Bechorot Daf 55 (בכורות דף נ״ה)

📖 Breakdown

Amud Aleph (55a)

Segment 1

TYPE: קושיא (תיובתא)

A baraita: five sheep in Kfar Chananya and five in Otnai combine if he has just one in Tzippori, apparently refuting Rav

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מֵיתִיבִי: הָיָה לוֹ חָמֵשׁ בִּכְפַר חֲנַנְיָה וְחָמֵשׁ בִּכְפַר עוֹתְנַי — אֵין מִצְטָרְפוֹת עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא לוֹ אַחַת בְּצִיפּוֹרִי. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב!

English Translation:

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav from a baraita: If one had five sheep in the village of Ḥananya and five sheep in the village of Otnai, which is a distance of thirty-two mil from the village of Ḥananya, they do not combine, unless he also has one sheep between them, in Tzippori. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav that there must be at least five sheep in the middle.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara returns to the dispute that closed 54b. Rav required five animals in the middle of a thirty-two mil gap, so that the middle group could make ten with either side, while Shmuel was satisfied with one, since the shepherd standing there counts both sides. A baraita now speaks of two villages thirty-two mil apart, Kfar Chananya and Otnai, with five sheep in each. It says they combine only if he has one animal between them in Tzippori. One middle animal seems to be enough, which looks like a conclusive refutation of Rav and a proof for Shmuel.

Key Terms:

• מֵיתִיבִי = an objection is raised, usually from a baraita, against an amora’s view
• מִצְטָרְפוֹת = combine — counted together as one flock for the tithe
• כְּפַר חֲנַנְיָה / כְּפַר עוֹתְנַי / צִיפּוֹרִי = two Galilean villages thirty-two mil apart, with Tzippori lying between them
• תְּיוּבְתָּא = a conclusive refutation of an amora’s position

Segment 2

TYPE: תירוץ

Shmuel himself reads the baraita in Rav’s favor: nine on each side and one in the middle

Hebrew/Aramaic:

תַּרְגְּמַהּ שְׁמוּאֵל אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַב: כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיוּ תֵּשַׁע מִכָּאן וְתֵשַׁע מִכָּאן וְאַחַת בָּאֶמְצַע, דְּהַהִיא חַזְיָא לְהָכָא וְחַזְיָא לְהָכָא.

English Translation:

Shmuel interpreted the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav. The baraita does not mean he had five sheep on either side, but rather it is referring to a case where he had nine sheep from here and nine sheep from there and one in the middle. This case is different, as that one sheep in the middle is fit to combine with the animals here and is fit to combine with the animals there, to constitute a total of ten animals on either side, to which the obligation applies.

קלאוד על הדף:

Remarkably, it is Shmuel, Rav’s disputant, who rescues Rav. The baraita does not mean five on each side, he says. It means nine on each side and one in the middle. Then the single middle animal can complete a ten with either side, which is exactly Rav’s logic: the middle animals must be fit to join each side to make the number that triggers the obligation. So the baraita fits Rav’s reasoning, and the dispute between Rav and Shmuel stays open.

Key Terms:

• תַּרְגְּמַהּ = he interpreted it — explained the baraita to fit a given view
• אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַב = according to Rav — on Rav’s terms, not one’s own
• חַזְיָא לְהָכָא וְחַזְיָא לְהָכָא = it is fit for here and fit for there — the middle animal can complete either group

Segment 3

TYPE: מימרא

Rav Pappa: on Shmuel’s view even the shepherd, or just his implements, in the middle combine the flocks

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: וְלִשְׁמוּאֵל, אֲפִילּוּ רוֹעֶה מְצָרְפָן, וַאֲפִילּוּ כִּלְיוֹ שֶׁל רוֹעֶה מְצָרְפָן.

English Translation:

Rav Pappa says: And according to the opinion of Shmuel that one animal in the middle is sufficient to combine the two groups on either side of it, even if the shepherd himself is in the middle without any sheep, he combines the two flocks on either side. And even if only the implements of the shepherd are in the middle, they combine the two flocks on either side into one flock. Since the shepherd must go there to collect his implements it is considered as though he is already there and therefore the two flocks are combined.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Pappa draws out the full reach of Shmuel’s reasoning. If the middle animal combines the flocks only because the shepherd’s place is there, then the animal itself is not essential. The shepherd standing in the middle combines them, and even his implements left there are enough, since he will have to come back for them. On this view the unity of a flock is defined by the shepherd’s range and presence, not by the animals in between.

Key Terms:

• רוֹעֶה = the shepherd
• כִּלְיוֹ שֶׁל רוֹעֶה = the shepherd’s implements, such as his bag and staff
• מְצָרְפָן = combines them into one flock for the tithe

Segment 4

TYPE: בעיא ותיקו

Rav Ashi: does the shepherd’s dog in the middle combine the flocks? Unresolved

Hebrew/Aramaic:

בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: כַּלְבָּא דְּרוֹעֶה מַאי? כֵּיוָן דְּקָרֵי לֵיהּ וְאָתֵי לָא מִצְטָרְפִי, אוֹ דִלְמָא זִימְנִין דְּלָא אָתֵי, וּמִצְטָרֵךְ אִיהוּ לְמֵיזַל וְאֵתֹיֵיהּ? תֵּיקוּ.

English Translation:

Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: What is the halakha in a case where the dog of the shepherd is in the middle? Does it combine the two flocks into one or not? Since the shepherd can call the dog and it comes, perhaps it does not combine the two flocks, as the shepherd himself has no need to go to the middle, so the dog is not like the implements of the shepherd. Or perhaps, because sometimes the dog does not come when the shepherd calls it, and in such cases the shepherd himself must go and bring it, it does combine the two flocks. The Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Ashi tests the edge of Rav Pappa’s rule. Implements combine because the shepherd must go to them. A dog is different: he can call it and it comes, so he need not go there. Yet dogs do not always come, and then he has to walk out and fetch it, which would make the dog like his implements. The Gemara cannot decide between these two views of the dog, and the question is left as a תיקו.

Key Terms:

• כַּלְבָּא דְּרוֹעֶה = the shepherd’s dog
• קָרֵי לֵיהּ וְאָתֵי = he calls it and it comes
• תֵּיקוּ = the question stands unresolved

Segment 5

TYPE: משנה ומימרא

Rabbi Meir: the Jordan divides for animal tithe; Rabbi Ami: only where there is no bridge

Hebrew/Aramaic:

רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: הַיַּרְדֵּן מַפְסִיק לְמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה. אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין שָׁם גֶּשֶׁר, אֲבָל יֵשׁ שָׁם גֶּשֶׁר — גֶּשֶׁר מְצָרְפָן.

English Translation:

§ The mishna teaches that 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. Rabbi Ami says: They taught that the Jordan River serves as a partition only when there is no bridge there, but if there is a bridge there, the bridge combines the two flocks into one for the purposes of tithing.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara turns to the last clause of the mishna on 54b. Rabbi Meir rules that the Jordan separates flocks for the tithe even when the distance is small. Rabbi Ami limits this: the Jordan divides only where there is no bridge, but a bridge joins the two banks. His limitation implies a practical reason for Rabbi Meir’s rule: the river stops the animals and the shepherd from crossing, so a bridge removes the barrier.

Key Terms:

• הַיַּרְדֵּן מַפְסִיק = the Jordan divides — flocks on its two banks do not combine
• גֶּשֶׁר = a bridge
• לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא = they taught this only — a limiting interpretation of a ruling

Segment 6

TYPE: קושיא

Rabbi Ami’s reason is physical access; but a baraita says Eretz Yisrael and outside it never combine

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אַלְמָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא מְיקָרְבָן הוּא. מֵיתִיבִי: הָיוּ לוֹ בִּשְׁנֵי עֶבְרֵי הַיַּרְדֵּן אֵילָךְ וְאֵילָךְ, אוֹ בִּשְׁנֵי אַבְטִילָאוֹת כְּגוֹן שֶׁל נָמֵר וְנָמוֹרִי — אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ וָאָרֶץ.

English Translation:

The Gemara notes: Apparently, the Jordan River serves as a partition because the flock on one side is not close and is unable to join the flock on the other side due to the river between them. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If one had sheep on both sides of the Jordan River, here and there; or if the flocks were in two counties [avtilaot], e.g., Namer and Namori, even if they were under the control of the same ruler, the flocks do not combine, even if there is no river between them and they are less than thirty-two mil apart. And needless to say, if one flock is outside of Eretz Yisrael and the other is inside Eretz Yisrael, they do not combine.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara spells out the logic of Rabbi Ami: the Jordan divides only because the flocks cannot reach each other. Against this it cites a baraita. Flocks on both banks of the Jordan do not combine, nor do flocks in two different districts such as Namer and Namori, and certainly not flocks inside and outside Eretz Yisrael. This baraita treats the divisions as legal boundaries rather than physical ones, and the Gemara will now sharpen the point.

Key Terms:

• אַלְמָא = apparently — an inference drawn from a statement
• מְיקָרְבָן = they come close — the flocks can reach one another
• אַבְטִילָאוֹת = districts or counties, administrative regions
• חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ = outside Eretz Yisrael

Segment 7

TYPE: קושיא (המשך)

The boundary of Eretz Yisrael is like a place with a bridge, yet the flocks do not combine

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְהָא חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ וָאָרֶץ כִּמְקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ גֶּשֶׁר דָּמֵי, וְקָתָנֵי: לֹא מִצְטָרְפִין!

English Translation:

The Gemara clarifies its objection: But the partition between outside of Eretz Yisrael and inside Eretz Yisrael is like a place that has a bridge, as the two areas are not necessarily separated by water. And yet the baraita teaches that they do not combine.

קלאוד על הדף:

The objection becomes clear. The line between Eretz Yisrael and the lands outside it is often just open ground with no river, so in practical terms it is like a place with a bridge. Yet the baraita rules that flocks on either side do not combine. So the division is legal, not physical, and Rabbi Ami’s account of Rabbi Meir, which depends on whether animals can cross, cannot be right.

Key Terms:

• כִּמְקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ גֶּשֶׁר דָּמֵי = it is like a place that has a bridge — nothing physically separates the two sides
• קָתָנֵי = and yet it teaches — the baraita rules otherwise

Segment 8

TYPE: מימרא

Rabbi Yochanan: Rabbi Meir’s source is Joshua 18:20, which makes the Jordan a border in itself

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַיְינוּ טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהַיַּרְדֵּן יִגְבֹּל אֹתוֹ לִפְאַת קֵדְמָה״, הַכָּתוּב עֲשָׂאוֹ גְּבוּל בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ.

English Translation:

Rather, the Gemara retracts its previous explanation. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir: As the verse states: “And the Jordan was to be its border on the east side. This was the inheritance of the children of Benjamin, by its borders round about, according to their families” (Joshua 18:20). Here, the verse renders the Jordan River as a border in and of itself.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara drops Rabbi Ami’s reason and offers a scriptural one. In the description of Binyamin’s territory the verse says that the Jordan shall border it on the east. Rabbi Yochanan reads this as making the Jordan a boundary in its own right. On this reading the division is a legal decree of Scripture, so a bridge would make no difference.

Key Terms:

• אֶלָּא = rather — the Gemara retracts an earlier explanation
• יִגְבֹּל אֹתוֹ = shall border it
• גְּבוּל בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ = a boundary in its own right, a legal division and not merely a physical one

Segment 9

TYPE: קושיא

If so, every tribal boundary in Joshua should divide flocks too

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, ״וְתָאַר הַגְּבוּל״ ״וְעָלָה הַגְּבוּל״, הָכִי נָמֵי הַכָּתוּב עֲשָׂאוֹ גְּבוּל בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ!

English Translation:

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But if that is so, should one say that the demarcation of the land allotted to each tribe has the status of a border? Consider the verse: “And the border was drawn and turned about on the west side southward, from the mountain that lies before Beit Horon southward; and its goings out were at Kiriath Ba’al, which is Kiriath Jearim, a city of the children of Judah; this was the west side” (Joshua 18:14). And consider the verse: “And the border went up to the side of Jericho on the north, and went up through the hill country westward; and its goings out were at the wilderness of Beit Aven” (Joshua 18:12). Here also, the verse apparently renders each of these places a border by itself. If so, flocks on either side should not combine for purposes of tithing.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara presses Rabbi Yochanan. The book of Joshua describes every tribal border with similar words: ‘and the border was drawn’, ‘and the border went up’. If the Jordan becomes a legal boundary because a verse calls it a border, then every tribal line should also divide flocks for the tithe. That would split Eretz Yisrael into many separate zones, which no one holds.

Key Terms:

• וְתָאַר הַגְּבוּל = and the border was drawn (Joshua 18:14)
• וְעָלָה הַגְּבוּל = and the border went up (Joshua 18:12)
• אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה = but if that is so — introduces a reductio ad absurdum

Segment 10

TYPE: תירוץ

Numbers 34:12 makes all of Eretz Yisrael one border, so the tribal lines do not divide

Hebrew/Aramaic:

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״זֹאת תִּהְיֶה לָכֶם הָאָרֶץ לִגְבֻלֹתֶיהָ סָבִיב״, כּוּלַּהּ אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל גְּבוּל אֶחָד הִיא.

English Translation:

The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the demarcation of each inheritance, it is different, as the verse states: “And the border shall go down to the Jordan, and its goings out shall be at the Dead Sea; this shall be your land according to its borders round about” (Numbers 34:12). This teaches that all of Eretz Yisrael is considered to be within one border, notwithstanding the demarcations of each inheritance within.

קלאוד על הדף:

The answer comes from the verse that closes the Torah’s description of the land: ‘this shall be your land according to its borders round about’. The whole land is described as one bounded unit. The tribal lines inside it are real for inheritance, but for animal tithe the land is a single border, so flocks on either side of a tribal line combine.

Key Terms:

• לִגְבֻלֹתֶיהָ סָבִיב = according to its borders round about
• גְּבוּל אֶחָד = a single border — all Eretz Yisrael counts as one region
• שָׁאנֵי הָתָם = there it is different

Segment 11

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ

Why not the Jordan too? The verse says ‘land’, and the Jordan is not land

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אִי הָכִי, יַרְדֵּן נָמֵי! ״אֶרֶץ״ — וְלֹא יַרְדֵּן.

English Translation:

The Gemara raises a further difficulty: If so, the Jordan River also should not be considered a border with regard to animal tithes. The Gemara explains that the verse states: “This shall be your land,” which is referring to those parts of land that are connected, but not to areas separated by the Jordan River, which is not land but water.

קלאוד על הדף:

If the whole land is one border, the Jordan should be included in it as well. The Gemara answers with a precise reading: the verse says ‘this shall be your land’, and the Jordan is a river, not land. The unifying verse covers only the dry ground, so the Jordan keeps the separate status that Joshua 18:20 gave it.

Key Terms:

• אִי הָכִי = if so
• אֶרֶץ — וְלֹא יַרְדֵּן = ‘land’ and not the Jordan — the river is excluded from the unifying verse

Segment 12

TYPE: קושיא

On Rabbi Ami’s view, why mention the Jordan rather than all rivers? Left difficult

Hebrew/Aramaic:

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא — הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי ״יַרְדֵּן״, אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי אַמֵּי — לִיתְנִינְהוּ לְכוּלְּהוּ נְהָרוֹת! קַשְׁיָא.

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, who maintains that the ruling of Rabbi Meir is a Torah edict, this is the reason that the tanna teaches: The Jordan River divides between animals on two sides of the river with regard to animal tithe. But according to Rabbi Ami, who holds that the Jordan River serves as a partition because the animals are unable to cross from one side to the other, let Rabbi Meir teach his principle with regard to all rivers that cannot be crossed. They should all divide flocks with regard to animal tithe. The Gemara comments: This is difficult.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara compares the two explanations. On Rabbi Yochanan’s view the Jordan is singled out because a verse makes it a border. But if Rabbi Ami is right that the reason is the physical barrier, Rabbi Meir should have spoken of all rivers that cannot be crossed. The Gemara has no answer and ends with קשיא, a difficulty that weakens Rabbi Ami’s position without formally rejecting it.

Key Terms:

• בִּשְׁלָמָא = granted — this view is understandable
• לִיתְנִינְהוּ לְכוּלְּהוּ נְהָרוֹת = let him teach it of all rivers
• קַשְׁיָא = it is difficult — a question left unanswered, softer than a refutation

Segment 13

TYPE: ברייתא (לימא כתנאי)

Is this a tannaitic dispute? Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira: the Jordan is not part of the land of Canaan

Hebrew/Aramaic:

לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי: ״כִּי אַתֶּם עֹבְרִים אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן אַרְצָה כְּנָעַן״, ״אַרְצָה״ — אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן, וְלֹא הַיַּרְדֵּן אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָה.

English Translation:

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the question of whether or not the Jordan River is part of Eretz Yisrael is the subject of a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: When you pass over the Jordan into the land of Canaan” (Numbers 35:10). The term “into the land” indicates that the land of Canaan is considered part of Eretz Yisrael, but the Jordan River itself is not considered part of the land of Canaan; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara asks whether the status of the Jordan itself is already a dispute between tannaim. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira reads ‘when you pass over the Jordan into the land of Canaan’ to mean that only after crossing does one enter the land of Canaan. The river itself is outside it. This fits the reading that excluded the Jordan from ‘your land’, and so the view that the Jordan divides flocks.

Key Terms:

• לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי = let us say it is a dispute of tannaim
• אַרְצָה כְּנָעַן = into the land of Canaan — the destination begins after the crossing
• רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָה = a tanna who lived in Netzivin

Segment 14

TYPE: ברייתא

Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai: just as Jericho is the land of Canaan, so is the Jordan

Hebrew/Aramaic:

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״מֵעֵבֶר לְיַרְדֵּן יְרֵחוֹ קֵדְמָה מִזְרָחָה״, מָה יְרֵחוֹ אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן, אַף יַרְדֵּן אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן.

English Translation:

Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: The verse states with regard to the portions of the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half of Manasseh: “The two tribes and the half tribe have received their inheritance beyond the Jordan at Jericho eastward, toward the sunrise” (Numbers 34:15). Just as Jericho is part of the land of Canaan, so too, the Jordan River is part of the land of Canaan.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai disagrees. The verse says the two and a half tribes took their portion ‘beyond the Jordan at Jericho’. He reads the Jordan and Jericho as one unit, and Jericho is surely part of the land of Canaan, so the Jordan is too. On his view the river is part of the land, and the verse ‘this shall be your land’ would include it. The Gemara leaves the suggestion that Rabbi Meir follows Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira standing and moves on.

Key Terms:

• יַרְדֵּן יְרֵחוֹ = the Jordan at Jericho — read as one unit
• מָה … אַף = just as … so too — the form of a comparison
• רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי = Rashbi, a leading disciple of Rabbi Akiva

Segment 15

TYPE: מימרא ושקלא וטריא

Rabbi Yochanan: the Jordan is called Jordan only from Beit Jericho down; this matters for animal tithe, not vows

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין ״יַרְדֵּן״ אֶלָּא מִבֵּית יְרֵחוֹ וּלְמַטָּה. לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אִילֵּימָא לְנוֹדֵר — הַלֵּךְ אַחַר לְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם, וְכֹל הֵיכָא דְּקָרוּ לֵיהּ ״יַרְדֵּן״ אִיתְּסַר לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא לְמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה.

English Translation:

§ Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The river is called Jordan only from Beit Jericho and below, i.e., to the south. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this statement relevant? If we say it is relevant for one who takes a vow, e.g., that water from the Jordan River is forbidden to him, this cannot be so, as there is a principle with regard to vows that one must follow the ordinary language of people. The meaning of a vow is interpreted in accordance with the manner in which the words are used in common speech. And therefore, anywhere that most people call the river by the name Jordan, it is prohibited for him to drink from it, regardless of whether it is north or south of Beit Jericho. Rather, the Gemara explains that Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement is relevant for animal tithe.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rabbi Yochanan limits the name ‘Jordan’ to the stretch south of Beit Jericho. The Gemara asks what difference this makes. It cannot be for vows, because a vow follows ordinary speech, and if people call the whole river the Jordan, a vow against Jordan water covers all of it. So the definition must be for animal tithe. Rabbi Meir’s Torah boundary is only the Jordan of the verse, south of Jericho, and higher up the river does not divide flocks.

Key Terms:

• לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא = for what halacha — what practical difference does it make
• נוֹדֵר = one who takes a vow
• הַלֵּךְ אַחַר לְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם = follow the language of people — vows are read by common usage
• בֵּית יְרֵחוֹ = Beit Jericho, the point from which the river is legally called Jordan

Segment 16

TYPE: ברייתא (תניא נמי הכי)

A baraita traces the river from the Cave of Pamyas to the Great Sea, and confirms: Jordan only from Beit Jericho down

Hebrew/Aramaic:

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: יַרְדֵּן יוֹצֵא מִמְּעָרַת פַּמְיָיס, וּמְהַלֵּךְ בְּיַמָּהּ שֶׁל סִיבְכִי, וּבְיַמָּהּ שֶׁל טְבֶרְיָא, וּבְיַמָּהּ שֶׁל סְדוֹם, וְהוֹלֵךְ וְנוֹפֵל לַיָּם הַגָּדוֹל, וְאֵין ״יַרְדֵּן״ אֶלָּא מִבֵּית יְרִיחוֹ וּלְמַטָּה.

English Translation:

According to the opinion of Rabbi Meir the Jordan River acts as a partition only south of Beit Jericho, but north of that point it is not a partition. The Gemara notes: That is also taught in a baraita: The Jordan River issues forth from the Cave of Pamyas and flows via the Sea of Sivkhi, i.e., Lake Hula, and via the Sea of Tiberias, i.e., the Sea of Galilee, and via the Sea of Sodom, i.e., the Dead Sea, and continues and falls down to the Great Sea. But it is called Jordan only from Beit Jericho and below, i.e., to the south.

קלאוד על הדף:

A baraita supports Rabbi Yochanan. It traces the whole course of the river: out of the Cave of Pamyas, through the lake of Sivkhi (the Hula), the Sea of Tiberias and the Sea of Sodom, and on to the Great Sea. Yet the name Jordan is still reserved for the part south of Beit Jericho. The baraita shows that the water is one river from end to end, while the legal name covers only one stretch.

Key Terms:

• מְעָרַת פַּמְיָיס = the Cave of Pamyas (Banias), at the foot of Mount Hermon
• יַמָּהּ שֶׁל סִיבְכִי = the lake of Sivkhi, identified as the Hula
• יַמָּהּ שֶׁל סְדוֹם = the Sea of Sodom, the Dead Sea
• תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי = it is also taught so in a baraita — a supporting source

Segment 17

TYPE: מימרא ודרשה

Yarden = yored mi-Dan; Rabbi Abba derives it from Joshua 19:47, Leshem is Dan, and Leshem is Pamyas

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ ״יַרְדֵּן״? שֶׁיּוֹרֵד מִדָּן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אַתּוּן מֵהָתָם מַתְנִיתוּ לַהּ, אֲנַן מֵהָכָא מַתְנֵינַן לַהּ, ״וַיִּקְרְאוּ (לוֹ) לְלֶשֶׁם דָּן בְּשֵׁם דָּן אֲבִיהֶם״. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: לֶשֶׁם זוֹ פַּמְיָיס, וְתַנְיָא: יוֹצֵא יַרְדֵּן מִמְּעָרַת פַּמְיָיס.

English Translation:

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Why is the river called Jordan? Because it descends [yored] from the city of Dan. Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi: You learned that the Jordan River emerges from the territory of Dan from there, i.e., from its name. We learn it from here: “And the border of the children of Dan went out from them; and the children of Dan went up and fought against Leshem, and took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and possessed it, and dwelt there, and called Leshem: Dan, after the name of Dan their father” (Joshua 19:47). And Rabbi Yitzḥak says that this Leshem is a city that was known in the talmudic period as Pamyas. And it is taught in a baraita that the Jordan River emerges from the Cave of Pamyas.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rabbi Yochanan explains the name: Yarden, because it goes down (yored) from Dan. Rabbi Abba tells Rav Ashi that he learns the same point from a verse. Joshua 19:47 says the tribe of Dan conquered Leshem and renamed it Dan. Rabbi Yitzchak identifies Leshem with Pamyas, and the baraita says the Jordan rises in the Cave of Pamyas. So the river really does go down from Dan.

Key Terms:

• יוֹרֵד מִדָּן = going down from Dan — the meaning of the name Yarden
• לֶשֶׁם = Leshem, the northern city the tribe of Dan conquered and renamed Dan
• אַתּוּן מֵהָתָם … אֲנַן מֵהָכָא = you learn it from there, we learn it from here — two sources for one fact

Segment 18

TYPE: מימרא

Rav Kahana: the source of the Jordan is the Cave of Pamyas, so a vow against its water forbids the whole Jordan

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: זַכְרוּתֵיהּ דְּיַרְדְּנָא מִמְּעָרַת פַּמְיָיס, הֵיכָא דְּאָמַר: ״לָא שָׁתֵינָא מַיִם מִמְּעָרַת פַּמְיָיס״ — אִיתְּסַר לֵיהּ בְּכוּלֵּיהּ יַרְדְּנָא.

English Translation:

Rav Kahana says: The source of the Jordan River is from the Cave of Pamyas. Therefore, in a case where one says: I will not drink water from the Cave of Pamyas, it is prohibited for him to drink water from the entire Jordan River.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Kahana opens a series of three teachings about sources. The source of the Jordan is the Cave of Pamyas. The halachic result is that one who vows not to drink water from the Cave of Pamyas is forbidden the water of the whole Jordan. The water at Pamyas flows on through the entire river, so the vow covers all of it.

Key Terms:

• זַכְרוּתֵיהּ = its source — literally its ‘male’ or principal origin
• לָא שָׁתֵינָא = I will not drink — the wording of a vow

Segment 19

TYPE: מימרא

The source of blood is the liver; a dissolved liver of a corpse defiles in the volume of a revi’it

Hebrew/Aramaic:

זַכְרוּתָא דִּדְמָא — כַּבְדָּא, כִּדְרַבִּי יִצְחָק, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: כָּבֵד שֶׁנִּימּוֹחַ — מְטַמֵּא בִּרְבִיעִית.

English Translation:

Rav Kahana also states: The source of blood is the liver. The halakhic ramification of this observation is in accordance with a statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak, as Rabbi Yitzḥak says: A liver that dissolved, i.e., a decomposed liver from a corpse, imparts ritual impurity if it has the volume of a quarter-log, which is the minimum amount of blood that imparts ritual impurity.

קלאוד על הדף:

The second of Rav Kahana’s sources: the liver is the source of the blood. The practical result follows Rabbi Yitzchak. If a corpse’s liver dissolves into liquid, it defiles in the measure of a revi’it, the amount at which the blood of a corpse defiles. The liver is treated as blood because it is the source of blood.

Key Terms:

• כַּבְדָּא = the liver
• נִימּוֹחַ = dissolved, decomposed into liquid
• רְבִיעִית = a quarter-log, the minimum volume of a corpse’s blood that imparts tumah

Segment 20

TYPE: מימרא

The source of all water is the Euphrates; Rav: one who vows off its water is forbidden all water in the world

Hebrew/Aramaic:

זַכְרוּתָא דְּמַיָּא — פְּרָת, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הַנּוֹדֵר מִמֵּימֵי פְּרָת — אָסוּר בְּכׇל מֵימוֹת שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם.

English Translation:

Rav Kahana also states: The source of all the water in the world is the Euphrates River. The halakhic ramification of this is in accordance with a statement of Rav Yehuda, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to one who takes a vow rendering the waters of the Euphrates River forbidden to him, it is prohibited for him to drink from any water in the world.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Kahana’s third source is the Euphrates, which he calls the source of all water. Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav gives the halachic result: one who vows not to drink the waters of the Euphrates is forbidden every water in the world. This is surprising, since vows follow ordinary speech, and the Gemara will now explain the case.

Key Terms:

• זַכְרוּתָא דְּמַיָּא = the source of water
• פְּרָת = the Euphrates
• הַנּוֹדֵר מִמֵּימֵי פְּרָת = one who vows not to drink the waters of the Euphrates

Segment 21

TYPE: קושיא

What case? If he said ‘Euphrates water’, he means only that river

Hebrew/Aramaic:

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵימָא דְּאָמַר ״לָא שָׁתֵינָא מִמֵּימֵי דִּפְרָת״ — מֵי פְרָת הוּא דְּלָא שָׁתֵינָא, הָא מִנַּהֲרָא אַחֲרִינָא שָׁתֵינָא.

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which it is prohibited to drink from any water in the world? If we say this is a case where he says: I will not drink from the water of the Euphrates River, it is only the waters of the Euphrates River that he may not drink, whereas he may drink water from another river, since one follows the ordinary language of people.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara asks how Rav’s ruling can stand. If the vow was ‘I will not drink of the waters of the Euphrates’, ordinary speech limits it to that river, and other rivers stay permitted. This is the same principle used for the Jordan above. So Rav must mean a different wording.

Key Terms:

• הֵיכִי דָמֵי = what are the circumstances
• מִנַּהֲרָא אַחֲרִינָא = from another river
• לְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם = common usage, which defines the scope of a vow

Segment 22

TYPE: תירוץ וקושיא

He vowed off ‘water that comes from the Euphrates’; all rivers flow from three rivers, and those from the Euphrates. But what of…

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֶלָּא, דְּאָמַר: ״לָא שָׁתֵינָא מִמַּיִם דְּאָתוּ מִפְּרָת״, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כׇּל הַנְּהָרוֹת לְמַטָּה מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה נְהָרוֹת, וּשְׁלֹשָׁה נְהָרוֹת לְמַטָּה מִפְּרָת. וְהָאִיכָּא

English Translation:

Rather, it is referring to a case where he says: I will not drink from any water that comes from the Euphrates River. It is prohibited for him to drink any water at all, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: All the rivers are below, i.e., they receive their waters from, three rivers: The Pishon, the Gihon, and the Tigris (see Genesis 2:11–14). And these three rivers are below and receive their waters from the Euphrates River. The Gemara asks: But there are

קלאוד על הדף:

The answer is that he vowed off water that comes from the Euphrates. On that wording his vow covers all water, because Rav teaches that all rivers receive their water from three rivers, the Pishon, Gichon and Chidekel, and those three come from the Euphrates. The Gemara begins a challenge, ‘But there are…’, and the sentence continues on 55b.

Key Terms:

• דְּאָתוּ מִפְּרָת = that come from the Euphrates — a vow defined by source, not by name
• שְׁלֹשָׁה נְהָרוֹת = the three rivers of Eden besides the Euphrates: Pishon, Gichon and Chidekel (Genesis 2:11-14)
• וְהָאִיכָּא = but there are — a challenge, completed on 55b

Amud Bet (55b)

Segment 1

TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ (המשך מדף נה.)

But there are springs higher than the Euphrates! Rav Mesharshiya: they are ‘ladders’ of the Euphrates

Hebrew/Aramaic:

עֵינָתָא דְּמִידַּלְּיָין! אָמַר רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: הָנְהוּ סוּלָּמֵי דִּפְרָת נִינְהוּ.

English Translation:

springs that are higher in the mountains than the Euphrates; how can their water come from the Euphrates? Rav Mesharshiyya said: These are ladders of the Euphrates, i.e., the waters of the Euphrates seep through the ground and are drawn upward to emerge from these springs.

קלאוד על הדף:

The challenge from 55a ends here. Some springs rise in the mountains, higher than the Euphrates, and water does not flow uphill. Rav Mesharshiya answers that these springs are ‘ladders’ of the Euphrates. Its water seeps through the ground and rises up to them. So even mountain springs count as ‘water that comes from the Euphrates’, and the vow covers them.

Key Terms:

• עֵינָתָא דְּמִידַּלְּיָין = springs that are high up
• סוּלָּמֵי דִּפְרָת = ladders of the Euphrates — channels by which its water rises underground

Segment 2

TYPE: קושיא

But Genesis 2:14 lists the Euphrates as the fourth river, not the source

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״וְהַנָּהָר הָרְבִיעִי הוּא פְרָת״!

English Translation:

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it was separated, and became four heads…And the name of the third river is Tigris; that is the one that goes toward the east of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates” (Genesis 2:10, 14)? This indicates that the Euphrates, which is mentioned last, is the least of the four rivers, not the source of the other three.

קלאוד על הדף:

A second challenge comes from the account of Eden. A river went out from Eden and split into four heads, and the Euphrates is named last. If it were the source of the other rivers, why would it come fourth? The list seems to make it the least of the four, not their origin.

Key Terms:

• הַנָּהָר הָרְבִיעִי = the fourth river
• וְהָא כְּתִיב = but it is written — a challenge from a verse

Segment 3

TYPE: תירוץ

It is the original Euphrates, the river that went out of Eden

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: הוּא פְּרָת דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא.

English Translation:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said, and some say it was Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov who said: It is the Euphrates that the verse mentions initially as the river that went out of Eden, which divided into all the other rivers. After the other three branched out from it, the Euphrates continued to flow.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, or Rav Acha bar Yaakov, answers that the ‘fourth river’ is the same Euphrates that left Eden at first. Three rivers branched off from it, and what was left kept flowing as the Euphrates. Named last, it is still the trunk from which the others split. This saves Rav’s claim that all water traces back to the Euphrates.

Key Terms:

• הוּא פְּרָת דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא = it is the original Euphrates
• וְאִיתֵּימָא = and some say — the teaching is attributed to another amora

Segment 4

TYPE: ברייתא

Rabbi Meir: its name is Yuval (Jeremiah 17:8); it is called Perat because its waters are fruitful and multiply

Hebrew/Aramaic:

תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: ״יוּבַל״ שְׁמוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָיָה כְּעֵץ שָׁתוּל עַל מַיִם וְעַל יוּבַל יְשַׁלַּח שׇׁרָשָׁיו״, וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ ״פְּרָת״? שֶׁמֵּימָיו פָּרִים וְרָבִים.

English Translation:

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir says: Yuval is the name of the Euphrates River where it emerges from Eden, as it is stated: “For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreads out its roots by the river [yuval], and shall not see when heat comes, but its foliage shall be luxuriant; and shall not be anxious in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit” (Jeremiah 17:8). And why is it named Euphrates [perat]? Because its waters are fruitful [parim] and multiply without the need for rainfall.

קלאוד על הדף:

A baraita gives Rabbi Meir’s teaching on the river’s names. Its name is Yuval, as in Yirmiyahu’s image of a tree that sends its roots out by the yuval and does not fear drought. It is called Perat because its waters are fruitful (parim) and multiply on their own. The first name suggests a river that flows steadily, and the second a river whose water increases without rain.

Key Terms:

• יוּבַל = Yuval — a stream or watercourse, here a name of the Euphrates
• פָּרִים וְרָבִים = fruitful and multiplying — the source of the name Perat

Segment 5

TYPE: מימרא (מחלוקת)

This supports Shmuel: the river grows from its own bed; it disagrees with Rav: the Euphrates witnesses the rain in Eretz Yisrael

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: נַהְרָא מִכֵּיפֵיהּ מִיבְּרִיךְ. וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַב, דְּאָמַר רַב אַמֵּי אָמַר רַב: מִיטְרָא בְּמַעְרְבָא סָהֲדָא רַבָּה פְּרָת.

English Translation:

The Gemara adds that this supports the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel says: The river is blessed from its riverbed; the additional water in the river is not from rainfall but rather from subterranean sources. And this statement disagrees with the opinion of Rav, as Rav Ami says that Rav says: When rain falls in the West, Eretz Yisrael, the great witness attesting to that fact is the Euphrates, as the water flow in the Euphrates increases after the rainy season.

קלאוד על הדף:

Rabbi Meir’s explanation of the name supports Shmuel, who said that a river is blessed from its own bed. Its extra water comes from underground, not from rain. It disagrees with Rav, who said that the Euphrates is the great witness to rain in the West. When it rains in Eretz Yisrael, the Euphrates rises. The question, rain or springs, will matter for immersion in the next segments.

Key Terms:

• נַהְרָא מִכֵּיפֵיהּ מִיבְּרִיךְ = the river is blessed from its own bed
• מַעְרְבָא = the West — Eretz Yisrael, as seen from Bavel
• סָהֲדָא רַבָּה = a great witness
• מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ … וּפְלִיגָא = it supports … and it disagrees

Segment 6

TYPE: מעשה

Shmuel’s father made a mikveh for his daughters in Nisan, because like Rav he feared rainwater would be the majority

Hebrew/Aramaic:

אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל עָבֵיד לְהוּ לִבְנָאתֵיהּ מִקְוֶה בְּיוֹמֵי נִיסָן, וּמַפָּצֵי בְּיוֹמֵי תִשְׁרֵי. מִקְוֶה בְּיוֹמֵי נִיסָן — סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַב, דְּאָמַר רַב אַמֵּי אָמַר רַב: מִיטְרָא בְּמַעְרְבָא סָהֲדָא רַבָּה פְּרָת, שֶׁמָּא יִרְבּוּ נוֹטְפִין עַל הַזּוֹחֲלִין, וְהָווּ לְהוּ מֵי גְשָׁמִים רוּבָּא.

English Translation:

The Gemara relates that Shmuel’s father fashioned a ritual bath for his daughters during the days of Nisan, and placed mats in the Euphrates River during the days of Tishrei when his daughters immersed in the river. He fashioned a ritual bath during the days of Nisan, because he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav, as Rav Ami says that Rav says: When rain falls in the West, the great witness attesting to that fact is the Euphrates. Shmuel’s father was concerned that perhaps the rainwater and snow water that fell and accumulated in the river would exceed the amount of naturally flowing spring water that originated in the river’s sources, and the flowing rainwater would be the majority. Rainwater purifies only when it is collected; it does not purify when it is flowing. Therefore, Shmuel’s father fashioned ritual baths of standing water for his daughters.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara tells how Shmuel’s father acted. In Nisan he built his daughters a mikveh of standing water. In Tishrei he set mats in the Euphrates so they could immerse in the river. In Nisan he followed Rav: after the rainy season, rainwater may make up most of the river. Spring water purifies even when flowing, but rainwater purifies only when gathered in one place, so a river that is mostly rain cannot be used.

Key Terms:

• מִקְוֶה = a ritual bath of gathered water
• מַפָּצֵי = mats
• נוֹטְפִין = drippings — rainwater and melting snow
• זוֹחֲלִין = flowing water — here the river’s own spring-fed flow

Segment 7

TYPE: מעשה (המשך)

In Tishrei he placed mats, since the river was then its own water and could purify while flowing

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וּמַפָּצֵי בְּיוֹמֵי תִשְׁרֵי.

English Translation:

And he placed mats during the days of Tishrei, when his daughters immersed in the river itself, to give them privacy. During Tishrei the waters of the Euphrates do not come from rainwater; rather, the waters are from the river itself, and therefore immersion is valid even when that water is flowing.

קלאוד על הדף:

The second half of the story. By Tishrei the dry summer has passed and the rains have not yet begun, so the Euphrates carries only its own water. Its flow comes from springs, and spring water purifies even when flowing. So his daughters could immerse in the river itself. The mats were set up to give them privacy.

Key Terms:

• יוֹמֵי תִשְׁרֵי = the days of Tishrei, at the end of the dry season
• מַפָּצֵי = mats placed in or by the river for the immersion

Segment 8

TYPE: מימרא (סתירה)

Shmuel contradicts himself: waters purify when flowing only in the Euphrates in Tishrei

Hebrew/Aramaic:

וּפְלִיגָא דִּידֵיהּ אַדִּידֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵין הַמַּיִם נִטְהָרִים בְּזוֹחֲלִין אֶלָּא פְּרָת בְּיוֹמֵי תִשְׁרֵי.

English Translation:

The Gemara notes: And this statement of Shmuel’s, that the additional water in the Euphrates is not from rainfall but from subterranean sources, disagrees with another ruling that he himself issued. As Shmuel says: Waters purify when flowing, i.e., when they are not collected into a ritual bath, only in the Euphrates during the days of Tishrei. Since rain does not fall in the summer, only after the summer, in Tishrei, is it clear that the water one is immersing in is in fact river water.

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara notes that Shmuel’s statement that the river grows from its own bed conflicts with another ruling of his. He also taught that flowing water purifies only in the Euphrates in Tishrei. That ruling assumes that at other times rainwater swells the river, which is Rav’s view. The Gemara records the contradiction without resolving it.

Key Terms:

• פְּלִיגָא דִּידֵיהּ אַדִּידֵיהּ = his own statement disagrees with his own — a contradiction between two rulings of one amora
• נִטְהָרִים בְּזוֹחֲלִין = purify when flowing

Segment 9

TYPE: משנה

One who buys an animal or receives it as a gift is exempt from animal tithe

Hebrew/Aramaic:

מַתְנִי׳ הַלּוֹקֵחַ, אוֹ שֶׁנִּיתַּן לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה — פָּטוּר מִמַּעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה.

English Translation:

MISHNA: One who purchases an animal or has an animal that was given to him as a gift is exempt from separating animal tithe.

קלאוד על הדף:

A new mishna opens a new topic: which animals are subject to the tithe at all. Animals bought, or received as a gift, are exempt. The obligation falls only on animals born in one’s own flock. The Gemara will look for the source of this rule, and later mishnayot discuss how far it goes, for brothers and partners.

Key Terms:

• הַלּוֹקֵחַ = one who buys
• מַתָּנָה = a gift
• מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה = animal tithe — every tenth animal born in the year, brought as an offering

Segment 10

TYPE: גמרא

Source: Rav Kahana cites Exodus 22:28-29, ‘the firstborn of your sons… so shall you do with your oxen and your sheep’

Hebrew/Aramaic:

גְּמָ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״בְּכוֹר בָּנֶיךָ תִּתֶּן לִּי כֵּן תַּעֲשֶׂה לְשֹׁרְךָ לְצֹאנֶךָ״,

English Translation:

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rav Kahana says that the verse states: “You shall not delay to offer of the fullness of your harvest, and of the outflow of your presses. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me. So you shall do with your oxen, and with your sheep: Seven days it shall be with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to Me” (Exodus 22:28–29).

קלאוד על הדף:

The Gemara asks for the source of the exemption. Rav Kahana points to the verse that sets the firstborn son beside the animals: ‘The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me; so shall you do with your oxen and your sheep.’ On 56a the Gemara explains the comparison. Just as a son one bought or received as a gift does not need redemption, so animals bought or received as gifts are not tithed. It will also explain why the second half of the verse refers to tithe.

Key Terms:

• מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי = from where are these matters derived
• בְּכוֹר בָּנֶיךָ = the firstborn of your sons
• כֵּן תַּעֲשֶׂה = so shall you do — linking the animals to the firstborn son

📝 Summary

Overview

Bechorot 55 lies in Perek 9, מעשר בהמה (Ma’aser Behema), the last perek of the masechet. It continues the mishna of 54b on which animals combine into one flock for the animal tithe. The daf opens with a baraita that seems to refute Rav, who required five animals in the middle of a thirty-two mil gap. Shmuel, Rav’s own disputant, reads the baraita so that it fits Rav. Rav Pappa and Rav Ashi then test how far Shmuel’s view goes: the shepherd, his implements and his dog. The Gemara turns to Rabbi Meir’s rule that the Jordan divides flocks. Rabbi Ami explains it as a physical barrier that a bridge removes, but a baraita on the border of Eretz Yisrael forces a scriptural reason instead. Rabbi Yochanan grounds it in Joshua 18:20, and Numbers 34:12 explains why tribal borders do not divide while the Jordan does. This leads into a tannaitic debate on whether the Jordan is part of the land of Canaan, and into the river’s name, course and source at the Cave of Pamyas. Three teachings of Rav Kahana on “sources” follow: the Jordan, the blood and all the world’s water. They bring the Gemara to vows, the four rivers of Eden, the names Yuval and Perat, and whether the Euphrates rises from rain or from its own bed. That question decides how Shmuel’s father arranged his daughters’ immersion. Amud bet ends with a new mishna: animals that one bought or received as a gift are exempt from the tithe. Rav Kahana’s source is the verse that places the firstborn son beside oxen and sheep.

Amud Aleph Highlights

• A refutation of Rav? A baraita rules that five sheep in Kfar Chananya and five in Otnai, thirty-two mil apart, do not combine unless he has one animal between them in Tzippori. One middle animal seems enough, which looks like a conclusive refutation (תיובתא) of Rav, who required five.
• Shmuel rescues Rav: Shmuel explains that the baraita speaks of nine sheep on each side and one in the middle. The single middle animal can then complete ten with either side, which is Rav’s own logic. The dispute stays open.
• Rav Pappa: on Shmuel’s view, the animal in the middle is not essential. The shepherd standing there combines the flocks, and even his implements left there are enough, since he must come back for them.
• Rav Ashi’s dog: does the shepherd’s dog in the middle combine the flocks? He can call it, so he need not go there. Yet a dog does not always come, and then he must fetch it. The question stays unresolved (תיקו).
• Rabbi Meir and the bridge: the mishna’s last clause rules that the Jordan divides flocks for the tithe. Rabbi Ami limits this to a place with no bridge, since a bridge joins the two banks.
• The objection from the border: a baraita rules that flocks on both banks of the Jordan, flocks in two districts such as Namer and Namori, and certainly flocks inside and outside Eretz Yisrael do not combine. The border of the land is often open ground, like a place with a bridge, yet the flocks do not combine. So the division is legal, not physical.
• Rabbi Yochanan’s source: in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba gives the reason. “And the Jordan shall border it on the east side” (Joshua 18:20) makes the Jordan a boundary in its own right.
• Tribal borders: the Gemara asks why every tribal border in Joshua (18:12, 18:14) should not divide flocks too. It answers from “this shall be your land according to its borders round about” (Numbers 34:12), which makes the whole land one border. The Jordan is excluded from that verse because it is water, not “land”.
• Against Rabbi Ami: on Rabbi Yochanan’s view, Rabbi Meir names the Jordan because Scripture does. If Rabbi Ami’s physical reason were right, Rabbi Meir should have spoken of every river that cannot be crossed. The Gemara leaves this as a difficulty (קשיא).
• A tannaitic dispute: Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira reads “when you pass over the Jordan into the land of Canaan” (Numbers 35:10) to place the Jordan outside the land of Canaan. Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai reads “beyond the Jordan at Jericho” (Numbers 34:15) to mean that the Jordan, like Jericho, is part of it.
• Where the Jordan begins: Rabba bar bar Chana, in Rabbi Yochanan’s name, teaches that the river is called Jordan only from Beit Jericho southward. This cannot matter for vows, which follow ordinary speech, so it matters for the tithe. A baraita traces the river from the Cave of Pamyas through the Sea of Sivkhi, the Sea of Tiberias and the Sea of Sodom to the Great Sea, and confirms the name.
• Yarden from Dan: Rabbi Yochanan explains that the name means it goes down (yored) from Dan. Rabbi Abba derives the same from Joshua 19:47, where Leshem is renamed Dan, and Rabbi Yitzchak identifies Leshem as Pamyas.
• Rav Kahana’s three sources: the source of the Jordan is the Cave of Pamyas, so a vow against Pamyas water forbids the whole Jordan. The source of blood is the liver, so a corpse’s dissolved liver defiles in a revi’it, following Rabbi Yitzchak. The source of all water is the Euphrates, so, as Rav Yehuda reports in Rav’s name, one who vows off its water is forbidden all water.
• What vow? “Euphrates water” means only that river, by ordinary speech. Rav’s ruling must concern a vow against “water that comes from the Euphrates”. All rivers flow from the Pishon, Gichon and Chidekel, and those three come from the Euphrates. The Gemara begins a challenge that continues on 55b.

Amud Bet Highlights

• Springs above the river: some springs lie higher than the Euphrates. Rav Mesharshiya calls them “ladders” of the Euphrates, whose water seeps up through the ground to them.
• The fourth river: Genesis 2:14 lists the Euphrates last, as if it were the least of the four. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, or Rav Acha bar Yaakov, answers that it is the original river that went out of Eden. The other three branched off from it.
• Yuval and Perat: Rabbi Meir teaches that its name is Yuval, from “spreads out its roots by the yuval” (Jeremiah 17:8). It is called Perat because its waters are fruitful (parim) and multiply without rain.
• Rav and Shmuel: Rabbi Meir supports Shmuel, who said a river is blessed from its own bed. He disagrees with Rav, who called the Euphrates the great witness to rain in Eretz Yisrael.
• Shmuel’s father: in Nisan he built his daughters a mikveh of standing water, fearing with Rav that rainwater was then the majority of the river. Flowing rainwater does not purify. In Tishrei he set up mats in the Euphrates for privacy, since the river then carried only its own water, which purifies even when flowing.
• Shmuel against himself: Shmuel also ruled that flowing water purifies only in the Euphrates in Tishrei. That assumes rain swells the river at other times, which contradicts his statement that the river grows from its bed.
• The new mishna: one who buys an animal, or receives it as a gift, is exempt from animal tithe.
• The source: Rav Kahana cites Exodus 22:28-29: “The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me; so shall you do with your oxen and with your sheep.” The comparison is worked out on 56a.

Key Disputes

Conclusions

Shmuel’s reading of the Tzippori baraita saves Rav from refutation, so the dispute over how many animals must stand in the middle remains open. On Shmuel’s view the shepherd and his implements combine the flocks, while the dog remains תיקו. Rabbi Meir’s rule that the Jordan divides is best explained as a scriptural decree, following Rabbi Yochanan. The baraita on the border of Eretz Yisrael defeats Rabbi Ami’s physical reason, and his view is left with an unanswered קשיא. All of Eretz Yisrael is one border for the tithe, except the Jordan, which is water and not land. For the tithe, the Jordan is only the stretch south of Beit Jericho. Vows follow ordinary speech. A vow against Pamyas water forbids the whole Jordan, and a vow against “water that comes from the Euphrates” forbids all water. Shmuel’s two statements about the Euphrates contradict each other, and the Gemara does not resolve this. The daf ends by exempting bought and gifted animals from the tithe, a rule learned from the firstborn son. The Gemara completes that derivation on 56a.

Key Figures

Tannaim: Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai

Amoraim: Rav, Shmuel, Shmuel’s father, Rav Pappa, Rav Ashi, Rabbi Ami, Rabbi Yochanan, Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba, Rabba bar bar Chana, Rabbi Abba, Rabbi Yitzchak, Rav Kahana, Rav Yehuda, Rav Ami, Rav Mesharshiya, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, Rav Acha bar Yaakov

One-Line Takeaway

A flock is one flock as far as the shepherd’s reach and the Torah’s borders allow, and the Jordan divides because Scripture made it a border, not because animals cannot cross it.

🎯 ELI5 (Explain Like I’m 5)

The Big Picture 🖼️

Today’s daf is about counting sheep for מעשר בהמה (ma’aser behema, the “animal tithe”), where a farmer gives every tenth new animal to Hashem. We learn when two faraway flocks count as one flock, why the Jordan River splits them apart, and where the Jordan (and all the world’s water!) comes from. At the very end, a new mishna says that animals you buy or get as a gift don’t need to be tithed at all.

A Quick Reminder: Counting Sheep 🐑🔟

Once a year, the farmer’s new lambs and calves walk out through a narrow gate, one at a time. He counts, and every tenth animal is marked as holy and brought as an offering in the Beit HaMikdash.

But what if the farmer’s sheep are in different places? Do they all get counted together, or separately?

Yesterday’s mishna (54b) gave the answer. Animals count as one flock if they’re within sixteen mil of each other. (A mil is a little under a kilometer.) Why sixteen? Because the Sages had a tradition that a shepherd’s eye can watch his sheep up to that far. If two flocks are thirty-two mil apart, they’re too far, and they don’t join together. But if the farmer has some animals in the middle, the middle group can “glue” the two sides together.

Then Rav and Shmuel argued: how many animals do you need in the middle?

The Simple Idea 💡: Animals are one flock if one shepherd can watch them all, and Rav and Shmuel disagree about how many animals in the middle can join two faraway flocks.

One Sheep in Tzippori 🐑📍

Our daf starts with a challenge to Rav. A baraita (a teaching from the time of the Mishna that didn’t make it into the Mishna) says:

“If someone had five sheep in the village of Kfar Chananya and five in Kfar Otnai (thirty-two mil away), they don’t join together, unless he also has one sheep in between, in the city of Tzippori.”

Just one sheep in the middle! That sounds exactly like Shmuel. So the Gemara says: תיובתא דרב! (teyuvta d’Rav, “a knockout against Rav!”)

But wait! Who comes to rescue Rav? Shmuel himself, the very Rabbi who disagrees with him! Shmuel says: “Don’t read it as five on each side. Read it as nine on each side and one in the middle.”

• 9 sheep on the left + 1 in the middle = 10 ✅
• 9 sheep on the right + 1 in the middle = 10 ✅

The middle sheep can make ten with either side, which is exactly Rav’s reason! So the baraita doesn’t prove Rav wrong after all.

Think of it like… two teams that each have nine players, and one extra kid standing between them. Either team could call him over and have a full team of ten. That one kid “belongs” to both!

The Simple Idea 💡: The baraita about one sheep in Tzippori works for Rav too, if each side has nine and the one in the middle makes ten with either side.

The Shepherd and His Backpack 🎒🧑‍🌾

Rav Pappa now asks: if Shmuel is right, how far does his idea go?

Remember, for Shmuel the middle sheep only matters because it means the shepherd will be standing there, watching both sides. So Rav Pappa says:

• If the shepherd himself is in the middle with no sheep at all, the two flocks join! ✅
• Even if only the shepherd’s things are in the middle (his bag, his staff, his tools, called כליו של רועה, kelav shel ro’eh), the flocks join! ✅

Why the bag? Because he’ll have to walk back to the middle to get it. So it’s as if he’s already standing there.

Think of it like… a teacher on the playground who leaves her water bottle on a bench in the middle. She’s going to go back there soon, so she’s really “in charge” of the kids on both sides of that bench.

The Simple Idea 💡: For Shmuel, what joins the flocks is the shepherd’s presence, so even his bag in the middle is enough.

What About the Dog? 🐕❓

Rav Ashi asks a fun question: what if the shepherd’s dog is in the middle?

There are two ways to think about it:

1. 🗣️ No, it doesn’t count. The shepherd can just call the dog, and it comes running. He doesn’t need to walk over there, so the dog is not like his bag.
2. 🚶 Yes, it counts. Dogs don’t always come when they’re called! Sometimes the shepherd has to go and fetch it, just like his bag.

What’s the answer? The Gemara says: תיקו (teiku), meaning “the question stays open.” Nobody could decide!

Think of it like… calling your dog in from the yard. If he always comes, you stay put. But if he keeps sniffing the bushes… you have to go get him!

The Simple Idea 💡: A dog might come when called, or might not, so the Gemara couldn’t decide whether a dog in the middle joins the flocks.

The River That Splits the Flock 🌊🐑|🐑

Now the Gemara turns to the last line of yesterday’s mishna. Rabbi Meir said: the Jordan River divides the flocks. Sheep on the two sides of the Jordan don’t join together, even if they’re very close to each other!

Rabbi Ami explains Rabbi Meir’s reason: the river is in the way. The sheep (and the shepherd) can’t easily cross it. So, says Rabbi Ami, if there’s a bridge (גשר, gesher), the flocks do join!

But wait! The Gemara brings a baraita that says flocks don’t join in three cases:

1. 🌊 On two sides of the Jordan
2. 🗺️ In two different districts (like Namer and Namori), even with no river between them
3. 🏞️ One flock inside Eretz Yisrael and one outside it (“and that’s obvious!”)

Now here’s the problem. The line between Eretz Yisrael and outside is often just open ground. No river, no wall. It’s like a place with a bridge! Sheep can walk right across. And still, the baraita says the flocks don’t join.

So the reason can’t be “the sheep can’t get across.” The line must be a law line, not a wall line.

Think of it like… the line between two countries on a map. Sometimes there’s no fence at all, just grass, and you could walk right over. But it’s still a real border, because the rules change on the other side.

The Simple Idea 💡: Rabbi Ami said a bridge would join the two sides of the Jordan, but a baraita suggests the Jordan is a border because of the law, not because it’s hard to cross.

A Border Written in the Torah 📜🗺️

So what is Rabbi Meir’s reason? Rabbi Yochanan says it comes from a verse. When the book of Yehoshua describes the land of the tribe of Binyamin, it says “the Jordan shall border it on the east side” (Yehoshua 18:20). The verse makes the Jordan a border all by itself (גבול בפני עצמו, gevul bifnei atzmo).

But wait! The Gemara asks: Yehoshua describes every tribe’s border like that! “And the border was drawn…” (18:14), “And the border went up…” (18:12). If the word “border” makes the Jordan split flocks, then every tribe’s border should split flocks too! Eretz Yisrael would be chopped into lots of little pieces.

The answer: another verse (Bamidbar 34:12) sums up the whole land: “This shall be your land according to its borders round about.” That teaches that all of Eretz Yisrael is one big border. The tribe lines are real for knowing who owns what, but for the animal tithe, the whole land is one.

But wait again! Then shouldn’t the Jordan be part of that “one big border” too?

No! The verse says “this shall be your land,” and the Jordan isn’t land. It’s water! So the Jordan stays a separate border.

One more question, against Rabbi Ami: if the reason is “you can’t cross it,” why mention only the Jordan and not every river you can’t cross? The Gemara says קשיא (kashya, “that’s a hard question”) and leaves it unanswered.

Think of it like… a school with lots of classrooms (like the tribes), but it’s all one school. The swimming pool out back? That’s water, not building, so it has its own rules!

The Simple Idea 💡: The whole land of Israel counts as one area for the tithe, but the Jordan is water, not land, so the Torah makes it a border of its own.

Is the Jordan Part of the Land? 🤔🏞️

Is the Jordan River part of the land of Canaan or not? The Gemara wonders if two tannaim (Rabbis of the Mishna) already argued about this:

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira’s view fits what we just learned: the Jordan isn’t “land.”

Think of it like… asking whether the doorway is part of the room. You only enter after stepping through it, but it’s built into the room’s wall!

The Simple Idea 💡: Tannaim disagree whether the Jordan River itself counts as part of the land of Canaan.

Where Does the Jordan Start Being “the Jordan”? 📍🏞️

Rabbi Yochanan says something surprising: the river is only called “the Jordan” from Beit Jericho and south!

The Gemara asks: what difference does that make?

Maybe it matters for a vow (נדר, neder, a promise to Hashem that makes something forbidden to you)? For example, someone says, “I promise not to drink water from the Jordan!”

No! For vows there’s a rule: הלך אחר לשון בני אדם (halokh achar leshon bnei adam), “follow the way people talk.” If everyone calls the whole river “the Jordan,” then his vow covers the whole river, north and south.

So Rabbi Yochanan’s rule must be about the animal tithe. Rabbi Meir’s border is the Jordan of the verse, and that’s only the part south of Beit Jericho. Further north, the river doesn’t split the flocks.

A baraita agrees. It describes the river’s whole trip:

1. 🕳️ It starts in the Cave of Pamyas (at the foot of Mount Chermon)
2. 💧 It flows through the lake of Sivchi (the Chula)
3. 🚣 Then through the Sea of Teveria (the Kinneret)
4. 🧂 Then the Sea of Sodom (the Dead Sea)
5. 🌊 And on to the Great Sea

One river, but the official name “Jordan” starts only at Beit Jericho!

Think of it like… a long road that runs through many towns. In everyday talk, everyone calls the whole thing “Main Street.” But on the official city map, it’s only called “Main Street” for the part inside the city limits.

The Simple Idea 💡: For vows, “the Jordan” means whatever people call the Jordan, but for the animal tithe, it means only the stretch from Beit Jericho south.

Why Is It Called “Yarden”? ⬇️🏔️

Rabbi Yochanan explains the name: ירדן (Yarden) = יורד מדן (yored mi-Dan), “it goes down from Dan”!

Rabbi Abba tells Rav Ashi: “You learned this from the name. We learn it from a verse!” The verse (Yehoshua 19:47) says the tribe of Dan conquered a city called Leshem and renamed it Dan. Rabbi Yitzchak says Leshem is the place later called Pamyas. And we just learned that the Jordan comes out of the Cave of Pamyas!

So: Leshem = Dan = Pamyas = where the Jordan starts. The river really does “go down from Dan.”

The Simple Idea 💡: The Jordan’s name means “going down from Dan,” because it really does start in Dan’s city.

Rav Kahana’s Three “Sources” 💧🩸🌍

Now Rav Kahana teaches three things about where stuff comes from. Each one has a halachic result:

The Simple Idea 💡: If something is the “source” of something else, a rule about the source can reach everything that comes from it.

The Biggest Vow Ever 🌍🚫💧

Wait a second! We just learned that vows follow how people talk. If someone says, “I won’t drink water of the Euphrates,” everyone understands he means that river. He can still drink from other rivers!

So Rav must mean someone who said something different: “I won’t drink any water that comes from the Euphrates.” That’s a vow about the source, not the name. And Rav teaches that:

• All the world’s rivers get their water from three rivers: the Pishon, the Gichon and the Chidekel (from the story of Gan Eden, Bereishit 2).
• And those three get their water from the Euphrates!

So all water “comes from the Euphrates,” and this person can’t drink any water.

But wait! The Gemara asks: some springs are high up in the mountains, higher than the Euphrates. Water doesn’t flow uphill! How can they come from the Euphrates?

Rav Mesharshiya answers: they are סולמי דפרת (sulamei d’Perat), “ladders of the Euphrates.” The water soaks into the ground and climbs up through it to reach those springs. 🪜

But wait again! The Torah lists four rivers that came out of Gan Eden, and the Euphrates is last: “and the fourth river is Perat” (Bereishit 2:14). Doesn’t that make it the least important, not the source of the others?

The answer: the Euphrates is the original river that left Gan Eden! Three rivers branched off from it, and what was left kept flowing as the Euphrates. It’s named last, but it’s really the trunk.

Think of it like… a tree trunk with three big branches. If you list “branch one, branch two, branch three, and the trunk,” the trunk comes last on the list. But everything grew from it! 🌳

The Simple Idea 💡: A vow against water “that comes from the Euphrates” forbids all water, because Rav teaches that every river traces back to the Euphrates.

Yuval and Perat: Rain or Springs? 🌧️⛲

A baraita tells us Rabbi Meir’s teaching about the Euphrates’ names:

• It’s called יובל (Yuval), from the verse about a tree planted by the water that “sends out its roots by the yuval” and isn’t afraid of dry years (Yirmiyahu 17:8). 🌳
• It’s called פרת (Perat) because its waters are פרים ורבים (parim v’ravim), “fruitful and multiply,” and grow without rain!

The Gemara says this supports Shmuel, who taught that a river gets “blessed from its own bed.” Its extra water comes from underground springs, not from rain.

But it disagrees with Rav, who said: when it rains in the West (Eretz Yisrael), the Euphrates is the “great witness.” The river rises, showing that rain fell!

Think of it like… a water tank: does it fill from a pipe underneath, or from rain pouring in from the roof?

The Simple Idea 💡: Shmuel says the Euphrates grows from underground springs, and Rav says it grows from rain, and that question matters for the next story.

Shmuel’s Father and the Mikveh 🛁🌊

Why does it matter whether a river’s water comes from rain or springs? Because of the mikveh (מקוה, a special pool of water used for becoming tahor, ritually pure).

There’s an important rule:

So if a river is mostly spring water, you can immerse right in the flowing river. But if it’s mostly rainwater, the flowing river won’t work, and you need a pool of standing water.

Now the story! Shmuel’s father did two different things for his daughters at two times of year:

• 🌸 In Nisan (spring, right after the rainy season): he built them a mikveh of standing water. Why? He held like Rav, that the rain swells the Euphrates. After the rainy season, maybe most of the river is rainwater, and then the flowing river wouldn’t purify!
• 🍂 In Tishrei (after the dry summer, before the rains): he let them immerse in the river itself, and set up mats for privacy. By then, the river was its own spring water, which purifies even while flowing.

Then the Gemara notices: Shmuel himself taught that flowing water purifies only in the Euphrates in Tishrei. That sounds like Rav’s view! So Shmuel’s two teachings seem to disagree with each other, and the Gemara leaves it there.

Think of it like… a lemonade pitcher. In dry weather it’s all lemonade, but after a big storm it may be mostly rainwater! A careful seller checks the season first. 🍋

The Simple Idea 💡: Spring water purifies while flowing but rainwater doesn’t, so Shmuel’s father only used the river in Tishrei, when he was sure it was spring water.

Bought Animals Don’t Get Tithed 🛒🐑

At the end of the daf, a new mishna starts a new question: which animals need to be tithed at all?

The mishna says: if you buy an animal, or someone gives you one as a gift (מתנה, matana), you don’t have to tithe it! ❌ Only animals born in your own flock get counted.

Where do we learn this? Rav Kahana points to a verse (Shemot 22:28-29):

“The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me. So shall you do with your oxen and your sheep…”

The verse puts the firstborn son right next to the animals: “so shall you do.” Nobody ever buys a son or gets one as a gift. He’s yours because he was born into your family. The animals are compared to him, so the tithe too is only for animals born into your flock. The Gemara will explain this comparison more on the next daf.

Think of it like… a class rule: “Each kid shares one of every ten cookies you baked yourself.” If a friend gave you cookies, or you bought them at the store, they’re not part of the count. Only your own baking counts! 🍪

The Simple Idea 💡: Only animals born in your own flock need the animal tithe, and bought or gifted animals are exempt.

The Super Simple Summary 🎯

• To join far-apart flocks, Rav needs five animals in the middle and Shmuel only one. A baraita about one sheep in Tzippori seemed to refute Rav, but Shmuel himself read it to fit Rav: nine on each side, one in the middle.
• Rav Pappa: for Shmuel, even the shepherd or his bag in the middle joins the flocks. Rav Ashi’s question about the shepherd’s dog stays a teiku.
• Rabbi Meir says the Jordan splits flocks. Rabbi Ami thought a bridge would fix that, but the Gemara shows the Jordan is a border set by the Torah (Yehoshua 18:20).
• All of Eretz Yisrael is one border for the tithe, but the Jordan is water, not land, so it stays separate.
• The river is only called “Jordan” from Beit Jericho south. That matters for the tithe, not for vows, because vows follow how people talk.
• Rav Kahana’s sources: Pamyas for the Jordan, the liver for blood, the Euphrates for all water, so vowing off water “that comes from the Euphrates” forbids all water.
• Shmuel says the Euphrates grows from springs, and Rav says from rain. That’s why Shmuel’s father used a standing mikveh in Nisan and the river in Tishrei.
• A new mishna: animals you buy or get as a gift are exempt from the animal tithe, learned from the verse that compares them to the firstborn son.

⚖️ Halacha

Combining Flocks Across a Distance: Sixteen Mil and the Animals in the Middle

Source in Daf: 55a, Segments 1-4 (the baraita of Kfar Chananya, Otnai and Tzippori; Shmuel reads it for Rav as nine on each side and one in the middle; Rav Pappa on the shepherd and his implements; Rav Ashi’s unresolved question about the shepherd’s dog), continuing the mishna and the Rav-Shmuel dispute of 54b

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: This is the mishna of 54b that our daf is still discussing. The Rambam first states the principle behind it: one does not have to gather every animal born in one’s domain into one pen, because the tithe is counted “for every herd alone” (כָּל עֵדֶר וְעֵדֶר לְבַדּוֹ). Five lambs in Jerusalem and five in Akko are two herds of five, neither of which reaches ten, so both are exempt. The measure that turns two groups into one herd is the mishna’s sixteen mil (שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר מִיל), the distance within which, as the Gemara explained on 54b, a shepherd can still graze and watch both groups. The Rambam’s rule is purely one of distance; he does not mention the Jordan here (see below).

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 halacha is the case of Segments 1-2. Two herds thirty-two mil apart cannot combine directly, but a third herd sixteen mil from each joins all three. The Rambam’s illustration, “nine on one side, nine on the other side, and one in the center” (תִּשְׁעָה מִכָּאן וְתִשְׁעָה מִכָּאן וְאֶחָד בְּאֶמְצַע), is word for word the reading Shmuel gave the baraita “according to Rav” (Segment 2). In that case the single middle animal can complete a ten with either side, so it satisfies Rav’s requirement that the middle group be “fit for here and fit for there”, and of course it satisfies Shmuel too. The Rambam’s example is therefore one that holds on both views, and it is the case the Gemara itself settled on. The Rambam does not record Rav Pappa’s extension (the shepherd or his implements in the middle combine the flocks) or Rav Ashi’s question about the dog (Segments 3-4), both of which belong to Shmuel’s line of reasoning; the dog question ended in תיקו in any case.

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: This is the governing rule for the whole perek and explains why none of these laws has a counterpart in the Shulchan Aruch. By Torah law the tithe applies “in Eretz Yisrael and in the Diaspora” (בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ), which is why the baraita of Segment 6 can discuss flocks on either side of the border at all. But the Sages forbade tithing animals when there is no Temple, the decree discussed at the opening of the perek on 53a, lest the unblemished tithe animal be eaten or slaughtered outside. These Temple-era laws are preserved in Rambam for when the Temple is rebuilt.

The Jordan as a Boundary for Animal Tithe

Source in Daf: 55a, Segments 5-16 (Rabbi Meir: the Jordan divides for animal tithe; Rabbi Ami: only where there is no bridge; the baraita on the two banks, Namer and Namori, and Eretz Yisrael and outside it; Rabbi Yochanan’s verse “and the Jordan shall border it”; “this shall be your land” makes the whole land one border, but the Jordan is not “land”; Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira and Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai; the Jordan is called Jordan only from Beit Jericho down)

The codes: The Rambam’s laws of animal tithe (Hilchot Bechorot ch. 6-8) were searched in full for the Jordan, a bridge, and the line between Eretz Yisrael and outside it. The Rambam does not mention any of them. His rule in 7:2, quoted above, measures the unity of a herd by distance alone: within sixteen mil the groups combine, beyond it they do not. He gives no ruling on Rabbi Meir’s statement, which in the mishna (54b) is the view of a single tanna added to the anonymous first clause, and he does not record the baraita’s further divisions. Rabbi Yochanan’s definition of the Jordan, which the Gemara (Segment 15) applies only to animal tithe, therefore has no place in the codes either. Since the tithe of animals is not practised today (6:2), the Shulchan Aruch does not address the question. These Temple-era laws are preserved in Rambam for when the Temple is rebuilt.

The one part of this sugya that does reach the codes is its side remark about vows: the Gemara rejected a vow-based reading of Rabbi Yochanan’s definition because “in vows, follow the language of people”. That principle, and the related teachings of Rav Kahana, are taken up next.

Vows Follow the Language of People

Source in Daf: 55a, Segment 15 (Rabbi Yochanan’s definition of the Jordan cannot be for vows, because “for vows, follow the language of people”, and people call the whole river the Jordan)

Rambam — Hilchot Nedarim 9:1

Hebrew:

בִּנְּדָרִים הַלֵּךְ אַחַר לְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם וּבְאוֹתוֹ לָשׁוֹן וּבְאוֹתוֹ זְמַן שֶׁנָּדַר אוֹ נִשְׁבַּע בּוֹ. כֵּיצַד. נָדַר אוֹ נִשְׁבַּע מִן הַמְבֻשָּׁל. אִם דֶּרֶךְ אוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם בְּאוֹתוֹ לָשׁוֹן בְּאוֹתוֹ זְמַן שֶׁקּוֹרְאִין מְבֻשָּׁל אֲפִלּוּ לְצָלִי וּלְשָׁלוּק הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר בַּכּל. וְאִם אֵין דַּרְכָּם לִקְרוֹת מְבֻשָּׁל אֶלָּא לְבָשָׂר שֶׁנִּתְבַּשֵּׁל בְּמַיִם וּבְתַבְלִין הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר בְּצָלִי וּבְשָׁלוּק. וְכֵן הַמְעֻשָּׁן וְהַמְבֻשָּׁל בְּחַמֵּי טְבֶרְיָא וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן הוֹלְכִין בּוֹ אַחַר הַלָּשׁוֹן שֶׁל בְּנֵי הָעִיר:

English:

With regard to vows, we follow the intent of the words people use at that place, in that language, and at that time when the vow or oath was taken. What is implied? A person took a vow or an oath not [to partake of] cooked food. If it was customary in that place in that language and at that time to call roasted meat and boiled meat also cooked food, he is forbidden to partake of all types of cooked food. If they were accustomed to use the term cooked food only to refer to meat cooked with water and spices, he is permitted [to partake of] roasted meat or boiled meat. Similarly, with regard to smoked food or food cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias. We follow the terminology used by the people of that city.

Connection: The opening words, “with regard to vows, follow the language of people” (בִּנְּדָרִים הַלֵּךְ אַחַר לְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם), are the exact principle the Gemara invokes in Segment 15. The Rambam sharpens it: what counts is the usage “at that place, in that language, and at that time”. That is why Rabbi Yochanan’s technical definition, that the river is legally “Jordan” only south of Beit Jericho, could not govern a vow. A person who vows off “Jordan water” means what everyone around him calls the Jordan, and if they call the whole river by that name, the vow covers all of it. A Torah definition of a boundary is one thing; the meaning of a man’s words is another.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 217:1

Hebrew:

דין הנודר מהמבושל מהמליח ממעשה קדירה ודומיהם וכיצד הולכין בנדרים אחר לשון בני אדם. ובו מ”ח סעיפים: נדר או נשבע מהמבושל אם דרך אותו מקום באותו לשון ובאותו זמן שקוראין מבושל אפי’ לצלי ולשלוק הרי זה אסור בכל ואם אין דרכם לקרות מבושל אלא לבשר שנתבשל במים ובתבלין הרי זה מותר בצלי ובשלוק וכן המעושן והמטוגן והמבושל בחמי טבריא וכיוצא בהם הולכים בו אחר הלשון של בני העיר:

English (translation ours):

[The law of one who vows off cooked food, salted food, food made in a pot and the like, and how vows follow the language of people. It contains 48 se’ifim.] If he vowed or swore off cooked food: if it is the way of that place, in that language and at that time, to call even roasted and boiled meat “cooked”, he is forbidden in all of them. And if it is not their way to call anything “cooked” except meat cooked in water and spices, he is permitted roasted and boiled meat. And so too smoked, fried, and cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias and the like: one follows the language of the people of the city.

Connection: The Shulchan Aruch adopts the Rambam’s ruling almost verbatim, and its heading states the principle of our Gemara outright: “how vows follow the language of people” (וכיצד הולכין בנדרים אחר לשון בני אדם). This is still practical law today, which makes it the one thread of the Jordan discussion that remains fully in force.

A Vow from a Source Includes Everything That Flows from It

Source in Daf: 55a, Segments 18 and 20-22, and 55b, Segments 1-3 (Rav Kahana: the source of the Jordan is the Cave of Pamyas, so one who vows off its water is forbidden the whole Jordan; the source of all water is the Euphrates, and Rav rules that one who vows off “water that comes from the Euphrates” is forbidden all water in the world, whereas one who vows off “Euphrates water” is forbidden only that river; the high springs are “ladders” of the Euphrates)

Rambam — Hilchot Nedarim 9:18

Hebrew:

הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַמַּיִם הַנִּמְשָׁכִין מִמַּעְיָן פְּלוֹנִי. אָסוּר בְּכָל הַנְּהָרוֹת הַיּוֹנְקוֹת מִמֶּנּוּ וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר הַנִּמְשָׁכוֹת. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּנָּה שְׁמָם וְאֵין קוֹרִין אוֹתָן אֶלָּא נָהָר פְּלוֹנִי וּבְאֵר פְּלוֹנִי וְאֵין מְלַוִּין אוֹתָן לְשֵׁם הַמַּעְיָן הַנָּדוּר הוֹאִיל וְהוּא עִקָּרָן אָסוּר בַּכּל. אֲבָל אִם נָדַר מִנָּהָר פְּלוֹנִי אוֹ מִמַּעְיָן פְּלוֹנִי אֵין אָסוּר אֶלָּא בְּכָל הַנְּהָרוֹת הַנִּקְרָאוֹת עַל שְׁמוֹ:

English:

When a person takes a vow [not to benefit] from the water that flows from this-and-this spring, he is forbidden [to benefit] from all the rivers that derive nurture from it. Needless to say, this refers to those that flow directly from it. Although the name [of the body of water] has changed and it is now called “the So-and-So River” or “the So-and-So well,” and we do not associate it at all with the name of the spring concerning which a vow was taken, since it is the source for these bodies of water, he is forbidden to benefit from all of them. If, however, a person takes a vow [not to benefit] from this-and-this river or spring, he is only forbidden [to benefit] from those rivers called by that name.

Connection: The Rambam states as a general rule the distinction the Gemara draws in Segments 21-22. A vow defined by source, “the water that flows from this-and-this spring” (הַמַּיִם הַנִּמְשָׁכִין מִמַּעְיָן פְּלוֹנִי), reaches every river that draws from it, even after the river has taken a new name, “since it is the source” (הוֹאִיל וְהוּא עִקָּרָן). That is Rav’s case of one who vowed off “water that comes from the Euphrates” (דְּאָתוּ מִפְּרָת), and Rav Kahana’s case of the Cave of Pamyas, whose water runs through the whole Jordan. A vow defined by name, “this-and-this river”, covers only what bears that name, which is the Gemara’s point that “Euphrates water” alone leaves other rivers permitted. The Rambam does not repeat Rav’s claim that every river in the world draws from the Euphrates; that is a statement about nature, while the halacha is the rule of vows that it illustrates. The same holds for the “ladders” of 55b: whether a given spring draws from the forbidden source is a question of fact, and the rule simply follows the water.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 217:25

Hebrew:

הנודר מהמים הנמשכים ממעין פלוני אסור בכל הנהרות היונקות ממנו ואין צריך לומר מהנמשכים ממנו ואע”פ שנשתנה שמו ואין קורין אותו אלא נהר פלוני או מעין פלוני אם אמר מנהר פלוני או ממעין פלוני אינו אסור אלא בנקראים על שמו:

English (translation ours):

One who vows off the water that flows from such-and-such a spring is forbidden in all the rivers that draw from it, and needless to say in those that flow from it, even though its name has changed and it is called only such-and-such a river or such-and-such a spring. If he said “from such-and-such a river” or “from such-and-such a spring”, he is forbidden only in those called by its name.

Connection: The Shulchan Aruch codifies the Rambam’s ruling, so the distinction of Rav and Rav Kahana between a vow by source and a vow by name is practical halacha today. It sits in the same siman as the principle that vows follow the language of people (217:1): a vow by name is read by how people use the name, while a vow by source follows the water wherever it goes.

The Liver Is the Source of Blood

Source in Daf: 55a, Segment 19 (Rav Kahana: the source of blood is the liver; Rabbi Yitzchak: a corpse’s liver that dissolved defiles in the volume of a revi’it)

Rambam — Hilchot Tumat Met 3:14

Hebrew:

כָּבֵד שֶׁנִּמּוֹחָה מְטַמְּאָה בִּרְבִיעִית מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא כְּדָם נִקְפָּה. דַּם קָטָן שֶׁיָּצָא כֻּלּוֹ אִם אֵין בּוֹ רְבִיעִית טָהוֹר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא כָּל דָּם שֶׁבּוֹ:

English:

When a liver has decomposed, a revi’it of it imparts impurity, because it is considered like blood that has coagulated. If all the blood of an infant flows out, but it does not amount to a revi’it, it is pure even though it comprises all the blood in his body.

Connection: The Rambam rules like Rabbi Yitzchak: a dissolved liver (כָּבֵד שֶׁנִּמּוֹחָה) defiles in a revi’it, the measure of a corpse’s blood. His reason, “because it is considered like blood that has coagulated” (מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא כְּדָם נִקְפָּה), puts Rav Kahana’s statement in physical terms: the liver is made of blood, so once it liquefies it is measured as blood and not as flesh. The second half of the halacha, on the infant’s blood, shows that the revi’it is a fixed measure: even all the blood of a body does not defile if it is less than a revi’it. The laws of corpse impurity are mostly relevant to the Temple and to taharot; their practical remnant today is the prohibition on a kohen becoming impure to the dead, which the Shulchan Aruch treats in Yoreh De’ah 369 and onward, though not this particular measure.

Immersing in a River: Spring Water and Rainwater

Source in Daf: 55b, Segments 5-8 (Rabbi Meir’s “Perat” supports Shmuel, that a river grows from its own bed, and disagrees with Rav, that the Euphrates witnesses the rain of Eretz Yisrael; Shmuel’s father made a mikveh for his daughters in Nisan and set up mats in Tishrei; Shmuel’s own ruling that flowing water purifies only in the Euphrates in Tishrei)

Rambam — Hilchot Mikvaot 9:8

Hebrew:

לְמַעְלָה מִזֶּה הַמַּעְיָן שֶׁמֵּימָיו מַיִם חַיִּים שֶׁבָּהֶן בִּלְבַד טוֹבְלִים בּוֹ הַזָּבִים הַזְּכָרִים וְלוֹקְחִין מֵהֶן לְטָהֳרַת הַמְצֹרָע וּלְקַדֵּשׁ מֵי חַטָּאת. מַה בֵּין מַעְיָן לְמִקְוֶה הַמִּקְוֶה אֵינוֹ מְטַהֵר אֶלָּא בְּאַרְבָּעִים סְאָה וְהַמַּעְיָן מְטַהֵר בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא. הַמִּקְוֶה אֵינוֹ מְטַהֵר אֶלָּא בְּאֶשְבּוֹרֶן וְהַמַּיִם הַנִּזְחָלִים מִמֶּנּוּ אֵינָן מְטַהֲרִין וְהַמַּעְיָן מְטַהֵר בְּזוֹחֲלִים. הַמִּקְוֶה לֹא תַּעֲלֶה בּוֹ טְבִילָה לְזָבִים וְהַמַּעְיָן אִם הָיוּ מֵימָיו מַיִם חַיִּים הַזָּב טוֹבֵל בָּהֶן:

English:

On a superior level is a natural spring whose water is “living water.” In such springs alone may male zavim immerse and from them alone water may be taken for the purification of a person afflicted with tzara’at and for the sanctification of the water used for the ashes of the red heifer. What are the differences between the laws governing a natural spring and a mikveh? A mikveh does not impart purity unless it contains 40 se’ah of water, while even the smallest amount of water from a natural spring imparts purity. And the water of a mikveh imparts purity only if it is collected in a reservoir. Any water flowing out from it does not impart purity. The water of a natural spring, by contrast, imparts purity when flowing. Also, immersion in a mikveh is not effective for zavim, while a zav may immerse in a natural spring of “living water.”

Connection: This halacha supplies the background the Gemara takes for granted in Segments 6-8. A mikveh of gathered water “imparts purity only if it is collected in a reservoir” (אֵינוֹ מְטַהֵר אֶלָּא בְּאֶשְבּוֹרֶן), while a spring “imparts purity when flowing” (מְטַהֵר בְּזוֹחֲלִים). A river can be used while it flows only if its water counts as spring water. That is why it matters whether the Euphrates is fed from its own bed, as Shmuel and Rabbi Meir’s name “Perat” suggest, or swollen by rain, as Rav holds.

Rambam — Hilchot Mikvaot 9:13

Hebrew:

הַמַּיִם הַזּוֹחֲלִין מִן הַמַּעְיָן הֲרֵי הֵם כְּמַעְיָן לְכָל דָּבָר. וְהַמְנַטְּפִין מִן הַמַּעְיָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן טוֹרְדִין הֲרֵי הֵם כְּמִקְוֶה וְאֵין מְטַהֲרִין אֶלָּא בְּאַרְבָּעִים סְאָה עוֹמְדִין. וּפְסוּלִין לְזָבִים וְלִמְצֹרָעִים וּלְקַדֵּשׁ בָּהֶן מֵי חַטָּאת. הָיוּ הַזּוֹחֲלִין מִן הַמַּעְיָן מִתְעָרְבִין עִם הַנּוֹטְפִין [מִמֶּנּוּ אִם רַבּוּ הַזּוֹחֲלִין עַל הַנּוֹטְפִין] הֲרֵי הַכּל כְּמַעְיָן לְכָל דָּבָר. וְאִם רַבּוּ הַנּוֹטְפִים עַל הַזּוֹחֲלִין וְכֵן אִם רַבּוּ מֵי גְּשָׁמִים עַל מֵי הַנָּהָר אֵינָן מְטַהֲרִין בְּזוֹחֲלִין אֶלָּא בְּאֶשְבּוֹרֶן. לְפִיכָךְ צָרִיךְ לְהַקִּיף מַפָּץ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ בְּאוֹתוֹ הַנָּהָר הַמְעֹרָב עַד שֶׁיִּקָּווּ הַמַּיִם וְיִטְבּל בָּהֶן:

English:

Water that flows from a natural spring is considered as an extension of the spring in all contexts. Water that drips from a spring, even though the dripping is continuous, is considered only as a mikveh and does not impart purity unless there are 40 se’ah standing in one place. Such water is not acceptable for the purification of zavim and those afflicted with tzara’at or for the sanctification of the water for the ashes of the red heifer. If the water flowing from the spring becomes mixed with water dripping from it, it is considered like a stream in all respects. If, however, the amount of the water of the stream that was dripping was greater than that which was flowing, or if an amount of rainwater greater than the water in a river flowed into it, the water does not impart purity when flowing, only when in a reservoir. Therefore one must use a mat or the like to surround the portion of the river where the water is mixed until the water will be gathered in a single place so that one can immerse in it.

Connection: Here the Rambam rules on our sugya. Spring water mixed with drippings (נוֹטְפִין) keeps the law of a spring if the spring water is the majority. But “if an amount of rainwater greater than the water in a river flowed into it” (אִם רַבּוּ מֵי גְּשָׁמִים עַל מֵי הַנָּהָר), the river purifies only when gathered, not while flowing. This is the concern that guided Shmuel’s father in Nisan (Segment 6): after the rainy season the rain might be the majority of the Euphrates, so he made his daughters a mikveh of standing water. In Tishrei, when the river is its own water, it may be used as it flows (Segment 7), which is also Shmuel’s ruling in Segment 8. By treating rainwater as able to become the majority of a river, the Rambam follows the concern of Rav rather than the view that a river grows only from its own bed. His remedy uses the same object as the story, a mat (מַפָּץ), but for the rainy season itself: one encloses part of the mixed river with it “until the water will be gathered in a single place”, turning a stretch of the flowing river into a standing mikveh.

Shulchan Aruch — Yoreh De’ah 201:2

Hebrew:

מי מעיין מטהרין אף בזוחלין (פירוש זוחלין נמשכים והולכים ואינן מכונסים) מי גשמים אין מטהרין אלא באשבורן (פירוש מקום עמוק שמתכנסים בו המים ונקרא אשבורן) (אבל על ידי זחילה פסולין מן התורה (ב”י בשם מהרי”ק שורש קט”ו ות”ה סימן רכ”ד) אם הם לחוד בלא מעיין) היו הזוחלין מן המעיין מתערבי’ עם הנוטפי’ שהם מי גשמים הרי הכל כמעיין לכל דבר ואם רבו הנוטפים על הזוחלין וכן אם רבו מי גשמים על מי הנהר אינם מטהרים בזוחלין אלא באשבורן לפיכך צריך להקיף מפץ (פי’ כעין מחצלת) וכיוצא בו באותו הנהר המעורב עד שיקוו המים ויטבול בהם: הגה וכן נכון להורות ולהחמיר (מהרי”ק ות”ה שם ושאר אחרוני’ כתבו ויש להחמיר כשטת הר”ם ורא”ש וסייעתם) אבל יש מתירים לטבול בנהרות כל השנה אף בשעת הגשמים והפשרת שלגים ורבו הנוטפים על הזוחלין משום דעיקר גידול הנהר הוא ממקום מקורו (טור בשם ר”ת וב”י בשם רש”י וסה”ת וסמ”ג) וכן נהגו ברוב המקומות במקום שאין מקוה ואין למחות ביד הנוהגין להקל כי יש להם על מי שיסמוכו (מהרי”ק ובת”ה שם ומהרי”ו סימן ע’ וב”ז סימן קנ”ד) מיהו יש ליזהר מלטבול בנהר המתהוה לגמרי ע”י גשמים וכשאין גשמים פוסק לגמרי אף על פי ששאר נהרות שופכים לתוכו בשעת הגשמים ומתהוה על ידן מ”מ הואיל ופוסק לגמרי בשעה שאין גשמים אסור לטבול בו דרך זחילתו עד שיקוו המים שבתוכו (שם במהרי”ק) אבל בנהר שאינו פוסק אע”פ שבשעת הגשמים מתרחב ומתפשט על כל גדותיו מותר לטבול בו בכל מקום (ב”י לדעת המרדכי והאשיר”י והתוספ’) לפי סברת המקילין ולפי מה שנהגו:

English:

Spring water purifies even when it is flowing. Rain water only purifies when in a still body, but when it is flowing, it is Biblically invalid, if it is detached from a spring. If the flowing water from a spring mixed with downflow which derives from rain, then the whole mixture has the status of the spring for all purposes. But if the downflow is greater than the spring flow, or similarly if rain water makes up the majority of the water in a river, they do not purify while flowing but only while still. Therefore one must set up a barrier or something like it in the mixed river, until the water gathers together and one can immerse in it. [Comment of Rema: And thus it is correct to teach and to be stringent. But some permit immersion in rivers all year round, even during rain and snowmelt season, when the downflow is greater than the spring flow, because the essence of the river’s size is from its source location. This is the practice in most places where there is no mikveh, and we should not reprimand those who have the custom to be lenient, because they have authorities to rely on. However, one must be careful not to immerse in a river that appears entirely through rain, and when there is no rain it stops completely. Even if other rivers pour into it during the rainy season and it appears through them, in any case, since it stops entirely during the season when there is no rain, it is forbidden to immerse in it while it is flowing, until the waters are gathered together. But a river that does not stop, even even if during the rain it swells and and expands over its banks, it is permissible to immerse in it in any case, according to the lenient opinions and the common practice.]

Connection: The Shulchan Aruch copies the Rambam’s ruling, mat and all, and the Rema agrees that this is the proper ruling to teach. He then records a lenient view that one may immerse in rivers all year round, even in the rainy and snow-melt season, “because the essence of the river’s growth is from its source” (משום דעיקר גידול הנהר הוא ממקום מקורו). That reasoning is Shmuel’s in our Gemara, “a river is blessed from its own bed” (נַהְרָא מִכֵּיפֵיהּ מִיבְּרִיךְ), and it is the reasoning Rabbi Meir’s name “Perat” was said to support (Segment 5). The Rema notes that this was the practice in most places that had no mikveh and that those who rely on it should not be stopped, but he excludes a river that dries up entirely when there is no rain, since such a river is made of rain. The dispute of Rav and Shmuel, and the two practices of Shmuel’s father in Nisan and Tishrei, thus survive as a live question in the laws of mikveh today.

Purchased Animals and Gifts Are Exempt from the Tithe

Source in Daf: 55b, Segments 9-10 (the mishna: one who buys an animal or receives it as a gift is exempt from animal tithe; Rav Kahana’s source, “the firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me; so shall you do with your oxen and your sheep”)

Rambam — Hilchot Bechorot 6:10

Hebrew:

הַלּוֹקֵחַ טְלָאִים שֶׁנּוֹלְדוּ בְּשָׁנָה זוֹ אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְּנוּ לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה הֲרֵי הֵם פְּטוּרִים מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר עַד שֶׁיִּוָּלְדוּ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ. …

English:

When a person purchases lambs that were born this year or they were given to him as a present, he is not obligated to tithe them. The obligation applies only when the animals are born in his domain. …

Connection: The opening of this halacha is our mishna: animals bought or received as a gift are exempt “until they are born in his domain” (עַד שֶׁיִּוָּלְדוּ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ). The Rambam’s phrase gives the positive side of the rule that the Gemara is about to derive from Rav Kahana’s verse: the tithe falls only on animals born in the owner’s own flock, just as a son becomes a firstborn requiring redemption only by birth to his father, never by purchase or gift. The rest of this long halacha (partners who pool their flocks, brothers who inherit, and those who divide and re-join) belongs to the mishna and Gemara of 56b. These Temple-era laws are preserved in Rambam for when the Temple is rebuilt.

Summary of Rulings