خُلِن 134

וּרְמִינְהוּ: ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁהַמַּתָּנוֹת שֶׁלִּי״ – נוֹתֵן לְכׇל כֹּהֵן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה!

The Gemara objects: But one can raise a contradiction from a baraita: If a priest sells his animal to an Israelite and stipulates: I am selling it on the condition that the gifts are mine, the Israelite is not obligated to give the gifts to that priest. Rather, he gives the gifts to any priest that he wants. Since the priest sold his animal, the priest cannot issue a condition involving the gifts, as they no longer belong to him but to the entire tribe of priests. The baraita indicates that the Israelite is nevertheless obligated to give the gifts, which apparently contradicts the ruling of the mishna.

״עַל מְנָת״ אַ״חוּץ״ קָא רָמֵית? ״חוּץ״ – שִׁיּוּרָא, ״עַל מְנָת״ – לָאו שִׁיּוּרָא.

The Gemara responds: Do you raise a contradiction from a baraita that discusses a case where the priest states: On the condition that the gifts are mine, with regard to the case of the mishna, where the priest states: Except for the gifts? That is not a contradiction, as the word except is a term of retention, i.e., the priest retains the gifts and does not sell them to the Israelite. By contrast, the term: On the condition, is not one of retention, as the priest does not keep the gifts for himself but instead stipulates that the buyer must give the gifts to him. The priest is not authorized to issue such a stipulation and it is therefore disregarded entirely, and because the Israelite owns the gifts he must give them to a priest.

וּרְמִינְהוּ: ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁהַמַּתָּנוֹת שֶׁלִּי״ – הַמַּתָּנוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ! בְּהָא פְּלִיגִי: מָר סָבַר ״עַל מְנָת״ – שִׁיּוּרָא הוּא, וּמָר סָבַר ״עַל מְנָת״ – לָאו שִׁיּוּרָא הוּא.

The Gemara objects: But one may raise a contradiction against the previous baraita from another baraita: If a priest sells his animal to an Israelite and stipulates: I am selling it on the condition that the gifts are mine, the gifts are his and the Israelite must give the gifts to that priest. The Gemara responds: There is a dispute between the tanna’im of these baraitot, and they disagree with regard to this matter: One Sage, the tanna of the second baraita, holds that the term: On the condition, is one of retention, and the priest therefore retains possession of the gifts. And one Sage, the tanna of the first baraita, holds that: On the condition, is not a term of retention, and the priest is not authorized to stipulate that the buyer must give the gifts to him.

אָמַר לוֹ: מְכוֹר לִי בְּנֵי מֵעֶיהָ וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁשָּׁקַל לְעַצְמוֹ, אֲבָל שָׁקַל לוֹ טַבָּח – הַדִּין עִם הַטַּבָּח. וְרַב אַסִּי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ שָׁקַל לוֹ טַבָּח – הַדִּין עִמּוֹ.

§ The mishna teaches that if one said to a butcher: Sell me the innards of a cow that you slaughtered, and there were gifts, i.e., the maw, included with it, the buyer gives the gifts to the priest and does not deduct its value from the money that he pays to the butcher. If he bought the innards by weight, the buyer gives the maw to the priest and deducts its value from the money he pays to the butcher. With regard to innards purchased by weight, Rav says: The Sages taught that the buyer gives the maw to the priest only when the buyer weighed the innards for himself when purchasing them. In such a case, the priest claims the maw from the buyer. But if the butcher weighed the innards for the buyer, the judgment is also with the butcher, i.e., the priest may claim the maw from either the butcher or the buyer. And Rav Asi says: Even if the butcher weighed the innards for the buyer, the judgment is with the buyer alone.

לֵימָא בִּדְרַב חִסְדָּא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: גָּזַל וְלֹא נִתְיָיאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים, וּבָא אַחֵר וַאֲכָלוֹ – רָצָה מִזֶּה גּוֹבֶה, רָצָה מִזֶּה גּוֹבֶה. דְּמָר אִית לֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא, וּמָר לֵית לֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא.

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree with regard to a statement of Rav Ḥisda, as Rav Ḥisda said: In a case where one robbed another of an item, and the owners had not despaired of retrieving it, and another person came and consumed the stolen item, if the owner wants, he may collect the value of the stolen item from this one, the robber, and if he wants, he may collect from that one who consumed it. The suggestion is that one Sage, Rav, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, and he therefore holds that the priest may claim the maw from either the buyer or the butcher; and one Sage, Rav Asi, does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, and the priest may therefore claim the maw from the buyer alone.

לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אִית לְהוּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא, וְהָכָא בְּמַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה נִגְזָלוֹת קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר נִגְזָלוֹת, וּמַר סָבַר אֵין נִגְזָלוֹת.

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No; everyone holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, and here they disagree with regard to whether or not gifts of the priesthood can be stolen. As one Sage, Rav, holds that they can be stolen, and accordingly the robber remains responsible for them even if they are consumed by another. Consequently, if the butcher weighed the innards, the priest may claim the gifts from either the butcher or the buyer. And one Sage, Rav Asi, holds that gifts of the priesthood cannot be stolen. Since technically one cannot steal the gifts, the obligation to return them to the priest rests solely on the one in physical possession of them. Accordingly, the priest may claim the gifts from the buyer alone, as the gifts are in his custody.

אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ: רַב אָמַר: מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה נִגְזָלוֹת, וְרַב אַסִּי אָמַר: מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה אֵין נִגְזָלוֹת.

The Gemara notes that some teach this halakha, that there is a dispute between Rav and Rav Asi as to whether or not gifts of the priesthood can be stolen, by itself, i.e., as an independent dispute between them rather than in explanation of another dispute: Rav says that gifts of the priesthood can be stolen, and Rav Asi says that gifts of the priesthood cannot be stolen.

מַתְנִי׳ גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר וְהָיְתָה לוֹ פָּרָה, נִשְׁחֲטָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְגַּיֵּיר – פָּטוּר, מִשֶּׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר – חַיָּיב, סָפֵק – פָּטוּר, שֶׁהַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה.

MISHNA: In the case of a convert who converted and he had a cow, if the cow was slaughtered before he converted, he is exempt from giving the gifts to the priest. If the animal was slaughtered after he converted, the convert is obligated to give the gifts. If there is uncertainty whether it was slaughtered before or after the conversion, the convert is exempt, as the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.

גְּמָ׳ כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אֲמַר: רָמֵי לֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן – תְּנַן: ״סָפֵק פָּטוּר״, אַלְמָא סְפֵיקָא לְקוּלָּא.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if there is an uncertainty whether an individual is obligated to give gifts of the priesthood, he is exempt from giving them. In this regard, the Gemara relates that when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised a contradiction to Rabbi Yoḥanan: We learned in the mishna that when there is an uncertainty one is exempt from giving the gifts. Evidently, in cases of uncertainty the halakha is to be lenient.

וּרְמִינְהוּ: חוֹרֵי הַנְּמָלִים שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הַקָּמָה – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, וְשֶׁלְּאַחַר הַקּוֹצְרִים – הָעֶלְיוֹנִים לַעֲנִיִּים, וְהַתַּחְתּוֹנִים שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת.

But one can raise a contradiction from that which is taught in another mishna (Pe’a 4:11) with regard to gleanings left for the poor: In a case of grain found in ant holes that are inside the standing crop in an area of the field that was not harvested, these are the property of the owner of the field, as this grain does not have the status of gleanings. And in the case of grain found in ant holes that are behind the harvesters in an already harvested area, the upper wheat stalks, i.e., those stalks found at the mouth of the holes, belong to the poor, as they are assumed to be gleanings that fell from the bundles when that area was harvested, and the lower wheat inside the holes are the property of the owner, since it is possible that they were collected by the ants before the harvest and are not gleanings.

רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: הַכֹּל לַעֲנִיִּים, שֶׁסְּפֵק לֶקֶט – לֶקֶט.

Rabbi Meir says: Everything goes to the poor, as grain whose status as gleanings is uncertain is considered gleanings. According to Rabbi Meir, the halakha is stringent in the case of an uncertainty with regard to gifts left for the poor. This apparently contradicts the mishna’s statement that one is lenient in the case of an uncertainty with regard to gifts of the priesthood, as these gifts are similar in this regard to gifts left for the poor. Since any unattributed mishna is considered to be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, this is apparently a contradiction with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַל תַּקְנִיטֵנִי, שֶׁבִּלְשׁוֹן יָחִיד אֲנִי שׁוֹנֶה אוֹתָהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן אַגְרָא אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: סְפֵק לֶקֶט – לֶקֶט, סְפֵק שִׁכְחָה – שִׁכְחָה, סְפֵק פֵּאָה – פֵּאָה.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: Do not trouble me with this contradiction, as I teach that baraita in the singular, i.e., it is not certain that this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir; rather, it is merely the claim of one Sage that this is Rabbi Meir’s opinion. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra says in the name of Rabbi Meir: Grain whose status as gleanings is uncertain is considered gleanings; grain whose status as forgotten sheaves is uncertain is considered forgotten sheaves; and grain whose status as pe’a is uncertain is considered pe’a. Therefore, one should not raise a contradiction to the mishna from the statement of a single Sage claiming to represent the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

אָמַר לוֹ אַל תִּשְׁנֶה אוֹתָהּ אֶלָּא בִּלְשׁוֹן בֶּן תַּדָּל, וְהָא טַעְמָא קָאָמַר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״עָנִי וָרָשׁ הַצְדִּיקוּ״? מַאי ״הַצְדִּיקוּ״?

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Even if you teach that baraita only in a language whereby a certain imbecile named ben Tedal states that this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, a question remains, as isn’t there a stated reason for stringency in cases of uncertainties with regard to gifts left for the poor? As Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Do justice to the afflicted and destitute” (Psalms 82:3)? Specifically, what is the meaning of “do justice”?

אִילֵּימָא בְּדִינִים, וְהָא כְּתִיב ״וְדָל לֹא תֶהְדַּר בְּרִיבוֹ״? אֶלָּא, צַדֵּק מִשֶּׁלְּךָ וְתֵן לוֹ.

If we say that it means that one should do justice in judgments, i.e., a judge should sway judgments in favor of the afflicted and destitute, but isn’t it written: “Neither shall you favor a poor man in his cause” (Exodus 23:3)? Rather, the verse is teaching that in cases of uncertainty with regard to gifts left for the poor, be righteous with that which is yours and give it to the poor. Why, then, is the halakha stringent in the case of gifts left for the poor but lenient with regard to gifts to priests?

אָמַר רָבָא: הָכָא, פָּרָה בְּחֶזְקַת פְּטוּרָה קָיְימָא, קָמָה בְּחֶזְקַת חִיּוּבָא קָיְימָא.

Rava said in response: Here, in the case of gifts of the priesthood, the halakha is lenient because the cow of a convert maintains the presumptive status of exemption, as the obligation of the gifts did not apply to the cow before the convert converted. By contrast, the halakha is stringent in the case of the gifts left for the poor, as the standing crop maintains the presumptive status of obligation.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וַהֲרֵי עִיסָּה נַעֲשֵׂית עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְגַּיֵּיר – פָּטוּר מִן הַחַלָּה, מִשֶּׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר – חַיָּיב, סָפֵק – חַיָּיב.

Abaye said to Rava: But with regard to the dough of a convert, the halakha is that if it was prepared before he converted he is exempt from separating ḥalla from this dough, and if it was prepared after he converted, he is obligated to separate ḥalla from it. And if there is an uncertainty as to whether the dough was prepared before or after his conversion, he is obligated, despite the fact that dough prepared by a gentile is exempt from ḥalla. Why isn’t the convert exempt from separating ḥalla just as he is exempt from giving gifts of the priesthood in the case of an uncertainty, as both the dough and the cow maintain a presumptive status of exemption?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: סְפֵק אִיסּוּרָא לְחוּמְרָא, סְפֵק מָמוֹנָא לְקוּלָּא.

Rava said to Abaye: There is a difference between ḥalla and gifts of the priesthood. Although the dough maintains the presumptive status of exemption, here there is also uncertainty with regard to a prohibition, as a non-priest who consumes ḥalla is liable to receive the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven. And whenever there is an uncertainty with regard to a prohibition, the halakha is to be stringent. Conversely, uncertainties with regard to gifts of the priesthood involve no prohibition and are strictly monetary, and whenever there is an uncertainty with regard to monetary matters, the halakha is to be lenient. Consequently, one relies on the presumptive status of exemption in the case of a cow, and the convert is exempt from giving the gifts to the priest.

דַּאֲמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, וְכֵן תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: שְׁמוֹנָה סְפֵקוֹת נֶאֶמְרוּ בַּגֵּר, אַרְבַּע לְחִיּוּב וְאַרְבַּע לִפְטוּר.

As Rav Ḥisda said, and Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches likewise: Eight instances of uncertainties were stated with regard to the convert; in four instances the halakha is that there is an obligation, and in the other four instances the halakha is that there is an exemption.

קׇרְבַּן אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְחַלָּה, וּבְכוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה, וּבְכוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה – לְחִיּוּב.

These are the four instances where the halakha is stringent: The first is an uncertainty with regard to the offering of one’s wife who gave birth, where it is uncertain whether she gave birth before her conversion and she is exempt from bringing an offering, or after her conversion and she is obligated. This case involves a prohibition, as a woman who does not bring her atonement offering is liable to receive karet for consuming sanctified items. And the second case is an uncertainty with regard to the obligation to separate ḥalla from his dough, which also involves a prohibition, as explained above. And the third case is an uncertainty with regard to a male firstborn non-kosher animal, i.e., a firstborn donkey, where it is uncertain if it was born before or after the owner’s conversion, which involves the prohibition against deriving benefit from it before its redemption. And the fourth case of an uncertainty is with regard to a male firstborn of a kosher animal, where it is uncertain if it was born before or after the owner’s conversion, where one can be liable to receive karet for slaughtering it outside the Temple courtyard. In these four cases, the halakha is that there is an obligation.

רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז וְהַמַּתָּנוֹת, וּפִדְיוֹן הַבֵּן, וּפִדְיוֹן פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר – לִפְטוּר.

And these are the four uncertainties with regard to a convert where the halakha is lenient: The first is an uncertainty with regard to the first sheared wool of one’s sheep, where it is uncertain whether they were shorn before or after his conversion. And the second is whether or not the obligation of giving the gifts of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw applies to his animal. And the third is an uncertainty with regard to the obligation to give five sela for the mitzva of the redemption of the firstborn son, where it is uncertain if he was born before or after the owner’s conversion. And the last is an uncertainty with regard to the redemption of a firstborn donkey by means of a sheep or a goat, where it is uncertain if it was born before or after the owner’s conversion. In each of these instances, the uncertainty is only with regard to monetary matters, and therefore the halakha is that one is exempt.

כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין, אָמַר: קָמָה אַקָּמָה רְמִי לֵיהּ.

In connection to the previous discussion between Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish and Rabbi Yoḥanan, the Gemara relates that when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said a slightly different version of the above discussion: Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish raised the contradiction to the opinion of Rabbi Meir from a baraita that states that Rabbi Meir exempts the standing crop of a convert from the obligation to leave gleanings for the poor when it is uncertain whether the crop was harvested before or after his conversion. This baraita is in contradiction to the baraita that likewise discusses the standing crop: Grain whose status as gleanings is uncertain is considered gleanings. Rabbi Yoḥanan resolved this contradiction by explaining that the second baraita is the opinion of Rabbi Meir only according to Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra.

לֵוִי זְרַע בְּכִישָׁר, וְלָא הֲווֹ עֲנִיִּים לְמִשְׁקַל לֶקֶט. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״לֶעָנִי וְלַגֵּר תַּעֲזֹב אֹתָם״, וְלֹא לְעוֹרְבִים וְלֹא לַעֲטַלֵּפִים.

§ With regard to gifts left for the poor, the Gemara relates that Levi sowed crops in his field in Kishar, but there were no poor people in Kishar to take gleanings from his field. Levi came before Rav Sheshet to ask what should be done with the gleanings. Rav Sheshet said to him: The verse states with regard to the mitzvot of pe’a and gleanings: “You shall leave them for the poor and for the stranger” (Leviticus 23:22), and not for the ravens nor for the bats. Since there are no poor people to take the gleanings, you should take them for yourself.

מֵיתִיבִי: אֵין מְבִיאִין תְּרוּמָה, לֹא מִגּוֹרֶן לָעִיר, וְלֹא מִמִּדְבָּר לַיִּשּׁוּב, וְאִם אֵין שָׁם כֹּהֵן – שׂוֹכֵר פָּרָה וּמְבִיאָהּ, מִפְּנֵי הֶפְסֵד תְּרוּמָה.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: The owner of a field does not need to expend the effort to bring teruma, neither from the threshing floor to the city nor from the wilderness to a settled area, in order to give it to a priest. Rather, the priest must travel to the field to receive the teruma. And if there is no priest there, at the threshing floor or in the wilderness, to receive the teruma, the owner must hire a cow and bring the teruma to the city, due to the loss of teruma that would occur if it were left in the field. According to this baraita, the owner of the field should likewise be obligated to do the same with gleanings.

שָׁאנֵי תְּרוּמָה, דְּטָבְלָה, וְלָא סַגִּיא דְּלָא מַפְרֵישׁ לַהּ.

The Gemara explains: Teruma is different, in that if it is not separated it causes the entire crop to be considered untithed, and it is therefore not possible for one not to separate teruma from the crop. By contrast, gleanings do not render the remaining crop prohibited for consumption, and therefore it is not necessary to set them aside and remove them.

וַהֲרֵי מַתָּנוֹת, דְּלָא טָבְלִי, וְתַנְיָא: מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לִמְלוֹג בַּעֲגָלִים – לֹא יַפְשִׁיט אֶת הַזְּרוֹעַ.

The Gemara objects: But what about the case of the gifts of the priesthood, which do not render the rest of the animal untithed, i.e., they do not prohibit the entire animal in consumption before they are separated. And nevertheless it is taught in a baraita: In a place where they were accustomed to put the meat of slaughtered calves in boiling water in order to remove the hairs from the skin, and then eat the meat with the skin still attached to the flesh, one may not skin the foreleg before giving it to the priest. Rather, he gives it with its skin intact.

לְהַפְשִׁיט אֶת הָרֹאשׁ – לֹא יַפְשִׁיט אֶת הַלֶּחִי, וְאִם אֵין שָׁם כֹּהֵן – מַעֲלִין אוֹתָן בְּדָמִים וְאוֹכְלָן, מִפְּנֵי הֶפְסֵד כֹּהֵן.

The baraita continues: Similarly, in a place where people are accustomed to skin the head of an animal, one may not skin the cheek of the jaw of an animal before giving it to the priest, but must give it with its skin intact so that the priest may use the skin as he wishes. And if there is no priest available to receive the gifts, the gifts are appraised by their monetary value, and the owner may eat them and gives their monetary value to a priest at the next available time, due to the loss that would otherwise be incurred by the priest. Evidently, one must expend effort to ensure that a priest receives the gifts despite the fact that they do not render the entire animal untithed. Why is the halakha different with regard to gleanings?

שָׁאנֵי מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה, דִּנְתִינָה כְּתִיבָא בֵּיהּ. הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי, תְּרוּמָה נָמֵי נְתִינָה כְּתִיבָא בֵּיהּ.

The Gemara responds: The halakha is different in the case of gifts of the priesthood, as a term of giving is written with regard to it: “That they shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw” (Deuteronomy 18:3). This teaches that one must actively give the gifts to a priest, whereas no equivalent term is written with regard to gleanings. The Gemara adds: Now that you have arrived at this explanation with regard to gifts of the priesthood, one can likewise explain that the reason teruma must be brought to a locale where there is a priest is likewise due to the fact that a term of giving is written with regard to it: “The first fruits of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the first sheared wool of your sheep you shall give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4), not because teruma renders the crop untithed.

וְאֶלָּא ״תַּעֲזֹב״ יַתִּירָא לְמָה לִי?

The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the verse to state an extra term of leaving with regard to gleanings? One verse states: “Neither shall you gather the gleaning of your harvest, and your vineyard you shall not harvest completely, and the fallen fruit of your vineyard you shall not gather; you shall leave them for the poor and for the stranger” (Leviticus 19:9–10), and another verse states: “Neither shall you gather the gleaning of your harvest; you shall leave them for the poor and for the stranger” (Leviticus 23:22). Doesn’t this additional mention of leaving indicate that even if there are no poor people to take the gleanings, the owner must collect them and ensure that a poor person can claim them?

לְכִדְתַנְיָא: הַמַּפְקִיר אֶת כַּרְמוֹ, וְלַשַּׁחַר הִשְׁכִּים וּבְצָרוֹ – חַיָּיב בְּפֶרֶט וּבְעוֹלֵלוֹת וּבְשִׁכְחָה וּבְפֵאָה, וּפָטוּר מִן הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת.

The Gemara responds: No, the extra term of leaving is required for that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who declares his vineyard ownerless, and in the morning awoke and reclaimed the ownerless vineyard and harvested the grapes, he is obligated in the mitzva of leaving individual fallen grapes for the poor [peret], and in the mitzva of leaving incompletely formed clusters of grapes for the poor [olelot], and in the mitzva of leaving forgotten clusters, and in the mitzva of pe’a. And he is exempt from the obligation to separate the tithes from the grapes, as the vineyard had been ownerless. The baraita rules that he is obligated in the gifts for the poor despite the halakha that the obligation to leave these gifts does not apply to an ownerless vineyard. It is derived from the additional mention of leaving that the obligation of gifts to the poor applies even to an ownerless field of this type.

הָהוּא שַׂקָּא דְּדִינָרֵי דַּאֲתָא לְבֵי מִדְרְשָׁא, קָדֵים רַבִּי אַמֵּי וּזְכָה בָּהֶן. וְהֵיכִי עָבֵיד הָכִי? וְהָא כְּתִיב ״וְנָתַן״ וְלֹא שֶׁיִּטּוֹל מֵעַצְמוֹ! רַבִּי אַמֵּי נָמֵי לַעֲנִיִּים זָכָה בָּהֶן.

§ In relation to the discussion of a case where the owner of a field takes gifts left for the poor for himself, the Gemara relates that there was a certain sack of dinars that was brought to the study hall to provide financial assistance for the students. Rabbi Ami rushed and acquired them. The Gemara asks: And how can he act in this manner? But isn’t it written with regard to gifts of the priesthood: “That they shall give to the priest” (Deuteronomy 18:3), and the Sages derived from the verse that a priest should receive the gifts and he should not take them by himself. The same applies to gifts for the poor as well. The Gemara responds: Rabbi Ami too did not take the gifts for himself. Rather, he acquired them for the poor.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אָדָם חָשׁוּב שָׁאנֵי, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְהַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל מֵאֶחָיו״ – שֶׁיְּהֵא גָּדוֹל מֵאֶחָיו בְּנוֹי, בְּחָכְמָה, וּבְעוֹשֶׁר.

And if you wish, say instead that the halakha with regard to a distinguished person such as Rabbi Ami, who was the head of the yeshiva, is different, and he may acquire the gifts for himself. As it is taught in a baraita that the verse: “And the priest who is greater than his brethren” (Leviticus 21:10), indicates that the High Priest should be greater than his priestly brethren in beauty, in wisdom, and in wealth.

אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם אֵין לוֹ, שֶׁאֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים מְגַדְּלִין אוֹתוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל מֵאֶחָיו״ – גַּדְּלֵהוּ מִשֶּׁל אֶחָיו.

Others say: From where is it derived that if the High Priest does not have property of his own, his brethren the priests elevate him and render him wealthy from their own property? The verse states: “And the priest who is greater than his brethren,” i.e., they must elevate him from the property of his brethren. Since the members of the study hall are required to enrich Rabbi Ami from their own property, it is certainly permitted for him to take these gifts for himself.

מַתְנִי׳ אֵיזֶהוּ הַזְּרוֹעַ? מִן הַפֶּרֶק שֶׁל אַרְכוּבָּה עַד כַּף שֶׁל יָד, וְהוּא שֶׁל נָזִיר, וּכְנֶגְדּוֹ בָּרֶגֶל – שׁוֹק. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שׁוֹק מִן הַפֶּרֶק שֶׁל אַרְכוּבָּה עַד סוֹבֶךְ שֶׁל רֶגֶל. אֵי זֶהוּ לֶחִי? מִן הַפֶּרֶק שֶׁל לֶחִי עַד פִּיקָה שֶׁל גַּרְגֶּרֶת.

MISHNA: What is the definition of the foreleg that is given to the priests as one of the gifts? It is the part of the leg from the joint of the lower knee until the rounded protrusion surrounding the thigh bone of the foreleg; and that is the foreleg mentioned in the Torah with regard to the nazirite: “And the priest shall take the foreleg of the ram when it is cooked” (Numbers 6:19). And the parallel in the hind leg is the thigh that is given to the priest from the peace offering, which is also from the joint of the lower knee until the rounded protrusion surrounding the thigh bone. Rabbi Yehuda says: The thigh is from the joint of the lower knee until the upper knee joint, which connects the middle and upper parts of the leg. What is the definition of the jaw? It is from the joint of the lower jaw beneath the temples and downward until the upper ring of the windpipe.

גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַזְּרוֹעַ – זֶה זְרוֹעַ יָמִין. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר זֶה זְרוֹעַ יָמִין, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא זְרוֹעַ שְׂמֹאל? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הַזְּרוֹעַ״.

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the gifts of the priesthood: “That they shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw” (Deuteronomy 18:3). “The foreleg”; this is the right foreleg of the animal. The baraita continues: Do you say that this is the right foreleg, or is it only the left foreleg? The verse states: “The foreleg.” The definite article indicates that the verse is referring to the right foreleg.

מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא? כִּדְאָמַר רָבָא: ״הַיָּרֵךְ״ – הַמְיוּמֶּנֶת שֶׁבַּיָּרֵךְ, הָכָא נָמֵי: ״הַזְּרוֹעַ״ – הַמְיוּמָּן שֶׁבַּזְּרוֹעַ.

The Gemara asks: What is the biblical derivation for this, i.e., how is it understood from the definite article that the verse is referring to the right foreleg? The Gemara responds: It is derived like that which Rava said with regard to the verse: “Therefore the children of Israel do not eat the sciatic nerve which is upon the hollow of the thigh” (Genesis 32:33). The definite article indicates that this is referring to the most important thigh. Here too, the definite article in the term “the foreleg” indicates that the verse is referring to the most important foreleg, i.e., the right foreleg.

״וְהַלְּחָיַיִם״ לְמַאי אֲתָא? לְהָבִיא צֶמֶר שֶׁבְּרֹאשׁ כְּבָשִׂים, וְשֵׂעָר שֶׁבִּזְקַן תְּיָישִׁים. ״וְהַקֵּבָה״ לְמַאי אֲתָא? לְהָבִיא חֵלֶב שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי הַקֵּבָה, וְחֵלֶב שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הַקֵּבָה. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: כֹּהֲנִים נָהֲגוּ בּוֹ עַיִן יָפָה וּנְתָנוּהוּ לַבְּעָלִים. טַעְמָא דְּנָהֲגוּ, הָא לֹא נָהֲגוּ – דִּידֵיהּ הוּא.

The Gemara continues: And in the term “and the jaw,” for what purpose does the definite article come, i.e., what halakha does it teach? It serves to include wool that is on the head of lambs and hair that is in the beard of goats in the obligation to give the jaw to the priest. And in the term “and the maw,” for what purpose does the definite article come? It serves to include fat that is on the maw and fat that is inside the maw in the obligation to give the maw to the priest. As Rabbi Yehoshua said: Priests behaved generously with fat that is on the maw and they gave it to its owner, i.e., they relinquished their right to receive it. The Gemara infers: The reason this fat was not given to the priests is that they behaved generously, but had they not behaved generously, the fat would be his, the priest’s.

דּוֹרְשֵׁי חֲמוּרוֹת הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: הַזְּרוֹעַ – כְּנֶגֶד הַיָּד, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וַיִּקַּח רוֹמַח בְּיָדוֹ״.

The Gemara cites a homiletical idea with regard to the gifts of the priesthood: The interpreters of Torah symbolism [dorshei ḥamurot] would say with regard to the reason why the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw are given to the priests: The foreleg corresponds to the hand of Pinehas, son of Elazar the priest, who killed Zimri, son of Salu, thereby bringing an end to the plague that was ravaging the children of Israel. And it likewise states in the verse: “And he took a spear in his hand” (Numbers 25:7).

וּלְחָיַיִם – כְּנֶגֶד תְּפִלָּה, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וַיַּעֲמֹד פִּינְחָס וַיְפַלֵּל״, קֵבָה – כְּמִשְׁמָעָהּ, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְאֶת הָאִשָּׁה אֶל קֳבָתָהּ״.

And the jaw corresponds to the prayer [tefilla] offered by Pinehas during the aforementioned incident. And so it states in the verse: “Then stood up Pinehas, and wrought judgment [vayefallel], and so the plague was stayed. And that was counted to him for righteousness, to all generations forever” (Psalms 106:30). The maw is as its plain meaning in the verses describing the incident, and it likewise states: “And he thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel” (Numbers 25:8).

וְתַנָּא מַיְיתֵי לַהּ מֵהָכָא: ״שׁוֹק הַיָּמִין״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שׁוֹק הַיָּמִין, זְרוֹעַ מוּקְדָּשִׁין מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תְּרוּמָה״. זְרוֹעַ חוּלִּין מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תִּתְּנוּ״.

The Gemara above cited a source for the halakha that the right foreleg is given to the priest. The Gemara notes: And the tanna of the following baraita cites this halakha from here: The verse states with regard to the gift to the priest from a peace offering: “And the right thigh you shall give to the priest as a gift from your sacrifices of peace offerings” (Leviticus 7:32). I have derived only that the right thigh of a peace offering is given to the priest. From where do I derive that the right foreleg of the sacrificial ram of the nazirite is given to the priest? The verse states: “You shall give to the priest as a gift.” And from where is it derived that the right foreleg of a non-sacred animal is also given as a gift to the priest? The verse states: “You shall give.”

אֵיזֶהוּ לֶחִי – מִן הַפֶּרֶק שֶׁל לְחִי וְעַד פִּיקָּה שֶׁל גַּרְגֶּרֶת, וְהָתַנְיָא: נוֹטְלָהּ וּבֵית שְׁחִיטָה עִמָּהּ?

§ The mishna taught: What is definition of the jaw? It is from the joint of the jaw beneath the temples and below until the upper ring of the windpipe. The Gemara objects: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that when one removes the jaw from the animal to give to the priest, he removes it and the area of slaughter on the throat with it? The area of slaughter is beyond the upper ring of the windpipe.

לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא רַבָּנַן, וְהָא רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס.

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. Everyone agrees that the priest receives only the part until the upper ring of the windpipe, and the difference between the two rulings is that this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus.

דְּתַנְיָא: מוּגְרֶמֶת פְּסוּלָה, הֵעִיד רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס עַל מוּגְרֶמֶת שֶׁהִיא כְּשֵׁרָה.

The Gemara explains that this is as it is taught in a baraita: The slaughter of an animal in such a manner that the knife is diverted to an area above the place of slaughter on its throat is not valid. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus testified with regard to the slaughter of an animal when the knife is diverted that it is valid (see 18b). The baraita calls the area of the jaw until the upper ring of the windpipe the area of slaughter, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus, who maintains that it is also a valid area for slaughter.

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא וְהָא רַבָּנַן, וּמַאי ״עִמָּהּ״? עִמָּהּ דִּבְהֵמָה.

And if you wish, say instead that this mishna and that baraita are both in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and what does the baraita mean when it says: With it? It means that the area of slaughter remains with the animal, i.e., it remains with the owner and is not given to the priest.

הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַזְּרוֹעַ וְהַלְּחָיַיִם.