Today’s daf opens with a new mishnah, starting the penultimate chapter of this tractate. The subject is familiar: priestly gifts.
In short chapters of the Talmud like this one, it is common to print all the mishnahs on the first page of the chapter — which is what has happened in this case. So for today, we’ll focus on the mishnah alone, which opens:
The mitzvah of the first sheared wool applies both in the land of Israel and outside the land of Israel, in the presence of the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple, and with regard to non-sacred animals. But it does not apply to sacrificial animals.
Just as the priests are owed certain portions of non-sacred animals that are slaughtered for food, they are also owed a portion of sheared wool. And just as those portions of the meat are owed to the priests without regard to geography or even the presence of a Temple — in which the priests would presumably need to work and therefore be unable to earn a living — so too the portions of sheared wool are owed without regard to geography or the presence of a Temple.
The mishnah goes on to contrast the priestly gifts from a butchered animal, and those from sheared wool:
There are more stringent elements in the mitzvah of the foreleg, the jaw and the maw (priestly gifts from a slaughtered animal) than in the halakhah of the first sheared wool in that the mitzvah of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw applies to cattle as well as to sheep, and it applies to numerous animals as well as to few animals. But by contrast, the mitzvah of the first sheared wool applies only to sheep and only to numerous animals.
The gift of first shearings of wool applies specifically to sheep — since the term gaz, wool, is not used to describe the hair of goats or cattle — and only to a case where numerous sheep are shorn at once. The reason is that the verse which mentions the obligation to give the first shearings, Deuteronomy 18:4, refers to one’s tzon, or flock. The mishnah goes on to clarify exactly what constitutes “numerous”:
Beit Shammai say: It is at least two sheep, as it is stated: “That a man shall rear a young cow, and two sheep” (Isaiah 7:21).
And Beit Hillel say: It is at least five sheep, as it is stated: “Abigail quickly got together 200 loaves of bread, two jars of wine, five dressed sheep, five se’ahs of parched corn, 100 raisin cakes, and 200 fig cakes …” (I Samuel 25:18).
Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas says: When shearing five sheep, the sheared wool of each sheep weighing 150 dinars each, they are subject to the obligation of the first sheared wool.
And the rabbis say: Any five sheep, whose sheared wool weighs any amount.
Turns out, your flock can be pretty small — only two sheep (Beit Shammai) or perhaps five (Beit Hillel). The latter becomes the accepted number. Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas suggests an additional limit: The mitzvah only applies to five sheep who produce a minimal amount of wool. Sheep with a relatively poor yield wouldn’t trigger the obligation. The rabbis, by contrast, measure only by the number of sheep, not the volume of wool they produce.
The mishnah goes on to clarify the minimum measure of wool that must be given to a priest, and that it must be given to them clean and combed, not tangled and sullied as when it’s first shorn. This raises the possibility that the owner’s working of the wool impacts its ownership status.
If the owner of the shearing did not manage to give it to the priest until he dyed it, the owner is exempt from the mitzvah of the first sheared wool. If he laundered it but did not dye it, he is obligated to give it.
There’s a notion in halakhah that performing a fundamental change to an object can confer ownership. For example, one can acquire grain by grinding it into flour. Dyeing wool is considered a significant enough change that it, too, transfers ownership. Therefore, if the owner dyes the wool before he has found a priest to give it to, he’s no longer obligated to give the wool at all — because he has acquired it.
We’ve encountered this unusual policy before, and it is confusing because it seems like a loophole for keeping what rightfully should go to the priests — and maybe even a loophole to permit other kinds of theft. But this isn’t really the case. If I steal your grain and grind it into flour, I’m still obligated to return what I stole — specifically, I have to return the value of the grain rather than the grain itself, since it has been transformed. The case of priestly gifts is different. There isn’t one specific priest from whom this gift has been “taken” — rather, it was owed to the priesthood more generally — so there’s no individual who is owed restitution. Therefore, the original owner need not pay. Nonetheless, they have failed to fulfill the mitzvah of giving the first shearing. And while this doesn’t incur a punishment, failure to fulfill a positive mitzvah is still considered a transgression.
Read all of Chullin 135 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on September 12, 2026. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
Curious Minds Welcome. Whatever you're wondering about Judaism, My Jewish Learning has an answer, and it's free because readers like you make it so. Give to open more doors for Jewish discovery.
