## Bekhorot Daf 61a

###### Bekhorot 61a:1
[Bekhorot 61a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/61a:1)

וְהָא דְּתָנֵי יִקְרְיבוּ — רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: מְבִיאִין קָדָשִׁים לְבֵית הַפְּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the ruling of **this** *tanna*, **who teaches:** Both animals must **be sacrificed, is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon, who says** that **one may bring sacrificial** animals **to a situation** where **the** likelihood of **disqualification** is increased.


###### Bekhorot 61a:2
[Bekhorot 61a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/61a:2)

וְהָא דְּתָנֵי יָמוּתוּ — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּאָמַר: טָעוּת מַעֲשֵׂר, תְּמוּרָה הָוְיָא, קָסָבַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: תְּמוּרַת מַעֲשֵׂר מֵתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the ruling of **this** *tanna*, **who teaches:** Both animals **must die, is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, who says:** When the owner makes **a mistake** in designating animal **tithe,** e.g., if one designates the ninth animal as the tenth, the designated animal has the status of **a substitute** animal. And **Rabbi Yehuda holds** that **a substitute for** an animal **tithe must** be left to **die.** Since it is uncertain which animal is the eleventh, both are left to die.


###### Bekhorot 61a:3
[Bekhorot 61a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/61a:3)

וְקָסָבַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה תְּמוּרַת מַעֲשֵׂר מֵתָה? וְהָתְנַן, אָמְרוּ מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: אִילּוּ הָיָה תְּמוּרָה לֹא הָיָה קָרֵב, מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר קָרֵב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And does Rabbi Yehuda hold** that **a substitute for** an animal **tithe must die? But didn’t we learn** in the mishna: The Sages **said in the name of Rabbi Meir,** in response to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda: The eleventh animal is not considered a substitute for the animal tithe, since **if it were a substitute it would not be sacrificed,** as the substitute for an animal tithe is not sacrificed?**By inference, Rabbi Yehuda holds** that the eleventh animal is **sacrificed,** and not put to death, despite the fact that it has the status of a substitute animal.


###### Bekhorot 61a:4
[Bekhorot 61a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/61a:4)

וְכִי תֵּימָא: רַבִּי מֵאִיר לְמַאי דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ קָאָמַר, וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵין בֵּין אַחַד עָשָׂר לִשְׁלָמִים, אֶלָּא שֶׁזֶּה עוֹשֶׂה קְדוּשָּׁה לִיקְרַב, וְזֶה אֵין עוֹשֶׂה קְדוּשָּׁה לִיקְרַב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. קָדוֹשׁ לִיקְרַב הוּא דְּלָא הוּא עָבֵיד, הָא אִיהוּ גּוּפֵיהּ קָרֵיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **And if you would say** that **Rabbi Meir is saying** his statement according **to what he** himself **holds,** and therefore nothing can be inferred from his comment with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that cannot be so; **but isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **The difference between** the **eleventh** animal mistakenly designated as animal tithe **and a peace offering is only that this,** the peace offering, **renders** a substitute **sanctified to** the extent that it can **be sacrificed, but that,** the eleventh animal mistakenly designated as animal tithe, does **not render** its substitute **sanctified to be sacrificed;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda?** The Gemara infers: **It is** stated only that the eleventh animal mistakenly designated as tithe **does not render** its substitute **sanctified** with enough sanctity **to be sacrificed,** which indicates the eleventh animal **itself is sacrificed** and not put to death.


###### Bekhorot 61a:5
[Bekhorot 61a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/61a:5)

וְעוֹד, דְּתַנְיָא: ״אִם מִן הַבָּקָר״ — לְרַבּוֹת אַחַד עָשָׂר לִשְׁלָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And furthermore,** there is a source that indicates that Rabbi Yehuda holds that a mistakenly designated animal tithe is sacrificed, **as it is taught** in a *baraita* in the *Sifra*: “And if his offering be a sacrifice of peace offerings: **If** he sacrifice **of the herd,** whether male or female, he shall sacrifice it without blemish before the Lord” (Leviticus 3:1). This serves **to include** the **eleventh** animal mistakenly designated as tithe; it must be sacrificed **as a peace offering.**


###### Bekhorot 61a:6
[Bekhorot 61a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/61a:6)

יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה אַף הַתְּשִׁיעִי? אָמַרְתָּ: וְכִי הֶקְדֵּשׁ לְפָנָיו מְקַדֵּשׁ אוֹ לְאַחֲרָיו מְקַדֵּשׁ? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר — לְאַחֲרָיו מְקַדֵּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One **might** have thought **that I include even the ninth** animal mistakenly designated as the tithe. **You say** in rejection of this suggestion: **But does consecration sanctify** a substitute **before** the original animal is sanctified, **or** does it **sanctify** only **after** the original animal is sanctified? **You must say** that it **sanctifies** only **after** the original animal is sanctified. If so, only the eleventh animal is sacrificed as a peace offering, but not the ninth.


###### Bekhorot 61a:7
[Bekhorot 61a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/61a:7)

סְתָם סִיפְרָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְקָתָנֵי: ״מִן הַבָּקָר״ — לְרַבּוֹת אַחַד עָשָׂר לִשְׁלָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And **who is** the author of the **unattributed** statement in the ***Sifra*?** It is **Rabbi Yehuda. And** the *baraita* **is teaching** that the verse: “If he sacrifice **of the herd,** whether male or female, he shall sacrifice it without blemish before the Lord,” serves **to include** the **eleventh** animal mistakenly designated as tithe, i.e., to teach that it must be sacrificed **as a peace offering.** Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda does not hold that the eleventh animal mistakenly designated as tithe must die.


###### Bekhorot 61a:8
[Bekhorot 61a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/61a:8)

אֶלָּא תַּרְגְּמַהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרַבִּי אַבָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּמַעֲשֵׂר בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה עָסְקִינַן, וּמִשּׁוּם תַּקָּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If so, in accordance with whose opinion is the *baraita* that rules that in a case where two animals emerged together as the tenth, and the owner called them both the tenth, they must both die? It cannot be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. **Rather, Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Abba, interpreted** that *baraita* **before Rabbi Yoḥanan: We are dealing with** animal **tithe in the present** time, **and** the animals must die **due to** concern that **a mishap** might occur, as one might shear them or put them to work, or eat them before they develop a blemish.


###### Bekhorot 61a:9
[Bekhorot 61a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/61a:9)

אִי הָכִי, מַאי אִירְיָא תְּרֵי? אֲפִילּוּ חַד נָמֵי! לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא חַד דְּלֵית לֵיהּ פְּסֵידָא, אֲבָל תְּרֵי, כֵּיוָן דִּנְפִישִׁי פְּסֵידָא — לִישַׁהִינְהוּ עַד דְּנִיפּוֹל בְּהוּ מוּמָא וְלֵיכְלִינְהוּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so, why** is the *baraita* referring **specifically** to a case where **two** animals left the pen at the same time? The same would hold true **even** with regard to **one** animal designated as tithe, as it cannot be sacrificed nowadays. The Gemara answers: The *tanna* **is speaking** utilizing the style of: **It is not necessary. It is not necessary** to teach that in a case where **one** animal was designated as tithe it must die, **as there is no** major financial **loss. But** in a case where **two** animals were designated as tithe, **since the loss is great** one might think **he should leave them until they develop a blemish, and** then **eat them.** Therefore, the *tanna* **teaches us** that even in a case where two animals were designated as tithe, both must die.


###### Bekhorot 61a:10
[Bekhorot 61a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/61a:10)

אִיתְּמַר: הָאוֹמֵר לִשְׁלוּחוֹ ״צֵא וְעַשֵּׂר עָלַי״, רַב פַּפִּי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא אָמַר: קָרָא לַתְּשִׁיעִי ״עֲשִׂירִי״ — קָדוֹשׁ, וְלָאַחַד עָשָׂר ״עֲשִׂירִי״ — אֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ. וְרַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ קָרָא לַתְּשִׁיעִי ״עֲשִׂירִי״ — אֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: לְתַקּוֹנֵי שַׁדַּרְתָּיךָ וְלָא לְעַוּוֹתֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It **was stated:** In the case of **one who says to his agent: Go and separate** animal **tithe on my** behalf, **Rav Pappi says in the name of Rava:** If he **called the ninth** animal the **tenth, it is sanctified** and may not be eaten until it has developed a blemish. The owner is not particular about this error, as the animal is not rendered entirely prohibited. **But** if he designated the **eleventh** animal as the **tenth it is not sanctified** as a peace offering, as the owner would not tolerate losing the animal entirely. **And Rav Pappa** disagrees and **says: Even** if the agent **called the ninth** animal the **tenth it is not sanctified, as** the owner who sent him can **say to him: I sent you to** act for **my benefit and not to my detriment.** The authority to serve as an agent does not extend to a case where he acts to the detriment of the one who designated him.


###### Bekhorot 61a:11
[Bekhorot 61a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/61a:11)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא מֵהָא דִּתְנַן: הָאוֹמֵר לִשְׁלוּחוֹ ״צֵא וּתְרוֹם״ — תּוֹרֵם כְּדַעַת בַּעַל הַבַּיִת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** in **what** manner **is** the case of animal tithe **different from that which we learned** in a mishna (*Terumot* 4:4): With regard to **one who says to his agent: Go and separate** *teruma*, the agent **separates** *teruma* **in accordance with the intention of the homeowner.** He must separate the amount that he assumes the owner would want to give, as there is no fixed measure that one must set aside as *teruma*. A generous person gives as much as one-fortieth of his produce as *teruma*, while a stingy person can give one-sixtieth.


###### Bekhorot 61a:12
[Bekhorot 61a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/61a:12)

אִם אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת — תּוֹרֵם בְּבֵינוֹנִית, אֶחָד מֵחֲמִשִּׁים. פִּיחֵת עֲשָׂרָה אוֹ הוֹסִיף עֲשָׂרָה — תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: **If he does not know the intention of** the **homeowner he separates an intermediate** measure, i.e., **one-fiftieth** of the produce. If **he subtracted ten** from the denominator and separated one-fortieth of the produce, **or added ten** to the denominator and separated one-sixtieth, **his *teruma*** is considered ***teruma*.** In this case too, the owner should also be able to say he did not send the agent to act to his detriment, and therefore the act of separating *teruma* should not take effect.


###### Bekhorot 61a:13
[Bekhorot 61a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/61a:13)

אָמְרִי: הָתָם, כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא דְּתָרֵים בְּעַיִן יָפָה, וְאִיכָּא דְּתָרֵים בְּעַיִן רָעָה, אָמַר: לְהָכִי אֲמַדְתִּיךְ. הָכָא טָעוּתָא הִיא, אָמַר: לָא אִיבְּעִי לָךְ לְמִיטְעֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **say** in answer: **There,** with regard to *teruma*, **since there are** those **who separate *teruma* generously and there are** those **who separate *teruma* sparingly,** the agent can **say: I estimated that you** were one **such as this,** i.e., either generous or stingy. But **here,** with regard to animal tithe, **it is a mistake,** and therefore the owner can **say: I did not want you to make a mistake.**


###### Bekhorot 61a:14
[Bekhorot 61a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bekhorot/r/61a:14)

**הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה, וּסְלִיקָא לַהּ מַסֶּכֶת בְּכוֹרוֹת.**