Talmud Bavli Hullin 135a-b - translation by Tzvee

Bavli Hullin Chapter Eleven

                                                                        11:1

A.            [The laws concerning the obligation to donate to the priest] the first shearings [of wool from the sheep of one's flock (Deut. 18:4)] apply both inside the Land of Israel and outside the Land of Israel,

B.            in the time the Temple [in Jerusalem stands] and in the time the Temple does not [stand].

C.            [And the laws apply] to [the fleece of] unconsecrated [animals] but not to [the fleece of animals that were] consecrated [to the Temple].

D.            A stricter rule applies to [the obligation to give to the priest] the shoulder, the two cheeks and the maw [of one's animals] than to [the obligation to give to the priest] the first shearings [of wool from the sheep of one's flock].

E.            For [the obligation to give to the priest] the shoulder, the two cheeks and the maw [of one's animals] applies both to the [large] animals of one's herd and to the [small] animals of one's flock.

F.            And [the law applies] to [a case where one slaughtered] a large number [of animals] or a small number [of animals — even one animal].

G.            But the [law regarding the] first shearings [of wool from the sheep of one's flock] applies only to sheep,

H.            and only in [a case where one slaughtered] a large number [of animals].

I.             And how many constitute “a large number?”

J.             The House of Shammai say, “[At least] two sheep.” As it says in scripture, “A man shall rear a young cow and two sheep” (Isa. 7:21). [The term for flock is used in the verse referring to two animals.]

K.            And the House of Hillel say, “[A large number means at least] five.” As it says in scripture, “Five sheep prepared” (I Sam. 25:18). [“Prepared” implies that they had been subject to the gift of the first shearings.]

L.            R. Dosa b. Hyrcanus says, “Five sheep from which one produces [the value of] a maneh and a half each of wool — these [shearings] are subject to [the rules of] the first shearings.”

M.           And sages say, “Five sheep from which one shears any amount [these shearings are subject to the rules of the first shearings].”

N.            And how much must one give to him [i.e., to the priest from the first shearings of the flock]?

O.            [An amount equivalent to] the value of five sela in Judea.

P.            And this is equivalent to [the value of] ten sela in the Galilee.

Q.            [And he must give] white [bleached] wool and not soiled [unbleached] wool [i.e., the higher quality of wool].

R.            [And he must give] enough to make a small garment [from the wool].

S.             As it says in scripture, “You shall give to him (Deut. 18:4).” [This implies that you must give him enough] so that [legitimately] it can be considered a gift.

T.            If he did not have a chance to give to [the priest a share from the first shearings] before they dyed [the wool], he is free of his obligation [to give the shearings to the priest after dying it].

U.            If they bleached [the wool before giving a share to the priest] but as yet did not dye it, he is liable [to give a share of the wool to the priest].

V.            One who buys shearings of wool from a gentile is exempt from the obligation to give from it a gift of the first shearings [to the priest].

W.           One who buys shearings of wool from his fellow [is subject to the following rules]:

X.            If [the buyer did not buy the entire lot of the wool but] left over [some of the wool of the lot in the possession of the seller], the seller is liable [to give from that a gift of wool to the priest].

Y.            [But if the buyer] did not leave over [any wool in the possession of the seller, but purchased the entire lot], the buyer is liable [to give the priest a gift from the wool].

Z.            If [the seller] had two kinds [of wool], gray and white [the rule is as follows]: If he sold him the gray wool, but not the white wool,

AA.         [or if he had separate lots of wool from males and from females and] he sold him [the wool from] the males, but not from the females,

BB.         this one [the buyer] gives of his own [a gift of wool to the priest] and this one [the seller] gives of his own.

I.1

A.            [The law of the first shearings does not apply to animals that were] consecrated to the Temple [M. 11:1 C].

B.            What is the basis in scripture for this exclusion?

C.            Scripture says, “Of your flock” (Deut. 18:4).

D.            [This implies] not those sheep that belong to the Temple.

E.            [The Talmud pursues the implications of this line of reasoning.] Is the reason that scripture used the language “Of your sheep” because otherwise, if it had not [used the language], I would have reasoned that consecrated animals are obligated in the rule [that one must give] the first shearings [to the priest]?

F.             [No. This could not have been our conclusion because] lo [such animals] may not be shorn [at all].

G.            As it is written, “And you shall not shear the first born of your sheep” (Deut. 15:19). [This implies that all consecrated animals must not be shorn.]

H.            If one were referring [in F] to animals consecrated for offering upon the altar — it would be correct [to deduce from the verse that all such animals may not be shorn while in the possession of the Temple before they are offered as sacrifices on the altar.]

I.             [But] here [in our discussion] we are dealing with [a case of] animals that were consecrated to the Temple treasury [and unlike animals consecrated for sacrifice on the altar, these may be shorn].

J.             But said R. Eliezer, “[Do we not have a teaching to the contrary?] For lo, animals consecrated to the Temple treasury are prohibited to be shorn, or to be used for work. [And if one does shear them, he may not give the priest the first shearings.][b. Bekh. 14a.]

K.            [However this law that prohibits shearing such an animal is only] on the authority of the rabbis.

L.            You might have concluded then that since on the authority of the Torah [animals belonging to the Temple treasury] may be shorn, in a case where one does shear them [against the rule of the rabbis] he must give [the first shearings to the priest. The verse therefore uses the words, “Of your flock” to exclude from the obligation sheep that belong to the Temple treasury.]

M.           But is not [the entire animal] already consecrated? [What will be changed by giving the first shearings to the priest?]

N.            You might have concluded that he should first redeem [the animal] and then give [the first shearings back to the priest].

O.            But does not [the animal] need to be examined and appraised [to establish its market value before it can be redeemed? And if he already sheared the animal, the appraisal will not take into account the value of the shearings and they will not be redeemed. So this suggestion makes no sense.]

P.             This would settle the matter according to the authority who holds the view that consecrated animals belonging to the Temple treasury were not subject to the rule that they be examined and appraised [before they are redeemed].

Q.            But according to the authority who holds the view that they were [subject to that rule] what can we say? [The objection at O stands.]

R.            Said R. Mani bar Patish in the name of R. Yannai, “This case [at issue] is one in which he consecrated his animal to the Temple treasury excluding [from his gift to the Temple] the shearings [from the animal].”

S.             You might have concluded that he then may go ahead and shear it and give [to the priest from the first shearings].

T.            [Accordingly] scripture says, “Of your flock” and not of the flock belonging to the Temple treasury.

U.            If so [why not include in this discussion] as well [a case where one excluded the shearings from his gift to the Temple of] animals consecrated for sacrifice on the altar?

V.            [No. Such a case is not possible to construct because the process of shearing the wool would] weaken [the animal. Hence even if one says he consecrated an animal for the altar except for its wool, he may not then go and shear it.]

W.           [Let us then say the same regarding an animal] consecrated to the Temple treasury. [One is not permitted to shear it because that would] weaken [the animal.]

X.            [We are speaking here of a case in which] he said [he consecrates his entire animal to the Temple treasury] except for the shearings and [except for] the loss of value due to any weakness after the shearing.

Y.            [If a person can make such a stipulation, why not say he can do so] regarding an animal consecrated [as a sacrifice] for the altar? [Why not say that he might have consecrated it to be a sacrifice on the altar] except for the shearings and the loss due to weakness after the shearing?

Z.            [The answer is in general one cannot make such a stipulation. Even if he did say that he consecrated an animal for use as a sacrifice on the altar, except for the wool, the sanctity would] spread to the entire animal [including the wool, because the animal becomes a Holy Thing. But one who consecrated his animal to the Temple treasury transfers the ownership to the Temple, but does not make it into a Holy Thing. And in such a case one can distinguish between the animal itself and the shearings.]

AA.         And what is the basis for saying this? For said R. Yosé, “Lo, [the rule is] with regard to animals consecrated to the altar — one who says, `May this one's foot be consecrated as a burnt-offering — [in that case] the whole animal takes on the sanctity of a burnt-offering.'” [b. ul. 69b, M. Tem. 1:3.]

BB.         And even according to the view of R. Meir who said, “[In such a case] the whole animal does not take on the sanctity of a burnt-offering,” this rule applies only in a case where he consecrated a part [of the animal] not vital to its life [such as a foot. If it is cut off, the animal will continue to live.] But if he consecrated any parts of the animal vital to its life, [as when one consecrates the entire animal except the fleece, with that action] he consecrated [thereby the entire animal, including the fleece.]

I.2

A.            Raba said, “[The Mishnah's rule, that the law of the first shearings does not apply to animals that were consecrated to the Temple [M. 11:1 C], applies to a case where] he consecrated the shearings themselves [to the Temple treasury].”

B.            You might have concluded that [the law of first shearings applies here and] he must shear the animal, redeem the fleece [by buying it back from the Temple], and then give [from that fleece a gift to the priest].

C.            [Accordingly] scripture says, “Of the first shearings of your flock you shall give to him” (Deut. 18:4). [The verse implies you must give to the priest from] that [wool] that needs only [undergo two processes before one can fulfill with it the obligation to give the gift to the priest,] shearing and transferring [to the priest]. [The verse by that] excludes [a case that] needs [three processes:] shearing, redemption and transferring.

I.3

A.            [If we do not use the words “Of your flock” to exclude a consecrated animal from the obligation to give the first shearings to the priest,] what then does “Of your flock” come [to teach us]?

B.            [It come to teach us the following] as it was taught on Tannaite authority: An animal that belonged to partners is liable [to the rule of the] first shearings.

C.            R. Ilai exempts [such an animal from the obligation][T. 10:4 B, D].

D.            What is the basis in scripture for R. Ilai's view? Scripture says, “Of your flock,” [implying that the flock must be yours only and] not [a flock] that is owned by partners.

E.            And the rabbis [derive from this verse a different rule, namely] the exclusion [from the obligation of the first shearings, fleece that comes from a flock owned] in partnership [by a Jew with] a gentile.

F.             And on what basis does R. Ilai derive [the exclusion from the obligation for a flock owned] in partnership [by a Jew with] a gentile?

G.            He derives it from the beginning of the verse, “The first fruits of your grain, [your wine and your oil, and from the first shearings of your flock you shall give to him]” (Deut. 18:4). [The obligation falls upon what belongs entirely to you,] and not what you own in partnership with a gentile. [This exclusion also applies to the obligation to give to the priest a gift of the first shearings, specified in the latter part of the verse.]

H.            And [why do] the rabbis [not accept this interpretation of the verse]?

I.             [They say that the second use in the verse of the word] “first” separates the matters [of the first and second parts of the verse, so that one cannot derive from the first part of the verse, which deals with other gifts to the priests, anything concerning the law of the first shearings in the second part of the verse].

J.             And [how does] R. Ilai [respond to this interpretation]? [He says that] “and” [in the verse] joins the two matters together [so that one may derive from one part of the verse information pertinent to the second part of the verse.]

K.            [135b] And [how do] the rabbis respond to this interpretation? [They say] the Torah could have omitted both “and” and “first” [from the verse. Since it did not it must teach us that the matter of the second part of the verse must be considered apart from the first.]

L.            And [how does] R. Ilai [respond to this interpretation]? [He says] since [the two matters concern different rules,] one relates to [the first fruits that is a case involving] the consecration of money and the other relates to [the first shearings that is a case involving] the consecration of the objects themselves, scripture first separated the matters [by repeating the word “first”] and then joined them back together [by adding “and”].

I.4

A.            And if you prefer [the following is] an alternative explanation [of why one cannot derive any inference regarding the rule of first shearings in the second half of the verse, from the first part of the verse, understood by the Talmud to refer to the obligation to give heave-offering to the priest from one's produce.]

B.            [Produce held in] partnership with a gentile the rabbis hold is liable to have heave-offering separated from it. [Accordingly, we could not derive from the first part of the verse that such produce held jointly with a gentile is free from liability to other gifts to the priest, such as the rule of first shearings.]

C.            As it was taught on Tannaite authority: “[Concerning] an Israelite and a gentile who purchased a field as partners, [what grows in that field is deemed to be] a mixture of tebel and unconsecrated produce,” the words of Rabbi. [This kind of mixture presents a serious problem because according to the accepted rules, when he separates heave-offering and tithes, this produce must be dealt with separately from the rest of his crops.]

D.            Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, “What belongs to the Israelite is liable [to the obligation of heave-offering] and what belongs to the gentile is not liable.” [Accordingly, one may separate heave-offerings and tithes from the portion belonging to the Israelite] [T. Terumot 2:10].

E.            On this point the parties disagree only on the basis of the principle of law. One master reasons in accord with [the principle that the final division of the crop between the partners] clarifies retroactively [which produce from the time it began growing belonged to the Jew and which to the gentile. This is the view of Simeon b. Gamaliel (b. Erub. 36b).]

F.             And the other master reasons in accord with [the principle that the final division of the crop between the partners] cannot be clarified retroactively [and we do not know which produce from the time it began growing belonged to the Jew and which to the gentile. This is the view of Rabbi.]

G.            But both parties agree that [produce grown in a field of a Jew who is in] partnership with a gentile is liable [to heave-offerings and tithes].

I.5

A.            And if you prefer [the following is an] alternate explanation [of why one cannot derive any inference regarding the rule of first shearings in the second half of the verse, from the first part of the verse, understood by the Talmud to refer to the obligation to give heave-offering to the priest from one's produce.]

B.            Both [exemptions, i.e., for sheep held by Jewish partners and for sheep held by a Jew in partnership with a gentile] may be derived according to R. Ilai [cf. I.3 above] from the language, “Of your flock.” [We need not say that you derive any rule regarding the sheep from the first part of the verse.]

C.            Why are [sheep held by a Jew] in partnership with a gentile [not subject to the rule of first shearings]?

D.            Because they are not designated as his own. [Each partner owns a share in each animal. Neither owns a unit of his own.]

E.            [Why are sheep held by a Jew in partnership] with a Jew [not subject to the rule of first shearings]?

F.             Also because they are not designated as his own. [Each partner owns a share in each animal. Neither owns a unit of his own.]

G.            And our rabbis [say there is a difference between the partnership of a Jew with a Jew and of a Jew with a gentile]. A gentile is not subject to the obligation [to give of the first shearings to the priest]. A Jew is subject to the obligation. [As long as the animal is owned by Jews, it is subject to the obligation of first shearings.]

I.6

A.            Said Raba, “R. Ilai agrees with regard to heave-offering [that produce held by a Jew in partnership with another Jew is liable to that rule]. Though it says [in the verse], `Your grain' [implying] what is yours alone [is subject to the law and grain held by] partners is not [included in the rule]—

B.            “The Torah also states, `Your heave-offerings' [using the plural form of the noun, implying even what belongs to more than one person is subject to the law, cf. Num. 18:27, Ezek. 20:40 and 44:30.]”

C.            Why then [does scripture use the language], “Your grain?”

D.            It excludes [from the rule of heave-offering grain held] in partnership with a gentile.

I.7

A.            [In the rules for] dough-offering, scripture states, “The first [part of your dough you shall take as a gift]” (Num. 15:20).

B.            And you might say that we should derive an inference [from the common use of the words] “first” [with regard to dough offering and] “first” with regard to the first shearings [as follows:]

C.            Just as there [in the rules regarding the first shearings, the law is that produce] belonging to partners is not [liable], here too [with regard to the rules of dough-offering, produce] belonging to partners is not [liable].

D.            [But to rule out this inference] the Torah stated, “Your dough-offerings” [using the plural form of the noun and implying that dough made from flour belonging to partners is liable to the rules of dough-offering].

E.            But is the reason that scripture stated “Your dough-offerings” [to teach us that dough of partners is liable to the rules] but without this [specific inclusion by the verse] might we have reasoned that we derive the rules [that dough owned by partners is excluded from the obligation of dough-offering from a comparison with the rules for the first shearings] by virtue of the common usage of “first” [in the laws dough-offering and] “first” in connection with the first shearings?

F.             On the contrary. We should derive from [the common language in two other verses, from the use of the word “first” in the verse regarding dough-offering and the use of the same word in the verse regarding] heave-offering [and on that basis conclude that dough owned by partners is liable to the laws of dough-offering.]

G.            That is a proper conclusion.

H.            Why then do we need [in the verse concerning the dough-offering the language], “Your dough?”

I.             [It teaches us that the minimum amount of dough liable to dough-offering must be] equal to “Your dough” [i.e., the amount eaten in the wilderness by the children of Israel, the subject of the verse in its context in scripture].

I.8

A.            [And in the case of the produce one must leave over in] the corners [of his field] though scripture states, “Your field” [Lev. 19:9, implying what is] yours alone is [liable to these rules] and not [a field] held by partners,

B.            the Torah stated [additionally], “And when you [plural form] reap the harvest of your [plural form] land” [including by that land owned by partners].

C.            Why then do we have [the language], “Your field?”

D.            It excludes [from liability to the law of the corners of a field land held by a Jew] in partnership with a gentile.

I.9

A.            [And in the case of the obligation to give to the priest] the first born [of your animals] though scripture states, “Every firstling which is born in your herd or your flock” (Deut. 12:6), [implying what is] yours alone is [liable to these rules] and not [a firstling] held by partners,

B.            the Torah stated [additionally], “And the firstling of your [plural] herds and of your [plural] flocks” [including by that animals owned by partners].

C.            Why then do we have [the language], “In your herd or your flock?”

D.            It excludes [from liability to the law of the first born animals held by a Jew] in partnership with a gentile.

I.10

A.            [And in the case of the obligation to affix to one's door posts a] mezuzah though scripture states, “Of your houses” (Deut. 6:9), [implying what is] yours alone is [liable to these rules] and not [a house] held by partners,

B.            the Torah stated [additionally], “So that you [plural] may lengthen your [plural] days, and the days of your [plural] children” (Deut. 9:21), [including in the rule houses owned by more than one party].

C.            Why then do we have [the language], “Of your houses?”

D.            It comes [to support] the rule of Rabbah. For Rabbah said, “[The word for your house, bytk, is similar to the word for your entries, by'tk. From this we deduce that you must affix the mezuzah on the right side of the doorpost as you enter. Because we know that] [136A] the way people enter is on the right side.”