דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעַאי;

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.

אִי מַה תְּרוּמָה – מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ, לֹא. אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז – מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ, לֹא!

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

אֶלָּא – עֵצָה טוֹבָה קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן, דְּלֵיתִיב לֵיהּ מֵהַאי דְּרַכִּיךְ וּמֵהַאי דְּאַשְׁוַן. הָכָא נַמִי: עֵצָה טוֹבָה קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן, דְּלֵיתִיב לְהוּ מִתַּרְוַיְיהוּ!

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.

הָא אוֹקִימְנָא לְמַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעַאי.

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.

אִי מַה תְּרוּמָה – בָּעֵינַן רֵאשִׁית שֶׁשְּׁיָרֶיהָ נִיכָּרִין, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז – שֶׁשְּׁיָרֶיהָ נִיכָּרִין! אִין,

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.

וְהָתְנַן: הָאוֹמֵר ״כָּל גָּרְנִי תְּרוּמָה, וְכָל עִיסָּתִי חַלָּה״ – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. הָא ״כָּל גְּזָיַי רֵאשִׁית״ – דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין. וְתַנְיָא אִידָךְ: לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם!

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.

אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ: הָא – רַבִּי אֶלְעַאי, וְהָא – רַבָּנַן, שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ.

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.

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

§ 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.

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

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.

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

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.

״חוֹמֶר בִּזְרוֹעַ״ [וכו׳]. וְלִיתְנֵי חוֹמֶר בְּרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז שֶׁנּוֹהֵג בִּטְרֵפוֹת, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בַּמַּתָּנוֹת!

§ 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.

אֲמַר רָבִינָא: הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר אֶת הַטְּרֵפוֹת מֵרֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז. מַאי טַעֲמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? יָלֵיף ״נְתִינָה״ ״נְתִינָה״ מִמַּתָּנוֹת, מַה מַּתָּנוֹת – טְרֵפָה לֹא, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז נַמִי – טְרֵפָה לֹא.

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 .

וְאִי יָלֵיף ״נְתִינָה״ ״נְתִינָה״ מִמַּתָּנוֹת, לֵילַף ״נְתִינָה״ ״נְתִינָה״ מִתְּרוּמָה, מַה תְּרוּמָה – בָּאָרֶץ אִין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ לָא, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז – נַמִי בָּאָרֶץ אִין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ לָא, אַלָּמָּה תְּנַן: רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז נוֹהֵג בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ?

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?

אֶלָּא, הַיְינוּ טַעֲמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: דְּיָלֵיף ״צֹאן״ ״צֹאן״ מִמַּעֲשֵׂר, מַה מַּעֲשֵׂר – טְרֵפָה לָא, אַף רֵאשִׁית הַגֵּז – טְרֵפָה לָא.

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 .

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

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 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 .

מִסְתַּבְּרָא, מִמַּעֲשֵׂר הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף, שֶׁכֵּן: זְכָרִים, טְמֵאִין,

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.

בִּמְרוּבִּין, מֵרֶחֶם,

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.

אָדָם, פָּשׁוּט, לִפְנֵי הַדִּבּוּר.

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.

אַדְּרַבָּה, מִבְּכוֹר הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף, שֶׁכֵּן: יָתוֹם, שֶׁלְּקָחוֹ,

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.

בְּשׁוּתָּפוּת, נְתָנוֹ, בִּפְנֵי, כֹּהֵן,

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.