Bava Kamma 109b — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection to Rava from the fact that he established the Mishnayot specifically according to Rabbi Akiva and did not explain them according to Rav Sheshet, who said that it is possible to distinguish even according to Rabbi Yosei between one who relinquishes [the claim] to others and one who relinquishes it to himself. It follows

from the general implication of

his words

that Rabbi Yosei the Galilean holds that even for himself also he can relinquish it

, and even if his father, or the convert who was robbed, did not establish the debt as a loan against him, he can relinquish it to himself.

But concerning the robbed property of a convert, which the Merciful One says

that the principal and the fifth have the status of

giving to the priests, how can this be found?

Let the robber acquire the convert’s money after the convert’s death and relinquish it to himself, and he will once again not need to remove the robbed property from his possession.

Rava said: Here, with what are we dealing? With

a case

where he robbed a convert and swore to him

that he had not 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 when he confessed, immediately,

the Name acquired it and gave it to the priests

, and 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 robbed property in his possession becomes like a loan, and at the time of the convert’s death the robber acquires the money and does not need to give it to the priests.

Ravina asked: The robbed property of a female convert

—and he swore to her that he had not robbed her, and afterward she died and he confessed—

what is the law?

Do we say: Since it is written, “And if the man has no redeemer,” and so forth, we expound:

“Man,” the Merciful One said,

that the one who robbed him must pay the priests

and not a woman

whom they robbed?

Or perhaps it is the ordinary manner of the verse

and even one who robs a female convert, swears falsely, and she dies must pay the principal and the fifth to the priests?

Rav Aharon said to Ravina: Ta shma: For it was taught:

“And if the man has no redeemer to restore the guilt to him, the guilt that is restored to the Lord, to the priest,” and so forth, is stated in the verse.

“Man”—I have only

one who robbed

a man

; if he robbed

a woman

and swore falsely to her and she died,

from where

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

When it says

“to restore it to him, the guilt”

“that is restored”

to the Lord, to the priest: We expound this from the fact that the language of restoration is written twice, as it teaches “to restore” and “that is restored.” We learn

that there are two here

, two restorations—one for a man and one for a woman. From here [we learn] that even the robbed 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 law of giving to a priest?

“Man”—you must seek him out

before you give the principal and the fifth to the priest,

if he has redeemers

—sons—

if not,

but

a minor you need not seek out, since it is known that he has no redeemers

, because he does not beget children.

The Sages taught

: It is stated, “The guilt that is restored”

“to the Lord, to the priest.”

The Sages explained:

The Name acquired

the principal and the fifth

and gave them to the priest who

serves

in that

time in the

division

in the Temple.

You say

that the robber gives the principal and the fifth

to the priest of that division, or

perhaps

not

so,

but

the robber may give it

to any priest he wishes,

even when he is not standing and serving?

When it says

at the conclusion of the verse,

“Besides the ram of the guilt-offering, by which he shall make atonement for him, behold,”

it implies that the money must be given together with the offering of the guilt-offering, and necessarily the money must be given

to the priest of that division

about which

the verse speaks.

The Sages taught: There was

the

robber

of a convert,

a priest

who swore to him that he had not robbed him, and after the convert died, the time arrived for the robber-priest’s division in the Temple, and he confessed that he had robbed the convert and sworn falsely.

From where [do we know] that he may not say,

that priest,

“Since

the principal and the 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 and swore falsely and brought their principal and fifth to that division in which this priest serves,

he acquires

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

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

that he acquires it for himself?

Rabbi Natan says in another formulation:

The reason that, by law, a priest who robs a convert and confesses when the time of his division arrives acquires all the robbed property and need not give the principal and the fifth to his fellow priests is this:

And if something does not have

for that priest

a share in it

, such as when another priest, not from the division serving at that time, brought his offering to the Temple, the priests of that division have no share whatsoever in that offering

until it enters his possession

—that the priest offering it willingly gives the offering to the members of the division, and from the moment the priest offering it hands his offering over to the members of the division, the offering belongs to them; and any priest

when a share

of that offering again enters his possession

another priest cannot

take it

from his hand

, because he had already acquired it—

something in which he does have a share

even

before it enters his possession

, such as an Israelite who brings the robbed property of a convert to the priests: the money is considered the priests’ money even before it reaches their possession. If so, the robber-priest acquires the money of others together with the other priests of the division even before the money comes into his hand. If so,

when the money enters

his

possession

, such as when he himself robbed a convert and the convert died, is it

not the law that no

other priest

can take it from his hand

, and he acquired it immediately when he confessed?

And we reject this:

No

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

If you say

—indeed, we find

something in which he has no

share

—that after it comes into the priest’s possession, 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 division, which the priests acquired and which is not taken from their hands—

it is impossible to learn from this that a robber-priest acquires the robbed property of a convert that is in his possession. For the reason that the priest who acquires a priest’s offering does not have it taken from his hand is that, since

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

just

as before it was handed over to the members of the division

the priest who ultimately acquired it had no

share

in it

before it reached his hand,

so others also have no share in it

, and therefore no one can take it from the priest who acquired it, since there is no one else who has stronger possession of that offering.

Can you say this about

a priest who

robbed

the convert,

that just as he has

the robber-priest

a share in it

—in the principal and the fifth—

so others also have

the other members of the division

a share in it

even before the money reaches their hands; consequently, he has no permission to hold the money by himself,

but his robbed property goes out from under his hand and is divided among all his fellow priests.

And he challenges:

But it is written

[Numbers 5:10]

“And each man’s sacred things shall be his”

, and below we expound that a priest offers his offerings whenever he wishes, and their flesh and hide are his. When the priest who robbed the convert offers the guilt-offering, he acquires all the flesh of the offering; and we hold that to the one to whom the offering is given, the principal and the fifth are given. If so, the robber-priest should acquire all the robbed 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 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 fifth. But a pure priest acquires all the robbed property and does not divide it with his fellow priests.

And we reject this:

If

the beraita is dealing

with an impure priest

, how did Rabbi Natan make a kal va-chomer from something in which he has no share to

something in which he has a share

? And

does he have

the impure priest a share in the principal and the fifth? After all, the robbed property of a convert is money of the sacred things of the Temple.

And we conclude:

Rather

, the source that a priest who robs a convert does not acquire the principal and the fifth

comes

by a gzera shava

“priest” from “priest,” from the field of ancestral holding.

It is stated concerning one who consecrates an ancestral field that fell to him as an inheritance: “If he does not redeem the field,” and so forth, “the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be sacred to the Lord, like a field of the ban; to the priest shall be his ancestral holding” [Leviticus 27:21]. And concerning a field of the ban it is stated: “Every ban in Israel shall be yours” [Numbers 18:14]. From here [we learn] that an ancestral field that they consecrated and did not redeem when the Jubilee arrived was acquired by the priests serving in that division serving on the Day of Atonement on which the Jubilee occurred.

For it was taught

: It is stated, “To the priest shall be”

“his ancestral holding.”

What does it teach

? And why was it not stated, “To the priest shall be”?

From where [do we know] regarding a field

of ancestral holding that they consecrated,

which goes out to the priests in the Jubilee, and

before the Jubilee

one of the priests redeemed it

whose division’s time is on the Day of Atonement on which the Jubilee occurred,

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

that field which I redeemed, 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 indeed belongs to me, for

with

the ancestral field

of others

that was not redeemed until the Jubilee,

I acquire

it together with the entire division; if so,

with

a field

of my own, is it not all the more so

, since I acquired it, and I should not divide it with the other priests in the Jubilee”?

The verse therefore teaches: “Like a field of the ban; to the priest shall be”

“his ancestral holding

”; and we expound: A field of

ancestral holding

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

his, and this is not

the ancestral field of an Israelite that the priest purchased from the consecrated property

his.

How is this so? That field

goes out from under his hand and is divided among all his fellow priests

.

And a priest who robs a convert is compared to a priest who purchases an ancestral field: Just as concerning an ancestral field we expound “to the priest shall be his ancestral holding” to say that he does not acquire the field that he redeemed for himself, so too concerning the robbed property of a convert, about which it is stated “the guilt that is restored to the Lord, to the priest,” the law is that the priest does not acquire his robbed property.

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

[Deuteronomy 18].

And from where [do we know] that

the remuneration of its

service

is its flesh

and its hide is his? The verse teaches: “And each man’s sacred things shall be his.”

From here the Sages derived: One who brings an offering and is fit to offer it himself may appoint another priest to offer it on his behalf as his agent, while he himself takes the flesh and the hide. And likewise, if he is not fit for offering but only for eating, the members of the division offer it, while the flesh and the hide are his.

How is this so? If

the priest who owns the offering

is

blemished, he gives it to the priest of that division

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

And its service

is its flesh

and its hide is his,

that of the priest who owns the offering, since he is fit to eat it.