Bava Kamma 110b (קי:) — the Talmud in English

Rava raised a dilemma:

a robber who wishes to achieve atonement and brought the principal of what he robbed, but

there is not

a peruta’s worth

for

all the priests of the

Jehoiarib watch, but there is

a peruta’s worth

for

all the priests of the

Jedaiah watch

who are fewer in number than the priests of the Jehoiarib watch,

what is the halakha?

Can he give the money to the Jedaiah watch and thereby achieve atonement, or not?

And we raised this difficulty:

What are the circumstances? If we say

that he waited until the Jehoiarib watch had concluded, and

that he gave it to Jedaiah during the

time of the

Jedaiah watch,

what is Rava’s dilemma?

This

is now the watch that

has

to be paid, and it is obvious that he may give them the principal and achieve atonement.

And we explain:

It is necessary only where he gave it to Jedaiah during the

time of the

Jehoiarib watch.

And Rava raises the dilemma:

What is the halakha? Do we say that, since

it is not their watch—for the priests of the Jehoiarib watch are now standing and serving—

and

what he gave the money to Jedaiah

is nothing

and he did not achieve atonement,

or perhaps, since it was not fit for him

to give it to the Jehoiarib watch

from the outset,

for the principal is not worth a peruta for all the members of Jehoiarib, the money does not belong to them from the outset; rather, it

stands for the

watch

of Jedaiah?

The matter remains unresolved.

Rava raised another dilemma: The priests

of the watch whose term arrived received the stolen property of a convert;

may they divide the stolen property of a convert against other stolen property of a convert—

that is, on this occasion some of the priests take the stolen property of the convert for themselves, and on another occasion, when stolen property of a convert comes during their watch, the others receive it?

Do we say that, since

the Merciful One

called it a guilt offering

with regard to payment of the principal, the stolen property of a convert is thereby equated with a guilt offering:

Just as a guilt offering,

which was sacrificed during a priestly watch, is shared by all of them,

and they do not divide one guilt offering

among some of the priests

against

another guilt offering that will come on a different occasion and will be divided among those who did not receive a portion the first time, so too this is the law

also with regard to

the

stolen property of a convert:

they

do not divide the stolen property of a convert against other stolen property of a convert. Or perhaps the stolen property of a convert

that arrived during the priests’ watch is not comparable to consecrated property, because

it is monetary property,

and the priests may agree among themselves that this time they will receive all the stolen property, while the others will receive it next time.

Rava subsequently resolved it:

the stolen property of a convert,

the Merciful One called it a guilt offering,

and its law is like that of all consecrated offerings, which may not be divided one against another.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, taught it explicitly: Rava said: Priests may not divide the stolen property of a convert against other stolen property of a convert. What is the reason? The Merciful One called it a guilt offering:

Rava raised a dilemma: The priests,

members of the watch who divide

the stolen property of a convert,

do they receive its property according to the law of

heirs

of the convert,

or

by virtue of being

recipients of priestly gifts

of the priesthood

are they?

What practical difference is there

as to the legal basis on which they divide the stolen property of a convert? And we explain:

For example, if he stole

from the convert

leaven, and

when the convert died and the robber confessed to his theft,

Passover had already passed over it

so that the leaven became prohibited for benefit and was not worth a peruta,

If you say that the priests receive the convert’s stolen property because

that the priests receive the convert’s stolen property because

they are heirs,

the robber can say to the priests: “Here is the leaven before you; if you wish, divide it among yourselves,” and he is not required to pay the value of the stolen property as it was when he stole it, since even to the convert who was robbed he could have said, “Here is your property before you.” It follows that

this is the inheritance—

that is, this is the inheritance

that their father bequeathed to them—

the deceased convert bequeathed them only the right to receive the leaven.

And if you say that the priests divide the stolen property of a convert because

that the priests divide the convert’s stolen property because

they are recipients of gifts

of the priesthood

are they,

the robber cannot say, “Here is the leaven before you,” since

the Merciful One stated that he must give them a gift

to the priests.

But

this leaven is not considered a gift, because

he has given them nothing,

since

it is merely dust,

as it is prohibited for benefit and is fit for no use whatsoever.

Rav Zeira raised the dilemma as follows: Even if you can say

that the priests, with regard to the stolen property of a convert,

are recipients of a gift,

the robber can say to them, “Here is the leaven before you.”

But

the statement of Rava that leaven is not considered a gift because it is merely dust

, was not our question—

that is not a difficulty.

That gift—

what he stole from the convert—

the Merciful One stated that he must give them,

whether it is worth a peruta or not. Therefore he gives the priests that very leaven that he stole from the convert.

Rather, this is what our dilemma is:

the question is as follows:

For example, if

a priest received

ten animals during the

division of

the stolen property of a convert,

is he

obligated to separate animal tithe from them

animals

or not?

If the priests divide the stolen property of a convert because they are

heirs

of the convert

are they,

the priest who received ten animals in his portion must separate animal tithe from them, because

the Master said: orphans who

Orphans who

purchased

ten animals

with

money from

the estate—

an inheritance that they have not yet divided among themselves—

, are obligated

to separate animal tithe.

Or perhaps

the priests

are recipients of gifts

of the priesthood

are they,

and they receive the stolen property of the convert by virtue of a gift.

And we learned:

one who purchases

or

one who

is given ten animals as a gift is exempt from animal tithe. What is the halakha?

Come and hear:

It is stated in Numbers [18:9, 10, 19]: “And the Lord spoke to Aaron: And I, behold, I have given you the charge of My gifts; of all the sacred things of the children of Israel, to you have I given them, for distinction, to you and to your sons. This shall be yours from the most holy things, from the fire... And this shall be yours, the gift of their offering... All the best of the oil... to you have I given them, the first fruits of all that is in their land, which they bring to the Lord, shall be yours... Every first issue of the womb... shall be yours; nevertheless, the firstborn of cattle... and their flesh shall be yours... All the sacred gifts that the children of Israel set apart for the Lord, I have given you and your sons and daughters with you, as an eternal statute; it is a covenant of salt before the Lord...”

Twenty-four priestly gifts were given to Aaron and his sons, and all of them were given through a generalization, specification, and generalization

at the beginning of the passage: “I have given you the charge of My gifts, of all the sacred things of the children of Israel”—this is the generalization. Afterwards each gift is specified individually—this is the specification. And again, at the end of the passage, it says: “All the sacred gifts I have given you and your sons”—here it returns to a generalization.

And

with regard to all of them it is said that they are

a covenant of salt

before the Lord.

Whoever fulfills all of them

and gives the priestly gifts in accordance with their halakhic requirements,

it is as though he fulfills

the entire Torah, which is expounded through

a generalization, specification, and generalization, and

it is as though he fulfilled all the offerings concerning which it is said

that they are a covenant of salt.

Whoever transgresses all of them

and does not give the priests their gifts,

it is as though he transgresses

the entire Torah, which is expounded through

a generalization, specification, and generalization, and

it is as though he nullified all the offerings concerning which it is said

that they are a covenant of salt.

And these are

the priestly gifts:

Ten

were given to be eaten

in the Temple

within the Temple courtyard;

four

were given to be eaten

in Jerusalem

throughout the city;

and ten in the outlying areas—

throughout the Land of Israel.

And it proceeds to explain:

Ten in the Temple:

1.

An animal sin offering;

2.

A bird sin offering;

3.

A definite guilt offering—

brought by a robber who swore falsely, one who misappropriated consecrated property and had relations with a betrothed maidservant, a nazirite, and a leper;

4.

A conditional guilt offering—brought by one who is uncertain whether he committed a transgression punishable by karet;

5.

The communal peace offerings—these are the sheep of the festival of Shavuot, and they are a peace offering;

6.

7.

The remainder

of the meal offering

of the Omer;

8.

The two loaves

of Shavuot;

9.

10.

The remainder of meal offerings.

the remainder of meal-offerings.

And four in Jerusalem:

1.

The firstborn,

the firstborn of a kosher animal;

2.

3.

What is set aside from the thanksgiving offering—

the breast, thigh, and loaves of the thanksgiving offering;

and what is set aside from

and

the ram

of a nazirite—

the breast and thigh, the cooked foreleg, the cake, and the wafer;

4.

The hides of consecrated offerings—the hides of sin offerings, burnt offerings, and guilt offerings.

And ten in the outlying areas: 1. The great teruma

; 2.

Terumat maaser;

3.

Ḥalla

separated from the dough;

4.

5.

The gifts—

the foreleg, cheeks, and stomach;

6.

Redemption of the firstborn son,

with five sela; 7.

Redemption of the firstborn donkey, with a sheep, with which the firstborn donkey is redeemed;

8.

An ancestral field—an inherited field that its owner consecrated but did not redeem, which goes to the priests of the watch at the Jubilee;

9.

A field devoted to the priests—one who devotes his field to the priests;

10.

The stolen property of a convert—if the robber swore concerning it and the convert died, he pays the principal and the additional fifth to the priests.

And at any rate it calls

the stolen property of a convert

a gift.

Infer from this:

the priests

are recipients of gifts; infer from this.

We learned in the Mishna:

If he gave the money to the members of the watch

and the robber died before bringing his guilt offering, the heirs cannot take it back from them.

Abaye said: Infer from this,

that by giving the

money

to the priests,

he

half-

achieved atonement

for himself

for half.

For if he did not achieve atonement, I would have said

that the priests must

return

the principal and the additional fifth

to the heirs.

What is the reason?

Because

the robber did not give it

to them

with that intention,

to the priests; presumably, he gave it only on the condition that he achieve atonement.

And we raise an objection:

If that is so,

with regard to an

animal sin offering whose owners died, it should emerge to non-sacred status

because

the

owners certainly

did not designate it with that intention

if they would not merit sacrificing it. Why, then, do we say that a sin offering whose owners died must be left to die?

They say: With regard to a sin offering whose owners died, it is a halakha transmitted through tradition that it goes to die.

And we raise another objection:

If that is so, a guilt offering whose

owners died should emerge to non-sacred status, because

the owners certainly

did not designate it with that intention,

that it should become consecrated even though they would not merit sacrificing it. Why, then, do we say that a guilt offering whose owners died must graze until it develops a blemish and then be sold?

And we answer:

A guilt offering also has a halakha transmitted through tradition: whatever in the case of a sin offering is left to die, in the case of a guilt offering is left to graze.

And we challenge this again:

If that is so, a levirate woman,

a woman

whose

husband died without offspring and

fell

to levirate marriage

before

his brother, who is

afflicted with boils,

for we maintain that one afflicted with boils is compelled to divorce his wife and does not perform levirate marriage with his brother’s wife, but only performs halitza—why does she require halitza?

Let her emerge

from his bond even

without halitza,

because

at

the time she married his brother, she certainly

did not consecrate herself to him with that intention—

that if her husband died she would fall before one afflicted with boils—

she did not consecrate herself

to her husband.

And we answer:

There,

since she was initially betrothed to a man who was not afflicted with boils,

we have clear evidence

that she agreed to become betrothed to him even with regard to this possibility: that if he died, she would perform levirate marriage with his brother.