Which types of animals can be tithed together for maaser of animals and which need to be tithed separately? From where are all these distinctions derived? How does this compare to tithing produce?
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Bekhorot 54
אַשְׁכְּחַן תִּירוֹשׁ וְיִצְהָר, תִּירוֹשׁ וְדָגָן דָּגָן וְדָגָן מִנַּיִן? קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה תִּירוֹשׁ וְיִצְהָר שֶׁאֵינָן כִּלְאַיִם זֶה בָּזֶה — אֵין מִתְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה, תִּירוֹשׁ וְדָגָן דָּגָן וְדָגָן שֶׁהֵם כִּלְאַיִם זֶה בָּזֶה — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יִתְעַשְּׂרוּ מִזֶּה עַל זֶה?
The Gemara asks: We found a source for the halakha that one may not separate teruma from wine and oil together; from where is it derived that one may not separate teruma from wine and grain together, or from grain of one kind and grain of a different kind together? The Gemara answers that this can be derived by an a fortiori inference: And if wine and oil, which are not prohibited due to the prohibition of diverse kinds if they are planted with each other, nevertheless may not be tithed from one for the other, then with regard to wine and grain or grain and grain, which are subject to the prohibition of diverse kinds when planted with each other, is it not logical that they may not be tithed from one for the other?
וּלְרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה, דְּאָמַר: עַד שֶׁיִּזְרַע חִטָּה וּשְׂעוֹרָה וְחַרְצָן בְּמַפּוֹלֶת יָד, הֵיכִי מַיְיתֵי לַהּ?
The Gemara challenges: But this derivation is problematic according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya, who says that the verse: “You shall not sow your vineyard with diverse kinds” (Deuteronomy 22:9), means that one who sows diverse kinds is not liable by Torah law until he sows wheat and barley and a grape seed with a single hand motion. According to this opinion, the above a fortiori inference is not valid; consequently, how does he derive the halakha that one may not tithe grain for wine or grain for grain?
מַיְיתֵי לַהּ הָכִי: וּמָה תִּירוֹשׁ וְיִצְהָר, שֶׁאֵינָן כִּלְאַיִם זֶה בָּזֶה אֲפִילּוּ עַל יְדֵי דָּבָר אַחֵר — אֵין מִתְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה. תִּירוֹשׁ וְדָגָן דָּגָן וְדָגָן, שֶׁהֵן כִּלְאַיִם זֶה בָּזֶה עַל יְדֵי דָּבָר אַחֵר — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יִתְעַשְּׂרוּ מִזֶּה עַל זֶה?
The Gemara answers that he derives it in this manner: And if wine and oil, which are not prohibited as diverse kinds with each other even by means of something else, i.e., even if one planted a different kind of grain seed with them, do not become prohibited, and yet they may not be tithed from one for the other, then with regard to wine and grain or grain and grain, which are prohibited as diverse kinds with something else, i.e., if they are planted with another type of seed, is it not logical that they may not be tithed from one for the other?
וּשְׁנֵי מִינִין בְּעָלְמָא, מְנָלַן? הָנֵי דְּרַבָּנַן נִינְהוּ, וְכֹל דְּתַקִּינוּ רַבָּנַן כְּעֵין דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא תַּקִּינוּ: מָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא שְׁנֵי מִינִין אֵינָן מִתְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה, דְּרַבָּנַן נָמֵי.
The Gemara asks: It can be derived in this manner that one may not separate teruma or tithes from wine for grain or vice versa; but from where do we derive the prohibition against separating teruma or tithes from two species in general that are not grain, e.g., lentils and beans, one for the other? The Gemara answers that the obligation to separate tithes from these other species, which are not mentioned in the Torah, applies by rabbinic law, and concerning all ordinances that the Sages instituted, they instituted them parallel to Torah law. Therefore, just as by Torah law two species may not be tithed from one for the other, so too, those mixtures that are prohibited by rabbinic law may not be tithed one for another.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא בַּר רַב חָנָן לְאַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, גַּבֵּי מַעֲשַׂר בְּהֵמָה, דְּלָא כְּתִיב ״וְכׇל מַעְשַׂר בָּקָר וּמַעֲשֵׂר צֹאן״,
Rava bar Rav Ḥanan said to Abaye: If that is so, then with regard to animal tithe, where it is not written in the Torah: And all the tithe of the herd or the tithe of the flock, with the word “tithe” mentioned twice, once in reference to the herd and once in reference to the flock, but rather the verse states: “And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32),
יִתְעַשְּׂרוּ מִזֶּה עַל זֶה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אָמַר קְרָא ״הָעֲשִׂירִי״, תֵּן עֲשִׂירִי לָזֶה וְתֵן עֲשִׂירִי לָזֶה. אִי הָכִי, כְּבָשִׂים וְעִזִּים נָמֵי? ״וָצֹאן״ מַשְׁמַע כׇּל צֹאן אֶחָד.
let them be tithed from one for the other. Abaye said to him that the verse states: “The tenth shall be sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32). This indicates that one must give the tenth animal from this, the flock, and give the tenth animal from that, the herd, with each counted and given separately. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, sheep and goats should also have to be tithed separately. The Gemara answers that the verse states: “Or the flock,” which means that all the goats and sheep are one flock and may be tithed together.
הָכָא נָמֵי לֵימָא מַשְׁמַע כׇּל דָּגָן אֶחָד! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: ״רֵאשִׁיתָם״, וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא: ״רֵאשִׁיתָם״.
The Gemara raises a further difficulty: Here too, with regard to teruma and tithes, let us say that the term “grain” (Numbers 18:12) means that all the different types of grain are considered one grain, and may be tithed together. Abaye said in response that there it is different, as the verse states: “The first part of them” (Numbers 18:12), in the plural, which teaches that one must give the first part for each type of produce separately. And Rabbi Ile’a says likewise that “the first part of them” teaches that one must give the first part for each type of produce separately.
רָבָא אָמַר: בְּלָא ״רֵאשִׁיתָם״ נָמֵי מַשְׁמַע כׇּל דָּגָן אֶחָד — לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ. בִּשְׁלָמָא הָתָם אָמְרִינַן: ״וָצֹאן״ מַשְׁמַע כׇּל צֹאן אֶחָד, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ כְּבָשִׂים וְעִזִּים נָמֵי — לִכְתּוֹב ״וְכׇל מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה״.
Rava said that there is an alternative answer: Even without the term “the first part of them” there is also no difficulty, as you cannot say the term “grain” means that all the different types of grain are considered one grain. Rava explains: Granted, there, with regard to sheep and goats, we say that the term “or the flock” means that all goats and sheep are one flock. Because if it enters your mind that sheep and goats may also not be tithed one for the other, like the herd and the flock, let the verse write: And all the animal tithe, without distinguishing between herds and flocks.
וְכִי תֵּימָא: אִי כְּתִיב ״כׇּל מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה״, הֲוֵי אָמֵינָא אֲפִילּוּ חַיָּה — ״תַּחַת״ ״תַּחַת״ מִקֳּדָשִׁים גָּמַר.
And if you would say that if the verse had written: All the animal tithe, I would say that the requirement to tithe animals applies even to undomesticated animals, this is not so. The reason is that one derives the halakha of the animal tithe from sacrificial animals, via a verbal analogy of the terms “under” and “under.” With regard to sacrificial animals it states: “When a bull, or a sheep, or a goat is brought forth, then it shall be seven days under its mother, but from the eighth day onward it may be accepted for an offering made by fire to the Lord” (Leviticus 22:27), and with regard to animal tithe it states: “And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32). It is derived through this verbal analogy that just as an undomesticated animal cannot be consecrated as an offering, so too, it cannot be tithed.
וְאָתֵי בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר מֵחָדָשׁ וְיָשָׁן, ״בָּקָר וָצֹאן״ לְמָה לִי? בָּקָר וָצֹאן הוּא דְּאֵין מִתְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה, אֲבָל כְּבָשִׂים וְעִזִּים מִתְעַשְּׂרִין.
Rava continues his explanation: And as one would not have thought that undomesticated animals are included in the animal tithe the verse could have stated: And all the animal tithe, and one would derive that one species may not be tithed for another by an a fortiori inference from new grain and old grain, as specified earlier: If the grain tithe may not be taken from the new grain for the old grain despite the fact that the prohibition of diverse kinds does not apply, all the more so with regard to different species of animal, which are prohibited as diverse kinds; the animal tithe may not be taken from one for another. If so, why do I need the verse to state: “The herds or the flock”? This teaches that herds of cattle and flocks of sheep or goats may not be tithed from one for the other, but sheep and goats, which are both called flocks, may be tithed from one for the other.
אֲבָל הָכָא, מִי סַגִּיא דְּלָא כְּתִיב ״דָּגָן״? לְמַעוֹטֵי שְׁאָר מִינִין.
Rava concludes: But here, in the case of grain, would it suffice if the Torah had not written: “Grain,” to exclude other types of foods from the obligation of tithes by Torah law? In other words, the term “grain” must be serving to exclude other types of food, as one cannot claim they could have been excluded in some other manner.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן: אֵימָא לְעָרְבוּ לְבָקָר בְּצֹאן! אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָר זוּטְרָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן לְרָבָא: אִית לֵיהּ נָמֵי ״הָעֲשִׂירִי״.
Rav Huna, son of Rav Naḥman, objects to this claim of Rava in which it is derived from the words “herd” and “flock” that cattle and sheep may not be tithed together. One can say instead that this teaches that one should intermingle the cattle in the herd with the sheep in the flock and tithe them all together. Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman, said to Rav Huna, son of Rav Naḥman: Rava also accepts the opinion of Abaye that the verse “The tenth shall be sacred to the Lord” teaches that cattle and sheep must be tithed separately, and therefore he does not entertain that derivation.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רָבָא: בְּלֹא ״עֲשִׂירִי״ נָמֵי לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ בָּקָר וָצֹאן מִתְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה, דְּאִיתַּקַּשׁ מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה לְמַעֲשֵׂר דָּגָן — מָה מַעְשַׂר דָּגָן מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ לָא, אַף מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ לָא.
There are those who say that Rava said: Even without the verse “The tenth shall be sacred to the Lord” you also cannot say that a herd and a flock should be tithed from one for the other, as animal tithe is juxtaposed to grain tithe: Just as grain tithe may not be separated from one type of grain for another grain that is not its type, so too, animal tithe may not be separated from one type of animal for another species of animal that is not its type.
וְהָא רָבָא הוּא דְּאָמַר: ״שָׁנָה״ לְשָׁנָה הִקַּשְׁתִּיו, וְלֹא לְדָבָר אַחֵר! הֲדַר בֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵהַהִיא. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: חֲדָא (מיניה) [מִינַיְהִי] רַב פָּפָּא אַמְרַהּ.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t it Rava himself who said that the term: “Year by year” (Deuteronomy 14:22), teaches that I have juxtaposed the two types of tithe with regard to the year in which they were born, teaching that one may not tithe old and new flocks together, but not with regard to another matter, i.e., there is no prohibition against tithing two types together? The Gemara answers: Rava retracted that first opinion, and maintains that the juxtaposition applies even to the tithing of two types together. And if you wish, say instead that one of those opinions was said by Rav Pappa, not by Rava. Since Rav Pappa was Rava’s closest student and took over as head of the academy after Rava’s death, his statements were occasionally mistaken for those of Rava himself.
מַתְנִי׳ מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה מִצְטָרֵף כִּמְלֹא רֶגֶל בְּהֵמָה רוֹעָה, וְכַמָּה הִיא רֶגֶל בְּהֵמָה רוֹעָה? שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר מִיל. הָיוּ בֵּין אֵלּוּ לְאֵלּוּ שְׁלֹשִׁים וּשְׁנַיִם מִיל — אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין. הָיוּ לוֹ בָּאֶמְצַע — מֵבִיא וּמְעַשְּׂרָן בָּאֶמְצַע. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: הַיַּרְדֵּן מַפְסִיק לְמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה.
MISHNA: Animals subject to the obligation of animal tithe join together if the distance between them is no greater than the distance that a grazing animal can walk and still be tended by one shepherd. And how much is the distance that a grazing animal walks? It is sixteen mil. If the distance between these animals and those animals was thirty-two mil they do not join together. If he also had animals in the middle of that distance of thirty-two mil, he brings all three flocks to a pen and tithes them in the middle. Rabbi Meir says: The Jordan River divides between animals on two sides of the river with regard to animal tithe, even if the distance between them is minimal.
גְּמָ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי?
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that animals join together for the purposes of tithing if the distance between them is no greater than the distance a grazing animal can walk and still be tended by one shepherd. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? What is the source that this is the maximum distance at which they can be tithed together?
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר שֵׁילָא: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״עוֹד תַּעֲבֹרְנָה הַצֹּאן עַל יְדֵי מוֹנֶה״, וְקִים לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן דְּשִׁיתְּסַר מִיל קָא שָׁלְטָא בֵּיהּ עֵינָא דְּרוֹעֶה.
Rabba bar Sheila said that the verse states: “So says the Lord of hosts: Yet again shall there be in this place, which is desolate, without man and without animal, and in all its cities, a habitation of shepherds causing their flocks to lie down. In the cities of the hill country, in the cities of the lowland, and in the cities of the south, and in the land of Benjamin, and in the places about Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, the flock shall again pass under the hands of him who counts them, says the Lord” (Jeremiah 33:12–13). It is derived from here that animals that can pass under the hands of one shepherd are called one flock and can be counted together for the animal tithe. And the Sages have an accepted tradition that the eye of the shepherd can see up to a distance of sixteen mil.
הָיוּ בֵּין אֵלּוּ לְאֵלּוּ שְׁלֹשִׁים וּשְׁנַיִם מִיל אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין וְכוּ׳. שְׁלֹשִׁים וּשְׁנַיִם הוּא דְּאֵין מִצְטָרְפִין, הָא בְּצִיר מֵהָכִי מִצְטָרְפִין? וְהָא קָתָנֵי: שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר מִיל, טְפֵי לָא! מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא בָעֵי לְמִיתְנֵא סֵיפָא: הָיוּ לוֹ בָּאֶמְצַע — מֵבִיא וּמְעַשְּׂרָן בָּאֶמְצַע.
§ The mishna teaches that if the distance between these animals and those animals was thirty-two mil they do not join together. The Gemara infers: It is only if the distance between them is thirty-two mil that they do not join together, from which it can be inferred that if the distance between them is less than this they do join together. But the mishna earlier teaches: Sixteen mil, which indicates: And no more. The Gemara answers: One cannot infer that if the distance is less than thirty-two mil the animals join together. The mishna mentions thirty-two mil only because it wants to teach in the latter clause: If he also had animals in the middle of that distance of thirty-two mil, he brings them all to a pen and tithes them in the middle.
וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַב: חָמֵשׁ מִכָּאן וְחָמֵשׁ מִכָּאן וְחָמֵשׁ מֵאֶמְצַע, דְּהָנֵי חָמֵשׁ חַזְיָא לְהָכָא וְחַזְיָא לְהָכָא.
The Gemara asks: And how many animals must he have on the two sides and in the middle in order to tithe them as one group? Rav says: Five from here and five from there and five in the middle. The reason is that these five in the middle are fit to combine with the animals here and are likewise fit to combine with the animals there, to amount to a total of ten, to which the obligation of animal tithe applies. For this reason all three flocks are considered as one flock.
וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ חָמֵשׁ מִכָּאן וְחָמֵשׁ מִכָּאן וְאֶחָד בָּאֶמְצַע, חָזֵינַן לְרוֹעֶה כְּמַאן דְּקָאֵי הָכָא, וְקָרֵינַן בֵּיהּ ״מוֹנֶה״.
And Shmuel says: Even if there are five from here and five from there and only one in the middle they may be tithed together. The reason is that we see the shepherd as one who stands here in the middle and we apply the verse: “Who counts them” (Jeremiah 33:13), to him. Since he can see and count both sides from his vantage point in the middle, they are all considered one flock.
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Breaking Bones
02.15.2021 | ג׳ באדר תשפ״א
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Jenifer Nech
Houston, United States
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Lisa Lawrence
Neve Daniel, Israel
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Leah Goldford
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
I start learning Daf Yomi in January 2020. The daily learning with Rabbanit Michelle has kept me grounded in this very uncertain time. Despite everything going on – the Pandemic, my personal life, climate change, war, etc… I know I can count on Hadran’s podcast to bring a smile to my face.
Deb Engel
Los Angeles, United States
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Rookie Billet
Jerusalem, Israel
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Lisa S. Malik
Wynnewood, United States
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Elisheva Brauner
Jerusalem, Israel
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Janine Rubens
Virginia, United States
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Catriella Freedman
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Caroline Levison
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Michelle Lewis
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
Dena Lehrman
אפרת, Israel
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Silke Goldberg
Guildford, United Kingdom
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Joséphine Altzman
Teaneck, United States
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Julie Landau
Karmiel, Israel
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Anne Mirsky
Maale Adumim, Israel
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Rina Goldberg
Englewood NJ, United States
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Terri Krivosha
Minneapolis, United States
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Denise Neapolitan
Cambridge, United Kingdom
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Renee Braha
Brooklyn, NY, United States
Bekhorot 54
אַשְׁכְּחַן תִּירוֹשׁ וְיִצְהָר, תִּירוֹשׁ וְדָגָן דָּגָן וְדָגָן מִנַּיִן? קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה תִּירוֹשׁ וְיִצְהָר שֶׁאֵינָן כִּלְאַיִם זֶה בָּזֶה — אֵין מִתְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה, תִּירוֹשׁ וְדָגָן דָּגָן וְדָגָן שֶׁהֵם כִּלְאַיִם זֶה בָּזֶה — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יִתְעַשְּׂרוּ מִזֶּה עַל זֶה?
The Gemara asks: We found a source for the halakha that one may not separate teruma from wine and oil together; from where is it derived that one may not separate teruma from wine and grain together, or from grain of one kind and grain of a different kind together? The Gemara answers that this can be derived by an a fortiori inference: And if wine and oil, which are not prohibited due to the prohibition of diverse kinds if they are planted with each other, nevertheless may not be tithed from one for the other, then with regard to wine and grain or grain and grain, which are subject to the prohibition of diverse kinds when planted with each other, is it not logical that they may not be tithed from one for the other?
וּלְרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה, דְּאָמַר: עַד שֶׁיִּזְרַע חִטָּה וּשְׂעוֹרָה וְחַרְצָן בְּמַפּוֹלֶת יָד, הֵיכִי מַיְיתֵי לַהּ?
The Gemara challenges: But this derivation is problematic according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya, who says that the verse: “You shall not sow your vineyard with diverse kinds” (Deuteronomy 22:9), means that one who sows diverse kinds is not liable by Torah law until he sows wheat and barley and a grape seed with a single hand motion. According to this opinion, the above a fortiori inference is not valid; consequently, how does he derive the halakha that one may not tithe grain for wine or grain for grain?
מַיְיתֵי לַהּ הָכִי: וּמָה תִּירוֹשׁ וְיִצְהָר, שֶׁאֵינָן כִּלְאַיִם זֶה בָּזֶה אֲפִילּוּ עַל יְדֵי דָּבָר אַחֵר — אֵין מִתְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה. תִּירוֹשׁ וְדָגָן דָּגָן וְדָגָן, שֶׁהֵן כִּלְאַיִם זֶה בָּזֶה עַל יְדֵי דָּבָר אַחֵר — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יִתְעַשְּׂרוּ מִזֶּה עַל זֶה?
The Gemara answers that he derives it in this manner: And if wine and oil, which are not prohibited as diverse kinds with each other even by means of something else, i.e., even if one planted a different kind of grain seed with them, do not become prohibited, and yet they may not be tithed from one for the other, then with regard to wine and grain or grain and grain, which are prohibited as diverse kinds with something else, i.e., if they are planted with another type of seed, is it not logical that they may not be tithed from one for the other?
וּשְׁנֵי מִינִין בְּעָלְמָא, מְנָלַן? הָנֵי דְּרַבָּנַן נִינְהוּ, וְכֹל דְּתַקִּינוּ רַבָּנַן כְּעֵין דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא תַּקִּינוּ: מָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא שְׁנֵי מִינִין אֵינָן מִתְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה, דְּרַבָּנַן נָמֵי.
The Gemara asks: It can be derived in this manner that one may not separate teruma or tithes from wine for grain or vice versa; but from where do we derive the prohibition against separating teruma or tithes from two species in general that are not grain, e.g., lentils and beans, one for the other? The Gemara answers that the obligation to separate tithes from these other species, which are not mentioned in the Torah, applies by rabbinic law, and concerning all ordinances that the Sages instituted, they instituted them parallel to Torah law. Therefore, just as by Torah law two species may not be tithed from one for the other, so too, those mixtures that are prohibited by rabbinic law may not be tithed one for another.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא בַּר רַב חָנָן לְאַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, גַּבֵּי מַעֲשַׂר בְּהֵמָה, דְּלָא כְּתִיב ״וְכׇל מַעְשַׂר בָּקָר וּמַעֲשֵׂר צֹאן״,
Rava bar Rav Ḥanan said to Abaye: If that is so, then with regard to animal tithe, where it is not written in the Torah: And all the tithe of the herd or the tithe of the flock, with the word “tithe” mentioned twice, once in reference to the herd and once in reference to the flock, but rather the verse states: “And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32),
יִתְעַשְּׂרוּ מִזֶּה עַל זֶה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אָמַר קְרָא ״הָעֲשִׂירִי״, תֵּן עֲשִׂירִי לָזֶה וְתֵן עֲשִׂירִי לָזֶה. אִי הָכִי, כְּבָשִׂים וְעִזִּים נָמֵי? ״וָצֹאן״ מַשְׁמַע כׇּל צֹאן אֶחָד.
let them be tithed from one for the other. Abaye said to him that the verse states: “The tenth shall be sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32). This indicates that one must give the tenth animal from this, the flock, and give the tenth animal from that, the herd, with each counted and given separately. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, sheep and goats should also have to be tithed separately. The Gemara answers that the verse states: “Or the flock,” which means that all the goats and sheep are one flock and may be tithed together.
הָכָא נָמֵי לֵימָא מַשְׁמַע כׇּל דָּגָן אֶחָד! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: ״רֵאשִׁיתָם״, וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא: ״רֵאשִׁיתָם״.
The Gemara raises a further difficulty: Here too, with regard to teruma and tithes, let us say that the term “grain” (Numbers 18:12) means that all the different types of grain are considered one grain, and may be tithed together. Abaye said in response that there it is different, as the verse states: “The first part of them” (Numbers 18:12), in the plural, which teaches that one must give the first part for each type of produce separately. And Rabbi Ile’a says likewise that “the first part of them” teaches that one must give the first part for each type of produce separately.
רָבָא אָמַר: בְּלָא ״רֵאשִׁיתָם״ נָמֵי מַשְׁמַע כׇּל דָּגָן אֶחָד — לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ. בִּשְׁלָמָא הָתָם אָמְרִינַן: ״וָצֹאן״ מַשְׁמַע כׇּל צֹאן אֶחָד, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ כְּבָשִׂים וְעִזִּים נָמֵי — לִכְתּוֹב ״וְכׇל מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה״.
Rava said that there is an alternative answer: Even without the term “the first part of them” there is also no difficulty, as you cannot say the term “grain” means that all the different types of grain are considered one grain. Rava explains: Granted, there, with regard to sheep and goats, we say that the term “or the flock” means that all goats and sheep are one flock. Because if it enters your mind that sheep and goats may also not be tithed one for the other, like the herd and the flock, let the verse write: And all the animal tithe, without distinguishing between herds and flocks.
וְכִי תֵּימָא: אִי כְּתִיב ״כׇּל מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה״, הֲוֵי אָמֵינָא אֲפִילּוּ חַיָּה — ״תַּחַת״ ״תַּחַת״ מִקֳּדָשִׁים גָּמַר.
And if you would say that if the verse had written: All the animal tithe, I would say that the requirement to tithe animals applies even to undomesticated animals, this is not so. The reason is that one derives the halakha of the animal tithe from sacrificial animals, via a verbal analogy of the terms “under” and “under.” With regard to sacrificial animals it states: “When a bull, or a sheep, or a goat is brought forth, then it shall be seven days under its mother, but from the eighth day onward it may be accepted for an offering made by fire to the Lord” (Leviticus 22:27), and with regard to animal tithe it states: “And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32). It is derived through this verbal analogy that just as an undomesticated animal cannot be consecrated as an offering, so too, it cannot be tithed.
וְאָתֵי בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר מֵחָדָשׁ וְיָשָׁן, ״בָּקָר וָצֹאן״ לְמָה לִי? בָּקָר וָצֹאן הוּא דְּאֵין מִתְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה, אֲבָל כְּבָשִׂים וְעִזִּים מִתְעַשְּׂרִין.
Rava continues his explanation: And as one would not have thought that undomesticated animals are included in the animal tithe the verse could have stated: And all the animal tithe, and one would derive that one species may not be tithed for another by an a fortiori inference from new grain and old grain, as specified earlier: If the grain tithe may not be taken from the new grain for the old grain despite the fact that the prohibition of diverse kinds does not apply, all the more so with regard to different species of animal, which are prohibited as diverse kinds; the animal tithe may not be taken from one for another. If so, why do I need the verse to state: “The herds or the flock”? This teaches that herds of cattle and flocks of sheep or goats may not be tithed from one for the other, but sheep and goats, which are both called flocks, may be tithed from one for the other.
אֲבָל הָכָא, מִי סַגִּיא דְּלָא כְּתִיב ״דָּגָן״? לְמַעוֹטֵי שְׁאָר מִינִין.
Rava concludes: But here, in the case of grain, would it suffice if the Torah had not written: “Grain,” to exclude other types of foods from the obligation of tithes by Torah law? In other words, the term “grain” must be serving to exclude other types of food, as one cannot claim they could have been excluded in some other manner.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן: אֵימָא לְעָרְבוּ לְבָקָר בְּצֹאן! אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָר זוּטְרָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן לְרָבָא: אִית לֵיהּ נָמֵי ״הָעֲשִׂירִי״.
Rav Huna, son of Rav Naḥman, objects to this claim of Rava in which it is derived from the words “herd” and “flock” that cattle and sheep may not be tithed together. One can say instead that this teaches that one should intermingle the cattle in the herd with the sheep in the flock and tithe them all together. Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman, said to Rav Huna, son of Rav Naḥman: Rava also accepts the opinion of Abaye that the verse “The tenth shall be sacred to the Lord” teaches that cattle and sheep must be tithed separately, and therefore he does not entertain that derivation.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רָבָא: בְּלֹא ״עֲשִׂירִי״ נָמֵי לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ בָּקָר וָצֹאן מִתְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה, דְּאִיתַּקַּשׁ מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה לְמַעֲשֵׂר דָּגָן — מָה מַעְשַׂר דָּגָן מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ לָא, אַף מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ לָא.
There are those who say that Rava said: Even without the verse “The tenth shall be sacred to the Lord” you also cannot say that a herd and a flock should be tithed from one for the other, as animal tithe is juxtaposed to grain tithe: Just as grain tithe may not be separated from one type of grain for another grain that is not its type, so too, animal tithe may not be separated from one type of animal for another species of animal that is not its type.
וְהָא רָבָא הוּא דְּאָמַר: ״שָׁנָה״ לְשָׁנָה הִקַּשְׁתִּיו, וְלֹא לְדָבָר אַחֵר! הֲדַר בֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵהַהִיא. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: חֲדָא (מיניה) [מִינַיְהִי] רַב פָּפָּא אַמְרַהּ.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t it Rava himself who said that the term: “Year by year” (Deuteronomy 14:22), teaches that I have juxtaposed the two types of tithe with regard to the year in which they were born, teaching that one may not tithe old and new flocks together, but not with regard to another matter, i.e., there is no prohibition against tithing two types together? The Gemara answers: Rava retracted that first opinion, and maintains that the juxtaposition applies even to the tithing of two types together. And if you wish, say instead that one of those opinions was said by Rav Pappa, not by Rava. Since Rav Pappa was Rava’s closest student and took over as head of the academy after Rava’s death, his statements were occasionally mistaken for those of Rava himself.
מַתְנִי׳ מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה מִצְטָרֵף כִּמְלֹא רֶגֶל בְּהֵמָה רוֹעָה, וְכַמָּה הִיא רֶגֶל בְּהֵמָה רוֹעָה? שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר מִיל. הָיוּ בֵּין אֵלּוּ לְאֵלּוּ שְׁלֹשִׁים וּשְׁנַיִם מִיל — אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין. הָיוּ לוֹ בָּאֶמְצַע — מֵבִיא וּמְעַשְּׂרָן בָּאֶמְצַע. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: הַיַּרְדֵּן מַפְסִיק לְמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה.
MISHNA: Animals subject to the obligation of animal tithe join together if the distance between them is no greater than the distance that a grazing animal can walk and still be tended by one shepherd. And how much is the distance that a grazing animal walks? It is sixteen mil. If the distance between these animals and those animals was thirty-two mil they do not join together. If he also had animals in the middle of that distance of thirty-two mil, he brings all three flocks to a pen and tithes them in the middle. Rabbi Meir says: The Jordan River divides between animals on two sides of the river with regard to animal tithe, even if the distance between them is minimal.
גְּמָ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי?
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that animals join together for the purposes of tithing if the distance between them is no greater than the distance a grazing animal can walk and still be tended by one shepherd. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? What is the source that this is the maximum distance at which they can be tithed together?
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר שֵׁילָא: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״עוֹד תַּעֲבֹרְנָה הַצֹּאן עַל יְדֵי מוֹנֶה״, וְקִים לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן דְּשִׁיתְּסַר מִיל קָא שָׁלְטָא בֵּיהּ עֵינָא דְּרוֹעֶה.
Rabba bar Sheila said that the verse states: “So says the Lord of hosts: Yet again shall there be in this place, which is desolate, without man and without animal, and in all its cities, a habitation of shepherds causing their flocks to lie down. In the cities of the hill country, in the cities of the lowland, and in the cities of the south, and in the land of Benjamin, and in the places about Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, the flock shall again pass under the hands of him who counts them, says the Lord” (Jeremiah 33:12–13). It is derived from here that animals that can pass under the hands of one shepherd are called one flock and can be counted together for the animal tithe. And the Sages have an accepted tradition that the eye of the shepherd can see up to a distance of sixteen mil.
הָיוּ בֵּין אֵלּוּ לְאֵלּוּ שְׁלֹשִׁים וּשְׁנַיִם מִיל אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין וְכוּ׳. שְׁלֹשִׁים וּשְׁנַיִם הוּא דְּאֵין מִצְטָרְפִין, הָא בְּצִיר מֵהָכִי מִצְטָרְפִין? וְהָא קָתָנֵי: שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר מִיל, טְפֵי לָא! מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא בָעֵי לְמִיתְנֵא סֵיפָא: הָיוּ לוֹ בָּאֶמְצַע — מֵבִיא וּמְעַשְּׂרָן בָּאֶמְצַע.
§ The mishna teaches that if the distance between these animals and those animals was thirty-two mil they do not join together. The Gemara infers: It is only if the distance between them is thirty-two mil that they do not join together, from which it can be inferred that if the distance between them is less than this they do join together. But the mishna earlier teaches: Sixteen mil, which indicates: And no more. The Gemara answers: One cannot infer that if the distance is less than thirty-two mil the animals join together. The mishna mentions thirty-two mil only because it wants to teach in the latter clause: If he also had animals in the middle of that distance of thirty-two mil, he brings them all to a pen and tithes them in the middle.
וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַב: חָמֵשׁ מִכָּאן וְחָמֵשׁ מִכָּאן וְחָמֵשׁ מֵאֶמְצַע, דְּהָנֵי חָמֵשׁ חַזְיָא לְהָכָא וְחַזְיָא לְהָכָא.
The Gemara asks: And how many animals must he have on the two sides and in the middle in order to tithe them as one group? Rav says: Five from here and five from there and five in the middle. The reason is that these five in the middle are fit to combine with the animals here and are likewise fit to combine with the animals there, to amount to a total of ten, to which the obligation of animal tithe applies. For this reason all three flocks are considered as one flock.
וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ חָמֵשׁ מִכָּאן וְחָמֵשׁ מִכָּאן וְאֶחָד בָּאֶמְצַע, חָזֵינַן לְרוֹעֶה כְּמַאן דְּקָאֵי הָכָא, וְקָרֵינַן בֵּיהּ ״מוֹנֶה״.
And Shmuel says: Even if there are five from here and five from there and only one in the middle they may be tithed together. The reason is that we see the shepherd as one who stands here in the middle and we apply the verse: “Who counts them” (Jeremiah 33:13), to him. Since he can see and count both sides from his vantage point in the middle, they are all considered one flock.
Follow
