POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Chulin 136
CHULIN 136 - A Daf has been dedicated by Rabbi and Mrs. Yacov Lipschutz
and family of Monsey NY in memory of Rabbi Lipschutz's parents, Yehoshua
Heshel ben Yitzchak (Yahrzeit: 26 Iyar) and Leah bas Rivka (Yarhzeit: 29
Iyar), and towards the full recovery of Yehoshua Heshel ben Ayeleth.
1) PARTNERS ARE LIABLE EVERYWHERE ELSE (cont.)
(a) (Rava): In all the following, one might have thought that
R. Ila'i exempts partners (Yisraelim) - really, he admits
that they are liable.
2) THE SIMILARITY OF "REISHIS HA'GEZ" TO "TERUMAH"
(b) One might have thought that partners (in a field) need
not take Ma'aser, because it says "Ma'aser Degancha" -
not of partners;
1. "Ma'aseroseichem" obligates partners.
(c) One might have thought that partners (in an animal) need
not give Matanos, because it says "Nesinah," like it says
regarding Reishis ha'Gez;
2. Question: What do we learn from "Degancha"?
3. Answer: It excludes a partner with a Nochri.
1. "Me'es Zovchei ha'Zevach" obligates partners.
(d) One might have thought that partners (in a field) need
not bring Bikurim, because it says "me'Artz*cha*" - not
2. Question: Without this, why would we learn from
Reishis ha'Gez to exempt them, we should learn from
Terumah that they are liable (the more stringent way
3. Answer: Indeed, they are liable even without "Me'es
Zovchei ha'Zevach" - rather, this teaches Rava's
law, that the Kohen may claim the Matanos from the
1. "Kol Asher b'Artzam" obligates partners.
(e) One might have thought that a jointly owned garment is
exempt from Tzitzis, because it says "Kesus*cha*" - not
2. Question: What do we learn from "Artzcha"?
3. Answer: This excludes a field in Chutz la'Aretz.
1. "Al Kanfei Vigdeihem" obligates partners.
(f) One might have thought that partners (in a house) need
not build a Ma'akeh (rail around the roof), because it
says "Gage*cha*" - not of partners;
2. Question: What do we learn from "Kesuscha"?
3. Answer: It teaches Rav Yehudah's law - a borrowed
garment is exempt [mid'Oraisa; mid'Rabanan, it is
only exempt] for 30 days.
1. "Ki Yipol" obligates partners (lest one fall from
(g) Refutation #1 (Rav Bivi bar Abaye): Rava erred, like we
find regarding Bechor (R. Ila'i exempts partners)!
2. Question: What do we learn from "Gagecha"?
3. Answer: It excludes the roof of a synagogue or Beis
Medrash (since these are owned by everyone, even
1. (Beraisa): The Bechor of a jointly owned animal is
(h) Refutation #2 (Rav Chanina of Sura): Rava erred, like we
find regarding Matanos!
2. R. Ila'i says, it is not.
3. Question: What is R. Ila'i's reason?
4. Answer: "bi'Vkar*cha* uv'Tzon*cha*."
5. Question: But it says "u'Vechoros Bekarchem
6. That teaches that all of Yisrael will bring their
[Kodesh] Bechoros to the Mikdash, but each is
1. (Beraisa): Matanos must be given from a jointly
(i) (Implied refutation #3): R. Ila'i must exempt partners
from Terumah - if not, he should rather learn from
Terumah to obligate partners!
2. R. Ila'i exempts.
3. Question: What is his reason?
4. Answer: It says "Nesinah" regarding Matanos, like it
says regarding Reishis ha'Gez - just like partners
are exempt from Reishis ha'Gez, also from Matanos.
(a) Question: Since he learns from Terumah, Matanos should
not apply in Chutz la'Aretz, just like Terumah does not
(b) Answer (R. Yosi of Naharbil): Indeed, he exempts!
1. (Beraisa - R. Ila'i): Matanos do not apply in Chutz
la'Aretz; also, Reishis ha'Gez does not apply there.
(c) Suggestion: Just like a Zar who eats Terumah is liable to
death (bi'Yedei Shamayim, if he ate b'Mezid) or must pay
the principal and an added fifth (if he ate b'Shogeg),
the same should apply to benefit from Reishis ha'Gez!
2. Question: Why does he exempt Reishis ha'Gez?
3. Answer (Rava): It says "Nesinah" regarding Reishis
ha'Gez, like it says regarding Terumah.
4. Question (Abaye): If so, Reishis ha'Gez should Tovel
(forbid benefit from shearings before it is
separated), just like Terumah is Tovel!
5. Answer (Rava): "Reishis Gez Tzoncha Titen Lo" -
before it is separated, it has no effect (to
(d) Rejection: "u'Mesu Vo...v'Yosaf Chamishiso Alav" - a
fifth is added "Alav (on Terumah)," not on Reishis
1. One dies "Vo (for Terumah)," not for Reishis ha'Gez.
(e) Suggestion: Just like one separates two Ma'aseros after
taking Terumah, one should have to take two Ma'aseros
after Reishis ha'Gez!
(f) Rejection: "Reishis" - only one separation is made.
(g) Suggestion: Just like one may not take new produce (i.e.
of this year) to be Terumah to exempt old produce, one
should not take new Gez to exempt old Gez!
(h) Answer: Indeed, R. Ila'i says that one may not!
1. (Beraisa #1): If a man sheared two sheep and left
the shearings, and sheared them again the next two
years, the shearings do not join to obligate giving
(i) Question: Just like Terumah is taken only if the produce
grew b'Chiyuv (it belonged to one who will be obligated
to give it, i.e. a Yisrael), Reishis ha'Gez should apply
only if the wool grew b'Chiyuv!
i. Inference: If he sheared different sheep the
following years, after shearing five different
sheep, the shearings would join to obligate
2. Contradiction (Beraisa #2): If a man sheared five
different sheep, but not all in the same year, they
do not join.
3. Resolution: We must say that Beraisa #1 is
Chachamim, and Beraisa #2 is R. Ila'i (proving that
he says that new Gez does not exempt old Gez).
1. Question: What is the source that Terumah is only
taken from produce if it grew b'Chiyuv?
(j) Answer: R. Ila'i argues with the Tana of our Mishnah (he
exempts in this case).
2. Answer (Beraisa): If a Yisrael bought a Nochri's
field in Surya, and there was attached produce:
3. (David ha'Melech personally conquered Surya; our
Tana holds that such territory is not considered
part of Eretz Yisrael (mid'Oraisa), Terumah applies
there mid'Rabanan, but only if it grows on a
i. If the produce was less than a third grown
(when it was bought), Terumah must be taken
when it ripens;
4. Suggestion: Perhaps Reishis ha'Gez indeed applies
only if the wool grew when a Yisrael owned it!
5. Rejection (Mishnah): If one buys wool (Rashi -
attached to; Rambam - from) a Nochri's sheep, it is
ii. If it was a third (or more) grown when it was
bought, R. Akiva says, when it ripens, Terumah
must be taken on what grew afterwards;
iii. Chachamim entirely exempt it.
i. Inference: Had he bought the sheep in order to
shear them he would be liable.
(k) Suggestion: Just like one may not separate Terumah from
one species on (i.e. to exempt) a different species, also
Reishis ha'Gez may not be taken on Gez of a different Min
(kind, e.g. color) of sheep.
3) "GEZ" OF A "TEREIFAH"
1. Question: What is the source that one may not
separate Terumah from one species on another?
(l) Answer: Indeed, the same applies to Reishis ha'Gez!
2. Answer (Beraisa): If Reuven had white and black
figs, or two types of wheat, he may not make one
Terumah or Ma'aser on the other;
3. R. Yitzchak says, Beis Shamai forbid this, Beis
1. (Mishnah): If Reuven had dark and white sheep, and
he sold to Shimon wool only of the dark ones, Reuven
and Shimon both give Reishis ha'Gez.
(m) Objection: The Mishnah continues, "also, if he sold wool
only of the males, not of the females, they both give" -
surely, this is not because they are different Minim!
1. Rather, we must say that [Reuven must give Reishis
ha'Gez for all the wool,] the Mishnah *allows*
Reuven to buy back [the inferior] hard wool of males
and give the proper proportion of it, and to give
soft wool of females proportional to the amount of
(n) Answer: Indeed (as we have already seen), the Mishnah
argues with R. Ila'i.
2. Likewise, he is *allowed* to give both colors (but
one could exempt the other)!
(o) Suggestion: Just like one cannot make all the produce
Terumah, we should say that one cannot make all the
shearings Reishis ha'Gez!
(p) Answer: Indeed, that is R. Ila'i's opinion!
1. (Mishnah): If Reuven said "All my grain is Terumah,"
or "All my dough is Chalah," nothing takes effect;
(q) (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Nowadays, people conduct
according to the lenient opinions of three Tana'im:
2. Inference: Had he said "All my Gez is Reishis
ha'Gez," it would take effect!
3. Contradiction (Beraisa): If one says, "All my Gez is
Reishis ha'Gez," it does not take effect.
4. Resolution: The Mishnah is Chachamim, the Beraisa is
1. According to R. Ila'i regarding Reishis ha'Gez;
i. (Beraisa - R. Ila'i): Reishis ha'Gez applies
only in Eretz Yisrael.
2. According to R. Yehudah ben Beseira regarding
i. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah ben Beseira): [A man who
had a seminal emission may learn Torah,
because] words of Torah do not receive Tum'ah.
3. According to R. Yoshiyah regarding Kil'ayim;
i. One is liable for Kil'ai ha'Kerem only if he
seeds two diverse species and a grape seed
(a) (Mishnah): The Matanos are more stringent than Reishis
(b) Question: It should say that Reishis ha'Gez is more
stringent than Matanos, for it applies to a Tereifah, but
Matanos do not!
(c) Answer (Rava): Our Mishnah is R. Shimon;
1. (Beraisa - R. Shimon): A Tereifah is exempt from
(d) Question: What is R. Shimon's reason?
(e) Answer #1: He learns a Gezerah Shavah "Nesinah-Nesinah"
from Matanos - just like a Tereifah is exempt from
Matanos, also from Reishis ha'Gez.
(f) Objection: If so, he should also learn Reishis ha'Gez
from Terumah, where it also says "Nesinah";
1. He should say that Reishis ha'Gez does not apply in
Chutz la'Aretz (like Terumah) - but our Mishnah says
that it applies there!
(g) Answer #2: He learns "Tzon-Tzon" from Ma'aser - just like
a Tereifah is exempt from Ma'aser, also from Reishis
(h) Question: What is the source that a Tereifah is exempt
(i) Answer: "Everything that will pass under the staff" -
this excludes a Tereifah that cannot walk (e.g. its legs
were cut off above the knees - we likewise exclude all
(j) Question: Why don't we learn "Tzon-Tzon" from Bechor?
1. Just like Kedushas Bechor applies to a Tereifah,
also Reishis ha'Gez applies!
(k) Answer: We learn from Ma'aser because it is similar to
Reishis ha'Gez in seven respects - it applies to [females
as well as] males, it does not apply to any Tamei
species, nor to a single animal, nor to man, nor to
firstborns, it does not take effect from birth, it did
not apply before the Torah was given.
(l) Question: But a Bechor is similar to Reishis ha'Gez in
the following respects:
1. It applies to animals orphaned at birth, to bought
animals, to jointly owned animals, to [animals
received for] a gift, in front (Rashi - of the
Mikdash, and after the Churban; Tosfos - it is *not*
Mekadesh the animal in front of or after it, whereas
Kedushas Ma'aser can be Mekadesh the ninth and 11th,
if they were called "Asiri');
(m) Version #2 - Answer #1: There are only six similarities
to a Bechor (the Aruch's text omits "animals received for
a gift" and "even without the Mikdash"; Ritva - jointly
owned animals and [animals received for] a gift are
counted like one), so we learn from Ma'aser. (End of
2. It is given to a Kohen, it applies even without
declaring it Kodesh, the Kohen may sell it.
3. Version #1 (Rashi): There are eight similarities to
a Bechor, we should learn from it!
(n) Answer (Aruch - Answer #2): The decisive similarity is
that it does not apply to firstborns.