Bekhorot

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,1 thus including all.2 One might have thought that I include also the eighth and the twelfth.3 [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],4 similarly [the animals] he by mistake called [the tenth] must be next to it.5 But has it not been taught: Just as the tenth can only be one,6 similarly [the animal] called by mistake [the tenth] can only be one?7 — A Tanna recited before R. Johanan: [This Baraitha]8 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,9 calls the tenth the ninth, and the eleventh the tenth.10 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,11 and he also holds the opinion of his father [R. Simeon] who said: No substitute can effect another substitute.12 Said Raba: If two came out of the shed at the ninth13 and he called them the ninth, the tenth and hullin are mixed together.14 The tenth is sacred on its own accord.15 And the ninth [is hullin] because he called it the ninth. If he called them16 the tenth, the tenth and the ninth are mixed together.17 What is the reason? Because he called them both the tenth. If two came out [of the shed] at the tenth18 and he called them the tenth, the tenth and the eleventh are mixed together. 19 If he called them20 the eleventh, the tenth and hullin are mixed together.21 What need is there [for Raba] to give this additional ruling?22 Is it not the same?23 — 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.24 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?25 — This is the case26 only when [the lambs] came out one after the other,27 but where they came out simultaneously,28 both are holy.29 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?30 — No. It includes the case where the tenth came out and he did not say anything,31 for here the name of the tenth was not eliminated therefrom.32 For if you will not agree to this,33 what of this which has been taught: If two came out at the tenth34 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?35 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 here36 is where one put forth its head before the other and he called it the eleventh,37 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.38 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.39 And whose opinion does this40 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’.41 But here we are referring to a case where he has no more animals.42 What is this ruling of Rabbi? — As it has been taught: If he called the tenth the eleventh43 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,44 the eleventh is not holy. [But has not [the name of the tenth] been eliminated]?45 — Said Raba: What are the circumstances here? Where he has many animals and we say that he means one ten.46 [It has been said]: If two came out at the tenth,47 one [Baraitha] teaches: Let them pasture48 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 How then can you say that all are consecrated? made two mistakes. mistake, since the tenth automatically becomes consecrated (R. Gershom). tenth, the eleventh can no more become a substitute, as R. Judah says in the Mishnah above. confer holiness on the two animals in substitution for the holiness of the tenth. to lashes since it may be hullin. the tenth, and the owners can eat them only while they are blemished (R. Gershom). subject to the restriction applying to each, viz., two sprinklings of blood and the separation of the breast and shoulder for the priest. ninth which are considered as mixed together? tenth? holy, because the tenth becomes holy in its own accord, the silence not being considered the elimination of the name of the tenth therefrom. both holy. consecrated, although he called the tenth the tenth. the ninth, there is no question that this is eliminating the name of the tenth, but the Baraitha wishes to inform us that even if he called it the eleventh, although this is not the view of Rabbi below, it is also regarded as removing the name of the tenth. be that the eleventh is not consecrated. therefrom. the first tenth, the first ten animals that have been tithed. Therefore by calling the tenth rag sjt he has not really eliminated the name of the tenth therefrom according to Rabbi. first ten, as this would imply that he has more tens of animals to tithe. In this instance, consequently, he must actually mean to call the animal the eleventh, and even Rabbi will admit here that the calling of the tenth the eleventh eliminates the name of the tenth therefrom. that the tenth and the eleventh are mixed together. The Gemara now proceeds to give a number of Baraithas which explain the implications of the phrase ‘the tenth and eleventh are mixed together’. applying to each of them, we shall have to separate the breast and the right shoulder of each animal for the priest, owing to the doubt that each may be the peace-offering. It may happen that the priests have many sacrifices to eat and will not be able to partake of the breast etc., thus causing sacred meat to be burnt. But in the case of the tithe, not only priests are privileged to eat it but also Israelites, and, as there are many Israelites, there is no fear that sacred meat might be left over to be burnt among the unfit. Thus if we impose on both the restrictions applying to each of them, we shall have to treat both animals as peace-offerings as far as the priest's gifts of the breast etc. are concerned. We therefore say that the remedy is to condemn them both to pasture until they become blemished, one being redeemed and both eaten while blemished (R. Gershom).