Chullin 138a — the Talmud in English

And we wonder:

And a tanna teaches

a measure in

a maneh of forty selaim?

For Rav came to explain the measure of “a maneh and a half” of the Rabbis, which is the same as the measure of a maneh and a half of Rabbi Dosa, except that they held that it is not necessary that this measure be present in each and every ewe but in all of them together; rather, the discussion concerns that same “maneh” in the Mishna.

And we say:

No! For did we not learn

[as a calm statement]:

A leather waterskin

made of leather,

new,

whose sewing was not completed, but a crack was left in it,

even though it can receive pomegranates,

for if one places pomegranates in it, they do not go out through the crack,

it is pure.

For it is not considered that its work has been completed.

But if

he sewed it

completely,

and

after its work had been completed

it was torn, its measure

for becoming pure from impurity

is as large as what lets pomegranates out.

For if the tear is of a size that lets pomegranates out, the designation of a vessel departs from it and it becomes pure.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says:

its measure for becoming pure is

like coils of warp

[a part of the weaving], whose weight is ten selaim. That is,

one-fourth of a maneh of forty selaim.

And it is proven that the tanna stated a measure in a maneh of forty selaim.

We learned in the Mishna:

And how much does he give him, etc.?

Whitened and not filthy.

The tanna teaches:

That which it teaches, “whitened,”

does not mean that the Israelite should whiten it

himself

and give it to him

the koen,

but

he should give the koen wool in a measure

that the koen can whiten and it will amount to five selaim.

We learned in our Mishna:

in order to make a small garment. From where are these words

that we require one to give the koen wool in a measure from which he can make a small garment?

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said:

For

the verse says

in the section of first of the fleece, “For in him the Lord chose from all your tribes

to stand to minister.”

And we derive from it that we require one to give the koen

something fit for service, and what is it?

A small garment fit for service?

The belt!

And the Sages had an established tradition that to make a woolen belt a measure of five selaim is required.

And we object: From where do we know that the measure of a belt, which is the smallest garment, suffices?

Say

that one must give a measure from which he can make a

robe

which is a large garment?

And we answer: If

you grasp the larger,

to learn that we require the measure of a robe,

you have not grasped it,

for it is possible to refute and say: From where do you know that we must give the large measure of a robe? Is it not possible to interpret the verse “to stand to minister” as referring to the smallest garment fit for service?! But if

you grasp the smaller

you have grasped it!

For it is certainly possible to learn a small garment from the verse, since even if the verse is speaking of a robe, a small garment is included within a maneh—two hundred; and the belt, too, is included in this measure.

And we examine this: If so, that we should grasp the smallest garment,

say

a measure fit for a

woolen cap

which is smaller than a belt?

And what is that woolen cap?

For it was taught in a beraita: A woolen cap was placed on the head of the High Koen, and upon it the diadem was placed. To fulfill that which is stated, “And you shall place it”

—the diadem—

“upon a thread of sky-blue wool”

[and sky-blue wool is wool].

And we answer:

The verse says

“to stand to minister,

he and his sons”—

we require

something common to Aaron and his sons.

A woolen cap was only on Aaron’s head and not on the heads of his sons, since only on the head of the High Koen was there a diadem.

And we wonder: But

the belt, too, is not common

to Aaron and his sons?

This works well according to the one who says that the belt of the High Koen

on Yom Kippur was of linen [flax]—

is not the same as the belt of an ordinary koen

and of the High Koen during the entire year, for that one was of mixed kinds, being made of wool,

well!

For with regard to the belt of the entire year, which was made of wool, Aaron and his sons were the same.

But according to the one who says

that the belt of the High Koen on Yom Kippur

is the same as the belt of an ordinary koen,

for it, too, was of linen like the belt of Yom Kippur, and that which is written regarding the belt of mixed kinds, containing wool, is written concerning the belt of the High Koen during the entire year,

what is there to say?

They were not the same with regard to the woolen belt, but only with regard to the linen belt; and this belt cannot be made from first of the fleece, for it is wool?

And we answer: Ultimately,

the name “belt” in the world

[like “in general”] applies to Aaron and his sons, since his sons, too, had a belt, even though it was of linen and not similar to Aaron’s belt, which was of wool. This is not so with the woolen cap, which did not exist at all among his sons.

We learned in our Mishna:

He did not manage to give it, etc.

It was stated: He sheared

a ewe

and sold

it—the

first

immediately, and afterward he sheared the second and sold it, and so he did with all five ewes, until at the end the shearings of all of them were in his possession—five fleeces of the measure that is liable for first of the fleece—but those five sheep were not in his possession ; what is the law?

Rav Hisda said: He is liable

for first of the fleece.

Rabbi Natan bar Hoshaya said: He is exempt.

And the Gemara explains their reasons:

Rav Hisda said he is liable—

for he sheared

from five ewes, and at the time he sheared each one, it was his, and the shearings of five sheep were before him; therefore it is considered “the shearing of your flock.”

Rav Natan bar Oshaya said: He is exempt -

for

at the time when he completes the measure -

at the time when he has in his possession the measure of shearing of five ewes -

we require

that there be

“your flock”

and there is not,

for at that time they are already not his, since he sold them!

We learned: One who purchases the shearing of the flock of a gentile is exempt from the first shearing,

for the flock was not his at the time of shearing; this implies:

yes,

the one who purchases

his flock

of the gentile on condition

to shear it,

meaning that the flock should belong to the Israelite until after the shearing -

is liable!

for at the time of shearing it is considered “your flock”; and

why,

but

each and every

flock -

after shearing it leaves his possession

immediately, since he acquired it only for the purpose of shearing; and if so, the entire flock is not in his possession at the time when he completes shearing the measure that creates liability, and nevertheless he is liable! This is a difficulty for Rav Natan bar Oshaya?!

Rav Hisda interpreted it according to Rav Natan bar Oshaya:

the acquisition in “his flock for shearing” is

for example, when the gentile transferred it to him

the gentile’s flock to the Israelite

for thirty days,

so that all the animals are acquired by him until he completes shearing all of them [and “thirty days” is not דווקא, but rather he transferred it to him until he completed the shearing, Rashi].

We learned in our Mishna:

“One who purchases the shearing of his fellow’s flock, and so forth.”

Who is the Tanna who holds that where there is a remainder with the seller -

we follow the seller,

and upon him rests the liability to give the first shearing of the entire flock.

Rav Hisda said: It is Rabbi Judah:

for we learned

[Peah, chapter 3, mishna 5]:

“One who sells

to his fellow

tree-stalks

[trees with their fruits; and it uses the expression “stalks,” which belongs to vegetables, because this field is not an orchard but a field of grain or vegetables in which several trees grew] that

are within his field, gives

the purchaser

peah for each and every one

of the trees, and he cannot exempt all of them with the peah of one tree, because since the field is not his, the trees are not considered to be located in one field, but rather as though each one were in a field of its own” .

Rabbi Judah said: When? At a time when the owner of the field did not leave over

trees for himself, but sold all of them,

but

if

the owner of the field left over

trees for himself,

he gives

he

peah

from the seeds in the field

for everything,

including the purchaser’s trees. And it is proved that if the seller left a portion for himself, the liability of separation for everything rests upon him; for if not, how could he exempt another’s trees with his own peah?!

Rava said to him: But are you not the one who said

regarding Rabbi Judah’s words:

“And this,”

the peah of his field exempts all the trees—only in a case

where the owner of the field began to reap

the seeds before he sold the trees, because through this he became liable for peah also for the trees, and the peah for which he then became liable is fit to exempt the entire field together with the trees [and all this is specifically when the owner of the field also left trees for himself; but if he did not leave anything over, he withdrew from liability for peah on the trees, and the peah of the seeds does not exempt them]. If so, there is no analogy between his liability for peah and the first shearing, because with peah his liability had already applied before he sold, and it does not lapse because he left part of the liability with himself, whereas with the first shearing the liability applies only after he sold .

And if you would say

that

here too

it was stated with regard to the first shearing:

and this is when he began to shear,

and only in this manner is the seller obligated, it is impossible to say so, because

granted, there, “and when you reap the harvest of your land” is written,

and its meaning is

from the time that he began to reap—

he becomes obligated in

peah of

the entire field,

and therefore he is also obligated with regard to the trees.

But here,

with regard to shearing, behold,

from the time that he began to shear he does not become obligated in his entire flock 20 ,

for “when you shear” was not written, as “when you reap” was written; rather, “the first shearing of your flock you shall give him” is written. Its meaning is that only after he has shorn all his flock does he become obligated, and if he sold part of the wool before he shorn it, he is not obligated to separate the first shearing from it.

Rather, Rava said: This is the tanna, as we learned

[above 132b]:

He said to him

to the slaughterer:

Sell me the innards of this cow, and there were

in those intestines

priestly gifts

of the priesthood,

he gives them

the purchaser

to the koen, and he does not deduct for him

the seller from the purchaser

from the money

that he paid, for the seller does not wish to sell the gifts and exempt himself from the mitzva of giving them . But if

he took them from him by weight,

and the slaughterer weighed the gifts for him, and it is evident that he intended to sell them to him,

to the koen, and he deducts for him

the seller from the purchaser

from the money,

for it is evident that he wished to sell them, and he cannot take payment for them, since they belong to the koen.