Parallel
בכורות 60:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
IF HE CALLED THE NINTH THE TENTH, THE TENTH THE NINTH AND THE ELEVENTH THE TENTH etc. Our Rabbis taught: Whence do we know that if he called the ninth the tenth, the tenth the ninth and the eleventh the tenth, the three are consecrated? The text states: And concerning the tithe of the herd or of the flock even of whatsoever passeth under the rod the tenth shall be holy, thus including all. One might have thought that I include also the eighth and the twelfth. [Against this] you can argue thus: Since it [the tenth] is holy and [the animal] he by mistake [called the tenth] is consecrated, just as [the tenth] is only consecrated when it is next [to it], similarly [the animals] he by mistake called [the tenth] must be next to it. But has it not been taught: Just as the tenth can only be one, similarly [the animal] called by mistake [the tenth] can only be one? — A Tanna recited before R. Johanan: [This Baraitha] will represent the opinion of R. Eleazar b. Simeon. For it has been taught: R. Eleazar b. Simeon says: The eleventh is holy only when he is silent at the ninth, calls the tenth the ninth, and the eleventh the tenth. He [R. Eleazar] concurs with R. Judah who said: A mistake in counting the animal for tithes renders [the animal styled tenth] as a substitute, and he also holds the opinion of his father [R. Simeon] who said: No substitute can effect another substitute. Said Raba: If two came out of the shed at the ninth and he called them the ninth, the tenth and hullin are mixed together. The tenth is sacred on its own accord. And the ninth [is hullin] because he called it the ninth. If he called them the tenth, the tenth and the ninth are mixed together. What is the reason? Because he called them both the tenth. If two came out [of the shed] at the tenth and he called them the tenth, the tenth and the eleventh are mixed together. If he called them the eleventh, the tenth and hullin are mixed together. What need is there [for Raba] to give this additional ruling? Is it not the same? — He informs us of this, that wherever they came out at the same time and he called them the tenth they are consecrated, although the name of the tenth was not eliminated therefrom. R. Kahana sat and was stating this tradition. Said R. Ashi to R. Kahana: But the name of the tenth has not been eliminated therefrom, and we have learnt: THE FOLLOWING IS THE RULE: WHEREVER THE NAME OF THE TENTH HAS NOT BEEN ELIMINATED THEREFROM THE ELEVENTH IS NOT CONSECRATED? — This is the case only when [the lambs] came out one after the other, but where they came out simultaneously, both are holy. But is not the case [where he called the tenth and the eleventh] one after the other [the tenth] explicitly stated: IF HE CALLED THE NINTH THE TENTH, THE TENTH THE TENTH AND THE ELEVENTH THE TENTH, THE ELEVENTH IS NOT CONSECRATED? Now what does the statement THE FOLLOWING IS THE RULE include? Does it not include the case where he called the tenth and the eleventh simultaneously the tenth? — No. It includes the case where the tenth came out and he did not say anything, for here the name of the tenth was not eliminated therefrom. For if you will not agree to this, what of this which has been taught: If two came out at the tenth one not preceding the other, and he called them the tenth, the tenth and eleventh are mixed together [viz., tithe and a peace-offering]. [Now why is this, seeing that] the name of the tenth has not been here eliminated therefrom? Must not we say therefore that wherever both came out [of the shed] at the same time they are consecrated? — Were it only for this, there would be no proof, because the case here is where one put forth its head before the other and he called it the eleventh, and subsequently, it mixed with the others [and two animals] came out together and he called them the tenth, the name of the tenth having thus been eliminated therefrom. But does not [the Baraitha] state above: ‘One not preceding the other’? — The phrase ‘One not preceding the other’ means that it afterwards mixed with the others. And whose opinion does this represent? Not that of Rabbi, for if that of Rabbi, does he not say: The [calling of] the eleventh [before the tenth] is not considered as eliminating [the name of the tenth]? — You may even say that this represents the opinion of Rabbi, for Rabbi's ruling refers only to a case where he has many animals to tithe, for then we say that he means ‘one [group of] ten’. But here we are referring to a case where he has no more animals. What is this ruling of Rabbi? — As it has been taught: If he called the tenth the eleventh and the eleventh the tenth, the eleventh is not sacred. There are the words of Rabbi. R. Jose son of R. Judah says: The eleventh is sacred. Rabbi stated a rule: So long as the name of the tenth has not been eliminated therefrom, the eleventh is not holy. [But has not [the name of the tenth] been eliminated]? — Said Raba: What are the circumstances here? Where he has many animals and we say that he means one ten. [It has been said]: If two came out at the tenth, one [Baraitha] teaches: Let them pasture and another [Baraitha] teaches: Let them be offered up. And yet another teaches: Let them be left to die. There is no contradiction here. The one which says: Let them pasture, gives the opinion of the Rabbis who say: We must not wittingly cause sacred flesh to be brought to the place where the unfit [are burnt].49
—