Chullin 137a — the Talmud in English

Both of them stand from the outset

in sanctity,

because a firstborn is sacred from its mother’s womb, and with the first shearing there is no need to perform an act to sanctify it. This is not so with the tithe, which becomes sacred by passing beneath the rod.

With these two there applies

sale,

for the priest may sell a firstborn and the first shearing , but a tithe animal is not sold.

And these

details in which the first shearing is equal to the firstborn

are more numerous

[numerous] than the details in which the first shearing is equal to the tithe. If so, apparently it would be preferable to learn from the firstborn that the first shearing should apply even to a tereifa?!

And we answer: Nevertheless, the first shearing, which applies to

an ordinary animal, from

the tithe, which applies to

an ordinary animal

—it is preferable for him

to learn one from the other, and not from the firstborn, which applies specifically to the firstborn that was born first.

We learned in our Mishna:

“The first shearing applies only to sheep.”

From where are these words?

Rav Hisda said: It is derived

by a gezerah shavah

“shearing”

—“shearing.” It is written here,

concerning the first shearing,

“The first of the shearing of your flock you shall give him,” and it is written there,

in the Book of Job,

“And with the shearing of my lambs he will warm himself.” Just as there

—lambs, so here

it is speaking specifically

of lambs. 2

And we object:

Let us derive

this gezerah shavah of

“shearing”

—“shearing” from the firstborn!

For there even the measure of an ox is called shearing. Let us say: Just as the prohibition of shearing there applies even to an ox, so too here let us say that the first shearing applies even to an ox?

And from where do we know that the prohibition of shearing a firstborn applies even to an ox?

For it was taught:

It is written,

“You shall not work with the firstborn of your ox, and you shall not shear the firstborn of your flock.” I have only

that it is forbidden

to work an ox and to shear a flock. From where is it to assign what is stated concerning this one

—namely, the prohibition of work stated concerning the ox—

to that one

—to the flock—

and what is stated concerning that one

—the prohibition of shearing stated concerning the flock—

to this one

—to the ox?

The verse says: “You shall not work” and “you shall not shear,”

the vav of “and you shall not shear,” which is stated concerning the flock, adds to the first matter, namely the ox, and they are learned from one another.

And we answer:

The verse says

concerning the first shearing: “You shall give it to him,” to the priest. And we expound:

“You shall give it to him”

for the need of his garments,

and not for

the need of

his sack,

and the shearing of an ox is suitable for making only a sack, and not for a garment. Therefore, there is no basis for saying that an ox should be obligated in the first shearing .

And we object:

“But from now on,”

since you say that because of this there is no obligation of the first shearing with an ox—for it is not suitable for a garment—if so,

the down of goats should be obligated,

for it is suitable for a garment?

And we answer:

We require

something that comes through

shearing. And

with goats

there is none,

for the down of goats is not shorn but pulled out.

And we object:

Whom have you heard

who has

this reasoning,

that we expound from the wording “shearing” that we require specifically something that comes through shearing?

It is Rabbi Yosei

below! But

Rabbi Yosei concedes in a matter whose ordinary manner

is to remove it without shearing, such as here, with goats, whose ordinary manner is removal by pulling. If so, the first shearing should apply to goats?

Rather,

this that we say, that the first shearing applies only to sheep, is

as Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said,

who expounded from what is written in the section of the first shearing,

“To stand and serve”

—we require

something suitable for service; here too

we require

something suitable for service,

namely wool from which the garments of the priests are made. And there is no wool except that of sheep. Therefore, the first shearing applies specifically to sheep .

And

rather,

the gezerah shavah of

“shearing”

—“shearing”

by which we learned above the first shearing from this verse in Job, “And with the shearing of my lambs he will warm himself”—

for what purpose does it come?

To that which was taught in the school of Rabbi Ishmael, for it was taught in the school of Rabbi Ishmael: Sheep whose wool is coarse are exempt from the first shearing. As it is stated, “And with the shearing of my lambs he will warm himself,”

it follows that “shearing” means specifically wool that warms, whereas coarse wool does not warm .

One teaching states:

The

one who shears the goats, and

the one who washes

the sheep

in the river water to beautify them, through which the wool is pulled from them,

is exempt.

The reason is: the one who shears goats is exempt, as we said, because the first shearing applies only to sheep. And with washing sheep he is exempt, because it is not through shearing, but is pulled out by itself .

And it was taught in another baraita: One who shears the goats -

is exempt, but one who washes the sheep -

is liable!

This is contradictory!

And we say:

This is not difficult; that

baraita that teaches that he is liable -

is the opinion of the Rabbis,

whereas

that

baraita that teaches that he is exempt -

is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

Таково его мнение.

As it was taught:

It is written:

“The gleanings of your harvest.”

And we derive that only from produce that is harvested must one give leket,

but not

must one give

leket

if it was gathered by

plucking.

Rabbi Yosei says: There is no leket except that which comes as a result of harvesting!

And we consider this:

Rabbi Yosei is identical to the first tanna;

so what is the disagreement here?

And we explain:

The entire baraita is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. And this is what it teaches: Rabbi Yosei says, says: There is no leket except that which comes as a result of harvesting.

And the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yosei there.

If so, the baraita that teaches that he is exempt is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who precisely interprets the verse; here too, he precisely interprets the word “shearing”—specifically wool that comes through shearing, and not wool that comes through washing. And the baraita that teaches that he is liable is the opinion of the Rabbis, who do not interpret the verse in this manner.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: Rabbi Yosei concedes in the case of something whose customary manner

is to gather it by plucking rather than by harvesting, that he is liable for leket.

As it was taught: Rabbi Yosei says:

It is written:

“From the harvest

of your land.”

I have derived only harvesting; uprooting

with the roots, as is done when pulling out lentils,

from where

do I know that one is liable for leket?

The verse states: “When you harvest.”

This comes to include uprooting.

Pulling out

by hand without the roots, as is done with beans,

from where

do I know that one is liable for leket?

The verse states: “When you harvest.”

This comes to include pulling out.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: We too have learned

that Rabbi Yosei concedes in the case of something whose customary manner is so.

As we learned:

The rows

[of onions]

among the vegetables, Rabbi Yosei says:

He places

pe’a from each and every one

of the rows, since the vegetables separate the rows, as vegetables are not subject to pe’a. Specifically, anything that is food, is guarded, and is stored for preservation is subject to pe’a. Vegetables are not stored for preservation, whereas onions and garlic are stored for preservation, and therefore they are subject to pe’a.

And the Sages say:

He leaves pe’a

from one

of the rows

for them all.

We see that Rabbi Yosei holds that onions are subject to pe’a, even though they are not harvested with a sickle. Therefore, he concedes that one is liable for something whose customary manner is so .

We learned in our Mishna: “And it applies only to a large flock.”

And how large is it,

the House of Shammai say: Two sheep, etc., and the House of Hillel say: Five, etc.

And we consider this:

Granted, according to the House of Shammai,

we find

two

sheep

also

that

are called a flock,

as the verse cited in the Mishna states: “A man shall sustain one young ox and two sheep.” Therefore, two are also liable, since they are included in the verse, “And the first shearing of your flock.”

But according to the House of Hillel, what is the reason

that specifically five are required for liability? Two are also called “a flock.”

Rav Kahana said: The verse states “Five sheep

that are made,”

»,

and we derive:

That perform two mitzvot!

And these are

the first shearing and the gifts,

for when there are fewer than five sheep, there is only one mitzva, namely the gifts, which one is obligated to give even from a single animal.

And we raise an objection:

Perhaps

this phrase, “that perform two mitzvot,” refers to

the firstborn and the gifts

?

And we answer: It cannot be said in this manner. Does the firstborn offering not become obligatory with

one

animal

as well?

If so, why does the verse state, “Five sheep that are made”—that they perform two mitzvot? With a single animal as well, we find an animal that performs two mitzvot. Rather, it certainly refers to the first shearing and the gifts.

And we challenge this:

But according to your reasoning, the gifts

as well—does

one

animal not become obligated? If so, we find that two mitzvot are performed even with a single animal, namely the gifts and the firstborn. Necessarily, we cannot interpret the phrase “that are made” as meaning that they perform two mitzvot, since two mitzvot are performed even with fewer than five sheep?!

Rather, Rav Ashi said:

This is how the verse is expounded:

“That are made”—

that make their owners

liable for a mitzva in which they had not been liable with fewer than five sheep,

and say to him: Arise and perform a mitzva

of the first shearing!

It was taught: The school of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, says in the name of his father: Four

sheep are liable for the first shearing,

as it is stated: “And four sheep in place of the sheep.”

We see that four are called a flock .

It was taught: Rabbi said:

Even

if

[if]

the words

of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel were

words of Torah

—which were stated in the Torah that was given for all generations—

and the words of the great Rabbi

[Rabbi Yosei; barיבי is an appellation for the greatest sage of his generation, and we say in tractate Eruvin: “Rabbi Yosei’s reasoning accompanies him”] were words of

tradition

—that is, the words of the Prophets [and they are called words of tradition because they received these matters through the Holy Spirit, each prophecy according to the needs of its time, generation, and circumstance]—

we would heed the words of the great Rabbi

as the reason is explained below.

And all the more so

here,

where their words are words of tradition,

as they derive their position from the words of the Prophets,

and the words of the great Rabbi are words of Torah,

as he derives his position from a verse .

And we might now have thought that the reason that even when his words are words of tradition we heed him is that his words constitute a third הכרעה, a decisive ruling. The House of Shammai said two, the House of Hillel said five, and Rabbi Yosei decided between their positions and said four.

And we raise an objection:

But did the Master not say: A third הכרעה does not constitute a decisive ruling?!

[And see Rashi, who explained when we say that it is decisive and when we do not.]