ג ודלמא עשירי הוא דלא קרייה קדש קרייה אלא מהא דתניא קרא לתשיעי עשירי ויצא העשירי ולא דבר התשיעי נאכל במומו והעשירי מעשר
3 But perhaps [it means that] he did not call it the tenth but still called it holy?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Aliter: Perhaps the Divine Law did not call it the tenth, but still called it holy, so that it cannot be eaten without first becoming blemished, and holiness takes effect with reference to it though it need not be taken up to be eaten in Jerusalem. (Rashi: first interpretation) . Perhaps although he did not call it the tenth, it is holy because he called it holy, but where he did not even call it holy, then no holiness whatsoever attaches to the animal. Whence, consequently, does Raba derive his ruling that the tenth animal becomes sacred on its own accord?');"><sup>6</sup></span> - Rather [Raba derives his ruling] from what has been taught: If he called the ninth the tenth and when the tenth came out he said nothing, the ninth is eaten [only] if blemished and the tenth is the tithe!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We therefore say that the tenth is tithe automatically without having been called so.');"><sup>7</sup></span> Perhaps it is different here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Baraitah.');"><sup>8</sup></span> for it was made quite clear that it was the tenth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since it followed the ninth, it was obvious that it was the tenth, and therefore it is like other tithe, although it was not called so. Raba therefore will not be able to prove his ruling from this Baraitha. Another explanation is: the reason it was the tithe, although it was not called so, was because it passed through the same door as the other nine; but if it remained in the shed or if it passed through a different door, I might have thought that it does not become sacred automatically (Rashi) .');"><sup>9</sup></span>