בכורות 59:2 — Soncino English Talmud

The ninth also is not sacred except when the name of the tenth was eliminated therefrom. And it is a proper conclusion. For if the eleventh [animal] possesses sufficient holiness to be sacrificed and is yet not holy except when the name of the tenth has been eliminated therefrom, it surely follows that in the case of the ninth, which does not possess sufficient holiness to be sacrificed, if the name of the tenth is elim inated therefrom it is holy but if not, it is not [holy at all]! But [on the contrary], it is thus that we should argue: The eleventh is capable of becoming holy enough to be sacrificed. If therefore the name of the tenth has been eliminated therefrom, it should require this holiness, but if not, not. But the ninth is not capable of becoming holy enough to be sacrificed. Hence it should become holy even if the name of the tenth has not been eliminated therefrom. Or perhaps [we can argue] seeing that the eleventh is not reached till the tenth has already established itself [as the tithe], then if the name of the tenth was eliminated therefrom, the eleventh becomes holy but if not, not; whereas the ninth which comes before the tenth has established itself [as the tithe] is holy even if the tenth has not been eliminated therefrom. And there is nothing more to be said against it. Said Raba: A count properly begun redeems. Whence does Raba derive this? Shall I say from what we have learnt: IF ONE [OF THE LAMBS] ALREADY COUNTED LEAPED IN AMONG THE FLOCK [IN THE SHED] THEY ARE ALL EXEMPT? Now how are [the lambs] already counted exempt? Is it not by means of the count properly begun? But perhaps they had been already tithed! — This you cannot say, for does it not state: IF ONE OF THOSE ALREADY TITHED LEAPED IN AMONG THE FLOCK! But perhaps the phrase ONE OF THOSE ALREADY TITHED refers to one actually set aside as tithe I can also prove it.’ For it Says: LET THEM GO TO PASTURE! — Raba thereupon said: [My proof is as follows]. Scripture says: Shall pass, intimating, but not that which has already passed. Now what does ‘But not that which has already passed’ mean? If it means those already tithed, is there any need to say this? It must refer to those exempted because of a count properly begun. It stands proved. It has been taught in accordance with the ruling of Raba: If he had ten lambs and he led them into a shed, and after he had counted five one of them died, if the one which died was of those already counted, he counts and combines them [with others]. But if the one which died was not of those yet counted, the counted ones are exempt but those not yet counted combine with [others born] in a later tithing period. Raba further said: If he had fourteen lambs and he led them into a shed, six [first] passing through one door, four through another door and four remaining there [in the shed], if these four [eventually] passed through the same door as the six, he takes one of them as tithe, and the rest combine [in one shed] with those [born] in a later tithing period. But if not, the six are exempt and the four together with the other four combine with those [born] in a later tithing period. If four pass through this door [first] and six through another door, four remaining there in the shed, if the four [eventually] pass through the same door which the six had passed through, he takes one as tithe and the rest are exempt. And if not, the first four and the six are exempt and the last four combine with those [born] in a later tithing period. If four passed through this door and four through another door, six remaining there [in the shed], if the remaining [six] passed through the door of one of them, he takes one [as tithe] and the rest are exempt. And if not, [the first] four and [the second] four are exempt and the [remaining] six combine with those [born] in a later tithing period. What does he [Raba] teach us? That a counting properly begun exempts! But has not Raba already taught us this ruling? — You might have said that we apply the principle that a counting properly begun exempts where it is certain that there is a proper number but where it is uncertain whether there is a proper number seeing that it is possible to combine the six either here or there, we do not apply [this ruling]. He [Rab] therefore informs us [that it is not so]. Raba further said: If he had fifteen lambs he cannot say: ‘I will select ten, bring them into the shed, take one [as tithe] from them and the rest will be exempt’. But he must bring them [all] into the shed, bring out ten lambs, take one from them [as the tithe] and the rest combine with those [born] in a later tithing period. So indeed it has been taught: If he had fifteen lambs^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ

^ᵃnote:Referring to the Mishnah below where it says that if one called the ninth the tenth, the tenth the tenth, and the eleventh the tenth, the eleventh is not holy, since he has not omitted the proper name of the tenth, having counted the tenth as the tenth and not the tenth as the ninth. If, however, he called the tenth the ninth, i.e., if he omitted the proper name of the tenth therefrom, then the eleventh is sacred. The ninth, however, if it has been called the tenth, is sacred even if he called the tenth the tenth, i.e., if he did not omit the name of the tenth therefrom. R. Simeon thereupon comes and says that even the ninth in such circumstances is not sacred etc.
^ᵇnote:If he called the tenth the ninth.
^ᶜnote:For if he called the eleventh the tenth, it is brought as a peace-offering, this ruling being derived later on from a scriptural verse, and, yet in spite of this considerable sanctity, it is etc.
^ᵈnote:When, for example, the tenth is called the ninth.
^ᵉnote:Even if he called it the tenth it is not offered up, only it becomes so far holy that it must not be eaten except when it is blemished.
^ᶠnote:That the ninth receives this minor holiness.
^ᵍnote:If he does not eliminate the name of the tenth therefrom. i.e., if he calls the tenth the tenth.
^ʰnote:If he called the tenth the ninth.
^ⁱnote:This being a comparatively high grade of holiness.
^ʲnote:I.e., acquire the minor holiness of not being eaten except when it is blemished.
^ᵏnote:The tenth having already gone out before the eleventh, thus becoming the tithe automatically.
^ˡnote:By calling the tenth the ninth.
^ᵐnote:If he called the tenth the tenth.
^ⁿnote:As the calling of the ninth obviously precedes the calling of the tenth.
^ᵒnote:If he proceeded to call the tenth the tenth.
^ᵖnote:You cannot argue against this, for this is certainly the case that the ninth is holy in all circumstances, even if the tenth is counted the tenth.
^ᵠnote:If he had ten lambs in the shed and he counted nine and the tenth died in the shed or passed through a different door from the others, the nine are redeemed and there is no need to combine them with the others of a later tithing period, since when he commenced counting the requisite number was available for tithing purposes.
^ʳnote:The questioner was under the impression that ‘the lambs already counted’ refers to the nine (or less) lambs already counted, one of which leaped back into the flock and those in the shed are exempted because he does not recognize which among them is the one which leaped back. Owing therefore to this doubt, not one of the animals is fit to be brought as tithe.
^ˢnote:There being ten lambs in the shed when the counting commenced.
^ᵗnote:‘The lambs already counted’ referred to in the Mishnah.
^ᵘnote:And not merely counted up to nine but actually redeemed.
^ᵛnote:Therefore the passage ‘those already counted’ will refer to those already set aside as tithe and consequently Raba cannot prove his ruling that where he properly began to count and the tenth died, we consider the counted ones as redeemed.
^ʷnote:If therefore the lamb that leaped was hullin, ‘why should it be condemned to pasture until blemished? The reason must therefore be because it is actually tithe, possessing the holiness of an animal set aside as tithe, and concerning each animal there is a doubt whether it be tithe.
^ˣnote:Lev. XXVII, 32.
^ʸnote:That they cannot be redeemed again.
^ᶻnote:Surely there is no question that those already tithed once need not further be redeemed.
^ᵃᵃnote:Where a number were already counted, counting having begun properly with ten in the shed and the tenth died. This case Scripture exempts from redemption, since the animals had already passed through under the rod.
^ᵃᵇnote:The number five is not strictly meant, as it can be any number up to nine.
^ᵃᶜnote:In one shed until there are ten and then he takes one as tithe.
^ᵃᵈnote:Because it is a counting properly begun.
^ᵃᵉnote:There being two doors to the shed.
^ᵃᶠnote:Since ten lambs had passed through the same door.
^ᵃᵍnote:The four which passed through the other door, for we cannot exempt them on account of having begun to count them properly, as when the first four passed through the door there were only four left in the shed and you cannot combine four with four.
^ᵃʰnote:To be tithed.
^ᵃⁱnote:If the four did not pass through the same door as the six but either remained in the shed or passed through the door of the other four thus making a total of eight, a number insufficient for tithing.
^ᵃʲnote:Because when they left the shed there were sufficient lambs in the shed together with these for the requisite number for tithing.
^ᵃᵏnote:Even the first four are exempt because their counting was properly begun.
^ᵃˡnote:If the four did not pass through the door of the six.
^ᵃᵐnote:Because when the first four passed through the door the counting was properly begun, there being ten left in the shed. Likewise with the six, when they passed through the door there were four left in the shed to combine for tithing.
^ᵃⁿnote:Either through the door of the first four or through the door of the last four.
^ᵃᵒnote:Because there are ten passing through the same door.
^ᵃᵖnote:Even those four through whose door the six did not pass, because when they went through the counting was properly begun.
^ᵃᵠnote:If the six did not pass through the door of the first four or the door of the other four, either remaining in the shed or passing through a third door.
^ᵃʳnote:Because in the case of both the first and the second four lambs, the counting was properly begun, there being ten in the shed at the time of counting.
^ᵃˢnote:Where, for example, he counted five or six and there were sufficient lambs in the shed to combine for tithing purposes, there being also one door in the shed. In such circumstances, the rest are certainly fit to pass through that door and to combine in order to be tithed with those already counted.
^ᵃᵗnote:As, for example, where four passed through one door and four through another door, six remaining in the shed. Here we cannot say whether the six will pass through this door or the other.
^ᵃᵘnote:With the four which passed through one door.
^ᵃᵛnote:With the four which passed through the second door.
^ᵃʷnote:Of a counting properly begun exempting from tithing.
^ᵃˣnote:The number is not strictly meant, the usual practice however being to combine five with five so as to make up the required number for tithing (Rashi).