Details regarding the laws of giving the first of your shearings to the priests.
Chullin 135
04.11.2019 | ו׳ בניסן תשע״ט
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Chullin 135
מַתְנִי׳ רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז נוֹהֵג בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת, בַּחוּלִּין אֲבָל לֹא בַּמּוּקְדָּשִׁים.
MISHNA: The mitzva of the first sheared wool that every Jew must give to the priest, as stated in the verse: “And the first sheared wool of your flock [tzonekha] shall you give him” (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.
חוֹמֶר בַּזְּרוֹעַ וּלְחָיַיִם וּבַקֵּבָה מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז – שֶׁהַזְּרוֹעַ וְהַלְּחָיַיִם וְהַקֵּבָה נוֹהֲגִין בַּבָּקָר וּבַצֹּאן, בִּמְרוּבֶּה וּבְמוּעָט, וְרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בִּרְחֵלוֹת, וְאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בִּמְרוּבֶּה.
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: “Whether it be ox or sheep, that he shall give unto the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw” (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.
וְכַמָּה הוּא מְרוּבֶּה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: שְׁתֵּי רְחֵלוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״יְחַיֶּה אִישׁ עֶגְלַת בָּקָר וּשְׁתֵּי צֹאן״, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: חָמֵשׁ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״חָמֵשׁ צֹאן עֲשׂוּיוֹת״.
And how many are numerous? Beit Shammai say: It is at least two sheep, as it is stated: “That a man shall rear a young cow, and two sheep [tzon]” (Isaiah 7:21), indicating that two sheep are characterized as tzon; and the mitzva of the first sheared wool is written using the term “your flock [tzonekha].” And Beit Hillel say: It is at least five sheep, as it is stated: “And five sheep [tzon] made” (I Samuel 25:18).
רַבִּי דּוֹסָא בֶּן הַרְכִּינָס אוֹמֵר: חָמֵשׁ רְחֵלוֹת גּוֹזְזוֹת מָנֶה מָנֶה וּפְרָס חַיָּיבוֹת בְּרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: חָמֵשׁ רְחֵלוֹת גּוֹזְזוֹת כׇּל שֶׁהֵן.
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.
וְכַמָּה נוֹתְנִין לוֹ? מִשְׁקַל חֲמֵשׁ סְלָעִים בִּיהוּדָה, שֶׁהֵן עֶשֶׂר סְלָעִים בַּגָּלִיל, מְלוּבָּן וְלֹא צוֹאִי, כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ בֶּגֶד קָטָן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״תִּתֵּן לוֹ״, שֶׁיְּהֵא בּוֹ כְּדֵי מַתָּנָה.
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: “Shall you give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4), indicating that the sheared wool must contain enough for a proper gift.
לֹא הִסְפִּיק לִיתְּנוֹ לוֹ עַד שֶׁצְּבָעוֹ – פָּטוּר, לִבְּנוֹ וְלֹא צְבָעוֹ – חַיָּיב.
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.
הַלּוֹקֵחַ גֵּז צֹאנוֹ שֶׁל גּוֹי – פָּטוּר מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז. הַלּוֹקֵחַ גֵּז צֹאנוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, אִם שִׁיֵּיר – הַמּוֹכֵר חַיָּיב, לֹא שִׁיֵּיר – הַלּוֹקֵחַ חַיָּיב. הָיוּ לוֹ שְׁנֵי מִינִים, שְׁחוּפוֹת וּלְבָנוֹת, מָכַר לוֹ שְׁחוּפוֹת אֲבָל לֹא לְבָנוֹת, זְכָרִים אֲבָל לֹא נְקֵבוֹת – זֶה נוֹתֵן לְעַצְמוֹ וְזֶה נוֹתֵן לְעַצְמוֹ.
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.
גְּמָ׳ בְּמוּקְדָּשִׁין, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא? אָמַר קְרָא ״צֹאנְךָ״, וְלֹא צֹאן הֶקְדֵּשׁ.
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: “Your flock” (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.
טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״צֹאנְךָ״, הָא לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה אָמֵינָא קָדָשִׁים חַיָּיבִים בְּרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז? הָא לָאו בְּנֵי גִיזָּה נִינְהוּ, דִּכְתִיב ״וְלֹא תָגֹז בְּכוֹר צֹאנֶךָ״!
The Gemara challenges: The reason for the exemption of sacrificial animals is that the Merciful One writes “your flock,” 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: “And you shall not shear the firstborn of your flock” (Deuteronomy 15:19).
אִי בְּקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ, הָכִי נָמֵי. הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת.
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.
וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת אֲסוּרִים בְּגִיזָּה וַעֲבוֹדָה! מִדְּרַבָּנַן. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא בְּנֵי גִיזָּה נִינְהוּ, הֵיכָא דִּגְזַז לֵיהּ – לִיתֵּיב לֵיהּ.
The Gemara asks: But didn’t 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.
וְהָא קַדֵּישׁ לַהּ! סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: לִפְרוֹק וְלִיתֵּיב לֵיהּ.
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.
וְהָא בָּעֵי הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה! הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת לֹא הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר הָיוּ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
The Gemara objects: But when an animal is redeemed it requires standing and valuation, as it is written: “And 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” (Leviticus 27:11–12). 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?
אָמַר רַבִּי מָנִי בַּר פַּטִּישׁ מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יַנַּאי: הָכָא בְּמַקְדִּישׁ בְּהֶמְתּוֹ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת חוּץ מִגִּיזּוֹתֶיהָ. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: לִיגְזוֹז וְלִיתֵּיב לֵיהּ, אָמַר קְרָא ״צֹאנְךָ״, וְלֹא צֹאן שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ.
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: “Your flock,” indicating that the mitzva applies to non-sacred animals, which belong to an individual, and not to sheep that are consecrated property.
אִי הָכִי, קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ נָמֵי! כָּחֲשִׁי.
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.
קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת נָמֵי כָּחֲשִׁי! דְּאָמַר: חוּץ מִגִּיזָּה וּכְחִישָׁה.
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.
קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ נָמֵי! דְּאָמַר: חוּץ מִגִּיזָּה וּכְחִישָׁה, אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי פָּשְׁטָה קְדוּשָּׁה בְּכוּלַּהּ.
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.
וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: וַהֲלֹא בְּמוּקְדָּשִׁין, הָאוֹמֵר ״רַגְלָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ עוֹלָה״ – כּוּלָּהּ עוֹלָה. וַאֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּאָמַר אֵין כּוּלָּהּ עוֹלָה, הָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּאַקְדֵּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין הַנְּשָׁמָה תְּלוּיָה בּוֹ, אֲבָל הִקְדִּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁהַנְּשָׁמָה תְּלוּיָה בּוֹ – קָדְשָׁה.
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’t 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’s 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’s 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’s life depends, everyone agrees that all of it is consecrated.
רָבָא אָמַר: בְּמַקְדִּישׁ גִּיזָּה עַצְמָהּ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: לִיגְזוֹז וְלִיפְרוֹק וְלִיתֵּיב לֵיהּ,
§ 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.
אָמַר קְרָא: ״גֵּז צֹאנְךָ תִּתֶּן לוֹ״, מִי שֶׁאֵין מְחוּסָּר אֶלָּא גְּזִיזָה וּנְתִינָה, יָצָא זֶה שֶׁמְחוּסָּר גְּזִיזָה פְּדִיָּיה וּנְתִינָה.
Therefore, the verse states: “The first sheared wool of your flock, shall you give him” (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.
אֶלָּא ״צֹאנְךָ״ לְמַאי אֲתָא? לְכִדְתַנְיָא: בֶּהֱמַת הַשּׁוּתָּפִים חַיָּיב בְּרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, וְרַבִּי אִלְעַאי פּוֹטֵר. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי? אָמַר קְרָא ״צֹאנְךָ״, וְלֹא שֶׁל שׁוּתָּפוּת.
The Gemara asks: But if this verse is the source of the exemption of consecrated animals, then for what purpose does the term “your flock” 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 “your flock,” using the singular pronoun, indicating that the mitzva applies to animals belonging to an individual, but not to sheep that are owned in partnership.
וְרַבָּנַן, לְמַעוֹטֵי שׁוּתָּפוּת גּוֹי. וְרַבִּי אִלְעַאי, שׁוּתָּפוּת גּוֹי מְנָא לֵיהּ?
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 “your flock”? 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?
נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵרֵישָׁא דִּקְרָא, ״רֵאשִׁית דְּגָנְךָ״, וְלֹא שׁוּתָּפוּת גּוֹי.
The Gemara answers: He derives it from the beginning of this verse, which states with regard to teruma: “The first fruits of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil” (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.
וְרַבָּנַן, ״רֵאשִׁית״ (הַגֵּז) הִפְסִיק הָעִנְיָן.
The Gemara asks: And why do the Rabbis, who derive the exemption of sheep owned in partnership with a gentile from the term “your flock,” not derive this from the term “your grain”? The Gemara answers that the repetition of the term “the first” with regard to the first sheared wool: “The first fruits of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the first sheared wool of your flock, shall you give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4), is an indication that the verse concluded discussion of the previous matter. The superfluous mention of “first” 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.
וְרַבִּי אִלְעַאי: וָי״ו הֲדַר עָרְבֵיהּ.
The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Ilai respond to the Rabbis’ claim? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ilai holds that when the verse states: “And the first sheared wool,” the conjunction “and” goes back and combines the two matters together.
וְרַבָּנַן: לָא נִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא לָא וָי״ו וְלָא ״רֵאשִׁית״.
The Gemara asks further: And how do the Rabbis respond to Rabbi Ilai’s claim? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis do not accept that the conjunction “and” goes back and combines the two matters together, as, if that were so, let the Merciful One write neither “and” nor “the first.”
וְרַבִּי אִלְעַאי, אַיְּידֵי דְּהַאי קְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים, וְהַאי קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף, פָּסֵיק לְהוּ, וַהֲדַר עָרְבִי לְהוּ.
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 “the first,” and then the verse went back and combined them through the term “and,” so that their halakhot could be derived from one another.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: שׁוּתָּפוּת גּוֹי בִּתְרוּמָה, רַבָּנַן חַיּוֹבֵי מְחַיְּיבִי, דְּתַנְיָא: יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹי שֶׁלָּקְחוּ שָׂדֶה בְּשׁוּתָּפוּת – טֶבֶל וְחוּלִּין מְעוֹרָבִים זֶה בָּזֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל חַיָּיב, וְשֶׁל גּוֹי פָּטוּר.
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.
עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי, אֶלָּא דְּמָר סָבַר יֵשׁ בְּרֵירָה, וּמַר סָבַר אֵין בְּרֵירָה, אֲבָל שׁוּתָּפוּת דְּגוֹי – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל חַיֶּיבֶת.
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.
וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא, תַּרְוַיְיהוּ לְרַבִּי אִלְעַאי מִ״צֹּאנְךָ״ נָפְקָא.
The Gemara presents an alternative explanation of Rabbi Ilai’s 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 “your flock” while he derives the exemption of sheep owned in partnership with a gentile from the term “your grain.” Rather, according to Rabbi Ilai both exemptions are derived from the term “your flock.”
שׁוּתָּפוּת דְּגוֹי מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּלָא מְיַיחֲדָא לֵיהּ, לְיִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי לָא מְיַיחֲדָא לֵיהּ. וְרַבָּנַן? גּוֹי לָאו בַּר חִיּוּבָא הוּא, יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּר חִיּוּבָא הוּא.
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.
אָמַר רָבָא: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי אִלְעַאי בִּתְרוּמָה, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב ״דְּגָנְךָ״ – דִּידָךְ אִין, דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא.
§ 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: “Your grain” (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.
כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״תְּרוּמֹתֵיכֶם״, אֶלָּא ״דְּגָנְךָ״ לְמָה לִי? לְמַעוֹטֵי שׁוּתָּפוּת גּוֹי.
The Gemara explains that the joint owners of produce are nevertheless obligated in teruma, as the Merciful One writes: “There 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: “Your grain,” using the singular pronoun? The Gemara answers: This serves to exclude produce owned in partnership with a gentile.
חַלָּה, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב ״רֵאשִׁית״, וְאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר: נֵילַף ״רֵאשִׁית״ ״רֵאשִׁית״ מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז – מָה לְהַלָּן דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא, אַף כָּאן דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא. כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״עֲרִיסוֹתֵיכֶם״.
Similarly, with regard to ḥalla, 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: “Of the first of your dough you shall set apart a cake for a gift” (Numbers 15:20), and it is possible to say that one should derive a verbal analogy between the term “the first” in this context and the term “the first” 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 ḥalla, if the dough is owned in partnership they are not obligated. Nevertheless, the Merciful One writes: “Your dough,” using a plural pronoun, indicating that even joint owners of dough are obligated to separate ḥalla.
אֶלָּא טַעְמָא דִּכְתִיב ״עֲרִיסוֹתֵיכֶם״, הָא לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה אָמֵינָא נֵילַף ״רֵאשִׁית״ ״רֵאשִׁית״ מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז? אַדְּרַבָּה, נֵילַף מִתְּרוּמָה!
The Gemara challenges: But according to this claim, the reason joint owners of dough are obligated to separate ḥalla is that it is written “your dough,” 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 “the first” mentioned with regard to ḥalla and the term “the first” from the first sheared wool. On the contrary, one should derive a verbal analogy between the term “the first” with regard to ḥalla and the term “the first” from teruma: Just as the obligation to separate teruma applies to produce owned in partnership, so too, the obligation to separate ḥalla applies to dough owned in partnership. It is preferable to compare ḥalla to teruma, because their halakhic status is similar in that they are both prohibited to non-priests. If so, the inference from the term “your dough” is unnecessary.
הָכִי נָמֵי, אֶלָּא ״עֲרִיסוֹתֵיכֶם״ לְמָה לִי? כְּדֵי עֲרִיסוֹתֵיכֶם.
The Gemara explains: It is indeed so; the obligation of produce owned in partnership in the case of ḥalla is derived from the case of teruma. But if so, why do I need the term “your dough”? This teaches that the quantity of dough to which the obligation of ḥalla 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).
פֵּאָה, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב ״שָׂדְךָ״ – דִּידָךְ אִין, שׁוּתָּפוּת לָא – כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״וּבְקֻצְרְכֶם אֶת קְצִיר אַרְצְכֶם״. אֶלָּא ״שָׂדְךָ״ לְמָה לִי? לְמַעוֹטֵי שׁוּתָּפוּת גּוֹי.
Likewise, with regard to pe’a, 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: “Your field [sadekha],” 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: “And when you reap [uvekutzrekhem] the harvest of your land, you shall not entirely reap the corner of your field” (Leviticus 19:9). The term “when you reap” uses the plural pronoun, which indicates that even partners of land are obligated in pe’a. The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the term “your field” in the singular? The Gemara answers: This serves to exclude land owned in partnership with a gentile from the obligation of pe’a.
בְּכוֹרָה, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב ״כׇּל הַבְּכוֹר אֲשֶׁר יִוָּלֵד בִּבְקָרְךָ וּבְצֹאנְךָ״, דִּידָךְ – אִין, דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת – לָא.
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: “All 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” (Deuteronomy 15:19). Once again it might have been inferred from the singular pronoun in the terms “your herd” and “your flock” that your firstborn, yes, are sanctified, but the firstborn that is owned in partnership is not sanctified.
כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא: ״וּבְכֹרֹת בְּקַרְכֶם וְצֹאנְכֶם״, אֶלָּא ״בְּקָרְךָ וְצֹאנְךָ״ לְמָה לִי? לְמַעוֹטֵי שׁוּתָּפוּת גּוֹי.
Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “And 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]” (Deuteronomy 12:6). The pronouns in the terms “your herd” and “your flock” 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 “your herd” and “your flock” (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.
מְזוּזָה, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב ״בֵּיתֶךָ״ – דִּידָךְ אִין, שׁוּתָּפוּת לָא, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״לְמַעַן יִרְבּוּ יְמֵיכֶם וִימֵי בְנֵיכֶם״. וְאֶלָּא ״בֵּיתֶךָ״ לְמַאי אֲתָא? לְכִדְרַבָּה, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה:
Likewise, with regard to a mezuza, Rabbi Ilai concedes that the house of two partners is obligated, even though it is written: “And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house [beitekha]” (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: “So that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children” (Deuteronomy 11:21). The use of the plural pronoun in the terms “your days” and “your children” 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 “your house [beitekha]” come? The Gemara answers: It is necessary for that which Rabba derived, as Rabba said:
Follow 
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Lori Stark
Highland Park, United States
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Sandrine Simons
Atlanta, United States
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Pamela Elisheva
Bakersfield, United States
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
Rabbi Nicki Greninger
California, United States
I graduated college in December 2019 and received a set of shas as a present from my husband. With my long time dream of learning daf yomi, I had no idea that a new cycle was beginning just one month later, in January 2020. I have been learning the daf ever since with Michelle Farber… Through grad school, my first job, my first baby, and all the other incredible journeys over the past few years!
Sigal Spitzer Flamholz
Bronx, United States
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Catriella Freedman
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Lisa S. Malik
Wynnewood, United States
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
Cindy Dolgin
HUNTINGTON, United States
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ruth Leah Kahan
Ra’anana, Israel
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Shoshana Shinnar
Jerusalem, Israel
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Beth Kissileff
Pittsburgh, United States
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Diana Bloom
Tampa, United States
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Joséphine Altzman
Teaneck, United States
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Rochel Cheifetz
Riverdale, NY, United States
At almost 70 I am just beginning my journey with Talmud and Hadran. I began not late, but right when I was called to learn. It is never too late to begin! The understanding patience of staff and participants with more experience and knowledge has been fabulous. The joy of learning never stops and for me. It is a new life, a new light, a new depth of love of The Holy One, Blessed be He.
Deborah Hoffman-Wade
Richmond, CA, United States
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Denise Neapolitan
Cambridge, United Kingdom
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Sheila Hauser
Jerusalem, Israel
I start learning Daf Yomi in January 2020. The daily learning with Rabbanit Michelle has kept me grounded in this very uncertain time. Despite everything going on – the Pandemic, my personal life, climate change, war, etc… I know I can count on Hadran’s podcast to bring a smile to my face.
Deb Engel
Los Angeles, United States
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Rina Goldberg
Englewood NJ, United States
Chullin 135
מַתְנִי׳ רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז נוֹהֵג בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת, בַּחוּלִּין אֲבָל לֹא בַּמּוּקְדָּשִׁים.
MISHNA: The mitzva of the first sheared wool that every Jew must give to the priest, as stated in the verse: “And the first sheared wool of your flock [tzonekha] shall you give him” (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.
חוֹמֶר בַּזְּרוֹעַ וּלְחָיַיִם וּבַקֵּבָה מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז – שֶׁהַזְּרוֹעַ וְהַלְּחָיַיִם וְהַקֵּבָה נוֹהֲגִין בַּבָּקָר וּבַצֹּאן, בִּמְרוּבֶּה וּבְמוּעָט, וְרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בִּרְחֵלוֹת, וְאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בִּמְרוּבֶּה.
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: “Whether it be ox or sheep, that he shall give unto the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw” (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.
וְכַמָּה הוּא מְרוּבֶּה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: שְׁתֵּי רְחֵלוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״יְחַיֶּה אִישׁ עֶגְלַת בָּקָר וּשְׁתֵּי צֹאן״, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: חָמֵשׁ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״חָמֵשׁ צֹאן עֲשׂוּיוֹת״.
And how many are numerous? Beit Shammai say: It is at least two sheep, as it is stated: “That a man shall rear a young cow, and two sheep [tzon]” (Isaiah 7:21), indicating that two sheep are characterized as tzon; and the mitzva of the first sheared wool is written using the term “your flock [tzonekha].” And Beit Hillel say: It is at least five sheep, as it is stated: “And five sheep [tzon] made” (I Samuel 25:18).
רַבִּי דּוֹסָא בֶּן הַרְכִּינָס אוֹמֵר: חָמֵשׁ רְחֵלוֹת גּוֹזְזוֹת מָנֶה מָנֶה וּפְרָס חַיָּיבוֹת בְּרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: חָמֵשׁ רְחֵלוֹת גּוֹזְזוֹת כׇּל שֶׁהֵן.
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.
וְכַמָּה נוֹתְנִין לוֹ? מִשְׁקַל חֲמֵשׁ סְלָעִים בִּיהוּדָה, שֶׁהֵן עֶשֶׂר סְלָעִים בַּגָּלִיל, מְלוּבָּן וְלֹא צוֹאִי, כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ בֶּגֶד קָטָן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״תִּתֵּן לוֹ״, שֶׁיְּהֵא בּוֹ כְּדֵי מַתָּנָה.
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: “Shall you give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4), indicating that the sheared wool must contain enough for a proper gift.
לֹא הִסְפִּיק לִיתְּנוֹ לוֹ עַד שֶׁצְּבָעוֹ – פָּטוּר, לִבְּנוֹ וְלֹא צְבָעוֹ – חַיָּיב.
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.
הַלּוֹקֵחַ גֵּז צֹאנוֹ שֶׁל גּוֹי – פָּטוּר מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז. הַלּוֹקֵחַ גֵּז צֹאנוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, אִם שִׁיֵּיר – הַמּוֹכֵר חַיָּיב, לֹא שִׁיֵּיר – הַלּוֹקֵחַ חַיָּיב. הָיוּ לוֹ שְׁנֵי מִינִים, שְׁחוּפוֹת וּלְבָנוֹת, מָכַר לוֹ שְׁחוּפוֹת אֲבָל לֹא לְבָנוֹת, זְכָרִים אֲבָל לֹא נְקֵבוֹת – זֶה נוֹתֵן לְעַצְמוֹ וְזֶה נוֹתֵן לְעַצְמוֹ.
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.
גְּמָ׳ בְּמוּקְדָּשִׁין, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא? אָמַר קְרָא ״צֹאנְךָ״, וְלֹא צֹאן הֶקְדֵּשׁ.
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: “Your flock” (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.
טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״צֹאנְךָ״, הָא לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה אָמֵינָא קָדָשִׁים חַיָּיבִים בְּרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז? הָא לָאו בְּנֵי גִיזָּה נִינְהוּ, דִּכְתִיב ״וְלֹא תָגֹז בְּכוֹר צֹאנֶךָ״!
The Gemara challenges: The reason for the exemption of sacrificial animals is that the Merciful One writes “your flock,” 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: “And you shall not shear the firstborn of your flock” (Deuteronomy 15:19).
אִי בְּקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ, הָכִי נָמֵי. הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת.
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.
וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת אֲסוּרִים בְּגִיזָּה וַעֲבוֹדָה! מִדְּרַבָּנַן. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא בְּנֵי גִיזָּה נִינְהוּ, הֵיכָא דִּגְזַז לֵיהּ – לִיתֵּיב לֵיהּ.
The Gemara asks: But didn’t 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.
וְהָא קַדֵּישׁ לַהּ! סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: לִפְרוֹק וְלִיתֵּיב לֵיהּ.
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.
וְהָא בָּעֵי הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה! הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת לֹא הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר הָיוּ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
The Gemara objects: But when an animal is redeemed it requires standing and valuation, as it is written: “And 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” (Leviticus 27:11–12). 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?
אָמַר רַבִּי מָנִי בַּר פַּטִּישׁ מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יַנַּאי: הָכָא בְּמַקְדִּישׁ בְּהֶמְתּוֹ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת חוּץ מִגִּיזּוֹתֶיהָ. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: לִיגְזוֹז וְלִיתֵּיב לֵיהּ, אָמַר קְרָא ״צֹאנְךָ״, וְלֹא צֹאן שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ.
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: “Your flock,” indicating that the mitzva applies to non-sacred animals, which belong to an individual, and not to sheep that are consecrated property.
אִי הָכִי, קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ נָמֵי! כָּחֲשִׁי.
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.
קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת נָמֵי כָּחֲשִׁי! דְּאָמַר: חוּץ מִגִּיזָּה וּכְחִישָׁה.
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.
קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ נָמֵי! דְּאָמַר: חוּץ מִגִּיזָּה וּכְחִישָׁה, אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי פָּשְׁטָה קְדוּשָּׁה בְּכוּלַּהּ.
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.
וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: וַהֲלֹא בְּמוּקְדָּשִׁין, הָאוֹמֵר ״רַגְלָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ עוֹלָה״ – כּוּלָּהּ עוֹלָה. וַאֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּאָמַר אֵין כּוּלָּהּ עוֹלָה, הָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּאַקְדֵּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין הַנְּשָׁמָה תְּלוּיָה בּוֹ, אֲבָל הִקְדִּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁהַנְּשָׁמָה תְּלוּיָה בּוֹ – קָדְשָׁה.
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’t 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’s 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’s 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’s life depends, everyone agrees that all of it is consecrated.
רָבָא אָמַר: בְּמַקְדִּישׁ גִּיזָּה עַצְמָהּ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: לִיגְזוֹז וְלִיפְרוֹק וְלִיתֵּיב לֵיהּ,
§ 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.
אָמַר קְרָא: ״גֵּז צֹאנְךָ תִּתֶּן לוֹ״, מִי שֶׁאֵין מְחוּסָּר אֶלָּא גְּזִיזָה וּנְתִינָה, יָצָא זֶה שֶׁמְחוּסָּר גְּזִיזָה פְּדִיָּיה וּנְתִינָה.
Therefore, the verse states: “The first sheared wool of your flock, shall you give him” (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.
אֶלָּא ״צֹאנְךָ״ לְמַאי אֲתָא? לְכִדְתַנְיָא: בֶּהֱמַת הַשּׁוּתָּפִים חַיָּיב בְּרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, וְרַבִּי אִלְעַאי פּוֹטֵר. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי? אָמַר קְרָא ״צֹאנְךָ״, וְלֹא שֶׁל שׁוּתָּפוּת.
The Gemara asks: But if this verse is the source of the exemption of consecrated animals, then for what purpose does the term “your flock” 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 “your flock,” using the singular pronoun, indicating that the mitzva applies to animals belonging to an individual, but not to sheep that are owned in partnership.
וְרַבָּנַן, לְמַעוֹטֵי שׁוּתָּפוּת גּוֹי. וְרַבִּי אִלְעַאי, שׁוּתָּפוּת גּוֹי מְנָא לֵיהּ?
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 “your flock”? 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?
נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵרֵישָׁא דִּקְרָא, ״רֵאשִׁית דְּגָנְךָ״, וְלֹא שׁוּתָּפוּת גּוֹי.
The Gemara answers: He derives it from the beginning of this verse, which states with regard to teruma: “The first fruits of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil” (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.
וְרַבָּנַן, ״רֵאשִׁית״ (הַגֵּז) הִפְסִיק הָעִנְיָן.
The Gemara asks: And why do the Rabbis, who derive the exemption of sheep owned in partnership with a gentile from the term “your flock,” not derive this from the term “your grain”? The Gemara answers that the repetition of the term “the first” with regard to the first sheared wool: “The first fruits of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the first sheared wool of your flock, shall you give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4), is an indication that the verse concluded discussion of the previous matter. The superfluous mention of “first” 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.
וְרַבִּי אִלְעַאי: וָי״ו הֲדַר עָרְבֵיהּ.
The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Ilai respond to the Rabbis’ claim? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ilai holds that when the verse states: “And the first sheared wool,” the conjunction “and” goes back and combines the two matters together.
וְרַבָּנַן: לָא נִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא לָא וָי״ו וְלָא ״רֵאשִׁית״.
The Gemara asks further: And how do the Rabbis respond to Rabbi Ilai’s claim? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis do not accept that the conjunction “and” goes back and combines the two matters together, as, if that were so, let the Merciful One write neither “and” nor “the first.”
וְרַבִּי אִלְעַאי, אַיְּידֵי דְּהַאי קְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים, וְהַאי קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף, פָּסֵיק לְהוּ, וַהֲדַר עָרְבִי לְהוּ.
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 “the first,” and then the verse went back and combined them through the term “and,” so that their halakhot could be derived from one another.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: שׁוּתָּפוּת גּוֹי בִּתְרוּמָה, רַבָּנַן חַיּוֹבֵי מְחַיְּיבִי, דְּתַנְיָא: יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹי שֶׁלָּקְחוּ שָׂדֶה בְּשׁוּתָּפוּת – טֶבֶל וְחוּלִּין מְעוֹרָבִים זֶה בָּזֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל חַיָּיב, וְשֶׁל גּוֹי פָּטוּר.
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.
עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי, אֶלָּא דְּמָר סָבַר יֵשׁ בְּרֵירָה, וּמַר סָבַר אֵין בְּרֵירָה, אֲבָל שׁוּתָּפוּת דְּגוֹי – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל חַיֶּיבֶת.
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.
וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא, תַּרְוַיְיהוּ לְרַבִּי אִלְעַאי מִ״צֹּאנְךָ״ נָפְקָא.
The Gemara presents an alternative explanation of Rabbi Ilai’s 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 “your flock” while he derives the exemption of sheep owned in partnership with a gentile from the term “your grain.” Rather, according to Rabbi Ilai both exemptions are derived from the term “your flock.”
שׁוּתָּפוּת דְּגוֹי מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּלָא מְיַיחֲדָא לֵיהּ, לְיִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי לָא מְיַיחֲדָא לֵיהּ. וְרַבָּנַן? גּוֹי לָאו בַּר חִיּוּבָא הוּא, יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּר חִיּוּבָא הוּא.
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.
אָמַר רָבָא: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי אִלְעַאי בִּתְרוּמָה, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב ״דְּגָנְךָ״ – דִּידָךְ אִין, דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא.
§ 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: “Your grain” (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.
כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״תְּרוּמֹתֵיכֶם״, אֶלָּא ״דְּגָנְךָ״ לְמָה לִי? לְמַעוֹטֵי שׁוּתָּפוּת גּוֹי.
The Gemara explains that the joint owners of produce are nevertheless obligated in teruma, as the Merciful One writes: “There 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: “Your grain,” using the singular pronoun? The Gemara answers: This serves to exclude produce owned in partnership with a gentile.
חַלָּה, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב ״רֵאשִׁית״, וְאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר: נֵילַף ״רֵאשִׁית״ ״רֵאשִׁית״ מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז – מָה לְהַלָּן דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא, אַף כָּאן דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא. כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״עֲרִיסוֹתֵיכֶם״.
Similarly, with regard to ḥalla, 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: “Of the first of your dough you shall set apart a cake for a gift” (Numbers 15:20), and it is possible to say that one should derive a verbal analogy between the term “the first” in this context and the term “the first” 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 ḥalla, if the dough is owned in partnership they are not obligated. Nevertheless, the Merciful One writes: “Your dough,” using a plural pronoun, indicating that even joint owners of dough are obligated to separate ḥalla.
אֶלָּא טַעְמָא דִּכְתִיב ״עֲרִיסוֹתֵיכֶם״, הָא לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה אָמֵינָא נֵילַף ״רֵאשִׁית״ ״רֵאשִׁית״ מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז? אַדְּרַבָּה, נֵילַף מִתְּרוּמָה!
The Gemara challenges: But according to this claim, the reason joint owners of dough are obligated to separate ḥalla is that it is written “your dough,” 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 “the first” mentioned with regard to ḥalla and the term “the first” from the first sheared wool. On the contrary, one should derive a verbal analogy between the term “the first” with regard to ḥalla and the term “the first” from teruma: Just as the obligation to separate teruma applies to produce owned in partnership, so too, the obligation to separate ḥalla applies to dough owned in partnership. It is preferable to compare ḥalla to teruma, because their halakhic status is similar in that they are both prohibited to non-priests. If so, the inference from the term “your dough” is unnecessary.
הָכִי נָמֵי, אֶלָּא ״עֲרִיסוֹתֵיכֶם״ לְמָה לִי? כְּדֵי עֲרִיסוֹתֵיכֶם.
The Gemara explains: It is indeed so; the obligation of produce owned in partnership in the case of ḥalla is derived from the case of teruma. But if so, why do I need the term “your dough”? This teaches that the quantity of dough to which the obligation of ḥalla 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).
פֵּאָה, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב ״שָׂדְךָ״ – דִּידָךְ אִין, שׁוּתָּפוּת לָא – כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״וּבְקֻצְרְכֶם אֶת קְצִיר אַרְצְכֶם״. אֶלָּא ״שָׂדְךָ״ לְמָה לִי? לְמַעוֹטֵי שׁוּתָּפוּת גּוֹי.
Likewise, with regard to pe’a, 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: “Your field [sadekha],” 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: “And when you reap [uvekutzrekhem] the harvest of your land, you shall not entirely reap the corner of your field” (Leviticus 19:9). The term “when you reap” uses the plural pronoun, which indicates that even partners of land are obligated in pe’a. The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the term “your field” in the singular? The Gemara answers: This serves to exclude land owned in partnership with a gentile from the obligation of pe’a.
בְּכוֹרָה, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב ״כׇּל הַבְּכוֹר אֲשֶׁר יִוָּלֵד בִּבְקָרְךָ וּבְצֹאנְךָ״, דִּידָךְ – אִין, דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת – לָא.
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: “All 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” (Deuteronomy 15:19). Once again it might have been inferred from the singular pronoun in the terms “your herd” and “your flock” that your firstborn, yes, are sanctified, but the firstborn that is owned in partnership is not sanctified.
כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא: ״וּבְכֹרֹת בְּקַרְכֶם וְצֹאנְכֶם״, אֶלָּא ״בְּקָרְךָ וְצֹאנְךָ״ לְמָה לִי? לְמַעוֹטֵי שׁוּתָּפוּת גּוֹי.
Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “And 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]” (Deuteronomy 12:6). The pronouns in the terms “your herd” and “your flock” 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 “your herd” and “your flock” (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.
מְזוּזָה, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב ״בֵּיתֶךָ״ – דִּידָךְ אִין, שׁוּתָּפוּת לָא, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״לְמַעַן יִרְבּוּ יְמֵיכֶם וִימֵי בְנֵיכֶם״. וְאֶלָּא ״בֵּיתֶךָ״ לְמַאי אֲתָא? לְכִדְרַבָּה, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה:
Likewise, with regard to a mezuza, Rabbi Ilai concedes that the house of two partners is obligated, even though it is written: “And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house [beitekha]” (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: “So that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children” (Deuteronomy 11:21). The use of the plural pronoun in the terms “your days” and “your children” 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 “your house [beitekha]” come? The Gemara answers: It is necessary for that which Rabba derived, as Rabba said:
Follow
