חולין 138 — Soncino English Talmud

¹sixty sela's. But do we know of any Tanna that refers to a maneh of forty sela's? — We do, indeed; for it has been taught: A new waterskin, even though it can hold pomegranates, is clean; if it had been sewn and then was torn, [it thereby becomes clean provided the rent was of] such a size as to let through pomegranates. R. Eliezer b. Jacob says: Of such a size as to let through a warp-clew [which weighs] one fourth part of a maneh of forty sela's. AND NOW MUCH SHOULD ONE GIVE HIM . . . [OF BLEACHED WOOL]. A Tanna taught: It does not mean that one must first bleach it and give it him, but that after the priest has bleached it there should be the weight of five sela's. SUFFICIENT TO MAKE FROM IT A SMALL GARMENT. Whence is this derived? — R. Joshua b. Levi said: The expression ‘to stand to minister’ indicates that it must be something serviceable for ministering, and that is, the girdle. Perhaps it is the robe [that is meant]? — If you grasp a lot, you cannot hold it; if you grasp a little, you can hold it. Perhaps it is the woollen cap [that is meant]? For it has been taught: Upon the High Priest's head there lay a woollen cap upon which was placed the plate [of gold], in order to fulfil literally what is said: And thou shalt put it on a lace of blue wool! — The verse says: Him and his sons, that is, an article worn alike by Aaron and his sons. But the girdle is not worn alike [by High Priest and priest], is it? This, however, presents no difficulty to him who holds that the girdle worn by the High Priest [on the Day of Atonement] was not similar to that worn by an ordinary priest [the whole year round]; but what can be said according to him who holds that the girdle worn by the High Priest [on the Day of Atonement] was similar to that worn by an ordinary priest [the whole year round]? — The name girdle, however, is to be found with each. IF THE OWNER DID NOT MANAGE TO GIVE etc. It was stated: If a man sheared the first [sheep] and immediately sold it, R. Hisda says: He is liable [to give the first of the fleece]; but R. Nathan b. Hoshaia says: He is exempt. ‘R. Hisda says: He is liable’, because he has shorn; ‘R. Nathan b. Hoshaia says: He is exempt’, because at the time that the requisite quantity has been reached one must be able to refer to [the sheep as] ‘thy sheep’, and this is not the case here. 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. It follows from this that if [he acquired] the flock for [the time that he was] shearing, he would be liable [to the first of the fleece]. But why? Does not each sheep leave his possession after it has been shorn? — R. Hisda interpreted this according to the view of R. Nathan b. Hoshaia as follows: He granted him possession of the flock for thirty days. IF A MAN BOUGHT THE FLEECE OF A FLOCK BELONGING TO HIS NEIGHBOUR, [AND THE SELLER KEPT BACK SOME FOR HIMSELF, THE SELLER IS LIABLE]. Who is the authority that holds that where the seller keeps back some for himself we turn to the seller? — R. Hisda said: It is R. Judah, for we have learnt: If a man sold single trees in his field, the buyer must leave the ‘Corner’ from each tree. R. Judah said: This applies only if the owner of the field had not kept back [any tree for himself], but if the owner of the field had kept back some for himself he must leave the ‘Corner’ for the whole. Raba said to him: But did not the Master himself say: ‘Provided the owner of the field had begun to reap’? And if you were to suggest in this case, too, ‘Provided the owner of the sheep had begun to shear, [I reply that the cases are not alike]. For it is right in that case, since it is written: And when ye reap the harvest of your land; that is, the moment one begins to reap one becomes bound to leave the ‘Corner’ for the whole field; but in this case, the moment one begins to shear one does not become liable for the whole flock. — Rather, said Raba: It is the following Tanna, for we have learnt: If a man said: ‘Sell me the entrails of this cow’, and among them were the priestly dues, he must give them to the priest, and [the seller] need not allow any reduction in the purchase price on that account. But if he bought them from him by weight, he must give them to a priest, and [the seller] must allow a reduction in the price on that account.^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

^ᵃnote:I.e., unfinished; the skin had not yet been sewn up completely and therefore it cannot contract uncleanness, for it is an unfinished article.
^ᵇnote:Cf. Kel. XVII, 1, 2.
^ᶜnote:I.e., it is not incumbent upon an Israelite to give the priest bleached wool, but he must estimate such a quantity as would, after bleaching, make up five sela's weight.
^ᵈnote:Deut. XVIII, 5; this verse follows immediately after the law of the first of the fleece.
^ᵉnote:Sc. the first of the fleece given to the priest.
^ᶠnote:Which is the smallest article among the priestly robes, and could he woven out of five sela's of wool.
^ᵍnote:A proverbial saying. I.e., where there are two possible inferences always select that which gives the smaller result. V. Rashi s.v. ,ap,.
^ʰnote:Ex. XXVIII, 37.
^ⁱnote:Deut. XVIII, 5.
^ʲnote:Whereas the woollen cap was worn by the High Priest only.
^ᵏnote:Which was of linen only, cf. Lev. XVI, 4.
^ˡnote:V. Yoma 6a. For the whole year round both the High Priest and the ordinary priest wore a girdle of wool and linen combined, cf. Ex. XXXIX, 29; so that a woolen girdle is a garment worn alike by priest and High Priest.
^ᵐnote:I.e., both were of linen, and only the High Priest wore a girdle of wool and linen (except on the Day of Atonement); so that it cannot be said that the ‘woollen girdle’ was worn alike by ‘Aaron and his sons’.
^ⁿnote:Lit., ‘is in the world’. Both the High Priest and ordinary priests were alike in that they wore girdles although the material in each case was different.
^ᵒnote:Sc. the sheep, and so he did with all his sheep (Rashi and R. Nissim). V., however Maim. Yad, Bikkurim, X, 15.
^ᵖnote:The requisite number of sheep; and at the time of shearing each sheep was still his, and it is in accordance with the precept of the Torah ‘The first of the fleece of thy sheep’.
^ᵠnote:For when the obligation of the first of the fleece falls due, namely with the shearing of the fifth sheep, the owner has already sold the first four sheep.
^ʳnote:The reason for the exemption in the Mishnah is that the sheep at no time belonged to the shearer, but if they did belong to him, even if only temporarily, he would be liable.
^ˢnote:This clearly is in conflict with R. Nathan b. Hoshaia.
^ᵗnote:Sc. the gentile.
^ᵘnote:The case was not, as assumed, that immediately after the shearing of each sheep that sheep reverted to its owner, but that the ownership in all the sheep remained with the Israelite for thirty days, or for any period until the end of all the shearing.
^ᵛnote:I.e., the obligation to give the first of the fleece to the priest lies entirely upon the seller.
^ʷnote:Pe'ah. III, 5.
^ˣnote:Lit., ‘trunks of trees’, meaning single trees, but not several trees together with the land between them.
^ʸnote:For each tree is regarded as a separate entity, and each is subject to the law of the ‘Corner’.
^ᶻnote:Thus the obligation of leaving the ‘Corner’, even in respect of the trees actually sold, lies upon the seller, since he kept back some for himself. This view therefore corresponds with the view in our Mishnah.
^ᵃᵃnote:I.e., he had begun to gather in the fruits before he had sold any of the trees; in that case the duty of the ‘Corner’ lay upon him in respect of the entire field.
^ᵃᵇnote:Only then is the seller liable to give the priest's due.
^ᵃᶜnote:Lev. XIX, 9.
^ᵃᵈnote:The obligation of the first of the fleece arises only after the shearing, for Scripture does not use the expression here ‘And when ye shear’.
^ᵃᵉnote:V. supra 132a.
^ᵃᶠnote:The purchaser.

²Hence it is clear that no man sells the priestly dues; here, too, the priest's due no man sells. Therefore, if the seller kept back [some fleece for himself] the seller is solely liable [to give the first of the fleece], for the buyer can say to him, ‘The priest's due still remains with you’. If he did not keep back anything for himself the buyer is liable, for the seller can say to him, ‘I never sold you the priest's due’. MISHNAH. THE LAW OF LETTING [THE DAM] GO FROM THE NEST 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 BIRDS BUT NOT CONSECRATED BIRDS. THE LAW OF COVERING UP THE BLOOD IS OF WIDER APPLICATION THAN THE LAW OF LETTING THE DAM GO; FOR THE LAW OF COVERING UP THE BLOOD APPLIES TO WILD ANIMALS AS WELL AS BIRDS, WHETHER THEY ARE AT ONE'S DISPOSAL OR NOT, WHEREAS THE LAW OF LETTING [THE DAM] GO FROM THE NEST APPLIES ONLY TO BIRDS AND ONLY TO THOSE WHICH ARE NOT AT ONE'S DISPOSAL. WHICH ARE THEY THAT ARE NOT AT ONE'S DISPOSAL? SUCH AS GEESE AND FOWLS THAT MADE THEIR NESTS IN THE OPEN FIELD; BUT IF THEY MADE THEIR NESTS WITHIN A HOUSE OR IN THE CASE OF HERODIAN DOVES, ONE IS NOT BOUND TO LET [THE DAM] GO. AN UNCLEAN BIRD ONE IS NOT BOUND TO LET GO. IF AN UNCLEAN BIRD WAS SITTING ON THE EGGS OF A CLEAN BIRD, OR A CLEAN BIRD ON THE EGGS OF AN UNCLEAN BIRD, ONE IS NOT BOUND TO LET IT GO. AS TO A COCK PARTRIDGE, R. ELIEZER SAYS ONE IS BOUND TO LET IT GO, BUT THE SAGES SAY ONE IS NOT BOUND. GEMARA. R. Abin and R. Meyasha [taught the following:] One said that the expression ‘both within the Holy Land and outside it’ was in every case unnecessary, except in [the Mishnah of] ‘The first of the fleece’, [where it had to be stated] in order to exclude the view of R. Ila'i, who holds that the law of the first of the fleece obtains only in the Land of Israel. The other said, the expression ‘both during the existence of the Temple and after it’ was in every case unnecessary, except in [the Mishnah of] ‘It and its young’, [where it had to be stated,] for I might have argued that, since that law is stated in connection with laws concerning sacrifices, it is in force only as long as sacrifices continue but it is not in force once sacrifices are no more, [the Tanna] therefore found it necessary to teach us [that it is binding for all time]. Furthermore both said that the expression ‘in respect of unconsecrated and consecrated animals’, was in every case necessary except in [the Mishnah of] ‘The sciatic nerve’, for it is obvious that the prohibition of the nerve has not vanished merely because the animal has been consecrated. But did we not establish [that Mishnah] as dealing with the young of consecrated animals? — Yes, but why did we establish [the Mishnah] in that way? Was it not because we were faced with the difficulty: ‘Why did [the Tanna] state it’? In reality however this at the very outset should offer no difficulty, for since this expression was stated in one Mishnah where it was necessary it was also stated in the other where it was not necessary at all. IN RESPECT OF UNCONSECRATED BIRDS BUT NOT CONSECRATED BIRDS. Why not? — Because the verse: Thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, clearly refers only to such as you are bound to let go, excluding such as you are not bound to let go but rather to bring to the Temple treasurer. Rabina said: It follows, therefore, that if a clean bird killed a man, one is not bound to let it go, because the verse: ‘Thou shalt in any wise let the dam go’, clearly refers only to such as you are bound to let go, excluding such as you are not bound to let go but rather to bring to the Beth din. But what are the circumstances here? If it had already been condemned,^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ

^ᵃᵍnote:And therefore whenever the seller keeps back anything for himself it is to be presumed that he has kept back the priest's due, for that he certainly would not sell.
^ᵃʰnote:Not because the obligation rests upon the buyer, but because at the sale the priestly dues were not intended to pass from the seller to the buyer.
^ᵃⁱnote:Deut. XXII, 6, 7.
^ᵃʲnote:Lev. XVII, 13.
^ᵃᵏnote:I.e., always ready at hand for one's purpose and use.
^ᵃˡnote:Although geese and fowls are usually domesticated, if they became wild and broke loose and nested in the open field the law of letting the dam go applies.
^ᵃᵐnote:A special breed of doves favoured by Herod; or, as some read ,uthxrsv, doves from a particular locality. These doves are quite domesticated. V. infra 139b.
^ᵃⁿnote:Which like the hen partridge broods upon eggs of other birds; cf. Jer. XVII, 11.
^ᵃᵒnote:Stated in the opening Mishnah of Chap. V, VI, VII, X, XI, XII.
^ᵃᵖnote:Since every precept which is not dependent upon the land obtains both within the Land of Israel and outside it; v. Kid. 36b.
^ᵃᵠnote:And also the Mishnah dealing with the Priestly dues, (supra Chap. X) the law of which is derived from that of the ‘first of the fleece’. (Rashi, Tosaf.).
^ᵃʳnote:V. supra 136b.
^ᵃˢnote:The law of ‘It and its young’ (Lev. XXII, 28) is immediately preceded and followed by laws concerning sacrifices.
^ᵃᵗnote:Stated in the opening Mishnah of Chap. V and VII.
^ᵃᵘnote:At the opening of Chap. VII.
^ᵃᵛnote:V. supra 89b. The case therefore is not obvious, for it teaches that the prohibition of the nerve can be superimposed upon the existing prohibition of consecrated things.
^ᵃʷnote:In the view of R. Abin and R. Meyasha.
^ᵃˣnote:At the opening of Chap. V.
^ᵃʸnote:Deut. XXII, 7.
^ᵃᶻnote:If found in the nest sitting upon its young ones.
^ᵇᵃnote:I.e., the Court, to be put to death.