Chullin 135b — the Talmud in English

And the Rabbis

say to you: If it would enter your mind that they were equated with one another,

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

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

And Rabbi Ila'i

could say to you:

Since this one—

the first of the shearing—

is monetary sanctity,

it is merely a monetary obligation [and sanctity is not דווקא, for it has no sanctity at all, Rashi],

whereas this one—

the teruma—

is bodily sanctity,

for it is forbidden to non-priests, therefore

the verse separated them

and

afterward joined them

in order to derive by means of the hekesh that partnership with a gentile is exempt.

Alternatively,

the Rabbis need not be difficult: Let us derive that partnership with a gentile in the first of the shearing is exempt from this case, in which it is exempt with regard to teruma, for

the Rabbis obligate partnership with a gentile in teruma!

For it was taught in a beraita: If an Israelite and a gentile purchased a field in partnership—

it is

produce subject to tevel and ordinary produce mixed with one another.

For the Israelite’s share is not exempt from teruma, and his share is tevel mixed with the gentile’s share of ordinary produce .

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

After they divide the produce between them,

the share

of the

Israelite is obligated

in teruma,

but that of the gentile

is exempt.

They disagree only

Rabbi and Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel

in that one—

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel—

holds that there is determination,

and we say that after the division it became clear what was the Israelite’s share and what was the gentile’s share; therefore the Israelite’s share is obligated and the gentile’s share is exempt.

And the other—

Rabbi—

holds that there is no determination,

and even after the division the Israelite’s share and the gentile’s share remain mixed.

But as for partnership with a gentile, everyone agrees

that it is

obligated!

And alternatively,

do not force Rabbi Ila'i to say that the first of the shearing was equated with teruma from the matter of the vav, which joined them. Rather,

both of them—

partnership with an Israelite and partnership with a gentile—

Rabbi Ila'i derives from “your flock”!

For

with regard to partnership with a gentile, for what reason

is it exempt? Because

it is not designated for him

for the Israelite; partnership

with an Israelite is likewise not designated for him 4 .

And the Rabbis

say to you: There is no basis for deriving that partnership between Israelites is exempt from the fact that it is written “your flock.” For, granted,

a gentile is not subject to the obligation,

and therefore he differs from an Israelite; consequently “your flock” is not considered applicable when an Israelite has a partnership with him, since we do not refer to both of them in the singular, as both of them are not subject to the obligation. But partnership between

Israelites,

which

is subject to the obligation,

is included in “your flock.” For all Israelites, since all are subject to the obligation, are called in the singular.

Rava said: Rabbi Ila'i agrees concerning teruma

that partnership between Israelites is obligated . For although

it is written “your grain,”

which implies

your own—

yes, partnership

no,

he then

the Merciful One wrote “your terumot” , in the plural, which implies that partnership too is obligated.

And

rather,

what is the purpose of the fact that

“your grain” is written?

To exclude partnership with a gentile!

And Rabbi Ila'i likewise agrees concerning

hallah.

For

although it is written

in it

“first,” and it could be said

that

we should derive

a gezera shava,

“first”—

And we raise an objection:

“first,” from the first of the shearing: Just as there,

in the first of the shearing,

partnership is not [obligated], so here too

in hallah,

partnership is not [obligated], the Merciful One wrote “your kneading-bowls,”

which implies that partnership too is obligated .

And we raise an objection:

But the reason is that “your kneading-bowls” is written 9 ,

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

and for that reason we say that partnership is obligated.

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

for exemption? But

on the contrary, we should derive it from teruma

for obligation!

And we say:

So too,

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

Rather, why do I need “your kneading-bowls”?

To derive that the measure of dough obligated in ḥalla is

the measure of your kneading-bowls

of the present time, like the measure of dough that was in the wilderness at the time the Torah was given; and that is an omer per head, which is a tenth of an eifa.

And Rabbi Ila'i likewise concedes with regard to

pe'a,

for

even though it is written, “your field,”

which implies

that it is yours—

yes, [but] of a partnership—

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

which implies that a partnership is also obligated.

And

rather, “your field”

which is written—

why do I need it?

To exclude a partnership with an idolater!

And Rabbi Ila'i likewise concedes with regard to

the firstborn,

for

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

which implies

that it is yours—

yes, [but] of a partnership—

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

which implies a partnership.

And

rather, why do I need “your cattle and your flocks”?

To exclude a partnership with an idolater!

And he likewise concedes with regard to

a mezuzah,

for

even though it is written

concerning it

“your house,”

which implies

that it is yours—

yes, [but] of a partnership—

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

which also implies a partnership.

But then, “your house”

which the verse wrote,

for what does it come?