Bekhorot 54b (נד:) — the Talmud in English

will become tithed

from cattle and sheep

from one another!?

He said

he answered

him

Rav Ami answered Rav Abba bar Memel:

The verse says concerning animal tithe: “And every tithe of cattle and flock, whatever passes under the rod,

the tenth

shall be holy to the Lord.” It is as though it had said: “Every tithe of cattle—the flock

shall be holy,” and, if so, this indicates:

Give a tenth to this one [“tithe” for cattle],

and a tenth to that one [“the tenth” for the flock].

But we still challenge this:

If so,

with regard to teruma, we say that since the Torah said, “Give produce of this kind to this one and produce of that kind to that one,” we can then derive by means of a kal va-chomer even those categories between which the Torah did not distinguish—

sheep and goats—

between which the Torah did not distinguish, but rather said “flock”;

also

they should not become tithed from one another, since sheep and goats can be derived by a kal va-chomer from new and old produce, which do not become tithed from one another, even though they are not kilayim with one another!?

And we answer: The Torah said

“flock,”

and

it indicates one single flock

.

And we challenge this:

Here too—

with regard to teruma—

let us say:

Since the Torah said [Numbers 18:12], “All the best of oil and all the best of wine and grain, their first yield that they give to the Lord, I have given them to you,”

it indicates—

from the wording “and grain”—

one single category of grain,

and two types of grain should become tithed from one another!?

He said

he answered,

Abaye:

The verse says, “And grain,

their first yield,”

to say: “Give the first yield for each and every type of grain.”

And Rabbi Elazar likewise said

he answered:

“

Their first yield.”

Rava said

to answer differently:

Even without

“

their first yield,”

you still cannot say: “

‘And grain’ indicates one single category of grain,”

because:

Granted, there—

with regard to animal tithe—

we say: “

flock”

indicates one single flock,

because

if it should enter your mind that sheep and goats as well

do not become tithed from one another,

let the Torah write

“every animal tithe”

and not “every tithe of cattle and flock.” From this alone we would already derive the rule for any two species that do not become tithed from one another, as the Gemara will explain below. The Gemara strengthens its statement parenthetically:

And if you would say: If it had written

“every animal tithe,”

I would have said that even wild animals

are included, since wild animals are included in the category of animals—this is not so, for

“under” “under”

[“Whatever passes under the rod”; “An ox or a sheep or a goat that is born shall be seven days under its mother”]

is derived from sacrificial animals: Just as with sacrificial animals, domesticated animals are included but wild animals are not, so too with tithe, domesticated animals are included but wild animals are not. If so, the Torah could have written “every animal tithe,”

just as with sacrificial animals, domesticated animals are included but wild animals are not, so too with the animal tithe, domesticated animals are included but wild animals are not. If so, the Torah could have written “every animal tithe,”

and it would follow [we would learn]

that one does not tithe from one species upon another

by a kal va-chomer from new and old, which are not kilayim with one another; and

“cattle and flock”

why do I need it!?

Rather, certainly the verse comes to say:

It is only cattle and flock that do not become tithed from one another,

because of “Give a tenth for each and every one,”

but sheep and goats do become tithed

from one another. This is what we learned: “Flock” indicates one single flock.

All of this applies only to animal tithe,

but here,

with regard to teruma,

is it possible that the Torah would not write

[could the Torah possibly refrain from writing]

“grain”

to exclude other species!?

If so, there is no basis for deriving from “grain” that it indicates one single category of grain.

Rav Huna bar Natan challenged him

following Rava’s method of deriving from “cattle and flock” that sheep and goats are excluded:

How do we know that the Torah wrote “cattle and flock” in order to exclude sheep and goats, so that we would not derive from a kal va-chomer that they do not become tithed from one another? Surely

say:

The Torah wrote “cattle and flock”

in order to combine cattle and flock,

which do become tithed from one another. That is: Had the Torah not written “cattle and flock,” I would have derived by a kal va-chomer that one should not tithe from one species upon another; therefore the Torah wrote “cattle and flock” together, to teach that even cattle and flock become tithed from one another!?

He said

he answered

him, Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman,

to Rav Huna bar Natan:

Rava also has

“the tenth,”

which indicates that cattle are to be distinguished from flock. If so, the surplus expression “cattle and flock” must necessarily come to exclude sheep and goats, which do become tithed from one another.

Some say: Rava said

to resolve the challenge of Rav Abba bar Memel—that since the verse did not say “every tithe of cattle and the tithe of flock,” cattle and flock should become tithed from one another:

Even without

“the tenth,”

you still cannot say

that

cattle and flock become tithed from one another, for

the Torah

juxtaposed animal tithe to grain tithe

[as it is stated: “You shall surely tithe all the produce of your seed, that which comes forth in the field year by year.” The verse speaks of two tithes: one is animal tithe and one is grain tithe, and it juxtaposes animal tithe to grain tithe].

Just as grain tithe

from one species upon another—

does not

become tithed from one another,

so too animal tithe: from one species upon another—

does not

become tithed from one another.

It was stated earlier in the Gemara, on 53b: Let new and old produce become tithed from one another by means of a kal va-chomer: Just as sheep and goats, which are kilayim with one another, nevertheless become tithed from one another, so, with regard to new and old, which are not kilayim with one another, is it not logical that they should become tithed from one another? The verse states: “You shall surely tithe…” It juxtaposes animal tithe to grain tithe: Just as with grain tithe, from new produce upon old—no, so too with animal tithe, from new animals upon old—no. If so, sheep and goats as well [should not become tithed from one another, because] let us say: It juxtaposes animal tithe to grain tithe: Just as with grain tithe, from one species upon another—no, so too with animal tithe, from one species upon another—no!? The Merciful One included “flock.” If so, new and old should also [become tithed from one another, because the entire flock is one category]!? But [on the other hand] it is written, “You shall surely tithe” [and the tithes were juxtaposed to one another]. And what do you see [that leads you] to exclude new upon old from the juxtaposition and to include, through “flock,” one species upon another? [It could be understood in the opposite manner.] Rava said: The verse states [in that same verse of juxtaposition, “You shall surely tithe all the tithe of your produce that comes forth in the field year by year”]: I juxtaposed it with regard to the year, but not with regard to anything else.

And we challenge this:

But Rava

himself

is the one who said

earlier, on 53b, that since the Torah said in this verse of juxtaposition

“year

by year,” we learn:

With regard to the year [not to tithe new produce upon old]

I juxtaposed it, but not with regard to anything else [that is, with regard to one species upon another]. How, then, could Rava say here that one learns from the juxtaposition with regard to one species upon another!?

And we answer:

Rava retracted that [Rava retracted what he said earlier, on 53b].

he retracted what he said above, on page 53b].

Alternatively, if you prefer: One of them [one of the teachings, either the one earlier on 53b or the one here]

was stated by Rav Pappa,

not by Rava, and there is no contradiction between Rava and Rava.

Mishna:

Animal tithe combines

—that is, ten animals dispersed in separate locations combine for the obligation of animal tithe, until the distance between them is

the distance a grazing animal’s leg travels—that is, the distance over which animals that are far apart from one another can still be watched by a single shepherd.

—that is, the distance over which animals separated from one another can be supervised by a single shepherd.

And what is the distance an animal’s leg travels while grazing?

Sixteen mil.

If there were thirty-two mil between these and those, they do not combine, [the Gemara will explain the contradiction between the beginning and the end].

the Gemara will explain the contradiction between the beginning and the end of the Mishna].

And if

he had

animals

in the middle [within the thirty-two mil, with animals on both sides of them], then

he

brings them and tithes them in the middle. That is, the animals in the middle cause those on the sides to combine for the obligation of animal tithe.

That is, the animals in the middle cause those on the two sides to combine and become obligated in the animal tithe.

Rabbi Meir says:

The Jordan separates with regard to animal tithe.

That is, if he had five animals on this side and five animals on that side, with the Jordan between them, they do not combine for animal tithe. The Gemara will explain the reason.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Animal tithe combines to the distance a grazing animal’s leg travels. And what is the distance a grazing animal’s leg travels? Sixteen mil.

The Gemara asks:

From where are these matters,

that this is the measure for combining?

He said

he explained,

Rabba bar Sheila:

Because

the verse says

[Jeremiah 33:13]:

“The flock shall again pass under the hands of one who counts them.”

That is, if the animals can be counted by one shepherd, they are considered “one flock,” and then they pass under the rod, as the verse says: “Whatever passes under the rod.”

And the Sages know by tradition that the eye of a shepherd controls sixteen mil

[it is known to the Sages that the shepherd’s eye can see as far as sixteen mil].

We learned in the Mishna:

If there were thirty-two mil between these and those, they do not combine:

The Gemara is astonished at the contradiction between the end and the beginning: The end indicates:

It is only when there are thirty-two that they do not combine; but if there are fewer than this

[fewer than that],

then they combine. But it was taught

at the beginning: The measure for combining is

sixteen mil,

but

more

[than that]

they do not!?

And we answer: The ordinary measure for combining is indeed sixteen mil. As for what we learned at the end—that if there were thirty-two mil between these and those they do not combine—the reason is:

Because he wanted to teach

in the continuation of the

end: “If he had

animals

in the middle, he brings them and tithes them in the middle,”

and when there are animals in the middle, the measure for their combining is up to thirty-two mil.

We learned in the Mishna: If he had animals in the middle, he brings them and tithes them in the middle:

And how many

animals must there be on the two sides of the thirty-two mil, and in the middle, for all the animals within the thirty-two mil to combine for the obligation of animal tithe?

Rav said: Five

animals

on this side,

on one end of the thirty-two mil,

and five

animals

on this side,

on the other end,

and five in the middle,

because

in

this arrangement:

These five

in the middle

are suitable for this side [they are suitable to combine with the five on one side to form a complete obligation of animal tithe, since together they constitute ten animals and there are not sixteen mil between them],

they can combine with the five on one side to reach the complete obligation of animal tithe, since together they are ten animals and there are no sixteen mil between them],

and they are also suitable—the middle animals—

these middle ones

for this side [the other side].

the other side].

Since the animals in the middle are sufficient to combine with those on each side, we combine all fifteen animals—through the animals in the middle—for the obligation of animal tithe. Although he cannot tithe the five remaining animals, they have nevertheless already become obligated in tithe; when five additional animals are born to him, he will tithe them.

And Shmuel said:

Even

there were

five on this side [

beyond one side of thirty-two mil]

and five on this side [

beyond its other side]

and one

alone

in the middle; they are visible to the shepherd as though he were standing here, and we apply to it “

counts,”

we regard the shepherd as though he were standing in the middle, since he is destined to come there and take the animal. And if he were standing in the middle, he could see sixteen mil on this side and sixteen mil on that side. Therefore, all the animals within the thirty-two mil join together for the obligation of animal tithe.