Mishnah Bekhorot 9:7-8

Sugya Map

• Issue: The intricate halakhic parameters governing Ma'aser Behema (animal tithe), specifically its geographic and temporal applicability, the criteria for grouping animals for tithing, the procedural requirements for its separation, and the halakhic implications of errors or doubts during the process. The Mishnah delves into the definition of eligible animals, the concept of "new" vs. "old" flocks, the unique status of sheep and goats, the acquisition methods that trigger or exempt from the obligation, and the specific annual "gathering" times.
• Nafka Mina(s): The practical ramifications are manifold, impacting livestock owners directly.
  • Applicability: Determining if one's herd or flock is even subject to Ma'aser Behema based on location (Eretz Yisrael vs. Chutz La'aretz) and the Temple's existence.
  • Grouping: Understanding which animals can be tithed together (e.g., sheep and goats vs. "herd" and "flock," or "new" vs. "old"). This affects the minimum threshold of ten animals required to trigger the obligation.
  • Exemptions: Identifying animals exempt from tithing (e.g., kilayim, tereifa, yotzei dofen, tam, yatom, purchased/gifted animals, or those whose owners are subject to kalbon).
  • Procedure: The precise method of tithing via the dir (pen), shevet (rod), and sikra (red paint), and the b'dieved validity if procedural nuances are missed.
  • Errors & Doubts: The critical halakha regarding safek Ma'aser Behema (doubtful tithe) and its unique lenient resolution, leading to petur (exemption) or yir'u ad sheyist'avu (graze until blemished).
  • Annual Cycle: Establishing the "new year" for Ma'aser Behema and the designated "gathering" times, which dictate the permissibility of selling or slaughtering animals before tithing.
• Primary Sources:
  • Mishnah Bekhorot 9:7-8 (the core text under analysis).
  • Vayikra (Leviticus) 27:32: "וְכָל מַעְשַׂר בָּקָר וָצֹאן כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבֹר תַּחַת הַשָּׁבֶט הָעֲשִׂירִי יִהְיֶה קֹּדֶשׁ לַה'" (And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred to the Lord). This foundational verse dictates the nature and method of tithing.
  • Bamidbar (Numbers) 18:27: "וְנֶחְשַׁב לָכֶם תְּרוּמַתְכֶם כַּדָּגָן מִן הַגֹּרֶן וְכַמְּלֵאָה מִן הַיֶּקֶב" (And your heave-offering shall be reckoned to you as grain from the threshing floor and as the fullness from the winepress). This verse is crucial for the heqesh (analogy) invoked by R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda regarding omed (estimation) in tithing.
  • Gemara Bekhorot 58a-60b, which extensively elaborates on the Mishnah's principles and introduces further distinctions and challenges.
  • Tosefta Bekhorot 7:1-12, providing parallel and supplementary halakhot.

Text Snapshot

The Mishnah (Bekhorot 9:7-8) presents a comprehensive overview of Ma'aser Behema, categorized by its applicability, procedural details, and consequences of errors.

Mishnah Bekhorot 9:7

מִצְוַת מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה נוֹהֶגֶת בָּאָרֶץ וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת. בְּחֻלִּין, וְלֹא בְּקָדָשִׁים. בַּבָּקָר וּבַצֹּאן, וְאֵין מְעַשְׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה; וּבַכְּבָשִׂים וּבָעִזִּים, וּמְעַשְׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה. בְּחָדָשׁ וּבְיָשָׁן, וְאֵין מְעַשְׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה. קַל וָחֹמֶר הָיָה בּוֹ: וּמָה אִם חָדָשׁ וְיָשָׁן, שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן כִּלְאַיִם זֶה בָּזֶה, אֵין מְעַשְׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה; כְּבָשִׂים וְעִזִּים, שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן כִּלְאַיִם זֶה בָּזֶה, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁלֹּא יְעַשְׂרוּ מִזֶּה עַל זֶה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: "אוֹ הַצֹּאן", מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכֻּלָּן אֶחָד. מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה מִצְטָרְפִין עַד מְהַלֵּךְ בְּהֵמָה רוֹעֶה. וְכַמָּה מְהַלֵּךְ בְּהֵמָה רוֹעֶה? שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר מִיל. הָיוּ בֵּין אֵלּוּ לְאֵלּוּ שְׁלֹשִׁים וּשְׁנַיִם מִיל, אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין. הָיָה לוֹ אֶמְצָעִי, מְבִיאָן וּמְעַשְׂרָן בָּאֶמְצַע. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: הַיַּרְדֵּן חוֹצֵץ בְּמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה. הַלּוֹקֵחַ אוֹ שֶׁנִּתַּן לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה, פָּטוּר מִמַּעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה. אַחִין וְשֻׁתָּפִין, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן חַיָּבִין בְּקַלְבּוֹן פְּטוּרִין מִמַּעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה. וְחַיָּבִין בְּמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה פְּטוּרִין מִקַּלְבּוֹן. כֵּיצַד? לָקְחוּ מִתּוֹךְ בֵּית אָב, חַיָּבִין; וְאִם לָאו, פְּטוּרִין. חָלְקוּ וְחָזְרוּ וְנִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ, חַיָּבִין בְּקַלְבּוֹן וּפְטוּרִין מִמַּעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה.

• Dikduk/Leshon Nuance:
  • "בְּחֻלִּין, וְלֹא בְּקָדָשִׁים" (with regard to non-sacred animals but not with regard to sacrificial animals): This distinction is fundamental. Ma'aser Behema itself creates kedusha, so it doesn't apply to animals already consecrated. This highlights the transformative nature of the tithe.
  • "בַּבָּקָר וּבַצֹּאן, וְאֵין מְעַשְׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה; וּבַכְּבָשִׂים וּבָעִזִּים, וּמְעַשְׂרִין מִזֶּה עַל זֶה": The Mishnah distinguishes between "herd" (baqar) and "flock" (tzon) as non-mixable categories for tithing, but then specifies that "sheep" (kvasim) and "goats" (izim), both falling under tzon, can be tithed from one another. The kal v'chomer (a fortiori argument) that follows, and its refutation by "תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: 'אוֹ הַצֹּאן', מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכֻּלָּן אֶחָד" (the verse states: 'or the flock,' teaching that all are one species), is a prime example of the Torah overriding logical inference, establishing the unique halakhic unity of sheep and goats for ma'aser despite their kilayim (diverse kinds) status for mating.
  • "מִצְטָרְפִין עַד מְהַלֵּךְ בְּהֵמָה רוֹעֶה" (join together up to the distance a grazing animal can walk): This defines the maximum distance for animals to be considered one flock for tithing, setting a tangible boundary based on a shepherd's practical reach. The explicit definition of "שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר מִיל" (sixteen mil) provides precision.
  • "חַיָּבִין בְּקַלְבּוֹן פְּטוּרִין מִמַּעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה" (obligated in kalbon are exempt from animal tithe): This is a fascinating interaction between two distinct mitzvot. The kalbon was a premium added to the half-shekel Temple tax. The correlation suggests a conceptual link between ownership and obligation, where certain types of partnership or inheritance might exempt from one while obligating in the other. The Mishnah clarifies this with "לָקְחוּ מִתּוֹךְ בֵּית אָב, חַיָּבִין; וְאִם לָאו, פְּטוּרִין" (if they acquired from their father's house, they are obligated; if not, they are exempt) and "חָלְקוּ וְחָזְרוּ וְנִשְׁתַּתְּפוּ, חַיָּבִין בְּקַלְבּוֹן וּפְטוּרִין מִמַּעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה" (if they divided and re-partnered, they are obligated in kalbon and exempt from animal tithe), highlighting that the source and continuity of ownership are critical.

Mishnah Bekhorot 9:8

כָּל הַבְּהֵמוֹת נִכְנָסוֹת לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר, חוּץ מִכִּלְאַיִם, וּטְרֵפָה, וְיוֹצֵא דֹפֶן, וְטָם, וְיָתוֹם. וְאֵיזֶה הוּא יָתוֹם? כֹּל שֶׁמֵּתָה אִמּוֹ אוֹ נִשְׁחֲטָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יָלְדָה. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אֲפִלּוּ נִשְׁחֲטָה אִמּוֹ וְעוֹרָהּ קַיָּם, אֵינוֹ יָתוֹם. שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים בַּשָּׁנָה כּוֹנְסִין לְמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה: סָמוּךְ לַפֶּסַח, וְסָמוּךְ לָעֲצֶרֶת, וְסָמוּךְ לֶחָג. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן גָּרְנוֹת מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: בְּכ"ט בַּאֲדָר, בְּא' בְּסִיוָן, וּבְכ"ט בְּאָב. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: בְּא' בְּנִיסָן, בְּא' בְּסִיוָן, וּבְכ"ט בְּאֱלוּל. וְלָמָּה אָמְרוּ בְּכ"ט בְּאֱלוּל, וְלֹא אָמְרוּ בְּא' בְּתִשְׁרֵי? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא יוֹם טוֹב, וְאֵין מְעַשְּׂרִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב. לְפִיכָךְ הִקְדִּימוּהוּ לְכ"ט בְּאֱלוּל. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לְמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה בְּא' בְּאֱלוּל. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: אֱלוּל מִתְעַשֵּׂר בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. כָּל שֶׁנּוֹלַד מֵא' בְּתִשְׁרֵי עַד כ"ט בְּאֱלוּל, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מִצְטָרְפִין. חֲמִשָּׁה קֹדֶם רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה לְאַחַר רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה, אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין. חֲמִשָּׁה קֹדֶם גֹּרֶן וַחֲמִשָּׁה לְאַחַר גֹּרֶן, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מִצְטָרְפִין. אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה אָמְרוּ שָׁלֹשׁ גָּרְנוֹת לְמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה? שֶׁעַד שֶׁלֹּא תַּגִּיעַ הַגֹּרֶן מֻתָּר לִמְכֹּר וְלִשְׁחֹט. הִגִּיעַ הַגֹּרֶן, אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לִשְׁחֹט; וְאִם שָׁחַט, פָּטוּר. כֵּיצַד מְעַשְּׂרִין אוֹתָן? כּוֹנְסָן לַדִּיר וְעוֹשֶׂה לָהֶן פֶּתַח קָטָן, שֶׁלֹּא יָצְאוּ שְׁנַיִם בְּבַת אַחַת. וּמוֹנֶה אוֹתָן: אֶחָד, שְׁנַיִם, שְׁלֹשָׁה, אַרְבָּעָה, חֲמִשָּׁה, שִׁשָּׁה, שִׁבְעָה, שְׁמוֹנָה, תֵּשַׁע; וְצָבַע אֶת הָעֲשִׂירִי בְּסִקְרָא, וְאוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי זֶה מַעֲשֵׂר. אֲפִלּוּ לֹא צְבָעוֹ בְּסִקְרָא, וְלֹא מְנָאוֹ בְּשָׁבֶט, אוֹ שֶׁמְּנָאוֹ רְבוּצִין אוֹ עוֹמְדִין, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מְעֻשָּׂרִין. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ לוֹ מֵאָה וְנָטַל עֲשָׂרָה, עֲשָׂרָה וְנָטַל אֶחָד, אֵינוֹ מַעֲשֵׂר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי זֶה מַעֲשֵׂר. קָפַץ אֶחָד מִן הַמְּנוּיִין לְתוֹךְ הַטְּלָאִים, כֻּלָּן פְּטוּרִין. מִן הַמְּעֻשָּׂרִין לְתוֹךְ הַטְּלָאִים, כֻּלָּן יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֲבוּ, וְיֵאָכְלוּ בְמוּמָן לַבְּעָלִים. יָצְאוּ שְׁנַיִם בְּבַת אַחַת, מוֹנֶה אוֹתָן שְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם. טָעָה וְקָרָא לְאֶחָד מֵהֶן אֶחָד, תְּשִׁיעִי וַעֲשִׂירִי פְּסוּלִין. קָרָא לַתְּשִׁיעִי עֲשִׂירִי, וְלָעֲשִׂירִי תְּשִׁיעִי, וְלָאַחַד עָשָׂר עֲשִׂירִי, שְׁלָשְׁתָּן קְדוֹשִׁין. תְּשִׁיעִי נֶאֱכָל בְּמוּמוֹ, וַעֲשִׂירִי מַעֲשֵׂר, וְאַחַד עָשָׂר קָרְבַּן שְׁלָמִים, וּמַקְדִּישׁ תְּמוּרָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כְּבָר אָמַרְנוּ, וְכִי תְּמוּרָה עוֹשָׂה תְמוּרָה? אָמְרוּ מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר: אִם תְּמוּרָה הוּא, אֵינוֹ קָרֵב. קָרָא לַתְּשִׁיעִי עֲשִׂירִי, וְלָעֲשִׂירִי עֲשִׂירִי, וְלָאַחַד עָשָׂר עֲשִׂירִי, אֵין הָאַחַד עָשָׂר קָדוֹשׁ. זֶה הַכְּלָל: כָּל שֶׁלֹּא הֻסַּר שֵׁם עֲשִׂירִי מֵעַל הָעֲשִׂירִי, אֵין הָאַחַד עָשָׂר קָדוֹשׁ.

• Dikduk/Leshon Nuance:
  • "חוּץ מִכִּלְאַיִם, וּטְרֵפָה, וְיוֹצֵא דֹפֶן, וְטָם, וְיָתוֹם" (except for diverse kinds, a tereifa, one born by Caesarean section, one whose time has not yet arrived, and an orphan): This list provides specific exemptions, clarifying that Ma'aser Behema applies only to healthy, natural-birth animals of a pure species, at least eight days old. The definition of yatom ("כֹּל שֶׁמֵּתָה אִמּוֹ אוֹ נִשְׁחֲטָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יָלְדָה" – whose mother died or was slaughtered and thereafter gave birth) focuses on the mother's status at the critical moment of birth. R' Yehoshua's dissent "אֲפִלּוּ נִשְׁחֲטָה אִמּוֹ וְעוֹרָהּ קַיָּם, אֵינוֹ יָתוֹם" (even if its mother was slaughtered but its hide exists, it is not an orphan) highlights a debate over whether the mother's essence (represented by its hide) still provides the necessary vital connection.
  • "שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים בַּשָּׁנָה כּוֹנְסִין לְמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה" (three times a year for gathering animal tithe): These "gathering times" (gornot) are akin to the "new year" for tithes, establishing a cutoff for which animals group together and impacting the permissibility of sale/slaughter. The disagreement between R' Akiva, Ben Azzai, and R' Elazar/R' Shimon (and R' Meir's Rosh Hashanah definition) underscores the lack of a clear biblical mandate for these dates and their rabbinic establishment. The reason for 29th Elul instead of 1st Tishrei ("מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא יוֹם טוֹב, וְאֵין מְעַשְּׂרִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב") is a crucial insight into the practical constraints of halakha.
  • "כֵּיצַד מְעַשְּׂרִין אוֹתָן? כּוֹנְסָן לַדִּיר וְעוֹשֶׂה לָהֶן פֶּתַח קָטָן... וּמוֹנֶה אוֹתָן... וְצָבַע אֶת הָעֲשִׂירִי בְּסִקְרָא, וְאוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי זֶה מַעֲשֵׂר": This describes the ideal, l'chatchila (ideally) procedure, directly referencing Vayikra 27:32. The requirement for a narrow opening ("פֶּתַח קָטָן") ensures individual counting "תחת השבט." The red paint (sikra) is a visual marker, and the verbal declaration ("הֲרֵי זֶה מַעֲשֵׂר") is essential for kedusha.
  • "אֲפִלּוּ לֹא צְבָעוֹ בְּסִקְרָא, וְלֹא מְנָאוֹ בְּשָׁבֶט... הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מְעֻשָּׂרִין. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ לוֹ מֵאָה וְנָטַל עֲשָׂרָה... אֵינוֹ מַעֲשֵׂר": This is a pivotal distinction. While the ma'aseh (physical action) of the rod and paint are l'chatchila, their absence does not invalidate the tithe b'dieved (after the fact) if the animals were still counted sequentially. However, simply taking a numerical tenth ("נטל עשרה") without the sequential counting mechanism does invalidate it. This underscores that the sequential revelation of the tenth is the essence, not merely the ratio.
  • "קָפַץ אֶחָד מִן הַמְּנוּיִין... כֻּלָּן פְּטוּרִין. מִן הַמְּעֻשָּׂרִין... כֻּלָּן יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֲבוּ": This critically important section deals with safek (doubt). If an animal that was merely counted (but not yet designated as the tenth) jumps back, all are exempt. If an animal already designated as the tenth jumps back, all must be grazed until blemished. The distinction hinges on whether kedusha (sanctity) has already attached.
  • "קָרָא לַתְּשִׁיעִי עֲשִׂירִי, וְלָעֲשִׂירִי תְּשִׁיעִי, וְלָאַחַד עָשָׂר עֲשִׂירִי, שְׁלָשְׁתָּן קְדוֹשִׁין": This complex scenario illustrates the power of verbal designation, even when erroneous. R' Meir's opinion that the eleventh animal called "tenth" becomes a korban shlamim (peace offering) and makes a temura (substitute) is highly specific. R' Yehuda challenges this temura aspect, arguing "וְכִי תְּמוּרָה עוֹשָׂה תְמוּרָה?" (does a substitute make a substitute?). The Mishnah concludes with a general rule: "כָּל שֶׁלֹּא הֻסַּר שֵׁם עֲשִׂירִי מֵעַל הָעֲשִׂירִי, אֵין הָאַחַד עָשָׂר קָדוֹשׁ" (where the name of the tenth was not removed from the tenth animal, the eleventh is not consecrated), emphasizing that the true tenth must remain designated as such for the eleventh to potentially gain kedusha.

Readings

1. Rambam, Commentary to the Mishnah, Bekhorot 9:7-8

The Rambam, in his Perush HaMishnayot, provides a clear and concise elucidation of the Mishnah, often drawing upon broader halakhic principles established in the Gemara. His commentary serves as a foundational text for understanding the p'shat (simple meaning) and the underlying sevarot (logical reasons) of the Mishnah's rulings.

Definition of Key Terms and Procedures:

The Rambam begins by clarifying the procedural aspects of tithing. He explains, "דיר הוא מקום המוקף שמכניסין בו הצאן והבקר בשעת מעשר ולפעמים יהא מוקף בנין או קנים וכיוצא בו" (A dir is an enclosed area into which sheep and cattle are brought at the time of tithing, and it may sometimes be enclosed by a building or reeds or the like). This definition emphasizes the practical necessity of gathering the animals in a controlled environment to facilitate the individual counting required by the verse "תחת השבט." The narrow opening, as mentioned in the Mishnah, is crucial for ensuring that only one animal passes at a time, preventing manipulation or ambiguity in the count. He further clarifies "סיקרא סם ידוע לצבע אדום שקורין בלעז פידדה שנגוני"ה" (Sikra is a known red dye which they call in a foreign tongue pideda shanjonia), providing a linguistic and practical detail about the red paint used to mark the tenth animal. This detail, though seemingly minor, underscores the Mishnah's emphasis on meticulous procedure and clear designation.

Handling Remnants and Carry-overs:

The Rambam notes a halakha from the Tosefta regarding cases where the number of animals in the dir is less than ten after tithing. He states, "וכבר נתבאר בתוספתא שאם יותר ממנין הבהמות פחות מעשרה בתוך הדיר מניחן והן מתעשרין לשנה הבאה כשמניחין אותן עם האחרות וחייב להכניס הכל לדיר בהכרח ומה שיותר ישאר לשנה הבאה" (It has already been explained in the Tosefta that if there are animals remaining in the dir less than ten, he leaves them, and they are tithed in the coming year when they are put with others. And he is obligated to bring all of them into the dir necessarily, and whatever remains will stay for the coming year). This is a crucial point, highlighting that the chiyuv (obligation) to tithe is not lost if the minimum threshold isn't met in a given year. Rather, the animals "carry over" to the next tithing cycle, emphasizing the enduring nature of the obligation tied to the animal's birth year within the tithing cycle.

The Principle of Safek Ma'aser Behema (Doubtful Animal Tithe):

The Rambam provides a concise yet profound explanation for the halakha concerning an animal that jumps back into the pen. He distinguishes between two cases:

1. "קפץ אחד מן המנויין" (one of the counted animals jumped back): Here, the Rambam explains, "אח"כ אמר אם קפץ אחד מן המנויין והן שנמנו בשעת יציאתן מן הדיר לתוך הטלאים שבדיר שלא נמנו עדיין הרי הן פטורין ר"ל שאינן חייבין כל מה שבדיר מעשר לפי שכל אחד מהן ספק אם הוא מנוי שאינו חייב במעשר לפי שאינו נמנה שתי פעמים או מן הצאן שבדיר שחייב במעשר" (Afterwards it said, if one of the counted animals – which were counted as they exited the dir – jumped back into the lambs in the dir that had not yet been counted, then they are exempt. This means that all the animals in the dir are not obligated in tithe, because each one of them is doubtful whether it is a counted animal which is not obligated in tithe because it is not counted twice, or from the flock in the dir which is obligated in tithe). The core sevara (reasoning) is then articulated: "והעיקר בידינו כמו שנתבאר במציעתא כל ספיקא לאו בני עשורי נינהו" (And the principle is in our hands, as explained in Bava Metzia, that any animal of doubtful status is not subject to tithing). This is a fundamental principle in Ma'aser Behema, a unique leniency for a d'oraita (Torah) obligation. The kedusha of Ma'aser Behema attaches only to a definite tenth animal. If there is uncertainty, the kedusha cannot attach, and thus the chiyuv falls away for all. This is distinct from many other sfekot d'oraita which are resolved l'chumra (stringently).

2. "מן המעושרין" (one of the tithed animals jumped back): In this case, where the tenth animal has already been designated and kedusha has attached, the Rambam states, "ומה שאמר מן המעושרין ר"ל מן הטלאים שהיו מעושרים אם קפץ מהן אפי' אחר לתוך הדיר שכולן ירעו עד שיסתאבו ויאכלו במומן לבעלים" (And what it said, 'from the tithed animals,' meaning from the lambs that were tithed, if even one of them jumped back into the dir, then all of them must graze until they become blemished, and they may be eaten in their blemished state by their owner). Here, because kedusha has already been established on a definite animal, the uncertainty now makes all animals potentially sacred. Since we cannot sacrifice an animal of safek kedusha, they are left to develop a blemish, at which point their kedusha is diminished, allowing them to be eaten by the owner. This is a pragmatic solution to a situation where kedusha is present but cannot be fully realized.

Rejection of R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda's View:

The Rambam concludes his commentary on the Mishnah's procedural section by stating, "ואין הלכה כר' יוסי בר' יהודה" (And the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda). This refers to R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda's opinion that simply taking one-tenth of the animals (e.g., 10 out of 100) constitutes valid tithing, even without the sequential counting and rod. The Rambam, by rejecting this view, reaffirms the normative halakha that the specific ma'aseh (action) of sequential counting, even if the rod and paint are not me'akev (indispensable), is essential for the kedusha of Ma'aser Behema to attach. The kedusha is tied to the revelation of the tenth through the specific process, not merely a mathematical ratio.

2. Tosafot Yom Tov, Bekhorot 9:7-8

The Tosafot Yom Tov, Rabbi Yom Tov Lippmann Heller, provides a super-commentary on the Bartenura's Mishnah commentary, often delving into the Gemara and other Rishonim to clarify or challenge interpretations. His work is characterized by its rigorous lomdus and precise textual analysis.

Elaborating on Procedural Details and B'dieved Validity:

The Tosafot Yom Tov (TYT) begins by referencing the Bartenura's explanation of sikra, simply noting, "סקרא. צבע אדום. כדפירש הר"ב בסוף משנה ה'" (Sikra. Red dye. As the Rav Bartenura explained at the end of Mishnah 5). This reflects his role as a commentator on the Bartenura, often confirming or cross-referencing. More significantly, when the Mishnah states that the tithe is valid "אפילו שלא מנאן בשבט כו'" (even if he did not count them with a rod), the TYT brings the underlying Braita: "דת"ר תחת השבט מצוה למנותן בשבט לא מנאן בשבט או שמנאן רבוצין או עומדים מנין ת"ל עשירי קודש מ"מ" (For the Rabbis taught: 'Under the rod' – it is a mitzva to count them with a rod. If he did not count them with a rod, or if he counted them lying down or standing, how is it? The verse states 'the tenth shall be sacred' – in any case). This Braita is crucial as it explicitly establishes the distinction between mitzva l'chatchila (ideal performance) and b'dieved (after the fact validity). The pasuk "העשירי קודש" is interpreted to mean that the kedusha attaches to the tenth animal irrespective of some procedural nuances, as long as the fundamental sequential counting has occurred. The rod and the passing through the narrow opening are hiddur mitzvah (beautification of the mitzva) or essential l'chatchila, but not me'akev for the kedusha to take hold.

Analyzing R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda's Controversial View:

The TYT provides an extensive and penetrating analysis of R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda's dissenting opinion, "ר"י בר יהודה אומר ה"ז מעשר" (Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda says: This is tithe), which allows for tithing by simply taking one-tenth (e.g., 10 out of 100) without the specific sequential counting. The TYT explains the Bartenura's reasoning: "לשון הר"ב דסבר ר"י כשם שתרומה גדולה ותרומת מעשר ניטלים באומד ומחשבה דכתיב ונחשב לכם תרומתכם" (The language of the Rav Bartenura is that R' Yosei holds that just as Terumah Gedolah and Terumat Ma'aser are taken by estimation (omed) and intention (machshava), as it is written 'and your heave-offering shall be reckoned to you'). The TYT then unpacks this heqesh (analogy) further, quoting the Braita that derives Terumat Ma'aser from Terumah Gedolah via "ונחשב לכם תרומתכם כדגן מן הגורן" (and your heave-offering shall be reckoned to you as grain from the threshing floor), where "כדגן מן הגורן" links it to Terumah Gedolah. The TYT then raises a significant hakasha (challenge) from the Tosafot (likely from Bava Metzia 6a, which he references later): "והקשו התוס' אמאי איצטריך למימר דס"ל כשם כו' דניטל באומד ובמחשבה כו' לא ה"ל למימר אלא אתקש מעשר בהמה למעשר דגן. מה מעשר דגן ניטל אחד מעשרה. אף מעשר בהמה כן אפי' בלא העברת שבט" (And the Tosafot challenged: Why was it necessary to say that R' Yosei holds that just as [Terumah] is taken by estimation and intention? He should have just said that Ma'aser Behema is likened to Ma'aser Dagan. Just as Ma'aser Dagan is taken as one-tenth, so too Ma'aser Behema is, even without the passing of the rod). The hakasha is that if the core principle is merely that a one-tenth ratio is sufficient, why introduce the complex heqesh to Terumah and the concept of omed? The TYT provides a profound terutz (resolution): "וי"ל דמשמע ליה דלרבי יוסי בר' יהודה בנטל א' מי' הוה מעשר אפי' אינם שוים כמו במכניס לדיר להתעשר דמסתמא אין דרכן להיות שוים. הלכך צריך לאוקמא כאבא אלעזר דשרי מאומד. דאי לאו דאבא אלעזר ה"א דבנטל א' מי' בעינן שוין כמו במעשר אע"ג דבמכניס לא בעינן שוין" (And it can be said that it implies to him that according to R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda, when one takes one out of ten, it is tithe even if they are not equal, as when one brings them into the dir to be tithed, it is assumed they are not usually equal. Therefore, it is necessary to establish it like Abba Eleazar, who permits by estimation. For if not for Abba Eleazar, one might have said that when taking one out of ten, we require them to be equal, as in Ma'aser, even though when bringing them into the dir we do not require them to be equal). This terutz clarifies that R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda's chiddush is not merely about the ratio, but about the validity of estimation (omed) even when the animals are not equal in value. This is a much greater departure from the traditional understanding, as it implies kedusha can attach without a clear, specific designation of the best tenth or a random selection that could be the tenth. The heqesh to Terumah is thus necessary to legitimize omed for unequal items.

Textual Variants and Broader Principles:

The TYT also addresses a textual variant in the Mishnah regarding "קפץ אחד מן המנויין לתוך הטלאים" (one of the counted animals jumped back into the lambs). He notes that the Rambam adopted the text "הרי אלו פטורין" (these are exempt), whereas the Bartenura's language "כולן פטורין" (all are exempt) seems to align with the Gemara in Bava Metzia 6a. This is a subtle but important point for textual fidelity. Finally, the TYT, in explaining the petur (exemption) for safek Ma'aser Behema, reiterates the fundamental principle: "עשירי ודאי אמר רחמנא ולא עשירי ספק" (The All-Merciful said 'a definite tenth,' not a doubtful tenth). He adds a crucial hakasha and terutz from the Tosafot regarding safek d'oraita l'chumra: "ובתוס' דב"מ דף ו' תמהו דלהקל לא ה"ל למימר דלא בטלי ברובא ע"ש... וליכא לאקשויי דספיקא קמי שמיה גליא תוס' פי"ט דשבת דף קל"ו וכיוצא בזה בספ"ד דנגעים" (And in Tosafot Bava Metzia 6a, they wondered that to be lenient, it should not have said that they are not nullified by a majority... and there is no difficulty to raise that a doubt is revealed before God, Tosafot Shabbat 136b and similar in Nega'im 4). This refers to the tension between the leniency for safek Ma'aser Behema and the general rule that safek d'oraita is l'chumra, especially when a rov (majority) of untithed animals is present. The terutz is that the safek here is not about the existence of an obligation, but about the identification of the specific object of kedusha, which requires certainty.

3. Rashash, Bekhorot 9:7-8

Rabbi Shmuel Strashun (Rashash) is known for his incisive notes on the Gemara, Rishonim, and Acharonim, often highlighting subtleties, challenging interpretations, and offering profound chiddushim (novel insights). His commentary on the Mishnah often points to deeper Gemara discussions.

Challenging the Interpretation of "מנויין" vs. "מעושרין":

The Rashash focuses on a critical distinction in Mishnah 9:8 regarding the safek cases: "קָפַץ אֶחָד מִן הַמְּנוּיִין" (one of the counted animals jumped back) versus "מִן הַמְּעֻשָּׂרִין" (one of the tithed animals jumped back). The Bartenura, in his commentary, interprets "מנויין" (counted) as referring to one of the first nine animals that were counted but not yet designated as the tenth. The Rashash critiques this interpretation, stating, "במשנה קפץ אחד מן המנוין. כו' פי' הרע"ב שמנה עשר כו' ונטל העשירי כו'. במחכ"ת ל"ד דלא אמרה הגמרא לקמן (נ"ט ב') לפרש כן אלא דלא להוכיח דינא דרבא מזה. אבל כיון דבאמת קם ליה דיני' יש לפרש המשנה משום מנין הראוי. וכפרש"י" (In the Mishnah, 'one of the counted animals jumped back.' The Rav Bartenura explained that he counted ten, etc., and took the tenth, etc. With all due respect to the Rav, the Gemara later (59b) did not say to interpret it this way except so as not to prove Rava's law from this. But since the law [of the Mishnah] indeed stands, one should interpret the Mishnah according to a proper count, as Rashi explained).

This is a profound and subtle point. The Rashash argues that the Gemara on Bekhorot 59b, when discussing Rava's din about a safek tenth, interprets "מנויין" to mean an animal that was already designated as the tenth (or part of the designated set) and then created a safek. The Bartenura's interpretation, by having "מנויין" refer to the first nine (i.e., non-tithe animals), shifts the nature of the safek. If a non-tithe animal (from the first nine) jumps back, the safek is whether any of the remaining animals could be the original tenth, or the one that jumped back. If the animal that jumped back was already designated as the tenth, then the safek is about a sacred item becoming mixed with non-sacred ones.

The Rashash prefers Rashi's interpretation, which aligns "מנויין" with "מנין הראוי" (a proper count/designation of the tenth). This means that even if the tenth animal has already been identified and designated, if it jumps back among the remaining undesignated animals, it creates a safek that affects all of them. The safek is not whether an animal that was never meant to be tithe could be the tithe, but whether the already designated tenth is now indistinguishable from the other potential tenths. This distinction is crucial for understanding why the safek leads to petur. If it's a safek about the identity of the tenth animal, where kedusha has not yet firmly attached to a specific, unique item, then the principle of "עשירי ודאי" applies, and all are exempt. If kedusha has already attached (as in "מעושרין"), the problem shifts to one of safek kedusha mixed with chulin, leading to yir'u ad sheyist'avu. The Rashash highlights that the Gemara's discussion about Rava's din on 59b implicitly supports a reading where "מנויין" refers to a point where the tenth animal has already been identified or is on the cusp of identification, making the safek about a potential kedusha that cannot crystallize.

4. Tiferet Yisrael, Bekhorot 9:7-8

Rabbi Yisrael Lifschitz, in his Tiferet Yisrael commentary, offers a practical, halakhically-oriented explanation of the Mishnah, often summarizing the Gemara's conclusions and providing clear rulings. He also introduces new analytical frameworks.

The "New Year" and "Gathering Times" Controversy:

The Mishnah presents a debate concerning the "new year" for Ma'aser Behema and the three "gathering times" (gornot). R' Akiva gives general dates ("סָמוּךְ לַפֶּסַח"), while Ben Azzai and R' Elazar/R' Shimon provide specific calendar dates. R' Meir offers a different Rosh Hashanah for Ma'aser Behema (1st of Elul). The Tiferet Yisrael clarifies the practical implications of these debates. He explains that the "new year" (whether 1st Elul or 1st Tishrei) determines which animals can be grouped together for tithing. Animals born before the Rosh Hashanah cannot be tithed with animals born after it, even if they are from the same flock, underscoring the chronological separation for tithing cycles. The "gathering times," however, serve a different purpose, as the Mishnah itself explains: "שֶׁעַד שֶׁלֹּא תַגִּיעַ הַגֹּרֶן מֻתָּר לִמְכֹּר וְלִשְׁחֹט. הִגִּיעַ הַגֹּרֶן, אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לִשְׁחֹט; וְאִם שָׁחַט, פָּטוּר." (For until the gathering time arrives, it is permitted to sell and slaughter. Once the gathering time arrives, one may not slaughter, but if he slaughtered, he is exempt). The Tiferet Yisrael emphasizes that these gornot act as triggers for the chiyuv to tithe. Before these dates, the obligation is dormant; after them, it becomes active, prohibiting slaughter until tithing is performed. However, the b'dieved clause ("וְאִם שָׁחַט, פָּטוּר") indicates that the act of slaughtering before tithing, while prohibited, does not retroactively invalidate the animal from tithe (or perhaps it means no korban chatat is due for slaughtering an untithed animal). The Tiferet Yisrael would clarify that the chiyuv itself doesn't disappear, but the penalty for slaughtering without tithing might be mitigated b'dieved. This highlights the unique nature of Ma'aser Behema as a mitzvat asseh (positive commandment) whose transgression has specific, often less severe, consequences than issurei hana'ah (prohibitions of benefit).

The Principle of "עשירי ודאי" and its Application:

The Tiferet Yisrael consistently leans on the principle of "עשירי ודאי אמר רחמנא ולא עשירי ספק" (The All-Merciful said 'a definite tenth,' not a doubtful tenth) to explain the leniencies in safek Ma'aser Behema. When "קָפַץ אֶחָד מִן הַמְּנוּיִין לְתוֹךְ הַטְּלָאִים, כֻּלָּן פְּטוּרִין" (one of the counted animals jumped back into the lambs, all are exempt), he would explain that the kedusha of the tenth animal has not yet definitively attached. Since it's impossible to identify the definite tenth, the obligation cannot be fulfilled, and thus it lapses for all. However, in the case of "מִן הַמְּעֻשָּׂרִין לְתוֹךְ הַטְּלָאִים, כֻּלָּן יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֲבוּ" (one of the tithed animals jumped back into the lambs, all must graze until they become blemished), the Tiferet Yisrael would emphasize that kedusha has already attached to a specific animal. The problem now is one of safek kedusha (doubtful sanctity) mixed with chulin (non-sacred). Since kedusha cannot be undone, and a safek cannot be sacrificed, the only recourse is to let the animals become blemished, thereby allowing them to be eaten by the owner, as blemished sacrifices are redeemed and can be consumed by the owner. This pragmatic solution prevents kedusha from being entirely lost while respecting the inability to offer a safek sacrifice. The Tiferet Yisrael's strength lies in his ability to distill complex Gemara discussions into clear, applicable halakhic guidelines, making the Mishnah's nuances accessible.

Friction

1. The Paradox of Safek Ma'aser Behema – Why Patur?

The Kushya:

The Mishnah states a seemingly counter-intuitive halakha: "קָפַץ אֶחָד מִן הַמְּנוּיִין לְתוֹךְ הַטְּלָאִים, כֻּלָּן פְּטוּרִין" (If one of the counted animals jumped back into the pen among the uncounted lambs, all are exempt). This is problematic from the general principle of safek d'oraita l'chumra (a doubt concerning a Torah law is resolved stringently). Ma'aser Behema is unequivocally a mitzvat asseh d'oraita, derived from Vayikra 27:32. If there is a doubt as to which animal is the tenth and which are non-tithe, one would expect a stringent outcome – either all animals are treated as tithe (and perhaps slaughtered in a state of kedusha), or a solution akin to yir'u ad sheyist'avu (graze until blemished) for all of them. The Mishnah's blanket petur (exemption) for all seems to contradict this fundamental rule of safek d'oraita. How can a Torah obligation simply vanish due to a doubt?

Terutz 1: "עשירי ודאי אמר רחמנא ולא עשירי ספק" – The Unique Nature of Kedusha in Ma'aser Behema

This is the primary and most robust terutz, articulated by the Gemara (Bekhorot 59a) and brought by the Rambam in his Mishnah commentary: "והעיקר בידינו... כל ספיקא לאו בני עשורי נינהו" (And the principle is in our hands... any animal of doubtful status is not subject to tithing). The underlying sevara is that the pasuk "הָעֲשִׂירִי יִהְיֶה קֹּדֶשׁ לַה'" (the tenth shall be sacred to the Lord) implies that kedusha (sanctity) attaches specifically and definitely to the tenth animal. The kedusha of Ma'aser Behema is not a general percentage (like Ma'aser Dagan which can be estimated, according to some views, as we will see in R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda's opinion). Rather, it is a specific kedusha that requires a clear and unambiguous identification of the tenth animal. If, due to an animal jumping back, there is now a safek as to which animal is the definite tenth, then the condition for kedusha to attach – certainty – has not been met. This terutz distinguishes Ma'aser Behema from other sfekot d'oraita. In cases of issur v'heter (forbidden/permitted), like safek tereifa (doubtful non-kosher animal), the stringency applies because we are concerned about violating a prohibition. Here, the safek is about the creation of kedusha. If kedusha cannot be created with certainty, it simply does not exist for any of the animals in doubt. Furthermore, the Gemara (Bekhorot 59a, Bava Metzia 6a) notes that Ma'aser Behema requires vidui (confession) when brought to Jerusalem (Devarim 26:12-15). One cannot make a vidui on a doubtful item, as the vidui requires certainty that one has properly separated all tithes. If the identity of the tithe is uncertain, vidui is impossible, and thus the chiyuv is effectively nullified. This is a unique characteristic that sets Ma'aser Behema apart.

Terutz 2: The Tosafot Yom Tov's Hakasha and Terutz on Rov

The Tosafot Yom Tov, in his commentary, brings a hakasha from the Tosafot (Bava Metzia 6a) regarding the application of rov (majority). If an animal that was merely counted (i.e., one of the first nine, which are chulin) jumps back into a pen with, say, 100 uncounted animals, the vast majority are still chulin and potentially subject to tithing. Why does the safek of one counted animal nullify the entire obligation? Generally, safek d'oraita is not nullified by rov when it comes to issur. The terutz presented by the Tosafot Yom Tov (and elaborated upon in the Gemara) is that the safek here is not about issur (prohibition) but about chiyuv ma'aser (obligation of tithing) which requires a specific, identifiable animal to become kadosh (sacred). The rov principle usually applies to issurei hana'ah (prohibitions of benefit), where if a small quantity of issur is mixed with a large quantity of heter, the issur is batel b'rov (nullified by majority). Here, the issue is not that one animal is forbidden and contaminates the others. Rather, the chiyuv to designate a specific tenth animal with kedusha cannot be fulfilled if that tenth cannot be identified. The kedusha for Ma'aser Behema is ba'ayin (on a specific object), not b'minyan (on a numerical quantity that can be fulfilled by any of the group). Since the chiyuv rests on the definite tenth, if that definiteness is lost, the chiyuv cannot attach to any specific animal, and therefore lapses for the entire group. The rov of chulin animals does not help identify the definite tenth.

Terutz 3: Distinction between "מנויין" and "מעושרין" for Safek

The Mishnah itself provides a critical distinction: "קָפַץ אֶחָד מִן הַמְּנוּיִין לְתוֹךְ הַטְּלָאִים, כֻּלָּן פְּטוּרִין." vs. "מִן הַמְּעֻשָּׂרִין לְתוֹךְ הַטְּלָאִים, כֻּלָּן יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֲבוּ." The Rashash, as noted in the Readings section, critiques the Bartenura's interpretation of "מנויין" as one of the first nine. If "מנויין" refers to an animal that has already been designated as the tenth (or is part of the first nine from a group of 10 that were already identified as the tenth), but the kedusha has not yet fully "settled" upon it as a sacrificial animal, then the safek prevents that kedusha from fully materializing. In contrast, if an animal "מִן הַמְּעֻשָּׂרִין" (from the tithed animals) jumps back, it implies that the tenth animal has already been designated and consecrated. The kedusha has attached definitively. The problem now is that a sacred item is mixed with non-sacred items (the untithed lambs), and we cannot identify which is which. Since kedusha cannot be removed from a consecrated animal, and we cannot sacrifice an animal of safek kedusha, the halakha dictates "כולן ירעו עד שיסתאבו" (all must graze until they become blemished). Once blemished, the kedusha changes, allowing them to be eaten by the owner, thus preventing the loss of kedusha while finding a practical resolution. This distinction highlights that the moment kedusha definitively attaches is critical for how safek is resolved in Ma'aser Behema. Before definite attachment, safek leads to petur; after attachment, safek leads to a state where the item cannot be used as intended but retains its sanctity in a different form.

2. R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda's Position: Machshava vs. Ma'aseh in Tithing

The Kushya:

The Mishnah first describes the meticulous procedure for tithing: gathering animals in a dir, a narrow opening, sequential counting with a rod (ideally), and marking the tenth with red paint and a declaration. It then states that omitting the rod or paint, or counting them lying down, still results in a valid tithe (b'dieved). However, it explicitly concludes: "אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ לוֹ מֵאָה וְנָטַל עֲשָׂרָה, עֲשָׂרָה וְנָטַל אֶחָד, אֵינוֹ מַעֲשֵׂר" (But if he had one hundred animals and took ten, or ten and took one, that is not tithe). This clearly indicates that simply taking a numerical tenth, without the sequential counting, is invalid. Yet, R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda dissents, saying: "רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי זֶה מַעֲשֵׂר" (Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda says: This is tithe). The kushya is profound: How can R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda invalidate the Mishnah's explicit requirement for sequential counting? The pasuk "כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבֹר תַּחַת הַשָּׁבֶט הָעֲשִׂירִי יִהְיֶה קֹּדֶשׁ לַה'" (whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred to the Lord) strongly implies a sequential selection process where the tenth emerging animal is designated. R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda's position seems to reduce Ma'aser Behema to a mere mathematical deduction (one-tenth) rather than a specific ma'aseh (physical action) that generates kedusha. What is his sevara for such a radical departure from the plain meaning of the Mishnah and the pasuk?

Terutz 1: The Heqesh to Terumah Gedolah via Ma'aser Dagan and the Principle of Omed and Machshava

The Gemara (Bekhorot 59b) and Rishonim like the Bartenura and Tosafot Yom Tov explain R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda's position by drawing an analogy (heqesh) from other tithes. They argue that R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda holds that Ma'aser Behema is likened to Ma'aser Dagan (grain tithe), which in turn is likened to Terumah Gedolah (great heave-offering) regarding the ability to separate by omed (estimation) and machshava (intention). The source for this is Bamidbar 18:27: "וְנֶחְשַׁב לָכֶם תְּרוּמַתְכֶם כַּדָּגָן מִן הַגֹּרֶן וְכַמְּלֵאָה מִן הַיֶּקֶב" (And your heave-offering shall be reckoned to you as grain from the threshing floor and as the fullness from the winepress). A Braita (cited by Tosafot Yom Tov) explains that "תְּרוּמַתְכֶם" refers to two types of terumah: Terumah Gedolah and Terumat Ma'aser (heave-offering of the tithe). The phrase "כַּדָּגָן מִן הַגֹּרֶן" (as grain from the threshing floor) likens Terumat Ma'aser to Terumah Gedolah. Since Terumah Gedolah can be separated by omed (e.g., estimating the total quantity of grain and then setting aside a portion without precise measurement, but with machshava to designate it as terumah), it follows that Terumat Ma'aser can also be taken by omed and machshava. R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda then extends this logic to Ma'aser Behema. If Ma'aser Dagan can be taken by omed, and Ma'aser Behema is broadly parallel to Ma'aser Dagan in its general concept of a one-tenth offering, then Ma'aser Behema should also be valid if the owner simply intends to separate one-tenth, even without the specific ritual of the rod and sequential counting. For him, the divine command "הָעֲשִׂירִי יִהְיֶה קֹּדֶשׁ" emphasizes the result (the tenth is sacred) rather than the exclusive means (only through the rod). The owner's machshava to designate one-tenth is sufficient to effect the kedusha.

Terutz 2: Distinguishing Omed in Terumah vs. Ma'aser Behema for Unequal Items

The Tosafot Yom Tov raises a hakasha against the Bartenura's explanation of R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda: Why is it necessary to bring the elaborate heqesh to Terumah for omed? Couldn't R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda simply argue that Ma'aser Behema is like Ma'aser Dagan in that one-tenth is taken, and that's enough? The terutz offered by the TYT clarifies R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda's deeper chiddush. The heqesh is specifically needed to allow omed even when the items being tithed are not equal in value. In Ma'aser Behema, it's highly likely that individual animals within a flock are not perfectly identical in value. If one were to simply take "one out of ten" without omed, it might be problematic if the chosen animal was not representative of a true tenth, or if the owner intended to take the cheapest. The heqesh to Terumah Gedolah (which can be taken by omed even from an uneven pile of grain) provides the halakhic basis for the owner's machshava to designate a valid one-tenth even from an unequal group of animals. This implies that R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda believes the owner's machshava can effectively designate the best one-tenth, or that the kedusha attaches to any one-tenth that the owner sets aside with proper intent, regardless of its individual value relative to the others, provided it fulfills the numerical quota. Without the principle of omed derived from Terumah, one might argue that for Ma'aser Behema, if not for the sequential counting, one would need to ensure the chosen animal was exactly one-tenth in value, which is practically impossible. Thus, the heqesh to omed is essential for R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda's position to work for unequal animals.

Terutz 3: The Role of B'dieved and Ma'aseh in the Mishnah's Structure

An alternative way to frame R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda's view, though less central to the Rishonim's interpretation, is to consider the Mishnah's structure. The Mishnah first describes the l'chatchila procedure (rod, pen, etc.), then provides b'dieved leniencies (no rod/paint, counted prone/standing). The final statement, "אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ לוֹ מֵאָה וְנָטַל עֲשָׂרָה... אֵינוֹ מַעֲשֵׂר" could be seen as setting the absolute minimum requirement: some form of sequential identification of the tenth. R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda's position could then be interpreted as arguing that even this "absolute minimum" of sequential passing is not indispensable b'dieved, as long as the numerical ratio is met with clear machshava. While the Gemara and Rishonim focus on the heqesh, this contextual reading emphasizes the spectrum of ma'aseh required. For R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda, the ma'aseh of simply taking one-tenth with explicit intent is enough to effect kedusha, given the broader principles of omed in tithes. This implies that the essence of "תחת השבט" is the identification of a tenth, which can be achieved through machshava and numerical separation, not solely through the physical act of passing under a rod. However, the accepted halakha does not follow R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda, reinforcing the importance of the specific ma'aseh of sequential counting.

Intertext

The Mishnah in Bekhorot 9:7-8 is rich with halakhic concepts that resonate throughout Tanakh, Mishnaic, and Talmudic literature, as well as later halakhic codes.

1. Vayikra 27:32 – The Foundation of Ma'aser Behema

"וְכָל מַעְשַׂר בָּקָר וָצֹאן כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבֹר תַּחַת הַשָּׁבֶט הָעֲשִׂירִי יִהְיֶה קֹּדֶשׁ לַה'" (Leviticus 27:32)

This verse is the foundational pasuk for the entire mitzva of Ma'aser Behema. The Mishnah's detailed procedural instructions – the dir, the narrow opening, the sequential counting, and the designation of the tenth – are all direct interpretations and elaborations of "כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבֹר תַּחַת הַשָּׁבֶט הָעֲשִׂירִי יִהְיֶה קֹּדֶשׁ לַה'". Connection: The phrase "תַּחַת הַשָּׁבֶט" (under the rod) is understood by the Sages not merely as a symbolic reference, but as requiring a specific ma'aseh (action). The Gemara (Bekhorot 58b) discusses whether "שבט" refers to a literal rod or the general action of counting. The Mishnah reconciles these interpretations by stating that while counting "בשבט" (with a rod) is ideal (l'chatchila), its absence does not invalidate the tithe b'dieved, provided the sequential counting is maintained. This highlights a crucial distinction in halakha between the optimal performance of a mitzva and its essential, me'akev (indispensable) components. The kedusha attaches to the tenth animal revealed sequentially, not merely to any tenth animal taken out of a group. This emphasis on process over mere numerical outcome is central to the Mishnah's discussion and differentiates Ma'aser Behema from other tithes.

2. Bamidbar 18:27 – The Heqesh for Omed and Machshava

"וְנֶחְשַׁב לָכֶם תְּרוּמַתְכֶם כַּדָּגָן מִן הַגֹּרֶן וְכַמְּלֵאָה מִן הַיֶּקֶב" (Numbers 18:27)

This verse is the linchpin for R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda's dissenting opinion in Mishnah Bekhorot 9:8, where he permits tithing by simply taking one-tenth without sequential counting. Connection: As elaborated by the Tosafot Yom Tov, R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda draws a heqesh (analogy) from this verse. The phrase "וְנֶחְשַׁב לָכֶם תְּרוּמַתְכֶם" (and your heave-offering shall be reckoned to you) is interpreted to mean that terumah (heave-offering) can be separated by omed (estimation) and machshava (intention), rather than precise measurement. The reference "כַּדָּגָן מִן הַגֹּרֶן" (as grain from the threshing floor) links this principle to Terumah Gedolah. The Gemara further extends this heqesh to Terumat Ma'aser (the tithe given to the Kohen from Ma'aser Rishon). R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda then applies this to Ma'aser Behema, arguing that if terumah and other tithes can be separated by omed and machshava, then Ma'aser Behema should also be valid if one separates a numerical tenth with proper intent, even without the ritual of the rod and sequential counting. This highlights a fundamental debate in halakha: to what extent can machshava substitute for ma'aseh, particularly in mitzvot that involve consecration? The majority opinion rejects R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda's view for Ma'aser Behema, maintaining that its kedusha is uniquely tied to the physical, sequential process.

3. Mishnah Peah 4:1 – The Principle of "בעלות" (Ownership) for Tithes

הלוקח ירק מן השוק... פטור מן המעשר (Mishnah Peah 4:1) הַלּוֹקֵחַ אוֹ שֶׁנִּתַּן לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה, פָּטוּר מִמַּעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה. (Mishnah Bekhorot 9:7)

The Mishnah in Bekhorot states that "הַלּוֹקֵחַ אוֹ שֶׁנִּתַּן לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה, פָּטוּר מִמַּעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה" (One who purchases an animal or has an animal that was given to him as a gift is exempt from separating animal tithe). Connection: This mirrors a similar principle found in Ma'aser Dagan and other agricultural tithes, as exemplified in Mishnah Peah. The obligation of terumot u'ma'asrot (heave-offerings and tithes) generally rests upon the ba'al ha'bayit (owner) at the time of gmar melakha (completion of the work) or din gurin (the point at which the produce becomes obligated). If an animal is purchased or gifted after its birth but before the owner's tithing season, the new owner is exempt. The underlying sevara is that the chiyuv attaches to the original owner who generated the "increase" (births) within the tithing cycle. A new owner or recipient of a gift did not "produce" these animals in the same halakhic sense as the original breeder. This principle ensures that the obligation is tied to the act of husbandry and ownership during the relevant period, preventing double tithing or shifting of responsibility to subsequent owners who were not involved in the initial growth or breeding.

4. Mishnah Avot 1:16 – The Danger of "Adding to Tithes"

הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר: מַרְבֶּה בִּמְעַשְׂרוֹת, מְקַלְקֵל מַעֲשְׂרוֹתָיו. (Mishnah Avot 1:16)

"He used to say: One who adds to his tithes spoils his tithes." This well-known statement from Pirkei Avot seems to emphasize the need for precision in separating tithes. Connection: The Tosafot Yom Tov, in his discussion of R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda's opinion regarding omed (estimation) in Ma'aser Behema, implicitly brings this Mishnah into play. If R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda permits tithing by omed or simply taking one-tenth, there is a risk of inadvertently taking more than one-tenth. If one takes 11 out of 100, or miscalculates an estimate, the "extra" animal is not Ma'aser and cannot be consecrated as such. Adding chulin (non-sacred) to kodesh (sacred) in certain contexts can "spoil" the kodesh. This is particularly true if the extra portion is not suitable for kedusha or if the act implies a lack of faith in the divinely ordained shiur (measure). The Mishnah in Avot thus provides a counter-argument to overly generous or imprecise tithing. For Ma'aser Behema, where kedusha attaches to a specific tenth animal, an erroneous "extra" animal cannot become Ma'aser and creates a problem of kedusha being mixed with chulin or, worse, an attempt to consecrate something beyond what the Torah specified. The rigorous procedure of sequential counting ensures that only the true tenth receives kedusha, minimizing the risk of "spoiling tithes" by excess.

5. Gemara Bava Metzia 6a – The Source for Safek Ma'aser Behema Patur

The Gemara in Bava Metzia 6a directly discusses the Mishnah's ruling of "קָפַץ אֶחָד מִן הַמְּנוּיִין... כֻּלָּן פְּטוּרִין" and provides the fundamental sevara. Connection: The Gemara establishes the principle "עשירי ודאי אמר רחמנא ולא עשירי ספק" (The All-Merciful said 'a definite tenth,' not a doubtful tenth). This is the explicit source for the unique leniency regarding safek Ma'aser Behema. The Gemara elaborates that the kedusha of Ma'aser Behema is kedusha ba'ayin (sanctity on a specific object), requiring definite identification. If that identification is lost due to a safek, the kedusha cannot attach, and thus the chiyuv (obligation) falls away. The discussion in Bava Metzia also considers why this safek is not treated like other sfekot d'oraita which are l'chumra. It highlights that the object of Ma'aser Behema becomes a korban (sacrifice) which needs to be brought to the Temple and offered. One cannot offer a korban that is in doubt, nor can one make a vidui (confession) over it. This sugya is foundational for understanding the unique halakhic treatment of Ma'aser Behema and its particular requirements for certainty in designation.

Psak/Practice

The intricate details of Mishnah Bekhorot 9:7-8, particularly regarding the procedures for tithing and the resolution of doubts, have significant implications for Halakha L'Ma'aseh (practical law). While Ma'aser Behema is not practiced today due to the absence of the Temple, its principles are codified and provide insight into the mechanics of kedusha and mitzvot.

1. Codification in Shulchan Aruch and Rambam's Mishneh Torah

The primary codifiers, Rambam in Mishneh Torah (Hilkhot Bekhorot, Chapters 6-7) and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah, Siman 306), follow the majority opinions in our Mishnah, often incorporating the Gemara's elaborations.

• Applicability: The psak confirms that Ma'aser Behema applies both in Eretz Yisrael and Chutz La'aretz, in the presence and absence of the Temple, but only to chullin (non-sacred animals) and not kodashim (sacred animals). This broad applicability underscores its enduring nature as a mitzva not entirely dependent on the Temple for its basic obligation, though its consumption and sacrifice are.
• Grouping Animals: The psak accepts the Mishnah's distinction: "בקר" (herd) and "צאן" (flock) do not mix, but "כְּבָשִׂים" (sheep) and "עִזִּים" (goats) do mix. This relies on the Torah's statement "אוֹ הַצֹּאן" (or the flock) which the Mishnah interprets as uniting all flock animals into one category for tithing. "חדש" (new) and "ישן" (old) animals (born in different tithing years) do not mix, emphasizing the annual cycle of tithes.
• Exemptions: The listed exemptions are universally accepted: kilayim (diverse kinds), tereifa (non-kosher due to injury), yotzei dofen (Caesarean birth), tam (less than 8 days old), and yatom (orphan as defined by the Mishnah, with R' Yehoshua's leniency regarding the hide not being accepted as normative). Animals that are purchased or received as a gift are exempt, as the obligation rests on the owner who "produced" them during the tithing cycle.
• Procedure: The l'chatchila procedure of gathering animals in a dir, providing a narrow opening, and sequentially counting them while marking the tenth with red paint and a declaration ("הרי זה מעשר") is normative. However, the b'dieved clause is also accepted: if he omitted the rod or red paint, or counted them prone or standing, the tithe is valid. This highlights that the essence of the mitzva is the sequential counting and identification of the tenth, not necessarily all the embellishments.
• Rejection of R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda: Crucially, the psak follows the majority and rejects R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda's opinion that one can simply take one-tenth of the animals without sequential counting. The Shulchan Aruch (YD 306:2) explicitly states that if one takes ten animals out of a hundred, "אינו מעשר" (it is not tithe), reinforcing the necessity of the sequential process.
• Resolution of Safek: The psak regarding safek Ma'aser Behema is a cornerstone:
  • If an already counted (but not yet designated as the tenth) animal jumps back: "כולן פטורין" (all are exempt). This is based on the principle of "עשירי ודאי אמר רחמנא ולא עשירי ספק" (the All-Merciful said 'a definite tenth,' not a doubtful tenth).
  • If an already tithed (designated and consecrated) animal jumps back: "כולן ירעו עד שיסתאבו ויאכלו במומן לבעלים" (all must graze until they become blemished, and may be eaten in their blemished state by their owner). This reflects the inability to sacrifice a doubtful sacred animal and the enduring nature of kedusha.
• Gathering Times: The psak adopts the dates for Rosh Hashanah and gornot (gathering times) according to specific opinions, recognizing their role in defining tithing cycles and when the prohibition on slaughtering untithed animals takes effect.

2. Meta-Psak Heuristics

The sugya of Ma'aser Behema offers profound insights into meta-halakhic principles:

• The Unique Nature of Kedusha Ba'ayin: Ma'aser Behema exemplifies kedusha ba'ayin – sanctity that attaches to a specific object (the tenth animal). This differs from kedusha b'minyan (sanctity on a numerical quantity), where any equivalent portion could suffice. This distinction is critical for understanding why safek so profoundly impacts the chiyuv. If the specific object cannot be identified, the kedusha cannot fully materialize. This strict requirement for certainty in specific designations of kedusha is a recurring theme in halakha.
• The Power and Limits of Ma'aseh and Machshava: The debate between the Mishnah's majority and R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda highlights the tension between physical action (ma'aseh) and intention (machshava) in mitzvot. While machshava is indispensable for kavana (proper intent) in mitzvot, Ma'aser Behema demonstrates that for certain mitzvot involving the creation of kedusha, specific ma'asim are crucial, defining the very mechanism by which sanctity is conferred. The Mishnah acknowledges b'dieved leniencies for secondary aspects of the ma'aseh (like the rod or paint), but maintains the core sequential counting as essential.
• Balancing Safek D'Oraita L'Chumra with Practicality and Divine Intent: The leniency of safek Ma'aser Behema patur is a unique departure from the general rule of safek d'oraita l'chumra. This is not an arbitrary leniency but stems from a deep understanding of the Torah's intent for this mitzva. The kedusha of Ma'aser Behema is geared towards sacrifice and consumption in purity. If doubt prevents this ultimate purpose, the mitzva cannot be fulfilled in its intended manner. Rather than creating a state of perpetual safek kedusha that cannot be resolved, the Torah effectively removes the chiyuv for an inherently doubtful item. This demonstrates a halakhic heuristic where the practical fulfillment and clear purpose of a mitzva can shape how safek is resolved. In cases of issur, the concern is preventing transgression; in cases of kedusha l'korban, the concern is enabling the korban to be brought properly. When that's impossible due to safek, the chiyuv is re-evaluated.

Takeaway

The sugya of Ma'aser Behema meticulously delineates the precise interplay of physical action, intention, and clarity required for the generation of sanctity in halakha, particularly as it navigates the complex challenges posed by doubt. It underscores a fundamental meta-halakhic principle: for kedusha to attach definitively to a specific object for sacrificial purposes, absolute certainty is paramount, often overriding the general stringency of safek d'oraita l'chumra.