059b - מעשר בהמה פרק תשיעי בכורות דף נט, ע"ב

“So too the ninth is not holy unless the name tenth was uprooted from it,^[1]

אף התשיעי - Just as, if he called the eleventh “tenth,” it is not holy unless the name maaser was uprooted from the tenth – that is, he did not call the tenth “tenth” but “ninth” – as we say below in the Mishnah, “This is the rule: whatever was not uprooted, etc.,”^[2] and in the latter part of this beraisa the reason is explained: because the eleventh makes a holiness that is offered; alternatively, the eleventh, for which [the tenth] has been clarified, etc. – so too the ninth: if he called it “tenth,” it will not be [holy, to be] eaten only with its blemish, unless the name tenth was uprooted from the tenth, e.g. he called it “ninth.” Therefore here, where it was not uprooted, we say that the ninth is chullin. And logic dictates that for the ninth too we require that the name tenth be uprooted from it, that is, from the tenth itself.

and logic dictates: if the eleventh, which makes a holiness that is offered, is not holy unless the name tenth was uprooted from it, then the ninth, which does not make a holiness that is offered – is it not logical that if the name tenth was uprooted from it, yes, and if not, no?”^[3]

ליקרב - As we say below, that if he called the eleventh “tenth,” it is offered as a shelamim, and we derive it from a verse. And even though it is so stringent, it is not holy unless the name tenth was uprooted from the tenth, e.g. he called the tenth “ninth,” as we say below, “This is the rule,” etc.

תשיעי - Which is so light.

שאינו עושה קדושה ליקרב - Even though he called it “tenth,” it is not offered, but is holy only in this one respect – that it is eaten only with its blemish, as below. “Is it not logical,” etc.

אי לא לא - It should not be holy at all.

That is the very thing that gives [the opposite]!^[4]

היא הנותנת - The Gemara replies: certainly regarding the ninth it is logical that, even though the name tenth was not uprooted from it, its own holiness takes effect upon it. For regarding the eleventh it is logical that if it was uprooted, yes, and if not, no, because its holiness is stringent, for it is offered, as below; therefore it is logical that we require uprooting before that stringent holiness can take effect.

The eleventh, which makes a holiness that is offered – if the name tenth was uprooted from it, yes; if not, no. The ninth, which does not make a holiness that is offered – [it is holy] even though the name tenth was not uprooted from it.

אבל תשיעי דקדושתו קלה דאינו קדוש לקרב - Only that it may not be eaten except with its blemish – it is logical that this light holiness takes effect through a light thing, such as calling it “tenth,” even though the name maaser was not uprooted from the tenth itself.

Alternatively: the eleventh, for which the tenth has already been clarified – if the name tenth was uprooted from it, yes; if not, no.^[5]

אי נמי - One can give another reason.

י"א דאיברר ליה עשירי - The tenth already came out before the eleventh came out, and was clarified by itself as maaser. Therefore it is logical that the eleventh not be holy, even though he called it “tenth,” unless the name maaser was uprooted from the tenth – for after a complete tenth, how can there be another tenth right next to it?

The ninth, for which the tenth has not yet been clarified – even though the name tenth was not uprooted from it, [it is holy].

אע"ג דלא נעקריה - And he went and called this one “tenth.”

Nothing more [can be said].^[6]

תו לא מידי - There is nothing [more] to say against this reasoning that he stated, “That is the very thing that gives” – for certainly it is logical that it be holy even though [the name] was not uprooted.

Rava said: A fitting count exempts.^[7]

מנין הראוי פוטר - If he had ten lambs and brought them into the pen, and counted nine or eight, and one of those remaining in the pen died or went out through another opening, so that the tenth did not become holy – those he already counted are exempt, because they are a “fitting count”: at the time he counted them, those in the pen were fit to come out, so that the tenth would be tithed with these for the count. Now this teaches us that it refers to that same count which he had not yet completed, having counted only nine or eight, as I explained above.^[8]

From where does Rava derive this?

If you say from what we learned: “If one of the counted ones jumped into them, all are exempt”^[9]

לתוכן - Into the pen – all are exempt because it became mixed in, for those already counted are exempt even though he has not yet tithed for them.

the counted ones themselves were exempted – was it not through the fitting count?

But perhaps he had already tithed for them!^[10]

ודילמא דעישר עלייהו - And this is [the meaning of] “from the counted ones” – that is, from those he counted and tithed for.

You cannot say that, for it teaches: “[If one] of the tithed ones [jumped] into them”!^[11]

But perhaps what does “tithed ones” mean? The maaser animal itself, precisely –

מעשר - That is, from the tithe animals themselves.

this is also precise, for it teaches “they must graze”!^[12]

ירעו - Because about each and every one there is a doubt whether it is the maaser.

Rather, Rava said: The verse states (Vayikra 27) “passes” – and not what has already passed.^[13]

What is “what has already passed”?

If it means that he had tithed for them – does it need to be said?

Rather, is it not that they were exempted through the fitting count?

אלא לאו דאיפטרו וכו' - For this is the meaning: “and not what has already passed” while fit – at the time it passed, it was fit to be tithed together with those in the pen; that one is certainly exempted by the fitting count.

Learn from this.

It was taught in accordance with Rava: “If he had ten lambs and brought them into the pen, and counted five, and one of them died –^[14]

ומנה חמשה - He did not say five precisely.

if one of the counted ones died, he counts and completes them;^[15]

and if one of those not counted died, the counted ones are exempt, and those not counted join another threshing floor.”^[16]

מנויין פטורין - Because they are a fitting count.

And Rava said: If he had fourteen lambs and brought them into the pen, and six came out through this opening, and four through this opening, and four remained there –^[17]

בפתח זה - The pen had two openings.

those four: if they came out through the opening of the six, he takes one of them, and the rest join another threshing floor;

נוטל אחד מהם - Since ten came out through that opening.

והשאר - The four who came out through the other opening join another threshing floor; it is impossible to exempt them through a fitting count, because at the time they came out through that opening there was no fitting count, since only four remained in the pen, and four cannot join with four to become subject to tithing.

and if not, the six are exempt, and the four and four join another threshing floor.^[18]

ואם לאו - The four did not come out through the opening of the six, but either remained in the pen or came out through the opening of the other four.

If four came out through this opening and six through this opening, and four remained there –

if those four came out through the opening of the six, he takes one of them and the rest are exempt;^[19]

and if not, the four and the six are exempt, and the four join another threshing floor.

ארבעה ראשונים והששה פטורין - Because when the four came out first they were a fitting count, for ten still remained in the pen, fit to join with them and to be tithed for them; and the last four, who remained or came out through a third opening, join another threshing floor.

If four came out through this opening and four through this opening, and six remained there –

if those six came out through one opening, he takes one of them and the rest are exempt;

אם אותן ששה שנשתיירו יצאו בפתח אחד מהן - That is, through the opening of the first four or through the opening of the last four.

נוטל אחד מהם - For there are ten at one opening.

and if not, the fours are exempt, and the six join another threshing floor.^[20]

ואם לאו - They came out neither through the opening of these four nor through the opening of those four, but by themselves, or they remained in the pen.

ארבעה ראשונים וארבעה אחרונים פטורין - For each group of four that came out left others behind enough to join with them and be tithed with them – those six that remained, whom we assign either here or there.

What does he teach us? That “a fitting count exempts”?

But Rava already said it once!^[21]

You might have said: a certain fitting count we apply, but a doubtful fitting count, which is fit for here and fit for here, we do not apply –^[22]

ודאי מנין הראוי - For example, he counted five or six, and enough remained in the pen to join with them, and the pen has only that one opening – so it is certain that those remaining are fit to come out through that same opening and be tithed with those he already counted.

אבל ספק מנין הראוי - For example, they came out through two openings, four through this one and four through that one; regarding those six that remained, one cannot determine whether they will come out through this opening or that one. And since it is a doubt, I might say that we do not apply the fitting count to assign them either here or there so as to exempt all of them – [so] he teaches us. Another explanation: the fact that these are fit for here and for here, so that we assign them either to these four or to those four – that is what is called a doubt. And [this is] from the mouth of the teacher.^[23]

[therefore] he teaches us.

And Rava said: If he had fifteen lambs, he should not say, “I will select ten, bring them into the pen, take one of them, and the rest are exempt”;^[24]

ט"ו טלאים - He did not say this as a precise number, but it is the ordinary way of things, to join five with five.

rather, he brings them all into the pen, takes out ten, takes one of them, and the rest join another threshing floor.

It was also taught thus: “If he had fifteen lambs^[25]

Notes

1. 1. The beraisa continues from the previous amud [Bechoros 59a]: “as it was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehudah says in the name of Rabbi Shimon.” That is, one who calls the ninth “tenth” does not sanctify it unless the name tenth was taken away from the real tenth, for example by calling it “ninth.”
2. 2. The Mishnah below [Bechoros 60a]: “This is the rule: whenever the name tenth was not uprooted from it, the eleventh is not sanctified.”
3. 3. A kal vachomer: the eleventh, if called “tenth,” is offered as a shelamim (Mishnah below [Bechoros 60a]), and yet it is holy only if the name tenth was uprooted from the real tenth. The ninth, which is never offered but only eaten once blemished, should surely need the same.
4. 4. The very stringency is what makes the difference: the eleventh’s holiness is severe (it is offered), so it takes effect only with uprooting; the ninth’s holiness is light, so it takes effect even without uprooting.
5. 5. A second answer: by the time the eleventh comes out, the tenth has already come out and been fixed as maaser, so the name tenth cannot take hold of another animal after it without uprooting; but when the ninth comes out, the tenth has not yet come out.
6. 6. “Nothing more” – there is no further reply; the kal vachomer is refuted.
7. 7. Maaser behemah is set apart by passing the animals one by one out of the pen under the rod and calling the tenth “maaser.” A “fitting count”: if, when some animals were counted, there were enough left in the pen to complete ten with them, the counted ones are exempt even if the ten is never completed – e.g. one of those remaining died.
8. 8. Above [Bechoros 58b], Rashi s.v. מן המנויין.
9. 9. The Mishnah above [Bechoros 58b]. “Counted ones” are animals that had already passed under the rod and been counted, but no tenth had yet come out for them; one of them jumped back into the pen among the uncounted.
10. 10. That is, perhaps the case is where the tenth had already come out for them, and that is why they are exempt – not because of a fitting count.
11. 11. The next clause of the Mishnah: “if one of the tithed ones [jumped] into them, they must all graze.” If “counted” already meant “tithed for,” what would distinguish the first clause from the second?
12. 12. “They must graze” until they become blemished and are then eaten with their blemish, since each one may be the maaser. This shows that the second clause speaks of the maaser animal itself.
13. 13. Vayikra 27:32: “And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be holy to Hashem.” “Passes” is future: it excludes what has already passed.
14. 14. This beraisa supports Rava: the counted animals are exempt even though no tenth came out for them, because of the fitting count.
15. 15. If one of the counted ones died, there are no longer ten; so he counts the living ones and completes them with other lambs until there are ten.
16. 16. “Join another threshing floor”: they join the next tithing round, together with other lambs he will have. When the counted ones were counted, the lamb that later died was in the pen and fit to complete them, so they are exempt.
17. 17. The pen has two openings. Any group that, when it came out, left enough animals in the pen to complete ten with it is exempt through the fitting count.
18. 18. When the six came out, eight remained in the pen, enough to complete them, so they are exempt; but when the four came out only four remained, and four plus four is not ten.
19. 19. Here, when the first four came out, ten remained in the pen, so they too are exempt by the fitting count, and so are the six.
20. 20. Here each group of four left six in the pen fit to complete it, though it is not known through which opening they will come out; even so, both groups are exempt.
21. 21. Above on this amud: “Rava said: A fitting count exempts.”
22. 22. A certain fitting count: the pen has one opening, so those remaining will certainly complete the counted ones. A doubtful one: there are two openings, and those remaining could complete either group.
23. 23. “From the mouth of the teacher”: Rashi heard this explanation from his teacher.
24. 24. “I will select ten”: pick ten out of the fifteen, tithe them alone, and treat the other five as exempt. This is not done; rather, all are brought into the pen, and the leftover five join the next tithing.
25. 25. The beraisa continues on the next amud [Bechoros 60a]: “he should not say, I will select ten…”