Chullin 135a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

The mitzva of giving

the first of the shearing

to a priest

applies in the Land and outside the Land, when the Temple stands

[when the Temple is standing]

and when the Temple does not stand.

2. To unconsecrated animals, but not to consecrated animals.

There is a stringency

with the foreleg, the cheeks, and the maw over the first of the shearing

3, for the foreleg, the cheeks, and the maw apply

both

to cattle and

both

to sheep,

and they apply both

in the case of much,

when he slaughtered many animals,

and

also

in the case of little —

even if he slaughtered only one animal.

And

if

the first of the shearing applied only to ewes and applied only in the case of much

[as is explained in the Gemara].

And how much is “much”

that he is obligated in the first of the shearing?

Beit Shammai say: Two ewes. For it is stated: “A man shall keep alive a calf of cattle and two sheep.”

And it implies that two ewes are considered “sheep,” while regarding the first of the shearing it is written: “And the first of the shearing of your sheep.”

And Beit Hillel say: Five ewes. For it is stated: “Five sheep prepared.”

Rabbi Dosa ben Horkinas says: Five ewes shearing a maneh, a maneh and a half,

that is, from each of them they shear a maneh and a half [a maneh and a half] —

are obligated in the first of the shearing.

And the Sages say: Five ewes shearing

even

any amount —

are obligated.

And how much do they give him

to the priest?

The weight of five sela in Judea, which are ten sela in the Galilee.

And they give him wool in such an amount that after it has been

whitened

it will stand at the weight of five sela,

and not

give him the weight of five sela of wool

filthy

that has not yet been entirely whitened. And the measure of shearing that they give him is

enough to make a small garment from it. For it is stated, “You shall give it to him,”

which implies

that there be in it enough for a gift. If he did not manage

the Israelite

to give it —

the wool —

to him

[to the priest]

until he dyed it —

he is exempt.

For the Israelite acquired it through a change, and he need not give money equivalent to the value of the first of the shearing, since he is considered one who damaged gifts to priests or ate them , and they said above [130b] that he is exempt from payment .

But if he only

whitened

the Israelite

and did not dye it, he is liable.

For this is not considered a change, but as though it remains as it was.

One who purchases the shearing of the flock of an idolater

while it is still attached to the animal —

is exempt from the first of the shearing 7.

Because it is stated, “your sheep,” and that of an idolater is not considered “your sheep.” And even though the shearing belongs to an Israelite, the obligation takes effect only upon the flock, and it is not his.

One who purchases the wool of his fellow's flock, if he leaves over

part of the wool with the seller, which he did not acquire,

the seller is obligated

with the reshit ha-gez. For the purchaser can say to him: the wool that must be given to the kohen is with you, and I did not purchase it from you.

And if

he did not leave something over

but the Israelite purchaser acquired all the wool—

the purchaser is obligated. If he had

two types of ewes,

gray

[neither black nor white]

and white,

and

sold him

to the purchaser

gray ones but not white ones,

or he had males and females and sold him

males but not females—

this one gives

the reshit ha-gez

for himself, and this one gives for himself [

that is, from the gray ones for the gray ones, and from the white ones for the white ones].

And in the Gemara it will be explained that the tanna teaches us good advice, for the shearing of the white ones is better than that of the gray ones, and that of the females is softer than that of the males. It is worthwhile for the seller to purchase from the division of the shearing of the gray ones an amount for which he is obligated to give the reshit ha-gez on the gray ones that remained in his possession, and to give from this shearing to the kohen, thereby gaining that he need not give from the better shearing of the white ones for the gray ones [and likewise with males and females].

Gemara:

For consecrated animals, what is the reason that it does not apply

the reshit ha-gez?

For

the verse says: “your flock”—

and not the flock of consecrated property.

And we raised an objection to this:

The reason is that the Merciful One wrote “your flock,”

to exclude consecrated property.

Had it not been so, I would have thought

that

consecrated animals are obligated in the reshit ha-gez?

But

are they fit for shearing,

since it is forbidden to shear them ,

as it is written: “You shall not shear the firstborn of your flock”?!

And we explain:

If it is consecrated for the altar, this is indeed so,

there is no need for an exclusion, and it is obvious that there is no obligation of the reshit ha-gez for its shearing, since it is forbidden to shear it. Rather,

what are we dealing with here—

with consecrated property for the maintenance of the Temple,

which is permitted to be shorn, and therefore it was necessary to expound a verse to exempt it from the reshit ha-gez.

And we object:

But Rabbi Eliezer said: Consecrated property for the maintenance of the Temple is forbidden for shearing and labor,

and once again the difficulty arises: why is it necessary to expound a verse to exempt it from the reshit ha-gez?

And we answer: the prohibition mentioned by Rabbi Eliezer is

rabbinic,

but by Torah law shearing is permitted. Therefore,

it might enter your mind to say: Since by Torah law they are fit for shearing, where he shorn it

and transgressed the rabbinic prohibition,

let him give it

the reshit ha-gez to the kohen. The verse teaches us that he is exempt, because the flock is not considered “his flock”; and although it is permitted to shear it, the wool alone does not create the obligation, but the flock does.

And we object:

But it has sanctity

for the wool belongs to consecrated property, and how could it enter your mind that he should give consecrated wool to the kohen? We explain:

It might enter your mind to say: let the Israelite redeem it

[let him redeem it],

and give it

to the kohen.

And we wonder:

And

even now, how can he give it,

for

with regard to all consecrated property involving living creatures,

standing

the animal must stand,

and

then they perform

valuation

of its worth; but here, can the wool be made to stand after it has been shorn from the animal?

This is satisfactory according to the one who says that consecrated property for the maintenance of the Temple was not included in standing and valuation,

for we established that here we are dealing with consecrated property for the maintenance of the Temple.

But according to the one who says

that even consecrated property for the maintenance of the Temple

was

included,

what is there to say?

Rav Mani bar Pattish said in the name of Rav Yannai: Here

we are dealing

with one who consecrates his animal for the maintenance of the Temple, except for its wool,

which he did not consecrate. And if so,

it might enter your mind to shear

the reshit ha-gez

and give it

to the kohen, for the wool is not consecrated; and concerning this

the verse says: “your flock,”

for specifically when the flock is yours are you obligated in the reshit ha-gez,

and not

when the

flock

belongs to

consecrated property.

And we object:

If so,

if we are dealing with a case where he left over its wool, why did you establish the exclusion with consecrated property for the maintenance of the Temple?

In consecrated property for the altar also

an exclusion is needed to exempt it from the reshit ha-gez in a case where he consecrated it except for its wool?

And we answer: It is forbidden to shear consecrated property for the altar even when he did not consecrate its wool, because

they are weakened

by the shearing.

And we wonder: If so, how is it permitted to shear

consecrated property for the maintenance of the Temple

when he left it out of his consecration and did not consecrate its wool? After all, they

are also weakened

by the shearing.

And we answer: With consecrated property for the maintenance of the Temple, the case is one in which he

said:

“Behold, I consecrate it”

except for wool and weakening,

and therefore it is permitted to shear them even though it weakens them.

And we challenge:

the consecrated animals of the altar as well

can be established in a manner

where he said: “except for its shearing and its wasting away”?

And we answer: With regard to consecrated animals of the altar, even though he said, “except for its shearing,”

even so,

since the sanctity of the body is more stringent,

the sanctity spreads throughout it,

and even its shearing becomes sacred. Therefore, it is obvious that he is not liable for the first shearing, for the shearings are not his, and a verse is not needed to exempt him; which is not so with regard to consecrated animals for the maintenance of the Temple, to which the law that the sanctity spreads throughout it does not apply.

And from where do you say

that if he consecrated part of the animal with the sanctity of the body, the sanctity spreads throughout it?

As Rabbi Yosei said: Is it not so that with regard to consecrated animals, one who says, “Its leg of

this

animal is an elevation-offering”—

the whole of it is an elevation-offering!

And even according to Rabbi Meir, who says

that in a case where he consecrated its leg,

the whole of it does not become an elevation-offering, this applies when he consecrated something upon which the life does not depend,

such as the leg of an animal.

But if he consecrated something upon which the life does depend,

as in our sugya, where he consecrated the entire animal except for its shearing—its sanctity spreads throughout it, and

it became sacred

in its entirety, even its shearing.

Rava said:

Our Mishna is discussing one who consecrates

the

only

shearing itself,

and in this manner we did not learn from the verse “the shearing of your flock” to exempt him from giving the first shearing, for it is “your flock,” since the animal remained his. And

it might enter your mind to say: shear it, redeem it, and give it

to the priest.

The verse says: “The shearing of your flock you shall give him,”

and we expound:

one who lacks only shearing and giving—

you shall give it to the priest.

This one

who consecrated the shearing

who lacks shearing,

redemption, and giving 21 .

And since Rava exempts the shearing of consecrated animals only when the shearing itself is sacred, it is difficult:

Rather,

what is the purpose of that which is written,

“your flock”? It is needed for that which was taught: An animal jointly owned [by an Israelite and another Israelite] is liable for the first shearing, whereas Rabbi Ila'i exempts. 22 .

What is Rabbi Ila'i’s reason? The verse says, “your flock,” meaning specifically a flock designated as yours,

and not one of a partnership.

And the Rabbis

who made an Israelite partnership liable held that the verse is needed

specifically to exclude a partnership with a gentile, but an Israelite partnership is also considered “your flock,” for all Israelites are called in the singular.

but a partnership of Israelites is also considered “your flock,” since all Israelites are referred to in the singular.

And Rabbi Ila'i

what is his source for exempting

a gentile partnership? He derives it from the beginning of the verse,

which is stated concerning teruma:

“the first of your grain,”

implying specifically that which is designated as yours

and not

that

of a gentile partnership.

And the first shearing was juxtaposed to teruma; it follows that “your flock,” stated at the end of the verse, comes to exclude an Israelite partnership.

And the Rabbis

held that although the verse excludes a gentile partnership with regard to teruma, it is necessary to exclude it again from the obligation of the first shearing. For these two laws were not written together in the word

“first,”

that is, “the first of your grain and your flock”; and infer from this that

the subject was interrupted. And Rabbi Ila'i

could say to you: Although “first” interrupted the subject,

the vav

written in the word “and the first of your flock”

again combines it

with the first shearing together with teruma. And the law of the first shearing was juxtaposed to teruma in order to exempt it in a gentile partnership.