Chullin 270

ורבנן לא נכתוב רחמנא לא וי"ו ולא ראשית

And the Rabbis? - [They say] the Divine Law then should have stated neither 'and' nor 'first'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If any analogy was to be inferred from the two laws, both these expressions then should have been omitted, viz., 'and' which implies connection with the preceding subject and 'first' which implies separateness.');">¹</span>

ורבי אלעאי איידי דהאי קדושת דמים והאי קדושת הגוף פסיק להו והדר ערבי להו

And R'Ila'i? - [He says] since the one has no sanctity whatsoever,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it is consecrated as to its value'. Not to be taken literally, since the first of the fleece has no sanctity whatsoever, whereas terumah is sacred and may be eaten by none but priests (Rashi) .');">²</span>

ואיבעית אימא

whereas the other is itself sacred, the two had to be [in the first place] stated separately and later connected.

שותפות עובד כוכבים בתרומה רבנן חיובי מחייבי

Alternatively, you may say, the Rabbis are of the opinion that what is held jointly with a gentile is subjec to terumah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., only the share held by the Israelite. Consequently the expression 'thy sheep' serves to exclude that which is held jointly with a gentile from the law of the first of the fleece, and the expression 'thy corn' serves to exclude that which belongs entirely to the gentile. V. Rashi s.v. tnht ,hgchtu');">³</span>

דתניא

For it has been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Ter. II; and Git. 47aff.');">⁴</span>

ישראל ועובד כוכבים שלקחו שדה בשותפות טבל וחולין מעורבים זה בזה דברי רבי

If an Israelite and a gentile bought a field jointly, tebel and hullin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tebel (lit., mixed) is produce which is subject to tithes but from which these have not been separated. Hullin (lit., common, unconsecrated) is produce that is free entirely from tithes, e.g., what is bought from a gentile.');">⁵</span>

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר

are inextricably mixed up in it:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even after they have divided between them the produce of the field, we do not assume that the share which each took eventually was intended for him from the beginning, so that the result would be that the Israelite's share is wholly tebel and the gentile's wholly hullin. This would mean the application of the principle of bererah i.e., retrospective designation. Rabbi does not accept this principle and maintains that each share, nay, each grain, is part tebel and part hullin; and the Israelite therefore must separate the tithe for his share from this very produce but not kcy from other produce, neither can this produce be set aside as tithe for other produce. V. Rashi s.v. vrhrc');">⁶</span>

של ישראל חייב ושל עובד כוכבים פטור

so Rabbi.

עד כאן לא פליגי אלא דמר סבר יש ברירה ומר סבר אין ברירה

Rabban Simeon B'Gamaliel says: The part belonging to the Israelite is subject to the tithe, and the part belonging to the gentile is exempt.

אבל שותפות דעובד כוכבים דברי הכל חייבת

Now the extent of their difference consists in this, that the one authority [R'Simeon] holds the principle of bererah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' , v. Glos, and also supra ');">⁷</span>

ואי בעית אימא

while the other does not hold the principle of bererah, but both are agreed that whatsoever is held jointly with a gentile is subject to tithe.

תרוייהו לר' אלעאי מצאנך נפקא שותפות דעובד כוכבים מאי טעמא דלא מייחדא ליה לישראל נמי לא מייחדא ליה

In the further alternative you may say that both rules<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That sheep held jointly with an Israelite as well as sheep held jointly with a gentile are exempt from the law of the first of the fleece.');">⁸</span>

ורבנן עובד כוכבים לאו בר חיובא הוא ישראל בר חיובא הוא

are derived, according to R'Ila'i, from the expression 'thy sheep'.

אמר רבא

For why is it that what is held jointly with a gentile is exempt [from the law of the first of the fleece]?

מודה רבי אלעאי בתרומה אע"ג דכתיב (דברים יח, ד) דגנך דידך אין דשותפות לא כתב רחמנא תרומותיכם

Because it is not solely his.

אלא דגנך למה לי

Then what is held jointly with another Israelite should also exempt,for it is not solely his.

למעוטי שותפות עובד כוכבים

And the Rabbis? - [They distinguish thus:] A gentile is not subject to this law, whereas an Israelite is.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is not necessary that the sheep shall belong wholly to one person, all that the law insists upon is that it shall belong to parties each subject to the law, sc. Israelites, for, after all, the people of Israel are often referred to as a single unit.');">⁹</span>

חלה אע"ג דכתיב ראשית ואיכא למימר

Raba said: R'Ila'i agrees as regards terumah;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That produce held jointly by Israelites is subject to terumah.');">¹⁰</span>

נילף ראשית ראשית מראשית הגז מה להלן דשותפות לא אף כאן דשותפות לא כתב רחמנא (במדבר טו, כא) עריסותיכם

for, although it is written; 'Thy corn' [from which it would appear that] thine only [is subject to terumah] and not what is held jointly, the Divine Law stated: Your heave-offerings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The use of the second person plural suffix in this and in all subsequent cases indicates that the matter may be held by several persons jointly. 'Your heave-offerings' is not found in the Torah at all, but only in Ezek. XX, 40 and XLIV, 30. Probably the text should read: Your heave-offering, as in Num. XVIII, 27.');">¹¹</span>

אלא טעמא דכתיב עריסותיכם הא לאו הכי הוה אמינא

What then is the significance of 'thy corn'? - It excludes what is held jointly with a gentile.

נילף ראשית ראשית מראשית הגז

As regards the dough-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XV, 20.');">¹²</span>

אדרבה נילף מתרומה

although there is written the word 'first',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XV, 20.');">¹²</span>

ה"נ אלא עריסותיכם למה לי

and one could draw an analogy by reason of the common word 'first'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Stated here in connection with the dough-offering, and also in connection with the first of the fleece; Deut. XVIII, 4.');">¹³</span>

כדי עריסותיכם

from the law of the first of the fleece: as there what is held jointly is exempt so here what is held jointly is exempt, the Divine Law stated: Your dough.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XV, 20.');">¹²</span>

פאה אע"ג דכתיב שדך דידך אין שותפות לא כתב רחמנא (ויקרא יט, ט) ובקצרכם את קציר ארצכם אלא שדך ל"ל

Now this is so only because Scripture stated: 'Your dough', but had it not stated it I should have said that we should draw an analogy by reason of the common word 'first' from the law of the first of the fleece, but on the contrary we would rather draw the analogy from the law of terumah!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the result that what is held jointly by Israelites is subject to the dough-offering, just as it is subject to terumah. For it is an established principle that where two analogies are possible, one leading to stringency and the other to leniency, we must adopt the former; v. Yeb. 8a, Kid. 68a, and A.Z. 46b.');">¹⁴</span>

למעוטי שותפות עובד כוכבים

- This is indeed so; what then is the significance of 'your dough? - That there must be as much as your dough.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be subject to the dough-offering there must be a minimum quantity of dough equal to a person's daily ration in the wilderness, viz., an 'omer per head (Ex. XVI, 16) , and an 'omer is the tenth part of an ephah (ibid. 36) . This is equivalent in mass to forty-three and one fifth eggs, for an ephah equals four hundred and thirty-two eggs. (One ephah = three se'ah2; one se'ah = six kabs; one kab = four logs; one log = six eggs.)');">¹⁵</span>

בכורה אע"ג דכתיב (דברים טו, יט) כל הבכור אשר יולד בבקרך ובצאנך דידך אין דשותפות לא כתב רחמנא (דברים יב, ו) ובכורות בקרכם וצאנכם אלא וצאנך למה לי

As regards the corner of the field, although it is written: Thy field<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 9.');">¹⁶</span>

למעוטי שותפות עובד כוכבים

[from which it would follow that] thine only is subject and not what is held jointly, the Divine Law stated: And when ye reap the harvest of your land.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 9.');">¹⁶</span>

מזוזה אף על גב דכתיב (דברים ו, ט) ביתך דידך אין שותפות לא כתב רחמנא (דברים יא, כא) למען ירבו ימיכם וימי בניכם ואלא ביתך למאי אתא

What then is the significance of 'thy field'? - It excludes what is held jointly with a gentile.

לכדרבה דאמר רבה

As regards the law of the firstling, although it is written: All the firstling males that are born of thy he and of thy flock,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XV, 19.');">¹⁷</span> [from which it would follow that] thine only is subject but not what is held jointly, the Divine Law stated: And the firstlings of your herd and of your flock.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XII, 6.');">¹⁸</span> What then is the significance of 'thy herd and thy flock'? - It excludes what is held jointly with a gentile. As regards the law of mezuzah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">¹⁹</span> although it is written: Thy house,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. VI, 9.');">²⁰</span> [from which it would follow that] thine only is subject but not what is held jointly, the Divine Law stated: That your days may be multiplied and the days of your children.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XI, 21.');">²¹</span> What then is the significance of 'thy house'? - It is as Rabbah stated. For Rabbah stated: