Chullin

(vii) sacred,1 and (viii) sold,2 and these have more points in common? — It is preferable to draw the analogy from ordinary animals.3 THE LAW OF THE FIRST OF THE FLEECE APPLIES ONLY TO SHEEP. Whence is this derived? — R. Hisda said: An inference is made by means of the common expression ‘fleece’; it is written here: The first of the fleece,4 and it is written there: And if he were not warned with the fleece of my sheep;5 just as there it is [the fleece of], sheep, so here it refers to [the fleece of] sheep. Should not the inference rather be made by means of the common expression ‘fleece’ from the law of the firstling? For it has been taught:6 From the verse: Thou shalt do no work with the firstling of thine ox, nor shear the fleece of the firstling of thy sheep,7 I only know that an ox [may not be put] to any work and that the sheep [may not be] shorn, whence do I know to apply the restriction of the one to the other? The text therefore states: Thou shalt do no work . . . nor shear!8 — Scripture says: ‘Thou shalt give him’, and not for his sack.9 If so, then goats’ hair should also be subject to this law, should it not?10 — It is necessary that it be shorn, which is not the case [with goats’ hair].11 But whom, have you heard, holding this view?12 It is R. Jose, is it not?13 And R. Jose agrees that what is the general practice [is included]!14 — As R. Joshua b. Levi said elsewhere,15 The expression ‘to stand to minister’16 indicates something serviceable for ministering, so here too, it must be something serviceable for ministering.17 What then is the significance of the analogy by reason of the common expression ‘fleece’? — It is in respect of the following teaching of a Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael. For a Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael taught:18 Sheep with hard wool are exempt from the law of the first of the fleece, since it is written: And if he were not warmed with the fleece of my sheep.19 One [Baraitha] teaches: If a man shears the [hair of] goats or washes the sheep [and plucks their wool] he is exempt from the first of the fleece.20 Another [Baraitha] teaches: If a man shears the [hair of] goats he is exempt from the first of the fleece; if he washes the sheep [and then plucks their wool] he is liable. There is, however, no difficulty; for one [Baraitha] sets forth R. Jose's view,21 the other that of the Rabbis. For it has been taught: Scripture says: The gleaning of thy harvest,22 but not the gleaning of plucking.23 R. Jose says: Gleaning is only that which falls at the reaping.24 Is not R. Jose's view identical with that of the first Tanna? — The whole of the Baraitha sets forth R. Jose s view, render therefore, ‘For R. Jose says: Gleaning is only that which falls at the reaping’. R. Aha the son of Raba said to R. Ashi: R. Jose nevertheless agrees that what is the general practice [is included].25 For it has been taught: R. Jose says, [Scripture states:] Harvest22 from which I only know that reaping [is subject to the law of gleanings]; whence would I know uprooting?26 The text therefore states: To reap.22 And whence would I know plucking?26 The text therefore states: When thou reapest.27 Rabina said to R. Ashi: We have also learnt the same:28 If rows of onions are planted among vegetables, R. Jose says: ‘The corner’ must be left in each [row].29 But the Sages say: In one for all. WHAT IS MEANT BY ‘MANY’? Now Beth Shammai's view is clear, for [we see that] two sheep are also referred to as zon,30 but what is the reason for Beth Hillel's view? — R. Kahana answered: The verse says: Five sheep ready dressed,31 that is, ‘ready’ [now]32 for the fulfilment of two precepts, viz., the first of the fleece and the priestly dues. But perhaps it refers to the law of the firstling and the priestly dues? — [This cannot be, for] is not one [sheep] subject to the law of the firstling? Then according to your suggestion [it can also be asked:] Is not one [sheep] subject to the priestly dues? — Rather, said R. Ashi, the verse says: ‘Five sheep ready dressed’, that is, they bid their owner to be ready, addressing him, ‘Up, perform the commandment’.33 It was taught: R. Ishmael son of R. Jose says in the name of his father,34 Four [sheep are subject to the law of the first of the fleece], as it is written: Four sheep for a sheep.35 It was taught: Rabbi said: Had their36 views been based on words from the Torah and Beribbi's37 view on words from the prophets, we should nevertheless have had to adopt Beribbi's view,38 how much more now that their views are based on words from the Prophets and Beribbi's view on words of the Torah! But has not a Master said,39 A compromise of a third [independent opinion] is no true compromise?40 the latter because it has no sanctity whatsoever, whereas the cattle tithe must be consecrated with the rod. objects mentioned in the verse. It follows then that it is forbidden to shear ‘the fleece’ (i.e., the hair) of an ox; consequently by analogy with the firstling ‘the fleece’ of an ox should also be subject to the law of the first of the fleece. made into clothing but used for making sacks. implies only what is shorn. subject to the law of the first of the fleece! and the blue wool in the priestly garments was of sheep's wool and not of goats’ hair. wool; this rule is established by reason of the analogy through the expression ‘fleece’. in water so that the hair should come away more easily. Any person who acts contrary to these practices is exempt from giving the first of the fleece. field subject to the law of ‘the corner’. every manner of ‘harvesting’ which is the usual practice with regard to the particular plants. separate the rows of onions from each other, each row, maintains R. Jose, is deemed a separate field and therefore each is subject to the law of ‘the corner’. It is clear, however, that that which is usually plucked, as onions, is subject to the law of the corners. minimum of five sheep; for the law of the firstling and the priestly dues apply even to a single sheep. of his father’. Beth Hillel would have it; nor so few as two as Beth Shammai, but four. any of the arguments of the conflicting Rabbis, but constitutes a third independent opinion opposed in its entirety to each of the other opinions.