Bekhorot 55a (נה.) — the Talmud in English

Meitive

to Rav:

If he had five

animals

in Kefar Ḥananya, and five

animals

in Kefar Otni

which is thirty-two mil from Kefar Ḥananya,

they do not combine until

he has

an animal

in Sepphoris

which lies between the two villages.

We have thus learned that even if there is only one animal in the middle, the animals on the two sides combine, despite the fact that it is not fit to combine with either side, and

this is a refutation of Rav,

who holds that the animals on the two sides do not combine until there are five animals in the middle that are fit to combine with each side!?

He interpreted

the beraita

in accordance with Rav, according to Shmuel:

The clause that we learned, “until he has one in Sepphoris,” is not a continuation of the first clause, which dealt with his having five on each side. Rather, it is a separate law, and the latter clause is dealing with a case

such as:

where there were nine on this side, nine on that side, and one in the middle

in Sepphoris; in this case Rav agrees,

as that

middle animal

is fit for this side and fit for that side,

as it completes the number ten for either side.

Rav Pappa said:

And

according

to Shmuel, even

the shepherd’s

dwelling

without any animal at all,

combines them

with the animals on the two sides;

and even the shepherd’s utensils—

they combine them,

because the shepherd will eventually come there.

Rav Ashi raised a dilemma:

What is the status of a shepherd’s dog

—the shepherd’s dog—which was in the middle—

what

is the ruling as to whether it combines them according to Shmuel? The sides of the dilemma are as follows: Shall we say that since the shepherd will not eventually come to the dog,

once he calls it

—its master calls his dog—

and it comes,

as he calls it and it comes to him, one should therefore say that

they do not combine?

Or perhaps: Sometimes it does not come, and he must go to bring it—sometimes the dog does not respond to his call, and he must go after it—and the dog is therefore like one animal in the middle or like the shepherd’s utensils, which combine them, since the shepherd will eventually go and bring them.

and the dog is therefore like one animal in the middle, or like the shepherd’s utensils, which combine the animals because the shepherd will eventually go and bring them.

And we conclude:

The question remains unresolved.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Meir says: The Jordan interrupts with regard to animal tithe:

Rabbi Ami said: They taught

in our Mishna that the Jordan interrupts

only

in a case

where there is no bridge

over the Jordan;

but

if

there is a bridge there, the

bridge combines them

with the animals on the two banks of the Jordan.

the animals on the two banks of the Jordan.

And we object:

Apparently, it is because they are not near one another—it follows that the reason the Jordan interrupts is that the animals and the shepherd cannot cross from one side to the other. And

for this implies that the reason the Jordan interrupts is that the animals and the shepherd cannot cross from one side to the other. And

Meitive

from what we learned in a beraita:

If he had

animals

on both banks of the Jordan, on this side and on that side, or in two avtilot

two districts within one kingdom

such as those of Namer and Nemori

the names of two adjacent districts—

they do not combine,

even if there is only one mil between them;

and needless to say: outside Eretz Yisrael and in Eretz Yisrael

the animals outside Eretz Yisrael do not combine with the animals in Eretz Yisrael.

Now this presents a difficulty for Rabbi Ami:

But outside Eretz Yisrael and Eretz Yisrael are equivalent to a place where there is a bridge,

since one can cross from there to here and from here to there,

and

nevertheless

it teaches: They do not combine,

which is difficult for Rabbi Ami!

Rather, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is the rationale of Rabbi Meir,

because:

The verse says

[Joshua 18:20]: “

And the Jordan shall border it on the eastern side,”

thus

the verse made it an independent boundary.

And we object to this:

If so, if the animals on the two sides do not combine because it is written, “shall border it,” then a boundary between two tribes in Eretz Yisrael, concerning which it is stated [there]: “

and the boundary shall go around” or “

and the boundary shall ascend,”

And the boundary shall be drawn” or

“

likewise

the verse should be understood as saying that

it made it an independent boundary. If he had animals in the inheritance of this tribe and animals in the inheritance of that tribe, on opposite sides of the boundary, likewise they should not combine!? But it is obvious that they do combine. Otherwise, why did the beraita mention outside Eretz Yisrael and Eretz Yisrael, since even animals belonging to two tribes would not combine?

There it is different, for the verse says

And we answer:

There it is different, as the verse says

[Numbers 34:12]: “

This shall be your land according to its boundaries all around,”

teaching us:

All of Eretz Yisrael is one boundary;

it is one land.

And we object:

If so, the Jordan too should not separate, since the entire land is one boundary!?

The Gemara answers: The Torah says, “This shall be your land,” which implies:

And we answer: The Torah says, “This shall be your land,” which implies:

the land, but not the Jordan.

Granted, according to Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba—

And we object:

Granted, according to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba—

that the Jordan interrupts because it is called a boundary—

this is why it teaches

in our Mishna specifically the river

Jordan,

and not other rivers—

But according to Rabbi Ami—

that the Jordan interrupts because it is a river and it is not possible to cross from one side to the other—

let it teach

in our Mishna

all rivers. That is, let the tanna teach: All rivers interrupt. Why, then, did the tanna specifically mention the river Jordan!?

who says that the Jordan interrupts because a boundary is stated concerning it—the following difficulty can also be raised:

And according to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba as well—

who says that the Jordan interrupts because it is called a boundary—there is room to ask:

Let us say that our Mishna

is subject to a dispute between tannaim!?

is subject to a dispute between tanna’im

!? As it was taught: It is written [Numbers 35:10]:

“When you cross the Jordan into the land

of

Canaan,”

and we learn:

“Into the land”

means that it is considered

the land of Canaan, but the Jordan itself

is not

the land of Canaan—

Beyond the Jordan, by Jericho, eastward, toward the sunrise,”

The statement of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says:

Behold, it says

[Numbers 34:15]: “

On the other side of the Jordan, by Jericho, eastward,”

the verse juxtaposed it with Jericho, in order to teach:

Just as Jericho

is

the land of Canaan, so too the Jordan

is

the land of Canaan.

We thus see that the tanna’im disagree concerning the Jordan, whether it is considered the land of Canaan, whereas our Mishna maintains that the Jordan is not the land of Canaan and therefore interrupts between the animals—

And we conclude: Indeed, it is

difficult

for Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Ḥiyya.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

The Jordan is only from Beit Jericho

opposite Jericho

and below.

If we say, for one who vows to derive benefit from the Jordan, so that he is prohibited only from Beth Jericho and below, this cannot be said, because: With vows, one follows ordinary human language, and wherever they call it the Jordan [wherever people call it the Jordan], it is prohibited to him because of his vow!?

The Gemara asks:

For what halakhic purpose

what practical difference is there?

If you say it is with regard to one who vows

to derive benefit from the Jordan, so that he is prohibited only from Beit Jericho and below—this cannot be said, because:

With regard to vows,

one follows ordinary usage, and wherever people call it the Jordan

wherever it is called “Jordan” in ordinary speech,

it is prohibited to him

because of his vow!?

Rather, it is with regard to animal tithe,

as we learned: The Jordan interrupts with regard to animal tithe, and Rabbi Yoḥanan explains that it interrupts only from Beit Jericho and below.

It was taught likewise:

You learn it from there

The Jordan issues from the Cave of Paneas, flows through the Sea of Sibkhi, the Sea of Tiberias, and the Sea of Sodom, and then falls into the Great Sea; and the Jordan is only from Beit Jericho and below.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

Why is it called the Jordan?

Because

it descends from

the portion of the tribe of

Dan

“descends” (yarad) from “Dan.”

Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi:

You learn it from there

you learn that the Jordan issues from the portion of Dan, from the name Jordan—whereas

we learn it from here

we learn this from the following verse:

as it says [Joshua 19:47]: “

And they called Leshem Dan, after the name of Dan their father,”

so Leshem was in the portion of Dan,

and Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Leshem is Paneas, and it was taught: The Jordan issues from the Cave of Paneas,

so the source of the Jordan was in the portion of Dan.

Rav Kahana said:

1.

The principal source of the Jordan

the Jordan’s primary source is

the Cave of Paneas,

which teaches you:

Where one says, “I shall not drink water”

one who prohibited himself from deriving the benefit of drinking water

from the Cave of Paneas,

automatically

he is prohibited throughout the entire Jordan

he is prohibited throughout the Jordan, since its principal source and origin is in the Cave of Paneas.

2.

The principal component of blood is the liver

the essential substance of blood is the liver,

as Rabbi Yitzḥak said. For Rabbi Yitzḥak said:

The liver

of a corpse

that dissolved

is

impure

through a tent

with

the measure of

a quarter-log,

the measure of blood that conveys impurity through a tent.

3.

The principal source of water

the essential source of all the water in the world is the river

Euphrates,

as

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: One who vows against the waters of the Euphrates is prohibited from all the waters in the world,

since the Euphrates is the source of all waters.

And we object to Rav’s statement:

What are the circumstances—in what wording did he prohibit himself?

In what wording did he prohibit the water to himself?

If you say that he said, “

I shall not drink from the waters of the Euphrates,”

and it was with regard to this formulation that Rav said that he is prohibited from all the waters in the world, this cannot be said, for the implication is:

It is the water of the Euphrates that I shall not drink, but I shall drink from another river

the water of the Euphrates I shall not drink, but I shall drink the water of another river. That is, one follows ordinary usage, and the one who vows has in mind only the name by which people customarily refer to that particular place.

Rather,

what are the circumstances? It is a case

where he said, “

I shall not drink from water that comes from the Euphrates

I shall not drink water that comes from the Euphrates.”

For Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: All the rivers

are

below the three rivers

the Tigris, Pishon, and Gihon mentioned in the passage of Genesis. That is, these rivers are higher than all the others, and they are the source of all the river waters in the world;

and these three rivers

are

below

the river

Euphrates.

That is, their source is derived from it.

And we challenge: How can you say that the source of all the waters is the Euphrates,