Chullin Daf 131 (חולין דף קל״א)
Daf: 131 | Amudim: 131a – 131b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (131a)
Segment 1
TYPE: תירוץ
Completing 130b: the gifts had reached the priest’s hand while still untithed.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דַּאֲתוֹ לִידֵיהּ בְּטִבְלַיְיהוּ, וְקָסָבַר הַאי תַּנָּא: מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמוּ – כְּמִי שֶׁהוּרְמוּ דָּמְיָין.
English Translation:
the baraita is referring to a case where they came into the priest’s possession while they were still untithed, and this tanna holds that gifts that have not been separated are considered as though they have been separated. In such a case, the priest obtained rights to the ownerless gifts by seizing them first. Although when he seized the produce it was still untithed, the portion of the produce that is to be separated has the status of teruma. Accordingly, one who consumes such produce is required to pay the priest.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer broken off at the end of 130b concludes here. The baraita that seemed to obligate payment speaks of a case where the produce came into the priest’s possession while still b’tivlaihu, untithed — and that tanna holds matanot shelo hurmu k’mi shehurmu damyan, unseparated gifts are treated as already separated. The priest had therefore acquired them before they were consumed, so this is a case of taking what was already his rather than of withholding a gift, and Rav Chisda’s exemption is untouched.
Key Terms:
- בְּטִבְלַיְיהוּ (b’tivlaihu) = in their untithed state — before the gifts were separated
- מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁלֹּא הוּרְמוּ = gifts that have not been separated
- כְּמִי שֶׁהוּרְמוּ דָּמְיָין = are considered as though they had been separated
Segment 2
TYPE: תא שמע
A challenge from the king’s men seizing a threshing floor.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: הֲרֵי שֶׁאָנְסוּ בֵּית הַמֶּלֶךְ גׇּרְנוֹ, אִם בְּחוֹבוֹ – חַיָּיב לְעַשֵּׂר, אִם בְּאַנְפָּרוּת – פָּטוּר מִלְּעַשֵּׂר.
English Translation:
The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear another proof with regard to the statement of Rav Chisda from a baraita: In a case where the household of the king seized one’s threshing floor by force, if they took it as payment of his debt owed to the king, then he is obligated to tithe other grain in accordance with the amount he would have tithed before the grain was seized. Since he was already obligated to tithe the grain before it was seized, it is considered as though the grain was sold in an untithed state. If they took it without reason [anparot], then he is exempt from tithing. The fact that one is required to tithe grain seized as payment of a debt indicates that the tithe is considered money that has claimants, from which it follows that a priest may extract payment of the tithe from him. Again, this apparently contradicts the statement of Rav Chisda.
קלאוד על הדף:
A fresh objection to Rav Chisda comes from a baraita on royal seizure. If the king’s household took a man’s threshing floor in payment of a debt he owed, he must tithe replacement grain; if they took it b’anparot, arbitrarily and without cause, he is exempt. That the debt case obligates him seems to show the tithe is money with genuine claimants, which would undercut Rav Chisda’s whole rationale.
Key Terms:
- אָנְסוּ (ansu) = they seized by force
- בְּאַנְפָּרוּת (b’anparot) = arbitrarily, without cause or claim
- גּוֹרֶן (goren) = a threshing floor
Segment 3
TYPE: תירוץ
The answer: he derives a benefit, so the obligation is about his gain.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּקָא מִשְׁתָּרְשִׁי לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara rejects this proof: It is different there, since if one is not required to tithe grain seized as payment of a debt, this would mean that the seizure causes benefit for him, as he will be exempt from tithing grain that he was previously obligated to tithe. It is for this reason that the baraita rules that one must tithe other grain instead of the seized grain, not because a priest could have issued a claim against him in court.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara distinguishes on grounds of enrichment rather than standing. Ka mishtarshi lei — he comes out ahead, because the seizure discharged a debt he genuinely owed, so exempting him would let the confiscation function as a windfall. The obligation to tithe replacement grain therefore addresses his profit, not any priest’s right to sue him, and Rav Chisda’s principle is left intact.
Key Terms:
- קָא מִשְׁתָּרְשִׁי לֵיהּ = he derives a benefit — he comes out ahead by the transaction
- שָׁאנֵי הָתָם = it is different there — distinguishing a source from the case at hand
Segment 4
TYPE: תא שמע
A challenge from the sale of a cow’s innards containing the maw.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע, אָמַר לוֹ: מְכוֹר לִי בְּנֵי מֵעֶיהָ שֶׁל פָּרָה, וְהָיָה בָּהֶן מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה – נוֹתְנָן לַכֹּהֵן, וְאֵינוֹ מְנַכֶּה לוֹ מִן הַדָּמִים. לָקַח הֵימֶנּוּ בְּמִשְׁקָל – נוֹתְנָן לַכֹּהֵן, וּמְנַכֶּה לוֹ מִן הַדָּמִים.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (132a): If an Israelite says to a butcher: Sell me the innards of a particular cow, and there were gifts of the priesthood included with it, i.e., the maw, that were not yet given to the priest, the purchaser must give them to the priest, and the butcher may not deduct the value of the gifts from the money that the purchaser pays him, as it is assumed that the gifts were not included in the sale. If he purchased the innards from the butcher by weight, the purchaser must give the gifts to the priest, and the butcher deducts the value of the gifts from the money that the Israelite pays him.
קלאוד על הדף:
The next objection comes from a mishna taught later in the perek. Where a buyer says “sell me the innards of that cow” and the keiva is among them, he must give it to the priest and the butcher does not deduct its value — the gift was never the butcher’s to sell. If instead the innards were bought by weight, the buyer still gives the gift away but the butcher does deduct. That the gift must be handed over at all seems to contradict the exemption.
Key Terms:
- בְּנֵי מֵעֶיהָ = its innards
- מְנַכֶּה מִן הַדָּמִים = he deducts from the price
- בְּמִשְׁקָל (b’mishkal) = by weight — a sale measured rather than by the piece
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ
The answer: there the gifts are still intact and identifiable.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַמַּאי? לֶיהֱוֵי כְּמַזִּיק מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה אוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלָן! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאִיתַנְהוּ בְּעֵינַיְהוּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Why must the buyer give the maw to the priest? Let the butcher’s sale of the maw be considered like a case where one causes damage to gifts of the priesthood or consumes them, with regard to which Rav Chisda states that one is exempt from payment. This mishna apparently contradicts Rav Chisda’s statement. The Gemara rejects this: It is different there, as the gifts are intact, i.e., they are distinct items in their own right. In such a case, the gifts must be given to the priest. By contrast, Rav Chisda is discussing cases in which the gifts are not distinguishable objects at the time.
קלאוד על הדף:
The distinction turns on whether the gift still exists as a thing. Ita’nhu be’einaihu — here the maw is present, whole and identifiable as a distinct object, and an existing gift must be handed to its recipient. Rav Chisda spoke only of cases where the gifts have been destroyed or consumed and no longer exist as distinguishable items; his exemption concerns liability for value, not the duty to surrender an object one still holds.
Key Terms:
- אִיתַנְהוּ בְּעֵינַיְהוּ = they exist in their own form — intact and identifiable
- בְּעַיִן (b’ayin) = in existence, as a distinct object
Segment 6
TYPE: תא שמע
A challenge from the nine items called a priest’s property.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: תִּשְׁעָה נִכְסֵי כֹהֵן – תְּרוּמָה, וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר, וְחַלָּה, רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, וּמַתָּנוֹת, וְהַדְּמַאי, וְהַבִּכּוּרִים, וְהַקֶּרֶן, וְהַחוֹמֶשׁ.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof: Nine items are the property of a priest: Teruma, teruma of the tithe, challa, the portion of dough given to the priest, the first sheared wool, gifts of the priesthood, doubtfully tithed produce [demai], first fruits, the principal value of the property of a convert, and the additional one-fifth. The two are paid to the priest in a case where the property of a convert was stolen and the thief took an oath that he did not steal it, and after the convert died the thief admitted to taking a false oath.
קלאוד על הדף:
A third objection comes from a baraita listing nine items that constitute nichsei kohen, a priest’s property: teruma, terumat ma’aser, challa, reishit hagez, the gifts, demai, bikkurim, and the principal and added fifth paid where a convert’s property was stolen and the thief swore falsely before the convert died. If the gifts are literally a priest’s property, he should be able to sue for them.
Key Terms:
- נִכְסֵי כֹהֵן = a priest’s property
- דְּמַאי (demai) = produce of uncertain tithing status
- הַקֶּרֶן וְהַחוֹמֶשׁ = the principal and the added fifth
Segment 7
TYPE: תירוץ
The answer: ‘property’ means he may transact with them, not sue for them.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְמַאי, לָאו לְהוֹצִיאָן בְּדַיָּינִין? לָא, לִכְדִתְנַן: לָמָה אָמְרוּ נִכְסֵי כֹהֵן? שֶׁקּוֹנֶה בָּהֶן עֲבָדִים וְקַרְקָעוֹת וּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה, וּבַעַל חוֹב נוֹטְלָן בְּחוֹבוֹ, וְאִשָּׁה בִּכְתוּבָּתָהּ, וְסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains the proof: With regard to what matter are these items considered the property of a priest? Is it not with regard to extracting them with judges, which would contradict the opinion of Rav Chisda? The Gemara responds: No, it is with regard to that which we learned in a mishna (Bikkurim 3:12): To what end did they say that these items are the property of a priest? It means that a priest may purchase with them slaves and lands and a non-kosher animal; and a lender takes them as payment of his debt; and if the wife of a priest is divorced from him, she takes them as payment of her marriage contract; and a priest may purchase a Torah scroll with them.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara reads nichsei kohen through a mishna in Bikkurim that spells out what the phrase accomplishes. A priest may buy slaves, land and non-kosher animals with these items; a creditor may seize them for a debt; a divorced wife may take them for her ketuba; and he may buy a Torah scroll with them. The term describes their transactional character once received, not a right of action to obtain them, so it says nothing against Rav Chisda.
Key Terms:
- קוֹנֶה בָּהֶן = he purchases with them
- כְּתוּבָּה (ketuba) = the marriage contract and the sum it secures
- בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה = a non-kosher animal
Segment 8
TYPE: מעשה
A Levite who snatched the gifts from children delivering them.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָהוּא לֵיוָאָה דַּהֲוָה חָטֵף מַתְּנָתָא, אֲתוֹ אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לְרַב, אֲמַר לְהוּ: לָא מִסָּתְיֵיהּ דְּלָא שָׁקְלִינַן מִינֵּיהּ, אֶלָּא מִיחְטָף נָמֵי חָטֵיף?!
English Translation:
§ The Gemara relates: There was a certain Levite who would snatch gifts of the priesthood from children who were delivering them to the priests on their fathers’ behalf. They came and told Rav about this Levite. Rav said to them: Is it not enough that when he slaughters his own animals we do not take the gifts of the priesthood from him, but he also snatches gifts that are being delivered to priests?
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf turns to a new question by way of an incident. A certain Levite used to snatch the priestly gifts from children carrying them to kohanim on their fathers’ behalf. When this was reported to Rav, his reaction was pointed: is it not enough that we do not collect the gifts from him, that he seizes others’ as well? The remark assumes both that Levites are not made to give and that there is some ground on which they might be, which is exactly the tension the Gemara now probes.
Key Terms:
- לֵיוָאָה (levaah) = a Levite
- חָטֵף (chataf) = he snatched / seized
- לָא מִסָּתְיֵיהּ = is it not enough for him — an expression of rebuke
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא
Rav’s position seems to sit between two clean alternatives.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַב, אִי אִיקְּרוֹ ״עַם״ – מִשְׁקָל נָמֵי לִשְׁקוֹל מִינַּיְיהוּ. אִי לָא אִיקְּרוֹ ״עַם״ – רַחֲמָנָא פַּטְרִינְהוּ!
English Translation:
Rav’s comment indicates that in his opinion there are grounds to take the gifts from Levites, but nevertheless they are not taken. The Gemara asks: And what does Rav maintain in this regard? If he maintains that Levites are called part of the “people,” then let one take the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw from them as well, as the verse states: “From the people, from them that perform a slaughter, whether it be ox or sheep, they shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw” (Deuteronomy 18:3). And if they are not called part of the people, then the Merciful One has exempted them from giving those gifts, and there would be no grounds to take the gifts from them.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses on the logic of Rav’s complaint. Devarim 18:3 assigns the gifts me’et ha’am, from the people. If Levites count as “the people,” the gifts should simply be collected from them and Rav’s forbearance is unexplained; if they do not, the Torah has exempted them outright and Rav has no grievance about their status at all. His remark fits neither clean alternative.
Key Terms:
- אִיקְּרוֹ עַם = are they called “the people”?
- מֵאֵת הָעָם = from the people (Devarim 18:3) — the phrase assigning the gifts
- רַחֲמָנָא פַּטְרִינְהוּ = the Merciful One has exempted them
Segment 10
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav is genuinely uncertain — and doubt bars collection.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ אִי אִיקְּרוֹ ״עַם״ אִי לָא אִיקְּרוֹ ״עַם״.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: Rav is uncertain whether or not they are called part of the people. Therefore, he exempts the Levites from giving their own gifts, in accordance with the principle that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.
קלאוד על הדף:
The resolution is that Rav does not know, and says so. Where the status is doubtful the practical consequence is fixed by procedure rather than substance: hamotzi mechavero alav hara’aya, the burden of proof rests on the one seeking to extract, so an unresolved doubt means the gifts cannot be taken from a Levite. Rav’s uncertainty is thus not evasion but a position with a concrete legal result, and it also explains his complaint — the Levite benefits from a doubt he then exploits against others.
Key Terms:
- מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ = it is doubtful to him — he is genuinely uncertain
- הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה = the burden of proof rests on the one who seeks to extract
Segment 11
TYPE: מיתיבי
Rav Idi bar Avin objects from the catalogue of gifts to the poor.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יָתֵיב רַב פָּפָּא וְקָאָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא, אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין לְרַב פָּפָּא: אַרְבַּע מַתְּנוֹת עֲנִיִּים שֶׁבַּכֶּרֶם – הַפֶּרֶט, וְהָעוֹלֵלוֹת, וְהַשִּׁכְחָה, וְהַפֵּאָה; וְשָׁלֹשׁ שֶׁבַּתְּבוּאָה – הַלֶּקֶט, וְהַשִּׁכְחָה, וְהַפֵּאָה; שְׁנַיִם שֶׁבָּאִילָן – הַשִּׁכְחָה וְהַפֵּאָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates that Rav Pappa was sitting and saying this halakha in the name of Rav. Rav Idi bar Avin raised an objection to Rav Pappa from a baraita, with regard to the uncertainty of Rav: Four gifts are left to the poor from the produce of a vineyard: The individual fallen grapes [peret], and the incompletely formed clusters of grapes [olelot], and the forgotten clusters, and pe’a. And three gifts are left to the poor from grain: The gleanings, i.e., sheaves that fell during the harvest, and the forgotten sheaves, and the pe’a. Two gifts are left to the poor from the fruit of a tree: The forgotten fruits and the pe’a.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa was transmitting Rav’s ruling when Rav Idi bar Avin raised an objection from a baraita cataloguing the agricultural gifts owed to the poor: four in a vineyard — peret, olelot, forgotten clusters and pe’a; three in grain — leket, forgotten sheaves and pe’a; and two in a tree — forgotten fruit and pe’a. The catalogue is preliminary; the clause that bears on Levites comes two segments later.
Key Terms:
- פֶּרֶט (peret) = individual grapes that fall during the harvest
- עוֹלֵלוֹת (olelot) = incompletely formed grape clusters
- לֶקֶט (leket) = stalks dropped during reaping
- פֵּאָה (pe’a) = the corner of the field left unharvested
Segment 12
TYPE: ברייתא
These gifts carry no benefit of discretion, and even a poor owner must leave them.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כּוּלָּן אֵין בָּהֶם טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה לַבְּעָלִים, וַאֲפִילּוּ עָנִי שֶׁבְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ.
English Translation:
The baraita elaborates: With regard to all of these gifts, the owner of the produce does not have the benefit of discretion. This is the benefit accrued from giving a gift to an individual of one’s choice, e.g., giving teruma or tithes to whichever priest or Levite that one chooses. Instead, a poor person who takes possession of these gifts becomes their rightful owner. And even a poor person of Israel who owns a vineyard, field, or tree must leave these gifts for all other poor people; and if he does not do so, the court removes them from his possession.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita states two rules about the poor-gifts. The owner has no tovat hana’a, no benefit of discretion in choosing which poor person receives them — whoever takes possession becomes the owner. And a poor Israelite who himself owns a field must still leave them for others, with the court removing them from his possession if he does not.
Key Terms:
- טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה = the benefit of discretion — the right to choose a recipient
- מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ = they remove it from his possession
Segment 13
TYPE: ברייתא
But the poor tithe does carry discretion — and the priestly gifts are not extracted.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַעְשַׂר עָנִי הַמִּתְחַלֵּק בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ – יֵשׁ בּוֹ טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה לַבְּעָלִים, וַאֲפִילּוּ עָנִי שֶׁבְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּדוֹ, וּשְׁאָר מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה, כְּגוֹן הַזְּרוֹעַ וְהַלְּחָיַיִם וְהַקֵּבָה – אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָן מִיָּדוֹ, לֹא מִכֹּהֵן לְכֹהֵן וְלֹא מִלֵּוִי לְלֵוִי.
English Translation:
By contrast, with regard to the poor man’s tithe, which is distributed from within one’s house, unlike other gifts to the poor that are left in the field for them to take, the owner has the benefit of discretion. And even in the case of a poor person in Israel, if he fails to separate the poor man’s tithe from his produce, the court removes it from his possession. And with regard to other gifts of the priesthood, such as the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw, the court does not remove them, neither from a priest to give to another priest, nor from a Levite to give to another Levite.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita’s contrasting clauses follow. Ma’aser ani, distributed from within the house rather than left in the field, does carry tovat hana’a, though a poor owner must still separate it. And as for the priestly gifts — the foreleg, jaw and maw — the court does not remove them from a priest to give to another priest, nor from a Levite to give to another Levite. That last phrase is what Rav Idi bar Avin will press.
Key Terms:
- מַעְשַׂר עָנִי = the poor man’s tithe, distributed at home
- לֹא מִלֵּוִי לְלֵוִי = not from a Levite to give to another Levite
Segment 14
TYPE: מקור
The four vineyard gifts and their verses.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַרְבַּע מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁבַּכֶּרֶם: הַפֶּרֶט, וְהָעוֹלֵלוֹת, וְהַשִּׁכְחָה, וְהַפֵּאָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְכַרְמְךָ לֹא תְעוֹלֵל וּפֶרֶט כַּרְמְךָ לֹא תְלַקֵּט״.
English Translation:
Before Rav Idi bar Avin explains his objection, the Gemara cites the sources for the halakhot of the baraita: The baraita teaches that four gifts are left to the poor from the produce of a vineyard: The peret, and the olelot, and the forgotten clusters, and the pe’a, as it is written: “And you shall not glean [te’olel] your vineyard, neither shall you gather the fallen fruit [peret] of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and for the stranger” (Leviticus 19:10).
קלאוד על הדף:
Before returning to the objection the Gemara sources each item in the catalogue. Peret and olelot come from Vayikra 19:10, which forbids gleaning the vineyard or gathering its fallen fruit and directs both to the poor and the stranger.
Key Terms:
- וְכַרְמְךָ לֹא תְעוֹלֵל = and you shall not glean your vineyard (Vayikra 19:10)
- תַּעֲזֹב (ta’azov) = you shall leave — the verb governing the poor-gifts
Segment 15
TYPE: דרשה
Rabbi Levi: ‘after you’ teaches the forgotten clusters.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּכְתִיב: ״כִּי תִבְצֹר כַּרְמְךָ לֹא תְעוֹלֵל אַחֲרֶיךָ״, אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי: ״אַחֲרֶיךָ״ – זוֹ שִׁכְחָה.
English Translation:
And it is also written: “When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, you shall not glean it [te’olel] after you; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow” (Deuteronomy 24:21). And Rabbi Levi says that with regard to the term “after you,” this is a reference to forgotten clusters, as the halakha is that clusters that were passed over by the harvester have the status of forgotten clusters, whereas those that remain in front of him do not have that status.
קלאוד על הדף:
Forgotten clusters are derived from Devarim 24:21, which adds acharecha, after you. Rabbi Levi reads the word as defining the category: clusters the harvester has already passed are forgotten, while those still before him are not. The rule is thus fixed by the harvester’s position rather than by his state of mind.
Key Terms:
- אַחֲרֶיךָ (acharecha) = after you — read as defining what counts as forgotten
- שִׁכְחָה (shichecha) = forgotten produce left behind during the harvest
Segment 16
TYPE: גזירה שוה
Pe’a in a vineyard by a verbal analogy from the olive verse.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
פֵּאָה – גָּמַר ״אַחֲרֶיךָ״ ״אַחֲרֶיךָ״ מִזַּיִת, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי תַחְבֹּט זֵיתְךָ לֹא תְפָאֵר אַחֲרֶיךָ״, וְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: שֶׁלֹּא תִּטּוֹל תִּפְאַרְתּוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ.
English Translation:
The halakha that the mitzva of pe’a applies to one’s vineyard is derived by a verbal analogy between the term “after you” in that verse and the term “after you” from another verse concerning an olive tree. As it is written: “When you beat your olive tree, you shall not go over the boughs [tefa’er] after you; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow” (Deuteronomy 24:20); and the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that the term “You shall not go over the boughs” means that you should not take all of its splendor [tiferet] from it; rather, you should leave a portion of the olives for the poor. So too, one must leave a portion of one’s vineyard as pe’a for the poor.
קלאוד על הדף:
That pe’a applies to a vineyard is derived by a gezeira shava linking acharecha here to acharecha in the olive verse, Devarim 24:20. The school of Rabbi Yishmael reads lo tefa’er there as a play on tiferet: do not strip the tree of all its splendor, but leave a portion for the poor. The same requirement is carried across to the vineyard.
Key Terms:
- גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה = a verbal analogy — linking two verses through a shared term
- לֹא תְפָאֵר = you shall not strip the boughs (Devarim 24:20)
- תִּפְאַרְתּוֹ (tifarto) = its splendor — the wordplay underlying the derivation
Segment 17
TYPE: מקור
The three grain gifts begin to be sourced — and the daf breaks off.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁבַּתְּבוּאָה: הַלֶּקֶט,
English Translation:
The Gemara continues: The baraita teaches that three gifts are left to the poor from grain: The gleanings,
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara turns to the three gifts owed from grain, beginning with leket. The sentence is cut by the page break and completes at the opening of 131b.
Key Terms:
- תְּבוּאָה (tevua) = grain
- הַלֶּקֶט (haleket) = the gleanings — stalks dropped during reaping
Amud Bet (131b)
Segment 1
TYPE: מקור
The grain gifts completed: gleanings, forgotten sheaves and pe’a.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַשִּׁכְחָה, וְהַפֵּאָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבְקֻצְרְכֶם אֶת קְצִיר אַרְצְכֶם לֹא תְכַלֶּה פְּאַת שָׂדְךָ בְּקֻצְרֶךָ וְלֶקֶט קְצִירְךָ וְגוֹ׳״, ״כִּי תִקְצֹר קְצִירְךָ בְשָׂדֶךָ וְשָׁכַחְתָּ עֹמֶר בַּשָּׂדֶה״.
English Translation:
and the forgotten sheaves, and the pe’a. As it is written: “And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not wholly reap the corner of [pe’at] your field, neither shall you gather the gleaning of your harvest; you shall leave them for the poor, and for the stranger” (Leviticus 23:22). And it is also written: “When you reap your harvest in your field and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to fetch it; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow” (Deuteronomy 24:19).
קלאוד על הדף:
The sourcing resumes. Vayikra 23:22 forbids reaping the corner of the field or gathering the gleanings and directs both to the poor and the stranger, and Devarim 24:19 supplies the forgotten sheaf — one who has forgotten a sheaf in the field may not return for it.
Key Terms:
- פְּאַת שָׂדְךָ = the corner of your field
- וְשָׁכַחְתָּ עֹמֶר בַּשָּׂדֶה = and you have forgotten a sheaf in the field (Devarim 24:19)
Segment 2
TYPE: מקור
And the two tree gifts, from the same olive verse.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שְׁנַיִם שֶׁבָּאִילָן: הַשִּׁכְחָה וְהַפֵּאָה, דִּכְתִיב ״כִּי תַחְבֹּט זֵיתְךָ לֹא תְפָאֵר אַחֲרֶיךָ״, וְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: שֶׁלֹּא תִּטּוֹל תִּפְאַרְתּוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ, ״אַחֲרֶיךָ״ – זוֹ שִׁכְחָה.
English Translation:
The baraita taught that two gifts are left to the poor from the produce of a tree: The forgotten fruits and the pe’a, as it is written: “When you beat your olive tree, you shall not go over the boughs [tefa’er] after you; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow” (Deuteronomy 24:20), and the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that the phrase: “You shall not go over the boughs,” means that you should not take all of its splendor [tiferet] from it; rather, you should leave a portion of the olives for the poor as pe’a. Additionally, when the verse states: “After you,” this is a reference to forgotten fruits.
קלאוד על הדף:
The two gifts owed from a tree come from Devarim 24:20 alone. Lo tefa’er yields pe’a, on the school of Rabbi Yishmael’s reading that one may not take all the tree’s splendor, and acharecha yields forgotten fruit. A single verse thus generates both obligations, which is why the tree carries two gifts where grain carries three and a vineyard four.
Key Terms:
- כִּי תַחְבֹּט זֵיתְךָ = when you beat your olive tree (Devarim 24:20)
- אִילָן (ilan) = a tree
Segment 3
TYPE: ביאור
Why the poor-gifts carry no discretion: the Torah writes ‘leave’.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכוּלָּן אֵין בָּהֶן טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה לִבְעָלִים, מַאי טַעְמָא? ״עֲזִיבָה״ כְּתִיבָא בְּהוּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara continues its analysis of the baraita. And with regard to all of the gifts left to the poor, the owner of the produce does not have the benefit of discretion, i.e., the right to distribute the gifts to poor people of his choosing. Instead, any poor person who takes possession of these gifts becomes their rightful owner. What is the reason for this halakha? It is because the requirement of leaving is written with regard to them, e.g., in the verse that states: “You shall leave them” (Leviticus 23:22).
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now explains the structural difference the baraita reported. The poor-gifts confer no tovat hana’a because aziva is written of them — ta’azov otam, you shall leave them. Leaving is passive: the owner withdraws and the produce becomes available, so whoever takes it acquires it and the owner never had a recipient to choose.
Key Terms:
- עֲזִיבָה (aziva) = leaving — the verb used of the poor-gifts
- תַּעֲזֹב אֹתָם = you shall leave them (Vayikra 23:22)
Segment 4
TYPE: דרשה
And a poor owner must still leave them from his own field.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וַאֲפִילּוּ עָנִי שֶׁבְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּדוֹ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלֶקֶט קְצִירְךָ לֹא תְלַקֵּט לֶעָנִי וְלַגֵּר תַּעֲזֹב אֹתָם״, לְהַזְהִיר עָנִי עַל שֶׁלּוֹ.
English Translation:
The baraita also stated: And even a poor person of Israel who owns a vineyard, field, or tree must leave these gifts for all poor people, and if he does not, the court removes them from his possession. This is derived from a verse, as it is written: “Neither the gleaning of your harvest shall you gather; for the poor you shall leave them, and for the stranger” (Leviticus 23:22). Since the verse juxtaposes the words “the poor” to the mitzva in the previous clause, this serves to warn a poor person that he must also separate these gifts from his own produce.
קלאוד על הדף:
That even a poor Israelite who owns land must separate the poor-gifts is derived from the juxtaposition in Vayikra 23:22, where le’ani, for the poor, sits directly beside the command. The verse is read as warning the poor person himself regarding his own produce — being a potential recipient does not exempt one from being a giver.
Key Terms:
- לְהַזְהִיר עָנִי עַל שֶׁלּוֹ = to warn the poor person regarding his own produce
- לֶעָנִי וְלַגֵּר = for the poor and for the stranger
Segment 5
TYPE: ביאור
Why the poor tithe does carry discretion: the Torah writes ‘give’.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמַעְשַׂר עָנִי הַמִּתְחַלֵּק בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת יֵשׁ בּוֹ טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה לַבְּעָלִים, מַאי טַעְמָא? ״נְתִינָה״ כְּתִיבָא בֵּיהּ.
English Translation:
And the baraita teaches with regard to the poor man’s tithe that is distributed from within his house that the owner has the benefit of discretion. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this halakha? It is because the requirement of giving is written with regard to it, as the verse states: “When you have made an end of tithing all the tithe of your increase in the third year, which is the year of tithing, and you shall give it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the fatherless, and to the widow, that they may eat within your gates, and be satisfied” (Deuteronomy 26:12). Consequently, in this case it is not left for the poor but is actively given to them.
קלאוד על הדף:
The contrasting rule rests on a contrasting verb. Netina is written of ma’aser ani — venatata, and you shall give it, in Devarim 26:12. Giving is an act directed at a recipient, so the owner necessarily chooses who receives it and thereby holds tovat hana’a. One word, leave against give, determines the entire structure of ownership and discretion.
Key Terms:
- נְתִינָה (netina) = giving — the verb used of the poor tithe
- וְנָתַתָּה (venatata) = and you shall give it (Devarim 26:12)
Segment 6
TYPE: גזירה שוה
Rabbi Ile’a extends the poor owner’s obligation to the poor tithe.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וַאֲפִילּוּ עָנִי שֶׁבְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּדוֹ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא: גָּמַר ״לַגֵּר״ ״לַגֵּר״ מֵהָתָם, מָה לְהַלָּן מוּזְהָר עָנִי עַל שֶׁלּוֹ, אַף כָּאן מוּזְהָר עָנִי עַל שֶׁלּוֹ.
English Translation:
The baraita states: And even in the case of a poor person in Israel, if he fails to separate the poor man’s tithe from his produce, the court removes it from his possession. The Gemara explains that this is as Rabbi Ile’a said: This is derived from a verbal analogy between the term “to the stranger” stated with regard to the poor man’s tithe in the verse cited previously, and the term “to the stranger” from there, the mitzva to leave gleanings for the poor. Just as there, with regard to the mitzva to leave gleanings, a poor person is warned that he must leave gleanings from the produce of his own fields, so too here, with regard to the mitzva to separate the poor man’s tithe, a poor person is warned to separate it from his own fields.
קלאוד על הדף:
That a poor Israelite must separate ma’aser ani from his own produce as well is derived by Rabbi Ile’a through a gezeira shava on lager, to the stranger, shared by the two passages. Just as there a poor person is warned regarding his own field, so here. The obligation to give does not lift because one also qualifies to receive.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי אִילְעָא = Rabbi Ile’a, a Palestinian amora
- לַגֵּר (lager) = to the stranger — the term shared by both passages
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
The objection stated: the court does take the gifts from a Levite for a priest.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּשְׁאָר מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה, כְּגוֹן הַזְּרוֹעַ וְהַלְּחָיַיִם וְהַקֵּבָה, אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָן לֹא מִכֹּהֵן לְכֹהֵן וְלֹא מִלֵּוִי לְלֵוִי. הָא מִלֵּוִי לְכֹהֵן מוֹצִיאִין, אַלְמָא אִיקְּרוּ ״עַם״.
English Translation:
The baraita taught: And with regard to other gifts of the priesthood, such as the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw, the court does not remove them, neither from a priest to give to another priest nor from a Levite to give to another Levite. Rav Idi bar Avin now explains his objection: It may be inferred that the court does remove the gifts from a Levite to give to a priest. Evidently, Levites are called part of the “people.” Accordingly, since the verse states: “And this shall be the priests’ due from the people” (Deuteronomy 18:3), the gifts of the priesthood may be removed from the possession of Levites. Why, then, was Rav uncertain with regard to their status?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Idi bar Avin now draws his inference. The baraita said the court does not remove the gifts from a Levite to give to another Levite — which implies that it does remove them from a Levite to give to a priest. Levites would then be included in “the people” of Devarim 18:3, and Rav’s uncertainty would be misplaced.
Key Terms:
- הָא מִלֵּוִי לְכֹהֵן מוֹצִיאִין = but from a Levite to a priest they do remove
- אַלְמָא (alma) = evidently / it follows that
Segment 8
TYPE: תירוץ
The answer: ‘like the foreleg’ means the first tithe, not the foreleg itself.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּגוֹן הַזְּרוֹעַ וְלֹא זְרוֹעַ, וּמַאי נִיהוּ – מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: The baraita is not referring to the actual gifts of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw themselves. Rather, it is referring to a gift that is like the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, but not the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw themselves. And what is this? It is the first tithe.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara answers that the baraita’s phrase kegon hazeroa, such as the foreleg, signals a comparison rather than the item itself — something like the foreleg but not the foreleg. What it means is ma’aser rishon, the first tithe. The reading defuses the inference, but it immediately raises a difficulty of its own.
Key Terms:
- כְּגוֹן זְרוֹעַ וְלֹא זְרוֹעַ = like the foreleg but not the foreleg
- מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן = the first tithe
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
But the first tithe belongs to a Levite — it follows Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן דְּלֵוִי הוּא? כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, דְּתַנְיָא: תְּרוּמָה לַכֹּהֵן, מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן לַלֵּוִי, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמֵר: אַף לַכֹּהֵן.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But the first tithe is given to the Levite. Why would it be removed from his possession? The Gemara responds: The baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, as it is taught in another baraita: Teruma is given to the priest, whereas the first tithe is given to the Levite; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: The first tithe is given to the priest as well, despite the fact that the Torah states that it is given to the Levite, as priests are often called Levites in the Torah.
קלאוד על הדף:
If the first tithe is the Levite’s by right, there is nothing for a court to remove. The Gemara answers that the baraita follows Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who holds against Rabbi Akiva that the first tithe may go to a priest as well, since priests are themselves called Levites in the Torah.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה = Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, a tanna of the generation after the destruction
- אַף לַכֹּהֵן = to the priest as well
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
But he said ‘as well’ — so the case is after Ezra’s penalty.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵימַר דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אַף לַכֹּהֵן, לַכֹּהֵן וְלֹא לַלֵּוִי מִי אָמַר? אִין, לְבָתַר דְּקַנְסִינְהוּ עֶזְרָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Say that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said that the first tithe is given to the priest as well; but did he say that it is given exclusively to the priest and not to the Levite? The Gemara responds: Yes; although generally the first tithe is not removed from the possession of a Levite and given to a priest, the baraita is referring to first tithe in the period after Ezra penalized the Levites for their unwillingness to return to Eretz Yisrael from Babylonia, as he decreed that they should no longer be given the first tithe.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said the tithe may go to a priest as well, not that it goes to a priest instead of a Levite. The Gemara answers that the baraita speaks of the period after Ezra penalized the Levites for their unwillingness to return from Babylonia, decreeing that the first tithe no longer be given to them.
Key Terms:
- דְּקַנְסִינְהוּ עֶזְרָא = after Ezra penalized them
- לַכֹּהֵן וְלֹא לַלֵּוִי = to the priest and not to the Levite
Segment 11
TYPE: דחייה
But Ezra said not to give, not to take — so it means the first shearing.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵימַר דְּקַנְסִינְהוּ עֶזְרָא – דְּלָא יָהֲבִינַן לְהוּ מִשְׁקַל מִינַּיְיהוּ מִי אָמַר?! אֶלָּא, כְּגוֹן זְרוֹעַ וְלֹא זְרוֹעַ, וּמַאי נִיהוּ – רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז.
English Translation:
The Gemara persists: One can say that Ezra penalized them and decreed that we should not give them first tithe, but did he say that first tithe should even be taken from them and given to the priests? Rather, explain instead that the baraita is referring to a gift that is like the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, but is not actually the foreleg, the jaw, or the maw. And what is this? It is the first sheared wool, with regard to which the verse states: “And the first of the fleece of your sheep, you shall give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4). Since the verse does not state that the first fleece is taken from the “people,” even Levites are obligated to give their first shearing to the priest, and it may be removed from their possession to that end.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara rejects even that. Ezra’s decree was that the tithe not be given to Levites; it did not authorize taking from a Levite who had already received it. So the baraita must mean something else entirely: reishit hagez, the first shearing. Devarim 18:4 assigns it without the phrase “from the people,” so Levites owe it and it may be extracted from them — and the baraita’s inference no longer touches the question of Levites and the foreleg.
Key Terms:
- רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז = the first shearing — wool given to the priest
- דְּלָא יָהֲבִינַן לְהוּ = that we do not give to them
Segment 12
TYPE: תא שמע
A second baraita seems to prove the opposite.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע, זֶה הַכְּלָל: כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא בִּקְדוּשָּׁה, כְּגוֹן תְּרוּמָה וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר וְחַלָּה – מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָן מִיָּדָם, וְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּקְדוּשָּׁה, כְּגוֹן הַזְּרוֹעַ וְהַלְּחָיַיִם וְהַקֵּבָה – אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּדָם.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof with regard to the uncertainty of Rav from a baraita. This is the principle: With regard to any item that is of sanctity, i.e., that may not be consumed by a non-priest, such as teruma, and teruma of the tithe, and challa, the court removes it from the possession of a Levite in order to give it to the priests. And with regard to any item that is not of sanctity, such as the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw, which are given from a non-sacred animal, the court does not remove it from the possession of the Levites to give to the priests. Evidently, Levites are not called part of the “people,” and therefore they are exempt from giving the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw.
קלאוד על הדף:
A further source is brought, and it points the other way. Anything of sanctity — teruma, terumat ma’aser, challa — is removed from Levites’ possession for the priests; anything not of sanctity, such as the foreleg, jaw and maw, is not. That would establish that Levites are not called “the people” and are simply exempt, which resolves Rav’s doubt in the opposite direction.
Key Terms:
- זֶה הַכְּלָל = this is the principle
- דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא בִּקְדוּשָּׁה = an item that carries sanctity
Segment 13
TYPE: תירוץ
Answered the same way: it means the first tithe after Ezra.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּגוֹן זְרוֹעַ וְלֹא זְרוֹעַ, וּמַאי נִיהוּ – מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן, וּלְבָתַר דְּקַנְסִינְהוּ עֶזְרָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara rejects this proof: The baraita is referring to a gift that is like the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, but is not actually the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw themselves. And what is this? It is first tithe, and the baraita is dealing with first tithe in the period after Ezra penalized the Levites and decreed that the first tithe should be given to the priests rather than the Levites. Nevertheless, if a Levite received the first tithe it may not be removed from his possession, since this penalty was not included in Ezra’s decree.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara applies the identical move. Here too kegon hazeroa means something like the foreleg but not the foreleg — the first tithe, in the period after Ezra’s penalty. A Levite who has already received it does not have it taken from him, since Ezra’s decree did not extend that far. Neither baraita, then, settles the question either way.
Key Terms:
- לְבָתַר דְּקַנְסִינְהוּ עֶזְרָא = after Ezra penalized them
- אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדָם = they do not remove it from their possession
Segment 14
TYPE: תא שמע
A third source: one who slaughters for a priest or gentile is exempt.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְכֹהֵן וּלְגוֹי – פָּטוּר מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת, הָא לְלֵוִי וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל – חַיָּיב? לָא תֵּימָא הָא לְלֵוִי וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל חַיָּיב, אֶלָּא אֵימָא: הָא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל – חַיָּיב.
English Translation:
The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: An Israelite who slaughters an animal for a priest or for a gentile is exempt from giving the gifts, as priests and gentiles are exempt from this obligation. The Gemara infers: This indicates that if an Israelite slaughtered an animal for a Levite or for an Israelite, he is obligated to give the gifts, and they may be removed from his possession to that end. Evidently, Levites are called part of the “people,” and Rav should not have been uncertain with regard to their status. The Gemara rejects this proof: Do not say that one should infer that if an Israelite slaughtered an animal for a Levite or for an Israelite he is obligated to give the gifts. Rather, say merely that if an Israelite slaughtered an animal for another Israelite, he is obligated to give the gifts.
קלאוד על הדף:
A more direct challenge follows. A baraita rules that one who slaughters for a priest or a gentile is exempt from the gifts — which by implication means that one who slaughters for a Levite or an Israelite is obligated. If Levites are grouped with Israelites here, they are plainly included in “the people.”
Key Terms:
- הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְכֹהֵן וּלְגוֹי = one who slaughters for a priest or for a gentile
- פָּטוּר מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת = exempt from the gifts
Segment 15
TYPE: קושיא ותיובתא
The narrowing fails, and the Gemara declares a conclusive refutation of Rav.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲבָל לְלֵוִי מַאי פָּטוּר? אִי הָכִי, לִיתְנֵי ״הַשּׁוֹחֵט לַלֵּוִי וְלַגּוֹי פָּטוּר מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת״. וְעוֹד, הָא תַּנְיָא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט לַכֹּהֵן וְלַגּוֹי – פָּטוּר מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת, לַלֵּוִי וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל – חַיָּיב! תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But if so, when one slaughters an animal for a Levite, what is the halakha? Is one exempt? If so, let the baraita teach: One who slaughters an animal for a Levite or for a gentile is exempt from giving the gifts, and it would be obvious that this is also the halakha when one slaughters for a priest. And furthermore, isn’t it taught explicitly in a baraita that one who slaughters for a priest or for a gentile is exempt from giving the gifts, whereas one who slaughters for a Levite or for an Israelite is obligated to give the gifts? This baraita apparently constitutes a conclusive refutation of the uncertainty of Rav.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara first tries to blunt the inference by narrowing it, but the attempt collapses on its own terms. If a Levite were exempt the baraita should have paired him with the gentile and taught “one who slaughters for a Levite or a gentile is exempt,” from which the priest would follow all the more obviously. Since it did not, Levites must be obligated, and the Gemara declares teyuvta d’Rav, a conclusive refutation — an unusually blunt verdict against a sage of Rav’s stature.
Key Terms:
- לָא תֵּימָא = do not say — rejecting a proposed inference
- תְּיוּבְתָּא (teyuvta) = a conclusive refutation
- לִיתְנֵי (litnei) = let it teach — arguing from how a source should have been worded
- כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן (kol sheken) = all the more so — an a fortiori inference
Segment 16
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav’s defense: the question is itself a dispute between tannaim.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר לְךָ רַב: תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְכִפֶּר אֶת מִקְדַּשׁ הַקֹּדֶשׁ״ – זֶה לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: Rav could say to you that although this baraita is in fact contrary to his opinion, the question of whether or not Levites are called part of the “people” is a dispute between tanna’im. As it is taught in a baraita that the verse states with regard to the Yom Kippur Temple service: “And he shall make atonement for the most holy place, and he shall make atonement for the Tent of Meeting and for the altar; and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly” (Leviticus 16:33). The baraita explains: “And he shall make atonement for the most holy place”; this is referring to the innermost sanctum, i.e., the bull and goat offerings brought on Yom Kippur atone for ritual impurity occurring inside the Holy of Holies.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav is rescued not by answering the baraita but by showing that the underlying question was already contested. He could say tannaei hi — it is a tannaitic dispute — and the Gemara sets out the evidence, beginning with a baraita parsing the Yom Kippur atonement verse of Vayikra 16:33 clause by clause, starting with the innermost sanctum.
Key Terms:
- תְּיוּבְתָּא (teyuvta) = a conclusive refutation
- תַּנָּאֵי הִיא = it is a dispute between tannaim
- לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים = the innermost sanctum — the Holy of Holies
- וְכִפֶּר אֶת מִקְדַּשׁ הַקֹּדֶשׁ = and he shall make atonement for the holy Sanctuary (Vayikra 16:33)
Segment 17
TYPE: ברייתא
The verse parsed: each clause assigned, with a final clause for the Levites.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״ – זֶה הֵיכָל, ״מִזְבֵּחַ״ – כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ, ״יְכַפֵּר״ – אֵלּוּ עֲזָרוֹת, ״כֹּהֲנִים״ – כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ, ״עַם הַקָּהָל״ – אֵלּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל, ״יְכַפֵּר״ – אֵלּוּ הַלְוִיִּם.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: “Tent of Meeting”; this is referring to the Sanctuary, i.e., the offerings atone for impurity occurring inside the Sanctuary. “Altar”; this is understood in accordance with its plain meaning, i.e., the offerings atone for one who performs sacrificial rites on the altar in a state of ritual impurity. “He shall make atonement”; this is referring to the Temple courtyards, i.e., the offerings atone for impurity occurring there. “For the priests”; this is understood in accordance with its plain meaning, indicating that the offerings atone for a priest who unwittingly enters the courtyard while impure. “And for all the people of the assembly”; these are the Israelites. “He shall make atonement”; this is referring to the Levites.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita distributes the verse’s clauses across the Temple and its personnel: the Tent of Meeting is the Sanctuary, the altar its plain sense, a further “he shall make atonement” the courtyards, “the priests” its plain sense, “the people of the assembly” the Israelites — and a final “he shall make atonement” the Levites. That the Levites need a clause of their own implies they were not covered by “the people.”
Key Terms:
- תַּנָּאֵי הִיא = it is a dispute between tannaim
- עַם הַקָּהָל = the people of the assembly
- יְכַפֵּר (yechaper) = he shall make atonement — the repeated clause being distributed
- עֲזָרוֹת (azarot) = the Temple courtyards
Segment 18
TYPE: ברייתא
Another baraita gives that final clause to Canaanite slaves instead.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״יְכַפֵּר״ – אֵלּוּ עֲבָדִים. מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר אִיקְּרוֹ ״עַם״, וּמָר סָבַר לָא אִיקְּרוֹ ״עַם״.
English Translation:
And it is taught in another baraita: “He shall make atonement”; this is referring to Canaanite slaves in the possession of Jews. These slaves are obligated in certain mitzvot and are therefore in need of atonement. The Gemara analyzes these sources: Why doesn’t the tanna of this baraita interpret the term “He shall make atonement” as a reference to Levites? What, is it not that they disagree about this, as one Sage, the tanna of the second baraita, holds that Levites are called part of the “people” and are therefore included in the clause “the people of the assembly,” and consequently, the term “he shall make atonement” is not required to include the Levites but instead serves to include Canaanite slaves. And by contrast, one Sage, the tanna of the first baraita, holds that they are not called part of the “people,” which means that the term “He shall make atonement” is required to include Levites.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second baraita assigns the same final clause to Canaanite slaves, a legal category of the era whose members were obligated in certain mitzvot and so required atonement. The Gemara draws the inference: that tanna had no need to use the clause for Levites because he considers them already included in “the people,” while the first tanna needed it precisely because he does not. The two baraitot therefore disagree on exactly Rav’s question.
Key Terms:
- עַם הַקָּהָל = the people of the assembly
- עֲבָדִים כְּנַעֲנִים = Canaanite slaves — a legal category obligated in certain mitzvot
- מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי = is it not about this that they disagree?
Segment 19
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Then why is Rav uncertain? Because he does not know which tanna prevails.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַב, אִי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ כְּהַאי תַּנָּא – לֵימָא, וְאִי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ כְּהַאי תַּנָּא – לֵימָא! מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ אִי כְּהַאי תַּנָּא אִי כְּהַאי תַּנָּא.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But if this is a dispute between tanna’im, why is Rav uncertain with regard to the status of Levites? If he holds in accordance with this tanna, let him say that the halakha is in accordance with him, and if he holds in accordance with that tanna, let him say that the halakha is in accordance with him. The Gemara responds: Rav is uncertain whether the halakha is in accordance with this tanna or in accordance with that tanna.
קלאוד על הדף:
If the matter is a recognized tannaitic dispute, Rav should simply have ruled for one side. The answer relocates his doubt one level up: he is uncertain not about the substance but about which tanna the halacha follows. That is a familiar and respectable form of amoraic uncertainty, and it leaves the practical consequence established on 131a fully intact.
Key Terms:
- עֲבָדִים (avadim) = Canaanite slaves — a legal category obligated in certain mitzvot
- אִי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ כְּהַאי תַּנָּא = if he holds in accordance with this tanna
- לֵימָא הִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ = let him say the halacha is in accordance with him
- מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ = it is doubtful to him
Segment 20
TYPE: הלכתא
Mareimar rules for both Rav and Rav Chisda.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּרַשׁ מָרִימָר: הִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב, וְהִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא.
English Translation:
Mareimar taught: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav that it is uncertain whether or not Levites are called part of the “people.” Consequently, the court may not compel Levites to give the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw to the priests. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Chisda, who said that one who damages or consumes gifts of the priesthood is exempt from payment.
קלאוד על הדף:
Mareimar settles the perek’s two open questions in a single ruling. The halacha follows Rav, so the status of Levites remains doubtful and courts do not compel them to give the foreleg, jaw and maw; and the halacha follows Rav Chisda, so one who damages or consumes the gifts is exempt from payment. Two long sugyot, one running through this entire amud and the other across dafim 130 and 131, are brought to rest together.
Key Terms:
- אִי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ כְּהַאי תַּנָּא = if he holds like this tanna
- מָרִימָר (Mareimar) = a late Babylonian amora
- דְּרַשׁ (derash) = he expounded — delivered a public ruling
- הִלְכְתָא כְּוָותֵיהּ = the halacha is in accordance with him
Segment 21
TYPE: מעשה וקושיא
Ulla gave the gifts to a priest’s daughter; Rava objects from the meal offering.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
עוּלָּא הֲוָה יָהֵיב מַתְּנָתָא לְכָהַנְתָּא, אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְעוּלָּא: מִנְחַת כֹּהֶנֶת – נֶאֱכֶלֶת, מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן – אֵינָהּ נֶאֱכֶלֶת.
English Translation:
§ With regard to the gifts of the priesthood, the Gemara relates that Ulla would give gifts of the priesthood to a female priest, i.e., the daughter of a priest, even if she was married to an Israelite. Rava raised an objection to the practice of Ulla from a baraita: The remainder of a meal offering of a female priest is consumed, just like the remainder of the meal offering of an Israelite. But the remainder of a meal offering of a priest is not consumed, as the verse states: “And every meal offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:16).
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf closes by opening a fresh topic. Ulla would give the priestly gifts to a kohenet, the daughter of a priest, even one married to an Israelite. Rava objects from a baraita on meal offerings: the remainder of a kohenet’s meal offering is eaten, whereas a priest’s own meal offering is wholly burnt and not eaten.
Key Terms:
- מָרִימָר (Mareimar) = a late Babylonian amora
- כָּהֶנֶת (kohenet) = the daughter of a priest
- מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן = a priest’s meal offering, wholly burnt and not eaten
- שְׁיָרֵי מְנָחוֹת = the remainder of meal offerings, normally eaten by the priests
Segment 22
TYPE: קושיא
The objection sharpened — and the daf ends mid-answer.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ ״כֹּהֵן״ וַאֲפִילּוּ כֹּהֶנֶת, וְהָכְתִיב: ״וְכׇל מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן כָּלִיל תִּהְיֶה לֹא תֵאָכֵל״! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רַבִּי,
English Translation:
Rava explains his objection: And if you say that one may give gifts of a priest even to a female priest, because when the verse mentions a priest it is referring even to the daughter of a priest, but isn’t it written: “And every meal offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eaten”? Why, then, is the remainder of a meal offering of the daughter of a priest consumed? Ulla said to him in response: My teacher,
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava spells out the difficulty. If the word “priest” in a verse automatically included a priest’s daughter, then Vayikra 6:16 — every meal offering of a priest shall be wholly burnt and not eaten — should apply to her offering as well, yet the baraita rules that hers is eaten. So on what basis does Ulla treat her as a priest for the gifts? Ulla begins to reply and the page ends; the answer appears on 132a.
Key Terms:
- כָּהֶנֶת (kohenet) = the daughter of a priest
- כָּלִיל תִּהְיֶה לֹא תֵאָכֵל = it shall be wholly burnt, it shall not be eaten (Vayikra 6:16)
- אַמַּאי (amai) = why? — pressing the difficulty
- מִנְחַת כֹּהֶנֶת = a priest’s daughter’s meal offering