## Bava Kamma Daf 110b

###### Bava Kamma 110b:1
[Bava Kamma 110b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/110b:1)

לְמִשְׁמֶרֶת יְדַעְיָה, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
the value of one *peruta* **for** each priest on the **priestly watch of Jedaiah,** which had fewer priests, **what is** the *halakha*?


###### Bava Kamma 110b:2
[Bava Kamma 110b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/110b:2)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּיַהֲבֵיהּ לִידַעְיָה בְּמִשְׁמֶרֶת יְדַעְיָה – הָא אִית בֵּיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** with regard to which Rava raised his dilemma? **If we say** that the dilemma is raised in a case **where he gave** the money **to** the priestly watch of **Jedaiah, during** the time of the Temple service of the **priestly watch of Jedaiah,** there would be no dilemma. **There is in** this payment enough value for each priest to receive one *peruta*.


###### Bava Kamma 110b:3
[Bava Kamma 110b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/110b:3)

לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּיַהֲבֵיהּ לִידַעְיָה בְּמִשְׁמַרְתּוֹ דִּיהוֹיָרִיב. מַאי? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דְּלָאו מִשְׁמַרְתּוֹ הוּא – וְלָא כְּלוּם הוּא; אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא חֲזֵי לֵיהּ מֵעִיקָּרָא – לִידַעְיָה קָאֵי? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **No,** it is **necessary** to raise the dilemma in a case **where he gave it to** the **Jedaiah** priestly watch **during** the time of the Temple service of the **priestly watch of Joiarib;** in that case, **what** is the *halakha*? The Gemara explains the two possibilities: **Do we say** that **since it is not** during Jedaiah’s **priestly watch, it is nothing,** i.e., it is not a fulfillment of the mitzva to return the stolen item? **Or perhaps** we say that **since it was not fit for** the Joiarib priestly watch, as it was of insufficient value, **from the outset it stands** ready **for** the **Jedaiah** priestly watch, and by giving it to them he fulfilled the mitzva? The Gemara comments: The question **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Bava Kamma 110b:4
[Bava Kamma 110b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/110b:4)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: כֹּהֲנִים, מַהוּ שֶׁיַּחְלְקוּ גֶּזֶל הַגֵּר כְּנֶגֶד גֶּזֶל הַגֵּר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raises** another **dilemma:** With regard to **priests, what is** the *halakha* concerning **whether they may divide** among themselves the restitution for **robbery of a convert,** with some priests taking a larger share **in exchange for** taking a smaller share in the restitution for another **robbery of a convert?** In other words, can the priests arrange that one priest or several priests will receive the restitution for one robbery and another priest or several priests will receive the restitution for a different robbery another time?


###### Bava Kamma 110b:5
[Bava Kamma 110b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/110b:5)

מִי אָמְרִינַן: ״אָשָׁם״ קַרְיֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא – מָה אָשָׁם אֵין חוֹלְקִין אָשָׁם כְּנֶגֶד אָשָׁם, אַף גֶּזֶל אֵין חוֹלְקִין גֶּזֶל הַגֵּר כְּנֶגֶד גֶּזֶל הַגֵּר; אוֹ דִּלְמָא, גֶּזֶל הַגֵּר מָמוֹנָא הוּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
He explains the two possibilities: **Do we say** that **the Merciful One labeled** the stolen item with the term **“guilt,”** and therefore, **just as** with **a guilt-offering** the priests **may not divide** portions of **a guilt-offering,** with some priests taking a larger share **in exchange for** taking a smaller share in other portions of **a guilt-offering,** but rather all priests of the watch share in the sacrificial flesh, **so too** with the restitution for **robbery:** The priests **may not divide** the restitution for **robbery of a convert,** with some priests taking a larger share **in exchange for** taking a smaller share in the restitution for another **robbery of a convert? Or perhaps** the restitution for **robbery of a convert** paid to priests is not in fact an offering, but it **is monetary restitution,** and monetary restitution may be divided in this manner among the priests?


###### Bava Kamma 110b:6
[Bava Kamma 110b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/110b:6)

הֲדַר פַּשְׁטַהּ: ״אָשָׁם״ קַרְיֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא. רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא מַתְנֵי לַהּ בְּהֶדְיָא – אָמַר רָבָא: כֹּהֲנִים אֵין חוֹלְקִין גֶּזֶל הַגֵּר כְּנֶגֶד גֶּזֶל הַגֵּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״אָשָׁם״ קַרְיֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava **then resolves it** himself: **The Merciful One labeled** the stolen item with the term **“guilt,”** so it may not be divided in this manner. **Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, teaches it explicitly** as a ruling, and not as a dilemma and solution, that **Rava says: Priests may not divide** the restitution for **robbery of a convert** with some priests taking a larger share **in exchange for** taking a smaller share in the restitution for another **robbery of a convert. What is the reason? The Merciful One labeled** the stolen item with the term **“guilt.”**


###### Bava Kamma 110b:7
[Bava Kamma 110b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/110b:7)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: כֹּהֲנִים בְּגֶזֶל הַגֵּר – יוֹרְשִׁין הָווּ, אוֹ מְקַבְּלֵי מַתָּנוֹת הָווּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava raises a dilemma:** What is the status of **priests with regard to** the restitution for **robbery of a convert? Are they** considered **heirs** of the convert **or are they recipients of gifts?**


###### Bava Kamma 110b:8
[Bava Kamma 110b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/110b:8)

לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? כְּגוֹן שֶׁגָּזַל חָמֵץ שֶׁעָבַר עָלָיו הַפֶּסַח. אִי אָמְרַתְּ יוֹרְשִׁין הָווּ – הַיְינוּ הַאי דְּיָרְתִי מוֹרֵית. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ מְקַבְּלֵי מַתָּנוֹת הָווּ – מַתָּנָה קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא דְּנִיתֵּיב לְהוּ, וְהָא לָא קָא יָהֵיב לְהוּ מִידֵּי – דְּעַפְרָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the** practical **difference?** The Gemara answers: The difference would be in a case **where one robbed** a convert of **leavened bread, and** then **Passover elapsed over it,** rendering it an item from which one is prohibited to derive benefit and therefore valueless. **If you say** that the priests **are heirs, this is what they inherit:** Only that which the robber **bequeaths** to them, and the priests receive the valueless leavened bread as is. **And if you say** that **they are recipients of gifts,** it is **a gift that the Merciful One is saying that** the robber **should give to them, and this** robber **is not giving them anything, for it is merely dust.** Therefore, the robber should have to pay the priests what the value of the bread had been at the time of the robbery.


###### Bava Kamma 110b:9
[Bava Kamma 110b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/110b:9)

רַב זְעֵירָא בָּעֵי הָכִי: אֲפִילּוּ אִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר מְקַבְּלֵי מַתָּנָה הָווּ, הָא – לָא אִיבַּעְיָא לַן, דְּהַהִיא מַתָּנָה אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא דְּנִיתֵּיב לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Zeira raises the dilemma like this: Even if you say** that **they are recipients of gifts, this** question, i.e., whether a robber of leavened bread over which Passover then elapsed fulfills the mitzva to return the stolen item even in this devalued state, **is not our dilemma,** as this is certainly a fulfillment of the obligation. **For this** stolen item is the **gift** with regard to which **the Merciful One states** in the Torah **that** the robber **should give** it **to** the priests.


###### Bava Kamma 110b:10
[Bava Kamma 110b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/110b:10)

אֶלָּא כִּי קָמִבַּעְיָא לַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לוֹ עֶשֶׂר בְּהֵמוֹת בְּגֶזֶל הַגֵּר. [מִי] מִחַיְּיבִי לְאַפְרוֹשֵׁי מִינַּיְיהוּ מַעֲשֵׂר, אוֹ לָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Zeira continues: **Rather, when we have a dilemma** whether the priests are considered as heirs or as recipients of gifts, the practical difference arises in a case **where ten animals came into** the priest’s possession **for** payment of **robbery of a convert.** The dilemma is: **Are they obligated to separate tithe from them, or not?**


###### Bava Kamma 110b:11
[Bava Kamma 110b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/110b:11)

יוֹרְשִׁין הָווּ – דְּאָמַר מָר: קָנוּ בִּתְפִיסַת הַבַּיִת – חַיָּיבִין; אוֹ דִלְמָא מְקַבְּלֵי מַתָּנוֹת הָווּ – וּתְנַן: הַלּוֹקֵחַ וְהַנִּיתָּן לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה – פָּטוּר מִמַּעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה. מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the two possibilities: Perhaps **they are heirs,** in which case they will be obligated, **for the Master said** in a mishna (*Bekhorot* 56b) that if heirs **acquired** animals **in** the jointly **held** property **of the estate,** i.e., the heirs jointly owned the animals as the inheritance had yet to be divided, **they are obligated** to separate tithes from animals born to those animals, and the same will apply to the priests. **Or perhaps they are recipients of gifts, and we learned** in a mishna (*Bekhorot* 55b): **One who purchases** an animal **or one who** has an animal **given to him as a gift** is **exempt from** the obligation to separate the **animal tithe,** and the same will apply to the priests. **What** is the *halakha* in this case?


###### Bava Kamma 110b:12
[Bava Kamma 110b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/110b:12)

תָּא שְׁמַע: עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע מַתְּנוֹת כְּהוּנָּה נִיתְּנוּ לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו, וְכוּלָּן נִיתְּנוּ בִּכְלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל, וּבְרִית מֶלַח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Come** and **hear** a resolution to this dilemma from a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Ḥalla* 2:7–10): **Twenty-four priestly gifts were given to Aaron and to his sons, and all of them were given with** a derivation from **a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization; and** with **a covenant of salt.** The verses in the book of Numbers, chapter 18, detail the gifts of the priesthood. The first verse (18:8) is written in general terms, followed by verses listing the actual gifts (9–18), followed by a final verse written in general terms. The method of interpreting verses written in this manner is one of the thirteen hermeneutical principles. Additionally, the phrase: “Covenant of salt,” is written in the final verse (18:19), and is referring to all of the gifts of the priesthood.


###### Bava Kamma 110b:13
[Bava Kamma 110b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/110b:13)

כׇּל הַמְקַיְּימָן – כְּאִילּוּ מְקַיֵּים כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל וּבְרִית מֶלַח, כׇּל הָעוֹבֵר עֲלֵיהֶם – כְּאִילּוּ עוֹבֵר עַל כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל וּבְרִית מֶלַח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This serves to teach that **anyone who fulfills** the mitzva of giving the gifts of the priesthood is considered **as if he fulfills** the entire Torah, which is interpreted using the principle of **a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization; and** as if he has brought all of the offerings, concerning which there is **a covenant of salt. And anyone who violates** the mitzva of giving the gifts of the priesthood is considered **as if he violates** the entire Torah, which is interpreted using the principle of **a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization; and** as if he has not brought all of the offerings, concerning which there is **a covenant of salt.**


###### Bava Kamma 110b:14
[Bava Kamma 110b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/110b:14)

וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: עֶשֶׂר בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְאַרְבַּע בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְעֶשֶׂר בַּגְּבוּלִים. עֶשֶׂר בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ – חַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה, וְחַטַּאת הָעוֹף, וְאָשָׁם וַדַּאי, וְאָשָׁם תָּלוּי, וְזִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִבּוּר, וְלוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע, וּמוֹתַר הָעוֹמֶר, וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם, וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, וּשְׁיָרֵי מְנָחוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And these are** the twenty-four gifts: There are **ten in the Temple, and four in Jerusalem, and ten in the boundaries** of Eretz Yisrael. The **ten** gifts that the priests consume only **in the Temple** are **an animal sin-offering; and a bird sin-offering; and a definite guilt-offering; and a provisional guilt-offering; and communal peace-offerings,** i.e., lambs offered on *Shavuot*; **and a *log* of oil** that accompanies the guilt-offering **of** a recovered **leper; and the surplus of the *omer*,** i.e., what remains of the measure of barley brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of Nisan; **and the two loaves,** i.e., the public offering of two loaves from the new wheat offered on *Shavuot*; **and the shewbread; and the leftovers of grain-offerings,** after the priests have offered the required handful.


###### Bava Kamma 110b:15
[Bava Kamma 110b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/110b:15)

וְאַרְבַּע בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם – הַבְּכוֹרָה, וְהַבִּיכּוּרִים, וְהַמּוּרָם מִן הַתּוֹדָה וְאֵיל נָזִיר, וְעוֹרוֹת קֳדָשִׁים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And** the **four** gifts that the priests consume anywhere **in Jerusalem: The firstborn** of kosher animals; **and the first fruits; and the** portions **separated** for the priests **from the thanks-offering and the nazirite’s ram; and hides of consecrated** animals.


###### Bava Kamma 110b:16
[Bava Kamma 110b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/110b:16)

וַעֲשָׂרָה בַּגְּבוּלִין: תְּרוּמָה, וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר, וְחַלָּה, וְרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, וְהַמַּתָּנוֹת, וּפִדְיוֹן הַבֵּן, וּפִדְיוֹן פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר, וּשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה, וּשְׂדֵה חֲרָמִים, וְגֶזֶל הַגֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And ten** gifts that the priests consume anywhere **in the boundaries** of Eretz Yisrael: ***Teruma*,** i.e., the portion of the produce designated for the priest; **and *teruma* of the tithe,** which the Levite separates from the tithe he receives and gives to a priest; **and *ḥalla*,** i.e., the portion of dough of the five main grains designated for the priest; **and the first of the sheared** wool; **and the gifts** of non-sacrificial, slaughtered animals, namely, the right foreleg, the cheeks, and the maw; **and** money given for the **redemption of** the firstborn **son; and** a sheep or goat given as **redemption of the firstborn donkey; and** a consecrated **ancestral field** the priests receive in the Jubilee Year; **and a dedicated field; and** payment for **robbery of a convert** who died without heirs.


###### Bava Kamma 110b:17
[Bava Kamma 110b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/110b:17)

וְקָא קָרֵי מִיהַת ״מַתָּנָה״ – שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מְקַבְּלֵי מַתָּנוֹת הָווּ! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers from the wording of the *baraita*: **And** this *baraita*, **in any event, labels** the payment for robbery of a convert **a gift.** The Gemara suggests: **Conclude from** this *baraita* that the priests who receive it **are** considered **recipients of gifts,** and not heirs. The Gemara affirms: **Conclude from it** that this is so.


###### Bava Kamma 110b:18
[Bava Kamma 110b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/110b:18)

נָתַן אֶת הַכֶּסֶף לְאַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁמָר [וְכוּ׳]. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, כֶּסֶף מְכַפֵּר מֶחֱצָה. דְּאִי לָא מְכַפֵּר, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מַהְדַּר לְיוֹרְשִׁין. מַאי טַעְמָא? אַדַּעְתָּא דְּהָכִי לָא יְהַב לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If he **gave the money to the members of the priestly watch** and then died before they sacrificed his guilt-offering, the heirs cannot remove the money from the priests’ possession. **Abaye said: Learn from** this mishna that **monetary restitution** for the robbery **atones** for **half** of the sin, **for if** it **does not atone** at all, and atonement is not achieved until the guilt-offering is sacrificed, **I would say** that in the case of robbery of a convert, if the guilt-offering is not brought the priest **returns** the money **to the** robber’s **heirs. What is the reason** I would say this? Because **he did not give** the money **to** the priests **with this intention** of giving the money and not achieving atonement at all, and it would be a mistaken transaction.


###### Bava Kamma 110b:19
[Bava Kamma 110b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/110b:19)

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, חַטָּאת שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ תִּיפּוֹק לְחוּלִּין – דְּאַדַּעְתָּא דְּהָכִי לָא אַפְרְשַׁהּ! אָמְרִי: חַטָּאת שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ, הִלְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ דִּלְמִיתָה אָזְלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If that is so,** it would follow that **a sin-offering whose owners have died,** leaving no one to bring the offering, **should be transferred to non-sacred** status, **as** the robber **did not separate** the animal as an offering **with this intention** of its not being sacrificed to atone for his sin. The Sages **say** in response: In the case of **a sin-offering whose owners have died,** the Sages **learned this *halakha* through tradition that** the animal **is left to die.**


###### Bava Kamma 110b:20
[Bava Kamma 110b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/110b:20)

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, אָשָׁם שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּעָלָיו לִיפּוֹק לְחוּלִּין – דְּאַדַּעְתָּא דְּהָכִי לָא אַפְרְשֵׁיהּ! אָשָׁם נָמֵי הִלְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לָהּ – כֹּל שֶׁבַּחַטָּאת מֵתָה, בְּאָשָׁם רוֹעֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If that is so, a guilt-offering whose owner has died should be transferred to non-sacred** status, **as** the owner **did not separate** the animal as an offering **with this intention** of it not being sacrificed to atone for his sin. The Gemara answers: With regard to **a guilt-offering,** the Sages **also learned this *halakha* through tradition: Any** occurrence **that,** if it occurs **with regard to a sin-offering** the animal is placed in isolation for it to **die,** if it occurs **with regard to a guilt-offering** the animal is left to **graze** until it develops a blemish precluding its use as an offering, at which point it can be redeemed.


###### Bava Kamma 110b:21
[Bava Kamma 110b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/110b:21)

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, יְבָמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לִפְנֵי מוּכֵּה שְׁחִין תִּיפּוֹק בְּלָא חֲלִיצָה, דְּאַדַּעְתָּא דְּהָכִי לֹא קִדְּשָׁה עַצְמָהּ! הָתָם אֲנַן סָהֲדִי

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If that is so,** then in the case of **a woman whose husband died childless [*yevama*], who happened before** her late husband’s brother who was **afflicted with boils** to enter levirate marriage with him, **should go out** free to marry **without** being required to perform **the ritual through which the *yavam* frees the *yevama* of her levirate bonds [*ḥalitza*]. For she did not betroth herself** to this man’s deceased brother **with this intention** of having a levirate bond with a man afflicted with boils. The Gemara answers: **There, it is clear to us**