1)

(a)We cite a Beraisa which supports Rava, but query it from another Beraisa which discusses someone who possesses nineteen lambs. The Tana there ...

1. ... rules that he should not - place ten in a pen and Ma'aser them and exempt the other nine.

2. ... requires him to - place all nineteen lambs into a pen and Ma'aser them, and the remaining nine are Patur.

(b)This clashes with the previous Beraisa, which ruled that - the remaining animals should be Ma'asered together with another group of sheep?

(c)Rav Huna bar Sechorah reconciled the two Beraisos be'Rigla - on the Shabbos before Yom-Tov, when one learns the Dinim of Yom-Tov, by establishing the latter Beraisa ...

(d)... by a pen with two gates, where nine lambs left through one gate and nine through the other. Consequently, when the remaining lamb leave via one of the gates, the other nine are Patur on account of Minyan ha'Ra'uy.

2)

(a)He did not answer that the Beraisa is speaking even about a pen with one gate, but in a case where ...

1. ... after counting nine, the owner mistakenly called the tenth one, 'One', in which case the first nine are Patur because of Minyan ha'Ra'uy, and the nineteenth will now be the tenth (of the second batch) - because the tenth lamb is automatically Ma'aser, even if the owner declared it 'One'. Consequently, the remaining nine will remain Chayav to have Ma'aser taken from them.

2. ... he counted them in pairs, so that, when he has counted to nine (eighteen lambs), the tenth one is the Ma'aser of one of the two sets, though we do not know which one. The first eighteen will be Patur, one because it has had Ma'aser taken from it, and the other, because of Minyan ha'Ra'uy (since the last one is fit to combine with either of the two sets) - because he holds that the animals are automatically counted individually, in which case even if he counted them in pairs, the tenth animal (the second of the fifth pair) is Ma'aser, in which case the nine lambs that followed were not fit for Minyan ta'Ra'uy.

(b)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak exclaimed 'How meritorious is the mother of Rav Huna bar Sechorah!'...

(c)... because he actually answered them in front of Rava (his Rebbe) and by doing so, he established Rava's opinion as being flawless.

3)

(a)Our Mishnah discusses what to do in the event that a number of animals emerge simultaneously. If two lambs emerge simultaneously - one counts them as two animals.

(b)If one counts them as one - the ninth and the tenth lambs are spoilt (they are not proper Ma'aser to be brought on the Mizbe'ach, as Ma'aser should be, but are eaten when they become blemished, because they came out together, and he called them out as one, so the ninth and the tenth are not clarified (unlike the following case, where the ninth, the tenth and the eleventh are clearly defined, and it is the owner who erred (Rashi, K'sav Yad).

(c)If the ninth and the tenth animals emerge together - they are spoiled ; because, even if we assume that they cannot possibly emerge at the same time, nevertheless, since we do not know which one emerged first, we cannot determine which one to bring on the Mizbe'ach. Consequently, all we can do is wait for them to become blemished.

(d)If he called the ninth, the tenth; the tenth, the ninth and the eleventh, the tenth - all three animals are Kadosh, but they have different Dinim: The ninth is not brought on the Mizbe'ach but is eaten when it becomes blemished. The tenth has the Din of proper Ma'aser and is brought on the Mizbe'ach as such. The eleventh is brought as a Shelamim.

(e)Rebbi Meir holds that - the eleventh animal (which the owner called the tenth) can make a Temurah, because, in his opinion, the eleventh is not a Temurah, but an ordinary Shelamim. But Rebbi Yehudah maintains that the eleventh animal is itself a Temurah, and as such, it cannot make another Temurah.

4)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan explains that if the owner counted the lambs in pairs or 'Kint'rin Kint'rin' - in groups of a hundred, the Ma'aser takes effect 'le'Minyano'.

(b)Rav Mari and Rav Kahana argue over what Rebbi Yochanan means. According to Rebbi Mari - if the owner counted the animals in pairs, then that is how the Ma'aser will become effective. Whereas in the opinion of Rav Kahana - we do not go by the owner's words, but by the way they emerge from the pen, so that the tenth lamb to emerge, irrespective of what the owner said.

(c)Rebbi Mari only says that we go after the words of the owner which he expressed deliberately, whereas our Mishnah is speaking in a case where the owner made a mistake - there, he will concede that we follow the order that the animals emerge, and not by his words.

(d)Rav Kahana will reconcile his opinion with the Beraisa, which says that, if he called their numbers backwards, the tenth lamb (which he called the first) is nevertheless Ma'aser - inasmuch as calling them backwards is different, because that is the way the Persians count, and that gives counting backwards a sort of official stamp.

5)

(a)We know that, if the owner called the ninth lamb the tenth; the tenth, the ninth, and the eleventh, the tenth, that all three are Ma'aser - because the Torah writes "And all Ma'aser of cattle and sheep, all that passes under the stick", implying that, whether it is the tenth (but he did not declare it as such), or he declared it the tenth (even if it is not the tenth), Ma'aser is effective.

(b)Nevertheless, if he calls the eighth and the twelfth lambs the tenth, they are not Ma'aser - since the source of the above Din lies in the tenth animal, which the Torah compares to those that are not really the tenth. Consequently, just as the tenth animal, which is close to itself, is Ma'aser, so must the animals that are counted as the tenth, must be close to it, thereby disqualifying the eighth and the twelfth.

(c)The author of the Beraisa quoted by the Beraisa expert in front of Rebbi Yochanan, which holds that only one of the mistakes is Ma'aser, not both (the ninth and the eleventh) - is Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon ...

(d)... who learns from the tenth animal that, just as the tenth is only one, so too, can we only include one mistake, but not two), and that the eleventh animal is only Kadosh if he is silent by the ninth one, and declares the tenth one the ninth and the eleventh one, the tenth.

(e)He concurs with - Rebbi Yehudah (in our Mishnah), that the eleventh animal is a Temurah of Ma'aser - and with his father, who says that there can be no second Temurah after the first; Consequently, since the ninth and the eleventh are both Temuros of the Ma'aser animal, the one cannot be effective after the other.

6)

(a)If, as they emerge simultaneously, the owner calls both the ninth and the tenth the ninth - then Chulin and Ma'aser are mixed together, which means that they can both be eaten only when they become blemished. However, should he shear or work with, either of them - he does not receive Malkos (since only one of them is Ma'aser, and there is no Malkus on a Safek). Whereas, were he to call them both the tenth, then Ma'aser and the ninth (which he called the tenth) would be mixed together. This means that neither can be eaten until they become blemished. In addition, if he shears or works with either of them, he will receive Malkos (since both animals are forbidden).

(b)Rava needs to add that if the tenth and the eleventh animals emerge simultaneously, and he calls them both the eleventh, they have the same Din as where he calls both the ninth and the tenth the ninth - since we have already learnt above, that the eleventh animal is not holy if he called the tenth, the tenth. Therefore Rava has to inform us that - that only applies where the two animals emerge one after the other; but if they emerge at the same time, then the eleventh becomes holy, despite the fact that the owner called the tenth 'the tenth'.

(c)'Zeh ha'Klal' in our Mishnah comes (not to teach us that, even if the tenth and the eleventh lambs emerged at the same time, the eleventh is nevertheless not Ma'aser unless he has removed the title of tenth from the tenth, but) - to include where the owner was silent on the tenth animal, to teach us that, although the owner did not call the tenth animal the tenth, since he did not call it the ninth, he has not removed the title of tenth from it, in which case the eleventh animal is not Kadosh. So we can still say that if they emerged together, the eleventh animal is holy, although he did not remove the title of tenth from the tenth.

7)

(a)We try to prove that the Beraisa must hold that if the tenth and the eleventh animals emerge simultaneously, the eleventh does not require the removal of the title 'tenth' from the tenth , for it to become holy - because otherwise, how will we explain the Beraisa, which says that if two animals came out simultaneously as the tenth, if the owner called them both the tenth, then the tenth and the eleventh are mixed together? Considering that he did not remove the title of tenth from the tenth animal, why is Kedushah effective on the eleventh?

(b)We refute this proof however - because the Beraisa could be speaking where the first animal stuck out its head, and the owner called it the eleventh (thereby removing its title of tenth from it). Then it withdrew its head, and when the two animals subsequently stuck out their heads simultaneously, he called them both the tenth.

(c)And when the Beraisa says 'Lo Kadam', even though it was really Kadam, it1 means that - it did not remain out but returned to become mixed up with the eleventh animal, and when it emerged for the second time, it did not precede it.

8)

(a)We initially think that the Beraisa cannot go like Rebbi - because he holds that if one calls the tenth the eleventh, that is not called removing the title of tenth from the tenth (unless one calls it the ninth). Consequently, the above explanation does not appear to concur with Rebbi's opinion.

(b)We nevertheless reconcile it with Rebbi, inasmuch as ...

1. ... Rebbi says that calling the tenth the eleventh is not called removing its title only if there are at least another ten animals that need to have Ma'aser taken from them, because then, he obviously does not mean to declare the tenth the eleventh, only the tenth. Alternatively ...

2. ... what he really meant to say with Achas Esrei, was that - this is the first ten. But if he has less than ten animals that still need to have Ma'aser taken from them, then even Rebbi will agree with Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah that it makes no difference whether he calls the tenth the ninth or the eleventh.