054b - מעשר בהמה פרק תשיעי בכורות דף נד, ע"ב

[Then] they should be tithed one for the other!^[1]

יתעשרו מזה על זה - Cattle and sheep.

He said to him: The pasuk says (Vayikra 27) “the tenth”:^[2] give a tenth for this and give a tenth for that.

אמר קרא העשירי - For “tithe” is attached to cattle and “the tenth” is attached to flock, so that now “tithe” is written for each one.

If so, sheep and goats too [should not be tithed one for the other]?^[3]

כבשים ועזים נמי - Should not be tithed [one for the other], just as above “chelev” is written for oil and “chelev” for wine and grain, and we expound grain [and] grain by kal vachomer from wine and oil; so too here we expound a kal vachomer from new and old.

“And flock” implies all flock is one.^[4]

ומשני וצאן משמע כל צאן א': - And [the Gemara] answers: “and flock” implies all flock is one.

Here too, let us say [that “grain”] implies all grain is one!^[5]

Abaye said: (Bamidbar 18) “their first”.^[6]

ראשיתם - “Their first” stands next to “grain,” to say: give a first portion for each and every [kind of] grain; [this is] in the parshah of Vayikach Korach.

And so said Rabbi Il’a: “their first”.^[7]

Rava said: even without “their first”, you cannot say [that “grain”] implies all grain is one.^[8]

Granted, there we say: “and flock” implies all flock is one,

בשלמא התם דרשינן וצאן משמע כל צאן א' - For the pesukim are superfluous for us.

for if you would think that sheep and goats too [may not be tithed one for the other], let [the Torah] write “and all the tithe of animals.”^[9]

דאי ס"ד כבשים ועזים נמי - Should not be tithed for each other – let the Merciful One write “and all the tithe of animals,” and I would know that [one may] not [tithe] from one species for another, since it comes by kal vachomer from new and old.

And if you say: had it written “all the tithe of animals,” I would have said even a chayah [is included] –^[10]

וכי תימא אי כתב בהמה ה"א חיה בכלל בהמה - And a chayah would be obligated in the tithe, as we hold in Bava Kamma (54b) that a chayah is included in beheimah regarding cross-breeding. Therefore it would not have been necessary to write “cattle and flock,” for I learn “under” – “under” from the offerings: it is written here (Vayikra 27) “under the rod,” and it is written there (ibid. 22) “under its mother,” and there a chayah is not [included], since it is written “an ox, a sheep and a goat.” So let it write “animal,” and it would come by kal vachomer from new and old that one species [is] not [tithed] for another; and when it wrote “cattle and flock,” it is to say that it is cattle and flock that are not tithed [for each other], but flock and flock are tithed. But here, regarding grain, it is not reasonable to expound the pasuk [to mean] that it is wine and grain that are not tithed [for each other] but grain and grain are tithed – for could it do without writing “grain”? [It is needed] to exclude other species, so that they are not obligated in tithes by Torah law.

“under” – “under”: he learns it from the offerings.^[11]

And it would come by kal vachomer from new and old; why then do I need “cattle and flock”?^[12]

[To teach that] cattle and flock are not tithed one for the other, but sheep and goats are tithed [one for the other].

But here, could it do without writing “grain”?

[It is needed] to exclude other species.^[13]

Rav Huna the son of Rav Nachman objected: say [it spelled them out] to mix cattle with flock!^[14]

אימא לערבו לבקר וצאן - That is: from where does Rava know that “cattle and flock” is written for this, that they should not be tithed one for the other? Say that the pasuk specified them explicitly for this: to mix them, that they be tithed for each other – for had it written “animal,” we would have derived from new and old that one species [is] not [tithed] for another, and so it mentioned them explicitly to say that they should be tithed for each other. And Rav Huna presumed that since Rava does not hold of “their first,” Rava does not hold of “the tenth” either, to expound “give a tenth for this and a tenth for that,” since it did not write “tithe of cattle and tithe of flock.”

Mar Zutra the son of Rav Nachman said to Rava: [Rava] also holds of “the tenth.”^[15]

Some say: Rava said: even without “tenth” you cannot say that cattle and flock are tithed one for the other, for ma’aser beheimah is compared to the grain tithe:^[16] just as the grain tithe [may] not [be taken] from one species for another, so too ma’aser beheimah [may] not [be taken] from one species for another.

ממין על שאינו מינו לא - And if you say: [then] sheep and goats too [should not be tithed for each other] – if so, what did the inclusion of “cattle and flock” accomplish? And if you ask: what makes you [read it so]? It is reasonable that the hekesh excludes cattle and flock, that they not be tithed for each other, since they are not alike at all; and the inclusion of “cattle and flock” includes sheep and goats, since they are alike regarding offerings, for one who says “I take upon myself [an offering] from the flock” may bring either a sheep or a goat.

But it is Rava who said: “year” – for the year I compared them, and not for anything else!^[17]

Rava retracted that [statement].

הדר ביה רבא מההיא - [From] the first [statement]; and he holds that it is compared for other matters too, to exclude cattle and flock; and that sheep and goats are tithed [for each other] we derive from the inclusion of “cattle and flock.” And when we challenged at the beginning of our sugya, “if so, new and old too,” that is no challenge, for regarding new and old it is written explicitly in the pasuk that they are compared, since in the pasuk of the hekesh it is written “year by year.”

And if you wish, say: one of them Rav Pappa said.^[18]

Mishnah

Ma’aser beheimah combines within the full stride of a grazing animal.^[19]

מתני' מצטרף כמלא רגל בהמה רועה - According to the distance an animal moves off as it grazes, which is sixteen mil. Another explanation: according to how far the animals are from each other and can still be watched by one shepherd, and that is sixteen mil, as the Gemara explains, that this is how far a shepherd’s eye reaches. And if he has five animals in this village and five animals in another village sixteen mil away from it, he brings them into one pen and tithes them; and if they are further, they are exempt. And the Gemara explains the reason.

And how much is the stride of a grazing animal?

Sixteen mil.^[20]

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

שלשים ושתים מיל - The Gemara asks: what is it saying?

If he had [animals] in the middle, he brings them and tithes them in the middle.

היה לו באמצע - Those in the middle join the ones at the sides; and when it teaches “he brings them and tithes them in the middle,” it does not mean literally bringing.

Rabbi Meir says: the Jordan divides for ma’aser beheimah.^[21]

הירדן מפסיק - That if he has five animals on this side and five on that side, and the Jordan between them, they do not combine and are exempt. The Gemara explains the reason.

Gemara

From where are these words [derived]?

Rabbah bar Shila said: for the pasuk says (Yirmiyahu 33) “the flocks shall again pass under the hands of one who counts,”^[22] and the Sages have established that a shepherd’s eye controls sixteen mil.

גמ' תעבורנה הצאן על ידי מונה - Implying: if they can be counted by one shepherd, they are called “flock” and “pass under the rod” to be tithed; and if not, not.

“If there were thirty-two mil between these and those, they do not combine,” etc.^[23]

Thirty-two is what does not combine; but less than that does combine?

But it teaches “sixteen mil” – and not more!^[24]

והא קתני ט"ז מיל - That is what combines; more, not.

Because it wants to teach the later clause: “if he had [animals] in the middle, he brings them and tithes them in the middle.”^[25]

And how many [must there be]?

וכמה - Should he have at the sides and in the middle, so that they combine?

Rav said: five on this side, five on that side and five in the middle,^[26]

ה' מכאן וה' באמצע - They combine, and he brings them into one pen and tithes them; and the five remaining in the pen combine with another goren^[27] when more lambs are born to him. But if those on one side were close to the middle ones, within sixteen mil, and those on the second side further than sixteen mil, those far ones are completely exempt and need not wait until more lambs are born to him to combine with another goren.

for these five are fit for here and fit for there.

דהנך ה' - Middle ones are fit for here and for there, for to whichever side they join, there is the measure for the tithe. But if there are five on this side, four on that side and five in the middle, the four do not combine and need not wait for another goren.

And Shmuel said: even five on this side, five on that side and one in the middle; we view the shepherd as if he stands here, and we read concerning him “one who counts.”^[28]

ה' מכאן וה' מכאן ואחת באמצע - Even though this one is not fit for the count, since the shepherd’s way is to go there and bring it, it is as if he stands there, and we read concerning him “one who counts.” All the more so four on this side, five on that side and one in the middle, for this one is fit to join the count.

Tosfos

אמר אביי ראשיתם כו' רבא אמר בלא ראשיתם כו' - It is puzzling: in the first perek of Temurah (5a), regarding what Abaye said, that whatever the Merciful One said ‘do not do,’ if one did it, it is effective,^[29] [the Gemara] challenges from one who separates terumah from one species for another, for the Merciful One said “give a chelev for this [and a chelev for that],” and we learned that if he separated, his terumah is not terumah; and it answers: the pasuk says “their first.” Evidently [that sugya] applies it even to wine and oil, to teach us that it is not effective; whereas here it applies it to divide between the kinds of grain, that one does not separate from one for the other. And Rava says [here]: even without “their first” you cannot say [“and grain”] implies [all] grain is one – whereas there it is explicitly applied to this, for it says there: “and according to Rava, who says it is not effective – were it not that the Merciful One said ‘their first,’ I would have said: wine and oil, for which ‘chelev, chelev’ is written, one does not separate terumah [one for the other]; wine and grain, for which one ‘chelev’ is written, [one may separate] from this for that; [so] the Merciful One wrote ‘first.’” One can answer: according to Abaye, certainly this “first” implies dividing between the kinds of grain, since the pasuk placed it next to “and grain”; and he also applies it to say that it is not effective, for the pasuk refers to all the species written in it; to divide between wine and oil it was not needed, only to say that it is not effective; and just as it is not effective for wine and oil, it is not effective for the kinds of grain either. And Rava, who says here that it is not needed, [means] because it comes from the kal vachomer as above, and from “grain” one cannot expound that [all] grain is one, as he says here, since it is needed for itself, to exclude other species; and there we derive it from “first,” as we find in several places (Pesachim 18b) that something that comes by kal vachomer, the pasuk nevertheless takes the trouble to write.^[30] And now it is also well that here he brings “first” for grain and grain, and there Rava brings it for grain and wine: for certainly both come from the kal vachomer, both wine and grain and grain and grain, and nevertheless [the Torah] wrote it for both, like something that comes by kal vachomer which the pasuk takes the trouble to write. And if you ask: according to Rava, since “their first” is written for all of them, why do I need “chelev, chelev”? One can answer: because we would not have applied “their first” to wine and oil, since they are not kilayim with each other.

ואתי בק"ו מחדש וישן - He could not say that it would come from the hekesh of “you shall surely tithe” mentioned above, for Rava said above: for the year I compared them, and not for anything else.

אימא לערובי בצאן - That it wrote them with one [word] “tithe” and did not write “and the tithe of flock.”

חדא מיניה רב פפא אמרה - At the beginning of Bava Kamma (4b) it also says this; and of Rav Pappa it is customary to say so, for he reigned after Rava, as stated (in Moed Katan) (28b); and there are things he would say which [people] thought were [said] in Rava’s name.

Notes

1. 1. This line completes the challenge begun at the foot of the previous amud [Bechoros 54a]: Rava bar Rav Chanan asked Abaye, “But if so, regarding ma’aser beheimah, where it is not written ‘and all the tithe of cattle and the tithe of the flock’” – the pasuk (Vayikra 27:32) says only “all the tithe of cattle and flock,” one “tithe” for both – then cattle and sheep should be tithed one for the other! Yet the Mishnah (53a) rules that they are not.
2. 2. The full pasuk (Vayikra 27:32): “And all the tithe of cattle and flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be holy to Hashem.” Ma’aser beheimah is the tithe of animals: the newborn animals are passed one by one through an opening, and every tenth is marked as holy. As Rashi explains, “tithe” is attached to cattle and “the tenth” to flock, so it is as if each has a tithe of its own.
3. 3. Sheep and goats are two species (kilayim with each other). By the kal vachomer – an a fortiori argument – from new and old in the Mishnah [Bechoros 53a], they too should not be tithed one for the other; yet the Mishnah rules that they are.
4. 4. “Flock” (tzon) is one word covering sheep and goats alike; it treats the whole flock as one kind for the tithe. This is the answer the Mishnah itself gives [Bechoros 53a].
5. 5. The question: grain too is written with one word, “grain” (Bamidbar 18:12). By the same reasoning all kinds of grain should count as one, and wheat could be tithed for barley – against the kal vachomer on the previous amud [Bechoros 54a].
6. 6. Bamidbar 18:12: “All the best of the oil, and all the best of the wine and grain, their first (reishisam), which they give to Hashem.” The plural “their first,” standing next to “grain,” teaches that a separate first portion is given from each kind of grain (Rashi).
7. 7. Rabbi Il’a, an Amora of Eretz Yisrael, reached the same derivation from “their first.”
8. 8. Rava holds that, even without “their first,” the word “grain” cannot be read like “flock.” He now explains the difference: “flock” is superfluous and free to teach, while “grain” is needed for itself.
9. 9. Why “flock” teaches this: had the Torah wanted sheep and goats kept apart, it could have written simply “all the tithe of animals” (beheimah), and the kal vachomer from new and old would already forbid tithing one species for another.
10. 10. A chayah is a wild kosher animal, such as a deer; a beheimah is a domestic animal – cattle, sheep and goats. The objection: had the Torah written “animal,” we might include chayos in the tithe, since chayah is included in beheimah for the law of cross-breeding (Bava Kamma 54b, cited by Rashi).
11. 11. A gezeirah shavah – a law learned from the same word in two places: “under (tachas) the rod” of the tithe (Vayikra 27:32) and “seven days under (tachas) its mother” said of offerings (Vayikra 22:27), which names only “an ox, a sheep or a goat.” So chayos are excluded in any case, and “animal” would have sufficed.
12. 12. Since “animal” would have been enough, spelling out “cattle and flock” must teach something: only cattle and flock are not tithed for each other, while sheep and goats, both within “flock,” are.
13. 13. Here, by contrast, “grain” is needed for itself: it limits the Torah-level tithe to grain (with wine and oil) and excludes other produce, which is tithed only by Rabbinic law [Bechoros 54a]. So it cannot also teach that all grain is one kind.
14. 14. Rav Huna the son of Rav Nachman, a Babylonian Amora, suggests the opposite reading: perhaps “cattle and flock” were spelled out to mix them, so that cattle may be tithed for sheep. Rashi: he assumed that Rava, who does not use “their first,” does not use “the tenth” either.
15. 15. Mar Zutra the son of Rav Nachman answers that Rava does accept the derivation from “the tenth” – a tenth for this and a tenth for that – so cattle and sheep stay separate.
16. 16. A hekesh is a law learned from two subjects joined in one pasuk. “You shall surely tithe (aser te’aser)” (Devarim 14:22) is read as speaking of two tithes, of grain and of animals, so the animal tithe is compared to the grain tithe [Bechoros 53b]. Grain may not be tithed from one species for another; so neither may animals.
17. 17. On the previous amud [Bechoros 53b] Rava said, from “year by year” (Devarim 14:22), that the hekesh teaches only one thing: animals of one year may not be tithed for those of another. How can he use it here for different species?
18. 18. Either Rava retracted, or one of the two statements is really Rav Pappa’s. Rav Pappa was Rava’s student and succeeded him at the head of the yeshivah, so some of his sayings came to be quoted in Rava’s name (Tosfos).
19. 19. One is obliged to tithe only when he has at least ten animals in the count. Animals kept in different places combine for that count if they lie within the full stride of a grazing animal. Rashi: five in one village and five in another, within sixteen mil, are brought to one pen and tithed.
20. 20. A mil is 2,000 amos, roughly a kilometre. Sixteen mil is the distance over which a shepherd’s eye still reaches, as the Gemara explains.
21. 21. Rabbi Meir, a Tanna and a student of Rabbi Akiva. In his view flocks on the two sides of the Jordan do not combine even within sixteen mil; the Gemara gives his reason on the next amud [Bechoros 55a]: “and the Jordan shall border it” (Yehoshua 18:20).
22. 22. Yirmiyahu 33:13: “…the flocks shall again pass under the hands of one who counts them, says Hashem.” Animals count as one flock for the tithe only if one shepherd can count them; and the Sages knew that a shepherd’s eye reaches sixteen mil.
23. 23. The clause: two groups of animals with thirty-two mil between them do not combine to make up the ten required for the tithe.
24. 24. The question: the Mishnah itself fixed sixteen mil as the limit, so any gap beyond sixteen – not only thirty-two – should already prevent combining.
25. 25. The answer: thirty-two is mentioned for the next clause – two groups thirty-two mil apart do combine when he has animals in the middle, each side within sixteen mil of them.
26. 26. Rav requires five in the middle: they can complete ten with either side, so each side joins them. The practical difference from Shmuel is a smaller middle group, which in Rav’s view joins nothing.
27. 27. A goren (literally “threshing floor”) of ma’aser beheimah is one of the set times in the year when the animals born are tithed, as the Mishnah teaches later in this perek. Animals not tithed at one goren join the count at the next.
28. 28. Shmuel: even one animal in the middle is enough. The shepherd will go there to it, so it is as if he stands in the middle, and both sides are in the sight of “one who counts.” On the next amud [Bechoros 55a] the Gemara challenges Rav from a beraisa.
29. 29. Abaye’s principle (Temurah 5a, as Tosfos cites it): whatever the Torah forbids, if one did it anyway, the act takes effect. Terumah separated from one species for another seems to contradict it, since the Mishnah rules it is not terumah.
30. 30. “Something that comes by kal vachomer, the pasuk nevertheless takes the trouble to write” – a recognised principle (Pesachim 18b): a pasuk may state what a kal vachomer already teaches.