Chullin Daf 135 (חולין דף קל״ה)
Daf: 135 | Amudim: 135a – 135b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (135a)
Segment 1
TYPE: משנה
The new perek opens: where and when reishit hagez applies.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְנִי׳ רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז נוֹהֵג בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת, בַּחוּלִּין אֲבָל לֹא בַּמּוּקְדָּשִׁים.
English Translation:
MISHNA: The mitzva of the first sheared wool that every Jew must give to the priest, as stated in the verse: “And the first sheared wool of your flock [tzonekha] shall you give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4), applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, in the presence of the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple, and with regard to non-sacred animals. But it does not apply to sacrificial animals.
קלאוד על הדף:
The eleventh perek, Reishit HaGez, begins. Its opening mishna fixes the scope of the first shearing: it applies both in the Land and outside it, whether or not the Temple stands, and to non-sacred animals but not to consecrated ones. Like the gifts of the previous perek, this is a priestly due that never depended on the Temple, which is why it remained live law after the Churban.
Key Terms:
- רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז = the first of the shearing, given to a kohen
- בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת = in the presence of the Temple
- מוּקְדָּשִׁים (mukdashin) = consecrated animals
Segment 2
TYPE: משנה
Comparing the two gifts: the matanot are broader in scope.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חוֹמֶר בַּזְּרוֹעַ וּלְחָיַיִם וּבַקֵּבָה מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז – שֶׁהַזְּרוֹעַ וְהַלְּחָיַיִם וְהַקֵּבָה נוֹהֲגִין בַּבָּקָר וּבַצֹּאן, בִּמְרוּבֶּה וּבְמוּעָט, וְרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בִּרְחֵלוֹת, וְאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בִּמְרוּבֶּה.
English Translation:
There are more stringent elements in the mitzva of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw (see 130a) than in the halakha of the first sheared wool in that the mitzva of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw applies to cattle and to sheep, as it is written: “Whether it be ox or sheep, that he shall give unto the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw” (Deuteronomy 18:3); and it applies to numerous animals and to few animals. But by contrast, the mitzva of the first sheared wool applies only to sheep and not to goats and cattle, and applies only to numerous animals.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna sets the new obligation against the one just completed. The foreleg, jaw and maw apply to cattle and flock alike and to any number of animals, however few. Reishit hagez is narrower on both counts: only sheep, and only where the flock is merubeh, numerous. The comparison is the mishna’s way of teaching a new law through one already learned.
Key Terms:
- חוֹמֶר (chomer) = a stringency — a respect in which one law is stricter
- רְחֵלוֹת (rechelot) = ewes — sheep, excluding goats and cattle
- מְרוּבֶּה (merubeh) = numerous — the threshold flock size
Segment 3
TYPE: מחלוקת
How many is ‘numerous’? Beit Shammai two, Beit Hillel five.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכַמָּה הוּא מְרוּבֶּה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: שְׁתֵּי רְחֵלוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״יְחַיֶּה אִישׁ עֶגְלַת בָּקָר וּשְׁתֵּי צֹאן״, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: חָמֵשׁ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״חָמֵשׁ צֹאן עֲשׂוּיוֹת״.
English Translation:
And how many are numerous? Beit Shammai say: It is at least two sheep, as it is stated: “That a man shall rear a young cow, and two sheep [tzon]” (Isaiah 7:21), indicating that two sheep are characterized as tzon; and the mitzva of the first sheared wool is written using the term “your flock [tzonekha].” And Beit Hillel say: It is at least five sheep, as it is stated: “And five sheep [tzon] made” (I Samuel 25:18).
קלאוד על הדף:
The threshold is disputed between the schools, and both argue from usage rather than logic. Beit Shammai read Yeshayahu 7:21, where a man keeps a calf and shtei tzon, two of the flock, as proof that two already constitute tzon. Beit Hillel read chamesh tzon asuyot in I Shmuel 25:18 — Avigayil’s five prepared sheep — and set the threshold at five.
Key Terms:
- צֹאן (tzon) = flock — the word whose minimum the schools dispute
Segment 4
TYPE: מחלוקת
Rabbi Dosa adds a weight requirement; the Rabbis do not.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי דּוֹסָא בֶּן הַרְכִּינָס אוֹמֵר: חָמֵשׁ רְחֵלוֹת גּוֹזְזוֹת מָנֶה מָנֶה וּפְרָס חַיָּיבוֹת בְּרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: חָמֵשׁ רְחֵלוֹת גּוֹזְזוֹת כׇּל שֶׁהֵן.
English Translation:
Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas says: When shearing five sheep, the sheared wool of each sheep weighing one hundred dinars each and half [peras] of one hundred dinars each, i.e., one hundred and fifty dinars each, are subject to the obligation of the first sheared wool, i.e., they render the owner obligated to give the first sheared wool to the priests. And the Rabbis say: Any five sheep, each of whose sheared wool weighs any amount, render the owner obligated in the mitzva.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second dispute concerns quantity rather than count. Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas requires each of the five to yield a fleece of maneh u’fras, a hundred and fifty dinars’ weight, before the obligation attaches. The Rabbis require only five sheep shearing kol shehen, any amount at all. The Rabbis’ view keeps the obligation tied to the number of animals rather than to the yield.
Key Terms:
- מָנֶה וּפְרָס = a maneh and a half — 150 dinars in weight
- כׇּל שֶׁהֵן = any amount whatsoever
Segment 5
TYPE: משנה
The measure given: five Judean sela, enough to make a small garment.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכַמָּה נוֹתְנִין לוֹ? מִשְׁקַל חֲמֵשׁ סְלָעִים בִּיהוּדָה, שֶׁהֵן עֶשֶׂר סְלָעִים בַּגָּלִיל, מְלוּבָּן וְלֹא צוֹאִי, כְּדֵי לַעֲשׂוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ בֶּגֶד קָטָן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״תִּתֵּן לוֹ״, שֶׁיְּהֵא בּוֹ כְּדֵי מַתָּנָה.
English Translation:
And how much of the sheared wool does one give to the priest? One gives him sheared wool of the weight of five sela in Judea, which are the equivalent of ten sela in the Galilee, as the weight of the Galilean sela is half that of the Judean sela. Furthermore, although one may give the wool to the priest without laundering it, this must be the weight of the wool once laundered and not when sullied, as is characteristic of wool when sheared. The measure that must be given to the priest is enough to fashion a small garment from it, as it is stated: “Shall you give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4), indicating that the sheared wool must contain enough for a proper gift.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna fixes the amount owed. Five sela by the Judean weight — ten by the Galilean, which was half — measured melubban, as laundered wool rather than in its soiled state. The functional test is that there be enough to make a small garment, derived from titen lo: a gift must be substantial enough to count as a gift, the same principle met on 132b about dividing the matanot.
Key Terms:
- סֶלַע (sela) = a weight and coin; the Judean sela was double the Galilean
- מְלוּבָּן (melubban) = laundered, as opposed to soiled off the animal
- כְּדֵי מַתָּנָה = enough to constitute a gift
Segment 6
TYPE: משנה
Dyeing the wool exempts; laundering does not.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לֹא הִסְפִּיק לִיתְּנוֹ לוֹ עַד שֶׁצְּבָעוֹ – פָּטוּר, לִבְּנוֹ וְלֹא צְבָעוֹ – חַיָּיב.
English Translation:
If the owner of the shearing did not manage to give it to the priest until he dyed it, the owner is exempt from the mitzva of the first sheared wool, as this constitutes a change in the wool by which means he acquires ownership of it. If he laundered it but did not dye it, he is obligated to give the first sheared wool, as laundering does not constitute a change in the wool.
קלאוד על הדף:
If the owner dyed the wool before handing it over he is exempt, because dyeing is a shinuy, a transformation by which he acquires it as his own. Laundering is not such a change, so the obligation survives it. The distinction is the familiar one from the laws of acquisition applied to a priestly due.
Key Terms:
- שִׁינּוּי (shinuy) = a change that effects acquisition
- צְבָעוֹ (tzeva’o) = he dyed it
Segment 7
TYPE: משנה
Buying fleece: from a gentile, from a Jew, and the two-flock case.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַלּוֹקֵחַ גֵּז צֹאנוֹ שֶׁל גּוֹי – פָּטוּר מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז. הַלּוֹקֵחַ גֵּז צֹאנוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, אִם שִׁיֵּיר – הַמּוֹכֵר חַיָּיב, לֹא שִׁיֵּיר – הַלּוֹקֵחַ חַיָּיב. הָיוּ לוֹ שְׁנֵי מִינִים, שְׁחוּפוֹת וּלְבָנוֹת, מָכַר לוֹ שְׁחוּפוֹת אֲבָל לֹא לְבָנוֹת, זְכָרִים אֲבָל לֹא נְקֵבוֹת – זֶה נוֹתֵן לְעַצְמוֹ וְזֶה נוֹתֵן לְעַצְמוֹ.
English Translation:
One who purchases the fleece of the sheep of a gentile is exempt from the obligation of giving the first sheared wool to the priest. With regard to one who purchases the fleece of the sheep of another Jew, if the seller kept some of the wool, then the seller is obligated to give the first sheared wool to the priest. If the seller did not keep any of the wool, the buyer is obligated to give it. If the seller had two types of sheep, gray and white, and he sold the buyer the gray fleece but not the white fleece, or if he sold the fleece of the male sheep but not of the female sheep, then this one, the seller, gives the first sheared wool for himself to the priest from the wool that he kept, and that one, the buyer, gives the first sheared wool for himself to the priest from the wool that he bought.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna’s final clause governs sales. Wool bought from a gentile carries no obligation. Bought from a Jew, liability follows retention: if the seller kept some wool he remains obligated, and if he kept none the buyer takes it on. Where the seller had two kinds — grey and white, or male and female — and sold only one, each party gives from his own share.
Key Terms:
- שִׁיֵּיר (shiyer) = he retained, kept back a portion
- שְׁחוּפוֹת (shechufot) = grey or dark-coloured sheep
Segment 8
TYPE: דרשה
Why are consecrated animals exempt? From ‘tzonecha’.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גְּמָ׳ בְּמוּקְדָּשִׁין, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא? אָמַר קְרָא ״צֹאנְךָ״, וְלֹא צֹאן הֶקְדֵּשׁ.
English Translation:
GEMARA: The mishna states that the mitzva of the first sheared wool does not apply to sacrificial animals. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that it does not apply? The Gemara answers that the verse states: “Your flock” (Deuteronomy 18:4), indicating that the mitzva applies to non-sacred animals, which belong to a private individual, and not to a flock that is consecrated property.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara opens on the mishna’s exemption of consecrated animals and grounds it in a single word: tzonecha, your flock — yours, and not hekdesh’s. The rest of the amud will ask why such a derivation was needed at all, and the answer will require narrowing the case considerably.
Key Terms:
- צֹאנְךָ (tzonecha) = your flock — read as excluding consecrated animals
- הֶקְדֵּשׁ (hekdesh) = consecrated property
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא
But consecrated animals cannot be shorn anyway.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״צֹאנְךָ״, הָא לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה אָמֵינָא קָדָשִׁים חַיָּיבִים בְּרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז? הָא לָאו בְּנֵי גִיזָּה נִינְהוּ, דִּכְתִיב ״וְלֹא תָגֹז בְּכוֹר צֹאנֶךָ״!
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: The reason for the exemption of sacrificial animals is that the Merciful One writes “your flock,” from which it may be inferred that were that not the case I would say that even with regard to sacrificial animals one is obligated in the mitzva of the first sheared wool. But this suggestion is impossible, since they are not fit for shearing, as it is written with regard to firstborn animals, which are consecrated: “And you shall not shear the firstborn of your flock” (Deuteronomy 15:19).
קלאוד על הדף:
The derivation looks superfluous. Without tzonecha one would have to suppose consecrated animals are obligated — but they cannot be shorn at all, since Devarim 15:19 forbids shearing the firstborn of the flock. A verse is not spent excluding what is already impossible.
Key Terms:
- וְלֹא תָגֹז = and you shall not shear — the prohibition at Devarim 15:19
Segment 10
TYPE: תירוץ
The case is animals consecrated for Temple maintenance, which may be shorn.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי בְּקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ, הָכִי נָמֵי. הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: If the mishna was referring to sheep consecrated for the altar, indeed there would be no need to derive their exemption from the verse. But here we are dealing with sheep consecrated to the treasury for Temple maintenance, which it is permitted to shear, and the verse teaches that even with regard to these one is exempt from the mitzva of the first sheared wool.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara narrows the case. For kodshei mizbe’ach, animals consecrated for the altar, the objection stands and no verse is needed. The mishna speaks of kodshei bedek habayit, animals consecrated to the Temple treasury, which may be shorn — and it is these that tzonecha exempts.
Key Terms:
- קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ = animals consecrated for the altar
- קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת = animals consecrated for Temple maintenance
Segment 11
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Rabbi Elazar forbids shearing those too — but only rabbinically.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת אֲסוּרִים בְּגִיזָּה וַעֲבוֹדָה! מִדְּרַבָּנַן. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא בְּנֵי גִיזָּה נִינְהוּ, הֵיכָא דִּגְזַז לֵיהּ – לִיתֵּיב לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Elazar say with regard to animals consecrated for Temple maintenance that it is prohibited to shear them or to work them? The Gemara answers: The prohibition with regard to animals consecrated for Temple maintenance applies by rabbinic law, not by Torah law. Therefore, it might enter your mind to say that since by Torah law they are fit for shearing, in a case where one transgressed the rabbinical prohibition and sheared the consecrated sheep, he should give the first sheared wool to the priest. Consequently, the verse teaches that he is exempt from the mitzva of the first sheared wool.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Elazar’s ruling that treasury-consecrated animals may not be shorn or worked threatens the answer. The Gemara replies that his prohibition is rabbinic, not Toraitic. Since they remain Toraitically fit for shearing, one might have thought that a man who transgressed and sheared must still hand over the first of it — and tzonecha tells him he need not.
Key Terms:
- מִדְּרַבָּנַן (miderabbanan) = by rabbinic enactment rather than Torah law
Segment 12
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
But the wool is itself consecrated — perhaps he should redeem it first.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא קַדֵּישׁ לַהּ! סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: לִפְרוֹק וְלִיתֵּיב לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: But since he consecrated the wool it is consecrated property, and therefore in practice it cannot be given to a priest. Consequently, there is no need to derive their exemption from the verse. The Gemara explains: It might enter your mind to say that the owner is required to redeem the wool by giving its value to the Temple treasury and then give it to the priest.
קלאוד על הדף:
A further objection: the wool of a consecrated animal is itself hekdesh and cannot simply be handed to a kohen. The Gemara keeps the derivation alive by supposing one might have required him to redeem the wool from the treasury and then give it — an obligation the verse comes to negate.
Key Terms:
- לִפְרוֹק (lifrok) = to redeem, transferring sanctity to money
Segment 13
TYPE: קושיא
Redemption requires standing and valuation, impossible once shorn.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא בָּעֵי הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה! הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת לֹא הָיוּ בִּכְלַל הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר הָיוּ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: But when an animal is redeemed it requires standing and valuation, as it is written: “And he shall stand the animal before the priest, and the priest shall value it, whether it be good or bad; as the priest evaluates it, so shall it be” (Leviticus 27:11–12). Once the wool has been sheared this process cannot be performed, which means that the wool cannot be redeemed. The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the one who said that animals consecrated for Temple maintenance were not included in the requirement of standing and valuation. But according to the one who said that they were included in this requirement, what can be said?
קלאוד על הדף:
The redemption route is itself problematic. Vayikra 27:11-12 requires ha’amadah v’ha’arachah, that the animal stand before the priest and be valued — which cannot be done with wool already shorn. This works only for the view that treasury-consecrated animals were exempt from that requirement; on the opposing view the difficulty stands unanswered.
Key Terms:
- הַעֲמָדָה וְהַעֲרָכָה = standing and valuation, the procedure for redeeming a consecrated animal
Segment 14
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Yannai: he consecrated the animal but reserved its fleece.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי מָנִי בַּר פַּטִּישׁ מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יַנַּאי: הָכָא בְּמַקְדִּישׁ בְּהֶמְתּוֹ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת חוּץ מִגִּיזּוֹתֶיהָ. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: לִיגְזוֹז וְלִיתֵּיב לֵיהּ, אָמַר קְרָא ״צֹאנְךָ״, וְלֹא צֹאן שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ.
English Translation:
Rabbi Mani bar Pattish said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: The statement here in the mishna is referring to a case where one consecrated the rest of his animal for Temple maintenance except for its fleece, which he reserved for himself. Because the owner did not consecrate the wool, it might enter your mind to say: Let him shear the sheep and be obligated to give the wool to the priest. Therefore, the verse states: “Your flock,” indicating that the mitzva applies to non-sacred animals, which belong to an individual, and not to sheep that are consecrated property.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Mani bar Pattish reports Rabbi Yannai’s solution. The mishna speaks of one who consecrated his animal to the treasury chutz migizoteha, excluding its fleece — the same reservation formula met on daf 134. The wool was never consecrated, so one might have thought it fully liable; tzonecha teaches otherwise.
Key Terms:
- חוּץ מִגִּיזּוֹתֶיהָ = except for its fleece — reserved from the consecration
Segment 15
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Why not altar-consecrated animals on the same reading? Shearing weakens them.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי הָכִי, קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ נָמֵי! כָּחֲשִׁי.
English Translation:
The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, that the mishna is discussing a case where one consecrated an animal except for its fleece, one could say that it is also referring to animals consecrated for the altar. The Gemara answers: The mishna cannot be discussing animals consecrated for the altar, as it is prohibited to shear them even if their fleece was not consecrated. The reason is that this causes the animal to become weakened, which entails a loss of consecrated property.
קלאוד על הדף:
If a reservation is what makes the case work, it should work for altar-consecrated animals too. The Gemara answers kachashi — shearing weakens the animal, and weakening consecrated property is itself a loss to hekdesh, so shearing remains forbidden regardless of what was reserved.
Key Terms:
- כָּחֲשִׁי (kachashi) = they become weakened — a loss to consecrated property
Segment 16
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Treasury animals weaken too — so he reserved the weakening as well.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת נָמֵי כָּחֲשִׁי! דְּאָמַר: חוּץ מִגִּיזָּה וּכְחִישָׁה.
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: But animals consecrated for Temple maintenance are also weakened by shearing, and therefore it should be prohibited to shear them as well. The Gemara explains: The mishna is referring to a case where one said that he consecrates his animal for Temple maintenance except for both its fleece and its weakening, i.e., the loss of strength caused by shearing.
קלאוד על הדף:
The same objection rebounds: treasury-consecrated animals are equally weakened by shearing. The answer extends the reservation formula — he said chutz migizah u’kchishah, excluding both the fleece and the weakening, so neither is hekdesh’s loss.
Key Terms:
- חוּץ מִגִּיזָּה וּכְחִישָׁה = except for the fleece and the weakening
Segment 17
TYPE: תירוץ
Why not say the same for altar animals? Because sanctity spreads through the whole.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ נָמֵי! דְּאָמַר: חוּץ מִגִּיזָּה וּכְחִישָׁה, אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי פָּשְׁטָה קְדוּשָּׁה בְּכוּלַּהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara further objects: The mishna could also be referring to animals consecrated for the altar in a case where one said that he consecrates the animal except for both its fleece and the weakening, i.e., the loss in strength caused by shearing. The Gemara explains: With regard to animals consecrated for the altar this stipulation is ineffective, as even so, i.e., despite his declaration, the sanctity extends to the entire animal, and therefore it is prohibited to shear it.
קלאוד על הדף:
Pressed once more, the Gemara reaches the real distinction. With altar-consecrated animals such a stipulation simply fails: pashtah kedushah b’kulah, the sanctity spreads through the entire animal regardless of what the owner tried to hold back. Bedek habayit sanctity is monetary and divisible; altar sanctity is not.
Key Terms:
- פָּשְׁטָה קְדוּשָּׁה בְּכוּלַּהּ = the sanctity spread through all of it
Segment 18
TYPE: מקור
Proof: consecrating a limb the animal cannot live without consecrates it all.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: וַהֲלֹא בְּמוּקְדָּשִׁין, הָאוֹמֵר ״רַגְלָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ עוֹלָה״ – כּוּלָּהּ עוֹלָה. וַאֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּאָמַר אֵין כּוּלָּהּ עוֹלָה, הָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּאַקְדֵּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין הַנְּשָׁמָה תְּלוּיָה בּוֹ, אֲבָל הִקְדִּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁהַנְּשָׁמָה תְּלוּיָה בּוֹ – קָדְשָׁה.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: And from where do you say that if one consecrates an animal for the altar the sanctity extends to the entire animal? This is as Rabbi Yosei said: Isn’t it the halakha with regard to sacrificial animals that if one says: The leg of this animal is consecrated as a burnt offering, then the entire animal is a burnt offering, as the sanctity of the leg spreads throughout the animal’s body? And even according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir that it is not entirely a burnt offering, that statement of Rabbi Meir applies only where he consecrated its leg, which is not a matter, i.e., a limb, upon which the animal’s life depends. It is possible for an animal to survive the removal of a leg. But if one consecrated a matter upon which the animal’s life depends, everyone agrees that all of it is consecrated.
קלאוד על הדף:
The claim is supported from Rabbi Yosei: one who says ‘the leg of this animal is a burnt offering’ has consecrated the whole. Even Rabbi Meir, who disputes that, agrees where the part consecrated is one shehaneshamah teluyah bo, on which the animal’s life depends. Fleece and strength are inseparable from the living animal in the same way.
Key Terms:
- דָּבָר שֶׁהַנְּשָׁמָה תְּלוּיָה בּוֹ = a part upon which life depends
Segment 19
TYPE: מימרא
Rava: no need for that reading — take the case as consecrating the fleece itself.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רָבָא אָמַר: בְּמַקְדִּישׁ גִּיזָּה עַצְמָהּ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: לִיגְזוֹז וְלִיפְרוֹק וְלִיתֵּיב לֵיהּ,
English Translation:
§ Rava said that there is no need to interpret the mishna as discussing a case where one consecrated a whole animal apart from its fleece and the loss caused by shearing. Rather, the mishna is referring to one who consecrates the fleece itself to the treasury for Temple maintenance, but not the sheep. It might enter your mind to say: Let him shear the sheep and redeem the wool by giving its value to the Temple treasury, and then be required to give the wool to the priest.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava cuts through the accumulated stipulations. Read the mishna as one who consecrated the fleece alone to the treasury, leaving the animal unconsecrated. One might then think he should shear, redeem the wool, and give it to the kohen — and it is that thought the verse forecloses.
Key Terms:
- בְּמַקְדִּישׁ גִּיזָּה עַצְמָהּ = where he consecrates the fleece itself
Segment 20
TYPE: דרשה
The derivation: only shearing and giving, not shearing, redeeming and giving.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר קְרָא: ״גֵּז צֹאנְךָ תִּתֶּן לוֹ״, מִי שֶׁאֵין מְחוּסָּר אֶלָּא גְּזִיזָה וּנְתִינָה, יָצָא זֶה שֶׁמְחוּסָּר גְּזִיזָה פְּדִיָּיה וּנְתִינָה.
English Translation:
Therefore, the verse states: “The first sheared wool of your flock, shall you give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4), which indicates that there should be no additional action between shearing and giving the first sheared wool to the priest. In other words, the mitzva of first sheared wool applies to a sheep that is lacking only shearing and giving, which excludes this sheep that is lacking shearing, redeeming, and giving.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava’s proof is elegant. Gez tzonecha titen lo describes a case lacking only two acts, shearing and giving. An animal whose wool must be sheared, then redeemed, then given is lacking three, and falls outside the verse. The obligation attaches only where nothing stands between the shears and the kohen’s hand.
Key Terms:
- גְּזִיזָה וּנְתִינָה = shearing and giving — the only two acts the verse contemplates
Segment 21
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Then what does ‘tzonecha’ exclude? Rabbi Ilai’s exemption for partners.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא ״צֹאנְךָ״ לְמַאי אֲתָא? לְכִדְתַנְיָא: בֶּהֱמַת הַשּׁוּתָּפִים חַיָּיב בְּרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, וְרַבִּי אִלְעַאי פּוֹטֵר. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי? אָמַר קְרָא ״צֹאנְךָ״, וְלֹא שֶׁל שׁוּתָּפוּת.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But if this verse is the source of the exemption of consecrated animals, then for what purpose does the term “your flock” come? That term also indicates that certain sheep are excluded from the mitzva. The Gemara answers that it is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: An animal owned by two partners is obligated, i.e., renders its owners obligated, in the mitzva of the first sheared wool, but Rabbi Ilai exempts them. What is the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Ilai? The reason is that the verse states “your flock,” using the singular pronoun, indicating that the mitzva applies to animals belonging to an individual, but not to sheep that are owned in partnership.
קלאוד על הדף:
If the consecration exemption comes from elsewhere, tzonecha is free for another purpose, and the Gemara supplies a baraita. Jointly owned animals are obligated in reishit hagez, but Rabbi Ilai exempts them, reading the singular tzonecha as yours alone and not a partnership. This dispute carries through to the end of the daf.
Key Terms:
- בֶּהֱמַת הַשּׁוּתָּפִים = an animal owned in partnership
Segment 22
TYPE: קושיא
And for the Rabbis, what does ‘tzonecha’ exclude? Partnership with a gentile.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבָּנַן, לְמַעוֹטֵי שׁוּתָּפוּת גּוֹי. וְרַבִּי אִלְעַאי, שׁוּתָּפוּת גּוֹי מְנָא לֵיהּ?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But according to the Rabbis, who hold that joint owners of sheep are obligated in the mitzva of the first sheared wool, what is excluded by the term “your flock”? The Gemara answers that this serves to exclude an animal owned in partnership with a gentile. The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Ilai derive that an animal owned in partnership with a gentile renders its Jewish owner exempt from the mitzva?
קלאוד על הדף:
If the Rabbis obligate Jewish partners, their tzonecha must exclude something else, and it excludes partnership with a gentile. The Gemara then turns the question around: from where does Rabbi Ilai, who has spent tzonecha on Jewish partners, derive that exemption?
Key Terms:
- שׁוּתָּפוּת גּוֹי = partnership with a gentile
Segment 23
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Ilai takes it from ‘deganecha’ at the head of the verse.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵרֵישָׁא דִּקְרָא, ״רֵאשִׁית דְּגָנְךָ״, וְלֹא שׁוּתָּפוּת גּוֹי.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: He derives it from the beginning of this verse, which states with regard to teruma: “The first fruits of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil” (Deuteronomy 18:4), using the singular pronoun. This indicates that only in the case of produce owned by a Jew is one obligated to separate teruma, but not with regard to that which is owned in partnership with a gentile.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Ilai draws it from the verse’s opening clause on terumah, reishit deganecha — your grain, and not what is held in partnership with a gentile. Both halves of Devarim 18:4 are thus made to work, each supplying one exemption.
Key Terms:
- רֵאשִׁית דְּגָנְךָ = the first of your grain — the terumah clause of the same verse
Segment 24
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Why don’t the Rabbis learn it from ‘deganecha’? The word ‘reishit’ separates them.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבָּנַן, ״רֵאשִׁית״ (הַגֵּז) הִפְסִיק הָעִנְיָן.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And why do the Rabbis, who derive the exemption of sheep owned in partnership with a gentile from the term “your flock,” not derive this from the term “your grain”? The Gemara answers that the repetition of the term “the first” with regard to the first sheared wool: “The first fruits of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the first sheared wool of your flock, shall you give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4), is an indication that the verse concluded discussion of the previous matter. The superfluous mention of “first” signals that the two issues discussed in this verse, which are the first fruits, i.e., teruma, and the first sheared wool, are two separate matters. Therefore, one cannot derive the halakhot of one from the other.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Rabbis decline that route because the repeated reishit before the shearing clause marks a break: hifsik ha’inyan, it concluded the previous subject. Terumah and reishit hagez are two matters in one verse, and nothing may be carried from one to the other.
Key Terms:
- הִפְסִיק הָעִנְיָן = it interrupted the subject — marking two distinct topics
Segment 25
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Ilai: the vav rejoins what ‘reishit’ separated.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי אִלְעַאי: וָי״ו הֲדַר עָרְבֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Ilai respond to the Rabbis’ claim? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ilai holds that when the verse states: “And the first sheared wool,” the conjunction “and” goes back and combines the two matters together.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Ilai answers with the conjunction. V’reishit — and the first of the shearing — the vav goes back and joins the two clauses that reishit had separated, restoring the link between them. The exchange continues into 135b, where the Rabbis answer him in turn.
Key Terms:
- וָי״ו (vav) = the conjunctive ‘and’, read as rejoining the two clauses
Amud Bet (135b)
Segment 1
TYPE: תירוץ
The Rabbis: if the vav rejoins them, both words are wasted.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבָּנַן: לָא נִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא לָא וָי״ו וְלָא ״רֵאשִׁית״.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks further: And how do the Rabbis respond to Rabbi Ilai’s claim? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis do not accept that the conjunction “and” goes back and combines the two matters together, as, if that were so, let the Merciful One write neither “and” nor “the first.”
קלאוד על הדף:
The Rabbis answer Rabbi Ilai’s appeal to the vav with an argument from economy. If the conjunction were meant to rejoin what reishit had separated, the Torah should have written neither — no vav and no reishit — leaving the clauses joined from the start. A word that separates and a word that reunites cancel each other out.
Segment 2
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Ilai: the two differ in kind, so they had to be parted and rejoined.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי אִלְעַאי, אַיְּידֵי דְּהַאי קְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים, וְהַאי קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף, פָּסֵיק לְהוּ, וַהֲדַר עָרְבִי לְהוּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Ilai respond to this contention? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Ilai would say that the first sheared wool and teruma are essentially different obligations, as the first sheared wool is merely a monetary obligation with no inherent sanctity. By contrast, it is prohibited for non-priests to partake of teruma. Since this case of the first sheared wool involves only sanctity that inheres in its value, and that case of teruma referred to in the beginning of the verse involves inherent sanctity, the verse separated them through the repetition of the term “the first,” and then the verse went back and combined them through the term “and,” so that their halakhot could be derived from one another.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Ilai explains why both words were necessary. Reishit hagez carries only kedushat damim, sanctity of value — it is a monetary due with no inherent holiness — while terumah carries kedushat haguf, inherent sanctity forbidden to non-priests. Because they are so unlike, the verse first separated them and then deliberately rejoined them, so that their laws could still be derived from one another.
Key Terms:
- קְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים = sanctity of monetary value only
- קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף = inherent sanctity of the object itself
Segment 3
TYPE: תירוץ
Alternatively: the Rabbis hold gentile partnership IS obligated in terumah.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: שׁוּתָּפוּת גּוֹי בִּתְרוּמָה, רַבָּנַן חַיּוֹבֵי מְחַיְּיבִי, דְּתַנְיָא: יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹי שֶׁלָּקְחוּ שָׂדֶה בְּשׁוּתָּפוּת – טֶבֶל וְחוּלִּין מְעוֹרָבִים זֶה בָּזֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל חַיָּיב, וְשֶׁל גּוֹי פָּטוּר.
English Translation:
The Gemara provides an alternative explanation as to why the Rabbis do not derive the exemption of sheep owned in partnership with a gentile from the case of teruma. If you wish, say instead that with regard to teruma, the Rabbis hold that one who owns produce in partnership with a gentile is in fact obligated, as it is taught in a baraita: If there were a Jew and a gentile who purchased a field in partnership, the produce grown in that field is considered to be untithed produce, which is subject to the halakhot of terumot and tithes, and non-sacred produce, which is exempt from the requirements of terumot and tithes, mixed together; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The portion of the Jew is obligated in teruma and tithes, but the portion of the gentile is exempt.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second answer removes the Rabbis’ need for the terumah clause altogether. They may hold that produce owned jointly with a gentile is liable to terumah, in which case deganecha cannot be teaching an exemption there. The supporting baraita concerns a Jew and a gentile who buy a field together: Rabbi holds the produce is tevel and chullin intermixed, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that the Jew’s portion is liable and the gentile’s exempt.
Key Terms:
- טֶבֶל (tevel) = untithed produce, forbidden until terumah is separated
Segment 4
TYPE: הסבר
Their dispute is only about bereirah; both agree it is obligated.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי, אֶלָּא דְּמָר סָבַר יֵשׁ בְּרֵירָה, וּמַר סָבַר אֵין בְּרֵירָה, אֲבָל שׁוּתָּפוּת דְּגוֹי – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל חַיֶּיבֶת.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains the inference. They disagree only with regard to the following issue: That one Sage, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds that there is retroactive clarification, which means that when they divide the produce it will be clarified who owned which produce from the outset; and one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that there is no retroactive clarification, and because it grew in a mixed state, it retains that status even after they divide the produce. But with regard to produce that a Jew owns in partnership with a gentile, everyone agrees that it is obligated in teruma.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara reads the baraita precisely. Rabbi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel differ only over bereirah, retroactive clarification — whether dividing the crop later establishes who owned what from the outset. On the liability itself they agree: produce held in partnership with a gentile is subject to terumah. So the Rabbis have no exemption to derive from deganecha.
Key Terms:
- בְּרֵירָה (bereirah) = retroactive clarification of ownership
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ
Or: Rabbi Ilai derives both exemptions from ‘tzonecha’ alone.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא, תַּרְוַיְיהוּ לְרַבִּי אִלְעַאי מִ״צֹּאנְךָ״ נָפְקָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara presents an alternative explanation of Rabbi Ilai’s opinion: If you wish, say instead that Rabbi Ilai does not derive only the exemption of sheep owned in partnership with a Jew from the term “your flock” while he derives the exemption of sheep owned in partnership with a gentile from the term “your grain.” Rather, according to Rabbi Ilai both exemptions are derived from the term “your flock.”
קלאוד על הדף:
A third possibility dispenses with the terumah clause for Rabbi Ilai too. Both exemptions — partnership with a Jew and with a gentile — may come from tzonecha by itself, without recourse to deganecha at all.
Segment 6
TYPE: הסבר
The logic: neither partnership is exclusively his — but the Rabbis distinguish.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שׁוּתָּפוּת דְּגוֹי מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּלָא מְיַיחֲדָא לֵיהּ, לְיִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי לָא מְיַיחֲדָא לֵיהּ. וְרַבָּנַן? גּוֹי לָאו בַּר חִיּוּבָא הוּא, יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּר חִיּוּבָא הוּא.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains why both exemptions can be derived from a single phrase: With regard to partnership with a gentile, what is the reason that one is exempted from the obligation of the first sheared wool? It is due to the fact that the sheep is not exclusively his. In the case of a partnership with a Jew too, the sheep is not exclusively his. The Gemara asks: And what do the Rabbis reply to this claim of Rabbi Ilai? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis hold that partnership with a Jew cannot be compared to partnership with a gentile, as a gentile is not obligated in the mitzva of the first sheared wool, whereas a Jew is obligated.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Ilai’s reasoning is uniform: a gentile partnership is exempt because the animal lo meyachada leih, is not exclusively his — and precisely the same is true of a Jewish partnership. The Rabbis reject the equation on a different ground: a gentile is not a bar chiyuva, not subject to the obligation at all, whereas a Jewish partner is. The two partnerships fail for different reasons, so they cannot be equated.
Key Terms:
- לָא מְיַיחֲדָא לֵיהּ = it is not exclusively his
- בַּר חִיּוּבָא = one who is subject to the obligation
Segment 7
TYPE: מימרא
Rava: Rabbi Ilai concedes that partners ARE obligated in terumah.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי אִלְעַאי בִּתְרוּמָה, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב ״דְּגָנְךָ״ – דִּידָךְ אִין, דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא.
English Translation:
§ Rava said with regard to the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Ilai: Although Rabbi Ilai holds that two partners who own a sheep are exempt from the first sheared wool, he concedes that jointly owned produce is obligated in teruma. This is the halakha even though it is written with regard to teruma: “Your grain” (Deuteronomy 18:4), using the singular pronoun, from which one may infer that with regard to yours, yes, one is obligated, whereas with regard to that which is owned in partnership, the partners are not obligated.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava now opens a survey that occupies the rest of the daf. Though Rabbi Ilai exempts partners from reishit hagez, he concedes they are liable to terumah — despite deganecha in the singular, which by his own method should exempt them.
Segment 8
TYPE: דרשה
Because ‘terumoteichem’ is plural; ‘deganecha’ then excludes gentile partnership.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״תְּרוּמֹתֵיכֶם״, אֶלָּא ״דְּגָנְךָ״ לְמָה לִי? לְמַעוֹטֵי שׁוּתָּפוּת גּוֹי.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains that the joint owners of produce are nevertheless obligated in teruma, as the Merciful One writes: “There will I require your terumot” (Ezekiel 20:40). The use of the plural pronoun in this verse indicates that even partners who own produce are obligated in teruma. The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the term: “Your grain,” using the singular pronoun? The Gemara answers: This serves to exclude produce owned in partnership with a gentile.
קלאוד על הדף:
The concession rests on a plural. Yechezkel 20:40 speaks of terumoteichem, your terumot, which includes partners. Deganecha is then free to do the narrower work of excluding partnership with a gentile. This pattern — a plural to include Jewish partners, a singular to exclude gentile ones — now repeats through five further mitzvot.
Key Terms:
- תְּרוּמֹתֵיכֶם = your terumot — the plural including partners
Segment 9
TYPE: דרשה
Challah: ‘ariseiteichem’ would include partners — but the point is derived elsewhere.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חַלָּה, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב ״רֵאשִׁית״, וְאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר: נֵילַף ״רֵאשִׁית״ ״רֵאשִׁית״ מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז – מָה לְהַלָּן דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא, אַף כָּאן דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא. כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״עֲרִיסוֹתֵיכֶם״.
English Translation:
Similarly, with regard to ḥalla, the portion of dough that one is required to separate and give to a priest, Rabbi Ilai concedes that joint owners are obligated in this mitzva, even though one could claim otherwise, as it is written: “Of the first of your dough you shall set apart a cake for a gift” (Numbers 15:20), and it is possible to say that one should derive a verbal analogy between the term “the first” in this context and the term “the first” from the first sheared wool: Just as there, with regard to the first sheared wool, if the sheep are owned in partnership the owners are not obligated, so too here, with regard to ḥalla, if the dough is owned in partnership they are not obligated. Nevertheless, the Merciful One writes: “Your dough,” using a plural pronoun, indicating that even joint owners of dough are obligated to separate ḥalla.
קלאוד על הדף:
Challah follows the same shape. One might have linked reishit here to reishit of the shearing by verbal analogy and exempted partners, were it not for the plural ariseiteichem, your dough. The Gemara then objects that the analogy should rather have been drawn to terumah, which is closer in kind since both are forbidden to non-priests.
Key Terms:
- עֲרִיסוֹתֵיכֶם = your dough — plural, including partners
- גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה = a verbal analogy between identical terms
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא
The objection: challah should rather be learned from terumah.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא טַעְמָא דִּכְתִיב ״עֲרִיסוֹתֵיכֶם״, הָא לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה אָמֵינָא נֵילַף ״רֵאשִׁית״ ״רֵאשִׁית״ מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז? אַדְּרַבָּה, נֵילַף מִתְּרוּמָה!
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: But according to this claim, the reason joint owners of dough are obligated to separate ḥalla is that it is written “your dough,” using a plural pronoun. It can be inferred from here that were that not the case I would say that they are exempt, as derived by a verbal analogy between the term “the first” mentioned with regard to ḥalla and the term “the first” from the first sheared wool. On the contrary, one should derive a verbal analogy between the term “the first” with regard to ḥalla and the term “the first” from teruma: Just as the obligation to separate teruma applies to produce owned in partnership, so too, the obligation to separate ḥalla applies to dough owned in partnership. It is preferable to compare ḥalla to teruma, because their halakhic status is similar in that they are both prohibited to non-priests. If so, the inference from the term “your dough” is unnecessary.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara pushes back on the previous step. If the plural ariseiteichem is what includes partners in challah, then without it we would have drawn the analogy from reishit hagez and exempted them. But why reach for the shearing at all? Terumah is the closer match, since challah and terumah are both forbidden to non-priests, and terumah plainly includes partners.
Key Terms:
- נֵילַף רֵאשִׁית רֵאשִׁית = let us derive ‘first’ from ‘first’ — the proposed verbal analogy
Segment 11
TYPE: תירוץ
Conceded — so ‘ariseiteichem’ is freed to teach the measure of dough.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָכִי נָמֵי, אֶלָּא ״עֲרִיסוֹתֵיכֶם״ לְמָה לִי? כְּדֵי עֲרִיסוֹתֵיכֶם.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: It is indeed so; the obligation of produce owned in partnership in the case of ḥalla is derived from the case of teruma. But if so, why do I need the term “your dough”? This teaches that the quantity of dough to which the obligation of ḥalla applies is equivalent to the quantity of your dough, i.e., the quantity of dough kneaded daily by the Jewish people when they were in the Sinai Desert, when the mitzva was given. This is one omer for each person (see Exodus 16:16), which is a tenth of an ephah (see Exodus 16:36).
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara accepts the objection: challah is indeed learned from terumah, not from the shearing. The plural is therefore not needed to include partners, and is released for another teaching — kdei ariseiteichem, the measure of your dough, fixing the quantity at the omer per person kneaded in the wilderness, a tenth of an ephah.
Key Terms:
- כְּדֵי עֲרִיסוֹתֵיכֶם = the measure of your dough — an omer, a tenth of an ephah
Segment 12
TYPE: דרשה
Pe’ah: ‘uvkutzrechem’ includes partners, ‘sadecha’ excludes the gentile.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
פֵּאָה, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב ״שָׂדְךָ״ – דִּידָךְ אִין, שׁוּתָּפוּת לָא – כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״וּבְקֻצְרְכֶם אֶת קְצִיר אַרְצְכֶם״. אֶלָּא ״שָׂדְךָ״ לְמָה לִי? לְמַעוֹטֵי שׁוּתָּפוּת גּוֹי.
English Translation:
Likewise, with regard to pe’a, produce in the corner of the field that is left for the poor, Rabbi Ilai concedes that the joint owners of produce are obligated, even though it is written in the verse cited below: “Your field [sadekha],” using a singular pronoun, from which it can be inferred that with regard to your field, yes, one is obligated, whereas with regard to that which is owned in partnership, one is not obligated. The reason is that the Merciful One writes: “And when you reap [uvekutzrekhem] the harvest of your land, you shall not entirely reap the corner of your field” (Leviticus 19:9). The term “when you reap” uses the plural pronoun, which indicates that even partners of land are obligated in pe’a. The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the term “your field” in the singular? The Gemara answers: This serves to exclude land owned in partnership with a gentile from the obligation of pe’a.
קלאוד על הדף:
Pe’ah repeats the pattern exactly. Sadecha, your field, might have exempted partners, but uvkutzrechem et ketzir artzechem — and when you reap the harvest of your land — is plural and brings them in. Sadecha is then left to exclude a field held jointly with a gentile.
Key Terms:
- וּבְקֻצְרְכֶם = and when you reap — plural, including partners
- שָׂדְךָ (sadecha) = your field — the singular of Vayikra 19:9
Segment 13
TYPE: דרשה
Bechorah: the singular of Devarim 15:19 would have exempted partners.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּכוֹרָה, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב ״כׇּל הַבְּכוֹר אֲשֶׁר יִוָּלֵד בִּבְקָרְךָ וּבְצֹאנְךָ״, דִּידָךְ – אִין, דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת – לָא.
English Translation:
Similarly, with regard to the firstborn status of a male firstborn kosher animal, Rabbi Ilai concedes that jointly owned animals are sanctified, even though it is written: “All the firstborn that are born of your herd [bivkarekha] and of your flock [tzonekha] that are male you shall sanctify to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 15:19). Once again it might have been inferred from the singular pronoun in the terms “your herd” and “your flock” that your firstborn, yes, are sanctified, but the firstborn that is owned in partnership is not sanctified.
קלאוד על הדף:
The firstborn follows suit. Devarim 15:19 speaks of bivkarcha uvtzonecha in the singular, from which one might infer that only a wholly owned animal is sanctified as a firstborn and a jointly owned one is not.
Key Terms:
- בְּכוֹרָה (bechorah) = the sanctity of a firstborn animal
- בִּבְקָרְךָ וּבְצֹאנְךָ = of your herd and of your flock — singular
Segment 14
TYPE: דרשה
But the plural in Devarim 12:6 includes them; the singular excludes the gentile.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא: ״וּבְכֹרֹת בְּקַרְכֶם וְצֹאנְכֶם״, אֶלָּא ״בְּקָרְךָ וְצֹאנְךָ״ לְמָה לִי? לְמַעוֹטֵי שׁוּתָּפוּת גּוֹי.
English Translation:
Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “And there you shall bring there your burnt offerings, and your peace offerings, and your tithes, and the gift of your hand, and your vows, and your gift offerings, and the firstborn of your herd [bekarkhem] and of your flock [tzonekhem]” (Deuteronomy 12:6). The pronouns in the terms “your herd” and “your flock” in this verse are in the plural, which indicates that firstborn animals owned in partnership are sanctified. The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the terms “your herd” and “your flock” (Deuteronomy 15:19), where the pronouns are in the singular? The Gemara again answers: This serves to exclude animals owned in partnership with a gentile, which are not sanctified.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer comes from the plural in Devarim 12:6, bechorot bekarchem v’tzonechem, which includes jointly owned firstborns. The singular of 15:19 is then assigned, as in every previous case, to excluding an animal held in partnership with a gentile.
Key Terms:
- וּבְכֹרֹת בְּקַרְכֶם וְצֹאנְכֶם = and the firstborn of your herd and your flock — plural
Segment 15
TYPE: דרשה
Mezuzah, and the daf breaks off mid-sentence at ‘as Rabba said’.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מְזוּזָה, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב ״בֵּיתֶךָ״ – דִּידָךְ אִין, שׁוּתָּפוּת לָא, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״לְמַעַן יִרְבּוּ יְמֵיכֶם וִימֵי בְנֵיכֶם״. וְאֶלָּא ״בֵּיתֶךָ״ לְמַאי אֲתָא? לְכִדְרַבָּה, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה:
English Translation:
Likewise, with regard to a mezuza, Rabbi Ilai concedes that the house of two partners is obligated, even though it is written: “And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house [beitekha]” (Deuteronomy 6:9), with a singular pronoun, from which one might have inferred that with regard to your house, yes, it is obligated, whereas a house owned by two people in partnership is not obligated. Consequently, the Merciful One writes with regard to the mitzva of mezuza: “So that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children” (Deuteronomy 11:21). The use of the plural pronoun in the terms “your days” and “your children” in this verse indicates that partners are obligated in the mitzva of mezuza. The Gemara asks: But if so, for what purpose does the term “your house [beitekha]” come? The Gemara answers: It is necessary for that which Rabba derived, as Rabba said:
קלאוד על הדף:
The last case is mezuzah. Beitecha, your house, might have exempted a jointly owned home, but the promise attached to the mitzva — lema’an yirbu yemeichem vimei veneichem — is plural and brings partners in. What then is beitecha left to teach? Here the answer is not a gentile partnership but a ruling of Rabba, and the daf ends mid-sentence on de’amar Rabba, the teaching itself deferred to 136a.
Key Terms:
- בֵּיתֶךָ (beitecha) = your house — the singular of Devarim 6:9
- לְמַעַן יִרְבּוּ יְמֵיכֶם = so that your days may be multiplied — plural, including partners