060b - מעשר בהמה פרק תשיעי בכורות דף ס ע"ב

If he called the ninth “tenth,” the tenth “ninth,” and the eleventh “tenth”:^[1]

The Rabbis taught: “From where do we know that if he called the ninth ‘tenth,’ the tenth ‘ninth,’ and the eleventh ‘tenth,’ all three are consecrated?

The Torah says (Vayikra 27): ‘And all the tithe of the herd and the flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be holy.’^[2]

וכל מעשר בקר וצאן - This implies: whether he called it “tenth,” or whether it was tenth in the count and he did not call it “tenth.”

I might think that I include even the eighth and the twelfth?

שמיני ושנים עשר - If he called them “tenth.”

You must say: since it is holy and its error is consecrated – just as it is consecrated only when adjacent, so its error is consecrated only when adjacent.”^[3]

מה הוא - The true tenth is consecrated only when it is adjacent [to its place], for nothing is more adjacent to it than itself.

אף טעותו - What he erred and called “tenth” is consecrated only if he erred with the one adjacent to the true tithe, such as the ninth and the eleventh, which are adjacent to it – this one before it and that one after it.

But it was taught: “Just as it is singular, so its error is singular”!^[4]

מיוחד - For the tenth is only one.

אף טעותו מיוחדת - That if he erred with the ninth and with the eleventh, the two would not be consecrated, but only one of them; so how could you say that all of them are consecrated?

A Tanna taught [this beraisa] before Rabbi Yochanan, [and he said]: Whose view is this? It is Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Shimon.^[5]

As it was taught: Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Shimon says: “The eleventh is never holy unless he was silent at the ninth and called the tenth ‘ninth’ and the eleventh ‘tenth.’”^[6]

עד שישתוק בתשיעי - For if he called it “tenth,” the eleventh would not be holy, because two errors of one tithe are not holy, since its error is singular like itself.

He holds like Rabbi Yehudah, who said, “The error of the tithe is a temurah,” and he holds like his father, who said, “One who substitutes does not substitute again.”^[7]

וטעמא דרבי אלעזר הכי הוי משום דסבר לה כר' יהודה - [And this is Rabbi Elazar’s reason: because he holds like Rabbi Yehudah,] who said in our Mishnah, “error…” etc., when he said, “Can a temurah make a temurah?” And Rabbi Shimon, the father of Rabbi Elazar, said in the first chapter of Temurah (9a) that one may not make a substitution and then substitute again: once a substitution has been made for an animal one time, it does not take a substitution another time. So here too, there are not two errors for the tithe.

Rava said: If two came out at the ninth [place] and he called them “ninth,” the tenth and chullin are mixed together.^[8]

בתשיעי - When the ninth was due to come out.

עשירי וחולין - For one of them is the ninth and one is the tithe, even though he called it “ninth.”

מעורבין - And they may be eaten only with a blemish; and one who shears or works one of them does not receive the forty lashes, for perhaps it is chullin.^[9]

The tenth is holy by itself; the ninth, he called it “ninth.”

If he called them “tenth,” the tenth and the ninth are mixed together.^[10]

What is the reason? He called them both “tenth.”

If two came out at the tenth and he called them “tenth,” the tenth and the eleventh are mixed together.^[11]

עשירי ואחד עשר מעורבין - That is, a true tithe and an eleventh that is holy are mixed together; and because the eleventh, which is holy, is offered as a shelamim, both are offered and eaten by the stricter law of the sanctity in them: they require two placements [of blood] and the lifting of the breast and thigh, like shelamim.^[12]

If he called them “eleventh,” the tenth and chullin are mixed together.^[13]

Why do I need this further [case]? It is the same thing!

הא תו למה לי - Since he has taught us [the law] when both came out at the ninth and he called them “tenth,” I would know by myself that the same law applies when both came out at the tenth.

This teaches us: that whenever [they come out] at once, both are consecrated, even though the name “tenth” was not uprooted from it.^[14]

Rav Kahana sat and said this teaching.^[15]

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: But the name “tenth” was not uprooted from it, and we learned: “This is the rule: as long as the name ‘tenth’ was not uprooted from it, the eleventh is not consecrated”!^[16]

That applies to one after the other; but at once, both are consecrated.

בב"א - That he gave the name “tenth” to the tenth and to the eleventh at once – even though [the name] was not uprooted, for he also called the tenth “tenth.”

One after the other – it teaches that explicitly: “If he called the ninth ‘tenth,’ the tenth ‘tenth,’ and the eleventh ‘tenth,’ the eleventh is not consecrated”!

“This is the rule” – to include what? Is it not to include [a case of] at once?^[17]

No – to include where the tenth came out and he did not speak, for the name “tenth” was not uprooted from it.^[18]

לאיתויי יצא עשירי ולא דבר - That silence does not count as uprooting, unless he uprooted it explicitly and called it “ninth.”

For if you do not say so – that which was taught: “If two came out at the tenth, and neither preceded the other, and he called them ‘tenth,’ the tenth and the eleventh are mixed together” – but the name “tenth” was not uprooted from it!^[19]

דאי לא תימא הכי - [That is,] that at once it is holy. And Rav Ashi, who challenged Rav Kahana, “But it was not uprooted,” etc., had not heard what we answered above: “This teaches us that at once…” etc.

Is it not rather because we say: whenever at once, both are consecrated?

If it is because of that, there is no proof.

Here we are dealing with a case where one of them went ahead and put out its head, and he called it “eleventh,” and then they mixed again and came out together, and he called them “tenth” – for the name “tenth” was uprooted from it.^[20]

הכא במאי עסקינן - Where it teaches, “the tenth and eleventh are mixed,” so that we consider the eleventh consecrated even though he called the tenth “tenth” – [it is a case] where one went ahead, etc.

וקרייה אחד עשר - For now the name “tenth” was uprooted from it, since he did not call it “tenth” but “eleventh”; therefore, even though he then called both “tenth,” the eleventh is holy. But where he called them “tenth” from the start, even [if they came out] at once, the eleventh is not holy. And the reason we establish it where he called it “eleventh”: had he called it “ninth,” there would be no need to teach it, for that is certainly uprooting; but regarding “eleventh,” Rebbi disagrees and says that it is not uprooting, as below, so it was necessary to teach us that it is uprooting.

But it teaches “neither preceded”!

What is “neither preceded”? That it mixed again.

And according to whom [is this]? Not according to Rebbi! For if Rebbi – he said: “‘Eleventh’ is not uprooting”!^[21]

וכמאן - [According to whom] do we answer that calling it “eleventh” counts as uprooting?

You may even say Rebbi: when did Rebbi say [this]? Where he has many animals, for we say: he meant “one tithe.”^[22]

דאית ליה בהמות טובא - To tithe; for then, when he counted the first ten and called the tenth “eleventh,” one can say that this does not uproot the name “tenth” from it, for when he said “eleventh” he meant “one tithe” – that is, “this is the first tithe.”

Here, he does not have more animals.

אבל היכא דל"ל בהמות יותר - Than eleven, or twelve, thirteen, fourteen or fifteen – one cannot say this, for it is not people’s way to say “this is one tithe” unless he knows that he will have many tithes; therefore we say that he meant “eleventh” literally, and he uprooted the name “tenth” from it.

What is [the view of] Rebbi?

As it was taught: “If he called the tenth ‘eleventh’ and the eleventh ‘tenth,’ the eleventh is not holy – the words of Rebbi.^[23]

Rabbi Yosi the son of Rabbi Yehudah says: The eleventh is holy.

Rebbi stated a rule: As long as the name ‘tenth’ was not uprooted from it, the eleventh is not holy.”

Rava said: Here we are dealing with a case where he has many animals, for we say: he meant “one tithe.”^[24]

“If two came out at the tenth”:^[25]

יצאו שנים בעשירי - This is like “the master said”: [the Gemara] returns to Rava’s teaching, who said above, “If two came out at the tenth and he called them ‘tenth,’ the tenth and eleventh are mixed together”; and now it explains: one Tanna teaches that those two that are mixed should graze until they become blemished, and another beraisa teaches, etc.

One [beraisa] teaches: “They shall graze”; another teaches: “They shall be offered”; and another beraisa teaches: “They shall die”!^[26]

It is no difficulty: this one that teaches “they shall graze” is the Rabbis, who say: one may not bring consecrated animals to the place of disqualification^[27]

Tosfos

עד שישתוק בתשיעי (אלא שלא קראו עשירי לה) - This can be explained in two ways.^[28] [First:] “until he is silent at the ninth” is not precise; rather, [the point is] that he did not call it “tenth,” and even if he called it “ninth” [the eleventh is holy]; for if he called it “tenth,” the eleventh is not holy, since two errors are not holy together – we require the error to be singular like [the tithe] itself. Alternatively, it can be explained: if he called the ninth “ninth,” then it is no longer an error when he calls the tenth “ninth,” and it is as if he called it “tenth,” and the eleventh is not consecrated, for it is not considered as if the name “tenth” was uprooted from it. On this view “he is silent” is precise – that he did not speak at all. And with this one difficulty below in our sugya is resolved, where it says, “Here we are dealing with a case where one of them went ahead and put out its head, and he called it ‘eleventh,’” and it challenges, “According to whom? Not according to Rebbi, for if Rebbi – he said ‘eleventh’ is not uprooting.” Now let it establish that he called the one that put out its head “ninth,” which according to everyone is uprooting! But according to this explanation it is well, for that is not uprooting, as we explained. And according to the first version that I explained, the reason it does not establish it as calling it “ninth” is that there would be no need to teach that, since that is certainly uprooting; but this needed to be taught, because sometimes it is not uprooting according to Rebbi – where he has many animals.

שנים בעשירי כו' - Above, in chapter 2 (17b; and see there, Tosfos s.v. אפשר), I explained that he can hold that it is impossible to be exact.^[29]

Notes

1. 1. This continues the Gemara of the previous amud [Bechoros 60a], which quotes the Mishnah there: if he erred and called the ninth animal “tenth,” the tenth “ninth” and the eleventh “tenth,” all three are consecrated. The ninth is eaten once it has a blemish, the tenth is the tithe (maaser behemah), and the eleventh is offered as a shelamim. The Gemara now asks for the source.
2. 2. The verse [Vayikra 27:32] describes the tithing of animals: they pass one by one under the shepherd’s rod, and every tenth is holy. The inclusive words “and all” and “whatever passes” teach that even an animal called “tenth” by mistake becomes holy.
3. 3. The true tenth is holy only in its own place in the count. So too an error takes effect only on the animals next to it – the ninth and the eleventh – but not on the eighth or the twelfth.
4. 4. According to this beraisa, just as there is only one tenth, only one error can take effect. If so, all three cannot be consecrated, as the Mishnah said.
5. 5. Rabbi Yochanan was one of the greatest Amoraim of Eretz Yisrael. The “Tanna” here is a reciter of beraisos in the study hall, who recited this beraisa before him.
6. 6. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, was a Tanna. In his view the eleventh is holy only if he did not call the ninth “tenth”; once he has erred with the ninth, a second error does not take effect.
7. 7. Temurah: one who substitutes an unconsecrated animal for a consecrated one makes both holy. Rabbi Yehudah in the Mishnah [Bechoros 60a] holds that the mistaken “tenth” is a temurah of the tithe. Rabbi Shimon holds [Temurah 9a] that once a substitution has been made, a second one does not take effect. Putting the two together, Rabbi Elazar holds that two errors cannot both take effect.
8. 8. Two animals left the pen together in the ninth place, and he called both “ninth.” One of them is really the tenth and is holy by itself; the other is chullin (unconsecrated). Since we do not know which is which, they are “mixed.”
9. 9. An unblemished animal tithe is offered on the altar; once blemished it is eaten by its owner without being offered. Shearing or working with a consecrated animal is punished by forty lashes, but here each animal is only possibly consecrated, and there are no lashes for a doubt.
10. 10. Here the true tenth is the tithe, and the ninth is holy because of the mistaken call and is eaten once blemished; so both are holy, and we do not know which is which.
11. 11. Two left the pen together in the tenth place and he called both “tenth.” One is the true tithe; the other counts as the eleventh, which becomes holy as a shelamim through the mistaken call.
12. 12. A shelamim needs two placements of blood on the altar’s corners (counting as four) and gives its breast and thigh to the kohen; the animal tithe needs a single placement and gives nothing to the kohen. So both are treated by the stricter shelamim rules.
13. 13. He called both “eleventh.” The true tenth is holy by itself; the other is chullin, since he never called it “tenth.”
14. 14. The new point: even though he called the true tenth “tenth,” so the name “tenth” was never taken away from it, the eleventh that came out with it at the same moment is also holy.
15. 15. Rav Kahana and Rav Ashi were Amoraim in Bavel. Rav Ashi was the editor of the Babylonian Talmud, and Rav Kahana was one of his teachers.
16. 16. The end of the Mishnah [Bechoros 60a]: if he called the true tenth “tenth” and then called the eleventh “tenth,” the eleventh is not consecrated, because the name “tenth” was never taken from the true tenth. Rav Ashi asks why the simultaneous case should be different.
17. 17. The one-after-the-other case is already stated explicitly in the Mishnah, so “this is the rule” must add something more – apparently the simultaneous case, where the eleventh would then also not be holy.
18. 18. That is: the tenth came out and he said nothing, and then he called the eleventh “tenth.” The eleventh is not holy, because silence does not take the name “tenth” away from the true tenth.
19. 19. A proof for Rav Kahana: in this beraisa two came out at once and he called them “tenth,” and the ruling that “the tenth and eleventh are mixed” shows the eleventh is holy, even though the name “tenth” was not taken away.
20. 20. The Gemara rejects the proof: the beraisa speaks of a case where one animal first put out its head and he called it “eleventh,” which does take the name “tenth” away; then they mixed again, came out together, and he called them both “tenth.”
21. 21. Rebbi is Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi, the editor of the Mishnah. He holds (in the beraisa below) that calling the true tenth “eleventh” does not take the name “tenth” away from it.
22. 22. “One tithe”: the Aramaic חד עישורא. When he has many animals, saying “eleventh” can be understood as “this is the first tithe,” so it does not take the name “tenth” away. With only a few animals, “eleventh” means eleventh, and it does.
23. 23. For Rebbi, calling the tenth “eleventh” does not take its name “tenth” away, so the eleventh (called “tenth”) is not holy. Rabbi Yosi, the son of Rabbi Yehudah bar Ilai, disagrees: the eleventh is holy.
24. 24. Rava limits Rebbi’s ruling to a case where the owner has many animals; with only a few, even Rebbi agrees that “eleventh” takes the name “tenth” away. So the earlier answer can follow Rebbi.
25. 25. The Gemara returns to Rava’s ruling above: two came out at the tenth and he called them “tenth,” so the tenth and the eleventh are mixed. What is done with them? On this the beraisos disagree.
26. 26. “Graze”: they are left to graze until they become blemished, and are then eaten. “Offered”: both are offered as shelamim. “Die”: they are shut away until they die.
27. 27. One may not offer a sacrifice in a way that brings consecrated meat to be disqualified; here the tithe would be eaten under shelamim rules, in less time and by fewer people. This is the dispute of Rabbi Shimon and the Sages [Zevachim 75b]. The sentence, and Rashi on these words, continue on the next amud [Bechoros 61a].
28. 28. Tosfos gives two readings: (1) “silent” is not exact – what matters is that he did not call the ninth “tenth”; (2) silence is exact – if he called the ninth “ninth,” calling the tenth “ninth” is no longer an error but counts like calling it “tenth.”
29. 29. It is impossible for two animals to come out at exactly the same instant. Tosfos notes that the beraisa can hold this view, as explained earlier [Bechoros 17b].