Bekhorot 120
[Against this] you can argue thus: Since it [the tenth] is holy and [the animal] he by mistake [called the tenth] is consecrated, just as [the tenth] is onl consecrated when it is next [to it],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And what can be nearer to the tenth animal than the very animal itself?');"><sup>4</sup></span>
similarly [the animal] called by mistake [the tenth] can only be one?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that if he made a mistake in calling the ninth and the eleventh the tenth, both are not consecrated but only one. How then can you say that all are consecrated?');"><sup>7</sup></span>
For it has been taught: R'Eleazar B'Simeon says: The eleventh is holy only when he is silent at the ninth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he did not call it the tenth, for had he done so the eleventh would not have been holy, as then he would have made two mistakes.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
calls the tenth the ninth, and the eleventh the tenth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There being only one mistake here viz., calling the eleventh the tenth, because calling the tenth the ninth is no mistake, since the tenth automatically becomes consecrated (R. Gershom) .');"><sup>10</sup></span>
He [R'Eleazar] concurs with R'Judah who said: A mistake in counting the animal for tithes renders [the animal styled tenth] as a substitute,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The animal marked as the tenth by mistake is deemed sacred as a substitute, and having therefore made the ninth a tenth, the eleventh can no more become a substitute, as R. Judah says in the Mishnah above.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
and he also holds the opinion of his father [R'Simeon] who said: No substitute can effect another substitute.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Tem. 9a. And similarly here two mistakes, viz., calling the ninth the tenth and the eleventh the tenth, do not confer holiness on the two animals in substitution for the holiness of the tenth.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
and he called them the ninth, the tenth and hullin are mixed together.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And they must not be eaten unless in a blemished state and if he shears or works one of the animals, he is not liable to lashes since it may be hullin.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
the tenth, the tenth and the ninth are mixed together.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They are both therefore holy, and if he redeemed or sold one of them he is liable to lashes, for he called them both the tenth, and the owners can eat them only while they are blemished (R. Gershom) .');"><sup>17</sup></span>
and he called them the tenth, the tenth and the eleventh are mixed together.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The tenth is actually the tithe and the eleventh is a peace-offering. Therefore both are sacrificed and are eaten subject to the restriction applying to each, viz., two sprinklings of blood and the separation of the breast and shoulder for the priest.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
- He informs us of this, that wherever they came out at the same time and he called them the tenth they are consecrated, although the name of the tenth was not eliminated therefrom.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he also called the tenth the tenth.');"><sup>24</sup></span>
Said R'Ashi to R'Kahana: But the name of the tenth has not been eliminated therefrom, and we have learnt: THE FOLLOWING IS THE RULE: WHEREVER THE NAME OF THE TENTH HAS NOT BEEN ELIMINATED THEREFROM THE ELEVENTH IS NOT CONSECRATED?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., where he called the tenth the tenth. Therefore how can the eleventh be holy here, since he called the tenth the tenth?');"><sup>25</sup></span>
It includes the case where the tenth came out and he did not say anything,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He did not call it the tenth, and yet the eleventh which subsequently came out and which he called the tenth is not holy, because the tenth becomes holy in its own accord, the silence not being considered the elimination of the name of the tenth therefrom.');"><sup>31</sup></span>
for here the name of the tenth was not eliminated therefrom.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But where both came out of the shed at the same time and he called the tenth and the eleventh the tenth, they are both holy.');"><sup>32</sup></span>
Must not we say therefore that wherever both came out [of the shed] at the same time they are consecrated? - Were it only for this, there would be no proof, because the case here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Baraitha which says that the tenth and the eleventh are mixed together and we regard the eleventh as consecrated, although he called the tenth the tenth.');"><sup>36</sup></span>
is where one put forth its head before the other and he called it the eleventh,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus removing the name of the tenth therefrom, since he did not call it the tenth but the eleventh. Where he called it the ninth, there is no question that this is eliminating the name of the tenth, but the Baraitha wishes to inform us that even if he called it the eleventh, although this is not the view of Rabbi below, it is also regarded as removing the name of the tenth.');"><sup>37</sup></span>
and subsequently, it mixed with the others [and two animals] came out together and he called them the tenth, the name of the tenth having thus been eliminated therefrom.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore the eleventh is holy. But where he first called them the tenth, although they came out together, it may be that the eleventh is not consecrated.');"><sup>38</sup></span>
But does not [the Baraitha] state above: 'One not preceding the other'? - The phrase 'One not preceding the other' means that it afterwards mixed with the others.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And then both animals actually came out at the same time, one not preceding the other.');"><sup>39</sup></span>
Not that of Rabbi, for if that of Rabbi, does he not say: The [calling of] the eleventh [befor the tenth] is not considered as eliminating [the name of the tenth]? - You may even say that this represents the opinion of Rabbi, for Rabbi's ruling refers only to a case where he has many animals to tithe, for then we say that he means 'one [group of] ten'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' (eleven) lit., 'one ten' may signify (by dividing the words) 'one (group) of ten', and meaning: this is the first tenth, the first ten rag sjt animals that have been tithed. Therefore by calling the tenth he has not really eliminated the name of the tenth therefrom according to Rabbi. rag sjt');"><sup>41</sup></span>
But here we are referring to a case where he has no more animals.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Than eleven, or twelve or thirteen, or fifteen. We cannot therefore explain the words as meaning the first ten, as this would imply that he has more tens of animals to tithe. In this instance, consequently, he must actually mean to call the animal the eleventh, and even Rabbi will admit here that the calling of the tenth the eleventh eliminates the name of the tenth therefrom.');"><sup>42</sup></span>
[It has been said]: If two came out at the tenth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Referring to the ruling of Raba above where he called both animals which came out at the tenth the tenth and we say that the tenth and the eleventh are mixed together. The Gemara now proceeds to give a number of Baraithas which explain the implications of the phrase 'the tenth and eleventh are mixed together'.');"><sup>47</sup></span>
And yet another teaches: Let them be left to die. There is no contradiction here. The one which says: Let them pasture, gives the opinion of the Rabbis who say: We must not wittingly cause sacred flesh to be brought to the place where the unfit [are burnt].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now here since we have the tithe and a peace-offering, if we offer them up and impose on them the restrictions applying to each of them, we shall have to separate the breast and the right shoulder of each animal for the priest, owing to the doubt that each may be the peace-offering. It may happen that the priests have many sacrifices to eat and will not be able to partake of the breast etc., thus causing sacred meat to be burnt. But in the case of the tithe, not only priests are privileged to eat it but also Israelites, and, as there are many Israelites, there is no fear that sacred meat might be left over to be burnt among the unfit. Thus if we impose on both the restrictions applying to each of them, we shall have to treat both animals as peace-offerings as far as the priest's gifts of the breast etc. are concerned. We therefore say that the remedy is to condemn them both to pasture until they become blemished, one being redeemed and both eaten while blemished (R. Gershom) .');"><sup>49</sup></span>