Bekhorot 59b — the Talmud in English

Even the ninth —

like the eleventh —

is not consecrated unless the designation “tenth” is removed from it [

from the tenth after it].

And the law dictates

that this should be said, for:

And if the eleventh, which effects consecration for being offered,

since if he called it “tenth” after the designation “tenth” had been removed from the tenth, it is offered as a shelamim, and nevertheless

is not consecrated unless the designation “tenth” is removed from it.

The ninth, which does not effect consecration for being offered,

but only to be eaten in its blemished state,

is it not logical that if the designation “tenth” is removed from it —

no;

but

if it does not

have the designation “tenth” removed from the tenth after it —

no,

the ninth is not consecrated at all, but is non-sacred.

And this is what we learned in the second beraita: If he called the ninth “tenth,” and the tenth did not remove its designation from it, but remained in the pen, the ninth is non-sacred.

And the Sages replied to Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda: On the contrary,

this is what dictates [

the reason that you give for your words is what gives the reason for our words]:

The eleventh, which effects consecration

of a stringent kind

for being offered,

therefore

if the designation “tenth” is removed from it —

no; if it does not —

no;

but

the ninth, which

in any event

does not effect consecration for being offered,

but effects a lesser consecration, so that it is eaten in its blemished state when he called it “tenth,” it may be said that

even though the designation “tenth” was not removed from it,

it effects this consecration.

Alternatively,

it is possible to distinguish in another manner:

The eleventh, for

already

the tenth has been clarified for it [

the tenth has already been selected and consecrated], therefore

if the designation “tenth” is removed from it —

no; if it does not —

no;

but

the ninth, for the tenth has not yet been clarified for it [

the tenth has not yet been consecrated], it is fitting that it be eaten in its blemished state,

even though the designation “tenth” was not removed from it.

And we conclude:

There is nothing more,

there is nothing to add concerning this, for certainly this is what dictates.

Rava said: A suitable count exempts!

The Gemara asks:

From where does Rava derive this [

from where did Rava learn this]?

If you say from that which we learned

in our Mishna:

If one of those counted jumped into them, all of them are exempt,

because of the one that jumped — but

the counted themselves, by what were they exempted [

by what was the counted animal itself exempted], and is it

not through a suitable count!?

Here it is explicit in accordance with Rava. This cannot be said, because:

Perhaps it is because he tithed on their account [

perhaps the Mishna deals with counted animals on whose account he had already tithed], and therefore they were exempt; but if he had not tithed on their account, they would not be exempt.

The Gemara challenges the rejection of the proof:

That —

this explanation that you stated —

you cannot say,

for

it teaches

the latter clause:

From the tithed ones into them, all of them shall graze until they become blemished, and they shall be eaten in their blemished state by their owners. The Gemara is inclined to explain “from the tithed ones” as meaning from those on whose account he had already tithed, and if so, necessarily the first clause deals with counted animals on whose account he had not tithed, and nevertheless they were exempt, proving Rava’s view!?

all of them shall graze until they become blemished, and they shall be eaten by their owners while blemished. The Gemara initially understands “animals for which the tithe was performed” to mean animals for which he had already performed the animal tithe. If so, necessarily the first clause is discussing counted animals for which he had not performed the animal tithe, and nevertheless they were exempt—proving Rava’s ruling!

But perhaps what is “

tithed ones” —

which we learned in the latter clause —

the tithe specifically.

That is, the tithe itself, and not animals on whose account he had tithed. If so, it is properly possible to explain the first clause as referring to counted animals that had already been tithed, and there is no proof for Rava.

It is also precise

according to the explanation given in the latter clause, from

that it teaches

all of them

shall graze

until they become blemished; and if the tithe itself had not jumped into them, why should the others graze until they become blemished?

Rather, Rava said

the source that a suitable count exempts:

The verse says: “Everything that

passes

passes

under the staff,” and this implies:

and not one that has already passed,

which does not need to be tithed. For:

What is “

not one that has already passed”?

If he tithed on their account [

they have already been tithed], is it

necessary to say

that he should not tithe it again!?

Rather, is it not that they were exempted through a suitable count.

That is, the verse comes to exclude those that already passed and were not tithed, and their exemption is because “a suitable count exempts,” in accordance with Rava’s ruling!

And we conclude: Indeed,

learn from this

that a suitable count exempts.

A beraita was taught in accordance with Rava:

He had ten lambs and brought them into the pen, and counted five, and one of them died:

If one of the counted died,

he continues and

counts and completes with them

until ten, and tithes.

And if one of those not counted dies,

so that he cannot complete the count to ten, the

counted are exempt

because of a suitable count, for when he counted them they were fit for the tithe,

and

those

that were not counted join another threshing floor.

And Rava said:

A suitable count exempts when, at the time they went out, there was in the pen a number of animals suitable to complete the count.

Animals join for the tithe only when they went out through one entrance, but animals that went out through two entrances are not joined.

He had fourteen lambs and brought them into the pen,

which had two entrances —

a.

And six went out through this entrance, and four through that entrance,

which do not join for the obligation of the tithe,

and four remained there

in the pen:

If those four

that remained in the pen

went out through the entrance through which the six went out:

He

takes one of them

for the tithe, since they joined through one entrance,

and the remainder —

namely, those that went out through the second entrance —

join another threshing floor,

since at the time they went out there were no longer enough lambs in the pen to complete the count.

And if not,

that the four that remained in the pen did not go out through the same entrance through which the six went out, but through the second entrance:

Then the

six are exempt

because of a suitable count, since at the time they went out there were lambs in the pen sufficient to complete the count,

and four and four,

namely, the four that went out through the other entrance and the four that remained and also went out through the other entrance,

join another threshing floor,

since at the time they went out there was no longer enough in the pen to complete the count.

b. And if

four went out through this entrance, and

after them

six through this entrance, and four remained there

in the pen

four:

If those four

that remained in the pen

went out through the entrance through which the six went out —

they went out:

He

takes one of them

for the tithe.

And the remainder —

namely, those four that went out first through the other entrance —

are exempt

because of a suitable count, since at the time they went out there was enough in the pen to complete the count.

And if not,

that is, the four that remained in the pen went out through the same entrance through which the first four went out:

Then the

four

that went out first through the entrance,

and

the

six

that went out through the other entrance,

are exempt

because of a suitable count, since at the time they went out all of them were fit for the count to be completed through that entrance.

And

those

four

that remained in the pen and went out through the entrance through which the first four went out, since at the time they went out there was no longer enough in the pen to complete the count,

join another threshing floor.

c. And if

four went out through this entrance, and four through that entrance, and six remained there:

If those six went out through one entrance,

that they did not divide, but went out through one of the two entrances of the pen:

He

takes from them [

from the four and the six that went out through that entrance]

one

for the tithe,

and the remainder —

namely, the four that went out through the other entrance —

are exempt

because of a suitable count, since at the time they went out six remained in the pen to complete their count.

And if not,

that the six divided, with three going out through one entrance and three through the other:

Then the

four

that went out through one entrance

and four

that went out through the second entrance

are exempt

because of a suitable count.

And

the

six join another threshing floor.

And we challenge this:

What does Rava teach us

with this statement,

that a

suitable

count exempts!?

But Rava already said one thing once [

Rava already said this once, as above]!?

And we answer: Rava taught us a novelty in the third part of his statement, which deals with four that went out through this entrance and four through the other entrance, that they are exempt because of a suitable count, even though in the end the six that remained went out through only one of the entrances of the groups of four:

For

lest you say: Certainly we say “a suitable count”,

but

a doubtful suitable count,

such as here — when four went out through this entrance, four through that entrance, and six remained in the pen —

that are fit

the remaining ones

for this

to go out through this entrance and complete the count of those going out there,

and are fit

also

for this

to go out through the other entrance and complete the count of those going out there,

we do not say

that this is considered a suitable count. Rather, we say: Since in the end they went out through the second entrance and completed the count there, the four that went out through the other entrance are not exempt because of a suitable count.

This teaches us.

And Rava said

further

Rava:

If he had fifteen lambs, he may not say “

I shall select

ten and bring them into the pen, and I shall take one of them, while the rest are exempt.”

Rather, he gathers

all of them

into the pen, and takes out ten and takes one of them, while the rest

are not exempt, but

join another group.

However, the following further difficulty would apparently arise: if the pen is not the cause of the obligation, then what addition is there in these words of Rava over his previous statement, in which he said: “If he had fourteen lambs, and brought them into the pen, and six went out through this doorway and four through that doorway, and four remained there—if those four went out through the doorway through which the six went out, he takes one of them, while the rest join another group”? It is thus clear that the rest are not exempt, even though ten animals were selected from among them for the tithe ; And it is possible to say: since he began counting them at the other doorway, they all already became obligated in animal tithe; in the manner brought in the notes above, that the beginning of the counting renders them susceptible, according to the Rishon LeTziyon, or obligates them in the mitzva of tithe even according to Rashi’s view that animal tithe is optional; see there. b. In the explanation attributed to Rashi, in his first explanation, he explained: “He may not say, ‘I shall select ten, and the rest are exempt,’ because only five remained, which are not subject to tithing” ; “Rather, he gathers them into the pen”—all of them, whether lean or fat—and Rava teaches us two things: first, that he cannot select the lean ones ; and second, that although only five remained, he cannot say that they should be entirely exempt, but they join another group. This explanation is apparently similar to the view of Rashi in a manuscript: bringing them into the pen is not the cause that obligates those remaining, and Rava comes only to exclude the reasoning by which we would have exempted them ; except that there are two differences between their explanations: one: the selection mentioned here includes selecting lean animals from among fat ones, and through this it is explained what Rava said, “he gathers all of them into the pen,” that this is precise, to say that he cannot select lean animals from among fat ones. Two: according to the explanation attributed to Rashi, the reason for their exemption—according to what we would have said—is not that from the outset only ten out of fifteen joined in order to become obligated, but that after the tithe five remained, which do not contain the measure of animal tithe, and consequently they are exempt ; And according to Rashi in a manuscript, it may be said that had they joined from the outset, their obligation would not have lapsed, even though they remained without the measure of animal tithe. Yet in the explanation attributed to Rashi, he raised a difficulty against this explanation: “It seems to me that it was unnecessary to say this, for we said above that five before the group and five after the group join together” ; And his difficulty requires explanation, because it is indeed true that if the five that remained before the group still remain until five additional ones are born to him after it, he is obligated in animal tithe. Nevertheless, as long as the remaining five have not been born to him, he is exempt from animal tithe and may sell and slaughter; specifically here, since they joined from the outset to the measure of the obligation of animal tithe, his obligation remains in force, and he is also forbidden to sell and slaughter until he tithes them! And from this it apparently follows that according to his first explanation, Rava did not come to say that he is obligated to join them to another group, but that he may join them to another group, while he may sell and slaughter; and this also follows from what he says afterward

;

And according to this, his explanation is not like the explanation of Rashi in a manuscript, for it is explicit from his words that the group established them, and it follows that he is forbidden to sell and slaughter

;

See the Chazon Ish, Bekhorot 27:5, concerning his words. c. In a second explanation, the explanation attributed to Rashi explained: “He may not say that the rest should now be exempt, since I will not bring them into the pen together with the others; and even though the group has arrived, I may eat them, sell them, and slaughter them, since they are not subject to tithing, for the group establishes only something fit for animal tithe, and these five are not subject to animal tithing”