1 MISHNAH. THE LAW OF THE FIRST OF THE FLEECE IS IN FORCE BOTH WITHIN THE HOLY LAND AND OUTSIDE IT, BOTH DURING THE EXISTENCE OF THE TEMPLE AND AFTER IT, IN RESPECT OF UNCONSECRATED ANIMALS BUT NOT CONSECRATED ANIMALS. THE LAW OF THE SHOULDER AND THE TWO CHEEKS AND THE MAW IS OF WIDER APPLICATION THAN THE LAW OF THE FIRST OF THE FLEECE; FOR THE LAW OF THE SHOULDER AND THE TWO CHEEKS AND THE MAW APPLIES BOTH TO HERDS AND FLOCKS, WHETHER THEY ARE MANY OR FEW, WHEREAS THE LAW OF THE FIRST OF THE FLEECE APPLIES ONLY TO SHEEP, AND ONLY WHEN THERE ARE MANY. WHAT IS MEANT BY ‘MANY’? BETH SHAMMAI SAY, [AT LEAST] TWO SHEEP, AS IT IS SAID, A MAN SHALL REAR A YOUNG COW AND TWO SHEEP. BETH HILLEL SAY, FIVE, AS IT IS SAID, FIVE SHEEP READY DRESSED. R. DOSA B. HARKINAS SAYS, FIVE SHEEP, WHICH PRODUCE EACH [A FLEECE OF THE WEIGHT OF] A MANEH AND A HALF, ARE SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF THE FIRST OF THE FLEECE. BUT THE SAGES SAY, FIVE SHEEP, WHATEVER THEIR FLEECES WEIGH. AND HOW MUCH SHOULD ONE GIVE HIM? THE WEIGHT OF FIVE SELA'S IN JUDAH, WHICH IS EQUAL TO TEN SELA'S IN GALILEE, OF BLEACHED WOOL BUT NOT DIRTY WOOL, SUFFICIENT TO MAKE FROM IT A SMALL GARMENT, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, THOU SHALT GIVE HIM, THAT IS, THERE SHALL BE ENOUGH WORTHY TO BE CALLED ‘A GIFT’. IF THE OWNER DID NOT MANAGE TO GIVE [THE FLEECE TO THE PRIEST] UNTIL IT HAD ALREADY BEEN DYED, HE IS EXEMPT; IF HE ONLY BLEACHED IT BUT DID NOT DYE IT, HE IS STILL LIABLE. 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. IF A MAN BOUGHT THE FLEECES OF A FLOCK BELONGING TO HIS NEIGHBOUR AND THE SELLER KEPT BACK SOME FOR HIMSELF, THE SELLER IS LIABLE, BUT IF HE KEPT NAUGHT BACK, THE BUYER IS LIABLE. IF HE HAD TWO KINDS OF WOOL, GREY AND WHITE, AND HE SOLD THE GREY BUT NOT THE WHITE, OR [IF HE SOLD THE WOOL] OF THE MALES BUT NOT OF THE FEMALES, EACH MUST GIVE [THE FIRST OF THE FLEECE] FOR HIMSELF. GEMARA. Why does not [the law of the first of the fleece] apply to consecrated animals? — Because Scripture says, of thy sheep, but not of the sheep of the Sanctuary. Now this is so because Scripture stated: ‘Of thy sheep’, but without this [Scriptural indication] I should have said that consecrated animals are subject to the law of the first of the fleece; but surely they may not be shorn, for it is written: Thou shalt not shear the firstling of thy flock! — In respect of animals consecrated for the altar this is indeed so, but we were referring to animals consecrated to the Temple treasury. But has not R. Eleazar said that animals consecrated to the Temple treasury are forbidden to be shorn and to be used for work? — [This is forbidden] by Rabbinic decree only. Now I might have thought that, since by law of the Torah they may be shorn, where a man did shear them he should give [the priest the first of the fleece; Scripture therefore teaches that they are not subject to the law]. But it is consecrated, is it not? — I might think that he must redeem it and give it to the priest. But surely it has to stand up to be appraised? This is well according to him who says that animals consecrated to the Temple treasury are not subject to the law of ‘standing up to be appraised’, but what can you say according to him who says that they are subject to this law? — R. Mani b. Pattish suggested in the name of R. Jannai: We are referring here to the case of a man who consecrated to the Temple treasury his animal apart from its fleece. Now I might have thought that he should shear it and give [the portion] to the priest. Scripture therefore states: ‘Of thy sheep’ but not of the sheep of the Sanctuary. In that case it can also refer to an animal consecrated to the altar! — It would thereby become weak. Then the animal consecrated to the Temple treasury would also become weak thereby? — [We must assume that] he said: ‘[I consecrate the animal] except for its fleece and the debility [resulting from the shearing of the fleece’]. Then even with regard to an animal consecrated to the altar, [we can assume that] he said: ‘[I consecrate the animal] except for its fleece and the debility [resulting from the shearing thereof’]! — Even so the sanctity extends over the whole [animal]. Whence do you gather this? — Because [we have learnt:] R. Jose said: Is it not the case that, in connection with animal offerings, if one said: ‘Let the foot of this animal be a burnt-offering’, the whole animal is consecrated as a burnt-offering? And even according to R. Meir who declares that the whole animal does not thereby become [consecrated as] a burnt-offering, that is so only where one consecrated a limb whereon the life [of the animal] does not depend, but if one consecrated a limb whereon the life [of the animal] depends, [he agrees that] the whole animal becomes consecrated. Raba said, [Our Mishnah refers to the case] where a man consecrated the fleece only; now I might have said that he must shear it, redeem it, and give it to the priest. Scripture therefore states The fleece of thy sheep shalt thou give him: this applies only to that which lacks shearing and giving but not to that which lacks shearing, redeeming and giving. And what does the expression ‘Of thy sheep’ come to teach us? — The following, which has been taught: An animal which is held jointly is subject to the law of the first of the fleece; R. Ila'i declares it exempt. What is the reason for R. Ila'i's view? — Because Scripture states ‘Of thy sheep’, but not of that which is held jointly. And the Rabbis? — [They say that] it serves to exclude only that which is held jointly with a gentile. And whence does R. Ila'i know that that which is held jointly with a gentile [is exempt]? — He derives it from the beginning of the verse, which reads: The first of thy corn, but not that which is held jointly with a gentile. And the Rabbis? — The word ‘first’ [they say] interrupts the subject-matter. And R. Ila'i? — ‘And’ [he says] connects this [with the above Subject].ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜ
2 And the Rabbis? — [They say] the Divine Law then should have stated neither ‘and’ nor ‘first’. And R. Ila'i? — [He says] since the one has no sanctity whatsoever, 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. For it has been taught: If an Israelite and a gentile bought a field jointly, tebel and hullin are inextricably mixed up in it: 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 bererah 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 rules 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. Raba said: R. Ila'i agrees as regards terumah; 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. What then is the significance of ‘thy corn’? — It excludes what is held jointly with a gentile. As regards the dough-offering, although there is written the word ‘first’, and one could draw an analogy by reason of the common word ‘first’ 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. 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! — This is indeed so; what then is the significance of ‘your dough? — That there must be as much as your dough. As regards the corner of the field, although it is written: Thy field [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. 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, [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. 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, although it is written: Thy house, [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. What then is the significance of ‘thy house’? — It is as Rabbah stated. For Rabbah stated:ᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡᵃᵐᵃⁿᵃᵒᵃᵖᵃᵠᵃʳᵃˢᵃᵗᵃᵘᵃᵛᵃʷᵃˣ