Chullin 131a — the Talmud in English

The Gemara rejects:

here too

the case is one in which

they came into his possession while still in their untithed state —

the produce had been deposited with a kohen while it was still untithed,

and this tanna holds: “

gifts that have not been separated

are considered as though they have been separated” 1 ,

and the kohen acquired them, for he preceded [the owner] in taking possession of them [and it follows that produce deposited with a kohen is considered his, as “from the time of separation onward,” while, on the other hand, one who eats it is required to pay, because it is still not priestly gifts] .

Come and hear a proof: If the king’s officials seized

[that is, took by force]

the grain of his granary

belonging to an Israelite,

if

they seized the grain

as payment for his debt—

because of a debt he owed—

he must tithe

from another place and give the tithe to a priest, because this is considered as though he had sold his grain to another person, who would have to tithe it since he had already become obligated in tithes.

But if it was seized without compensation—

they seized his grain without payment and unlawfully—

he is exempt from tithing!

In any event, it is evident from the wording, “If it was seized as payment for his debt, he must tithe,” that this is property that has a claimant. For if he is not required to pay, why would he be required to tithe? The produce is no longer physically in his possession, since his grain was seized from him!? The Gemara rejects this:

That case is different,

where they said “he must tithe”—not with regard to extracting payment from him in court, since it is property that has no claimant. Rather, the owner must tithe

because he benefits from it—

because he gains money: he was obligated to repay his debt, and through the produce that was taken as a tithe, his debt was paid.

ta shma: If he said to him

an Israelite to a slaughterer:

sell me the innards of this cow

this cow,

and there were among them —

among those innards —

priestly gifts,

namely, the maw,

he gives them

the purchaser gives the gifts

to a kohen, and he does not deduct for him

the slaughterer does not deduct for the purchaser the value of the gifts

from the money

that he paid him, for the purchaser knew that there were gifts among the innards, and he did not give the money for them.

But if

he purchased from him by weight — namely, a litra of meat for such-and-such money, and the slaughterer weighed out the maw for him —

that is, he purchased a pound of meat for a certain sum, and the slaughterer weighed out the stomach for him,

he gives them

the purchaser gives the gifts

to a kohen,

for they belong to him,

and deducts for him from the money,

for he sold him something that was not his.

And

why

does the Israelite give them to a kohen?

let

this slaughterer who sold the gifts

be like one who damages priestly gifts or eats them!?

The Gemara rejects:

it is different there, for they are

those gifts

in their very substance,

and in such a case he is not exempt, for he can now give them to a kohen.

Come and hear: nine

things

belonging to a priest

:

teruma, the teruma of the tithe, ḥalla, the first shearing, the gifts, demai produce, first fruits, and the principal and the added fifth

which an Israelite pays to a priest if he robbed a convert who had no heirs, swore falsely concerning it, and the convert died before he admitted the theft.

For what purpose

—for which matter—did they say that “they belong to a priest”?

Is it not to teach that they can be taken from him by court order?!

The Gemara rejects this:

No.

Rather,

it is in accordance with what we learned: Why

—for what purpose—

did they say

that

“they belong to a priest”

? To teach

that

the priest need not specifically eat the gifts; rather, he

may purchase with them

slaves,

land, and non-kosher animals, and a creditor may take them in payment of his debt

7 , and a woman may take them as part of her marriage settlement, and

he may also purchase with them

a Torah scroll

8. That incident concerned a Levite

—a Levite—

who would snatch the gifts

from children who were bringing the foreleg, cheeks, and maw to a priest.

They came

and

reported this to Rav.

He said to them

Rav:

Is it not enough for him

—is it not enough for him—

that

when he slaughters his animal,

we do not take from him

the gifts in order to give them to a priest, but

he also snatches gifts

from others?!

The Gemara asks:

And what is Rav's

reason?

If

he holds that Levites are also

called “the people,” he should also take from them,

since concerning the gifts it is stated, “from the people, from those who slaughter the slaughtered animal.”

And if they are not called “the people,”

then

the Merciful One exempted them

from giving, as it is stated, “from the people”?

The Gemara explains: Rav

was uncertain whether they are called “the people” or whether they are not called “the people,”

and because of the uncertainty he exempted them from giving, for the burden of proof rests on the one who seeks to take property from another.

Rav Pappa was sitting and stating this teaching

—that Rav was uncertain whether Levites are called “the people.”

Rav Idi bar Avin raised an objection to Rav Pappa: There are four gifts to the poor in a vineyard,

namely:

fallen grapes, incompletely formed clusters, forgotten produce, and the corner of the field. And three

gifts to the poor

in grain,

which are:

gleanings, forgotten produce, and the corner of the field.

And

two

—two gifts—

on a tree,

namely:

forgotten produce and the corner of the field. All of them

—all these gifts—

do not grant the owners a benefit of choice.

The owner cannot give them to whichever poor person he wishes; rather, the poor person who comes first acquires them. [The Gemara below explains the reason.]

And even a poor person among the Israelites,

if he had a vineyard, grain, or a tree, they compel him and

take from him

the gifts.

But

the tithe for the poor, which is distributed

to the poor

in his house

after he brings the grain into the house, unlike the other gifts, which are given in the field,

does grant the owners a benefit of choice,

for he may give it to whichever poor person he wishes. Consequently, he may receive a benefit from this choice: another person may say to him, “Take this sela and give all your tithes to my poor relative.”

And

so too with regard to the tithe for the poor,

even a poor person among the Israelites—

it is taken from him.

As for the other gifts to priests, such as the foreleg, the cheeks, and the maw, they are not taken, neither from a priest

to give the gifts from his animals

to another priest

,

from one Levite to another Levite.

The Gemara explains the beraita:

The four gifts in a vineyard are fallen grapes, incompletely formed clusters, forgotten produce, and the corner of the field.

From where do we know that these gifts must be given?

As it is written: “And you shall not remove the incompletely formed clusters from your vineyard”

—this refers to incompletely formed clusters.

“And you shall not gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard”

—this refers to fallen grapes.

And it is written: “When you harvest your vineyard, you shall not remove the incompletely formed clusters after you,” and Rabbi Levi said:

“After you”—

this is forgotten produce,

because forgotten produce is always left behind him, as we learned in tractate Pe'a: “What is before him is not considered forgotten produce; what is behind him is considered forgotten produce.”

The corner of the field

is derived

by a conclusion based on an identical expression—

“after you”—

“after you” from the olive tree, as it is written:

“When you beat your olive tree, you shall not remove its splendor after you,” and the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: You shall not remove its splendor from it,

meaning that one shall not remove its corner from it [derived from the expression “you shall not remove its splendor,” meaning, “you shall not remove its adornment,” similar to the expression “you shall uproot all my produce,” meaning uprooting it from the root].