Talmud - Bekhorot 55a בכורות נ״ה א׳

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.

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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Bechorot 55a explores how sheep flocks in separate locations can combine for tithing purposes, debating whether a shepherd or his tools bridge the gap.