Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

June 10, 2019 | 讝壮 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗砖讻讞谉 转讬专讜砖 讜讬爪讛专 转讬专讜砖 讜讚讙谉 讚讙谉 讜讚讙谉 诪谞讬谉 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 转讬专讜砖 讜讬爪讛专 砖讗讬谞谉 讻诇讗讬诐 讝讛 讘讝讛 讗讬谉 诪转注砖专讬谉 诪讝讛 注诇 讝讛 转讬专讜砖 讜讚讙谉 讚讙谉 讜讚讙谉 砖讛诐 讻诇讗讬诐 讝讛 讘讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讬转注砖专讜 诪讝讛 注诇 讝讛

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?

讜诇专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讚讗诪专 注讚 砖讬讝专注 讞讟讛 讜砖注讜专讛 讜讞专爪谉 讘诪驻讜诇转 讬讚 讛讬讻讬 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛

The Gemara challenges: But this derivation is problematic according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya, who says that the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not sow your vineyard with diverse kinds鈥 (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?

诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 讛讻讬 讜诪讛 转讬专讜砖 讜讬爪讛专 砖讗讬谞谉 讻诇讗讬诐 讝讛 讘讝讛 讗驻讬诇讜 注诇 讬讚讬 讚讘专 讗讞专 讗讬谉 诪转注砖专讬谉 诪讝讛 注诇 讝讛 转讬专讜砖 讜讚讙谉 讚讙谉 讜讚讙谉 砖讛谉 讻诇讗讬诐 讝讛 讘讝讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讚讘专 讗讞专 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讬转注砖专讜 诪讝讛 注诇 讝讛

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?

讜砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬谉 讘注诇诪讗 诪谞诇谉 讛谞讬 讚专讘谞谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讻诇 讚转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻注讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 转拽讬谞讜 诪讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬谉 讗讬谞谉 诪转注砖专讬谉 诪讝讛 注诇 讝讛 讚专讘谞谉 谞诪讬

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 诇讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讙讘讬 诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 诪注砖专 讘拽专 讜诪注砖专 爪讗谉

Rava bar Rav 岣nan 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 鈥渢ithe鈥 mentioned twice, once in reference to the herd and once in reference to the flock, but rather the verse states: 鈥淎nd all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 27:32),

讬转注砖专讜 诪讝讛 注诇 讝讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讛注砖讬专讬 转谉 注砖讬专讬 诇讝讛 讜转谉 注砖讬专讬 诇讝讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讻讘砖讬诐 讜注讝讬诐 谞诪讬 讜爪讗谉 诪砖诪注 讻诇 爪讗谉 讗讞讚

let them be tithed from one for the other. Abaye said to him that the verse states: 鈥淭he tenth shall be sacred to the Lord鈥 (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: 鈥淥r the flock,鈥 which means that all the goats and sheep are one flock and may be tithed together.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讬诪讗 诪砖诪注 讻诇 讚讙谉 讗讞讚 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讗砖讬转诐 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 专讗砖讬转诐

The Gemara raises a further difficulty: Here too, with regard to teruma and tithes, let us say that the term 鈥済rain鈥 (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: 鈥淭he first part of them鈥 (Numbers 18:12), in the plural, which teaches that one must give the first part for each type of produce separately. And Rabbi Ile鈥檃 says likewise that 鈥渢he first part of them鈥 teaches that one must give the first part for each type of produce separately.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讘诇讗 专讗砖讬转诐 谞诪讬 诪砖诪注 讻诇 讚讙谉 讗讞讚 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 讗诪专讬谞谉 讜爪讗谉 诪砖诪注 讻诇 爪讗谉 讗讞讚 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讘砖讬诐 讜注讝讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讻转讜讘 讜讻诇 诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛

Rava said that there is an alternative answer: Even without the term 鈥渢he first part of them鈥 there is also no difficulty, as you cannot say the term 鈥済rain鈥 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 鈥渙r the flock鈥 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.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讬 讻转讬讘 讻诇 诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讛讜讬 讗诪讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讬讛 转讞转 转讞转 诪拽讚砖讬诐 讙诪专

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 鈥渦nder鈥 and 鈥渦nder.鈥 With regard to sacrificial animals it states: 鈥淲hen 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鈥 (Leviticus 22:27), and with regard to animal tithe it states: 鈥淎nd all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred to the Lord鈥 (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.

讜讗转讬 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讞讚砖 讜讬砖谉 讘拽专 讜爪讗谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 讘拽专 讜爪讗谉 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谉 诪转注砖专讬谉 诪讝讛 注诇 讝讛 讗讘诇 讻讘砖讬诐 讜注讝讬诐 诪转注砖专讬谉

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: 鈥淭he herds or the flock鈥? 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.

讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪讬 住讙讬讗 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讚讙谉 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讗专 诪讬谞讬谉

Rava concludes: But here, in the case of grain, would it suffice if the Torah had not written: 鈥淕rain,鈥 to exclude other types of foods from the obligation of tithes by Torah law? In other words, the term 鈥済rain鈥 must be serving to exclude other types of food, as one cannot claim they could have been excluded in some other manner.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讬诪讗 诇注专讘讜 诇讘拽专 讘爪讗谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 谞诪讬 讛注砖讬专讬

Rav Huna, son of Rav Na岣an, objects to this claim of Rava in which it is derived from the words 鈥渉erd鈥 and 鈥渇lock鈥 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 Na岣an, said to Rav Huna, son of Rav Na岣an: Rava also accepts the opinion of Abaye that the verse 鈥淭he tenth shall be sacred to the Lord鈥 teaches that cattle and sheep must be tithed separately, and therefore he does not entertain that derivation.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘诇讗 注砖讬专讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讘拽专 讜爪讗谉 诪转注砖专讬谉 诪讝讛 注诇 讝讛 讚讗讬转拽砖 诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 诇诪注砖专 讚讙谉 诪讛 诪注砖专 讚讙谉 诪诪讬谉 注诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 诇讗 讗祝 诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 诪诪讬谉 注诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 诇讗

There are those who say that Rava said: Even without the verse 鈥淭he tenth shall be sacred to the Lord鈥 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.

讜讛讗 专讘讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 砖谞讛 诇砖谞讛 讛拽砖转讬讜 讜诇讗 诇讚讘专 讗讞专 讛讚专 讘讬讛 专讘讗 诪讛讛讬讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讞讚讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专讛

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it Rava himself who said that the term: 鈥淵ear by year鈥 (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鈥檚 closest student and took over as head of the academy after Rava鈥檚 death, his statements were occasionally mistaken for those of Rava himself.

诪转谞讬壮 诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 诪爪讟专祝 讻诪诇讗 专讙诇 讘讛诪讛 专讜注讛 讜讻诪讛 讛讬讗 专讙诇 讘讛诪讛 专讜注讛 砖砖讛 注砖专 诪讬诇 讛讬讜 讘讬谉 讗诇讜 诇讗诇讜 砖诇砖讬诐 讜砖谞讬诐 诪讬诇 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讛讬讜 诇讜 讘讗诪爪注 诪讘讬讗 讜诪注砖专谉 讘讗诪爪注 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讛讬专讚谉 诪驻住讬拽 诇诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛

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.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬

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?

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 砖讬诇讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 注讜讚 转注讘专谞讛 讛爪讗谉 注诇 讬讚讬 诪讜谞讛 讜拽讬诐 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讚砖讬转住专 诪讬诇 拽讗 砖诇讟讗 讘讬讛 注讬谞讗 讚专讜注讛

Rabba bar Sheila said that the verse states: 鈥淪o 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鈥 (Jeremiah 33:12鈥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.

讛讬讜 讘讬谉 讗诇讜 诇讗诇讜 砖诇砖讬诐 讜砖谞讬诐 诪讬诇 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讜讻讜壮 砖诇砖讬诐 讜砖谞讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讛讗 讘爪讬专 诪讛讻讬 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 砖砖讛 注砖专 诪讬诇 讟驻讬 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 住讬驻讗 讛讬讜 诇讜 讘讗诪爪注 诪讘讬讗 讜诪注砖专谉 讘讗诪爪注

搂 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.

讜讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪砖 诪讻讗谉 讜讞诪砖 诪讻讗谉 讜讞诪砖 诪讗诪爪注 讚讛谞讬 讞诪砖 讞讝讬讗 诇讛讻讗 讜讞讝讬讗 诇讛讻讗

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.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诪砖 诪讻讗谉 讜讞诪砖 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讞讚 讘讗诪爪注 讞讝讬谞谉 诇专讜注讛 讻诪讗谉 讚拽讗讬 讛讻讗 讜拽专讬谞谉 讘讬讛 诪讜谞讛

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: 鈥淲ho counts them鈥 (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.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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

Bekhorot 54

讗砖讻讞谉 转讬专讜砖 讜讬爪讛专 转讬专讜砖 讜讚讙谉 讚讙谉 讜讚讙谉 诪谞讬谉 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 转讬专讜砖 讜讬爪讛专 砖讗讬谞谉 讻诇讗讬诐 讝讛 讘讝讛 讗讬谉 诪转注砖专讬谉 诪讝讛 注诇 讝讛 转讬专讜砖 讜讚讙谉 讚讙谉 讜讚讙谉 砖讛诐 讻诇讗讬诐 讝讛 讘讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讬转注砖专讜 诪讝讛 注诇 讝讛

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?

讜诇专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讚讗诪专 注讚 砖讬讝专注 讞讟讛 讜砖注讜专讛 讜讞专爪谉 讘诪驻讜诇转 讬讚 讛讬讻讬 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛

The Gemara challenges: But this derivation is problematic according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya, who says that the verse: 鈥淵ou shall not sow your vineyard with diverse kinds鈥 (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?

诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 讛讻讬 讜诪讛 转讬专讜砖 讜讬爪讛专 砖讗讬谞谉 讻诇讗讬诐 讝讛 讘讝讛 讗驻讬诇讜 注诇 讬讚讬 讚讘专 讗讞专 讗讬谉 诪转注砖专讬谉 诪讝讛 注诇 讝讛 转讬专讜砖 讜讚讙谉 讚讙谉 讜讚讙谉 砖讛谉 讻诇讗讬诐 讝讛 讘讝讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讚讘专 讗讞专 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讬转注砖专讜 诪讝讛 注诇 讝讛

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?

讜砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬谉 讘注诇诪讗 诪谞诇谉 讛谞讬 讚专讘谞谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讻诇 讚转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻注讬谉 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 转拽讬谞讜 诪讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬谉 讗讬谞谉 诪转注砖专讬谉 诪讝讛 注诇 讝讛 讚专讘谞谉 谞诪讬

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 诇讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讙讘讬 诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 诪注砖专 讘拽专 讜诪注砖专 爪讗谉

Rava bar Rav 岣nan 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 鈥渢ithe鈥 mentioned twice, once in reference to the herd and once in reference to the flock, but rather the verse states: 鈥淎nd all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 27:32),

讬转注砖专讜 诪讝讛 注诇 讝讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讛注砖讬专讬 转谉 注砖讬专讬 诇讝讛 讜转谉 注砖讬专讬 诇讝讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讻讘砖讬诐 讜注讝讬诐 谞诪讬 讜爪讗谉 诪砖诪注 讻诇 爪讗谉 讗讞讚

let them be tithed from one for the other. Abaye said to him that the verse states: 鈥淭he tenth shall be sacred to the Lord鈥 (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: 鈥淥r the flock,鈥 which means that all the goats and sheep are one flock and may be tithed together.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讬诪讗 诪砖诪注 讻诇 讚讙谉 讗讞讚 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讗砖讬转诐 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 专讗砖讬转诐

The Gemara raises a further difficulty: Here too, with regard to teruma and tithes, let us say that the term 鈥済rain鈥 (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: 鈥淭he first part of them鈥 (Numbers 18:12), in the plural, which teaches that one must give the first part for each type of produce separately. And Rabbi Ile鈥檃 says likewise that 鈥渢he first part of them鈥 teaches that one must give the first part for each type of produce separately.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讘诇讗 专讗砖讬转诐 谞诪讬 诪砖诪注 讻诇 讚讙谉 讗讞讚 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 讗诪专讬谞谉 讜爪讗谉 诪砖诪注 讻诇 爪讗谉 讗讞讚 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讘砖讬诐 讜注讝讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讻转讜讘 讜讻诇 诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛

Rava said that there is an alternative answer: Even without the term 鈥渢he first part of them鈥 there is also no difficulty, as you cannot say the term 鈥済rain鈥 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 鈥渙r the flock鈥 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.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讬 讻转讬讘 讻诇 诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讛讜讬 讗诪讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讬讛 转讞转 转讞转 诪拽讚砖讬诐 讙诪专

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 鈥渦nder鈥 and 鈥渦nder.鈥 With regard to sacrificial animals it states: 鈥淲hen 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鈥 (Leviticus 22:27), and with regard to animal tithe it states: 鈥淎nd all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred to the Lord鈥 (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.

讜讗转讬 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讞讚砖 讜讬砖谉 讘拽专 讜爪讗谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 讘拽专 讜爪讗谉 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谉 诪转注砖专讬谉 诪讝讛 注诇 讝讛 讗讘诇 讻讘砖讬诐 讜注讝讬诐 诪转注砖专讬谉

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: 鈥淭he herds or the flock鈥? 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.

讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪讬 住讙讬讗 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讚讙谉 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讗专 诪讬谞讬谉

Rava concludes: But here, in the case of grain, would it suffice if the Torah had not written: 鈥淕rain,鈥 to exclude other types of foods from the obligation of tithes by Torah law? In other words, the term 鈥済rain鈥 must be serving to exclude other types of food, as one cannot claim they could have been excluded in some other manner.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讬诪讗 诇注专讘讜 诇讘拽专 讘爪讗谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 谞诪讬 讛注砖讬专讬

Rav Huna, son of Rav Na岣an, objects to this claim of Rava in which it is derived from the words 鈥渉erd鈥 and 鈥渇lock鈥 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 Na岣an, said to Rav Huna, son of Rav Na岣an: Rava also accepts the opinion of Abaye that the verse 鈥淭he tenth shall be sacred to the Lord鈥 teaches that cattle and sheep must be tithed separately, and therefore he does not entertain that derivation.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘诇讗 注砖讬专讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讘拽专 讜爪讗谉 诪转注砖专讬谉 诪讝讛 注诇 讝讛 讚讗讬转拽砖 诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 诇诪注砖专 讚讙谉 诪讛 诪注砖专 讚讙谉 诪诪讬谉 注诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 诇讗 讗祝 诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 诪诪讬谉 注诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讬谞讜 诇讗

There are those who say that Rava said: Even without the verse 鈥淭he tenth shall be sacred to the Lord鈥 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.

讜讛讗 专讘讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 砖谞讛 诇砖谞讛 讛拽砖转讬讜 讜诇讗 诇讚讘专 讗讞专 讛讚专 讘讬讛 专讘讗 诪讛讛讬讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讞讚讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专讛

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it Rava himself who said that the term: 鈥淵ear by year鈥 (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鈥檚 closest student and took over as head of the academy after Rava鈥檚 death, his statements were occasionally mistaken for those of Rava himself.

诪转谞讬壮 诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 诪爪讟专祝 讻诪诇讗 专讙诇 讘讛诪讛 专讜注讛 讜讻诪讛 讛讬讗 专讙诇 讘讛诪讛 专讜注讛 砖砖讛 注砖专 诪讬诇 讛讬讜 讘讬谉 讗诇讜 诇讗诇讜 砖诇砖讬诐 讜砖谞讬诐 诪讬诇 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讛讬讜 诇讜 讘讗诪爪注 诪讘讬讗 讜诪注砖专谉 讘讗诪爪注 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讛讬专讚谉 诪驻住讬拽 诇诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛

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.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬

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?

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 砖讬诇讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 注讜讚 转注讘专谞讛 讛爪讗谉 注诇 讬讚讬 诪讜谞讛 讜拽讬诐 诇讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讚砖讬转住专 诪讬诇 拽讗 砖诇讟讗 讘讬讛 注讬谞讗 讚专讜注讛

Rabba bar Sheila said that the verse states: 鈥淪o 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鈥 (Jeremiah 33:12鈥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.

讛讬讜 讘讬谉 讗诇讜 诇讗诇讜 砖诇砖讬诐 讜砖谞讬诐 诪讬诇 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讜讻讜壮 砖诇砖讬诐 讜砖谞讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讛讗 讘爪讬专 诪讛讻讬 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讜讛讗 拽转谞讬 砖砖讛 注砖专 诪讬诇 讟驻讬 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 住讬驻讗 讛讬讜 诇讜 讘讗诪爪注 诪讘讬讗 讜诪注砖专谉 讘讗诪爪注

搂 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.

讜讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞诪砖 诪讻讗谉 讜讞诪砖 诪讻讗谉 讜讞诪砖 诪讗诪爪注 讚讛谞讬 讞诪砖 讞讝讬讗 诇讛讻讗 讜讞讝讬讗 诇讛讻讗

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.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诪砖 诪讻讗谉 讜讞诪砖 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讞讚 讘讗诪爪注 讞讝讬谞谉 诇专讜注讛 讻诪讗谉 讚拽讗讬 讛讻讗 讜拽专讬谞谉 讘讬讛 诪讜谞讛

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: 鈥淲ho counts them鈥 (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.

Scroll To Top