060a - מעשר בהמה פרק תשיעי בכורות דף ס, ע"א

“He should not say, ‘I will pick out ten, take one of them, and the rest are exempt’; rather, he gathers them into the pen, brings out ten, takes one of them, and the rest combine with another goren.”^[1]

לא יאמר אברור עשרה - The lean ones; “and the rest are exempt” – because only five are left, and they are not subject to tithing.^[2]

אלא כונסן לדיר - All of them, both lean and fat. It teaches us two things: first, that he may not pick out the lean ones; and second, that although only five are left, he cannot say they are entirely exempt – rather, they combine with another goren. And it seems this need not be said, for we said above (57b)^[3] that five before the goren and five after the goren combine to make ten. Rather, this is its meaning: “he should not say…” – and let the rest be exempt now, so that I do not bring them into the pen with the others; and although the goren has come, I may sell them or slaughter them, since they are not subject to tithing – for the goren fixes [the obligation] only on what is fit for tithing, and these five are not subject to tithing. “Rather, he gathers them into the pen” all together, brings out ten, and the rest combine with another goren against his will, since they were fixed for tithing in the pen, and he may not sell or slaughter them.^[4]

But it was taught: “Nineteen lambs – he should not say, ‘I will pick out ten, take one of them, and the rest are exempt’; rather, he gathers them into the pen, brings out ten, takes one of them, and the rest are exempt”!^[5]

Rav Huna bar Sechorah^[6] explained it before Rava at the festival lecture: we are dealing with a pen that has two doors, and nine went out through this door and nine through that door, for that one [remaining animal] is fit for here and for here.^[7]

בריגלא - On the Shabbos before the festival, when the laws of the festival are expounded.

דהאיך חד - The one left at the end is “the fitting count” both for here and for here, and it exempts all of them; and it itself is holy, whether it went out or was left at the end, for the tenth is holy by itself.^[8]

But let him answer: for instance, he counted nine, and when he reached the tenth he called it “one,” [starting] from the beginning!

קרא חד מרישא - He did not call it “tenth,” but began counting again as at the start, “one, two, three”; it turns out that the nineteenth was a tenth, and even the nine he counted at first were exempted by the fitting count.

He holds: the tenth is holy by itself.^[9]

מאליו קדוש - Even though he called it “one”; it turns out that the last nine would not be exempt.

But let him answer: at the goren, and he counted them in pairs!

זוגות זוגות - Two at once, and the tenth pair was only one animal; then all of them would be exempted by the fitting count, for that last one is fit for here and for here.

He holds: the tenth is holy by the count of the animals.^[10]

למנין בהמות - We do not follow his mouth, as he says “one, two,” but the animals he brought out; once he brought out five pairs, which are ten animals, one of them is holy – and all the others he brought out afterwards, by what would they be exempted? There is no fitting count here.

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said:^[11] Fortunate is the mother of Rav Huna bar Sechorah, who answered the teaching for him at the festival lecture in line with his own teaching.

זכאי אימיה דרב הונא בר סחורה דאשנייה ליה לרבא כשמעתיה - That is: fortunate is the mother of Rav Huna bar Sechorah, who bore a son like him, who knew how to resolve Rava’s teaching for him in the middle of the lecture, and resolved it for him in line with his own teaching – for [Rava] said above that the fitting count exempts, and so Rav Huna resolves it here: this one is fit for here and fit for here.

Mishnah

If two went out at once, he counts them as two, two.^[12]

If he counted them as one, the ninth and the tenth are spoiled.^[13]

מתני' תשיעי ועשירי מקולקלין - That is: the one he called “ninth,” which is really the tenth, and the one he called “tenth,” which is really the eleventh, stand to be spoiled – for he thinks the ninth is chullin and the tenth is maaser; and if he did so without consulting beis din, they are spoiled, as the latter clause teaches: “he called the tenth ‘ninth’ and the eleventh ‘tenth’ – the tenth is maaser and the eleventh is offered as shelamim.” Another explanation: they are spoiled because no sanctity to be offered takes effect on them, and they are eaten only with a blemish. For although in general, if he called the tenth “ninth” and the eleventh “tenth,” the tenth is offered as maaser and the eleventh as shelamim, as below, that is only where he erred from the ninth onward; but here the whole count before the ninth [was off] – he called the eighth “seventh” and the seventh “sixth,” or the ninth “eighth” – so the tenth and eleventh are not holy to be offered, since he erred so much. And when it teaches “two went out at once,” it does not speak of the ninth and tenth, for from the ninth onward Rava explains the law in the Gemara; rather, here it speaks of where he erred in the count before the ninth, for instance two went out at the eighth and he called them “eighth,” or two went out at the seventh and he called them “seventh.” And what it teaches below, “if he counted them backwards the tenth is holy,” is as the reason is explained there, bringing it from the Persian count, which calls ten “one.” And some explain that they are spoiled because it speaks of where he intended to count them as one; and in Tractate Nezirus, in chapter Beis Shammai (32a),^[14] we say concerning maaser: “its error, but not its intention.” But this is not correct, for if so, even if he called the ninth “tenth” it should be spoiled, without two going out at once; and further, according to the one who disputes there and says “its error, and even its intention,” what could one say? And in the notes of my teacher^[15] I found that “spoiled” means that sanctity does take effect on them, and he was uncertain why it uses the word “spoiled”; and this seems more correct. One can say that the Mishnah itself explains why they are spoiled: because he called the ninth “tenth,” etc.

If he called the ninth “tenth,” the tenth “ninth,” and the eleventh “tenth,” all three are consecrated:^[16] the ninth is eaten with its blemish, the tenth is maaser, and the eleventh is offered as shelamim and makes a temurah^[17] – the words of Rabbi Meir.

קרב שלמים - In the Gemara he derives it from a verse.^[18]

Rabbi Yehudah said: Does a temurah make a temurah?

וכי יש תמורה - For the eleventh that he called “tenth” is a temurah of maaser, and in Tractate Temurah (13a) we learn that a temurah does not make a temurah, because it is written “its temurah” – and not the temurah of its temurah.

They said in the name of Rabbi Meir: If it were a temurah, it would not be offered.

אילו היה תמורה - That eleventh would not be offered, for the temurah of maaser is not offered, as we learn in Tractate Temurah (5b) [maaser: “passing,” “passing” from the firstborn, and of the firstborn we expound: “they” are offered, but its temurah is not offered];^[19] rather, certainly, since it is offered as shelamim, we regard it as an original consecration, and therefore it makes a temurah like other shelamim.

If he called the ninth “tenth,” the tenth “tenth,” and the eleventh “tenth,” the eleventh is not consecrated.^[20]

This is the rule: wherever the name “tenth” was not uprooted from it, the eleventh is not consecrated.

ממנו - From the tenth itself.

Gemara

Rabbi Yochanan said: If he counted them in pairs, or in groups of a hundred, the tenth by its count is holy.

גמ' קונטרין - By hundreds: he counted each hundred together.

“By its count” – what does it mean?^[21]

Rav Mari says: it is holy by his own count.

למנין שלו הוא קדוש - The count of ten that he counts – after he counted nine hundreds, the tenth hundred is holy.

Rav Kahana says: it is holy by the count of the animals.

למנין הבהמות - We do not follow his own count, but once he counted five pairs of animals, which are ten animals, it is at once maaser, following its count.

We learned: “If two went out at once, he counts them as two, two; if he counted them as one, the ninth and the tenth are spoiled.”^[22]

Granted according to the one who says “it is holy by his own count” – that is why the ninth and the tenth are spoiled: he calls the tenth “ninth” and the eleventh “tenth.”^[23]

But according to the one who says “it is holy by the count of the animals” – he calls the ninth “ninth,” and he calls the tenth “tenth”!

ולי' י' קא קרי ליה - This “he calls it” is not exact; rather, it means: why are they spoiled? You said that the ninth by the count of the animals is ninth and the tenth is tenth, for we pay no attention to his own count; and since we pay no attention, the eleventh that he calls “tenth” and the tenth that he calls “ninth” – why are they spoiled? Let the eleventh be shelamim and the tenth maaser!

Rabbi Yochanan can tell you: When I said it, it was where he intended to bring them out in pairs; where they went out by themselves – no.^[24]

היכא דנפק ממילא לא - Do we say it is holy by the count of the animals; rather, we follow his own count as well.

Come and hear: “If he counted them backwards, the tenth in the count is holy.”^[25]

מנאן למפרע - The first that went out he called “ten,” the second “nine,” the third “eight,” and so all of them, until the tenth in the count, which he called “one,” is holy.

Granted according to the one who says “it is holy by the count of the animals” – fine.

But according to the one who says “it is holy by his own count” – he calls the tenth “one”!

Rava said: Since it exists in the Persian count, which calls ten “one.”^[26]

Tosfos

יצאו שנים כאחד מונה אותן שנים ואם מנאן אחד תשיעי ועשירי מקולקלין - If two went out at once, he counts them as two; and if he counted them as one, the ninth and the tenth are spoiled. The Kuntres explained:^[27] for instance, two went out when he reached six or seven, and he counted them as one; and so he called the tenth by the count of the animals “ninth,” and the eleventh “tenth.” And although just below it says, “he called the tenth ‘ninth’ and the eleventh ‘tenth’ – the tenth is maaser and the eleventh shelamim,” here they are spoiled because he counted as one the two that went out at once, and we are in doubt whether they become as one by his counting them as one, or not. And although there is an opinion in the Gemara that the tenth is holy by the count of the animals, his counting them as one makes it doubtful: the one called “ninth” is possibly ninth, possibly tenth, and the one called “tenth” is possibly tenth, possibly [the eleventh,] holy to be offered [as shelamim].^[28]

Notes

1. 1. This continues the beraisa begun at the end of the previous amud [Bechoros 59b]: “If he had fifteen lambs…” A goren (literally “threshing floor”) is one of the three set times in the year at which the animal tithe falls due. Animals born before a goren and after it combine with each other to make up ten.
2. 2. He would like to pick out ten lean animals and give the tithe from them, leaving the other five entirely exempt, since five are not enough to make up a ten.
3. 3. As explained earlier [Bechoros 57b], animals from before a goren and after it combine to make ten. So it seems obvious that the five are not exempt, and Rashi looks for what the beraisa adds.
4. 4. Rashi’s point: as long as the five never entered the pen, the goren does not fix five animals for tithing, and he may sell or slaughter them untithed. Once they went into the pen with the rest, they are fixed for tithing and may not be used until they are tithed at the next goren.
5. 5. The difficulty: here nine are left and the beraisa says “the rest are exempt,” while the previous beraisa said “the rest combine with another goren.” Nine are not ten – why should they be exempt?
6. 6. Rav Huna bar Sechorah – a Babylonian Amora of Rava’s generation.
7. 7. The “fitting count” (minyan ha-ra’ui) is Rava’s rule [Bechoros 59b]: when there is an animal in the pen that could complete the count to ten, the nine are exempt. Here the last animal could complete either group of nine, so both groups are exempt.
8. 8. The tenth is holy by itself – Rava’s view [Bechoros 59a]: the tenth animal becomes holy on its own, even if he did not call it “tenth.”
9. 9. Rav Huna holds that the tenth is holy by itself, so the tenth he called “one” is holy anyway, and the nine after it are not exempted by a fitting count. That is why he did not explain the beraisa that way.
10. 10. The question of “his own count” versus “the count of the animals” is argued later on this amud: do we follow the number he says aloud, or the number of animals that actually went out?
11. 11. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak – an Amora of Rava’s generation.
12. 12. The animal tithe: he puts the lambs in a pen and lets them out one at a time through a narrow opening, counting them; the tenth is holy, as it says, “whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be holy to Hashem” [Vayikra 27:32]. Here two squeezed out together.
13. 13. “Spoiled” – Rashi brings several explanations, and in the name of his teacher’s notes he writes that sanctity does take effect on them. Tosfos (below) explain that they are in doubt: perhaps the two became as one because he counted them as “one.”
14. 14. There [Nazir 32a] it is said of maaser: “its error, but not its intention” – calling an animal “tenth” by mistake consecrates it, but one who deliberately gives it a number that is not its own does not consecrate it.
15. 15. “The notes of my teacher” – glosses of Rashi’s teacher, which Rashi sometimes quotes.
16. 16. A mistake in calling the name “tenth” consecrates the animal next to the tenth as well; the Gemara derives it from the verse on the next amud [Bechoros 60b].
17. 17. Temurah (substitution): one who says of an unconsecrated animal, “this is in place of that” consecrated animal – both are holy [Vayikra 27:10].
18. 18. On the next amud [Bechoros 60b] the Gemara learns it from the verse “and all the tithe of cattle and sheep… the tenth shall be holy.”
19. 19. A gezeirah shavah on “passing”: of maaser it says “whatever passes under the rod,” and of the firstborn “you shall pass over every first issue of the womb” [Shemos 13:12]. From the firstborn we learn that the temurah of maaser is not offered.
20. 20. Since he called the tenth “tenth” correctly, it was consecrated by that name and the name was never uprooted from it; so calling the eleventh “tenth” does nothing.
21. 21. “By its count” can mean the number he says aloud (his own count) or the number of animals that actually went out (the count of the animals). Rav Mari and Rav Kahana dispute this.
22. 22. This is our Mishnah above. The Gemara tests which view explains why “the ninth and the tenth are spoiled.”
23. 23. By his own count: since he called two animals “one,” the animal he called “ninth” is really the tenth to go out, and the one he called “tenth” is really the eleventh – so they are spoiled.
24. 24. Rabbi Yochanan follows the count of the animals only when he deliberately let them out in pairs. When two slipped out by themselves, his own count is followed, so in the Mishnah they are spoiled.
25. 25. A beraisa: he counted downward, calling the first “ten” and the tenth “one.” By the count of the animals the tenth is holy; by his own count, he called it “one.”
26. 26. In Persian counting ten is called “one” (ten counted as a single unit), so “one” is also a name for the tenth. On the next amud [Bechoros 60b] the Gemara returns to the Mishnah’s clause “he called the ninth ‘tenth’.”
27. 27. The Kuntres – Tosfos’ name for Rashi’s commentary.
28. 28. In Tosfos’ view this is not a plain error but a doubt whether the two counted as “one” count as one; so each of the two is in doubt and cannot be offered with certainty.