## Chullin Daf 135b

###### Chullin 135b:1
[Chullin 135b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/135b:1)

וְרַבָּנַן: לָא נִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא לָא וָי״ו וְלָא ״רֵאשִׁית״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks further: **And** how do **the Rabbis** respond to Rabbi Ilai’s claim? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis do not accept that the conjunction “and” goes back and combines the two matters together, as, if that were so, **let the Merciful One write neither “and” nor “the first.”**


###### Chullin 135b:2
[Chullin 135b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/135b:2)

וְרַבִּי אִלְעַאי, אַיְּידֵי דְּהַאי קְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים, וְהַאי קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף, פָּסֵיק לְהוּ, וַהֲדַר עָרְבִי לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** how does **Rabbi Ilai** respond to this contention? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Ilai would say that the first sheared wool and *teruma* are essentially different obligations, as the first sheared wool is merely a monetary obligation with no inherent sanctity. By contrast, it is prohibited for non-priests to partake of *teruma*. **Since this** case of the first sheared wool involves only **sanctity** that inheres in its **value, and that** case of *teruma* referred to in the beginning of the verse involves **inherent sanctity,** the verse **separated them** through the repetition of the term “the first,” **and** then the verse **went back and combined them** through the term “and,” so that their *halakhot* could be derived from one another.


###### Chullin 135b:3
[Chullin 135b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/135b:3)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: שׁוּתָּפוּת גּוֹי בִּתְרוּמָה, רַבָּנַן חַיּוֹבֵי מְחַיְּיבִי, דְּתַנְיָא: יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹי שֶׁלָּקְחוּ שָׂדֶה בְּשׁוּתָּפוּת – טֶבֶל וְחוּלִּין מְעוֹרָבִים זֶה בָּזֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל חַיָּיב, וְשֶׁל גּוֹי פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara provides an alternative explanation as to why the Rabbis do not derive the exemption of sheep owned in partnership with a gentile from the case of *teruma*. **If you wish, say** instead that **with regard to *teruma*, the Rabbis** hold that one who owns produce in **partnership** with **a gentile** is in fact **obligated, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: If there were **a Jew and a gentile who purchased a field in partnership,** the produce grown in that field is considered to be **untithed produce,** which is subject to the *halakhot* of *terumot* and tithes, **and non-sacred** produce, which is exempt from the requirements of *terumot* and tithes, **mixed together;** this is **the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:** The portion **of the Jew is obligated** in *teruma* and tithes, **but** the portion **of the gentile is exempt.**


###### Chullin 135b:4
[Chullin 135b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/135b:4)

עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי, אֶלָּא דְּמָר סָבַר יֵשׁ בְּרֵירָה, וּמַר סָבַר אֵין בְּרֵירָה, אֲבָל שׁוּתָּפוּת דְּגוֹי – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל חַיֶּיבֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the inference. **They disagree only with regard to** the following issue: **That** one **Sage,** Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, **holds** that **there is** retroactive **clarification,** which means that when they divide the produce it will be clarified who owned which produce from the outset; **and** one **Sage,** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, **holds** that **there is no** retroactive **clarification,** and because it grew in a mixed state, it retains that status even after they divide the produce. **But** with regard to produce that a Jew owns in **partnership** with **a gentile, everyone agrees** that it is **obligated** in *teruma*.


###### Chullin 135b:5
[Chullin 135b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/135b:5)

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא, תַּרְוַיְיהוּ לְרַבִּי אִלְעַאי מִ״צֹּאנְךָ״ נָפְקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara presents an alternative explanation of Rabbi Ilai’s opinion: **If you wish, say** instead that Rabbi Ilai does not derive only the exemption of sheep owned in partnership with a Jew from the term “your flock” while he derives the exemption of sheep owned in partnership with a gentile from the term “your grain.” Rather, **according to Rabbi Ilai both** exemptions are **derived from** the term **“your flock.”**


###### Chullin 135b:6
[Chullin 135b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/135b:6)

שׁוּתָּפוּת דְּגוֹי מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּלָא מְיַיחֲדָא לֵיהּ, לְיִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי לָא מְיַיחֲדָא לֵיהּ. וְרַבָּנַן? גּוֹי לָאו בַּר חִיּוּבָא הוּא, יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּר חִיּוּבָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains why both exemptions can be derived from a single phrase: With regard to **partnership** with **a gentile, what is the reason** that one is exempted from the obligation of the first sheared wool? It is due to the fact **that** the sheep is **not exclusively his.** In the case of a partnership **with a Jew too,** the sheep is **not exclusively his.** The Gemara asks: **And** what do **the Rabbis** reply to this claim of Rabbi Ilai? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis hold that partnership with a Jew cannot be compared to partnership with a gentile, as **a gentile is not obligated** in the mitzva of the first sheared wool, whereas **a Jew is obligated.**


###### Chullin 135b:7
[Chullin 135b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/135b:7)

אָמַר רָבָא: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי אִלְעַאי בִּתְרוּמָה, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב ״דְּגָנְךָ״ – דִּידָךְ אִין, דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava said** with regard to the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Ilai: Although **Rabbi Ilai** holds that two partners who own a sheep are exempt from the first sheared wool, he **concedes** that jointly owned produce is obligated **in *teruma*.** This is the *halakha* **even though it is written** with regard to *teruma*: **“Your grain”** (Deuteronomy 18:4), using the singular pronoun, from which one may infer that with regard to **yours, yes,** one is obligated, whereas with regard to that **which is** owned **in partnership,** the partners are **not** obligated.


###### Chullin 135b:8
[Chullin 135b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/135b:8)

כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״תְּרוּמֹתֵיכֶם״, אֶלָּא ״דְּגָנְךָ״ לְמָה לִי? לְמַעוֹטֵי שׁוּתָּפוּת גּוֹי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that the joint owners of produce are nevertheless obligated in *teruma*, as **the Merciful One writes:** “There will I require **your *terumot*”** (Ezekiel 20:40). The use of the plural pronoun in this verse indicates that even partners who own produce are obligated in *teruma*. The Gemara asks: **But** if so, **why do I** need the term: **“Your grain,”** using the singular pronoun? The Gemara answers: This serves **to exclude** produce owned in **partnership** with **a gentile.**


###### Chullin 135b:9
[Chullin 135b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/135b:9)

חַלָּה, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב ״רֵאשִׁית״, וְאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר: נֵילַף ״רֵאשִׁית״ ״רֵאשִׁית״ מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז – מָה לְהַלָּן דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא, אַף כָּאן דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא. כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״עֲרִיסוֹתֵיכֶם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, with regard to ***ḥalla*,** the portion of dough that one is required to separate and give to a priest, Rabbi Ilai concedes that joint owners are obligated in this mitzva, **even though** one could claim otherwise, **as it is written:** “Of **the first** of your dough you shall set apart a cake for a gift” (Numbers 15:20), **and it is possible to say** that one **should derive** a verbal analogy between the term **“the first”** in this context and the term **“the first” from the first sheared wool: Just as there,** with regard to the first sheared wool, if the sheep are owned **in partnership** the owners are **not** obligated, **so too here,** with regard to *ḥalla*, if the dough is owned **in partnership** they are **not** obligated. Nevertheless, **the Merciful One writes: “Your dough,”** using a plural pronoun, indicating that even joint owners of dough are obligated to separate *ḥalla*.


###### Chullin 135b:10
[Chullin 135b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/135b:10)

אֶלָּא טַעְמָא דִּכְתִיב ״עֲרִיסוֹתֵיכֶם״, הָא לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה אָמֵינָא נֵילַף ״רֵאשִׁית״ ״רֵאשִׁית״ מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז? אַדְּרַבָּה, נֵילַף מִתְּרוּמָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But** according to this claim, **the reason** joint owners of dough are obligated to separate *ḥalla* is **that it is written “your dough,”** using a plural pronoun. It can be inferred from here that **were that not** the case **I would say** that they are exempt, as **derived** by a verbal analogy between the term **“the first”** mentioned with regard to *ḥalla* and the term **“the first” from the first sheared wool. On the contrary,** one **should derive** a verbal analogy between the term “the first” with regard to *ḥalla* and the term “the first” **from *teruma*:** Just as the obligation to separate *teruma* applies to produce owned in partnership, so too, the obligation to separate *ḥalla* applies to dough owned in partnership. It is preferable to compare *ḥalla* to *teruma*, because their halakhic status is similar in that they are both prohibited to non-priests. If so, the inference from the term “your dough” is unnecessary.


###### Chullin 135b:11
[Chullin 135b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/135b:11)

הָכִי נָמֵי, אֶלָּא ״עֲרִיסוֹתֵיכֶם״ לְמָה לִי? כְּדֵי עֲרִיסוֹתֵיכֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: It **is indeed so;** the obligation of produce owned in partnership in the case of *ḥalla* is derived from the case of *teruma*. **But** if so, **why do I** need the term **“your dough”?** This teaches that the quantity of dough to which the obligation of *ḥalla* applies **is equivalent to** the quantity of **your dough,** i.e., the quantity of dough kneaded daily by the Jewish people when they were in the Sinai Desert, when the mitzva was given. This is one *omer* for each person (see Exodus 16:16), which is a tenth of an ephah (see Exodus 16:36).


###### Chullin 135b:12
[Chullin 135b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/135b:12)

פֵּאָה, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב ״שָׂדְךָ״ – דִּידָךְ אִין, שׁוּתָּפוּת לָא – כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״וּבְקֻצְרְכֶם אֶת קְצִיר אַרְצְכֶם״. אֶלָּא ״שָׂדְךָ״ לְמָה לִי? לְמַעוֹטֵי שׁוּתָּפוּת גּוֹי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Likewise, with regard to ***pe’a*,** produce in the corner of the field that is left for the poor, Rabbi Ilai concedes that the joint owners of produce are obligated, **even though it is written** in the verse cited below: **“Your field [*sadekha*],”** using a singular pronoun, from which it can be inferred that with regard to **your** field, **yes,** one is obligated, whereas with regard to that **which is** owned **in partnership,** one is **not** obligated. The reason is that **the Merciful One writes: “And when you reap [*uvekutzrekhem*] the harvest of your land,** you shall not entirely reap the corner of your field” (Leviticus 19:9). The term “when you reap” uses the plural pronoun, which indicates that even partners of land are obligated in *pe’a*. The Gemara asks: **But** if so, **why do I** need the term **“your field”** in the singular? The Gemara answers: This serves **to exclude** land owned in **partnership** with **a gentile** from the obligation of *pe’a*.


###### Chullin 135b:13
[Chullin 135b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/135b:13)

בְּכוֹרָה, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב ״כׇּל הַבְּכוֹר אֲשֶׁר יִוָּלֵד בִּבְקָרְךָ וּבְצֹאנְךָ״, דִּידָךְ – אִין, דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, with regard to the **firstborn** status of a male firstborn kosher animal, Rabbi Ilai concedes that jointly owned animals are sanctified, **even though it is written: “All the firstborn that are born of your herd [*bivkarekha*] and of your flock [*tzonekha*]** that are male you shall sanctify to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 15:19). Once again it might have been inferred from the singular pronoun in the terms “your herd” and “your flock” that **your** firstborn, **yes,** are sanctified, but the firstborn **that is** owned **in partnership** is **not** sanctified.


###### Chullin 135b:14
[Chullin 135b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/135b:14)

כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא: ״וּבְכֹרֹת בְּקַרְכֶם וְצֹאנְכֶם״, אֶלָּא ״בְּקָרְךָ וְצֹאנְךָ״ לְמָה לִי? לְמַעוֹטֵי שׁוּתָּפוּת גּוֹי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, **the Merciful One writes:** “And there you shall bring there your burnt offerings, and your peace offerings, and your tithes, and the gift of your hand, and your vows, and your gift offerings, **and the firstborn of your herd [*bekarkhem*] and of your flock [*tzonekhem*]”** (Deuteronomy 12:6). The pronouns in the terms “your herd” and “your flock” in this verse are in the plural, which indicates that firstborn animals owned in partnership are sanctified. The Gemara asks: **But** if so, **why do I** need the terms **“your herd” and “your flock”** (Deuteronomy 15:19), where the pronouns are in the singular? The Gemara again answers: This serves **to exclude** animals owned in **partnership** with **a gentile,** which are not sanctified.


###### Chullin 135b:15
[Chullin 135b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/135b:15)

מְזוּזָה, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב ״בֵּיתֶךָ״ – דִּידָךְ אִין, שׁוּתָּפוּת לָא, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״לְמַעַן יִרְבּוּ יְמֵיכֶם וִימֵי בְנֵיכֶם״. וְאֶלָּא ״בֵּיתֶךָ״ לְמַאי אֲתָא? לְכִדְרַבָּה, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Likewise, with regard to **a *mezuza*,** Rabbi Ilai concedes that the house of two partners is obligated, **even though it is written:** “And you shall write them upon the doorposts of **your house [*beitekha*]”** (Deuteronomy 6:9), with a singular pronoun, from which one might have inferred that with regard to **your** house, **yes,** it is obligated, whereas a house owned by two people **in partnership** is **not** obligated. Consequently, **the Merciful One writes** with regard to the mitzva of *mezuza*: **“So that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children”** (Deuteronomy 11:21). The use of the plural pronoun in the terms “your days” and “your children” in this verse indicates that partners are obligated in the mitzva of *mezuza*. The Gemara asks: **But** if so, **for what** purpose does the term **“your house [*beitekha*]” come?** The Gemara answers: It is necessary **for that which Rabba** derived, **as Rabba said:**