Chullin — Daf 135b

ורבנן לא נכתוב רחמנא לא וי"ו ולא ראשית

ורבי אלעאי איידי דהאי קדושת דמים והאי קדושת הגוף פסיק להו והדר ערבי להו

ואיבעית אימא שותפות עובד כוכבים בתרומה רבנן חיובי מחייבי דתניא ישראל ועובד כוכבים שלקחו שדה בשותפות טבל וחולין מעורבים זה בזה דברי רבי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר של ישראל חייב ושל עובד כוכבים פטור

עד כאן לא פליגי אלא דמר סבר יש ברירה ומר סבר אין ברירה אבל שותפות דעובד כוכבים דברי הכל חייבת

ואי בעית אימא תרוייהו לר' אלעאי מצאנך נפקא

שותפות דעובד כוכבים מאי טעמא דלא מייחדא ליה לישראל נמי לא מייחדא ליה ורבנן עובד כוכבים לאו בר חיובא הוא ישראל בר חיובא הוא

אמר רבא מודה רבי אלעאי בתרומה אע"ג דכתיב (דברים יח, ד) דגנך דידך אין דשותפות לא

כתב רחמנא תרומותיכם אלא דגנך למה לי למעוטי שותפות עובד כוכבים

חלה אע"ג דכתיב ראשית ואיכא למימר נילף ראשית ראשית מראשית הגז מה להלן דשותפות לא אף כאן דשותפות לא כתב רחמנא (במדבר טו, כא) עריסותיכם

אלא טעמא דכתיב עריסותיכם הא לאו הכי הוה אמינא נילף ראשית ראשית מראשית הגז אדרבה נילף מתרומה

ה"נ אלא עריסותיכם למה לי כדי עריסותיכם

פאה אע"ג דכתיב שדך דידך אין שותפות לא כתב רחמנא (ויקרא יט, ט) ובקצרכם את קציר ארצכם אלא שדך ל"ל למעוטי שותפות עובד כוכבים

בכורה אע"ג דכתיב (דברים טו, יט) כל הבכור אשר יולד בבקרך ובצאנך דידך אין דשותפות לא

כתב רחמנא (דברים יב, ו) ובכורות בקרכם וצאנכם אלא וצאנך למה לי למעוטי שותפות עובד כוכבים

מזוזה אף על גב דכתיב (דברים ו, ט) ביתך דידך אין שותפות לא כתב רחמנא (דברים יא, כא) למען ירבו ימיכם וימי בניכם ואלא ביתך למאי אתא לכדרבה דאמר רבה

And the Rabbis? — [They say] the Divine Law then should have stated neither ‘and’ nor ‘first’.1 And R. Ila'i? — [He says] since the one has no sanctity whatsoever,2 whereas the other is itself sacred, the two had to be [in the first place] stated separately and later connected. Alternatively, you may say, the Rabbis are of the opinion that what is held jointly with a gentile is subject to terumah.3 For it has been taught:4 If an Israelite and a gentile bought a field jointly, tebel and hullin5 are inextricably mixed up in it:6 so Rabbi. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: The part belonging to the Israelite is subject to the tithe, and the part belonging to the gentile is exempt. Now the extent of their difference consists in this, that the one authority [R. Simeon] holds the principle of bererah7 while the other does not hold the principle of bererah, but both are agreed that whatsoever is held jointly with a gentile is subject to tithe. In the further alternative you may say that both rules8 are derived, according to R. Ila'i, from the expression ‘thy sheep’. For why is it that what is held jointly with a gentile is exempt [from the law of the first of the fleece]? Because it is not solely his. Then what is held jointly with another Israelite should also be exempt,for it is not solely his. And the Rabbis? — [They distinguish thus:] A gentile is not subject to this law, whereas an Israelite is. 9 Raba said: R. Ila'i agrees as regards terumah;10 for, although it is written; ‘Thy corn’ [from which it would appear that] thine only [is subject to terumah] and not what is held jointly, the Divine Law stated: Your heave-offerings.11 What then is the significance of ‘thy corn’? — It excludes what is held jointly with a gentile. As regards the dough-offering,12 although there is written the word ‘first’,12 and one could draw an analogy by reason of the common word ‘first’13 from the law of the first of the fleece: as there what is held jointly is exempt so here what is held jointly is exempt, the Divine Law stated: Your dough.12 Now this is so only because Scripture stated: ‘Your dough’, but had it not stated it I should have said that we should draw an analogy by reason of the common word ‘first’ from the law of the first of the fleece, but on the contrary we would rather draw the analogy from the law of terumah!14 — This is indeed so; what then is the significance of ‘your dough? — That there must be as much as your dough.15 As regards the corner of the field, although it is written: Thy field16 [from which it would follow that] thine only is subject and not what is held jointly, the Divine Law stated: And when ye reap the harvest of your land.16 What then is the significance of ‘thy field’? — It excludes what is held jointly with a gentile. As regards the law of the firstling, although it is written: All the firstling males that are born of thy herd and of thy flock,17 [from which it would follow that] thine only is subject but not what is held jointly, the Divine Law stated: And the firstlings of your herd and of your flock.18 What then is the significance of ‘thy herd and thy flock’? — It excludes what is held jointly with a gentile. As regards the law of mezuzah,19 although it is written: Thy house,20 [from which it would follow that] thine only is subject but not what is held jointly, the Divine Law stated: That your days may be multiplied and the days of your children.21 What then is the significance of ‘thy house’? — It is as Rabbah stated. For Rabbah stated: ‘and’ which implies connection with the preceding subject and ‘first’ which implies separateness. whereas terumah is sacred and may be eaten by none but priests (Rashi). jointly with a gentile from the law of the first of the fleece, and the expression ‘thy corn’ serves to exclude that which belongs entirely to the gentile. V. Rashi s.v. tnht ,hgchtu common, unconsecrated) is produce that is free entirely from tithes, e.g., what is bought from a gentile. eventually was intended for him from the beginning, so that the result would be that the Israelite's share is wholly tebel and the gentile's wholly hullin. This would mean the application of the principle of bererah i.e., retrospective designation. Rabbi does not accept this principle and maintains that each share, nay, each grain, is part tebel and part hullin; and the Israelite therefore must separate the tithe for his share from this very produce but not from other produce, neither can this produce be set aside as tithe for other produce. V. Rashi s.v. kcy. first of the fleece. to parties each subject to the law, sc. Israelites, for, after all, the people of Israel are often referred to as a single unit. by several persons jointly. ‘Your heave-offerings’ is not found in the Torah at all, but only in Ezek. XX, 40 and XLIV, 30. Probably the text should read: Your heave-offering, as in Num. XVIII, 27. 4. For it is an established principle that where two analogies are possible, one leading to stringency and the other to leniency, we must adopt the former; v. Yeb. 8a, Kid. 68a, and A.Z. 46b. the wilderness, viz., an ‘omer per head (Ex. XVI, 16), and an ‘omer is the tenth part of an ephah (ibid. 36). This is equivalent in mass to forty-three and one fifth eggs, for an ephah equals four hundred and thirty-two eggs. (One ephah = three se'ah2; one se'ah = six kabs; one kab = four logs; one log = six eggs.)