ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Chulin 135
****** Perek Reishis ha'Gez *****
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that Reishis ha'Gez applies in all
circumstances to sheep of Chulin but not of Kodshim, just as we learned
regarding Matanos. It makes not the least difference ...
1. ... whether the sheep is young or old, nor ...
(b) Besides the fact that Matanos pertain to cattle, sheep and goats,
whereas Reishis ha'Gez is confined to sheep - even one animal is subject to
Matanos, but not to Reishis ha'Gez (as we shall see shortly).
2. ... how many times per year one shears the sheep (the owner is Chayav to
give the Kohen Reishis ha'Gez each time).
(c) Even though the Torah writes "ve'Reishis Gez Tzoncha ... ", and 'Tzon'
generally incorporates goats, the Tana knows that Reishis ha'Gez is confined
to sheep - because cutting the goat's hair is not called 'Gizah', as we
shall see later in the Sugya.
(d) Beis Shamai learns from the Pasuk "Yechayeh Ish Eglas Bakar u'Sh'tei
Tzon" that two sheep are subject to Reishis ha'Gez. Beis Hillel - based on
the Pasuk in Shmuel "Chameish Tzon Asuyos" requires at least five.
(a) Rebbi Dosa ben Horkinas agrees with Beis Hillel. However, he also
requires - each sheep to produce at least a one and half Manah-weight of
wool in order to be Chayav. A P'ras is half a Manah.
(b) According to the Chachamim - a Kol she'Hein of wool will suffice (as
will be explained in the Sugya).
(c) And one gives the Kohen five Sela'im- weight of wool in Yehudah
completely bleached - which is equivalent to ten Sela in Galil ...
(d) ... enough to make a small garment).
(a) The Tana learns from the Pasuk "Titen Lo" - that one must give the Kohen
enough wool to derive benefit from.
(b) The Tana - exempts one from giving the Kohen wool which the owner
1. ... dyed - but not if it has only been ...
(c) And the Tana states that someone who purchased the wool (still attached)
2. ... bleached.
1. ... a Nochri - is Patur from Reishis ha'Gez.
(d) Should Reuven purchase all of Shimon's gray animals or all of his male
animal, and Shimon retain all the white ones or all the females - then each
one is Chayav to give Reishis ha'Gez from what he has.
2. ... a fellow-Yisrael - is Patur from Reishis ha'Gez as long as the owner
retains sufficient to be Chayav. If not, he (the purchaser) is Chayav.
(a) We learn from "ve'Reishis ha'Gez *Tzoncha*" - that the sheep of Hekdesh
are not subject to Reishis ha'Gez.
(b) And we reconcile this with ...
1. ... the Pasuk "ve'Lo Sagoz bi'Vechor Tzonecha" - by establishing
"Tzoncha" with regard to Hekdesh Bedek ha'Bayis.
(c) We nevertheless suggest giving the shearings of Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis
(regarding someone who transgressed the Isur de'Rabbanan) to the Kohen,
despite the fact that they are Kadosh - by establishing our Mishnah further
after the wool has been redeemed.
2. ... Rebbi Elazar, who declares that even shearing Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis
is prohibited - by establishing that as an Isur de'Rabbanan.
(d) The problem that still remains however, is - that redeeming Kodshim
requires the animal to stand on its feet and be assessed (see Tosfos DH
(a) Rebbi Mani bar Patish in the name of Rebbi Yanai therefore re-learns the
case, still in connection with Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis - to where the owner
declared the animal Hekdesh apart from the wool (dispensing with the problem
of having to redeem it).
(b) We could not however, establish the Din 've'Lo be'Mukdashin' even by
Kodshei Mizbe'ach - because shearing the wool weakens the animal, and is
(c) If we can establish the case by Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis where the owner
precludes both the shearings and the weakening of the animal on account of
the shearing from the Hekdesh, we cannot do so by Kodshei Mizbe'ach -
because of the principle of 'Hispashtus', meaning that the Kedushas ha'Guf
spreads to all parts of the animal (including the wool).
(a) The source for this is Rebbi Yossi, who holds that if someone is Makdish
the leg of an Olah, the Kedushah spreads to the entire animal. According to
Rebbi Meir - the leg alone has the Kedushah of an Olah.
(b) It will not help however, to establish our Mishnah (a S'tam Mishnah) by
Kodshei Mizbe'ach, according to Rebbi Meir - who concedes that once one
declares a part of the animal on which its life depends, Hekdesh, it spreads
to the entire animal.
(c) Rava establishes 'Aval Lo be'Mukdashin' by someone who is Makdish the
wool, and the owner is Patur from Reishis ha'Gez - because the Pasuk writes
"Gez Tzoncha Titen Lo", (the wool only needs to be shorn, but not redeemed
(a) According to Rava, "Tzoncha" comes to teach us the Din of Rebbi Ilai,
who exempts a sheep belonging to Shutfim from Reishis ha'Gez. The Rabbanan
learn from "Tzoncha" - that the Shutfus of a Nochri exempts the owner from
(b) They do not also exempt the Shutfus of a Yisrael - because "Tzoncha"
pertains to each of the two owners.
(c) Rebbi Ilai learns Shutfus of a Nochri from the Reisha "Reishis
Degancha". The Rabbanan disagree with him ...
1. ... in this point - because the Torah interrupts with a second "Reishis".
(d) Rebbi Ilai, on the other hand, maintains that it is necessary for the
Torah to repeat "Reishis" - because the Reisha is speaking about Kedushas
ha'Guf, and the Seifa, about Kedushas Damim, in which case it then needs to
add a 'Vav'.
2. ... when he counters that the 'Vav' in "ve'Reishis Gez Tzoncha" combines
them - because, in that case, the Torah should not have written the second
"Reishis" and it would not have needed to add the 'Vav'.
(a) According to the second Lashon, the Rabbanan do not exempt Shutfus
Nochri from Terumah. In that case - we cannot learn Reishis ha'Gez from
Terumah, and it is obvious that "Tzoncha" comes to exempt Shutfus Nochri
from Matanos. They no longer need to explain why they do not learn the
second Reishis from the first one.
(b) They cannot Darshen likewise from "Degancha" to exempt Shutfus Nochri
from Terumah - because whereas the Nochri is a partner in every animal, this
is not the case by corn, where he has a right in half the grains, and the
Yisrael, in the other half. Consequently, it is as if the corn has already
been divided in two, and there is no reason for the half that belongs to the
Yisrael to be Patur (see Maharsha [see also what we wrote in 10c]).
(c) They therefore Darshen from "Degancha"; either ''Degancha'', 've'Lo
Digun Akum', or "Degancha", 've'Lo Degan Akum'. By ...
1. ... ''Degancha'', 've'Lo Digun Akum' they mean - that if a Nochri
performs Miru'ach [flattening the heap of corn, the act that effects the
Chiyuv Ma'aser], then a Yisrael who subsequently purchases the corn, is
Patur from Ma'asering, even assuming that the corn is owned by a Yisrael.
2. ... 've'Lo Dagan Akum' they mean - that the crops of a Nochri are Patur.
This is synonymous with saying that a Nochri can acquire land in Eretz
Yisrael to exempt it from Ma'asros.
(a) The Rabbanan's opinion in the second Lashon is based on a Beraisa, which
discusses a case where a Yisrael and a Nochri bought a field be'Shutfus.
When Rebbi says 'Tevel ve'Chulin Me'uravin Zeh ba'Zeh', he means - that the
portion of the Yisrael and that of the Nochri remain intermixed, even after
they have divided it between them.
(b) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains - that once they divide the field,
the Yisrael is Chayav to Ma'aser his portion, whereas the Nochri's portion
(c) The basis of their Machlokes is - whether we hold 'Yesh B'reirah' (each
one has received his true portion [Raban Shimon ben Gamliel) or 'Ein
(d) In any event, we learn from the Beraisa - that aside from the question
of 'B'reirah', everyone agrees that the Shutfus of a Nochri does not exempt
the Yisrael from having to Ma'aser his portion (like we just concluded.
(a) Some commentaries maintain that, according to Rebbi, there is nothing to
be done - because if the owner tries to Ma'aser the mixed crops, he will
inevitably be taking from the P'tur on the Chiyuv.
(b) This is not correct however, because besides bringing other Tevel and
Ma'asering half of the mixed batch with it - he can also take Ma'aser from
the mixed batch, and it will be assumed that half of the Ma'aser that he
separates, will be Chiyuv, which will serve to cover his half of the crops.
(c) This will be possible even according to those who hold that one could
not do so in a case where Chadash and Yashan became mixed up - because there
we are afraid that the two crops did not mix properly (so we say 'Ein
Bilah'), whereas here, according to Rebbi, the Nochri is a partner in each
grain (so we say 'Yesh Bilah'), so that half of whatever the owner separates
is bound to be Chiyuv.
(d) The other ramifications in the Machlokes between Rebbi and Raban Shimon
ben Gamliel are - that according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, he can also
Ma'aser from his half on other Tevel, whereas according to Rebbi, he cannot.
(a) When we cite as an alternative explanation that Rebbi Ilai learns both
from "Tzoncha", we mean - both Shutfus Nochri and Shutfus Yisrael. After
all, he argues, the word is written in the singular, implying that it
belongs to one person. So what difference does it make whether the second
person is a Nochri or a Yisrael?
(b) We gain - the need to say that the 'Vav' joins the two "Reishis" (as we
explained according to the first Lashon).
(c) The Rabbanan disagree however, on the grounds - that the Torah is
talking to someone who is Chayav Terumah, precluding there where a Nochri
(who is Patur) is a Shutaf, but where the Shutaf is a Yisrael, the Torah
refers to each one, as we explained earlier.
(a) According to Rava, it is only in the case of Reishis ha'Gez that Rebbi
Ilai exempts the owner on account of Shutfus Yisrael, but nowhere else. In
spite of the Pasuk in Shoftim "Degancha", he concedes that someone who owns
a field be'Shutfus, remains Chayav Terumah - because in Korach, the Torah
writes "Terumaschem" (in the plural).
(b) And "Degancha" comes to preclude - Shutfus Nochri.
(c) Initially, Rav learns from the Pasuk "Arisoseichem" (in the plural)
that one is Chayav Chalah on a dough of Shutfus. We need a Pasuk, because we
might otherwise have thought - that one is Patur, from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah'
"Reishis" "Reishis" from Reishis ha'Gez.
(d) After concluding that we would rather learn "Reishis" "Reishis" from
Terumah that one is Chayav on a dough of Shutfus, we learn from
"Arisosiechem" - 'K'dei Isas Midbar', that dough the size of a daily quota
of Manna in the desert (i.e. a tenth of an Eifah) is Chayav Chalah, but not
(a) We learn from the Pasuk "u've'Kutzrechem es Ketzir Artzechem" (in
connection with Pe'ah) and from the Pasuk (in connection with Bechor)
"u'Vechoros Bekarchem ve'Tzonchem" - that Shutfus Yisrael remains Chayav
regarding both Pe'ah and Bechor.
(b) And the Torah writes "Sadcha" by the former and "Bekarcha ve'Tzoncha" by
the latter - to exempt both in a case of Shutfus Nochri.
(c) And now that the Torah writes in Va'eschanan " Lema'an Yirbu Yemeichem
vi'Yemei Yemeichem" to teach us that a house belonging to Shutfim is Chayav
Mezuzah, the Torah (in the previous Pasuk) nevertheless writes "Beisecha",
to teach us - that one is obligated to fix it on the right-hand side, as
Rabah explains, because people tend to enter the house with the right foot