The gemara deals with Rabbi Ilai’s approach to the first shearings and other laws.
Chullin 136
04.12.2019 | ז׳ בניסן תשע״ט
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Chullin 136
דֶּרֶךְ בִּיאָתְךָ מִן הַיָּמִין.
The term “your house [beitekha]” is similar to the term: You enter [bi’atkha], 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.
מַעֲשֵׂר, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב ״מַעְשַׂר דְּגָנְךָ״ – דִּילָךְ אִין, דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא. כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״מַעְשְׂרוֹתֵיכֶם״. אֶלָּא ״מַעְשַׂר דְּגָנְךָ״ לְמַאי אֲתָא? לְמַעוֹטֵי שׁוּתָּפוּת דְּגוֹי.
Similarly, with regard to tithe, Rabbi Ilai concedes that joint owners of produce are obligated, even though it is written: “The tithe of your grain [deganekha]” (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: “All your tithes [ma’asroteikhem]” (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: “The tithe of your grain [deganekha],” using the singular pronoun, come? The Gemara answers: It serves to exclude produce owned in partnership with a gentile from the obligation of tithes.
מַתָּנוֹת, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״וְנָתַן״.
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: “And this shall be the priests’ 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” (Deuteronomy 18:3).
אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר, יָלֵיף ״נְתִינָה״ ״נְתִינָה״ מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז – מָה לְהַלָּן דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא, אַף כָּאן דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא. כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״מֵאֵת זוֹבְחֵי הַזֶּבַח״.
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: “He shall give,” with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, and it states: “Shall you give him” (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: “From those who slaughter an animal,” 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.
אֶלָּא טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״מֵאֵת זוֹבְחֵי הַזֶּבַח״, הָא לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה אָמֵינָא לֵילַף מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז? אַדְּרַבָּה נֵילַף מִתְּרוּמָה.
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: “From those who slaughter an animal,” 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 “shall you give him” 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.
אִין הָכִי נָמֵי, מֵאֵת ״זוֹבְחֵי הַזֶּבַח״ לְמָה לִּי? לְכִדְרָבָא, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: הַדִּין עִם הַטַּבָּח.
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 “from those who slaughter an animal”? 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.
בִּכּוּרִים, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב ״אַרְצְךָ״ – דִּידָךְ אִין, דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא.
Similarly, with regard to the first fruits, Rabbi Ilai concedes that the joint owners of produce are obligated, even though it is written: “And you shall take of the first of all the fruit of the ground, which you shall bring in from your land [be’artzekha]” (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.
כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״בִּכּוּרֵי כֹּל אֲשֶׁר (בְּאַרְצְךָ) [בְּאַרְצָם]״, אֶלָּא ״אַרְצְךָ״ לְמָה לִי? לְמַעוֹטֵי חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ.
Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “The first fruits of all that is in their land, which they bring to the Lord, shall be yours” (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 “your land [artzekha],” using the singular pronoun? The Gemara answers: This serves to exclude produce grown outside of Eretz Yisrael from the mitzva of the first fruits.
צִיצִית, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״כְּסוּתְךָ״ – דִּידָךְ אִין, דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא.
Likewise, with regard to the mitzva to attach ritual fringes to one’s garment, Rabbi Ilai concedes that a jointly owned garment is obligated, even though the Merciful One writes: “You shall make yourself twisted cords upon the four corners of your covering [kesutekha]” (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.
כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״עַל כַּנְפֵי בִגְדֵיהֶם לְדֹרֹתָם״, וְאֶלָּא ״כְּסוּתְךָ״ לְמָה לִי? לְכִדְרַב יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: טַלִּית שְׁאוּלָה פְּטוּרָה מִן הַצִּיצִית כׇּל שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם.
Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “And 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” (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 “your covering [kesutekha],” 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.
מַעֲקֶה, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״לְגַגֶּךָ״ – דִּידָךְ אִין, דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא.
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: “When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof [legaggekha],” using the singular pronoun, “and you shall not bring blood upon your house, if any man falls from there” (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.
כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״כִּי יִפֹּל הַנֹּפֵל מִמֶּנּוּ״, אֶלָּא ״גַּגֶּךָ״ לְמַאי אֲתָא? לְמַעוֹטֵי בָּתֵּי כְנֵסִיּוֹת וּבָתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת.
Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “If any man falls from there,” 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 “your roof [gaggekha],” using the singular pronoun, come? The Gemara answers: It serves to exclude synagogues and houses of study.
אָמַר רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי: לֵיתַנְהוּ לְהָנֵי כְּלָלֵי, דְּתַנְיָא: בֶּהֱמַת הַשּׁוּתָּפִין חַיֶּיבֶת בִּבְכוֹרָה, וְרַבִּי אִלְעַאי פּוֹטְרָהּ.
§ 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.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי? דִּכְתִיב: ״בְּקָרְךָ וְצֹאנְךָ״, וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״בְּקַרְכֶם וְצֹאנְכֶם״! דְּכוּלְּהוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל.
The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Ilai? As it is written: “And the firstborn of your herd and of your flock [bekarekha vetzonekha]” (Deuteronomy 12:17), using the singular pronoun, indicating that only privately owned animals are consecrated. The Gemara comments: But it is also written: “And the firstborn of your herd and of your flock [bekarkhem vetzonekhem]” (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.
אָמַר רַב חֲנִינָא מִסּוּרָא: לֵיתַנְהוּ לְהָנֵי כְּלָלֵי, דְּתַנְיָא: בֶּהֱמַת הַשּׁוּתָּפִין חַיֶּיבֶת בְּמַתָּנוֹת, וְרַבִּי אִלְעַאי פּוֹטֵר. מַאי טַעְמָא? יָלֵיף ״נְתִינָה״ ״נְתִינָה״ מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז – מָה לְהַלָּן דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא, אַף כָּאן דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא.
Rav Ḥanina 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’s statement? He derives a verbal analogy between giving mentioned in this context and giving from the first sheared wool. The Torah states: “He shall give” (Deuteronomy 18:3), with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, and: “Shall you give him” (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.
וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בִּתְרוּמָה מִיחַיַּיב, נֵילַף ״נְתִינָה״ ״נְתִינָה״ מִתְּרוּמָה! אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בִּתְרוּמָה נָמֵי פּוֹטֵר.
Rabbi Ḥanina of Sura adds: And if it enters your mind to accept Rava’s statement that in the case of teruma Rabbi Ilai deems partners obligated, this is not possible. The reason is that the term “shall you give him” 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.
אִי מָה תְּרוּמָה, בָּאָרֶץ – אִין, בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – לָא, אַף מַתָּנוֹת, בָּאָרֶץ – אִין, בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – לָא! אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מִנְּהַרְבִּיל: אִין, וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אִלְעַאי אוֹמֵר: מַתָּנוֹת אִין נוֹהֲגִין אֶלָּא בָּאָרֶץ, וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי אִלְעַאי אוֹמֵר: רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז אִין נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בָּאָרֶץ.
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.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי? אָמַר רָבָא: יָלֵיף ״נְתִינָה״ ״נְתִינָה״ מִתְּרוּמָה: מָה תְּרוּמָה, בָּאָרֶץ – אִין, בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – לָא, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, בָּאָרֶץ – אִין, בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – לָא.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אִי מָה תְּרוּמָה טוֹבֶלֶת, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז טוֹבֶלֶת? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אָמַר קְרָא ״וְרֵאשִׁית גֵּז צֹאנְךָ תִּתֶּן לוֹ״ – אֵין לְךָ בּוֹ אֶלָּא מֵרֵאשִׁיתוֹ וְאֵילָךְ.
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: “And the first sheared wool of your flock, shall you give him,” 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.
אִי מָה תְּרוּמָה חַיָּיבִים עָלֶיהָ מִיתָה וָחוֹמֶשׁ, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז חַיָּיבִים עָלָיו מִיתָה וָחוֹמֶשׁ?
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.
אָמַר קְרָא: ״וּמֵתוּ בוֹ״, ״וְיָסַף עָלָיו״ – ״עָלָיו״ וְלֹא עַל רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, ״בּוֹ״ וְלֹא בְּרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז.
Rava replies: The verse states with regard to a non-priest who partakes of teruma: “Lest they bear sin for it, and die because of it, if they profane it…and 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” (Leviticus 22:9–14). Rava infers: “He shall add its fifth part to it,” and not to the first sheared wool. “And die because of it,” 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.
אִי מָה תְּרוּמָה רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי אַחֲרֶיהָ, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי אַחֲרֶיהָ! אָמַר קְרָא ״רֵאשִׁית״, אֵין לְךָ בּוֹ אֶלָּא רֵאשִׁית בִּלְבַד.
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 “the first.” Since the verse already stated “first” 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.
אִי מָה תְּרוּמָה, מֵחָדָשׁ עַל הַיָּשָׁן – לָא, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, מֵחָדָשׁ עַל הַיָּשָׁן – לָא? אִין.
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.
וְהָתַנְיָא: הָיוּ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי רְחֵלוֹת, גָּזַז וְהִנִּיחַ, גָּזַז וְהִנִּיחַ, שְׁתַּיִם וְשָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים – אֵין מִצְטָרְפוֹת. הָא חָמֵשׁ – מִצְטָרְפוֹת.
Rava proves his point: And it is likewise taught that this is Rabbi Ilai’s 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.
וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵין מִצְטָרְפוֹת! אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: הָא דְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי, וְהָא דְּרַבָּנַן.
But isn’t 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.
אִי מָה תְּרוּמָה, גָּדֵל בְּחִיּוּב – חַיָּיב, גָּדֵל בִּפְטוּר – פָּטוּר, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז נָמֵי: גָּדֵל בְּחִיּוּב – חַיָּיב, בִּפְטוּר – פָּטוּר!
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.
וְגַבֵּי תְּרוּמָה מְנָלַן? דְּתַנְיָא: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלָּקַח שָׂדֶה בְּסוּרְיָא מִגּוֹי, עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ – חַיָּיב, מִשֶּׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ – רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מְחַיֵּיב בְּתוֹסֶפֶת, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין.
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’s ownership.
וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, וְהָתְנַן: הַלּוֹקֵחַ גֵּז צֹאן גּוֹי – פָּטוּר מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, הָא צֹאנוֹ לִגְזוֹז – חַיָּיב! מַתְנִיתִין
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’t 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’s sheep when they were ready for shearing, he is obligated in the mitzva of the first sheared wool. Rava replied: The mishna
דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי.
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.
אִי מָה תְּרוּמָה, מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ – לֹא, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ – לֹא?
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?
וְגַבֵּי תְּרוּמָה מְנָלַן? דְּתַנְיָא: הָיוּ לוֹ שְׁנֵי מִינֵי תְּאֵנִים, שְׁחוֹרוֹת וּלְבָנוֹת, וְכֵן שְׁנֵי מִינֵי חִטִּין – אֵין תּוֹרְמִים וּמְעַשְּׂרִים מִזֶּה עַל זֶה. רַבִּי יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אִלְעַאי: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים אֵין תּוֹרְמִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים תּוֹרְמִין. אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ – לֹא.
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 Yitzḥak 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.
אִין, וְהָתְנַן: הָיוּ לוֹ שְׁנֵי מִינִים שְׁחוּפוֹת וּלְבָנוֹת, מָכַר לוֹ שְׁחוּפוֹת אֲבָל לֹא לְבָנוֹת – זֶה נוֹתֵן לְעַצְמוֹ וְזֶה נוֹתֵן לְעַצְמוֹ.
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.
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, סֵיפָא דְּקָתָנֵי: זְכָרִים אֲבָל לֹא נְקֵבוֹת – זֶה נוֹתֵן לְעַצְמוֹ וְזֶה נוֹתֵן לְעַצְמוֹ, הָכִי נָמֵי מִשּׁוּם דִּתְרֵי מִינֵי נִינְהוּ?
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.
אֶלָּא, עֵצָה טוֹבָה קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּלִיתֵּיב לֵיהּ מֵהַאי דְּרַכִּיךְ וּמֵהַאי דְּאַשּׁוּן. הָכָא נָמֵי, עֵצָה טוֹבָה קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּלִיתֵּיב לְהוּ מִתַּרְוַיְיהוּ.
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.
הָא אוֹקֵימְנָא לְמַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי.
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.
אִי מָה תְּרוּמָה, בָּעֵינַן רֵאשִׁית שֶׁשְּׁיָרֶיהָ נִיכָּרִין, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז שֶׁשְּׁיָרֶיהָ נִיכָּרִין? אִין.
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.
וְהָתְנַן: הָאוֹמֵר ״כׇּל גׇּרְנִי תְּרוּמָה וְכׇל עִיסָּתִי חַלָּה״ – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם, הָא ״כׇּל גִּזַּיי רֵאשִׁית״ – דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין, וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם.
The Gemara cites a proof for this claim. And we learned in a mishna (Ḥalla 1:9): With regard to one who says: All my granary shall be teruma, or: All my dough shall be ḥalla, 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.
אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, הָא רַבִּי אִלְעַאי, וְהָא רַבָּנַן. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
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.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: הָאִידָּנָא נְהוּג עָלְמָא כְּהָנֵי תְּלָת סָבֵי, כְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי בְּרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אִלְעַאי אוֹמֵר: רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בָּאָרֶץ.
§ Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak 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.
וּכְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָה בְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה מְקַבְּלִין טוּמְאָה.
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.
וּכְרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה בְּכִלְאַיִם, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם אֵין חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיִּזְרַע חִטָּה וּשְׂעוֹרָה וְחַרְצָן בְּמַפּוֹלֶת יָד.
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.
חוֹמֶר בִּזְרוֹעַ [וְכוּ׳]. וְלִיתְנֵי חוֹמֶר בְּרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, שֶׁנּוֹהֵג בִּטְרֵפוֹת, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּמַתָּנוֹת!
§ 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: “He shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw” (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.
אָמַר רָבִינָא: הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר אֶת הַטְּרֵפוֹת מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? יָלֵיף ״נְתִינָה״ ״נְתִינָה״ מִמַּתָּנוֹת – מָה מַתָּנוֹת, טְרֵפָה – לָא, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז נָמֵי, טְרֵפָה – לָא.
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: “Shall you give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4), with regard to the first sheared wool, and it states: “He shall give,” 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.
וְאִי יָלֵיף נְתִינָה נְתִינָה מִמַּתָּנוֹת, לֵילַף נְתִינָה נְתִינָה מִתְּרוּמָה, מָה תְּרוּמָה: בָּאָרֶץ – אִין, בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – לָא, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז נָמֵי: בָּאָרֶץ – אִין, בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – לָא. אַלְּמָה תְּנַן: רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז נוֹהֵג בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ?
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: “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). 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?
אֶלָּא, הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּיָלֵיף ״צֹאן״ ״צֹאן״ מִמַּעֲשֵׂר – מָה מַעֲשֵׂר, טְרֵפָה – לָא, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, טְרֵפָה – לָא.
The Gemara suggests: Rather, this is the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Shimon, as he derives a verbal analogy between the term “flock [tzon]” mentioned with regard to the first sheared wool and the term “flock [tzon]” from the animal tithe. With regard to the first sheared wool, the verse states: “And the first sheared wool of your flock [tzonekha], shall you give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4), and with regard to the animal tithe it states: “And all the tithe of the herd or the flock [tzon], whichever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord” (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.
וְהָתָם מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב ״כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבֹר תַּחַת הַשָּׁבֶט״ – פְּרָט לִטְרֵפָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ עוֹבֶרֶת. וְלֵילַף ״צֹאן״ ״צֹאן״ מִבְּכוֹר – מָה בְּכוֹר אֲפִילּוּ טְרֵפָה, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז אֲפִילּוּ טְרֵפָה!
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: “Whichever passes under the rod,” 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 “flock [tzon]” mentioned in this context and the term “flock [tzon]” from the mitzva to consecrate the male firstborn animal. In that context, the Torah states: “All the firstborn males that are born of your herd and of your flock [tzonekha] you shall sanctify to the Lord your God” (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.
מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִמַּעֲשֵׂר הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף, שֶׁכֵּן זְכָרִים טְמֵאִין.
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.
בִּמְרוּבִּין, מֵרֶחֶם.
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.
אָדָם, פָּשׁוּט, לִפְנֵי הַדִּבּוּר.
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.
אַדְּרַבָּה, מִבְּכוֹר הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף, שֶׁכֵּן: יָתוֹם, שֶׁלָּקְחוּ.
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.
בְּשׁוּתָּפוּת, נָתְנוּ; בִּפְנֵי כֹּהֵן,
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.
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 was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Adina Hagege
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
Madeline Cohen
London, United Kingdom
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Barbara Goldschlag
Silver Spring, MD, 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
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Keren Carter
Brentwood, California, United States
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Rhondda May
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Shira Eliaser
Skokie, IL, United States
Jill Shames
Jerusalem, Israel
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Renee Braha
Brooklyn, NY, United States
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Michelle Lewis
Beit Shemesh, Israel
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Lisa Kolodny
Raanana, 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
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Anne Rubin
Elkins Park, United States
The start of my journey is not so exceptional. I was between jobs and wanted to be sure to get out every day (this was before corona). Well, I was hooked after about a month and from then on only looked for work-from-home jobs so I could continue learning the Daf. Daf has been a constant in my life, though hurricanes, death, illness/injury, weddings. My new friends are Rav, Shmuel, Ruth, Joanna.
Judi Felber
Raanana, Israel
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld
Far Rockaway, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Caroline Levison
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Marian Frankston
Pennsylvania, United States
I learned Talmud as a student in Yeshivat Ramaz and felt at the time that Talmud wasn’t for me. After reading Ilana Kurshan’s book I was intrigued and after watching the great siyum in Yerushalayim it ignited the spark to begin this journey. It has been a transformative life experience for me as a wife, mother, Savta and member of Klal Yisrael.
Elana Storch
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
Dena Lehrman
אפרת, Israel
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Shira Jacobowitz
Jerusalem, Israel
Chullin 136
דֶּרֶךְ בִּיאָתְךָ מִן הַיָּמִין.
The term “your house [beitekha]” is similar to the term: You enter [bi’atkha], 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.
מַעֲשֵׂר, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב ״מַעְשַׂר דְּגָנְךָ״ – דִּילָךְ אִין, דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא. כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״מַעְשְׂרוֹתֵיכֶם״. אֶלָּא ״מַעְשַׂר דְּגָנְךָ״ לְמַאי אֲתָא? לְמַעוֹטֵי שׁוּתָּפוּת דְּגוֹי.
Similarly, with regard to tithe, Rabbi Ilai concedes that joint owners of produce are obligated, even though it is written: “The tithe of your grain [deganekha]” (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: “All your tithes [ma’asroteikhem]” (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: “The tithe of your grain [deganekha],” using the singular pronoun, come? The Gemara answers: It serves to exclude produce owned in partnership with a gentile from the obligation of tithes.
מַתָּנוֹת, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״וְנָתַן״.
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: “And this shall be the priests’ 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” (Deuteronomy 18:3).
אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר, יָלֵיף ״נְתִינָה״ ״נְתִינָה״ מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז – מָה לְהַלָּן דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא, אַף כָּאן דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא. כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״מֵאֵת זוֹבְחֵי הַזֶּבַח״.
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: “He shall give,” with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, and it states: “Shall you give him” (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: “From those who slaughter an animal,” 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.
אֶלָּא טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״מֵאֵת זוֹבְחֵי הַזֶּבַח״, הָא לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה אָמֵינָא לֵילַף מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז? אַדְּרַבָּה נֵילַף מִתְּרוּמָה.
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: “From those who slaughter an animal,” 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 “shall you give him” 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.
אִין הָכִי נָמֵי, מֵאֵת ״זוֹבְחֵי הַזֶּבַח״ לְמָה לִּי? לְכִדְרָבָא, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: הַדִּין עִם הַטַּבָּח.
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 “from those who slaughter an animal”? 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.
בִּכּוּרִים, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב ״אַרְצְךָ״ – דִּידָךְ אִין, דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא.
Similarly, with regard to the first fruits, Rabbi Ilai concedes that the joint owners of produce are obligated, even though it is written: “And you shall take of the first of all the fruit of the ground, which you shall bring in from your land [be’artzekha]” (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.
כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״בִּכּוּרֵי כֹּל אֲשֶׁר (בְּאַרְצְךָ) [בְּאַרְצָם]״, אֶלָּא ״אַרְצְךָ״ לְמָה לִי? לְמַעוֹטֵי חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ.
Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “The first fruits of all that is in their land, which they bring to the Lord, shall be yours” (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 “your land [artzekha],” using the singular pronoun? The Gemara answers: This serves to exclude produce grown outside of Eretz Yisrael from the mitzva of the first fruits.
צִיצִית, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״כְּסוּתְךָ״ – דִּידָךְ אִין, דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא.
Likewise, with regard to the mitzva to attach ritual fringes to one’s garment, Rabbi Ilai concedes that a jointly owned garment is obligated, even though the Merciful One writes: “You shall make yourself twisted cords upon the four corners of your covering [kesutekha]” (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.
כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״עַל כַּנְפֵי בִגְדֵיהֶם לְדֹרֹתָם״, וְאֶלָּא ״כְּסוּתְךָ״ לְמָה לִי? לְכִדְרַב יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: טַלִּית שְׁאוּלָה פְּטוּרָה מִן הַצִּיצִית כׇּל שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם.
Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “And 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” (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 “your covering [kesutekha],” 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.
מַעֲקֶה, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״לְגַגֶּךָ״ – דִּידָךְ אִין, דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא.
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: “When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof [legaggekha],” using the singular pronoun, “and you shall not bring blood upon your house, if any man falls from there” (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.
כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״כִּי יִפֹּל הַנֹּפֵל מִמֶּנּוּ״, אֶלָּא ״גַּגֶּךָ״ לְמַאי אֲתָא? לְמַעוֹטֵי בָּתֵּי כְנֵסִיּוֹת וּבָתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת.
Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “If any man falls from there,” 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 “your roof [gaggekha],” using the singular pronoun, come? The Gemara answers: It serves to exclude synagogues and houses of study.
אָמַר רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי: לֵיתַנְהוּ לְהָנֵי כְּלָלֵי, דְּתַנְיָא: בֶּהֱמַת הַשּׁוּתָּפִין חַיֶּיבֶת בִּבְכוֹרָה, וְרַבִּי אִלְעַאי פּוֹטְרָהּ.
§ 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.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי? דִּכְתִיב: ״בְּקָרְךָ וְצֹאנְךָ״, וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״בְּקַרְכֶם וְצֹאנְכֶם״! דְּכוּלְּהוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל.
The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Ilai? As it is written: “And the firstborn of your herd and of your flock [bekarekha vetzonekha]” (Deuteronomy 12:17), using the singular pronoun, indicating that only privately owned animals are consecrated. The Gemara comments: But it is also written: “And the firstborn of your herd and of your flock [bekarkhem vetzonekhem]” (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.
אָמַר רַב חֲנִינָא מִסּוּרָא: לֵיתַנְהוּ לְהָנֵי כְּלָלֵי, דְּתַנְיָא: בֶּהֱמַת הַשּׁוּתָּפִין חַיֶּיבֶת בְּמַתָּנוֹת, וְרַבִּי אִלְעַאי פּוֹטֵר. מַאי טַעְמָא? יָלֵיף ״נְתִינָה״ ״נְתִינָה״ מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז – מָה לְהַלָּן דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא, אַף כָּאן דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא.
Rav Ḥanina 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’s statement? He derives a verbal analogy between giving mentioned in this context and giving from the first sheared wool. The Torah states: “He shall give” (Deuteronomy 18:3), with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, and: “Shall you give him” (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.
וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בִּתְרוּמָה מִיחַיַּיב, נֵילַף ״נְתִינָה״ ״נְתִינָה״ מִתְּרוּמָה! אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בִּתְרוּמָה נָמֵי פּוֹטֵר.
Rabbi Ḥanina of Sura adds: And if it enters your mind to accept Rava’s statement that in the case of teruma Rabbi Ilai deems partners obligated, this is not possible. The reason is that the term “shall you give him” 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.
אִי מָה תְּרוּמָה, בָּאָרֶץ – אִין, בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – לָא, אַף מַתָּנוֹת, בָּאָרֶץ – אִין, בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – לָא! אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מִנְּהַרְבִּיל: אִין, וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אִלְעַאי אוֹמֵר: מַתָּנוֹת אִין נוֹהֲגִין אֶלָּא בָּאָרֶץ, וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי אִלְעַאי אוֹמֵר: רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז אִין נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בָּאָרֶץ.
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.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי? אָמַר רָבָא: יָלֵיף ״נְתִינָה״ ״נְתִינָה״ מִתְּרוּמָה: מָה תְּרוּמָה, בָּאָרֶץ – אִין, בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – לָא, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, בָּאָרֶץ – אִין, בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – לָא.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אִי מָה תְּרוּמָה טוֹבֶלֶת, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז טוֹבֶלֶת? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אָמַר קְרָא ״וְרֵאשִׁית גֵּז צֹאנְךָ תִּתֶּן לוֹ״ – אֵין לְךָ בּוֹ אֶלָּא מֵרֵאשִׁיתוֹ וְאֵילָךְ.
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: “And the first sheared wool of your flock, shall you give him,” 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.
אִי מָה תְּרוּמָה חַיָּיבִים עָלֶיהָ מִיתָה וָחוֹמֶשׁ, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז חַיָּיבִים עָלָיו מִיתָה וָחוֹמֶשׁ?
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.
אָמַר קְרָא: ״וּמֵתוּ בוֹ״, ״וְיָסַף עָלָיו״ – ״עָלָיו״ וְלֹא עַל רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, ״בּוֹ״ וְלֹא בְּרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז.
Rava replies: The verse states with regard to a non-priest who partakes of teruma: “Lest they bear sin for it, and die because of it, if they profane it…and 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” (Leviticus 22:9–14). Rava infers: “He shall add its fifth part to it,” and not to the first sheared wool. “And die because of it,” 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.
אִי מָה תְּרוּמָה רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי אַחֲרֶיהָ, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי אַחֲרֶיהָ! אָמַר קְרָא ״רֵאשִׁית״, אֵין לְךָ בּוֹ אֶלָּא רֵאשִׁית בִּלְבַד.
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 “the first.” Since the verse already stated “first” 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.
אִי מָה תְּרוּמָה, מֵחָדָשׁ עַל הַיָּשָׁן – לָא, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, מֵחָדָשׁ עַל הַיָּשָׁן – לָא? אִין.
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.
וְהָתַנְיָא: הָיוּ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי רְחֵלוֹת, גָּזַז וְהִנִּיחַ, גָּזַז וְהִנִּיחַ, שְׁתַּיִם וְשָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים – אֵין מִצְטָרְפוֹת. הָא חָמֵשׁ – מִצְטָרְפוֹת.
Rava proves his point: And it is likewise taught that this is Rabbi Ilai’s 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.
וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵין מִצְטָרְפוֹת! אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: הָא דְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי, וְהָא דְּרַבָּנַן.
But isn’t 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.
אִי מָה תְּרוּמָה, גָּדֵל בְּחִיּוּב – חַיָּיב, גָּדֵל בִּפְטוּר – פָּטוּר, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז נָמֵי: גָּדֵל בְּחִיּוּב – חַיָּיב, בִּפְטוּר – פָּטוּר!
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.
וְגַבֵּי תְּרוּמָה מְנָלַן? דְּתַנְיָא: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלָּקַח שָׂדֶה בְּסוּרְיָא מִגּוֹי, עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ – חַיָּיב, מִשֶּׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ – רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מְחַיֵּיב בְּתוֹסֶפֶת, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין.
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’s ownership.
וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, וְהָתְנַן: הַלּוֹקֵחַ גֵּז צֹאן גּוֹי – פָּטוּר מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, הָא צֹאנוֹ לִגְזוֹז – חַיָּיב! מַתְנִיתִין
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’t 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’s sheep when they were ready for shearing, he is obligated in the mitzva of the first sheared wool. Rava replied: The mishna
דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי.
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.
אִי מָה תְּרוּמָה, מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ – לֹא, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ – לֹא?
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?
וְגַבֵּי תְּרוּמָה מְנָלַן? דְּתַנְיָא: הָיוּ לוֹ שְׁנֵי מִינֵי תְּאֵנִים, שְׁחוֹרוֹת וּלְבָנוֹת, וְכֵן שְׁנֵי מִינֵי חִטִּין – אֵין תּוֹרְמִים וּמְעַשְּׂרִים מִזֶּה עַל זֶה. רַבִּי יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אִלְעַאי: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים אֵין תּוֹרְמִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים תּוֹרְמִין. אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ – לֹא.
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 Yitzḥak 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.
אִין, וְהָתְנַן: הָיוּ לוֹ שְׁנֵי מִינִים שְׁחוּפוֹת וּלְבָנוֹת, מָכַר לוֹ שְׁחוּפוֹת אֲבָל לֹא לְבָנוֹת – זֶה נוֹתֵן לְעַצְמוֹ וְזֶה נוֹתֵן לְעַצְמוֹ.
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.
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, סֵיפָא דְּקָתָנֵי: זְכָרִים אֲבָל לֹא נְקֵבוֹת – זֶה נוֹתֵן לְעַצְמוֹ וְזֶה נוֹתֵן לְעַצְמוֹ, הָכִי נָמֵי מִשּׁוּם דִּתְרֵי מִינֵי נִינְהוּ?
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.
אֶלָּא, עֵצָה טוֹבָה קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּלִיתֵּיב לֵיהּ מֵהַאי דְּרַכִּיךְ וּמֵהַאי דְּאַשּׁוּן. הָכָא נָמֵי, עֵצָה טוֹבָה קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּלִיתֵּיב לְהוּ מִתַּרְוַיְיהוּ.
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.
הָא אוֹקֵימְנָא לְמַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי.
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.
אִי מָה תְּרוּמָה, בָּעֵינַן רֵאשִׁית שֶׁשְּׁיָרֶיהָ נִיכָּרִין, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז שֶׁשְּׁיָרֶיהָ נִיכָּרִין? אִין.
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.
וְהָתְנַן: הָאוֹמֵר ״כׇּל גׇּרְנִי תְּרוּמָה וְכׇל עִיסָּתִי חַלָּה״ – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם, הָא ״כׇּל גִּזַּיי רֵאשִׁית״ – דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין, וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם.
The Gemara cites a proof for this claim. And we learned in a mishna (Ḥalla 1:9): With regard to one who says: All my granary shall be teruma, or: All my dough shall be ḥalla, 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.
אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, הָא רַבִּי אִלְעַאי, וְהָא רַבָּנַן. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
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.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: הָאִידָּנָא נְהוּג עָלְמָא כְּהָנֵי תְּלָת סָבֵי, כְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי בְּרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אִלְעַאי אוֹמֵר: רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בָּאָרֶץ.
§ Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak 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.
וּכְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָה בְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה מְקַבְּלִין טוּמְאָה.
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.
וּכְרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה בְּכִלְאַיִם, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם אֵין חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיִּזְרַע חִטָּה וּשְׂעוֹרָה וְחַרְצָן בְּמַפּוֹלֶת יָד.
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.
חוֹמֶר בִּזְרוֹעַ [וְכוּ׳]. וְלִיתְנֵי חוֹמֶר בְּרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, שֶׁנּוֹהֵג בִּטְרֵפוֹת, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּמַתָּנוֹת!
§ 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: “He shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw” (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.
אָמַר רָבִינָא: הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר אֶת הַטְּרֵפוֹת מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? יָלֵיף ״נְתִינָה״ ״נְתִינָה״ מִמַּתָּנוֹת – מָה מַתָּנוֹת, טְרֵפָה – לָא, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז נָמֵי, טְרֵפָה – לָא.
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: “Shall you give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4), with regard to the first sheared wool, and it states: “He shall give,” 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.
וְאִי יָלֵיף נְתִינָה נְתִינָה מִמַּתָּנוֹת, לֵילַף נְתִינָה נְתִינָה מִתְּרוּמָה, מָה תְּרוּמָה: בָּאָרֶץ – אִין, בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – לָא, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז נָמֵי: בָּאָרֶץ – אִין, בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – לָא. אַלְּמָה תְּנַן: רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז נוֹהֵג בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ?
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: “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). 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?
אֶלָּא, הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּיָלֵיף ״צֹאן״ ״צֹאן״ מִמַּעֲשֵׂר – מָה מַעֲשֵׂר, טְרֵפָה – לָא, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, טְרֵפָה – לָא.
The Gemara suggests: Rather, this is the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Shimon, as he derives a verbal analogy between the term “flock [tzon]” mentioned with regard to the first sheared wool and the term “flock [tzon]” from the animal tithe. With regard to the first sheared wool, the verse states: “And the first sheared wool of your flock [tzonekha], shall you give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4), and with regard to the animal tithe it states: “And all the tithe of the herd or the flock [tzon], whichever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord” (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.
וְהָתָם מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב ״כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבֹר תַּחַת הַשָּׁבֶט״ – פְּרָט לִטְרֵפָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ עוֹבֶרֶת. וְלֵילַף ״צֹאן״ ״צֹאן״ מִבְּכוֹר – מָה בְּכוֹר אֲפִילּוּ טְרֵפָה, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז אֲפִילּוּ טְרֵפָה!
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: “Whichever passes under the rod,” 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 “flock [tzon]” mentioned in this context and the term “flock [tzon]” from the mitzva to consecrate the male firstborn animal. In that context, the Torah states: “All the firstborn males that are born of your herd and of your flock [tzonekha] you shall sanctify to the Lord your God” (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.
מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִמַּעֲשֵׂר הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף, שֶׁכֵּן זְכָרִים טְמֵאִין.
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.
בִּמְרוּבִּין, מֵרֶחֶם.
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.
אָדָם, פָּשׁוּט, לִפְנֵי הַדִּבּוּר.
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.
אַדְּרַבָּה, מִבְּכוֹר הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף, שֶׁכֵּן: יָתוֹם, שֶׁלָּקְחוּ.
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.
בְּשׁוּתָּפוּת, נָתְנוּ; בִּפְנֵי כֹּהֵן,
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.
Follow
