Bekhorot 60b — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna:

“He called the ninth ‘tenth,’ and the tenth ‘ninth,’ and the eleventh ‘tenth’”,

the three of them are sanctified: the ninth is eaten with its blemish, the tenth is the tithe, and the eleventh is offered as a peace-offering.

The Sages taught: From where is it derived that if he called the ninth “

tenth,”

and the tenth “

ninth,”

and the eleventh “

tenth,”

that the three of them are sanctified?

The verse states: “

And every tithe of cattle and flock, every thing that passes under the rod, the tenth shall be holy”

—to include all of them.

One might think that I should include even the eighth

which he called “tenth,”

and the twelfth

which he called “tenth”?

You say: Since it is [the

tenth]

sanctified, and its error—

that is, those to which he mistakenly called “tenth”—

becomes sanctified—

just as it is not sanctified except when adjacent

to the tenth—for you have no thing more adjacent to it than its own body—

so too its error is not sanctified except when adjacent

to the tenth, that is, the ninth and the eleventh, which are adjacent to the tenth.

And we raise an objection:

But was it not taught in a beraita: Just as it is unique

—singular—

so too its error is unique,

that is, two do not become sanctified through an error; and how, then, did we learn that both the ninth and the eleventh become sanctified!?

A tanna taught before Rabbi Yohanan: Whose view is this—

this beraita—

it is the view of Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon! For it was taught:

Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon says: The eleventh never becomes sanctified until he remains silent

regarding the ninth,

and does not call it “tenth” in order to sanctify it,

and calls the tenth “

ninth”

in order that the designation “tenth” be uprooted from it,

and the eleventh “

tenth,”

for two errors do not become sanctified.

And the Gemara explains the position of Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon:

He agrees

Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon

with Rabbi Yehuda

in our Mishna,

who says: An error regarding the tithe—

that is, calling the ninth or the eleventh “tenth”—is in the category of

an exchange-offering, and he agrees

Rabbi Elazar

with his father,

Rabbi Shimon,

who says [according to Rabbi Yohanan’s method in Temura 9a]:

one cannot make a second declaration of exchange after making a declaration of exchange [one cannot exchange twice using one animal]; and the same law applies, that two errors regarding the tithe do not become sanctified, since they are exchanges.

one cannot make a second exchange after having made an exchange.

[One cannot exchange two animals successively in relation to a single animal.] The same applies here: two errors concerning the animal tithe do not become consecrated, since they have the status of exchange-offerings.

Rava said:

If

two emerged as the ninth,

and he

called them “

ninth”:

Behold,

the tenth

—the tithe—

and unconsecrated property are mixed with one another.

That is, one of them is the tithe and one of them is unconsecrated property, and it is not known which is which.

And because

the tenth becomes sanctified by itself,

even though he called it “ninth,” while

the ninth

is “

ninth”

that he calls it,

and not “tenth,” so that he would have to eat it with its blemish, and if so, it is unconsecrated property; thus the tenth and unconsecrated property are found mixed with one another.

And if

he called them “

tenth”:

Behold,

the tenth and the ninth are mixed with one another.

That is, one of them is the tithe, and one of them has the status of the ninth that he called “tenth,” which is eaten by the owners with its blemish.

What is the reason?

For

both of them

“

tenth”

he called them [he called both of them “tenth”], and the ninth that he called “tenth” is eaten by the owners with its blemish.

And if

two emerged as the tenth, and he called them “

tenth”:

Behold,

the tenth and the eleventh are mixed with one another.

That is, one of them is the tithe, and the other has the status of the eleventh that he called “tenth,” which is offered as a peace-offering; and we do not know which is the tithe and which is the eleventh.

And if

he called them—

the two that emerged as the tenth—“

eleventh”:

behold,

the tenth and unconsecrated property are mixed with one another,

because one is the tithe, which is sanctified by itself even though he called it “eleventh,” while the other was called “eleventh,” and is unconsecrated property.

And we raise an objection:

Why do I need this further statement,

why did Rava need to teach us both the case where two emerged as the ninth and he called them “ninth,” in which the tenth and unconsecrated property are mixed with one another, and the case where two emerged as the tenth and he called them “eleventh,” in which the tithe and unconsecrated property are mixed with one another? But

is this not the same thing!?

And we answer:

This he teaches us,

Rava in his statement: that if two emerged as the tenth and he called them “tenth,” the tithe and the eleventh are mixed with one another; and the novelty is:

That every

who called

at one time

the tenth and the eleventh “tenth,”

both of them become sanctified

[both are sanctified]. That is, one of them also has the sanctity of a peace-offering, in accordance with the law of the eleventh that he called “tenth,”

even though the designation “tenth” was not uprooted from it

[from the tenth]. And although it is stated in the Mishna that the eleventh becomes sanctified when he called it “tenth” only if he uprooted its name from the tenth, nevertheless, when he called the eleventh and the tenth “tenth” at one time, the eleventh becomes sanctified with the sanctity of a peace-offering, even though he did not uproot its name from the tenth.

Rav Kahana was sitting and reciting this teaching

of Rava!

Rav Ashi

said, questioning

Rav Kahana:

Why are the tenth and the eleventh mixed with one another when he called both of them “tenth”?

But surely the designation “tenth” was not uprooted from it,

for he also called the tenth “tenth”!

And

if we

learned

in our Mishna:

“This is the general rule: Whenever the designation ‘tenth’ was not uprooted from it, the eleventh is not sanctified!”

Rav Kahana said to Rav Ashi:

This applies when it is one after the other,

when he called the eleventh “tenth” after he had called the tenth “tenth”;

but

if he called both of them “tenth”

at one time, both of them become sanctified.

And we raise an objection to this: The Mishna proves that even when it is at one time it does not become sanctified, for when he called

one after the other, it explicitly teaches it

in our Mishna, as we learned: “

He called the ninth ‘

tenth,’

and the tenth ‘

tenth,’

and the eleventh ‘

tenth,’

the eleventh is not sanctified,”

because the designation “tenth” was not uprooted from it; and if so,

“This is the general rule

whenever the designation “tenth” was not uprooted from it, the eleventh is not sanctified”—

what does it come to include

[what does it come to include]? And is it

not to include

when he called them “tenth”

at one time,

so that nevertheless the eleventh does not become sanctified, since the designation “tenth” was not uprooted from it!?

And we answer:

No,

not as you interpreted it, that “this is the general rule” comes to include calling them at one time; rather, it comes

to include the case where the tenth emerged and he said nothing

at all. That is, if from the first clause we had heard only that if he called the tenth “tenth,” then the eleventh does not become sanctified, but if he did not call the tenth anything and also did not uproot the designation “tenth” from it, I might say that the eleventh becomes sanctified, it teaches us that even so it does not become sanctified,

for he did not uproot the designation “tenth” from it.

And the Gemara proves that when it is at one time both of them became sanctified:

For if you do not say so,

that when it is at one time both of them became sanctified, there is a difficulty from

that which was taught: Two emerged as the tenth, and neither one preceded the other

in emerging,

and he called them “

tenth,”

behold,

the tenth and the eleventh are mixed with one another.

And apparently there is a difficulty:

But surely the designation “tenth” was not uprooted from it,

so why is the eleventh also mixed in?

Rather, is it not because we say that whenever it is at one time, both of them become sanctified?

The Gemara rejects the proof from the beraita:

If because of this, it is not a proof

[if you came to prove it from this beraita, it is not a proof]—

for it can be said that

here

in the beraita,

with what are we dealing? With a case where

at first

one of them preceded and brought out its head

[one of the two—which was the tenth in the count—brought its head through the entrance before its fellow],

and he called it “

eleventh,”

and afterward they became mixed

the tenth with the eleventh,

and they emerged together and he called them “

tenth”

[the two again became mixed with one another and emerged together, and in this emergence neither preceded the other, and he called them “tenth”].

And in this manner it is understood that the eleventh becomes sanctified with the sanctity of a peace-offering,

for the designation “tenth” was uprooted from it,

since the first one that brought out its head was the tenth, and he called it “eleventh.”

And we raise an objection: How shall we explain that one put out its head before its fellow,

but “

and

neither preceded

one of them the other”

it teaches

in the beraita!?

And we answer:

What is meant by “

and

neither preceded,”

that

they subsequently became mixed again

for they became mixed again. That is to say, at the end of their emergence one did not precede the other, although at the beginning of the emergence the tenth preceded its fellow.

The Gemara asks:

And according to whom

is this beraita, which considers the uprooting of the tenth even when he called it “eleven”

not according to Rabbi -

For if [it is] Rabbi, he says:

if he called the tenth

“eleven”

and not “ninth,”

is it not an uprooting?

And we reject [this]:

You may even say [that] it is Rabbi

this beraita,

for when Rabbi said [this], it was where he had many animals

when he has many animals to tithe and is about to produce several animal tithes, and because

we say that the one whom he called “eleven,” “

said: “Eleven”—

one tithe”

he said

that is to say, this first tithe, but here, where he does not have more animals [he does not have many animals in order to tithe several tithes]],

not

did Rabbi say that this is not an uprooting.

And the Gemara explains:

What is [the teaching of] Rabbi?

For it was taught: If he called the tenth “

eleven,”

and the eleventh “

tenth” -

the eleventh is not sacred,

because this is not an uprooting, as he proceeds to explain,

the words of Rabbi.

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda says: The eleventh is sacred.

Rabbi stated a general principle: As long as the name “tenth” has not been uprooted from it, the eleventh is not sacred.

And we object to this:

But it has been uprooted

the name “tenth,” for he called it “eleven”!?

[He] said

Rabbi

Rava explained: With what are we dealing here? For example, where he has many animals

to tithe,

we say: “

eleven” - “

one tithe”

he said,

as explained above.

The animal tithe differs from other shelamim [and from the eleventh which he called “tenth,” which is offered as shelamim], for the shelamim require the waving of the breast and thigh, and he gives them to the priests, whereas the animal tithe does not require this. The shelamim require laying on of hands and libations, whereas the animal tithe does not require this.

It is stated above in the words of Rava:

Two emerged at the tenth

and he called them “tenth”; the tenth [the animal tithe] and the eleventh [which he called “tenth,” and which is offered as shelamim] are mixed with one another:

One [teaching] was taught:

Since the animal tithe and the shelamim are mixed with one another,

they shall graze

both of them until they become blemished. And he shall bring an unconsecrated animal and say: “Wherever they are shelamim, let it be redeemed upon this animal,” and he shall offer this one as shelamim, while the two are eaten by their owners.

And one [teaching] was taught: They shall be offered

both of them according to the law of shelamim, which require laying on of hands and libations and the waving of the breast and thigh and giving them to the priests.

And another [teaching] was taught: They shall die

both of them.

And we explain:

It is not difficult:

This [teaching] which taught “

they shall graze,”

is [the view of] the Rabbis [in Zevahim 75b, where they disputed with Rabbi Shimon]

who say: “One does not bring consecrated animals to a situation of disqualification”,

who say: One does not bring sacred offerings into a state of disqualification,

for if he gives the breast and thigh to the priests from both of them - although he needs to give them only from one - perhaps sufficient priests will not be found to eat them at their proper time, and they will become notar.