Bekhorot

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].1 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;2 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,3 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 consecration4 required for an offering whereas the former does not confer the degree of consecration required for an offering.5 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 herd6 this includes the eleventh7 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 it8 or the one which comes after it? You must admit that it consecrates only the one coming after it.9 Now whose opinion does an anonymous view in Sifra10 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!11 — Rather explained R. Simeon b. R. Abba before R. Johanan: It12 refers to tithing in our days13 and for fear that an offence might be committed.14 If this be the case, why [does the Baraitha speak of] two,15 since the same ruling applies also to one?16 — [The Baraitha above] gives a particularly strong instance:17 Not only in the case of one where there is not much loss,18 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,19 whereas if he called the eleventh the tenth, it is not sacred.20 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 thing21 not to do it wrong’.22 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.23 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 ten24 or increased it by ten, his terumah is valid!25 — 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’;26 but here there was a mistake.27 He [the owner] can therefore say to him [the agent]: ‘You should not have made a mistake’.28 it is not a substitute, for were it a substitute it would not have been offered’. But according to R. Judah, the animal must be left to die. here, is it possible that the tenth which is not yet holy itself should be able to confer holiness on the ninth. explain the Baraitha above which says ‘Let them be left to die’ as being the opinion of R. Judah? tenth, they are both left to die. agreement with the opinion of R. Huna above (53a), that nowadays the law of tithing animals is not practised. (Rashi) Tosaf. observes however that although the law of tithing does not apply in our days, nevertheless, if he did tithe, the animal set aside as tithe is sacred. for it to become blemished or he might shear it and work with it. Therefore we leave the animals to die rather then to let them pasture until they become blemished. cannot be offered nowadays. Therefore the ruling that the animal is left to die should be taught with reference even to one animal. therefore the sender can say: ‘I did not send you to cause me a loss’. We therefore maintain that the sending was void. separates as terumah one part in sixty and if the owner is an average person, the agent separates as terumah for him one part in fifty. separated as terumah was a mistake which caused him a loss and that therefore his agency is void? void and thus the animal is not sacred.