Bekhorot 54

אשכחן תירוש ויצהר תירוש ודגן דגן ודגן מנין קל וחומר ומה תירוש ויצהר שאינן כלאים זה בזה אין מתעשרין מזה על זה תירוש ודגן דגן ודגן שהם כלאים זה בזה אינו דין שלא יתעשרו מזה על זה

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?

ולרבי יאשיה דאמר עד שיזרע חטה ושעורה וחרצן במפולת יד היכי מייתי לה

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?

מייתי לה הכי ומה תירוש ויצהר שאינן כלאים זה בזה אפילו על ידי דבר אחר אין מתעשרין מזה על זה תירוש ודגן דגן ודגן שהן כלאים זה בזה על ידי דבר אחר אינו דין שלא יתעשרו מזה על זה

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?

ושני מינין בעלמא מנלן הני דרבנן נינהו וכל דתקינו רבנן כעין דאורייתא תקינו מה דאורייתא שני מינין אינן מתעשרין מזה על זה דרבנן נמי

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.

אמר ליה רבא בר רב חנן לאביי אלא מעתה גבי מעשר בהמה דלא כתיב וכל מעשר בקר ומעשר צאן

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),

יתעשרו מזה על זה אמר ליה אמר קרא העשירי תן עשירי לזה ותן עשירי לזה אי הכי כבשים ועזים נמי וצאן משמע כל צאן אחד

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.

הכא נמי לימא משמע כל דגן אחד אמר אביי ראשיתם וכן אמר רבי אילעא ראשיתם

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.

רבא אמר בלא ראשיתם נמי משמע כל דגן אחד לא מצית אמרת בשלמא התם אמרינן וצאן משמע כל צאן אחד דאי סלקא דעתך כבשים ועזים נמי לכתוב וכל מעשר בהמה

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.

וכי תימא אי כתיב כל מעשר בהמה הוי אמינא אפילו חיה תחת תחת מקדשים גמר

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.

ואתי בקל וחומר מחדש וישן בקר וצאן למה לי בקר וצאן הוא דאין מתעשרין מזה על זה אבל כבשים ועזים מתעשרין

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.

אבל הכא מי סגיא דלא כתיב דגן למעוטי שאר מינין

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.

מתקיף לה רב הונא בריה דרב נחמן אימא לערבו לבקר בצאן אמר ליה מר זוטרא בריה דרב נחמן לרבא אית ליה נמי העשירי

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.

איכא דאמרי אמר רבא בלא עשירי נמי לא מצית אמרת בקר וצאן מתעשרין מזה על זה דאיתקש מעשר בהמה למעשר דגן מה מעשר דגן ממין על שאינו מינו לא אף מעשר בהמה ממין על שאינו מינו לא

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.

והא רבא הוא דאמר שנה לשנה הקשתיו ולא לדבר אחר הדר ביה רבא מההיא ואיבעית אימא חדא מיניה רב פפא אמרה

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.

מתני׳ מעשר בהמה מצטרף כמלא רגל בהמה רועה וכמה היא רגל בהמה רועה ששה עשר מיל היו בין אלו לאלו שלשים ושנים מיל אין מצטרפין היו לו באמצע מביא ומעשרן באמצע רבי מאיר אומר הירדן מפסיק למעשר בהמה

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.

גמ׳ מנא הני מילי

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?

אמר רבה בר שילא דאמר קרא עוד תעברנה הצאן על ידי מונה וקים להו לרבנן דשיתסר מיל קא שלטא ביה עינא דרועה

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.

היו בין אלו לאלו שלשים ושנים מיל אין מצטרפין וכו׳ שלשים ושנים הוא דאין מצטרפין הא בציר מהכי מצטרפין והא קתני ששה עשר מיל טפי לא משום דקא בעי למיתנא סיפא היו לו באמצע מביא ומעשרן באמצע

§ 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.

וכמה אמר רב חמש מכאן וחמש מכאן וחמש מאמצע דהני חמש חזיא להכא וחזיא להכא

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.

ושמואל אמר אפילו חמש מכאן וחמש מכאן ואחד באמצע חזינן לרועה כמאן דקאי הכא וקרינן ביה מונה

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.