Today's Daf Yomi
June 10, 2019 | ืืณ ืืกืืื ืชืฉืขืดื
Bekhorot 54
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?
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Podcast (ืืฃ ืืืื ืื ืฉืื - ืขืืจืืช): Play in new window | Download
If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"
ืืฉืืื ืชืืจืืฉ ืืืฆืืจ ืชืืจืืฉ ืืืื ืืื ืืืื ืื ืื ืงื ืืืืืจ ืืื ืชืืจืืฉ ืืืฆืืจ ืฉืืื ื ืืืืื ืื ืืื ืืื ืืชืขืฉืจืื ืืื ืขื ืื ืชืืจืืฉ ืืืื ืืื ืืืื ืฉืื ืืืืื ืื ืืื ืืื ื ืืื ืฉืื ืืชืขืฉืจื ืืื ืขื ืื
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?
ืืืจืื ืืืฉืื ืืืืจ ืขื ืฉืืืจืข ืืื ืืฉืขืืจื ืืืจืฆื ืืืคืืืช ืื ืืืื ืืืืชื ืื
The Gemara challenges: But this derivation is problematic according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya, who says that the verse: โYou shall not sow your vineyard with diverse kindsโ (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?
ืืืืชื ืื ืืื ืืื ืชืืจืืฉ ืืืฆืืจ ืฉืืื ื ืืืืื ืื ืืื ืืคืืื ืขื ืืื ืืืจ ืืืจ ืืื ืืชืขืฉืจืื ืืื ืขื ืื ืชืืจืืฉ ืืืื ืืื ืืืื ืฉืื ืืืืื ืื ืืื ืขื ืืื ืืืจ ืืืจ ืืื ื ืืื ืฉืื ืืชืขืฉืจื ืืื ืขื ืื
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?
ืืฉื ื ืืื ืื ืืขืืื ืื ืื ืื ื ืืจืื ื ื ืื ืื ืืื ืืชืงืื ื ืจืื ื ืืขืื ืืืืจืืืชื ืชืงืื ื ืื ืืืืจืืืชื ืฉื ื ืืื ืื ืืื ื ืืชืขืฉืจืื ืืื ืขื ืื ืืจืื ื ื ืื
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.
ืืืจ ืืื ืจืื ืืจ ืจื ืื ื ืืืืื ืืื ืืขืชื ืืื ืืขืฉืจ ืืืื ืืื ืืชืื ืืื ืืขืฉืจ ืืงืจ ืืืขืฉืจ ืฆืื
Rava bar Rav แธคanan 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 โtitheโ mentioned twice, once in reference to the herd and once in reference to the flock, but rather the verse states: โAnd all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred to the Lordโ (Leviticus 27:32),
ืืชืขืฉืจื ืืื ืขื ืื ืืืจ ืืื ืืืจ ืงืจื ืืขืฉืืจื ืชื ืขืฉืืจื ืืื ืืชื ืขืฉืืจื ืืื ืื ืืื ืืืฉืื ืืขืืื ื ืื ืืฆืื ืืฉืืข ืื ืฆืื ืืื
let them be tithed from one for the other. Abaye said to him that the verse states: โThe tenth shall be sacred to the Lordโ (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: โOr the flock,โ which means that all the goats and sheep are one flock and may be tithed together.
ืืื ื ืื ืืืื ืืฉืืข ืื ืืื ืืื ืืืจ ืืืื ืจืืฉืืชื ืืื ืืืจ ืจืื ืืืืขื ืจืืฉืืชื
The Gemara raises a further difficulty: Here too, with regard to teruma and tithes, let us say that the term โgrainโ (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: โThe first part of themโ (Numbers 18:12), in the plural, which teaches that one must give the first part for each type of produce separately. And Rabbi Ileโa says likewise that โthe first part of themโ teaches that one must give the first part for each type of produce separately.
ืจืื ืืืจ ืืื ืจืืฉืืชื ื ืื ืืฉืืข ืื ืืื ืืื ืื ืืฆืืช ืืืจืช ืืฉืืื ืืชื ืืืจืื ื ืืฆืื ืืฉืืข ืื ืฆืื ืืื ืืื ืกืืงื ืืขืชื ืืืฉืื ืืขืืื ื ืื ืืืชืื ืืื ืืขืฉืจ ืืืื
Rava said that there is an alternative answer: Even without the term โthe first part of themโ there is also no difficulty, as you cannot say the term โgrainโ 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 โor the flockโ 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.
ืืื ืชืืื ืื ืืชืื ืื ืืขืฉืจ ืืืื ืืื ืืืื ื ืืคืืื ืืื ืชืืช ืชืืช ืืงืืฉืื ืืืจ
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 โunderโ and โunder.โ With regard to sacrificial animals it states: โWhen 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 Lordโ (Leviticus 22:27), and with regard to animal tithe it states: โAnd all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred to the Lordโ (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.
ืืืชื ืืงื ืืืืืจ ืืืืฉ ืืืฉื ืืงืจ ืืฆืื ืืื ืื ืืงืจ ืืฆืื ืืื ืืืื ืืชืขืฉืจืื ืืื ืขื ืื ืืื ืืืฉืื ืืขืืื ืืชืขืฉืจืื
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: โThe herds or the flockโ? 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.
ืืื ืืื ืื ืกืืื ืืื ืืชืื ืืื ืืืขืืื ืฉืืจ ืืื ืื
Rava concludes: But here, in the case of grain, would it suffice if the Torah had not written: โGrain,โ to exclude other types of foods from the obligation of tithes by Torah law? In other words, the term โgrainโ must be serving to exclude other types of food, as one cannot claim they could have been excluded in some other manner.
ืืชืงืืฃ ืื ืจื ืืื ื ืืจืื ืืจื ื ืืื ืืืื ืืขืจืื ืืืงืจ ืืฆืื ืืืจ ืืื ืืจ ืืืืจื ืืจืื ืืจื ื ืืื ืืจืื ืืืช ืืื ื ืื ืืขืฉืืจื
Rav Huna, son of Rav Naแธฅman, objects to this claim of Rava in which it is derived from the words โherdโ and โflockโ 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 Naแธฅman, said to Rav Huna, son of Rav Naแธฅman: Rava also accepts the opinion of Abaye that the verse โThe tenth shall be sacred to the Lordโ teaches that cattle and sheep must be tithed separately, and therefore he does not entertain that derivation.
ืืืื ืืืืจื ืืืจ ืจืื ืืื ืขืฉืืจื ื ืื ืื ืืฆืืช ืืืจืช ืืงืจ ืืฆืื ืืชืขืฉืจืื ืืื ืขื ืื ืืืืชืงืฉ ืืขืฉืจ ืืืื ืืืขืฉืจ ืืื ืื ืืขืฉืจ ืืื ืืืื ืขื ืฉืืื ื ืืื ื ืื ืืฃ ืืขืฉืจ ืืืื ืืืื ืขื ืฉืืื ื ืืื ื ืื
There are those who say that Rava said: Even without the verse โThe tenth shall be sacred to the Lordโ 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.
ืืื ืจืื ืืื ืืืืจ ืฉื ื ืืฉื ื ืืงืฉืชืื ืืื ืืืืจ ืืืจ ืืืจ ืืื ืจืื ืืืืื ืืืืืขืืช ืืืื ืืื ืืื ืื ืจื ืคืคื ืืืจื
The Gemara asks: But isnโt it Rava himself who said that the term: โYear by yearโ (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 Ravaโs closest student and took over as head of the academy after Ravaโs death, his statements were occasionally mistaken for those of Rava himself.
ืืชื ืืณ ืืขืฉืจ ืืืื ืืฆืืจืฃ ืืืื ืจืื ืืืื ืจืืขื ืืืื ืืื ืจืื ืืืื ืจืืขื ืฉืฉื ืขืฉืจ ืืื ืืื ืืื ืืื ืืืื ืฉืืฉืื ืืฉื ืื ืืื ืืื ืืฆืืจืคืื ืืื ืื ืืืืฆืข ืืืื ืืืขืฉืจื ืืืืฆืข ืจืื ืืืืจ ืืืืจ ืืืจืื ืืคืกืืง ืืืขืฉืจ ืืืื
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.
ืืืณ ืื ื ืื ื ืืืื
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?
ืืืจ ืจืื ืืจ ืฉืืื ืืืืจ ืงืจื ืขืื ืชืขืืจื ื ืืฆืื ืขื ืืื ืืื ื ืืงืื ืืื ืืจืื ื ืืฉืืชืกืจ ืืื ืงื ืฉืืื ืืื ืขืื ื ืืจืืขื
Rabba bar Sheila said that the verse states: โSo 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 Lordโ (Jeremiah 33:12โ13). 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.
ืืื ืืื ืืื ืืืื ืฉืืฉืื ืืฉื ืื ืืื ืืื ืืฆืืจืคืื ืืืืณ ืฉืืฉืื ืืฉื ืื ืืื ืืืื ืืฆืืจืคืื ืื ืืฆืืจ ืืืื ืืฆืืจืคืื ืืื ืงืชื ื ืฉืฉื ืขืฉืจ ืืื ืืคื ืื ืืฉืื ืืงื ืืขื ืืืืชื ื ืกืืคื ืืื ืื ืืืืฆืข ืืืื ืืืขืฉืจื ืืืืฆืข
ยง 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.
ืืืื ืืืจ ืจื ืืืฉ ืืืื ืืืืฉ ืืืื ืืืืฉ ืืืืฆืข ืืื ื ืืืฉ ืืืื ืืืื ืืืืื ืืืื
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.
ืืฉืืืื ืืืจ ืืคืืื ืืืฉ ืืืื ืืืืฉ ืืืื ืืืื ืืืืฆืข ืืืื ื ืืจืืขื ืืืื ืืงืื ืืื ืืงืจืื ื ืืื ืืื ื
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: โWho counts themโ (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.
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
Want to explore more about the Daf?
See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners
Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!
Bekhorot 54
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
ืืฉืืื ืชืืจืืฉ ืืืฆืืจ ืชืืจืืฉ ืืืื ืืื ืืืื ืื ืื ืงื ืืืืืจ ืืื ืชืืจืืฉ ืืืฆืืจ ืฉืืื ื ืืืืื ืื ืืื ืืื ืืชืขืฉืจืื ืืื ืขื ืื ืชืืจืืฉ ืืืื ืืื ืืืื ืฉืื ืืืืื ืื ืืื ืืื ื ืืื ืฉืื ืืชืขืฉืจื ืืื ืขื ืื
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?
ืืืจืื ืืืฉืื ืืืืจ ืขื ืฉืืืจืข ืืื ืืฉืขืืจื ืืืจืฆื ืืืคืืืช ืื ืืืื ืืืืชื ืื
The Gemara challenges: But this derivation is problematic according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya, who says that the verse: โYou shall not sow your vineyard with diverse kindsโ (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?
ืืืืชื ืื ืืื ืืื ืชืืจืืฉ ืืืฆืืจ ืฉืืื ื ืืืืื ืื ืืื ืืคืืื ืขื ืืื ืืืจ ืืืจ ืืื ืืชืขืฉืจืื ืืื ืขื ืื ืชืืจืืฉ ืืืื ืืื ืืืื ืฉืื ืืืืื ืื ืืื ืขื ืืื ืืืจ ืืืจ ืืื ื ืืื ืฉืื ืืชืขืฉืจื ืืื ืขื ืื
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?
ืืฉื ื ืืื ืื ืืขืืื ืื ืื ืื ื ืืจืื ื ื ืื ืื ืืื ืืชืงืื ื ืจืื ื ืืขืื ืืืืจืืืชื ืชืงืื ื ืื ืืืืจืืืชื ืฉื ื ืืื ืื ืืื ื ืืชืขืฉืจืื ืืื ืขื ืื ืืจืื ื ื ืื
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.
ืืืจ ืืื ืจืื ืืจ ืจื ืื ื ืืืืื ืืื ืืขืชื ืืื ืืขืฉืจ ืืืื ืืื ืืชืื ืืื ืืขืฉืจ ืืงืจ ืืืขืฉืจ ืฆืื
Rava bar Rav แธคanan 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 โtitheโ mentioned twice, once in reference to the herd and once in reference to the flock, but rather the verse states: โAnd all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred to the Lordโ (Leviticus 27:32),
ืืชืขืฉืจื ืืื ืขื ืื ืืืจ ืืื ืืืจ ืงืจื ืืขืฉืืจื ืชื ืขืฉืืจื ืืื ืืชื ืขืฉืืจื ืืื ืื ืืื ืืืฉืื ืืขืืื ื ืื ืืฆืื ืืฉืืข ืื ืฆืื ืืื
let them be tithed from one for the other. Abaye said to him that the verse states: โThe tenth shall be sacred to the Lordโ (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: โOr the flock,โ which means that all the goats and sheep are one flock and may be tithed together.
ืืื ื ืื ืืืื ืืฉืืข ืื ืืื ืืื ืืืจ ืืืื ืจืืฉืืชื ืืื ืืืจ ืจืื ืืืืขื ืจืืฉืืชื
The Gemara raises a further difficulty: Here too, with regard to teruma and tithes, let us say that the term โgrainโ (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: โThe first part of themโ (Numbers 18:12), in the plural, which teaches that one must give the first part for each type of produce separately. And Rabbi Ileโa says likewise that โthe first part of themโ teaches that one must give the first part for each type of produce separately.
ืจืื ืืืจ ืืื ืจืืฉืืชื ื ืื ืืฉืืข ืื ืืื ืืื ืื ืืฆืืช ืืืจืช ืืฉืืื ืืชื ืืืจืื ื ืืฆืื ืืฉืืข ืื ืฆืื ืืื ืืื ืกืืงื ืืขืชื ืืืฉืื ืืขืืื ื ืื ืืืชืื ืืื ืืขืฉืจ ืืืื
Rava said that there is an alternative answer: Even without the term โthe first part of themโ there is also no difficulty, as you cannot say the term โgrainโ 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 โor the flockโ 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.
ืืื ืชืืื ืื ืืชืื ืื ืืขืฉืจ ืืืื ืืื ืืืื ื ืืคืืื ืืื ืชืืช ืชืืช ืืงืืฉืื ืืืจ
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 โunderโ and โunder.โ With regard to sacrificial animals it states: โWhen 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 Lordโ (Leviticus 22:27), and with regard to animal tithe it states: โAnd all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred to the Lordโ (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.
ืืืชื ืืงื ืืืืืจ ืืืืฉ ืืืฉื ืืงืจ ืืฆืื ืืื ืื ืืงืจ ืืฆืื ืืื ืืืื ืืชืขืฉืจืื ืืื ืขื ืื ืืื ืืืฉืื ืืขืืื ืืชืขืฉืจืื
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: โThe herds or the flockโ? 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.
ืืื ืืื ืื ืกืืื ืืื ืืชืื ืืื ืืืขืืื ืฉืืจ ืืื ืื
Rava concludes: But here, in the case of grain, would it suffice if the Torah had not written: โGrain,โ to exclude other types of foods from the obligation of tithes by Torah law? In other words, the term โgrainโ must be serving to exclude other types of food, as one cannot claim they could have been excluded in some other manner.
ืืชืงืืฃ ืื ืจื ืืื ื ืืจืื ืืจื ื ืืื ืืืื ืืขืจืื ืืืงืจ ืืฆืื ืืืจ ืืื ืืจ ืืืืจื ืืจืื ืืจื ื ืืื ืืจืื ืืืช ืืื ื ืื ืืขืฉืืจื
Rav Huna, son of Rav Naแธฅman, objects to this claim of Rava in which it is derived from the words โherdโ and โflockโ 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 Naแธฅman, said to Rav Huna, son of Rav Naแธฅman: Rava also accepts the opinion of Abaye that the verse โThe tenth shall be sacred to the Lordโ teaches that cattle and sheep must be tithed separately, and therefore he does not entertain that derivation.
ืืืื ืืืืจื ืืืจ ืจืื ืืื ืขืฉืืจื ื ืื ืื ืืฆืืช ืืืจืช ืืงืจ ืืฆืื ืืชืขืฉืจืื ืืื ืขื ืื ืืืืชืงืฉ ืืขืฉืจ ืืืื ืืืขืฉืจ ืืื ืื ืืขืฉืจ ืืื ืืืื ืขื ืฉืืื ื ืืื ื ืื ืืฃ ืืขืฉืจ ืืืื ืืืื ืขื ืฉืืื ื ืืื ื ืื
There are those who say that Rava said: Even without the verse โThe tenth shall be sacred to the Lordโ 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.
ืืื ืจืื ืืื ืืืืจ ืฉื ื ืืฉื ื ืืงืฉืชืื ืืื ืืืืจ ืืืจ ืืืจ ืืื ืจืื ืืืืื ืืืืืขืืช ืืืื ืืื ืืื ืื ืจื ืคืคื ืืืจื
The Gemara asks: But isnโt it Rava himself who said that the term: โYear by yearโ (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 Ravaโs closest student and took over as head of the academy after Ravaโs death, his statements were occasionally mistaken for those of Rava himself.
ืืชื ืืณ ืืขืฉืจ ืืืื ืืฆืืจืฃ ืืืื ืจืื ืืืื ืจืืขื ืืืื ืืื ืจืื ืืืื ืจืืขื ืฉืฉื ืขืฉืจ ืืื ืืื ืืื ืืื ืืืื ืฉืืฉืื ืืฉื ืื ืืื ืืื ืืฆืืจืคืื ืืื ืื ืืืืฆืข ืืืื ืืืขืฉืจื ืืืืฆืข ืจืื ืืืืจ ืืืืจ ืืืจืื ืืคืกืืง ืืืขืฉืจ ืืืื
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.
ืืืณ ืื ื ืื ื ืืืื
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?
ืืืจ ืจืื ืืจ ืฉืืื ืืืืจ ืงืจื ืขืื ืชืขืืจื ื ืืฆืื ืขื ืืื ืืื ื ืืงืื ืืื ืืจืื ื ืืฉืืชืกืจ ืืื ืงื ืฉืืื ืืื ืขืื ื ืืจืืขื
Rabba bar Sheila said that the verse states: โSo 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 Lordโ (Jeremiah 33:12โ13). 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.
ืืื ืืื ืืื ืืืื ืฉืืฉืื ืืฉื ืื ืืื ืืื ืืฆืืจืคืื ืืืืณ ืฉืืฉืื ืืฉื ืื ืืื ืืืื ืืฆืืจืคืื ืื ืืฆืืจ ืืืื ืืฆืืจืคืื ืืื ืงืชื ื ืฉืฉื ืขืฉืจ ืืื ืืคื ืื ืืฉืื ืืงื ืืขื ืืืืชื ื ืกืืคื ืืื ืื ืืืืฆืข ืืืื ืืืขืฉืจื ืืืืฆืข
ยง 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.
ืืืื ืืืจ ืจื ืืืฉ ืืืื ืืืืฉ ืืืื ืืืืฉ ืืืืฆืข ืืื ื ืืืฉ ืืืื ืืืื ืืืืื ืืืื
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.
ืืฉืืืื ืืืจ ืืคืืื ืืืฉ ืืืื ืืืืฉ ืืืื ืืืื ืืืืฆืข ืืืื ื ืืจืืขื ืืืื ืืงืื ืืื ืืงืจืื ื ืืื ืืื ื
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: โWho counts themโ (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.