Chullin Daf 136 (חולין דף קל״ו)
Daf: 136 | Amudim: 136a – 136b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (136a)
Segment 1
TYPE: דרשה
Rabba’s teaching completed: ‘beitecha’ fixes the mezuzah on the right.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דֶּרֶךְ בִּיאָתְךָ מִן הַיָּמִין.
English Translation:
The term “your house [beitekha]” is similar to the term: You enter [bi’atkha], indicating that one places the mezuza in the way that you enter the house. When a person lifts his foot to begin walking, he lifts his right foot first. Therefore, the mezuza is affixed to the right side of the doorway, as one enters.
קלאוד על הדף:
The sentence broken off at the end of 135b concludes. Rabba read beitecha as biatcha, the way you enter — and since a person steps off with the right foot, the mezuzah is fixed on the right-hand doorpost as one comes in. The singular pronoun that elsewhere excluded partnerships is here spent on a matter of orientation instead.
Key Terms:
- דֶּרֶךְ בִּיאָתְךָ = the way you enter — the derivation fixing the mezuzah on the right
Segment 2
TYPE: דרשה
Ma’aser: ‘ma’asroteichem’ includes partners, ‘deganecha’ excludes the gentile.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַעֲשֵׂר, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב ״מַעְשַׂר דְּגָנְךָ״ – דִּילָךְ אִין, דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא. כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״מַעְשְׂרוֹתֵיכֶם״. אֶלָּא ״מַעְשַׂר דְּגָנְךָ״ לְמַאי אֲתָא? לְמַעוֹטֵי שׁוּתָּפוּת דְּגוֹי.
English Translation:
Similarly, with regard to tithe, Rabbi Ilai concedes that joint owners of produce are obligated, even though it is written: “The tithe of your grain [deganekha]” (Deuteronomy 12:17), using the singular pronoun, from which one might have inferred that with regard to your grain, yes, one is obligated, whereas with regard to that which is owned in partnership, one is not obligated. The reason is that the Merciful One writes: “All your tithes [ma’asroteikhem]” (Numbers 18:28), using the plural pronoun, indicating that even partners are obligated in this mitzva. The Gemara asks: But if so, for what purpose does the term: “The tithe of your grain [deganekha],” using the singular pronoun, come? The Gemara answers: It serves to exclude produce owned in partnership with a gentile from the obligation of tithes.
קלאוד על הדף:
The survey resumes with tithe, and the pattern is by now familiar. Ma’asar deganecha in the singular would exempt partners, but ma’asroteichem in Bamidbar 18:28 is plural and includes them. The singular is then assigned, as always, to excluding produce held jointly with a gentile.
Key Terms:
- מַעְשְׂרוֹתֵיכֶם = your tithes — plural, including partners
Segment 3
TYPE: דרשה
The matanot: ‘v’natan’ might have exempted partners.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתָּנוֹת, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״וְנָתַן״.
English Translation:
Likewise, with regard to the gifts to which members of the priesthood are entitled, i.e., the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, Rabbi Ilai concedes that the joint owners of an animal are obligated, even though the Merciful One writes: “And this shall be the priests’ due from the people, from those who slaughter an animal, whether it be ox or sheep; and he shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw” (Deuteronomy 18:3).
קלאוד על הדף:
Next the foreleg, jaw and maw of the previous perek. Devarim 18:3 says v’natan, and he shall give, in a form that might have carried the exemption over from reishit hagez by verbal analogy.
Key Terms:
- מַתָּנוֹת (matanot) = the priestly gifts of foreleg, jaw and maw
Segment 4
TYPE: דרשה
The analogy from reishit hagez, blocked by ‘me’et zovchei hazevach’.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר, יָלֵיף ״נְתִינָה״ ״נְתִינָה״ מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז – מָה לְהַלָּן דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא, אַף כָּאן דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא. כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״מֵאֵת זוֹבְחֵי הַזֶּבַח״.
English Translation:
The Gemara elaborates: It is possible to say that one should derive a verbal analogy between giving mentioned in the context of gifts to the priesthood and giving from the first sheared wool. The Torah states: “He shall give,” with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, and it states: “Shall you give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4), with regard to the first sheared wool; just as there, with regard to the first sheared wool, sheep owned in partnership do not render their owners obligated, so too here, with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, an animal owned in partnership does not render the owners obligated. But the Merciful One writes: “From those who slaughter an animal,” in the plural, indicating that even the owners of an animal owned in partnership are obligated to give the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw.
קלאוד על הדף:
The proposed analogy links netinah to netinah: as partners are exempt from the first shearing, so they should be exempt from the gifts. The Gemara blocks it with me’et zovchei hazevach, from those who slaughter — a plural that brings partners back in.
Key Terms:
- נְתִינָה נְתִינָה = a verbal analogy linking two instances of ‘giving’
- מֵאֵת זוֹבְחֵי הַזֶּבַח = from those who slaughter — plural, including partners
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא
Why analogise to the shearing rather than to terumah?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״מֵאֵת זוֹבְחֵי הַזֶּבַח״, הָא לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה אָמֵינָא לֵילַף מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז? אַדְּרַבָּה נֵילַף מִתְּרוּמָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: But according to this inference, the reason the joint owners of an animal are obligated in the gifts of the priesthood is that the Merciful One writes: “From those who slaughter an animal,” in the plural. But were it not so, I would say that they are exempt, as derived by means of a verbal analogy from the first sheared wool. On the contrary, since the term “shall you give him” is also referring to teruma, one should derive by means of a verbal analogy from teruma: Just as the obligation of teruma applies to those who own produce in partnership, so too, the requirement of the gifts of the priesthood applies to partners that own an animal together.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara turns the argument over. If the plural were absent we would have learned from reishit hagez and exempted partners — but why reach for the shearing at all? Titen lo governs terumah in the very same verse, and terumah plainly obligates partners. The closer analogy points the other way.
Segment 6
TYPE: תירוץ
Conceded — so the phrase is freed for Rava’s ruling on the butcher.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִין הָכִי נָמֵי, מֵאֵת ״זוֹבְחֵי הַזֶּבַח״ לְמָה לִּי? לְכִדְרָבָא, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: הַדִּין עִם הַטַּבָּח.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: Yes, it is indeed so; the obligation of partners with regard to gifts of the priesthood is derived from teruma. But if so, why do I need the phrase “from those who slaughter an animal”? It is necessary for that which Rava taught, as Rava said: The priest issues his demand to receive the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw from the butcher who slaughtered the animal, not from the buyer.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara accepts it: partners are obligated in the gifts by analogy to terumah after all. Me’et zovchei hazevach is therefore not needed for that, and is released for Rava’s ruling from 132b — hadin im hataba, the priest’s claim lies against the butcher rather than the owner.
Key Terms:
- הַדִּין עִם הַטַּבָּח = the claim lies against the butcher
Segment 7
TYPE: דרשה
Bikkurim: ‘artzecha’ would have exempted partners.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּכּוּרִים, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב ״אַרְצְךָ״ – דִּידָךְ אִין, דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא.
English Translation:
Similarly, with regard to the first fruits, Rabbi Ilai concedes that the joint owners of produce are obligated, even though it is written: “And you shall take of the first of all the fruit of the ground, which you shall bring in from your land [be’artzekha]” (Deuteronomy 26:2), using the singular pronoun. One might have inferred from the singular pronoun that with regard to your land, yes, one is obligated, whereas with regard to that which is owned in partnership one is not obligated.
קלאוד על הדף:
First fruits enter the survey. Devarim 26:2 speaks of what you bring in from artzecha, your land, in the singular — language that might have confined the obligation to sole owners.
Key Terms:
- בִּכּוּרִים (bikkurim) = the first fruits brought to the Temple
Segment 8
TYPE: דרשה
But ‘b’artzam’ includes them; ‘artzecha’ excludes chutz la’aretz.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״בִּכּוּרֵי כֹּל אֲשֶׁר (בְּאַרְצְךָ) [בְּאַרְצָם]״, אֶלָּא ״אַרְצְךָ״ לְמָה לִי? לְמַעוֹטֵי חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ.
English Translation:
Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “The first fruits of all that is in their land, which they bring to the Lord, shall be yours” (Numbers 18:13). The use of the plural pronoun indicates that even from land owned in partnership one is obligated to bring first fruits. The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the term “your land [artzekha],” using the singular pronoun? The Gemara answers: This serves to exclude produce grown outside of Eretz Yisrael from the mitzva of the first fruits.
קלאוד על הדף:
Bamidbar 18:13 supplies the plural b’artzam, in their land, which includes jointly owned fields. Here, unusually, the singular is not spent on gentile partnership but on a different exclusion altogether: produce grown outside the Land carries no obligation of bikkurim.
Key Terms:
- חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ = outside the Land of Israel
Segment 9
TYPE: דרשה
Tzitzit: ‘kesutecha’ would have exempted a jointly owned garment.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
צִיצִית, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״כְּסוּתְךָ״ – דִּידָךְ אִין, דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא.
English Translation:
Likewise, with regard to the mitzva to attach ritual fringes to one’s garment, Rabbi Ilai concedes that a jointly owned garment is obligated, even though the Merciful One writes: “You shall make yourself twisted cords upon the four corners of your covering [kesutekha]” (Deuteronomy 22:12), using the singular pronoun. It might have been inferred from the singular form that with regard to your covering, yes, it is obligated, whereas with regard to that which is owned in partnership it is not obligated.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ritual fringes follow. Devarim 22:12 speaks of the corners of kesutecha, your covering, in the singular, from which one might infer that a garment owned by two people needs no fringes.
Key Terms:
- צִיצִית (tzitzit) = the fringes attached to a four-cornered garment
Segment 10
TYPE: דרשה
But ‘bigdeihem’ includes them; ‘kesutecha’ teaches the borrowed cloak.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״עַל כַּנְפֵי בִגְדֵיהֶם לְדֹרֹתָם״, וְאֶלָּא ״כְּסוּתְךָ״ לְמָה לִי? לְכִדְרַב יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: טַלִּית שְׁאוּלָה פְּטוּרָה מִן הַצִּיצִית כׇּל שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם.
English Translation:
Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “And they shall make for themselves fringes in the corners of their garments, throughout their generations, and they shall put with the fringe of each corner a thread of blue” (Numbers 15:38). The use of the plural pronoun indicates that even jointly owned garments are obligated. The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need the term “your covering [kesutekha],” using the singular pronoun? The Gemara answers: This is necessary for that which Rav Yehuda taught, as Rav Yehuda said: A borrowed cloak is exempt from the mitzva of ritual fringes throughout the first thirty days.
קלאוד על הדף:
Bamidbar 15:38 speaks of kanfei bigdeihem, the corners of their garments, in the plural, obligating jointly owned garments. The singular then does quite different work, supplying Rav Yehuda’s ruling that a borrowed tallit is exempt from tzitzit for the first thirty days.
Key Terms:
- טַלִּית שְׁאוּלָה = a borrowed cloak, exempt for thirty days
Segment 11
TYPE: דרשה
Ma’akeh: ‘gagecha’ would have exempted a jointly owned roof.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַעֲקֶה, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״לְגַגֶּךָ״ – דִּידָךְ אִין, דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא.
English Translation:
Similarly, with regard to the obligation of establishing a parapet around a roof, Rabbi Ilai concedes that the joint owners of a roof are obligated, even though the Merciful One writes: “When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof [legaggekha],” using the singular pronoun, “and you shall not bring blood upon your house, if any man falls from there” (Deuteronomy 22:8). One might have inferred from the singular form that with regard to your roof, yes, one is obligated, whereas with regard to that which is owned in partnership one is not obligated.
קלאוד על הדף:
The parapet is next. Devarim 22:8 requires a fence for gagecha, your roof, in the singular — language that might have released co-owners from the duty to guard against a fall.
Key Terms:
- מַעֲקֶה (ma’akeh) = the parapet required around a roof
Segment 12
TYPE: דרשה
But ‘ki yipol hanofel’ includes them; ‘gagecha’ excludes shuls and study halls.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״כִּי יִפֹּל הַנֹּפֵל מִמֶּנּוּ״, אֶלָּא ״גַּגֶּךָ״ לְמַאי אֲתָא? לְמַעוֹטֵי בָּתֵּי כְנֵסִיּוֹת וּבָתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת.
English Translation:
Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “If any man falls from there,” indicating that wherever the danger of falling from the roof exists, there is an obligation to erect a parapet. The Gemara asks: But if so, for what purpose does the term “your roof [gaggekha],” using the singular pronoun, come? The Gemara answers: It serves to exclude synagogues and houses of study.
קלאוד על הדף:
The plural comes not from a pronoun but from the reason: ki yipol hanofel mimenu, lest one fall from it — wherever the danger exists, the obligation follows, partners included. The singular then excludes synagogues and study halls, which belong to no private owner at all.
Key Terms:
- בָּתֵּי כְנֵסִיּוֹת וּבָתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת = synagogues and houses of study
Segment 13
TYPE: קושיא
Rav Beivai bar Abaye: these principles do not hold — a baraita on bechorah.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי: לֵיתַנְהוּ לְהָנֵי כְּלָלֵי, דְּתַנְיָא: בֶּהֱמַת הַשּׁוּתָּפִין חַיֶּיבֶת בִּבְכוֹרָה, וְרַבִּי אִלְעַאי פּוֹטְרָהּ.
English Translation:
§ Rava maintains that although Rabbi Ilai holds that if a sheep is owned in partnership its owners are exempt from giving the first sheared wool to a priest, he concedes that partners are obligated with regard to all the other issues discussed above, including the mitzva of the firstborn animal and the gifts of the priesthood. Rav Beivai bar Abaye said: These principles stated by Rava are not accepted, as it is taught in a baraita: An animal owned by partners is obligated in the mitzva of a firstborn, i.e., its offspring is subject to firstborn status. And Rabbi Ilai exempts the animal from having its offspring subject to firstborn status.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava’s whole survey is now attacked. Rav Beivai bar Abaye cites a baraita in which jointly owned animals are subject to firstborn sanctity and Rabbi Ilai exempts them — flatly contradicting Rava’s claim that Rabbi Ilai concedes everywhere outside reishit hagez.
Key Terms:
- לֵיתַנְהוּ לְהָנֵי כְּלָלֵי = these principles do not hold
Segment 14
TYPE: הסבר
Rabbi Ilai reads the plural of 12:6 as merely collective.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי? דִּכְתִיב: ״בְּקָרְךָ וְצֹאנְךָ״, וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״בְּקַרְכֶם וְצֹאנְכֶם״! דְּכוּלְּהוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Ilai? As it is written: “And the firstborn of your herd and of your flock [bekarekha vetzonekha]” (Deuteronomy 12:17), using the singular pronoun, indicating that only privately owned animals are consecrated. The Gemara comments: But it is also written: “And the firstborn of your herd and of your flock [bekarkhem vetzonekhem]” (Deuteronomy 12:6), using the plural pronoun. The Gemara explains: This verse is referring to the obligation of all Jews to bring their firstborn animals to the Temple, but this applies only to animals with a single owner.
קלאוד על הדף:
If Rabbi Ilai exempts partners from bechorah on the strength of the singular in Devarim 12:17, what of the plural in 12:6? He reads it as d’chulhu Yisrael, addressing all Israel collectively rather than including partnerships — so the plural never had the force Rava assigned it.
Key Terms:
- דְּכוּלְּהוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל = of all Israel — a collective, not a partnership plural
Segment 15
TYPE: קושיא
Rav Chanina of Sura: another baraita, on the matanot.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב חֲנִינָא מִסּוּרָא: לֵיתַנְהוּ לְהָנֵי כְּלָלֵי, דְּתַנְיָא: בֶּהֱמַת הַשּׁוּתָּפִין חַיֶּיבֶת בְּמַתָּנוֹת, וְרַבִּי אִלְעַאי פּוֹטֵר. מַאי טַעְמָא? יָלֵיף ״נְתִינָה״ ״נְתִינָה״ מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז – מָה לְהַלָּן דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא, אַף כָּאן דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא.
English Translation:
Rav Ḥanina of Sura also said: These principles stated by Rava are not accepted, as it is taught in a baraita: An animal owned by partners is obligated, i.e., renders its owners obligated, to take gifts of the priesthood from it, and Rabbi Ilai exempts the partners from the obligation. What is the reason for Rabbi Ilai’s statement? He derives a verbal analogy between giving mentioned in this context and giving from the first sheared wool. The Torah states: “He shall give” (Deuteronomy 18:3), with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, and: “Shall you give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4), with regard to the first sheared wool. Just as there, with regard to the first sheared wool, in the case of sheep owned in partnership the owners are not obligated according to Rabbi Ilai, so too here, with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, if the animal is owned in partnership the owners are not obligated.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second attack follows the same shape. Rav Chanina of Sura cites a baraita in which partners are obligated in the priestly gifts and Rabbi Ilai exempts them, deriving netinah from netinah out of reishit hagez — exactly the analogy the Gemara had earlier set aside.
Segment 16
TYPE: מסקנה
Therefore Rabbi Ilai exempts partners from terumah too.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בִּתְרוּמָה מִיחַיַּיב, נֵילַף ״נְתִינָה״ ״נְתִינָה״ מִתְּרוּמָה! אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בִּתְרוּמָה נָמֵי פּוֹטֵר.
English Translation:
Rabbi Ḥanina of Sura adds: And if it enters your mind to accept Rava’s statement that in the case of teruma Rabbi Ilai deems partners obligated, this is not possible. The reason is that the term “shall you give him” is also used with regard to teruma. Accordingly, instead of deriving the halakha of an animal owned by partners with regard to gifts of the priesthood by verbal analogy from the first sheared wool, one should derive by verbal analogy between giving mentioned with regard to gifts of the priesthood and giving from teruma, as follows: Just as joint owners of produce are obligated to separate teruma from that produce, so too with regard to an animal owned in partnership, the owners are obligated to take the gifts of the priesthood from it. Rather, conclude from the baraita that with regard to teruma too, Rabbi Ilai deems partners exempt, and therefore their exemption from the gifts of the priesthood can be derived either from the first sheared wool or from teruma.
קלאוד על הדף:
The consequence is drawn out. If Rabbi Ilai really held partners liable to terumah, he would have analogised the gifts to terumah rather than to the shearing, since titen lo serves both. That he chose the shearing shows he exempts partners from terumah as well — and Rava’s survey collapses further.
Segment 17
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Then the gifts should apply only in the Land — and Rabbi Ilai says exactly that.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי מָה תְּרוּמָה, בָּאָרֶץ – אִין, בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – לָא, אַף מַתָּנוֹת, בָּאָרֶץ – אִין, בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – לָא! אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מִנְּהַרְבִּיל: אִין, וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אִלְעַאי אוֹמֵר: מַתָּנוֹת אִין נוֹהֲגִין אֶלָּא בָּאָרֶץ, וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי אִלְעַאי אוֹמֵר: רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז אִין נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בָּאָרֶץ.
English Translation:
The Gemara raises a difficulty: If it is possible to derive halakhot of the gifts of the priesthood from teruma by verbal analogy, one could also say: Just as with regard to teruma the halakha is that in Eretz Yisrael, yes, it applies, whereas outside of Eretz Yisrael it does not apply, so too, with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, in Eretz Yisrael, yes, they apply, whereas outside of Eretz Yisrael they do not apply. Rabbi Yosei of Neharbil said: Yes, it is indeed so, and it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ilai says: The gifts of the priesthood apply only in Eretz Yisrael. And likewise, Rabbi Ilai would say: The mitzva of the first sheared wool applies only in Eretz Yisrael.
קלאוד על הדף:
If the gifts are learned from terumah, they should share terumah’s territorial limit and apply only in Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Yosei of Neharbil accepts the consequence rather than resisting it: a baraita has Rabbi Ilai ruling that both the priestly gifts and the first shearing apply only in the Land.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מִנְּהַרְבִּיל = Rabbi Yosei of Neharbil, a Babylonian sage
Segment 18
TYPE: הסבר
Rava explains the derivation behind Rabbi Ilai’s territorial ruling.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי? אָמַר רָבָא: יָלֵיף ״נְתִינָה״ ״נְתִינָה״ מִתְּרוּמָה: מָה תְּרוּמָה, בָּאָרֶץ – אִין, בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – לָא, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, בָּאָרֶץ – אִין, בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – לָא.
English Translation:
What is the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Ilai? Rava said: He derives by means of a verbal analogy between giving mentioned in the context of the first sheared wool and giving from teruma that just as with regard to teruma the halakha is that in Eretz Yisrael, yes, it applies, whereas outside of Eretz Yisrael, it does not apply; so too, with regard to the first sheared wool, in Eretz Yisrael, yes, it applies, whereas outside of Eretz Yisrael it does not apply.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava supplies the mechanism: the same netinah-netinah analogy to terumah carries terumah’s geography with it. As terumah applies in the Land and not outside it, so too reishit hagez. This ruling will matter greatly on 136b, where it becomes the accepted practice.
Segment 19
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Abaye begins testing the analogy: does unseparated wool become tevel?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אִי מָה תְּרוּמָה טוֹבֶלֶת, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז טוֹבֶלֶת? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אָמַר קְרָא ״וְרֵאשִׁית גֵּז צֹאנְךָ תִּתֶּן לוֹ״ – אֵין לְךָ בּוֹ אֶלָּא מֵרֵאשִׁיתוֹ וְאֵילָךְ.
English Translation:
Abaye said to Rava: If one compares the first sheared wool to teruma by means of a verbal analogy, one can say that just as with regard to the requirement to separate teruma, it produces the halakhic status of forbidden untithed produce, so too the requirement to separate the first sheared wool produces the halakhic status of untithed produce, i.e., wool from which the first sheared wool has not been separated should be forbidden. Yet this is not the halakha. Rava said to him that the verse states: “And the first sheared wool of your flock, shall you give him,” i.e., the priest, which indicates that you, i.e., the priest, have a right to the first sheared wool only from its designation as the first sheared wool and onward. Since the first sheared wool does not belong to the priest prior to its designation, it does not render the rest of the wool forbidden.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye now opens a sustained probe of how far the analogy runs, and the exchange occupies the rest of the amud. First: if reishit hagez is like terumah, unseparated wool should render the rest forbidden as tevel. Rava answers from v’reishit gez tzoncha titen lo — the priest’s right begins only from the designation onward, so nothing is forbidden before it.
Key Terms:
- טוֹבֶלֶת (tovelet) = it renders the remainder forbidden as untithed
Segment 20
TYPE: קושיא
Should a non-priest incur death and the added fifth?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי מָה תְּרוּמָה חַיָּיבִים עָלֶיהָ מִיתָה וָחוֹמֶשׁ, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז חַיָּיבִים עָלָיו מִיתָה וָחוֹמֶשׁ?
English Translation:
Abaye continues to question Rava: If one compares the first sheared wool to teruma by means of a verbal analogy, one can say that just as non-priests who partake of teruma intentionally are liable to receive the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven, and those who do so unwittingly are obligated to pay an additional one-fifth of its value, so too, non-priests who derive benefit from the first sheared wool intentionally should be liable to death at the hand of Heaven, and those who do so unwittingly should be obligated to pay an additional one-fifth of its value.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye presses further. A non-priest who eats terumah deliberately is liable to death at the hand of Heaven, and unwittingly must add a fifth. Should the same attach to benefiting from the first shearing?
Key Terms:
- מִיתָה וָחוֹמֶשׁ = death at the hand of Heaven and the added fifth
Segment 21
TYPE: תירוץ
No — the verses restrict both penalties to terumah alone.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר קְרָא: ״וּמֵתוּ בוֹ״, ״וְיָסַף עָלָיו״ – ״עָלָיו״ וְלֹא עַל רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, ״בּוֹ״ וְלֹא בְּרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז.
English Translation:
Rava replies: The verse states with regard to a non-priest who partakes of teruma: “Lest they bear sin for it, and die because of it, if they profane it…and if a man eat of the holy thing through error, and he shall add its fifth part to it, and shall give to the priest the holy thing” (Leviticus 22:9–14). Rava infers: “He shall add its fifth part to it,” and not to the first sheared wool. “And die because of it,” and not because of the first sheared wool. Consequently, a non-priest is liable to death at the hand of Heaven or to pay an additional one-fifth for partaking of teruma, but not for deriving benefit from the first sheared wool.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava answers from the pronouns in Vayikra 22. V’yasaf alav, he shall add a fifth to it — and not to the first shearing; umeitu vo, they shall die because of it — and not because of the first shearing. The analogy transfers the obligation but not its sanctions.
Segment 22
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Should tithes follow it, as they follow terumah? No — ‘reishit’ means first only.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי מָה תְּרוּמָה רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי אַחֲרֶיהָ, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי אַחֲרֶיהָ! אָמַר קְרָא ״רֵאשִׁית״, אֵין לְךָ בּוֹ אֶלָּא רֵאשִׁית בִּלְבַד.
English Translation:
Abaye further questions Rava: If one compares the first sheared wool to teruma by verbal analogy, one can say that just as with regard to teruma, the first and second tithes are separated from the produce after teruma is separated, so too with regard to the first sheared wool, first and second tithes should be separated from the fleece after it. Rava replies: The verse states that the first sheared wool is “the first.” Since the verse already stated “first” with regard to teruma, its repetition indicates that in this case there is no second separation. One does not have any separation in this case other than the first one.
קלאוד על הדף:
Next: after terumah come first and second tithe, so perhaps further separations follow the shearing too. Rava answers from the word reishit itself — you have in this only a first, and nothing after it.
Key Terms:
- רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי = first tithe and second tithe, separated after terumah
Segment 23
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
May one separate from a new year’s shearing for an old? Rava: no.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי מָה תְּרוּמָה, מֵחָדָשׁ עַל הַיָּשָׁן – לָא, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, מֵחָדָשׁ עַל הַיָּשָׁן – לָא? אִין.
English Translation:
Abaye continues to question Rava: If one compares the first sheared wool to teruma by means of a verbal analogy, one can say that just as with regard to teruma one may not separate from the new produce of this year on behalf of the old produce from last year, so too, one may not separate the first sheared wool from the new shearing of this year on behalf of the old shearing from last year. On this occasion Rava replied: Yes, that is the halakha.
קלאוד על הדף:
Terumah may not be separated from new produce for old, and Abaye asks whether the shearing follows. Here Rava simply agrees — in, yes — and then proves that this is indeed Rabbi Ilai’s position from a clash between two baraitot.
Key Terms:
- מֵחָדָשׁ עַל הַיָּשָׁן = from the new on behalf of the old
Segment 24
TYPE: מקור
The first baraita: two sheep over several years do not combine.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָתַנְיָא: הָיוּ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי רְחֵלוֹת, גָּזַז וְהִנִּיחַ, גָּזַז וְהִנִּיחַ, שְׁתַּיִם וְשָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים – אֵין מִצְטָרְפוֹת. הָא חָמֵשׁ – מִצְטָרְפוֹת.
English Translation:
Rava proves his point: And it is likewise taught that this is Rabbi Ilai’s opinion, through a contradiction between two baraitot. One baraita teaches: A person had two sheep; he sheared them and left the shearing in his possession, and the following year he again sheared them and left the shearing in his possession, and continued in this manner for two or three years. Although the accumulated wool is equivalent to the wool of five sheep, to which the obligation of the first sheared wool applies, the wool does not accumulate to constitute the minimum amount, as only two sheep were shorn. This indicates that if the wool is from five sheep, then it accumulates, and one is obligated to give the priest the first sheared wool, despite the fact that the wool was shorn in different years.
קלאוד על הדף:
The proof begins. A man with two sheep who shears and stores year after year has not reached the threshold, since only two animals were shorn — from which one infers that five sheep would combine across years.
Key Terms:
- אֵין מִצְטָרְפוֹת = they do not combine to reach the threshold
Segment 25
TYPE: מסקנה
The second baraita denies it — so the two reflect Rabbi Ilai and the Rabbis.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵין מִצְטָרְפוֹת! אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: הָא דְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי, וְהָא דְּרַבָּנַן.
English Translation:
But isn’t it taught in a baraita that even wool from five sheep shorn in different years does not accumulate to create an obligation? Rather, conclude from this contradiction that this second baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ilai, who compares the first sheared wool to teruma. Therefore, he holds that wool from separate years does not accumulate. And that first baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who do not compare the first sheared wool to teruma. Therefore, they maintain that wool from separate years does accumulate.
קלאוד על הדף:
But another baraita holds that even five do not combine across years. Rather than reconcile them, the Gemara assigns each to a side: the second is Rabbi Ilai, who imports terumah’s rule against mixing years, and the first is the Rabbis, who do not.
Segment 26
TYPE: קושיא
Should wool grown under gentile ownership be exempt, as with terumah?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי מָה תְּרוּמָה, גָּדֵל בְּחִיּוּב – חַיָּיב, גָּדֵל בִּפְטוּר – פָּטוּר, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז נָמֵי: גָּדֵל בְּחִיּוּב – חַיָּיב, בִּפְטוּר – פָּטוּר!
English Translation:
Abaye asks Rava: If one compares the first sheared wool to teruma, one can say that just as with regard to teruma, if a Jew purchased a field from a gentile then produce that grew under the ownership of a Jew, who is obligated to separate teruma from his produce, is obligated, whereas produce that grew under the ownership of a gentile, whose produce is exempt, is exempt even after purchase by a Jew; so too, with regard to the first sheared wool, the fleece that grew under the ownership of a Jew, who is obligated in the first sheared wool, is obligated, whereas the fleece that grew under the ownership of a gentile, who is exempt, is exempt even after purchase by a Jew.
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye’s next test concerns timing of ownership. With terumah, produce that grew while a gentile owned the field stays exempt even after a Jew buys it. Should wool that grew on a gentile’s sheep likewise remain exempt?
Key Terms:
- גָּדֵל בְּחִיּוּב = that which grew under an obligated owner
Segment 27
TYPE: מקור
The terumah rule, from a Jew buying a field in Syria.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְגַבֵּי תְּרוּמָה מְנָלַן? דְּתַנְיָא: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלָּקַח שָׂדֶה בְּסוּרְיָא מִגּוֹי, עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ – חַיָּיב, מִשֶּׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ – רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מְחַיֵּיב בְּתוֹסֶפֶת, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין.
English Translation:
Abaye adds: And with regard to teruma, from where do we derive that produce that grew when owned by a gentile is exempt? As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a Jew who purchased a field in Syria from a gentile, if he bought the field before the produce reached one-third of its growth, he is obligated to separate teruma. If he bought the field after the produce reached one-third of its growth, Rabbi Akiva deems him obligated to separate teruma from the growth added after he bought the field, and the Rabbis deem him exempt. All agree, though, that he is exempt with regard to the part of the produce that grew under the gentile’s ownership.
קלאוד על הדף:
The terumah principle is sourced from a baraita on a Jew who buys a field in Syria from a gentile. Bought before the crop reached a third of its growth, he is liable; bought after, Rabbi Akiva obligates him for the later growth and the Rabbis exempt him — but all agree the portion grown under gentile ownership is exempt.
Key Terms:
- הֵבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ = it reached a third of its growth
Segment 28
TYPE: קושיא
But the mishna implies otherwise — and the answer breaks to 136b.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, וְהָתְנַן: הַלּוֹקֵחַ גֵּז צֹאן גּוֹי – פָּטוּר מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, הָא צֹאנוֹ לִגְזוֹז – חַיָּיב! מַתְנִיתִין
English Translation:
And if you would say: Indeed, Rabbi Ilai holds that wool that grew under the ownership of a gentile is exempt from the mitzva of the first sheared wool, that is difficult, as didn’t we learn in the mishna (135a): One who purchases the fleece of the sheep of a gentile is exempt from the obligation of the first sheared wool? It can be inferred from the mishna that if one purchased the gentile’s sheep when they were ready for shearing, he is obligated in the mitzva of the first sheared wool. Rava replied: The mishna
קלאוד על הדף:
If Rabbi Ilai exempts such wool, the mishna on 135a is difficult: it exempts one who buys a gentile’s fleece, implying that buying his sheep before shearing obligates. Rava’s answer — that the mishna is simply not Rabbi Ilai’s view — begins here and completes on 136b.
Key Terms:
- מַתְנִיתִין = our mishna — the ruling at 135a
Amud Bet (136b)
Segment 1
TYPE: תירוץ
The answer completed: the mishna is not Rabbi Ilai’s view.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי.
English Translation:
is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ilai, who holds that if the wool grew under the ownership of a gentile one is exempt from separating the first sheared wool.
קלאוד על הדף:
The sentence broken off at the end of 136a finishes in three words. The mishna at 135a, which implies that buying a gentile’s sheep before shearing obligates, simply does not follow Rabbi Ilai — who holds that wool grown under gentile ownership stays exempt. Rather than reinterpret the mishna, the Gemara assigns it to the other side of the dispute.
Key Terms:
- דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי = not in accordance with Rabbi Ilai
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא
May one separate from one kind of sheep for another?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי מָה תְּרוּמָה, מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ – לֹא, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ – לֹא?
English Translation:
Abaye further asks Rava: If one compares the first sheared wool to teruma, can one say that just as with regard to teruma one may not separate teruma from one type of produce on behalf of that which is not of the same type, so too, one may not separate the first sheared wool from one type of sheep on behalf of sheep which are not of the same type?
קלאוד על הדף:
Abaye resumes his probe. Terumah may not be separated from one species on behalf of another; does the shearing follow, so that grey wool cannot discharge the obligation on white?
Key Terms:
- מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ = from one kind on behalf of another kind
Segment 3
TYPE: מקור
The terumah rule, and Beit Shammai against Beit Hillel on varieties.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְגַבֵּי תְּרוּמָה מְנָלַן? דְּתַנְיָא: הָיוּ לוֹ שְׁנֵי מִינֵי תְּאֵנִים, שְׁחוֹרוֹת וּלְבָנוֹת, וְכֵן שְׁנֵי מִינֵי חִטִּין – אֵין תּוֹרְמִים וּמְעַשְּׂרִים מִזֶּה עַל זֶה. רַבִּי יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אִלְעַאי: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים אֵין תּוֹרְמִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים תּוֹרְמִין. אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ – לֹא.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And with regard to teruma, from where do we derive that one may not do so? As it is taught in a baraita: If one had two types of figs, black figs and white figs; or similarly, if one had two types of wheat, one may not separate teruma and tithes from this type on behalf of that type. Rabbi Yitzḥak says in the name of Rabbi Ilai: Beit Shammai say that one may not separate teruma from one of these on behalf of the other, and Beit Hillel say that one may separate teruma from one on behalf of the other, as they consider all forms of figs or wheat to be a single type. But all agree that with regard to two distinct types of food one may not separate teruma from one type on behalf of another type. So too, with regard to the first sheared wool, perhaps one may not separate from one type of sheep on behalf of sheep which are not of the same type.
קלאוד על הדף:
The source is a baraita on two kinds of figs or wheat, from which one may not separate for the other. Rabbi Yitzchak reports in Rabbi Ilai’s name that Beit Shammai forbid it and Beit Hillel permit, treating varieties of one species as a single kind — but all agree that genuinely distinct species may not discharge one another.
Key Terms:
- שְׁנֵי מִינִים = two distinct species, as opposed to varieties of one
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
Rava: yes — and the mishna’s grey-and-white clause shows it.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִין, וְהָתְנַן: הָיוּ לוֹ שְׁנֵי מִינִים שְׁחוּפוֹת וּלְבָנוֹת, מָכַר לוֹ שְׁחוּפוֹת אֲבָל לֹא לְבָנוֹת – זֶה נוֹתֵן לְעַצְמוֹ וְזֶה נוֹתֵן לְעַצְמוֹ.
English Translation:
Rava replied: Yes, this is the halakha. And we learned in the mishna (135a) that one may not separate the first sheared wool from one type of sheep on behalf of another: If the seller had two types of sheep, gray and white, and he sold him the gray fleece but not the white fleece, then this seller gives the first sheared wool for himself from the wool that he kept, and that buyer gives the first sheared wool for himself from the wool that he bought.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava accepts the transfer and points to the mishna at 135a. Where a man sold his grey fleece but kept the white, each party gives from his own — which looks exactly like a ruling that one kind cannot discharge another.
Key Terms:
- שְׁחוּפוֹת וּלְבָנוֹת = grey and white sheep
Segment 5
TYPE: קושיא
But the mishna says the same of males and females, which are one kind.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, סֵיפָא דְּקָתָנֵי: זְכָרִים אֲבָל לֹא נְקֵבוֹת – זֶה נוֹתֵן לְעַצְמוֹ וְזֶה נוֹתֵן לְעַצְמוֹ, הָכִי נָמֵי מִשּׁוּם דִּתְרֵי מִינֵי נִינְהוּ?
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: If that is so, then consider the latter clause, which teaches: If he sold the fleece of the male sheep but not of the female sheep, then this seller gives the first sheared wool for himself from the wool that he kept, and that buyer gives the first sheared wool for himself from the wool that he bought. Is this also due to the fact that they are two different types? Clearly, it is not.
קלאוד על הדף:
The proof is undercut by the mishna’s next clause, which gives the identical ruling for male and female sheep. Nobody supposes those are two species, so the clause cannot be teaching about kinds at all.
Segment 6
TYPE: תירוץ
Rather it is practical advice about soft and coarse wool.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, עֵצָה טוֹבָה קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּלִיתֵּיב לֵיהּ מֵהַאי דְּרַכִּיךְ וּמֵהַאי דְּאַשּׁוּן. הָכָא נָמֵי, עֵצָה טוֹבָה קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּלִיתֵּיב לְהוּ מִתַּרְוַיְיהוּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: Rather, the mishna teaches us good advice. The seller is obligated to give the first sheared wool even on behalf of the wool he sold. Since the fleece of the female sheep is softer and more valuable, it is profitable for the seller to buy back part of the fleece of the male sheep and separate it as the first sheared wool on behalf of the sheep he sold, so that he gives the priest both from this wool that is soft and from that wool that is hard, rather than giving him from the fleece of his female sheep on behalf of the male sheep. Here too, with regard to the gray and white sheep, the mishna teaches us good advice, that it is profitable for the seller to buy back part of the fleece of the gray sheep, so that he gives the priests from both types of wool, rather than giving the first sheared wool entirely from the more valuable white fleece.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara rereads both clauses as etzah tovah, good counsel rather than law. Ewes’ wool is softer and more valuable, so the seller does better to buy back some of the coarser wool and give the kohen from both sorts, rather than discharging the whole obligation from his finest fleece. The same advice governs the grey and white.
Key Terms:
- עֵצָה טוֹבָה = good advice — practical counsel rather than binding law
- רַכִּיךְ / אַשּׁוּן = soft / coarse
Segment 7
TYPE: מסקנה
Which leaves the mishna permitting cross-kind separation — but it is not Rabbi Ilai.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָא אוֹקֵימְנָא לְמַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי.
English Translation:
According to the above explanation, the mishna rules that it is permitted to separate the first sheared wool from one type of sheep on behalf of another type. This is difficult according to the opinion of Rabbi Ilai, who compares the first sheared wool to teruma, where this practice is prohibited. The Gemara answers: We already established that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ilai.
קלאוד על הדף:
On that reading the mishna permits separating one kind for another, contradicting Rabbi Ilai’s terumah analogy. The Gemara does not resolve the tension but recalls its earlier move: the mishna was already established as not following Rabbi Ilai.
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Must the remainder be evident, as with terumah? Rava: yes.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי מָה תְּרוּמָה, בָּעֵינַן רֵאשִׁית שֶׁשְּׁיָרֶיהָ נִיכָּרִין, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז שֶׁשְּׁיָרֶיהָ נִיכָּרִין? אִין.
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges further: If one compares the first sheared wool to teruma by means of a verbal analogy, one can say that just as with regard to teruma we require it to be a first gift whose remainders are evident, i.e., a part of the produce must remain after one has separated teruma, so too, the first sheared wool must be a gift whose remainders are evident. The Gemara responds: Yes, it is indeed so.
קלאוד על הדף:
A further test. Terumah requires reishit sheshe’areha nikarin, a first whose remainder is visible — one cannot declare the entire pile terumah. Rava accepts that the shearing works the same way.
Key Terms:
- שְׁיָרֶיהָ נִיכָּרִין = its remainder is evident
Segment 9
TYPE: מקור
The mishna in Challah against a baraita on ‘all my shearing’.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָתְנַן: הָאוֹמֵר ״כׇּל גׇּרְנִי תְּרוּמָה וְכׇל עִיסָּתִי חַלָּה״ – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם, הָא ״כׇּל גִּזַּיי רֵאשִׁית״ – דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין, וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם.
English Translation:
The Gemara cites a proof for this claim. And we learned in a mishna (Ḥalla 1:9): With regard to one who says: All my granary shall be teruma, or: All my dough shall be ḥalla, he has not said anything. But one can infer from the mishna that if he said: All my shearing shall be designated as first sheared wool, his declaration is valid. And yet it is taught in another tannaitic source, a baraita, that if he said: All my shearing shall be designated as first sheared wool, he did not say anything.
קלאוד על הדף:
Two sources are set against each other. A mishna in Challah rules that declaring one’s whole granary terumah or whole dough challah accomplishes nothing — implying that declaring all one’s shearing would be valid. A baraita rules that it accomplishes nothing there either.
Key Terms:
- כׇּל גׇּרְנִי תְּרוּמָה = all my granary shall be terumah — a void declaration
Segment 10
TYPE: מסקנה
So the baraita is Rabbi Ilai and the mishna is the Rabbis.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, הָא רַבִּי אִלְעַאי, וְהָא רַבָּנַן. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
English Translation:
Rather, must one not conclude from the conflicting rulings that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ilai, who compares the first sheared wool to teruma, and that mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who do not compare the two cases? The Gemara affirms: Conclude from here that this is correct.
קלאוד על הדף:
The contradiction is resolved by assignment, as with the years of shearing. The baraita follows Rabbi Ilai, who imports terumah’s requirement of a visible remainder; the mishna follows the Rabbis, who do not. Shma minah — the Gemara affirms the reading.
Segment 11
TYPE: הלכה
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak: today the practice follows three lenient elders.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: הָאִידָּנָא נְהוּג עָלְמָא כְּהָנֵי תְּלָת סָבֵי, כְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי בְּרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אִלְעַאי אוֹמֵר: רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בָּאָרֶץ.
English Translation:
§ Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Nowadays the universally accepted practice is in accordance with the lenient rulings of these three elders: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ilai with regard to the first sheared wool, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ilai says: The mitzva of the first sheared wool applies only in Eretz Yisrael.
קלאוד על הדף:
A ruling of great practical weight. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak reports that current practice follows three lenient sages, the first being Rabbi Ilai on reishit hagez — that it applies only in Eretz Yisrael. For a Babylonian community this makes the entire perek’s obligation inapplicable in practice.
Key Terms:
- הָאִידָּנָא נְהוּג עָלְמָא = nowadays the world’s practice follows
- תְּלָת סָבֵי = three elders
Segment 12
TYPE: הלכה
The second: Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira on words of Torah and impurity.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּכְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָה בְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה מְקַבְּלִין טוּמְאָה.
English Translation:
And the accepted practice is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira with regard to matters of Torah, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: Matters of Torah are not susceptible to ritual impurity. Therefore, it is permitted for one who experienced a seminal emission to engage in Torah study even without first immersing in a ritual bath.
קלאוד על הדף:
The second leniency is Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira’s ruling that words of Torah are not susceptible to impurity, so that one who experienced a seminal emission may study without first immersing. A takkanah of Ezra effectively set aside.
Key Terms:
- אֵין דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה מְקַבְּלִין טוּמְאָה = words of Torah are not susceptible to impurity
Segment 13
TYPE: הלכה
The third: Rabbi Yoshiya on kilayim requiring a single sowing motion.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּכְרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה בְּכִלְאַיִם, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם אֵין חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיִּזְרַע חִטָּה וּשְׂעוֹרָה וְחַרְצָן בְּמַפּוֹלֶת יָד.
English Translation:
And lastly, the accepted practice is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya with regard to diverse kinds, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yoshiya says: One who sows diverse kinds is never liable by Torah law until he sows wheat and barley and a grape pit with a single hand motion, i.e., by sowing in the vineyard he violates the prohibitions of diverse kinds that apply to seeds and to the vineyard simultaneously.
קלאוד על הדף:
The third is Rabbi Yoshiya on diverse kinds: one is liable by Torah law only for sowing wheat, barley and a grape pit b’mapolet yad, in a single throw of the hand. The three rulings share nothing in subject matter — only their leniency, and the fact that practice settled on each.
Key Terms:
- בְּמַפּוֹלֶת יָד = in a single motion of the hand
- כִּלְאַיִם (kilayim) = forbidden mixtures of seeds
Segment 14
TYPE: קושיא
Back to the mishna: why not list tereifot as a stringency of the shearing?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חוֹמֶר בִּזְרוֹעַ [וְכוּ׳]. וְלִיתְנֵי חוֹמֶר בְּרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, שֶׁנּוֹהֵג בִּטְרֵפוֹת, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּמַתָּנוֹת!
English Translation:
§ The mishna states: There are more stringent elements in the mitzva of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw than in the mitzva of the first sheared wool. The mishna then proceeds to list a number of these stringent elements. The Gemara objects: But let the mishna teach that there is a more stringent element in the mitzva of the first sheared wool, as it is in effect with regard to animals with a wound that will cause them to die within twelve months [tereifot], but that is not so with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, i.e., the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, which are not given to the priest from a tereifa. This is because the Torah states: “He shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw” (Deuteronomy 18:3), whereas in the case of a tereifa the gifts are effectively not given to the priest himself but to his dog, as it is prohibited for the priest to eat them.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to the mishna of 135a, which listed the ways the priestly gifts are stricter than the shearing. It objects that the list is incomplete: the shearing applies to a tereifah while the gifts do not, since a tereifah’s foreleg goes to the kohen’s dog rather than to the kohen himself.
Key Terms:
- טְרֵפָה (tereifah) = an animal with a fatal defect, forbidden for consumption
Segment 15
TYPE: תירוץ
Ravina: the mishna follows Rabbi Shimon, who exempts tereifot.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבִינָא: הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר אֶת הַטְּרֵפוֹת מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? יָלֵיף ״נְתִינָה״ ״נְתִינָה״ מִמַּתָּנוֹת – מָה מַתָּנוֹת, טְרֵפָה – לָא, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז נָמֵי, טְרֵפָה – לָא.
English Translation:
Ravina said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon deems tereifot exempt from the mitzva of the first sheared wool. What is the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Shimon? The reason is that he derives a verbal analogy between the term giving mentioned with regard to the first sheared wool and giving from the gifts of the priesthood. The Torah states: “Shall you give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4), with regard to the first sheared wool, and it states: “He shall give,” with regard to the gifts of the priesthood. Just as with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, one is not obligated to give them from a tereifa animal, so too, with regard to the first sheared wool, one is not obligated to give them from a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ravina answers by attribution. The mishna omits that stringency because it follows Rabbi Shimon, for whom tereifot are exempt from the shearing too — derived by yet another netinah-netinah analogy, this time from the priestly gifts rather than from terumah.
Segment 16
TYPE: קושיא
But then he should also import terumah’s territorial limit.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִי יָלֵיף נְתִינָה נְתִינָה מִמַּתָּנוֹת, לֵילַף נְתִינָה נְתִינָה מִתְּרוּמָה, מָה תְּרוּמָה: בָּאָרֶץ – אִין, בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – לָא, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז נָמֵי: בָּאָרֶץ – אִין, בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – לָא. אַלְּמָה תְּנַן: רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז נוֹהֵג בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: If Rabbi Shimon derives a verbal analogy between giving mentioned with regard to the first sheared wool and giving from the gifts of the priesthood, let him also derive a verbal analogy between giving mentioned with regard to the first sheared wool and giving from teruma. The Torah states: “The first fruits of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the first sheared wool of your flock shall you give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4). Just as with regard to teruma, produce grown in Eretz Yisrael, yes, it is obligated, whereas produce grown outside of Eretz Yisrael is not obligated, so too with regard to the mitzva of the first sheared wool: In Eretz Yisrael, yes, it applies, whereas outside of Eretz Yisrael it does not apply. Why, then, did we learn in the mishna that the mitzva of the first sheared wool applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Shimon’s analogy is turned against him. Titen lo governs terumah in the same verse, so if he draws from the gifts he could equally draw from terumah — which would confine the shearing to the Land, contradicting the mishna’s own opening that it applies everywhere.
Segment 17
TYPE: תירוץ
Rather he derives ‘tzon’ from ‘tzon’ in ma’aser behemah.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּיָלֵיף ״צֹאן״ ״צֹאן״ מִמַּעֲשֵׂר – מָה מַעֲשֵׂר, טְרֵפָה – לָא, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, טְרֵפָה – לָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Rather, this is the reason for the ruling of Rabbi Shimon, as he derives a verbal analogy between the term “flock [tzon]” mentioned with regard to the first sheared wool and the term “flock [tzon]” from the animal tithe. With regard to the first sheared wool, the verse states: “And the first sheared wool of your flock [tzonekha], shall you give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4), and with regard to the animal tithe it states: “And all the tithe of the herd or the flock [tzon], whichever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32). Just as with regard to the tithe, one is not obligated in the case of an animal that is a tereifa, so too, with regard to the first sheared wool, one is not obligated in the case of a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara relocates Rabbi Shimon’s derivation entirely. He learns not from netinah but from tzon: the word appears in the shearing and in the animal tithe, and as the tithe excludes a tereifah, so does the shearing. This escapes the territorial problem, since ma’aser behemah is not limited to the Land.
Key Terms:
- מַעֲשֵׂר בְּהֵמָה = the animal tithe, every tenth animal
Segment 18
TYPE: קושיא
Where does ma’aser exclude a tereifah — and why not learn from bechor instead?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָתָם מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב ״כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבֹר תַּחַת הַשָּׁבֶט״ – פְּרָט לִטְרֵפָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ עוֹבֶרֶת. וְלֵילַף ״צֹאן״ ״צֹאן״ מִבְּכוֹר – מָה בְּכוֹר אֲפִילּוּ טְרֵפָה, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז אֲפִילּוּ טְרֵפָה!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And there, with regard to the animal tithe, from where do we derive that it does not apply to a tereifa? The Gemara answers that it is written: “Whichever passes under the rod,” which excludes a tereifa, which is not able to pass under the rod due to its physical state. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But let Rabbi Shimon derive a verbal analogy between the term “flock [tzon]” mentioned in this context and the term “flock [tzon]” from the mitzva to consecrate the male firstborn animal. In that context, the Torah states: “All the firstborn males that are born of your herd and of your flock [tzonekha] you shall sanctify to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 15:19). Just as with regard to the consecration of the firstborn even a tereifa is consecrated, so too, with regard to the first sheared wool the obligation applies even in the case of a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
Two questions follow. The tithe’s exclusion comes from kol asher ya’avor tachat hashavet, whichever passes under the rod, since a tereifah cannot pass. But tzon appears in the firstborn too, where even a tereifah is sanctified — so why not learn from there and obligate?
Key Terms:
- כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבֹר תַּחַת הַשָּׁבֶט = whichever passes under the rod
Segment 19
TYPE: תירוץ
Ma’aser is the closer match: males and females, non-kosher animals.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִמַּעֲשֵׂר הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף, שֶׁכֵּן זְכָרִים טְמֵאִין.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: It is reasonable that Rabbi Shimon should derive the halakha of the first sheared wool from the halakha of animal tithe rather than from the mitzva of the firstborn, as there are many halakhot that are common to both the first sheared wool and the animal tithe. The Gemara enumerates these halakhot: First, the first sheared wool and the animal tithe apply to both male and female animals, while the mitzva of the firstborn applies only to males. Furthermore, the first sheared wool and the animal tithe do not apply to non-kosher animals, whereas the sanctity of the firstborn also applies to donkeys, which are not kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara answers by counting shared features, in the terse shorthand of a siman. Both the shearing and the tithe apply to males and females alike, where the firstborn is male only; and neither applies to non-kosher animals, where firstborn sanctity extends to the donkey.
Key Terms:
- זְכָרִים / טְמֵאִין = males / non-kosher animals — points of comparison
Segment 20
TYPE: תירוץ
Also: both need numbers, and neither is sanctified from the womb.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּמְרוּבִּין, מֵרֶחֶם.
English Translation:
In addition, these two mitzvot both apply only in a case of numerous animals: The first sheared wool applies only if one shears no fewer than five sheep, and one must own at least ten animals to set aside the animal tithe, whereas the sanctity of the firstborn applies to a single animal. Another common feature is that unlike the firstborn, the first sheared wool and the animal tithe are not sanctified from the womb, but only once they are designated.
קלאוד על הדף:
The list continues. Both require quantity — five sheep for the shearing, ten animals for the tithe — while a single animal can be a firstborn. And neither is sanctified merechem, from the womb; both take effect only on designation.
Key Terms:
- מֵרֶחֶם (merechem) = from the womb — the firstborn’s sanctity is innate
Segment 21
TYPE: תירוץ
And: animals only, ordinary animals, and only after Sinai.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָדָם, פָּשׁוּט, לִפְנֵי הַדִּבּוּר.
English Translation:
Moreover, both the first sheared wool and the animal tithe apply only to animals, whereas the sanctity of the firstborn also applies to a firstborn son in the case of a man. Likewise, these two mitzvot apply not only to firstborn animals but also to ordinary non-firstborn animals, unlike the sanctity of the firstborn. Finally, the first sheared wool and the animal tithe did not apply before the divine word was issued at the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai, whereas the sanctity of the firstborn already applied while the Jews were still in Egypt.
קלאוד על הדף:
Three more shared features, each a single word in the Gemara. Neither applies to a human being, where the firstborn does; both apply to ordinary animals and not only to firstborns; and neither preceded the dibbur at Sinai, whereas firstborn sanctity was already in force in Egypt.
Key Terms:
- לִפְנֵי הַדִּבּוּר = before the divine word at Sinai
- פָּשׁוּט (pashut) = an ordinary, non-firstborn animal
Segment 22
TYPE: קושיא
On the contrary: bechor shares features too — orphans and purchased animals.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אַדְּרַבָּה, מִבְּכוֹר הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף, שֶׁכֵּן: יָתוֹם, שֶׁלָּקְחוּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: On the contrary, Rabbi Shimon should derive the halakha of the first sheared wool from the sanctity of the firstborn rather than from the animal tithe, as there are many halakhot common to the first sheared wool and the firstborn animal. The Gemara again enumerates the halakhot in common: Both apply to an orphan animal, i.e., one whose mother died before its birth, whereas the animal tithe does not apply to an animal of this kind. Furthermore, both mitzvot are in effect in the case of an animal that one purchased, whereas the animal tithe does not apply to a purchased animal.
קלאוד על הדף:
The comparison is reversed. The shearing resembles the firstborn in ways the tithe does not: both apply to an orphan animal whose mother died before birth, and both apply to a purchased animal, where the tithe applies to neither.
Key Terms:
- יָתוֹם (yatom) = an orphan animal, whose mother died before its birth
Segment 23
TYPE: קושיא
And: partnership, gifts, no Temple needed, and given to a kohen.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּשׁוּתָּפוּת, נָתְנוּ; בִּפְנֵי כֹּהֵן,
English Translation:
In addition, both the mitzva of the first sheared wool and the mitzva of the firstborn animal apply to an animal owned in partnership, unlike the animal tithe. Both apply as well to an animal that one gave another as a gift, whereas the animal tithe does not apply in the case of a gift. Likewise, both apply even when not in the presence of the Temple, whereas the animal tithe is in effect only when the Temple is standing. Moreover, both the first sheared wool and the firstborn are given to a priest, whereas the animal tithe is eaten by the owner.
קלאוד על הדף:
The counter-list continues and the daf ends within it. The shearing and the firstborn both apply to jointly owned animals, to animals received as a gift, and outside the Temple’s presence, and both are given to a kohen — where the tithe fails on every count and is eaten by the owner. The contest between the two analogies is unresolved when the page closes.
Key Terms:
- בִּפְנֵי כֹּהֵן = given to a priest — unlike the tithe, eaten by the owner