additional fifth? The stolen property of a convert is money belonging to sacred property of the Temple.

And we conclude:

Rather,

the source for the fact that a priest who robs a convert does not acquire the principal and the additional fifth

is derived

by a

gzera shava, “priest” from “priest,” from the case of an ancestral field.

It is stated concerning one who consecrates an ancestral field that fell to him as an inheritance: “If he does not redeem the field” etc., “the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy to the Lord, as a field devoted; it shall be the priest’s possession” [Leviticus 27:21]. And concerning a devoted field it is stated: “Every devoted thing in Israel shall be yours” [Numbers 18:14]. From here it follows that an ancestral field that its owners consecrated and did not redeem by the time the Jubilee arrived was acquired by the priests serving in the watch that served on the Day of Atonement on which the Jubilee began.

As it was taught,

it is stated: “To the priest shall be”

“his possession.”

What does this teach,

and why was it not simply stated: “To the priest shall be”?

From where

do we know that an ancestral field that its owners consecrated,

which goes out to the priests in the Jubilee, and

before the Jubilee

one of the priests

whose watch is to serve on the Day of Atonement on which the Jubilee begins redeemed it,

from where do we know that he may not say, “Since

an ancestral field whose owners did not redeem it

goes out to the priests in the Jubilee, and it is

the same field that I redeemed, and it is

in my possession,

I will leave it in my possession and

it will be mine, and it is a logical inference

that it is indeed acquired by me, for

with regard to

an ancestral field

belonging to others

that was not redeemed until the Jubilee,

I acquire

it together with the entire watch; if so,

with regard to

a field

belonging to me, is it not all the more so

that I acquired it and will not share it with the other priests at the Jubilee?”

The verse therefore teaches: “As a devoted field, it shall be the priest’s”

“possession.”

And we expound: An

ancestral field

belonging to the priest himself, such as one he inherited from his father, is

his, but this is not—

an ancestral field belonging to an Israelite that the priest purchased from the consecrated property—

his.

How so?

That field

leaves his possession and is divided among all his fellow priests.

And a comparison is made between a priest who robs a convert and a priest who purchases an ancestral field: Just as with regard to an ancestral field we expound “to the priest shall be his possession” to teach that he does not acquire a field that he redeemed for himself, so too, with regard to the stolen property of a convert, concerning which it is stated, “the guilt restored to the Lord, to the priest,” the law is that the priest does not acquire the property that he himself stole.

The Sages taught: From where do we know that a priest may come and offer his offerings at any time and at any hour that he wishes? The verse states: “And he may come with all the desire of his soul, and he shall serve”

[Deuteronomy 18].

And from where do we know that

the reward for

its service

is its meat

and its hide belongs to him? The verse states: “And each man’s sacred gifts shall be his.”

From here the Sages derived that one who brings an offering and is fit to offer it himself may appoint another priest to offer it as his agent, while he himself takes the meat and the hide. Likewise, if he is not fit to offer it but is fit only to eat it, the members of the watch offer it, while its meat and hide belong to him.

How so? If

the priest who owns the offering was

a man with

a blemish, he gives it to a priest of that watch

to offer it on his behalf. But he cannot give it to any priest he wishes, because he himself is not fit to offer it and therefore cannot appoint an agent for the offering; rather, the members of the watch offer it.

And its service

is its meat

and its hide belong to him,

to the priest who owns the offering, since it is fit to be eaten.