Bekhorot 55a — the Talmud in English

It was objected to

Rav:

If he had five

animals

in Kefar Hanania, and five

animals

in Kefar Otnai,

which is thirty-two mil from Kefar Hanania,

they do not combine until

he has

one animal

in Sepphoris,

which sits between the two villages.

We have thus learned that even if there is only one in the middle, the animals at the sides combine, even though it is not fit to combine with either of the sides, and

a refutation of Rav,

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

He explained

[he interpreted the beraita]

Shmuel according to Rav:

This statement that we learned, “until he has one in Sepphoris,” is not a continuation of the first clause, where he had five on each side, but is a separate law; and the final clause is dealing with

a case such as:

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

[in Sepphoris], for in this case Rav admits

that that one

in the middle

is fit for this side and is fit for that side,

for from either side it completes the number to ten.

Rav Pappa said:

And according

to

Shmuel, even

the residence of the

shepherd

[without any animal]

combines them

with the animals on the sides,

and even the shepherd’s utensils—

they combine them,

because the shepherd will ultimately come there.

Rav Ashi raised a question:

The shepherd’s dog

[his dog]—if it was in the middle—

what

[is the law that it should combine them] according to Shmuel? And the sides of the uncertainty are: shall we say that since the shepherd will not ultimately come to the dog,

since when he calls it

—the master to his dog—

it comes

[when he calls it and it comes], therefore one should 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 is destined to go and bring them.

And we conclude:

the matter remains teiku.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Meir says: The Jordan interrupts for 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,

the

bridge combines them

with the animals on the two banks of the Jordan.

And we challenge this:

Apparently, it is because they are not near one another,

which implies that the reason the Jordan interrupts is that the animals and the shepherd cannot pass from one side to the other. And

it was objected

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 avtilayot

[two districts in one kingdom]

such as those of Nimra and Namori

[the names of two neighboring districts],

they do not combine,

even if there is only one mil between them,

and it is unnecessary to say: outside the Land and the Land,

that animals outside the Land do not combine with animals in the Land.

And now this is difficult according to Rabbi Ami:

But outside the Land and the Land are like a place where there is a bridge,

for it is possible to pass 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 Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said: This is the reason for Rabbi Meir

because:

The verse says

[Joshua 18:20]: “

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

so

the verse made it a boundary in itself.

And we challenge this:

If so,

since because it is written “it shall border it” the animals on its two banks do not combine—a boundary between two tribes in the Land of Israel, concerning which it is stated [there]: “

And the boundary shall turn” or “

And the boundary shall ascend,”

so too

the verse made it a boundary in itself,

and if he had animals in the inheritance of this tribe and animals in the inheritance of that tribe, on the two sides of the boundary, so too they would not combine!? But it is obvious that they do combine; for if not, why did the beraita mention outside the Land and the Land, since even in the case of two tribes they do not combine?

And we answer:

There it is different, for the verse says

[Numbers 34:12]: “

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

to teach us:

the entire Land of Israel is one boundary,

it is one land.

And we challenge this:

If so, the Jordan too

should not separate, since the entire land is one boundary!?

If so, the Jordan also should not separate the animals, since the entire land has one boundary!?

And we answer: The Torah said, “This shall be your land,” and this implies:

land, but not the Jordan.

And we challenge this:

Granted, according to Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba—

that the Jordan interrupts because a boundary is stated concerning it—

this is why it teaches

in our Mishna 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 pass from one side to the other—

let it teach them

in our Mishna,

all the rivers.

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

And according to Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba as well—

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

Let us say

that our Mishna

is according to the dispute between the tannaim!?

For it was taught: It is written [Numbers 35:10]: “

For you are crossing the Jordan toward the land

[to the land] of Canaan,” and we learned:

“Toward the land”

is what is considered

the land of Canaan, but not the Jordan itself;

the Jordan is not

the land of Canaan—

The words of Rabbi Judah ben Beteira.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai says:

For it says

[Numbers 34:15]: “

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

the verse equated it with Jericho, to teach:

Just as Jericho

is

the land of Canaan, so too the Jordan

is

the land of Canaan.

It follows that the tannaim disputed whether the Jordan is considered like the land of Canaan, whereas our Mishna takes the position that the Jordan is not the land of Canaan, and therefore it interrupts between the animals—

And we conclude: Indeed,

it is difficult for Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Hiyya.

is

the land of Canaan.

It follows that the tannaim disagreed about whether the Jordan is considered the land of Canaan, whereas our Mishna maintains that the Jordan is not the land of Canaan and therefore separates between the animals.

The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is

difficult

Rabba bar bar Hana said that Rabbi Yohanan said:

There is no Jordan except from Beth Jericho [opposite Jericho] and below.

The Gemara asks:

For what halakhic purpose

[what practical difference is there]?

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!?

Rather, for animal tithe,

as we learned: The Jordan interrupts for animal tithe; and Rabbi Yohanan explains that it interrupts only from Beth Jericho and below.

It was taught likewise:

If you say it is regarding one who vows

The Jordan emerges from the Cave of Pamyas, flows through the Sea of Sibkhi, the Sea of Tiberias, and the Sea of Sodom, and flows and falls into the Great Sea; and there is no Jordan except from Beth Jericho and below.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said:

Why was its name called Jordan?

Because

it descends from

the portion of the tribe of

Dan

[yarad—Dan].

Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi:

You learn it from there

[you learn that the Jordan emerges from the portion of Dan from the name of the Jordan], whereas

we teach it from here

[from here we learn this],

as it is stated [Joshua 19:47]:

it descends from

“

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

so Leshem was in the portion of Dan,

and Rabbi Yitzhak said: Leshem is Pamyas, and it was taught: The Jordan emerges from the Cave of Pamyas;

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

—you learn that the Jordan emerges from the territory of Dan from the name “Jordan”—whereas

Rav Kahana said:

a. The essential source of the Jordan [the Jordan’s principal source] is the Cave of Pamyas,

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

to tell you:

Where one says, “I shall not drink water”

[one who prohibited to himself the benefit of drinking water]

from the Cave of Pamyas,

automatically it is prohibited to him throughout the entire Jordan

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

The essential part of the Jordan

—its principal source—

b.

The essential source of the blood is the liver

[the principal part of the blood is the liver],

as Rabbi Yitzhak said! For Rabbi Yitzhak said:

The liver

of a dead person

that dissolved

is

impure through a tent with the measure of

a quarter

the measure of blood required to cause impurity through a tent.

c.

The essential source of water

[the principal source of all the water in the world] is the river

Euphrates,

as

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

because the Euphrates is the source of all waters.

And we challenge Rav’s statement:

What are the circumstances,

in what wording did he prohibit it to himself?

If we say that he said, “

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

and Rav said that in this case he is prohibited from all the waters in the world, this cannot be said, for it implies:

It is the waters of the Euphrates that I shall not drink; but from another river I shall drink

[it is the waters of the Euphrates that I shall not drink, but the waters of another river I shall drink]. That is, one follows ordinary human language, and he who vows has in mind only the name that he ordinarily uses to call that place.

Rather, with what are we dealing? With 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].”

What are the circumstances?

In what wording did he prohibit the water to himself?

If you say that he said, “

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

and it was in such a case that Rav said that he is prohibited from all the waters in the world, this cannot be said, since the implication is:

For Rav Judah said that Rav said: All the rivers

are

below the three rivers

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

and these three rivers

are

below

the river Euphrates. That is, their source is from it.

lower than the three rivers

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

And these three rivers

are

lower than

the river

Euphrates.

That is, their source is the Euphrates.

That is, their source is derived from it.

And we object: How do you say that the source of all the waters is from the Euphrates,