Bejorot 53

מַתְנִי׳ מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה נוֹהֵג בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת, בַּחוּלִּין אֲבָל לֹא בַּמּוּקְדָּשִׁין. וְנוֹהֵג בַּבָּקָר וּבַצֹּאן, וְאֵינָן מִתְעַשְּׂרִים מִזֶּה עַל זֶה. בַּכְּבָשִׂים וּבָעִזִּים וּמִתְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה.

MISHNA: The mitzva of animal tithe is in effect both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael, in the presence of, i.e., in the time of, the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple. It is in effect with regard to non-sacred animals but not with regard to sacrificial animals. And it is in effect with regard to the herd and the flock, but they are not tithed from one for the other; and it is in effect with regard to sheep and goats, and they are tithed from one for the other.

בֶּחָדָשׁ וּבַיָּשָׁן, וְאֵינָן מִתְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה. שֶׁהָיָה בַּדִּין, וּמָה אִם הֶחָדָשׁ וְהַיָּשָׁן שֶׁאֵינָן כִּלְאַיִם זֶה בָּזֶה אֵינָם מִתְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה, כְּבָשִׂים וְעִזִּים שֶׁהֵן כִּלְאַיִם זֶה בָּזֶה — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מִתְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְצֹאן״, מַשְׁמַע כׇּל צֹאן אֶחָד.

And it is in effect with regard to animals from the new flock and with regard to animals from the old flock, but they are not tithed from one for the other. As by right, it should be inferred: If in the case of animals from the new flock and the old flock, which do not carry the prohibition of mating diverse kinds when mated with each other because they are one species, are nevertheless not tithed from one for the other, then with regard to sheep and goats, which do carry the prohibition of mating diverse kinds when mated with each other, is it not right that they will not be tithed from one for the other? Therefore, the verse states: “And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32), indicating that with regard to animal tithe, all animals that are included in the term flock are one species.

גְּמָ׳ לֵימָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא? דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל יַעֲלֶה אָדָם מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה מֵחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ וְיַקְרִיבֶנּוּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וַהֲבֵאתֶם שָׁמָּה עֹלֹתֵיכֶם וְזִבְחֵיכֶם וְאֵת מַעְשְׂרֹתֵיכֶם״.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the mitzva of animal tithe is in effect both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva says: One might have thought that a person must bring up his animal tithe from outside of Eretz Yisrael and sacrifice it in the Temple. Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall bring there your burnt offerings, and your offerings, and your tithes, and the offering of your hand, and your vows, and your gift offerings, and the firstborn of your herd and of your flock” (Deuteronomy 12:6).

בִּשְׁתֵּי מַעַשְׂרוֹת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אֶחָד מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה וְאֶחָד מַעְשַׂר דָּגָן, מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מַעֲלֶה מַעְשַׂר דָּגָן אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה, וּמִמְּקוֹם שֶׁאִי אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה מַעְשַׂר דָּגָן אִי אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה!

Rabbi Akiva explains: The plural form “tithes” indicates that the verse is speaking of two tithes; one is the animal tithe, and the other one is the second tithe of grain, i.e., produce. Since these two tithes are included in the same word, it is derived from here that from the place where you bring up the tithe of grain, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, as the obligation to separate tithe of grain applies only there, you also bring up the animal tithe; but from a place where you do not bring up the tithe of grain, i.e., outside of Eretz Yisrael, you do not bring up the animal tithe either. This baraita, which states the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, apparently contradicts the ruling of the mishna.

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, כָּאן לִיקְרַב, כָּאן לִיקְדַּשׁ. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָא נָסֵיב לַהּ תַּלְמוּדָא ״וַהֲבֵאתֶם שָׁמָּה״, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

The Gemara responds: You may even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as the baraita and the mishna are referring to different cases. The baraita there is referring to the requirement to bring the animal tithe to Jerusalem for it to be sacrificed on the altar. By contrast, the mishna here is speaking of the status of every tenth animal; these animals are to be separated and consecrated. The Gemara adds that the language of the baraita is also precise, as it adduces a derivation from the phrase “and you shall bring there.” Conclude from this citation that the baraita is referring specifically to the requirement to bring the animal tithe and sacrifice it in Jerusalem.

אִי הָכִי, מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵינוֹ קָרֵב, אַמַּאי קָדוֹשׁ? לְנֶאֱכָל בְּמוּמוֹ לַבְּעָלִים.

The Gemara asks: If so, since animal tithe outside of Eretz Yisrael is not sacrificed on the altar, why is it consecrated? What is the significance of its sanctity? The Gemara answers that it is consecrated to the extent that it may be eaten by its owner only when it develops a blemish.

בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת. אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ הָאִידָּנָא נָמֵי! כִּדְרַב הוּנָא, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: גְּזֵירָה מִשּׁוּם יָתוֹם.

§ The mishna teaches that the animal tithe is in effect both in the presence of the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple. The Gemara challenges: If so, then even nowadays the halakha of the animal tithe should be in effect. Why then do people not remove every tenth animal from their flock or herd? The Gemara answers: The reason is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna says: This is a rabbinic decree due to an orphan, i.e., a baby animal whose mother died before it was born, lest it be included with the other animals to be tithed; the obligation of animal tithe does not apply to it.

אִי הָכִי, מֵעִיקָּרָא נָמֵי לָא! אֶלָּא, אֶפְשָׁר בְּהַכְרָזָה. הָכָא נָמֵי, אֶפְשָׁר בְּהַכְרָזָה!

The Gemara challenges: If so, then even originally, when the Temple stood, the practice should have also been not to separate animal tithe in case an orphaned animal was included in the counting. Rather, the Gemara explains that there was no concern for an orphaned animal when the Temple stood, as it was possible to remove this concern by issuing an announcement to everyone that an orphaned animal is exempt from animal tithe. The Gemara suggests: Here too, it is possible to remove the concern by means of an announcement that an orphaned animal is exempt from animal tithe.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבָּה: מִשּׁוּם תַּקָּלָה, וּמְנָא תֵּימְרָא דְּחָיְישִׁינַן לְתַקָּלָה? דִּתְנַן: אֵין מַקְדִּישִׁין, וְאֵין מַעֲרִיכִין, וְאֵין מַחְרִימִין בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה.

Rather, Rabba says: The reason animal tithe is no longer separated is due to concern that a mishap might occur. And from where do you say that we are concerned for a mishap after the destruction of the Temple? As we learned in a baraita: One may neither consecrate items, nor valuate an item’s worth based on its appraisal, nor dedicate items for sacred use (see Leviticus, chapter 27) and dedicate its monetary worth to the Temple treasury, in the present time, when the Temple is no longer standing.

וְאִם הִקְדִּישׁ וְהֶעֱרִיךְ וְהֶחְרִים, בְּהֵמָה — תֵּיעָקֵר, פֵּירוֹת כְּסוּת וְכֵלִים — יֵרָקְבוּ, מָעוֹת וּכְלֵי מַתָּכוֹת — יוֹלִיךְ לְיָם הַמֶּלַח. וְאֵיזֶהוּ עִיקּוּר? נוֹעֵל דֶּלֶת בְּפָנֶיהָ וְהִיא מֵתָה מֵאֵילֶיהָ.

The baraita continues: And if one did consecrate, or valuate, or dedicate items for sacred use, the presence of these items might lead to the mishap of the violation of the prohibition against using consecrated property. Therefore, if one dedicated an animal it should be destroyed. If he dedicated produce, garments, or vessels made from materials that decompose, he should store them until they decompose. And if he dedicated money or metal vessels, he should take them and cast them into the Dead Sea. The Gemara adds: And in the case of an animal, what constitutes uprooting? He locks the door before it, and it dies on its own from hunger. This baraita indicates that animals that cannot be sacrificed nowadays must be left to die so that they are not used improperly.

אִי הָכִי, בְּכוֹר נָמֵי לָא לִיקְדֹּשׁ! בְּכוֹר בְּדִידַן תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא? בְּרֶחֶם קָדוֹשׁ! הָכִי קָאָמַר: לִיקְנִינְהוּ לְאוּדְנַיְיהוּ לְגוֹיִם, דְּלָא לִיקְדֹּשׁ מֵעִיקָּרָא!

The Gemara challenges: If so, then a firstborn should also not be consecrated, as this too could lead to a mishap. The Gemara responds: Does the matter of the consecration of a firstborn depend on us? The animal is automatically consecrated upon its exit from the womb. The Gemara answers that this is what the questioner is saying: Let us sell the ears of all firstborn animals to gentiles before their births, so that they are not consecrated from the outset. A firstborn animal that is jointly owned by a Jew and a gentile does not become consecrated as a firstborn.

אֶפְשָׁר כִּדְרַב יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: מוּתָּר לוֹ לָאָדָם לְהַטִּיל מוּם בִּבְכוֹר קוֹדֶם שֶׁיָּצָא לַאֲוִיר הָעוֹלָם. הָכָא נָמֵי, אֶפְשָׁר דְּשָׁדֵי בֵּיהּ מוּמָא מֵעִיקָּרָא!

The Gemara explains that it is possible to act in a different manner, so that the priest does not lose out on his rights to the firstborn animal. One can act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as Rabbi Yehuda says: It is permitted for a person to inflict a blemish upon a firstborn animal fetus before it emerges into the air of the world. The Gemara challenges: If so, here too, it is possible for one to inflict a blemish from the outset, before the animal becomes consecrated as the tithed animal.

מִי יָדַע הֵי נָפֵיק? וְכִי תֵּימָא דְּמַפֵּיק לֵיהּ בְּרֵישׁ עַשְׂרָה — ״לֹא יְבַקֵּר בֵּין טוֹב לָרַע״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא.

The Gemara answers: How can one know which animal will emerge as the tenth? Since it is impossible to know this, one cannot inflict a blemish on the animal before it becomes consecrated. And if you would say that one should bring out the animal upon which he has inflicted the blemish at the head of the ten animals to ensure that it will be the tithed animal, this is not a valid option, as the Merciful One states: “He shall not inquire whether it be good or bad” (Leviticus 27:33). This means one may not plan in advance which animal will be the tenth.

וְכִי תֵּימָא: אֶפְשָׁר דְּשָׁדֵי בֵּיהּ מוּמָא בְּכוּלֵּיהּ עֶדְרֵיהּ — מְהֵרָה יִבָּנֶה בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, וּבָעֵינַן בְּהֵמָה לְהַקְרָבָה וְלֵיכָּא.

And if you would say it is possible to inflict a blemish on the entire herd of animals and thereby ensure the tenth one will be blemished, that is also undesirable. The reason is that soon the Temple will be rebuilt and we will require animals for offerings, and there will be none remaining without a blemish.

הָכִי נָמֵי בִּבְכוֹר בְּהֵמָה, מְהֵרָה יִבָּנֶה בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, וּבָעֵינַן בְּהֵמָה לְהַקְרָבָה וְלֵיכָּא! אֶפְשָׁר בִּפְשׁוּטִין.

The Gemara asks: But here too, with regard to a firstborn animal, why not also say that soon the Temple will be rebuilt and we will require animals for offerings and there will be none remaining without a blemish? The Gemara answers: It is possible to bring the offerings from ordinary animals that are not firstborns.

הָכָא נָמֵי, אֶפְשָׁר בִּלְקוּחִין! כֵּיוָן דְּאִיהוּ שָׁדֵי בֵּיהּ מוּמָא בְּכוּלֵּיהּ עֶדְרֵיהּ, וּשְׁכִיחִי מוּמֵי דְּפָסְילִי בְּקָדָשִׁים, דַּאֲפִילּוּ דּוּקִּין שֶׁבָּעַיִן נָמֵי פָּסְלִי — לָא שְׁכִיחִי.

The Gemara challenges: Here too, with regard to the animal tithe, it is possible to bring the offerings from animals purchased from another person, which are exempt from animal tithe, as taught in the mishna on 55b. The Gemara answers: Since anyone who has animals inflicts a blemish on all of the animals in his herd to avoid consecrating the tithe, there will be very few unblemished animals available for purchase. And furthermore, blemishes that disqualify sacrificial animals are common, as even if the blemish is small, e.g., on the animal’s eyelid, it disqualifies the animal from being used for sacrifice. Therefore, it will not be common to find animals fit to be used as offerings. For this reason the Sages decreed that one should not tithe his animals in the present time.

בַּחוּלִּין אֲבָל לֹא בַּמּוּקְדָּשִׁין. מוּקְדָּשִׁין — פְּשִׁיטָא, לָאו דִּידֵיהּ נִינְהוּ!

§ The mishna teaches that the mitzva of animal tithe is in effect with regard to non-sacred animals but not with regard to sacrificial animals. The Gemara raises a difficulty: It is obvious that the mitzva to tithe is not in effect with regard to sacrificial animals, as they are not his. Since sacrificial animals have been dedicated to the Temple, of course the owner cannot subsequently consecrate them.

בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, דְּאָמַר: קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים מָמוֹן בְּעָלִים הֵם. דְּתַנְיָא: ״וּמָעֲלָה מַעַל בַּה׳״ — לְרַבּוֹת קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים שֶׁהֵן מָמוֹן בְּעָלִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא לִיעַשְּׂרוּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to offerings of lesser sanctity, e.g., peace offerings, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says: Offerings of lesser sanctity are the monetary property of their owners, and therefore the owner can consecrate them. As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the guilt offering of a robber who takes a false oath, that the verse: “And he commits a trespass against the Lord” (Leviticus 5:21), serves to include one who takes a false oath with regard to offerings of lesser sanctity belonging to another, which are the property of their owners. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Accordingly, it might enter your mind to say that such animals should be tithed. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that the mitzva of animal tithe is not in effect with regard to sacrificial animals at all.

וְאֵימָא הָכִי נָמֵי! ״יִהְיֶה קֹּדֶשׁ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא שֶׁכְּבָר קָדוֹשׁ.

The Gemara suggests: But one can say it is indeed so, i.e., perhaps offerings of lesser sanctity can indeed be tithed. The Gemara responds that the Merciful One states: “And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32). This teaches that this mitzva applies only to an animal that can become sacred in the future but not to an animal that is already sanctified, e.g., that has been set aside as an offering of lesser sanctity.

טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״יִהְיֶה קֹּדֶשׁ״, הָא לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה אָמֵינָא חָיְילָא קְדוּשַּׁת מַעֲשֵׂר עִילָּוַיְהוּ? הַשְׁתָּא קְדוּשָּׁה חֲמוּרָה אַקְּדוּשָּׁה קַלָּה לָא חָיְילָא, קְדוּשָּׁה קַלָּה אַקְּדוּשָּׁה קַלָּה מִיבַּעְיָא?!

The Gemara raises a difficulty: The reason that offerings of lesser sanctity cannot be tithed is that the Merciful One writes: “The tenth shall be sacred to the Lord,” from which it can be inferred that were that not the case, I would say that the sanctity of the animal tithe does take effect on the animal. This claim is difficult, as now that consecration of stringent sanctity does not take effect with regard to offerings of lesser sanctity, as will be explained, is it necessary to teach that a consecration of lesser sanctity does not take effect with regard to offerings of lesser sanctity?

מַאי הִיא? דִּתְנַן: אֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ וְאֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת, אֵין מְשַׁנִּין אוֹתָם מִקְּדוּשָּׁה לִקְדוּשָּׁה, אֲבָל מַקְדִּישִׁין אוֹתָן הֶקְדֵּשׁ עִילּוּי, וּמַחְרִימִין אוֹתָן.

The Gemara clarifies: What is this halakha that consecration of stringent sanctity does not take effect with regard to offerings of lesser sanctity? As we learned in a mishna (Temura 32a): Both concerning animals consecrated for the altar and items consecrated for Temple maintenance, one cannot alter their designation from one form of sanctity to another form of sanctity. But one can consecrate an animal already consecrated for the altar by consecration of its value, and that value is donated to the Temple treasury for maintenance, in addition to the sacrificing of the animal. And one can dedicate that value for the purpose of giving it to the priests. This mishna teaches that one may not consecrate an animal that has already been consecrated for Temple maintenance as an offering for the altar, despite the fact that an offering has more stringent sanctity, and if so, then the sanctity of the animal tithe certainly does not take effect with regard to offerings of lesser sanctity.

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָתָם, דְּכׇל בְּהֵמָה לָאו לְעוֹלָה קָיְימָא, אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּכׇל בְּהֵמָה לְמַעֲשֵׂר קָיְימָא, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאַקְדְּשַׁהּ — לָא פָּקַע אִיסּוּרָא דְּמַעֲשֵׂר מִינַּהּ.

The Gemara answers: Even so, it is necessary for the mishna to teach that tithes do not take effect on offerings of lesser sanctity, lest you say that there, in the mishna in Temura, the reason is that not every animal stands to potentially become a burnt offering, i.e., an offering of more stringent sanctity, from the time it is born. For this reason the greater sanctity cannot take effect once the animal has been consecrated as an offering of lesser sanctity. But in the mishna here, where every animal stands to potentially become an animal tithe offering, one might have thought that even though it is consecrated as an offering of lesser sanctity, nevertheless the initial potential prohibition, i.e., status, of animal tithe is not abrogated from it.

לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? בְּ״לֹא יִגָּאֵל״ וּבְ״לֹא יִמָּכֵר״ קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara clarifies: What difference is there if an animal that has been consecrated as a peace offering is also sanctified as an animal tithe offering? The Gemara explains that if it is sanctified as an animal tithe offering, the prohibition of: “It shall not be redeemed” (Leviticus 27:33), and the prohibition of: It shall not be sold (see 32b), take effect. A peace offering can be redeemed, whereas it is prohibited to redeem or sell animal tithe even after its slaughter. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that the sanctity of animal tithe does not take effect on animals that have been consecrated as offerings of lesser sanctity.

וְנוֹהֵג בַּבָּקָר וּבַצֹּאן, וְאֵין מִתְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה, בַּכְּבָשִׂים וּבָעִזִּים וְכוּ׳. וְיִהְיוּ חָדָשׁ וְיָשָׁן מִתְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה מִקַּל וְחוֹמֶר: וּמָה כְּבָשִׂים וְעִזִּים שֶׁהֵם כִּלְאַיִם זֶה בָּזֶה — מִתְעַשְּׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה, חָדָשׁ וְיָשָׁן שֶׁאֵינָן כִּלְאַיִם זֶה בָּזֶה — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיִּתְעַשְּׂרוּ מִזֶּה עַל זֶה?

§ The mishna teaches: And the animal tithe is in effect with regard to the herd and the flock, but they are not tithed from one for the other; and it is in effect with regard to sheep and goats, and they are tithed from one for the other. In this regard the Gemara cites a baraita: Let it be proven that the animals from the new flock and the animals from the old flock can be tithed from one for the other, by an a fortiori inference: And if sheep and goats, which are prohibited for interbreeding with each other due to the prohibition of diverse kinds, are nevertheless tithed from one for the other, with regard to animals from the new flock and the old flock, which are not prohibited for interbreeding with each other as diverse kinds, is it not logical that they should be tithed from one for the other?

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עַשֵּׂר תְּעַשֵּׂר״ בִּשְׁתֵּי מַעַשְׂרוֹת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אֶחָד מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה וְאֶחָד מַעְשַׂר דָּגָן, וּמַקִּישׁ מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה לְמַעֲשֵׂר דָּגָן: מָה מַעְשַׂר דָּגָן מֵחָדָשׁ עַל הַיָּשָׁן לֹא, אַף מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה מֵחָדָשׁ עַל הַיָּשָׁן לֹא.

The baraita continues: Therefore, the verse states: “You shall tithe a tithe from all the increase of your seed that the field brings forth year by year. And you shall eat before the Lord your God, in the place that He shall choose to place His name there, the tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the firstborn of your herds and of your flocks; that you may learn to fear the Lord your God always” (Deuteronomy 14:22–23). Here, the verse is speaking of two tithes; one is the animal tithe and the other one is the grain tithe. And the verse juxtaposes the animal tithe to the grain tithe, teaching that just as the grain tithe is not taken from the new grain for the old grain, so too, the animal tithe is not taken from the new flock for the old flock.

אִי הָכִי, כְּבָשִׂים וְעִזִּים נָמֵי לֵימָא: מַקִּישׁ מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה לְמַעֲשֵׂר דָּגָן — מָה מַעְשַׂר דָּגָן מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ לֹא, אַף מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ לֹא? רַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא ״צֹאן״.

The Gemara asks: If so, let us say with regard to sheep and goats that they too are not tithed for each other, by the same reasoning, i.e., that the verse juxtaposes the animal tithe to the grain tithe: Just as grain tithe is not separated from one type of grain for another grain that is not its type, so too, animal tithe is not separated from one type of animal for another species of animal that is not its type. The Gemara answers that with regard to animal tithe the Merciful One has amplified the halakha by stating “flock” (Leviticus 27:32). This teaches that all species referred to with the term flock, i.e., sheep and goats, are tithed together.

אִי הָכִי, חָדָשׁ וְיָשָׁן נָמֵי! הָא כְּתִיב ״עַשֵּׂר תְּעַשֵּׂר״. וּמָה רָאִיתָ? אָמַר רָבָא: אָמַר קְרָא ״שָׁנָה שָׁנָה״ — לְשָׁנָה הִקַּשְׁתִּיו, וְלֹא לְדָבָר אַחֵר.

The Gemara suggests: If so, let us also say that new flocks are tithed together with old flocks, based on that amplification of the verse. The Gemara answers that it is written: “You shall tithe a tithe” (Deuteronomy 14:22), to teach that old and new flocks are not tithed together. The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to use the juxtaposition to prohibit tithing old and new flocks together but not to prohibit tithing sheep and goats together? Rava said the verse states: “Year by year” (Deuteronomy 14:22), which teaches that I have juxtaposed the flocks with regard to the year in which they were born, i.e., to prohibit tithing old and new flocks together, but not with regard to another matter.

תְּנַן הָתָם: אֵין תּוֹרְמִין מִמִּין עַל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ, וְאִם תָּרַם — אֵין תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: ״כׇּל חֵלֶב יִצְהָר וְכׇל חֵלֶב תִּירוֹשׁ וְדָגָן״ — אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: תֵּן חֵלֶב לָזֶה וְחֵלֶב לָזֶה.

§ We learned in a mishna there (Terumot 2:4): One may not separate the portion of the produce designated for the priest [teruma] from one type of produce to exempt another type of produce that is not its type, and if one did separate teruma in that manner, his teruma is not teruma. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rabbi Ami says that Rabbi Yannai says, and some say that Rabbi Ami says that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says, that the verse states with regard to teruma: “All the best of the oil, and all the best of the wine, and of the grain, the first part of them, which they give to the Lord, to you have I given them” (Numbers 18:12). The Torah says: Give the best, i.e., teruma and tithes, of this, the oil, and the best of that, the wine, separately, i.e., one may not give teruma or tithes from one for the other. This mitzva also applies to tithes, as it too is called: “The best” (Numbers 18:30).