בכורות 54:2 — Soncino English Talmud

it should be permitted to tithe one for the other? 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. If this be the case, lambs and goats should also [not be tithed one for the other]? — 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? — Said Abaye: [Scripture says]: The first-fruits of them. 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’. 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, [the answer is that] we have an analogy between the expressions ‘under’ and ‘under’ and we could have derived a minori from new and old that you must not tithe one kind of animal for another; 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, [Scripture] could not avoid saying ‘of the wheat’, in order to exclude other kinds. 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? — Mar Zutra son of R. Nahman replied to him Raba also holds [the derivation from the text] ‘The tenth’. 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. But was it not Raba who said: [Scripture says]: year [by year]’ implying [thus]: I [Scripture] have compared the tithing of animals with the tithing of grain only with regard to the year but not with regard to any other matter? — Raba went back on this former teaching. Or if you wish I can say: One [of these statements] was made by R. Papa. MISHNAH. ANIMALS ARE COMBINED FOR PURPOSES OF TITHING SO LONG AS THEY CAN STILL PASTURE WITHIN THE DISTANCE THAT CATTLE WANDER. AND WHAT IS THE DISTANCE OVER WHICH THEY CAN WANDER WHILE PASTURING? — SIXTEEN MILS. IF THERE WAS BETWEEN TWO GROUPS OF ANIMALS A DISTANCE OF THIRTY-TWO MILS, 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. R. MEIR SAYS: THE [RIVER] JORDAN IS REGARDED AS FORMING A DIVISION AS REGARDS THE TITHING OF ANIMALS. 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. 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. And how many? — Said Rab: Five on this side and five on the other and five in the middle, for the animals in the middle are fit to be combined either with those on the one side or with those on the other. 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, for we regard the shepherd as standing in the middle. And we therefore apply here the text: Of him that telleth.^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ

^ᵃnote:Let it therefore be permitted to tithe large cattle for sheep, since the word ragn (tithe) is not mentioned in Lev. XXVII, 32 with reference to every kind of animal enumerated in the text.
^ᵇnote:The word ragn (the tenth) occurs near the word rec (cattle) and the word hrhag again occurs near the word itmu (flock). Therefore ragn is actually used in each case.
^ᶜnote:Just as above Scripture says ‘the best’ with reference to oil and ‘the best’ with reference to wine, and a minori we 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.
^ᵈnote:And therefore let wheat be tithed for barley.
^ᵉnote:Num. XVIII, 12. This occurs near the text ‘Of the wheat’ to intimate ‘Give the first-fruit of each kind of corn’.
^ᶠnote:Instead of ‘of the herd’; and I should have known that you must not tithe one kind of animal for another, as I would have inferred this a fortiori from new and old, as explained above.
^ᵍnote:The general term’ animal ‘ vnvc including also vhj , ‘beast of chase’, v. B.K. 54b. Hence a beast of chase would be subject to the law of tithe.
^ʰnote:Under the rod (Lev. XXVII, 32) mentioned in connection with tithing.
^ⁱnote:Under the dam (Ibid. XXII, 27), where a beast of chase is not included,
^ʲnote:If a new animal born after Elul cannot be tithed for one born before Elul although they are not counted as diverse 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.
^ᵏnote:In connection with terumah, the text ‘And of the wheat’ is not superfluous, since it enables us to deduce that you must not tithe wheat and wine one for the other, but you may tithe wheat for wheat.
^ˡnote:That they are not subject biblically to the law of tithes.
^ᵐnote:Lit., ‘to mix herd with flock’. How does Raba know that the reason why Scripture writes ‘Of the herd etc.’ is so that 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)!
^ⁿnote:Although he does not expound the text ‘The first-fruits of them’, he does agree with the interpretation based on the 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.
^ᵒnote:And this does not apply to lambs and goats because we have an amplification in ‘and of the flock’. It is also 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).
^ᵖnote:Deut. XIV, 22; v. supra 53b.
^ᵠnote:I.e., that you must not tithe animals born after Elul for animals born before Elul.
^ʳnote:E.g., tithing one kind for the other, there being no restriction in this respect.
^ˢnote:And holds that the analogy between the tithing of animals and the tithing of grain applies even with regard to the 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’.
^ᵗnote:Either for the analogy of ‘year’ or the comparison between the tithing of animals and the tithing of grain. R. Papa succeeded Raba in spiritual leadership and often a teaching emanating from the former was attributed to the latter (Tosaf.).
^ᵘnote:Lit., ‘foot of the animal’. And if there are five animals in one village and five in the other with a distance of sixteen 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.
^ᵛnote:The shepherd can exercise control over the animals for this distance but not more. A mil == two thousand cubits.
^ʷnote:The same applies to any distance exceeding sixteen mils.
^ˣnote:The centre herd combining with the herds on the sides. The Mishnah does not mean strictly that he has to bring them to the middle in order to be tithed.
^ʸnote:If there were five sheep on one side of the Jordan and five on the other although the distance was much less than sixteen mils, the river constitutes a boundary and therefore the animals are not combined so as to become subject to the law of tithe.
^ᶻnote:Jer. XXXIII, 13, implying that if they can be numbered by one shepherd we apply to them the expression ‘passed under the rod’, a similar expression ‘shall pass’ also being used here.
^ᵃᵃnote:But in reality if the distance between the two flocks at all exceeds sixteen mils they cannot be combined for tithing.
^ᵃᵇnote:Animals must be there in the thirty-two mils so that the middle herd may combine the rest for tithing.
^ᵃᶜnote:And the surplus five animals are kept and eventually combined with others when they are born. But if the animals 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.
^ᵃᵈnote:But if there were five animals in the middle and four on one side and five on the other, the four do not combine for tithing and there is no need to wait for the period of the birth of new animals (Rashi).
^ᵃᵉnote:And although this one animal is of little use as regards the number, since however the shepherd is in the habit of 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.
^ᵃᶠnote:Of the thirty-two mils. And so according to Samuel we combine the animals to be subject to tithing, where there are 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.