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?”
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:
Post a Comment