Chullin 131b (קלא:) — the Talmud in English

Three gifts from the produce:

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

From where do we derive this?

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

This refers to 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,”

which refers to the forgotten sheaf.

Two gifts from a tree,

namely

the forgotten fruit and the corner of the field;

from where do we derive this?

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

This refers to the corner of the field [as explained above]. And from the word

“after you”

they expounded:

This is the forgotten fruit,

as above, for forgetting applies only to what is behind one .

And none of all these gifts affords the owners a benefit of discretion. What is the reason?

Because in all of these the expression

“abandonment” is written,

and the meaning of the expression “abandonment” is that he must leave them where they are as ownerless property, rather than distribute them as he wishes. [In some cases it says, “you shall abandon.” In others it says, “it shall be,” whose meaning is abandonment: he leaves them where they are and does not himself give them as he wishes.]

The Gemara clarifies the source of the law taught in the beraita: “

And even a poor person among the Jewish people is compelled to relinquish it from his possession”—

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

for the poor and the convert you shall abandon them,”

to admonish a poor person concerning his own [gleanings].

This verse is thus expounded: “And the gleanings of your harvest you shall not gather—for the poor!” That is, I also admonish the poor person not to gather them.

And concerning what we learned: “

And the poor man’s tithe that is distributed in the house affords the owners a benefit of discretion”—

what is the reason?

Because the expression

“giving” is written with regard to it.

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

And concerning what we learned with regard to the poor man’s tithe distributed in the house: “

And even a poor person among the Jewish people is compelled to relinquish it from his possession”—

from where do we derive this?

As Rav Ila'a said: He derives by means of a

gzera shava

from the expression “to the convert”

—“to the convert” from there,

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

Just as there

in the case of gleanings,

a poor person is admonished concerning his own,

as they expounded above,

so here,

in the case of the poor man’s tithe ,

a poor person is admonished concerning his own. 3

We learned in a beraita:

And with regard to the other gifts of the priesthood, such as the foreleg, the cheeks, and the maw, they are not taken from a priest by a priest, nor from a Levite by a Levite.

The Gemara infers:

If from a Levite to a priest—

they are taken

from the Levite—

apparently, they are called

the Levites

“the people,”

and therefore the gifts are taken from them, because it is stated: “From the people, those who slaughter the sacrifice.” This is apparently difficult, since above Rav was uncertain whether the Levites are called “the people.”

The Gemara explains: What we learned, that the gifts are taken from a Levite by a priest, refers to

“something like the foreleg,” and not

to an actual

“foreleg,”

literally.

And what is meant by “something like the foreleg”?—

“something like a foreleg”?

the first tithe!

It is taken from a Levite and given to a priest. [The beraita preferred to define this as “something like the foreleg” because the verse “from the people, those who slaughter the sacrifice” 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

in the first place; how can it be taken from him and given to a priest?

The Gemara explains: It is in accordance with the opinion of

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya,

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

As it was taught in a beraita: Teruma

is given

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

the first tithe is given

also to a priest. 4

The Gemara asks:

You may say that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said

that the first tithe is given

“also to a priest,”

but who says that it must be given specifically

to a priest and not to a Levite?

If so, why is it taken from a Levite and given 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 for not having gone up to the Land of Israel in his time .

The Gemara still asks:

You may say that Ezra penalized

the Levites

by not giving it to them,

but who says that it may be

taken from them?

The Gemara therefore retracts its explanation:

Rather, what was said above—

“something like the foreleg

and not an actual foreleg”—

does not refer to the first tithe, because in truth it is not taken from a Levite if he has taken it.

does not refer to the first tithe, because in truth it is not taken from a Levite if he has taken it.

And what is meant by “something like the foreleg”?—

“something like a foreleg”?

the first shearing!

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

Come and hear: This is the general rule: Anything that possesses sanctity

—that is sacred and forbidden to non-priests—

such as teruma, the tithe of teruma, and ḥalla,

if an Israelite gives them to a Levite,

they are taken from them

and given to a priest .

But anything that does not possess sanctity, such as the foreleg, the cheeks, and the maw,

which come from non-sacred animals,

is not taken from them. This proves that Levites are not called “the people,” and therefore the gifts are not taken from them. If so, why was Rav uncertain?

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 intent is that, with regard to “something like the foreleg,” it is not taken from them:

“something like the foreleg

and not an actual foreleg,”

literally.

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. Although it is given only to priests, if it is given to a Levite, it is not taken from him. In truth, however, it is possible that Levites are called “the people,” and an actual foreleg is taken from them.

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 that

if

one slaughters

for a Levite or an Israelite—

he is obligated! This proves that the gifts are taken from a Levite.

This proves that the gifts are taken from a Levite.

The Gemara rejects this: No.

Do not say, “If for a Levite or an Israelite, he is obligated”; rather, say

only

“If for an Israelite, he is obligated,”

but in truth, one who slaughters for a Levite is exempt, because the gifts are not taken from him.

The Gemara asks:

But

one who slaughters

for a Levite—is he exempt?! If so,

why did we learn that one who slaughters for a priest or a gentile is exempt?

Let it teach

a greater novelty:

One who slaughters for a Levite or a gentile is exempt from the gifts,

which would teach that even if he slaughtered for a Levite he is exempt because the gifts are not taken from him.

And furthermore,

there is another difficulty:

Was it not taught

explicitly:

One who slaughters for a priest or a gentile is exempt from the gifts,

but if he slaughters

for a Levite or an Israelite—

he is obligated! This is difficult for Rav's uncertainty as to whether Levites are called “the people,” since here it is clearly established that they are called “the people.”

This contradicts Rav's uncertainty as to whether Levites are called “people,” since here it is clear that they are called “people”!”

The challenge against Rav is conclusive!

Rav could have said to you: The reason I was uncertain whether the Levites are called “the people” or not—

The fact that I am uncertain whether the Levites are called “people”

it is a dispute between tannaim

[a dispute between tannaim]

.

As it was taught:

It is written concerning the Yom Kippur service:

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

and we expound:

This refers to the innermost sanctum,

for the service of the bull and the goat atones for impurity that occurred there. And the phrase

“the Tent of Meeting”

is expounded:

This refers to the Sanctuary!

For it atones for impurity that occurred in the Sanctuary. And the phrase

“and for the altar”—

as its plain meaning,

for it atones for one who performed the service while impure on the altar. And the phrase

“he shall make atonement”

is expounded:

These are the courtyards

—for impurity that occurred in the courtyard.

“Priests”—

as its plain meaning. “The people of the congregation”—

these are the Israelites. “He shall make atonement”—

these are the Levites.

And another beraita taught

that we expound the phrase

“he shall make atonement”—

these are the servants

[Canaanite slaves, who require atonement because they are obligated in mitzvot like a woman, and a woman requires atonement, since wherever a punishment is stated, men and women are equal].

Is it not that they disagree concerning this:

these two beraitot—

one

—the tanna of the latter beraita—

holds that

the Levites

are called “the people,”

and are included in the verse “the people of the congregation,” so that the verse “he shall make atonement” remains available to derive the inclusion of servants.

And the other

—the tanna of the first beraita—

holds that

the Levites

are not called “the people,”

and are not included in “the people of the congregation.” Therefore, we derive their inclusion from the phrase “he shall make atonement,” and the verse is not available to include servants.

We raise a difficulty:

And Rav, if he agrees with this tanna,

let him say

so in accordance with his view;

and if he agrees with that tanna,

let him say

so in accordance with his view.

We explain: Rav

was uncertain whether the halakha is in accordance with this tanna or that tanna.

Marimar expounded: The halakha is in accordance with Rav,

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

And

He further expounded: D.

the halakha follows Rav Hisda

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

Ulla would give the priestly gifts to a kohenet

[a kohenet], even if she is married to an Israelite, since they are not forbidden to non-kohanim, as they have no sanctity. And if this is because it is written, “And he shall give it to the kohen,” Ulla holds that a kohenet is included as well.

Rava challenged

Ulla:

“A kohenet’s meal-offering is eaten”

its remainders are eaten like those of an Israelite’s meal-offering.

“A kohen’s meal-offering”

“is not eaten,”

as it is written concerning it: “It shall be entirely burned.”

And if you say

that wherever it is written

“kohen”

even a kohenet

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

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

and a kohenet is included as well?