Bekhorot 60b (ס:) — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna:

If he called the ninth “tenth,” the tenth “ninth,” and the eleventh “tenth”—

all three are consecrated: the ninth may be eaten by its owner because of its blemish, the tenth is the tithe, and the eleventh is sacrificed as a peace-offering.

The Sages taught: From where do we know that if he called the ninth “tenth,”

“tenth,”

and the tenth

“ninth,”

and the eleventh

“tenth,”

all three are consecrated?

The verse states: “

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

to include them all.

One might think that I should include even the eighth

whom he called “tenth,”

and the twelfth

whom he called “tenth.”

You can say: Since it is [that is, the tenth]

the tenth

that is consecrated, and its error—

that is, those whom he mistakenly called “tenth”—

becomes consecrated—

Just as it is not consecrated except when adjacent

to the tenth, for nothing is more adjacent to it than the tenth animal itself,

so too its error becomes consecrated only when adjacent

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

And the Gemara raises an objection:

But was it not taught: Just as it is singular

—that is, one alone—

so too its error is singular,

meaning that two animals are not consecrated through an error? How, then, did we learn that both the ninth and the eleventh are consecrated?

The tanna recited this beraita before Rabbi Yoḥanan: Whose opinion is this?

This beraita—

it is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, as it was taught:

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: The eleventh is never consecrated until he remains silent

regarding the ninth

and does not call it “tenth,” thereby consecrating it,

and calls the tenth “

ninth”

so that he uproots the name “tenth” from it,

and the eleventh “

tenth,”

for two errors are not consecrated.

The Gemara explains the position of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon:

He holds

—Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon—

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda

in our Mishna,

who says: An error concerning the tithe

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

a substitution, and he holds

Rabbi Elazar

in accordance with his father,

Rabbi Shimon,

who says

[according to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s understanding in Temura 9a]:

One cannot make a second substitution after making a substitution—

[one may not substitute twice using one animal], and the same law applies: two errors concerning the tithe are not consecrated, since they are substitutions.

Rava said:

If

two emerged as the ninth

and he

called them “

ninth”:

Then

the tenth

[the tithe]

and non-sacred produce are intermingled with one another.

That is, one of them is the tithe and one is non-sacred, but it is not known which is which.

And because

the tenth is consecrated automatically,

even though he called it “ninth,” while

the ninth

is

called “

ninth”

and not “tenth,” in which case it would have to be eaten by its owners because of its blemish, it is non-sacred. Thus the tenth and non-sacred produce are intermingled with one another.

And if

he called them “

tenth”:

Then

the tenth and the ninth are intermingled with one another.

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

What is the reason?

Because

both of them are

called

“tenth,”

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

And if

two emerged as the tenth, and he called them “

tenth”:

Then

the tenth and the eleventh are intermingled 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 sacrificed as a peace-offering; 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”:

Then

the tenth and non-sacred produce are intermingled with one another,

because one is the tithe, which is consecrated automatically even though he called it “eleventh,” while the other was called “eleventh” and is therefore non-sacred.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Why do I need this additional statement?

Why did Rava need to teach us both the case in which two emerged as the ninth and he called them “ninth,” in which the tenth and non-sacred produce are intermingled, and the case in which two emerged as the tenth and he called them “eleventh,” in which the tithe and non-sacred produce are intermingled? But

is this not the same case!?

And the Gemara answers:

Rava is teaching us this:

in his statement, that if two emerged as the tenth and he called them “tenth,” the tithe and the eleventh are intermingled with one another. The novel point is:

That whenever

he called

simultaneously

the tenth and the eleventh “tenth,”

both of them become consecrated

[both are consecrated]. That is, one of them also possesses the sanctity of a peace-offering, as does an eleventh that he called “tenth,”

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

[from the tenth]. Although it is evident from the Mishna that the eleventh is consecrated when called “tenth” only if he uprooted its name from the tenth, nevertheless, when he called the eleventh and the tenth “tenth” simultaneously, the eleventh is consecrated with the sanctity of a peace-offering, even though he did not uproot the name from the tenth.

Rav Kahana was sitting and reciting this teaching

of Rava.

Rav Ashi

asked

Rav Kahana in astonishment:

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

for surely the name “tenth” was not uprooted from it,

since he also called the tenth “tenth”?

And

if

we learned

in our Mishna:

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

Rav Kahana said to Rav Ashi:

This applies only when they are designated successively,

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

but

if he called both of them “tenth”

simultaneously, both of them become consecrated.

The Gemara raises an objection to this: The Mishna proves that even when designated simultaneously it does not become consecrated, since when he called them

“successively,” it explicitly teaches it

in our Mishna, as we learned: “

If he called the ninth

‘

tenth,’

and the tenth

‘

tenth,’

the eleventh is not consecrated,”

because the name “tenth” was not uprooted from it. If so, the phrase “

This is the general rule

: Whenever the name ‘tenth’ was not uprooted from it, the eleventh is not consecrated”—

what does it come to include?

[What case does it come to include?] Is it

not to include

the case in which he called them “tenth”

simultaneously,

in which case the eleventh is nevertheless not consecrated, since the name “tenth” was not uprooted from it!?

And the Gemara answers:

No.

It is not as you interpreted it—that “This is the general rule” comes to include a simultaneous declaration. Rather, it comes

to include the case in which the tenth emerged and he said nothing

at all. That is, from the first clause we would have heard only that if he called the tenth “tenth,” the eleventh is not consecrated. But if he did not call the tenth anything and also did not uproot the name “tenth” from it, one might have said that the eleventh is consecrated; therefore it teaches us that even so it is not consecrated,

since he did not uproot the name “tenth” from it.

The Gemara proves that when the designation is made simultaneously, both become consecrated:

For if you do not say so,

that both become consecrated when the designation is simultaneous, there would be a difficulty from

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

in emerging,

and he called them “

tenth,”

then

the tenth and the eleventh are intermingled with one another.

Apparently, there is a difficulty:

But surely the name “tenth” was not uprooted from it!

Why, then, is the eleventh also intermingled with it?

Is it not because we say that whenever the designation is simultaneous, both become consecrated?

The Gemara rejects the proof from the beraita:

That is no 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 case are we dealing?

Initially,

one of them preceded the other and protruded its head

[one of the two—which was the tenth in the count—stuck its head through the opening before the other],

and he called it “

eleventh,”

and afterward they became intermingled,

the tenth with the eleventh,

and they emerged together, and he called them “

tenth”

[the two again became intermingled, emerged together with neither preceding the other in this emergence, and he called them “tenth”].

According to this explanation, it is understandable that the eleventh is consecrated with the sanctity of a peace-offering,

since the name “tenth” was uprooted from it,

for the first animal to protrude its head was the tenth, and he called it “eleventh.”

And we raise an objection: How can we explain that one stuck its head out before the other,

when the beraita states, “

and

neither preceded

the other,”

it teaches

in the beraita?!

We answer:

What does “

and

neither preceded

the other” mean?

That they subsequently became intermingled [

for they again became intermingled]. That is to say, at the end of their emergence, neither preceded the other, even though at the beginning of the emergence the tenth preceded the other.

The Gemara asks:

In accordance with whom is this beraita, which considers the uprooting of the designation “tenth” effective even when he called it “

eleven”—

not in accordance with Rabbi—

For if it is Rabbi, he says: If he called the tenth

“

eleven

” and not “ninth,”

is that not an uprooting?

We reject this:

You may even say that it is Rabbi; this beraita

is his.

When Rabbi says this, it is where he has many animals

[when he has many animals to tithe] and is about to bring out several animal tithes, and because

we say that when he called the tenth “

eleven,” he

was saying “one tithe”

he says

[that is, this is the first tithe], but here, where he does not have additional animals

he does not

say that according to Rabbi this is not an uprooting.

The Gemara explains:

What is Rabbi’s statement?

As it is taught in a beraita: If he called the tenth “

eleven,”

and the eleventh “

tenth”—

the eleventh is not consecrated,

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

these are the words of Rabbi.

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda says: The eleventh is consecrated.

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

And we raise an objection to this:

But the designation has been uprooted,

since he called it “eleven”?!

He said—

he explained—

Rava said: Here we are dealing with a case where he has many animals

to tithe,

so we say: “

eleven”—he

was saying “one tithe”

he says,

as explained above.

Animal tithe differs from other peace-offerings [and from the eleventh, which he called the tenth and which is offered as a peace-offering], for peace-offerings require the waving of the breast and thigh, and he gives them to the priests, whereas animal tithe does not require this. Peace-offerings require placing of hands and libations, whereas animal tithe does not require this.

It was stated above in the words of Rava:

If two emerged as the tenth

and he called them “tenth,” the tenth [the animal tithe] and the eleventh [which he called the tenth and which is offered as a peace-offering] are intermingled with one another:

One tanna taught:

Since an animal tithe and a peace-offering are intermingled with one another,

both shall be left

until they become blemished. He then brings an unconsecrated animal and says: “Wherever there is a peace-offering among them, its sanctity shall be transferred to this animal,” and he offers this animal as a peace-offering, while the two original animals are eaten by their owners.

And one tanna taught: They shall be offered

both according to the law of peace-offerings, which require placing of hands and libations and the waving of the breast and thigh and their distribution to the priests.

And another beraita taught: They shall die,

both of them.

We explain:

This is not difficult:

The one that taught “

they shall be left”

is the opinion of the Rabbis

[in Zevaḥim 75b, where they disagreed there with Rabbi Shimon]

meaning, one does not bring consecrated animals into a situation in which they may become unfit,

because if he gives the breast and thigh from both animals to the priests—even though he is required to give them from only one of them—it is possible that there will not be enough priests to eat them at the proper time, and they will become notar, sacrificial meat left beyond the permitted time.