חולין 136:2 — Soncino English Talmud

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,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ

^ᵃnote:For according to R. Ila'i if an Israelite bought flocks from a gentile with fleeces that were ready to be shorn he would be exempt.
^ᵇnote:Even though both kinds are of the same species; cf. infra black figs and white figs.
^ᶜnote:MS.M. and also in Tosef. Ter. II, ‘R. Eleazar’.
^ᵈnote:This case proves the rule that one may not give the fleece from one kind as the due for other kinds. For if this were not so, the seller alone would be liable to give the due both in respect of what he sold and of what he retained, in accordance with the preceding clause of the Mishnah: IF THE SELLER KEPT BACK SOME FOR HIMSELF, THE SELLER IS LIABLE; for since the various kinds count as one with regard to the priestly due it would be regarded as though the seller had retained some for himself, and only he would be liable.
^ᵉnote:It would be absurd to regard the males and females of sheep as different kinds.
^ᶠnote:Male and female sheep certainly count as one kind, and therefore the seller, having kept back some, viz., the females, for himself, is in fact solely liable to give the first of the fleece to the priest.
^ᵍnote:Sc. the seller.
^ʰnote:The wool of male sheep is harder and therefore of less value than that of females. The seller is, in our Mishnah, advised for his own advantage to buy back some of the wool of the males from the purchaser, so as not to have to give soft and more expensive wool to the priest in respect of the hard wool of the male now in possession of the purchaser.
^ⁱnote:For the seller is solely liable, inasmuch as the two colours of wool count as one kind and he retained one colour for himself. Consequently the reason of the Mishnah is not, as R. Ila'i suggested, because one may not give one kind as due for another kind.
^ʲnote:I.e., part thereof is set aside as terumah and the rest is common produce, but the whole produce is not to be terumah; cf. Ter. IV, 5.
^ᵏnote:Hal. I, 9.
^ˡnote:Sc. the latter Baraitha represents the view of R. Ila'i that with regard to the first of the fleece, as with terumah, there must be a perceptible remainder.
^ᵐnote:Likewise the priestly dues of the shoulder, the two cheeks, and the maw (Rashi).
^ⁿnote:And therefore a man that has suffered a seminal emission may occupy himself with the study of the Torah; cf. Ber. 220.
^ᵒnote:Cf. Deut XXII, 9.
^ᵖnote:For with regard to the priestly dues it is written: They shall give unto the priest, that is, the dues shall be fit for the priest to be eaten by him and not for his dog only.
^ᵠnote:Cf. Lev. XXVII, 32: And all the tithe of cattle and sheep, whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord. With regard to the law of the first of the fleece the word ‘sheep’ is also written, cf. Deut. XVIII, 4.
^ʳnote:That the cattle tithe does not apply to a trefah animal.
^ˢnote:E.g., an animal whose hind-legs were cut off above the knee-joint (v. supra 76a). And so all trefah animals are exempt.
^ᵗnote:Cf. Deut. XV, 19: All the firstling males that are born of thy cattle and of thy sheep thou shalt sanctify unto the Lord.
^ᵘnote:A firstling that is born a trefah is nevertheless sacred, and must be buried.
^ᵛnote:Sc. the cattle tithe and the first of the fleece.
^ʷnote:These two laws — Sc. the cattle tithe and the first of the fleece-apply not only to male but also to female animals, whereas the firstling applies only to the males.
^ˣnote:They do not apply to unclean animals, whereas the firstling of an ass is also sacred.
^ʸnote:They require a minimum number of animals for the law to apply; for the first of the fleece there must be at least five sheep, and for the cattle tithe there must he ten animals, whereas one single firstling is sacred.
^ᶻnote:They are not sacred when born, like the firstling.
^ᵃᵃnote:They do not apply to human beings, whereas the first-born of man is holy.
^ᵃᵇnote:They only apply to ordinary animals, i.e., not firstlings.
^ᵃᶜnote:These two laws were first promulgated on Mount Sinai at the giving of the Torah, whereas the law of the firstling was made known to Israel, whilst still in Egypt, cf. Ex. XIII, 2ff.
^ᵃᵈnote:An orphan, i.e., a beast whose dam died or was slaughtered at the very moment that it was born, is sacred if a firstling, and is subject to the law of the first of the fleece, but is exempt from the cattle tithe.
^ᵃᵉnote:Animals bought or held jointly or received as a gift are subject to the law of the firstling and to the first of the fleece but are exempt from the cattle tithe. V. Bek. 55b, 56b.
^ᵃᶠnote:(,hcv) hbpc These apply at all times both during the existence of the Temple and after it, whereas the cattle tithe does not operate nowadays; cf. Bek. 53a. V. however, Tosaf. s.v. hbpk.
^ᵃᵍnote:The firstling and the first of the fleece are to be given to the priest, whereas the cattle tithe is consumed by the owner like peace-offerings.