Bekhorot 59a (נט.) — the Talmud in English

Even terumat ma'aser is taken by estimation

and by thought,

for the expression “and it shall be reckoned” was stated with regard to both terumot.

And

grain tithe

was called by the Merciful One

“teruma,”

as it is written [Numbers 18:24], concerning the first tithe:

regarding the first tithe:

“For the tithe of the Children of Israel that they raise up to the Lord,

I have given to the Levites as an inheritance,”

and from this it can be learned that grain tithe, too, is taken by estimation and by thought,

and

indeed,

animal tithe was juxtaposed to grain tithe

in the verse “You shall surely tithe,” which, as stated above on 53b, speaks of two tithes, and we learn:

Just as grain tithe is taken by estimation and by thought, so

animal tithe is taken by estimation and by thought.

Therefore, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, maintains that even if he did not count the animals one by one, but instead took ten out of a hundred, this too is a tithe, because this, too, constitutes thought.

Rava said: The tenth becomes consecrated by itself,

for example, when he was counting the animals and the ninth emerged while the tenth remained in the pen: it becomes consecrated by itself, even though he did not say that it should be consecrated and did not even call it “the tenth.”

The Gemara asks:

From where does Rava derive this?

[From where did he learn it?]

If you say that he derives it from that which was taught

in a beraita cited above on 58b:

I have derived

that the tenth becomes consecrated

only

in a case

where he called it “

the tenth,”

but if

he did not call it “

the tenth,”

from where

do we know that it becomes consecrated?

The verse states: “The tenth

shall be

holy”

in any event.

This cannot be said, however, because—

Perhaps “

the tenth”

is what he did not call it,

but

“holy”

he did call it.

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 a Mishna below, on 60a:

a. If he called the ninth “the tenth,” the tenth “the ninth,” and the eleventh “the tenth,” all three are consecrated. The ninth is eaten when blemished, the tenth is ma'aser, and the eleventh is offered as a shelamim.

All of this is learned from expositions of the verses in the sugya there.

b. If he called the ninth “the tenth,” the tenth “the tenth,” and the eleventh “the tenth,” the eleventh is not consecrated. This is the rule: Whenever the designation “tenth” has not been removed from the tenth animal, the eleventh is not consecrated.

Rather,

perhaps you will say that Rava’s source is

that which was taught in a beraita:

If he called the ninth “

the tenth,”

and the tenth emerged and he said nothing, the ninth is eaten when blemished,

since he assigned it the designation “tenth,”

and the tenth is ma'aser.

Here we have learned that the tenth becomes consecrated by itself.

This, too, cannot be said, because—

Perhaps there it is different, because it was clarified to him

that it was the

tenth

[it became clear that it was the tenth], since it emerged through the same doorway through which the nine preceding animals had emerged. But if the tenth remained in the pen, or emerged through a different doorway, we have still not heard this.

Alternatively,

one can say that the beraita is dealing with a case

where he pointed to it

[he pointed with his finger to the tenth].

Rather,

perhaps you will say that Rava’s source is

that which was taught in a beraita:

If he called the ninth “

the tenth,”

and the tenth died in the pen,

then the

ninth is eaten when blemished

because he called it “the tenth,”

and they are all exempt

from the tithe—

And

what is the reason that they are all exempt?

Is it not

because the tenth became consecrated

by itself before it died, and consequently the tithe had been separated? This would show that the tenth becomes consecrated by itself.

This, too, cannot be said, because—

Perhaps

the reason they all became exempt is not that the tithe took effect, but even though the tithe did not take effect, it is because

they became exempt by virtue of a count that was fit—

That is, since at the time they were counted, the count was fit to be completed and the tenth separated, they are exempt even though ultimately the tenth died and was not consecrated.

For Rava said: A fit count exempts.

Rather,

the Gemara concludes that Rava’s source is

that which was taught in a beraita:

If he called the ninth “

the tenth,”

and the tenth remained in the pen,

then

the ninth is eaten when blemished, and the tenth is ma'aser.

It is thus explicit that the tenth becomes consecrated by itself even while it is still in the pen.

And since this beraita was cited, we raise an objection against it:

But wasn’t it taught

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

ninth is non-sacred,

unlike what is stated in the preceding beraita, that the ninth is eaten when blemished!?

A tanna recited before Rav Sheshet

in order to reconcile the beraitot:

Whose opinion is this?

The beraita that considers the ninth non-sacred—

it is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda!

As it was taught

concerning the Mishna we learned below, on 60a, that the ninth is eaten when blemished because he assigned it the designation “tenth.” It is explained in the latter clause of the Mishna that the eleventh is not consecrated—even though he called it “tenth”—unless the designation “tenth” was removed from the tenth, because he called it “ninth.” This implies 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 Yehuda disagrees concerning this detail:

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