Chullin 271:1
יליף נתינה נתינה מראשית הגז מה להלן דשותפות לא אף כאן דשותפות לא כתב רחמנא (דברים יח, ג) מאת זובחי הזבח
As regards the priestly dues, although it is written: And he shall give,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XVIII, 3.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
אלא טעמא דכתב רחמנא מאת זובחי הזבח הא לאו הכי הוה אמינא
and by reason of the common expression 'giving'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Used here and also in connection with the first of the fleece: shalt thou give him (ibid. 4) .');"><sup>5</sup></span>
לילף מראשית הגז
one might draw an analogy 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: From them that slaughter a slaughtering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XVIII, 3. The plural in this verse indicates that though the animal is held jointly by several people it is still subject to the dues.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
אדרבה נילף מתרומה
Now this is so only because Scripture stated: From them that slaughter a slaughtering, but had it not stated it, I should have said that one should draw the analogy from the law of the first of the fleece; but on the contrary one should rather draw the analogy from terumah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By means of the common expression 'giving' which is also used in connection with terumah (cf. Num. XVIII, 12) , with the result that what is held jointly is subject to the dues. V. supra p. 775, n. 3.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
בכורים אע"ג דכתיב (דברים כו, ב) ארצך דידך אין דשותפות לא כתב רחמנא (במדבר יח, יג) בכורי כל אשר בארצך
[from which it would follow that] thine only is subject but not what is held jointly, the Divine Law stated: The first-ripe fruits of all that is in their land.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 13.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
אלא ארצך למה לי
What then is the significance of 'thy land'? - It excludes land that is outside the Land [of Israel].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the law of the firstfruits. This would not have been excluded from the expression 'their land', and therefore Scripture says: Thy land which implies the specific land of the Israelite, the Land of Israel.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
מעקה אע"ג דכתב רחמנא (דברים כב, ח) לגגך דידך אין דשותפות לא כתב רחמנא (דברים כב, ח) כי יפול הנופל ממנו
As regards the law of the parapet,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Deut. XXII, 8, where it enjoined to erect a parapet around the roof of the house to prevent accidental falling off.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
למעוטי בתי כנסיות ובתי מדרשות
[from which it would follow that] thine only is subject but not what is held jointly, the Divine Law stated: If any man fall from thence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. Any roof from which one might fall had to be fenced, even though the roof was held jointly.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
אמר רב ביבי בר אביי
What then is the significance of 'thy roof'? - It excludes the roofs of Synagogues and Houses of Study.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the verse implies the roof of a house used as a dwelling but not the roof of any other building.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
ליתנהו להני כללי דתניא
R'Bibi B'Abaye said: These cases<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These cases enumerated by Raba in which R. Ila'i is said to agree that what is jointly held is subject to the law in question are to be disregarded.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
בהמת השותפין חייבת בבכורה ור' אלעאי פוטרה
are all wrong,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since we find that R. Ila'i exempts what is jointly held from the law of the firstling, hence Raba's argument fails with regard to this; accordingly his arguments with regard to the others cannot be upheld.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
בהמת השותפין חייבת במתנות ור' אלעאי פוטר
What is his reason? - He draws an analogy by means of the common expression 'giving' from the law of the first of the fleece; just as there what is held jointly is exempt so here what is held jointly is exempt.
מאי טעמא יליף נתינה נתינה מראשית הגז מה להלן דשותפות לא אף כאן דשותפות לא
Now if you could say that in respect of terumah [what is jointly held] is liable, then surely one would have to draw the analogy by means of the common expression 'giving' from terumah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with the established principle quoted supra p. 775, n. 3.');"><sup>24</sup></span>
בתרומה נמי פוטר
But<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Here commences a new argument. Since R. Ila'i derives the law of the first of the fleece from terumah (cf. supra 135a, bot.) concerning what is held jointly with a gentile, the analogy must be carried to all its conclusions and the rules applying to the one should apply to the other. V. Rashi ht s.v. , and comments of Rashal, Maharsha and Maharam thereon. V. also Torath Hayyim a.l., and Gloss. of Bah.');"><sup>25</sup></span>
אי מה תרומה בארץ אין בחוצה לארץ לא אף מתנות בארץ אין בחוצה לארץ לא
just as terumah obtains in the Land [of Israel] only and not outside it so the law of the first of the fleece<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So in MS.M. and most MSS., and apparently also according to Rashi; in cur. edd. 'the priestly dues'. V. Maharam a.l.');"><sup>26</sup></span>
ראשית הגז אין נוהג אלא בארץ
What is R'Ila'i's reason? - Rab answered: He draws an analogy by means of the common expression 'giving' from terumah; as terumah obtains in the Land only and not outside it, so the law of the first of the fleece obtains in the Land only and not outside it.
א"ל
have no right to it except after it has [been separated as] the first.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But before the first of the fleece has been set apart no priest has any claim to it, and consequently the condition of tebel does not exist at all. This implication is made from the word 'first' which is redundant in the verse.');"><sup>31</sup></span>
אמר קרא (דברים יח, ד) וראשית גז צאנך תתן לו אין לך בו אלא מראשיתו ואילך
Again just as terumah is subject to the penalty of death<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a non-priest deliberately ate terumah, he is liable to the penalty of death at the hands of Heaven; v. Sanh. 83a.');"><sup>32</sup></span>
אי מה תרומה חייבים עליה מיתה וחומש אף ראשית הגז חייבים עליו מיתה וחומש
and the additional fifth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a non-priest inadvertently ate terumah, he must make restitution by paying the value thereof plus a fifth to the priest; cf. Lev. XXII, 14.');"><sup>33</sup></span>
אמר קרא
Again just as there follow after terumah the first and second [tithes] so there should follow after the firs the fleece the first and second [tithes], should there not? - Scripture says: 'The first', thus you have only [t give] the first [of the fleece].
ראשית אין לך בו אלא ראשית בלבד
Again just as in the case of terumah one must not set aside new [grain as terumah] for old<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The produce of one year may not be given as terumah or tithe for the produce of the preceding year, or vice versa, for it is written: That which is brought forth in the field year by year (Deut. XIV, 22) .');"><sup>36</sup></span>
אי מה תרומה מחדש על הישן לא אף ראשית הגז מחדש על הישן לא
so in the case of the first of the fleece one should not give new [fleece as the due] for old? - This is indeed so; for it has been taught: If a man had two lambs and he sheared them and kept [the wool], and [next year] again sheared them and kept [the wool], and so he did for two or three years, they are not to be reckoned together.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though he has now accumulated five fleeces; for there must be five fleeces from five sheep.');"><sup>37</sup></span>
והתניא
It is clear therefore that one [Baraitha] gives R'Ila'i's opinion<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The second Baraitha represents R. Ila'i's view that the fleece of one year's shearing cannot be reckoned together with that of another year's shearing, as is the case with the produce of terumah.');"><sup>39</sup></span>
אי מה תרומה גדל בחיוב חייב גדל בפטור פטור אף ראשית הגז נמי גדל בחיוב חייב בפטור פטור
[to terumah] is exempt [from it], so it should be with regard to the first of the fleece: what grows on [sheep in the possession of] one subject to this law is liable, but what grows on [sheep in the possession of] one not subject to this law is exempt? (
דתניא
which was taught: If an Israelite bought a field in Syria<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Biblical Aram Zobah which was conquered by David and added by him to the Land of Israel (II Sam. VIII) . It is not, however, regarded as the Land of Israel proper, and therefore what is owned there by a gentile constitutes full ownership so as to release it from the obligation of tithe. This is not the case with regard to land held by a gentile in the Land of Israel proper, v. Git. 47a.');"><sup>43</sup></span>
ישראל שלקח שדה בסוריא מעובד כוכבים עד שלא הביאה שליש חייב משהביאה שליש ר"ע מחייב בתוספת וחכמים פוטרין
from a gentile before the produce had reached a third of its growth, it is subject [to tithe]; if it had already reached a third of its growth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At which stage corn becomes liable to tithe, cf. Ma'as. I, 3.');"><sup>44</sup></span>
מתני'
And should you say that this is indeed so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That fleece which had grown on sheep while in the possession of a gentile, although now in the possession of an Israelite, is exempt from the first of the fleece.');"><sup>46</sup></span> but we have learnt: IF A MAN BOUGHT THE FLEECES OF A FLOCK BELONGING TO A GENTILE HE IS EXEMPT FROM THE LAW OF THE FIRST OF THE FLEECE, so it follows that if he bought the flock [with its fleece] which was ready for shearing he would be liable!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although the wool grew upon the sheep whilst they were in the possession of the gentile.');"><sup>47</sup></span> - Our Mishnah