Bekhorot 118

Chapter 118

א אף התשיעי אינו קדוש אלא א"כ נעקר שם עשירי הימנו והדין נותן
1 The ninth also is not sacred<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Referring to the Mishnah below where it says that if one called the ninth the tenth, the tenth the tenth, and the eleventh the tenth, the eleventh is not holy, since he has not omitted the proper name of the tenth, having counted the tenth as the tenth and not the tenth as the ninth. If, however, he called the tenth the ninth, i.e., if he omitted the proper name of the tenth therefrom, then the eleventh is sacred. The ninth, however, if it has been called the tenth, is sacred even if he called the tenth the tenth, i.e., if he did not omit the name of the tenth therefrom. R. Simeon thereupon comes and says that even the ninth in such circumstances is not sacred etc.');"><sup>1</sup></span> except when the name of the tenth was eliminated therefrom.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he called the tenth the ninth.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב ומה אחד עשר שהוא עושה קדושה ליקרב אינו קדוש אלא א"כ נעקר שם עשירי הימנו תשיעי שאין עושה קדושה ליקרב אינו דין שאם נעקר שם עשירי הימנו אין אי לא לא
2 
ג היא הנותנת אחד עשר שהוא עושה קדושה ליקרב אי נעקר שם עשירי הימנו אין אי לא לא תשיעי שאינו עושה קדושה ליקרב אע"ג דלא נעקר שם עשירי הימנו
3 And it is a proper conclusion. For if the eleventh [animal] possesses sufficient holiness to be sacrificed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if he called the eleventh the tenth, it is brought as a peace-offering, this ruling being derived later on from a scriptural verse, and, yet in spite of this considerable sanctity, it is etc.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד אי נמי אחד עשר דאיברר ליה עשירי אי נעקר שם עשירי הימנו אין אי לא לא
4 and is yet not holy except when the name of the tenth has been eliminated therefrom,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When, for example, the tenth is called the ninth.');"><sup>4</sup></span> it surely follows that in the case of the ninth, which does not possess sufficient holiness to be sacrificed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if he called it the tenth it is not offered up, only it becomes so far holy that it must not be eaten except when it is blemished.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ה תשיעי דאכתי לא איברר ליה עשירי ואע"ג דלא נעקר שם עשירי הימנו תו לא מידי
5 if the name of the tenth is elim inated therefrom it is holy<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the ninth receives this minor holiness.');"><sup>6</sup></span> but if not,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he does not eliminate the name of the tenth therefrom. i.e., if he calls the tenth the tenth.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ו אמר רבא מנין הראוי פוטר מנא ליה לרבא הא אילימא מהא דתנן קפץ אחד מן המנויין לתוכן כולן פטורין מנויין גופייהו דאיפטרו לאו במנין הראוי
6 it is not [holy at all]! But [on the contrary], it is thus that we should argu The eleventh is capable of becoming holy enough to be sacrificed. If therefore the name of the tenth has been eliminated therefrom,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he called the tenth the ninth.');"><sup>8</sup></span> it should require this holiness, but if not, not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This being a comparatively high grade of holiness.');"><sup>9</sup></span> But the ninth is not capable of becoming holy enough to be sacrificed. Hence it should become holy<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., acquire the minor holiness of not being eaten except when it is blemished.');"><sup>10</sup></span> even if the name of the tenth has not been eliminated therefrom.
ז ודלמא דעשר עילוייהו
7 Or perhaps [we can argue] seeing that the eleventh is not reached till the tenth has already established itself [as the tithe],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The tenth having already gone out before the eleventh, thus becoming the tithe automatically.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ח ההיא לא מצית אמרת הא תני מן המעושרין לתוכן
8 then if the name of the tenth was eliminated therefrom,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By calling the tenth the ninth.');"><sup>12</sup></span> the eleventh becomes holy but if not,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he called the tenth the tenth.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ט ודלמא מאי מעושרין מעשר דוקא דיקא נמי דקתני ירעו
9 not; whereas the ninth which comes before the tenth has established itself [as the tithe]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the calling of the ninth obviously precedes the calling of the tenth.');"><sup>14</sup></span> is holy even if the tenth has not been eliminated therefrom.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he proceeded to call the tenth the tenth.');"><sup>15</sup></span> And there is nothing more to be said against it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' You cannot argue against this, for this is certainly the case that the ninth is holy in all circumstances, even if the tenth is counted the tenth.');"><sup>16</sup></span> Said Raba: A count properly begun redeems.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he had ten lambs in the shed and he counted nine and the tenth died in the shed or passed through a different door from the others, the nine are redeemed and there is no need to combine them with the others of a later tithing period, since when he commenced counting the requisite number was available for tithing purposes.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
י אלא אמר רבא אמר קרא (ויקרא כז, לב) יעבור ולא שכבר עבר מאי שכבר עבר אי דעשר עילוייהו צריכא למימרא אלא לאו דאיפטרו להו במנין הראוי שמע מינה
10 Whence does Raba derive this? Shall I say from what we have learnt: IF ONE [OF THE LAMBS] ALREADY COUNTED LEAPED IN AMONG THE FLOCK [IN THE SHED] THEY ARE ALL EXEMPT?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The questioner was under the impression that 'the lambs already counted' refers to the nine (or less) lambs already counted, one of which leaped back into the flock and those in the shed are exempted because he does not recognize which among them is the one which leaped back. Owing therefore to this doubt, not one of the animals is fit to be brought as tithe.');"><sup>18</sup></span> Now how are [the lambs] already counted exempt? Is it not by means of the count properly begun?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There being ten lambs in the shed when the counting commenced.');"><sup>19</sup></span> But perhaps they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'The lambs already counted' referred to in the MISHNAH:');"><sup>20</sup></span>
יא תניא כוותיה דרבא היו לו עשרה טלאים והכניסן לדיר ומנה חמשה ומת אחד מהם אם מן המנויים מת מונה ומשלים עליהם ואם משאינן מנויים מת מנויים פטורין ושאינן מנויים מצטרפין לגורן אחר
11 had been already tithed!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not merely counted up to nine but actually redeemed.');"><sup>21</sup></span> - This you cannot say, for does it not state: IF ONE OF THOSE ALREADY TITHED LEAPED IN AMONG THE FLOCK! But perhaps the phrase ONE OF THOSE ALREADY TITHED refers to one actually set aside as tithe<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore the passage 'those already counted' will refer to those already set aside as tithe and consequently Raba cannot prove his ruling that where he properly began to count and the tenth died, we consider the counted ones as redeemed.');"><sup>22</sup></span>
יב ואמר רבא היו לו י"ד טלאים והכניסן לדיר ויצאו ששה בפתח זה וארבעה בפתח זה וארבעה נשתיירו שם אותם ארבעה אם בפתח הששה יצאו נוטל אחד מהם והשאר מצטרפין לגורן אחר
12 I can also prove it. For it Says: LET THEM GO TO PASTURE!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If therefore the lamb that leaped was hullin, 'why should it be condemned to pasture until blemished? The reason must therefore be because it is actually tithe, possessing the holiness of an animal set aside as tithe, and concerning each animal there is a doubt whether it be tithe.');"><sup>23</sup></span> - Raba thereupon said: [My proof is as follows].
יג ואם לאו ששה פטורין וארבעה ארבעה מצטרפין לגורן אחר
13 
יד יצאו ארבעה בפתח זה וששה בפתח זה ונשתיירו שם ארבעה אם אותם ארבעה בפתח הששה יצאו נוטל מהם אחד והשאר פטורים ואם לאו ארבעה וששה פטורים וארבעה מצטרפין לגורן אחר
14 Scripture says: Shall pass,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 32.');"><sup>24</sup></span> intimating, but not that which has already passed.
טו יצאו ארבעה בפתח זה וארבעה בפתח זה ונשתיירו שם ששה אם אותן ששה יצאו בפתח אחד נוטל מהם אחד והשאר פטורים ואם לאו ארבעה פטורים וששה מצטרפין לגורן אחר
15 Now what does 'But not that which has already passed' mean? If it means those already tithed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That they cannot be redeemed again.');"><sup>25</sup></span>
טז מאי קמ"ל דמנין הראוי פוטר והאמר רבא חדא זמנא מהו דתימא ודאי מנין הראוי אמרינן ספק מנין הראוי דחזי להכא ודחזי להכא לא אמרינן קמ"ל
16 is there any need to say this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely there is no question that those already tithed once need not further be redeemed.');"><sup>26</sup></span> It must refer to those exempted because of a count properly begun.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where a number were already counted, counting having begun properly with ten in the shed and the tenth died. This case Scripture exempts from redemption, since the animals had already passed through under the rod.');"><sup>27</sup></span> It stands proved. It has been taught in accordance with the ruling of Raba: If he had ten lambs and he led them into a shed, and after he had counted five<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The number five is not strictly meant, as it can be any number up to nine.');"><sup>28</sup></span> one of them died, if the one which died was of those already counted, he counts and combines them [with others].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In one shed until there are ten and then he takes one as tithe.');"><sup>29</sup></span>
יז ואמר רבא היו לו חמשה עשר טלאים לא יאמר אברור עשרה ואכניסם לדיר ואטול מהם אחד והשאר פטורים אלא כונסן לדיר ומוציא עשרה ונוטל מהם אחד והשאר מצטרפין לגורן אחר תניא נמי הכי היו לו חמשה עשר טלאים
17 But if the one which died was not of those yet counted, the counted ones are exempt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it is a counting properly begun.');"><sup>30</sup></span> but those not yet counted combine with [others born] in a later tithing period. Raba further said: If he had fourteen lambs and he led them into a shed, six [first] passing through one door,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There being two doors to the shed.');"><sup>31</sup></span> four through another door and four remaining there [in the shed], if these four [eventually] passed through the same door as the six, he takes one of them as tithe,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since ten lambs had passed through the same door.');"><sup>32</sup></span> and the rest<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The four which passed through the other door, for we cannot exempt them on account of having begun to count them properly, as when the first four passed through the door there were only four left in the shed and you cannot combine four with four.');"><sup>33</sup></span> combine [in one shed] with those [born] in a later tithing period.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be tithed.');"><sup>34</sup></span> But if not,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the four did not pass through the same door as the six but either remained in the shed or passed through the door of the other four thus making a total of eight, a number insufficient for tithing.');"><sup>35</sup></span> the six are exempt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because when they left the shed there were sufficient lambs in the shed together with these for the requisite number for tithing.');"><sup>36</sup></span> and the four together with the other four combine with those [born] in a later tithing period. If four pass through this door [first] and six through another door, four remaining there in the shed, if the four [eventually] pass through the same door which the six had passed through, he takes one as tithe and the rest are exempt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even the first four are exempt because their counting was properly begun.');"><sup>37</sup></span> And if not,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the four did not pass through the door of the six.');"><sup>38</sup></span> the first four and the si are exempt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because when the first four passed through the door the counting was properly begun, there being ten left in the shed. Likewise with the six, when they passed through the door there were four left in the shed to combine for tithing.');"><sup>39</sup></span> and the last four combine with those [born] in a later tithing period. If four passed through thi door and four through another door, six remaining there [in the shed], if the remaining [six] passed through the door of one of them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Either through the door of the first four or through the door of the last four.');"><sup>40</sup></span> he takes one [as tithe]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because there are ten passing through the same door.');"><sup>41</sup></span> and the rest are exempt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even those four through whose door the six did not pass, because when they went through the counting was properly begun.');"><sup>42</sup></span> And if not,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the six did not pass through the door of the first four or the door of the other four, either remaining in the shed or passing through a third door.');"><sup>43</sup></span> [the first] four and [the second] four are exempt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because in the case of both the first and the second four lambs, the counting was properly begun, there being ten in the shed at the time of counting.');"><sup>44</sup></span> and the [remaining] six combine with those [born] in a later tithing period. What does he [Raba] teach us? That a counting properly begun exempts! But has not Raba already taught us this ruling? - You might have said that we apply the principle that a counting properly begun exempts where it is certain that there is a proper number<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where, for example, he counted five or six and there were sufficient lambs in the shed to combine for tithing purposes, there being also one door in the shed. In such circumstances, the rest are certainly fit to pass through that door and to combine in order to be tithed with those already counted.');"><sup>45</sup></span> but where it is uncertain whether there is a proper number<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As, for example, where four passed through one door and four through another door, six remaining in the shed. Here we cannot say whether the six will pass through this door or the other.');"><sup>46</sup></span> seeing that it is possible to combine the six either here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the four which passed through one door.');"><sup>47</sup></span> or there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the four which passed through the second door.');"><sup>48</sup></span> we do not apply [this ruling].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a counting properly begun exempting from tithing.');"><sup>49</sup></span> He [Rab] therefore informs us [that it is not so]. Raba further said: If he had fifteen<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The number is not strictly meant, the usual practice however being to combine five with five so as to make up the required number for tithing');"><sup>50</sup></span> lambs he cannot say: 'I will select ten, bring them into the shed, take one [as tithe] from them and the rest will be exempt'. But he must bring them [all] into the shed, bring out ten lambs, take one from them [as the tithe] and the rest combine with those [born] in a later tithing period. So indeed it has been taught: If he had fifteen lambs