Chullin 269

מתני׳ <big><strong>ראשית</strong></big> הגז נוהג בארץ ובחו"ל בפני הבית ושלא בפני הבית בחולין אבל לא במוקדשים

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>THE LAW OF THE FIRST OF THE FLEECE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVIII, 4: And the first of the fleece of thy sheep shalt thou give him.');">¹</span>

חומר בזרוע ולחיים ובקבה מראשית הגז

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 ANIMALS BUT NOT CONSECRATED ANIMALS.

שהזרוע והלחיים והקבה נוהגין בבקר ובצאן במרובה ובמועט וראשית הגז אינו נוהג אלא ברחלות ואינו נוהג אלא במרובה

THE LAW OF THE SHOULDER AND THE TWO CHEEKS AND THE MAW IS OF WIDER APPLICATION THAN THE LAW OF THE FIRST OF THE FLEECE; FOR THE LAW OF THE SHOULDER AND THE TWO CHEEKS AND THE MAW APPLIES BOTH TO HERDS AND FLOCKS, WHETHER THEY ARE MANY OR FEW,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if one slaughters a single beast. itm');">²</span>

וכמה הוא מרובה

WHEREAS THE LAW OF THE FIRST OF THE FLEECE APPLIES ONLY TO SHEEP, AND ONLY WHEN THERE ARE MANY.

ב"ש אומרים

WHAT IS MEANT BY 'MANY'?

שתי רחלות שנאמר (ישעיהו ז, כא) יחיה איש עגלת בקר ושתי צאן

BETH SHAMMAI SAY, [AT LEAST] TWO SHEEP, AS IT IS SAID, A MAN SHALL REAR A YOUNG COW AND TWO SHEEP.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Isa. VII, 21. The term 'flock' stated in connection with the law of the first of the fleece is in this verse used of two sheep. ,uhuag vag');">³</span>

וב"ה אומרים

BETH HILLEL SAY, FIVE, AS IT IS SAID, FIVE SHEEP READY DRESSED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I Sam. XXV, 18. The expression 'ready dressed', is interpreted to mean that the commandment () of the first of the fleece had been fulfilled in respect of them.');">⁴</span>

[חמש שנאמר (שמואל א כה, יח) חמש צאן עשויות

R'DOSA B. HARKINAS SAYS, FIVE SHEEP, WHICH PRODUCE EACH [A FLEECE OF THE WEIGHT OF] A MANEH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">⁵</span>

רבי דוסא בן הרכינס אומר

AND A HALF, ARE SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF THE FIRST OF THE FLEECE.

חמש רחלות גוזזות מנה מנה ופרס חייבות בראשית הגז

BUT THE SAGES SAY, FIVE SHEEP, WHATEVER THEIR FLEECES WEIGH.

וחכ"א

AND HOW MUCH SHOULD ONE GIVE HIM?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. to the priest. V. Gemara 137b.');">⁶</span>

חמש רחלות גוזזות כל שהן

THE WEIGHT OF FIVE SELA'S IN JUDAH, WHICH IS EQUAL TO TEN SELA'S IN GALILEE, OF BLEACHED WOOL BUT NOT DIRTY WOOL, SUFFICIENT TO MAKE FROM IT A SMALL GARMENT, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, THOU SHALT GIVE HIM,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVIII, 4.');">⁷</span>

וכמה נותנין לו משקל חמש סלעים ביהודה שהן עשר סלעים בגליל מלובן ולא צואי כדי לעשות ממנו בגד קטן שנאמר (דברים יח, ד) תתן לו שיהא בו כדי מתנה

THAT IS, THERE SHALL BE ENOUGH WORTHY TO BE CALLED 'A GIFT'.

לא הספיק ליתנו לו עד שצבעו פטור

IF THE OWNER DID NOT MANAGE TO GIVE [THE FLEECE TO THE PRIEST] UNTIL IT HAD ALREADY BEEN DYED, HE IS EXEMPT;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he has acquired absolute ownership of the wool by the change he had wrought in it. This is regarded as an act of theft and he is exempt from giving it now to the priest, in accordance with R. Hisda's dictum supra 130b.');">⁸</span>

לבנו ולא צבעו חייב

IF HE ONLY BLEACHED IT BUT DID NOT DYE IT, HE IS STILL LIABLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mere bleaching, unlike dyeing, does not constitute a change whereby one can acquire the ownership of an article.');">⁹</span>

הלוקח גז צאנו של עובד כוכבים פטור מראשית הגז

IF A MAN BOUGHT THE FLEECES OF A FLOCK BELONGING TO A GENTILE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though the wool was not shorn from the animal, but the Israelite sheared it.');">¹⁰</span>

הלוקח גז צאנו של חבירו אם שייר המוכר חייב לא שייר הלוקח חייב

HE IS EXEMPT FROM THE LAW OF THE FIRST OF THE FLEECE.

היו לו שני מינים שחופות ולבנות מכר לו שחופות אבל לא לבנות זכרים אבל לא נקבות זה נותן לעצמו וזה נותן לעצמו:

IF A MAN BOUGHT THE FLEECES OF A FLOCK BELONGING TO HIS NEIGHBOUR AND THE SELLER KEPT BACK SOME FOR HIMSELF, THE SELLER IS LIABLE, BUT IF HE KEPT NAUGHT BACK, THE BUYER IS LIABLE.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> במוקדשין מאי טעמא לא

IF HE HAD TWO KINDS OF WOOL, GREY AND WHITE, AND HE SOLD THE GREY BUT NOT THE WHITE, OR [IF HE SOLD THE WOOL] OF THE MALES BUT NOT OF THE FEMALES, EACH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both the seller and the purchaser must give to the priest the first of the fleece. V. however Gemara, 136b.');">¹¹</span>

אמר קרא

MUST GIVE [THE FIRST OF THE FLEECE] FOR HIMSELF.

(דברים יח, ד) צאנך ולא צאן הקדש

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Why does not [the law of the first of the fleece] apply to consecrated animals? - Because Scripture says, of thy sheep,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVIII, 4.');">⁷</span>

טעמא דכתב רחמנא צאנך הא לאו הכי הוה אמינא קדשים חייבים בראשית הגז

but not of the sheep of the Sanctuary.

הא לאו בני גיזה נינהו דכתיב

Now this is so because Scripture stated: 'Of thy sheep', but without this [Scriptural indication] I should have said that consecrated animals are subject to the law of the first of the fleece; but surely they may not be shorn, for it is written: Thou shalt n shear the firstling of thy flock!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XV, 19.');">¹²</span>

(דברים טו, יט) ולא תגוז בכור צאנך

- In respect of animals consecrated for the altar this is indeed so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And no verse is necessary to exclude consecrated animals fit for a sacrifice from the law of the first of the fleece.');">¹³</span>

אי בקדשי מזבח הכי נמי הכא במאי עסקינן בקדשי בדק הבית

but we were referring to animals consecrated to the Temple treasury.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These consecrated animals may be shorn, and therefore a scriptural indication must be resorted to in order to exclude them from the law of the first of the fleece.');">¹⁴</span>

והאמר ר"א

But has not R'Eleazar said that animals consecrated to the Temple treasury are forbidden to be shorn and to be used for work? - [This is forbidden] by Rabbinic decree only.

קדשי בדק הבית אסורים בגיזה ועבודה

Now I might have thought that, since by law of the Torah they may be shorn, where a man did shear them he should give [the priest the first of the fleece; Scripture therefore teaches that they are not subject to the law].

מדרבנן

But it is consecrated, is it not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fleece belongs to the Temple treasury, how then can it be suggested that it be given to the priest? ,hatr');">¹⁵</span>

סלקא דעתך אמינא

- I might think that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Probably the original owner who consecrated the beast, but v. Tosaf. s.v. .');">¹⁶</span>

הואיל ומדאורייתא בני גיזה נינהו היכא דגזז ליה ליתיב ליה

must redeem it and give it to the priest.

והא קדיש לה

But surely it has to stand up to be appraised?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Every consecrated living animal and everything attached to it, when it is about to be redeemed must be able to stand up before the priest to be valued, in accordance with Lev. XXVII, 11, 12.');">¹⁷</span>

סד"א

This is well according to him who says that animals consecrated to the Temple treasury are not subject to the law of 'standing up to be appraised', but what can you say according to him who says that they are subject to this law? - R'Mani B'Pattish suggested in the name of R'Jannai: We are referring here to the case of a man who consecrated to the Temple treasury his animal apart from its fleece.

לפרוק וליתיב ליה

Now I might have thought that he should shear it and give [the portion] to the priest.

והא בעי העמדה והערכה

Scripture therefore states: 'Of thy sheep' but not of the sheep of the Sanctuary.

הניחא למאן דאמר קדשי בדק הבית לא היו בכלל העמדה והערכה

I that case it can also refer to an animal consecrated to the altar!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since the animal only was consecrated and not the fleece, it is permitted to use the fleece, hence it is necessary for Scripture to teach that it need not be given to the priest.');">¹⁸</span>

אלא למ"ד היו מאי איכא למימר

- It would thereby become weak.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., by the shearing: it is therefore forbidden to shear the wool of a consecrated animal, even though the wool was not consecrated.');">¹⁹</span>

אמר ר' מני בר פטיש משום ר' ינאי

Then the animal consecrated to the Temple treasury would also become weak thereby? - [We must assume that] he said: '[I consecrate the animal] except for its fleece and the debility [resulting from the shearing of the fleece'].

הכא במקדיש בהמתו לבדק הבית חוץ מגיזותיה

Then even with regard to an animal consecrated to the altar, [we can assume that] he said: '[I consecrate the animal] except for its fleece and the debility [resulting from the shearing thereof']! - Even so the sanctity extends over the whole [animal].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that in the case of an animal consecrated to the altar the exception of the fleece cannot be regarded as a reservation and the whole animal is deemed to be consecrated; whereas in the case of an animal consecrated to the Temple treasury whatsoever is excepted will not be deemed to be consecrated.');">²⁰</span>

סד"א

Whence do you gather this? - Because [we have learnt:] R'Jose said: Is it not the case that, in connection with animal offerings, if one said: 'Let the foot of this anim a burnt-offering', the whole animal is consecrated as a burnt-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Tem. 10a, and supra 69b. R. Jose puts forward this argument to prove that where the foot of an animal was designated as a substitute for an already consecrated animal, the whole animal thereby becomes consecrated.');">²¹</span>

ליגזוז וליתיב ליה אמר קרא צאנך ולא צאן של הקדש

And even according to R'Meir who declares that the whole animal does not thereby become [consecrated as] a burnt-offering, that is so only where one consecrated a limb whereon the life [of the animal] does not depend, but if one consecrated a limb whereon the life [of the animal] depends, [he agrees that] the whole animal becomes consecrated.

אי הכי קדשי מזבח נמי

Raba said, [Our Mishnah refers to the case] where a man consecrated the fleece only; now I might have said that he must shear it, redeem it, and give it to the priest.

כחשי

Scripture therefore states The fleece of thy sheep shalt thou give him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVIII, 4.');">²²</span>

קדשי בדק הבית נמי כחשי

this applies only to that which lacks shearing and giving but not to that which lacks shearing, redeeming and giving.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the fleece of consecrated animals is not subject. It must be observed that the rule of 'standing up to be appraised' does not come into tvu consideration here for it does not apply to an inanimate object consecrated to the Temple treasury. V. p. 771, n. 3, and Tosaf. s.v. .');">²³</span>

דאמר חוץ מגיזה וכחישה

And what does the expression 'Of thy sheep' come to teach us? - The following, which has been taught: An animal which is held jointly is subject to the law of the first of the fleece; R'Ila'i declares it exempt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression 'Of thy sheep' - meaning sheep belonging to a single individual - excludes, according to the view of the first Tanna (later referred to as 'the Rabbis') , sheep held jointly by an Israelite and a gentile, and according to R. Ila'i, even that which is held by two Israelites jointly.');">²⁴</span>

קדשי מזבח נמי דאמר חוץ מגיזה וכחישה

What is the reason for R'Ila'i's view? - Because Scripture states 'Of thy sheep', but not of that which is held jointly.

אפ"ה פשטה קדושה בכולה

And the Rabbis? - [They say that] it serves to exclude only that which is held jointly with a gentile.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But that which is held by two Israelites jointly is subject to the law of the first of the fleece, since each is individually subject to the law, and the people of Israel are often referred to as a single individual; cf. Mak. 23b.');">²⁵</span>

ומנא תימרא דאמר ר' יוסי

And whence does R'Ila'i know that that which is held jointly with a gentile [is exempt]? - He derives it from the beginning of the verse, which reads: The first of thy corn,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVIII, 4. The firstfruits of corn held jointly with a gentile is not subject to the offering of terumah; likewise it is reasonable to infer that sheep held jointly with a gentile are not subject to the law of the first of the fleece; consequently the later expression 'thy sheep' excludes that which is held jointly by Israelites.');">²⁶</span>

והלא במוקדשין האומר רגלה של זו עולה כולה עולה

but not that which is held jointly with a gentile.

ואפי' לר"מ דאמר אין כולה עולה הני מילי דאקדיש דבר שאין הנשמה תלויה בו אבל הקדיש דבר שהנשמה תלויה בו קדשה

And the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How do they meet this argument of R. Ila'i?');">²⁷</span>

רבא אמר

- The word 'first' [they say] interrupts the subject-matter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The verse reads: The first of thy corn . . and the first of the fleece of thy sheep shalt thou give him. The fact that Scripture repeats the word 'first' in regard to the fleece indicates that it is quite distinct from the foregoing, and no inference may be made therefrom.');">²⁸</span>

במקדיש גיזה עצמה סד"א

And R'Ila'i? - 'And' [he says] connects this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Were the two laws entirely distinct, Scripture would not have introduced the second with the conjunction 'and'. It evidently signifies some connection and analogy between the two.');">²⁹</span>

ליגזוז וליפרוק וליתיב ליה אמר קרא (דברים יח, ד) גז צאנך תתן לו מי שאין מחוסר אלא גזיזה ונתינה יצא זה שמחוסר גזיזה פדייה ונתינה

[with the above Subject].

אלא צאנך למאי אתא

לכדתניא

בהמת השותפים חייב בראשית הגז ור' אלעאי פוטר

מ"ט דר' אלעאי אמר קרא צאנך ולא של שותפות

ורבנן למעוטי שותפות עובד כוכבים

ור' אלעאי שותפות עובד כוכבים מנא ליה

נפקא ליה מרישא דקרא (דברים יח, ד) ראשית דגנך ולא שותפות עובד כוכבים

ורבנן ראשית (הגז) הפסיק הענין ור' אלעאי וי"ו הדר ערביה