If the tenth and eleventh comes out together and the owner calls them “tenth”, what are the different opinions regarding the halacha? If his messenger makes a mistake, is it the same as if the owner did, or is it different?
Bekhorot 61
06.17.2019 | י״ד בסיון תשע״ט
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Bekhorot 61
וְהָא דְּתָנֵי יִקְרְיבוּ — רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: מְבִיאִין קָדָשִׁים לְבֵית הַפְּסוּל.
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.
וְהָא דְּתָנֵי יָמוּתוּ — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּאָמַר: טָעוּת מַעֲשֵׂר, תְּמוּרָה הָוְיָא, קָסָבַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: תְּמוּרַת מַעֲשֵׂר מֵתָה.
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.
וְקָסָבַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה תְּמוּרַת מַעֲשֵׂר מֵתָה? וְהָתְנַן, אָמְרוּ מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: אִילּוּ הָיָה תְּמוּרָה לֹא הָיָה קָרֵב, מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר קָרֵב!
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.
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!
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.
וְעוֹד, דְּתַנְיָא: ״אִם מִן הַבָּקָר״ — לְרַבּוֹת אַחַד עָשָׂר לִשְׁלָמִים.
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.
יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה אַף הַתְּשִׁיעִי? אָמַרְתָּ: וְכִי הֶקְדֵּשׁ לְפָנָיו מְקַדֵּשׁ אוֹ לְאַחֲרָיו מְקַדֵּשׁ? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר — לְאַחֲרָיו מְקַדֵּשׁ.
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.
סְתָם סִיפְרָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְקָתָנֵי: ״מִן הַבָּקָר״ — לְרַבּוֹת אַחַד עָשָׂר לִשְׁלָמִים.
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.
אֶלָּא תַּרְגְּמַהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרַבִּי אַבָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּמַעֲשֵׂר בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה עָסְקִינַן, וּמִשּׁוּם תַּקָּלָה.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
וּמַאי שְׁנָא מֵהָא דִּתְנַן: הָאוֹמֵר לִשְׁלוּחוֹ ״צֵא וּתְרוֹם״ — תּוֹרֵם כְּדַעַת בַּעַל הַבַּיִת.
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.
אִם אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת — תּוֹרֵם בְּבֵינוֹנִית, אֶחָד מֵחֲמִשִּׁים. פִּיחֵת עֲשָׂרָה אוֹ הוֹסִיף עֲשָׂרָה — תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה?
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.
אָמְרִי: הָתָם, כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא דְּתָרֵים בְּעַיִן יָפָה, וְאִיכָּא דְּתָרֵים בְּעַיִן רָעָה, אָמַר: לְהָכִי אֲמַדְתִּיךְ. הָכָא טָעוּתָא הִיא, אָמַר: לָא אִיבְּעִי לָךְ לְמִיטְעֵי.
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.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה, וּסְלִיקָא לַהּ מַסֶּכֶת בְּכוֹרוֹת.
Follow 
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Shira Krebs
Minnesota, United States
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Roslyn Jaffe
Florida, United States
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Sharona Guggenheim Plumb
Givat Shmuel, Israel
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Leah Goldford
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Lisa S. Malik
Wynnewood, United States
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
Rabbi Nicki Greninger
California, United States
My family recently made Aliyah, because we believe the next chapter in the story of the Jewish people is being written here, and we want to be a part of it. Daf Yomi, on the other hand, connects me BACK, to those who wrote earlier chapters thousands of years ago. So, I feel like I’m living in the middle of this epic story. I’m learning how it all began, and looking ahead to see where it goes!
Tina Lamm
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Anne Mirsky
Maale Adumim, Israel
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Shira Eliaser
Skokie, IL, United States
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dianne Kuchar
Dover Heights, Australia
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Elisheva Brauner
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Mona Fishbane
Teaneck NJ, United States
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Rochel Cheifetz
Riverdale, NY, United States
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Silke Goldberg
Guildford, United Kingdom
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Barbara Goldschlag
Silver Spring, MD, United States
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Susan Vishner
Brookline, United States
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Diana Bloom
Tampa, United States
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Lisa Kolodny
Raanana, Israel
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Sharon Mink
Haifa, Israel
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
Dena Lehrman
אפרת, Israel
Bekhorot 61
וְהָא דְּתָנֵי יִקְרְיבוּ — רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: מְבִיאִין קָדָשִׁים לְבֵית הַפְּסוּל.
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.
וְהָא דְּתָנֵי יָמוּתוּ — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּאָמַר: טָעוּת מַעֲשֵׂר, תְּמוּרָה הָוְיָא, קָסָבַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: תְּמוּרַת מַעֲשֵׂר מֵתָה.
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.
וְקָסָבַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה תְּמוּרַת מַעֲשֵׂר מֵתָה? וְהָתְנַן, אָמְרוּ מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: אִילּוּ הָיָה תְּמוּרָה לֹא הָיָה קָרֵב, מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר קָרֵב!
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.
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!
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.
וְעוֹד, דְּתַנְיָא: ״אִם מִן הַבָּקָר״ — לְרַבּוֹת אַחַד עָשָׂר לִשְׁלָמִים.
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.
יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה אַף הַתְּשִׁיעִי? אָמַרְתָּ: וְכִי הֶקְדֵּשׁ לְפָנָיו מְקַדֵּשׁ אוֹ לְאַחֲרָיו מְקַדֵּשׁ? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר — לְאַחֲרָיו מְקַדֵּשׁ.
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.
סְתָם סִיפְרָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְקָתָנֵי: ״מִן הַבָּקָר״ — לְרַבּוֹת אַחַד עָשָׂר לִשְׁלָמִים.
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.
אֶלָּא תַּרְגְּמַהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרַבִּי אַבָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּמַעֲשֵׂר בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה עָסְקִינַן, וּמִשּׁוּם תַּקָּלָה.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
וּמַאי שְׁנָא מֵהָא דִּתְנַן: הָאוֹמֵר לִשְׁלוּחוֹ ״צֵא וּתְרוֹם״ — תּוֹרֵם כְּדַעַת בַּעַל הַבַּיִת.
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.
אִם אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת — תּוֹרֵם בְּבֵינוֹנִית, אֶחָד מֵחֲמִשִּׁים. פִּיחֵת עֲשָׂרָה אוֹ הוֹסִיף עֲשָׂרָה — תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְּרוּמָה?
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.
אָמְרִי: הָתָם, כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא דְּתָרֵים בְּעַיִן יָפָה, וְאִיכָּא דְּתָרֵים בְּעַיִן רָעָה, אָמַר: לְהָכִי אֲמַדְתִּיךְ. הָכָא טָעוּתָא הִיא, אָמַר: לָא אִיבְּעִי לָךְ לְמִיטְעֵי.
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.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה, וּסְלִיקָא לַהּ מַסֶּכֶת בְּכוֹרוֹת.
Follow
