Study Chullin folio 136B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
is not in accordance with the opinion of R' Ilai, who holds that if the wool grew under the ownership of a non-Jew one is exempt from separating the first sheared wool.
Abaye further asks Rava: If one compares the first sheared wool to teruma, can one say that just as with regard to teruma one may not separate teruma from one type of produce on behalf of that which is not of the same type, so too, one may not separate the first sheared wool from one type of sheep
The Talmud asks: And with regard to teruma, from where do we derive that one may not do so? As it is taught in a baraita: If one had two types of figs, black figs and white figs; or similarly, if one had two types of wheat, one may not separate teruma and tithes from this type on behalf of that ty
Rava replied: Yes, this is the halakha. And we learned in the Mishnah (135a) that one may not separate the first sheared wool from one type of sheep on behalf of another: If the seller had two types of sheep, gray and white, and he sold him the gray fleece but not the white fleece, then this selle
The Talmud objects: If that is so, then consider the latter clause, which teaches: If he sold the fleece of the male sheep but not of the female sheep, then this seller gives the first sheared wool for himself from the wool that he kept, and that buyer gives the first sheared wool for himself from