Chullin

The way thou enterest [thy house], that is, with the right [foot].1 As regards the tithe, although it is written: The tithe of thy corn,2 [from which would follow that] thine only is subject but not what is held jointly, the Divine Law stated: Your tithe.3 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,4 and by reason of the common expression ‘giving’5 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.6 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.7 — 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.8 As regards the first-fruits, although it is written: Thy land,9 [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.10 What then is the significance of ‘thy land’? — It excludes land that is outside the Land [of Israel].11 As regards the law of zizith,12 although it is written: Thy covering,13 [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.14 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.15 As regards the law of the parapet,16 although it is written: For thy roof,16 [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.17 What then is the significance of ‘thy roof’? — It excludes the roofs of Synagogues and Houses of Study.18 R. Bibi b. Abaye said: These cases19 are all wrong,20 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.21 But it is also written: Your herd and your flock.22 — That means of all Israel.23 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.24 This proves, therefore, that even in respect of terumah [what is jointly held] is exempt. But25 just as terumah obtains in the Land [of Israel] only and not outside it so the law of the first of the fleece26 should obtain in the Land only and not outside it!27 — 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 tebel28 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,29 that is, you30 have no right to it except after it has [been separated as] the first.31 Again just as terumah is subject to the penalty of death32 and the additional fifth33 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,34 and He shall add unto it;35 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 old36 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.37 It follows, however, that if he had five lambs38 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 opinion39 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 subject40 [to terumah] is liable [to it], but what grows [on land in the possession of] one not subject41 [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]42 which was taught: If an Israelite bought a field in Syria43 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,44 R. Akiba declares the increase45 subject [to tithe], but the Sages declare it exempt.) And should you say that this is indeed so,46 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!47 — Our Mishnah subject to the dues. with the result that what is held jointly is subject to the dues. V. supra p. 775, n. 3. Scripture says: Thy land which implies the specific land of the Israelite, the Land of Israel. question are to be disregarded. with regard to this; accordingly his arguments with regard to the others cannot be upheld. 135a, bot.) concerning what is held jointly with a gentile, the analogy must be carried to all its conclusions and the rules applying to the one should apply to the other. V. Rashi s.v. ht, and comments of Rashal, Maharsha and Maharam thereon. V. also Torath Hayyim a.l., and Gloss. of Bah. a.l. tebel does not exist at all. This implication is made from the word ‘first’ which is redundant in the verse. priest; cf. Lev. XXII, 14. for it is written: That which is brought forth in the field year by year (Deut. XIV, 22). that of another year's shearing, as is the case with the produce of terumah. is not, however, regarded as the Land of Israel proper, and therefore what is owned there by a gentile constitutes full ownership so as to release it from the obligation of tithe. This is not the case with regard to land held by a gentile in the Land of Israel proper, v. Git. 47a. Israelite, is exempt from the first of the fleece.