Bechorot Daf 54 (בכורות דף נ״ד)

📖 Breakdown

Amud Aleph (54a)

Segment 1

TYPE: גמרא (המשך מדף נג:)

From wine and oil to wine and grain, and grain and grain: a kal vachomer built on the laws of kilayim

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אַשְׁכְּחַן תִּירוֹשׁ וְיִצְהָר, תִּירוֹשׁ וְדָגָן דָּגָן וְדָגָן מִנַּיִן? קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה תִּירוֹשׁ וְיִצְהָר שֶׁאֵינָן כִּלְאַיִם זֶה בָּזֶה — אֵין מִתְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה, תִּירוֹשׁ וְדָגָן דָּגָן וְדָגָן שֶׁהֵם כִּלְאַיִם זֶה בָּזֶה — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יִתְעַשְּׂרוּ מִזֶּה עַל זֶה?

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: We found a source for the halakha that one may not separate teruma from wine and oil together; from where is it derived that one may not separate teruma from wine and grain together, or from grain of one kind and grain of a different kind together? The Gemara answers that this can be derived by an a fortiori inference: And if wine and oil, which are not prohibited due to the prohibition of diverse kinds if they are planted with each other, nevertheless may not be tithed from one for the other, then with regard to wine and grain or grain and grain, which are subject to the prohibition of diverse kinds when planted with each other, is it not logical that they may not be tithed from one for the other?

קלאוד על הדף:

The sugya began on 53b: teruma may not be separated from one species for another, because Numbers 18:12 says ‘the best of the oil’ and ‘the best of the wine’ separately. That covers oil and wine. To extend the rule to wine and grain, and to two kinds of grain, the Gemara reasons a fortiori. Wine and oil are never forbidden together as kilayim, yet they may not be tithed one for the other. Grain sown in a vineyard, or two grains sown together, are kilayim. Species that the Torah keeps apart in the field should surely be kept apart in tithing too.

Key Terms:

• קל וחומר = an a fortiori inference, from a lenient case to a stricter one
• תירוש ויצהר = new wine and fresh oil, named in the teruma verse (Numbers 18:12)
• דגן = grain, the third of the Torah’s tithed species
• כלאים = forbidden mixtures; here, sowing grain in a vineyard or two grain kinds together

Segment 2

TYPE: קושיא

Rabbi Yoshiya’s narrow definition of kilayim in the vineyard seems to undo the kal vachomer

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וּלְרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה, דְּאָמַר: עַד שֶׁיִּזְרַע חִטָּה וּשְׂעוֹרָה וְחַרְצָן בְּמַפּוֹלֶת יָד, הֵיכִי מַיְיתֵי לַהּ?

English Translation:

The Gemara challenges: But this derivation is problematic according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya, who says that the verse: “You shall not sow your vineyard with diverse kinds” (Deuteronomy 22:9), means that one who sows diverse kinds is not liable by Torah law until he sows wheat and barley and a grape seed with a single hand motion. According to this opinion, the above a fortiori inference is not valid; consequently, how does he derive the halakha that one may not tithe grain for wine or grain for grain?

קלאוד על הדף:

The kal vachomer rests on the claim that wine and grain are kilayim with each other. Rabbi Yoshiya, however, holds that the Torah prohibition of kilayim in the vineyard applies only when one sows wheat, barley and a grape seed together with a single hand motion. On his view a grape seed and one grain, or two grains on their own, are not a Torah-level vineyard mixture. The step ‘they are kilayim with each other’ then fails, and the Gemara asks how Rabbi Yoshiya would derive the rule.

Key Terms:

• רבי יאשיה = a Tanna who requires three species sown together for Torah liability in the vineyard
• כלאי הכרם = kilayim of the vineyard, sowing seed among vines (Deuteronomy 22:9)
• חרצן = a grape seed (pip)
• במפולת יד = with a single throw of the hand, all the seeds sown at once

Segment 3

TYPE: תירוץ

Rephrasing the kal vachomer: wine and grain become kilayim ‘by means of something else’

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מַיְיתֵי לַהּ הָכִי: וּמָה תִּירוֹשׁ וְיִצְהָר, שֶׁאֵינָן כִּלְאַיִם זֶה בָּזֶה אֲפִילּוּ עַל יְדֵי דָּבָר אַחֵר — אֵין מִתְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה. תִּירוֹשׁ וְדָגָן דָּגָן וְדָגָן, שֶׁהֵן כִּלְאַיִם זֶה בָּזֶה עַל יְדֵי דָּבָר אַחֵר — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יִתְעַשְּׂרוּ מִזֶּה עַל זֶה?

English Translation:

The Gemara answers that he derives it in this manner: And if wine and oil, which are not prohibited as diverse kinds with each other even by means of something else, i.e., even if one planted a different kind of grain seed with them, do not become prohibited, and yet they may not be tithed from one for the other, then with regard to wine and grain or grain and grain, which are prohibited as diverse kinds with something else, i.e., if they are planted with another type of seed, is it not logical that they may not be tithed from one for the other?

קלאוד על הדף:

The answer does not drop the kal vachomer; it adjusts its middle term. Even for Rabbi Yoshiya, wine and grain, or two grains, can become kilayim once a third species joins them in a single sowing. Wine and oil can never become kilayim, not even with a third seed added. The contrast survives: if species that can never be kilayim may not be tithed one for the other, species that can become kilayim certainly may not. The argument holds on both views of kilayim.

Key Terms:

• על ידי דבר אחר = by means of something else, i.e., when a third species is sown with them
• אפילו = even; wine and oil stay permitted together even with another seed added
• אינו דין = is it not logical? the closing formula of a kal vachomer

Segment 4

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

Two species that are not grain, wine or oil: the Sages modelled their enactments on Torah law

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וּשְׁנֵי מִינִין בְּעָלְמָא, מְנָלַן? הָנֵי דְּרַבָּנַן נִינְהוּ, וְכֹל דְּתַקִּינוּ רַבָּנַן כְּעֵין דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא תַּקִּינוּ: מָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא שְׁנֵי מִינִין אֵינָן מִתְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה, דְּרַבָּנַן נָמֵי.

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: It can be derived in this manner that one may not separate teruma or tithes from wine for grain or vice versa; but from where do we derive the prohibition against separating teruma or tithes from two species in general that are not grain, e.g., lentils and beans, one for the other? The Gemara answers that the obligation to separate tithes from these other species, which are not mentioned in the Torah, applies by rabbinic law, and concerning all ordinances that the Sages instituted, they instituted them parallel to Torah law. Therefore, just as by Torah law two species may not be tithed from one for the other, so too, those mixtures that are prohibited by rabbinic law may not be tithed one for another.

קלאוד על הדף:

Grain, wine and oil are tithed by Torah law, and the verses and the kal vachomer cover them. Other produce, such as legumes and fruit, is tithed only by rabbinic law, so where does the ban on tithing one species for another come from? The Gemara answers with a broad principle: whatever the Sages enacted, they enacted along the lines of the Torah’s law. Since Torah-level tithes may not cross species, rabbinic tithes follow the same pattern. The principle appears in many sugyot as a way of filling in the details of rabbinic laws.

Key Terms:

• שני מינין בעלמא = any two species in general, beyond grain, wine and oil
• דרבנן = by rabbinic law; the tithing of most produce is a rabbinic extension
• כל דתקינו רבנן כעין דאורייתא תקינו = whatever the Sages enacted, they enacted in the form of Torah law

Segment 5

TYPE: קושיא (נמשכת בעמוד ב)

Rava bar Rav Chanan challenges Abaye: animal tithe does not say ‘tithe’ twice, so herd and flock should mix

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא בַּר רַב חָנָן לְאַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, גַּבֵּי מַעֲשַׂר בְּהֵמָה, דְּלָא כְּתִיב ״וְכׇל מַעְשַׂר בָּקָר וּמַעֲשֵׂר צֹאן״,

English Translation:

Rava bar Rav Ḥanan said to Abaye: If that is so, then with regard to animal tithe, where it is not written in the Torah: And all the tithe of the herd or the tithe of the flock, with the word “tithe” mentioned twice, once in reference to the herd and once in reference to the flock, but rather the verse states: “And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32),

קלאוד על הדף:

The derivation for teruma rested on the doubled word ‘best’: ‘the best of the oil, and the best of the wine’. Rava bar Rav Chanan turns that logic on animal tithe. Leviticus 27:32 says ‘all the tithe of the herd or the flock’, with the word ‘tithe’ only once. He puts it to Abaye: by that reasoning, one mention should mean one pool, so cattle and sheep could be tithed together. Yet the mishna on 53a rules that herd and flock are not tithed one for the other. The sentence breaks off here and continues at the top of 54b.

Key Terms:

• רבא בר רב חנן = an Amora, a colleague of Abaye who often challenges him
• מעשר בהמה = animal tithe: every tenth animal born is consecrated (Leviticus 27:32)
• בקר וצאן = the herd (cattle) and the flock (sheep and goats)
• אלא מעתה = but now, if that is so; the opening of a reductio

Amud Bet (54b)

Segment 1

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ (המשך מעמוד א)

Abaye: ‘the tenth’ teaches a separate tenth for each; ‘or the flock’ joins sheep and goats

Hebrew/Aramaic:

יִתְעַשְּׂרוּ מִזֶּה עַל זֶה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אָמַר קְרָא ״הָעֲשִׂירִי״, תֵּן עֲשִׂירִי לָזֶה וְתֵן עֲשִׂירִי לָזֶה. אִי הָכִי, כְּבָשִׂים וְעִזִּים נָמֵי? ״וָצֹאן״ מַשְׁמַע כׇּל צֹאן אֶחָד.

English Translation:

let them be tithed from one for the other. Abaye said to him that the verse states: “The tenth shall be sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32). This indicates that one must give the tenth animal from this, the flock, and give the tenth animal from that, the herd, with each counted and given separately. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, sheep and goats should also have to be tithed separately. The Gemara answers that the verse states: “Or the flock,” which means that all the goats and sheep are one flock and may be tithed together.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rava bar Rav Chanan’s question ends: ‘let them be tithed from one for the other’. Abaye answers that the verse says ‘the tenth’, meaning a tenth from this group and a tenth from that, so herd and flock are counted separately. The obvious follow-up is that sheep and goats are also two species, so perhaps they too need separate tenths. The answer is that ‘or the flock’ treats all the flock as one unit. Sheep and goats are therefore tithed together, which matches the mishna on 53a.

Key Terms:

• העשירי = the tenth (Leviticus 27:32), read as requiring a separate tenth for each kind
• תן עשירי לזה ותן עשירי לזה = give a tenth to this and a tenth to that
• וצאן משמע כל צאן אחד = ‘or the flock’ means that all the flock is one

Segment 2

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

Then ‘grain’ should make all grain one! Abaye and Rabbi Ile’a: ‘the first part of them’ is plural

Hebrew/Aramaic:

הָכָא נָמֵי לֵימָא מַשְׁמַע כׇּל דָּגָן אֶחָד! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: ״רֵאשִׁיתָם״, וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא: ״רֵאשִׁיתָם״.

English Translation:

The Gemara raises a further difficulty: Here too, with regard to teruma and tithes, let us say that the term “grain” (Numbers 18:12) means that all the different types of grain are considered one grain, and may be tithed together. Abaye said in response that there it is different, as the verse states: “The first part of them” (Numbers 18:12), in the plural, which teaches that one must give the first part for each type of produce separately. And Rabbi Ile’a says likewise that “the first part of them” teaches that one must give the first part for each type of produce separately.

קלאוד על הדף:

If the single word ‘flock’ unites sheep and goats, the single word ‘grain’ in Numbers 18:12 should unite wheat, barley and all the other grains for teruma. Abaye answers that the same verse says ‘the first part of them’, in the plural. That points to a separate first portion for each kind of produce. Rabbi Ile’a gives the same answer independently. So ‘grain’ is a category name, but the plural shows that each kind within it is tithed on its own.

Key Terms:

• ראשיתם = the first part of them (Numbers 18:12); the plural suffix implies each kind separately
• רבי אילעא = an Amora of the Land of Israel who reached the same reading
• משמע כל דגן אחד = implies that all grain is one category

Segment 3

TYPE: תירוץ אחר

Rava: even without ‘the first part of them’, ‘grain’ cannot unite all grain; first, why ‘flock’ does unite

Hebrew/Aramaic:

רָבָא אָמַר: בְּלָא ״רֵאשִׁיתָם״ נָמֵי מַשְׁמַע כׇּל דָּגָן אֶחָד — לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ. בִּשְׁלָמָא הָתָם אָמְרִינַן: ״וָצֹאן״ מַשְׁמַע כׇּל צֹאן אֶחָד, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ כְּבָשִׂים וְעִזִּים נָמֵי — לִכְתּוֹב ״וְכׇל מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה״.

English Translation:

Rava said that there is an alternative answer: Even without the term “the first part of them” there is also no difficulty, as you cannot say the term “grain” means that all the different types of grain are considered one grain. Rava explains: Granted, there, with regard to sheep and goats, we say that the term “or the flock” means that all goats and sheep are one flock. Because if it enters your mind that sheep and goats may also not be tithed one for the other, like the herd and the flock, let the verse write: And all the animal tithe, without distinguishing between herds and flocks.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rava offers a different route. He agrees that ‘or the flock’ joins sheep and goats, but he explains why. Had the Torah wanted sheep and goats kept apart like herd and flock, it could simply have written ‘all animal tithe’ and let each species be tithed separately. Naming ‘herd’ and ‘flock’ must therefore be teaching something about how the groups divide. Rava builds his answer in steps, and the next segments complete the argument.

Key Terms:

• רבא = the leading Amora of Mechoza, Abaye’s colleague
• בשלמא = granted; the opening of a contrast between two cases
• כל מעשר בהמה = ‘all animal tithe’, the simpler wording the Torah could have used

Segment 4

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

Would ‘all animal tithe’ include wild animals? No: the gezeira shava ‘under’ ‘under’ limits it to sacrificial species

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְכִי תֵּימָא: אִי כְּתִיב ״כׇּל מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה״, הֲוֵי אָמֵינָא אֲפִילּוּ חַיָּה — ״תַּחַת״ ״תַּחַת״ מִקֳּדָשִׁים גָּמַר.

English Translation:

And if you would say that if the verse had written: All the animal tithe, I would say that the requirement to tithe animals applies even to undomesticated animals, this is not so. The reason is that one derives the halakha of the animal tithe from sacrificial animals, via a verbal analogy of the terms “under” and “under.” With regard to sacrificial animals it states: “When a bull, or a sheep, or a goat is brought forth, then it shall be seven days under its mother, but from the eighth day onward it may be accepted for an offering made by fire to the Lord” (Leviticus 22:27), and with regard to animal tithe it states: “And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32). It is derived through this verbal analogy that just as an undomesticated animal cannot be consecrated as an offering, so too, it cannot be tithed.

קלאוד על הדף:

One might object that ‘all animal tithe’ would have been too broad, since behema could be stretched to include undomesticated animals. Rava rejects that worry. Animal tithe is linked to sacrifices by a gezeira shava on the word ‘under’: ‘seven days under its mother’ (Leviticus 22:27) and ‘whatever passes under the rod’ (Leviticus 27:32). Only cattle, sheep and goats can be offered, so only they can be tithed. The short phrase would have been enough, and the longer one must teach something else.

Key Terms:

• חיה = an undomesticated animal, such as a deer, which is never offered or tithed
• גזירה שוה = a verbal analogy between two verses sharing a word
• תחת תחת = ‘under’ and ‘under’: under its mother (Leviticus 22:27) and under the rod (Leviticus 27:32)
• מקדשים גמר = he derives it from sacrificial animals

Segment 5

TYPE: תירוץ

The kal vachomer from new and old would already keep species apart, so ‘herd and flock’ comes to join sheep and goats

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְאָתֵי בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר מֵחָדָשׁ וְיָשָׁן, ״בָּקָר וָצֹאן״ לְמָה לִי? בָּקָר וָצֹאן הוּא דְּאֵין מִתְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה, אֲבָל כְּבָשִׂים וְעִזִּים מִתְעַשְּׂרִין.

English Translation:

Rava continues his explanation: And as one would not have thought that undomesticated animals are included in the animal tithe the verse could have stated: And all the animal tithe, and one would derive that one species may not be tithed for another by an a fortiori inference from new grain and old grain, as specified earlier: If the grain tithe may not be taken from the new grain for the old grain despite the fact that the prohibition of diverse kinds does not apply, all the more so with regard to different species of animal, which are prohibited as diverse kinds; the animal tithe may not be taken from one for another. If so, why do I need the verse to state: “The herds or the flock”? This teaches that herds of cattle and flocks of sheep or goats may not be tithed from one for the other, but sheep and goats, which are both called flocks, may be tithed from one for the other.

קלאוד על הדף:

The ban on tithing one species for another could also be learned without any verse: if new and old flocks, which are not kilayim, may not be tithed together (53b), different species, which are kilayim, surely may not. So the Torah had no need to write ‘herd and flock’ to separate them. The words must teach the opposite: herd and flock stay apart, but sheep and goats, both called flock, are tithed together. For animals, the extra wording widens the group rather than splitting it.

Key Terms:

• חדש וישן = new and old: animals born in different tithing years
• למה לי = why do I need it? the verse seems superfluous
• כבשים ועזים = sheep and goats, which together make up the flock

Segment 6

TYPE: תירוץ (סיום)

But ‘grain’ is needed for itself: to exclude other produce from Torah tithes

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֲבָל הָכָא, מִי סַגִּיא דְּלָא כְּתִיב ״דָּגָן״? לְמַעוֹטֵי שְׁאָר מִינִין.

English Translation:

Rava concludes: But here, in the case of grain, would it suffice if the Torah had not written: “Grain,” to exclude other types of foods from the obligation of tithes by Torah law? In other words, the term “grain” must be serving to exclude other types of food, as one cannot claim they could have been excluded in some other manner.

קלאוד על הדף:

Here Rava completes the contrast. ‘Herd and flock’ was extra, so it could teach that sheep and goats join. The word ‘grain’ is not extra: without it, other kinds of produce would be included in the Torah’s tithes. ‘Grain’ is used up limiting the Torah obligation to grain, wine and oil, so it cannot also mean that all grains form one pool. This is why Rava needs no help from ‘the first part of them’.

Key Terms:

• מי סגיא = would it suffice? could the verse do without it?
• למעוטי שאר מינין = to exclude other species from the Torah-level tithe
• מיעוט = an exclusion derived from a limiting word in the verse

Segment 7

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

Rav Huna son of Rav Nachman: perhaps ‘herd and flock’ means mix them; Mar Zutra: Rava also uses ‘the tenth’

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן: אֵימָא לְעָרְבוּ לְבָקָר בְּצֹאן! אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָר זוּטְרָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן לְרָבָא: אִית לֵיהּ נָמֵי ״הָעֲשִׂירִי״.

English Translation:

Rav Huna, son of Rav Naḥman, objects to this claim of Rava in which it is derived from the words “herd” and “flock” that cattle and sheep may not be tithed together. One can say instead that this teaches that one should intermingle the cattle in the herd with the sheep in the flock and tithe them all together. Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman, said to Rav Huna, son of Rav Naḥman: Rava also accepts the opinion of Abaye that the verse “The tenth shall be sacred to the Lord” teaches that cattle and sheep must be tithed separately, and therefore he does not entertain that derivation.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Huna son of Rav Nachman turns Rava’s reasoning around. If ‘herd and flock’ is an extra phrase that widens the group, why not say it joins cattle with sheep and goats? Mar Zutra son of Rav Nachman answers on Rava’s behalf. Rava also accepts Abaye’s reading of ‘the tenth’: a separate tenth for each. That verse already rules out mixing herd and flock, so the extra phrase can only teach that sheep and goats join.

Key Terms:

• מתקיף לה = he objects to it, a sharp challenge to a ruling just stated
• לערבו = to combine them, tithing cattle and sheep together
• מר זוטרא בריה דרב נחמן = Mar Zutra son of Rav Nachman, who defends Rava’s view
• אית ליה נמי = he also holds; Rava accepts Abaye’s derivation too

Segment 8

TYPE: איכא דאמרי

Another version: Rava keeps herd and flock apart by the hekesh of animal tithe to grain tithe

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רָבָא: בְּלֹא ״עֲשִׂירִי״ נָמֵי לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ בָּקָר וָצֹאן מִתְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה, דְּאִיתַּקַּשׁ מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה לְמַעֲשֵׂר דָּגָן — מָה מַעְשַׂר דָּגָן מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ לָא, אַף מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ לָא.

English Translation:

There are those who say that Rava said: Even without the verse “The tenth shall be sacred to the Lord” you also cannot say that a herd and a flock should be tithed from one for the other, as animal tithe is juxtaposed to grain tithe: Just as grain tithe may not be separated from one type of grain for another grain that is not its type, so too, animal tithe may not be separated from one type of animal for another species of animal that is not its type.

קלאוד על הדף:

In a second version of Rava’s view, he needs no ‘tenth’ at all. The verse in Deuteronomy 14:22-23 juxtaposes animal tithe with grain tithe. Grain tithe is never taken from one kind for another, so animal tithe, by the same comparison, is not taken from cattle for sheep. On this version the hekesh does the work, and ‘or the flock’ still joins sheep and goats, as the Gemara said on 53b. This version brings a new problem, which the next segment raises.

Key Terms:

• איכא דאמרי = there are those who say; an alternate report of the same discussion
• היקש = a juxtaposition: two subjects placed side by side in a verse share their laws
• ממין על שאינו מינו = from one species for another that is not its kind
• מעשר דגן = the grain tithe

Segment 9

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

But Rava said the hekesh is ‘year by year’ only! Either Rava retracted, or one statement was Rav Pappa’s

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְהָא רָבָא הוּא דְּאָמַר: ״שָׁנָה״ לְשָׁנָה הִקַּשְׁתִּיו, וְלֹא לְדָבָר אַחֵר! הֲדַר בֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵהַהִיא. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: חֲדָא (מיניה) [מִינַיְהִי] רַב פָּפָּא אַמְרַהּ.

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it Rava himself who said that the term: “Year by year” (Deuteronomy 14:22), teaches that I have juxtaposed the two types of tithe with regard to the year in which they were born, teaching that one may not tithe old and new flocks together, but not with regard to another matter, i.e., there is no prohibition against tithing two types together? The Gemara answers: Rava retracted that first opinion, and maintains that the juxtaposition applies even to the tithing of two types together. And if you wish, say instead that one of those opinions was said by Rav Pappa, not by Rava. Since Rav Pappa was Rava’s closest student and took over as head of the academy after Rava’s death, his statements were occasionally mistaken for those of Rava himself.

קלאוד על הדף:

On 53b Rava limited the hekesh: ‘year by year’ shows that animal tithe is compared to grain tithe only on the matter of years, new and old, and on nothing else. Using it now to keep species apart contradicts that. The Gemara gives two answers. Rava retracted his first view. Or one of the two statements was actually said by Rav Pappa, Rava’s leading student and successor, whose rulings were sometimes reported under his teacher’s name.

Key Terms:

• שנה לשנה הקשתיו = ‘year by year’: I compared them only with regard to the year
• הדר ביה = he retracted his earlier view
• רב פפא = Rava’s leading student, later head of the academy in Neresh

Segment 10

TYPE: משנה

Animals within sixteen mil join for animal tithe; at thirty-two they do not; one in the middle joins them; Rabbi Meir: the Jordan divides

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מַתְנִי׳ מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה מִצְטָרֵף כִּמְלֹא רֶגֶל בְּהֵמָה רוֹעָה, וְכַמָּה הִיא רֶגֶל בְּהֵמָה רוֹעָה? שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר מִיל. הָיוּ בֵּין אֵלּוּ לְאֵלּוּ שְׁלֹשִׁים וּשְׁנַיִם מִיל — אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין. הָיוּ לוֹ בָּאֶמְצַע — מֵבִיא וּמְעַשְּׂרָן בָּאֶמְצַע. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: הַיַּרְדֵּן מַפְסִיק לְמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה.

English Translation:

MISHNA: Animals subject to the obligation of animal tithe join together if the distance between them is no greater than the distance that a grazing animal can walk and still be tended by one shepherd. And how much is the distance that a grazing animal walks? It is sixteen mil. If the distance between these animals and those animals was thirty-two mil they do not join together. If he also had animals in the middle of that distance of thirty-two mil, he brings all three flocks to a pen and tithes them in the middle. Rabbi Meir says: The Jordan River divides between animals on two sides of the river with regard to animal tithe, even if the distance between them is minimal.

קלאוד על הדף:

The mishna moves from species to distance. A flock is counted for tithing only if its animals are close enough to be grazed as one, within sixteen mil. Two groups thirty-two mil apart do not join, but if the owner also has animals in the middle, he brings all of them to one central pen and tithes them together. Rabbi Meir adds a geographic rule: the Jordan River splits the herds for tithing, however close the two banks are. The Gemara on 55a explains his view.

Key Terms:

• מצטרף = joins together, combining into one group for counting
• כמלא רגל בהמה רועה = as far as a grazing animal walks, the range of one shepherd
• מיל = a mil: 2,000 cubits, roughly a kilometre
• הירדן מפסיק = the Jordan divides, so herds on its two banks never join

Segment 11

TYPE: שאלה

What is the source for the sixteen-mil range?

Hebrew/Aramaic:

גְּמָ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי?

English Translation:

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that animals join together for the purposes of tithing if the distance between them is no greater than the distance a grazing animal can walk and still be tended by one shepherd. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? What is the source that this is the maximum distance at which they can be tithed together?

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara opens with its standard question about the mishna’s first rule. Why should a flock’s tithing unit be measured by how far an animal grazes, and why sixteen mil? The answer must link ‘one group for tithing’ with ‘one group under a shepherd’s watch’. The next segment supplies both the verse and the number.

Key Terms:

• מנא הני מילי = from where are these matters derived? the request for a source
• רגל בהמה רועה = the reach of a grazing animal, here the measure of a single flock

Segment 12

TYPE: מימרא

Rabba bar Sheila: ‘the flock shall again pass under the hands of him who counts them’; a shepherd’s eye reaches sixteen mil

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר שֵׁילָא: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״עוֹד תַּעֲבֹרְנָה הַצֹּאן עַל יְדֵי מוֹנֶה״, וְקִים לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן דְּשִׁיתְּסַר מִיל קָא שָׁלְטָא בֵּיהּ עֵינָא דְּרוֹעֶה.

English Translation:

Rabba bar Sheila said that the verse states: “So says the Lord of hosts: Yet again shall there be in this place, which is desolate, without man and without animal, and in all its cities, a habitation of shepherds causing their flocks to lie down. In the cities of the hill country, in the cities of the lowland, and in the cities of the south, and in the land of Benjamin, and in the places about Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, the flock shall again pass under the hands of him who counts them, says the Lord” (Jeremiah 33:12–13). It is derived from here that animals that can pass under the hands of one shepherd are called one flock and can be counted together for the animal tithe. And the Sages have an accepted tradition that the eye of the shepherd can see up to a distance of sixteen mil.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rabba bar Sheila draws on Yirmiyahu’s promise that flocks will again pass under the hands of the one who counts them (Jeremiah 33:13). The image ties counting to the shepherd: animals that one counter oversees form one flock, and animal tithe is done by counting each animal as it passes under the rod. The number comes from a received tradition, not from the verse. The Sages knew that a shepherd’s eye controls a range of sixteen mil.

Key Terms:

• רבה בר שילא = an Amora who supplies the verse for the mishna
• על ידי מונה = under the hands of the one who counts them (Jeremiah 33:13)
• קים להו לרבנן = the Sages have it as established, a received fact
• שלטא ביה עינא דרועה = the shepherd’s eye has control over it

Segment 13

TYPE: דיוק וקושיא ותירוץ

Why thirty-two? It seems to permit less, but the limit is sixteen; it is said for the middle-flock case

Hebrew/Aramaic:

הָיוּ בֵּין אֵלּוּ לְאֵלּוּ שְׁלֹשִׁים וּשְׁנַיִם מִיל אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין וְכוּ׳. שְׁלֹשִׁים וּשְׁנַיִם הוּא דְּאֵין מִצְטָרְפִין, הָא בְּצִיר מֵהָכִי מִצְטָרְפִין? וְהָא קָתָנֵי: שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר מִיל, טְפֵי לָא! מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא בָעֵי לְמִיתְנֵא סֵיפָא: הָיוּ לוֹ בָּאֶמְצַע — מֵבִיא וּמְעַשְּׂרָן בָּאֶמְצַע.

English Translation:

§ The mishna teaches that if the distance between these animals and those animals was thirty-two mil they do not join together. The Gemara infers: It is only if the distance between them is thirty-two mil that they do not join together, from which it can be inferred that if the distance between them is less than this they do join together. But the mishna earlier teaches: Sixteen mil, which indicates: And no more. The Gemara answers: One cannot infer that if the distance is less than thirty-two mil the animals join together. The mishna mentions thirty-two mil only because it wants to teach in the latter clause: If he also had animals in the middle of that distance of thirty-two mil, he brings them all to a pen and tithes them in the middle.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara reads the mishna closely. ‘At thirty-two mil they do not join’ suggests that at any smaller distance, say twenty, they would. But the first clause already set the limit at sixteen. The answer is that thirty-two is mentioned only for the next clause. Two flocks thirty-two mil apart, with animals in the middle, are each sixteen mil from the middle group, and the middle animals bridge the gap.

Key Terms:

• הא בציר מהכי = but less than this, implying that a smaller distance would join
• טפי לא = but no more, the force of the sixteen-mil limit
• משום דקא בעי למתני סיפא = because the tanna wants to teach the latter clause

Segment 14

TYPE: מחלוקת: רב

How many in the middle? Rav: five, five and five, since the middle five can complete ten with either side

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַב: חָמֵשׁ מִכָּאן וְחָמֵשׁ מִכָּאן וְחָמֵשׁ מֵאֶמְצַע, דְּהָנֵי חָמֵשׁ חַזְיָא לְהָכָא וְחַזְיָא לְהָכָא.

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: And how many animals must he have on the two sides and in the middle in order to tithe them as one group? Rav says: Five from here and five from there and five in the middle. The reason is that these five in the middle are fit to combine with the animals here and are likewise fit to combine with the animals there, to amount to a total of ten, to which the obligation of animal tithe applies. For this reason all three flocks are considered as one flock.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara asks how large the middle group must be. Animal tithe applies only to a group of at least ten. Rav requires five animals on each side and five in the middle. Those middle five can make up ten with either side, so the middle group really belongs to both. That shared link turns the three groups into one flock that can be tithed together.

Key Terms:

• חמש מכאן וחמש מכאן = five from here and five from there
• חזיא להכא וחזיא להכא = fit to join here and fit to join there
• עשרה = ten, the minimum group for animal tithe

Segment 15

TYPE: מחלוקת: שמואל

Shmuel: even one animal in the middle is enough; we see the shepherd as standing in the middle, the ‘one who counts’

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ חָמֵשׁ מִכָּאן וְחָמֵשׁ מִכָּאן וְאֶחָד בָּאֶמְצַע, חָזֵינַן לְרוֹעֶה כְּמַאן דְּקָאֵי הָכָא, וְקָרֵינַן בֵּיהּ ״מוֹנֶה״.

English Translation:

And Shmuel says: Even if there are five from here and five from there and only one in the middle they may be tithed together. The reason is that we see the shepherd as one who stands here in the middle and we apply the verse: “Who counts them” (Jeremiah 33:13), to him. Since he can see and count both sides from his vantage point in the middle, they are all considered one flock.

קלאוד על הדף:

Shmuel takes a broader view. He does not need the middle group to make ten with each side. Even one animal in the middle joins the two flocks of five, because the shepherd can stand by that animal and see both sides from there. That position makes him the ‘one who counts’ of the verse for the whole herd. For Rav the link comes from the numbers; for Shmuel it comes from what the shepherd can see.

Key Terms:

• ואחד באמצע = and one in the middle
• חזינן לרועה כמאן דקאי הכא = we view the shepherd as if he stands here, in the middle
• מונה = the one who counts (Jeremiah 33:13), the shepherd who oversees the flock

📝 Summary

Overview

Bechorot 54 sits early in Perek 9, מעשר בהמה, the last perek of the masechet. It finishes the sugya begun on 53b about separating one species for another. The Gemara first extends the teruma rule. Numbers 18:12 names oil and wine separately, so those two may not be tithed one for the other. A kal vachomer from the laws of kilayim adds wine and grain, and two kinds of grain. The argument is restated so that it also works for Rabbi Yoshiya, who holds a narrow view of kilayim in the vineyard. For produce tithed only by rabbinic law, the Gemara applies the principle that the Sages modelled their enactments on Torah law. Rava bar Rav Chanan then turns the reasoning on animal tithe, which says “tithe” only once, and Abaye answers from “the tenth”. Amud bet asks why “or the flock” joins sheep and goats while “grain” does not join all grains. Abaye and Rabbi Ile’a answer from “the first part of them”. Rava builds a longer answer from the economy of the verse. A second version of Rava’s view uses the hekesh of animal tithe to grain tithe, which clashes with his own limit on that hekesh. The daf closes with a new mishna on distance. Animals within sixteen mil join for tithing, a middle flock can bridge thirty-two mil, and Rabbi Meir says the Jordan divides. Rav and Shmuel disagree on how many animals the middle flock needs.

Amud Aleph Highlights

• From wine and oil to grain: the verse “the best of the oil, and the best of the wine” (Numbers 18:12) keeps oil and wine apart for teruma. For wine and grain, and for two kinds of grain, the Gemara argues a fortiori. Wine and oil are never kilayim with each other, yet they may not be tithed one for the other. Wine and grain, or two grains, are kilayim when sown together, so surely they may not be tithed one for the other.
• Rabbi Yoshiya’s challenge: Rabbi Yoshiya holds that one is liable by Torah law for kilayim in the vineyard (Deuteronomy 22:9) only when he sows wheat, barley and a grape seed with a single throw of the hand. On his view a grape seed with one grain is not a Torah-level mixture, so the kal vachomer seems to fail.
• The kal vachomer restated: the middle term is adjusted. Wine and grain, or two grains, become kilayim “by means of something else”, when a third species is sown with them. Wine and oil never become kilayim, even with a third seed added. The contrast still holds, so the argument works on both views of kilayim.
• Species tithed by rabbinic law: produce such as lentils and beans is tithed only by rabbinic law. The Gemara applies the principle כל דתקינו רבנן כעין דאורייתא תקינו: whatever the Sages enacted, they enacted along the lines of Torah law. Since Torah tithes do not cross species, rabbinic tithes do not either.
• Rava bar Rav Chanan’s challenge to Abaye: the teruma rule rested on a doubled word. Animal tithe says “all the tithe of the herd or the flock” (Leviticus 27:32), with “tithe” only once. By that logic, he argues, herd and flock should be tithed one for the other, against the mishna on 53a. The question continues on 54b.

Amud Bet Highlights

• Abaye’s answer: “the tenth shall be sacred” means give a tenth from this group and a tenth from that, so herd and flock are counted separately. Sheep and goats are not split, because “or the flock” treats the whole flock as one.
• Then why not “grain”? If “flock” unites sheep and goats, “grain” in Numbers 18:12 should unite all grains. Abaye answers that the same verse says “the first part of them” (ראשיתם), in the plural, so each kind needs its own first portion. Rabbi Ile’a gives the same answer.
• Rava’s alternative: Rava needs no help from “the first part of them”. Had the Torah wanted sheep and goats kept apart like herd and flock, it could have written simply “all animal tithe”.
• No fear of wild animals: the short wording would not have included undomesticated animals. A gezeira shava on “under” links “seven days under its mother” (Leviticus 22:27) with “whatever passes under the rod” (Leviticus 27:32). Animal tithe follows the sacrifices, and wild animals are never offered.
• “Herd and flock” joins: the ban on mixing species could be learned by a kal vachomer from the rule of new and old (53b), which are not kilayim yet may not be tithed one for the other. So the words “herd or flock” are extra, and they teach that sheep and goats, both called flock, are tithed together.
• “Grain” is not extra: without it, other produce would fall under the Torah’s tithes. The word is needed to limit the Torah obligation to grain, wine and oil, so it cannot also join all grains into one pool.
• Rav Huna son of Rav Nachman’s objection: perhaps the extra phrase means to mix cattle with sheep and goats. Mar Zutra son of Rav Nachman answers that Rava also accepts Abaye’s reading of “the tenth”, which already keeps herd and flock apart.
• Another version of Rava: even without “the tenth”, animal tithe is juxtaposed with grain tithe (Deuteronomy 14:22-23). Grain tithe is not taken from one kind for another, and neither is animal tithe.
• A contradiction: Rava himself said on 53b that “year by year” limits the hekesh to the question of years, new and old. Either Rava retracted, or one of the two statements belongs to Rav Pappa, his leading student, whose words were sometimes reported in Rava’s name.
• The new mishna: animals join for tithing within the range of a grazing animal, sixteen mil. Groups thirty-two mil apart do not join. If the owner also has animals in the middle, he brings them all to one pen and tithes them in the middle. Rabbi Meir says the Jordan divides the herds, however close its two banks are.
• The source for sixteen mil: Rabba bar Sheila cites Yirmiyahu’s promise that “the flock shall again pass under the hands of him who counts them” (Jeremiah 33:13). Animals under one counter’s hands form one flock. The Sages had a tradition that a shepherd’s eye controls sixteen mil.
• Why thirty-two? The clause seems to imply that animals less than thirty-two mil apart join, against the sixteen-mil limit. It is stated only for the middle-flock case, where each side lies sixteen mil from the center.
• How many in the middle? Rav requires five on each side and five in the middle, since the middle five can make ten with either side. Shmuel requires only one in the middle, because the shepherd standing there can see both sides and is “the one who counts”.

Key Disputes

Conclusions

Teruma may not be separated from one species for another. The verse covers wine and oil, the kal vachomer covers wine and grain and two grains, and it holds even on Rabbi Yoshiya’s view of kilayim. Rabbinic tithes follow the same pattern, because the Sages modelled their enactments on Torah law. In animal tithe, herd and flock are tithed separately, either because of “the tenth” or, in another version of Rava, because of the hekesh to grain tithe. Sheep and goats are one flock and are tithed together. Grains remain separate, either because of “the first part of them” (Abaye and Rabbi Ile’a) or because “grain” is needed to limit the Torah’s tithe (Rava). The tension with Rava’s “year by year” is resolved by saying that he retracted, or that one statement was Rav Pappa’s. In the new mishna, the tithing unit is the range a shepherd can oversee, sixteen mil, and a middle flock can join two groups thirty-two mil apart. Rav and Shmuel disagree on the size of the middle flock, and the daf does not decide between them. Rabbi Meir’s view that the Jordan divides is explained on 55a.

Key Figures

Tannaim: Rabbi Yoshiya, Rabbi Meir, the Tanna Kamma of the mishna

Amoraim: Abaye, Rava, Rava bar Rav Chanan, Rabbi Ile’a, Rav Huna son of Rav Nachman, Mar Zutra son of Rav Nachman, Rav Pappa, Rabba bar Sheila, Rav, Shmuel

One-Line Takeaway

A tithe is taken from a group that really belongs together: one species of produce at a time, cattle apart from sheep and goats, and only animals close enough for one shepherd to watch and count.

🎯 ELI5 (Explain Like I’m 5)

The Big Picture 🖼️

Today’s daf has two big questions. First: when you give the Torah’s gifts from your crops or your animals, can you give from one kind to cover another kind? (Mostly no, but sheep and goats count as one kind!) Second, a new mishna: how close together do your animals have to be to be counted as one flock for the animal tithe? The answer involves a shepherd’s eyes, sixteen mil, and an argument between Rav and Shmuel.

Quick Reminder: What Are We Talking About? 🌾🍇🫒

A farmer in Eretz Yisrael has to give some of his crops as gifts:

• תרומה (teruma): a small part of the harvest that goes to the kohen.
• מעשר (ma’aser, “tithe”): one tenth of the harvest, given to the levi.

And a farmer with animals has another gift:

• מעשר בהמה (ma’aser behema, “animal tithe”): every tenth newborn calf, lamb or kid is holy. The animals walk out of a pen one by one, the owner counts them with a stick, and the tenth one is marked as holy (Vayikra 27:32).

On yesterday’s daf (53b), the Gemara started a rule: you can’t give teruma from one kind of food to cover a different kind. If you have a field of wheat and a vineyard, you can’t give extra wine to “pay” for the wheat. Each one gives its own gift!

The Torah’s source was a verse that names oil and wine separately: “the best of the oil and the best of the wine” (Bamidbar 18:12). Two separate “bests” means two separate gifts.

Think of it like… a school that collects one can of food from every class for a food drive. Class 3A can’t say, “We gave two cans, so that covers Class 3B too!” Every class gives its own.

The Simple Idea 💡: Each kind of crop gives its own teruma; you can’t pay for one with another.

The “How Much More So” Trick 🧠➕

Okay, so the verse teaches us about oil and wine. But what about wine and grain? Or two kinds of grain, like wheat and barley? The verse doesn’t say!

The Gemara uses a famous kind of reasoning called a קל וחומר (kal vachomer, “light and heavy”). It works like this: “If something is true in the easy case, it’s surely true in the harder case.”

Here’s the trick. There’s a mitzva called כלאים (kilayim, “forbidden mixtures”). The Torah says you may not plant certain seeds together, for example grain in a vineyard (Devarim 22:9).

• Wine and oil (grapes and olives) are not kilayim. You may plant them together. They’re “friendly.”
• Wine and grain, and two kinds of grain, are kilayim. The Torah keeps them apart in the field.

So the Gemara says: if even the “friendly” pair, wine and oil, can’t cover for each other in teruma, then surely the “kept apart” pairs can’t!

Think of it like… two best friends who sit together in class, but the teacher still makes them hand in separate homework. Now think about two kids the teacher won’t even let sit together. Do you think she’ll let them hand in one homework for both? Of course not!

The Simple Idea 💡: If the Torah keeps two crops apart in the field, it surely keeps them apart in teruma too.

But Wait! Rabbi Yoshiya Has a Different Rule 🤔🌱

But wait! The Gemara finds a problem. There’s a Rabbi named Rabbi Yoshiya who has a very narrow idea of kilayim in a vineyard.

He says: you only break the Torah law if you throw three seeds into the ground in one handful: wheat, barley, and a grape seed, all at the same time!

So for Rabbi Yoshiya, one grape seed with one wheat seed is not Torah-level kilayim. And wheat with barley alone isn’t vineyard kilayim either. That breaks our trick! We said wine and grain are “kept apart,” but according to him, on their own, they’re not.

The Fix 🔧: The Gemara changes the trick just a little.

• Wine and oil can never become kilayim, even if you add a third seed to them.
• Wine and grain, or two grains, can become kilayim if a third seed joins them.

So the trick still works! The “never kilayim” pair can’t cover for each other, so the “can become kilayim” pair surely can’t either.

Think of it like… two kids who can never get in trouble together, no matter who else joins them. And two other kids who get in trouble together only when a third kid joins the group. The second pair is still “more trouble” than the first!

The Simple Idea 💡: Even for Rabbi Yoshiya, wine and grain are “more separate” than wine and oil, so the rule still works.

What About Lentils and Beans? 🫘🫛

The Torah’s teruma verses only talk about grain, wine and oil. But the Sages added teruma and tithes for other foods too, like lentils and beans. That’s a rabbinic rule (דרבנן, derabbanan, “from our Rabbis”).

So can you give lentils to cover for beans? The verses don’t talk about lentils and beans at all!

The Gemara answers with a big rule that shows up all over the Talmud:

“כל דתקינו רבנן כעין דאורייתא תקינו” (kol detakinu rabbanan ke’ein de’oraita takinu): “Whatever the Sages made, they made it like the Torah’s rules.”

So since the Torah’s teruma can’t cross from one kind to another, the Sages’ teruma can’t either.

Think of it like… a kid who builds a LEGO copy of a real house. He doesn’t just copy the outside. He puts the doors and windows in the same places too. The Sages’ rules are copies of the Torah’s rules, all the way down to the details.

The Simple Idea 💡: The Sages built their rules to match the Torah’s rules, so lentils and beans can’t cover for each other either.

Cows vs. Sheep: One Word, Two Groups? 🐄🐑

Now Rava bar Rav Chanan comes to Abaye with a sharp question about animals.

He says: “For teruma, we learned the rule because the verse says ‘the best’ twice, once for oil and once for wine. But look at the animal tithe verse! It says, ‘all the tithe of the herd or the flock’ (Vayikra 27:32). The word ‘tithe’ appears only once! So by your logic, cows and sheep should be one pool. You should be able to count them together!”

But the mishna on 53a said: cows and sheep are not tithed together. So what’s going on?

Abaye’s answer: Look at the end of the verse: “the tenth shall be holy.” Abaye reads it as: “Give a tenth from this group, and a tenth from that group.” Each group gets its own count.

But then… sheep and goats are different animals too! Shouldn’t they need separate counts?

No! The verse says “or the flock” (וצאן, vetzon). And the word “flock” (צאן, tzon) covers both sheep and goats. In the Torah’s eyes, all of them together are one flock!

Think of it like… a school with a soccer team and a basketball team. Each team picks its own captain. But the soccer team has kids in red shirts and kids in blue shirts. They’re still one team, so they pick one captain together!

The Simple Idea 💡: Cows and sheep are counted separately, but sheep and goats are one “flock” and are counted together.

Then Why Isn’t All Grain One Group? 🌾❓

Now someone asks the obvious next question! If the one word “flock” makes sheep and goats into one group, then the one word “grain” (דגן, dagan) in the teruma verse should make wheat, barley, oats and all the other grains into one group!

Abaye answers (and Rabbi Ile’a says the same thing): look at the verse again. It says “the first part of THEM” (ראשיתם, reishitam). “Them” is plural! That means each kind gets its own first part.

Think of it like… a teacher who says to the class, “Hand in your drawings.” Each kid hands in his own drawing, right? Not one drawing for the whole class!

The Simple Idea 💡: “Grain” is one word, but “the first part of them” shows each kind of grain gives its own teruma.

Rava’s Different Answer: Which Words Are “Extra”? 🔍📖

Rava says: “Even without the word ‘them,’ I can answer this!”

Rava’s idea is about extra words. In the Torah, every word counts. If a word seems extra, it must be there to teach us something new.

Step 1: Is “herd and flock” extra? 🐄🐑

Rava says: the Torah could have just written, “all animal tithe.” Short and simple!

“But wait,” you might say, “then maybe wild animals, like deer, would have to be tithed too!” No, says Rava. We already know the animal tithe only applies to animals that can be brought as offerings in the Beit HaMikdash. We learn that from a גזירה שוה (gezeira shava, a “word match” between two verses):

• About offerings: a newborn calf, lamb or kid stays “seven days under its mother” (Vayikra 22:27).
• About animal tithe: “whatever passes under the rod” (Vayikra 27:32).

Same word, “under” (תחת, tachat), so the same animals! Deer can’t be offerings, so they aren’t tithed.

Step 2: Do we need “herd and flock” to keep cows and sheep apart? 🚧

No! We could figure that out by ourselves with a “how much more so” trick. We already learned that you can’t give the tithe from this year’s grain for last year’s grain (new and old). New and old grain aren’t kilayim, and they still can’t be mixed. Different kinds of animals are kilayim (the Torah forbids mixing them), so of course they can’t be mixed!

Step 3: So why does the Torah say “herd and flock”? 🤷

Since we didn’t need those words to keep things apart, they must teach the opposite: herd and flock stay apart, but inside the flock, sheep and goats join together.

Step 4: Why doesn’t “grain” work the same way? 🌾

Because the word “grain” is not extra! Without it, the Torah’s teruma might apply to all kinds of food: fruits, vegetables, everything. The word “grain” is busy doing an important job: limiting the Torah’s teruma to grain, wine and oil. It’s all “used up,” so it can’t also teach that all grains are one group.

Think of it like… a puzzle where every piece must be used once. The “herd and flock” piece had no job, so we found it a job: joining sheep and goats. But the “grain” piece already has a job, so we can’t give it a second one!

The Simple Idea 💡: “Herd and flock” was extra, so it teaches that sheep and goats join; “grain” was already busy, so it can’t join all grains together.

”Maybe It Means Mix Everything!” 🌀

Rav Huna son of Rav Nachman pushes back on Rava. “If ‘herd and flock’ is extra, and it’s teaching us to join things, why not say it joins cows with sheep too? Mix them all!”

Mar Zutra, also a son of Rav Nachman, answers: “Rava agrees with Abaye about ‘the tenth.’ That word already says cows and sheep get separate counts. So ‘herd and flock’ can’t mean mix them. It can only mean sheep and goats join.”

Think of it like… a coach who already said, “Soccer and basketball pick separate captains.” So when he later says, “Red shirts and blue shirts are one team,” nobody thinks he suddenly means soccer and basketball are one team!

The Simple Idea 💡: “The tenth” already keeps cows and sheep apart, so the extra words can only join sheep and goats.

Another Version of Rava 🔄📜

The Gemara says איכא דאמרי (ika d’amrei, “there are those who say”): some people remembered Rava’s words differently.

In this version, Rava said: “We don’t even need ‘the tenth’! The Torah puts the animal tithe right next to the grain tithe (Devarim 14:22-23).” When the Torah places two laws side by side, they share rules. This is called a היקש (hekesh, “comparison by putting them together”). Grain tithe can’t cross from one kind to another, so animal tithe can’t either!

But wait! Didn’t Rava himself say (on 53b) that the comparison between animal tithe and grain tithe is only about years (new and old), and nothing else? The verse says “year by year,” and Rava read that as “I compared them only about years.”

So how can he use the same comparison here for kinds?

The Gemara gives two answers:

1. Rava changed his mind (הדר ביה, hadar bei). Great Rabbis sometimes rethink their views!
2. One of the two statements was really said by Rav Pappa, Rava’s top student, who became head of the yeshiva after him. Students who are that close to their teachers sometimes get their words mixed up with their teacher’s!

Think of it like… a famous chef and his star student who cook almost exactly alike. Sometimes people taste a dish and say, “The chef made this!” when really it was the student.

The Simple Idea 💡: Either Rava changed his mind, or one of these teachings really came from his student Rav Pappa.

A New Mishna: How Far Apart Can a Flock Be? 🐑🗺️

Now a new mishna! It’s about the animal tithe again, but this time the question is about distance.

Remember: animals are counted for the tithe as a group. But what if a farmer has some sheep here and some sheep far away? Do they count as one group?

The mishna says:

• ✅ Animals join together if they’re within as far as a grazing animal walks, which is sixteen מיל (mil). A mil is about a kilometre, so that’s roughly 16 kilometres.
• ❌ If two groups are thirty-two mil apart, they don’t join.
• 🤝 But if the farmer also has animals in the middle, he brings all of them to a pen in the middle and counts them together!
• 🌊 Rabbi Meir adds: the Jordan River splits the herds. Animals on two sides of the Jordan never join, even if they’re very close. (Tomorrow’s daf explains why.)

The Simple Idea 💡: Animals within sixteen mil count as one flock; farther apart, they need a group in the middle to connect them.

Why Sixteen Mil? The Shepherd’s Eyes 👀🧑‍🌾

The Gemara asks: where do we learn this?

Rabba bar Sheila brings a beautiful verse from Yirmiyahu. The prophet promises that, after the destruction, Eretz Yisrael will be full of life again, and “the flock shall again pass under the hands of him who counts them” (Yirmiyahu 33:13).

From here we learn: animals that pass under the hands of one shepherd, the “one who counts,” are one flock.

And how far can one shepherd watch over his animals? The Sages had a tradition (קים להו לרבנן, kim lehu lerabbanan, “it was known to the Rabbis”): a shepherd’s eye can see and control up to sixteen mil.

Think of it like… a lifeguard at the pool. Everyone the lifeguard can see from his tall chair is “his” swimming area. Kids who swim beyond where he can see are in a different area, with a different lifeguard!

The Simple Idea 💡: A flock is everything one shepherd can watch, and a shepherd can watch up to sixteen mil.

Why Say “Thirty-Two”? 🔢🤔

The Gemara reads the mishna carefully. The mishna said, “If they’re thirty-two mil apart, they don’t join.” That sounds like: “But if they’re less than thirty-two, like twenty mil, they do join!”

But wait! The mishna already said the limit is sixteen! So twenty should be too far!

The answer: the mishna only mentions thirty-two because it wants to teach the next part, about animals in the middle. Picture it:

🐑🐑 ⬅️ 16 mil ➡️ 🐑 ⬅️ 16 mil ➡️ 🐑🐑

Each side is sixteen mil from the middle. The middle group is like a bridge connecting both sides!

Think of it like… two kids standing too far apart to hold hands. But if a third kid stands between them, he can hold one hand on each side, and now they’re all connected in one chain!

The Simple Idea 💡: “Thirty-two” isn’t a new limit; it sets up the case where a middle group bridges two groups sixteen mil away on each side.

Rav vs. Shmuel: How Big Must the Bridge Be? ⚔️🌉

The last question of the daf: how many animals must be in that middle group?

Remember, the animal tithe only applies to a group of at least ten animals.

So for Rav, the bridge is built from numbers: the middle group must be big enough to “team up” with either side.

For Shmuel, the bridge is built from the shepherd’s view: one animal in the middle gives the shepherd a place to stand where he can watch everyone.

Think of it like… two groups of kids on a playground.

• Rav says: to make them one group, you need a real group in the middle that could play with either side.
• Shmuel says: you just need one kid in the middle, so the teacher can stand next to him and see everybody!

The Simple Idea 💡: Rav needs a middle group big enough to make ten with either side; Shmuel needs just one animal in the middle where the shepherd can stand.

The Super Simple Summary 🎯

• You can’t give teruma from one kind of crop for another. The Torah says it for oil and wine, and a “how much more so” trick extends it to wine and grain and two grains, because those are kilayim (kept apart in the field).
• Even for Rabbi Yoshiya, who has a narrow view of kilayim, the trick works, because wine and grain can become kilayim with a third seed, while wine and oil never can.
• For foods like lentils and beans, whose tithes are rabbinic, the same rule applies, because the Sages made their rules like the Torah’s.
• In animal tithe, cows and sheep are counted separately (“the tenth”), but sheep and goats are one flock (“or the flock”).
• All grains are not one group: Abaye and Rabbi Ile’a learn it from “the first part of them,” and Rava says the word “grain” is already busy limiting the Torah’s teruma.
• In another version, Rava compares animal tithe to grain tithe, so either he changed his mind or one statement was really Rav Pappa’s.
• New mishna: animals within sixteen mil, as far as a shepherd’s eye can see (Yirmiyahu 33:13), count as one flock. Groups farther apart need a middle group to bridge them, and Rabbi Meir says the Jordan always divides.
• Rav says the middle group must be five animals; Shmuel says even one is enough, because the shepherd can stand there and watch both sides.

⚖️ Halacha

Teruma and Tithes Are Never Separated from One Species for Another

Source in Daf: 54a, Segment 1 (continuing 53b: the verse “the best of the oil, and the best of the wine” keeps oil and wine apart; the kal vachomer extends the rule to wine and grain and to grain and grain, since species that are kilayim with each other should surely not be tithed one for the other)

Rambam — Hilchot Terumot 5:2

Hebrew:

תּוֹרְמִין בָּצָל שָׁלֵם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא קָטָן. אֲבָל לֹא חֲצִי בָּצָל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא גָּדוֹל. בְּכָל מָקוֹם אֵין תּוֹרְמִין מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יח כז) “כַּדָּגָן מִן הַגֹּרֶן וְכַמְלֵאָה מִן הַיֶּקֶב”. וְאִם תָּרַם אֵין תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה:

English:

One may separate an entire onion as terumah even if it is small, but not half an onion, even if it is large in all places. We do not separate one type of produce as terumah for another type of produce, as [implied by Numbers 18:30]: “As grain from the granary and as wine from the vat.” If one made such a separation, it is not considered terumah.

Connection: The second half of this halacha is the rule our sugya is built to explain: “we do not separate teruma from one species for another” (אֵין תּוֹרְמִין מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ). The Rambam also gives its force after the fact: “if he separated, his teruma is not teruma” (וְאִם תָּרַם אֵין תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה). This is not a matter of preferred practice. Produce of one kind cannot exempt produce of another kind at all. The Rambam’s proof text is a different verse from the Gemara’s. He cites “as the grain from the threshing floor and as the fullness of the winepress” (Numbers 18:27, as the Hebrew citation shows; the translation’s “18:30” is a slip): grain is taken from the threshing floor for the threshing floor, wine from the press for the press. The Gemara on 53b-54a reaches the same rule through “the best of the oil” and “the best of the wine”, named separately, and then through the kal vachomer of Segment 1. The Kesef Mishneh, listing the sources for this halacha, names the mishna in Terumot together with the first chapter of Temura and “the last chapter of Bechorot (daf 53)”, that is, our sugya.

Rambam — Hilchot Terumot 5:3

Hebrew:

הַקְּשׁוּת וְהַמְּלָפְפוֹן מִין אֶחָד. כָּל מִין חִטִּים אֶחָד. כָּל מִין תְּאֵנִים וּגְרוֹגָרוֹת וּדְבֵלָה אֶחָד. וְתוֹרֵם מִזֶּה עַל זֶה. וְכָל שֶׁהוּא כִּלְאַיִם בַּחֲבֵרוֹ לֹא יִתְרֹם מִזֶּה עַל זֶה אֲפִלּוּ מִן הַיָּפֶה עַל הָרַע. כֵּיצַד. הָיוּ לוֹ חֲמִשִּׁים סְאָה חִטִּין וַחֲמִשִּׁים סְאָה שְׂעוֹרִים בְּבַיִת אֶחָד וְהִפְרִישׁ עַל הַכּל שְׁנֵי סְאִין חִטִּין אֵינָן תְּרוּמָה. וְכָל שֶׁאֵינוֹ כִּלְאַיִם בַּחֲבֵרוֹ תּוֹרֵם מִן הַיָּפֶה עַל הָרַע אֲבָל לֹא מִן הָרַע עַל הַיָּפֶה. וְאִם תָּרַם תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה חוּץ מִן הַזּוֹנִין עַל הַחִטִּים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינָן אֹכֶל אָדָם:

English:

Zucchini and cucumbers are considered as one species. All of the types of wheat are one species. All of the types of figs, dried figs, and blocks of figs are one species. [In the above instances,] one may separate terumah from one type for the other. [By contrast,] all types of produce which are considered as a mixture of species may not be separated as terumah for each other, even when one separates the choicest produce as terumah for produce of lesser quality. What is implied? A person has 50 se’ah of wheat and 50 se’ah of barley in one building. If he separates two se’ah of wheat [as terumah] for the entire amount, his separation is not effective. When types of produce are not considered as a mixture of species, one may separate the better type as terumah for the lesser type, but not the lesser type as terumah for the better type. If one did separate [the lesser type of produce as terumah for the better type, after the fact,] the separation is effective with one exception. Zuninmay not be separated as terumah for wheat, because it is not used as food for humans.

Connection: This halacha shows why the kal vachomer of Segment 1 measures species by the laws of kilayim. The Rambam uses kilayim as the test of what counts as “one species” for teruma. Varieties that are not kilayim with each other, such as “all of the types of wheat” (כָּל מִין חִטִּים אֶחָד), are one species, and one may separate from the better for the lesser. But “anything that is kilayim with its fellow” (כָּל שֶׁהוּא כִּלְאַיִם בַּחֲבֵרוֹ) may not be used for the other, “even from the good for the bad”. His example is wheat and barley stored in one building: two se’ah of wheat separated for the whole hundred se’ah “are not teruma”. Wheat and barley are the Gemara’s “grain and grain” (דָּגָן וְדָגָן), two grains that are kilayim when sown together. The Gemara reasoned that if even wine and oil, which can never be kilayim, may not be tithed one for the other, then grains that the Torah keeps apart in the field surely may not. The Rambam’s ruling is the practical form of that reasoning: once two crops are kilayim with each other, no choice of better produce can bridge them.

Rambam — Hilchot Ma’aser 1:6

Hebrew:

מְעַשְּׂרִין מִמָּקוֹם זֶה עַל מָקוֹם אַחֵר וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְעַשֵּׂר מִן הַמֻּקָּף. אֲבָל אֵין מְעַשְּׂרִין מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ וְלֹא מִן הַחַיָּב עַל הַפָּטוּר וְלֹא מִן הַפָּטוּר עַל הַחַיָּב וְאִם עִשֵּׂר אֵינוֹ מְעֻשָּׂר:

English:

We can separate tithes from produce in one place for produce in another place. They need not be grouped together. We do not, however, separate tithes from one species for another species, nor from produce for which we are obligated to separate tithes for produce from which we are exempt from separating, nor from produce for which we are exempt from separating tithes for produce from which such a separation is required. If one made a separation in any of the above instances, [the produce separated] is not considered as tithes.

Connection: The question in Segment 1 is phrased in terms of tithing, “from where do we derive that they are not tithed (מִתְעַשְּׂרִין) from one for the other”, and the Rambam applies the identical rule to ma’aser: “we do not separate tithes from one species for another” (אֵין מְעַשְּׂרִין מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ), and if one did, “it is not considered as tithes”. The halacha also marks a difference between the two gifts. For tithes, produce in one place may exempt produce in another, and one need not take from the adjacent produce. The boundary of species, however, holds for both. Teruma and tithes share the same verses of “your grain, your wine and your oil”, and both are separated species by species.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 331:53

Hebrew:

אין תורמין ממין על שאינו מינו ואם תרם אין תרומתו תרומה הקישות והמלפפות מין אחד כל מין חטים מין אחד כל מין תאנים וגרוגרות ודבילה מין א’ ותורם מזה על זה וכל שהוא כלאים בחבירו לא יתרום מזה על זה אפילו מן היפה על הרעה ואם תרם אין תרומתו תרומה וכל שאינו כלאים בחבירו תורם מן היפה על הרע אבל לא מן הרע על היפה ואם תרם תרומתו תרומה חוץ מן הזונין (פי’ זרעונים שחורים הנמצא בין החטים) על החטים מפני שאינם אוכל אדם:

English (translation ours):

One does not separate teruma from one species for another that is not its species, and if he separated, his teruma is not teruma. The kishut and the melafefon (two kinds of cucumber) are one species; all kinds of wheat are one species; all kinds of figs, dried figs and fig cakes are one species, and he may separate from one for the other. And anything that is kilayim with its fellow, he may not separate from one for the other, even from the good for the bad, and if he separated, his teruma is not teruma. And anything that is not kilayim with its fellow, he separates from the good for the bad, but not from the bad for the good; and if he separated, his teruma is teruma, except for zunin (explanation: black seeds found among the wheat) for wheat, because they are not human food.

Connection: The Shulchan Aruch combines the Rambam’s two halachot (Terumot 5:2-3) into one se’if, opening with the governing rule and its consequence after the fact. Unlike the Temple laws of animal tithe below, this is practical law today. Teruma and tithes are still separated from produce grown in the Land of Israel, and a person who separates from a mixed crate of produce must separate from each species on its own. A portion of tomatoes cannot exempt the cucumbers beside them, just as the Gemara’s wine could not exempt grain.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 331:71

Hebrew:

מעשרין ממקום זה על מקום אחר ואינו צריך לעשר מן המוקף אבל אין מעשרין ממין על שאינו מינו ולא מן החיוב על הפטור ולא מן הפטור על החיוב ואם עישר אינו מעשר:

English (translation ours):

One may tithe from produce in this place for produce in another place, and one need not tithe from the adjacent produce. But one does not tithe from one species for another, nor from obligated produce for exempt produce, nor from exempt produce for obligated produce; and if he tithed, it is not tithed.

Connection: The Shulchan Aruch copies the Rambam’s ruling on tithes (Ma’aser 1:6) word for word. With the previous se’if, it completes the rule of our sugya for both gifts: neither teruma nor ma’aser crosses the line between species.

Rabbi Yoshiya’s Definition of Kilayim in the Vineyard

Source in Daf: 54a, Segments 2-3 (Rabbi Yoshiya holds that one is liable for kilayim of the vineyard only when he sows wheat, barley and a grape seed with a single throw of the hand; the kal vachomer is restated: wine and grain “become kilayim by means of something else”, while wine and oil never do)

Rambam — Hilchot Kilayim 5:1

Hebrew:

הַזּוֹרֵעַ שְׁנֵי מִינֵי תְּבוּאָה אוֹ שְׁנֵי מִינֵי יְרָקוֹת עִם זֶרַע הַכֶּרֶם הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֶה שְׁתַּיִם. אַחַת מִשּׁוּם (ויקרא יט יט) “שָׂדְךָ לֹא תִזְרַע כִּלְאָיִם” וְאַחַת מִשּׁוּם (דברים כב ט) “לֹא תִזְרַע כַּרְמְךָ כִּלְאָיִם”:

English:

When a person sows two types of grain or two types of vegetables together with [grape] seeds, he is liable for two sets of lashes: one for [violating the prohibition (Leviticus 19:19 ]: “You shall not sow your field with mixed species,” and one for [violating the prohibition (Deuteronomy 22:9 ]: “You shall not sow your vineyard with mixed species.”

Connection: The Rambam opens the chapter with the case that Rabbi Yoshiya treats as the paradigm: two kinds of grain sown together with a grape seed. Such a sowing violates two prohibitions at once, “your field” (Leviticus 19:19) and “your vineyard” (Deuteronomy 22:9). The two grains on their own are already kilayim of the field; adding the grape seed makes them kilayim of the vineyard as well. This is the structure behind Segment 3: grain and wine become kilayim with each other only “by means of something else”, a second grain sown with them.

Rambam — Hilchot Kilayim 5:2

Hebrew:

וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם זוֹרֵעַ כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם עַד שֶׁיִּזְרַע בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל חִטָּה וּשְׂעוֹרָה וְחַרְצָן בְּמַפּלֶת יָד. וְכֵן אִם חִפָּה אוֹתָם בְּעָפָר לוֹקֶה. וְכֵן אִם זָרַע שְׁנֵי מִינֵי יָרָק וְחַרְצָן אוֹ זֶרַע אֶחָד יָרָק וְזֶרַע אֶחָד מִין תְּבוּאָה וְחַרְצָן בְּמַפּלֶת יָד הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֶה:

English:

A person does not receive lashes for sowing kilayim in a vineyard unless he sows a handful of wheat, barley, and grape seed in Eretz Yisrael. Similarly, one who covers such seeds with earth is worthy of lashes. And one who sows two types of vegetable seeds or a vegetable seed, a grain seed, and a grape seed from one hand is worthy of lashes.

Connection: This is Rabbi Yoshiya’s view, the one that threatened the kal vachomer in Segment 2: there are no lashes for kilayim of the vineyard “unless he sows in the Land of Israel wheat, barley and a grape seed with a single throw of the hand” (חִטָּה וּשְׂעוֹרָה וְחַרְצָן בְּמַפּלֶת יָד). A grape seed and one kind of grain alone do not incur the Torah penalty. The Kesef Mishneh explains that the Rambam rules this way because the Gemara elsewhere (Chullin 136b) says “the world follows the practice of three elders” (נהוג בעלמא כתלתא סבי), one of whom is Rabbi Yoshiya, and because the end of the first chapter of Kiddushin (39a) also accepts his view. He also gives Rabbi Yoshiya’s reading of the verse: “do not sow kilayim together with your vineyard”, meaning two seeds that are already kilayim, sown with the vine. Since the halacha follows Rabbi Yoshiya, the Gemara’s adjustment in Segment 3 is not an academic exercise. The original form of the argument, “wine and grain are kilayim with each other”, would not hold on the accepted view. The revised form, “they can become kilayim by means of something else”, holds on every view, and so the rule against tithing one species for another rests on firm ground.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 296:1

Hebrew:

הזורע שני מיני תבואה או שני מיני ירקות עם זרע הכרם הרי זה לוקה שתים אחת משום שדך לא תזרע כלאים ואחת משום לא תזרע כרמך כלאים ואינו לוקה משום לא תזרע כרמך כלאים עד שיזרע בא”י חטה ושעורה וחרצן במפולת יד וכן אם חפה אותם בעפר לוקה וכן אם זרע שני מיני ירק וחרצן או זרע אחד ירק וזרע אחד מין תבואה וחרצן במפולת יד הרי זה לוקה ואינו חייב מן התורה אלא על קנבוס ולוף וכיוצא בהם מזרעים שנגמרים ועם תבואת הכרם אבל שאר הזרעים אסורים מדבריהם וכן אסור מדבריהם לזרוע כלאי הכרם בחוצה לארץ ואין עודרין עם העובד כוכבים בכלאים אבל עוקרין עמו כדי למעט התיפלה:

English (translation ours):

One who sows two kinds of grain or two kinds of vegetables together with the seed of the vineyard receives two sets of lashes: one for “you shall not sow your field with kilayim” and one for “you shall not sow your vineyard with kilayim”. And he does not receive lashes for “you shall not sow your vineyard with kilayim” until he sows in the Land of Israel wheat and barley and a grape seed with a single throw of the hand. Likewise, if he covered them with earth, he receives lashes. Likewise, if he sowed two kinds of vegetable and a grape seed, or one vegetable seed, one grain seed and a grape seed, with a single throw of the hand, he receives lashes. And he is liable by Torah law only for hemp and luf and the like, among seeds that ripen together with the produce of the vineyard; but other seeds are forbidden by rabbinic law. Likewise, it is forbidden by rabbinic law to sow kilayim of the vineyard outside the Land. And one does not hoe together with a gentile among kilayim, but one may uproot together with him, in order to reduce the forbidden growth.

Connection: The Shulchan Aruch adopts the Rambam’s two halachot (Kilayim 5:1-3) in a single se’if, and with them Rabbi Yoshiya’s definition: the Torah penalty for kilayim of the vineyard requires “wheat and barley and a grape seed with a single throw of the hand” (חטה ושעורה וחרצן במפולת יד). Our Gemara assumes this view as a live position, and the codes confirm that it is the halacha.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 296:69

Hebrew:

כל השיעורים האלו שמרחיקין בין הגפנים והתבואה או הירק אינם אלא בא”י או בסוריא אבל בחו”ל מותר לזרוע בצד הגפנים בתוך הכרם לכתחלה ולא אסרו בח”ל אלא לזרוע ב’ מיני ירק או תבואה עם החרצן במפולת יד ואם אמר לתינוק עובד כוכבים לזרוע לו בח”ל מותר אבל לא יאמר לעובד כוכבים גדול שלא יתחלף בישראל ואע”פ שמותר לזרוע הירק בצד הכרם בח”ל הרי אותו הירק הזרוע שם אסור באכילה ואפי’ בח”ל והוא שיראה אותו לוקט ומוכר אבל ספיקו מותר: הגה וי”א דהואיל ומותר לזרוע ירק בצד הגפנים בח”ל מותר לאכול אותו ירק גם כן (הגהות מיימוני פ”י מהלכות מ”א דין ט’ ותה”ד סימן קצ”ד) ואין לחוש אלא במקום דאיכא למיחש שנזרע ב’ מיני ירק או ב’ מיני תבואה עם חרצן במפולת יד (מרדכי פרק קמא דקדושין) ועל כן נהגו להקל במדינות אלו בירקות הנמצאים זרועות בכרמים כי לא שכיח שנזרעו באיסור:

English (translation ours):

All these measures of distance that are kept between the vines and the grain or vegetables apply only in the Land of Israel or in Syria. But outside the Land it is permitted to sow beside the vines within the vineyard, even at the outset; and outside the Land they forbade only sowing two kinds of vegetable or grain with the grape seed with a single throw of the hand. If he told a gentile child to sow for him outside the Land, it is permitted, but he should not tell an adult gentile, lest he be mistaken for a Jew. And although it is permitted to sow vegetables beside the vineyard outside the Land, that vegetable sown there is forbidden to eat, even outside the Land, provided that he sees him harvesting and selling it; but a case of doubt is permitted. Rema: And some say that since it is permitted to sow vegetables beside the vines outside the Land, it is also permitted to eat that vegetable (Hagahot Maimoniyot, ch. 10 of Hilchot Ma’achalot Asurot, law 9; Terumat HaDeshen siman 194), and there is concern only where there is reason to fear that two kinds of vegetable or two kinds of grain were sown with a grape seed with a single throw of the hand (Mordechai, first chapter of Kiddushin). Therefore the custom in these lands is to be lenient regarding vegetables found sown in vineyards, because it is not common for them to have been sown in a forbidden manner.

Connection: Outside the Land of Israel, Rabbi Yoshiya’s case is the whole of the law. The Sages “forbade only sowing two kinds of vegetable or grain with the grape seed with a single throw of the hand” (לא אסרו בח”ל אלא לזרוע ב’ מיני ירק או תבואה עם החרצן במפולת יד). Sowing one crop beside the vines is permitted there even at the outset. The Rema draws the practical conclusion: vegetables found growing in vineyards may be eaten, since the forbidden three-seed sowing is uncommon. The definition that the Gemara had to accommodate in Segment 2 thus remains the working rule of kilayim of the vineyard for most of the Jewish world today.

Rabbinic Tithes Follow the Pattern of Torah Tithes

Source in Daf: 54a, Segment 4 (for two species that are not grain, wine or oil, whose tithing is rabbinic, the ban on tithing one for the other comes from the principle that “whatever the Sages enacted, they enacted in the form of Torah law”)

Rambam — Hilchot Terumot 2:6

Hebrew:

הַיְרָקוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן מַאֲכַל אָדָם אֵינָן חַיָּבִין בְּמַעַשְׂרוֹת אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן. לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּמַעֲשֵׂר (דברים יד כב) “תְּבוּאַת זַרְעֶךָ”. תְּבוּאָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ. אֲבָל הַיְרָקוֹת אֵינָן בִּכְלַל הַתְּבוּאָה. וְכֵן יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁהוּא הַדִּין בִּתְרוּמָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶאֱמַר בָּהּ (דברים יח ד) “דְּגָנְךָ תִּירשְׁךָ וְיִצְהָרֶךָ” כָּל הַדּוֹמֶה לְאֵלּוּ אֲבָל תְּרוּמַת הַיָּרָק מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם כְּמַעֲשֵׂר:

English:

Even though vegetables are used for human consumption, the obligation to tithe them is only Rabbinic in origin. [The rationale is that] with regard to the tithes, [Deuteronomy 14:22] speaks of “the yield of your planting.” Now the term tevuah [translated as “yield”] refers to grain and the like. Vegetables are not included as tevuah. Similarly, it appears to me that this also applies with regard to terumah, for with regard to terumah, it is stated: “your grain, your wine, and your oil.” Implied is that the obligation is applied to all species resembling those. Instead, terumah which is separated from vegetables is a Rabbinic decree like their tithes.

Connection: Segment 4 asks about produce that is tithed only by rabbinic law, and the Rambam identifies one large category of such produce: vegetables. Their tithes and their teruma are “only Rabbinic in origin” (אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן), because the verses speak of “the yield of your planting” and of “your grain, your wine and your oil”. Now set this beside the halachot quoted above. In Terumot 5:2-3 and Ma’aser 1:6 the Rambam states the one-species rule without any distinction between Torah produce and rabbinic produce, and several of his own examples are vegetables: the onion, the kishut and the melafefon. Rabbinic teruma from vegetables is thus governed by the same rule as Torah teruma from grain, wine and oil. That is the Gemara’s principle at work, “whatever the Sages enacted, they enacted in the form of Torah law” (וְכֹל דְּתַקִּינוּ רַבָּנַן כְּעֵין דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא תַּקִּינוּ). The rabbinic extension carries the details of the Torah law with it.

Animal Tithe: Herd and Flock Apart, Sheep and Goats Together

Source in Daf: 54a, Segment 5 to 54b, Segment 9 (Rava bar Rav Chanan’s challenge; Abaye: “the tenth” means a tenth from each, and “or the flock” makes all the flock one; Rava: the gezeira shava “under” “under” limits animal tithe to sacrificial species, and “herd and flock” comes to join sheep and goats; the alternate version: the hekesh of animal tithe to grain tithe; Rava’s “year by year” and Rav Pappa)

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 6:1

Hebrew:

מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה לְהַפְרִישׁ אֶחָד מֵעֲשָׂרָה מִכָּל בְּהֵמוֹת טְהוֹרוֹת שֶׁיִּוָּלְדוּ לָאָדָם בְּכָל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה. וְאֵין מִצְוָה זוֹ נוֹהֶגֶת אֶלָּא בְּבָקָר וְצֹאן בִּלְבַד שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כז לב) “וְכָל מַעְשַׂר בָּקָר וָצֹאן” וְגוֹ’:

English:

It is a positive commandment to separate one out of every ten kosher animals, which are born to a person each year. This mitzvah applies only to cattle and sheep, as Leviticus 27:32 states: “All the tithes of your cattle and sheep…”

Connection: The Rambam limits animal tithe to “cattle and sheep alone” (בְּבָקָר וְצֹאן בִּלְבַד), from the same verse our Gemara expounds, Leviticus 27:32. This is the premise of Rava’s argument in Segment 4. One might have thought that “all animal tithe” would include undomesticated animals, but the gezeira shava “under” (תַּחַת) and “under” ties animal tithe to sacrifices, and only cattle, sheep and goats are offered. A deer or any other chaya is never tithed. The words “kosher animals” (בְּהֵמוֹת טְהוֹרוֹת) and “cattle and sheep alone” in the Rambam’s opening sentence state that conclusion as law.

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 7:4

Hebrew:

אֵין מְעַשְּׂרִין מִן הַצֹּאן עַל הַבָּקָר וְלֹא מִן הַבָּקָר עַל הַצֹּאן. אֲבָל מְעַשְּׂרִין מִן הַכְּבָשִׂים עַל הָעִזִּים וּמִן הָעִזִּים עַל הַכְּבָשִׂים. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כז לב) “וְכָל מַעְשַׂר בָּקָר וָצֹאן” מַשְׁמָע כָּל צֹאן אֶחָד שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם נִקְרָאִים שֶׂה וַהֲרֵי הֵם כְּמִין אֶחָד:

English:

Tithes are not taken from sheep for cattle, nor from cattle for sheep. One must, however, tithe sheep for goats and goats for sheep. This is derived from Leviticus 27:32: “All the tithes of your cattle and tzon.” Implied is that all light, domesticated animals are included as one category, for they are both referred to with the term seh and they are like one species.

Connection: This is the conclusion of the whole sugya on 54a-b, codified as the mishna on 53a states it. Cattle and sheep are not tithed one for the other; sheep and goats are. The Rambam’s proof is the phrase of Abaye and Rava, “and the flock” (וָצֹאן), which “implies that all the flock is one” (מַשְׁמָע כָּל צֹאן אֶחָד). He adds a reason of his own: sheep and goats “are both called seh, and they are like one species” (שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם נִקְרָאִים שֶׂה וַהֲרֵי הֵם כְּמִין אֶחָד), recalling the Torah’s own wording, “seh kesavim and seh izim” (Deuteronomy 14:4). The Rambam does not say which derivation keeps cattle apart from the flock, whether Abaye’s “the tenth” or the hekesh to grain tithe of the alternate version in Segment 8. The Gemara reaches the same result by both routes, and the code records only the result.

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 7:5

Hebrew:

אֵין מְעַשְּׂרִים מִן הַנּוֹלָדִים בְּשָׁנָה זוֹ עַל הַנּוֹלָדִים בְּשָׁנָה אַחֶרֶת כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין מְעַשְּׂרִין בְּזֶרַע הָאָרֶץ מִן הֶחָדָשׁ עַל הַיָּשָׁן וְלֹא מִן הַיָּשָׁן עַל הֶחָדָשׁ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד כב) “הַיֹּצֵא הַשָּׂדֶה שָׁנָה שָׁנָה”. וְיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאִם עִשֵּׂר בְּהֵמָה מִשָּׁנָה עַל שָׁנָה הֲרֵי זֶה מַעֲשֵׂר מִפְּנֵי חֻמְרַת הַקֳדָשִׁים שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא הִקְפִּידָה תּוֹרָה עַל מַעֲשַׂר בְּהֵמָה בְּפֵרוּשׁ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה שָׁנָה שָׁנָה:

English:

We do not tithe animals born in one year with animals born in another year just as we do not tithe the crops from the new year for the crops from the past year nor the crops from the past year for the crops of the new year, as Deuteronomy 14:22: “Which are produced by the field year for year.” It appears to me that if one tithed animals from one year for animals of another year, the tithing is binding because of the severity of consecrated animals. For the Torah did not explicitly emphasize that the tithing of animals must be from the same year.

Connection: This is the hekesh that Segment 9 discusses. Rava said that “year by year” (שָׁנָה שָׁנָה, Deuteronomy 14:22) compares animal tithe to grain tithe “with regard to the year, and not with regard to anything else”. The Rambam codifies the comparison for its core case: animals born in one year are not tithed for animals born in another, “just as” produce of the new year is not tithed for the old. His own addition is telling. He judges that if one did tithe animals across years, the tithe takes effect “because of the severity of consecrated animals” (מִפְּנֵי חֻמְרַת הַקֳדָשִׁים), since “the Torah did not explicitly insist” (לֹא הִקְפִּידָה תּוֹרָה … בְּפֵרוּשׁ) that animal tithe be year by year. In other words, the law for animals comes through a comparison with grain, not from an explicit verse about animals. The Rambam therefore treats it as weaker than the grain rule, where produce tithed across species or years “is not tithed”. The Gemara’s debate over how far the comparison reaches, and whether Rava retracted or one statement was Rav Pappa’s, sits in the background of that judgement.

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 6:2

Hebrew:

מַעֲשַׂר בְּהֵמָה נוֹהֵג בְּחֻלִּין אֲבָל לֹא בְּמֻקְדָּשִׁין. וְנוֹהֵג בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת. אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אָסְרוּ לְעַשֵּׂר בְּהֵמָה בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה וְתִקְּנוּ שֶׁאֵין מְעַשְּׂרִין אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאכְלֵהוּ תָּמִים וְנִמְצָא בָּא לִידֵי אִסּוּר כָּרֵת שֶׁהוּא שְׁחִיטַת קָדָשִׁים בַּחוּץ. וְאִם עָבַר וְעָשָׂה בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה הֲרֵי זֶה מַעֲשֵׂר וְיֵאָכֵל בְּמוּמוֹ:

English:

The tithing of animals applies with regard to ordinary animals, but not to consecrated ones. It applies in Eretz Yisrael and in the Diaspora, in the era that the Temple was standing and in the era when the Temple is not standing. Nevertheless, our Sages forbade tithing animals in the present era and ordained that they should be tithed only when the Temple is standing. This is a decree, lest the consecrated animal be eaten when it is unblemished and thus one will be violating a transgression punishable by karet: slaughtering consecrated animals outside the Temple Courtyard. If one transgressed and tithed in the present era, the animal is designated as a tithe offering and should be eaten after it contracts a disqualifying blemish.

Connection: All the rulings in this section are, for now, laws of the Temple. By Torah law animal tithe applies everywhere and at all times, but the Sages forbade tithing animals “in the present era” (בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה), lest someone eat the consecrated animal while unblemished and so come to slaughter sacrifices outside the Temple. This is the decree the Gemara discussed on 53a. For this reason the Shulchan Aruch has no section on animal tithe. These Temple-era laws are preserved in Rambam for when the Temple is rebuilt.

The Sixteen-Mil Range and the Flock in the Middle

Source in Daf: 54b, Segments 10-15 (the mishna: animals join for tithing within the range of a grazing animal, sixteen mil; at thirty-two mil they do not, unless he has animals in the middle; Rabbi Meir: the Jordan divides; Rabba bar Sheila: “the flock shall again pass under the hands of him who counts them”, and the shepherd’s eye controls sixteen mil; Rav: five, five and five; Shmuel: even one in the middle)

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 7:1

Hebrew:

מִי שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ עֲשָׂרָה טְלָאִים וְהִפְרִישׁ אֶחָד מֵעֲשָׂרָה. הָיוּ לוֹ מֵאָה וְהִפְרִישׁ עֲשָׂרָה לְמַעֲשֵׂר. אֵין אֵלּוּ מַעֲשֵׂר. אֶלָּא כֵּיצַד עוֹשֶׂה. כּוֹנֵס כָּל הַטְּלָאִים אוֹ כָּל הָעֲגָלִים לַדִּיר. וְעוֹשֶׂה לוֹ פֶּתַח קָטָן כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יֵצְאוּ שְׁנַיִם כְּאֶחָד. וְאִמּוֹתֵיהֶן מַעֲמִיד מִבַּחוּץ. וְהֵן גּוֹעוֹת שֶׁיִּשְׁמְעוּ הַטְּלָאִים קוֹלָן וְיֵצְאוּ מִן הַדִּיר לִקְרָאתָן. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כז לב) “כּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבֹר תַּחַת הַשָּׁבֶט”. שֶׁיַּעֲבֹר מֵעַצְמוֹ וְלֹא שֶׁיּוֹצִיאוֹ בְּיָדוֹ. וּכְשֶׁיֵּצְאוּ מִן הַדִּיר זֶה אַחַר זֶה. מַתְחִיל וּמוֹנֶה אוֹתָן בַּשֵּׁבֶט. א’ ב’ ג’ ד’ ה’ ו’ ז’ ח’ ט’. וְהַיּוֹצֵא עֲשִׂירִי בֵּין זָכָר בֵּין נְקֵבָה בֵּין תָּמִים בֵּין בַּעַל מוּם סוֹקְרוֹ בְּסִקְרָא וְאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי זֶה מַעֲשֵׂר. לֹא סְקָרוֹ בְּסִקְרָא וְלֹא מְנָאָן בַּשֵּׁבֶט אוֹ שֶׁמְּנָאָן רְבוּצִים אוֹ עוֹמְדִים הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מַעֲשֵׂר הוֹאִיל וּמְנָאָם עֲשָׂרָה עֲשָׂרָה וְקִדֵּשׁ עֲשִׂירִי הֲרֵי זֶה מַעֲשֵׂר:

English:

When a person possesses ten lambs and he separates one as the tithes or he possesses 100 and he separates ten as the tithes, these are not tithes. What, instead, should he do? He should gather all of the lambs or all of the calves born that year in a corral. He then makes a small entrance so that two cannot emerge at the same time. He positions their mothers outside the corral and they bleat so that the lambs will hear their voices and leave the corral to meet them. This is necessary, as implied by Leviticus 27:32 which states: “all that passes beneath the staff,” i.e., they must pass on their own initiative; one should not remove them by hand. As they leave the corral one by one, the owner begins to count them with a staff: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. The tenth animal that departs, whether male or female, whether unblemished or blemished, should be painted with red paint, and the owner should say: “This is the tithe.” If he did not paint the animals designated as the tithes with red paint, did not count them with a staff, or counted them while they are lying down or standing, the tithing takes effect. Since he counted them ten by ten and consecrated the tenth, it is considered a tithe.

Connection: Rabba bar Sheila’s verse speaks of flocks passing “under the hands of him who counts them” (עַל יְדֵי מוֹנֶה). The Rambam describes that counting as it is done in animal tithe. The animals are gathered into a pen with a narrow opening, they pass out one at a time “beneath the staff”, and the owner counts them and marks the tenth. The tithe is a counting of one flock by one counter, and that is why the size of the flock is set by how far a shepherd can oversee it. The halacha also explains why the mishna’s sixteen-mil rule matters: animals that do not join into one flock are never counted together, and a group with fewer than ten is not tithed at all.

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 7:2

Hebrew:

אֵין צָרִיךְ לְצָרֵף כָּל בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנּוֹלְדָה בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ לְדִיר אֶחָד אֶלָּא מְצָרֵף כָּל עֵדֶר וְעֵדֶר לְבַדּוֹ. הָיוּ לוֹ חֲמִשָּׁה טְלָאִים בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם וַחֲמִשָּׁה טְלָאִים בְּעַכּוֹ אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין וְכֻלָּן פְּטוּרִין מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. וְכַמָּה יִהְיֶה בֵּין אֵלּוּ לְאֵלּוּ וְיִצְטָרְפוּ שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר מִיל:

English:

It is not necessary to collect every animal born in a person’s domain to one corral. Instead, the reckoning is made for every herd alone. If a person owned five lambs in Jerusalem and five in Acre, they are not combined into a single herd. Instead, they are all exempt from the tithes. What is the distance required to be between two herds for them to be combined? Sixteen mil.

Connection: The Rambam codifies the first clause of the mishna: the reckoning is made “for every herd alone” (כָּל עֵדֶר וְעֵדֶר לְבַדּוֹ), and herds join only within “sixteen mil” (שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר מִיל). His example shows the consequence. Five lambs in Jerusalem and five in Acre are far more than sixteen mil apart, so they do not join, and since neither group reaches ten, “they are all exempt from the tithes”. The Rambam does not give a reason for the number. The Gemara’s reason is Rabba bar Sheila’s received tradition, “the Sages have it as established” (קִים לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן), that a shepherd’s eye controls sixteen mil.

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 7:3

Hebrew:

הָיוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה עֲדָרִים בֵּין כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר מִיל הֲרֵי שְׁלָשְׁתָּן מִצְטָרְפִין. כֵּיצַד. הָיָה תִּשְׁעָה מִכָּאן וְתִשְׁעָה מִכָּאן וְאֶחָד בְּאֶמְצַע הֲרֵי שְׁלָשְׁתָּן נִכְנָסִין לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר:

English:

If there are three herds and there are sixteen mil between each one, the three are combined. What is implied? There were nine on one side, nine on the other side, and one in the center, all three herds are brought into the corral together to be tithed.

Connection: This is the mishna’s case of animals in the middle, and the Rambam’s example decides between Rav and Shmuel. He writes “nine from here and nine from there and one in the middle” (תִּשְׁעָה מִכָּאן וְתִשְׁעָה מִכָּאן וְאֶחָד בְּאֶמְצַע). The single animal in the middle can complete ten with either side, which is Rav’s reason in Segment 14: the middle group is “fit to join here and fit to join there” (חַזְיָא לְהָכָא וְחַזְיָא לְהָכָא). Shmuel’s case in Segment 15, five on each side and one in the middle, would not meet that test, since the middle animal cannot make ten with either side. The Kesef Mishneh says so explicitly: “there is the dispute of Rav and Shmuel, and he ruled like Rav, as in prohibitions” (פלוגתא דרב ושמואל ופסק כרב באיסורי). The rule he invokes is that in matters of prohibition the halacha follows Rav over Shmuel. The Rambam’s choice of nine rather than five is therefore deliberate. The middle need not be large, but it must be able to complete a tithing group of ten on each side.

The Rambam does not mention Rabbi Meir’s view that the Jordan divides. A search of all eight chapters of Hilchot Bechorot finds no reference to the Jordan; the sixteen-mil rule is stated without exception. The Rambam thus rules with the first Tanna of the mishna, for whom distance alone decides. The Gemara on 55a explains Rabbi Meir’s view. Like the rest of animal tithe, these rulings are Temple-era laws preserved in Rambam for when the Temple is rebuilt.

Summary of Rulings