Bekhorot 61a (סא.) — the Talmud in English

And this that he taught:

who say: One does not bring consecrated offerings to a state of disqualification; if he were to give the breast and thigh to the priests from both animals—even though he is required to give them from only one—perhaps sufficient numbers of priests would not be found to eat them within their allotted time, and they would become notar. And this that the tanna taught “‘ they shall be brought near,’”

is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: One may bring sacrificial animals to a place of disqualification.

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

And this that the tanna taught “‘

they shall die’”

is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says

in our Mishna:

the mistaken designation of the tithe—

that is, the eleventh animal, which he called the tenth—

is a substitute, and Rabbi Yehuda holds: The substitute of an animal tithe dies

as does the substitute of a sin-offering, and since it is uncertain, both animals shall die.

And we raise an objection:

But didn’t we learn

in our Mishna:

They said in the name of Rabbi Meir—

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

if

the eleventh animal

were a substitute, it would not be sacrificed—

By inference, Rabbi Yehuda holds that it

is sacrificed,

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

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

according to his own position,

he said it—

But it was taught

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

There is no difference between the eleventh animal

which he called “the tenth”

and

the other

peace-offerings, except that this one

among the peace-offerings

effects sanctity—

through substitution—

to be sacrificed, whereas this one does not effect sanctity

through substitution

to be sacrificed; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

It is therefore evident that according to Rabbi Yehuda,

sanctity—

to sanctify other animals—

is what the eleventh does not effect in order for it to be sacrificed;

the eleventh animal,

but it itself

however, the eleventh animal itself

is sacrificed

as a peace-offering and does not die!?

And furthermore, it was taught:

It is written in the section of peace-offerings: “And if his offering is a sacrifice of peace-offerings” (Leviticus 3:1),

“if it is from cattle”

“he sacrifices it…”; and it is further written there, in verse 6: “And if his offering for a sacrifice of peace-offerings to the Lord is from the flock.” If so, Scripture need not have stated initially, “if it is from cattle,” since, as the continuation of the verse deals with sheep, it is understood that the beginning deals with cattle. Rather, Scripture came

to include the eleventh animal

which he called “the tenth”

among peace-offerings—

You said: Does the consecrated animal sanctify the one before it

before it takes effect,

or does it sanctify the one after it

after it takes effect?

You must say: It sanctifies the one after it;

that is, once the consecration has taken effect, if he effects substitution, the substitution takes effect. Accordingly, the mistaken designation of the tithe, which is a substitution, effects sanctity to be sacrificed only after the tithe has taken effect, and not beforehand.

But

who is the anonymous author of the Sifra?

Is it not

Rabbi Yehuda

?

And it teaches: “‘

If it is from cattle’”

to include the eleventh animal among peace-offerings.

It is therefore evident that Rabbi Yehuda holds that the eleventh animal is sacrificed as a peace-offering.

Rather, Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Abba explained it—

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

before Rabbi Yohanan:

And we raise a difficulty:

We are dealing with an animal tithe in the present era,

when it cannot be sacrificed and one must wait until it develops a blemish,

and because of the concern of mishap—

lest one come to shear it or work with it before it develops a blemish, or slaughter it without a blemish, in which case it must die— the same law applies to the eleventh animal that was called “the tenth,” which is a peace-offering: It must die because of the concern of mishap.

And we raise an objection:

If so,

that the beraita is dealing with the present era,

why specifically two? Even one as well—

why did we state that, when two animals emerged as the tenth, both must die? Even if he called only the tenth animal “the tenth,” it should die in the present era because of the concern of mishap!? And we answer:

It is stating a novelty: It is not necessary to say that one

which he called “the tenth” must die, because

the loss is not great

the loss is not so significant;

but in the case of two, since the loss is great

the loss is substantial, one might say that they should not die immediately, but rather

they should be left until a blemish develops in them

one should wait until a blemish develops in them

and eat them,

and we need not be concerned about a mishap—

This teaches us

that even if there were two animals, they must die, because of the concern of mishap.

It was stated: One who says to his agent, “

Go and tithe

the animal tithe

for me”:

Rav Pappi said in the name of Rava:

If

he called

the agent

the ninth animal “‘

the tenth,’”

it is

consecrated,

and this does not cause him a loss, since it may be eaten once it develops a blemish;

but

if the agent called

the eleventh animal “‘

the tenth,’”

it is not consecrated,

since he caused him the loss of the sacrificial portions that must be offered on the altar and of the breast and thigh that must be given to the priests. Therefore, the owner can say to him: “I did not send you to make a mistake, and with regard to this you are not my agent.”

And Rav Pappa said: Even if he called the ninth animal “‘

the tenth,’”

it is not consecrated,

and this is because

he can say to him

the owner who sent the agent: “

I sent you to correct matters for me, not to spoil them.”

Since even the ninth animal that was called “the tenth” entails a loss, as he must wait until it develops a blemish.

And we raise an objection to both of them:

And how does this differ from that which we learned

in tractate Terumot:

One who says to his agent, “

Go and separate teruma,”

the agent

separates in accordance with the disposition of the owner

according to what he knows of the owner’s disposition: If he is generous, he separates one-fortieth; if he has an average disposition, he separates one-fiftieth; or if he is ungenerous, one-sixtieth—

and if he does not know

the agent

the disposition of the owner,

he

separates an average portion,

which is

one-fiftieth.

If he reduced

the portion from what was appropriate according to the owner’s disposition

by one-tenth,

that is, he separated one-fortieth,

or added

to what was appropriate according to the owner’s disposition

one-tenth.

That is, he separated one-sixtieth, then

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 evident that although he caused him a loss by separating one-fortieth, nevertheless his teruma is teruma, and the owner cannot say to him, “I sent you to correct matters for me, not to spoil them”!?

They said,

the members of the academy, in resolution:

There, since some people separate generously and some people separate ungenerously,

the agent

can say to him,

the owner:

That is how I assessed you

I assessed you as one who would give such a portion.

But

here,

when he called the ninth animal “the tenth,”

it is an error,

and he

can say to him,

the owner to the agent:

You should not have made a mistake

you had no right to err.

We have returned to you, chapter “Animal Tithe,” and the tractate Bekhorot is concluded