Chullin 136a — the Talmud in English

According to Rabbah. For Rabbah said:

from that which is written, “upon the doorposts of your house,” it is implied:

the way of your entering

the house—you establish the mezuzah! And a person’s way of entering is

from the right,

for when he enters the house, he first brings in his right foot. If so, the right is the way of entering, and therefore he establishes the mezuzah on the right of the doorway.

And Rabbi Ila'i also concedes with regard to

tithe.

For

even though the Merciful One wrote, “your grain-tithe,”

and it implies

your own—

yes; partnership—

no, the Merciful One wrote, “your tithes,”

which also implies partnership. And

rather,

this that is written,

“your grain-tithe”—for what does it come? To exclude the partnership of an idolater!

And he also concedes with regard to

the gifts

of priesthood. For

even though the Merciful One wrote, “and he shall give,”

and

it could be said that we derive

a gzerah shavah

“giving”—

“giving” from the first shearing: just as there—

partnership does not, so here—

partnership does not, the Merciful One wrote, “from the slayers of the slaughtered animal,”

which implies that partnership is also obligated. And we challenge:

Rather, the reason is that the Merciful One wrote, “from the slayers of the slaughtered animal”;

for that reason we do not derive it from the first shearing.

But if not for this, would I have said that we should derive it from the first shearing? On the contrary! Let us derive

by a gzerah shavah of “giving”—“giving”

from teruma,

which is also obligatory in partnership? And we say:

Indeed so,

in truth we derive from teruma that it is obligatory. And this verse of

“from the slayers of the slaughtered animal”—what do I need it for? For that which Rava said. For Rava said: The claim is with the slaughterer,

for the priest’s claim to receive the gifts is always against the slaughterer [as above, 132a]. And he also concedes with regard to

first fruits,

for

even though the Merciful One wrote, “your land,”

which implies

your own—

yes; partnership—

no, the Merciful One wrote, “the first fruits of everything that is in your land,”

which also implies partnership.

And

rather,

this that is written

“your land”—what do I need it for?

To exclude the Diaspora!

For there is no mitzva of first fruits there.

And he also concedes with regard to

ritual fringes,

for

even though the Merciful One wrote, “your garment,”

which implies

your own—

yes; partnership—

no, the Merciful One wrote, “upon the corners of their garments throughout their generations,”

which implies partnership.

And rather, “your garment,”

which the Merciful One wrote,

what do I need it for?

For that which Rav Yehuda said. For Rav Yehuda said: A borrowed tallit is exempt from ritual fringes for all thirty days

because it is not considered your garment.

And he also concedes with regard to

a parapet,

for

even though the Merciful One wrote, “for your roof,”

which implies

your own—

yes; partnership—

no, the Merciful One wrote, “when the one who falls falls from it,”

for “the one who falls” implies anyone fit to fall, even one who falls from a roof belonging to partners. And

rather,

this that is written

“your roof”—for what does it come? To exclude synagogues and study halls,

which are not obligated in a parapet because it is not “your roof,” for no person owns them; rather, they belong to everyone. And another reason is that they are not dwelling houses.

Rav Bibi bar Abaye said: These general principles do not stand,

that we stated, that Rabbi Ila'i concedes in all these matters.

For it was taught in a beraita: An animal belonging to partners is obligated in the firstborn offering, and Rabbi Ila'i exempts it;

we see that Rabbi Ila'i does not concede concerning the firstborn offering!

What is Rabbi Ila'i’s reason?

For it is written, “your cattle and your flock,”

which implies excluding partnership.

But is it not written, “your cattle and your flock,”

which implies including partnership?

And we say: This “[your cattle and your flocks]”

means all of Israel

—for the verse is saying that the firstborn cattle and sheep of each and every Israelite are obligated in the firstborn offering; but in truth, only [the animals] of an individual are obligated, and not those of a partnership.

Rav Hanina of Sura said: These principles are not valid

—that we said that Rabbi Ila'i concedes in these matters.

For it was taught: An animal belonging to partners is obligated in the gifts, and Rabbi Ila'i exempts. What is the reason? He derives

a gzera shava

“giving”

—“giving” from the first of the shearing: just as there, a partnership is not [obligated], so here

in the gifts

—a partnership is not [obligated]. And if it enters your mind

that

in teruma

Rabbi Ila'i concedes and says that

he is obligated, let us derive “giving”

—“giving” from teruma,

and say that in a partnership too he is obligated in the gifts

! Rather, infer from it

that

in teruma too

he exempts 11 .

And we raise an objection:

If

so, since you say that we derive the gifts through a gzera shava from teruma, let us say:

Just as teruma, in the Land, does not

obligate

[one], outside the Land

does not, so too the gifts, in the Land

do not, outside the Land

do not?!

нет?!

Rabbi Yosei of Naharbila said: No!

In truth, the gifts apply only in the Land.

And was it not taught

[as an affirmative statement, proof of the matter],

Rabbi Ila'i says: The gifts apply only in the Land.

And Rabbi Ila'i would likewise say: The first of the shearing applies only in the Land! What is Rabbi Ila'i’s reason?

Rava said: He derives

a gzera shava

“giving”

—“giving” from teruma

14 , just as teruma, in the Land

does not, outside the Land

does not; so too the first of the shearing, in the Land

does not, outside the Land

does not.

Abaye said to him: If

so, let us likewise learn as follows:

Just as teruma renders [produce] subject to tithing

—the grain becomes untithed produce and is forbidden to eat until he separates the teruma—

so too the first of the shearing renders [the wool] subject to tithing

and let all the shearing be forbidden until he gives the first of the shearing to the koen?!

He said to him: The verse says, “And the first of the shearing of your flock you shall give to him.”

For this “first” is superfluous! And we expound it as follows:

You have nothing

[for the koen]

in it except from its beginning

—from the time it becomes “first” through the separation—

and onward,

but before the separation, the first of the shearing does not belong to the koen; and we do not say that the first of the shearing is mixed with the rest of the shearing. Therefore, the shearing does not have the status of untithed produce.

If so, just as with teruma, one who is not a koen who eats it

intentionally

is liable for death, and one who eats it

unintentionally is obligated to bring

a fifth

in addition to the principal,

so too with the first of the shearing, is one who eats it liable for death and a fifth?

The verse says

concerning teruma with regard to intentional eating:

“And they shall die through it,”

and concerning unintentional eating:

“And he shall add to it.”

And we expound: “And he shall add

to it

”—but not to the first of the shearing; “And they shall die

through it”

—but not for the first of the shearing

16 . If, just as with teruma

there is a first tithe and a second [tithe] after it, so too

with

the first of the shearing

let us say that there is

a first and a second [one] after it?

has, let us say,

a first and a second tithe following it?

The verse says: “First.”

And we expound:

You have nothing in it except first alone,

and there is no further giving of a first and a second [tithe].

If, just as with teruma, that which is new may not be given for that which is old

—this year’s produce for that of the previous year—

not

may be given, as we learn from what is written, “that which comes forth in the field year by year,”

should we say that also the first of the shearing, new for old, may not be given?

And we say:

No!

In truth, the first of the shearing from new may not be given for old.

And was it not taught

[as an affirmative statement]:

If he had two ewes, he sheared

them one year

and set aside

the shearing,

he sheared

again the second year

and set it aside,

and he did so

for two or three years

until he had five shearings in his possession—

they do not combine.

For we require shearing from five ewes, whereas here it is only from two; it follows,

but

if he sheared from

five

ewes, from two of them in the first year and from the other three in the second year —

they combine!

And was it not taught

in another beraita that in such a case

they do not combine?

Rather, infer from it: This

beraita that teaches that they do not combine

is Rabbi Ila'i’s

view, for he compares shearing to teruma;

and that

beraita that teaches that they combine

is the Rabbis’

view, for they do not accept this juxtaposition.

What is it?

In

teruma

the rule is that what

grew while subject to the obligation

in the possession of an Israelite

is obligated,

and what

grew while exempt

that is, in the possession of a gentile,

is exempt. Even

with regard to

the first shearing

we should likewise say:

what grew while subject to the obligation —

is obligated; what grew while exempt —

is exempt?

And with regard to teruma, from where do we know

this rule, that what grew while subject to the obligation is obligated, and what grew while exempt is exempt?

For it was taught in a beraita: An Israelite who purchased a field in Syria from a gentile,

and Syria is Aram Zova, which David conquered; and the conquest of an individual is not considered a conquest, and the sanctity of the Land did not apply to it, but only a lesser sanctity, and therefore a gentile has ownership in it to exempt from the tithe, if an Israelite purchased it from the gentile,

before it brought forth

the produce

a third

of its growth —

he is obligated

to tithe; if he purchased it

after it had brought forth

the produce

a third, Rabbi Akiva obligates

in the tithe

on the addition,

that is, on the two-thirds that grew in the possession of the Israelite,

and the Sages exempt.

For they hold that since it brought forth a third in the possession of the gentile, it is as though all of it had been completed in his possession, since we maintain that produce follows the third [but if he purchased it from a gentile in the Land of Israel, he is obligated in the tithe on all of it, for a gentile does not have ownership in the Land of Israel to exempt from the tithe].

And we see that if the produce grew in the possession of a gentile who is exempt from the tithe, it is exempt, and if it grew in the possession of an Israelite, it is obligated!

And if you would say: Here too,

in truth, the same law also applies to the first shearing?

But

this is not so! For

did we not learn

in our Mishna:

One who purchases the shearing of the sheep of a gentile is exempt from the first shearing,

because the obligation is upon the owner of the sheep and not upon the owner of the shearing alone; it follows

that

if he purchased

his sheep

of a gentile

for shearing,

that he purchased his sheep when they were standing to be shorn —

he is obligated!

And even though it grew in the possession of the gentile .