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?
This month’s learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z”l, on his 1st yahrzeit. As an educator, principal of Yeshiva of Flatbush, and community rabbi, he inspired thousands with his wisdom, warmth, and unwavering commitment to Torah.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z”l, on his 1st yahrzeit. As an educator, principal of Yeshiva of Flatbush, and community rabbi, he inspired thousands with his wisdom, warmth, and unwavering commitment to Torah.
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 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Yevamot 41:Elijah the Prophet to Clarify Which Woman Is Which
04.17.2022 | ט״ז בניסן תשפ״ב
Shekalim First Three Chapters – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
03.31.2021 | י״ח בניסן תשפ״א
Extempore Effusions on the Completion of Masechet Niddah, Prakim Bet and Gimel
09.27.2012 | י״א בתשרי תשע״ג
Yevamot 93: The Existence of the Things That Do Not Yet Exist
06.08.2022 | ט׳ בסיון תשפ״ב
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.
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Rina Goldberg
Englewood NJ, United States
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Leah Herzog
Givat Zev, Israel
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Keren Carter
Brentwood, California, United States
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld
Far Rockaway, United States
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Anne Rubin
Elkins Park, United States
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Rachel Rotenberg
Tekoa, Israel
I saw an elderly man at the shul kiddush in early March 2020, celebrating the siyyum of masechet brachot which he had been learning with a young yeshiva student. I thought, if he can do it, I can do it! I began to learn masechet Shabbat the next day, Making up masechet brachot myself, which I had missed. I haven’t missed a day since, thanks to the ease of listening to Hadran’s podcast!
Judith Shapiro
Minnesota, United States
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Judith Weil
Raanana, Israel
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
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
Vitti Kones
מיתר, ישראל
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Shira Jacobowitz
Jerusalem, Israel
I started with Ze Kollel in Berlin, directed by Jeremy Borowitz for Hillel Deutschland. We read Masechet Megillah chapter 4 and each participant wrote his commentary on a Sugia that particularly impressed him. I wrote six poems about different Sugiot! Fascinated by the discussions on Talmud I continued to learn with Rabanit Michelle Farber and am currently taking part in the Tikun Olam course.
Yael Merlini
Berlin, Germany
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Pamela Elisheva
Bakersfield, 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
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Goldie Gilad
Kfar Saba, Israel
The start of my journey is not so exceptional. I was between jobs and wanted to be sure to get out every day (this was before corona). Well, I was hooked after about a month and from then on only looked for work-from-home jobs so I could continue learning the Daf. Daf has been a constant in my life, though hurricanes, death, illness/injury, weddings. My new friends are Rav, Shmuel, Ruth, Joanna.
Judi Felber
Raanana, Israel
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Rhondda May
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Sandrine Simons
Atlanta, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
Medinah Korn
בית שמש, Israel
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Anne Rubin
Elkins Park, United States
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
