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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 12, 2019 | 讝壮 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Chullin 136

The gemara deals with Rabbi Ilai’s approach to the first shearings and other laws.


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

讚专讱 讘讬讗转讱 诪谉 讛讬诪讬谉

The term 鈥測our house [beitekha]鈥 is similar to the term: You enter [bi鈥檃tkha], indicating that one places the mezuza in the way that you enter the house. When a person lifts his foot to begin walking, he lifts his right foot first. Therefore, the mezuza is affixed to the right side of the doorway, as one enters.

诪注砖专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讬讘 诪注砖专 讚讙谞讱 讚讬诇讱 讗讬谉 讚砖讜转驻讜转 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪注砖专转讬讻诐 讗诇讗 诪注砖专 讚讙谞讱 诇诪讗讬 讗转讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讜转驻讜转 讚讙讜讬

Similarly, with regard to tithe, Rabbi Ilai concedes that joint owners of produce are obligated, even though it is written: 鈥淭he tithe of your grain [deganekha]鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:17), using the singular pronoun, from which one might have inferred that with regard to your grain, 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ll your tithes [ma鈥檃sroteikhem]鈥 (Numbers 18:28), using the plural pronoun, indicating that even partners are obligated in this mitzva. The Gemara asks: But if so, for what purpose does the term: 鈥淭he tithe of your grain [deganekha],鈥 using the singular pronoun, come? The Gemara answers: It serves to exclude produce owned in partnership with a gentile from the obligation of tithes.

诪转谞讜转 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜谞转谉

Likewise, with regard to the gifts to which members of the priesthood are entitled, i.e., the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, Rabbi Ilai concedes that the joint owners of an animal are obligated, even though the Merciful One writes: 鈥淎nd this shall be the priests鈥 due from the people, from those who slaughter an animal, whether it be ox or sheep; and he shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:3).

讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讬诇讬祝 谞转讬谞讛 谞转讬谞讛 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 诪讗转 讝讘讞讬 讛讝讘讞

The Gemara elaborates: It is possible to say that one should derive a verbal analogy between giving mentioned in the context of gifts to the priesthood and giving from the first sheared wool. The Torah states: 鈥淗e shall give,鈥 with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, and it states: 鈥淪hall you give him鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:4), with regard to the first sheared wool; just as there, with regard to the first sheared wool, sheep owned in partnership do not render their owners obligated, so too here, with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, an animal owned in partnership does not render the owners obligated. But the Merciful One writes: 鈥淔rom those who slaughter an animal,鈥 in the plural, indicating that even the owners of an animal owned in partnership are obligated to give the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw.

讗诇讗 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪讗转 讝讘讞讬 讛讝讘讞 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬诇祝 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 inference, the reason the joint owners of an animal are obligated in the gifts of the priesthood is that the Merciful One writes: 鈥淔rom those who slaughter an animal,鈥 in the plural. But were it not so, I would say that they are exempt, as derived by means of a verbal analogy from the first sheared wool. On the contrary, since the term 鈥渟hall you give him鈥 is also referring to teruma, one should derive by means of a verbal analogy from teruma: Just as the obligation of teruma applies to those who own produce in partnership, so too, the requirement of the gifts of the priesthood applies to partners that own an animal together.

讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪讗转 讝讘讞讬 讛讝讘讞 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讚讬谉 注诐 讛讟讘讞

The Gemara explains: Yes, it is indeed so; the obligation of partners with regard to gifts of the priesthood is derived from teruma. But if so, why do I need the phrase 鈥渇rom those who slaughter an animal鈥? It is necessary for that which Rava taught, as Rava said: The priest issues his demand to receive the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw from the butcher who slaughtered the animal, not from the buyer.

讘讻讜专讬诐 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讬讘 讗专爪讱 讚讬讚讱 讗讬谉 讚砖讜转驻讜转 诇讗

Similarly, with regard to the first fruits, Rabbi Ilai concedes that the joint owners of produce are obligated, even though it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall take of the first of all the fruit of the ground, which you shall bring in from your land [be鈥檃rtzekha]鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:2), using the singular pronoun. One might have inferred from the singular pronoun that with regard to your land, yes, one is obligated, whereas with regard to that which is owned in partnership one is not obligated.

讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘讻讜专讬 讻诇 讗砖专 (讘讗专爪讱) [讘讗专爪诐] 讗诇讗 讗专爪讱 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓

Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淭he first fruits of all that is in their land, which they bring to the Lord, shall be yours鈥 (Numbers 18:13). The use of the plural pronoun indicates that even from land owned in partnership one is obligated to bring first fruits. The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the term 鈥測our land [be鈥檃rtzekha],鈥 using the singular pronoun? The Gemara answers: This serves to exclude produce grown outside of Eretz Yisrael from the mitzva of the first fruits.

爪讬爪讬转 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻住讜转讱 讚讬讚讱 讗讬谉 讚砖讜转驻讜转 诇讗

Likewise, with regard to the mitzva to attach ritual fringes to one鈥檚 garment, Rabbi Ilai concedes that a jointly owned garment is obligated, even though the Merciful One writes: 鈥淵ou shall make yourself twisted cords upon the four corners of your covering [kesutekha]鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:12), using the singular pronoun. It might have been inferred from the singular form that with regard to your covering, yes, it is obligated, whereas with regard to that which is owned in partnership it is not obligated.

讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 注诇 讻谞驻讬 讘讙讚讬讛诐 诇讚专转诐 讜讗诇讗 讻住讜转讱 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讟诇讬转 砖讗讜诇讛 驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛爪讬爪讬转 讻诇 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐

Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淎nd they shall make for themselves fringes in the corners of their garments, throughout their generations, and they shall put with the fringe of each corner a thread of blue鈥 (Numbers 15:38). The use of the plural pronoun indicates that even jointly owned garments are obligated. The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the term 鈥測our covering [kesutekha],鈥 using the singular pronoun? The Gemara answers: This is necessary for that which Rav Yehuda taught, as Rav Yehuda said: A borrowed cloak is exempt from the mitzva of ritual fringes throughout the first thirty days.

诪注拽讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讙讙讱 讚讬讚讱 讗讬谉 讚砖讜转驻讜转 诇讗

Similarly, with regard to the obligation of establishing a parapet around a roof, Rabbi Ilai concedes that the joint owners of a roof are obligated, even though the Merciful One writes: 鈥淲hen you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof [legaggekha],鈥 using the singular pronoun, 鈥渁nd you shall not bring blood upon your house, if any man falls from there鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:8). One might have inferred from the singular form that with regard to your roof, yes, one is obligated, whereas with regard to that which is owned in partnership one is not obligated.

讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻讬 讬驻诇 讛谞驻诇 诪诪谞讜 讗诇讗 讙讙讱 诇诪讗讬 讗转讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讘转讬 讻谞住讬讜转 讜讘转讬 诪讚专砖讜转

Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淚f any man falls from there,鈥 indicating that wherever the danger of falling from the roof exists, there is an obligation to erect a parapet. The Gemara asks: But if so, for what purpose does the term 鈥測our roof [gaggekha],鈥 using the singular pronoun, come? The Gemara answers: It serves to exclude synagogues and houses of study.

讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 诇讬转谞讛讜 诇讛谞讬 讻诇诇讬 讚转谞讬讗 讘讛诪转 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 讞讬讬讘转 讘讘讻讜专讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 驻讜讟专讛

搂 Rava maintains that although Rabbi Ilai holds that if a sheep is owned in partnership its owners are exempt from giving the first sheared wool to a priest, he concedes that partners are obligated with regard to all the other issues discussed above, including the mitzva of the firstborn animal and the gifts of the priesthood. Rav Beivai bar Abaye said: These principles stated by Rava are not accepted, as it is taught in a baraita: An animal owned by partners is obligated in the mitzva of a firstborn, i.e., its offspring is subject to firstborn status. And Rabbi Ilai exempts the animal from having its offspring subject to firstborn status.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讘拽专讱 讜爪讗谞讱 讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 讘拽专讻诐 讜爪讗谞讻诐 讚讻讜诇讛讜 讬砖专讗诇

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Ilai? As it is written: 鈥淎nd the firstborn of your herd and of your flock [bekarekha vetzonekha]鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:17), using the singular pronoun, indicating that only privately owned animals are consecrated. The Gemara comments: But it is also written: 鈥淎nd the firstborn of your herd and of your flock [bekarkhem vetzonekhem]鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:6), using the plural pronoun. The Gemara explains: This verse is referring to the obligation of all Jews to bring their firstborn animals to the Temple, but this applies only to animals with a single owner.

讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 诪住讜专讗 诇讬转谞讛讜 诇讛谞讬 讻诇诇讬 讚转谞讬讗 讘讛诪转 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 讞讬讬讘转 讘诪转谞讜转 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 驻讜讟专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讬诇讬祝 谞转讬谞讛 谞转讬谞讛 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

Rav 岣nina of Sura also said: These principles stated by Rava are not accepted, as it is taught in a baraita: An animal owned by partners is obligated, i.e., renders its owners obligated, to take gifts of the priesthood from it, and Rabbi Ilai exempts the partners from the obligation. What is the reason for Rabbi Ilai鈥檚 statement? He derives a verbal analogy between giving mentioned in this context and giving from the first sheared wool. The Torah states: 鈥淗e shall give鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:3), with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, and: 鈥淪hall you give him鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:4), with regard to the first sheared wool. Just as there, with regard to the first sheared wool, in the case of sheep owned in partnership the owners are not obligated according to Rabbi Ilai, so too here, with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, if the animal is owned in partnership the owners are not obligated.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘转专讜诪讛 诪讬讞讬讬讘 谞讬诇祝 谞转讬谞讛 谞转讬谞讛 诪转专讜诪讛 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘转专讜诪讛 谞诪讬 驻讜讟专

Rabbi 岣nina of Sura adds: And if it enters your mind to accept Rava鈥檚 statement that in the case of teruma Rabbi Ilai deems partners obligated, this is not possible. The reason is that the term 鈥渟hall you give him鈥 is also used with regard to teruma. Accordingly, instead of deriving the halakha of an animal owned by partners with regard to gifts of the priesthood by verbal analogy from the first sheared wool, one should derive by verbal analogy between giving mentioned with regard to gifts of the priesthood and giving from teruma, as follows: Just as joint owners of produce are obligated to separate teruma from that produce, so too with regard to an animal owned in partnership, the owners are obligated to take the gifts of the priesthood from it. Rather, conclude from the baraita that with regard to teruma too, Rabbi Ilai deems partners exempt, and therefore their exemption from the gifts of the priesthood can be derived either from the first sheared wool or from teruma.

讗讬 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 讘讗专抓 讗讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗 讗祝 诪转谞讜转 讘讗专抓 讗讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪谞讛专讘讬诇 讗讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讗讜诪专 诪转谞讜转 讗讬谉 谞讜讛讙讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讗专抓 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讗讜诪专 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讗讬谉 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘讗专抓

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If it is possible to derive halakhot of the gifts of the priesthood from teruma by verbal analogy, one could also say: Just as with regard to teruma the halakha is that in Eretz Yisrael, yes, it applies, whereas outside of Eretz Yisrael it does not apply, so too, with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, in Eretz Yisrael, yes, they apply, whereas outside of Eretz Yisrael they do not apply. Rabbi Yosei of Neharbil said: Yes, it is indeed so, and it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ilai says: The gifts of the priesthood apply only in Eretz Yisrael. And likewise, Rabbi Ilai would say: The mitzva of the first sheared wool applies only in Eretz Yisrael.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讬诇讬祝 谞转讬谞讛 谞转讬谞讛 诪转专讜诪讛 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 讘讗专抓 讗讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗 讗祝 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讘讗专抓 讗讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗

What is the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Ilai? Rava said: He derives by means of a verbal analogy between giving mentioned in the context of the first sheared wool and giving from teruma that just as with regard to teruma the halakha is that in Eretz Yisrael, yes, it applies, whereas outside of Eretz Yisrael, it does not apply; so too, with regard to the first sheared wool, in Eretz Yisrael, yes, it applies, whereas outside of Eretz Yisrael it does not apply.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 讟讜讘诇转 讗祝 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讟讜讘诇转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜专讗砖讬转 讙讝 爪讗谞讱 转转谉 诇讜 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讜 讗诇讗 诪专讗砖讬转讜 讜讗讬诇讱

Abaye said to Rava: If one compares the first sheared wool to teruma by means of a verbal analogy, one can say that just as with regard to the requirement to separate teruma, it produces the halakhic status of forbidden untithed produce, so too the requirement to separate the first sheared wool produces the halakhic status of untithed produce, i.e., wool from which the first sheared wool has not been separated should be forbidden. Yet this is not the halakha. Rava said to him that the verse states: 鈥淎nd the first sheared wool of your flock, shall you give him,鈥 i.e., the priest, which indicates that you, i.e., the priest, have a right to the first sheared wool only from its designation as the first sheared wool and onward. Since the first sheared wool does not belong to the priest prior to its designation, it does not render the rest of the wool forbidden.

讗讬 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 讞讬讬讘讬诐 注诇讬讛 诪讬转讛 讜讞讜诪砖 讗祝 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讞讬讬讘讬诐 注诇讬讜 诪讬转讛 讜讞讜诪砖

Abaye continues to question Rava: If one compares the first sheared wool to teruma by means of a verbal analogy, one can say that just as non-priests who partake of teruma intentionally are liable to receive the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven, and those who do so unwittingly are obligated to pay an additional one-fifth of its value, so too, non-priests who derive benefit from the first sheared wool intentionally should be liable to death at the hand of Heaven, and those who do so unwittingly should be obligated to pay an additional one-fifth of its value.

讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诪转讜 讘讜 讜讬住祝 注诇讬讜 注诇讬讜 讜诇讗 注诇 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讘讜 讜诇讗 讘专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝

Rava replies: The verse states with regard to a non-priest who partakes of teruma: 鈥淟est they bear sin for it, and die because of it, if they profane it鈥nd if a man eat of the holy thing through error, and he shall add its fifth part to it, and shall give to the priest the holy thing鈥 (Leviticus 22:9鈥14). Rava infers: 鈥淗e shall add its fifth part to it,鈥 and not to the first sheared wool. 鈥淎nd die because of it,鈥 and not because of the first sheared wool. Consequently, a non-priest is liable to death at the hand of Heaven or to pay an additional one-fifth for partaking of teruma, but not for deriving benefit from the first sheared wool.

讗讬 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬 讗讞专讬讛 讗祝 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬 讗讞专讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 专讗砖讬转 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讜 讗诇讗 专讗砖讬转 讘诇讘讚

Abaye further questions Rava: If one compares the first sheared wool to teruma by verbal analogy, one can say that just as with regard to teruma, the first and second tithes are separated from the produce after teruma is separated, so too with regard to the first sheared wool, first and second tithes should be separated from the fleece after it. Rava replies: The verse states that the first sheared wool is 鈥渢he first.鈥 Since the verse already stated 鈥渇irst鈥 with regard to teruma, its repetition indicates that in this case there is no second separation. One does not have any separation in this case other than the first one.

讗讬 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 诪讞讚砖 注诇 讛讬砖谉 诇讗 讗祝 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 诪讞讚砖 注诇 讛讬砖谉 诇讗 讗讬谉

Abaye continues to question Rava: If one compares the first sheared wool to teruma by means of a verbal analogy, one can say that just as with regard to teruma one may not separate from the new produce of this year on behalf of the old produce from last year, so too, one may not separate the first sheared wool from the new shearing of this year on behalf of the old shearing from last year. On this occasion Rava replied: Yes, that is the halakha.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讬讜 诇讜 砖转讬 专讞诇讜转 讙讝讝 讜讛谞讬讞 讙讝讝 讜讛谞讬讞 砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 砖谞讬诐 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讜转 讛讗 讞诪砖 诪爪讟专驻讜转

Rava proves his point: And it is likewise taught that this is Rabbi Ilai鈥檚 opinion, through a contradiction between two baraitot. One baraita teaches: A person had two sheep; he sheared them and left the shearing in his possession, and the following year he again sheared them and left the shearing in his possession, and continued in this manner for two or three years. Although the accumulated wool is equivalent to the wool of five sheep, to which the obligation of the first sheared wool applies, the wool does not accumulate to constitute the minimum amount, as only two sheep were shorn. This indicates that if the wool is from five sheep, then it accumulates, and one is obligated to give the priest the first sheared wool, despite the fact that the wool was shorn in different years.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讜转 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讜讛讗 讚专讘谞谉

But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that even wool from five sheep shorn in different years does not accumulate to create an obligation? Rather, conclude from this contradiction that this second baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ilai, who compares the first sheared wool to teruma. Therefore, he holds that wool from separate years does not accumulate. And that first baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who do not compare the first sheared wool to teruma. Therefore, they maintain that wool from separate years does accumulate.

讗讬 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 讙讚诇 讘讞讬讜讘 讞讬讬讘 讙讚诇 讘驻讟讜专 驻讟讜专 讗祝 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 谞诪讬 讙讚诇 讘讞讬讜讘 讞讬讬讘 讘驻讟讜专 驻讟讜专

Abaye asks Rava: If one compares the first sheared wool to teruma, one can say that just as with regard to teruma, if a Jew purchased a field from a gentile then produce that grew under the ownership of a Jew, who is obligated to separate teruma from his produce, is obligated, whereas produce that grew under the ownership of a gentile, whose produce is exempt, is exempt even after purchase by a Jew; so too, with regard to the first sheared wool, the fleece that grew under the ownership of a Jew, who is obligated in the first sheared wool, is obligated, whereas the fleece that grew under the ownership of a gentile, who is exempt, is exempt even after purchase by a Jew.

讜讙讘讬 转专讜诪讛 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 讬砖专讗诇 砖诇拽讞 砖讚讛 讘住讜专讬讗 诪讙讜讬 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讘讬讗讛 砖诇讬砖 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讛讘讬讗讛 砖诇讬砖 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讞讬讬讘 讘转讜住驻转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉

Abaye adds: And with regard to teruma, from where do we derive that produce that grew when owned by a gentile is exempt? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a Jew who purchased a field in Syria from a gentile, if he bought the field before the produce reached one-third of its growth, he is obligated to separate teruma. If he bought the field after the produce reached one-third of its growth, Rabbi Akiva deems him obligated to separate teruma from the growth added after he bought the field, and the Rabbis deem him exempt. All agree, though, that he is exempt with regard to the part of the produce that grew under the gentile鈥檚 ownership.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛转谞谉 讛诇讜拽讞 讙讝 爪讗谉 讙讜讬 驻讟讜专 诪专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讛讗 爪讗谞讜 诇讙讝讜讝 讞讬讬讘 诪转谞讬转讬谉

And if you would say: Indeed, Rabbi Ilai holds that wool that grew under the ownership of a gentile is exempt from the mitzva of the first sheared wool, that is difficult, as didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna (135a): One who purchases the fleece of the sheep of a gentile is exempt from the obligation of the first sheared wool? It can be inferred from the mishna that if one purchased the gentile鈥檚 sheep when they were ready for shearing, he is obligated in the mitzva of the first sheared wool. Rava replied: The mishna

讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬

is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ilai, who holds that if the wool grew under the ownership of a gentile one is exempt from separating the first sheared wool.

讗讬 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 诪诪讬谉 注诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 诇讗 讗祝 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 诪诪讬谉 注诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 诇讗

Abaye further asks Rava: If one compares the first sheared wool to teruma, can one say that just as with regard to teruma one may not separate teruma from one type of produce on behalf of that which is not of the same type, so too, one may not separate the first sheared wool from one type of sheep on behalf of sheep which are not of the same type?

讜讙讘讬 转专讜诪讛 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 讛讬讜 诇讜 砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬 转讗谞讬诐 砖讞讜专讜转 讜诇讘谞讜转 讜讻谉 砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬 讞讟讬谉 讗讬谉 转讜专诪讬诐 讜诪注砖专讬诐 诪讝讛 注诇 讝讛 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 转讜专诪讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 转讜专诪讬谉 讗祝 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 诪诪讬谉 注诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 诇讗

The Gemara asks: And with regard to teruma, from where do we derive that one may not do so? As it is taught in a baraita: If one had two types of figs, black figs and white figs; or similarly, if one had two types of wheat, one may not separate teruma and tithes from this type on behalf of that type. Rabbi Yitz岣k says in the name of Rabbi Ilai: Beit Shammai say that one may not separate teruma from one of these on behalf of the other, and Beit Hillel say that one may separate teruma from one on behalf of the other, as they consider all forms of figs or wheat to be a single type. But all agree that with regard to two distinct types of food one may not separate teruma from one type on behalf of another type. So too, with regard to the first sheared wool, perhaps one may not separate from one type of sheep on behalf of sheep which are not of the same type.

讗讬谉 讜讛转谞谉 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 讝讛 谞讜转谉 诇注爪诪讜 讜讝讛 谞讜转谉 诇注爪诪讜

Rava replied: Yes, this is the halakha. And we learned in the mishna (135a) that one may not separate the first sheared wool from one type of sheep on behalf of another: If the seller had two types of sheep, gray and white, and he sold him the gray fleece but not the white fleece, then this seller gives the first sheared wool for himself from the wool that he kept, and that buyer gives the first sheared wool for himself from the wool that he bought.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 住讬驻讗 讚拽转谞讬 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 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诐 讚转专讬 诪讬谞讬 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara objects: If that is so, then consider the latter clause, which teaches: If he sold the fleece of the male sheep but not of the female sheep, then this seller gives the first sheared wool for himself from the wool that he kept, and that buyer gives the first sheared wool for himself from the wool that he bought. Is this also due to the fact that they are two different types? Clearly, it is not.

讗诇讗 注爪讛 讟讜讘讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讬转讬讘 诇讬讛 诪讛讗讬 讚专讻讬讱 讜诪讛讗讬 讚讗砖讜谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 注爪讛 讟讜讘讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讬转讬讘 诇讛讜 诪转专讜讬讬讛讜

The Gemara explains: Rather, the mishna teaches us good advice. The seller is obligated to give the first sheared wool even on behalf of the wool he sold. Since the fleece of the female sheep is softer and more valuable, it is profitable for the seller to buy back part of the fleece of the male sheep and separate it as the first sheared wool on behalf of the sheep he sold, so that he gives the priest both from this wool that is soft and from that wool that is hard, rather than giving him from the fleece of his female sheep on behalf of the male sheep. Here too, with regard to the gray and white sheep, the mishna teaches us good advice, that it is profitable for the seller to buy back part of the fleece of the gray sheep, so that he gives the priests from both types of wool, rather than giving the first sheared wool entirely from the more valuable white fleece.

讛讗 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬

According to the above explanation, the mishna rules that it is permitted to separate the first sheared wool from one type of sheep on behalf of another type. This is difficult according to the opinion of Rabbi Ilai, who compares the first sheared wool to teruma, where this practice is prohibited. The Gemara answers: We already established that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ilai.

讗讬 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 讘注讬谞谉 专讗砖讬转 砖砖讬专讬讛 谞讬讻专讬谉 讗祝 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 砖砖讬专讬讛 谞讬讻专讬谉 讗讬谉

The Gemara challenges further: If one compares the first sheared wool to teruma by means of a verbal analogy, one can say that just as with regard to teruma we require it to be a first gift whose remainders are evident, i.e., a part of the produce must remain after one has separated teruma, so too, the first sheared wool must be a gift whose remainders are evident. The Gemara responds: Yes, it is indeed so.

讜讛转谞谉 讛讗讜诪专 讻诇 讙专谞讬 转专讜诪讛 讜讻诇 注讬住转讬 讞诇讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讛讗 讻诇 讙讝讬讬 专讗砖讬转 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐

The Gemara cites a proof for this claim. And we learned in a mishna (岣lla 1:9): With regard to one who says: All my granary shall be teruma, or: All my dough shall be 岣lla, he has not said anything. But one can infer from the mishna that if he said: All my shearing shall be designated as first sheared wool, his declaration is valid. And yet it is taught in another tannaitic source, a baraita, that if he said: All my shearing shall be designated as first sheared wool, he did not say anything.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rather, must one not conclude from the conflicting rulings that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ilai, who compares the first sheared wool to teruma, and that mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who do not compare the two cases? The Gemara affirms: Conclude from here that this is correct.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛讗讬讚谞讗 谞讛讜讙 注诇诪讗 讻讛谞讬 转诇转 住讘讬 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讘专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讗讜诪专 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘讗专抓

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Nowadays the universally accepted practice is in accordance with the lenient rulings of these three elders: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ilai with regard to the first sheared wool, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ilai says: The mitzva of the first sheared wool applies only in Eretz Yisrael.

讜讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛 讘讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛

And the accepted practice is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira with regard to matters of Torah, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: Matters of Torah are not susceptible to ritual impurity. Therefore, it is permitted for one who experienced a seminal emission to engage in Torah study even without first immersing in a ritual bath.

讜讻专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讘讻诇讗讬诐 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讝专注 讞讟讛 讜砖注讜专讛 讜讞专爪谉 讘诪驻讜诇转 讬讚

And lastly, the accepted practice is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya with regard to diverse kinds, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yoshiya says: One who sows diverse kinds is never liable by Torah law until he sows wheat and barley and a grape pit with a single hand motion, i.e., by sowing in the vineyard he violates the prohibitions of diverse kinds that apply to seeds and to the vineyard simultaneously.

讞讜诪专 讘讝专讜注 [讜讻讜壮] 讜诇讬转谞讬 讞讜诪专 讘专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 砖谞讜讛讙 讘讟专驻讜转 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘诪转谞讜转

搂 The mishna states: There are more stringent elements in the mitzva of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw than in the mitzva of the first sheared wool. The mishna then proceeds to list a number of these stringent elements. The Gemara objects: But let the mishna teach that there is a more stringent element in the mitzva of the first sheared wool, as it is in effect with regard to animals with a wound that will cause them to die within twelve months [tereifot], but that is not so with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, i.e., the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, which are not given to the priest from a tereifa. This is because the Torah states: 鈥淗e shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:3), whereas in the case of a tereifa the gifts are effectively not given to the priest himself but to his dog, as it is prohibited for the priest to eat them.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 讗转 讛讟专驻讜转 诪专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讬诇讬祝 谞转讬谞讛 谞转讬谞讛 诪诪转谞讜转 诪讛 诪转谞讜转 讟专驻讛 诇讗 讗祝 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 谞诪讬 讟专驻讛 诇讗

Ravina said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon deems tereifot exempt from the mitzva of the first sheared wool. What is the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Shimon? The reason is that he derives a verbal analogy between the term giving mentioned with regard to the first sheared wool and giving from the gifts of the priesthood. The Torah states: 鈥淪hall you give him鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:4), with regard to the first sheared wool, and it states: 鈥淗e shall give,鈥 with regard to the gifts of the priesthood. Just as with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, one is not obligated to give them from a tereifa animal, so too, with regard to the first sheared wool, one is not obligated to give them from a tereifa.

讜讗讬 讬诇讬祝 谞转讬谞讛 谞转讬谞讛 诪诪转谞讜转 诇讬诇祝 谞转讬谞讛 谞转讬谞讛 诪转专讜诪讛 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 讘讗专抓 讗讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗 讗祝 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 谞诪讬 讘讗专抓 讗讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗 讗诇诪讛 转谞谉 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

The Gemara asks: If Rabbi Shimon derives a verbal analogy between giving mentioned with regard to the first sheared wool and giving from the gifts of the priesthood, let him also derive a verbal analogy between giving mentioned with regard to the first sheared wool and giving from teruma. The Torah states: 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). Just as with regard to teruma, produce grown in Eretz Yisrael, yes, it is obligated, whereas produce grown outside of Eretz Yisrael is not obligated, so too with regard to the mitzva of the first sheared wool: In Eretz Yisrael, yes, it applies, whereas outside of Eretz Yisrael it does not apply. Why, then, did we learn in the mishna that the mitzva of the first sheared wool applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael?

讗诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讬诇讬祝 爪讗谉 爪讗谉 诪诪注砖专 诪讛 诪注砖专 讟专驻讛 诇讗 讗祝 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讟专驻讛 诇讗

The Gemara suggests: Rather, this is the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Shimon, as he derives a verbal analogy between the term 鈥渇lock [tzon]鈥 mentioned with regard to the first sheared wool and the term 鈥渇lock [tzon]鈥 from the animal tithe. With regard to the first sheared wool, the verse states: 鈥淎nd the first sheared wool of your flock [tzonekha], shall you give him鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:4), and with regard to the animal tithe it states: 鈥淎nd all the tithe of the herd or the flock [tzon], whichever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 27:32). Just as with regard to the tithe, one is not obligated in the case of an animal that is a tereifa, so too, with regard to the first sheared wool, one is not obligated in the case of a tereifa.

讜讛转诐 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讻诇 讗砖专 讬注讘专 转讞转 讛砖讘讟 驻专讟 诇讟专驻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 注讜讘专转 讜诇讬诇祝 爪讗谉 爪讗谉 诪讘讻讜专 诪讛 讘讻讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 讟专驻讛 讗祝 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讗驻讬诇讜 讟专驻讛

The Gemara asks: And there, with regard to the animal tithe, from where do we derive that it does not apply to a tereifa? The Gemara answers that it is written: 鈥淲hichever passes under the rod,鈥 which excludes a tereifa, which is not able to pass under the rod due to its physical state. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But let Rabbi Shimon derive a verbal analogy between the term 鈥渇lock [tzon]鈥 mentioned in this context and the term 鈥渇lock [tzon]鈥 from the mitzva to consecrate the male firstborn animal. In that context, the Torah states: 鈥淎ll the firstborn males that are born of your herd and of your flock [tzonekha] you shall sanctify to the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:19). Just as with regard to the consecration of the firstborn even a tereifa is consecrated, so too, with regard to the first sheared wool the obligation applies even in the case of a tereifa.

诪住转讘专讗 诪诪注砖专 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诇祝 砖讻谉 讝讻专讬诐 讟诪讗讬谉

The Gemara answers: It is reasonable that Rabbi Shimon should derive the halakha of the first sheared wool from the halakha of animal tithe rather than from the mitzva of the firstborn, as there are many halakhot that are common to both the first sheared wool and the animal tithe. The Gemara enumerates these halakhot: First, the first sheared wool and the animal tithe apply to both male and female animals, while the mitzva of the firstborn applies only to males. Furthermore, the first sheared wool and the animal tithe do not apply to non-kosher animals, whereas the sanctity of the firstborn also applies to donkeys, which are not kosher.

讘诪专讜讘讬谉 诪专讞诐

In addition, these two mitzvot both apply only in a case of numerous animals: The first sheared wool applies only if one shears no fewer than five sheep, and one must own at least ten animals to set aside the animal tithe, whereas the sanctity of the firstborn applies to a single animal. Another common feature is that unlike the firstborn, the first sheared wool and the animal tithe are not sanctified from the womb, but only once they are designated.

讗讚诐 驻砖讜讟 诇驻谞讬 讛讚讘讜专

Moreover, both the first sheared wool and the animal tithe apply only to animals, whereas the sanctity of the firstborn also applies to a firstborn son in the case of a man. Likewise, these two mitzvot apply not only to firstborn animals but also to ordinary non-firstborn animals, unlike the sanctity of the firstborn. Finally, the first sheared wool and the animal tithe did not apply before the divine word was issued at the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai, whereas the sanctity of the firstborn already applied while the Jews were still in Egypt.

讗讚专讘讛 诪讘讻讜专 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诇祝 砖讻谉 讬转讜诐 砖诇拽讞讜

The Gemara responds: On the contrary, Rabbi Shimon should derive the halakha of the first sheared wool from the sanctity of the firstborn rather than from the animal tithe, as there are many halakhot common to the first sheared wool and the firstborn animal. The Gemara again enumerates the halakhot in common: Both apply to an orphan animal, i.e., one whose mother died before its birth, whereas the animal tithe does not apply to an animal of this kind. Furthermore, both mitzvot are in effect in the case of an animal that one purchased, whereas the animal tithe does not apply to a purchased animal.

讘砖讜转驻讜转 谞转谞讜 讘驻谞讬 讻讛谉

In addition, both the mitzva of the first sheared wool and the mitzva of the firstborn animal apply to an animal owned in partnership, unlike the animal tithe. Both apply as well to an animal that one gave another as a gift, whereas the animal tithe does not apply in the case of a gift. Likewise, both apply even when not in the presence of the Temple, whereas the animal tithe is in effect only when the Temple is standing. Moreover, both the first sheared wool and the firstborn are given to a priest, whereas the animal tithe is eaten by the owner.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 136

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 136

讚专讱 讘讬讗转讱 诪谉 讛讬诪讬谉

The term 鈥測our house [beitekha]鈥 is similar to the term: You enter [bi鈥檃tkha], indicating that one places the mezuza in the way that you enter the house. When a person lifts his foot to begin walking, he lifts his right foot first. Therefore, the mezuza is affixed to the right side of the doorway, as one enters.

诪注砖专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讬讘 诪注砖专 讚讙谞讱 讚讬诇讱 讗讬谉 讚砖讜转驻讜转 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪注砖专转讬讻诐 讗诇讗 诪注砖专 讚讙谞讱 诇诪讗讬 讗转讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讜转驻讜转 讚讙讜讬

Similarly, with regard to tithe, Rabbi Ilai concedes that joint owners of produce are obligated, even though it is written: 鈥淭he tithe of your grain [deganekha]鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:17), using the singular pronoun, from which one might have inferred that with regard to your grain, 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ll your tithes [ma鈥檃sroteikhem]鈥 (Numbers 18:28), using the plural pronoun, indicating that even partners are obligated in this mitzva. The Gemara asks: But if so, for what purpose does the term: 鈥淭he tithe of your grain [deganekha],鈥 using the singular pronoun, come? The Gemara answers: It serves to exclude produce owned in partnership with a gentile from the obligation of tithes.

诪转谞讜转 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜谞转谉

Likewise, with regard to the gifts to which members of the priesthood are entitled, i.e., the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, Rabbi Ilai concedes that the joint owners of an animal are obligated, even though the Merciful One writes: 鈥淎nd this shall be the priests鈥 due from the people, from those who slaughter an animal, whether it be ox or sheep; and he shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:3).

讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讬诇讬祝 谞转讬谞讛 谞转讬谞讛 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 诪讗转 讝讘讞讬 讛讝讘讞

The Gemara elaborates: It is possible to say that one should derive a verbal analogy between giving mentioned in the context of gifts to the priesthood and giving from the first sheared wool. The Torah states: 鈥淗e shall give,鈥 with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, and it states: 鈥淪hall you give him鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:4), with regard to the first sheared wool; just as there, with regard to the first sheared wool, sheep owned in partnership do not render their owners obligated, so too here, with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, an animal owned in partnership does not render the owners obligated. But the Merciful One writes: 鈥淔rom those who slaughter an animal,鈥 in the plural, indicating that even the owners of an animal owned in partnership are obligated to give the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw.

讗诇讗 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪讗转 讝讘讞讬 讛讝讘讞 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬诇祝 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 inference, the reason the joint owners of an animal are obligated in the gifts of the priesthood is that the Merciful One writes: 鈥淔rom those who slaughter an animal,鈥 in the plural. But were it not so, I would say that they are exempt, as derived by means of a verbal analogy from the first sheared wool. On the contrary, since the term 鈥渟hall you give him鈥 is also referring to teruma, one should derive by means of a verbal analogy from teruma: Just as the obligation of teruma applies to those who own produce in partnership, so too, the requirement of the gifts of the priesthood applies to partners that own an animal together.

讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪讗转 讝讘讞讬 讛讝讘讞 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讚讬谉 注诐 讛讟讘讞

The Gemara explains: Yes, it is indeed so; the obligation of partners with regard to gifts of the priesthood is derived from teruma. But if so, why do I need the phrase 鈥渇rom those who slaughter an animal鈥? It is necessary for that which Rava taught, as Rava said: The priest issues his demand to receive the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw from the butcher who slaughtered the animal, not from the buyer.

讘讻讜专讬诐 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讬讘 讗专爪讱 讚讬讚讱 讗讬谉 讚砖讜转驻讜转 诇讗

Similarly, with regard to the first fruits, Rabbi Ilai concedes that the joint owners of produce are obligated, even though it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall take of the first of all the fruit of the ground, which you shall bring in from your land [be鈥檃rtzekha]鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:2), using the singular pronoun. One might have inferred from the singular pronoun that with regard to your land, yes, one is obligated, whereas with regard to that which is owned in partnership one is not obligated.

讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘讻讜专讬 讻诇 讗砖专 (讘讗专爪讱) [讘讗专爪诐] 讗诇讗 讗专爪讱 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓

Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淭he first fruits of all that is in their land, which they bring to the Lord, shall be yours鈥 (Numbers 18:13). The use of the plural pronoun indicates that even from land owned in partnership one is obligated to bring first fruits. The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the term 鈥測our land [be鈥檃rtzekha],鈥 using the singular pronoun? The Gemara answers: This serves to exclude produce grown outside of Eretz Yisrael from the mitzva of the first fruits.

爪讬爪讬转 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻住讜转讱 讚讬讚讱 讗讬谉 讚砖讜转驻讜转 诇讗

Likewise, with regard to the mitzva to attach ritual fringes to one鈥檚 garment, Rabbi Ilai concedes that a jointly owned garment is obligated, even though the Merciful One writes: 鈥淵ou shall make yourself twisted cords upon the four corners of your covering [kesutekha]鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:12), using the singular pronoun. It might have been inferred from the singular form that with regard to your covering, yes, it is obligated, whereas with regard to that which is owned in partnership it is not obligated.

讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 注诇 讻谞驻讬 讘讙讚讬讛诐 诇讚专转诐 讜讗诇讗 讻住讜转讱 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讟诇讬转 砖讗讜诇讛 驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛爪讬爪讬转 讻诇 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐

Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淎nd they shall make for themselves fringes in the corners of their garments, throughout their generations, and they shall put with the fringe of each corner a thread of blue鈥 (Numbers 15:38). The use of the plural pronoun indicates that even jointly owned garments are obligated. The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the term 鈥測our covering [kesutekha],鈥 using the singular pronoun? The Gemara answers: This is necessary for that which Rav Yehuda taught, as Rav Yehuda said: A borrowed cloak is exempt from the mitzva of ritual fringes throughout the first thirty days.

诪注拽讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇讙讙讱 讚讬讚讱 讗讬谉 讚砖讜转驻讜转 诇讗

Similarly, with regard to the obligation of establishing a parapet around a roof, Rabbi Ilai concedes that the joint owners of a roof are obligated, even though the Merciful One writes: 鈥淲hen you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof [legaggekha],鈥 using the singular pronoun, 鈥渁nd you shall not bring blood upon your house, if any man falls from there鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:8). One might have inferred from the singular form that with regard to your roof, yes, one is obligated, whereas with regard to that which is owned in partnership one is not obligated.

讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻讬 讬驻诇 讛谞驻诇 诪诪谞讜 讗诇讗 讙讙讱 诇诪讗讬 讗转讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讘转讬 讻谞住讬讜转 讜讘转讬 诪讚专砖讜转

Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淚f any man falls from there,鈥 indicating that wherever the danger of falling from the roof exists, there is an obligation to erect a parapet. The Gemara asks: But if so, for what purpose does the term 鈥測our roof [gaggekha],鈥 using the singular pronoun, come? The Gemara answers: It serves to exclude synagogues and houses of study.

讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 诇讬转谞讛讜 诇讛谞讬 讻诇诇讬 讚转谞讬讗 讘讛诪转 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 讞讬讬讘转 讘讘讻讜专讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 驻讜讟专讛

搂 Rava maintains that although Rabbi Ilai holds that if a sheep is owned in partnership its owners are exempt from giving the first sheared wool to a priest, he concedes that partners are obligated with regard to all the other issues discussed above, including the mitzva of the firstborn animal and the gifts of the priesthood. Rav Beivai bar Abaye said: These principles stated by Rava are not accepted, as it is taught in a baraita: An animal owned by partners is obligated in the mitzva of a firstborn, i.e., its offspring is subject to firstborn status. And Rabbi Ilai exempts the animal from having its offspring subject to firstborn status.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讘拽专讱 讜爪讗谞讱 讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 讘拽专讻诐 讜爪讗谞讻诐 讚讻讜诇讛讜 讬砖专讗诇

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Ilai? As it is written: 鈥淎nd the firstborn of your herd and of your flock [bekarekha vetzonekha]鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:17), using the singular pronoun, indicating that only privately owned animals are consecrated. The Gemara comments: But it is also written: 鈥淎nd the firstborn of your herd and of your flock [bekarkhem vetzonekhem]鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:6), using the plural pronoun. The Gemara explains: This verse is referring to the obligation of all Jews to bring their firstborn animals to the Temple, but this applies only to animals with a single owner.

讗诪专 专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 诪住讜专讗 诇讬转谞讛讜 诇讛谞讬 讻诇诇讬 讚转谞讬讗 讘讛诪转 讛砖讜转驻讬谉 讞讬讬讘转 讘诪转谞讜转 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 驻讜讟专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讬诇讬祝 谞转讬谞讛 谞转讬谞讛 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

Rav 岣nina of Sura also said: These principles stated by Rava are not accepted, as it is taught in a baraita: An animal owned by partners is obligated, i.e., renders its owners obligated, to take gifts of the priesthood from it, and Rabbi Ilai exempts the partners from the obligation. What is the reason for Rabbi Ilai鈥檚 statement? He derives a verbal analogy between giving mentioned in this context and giving from the first sheared wool. The Torah states: 鈥淗e shall give鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:3), with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, and: 鈥淪hall you give him鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:4), with regard to the first sheared wool. Just as there, with regard to the first sheared wool, in the case of sheep owned in partnership the owners are not obligated according to Rabbi Ilai, so too here, with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, if the animal is owned in partnership the owners are not obligated.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讘转专讜诪讛 诪讬讞讬讬讘 谞讬诇祝 谞转讬谞讛 谞转讬谞讛 诪转专讜诪讛 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘转专讜诪讛 谞诪讬 驻讜讟专

Rabbi 岣nina of Sura adds: And if it enters your mind to accept Rava鈥檚 statement that in the case of teruma Rabbi Ilai deems partners obligated, this is not possible. The reason is that the term 鈥渟hall you give him鈥 is also used with regard to teruma. Accordingly, instead of deriving the halakha of an animal owned by partners with regard to gifts of the priesthood by verbal analogy from the first sheared wool, one should derive by verbal analogy between giving mentioned with regard to gifts of the priesthood and giving from teruma, as follows: Just as joint owners of produce are obligated to separate teruma from that produce, so too with regard to an animal owned in partnership, the owners are obligated to take the gifts of the priesthood from it. Rather, conclude from the baraita that with regard to teruma too, Rabbi Ilai deems partners exempt, and therefore their exemption from the gifts of the priesthood can be derived either from the first sheared wool or from teruma.

讗讬 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 讘讗专抓 讗讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗 讗祝 诪转谞讜转 讘讗专抓 讗讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪谞讛专讘讬诇 讗讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讗讜诪专 诪转谞讜转 讗讬谉 谞讜讛讙讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讗专抓 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讗讜诪专 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讗讬谉 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘讗专抓

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If it is possible to derive halakhot of the gifts of the priesthood from teruma by verbal analogy, one could also say: Just as with regard to teruma the halakha is that in Eretz Yisrael, yes, it applies, whereas outside of Eretz Yisrael it does not apply, so too, with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, in Eretz Yisrael, yes, they apply, whereas outside of Eretz Yisrael they do not apply. Rabbi Yosei of Neharbil said: Yes, it is indeed so, and it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ilai says: The gifts of the priesthood apply only in Eretz Yisrael. And likewise, Rabbi Ilai would say: The mitzva of the first sheared wool applies only in Eretz Yisrael.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讬诇讬祝 谞转讬谞讛 谞转讬谞讛 诪转专讜诪讛 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 讘讗专抓 讗讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗 讗祝 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讘讗专抓 讗讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗

What is the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Ilai? Rava said: He derives by means of a verbal analogy between giving mentioned in the context of the first sheared wool and giving from teruma that just as with regard to teruma the halakha is that in Eretz Yisrael, yes, it applies, whereas outside of Eretz Yisrael, it does not apply; so too, with regard to the first sheared wool, in Eretz Yisrael, yes, it applies, whereas outside of Eretz Yisrael it does not apply.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 讟讜讘诇转 讗祝 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讟讜讘诇转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜专讗砖讬转 讙讝 爪讗谞讱 转转谉 诇讜 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讜 讗诇讗 诪专讗砖讬转讜 讜讗讬诇讱

Abaye said to Rava: If one compares the first sheared wool to teruma by means of a verbal analogy, one can say that just as with regard to the requirement to separate teruma, it produces the halakhic status of forbidden untithed produce, so too the requirement to separate the first sheared wool produces the halakhic status of untithed produce, i.e., wool from which the first sheared wool has not been separated should be forbidden. Yet this is not the halakha. Rava said to him that the verse states: 鈥淎nd the first sheared wool of your flock, shall you give him,鈥 i.e., the priest, which indicates that you, i.e., the priest, have a right to the first sheared wool only from its designation as the first sheared wool and onward. Since the first sheared wool does not belong to the priest prior to its designation, it does not render the rest of the wool forbidden.

讗讬 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 讞讬讬讘讬诐 注诇讬讛 诪讬转讛 讜讞讜诪砖 讗祝 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讞讬讬讘讬诐 注诇讬讜 诪讬转讛 讜讞讜诪砖

Abaye continues to question Rava: If one compares the first sheared wool to teruma by means of a verbal analogy, one can say that just as non-priests who partake of teruma intentionally are liable to receive the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven, and those who do so unwittingly are obligated to pay an additional one-fifth of its value, so too, non-priests who derive benefit from the first sheared wool intentionally should be liable to death at the hand of Heaven, and those who do so unwittingly should be obligated to pay an additional one-fifth of its value.

讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诪转讜 讘讜 讜讬住祝 注诇讬讜 注诇讬讜 讜诇讗 注诇 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讘讜 讜诇讗 讘专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝

Rava replies: The verse states with regard to a non-priest who partakes of teruma: 鈥淟est they bear sin for it, and die because of it, if they profane it鈥nd if a man eat of the holy thing through error, and he shall add its fifth part to it, and shall give to the priest the holy thing鈥 (Leviticus 22:9鈥14). Rava infers: 鈥淗e shall add its fifth part to it,鈥 and not to the first sheared wool. 鈥淎nd die because of it,鈥 and not because of the first sheared wool. Consequently, a non-priest is liable to death at the hand of Heaven or to pay an additional one-fifth for partaking of teruma, but not for deriving benefit from the first sheared wool.

讗讬 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬 讗讞专讬讛 讗祝 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬 讗讞专讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 专讗砖讬转 讗讬谉 诇讱 讘讜 讗诇讗 专讗砖讬转 讘诇讘讚

Abaye further questions Rava: If one compares the first sheared wool to teruma by verbal analogy, one can say that just as with regard to teruma, the first and second tithes are separated from the produce after teruma is separated, so too with regard to the first sheared wool, first and second tithes should be separated from the fleece after it. Rava replies: The verse states that the first sheared wool is 鈥渢he first.鈥 Since the verse already stated 鈥渇irst鈥 with regard to teruma, its repetition indicates that in this case there is no second separation. One does not have any separation in this case other than the first one.

讗讬 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 诪讞讚砖 注诇 讛讬砖谉 诇讗 讗祝 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 诪讞讚砖 注诇 讛讬砖谉 诇讗 讗讬谉

Abaye continues to question Rava: If one compares the first sheared wool to teruma by means of a verbal analogy, one can say that just as with regard to teruma one may not separate from the new produce of this year on behalf of the old produce from last year, so too, one may not separate the first sheared wool from the new shearing of this year on behalf of the old shearing from last year. On this occasion Rava replied: Yes, that is the halakha.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讬讜 诇讜 砖转讬 专讞诇讜转 讙讝讝 讜讛谞讬讞 讙讝讝 讜讛谞讬讞 砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 砖谞讬诐 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讜转 讛讗 讞诪砖 诪爪讟专驻讜转

Rava proves his point: And it is likewise taught that this is Rabbi Ilai鈥檚 opinion, through a contradiction between two baraitot. One baraita teaches: A person had two sheep; he sheared them and left the shearing in his possession, and the following year he again sheared them and left the shearing in his possession, and continued in this manner for two or three years. Although the accumulated wool is equivalent to the wool of five sheep, to which the obligation of the first sheared wool applies, the wool does not accumulate to constitute the minimum amount, as only two sheep were shorn. This indicates that if the wool is from five sheep, then it accumulates, and one is obligated to give the priest the first sheared wool, despite the fact that the wool was shorn in different years.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讜转 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讜讛讗 讚专讘谞谉

But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that even wool from five sheep shorn in different years does not accumulate to create an obligation? Rather, conclude from this contradiction that this second baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ilai, who compares the first sheared wool to teruma. Therefore, he holds that wool from separate years does not accumulate. And that first baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who do not compare the first sheared wool to teruma. Therefore, they maintain that wool from separate years does accumulate.

讗讬 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 讙讚诇 讘讞讬讜讘 讞讬讬讘 讙讚诇 讘驻讟讜专 驻讟讜专 讗祝 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 谞诪讬 讙讚诇 讘讞讬讜讘 讞讬讬讘 讘驻讟讜专 驻讟讜专

Abaye asks Rava: If one compares the first sheared wool to teruma, one can say that just as with regard to teruma, if a Jew purchased a field from a gentile then produce that grew under the ownership of a Jew, who is obligated to separate teruma from his produce, is obligated, whereas produce that grew under the ownership of a gentile, whose produce is exempt, is exempt even after purchase by a Jew; so too, with regard to the first sheared wool, the fleece that grew under the ownership of a Jew, who is obligated in the first sheared wool, is obligated, whereas the fleece that grew under the ownership of a gentile, who is exempt, is exempt even after purchase by a Jew.

讜讙讘讬 转专讜诪讛 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 讬砖专讗诇 砖诇拽讞 砖讚讛 讘住讜专讬讗 诪讙讜讬 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讘讬讗讛 砖诇讬砖 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讛讘讬讗讛 砖诇讬砖 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讞讬讬讘 讘转讜住驻转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉

Abaye adds: And with regard to teruma, from where do we derive that produce that grew when owned by a gentile is exempt? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a Jew who purchased a field in Syria from a gentile, if he bought the field before the produce reached one-third of its growth, he is obligated to separate teruma. If he bought the field after the produce reached one-third of its growth, Rabbi Akiva deems him obligated to separate teruma from the growth added after he bought the field, and the Rabbis deem him exempt. All agree, though, that he is exempt with regard to the part of the produce that grew under the gentile鈥檚 ownership.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛转谞谉 讛诇讜拽讞 讙讝 爪讗谉 讙讜讬 驻讟讜专 诪专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讛讗 爪讗谞讜 诇讙讝讜讝 讞讬讬讘 诪转谞讬转讬谉

And if you would say: Indeed, Rabbi Ilai holds that wool that grew under the ownership of a gentile is exempt from the mitzva of the first sheared wool, that is difficult, as didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna (135a): One who purchases the fleece of the sheep of a gentile is exempt from the obligation of the first sheared wool? It can be inferred from the mishna that if one purchased the gentile鈥檚 sheep when they were ready for shearing, he is obligated in the mitzva of the first sheared wool. Rava replied: The mishna

讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬

is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ilai, who holds that if the wool grew under the ownership of a gentile one is exempt from separating the first sheared wool.

讗讬 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 诪诪讬谉 注诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 诇讗 讗祝 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 诪诪讬谉 注诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 诇讗

Abaye further asks Rava: If one compares the first sheared wool to teruma, can one say that just as with regard to teruma one may not separate teruma from one type of produce on behalf of that which is not of the same type, so too, one may not separate the first sheared wool from one type of sheep on behalf of sheep which are not of the same type?

讜讙讘讬 转专讜诪讛 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 讛讬讜 诇讜 砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬 转讗谞讬诐 砖讞讜专讜转 讜诇讘谞讜转 讜讻谉 砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬 讞讟讬谉 讗讬谉 转讜专诪讬诐 讜诪注砖专讬诐 诪讝讛 注诇 讝讛 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 转讜专诪讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 转讜专诪讬谉 讗祝 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 诪诪讬谉 注诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 诇讗

The Gemara asks: And with regard to teruma, from where do we derive that one may not do so? As it is taught in a baraita: If one had two types of figs, black figs and white figs; or similarly, if one had two types of wheat, one may not separate teruma and tithes from this type on behalf of that type. Rabbi Yitz岣k says in the name of Rabbi Ilai: Beit Shammai say that one may not separate teruma from one of these on behalf of the other, and Beit Hillel say that one may separate teruma from one on behalf of the other, as they consider all forms of figs or wheat to be a single type. But all agree that with regard to two distinct types of food one may not separate teruma from one type on behalf of another type. So too, with regard to the first sheared wool, perhaps one may not separate from one type of sheep on behalf of sheep which are not of the same type.

讗讬谉 讜讛转谞谉 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 讝讛 谞讜转谉 诇注爪诪讜 讜讝讛 谞讜转谉 诇注爪诪讜

Rava replied: Yes, this is the halakha. And we learned in the mishna (135a) that one may not separate the first sheared wool from one type of sheep on behalf of another: If the seller had two types of sheep, gray and white, and he sold him the gray fleece but not the white fleece, then this seller gives the first sheared wool for himself from the wool that he kept, and that buyer gives the first sheared wool for himself from the wool that he bought.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 住讬驻讗 讚拽转谞讬 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 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪砖讜诐 讚转专讬 诪讬谞讬 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara objects: If that is so, then consider the latter clause, which teaches: If he sold the fleece of the male sheep but not of the female sheep, then this seller gives the first sheared wool for himself from the wool that he kept, and that buyer gives the first sheared wool for himself from the wool that he bought. Is this also due to the fact that they are two different types? Clearly, it is not.

讗诇讗 注爪讛 讟讜讘讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讬转讬讘 诇讬讛 诪讛讗讬 讚专讻讬讱 讜诪讛讗讬 讚讗砖讜谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 注爪讛 讟讜讘讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讬转讬讘 诇讛讜 诪转专讜讬讬讛讜

The Gemara explains: Rather, the mishna teaches us good advice. The seller is obligated to give the first sheared wool even on behalf of the wool he sold. Since the fleece of the female sheep is softer and more valuable, it is profitable for the seller to buy back part of the fleece of the male sheep and separate it as the first sheared wool on behalf of the sheep he sold, so that he gives the priest both from this wool that is soft and from that wool that is hard, rather than giving him from the fleece of his female sheep on behalf of the male sheep. Here too, with regard to the gray and white sheep, the mishna teaches us good advice, that it is profitable for the seller to buy back part of the fleece of the gray sheep, so that he gives the priests from both types of wool, rather than giving the first sheared wool entirely from the more valuable white fleece.

讛讗 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬

According to the above explanation, the mishna rules that it is permitted to separate the first sheared wool from one type of sheep on behalf of another type. This is difficult according to the opinion of Rabbi Ilai, who compares the first sheared wool to teruma, where this practice is prohibited. The Gemara answers: We already established that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ilai.

讗讬 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 讘注讬谞谉 专讗砖讬转 砖砖讬专讬讛 谞讬讻专讬谉 讗祝 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 砖砖讬专讬讛 谞讬讻专讬谉 讗讬谉

The Gemara challenges further: If one compares the first sheared wool to teruma by means of a verbal analogy, one can say that just as with regard to teruma we require it to be a first gift whose remainders are evident, i.e., a part of the produce must remain after one has separated teruma, so too, the first sheared wool must be a gift whose remainders are evident. The Gemara responds: Yes, it is indeed so.

讜讛转谞谉 讛讗讜诪专 讻诇 讙专谞讬 转专讜诪讛 讜讻诇 注讬住转讬 讞诇讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐 讛讗 讻诇 讙讝讬讬 专讗砖讬转 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐

The Gemara cites a proof for this claim. And we learned in a mishna (岣lla 1:9): With regard to one who says: All my granary shall be teruma, or: All my dough shall be 岣lla, he has not said anything. But one can infer from the mishna that if he said: All my shearing shall be designated as first sheared wool, his declaration is valid. And yet it is taught in another tannaitic source, a baraita, that if he said: All my shearing shall be designated as first sheared wool, he did not say anything.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rather, must one not conclude from the conflicting rulings that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ilai, who compares the first sheared wool to teruma, and that mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who do not compare the two cases? The Gemara affirms: Conclude from here that this is correct.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛讗讬讚谞讗 谞讛讜讙 注诇诪讗 讻讛谞讬 转诇转 住讘讬 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讘专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讗讬 讗讜诪专 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘讗专抓

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Nowadays the universally accepted practice is in accordance with the lenient rulings of these three elders: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ilai with regard to the first sheared wool, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ilai says: The mitzva of the first sheared wool applies only in Eretz Yisrael.

讜讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛 讘讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 诪拽讘诇讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛

And the accepted practice is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira with regard to matters of Torah, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: Matters of Torah are not susceptible to ritual impurity. Therefore, it is permitted for one who experienced a seminal emission to engage in Torah study even without first immersing in a ritual bath.

讜讻专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讘讻诇讗讬诐 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬讝专注 讞讟讛 讜砖注讜专讛 讜讞专爪谉 讘诪驻讜诇转 讬讚

And lastly, the accepted practice is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya with regard to diverse kinds, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yoshiya says: One who sows diverse kinds is never liable by Torah law until he sows wheat and barley and a grape pit with a single hand motion, i.e., by sowing in the vineyard he violates the prohibitions of diverse kinds that apply to seeds and to the vineyard simultaneously.

讞讜诪专 讘讝专讜注 [讜讻讜壮] 讜诇讬转谞讬 讞讜诪专 讘专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 砖谞讜讛讙 讘讟专驻讜转 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘诪转谞讜转

搂 The mishna states: There are more stringent elements in the mitzva of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw than in the mitzva of the first sheared wool. The mishna then proceeds to list a number of these stringent elements. The Gemara objects: But let the mishna teach that there is a more stringent element in the mitzva of the first sheared wool, as it is in effect with regard to animals with a wound that will cause them to die within twelve months [tereifot], but that is not so with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, i.e., the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, which are not given to the priest from a tereifa. This is because the Torah states: 鈥淗e shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:3), whereas in the case of a tereifa the gifts are effectively not given to the priest himself but to his dog, as it is prohibited for the priest to eat them.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻讜讟专 讗转 讛讟专驻讜转 诪专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讬诇讬祝 谞转讬谞讛 谞转讬谞讛 诪诪转谞讜转 诪讛 诪转谞讜转 讟专驻讛 诇讗 讗祝 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 谞诪讬 讟专驻讛 诇讗

Ravina said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon deems tereifot exempt from the mitzva of the first sheared wool. What is the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Shimon? The reason is that he derives a verbal analogy between the term giving mentioned with regard to the first sheared wool and giving from the gifts of the priesthood. The Torah states: 鈥淪hall you give him鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:4), with regard to the first sheared wool, and it states: 鈥淗e shall give,鈥 with regard to the gifts of the priesthood. Just as with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, one is not obligated to give them from a tereifa animal, so too, with regard to the first sheared wool, one is not obligated to give them from a tereifa.

讜讗讬 讬诇讬祝 谞转讬谞讛 谞转讬谞讛 诪诪转谞讜转 诇讬诇祝 谞转讬谞讛 谞转讬谞讛 诪转专讜诪讛 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 讘讗专抓 讗讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗 讗祝 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 谞诪讬 讘讗专抓 讗讬谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗 讗诇诪讛 转谞谉 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

The Gemara asks: If Rabbi Shimon derives a verbal analogy between giving mentioned with regard to the first sheared wool and giving from the gifts of the priesthood, let him also derive a verbal analogy between giving mentioned with regard to the first sheared wool and giving from teruma. The Torah states: 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). Just as with regard to teruma, produce grown in Eretz Yisrael, yes, it is obligated, whereas produce grown outside of Eretz Yisrael is not obligated, so too with regard to the mitzva of the first sheared wool: In Eretz Yisrael, yes, it applies, whereas outside of Eretz Yisrael it does not apply. Why, then, did we learn in the mishna that the mitzva of the first sheared wool applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael?

讗诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讬诇讬祝 爪讗谉 爪讗谉 诪诪注砖专 诪讛 诪注砖专 讟专驻讛 诇讗 讗祝 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讟专驻讛 诇讗

The Gemara suggests: Rather, this is the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Shimon, as he derives a verbal analogy between the term 鈥渇lock [tzon]鈥 mentioned with regard to the first sheared wool and the term 鈥渇lock [tzon]鈥 from the animal tithe. With regard to the first sheared wool, the verse states: 鈥淎nd the first sheared wool of your flock [tzonekha], shall you give him鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:4), and with regard to the animal tithe it states: 鈥淎nd all the tithe of the herd or the flock [tzon], whichever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 27:32). Just as with regard to the tithe, one is not obligated in the case of an animal that is a tereifa, so too, with regard to the first sheared wool, one is not obligated in the case of a tereifa.

讜讛转诐 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讻诇 讗砖专 讬注讘专 转讞转 讛砖讘讟 驻专讟 诇讟专驻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 注讜讘专转 讜诇讬诇祝 爪讗谉 爪讗谉 诪讘讻讜专 诪讛 讘讻讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 讟专驻讛 讗祝 专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讗驻讬诇讜 讟专驻讛

The Gemara asks: And there, with regard to the animal tithe, from where do we derive that it does not apply to a tereifa? The Gemara answers that it is written: 鈥淲hichever passes under the rod,鈥 which excludes a tereifa, which is not able to pass under the rod due to its physical state. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But let Rabbi Shimon derive a verbal analogy between the term 鈥渇lock [tzon]鈥 mentioned in this context and the term 鈥渇lock [tzon]鈥 from the mitzva to consecrate the male firstborn animal. In that context, the Torah states: 鈥淎ll the firstborn males that are born of your herd and of your flock [tzonekha] you shall sanctify to the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:19). Just as with regard to the consecration of the firstborn even a tereifa is consecrated, so too, with regard to the first sheared wool the obligation applies even in the case of a tereifa.

诪住转讘专讗 诪诪注砖专 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诇祝 砖讻谉 讝讻专讬诐 讟诪讗讬谉

The Gemara answers: It is reasonable that Rabbi Shimon should derive the halakha of the first sheared wool from the halakha of animal tithe rather than from the mitzva of the firstborn, as there are many halakhot that are common to both the first sheared wool and the animal tithe. The Gemara enumerates these halakhot: First, the first sheared wool and the animal tithe apply to both male and female animals, while the mitzva of the firstborn applies only to males. Furthermore, the first sheared wool and the animal tithe do not apply to non-kosher animals, whereas the sanctity of the firstborn also applies to donkeys, which are not kosher.

讘诪专讜讘讬谉 诪专讞诐

In addition, these two mitzvot both apply only in a case of numerous animals: The first sheared wool applies only if one shears no fewer than five sheep, and one must own at least ten animals to set aside the animal tithe, whereas the sanctity of the firstborn applies to a single animal. Another common feature is that unlike the firstborn, the first sheared wool and the animal tithe are not sanctified from the womb, but only once they are designated.

讗讚诐 驻砖讜讟 诇驻谞讬 讛讚讘讜专

Moreover, both the first sheared wool and the animal tithe apply only to animals, whereas the sanctity of the firstborn also applies to a firstborn son in the case of a man. Likewise, these two mitzvot apply not only to firstborn animals but also to ordinary non-firstborn animals, unlike the sanctity of the firstborn. Finally, the first sheared wool and the animal tithe did not apply before the divine word was issued at the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai, whereas the sanctity of the firstborn already applied while the Jews were still in Egypt.

讗讚专讘讛 诪讘讻讜专 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诇祝 砖讻谉 讬转讜诐 砖诇拽讞讜

The Gemara responds: On the contrary, Rabbi Shimon should derive the halakha of the first sheared wool from the sanctity of the firstborn rather than from the animal tithe, as there are many halakhot common to the first sheared wool and the firstborn animal. The Gemara again enumerates the halakhot in common: Both apply to an orphan animal, i.e., one whose mother died before its birth, whereas the animal tithe does not apply to an animal of this kind. Furthermore, both mitzvot are in effect in the case of an animal that one purchased, whereas the animal tithe does not apply to a purchased animal.

讘砖讜转驻讜转 谞转谞讜 讘驻谞讬 讻讛谉

In addition, both the mitzva of the first sheared wool and the mitzva of the firstborn animal apply to an animal owned in partnership, unlike the animal tithe. Both apply as well to an animal that one gave another as a gift, whereas the animal tithe does not apply in the case of a gift. Likewise, both apply even when not in the presence of the Temple, whereas the animal tithe is in effect only when the Temple is standing. Moreover, both the first sheared wool and the firstborn are given to a priest, whereas the animal tithe is eaten by the owner.

Scroll To Top