1)

(a)We learned in the Mishnah in T'rumos that one cannot Ma'aser from one species on to another, and that if one does - the T'rumah is not valid.

(b)Rebbi Ami citing Rebbi Yanai or Resh Lakish learns this from the Pasuk in Korach "Kol Cheilev (the choicest) Yitzhar (oil), ve'Chol Cheilev Tirosh(wine) ve'Dagan" ...

(c)... implying by the repetition of the word "Cheilev", that one must separate Ma'asros from oil and from wine separately.

(d)We extend this ruling to wine and grain or one species of grain on another by virtue of the Kal va'Chomer that - if this ruling applies to oil and wine, which are not subject to Kil'ayim, how much more so will it apply to wine and grain or to two species of grain which are.

2)

(a)At first sight, this Kal va'Chomer will not work according to Rebbi Yashiyah, who says that - it is only Kil'ayim in a vineyard if one throws wheat and barley together with grape-seeds simultaneously.

(b)We nevertheless learn the Kal va'Chomer even according to him - inasuch as, if this ruling applies to oil and wine, which are not subject to Kil'ayim (even together with another species), how much more so will it apply to wine and grain or to two species of grain which are Kil'ayim (together with another species).

(c)We ask from where we know that the ruling extends even to two other species, such as beans and lentils - which are subject to Ma'asros only mi'de'Rabbanan.

(d)We therefore answer that - we know it from the principle that Whatever the Rabbanan decree, they follow the same specifications as the equivalent Torah-law.

3)

(a)Rebbi Aba bar Mamal asked Rebbi Ami whether this means that one can Ma'aser one species of animal on another - seeing as the Torah does not write "ve'Chol Ma'aser Bakar u'Ma'aser Tzon" ...

(b)... to which Rebbi Ami replied that - since the Torah juxtaposes "Ma'aser" next to "Bakar" and "ha'Asiri" next to "Tzon", it is as if it had written "Ma'aser" by each one.

(c)We do not however, include sheep together with goats in the prohibition - because, as we have already learned, "Tzon" incorporates goats.

4)

(a)To answer why we do not use the same argument to say that all Dagan is considered one, to permit the separation of Ma'aser of wheat on barley and vice-versa, Abaye learns from the fact that the Torah juxtaposes "Reishisam" to Dagan that - one must give a first for each species of Dagan independently.

(b)Rebbi Ila'a - answers like Abaye.

5)

(a)Rava argues that even without "Reishisam", we could not learn from "Dagan" that all Dagan is considered one species - because the Torah needs to write "Dagan" in order to exclude other kinds of crops (that do not belong to the five kinds of grain) from Ma'asros. In other words, "Dagan", unlike "Tzon", is not superfluous).

(b)Nevertheless, one may Ma'aser sheep on to goats and vice-versa - because had the Torah wanted to forbid it, instead of "ve'Chol Ma'asar Bakar va'Tzon", it ought to have written - "ve'Chol Ma'aser Beheimah".

(c)"ve'Chol Ma'asar Bakar va'Tzon" teaches us that - it is from Bakar on to Tzon and vice-versa that one is forbidden, but not from sheep on to goats.

6)

(a)We query this Limud however, in that, had the Torah written "ve'Chol Ma'asar Beheimah" - we would have included Chayos in the Din of Ma'aser Beheimah.

(b)We counter this by citing the Gezeirah-Shavah "Tachas" "Tachas" from Kodshim, to which Chayos are not subject - from the Pasuk in Emor "Shor, Kesev va'Eiz".

(c)And we would then have learned via a Kal-va'Chomer from Chadash ve'Yashan that - if one cannot Ma'aser on one another, how much more so Bakar on Tzon (as we learned earlier) ...

(d)... in which case, "Bakar va'Tzon" is superfluous to teach us that it is from Bakar on to Tzon and vice-versa that one is forbidden, but not from sheep on to goats (as we just explained).

(e)When Rav Huna bar Nasan suggested that perhaps "Bakar va'Tzon" comes to teach us that one is permitted to Ma'aser from one on to the other, Mar Zutra answered him that - Rava concedes to Abaye's D'rashah of ha'Asiri (cited earlier on the Amud).

7)

(a)In another Lashon, Rava stated that without "Asiri", it is not possible to Ma'aser Bakar on Tzon and vice-versa - since Ma'aser Beheimah is compared to Ma'aser Dagan, which one cannot Ma'aser from one species on to another.

(b)The problem with this Hekesh, , is that, based on an earlier statement of Rava himself - it is confined to the year of Ma'aser ('le'Shanah Hiksheisiv ve'Lo le'Davar Acher').

(c)One answer is that Rava retracted from that statement; the other that - one of these (contradictory) statements was made by Rav Papa.

8)

(a)The Mishnah states that we combine the animals to enter the pen together up to a distance of ki'Melo Regel Beheimah - a distance of sixteen Mil.

(b)Five sheep on one side and five on the other that are thirty-two Milin apart will combine - if the shepherd has a pen in the middle into which to bring the ten animals.

(c)Rebbi Meir rules that - the River Yarden divides the sheep as regards Ma'aser.

9)

(a)The reason for the sixteen Mil limit is - because up to sixteen Mil, the shepherd can keep an eye on the animals (giving them the status of one flock/herd), but not more.

(b)And we learn it from the Pasuk in Yirmiyah - "The sheep will yet pass through someone who is counting them".

(c)In addition, we know traditionally that up to sixteen Mil, the shepherd is able to keep an eye on his sheep, but no further (as we already explained).

10)

(a)The problem with the Din in the Mishnah of thirty-two Mil is that - it implies that less than thirty-two Amos does combine, whereas the Mishnah itself just gave a limit of sixteen Amos.

(b)And we answer that - the Tana mentions thirty-two Amos on account of the Seifa, which combines thirty-two Amos (but no more) if the shepherd has a pen in the middle.

(c)In answer to the She'eilah regarding the Seifa, as to the minimum number of sheep that one needs in order to combine, Rav says five in either village and five in the middle - since the five in the middle are fit to combine with the five on either side.

(d)Assuming the five on one side are within sixteen Mil of the five in the middle - then if the five on the other side are also within sixteen Mil then, after combining the five in the middle with the five on one side, when five more lambs are born, he combines them with the lambs on the other side; whereas if they are more than sixteen mil away, they are Patur from Ma'aser.

11)

(a)According to Shmuel - one in the middle will suffice to combine them ...

(b)... because, seeing as the owner tends to go there to check on the single animal, it is as if he is there all the time, in which case he may combine the five animals on either side (even though the animal in the middle itself does not combine ...

(c)... and how much more so if there are five animals on one side, four on the other and one in the middle (where the one in the middle is actually needed to make up the ten, as we already explained).

12)

(a)We query Rav from a Beraisa, which discusses a case where the owner has five lambs in K'far Chananyah and five sheep in K'far Usni. The Tana rulse there that - they only combine if he has one lamb in Tzipori.

(b)To reconcile Rav with the Beraisa, Shmuel establishes the Seifa of the Beraisa 've'Achas be'Emtza' - (not like the Reisha, but) where there are nine on either side of the one in the Tzipori.

(c)This case is different than that of Rav - inasmuch as the lamb in the middle combines with those on either side.

13)

(a)Rav Papa explains that, according to Shmuel, two things combine the two lots of animals; one is the shepherd who resides in the middle. the other - his paraphernalia ...

(b)... since the fact that it is there means that the shepherd will need to go there to pick it up.

(c)Rav Ashi asks - whether the shepherd's sheep-dog combines the two batches of animals or not.

(d)On the one hand, it might not combine them - since sometimes, the owner calls it and it comes without his having to go and fetch it; on the other hand ...

(e)... it might nevertheless combine them - because sometimes, it does not come and the shepherd has to go there himself.