Chullin

MISHNAH. THE LAW OF THE FIRST OF THE FLEECE1 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,2 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.3 BETH HILLEL SAY, FIVE, AS IT IS SAID, FIVE SHEEP READY DRESSED.4 R. DOSA B. HARKINAS SAYS, FIVE SHEEP, WHICH PRODUCE EACH [A FLEECE OF THE WEIGHT OF] A MANEH5 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?6 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,7 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;8 IF HE ONLY BLEACHED IT BUT DID NOT DYE IT, HE IS STILL LIABLE.9 IF A MAN BOUGHT THE FLEECES OF A FLOCK BELONGING TO A GENTILE.10 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, EACH11 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,7 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!12 — In respect of animals consecrated for the altar this is indeed so,13 but we were referring to animals consecrated to the Temple treasury.14 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?15 — I might think that he16 must redeem it and give it to the priest. But surely it has to stand up to be appraised?17 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!18 — It would thereby become weak.19 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].20 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?21 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:22 this applies only to that which lacks shearing and giving but not to that which lacks shearing, redeeming and giving.23 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.24 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.25 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,26 but not that which is held jointly with a gentile. And the Rabbis?27 — The word ‘first’ [they say] interrupts the subject-matter.28 And R. Ila'i? — ‘And’ [he says] connects this29 [with the above Subject]. two sheep. of the first of the fleece had been fulfilled in respect of them. theft and he is exempt from giving it now to the priest, in accordance with R. Hisda's dictum supra 130b. exclude them from the law of the first of the fleece. up before the priest to be valued, in accordance with Lev. XXVII, 11, 12. for Scripture to teach that it need not be given to the priest. not consecrated. reservation and the whole animal is deemed to be consecrated; whereas in the case of an animal consecrated to the Temple treasury whatsoever is excepted will not be deemed to be consecrated. designated as a substitute for an already consecrated animal, the whole animal thereby becomes consecrated. appraised’ does not come into consideration here for it does not apply to an inanimate object consecrated to the Temple treasury. V. p. 771, n. 3, and Tosaf. s.v. tvu. view of the first Tanna (later referred to as ‘the Rabbis’), sheep held jointly by an Israelite and a gentile, and according to R. Ila'i, even that which is held by two Israelites jointly. individually subject to the law, and the people of Israel are often referred to as a single individual; cf. Mak. 23b. is reasonable to infer that sheep held jointly with a gentile are not subject to the law of the first of the fleece; consequently the later expression ‘thy sheep’ excludes that which is held jointly by Israelites. Scripture repeats the word ‘first’ in regard to the fleece indicates that it is quite distinct from the foregoing, and no inference may be made therefrom. evidently signifies some connection and analogy between the two.