Chullin 137b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yohanan said:

The reason that we rule in accordance with his view is not that it is a third and הכרעה view, but rather because

he said it from a tradition

Rabbi Yose,

from Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi,

therefore the halakha is in accordance with his view.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Dosa ben Horkinas says, etc.

And we raised this concerning it: That which we learned: “And the Sages say: five sheep that are sheared [are liable] with regard to any amount,”

and how much

is the measure of “sheared”

with regard to any amount?

Rav said: A maneh and a peras, provided that they are

those maneh and peras

in fifths.

That is, from each one of them he shears seven and a half sela, which is the shearing of all of them, a maneh and a peras, which are thirty-seven and a half sela [see Rashi for the calculation] .

And Shmuel said:

they must be sheared

sixty

sela,

and he gives one sela

of them

to the priest.

Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

The measure of “any amount” is

six

sela, and from them he gives

five to the priest

sela,

and one

remains

for him.

Ulla said in the name of Rabbi Elazar:

Even if they are sheared only one sela, he is liable, for

“any amount” is what we learned.

We learned: And how much does he give him? The weight of five sela in Judea, which are ten in the Galilee. Granted, according to Rav and Rabbi Yohanan, it is satisfactory!

For Rav did not say how much of it he gives to the priest, and it is possible to say that he holds that he gives the weight of five sela. And Rabbi Yohanan—he said that he gives five to the priest.

But according to Shmuel,

who said that he gives one sela to the priest,

and

according to

Rabbi Elazar

who said that “any amount” is what we learned , and if he shears one sela, then certainly he cannot give five sela to the priest—

the Mishna is difficult

to them?!

And we question:

And according to your reasoning, and according to Rav, is it satisfactory? For Rav and Shmuel both said:

The measure of

the first shearing is one-sixtieth!

And if so, according to Rav, who said that the measure that makes one liable for the first shearing is a maneh and a peras from five sheep, which amount to thirty-seven and a half sela, one-sixtieth of them does not even amount to one sela?! And in Derekh Emuna [chapter 1 of Gifts to the Poor, halakha 15, Biur Halakha, s.v. “But”] he noted that apparently the obligation of giving from the Torah depends on the dispute among the early authorities whether, in addition to the measure of separation in teruma, which may be any amount, there is another obligation to give the measure of a giving [cited above, 136a, note 6]. Apparently, it follows that if there is not enough for the measure of a giving, he should place it before the priests and they should divide it among themselves; yet we do not find this even with teruma. Why was a measure of giving newly established specifically for the first shearing and the gifts? He explained that the primary purpose of teruma is to exempt the untithed produce, and he gives the priest his property that belongs to him; but the gifts and the first shearing do not render produce prohibited for consumption, and their entire mitzva is the giving. The measure of the mitzva depends on the measure of a giving, and only if he does not have that measure is he not required to give more. And see what he wrote further [in chapter 13, Biur Halakha, s.v. “As it is stated”] and below [138a, note 3]. The Vilna Gaon [subsection 12] wrote: “And this requires study concerning the Rambam and the Shulhan Arukh, who omitted that the measure for one priest is one-sixtieth.” And this is apparently astonishing, for the Rambam mentioned it [as above in the preceding note]. And in Tiferet Yaakov he expanded the question: The Rambam did not mention that one who shears sixty sela gives one sela, and he inferred from this that he does not give the measure of one sela, but waits until it joins together to make an effective giving, namely five sela. But in the words of Rashi [s.v. “What is the difference”] and the commentary on the Mishna of the Rambam it is explicit that he also gives a measure of one sela by itself. In the commentary of Rabbi Isaac ben Malki Tzedek on the opening Mishna of Peah, he cited a Tosefta that although we learned anonymously that peah has no measure, this means that it has no upper measure, but below it does have a measure, as we learned: one may not reduce the peah below one-sixtieth. This is difficult from what is explained in our discussion, that it has no lower measure from the Torah, while the Mishna deals with its law from the Torah. And see Tosafot in Hagiga [7a, s.v. “And Rabbi Yohanan”] and the משנה למלך [Gifts to the Poor, chapter 1, halakha 15], who held that the Gemara in our discussion follows the one who says that it has no measure either above or below, whereas the tanna of the Tosefta held that even by virtue of the rabbinic measure it is considered to have a lower measure. [And see the משנה למלך there in the name of Rabbi Shimshon, and likewise in Shnot Eliyahu, who holds that it has a measure even from the Torah; and see the notes to Tosafot, s.v. “These.”] It is possible to explain that Rabbi Isaac ben Malki Tzedek held in accordance with the view of the Halakhot Gedolot [beginning of the laws of peah], which explained in our discussion: In the Land [of Israel] it has no measure, because it is written, “You shall not finish,” and it is therefore of Torah status, and no measure is written concerning it; outside the Land it is rabbinic, and “there is no measure of one-sixtieth.” And in Peat HaShulhan he explained that his version of our discussion reads “rather,” there, in the Land, that which comes in the outside Land. He explained that outside the Land one may not reduce it below one-sixtieth and it has a measure, whereas the Mishna speaks of the Land of Israel, where even by rabbinic law there is no measure of one-sixtieth. [Rabbi Isaac ben Malki Tzedek would explain that the tannaim differ as to whether they consider its measure in the Land of Israel separately, or whether its law is included with its measure outside the Land; this requires examination.] However, the explanation of Peat HaShulhan is astonishing, since it is more lenient in the Land than outside the Land, and also because Rav and Shmuel did not mention that their measure applies specifically outside the Land. After all, it is a Mishna there, and it is not stated that this refers specifically to outside the Land. And in Derekh Emuna [chapter 1 of Gifts to the Poor, halakha 15, Biur Halakha, s.v. “But”] he explained that the Halakhot Gedolot read like our version and explained that outside the Land the measure of one-sixtieth is indispensable, whereas in the Land it is not indispensable and one must complete it; see there. And the משנה למלך there asked why peah below the measure does not take effect at all, whereas one who separates teruma less than one-sixtieth has it take effect with respect to part of the produce, according to the measure that he separated. And in Torat Zeraim [Peah, chapter 1, mishna 1] he answered that with teruma, the obligation and separation apply to each stalk individually, whereas with peah, the obligation and separation apply to the field and not to the produce [see the notes above, 131a]. Therefore, the separation relates to the entire field as one, and if there is no measure corresponding to all of it, it does not take effect. [And he brought proof from the fact that one does not separate peah from one field for another, which necessarily is because the obligation applies to the field. But in Mikdash David [Seeds 62b] he held that the separation depends on harvesting, and two fields are considered two harvests; below, 138a, we will elaborate on this in notes 17–20.] Apparently, according to this, the law of the measure in peah is different, for it is indispensable because its obligation applies to the entire field; but with the first shearing, whose obligation does not apply to the entire flock, as below [138a], the separation will not be indispensable. And see in Maadanei Eretz [Terumot, chapter 3, halakha 1] who held that the measure of one-sixtieth is indispensable for the first shearing, in accordance with the wording of the Rambam [in halakha 1], that it should not be less than one-sixtieth. And in Derekh Emuna [citation of laws 21] he wrote that this means that one must add to the giving, because there is no separation with the first shearing. And see below, 138a, note 20. The Rambam [halakha 13] and the Shulhan Arukh [section 9] wrote that the obligation depends on the shearing having a weight of at least sixty sela. This is in accordance with Shmuel and with the view of Rabbi Yohanan himself [and not like Rabbi Yannai, his teacher], and with the conclusion of the Gemara regarding Rav’s intention, that the obligation is a maneh and a peras in a maneh of forty, namely sixty. See Be'er HaGolah and Biur HaGra [subsection 11]. And the Rif cited that the Master of the Laws ruled in accordance with Rabbi Yannai, that the obligation applies to one who shears six sela, and the Rosh [section 1] explained his reason: The halakha follows Rabbi Yannai against Rabbi Yohanan, his student, and certainly against Rav and Shmuel, for the halakha does not follow them against Rabbi Yohanan. And the Yam of Solomon [section 8] rejected his reason: The halakha does not follow Rav against a student, except when he differs only with his student; but since Rav and Shmuel also differed with him, the halakha follows Rabbi Yohanan, who decided in accordance with them. And the Tur ruled in accordance with Rabbi Yannai, that even with a large shearing he gives only five sela, and the Rema [section 13] and Biur HaGra [subsection 20] and Divrei Hemudot [letter 2] wondered at this, for the Rema himself does not differ with the ruling of the Shulhan Arukh [in section 9], that the obligation applies from sixty sela, and that he gives one-sixtieth of them [see later in the note], and five sela is the case where he sheared three hundred; but if he has more shearing, he gives one sela for every sixty. Why, then, did he rule that he gives only five? And in Lev Aryeh and Hadrei De'ah they wrote that he adopted the lenient position in both directions because of the uncertainty whether the halakha follows Rabbi Yohanan or Rabbi Yannai, his teacher. And the Beit Yosef wrote that the Rambam did not mention that they must be in fifths because he ruled in accordance with Shmuel and Rabbi Yannai, and from the fact that he did not mention the law of fifths it is implied that they differed with Rav in this; and the Yam of Solomon [there] likewise ruled as the halakha that they need not be in fifths [or quarters, according to Rabbi Ishmael son of Rabbi Yose]. And in Darkhei Moshe [subsection 1] he noted that before us the law of fifths appears in the words of the Rambam [in halakha 13]. And the Shulhan Arukh ruled [section 9] that they must be in fifths, and the Vilna Gaon explained that this is how the Rif and the Rambam held, because the halakha follows Rav in matters of prohibitions. But the Rosh and the Tur ruled in accordance with Rabbi Yannai, etc. His words imply that the ruling of the Rosh and the Tur regarding the measure of the giving [six, five to the priest, and one for him] means that it is unnecessary that they be in fifths, because the measure of the obligation is determined by the measure of the giving and not by the significance of the shearing. It follows that the halakha is established in accordance with Rav and Shmuel regarding sixty, and in accordance with Rav regarding fifths, because the halakha follows him when they differ in matters of prohibitions; but Rabbi Yannai’s view was rejected as halakha regarding the measure of the obligation, and since his view was already rejected regarding the measure of the obligation, it is likewise rejected regarding the question whether fifths are required. Therefore, the Vilna Gaon did not explain why the halakha does not follow him regarding fifths. Rashi explained “one-sixtieth”: he gives one-sixtieth to the priest. According to this, the contradiction in Rav’s words concerns the measure of the shearing, and in a second explanation he wrote that the intention is that a shearing of sixty sela is liable for the first shearing. According to this, he explained that the Gemara’s question against Rav is that if the gift is one-sixtieth, the priest receives less than a sela, and there is no one who says that the gift may be less than a sela. [He held that the contradiction concerns the gift and not the measure of the shearing that creates the obligation.] And in Tiferet Yaakov he asked: Ulla said in the name of Rabbi Elazar that any amount may be given. And it is additionally astonishing, for it is possible that only when he has many shearings does he give one-sixtieth, but when he has only a maneh and a peras he becomes liable for a gift and gives one sela, which is the minimum measure for a gift. We already brought in note 4 that in the book Damascus of Eliezer wrote that Ulla also holds that the measure of shearing that creates liability with regard to “any amount” is at least one sela, and regarding the measure of the giving, although he agrees with Rav and Shmuel that it is one-sixtieth, this is when he has many shearings; but even when he has only one sela he becomes liable, and in this it is considered “any amount.” And the משנה למלך [Gifts to the Poor, chapter 6, halakha 7] was perplexed, on the other hand, by the method of Tosefot Rid in Kiddushin, that there is a measure of giving with teruma, and only when he has much produce is it sufficient that he give one-sixtieth. If so, there is no contradiction in Rav’s words, for in truth the measure is five sela, because it is stated, “You shall give him,” namely, according to the measure of a giving; but when he has much, one-sixtieth is sufficient. And similarly, one must wonder at the question against Rabbi Yohanan, for even if he may give one-sixtieth from many shearings because this constitutes a significant giving, it is possible that one who shears six sela becomes liable to give five, because one-sixtieth of this shearing does not constitute the measure of a giving, one sela. According to what was explained, it is possible to distinguish between teruma, which comes to exempt untithed produce, and the giving in it is a separate part of the separation, and therefore its measure in every case remains enough for the measure of a giving; and what Tosefot Rid wrote, that the measure of one-sixtieth applies with much produce, refers to the measure of the separation that permits the untithed produce, and not to the giving, which is fulfilled with any amount. But with the first shearing and the gifts, the measure of the separation is the measure of the giving, and there is no reason to distinguish between much and little. Therefore, they also questioned Rabbi Yohanan: If one who shears there must give more than one-sixtieth, there is no distinction between his giving and a giving from many shearings; so how did he say that the measure of the giving is one-sixtieth?

it was stated concerning that

Mishna

that we are dealing with an Israelite who has a large amount of wool and wishes to give it [A0091]as the first shearing

to a priest—

to many priests.

In Tiferet Yaakov the following difficulty was raised: Ulla said in the name of Rabbi Elazar that one may give any amount. Moreover, it is difficult because perhaps one gives one-sixtieth only when he has many shearings, whereas when he has only a manah and a half-manah, he is obligated to give a gift and must give one sela, which is the minimum measure of a gift. As we already cited in note 4, in the book Dammesek Eliezer it was written that Ulla also holds that the measure of shearing that creates an obligation of “any amount” is at least one sela. Regarding the measure of the gift, although he agrees with Rav and Shmuel that it is one-sixtieth, this applies when he has many shearings; but even when he has only one sela, he becomes obligated, and in this respect it is considered “any amount.” The Mishna LaMelekh [A0176][chapter 6 of the laws of gifts to the poor, section 7], by contrast, raised a difficulty concerning the position of Tosefot Rid in Kiddushin, that there is a measure for the giving of teruma, and only when one has many fruits is it sufficient to give one-sixtieth. If so, there is no contradiction in Rav’s words: In truth, the measure is five sela, because it is stated, “You shall give it to him,” meaning that it must be the measure of a gift; but when he has many fruits, one-sixtieth is sufficient. The same difficulty may be raised concerning the question against Rabbi Yoḥanan. Even if, when one has many shearings, he may give one-sixtieth because this constitutes a significant gift, it is possible that one who shears six sela must give five, because one-sixtieth of this shearing does not constitute a gift of one sela. Based on what was explained, it may be possible to distinguish between teruma, which comes to release untithed produce from its prohibition, and in which the giving is a separate component from the separation, so that its measure always remains the measure of a gift; and what Tosefot Rid wrote, that the measure of one-sixtieth applies when there are many fruits, refers to the measure of the separation required to permit the untithed produce, and not to the giving, which is effective with any amount. But with the first shearing and the priestly gifts, the measure of the separation is the same as the measure of the giving, and there is no reason to distinguish between a large and a small amount. Therefore, the question was raised even against Rabbi Yoḥanan: If one who shears that amount must give more than one-sixtieth, there is no reason to distinguish between his giving and a giving from many shearings; how, then, did he say that the measure of the giving is one-sixtieth? And we say to him:

to

each and every one

of the priests,

you may not give him less

[you may not reduce his portion]

than five sela.

That is an appropriate amount to give. However, if the sheep are shorn only a little, and even one-sixtieth of the wool does not amount to five sela for even one priest, it is sufficient to give one-sixtieth.

The essential matter: Rav and Shmuel both say: The first shearing—

is one-sixtieth. The portion separated from produce for the priest, teruma,—

is one-sixtieth. Pe'a, the portion of the harvest left for the poor,—

is one-sixtieth.

And we ask: Is the required measure of

teruma one-sixtieth? But did we not learn in the Mishna

[Terumot 4:3]:

With regard to teruma,

with

a generous eye—

it is given as

one-fortieth?

How, then, did Rav and Shmuel state the measure associated with a begrudging eye?

And we answer: Rav and Shmuel stated the measure

required by Torah law,

which is

one-sixtieth.

Whereas the Mishna in Trumot stated the measure

required by rabbinic law,

as the Sages enacted that one should give with a generous eye

one-fortieth.

We still challenge this: Is the measure of teruma

by Torah law one-sixtieth? But Shmuel said: One grain exempts the pile

from teruma by Torah law, since the verse states, “the first of your grain,” but no measure of how much must be given is stated?!

And we answer: The measure of teruma

by Torah law—

is as Shmuel stated,

and in fact one grain exempts the pile. But there is a rabbinic enactment

for

every type of produce that is obligated in teruma

by Torah law,

such as teruma from wine and oil, requiring

one-fortieth.

The measure

required by rabbinic law

for produce that is obligated in teruma only

by rabbinic law,

such as tree fruit and vegetables, is

one-sixtieth.

We further ask: Is the measure of

pe'a

indeed

one-sixtieth?

But did we not learn: These are things that have no fixed measure: pe'a, first fruits, and the pilgrimage offering

[the burnt-offering brought when one goes up to the Temple for the pilgrimage festival]? Thus, it is explicitly stated that there is no fixed measure for giving pe'a?!

And we answer:

By Torah law, it has no fixed measure,

but

by rabbinic law

its measure is

one-sixtieth.

And we challenge this:

What does this teach us

that Rav and Shmuel stated, by saying that the measure of pe'a is one-sixtieth?

We already learned

this in the Mishna of Pe'a [Pe'a 1:2]:

One may not allot less than one-sixtieth for pe'a, even though they said that pe'a has no fixed measure!

And we answer:

There—

the Mishna in Pe'a is discussing

the Land of Israel,

whereas

here—

the statement of Rav and Shmuel—concerns

outside the Land of Israel,

and their novel point is that even outside the Land of Israel its measure is one-sixtieth by rabbinic law.

When

[he came up]

Isi bar Hini

to the Land of Israel,

Rabbi Yohanan found

Isi

teaching

[reciting]

his son

from our Mishna: “Five

ewes.” He said to him: Teach him

[recite to him]

“female sheep,”

using the feminine form!

He said to him: It is written

in the Torah; I am teaching him the wording found there, as it is written:

“two hundred ewes”!

He said to him: The language of the Torah—

is for itself; the language of the Sages—

is for themselves.

Therefore, even though the language of the Torah is “ewes,” in the Mishna we need to teach “female sheep,” in accordance with the language of the Sages.

Rabbi Yohanan said

to Isi:

Who is the head of the academy

[the head of the yeshiva]

in Babylonia?

He said to him: Abba the Tall,

meaning Rav, who was called this because he was the tallest of his generation [as we say in Tractate Niddah 24b].

He said to him,

in astonishment:

You call Rav “Abba the Tall”

and do not call him “our master,” as a term of honor?!

I remember

[I recall] when Rav was in the Land of Israel, before he descended to Babylonia,

when we would sit behind seventeen rows

[rows]

behind Rav—

because I was less important than he was—when we would sit

before Rabbi

[in Rabbi's presence], and Rabbi and Rav would discuss halakha,

and fiery sparks would emerge from Rav's mouth toward Rabbi's mouth, and from Rabbi's mouth toward Rav's mouth

[“fiery sparks” is a metaphor for Torah, which is compared to fire. Maharsha],

and I did not understand

[I would not understand]

what they were saying—and you call him “Abba the Tall”?!

He said to him

[Isi]:

For how much is the first shearing,

how much wool must be shorn for one to become obligated in the mitzva of the first shearing?

He said to him: Sixty

sela.

He said to him:

But did we not learn, “of any amount,”

in the statement of the Sages?

Rabbi Yohanan said

to him:

If so,

if I do not know the meaning of the Mishna,

what difference is there between you and me,

and in what way am I greater than you? Rather, this is what I possess as a tradition: When the Sages said, “any amount,” that was not meant literally. In fact, sixty sela are required. But since Rabbi Dosa stated a large measure, one hundred and one-half maneh, the Sages stated a small measure.

When Rav Dimi came, he said: With regard to the first shearing, Rav said:

its measure is

one-sixtieth, and Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rav Yannai:

its measure is

six

sela.

Abaye said to Rav Dimi: You have reassured us

[you have put our minds at ease] through your words on

one

matter that would otherwise be difficult for us,

but

on the other hand,

you have challenged us

[you have made an objection to us] on

one

matter.

Granted,

you have reassured us concerning the statement

of Rabbi Yohanan

that he said above that its measure is six sela, which conflicts with

Rabbi Yohanan

who told Isi bar Hini that it is sixty sela—

there is no difficulty,

because

this

statement, that it is sixty sela,

is his own

opinion, whereas

that

statement above, that its measure is six sela,

is his teacher's

opinion, as you said: Rav stated it in the name of Rav Yannai.

But

you have challenged us on one matter, because according to your words,

Rav's statement conflicts with Rav's, since Rav said

above that the measure is

one hundred and one-half maneh,

whereas you said that the measure is sixty sela.

And we answer:

Rav's statement does not conflict with Rav's either. What is the “one hundred

and one-half maneh” that he mentioned? It is not the ordinary maneh of twenty-five sela, but a large maneh

of forty sela,

and with this maneh, one hundred and one-half maneh

amounts to

sixty sela; and he should give one sela from them to the priest, which is

one-sixtieth,

as Rav said here.