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:ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘ