לְמִשְׁמֶרֶת יְדַעְיָה מַהוּ?

the value of one peruta for each priest on the priestly watch of Jedaiah, which had fewer priests, what is the halakha?

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִילֵימָא דִּיהַבֵיהּ לִידַעְיָה בְּמִשְׁמֶרֶת יְדַעְיָה, הָא אִית בֵּיהּ!

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances with regard to which Rava raised his dilemma? If we say that the dilemma is raised in a case where he gave the money to the priestly watch of Jedaiah, during the time of the Temple service of the priestly watch of Jedaiah, there would be no dilemma. There is in this payment enough value for each priest to receive one peruta.

לָא צְרִיכָא, דִּיהַבֵיהּ לִידַעְיָה בְּמִשְׁמַרְתּוֹ דִּיהוֹיָרִיב, מַאי? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דְּלָאו מִשְׁמַרְתּוֹ הוּא – וְלֹא כְלוּם הוּא, אוֹ דִּלְמָא כֵּיוָן דְּלָא חָזֵי לֵיהּ, מֵעִיקָּרָא לִידַעְיָה קָאֵי? תֵּיקוּ.

The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to raise the dilemma in a case where he gave it to the Jedaiah priestly watch during the time of the Temple service of the priestly watch of Joiarib; in that case, what is the halakha? The Gemara explains the two possibilities: Do we say that since it is not during Jedaiah’s priestly watch, it is nothing, i.e., it is not a fulfillment of the mitzva to return the stolen item? Or perhaps we say that since it was not fit for the Joiarib priestly watch, as it was of insufficient value, from the outset it stands ready for the Jedaiah priestly watch, and by giving it to them he fulfilled the mitzva? The Gemara comments: The question shall stand unresolved.

בָּעֵי רָבָא: כֹּהֲנִים, מַהוּ שֶׁיְּחַלְּקוּ גֶּזֶל הַגֵּר כְּנֶגֶד גֶּזֶל הַגֵּר?

Rava raises another dilemma: With regard to priests, what is the halakha concerning whether they may divide among themselves the restitution for robbery of a convert, with some priests taking a larger share in exchange for taking a smaller share in the restitution for another robbery of a convert? In other words, can the priests arrange that one priest or several priests will receive the restitution for one robbery and another priest or several priests will receive the restitution for a different robbery another time?

מִי אָמְרִינַן: אָשָׁם קָרְיֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא, מָה אָשָׁם אֵין חוֹלְקִין אָשָׁם כְּנֶגֶד אָשָׁם, אַף גֶּזֶל אֵין חוֹלְקִין גֶּזֶל הַגֵּר כְּנֶגֶד גֶּזֶל הַגֵּר. אוֹ דִּלְמָא גֶּזֶל הַגֵּר מָמוֹנָא הוּא?

He explains the two possibilities: Do we say that the Merciful One labeled the stolen item with the term “guilt,” and therefore, just as with a guilt-offering the priests may not divide portions of a guilt-offering, with some priests taking a larger share in exchange for taking a smaller share in other portions of a guilt-offering, but rather all priests of the watch share in the sacrificial flesh, so too with the restitution for robbery: The priests may not divide the restitution for robbery of a convert, with some priests taking a larger share in exchange for taking a smaller share in the restitution for another robbery of a convert? Or perhaps the restitution for robbery of a convert paid to priests is not in fact an offering, but it is monetary restitution, and monetary restitution may be divided in this manner among the priests?

הֲדַר פְּשָׁטָהּ: אָשָׁם קָרְיֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא. רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא מַתְנֵי לָהּ בְּהֶדְיָא, אָמַר רָבָא: כֹּהֲנִים אֵין חוֹלְקִין גֶּזֶל הַגֵּר כְּנֶגֶד גֶּזֶל הַגֵּר, מַאי טַעֲמָא? אָשָׁם קָרְיֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא.

Rava then resolves it himself: The Merciful One labeled the stolen item with the term “guilt,” so it may not be divided in this manner. Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, teaches it explicitly as a ruling, and not as a dilemma and solution, that Rava says: Priests may not divide the restitution for robbery of a convert with some priests taking a larger share in exchange for taking a smaller share in the restitution for another robbery of a convert. What is the reason? The Merciful One labeled the stolen item with the term “guilt.”

בָּעֵי רָבָא: כֹּהֲנִים בְּגֶזֶל הַגֵּר, יוֹרְשִׁין הָווּ אוֹ מְקַבְּלֵי מַתָּנוֹת הָווּ?

§ Rava raises a dilemma: What is the status of priests with regard to the restitution for robbery of a convert? Are they considered heirs of the convert or are they recipients of gifts?

לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינָּהּ – כְּגוֹן שֶׁגָּזַל חָמֵץ שֶׁעָבַר עָלָיו הַפֶּסַח; אִי אָמְרַתְּ יוֹרְשִׁין הָווּ – הַיְינוּ הַאי דְּיָרְתֵי מוֹרֵית, וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ מְקַבְּלֵי מַתָּנוֹת הָווּ – מַתָּנָה קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא דְּנֵיתִיב לְהוּ, וְהָא לָא קָא יָהֵיב לְהוּ מִידֵי, דְּעַפְרָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא.

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference? The Gemara answers: The difference would be in a case where one robbed a convert of leavened bread, and then Passover elapsed over it, rendering it an item from which one is prohibited to derive benefit and therefore valueless. If you say that the priests are heirs, this is what they inherit: Only that which the robber bequeaths to them, and the priests receive the valueless leavened bread as is. And if you say that they are recipients of gifts, it is a gift that the Merciful One is saying that the robber should give to them, and this robber is not giving them anything, for it is merely dust. Therefore, the robber should have to pay the priests what the value of the bread had been at the time of the robbery.

רַב זְעֵירָא בָּעֵי הָכִי: אֲפִילּוּ אִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר מְקַבְּלֵי מַתָּנָה הָווּ, הָא לָא אִיבַּעֲיָא לָן דְּהַהִיא מַתָּנָה אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא דְּנֵיתִיב לְהוּ,

Rav Zeira raises the dilemma like this: Even if you say that they are recipients of gifts, this question, i.e., whether a robber of leavened bread over which Passover then elapsed fulfills the mitzva to return the stolen item even in this devalued state, is not our dilemma, as this is certainly a fulfillment of the obligation. For this stolen item is the gift with regard to which the Merciful One states in the Torah that the robber should give it to the priests.

אֶלָּא כִּי קָמִבָּעֲיָא לָן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לוֹ עֶשֶׂר בְּהֵמוֹת בְּגֶזֶל הַגֵּר, מִחַיְּיבֵי לְאַפְרוּשֵׁי מִינַּיְיהוּ מַעֲשֵׂר אוֹ לָא?

Rav Zeira continues: Rather, when we have a dilemma whether the priests are considered as heirs or as recipients of gifts, the practical difference arises in a case where ten animals came into the priest’s possession for payment of robbery of a convert. The dilemma is: Are they obligated to separate tithe from them, or not?

יוֹרְשִׁין הָווּ, דְּאָמַר מָר: קָנוּ בִּתְפִיסַת הַבַּיִת – חַיָּיבִין, אוֹ דִּלְמָא מְקַבְּלֵי מַתָּנוֹת הָווּ, וּתְנַן: הַלּוֹקֵחַ וְהַנִּיתָּן לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה – פָּטוּר מִמַּעֲשַׂר בְּהֵמָה, מַאי?

The Gemara explains the two possibilities: Perhaps they are heirs, in which case they will be obligated, for the Master said in a mishna (Bekhorot 56b) that if heirs acquired animals in the jointly held property of the estate, i.e., the heirs jointly owned the animals as the inheritance had yet to be divided, they are obligated to separate tithes from animals born to those animals, and the same will apply to the priests. Or perhaps they are recipients of gifts, and we learned in a mishna (Bekhorot 55b): One who purchases an animal or one who has an animal given to him as a gift is exempt from the obligation to separate the animal tithe, and the same will apply to the priests. What is the halakha in this case?

תָּא שְׁמַע: עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה נִיתְּנוּ לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו, וְכוּלָּן נִיתְּנוּ בִּכְלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל וּבְרִית מֶלַח,

The Gemara answers: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from a baraita (Tosefta, Ḥalla 2:7–10): Twenty-four priestly gifts were given to Aaron and to his sons, and all of them were given with a derivation from a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization; and with a covenant of salt. The verses in the book of Numbers, chapter 18, detail the gifts of the priesthood. The first verse (18:8) is written in general terms, followed by verses listing the actual gifts (9–18), followed by a final verse written in general terms. The method of interpreting verses written in this manner is one of the thirteen hermeneutical principles. Additionally, the phrase: “Covenant of salt,” is written in the final verse (18:19), and is referring to all of the gifts of the priesthood.

כָּל הַמְקַיְּימָן – כְּאִילּוּ מְקַיֵּים כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל וּבְרִית מֶלַח, כָּל הָעוֹבֵר עֲלֵיהֶם – כְּאִילּוּ עוֹבֵר עַל כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל וּבְרִית מֶלַח;

This serves to teach that anyone who fulfills the mitzva of giving the gifts of the priesthood is considered as if he fulfills the entire Torah, which is interpreted using the principle of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization; and as if he has brought all of the offerings, concerning which there is a covenant of salt. And anyone who violates the mitzva of giving the gifts of the priesthood is considered as if he violates the entire Torah, which is interpreted using the principle of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization; and as if he has not brought all of the offerings, concerning which there is a covenant of salt.

וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: עֶשֶׂר בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְאַרְבַּע בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְעֶשֶׂר בַּגְּבוּלִים; עֶשֶׂר בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ: חַטָּאת בְּהֵמָה, וְחַטָּאת הָעוֹף, וְאָשָׁם וַדַּאי, וְאָשָׁם תָּלוּי, וְזִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִבּוּר, וְלוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע, וּמוֹתַר הָעוֹמֶר, וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם, וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, וּשְׁיָרֵי מְנָחוֹת.

The baraita continues: And these are the twenty-four gifts: There are ten in the Temple, and four in Jerusalem, and ten in the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael. The ten gifts that the priests consume only in the Temple are an animal sin-offering; and a bird sin-offering; and a definite guilt-offering; and a provisional guilt-offering; and communal peace-offerings, i.e., lambs offered on Shavuot; and a log of oil that accompanies the guilt-offering of a recovered leper; and the surplus of the omer, i.e., what remains of the measure of barley brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of Nisan; and the two loaves, i.e., the public offering of two loaves from the new wheat offered on Shavuot; and the shewbread; and the leftovers of grain-offerings, after the priests have offered the required handful.

וְאַרְבַּע בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם: הַבְּכוֹרָה, וְהַבִּיכּוּרִים, וְהַמּוּרָם מִן הַתּוֹדָה וְאֵיל נָזִיר, וְעוֹרוֹת קֳדָשִׁים.

The baraita continues: And the four gifts that the priests consume anywhere in Jerusalem: The firstborn of kosher animals; and the first fruits; and the portions separated for the priests from the thanks-offering and the nazirite’s ram; and hides of consecrated animals.

וַעֲשָׂרָה בַּגְּבוּלִין: תְּרוּמָה, וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר, וְחַלָּה, וְרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, וְהַמַּתָּנוֹת, וּפִדְיוֹן הַבֵּן, וּפִדְיוֹן פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר, וּשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה, וּשְׂדֵה חֲרָמִים, וְגֶזֶל הַגֵּר.

The baraita continues: And ten gifts that the priests consume anywhere in the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael: Teruma, i.e., the portion of the produce designated for the priest; and teruma of the tithe, which the Levite separates from the tithe he receives and gives to a priest; and ḥalla, i.e., the portion of dough of the five main grains designated for the priest; and the first of the sheared wool; and the gifts of non-sacrificial, slaughtered animals, namely, the right foreleg, the cheeks, and the maw; and money given for the redemption of the firstborn son; and a sheep or goat given as redemption of the firstborn donkey; and a consecrated ancestral field the priests receive in the Jubilee Year; and a dedicated field; and payment for robbery of a convert who died without heirs.

וְקָא קָרֵי מִיהַת מַתָּנָה, שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ: מְקַבְּלֵי מַתָּנוֹת הָווּ, שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ.

The Gemara infers from the wording of the baraita: And this baraita, in any event, labels the payment for robbery of a convert a gift. The Gemara suggests: Conclude from this baraita that the priests who receive it are considered recipients of gifts, and not heirs. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that this is so.

״נָתַן אֶת הַכֶּסֶף לְאַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁמָר״ [וכו׳]. אֲמַר אַבַּיֵי, שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ: כֶּסֶף מְכַפֵּר מֶחֱצָה. דְּאִי לָא מְכַפֵּר, הֲוָה אָמִינָא מַהֲדַר לַיּוֹרְשִׁין, מַאי טַעֲמָא? אַדַּעְתָּא דְּהָכִי לָא יְהַב לֵיהּ.

§ The mishna teaches: If he gave the money to the members of the priestly watch and then died before they sacrificed his guilt-offering, the heirs cannot remove the money from the priests’ possession. Abaye said: Learn from this mishna that monetary restitution for the robbery atones for half of the sin, for if it does not atone at all, and atonement is not achieved until the guilt-offering is sacrificed, I would say that in the case of robbery of a convert, if the guilt-offering is not brought the priest returns the money to the robber’s heirs. What is the reason I would say this? Because he did not give the money to the priests with this intention of giving the money and not achieving atonement at all, and it would be a mistaken transaction.

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, חַטָּאת שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ תֵּיפּוֹק לְחוּלִּין, דְאַדַּעְתָּא דְּהָכִי לָא אַפְרָשָׁהּ! אָמְרִי: חַטָּאת שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ, הִלְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לָהּ דִּלְמִיתָה אָזְלָא.

The Gemara asks: If that is so, it would follow that a sin-offering whose owners have died, leaving no one to bring the offering, should be transferred to non-sacred status, as the robber did not separate the animal as an offering with this intention of its not being sacrificed to atone for his sin. The Sages say in response: In the case of a sin-offering whose owners have died, the Sages learned this halakha through tradition that the animal is left to die.

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, אָשָׁם שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּעָלָיו לִיפּוֹק לְחוּלִּין, דְאַדַּעְתָּא דְּהָכִי לָא אַפְרָשֵׁיהּ! אָשָׁם נַמִי הִלְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לָהּ: כָּל שֶׁבְּחַטָּאת מֵתָה – בְּאָשָׁם רוֹעֶה.

The Gemara asks: If that is so, a guilt-offering whose owner has died should be transferred to non-sacred status, as the owner did not separate the animal as an offering with this intention of it not being sacrificed to atone for his sin. The Gemara answers: With regard to a guilt-offering, the Sages also learned this halakha through tradition: Any occurrence that, if it occurs with regard to a sin-offering the animal is placed in isolation for it to die, if it occurs with regard to a guilt-offering the animal is left to graze until it develops a blemish precluding its use as an offering, at which point it can be redeemed.

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, יְבָמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לִפְנֵי מוּכֵּה שְׁחִין תֵּיפּוֹק בְּלָא חֲלִיצָה, דְאַדַּעְתָּא דְּהָכִי לָא קִדְּשָׁה עַצְמָהּ! הָתָם אֲנַן סָהֲדֵי

The Gemara asks: If that is so, then in the case of a woman whose husband died childless [yevama], who happened before her late husband’s brother who was afflicted with boils to enter levirate marriage with him, should go out free to marry without being required to perform the ritual through which the yavam frees the yevama of her levirate bonds [ḥalitza]. For she did not betroth herself to this man’s deceased brother with this intention of having a levirate bond with a man afflicted with boils. The Gemara answers: There, it is clear to us