Talking Talmud

If the animals are grazing on different sides of the Jordan River, they cannot be combined for the purpose of tithing. Which leads the Gemara to a long detour of reflection on the Jordan River, including its role as a border (or not) for the land of Canaan. Also, the source of the Jordan - in the Cave of Pamyas, where an oath about the water at the source may well have impact on the permissibility about the entire rest of the river. Plus, the supposition that the source of blood is the liver (it's marrow, but it's true that the liver is home to more blood than other organs). And the source of water is the Euphrates.

More on not combining most species for tithing -- with the explicit exception of sheep and goats. The biblical source for this brings us back to terumah (and ma'aser) on different species. Plus, the implications of actual "kilayim," mixtures of the different species -- and when that prohibition would be violated. Also, a new mishnah! On the distance that the flocks could be apart from each other and still join together for the count of the tithing: 16 "mil" [What's What: A "mil"].

Chapter 9! On tithing animals... and the verses from the Torah that prescribe this fairly broad mitzvah, throughout the world and regardless of whether the Temple stands. Sacrificial animals, however, are not part of the tithe. "Herds" (cattle and so on) cannot be tithed in a group that includes various species, however, when it comes to "flocks," even sheep and goat, can combine for tithing purposes. And not "new" and "old" together... Plus, diving deeper into combining species and into the old/new restriction, using a fortiori logic. Also, can the tithing of animals be compared to the tithing of grain and learn from the comparison? Maybe sheep and goats shouldn't be able to be tithed together either? But the term "flocks" is inclusive.

2 mishnayot: 1 - A first-born son receives a double-inheritance from his father's property, though not his mother's property. (Note: The potential modern will complications (which are largely avoidable, but still) would be in Israel, not elsewhere). But improvements to the property after the father's death and other kinds of property would not be counted as a double portion. Nor a woman receiving her ketubah, nor daughters receiving mezonot, nor a yavam. 2 - During a jubilee year (yovel), the land reverts, but there are exceptions -- including the double-portion of the first-born. Note the Gemara's interpretation of this mishnah -- a husband's inheritance of the wife's property may not revert either, or if it does, perhaps he wouldn't be compensated for it. But this inheritance, according to the Gemara, becomes her family's ancestral plot for burial, and not some other land.

2 mishnayot! 1 - Redemption of the first-born son has to be done via the 5 silver coins (not via objects or land or promissory notes). Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi says - Anything but promissory notes would work, which indicates that his view is not the view of the mishnah. 2 - If the father paid the coins at once, that fulfills the obligation, but what if he handed them over one by one, or to several kohanim? Or if the kohen takes the payment and then returns it? Note how wealthy Rabbi Tarfon didn't keep the coins.