## Chullin Daf 136a

###### Chullin 136a:1
[Chullin 136a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/136a:1)

דֶּרֶךְ בִּיאָתְךָ מִן הַיָּמִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The term “your house [*beitekha*]” is similar to the term: You enter [*bi’atkha*], indicating that one places the *mezuza* in the **way** that **you enter** the house. When a person lifts his foot to begin walking, he lifts his right foot first. Therefore, the *mezuza* is affixed **to the right** side of the doorway, as one enters.


###### Chullin 136a:2
[Chullin 136a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/136a:2)

מַעֲשֵׂר, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב ״מַעְשַׂר דְּגָנְךָ״ – דִּילָךְ אִין, דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא. כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״מַעְשְׂרוֹתֵיכֶם״. אֶלָּא ״מַעְשַׂר דְּגָנְךָ״ לְמַאי אֲתָא? לְמַעוֹטֵי שׁוּתָּפוּת דְּגוֹי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, with regard to **tithe,** Rabbi Ilai concedes that joint owners of produce are obligated, **even though it is written: “The tithe of your grain [*deganekha*]”** (Deuteronomy 12:17), using the singular pronoun, from which one might have inferred that with regard to **your** grain, **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:** “All **your tithes [*ma’asroteikhem*]”** (Numbers 18:28), using the plural pronoun, indicating that even partners are obligated in this mitzva. The Gemara asks: **But** if so, **for what** purpose does the term: **“The tithe of your grain [*deganekha*],”** using the singular pronoun, **come?** The Gemara answers: It serves **to exclude** produce owned in **partnership with a gentile** from the obligation of tithes.


###### Chullin 136a:3
[Chullin 136a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/136a:3)

מַתָּנוֹת, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״וְנָתַן״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Likewise, with regard to the **gifts** to which members of the priesthood are entitled, i.e., the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, Rabbi Ilai concedes that the joint owners of an animal are obligated, **even though the Merciful One writes:** “And this shall be the priests’ due from the people, from those who slaughter an animal, whether it be ox or sheep; **and he shall give** to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw” (Deuteronomy 18:3).


###### Chullin 136a:4
[Chullin 136a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/136a:4)

אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר, יָלֵיף ״נְתִינָה״ ״נְתִינָה״ מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז – מָה לְהַלָּן דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא, אַף כָּאן דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא. כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״מֵאֵת זוֹבְחֵי הַזֶּבַח״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **It is possible to say** that one should **derive** a verbal analogy between **giving** mentioned in the context of gifts to the priesthood and **giving from the first sheared wool.** The Torah states: “He shall give,” with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, and it states: “Shall you give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4), with regard to the first sheared wool; **just as there,** with regard to the first sheared wool, sheep owned **in partnership** do **not** render their owners obligated, **so too here,** with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, an animal owned **in partnership** does **not** render the owners obligated. But **the Merciful One writes: “From those who slaughter an animal,”** in the plural, indicating that even the owners of an animal owned in partnership are obligated to give the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw.


###### Chullin 136a:5
[Chullin 136a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/136a:5)

אֶלָּא טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״מֵאֵת זוֹבְחֵי הַזֶּבַח״, הָא לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה אָמֵינָא לֵילַף מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז? אַדְּרַבָּה נֵילַף מִתְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But** according to this inference, **the reason** the joint owners of an animal are obligated in the gifts of the priesthood is **that the Merciful One writes: “From those who slaughter an animal,”** in the plural. **But** were it **not so, I would say** that they are exempt, as **derived** by means of a verbal analogy **from the first sheared wool. On the contrary,** since the term “shall you give him” is also referring to *teruma*, one should **derive** by means of a verbal analogy **from *teruma*:** Just as the obligation of *teruma* applies to those who own produce in partnership, so too, the requirement of the gifts of the priesthood applies to partners that own an animal together.


###### Chullin 136a:6
[Chullin 136a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/136a:6)

אִין הָכִי נָמֵי, מֵאֵת ״זוֹבְחֵי הַזֶּבַח״ לְמָה לִּי? לְכִדְרָבָא, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: הַדִּין עִם הַטַּבָּח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Yes,** it **is indeed so;** the obligation of partners with regard to gifts of the priesthood is derived from *teruma*. But if so, **why do I** need the phrase **“from those who slaughter an animal”?** It is necessary **for that which Rava** taught, **as Rava said:** The priest issues his **demand** to receive the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw **from the butcher** who slaughtered the animal, not from the buyer.


###### Chullin 136a:7
[Chullin 136a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/136a:7)

בִּכּוּרִים, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב ״אַרְצְךָ״ – דִּידָךְ אִין, דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, with regard to the **first fruits,** Rabbi Ilai concedes that the joint owners of produce are obligated, **even though it is written:** “And you shall take of the first of all the fruit of the ground, which you shall bring in from **your land [*be’artzekha*]”** (Deuteronomy 26:2), using the singular pronoun. One might have inferred from the singular pronoun that with regard to **your** land, **yes,** one is obligated, whereas with regard to **that which is** owned **in partnership** one is **not** obligated.


###### Chullin 136a:8
[Chullin 136a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/136a:8)

כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״בִּכּוּרֵי כֹּל אֲשֶׁר (בְּאַרְצְךָ) [בְּאַרְצָם]״, אֶלָּא ״אַרְצְךָ״ לְמָה לִי? לְמַעוֹטֵי חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, **the Merciful One writes: “The first fruits of all that is in their land,** which they bring to the Lord, shall be yours” (Numbers 18:13). The use of the plural pronoun indicates that even from land owned in partnership one is obligated to bring first fruits. The Gemara asks: **But** if so, **why do I** need the term **“your land [*artzekha*],”** using the singular pronoun? The Gemara answers: This serves **to exclude** produce grown **outside of Eretz** Yisrael from the mitzva of the first fruits.


###### Chullin 136a:9
[Chullin 136a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/136a:9)

צִיצִית, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״כְּסוּתְךָ״ – דִּידָךְ אִין, דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Likewise, with regard to the mitzva to attach **ritual fringes** to one’s garment, Rabbi Ilai concedes that a jointly owned garment is obligated, **even though the Merciful One writes:** “You shall make yourself twisted cords upon the four corners of **your covering [*kesutekha*]”** (Deuteronomy 22:12), using the singular pronoun. It might have been inferred from the singular form that with regard to **your** covering, **yes,** it is obligated, whereas with regard to **that which is** owned **in partnership** it is **not** obligated.


###### Chullin 136a:10
[Chullin 136a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/136a:10)

כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״עַל כַּנְפֵי בִגְדֵיהֶם לְדֹרֹתָם״, וְאֶלָּא ״כְּסוּתְךָ״ לְמָה לִי? לְכִדְרַב יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: טַלִּית שְׁאוּלָה פְּטוּרָה מִן הַצִּיצִית כׇּל שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, **the Merciful One writes:** “And they shall make for themselves fringes **in the corners of their garments, throughout their generations,** and they shall put with the fringe of each corner a thread of blue” (Numbers 15:38). The use of the plural pronoun indicates that even jointly owned garments are obligated. The Gemara asks: **But** if so, **why do I** need the term **“your covering [*kesutekha*],”** using the singular pronoun? The Gemara answers: This is necessary **for that which Rav Yehuda** taught, **as Rav Yehuda said: A borrowed cloak is exempt from the** mitzva of **ritual fringes throughout** the first **thirty days.**


###### Chullin 136a:11
[Chullin 136a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/136a:11)

מַעֲקֶה, אַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״לְגַגֶּךָ״ – דִּידָךְ אִין, דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, with regard to the obligation of establishing **a parapet** around a roof, Rabbi Ilai concedes that the joint owners of a roof are obligated, **even though the Merciful One writes:** “When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet **for your roof [*legaggekha*],”** using the singular pronoun, “and you shall not bring blood upon your house, if any man falls from there” (Deuteronomy 22:8). One might have inferred from the singular form that with regard to **your** roof, **yes,** one is obligated, whereas with regard to **that which is** owned **in partnership** one is **not** obligated.


###### Chullin 136a:12
[Chullin 136a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/136a:12)

כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״כִּי יִפֹּל הַנֹּפֵל מִמֶּנּוּ״, אֶלָּא ״גַּגֶּךָ״ לְמַאי אֲתָא? לְמַעוֹטֵי בָּתֵּי כְנֵסִיּוֹת וּבָתֵּי מִדְרָשׁוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, **the Merciful One writes: “If any man falls from there,”** indicating that wherever the danger of falling from the roof exists, there is an obligation to erect a parapet. The Gemara asks: **But** if so, **for what** purpose does the term **“your roof [*gaggekha*],”** using the singular pronoun, **come?** The Gemara answers: It serves **to exclude synagogues and houses of study.**


###### Chullin 136a:13
[Chullin 136a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/136a:13)

אָמַר רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי: לֵיתַנְהוּ לְהָנֵי כְּלָלֵי, דְּתַנְיָא: בֶּהֱמַת הַשּׁוּתָּפִין חַיֶּיבֶת בִּבְכוֹרָה, וְרַבִּי אִלְעַאי פּוֹטְרָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Rava maintains that although Rabbi Ilai holds that if a sheep is owned in partnership its owners are exempt from giving the first sheared wool to a priest, he concedes that partners are obligated with regard to all the other issues discussed above, including the mitzva of the firstborn animal and the gifts of the priesthood. **Rav Beivai bar Abaye said: These principles** stated by Rava **are not** accepted, **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **An animal** owned by **partners is obligated in** the mitzva of **a firstborn,** i.e., its offspring is subject to firstborn status. **And Rabbi Ilai exempts** the animal from having its offspring subject to firstborn status.


###### Chullin 136a:14
[Chullin 136a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/136a:14)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי? דִּכְתִיב: ״בְּקָרְךָ וְצֹאנְךָ״, וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״בְּקַרְכֶם וְצֹאנְכֶם״! דְּכוּלְּהוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is the reason for** the opinion of **Rabbi Ilai? As it is written:** “And the firstborn of **your herd and of your flock [*bekarekha vetzonekha*]”** (Deuteronomy 12:17), using the singular pronoun, indicating that only privately owned animals are consecrated. The Gemara comments: **But it is** also **written:** “And the firstborn of **your herd and of your flock [*bekarkhem vetzonekhem*]”** (Deuteronomy 12:6), using the plural pronoun. The Gemara explains: This verse is referring to the obligation **of all Jews** to bring their firstborn animals to the Temple, but this applies only to animals with a single owner.


###### Chullin 136a:15
[Chullin 136a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/136a:15)

אָמַר רַב חֲנִינָא מִסּוּרָא: לֵיתַנְהוּ לְהָנֵי כְּלָלֵי, דְּתַנְיָא: בֶּהֱמַת הַשּׁוּתָּפִין חַיֶּיבֶת בְּמַתָּנוֹת, וְרַבִּי אִלְעַאי פּוֹטֵר. מַאי טַעְמָא? יָלֵיף ״נְתִינָה״ ״נְתִינָה״ מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז – מָה לְהַלָּן דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא, אַף כָּאן דְּשׁוּתָּפוּת לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥanina of Sura** also **said: These principles** stated by Rava **are not** accepted, **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **An animal** owned by **partners is obligated,** i.e., renders its owners obligated, **to** take **gifts** of the priesthood from it, **and Rabbi Ilai exempts** the partners from the obligation. **What is the reason** for Rabbi Ilai’s statement? He **derives** a verbal analogy between **giving** mentioned in this context **and giving from the first sheared wool.** The Torah states: “He shall give” (Deuteronomy 18:3), with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, and: “Shall you give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4), with regard to the first sheared wool. **Just as there,** with regard to the first sheared wool, in the case of sheep owned **in partnership** the owners are **not** obligated according to Rabbi Ilai, **so too here,** with regard to the gifts of the priesthood, if the animal is owned **in partnership** the owners are **not** obligated.


###### Chullin 136a:16
[Chullin 136a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/136a:16)

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בִּתְרוּמָה מִיחַיַּיב, נֵילַף ״נְתִינָה״ ״נְתִינָה״ מִתְּרוּמָה! אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בִּתְרוּמָה נָמֵי פּוֹטֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Ḥanina of Sura adds: **And if it enters your mind** to accept Rava’s statement that in the case **of *teruma*** Rabbi Ilai **deems** partners **obligated,** this is not possible. The reason is that the term “shall you give him” is also used with regard to *teruma*. Accordingly, instead of deriving the *halakha* of an animal owned by partners with regard to gifts of the priesthood by verbal analogy from the first sheared wool, one should **derive** by verbal analogy between **giving** mentioned with regard to gifts of the priesthood and **giving from *teruma*,** as follows: Just as joint owners of produce are obligated to separate *teruma* from that produce, so too with regard to an animal owned in partnership, the owners are obligated to take the gifts of the priesthood from it. **Rather, conclude from** the *baraita* that **with regard to *teruma* too,** Rabbi Ilai **deems** partners **exempt,** and therefore their exemption from the gifts of the priesthood can be derived either from the first sheared wool or from *teruma*.


###### Chullin 136a:17
[Chullin 136a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/136a:17)

אִי מָה תְּרוּמָה, בָּאָרֶץ – אִין, בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – לָא, אַף מַתָּנוֹת, בָּאָרֶץ – אִין, בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – לָא! אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מִנְּהַרְבִּיל: אִין, וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אִלְעַאי אוֹמֵר: מַתָּנוֹת אִין נוֹהֲגִין אֶלָּא בָּאָרֶץ, וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי אִלְעַאי אוֹמֵר: רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז אִין נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בָּאָרֶץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **If** it is possible to derive *halakhot* of the gifts of the priesthood from *teruma* by verbal analogy, one could also say: **Just as** with regard to ***teruma*** the *halakha* is that **in Eretz** Yisrael, **yes,** it applies, whereas **outside of Eretz** Yisrael it does **not** apply, **so too,** with regard to the **gifts** of the priesthood, **in Eretz** Yisrael, **yes,** they apply, whereas **outside of Eretz** Yisrael they do **not** apply. **Rabbi Yosei of Neharbil said: Yes,** it is indeed so, **and it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Ilai says:** The **gifts** of the priesthood **apply only in Eretz** Yisrael. **And likewise, Rabbi Ilai would say:** The mitzva of **the first sheared wool applies only in Eretz** Yisrael.


###### Chullin 136a:18
[Chullin 136a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/136a:18)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי? אָמַר רָבָא: יָלֵיף ״נְתִינָה״ ״נְתִינָה״ מִתְּרוּמָה: מָה תְּרוּמָה, בָּאָרֶץ – אִין, בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – לָא, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, בָּאָרֶץ – אִין, בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is the reason for** the ruling of **Rabbi Ilai? Rava said:** He **derives** by means of a verbal analogy between **giving** mentioned in the context of the first sheared wool and **giving from *teruma*** that **just as** with regard to ***teruma*** the *halakha* is that **in Eretz** Yisrael, **yes,** it applies, whereas **outside of Eretz** Yisrael, it does **not** apply; **so too,** with regard to **the first sheared wool, in Eretz** Yisrael, **yes,** it applies, whereas **outside of Eretz** Yisrael it does **not** apply.


###### Chullin 136a:19
[Chullin 136a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/136a:19)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אִי מָה תְּרוּמָה טוֹבֶלֶת, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז טוֹבֶלֶת? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אָמַר קְרָא ״וְרֵאשִׁית גֵּז צֹאנְךָ תִּתֶּן לוֹ״ – אֵין לְךָ בּוֹ אֶלָּא מֵרֵאשִׁיתוֹ וְאֵילָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rava: **If** one compares the first sheared wool to *teruma* by means of a verbal analogy, one can say that **just as** with regard to the requirement to separate ***teruma*,** it **produces** the halakhic status of forbidden **untithed produce, so too** the requirement to separate **the first sheared wool produces** the halakhic status of **untithed produce,** i.e., wool from which the first sheared wool has not been separated should be forbidden. Yet this is not the *halakha*. Rava **said to him** that the **verse states: “And the first sheared wool of your flock, shall you give him,”** i.e., the priest, which indicates that **you,** i.e., the priest, have a right **to** the first sheared wool **only from its** designation as **the first sheared wool and onward.** Since the first sheared wool does not belong to the priest prior to its designation, it does not render the rest of the wool forbidden.


###### Chullin 136a:20
[Chullin 136a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/136a:20)

אִי מָה תְּרוּמָה חַיָּיבִים עָלֶיהָ מִיתָה וָחוֹמֶשׁ, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז חַיָּיבִים עָלָיו מִיתָה וָחוֹמֶשׁ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye continues to question Rava: **If** one compares the first sheared wool to *teruma* by means of a verbal analogy, one can say that **just as** non-priests who partake of ***teruma*** intentionally are **liable** to receive the punishment of **death** at the hand of Heaven, **and** those who do so unwittingly are obligated to pay an additional **one-fifth** of its value, **so too,** non-priests who derive benefit from **the first sheared wool** intentionally should be **liable** to **death** at the hand of Heaven, **and** those who do so unwittingly should be obligated to pay an additional **one-fifth** of its value.


###### Chullin 136a:21
[Chullin 136a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/136a:21)

אָמַר קְרָא: ״וּמֵתוּ בוֹ״, ״וְיָסַף עָלָיו״ – ״עָלָיו״ וְלֹא עַל רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, ״בּוֹ״ וְלֹא בְּרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava replies: The **verse states** with regard to a non-priest who partakes of *teruma*: “Lest they bear sin for it, **and die because of it,** if they profane it…and if a man eat of the holy thing through error, **and he shall add** its fifth part **to it,** and shall give to the priest the holy thing” (Leviticus 22:9–14). Rava infers: “He shall add its fifth part **to it,” and not to the first sheared wool. “And die because of it,” and not because of the first sheared wool.** Consequently, a non-priest is liable to death at the hand of Heaven or to pay an additional one-fifth for partaking of *teruma*, but not for deriving benefit from the first sheared wool.


###### Chullin 136a:22
[Chullin 136a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/136a:22)

אִי מָה תְּרוּמָה רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי אַחֲרֶיהָ, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז רִאשׁוֹן וְשֵׁנִי אַחֲרֶיהָ! אָמַר קְרָא ״רֵאשִׁית״, אֵין לְךָ בּוֹ אֶלָּא רֵאשִׁית בִּלְבַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye further questions Rava: **If** one compares the first sheared wool to *teruma* by verbal analogy, one can say that **just as** with regard to ***teruma*,** the **first and second** tithes are separated from the produce **after** *teruma* is separated, **so too** with regard to the **first sheared wool, first and second** tithes should be separated from the fleece **after it.** Rava replies: The **verse states** that the first sheared wool is **“the first.”** Since the verse already stated “first” with regard to *teruma*, its repetition indicates that in this case there is no second separation. One **does not have** any separation **in this** case **other than the first** one.


###### Chullin 136a:23
[Chullin 136a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/136a:23)

אִי מָה תְּרוּמָה, מֵחָדָשׁ עַל הַיָּשָׁן – לָא, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, מֵחָדָשׁ עַל הַיָּשָׁן – לָא? אִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye continues to question Rava: **If** one compares the first sheared wool to *teruma* by means of a verbal analogy, one can say that **just as** with regard to ***teruma*** one may **not** separate **from** the **new** produce of this year **on** behalf of **the old** produce from last year, **so too,** one may **not** separate **the first sheared wool from** the **new** shearing of this year **on** behalf of **the old** shearing from last year. On this occasion Rava replied: **Yes,** that is the *halakha*.


###### Chullin 136a:24
[Chullin 136a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/136a:24)

וְהָתַנְיָא: הָיוּ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי רְחֵלוֹת, גָּזַז וְהִנִּיחַ, גָּזַז וְהִנִּיחַ, שְׁתַּיִם וְשָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים – אֵין מִצְטָרְפוֹת. הָא חָמֵשׁ – מִצְטָרְפוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava proves his point: **And it is** likewise **taught** that this is Rabbi Ilai’s opinion, through a contradiction between two *baraitot*. One *baraita* teaches: A person **had two sheep;** he **sheared** them **and left** the shearing in his possession, and the following year he again **sheared** them **and left** the shearing in his possession, and continued in this manner for **two or three years.** Although the accumulated wool is equivalent to the wool of five sheep, to which the obligation of the first sheared wool applies, the wool **does not accumulate** to constitute the minimum amount, as only two sheep were shorn. This indicates that if the wool is from **five** sheep, then it **accumulates,** and one is obligated to give the priest the first sheared wool, despite the fact that the wool was shorn in different years.


###### Chullin 136a:25
[Chullin 136a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/136a:25)

וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵין מִצְטָרְפוֹת! אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: הָא דְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי, וְהָא דְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that even wool from five sheep shorn in different years **does not accumulate** to create an obligation? **Rather, conclude from** this contradiction that **this** second *baraita* is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Ilai,** who compares the first sheared wool to *teruma*. Therefore, he holds that wool from separate years does not accumulate. **And that** first *baraita* is **in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who do not compare the first sheared wool to *teruma*. Therefore, they maintain that wool from separate years does accumulate.


###### Chullin 136a:26
[Chullin 136a:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/136a:26)

אִי מָה תְּרוּמָה, גָּדֵל בְּחִיּוּב – חַיָּיב, גָּדֵל בִּפְטוּר – פָּטוּר, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז נָמֵי: גָּדֵל בְּחִיּוּב – חַיָּיב, בִּפְטוּר – פָּטוּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye asks Rava: **If** one compares the first sheared wool to *teruma*, one can say that **just as** with regard to ***teruma*,** if a Jew purchased a field from a gentile then produce that **grew under** the ownership of a Jew, who is **obligated** to separate *teruma* from his produce, is **obligated,** whereas produce that **grew under** the ownership of a gentile, whose produce is **exempt,** is **exempt** even after purchase by a Jew; **so too,** with regard to the **first sheared wool,** the fleece that **grew under** the ownership of a Jew, who is **obligated** in the first sheared wool, is **obligated,** whereas the fleece that grew **under** the ownership of a gentile, who is **exempt,** is **exempt** even after purchase by a Jew.


###### Chullin 136a:27
[Chullin 136a:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/136a:27)

וְגַבֵּי תְּרוּמָה מְנָלַן? דְּתַנְיָא: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלָּקַח שָׂדֶה בְּסוּרְיָא מִגּוֹי, עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ – חַיָּיב, מִשֶּׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁלִישׁ – רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מְחַיֵּיב בְּתוֹסֶפֶת, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye adds: **And with regard to *teruma*, from where do we** derive that produce that grew when owned by a gentile is exempt? **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **a Jew who purchased a field in Syria from a gentile,** if he bought the field **before** the produce **reached one-third** of its growth, he is **obligated** to separate *teruma*. If he bought the field **after** the produce **reached one-third** of its growth, **Rabbi Akiva deems him obligated** to separate *teruma* **from the** growth **added** after he bought the field, **and the Rabbis deem** him **exempt.** All agree, though, that he is exempt with regard to the part of the produce that grew under the gentile’s ownership.


###### Chullin 136a:28
[Chullin 136a:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Chullin/r/136a:28)

וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, וְהָתְנַן: הַלּוֹקֵחַ גֵּז צֹאן גּוֹי – פָּטוּר מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, הָא צֹאנוֹ לִגְזוֹז – חַיָּיב! מַתְנִיתִין

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say: Indeed,** Rabbi Ilai holds that wool that grew under the ownership of a gentile is exempt from the mitzva of the first sheared wool, that is difficult, as **didn’t we learn** in the mishna (135a): **One who purchases the fleece of** the **sheep of a gentile** is **exempt from** the obligation of the **first sheared wool?** It can be inferred from the mishna that if one purchased the gentile’s **sheep** when they were ready **for shearing,** he is **obligated** in the mitzva of the first sheared wool. Rava replied: **The mishna**