Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

In Chapter 7, Halachah 1.

Instead, despite the fact that they were called “the tenth,” they are considered as ordinary animals.

To a certain degree, as stated in the following halachah.

Although generally, actions performed erroneously have no effect, an exception is made in this instance. See the gloss of Rav Yosef Corcus.

This reflects a change of mind on the part of the Rambam. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nazir 5:3), he writes that if a person intentionally counts in error, those erroneously counted as the tenth are not consecrated.

Provided the conditions stated in Halachah 3 are met. The tenth animal is considered as consecrated as a matter of course, even if one does not call it the tenth.

Oil, wine, and meal, as explained in Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbanot, ch. 2.

Menachot 91 b derives this concept through the principles of Biblical exegesis.

See Hilchot Temurah, ch. 1, which describes such a transfer of holiness.

For having these animals consecrated is considered as a loss. With regard to the ninth animal, one suffers the inconvenience of having to wait until it contracts a blemish before slaughtering it and it is forbidden to shear it and work with it. And portions of the eleventh animal (the breast and the foreleg) must be given to a priest as is the law with regard to all peace-offerings.

One of the fundamental principles of agency is “I sent you to improve my situation, not to harm it” (Ketubot 85a; Bava Metzia 108a, et al; cited by the Rambam in Hilchot Mechirah 13:9; Hilchot Shluchin 1:2,6, 3:9, et al).

Halachah l.

Rav Yosef Corcus (based on Bechorot 60b) states that they are both consecrated only when the owner called them both “the tenth.” When, however, he called them both “the ninth,” only one is consecrated. Nevertheless, neither can be eaten until it contracts a blemish, as stated in the final clause of the halachah. Significantly, however, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bechorot 9:8), the Rambam uses the expression, “they are both consecrated.”

In this instance, all agree that both animals are fully consecrated. If one performs labor with either of them or shears either of them, he is liable for lashes.

The animals must also be redeemed, as required of a peace-offering that contracts a blemish. We do not require - or allow - them to be offered as sacrifices, because the laws governing the two types of sacrifices are different (see Bechorot 61a and commentaries).

Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 6:14.

Which is consecrated even if it was not counted with the proper number.

Since he did not called the eleventh “the tenth,” it is not consecrated. Nevertheless, since it is intermingled with the tenth, precautions must be taken.

In this instance, there is no need to redeem the animal, as in all other instances when a tithe offering becomes blemished.

From the Rambam’s wording, it appears that the initial preference is to count them in this manner.

This is different from the instance described in Halachot 1 and 3, where both the tenth and eleventh animals become consecrated and are offered for the appropriate sacrifices. The reason for the distinction is that in those instances, the entire counting process was correct, one merely erred concerning the tenth animal. In this instance, by contrast, the entire counting process is in error (Rashi, Bechorot 61a).

Halachah 1.

As stated in Halachah 2.

From being counted in the future.

This is a general principle explained in the following halachot.
The commentaries have questioned the Rambam’s statements, for in the first clause, he considers the tenth animal as the tithe, while in this clause, he implies that the first eight animals are exempt only because “once animals have been counted in a manner that was fitting [for them to be tithed], they are exempt,” but not that they have in fact been tithed. While the Rambam is quoting Bechorot 59a, that passage follows the view that the tenth does not become consecrated on its own accord and the Rambam has stated that he follows the opposite view, that it does become consecrated on its own accord.
Rav Yosef Corcus explains that the Rambam is clarifying that the eight are exempt even though the tenth dies before the eight depart. Nevertheless, he admits that this is a difficult explanation, because that law is explicitly stated in the following halachot.

And thus there are no longer ten to tithe.

In Halachah 8.

See Chapter 7, Halachah 8, for a definition of this term.

I.e., since at the time they departed through that opening, it was possible that six more would have departed through that opening, they were counted in a way that was fitting for them to be tithed. Needless to say, those that were tithed are exempt.

And thus none of the animals were separated as a tithe.

Because, at the time they departed, there was no way that ten lambs could have departed through that entrance for one to be tithed.

For an animal was taken as the tithe from ten and the other four were counted in a way appropriate for them to have been tithed.

Regardless of the opening through which it departed.

Thus it could create a difficulty if it becomes intermingled with the others, as stated in the concluding halachot.

At which time it is forbidden to tithe. As such, it is possible for one to think that the entire counting must be repeated or that those counting would be exempt because they were counted in a manner appropriate to be tithed. Hence, it is necessary for the Rambam to emphasize that the tithing should be continued where it was interrupted (Rav Yosef Corcus).

Halachah 8.

And as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 15, whenever there is a doubt whether an animal must be counted for the tithing, it is exempt.

These animals may not be shorn, nor may they be used for labor. The rationale is that there is a question concerning the status of each animal: Is it the one selected as the tithes or not? Hence it cannot be offered as a sacrifice (lest it is an ordinary animal), nor may one treat it as an ordinary animal (for perhaps it is the one selected as the tithe).