Question: This is difficult, as who is this referring to? If it is referring to someone who transgressed and sheared, is this a fine that he receives because he transgressed and sheared the animal that he must redeem it? If it refers to the owner of the sacrifice who was Makdish it, why should he be liable? If it refers to the Kohen, he should not have to redeem it either!

Observation: It is true that one cannot ask how the Kohen would benefit if he must redeem it, as he would benefit since he would be allowed to redeem for a Perutah what is in fact worth a Manah.

Question: Why should the animal need to be stood up and evaluated in order to estimate the value of its wool? This should be like a person who is Makdish wood and stones!

Answer: Since the wool was originally connected to an animal that is supposed to be stood up and evaluated, redeeming the wool also requires that the animal be stood up and evaluated.

Question: Why don't we say the case is where the animal was stood up and evaluated, and afterwards he transgressed shearing off the wool and proceeded to redeem it?

Answer: We need it to be stood up and evaluated when it is being redeemed.

Observation: Rav Mani bar Patish, quoted earlier, can clearly agree with this derivation. However, Rava does not hold of the derivation of Rav Mani bar Patish who says that if someone is Makdish an animal aside from its shearings and the amount that shearing weakens the animal, he does not have to give Reishis ha'Gez from those shearings.

Proof: This is apparent from the fact that the Gemara later asks, "What does "your sheep" teach us?"

Question: According to the Rabbanan, the Gemara should ask that even if the Torah did not say "your sheep" or "the first," we could still derive from "your grain" that if a person is a partner with a Nochri in an animal he is exempt from Reishis ha'Gez.

Proof: This is apparent from the fact that the Rabbanan earlier said that "first" interrupted the topic. This implies that without this, I would have derived from the first part of the Pasuk.

Answer: The Rabbanan are making their argument according to the position of Rebbi Ilai. They are saying that according to you that we need to derive from the first part of the Pasuk, "first" interrupted the topic.

Opinion #1: Rashi's second explanation implies that "your grain" cannot exclude partnership with Nochrim, as it is logical to differentiate between grain that completely belongs to a Nochri and grain that is owned jointly by a Nochri and a Jew.

Opinion #1 (cont.): However, regarding shearings there is no reason to differentiate, as a Nochri owns a portion of every animal and therefore each sheep can never be called "your sheep."

Question: This is difficult. If so, why do the Rabbanan require the Pasuk "your sheep?" They derive "from your grain" excludes the grain of a Nochri, and that the shearings of an animal owned by a Nochri are exempt. Since his sheep are exempt, if he has a partnership with a Jew they are also exempt, as we have explained that there is no reason to differentiate between whole ownership of a Nochri and partnership with a Nochri (regarding Reishis ha'Gez).

Opinion #2: It must be that it is not logical (that each sheep is not called your sheep when there is a partnership with a Nochri). Even if we know that if it belongs to a Nochri it is exempt, we still do not know that if he is a partner with a Jew that the Jew is exempt. Accordingly, from "your grain" we derive that Reishis ha'Gez of Nochrim is exempt, and "your sheep" teaches that a Jew who has a partnership with a Nochri in these animals is exempt.

Opinion #3: However, according to the first explanation of Rashi that "your grain" excludes when a Nochri piles up the grain, it must be that this logic indeed applies.

Proof: If you will not say this, how do the Rabbanan know that partnership with a Nochri causes one to be exempt from Reishis ha'Gez? Perhaps "your sheep" excludes those sheep belonging to Nochrim, but if one is partners with a Nochri he is indeed obligated!

Explanation: It appears that he holds like the second explanation, that there is no reason to exclude when it belongs to a Nochri more than when it belongs to a Jew.

Explanation (cont.): According to the first version that holds we can only exclude a partnership with a Nochri from a Pasuk and we cannot exclude a partnership among Jews, we do not require all of the Pesukim that are quoted to include a partnership among Jews (as there is no reason it should not be obligated).