Talmud - Hullin 131a חולין קל״א א׳

the baraita is referring to a case where they came into the priest’s possession while they were still untithed, and this tanna holds that gifts that have not been separated are considered as though they have been separated. In such a case, the priest obtained rights to the ownerless gifts by seizing them first. Although when he seized the produce it was still untithed, the portion of the produce that is to be separated has the status of teruma. Accordingly, one who consumes such produce is required to pay the priest.

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear another proof with regard to the statement of Rav Ḥisda from a baraita: In a case where the household of the king seized one’s threshing floor by force, if they took it as payment of his debt owed to the king, then he is obligated to tithe other grain in accordance with the amount he would have tithed before the grain was seized. Since he was already obligated to tithe the grain before it was seized, it is considered as though the grain was sold in an untithed state. If they took it without reason [anparot], then he is exempt from tithing. The fact that one is required to tithe grain seized as payment of a debt indicates that the tithe is considered money that has claimants, from which it follows that a priest may extract payment of the tithe from him. Again, this apparently contradicts the statement of Rav Ḥisda.

The Gemara rejects this proof: It is different there, since if one is not required to tithe grain seized as payment of a debt, this would mean that the seizure causes benefit for him, as he will be exempt from tithing grain that he was previously obligated to tithe. It is for this reason that the baraita rules that one must tithe other grain instead of the seized grain, not because a priest could have issued a claim against him in court.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (132a): If an Israelite says to a butcher: Sell me the innards of a particular cow, and there were gifts of the priesthood included with it, i.e., the maw, that were not yet given to the priest, the purchaser must give them to the priest, and the butcher may not deduct the value of the gifts from the money that the purchaser pays him, as it is assumed that the gifts were not included in the sale. If he purchased the innards from the butcher by weight, the purchaser must give the gifts to the priest, and the butcher deducts the value of the gifts from the money that the Israelite pays him.

The Gemara asks: Why must the buyer give the maw to the priest? Let the butcher’s sale of the maw be considered like a case where one causes damage to gifts of the priesthood or consumes them, with regard to which Rav Ḥisda states that one is exempt from payment. This mishna apparently contradicts Rav Ḥisda’s statement. The Gemara rejects this: It is different there, as the gifts are intact, i.e., they are distinct items in their own right. In such a case, the gifts must be given to the priest. By contrast, Rav Ḥisda is discussing cases in which the gifts are not distinguishable objects at the time.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof: Nine items are the property of a priest: Teruma, teruma of the tithe, ḥalla, the portion of dough given to the priest, the first sheared wool, gifts of the priesthood, doubtfully tithed produce [demai], first fruits, the principal value of the property of a convert, and the additional one-fifth. The two are paid to the priest in a case where the property of a convert was stolen and the thief took an oath that he did not steal it, and after the convert died the thief admitted to taking a false oath.

The Gemara explains the proof: With regard to what matter are these items considered the property of a priest? Is it not with regard to extracting them with judges, which would contradict the opinion of Rav Ḥisda? The Gemara responds: No, it is with regard to that which we learned in a mishna (Bikkurim 3:12): To what end did they say that these items are the property of a priest? It means that a priest may purchase with them slaves and lands and a non-kosher animal; and a lender takes them as payment of his debt; and if the wife of a priest is divorced from him, she takes them as payment of her marriage contract; and a priest may purchase a Torah scroll with them.

§ The Gemara relates: There was a certain Levite who would snatch gifts of the priesthood from children who were delivering them to the priests on their fathers’ behalf. They came and told Rav about this Levite. Rav said to them: Is it not enough that when he slaughters his own animals we do not take the gifts of the priesthood from him, but he also snatches gifts that are being delivered to priests?

Rav’s comment indicates that in his opinion there are grounds to take the gifts from Levites, but nevertheless they are not taken. The Gemara asks: And what does Rav maintain in this regard? If he maintains that Levites are called part of the “people,” then let one take the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw from them as well, as the verse states: “From the people, from them that perform a slaughter, whether it be ox or sheep, they shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw” (Deuteronomy 18:3). And if they are not called part of the people, then the Merciful One has exempted them from giving those gifts, and there would be no grounds to take the gifts from them.

The Gemara responds: Rav is uncertain whether or not they are called part of the people. Therefore, he exempts the Levites from giving their own gifts, in accordance with the principle that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.

The Gemara relates that Rav Pappa was sitting and saying this halakha in the name of Rav. Rav Idi bar Avin raised an objection to Rav Pappa from a baraita, with regard to the uncertainty of Rav: Four gifts are left to the poor from the produce of a vineyard: The individual fallen grapes [peret], and the incompletely formed clusters of grapes [olelot], and the forgotten clusters, and pe’a. And three gifts are left to the poor from grain: The gleanings, i.e., sheaves that fell during the harvest, and the forgotten sheaves, and the pe’a. Two gifts are left to the poor from the fruit of a tree: The forgotten fruits and the pe’a.

The baraita elaborates: With regard to all of these gifts, the owner of the produce does not have the benefit of discretion. This is the benefit accrued from giving a gift to an individual of one’s choice, e.g., giving teruma or tithes to whichever priest or Levite that one chooses. Instead, poor person who takes possession of these gifts becomes their rightful owner. And even a poor person of Israel who owns a vineyard, field, or tree must leave these gifts for all other poor people; and if he does not do so, the court removes them from his possession.

By contrast, with regard to the poor man’s tithe, which is distributed from within one’s house, unlike other gifts to the poor that are left in the field for them to take, the owner has the benefit of discretion. And even in the case of a poor person in Israel, if he fails to separate the poor man’s tithe from his produce, the court removes it from his possession. And with regard to other gifts of the priesthood, such as the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw, the court does not remove them, neither from a priest to give to another priest, nor from a Levite to give to another Levite.

Before Rav Idi bar Avin explains his objection, the Gemara cites the sources for the halakhot of the baraita: The baraita teaches that four gifts are left to the poor from the produce of a vineyard: The peret, and the olelot, and the forgotten clusters, and the pe’a, as it is written: “And you shall not glean [te’olel] your vineyard, neither shall you gather the fallen fruit [peret] of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and for the stranger” (Leviticus 19:10).

And it is also written: “When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, you shall not glean it [te’olel] after you; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow” (Deuteronomy 24:21). And Rabbi Levi says that with regard to the term “after you,” this is a reference to forgotten clusters, as the halakha is that clusters that were passed over by the harvester have the status of forgotten clusters, whereas those that remain in front of him do not have that status.

The halakha that the mitzva of pe’a applies to one’s vineyard is derived by a verbal analogy between the term “after you” in that verse and the term “after you” from another verse concerning an olive tree. As it is written: “When you beat your olive tree, you shall not go over the boughs [tefa’er] after you; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow” (Deuteronomy 24:20); and the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that the term “You shall not go over the boughs” means that you should not take all of its splendor [tiferet] from it; rather, you should leave a portion of the olives for the poor. So too, one must leave a portion of one’s vineyard as pe’a for the poor.

The Gemara continues: The baraita teaches that three gifts are left to the poor from grain: The gleanings,

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Chullin 131a explores priestly gifts and tithing obligations when produce or grain is seized, weighing whether debts to priests can be legally claimed.