## Bava Kamma Daf 109b

###### Bava Kamma 109b:1
[Bava Kamma 109b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/109b:1)

מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי סָבַר: אֲפִילּוּ לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ נָמֵי מָצֵי מָחֵיל?! אֶלָּא גֶּזֶל הַגֵּר דְּקָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא נְתִינָה לְכֹהֲנִים, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions Rava’s explanation: **By inference** does it follow **that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds** that he **can forgive** the return of the stolen item **even to himself? But** if so, payment for **robbery of a convert** who dies without heirs, about **which the Merciful One says** that it requires **giving** repayment **to the priests, how can you find these** circumstances if in every case where one robs a convert and the convert dies the robber can forgive the return of the item to himself?


###### Bava Kamma 109b:2
[Bava Kamma 109b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/109b:2)

אָמַר רָבָא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּשֶׁגָּזַל אֶת הַגֵּר, וְנִשְׁבַּע לוֹ, וּמֵת הַגֵּר, וְהוֹדָה לְאַחַר מִיתָה; דִּבְעִידָּנָא דְּאוֹדִי – קְנָאוֹ הַשֵּׁם וּנְתָנוֹ לְכֹהֲנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: With what are we dealing here?** With a case **where one robbed the convert and took an oath to him** that he did not rob him, **and** then **the convert died, and** the robber **admitted** his false oath **after** the convert’s **death,** such **that at the time that he admitted** to it, **the Name,** i.e., God, **acquired** the principal and the additional one-fifth payment **and gave it to the priests.** Once the right to the payment is transferred to the priests the robber can no longer forgive it. By contrast, if he admitted his false oath while the convert was still alive and then the convert dies, the convert can forgive the obligation to himself, since he already took ownership of it.


###### Bava Kamma 109b:3
[Bava Kamma 109b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/109b:3)

בָּעֵי רָבִינָא: גֶּזֶל הַגִּיּוֹרֶת, מַהוּ? ״אִישׁ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא – וְלֹא אִשָּׁה, אוֹ דִלְמָא אוֹרְחֵיהּ דִּקְרָא הוּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Ravina raises a dilemma:** With regard to payment for **robbery of a female convert, what is** the *halakha*? **The Merciful One states** in the Torah: “But if the **man** has no kinsman” (Numbers 5:8), indicating that the *halakha* applies to a male convert, **but not** to **a woman,** i.e., a female convert; if she dies after being robbed, payment is not given to the priests. **Or perhaps it is the manner of the verse** to employ masculine wording, but the *halakha* applies in the case of a female convert as well?


###### Bava Kamma 109b:4
[Bava Kamma 109b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/109b:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַהֲרֹן לְרָבִינָא: תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא: ״אִישׁ״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אִישׁ; אִשָּׁה מִנַּיִן? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״הַמּוּשָׁב״ – הֲרֵי כָּאן שְׁנַיִם,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aharon said to Ravina: Come** and **hear** a solution to your dilemma, **as it is taught** in a *baraita* that the verse states in its entirety: “But if the **man** has no kinsman to whom restitution may be made for the guilt, the restitution for guilt that is made shall be the Lord’s, even the priest’s; besides the ram of the atonement, whereby atonement shall be made for him.” **I have** derived **only** that it is referring to **a man; from where** is it derived that this applies equally to **a woman? When it states:** “The restitution for guilt **that is made,” there are two** instances of the phrase “that is made” **here,** as the verse mentions making restitution twice, to include a female convert in this *halakha*.


###### Bava Kamma 109b:5
[Bava Kamma 109b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/109b:5)

אִם כֵּן מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִישׁ״? אִישׁ אַתָּה צָרִיךְ לַחֲזוֹר אַחֲרָיו אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ גּוֹאֲלִים אִם לָאו, קָטָן אִי אַתָּה צָרִיךְ לַחֲזוֹר אַחֲרָיו; בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ גּוֹאֲלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **If so, what** is the meaning when **the verse states** specifically **“man”?** The *baraita* explains: To pay a convert who is **a man, you need to investigate concerning him** to determine **if he has a kinsman or not,** but to pay a convert who is **a minor you do not need to investigate concerning him. It is known that he has no kinsman,** since as a convert he has no kin among his birth family, and as a minor he does not have children.


###### Bava Kamma 109b:6
[Bava Kamma 109b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/109b:6)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״לַה׳ לַכֹּהֵן״ – קְנָאוֹ הַשֵּׁם, וּנְתָנוֹ לַכֹּהֵן שֶׁבְּאוֹתוֹ מִשְׁמָר. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר לַכֹּהֵן שֶׁבְּאוֹתוֹ מִשְׁמָר; אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְכׇל כֹּהֵן שֶׁיִּרְצֶה? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״מִלְּבַד אֵיל הַכִּפֻּרִים אֲשֶׁר יְכַפֶּר בּוֹ עָלָיו״ – הֲרֵי לַכֹּהֵן שֶׁבְּאוֹתוֹ מִשְׁמָר הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to the payment to priests in the case of one who robbed a convert who then died without heirs, **the Sages taught:** The verse states: “Restitution for guilt that is made **shall be the Lord’s, even the priest’s”** (Numbers 5:8), teaching that **the Name,** i.e., God, **acquired it and gave it to the priest who is in that priestly watch.** Do **you say** that it is given only **to the priest who is on that priestly watch? Or** perhaps that is **not** the case, and **rather** he may give it **to any priest that he wishes? When it says** in that verse: **“Besides the ram of the atonement, whereby atonement shall be made for him,”** this teaches that **the verse speaks of** giving it **to the priest who is on that priestly watch.** Just as the ram that the robber brings is given only to the priest on duty who sacrifices it, so too, the money is also given only to the priest on duty.


###### Bava Kamma 109b:7
[Bava Kamma 109b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/109b:7)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה גּוֹזֵל כֹּהֵן, מִנַּיִן שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר: הוֹאִיל וְיוֹצֵא לַכֹּהֲנִים, וַהֲרֵי הוּא תַּחַת יָדִי – יְהֵא שֶׁלִּי? וְדִין הוּא – אִי בְּשֶׁל אֲחֵרִים הוּא זוֹכֶה, בְּשֶׁל עַצְמוֹ לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Concerning this payment, **the Sages taught:** In a case **where** the one who **robs** the convert **was a priest, from where** is it derived **that he shall not say: Since** the payment usually **is removed** from the robber and given **to the priests and it is** now **in my possession, it should be mine. And** there is **a logical derivation** to support this reasoning, as follows: **If** a priest **has the right to acquire** the payment **belonging to others** who stole from a convert, then with regard to payment **belonging to himself,** which is already in his possession, is it **not all the more so** that he should keep it?


###### Bava Kamma 109b:8
[Bava Kamma 109b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/109b:8)

רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר בְּלָשׁוֹן אַחֵר: וּמָה דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק בּוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּכָּנֵס בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ – כְּשֶׁיִּכָּנֵס לִרְשׁוּתוֹ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ מִיָּדוֹ; דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ חֵלֶק בּוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא יִכָּנֵס בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ – מִשֶּׁנִּכְנַס לִרְשׁוּתוֹ אֵינוֹ דִּין דְּאֵין אַחֵר יָכוֹל לְהוֹצִיאוֹ מִיָּדוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Rabbi Natan states** this logical inference **with different wording: And just as** with regard to **a matter in which** a priest **has no portion until it enters his possession,** e.g., *teruma*, which can be given to any priest, **once it enters his possession** another priest **cannot remove it from his possession;** so too, with regard to **a matter in which** a priest **has a portion** even **before it enters his possession,** e.g., an item stolen from a convert, in which he has a portion as one of the priests on the priestly watch, **isn’t it logical that another** priest **cannot remove it from his possession** once it is in his possession?


###### Bava Kamma 109b:9
[Bava Kamma 109b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/109b:9)

לֹא; אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק בּוֹ – שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק בּוֹ כָּךְ אֵין לַאֲחֵרִים חֵלֶק בּוֹ, תֹּאמַר בְּגָזֵל – שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ חֵלֶק בּוֹ, כָּךְ יֵשׁ לַאֲחֵרִים חֵלֶק בּוֹ?! אֶלָּא גְּזֵילוֹ יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ, וּמִתְחַלֵּק לְכׇל אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues, countering that this logical inference is not correct: **No, if you said** this **concerning a matter in which** a priest **has no portion,** where the reason why once it enters his possession another priest cannot remove it from his possession is **that just as he has no portion in it, so too, others have no portion in it; would you say** the same **concerning** an item **robbed** from a convert? As there it could be said **that just as** the priest who robbed him **has a portion in it** as one of the priests on the priestly watch, **so too, other** priests on that watch **have a portion in it. Rather,** the *halakha* is that **the item he stole is removed from his possession and is distributed to all of his brethren, the priests.**


###### Bava Kamma 109b:10
[Bava Kamma 109b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/109b:10)

וְהָכְתִיב: ״וְאִישׁ אֶת קֳדָשָׁיו לוֹ יִהְיוּ״! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בְּכֹהֵן טָמֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection: **But isn’t it written: “And every man’s hallowed things shall be his;** whatsoever any man gives to the priest, it shall be his” (Numbers 5:10), indicating that a priest is not required to give to the other priests the offerings he sacrifices? Therefore, just as he has the right to the flesh of the guilt-offering that he brings to atone for robbing the convert, shouldn’t he also have the right to the payment? The Gemara answers: **With what are we dealing here,** in this case? We are dealing **with a ritually impure priest,** who is unfit to sacrifice the guilt-offering and therefore does not have rights to the flesh of the offering. In this case, he will not be able to keep the payment for himself.


###### Bava Kamma 109b:11
[Bava Kamma 109b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/109b:11)

אִי בְּכֹהֵן טָמֵא, ״דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ חֵלֶק בּוֹ״ מִי אִית לֵיהּ?! אֶלָּא אָתְיָא ״לַכֹּהֵן״–״לַכֹּהֵן״ מִשְּׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If** the *baraita* states its ruling specifically **with regard to an impure priest,** how can it describe the payment as **a matter in which** the priest **has a portion? Does he have** a portion in it? Therefore, the *baraita* must not be referring to an impure priest. **Rather,** there is another reason why he has no right to the payment. This *halakha* is **derived** through a verbal analogy between the phrase **“even the priest’s [*lakohen*]”** (Numbers 5:8) written in this context, and the phrase **“to the priest [*lakohen*]”** (Leviticus 27:21) **from** the verse stated concerning **an ancestral field,** which, if consecrated and then redeemed by another does not revert to its original owner in the Jubilee Year, but is given to the priests, as the *baraita* will now explain.


###### Bava Kamma 109b:12
[Bava Kamma 109b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/109b:12)

דְּתַנְיָא: ״אֲחֻזָּתוֹ״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? מִנַּיִן לְשָׂדֶה הַיּוֹצְאָה לַכֹּהֲנִים בַּיּוֹבֵל – וּגְאָלָהּ אֶחָד מִן הַכֹּהֲנִים, מִנַּיִן שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר: הוֹאִיל וְיוֹצְאָה לַכֹּהֲנִים בַּיּוֹבֵל, וַהֲרֵי הִיא תַּחַת יָדִי, תְּהֵא שֶׁלִּי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita* that the verse states: “But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy unto the Lord, as a field dedicated; the possession thereof shall be to the priest” (Leviticus 27:21). The *baraita* asks: **What** is the meaning when **the verse states** the term: **“The possession thereof”? From where** is it derived **that** with regard to **a field that goes out to the priests in the Jubilee** Year **and one of the priests redeemed it** before the Jubilee Year, **from where** is it derived **that** a priest **shall not say: Since** a field that is redeemed by another **goes out to the priests in the Jubilee** Year, **and** the field that I redeemed **is** now **in my possession, it should be mine,** and not be given to the priests in general?


###### Bava Kamma 109b:13
[Bava Kamma 109b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/109b:13)

וְדִין הוּא – בְּשֶׁל אֲחֵרִים אֲנִי זוֹכֶה, בְּשֶׁל עַצְמִי לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And** there is **a logical derivation** to support this reasoning, as follows: If **I acquire** the field **belonging to others,** who consecrated it and it was then redeemed, then with regard to a field **belonging to me,** which is already in my possession, is it **not all the more so** that I should keep it?


###### Bava Kamma 109b:14
[Bava Kamma 109b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/109b:14)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כִּשְׂדֵה הַחֵרֶם לַכֹּהֵן תִּהְיֶה אֲחֻזָּתוֹ״ – אֲחוּזָּה שֶׁלּוֹ, וְאֵין זוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ. הָא כֵּיצַד? יוֹצְאָה מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ, וּמִתְחַלֶּקֶת לְכׇל אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues, countering that this logical inference is not correct. **The verse states: “As a field dedicated; the possession thereof shall be to the priest”** (Leviticus 27:21), indicating that a field of which the priest has **possession** from his ancestors **is his, but this** field that he redeemed **is not his. How so?** It **is removed from his possession and is distributed to all of his brethren, the priests.**


###### Bava Kamma 109b:15
[Bava Kamma 109b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/109b:15)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִנַּיִן לְכֹהֵן – שֶׁבָּא וּמַקְרִיב קׇרְבְּנוֹתָיו בְּכׇל עֵת וּבְכׇל שָׁעָה שֶׁיִּרְצֶה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּבָא בְּכׇל אַוַּת נַפְשׁוֹ״, ״וְשֵׁרֵת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara records another *baraita* concerning the rights of a priest to offerings he sacrifices. **The Sages taught** (*Tosefta*, *Menaḥot* 13:17): **From where** is it derived **that a priest** may **come and sacrifice his offerings at any time and at any hour that he wishes** and does not have to wait for his priestly watch to serve in the Temple? **The verse states:** “And if a Levite comes from any of your gates out of all Israel, where he sojourns, **and comes with all the desire of his soul** unto the place that the Lord shall choose; **then he shall minister** in the name of the Lord his God” (Deuteronomy 18:6–7).


###### Bava Kamma 109b:16
[Bava Kamma 109b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/109b:16)

וּמִנַּיִין שֶׁעֲבוֹדָתָהּ וְעוֹרָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאִישׁ אֶת קֳדָשָׁיו לוֹ יִהְיוּ״. הָא כֵּיצַד? אִם הָיָה בַּעַל מוּם – נוֹתְנָהּ לְכֹהֵן שֶׁבְּאוֹתוֹ מִשְׁמָר, וַעֲבוֹדָתָהּ וְעוֹרָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And from where** is it derived **that the performance of** the offering’s **service,** i.e., eating the meat of the animal he sacrifices, **and** the offering’s **hide, belong to him? The verse states: “And every man’s hallowed things shall be his”** (Numbers 5:10). **How so? If** this priest **was blemished, he gives** his offering **to** another **priest that is on the same priestly watch** as him to sacrifice it, **but the performance of its service and its hide belong to him.**