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?

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.

§ 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?

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.

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.

§ 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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

§ 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).

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.