The Mishnah discusses animals in separate pens that are within a certain distance of one another. In such a case, the two pens can be combined for the purpose of reaching ten animals, making them subject to the animal tithe. The Mishnah states that animals can be combined when they stray from the group within the normal measure of an animal’s wandering.
Animals do not always remain clustered together. Sometimes one animal strays from the pack. As long as it remains within the distance considered normal for an animal to wander, it can still be counted as part of the group. The Gemara asks: What is the measure of this distance?
One interpretation is that the measure is sixteen mil. That is a considerable distance, but the animals are still considered part of the same group if they stray within that range. The Mishnah then gives another interpretation: the distance is determined by how far apart the animals may be while still being watched by one shepherd—how far the shepherd’s eyes can scan.
If a person has five animals in one village and five animals in another village, and the two villages are sixteen mil apart, he brings the animals into one pen and tithes them. If they are farther apart than that, they are exempt from being combined.
A mil is two thousand cubits. According to the calculation mentioned here, sixteen mil are sixteen times two thousand cubits—approximately thirty-two thousand cubits. The discussion referred to four thousand feet for a mil, which would make sixteen mil approximately sixty-four thousand feet. In any event, the point is that a person may have five animals here and five animals there, with the two groups a great distance apart, and still combine them if the shepherd can see from one group to the other. This might be possible in an open valley, where the view is unobstructed.
The Mishnah then states that if the animals are thirty-two mil apart, they cannot be combined. The Gemara asks the obvious question: If the measure is sixteen mil, why does the Mishnah mention thirty-two mil? Where does that figure come from?
The Gemara explains that the Mishnah is discussing a case in which there are animals in the middle between the two groups. For example, there may be seven animals here, seven animals there, and two animals in the middle. Those two animals connect the two groups. They function like a link joining the groups on either side.
When the Mishnah says that the animals are brought together, it does not necessarily mean that every animal must physically be brought to the middle. The issue is one of connection. If there are fifteen animals in total, the person takes the tithe from the animals themselves; he does not have to bring every animal to the middle.
The final part of the Mishnah records the opinion of Rabbi Meir: the Jordan River is considered a separation. If there are five animals on one side of the Jordan and five on the other side, and the river separates them, they cannot be combined. The Gemara will explain which section of the Jordan River is meant.
At this point, the Gemara is looking for a biblical source for the basic principle. How do we know that as long as the shepherd can see the animals—approximately sixteen mil away—the groups can be combined? The Gemara quotes a verse referring to the sword passing over the one who counts them. The one who counts the animals is the shepherd, and the implication is that as long as one shepherd can still see and count the animals, the groups may be combined.
Rashi explains that the verse implies that the animals can be counted by one shepherd. The expression “they will pass” indicates that they pass under the authority or supervision of the one who counts them. Thus, the relevant measure is the distance at which a single shepherd can still see and count the flock.
The Gemara returns to the thirty-two-mil case. It says that when the Mishnah states that animals thirty-two mil apart cannot be combined, it is referring to a situation in which there are animals in the middle. If the two outside groups are separated by thirty-two mil, but animals are located in the center, the middle animals divide the distance into two sections of sixteen mil. The outside groups can therefore be connected through the animals in the middle.
Thus, if there are fewer than thirty-two mil between the two groups, they can be combined. If there are thirty-two mil, they cannot be combined when there is nothing in the middle. But if animals stand in the middle, the distance is divided: sixteen mil from one group to the middle and sixteen mil from the middle to the other group.
The Gemara asks how many animals are needed in the middle to create this connection. Rav says that there must be five animals on one side, five on the other side, and five in the middle. The five middle animals can be assigned to either side. If they are joined to the group on the left, that group reaches ten; if they are joined to the group on the right, that group reaches ten.
According to this explanation, one takes the five middle animals and combines them with one of the groups, bringing that side to ten. The other five animals on the opposite side do not yet reach ten and must remain there until additional animals are born. Once more animals are born in that group, it may also become subject to the animal tithe.
The condition is that the five animals in the middle must be positioned so that they can connect both sides. If the middle group is closer to one side, it is certainly combined with that side, while the other five animals remain exempt. They are placed in the pen without being tithed, and one waits until additional animals are born there.
If the middle animals are exactly situated so that they can connect to both sides, both sides could become subject to the tithe. Therefore, the person cannot simply treat all the animals as one group. He combines the middle animals with one side, takes the tithe from that side, and waits until more animals are born on the other side.
The distance is determined by measuring where the animals are located. If the middle group is closer to one side, it is combined with that particular side, and the animals on the other side remain exempt.
Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak offers a different opinion. According to him, even five animals on one side, five on the other side, and a single animal in the middle are sufficient to create the connection. The five animals on each side can be combined through that one animal.
The novelty of this opinion is that the single animal in the middle is not itself enough to reach ten. Nevertheless, it establishes a connection between the two groups of five. It is as though the shepherd were standing in the middle, able to see both groups. Since the animals are within the shepherd’s range of vision on both sides, they can be combined.
Rashi explains that the middle animal is treated as though the shepherd were standing in that location. We learned earlier that when the shepherd stands at a point from which he can see the animals within sixteen mil, the groups can be combined. Although the shepherd is not actually there, the animal in the middle is treated as representing his position.
The reason is that a shepherd follows the animals. If one animal is in the middle, the shepherd would ordinarily go to that animal. If the animal were assigned to the group on the right, there would be six animals there; if it were assigned to the group on the left, there would also be six. The middle animal does not create a group of ten by itself, but it connects the two groups because it is treated as though the shepherd were standing between them.
The Gemara raises a difficulty against Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak. There were five animals in the village of Hananiah and five animals in another village, with thirty-two mil between them. They were not combined until there was one animal in Sepphoris in the middle. This appears to show that a single animal in the middle is enough, supporting Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak and challenging Rav.
The Gemara presents the difficulty as an unresolved refutation. It then describes another case: there were five animals in one village and five in another, with a particular place in the middle. In that case, the animals were combined when there were two animals in the middle.
Shmuel responds on behalf of Rav. He explains that the case may have involved nine animals on each side and one in the middle. The single middle animal could be joined to either side, bringing that side to ten. According to Rav, the rule is not that there must be exactly five animals on each side and five in the middle. The rule is that the middle animal must bring one side to ten.
Thus, if there are nine animals on each side and one in the middle, the middle animal can be combined with either side. According to Rashi, after combining it with one side, the other group of nine must wait until another animal is born there. The principle is that as long as the middle animal brings one side to ten, it creates a connection for that side.
According to this view, there is no requirement for a sheep to stand in the middle. Even if the shepherd himself is standing in the middle, the groups can be combined. The same would be true if only the shepherd’s vessels were in the middle. The vessels can also establish the shepherd’s position for purposes of creating the connection.
Rav Ashi asks about the shepherd’s dog. Shepherds use dogs to keep wolves away from the animals. If the shepherd’s dog is standing in the middle between two groups, does it connect the groups for purposes of combining them?
There are two possible ways to view the dog. On the one hand, if the shepherd calls the dog, it comes to him. It is therefore not considered permanently stationary in the middle. On the other hand, sometimes the dog does not listen when it is called, and the shepherd must go to the dog in order to retrieve it. In that case, the dog might be treated as though it were the shepherd’s position.
The Gemara leaves the question unresolved.
We return to the Jordan River. The Mishnah states that if there are five animals on one side of the Jordan and five on the other side, they cannot be combined. What is the reason? One possibility is that when there is no bridge, the animals cannot be brought together. If there is a bridge, they can cross, and the practical problem is removed.
According to this explanation, the reason Rabbi Meir rules that the groups cannot be combined is that the animals cannot physically approach one another. The issue is access: without a bridge, one cannot cross the Jordan to bring the animals together. If there is a bridge, that problem is resolved, and the groups may be combined.
The Gemara challenges this explanation. It discusses animals located on opposite sides of two separate provinces of one kingdom, such as the provinces of Hamat and Tiberias. Even if the distance between them is less than one mil, the animals cannot be combined. The problem is not that they cannot physically reach one another, because the regions may be connected. Rather, the fact that they are located in separate areas prevents the combination.
The same applies, even more obviously, when five animals are located on the border of one area and five animals in another area. They cannot be combined. The two locations may be connected by land, as though there were a bridge, and yet the animals still cannot be combined. This indicates that the issue is not simply physical proximity or access.
The Rabbis explain that the Jordan River is called a boundary in the Book of Joshua. The verse describes the Jordan as the eastern boundary. Since Scripture calls it a boundary, it is treated halachically like a wall. Therefore, animals on the two sides are regarded as being in separate areas, even if there is a bridge that technically allows them to cross.
This teaches that the Jordan is considered a separate landmass or domain. The issue is not the distance between the animals and not merely whether they can physically reach one another. The Jordan itself divides the areas. Even if the two sides are both within the Land of Israel, the river constitutes a halachic separation.
One might object that the same principle should apply to the boundaries between all the tribes. The sections of the other tribes are also called boundaries in Scripture. If so, animals on opposite sides of the border between two tribes should likewise be unable to combine.
The Gemara answers that the land itself is considered one boundary or one unified area, but the Jordan is not included in that same landmass. The Jordan is treated separately. This is the opinion of the Rabbis.
The first explanation had understood Rabbi Meir’s ruling differently: the issue was access. If there is no bridge, the animals cannot be brought together; if there is a bridge, they can. But according to the Rabbis, the Jordan is a separate area in its own right, and a bridge does not eliminate the halachic separation.
The Gemara asks why the Mishnah specifies the Jordan River. According to the view that the issue is access, any river should have the same status. If animals are on opposite sides of any river, the same question of access applies.
The Gemara leaves that question unresolved.
The Gemara then discusses the underlying dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis: Is the area of the Jordan considered part of the Land of Israel, or is it treated as a separate entity? One verse says, “When you cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan,” suggesting that the land of Canaan begins only after one crosses the Jordan. This indicates that the Jordan itself is not included in the Land of Canaan.
Another verse places the Jordan and Jericho together, which may suggest that the Jordan is included in the same area. Thus, there is a fundamental dispute about the status of the Jordan: is it part of the Land of Israel, or is it a separate area?
The view that the Jordan is a boundary unto itself follows the opinion of Judah ben Beteira, who does not consider the Jordan part of the Land of Canaan. The view that the Jordan is included in the Land of Israel follows the other position and does not agree with Judah ben Beteira.
Rabbah bar bar Hannah teaches that the Jordan River is defined as the section from the area of Jericho downward. The Gemara asks what practical difference this definition makes. A person might make a vow not to drink from the Jordan River, and it would be necessary to know precisely which section is called the Jordan.
In matters of vows, one follows the way people ordinarily speak. Even if, technically, the Jordan River is defined as beginning at Jericho and continuing southward, if people refer to the entire body of water as the Jordan, that usage is halachically significant. The practical question is which areas are included in the ordinary meaning of the term.
The Gemara then discusses the source of the Jordan. It states that the Jordan emerges from the Cave of Panias in the north, passes through the Lake of Hula, and then enters the Sea of Tiberias, the Sea of Galilee. From there it continues southward and eventually reaches the Dead Sea.
Why is it called the Jordan? It descends from the territory of Dan. The source is brought in a Baraita. The city of Laish was captured by the tribe of Dan, and the tribe renamed it Dan after their ancestor. Since the river comes from the area of Dan, it is called the Jordan, meaning that it descends from Dan.
Rav Kahana says that the source of the Jordan is the Cave of Panias. If a person says, “I will not drink water from Panias,” he may not drink from the entire Jordan River, because the waters of the Jordan originate there.
The Gemara then gives an analogy. What is the source of all the blood in the body? It is the liver. If a liver dissolves and there is a quantity of blood equivalent to a revi’it, that blood conveys ritual impurity in a tent. The liver is treated as one entity of blood, and if it dissolves, the blood that comes from it has that status.
In the same way, the source of the waters is identified with the river into which they flow. The source of the Jordan is Panias, and therefore a vow concerning the waters of Panias can apply to the entire Jordan.
The Gemara presents a similar teaching regarding the Euphrates. Rav says that the source of all the waters is the Euphrates. Therefore, if a person vows not to drink from the Euphrates, he cannot drink water anywhere, because all the waters of the world are said to derive from it.
The Gemara challenges this. If the person explicitly said, “I will not drink from the Euphrates,” why should the vow apply to every river? Perhaps he meant only that particular river. The Gemara explains that the vow can be understood as referring to water that comes from the Euphrates. Since the three major rivers mentioned in the Book of Genesis—the Pishon, the Tigris, and the Gihon—ultimately flow into the other rivers of the world, the water of the Euphrates is regarded as the source of the entire system.
The Gemara raises another difficulty. There are springs on mountains and high places that are higher than the Euphrates. How can the Euphrates be considered the source of all water if those waters are located above it?
Mar Sheshet answers that the waters come through underground channels, described as the “ladders” of the Euphrates. The water travels underground and emerges in springs. Even the water found in the mountains is connected to those underground channels. Thus, the fact that a spring is physically higher than the Euphrates does not disprove the Euphrates’ status as the source.
Another question is raised from the verse that speaks of four rivers. The Torah presents the Euphrates as the fourth river, after the other three. If the Euphrates is part of the same group, how can it be considered above the other rivers?
The answer is that the Euphrates is the original river mentioned in the verse. The three other rivers emerged from it. It is not a new river on the same level as the others; rather, the Euphrates is the primary river from which the other three developed.
The name of the Euphrates is also connected to the idea of a river whose waters multiply from an internal source. A verse compares such a person to a tree planted by water, whose roots extend toward the stream. The Euphrates is described as having a natural source beneath it that causes its waters to increase.
This does not mean that the river is supplied only by rain. Rather, the teaching is that it has a natural spring beneath it, which provides its source and causes its waters to expand.
Rav says that when there is heavy rain in the west, meaning in the Land of Israel, the Euphrates is the great testimony. When the Jews in Babylonia saw that the Euphrates had risen, they knew that there had been abundant rain in the Land of Israel. The height of the Euphrates testified to the rainfall there.
The Gemara then brings a halachic application concerning ritual immersion. The father of Shmuel made ritual baths for his daughters in the month of Nisan. He did not allow them to immerse in the Euphrates during that time. He made special ritual baths for them and placed reed mats in the Euphrates so that they could immerse there during Tishrei.
The Gemara explains that in Nisan there was a concern that the melting snow and runoff would enter the Euphrates. There might then be more rainwater than naturally flowing spring water. Although rainwater can be suitable for a ritual bath under certain conditions, moving rainwater is not valid in the same way as naturally flowing spring water. Therefore, the concern was that the waters of the Euphrates would be dominated by moving rainwater.
In Tishrei, however, there was no comparable concern about the melting snow. The water flowing in the river could therefore be regarded as naturally flowing water. The mats placed in the river were not necessarily related to the validity of the water. They may have enabled the women to walk safely into the ritual bath, or to avoid the mud and other material on the riverbed.
Rashi presents a further explanation. It is possible that the daughters were women in the category of zavot. A zavah requires immersion in living water, meaning naturally flowing water. If the river contained too much rainwater, that rainwater could nullify the status of the spring water. In that case, immersion in the river would not purify a zavah.
According to the first explanation, the concern was that the rainwater would be greater in quantity than the naturally flowing water. According to the second explanation, the concern was that the water flowing through the river might itself be rainwater that had fallen on the mountains and traveled through the ground into the river.
The Gemara distinguishes between water that falls directly from the clouds and water that flows over the ground. The directly falling rainwater is called dripping water, while the water that flows through the ground and enters the river is called flowing water. Both are ultimately rainwater, but the concern is that the rainwater will invalidate the river’s status as naturally flowing spring water.
According to this explanation, the fear was that the daughters were zavot and that the river would not be a valid source of living water for them. Therefore, their father constructed separate ritual baths.
The Gemara then raises a contradiction from a statement of Shmuel himself. Shmuel said that when the waters are moving, they are not suitable for a ritual bath. But this appears to be precisely the concern that his father had addressed. Why, then, did his father allow his daughters to immerse in the Euphrates in Tishrei?
When they entered the ritual bath in Tishrei, they stood on the mats. The mats may have protected their feet from mud or other material at the bottom of the water. According to the earlier explanation, the concern was specifically that the Euphrates in Nisan might contain an excess of rainwater. In Tishrei, when there was no such concern, the moving water of the river was acceptable.
But the Gemara asks how Shmuel could say that the Euphrates was nourished by its own source, while also explaining that the reason immersion was permitted in Tishrei was that there was no concern about rainwater. These statements appear contradictory. If the Euphrates increases from its own natural source, why should the source of the water matter?
The Gemara offers another way to understand the statement about the father of Shmuel. Perhaps he made the ritual baths for his daughters during the winter, not specifically in Nisan. At the end of the winter, when the snow melted and the runoff entered the Euphrates, he prohibited immersion in the river. But during the middle of the winter, when that runoff was not yet a concern, he allowed them to immerse in the Euphrates.
According to this interpretation, the father of Shmuel was concerned only at the end of the winter, when the melting snow could increase the amount of rainwater in the river. Shmuel, however, held that immersion in the Euphrates was prohibited even during the middle of the winter. On this reading, Shmuel disagreed with his father about when the river could be used for immersion.
These are the explanations offered for the relationship between the Jordan, the Euphrates, their sources, and the laws of ritual immersion.