Bekhorot — Daf 54b

יתעשרו מזה על זה א"ל אמר קרא (ויקרא כז, לב) העשירי תן עשירי לזה ותן עשירי לזה אי הכי כבשים ועזים נמי וצאן משמע כל צאן אחד

הכא נמי לימא משמע כל דגן אחד אמר אביי (במדבר יח, יב) ראשיתם וכן אמר ר' אילעא ראשיתם

רבא אמר בלא ראשיתם נמי משמע כל דגן אחד לא מצית אמרת בשלמא התם אמרינן וצאן משמע כל צאן אחד דאי סלקא דעתך כבשים ועזים נמי לכתוב וכל מעשר בהמה

וכי תימא אי כתיב כל מעשר בהמה הוי אמינא אפילו חיה תחת תחת מקדשים גמר

ואתי בק"ו מחדש וישן בקר וצאן למה לי בקר וצאן הוא דאין מתעשרין מזה על זה אבל כבשים ועזים מתעשרין

אבל הכא מי סגיא דלא כתיב דגן למעוטי שאר מינין

מתקיף לה רב הונא בריה דרב נחמן אימא לערבו לבקר בצאן אמר ליה מר זוטרא בריה דרב נחמן לרבא אית ליה נמי העשירי

איכא דאמרי אמר רבא בלא עשירי נמי לא מצית אמרת בקר וצאן מתעשרין מזה על זה דאיתקש מעשר בהמה למעשר דגן מה מעשר דגן ממין על שאינו מינו לא אף מעשר בהמה ממין על שאינו מינו לא

והא רבא הוא דאמר שנה לשנה הקשתיו ולא לדבר אחר הדר ביה רבא מההיא ואיבעית אימא חדא מיניה רב פפא אמרה:

מתני׳ מעשר בהמה מצטרף כמלא רגל בהמה רועה וכמה היא רגל בהמה רועה ט"ז מיל היו בין אלו לאלו ל"ב מיל אין מצטרפין היו לו באמצע מביא ומעשרן באמצע ר"מ אומר הירדן מפסיק למעשר בהמה:

גמ׳ מנא הני מילי

אמר רבה בר שילא דאמר קרא (ירמיהו לג, יג) עוד תעבורנה הצאן ע"י מונה וקים להו לרבנן דשיתסר מיל קא שלטא ביה עינא דרועה:

היו בין אלו לאלו שלשים ושנים מיל אין מצטרפין וכו': שלשים ושנים הוא דאין מצטרפין הא בציר מהכי מצטרפין והא קתני ט"ז מיל טפי לא משום דקא בעי למיתנא סיפא היו לו באמצע מביא ומעשרן באמצע

וכמה אמר רב חמש מכאן וחמש מכאן וחמש מאמצע דהני חמש חזיא להכא וחזיא להכא

ושמואל אמר אפי' חמש מכאן וה' מכאן ואחד באמצע חזינן לרועה כמאן דקאי הכא וקרינן ביה מונה

it should be permitted to tithe one for the other?1 He replied to him: Scripture says: ‘The tenth’ intimating that you must give ‘the tenth’ of this [kind of animal] and the tenth of the other.2 If this be the case, lambs and goats should also [not be tithed one for the other]?3 — Scripture says: ‘And of the flock’, implying that all kinds of flock are considered one. Here too let us say that the text ‘And of the wheat’ implies that all kinds of grain are considered one?4 — Said Abaye: [Scripture says]: The first-fruits of them.5 And R. Ela likewise [adduced the text]: ‘The first-fruits of them’, Raba said: Even without [the text] ‘The first-fruits of them’, we could not say that the text ‘And of the wheat’ implies that all kinds of [grain] are considered one. For it is quite intelligible that we should say there that ‘And of the flock’ implies that all kinds of flock are considered one, for if you should be inclined to think that [Scripture intended that] lambs and goats are also not to be tithed one for the other, then let Scripture say, ‘And concerning the tithe of animal’.6 And should you object that if it had written, ‘And concerning the tithe of animal’, I might have assumed that it included even a beast of chase,7 [the answer is that] we have an analogy between the expressions ‘under’8 and ‘under’9 and we could have derived a minori from new and old that you must not tithe one kind of animal for another;10 and why therefore [does Scripture state] ‘Of the herd and of the flock’? [It must be] to intimate that only as regards the herd [large cattle] and the flock you must not tithe one for the other, but as regards lambs and goats, you may tithe one for the other. But here,11 [Scripture] could not avoid saying ‘of the wheat’, in order to exclude other kinds.12 To this R. Huna B. Nathan demurred: Why not say [that the text] ‘Of the herd and of the flock’ intimates that you may tithe large cattle for flock?13 — Mar Zutra son of R. Nahman replied to him Raba also holds [the derivation from the text] ‘The tenth’.14 Some there are who say: Said Raba: Even without [the text] ‘the tenth’ you could not say that large cattle and sheep are tithed one for the other, for the tithing of animals is compared to the tithing of grain; just as in the case of the tithing of grain you must not tithe one kind of grain for the other, so in the case of tithing of animals you must not tithe one for the other.15 But was it not Raba who said: [Scripture says]: year [by year]’16 implying [thus]: I [Scripture] have compared the tithing of animals with the tithing of grain only with regard to the year17 but not with regard to any other matter?18 — Raba went back on this former teaching.19 Or if you wish I can say: One [of these statements] was made by R. Papa.20 MISHNAH. ANIMALS ARE COMBINED FOR PURPOSES OF TITHING SO LONG AS THEY CAN STILL PASTURE WITHIN THE DISTANCE THAT CATTLE WANDER.21 AND WHAT IS THE DISTANCE OVER WHICH THEY CAN WANDER WHILE PASTURING? — SIXTEEN MILS.22 IF THERE WAS BETWEEN TWO GROUPS OF ANIMALS A DISTANCE OF THIRTY-TWO MILS,23 THEY DO NOT COMBINE FOR THE PURPOSE OF TITHING. IF HOWEVER THERE WAS [A HERD] IN THE MIDDLE [OF THE DISTANCE OF THIRTY-TWO MILS] HE BRINGS THEM [INTO ONE SHED] AND TITHES THEM [AT SOME POINT] IN THE MIDDLE.24 R. MEIR SAYS: THE [RIVER] JORDAN IS REGARDED AS FORMING A DIVISION AS REGARDS THE TITHING OF ANIMALS.25 GEMARA. Whence is this proved? Said Rabbah b. Shila: Because Scripture says: Shall the flocks pass again under the hands of him that telleth them.26 And it was certain to the Rabbis that the eye of a shepherd can exercise control for a distance of sixteen mils. IF THERE WAS BETWEEN TWO GROUPS OF ANIMALS A DISTANCE OF THIRTY-TWO MILS THEY DO NOT COMBINE etc. You say that where the distance is thirty-two mils the animals do not combine [for the law of tithing], thus implying that in less of this distance they do combine. But does not [the Mishnah] state previously that the distance for combining the animals is sixteen mils, implying but not a greater distance? — [The Mishnah mentions thirty-two mils] because it wishes to report in a later clause: IF HOWEVER THERE WAS A HERD IN THE MIDDLE OF THE THIRTY-TWO MILS HE BRINGS THEM [INTO A SHED] AND TITHES THEM IN THE MIDDLE.27 And how many?28 — Said Rab: Five on this side and five on the other and five in the middle,29 for the animals in the middle are fit to be combined either with those on the one side or with those on the other.30 But Samuel says: Even if there are five animals on one side and five on the other, and one in the middle, they combine for tithing,31 for we regard the shepherd as standing in the middle.32 And we therefore apply here the text: Of him that telleth. XXVII, 32 with reference to every kind of animal enumerated in the text. itmu (flock). Therefore ragn is actually used in each case. conclude that one cannot be tithed for the other, so, as ragn is mentioned in connection with herd and hrhag (the tenth) is mentioned in connection with flock, let us here also conclude a minori from new and old as stated above that you cannot tithe one kind of small cattle for another kind of small cattle, v. Sh. Mek. have inferred this a fortiori from new and old, as explained above. would be subject to the law of tithe. kinds in regard to one another, how much more so is this the case with two kinds of animals counted, as they are, as diverse kinds in regard to one another. must not tithe wheat and wine one for the other, but you may tithe wheat for wheat. one must not tithe one for the other? Perhaps Scripture specified the animals in details in order to deduce that you may tithe one for the other. For had Scripture only said: ‘And concerning the tithe of the animal’, I should have inferred a minori from ‘new and old’, as explained above, that you must not tithe one for the other. R. Huna in asking this question was under the impression that since Raba does not hold with Abaye's interpretation of the text ‘The first fruits of them’, he also does not accept the interpretation derived from the text ‘the tenth’ (Rashi)! text ‘the tenth’. Therefore we cannot explain the text ‘Of the herd etc.’ as teaching that you may tithe one kind of animal for the other. appropriate that we should exclude cattle and sheep from tithing one another, since they are two distinct kinds of animals rather than lambs and goats which are akin, as shown e.g., by the fact that when one vows an animal from the flock, he can bring either a lamb or a goat (Rashi). tithing of cattle for flock and that you must not tithe one kind of animal for the other. With reference however to lambs and goats there is an amplification ‘and of the flock’. succeeded Raba in spiritual leadership and often a teaching emanating from the former was attributed to the latter (Tosaf.). mils between them, all belonging to one man, he brings them into one shed and sets aside an animal as tithe. But if the distance is greater, they are not subject to the tithe. them to the middle in order to be tithed. sixteen mils, the river constitutes a boundary and therefore the animals are not combined so as to become subject to the law of tithe. under the rod’, a similar expression ‘shall pass’ also being used here. on the one side are nearer to the centre herd and the animals on the other side are more distant than sixteen mils from the centre herd, the distant animals are altogether exempted from tithing and there is no need to wait for others to be born in order to combine. tithing and there is no need to wait for the period of the birth of new animals (Rashi). going there to look after it, it is as if he stood there and it combines with the other animals for the purpose of tithing. four on one side, five on the other and one in the centre, as the latter is fit to combine for the number required to be tithed.