Bekhorot 59b (נט:) — the Talmud in English

The ninth—

like the eleventh—

is not sacred unless the designation “tenth” was removed from it

[from the tenth that follows it].

And logic dictates

that this should be so, for:

And if the eleventh, which acquires sanctity to be offered—

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

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

Then, with regard to the ninth, which does not acquire sanctity to be offered

but only to be eaten after it develops a blemish,

does it not follow that if the designation “tenth” was removed from it—

yes;

but

if not

the designation “tenth” was removed from the tenth that follows it—

no,

the ninth does not become sacred 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,

that is the very reason

[the reason you provide for your statement provides the reason for our statement]:

The eleventh, which acquires sanctity

of a more stringent nature

to be offered,

therefore

if the designation “tenth” was removed from it—

yes; if not—

no.

But

the ninth, which

in any event

does not acquire sanctity to be offered,

but only a lesser sanctity, so that it may be eaten after developing a blemish when he called it “tenth,” one may say that

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

it does acquire this sanctity.

Alternatively,

one may distinguish in another manner:

The eleventh, for

it has already

been clarified for him that it is the tenth

[the tenth has already been identified and sanctified], therefore

if the designation “tenth” was removed from it—

yes; if not—

no.

But

the ninth, for the tenth has not yet been clarified for him

[the tenth has not yet been sanctified], it is logical that it should be eaten after developing a blemish,

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

And we conclude:

There is nothing further,

there is nothing to add on this matter, for certainly that is the very reason.

Rava said: A count that was fit [to be completed] exempts!

The Gemara asks:

From where does Rava derive this

[from where did Rava learn this]?

If you say it is from that which we learned

in our Mishna:

If one of those already counted jumped into their midst, all are exempt,

because of the one that jumped in—and

the counted animals themselves, by what were they exempted

[by what was the counted animal itself exempted]? Is it

not by virtue of a fit count!?

This is evidently in accordance with Rava. This cannot be said, however, because:

Perhaps it is referring to animals for which he had tithed

[perhaps the Mishna is discussing counted animals for which he had already brought a tithe], and that is why they were exempt; but if he had not tithed them, they would not be exempt.

The Gemara challenges the rejection of the proof:

That—

the interpretation you stated—

you cannot say,

for

the tanna teaches

the latter clause:

“From those for which the tithe had been taken among them,”

all of them shall graze until they develop blemishes, and they shall be eaten by their owners after developing blemishes. The Gemara understands “those for which the tithe had been taken” to mean those animals for which he had already taken the tithe; if so, the first clause must necessarily concern counted animals for which he had not taken the tithe, and nevertheless they were exempt. This proves Rava’s ruling!

Perhaps, what is “

those for which the tithe had been taken”—

as we learned in the latter clause—

the tithe itself specifically.

That is, it refers to the tithe animal itself, not to animals for which he had taken the tithe. If so, it is entirely possible to explain the first clause as referring to counted animals that had already become tithe animals, and there is no proof for Rava.

It is also precise

according to the interpretation given for the latter clause,

from the fact that it teaches

all of them

shall graze

until they develop blemishes. If the tithe animal itself had not jumped into their midst, why should the other animals graze until they develop blemishes?

Rather, Rava said

the source for the principle that a fit count exempts:

The verse states: “Everything that

passes

under the staff,”” and this implies:

under the staff,” and this implies:

“but not one that has already passed,”

which need not be tithed. For:

What is meant by “

not one that has already passed”?

If he had tithed them

[they had already become tithe animals], is it

necessary to say

that he should not tithe it again?

Rather, is it not that they were exempted by virtue of a fit count?

That is, the verse excludes those that have already passed but had not become tithe animals, and their exemption is based on the principle “a fit count exempts,” in accordance with Rava’s ruling!

And we conclude: Indeed,

learn from this

that a fit count exempts.

A beraita was taught in accordance with Rava’s opinion:

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

If one of the counted animals died,

he continues and

counts and completes the count with them

until ten, and tithes.

But if one of those not counted died,

and consequently he cannot complete the count to ten,

the counted animals are exempt

by virtue of a fit count, since at the time he counted them they were fit to become tithe animals,

and

those

that were not counted are combined with another group.

And Rava said:

A fit count exempts when, at the time the animals left, there was in the pen a number of animals sufficient to complete the count.

Animals are combined for the animal tithe only when they left through one doorway; animals that left through two doorways are not combined.

If he had fourteen lambs and brought them into the pen,

which had two doorways—

1.

Six left through this doorway, and four through that doorway,

and they cannot be combined for the obligation of the animal tithe,

and four remained there

in the pen:

If those four

that remained in the pen

left through the doorway through which the six had left:

then

he takes one of them

for the tithe, since they were combined through one doorway,

and the rest—

that is, the animals that left through the second doorway—

are combined with another group,

and were not exempted by virtue of a fit count, since at the time they left there were no longer enough lambs in the pen to complete the count.

But if not,

if the four that remained in the pen did not leave through the doorway through which the six had left, but through the second doorway:

then the

six are exempt

by virtue of a fit count, since at the time they left there were enough lambs in the pen to complete the count,

and the four and four—

that is, the four that left through the other doorway and the four that remained and also left through that doorway—

are combined with another group,

since at the time they left there were no longer enough animals in the pen to complete the count.

2. And if

four left through this doorway, and

after them

six left through that doorway, and four remained there

in the pen,

four:

If those four

that remained in the pen

[left] through the doorway through which the six had left,

they left:

then

he takes one of them

for the tithe.

And the rest—

the four that had first left through the other doorway—

are exempt

by virtue of a fit count, since at the time they left there were enough animals in the pen to complete the count.

But if not,

that is, if the four that remained in the pen left through the doorway through which the first four had left:

Then the

four

that left first through one doorway,

and

the

six

that left through the other doorway

are exempt

by virtue of a fit count, since at the time they left, all of them were fit for the count to be completed through that doorway.

And

those

four

that remained in the pen and left through the doorway through which the first four had left, since at the time they left there were no longer enough animals in the pen to complete the count,

are combined with another group.

3. And if

four left through this doorway, and four through that doorway, and six remained there:

If those six left through one doorway,

without being divided, and left through one of the two doorways of the pen:

then

he takes from them

[from the four and the six that left through that doorway]

one

for the tithe,

and the rest—

the four that left through the other doorway—

are exempt

by virtue of a fit count, since at the time they left, six animals remained in the pen to complete their count.

But if not,

if the six were divided, with three leaving through one doorway and three through the other:

Then the

four

that left through one doorway

and the four

that left through the second doorway

are exempt

by virtue of a fit count.

And

the

six are combined with another group.

And we ask:

What does Rava teach us

by this statement,

that a

fit

count exempts!?

But Rava already said this once

[he already stated this earlier]!?

And we answer: Rava teaches us a novel point in the third part of his statement, concerning four that left through this doorway and four through the other doorway, which are exempt by virtue of a fit count, even though ultimately the six that remained left through the doorway of only one of the groups of four:

For

one might have said: Certainly we say that a definite fit count

is sufficient for exemption,

but [not] an uncertain fit count,

as in this case—when four left through this doorway, four through that doorway, and six remained in the pen—

which were fit

the remaining animals

for this

to leave through this doorway and complete the count of those leaving there,

and were fit

also

for this

to leave through the other doorway and complete the count of those leaving there—

we would not say

that this should be considered a fit count. Rather, we would say: Since ultimately they left through the second doorway and completed the count there, the four that left through the other doorway are not exempt by virtue of a fit count.

This teaches us.

And

further

Rava said:

If one had fifteen lambs, he may not say, “

I will select

ten and bring them into the pen, take one of them, and the rest will be exempt.”

Rather, he must bring

all of them

into the pen, take out ten and take one of them, and the rest

are not exempt; rather, they

join another goren.

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

It was taught likewise

in accordance with Rava’s statement:

If one had fifteen lambs,

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”