Bekhorot 61a — the Talmud in English

And that which the tanna taught “[ [A0003] ]they shall be brought,”

“they shall be brought near”,

it is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: We bring sacred offerings to an unfit place.

That is, we are not concerned lest they come to disqualification.

And that which he taught “[ [A0007] ]they shall die”:

“they shall die”

it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says

in our Mishna:

the error of animal tithe—

that is, the eleventh which he called “tenth”—

is a substitution, and Rabbi Yehuda holds: the substitution of animal tithe dies

like the substitution of a sin-offering, and since it is uncertain, both shall die.

And we raise an objection:

But did we not learn

in our Mishna:

They said in the name of Rabbi Meir—

in response to the words of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that the eleventh does not effect substitution, because a substitution cannot effect substitution—

if it were

the eleventh

a substitution, it would not be brought—

By inference, Rabbi Yehuda holds that it is

brought,

for otherwise this would not be a response to the words of Rabbi Yehuda, since he indeed holds that it is not brought!?

And if you would say: Rabbi Meir stated this according to what he himself holds

according to his view,

he said it—

But it was taught

in a beraita that Rabbi Yehuda himself holds so, for we learned:

There is no difference between the eleventh

which he called “tenth”

and

the other

peace-offerings, except that this one

the peace-offering

effects sanctity—

through substitution—

to be brought, whereas this one does not effect sanctity

through substitution

to be brought, the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

It is apparent, then, that according to Rabbi Yehuda

sanctity—

to sanctify others—

is what the eleventh does not effect, for it to be brought;

the eleventh,

but it itself

but the eleventh itself

is brought

as a peace-offering and does not die!?

And furthermore, it was taught:

It is written in the passage of peace-offerings [Leviticus 3:1]: “And if his offering is a sacrifice of peace-offerings,”

“if it is from cattle”

he offers it...” And it is further written there, in verse 6: “And if his offering for a sacrifice of peace-offerings is from the flock.” If so, Scripture did not need to say at the beginning “if it is from cattle,” since, as the continuation of the verse deals with the flock, it is automatically understood that at the beginning Scripture deals with cattle. Rather, Scripture came

to include the eleventh

which he called “tenth”

as peace-offerings—

You said: Does consecration, when it is before it

before it takes effect,

sanctify, or after it

after it takes effect,

does it sanctify? You must say: after it, it sanctifies;

for after the consecration takes effect, if he made a substitution, the substitution takes effect. If so, the error of animal tithe, which is a substitution, does not effect a substitution to be brought except after the animal tithe has taken effect, and not before.

But

who is the anonymous Sifra?

Is it not

Rabbi Yehuda

?

And it teaches “[ [A0096] ]if it is from cattle”

If it is from cattle’”

to include the eleventh as peace-offerings; it follows that Rabbi Yehuda holds that the eleventh is brought as a peace-offering.

before Rabbi Yohanan:

Rather, Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Abba interpreted it—

for the beraita in which we learned, “Two emerged as the tenth; they shall die”—

before Rabbi Yohanan:

And we raise a difficulty:

We are dealing with animal tithe in the present time

when it is impossible to bring it, and one must wait until it develops a blemish,

and because of a mishap—

lest, before it develops a blemish, one come to shear it or perform labor with it, or slaughter it without a blemish—it shall die, and the same applies to the eleventh which he called “tenth,” which is a peace-offering: it shall die because of a mishap.

And we raise an objection:

If so,

that the beraita is dealing with the present time,

why specifically two? Even one also

why did we teach—in the case where both emerged as the tenth—that both shall die? Even if he called only the tenth “tenth,” it should die in the present time because of a mishap!? And we answer:

It states the matter by way of “it is not necessary”: It is not necessary to say concerning one

which he called “tenth”—that it shall die, because

the loss is not great

the loss is not so great;

but concerning two, since the loss is great

the loss is great, I might say that they should not die immediately, but

we should leave them until a blemish falls upon them

wait until a blemish falls upon them,

and eat them

and we will not be concerned about a mishap—

It teaches us

that even if there were two, they shall die because of a mishap.

It was stated: One who says to his agent “[ [A0146] ]Go and tithe

sacred,

animal tithe

for me”:

Rav Pappi said in the name of Rava:

If

the agent

called

the ninth “[ [A0154] ]tenth,”

And Rav Pappa said: Even if he called the ninth

it is

sacred,

because he did not cause him a loss, since it is eaten upon its blemish,

but

if the agent called

the eleventh “[ [A0161] ]tenth,”

the tenth,’”

it is not sacred,

since he caused him the loss of the sacrificial portions, which must be offered upon the altar, and the breast and thigh, which must be given to the priests; therefore, he can say to him: “I did not send you to err, and with knowledge of this you are not my agent.”

And Rav Pappa said: Even if he called the ninth “[ [A0167] ]tenth,”

in tractate Terumot:

it is not sacred,

because

he says to him

the sender says to the agent: “[ [A0172] ]I sent you to correct and not to distort”

separates according to the intention of the homeowner

for even the ninth which he called “tenth” constitutes a loss, since he must wait until it develops a blemish.

And we raise an objection to both of them:

And in what way is this different from that which we learned

in tractate Terumot:

One who says to his agent “[ [A0185] ]Go and separate teruma,”

or

the agent

separates according to the intention of the householder

according to what he knows to be the householder’s intention: if he has a generous eye, he separates one-fortieth; if he has an average eye, he separates one-fiftieth; or if he has a begrudging eye, which is one-sixtieth—

and if he does not know

the agent

the intention of the householder,

he

separates according to the average measure,

which is

one-fiftieth.

If he decreased

the agent from the intention of the householder

by ten,

that is, he separated one-fortieth,

or increased

from the intention of the householder

by ten,

that is, he separated one-sixtieth,

his teruma is teruma.

“I assessed you in this way.” I assessed that this was the amount you intended to separate. But here, when he called the ninth animal “the tenth,” it is a mistake, and the homeowner can say to him, the agent:

It is therefore explained that although he caused him a loss by separating one-fortieth, nevertheless his teruma is teruma, and he cannot say to him, “I sent you to correct and not to distort”!?

They said

the members of the academy to resolve it:

There, since there is one who separates with a generous eye, and there is one who separates with a begrudging eye,

the agent

can say to him

to the householder:

This is how I assessed you

I assessed you as intending such a teruma.

But

here, when he called the ninth “tenth,” it is

that

an error,

and he

can say to him

the householder to the agent:

You should not have erred

you had no right to err.

We shall return to you, chapter “Animal Tithe,” and the tractate Bekhorot is concluded