תלמוד על במדבר 18:8

HALAKHAH: “For heave and First Fruits,” etc. It is written (Num.18.8): “Behold, I gave to you the watch over My heaves.” Two heaves, heave and First Fruits⁷In the Babli (Šabbat25a, 26a; Yebamot 74a; and in slightly different form Bekhorot 34a), the two heaves are pure and impure (or pure and questionable), respectively. That tradition is in the name of the Davidic Rabba bar Abuha and may represent the autochthonous Babylonian tradition. In the Yerushalmi tradition, the verse determines the rules of First Fruits as those of heave.. About heave it is written⁸The paragraph deals with the prohibition of impure hallowed food. (Lev. 22:9): “They should not carry sin because of it and die if they desecrate it.” First fruits as it is written (Deut. 12:6): “There you shall bring your elevation offerings,” these are First Fruits, as it is written (Deut. 26:4): “The Cohen shall take the basket from your hand.⁹This statement is fragmentary and unintelligible in the form presented. The full text is in Sifry Deut.63: There you shall bring your elevation offerings, private and public, your well-being offerings, private and public, your tithes; R. Aqiba said, the verse deals with two different tithes, grain tithes and animal tithes, and your hand’s heaves, these are First Fruits, as it is written: The Cohen shall take the basket from your hand. Other heaves do not have to be brought to the Temple.” Maybe we should say that the verse¹⁰Lev. 22:9 which imposes death by the hand of Heaven for desecrators. refers to sacrifices? Extirpation is already written in regard to sacrifices¹¹Lev. 22:3 imposes the penalty of extirpation on any Cohen coming close to sacrifices while impure. Traditionally, extirpation is considered more of a punishment than death by the hand of Heaven..

There⁸This baraita is not found in any collection but it is quoted in Babli Pesaḥim 33b, together with the opinions of Ḥizqiah and R. Joḥanan. The heave in this paragraph is impure heave which is forbidden as food., we have stated: “One makes a fire with bread and oil of heave.” Ḥizqiah said, they taught only bread and oil, therefore nothing else. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference between bread, oil, and any other thing. Rebbi Yudan from Kappadokia asked, are wheat grains like bread and olives like oil⁹In the Babli, R. Joḥanan explicitly adds wheat grains to bread.? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan¹⁰The name tradition here is impossible, even though it is supported by both mss. In the next sentence, the same R. Samuel bar Naḥman asks R. Joḥanan whether one may use impure heave for lighting. The statement, as noted by R. S. Cirillo, must be in the name of R. Samuel’s teacher R. Jonathan; a similar position is taken in the Babli by Rav Ḥisda and his student Rava. They are afraid that storing of impure heave as fuel would lead to people accidentally eating from the forbidden food. (In mss. of the Babli, substitutions of “Joḥanan” for “Jonathan” and vice-versa are quite frequent.), may the bones of him who uses bread and oil of heave to make a fire be burned. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: May one make a fire? He said to him, make a fire¹¹Of impure heave.! Anything given to your tribe was given to you, as Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan (Num. 18:8): “For excellence¹²“To you (Aaron) I gave it for excellence,” referring to all obligatory gifts to the Cohen.”. For excellence for greatness, for excellence for rubbing in, for excellence for lighting.

“They are the Cohen’s property.” Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan (Num. 18: 8): “To you I gave it⁴⁸In the verse נתתים “I gave them.” as mošḥâ.” As mošḥâ, for importance⁴⁹The root being משח “to anoint”, as symbol of elevation.. As mošḥâ, for anointing. As mošḥâ, as fuel⁵⁰In Aramaic, משח is “oil”.. I would say, both for impure and pure. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, (Deut. 26:14) “I did not burn any of it⁵¹The declaration at the distribution of the tithe of the poor and the consumption of Second Tithe in Jerusalem, including a reference to First Fruits. There is a difference in rules between heave and First Fruits in this respect.
The argument as reported in Babli Yebamot 73b is to take ממנו as partitive: This hallowed food cannot be burned but other (heave) can.,” but one liquidates heave in impurity. Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: From where for Second Tithe proper which became impure that one may not use it as fuel? The verse says, “I did not burn any of it in impurity”. One may redeem it and you are saying this⁵²Since Second Tithe may always be redeemed for money, impure Second Tithe is redeemed and becomes totally profane. It may be burned as profane fuel.? One may only interpret it as referring to what was bought with Second Tithe money⁵³In this case, R. Jehudah holds in Mishnah Ma‘aser Šeni 3:10 that produce bought with tithe money in Jerusalem which became impure cannot be redeemed but must be buried.. Rebbi Jehudah said⁵⁴The statement is an Amoraic interpretation of what R. Jehudah might have said, that Mishnah Bikkurim 1:8 implies that impure First Fruits must be destroyed even for those who permit redemption of fruits bought with tithe money., but for First Fruits which became impure it is the opinion of everybody.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said: The elder Rebbi Ḥiyya stated two contradictory things, that ṭevel is counted with profane food⁴³The difference between profane food and heave in matters of ritual impurity is that profane food can be impure in the first and second degrees but heave also in the third (cf. Berakhot 5, Note 19). It is stated that ṭevel, produce under the obligation of heave, cannot become impure in the third degree. and that every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave⁴⁴If there is a doubt that ṭevel may contain impurity in the second degree, it can no longer be a source of heave. Then the remainder of the profane food should be of third degree, i. e., pure and acceptable for heave.. This is difficult; if ṭevel is counted with⁴⁵Reading מנינו instead of ממנו; originally the left stroke of מ was very short. The Rome ms. has a shorter and better version: אִם פּוֹסֵל אֶת הַחוּלִּין מִלֵּעָשׂוֹתָן תְּרוּמָה יְהֵא מִנְיָנוֹ בִתְרוּמָה. “If it invalidates profane food so that it cannot be made into heave, it should be counted as heave.” profane food why should it disable profane food from becoming heave? That means, it is counted with heave! Rebbi Jonah said, we also have stated both statements! We have stated there⁴⁶Mishnah Ṭevul Yom 4:1.: “If tithe food was prepared with a fluid and a ṭevul yom⁴⁷Cf. Terumot 5, Note 68. A Ṭevul Yom, a formerly severely impure person after immersion in a miqweh but before sundown, is impure in the second degree by biblical standards. Unwashed hands of an otherwise pure person are impure in the second degree by post-biblical, rabbinic and Sadducee, standards. or unwashed hands touched it, one still may in purity take heave of the tithe from it because it is of the third degree.” This implies that ṭevel is counted with profane food. But every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave, as we have stated there⁴⁸Here, in Mishnah 2.: “If a doubt of impurity arose before it was rolled it may be processed in impurity but after it was rolled it must be processed in purity.” Rav Sheshet said, this follows Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said⁴⁹Mishnah 2:3. Rav Sheshet holds that the Mishnah here is R. Aqiba’s but not the Mishnah Ṭevul Yom 4:1., he should make it in impurity and not make it single qab. Rebbi Zeïra said, it is the opinion of everybody that in a case of doubt he should make single qabim. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abun objected before Rebbi Zeïra, did we not state⁵⁰Tosephta 1:11: “If a doubt of impurity arose before it was rolled it may be processed in impurity but after it was rolled it must be processed in purity; its ḥallah is suspended {it cannot be eaten since it may be impure, and it cannot be burned since it may be pure.} What kind of doubt are we talking about? Doubt for ḥallah {involving third degree impurity which is inactive for profane food.} Similarly, produce for which a doubt of impurity arose before it was fully processed {before any obligation of heave} should be processed in impurity but after it was fully processed it must be processed in purity; its heave is suspended. What kind of doubt are we talking about? Doubt for heave.”: “This applies also to other kinds”? Can you say she should make single qabim in cases of doubt⁵¹The amount is irrelevant for heave. Therefore, R. Zeïra’s argument is irrelevant.? Rebbi Zabida said, I asked that⁵²He claims priority over R. Ḥiyya bar Abun.. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: It is the law that a person may make his ṭevel impure by biblical standards as it is written (Num. 18:8): “I put on you the watch over my heaves.” Heave has to be watched, ṭevel does not have to be watched. How do I confirm (Num. 18:28): “You should give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aaron the priest?” You have to give it to Aaron in his quality of priest, but here, since you cannot give it to a Cohen in his quality of priest⁵³The priest is obligated to consume heave in purity. Since the heave in question may not be consumed, it is not destined for the priest., you may make it impure.