Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 11, 2019 | 讜壮 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讟

Chullin 135

Details regarding the laws of giving the first of your shearings to the priests.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诪转谞讬壮 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 谞讜讛讙 讘讗专抓 讜讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讘驻谞讬 讛讘讬转 讜砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讛讘讬转 讘讞讜诇讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘诪讜拽讚砖讬诐


MISHNA: The mitzva of the first sheared wool that every Jew must give to the priest, as stated in the verse: 鈥淎nd the first sheared wool of your flock [tzonekha] shall you give him鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:4), applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, in the presence of the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple, and with regard to non-sacred animals. But it does not apply to sacrificial animals.


讞讜诪专 讘讝专讜注 讜诇讞讬讬诐 讜讘拽讘讛 诪专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 砖讛讝专讜注 讜讛诇讞讬讬诐 讜讛拽讘讛 谞讜讛讙讬谉 讘讘拽专 讜讘爪讗谉 讘诪专讜讘讛 讜讘诪讜注讟 讜专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘专讞诇讜转 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘诪专讜讘讛


There are more stringent elements in the mitzva of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw (see 130a) than in the halakha of the first sheared wool in that the mitzva of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw applies to cattle and to sheep, as it is written: 鈥淲hether it be ox or sheep, that he shall give unto the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:3); and it applies to numerous animals and to few animals. But by contrast, the mitzva of the first sheared wool applies only to sheep and not to goats and cattle, and applies only to numerous animals.


讜讻诪讛 讛讜讗 诪专讜讘讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖转讬 专讞诇讜转 砖谞讗诪专 讬讞讬讛 讗讬砖 注讙诇转 讘拽专 讜砖转讬 爪讗谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞诪砖 砖谞讗诪专 讞诪砖 爪讗谉 注砖讜讬讜转


And how many are numerous? Beit Shammai say: It is at least two sheep, as it is stated: 鈥淭hat a man shall rear a young cow, and two sheep [tzon]鈥 (Isaiah 7:21), indicating that two sheep are characterized as tzon; and the mitzva of the first sheared wool is written using the term 鈥測our flock [tzonekha].鈥 And Beit Hillel say: It is at least five sheep, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd five sheep [tzon] made鈥 (I聽Samuel 25:18).


专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讘谉 讛专讻讬谞住 讗讜诪专 讞诪砖 专讞诇讜转 讙讜讝讝讜转 诪谞讛 诪谞讛 讜驻专住 讞讬讬讘讜转 讘专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞诪砖 专讞诇讜转 讙讜讝讝讜转 讻诇 砖讛谉


Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas says: When shearing five sheep, the sheared wool of each sheep weighing one hundred dinars each and half [peras] of one hundred dinars each, i.e., one hundred and fifty dinars each, are subject to the obligation of the first sheared wool, i.e., they render the owner obligated to give the first sheared wool to the priests. And the Rabbis say: Any five sheep, each of whose sheared wool weighs any amount, render the owner obligated in the mitzva.


讜讻诪讛 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 诪砖拽诇 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 讘讬讛讜讚讛 砖讛谉 注砖专 住诇注讬诐 讘讙诇讬诇 诪诇讜讘谉 讜诇讗 爪讜讗讬 讻讚讬 诇注砖讜转 诪诪谞讜 讘讙讚 拽讟谉 砖谞讗诪专 转转谉 诇讜 砖讬讛讗 讘讜 讻讚讬 诪转谞讛


And how much of the sheared wool does one give to the priest? One gives him sheared wool of the weight of five sela in Judea, which are the equivalent of ten sela in the Galilee, as the weight of the Galilean sela is half that of the Judean sela. Furthermore, although one may give the wool to the priest without laundering it, this must be the weight of the wool once laundered and not when sullied, as is characteristic of wool when sheared. The measure that must be given to the priest is enough to fashion a small garment from it, as it is stated: 鈥淪hall you give him鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:4), indicating that the sheared wool must contain enough for a proper gift.


诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇讬转谞讜 诇讜 注讚 砖爪讘注讜 驻讟讜专 诇讘谞讜 讜诇讗 爪讘注讜 讞讬讬讘


If the owner of the shearing did not manage to give it to the priest until he dyed it, the owner is exempt from the mitzva of the first sheared wool, as this constitutes a change in the wool by which means he acquires ownership of it. If he laundered it but did not dye it, he is obligated to give the first sheared wool, as laundering does not constitute a change in the wool.


讛诇讜拽讞 讙讝 爪讗谞讜 砖诇 讙讜讬 驻讟讜专 诪专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讛诇讜拽讞 讙讝 爪讗谞讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讗诐 砖讬讬专 讛诪讜讻专 讞讬讬讘 诇讗 砖讬讬专 讛诇讜拽讞 讞讬讬讘 讛讬讜 诇讜 砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬诐 砖讞讜驻讜转 讜诇讘谞讜转 诪讻专 诇讜 砖讞讜驻讜转 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讘谞讜转 讝讻专讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 谞拽讘讜转 讝讛 谞讜转谉 诇注爪诪讜 讜讝讛 谞讜转谉 诇注爪诪讜


One who purchases the fleece of the sheep of a gentile is exempt from the obligation of giving the first sheared wool to the priest. With regard to one who purchases the fleece of the sheep of another Jew, if the seller kept some of the wool, then the seller is obligated to give the first sheared wool to the priest. If the seller did not keep any of the wool, the buyer is obligated to give it. If the seller had two types of sheep, gray and white, and he sold the buyer the gray fleece but not the white fleece, or if he sold the fleece of the male sheep but not of the female sheep, then this one, the seller, gives the first sheared wool for himself to the priest from the wool that he kept, and that one, the buyer, gives the first sheared wool for himself to the priest from the wool that he bought.


讙诪壮 讘诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 爪讗谞讱 讜诇讗 爪讗谉 讛拽讚砖


GEMARA: The mishna states that the mitzva of the first sheared wool does not apply to sacrificial animals. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that it does not apply? The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淵our flock鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:4), indicating that the mitzva applies to non-sacred animals, which belong to a private individual, and not to a flock that is consecrated property.


讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 爪讗谞讱 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 拽讚砖讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬诐 讘专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讛讗 诇讗讜 讘谞讬 讙讬讝讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇讗 转讙讝 讘讻讜专 爪讗谞讱


The Gemara challenges: The reason for the exemption of sacrificial animals is that the Merciful One writes 鈥測our flock,鈥 from which it may be inferred that were that not the case I would say that even with regard to sacrificial animals one is obligated in the mitzva of the first sheared wool. But this suggestion is impossible, since they are not fit for shearing, as it is written with regard to firstborn animals, which are consecrated: 鈥淎nd you shall not shear the firstborn of your flock鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:19).


讗讬 讘拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转


The Gemara explains: If the mishna was referring to sheep consecrated for the altar, indeed there would be no need to derive their exemption from the verse. But here we are dealing with sheep consecrated to the treasury for Temple maintenance, which it is permitted to shear, and the verse teaches that even with regard to these one is exempt from the mitzva of the first sheared wool.


讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讗住讜专讬诐 讘讙讬讝讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 诪讚专讘谞谉 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讘谞讬 讙讬讝讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讛讬讻讗 讚讙讝讝 诇讬讛 诇讬转讬讘 诇讬讛


The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar say with regard to animals consecrated for Temple maintenance that it is prohibited to shear them or to work them? The Gemara answers: The prohibition with regard to animals consecrated for Temple maintenance applies by rabbinic law, not by Torah law. Therefore, it might enter your mind to say that since by Torah law they are fit for shearing, in a case where one transgressed the rabbinical prohibition and sheared the consecrated sheep, he should give the first sheared wool to the priest. Consequently, the verse teaches that he is exempt from the mitzva of the first sheared wool.


讜讛讗 拽讚讬砖 诇讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诇驻专讜拽 讜诇讬转讬讘 诇讬讛


The Gemara objects: But since he consecrated the wool it is consecrated property, and therefore in practice it cannot be given to a priest. Consequently, there is no need to derive their exemption from the verse. The Gemara explains: It might enter your mind to say that the owner is required to redeem the wool by giving its value to the Temple treasury and then give it to the priest.


讜讛讗 讘注讬 讛注诪讚讛 讜讛注专讻讛 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 诇讗 讛讬讜 讘讻诇诇 讛注诪讚讛 讜讛注专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛讬讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专


The Gemara objects: But when an animal is redeemed it requires standing and valuation, as it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall stand the animal before the priest, and the priest shall value it, whether it be good or bad; as the priest evaluates it, so shall it be鈥 (Leviticus 27:11鈥12). Once the wool has been sheared this process cannot be performed, which means that the wool cannot be redeemed. The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the one who said that animals consecrated for Temple maintenance were not included in the requirement of standing and valuation. But according to the one who said that they were included in this requirement, what can be said?


讗诪专 专讘讬 诪谞讬 讘专 驻讟讬砖 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讛讻讗 讘诪拽讚讬砖 讘讛诪转讜 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讞讜抓 诪讙讬讝讜转讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬讙讝讜讝 讜诇讬转讬讘 诇讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 爪讗谞讱 讜诇讗 爪讗谉 砖诇 讛拽讚砖


Rabbi Mani bar Pattish said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: The statement here in the mishna is referring to a case where one consecrated the rest of his animal for Temple maintenance except for its fleece, which he reserved for himself. Because the owner did not consecrate the wool, it might enter your mind to say: Let him shear the sheep and be obligated to give the wool to the priest. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淵our flock,鈥 indicating that the mitzva applies to non-sacred animals, which belong to an individual, and not to sheep that are consecrated property.


讗讬 讛讻讬 拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 谞诪讬 讻讞砖讬


The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, that the mishna is discussing a case where one consecrated an animal except for its fleece, one could say that it is also referring to animals consecrated for the altar. The Gemara answers: The mishna cannot be discussing animals consecrated for the altar, as it is prohibited to shear them even if their fleece was not consecrated. The reason is that this causes the animal to become weakened, which entails a loss of consecrated property.


拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 谞诪讬 讻讞砖讬 讚讗诪专 讞讜抓 诪讙讬讝讛 讜讻讞讬砖讛


The Gemara objects: But animals consecrated for Temple maintenance are also weakened by shearing, and therefore it should be prohibited to shear them as well. The Gemara explains: The mishna is referring to a case where one said that he consecrates his animal for Temple maintenance except for both its fleece and its weakening, i.e., the loss of strength caused by shearing.


拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 谞诪讬 讚讗诪专 讞讜抓 诪讙讬讝讛 讜讻讞讬砖讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 驻砖讟讛 拽讚讜砖讛 讘讻讜诇讛


The Gemara further objects: The mishna could also be referring to animals consecrated for the altar in a case where one said that he consecrates the animal except for both its fleece and the weakening, i.e., the loss in strength caused by shearing. The Gemara explains: With regard to animals consecrated for the altar this stipulation is ineffective, as even so, i.e., despite his declaration, the sanctity extends to the entire animal, and therefore it is prohibited to shear it.


讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讛诇讗 讘诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讛讗讜诪专 专讙诇讛 砖诇 讝讜 注讜诇讛 讻讜诇讛 注讜诇讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讻讜诇讛 注讜诇讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讗拽讚讬砖 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讛谞砖诪讛 转诇讜讬讛 讘讜 讗讘诇 讛拽讚讬砖 讚讘专 砖讛谞砖诪讛 转诇讜讬讛 讘讜 拽讚砖讛


The Gemara explains: And from where do you say that if one consecrates an animal for the altar the sanctity extends to the entire animal? This is as Rabbi Yosei said: Isn鈥檛 it the halakha with regard to sacrificial animals that if one says: The leg of this animal is consecrated as a burnt offering, then the entire animal is a burnt offering, as the sanctity of the leg spreads throughout the animal鈥檚 body? And even according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir that it is not entirely a burnt offering, that statement of Rabbi Meir applies only where he consecrated its leg, which is not a matter, i.e., a limb, upon which the animal鈥檚 life depends. It is possible for an animal to survive the removal of a leg. But if one consecrated a matter upon which the animal鈥檚 life depends, everyone agrees that all of it is consecrated.


专讘讗 讗诪专 讘诪拽讚讬砖 讙讬讝讛 注爪诪讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬讙讝讜讝 讜诇讬驻专讜拽 讜诇讬转讬讘 诇讬讛


Rava said that there is no need to interpret the mishna as discussing a case where one consecrated a whole animal apart from its fleece and the loss caused by shearing. Rather, the mishna is referring to one who consecrates the fleece itself to the treasury for Temple maintenance, but not the sheep. It might enter your mind to say: Let him shear the sheep and redeem the wool by giving its value to the Temple treasury, and then be required to give the wool to the priest.


讗诪专 拽专讗 讙讝 爪讗谞讱 转转谉 诇讜 诪讬 砖讗讬谉 诪讞讜住专 讗诇讗 讙讝讬讝讛 讜谞转讬谞讛 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖诪讞讜住专 讙讝讬讝讛 驻讚讬讬讛 讜谞转讬谞讛


Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭he first sheared wool of your flock, shall you give him鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:4), which indicates that there should be no additional action between shearing and giving the first sheared wool to the priest. In other words, the mitzva of first sheared wool applies to a sheep that is lacking only shearing and giving, which excludes this sheep that is lacking shearing, redeeming, and giving.


讗诇讗 爪讗谞讱 诇诪讗讬 讗转讗 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讘讛诪转 讛砖讜转驻讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讘专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 驻讜讟专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 爪讗谞讱 讜诇讗 砖诇 砖讜转驻讜转


The Gemara asks: But if this verse is the source of the exemption of consecrated animals, then for what purpose does the term 鈥測our flock鈥 come? That term also indicates that certain sheep are excluded from the mitzva. The Gemara answers that it is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: An animal owned by two partners is obligated, i.e., renders its owners obligated, in the mitzva of the first sheared wool, but Rabbi Ilai exempts them. What is the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Ilai? The reason is that the verse states 鈥測our flock,鈥 using the singular pronoun, indicating that the mitzva applies to animals belonging to an individual, but not to sheep that are owned in partnership.


讜专讘谞谉 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讜转驻讜转 讙讜讬 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 砖讜转驻讜转 讙讜讬 诪谞讗 诇讬讛


The Gemara asks: But according to the Rabbis, who hold that joint owners of sheep are obligated in the mitzva of the first sheared wool, what is excluded by the term 鈥測our flock鈥? The Gemara answers that this serves to exclude an animal owned in partnership with a gentile. The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Ilai derive that an animal owned in partnership with a gentile renders its Jewish owner exempt from the mitzva?


谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪专讬砖讗 讚拽专讗 专讗砖讬转 讚讙谞讱 讜诇讗 砖讜转驻讜转 讙讜讬


The Gemara answers: He derives it from the beginning of this verse, which states with regard to teruma: 鈥淭he first fruits of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:4), using the singular pronoun. This indicates that only in the case of produce owned by a Jew is one obligated to separate teruma, but not with regard to that which is owned in partnership with a gentile.


讜专讘谞谉 专讗砖讬转 (讛讙讝) 讛驻住讬拽 讛注谞讬谉


The Gemara asks: And why do the Rabbis, who derive the exemption of sheep owned in partnership with a gentile from the term 鈥測our flock,鈥 not derive this from the term 鈥測our grain鈥? The Gemara answers that the repetition of the term 鈥渢he first鈥 with regard to the first sheared wool: 鈥淭he first fruits of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the first sheared wool of your flock, shall you give him鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:4), is an indication that the verse concluded discussion of the previous matter. The superfluous mention of 鈥渇irst鈥 signals that the two issues discussed in this verse, which are the first fruits, i.e., teruma, and the first sheared wool, are two separate matters. Therefore, one cannot derive the halakhot of one from the other.


讜专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讜讬讜 讛讚专 注专讘讬讛


The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Ilai respond to the Rabbis鈥 claim? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ilai holds that when the verse states: 鈥淎nd the first sheared wool,鈥 the conjunction 鈥渁nd鈥 goes back and combines the two matters together.


讜专讘谞谉 诇讗 谞讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讜讬讜 讜诇讗 专讗砖讬转


The Gemara asks further: And how do the Rabbis respond to Rabbi Ilai鈥檚 claim? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis do not accept that the conjunction 鈥渁nd鈥 goes back and combines the two matters together, as, if that were so, let the Merciful One write neither 鈥渁nd鈥 nor 鈥渢he first.鈥


讜专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讛讗讬 拽讚讜砖转 讚诪讬诐 讜讛讗讬 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 驻住讬拽 诇讛讜 讜讛讚专 注专讘讬 诇讛讜


The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Ilai respond to this contention? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Ilai would say that the first sheared wool and teruma are essentially different obligations, as the first sheared wool is merely a monetary obligation with no inherent sanctity. By contrast, it is prohibited for non-priests to partake of teruma. Since this case of the first sheared wool involves only sanctity that inheres in its value, and that case of teruma referred to in the beginning of the verse involves inherent sanctity, the verse separated them through the repetition of the term 鈥渢he first,鈥 and then the verse went back and combined them through the term 鈥渁nd,鈥 so that their halakhot could be derived from one another.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖讜转驻讜转 讙讜讬 讘转专讜诪讛 专讘谞谉 讞讬讜讘讬 诪讞讬讬讘讬 讚转谞讬讗 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙讜讬 砖诇拽讞讜 砖讚讛 讘砖讜转驻讜转 讟讘诇 讜讞讜诇讬谉 诪注讜专讘讬诐 讝讛 讘讝讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讞讬讬讘 讜砖诇 讙讜讬 驻讟讜专


The Gemara provides an alternative explanation as to why the Rabbis do not derive the exemption of sheep owned in partnership with a gentile from the case of teruma. If you wish, say instead that with regard to teruma, the Rabbis hold that one who owns produce in partnership with a gentile is in fact obligated, as it is taught in a baraita: If there were a Jew and a gentile who purchased a field in partnership, the produce grown in that field is considered to be untithed produce, which is subject to the halakhot of terumot and tithes, and non-sacred produce, which is exempt from the requirements of terumot and tithes, mixed together; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The portion of the Jew is obligated in teruma and tithes, but the portion of the gentile is exempt.


注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讚诪专 住讘专 讬砖 讘专讬专讛 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讘专讬专讛 讗讘诇 砖讜转驻讜转 讚讙讜讬 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘转


The Gemara explains the inference. They disagree only with regard to the following issue: That one Sage, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds that there is retroactive clarification, which means that when they divide the produce it will be clarified who owned which produce from the outset; and one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that there is no retroactive clarification, and because it grew in a mixed state, it retains that status even after they divide the produce. But with regard to produce that a Jew owns in partnership with a gentile, everyone agrees that it is obligated in teruma.


讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 诪爪讗谞讱 谞驻拽讗


The Gemara presents an alternative explanation of Rabbi Ilai鈥檚 opinion: If you wish, say instead that Rabbi Ilai does not derive only the exemption of sheep owned in partnership with a Jew from the term 鈥測our flock鈥 while he derives the exemption of sheep owned in partnership with a gentile from the term 鈥測our grain.鈥 Rather, according to Rabbi Ilai both exemptions are derived from the term 鈥測our flock.鈥


砖讜转驻讜转 讚讙讜讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 诪讬讬讞讚讗 诇讬讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讬讞讚讗 诇讬讛 讜专讘谞谉 讙讜讬 诇讗讜 讘专 讞讬讜讘讗 讛讜讗 讬砖专讗诇 讘专 讞讬讜讘讗 讛讜讗


The Gemara explains why both exemptions can be derived from a single phrase: With regard to partnership with a gentile, what is the reason that one is exempted from the obligation of the first sheared wool? It is due to the fact that the sheep is not exclusively his. In the case of a partnership with a Jew too, the sheep is not exclusively his. The Gemara asks: And what do the Rabbis reply to this claim of Rabbi Ilai? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis hold that partnership with a Jew cannot be compared to partnership with a gentile, as a gentile is not obligated in the mitzva of the first sheared wool, whereas a Jew is obligated.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讘转专讜诪讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讬讘 讚讙谞讱 讚讬讚讱 讗讬谉 讚砖讜转驻讜转 诇讗


Rava said with regard to the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Ilai: Although Rabbi Ilai holds that two partners who own a sheep are exempt from the first sheared wool, he concedes that jointly owned produce is obligated in teruma. This is the halakha even though it is written with regard to teruma: 鈥淵our grain鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:4), using the singular pronoun, from which one may infer that with regard to yours, yes, one is obligated, whereas with regard to that which is owned in partnership, the partners are not obligated.


讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 转专讜诪转讬讻诐 讗诇讗 讚讙谞讱 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讜转驻讜转 讙讜讬


The Gemara explains that the joint owners of produce are nevertheless obligated in teruma, as the Merciful One writes: 鈥淭here will I require your terumot (Ezekiel 20:40). The use of the plural pronoun in this verse indicates that even partners who own produce are obligated in teruma. The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the term: 鈥淵our grain,鈥 using the singular pronoun? The Gemara answers: This serves to exclude produce owned in partnership with a gentile.


讞诇讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讬讘 专讗砖讬转 讜讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 谞讬诇祝 专讗砖讬转 专讗砖讬转 诪专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讚砖讜转驻讜转 诇讗 讗祝 讻讗谉 讚砖讜转驻讜转 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 注专住讜转讬讻诐


Similarly, with regard to 岣lla, the portion of dough that one is required to separate and give to a priest, Rabbi Ilai concedes that joint owners are obligated in this mitzva, even though one could claim otherwise, as it is written: 鈥淥f the first of your dough you shall set apart a cake for a gift鈥 (Numbers 15:20), and it is possible to say that one should derive a verbal analogy between the term 鈥渢he first鈥 in this context and the term 鈥渢he first鈥 from the first sheared wool: Just as there, with regard to the first sheared wool, if the sheep are owned in partnership the owners are not obligated, so too here, with regard to 岣lla, if the dough is owned in partnership they are not obligated. Nevertheless, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淵our dough,鈥 using a plural pronoun, indicating that even joint owners of dough are obligated to separate 岣lla.


讗诇讗 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 注专住讜转讬讻诐 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 谞讬诇祝 专讗砖讬转 专讗砖讬转 诪专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讗讚专讘讛 谞讬诇祝 诪转专讜诪讛


The Gemara challenges: But according to this claim, the reason joint owners of dough are obligated to separate 岣lla is that it is written 鈥測our dough,鈥 using a plural pronoun. It can be inferred from here that were that not the case I would say that they are exempt, as derived by a verbal analogy between the term 鈥渢he first鈥 mentioned with regard to 岣lla and the term 鈥渢he first鈥 from the first sheared wool. On the contrary, one should derive a verbal analogy between the term 鈥渢he first鈥 with regard to 岣lla and the term 鈥渢he first鈥 from teruma: Just as the obligation to separate teruma applies to produce owned in partnership, so too, the obligation to separate 岣lla applies to dough owned in partnership. It is preferable to compare 岣lla to teruma, because their halakhic status is similar in that they are both prohibited to non-priests. If so, the inference from the term 鈥測our dough鈥 is unnecessary.


讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 注专住讜转讬讻诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 讻讚讬 注专讬住讜转讬讻诐


The Gemara explains: It is indeed so; the obligation of produce owned in partnership in the case of 岣lla is derived from the case of teruma. But if so, why do I need the term 鈥測our dough鈥? This teaches that the quantity of dough to which the obligation of 岣lla applies is equivalent to the quantity of your dough, i.e., the quantity of dough kneaded daily by the Jewish people when they were in the Sinai Desert, when the mitzva was given. This is one omer for each person (see Exodus 16:16), which is a tenth of an ephah (see Exodus 16:36).


驻讗讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讬讘 砖讚讱 讚讬讚讱 讗讬谉 砖讜转驻讜转 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讘拽爪专讻诐 讗转 拽爪讬专 讗专爪讻诐 讗诇讗 砖讚讱 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讜转驻讜转 讙讜讬


Likewise, with regard to pe鈥檃, produce in the corner of the field that is left for the poor, Rabbi Ilai concedes that the joint owners of produce are obligated, even though it is written in the verse cited below: 鈥淵our field [sadekha],鈥 using a singular pronoun, from which it can be inferred that with regard to your field, yes, one is obligated, whereas with regard to that which is owned in partnership, one is not obligated. The reason is that the Merciful One writes: 鈥淎nd when you reap [uvekutzrekhem] the harvest of your land, you shall not entirely reap the corner of your field鈥 (Leviticus 19:9). The term 鈥渨hen you reap鈥 uses the plural pronoun, which indicates that even partners of land are obligated in pe鈥檃. The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the term 鈥測our field鈥 in the singular? The Gemara answers: This serves to exclude land owned in partnership with a gentile from the obligation of pe鈥檃.


讘讻讜专讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讬讘 讻诇 讛讘讻讜专 讗砖专 讬讜诇讚 讘讘拽专讱 讜讘爪讗谞讱 讚讬讚讱 讗讬谉 讚砖讜转驻讜转 诇讗


Similarly, with regard to the firstborn status of a male firstborn kosher animal, Rabbi Ilai concedes that jointly owned animals are sanctified, even though it is written: 鈥淎ll the firstborn that are born of your herd [bivkarekha] and of your flock [tzonekha] that are male you shall sanctify to the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:19). Once again it might have been inferred from the singular pronoun in the terms 鈥測our herd鈥 and 鈥測our flock鈥 that your firstborn, yes, are sanctified, but the firstborn that is owned in partnership is not sanctified.


讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讘讻专转 讘拽专讻诐 讜爪讗谞讻诐 讗诇讗 讘拽专讱 讜爪讗谞讱 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讜转驻讜转 讙讜讬


Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淎nd there you shall bring there your burnt offerings, and your peace offerings, and your tithes, and the gift of your hand, and your vows, and your gift offerings, and the firstborn of your herd [bekarkhem] and of your flock [tzonekhem]鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:6). The pronouns in the terms 鈥測our herd鈥 and 鈥測our flock鈥 in this verse are in the plural, which indicates that firstborn animals owned in partnership are sanctified. The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the terms 鈥測our herd鈥 and 鈥測our flock鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:19), where the pronouns are in the singular? The Gemara again answers: This serves to exclude animals owned in partnership with a gentile, which are not sanctified.


诪讝讜讝讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬转讱 讚讬讚讱 讗讬谉 砖讜转驻讜转 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪注谉 讬专讘讜 讬诪讬讻诐 讜讬诪讬 讘谞讬讻诐 讜讗诇讗 讘讬转讱 诇诪讗讬 讗转讗 诇讻讚专讘讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讛


Likewise, with regard to a mezuza, Rabbi Ilai concedes that the house of two partners is obligated, even though it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house [beitekha]鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:9), with a singular pronoun, from which one might have inferred that with regard to your house, yes, it is obligated, whereas a house owned by two people in partnership is not obligated. Consequently, the Merciful One writes with regard to the mitzva of mezuza: 鈥淪o that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children鈥 (Deuteronomy 11:21). The use of the plural pronoun in the terms 鈥測our days鈥 and 鈥測our children鈥 in this verse indicates that partners are obligated in the mitzva of mezuza. The Gemara asks: But if so, for what purpose does the term 鈥測our house [beitekha]鈥 come? The Gemara answers: It is necessary for that which Rabba derived, as Rabba said:


Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 135

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 135

诪转谞讬壮 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 谞讜讛讙 讘讗专抓 讜讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讘驻谞讬 讛讘讬转 讜砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬 讛讘讬转 讘讞讜诇讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘诪讜拽讚砖讬诐


MISHNA: The mitzva of the first sheared wool that every Jew must give to the priest, as stated in the verse: 鈥淎nd the first sheared wool of your flock [tzonekha] shall you give him鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:4), applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, in the presence of the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple, and with regard to non-sacred animals. But it does not apply to sacrificial animals.


讞讜诪专 讘讝专讜注 讜诇讞讬讬诐 讜讘拽讘讛 诪专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 砖讛讝专讜注 讜讛诇讞讬讬诐 讜讛拽讘讛 谞讜讛讙讬谉 讘讘拽专 讜讘爪讗谉 讘诪专讜讘讛 讜讘诪讜注讟 讜专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘专讞诇讜转 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘诪专讜讘讛


There are more stringent elements in the mitzva of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw (see 130a) than in the halakha of the first sheared wool in that the mitzva of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw applies to cattle and to sheep, as it is written: 鈥淲hether it be ox or sheep, that he shall give unto the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:3); and it applies to numerous animals and to few animals. But by contrast, the mitzva of the first sheared wool applies only to sheep and not to goats and cattle, and applies only to numerous animals.


讜讻诪讛 讛讜讗 诪专讜讘讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖转讬 专讞诇讜转 砖谞讗诪专 讬讞讬讛 讗讬砖 注讙诇转 讘拽专 讜砖转讬 爪讗谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞诪砖 砖谞讗诪专 讞诪砖 爪讗谉 注砖讜讬讜转


And how many are numerous? Beit Shammai say: It is at least two sheep, as it is stated: 鈥淭hat a man shall rear a young cow, and two sheep [tzon]鈥 (Isaiah 7:21), indicating that two sheep are characterized as tzon; and the mitzva of the first sheared wool is written using the term 鈥測our flock [tzonekha].鈥 And Beit Hillel say: It is at least five sheep, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd five sheep [tzon] made鈥 (I聽Samuel 25:18).


专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讘谉 讛专讻讬谞住 讗讜诪专 讞诪砖 专讞诇讜转 讙讜讝讝讜转 诪谞讛 诪谞讛 讜驻专住 讞讬讬讘讜转 讘专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞诪砖 专讞诇讜转 讙讜讝讝讜转 讻诇 砖讛谉


Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas says: When shearing five sheep, the sheared wool of each sheep weighing one hundred dinars each and half [peras] of one hundred dinars each, i.e., one hundred and fifty dinars each, are subject to the obligation of the first sheared wool, i.e., they render the owner obligated to give the first sheared wool to the priests. And the Rabbis say: Any five sheep, each of whose sheared wool weighs any amount, render the owner obligated in the mitzva.


讜讻诪讛 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 诪砖拽诇 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 讘讬讛讜讚讛 砖讛谉 注砖专 住诇注讬诐 讘讙诇讬诇 诪诇讜讘谉 讜诇讗 爪讜讗讬 讻讚讬 诇注砖讜转 诪诪谞讜 讘讙讚 拽讟谉 砖谞讗诪专 转转谉 诇讜 砖讬讛讗 讘讜 讻讚讬 诪转谞讛


And how much of the sheared wool does one give to the priest? One gives him sheared wool of the weight of five sela in Judea, which are the equivalent of ten sela in the Galilee, as the weight of the Galilean sela is half that of the Judean sela. Furthermore, although one may give the wool to the priest without laundering it, this must be the weight of the wool once laundered and not when sullied, as is characteristic of wool when sheared. The measure that must be given to the priest is enough to fashion a small garment from it, as it is stated: 鈥淪hall you give him鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:4), indicating that the sheared wool must contain enough for a proper gift.


诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 诇讬转谞讜 诇讜 注讚 砖爪讘注讜 驻讟讜专 诇讘谞讜 讜诇讗 爪讘注讜 讞讬讬讘


If the owner of the shearing did not manage to give it to the priest until he dyed it, the owner is exempt from the mitzva of the first sheared wool, as this constitutes a change in the wool by which means he acquires ownership of it. If he laundered it but did not dye it, he is obligated to give the first sheared wool, as laundering does not constitute a change in the wool.


讛诇讜拽讞 讙讝 爪讗谞讜 砖诇 讙讜讬 驻讟讜专 诪专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讛诇讜拽讞 讙讝 爪讗谞讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讗诐 砖讬讬专 讛诪讜讻专 讞讬讬讘 诇讗 砖讬讬专 讛诇讜拽讞 讞讬讬讘 讛讬讜 诇讜 砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬诐 砖讞讜驻讜转 讜诇讘谞讜转 诪讻专 诇讜 砖讞讜驻讜转 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讘谞讜转 讝讻专讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 谞拽讘讜转 讝讛 谞讜转谉 诇注爪诪讜 讜讝讛 谞讜转谉 诇注爪诪讜


One who purchases the fleece of the sheep of a gentile is exempt from the obligation of giving the first sheared wool to the priest. With regard to one who purchases the fleece of the sheep of another Jew, if the seller kept some of the wool, then the seller is obligated to give the first sheared wool to the priest. If the seller did not keep any of the wool, the buyer is obligated to give it. If the seller had two types of sheep, gray and white, and he sold the buyer the gray fleece but not the white fleece, or if he sold the fleece of the male sheep but not of the female sheep, then this one, the seller, gives the first sheared wool for himself to the priest from the wool that he kept, and that one, the buyer, gives the first sheared wool for himself to the priest from the wool that he bought.


讙诪壮 讘诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 爪讗谞讱 讜诇讗 爪讗谉 讛拽讚砖


GEMARA: The mishna states that the mitzva of the first sheared wool does not apply to sacrificial animals. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that it does not apply? The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淵our flock鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:4), indicating that the mitzva applies to non-sacred animals, which belong to a private individual, and not to a flock that is consecrated property.


讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 爪讗谞讱 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 拽讚砖讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬诐 讘专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讛讗 诇讗讜 讘谞讬 讙讬讝讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇讗 转讙讝 讘讻讜专 爪讗谞讱


The Gemara challenges: The reason for the exemption of sacrificial animals is that the Merciful One writes 鈥測our flock,鈥 from which it may be inferred that were that not the case I would say that even with regard to sacrificial animals one is obligated in the mitzva of the first sheared wool. But this suggestion is impossible, since they are not fit for shearing, as it is written with regard to firstborn animals, which are consecrated: 鈥淎nd you shall not shear the firstborn of your flock鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:19).


讗讬 讘拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转


The Gemara explains: If the mishna was referring to sheep consecrated for the altar, indeed there would be no need to derive their exemption from the verse. But here we are dealing with sheep consecrated to the treasury for Temple maintenance, which it is permitted to shear, and the verse teaches that even with regard to these one is exempt from the mitzva of the first sheared wool.


讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讗住讜专讬诐 讘讙讬讝讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 诪讚专讘谞谉 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讘谞讬 讙讬讝讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讛讬讻讗 讚讙讝讝 诇讬讛 诇讬转讬讘 诇讬讛


The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar say with regard to animals consecrated for Temple maintenance that it is prohibited to shear them or to work them? The Gemara answers: The prohibition with regard to animals consecrated for Temple maintenance applies by rabbinic law, not by Torah law. Therefore, it might enter your mind to say that since by Torah law they are fit for shearing, in a case where one transgressed the rabbinical prohibition and sheared the consecrated sheep, he should give the first sheared wool to the priest. Consequently, the verse teaches that he is exempt from the mitzva of the first sheared wool.


讜讛讗 拽讚讬砖 诇讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诇驻专讜拽 讜诇讬转讬讘 诇讬讛


The Gemara objects: But since he consecrated the wool it is consecrated property, and therefore in practice it cannot be given to a priest. Consequently, there is no need to derive their exemption from the verse. The Gemara explains: It might enter your mind to say that the owner is required to redeem the wool by giving its value to the Temple treasury and then give it to the priest.


讜讛讗 讘注讬 讛注诪讚讛 讜讛注专讻讛 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 诇讗 讛讬讜 讘讻诇诇 讛注诪讚讛 讜讛注专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛讬讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专


The Gemara objects: But when an animal is redeemed it requires standing and valuation, as it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall stand the animal before the priest, and the priest shall value it, whether it be good or bad; as the priest evaluates it, so shall it be鈥 (Leviticus 27:11鈥12). Once the wool has been sheared this process cannot be performed, which means that the wool cannot be redeemed. The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the one who said that animals consecrated for Temple maintenance were not included in the requirement of standing and valuation. But according to the one who said that they were included in this requirement, what can be said?


讗诪专 专讘讬 诪谞讬 讘专 驻讟讬砖 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讛讻讗 讘诪拽讚讬砖 讘讛诪转讜 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讞讜抓 诪讙讬讝讜转讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬讙讝讜讝 讜诇讬转讬讘 诇讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 爪讗谞讱 讜诇讗 爪讗谉 砖诇 讛拽讚砖


Rabbi Mani bar Pattish said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: The statement here in the mishna is referring to a case where one consecrated the rest of his animal for Temple maintenance except for its fleece, which he reserved for himself. Because the owner did not consecrate the wool, it might enter your mind to say: Let him shear the sheep and be obligated to give the wool to the priest. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淵our flock,鈥 indicating that the mitzva applies to non-sacred animals, which belong to an individual, and not to sheep that are consecrated property.


讗讬 讛讻讬 拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 谞诪讬 讻讞砖讬


The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, that the mishna is discussing a case where one consecrated an animal except for its fleece, one could say that it is also referring to animals consecrated for the altar. The Gemara answers: The mishna cannot be discussing animals consecrated for the altar, as it is prohibited to shear them even if their fleece was not consecrated. The reason is that this causes the animal to become weakened, which entails a loss of consecrated property.


拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 谞诪讬 讻讞砖讬 讚讗诪专 讞讜抓 诪讙讬讝讛 讜讻讞讬砖讛


The Gemara objects: But animals consecrated for Temple maintenance are also weakened by shearing, and therefore it should be prohibited to shear them as well. The Gemara explains: The mishna is referring to a case where one said that he consecrates his animal for Temple maintenance except for both its fleece and its weakening, i.e., the loss of strength caused by shearing.


拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 谞诪讬 讚讗诪专 讞讜抓 诪讙讬讝讛 讜讻讞讬砖讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 驻砖讟讛 拽讚讜砖讛 讘讻讜诇讛


The Gemara further objects: The mishna could also be referring to animals consecrated for the altar in a case where one said that he consecrates the animal except for both its fleece and the weakening, i.e., the loss in strength caused by shearing. The Gemara explains: With regard to animals consecrated for the altar this stipulation is ineffective, as even so, i.e., despite his declaration, the sanctity extends to the entire animal, and therefore it is prohibited to shear it.


讜诪谞讗 转讬诪专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讛诇讗 讘诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讛讗讜诪专 专讙诇讛 砖诇 讝讜 注讜诇讛 讻讜诇讛 注讜诇讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讻讜诇讛 注讜诇讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讗拽讚讬砖 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讛谞砖诪讛 转诇讜讬讛 讘讜 讗讘诇 讛拽讚讬砖 讚讘专 砖讛谞砖诪讛 转诇讜讬讛 讘讜 拽讚砖讛


The Gemara explains: And from where do you say that if one consecrates an animal for the altar the sanctity extends to the entire animal? This is as Rabbi Yosei said: Isn鈥檛 it the halakha with regard to sacrificial animals that if one says: The leg of this animal is consecrated as a burnt offering, then the entire animal is a burnt offering, as the sanctity of the leg spreads throughout the animal鈥檚 body? And even according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir that it is not entirely a burnt offering, that statement of Rabbi Meir applies only where he consecrated its leg, which is not a matter, i.e., a limb, upon which the animal鈥檚 life depends. It is possible for an animal to survive the removal of a leg. But if one consecrated a matter upon which the animal鈥檚 life depends, everyone agrees that all of it is consecrated.


专讘讗 讗诪专 讘诪拽讚讬砖 讙讬讝讛 注爪诪讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬讙讝讜讝 讜诇讬驻专讜拽 讜诇讬转讬讘 诇讬讛


Rava said that there is no need to interpret the mishna as discussing a case where one consecrated a whole animal apart from its fleece and the loss caused by shearing. Rather, the mishna is referring to one who consecrates the fleece itself to the treasury for Temple maintenance, but not the sheep. It might enter your mind to say: Let him shear the sheep and redeem the wool by giving its value to the Temple treasury, and then be required to give the wool to the priest.


讗诪专 拽专讗 讙讝 爪讗谞讱 转转谉 诇讜 诪讬 砖讗讬谉 诪讞讜住专 讗诇讗 讙讝讬讝讛 讜谞转讬谞讛 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖诪讞讜住专 讙讝讬讝讛 驻讚讬讬讛 讜谞转讬谞讛


Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭he first sheared wool of your flock, shall you give him鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:4), which indicates that there should be no additional action between shearing and giving the first sheared wool to the priest. In other words, the mitzva of first sheared wool applies to a sheep that is lacking only shearing and giving, which excludes this sheep that is lacking shearing, redeeming, and giving.


讗诇讗 爪讗谞讱 诇诪讗讬 讗转讗 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讘讛诪转 讛砖讜转驻讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讘专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 驻讜讟专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 爪讗谞讱 讜诇讗 砖诇 砖讜转驻讜转


The Gemara asks: But if this verse is the source of the exemption of consecrated animals, then for what purpose does the term 鈥測our flock鈥 come? That term also indicates that certain sheep are excluded from the mitzva. The Gemara answers that it is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: An animal owned by two partners is obligated, i.e., renders its owners obligated, in the mitzva of the first sheared wool, but Rabbi Ilai exempts them. What is the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Ilai? The reason is that the verse states 鈥測our flock,鈥 using the singular pronoun, indicating that the mitzva applies to animals belonging to an individual, but not to sheep that are owned in partnership.


讜专讘谞谉 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讜转驻讜转 讙讜讬 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 砖讜转驻讜转 讙讜讬 诪谞讗 诇讬讛


The Gemara asks: But according to the Rabbis, who hold that joint owners of sheep are obligated in the mitzva of the first sheared wool, what is excluded by the term 鈥測our flock鈥? The Gemara answers that this serves to exclude an animal owned in partnership with a gentile. The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Ilai derive that an animal owned in partnership with a gentile renders its Jewish owner exempt from the mitzva?


谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪专讬砖讗 讚拽专讗 专讗砖讬转 讚讙谞讱 讜诇讗 砖讜转驻讜转 讙讜讬


The Gemara answers: He derives it from the beginning of this verse, which states with regard to teruma: 鈥淭he first fruits of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:4), using the singular pronoun. This indicates that only in the case of produce owned by a Jew is one obligated to separate teruma, but not with regard to that which is owned in partnership with a gentile.


讜专讘谞谉 专讗砖讬转 (讛讙讝) 讛驻住讬拽 讛注谞讬谉


The Gemara asks: And why do the Rabbis, who derive the exemption of sheep owned in partnership with a gentile from the term 鈥測our flock,鈥 not derive this from the term 鈥測our grain鈥? The Gemara answers that the repetition of the term 鈥渢he first鈥 with regard to the first sheared wool: 鈥淭he first fruits of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the first sheared wool of your flock, shall you give him鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:4), is an indication that the verse concluded discussion of the previous matter. The superfluous mention of 鈥渇irst鈥 signals that the two issues discussed in this verse, which are the first fruits, i.e., teruma, and the first sheared wool, are two separate matters. Therefore, one cannot derive the halakhot of one from the other.


讜专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讜讬讜 讛讚专 注专讘讬讛


The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Ilai respond to the Rabbis鈥 claim? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ilai holds that when the verse states: 鈥淎nd the first sheared wool,鈥 the conjunction 鈥渁nd鈥 goes back and combines the two matters together.


讜专讘谞谉 诇讗 谞讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 讜讬讜 讜诇讗 专讗砖讬转


The Gemara asks further: And how do the Rabbis respond to Rabbi Ilai鈥檚 claim? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis do not accept that the conjunction 鈥渁nd鈥 goes back and combines the two matters together, as, if that were so, let the Merciful One write neither 鈥渁nd鈥 nor 鈥渢he first.鈥


讜专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讛讗讬 拽讚讜砖转 讚诪讬诐 讜讛讗讬 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 驻住讬拽 诇讛讜 讜讛讚专 注专讘讬 诇讛讜


The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Ilai respond to this contention? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Ilai would say that the first sheared wool and teruma are essentially different obligations, as the first sheared wool is merely a monetary obligation with no inherent sanctity. By contrast, it is prohibited for non-priests to partake of teruma. Since this case of the first sheared wool involves only sanctity that inheres in its value, and that case of teruma referred to in the beginning of the verse involves inherent sanctity, the verse separated them through the repetition of the term 鈥渢he first,鈥 and then the verse went back and combined them through the term 鈥渁nd,鈥 so that their halakhot could be derived from one another.


讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖讜转驻讜转 讙讜讬 讘转专讜诪讛 专讘谞谉 讞讬讜讘讬 诪讞讬讬讘讬 讚转谞讬讗 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙讜讬 砖诇拽讞讜 砖讚讛 讘砖讜转驻讜转 讟讘诇 讜讞讜诇讬谉 诪注讜专讘讬诐 讝讛 讘讝讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讞讬讬讘 讜砖诇 讙讜讬 驻讟讜专


The Gemara provides an alternative explanation as to why the Rabbis do not derive the exemption of sheep owned in partnership with a gentile from the case of teruma. If you wish, say instead that with regard to teruma, the Rabbis hold that one who owns produce in partnership with a gentile is in fact obligated, as it is taught in a baraita: If there were a Jew and a gentile who purchased a field in partnership, the produce grown in that field is considered to be untithed produce, which is subject to the halakhot of terumot and tithes, and non-sacred produce, which is exempt from the requirements of terumot and tithes, mixed together; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The portion of the Jew is obligated in teruma and tithes, but the portion of the gentile is exempt.


注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讚诪专 住讘专 讬砖 讘专讬专讛 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讘专讬专讛 讗讘诇 砖讜转驻讜转 讚讙讜讬 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘转


The Gemara explains the inference. They disagree only with regard to the following issue: That one Sage, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds that there is retroactive clarification, which means that when they divide the produce it will be clarified who owned which produce from the outset; and one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that there is no retroactive clarification, and because it grew in a mixed state, it retains that status even after they divide the produce. But with regard to produce that a Jew owns in partnership with a gentile, everyone agrees that it is obligated in teruma.


讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 诪爪讗谞讱 谞驻拽讗


The Gemara presents an alternative explanation of Rabbi Ilai鈥檚 opinion: If you wish, say instead that Rabbi Ilai does not derive only the exemption of sheep owned in partnership with a Jew from the term 鈥測our flock鈥 while he derives the exemption of sheep owned in partnership with a gentile from the term 鈥測our grain.鈥 Rather, according to Rabbi Ilai both exemptions are derived from the term 鈥測our flock.鈥


砖讜转驻讜转 讚讙讜讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 诪讬讬讞讚讗 诇讬讛 诇讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讬讞讚讗 诇讬讛 讜专讘谞谉 讙讜讬 诇讗讜 讘专 讞讬讜讘讗 讛讜讗 讬砖专讗诇 讘专 讞讬讜讘讗 讛讜讗


The Gemara explains why both exemptions can be derived from a single phrase: With regard to partnership with a gentile, what is the reason that one is exempted from the obligation of the first sheared wool? It is due to the fact that the sheep is not exclusively his. In the case of a partnership with a Jew too, the sheep is not exclusively his. The Gemara asks: And what do the Rabbis reply to this claim of Rabbi Ilai? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis hold that partnership with a Jew cannot be compared to partnership with a gentile, as a gentile is not obligated in the mitzva of the first sheared wool, whereas a Jew is obligated.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讘转专讜诪讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讬讘 讚讙谞讱 讚讬讚讱 讗讬谉 讚砖讜转驻讜转 诇讗


Rava said with regard to the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Ilai: Although Rabbi Ilai holds that two partners who own a sheep are exempt from the first sheared wool, he concedes that jointly owned produce is obligated in teruma. This is the halakha even though it is written with regard to teruma: 鈥淵our grain鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:4), using the singular pronoun, from which one may infer that with regard to yours, yes, one is obligated, whereas with regard to that which is owned in partnership, the partners are not obligated.


讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 转专讜诪转讬讻诐 讗诇讗 讚讙谞讱 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讜转驻讜转 讙讜讬


The Gemara explains that the joint owners of produce are nevertheless obligated in teruma, as the Merciful One writes: 鈥淭here will I require your terumot (Ezekiel 20:40). The use of the plural pronoun in this verse indicates that even partners who own produce are obligated in teruma. The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the term: 鈥淵our grain,鈥 using the singular pronoun? The Gemara answers: This serves to exclude produce owned in partnership with a gentile.


讞诇讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讬讘 专讗砖讬转 讜讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 谞讬诇祝 专讗砖讬转 专讗砖讬转 诪专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讚砖讜转驻讜转 诇讗 讗祝 讻讗谉 讚砖讜转驻讜转 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 注专住讜转讬讻诐


Similarly, with regard to 岣lla, the portion of dough that one is required to separate and give to a priest, Rabbi Ilai concedes that joint owners are obligated in this mitzva, even though one could claim otherwise, as it is written: 鈥淥f the first of your dough you shall set apart a cake for a gift鈥 (Numbers 15:20), and it is possible to say that one should derive a verbal analogy between the term 鈥渢he first鈥 in this context and the term 鈥渢he first鈥 from the first sheared wool: Just as there, with regard to the first sheared wool, if the sheep are owned in partnership the owners are not obligated, so too here, with regard to 岣lla, if the dough is owned in partnership they are not obligated. Nevertheless, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淵our dough,鈥 using a plural pronoun, indicating that even joint owners of dough are obligated to separate 岣lla.


讗诇讗 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 注专住讜转讬讻诐 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 谞讬诇祝 专讗砖讬转 专讗砖讬转 诪专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讗讚专讘讛 谞讬诇祝 诪转专讜诪讛


The Gemara challenges: But according to this claim, the reason joint owners of dough are obligated to separate 岣lla is that it is written 鈥測our dough,鈥 using a plural pronoun. It can be inferred from here that were that not the case I would say that they are exempt, as derived by a verbal analogy between the term 鈥渢he first鈥 mentioned with regard to 岣lla and the term 鈥渢he first鈥 from the first sheared wool. On the contrary, one should derive a verbal analogy between the term 鈥渢he first鈥 with regard to 岣lla and the term 鈥渢he first鈥 from teruma: Just as the obligation to separate teruma applies to produce owned in partnership, so too, the obligation to separate 岣lla applies to dough owned in partnership. It is preferable to compare 岣lla to teruma, because their halakhic status is similar in that they are both prohibited to non-priests. If so, the inference from the term 鈥測our dough鈥 is unnecessary.


讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 注专住讜转讬讻诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 讻讚讬 注专讬住讜转讬讻诐


The Gemara explains: It is indeed so; the obligation of produce owned in partnership in the case of 岣lla is derived from the case of teruma. But if so, why do I need the term 鈥測our dough鈥? This teaches that the quantity of dough to which the obligation of 岣lla applies is equivalent to the quantity of your dough, i.e., the quantity of dough kneaded daily by the Jewish people when they were in the Sinai Desert, when the mitzva was given. This is one omer for each person (see Exodus 16:16), which is a tenth of an ephah (see Exodus 16:36).


驻讗讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讬讘 砖讚讱 讚讬讚讱 讗讬谉 砖讜转驻讜转 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讘拽爪专讻诐 讗转 拽爪讬专 讗专爪讻诐 讗诇讗 砖讚讱 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讜转驻讜转 讙讜讬


Likewise, with regard to pe鈥檃, produce in the corner of the field that is left for the poor, Rabbi Ilai concedes that the joint owners of produce are obligated, even though it is written in the verse cited below: 鈥淵our field [sadekha],鈥 using a singular pronoun, from which it can be inferred that with regard to your field, yes, one is obligated, whereas with regard to that which is owned in partnership, one is not obligated. The reason is that the Merciful One writes: 鈥淎nd when you reap [uvekutzrekhem] the harvest of your land, you shall not entirely reap the corner of your field鈥 (Leviticus 19:9). The term 鈥渨hen you reap鈥 uses the plural pronoun, which indicates that even partners of land are obligated in pe鈥檃. The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the term 鈥測our field鈥 in the singular? The Gemara answers: This serves to exclude land owned in partnership with a gentile from the obligation of pe鈥檃.


讘讻讜专讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讬讘 讻诇 讛讘讻讜专 讗砖专 讬讜诇讚 讘讘拽专讱 讜讘爪讗谞讱 讚讬讚讱 讗讬谉 讚砖讜转驻讜转 诇讗


Similarly, with regard to the firstborn status of a male firstborn kosher animal, Rabbi Ilai concedes that jointly owned animals are sanctified, even though it is written: 鈥淎ll the firstborn that are born of your herd [bivkarekha] and of your flock [tzonekha] that are male you shall sanctify to the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:19). Once again it might have been inferred from the singular pronoun in the terms 鈥測our herd鈥 and 鈥測our flock鈥 that your firstborn, yes, are sanctified, but the firstborn that is owned in partnership is not sanctified.


讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讘讻专转 讘拽专讻诐 讜爪讗谞讻诐 讗诇讗 讘拽专讱 讜爪讗谞讱 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讜转驻讜转 讙讜讬


Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淎nd there you shall bring there your burnt offerings, and your peace offerings, and your tithes, and the gift of your hand, and your vows, and your gift offerings, and the firstborn of your herd [bekarkhem] and of your flock [tzonekhem]鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:6). The pronouns in the terms 鈥測our herd鈥 and 鈥測our flock鈥 in this verse are in the plural, which indicates that firstborn animals owned in partnership are sanctified. The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the terms 鈥測our herd鈥 and 鈥測our flock鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:19), where the pronouns are in the singular? The Gemara again answers: This serves to exclude animals owned in partnership with a gentile, which are not sanctified.


诪讝讜讝讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬转讱 讚讬讚讱 讗讬谉 砖讜转驻讜转 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪注谉 讬专讘讜 讬诪讬讻诐 讜讬诪讬 讘谞讬讻诐 讜讗诇讗 讘讬转讱 诇诪讗讬 讗转讗 诇讻讚专讘讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讛


Likewise, with regard to a mezuza, Rabbi Ilai concedes that the house of two partners is obligated, even though it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house [beitekha]鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:9), with a singular pronoun, from which one might have inferred that with regard to your house, yes, it is obligated, whereas a house owned by two people in partnership is not obligated. Consequently, the Merciful One writes with regard to the mitzva of mezuza: 鈥淪o that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children鈥 (Deuteronomy 11:21). The use of the plural pronoun in the terms 鈥測our days鈥 and 鈥測our children鈥 in this verse indicates that partners are obligated in the mitzva of mezuza. The Gemara asks: But if so, for what purpose does the term 鈥測our house [beitekha]鈥 come? The Gemara answers: It is necessary for that which Rabba derived, as Rabba said:


Scroll To Top