061 a - מעשר בהמה פרק תשיעי בכורות דף סא, ע"א

And that which was taught, “they shall be offered” – that is Rabbi Shimon, who says: one may bring kodshim to a state of disqualification.^[1]

אין מביאין קדשים לבית הפסול^[2] - For if they were offered, they would have to be eaten under the stricter rules of the two: the breast and thigh must be lifted from them and given to the kohanim,^[3] and since the kohanim are few and [the mixture] may be eaten only by kohanim, perhaps there will not be enough people to eat that breast and thigh, and they will become disqualified through being left overnight, after two days and one night.^[4] And so he brings one of them, which is maaser, to disqualification – for maaser certainly requires no lifting of breast and thigh for the kohanim; rather it is all eaten by anyone, and it has many eaters, and would never come to disqualification through being left over. In Maseches Zevachim, perek Kol HaZevachim SheNisarvu (75b),^[5] we learn the dispute of Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbanan, as we learned: “An asham that became mixed with shelamim – Rabbi Shimon says: both are slaughtered in the north and eaten under the stricter rules of the two. They said to him: one may not bring kodshim to a state of disqualification.”

And that which was taught, “they shall die” – that is Rabbi Yehudah, who says: a mistake in maaser is a temurah;^[6] Rabbi Yehudah holds that the temurah of maaser dies.^[7]

תמורה הויא - And the temurah of maaser is not offered, but dies.

But does Rabbi Yehudah hold that the temurah of maaser dies?

But we learned: “They said in the name of Rabbi Meir: had it been a temurah, it would not be offered” – by implication, Rabbi Yehudah holds that it is offered!^[8]

And if you will say: Rabbi Meir was speaking according to his own view –^[9]

למאי דס"ל - For this is what he says: according to me, who hold that the temurah of maaser is not offered – it is not a temurah, for if it were a temurah it would not be offered.

but it was taught: “There is no difference between the eleventh and shelamim except that this one makes [its substitute] holy to be offered and that one does not make [its substitute] holy to be offered – the words of Rabbi Yehudah.”^[10]

אין בין אחד עשר - [That is, between the eleventh] that he called “maaser” and ordinary shelamim – except that this one makes its temurah to be offered: for shelamim make a temurah, and their temurah is offered; but the eleventh does not make a temurah to be offered, for Rabbi Yehudah holds that a mistake in maaser is a temurah, and a temurah does not make a temurah.^[11] And this last “to be offered” is stated only for the sake of the inference: but it itself is offered as shelamim.

It is only holiness to be offered that it does not make; but it itself is offered!^[12]

And further, it was taught: (Vayikra 3)^[13] “‘If from the cattle’ – to include the eleventh as shelamim.

דתניא אם מן הבקר - “If his offering is a sacrifice of shelamim, if from the cattle,” etc.

Could it be that I include the ninth as well? You must say: does the consecration sanctify what is before it, or what is after it? Say: it sanctifies what is after it.”^[14]

לפניו קדוש - Since it [the tenth] itself is holy, it stands to reason that it makes a temurah only after it has become holy.

Whose is an unattributed Sifra? Rabbi Yehudah’s;^[15] and it teaches: “‘From the cattle’ – to include the eleventh as shelamim”!

Rather, Rabbi Shimon b’Rabbi Abba^[16] explained it before Rabbi Yochanan: we are dealing with maaser nowadays, and [they die] because of takalah, a stumbling.^[17]

תרגמה - Explained that which it teaches, “they shall die.”

בזמן הזה - For he does not hold that statement of Rav Huna, who said at the beginning of our perek^[18] that nowadays maaser is not practiced, as a decree on account of a purchaser and an orphan. And therefore we do not leave it to graze until a blemish falls on it, for perhaps in the meantime they will come to a stumbling with them – to shearing and work – or will come to slaughter them without a blemish. Therefore he gathers them into an enclosure (כיפה),^[19] and they die there by themselves.

If so, why specifically two? Even one as well!^[20]

מאי איריא תרי - When two came out as the tenth and he called them “tenth.”

It speaks in the manner of “not only”: not only one, where he has no [great] loss; but two, since the loss is great, [you might say] let him keep them until a blemish falls on them and eat them –^[21]

it teaches us [that they too die].

It was stated: one who says to his agent, “Go out and tithe for me”^[22] –

Rav Papi said in the name of Rava:^[23] if he called the ninth “tenth,” it is holy; if he called the eleventh “tenth,” it is not holy.

קרא לתשיעי עשירי קדוש - For he causes him no loss at all, and he eats it with its blemish.

אינו קדוש - For since it is shelamim, he causes him the loss of the breast and thigh, which go to the kohanim’s portion, and he can say to him: “I did not appoint you as agent to cause me a loss.”

And Rav Pappa said: even if he called the ninth “tenth,” it is not holy, for he says to him: “I sent you to set things right, not to spoil them.”^[24]

ולא לעוותי - And this is the “spoiling”: that he must wait until it becomes blemished, and moreover it is forbidden to shear it or to work with it.

And how is this different from what we learned:^[25] “One who says to his agent, ‘Go out and separate terumah’ – he separates according to the owner’s intention.

If he does not know the owner’s intention, he separates a middling amount, one in fifty.^[26]

If he reduced by ten or added ten, his terumah is terumah”!^[27]

פיחת עשרה - That he separated one in forty, generously.

They say: there, since there are those who separate terumah generously and those who separate it sparingly, he [the agent] says: “This is how I assessed you.”^[28]

להכי אמדתיך - That I assessed in my mind that this was your wish – to separate as much as I separated.

Here it is a mistake; he [the owner] says: “You should not have made a mistake.”^[29]

לא איבעיא לך למיטעי - Therefore that mistake is nothing.

Tosfos

והא דתניא יקריבו ר' שמעון דאמר מביאין קדשים לבית הפסול - And although shelamim require semichah and maaser does not require semichah,^[30] as we learned in Menachos (92a) – since semichah is not indispensable, we are not concerned. And in perek Tamid Nishchat (Pesachim 62a) it says: “All offerings – an uncircumcised man and a tamei man send their offerings”; one cannot set it in a bechor and maaser, for it says “all offerings.” And in perek Shnei Nezirim (Nazir 57a) we also learned: “both of them bring an offering on condition.” And in Maseches Shekalim (11b) we also learned: “An animal found between Yerushalayim and Migdal Eder – males are olos, females are shelamim” – and that requires semichah; and it does not seem to speak of a case where the owners found it, since it teaches on it, “at first they would take a pledge from its finders to bring the nesachim.” And an heir brings his father’s offering although he does not perform semichah. And in perek HaTaaroves too: “he brings his asham and his log,” and that asham requires semichah – though that semichah is “at the sides,” which is not a complete one, according to the view that semichah of a metzora’s asham is not Torah law – and it speaks of the man, as is shown in the Tosefta. And in the third perek of Moed Katan (15b) it says: a mourner does not send his offerings, for it is written “shelamim” – when he is whole (שלם), not when he is lacking; but were it not for the verse, he would send. And it says there: may a menudeh send his offerings? Come and hear: all those years that Israel were in the wilderness they were menudim, and they sent their offerings. And in the last perek of Menachos (107a) we learned: “I designated from the cattle and I do not know what – he brings a bull and a calf,” and in the Gemara, regarding the six [chests] for nedavah, one [view]: a bull and a calf. And in perek Kol HaMenachos Baos Matzah (ibid. 62b): “one who sends his offerings from overseas – the kohen waves on his behalf”; since it teaches “waves,” it speaks of shelamim, which require semichah; and one cannot set it in a woman’s offering, for it teaches that in the first clause: “and a woman – the kohen waves on her behalf.” From all these it appears that we are not concerned about semichah. But it is difficult: in perek Kol HaGet (Gittin 28b), regarding one who sends his chatas from overseas etc., it asks: “But it requires semichah!” and answers: with a bird, or with a woman’s offering. And in perek HaIshah (Pesachim 89a) we learned: “five whose Pesach skins became mixed, and a wart was found on one of them – they are exempt from making a second Pesach”; and they do not bring a leftover-Pesach (mosar Pesach) on condition, because of semichah: for the Pesach does not require semichah but mosar Pesach does, and they did not permit offering it without semichah, even though with the Pesach there is a liability of kares. And in perek HaTaaroves (Zevachim 74b) too we learned: “kodshim mixed with kodshim of the same kind – each is offered for whatever it is,” and it asks: “But it requires semichah!” and answers: with a woman’s offering. And one must say: an offering that has no remedy through grazing and is headed for death – they offer it without semichah; but one that has a remedy through grazing may not be offered without semichah. Therefore, in that case of Shekalim and with the heir, it is offered without semichah; but kodshim mixed with kodshim have a remedy through grazing. And in this way it also distinguishes there regarding an asham, which has a remedy through grazing. And as for “he brings his asham and his log” – it says there: setting a man right is different. And the case of the mourner and the menudeh can be set with a bird or a woman’s offering. And what Israel sent their offerings in the wilderness – it speaks of the daily Tamid. And the bull and calf [are offered] as “dessert” for the altar (קייץ למזבח). And the uncircumcised man and the tamei are different, for they are not fit for semichah: the uncircumcised man cannot wait until he is circumcised – for example, if his brothers died because of circumcision; and the tamei – for example a zav or a metzora, with an offering fixed for him, such as olas re’iyah and chagigah, (or for example) where he transgresses bal te’acher with them.^[31] And the case of “the kohen waves on his behalf” – with an uncircumcised man, a tamei and an heir, and according to Rabbi Yehudah, who says an heir does not perform semichah. And that of our sugya, and that of “both bring one chatas,” and that of the nazir where they bring on condition – there it is different, for at the start of designating the offerings they were not fit for semichah, since it is impossible to perform semichah with them. And further one can say: in our sugya, at the time each one is offered, perhaps he is not obligated in semichah, and it is not like an offering that is fit for semichah. And if you will ask: how are they offered here, since the blood-gifts of maaser and shelamim are not the same, for this one is four placements and this one is one placement?^[32] And yet one can say: it is a dispute in perek Taaroves (ibid. 80a): “Four-placement [blood] mixed with one-placement [blood] – Rabbi Eliezer says: it is given with four placements; Rabbi Yehoshua says: with one placement,” for all that are given with four placements, if he gave them with one placement, he has fulfilled the obligation; for Rabbi Eliezer holds that he burns them up as wood. However, from that passage it appears that Rabbi Shimon holds like Rabbi Eliezer, regarding “the next day he brings his asham,” that he burns them up as wood.

במעשר בזה"ז - At the beginning of our perek (53a) we conclude: it is not practiced nowadays because of takalah, a stumbling; and nevertheless, if he did tithe, the name of maaser takes effect on it.

לתשיעי י' קדוש - Rav Papi holds that “I sent you to set things right, not to spoil them” does not apply here, since it is eaten with its blemish, even though one must wait until it becomes blemished and it is forbidden for shearing and work. Alternatively, this is the reason for the eleventh according to Rav Papi: from the moment the tenth came out, he has carried out his agency, since the tenth is holy by itself.^[33]

Notes

1. 1. This continues the previous amud [Bechoros 60b]. There the Gemara set the beraisa that says “they shall graze” (two animals came out tenth together and he called both “tenth”) according to the Rabbanan, who hold that one may not bring kodshim to a state of disqualification. Now it assigns the other two beraisos.
2. 2. This Rashi explains the words of the Rabbanan at the end of the previous amud [Bechoros 60b], “one may not bring kodshim to disqualification,” and is printed here at the top of the amud. “Disqualification” means a state in which the sacred meat may become invalid, for example as nosar (left over past its time).
3. 3. Chazeh v’shok – from shelamim the breast and the right thigh are lifted and given to the kohanim, and only kohanim may eat them. Maaser beheimah has no such gifts; all of its meat is eaten by the owner.
4. 4. Shelamim and maaser are eaten for two days and the night between them; what remains afterwards becomes nosar and is burned. When it is unknown whether the animal is maaser or shelamim, its breast and thigh must go to the kohanim, who may not manage to eat them in time.
5. 5. [Zevachim 75b]: an asham mixed with shelamim – according to Rabbi Shimon both are slaughtered in the north and eaten under the stricter rules (by male kohanim, for a day and a night); the Sages say one may not bring kodshim to disqualification. The same dispute applies here.
6. 6. The Mishnah [Bechoros 60a]: if he called the ninth “tenth” and the eleventh “tenth,” all three are holy. Rabbi Yehudah said: does a temurah make a temurah? That is, the mistaken call of “tenth” is like a temurah.
7. 7. Temurah – when one substitutes another animal for a sacred one, both are holy. Rabbi Yehudah holds that the temurah of maaser is not offered but is left to die, so the beraisa “they shall die” follows him.
8. 8. The Mishnah [Bechoros 60a] reports that they answered Rabbi Yehudah in Rabbi Meir’s name: had the eleventh been a temurah, it would not be offered. This implies that Rabbi Yehudah did say it is offered, although he called it a temurah.
9. 9. That is: perhaps Rabbi Meir spoke only by his own view – for him it is not a temurah and so it is offered – while Rabbi Yehudah truly holds that it dies. The Gemara rejects this from the following beraisa.
10. 10. This beraisa, in Rabbi Yehudah’s name, names a single difference between the eleventh that was called “tenth” and ordinary shelamim: a difference concerning their temurah.
11. 11. A rule: a temurah does not make a temurah – if one substitutes for an animal that is itself a temurah, the second does not become holy. For Rabbi Yehudah the eleventh is like a temurah.
12. 12. The inference: if the eleventh itself were not offered, there would be no need to say that its temurah is not offered. So for Rabbi Yehudah it is itself offered as shelamim – against “they shall die.”
13. 13. [Vayikra 3:1]: “And if his offering is a sacrifice of shelamim, if he offers from the cattle.” The Sifra (the halachic midrash on Vayikra) reads the word “if” as including something more.
14. 14. That is: calling an animal “tenth” sanctifies as shelamim the one that comes after the tenth (the eleventh), not the ninth that came before it; the ninth is not offered but is eaten once it has a blemish.
15. 15. A rule [Sanhedrin 86a]: an unattributed teaching in the Sifra is Rabbi Yehudah’s. So Rabbi Yehudah holds that the eleventh is offered as shelamim and does not die.
16. 16. Rabbi Shimon b’Rabbi Abba – an Amora of Eretz Yisrael, a disciple of Rabbi Yochanan. He explains the beraisa “they shall die” so that it fits Rabbi Yehudah too.
17. 17. Takalah – the fear of a stumbling: that people will shear the animal or work with it, or slaughter it without a blemish. Nowadays, when no offerings are brought, the animals are shut in until they die.
18. 18. At the start of the perek [Bechoros 53a] Rav Huna said that nowadays animal tithe is not separated, a decree because of a purchaser and an orphan (who are exempt from maaser). Tosfos here notes that the conclusion there is: because of takalah.
19. 19. “He gathers them into a kipah” – they are shut in a narrow enclosure until they die by themselves, so that no one comes to misuse them.
20. 20. The question: if the reason is takalah, the same should apply to a single animal mistakenly called “tenth”; why does the beraisa speak of two?
21. 21. That is: with one, where the loss is small, it obviously dies; with two, where the loss is great, one might think they should graze until blemished and then be eaten. The beraisa teaches that they too die.
22. 22. The owner of the flock sends an agent to count the animals and call the tenth “tenth.” The question: what if the agent mistakenly called the ninth or the eleventh “tenth,” as the Mishnah [Bechoros 60a] rules for the owner himself?
23. 23. Rav Papi – an Amora, a student of Rava. In his view the mistake on the ninth takes effect, since it costs the owner nothing; on the eleventh it does not.
24. 24. Rav Pappa – an Amora, a student of Rava and head of the yeshivah in Neresh. In his view any mistake is damage, and the owner can say: I sent you to set things right, not to spoil them.
25. 25. Mishnah Terumos 4:4. Terumah gedolah is the portion the owner of the crop sets aside for the kohen; by Torah law it has no fixed amount, and the Sages set measures for it.
26. 26. One in fifty is the middling measure; a generous person gives one in forty, a stingy one one in sixty.
27. 27. The challenge: although the agent departed from the middling measure, his terumah is valid; so too the agent for maaser – his mistake should take effect.
28. 28. The answer: terumah has no single measure, so the agent can say he judged the owner’s wishes that way. But calling the ninth or the eleventh “tenth” is an outright mistake.
29. 29. Here Maseches Bechoros ends, at the close of the ninth perek, “Maaser Beheimah.” The next masechta in Seder Kodashim is Arachin [Arachin 2a].
30. 30. Semichah – the owner presses his hands with all his strength on the head of his offering before it is slaughtered. Shelamim require semichah and maaser does not, and here we do not know which animal is which.
31. 31. Bal te’acher – the prohibition against delaying vows, free-will offerings and obligatory offerings beyond three festivals.
32. 32. The blood of shelamim is put on the altar in two placements that count as four, while the blood of maaser is poured once on the base. With a doubtful mixture – how is the blood to be applied?
33. 33. The tenth is holy by itself – as Rava said above [Bechoros 59a]: the tenth is holy even without being called. So once the tenth has come out, the agent’s task is done.