Kiddushin, Daf Nun Gimmel, Part 2
Introduction
In yesterday s section Abaye brought a baraita according to which even R. Yehudah agrees that a priest may not betroth with sacrifices given to him as his portion. This supported R. Yohanan who said that there was no longer a dispute over the issue. Today Rava defends Rav s position, according to which the dispute remains.
אמר רבא וכרב מי לא תניא והתניא הצנועים מושכין את ידיהם והגרגרנים חולקים
Rava said: And was it not taught in accordance with Rav too? Was it not taught: The modest withdrew their hands, but the gluttonous shared [their portions].
Rava cites a baraita that supports Rav. The baraita refers to priests dividing up the weekly showbread. The modest ones did not even want to eat it. Perhaps they felt it was too holy. In their place, the gluttonous ones take all of the shares. This seems to imply that they can exchange their portions the modest ones do not take and in their place others do.
מאי חולקים חוטפים כדקתני סיפא מעשה באחד שחטף חלקו וחלק חברו והיו קוראין אותו בן חמצן עד יום מותו
[No.] By shared is meant snatched [other priests shares]. As the second clause states: It happened that one snatched his own and his neighbor’s portion, and he was called Ben Hamtzan [snatcher] until the day of his death.
The Talmud rejects this meaning of shared. The gluttonous did not share their portions, they snatched, i.e. stole, them from one another. Those greedy priests!
אמר רבה בר רב שילא מאי קראה (תהלים עא, ד) אלהי פלטני מיד רשע מכף מעול וחומץ
רבה אמר מהכא (ישעיהו א, יז) למדו היטב דרשו משפט אשרו חמוץ
Rabbah son of R. Shila said: What is the verse? O my Lord, rescue me out of the hand of the wicked, Out of the hand of the unrighteous and violent [hometz] (Psalms 71:4).
Rabbah said: [We learn it] from here: Learn to do well, seek judgment, set right the man of violence (hometz) (Isaiah 1:17).
The amoraim provide biblical verses to explain the meaning of Ben Hamtzan son of the snatcher. You really don t want to be called son of the snatcher!