Parallel
חולין 136
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
The way thou enterest [thy house], that is, with the right [foot]. As regards the tithe, although it is written: The tithe of thy corn, [from which would follow that] thine only is subject but not what is held jointly, the Divine Law stated: Your tithe. What then is the significance of ‘the tithe of thy corn’? — It excludes what is held jointly with a gentile. As regards the priestly dues, although it is written: And he shall give, and by reason of the common expression ‘giving’ one might draw an analogy 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: From them that slaughter a slaughtering. Now this is so only because Scripture stated: From them that slaughter a slaughtering, but had it not stated it, I should have said that one should draw the analogy from the law of the first of the fleece; but on the contrary one should rather draw the analogy from terumah. — This is indeed so; what then is the significance of ‘from them that slaughter a slaughtering’? — It is as Raba said. For Raba said: The claim is made against the slaughterer. As regards the first-fruits, although it is written: Thy land, [from which it would follow that] thine only is subject but not what is held jointly, the Divine Law stated: The first-ripe fruits of all that is in their land. What then is the significance of ‘thy land’? — It excludes land that is outside the Land [of Israel]. As regards the law of zizith, although it is written: Thy covering, [from which it would follow that] thine only is subject but not what is held jointly, the Divine Law stated: In the corners of their garments. What then is the significance of ‘thy covering’? — It is as Rab Judah said. For Rab Judah said: A borrowed garment is for the first thirty days exempt from zizith. As regards the law of the parapet, although it is written: For thy roof, [from which it would follow that] thine only is subject but not what is held jointly, the Divine Law stated: If any man fall from thence. What then is the significance of ‘thy roof’? — It excludes the roofs of Synagogues and Houses of Study. R. Bibi b. Abaye said: These cases are all wrong, for it has been taught: An animal that is held jointly is subject to the law of the firstling; R. Ila'i declares it exempt. What is the reason for R. Ila'i's view? — Because it is written: Thy herd and thy flock. But it is also written: Your herd and your flock. — That means of all Israel. R. Hanina of Sura said: These cases are all wrong, for it has been taught: An animal that is held jointly is subject to the priestly dues; R. Ila'i declares it exempt. What is his reason? — He draws an analogy by means of the common expression ‘giving’ from the law of the first of the fleece; just as there what is held jointly is exempt so here what is held jointly is exempt. Now if you could say that in respect of terumah [what is jointly held] is liable, then surely one would have to draw the analogy by means of the common expression ‘giving’ from terumah. This proves, therefore, that even in respect of terumah [what is jointly held] is exempt. But just as terumah obtains in the Land [of Israel] only and not outside it so the law of the first of the fleece should obtain in the Land only and not outside it! — R. Jose of Nehar Bil said: It is indeed so; for it has been taught: R. Ila'i says: The law of the priestly dues obtains only in the Land [of Israel]. Likewise R. Ila'i used to say: The law of the first of the fleece obtains only in the Land. What is R. Ila'i's reason? — Raba answered: He draws an analogy by means of the common expression ‘giving’ from terumah; as terumah obtains in the Land only and not outside it, so the law of the first of the fleece obtains in the Land only and not outside it. Said to him Abaye. Then just as terumah produces the condition of tebel so should the first of the fleece produce the condition of tebel, should it not? — He replied: Scripture says. And the first of the fleece of thy sheep shalt thou give him, that is, you have no right to it except after it has [been separated as] the first. Again just as terumah is subject to the penalty of death and the additional fifth so the first of the fleece should be subject to the death penalty and the additional fifth, should it not? — Scripture says: And die for it, and He shall add unto it; that is, ‘unto it’ [he shall add the fifth] but not unto the first of the fleece; for it’ [they shall die] but not for the first of the fleece. Again just as there follow after terumah the first and second [tithes] so there should follow after the first of the fleece the first and second [tithes], should there not? — Scripture says: ‘The first’, thus you have only [to give] the first [of the fleece]. Again just as in the case of terumah one must not set aside new [grain as terumah] for old so in the case of the first of the fleece one should not give new [fleece as the due] for old? — This is indeed so; for it has been taught: If a man had two lambs and he sheared them and kept [the wool], and [next year] again sheared them and kept [the wool], and so he did for two or three years, they are not to be reckoned together. It follows, however, that if he had five lambs they would be reckoned together; yet [in another Baraitha] it has been taught that they would not be reckoned together. It is clear therefore that one [Baraitha] gives R. Ila'i's opinion and the other that of the Rabbis. Again just as with regard to terumah it is the law that what grows [on land in the possession of] one subject [to terumah] is liable [to it], but what grows [on land in the possession of] one not subject [to terumah] is exempt [from it], so it should be with regard to the first of the fleece: what grows on [sheep in the possession of] one subject to this law is liable, but what grows on [sheep in the possession of] one not subject to this law is exempt? (Whence do we know this with regard to terumah? — From the following [Baraitha] which was taught: If an Israelite bought a field in Syria from a gentile before the produce had reached a third of its growth, it is subject [to tithe]; if it had already reached a third of its growth, R. Akiba declares the increase subject [to tithe], but the Sages declare it exempt.) And should you say that this is indeed so, but we have learnt: IF A MAN BOUGHT THE FLEECES OF A FLOCK BELONGING TO A GENTILE HE IS EXEMPT FROM THE LAW OF THE FIRST OF THE FLEECE, so it follows that if he bought the flock [with its fleece] which was ready for shearing he would be liable! — Our Mishnah
—
is not in accordance with R. Ila'i. Again just as in the case of terumah one may not give one kind [as terumah] for another kind, so in the case of the first of the fleece one should not give one kind [as the due] for another kind? (Whence do we know this in the case of terumah? — From the following [Baraitha] which was taught: If a man had two kinds of figs, black and white, likewise if he had two kinds of wheat, he may not give one kind as terumah or as tithe for the other kind. R. Isaac reports in the name of R. Ila'i: Beth Shammai say that he may not give [one kind] as terumah [for another kind], but Beth Hillel say that he may.) So in the case of the first of the fleece one should not be permitted to give one kind [as the due] for another kind! — This is indeed so, for we have learnt: IF HE HAD TWO KINDS OF WOOL, GREY AND WHITE, AND HE SOLD THE GREY BUT NOT THE WHITE . . . EACH MUST GIVE [THE FIRST OF THE FLEECE] FOR HIMSELF. But if so, in the last clause which reads: IF HE SOLD THE WOOL OF THE MALES BUT NOT OF THE FEMALES EACH MUST GIVE THE FIRST OF THE FLEECE FOR HIMSELF, is the reason also because they are two different kinds? We must therefore say that the Tanna was merely giving a piece of good advice, viz., that he should give him of the hard as well as the soft wool; likewise in the former clause he also gives a piece of good advice, viz., that he should give him of both kinds! — We have already stated that our Mishnah is not in accordance with R. Ila'i. Again just as in the case of terumah there must be a ‘first offering’ such as leaves a perceptible remainder, so in the case of the first of the fleece there should also be a ‘first offering’ such as leaves a perceptible remainder, should there not? — This is indeed so; for we have learnt: If a man said: ‘Let all [the corn in] my threshing floor be ‘terumah’, or ‘Let all my dough be dough-offering’, his words are of no effect. It follows, however, that if he said: ‘Let all my fleeces be the first of the fleece’, his words would hold good; yet another [Baraitha] taught that his words are of no effect. It is clear therefore that one [Baraitha] gives R. Ila'i's opinion and the other that of the Rabbis. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: Nowadays the world has adopted the views of the following three Elders: that of R. Ila'i with regard to the first of the fleece, for it has been taught: R. Ila'i says: The law of the first of the fleece obtains only in the Land [of Israel]; that of R. Judah b. Bathyra with regard to the words of the Torah, for it has been taught: R. Judah b. Bathyra says: The words of the Torah do not contract uncleanness; and that of R. Josiah with regard to diverse kinds, for it has been taught: R. Josiah says: A man does not incur guilt [for the infringement of this law] until he sows wheat, barley and grape-kernels with one throw of the hand. THE LAW OF THE SHOULDER . . . IS MORE STRICT etc. Wherefore does not the Tanna state that the law of the first of the fleece is more strict in that it applies to a trefah animal, which is not so with regard to the priestly dues? — Rabina said: The author [of the view in our Mishnah] is R. Simeon, for it has been taught: R. Simeon exempts trefah animals from the first of the fleece. What is the reason for R. Simeon's view? — He draws an analogy by means of the common expression ‘giving’ from the priestly dues; just as the priestly dues do not apply to a trefah animal so the law of the first of the fleece does not apply to trefah animals. But since he draws an analogy by means of the common expression ‘giving’ from the priestly dues, he should also draw an analogy by means of this common expression ‘giving’ from terumah: just as terumah obtains only in the Land [of Israel] but not outside it so the law of the first of the fleece obtains only in the Land [of Israel] but not outside it. Wherefore then have we learnt: THE LAW OF THE FIRST OF THE FLEECE APPLIES BOTH WITHIN THE HOLY LAND AND OUTSIDE IT? — Rather we must say that this is the reason for R. Simeon's view: he draws an analogy by means of the common expression ‘sheep’ from the [cattle] tithe: just as the tithe does not apply to a trefah animal so the law of the first of the fleece does not apply to a trefah animal. And whence do we know it there? — For it is written: Whatsoever passeth under the rod, thus excluding a trefah animal since it cannot pass under [the rod]. And wherefore does he [R. Simeon] not draw an analogy by means of the common expression ‘sheep’ from the firstling: just as the law of the firstling also applies to a trefah animal so the law of the first of the fleece also applies to a trefah animal? — It is more logical to draw the analogy from the cattle tithe, because they are alike in the following points: (i) males, (ii) unclean animals, (iii) quantity, (iv) sanctity from the womb, (v) mankind, (vi) ordinary, and (vii) before the Revelation. On the contrary, should not the analogy be drawn rather from the law of the firstling, since they are alike in the following points: — (i) orphan-beast, (ii) bought, (iii) held jointly, (iv) given, (v) during the existence of [the Temple], (vi) priestly endowment,
—