Chapter 10: HaZeroa VeHaLechayayim (the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw) · Fri, 11 September 2026Capítulo 10: HaZeroa VehaLejaiaim (la pata delantera, las quijadas y el cuajar) · vie, 11 de septiembre de 2026פרק 10: הזרוע והלחיים (הזרוע, הלחי והקיבה — שלוש מתנות כהונה) · יום ו׳, 11 בספטמבר 2026
⚠️AI-generated study aid, built from the text of the daf. It does not replace learning the daf itself.Hoja generada por IA a partir del texto del daf. No reemplaza el estudio del daf mismo.דף עזר ללימוד שנוצר בבינה מלאכותית מתוך טקסט הדף. אינו מחליף את לימוד הדף עצמו.
📜 This is the daf itself — the Vilna page, not our writing. It is not AI-generated.Este es el daf mismo — la página de Vilna, no nuestra redacción. No está generado por IA.זהו הדף עצמו — דף וילנא, ולא כתיבה שלנו. הוא אינו מיוצר בבינה מלאכותית.
The big picture (read this first)
The daf finishes the debts and quarrels of chapter 10 and then, in its last mishna, closes
the chapter by pinning the gifts to the animal’s actual anatomy. Three threads run through it,
and each is really about who owns what, and when.
First, two words a seller can attach to a sale. “Except for the gifts” (chutz) is a word
of retention — the priest never sold them, so the buyer owes nothing. “On condition the
gifts are mine” (al menat) is a live claim — and a priest has no standing to make it,
since the gifts already belong to the whole tribe, not to him. From there: when innards are
sold by weight and the maw is among them, can a priestly gift even be stolen? Rav says
yes, so the robber stays on the hook; Rav Asi says no, so only whoever is holding it must
hand it over.
The convert’s cow shows the deepest principle on the page. Uncertain whether it was
slaughtered before or after his conversion, he is exempt — the burden of proof is on
the claimant. But his uncertain dough is obligated in ḥalla. Same convert, opposite
ruling: uncertain money is lenient, uncertain prohibition is stringent.
Then the daf turns to the gifts themselves. The mishna measures the foreleg and jaw on
the body, and the Gemara reads them symbolically back to Pinehas — the foreleg for the
hand that took the spear, the jaw for the mouth that prayed, the maw for the belly it pierced.
With that, HaZeroa VehaLechayayim comes to its close (Hadran), and tomorrow a new chapter
opens on the first shorn wool.
Key concepts & terms
Term
Meaning
חוּץ — chutz
“Except” — a word of retention (shiyura): the priest keeps the gifts and never sold them, so the buyer owes nothing.
עַל מְנָת — al menat
“On condition” — not retention but a live stipulation; a priest cannot impose it, so the buyer must give the gifts to any priest.
שִׁיּוּרָא — shiyura
Retention — holding something back from a sale so that it never passes to the buyer.
An uncertainty of prohibition is resolved strictly; an uncertainty of money, leniently.
נְתִינָה — netina
“Giving” — written of the gifts (and teruma), so the owner must actively bring them to a priest, not merely leave them.
הַמְיוּמֶּנֶת — hameyumenet
“The most important” — the definite article “the foreleg” points to the right foreleg, as “the thigh” points to the right.
דּוֹרְשֵׁי חֲמוּרוֹת — dorshei chamurot
“Interpreters of symbolism” — Sages who read the three gifts back to the hand, prayer, and deed of Pinehas.
El panorama general (leer esto primero)
El daf termina las deudas y disputas del capítulo 10 y luego, en su última mishná, cierra el
capítulo fijando los dones en la anatomía real del animal. Tres hilos lo recorren, y cada uno
trata en el fondo de quién posee qué, y cuándo.
Primero, dos palabras que un vendedor puede unir a una venta. “Excepto los dones” (jutz)
es una palabra de retención — el cohén nunca los vendió, así que el comprador no debe nada.
“Con la condición de que los dones son míos” (al menat) es un reclamo vivo — y un
cohén no tiene autoridad para hacerlo, pues los dones ya pertenecen a toda la tribu, no a él.
De ahí: cuando las entrañas se venden por peso y el cuajar está entre ellas, ¿puede siquiera
robarse un don sacerdotal? Rav dice que sí, y el ladrón queda obligado; Rav Asi dice que no,
y solo quien lo tenga en mano debe entregarlo.
La vaca del converso muestra el principio más profundo de la página. Incierto si fue
degollada antes o después de su conversión, queda exento — la carga de la prueba recae
sobre el reclamante. Pero su masa incierta está obligada en la jalá. El mismo
converso, dictamen opuesto: el dinero incierto es indulgente, la prohibición incierta es
rigurosa.
Luego el daf se vuelve hacia los dones mismos. La mishná mide la pata y la quijada en
el cuerpo, y la Guemará las remonta simbólicamente a Pinjás — la pata por la mano que tomó
la lanza, la quijada por la boca que oró, el cuajar por el vientre que atravesó. Con eso,
HaZeroa VehaLejaiaim llega a su fin (Hadrán), y mañana se abre un capítulo nuevo sobre la
primera lana esquilada.
Conceptos y términos clave
Término
Significado
חוּץ — jutz
“Excepto” — una palabra de retención (shiiurá): el cohén conserva los dones y nunca los vendió, así que el comprador no debe nada.
עַל מְנָת — al menat
“Con la condición” — no retención sino una estipulación viva; un cohén no puede imponerla, así que el comprador debe dar los dones a cualquier cohén.
שִׁיּוּרָא — shiiurá
Retención — reservar algo de una venta de modo que nunca pase al comprador.
“Los dones sacerdotales pueden ser robados” — la postura de Rav; si es así, el ladrón queda obligado aun después de que otro los coma. Rav Asi sostiene que no.
“La carga de la prueba recae sobre el reclamante” — la razón por la que una obligación monetaria incierta se dispensa.
חֶזְקַת פְּטוּרָה — jezkat peturá
Estatus presunto de exención — la vaca del converso era de un gentil, así que la incertidumbre la deja exenta (frente a la obligación presunta de la mies).
Una incertidumbre de prohibición se resuelve con rigor; una de dinero, con indulgencia.
נְתִינָה — netiná
“Dar” — escrito respecto de los dones (y la trumá), así que el dueño debe llevarlos activamente al cohén, no solo dejarlos.
הַמְיוּמֶּנֶת — hameiuménet
“La más importante” — el artículo definido “la pata” apunta a la pata derecha, como “el muslo” apunta al derecho.
דּוֹרְשֵׁי חֲמוּרוֹת — dorshei jamurot
“Intérpretes del simbolismo” — sabios que remontan los tres dones a la mano, la oración y el acto de Pinjás.
התמונה הגדולה (לקרוא קודם)
הדף מסיים את החובות והמחלוקות של פרק י, ואז, במשנתו האחרונה, נועל את הפרק בכך שהוא מצמיד את
המתנות לאנטומיה הממשית של הבהמה. שלושה חוטים עוברים בו, וכל אחד עוסק בעצם במי הבעלים של מה,
ומתי.
ראשית, שתי מילים שמוכר יכול לצרף למכירה. ״חוץ מן המתנות״ (חוץ) היא לשון שיור — הכהן
מעולם לא מכרן, ולכן הלוקח אינו חייב דבר. ״על מנת שהמתנות שלי״ (על מנת) היא תביעה חיה —
ואין לכהן מעמד להעמידה, שכן המתנות כבר שייכות לכל השבט, לא לו. משם: כשבני המעיים נמכרים במשקל
והקיבה בכללם, האם בכלל ניתן לגזול מתנת כהונה? רב אומר כן, והגזלן נשאר חייב; רב אסי אומר לא,
ורק מי שהיא בידו חייב לתתה.
פרתו של הגר מציגה את העיקרון העמוק ביותר שבעמוד. ספק אם נשחטה לפני גיורו או אחריו — הוא
פטור, המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה. אבל עיסתו שבספק חייבת בחלה. אותו גר, פסק הפוך:
ספק ממון לקולא, ספק איסור לחומרא.
אחר כך פונה הדף אל המתנות עצמן. המשנה מודדת את הזרוע ואת הלחי על הגוף, והגמרא קוראת אותן
בדרך סמל חזרה אל פינחס — הזרוע כנגד היד שנטלה את הרומח, הלחי כנגד הפה שהתפלל, והקיבה כנגד הכרס
שדקר. ובכך הזרוע והלחיים בא אל סיומו (הדרן), ומחר נפתח פרק חדש על הצמר הראשון הנגזז.
מושגים ומונחים מרכזיים
מונח
פירוש
חוּץ
לשון שיור: הכהן מותיר בידו את המתנות ולא מכרן, ולכן הלוקח אינו חייב דבר.
עַל מְנָת
לא שיור אלא תנאי חי; אין הכהן יכול להתנותו, ולכן הלוקח נותן את המתנות לכל כהן שירצה.
שִׁיּוּרָא
שיור — הותרת דבר מן המכירה כך שלעולם אינו עובר ללוקח.
מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה נִגְזָלוֹת
שיטת רב; ואם כן, הגזלן נשאר חייב אף לאחר שאחר אכלן. רב אסי סובר שאינן נגזלות.
הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה
הטעם שספק חיוב ממוני נדחה.
חֶזְקַת פְּטוּרָה
פרתו של הגר עמדה ברשות גוי, ולכן הספק מותירה בפטור (כנגד חזקת החיוב של הקמה).
נאמרה במתנות (ובתרומה), ולכן על הבעלים להביאן בפועל לכהן, ולא רק להותירן.
הַמְיוּמֶּנֶת
ה״א הידיעה ״הזרוע״ מורה על זרוע ימין, כשם ש״הירך״ מורה על הימנית.
דּוֹרְשֵׁי חֲמוּרוֹת
חכמים הקוראים את שלוש המתנות חזרה אל היד, התפילה והמעשה של פינחס.
🃏 FlashcardsTarjetasכרטיסיות
The terms above, one per card. Read the term, recall what it means on this daf, then turn the card over and say whether you had it. Whatever you flag comes back at the end in a shorter second round.Los términos de arriba, uno por tarjeta. Lee el término, recuerda qué significa en este daf, luego gira la tarjeta y di si lo sabías. Lo que marques vuelve al final en una segunda ronda, más corta.המונחים שלמעלה, אחד לכל כרטיס. קראו את המונח, נסו להיזכר מה משמעותו בדף הזה, ואז הפכו את הכרטיס ואמרו אם ידעתם. כל מה שתסמנו יחזור בסוף בסיבוב שני, קצר יותר.
Tip: click the card, then space flips it, ← → move, 1 / 2 rate it.Consejo: pulsa en la tarjeta; la barra espaciadora la gira, ← → navegan, 1 / 2 califican.טיפ: הקישו על הכרטיס; מקש הרווח הופך אותו, ← → מדפדפים, 1 / 2 מדרגים.
Who’s who in today’s daf
Tannaim
- Rabbi Meir — fourth-generation Tanna, disciple of R’ Akiva; holds that uncertain gleanings are treated as gleanings (safek leket leket), the stringency Reish Lakish presses against the mishna.
- Rabbi Yehuda ben Agra — Tanna cited transmitting Rabbi Meir’s view on uncertain gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe’a; R’ Yoḥanan reads the stringency as only his singular report.
- Rabbi Yehoshua (ben Ḥananya) — second-generation Tanna; testifies that priests behaved generously and returned the maw-fat to owners — implying that by law it is the priest’s.
- Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus — Tanna who validates a “diverted” slaughter (mugremet); the baraita that calls the upper throat “the area of slaughter” follows him.
- Rabbi Yehuda (bar Ilai) — fourth-generation Tanna; defines the thigh in the mishna as reaching to the upper knee joint.
Babylonian Amoraim
- Rav (Abba Arikha) — first-generation Amora, founder of Sura; rules on the maw sold by weight and holds that priestly gifts can be stolen.
- Rav Asi — early Amora and colleague of Rav; holds the gifts cannot be stolen, so only the one holding the maw owes it. (Rav Asi, not Rav Ashi the later redactor.)
- Rav Ḥisda — third-generation Amora of Sura; author of the “robbed but not despaired of” ruling, and teaches the eight uncertainties of the convert.
- Rava — fourth-generation Amora of Meḥoza; answers with presumptive status (the cow is exempt, the crop obligated) and with safek mamona lekula, and derives “the right foreleg” from “the thigh.” (Ravaרבא, not Rabbahרבה.)
- Abaye — fourth-generation head of Pumbedita; presses the case of the convert’s dough against Rava.
- Rav Sheshet — third-generation Amora renowned for baraitot; rules that where there are no poor, gleanings are not “for the ravens and the bats,” so the owner may keep them.
Eretz-Yisrael Amoraim
- Rabbi Yoḥanan — second-generation Amora, head of the academy in Tiberias; defends the mishna’s leniency by reading the opposing stringency as a single Sage’s report.
- Reish Lakish (Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish) — second-generation Amora, his colleague and disputant; raises the contradiction and cites “do justice to the poor.”
- Rabbi Ami — third-generation Amora, head of the yeshiva in Tiberias; seizes the sack of dinars — but for the poor, or as a distinguished man entitled to be enriched.
- Levi — early Amora of the transitional generation; sows in Kishar, where there are no poor to take his gleanings.
- Rav Dimi and Ravin — fourth-generation travelers (neḥutei) between Eretz Yisrael and Babylon; each carries a version of the Reish Lakish–Yoḥanan exchange northward.
Quién es quién en el daf de hoy
Tanaím
- Rabí Meir — tana de cuarta generación, discípulo de R’ Akivá; sostiene que las espigas caídas de estatus dudoso se tratan como espigas caídas (sfek léket léket), el rigor que Resh Lakish opone a la mishná.
- Rabí Iehudá ben Agrá — tana citado transmitiendo la postura de Rabí Meir sobre espigas, gavillas olvidadas y peá dudosas; R’ Iojanán lee el rigor como solo su reporte singular.
- Rabí Iehoshúa (ben Jananiá) — tana de segunda generación; atestigua que los cohanim actuaron con generosidad y devolvieron la grasa del cuajar a los dueños — implicando que por ley es del cohén.
- Rabí Janiná ben Antígnos — tana que valida un degüello “desviado” (mugrémet); la baraíta que llama al alto de la garganta “la zona del degüello” lo sigue.
- Rabí Iehudá (bar Ilái) — tana de cuarta generación; define el muslo en la mishná como llegando hasta la articulación superior de la rodilla.
Amoraím babilónicos
- Rav (Abá Arijá) — amorá de primera generación, fundador de Sura; dictamina sobre el cuajar vendido por peso y sostiene que los dones sacerdotales pueden ser robados.
- Rav Asi — amorá temprano y colega de Rav; sostiene que los dones no pueden ser robados, así que solo quien tiene el cuajar en mano lo debe. (Rav Asi, no Rav Ashi el redactor posterior.)
- Rav Jisda — amorá de tercera generación de Sura; autor del dictamen de “robado pero sin que los dueños desesperen”, y enseña las ocho incertidumbres del converso.
- Rava — amorá de cuarta generación de Mejozá; responde con estatus presunto (la vaca exenta, la mies obligada) y con sfek mamoná lekulá, y deriva “la pata derecha” de “el muslo”. (Ravaרבא, no Rabáרבה.)
- Abaie — amorá de cuarta generación, cabeza de Pumbedita; opone el caso de la masa del converso a Rava.
- Rav Shéshet — amorá de tercera generación célebre por sus baraítot; dictamina que donde no hay pobres, las espigas no son “para los cuervos y los murciélagos”, así que el dueño puede conservarlas.
Amoraím de la Tierra de Israel
- Rabí Iojanán — amorá de segunda generación, cabeza de la academia de Tiberíades; defiende la indulgencia de la mishná leyendo el rigor opuesto como el reporte de un solo sabio.
- Resh Lakish (Rabí Shimón ben Lakish) — amorá de segunda generación, su colega y contrincante; plantea la contradicción y cita “haz justicia al pobre”.
- Rabí Amí — amorá de tercera generación, cabeza de la ieshivá de Tiberíades; arrebata la bolsa de dinares — pero para los pobres, o como hombre distinguido con derecho a ser enriquecido.
- Leví — amorá temprano de la generación de transición; siembra en Kishar, donde no hay pobres que tomen sus espigas.
- Rav Dimí y Ravín — viajeros de cuarta generación (nejutei) entre la Tierra de Israel y Babilonia; cada uno lleva una versión del intercambio Resh Lakish–Iojanán hacia el norte.
מי ומי בדף של היום
תנאים
- רבי מאיר — תנא בן הדור הרביעי, תלמיד ר’ עקיבא; סובר שספק לקט — לקט, החומרא שרבי שמעון בן לקיש מקשה ממנה על המשנה.
- רבי יהודה בן אגרא — תנא הנמסר כמוסר את דעת רבי מאיר בספק לקט, שכחה ופאה; ר’ יוחנן קורא את החומרא כמסירתו היחידאית בלבד.
- רבי יהושע (בן חנניה) — תנא בן הדור השני; מעיד שהכהנים נהגו עין יפה והחזירו את חלב הקיבה לבעלים — משמע שמדין תורה הוא של הכהן.
- רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס — תנא המכשיר שחיטה ״מוגרמת״; הברייתא הקוראת לראש הצוואר ״בית שחיטה״ כמותו.
- רבי יהודה (בר אילעאי) — תנא בן הדור הרביעי; מגדיר במשנה את השוק כמגיע עד הפרק העליון של הארכובה.
אמוראי בבל
- רב (אבא אריכא) — אמורא בן הדור הראשון, מייסד סורא; פוסק בקיבה הנמכרת במשקל וסובר שמתנות כהונה נגזלות.
- רב אסי — אמורא קדום וחברו של רב; סובר שהמתנות אינן נגזלות, ולכן רק מי שהקיבה בידו חייב בה. (רב אסי, לא רב אשי המאוחר, עורך הש״ס.)
- רב חסדא — אמורא בן הדור השלישי מסורא; בעל הפסק ״גזל ולא נתייאשו הבעלים״, ומלמד את שמונה ספקות הגר.
- רבא — אמורא בן הדור הרביעי ממחוזא; משיב בחזקה (הפרה בפטור, הקמה בחיוב) וב״ספק ממונא לקולא״, ולומד ״זרוע ימין״ מ״הירך״. (רבא רבא, לא רבה רבה.)
- אביי — אמורא בן הדור הרביעי, ראש פומבדיתא; מקשה על רבא מעיסת הגר.
- רב ששת — אמורא בן הדור השלישי, נודע בברייתותיו; פוסק שבמקום שאין עניים אין הלקט ״לעורבים ולעטלפים״, והבעלים זוכה בו.
אמוראי ארץ ישראל
- רבי יוחנן — אמורא בן הדור השני, ראש הישיבה בטבריה; מגן על קולת המשנה בכך שהוא קורא את החומרא שכנגד כמסירת יחיד.
- ריש לקיש (רבי שמעון בן לקיש) — אמורא בן הדור השני, חברו ובר-פלוגתתו; מקשה את הסתירה ומביא ״עני ורש הצדיקו״.
- רבי אמי — אמורא בן הדור השלישי, ראש הישיבה בטבריה; זוכה בשק הדינרים — אך לעניים, או כאדם חשוב הזכאי להתעשר.
- לוי — אמורא קדום מדור המעבר; זורע בכישר, שאין בו עניים ליטול את לקטו.
- רב דימי ורבין — נחותי הדור הרביעי בין ארץ ישראל לבבל; כל אחד מעלה נוסח של דברי ריש לקיש ורבי יוחנן.
The whole Vilna page as it is printed — Gemara in the middle, Rashi and Tosafot in the margins, Mesoras HaShas and Ein Mishpat down the sides. Open it full size to read it comfortably, and tap any line underneath it for the English of that passage.La página de Vilna completa, tal como está impresa — la Guemará en el centro, Rashi y Tosafot en los márgenes, Masoret HaShas y Ein Mishpat a los lados. Ábrela a tamaño completo para leerla con comodidad; debajo está su texto, pasaje por pasaje.דף וילנא כולו כפי שהוא מודפס — הגמרא באמצע, רש״י ותוספות בשוליים, מסורת הש״ס ועין משפט בצדדים. פתחו אותו בגודל מלא כדי לקרוא בנוחות; מתחתיו מופיע הטקסט שלו, קטע אחר קטע.
Line by line — tap one for its EnglishEl texto de la página, pasaje por pasajeטקסט הדף, קטע אחר קטע
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.
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.
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.
new sugyaThe 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: Do not trouble me with this contradiction, as I teach that baraitain 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.
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Even if you teach thatbaraitaonly 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”?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Line by line — tap one for its EnglishEl texto de la página, pasaje por pasajeטקסט הדף, קטע אחר קטע
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.
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.
new sugyaWith 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.
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.
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 separateteruma 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.
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.
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?
The Gemara responds: The halakhais 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.
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?
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.
new sugyaIn 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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 baraitacites this halakhafrom 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.”
new sugyaThe 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.
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 thatbaraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus.
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.
And if you wish, say instead that this mishna and thatbaraita 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.
25הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַזְּרוֹעַ וְהַלְּחָיַיִם.
The daf laid out as it is printed: the Gemara in the middle, Rashi on the inner margin and Tosafot on the outer one. Nothing here was written by us.El daf con la disposición de la página impresa: la Guemará en el centro, Rashi en el margen interior y Tosafot en el exterior. Nada de esto fue escrito por nosotros.הדף בעימוד שבו הוא מודפס: הגמרא באמצע, רש״י בשוליים הפנימיים ותוספות בחיצוניים. שום דבר כאן לא נכתב על ידינו.
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.
ורמינהו — כהן שמכר בהמה לישראל ואמר לו ע"מ שהמתנות שלי נותנן ישראל לכל כהן שירצה דכיון דכולה בהמה זבין ליה לא מצי לאתנויי ליה האי אמתנות שאינן שלו אלא של כהנים נינהו ואין לו בהן אלא טובת הנאה מ"מ ש"מ דחייב במתנות:
חוץ שיורא הוא ע"מ לאו שיורא הוא — וא"ת כי א"ל ע"מ דאמרינן נותנן לכל כהן שירצה א"כ המקח בטל שלא נתן לו הבהמה אלא ע"מ שיהיו המתנות שלו וי"ל דמיירי שהתנו שיהיו המתנות שלו ואם לא יתן לו לא יהיה המקח בטל אי נמי הוי כמו מתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה שהרשתו תורה ליתנם לכל מי שירצה:
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.
חוץ שיור — לשון שיור משמע ששייר המתנות ולא מכרן לפיכך פטור הלוקח שהרי של כהן הן ודכוותה בישראל הוה מחייב הלוקח דכיון שהוא שחטה עליה רמיא למיתבינהו:
על מנת לאו שיורא הוא — אלא תנאה הכל מכר לו ע"מ שיתנם לו והוא אין בו כח להתנות:
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.
new sugyaThe 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.
לא שנו — היכא דלקח הימנו במשקל דקתני נותנן לוקח לכהן והוא חוזר ותובע דמים מן הטבח:
אלא — כששקלן לוקח לעצמו דכיון דטבח לא נגע בהן אינו בעל דברים של כהן לפיכך זה הלוקח נותנן והוא שואל לו הדמים שעל הטבח היה מוטל ליתן:
אבל שקלן לו טבח הדין — של כהן ומחלוקתו ותביעתו אף על הטבח הוא והטבח חוזר עליהן אם יש בעין נותנן לכהן והכי מפרש לה בריש הגוזל בב"ק (דף קטו.) דאף עם הטבח קאמר ר' יהודה:
הדין עמו — דינו של כהן ותביעתו עם הלוקח הוא הואיל וישנה לגזלה בעין במקום שהוא שם ילך:
דמר אית ליה דרב חסדא — אין לפרש דרב אית ליה דרב חסדא ועם הראשון דקאמר רב היינו אפי' עם הראשון דא"כ לרב אסי הדין עם השני ולא עם הראשון בגזל ולא נתייאשו הבעלים ובא אחר ואכלו דהא ליכא מאן דפליג שלא יוכל לגבות מן הראשון הגוזל ובאחר שאכלו הוא דאיכא דלית ליה דרב חסדא אלא יש לפרש איפכא דרב לית ליה דרב חסדא דהדין דוקא עם הטבח ורב אסי אית ליה דרב חסדא והדין אף עם הלוקח ודחי דכ"ע אית להו דרב חסדא ובמתנות כהונה נגזלות קא מיפלגי דרב סבר נגזלות והדין עם הטבח היינו אף עם הטבח כרב חסדא ורב אסי סבר דהדין דווקא עם הלוקח לפי שהמתנות אין נגזלות והוי איפכא ממאי דהוה בעי למימר מעיקרא ותימה דבמאי קא מיירי אי בשאין מתנות בעין הא אמרינן בריש פירקין דמזיק מתנות כהונה או אכלן פטור ואם הם בעין היכי קאמר דבדרב חסדא קא מיפלגי הא משמע בריש הגוזל בתרא (ב"ק דף קיא:) דהיכא דהם בעין ליכא מאן דפליג אדרב חסדא אלא דווקא כשאכלן דתני רבי אושעיא הגוזל ומאכיל את בניו פטורין מלשלם הניח לפניהן גזלה קיימת חייבים לשלם אין גזלה קיימת פטורין כו' ופריך לימא תהוי תיובתא דרב חסדא משמע דלמאן דפליג עליה אתי שפיר דדוקא אין גזילה קיימת פטורים אבל בגזלה קיימת חייבים לשלם וצ"ע:
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.
רב אית ליה דרב חסדא:
רצה מזה גובה — דכיון דקודם יאוש אכלו זה האחרון הוה ליה איהו גזלן עלייהו דהא כל מקמי יאוש ברשותייהו דמרייהו קיימי כל היכא דאיתנהו:
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.
לא — בגזלן דעלמא שהגזלן קונה אותו בגזלתו לשלם:
דכולי עלמא אית להו דרב חסדא — דאם רצה נגזל לדון עם הראשון ידון:
והכא — בגזל מתנות כהונה קמיפלגי מר סבר מתנות כהונה נגזלות ונתחייב גזלן בגזלתו לשלם דתורת גזל עליהן:
ומר סבר אינם נגזלות — אין כח לגזלן וכל זמן שהן בעין כל מקום שהולכין החוב מוטל על מי שהם אצלו לתתו לכהן והראשון לא נעשה גזלן עליהן:
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.
מתנות כהונה נגזלות — לכדאמרן שאם רצה כהן לדון עם הראשון ידון:
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.
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.
אלמא ספק — מתנות כהונה לקולא דאמרינן המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה:
ורמינהי חורי הנמלים שבתוך הקמה כו' — מרבנן נמי פריך דלא פליגי רבנן אלא משום דסברי דתחתונים ודאי נמלים כנסום הילכך הם של בעה"ב הא אם היו ספק היו מודים דהוי לקט כמו עליונים שספק לקט לקט:
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.
שבתוך הקמה — לפני הקוצרים שעדיין לא הגיעו הקוצרים לשם:
הרי — כל הנמצא בהן לבעה"ב דאין לקט אלא הנושר בשעת קצירה:
העליונים — חטין העליונים שעל פי החור איכא למימר לקט הן שנשרו מן השבלין בשעת קצירה:
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.
שספק לקט לקט — אלמא לרבי מאיר גבי מתנות עניים וה"ה למתנות כהונה ספיקא לחומרא וסתם מתני' ר"מ היא וקתני ספיקא לקולא:
Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: Do not trouble me with this contradiction, as I teach that baraitain 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.
אל תקניטני — דהא דקתני ספק לקט לקט יחידאה היא שאיני שונה אותה כמו ששנית דברי ר"מ אלא דברי ר' יהודה בן אגרא משום ר"מ:
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Even if you teach thatbaraitaonly 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”?
א"ל — ר"ל:
אל תשנה אותה אלא בלשון בן תדל — אפי' אין אתה שונה אותה אלא בשם שוטה שבעולם ששמו בן תדל אפילו הכי קשיא לך דהא טעמא קאמר למילתיה:
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?
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.
פרה — כשנולד לך ספק זה במתנותיה ואתה מעמידה על חזקתה הראשונה הרי היא פטורה שהרי בחזקת של עובד כוכבים היתה עומדת:
קמה — כשנולד לך ספק בלקט ואתה מעמידה על חזקתה חזקת חיוב הוא דמעולם היא עומדת לכך דשל ישראל היא:
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?
חיוב חלה הכל הולך אחר גלגולה משגלגל בה הוי חיובה וגלגול העובד כוכבים פוטר דכתיב (במדבר טו) עריסותיכם. אם עד שלא נתגייר נתגלגלה פטור אם ספק חייב גרסינן:
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.
חלה ספק איסורא שיש בה עון מיתה הלכך לא סמכינן אחזקה אבל מתנות אין בהן קדושה אלא דין ממון והמוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה:
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.
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.
קרבן אשתו — ספק ילדה כשהיתה עובדת כוכבים ספק משנתגיירה מביאה קרבן דספק איסור כרת הוא לאכול בקדשים עד שתביא כפרה דמחוסר כפורים אסור בקדשים וענוש כרת:
וחלה — ספק מיתה:
ובכור בהמה טהורה — ספק כרת לשוחטו בחוץ וצריך להמתין עד שיסתאב דתו לית ביה אלא דין ממון ואוכלו הוא במומו:
ובכור — פטר חמור. כמאן דאמר בבכורות (דף ט:) אסור בהנאה עד שיפדנו וצריך להפריש עליו טלה לפדיונו לאפקועי איסוריה ומעכב הטלה בידו והוא שלו דשה של פדיון לא רמיא קדושה עליה אלא ממונא דכהן הוא וכיון דספק הוא המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה:
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.
ראשית הגז והמתנות — תימה למאן דאית ליה לעיל (חולין דף קלב:) דמתנות טבלי ליתני נמי מתנות לחיוב קודם שהורמו ולפטור אחר שהורמו המתנות דהוו שלו כי היכי דתני בבכור בהמה טמאה לחיוב ולפטור:
קמה אקמה רמי עליה — מתניתא אחריתי אשכח לר"מ דפטר בקמה של גר ספק נקצרה קודם שנתגייר ספק משנתגייר ורמייה אהא דקתני ספק לקט לקט ושני ליה בלשון בן אגרא אני שונה אותה:
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.
new sugyaWith 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.
אין מביאין — אין צריך ישראל לטרוח ולהביא תרומה מן הגורן לעיר ליד כהן אלא כהן הולך ומביאה:
ואם אין שם כהן כו' — אלמא בעי לאפרושה ולאצנועה עד דמשכח כהן ה"נ בעי לאצנועה עד דמשכח עניים:
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.
שאני תרומה דטבלה — אוסרת הכל עליו משום טבל לפיכך על כרחו צריך להפריש:
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 separateteruma 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.
למלוג בעגלים — שמולגין אותן ברותחין עם עורן ואוכלין אותן עם העור:
אין רשאי להפשיט את הזרוע — אלא נותנו לכהן כמו שהוא בעורו:
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.
הראש לא יפשיט את הלחי — כדמרבינן לקמן מקרא יתירא שאף הצמר שבראש כבשים הוא חייב ליתן לו וכ"ש העור:
ואם אין שם כהן — לתת לו המתנות:
מעלים אותם בדמים — שם את דמי המתנות ואוכל המתנות ונותן דמיהם לכהן הבא ראשון:
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?
The Gemara responds: The halakhais 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.
אלא תעזוב יתירא — דכתיב בלקט למה לי חד בקדושים תהיו וחד בשור או כשב לאו לרבויי שאפילו במקום שאין עניים שעליו להצניעם עד שימצא עניים:
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?
חייב בפרט ובעוללות כו' — אע"ג דהפקר פטור מכולם דבכולהו כתיב קצירך כרמך ולא של הפקר ובכולהו תנן כל שהוא אוכל ונשמר פרט לשל הפקר להכי אהני תעזוב יתירא דכתיב בכולהו לאתויי הפקר כי האי גוונא דהדר איהו וזכה ביה. בלקט ופאה כתיב תעזוב יתירא חד בקדושים תהיו וחד בשור או כשב ופרט בכרם היינו לקט. עוללות חד בקדושים תהיו וכרמך לא תעולל וחד במשנה תורה (כד) כי תבצור כרמך לא תעולל אחריך. שכחה חד גבי שכחת אילן וחד גבי שכחת כרם דאמרינן לעיל (חולין דף קלא.) אחריך זו שכחה:
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.
שקא דדינרי — דינרי זהב ששלחו ממקום אחר לבני הישיבה:
new sugyaIn 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.
ואיבעית אימא אדם חשוב — כגון ממונה ראש ישיבה יכול לקדם ולזכות שהרי עליו לגדלו ולהעשירו אפילו משלו וכ"ש ממאי דאתי ליה מעלמא:
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.
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.
מתני' מן פרק של ארכובה — ארכובה הנמכרת עם הראש:
עד כף של יד — עצם רחב של כתף שקורין אשפלדו"ן:
והוא של נזיר — וכן זרוע בשלה האמור בנזיר (במדבר ו) כך ניטלת:
וכנגדו ברגל שוק — האמור בשלמים (ויקרא ז) נמי הוי שתי עצמות מן הפרק של ארכובה עד בוקא דאטמא דהיינו כל הירך:
סובך של רגל — היינו פרק שבין הקולית ועצם אמצעי:
הפרק של לחי — אצל הצדעים וחותך כלפי מטה עד פיקה של גרגרת עד שיפוי כובע שהוא פקעיתא ופתחה של קנה בית הבליעה דהיינו לחיים התחתונות עם הלשון:
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.
פיקה של גרגרת — היא טבעת הגדולה שעשויה עגולה כפיקה:
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.
כדאמר רבא — בפרק גיד הנשה (לעיל חולין דף צא.) אליבא דרבי יהודה דאמר אינו נוהג אלא באחת והדעת מכרעת של ימין:
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.
הזרוע המיומנת — אפילו לרבנן דדרשי פרק גיד הנשה (לעיל חולין דף צו:) הירך דפשיט איסוריה בכוליה ירך הכא מודו דלא שייך למדרש הכי:
ה' דהלחיים למאי אתא:
חלב של הקבה וחלב שבתוך הקבה — חלב הקרום:
כהנים נהגו בו עין יפה — שלא ליטלו מן הבעלים. אלמא דמדאורייתא של כהנים הוא דנפקא ליה מה"א יתירא והקבה:
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.
דורשי חמורות — מקראות הסתומים:
היו אומרים — מנלן דשל ימין מהכא:
יד — שנותנין לכהן כנגד ידו של פנחס שעל כך ניתנה לו ברית כהונת עולם וזה שכרו ואיזו יד שעושה מלחמה הוי אומר של ימין:
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).
דורשי חמורות — פירש בערוך בשם רב סעדיה גאון כמין המעשה דבלשון ארמי מהו חמרך מה מעשיך:
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).
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 baraitacites this halakhafrom 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.”
ובית שחיטה עמה — היינו תופס בעומק הצואר באלכסון יותר מן הפיקה:
new sugyaThe 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.
לעולם עד הפיקה ולא קשיא — ברייתא דקרי לה בית שחיטה ר' חנינא היא דמכשיר שחיטה למעלה מבית הבליעה ומתניתין דלא קרי לה בית שחיטה רבנן היא:
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 thatbaraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus.
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.
ואיבעית אימא — ברייתא נמי רבנן היא והאי עמה דקתני לאו עם הלחי אלא עם הבהמה היה נשאר בית שחיטה והלחי ניטל עם הפיקה:
And if you wish, say instead that this mishna and thatbaraita 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.
The Vilna page served by shas.org, one PDF per amud.La página de Vilna servida por shas.org, un PDF por amud.דף וילנא מוגש על ידי shas.org, קובץ PDF אחד לכל עמוד.
Text from Sefaria. Gemara and translation from the William Davidson Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz, CC BY-NC 4.0. Rashi and Tosafot are the Vilna edition, public domain.Texto de Sefaria. La Guemará y su traducción provienen del Talmud William Davidson, con comentario del rabino Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz (traducción al inglés), CC BY-NC 4.0. Rashi y Tosafot son de la edición de Vilna, de dominio público.הטקסט מתוך ספריא. הגמרא והתרגום מתוך תלמוד ויליאם דוידסון, עם פירושו של הרב עדין אבן־ישראל שטיינזלץ (התרגום לאנגלית), CC BY-NC 4.0. רש״י ותוספות הם ממהדורת וילנא, נחלת הכלל.
Walking through the sugya, step by step
134a — two words, a stolen gift, and the convert’s cow
“Except” against “on condition.” A baraita says that a priest who sells his animal
“on condition the gifts are mine” has not secured them — the buyer gives them to any
priest he wants. Doesn’t that contradict the mishna, where “except for the gifts” keeps
them for the seller? No:chutz is a term of retention (shiyura) — he never sold
them — while al menat is only a stipulation, and a priest has no power to make it, since
the gifts belong to the tribe and not to him. A second baraita rules that al menatdoes
secure them; so the two baraitot simply disagree whether al menat is retention.
The maw sold by weight. The mishna: buy innards outright and you give the maw whole; buy
them by weight and you deduct the maw’s value. Rav: the priest claims the maw from the
buyer only when the buyer weighed them for himself; but if the butcher weighed them
for him, the judgment is also with the butcher — the priest may claim from either. Rav
Asi: even then, only from the buyer.
Can a gift be stolen? Do they argue over Rav Ḥisda — that one robbed of an item, before
he despairs, may collect from either the robber or whoever consumed it? No. Everyone
accepts Rav Ḥisda; they argue whether priestly gifts can be stolen (nigzalot). Rav:
they can — so the butcher-robber remains liable and the priest may claim from either. Rav
Asi: they cannot — so the obligation clings only to whoever physically holds the maw. Some
teach this as a standalone dispute between Rav and Rav Asi.
The convert’s cow. A new mishna: a convert whose cow was slaughtered before he
converted is exempt from the gifts; after, obligated; and if it is uncertain,
exempt — the burden of proof is on the claimant.
Is uncertainty lenient or strict? Reish Lakish presses R’ Yoḥanan: our mishna says
uncertainty is lenient, but the mishna of the ant holes has R’ Meir rule that
uncertain gleanings are gleanings — strict — and an unattributed mishna is R’ Meir!
R’ Yoḥanan: “Do not trouble me — I teach that ruling only in the singular,” as the
report of R’ Yehuda ben Agra in R’ Meir’s name. Reish Lakish: even so, there is a stated
reason — “do justice to the afflicted and destitute” means be righteous with your own and
give it to the poor. Why, then, is the priest’s gift lenient?
Rava’s answer. The cow stands in a presumptive status of exemption (it was a
gentile’s); the standing crop stands in a presumptive status of obligation.
Abaye’s objection. But the convert’s dough — uncertain whether kneaded before or after
conversion — is obligated in ḥalla, though it too had a presumptive exemption! Rava:
an uncertain prohibition is strict, an uncertain monetary matter lenient. Ḥalla
carries a prohibition; the gifts are pure money.
The eight uncertainties. As Rav Ḥisda taught, and Rabbi Ḥiyya likewise: eight
uncertainties were stated about a convert — four to obligation and four to exemption.
The four that obligate — his wife’s post-birth offering, ḥalla, a firstborn donkey, and
a firstborn kosher animal — all carry a prohibition (and some karet).
134b — no poor for the gleanings, and the anatomy of the gifts
The four that exempt. The first shearing, the priestly gifts, redemption of the firstborn
son, and redemption of a firstborn donkey — all purely monetary, so uncertainty is
lenient.
No poor in Kishar. Levi sowed where there were no poor to take his gleanings. Rav
Sheshet: “leave them for the poor and the stranger” — and not for the ravens and the
bats; take them yourself. An objection from teruma (if no priest is there, hire a cow and
bring it, lest it be lost) is set aside: teruma is different — it renders the crop
untithed. But the gifts do not, and still a baraita requires effort for them (don’t skin
the foreleg or jaw where the priest could use the hide; if no priest, appraise and eat, paying
later). The resolution: the gifts have “giving” (netina) written of them — and, once we
say that, so does teruma. The extra “you shall leave” (ta’azov) is then freed to teach
that even a reclaimed ownerless vineyard owes gifts to the poor.
The sack of dinars. A purse for the students reached the study hall and R’ Ami seized
it. How — when “they shall give” bars taking on one’s own? He took it for the poor. Or:
a distinguished person is different — “the priest greater than his brethren” must be
greater in beauty, wisdom, and wealth, and his brethren must enrich him.
The mishna — measuring the gifts. The foreleg runs from the lower knee joint to the top
of the shoulder — and is the very foreleg the nazirite gives; its parallel behind is the
thigh (R’ Yehuda: up to the upper knee joint). The jaw runs from the jaw joint down to
the ring of the windpipe.
The right side, and the extra letters. “The foreleg” means the right foreleg — the
most important (hameyumenet), just as Rava read “the thigh.” The definite article on
“and the jaw” adds the wool on lambs’ heads and hair in goats’ beards; on “and the
maw,” the fat on and inside the maw — which R’ Yehoshua says the priests generously
returned to owners, implying it is theirs by right.
Pinehas. The interpreters of symbolism read the three gifts back to Pinehas: the
foreleg for the hand that took the spear, the jaw for the prayer he offered,
and the maw as its plain sense — the belly he pierced. A closing dispute on whether the jaw
includes the “area of slaughter” (the Rabbis vs. R’ Ḥanina ben Antigonus) ends the chapter.
Hadran alach HaZeroa VehaLechayayim.
The distinctions, side by side
The heart of the daf is a single principle applied to the convert’s eight uncertainties: an
uncertainty about a prohibition is resolved strictly, an uncertainty about money
leniently — and the cow’s presumptive exemption is relied on only when nothing but money is at
stake.
the gifts, first shearing, redemption of son, redemption of donkey
money only
yes
exempt (lenient)
One line to carry with you
Two identical uncertainties, one convert — and the law splits them by what is at risk. Where
only money hangs on the doubt, let the claimant prove his claim; where a prohibition hangs on
it, take the stricter road. The gift is money, so the doubt goes free.
Recorriendo la suguiá, paso a paso
134a — dos palabras, un don robado y la vaca del converso
“Excepto” frente a “con la condición”. Una baraíta dice que un cohén que vende su animal
“con la condición de que los dones son míos” no los ha asegurado — el comprador los da al
cohén que quiera. ¿No contradice esto la mishná, donde “excepto los dones” los conserva
para el vendedor? No:jutz es un término de retención (shiiurá) — nunca los vendió
— mientras que al menat es solo una estipulación, y un cohén no tiene poder de hacerla,
pues los dones pertenecen a la tribu y no a él. Una segunda baraíta dictamina que al menatsí los asegura; así que las dos baraítot simplemente discrepan sobre si al menat es
retención.
El cuajar vendido por peso. La mishná: compra las entrañas en bloque y das el cuajar
entero; cómpralas por peso y deduces el valor del cuajar. Rav: el cohén reclama el
cuajar al comprador solo cuando este las pesó para sí; pero si el carnicero las
pesó para él, el juicio es también con el carnicero — el cohén puede reclamar a cualquiera
de los dos. Rav Asi: aun entonces, solo al comprador.
¿Puede robarse un don? ¿Discuten acaso sobre Rav Jisda — que quien fue robado de un
objeto, antes de desesperar, puede cobrar sea del ladrón sea de quien lo consumió? No.
Todos aceptan a Rav Jisda; discuten si los dones sacerdotales pueden ser robados
(nigzalot). Rav: pueden — así que el carnicero-ladrón queda obligado y el cohén puede
reclamar a cualquiera. Rav Asi: no pueden — así que la obligación se adhiere solo a quien
tiene físicamente el cuajar. Algunos enseñan esto como una disputa independiente entre Rav
y Rav Asi.
La vaca del converso. Una mishná nueva: un converso cuya vaca fue degollada antes de
convertirse está exento de los dones; después, obligado; y si es incierto,
exento — la carga de la prueba recae sobre el reclamante.
¿La incertidumbre es indulgente o rigurosa? Resh Lakish presiona a R’ Iojanán: nuestra
mishná dice que la incertidumbre es indulgente, pero la mishná de los hormigueros tiene
a R’ Meir dictaminar que las espigas dudosas son espigas caídas — riguroso — ¡y una
mishná anónima es R’ Meir! R’ Iojanán: “No me molestes — enseño ese dictamen solo en
singular”, como reporte de R’ Iehudá ben Agrá en nombre de R’ Meir. Resh Lakish: aun así,
hay una razón declarada — “haz justicia al afligido y menesteroso” significa sé justo con lo
tuyo y dalo al pobre. ¿Por qué, entonces, el don del cohén es indulgente?
La respuesta de Rava. La vaca está en un estatus presunto de exención (era de un
gentil); la mies en pie está en un estatus presunto de obligación.
La objeción de Abaie. Pero la masa del converso — incierta si fue amasada antes o
después de la conversión — está obligada en jalá, ¡aunque también tenía una exención
presunta! Rava: una prohibición incierta es rigurosa, un asunto monetario incierto
es indulgente. La jalá lleva una prohibición; los dones son puro dinero.
Las ocho incertidumbres. Como enseñó Rav Jisda, y Rabí Jiiá igual: se enunciaron ocho
incertidumbres sobre un converso — cuatro a obligación y cuatro a exención. Las cuatro
que obligan — la ofrenda de su esposa tras el parto, la jalá, un asno primogénito y un
animal kosher primogénito — todas llevan una prohibición (y algunas karet).
134b — sin pobres para las espigas, y la anatomía de los dones
Las cuatro que eximen. La primera esquila, los dones sacerdotales, la redención del hijo
primogénito y la redención de un asno primogénito — todas puramente monetarias, así que la
incertidumbre es indulgente.
Sin pobres en Kishar. Leví sembró donde no había pobres que tomaran sus espigas. Rav
Shéshet: “déjalas para el pobre y el forastero” — y no para los cuervos y los murciélagos;
tómalas tú. Una objeción desde la trumá (si no hay cohén allí, alquila una vaca y tráela, no
sea que se pierda) se descarta: la trumá es distinta — vuelve la cosecha no diezmada
(tével). Pero los dones no, y aun así una baraíta exige esfuerzo por ellos (no despellejar
la pata ni la quijada donde el cohén pueda usar la piel; si no hay cohén, tasa y come, pagando
después). La resolución: los dones tienen “dar” (netiná) escrito de ellos — y, una vez que
lo decimos, también la trumá. El “dejarás” de más (taazov) queda entonces libre para
enseñar que aun una viña abandonada recuperada debe los dones a los pobres.
La bolsa de dinares. Una bolsa para los estudiantes llegó a la casa de estudio y R’ Amí
la arrebató. ¿Cómo — si “darán” prohíbe tomar por cuenta propia? La tomó para los pobres.
O: un hombre distinguido es distinto — “el cohén mayor que sus hermanos” debe ser mayor en
belleza, sabiduría y riqueza, y sus hermanos deben enriquecerlo.
La mishná — midiendo los dones. La pata va de la articulación inferior de la rodilla al
alto del hombro — y es la misma pata que da el nazir; su paralelo detrás es el muslo (R’
Iehudá: hasta la articulación superior de la rodilla). La quijada va de la articulación de
la quijada hasta el anillo de la tráquea.
El lado derecho, y las letras de más. “La pata” significa la pata derecha — la más
importante (hameiuménet), tal como Rava leyó “el muslo”. El artículo definido en “y las
quijadas” añade la lana en las cabezas de los corderos y el pelo en las barbas de los
machos cabríos; en “y el cuajar”, la grasa sobre y dentro del cuajar — que R’
Iehoshúa dice que los cohanim devolvieron generosamente a los dueños, implicando que es de
ellos por derecho.
Pinjás. Los intérpretes del simbolismo remontan los tres dones a Pinjás: la pata por
la mano que tomó la lanza, la quijada por la oración que ofreció, y el cuajar en
su sentido llano — el vientre que atravesó. Una disputa final sobre si la quijada incluye la
“zona del degüello” (los Sabios frente a R’ Janiná ben Antígnos) cierra el capítulo. Hadrán
alaj HaZeroa VehaLejaiaim.
Las distinciones, lado a lado
El corazón del daf es un solo principio aplicado a las ocho incertidumbres del converso: una
incertidumbre sobre una prohibición se resuelve con rigor, una sobre dinero con
indulgencia — y el estatus presunto de exención de la vaca solo se invoca cuando no hay más que
dinero en juego.
La incertidumbre del converso trata de…
Tipo de riesgo
¿Invocar la exención presunta?
Dictamen
jalá, ofrenda de la esposa, asno primogénito, animal kosher primogénito
una prohibición (a veces karet)
no
obligado (riguroso)
los dones, la primera esquila, redención del hijo, redención del asno
solo dinero
sí
exento (indulgente)
Una línea para llevarte
Dos incertidumbres idénticas, un converso — y la ley las separa según lo que está en riesgo.
Donde solo pende dinero de la duda, que el reclamante pruebe su reclamo; donde pende una
prohibición, toma el camino más riguroso. El don es dinero, así que la duda queda libre.
עוברים על הסוגיה, צעד אחר צעד
קלד ע״א — שתי מילים, מתנה גזולה, ופרת הגר
״חוץ״ מול ״על מנת״. ברייתא אומרת שכהן המוכר את בהמתו ״על מנת שהמתנות שלי״ לא הבטיחן —
הלוקח נותנן לכל כהן שירצה. והרי זו סתירה למשנה, שבה ״חוץ מן המתנות״ משיירן למוכר? לא:חוץ היא לשון שיור — מעולם לא מכרן — ואילו על מנת היא תנאי בלבד, ואין לכהן כוח
להתנותו, שכן המתנות של השבט הן ולא שלו. ברייתא שנייה פוסקת שעל מנתכן מבטיחן; ונמצא ששתי
הברייתות פשוט נחלקות אם על מנת היא שיור.
הקיבה הנמכרת במשקל. המשנה: לקחת את בני המעיים בכלל — נותן את הקיבה שלמה; לקחתן במשקל —
מנכה את דמי הקיבה. רב: הכהן תובע את הקיבה מן הלוקח רק כששקלן לעצמו; אבל אם הטבח
שקלן לו, הדין אף עם הטבח — הכהן תובע מזה או מזה. רב אסי: אף אז, רק מן הלוקח.
האם מתנה נגזלת? האם נחלקו ברב חסדא — שהנגזל, קודם שנתייאש, גובה בין מן הגזלן בין ממי
שאכלו? לא. הכל מקבלים את רב חסדא; נחלקו אם מתנות כהונה נגזלות. רב: נגזלות — והטבח-הגזלן
נשאר חייב, והכהן תובע מזה או מזה. רב אסי: אינן נגזלות — והחיוב נדבק רק במי שהקיבה בידו בפועל.
יש השונים זאת כמחלוקת עצמאית בין רב לרב אסי.
פרת הגר. משנה חדשה: גר שנשחטה פרתו עד שלא נתגייר — פטור מן המתנות; משנתגייר —
חייב; ואם ספק — פטור, המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה.
הספק לקולא או לחומרא? ריש לקיש מקשה על ר’ יוחנן: משנתנו אומרת שהספק לקולא, אבל משנת
חורי הנמלים מביאה את ר’ מאיר הפוסק שספק לקט הרי הוא לקט — לחומרא — וסתם משנה ר’
מאיר! ר’ יוחנן: ״אל תקניטני — בלשון יחיד אני שונה אותה״, כמסירת ר’ יהודה בן אגרא משום ר’
מאיר. ריש לקיש: ואף על פי כן, יש טעם מפורש — ״עני ורש הצדיקו״ פירושו צדק משלך ותן לו
לעני. ואם כן, מדוע מתנת הכהן לקולא?
תשובת רבא. הפרה עומדת בחזקת פטורה (של גוי הייתה); הקמה עומדת בחזקת חיובא.
קושיית אביי. אבל עיסת הגר — ספק אם נילושה קודם הגיור או אחריו — חייבת בחלה, אף שגם לה
הייתה חזקת פטור! רבא: ספק איסור לחומרא, ספק ממון לקולא. החלה יש בה איסור; המתנות ממון
בלבד.
שמונה הספקות. כדברי רב חסדא, וכן שנה רבי חייא: שמונה ספקות נאמרו בגר — ארבע לחיוב
וארבע לפטור. הארבע המחייבות — קרבן אשתו לאחר לידה, החלה, בכור בהמה טמאה ובכור בהמה טהורה
— בכולן יש איסור (ובחלקן כרת).
קלד ע״ב — כשאין עניים ללקט, ואנטומיית המתנות
הארבע הפוטרות. ראשית הגז, המתנות, פדיון הבן ופדיון פטר חמור — כולן ממון בלבד, ולכן הספק
לקולא.
אין עניים בכישר. לוי זרע במקום שאין בו עניים ליטול את לקטו. רב ששת: ״לעני ולגר תעזוב
אותם״ — ולא לעורבים ולא לעטלפים; טול אותם לעצמך. קושיה מן התרומה (אם אין שם כהן, שוכר פרה
ומביאה, שלא תיפסד) נדחית: תרומה שאני — טובלת את התבואה. אבל המתנות אינן טובלות, ובכל זאת
ברייתא מצריכה טורח בעבורן (אין מפשיטים את הזרוע או הלחי במקום שהכהן ישתמש בעור; אין כהן — מעלין
בדמים ואוכל, ומשלם אחר כך). התירוץ: במתנות כתובה נתינה — ומשהגענו לכך, אף בתרומה. ה״תעזוב״
היתר משתחרר אז ללמד שאף כרם הפקר שחזר וזכה בו חייב במתנות עניים.
שק הדינרים. שק לתלמידים הגיע לבית המדרש, ורבי אמי קדם וזכה בו. כיצד — והרי ״ונתן״ אוסר
ליטול מעצמו? זכה בו לעניים. או: אדם חשוב שאני — ״הכהן הגדול מאחיו״ צריך להיות גדול מהם
בנוי, בחכמה ובעושר, ואחיו מחויבים לגדלו.
המשנה — מדידת המתנות. הזרוע מן פרק הארכובה התחתונה עד כף היד — והיא זרוע הנזיר עצמה;
כנגדה ברגל השוק (ר’ יהודה: עד הפרק העליון). הלחי מן פרק הלחי עד פיקה של גרגרת.
צד ימין, והאותיות היתרות. ״הזרוע״ היינו זרוע ימין — המיומנת, כשם שדרש רבא ״הירך״.
ה״א הידיעה ב״והלחיים״ מרבה את הצמר שבראש כבשים והשיער שבזקן תיישים; ב״והקבה״, החלב
שעל הקיבה ובתוכה — שר’ יהושע אומר שהכהנים נהגו בו עין יפה ונתנוהו לבעלים, משמע שהוא שלהם מן הדין.
פינחס.דורשי חמורות קוראים את שלוש המתנות חזרה אל פינחס: הזרוע כנגד היד שנטלה את
הרומח, הלחי כנגד התפילה שהתפלל, והקיבה כפשוטה — הכרס שדקר. מחלוקת חותמת אם הלחי כולל
את ״בית השחיטה״ (חכמים מול ר’ חנינא בן אנטיגנוס) נועלת את הפרק. הדרן עלך הזרוע והלחיים.
ההבחנות, זו מול זו
לב הדף הוא עיקרון אחד המיושם על שמונה ספקות הגר: ספק שבאיסור מכריעים לחומרא, ספק שבממון
לקולא — ועל חזקת הפטור של הפרה סומכים רק כשאין על הכף אלא ממון.
ספק הגר הוא ב…
טיב הסיכון
לסמוך על חזקת הפטור?
הפסק
חלה, קרבן אשתו, בכור בהמה טמאה, בכור בהמה טהורה
איסור (לעתים כרת)
לא
חייב (לחומרא)
המתנות, ראשית הגז, פדיון הבן, פדיון פטר חמור
ממון בלבד
כן
פטור (לקולא)
שורה אחת לקחת אתכם
שני ספקות זהים, גר אחד — והדין מפצל אותם לפי מה שעל הכף. במקום שרק ממון תלוי בספק, יביא
התובע ראיה; במקום שאיסור תלוי בו, לך אחר החומרא. המתנה ממון היא, ולכן הספק יוצא לחירות.
🎯 Test yourselfPonte a pruebaבחנו את עצמכם
Tip: click the card, then keys 1–4 answer and Enter moves on.Consejo: pulsa en la tarjeta; luego 1–4 responden y Enter continúa.טיפ: הקישו על הכרטיס; אחר כך 1–4 עונים ו-Enter ממשיך.
Tomorrow (Sat, 12 September 2026):
Chullin 135 — A new chapter, Reishit HaGez — the first shorn wool owed to the priest, which flocks are large enough to trigger it, and how much wool counts as "enough for a gift."
Mañana (sáb, 12 de septiembre de 2026):
Julín 135 — Un capítulo nuevo, Reshit HaGez — la primera lana esquilada que se debe al cohén, qué rebaños son lo bastante grandes para obligarla, y cuánta lana cuenta como "suficiente para un don".
מחר (שבת, 12 בספטמבר 2026):
חולין קלה — פרק חדש, ראשית הגז — הצמר הראשון הניתן לכהן, אילו עדרים גדולים דיים לחייב בו, וכמה צמר נחשב ״כדי מתנה״.