11/9/11

Talmud Bavli Hullin 136a-b - translation by Tzvee


I.11
A.            [And in the case of the obligation to separate from one's crops] tithes though scripture states, “Tithes of your grain” (Deut. 14:23), [implying what is] yours alone is [liable to these rules] and not [grain] held by partners,

B.            the Torah stated [additionally], “Of your [plural] tithes” (Deut. 12:6), [including in the rule grain owned by partners.]

C.            Why then do we have [the language], “Tithes of your grain?”

D.            It comes to exclude [from liability to tithes produce] held in partnership with a gentile.

I.12
A.            [And in the case of the obligation to give to the priests their] gifts [the shoulder, two cheeks and maw from an animal that one slaughters] the Torah stated, “And he shall give” (Deut. 18:3). [And we may therefore derive that an animal held by partners is not liable to the gifts because] we may say that we can learn [an inference by virtue of the common usage of the language concerning] “giving” [“And he shall give” in the case of the priestly gifts and] “giving” [“Of the first shearings of your flock you shall give to him” (Deut. 18:4)] in the case of first shearings [as spelled out in what follows].

B.            Just as there [animals held] in partnership are not [liable to the obligation to the gift of the first shearings], here too [animals held] in partnership are not [liable to the obligation of the gifts to the priest of the shoulder, two cheeks and maw].

C.            The Torah stated [additionally], “From they [plural] who slaughter (Deut. 18:3)” [implying that even an animal held by partners is liable to the laws of the gifts to the priest].

D.            But is this the reason the Torah stated, “From they who slaughter?”

E.            But lo, if not for this [language in the verse] would I have reasoned that one must derive [the law for the three gifts from a comparison to the laws for] the first shearings?

F.             On the contrary. I [just as easily] would have concluded that we learn [the law for the three gifts from a comparison to the laws for] heave-offering. [And in that case, as we saw above at I.6, A-B, items held in partnership are liable to the obligation.]

G.            That is a proper conclusion.

H.            Why then do we need [the language in the verse], “From they who slaughter?”

I.             To support the rule of Raba.

J.             For said Raba, “The claim [of the priests for gifts] must be brought against the butcher [who slaughters the animal though the animal belongs to someone else. See above b. 132a, II.3 E.]”

I.13
A.            [And in the case of] first fruits even though scripture states “Of your land” (Deut. 26:2), [implying what is] yours alone is [liable to these rules] and not [produce] held by partners,

B.            the Torah stated [additionally], “The first fruits of all that is in their land” (Num. 18:13), [implying that even fruit held by partners is liable to the laws of the first fruits].

C.            Why then do we need [the language of the verse], “Of your land?”

D.            To exclude [from liability to the rule of first fruits of produce grown] outside the Land of Israel.

I.14
A.            [And in the case of the obligation to tie] fringes [to the corners of one's garment] though the Torah stated, “On your cloak” (Deut. 22:12), [implying what is] yours alone is [liable to the rule] and not [a garment] held by partners,

B.            the Torah stated [additionally], “On the fringes of their [plural] garments for their generations” (Num. 15:38), [implying that even a garment held by partners is liable to the law of fringes].

C.            Why then do we need [the language of the verse], “On your cloak?”

D.            To support the rule of R. Judah.

E.            For said R. Judah, “A borrowed cloak is exempt from the obligation of fringes for the first thirty days [after one borrows it, cf. b. Hul. 110b, III.3 G].”

I.15
A.            [And in the case of the obligation to erect] a parapet [around one's roof] though the Torah stated, “For your roof” (Deut. 22:8), [implying what is] yours alone is [liable to the rule] and not [a house] held by partners,

B.            the Torah stated [additionally], “If any person shall fall from it” [ibid., implying that any house from which one might fall is liable to the law, even one owned by partners].
C.            Why then do we need [the language of the verse], “For your roof?”

D.            That comes to exclude [from the obligation of a parapet public buildings such as] synagogues and study halls.

I.16
A.            Said R. Bibi bar Abayye, “We do not accept these principles [of law enunciated by Raba, that Ilai admits in the cases enumerated in I.6 that items held by a Jew in partnership with another Jew is liable to those various rules].”

B.            For it was taught on Tannaite authority [to the contrary]: An animal belonging to partners is liable to the rules of the first born. And R. Ilai exempts it [from those rules].

C.            What is the basis in scripture for R. Ilai's view? Scripture states, “Of your [singular] herd and of your [singular] flock” (Deut. 15:19). [This implies that an animal held by partners is exempt.]

D.            But lo, scripture states, “Of your [plural] herd and of your [plural] flock” (Deut. 12:6). [This implies that an animal held by partners is liable.]

E.            [No, that shows the animal must belong to] any person in Israel [to the exclusion of an animal owned by a gentile].

I.17
A.            Said R. Hanina from Sura, “We do not accept these principles [of law enunciated by Raba, that Ilai admits in the cases enumerated that items held by a Jew in partnership with another Jew are liable to those various rules].”

B.            For it was taught on Tannaite authority: An animal belonging to partners is liable to the rules of the gifts [to the priest from the shoulder, two cheeks and maw]. And R. Ilai exempts it [from those rules].

C.            What is the basis [for Ilai's view]? [We may derive that an animal held by partners is not liable to the gifts because] we may say that we can learn [an inference by virtue of the common usage of the language concerning] “giving” [“And he shall give” in the case of the priestly gifts and] “giving” [“Of the first shearings of your flock you shall give to him” (Deut. 18:4)] in the case of first shearings.

D.            Just as there [animals held] in partnership are not [liable to the obligation to the gift of the first shearings], here too [animals held] in partnership are not [liable to the obligation of the gifts to the priest of the shoulder, two cheeks and maw].

E.            [If indeed Ilai exempts an item from the obligation for priestly dues in that case] and if you want to argue that he declares [items held by partners nevertheless] liable in regard to heave-offering, let us then learn [an inference by virtue of the common usage of the language concerning] “giving” [“And he shall give” in the case of the heave-offering and] “giving” [“Of the first shearings of your flock you shall give to him (Deut. 18:4)”] in the case of first shearings. [And from that let us conclude that animals held by partners are liable to the rules of first shearings.]

F.             [But we make no such inference.] Rather we may derive that with regard to [the liability to separate] heave-offering [from produce owned by partners, Ilai] exempts [such produce] also.

G.            [Accordingly we may argue that in the view of Ilai, you can derive the rules for first shearings from the rules for heave-offering. If that is so then] just as [the rules of liability of one's crop to] heave-offering apply [to crops grown] in the Land of Israel but do not apply [to crops grown] outside the Land of Israel, so too [the rules of liability of one's animal to] gifts to the priest apply [to animals raised] in the Land of Israel but do not apply [to animals raised] outside the Land of Israel.

H.            Said R. Yosé from Nehar-bil, “Yes [that is what Ilai says].”

I.             For it was taught on Tannaite authority: R. Ilai says, “[The obligation to give from an animal] the gifts for the priest applies only [to animals] in the Land of Israel.”

J.             And so R. Ilai used to say, “[The obligation to give from an animal] the first shearings applies only [to animals] in the Land of Israel.”

I.18
A.            What is the basis for R. Ilai's [ruling that the obligation to give from an animal the first shearings applies only to animals in the Land of Israel]?

B.            Said Raba, “He learns it [by inference by virtue of the common usage of the language concerning] `giving' [`Of the first shearings of your flock you shall give to him' (Deut. 18:4) in the case of first shearings and] `giving' [`And he shall give'] in the case of the heave-offering.

C.            “Just as [the rules of liability of one's crop to] heave-offering apply [to crops grown] in the Land of Israel but do not apply [to crops grown] outside the Land of Israel, so too [the rules of liability of one's animal to] first shearings apply [to animals raised] in the Land of Israel but do not apply [to animals raised] outside the Land of Israel.”

D.            Said to him Abayye, “If so [then carry your logic further]. Just as if heave-offering [is not separated from one's produce] it renders it [prohibited for use as] a mixture, so too [you should conclude that] if the first shearings [are not given from one's fleece] it renders the fleece [prohibited for use as] a mixture [until he separates the first shearings from the rest of the fleece].”

E.            He [Raba] said to him, “Scripture says, `And from the first shearings of your sheep you shall give to him (Deut. 18:4).' You [the priest] have no claim upon it [the fleece of one's flock] until after it is [designated to be] the first shearings. [Accordingly, before he separates the first shearings from the fleece, it cannot render the lot prohibited as tebel.]”

I.19
A.            [If we derive rules for the obligation to give first shearings from the rules for the obligation to give heave-offering, we may argue] just as [one who is not a priest who eats] heave-offering is liable to the death penalty [if he ate it intentionally], and [if he ate it inadvertently he] must pay back the priest [the principal and] an additional fifth,

B.            so too [the law should be one who is not a priest who uses] the first shearings is liable to the death penalty [if he used it intentionally], and [if he used it inadvertently he] must pay back the priest [the principal and] an additional fifth.

C.            Scripture stated [concerning heave-offering], “And he shall die on account of it” (Lev. 22:9) and “And he shall add to it” (Lev. 22:14).

D.            [From the words] “To it” [we may infer that the rule of the added fifth applies only to heave-offering] and not to first shearings. [From] “Of it” [we may infer that the death penalty for intentional use applies only to heave-offering] and not to first shearings.

I.20
A.            [If we derive rules for the obligation to give first shearings from the rules for the obligation to give heave-offering, we may argue] just as in the case of heave-offering [it is the first gift to be given from the produce] followed by first and second [tithes separated afterward. We might infer that the same should be the case] even with regard to the first shearings [and that they are the first gift to be given from the fleece] followed by first and second [offerings separated afterward from the fleece].

B.            Scripture states, “The first” [implying that] from it you must separate only that one gift.

I.21
A.            [If we derive rules for the obligation to give first shearings from the rules for the obligation to give heave-offering, we may argue] just as in the case of heave-offering you may not separate [produce] from the new crop [as heave-offering] for the old crop [and we might infer that the same should be the case] even with regard to the first shearings [that one may not separate from old fleece, cut previously, for new fleece, cut later].

B.            Yes [that is the law]. For it was taught: If he had two lambs and he sheared them and put [the fleece] aside [one year], and he sheared them and put [the fleece] aside [the next year], and he did this for two or three years, [until he had the equivalent of fleece from at least five lambs] the wool does not combine [to constitute the minimum necessary according to the House of Hillel (M. 11:1) for the fleece to become obligated to the rules of the first shearings] [an alternate version of T. 10:6].

C.            [This implies] if he had five [lambs in one flock and sheared two of them and put away the wool, and the next year he sheared another two and put away the wool, and the next year sheared the fifth, the wool sheared in three consecutive years, even from five different animals] combines [and he has the minimum necessary for the fleece to be obligated to the rules of first shearings. This means that old fleece from a previous year can combine with fleece from a subsequent year].

D.            But lo it was taught on Tannaite authority [elsewhere that in such a case], “The [fleece from five lambs sheared in different years] does not combine [to constitute the minimum for the obligation to first shearings].”

E.            However we may deduce from this that [the source that says fleece from different years does not combine] is in accord with the view of R. Ilai. [And the source that says fleece from different years does combine] is in accord with the view of the rabbis.

I.22
A.            [If we derive rules for the obligation to give first shearings from the rules for the obligation to give heave-offering, we may argue] just as for heave-offering [produce] that grows in [a circumstance where the] liability [to separate heave-offering] applies [namely in the field of a Jew in the Land of Israel] is liable [to the rules of heave-offering],

B.            And [produce] that grows in [a circumstance] exempt [from the obligation to separate heave-offering] is exempt [from the rules of heave-offering].

C.            [We may argue that] even with regard to the obligation to separate the first shearings, [fleece] that grows [in circumstances where the] liability [to separate first shearings] applies, is liable [for the obligation].

D.            And [fleece] that grows [under circumstances] exempt [from the obligation to separate first shearings] is exempt [from the obligation].

E.            And whence [do we know that this is the case] with regard to [the obligation to separate] heave-offering?

F.             For it was taught on Tannaite authority: [With regard to a case in which] an Israelite bought a field in Syria from a gentile,

G.            [if he bought it] before the produce had grown to one third of its mature height, [the produce] is liable [to heave-offerings and tithes].

H.            And if [he bought it] after the produce had grown to one third of its mature height, R. Aqiba declares the additional growth [after the Israelite buys it] liable [to heave-offerings and tithes]. And the sages declare [even the additional growth] exempt.

I.             And if you say this rule [of the liability of fleece to the law of first shearings] is the same [as the rule regarding liability of crops to heave-offerings], lo it was taught on Tannaite authority [in our Mishnah 11:1 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], lo if he bought [the rights] to shear his flock, he is liable [to give first shearings from the fleece]. [And this is the case though the fleece grew while gentiles owned the sheep.]

J.             [The rule in the Mishnah is no proof because] the Mishnah does not accord [136B] with the view of R. Ilai.

I.23
A.            [If we derive rules for the obligation to give first shearings from the rules for the obligation to give heave-offering, we may argue] just as for heave-offering one may not separate [heave-offering from] one kind [of produce] on behalf of another kind [of produce],

B.            [we may argue that] even with regard to [the rules for separating] first shearings [from one's fleece] that one may not separate [first shearings from] one kind [of fleece] on behalf of another kind [of fleece].

C.            And whence do we learn that with regard to heave-offering [that one may not separate heave-offering from one kind of produce on behalf of another kind of produce]?

D.            For it was taught on Tannaite authority: If he had two kinds of figs — black ones and white ones; and likewise if he had two kinds of wheat,

E.            he may not [T. omits “not” to accord with the Hillelite view] separate heave-offering or tithes from one kind for the other.

F.             Concerning this [ruling] R. Yitzhak said in the name of R. Ilai [T. has `Eliezer' or `Eleazar'], “The House of Shammai say, `They may not separate [from one kind for the other].' And the House of Hillel say, `They may separate [from one kind for the other]' [T. Ter. 2:5].

G.            So too [concerning the separation of] first shearings, one should not be permitted to separate from one kind for another.

H.            Yes [that is the law].

I.             But lo, it was taught on Tannaite authority in the Mishnah [11:1 Z, BB]: 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, . . . [the buyer] gives of his own [a gift of wool to the priest] and the seller gives of his own. [Only in this case do they give separately for each kind. This might imply that if he did buy the two kinds, he could give from one on behalf of the other.]

J.             [But this is not a correct deduction.] For consider the latter part [of the Mishnah-text, AA-BB] that taught: [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,

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

L.            Now is this also [the rule] because they [male and female] are two different kinds of sheep? [That makes no sense.]

M.           Rather, [M. gives this not as a rule, but] just to give us some good advice. He should give [a portion as first shearings] from the soft wool [of the female sheep] and from the coarse wool [of the male sheep].

N.            There also [for the grey aad white wool, M. states the practice] just to give us some good advice, that he should give some [wool as first shearings] from both kinds.

O.            [The reason then is not in accord with Ilai's view that one cannot give from one kind on behalf of another.] Lo we concluded already [above] that the Mishnah does not follow the view of R. Ilai.

I.24
A.            [If we derive rules for the obligation to give first shearings from the rules for the obligation to give heave-offering, we may argue] just as for heave-offering we must give [an offering from] the first [produce on the condition that some] recognizable [amount of the produce] is left over [unconsecrated, and the entire produce may not be designated for heave-offering],

B.            [we may argue that] even with regard to [the rules for separating] first shearings [from one's fleece] that one must give [an offering from] the first [produce on the condition that some] recognizable [amount of the produce] is left over [unconsecrated, and the entire produce may not be designated for first shearings].

C.            Yes [that is the case].

D.            But lo it has been taught on Tannaite authority in the Mishnah, One who says, “May my entire granary be consecrated as heave-offering,” or, “May my entire dough be consecrated as dough-offering,” he has not said anything of consequence [M. Hal. 1:9].

E.            Lo [this implies] if he said, “May all my fleece be consecrated as first shearings,” his statement is effective [and all the fleece does indeed take on the status of first shearings].

F.             And it was taught [by inference from the comparison with the rules of heave-offering that in such circumstances,] “He has not said anything of consequence.” [None of the produce takes on the status of first shearings.]

G.            Rather must we not deduce from this that the [previous inference that such a statement does nothing] accords with the view of R. Ilai. And that the [latter inference that the statement is effective] accords with the view of our rabbis.

H.            This is indeed the proper inference.

I.25
A.            Said R. Nahman bar Yitzhak, “Nowadays the common custom accords with [views of] these three elders.

B.            “With [the view of] R. Ilai regarding the first shearings. As it was taught: R. Ilai says, `[The obligation to give from an animal] the first shearings applies only [to animals] in the Land of Israel [above, I.17 J].'

C.            “With [the view of] R. Judah b. Beterah regarding words of Torah. As it was taught on Tannaite authority: R. Judah b. Beterah says, `Words of Torah are not susceptible to uncleanness. [That is, one who is unclean due to a seminal emission may recite words of Torah.]'

D.            “And with [the view of] R. Oshaia regarding the laws of mixed kinds. As it was taught on Tannaite authority: R. Oshaia says, `In no way is a person liable [for violating the prohibition against sowing mixed kinds] until he sows wheat and barley and grape kernels [together] with one cast of the hand.'”[Cf. b. Qid. 39a, b. ul. 82b, II.1 I, Zahavy, ullin, vol. II, p. 238.]

II.1
A.            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] [M. 11:1 D].

B.            And why not teach that a stricter rule applies to [the obligation to give to the priest] the first shearings, since that applies to terefah-animals, which is not the case with regard to [the obligation to give to the priest the other] gifts. [The law for them does not apply to terefah-animals.]

C.            Said Rabina, “With whose view does this Mishnah accord? With the view of R. Simeon.”

D.            For it was taught on Tannaite authority: R. Simeon exempts terefah-animals from [the obligation of] the first shearings.

E.            What is the basis [in scripture for this rule of] R. Simeon? He learns [by inference by virtue of the common usage of the language concerning] “giving” [“Of the first shearings of your flock you shall give to him (Deut. 18:4)” for first shearings and] “giving” [“And he shall give”] in the case of gifts to the priest.

F.             Just as in the case of gifts to the priest, a terefah-animal is not [included in the obligation], so too in the case of first shearings, a terefah-animal is not [included in the obligation].

G.            And if you learn [by inference by virtue of the common usage of the language concerning] “giving” [“Of the first shearings of your flock you shall give to him” (Deut. 18:4) in the case of first shearings and] “giving” [“And he shall give”] in the case of the gifts to the priest,

H.            you may learn also [by inference by virtue of the common usage of the language concerning] “giving” [“Of the first shearings of your flock you shall give to him” (Deut. 18:4) for first shearings and] “giving” [“And he shall give”] for the heave-offering.

I.             Just as [the laws of] heave-offering apply in the Land of Israel and not outside the Land of Israel,

J.             so too should [the laws of] the first shearings apply in the Land of Israel and not outside the Land of Israel.

K.            However it has been taught on Tannaite authority in the Mishnah [to the contrary]: The [laws of the] first shearings apply both inside the Land of Israel and outside the Land of Israel [M. 11:1 A]. [This means of inference cannot serve as the basis for the view of R. Simeon].

L.            But what then is the basis for [the view of] R. Simeon?

M.           He learns [by inference by virtue of the common usage of the language concerning] “flock” [“Of the first shearings of your flock you shall give to him” (Deut. 18:4) in the case of first shearings and] “flock” in the case of tithes [“And all the tithes of your herd and your flock” (Lev. 27:32)].

N.            Just as in the case of tithes, one may not give a terefah-animal, so too in the case of first shearings one may not give shearings from a terefah-animal.

O.            And there [for tithes] what is the basis [for us to conclude that a terefah-animal may not be given]?

P.             For scripture states, “All those [animals] that pass beneath the rod (ibid.);” this excludes a terefah-animal that cannot pass [beneath the rod because it is ill].

Q.            And why not learn [by inference by virtue of the common usage of the language concerning] “flock” [“Of the first shearings of your flock you shall give to him” (Deut. 18:4) in the case of first shearings and] “flock” in the case of firstling [that must be given to the priest]? [The verse there says, “Every firstling which shall be born in your herd or in your flock” (Deut. 15:19).]

R.            Just as in the case of the firstling, even a terefah-animal [must be given to the priest], so too in the case of the first shearings one must give [shearings from] even a terefah-animal to the priest.

S.             It makes better sense to learn the inference [for the rule of first shearings from the rule for] tithes.

T.            [For the rules of first shearings and tithes differ in seven ways from the rules for firstlings. With regard to the firstling:] (1) Males [alone are liable]; (2) Unclean animals [are liable, i.e. the firstling of an ass]; (3) Many [animals are not needed for the obligation to apply. One firstling is liable]; (4) [The firstling is sacred as soon as it emerges] from the womb; (5) A human [first born also acquires sanctity]; (6) [The laws of tithes and first shearings apply not to consecrated animals, but only to] ordinary ones; (7) [The laws of the firstling were given to the Jews while they were in Egypt] before the revelation [at Sinai, cf. Exod. 13:2].

U.            On the contrary. Should we not learn the inference [for the rule of first shearings from the rule for] the firstling?

No comments: