אף תרומת מעשר נטלת באומד ובמחשבה ומעשר קרייה רחמנא תרומה דכתיב (במדבר יח, כד) כי את מעשר בני ישראל אשר ירימו לה' תרומה נתתי ללוים לנחלה ואיתקש מעשר בהמה למעשר דגן מה מעשר דגן ניטל באומד ובמחשבה אף מעשר בהמה ניטל באומד ובמחשבה
so too, teruma of the tithe may be taken by estimate and by thought. And this ruling of Abba Elazar ben Gomel’s also applies to tithes of the grain, because the Merciful One calls tithe “teruma,” as it is written: “For the tithe of the children of Israel, which they set apart as teruma for the Lord, I have given to the Levites for an inheritance” (Numbers 18:24). And animal tithe is juxtaposed to grain tithe, as is derived from the verse: “You shall tithe a tithe” (Deuteronomy 14:22; see 53b). Just as grain tithe is separated by estimate and by thought, so too, animal tithe is separated by estimate and by thought. For this reason, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, maintains that even with regard to an animal that was not counted, if it was separated as tithe the separation is valid.
אמר רבא עשירי מאליו הוא קדוש מנא ליה לרבא הא אילימא מהא דתניא אין לי אלא שקרא שמו עשירי לא קרא שמו עשירי מנין ת"ל עשירי יהיה קדש מ"מ
Rava says: If one counted nine animals and the tenth animal remains in the pen, it is sacred as the animal tithe of its own accord, even if it does not leave the pen and was not counted. The Gemara asks: From where does Rava derive this halakha? If we say he derives it from that which is taught in the aforementioned baraita, this is problematic. The Gemara cites the baraita again: And I have derived only that an animal that one explicitly called by the name of the tenth one is the animal tithe. From where do I derive that the tenth animal is sanctified even if one did not explicitly call it the tenth one? The verse states: “The tenth shall be sacred,” i.e., it shall be sacred in any case, even if it was not called the tenth. The suggestion is that Rava understands from here that the tenth is sacred even if it was not counted, provided there was a counting. Consequently, it makes no difference whether or not the owner called it the tenth or left it in the pen.
ודלמא עשירי הוא דלא קרייה קדש קרייה אלא מהא דתניא קרא לתשיעי עשירי ויצא העשירי ולא דבר התשיעי נאכל במומו והעשירי מעשר
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: But perhaps this baraita is referring specifically to a case where he did not call that animal the tenth, but he did call it sanctified. Rather, the Gemara suggests that Rava derives it from that which is taught in a baraita: If one erred and called the ninth animal the tenth, and the tenth animal emerged from the pen but the owner did not speak, the ninth animal is not sanctified and is not brought as an offering. But since it was called the tenth, it may be eaten only once it develops a blemish. And the tenth animal is the animal tithe. It is possible that Rava maintains that just as the tenth is sacred in this case, when the owner remained silent, the same applies if he left it in the pen.
ודלמא שאני התם דאיברר ליה עשירי אי נמי דאחוי עילויה
The Gemara rejects this suggestion as well: But perhaps it is different there, as the tenth animal was selected when it emerged from the pen, despite the fact that it was not counted verbally. Alternatively, the reason it is sanctified is that he pointed at it as it emerged, although he did not explicitly say that it was the tenth animal. Conversely, in a case where it remained in the pen perhaps it does not have any sanctity at all.
אלא מהא דתניא קרא לתשיעי עשירי ומת עשירי בדיר תשיעי נאכל במומו וכולם פטורין מ"ט כולם פטורים לאו משום דקדש ליה עשירי
Rather, the Gemara suggests that Rava derives his halakha from that which is taught in a baraita: If one erred and called the ninth animal the tenth, and the tenth animal died in the pen, the ninth animal may be eaten only once it develops a blemish, and all the other animals are exempt from having to be tithed again. The Gemara clarifies this ruling: What is the reason that all the other animals are exempt? Is it not because the tenth animal is sanctified of its own accord, even without emerging from the pen?
ודלמא דאיפטרו במנין הראוי דהאמר רבא מנין הראוי פוטר
The Gemara rejects this suggestion as well: But perhaps the other animals are exempt because they were counted in a tally that is fit to reach ten. As doesn’t Rava say: A tally fit to reach ten exempts from the obligation of tithe? If one began counting lambs for the purpose of tithing and at that stage the group was fit to be tithed, but ultimately he was unable to separate the tithe, e.g., if one of the animals died and there were only nine left, those that were counted while the tally was fit to reach ten are exempt from being tithed. Moreover, the owner is not required to include them in the tithe on the following occasion.
אלא מהא דתניא קרא לתשיעי עשירי ונשתייר עשירי בדיר התשיעי נאכל במומו והעשירי מעשר והתניא תשיעי חולין
Rather, the Gemara suggests that Rava derives his halakha from that which is taught in a baraita: If one erred and called the ninth animal the tenth, and the tenth animal remained in the pen, the ninth animal may be eaten only once it develops a blemish, and the tenth animal is the animal tithe. The tenth animal has sanctity even though it has not left the pen. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that in such a case the ninth animal is non-sacred?
תני תנא קמיה דרב ששת הא מני ר"ש בן יהודה היא דתניא ר"ש בן יהודה אומר משום ר"ש
A tanna taught before Rav Sheshet: In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: