Bekhorot 54b — the Talmud in English

will become tithed

cattle and sheep

from one another!?

He said

he answered

him

Rav Ami to Rav Abba bar Memel:

The verse says

with regard to animal tithe: “And every tithe of cattle and flock, every one that passes under the rod

the tenth

shall be holy to the Lord.” And this is as though it said: “And every tithe of cattle”—“and the tenth of the flock shall be holy.” If so, it implies:

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

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

But we still object:

If so,

with regard to teruma we say: Since the Torah said, “Give produce to this one and produce to this one,” we also learn by a kal va-chomer concerning those between which the Torah did not divide—

sheep and goats—

between which the Torah did not divide, but said, “and flock”

also

should not become tithed from one another, for sheep and goats can be learned by a kal va-chomer from new and old, which do not become tithed from one another!?

And we answer: The Torah indeed said

“and flock”,

and

it implies one entire flock

is one.

And we object:

Here too—

with regard to teruma—

let us say:

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

implies—

from the wording “and grain”

one entire grain—

and two kinds of grain will become tithed from one another!?

He said

he answered

Abaye:

For the verse said, “and grain,

their first portion,”

to say: “Give a first portion to each and every grain.”

And Rabbi Elazar said

he answered:

“

Their first portion.”

Rava said

to answer in another manner:

Without “

their first portion”

you also cannot say: “

and grain”

implies one entire grain,

because:

Granted, there

with regard to animal tithe,

we say that “

and flock”

implies one entire flock,

because

if it enters your mind that sheep and goats also

do not become tithed from one another,

let it write

“and every animal tithe” and not “and every tithe of cattle and flock.” From this we would already learn concerning any two kinds that do not become tithed from one another, as will be explained further in the Gemara. But, parenthetically, the Gemara strengthens its words:

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 should you say: If it were written

“every animal tithe,”

I would have said even wild animals,

for “animal” includes wild animals—this is not so, for

“under” “under” [“every one that passes under the rod”; “an ox, or a sheep, or a goat, when it is born, shall be seven days under its mother”]

[“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 consecrated offerings:

just as with consecrated offerings, domestic animals are included but wild animals are not, so too with tithe, domestic animals are included but wild animals are not. If so, the Torah could have said, “and every animal tithe,”

and it would follow

[and we would learn] that one does not tithe from one kind 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 came to say:

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

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

but sheep and goats do become tithed;

and this is what we learned: “and flock” implies one entire flock.

And all this applies only to animal tithe,

but here

with regard to teruma,

is it possible that it would not write [and is it possible that the Torah would not write]

[could the Torah possibly refrain from writing]

“grain”

to exclude the other kinds!?

If so, there is no source from “grain” to learn that one entire grain is meant.

Rav Huna bar Natan challenged him

following Rava’s method of learning from “cattle and flock” to exclude sheep and goats:

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

say:

The Torah wrote “cattle and flock”

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 learned by a kal va-chomer not to tithe from one kind upon another; therefore the Torah wrote “cattle and flock” together, in order to teach: even cattle and flock become tithed from one another!?

He said

he answered

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Nahman,

to Rav Huna bar Natan:

Rava also has

“the tenth”,

which implies dividing cattle from flock. If so, necessarily the extra expression “cattle and flock” comes to exclude sheep and goats, which do become tithed from one another.

Some say: Rava said

to resolve Rav Abba bar Memel’s question: Let us say that since it did not write “and every tithe of cattle and a tithe of flock,” cattle and flock should become tithed from one another:

Without

“the tenth”

you also cannot say

that

cattle and flock become tithed from one another, for

behold,

animal tithe is juxtaposed 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 is speaking of two tithes: one animal tithe and one grain tithe, and it juxtaposes 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 kind upon another kind

does not

become tithed from one another,

so too animal tithe, from one kind upon another kind

does not

become tithed from one another.

It appears in the Gemara above, 53b: Let new and old become tithed from one another by a kal va-chomer: Just as sheep and goats, which are kilayim with one another, [nevertheless] become tithed from one another, all the more so new and old, which are not kilayim with one another, should they not become tithed from one another!? The verse says: “You shall surely tithe...” It juxtaposes animal tithe to grain tithe: Just as grain tithe, from new upon old—no, so too animal tithe, from new upon old—no. If so, sheep and goats also [should not be tithed from one another, because] let us say: It juxtaposes animal tithe to grain tithe: Just as grain tithe, from one kind upon another kind—no, so too animal tithe, from one kind upon another kind—no!? The Merciful One increased [the law with the word] “and flock.” If so, new and old also [should become tithed from one another, because the entire flock is one]!? But [on the other hand] “You shall surely tithe” is written [and the tithes were juxtaposed to one another]. And what have you seen [to exclude new upon old through the juxtaposition and to include one kind upon another through “and flock”? For one could say the opposite]!? Rava said: The verse says [in the same verse of the 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 year, and not with regard to anything else.

And we object:

But Rava

himself

is the one who said

above, 53b: Since the Torah said in this verse of the juxtaposition

“year

by year,” we have learned:

With regard to year [not to tithe from new upon old]

I juxtaposed it, and not with regard to anything else [that is, with regard to one kind upon another kind]. How, then, did Rava say here to learn from the juxtaposition with regard to one kind upon another kind!?

And we answer:

Rava retracted his position concerning that [Rava retracted what he said above, 53b].

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

And if you wish, say: One of them [one of the traditions, the one above, 53b, or the one here]

was stated by Rav Pappa,

and not by Rava, and Rava’s statements do not contradict one another.

Mishna:

Animal tithe combines, that is, ten scattered animals combine for the obligation of animal tithe until there is between them

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

the distance covered by the foot of a grazing animal, namely, the distance within which animals separated from one another can be supervised by one shepherd.

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

And how much is the distance covered by the foot of a grazing animal?

Sixteen mil.

If there were thirty-two mil between these and those, they do not combine, [the contradiction between the first clause and the final clause will be explained in the Gemara].

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

within the thirty-two mil, with animals on both sides of them], he

brings them and tithes them in the middle.

That is, those in the middle cause those on the sides to combine for the obligation of 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 reason will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Animal tithe combines the distance covered by the foot of a grazing animal; and how much is the distance covered by the foot of a grazing animal? Sixteen mil.

The Gemara asks:

From where are these words,

from where is this the measure of combining?

He said

he explained,

Rabba bar Sheila:

Because

the verse says

[Jeremiah 33:13]:

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

That is, if the animals can be counted by one shepherd, then the name “one flock” applies to them, and then they “shall pass” under the rod, as the verse says: “Every one that passes under the rod.”

And it is established for the Sages that sixteen mil is within the range of the shepherd’s eye

[it is known to the Sages that up to sixteen mil the shepherd’s eye reaches].

We learned in the Mishna:

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

The Gemara wonders about the contradiction between the final clause and the first clause: The final clause implies:

It is thirty-two [mil] that do not combine; but less than this

[less than that]

does combine, yet it teaches

in the first clause: The measure of combining is

sixteen mil;

but

more

[more than that]

does not!?

And we answer: In fact, the ordinary measure of combining is sixteen mil. And what we learned in the final clause, “If there were thirty-two mil between these and those, they do not combine,” is—

because it wanted to teach

in the continuation of the

final clause: If he had

animals

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

and their measure of combining, when there are animals in the middle, 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 their middle, so that all the animals within the thirty-two mil combine for the obligation of animal tithe?

Rav said: Five

animals

on this side,

on one side of the thirty-two mil,

and five

animals

on this side,

on its other side,

and five in the middle;

and because

that

is the arrangement:

These five

in the middle

are suitable for this side

[they are fit to combine with the five on one side to reach the complete measure for the obligation of animal tithe, since they are ten animals and there are not sixteen mil between them],

and they are suitable

these middle ones

also for this side

[for the other side].

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

And Shmuel said:

Even

were

five on this side

[on the one side of the thirty-two mil]

and five on this side

[on its other side]

and one

only

in the middle, we deem them visible to the shepherd as one who stands here, and we read concerning it "

counts,"

we deem 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 would be able to see sixteen mil on this side and sixteen mil on that side; therefore, all the animals within the thirty-two mil combine for the obligation of animal tithe.