1)

(a)Rava validates Ma'aser, even if one did not declare it to be holy. Why is there no proof for Rava from the Beraisa...

1. ... which validates Ma'aser even if one did not declare it be the tenth?

2. ... which validates the tenth lamb that left the pen after he had declared the ninth to be the tenth, even though he did not say anything else?

(b)Why is there no proof from the Beraisa which rules that, if, after he declared the ninth lamb to be Ma'aser, the tenth one died in the pen, the ninth one may be eaten as soon as it becomes blemished, and the rest (the first eight) are all Patur? Why is that not a proof that the tenth lamb is automatically Ma'aser?

(c)From where does the Gemara prove Rava to be correct?

(d)One Beraisa rules that if one called the ninth animal the tenth, it is Ma'aser, and may only be eaten when it becomes blemished; Whereas another Beraisa rules that it is Chulin and may be eaten immediately. How do we resolve this discrepancy?

1)

(a)Rava validates Ma'aser, even if one did not declare it to be holy. There is no proof for Rava from the Beraisa ...

1. ... which validates Ma'aser even when the owner did not declare it to be the tenth - since it may be speaking in a case where the owner at least declared the lamb holy (Rashi's second explanation, which follows the text in our Gemara).

2. ... which validates the tenth lamb that left the pen after he had declared the ninth to be the tenth, even though he did not say anything else - because that Beraisa speaks where the tenth lamb left the pen, or at least where the owner indicated that it was Ma'aser by pointing to it (even though he remained silent). But had the lamb remained in the pen (the case about which Rava is speaking), it will not be Ma'aser

(b)Nor is there a proof for Rava from the Beraisa which rules that if, after he declared the ninth lamb to be the tenth, the tenth lamb still in the pen died, nevertheless, the first eight lambs are Patur - because that may be speaking where the tenth animal is automatically considered Ma'aser, because of Minyan ha'Ra'uy - a number which could have resulted in Ma'aser (as will be explained later), and which exempts from the need to re-Ma'aser, as we learn from another statement of Rava.

(c)In fact, the Gemara proves Rava's statement - from the Beraisa which states that, if the owner calls the ninth lamb the tenth, and the tenth one is still in the pen, then the ninth lamb can be eaten when it becomes blemished, and the tenth one is Ma'aser, even though the owner said nothing.

(d)One Beraisa rules that if one called the ninth animal the tenth, it is Ma'aser, and may only be eaten when it becomes blemished; Whereas another Beraisa rules that it is Chulin and may be eaten immediately. We resolve this discrepancy - by establishing the latter like Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah quoting Rebbi Shimon, who maintains that the ninth lamb, like the eleventh, is not holy, unless the owner removes the title of tenth from the tenth lamb by calling it the ninth.

2)

(a)What is the Halachic difference between the ninth lamb which one declares to be the tenth and the eleventh lamb which one declares to be the tenth?

(b)Rebbi Shimon holds that the ninth lamb has the same Din as the eleventh, inasmuch as they are both not holy unless the name tenth has been removed from the tenth. What is the meaning of this last phrase?

(c)The Rabbanan hold that the ninth (unlike the eleventh) is holy. What is the basis of their Machlokes?

2)

(a)The Halachic difference between the ninth lamb which one declares to be the tenth and the eleventh lamb which one declares to be the tenth is that - if the owner calls the eleventh lamb the tenth (assuming that the Ma'aser is effective), it may be brought as a Korban, whereas with the ninth, that is not the case.

(b)Rebbi Shimon holds that the ninth lamb has the same Din as the eleventh, inasmuch as they are both not holy unless the name tenth has been removed from the tenth, which means - to call it the ninth.

(c)The Rabbanan hold that the ninth (unlike the eleventh) is holy. Rebbi Shimon holds that - if the eleventh, which, when it is considered Ma'aser, may be brought on the Mizbe'ach, yet it does not become Ma'aser unless one has removed the title tenth from the tenth lamb, then the ninth lamb, which, even when it is called Ma'aser, cannot be brought on the Mizbe'ach, should certainly not be called Ma'aser unless the title tenth has been removed from the tenth lamb. Whereas the Rabbanan maintain that - it is the eleventh lamb whose Kedushah is strong, to the point that it may be brought on the Mizbe'ach, that only adopts its sanctity if the title tenth was removed from the tenth lamb. On the other hand, the weak Kedushah of the ninth lamb, which does not go on the Mizbe'ach, can become effective (regarding eating it when it obtains a blemish), even when the owner does not remove the title tenth from the tenth lamb.

59b----------------------------------------59b

3)

(a)Rava rules that Minyan ha'Ra'uy exempts. What is Minyan ha'Ra'uy?

(b)Why is there no proof from ...

1. ... our Mishnah, which rules that if one of the counted ones jumped back into the pen, they are all Patur from Ma'aser? Is that not because of Minyan ha'Ra'uy?

2. ... the Seifa, which states that if one of the Me'usarin jumped back, they are all Chayav? How do we know that Me'usarin in the Seifa must be referring to the actual tenth lambs, and not just those that had Ma'aser taken from them?

(c)How do we know that this explanation is correct?

3)

(a)Rava rules that Minyan ha'Ra'uy exempts. If, for example, after the owner counts nine lambs, the tenth one, which is still in the pen, dies or gets lost, the first nine are Patur from having further Ma'aser taken from them, because the lamb in the pen was fit to combine with them to make up the ten.

(b)There is no proof from ...

1. ... our Mishnah, which rules that if one of the counted animals jumps back into the pen, they are all Patur from Ma'aser - because perhaps they are all Patur, since it is referring to a situation in which the owner declared the tenth one Ma'aser. Had he not done so, perhaps they would all be Chayav.

2. ... the Seifa, which states that if one of the Me'usarin jumped back, they are all Chayav - because Me'usar in the Seifa must mean lambs which were themselves Ma'aser (and not lambs which had Ma'aser taken from them) - leaving us with the alternative that, in the Reisha, the owner had Ma'aser taken from them, so that we remain without a proof for Rava's Din).

(c)And we know that this explanation is correct - because the Mishnah goes on to say that the Me'usarin should be placed into a field to graze until they become blemished. That can only be said about a lamb which is actually Kadosh, not about a lamb which has only had Ma'aser taken from it.

4)

(a)Rava proves that Minyan ha'Ra'uy Poter from the word "Ya'avor" (in the Pasuk in Bechukosai "ve'Chol Ma'aser Bakar va'Tzon Kol asher Ya'avor Tachas ha'Shavet"). How does he prove it from there?

(b)Perhaps the Pasuk is speaking where he already Ma'asered the animals?

(c)We cite a Beraisa in support of Rava, which discusses a case where, after five lambs, out of a total of ten, have been counted one of them dies. What does the Tana say assuming the one that died belongs to ...

1. ... those that have already been counted?

2. ... those that have not yet been counted?

4)

(a)Rava proves that Minyan ha'Ra'uy Poter from the word "Ya'avor" (in the Pasuk in Bechukosai "ve'Chol Ma'aser Bakar va'Tzon Kol asher Ya'avor Tachas ha'Shavet") - which is written in the future tense, implying "Ya'avor", 'vw'Lo she'Kevar Avar'.

(b)The Pasuk cannot be speaking where he already Ma'asered the animals - because then it would be obvious that he does not need to Ma'aser them again.

(c)We cite a Beraisa in support of Rava, which discusses a case where, after five lambs, out of a total of ten, have been counted one of them dies. The Tana rules that, assuming the one that died belongs to ...

1. ... those that have already been counted - he simply continues counting and marks the tenth one.

2. ... those that have not yet been counted - then those that have been counted are Patur (because if Minyan ha'Ra'uy), and those that have not must be added to another batch and placed in a pen and counted together with them.

5)

(a)Rava also discusses a case where, out of fourteen lambs, six leave the pen through one gate, and four through a second gate, whereas four remain in the pen. What does he say assuming the latter four ...

1. ... go out through the same gate as the six?

2. ... go out through the same gate as the four?

(b)And what if two groups of four leave first, leaving the six in the pen, assuming that the six ...

1. ... go out through the same gate as one of the groups of four?

2. ... do not go out through the same gate as either of the groups of four?

(c)Having already taught us that Minyan ha'Ra'yur exempts, what is Rava coming to teach us here?

5)

(a)Rava also discusses a case where, out of fourteen lambs, six leave the pen through one gate, and four through a second gate, whereas four remain in the pen. He rules, assuming the latter four ...

1. ... go out through the same gate as the six that - the owner takes the tenth lamb as Ma'aser, and the other four are Patur (because of Minyan ha'Ra'uy).

2. ... go out through the same gate as the four - that - the six are Patur (because of Minyan ha'Ra'uy), and the two groups of four combine with another group of lambs to enter the pen with them and be counted.

(b)If two groups of four leave first, leaving the six in the pen, assuming that the six ...

1. ... go out through the same gate as one of the groups of four - the owner takes the tenth lamb as Ma'aser, and the other group of four are Patur (because of Minyan ha'Ra'uy).

2. ... do not go out through the same gate as either of the groups of four - the two groups of four are Patur (because of Minyan ha'Ra'uy, and the six combine with another group of lambs to enter the pen with them and be counted.

(c)Having already taught us that Minyan ha'Ra'yur exempts, Rava is coming to teach us here that - even a Safek Minyan ha'Ra'uy, where the remaining lambs might leave via a different gate, also exempts them.

6)

(a)If someone has fifteen lambs, what might we have thought that he can do (regarding Ma'aser)?

(b)One reason for the prohibition is because one is not permitted to choose the weakest lambs to have Ma'aser taken from them, but must place all of the new-born lambs into the pen, and let Hash-m pick those that He wants. What is the second reason?

(c)How must he in fact, Ma'aser them?

6)

(a)We might have thought that someone who has fifteen lambs - can take ten of them and Ma'aser them. As for the remaining five, they will be exempt from being Ma'asered.

(b)One reason for the prohibition is because one is not permitted to choose the weakest lambs to have Ma'aser taken from them, but must place all of the new-born lambs into the pen, and let Hash-m pick those that He wants. The second reason is - because, once the lambs enter the pen, he remains obligated to combine those that remain in the pen and to Ma'aser them, despite the fact that, after having taken Ma'aser from those that left it, the number does not total ten. Had he chosen ten out of the fifteen, the remaining five would have been Patur from Ma'asros, since they had not yet entered the pen to have Ma'aser taken from them.

(c)What he in fact must do is - place all fifteen into the pen and designate the tenth one that leaves as Ma'aser.