Bekhorot 59a — the Talmud in English

Even the terumat maaser is taken by estimation

and by thought,

for “and it shall be reckoned” was said with reference to the two terumot.

And maaser

of grain, behold,

the Merciful One called it “

teruma,”

as it is written [Numbers 18:24] concerning the first maaser: “

[Numbers 18:24], concerning the first tithe:

For the maaser of the children of Israel that they shall raise up for the Lord

I have given to the Levites as an inheritance,”

and from this one should learn that even the maaser of grain is taken by estimation and by thought,

and

behold,

the animal maaser was juxtaposed to the grain maaser

by the verse “You shall surely tithe,” in which Scripture speaks of the two maasrot, as above, on page 53b, and we learned:

Just as the grain maaser is taken by estimation and by thought, so

the animal maaser is taken by estimation and by thought,

and therefore Rabbi Yose bar Rabbi Judah holds that even if he did not count them one by one, but took ten out of one hundred, this too is maaser, for this too is thought.

Rava said: The tenth becomes sacred by itself,

as, for example, he was counting the animals and the ninth went out, while the tenth remained in the pen: it is sacred by itself, even though he did not say that it should be sacred and did not even call it “tenth.”

The Gemara asks:

From where does Rava derive this?

[From where did he learn this]?

If you say, from that which was taught

in the beraita brought above, 58b:

I have only

that the tenth becomes sacred

but

in a case

where he called it “

tenth,”

but if

he did not call it “

tenth,”

from where

do we know that it becomes sacred?

The verse states: “The tenth

“The tenth

shall be sacred,”

in every case.

This cannot be said, for—

Perhaps “

tenth”

is what He did not call it,

but “

sacred”

He did call it: perhaps the beraita expanded the law only in a case where he did not call it “tenth,” but nevertheless said concerning it that it should be sacred. But in Rava’s case, where he did not even call it “sacred,” we have still not heard this.

Perhaps the beraita expanded the law only to a case in which he did not call it “the tenth,” but nevertheless said concerning it that it should be holy. But in Rava’s case, in which he did not even call it “holy,” we have still not heard this.

We learned in the Mishna below, 60a:

a. If he called the ninth “tenth,” and the tenth [he called] “ninth,” and the eleventh [he called] “tenth,” all three become sacred. The ninth is eaten when blemished, the tenth is maaser, and the eleventh is offered as a peace-offering.

And everything is learned from the expositions of the verses in the sugya there.

b. If he called the ninth “tenth,” and the tenth “tenth,” and the eleventh “tenth,” the eleventh does not become sacred. This is the rule: Whenever the designation “tenth” has not been removed from it [from the tenth], the eleventh does not become sacred.

Rather,

perhaps you will say that the source of Rava is

from that which was taught:

If he called the ninth “

tenth,”

and the tenth went out and he did not speak, the ninth is eaten when blemished

since he called it “tenth,”

and the tenth is maaser.

We have thus learned that the tenth becomes sacred by itself.

This too cannot be said, for—

Perhaps there it is different, for it became clear to him

that it was the

tenth

[it became clear that it was the tenth], for it went out through the same doorway through which the nine before it went out. But if the tenth remained in the pen, or went out through another doorway, we have still not heard this.

Alternatively,

one may say that the beraita is dealing with a case

where he indicated it

[he pointed with his finger at the tenth].

Rather,

perhaps you will say that the source of Rava is

from that which was taught:

If he called the ninth “

tenth,”

and the tenth died in the pen,

then the

ninth is eaten when blemished

because he called it “tenth,”

and all are exempt

from the maaser—

but

what is the reason that all are exempt?

Is it not

because the tenth became sacred

by itself before it died, and it follows that he separated maaser? Thus, the tenth becomes sacred by itself.

This too cannot be said, for—

Perhaps

the reason that all became exempt is not because the maaser took effect, but even though the maaser did not take effect, and because

they were exempted by a count fit for designation—

that is, since at the time they were counted they were fit for the count to be completed and the tenth to be separated, they are exempt, even though in the end the tenth died and did not become sacred.

For Rava said: A count fit for designation exempts.

Rather,

the Gemara concludes that the source of Rava is

from that which was taught:

If he called the ninth “

tenth,”

and the tenth remained in the pen,

then

the ninth is eaten when blemished, and the tenth is maaser;

it is thus explained that the tenth becomes sacred by itself even while it is still in the pen.

And since the beraita was brought, we raise a difficulty against it:

But was it not taught

in another beraita that we learned: If he called the ninth “tenth,” and the tenth remained in the pen, then the

ninth is unconsecrated,

and not as explained in the previous beraita, that the ninth is eaten when blemished!?

A tanna taught before Rav Sheshet

to reconcile the beraitot:

Whose view is this—

the beraita that holds that the ninth is unconsecrated—

it is Rabbi Shimon ben Judah’s!

For it was taught

concerning the Mishna that we learned below, 60a, that the ninth is eaten when blemished because he called it “tenth.” And it is explained in the latter clause of the Mishna that the eleventh does not become sacred—even though he called it “tenth”—unless the designation “tenth” was removed from the tenth, because he called it “ninth.” From this it follows that the ninth is eaten when blemished when he called it “tenth,” even if afterward he called the tenth “tenth,” so that the designation “tenth” was not removed from the tenth. Rabbi Shimon ben Judah disagreed concerning this detail:

Rabbi Shimon ben Judah says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: