1)

(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 no difference ...

1. ... whether the sheep is young or old, nor ...

2. ... how many times per year one shears the sheep (the owner is Chayav to give the Kohen Reishis ha'Gez each time).

(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).

(c)Even though the Torah writes in Shoftim "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 in Yeshayah "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.

2)

(a)Rebbi Dosa ben Horkinas agrees with Beis Hillel. However, he also requires - each sheep to produce at least Manah u'Peras (one and a half Manah-weight of wool in order to be Chayav.

(b)According to the Chachamim - the smallest amount 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'im in Galil ...

(d)... enough to make a small garment.

3)

(a)The Tana learns from the Pasuk in Shoftim "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 already ...

1. ... dyed - but not if it has only been ...

2. ... bleached.

(c)And the Tana states that someone who purchased the wool (still attached) from ...

1. ... an Akum - is Patur from Reishis ha'Gez.

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.

(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.

4)

(a)We learn from the word "Tzoncha" (in the Pasuk there ve'Reishis Gez Tzoncha") that - the sheep of Hekdesh are not subject to Reishis ha'Gez.

(b)And we reconcile this with ...

1. ... the Pasuk in Re'ei "ve'Lo Sagoz bi'Vechor Tzonecha" - by establishing "Tzoncha" with regard to Hekdesh Bedek ha'Bayis.

2. ... Rebbi Elazar, who declares that even shearing Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis is prohibited - by establishing that as an Isur de'Rabbanan.

(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

(d)The problem that still remains however, is - that - redeeming Kodshim requires the animal to stand on its feet and be assessed (and it is not possible to stand the shearings [See Tosfos DH 've'Ha Ba'i']).

5)

(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 therefore forbidden.

(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).

6)

(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 and shorn).

7)

(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 an Akum exempts the owner from Reishis ha'Gez.

(b)They do not also exempt the Shutfus of a Yisrael - because "Tzoncha" pertains to each of the two (Jewish) owners.

(c)Rebbi Ilai learns Shutfus of an Akum from the Reisha "Reishis Degancha". The Rabbanan disagree with him ...

1. ... in this point - because the Torah interrupts with a second "Reishis".

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'.

(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'.

8)

(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)Even though the Rabbanan exempt Shutfus Nochri from "Tzoncha", 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 rights to half the grains, and the Yisrael, to 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 D'gan Akum'. By ...

1. ... "Degancha", 've'Lo Digun Akum' they mean - that - if an Akum 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 D'gan Akum' they mean that - the crops of an Akum are Patur. This is synonymous with saying that an Akum can acquire land in Eretz Yisrael to exempt it from Ma'asros.

9)

(a)The Rabbanan's opinion in the second Lashon is based on a Beraisa, which discusses a case where a Yisrael and an Akum 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)Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains that - once they divide the field, the Yisrael is Chayav to Ma'aser his portion, whereas the Nochri's portion remains exempt.

(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 B'reirah' (the division is merely arbitrary [Rebbi]).

(d)In any event, we learn from the Beraisa - that aside from the question of 'B'reirah', everyone agrees that the Shutfus of an Akum does not exempt the Yisrael from having to Ma'aser his portion (like we just concluded.

10)

(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 Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel are that - according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, he can also Ma'aser from his half on other Tevel, whereas according to Rebbi, he cannot.

11)

(a)When we cite as an alternative explanation that Rebbi Ilai learns both from "Tzoncha", we mean - both Shutfus Akum 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 an Akum or a Yisrael?

(b)By learning like this - we circumvent 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.

12)

(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 Akum.

(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 "Arisoseichem" - 'K'dei Isas Midbar', that dough the size of a daily quota of Manna in the desert (a tenth of an Eifah) is Chayav Chalah, but not less.

13)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Kedoshim "u've'Kutzrechem es K'tzir Artzechem" (in connection with Pe'ah) and from the Pasuk in Re'ei (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 Akum.

(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, Rabah learns from "Beisecha" in the previous Pasuk that - one is obligated to fix it on the right-hand side, because people tend to enter the house with the right foot first.