민수기 5:10 탈무드 참조: Jerusalem Talmud Demai, Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim, Jerusalem Talmud Peah & Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma

“If an Israel received (as sharecropper) a field from another Israel on condition that the tithes go to a certain person, that clause is forbidden⁵⁵Distribution of tithes cannot become part of a financial package.; on condition that I shall take them and deliver them to a certain person, that clause is permitted.⁵⁶In the Tosephta (Demay 7:1) there is a positive prescription that between sharecropper and landlord of similar status, tithes must be evenly split. There is no prescription on how the tithes should be given to Levite or Cohen.” Is the second version not identical with the first? Rebbi Aḥa said, “if you agree” makes the difference⁵⁷For R. Aḥa, the landlord may not prescribe the distribution of the sharecropper’s tithes but he can ask the latter’s consent to distribute them in a certain manner.. Rebbi Yose⁵⁸R. Yose agrees with the objection that the two clauses are indistinguishable; he must find another reason why one is permitted and the other forbidden. said, you say it is permitted if it follows the standard sharecropper’s contract. You say it is forbidden if it does not follow the standard sharecropper’s contract. It turns out that Rebbi Yose holds with Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Aḥa with Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina. As Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, a person gives his tithes for the benefit of goodwill⁵⁹While a person cannot trade his heaves or tithes, he can use them to create goodwill and so reap an indirect monetary benefit, or even a direct benefit if the party involved is not a Cohen. While an Israel may not take money from a Cohen for his heaves, he may take from an Israel for the promise to give all future heaves to the latter’s grandson who is a Cohen. But since it is not possible to trade this kind of goodwill, it is not considered to be money in the Babli (Nedarim 64b–65a); hence, if the Cohen takes heave without consent of the owner, he cannot be sued for monetary damages (Maimonides Terumot 12:15). This is the only opinion mentioned in the Babli and the only one in Sifry Naśo (6). (Starting here, the next four paragraphs are also found in Qiddušin 2:10.). Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may not give his tithes for the benefit of goodwill⁶⁰Rebbi Joḥanan does not allow any monetary advantage from giving heaves and tithes.. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina? (Num. 5:10) “Everybody shall be the owner of his holy things.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan with this? He may give them to whomever he likes⁶¹No Cohen or Levy may take heave or tithe by force; only the owner can decide to whom to give [Sifry Naśo (6)]..

⁴⁶From here to the end of the Halakhah, the text (with minor variants) is from Demay 6:3, explained there in Notes 59–76. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, a person gives his tithes for the benefit of goodwill. Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may not give his tithes for the benefit of goodwill. What is the reason of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina? (Num. 5:10) “Everybody shall be the owner of his holy things.” Rebbi Joḥanan said “it shall not be his”. May he give them to whomever he likes?

Rebbi Joḥanan said, they fined them so that they should not run after wine presses and threshing floors²⁹¹This sentence refers to the statement of the Mishnah that a Cohen or a Levite, who had received or bought grain before it was made a staple in a smooth heap, has to give terumah to another Levite or Cohen, even though from the Torah there seems to be no reason to assume that the Cohen cannot eat his own terumah. The reason given is that we do not want Cohen or Levi to go and help with the harvest in order to exert moral pressure on the farmer to give terumah and tithes to him personally, since the Torah declares (Num. 5:10): “Everybody shall have control over his own Holy Things.” The prohibition for a Cohen to exert pressure to force a non-Cohen to give him the required gifts is emphasized in Tosephta (Demai5:20) and in both Talmudim stating that terumah and tithes may not be given to the Cohen or Levi as payment for helping in the harvest.
One does not really talk about fines here but about preemptive rules to avoid monopolization of priestly emoluments in the hands of a few individuals. The same reasoning applies to the Cohen butcher in the next paragraph..