Siman 333

Reishit haGez is among the gifts of the priesthood, as it is written in "Shoftim" (Deuteronomy 18:4): "and the first of the shearing of your flock you shall give to him." For the Holy One, blessed be He, granted the kohanim the terumot of grain, wine, and oil, so that he would have his bread, his wine, and his oil. And He granted him the foreleg, the cheeks, and the abomasum, and the meat of the Sanctuary, so that he would have meat to eat. And He granted him reishit haGez, so that he would have a garment to wear. Therefore, if their wool was coarse and not fit for wearing – they are exempt from reishit haGez. Likewise, the obligation is only for sheep, which are soft and fit for wearing, but other species which are coarse, and from which they make sacks – one is exempt; as it is written: "you shall give to him" – and not for his sack. And even the down of goats, from which a beautiful garment is made – one is exempt, because one does not shear it but rather plucks it, as it is written: "to stand to minister" – and we require something fit for ministration (Chullin 137a).

We learned in a Mishnah (Chullin 135a): Reshit hagaz applies in the Land and outside the Land, in the presence of the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple, with chullin but not with consecrated animals. And in the Gemara there (Chullin 136a): Rabbi Ilai says: Reshit hagaz applies only in the Land. And we say there: Nowadays the world conducts itself according to Rabbi Ilai, and they do not practice reshit hagaz outside the Land. And so wrote the Rambam in the tenth chapter of Bikkurim (Rambam, Laws of Bikkurim and the Rest of the Priestly Gifts in the Borders 10:1) that it applies only in the Land, whether in the presence of the Temple or not in the presence of the Temple, like reshit hadagan, see there. And they wrote that nowadays even in the Land of Israel they do not practice it (Be'er Heiteiv and see Darkhei Moshe). And I do not know any reason for this, for certainly according to the core law it is obligatory even outside the Land, except that they conducted themselves so. But in the Land of Israel there is no reason or sense [for this]. And one who fears the word of Hashem should see to fulfill the mitzvah properly when he has sheep. And also Levites are obligated in this mitzvah. And they may give it also to a female Kohen as with the priestly gifts in siman 61, for they are written in the same parsha. And the reason was explained there with the help of Heaven, see there.

Since it does not apply to consecrated animals, therefore, it is not only unnecessary to state regarding altar-consecrations which belong entirely to the sanctuary; but even if one consecrated animals for the upkeep of the Temple and sheared them—one might think he should be obligated to redeem them and give to the kohen. Or if he consecrated an animal except for its shearings—one might think he should be obligated in reishit hagaz. The verse states: "your flock"—and these are not his flock. And if he redeemed them from the sanctuary, the law is as follows: regarding all consecrated animals where a permanent blemish preceded their consecration and they were redeemed—they are obligated in reishit hagaz, for they are complete chullin. But if their consecration preceded their blemish, or if a transitory blemish preceded their consecration, and afterward a permanent blemish developed and they were redeemed—they are exempt from reishit hagaz. And this is the law of disqualified consecrated animals, as there is still some sanctity upon them. And so we learned in Chullin (Chullin 130a), and so the Rambam wrote there. And one should not ask that this applies to altar-consecrations, whereas in Temple-upkeep consecrations there is no distinction whether a permanent blemish preceded their consecration or did not precede it. And on the contrary, the primary consecration for Temple-upkeep is when a permanent blemish preceded their consecration, for one who consecrates unblemished animals for Temple-upkeep violates a positive commandment, and if so, in Temple-upkeep consecrations it should be forbidden after redemption even when a permanent blemish preceded? For this is no question at all: for with Temple-upkeep consecrations, even at the time of their sanctity, their shearing is not forbidden by Torah law but only by rabbinic law, as it is stated in Bechorot (Bechorot 25a), see there. And when they are redeemed, it is obvious that they are permitted for shearing, even when their consecration preceded their blemish. And only with altar-consecrations is it not so.

It has already been explained that one is only obligated in reishit hagaz with sheep alone, whether males or females. And when their wool is hard—they are exempt. And there is no distinction regarding whatever appearance they have. And it is not specifically white wool, for the same law applies to red or black or dark brown. And this is when they are so by nature; but if he dyed the wool—he is exempt, for he acquired it through a change and committed a prohibition, as he caused a loss to the kohen. But if he only whitened it—he is obligated, after he whitened it to give to the kohen, for whitening is not a change. And even though regarding the matter of theft it is called a change when he whitened it in a manner that it does not return to its original state, as I wrote in Choshen Mishpat siman 360, regarding a kohen, it appears from the Shas and the poskim that it is not a change. And it seems to me the reason is: since it did not change from its appearance. And likewise if he plucked and did not shear—he is obligated in reishit hagaz. And likewise if he washed them in water and they were removed from the wool, for shearing is not meant specifically (Chullin 137a).

The Rambam wrote (Rambam Laws of First Fruits and Other Priestly Gifts Outside the Land 10:7): Reishit hagaz applies to shaatnez, to a koy, and to a tereifah. But one who shears a dead animal is exempt, for "the shearing of your flock" implies while alive, in the manner of shearing found in the Tanakh. And the Ra'avad wrote that a koy that comes from a domestic animal and a wild animal is exempt because its wool is not soft; see there. And the Rambam does not disagree with this, for if it is hard it is exempt in any case, and the obligation is when it is soft. And one who separates reishit hagaz and it was lost is liable for its replacement until he gives it into the hand of a kohen, as it is written: "you shall give to him." And one who says "all my shearing is reishit" — his words are sustained. And even though regarding terumah and challah we expound "reishit" — that its remnants must be recognizable, but here it is not so (Chullin 136b). And it appears to me the reason: it is understandable regarding a name that forbids all the produce and all the dough, and through their separation permits them — we properly require that remnants remain to permit them. But reishit hagaz does not create tevel and does not forbid, and it itself is chullin. If so, what does it matter to us if he gives all his shearing to the kohen?

How many sheep must one have to be obligated in "the first of the shearing"? Five, as it is written: "five sheep prepared." And specifically when their shearing is not less than sixty sela in weight, and each of the five shears twelve sela in weight. But if one of them is less than twelve, even though another is more, and there are sixty or more among them all – he is exempt. And how much must he give to the kohen? Not less than a weight of five sela after whitening. However, he is not obligated to whiten it and the kohen himself shall whiten it, only that he must give him more so that after the whitening it will stand at five. And the Tur ruled that even when he has wool of six sela weight – he is obligated to give five to the kohen, see there. And this matter is a dispute in the Gemara. And in the Shulchan Aruch the opinion of the Tur was not brought at all. And partners are obligated; provided that there is the required measure in the portion of each one, which is to say that they have ten sheep in partnership, and they shear one hundred and twenty sela. And that which is written "the shearing of your sheep," which implies and not of partnership – this is to exclude the partnership of a gentile (Chullin 135a). And the poskim did not clarify if they must give the kohen ten sela or four in five.

One who purchases the shearings of a gentile's flock after the shearing is exempt from reshit hagaz; for since at the time of the shearing the shearing belonged to a gentile, we do not read regarding it "the shearing of your flock." But if he purchased the shearing before the shearing, such that he purchased from him that he should shear his flock—he is obligated; even though the fleece grew in the domain of the gentile, and also the flock returns to the gentile after the shearing, and also he did not purchase the body of the flock at all for their fleece but only the fleece of the flock, nevertheless we read regarding it "the shearing of your flock" since regarding the matter of the fleece it is "your flock." And this is the opinion of the Rambam. But the opinion of Rashi and the Tur is that in truth, if he did not purchase the body of the flock for their fleece but only purchased the fleece alone—he is exempt; for we do not read regarding it "your flock," since it is not his flock. (In the Mishnah 135a (Chullin 135a) it is taught: One who purchases the shearings of a gentile's flock is exempt, etc. And Rashi and likewise the Bartenura explained that he purchased them while attached. And the Rambam explained that he purchased them after shearing. And it is a wonder: what is this teaching us? And it must be said that it teaches us: even when he stood them by him before the shearing so that he would take them afterwards.)

One who purchases the shearings of his fellow's flock, if the seller retained a small portion of his flock to shear them—he is obligated to separate from that which remains with him for everything. And even though the seller had not begun to shear, for there is a presumption that a person does not sell priestly gifts, and the gift of the priest is with the seller. But if he sold the entire shearing and retained nothing for himself—the purchaser is obligated to separate, for we say that he certainly did not sell him the portion of the priest, and it is as if he stipulated with him that he should give to the priest, for why should we suspect him that his desire is to rob the priest? However, if he explicitly sold him the entire shearing without giving to the priest, if he sold it to him after the shearing—the seller is obligated to give. And he shall acquire and give, for at the time of the shearing it was his. However, if he sold before the shearing, both are exempt: the seller is exempt for he did not shear, and the buyer is exempt for they are not his. And I say that according to the opinion of the Rambam in the previous section regarding one who purchases shearings it is called "the shearing of your flock," if so, here the purchaser is obligated, for we read in his regard "the shearing of your flock." And if there were two types, such as white shearings and red shearings, and he sold this type and left the other type—this one gives for himself for what he purchased, and that one gives for himself for what he retained. (See Be'er HaGolah letter kof who questioned the Tur: why are both exempt? Let him give to the priest and deduct from the payment, as in siman 60 regarding the foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum, see there. And he did not see the words of the Perishah, that it is not comparable to there where the gifts are recognizable on their own, see there. But even without this it is not comparable at all, for there the obligation is upon the butcher at the time of slaughtering, which is not the case here where the obligation is at the time of shearing. And now whom shall we obligate? The seller did not shear it and the flock does not belong to the purchaser; and it is like one who damaged priestly gifts, where even there one is exempt. Examine and you will find it simple.)

That which we wrote regarding white and red shearings when he sold one, this one gives from what he bought and this one from what he retained – this is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 8 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 333:8). Its source is from the Rambam there (Rambam, Laws of Bikkurim and Other Priestly Gifts in the Provinces 10:11). And the Rambam wrote further (Rambam, Laws of Bikkurim and Other Priestly Gifts in the Provinces 10:11) that when he had males and females and sold one of them, this one also gives and that one gives; see there. And they wondered about him: for it is well that white and red are considered two species, but as for males and females, even though the wool of females is softer, nevertheless it is one species, and the seller must give for all of them?! Therefore, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, omitted this in the Shulchan Aruch. And it is explicitly stated so in the Gemara (Chullin 136b) that they are one species; see there. And they remained in wonderment (see Ran and Beit Yosef).

In my humble opinion, the words of the Rambam are very correct. However, he had a different approach to the Gemara, not according to the explanation of Rashi: For behold, in the Gemara there, it challenges Rabbi Elai, who holds that in the diaspora one is exempt, as he derives it from terumah: If just as with terumah one does not separate from one species for a different species, is reishit hagaz also thus? And it answers: Yes, indeed, for we learned in a Mishnah: If he had two species, dark-wooled and white-wooled, this one gives for itself and that one gives for itself. And it challenges: If so, then regarding the end of the Mishnah which teaches: When he sold him males and not females, this one gives for itself? Is it also so here that they are two species? Rather, it teaches us good advice, that he should give to him from the females which are soft, and from the males which are coarse. And here too regarding dark-wooled and white-wooled—it teaches us good advice. And the Mishnah is not according to Rabbi Elai, for the Mishnah obligates even in the diaspora; as we do not draw a comparison to terumah, see there.

Rashi explained: It teaches us good advice. For this is the explanation: Certainly, when one sold to his fellow dark ones or females, and retained the white ones or the males for himself, or vice versa—it is a retention for the seller and he is obligated to give for all of them, and not the buyer. Rather, the Tanna gives him advice that he should not give all of it from the species he retained; instead, he should purchase from the buyer from that which he sold to him and give to the kohen, see there. And according to this, that which we learned in the Mishnah regarding a seller and a buyer, "this one gives for himself and this one gives for himself"—the intention is not according to its plain meaning. Rather, the seller always gives all of it, but [the Tanna] gives him advice that he should purchase from the buyer, see there.

And in this way the Tur proceeded, as he wrote, and this is his wording: If he had black and white ewes, or males and females, and he sold the black ones or the males, and retained for himself the white ones or the females – we properly apply to him the term "retained." And the seller is obligated, for males and females or black and white ones are a single species. And if the seller desires – he may purchase from the buyer some of the black ones or the males, whose wool is not as good as that of the white ones and the females, in an amount sufficient to separate, so that he will not need to separate from the superior ones for the inferior ones. Thus far his words. And who will not see this difficulty? For that which we learned in the Mishnah, "this one gives for himself and this one for himself," the meaning is that one gives and shall purchase from the other. Furthermore: why should he give from the inferior ones for everything ab initio, why did they give him such advice? Furthermore: if so, the law of the Mishnah only applies in one case, and that is when he sold the inferior ones and retained the superior ones for himself.

Therefore, the Rambam explains with a different interpretation, namely that certainly this one gives and that one gives according to the plain meaning of the Mishnah. And that which they said, "rather, it teaches us good advice," this is its interpretation: that the sages gave good advice to all who separate reishit hagaz, that when one has superior and inferior quality wool—he should give from both, so that there will be no loss to the owners if he gives the entire gift from the superior quality. And likewise, that there should be no loss to the kohen if he gives the entire gift from the inferior quality. And explicitly they said in the Gemara that he should give to them from both, see there. And since the sages established this practice, it follows that when one sells one type, the buyer cannot say, "since the custom is to give from the superior quality for themselves and from the inferior quality for themselves, if so, when I sold you one of them and I did not reserve money for myself, it follows that they are like two separate things, and you shall give from yours and I from mine." And it is clear that this is the reasoning of the Rambam, and so it stands to reason.

The mitzvah of reishit hagez is to give at the beginning of the shearing, as it is written: "And the first of the shearing, etc." However, if he separated it either in the middle or at the end—he has fulfilled his obligation. And thus we learned in the Tosefta: If one had sheep and did not shear them at once; rather, he sheared one and sold its shearing, and afterward sheared a second and sold it, and afterward a third, and similarly a fourth and fifth, even if this extended over several years—they all combine; and he is obligated upon the shearing of the fifth to give the measure of five sela'im. And similarly if he sold some of the sheep after he began to shear, for immediately when he began to shear the obligation took effect upon him. And he may separate from the new for the old and from the old for the new. And even though regarding terumah one does not separate from the new for the old or from the old for the new, and Rabbi Elai derived this from terumah and we follow his view, nevertheless, since according to the primary law we hold like the sages that we do not learn from terumah, therefore it is impossible to be lenient and exempt the combination of new with old (see Ran). But if he had two types, inferior and superior—he should not give from the inferior for the beautiful; rather, he should give from each one according to its measure. And all this is specifically when he had five sheep. But if he had fewer than five, even if he sheared them until a shearing was gathered in the measure of five sheep—nevertheless he is exempt, for with fewer than five there is no obligation.

One who had a multitude of sheep such that there was much shearings from them, and he wishes to divide it among many kohanim, nevertheless he shall not give less to each one than five sela’im of whitened wool, enough for a small garment. And it is not that he whitens it; rather, he gives him from the wool of the shearings in its dirty state, provided that there remains for him after the whitening a weight of five sela’im or more, as it is said: "you shall give to him" – it must be a sufficient giving to be useful for some garment. And this is when he so desires. But from the essential law, he is only obligated to separate the weight of five sela’im for all of his shearings. And we have already written that reshit hagaz is chullin in every respect, and we also give it to a kohanet even though she is married to a Yisrael, just as I wrote in siman 61 regarding the foreleg, the cheeks, and the stomach.