Chullin 135a (קלה.) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

The mitzva of giving

the first shearing

to a kohen

applies in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael, whether the Temple is standing

[when the Temple is standing]

or when the Temple is not standing.

2. It applies to non-sacred animals, but not to consecrated animals.

There is a stringency

with regard to the foreleg, the cheeks, and the maw over the first shearing:

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

both

to cattle and

both

to sheep,

and they apply both

when there is much,

when he slaughtered many animals,

and

even

when there is little—

even if he slaughtered only one animal.

And

if

the first shearing applied only to ewes and applied only when there was much

[as the Gemara explains].

And how much constitutes “much”

for which one is obligated in the first shearing?

Beit Shammai say: Two ewes. As it is stated: “A man shall sustain a young cow and two sheep.”

This indicates that two ewes are considered “sheep,” and concerning the first shearing it is written: “And the first shearing of your flock.”

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

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

meaning that from each of them they shear a maneh and a half [one and a half maneh]—

are obligated in the first shearing.

And the Sages say: Five ewes shearing

even

any amount—

are obligated.

And how much do they give him

to the kohen?

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

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

washed

it will weigh five sela,

and

they do not give him five sela by weight of wool that is

soiled

and has not yet been completely washed. The measure of shearing that they give him is

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

which indicates

that it must contain enough for a gift. If

the Israelite did not manage

to give it—

the wool—

to him

[to the kohen]

before he dyed it —

he is exempt.

For the Israelite acquired it through a change, and he need not give money equal to the value of the first shearing, because he is considered one who damages gifts to the kohanim or eats them , and it was stated above [130b] that he is exempt from payment .

But if the Israelite only

whitened

the wool,

but did not dye it, he is obligated.

For this is not considered a change; rather, it remains as it was.

One who purchases the shearing of a gentile’s flock

while it is still attached to the animal—is

exempt from the first shearing 7.

This is because it is stated: “your flock,” and a gentile’s flock is not considered “your flock.” Although the shearing belongs to the Israelite, the obligation applies only to the flock, and the flock does not belong to him.

One who purchases the shearing of another’s flock, if he leaves over

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

the seller is obligated

to give Reishit HaGez. For the purchaser can say to him: The wool that must be given to a kohen is with you; I did not purchase it from you.

And if

he did not leave anything over,

but the Jew purchased all the wool,

the purchaser is obligated. If the seller had

two types of ewes:

gray

[neither black nor white]

and white,

and

he sold

the purchaser

the gray but not the white,

or if he had males and females and sold him

the males but not the females—

this one gives

Reishit HaGez

for himself, and that one gives for himself [that is, the gray wool from the gray sheep and the white wool from the white sheep].

that is, the one gives from the grayish sheep for the grayish sheep, and the one gives from the white sheep for the white sheep.

The Gemara will explain that the tanna is teaching practical advice. The shearing of the white sheep is better than that of the gray sheep, 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 gray shearing an amount sufficient to make him obligated to give Reishit HaGez from the gray sheep that remained in his possession, and to give the kohen from this shearing. He will thereby gain by not giving from the superior white wool on behalf of the gray sheep [and similarly with males and females].

Gemara:

Why does Reishit HaGez not apply to consecrated animals

?

For

the verse states: “your flock”—

and not the flock of consecrated property.

And we raise an objection:

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

to exclude consecrated animals.

Had it not been so, I would have thought

that

consecrated animals are obligated in Reishit HaGez?

But

they are not animals fit for shearing,

for it is forbidden to shear them,

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

And we explain:

If the reference is to consecrated animals for the altar, this is also so

there is no need for an exclusion, and it is obvious that no obligation of Reishit HaGez applies to their shearing, since it is forbidden to shear them. Rather,

with what are we dealing here?—

with consecrated animals for the maintenance of the Temple,

which are permitted to be shorn. Therefore, it was necessary to derive from the verse that they are exempt from Reishit HaGez.

And we challenge this:

But Rabbi Eliezer said: Consecrated animals for the maintenance of the Temple are prohibited for shearing and labor,

and the question again arises: Why is it necessary to derive from the verse that they are exempt from Reishit HaGez?

And we answer: The prohibition mentioned by Rabbi Eliezer is

rabbinic,

but by Torah law they are permitted for shearing. Therefore,

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

and transgressed the rabbinic prohibition,

he should give it

to the kohen as Reishit HaGez. 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 obligation is created by the flock, not by the shearing.

And we challenge this:

But it is consecrated,

for the wool belongs to consecrated property; how could it enter your mind that he should give consecrated wool to a kohen? And we explain:

It might enter your mind to say: He should redeem it

[he should redeem it], the Jew,

and give it

to the kohen.

And we ask:

But

how can he still give it?

For

with regard to all consecrated livestock

there must be standing—

the animal must stand,

and

then they perform

an assessment

of its value; but here, after the wool has been shorn from the animal, it is impossible to make the wool stand.

This works according to the one who says that consecrated animals for the maintenance of the Temple were not included in the requirement of standing and assessment,

for we established that our passage is dealing with consecrated animals for the maintenance of the Temple.

But according to the one who says

that even consecrated animals for the maintenance of the Temple

were

included in that requirement,

what is there to say?

Rav Mani bar Pati 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 shearing,

which he did not consecrate. If so,

it might enter your mind to shear

Reishit HaGez

and give it

to the kohen, since the shearing is not consecrated property. Concerning this,

the verse states: “your flock,”

meaning that specifically when the flock is yours are you obligated in Reishit HaGez,

and not

when the

flock

belongs to

consecrated property.

And we challenge this:

If so,

since we are dealing with a case where he left the shearings for himself, why did you establish the exclusion with regard to consecrated animals for the maintenance of the Temple?

With regard to consecrated animals for the altar as well,

an exclusion is needed to exempt them from Reishit HaGez when he consecrated them except for their shearings?

And we answer: Consecrated animals for the altar are prohibited to be shorn even when their shearings were not consecrated, because

they are weakened

by the shearing.

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

consecrated animals for the maintenance of the Temple

when he left their shearings outside the consecration and did not consecrate them? After all, they

are also weakened

by the shearing.

And we answer: The consecrated animals for the maintenance of the Temple are being discussed in a case where he

said:

“I hereby consecrate them”

except for shearing and weakening,

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

And we challenge:

The offerings consecrated for the altar, too

can be established in a manner

in which he said: “Except for its shearing and its diminution”?

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

even so,

since the sanctity of the body is severe,

the sanctity extends throughout the entire animal,

and even its shearing becomes sacred. Therefore, it is obvious that he is not obligated in Reishit HaGez, since the shearing is not his, and no verse is needed to exempt him. This is unlike offerings consecrated for Temple maintenance, with regard to which the principle that the sanctity extends throughout the entire object does not apply .

And from where do you say

that if one consecrated part of an animal with the sanctity of the body, the sanctity extends throughout the entire animal?

As R. Yosei said: “Is it not the case with consecrated animals that one who says, ‘The leg of

this animal

is an olah offering’—

the entire animal is an olah offering!”

And even according to R. Meir, who says

that in a case where one consecrated its leg,

the entire animal does not become an olah offering, this applies only when he consecrated something upon which the animal’s life does not depend,

such as the leg of an animal.

But when he consecrated something upon which the animal’s life depends,

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

it becomes sacred

in its entirety, including the shearing.

Rava said:

Our Mishna is discussing one who consecrates

the

mere

shearing itself.

In such a case, we have not learned from the verse “the shearing of your flock” that he is exempt from giving Reishit HaGez, since “your flock” applies to it, as the animal remains his.

It might enter your mind to shear it, redeem it, and give it

to the kohen.

The verse states: “You shall give the shearing of your flock to him,”

and we derive:

one who lacks nothing other than shearing and giving

—you shall give it to the kohen.

This one

who consecrated the shearing

lacks shearing,

redemption, and giving 21 .

Since Rava exempts the shearing of consecrated animals only when the shearing itself is sacred, the following difficulty arises:

But

what is the purpose of the word

“your flock”? It is needed for that which was taught in a beraita: “An animal jointly owned by partners is obligated in Reishit HaGez, and R. Ela'i exempts it.” 22 .

What is R. Ela'i’s reason? The verse states “your flock,” meaning specifically flock designated as yours

and not jointly owned.

And the Rabbis

who obligated an Israelite partnership maintained that the verse is needed

specifically to exclude a partnership with a gentile,

but an Israelite partnership is also considered “your flock,” since all Israel are referred to in the singular .

And R. Ela'i

—from where does he derive the exemption of

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

which is stated with regard to teruma:

“the first of your grain,”

which implies specifically that which is designated as yours,

and not

that of

a partnership with a gentile.

And Reishit HaGez is juxtaposed to teruma. It follows that “your flock,” stated at the end of the verse, comes to exclude an Israelite partnership.

And the Rabbis

maintained that although the verse excludes a gentile partnership with regard to teruma, it is necessary to exclude it again from the obligation of Reishit HaGez. For these two laws were not written together under the single word

“first,”

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

from this one may infer that the subject has been interrupted. And R. Ela'i

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

vav

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

again joins it

to Reishit HaGez together with teruma. Thus, the law of Reishit HaGez is juxtaposed to teruma to exempt a partnership with a gentile.