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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 11, 2019 | 讞壮 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bekhorot 55

What animal are a particular distance from one another, they cannot be counted together for animal tithes. What is that distance? Is there a way to join animals that are far apart? Rabbi Meir rules that if animals are on opposite sides of the Jordan River, they cannot be counted together. Two explanations are brought and the gemara usses each opinion. What is the source of the Jordan? The gemara explains the the Euphrates is the source of all water in the world. There is a debate regarding the Euphrates whether it is filled by rainwater or by its own springs. This is relevant for laws of mikveh in the winter months.


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

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讬讛 诇讜 讞诪砖 讘讻驻专 讞谞谞讬讛 讜讞诪砖 讘讻驻专 注讜转谞讬 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讜转 注讚 砖讬讛讗 诇讜 讗讞转 讘爪讬驻讜专讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav from a baraita: If one had five sheep in the village ofananya and five sheep in the village of Otnai, which is a distance of thirty-two mil from the village of 岣nanya, they do not combine, unless he also has one sheep between them, in Tzippori. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav that there must be at least five sheep in the middle.

转专讙诪讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讜 转砖注 诪讻讗谉 讜转砖注 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讞转 讘讗诪爪注 讚讛讛讬讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讛讻讗 讜讞讝讬讗 诇讛讻讗

Shmuel interpreted the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav. The baraita does not mean he had five sheep on either side, but rather it is referring to a case where he had nine sheep from here and nine sheep from there and one in the middle. This case is different, as that one sheep in the middle is fit to combine with the animals here and is fit to combine with the animals there, to constitute a total of ten animals on either side, to which the obligation applies.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜诇砖诪讜讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 专讜注讛 诪爪专驻谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇讬讜 砖诇 专讜注讛 诪爪专驻谉

Rav Pappa says: And according to the opinion of Shmuel that one animal in the middle is sufficient to combine the two groups on either side of it, even if the shepherd himself is in the middle without any sheep, he combines the two flocks on either side. And even if only the implements of the shepherd are in the middle, they combine the two flocks on either side into one flock. Since the shepherd must go there to collect his implements it is considered as though he is already there and therefore the two flocks are combined.

讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讻诇讘讗 讚专讜注讛 诪讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚拽专讬 诇讬讛 讜讗转讬 诇讗 诪爪讟专驻讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诇讗 讗转讬 讜诪爪讟专讱 讗讬讛讜 诇诪讬讝诇 讜讗转讬讬讛 转讬拽讜

Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: What is the halakha in a case where the dog of the shepherd is in the middle? Does it combine the two flocks into one or not? Since the shepherd can call the dog and it comes, perhaps it does not combine the two flocks, as the shepherd himself has no need to go to the middle, so the dog is not like the implements of the shepherd. Or perhaps, because sometimes the dog does not come when the shepherd calls it, and in such cases the shepherd himself must go and bring it, it does combine the two flocks. The Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

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 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 砖诐 讙砖专 讗讘诇 讬砖 砖诐 讙砖专 讙砖专 诪爪专驻谉

搂 The mishna teaches that 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. Rabbi Ami says: They taught that the Jordan River serves as a partition only when there is no bridge there, but if there is a bridge there, the bridge combines the two flocks into one for the purposes of tithing.

讗诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪讬拽专讘谉 讛讜讗 诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讬讜 诇讜 讘砖谞讬 注讘专讬 讛讬专讚谉 讗讬诇讱 讜讗讬诇讱 讗讜 讘砖谞讬 讗讘讟讬诇讗讜转 讻讙讜谉 砖诇 谞诪专 讜谞诪讜专讬 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讜讗专抓

The Gemara notes: Apparently, the Jordan River serves as a partition because the flock on one side is not close and is unable to join the flock on the other side due to the river between them. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If one had sheep on both sides of the Jordan River, here and there; or if the flocks were in two counties [avtilaot], e.g., Namer and Namori, even if they were under the control of the same ruler, the flocks do not combine, even if there is no river between them and they are less than thirty-two mil apart. And needless to say, if one flock is outside of Eretz Yisrael and the other is inside Eretz Yisrael, they do not combine.

讜讛讗 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讜讗专抓 讻诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讙砖专 讚诪讬 讜拽转谞讬 诇讗 诪爪讟专驻讬谉

The Gemara clarifies its objection: But the partition between outside of Eretz Yisrael and inside Eretz Yisrael is like a place that has a bridge, as the two areas are not necessarily separated by water. And yet the baraita teaches that they do not combine.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讬专讚谉 讬讙讘诇 讗转讜 诇驻讗转 拽讚诪讛 讛讻转讜讘 注砖讗讜 讙讘讜诇 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜

Rather, the Gemara retracts its previous explanation. Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: This is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir: As the verse states: 鈥淎nd the Jordan was to be its border on the east side. This was the inheritance of the children of Benjamin, by its borders round about, according to their families鈥 (Joshua 18:20). Here, the verse renders the Jordan River as a border in and of itself.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讜转讗专 讛讙讘讜诇 讜注诇讛 讛讙讘讜诇 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛讻转讜讘 注砖讗讜 讙讘讜诇 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But if that is so, should one say that the demarcation of the land allotted to each tribe has the status of a border? Consider the verse: 鈥淎nd the border was drawn and turned about on the west side southward, from the mountain that lies before Beit Horon southward; and its goings out were at Kiriath Ba鈥檃l, which is Kiriath Jearim, a city of the children of Judah; this was the west side鈥 (Joshua 18:14). And consider the verse: 鈥淎nd the border went up to the side of Jericho on the north, and went up through the hill country westward; and its goings out were at the wilderness of Beit Aven鈥 (Joshua 18:12). Here also, the verse apparently renders each of these places a border by itself. If so, flocks on either side should not combine for purposes of tithing.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讝讗转 转讛讬讛 诇讻诐 讛讗专抓 诇讙讘诇转讬讛 住讘讬讘 讻讜诇讛 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讙讘讜诇 讗讞讚 讛讬讗

The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the demarcation of each inheritance, it is different, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd the border shall go down to the Jordan, and its goings out shall be at the Dead Sea; this shall be your land according to its borders round about鈥 (Numbers 34:12). This teaches that all of Eretz Yisrael is considered to be within one border, notwithstanding the demarcations of each inheritance within.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讬专讚谉 谞诪讬 讗专抓 讜诇讗 讬专讚谉

The Gemara raises a further difficulty: If so, the Jordan River also should not be considered a border with regard to animal tithes. The Gemara explains that the verse states: 鈥淭his shall be your land,鈥 which is referring to those parts of land that are connected, but not to areas separated by the Jordan River, which is not land but water.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 讬专讚谉 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讗诪讬 诇讬转谞讬谞讛讜 诇讻讜诇讛讜 谞讛专讜转 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba, who maintains that the ruling of Rabbi Meir is a Torah edict, this is the reason that the tanna teaches: The Jordan River divides between animals on two sides of the river with regard to animal tithe. But according to Rabbi Ami, who holds that the Jordan River serves as a partition because the animals are unable to cross from one side to the other, let Rabbi Meir teach his principle with regard to all rivers that cannot be crossed. They should all divide flocks with regard to animal tithe. The Gemara comments: This is difficult.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讻讬 讗转诐 注讘专讬诐 讗转 讛讬专讚谉 讗专爪讛 讻谞注谉 讗专爪讛 讗专抓 讻谞注谉 讜诇讗 讛讬专讚谉 讗专抓 讻谞注谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the question of whether or not the Jordan River is part of Eretz Yisrael is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淪peak to the children of Israel, and say to them: When you pass over the Jordan into the land of Canaan鈥 (Numbers 35:10). The term 鈥渋nto the land鈥 indicates that the land of Canaan is considered part of Eretz Yisrael, but the Jordan River itself is not considered part of the land of Canaan; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诪注讘专 诇讬专讚谉 讬专讞讜 拽讚诪讛 诪讝专讞讛 诪讛 讬专讞讜 讗专抓 讻谞注谉 讗祝 讬专讚谉 讗专抓 讻谞注谉

Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i says: The verse states with regard to the portions of the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half of Manasseh: 鈥淭he two tribes and the half tribe have received their inheritance beyond the Jordan at Jericho eastward, toward the sunrise鈥 (Numbers 34:15). Just as Jericho is part of the land of Canaan, so too, the Jordan River is part of the land of Canaan.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 讬专讚谉 讗诇讗 诪讘讬转 讬专讞讜 讜诇诪讟讛 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇谞讜讚专 讛诇讱 讗讞专 诇砖讜谉 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚拽专讜 诇讬讛 讬专讚谉 讗讬转住专 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛

Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The river is called Jordan only from Beit Jericho and below, i.e., to the south. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this statement relevant? If we say it is relevant for one who takes a vow, e.g., that water from the Jordan River is forbidden to him, this cannot be so, as there is a principle with regard to vows that one must follow the ordinary language of people. The meaning of a vow is interpreted in accordance with the manner in which the words are used in common speech. And therefore, anywhere that most people call the river by the name Jordan, it is prohibited for him to drink from it, regardless of whether it is north or south of Beit Jericho. Rather, the Gemara explains that Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement is relevant for animal tithe.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讬专讚谉 讬讜爪讗 诪诪注专转 驻诪讬讬住 讜诪讛诇讱 讘讬诪讛 砖诇 住讬讘讻讬 讜讘讬诪讛 砖诇 讟讘专讬讗 讜讘讬诪讛 砖诇 住讚讜诐 讜讛讜诇讱 讜谞讜驻诇 诇讬诐 讛讙讚讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讬专讚谉 讗诇讗 诪讘讬转 讬专讬讞讜 讜诇诪讟讛

According to the opinion of Rabbi Meir the Jordan River acts as a partition only south of Beit Jericho, but north of that point it is not a partition. The Gemara notes: That is also taught in a baraita: The Jordan River issues forth from the Cave of Pamyas and flows via the Sea of Sivkhi, i.e., Lake Hula, and via the Sea of Tiberias, i.e., the Sea of Galilee, and via the Sea of Sodom, i.e., the Dead Sea, and continues and falls down to the Great Sea. But it is called Jordan only from Beit Jericho and below, i.e., to the south.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇诪讛 谞拽专讗 砖诪讜 讬专讚谉 砖讬讜专讚 诪讚谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗转讜谉 诪讛转诐 诪转谞讬转讜 诇讛 讗谞谉 诪讛讻讗 诪转谞讬谞谉 诇讛 讜讬拽专讗讜 诇讜 诇诇砖诐 讚谉 讘砖诐 讚谉 讗讘讬讛诐 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诇砖诐 讝讜 驻诪讬讬住 讜转谞讬讗 讬讜爪讗 讬专讚谉 诪诪注专转 驻诪讬讬住

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Why is the river called Jordan? Because it descends [yored] from the city of Dan. Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi: You learned that the Jordan River emerges from the territory of Dan from there, i.e., from its name. We learn it from here: 鈥淎nd the border of the children of Dan went out from them; and the children of Dan went up and fought against Leshem, and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and possessed it, and dwelt there, and called Leshem: Dan, after the name of Dan their father鈥 (Joshua 19:47). And Rabbi Yitz岣k says that this Leshem is a city that was known in the talmudic period as Pamyas. And it is taught in a baraita that the Jordan River emerges from the Cave of Pamyas.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讝讻专讜转讬讛 讚讬专讚谞讗 诪诪注专转 驻诪讬讬住 讛讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 砖转讬谞讗 诪讬诐 诪诪注专转 驻诪讬讬住 讗讬转住专 诇讬讛 讘讻讜诇讬讛 讬专讚谞讗

Rav Kahana says: The source of the Jordan River is from the Cave of Pamyas. Therefore, in a case where one says: I will not drink water from the Cave of Pamyas, it is prohibited for him to drink water from the entire Jordan River.

讝讻专讜转讗 讚讚诪讗 讻讘讚讗 讻讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讻讘讚 砖谞讬诪讜讞 诪讟诪讗 讘专讘讬注讬转

Rav Kahana also states: The source of blood is the liver. The halakhic ramification of this observation is in accordance with a statement of Rabbi Yitz岣k, as Rabbi Yitz岣k says: A liver that dissolved, i.e., a decomposed liver from a corpse, imparts ritual impurity if it has the volume of a quarter-log, which is the minimum amount of blood that imparts ritual impurity.

讝讻专讜转讗 讚诪讬讗 驻专转 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛谞讜讚专 诪诪讬诪讬 驻专转 讗住讜专 讘讻诇 诪讬诪讜转 砖讘注讜诇诐

Rav Kahana also states: The source of all the water in the world is the Euphrates River. The halakhic ramification of this is in accordance with a statement of Rav Yehuda, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to one who takes a vow rendering the waters of the Euphrates River forbidden to him, it is prohibited for him to drink from any water in the world.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 砖转讬谞讗 诪诪讬诪讬 讚驻专转 诪讬 驻专转 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 砖转讬谞讗 讛讗 诪谞讛专讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 砖转讬谞讗

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which it is prohibited to drink from any water in the world? If we say this is a case where he says: I will not drink from the water of the Euphrates River, it is only the waters of the Euphrates River that he may not drink, whereas he may drink water from another river, since one follows the ordinary language of people.

讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 砖转讬谞讗 诪诪讬诐 讚讗转讜 诪驻专转 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讛谞讛专讜转 诇诪讟讛 诪砖诇砖 谞讛专讜转 讜砖诇砖 谞讛专讜转 诇诪讟讛 诪驻专转 讜讛讗讬讻讗

Rather, it is referring to a case where he says: I will not drink from any water that comes from the Euphrates River. It is prohibited for him to drink any water at all, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: All the rivers are below, i.e., they receive their waters from, three rivers: The Pishon, the Gihon, and the Tigris (see Genesis 2:11鈥14). And these three rivers are below and receive their waters from the Euphrates River. The Gemara asks: But there are

注讬谞转讗 讚诪讬讚诇讬讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讛谞讛讜 住讜诇诪讬 讚驻专转 谞讬谞讛讜

springs that are higher in the mountains than the Euphrates; how can their water come from the Euphrates? Rav Mesharshiyya said: These are ladders of the Euphrates, i.e., the waters of the Euphrates seep through the ground and are drawn upward to emerge from these springs.

讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 讜讛谞讛专 讛专讘讬注讬 讛讜讗 驻专转

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it was separated, and became four heads鈥nd the name of the third river is Tigris; that is the one that goes toward the east of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates鈥 (Genesis 2:10, 14)? This indicates that the Euphrates, which is mentioned last, is the least of the four rivers, not the source of the other three.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讛讜讗 驻专转 讚诪注讬拽专讗

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said, and some say it was Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov who said: It is the Euphrates that the verse mentions initially as the river that went out of Eden, which divided into all the other rivers. After the other three branched out from it, the Euphrates continued to flow.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讬讜讘诇 砖诪讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讬讛 讻注抓 砖转讜诇 注诇 诪讬诐 讜注诇 讬讜讘诇 讬砖诇讞 砖专砖讬讜 讜诇诪讛 谞拽专讗 砖诪讜 驻专转 砖诪讬诪讬讜 驻专讬诐 讜专讘讬诐

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir says: Yuval is the name of the Euphrates River where it emerges from Eden, as it is stated: 鈥淔or he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreads out its roots by the river [yuval], and shall not see when heat comes, but its foliage shall be luxuriant; and shall not be anxious in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit鈥 (Jeremiah 17:8). And why is it named Euphrates [perat]? Because its waters are fruitful [parim] and multiply without the need for rainfall.

诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 谞讛专讗 诪讻讬驻讬讛 诪讬讘专讬讱 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 诪讬讟专讗 讘诪注专讘讗 住讛讚讗 专讘讛 驻专转

The Gemara adds that this supports the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel says: The river is blessed from its riverbed; the additional water in the river is not from rainfall but rather from subterranean sources. And this statement disagrees with the opinion of Rav, as Rav Ami says that Rav says: When rain falls in the West, Eretz Yisrael, the great witness attesting to that fact is the Euphrates, as the water flow in the Euphrates increases after the rainy season.

讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 注讘讬讚 诇讛讜 诇讘谞讗转讬讛 诪拽讜讛 讘讬讜诪讬 谞讬住谉 讜诪驻爪讬 讘讬讜诪讬 转砖专讬 诪拽讜讛 讘讬讜诪讬 谞讬住谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 诪讬讟专讗 讘诪注专讘讗 住讛讚讗 专讘讛 驻专转 砖诪讗 讬专讘讜 谞讜讟驻讬谉 注诇 讛讝讜讞诇讬谉 讜讛讜讜 诇讛讜 诪讬 讙砖诪讬诐 专讜讘讗

The Gemara relates that Shmuel鈥檚 father fashioned a ritual bath for his daughters during the days of Nisan, and placed mats in the Euphrates River during the days of Tishrei when his daughters immersed in the river. He fashioned a ritual bath during the days of Nisan, because he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav, as Rav Ami says that Rav says: When rain falls in the West, the great witness attesting to that fact is the Euphrates. Shmuel鈥檚 father was concerned that perhaps the rainwater and snow water that fell and accumulated in the river would exceed the amount of naturally flowing spring water that originated in the river鈥檚 sources, and the flowing rainwater would be the majority. Rainwater purifies only when it is collected; it does not purify when it is flowing. Therefore, Shmuel鈥檚 father fashioned ritual baths of standing water for his daughters.

讜诪驻爪讬 讘讬讜诪讬 转砖专讬

And he placed mats during the days of Tishrei, when his daughters immersed in the river itself, to give them privacy. During Tishrei the waters of the Euphrates do not come from rainwater; rather, the waters are from the river itself, and therefore immersion is valid even when that water is flowing.

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讗讚讬讚讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讛诪讬诐 谞讟讛专讬诐 讘讝讜讞诇讬谉 讗诇讗 驻专转 讘讬讜诪讬 转砖专讬

The Gemara notes: And this statement of Shmuel鈥檚, that the additional water in the Euphrates is not from rainfall but from subterranean sources, disagrees with another ruling that he himself issued. As Shmuel says: Waters purify when flowing, i.e., when they are not collected into a ritual bath, only in the Euphrates during the days of Tishrei. Since rain does not fall in the summer, only after the summer, in Tishrei, is it clear that the water one is immersing in is in fact river water.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诇讜拽讞 讗讜 砖谞讬转谉 诇讜 讘诪转谞讛 驻讟讜专 诪诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛

MISHNA: One who purchases an animal or has an animal that was given to him as a gift is exempt from separating animal tithe.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讻讜专 讘谞讬讱 转转谉 诇讬 讻谉 转注砖讛 诇砖专讱 诇爪讗谞讱

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rav Kahana says that the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not delay to offer of the fullness of your harvest, and of the outflow of your presses. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me. So you shall do with your oxen, and with your sheep: Seven days it shall be with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to Me鈥 (Exodus 22:28鈥29).

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 55

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bekhorot 55

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讬讛 诇讜 讞诪砖 讘讻驻专 讞谞谞讬讛 讜讞诪砖 讘讻驻专 注讜转谞讬 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讜转 注讚 砖讬讛讗 诇讜 讗讞转 讘爪讬驻讜专讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav from a baraita: If one had five sheep in the village ofananya and five sheep in the village of Otnai, which is a distance of thirty-two mil from the village of 岣nanya, they do not combine, unless he also has one sheep between them, in Tzippori. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav that there must be at least five sheep in the middle.

转专讙诪讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讬讜 转砖注 诪讻讗谉 讜转砖注 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讞转 讘讗诪爪注 讚讛讛讬讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讛讻讗 讜讞讝讬讗 诇讛讻讗

Shmuel interpreted the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav. The baraita does not mean he had five sheep on either side, but rather it is referring to a case where he had nine sheep from here and nine sheep from there and one in the middle. This case is different, as that one sheep in the middle is fit to combine with the animals here and is fit to combine with the animals there, to constitute a total of ten animals on either side, to which the obligation applies.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜诇砖诪讜讗诇 讗驻讬诇讜 专讜注讛 诪爪专驻谉 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇讬讜 砖诇 专讜注讛 诪爪专驻谉

Rav Pappa says: And according to the opinion of Shmuel that one animal in the middle is sufficient to combine the two groups on either side of it, even if the shepherd himself is in the middle without any sheep, he combines the two flocks on either side. And even if only the implements of the shepherd are in the middle, they combine the two flocks on either side into one flock. Since the shepherd must go there to collect his implements it is considered as though he is already there and therefore the two flocks are combined.

讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讻诇讘讗 讚专讜注讛 诪讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚拽专讬 诇讬讛 讜讗转讬 诇讗 诪爪讟专驻讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诇讗 讗转讬 讜诪爪讟专讱 讗讬讛讜 诇诪讬讝诇 讜讗转讬讬讛 转讬拽讜

Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: What is the halakha in a case where the dog of the shepherd is in the middle? Does it combine the two flocks into one or not? Since the shepherd can call the dog and it comes, perhaps it does not combine the two flocks, as the shepherd himself has no need to go to the middle, so the dog is not like the implements of the shepherd. Or perhaps, because sometimes the dog does not come when the shepherd calls it, and in such cases the shepherd himself must go and bring it, it does combine the two flocks. The Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

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 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讗讬谉 砖诐 讙砖专 讗讘诇 讬砖 砖诐 讙砖专 讙砖专 诪爪专驻谉

搂 The mishna teaches that 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. Rabbi Ami says: They taught that the Jordan River serves as a partition only when there is no bridge there, but if there is a bridge there, the bridge combines the two flocks into one for the purposes of tithing.

讗诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诪讬拽专讘谉 讛讜讗 诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讬讜 诇讜 讘砖谞讬 注讘专讬 讛讬专讚谉 讗讬诇讱 讜讗讬诇讱 讗讜 讘砖谞讬 讗讘讟讬诇讗讜转 讻讙讜谉 砖诇 谞诪专 讜谞诪讜专讬 讗讬谉 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讜讗专抓

The Gemara notes: Apparently, the Jordan River serves as a partition because the flock on one side is not close and is unable to join the flock on the other side due to the river between them. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If one had sheep on both sides of the Jordan River, here and there; or if the flocks were in two counties [avtilaot], e.g., Namer and Namori, even if they were under the control of the same ruler, the flocks do not combine, even if there is no river between them and they are less than thirty-two mil apart. And needless to say, if one flock is outside of Eretz Yisrael and the other is inside Eretz Yisrael, they do not combine.

讜讛讗 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讜讗专抓 讻诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讙砖专 讚诪讬 讜拽转谞讬 诇讗 诪爪讟专驻讬谉

The Gemara clarifies its objection: But the partition between outside of Eretz Yisrael and inside Eretz Yisrael is like a place that has a bridge, as the two areas are not necessarily separated by water. And yet the baraita teaches that they do not combine.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛讬专讚谉 讬讙讘诇 讗转讜 诇驻讗转 拽讚诪讛 讛讻转讜讘 注砖讗讜 讙讘讜诇 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜

Rather, the Gemara retracts its previous explanation. Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: This is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir: As the verse states: 鈥淎nd the Jordan was to be its border on the east side. This was the inheritance of the children of Benjamin, by its borders round about, according to their families鈥 (Joshua 18:20). Here, the verse renders the Jordan River as a border in and of itself.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讜转讗专 讛讙讘讜诇 讜注诇讛 讛讙讘讜诇 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛讻转讜讘 注砖讗讜 讙讘讜诇 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But if that is so, should one say that the demarcation of the land allotted to each tribe has the status of a border? Consider the verse: 鈥淎nd the border was drawn and turned about on the west side southward, from the mountain that lies before Beit Horon southward; and its goings out were at Kiriath Ba鈥檃l, which is Kiriath Jearim, a city of the children of Judah; this was the west side鈥 (Joshua 18:14). And consider the verse: 鈥淎nd the border went up to the side of Jericho on the north, and went up through the hill country westward; and its goings out were at the wilderness of Beit Aven鈥 (Joshua 18:12). Here also, the verse apparently renders each of these places a border by itself. If so, flocks on either side should not combine for purposes of tithing.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讝讗转 转讛讬讛 诇讻诐 讛讗专抓 诇讙讘诇转讬讛 住讘讬讘 讻讜诇讛 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讙讘讜诇 讗讞讚 讛讬讗

The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the demarcation of each inheritance, it is different, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd the border shall go down to the Jordan, and its goings out shall be at the Dead Sea; this shall be your land according to its borders round about鈥 (Numbers 34:12). This teaches that all of Eretz Yisrael is considered to be within one border, notwithstanding the demarcations of each inheritance within.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讬专讚谉 谞诪讬 讗专抓 讜诇讗 讬专讚谉

The Gemara raises a further difficulty: If so, the Jordan River also should not be considered a border with regard to animal tithes. The Gemara explains that the verse states: 鈥淭his shall be your land,鈥 which is referring to those parts of land that are connected, but not to areas separated by the Jordan River, which is not land but water.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 讬专讚谉 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讗诪讬 诇讬转谞讬谞讛讜 诇讻讜诇讛讜 谞讛专讜转 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba, who maintains that the ruling of Rabbi Meir is a Torah edict, this is the reason that the tanna teaches: The Jordan River divides between animals on two sides of the river with regard to animal tithe. But according to Rabbi Ami, who holds that the Jordan River serves as a partition because the animals are unable to cross from one side to the other, let Rabbi Meir teach his principle with regard to all rivers that cannot be crossed. They should all divide flocks with regard to animal tithe. The Gemara comments: This is difficult.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讻讬 讗转诐 注讘专讬诐 讗转 讛讬专讚谉 讗专爪讛 讻谞注谉 讗专爪讛 讗专抓 讻谞注谉 讜诇讗 讛讬专讚谉 讗专抓 讻谞注谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讛

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the question of whether or not the Jordan River is part of Eretz Yisrael is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淪peak to the children of Israel, and say to them: When you pass over the Jordan into the land of Canaan鈥 (Numbers 35:10). The term 鈥渋nto the land鈥 indicates that the land of Canaan is considered part of Eretz Yisrael, but the Jordan River itself is not considered part of the land of Canaan; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诪注讘专 诇讬专讚谉 讬专讞讜 拽讚诪讛 诪讝专讞讛 诪讛 讬专讞讜 讗专抓 讻谞注谉 讗祝 讬专讚谉 讗专抓 讻谞注谉

Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i says: The verse states with regard to the portions of the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half of Manasseh: 鈥淭he two tribes and the half tribe have received their inheritance beyond the Jordan at Jericho eastward, toward the sunrise鈥 (Numbers 34:15). Just as Jericho is part of the land of Canaan, so too, the Jordan River is part of the land of Canaan.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 讬专讚谉 讗诇讗 诪讘讬转 讬专讞讜 讜诇诪讟讛 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇谞讜讚专 讛诇讱 讗讞专 诇砖讜谉 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚拽专讜 诇讬讛 讬专讚谉 讗讬转住专 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛

Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The river is called Jordan only from Beit Jericho and below, i.e., to the south. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this statement relevant? If we say it is relevant for one who takes a vow, e.g., that water from the Jordan River is forbidden to him, this cannot be so, as there is a principle with regard to vows that one must follow the ordinary language of people. The meaning of a vow is interpreted in accordance with the manner in which the words are used in common speech. And therefore, anywhere that most people call the river by the name Jordan, it is prohibited for him to drink from it, regardless of whether it is north or south of Beit Jericho. Rather, the Gemara explains that Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement is relevant for animal tithe.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讬专讚谉 讬讜爪讗 诪诪注专转 驻诪讬讬住 讜诪讛诇讱 讘讬诪讛 砖诇 住讬讘讻讬 讜讘讬诪讛 砖诇 讟讘专讬讗 讜讘讬诪讛 砖诇 住讚讜诐 讜讛讜诇讱 讜谞讜驻诇 诇讬诐 讛讙讚讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讬专讚谉 讗诇讗 诪讘讬转 讬专讬讞讜 讜诇诪讟讛

According to the opinion of Rabbi Meir the Jordan River acts as a partition only south of Beit Jericho, but north of that point it is not a partition. The Gemara notes: That is also taught in a baraita: The Jordan River issues forth from the Cave of Pamyas and flows via the Sea of Sivkhi, i.e., Lake Hula, and via the Sea of Tiberias, i.e., the Sea of Galilee, and via the Sea of Sodom, i.e., the Dead Sea, and continues and falls down to the Great Sea. But it is called Jordan only from Beit Jericho and below, i.e., to the south.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇诪讛 谞拽专讗 砖诪讜 讬专讚谉 砖讬讜专讚 诪讚谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗转讜谉 诪讛转诐 诪转谞讬转讜 诇讛 讗谞谉 诪讛讻讗 诪转谞讬谞谉 诇讛 讜讬拽专讗讜 诇讜 诇诇砖诐 讚谉 讘砖诐 讚谉 讗讘讬讛诐 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诇砖诐 讝讜 驻诪讬讬住 讜转谞讬讗 讬讜爪讗 讬专讚谉 诪诪注专转 驻诪讬讬住

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Why is the river called Jordan? Because it descends [yored] from the city of Dan. Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi: You learned that the Jordan River emerges from the territory of Dan from there, i.e., from its name. We learn it from here: 鈥淎nd the border of the children of Dan went out from them; and the children of Dan went up and fought against Leshem, and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and possessed it, and dwelt there, and called Leshem: Dan, after the name of Dan their father鈥 (Joshua 19:47). And Rabbi Yitz岣k says that this Leshem is a city that was known in the talmudic period as Pamyas. And it is taught in a baraita that the Jordan River emerges from the Cave of Pamyas.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讝讻专讜转讬讛 讚讬专讚谞讗 诪诪注专转 驻诪讬讬住 讛讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 砖转讬谞讗 诪讬诐 诪诪注专转 驻诪讬讬住 讗讬转住专 诇讬讛 讘讻讜诇讬讛 讬专讚谞讗

Rav Kahana says: The source of the Jordan River is from the Cave of Pamyas. Therefore, in a case where one says: I will not drink water from the Cave of Pamyas, it is prohibited for him to drink water from the entire Jordan River.

讝讻专讜转讗 讚讚诪讗 讻讘讚讗 讻讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讻讘讚 砖谞讬诪讜讞 诪讟诪讗 讘专讘讬注讬转

Rav Kahana also states: The source of blood is the liver. The halakhic ramification of this observation is in accordance with a statement of Rabbi Yitz岣k, as Rabbi Yitz岣k says: A liver that dissolved, i.e., a decomposed liver from a corpse, imparts ritual impurity if it has the volume of a quarter-log, which is the minimum amount of blood that imparts ritual impurity.

讝讻专讜转讗 讚诪讬讗 驻专转 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛谞讜讚专 诪诪讬诪讬 驻专转 讗住讜专 讘讻诇 诪讬诪讜转 砖讘注讜诇诐

Rav Kahana also states: The source of all the water in the world is the Euphrates River. The halakhic ramification of this is in accordance with a statement of Rav Yehuda, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to one who takes a vow rendering the waters of the Euphrates River forbidden to him, it is prohibited for him to drink from any water in the world.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 砖转讬谞讗 诪诪讬诪讬 讚驻专转 诪讬 驻专转 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 砖转讬谞讗 讛讗 诪谞讛专讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 砖转讬谞讗

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which it is prohibited to drink from any water in the world? If we say this is a case where he says: I will not drink from the water of the Euphrates River, it is only the waters of the Euphrates River that he may not drink, whereas he may drink water from another river, since one follows the ordinary language of people.

讗诇讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 砖转讬谞讗 诪诪讬诐 讚讗转讜 诪驻专转 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讛谞讛专讜转 诇诪讟讛 诪砖诇砖 谞讛专讜转 讜砖诇砖 谞讛专讜转 诇诪讟讛 诪驻专转 讜讛讗讬讻讗

Rather, it is referring to a case where he says: I will not drink from any water that comes from the Euphrates River. It is prohibited for him to drink any water at all, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: All the rivers are below, i.e., they receive their waters from, three rivers: The Pishon, the Gihon, and the Tigris (see Genesis 2:11鈥14). And these three rivers are below and receive their waters from the Euphrates River. The Gemara asks: But there are

注讬谞转讗 讚诪讬讚诇讬讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 讛谞讛讜 住讜诇诪讬 讚驻专转 谞讬谞讛讜

springs that are higher in the mountains than the Euphrates; how can their water come from the Euphrates? Rav Mesharshiyya said: These are ladders of the Euphrates, i.e., the waters of the Euphrates seep through the ground and are drawn upward to emerge from these springs.

讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 讜讛谞讛专 讛专讘讬注讬 讛讜讗 驻专转

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it was separated, and became four heads鈥nd the name of the third river is Tigris; that is the one that goes toward the east of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates鈥 (Genesis 2:10, 14)? This indicates that the Euphrates, which is mentioned last, is the least of the four rivers, not the source of the other three.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讛讜讗 驻专转 讚诪注讬拽专讗

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said, and some say it was Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov who said: It is the Euphrates that the verse mentions initially as the river that went out of Eden, which divided into all the other rivers. After the other three branched out from it, the Euphrates continued to flow.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讬讜讘诇 砖诪讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讬讛 讻注抓 砖转讜诇 注诇 诪讬诐 讜注诇 讬讜讘诇 讬砖诇讞 砖专砖讬讜 讜诇诪讛 谞拽专讗 砖诪讜 驻专转 砖诪讬诪讬讜 驻专讬诐 讜专讘讬诐

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir says: Yuval is the name of the Euphrates River where it emerges from Eden, as it is stated: 鈥淔or he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreads out its roots by the river [yuval], and shall not see when heat comes, but its foliage shall be luxuriant; and shall not be anxious in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit鈥 (Jeremiah 17:8). And why is it named Euphrates [perat]? Because its waters are fruitful [parim] and multiply without the need for rainfall.

诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 谞讛专讗 诪讻讬驻讬讛 诪讬讘专讬讱 讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 诪讬讟专讗 讘诪注专讘讗 住讛讚讗 专讘讛 驻专转

The Gemara adds that this supports the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel says: The river is blessed from its riverbed; the additional water in the river is not from rainfall but rather from subterranean sources. And this statement disagrees with the opinion of Rav, as Rav Ami says that Rav says: When rain falls in the West, Eretz Yisrael, the great witness attesting to that fact is the Euphrates, as the water flow in the Euphrates increases after the rainy season.

讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 注讘讬讚 诇讛讜 诇讘谞讗转讬讛 诪拽讜讛 讘讬讜诪讬 谞讬住谉 讜诪驻爪讬 讘讬讜诪讬 转砖专讬 诪拽讜讛 讘讬讜诪讬 谞讬住谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 诪讬讟专讗 讘诪注专讘讗 住讛讚讗 专讘讛 驻专转 砖诪讗 讬专讘讜 谞讜讟驻讬谉 注诇 讛讝讜讞诇讬谉 讜讛讜讜 诇讛讜 诪讬 讙砖诪讬诐 专讜讘讗

The Gemara relates that Shmuel鈥檚 father fashioned a ritual bath for his daughters during the days of Nisan, and placed mats in the Euphrates River during the days of Tishrei when his daughters immersed in the river. He fashioned a ritual bath during the days of Nisan, because he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav, as Rav Ami says that Rav says: When rain falls in the West, the great witness attesting to that fact is the Euphrates. Shmuel鈥檚 father was concerned that perhaps the rainwater and snow water that fell and accumulated in the river would exceed the amount of naturally flowing spring water that originated in the river鈥檚 sources, and the flowing rainwater would be the majority. Rainwater purifies only when it is collected; it does not purify when it is flowing. Therefore, Shmuel鈥檚 father fashioned ritual baths of standing water for his daughters.

讜诪驻爪讬 讘讬讜诪讬 转砖专讬

And he placed mats during the days of Tishrei, when his daughters immersed in the river itself, to give them privacy. During Tishrei the waters of the Euphrates do not come from rainwater; rather, the waters are from the river itself, and therefore immersion is valid even when that water is flowing.

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讗讚讬讚讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 讛诪讬诐 谞讟讛专讬诐 讘讝讜讞诇讬谉 讗诇讗 驻专转 讘讬讜诪讬 转砖专讬

The Gemara notes: And this statement of Shmuel鈥檚, that the additional water in the Euphrates is not from rainfall but from subterranean sources, disagrees with another ruling that he himself issued. As Shmuel says: Waters purify when flowing, i.e., when they are not collected into a ritual bath, only in the Euphrates during the days of Tishrei. Since rain does not fall in the summer, only after the summer, in Tishrei, is it clear that the water one is immersing in is in fact river water.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诇讜拽讞 讗讜 砖谞讬转谉 诇讜 讘诪转谞讛 驻讟讜专 诪诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛

MISHNA: One who purchases an animal or has an animal that was given to him as a gift is exempt from separating animal tithe.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讻讜专 讘谞讬讱 转转谉 诇讬 讻谉 转注砖讛 诇砖专讱 诇爪讗谞讱

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rav Kahana says that the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not delay to offer of the fullness of your harvest, and of the outflow of your presses. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me. So you shall do with your oxen, and with your sheep: Seven days it shall be with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to Me鈥 (Exodus 22:28鈥29).

Scroll To Top