## Chullin Daf 136b

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

דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Ilai,** who holds that if the wool grew under the ownership of a gentile one is exempt from separating the first sheared wool.


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

אִי מָה תְּרוּמָה, מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ – לֹא, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ – לֹא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye further asks Rava: **If** one compares the first sheared wool to *teruma*, can one say that **just as** with regard to ***teruma*** one may **not** separate *teruma* **from** one **type** of produce **on** behalf of that **which is not** of the same **type, so too,** one may **not** separate **the first sheared wool from** one **type** of sheep **on** behalf of sheep **which are not** of the same **type?**


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

וְגַבֵּי תְּרוּמָה מְנָלַן? דְּתַנְיָא: הָיוּ לוֹ שְׁנֵי מִינֵי תְּאֵנִים, שְׁחוֹרוֹת וּלְבָנוֹת, וְכֵן שְׁנֵי מִינֵי חִטִּין – אֵין תּוֹרְמִים וּמְעַשְּׂרִים מִזֶּה עַל זֶה. רַבִּי יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אִלְעַאי: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים אֵין תּוֹרְמִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים תּוֹרְמִין. אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ – לֹא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And with regard to *teruma*, from where do we** derive that one may not do so? **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: If **one had two types of figs, black** figs **and white** figs; **or similarly,** if one had **two types of wheat,** one may **not separate *teruma* and tithes from this** type **on** behalf of **that** type. **Rabbi Yitzḥak says in the name of Rabbi Ilai: Beit Shammai say** that one may **not separate *teruma*** from one of these on behalf of the other, **and Beit Hillel say** that one may **separate *teruma*** from one on behalf of the other, as they consider all forms of figs or wheat to be a single type. But all agree that with regard to two distinct types of food one may not separate *teruma* from one type on behalf of another type. **So too,** with regard to **the first sheared wool,** perhaps one may **not** separate **from** one **type** of sheep **on** behalf of sheep **which are not** of the same **type.**


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

אִין, וְהָתְנַן: הָיוּ לוֹ שְׁנֵי מִינִים שְׁחוּפוֹת וּלְבָנוֹת, מָכַר לוֹ שְׁחוּפוֹת אֲבָל לֹא לְבָנוֹת – זֶה נוֹתֵן לְעַצְמוֹ וְזֶה נוֹתֵן לְעַצְמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava replied: **Yes,** this is the *halakha*. **And we learned** in the mishna (135a) that one may not separate the first sheared wool from one type of sheep on behalf of another: If the seller **had two types** of sheep, **gray and white,** and he **sold him** the **gray** fleece **but not** the **white** fleece, then **this** seller **gives** the first sheared wool **for himself** from the wool that he kept, **and that** buyer **gives** the first sheared wool **for himself** from the wool that he bought.


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

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, סֵיפָא דְּקָתָנֵי: זְכָרִים אֲבָל לֹא נְקֵבוֹת – זֶה נוֹתֵן לְעַצְמוֹ וְזֶה נוֹתֵן לְעַצְמוֹ, הָכִי נָמֵי מִשּׁוּם דִּתְרֵי מִינֵי נִינְהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **If that is so,** then consider **the latter clause, which teaches:** If he sold the fleece of the **male** sheep **but not** of the **female** sheep, then **this** seller **gives** the first sheared wool **for himself** from the wool that he kept, **and that** buyer **gives** the first sheared wool **for himself** from the wool that he bought. Is this **also due to** the fact that **they are two** different **types?** Clearly, it is not.


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

אֶלָּא, עֵצָה טוֹבָה קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּלִיתֵּיב לֵיהּ מֵהַאי דְּרַכִּיךְ וּמֵהַאי דְּאַשּׁוּן. הָכָא נָמֵי, עֵצָה טוֹבָה קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּלִיתֵּיב לְהוּ מִתַּרְוַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Rather,** the mishna **teaches us good advice.** The seller is obligated to give the first sheared wool even on behalf of the wool he sold. Since the fleece of the female sheep is softer and more valuable, it is profitable for the seller to buy back part of the fleece of the male sheep and separate it as the first sheared wool on behalf of the sheep he sold, so **that he gives** the priest both **from this** wool **that is soft and from that** wool **that is hard,** rather than giving him from the fleece of his female sheep on behalf of the male sheep. **Here too,** with regard to the gray and white sheep, the mishna **teaches us good advice,** that it is profitable for the seller to buy back part of the fleece of the gray sheep, so **that he gives** the priests **from both** types of wool, rather than giving the first sheared wool entirely from the more valuable white fleece.


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

הָא אוֹקֵימְנָא לְמַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
According to the above explanation, the mishna rules that it is permitted to separate the first sheared wool from one type of sheep on behalf of another type. This is difficult according to the opinion of Rabbi Ilai, who compares the first sheared wool to *teruma*, where this practice is prohibited. The Gemara answers: **We** already **established that the mishna is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Ilai.**


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

אִי מָה תְּרוּמָה, בָּעֵינַן רֵאשִׁית שֶׁשְּׁיָרֶיהָ נִיכָּרִין, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז שֶׁשְּׁיָרֶיהָ נִיכָּרִין? אִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges further: **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* we require** it to be **a first** gift **whose remainders are evident,** i.e., a part of the produce must remain after one has separated *teruma*, **so too, the first sheared wool** must be a gift **whose remainders are evident.** The Gemara responds: **Yes,** it is indeed so.


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

וְהָתְנַן: הָאוֹמֵר ״כׇּל גׇּרְנִי תְּרוּמָה וְכׇל עִיסָּתִי חַלָּה״ – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם, הָא ״כׇּל גִּזַּיי רֵאשִׁית״ – דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין, וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites a proof for this claim. **And we learned** in a mishna (*Ḥalla* 1:9): With regard to **one who says: All my granary** shall be ***teruma*, or: All my dough** shall be ***ḥalla*,** he **has not said anything. But** one can infer from the mishna that if he said: **All my shearing** shall be designated as **first** sheared wool, **his declaration is valid. And** yet it **is taught** in **another** tannaitic source, a *baraita*, that if he said: All my shearing shall be designated as first sheared wool, he **did not say anything.**


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

אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, הָא רַבִּי אִלְעַאי, וְהָא רַבָּנַן. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** must one **not conclude from** the conflicting rulings that **this** *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Ilai,** who compares the first sheared wool to *teruma*, **and that** mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who do not compare the two cases? The Gemara affirms: **Conclude from** here that this is correct.


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

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: הָאִידָּנָא נְהוּג עָלְמָא כְּהָנֵי תְּלָת סָבֵי, כְּרַבִּי אִלְעַאי בְּרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אִלְעַאי אוֹמֵר: רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בָּאָרֶץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Nowadays the universally** accepted **practice is in accordance with** the lenient rulings of **these three elders:** It is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Ilai with regard to the first sheared wool, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Ilai says:** The mitzva of **the first sheared wool applies only in Eretz** Yisrael.


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

וּכְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָה בְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה מְקַבְּלִין טוּמְאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the accepted practice is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira with regard to matters of Torah, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: Matters of Torah are not susceptible to ritual impurity.** Therefore, it is permitted for one who experienced a seminal emission to engage in Torah study even without first immersing in a ritual bath.


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

וּכְרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה בְּכִלְאַיִם, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם אֵין חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיִּזְרַע חִטָּה וּשְׂעוֹרָה וְחַרְצָן בְּמַפּוֹלֶת יָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** lastly, the accepted practice is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoshiya with regard to diverse kinds, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yoshiya says: One** who sows diverse kinds **is never liable** by Torah law **until he sows wheat and barley and** a grape **pit with a single hand motion,** i.e., by sowing in the vineyard he violates the prohibitions of diverse kinds that apply to seeds and to the vineyard simultaneously.


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

חוֹמֶר בִּזְרוֹעַ [וְכוּ׳]. וְלִיתְנֵי חוֹמֶר בְּרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, שֶׁנּוֹהֵג בִּטְרֵפוֹת, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּמַתָּנוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states: There are more **stringent** elements **in** the mitzva of **the foreleg,** the jaw, and the maw than in the mitzva of the first sheared wool. The mishna then proceeds to list a number of these stringent elements. The Gemara objects: **But let** the mishna **teach** that there is a more **stringent** element **in** the mitzva of **the first sheared wool, as** it **is in effect with regard to animals with a wound that will cause them to die within twelve months [*tereifot*],** but that **is not so with regard to the gifts** of the priesthood, i.e., the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, which are not given to the priest from a *tereifa*. This is because the Torah states: “He shall give to the priest the foreleg, and the jaw, and the maw” (Deuteronomy 18:3), whereas in the case of a *tereifa* the gifts are effectively not given to the priest himself but to his dog, as it is prohibited for the priest to eat them.


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

אָמַר רָבִינָא: הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר אֶת הַטְּרֵפוֹת מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? יָלֵיף ״נְתִינָה״ ״נְתִינָה״ מִמַּתָּנוֹת – מָה מַתָּנוֹת, טְרֵפָה – לָא, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז נָמֵי, טְרֵפָה – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said:** In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** mishna? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Shimon deems *tereifot* exempt from** the mitzva of **the first sheared wool. What is the reason for** the ruling of **Rabbi Shimon?** The reason is that he **derives** a verbal analogy between the term **giving** mentioned with regard to the first sheared wool and **giving from the gifts** of the priesthood. The Torah states: “Shall you give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4), with regard to the first sheared wool, and it states: “He shall give,” with regard to the gifts of the priesthood. **Just as** with regard to the **gifts** of the priesthood, one is **not** obligated to give them from **a *tereifa*** animal, **so too,** with regard to **the first sheared wool,** one is **not** obligated to give them from **a *tereifa*.**


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

וְאִי יָלֵיף נְתִינָה נְתִינָה מִמַּתָּנוֹת, לֵילַף נְתִינָה נְתִינָה מִתְּרוּמָה, מָה תְּרוּמָה: בָּאָרֶץ – אִין, בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – לָא, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז נָמֵי: בָּאָרֶץ – אִין, בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – לָא. אַלְּמָה תְּנַן: רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז נוֹהֵג בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If** Rabbi Shimon **derives** a verbal analogy between **giving** mentioned with regard to the first sheared wool and **giving from the gifts** of the priesthood, let him also **derive** a verbal analogy between **giving** mentioned with regard to the first sheared wool and **giving from *teruma*.** The Torah states: “The first fruits of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the first sheared wool of your flock shall you give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4). **Just as** with regard to ***teruma*,** produce grown **in Eretz** Yisrael, **yes,** it is obligated, whereas produce grown **outside of Eretz** Yisrael is **not** obligated, **so too** with regard to the mitzva of **the first sheared wool: In Eretz** Yisrael, **yes,** it applies, whereas **outside of Eretz** Yisrael it does **not** apply. **Why,** then, **did we learn** in the mishna that the mitzva of **the first sheared wool applies** both **in Eretz** Yisrael **and outside of Eretz** Yisrael?


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

אֶלָּא, הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּיָלֵיף ״צֹאן״ ״צֹאן״ מִמַּעֲשֵׂר – מָה מַעֲשֵׂר, טְרֵפָה – לָא, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז, טְרֵפָה – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Rather, this is** the **reason for** the ruling of **Rabbi Shimon, as he derives** a verbal analogy between the term **“flock [*tzon*]”** mentioned with regard to the first sheared wool and the term **“flock [*tzon*]” from** the animal **tithe.** With regard to the first sheared wool, the verse states: “And the first sheared wool of your flock [*tzonekha*], shall you give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4), and with regard to the animal tithe it states: “And all the tithe of the herd or the flock [*tzon*], whichever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32). **Just as** with regard to the **tithe,** one is **not** obligated in the case of an animal that is **a *tereifa*, so too,** with regard to **the first sheared wool,** one is **not** obligated in the case of **a *tereifa*.**


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

וְהָתָם מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב ״כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבֹר תַּחַת הַשָּׁבֶט״ – פְּרָט לִטְרֵפָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ עוֹבֶרֶת. וְלֵילַף ״צֹאן״ ״צֹאן״ מִבְּכוֹר – מָה בְּכוֹר אֲפִילּוּ טְרֵפָה, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז אֲפִילּוּ טְרֵפָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And there,** with regard to the animal tithe, **from where do we** derive that it does not apply to a *tereifa*? The Gemara answers **that it is written: “Whichever passes under the rod,”** which **excludes a *tereifa*, which is not** able to **pass** under the rod due to its physical state. The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But let** Rabbi Shimon **derive** a verbal analogy between the term **“flock [*tzon*]”** mentioned in this context and the term **“flock [*tzon*]” from** the mitzva to consecrate the male **firstborn** animal. In that context, the Torah states: “All the firstborn males that are born of your herd and of your flock [*tzonekha*] you shall sanctify to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 15:19). **Just as** with regard to the consecration of the **firstborn even a *tereifa*** is consecrated, **so too,** with regard to **the first sheared wool** the obligation applies **even** in the case of **a *tereifa*.**


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

מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִמַּעֲשֵׂר הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף, שֶׁכֵּן זְכָרִים טְמֵאִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It **is reasonable** that Rabbi Shimon **should derive** the *halakha* of the first sheared wool **from** the *halakha* of animal **tithe** rather than from the mitzva of the firstborn, **as** there are many *halakhot* that are common to both the first sheared wool and the animal tithe. The Gemara enumerates these *halakhot*: First, the first sheared wool and the animal tithe apply to both **male** and female animals, while the mitzva of the firstborn applies only to males. Furthermore, the first sheared wool and the animal tithe do not apply to **non-kosher** animals, whereas the sanctity of the firstborn also applies to donkeys, which are not kosher.


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

בִּמְרוּבִּין, מֵרֶחֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In addition, these two mitzvot both apply only in a case **of numerous** animals: The first sheared wool applies only if one shears no fewer than five sheep, and one must own at least ten animals to set aside the animal tithe, whereas the sanctity of the firstborn applies to a single animal. Another common feature is that unlike the firstborn, the first sheared wool and the animal tithe are not sanctified **from the womb,** but only once they are designated.


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

אָדָם, פָּשׁוּט, לִפְנֵי הַדִּבּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Moreover, both the first sheared wool and the animal tithe apply only to animals, whereas the sanctity of the firstborn also applies to a firstborn son in the case of **a man.** Likewise, these two mitzvot apply not only to firstborn animals but also to **ordinary** non-firstborn animals, unlike the sanctity of the firstborn. Finally, the first sheared wool and the animal tithe did not apply **before the** divine **word** was issued at the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai, whereas the sanctity of the firstborn already applied while the Jews were still in Egypt.


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

אַדְּרַבָּה, מִבְּכוֹר הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף, שֶׁכֵּן: יָתוֹם, שֶׁלָּקְחוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **On the contrary,** Rabbi Shimon **should derive** the *halakha* of the first sheared wool **from** the sanctity of the **firstborn** rather than from the animal tithe, **as** there are many *halakhot* common to the first sheared wool and the firstborn animal. The Gemara again enumerates the *halakhot* in common: Both apply to **an orphan** animal, i.e., one whose mother died before its birth, whereas the animal tithe does not apply to an animal of this kind. Furthermore, both mitzvot are in effect in the case of an animal **that one purchased,** whereas the animal tithe does not apply to a purchased animal.


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

בְּשׁוּתָּפוּת, נָתְנוּ; בִּפְנֵי כֹּהֵן,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In addition, both the mitzva of the first sheared wool and the mitzva of the firstborn animal apply to an animal owned **in partnership,** unlike the animal tithe. Both apply as well to an animal that one **gave** another as a gift, whereas the animal tithe does not apply in the case of a gift. Likewise, both apply even when not **in the presence of** the Temple, whereas the animal tithe is in effect only when the Temple is standing. Moreover, both the first sheared wool and the firstborn are given to **a priest,** whereas the animal tithe is eaten by the owner.