but if he was old or infirm1 he may give it to any priest2 he prefers, and the fee for the operation and the skin will belong to the members of the division.3 How are we to understand this 'old or infirm priest'? If he was still able to perform the service,4 why should the fee for the sacrifice and the skin similarly not be his? If on the other hand he was no longer able to perform the service, how can he appoint an agent?5 — Said R. Papa: He was able to perform it only with effort, so that in regard to the service which even though carried out only with effort is still a valid service he may appoint an agent, whereas in regard to the eating which if carried through only with effort would constitute an abnormal eating,6 which is not counted as anything7 [in the eyes of the law], the fee for the sacrifice and the skin must belong to the members of the division.
R. Shesheth said: If a priest [in the division] is unclean, he has the right to hand over a public sacrifice to whomever2 he prefers.8 but the fee and the skin will belong to the members of the division. What are the circumstances? If there were in the division priests who were not defiled, how then could defiled priests perform the service?9 If on the other hand there were no priests there who were not defiled, how then could the fee for the sacrifice and the skin belong to the members of the division who were defiled and unable to partake of holy food?10 — Said Raba: Read thus: '[The fee for it and the skin of it will belong] to blemished undefiled priests11 in that particular division.' R. Ashi said: Where the high priest was an Onan12 he may hand over his sacrifice to any priest13 he prefers,14 whereas the fee for it and the skin of it will belong to the members of the division. What does this tell us [which we do not already know?] Was it not taught: 'The high priest may sacrifice even while an Onan, but he may neither partake of the sacrifice, nor [even] acquire any share in it for the purpose of partaking of it in the evening'?15 — You might have supposed that the concession made by the Divine Law to the high priest12 was only that he himself should perform the sacrifice, but not that he should be entitled to appoint an agent; we are therefore told that this is not the case.
MISHNAH. IF ONE ROBBED A PROSELYTE AND [AFTER HE] HAD SWORN TO HIM [THAT HE DID NOT DO SO], THE PROSELYTE DIED, HE WOULD HAVE TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL AND A FIFTH TO THE PRIESTS, AND BRING A TRESPASS OFFERING TO THE ALTAR, AS IT IS SAID: BUT IF THE MAN HAVE NO KINSMAN TO RESTORE THE TRESPASS UNTO, LET THE TRESPASS BE RESTORED UNTO THE LORD, EVEN TO THE PRIEST; BESIDE THE RAM OF ATONEMENT WHEREBY AN ATONEMENT SHALL BE MADE FOR HIM.16 IF WHILE HE WAS BRINGING THE MONEY AND THE TRESPASS OFFERING UP TO JERUSALEM HE DIED [ON THE WAY], THE MONEY WILL BE GIVEN TO HIS HEIRS,17 AND THE TRESPASS OFFERING WILL BE KEPT ON THE PASTURE UNTIL IT BECOMES BLEMISHED,18 WHEN IT WILL BE SOLD AND THE VALUE RECEIVED WILL GO TO THE FUND OR FREEWILL OFFERINGS.19 BUT IF HE HAD ALREADY GIVEN THE MONEY TO THE MEMBERS OF THE DIVISION AND THEN DIED, THE HEIRS HAVE NO POWER TO MAKE THEM GIVE IT UP, AS IT IS WRITTEN, WHATSOEVER ANY MAN GIVE TO THE PRIEST IT SHALL BE HIS.20 IF HE GAVE THE MONEY TO JEHOIARIB21 AND THE TRESPASS OFFERING TO JEDAIAH,22 HE HAS FULFILLED HIS DUTY.23 IF, HOWEVER, THE TRESPASS OFFERING WAS FIRST GIVEN TO JEHOIARIB AND THEN THE MONEY TO JEDAIAH, IF THE TRESPASS OFFERING IS STILL IN EXISTENCE THE MEMBERS OF THE JEDAIAH DIVISION WILL HAVE TO SACRIFICE IT,24 BUT IF IT IS NO MORE IN EXISTENCE HE WOULD HAVE TO BRING ANOTHER TRESPASS OFFERING; FOR HE WHO BRINGS [THE RESTITUTION FOR] ROBBERY BEFORE HAVING BROUGHT THE TRESPASS OFFERING FULFILS HIS OBLIGATION, WHEREAS HE WHO BRINGS THE TRESPASS OFFERING BEFORE HAVING BROUGHT [THE RESTITUTION FOR] THE ROBBERY HAS NOT FULFILLED HIS OBLIGATION. IF HE HAS REPAID THE PRINCIPAL BUT NOT THE FIFTH, THE [NON-PAYMENT OF THE] FIFTH IS NO BAR [TO HIS BRINGING THE OFFERING].
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: The trespass:25 this indicates the Principal; be restored: this indicates the Fifth. Or perhaps this is not so, but 'the trespass' indicates the ram, and the practical difference as to which view we take would involve the rejection of the view of Raba, for Raba said: '[Restitution for] robbery committed upon a proselyte, if made at night time does not fulfil the obligation, nor does restitution by halves, the reason being that the Divine Law termed it trespass?26 — Since it says later 'beside the ram of atonement', you must surely say that 'the trespass' is the Principal.
Another [Baraitha]: 'The trespass' is the Principal, 'be restored' is the Fifth. Or perhaps this is not so, but 'the trespass' means the Fifth and the practical difference as to which view we take, would involve the rejection of the ruling of our Mishnah, viz. IF HE HAS REPAID THE PRINCIPAL BUT NOT THE FIFTH, THE [NONPAYMENT OF THE] FIFTH IS NO BAR', for in this case on the contrary the [non-payment of the] Fifth would be a bar?27 — Since it has already been stated: And he shall recompense his trespass with the Principal thereof and add unto it a Fifth thereof,28 you must needs say that the trespass is the Principal.
Another [Baraitha] taught: 'The trespass'29 is the Principal, 'be restored' is the Fifth, as the verse here deals with robbery committed upon a proselyte. Or perhaps this is not so, but 'be restored' indicates the doubling of the payment, the reference being to theft30 committed upon a proselyte? — Since it has already been stated: And he shall restore his trespass with the Principal thereof and add unto it a Fifth part thereof,28 it is obvious that Scripture deals here with money which is paid as Principal.31
[To revert to] the above text. 'Raba said: [Restitution for] robbery committed upon a proselyte, if made at night time would not be a fulfilment of the obligation, nor would it if made in halves, the reason being that the Divine Law termed it trespass;' Raba further said: If [in the restitution for] robbery committed upon a proselyte there was not the value of a perutah32 for each priest [of the division] the obligation would not be fulfilled, because it is written: 'The trespass be recompensed' which indicates that unless there be recompense to each priest [there is no atonement]. Raba thereupon asked: What would be the law if it were insufficient with respect to the division of Jehoiarib,33 but sufficient
Baba Kamma 110b
for the division of Jedaiah?1 What are the circumstances? If we suppose that he paid it to Jedaiah during the time [of service] of the division of Jedaiah,1 surely in such a case the amount is sufficient?2 — No, we must suppose that he paid it to Jedaiah1 during the time of the division of Jehoiarib. Now, what would be the law? Shall we say that since it was not in the time of his division, the restoration is of no avail, or perhaps since it would not do for Jehoiarib it was destined from the very outset to go to Jedaiah? — Let this stand undecided.
Raba again asked: May the priests set [one payment for] a robbery committed upon a proselyte against another [payment for a] robbery committed upon a proselyte? Shall we say that since the Divine Law designated it trespass,3 therefore, just as in the case of a trespass offering, one trespass offering can not be set against another trespass offering,4 so also in the case of [payment for] a robbery committed upon a proselyte, one [payment for] robbery committed upon a proselyte cannot be set against another [payment for] robbery committed upon a proselyte5 or perhaps [since payment for] robbery committed upon a proselyte is a matter of money, [it should not be subject to this restriction]? He however subsequently decided that [as] the Divine Law termed it trespass, [it should follow the same rule]. R. Aha the son of Raba stated this explicitly. Raba said: The priests have no right to set one [payment for a] robbery committed upon a proselyte against another [payment for] robbery committed upon a proselyte, the reason being that the Divine Law termed it trespass.
Raba asked: Are the priests in relation to [the payment for] robbery committed upon a proselyte in the capacity of heirs6 or in the capacity of recipients of endowments? A practical difference arises where e.g., the robber misappropriated leaven and Passover meanwhile passed by.7 If now you maintain that they are in the capacity of heirs, it will follow that what they inherited they will have,8 whereas if you maintain that they are recipients of endowments, the Divine Law surely ordered the giving of an endowment, and in this case nothing would be given them since the leaven is considered [in the eye of the law] as being mere ashes.9 R. Ze'ira put the question thus: Even if you maintain that they are recipients of endowments, then still no question arises, since it is this endowment [originally due to the proselyte] which the Divine Law has enjoined to be bestowed upon them.10 What, however, is doubtful to us is where e.g., ten animals fell to the portion of a priest as [payment for] robbery committed upon a proselyte. Is he then under an obligation to set aside a tithe11 or not? Are they [the priests] heirs, in which case the dictum of the master applies that [where] heirs have bought animals out of the funds of the general estate they would be liable [to tithe], or are they perhaps endowment recipients in which case we have learnt 'He who buys animals or receives them as a gift is exempt from the law of tithing animals'?12 Now, what should be the law?13 — Come and hear: Twenty-four priestly endowments were bestowed upon Aaron and his sons. All these were granted to him by means of a generalisation followed by a specification which was in its turn followed again by a generalisation14 and a covenant of salt15 so that to fulfil them is like fulfilling [the whole law which is expounded by] generalisation, specification and generalisation and [like offering all the sacrifices forming] the covenant of salt,16 whereas to transgress them is like transgressing [the whole Torah which is expounded by] generalisation, specification and generalisation, and [all the sacrifices forming] the covenant of salt. They are these: Ten to be partaken in the precincts of the Temple, four in Jerusalem and ten within the borders [of the Land of Israel]. The ten in the precincts of the Temple are: A sin offering of an animal,17 a sin offering of a fowl,18 a trespass offering for a known sin,19 a trespass offering for a doubtful sin,20 the peace offering of the congregation,21 the log of oil in the case of a leper,22 the remnant of the Omer,23 the two loaves,24 the shew bread25 and the remnant of meal offerings.26 The four in Jerusalem are: the firstling.27 the first of the first fruits,28 the portions separated in the case of the thank offering29 and in the case of the ram of the Nazirite30 and the skins of [the most] holy sacrifices.31 The ten to be partaken in the borders [of the Land of Israel] are: terumah,32 the terumah of the tithe,33 hallah,34 the first of the fleece,35 the portions36 [of unconsecrated animals], the redemption of the son,37 the redemption of the firstling of an ass,38 a field of possession,39 a field devoted,40 and [payment for a] robbery committed upon a proselyte.41 Now, since it is here designated an 'endowment', this surely proves that the priests are endowment recipients in this respect.42 This proves it.
BUT IF HE HAD ALREADY GIVEN THE MONEY TO THE MEMBERS OF THE DIVISION etc. Abaye said: We may infer from this that the giving of the money effects half of the atonement: for if it has no [independent] share in the atonement, I should surely say that it ought to be returned to the heirs, on the ground that he would never have parted with the money upon such an understanding.43 But if this could be argued, why should a sin offering whose owner died not revert to the state of unconsecration,44 for the owner would surely not have set it aside upon such an understanding?45 — It may however be said that regarding a sin offering whose owner died there is a halachah handed down by tradition that it should be left to die.46 But again, according to your argument, why should a trespass offering whose owner died not revert to the state of unconsecration,47 as the owner would surely not have set it aside upon such an understanding? — With regard to a trespass offering there is similarly a halachah handed down by tradition that whenever [an animal, if set aside as] a sin offering would be left to die, [if set aside as] a trespass offering it would be subject to the law of pasturing.46 But still, according to your argument why should a deceased brother's wife on becoming bound to one affected with leprosy not be released [even] without the act of halizah,48 for surely she would not have consented to betroth herself49 upon this understanding?50 — In that case we all can bear witness51
- To Next Folio -