Bava Kamma 110b — the Talmud in English

Rava raised a question:

a robber wishing to achieve atonement brought the principal of what he had robbed, but

there is not

a peruta’s worth

for

all the priests of

the division of Jehoiarib, and there is

a peruta’s worth

for

all the priests of

the division of Jedaiah,

which has fewer priests there than the division of Jehoiarib,

what [is the law]?

Can he give the money to the division of Jedaiah and achieve atonement, or not?

And we inquire about it:

What are the circumstances? If we say

that he waited until the division of Jehoiarib had ended, and

gave it to Jedaiah during

the time of

the division of Jedaiah,

what is Rava asking?

Now

this is the division

that has

the right to receive payment from them, and it is obvious that he can 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 division of Jehoiarib,

and Rava asks

what [is the law]? Do we say: Since it is not its division

for now the division of Jehoiarib is standing and serving,

and

what he gave to Jedaiah

is nothing

and he did not achieve atonement,

or perhaps, since it was not fit for it

for the division of Jehoiarib

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, but

for

the division of

Jedaiah it stands?

The matter remains unresolved.

Rava raised a question: Priests

to whose division the ger’s robbery arrived,

what is the law concerning their dividing the ger’s robbery against the ger’s robbery—

that this time some of the priests take the ger’s robbery for themselves, and another time, when a ger’s robbery arrives at their division, 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 ger’s robbery has thereby been compared to a guilt-offering:

Just as a guilt-offering,

which was offered by a division of priests, is shared by all of them in the flesh of the guilt-offering, and

one does not divide a guilt-offering

among some of the priests

against a guilt-offering

that will come another time and which those who did not receive the previous time will divide among themselves, and such is the law

also

with

the ger’s robbery,

that

one does not divide the ger’s robbery against the ger’s robbery; or perhaps the ger’s robbery

that arrived at the priests’ division is not comparable to sacrificial offerings, because

it is money?

And the priests can agree among themselves that this time they will receive all the ger’s robbery as their share, and the next time the remainder will receive it.

Rava then resolved it:

the ger’s robbery,

the Merciful One called a guilt-offering,

and its law is like that of all sacrificial offerings, in which one does not divide one against another.

Rav Aḥa son of Rava taught it explicitly: Rava said: Priests do not divide the ger’s robbery against the ger’s robbery. What is the reason? The Merciful One called it a guilt-offering:

Rava raised a question: Priests

of the division who divide

the ger’s robbery,

do they receive its money according to the law of

heirs

of the ger,

or

by the law of

recipients of priestly gifts

?

Are they?

What practical difference is there

which law governs their dividing the ger’s robbery? And we explain:

For example, if he robbed

a ger

leavened bread, and

when the ger died and the robber confessed to his robbery,

Passover had already passed over it,

so that the leavened bread became forbidden in benefit and is not worth a peruta.

If you say that the priests receive the ger’s robbery because

that the priests receive the convert’s stolen property because

they are heirs,

the robber can say to the priests, “Here is the leavened bread before you; if you wish, divide it among yourselves,” and he is not required to pay the value of the robbery as it was at the time he robbed it, for he could likewise have said to the robbed ger himself, “Here is what is yours.” It follows that

this is the inheritance—

that this is the inheritance

which their father bequeaths to them—

that is, the dead ger bequeathed to them only the right to receive the leavened bread.

And if you say that the priests divide the ger’s robbery because

that the priests divide the convert’s stolen property because

they are recipients of gifts

of priesthood,

they are,

the robber cannot say, “Here is the leavened bread before you,” for

the Merciful One said that he should give them a gift

to the priests,

but

this leavened bread is not considered a gift, because

he has given them nothing,

since

it is mere dust,

as it is forbidden in benefit and fit for no use.

Rav Zeira raised the question as follows: Even if you should say

that with regard to the ger’s robbery the priests

are recipients of a gift,

the robber can say to them, “Here is the leavened bread before you,” and

that

which Rava said—that leavened bread is not considered a gift because it is mere dust—

was not our question:

this is not a difficulty,

for concerning that gift—

what he robbed from the ger—

the Merciful One said that he should give it to them,

whether it is worth a peruta or is not worth one. Therefore he gives that very leavened bread that he robbed from the ger to the priests.

Rather, when we raise the question

this is what we are asking:

For example, when ten animals fell to

a priest

in

the division of

the ger’s robbery,

does he

have to separate from them animal tithe

?

Or not?

If the priests divide the ger’s robbery because they

are heirs

of the ger,

they are,

the priest to whose portion ten animals fell must separate animal tithe from them, because

the Master said that orphans who

Orphans who

purchased

ten animals

with

money of

the estate’s undivided property—

an inheritance that they have not yet divided among themselves—

, are obligated

in animal tithe.

Or perhaps the priests

are

recipients of priestly gifts,

of priesthood,

they are,

and they receive the ger’s robbery by the law of a gift.

And we learned: “One who purchases”—

one who purchases ten animals—

and

likewise

one given to him as a gift is exempt from animal tithe.” What [is the law]?

Come and hear:

It is stated in Numbers: “And Moses spoke to Aaron: And I, behold, I have given you the charge of My offerings, for all the sacred things of the children of Israel; to you I have given them, for an anointing, and to your sons. This shall be yours from the most holy things, from the fire, and so forth. And this shall be yours, the offering of their gift, and so forth. All the best of oil, and so forth, to you I have given them. The first fruits of all that is in their land, which they bring to the Lord, shall be yours, and so forth. Every first issue of the womb, and so forth, shall be yours. But the firstborn of cattle, and so forth, and their flesh shall be yours, and so forth. All the offerings of the sacred things that the children of Israel raise to the Lord I have given to you and to your sons and to your daughters with you, as an eternal statute; it is a covenant of salt before the Lord, and so forth.”

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

At the beginning of the passage, “I have given you the charge of My offerings, for all the sacred things of the children of Israel,” is a generalization; afterward each gift is specified individually, which is a specification; and again at the end of the passage it says, “All the offerings of the sacred things I have given to you and to your sons,” where it returns and generalizes.

And

concerning all of them it is said that they are

a covenant of salt

before the Lord.

Whoever fulfills them

giving the priestly gifts according to their law,

it is as though he fulfills

the entire Torah, which was given to be expounded by

a generalization, a specification, and a generalization, and

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

“a covenant of salt.”

Whoever transgresses them

and does not give the priests their gifts,

it is as though he transgresses

the entire Torah, which is expounded by

a generalization, a specification, and a generalization, and

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

“a covenant of salt.”

And these are

the priestly gifts:

ten

were given to be eaten

in the Temple

within the courtyard;

and four

were given to be eaten

in Jerusalem

throughout the city;

and ten in the borders—

throughout the Land of Israel.

And he proceeds to explain:

Ten in the Temple:

one,

an animal sin-offering;

two,

a bird sin-offering;

three,

a definite guilt-offering,

brought by a robber who swore falsely, one who misused sacred property, one who came upon a betrothed maidservant, a nazirite, and a leper;

four,

a conditional guilt-offering, brought by one who is uncertain whether he committed a transgression punishable by excision;

five,

the communal peace-offerings, these are the sheep of the festival of Assembly, and they are a peace-offering;

six,

the log of oil of a leper;

seven,

the remainder of

the omer offering;

eight,

the two loaves

of the festival of Assembly;

nine,

the showbread;

ten,

the remainder of meal-offerings.

And four in Jerusalem:

one,

the firstborn,

the firstborn of a pure animal;

two,

the first fruits;

three,

that which is raised from the thanksgiving-offering, the breast, the thigh, and the loaves of the thanksgiving-offering,

and

that which is raised from

the ram

of a nazirite, the breast and thigh, the cooked foreleg, the cake, and the wafer;

d,

four,

the hides of sacrificial offerings, the hides of sin-offerings, burnt-offerings, and guilt-offerings.

And ten in the borders: one, the teruma

of the great teruma;

two,

the

terumat maaser; three,

the hallah

separated from the dough;

four, the first of the fleece;

five,

the gifts, the foreleg, cheeks, and stomach;

six,

the redemption of the son, with five sela;

seven,

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

eight,

an ancestral field, an inheritance field that its owner consecrated and did not redeem, which goes to the priests of the division in the Jubilee;

nine,

a field devoted, one who devotes his field to the priests;

ten,

the ger’s robbery, if he swore to him and the ger died, he pays the principal and the fifth to the priests.

And in any event it calls

the ger’s robbery

a gift.

Learn from this:

the priests

are recipients of gifts; learn from this:

We learned in the Mishna:

If he gave the money to the men of the division

and the robber died before he brought his guilt-offering, the heirs cannot take it from their possession.

Abaye said: Learn from this that by giving the

By giving the

money

to the priests,

he

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 fifth

to the heirs.

What is the reason?

Because

the robber did not give it on the understanding

the robber

to him,

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

And we object:

But from now on,

the animal of

a sin-offering whose owners died—let it go out to non-sacred status

because

since

certainly

its owner did not designate it on the understanding

that he would not merit offering it, and why do we say that a sin-offering whose owners died goes to death?

They said: With regard to a sin-offering whose owners died, it is a halakha received, that it goes to death.

And we again object:

But from now on, a guilt-offering whose

owners died—let it go out to non-sacred status, since

certainly

its owner did not designate it on the understanding

that it would be consecrated although he would not merit offering it, and why do we say that a guilt-offering whose owners died grazes until a blemish occurs in it and it is sold?

And we answer:

A guilt-offering also has a halakha received: whatever in a sin-offering dies, in a guilt-offering grazes.

And we again refute:

But from now on, a yevama,

a woman

whose

husband died without offspring, and

fell

for levirate marriage

before

his brother, who is

afflicted with boils—

for we hold 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 need halitza?

Let her go out

from him even

without halitza,

because

since

at the time she married his brother,

on the understanding of this—that if her husband died she would fall before one afflicted with boils—she

she certainly

did not consecrate herself

to her husband.

And we answer:

There,

where she initially became 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 enter levirate marriage with his brother.