Bekhorot 60a — the Talmud in English

He should not say: “

;

“Rather, he gathers all of them together into the pen, takes out ten, and the rest join another group against his will, for they were established in the pen for animal tithe, and he may not sell or slaughter them” ; According to this explanation, it is the pen that obligated those remaining, and specifically they said that he gathers all of them into the pen ; But see the Chazon Ish there. And similarly Rabbeinu Gershom explained: “Rather, he should do something for them through which they will all become obligated in animal tithe: he brings them into the pen, takes out ten, and takes one of them; and the remaining five, since they entered the pen and do not contain [it seems that one should say: even though they do not contain] the measure of animal tithe, the pen establishes them, and they join another group.” And see also Rambam [Bekhorot 7:9]: “He brought all the sheep or cattle into the pen, and began counting and sanctifying the tenth, until fewer than ten remained in the pen—he leaves them for another group, and they join those that will be born and be tithed, all in one group” ; And even though he knows that these will remain in the counting, he must bring everything into the pen, and what remains shall remain ; His words tend toward the explanation of Rabbeinu Gershom. d. [It is possible to explain the definition of the law that the pen establishes them: the intention is not the entry into the pen, which is nothing, but rather the beginning of the counting is what establishes them, [as explained in section a], for when he brought them into the pen and began counting, each one was fit to come into the count of ten; thus, he began the counting with all the lambs, and this is what establishes them ; And the wording of Rambam also tends toward this explanation; and although we had already heard this from Rava’s previous statement, nevertheless Rava needed to teach us that he must bring them into the pen]. It was taught likewise in accordance with the words of Rava: If he had fifteen lambs, He should not say: “ I will select ten

and bring them into the pen,

and I will take one of them, while the rest are exempt.”

Rather, he gathers

all of them

into the pen, and brings out ten and takes one of them, while the rest join another threshing-floor.

And we raise an objection:

But was it not taught:

If one had

nineteen lambs, he should not say: “

I will not bring all of them into the pen; rather,

I will select

first

ten

and bring those into the pen,

and I will take one of them, while the rest are exempt.”

Rather, he gathers

all of them

into the pen, and brings out ten and takes one of them, while the rest are exempt.”

We have thus learned that if he brings all of them into the pen, indeed the rest are exempt, and not as we learned in the beraita and in the words of Rava, that he brings all of them into the pen and the rest join another threshing-floor!?

Rav Huna bar Seḥora explained it before Rava at the rigla, [that is, Rav Huna explained the beraita before Rava on that Shabbat on which they would ask about the laws of the festival, which is thirty days before the festival]:

when Rav Huna explained the beraita before Rava at the time when the laws of the festival are studied, which is thirty days before the festival:

The beginning of the beraita teaches us the ruling of Rava, that the remainder are not exempt. And what we learned at the end, that the remainder are exempt, is not because they were brought into the pen that they became exempt; rather, it is a case where he brought them

into a pen that has two openings, and nine went out

through this opening and nine through that opening, and if so, they all became exempt, for even those that were not tithed by means of the tenth became exempt because of the count fit to be completed, since at the time they went out there was one that could complete the count—

Accordingly, they all became exempt. Even those that were not tithed by the tenth animal became exempt because of a count that was fit to be completed: at the time they exited, one animal remained that could have completed the count—

And although it is a doubtful count fit to be completed, nevertheless it exempts,

for that one

that remained in the pen when the nine went out—nine—

is fit for here and for there [that one remaining is fit to go out through either opening and complete the count].

—that remaining animal was fit to exit through either entrance and complete the count.

And we raise an objection: Why did Rav Huna bar Seḥora need to explain the exemption at the end as a pen having two openings!?

And let him explain to him [Rav Huna bar Seḥora will resolve the end of the beraita]: What are we dealing with here? With

a case

where he counted nine, and when he reached ten he called one from the beginning [when he reached the tenth in counting, he did not call it “tenth,” but began counting one, two, three], until he reached the nineteenth lamb and called it “tenth.” It follows that the last ten became exempt because he separated a tithe from them, while the nine whose count he did not complete became exempt through a count fit to be completed!?

And we answer:

He holds—

Rav Huna bar Seḥora—

that the tenth becomes sacred automatically,

and it follows that although he called the tenth “one,” nevertheless it became sacred and exempted the nine before it, whereas there is nothing to exempt the nine that remained.

And we still raise an objection:

And let him explain to him:

What are we dealing with here at the end?

With a threshing-floor where he counted them in pairs, that is, two went out one after the other through the opening and he called them “one,” and likewise until the ninth pair; then the last one went out [the nineteenth in number], and he called it “tenth.” In this manner they all became exempt, because we regard the count of each pair as two separate counts of individuals, and when he reached the nineteenth lamb and counted it as “tenth,” it is the tenth of this count or of that count.

And since it is uncertain which became tithed, they all became exempt, for Scripture said “a definite tenth,” and not “a doubtful tenth”; and every animal concerning which it is doubtful whether it became tithed is exempt, because the tenth cannot be definite.

And we answer:

Rav Huna bar Seḥora holds like Rav Kahana below [on this page, after the Mishna], that if he counted them in pairs,

Rav Huna bar Seḥora, in accordance with Rav Kahana’s statement below [on this page, after the Mishna], that if he counted them in pairs,

the tenth according to the count of the animals becomes sacred.

That is, the one he called “tenth” after the nine pairs did not become sacred; rather, when the count of the lambs reached ten, the tenth became sacred, and if so, all those that came after it did not become exempt.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

Fortunate is the mother of Rav Huna bar Seḥora, for he resolved Rava’s teaching for Rava according to his teaching

at the rigla, [his mother merited a son as wise as he, who reconciled his teacher’s words according to his own words at the festival], for Rav Huna resolved Rava’s teaching on the basis of another teaching of Rava: “A count fit to be completed exempts.”

for his mother merited having such a wise son, who reconciled his teacher’s words according to another statement of that same teacher during the festival season. Rav Huna resolved Rava’s teaching on the basis of another teaching of Rava: “A count fit to be completed exempts the animals.”

Mishna:

If two went out

from the pen

at once,

because the opening was wide,

he counts them as two,

as though they went out one after the other. And if

he counted them as one,

rather than as two, as is the law, then his

ninth,

which is the tenth according to the law,

and

his

his

animal—which according to the law is the eleventh—are

tenth, which is the eleventh according to the law, are

disqualified, that is, they are sacred, but he does not offer them; rather, they graze until they become blemished. The reason for the law will be explained in the Gemara.

If they went out one by one, and

he called the ninth “

tenth,”

and the tenth

he called “

ninth,”

and the eleventh

he called “

tenth,”

all three are sacred, as we derive in the Gemara from the verses, and this is their law:

The ninth

is not offered, but

is eaten in its blemish

by the owners;

the tenth is tithe, and the eleventh is offered as a peace-offering.

And

that eleventh which was made a peace-offering

makes a substitution

like other peace-offerings—

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Judah said

about this:

Does a substitution make a substitution? For the eleventh itself is a substitution of the tithe, and we have established: a substitution does not make a substitution.

They said

about this

in the name of Rabbi Meir: If

the eleventh

were a substitution

of the tithe,

it would not be offered, for animal tithe does not make a substitution, as we derive in Temura, page 21.

for animal tithe cannot effect temura, as we derive in Temura, page 21.

But if

he called the ninth “tenth,”

and the tenth

he called

“tenth”

as its number,

and the eleventh

he called

“tenth,”

since he did not remove the designation “tenth” from the tenth,

the eleventh is not sacred.

This is the rule: Anyone from whom the designation “tenth” was not removed [from the tenth], that is, he called it “tenth,” or even remained silent and said nothing,

[from the tenth animal]—that is, he called it “tenth,” or even remained silent and said nothing—

the eleventh

that comes after it

is not sacred,

until he calls the tenth “ninth” and the eleventh “tenth.”

Gemara:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

If he counted

the lambs going out through the opening

in pairs

or

in hundreds [hundreds at a time]. That is, if he brought them out one after the other, but did not count each lamb individually; rather, he counted groups of two or of one hundred lambs, calling the first group “one,” the second “two,” and so on:

[that is, hundreds at a time]—if he brought them out one after another but did not count each lamb individually, rather he counted groups of two or groups of one hundred lambs, calling the first group “one,” the second “two,” and so on—

the

The

is

tenth according to the count is

sacred, and he proceeds to explain it.

The Gemara asks:

According to which count? [According to which count did the tenth become sacred?] The Amoraim disagree about this:

[According to which count does the tenth become sacred?] The amoraim disagree about this:

Rav Mari said: According to his count [the counter’s count, for he counted groups and not lambs]

[the count of the person counting, who counted groups rather than individual lambs];

it is sacred.

That is, the tenth group became sacred, and exempted opposite it the nine groups before it. The reason is that the count he makes is not one count of ten lambs; rather, he counts as one two or more counts of ten, and from each count that he makes, the tenth becomes sacred.

Rav Kahana said: According to the count of the animals it is sacred,

that is, we take no account at all of his count, but of the count of the lambs individually; and the one that went out tenth through the opening is sacred.

And we raise an objection to Rav Kahana from that which

we learned

in our Mishna:

If two went out at once,

then

he counts them as two,

and if

he counted them as one,

contrary to the law, then his

ninth

and

his

tenth are disqualified.

But:

Granted, according to the one who says: According to his count it is sacred, for this reason the ninth and tenth are disqualified, because the tenth

according to law

he calls

it

“ninth,”

and the eleventh

according to law he calls it

“tenth.”

Rather, according to the one who says: it is sanctified according to the count of the animals,

then

for the ninth

according to the law—

he calls it ninth [

even he called it “ninth”],

and

also

for the tenth

according to the law—“

tenth”

he calls it,

so why are they defective!?

Rabbi Yohanan can say to you:

When I said this, it was where he intended to bring them out in pairs [

I said this only in a case where he intended to bring them out in pairs],

but where it emerged on its own [

but when a pair emerged by itself as one, as our Mishna is dealing with],

not

did I say so.

Come and hear

to raise a difficulty against Rav Mari from that which was taught:

He counted them retroactively—

that is, he counted ten, nine, eight—

the tenth in the count is sanctified.

And

in any event, according to the one who says: it is sanctified according to the count of the animals, it is fine,

it is understandable that the tenth becomes sanctified unlike his count.

But according to the one who says: it is sanctified according to his count,

and yet for the

tenth “

one”

he calls it,

how is it sanctified as the tenth!?

He said

he answered,

Rava:

Therefore the sanctity takes effect when he counted retroactively:

since it exists in the Persian count, in which they call ten “one” [

in the Persian count they call ten “one”].