Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Bechorot

Bechorot 54 for kids: Counting Flocks Together

בכורות נ״ד

🐑 This daf asks why different kinds of produce cannot be tithed for one another. It also asks which animals can be counted together for animal tithe, and how far apart they may be.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Bechorot 54a in Daf QuestOpen Bechorot 54b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Bechorot 54

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Bechorot 54 in simple English

Rashi on Bechorot 54a, in English Tab translation (9)
  1. We have found a source for wine and oil — one may not separate tithes from one for the other, because the Torah says “the choicest part” for each separately.
  2. Wine and grain — the Torah says “the choicest part” only once for both. How do we know that one may not separate teruma from grain for wine, or from wine for grain?
  3. Grain and grain — for example, wheat for barley or barley for wheat. Grapevines and olive trees are not prohibited as diverse kinds with each other. Two kinds of grain are prohibited as diverse kinds of seeds by rabbinic law; grain and grapevines are prohibited as diverse kinds in a vineyard by Torah law.
  4. But according to Rabbi Yoshiya, who says — grain and grapevines are not prohibited as diverse kinds, nor are two kinds of grain, unless all three are sown together in a single hand motion.
  5. How does he derive it — by an a fortiori inference?
  6. Even through another kind — if one sows a third kind, whether wheat or barley, with grapevines and olive trees, they are not prohibited as diverse kinds. That prohibition requires two kinds of grain and a kind of grapevine.
  7. Wine and grain — these two become prohibited as diverse kinds when a third kind is added. The same is true of two kinds of grain when planted with grapevines. Is it not all the more so that one may not separate tithes from one for the other?
  8. And two other kinds — how do we know that one may not separate tithes from one for the other when neither is grain, as with beans and lentils?
  9. These — all other kinds are subject to tithes by rabbinic law; by Torah law, only grain, wine, and oil are obligated. The Sages modeled their ordinances on Torah law, so one may not separate tithes from one kind for another.
Tosafot on Bechorot 54a, in English Tab translation (4)
  1. Wine and oil are not diverse kinds with each other — We could not make the same a fortiori argument from produce of a new year and an old year. One could object: Sheep and goats are diverse kinds, yet one may tithe one for the other; perhaps the same should be true of wine and grain, or two kinds of grain. Why does that objection not defeat the argument from wine and oil? Because among animals of the same year, we find no pair that are not diverse kinds yet cannot be tithed one for the other. Among produce, however, wine and oil are such a pair. The objection applies more readily to an argument from new and old produce: Among animals too, those of different years are not diverse kinds and cannot be tithed one for the other, while sheep and goats are diverse kinds and can be tithed one for the other.
  2. Two kinds of grain are diverse kinds with each other — The commentary printed with the Talmud says that the prohibition on planting two kinds of grain together is rabbinic. This appears to be a copyist’s error: the discussion here treats it as Torah law, as do passages in Kiddushin and Ḥullin. Planting diverse seeds differs from planting diverse kinds in a vineyard only in the status of the produce: the former may be eaten, while the latter may not even be used for benefit. Rabbi Yoshiya, too, holds that planting wheat and barley together violates the prohibition on diverse seeds. When the Gemara says that, according to him, wine and grain—or two kinds of grain—become prohibited ‘through something else,’ that qualification is needed for wine and grain: liability for diverse kinds in a vineyard requires two kinds of seed together with a grape seed. For diverse seeds alone, two kinds suffice. A passage in Ḥullin can be read accordingly: its ‘two forms of diverse kinds’ are diverse seeds, such as wheat and barley, and diverse kinds in a vineyard, such as wheat and a grape seed. Rabbi Yoshiya accepts liability for the first but disputes it for the second. This is preferable to reading the two forms as wheat with a grape seed and barley with a grape seed, since those are the same form of prohibition. Some texts there explicitly say ‘wheat and a grape seed, or barley and a grape seed’; texts reading ‘and barley’ should likewise be understood as ‘or barley.’ Nor can the passage be speaking of sowing wheat, barley, and a grape seed together and receiving two sets of lashes to exclude Rabbi Yoshiya’s view: he too would impose two sets of lashes in that case. The Jerusalem Talmud also indicates that Rabbi Yoshiya accepts liability for planting two diverse seeds without a vineyard. He and Rabbi Yonatan disagree about diverse kinds in a vineyard: Rabbi Yoshiya requires two kinds of seed along with a grape seed, while Rabbi Yonatan requires only one. Rabbi Yoshiya reads ‘diverse kinds’ as two kinds of seed, not counting the grape seed as a kind of seed. Rabbi Yehuda, however, appears to require three seeds even for the prohibition on diverse seeds—for example, wheat, barley, and spelt, or two wheat seeds and one barley seed—because he reads the verse as requiring diverse seeds in addition to what is already in one’s field. He cannot read the verse about breeding diverse animals in the same way.
  3. And two other kinds in general are rabbinic — This implies that the obligation to tithe kinds not named in the verse is rabbinic; the verse names only grain, wine, and oil. Other Talmudic passages likewise call the tithes of capers and carobs rabbinic. The Sifrei’s interpretations that include legumes, tree fruit, and vegetables are therefore supports for rabbinic law, not derivations of a Torah obligation. Similarly, a teaching that a priest who eats an untithed fig receives lashes means disciplinary lashes imposed by the Sages. A ruling that a ring of dried figs is not nullified in a mixture reflects the Sages’ practice of shaping their rulings like Torah law. Rabbeinu Tam explains that a passage treating ‘grain’ as including legumes concerns vows, which follow ordinary speech. A dispute elsewhere about liquid pressed from grain can still concern Torah law—for example, liquid pressed from crushed fresh ears of grain. Likewise, a Mishnah describing one who eats a dried fig of teruma as liable to death is not literal: it describes a stringent rabbinic penalty, which might mean harsher lashes or burial among serious offenders. Alternatively, the fig is merely an example; even though teruma of fruit is rabbinic, the Sages could treat it more strictly because teruma of grain, wine, and oil is required by Torah law. The Jerusalem Talmud seems, at first, to derive the tithes of legumes and tree fruit from verses, while saying explicitly that vegetable tithes are rabbinic. This can mean that legumes and fruit have scriptural supports whereas vegetables do not, rather than that their obligation is Torah law. The Sifrei likewise gives no distinct verse for vegetables: the examples it names are garlic, cress, and garden cress. Vegetables may have been left without a scriptural support because some rulings treat them more leniently; a passage in the Jerusalem Talmud says that the Sages were concerned with teruma of grain, wine, and oil, but not even with the principal teruma of vegetables.
  4. Two kinds of grain are diverse kinds with each other — The commentary printed with the Talmud says that the prohibition on planting two kinds of grain together is rabbinic. This appears to be a copyist’s error: the discussion here treats it as Torah law, as do passages in Kiddushin and Ḥullin. Planting diverse seeds differs from planting diverse kinds in a vineyard only in the status of the produce: the former may be eaten, while the latter may not even be used for benefit. Rabbi Yoshiya, too, holds that planting wheat and barley together violates the prohibition on diverse seeds. When the Gemara says that, according to him, wine and grain—or two kinds of grain—become prohibited ‘through something else,’ that qualification is needed for wine and grain: liability for diverse kinds in a vineyard requires two kinds of seed together with a grape seed. For diverse seeds alone, two kinds suffice. A passage in Ḥullin can be read accordingly: its ‘two forms of diverse kinds’ are diverse seeds, such as wheat and barley, and diverse kinds in a vineyard, such as wheat and a grape seed. Rabbi Yoshiya accepts liability for the first but disputes it for the second. This is preferable to reading the two forms as wheat with a grape seed and barley with a grape seed, since those are the same form of prohibition. Some texts there explicitly say ‘wheat and a grape seed, or barley and a grape seed’; texts reading ‘and barley’ should likewise be understood as ‘or barley.’ Nor can the passage be speaking of sowing wheat, barley, and a grape seed together and receiving two sets of lashes to exclude Rabbi Yoshiya’s view: he too would impose two sets of lashes in that case. The Jerusalem Talmud also indicates that Rabbi Yoshiya accepts liability for planting two diverse seeds without a vineyard. He and Rabbi Yonatan disagree about diverse kinds in a vineyard: Rabbi Yoshiya requires two kinds of seed along with a grape seed, while Rabbi Yonatan requires only one. Rabbi Yoshiya reads ‘diverse kinds’ as two kinds of seed, not counting the grape seed as a kind of seed. Rabbi Yehuda, however, appears to require three seeds even for the prohibition on diverse seeds—for example, wheat, barley, and spelt, or two wheat seeds and one barley seed—because he reads the verse as requiring diverse seeds in addition to what is already in one’s field. He cannot read the verse about breeding diverse animals in the same way.
Rashi on Bechorot 54b, in English Tab translation (21)
  1. Let them be tithed from one for the other — cattle and sheep.
  2. The verse says, “the tenth” — “tithe” is placed next to “herd,” and “the tenth” next to “flock,” so each has its own tithing requirement.
  3. Sheep and goats too — why may they be tithed together? Earlier, the verse lists oil, wine, and grain separately, and a rule about different grains is derived by an a fortiori inference from new and old grain. The same inference could apply here.
  4. Or the flock — this means that sheep and goats are all one flock.
  5. The first part of them — placed next to “grain,” this teaches that the first part must be given separately for each kind of grain, as explained in the passage about Korah.
  6. Granted, there we interpret “or the flock” to mean one flock — because the other words in that verse are available for interpretation.
  7. For if you thought that sheep and goats too — may not be tithed for one another, the Torah could have said simply, “all the animal tithe.” We would already know from an a fortiori inference from new and old grain that one species cannot be tithed for another.
  8. And if you say that had it said “animal,” I would think — that undomesticated animals are included, since elsewhere “animal” includes them: the words “under the rod” here and “under its mother” for offerings establish a verbal analogy. Offerings are limited to cattle, sheep, and goats, so undomesticated animals are excluded here too. The Torah could therefore have said “animal,” leaving an a fortiori inference from new and old grain to exclude tithing one species for another. Instead, it specifies “herd” and “flock”: cattle and flock animals may not be tithed for one another, but sheep and goats may. Grain is different: the Torah had to say “grain” to exclude other foods from the Torah-level obligation to tithe; the word cannot be used to permit tithing one kind of grain for another.
  9. Say that it means to mix cattle and sheep — how does Rava know that the Torah names them separately to prohibit tithing them together? Perhaps it names them expressly to permit it, since an a fortiori inference from new and old grain would otherwise prohibit it. Rav Huna assumed that because Rava did not rely on “the first part of them,” he also did not rely on “the tenth” to require a separate tenth for each group, as the verse does not explicitly say “tithe of the herd” and “tithe of the flock.”
  10. Not from one species for another — If so, why may sheep and goats be tithed together? The juxtaposition excludes cattle and sheep, which are entirely unlike each other; the additional wording about herd and flock permits sheep and goats, which are alike in that a person who vows to bring an animal from the flock may bring either.
  11. Rava retracted that earlier view — he held that the juxtaposition to grain tithe also excludes tithing cattle and sheep together, while the additional wording about herd and flock permits tithing sheep and goats together. The earlier question about new and old animals is no objection, because “year by year” appears expressly in the verse making the juxtaposition.
  12. Mishna: Join together within the distance a grazing animal walks — the distance an animal wanders while grazing: sixteen mil. Alternatively, it is the distance at which animals can still be watched by one shepherd, whose sight extends sixteen mil. Thus, five animals in one village and five in another sixteen mil away may be brought into one enclosure and tithed. If they are farther apart, they are exempt; the Gemara explains why.
  13. Thirty-two mil — the Gemara asks what this means.
  14. If he had animals in the middle — those in the middle join the groups on either side. When the mishna says to bring them and tithe them in the middle, it does not mean that they must actually be brought there.
  15. The Jordan divides them — if he has five animals on each bank, they do not join and are exempt. The Gemara explains the reason.
  16. Gemara: “Let the flock pass under the hand of one who counts” — animals that can be counted by one shepherd are considered one flock and pass under the rod for tithing; otherwise, they are not.
  17. But it teaches sixteen mil — animals join only up to that distance, not farther.
  18. And how many — animals must he have on either side and in the middle for them to join?
  19. Five on one side and five in the middle — they join and are brought into one enclosure for tithing. The five left in the enclosure can join another group when more lambs are born. But if the animals on one side are within sixteen mil of the middle group and those on the other side are farther away, the distant animals are entirely exempt and need not wait for more lambs to be born.
  20. Those five — in the middle can join either side, since each side together with them has enough animals for tithing. But if there are five on one side, four on the other, and five in the middle, the four do not join and need not wait for another group.
  21. Five on each side and one in the middle — although the single animal does not itself make a group large enough for tithing, a shepherd normally goes there to bring it in. It is therefore treated as within reach of the count. All the more so if there are four on one side, five on the other, and one in the middle: that one completes a group of ten.
Tosafot on Bechorot 54b, in English Tab translation (4)
  1. Abaye said, ‘Their first’; Rava said, ‘Even without “their first”’ — This seems difficult in light of Temurah 5a. There, Abaye says that if someone does what the Torah forbids, the act still takes effect. The Gemara challenges him from separating teruma from one kind of produce for another: the Torah requires the best portion of each, and the Mishnah says that such teruma is invalid. The Gemara answers that ‘their first’ teaches that it is invalid. There, then, the phrase applies even to wine and oil, while here Abaye uses it to require separating different kinds of grain. And although Rava says here that ‘grain’ cannot mean that all grain counts as one kind, in Temurah he too needs ‘their first’ to prohibit separating from wine for grain. The answer is that, for Abaye, ‘their first’ follows ‘grain’ and distinguishes kinds of grain; it also applies to all the produce listed in the verse. For wine and oil, whose separate ‘best portions’ already prohibit separating one for the other, it teaches that doing so is ineffective. The same is true of different kinds of grain. For Rava, the prohibition can be derived by an a fortiori argument, while ‘grain’ is needed to exclude other produce from the obligation. Nevertheless, the Torah can write an explicit rule even when an a fortiori argument would establish it. Thus Rava can apply ‘their first’ both to wine and grain in Temurah and to different kinds of grain here. Why, then, are the separate ‘best portions’ needed? Without them, we would not apply ‘their first’ to wine and oil, since they are not prohibited as diverse kinds with one another.
  2. And it follows by an a fortiori argument from new and old — Rava could not instead derive this from the juxtaposition in ‘You shall surely tithe,’ mentioned above: he said there that the juxtaposition applies to the year, not to another matter.
  3. Perhaps it means to combine them with the flock — For the verse places herd and flock under a single tithe, rather than saying, ‘and the tithe of the flock.’
  4. One of them was said by Rav Pappa — The Gemara says this in Bava Kamma 4b as well. This explanation is often given concerning Rav Pappa: he headed the academy after Rava, as stated in Moed Katan 28b, and some things he said were thought to have been said in Rava’s name.

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Bekhorot, Bechoros, Bekhoroth 54.