Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) "REISHIS HA'GEZ" DOES NOT APPLY TO "KODSHIM"

(a) (Mishnah): Reishis ha'Gez (first shearings) applies in Eretz Yisrael and in Chutz la'Aretz, whether or not the Mikdash stands; it applies to Chulin, not to Kodshim.
(b) There is a stringency of Matanos over Reishis ha'Gez - Matanos apply to cattle and flock, to a large or small number of animals, whereas Reishis ha'Gez applies only to sheep, and to a large quantity:

1. Beis Shamai say, one who shears two sheep must give - "u'Shtei Tzon";
2. Beis Hillel say, one who shears five sheep must give - "v'Chamesh Tzon Asuyos";
3. R. Dosa ben Hurkanus says, he must give only if the five sheep yield the weight of two (Rashi - one) and a half Manos.
4. Chachamim say, he is liable for any amount (of wool).

(c) One must give to the Kohen shearings that will weigh five Sela'im of Yehudah (which equals ten Sela'im in Galil) after they are cleaned, in order that the Kohen can make a small garment;

1. "Titen Lo" - it must be a fitting gift.

(d) If he dyed the wool before giving it, he is exempt; if he merely cleaned it, he must give it (this is not considered a change).
(e) If one buys wool (Rashi - atta
(f) If Shimon buys wool attached to Reuven's sheep:

1. If Reuven kept some for himself, he is liable; if not, Shimon is liable. 2. If Reuven had two kinds of sheep, some dark and some white, and he sold only wool of/on the dark ones, or if he sold only wool of/on the males, not of the females, Reuven and Shimon both give.

(g) (Gemara) Question: Why doesn't Reishis ha'Gez apply to Kodshim?
(h) Answer: "Tzoncha" - not Hekdesh's flock. (i) Inference: If not for this verse, we would obligate Hekdesh;
(j) Question: It is forbidden to shear them - "v'Lo Sagoz Bechor Tzoncha"!
(k) Answer: That applies only to Korbanos; the verse exempts flock of Bedek ha'Bayis.
(l) Question: But R. Elazar taught, it is forbidden to shear or work with Kodshim of Bedek ha'Bayis!
(m) Answer: That is only mid'Rabanan;

1. One might have thought, since mid'Oraisa one may shear them, if he does, he must give a Kohen (- the verse teaches this is not so).

(n) Question: The wool is Hekdesh, he could not give it to a Kohen!
(o) Answer #1: He could redeem it and then give it.
(p) Question: This is according to the opinion that does not require Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah (to stand up the animal for evaluation before redemption) for Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis;

1. According to the opinion that requires Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah, how can we answer?

(q) Answer #2 (Rav Mani bar Patish): The case is, the owner was Makdish his animal to Bedek ha'Bayis, excluding its shearings;

1. One might have thought that Reishis ha'Gez applies to such sheep - the verse exempts.
2. Question: The same applies if he made his animal a Korban, excluding its shearings!
3. Answer: No, it would be forbidden to shear it, for this weakens it.
4. Question: The same applies to Bedek ha'Bayis - why may he shear it?!
5. Answer: The case is, the owner was Makdish his animal to Bedek ha'Bayis, excluding its shearings and the weakness resulting from shearing (i.e. he stipulated that he may shear it, even though this weakens it).
6. Question: The same applies if he made his animal a Korban, excluding its shearings and the resulting weakness!
7. Answer: In a Korban, the Kedushah spreads, the animal becomes fully Kodesh.
8. Question: What is the source of this?
9. Answer (Mishnah - R. Yosi): Regarding Korbanos, if one says "The leg of this animal is an Olah," the entire animal is an Olah.

i. Even R. Meir argues (and says that only the leg is Kadosh) only when he was Makdish a non-vital limb, but if he was Makdish a limb vital to life, all agree that the entire animal is Kadosh!

(r) Answer #3 (Rava): The case is, the owner was Makdish only the shearings of his animal to Bedek ha'Bayis;

1. One might have thought, when he shears such sheep, he must redeem some of the wool and give it to a Kohen;
2. "Gez Tzoncha Titen Lo" - the Torah only commands when you can give immediately after shearing, not when you must redeem it in between.

(a) Question: What does Rava learn from "Tzon*cha*"?
(b) Answer (Beraisa): Reishis ha'Gez applies to sheep of partners; R. Ila'i exempts.

1. Question: What is R. Ila'i's reason?
2. Answer #1: "Tzoncha" excludes sheep of partners.
3. Chachamim say, this exempts [only] partnership with a Nochri.
4. Question: What is R. Ila'i's source to exempt partnership with a Nochri?
5. Answer: The Reisha of the verse excludes this - "Reishis Degan*cha*," not a partnership with a Nochri.
6. (Implied question: Why don't Chachamim learn like R. Ila'i?)
7. Answer #1: They do not learn from there, because "Reishis" (written before "Gez") interrupts.

i. R. Ila'i learns from there, because the "Vav" ("*v*'Reishis") joins them.

ii. Question (against R. Ila'i): The Torah should not interrupt, it would not need to join them!
iii. Anwer: The Torah interrupted because they are different - Terumah (Reishis Degancha) has Kedushah, Reishis ha'Gez does not.

8. Answer #2: Chachamim do not learn like R. Ila'i, because they obligate taking Terumah from produce owned jointly with a Nochri.

i. (Beraisa - Rebbi): If a Yisrael and Nochri are partners in a field, all the produce is a mixture of Chulin (produce exempt from Terumah and Ma'aseros) and Tevel.
ii. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, the Yisrael's share of the produce is Tevel, the Nochri's share is Chulin.
iii. These Tana'im only argue whether or not we may rely on Bereirah (to say that the produce each partner takes really was his share), but all obligate produce owned jointly with a Nochri.

(c) Answer #2: R. Ila'i excludes any partnership, with a Yisrael or with a Nochri, from "Tzoncha."

1. Partnership with a Nochri is excluded because it is not exclusively "Tzon*cha* (your flock)" - similarly, partnership with a Yisrael is not exclusively "Tzoncha (yours, i.e. singular)"!
2. Chachamim exclude only partnership with a Nochri, for he is exempt from the Mitzvah. (They hold that "Tzoncha" applies also to jointly owned flock.)

(a) (Rava): In the following cases, one might have thought that R. Ila'i exempts partners (Yisraelim) - really, he admits that they are liable.
(b) One might have thought that partners [in a field] need not take Terumah, because it says "Degan*cha*" - not of partners;

1. "Terumoseichem" obligates partners.
2. Question: What do we learn from "Degancha"?
3. Answer: "Degancha" excludes partnership with a Nochri.

(c) One might have thought that partners [in a dough] need not take Chalah, because it is called Reishis, just like Reishis ha'Gez;

1. "Arisoseichem" obligates partners.
2. Question: Even without "Arisoseichem," why would we learn from Reishis ha'Gez to exempt, we should learn from Terumah to obligate! (When there are two ways to learn, we adopt the stringent way.)
3. Answer: Indeed, they are liable even without "Arisoseichem";

i. "Arisosechem" teaches that the quantity of flour that is liable is the daily allotment of Man in the Midbar (the volume of 43 and a fifth eggs).

(d) One might have thought that partners [in a field] need not leave Pe'ah, because it says "Sad*cha*" - not of partners;

1. "uv'Kutzrechem" obligates partners.
2. Question: What do we learn from "Sadcha"?
3. Answer: It excludes partnership with a Nochri.

(e) One might have thought that the Bechor of a jointly owned mother has no Kedushah, because it says "bi'Vekar*cha* uv'Tzon*cha*" - not of partners;

1. "u'Vechoros Bekarchem v'Tzonchem" teaches that it is Kodesh.
2. Question: What do we learn from "bi'Vekarcha uv'Tzoncha"?
3. Answer: It excludes partnership with a Nochri.

(f) One might have thought that partners [in a house] need not affix a Mezuzah, because it says "Beise*cha*" - not of partners;

1. "Lema'an Yirbu Yemeichem" teaches that partners are liable.
2. Question: What do we learn from "Beisecha"?
3. Answer (Rava): "Beisecha" teaches that a Mezuzah is placed on the right doorpost ("Bi'asecha," the way one enters a house, right foot first).