## Bekhorot Daf 59a

###### Bekhorot 59a:1
[Bekhorot 59a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/59a:1)

אַף תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר נִטֶּלֶת בְּאוֹמֶד וּבְמַחְשָׁבָה, וּמַעֲשֵׂר קַרְיֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא תְּרוּמָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי אֶת מַעְשַׂר בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יָרִימוּ לַה׳ תְּרוּמָה נָתַתִּי לַלְוִיִּם לְנַחֲלָה״, וְאִיתַּקַּשׁ מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה לְמַעֲשֵׂר דָּגָן, מָה מַעְשַׂר דָּגָן נִיטָּל בְּאוֹמֶד וּבְמַחְשָׁבָה — אַף מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה נִיטָּל בְּאוֹמֶד וּבְמַחְשָׁבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**so too, *teruma* of the tithe may be taken by estimate and by thought. And** this ruling of Abba Elazar ben Gomel’s also applies to tithes of the grain, because **the Merciful One calls tithe “*teruma*,” as it is written: “For the tithe of the children of Israel, which they set apart as *teruma* for the Lord, I have given to the Levites for an inheritance”** (Numbers 18:24). **And animal tithe is juxtaposed to grain tithe,** as is derived from the verse: “You shall tithe a tithe” (Deuteronomy 14:22; see 53b). **Just as grain tithe is separated by estimate and by thought, so too, animal tithe is separated by estimate and by thought.** For this reason, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, maintains that even with regard to an animal that was not counted, if it was separated as tithe the separation is valid.


###### Bekhorot 59a:2
[Bekhorot 59a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/59a:2)

אָמַר רָבָא: עֲשִׂירִי מֵאֵלָיו הוּא קָדוֹשׁ. מְנָא לֵיהּ לְרָבָא הָא? אִילֵּימָא מֵהָא דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁקָּרָא שְׁמוֹ ״עֲשִׂירִי״, לֹא קָרָא שְׁמוֹ ״עֲשִׂירִי״ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עֲשִׂירִי יִהְיֶה קֹדֶשׁ״ — מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says:** If one counted nine animals and the **tenth** animal remains in the pen, **it is sacred** as the animal tithe **of its own** accord, even if it does not leave the pen and was not counted. The Gemara asks: **From where does Rava** derive **this** *halakha*? **If we say** he derives it **from that which is taught** in the aforementioned *baraita*, this is problematic. The Gemara cites the *baraita* again: And **I have** derived **only that** an animal that **one** explicitly **called** by the **name of** the **tenth** one is the animal tithe. **From where** do I derive that the tenth animal is sanctified even if **one did not** explicitly **call** it **the tenth** one? **The verse states: “The tenth shall be sacred,”** i.e., it shall be sacred **in any case,** even if it was not called the tenth. The suggestion is that Rava understands from here that the tenth is sacred even if it was not counted, provided there was a counting. Consequently, it makes no difference whether or not the owner called it the tenth or left it in the pen.


###### Bekhorot 59a:3
[Bekhorot 59a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/59a:3)

וְדִלְמָא ״עֲשִׂירִי״ הוּא דְּלָא קַרְיֵיהּ, ״קֹדֶשׁ״ קַרְיֵיהּ! אֶלָּא מֵהָא דְּתַנְיָא: קָרָא לַתְּשִׁיעִי ״עֲשִׂירִי״, וְיָצָא הָעֲשִׂירִי וְלֹא דִּבֵּר — הַתְּשִׁיעִי נֶאֱכָל בְּמוּמוֹ, וְהָעֲשִׂירִי מַעֲשֵׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **But perhaps** this *baraita* is referring specifically to a case where **he did not call** that animal the **tenth,** but **he did call it sanctified. Rather,** the Gemara suggests that Rava derives it **from that which is taught** in a *baraita*: If **one** erred and **called the ninth** animal **the tenth, and the tenth** animal **emerged** from the pen **but** the owner **did not speak, the ninth** animal is not sanctified and is not brought as an offering. But since it was called the tenth, it may be **eaten** only once it develops **a blemish. And the tenth** animal is the animal **tithe.** It is possible that Rava maintains that just as the tenth is sacred in this case, when the owner remained silent, the same applies if he left it in the pen.


###### Bekhorot 59a:4
[Bekhorot 59a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/59a:4)

וְדִלְמָא שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאִיבָּרַר לֵיהּ עֲשִׂירִי, אִי נָמֵי, דְּאַחְוִי עִילָּוֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion as well: **But perhaps it is different there, as the tenth** animal **was selected** when it emerged from the pen, despite the fact that it was not counted verbally. **Alternatively,** the reason it is sanctified is **that he pointed at it** as it emerged, although he did not explicitly say that it was the tenth animal. Conversely, in a case where it remained in the pen perhaps it does not have any sanctity at all.


###### Bekhorot 59a:5
[Bekhorot 59a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/59a:5)

אֶלָּא מֵהָא דְּתַנְיָא: קָרָא לַתְּשִׁיעִי ״עֲשִׂירִי״, וּמֵת עֲשִׂירִי בַּדִּיר — תְּשִׁיעִי נֶאֱכָל בְּמוּמוֹ, וְכוּלָּם פְּטוּרִין. מַאי טַעְמָא כּוּלָּם פְּטוּרִין, לָאו מִשּׁוּם דִּקְדַשׁ לֵיהּ עֲשִׂירִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the Gemara suggests that Rava derives his *halakha* **from that which is taught** in a *baraita*: If **one** erred and **called the ninth** animal the **tenth, and** the **tenth** animal **died in the pen,** the **ninth** animal may be **eaten** only once it develops **a blemish, and all** the other animals **are exempt** from having to be tithed again. The Gemara clarifies this ruling: **What is the reason** that **all** the other animals **are exempt?** Is it **not because** the **tenth** animal **is sanctified** of its own accord, even without emerging from the pen?


###### Bekhorot 59a:6
[Bekhorot 59a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/59a:6)

וְדִלְמָא דְּאִיפְּטַרוּ בְּמִנְיָן הָרָאוּי, דְּהָאָמַר רָבָא: מִנְיָן הָרָאוּי פּוֹטֵר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion as well: **But perhaps** the other animals **are exempt** because they were counted **in a tally that is fit** to reach ten. **As doesn’t Rava say: A tally fit** to reach ten **exempts** from the obligation of tithe? If one began counting lambs for the purpose of tithing and at that stage the group was fit to be tithed, but ultimately he was unable to separate the tithe, e.g., if one of the animals died and there were only nine left, those that were counted while the tally was fit to reach ten are exempt from being tithed. Moreover, the owner is not required to include them in the tithe on the following occasion.


###### Bekhorot 59a:7
[Bekhorot 59a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/59a:7)

אֶלָּא מֵהָא דְּתַנְיָא: קָרָא לַתְּשִׁיעִי ״עֲשִׂירִי״, וְנִשְׁתַּיֵּיר עֲשִׂירִי בַּדִּיר — הַתְּשִׁיעִי נֶאֱכָל בְּמוּמוֹ, וְהָעֲשִׂירִי מַעֲשֵׂר. וְהָתַנְיָא: תְּשִׁיעִי חוּלִּין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the Gemara suggests that Rava derives his *halakha* **from that which is taught** in a *baraita*: If **one** erred and **called the ninth** animal the **tenth, and** the **tenth** animal **remained in the pen, the ninth** animal may be **eaten** only once it develops **a blemish, and the tenth** animal **is** the animal **tithe.** The tenth animal has sanctity even though it has not left the pen. The Gemara asks: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that in such a case the **ninth** animal **is non-sacred?**


###### Bekhorot 59a:8
[Bekhorot 59a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/59a:8)

תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A *tanna* taught before Rav Sheshet:** In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this?** It **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon:**