Chullin 135b (קלה:) — the Talmud in English

And the Rabbis

say to you: If it enters your mind that they were juxtaposed with one another,

the Merciful One would not have written either the vav or the word “first.”

And why did the Merciful One write “first”? To interrupt the subject; and it was necessary to write the vav again in order to join them?

And Rabbi Ila'i

could say to you:

Since this—

the first shearing—

has sanctity of value

and is merely a monetary obligation [and “sanctity” is not meant literally, as it has no sanctity at all, Rashi],

whereas this—

teruma—

has inherent sanctity,

as it is forbidden to non-kohanim, therefore

the verse separated them,

the verse,

and afterward joined them

in order to derive through the juxtaposition that partnership with a gentile is exempt.

Alternatively,

the Rabbis need not be challenged: We can derive that produce jointly owned by a gentile is exempt from the fact that this produce is exempt from the offering, because

the Rabbis obligate jointly owned produce belonging to a gentile in the offering!

As it was taught in a beraita: When a Jew and a gentile jointly purchased a field,

it is

produce subject to tithes mixed with non-sacred produce.

The Jew’s share is not exempt from the offering; rather, his share is produce subject to the offering, mixed with the gentile’s share, which is non-sacred produce.

These are the words of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says:

After they divide the produce between them,

the

Jew’s share

is obligated

in the offering,

whereas the gentile’s share

is exempt.

The dispute between

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel

extends only to the point that one

—Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel—

holds that there is retroactive designation,

and we say that after the division it becomes clear which portion was the Jew’s and which was the gentile’s; therefore the Jew’s portion is obligated and the gentile’s portion is exempt.

Alternatively,

the Rabbis would not find it difficult: We can derive that partnership with a gentile in the first shearing is exempt from the fact that it is exempt in the case of teruma, because

partnership with a gentile in teruma is, according to the Rabbis, obligated!

As it was taught in a baraita: A Jew and a gentile who jointly purchased a field—

the produce requiring tithing and non-sacred produce are intermingled with one another.

This is because the Jew’s share is not exempt from teruma; thus his share is produce requiring tithing, intermingled with the gentile’s share of non-sacred produce,

the statement of Rabbi. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says:

After they divide the grain among themselves,

the share

of

the

Jew is obligated

in teruma,

whereas that of the gentile

is exempt.

They disagreed only up to this point, Rabbi and Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel: One master— Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel— holds that there is retroactive clarification, and we say that after the division it became clear which was the Jew’s share and which was the gentile’s; therefore the Jew’s share is obligated and the gentile’s share is exempt. And the other master— Rabbi— holds that there is no retroactive clarification, and even after the division the Jew’s share and the gentile’s share remain intermingled. But with regard to partnership with a gentile, everyone agrees that it is obligated! And alternatively, you need not force Rabbi Ila'i to say that the first shearing was juxtaposed with teruma on the basis of the vav that joined them. Rather, both—

as belonging to the Jew; a Jewish

partnership is likewise not designated to him 4 .

a partnership between Jews and a partnership with a gentile—

Rabbi Ila'i derives from “your flock”!

For why is

partnership with a gentile exempt?

Because it is

not exclusively his—

the Jew’s; a

partnership

between Jews is likewise not exclusively his.

And the Rabbis say to you: We cannot derive that a partnership between Jews is exempt from the fact that it is written “your flock.” For granted, a gentile is not subject to the obligation, and therefore differs from a Jew; consequently, when a Jew has a partnership with him, it is not considered “your flock,” because the two of them cannot both be referred to in the singular, since both of them are not subject to the obligation. But a partnership between Jews, who are subject to the obligation, is included under “your flock.” For all Jews, who are all subject to the obligation, are referred to in the singular.

although it is written “your grain,”

which implies

your own—

yes, a partnership

no—

the Merciful One then

wrote “your offerings” in the plural, which implies that a partnership is also obligated.

Rava said: Rabbi Ila'i agrees with regard to teruma

that a partnership between Jews is obligated,

because

although it is written “your grain,”

which implies

your own—

yes; a partnership—

no—

the Merciful One subsequently

wrote “your terumot”

in the plural, implying that a partnership too is obligated.

And then what is the purpose of that which is written, “your grain”? To exclude partnership with a gentile! And Rabbi Ila'i likewise agrees with regard to ḥalla. For although it is written in its context “first,” and one might say that we should derive by means of a gezeira shava, “first”— “first,” from the first shearing: Just as there— with regard to the first shearing— partnership is not obligated, so too here, with regard to ḥalla— partnership is not obligated— the Merciful One wrote “your kneading bowls,” which implies that partnership too is obligated.

derive

by an inference based on the identical expression

“first”

And we raise an objection:

and “first” from the first shearing: Just as there

in the first shearing

a partnership is not

permitted, so too here

a partnership is not

permitted—the Merciful One wrote “your kneading bowls,” implying that a partnership is also obligated.

And we challenge this:

Is the reason merely that “your kneading bowls” is written 9 ,

The reason is specifically that “your kneading bowls” is written,

and therefore we say that partnership is obligated.

If not for this, we would have said that we should derive “first”–“first” from the first shearing

to establish exemption?

On the contrary, we should derive it from teruma

to establish obligation!

And we say:

Indeed, so too,

in truth, we do not require the verse “your kneading bowls” to derive the obligation of a partnership.

But if so, what do I need “your kneading bowls” for?

To teach that the measure of dough obligated in ḥalla is

the measure of your kneading bowls

at present, corresponding to the measure of dough that existed in the wilderness when the Torah was given—namely, an omer per person, which is one-tenth of an eifa.

And Rabbi Ila'i likewise concedes with regard to

pe'ah,

that

even though it is written, “your field,”

which implies

that it is yours—

yes, a partnership—

no, the Merciful One wrote, “When you reap the harvest of your land,”

which implies that a partnership is also obligated.

But

“your field,”

which is written,

what does it come to teach?

To exclude a partnership with a gentile!

Rabbi Ila'i likewise concedes with regard to

the firstborn,

that

even though it is written, “Every firstborn that is born among your cattle and among your flocks,”

which implies

that it is yours—

yes, a partnership—

no, the Merciful One wrote, “the firstborn of your cattle and of your flocks,”

which implies a partnership.

But

what do I need “your cattle and your flocks” for?

To exclude a partnership with a gentile!

He likewise concedes with regard to

mezuzah,

that

even though it is written

in it

“your house,”

which implies

that it is yours—

yes, a partnership—

no, the Merciful One wrote, “so that your days and the days of your children may be increased,”

which also implies a partnership.

But “your house,”

which the verse wrote,

what does it come to teach?