Chullin 131b — the Talmud in English

Three pertaining to produce: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

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

From where do we know this?

As it is written: “And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not finish reaping the corner of your field when you reap, and the gleaning of your harvest,” and so on.

This is the corner of the field and the gleanings. And it is further stated,

“When you reap your harvest in your field, and you forget a sheaf in the field,”

that is, the forgotten sheaf.

Two pertaining to a tree

that is,

the forgotten sheaf and the corner of the field,

from where do we know this?

As it is written: “When you beat your olive tree, you shall not beautify after you,” and the school of Rabbi Ishmael taught: that you shall not take its beauty from it.

And this is the corner of the field [as explained above]. And from that which is written

“after you,”

they expounded:

this is the forgotten sheaf,

and as above, that forgetting applies only to what is behind him.

And all of them do not contain benefit of discretion for the owners. What is the reason?

Because with regard to all of these the language of

abandonment is written concerning them,

and the meaning of the language “abandonment” is that he leaves them in their place as ownerless property, and does not distribute them as he wishes. [For with regard to some it says “you shall abandon.” And with regard to some it says “it shall be,” whose meaning is abandonment: he leaves them in their place and does not himself give them as he wishes].

And the Gemara clarifies the source of the law that we learned in a beraita,

“And even a poor person of Israel is removed from his possession,”

as it is written: “And the gleaning of your harvest you shall not gather

—for the poor person and for the stranger you shall abandon them”—

to warn a poor person concerning his own.

And this verse is expounded as follows: “And the gleaning of your harvest you shall not gather—for the poor person!” That is, I also warn the poor person not to gather it.

And concerning that which we learned,

“And the poor person’s tithe that is divided in the house contains benefit of discretion for the owners,”

what is the reason?

Because the language of

“giving” is written concerning it.

As it is stated: “And you shall give it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the orphan, and to the widow,” and the language of giving means that it is in his power to give it to whomever he wishes.

And concerning that which we learned with regard to the poor person’s tithe that is divided in the house,

“And even a poor person of Israel is removed from his possession,”

from where do we know this?

For Rav Ilaa said: He derived

a gezerah shavah

“to the stranger”

—“to the stranger” from there—

from the gleanings, concerning which it is stated: “And the gleaning of your harvest you shall not gather—for the poor person and for the stranger.” And they expounded:

Just as there

with regard to the gleanings

a poor person is warned concerning his own,

as they expounded above,

so here,

with regard to the poor person’s tithe,

a poor person is warned concerning his own 3.

We learned in a beraita:

“And the other gifts of priesthood, such as the foreleg, the cheeks, and the maw, are not removed either from a priest to a priest or from a Levite to a Levite.”

And the Gemara infers:

“But from a Levite to a priest”

they remove them!

the gifts.

Apparently they are called

the Levites

“the people,”

and therefore the gifts are taken from them, because it is stated: “From the people who slaughter the slaughtered animal.” Yet this is apparently difficult, for earlier Rav was uncertain whether Levites are called “the people.”

The Gemara explains: that which we learned, that they remove from a Levite to a priest, refers to

“something like the foreleg,” and not

to

“the foreleg”

itself.

And what is it? “Something like the foreleg”?

“Something like the foreleg”

is the first tithe!

This they remove from a Levite to a priest [and the beraita preferred to define it as “something like the foreleg” because the verse “from the people who slaughter the slaughtered animal” is stated with regard to the foreleg, the cheeks, and the maw, and therefore it wished to compare it to the foreleg].

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

“The first tithe”?

But

it belongs to the Levite

from the outset, so how do they remove it from him and give it to a priest?

It explains: it is

in accordance with Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah,

who held that the first tithe is given to a priest.

For it was taught in a beraita: Teruma

is given

to a priest; the first tithe to a Levite—these are the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says:

The first tithe is given

also to a priest 4.

The Gemara objects:

“You may say that Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said

that the first tithe is given

‘also to a priest,’

but that it must be given specifically

to a priest and not to a Levite—who said this?

If so, why do they remove it from a Levite to a priest? It may also be given to a Levite.

The Gemara answers:

Yes! After Ezra penalized them,

it is given specifically to a priest and not to a Levite, because Ezra penalized the Levites because they had not gone up to the Land of Israel in his days.

The Gemara still objects:

“You may say that Ezra penalized

the Levites

not to give to them,

but as for

taking from them, who said this?”

Therefore the Gemara retracts:

Rather,

what they said above,

“something like the foreleg

and not the foreleg,”

does not refer to the first tithe, because in truth it is not removed from the Levite if he took it.

And what is it, “something like the foreleg”?

“Something like the foreleg”— \-

the first shearing!

With regard to it, “from the people” was not stated, and therefore the Levites too are obligated to give it.

Come and hear: This is the rule: Any matter that has sanctity

—that is holy and forbidden to non-priests—

such as teruma, the teruma of the tithe, and dough-offering,

if an Israelite gave them to a Levite,

they remove them from their possession

of the Levites and give them to a priest.

And any matter that does not have sanctity, such as the foreleg, the cheeks, and the maw,

which come from non-consecrated animals,

they do not remove it from their possession. It is proved that Levites are not called “the people,” and therefore they do not remove it from their possession. If so, why was Rav uncertain about this?

This proves that Levites are not called “people,” and therefore the gifts are not taken from them. If so, why did Rav leave the matter unresolved?

The Gemara answers: The beraita’s intention is that with regard to “something like the foreleg,” they do not remove it from their possession:

“something like the foreleg

and not the foreleg

itself.

And what is it? The first tithe, and after Ezra penalized them,

so that it should be given only to priests and not to Levites. And although it is given only to priests, if it was given to a Levite, they do not remove it from his possession. But in truth, it is possible that the Levites are called “the people,” and the actual foreleg is removed from their possession.

Come and hear:

An Israelite

who slaughters for a priest or

for

a gentile is exempt from the gifts,

because a priest and a gentile are exempt from the gifts. It follows:

but

one who slaughters

for a Levite or for an Israelite

is obligated! It is proved that the gifts are removed from a Levite’s possession.

The Gemara rejects this: No.

Not

“but for a Levite and for an Israelite he is obligated”; rather, say

only

“but for an Israelite he is obligated,”

whereas in truth one who slaughters for a Levite is exempt because they do not remove it from his possession.

The Gemara objects:

But

one who slaughters

for a Levite—what of him, is he exempt!? If so,

why did we learn “one who slaughters for a priest and for a gentile”?

Let it teach

a greater novelty than this:

“One who slaughters for a Levite and for a gentile is exempt from the gifts,”

and we would understand that even if he slaughtered for a Levite he is exempt because they do not remove it from his possession.

And furthermore,

there is another difficulty:

Is it not taught

explicitly:

“One who slaughters for a priest and for a gentile is exempt from the gifts,”

but if he slaughtered

for a Levite and for an Israelite

he is obligated! This is difficult for Rav, who was uncertain whether Levites are called “the people,” for here it is proved that they are called “the people”!

A refutation of Rav!

He can say to you:

Rav: As for this matter about which I am uncertain, whether Levites are called “the people” or not,

it is a dispute among

tannaim

[a dispute among tannaim]

.

For it was taught:

It is written concerning the Yom Kippur service,

“And he shall make atonement for the Holy Sanctuary,”

and we expound:

this is the innermost chamber. The service of the bull and the goat atones for impurity that occurred inside. And that which is written

“the Tent of Meeting”

we expound:

this is the Sanctuary! For it atones for impurity that occurred in the Sanctuary. And that which is written

“and for the altar”

is according to its plain meaning,

that it atones for one who performed service in impurity at the altar. And that which is written

“he shall make atonement”

we expound:

these are the courtyards

—impurity that occurred in the courtyard.

“Priests”

is according to its plain meaning. “The people of the congregation” \-

these are Israelites. “He shall make atonement”

these are the Levites.

And it was taught elsewhere

that we expound

“he shall make atonement”

—these are slaves

[Canaanite slaves, who require atonement because they are obligated in mitzvot like a woman, and a woman requires atonement, for wherever punishment is written, man and woman are equal].

What, is it not with regard to this that they disagree,

these beraitot:

that one

—the tanna of the later beraita—

holds

that the Levites

are called “the people,”

and are included in the verse “the people of the congregation,” and the verse “he shall make atonement” is superfluous in order to derive slaves.

And the other

—the tanna of the earlier beraita—

holds

that the Levites

are not called “the people,”

and are not included in “the people of the congregation”; therefore we expound them from that which is written “he shall make atonement,” and the verse is not superfluous for slaves.

We raise a difficulty:

And Rav, if he holds like this tanna,

let him say

like him,

and if he holds like this tanna,

let him say

like him?

And we explain: Rav

was uncertain whether [the halakha is] like this tanna or like that tanna.

Marimar expounded: The halakha is in accordance with Rav

who was uncertain, and therefore we do not take [the gifts] from Levites if they took them.

Marimar expounded: The halakha follows Rav,

who was uncertain; therefore, we do not take the gifts from Levites if they have taken them.

And

he further expounded, section 4:

the halakha is like Rav Hisda

who said: one who damages the priestly gifts or eats them is exempt.

Ulla would give the gift to a female kohen [

a female kohen] and even one married to an Israelite, since they are not forbidden to non-kohanim, for there is no sanctity in them. And if it is because it is written, “And he shall give it to the kohen,” Ulla holds that even a female kohen is included .

Rava raised an objection

to Ulla:

A female kohen’s meal-offering is eaten

its remnants are eaten, like the meal-offering of an Israelite.

A kohen’s meal-offering

is not eaten,

for it is written concerning it, “It shall be wholly offered.”

And if you say

that wherever it is written

“kohen”—

even a female kohen

is included, then why is a female kohen’s meal-offering eaten,

when it is written, “And every meal-offering of a kohen shall be wholly offered; it shall not be eaten,”

and even a female kohen is included?