Talmud - Hullin 131b חולין קל״א ב׳

and the forgotten sheaves, and the pe’a. As it is written: “And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corner of [pe’at] your field, neither shall you gather the gleaning of your harvest; you shall leave them for the poor, and for the stranger” (Leviticus 23:22). And it is also written: “When you reap your harvest in your field and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to fetch it; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow” (Deuteronomy 24:19).

The baraita taught that two gifts are left to the poor from the produce of a tree: The forgotten fruits and the pe’a, 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 phrase: “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 as pe’a. Additionally, when the verse states: “After you,” this is a reference to forgotten fruits.

The Gemara continues its analysis of the baraita. And with regard to all of the gifts left to the poor, the owner of the produce does not have the benefit of discretion, i.e., the right to distribute the gifts to poor people of his choosing. Instead, any poor person who takes possession of these gifts becomes their rightful owner. What is the reason for this halakha? It is because the requirement of leaving is written with regard to them, e.g., in the verse that states: “You shall leave them” (Leviticus 23:22).

The baraita also stated: And even a poor person of Israel who owns a vineyard, field, or tree must leave these gifts for all poor people, and if he does not, the court removes them from his possession. This is derived from a verse, as it is written: “Neither the gleaning of your harvest shall you gather; for the poor you shall leave them, and for the stranger” (Leviticus 23:22). Since the verse juxtaposes the words “the poor” to the mitzva in the previous clause, this serves to warn a poor person that he must also separate these gifts from his own produce.

And the baraita teaches with regard to the poor man’s tithe that is distributed from within his house that the owner has the benefit of discretion. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this halakha? It is because the requirement of giving is written with regard to it, as the verse states: “When you have made an end of tithing all the tithe of your increase in the third year, which is the year of tithing, and you shall give it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the fatherless, and to the widow, that they may eat within your gates, and be satisfied” (Deuteronomy 26:12). Consequently, in this case it is not left for the poor but is actively given to them.

The baraita states: 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. The Gemara explains that this is as Rabbi Ile’a said: This is derived from a verbal analogy between the term “to the stranger” stated with regard to the poor man’s tithe in the verse cited previously, and the term “to the stranger” from there, the mitzva to leave gleanings for the poor. Just as there, with regard to the mitzva to leave gleanings, a poor person is warned that he must leave gleanings from the produce of his own fields, so too here, with regard to the mitzva to separate the poor man’s tithe, a poor person is warned to separate it from his own fields.

The baraita taught: 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. Rav Idi bar Avin now explains his objection: It may be inferred that the court does remove the gifts from a Levite to give to a priest. Evidently, Levites are called part of the “people.” Accordingly, since the verse states: “And this shall be the priests’ due from the people” (Deuteronomy 18:3), the gifts of the priesthood may be removed from the possession of Levites. Why, then, was Rav uncertain with regard to their status?

The Gemara responds: The baraita is not referring to the actual gifts of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw themselves. Rather, it is referring to a gift that is like the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, but not the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw themselves. And what is this? It is the first tithe.

The Gemara asks: But the first tithe is given to the Levite. Why would it be removed from his possession? The Gemara responds: The baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, as it is taught in another baraita: Teruma is given to the priest, whereas the first tithe is given to the Levite; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: The first tithe is given to the priest as well, despite the fact that the Torah states that it is given to the Levite, as priests are often called Levites in the Torah.

The Gemara asks: Say that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said that the first tithe is given to the priest as well; but did he say that it is given exclusively to the priest and not to the Levite? The Gemara responds: Yes; although generally the first tithe is not removed from the possession of a Levite and given to a priest, the baraita is referring to first tithe in the period after Ezra penalized the Levites for their unwillingness to return to Eretz Yisrael from Babylonia, as he decreed that they should no longer be given the first tithe.

The Gemara persists: One can say that Ezra penalized them and decreed that we should not give them first tithe, but did he say that first tithe should even be taken from them and given to the priests? Rather, explain instead that the baraita is referring to a gift that is like the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, but is not actually the foreleg, the jaw, or the maw. And what is this? It is the first sheared wool, with regard to which the verse states: “And the first of the fleece of your sheep, you shall give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4). Since the verse does not state that the first fleece is taken from the “people,” even Levites are obligated to give their first shearing to the priest, and it may be removed from their possession to that end.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof with regard to the uncertainty of Rav from a baraita. This is the principle: With regard to any item that is of sanctity, i.e., that may not be consumed by a non-priest, such as teruma, and teruma of the tithe, and ḥalla, the court removes it from the possession of a Levite in order to give it to the priests. And with regard to any item that is not of sanctity, such as the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw, which are given from a non-sacred animal, the court does not remove it from the possession of the Levites to give to the priests. Evidently, Levites are not called part of the “people,” and therefore they are exempt from giving the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw.

The Gemara rejects this proof: The baraita is referring to a gift that is like the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, but is not actually the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw themselves. And what is this? It is first tithe, and the baraita is dealing with first tithe in the period after Ezra penalized the Levites and decreed that the first tithe should be given to the priests rather than the Levites. Nevertheless, if a Levite received the first tithe it may not be removed from his possession, since this penalty was not included in Ezra’s decree.

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: An Israelite who slaughters an animal for a priest or for a gentile is exempt from giving the gifts, as priests and gentiles are exempt from this obligation. The Gemara infers: This indicates that if an Israelite slaughtered an animal for a Levite or for an Israelite, he is obligated to give the gifts, and they may be removed from his possession to that end. Evidently, Levites are called part of the “people,” and Rav should not have been uncertain with regard to their status. The Gemara rejects this proof: Do not say that one should infer that if an Israelite slaughtered an animal for a Levite or for an Israelite he is obligated to give the gifts. Rather, say merely that if an Israelite slaughtered an animal for another Israelite, he is obligated to give the gifts.

The Gemara asks: But if so, when one slaughters an animal for a Levite, what is the halakha? Is one exempt? If so, let the baraita teach: One who slaughters an animal for a Levite or for a gentile is exempt from giving the gifts, and it would be obvious that this is also the halakha when one slaughters for a priest. And furthermore, isn’t it taught explicitly in a baraita that one who slaughters for a priest or for a gentile is exempt from giving the gifts, whereas one who slaughters for a Levite or for an Israelite is obligated to give the gifts? This baraita apparently constitutes a conclusive refutation of the uncertainty of Rav.

The Gemara responds: Rav could say to you that although this baraita is in fact contrary to his opinion, the question of whether or not Levites are called part of the “people” is a dispute between tanna’im. As it is taught in a baraita that the verse states with regard to the Yom Kippur Temple service: “And he shall make atonement for the most holy place, and he shall make atonement for the Tent of Meeting and for the altar; and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly” (Leviticus 16:33). The baraita explains: “And he shall make atonement for the most holy place”; this is referring to the innermost sanctum, i.e., the bull and goat offerings brought on Yom Kippur atone for ritual impurity occurring inside the Holy of Holies.

The baraita continues: “Tent of Meeting”; this is referring to the Sanctuary, i.e., the offerings atone for impurity occurring inside the Sanctuary. “Altar”; this is understood in accordance with its plain meaning, i.e., the offerings atone for one who performs sacrificial rites on the altar in a state of ritual impurity. “He shall make atonement”; this is referring to the Temple courtyards, i.e., the offerings atone for impurity occurring there. “For the priests”; this is understood in accordance with its plain meaning, indicating that the offerings atone for a priest who unwittingly enters the courtyard while impure. “And for all the people of the assembly”; these are the Israelites. “He shall make atonement”; this is referring to the Levites.

And it is taught in another baraita: “He shall make atonement”; this is referring to Canaanite slaves in the possession of Jews. These slaves are obligated in certain mitzvot and are therefore in need of atonement. The Gemara analyzes these sources: Why doesn’t the tanna of this baraita interpret the term “He shall make atonement” as a reference to Levites? What, is it not that they disagree about this, as one Sage, the tanna of the second baraita, holds that Levites are called part of the “people” and are therefore included in the clause “the people of the assembly,” and consequently, the term “he shall make atonement” is not required to include the Levites but instead serves to include Canaanite slaves. And by contrast, one Sage, the tanna of the first baraita, holds that they are not called part of the “people,” which means that the term “He shall make atonement” is required to include Levites.

The Gemara asks: But if this is a dispute between tanna’im, why is Rav uncertain with regard to the status of Levites? If he holds in accordance with this tanna, let him say that the halakha is in accordance with him, and if he holds in accordance with that tanna, let him say that the halakha is in accordance with him. The Gemara responds: Rav is uncertain whether the halakha is in accordance with this tanna or in accordance with that tanna.

Mareimar taught: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav that it is uncertain whether or not Levites are called part of the “people.” Consequently, the court may not compel Levites to give the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw to the priests. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, who said that one who damages or consumes gifts of the priesthood is exempt from payment.

§ With regard to the gifts of the priesthood, the Gemara relates that Ulla would give gifts of the priesthood to a female priest, i.e., the daughter of a priest, even if she was married to an Israelite. Rava raised an objection to the practice of Ulla from a baraita: The remainder of a meal offering of a female priest is consumed, just like the remainder of the meal offering of an Israelite. But the remainder of a meal offering of a priest is not consumed, as the verse states: “And every meal offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:16).

Rava explains his objection: And if you say that one may give gifts of a priest even to a female priest, because when the verse mentions a priest it is referring even to the daughter of a priest, but isn’t it written: “And every meal offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eaten”? Why, then, is the remainder of a meal offering of the daughter of a priest consumed? Ulla said to him in response: My teacher,

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

Chullin 131b examines biblical sources for leaving forgotten sheaves, pe’a, and gleanings for the poor, even when the field owner is poor himself.