Mishnah Bekhorot 9:7-8

Sugya Map

The Mishnah (Bekhorot 9:7-8) meticulously details the halachot of Ma'aser Behema, the animal tithe, an agricultural mitzvah rooted in Vayikra 27:32. This sugya outlines the scope, conditions, and intricate procedures for its separation, addressing specific scenarios of doubt and error.

Issue

The core issue revolves around the precise execution of Ma'aser Behema:

1. Scope and Applicability: Establishing when and where the mitzvah applies (Eretz Yisrael and Chutz La'aretz, Temple and non-Temple times, non-sacred animals, herd/flock distinctions, new/old animals).
2. Counting Procedure: The method of tithing, emphasizing the "rod" count and the narrow opening of the dir (pen).
3. Doubt and Error: Addressing cases where the counting is flawed, where animals jump back into the pen, or where the tenth animal is misidentified. These scenarios illuminate the stringencies of kedushat Ma'aser Behema.
4. Timing: The designated "gathering" dates for Ma'aser Behema and the legal implications of these dates.

Nafka Mina(s)

The practical implications of these halachot are manifold:

• Species Distinction: Whether sheep and goats, or new and old animals, can be tithed from one another (Mishnah Bekhorot 9:7).
• Geographic Scope: How far apart flocks can be and still "join" for tithing, and the impact of geographical barriers like the Jordan River (Mishnah Bekhorot 9:7).
• Ownership Transfer: The exemption for purchased or gifted animals (Mishnah Bekhorot 9:7).
• Eligibility: Which animals are excluded from the tithe (e.g., kilayim, tereifa, yotzei dofen, yetom - Mishnah Bekhorot 9:8).
• Post-Facto Validity: The bedi'avad validity of tithing without a rod or in an improper posture, contrasted with the invalidity of simply "taking one in ten" (Mishnah Bekhorot 9:8).
• Consequences of Error: The distinction between an uncounted animal jumping back (all patur) and a tithed animal jumping back (all yir'u until blemished) (Mishnah Bekhorot 9:8).
• Mislabeling: The complex dinim arising from mistakenly calling one animal the "tenth" when it is not, leading to multiple animals gaining kedusha (Mishnah Bekhorot 9:8).

Primary Sources

• Mishnah Bekhorot 9:7-8
• Vayikra 27:32: "וְכָל מַעְשַׂר בָּקָר וָצֹאן כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבֹר תַּחַת הַשָּׁבֶט הָעֲשִׂירִי יִהְיֶה קֹדֶשׁ לַה'." (And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be holy to the Lord.)
• Gemara Bekhorot 58a-59b (extensively discusses these Mishnayot).

Text Snapshot

The Mishnah, in its characteristic laconic style, presents a series of halachot regarding Ma'aser Behema. We focus on the procedural aspects and the dinim of error:

Mishnah Bekhorot 9:8

כיצד מעשרן? כונסן לדיר ועושה להן פתח קטן, כדי שלא יהו שנים יכולין לצאת כאחת. How does one tithe them? He gathers them in a pen and makes for them a small opening, so that two will not be able to emerge together. ומונין אותן: אחד, שנים, שלשה, ארבעה, חמשה, ששה, שבעה, שמונה, תשעה; והיוצא עשירי, רודה אותו בסיקרא ואומר: הרי זה מעשר. And he counts them: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine; and the tenth that emerges, he marks it with red paint and says: "This is tithe." אף על פי שלא רדהו בסיקרא, ולא מנאן בשבט, או שמנאן רבוצין או עומדין, הרי אלו מעושרין. Even if he did not mark it with red paint, or if he did not count them with a rod, or if he counted them prone or standing, these are tithed. היו לו מאה ונטל עשרה, עשרה ונטל אחד, אינו מעשר. רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר: הרי זה מעשר. If he had one hundred and took ten, or ten and took one, that is not tithe. Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda says: This is tithe. קפץ אחד מן המנויין לתוך הטלאים, הרי אלו פטורין. If one of the counted ones jumped back into the pen among the lambs [that had not yet been counted], all these are exempt. קפץ אחד מן המעושרין לתוך הטלאים, כולן ירעו עד שיסתאבו, ויאכלו במומן לבעלים. If one of the tithed ones jumped back into the pen among the lambs, all must graze until they become unfit [for sacrifice], and may be eaten in their blemished state by their owner. יצאו שנים כאחד, מונה אותן שנים שנים. מנה שנים אחד, תשיעי ועשירי פגומים. If two emerged as one, he counts them as twos. If he mistakenly counted two as one, the ninth and tenth are flawed. קרא לתשיעי עשירי ולעשירי תשיעי ולאחד עשר עשירי, שלשתן קדושין. תשיעי נאכל במומו, ועשירי מעשר, ואחד עשר קרבן שלמים, ועושה תמורה. דברי ר' מאיר. If he called the ninth: "Tenth," and the tenth: "Ninth," and the eleventh: "Tenth," all three are consecrated. The ninth is eaten in its blemished state; the tenth is animal tithe; and the eleventh is sacrificed as a peace offering, and it creates a substitute. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. אמר ר' יהודה: וכי תמורה עושה תמורה? אמרו לו משום ר' מאיר: אילו תמורה היתה, לא היתה קרבה. Rabbi Yehuda said: And does a substitute create a substitute? They said in the name of Rabbi Meir: If it were a substitute, it would not be sacrificed. קרא לתשיעי עשירי ולעשירי עשירי ולאחד עשר עשירי, אחד עשר אינו קדוש. זה הכלל: כל מקום שלא נסתלק שם עשירי מעל עשירי, אחד עשר אינו קדוש. If he called the ninth: "Tenth," and the tenth: "Tenth," and the eleventh: "Tenth," the eleventh is not consecrated. This is the principle: In any situation where the name of the tenth was not removed from the tenth animal, the eleventh that was called the tenth is not consecrated.

Dikduk/Leshon Nuance

• "פתח קטן, כדי שלא יהו שנים יכולין לצאת כאחת": This precise phrasing, "a small opening, so that two will not be able to emerge together," underscores the requirement for a deliberate, single-file counting process. It's not merely about creating a dir but one that physically enforces the "under the rod" concept, ensuring each animal is individually scrutinized.
• "מונח או עומד": The Mishnah's bedi'avad acceptance of counting animals "prone or standing" is notable. It contrasts with the preferred method of "passing under the rod" (Vayikra 27:32), indicating that while the ideal procedure involves movement, the kedusha of ma'aser can still attach if the count is accurate, highlighting the distinction between l'chatchila and bedi'avad.
• "קפץ אחד מן המנויין" vs. "קפץ אחד מן המעושרין": This is a critical distinction. "מנויין" refers to animals that have merely been counted (e.g., one through nine) but not yet designated as the tenth. "מעושרין" refers to an animal already designated as the tenth, which has acquired kedushat ma'aser. The halachic ramifications differ dramatically, indicating a graduated level of kedusha or halachic commitment.
• "קרא לתשיעי עשירי ולעשירי תשיעי ולאחד עשר עשירי": This complex scenario of mislabeling demonstrates the Mishnah's concern for the spoken declaration (amira) in the conferral of kedusha. The specific sequence of misidentification leads to three animals acquiring kedusha (albeit of different types), illustrating the interplay between intent, declaration, and the inherent nature of the mitzvah. The fact that the tenth is still מעשר, despite being called ninth, suggests a powerful intrinsic kedusha that is difficult to override. The eleventh becomes a shelamim and creates temurah, a significant chiddush of R' Meir.
• "כל מקום שלא נסתלק שם עשירי מעל עשירי": This klal (principle) at the end of the Mishnah is crucial. It asserts that if the tenth animal itself retains its designation as "tenth" (even if another animal is also called "tenth"), then the eleventh animal cannot acquire kedusha by being mistakenly called "tenth." This implies a singular, inherent "tenthness" that can only be 'moved' or shared under specific circumstances, or perhaps that the amira must be truly mistaken and not merely redundant.

Readings

Rav Hai Gaon (via Rambam's Commentary) and Rambam

The Rambam, in his commentary to the Mishnah, elucidates many of the procedural and conceptual underpinnings of Ma'aser Behema. He often cites or aligns with Rav Hai Gaon, particularly on definitions and basic halachot.

Rambam on Mishnah Bekhorot 9:7:1

כיצד מעשרן כונסן לדיר ועושה להן פתח כו': דיר הוא מקום המוקף שמכניסין בו הצאן והבקר בשעת מעשר ולפעמים יהא מוקף בנין או קנים וכיוצא בו: How does one tithe them? He gathers them in a pen and makes for them a small opening etc.: A "dir" is an enclosed place into which sheep and cattle are brought at the time of tithing, and it may sometimes be enclosed by a building or reeds or similar material. וסיקרא סם ידוע לצבע אדום שקורין בלעז פידדה שנגוני"ה 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: And "sikra" is a known red dye, which they call in a foreign tongue "pidada sangonia." And it has already been clarified in the Tosefta that if there are more animals than the count, but fewer than ten, within the pen, he leaves them, and they are tithed for the coming year when they are left with the others. And he is obligated to bring all of them into the pen by force, and whatever is left over remains for the coming year. 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 והעיקר בידינו כמו שנתבאר במציעתא כל ספיקא לאו בני עשורי נינהו: Afterwards, it states, "If one of the counted ones jumped back," these are the ones that were counted at the time of their exit from the pen, "into the lambs in the pen that had not yet been counted," "all these are exempt." This means that everything in the pen is not obligated in tithe, because each of them is in doubt whether it is a counted one, which is not obligated in tithe because it is not counted twice, or from the flock in the pen which is obligated in tithe. And the principle we have, as clarified in Bava Metzia, is that all matters of doubt are not fit for tithing. ומה שאמר מן המעושרין ר"ל מן הטלאים שהיו מעושרים אם קפץ מהן אפי' אחר לתוך הדיר שכולן ירעו עד שיסתאבו ויאכלו במומן לבעלים והוא מה שאמרו בתיקון מה שאמר מעושרין מאי מעושרים עשורים ואין הלכה כר' יוסי בר' יהודה: And what it states, "from the tithed ones," means from the lambs that were tithed. If even one of them jumped back into the pen, "all of them must graze until they become unfit, and may be eaten in their blemished state by their owner." This is what they said in emendation to what it states, "tithed ones" – what are "tithed ones"? They are "tenths." And the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda. * Chiddush of Rambam: The Rambam's chiddush lies in his precise definitions and his application of a fundamental principle regarding safek in Ma'aser Behema. He clarifies the terms dir and sikra. More critically, he distinguishes between safek menuyin and safek me'usarim. For safek menuyin (animals counted 1-9), if one jumps back, the entire flock becomes patur (exempt). The Rambam explains this with the principle: "כל ספיקא לאו בני עשורי נינהו" (all matters of doubt are not fit for tithing) (Rambam on Mishnah Bekhorot 9:7:1). This implies that Ma'aser Behema requires certainty; a doubtful tenth cannot be designated. However, for safek me'usarim (an animal already designated as the tenth jumping back), the din is "כולן ירעו עד שיסתאבו" (all must graze until they become blemished). Here, the Rambam implies that the kedusha has already attached, and therefore the animals cannot revert to chullin (non-sacred status) but must be treated as kodshim that have become pasul (unfit for sacrifice) (Rambam, Hil. Ma'aser Behema 5:16). This subtle yet crucial distinction between the two safek cases highlights the moment kedusha is conferred and its irreversible nature. Rambam also notes that the halakha is not like R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda, thus upholding the requirement for the precise rod method.

Tosafot Yom Tov

The Tosafot Yom Tov, a super-commentary on the Mishnah, often clarifies the words of the Rishonim and engages in deeper lomdus.

Tosafot Yom Tov on Mishnah Bekhorot 9:7:1 (סקרא)

סקרא . צבע אדום. כדפירש הר"ב בסוף משנה ה': Sikra. Red dye. As the Rav (Rambam) explained at the end of Mishnah 5. * This entry is a simple definitional clarification, referencing the Rambam's earlier commentary.

Tosafot Yom Tov on Mishnah Bekhorot 9:7:2 (לא מנאם בשבט כו')

לא מנאם בשבט כו' . דת"ר תחת השבט מצוה למנותן בשבט לא מנאן בשבט או שמנאן רבוצין או עומדים מנין ת"ל עשירי קודש מ"מ: If he did not count them with a rod etc. For the Rabbis taught: "Under the rod" is a mitzvah to count them with a rod. If he did not count them with a rod, or if he counted them prone or standing, how do we know? The verse states: "the tenth shall be holy" in any case. * Chiddush of Tosafot Yom Tov: The TYT here cites a Baraita to explain the Mishnah's statement that bedi'avad (post-facto), even if one did not use a rod or counted animals prone/standing, the tithe is valid. The Baraita distinguishes between mitzvah (the ideal, l'chatchila) and bedi'avad. "תחת השבט" (under the rod) (Vayikra 27:32) is the l'chatchila method. However, the phrase "העשירי יהיה קדש" (the tenth shall be holy) (Vayikra 27:32) indicates that the kedusha attaches to the tenth animal irrespective of the precise method of counting, as long as it is genuinely the tenth. This highlights that the shiur (measure) of "one in ten" is paramount, while the "rod" method is a preferred, but not indispensable, mode of identification.

Tosafot Yom Tov on Mishnah Bekhorot 9:7:3 (ר"י בר יהודה אומר ה"ז מעשר)

ר"י בר יהודה אומר ה"ז מעשר . לשון הר"ב דסבר ר"י כשם שתרומה גדולה ותרומת מעשר ניטלים באומד ומחשבה דכתיב ונחשב לכם תרומתכם. דתניא אבא אלעזר בן גומל אומר ונחשב לכם תרומתכם בשתי תרומות הכתוב מדבר. אחת תרומה גדולה. ואחת תרומת מעשר. כשם שהתרומה גדולה ניטלת באומד ובמחשבה. אף תרומת מעשר ניטלת באומד ובמחשבה. ופירוש רש"י בשתי תרומות. ואע"ג דלא כתיב האי קרא תרומתכם אלא בתרומת מעשר. נפקא לן דמיירי בתרומה גדולה. מדכתיב (במדבר י״ח:כ״ז) כדגן מן הגורן. כלומר כתרומה גדולה שנוטל ישראל מגורנו. והשתא אתקש תרומת מעשר לתרומה גדולה להאי מלתא דמה תרומה גדולה כו' ע"כ. וכתבו התוס' דלית לי' לאלעזר בן גומל המרבה במעשרות מעשרותיו מקולקלין [עיין במשנה ט"ז פ"ק דאבות]. ובאומד ובמחשבה דאמרן פירש"י באומד שמאמד בדעתו. כך וכך יש בכרי הזה. ולפי אומדנותו נוטל תרומה במחשבה. כמו נותן עיניו בצד זה ואוכל בצד אחר [ואע"פ שכתב עוד ל' אחר. לזה הסכימו התוס'. וגם רש"י עצמו בפ"ג דגיטין דף ל"א. ובפ"ה דמנחות דף נ"ה. לא כתב אלא זה הפי'] ותרוייהו באומד ובמחשבה נפקא לן מונחשב. ובגיטין מסיים והאי דיליף תרומת מעשר מתרומה גדולה. לענין אומד הוא דיליף. ומ"ש הר"ב דמעשר תרומה קרייה רחמנא. דכתיב כי את מעשר וגו' וסיפיה דקרא נתתי ללוים לנחלה. ומ"ש הר"ב ואתקש מעשר בהמה למעשר דגן. כדפי' הר"ב בריש פירקין. 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. 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. ע"כ: Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda says: This is tithe. The language of the Rav (Rambam) is that R' Yosei holds that just as Terumah Gedolah and Terumat Ma'aser are taken by estimation and intention, as it is written: "And your heave-offering shall be reckoned to you" (Bamidbar 18:27). For it was taught: Abba Elazar ben Gomal says, "And your heave-offering shall be reckoned to you" - the verse speaks of two heave-offerings: one is Terumah Gedolah, and one is Terumat Ma'aser. Just as Terumah Gedolah is taken by estimation and intention, so too Terumat Ma'aser is taken by estimation and intention. And Rashi explains "two heave-offerings" thus: Even though this verse "your heave-offering" is written only concerning Terumat Ma'aser, we derive that it refers to Terumah Gedolah from what is written (Bamidbar 18:27): "as the grain from the threshing floor," meaning like the Terumah Gedolah that an Israelite takes from his threshing floor. And now, Terumat Ma'aser is likened to Terumah Gedolah regarding this matter, that just as Terumah Gedolah, etc., (end quote). And the Tosafot wrote that Abba Elazar ben Gomal does not hold that "one who gives too much ma'aser, his ma'aser is spoiled" [see Mishnah 16, Perek 1 of Avot]. And regarding "by estimation and intention" that we mentioned, Rashi explained "by estimation" means he estimates in his mind: there is such and such in this pile. And according to his estimation, he takes Terumah "by intention," such as he sets his eyes on this side and eats from the other side [and even though he wrote another explanation, the Tosafot agreed to this one, and Rashi himself in Gittin 31a and Menachot 55b wrote only this explanation]. And both (estimation and intention) are derived from "shall be reckoned." And in Gittin, it concludes: And this derivation of Terumat Ma'aser from Terumah Gedolah is for the purpose of estimation. And what the Rav wrote, that the Merciful One called ma'aser "terumah," as it is written: "For the tithe etc." and the end of the verse: "I have given to the Levites as an inheritance." And what the Rav wrote, "and Ma'aser Behema is likened to Ma'aser Dagan," as the Rav explained at the beginning of our chapter. And the Tosafot raised a difficulty: Why was it necessary to say that R' Yosei holds that "just as etc. it is taken by estimation and intention etc."? It should have only been necessary to say that Ma'aser Behema is likened to Ma'aser Dagan. Just as Ma'aser Dagan is taken one in ten, so too Ma'aser Behema, even without passing under the rod. And it can be said that it implies that for Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda, when one takes one out of ten, it is tithe even if they are not equal, as when one brings them into a pen for tithing, it is certainly not their custom to be equal. Therefore, it is necessary to establish it according to Abba Elazar, who permits by estimation. For if not for Abba Elazar, one would say that when taking one out of ten, we require them to be equal, as in ma'aser, even though when bringing them into the pen, we do not require equality. * Chiddush of Tosafot Yom Tov: This is a crucial and expansive commentary. The TYT explains R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda's lenient position (that "if he had one hundred and took ten... this is tithe") by drawing an elaborate hekesh (analogy) between Ma'aser Behema and Ma'aser Dagan, and further, between Ma'aser Dagan and Terumah Gedolah/Terumat Ma'aser. The core idea is that the passuk "וְנֶחְשַׁב לָכֶם תְּרוּמַתְכֶם" (Bamidbar 18:27) implies that Terumah can be separated by omed u'machshava (estimation and intention), as taught by Abba Elazar ben Gomal in a Baraita (Gemara Bekhorot 59a). Since Ma'aser Dagan is likened to Terumah (as a terumah itself), and Ma'aser Behema is likened to Ma'aser Dagan, R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda extends this principle to Ma'aser Behema. * The TYT then addresses a kushya from Tosafot (likely in Bekhorot 59a): if Ma'aser Behema is simply likened to Ma'aser Dagan as "one in ten," why bring in the complex din of omed u'machshava from Terumah? Why not simply say that like Ma'aser Dagan, it's valid if one merely takes one in ten, even without the rod? The TYT explains that the kushya assumes that "taking one in ten" implies they are equal in value, which is usually not the case with animals. The chiddush of Abba Elazar b. Gomal, regarding omed u'machshava, is essential for R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda because it allows for the tithe to be taken even if the animals are not equal in value, as long as the numerical proportion is met and there is machshava. Without this chiddush, simply taking "one in ten" would still require some form of equality or a more stringent selection, which is often impractical in a flock. Thus, R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda relies on omed u'machshava to validate a less formal taking of the tithe.

Tosafot Yom Tov on Mishnah Bekhorot 9:7:4 (הרי אלו פטורין)

הרי אלו פטורין . וכן העתיק הרמב"ם. ומדברי הר"ב נראה דגרס כולן פטורין והוי דומיא דסיפא כולן ירעו ובפ"ק דב"מ דף ו' מייתי לה וגרס כולן פטורין: All these are exempt. And so did the Rambam copy. And from the words of the Rav (Rambam in his commentary) it seems he had the reading "all of them are exempt," which is similar to the end part "all of them must graze." And in Perek Kamma of Bava Metzia 6a, it is brought and reads "all of them are exempt." * This entry notes a girsa (variant reading) in the Mishnah, preferring "כולן פטורין" (all of them are exempt) over "הרי אלו פטורין" (these are exempt), for stylistic consistency with the subsequent din of "כולן ירעו." While seemingly minor, girsot can sometimes have significant halachic implications.

Tosafot Yom Tov on Mishnah Bekhorot 9:7:5 (פטורים)

פטורים . כתב הר"ב דשמא זה יצא עשירי כו'. ובתוס' דב"מ דף ו' תמהו דלהקל לא ה"ל למימר דלא בטלי ברובא ע"ש. ומ"ש הר"ב א"נ כל אחד מהן ספק כו' וכל ספיקא לאו בר עשורי הוא. עשירי ודאי אמר רחמנא ולא עשירי ספק. גמרא דלעיל ממתני'. ומשום דיש לנו ספק אצטריך קרא למעוטי. וליכא לאקשויי דספיקא קמי שמיה גליא תוס' פי"ט דשבת דף קל"ו וכיוצא בזה בספ"ד דנגעים: Exempt. The Rav (Rambam) wrote that perhaps this one was the tenth etc. And in Tosafot Bava Metzia 6a, they wondered that leniently one should not say that they are not nullified by a majority. See there. And what the Rav wrote, alternatively, each one of them is in doubt etc. and any doubt is not fit for tithing. "A definite tenth" the Merciful One said, not a doubtful tenth. This is from the Gemara above our Mishnah. And because we have a doubt, a verse was needed to exclude it. And one cannot raise a difficulty that "doubt is revealed before Him" (as in Tosafot Shabbat 136b and similarly in Sifri Devarim on Nega'im). * Chiddush of Tosafot Yom Tov: This entry directly addresses the kushya of bitul b'rov (nullification by majority) regarding the din of "קפץ אחד מן המנויין... הרי אלו פטורין" (if one of the counted ones jumped back... all are exempt). The Tosafot in Bava Metzia 6a find it difficult: why are all exempt if the uncounted animals are a clear majority? The TYT brings the Gemara's terutz (which the Rambam also follows): "עשירי ודאי אמר רחמנא ולא עשירי ספק" (the Merciful One said a definite tenth, not a doubtful tenth). This is a gzeirat ha'katuv (Divine decree) specific to Ma'aser Behema, demanding absolute certainty in the identity of the tenth. It's not a general halacha of bitul b'rov but a unique stringency for this mitzvah. The TYT also dismisses the kushya from "ספיקא קמי שמיא גליא" (doubt is revealed before Heaven), which suggests that God knows the truth, implying we shouldn't treat it as a safek. The response is that the Torah demands our certainty, not merely God's knowledge.

Rashash

The Rashash provides incisive and often challenging interpretations, focusing on the precise wording and internal consistency of the texts.

Rashash on Mishnah Bekhorot 9:7:1 (במשנה קפץ אחד מן המנוין)

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, "If one of the counted ones jumped back." etc. The Rav (Rambam) explained that he counted ten etc. and took the tenth etc. With all due respect, it seems to me that the Gemara below (59b) did not mean to explain it that way, except not to prove Rava's law from this. But since the law is indeed established, one should explain the Mishnah according to the concept of a "potential count," as Rashi explained. * Chiddush of Rashash: The Rashash here challenges the standard interpretation of "קפץ אחד מן המנויין" (if one of the counted ones jumped back). The Rambam (and R'av, as cited by TYT) interprets "מנויין" as referring to animals that have been counted up to the tenth. The Rashash argues that the Gemara (Bekhorot 59b) does not necessarily support this interpretation, and that the intent of the Mishnah is simpler, aligning with Rashi. He suggests "מנויין" refers to animals that were part of a potential count, even if the count wasn't completed or the tenth wasn't yet explicitly identified. This subtle reinterpretation might suggest that the safek is not about which animal was the tenth (as the Rambam implies by assuming a completed count), but rather about the integrity of the entire numerical sequence, thus making the exemption more straightforwardly a result of the disrupted minyan itself. This highlights a fundamental debate on the precise moment and nature of safek that invalidates the Ma'aser Behema process.

Friction

The Kushya: Bitul B'rov and Safek Menuyin

The most striking kushya in our sugya arises from the Mishnah's ruling: "קפץ אחד מן המנויין לתוך הטלאים, הרי אלו פטורין" (If one of the counted ones jumped back into the pen among the lambs [that had not yet been counted], all these are exempt) (Bekhorot 9:8). The difficulty is evident when we consider the principle of bitul b'rov (nullification by majority), a cornerstone of halachic reasoning. If, for instance, nine animals have been counted, and one of them (a menuyin) jumps back into a pen containing, say, ninety-nine uncounted animals (טלאים), why should all one hundred eight animals become patur from ma'aser? Logically, the one menuyin should be nullified by the vast majority of uncounted animals, and the ma'aser process should continue for the rov. The Tosafot in Bava Metzia 6a explicitly raise this kushya, questioning why the principle of bitul b'rov does not apply here (Tosafot Bava Metzia 6a s.v. tammahu). This seems to defy conventional halachic logic, where a small minority is absorbed by a larger majority, especially in cases of safek.

The Terutz: "עשירי ודאי אמר רחמנא ולא עשירי ספק"

The Gemara (Bekhorot 59a) provides the seminal terutz to this kushya, which is then adopted by Rishonim such as the Rambam and explained by the Tosafot Yom Tov: "עשירי ודאי אמר רחמנא ולא עשירי ספק" (The Merciful One said a definite tenth, not a doubtful tenth) (Gemara Bekhorot 59a).

Elaboration of the Terutz

This terutz is not merely a statement but a profound chiddush about the nature of Ma'aser Behema. It posits that the mitzvah of Ma'aser Behema is unique in its demand for absolute certainty regarding the identity of the tenth animal. The passuk "כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבֹר תַּחַת הַשָּׁבֶט הָעֲשִׂירִי יִהְיֶה קֹדֶשׁ לַה'" (Vayikra 27:32) is understood to imply that the kedusha (sanctity) of the tenth is contingent on its unequivocal identification as such. When one of the menuyin (animals already counted, e.g., 1-9) jumps back into the uncounted flock, a safek is created. Now, any animal emerging from the pen could be:

1. An animal that was never counted, and thus eligible to be part of the new count.
2. The animal that jumped back, which was already counted (e.g., as the third or fifth), and therefore not eligible to be recounted as part of this tithe cycle. Since the Torah demands a "definite tenth," and we cannot, with certainty, identify the next animal emerging as truly the tenth eligible animal, the entire process is stalled and invalidated. The safek contaminates the possibility of establishing a vadai (certain) tenth. This is not a typical bitul b'rov scenario because the safek here is not merely about which individual item is problematic within a larger group, but rather about the fundamental integrity of the counting process itself, which is a prerequisite for the kedusha to attach. If the count cannot proceed with vadai, then no ma'aser can be separated. The Gemara's statement elevates the requirement of certainty to a gzeirat ha'katuv (Divine decree) for Ma'aser Behema, overriding the general principle of bitul b'rov. The Tosafot Yom Tov further emphasizes this point by noting that one cannot counter this terutz with the halachic maxim "ספיקא קמי שמיא גליא" (doubt is revealed before Heaven) (Tosafot Yom Tov on Bekhorot 9:7:5, citing Tosafot Shabbat 136b). While God knows the truth, the Torah's mitzvah requires our demonstrable certainty in the ritual act. This highlights the human element of halachic performance, where our perception of certainty is crucial for the ritual's validity.

Distinguishing Safek Menuyin from Safek Me'usarim

This terutz also helps clarify the distinction between "קפץ אחד מן המנויין" (all patur) and "קפץ אחד מן המעושרין" (all yir'u until blemished).

• In the case of safek menuyin, the kedusha of ma'aser has not yet attached to any animal. The safek prevents the initial conferral of kedusha by disrupting the necessary certain count. Thus, the animals remain chullin (non-sacred) and are patur.
• In the case of safek me'usarim, the kedusha has already attached to the designated tenth animal. When that tithed animal jumps back, the safek is not about conferring kedusha, but about identifying which animal already possesses kedusha. Since we cannot identify the ma'aser animal with certainty, all the animals in the pen are now potentially sacred. Because kedusha cannot be removed by safek once conferred (i.e., safek kodshim lechumra), they cannot revert to chullin. Instead, they are treated with the stringency appropriate for kodshim whose status is in doubt, leading to the din of "כולן ירעו עד שיסתאבו" (all must graze until they become blemished). Once blemished, they lose their fitness for sacrifice but can be eaten by the owner, preserving some of their kedusha while resolving the practical dilemma (Rambam, Hil. Ma'aser Behema 5:16). This further reinforces the gzeirat ha'katuv nature of Ma'aser Behema's certainty requirement.

Intertext

The sugya of Ma'aser Behema offers rich opportunities for intertextual comparison, particularly with other mitzvot involving separation and kedusha.

Parallel 1: Ma'aser Dagan and Terumah – Omed U'Machshava

The most significant parallel, as brought by the Tosafot Yom Tov (Bekhorot 9:7:3) in explaining R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda, is the comparison between Ma'aser Behema, Ma'aser Dagan (grain tithe), and Terumah Gedolah (great heave-offering) / Terumat Ma'aser (tithe of the tithe).

The Torah states regarding Terumat Ma'aser: "וְנֶחְשַׁב לָכֶם תְּרוּמַתְכֶם כַּדָּגָן מִן הַגֹּרֶן וְכַמְלֵאָה מִן הַיָּקֶב" (Bamidbar 18:27 – "And your heave-offering shall be reckoned to you as the grain from the threshing floor and as the fullness from the winepress"). The Baraita cited in the Gemara Bekhorot 59a (and by Tosafot Yom Tov) interprets "תְּרוּמַתְכֶם" as referring to both Terumah Gedolah and Terumat Ma'aser. The phrase "כַּדָּגָן מִן הַגֹּרֶן" (as the grain from the threshing floor) is understood as a hekesh (analogy) to Terumah Gedolah, which is taken from grain. Abba Elazar ben Gomal derives from this passuk that Terumah Gedolah and Terumat Ma'aser can be separated by omed u'machshava (estimation and intention) (Gemara Bekhorot 59a). This means one doesn't need to meticulously measure out 1/40th, 1/50th, or 1/60th (for Terumah Gedolah) or 1/10th (for Terumat Ma'aser) with precise tools. Instead, one can estimate the amount and designate it with kavanah (intention). Rashi explains omed as estimating the total volume of the pile, and machshava as mentally designating a portion, e.g., "I intend this part here to be terumah for the whole pile" (Rashi Gittin 31a s.v. b'omed u'machshava).

R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda, in our Mishnah, extends this leniency to Ma'aser Behema. He argues that just as Terumah (and by extension Ma'aser Dagan) can be separated by omed u'machshava, so too Ma'aser Behema. Therefore, if one has 100 animals and simply takes ten, or ten and takes one, with the intention that these are ma'aser, it is valid, even without the ritual of the rod and the narrow opening. This parallel highlights a fundamental tension:

• The Tanna Kamma of the Mishnah emphasizes the unique stringencies of Ma'aser Behema, particularly the "תחת השבט" (under the rod) requirement (Vayikra 27:32), which implies a specific, physical counting method. For the Tanna Kamma, the "rod" method is not just l'chatchila but essential for the kedusha of ma'aser to attach.
• R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda, however, sees the overarching principle of ma'aser as quantitative and amenable to omed u'machshava, aligning Ma'aser Behema more closely with the flexibility found in Terumot. The halacha does not follow R' Yosei b. R' Yehuda (Rambam on Mishnah Bekhorot 9:7:1; Mishneh Torah, Hil. Ma'aser Behema 5:14), emphasizing the unique ritualistic requirements for Ma'aser Behema that go beyond mere numerical proportion or mental intent.

Parallel 2: Safek Kodshim – The Nature of Sanctity and Doubt

The distinction between "קפץ אחד מן המנויין... הרי אלו פטורין" and "קפץ אחד מן המעושרין... כולן ירעו עד שיסתאבו" (Bekhorot 9:8) illuminates a crucial aspect of safek (doubt) concerning kodshim (sacred items).

The general principle is safek kodshim lechumra – doubtful sacred items are treated stringently. However, the specific dinim here are not uniform:

• Safek Menuyin (doubt before designation): If an animal counted 1-9 jumps back, the kedusha has not yet attached to any animal. The doubt prevents the initiation of the kedusha process. As "עשירי ודאי אמר רחמנא" (the Merciful One requires a definite tenth), the safek renders the entire flock patur (exempt) from ma'aser. Here, the safek prevents the chiyuv kedusha (obligation of sanctity) from taking hold. This is a unique stringency for Ma'aser Behema that often doesn't apply to other mitzvot. For instance, if one has a safek whether an animal is a bechor (firstborn) that requires sacrifice, it is generally treated as a bechor lechumra (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 309:1). But here, the safek leads to leniency regarding the chiyuv.
• Safek Me'usarim (doubt after designation): If an animal already designated as the tenth (and thus having acquired kedushat ma'aser) jumps back, the kedusha has already attached. The doubt is now about which specific animal carries this kedusha. Since the kedusha cannot be simply removed due to safek, all the animals in the pen are treated as potentially ma'aser. The practical outcome, "כולן ירעו עד שיסתאבו ויאכלו במומן לבעלים" (all must graze until they become unfit, and may be eaten in their blemished state by their owner), is a classic din for kodshim that have become pasul (unfit for sacrifice) but still retain a residual sanctity (e.g., chullin she'ne'erachav al gabei mizbe'ach - non-sacred items that came onto the altar). They cannot be sacrificed due to the safek of their identity, nor can they be eaten as chullin. They must be kept until they develop a blemish, at which point their kedusha diminishes to a level where they can be consumed by the owner as non-sacred meat, albeit with the original kedusha having been fulfilled through their disqualification. This distinction underscores that the halachic treatment of safek is highly dependent on whether kedusha has already been conferred. Before conferral, safek can prevent the chiyuv; after conferral, safek leads to chumra in disposal, reflecting the enduring nature of kedusha.

Psak/Practice

The mitzvah of Ma'aser Behema is not observed today. This non-observance stems from several factors, primarily the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash. The kedusha of Ma'aser Behema is kedushat haguf (sanctity intrinsic to the animal's body), and it is designated for consumption in Jerusalem, often after being offered as a korban (sacrifice) (Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hil. Ma'aser Behema 5:1, 5:10). With no Temple, the sacrificial aspect cannot be fulfilled, and the consumption in Jerusalem lacks its full kedusha context.

Furthermore, the kohanim and levi'im who would receive parts of the sacrifices (and potentially the ma'aser animals themselves) are no longer meyuchasim (of proven lineage), which is a prerequisite for their service and receipt of sacred dues. The Gemara (Bekhorot 53b) discusses that Ma'aser Behema applies even in the absence of the Temple ("בזמן הבית ושלא בזמן הבית"). However, the Rambam in Sefer HaMitzvot (Aseh 49) explains that Ma'aser Behema is nohag (practiced) only when the Temple exists, or at least when kohanim and levi'im are identifiable (Rambam, Sefer HaMitzvot, Aseh 49). In his Mishneh Torah, he states that in our times, one should not separate Ma'aser Behema, and if one does, it does not acquire kedusha (Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hil. Ma'aser Behema 5:3). This is because without the Temple, the mitzvah is considered batel (nullified or suspended).

Despite its current non-observance, the sugya provides critical meta-psak heuristics:

1. The Demand for Certainty in Kedusha: The principle "עשירי ודאי אמר רחמנא ולא עשירי ספק" (Gemara Bekhorot 59a; Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hil. Ma'aser Behema 5:15) is a powerful model for understanding how kedusha is conferred in halacha. Where the Torah demands a precise act for sanctification, any safek regarding that act can prevent the kedusha from attaching, even overriding general rules like bitul b'rov. This informs our approach to other mitzvot that require clear designation or identification for sanctity.
2. Gradation of Kedusha and Safek: The distinction between safek menuyin (patur) and safek me'usarim (yir'u) illustrates that the halachic treatment of safek varies depending on whether kedusha has already been conferred. Once kedusha attaches, its removal due to safek is far more difficult, often leading to stringent disposal methods (e.g., grazing until blemished) rather than reversion to chullin. This principle, safek kodshim lechumra, remains fundamental in all areas of halacha involving sacred items.
3. The Role of Amira and Machshava: R' Meir's complex din of mislabeling the tenth (Bekhorot 9:8) highlights the potency of amira (verbal declaration) and machshava (intention) in conferring kedusha, even when mistaken. The precise interaction between the objective reality (which animal is truly the tenth) and the subjective declaration (what one calls it) is a nuanced area of halacha that recurs in kodshim and nederim (vows). The klal "כל מקום שלא נסתלק שם עשירי מעל עשירי, אחד עשר אינו קדוש" (where the name "tenth" was not removed from the tenth, the eleventh is not consecrated) (Bekhorot 9:8) further refines this, emphasizing the inherent, almost indelible, "tenthness" of the actual tenth animal.

Takeaway

The intricate halachot of Ma'aser Behema underscore the profound kedusha inherent in this mitzvah, demanding absolute certainty and meticulous ritual execution for its validity, thereby providing a robust framework for understanding the nature of sanctity and the treatment of doubt in halacha.