Parallel
בכורות 61
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
And the one who says: Let them be offered up, represents the opinion of R. Simeon who says: We may cause sacred flesh to be brought to the place where the unfit [are burnt]. The one who says: Let them be left to die, gives the opinion of R. Judah who says: A mistake [in counting] for tithes renders the tenth animal as a substitute; and R. Judah further holds: That which has been made as substitute for [an animal set aside as] tithe must be allowed to perish. But does R. Judah hold that that which is made a substitute for [an animal set aside as] tithe must be allowed to perish? Have we not learnt: THEY SAID IN THE NAME OF R. MEIR: IF IT WERE A SUBSTITUTE IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SACRIFICED, thus implying that R. Judah holds that it is sacrificed? And should you say that R. Meir says this in accordance with his own opinion, has it not been taught: The only difference between the eleventh [called by mistake the tenth] and an actual peace-offering is that the latter confers the degree of consecration required for an offering whereas the former does not confer the degree of consecration required for an offering. These are the words of R. Judah. Thus it cannot effect a consecration [for another animal] to be offered up but, as far as [the animal] itself is concerned, [the eleventh called by mistake the tenth] can be offered up [according to R. Judah]! Moreover it has been taught: [Scripture says]: If he offer it of the herd this includes the eleventh as a peace-offering. You might think that I include also the ninth as a peace-offering. Against this argue thus: Does hekdesh consecrate [an unblemished animal of hullin] which comes before it or the one which comes after it? You must admit that it consecrates only the one coming after it. Now whose opinion does an anonymous view in Sifra represent? Is it not that of R. Judah? And yet it says: ‘If he offer of the herd’ includes the eleventh as a peace-offering! — Rather explained R. Simeon b. R. Abba before R. Johanan: It refers to tithing in our days and for fear that an offence might be committed. If this be the case, why [does the Baraitha speak of] two, since the same ruling applies also to one? — [The Baraitha above] gives a particularly strong instance: Not only in the case of one where there is not much loss, but even in the case of two lambs, where I might have said that since there is much loss we should keep them until a blemish befalls them in order to eat them, does [the Baraitha] inform us [that the ruling applies]. It has been stated: If one says to his agent: ‘Go and tithe on my behalf’, R. Papi in the name of Raba says: If he called the ninth the tenth, it is sacred, whereas if he called the eleventh the tenth, it is not sacred. But R. Papa in the name of Raba Says: Even if he called the ninth the tenth, it is not sacred, for he [the sender] can say to him: ‘I sent you to do the right thing not to do it wrong’. And why is this different from what we have learnt in a Mishnah: If one says to his agent: ‘Go and separate terumah’, he separates according to the disposition of the owner. If, however, he does not know the disposition of the owner, he separates the amount of terumah for an average person, one in fifty. If he decreased the terumah by ten or increased it by ten, his terumah is valid! — I will tell you: There [in the Mishnah] since some separate terumah liberally and others meanly, he [the agent] can say to him: ‘I guessed this to be your intention’; but here there was a mistake. He [the owner] can therefore say to him [the agent]: ‘You should not have made a mistake’.28
—