Chullin Daf 137 (חולין דף קל״ז)
Daf: 137 | Amudim: 137a – 137b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (137a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
The close of the 136b tally: the shared features with bechor outnumber those with ma’aser.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּקְדוּשָּׁה, וּמְכִירָה – וְהָנָךְ נְפִישִׁין!
English Translation:
The Gemara further states that the matter of consecration applies neither to the mitzva of the first sheared wool nor to the firstborn animal. The firstborn is consecrated from the womb, while the first sheared wool is non-sacred. By contrast, the animal tithe is consecrated by the owner when passed under the rod. And finally, the option of sale by the priest applies to the first sheared wool and the firstborn animal after the priest receives them, whereas the animal tithe may not be sold. The Gemara adds: And these halakhot common to the first sheared wool and the firstborn are more numerous than the halakhot shared by the first sheared wool and the animal tithe. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon should derive the verbal analogy between the first sheared wool and the firstborn.
קלאוד על הדף:
The sentence begun at the end of 136b runs out here. Two more entries go on the ledger — קְדוּשָּׁה, since the tithe is consecrated when it passes under the rod while the first shearing is plain chullin and the firstborn is holy from the womb, and מְכִירָה, since both the shearing and the firstborn may be sold by the kohen once he has them but the tithe may not. Counted up, the features linking the shearing to the firstborn are the more numerous, and the objection is simply that Rabbi Shimon has drawn his gezeira shava from the losing side of the count.
Key Terms:
- בִּקְדוּשָּׁה = in consecration — whether the item is holy or chullin
- מְכִירָה = sale — whether the kohen may sell what he receives
- וְהָנָךְ נְפִישִׁין = and these are more numerous — the tally favours bechor
Segment 2
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Shimon derives an ordinary case from an ordinary case, whatever the count.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
פָּשׁוּט מִפָּשׁוּט עֲדִיף לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: Even so, Rabbi Shimon prefers to derive the halakhot of the first sheared wool, which apply to an ordinary non-firstborn animal, from those of animal tithe, which also apply to an ordinary animal. Rabbi Shimon maintains that the shared factor that the first sheared wool and the animal tithe apply to all animals, not only the first to emerge from the womb, is decisive and overrides the other shared halakhot.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer refuses the arithmetic. פָּשׁוּט מִפָּשׁוּט — an ordinary animal learned from an ordinary animal — is a category match rather than a tally of shared traits, and Rabbi Shimon treats it as decisive. Ma’aser behemah and reishit hagez both fall on any beast of the flock; a bechor is by definition the one that opened the womb. That single structural likeness outweighs the six or seven incidental agreements with the firstborn, and the comparison begun on 136b closes without the count ever being disputed.
Key Terms:
- פָּשׁוּט = ordinary — a non-firstborn animal
- פָּשׁוּט מִפָּשׁוּט עֲדִיף = deriving an ordinary case from an ordinary case is preferable
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Chisda’s gezeira shava גִּיזָּה-גִּיזָּה from Iyov: the shearing is of sheep.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בִּרְחֵלִים. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אָתְיָא גִּיזָּה גִּיזָּה, כְּתִיב הָכָא ״רֵאשִׁית גֵּז צֹאנְךָ תִּתֶּן לוֹ״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם ״וּמִגֵּז כְּבָשַׂי יִתְחַמָּם״, מָה לְהַלָּן כְּבָשִׂים, אַף כָּאן כְּבָשִׂים.
English Translation:
§ The mishna states: The first sheared wool is in effect only with regard to sheep. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Ḥisda said: It is derived by means of a verbal analogy between shearing mentioned in this context and shearing mentioned elsewhere. It is written here: “The first sheared wool of your flock [tzonekha], shall you give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4), and it is written there that Job says concerning the needy: “And he was warmed with the shearing of my sheep [kevasai]” (Job 31:20). Just as there, the verse is referring specifically to the shearing of sheep, as the term keves is used only with regard to a sheep, so too here, with regard to the first sheared wool, the verse is referring to sheep, despite the fact that the term tzon can be interpreted as referring also to goats.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new sugya opens on the mishna’s first clause. The Torah’s word is צֹאנְךָ, which ordinarily covers goats as well as sheep, so the restriction to rechelim needs a source. Rav Chisda supplies one by linking גֵּז here to גֵּז in Iyov’s protestation of charity — וּמִגֵּז כְּבָשַׂי יִתְחַמָּם — where the animal is named כֶּבֶשׂ, a term used of sheep alone. The gezeira shava narrows the broad צֹאן of Devarim to the narrow כֶּבֶשׂ of Iyov.
Key Terms:
- גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה = verbal analogy — a shared word licenses transferring a law between verses
- צֹאן = flock — a term covering both sheep and goats
- כֶּבֶשׂ = a sheep — used of sheep only, never goats
- רְחֵלִים = ewes, sheep — the mishna’s restriction
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא
Why not link גִּיזָּה to the firstborn verse instead, which would sweep in oxen?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְנֵילַף ״גִּיזָּה״ ״גִּיזָּה״ מִבְּכוֹר, דְּתַנְיָא: ״לֹא תַעֲבֹד בִּבְכֹר שׁוֹרֶךָ וְלֹא תָגֹז בְּכוֹר צֹאנֶךָ״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שׁוֹר בַּעֲבוֹדָה וְצֹאן בְּגִיזָּה.
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: But derive instead a verbal analogy concerning shearing mentioned in this context from shearing mentioned in the case of the firstborn animal: Just as the prohibition against shearing the firstborn also applies to a firstborn ox, so too, the halakhot of the first sheared wool should also apply to oxen. It is prohibited to shear a firstborn ox, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “You shall do no work with the firstborn of your ox, and you shall not shear the firstborn of your flock” (Deuteronomy 15:19). From a straightforward reading of the verse, I have derived only that a firstborn ox may not be used for labor and that a firstborn of an animal from the flock may not be used for shearing.
קלאוד על הדף:
The word גֵּז occurs in a third place — וְלֹא תָגֹז בְּכוֹר צֹאנֶךָ — and a baraita there cross-applies each half of the verse to both animals, so that a firstborn ox may not be shorn and a firstborn of the flock may not be worked. If the analogy were drawn from that verse rather than from Iyov, the shearing would run over oxen too. The objection is a live one because a gezeira shava is not self-selecting; nothing in the word itself says which of two available partners to take.
Key Terms:
- לֹא תַעֲבֹד בִּבְכֹר שׁוֹרֶךָ = you shall do no work with your firstborn ox (Devarim 15:19)
- בְּכוֹר = firstborn — the animal that opened the womb, given to the kohen
Segment 5
TYPE: ברייתא
The baraita’s mechanism: ‘and’ cross-applies both prohibitions to both animals.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִנַּיִן לִיתֵּן הָאָמוּר שֶׁל זֶה בָּזֶה, וְאֶת הָאָמוּר שֶׁל זֶה בָּזֶה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לֹא תַעֲבוֹד וְלֹא תָגוֹז״.
English Translation:
The baraita continues: From where is it derived to apply the prohibition that was stated about that animal to this one, and the prohibition that was stated about this animal to that one? The verse states: “You shall do no work…and you shall not shear.” The conjunction “and” indicates that the two parts of the verse apply to both animals.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita completes the objection by showing how it reads the firstborn verse. Left alone, the verse would forbid only working the ox and only shearing the flock. The conjunction in לֹא תַעֲבוֹד וְלֹא תָגוֹז binds the two clauses, so each prohibition covers each animal — and it is precisely because shearing is thereby said of an ox that the proposed analogy would extend reishit hagez to cattle.
Key Terms:
- לִיתֵּן הָאָמוּר שֶׁל זֶה בָּזֶה = to apply what is said of one to the other — a standard cross-application
- תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר = the verse teaches — introducing the textual proof
Segment 6
TYPE: תירוץ
תִּתֵּן לוֹ וְלֹא לְשַׂקּוֹ — the gift must be wearable, and ox hair is not.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר קְרָא: ״תִּתֵּן לוֹ״, וְלֹא לְשַׂקּוֹ.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: One cannot say that oxen are subject to the mitzva of first sheared wool, as the verse states with regard to this mitzva: “Shall you give him,” which indicates that the shearing is given to the priest himself, i.e., for him to wear, and not for use as his sack. The shearing of oxen is fit for use only as sackcloth, not as clothing.
קלאוד על הדף:
The rejection does not argue about which analogy is better; it disqualifies the result. תִּתֵּן לוֹ is read as a gift to the kohen’s person — something he can put on — and the coarse hair of cattle serves only for sacking. A mitzva whose object cannot clothe the recipient is not the mitzva the verse describes, so oxen fall away regardless of how attractive the gezeira shava from bechor might look.
Key Terms:
- תִּתֵּן לוֹ = you shall give him — read as: to him, for his own wear
- שַׂק = sack, sackcloth — the only use for the coarse hair of cattle
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא
Then goats’ hair should be included, since it does make cloth. Answer: no act of shearing.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, נוֹצָה שֶׁל עִזִּים לִיחַיַּיב? בָּעֵינַן גִּיזָּה, וְלֵיכָּא!
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: If that is so, let one be obligated in the mitzva of the first sheared wool in the case of goats’ hair, as it too can be used for clothing. The Gemara explains: To be obligated in the first sheared wool we require an act of shearing, and goats’ hair is plucked, not sheared.
קלאוד על הדף:
The wearability criterion immediately overshoots. Goats’ hair is spun and woven — the Mishkan’s curtains were made of it — so on the new reasoning it should be liable. The reply shifts the requirement from the product to the process: the mitzva is called גֵּז, and goats are not shorn but plucked, so the act that generates the obligation never occurs.
Key Terms:
- נוֹצָה שֶׁל עִזִּים = goats’ hair — plucked rather than shorn
- בָּעֵינַן גִּיזָּה וְלֵיכָּא = we require an act of shearing, and there is none
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא
But that reasoning is Rabbi Yosei’s, and he concedes where plucking is the normal way.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ הַאי סְבָרָא? רַבִּי יוֹסֵי – הָא מוֹדֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּמִידֵּי דְּאוֹרְחֵיהּ!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Who did you hear who accepts this reasoning that only an act of shearing renders one obligated in the mitzva of the first sheared wool? This is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, which the Gemara will soon cite. But Rabbi Yosei concedes that the obligation does exist without the act of shearing in a case where the usual manner of removing the wool is not by shearing. Since goats’ hair is not commonly shorn, the obligation of the first sheared wool should apply.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara turns on its own answer by asking who actually holds that the manner of removal is decisive. Only Rabbi Yosei does, in the parallel case of gleanings — and Rabbi Yosei himself concedes מִידֵּי דְּאוֹרְחֵיהּ, that where a given crop or creature is normally harvested by hand the hand-work counts as harvesting. Goats are always plucked; plucking is their דֶּרֶךְ. On Rabbi Yosei’s own principle they should therefore be liable, and the answer of segment 7 collapses.
Key Terms:
- מִידֵּי דְּאוֹרְחֵיהּ = a matter done in its usual manner — Rabbi Yosei’s concession
- מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ הַאי סְבָרָא = who did you hear holding this reasoning — locating an opinion’s owner
Segment 9
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s replacement source: לַעֲמוֹד לְשָׁרֵת, a thing fit for the service.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, כִּדְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: ״לַעֲמוֹד לְשָׁרֵת״ – דָּבָר הָרָאוּי לְשֵׁירוּת, הָכָא נָמֵי – דָּבָר הָרָאוּי לְשֵׁירוּת.
English Translation:
Rather, the Gemara provides a different source for the mishna’s statement. The reason that the mitzva of first sheared wool applies only to sheep is as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: It is stated in the verse following the source for the mitzva of first sheared wool: “For the Lord your God has chosen him out of all your tribes, to stand to serve in the name of the Lord, he and his sons forever” (Deuteronomy 18:5). The term “to serve” indicates that the first sheared wool that is given to the priest must consist of a matter fit for the Temple service, i.e., its size must be large enough for use for the priestly garments. Here too, the first sheared wool must be of a matter fit for Temple service, i.e., sheep’s wool, from which the priestly garments are woven.
קלאוד על הדף:
With both the bechor analogy and the shearing-act criterion out of the way, the exclusion of goats needs a fresh footing. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi finds it in the very next verse, which describes the kohen as chosen לַעֲמוֹד לְשָׁרֵת. What is given to him must be דָּבָר הָרָאוּי לְשֵׁירוּת, matter of the kind the service uses — and the priestly garments are woven of sheep’s wool. The criterion is neither the product’s wearability nor the manner of its removal but its fitness for the avodah, and it lands exactly on rechelim.
Key Terms:
- לַעֲמוֹד לְשָׁרֵת = to stand and serve (Devarim 18:5) — the source of the fitness criterion
- דָּבָר הָרָאוּי לְשֵׁירוּת = a thing fit for the Temple service
- בִּגְדֵי כְהוּנָּה = the priestly garments — woven from sheep’s wool
Segment 10
TYPE: גמרא
The freed gezeira shava is redeployed: sheep with hard wool are exempt.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא ״גִּיזָּה״ ״גִּיזָּה״ לְמַאי אֲתָא? לְכִדְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: כְּבָשִׂים שֶׁצַּמְרָן קָשֶׁה פְּטוּרִים מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וּמִגֵּז כְּבָשַׂי יִתְחַמָּם״.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But if so, for what purpose does the verbal analogy between shearing mentioned with regard to the first sheared wool and shearing mentioned with regard to the flock come? The Gemara answers: It is necessary for that which was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: In the case of sheep whose wool is hard, the owner is exempt from the first sheared wool, as it is stated: “And he was warmed with the shearing of my sheep” (Job 31:20). Since hard wool does not provide warmth, the mitzva of the first sheared wool does not apply to this wool.
קלאוד על הדף:
A gezeira shava is not discarded once its original job is taken from it. Since Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi now supplies the restriction to sheep, the link to Iyov is available for the school of Rabbi Yishmael’s ruling. Iyov’s boast is that the poor man יִתְחַמָּם, was warmed, by his fleece — so the wool the verse has in view is wool that gives warmth, and sheep whose fleece is coarse and hard are outside the obligation. The word supplies the species in one reading and the quality in the other.
Key Terms:
- צַמְרָן קָשֶׁה = their wool is hard — coarse fleece that gives no warmth
- יִתְחַמָּם = he was warmed — the operative word of Iyov 31:20
Segment 11
TYPE: ברייתא
Two baraitot clash on wool washed off sheep; resolved as Rabbanan against Rabbi Yosei.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנֵי חֲדָא: גּוֹזֵז אֶת הָעִזִּים וְשׁוֹטֵף אֶת הָרְחֵלִים – פָּטוּר, וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: הַגּוֹזֵז אֶת הָעִזִּים – פָּטוּר, וְשׁוֹטֵף אֶת הָרְחֵלִים – חַיָּיב. לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא רַבָּנַן, וְהָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי.
English Translation:
§ It is taught in one baraita: If one shears goats, or washes sheep, which causes some of their wool to be detached, he is exempt from the obligation of first sheared wool with regard to this wool. And it is taught in another baraita: One who shears goats is exempt but one who washes the sheep is obligated to separate the first sheared wool from the wool that was washed off. The Gemara resolves this apparent contradiction: It is not difficult, as this baraita, which requires one to separate the first sheared wool from the washed-off wool, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and that baraita, which exempts the washed off wool, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.
קלאוד על הדף:
Wool that comes away in the washing was never shorn. One baraita exempts it, another obligates it, and the Gemara does not reconcile them but assigns them: the obligating baraita is the Rabbis, the exempting one Rabbi Yosei. Both baraitot agree about goats, which shows that the disagreement is not over the animal but over whether the act of gizah is constitutive of the mitzva or merely its ordinary occasion.
Key Terms:
- שׁוֹטֵף אֶת הָרְחֵלִים = one who washes the sheep — loosening wool without shearing
- הָא רַבָּנַן וְהָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי = this one is the Rabbis and that one Rabbi Yosei — assigning rather than harmonising
Segment 12
TYPE: ברייתא
The parallel dispute in gleanings: לֶקֶט קְצִירְךָ excludes what was picked by hand.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּתַנְיָא: ״לֶקֶט קְצִירְךָ״ – וְלֹא לֶקֶט קִיטּוּף. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֵין לֶקֶט אֶלָּא הַבָּא מֵחֲמַת קָצִיר.
English Translation:
The Gemara cites the source of this dispute. As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not completely remove the corner of your field when you reap, and you shall not gather the gleaning of your harvest; you shall leave them for the poor” (Leviticus 23:22). The phrase “the gleaning of your harvest” indicates that only such a gleaning is included, and not gleaning from picking. If one picks the crop by hand rather than harvesting it using agricultural tools, he is exempt from the mitzva to leave the gleanings for the poor. Rabbi Yosei says: Gleanings are only those that come due to harvesting using agricultural tools.
קלאוד על הדף:
The source of the split lies in the agricultural laws. The verse says לֶקֶט קְצִירְךָ, and the possessive is read restrictively — gleanings of your reaping, not gleanings of your picking. A field gathered by hand rather than cut with a tool yields nothing to the poor. Rabbi Yosei’s formulation makes the requirement explicit: the fallen stalks must come מֵחֲמַת קָצִיר, as a consequence of reaping. Transferred to wool, that is exactly the position that exempts what the washing loosened.
Key Terms:
- לֶקֶט = gleanings — stalks dropped during harvest, left for the poor
- קִיטּוּף = picking, plucking by hand — as against cutting with a tool
- מֵחֲמַת קָצִיר = on account of reaping — Rabbi Yosei’s requirement
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Yosei seems to repeat the tanna kamma; the baraita is reread as wholly his.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא? כּוּלָּהּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא, וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: שֶׁרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אֵין לֶקֶט אֶלָּא הַבָּא מֵחֲמַת קָצִיר.
English Translation:
The Gemara expresses puzzlement at this baraita: The opinion of Rabbi Yosei is identical to the opinion of the first tanna. The Gemara explains: The entire baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and this is what the baraita is teaching: The phrase “the gleaning of your harvest” teaches that crops picked by hand are exempt from the mitzva, as Rabbi Yosei says: Gleanings are only those that come due to harvesting. The Gemara infers that just as Rabbi Yosei interprets the term “harvest” as exempting crops that were picked by hand, so too he derives from the term “shearing” that the mitzva of the first sheared wool does not apply to fleece that was washed off. The Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yosei with regard to the gleanings, likewise disagree with regard to the first sheared wool.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita as quoted has an anonymous opening that already excludes hand-picking and then a named Rabbi Yosei saying the same thing. Rather than find a hairline difference, the Gemara declares כּוּלָּהּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא — the whole baraita is one voice, the second clause giving the reason for the first. The reread matters for the wool case: it establishes that the exempting position is Rabbi Yosei’s alone, and that the Rabbis who dispute him on gleanings are the ones obligating the washed-off fleece.
Key Terms:
- תַּנָּא קַמָּא = the first tanna — the anonymous opening opinion of a baraita
- כּוּלָּהּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא = the whole thing is Rabbi Yosei — a single-author reading
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Acha son of Rava: Rabbi Yosei concedes where hand-gathering is the normal way.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּמִידֵּי דְּאוֹרְחֵיהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: ״קָצִיר״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא קָצִיר, עוֹקֵר מִנַּיִן?
English Translation:
Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: Rabbi Yosei concedes that the mitzva of gleanings applies to a case where the usual manner of harvesting is by picking, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse cited above that Rabbi Yosei says: From the term “harvest” I have derived only the obligation of gleanings with regard to harvest. From where do I derive the obligation of gleanings with regard to one who uproots the crop?
קלאוד על הדף:
The concession invoked back in segment 8 is now documented. Rabbi Yosei himself expounds a chain of three expressions in the pe’a verses, and each one widens the obligation past cutting with a blade. If he were simply insisting on a tool he could not have written that chain. His requirement is therefore not the sickle but the norm — whatever counts as harvesting for this crop.
Key Terms:
- עוֹקֵר = one who uproots — pulling the plant out whole
- אֵין לִי אֶלָּא = I have only — the formula introducing an expansion of a verse’s plain scope
Segment 15
TYPE: דרשה
The three expressions קָצִיר, לִקְצוֹר and בְּקוּצְרֶךָ widen the law to uprooting and picking.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לִקְצוֹר״, תּוֹלֵשׁ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בְּקוּצְרֶךָ״.
English Translation:
The verse states: “And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not completely remove the corner of your field by reaping, and you shall not gather the gleaning of your harvest” (Leviticus 19:9). The superfluous term “by reaping” includes uprooting the crop. From where is it derived that the obligation extends to one who picked the crop by hand? The verse states: “When you reap” (Leviticus 23:22), which is also superfluous. It is derived from here that the mitzva applies to all ways of gathering the crop, provided they are the usual manner of harvesting that particular crop.
קלאוד על הדף:
Each redundant form does a job. קָצִיר alone gives reaping; לִקְצוֹר adds uprooting; בְּקוּצְרֶךָ adds hand-picking. The cumulative effect is that no method of gathering is excluded as such — provided it is the ordinary method for that produce. Read back onto the wool sugya, this is what forces the qualification in segment 8: Rabbi Yosei’s exemption for washed-off fleece holds only because washing is not how sheep are ordinarily shorn.
Key Terms:
- תּוֹלֵשׁ = one who plucks or picks by hand
- בְּקוּצְרֶךָ = when you reap (Vayikra 23:22) — the superfluous form that includes hand-picking
Segment 16
TYPE: משנה
Ravina’s corroboration from Pe’a 3:4: Rabbi Yosei requires pe’a from each onion bed.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: מַלְבְּנוֹת בְּצָלִים שֶׁבֵּין הַיָּרָק, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: פֵּאָה מִכׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מֵאַחַת עַל הַכֹּל.
English Translation:
Ravina said to Ravi Ashi: We learn as well in a mishna (Pe’a 3:4) that discusses the mitzva to leave produce in the corner of the field for the poor [pe’a]: If one has garden beds of onions that are among the vegetables, Rabbi Yosei says that one leaves separate pe’a from each and every one of the beds. And the Rabbis say that one leaves pe’a from one garden bed for all of them. This indicates that Rabbi Yosei concedes that one is obligated to leave pe’a and gleanings from onions, despite the fact that they are picked by hand rather than harvested with tools. The reason is that this is the usual manner of gathering onions.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ravina supplies a mishnaic proof rather than a derivation. Onions are pulled, never cut, so if Rabbi Yosei held the tool essential he would exempt them entirely; instead he argues with the Rabbis only about how many separations the scattered beds require. His participation in that argument presupposes that onions are liable, which can only be because pulling is their דֶּרֶךְ קְצִירָה. The אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא formula marks this as independent mishnaic support for what Rav Acha established from a baraita.
Key Terms:
- פֵּאָה = the corner of the field left standing for the poor
- מַלְבְּנוֹת בְּצָלִים = garden beds of onions — planted in squares among other vegetables
- אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא = we too have learned it — corroboration from an existing mishna
Segment 17
TYPE: גמרא
Beit Hillel’s five sheep questioned: two are already called צֹאן in scripture.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכַמָּה הוּא מְרוּבֶּה? בִּשְׁלָמָא לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי – תַּרְתֵּי נָמֵי אִיקְּרוֹ ״צֹאן״, אֶלָּא לְבֵית הִלֵּל – מַאי טַעְמָא?
English Translation:
§ The mishna states: And how many is numerous? Beit Shammai say: It is at least two sheep, and Beit Hillel say: It is at least five sheep. The Gemara objects: Granted, according to the opinion of Beit Shammai, two sheep are also called tzon, as in the verse cited by Beit Shammai: “That a man shall rear a young cow and two sheep [tzon]” (Isaiah 7:21). Since the mitzva of the first sheared wool is written with regard to tzon, it is logical that it applies to two sheep. But what is the reasoning of Beit Hillel, who hold that the mitzva applies only to five sheep, due to the verse: “And five sheep [tzon] made” (I Samuel 25:18)? Why do they not apply the obligation using the broader criterion of two sheep, as the verse quoted by Beit Shammai clearly indicates that two sheep are also called tzon?
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna’s dispute rests on two prooftexts, and the Gemara notices they are not symmetrical. Beit Shammai’s verse from Yeshayahu calls a pair צֹאן, and since the mitzva is written of צֹאן that settles their view. But Beit Hillel cannot simply prefer Avigail’s five, because the existence of a verse calling two צֹאן already shows the word reaches that low. A minimum of five needs something more than a verse in which five happen to be called צֹאן.
Key Terms:
- וְכַמָּה הוּא מְרוּבֶּה = and how much is ‘numerous’ — the mishna’s question
- בִּשְׁלָמָא = granted — conceding one side before pressing the other
Segment 18
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Kahana reads עֲשׂוּיוֹת as two mitzvot performed; the reading is challenged.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: אָמַר קְרָא ״עֲשׂוּיוֹת״, שֶׁעוֹשׂוֹת שְׁתֵּי מִצְוֹת: רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז וּמַתָּנוֹת. אֵימָא בְּכוֹרָה וּמַתָּנוֹת?
English Translation:
Rav Kahana said: The verse states: “Five sheep made [asuyot],” in plural. The plural form indicates that two mitzvot have been made, i.e., performed, with them. The two mitzvot are the first sheared wool and the gifts of the priesthood, a mitzva that applies to a single animal. If the two mitzvot have been performed only when there are five sheep, evidently the mitzva of the first sheared wool applies only to five sheep. The Gemara asks: Why can’t one say that the two mitzvot are the firstborn animal and the gifts of the priesthood?
קלאוד על הדף:
Avigail’s five sheep are described as עֲשׂוּיוֹת, made or prepared, and Rav Kahana hears in the participle that something was done with them — two mitzvot, reishit hagez and the matanot. The number would then be built into the verse rather than merely present in it. The immediate objection is that the pairing is arbitrary: bechorah and the matanot would serve the reading just as well.
Key Terms:
- עֲשׂוּיוֹת = made, prepared (I Shmuel 25:18) — the word Rav Kahana expounds
- מַתָּנוֹת = the priestly gifts — foreleg, cheeks and maw of a slaughtered animal
Segment 19
TYPE: תירוץ
Both pairings fail on the same ground; Rav Ashi rereads עֲשׂוּיוֹת as compelling the owner.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּכוֹרָה, חֲדָא מִי לָא מִיחַיְּיבָא? וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, מַתָּנוֹת, חֲדָא מִי לָא מִיחַיְּיבָא? אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: ״עֲשׂוּיוֹת״ – שֶׁמְּעַשּׂוֹת אֶת בַּעֲלֵיהֶן, וְאוֹמְרוֹת לוֹ: ״קוּם עֲשֵׂה מִצְוָה״.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: The other mitzva cannot be the firstborn animal, as with regard to the firstborn, isn’t one animal obligated, i.e., doesn’t one animal render its owner obligated? Yet the verse states that one performs the two mitzvot only with five sheep. The Gemara asks: And according to your reasoning, with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, isn’t one animal obligated, i.e., doesn’t one animal render its owner obligated? Rather, Rav Ashi says: The term “made” should be understood as meaning that five sheep make their owner perform the first sheared wool and figuratively say to him: Stand and fulfill a mitzva, whereas less than five sheep do not obligate their owner in the mitzva of first sheared wool.
קלאוד על הדף:
The counter to bechorah — that a single animal already obligates — turns out to defeat the matanot equally, since one animal obligates there too. Rav Ashi therefore abandons the whole approach and rereads the participle causatively: the five שֶׁמְּעַשּׂוֹת אֶת בַּעֲלֵיהֶן, they make their owner act, standing over him and saying קוּם עֲשֵׂה מִצְוָה. Fewer than five make no such demand. The number is now a property of the flock’s claim on its owner rather than a count of mitzvot performed.
Key Terms:
- שֶׁמְּעַשּׂוֹת אֶת בַּעֲלֵיהֶן = that they compel their owner — Rav Ashi’s causative reading
- קוּם עֲשֵׂה מִצְוָה = arise and perform a mitzva — the flock’s imagined summons
Segment 20
TYPE: ברייתא
A third view from the school of Rabbi Yishmael b’Rabbi Yosei: four, from Shemot 21:37.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם אָבִיו: אַרְבַּע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאַרְבַּע צֹאן תַּחַת הַשֶּׂה״.
English Translation:
It was taught in a baraita of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, that he says in the name of his father: The obligation of the first sheared wool applies to one who owns four sheep, since a verse calls four sheep tzon, as it is stated: “If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for the ox, and four sheep [tzon] for a sheep” (Exodus 21:37).
קלאוד על הדף:
Between the two Houses a third figure is entered, and its source is of a different order. Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel both reached for the Prophets; Rabbi Yosei reaches for the Torah itself, where the thief’s fourfold payment is stated as וְאַרְבַּע צֹאן. Four is the smallest number the Chumash calls צֹאן, and on the same logic the Houses used, that is where the threshold should sit.
Key Terms:
- וְאַרְבַּע צֹאן תַּחַת הַשֶּׂה = and four of the flock for the sheep (Shemot 21:37)
- מִשּׁוּם אָבִיו = in the name of his father — Rabbi Yishmael transmitting Rabbi Yosei
Segment 21
TYPE: ברייתא
Rabbi’s endorsement: Rabbi Yosei would prevail even on the weaker sourcing.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי: אִלְמָלֵא דִּבְרֵיהֶן דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, וְדִבְרֵי בְּרִיבִּי קַבָּלָה – אֲנַן דִּבְרֵי בְּרִיבִּי שׁוֹמְעִין, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁדִּבְרֵיהֶם דִּבְרֵי קַבָּלָה, וְדִבְרֵי בְּרִיבִּי דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה.
English Translation:
It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Had their statements, i.e., the opinions of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, been based on statements of the Torah, and the statement of the Distinguished One [Beribbi], Rabbi Yosei, based on the texts of the tradition [kabbala], the Prophets and Writings, even so we would listen to the statement of the Distinguished One, Rabbi Yosei. All the more so now that their statements are based on texts of the tradition, as both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel derived their rulings from verses from the Prophets, while the statement of the Distinguished One, Rabbi Yosei, is based on the statements of the Torah.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s statement is constructed as a kal vachomer about authority rather than about wool. Even in the counterfactual where the Houses argued from the Chumash and Rabbi Yosei only from Nevi’im, he says, we would follow Rabbi Yosei — so much the more when the sourcing runs the other way, as it does here. The title בְּרִיבִּי is honorific, and the passage is one of the strongest expressions in Shas of the standing Rabbi accorded him.
Key Terms:
- בְּרִיבִּי = the Distinguished One — an honorific, here for Rabbi Yosei
- דִּבְרֵי קַבָּלָה = words of tradition — verses from Nevi’im and Ketuvim, as against the Torah
Segment 22
TYPE: קושיא
But a third opinion resting on its own reasoning is not decisive.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָאָמַר מָר: אֵין הַכְרָעָה שְׁלִישִׁית מַכְרַעַת!
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: But didn’t the Master say: The decision of a third opinion that compromises between the first two opinions is not considered decisive if it is based on considerations that were not mentioned by the other two opinions. Although Rabbi Yosei’s opinion is a compromise between the opinions of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, it is based on a different source.
קלאוד על הדף:
There is a settled principle that when two authorities dispute and a third takes an intermediate position on grounds neither of them raised, the third view does not resolve the dispute — it merely adds to it. Rabbi Yosei’s four sits between two and five, and his verse comes from a place neither House cited. The rule ought to disqualify him precisely where Rabbi is most emphatic in following him. The daf breaks here with the objection unanswered.
Key Terms:
- הַכְרָעָה שְׁלִישִׁית = a third determination — an intermediate view resting on independent grounds
- אֵין הַכְרָעָה שְׁלִישִׁית מַכְרַעַת = a third determination does not decide
Amud Bet (137b)
Segment 1
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Yochanan: Rabbi Yosei’s four is not a compromise but a received tradition.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִפִּי שְׁמוּעָה אָמְרָה, מִפִּי חַגַּי זְכַרְיָה וּמַלְאָכִי.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yoḥanan says in response: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi accepted Rabbi Yosei’s opinion not because it was a compromise, but rather because he said it according to a tradition he had from the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.
קלאוד על הדף:
The objection assumed that Rabbi Yosei arrived at four by his own reasoning, and an intermediate view so arrived at cannot decide a dispute. Rabbi Yochanan removes the premise. Rabbi Yosei did not reason to four; he had it מִפִּי שְׁמוּעָה, transmitted from the last of the prophets. A tradition is not a third opinion competing with two others but testimony standing above both, which is why Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi could defer to it so unreservedly.
Key Terms:
- מִפִּי שְׁמוּעָה = from what was heard — an oral tradition rather than a derivation
- חַגַּי זְכַרְיָה וּמַלְאָכִי = Chaggai, Zechariah and Malachi — the last prophets, a standard terminus of transmitted halacha
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא
Quantifying the mishna’s כׇּל שֶׁהֵן: Rav’s maneh u’peras and Shmuel’s sixty.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי דּוֹסָא בֶּן הַרְכִּינָס אוֹמֵר וְכוּ׳. וְכַמָּה ״כׇּל שֶׁהֵן״? אָמַר רַב: מָנֶה וּפְרָס, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהוּ מְחוּמָּשׁוֹת, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: שִׁשִּׁים, וְנוֹתֵן סֶלַע אַחַת לְכֹהֵן.
English Translation:
§ The mishna states: Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas says that the mitzva of the first sheared wool applies to five sheep, each of whose shearing weighs one hundred and fifty dinars, whereas the Rabbis say: Five sheep, each of whose shearing is any amount. The Gemara asks: And how much is signified by the phrase: Any amount? Rav says: It is a total weight of one hundred dinars [maneh] and half of one hundred dinars [peras], provided that they are divided equally between the five sheep. And Shmuel says: It is a total weight of sixty sela, of which he gives the weight of one sela to the priest.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna’s Rabbis said the five sheep may yield כׇּל שֶׁהֵן, any amount, against Rabbi Dosa’s hundred and fifty dinars apiece. But no obligation can attach to literally nothing, so the amoraim supply floors. Rav sets a maneh and a half for the flock together, with the condition מְחוּמָּשׁוֹת — the yield must be spread evenly across the five, so that no single sheep carries the quota. Shmuel sets sixty sela and adds what is unusual in this series, a figure for the gift itself: one sela to the kohen.
Key Terms:
- כׇּל שֶׁהֵן = any amount whatsoever — the Rabbis’ position in the mishna
- מָנֶה וּפְרָס = a maneh and a half-maneh — Rav’s minimum
- מְחוּמָּשׁוֹת = divided in five — the yield spread evenly among the sheep
- סֶלַע = a sela — a coin-weight, four dinars
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא
Two further readings: Rabbi Yochanan’s six sela, and Rabbi Elazar’s literal any amount.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שֵׁשׁ – לְכֹהֵן חָמֵשׁ, וְאַחַת לוֹ. עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: ״כׇּל שֶׁהֵן״ שָׁנִינוּ.
English Translation:
Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is a total weight of six sela, of which he gives to the priest the weight of five sela, and he leaves one sela for himself. Ulla says that Rabbi Elazar says: We learned in the mishna that according to the Rabbis the obligation of the first sheared wool applies to any amount, even if the total weight is only one sela.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yochanan’s six is the tightest figure, and it comes with its own distribution: five sela to the kohen and one retained, which happens to match the measure the mishna on 135a names. Rabbi Elazar refuses to quantify at all — כׇּל שֶׁהֵן שָׁנִינוּ, we learned ‘any amount’ and that is what it means. Four positions now stand on a single phrase, and the Gemara turns immediately to test them.
Key Terms:
- כׇּל שֶׁהֵן שָׁנִינוּ = we learned ‘any amount’ — Rabbi Elazar’s refusal to impose a floor
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא
The mishna of 135a — five sela in Judea — pressed against Shmuel and Rabbi Elazar.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תְּנַן: וְכַמָּה נוֹתֵן לוֹ? מִשְׁקַל חֲמֵשׁ סְלָעִים בִּיהוּדָה, שֶׁהֵן עֶשֶׂר סְלָעִים בַּגָּלִיל. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן – נִיחָא, אֶלָּא לִשְׁמוּאֵל וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר – קַשְׁיָא!
English Translation:
We learned in the mishna (135a): And how much 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. Granted, according to the opinions of Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan, the mishna works out well, as their statements do not contradict the mishna. Rav does not discuss the amount one is required to give the priest, and Rabbi Yoḥanan states that one gives the priest five sela. But according to Shmuel and Rabbi Elazar, the mishna is difficult, as Shmuel states that one is required to give one sela, while Rabbi Elazar states that the obligation of the first sheared wool applies even for a weight of less than five sela.
קלאוד על הדף:
The earlier mishna fixed the gift at five Judean sela, doubled in the Galilee where the sela was lighter. Rav is untouched, since he never said what the kohen receives; Rabbi Yochanan’s five fits exactly. But Shmuel gives the kohen a single sela and Rabbi Elazar can imagine an obligation on less than five altogether, and neither can be squared with a mishna that names five as the gift.
Key Terms:
- בִּיהוּדָה … בַּגָּלִיל = in Judea … in the Galilee — regional coin-weights, the Galilean sela being half the Judean
Segment 5
TYPE: גמרא
The objection rebounds: Rav is equally embarrassed, since he holds רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז בְּשִׁשִּׁים.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, וּלְרַב מִי נִיחָא? וְהָא רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז בְּשִׁשִּׁים!
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: And according to your reasoning, does it work out well according to the opinion of Rav? But Rav and Shmuel both say that the first sheared wool given to the priest is one part in sixty. Rav holds that the weight of one hundred and fifty dinars renders one obligated in the first sheared wool, and one-sixtieth of this weight is less than one sela. Therefore, Rav’s opinion is also not in accordance with the mishna.
קלאוד על הדף:
וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ turns the difficulty back on the questioner rather than answering it. Rav and Shmuel jointly hold that the kohen receives a sixtieth, and a sixtieth of Rav’s own minimum of a hundred and fifty dinars falls well short of five sela. So the mishna of 135a contradicts Rav no less than Shmuel. Since the problem is now general, the solution will have to lie in the mishna rather than in any one amora.
Key Terms:
- וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ = and according to your reasoning — showing an objection wounds the objector too
- בְּשִׁשִּׁים = one part in sixty — the measure of the gift
Segment 6
TYPE: תירוץ
The mishna’s five sela is a per-kohen floor for a large shearing, not the total owed.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָא אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ דְּהַהִיא, רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ גִּיזִּין הַרְבֵּה עָסְקִינַן, וּמְבַקֵּשׁ לִיתְּנָן לְכֹהֵן, וְאָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: כֹּל חַד וְחַד לָא תְּבַצַּר לֵיהּ מֵחֲמֵשֶׁת סְלָעִים.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: It was stated with regard to that mishna that Rav and Shmuel both say: The five sela stated in the mishna is not referring to the total amount given from the sheared wool. Rather, in the mishna we are dealing with a Jew who has a large amount of shearing, and he wishes to give them to the priest, i.e., to several priests. And we say to him: With regard to each and every one of the priests, do not give him less than five sela. But if one has only a small amount of shearing, he gives the priest one-sixtieth of the shearing, even if it is less than five sela.
קלאוד על הדף:
The resolution rereads the mishna’s subject. It is not telling a farmer how much of his fleece is owed but telling one with abundant wool how to divide it: whichever kohanim he chooses, none is to receive less than five sela’s worth, so that the gift is a gift and not a token. The sixtieth remains the measure of the obligation; the five sela governs its distribution. A small shearing yields its sixtieth and nothing more is asked.
Key Terms:
- גִּיזִּין הַרְבֵּה = a great deal of shearing — the case the mishna addresses
- לָא תְּבַצַּר לֵיהּ = do not reduce it for him — do not give any one kohen less than five sela
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
גּוּפָא: the joint ruling that reishit hagez, terumah and pe’a are each one in sixty.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גּוּפָא: רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז בְּשִׁשִּׁים, תְּרוּמָה בְּשִׁשִּׁים, פֵּאָה בְּשִׁשִּׁים.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara mentioned a ruling of Rav and Shmuel with regard to the amount that one is required to give as the first sheared wool. The Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rav and Shmuel both say: The first sheared wool given to the priest is one part of sixty. Likewise, the amount one is required to separate as teruma is one part of sixty, and the amount one must leave in his field as pe’a is one part of sixty.
קלאוד על הדף:
A statement quoted in passing is now taken up on its own terms, which is what גּוּפָא signals. Rav and Shmuel set a single figure across three otherwise unrelated gifts — to the kohen from the fleece, to the kohen from the produce, and to the poor from the standing field. The next three exchanges will test the figure against a mishna in each area, and in each case the answer will be the same: the sixtieth is rabbinic, and the Torah’s own measure is something else.
Key Terms:
- גּוּפָא = the matter itself — taking up a statement cited in passing
- תְּרוּמָה = the portion of produce separated for the kohen
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא
Terumot 4:3 sets a generous separation at one-fortieth, not one-sixtieth.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תְּרוּמָה בְּשִׁשִּׁים? וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן: תְּרוּמָה עַיִן יָפָה – אֶחָד מֵאַרְבָּעִים! דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא – בְּשִׁשִּׁים, דְּרַבָּנַן – בְּאַרְבָּעִים.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Is the amount one is required to separate as teruma one part of sixty? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Terumot 4:3): With regard to the measure one should separate as teruma, if one is of generous disposition he gives one-fortieth. The Gemara answers: By Torah law, it is sufficient to give one part of sixty; by rabbinic law the requisite amount is one part of forty.
קלאוד על הדף:
The mishna in Terumot grades the separation by temperament — a fortieth for the generous, a fiftieth for the middling, a sixtieth for the grudging. If a sixtieth is the base measure, the graded scale has no floor beneath it. The answer distinguishes the layers: the Torah asks for a sixtieth, and the graded rabbinic scale sits above it, with a fortieth as the generous mark. The sixtieth is not displaced; it is simply where the rabbinic scale bottoms out.
Key Terms:
- עַיִן יָפָה = a generous eye — the open-handed measure, one-fortieth
- דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא / דְּרַבָּנַן = by Torah law / by rabbinic law
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא
Shmuel’s own חִטָּה אַחַת פּוֹטֶרֶת אֶת הַכְּרִי unsettles the Torah-law figure.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא בְּשִׁשִּׁים? וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: חִטָּה אַחַת פּוֹטֶרֶת אֶת הַכְּרִי! דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא – כְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּרַבָּנַן בִּדְאוֹרָיְיתָא – אַחַת מֵאַרְבָּעִים, דְּרַבָּנַן בִּדְרַבָּנַן – בְּשִׁשִּׁים.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Is the measure of teruma by Torah law one part of sixty? But doesn’t Shmuel say: By Torah law, even one grain of wheat given as teruma exempts the entire pile [keri] of grain? The Gemara answers: By Torah law the measure is as stated by Shmuel, that even one grain of wheat is sufficient. By rabbinic law, with regard to produce that is obligated in teruma by Torah law the measure is one-fortieth, whereas by rabbinic law, with regard to produce obligated in teruma by rabbinic law the measure is one part of sixty.
קלאוד על הדף:
Shmuel elsewhere holds that by Torah law a single grain of wheat exempts the whole pile, since the verse fixes no measure at all — which leaves no room for a d’oraita sixtieth. The answer builds a third tier. Torah law: one grain. Rabbinic law on produce that is Torah-obligated: a fortieth. Rabbinic law on produce obligated only rabbinically: a sixtieth. The figure Rav and Shmuel gave belongs to the lightest tier, which is why it is the smallest.
Key Terms:
- חִטָּה אַחַת פּוֹטֶרֶת אֶת הַכְּרִי = one grain of wheat exempts the pile — no fixed Torah measure
- כְּרִי = a heaped pile of threshed grain
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא
Pe’a 1:1 lists pe’a among the things that have no measure.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
פֵּאָה בְּשִׁשִּׁים, וְהָתְנַן: אֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן שִׁיעוּר: הַפֵּאָה, וְהַבִּכּוּרִים, וְהָרֵאָיוֹן. דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא – אֵין לָהּ שִׁיעוּר, דְּרַבָּנַן – בְּשִׁשִּׁים.
English Translation:
Rav and Shmuel said above that the amount one is required to leave in his field as pe’a is one part out of sixty. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Pe’a 1:1): These are the matters, i.e., mitzvot, that have no measure: Pe’a, and the first fruits, and the burnt offering of appearance sacrificed on the pilgrimage Festivals. The Gemara answers: By Torah law, pe’a has no fixed measure; by rabbinic law the measure is one part of sixty.
קלאוד על הדף:
The same objection now comes from the other end of the joint ruling. Pe’a heads the list of mitzvot for which the Torah sets no shiur, alongside bikkurim and the festival appearance-offering — so a fixed sixtieth looks like a contradiction in terms. The answer is the one already used twice: the Torah sets no measure, and the sixtieth is the rabbinic floor beneath an otherwise open obligation.
Key Terms:
- אֵין לָהֶן שִׁיעוּר = they have no fixed measure
- רֵאָיוֹן = the appearance-offering brought on the pilgrimage festivals
Segment 11
TYPE: גמרא
If a mishna already fixes a sixtieth for pe’a, what does Rav and Shmuel’s ruling add?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? תְּנֵינָא: אֵין פּוֹחֲתִין לַפֵּאָה מִשִּׁשִּׁים, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ הַפֵּאָה אֵין לָהּ שִׁיעוּר! הָתָם בָּאָרֶץ, הָכָא בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What is the statement of Rav and Shmuel teaching us? We already learn in the subsequent mishna (Pe’a 1:2): One should not give for pe’a less than one part of sixty, even though they said that the mitzva of pe’a has no measure. The Gemara answers: The mishna there is referring to the obligation to leave pe’a in Eretz Yisrael, whereas here, the statement of Rav and Shmuel is referring to the obligation of pe’a outside of Eretz Yisrael.
קלאוד על הדף:
The very next mishna in Pe’a states the sixtieth explicitly and even acknowledges the tension with the preceding line, so Rav and Shmuel appear to be reporting rather than ruling. The answer gives their statement its own territory: the mishna legislates for Eretz Yisrael, where pe’a is a Torah obligation with a rabbinic floor, while Rav and Shmuel are speaking of chutz la’aretz, where the obligation is rabbinic throughout and needed a measure of its own.
Key Terms:
- אֵין פּוֹחֲתִין = one does not give less than — fixing a floor
- חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ = outside the Land of Israel
Segment 12
TYPE: אגדתא
Isi bar Hini’s רְחֵלִים corrected to רְחֵלוֹת; לְשׁוֹן תּוֹרָה is not לְשׁוֹן חֲכָמִים.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּי סְלֵיק אִיסִי בַּר הִינִי, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ (לְרַבִּי) [רַבִּי] יוֹחָנָן דְּקָא מַתְנֵי לֵיהּ לִבְרֵיהּ ״רְחֵלִים״, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַתְנְיֵיהּ ״רְחֵלוֹת״, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּדִכְתִיב ״רְחֵלִים מָאתַיִם״, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְשׁוֹן תּוֹרָה לְעַצְמָהּ, לְשׁוֹן חֲכָמִים לְעַצְמָן.
English Translation:
§ When Isi bar Hini ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi Yoḥanan found him teaching the mishna to his son. Isi taught that the obligation of the first sheared wool applies only in the case of sheep [reḥelim], the masculine plural form of raḥel, meaning a sheep. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Isi: You should teach him using the term reḥelot, the feminine plural form. Isi said to him in reply: I teach the mishna in accordance with that which is written: “Two hundred reḥelim” (Genesis 32:15). Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Isi: The language of the Torah is distinct and the language of the Sages is distinct, i.e., these are like two separate languages, and the Sages do not always use the same forms that appear in the Bible. In this case, they use reḥelot rather than reḥelim.
קלאוד על הדף:
Isi’s defence is a good one — Yaakov’s gift to Esav numbers רְחֵלִים מָאתַיִם, so the masculine plural is scriptural Hebrew. Rabbi Yochanan does not dispute the verse; he denies its jurisdiction. לְשׁוֹן תּוֹרָה לְעַצְמָהּ, לְשׁוֹן חֲכָמִים לְעַצְמָן treats biblical and rabbinic Hebrew as two registers with their own usages, so that a form correct in Bereishit can still be wrong in a mishna. The principle governs how the language of the Mishna is read throughout Shas.
Key Terms:
- רְחֵלִים / רְחֵלוֹת = two plurals of רָחֵל, a ewe — the biblical and the mishnaic form
- לְשׁוֹן תּוֹרָה לְעַצְמָהּ, לְשׁוֹן חֲכָמִים לְעַצְמָן = the language of the Torah is its own, the language of the Sages is their own
Segment 13
TYPE: אגדתא
אַבָּא אֲרִיכָא — Rabbi Yochanan’s rebuke and the sparks of fire between Rav and Rabbi.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאן רֵישׁ סִדְרָא בְּבָבֶל? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַבָּא אֲרִיכָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַבָּא אֲרִיכָא קָרֵית לֵיהּ?! דְּכִירְנָא כַּד הֲוָה יָתֵיבְנָא אַחַר שְׁבַע עֶשְׂרֵה שׁוּרָן אֲחוֹרֵיהּ דְּרַב קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי, וְנָפְקִי זִיקּוּקִין דְּנוּר מִפּוּמֵּיהּ דְּרַב לְפוּמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי, וּמִפּוּמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי לְפוּמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, וְלֵית אֲנָא יָדַע מָה הֵן אָמְרִין, וְאַתְּ ״אַבָּא אֲרִיכָא״ קָרֵית לֵיהּ?!
English Translation:
Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Isi: Who is the head of the yeshiva [reish sidra] in Babylonia? Isi said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: It is Abba the tall, i.e., the amora Rav. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Isi: You call him Abba the tall, in such a familiar manner? I remember when I sat seventeen rows behind Rav, who sat before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and fiery sparks emerged from the mouth of Rav to the mouth of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and from the mouth of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi to the mouth of Rav, and I did not know what they said, due to the profundity of their discussion. And yet you call him Abba the tall?
קלאוד על הדף:
The nickname is not an insult in itself, but Isi uses it with a familiarity Rabbi Yochanan finds intolerable, and the rebuke takes the form of a memory rather than an argument. Seventeen rows back in Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s academy he watched זִיקּוּקִין דְּנוּר pass between Rav’s mouth and Rabbi’s — and the detail that carries the passage is his admission that he could not follow a word of it. Greatness is being measured here by the distance from which the young Rabbi Yochanan could see it and still not reach it.
Key Terms:
- רֵישׁ סִדְרָא = head of the academy — the Babylonian yeshiva’s presiding scholar
- אַבָּא אֲרִיכָא = Abba the Tall — a familiar name for Rav, whose given name was Abba
- זִיקּוּקִין דְּנוּר = sparks of fire — the image for the exchange between Rav and Rabbi
Segment 14
TYPE: אגדתא
Isi tests back, and Rabbi Yochanan answers אִם כֵּן, מָה בֵּין לִי וְלָךְ.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אִיהוּ: רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז בְּכַמָּה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּשִׁשִּׁים. וְהָאֲנַן ״בְּכׇל שֶׁהֵן״ תְּנַן! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִם כֵּן, מָה בֵּין לִי וְלָךְ?
English Translation:
Isi said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: With regard to the first sheared wool, to how much fleece does the mitzva apply? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: The first sheared wool applies to fleece weighing sixty sela. Isi asked: But didn’t we learn in the mishna (135a) that the first sheared wool applies to any amount of fleece? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him in reply: If so, i.e., if the halakha could be understood by a simple reading of the mishna, what is the difference between my knowledge and yours? In fact, you know only the mishna’s statement, whereas I know the halakhic conclusion in this matter.
קלאוד על הדף:
Isi turns from deference to examination and catches an apparent contradiction: Rabbi Yochanan rules sixty where the mishna says any amount. The reply does not resolve the tension so much as reframe what a mishna is. If its surface were the halacha, anyone who could read would be a decisor, and the transmitted rulings that stand between the text and the practice would be superfluous. מָה בֵּין לִי וְלָךְ is the daf’s own statement of why the Gemara exists.
Key Terms:
- רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז בְּכַמָּה = the first shearing applies to how much — Isi’s return question
- מָה בֵּין לִי וְלָךְ = what is the difference between me and you — the mishna’s plain sense is not the halacha
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא
Rav Dimi’s report from Eretz Yisrael, and Abaye’s verdict on it.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר: רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז – רַב אָמַר בְּשִׁשִּׁים, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יַנַּאי אָמַר בְּשֵׁשׁ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב דִּימִי: אַנַּחְתְּ לַן חֲדָא וְאַקְשֵׁת לַן חֲדָא.
English Translation:
§ When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: With regard to the first sheared wool, Rav says that the mitzva applies to sixty sela, and Rabbi Yoḥanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai says that the mitzva applies to six sela. Abaye said to Rav Dimi: You have made one statement work out well for us, but you have made another statement difficult for us.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Dimi carries a version in which Rav holds sixty and Rabbi Yochanan, quoting his teacher Rabbi Yannai, holds six. Abaye’s אַנַּחְתְּ לַן חֲדָא וְאַקְשֵׁת לַן חֲדָא is an exact appraisal of what an incoming tradition can do: the same report that dissolves one contradiction generates another, and both have to be worked through before the report can be accepted.
Key Terms:
- כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי = when Rav Dimi came — the formula for a tradition carried from Eretz Yisrael to Bavel
- אַנַּחְתְּ לַן חֲדָא וְאַקְשֵׁת לַן חֲדָא = you have settled one for us and made one difficult for us
Segment 16
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Yochanan against Rabbi Yochanan resolved: הָא דִידֵיהּ, הָא דְרַבֵּיהּ.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּשְׁלָמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַדְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דִידֵיהּ, הָא דְרַבֵּיהּ.
English Translation:
Abaye elaborates: Granted, you have resolved a contradiction between two statements of Rabbi Yoḥanan. Rabbi Yoḥanan said above that the amount of fleece to which the obligation of the first sheared wool applies is six sela, whereas in his answer to Isi he stated that the amount is sixty sela. According to Rav Dimi, the apparent contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan and the other statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan is not difficult, as this statement is his and that statement is his teacher’s. Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that the obligation applies to sixty sela, whereas his teacher Rabbi Yannai maintains that it applies to six sela.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yochanan told Isi sixty and is reported elsewhere at six, and Rav Dimi’s attribution supplies the split: six belongs to Rabbi Yannai, his teacher, and sixty is his own. The device is a common one — an amora may transmit his master’s ruling without holding it — and it accounts for the whole discrepancy without emending either report.
Key Terms:
- הָא דִידֵיהּ הָא דְרַבֵּיהּ = this is his own and that is his teacher’s — resolving a contradiction by attribution
Segment 17
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav against Rav: his מָנֶה is forty sela, not a hundred dinars. The daf breaks off.
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא דְּרַב אַדְּרַב קַשְׁיָא, דְּהָא אָמַר רַב מָנֶה וּפְרָס! דְּרַב אַדְּרַב נָמֵי לָא קַשְׁיָא, מַאי מָנֶה דְּקָאָמַר? בֶּן אַרְבָּעִים סְלָעִים, דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ
English Translation:
But the contradiction between one statement of Rav and another statement of Rav poses a difficulty, as Rav said that fleece weighing one hundred dinars [maneh] and half of one hundred dinars [maneh] is obligated in the first sheared wool, whereas Rav Dimi stated that according to Rav the obligation applies to sixty sela, which are 240 dinars. The Gemara answers: The apparent contradiction between the one statement of Rav and the other statement of Rav is also not difficult, as what is the maneh of which Rav said that a maneh and a half are obligated? Rav was referring not to a maneh of one hundred dinars but to a maneh of forty sela, i.e., 160 dinars, a maneh and a half of which is
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav’s maneh u’peras looked far short of the sixty sela Rav Dimi reports in his name, since a maneh of a hundred dinars would put the two figures at a hundred and fifty dinars against two hundred and forty. The answer revalues the unit: Rav’s maneh is one of forty sela, and a maneh and a half of that order comes out at sixty sela exactly. The arithmetic is still being spelled out when the page ends — דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ hangs unfinished, and the sentence completes only on 138a.
Key Terms:
- מָנֶה = a maneh — ordinarily a hundred dinars, but here reckoned as forty sela
- פְּרָס = a half — half of the stated maneh
- דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ = which comes out as — the words on which the daf breaks off