059a - מעשר בהמה פרק תשיעי בכורות דף נט, ע"א

“So too terumas maaser is taken by estimate and by thought.”^[1]

באומד - He estimates in his mind, “there is such-and-such in this pile,” and according to his estimate he takes terumah.^[2]

במחשבה - He thinks [and says]: “Two lugin that I am going to separate shall be terumah,” as we say (Demai, chapter 7, mishnah 4)^[3] concerning one who buys wine from among the Kutim; and it is called “thought” because he does not count them out. Alternatively: he sets his eyes on this side and eats from the other side.^[4] And both of them, estimate and thought, we derive from “ונחשב” (“and it shall be reckoned”).^[5]

And the Torah called maaser “terumah,”^[6] as it is written (Bamidbar 18): “For the tithe of the children of Israel, which they set apart as a terumah to Hashem, I have given to the Levites as an inheritance.”

And animal tithe^[7] is compared to grain tithe: just as grain tithe is taken by estimate and by thought, so too animal tithe is taken by estimate and by thought.^[8]

איתקש - At the beginning of our perek (above, 53b):^[9] “and your tithes” – Scripture speaks of two tithes, one the animal tithe and one the grain tithe.

Rava said: The tenth is holy by itself.^[10]

קדוש מאליו - That if he counted ten and the tenth remained in the pen, even though it did not come out and he did not count it, it is holy by itself.

From where does Rava have this?

If you say from that which was taught: “I only know where he called it ‘tenth’; where he did not call it ‘tenth,’ from where? The Torah says: ‘the tenth shall be holy’ – in any case”;^[11]

but perhaps it is “tenth” that he did not call it, yet “holy” he did call it!^[12]

ודילמא עשירי לא קרייה רחמנא - [Perhaps] the Torah did not call it “tenth” so that it would have the law of maaser – to be brought up to Yerushalayim and offered – but called it merely “holy”: sanctity takes hold of it, and it is eaten only with its blemish. Another explanation: “perhaps he did not call it ‘tenth’” – he did not call it by the name “tenth,” but called it by the name “holy,” and therefore it is maaser; but where he did not call it anything at all, it would not be holy like other maaser. And [this explanation is] not from the teacher’s mouth.^[13]

Rather, from that which was taught: “If he called the ninth ‘tenth,’ and the tenth came out and he said nothing – the ninth is eaten with its blemish, and the tenth is maaser.”^[14]

But perhaps it is different there, since the tenth became clarified for him; or alternatively, he pointed at it!^[15]

דאיברר ליה עשירי - Since it came out at the end of nine, it was clarified by itself that it is the tenth, and therefore it is like other maaser even though he did not give it a name. Alternatively, the beraisa speaks where he pointed at it: when it came out he showed it with his finger, that it should be maaser, only he did not speak with his mouth. But where it remained in the pen and he did not give it a name, we have not yet heard that it would be holy like other maaser.

Rather, from that which was taught: “If he called the ninth ‘tenth,’ and the tenth died in the pen – the ninth is eaten with its blemish, and all of them are exempt.”^[16]

תשיעי נאכל במומו - Since he called it “tenth”; for an exchange of the name “maaser” sanctifies [the animal] before it and after it, as [taught] below.^[17] But the others, at any rate, were not exempted then, since it is the ninth in the count of the animals.

וכולם פטורין - The eight that had already come out.

What is the reason that all of them are exempt? Is it not because the tenth became holy [by itself]?

דקדש ליה עשירי - By itself, in the pen, even though it did not come out.

But perhaps they were exempted by the “fitting count,” for Rava said: “A fitting count exempts”!^[18]

במנין הראוי - When nine came out through the opening, there was there a count fit to be tithed, for the tenth was still alive and fit to come out after them and exempt them; and since it is fit to come out, it is as though it had already come out and exempted the count – and below he explains the reason. But it itself, at any rate, would not be holy until it came out.

Rather, from that which was taught: “If he called the ninth ‘tenth,’ and the tenth remained in the pen – the ninth is eaten with its blemish, and the tenth is maaser.”^[19]

והעשירי מעשר - We see that even though it did not come out, it is holy by itself in the pen. And now he challenges this beraisa, which teaches “the ninth is eaten with its blemish”: “but it was taught,” etc.

But it was taught: “The ninth is chullin”!^[20]

A Tanna taught before Rav Sheshes:^[21] Whose [view] is this? It is Rabbi Shimon ben Yehudah,^[22]

as it was taught: “Rabbi Shimon ben Yehudah says in the name of Rabbi Shimon:”^[23]

Tosfos

אף תרומת מעשר נטלת באומד ובמחשבה - And if you will ask: but the essential [source for] thought is written about terumas maaser, as it is written, “And your terumah shall be reckoned to you,” and that verse is written about the Levites! One can answer: since it is written, “as the grain from the threshing floor,” which means terumah gedolah – for “grain” implies grain that a Yisrael separates from his threshing floor – it is plainer to him [to apply the verse] more to terumah gedolah. And in Gittin (31a) the Kuntres explained^[24] that what [Abba Elazar] derives terumas maaser from terumah gedolah is with regard to estimate, but thought we derive for both of them from “ונחשב.” And it appears that the Rabbis do not disagree with Abba Elazar^[25] with regard to thought, only with regard to estimate. And if you will say that they do disagree, perhaps there is some reason why they do not apply [the verse] to terumas maaser even though it is written about it itself, as we find with regard to mukaf,^[26] as it says in the Yerushalmi, chapter two: (since they called it “all the terumah,” it teaches and is taught) except for terumas maaser, which teaches and is not taught; for about terumas maaser it is written “from it,” to say that we require mukaf, and we apply it to terumah gedolah and not to terumas maaser – for in tractate Bikkurim (2:5) we learned: “Terumas maaser is equal to bikkurim in two ways: it is taken from the pure for the impure, and not from what is adjacent, like bikkurim.” And as for what [the Gemara] asks in Perek Kol HaGet (Gittin 30b) concerning terumas maaser, “Are chaverim suspected of separating terumah not from what is adjacent?” – Rabbeinu Tam establishes it as rabbinic,^[27] for by Torah law mukaf is not required. However, it appears that with regard to thought they do not disagree, since [the Gemara] asks at the beginning of HaIsh Mekadesh (Kiddushin 41b), concerning the derivation of agency from terumah, “What about terumah, which is taken by thought?” – implying that it asks according to everyone; and that is terumas maaser, about which it is written “you, also you.” However, according to what the Kuntres explained, they do disagree about thought, for it is because of thought that [the Gemara] in our sugya sets Rabbi Yosi b’Rabbi Yehudah as following Abba Elazar ben Gamla; and from his explanation it is implied that even for terumah gedolah they do not hold [that it works by] thought – for if they held [that it works by] thought, it would not need to say that he holds like Abba Elazar ben Gamla, since even according to the Rabbis we could derive thought for maaser from the fact that the Torah called it terumah. However, one can say that it is because of the terumas maaser within it that the Torah called it terumah.

במחשבה - The Kuntres explained: he sets his eyes on this side as terumah and eats from this [other] side, even though he did not separate. This implies that he means to say that because it is written “ונחשב,” it is permitted to eat without separating, and we also permit it in silence, by setting his eyes on this side and eating from this side; and all this he derives from “ונחשב.” He also explained another version: “by thought” – he thinks and says, “two lugin that I am going to separate,” even though now he separates nothing; and he means to say that speech is required, and it is the permission without separating that is called “thought.” And we also find that speech is called thought, as in (Bava Metzia 44a) “for every matter of trespass,” which says to make him liable for the thought as for the deed. And it appears that even without speech it is terumah, since we learned in tractate Terumos (1:6): “Five may not separate terumah, and if they separated, their terumah is terumah,” and it counts a mute [among them]; and the Yerushalmi explains the reason: because of the blessing. And in tractate Shevuos, chapter 3 (26b), it is clearly implied that it is permitted once he resolved in his heart, even though he did not utter it with his lips, for it is written “every generous heart”; and it says that terumah and kodashim are two verses that come as one,^[28] and we do not derive [the law of] an oath from them. And as for eating without separating, there is no concern, for according to everyone it is permitted everywhere even though he does not separate now, as is evident from the case of one who buys wine from among the Kutim, which is permitted according to everyone, were it not for [the issue of] bereirah, or because we are concerned that the flask may burst; and there are places where we permit [designating] maaser sheni on its north side. And if you will ask: since we permit terumah by setting his eyes on this side and eating from the other side, why may one not separate terumos and maasros on Yom Tov? For we learned in Perek Notel (Shabbos 142a): “One may raise up the meduma in one hundred and one,”^[29] and it asks: but he is fixing [the produce]! And it answers: it is Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon, who says one sets his eyes on this side and eats from this side, and therefore it is not considered fixing, since it is possible by thought. One can answer: meduma is different, since it was already fixed; but the beginning of fixing we do not permit for the reason that it is possible by thought. And even demai it is forbidden to fix on Shabbos, as is evident in Perek Bameh Madlikin (ibid. 34a), even though it is permitted to him by setting his eyes on this side and eating from the other side, as is evident in the first perek of Chullin (6b) concerning Rabbi Meir, who ate a leaf of a vegetable in Beis She’an.

איתקש מעשר בהמה למעשר דגן - The Kuntres explained: since it is written “you shall surely tithe,” as we say at the beginning of our perek. One must say that he does not hold that which [Rava] said: “I compared it for the year, and not for anything else.”^[30] And moreover, at the beginning of our perek we expound a different hekesh, “And you shall bring there … your tithes,” according to Rabbi Akiva; and perhaps it was compared only with regard to bringing. However, according to Rava it is difficult: how does he explain the reason of Rabbi Yosi b’Rabbi Yehudah? And similarly in Zevachim, Perek Beis Shammai (45a), we expound: “The kodashim of idolaters do not make temurah,” since temurah is compared to animal tithe, and animal tithe to grain tithe, and about grain tithe it is written “the children of Israel,” and not idolaters. One can answer: [Rava speaks] with regard to tithing from one onto another, such as from one species onto another that is not its species, which is similar to new onto old – for this specifically he says, “I compared it for the year, and not for anything else.”

Notes

1. 1. This completes the beraisa begun on the previous amud [Bechoros 58b]. Abba Elazar ben Gomel expounds “and your terumah shall be reckoned to you” as speaking of two terumos: terumah gedolah, which a Yisrael gives to a kohen from his crop, and terumas maaser, which a Levi gives to a kohen out of the maaser he received. Just as terumah gedolah may be taken by estimate and by thought, so may terumas maaser. The Gemara is explaining why Rabbi Yosi b’Rabbi Yehudah holds that animals tithed without exact counting are validly tithed.
2. 2. This Rashi and the next are printed here in the Vilna Shas; Sefaria lists them on the last line of the previous amud, “just as terumah gedolah is taken by estimate and by thought” [Bechoros 58b]. “Estimate” means he judges by eye how much the pile holds and separates accordingly, without measuring or counting.
3. 3. The Mishnah in Demai (7:4): one who buys wine from the Kutim on Erev Shabbos and has no vessels to separate with says, “Two lugin that I am going to separate shall be terumah,” and so on, and drinks at once. The terumah is fixed by his declaration, and the actual separating comes later. Rashi calls this “thought” because nothing is counted out.
4. 4. He designates in his mind one side of the produce as terumah and eats from the other side, though nothing has actually been separated. Tosfos below, on “by thought,” discuss how far this goes.
5. 5. The verse about the Levites’ terumas maaser: “And your terumah shall be reckoned to you as the grain from the threshing floor” [Bamidbar 18:27]. “Reckoned” is read as: the terumah takes effect by thought alone.
6. 6. That is, maaser rishon, which a Yisrael gives to a Levi, is called “terumah” in the verse [Bamidbar 18:24]; so it too may be taken by estimate and by thought, like terumah. That is the first link in the chain that leads to the animal tithe.
7. 7. Maaser beheimah: the owner brings the year’s newborn animals into a pen and lets them out one at a time through an opening, counting with a rod; the tenth is holy. It is offered like a shelamim and eaten by the owners in Yerushalayim; if it has a blemish, it is eaten in its blemished state anywhere.
8. 8. This is the reason for Rabbi Yosi b’Rabbi Yehudah’s ruling in the beraisa [Bechoros 58b]: if he had a hundred and took ten without counting them under the rod, they are maaser, because the animal tithe, like the grain tithe, may be taken by estimate.
9. 9. A hekesh is a comparison drawn from two things written together, which then share the same law. Rashi cites “and you shall bring there … your tithes” (Devarim 12:6), plural, read as the animal tithe and the grain tithe; that derivation is on [Bechoros 53a]. Tosfos below quote Rashi as deriving it from “you shall surely tithe” [Bechoros 53b].
10. 10. That is: if nine were counted and the tenth remained in the pen – it never came out and was never named – it is nevertheless holy with maaser sanctity of itself. The Gemara now looks for a source.
11. 11. The verse is “whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be holy to Hashem” [Vayikra 27:32]. “Shall be holy” is expounded as “in any case”: it is holy even if he did not call it “tenth.”
12. 12. The Gemara rejects the proof: the beraisa may speak of one who did not say “tenth” but did say “holy,” so it does not prove that an animal never named at all is holy.
13. 13. Rashi gives two explanations. (1) The verse does not give such an animal the full law of maaser, only the status of “holy”: it is sanctified and eaten only with a blemish. (2) The owner called it “holy.” “Not from the teacher’s mouth” means the second explanation is Rashi’s own, not his teacher’s.
14. 14. The beraisa: he miscounted and called the ninth animal “tenth,” and when the real tenth came out he said nothing. The ninth is sanctified by the name he gave it, and may be eaten only once it has a blemish. The real tenth is maaser even though he never named it, which seems to support Rava.
15. 15. The Gemara rejects the proof: there the tenth actually came out, which made its identity clear, or the owner pointed at it. That does not show that a tenth which never came out is holy of itself.
16. 16. Here the tenth died in the pen without coming out, and the beraisa rules that all of them are exempt from the tithe. The Gemara wants to infer that the tenth became holy by itself and so exempted the others.
17. 17. One who mistakenly calls “tenth” an animal adjacent to the real tenth – the one before it (the ninth) or after it (the eleventh) – sanctifies it, as the Mishnah below rules [Bechoros 60a].
18. 18. The “fitting count”: once nine have been counted and an animal fit to come out tenth is still in the pen, the nine are exempt as though the count were complete, even though the tenth never came out and never became holy. So the dead tenth may have exempted them without being holy. Rava’s rule is discussed on the next amud [Bechoros 59b].
19. 19. Here the tenth stayed in the pen, never coming out and never named, and still “the tenth is maaser.” That is a proof for Rava that it is holy by itself.
20. 20. The difficulty is with the last beraisa: another beraisa teaches that the ninth he called “tenth” stays chullin and is not sanctified by the name, which contradicts “the ninth is eaten with its blemish” (Rashi).
21. 21. A tanna here is the reciter who repeated beraisos by heart in the beis midrash. Rav Sheshes was a third-generation Babylonian Amora.
22. 22. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehudah was a Tanna and a student of Rabbi Shimon (bar Yochai), whose teachings he transmits. The beraisa that calls the ninth chullin follows his view: the ninth is holy only if the name “tenth” has been uprooted from the real tenth.
23. 23. The beraisa continues on the next amud [Bechoros 59b]: “the ninth too is holy only if the name ‘tenth’ was uprooted from it.”
24. 24. “The Kuntres” (abbreviated פ"ה) is Tosfos’ name for Rashi’s commentary.
25. 25. Abba Elazar ben Gomel (also called ben Gamla) is the Tanna of the beraisa on the previous amud. The Rabbis disagree with him, and Tosfos ask whether the dispute is only about estimate or about thought as well.
26. 26. Mukaf: terumah should be taken from produce lying next to the produce it exempts. The Mishnah in Bikkurim rules that terumas maaser does not need mukaf, so the verse “from it” is applied to terumah gedolah instead.
27. 27. Rabbeinu Tam, Rabbi Yaakov ben Meir, Rashi’s grandson, one of the leading Baalei HaTosfos.
28. 28. Two verses that come as one: when the same rule is stated in two places, it is not extended to other areas. Terumah and kodashim both take effect by a resolve of the heart, so an oath cannot be learned from them.
29. 29. Meduma is chullin into which terumah has fallen. “Raising it up” means removing from the mixture an amount equal to the terumah, which frees the rest when there are a hundred parts against it.
30. 30. Rava said [Bechoros 53b] that the comparison of the animal tithe to the grain tithe applies only to the year – one may not tithe one year’s animals for another’s – and not to anything else. If so, how can the hekesh teach estimate here?