Even the ninth that was accidentall y designated as the tenth is not sanctified and may be eaten before it develops a blemish, unless the name of the tenth is removed from the tenth animal, i.e., if the owner erred also in that he called the tenth animal the ninth. And logical reasoning leads to this conclusion.

The Gemara explains the logical reasoning: The halakha is that if one designated the ninth animal as the tenth, and the tenth as the tenth, and the eleventh as the tenth, then the eleventh is not consecrated. This is because in any situation where the name of the tenth was not removed from the tenth animal, the eleventh, which was called the tenth, is not consecrated. And if the eleventh animal, which becomes sanctified to be sacrificed as a peace offering, as stated in the mishna on 60a, is sanctified only if the name of the tenth is removed from the tenth animal, then with regard to the ninth animal, which does not become sanctified to be sacrificed but is eaten once it develops a blemish, is it not logical that if the name of the tenth is removed from the actual tenth animal, then yes, the ninth animal has sanctity and may be eaten only once it develops a blemish, but if not, then it is not sanctified at all and may be eaten even without a blemish?

The Gemara rejects this logical derivation: That claim itself provides support for the contrary opinion. With regard to the eleventh animal, which becomes sanctified with a stringent sanctity to be sacrificed as a peace offering, if the name of the tenth is removed from the actual tenth animal, then yes, the eleventh becomes sanctified, but if the designation of being the tenth is not removed from the tenth, then the eleventh does not become sanctified. But with regard to the ninth animal, which does not become sanctified with the stringent sanctity to be sacrificed, one can say that even though the name of the tenth animal is not removed from the tenth animal, nevertheless the ninth becomes sanctified.

Alternatively, there is another distinction between the two cases. With regard to the eleventh animal, which is sanctified only after the tenth animal has been selected, as it has emerged from the pen, one can claim that if the name of the tenth is removed from the tenth animal, then yes, the eleventh becomes sanctified, but if the name of the tenth is not removed from the tenth animal, the eleventh does not become sanctified.

But with regard to the ninth animal, which becomes sanctified at a time when the tenth animal has not yet been selected, as the tenth animal has not yet left the pen, if the owner accidentally designated that ninth animal as the tenth it becomes sanctified, and in such a case this is the halakha even though the name of the tenth animal is not removed from the actual tenth animal. The Gemara adds that there is nothing more to add to that explanation, and the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Shimon is rejected.

Rava says: A tally fit to reach ten exempts the animals that have been counted from being tithed. The Gemara asks: From where does Rava derive this halakha? If we say he derives it from that which we learned in the mishna, this is problematic. The Gemara cites the relevant statement of the mishna: If before one completed tithing his animals, one of those counted jumped back into the pen among the animals that were not yet counted, all those in the pen are exempt from being tithed, as each of them could be the animal that was already counted. The Gemara clarifies: With regard to this halakha concerning which the counted animals themselves are exempt, is it not because they were counted with a tally fit to reach ten?

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: But perhaps this is referring to a case where the tenth animal also came out of the pen, and the owner tithed it on behalf of the others that were counted. If so, they are not exempt simply because they were counted with a tally fit to reach ten but because they were actually tithed.

The Gemara counters: You cannot say that the mishna is addressing a situation where one of the animals for which tithe had already been separated jumped back in, as the latter clause of the mishna teaches: If one of those animals that had been tithed jumped back into the pen among the animals that were not yet counted. This indicates that in the situation described in the first clause the animals had been counted but not yet tithed.

The Gemara rejects this claim: But perhaps, what is the meaning of the term: Animals that had been tithed? This is referring specifically to the tenth animal, which is the actual tithe. And accordingly, the language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: All the animals must graze until they become unfit for sacrifice, and thereafter they may be eaten in their blemished state by their owner. Concerning animal tithe, this halakha applies specifically to the tenth animal when it reentered the pen, and not to the other nine. Therefore, the Gemara has not yet found a source for Rava’s halakha.

Rather, Rava says the verse states: ''Whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred to the Lord'' (Leviticus 27:32). This indicates that only an animal that will pass under the rod must be tithed, but not an animal that has already passed under the rod. Rava elaborates: What it the meaning of: An animal that has already passed? If it means that one has separated tithe for it, is it necessary for a verse to state this? Of course an animal that has been tithed does not need to be tithed again. Rather, is it not referring to a case where the animals have become exempt through a tally fit to reach ten? Conclude from this that a tally fit to reach ten renders an animal exempt from being tithed.

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: In a case where one had ten lambs and he brought them into the pen and counted five, and then one of them died, if one of those animals that had been counted died, he continues to count and completes the tithe for them. But if one of the animals that had not been counted died, those animals that had been counted are exempt, and those animals that had not been counted combine with animals born later, to be tithed in another designated time of gathering.

§ And Rava says: In a case where one had fourteen lambs and brought them into the pen, and six of the lambs emerged first, through this opening on one side of the pen, and four lambs emerged afterward through that opening on the other side of the pen, and four lambs remained there, if those four that remained came out by the opening through which the six lambs emerged, he takes the last one of them as animal tithe. And the remainder, i.e., the four that emerged through the other opening, combine with animals born later, to be tithed in another designated time of gathering.

But if not, i.e., if the last four remained in the pen or came out through the same opening through which the other four lambs emerged, then the six that emerged first are exempt from animal tithe, as they were part of a tally fit to reach ten; and the four that came out next, from the other opening, and the last four, combine with animals born later, to be tithed in another designated time of gathering.

Rava continues: In a case where four of the fourteen lambs emerged first, through this opening on one side of the pen, and six lambs came out afterward through that other opening, and four lambs remained there, if those four that remained come out by the opening through which the six lambs emerged, the owner takes the last one of them as animal tithe, and the remainder, i.e., the four that went out of the other opening, are exempt, as they were part of a tally fit to reach ten. But if not, i.e., if the last four emerge via the same opening as the first four, the four that came out first and the six that emerged through the other opening are exempt, as there were enough lambs left to complete the ten when all these left. And the four that went out last combine with animals born later, to be tithed in another designated time of gathering.

Rava continues: In a case where four of the fourteen lambs emerged first, through this opening, and four lambs came out afterward through that other opening, and six lambs remained there, if those six that remained come out through any one opening, he takes one of them as animal tithe, and the remainder, i.e., the four that went out of the other opening, are exempt, as they were part of a tally fit to reach ten. But if not, i.e., if the six remain in the pen, the four sheep that emerged on this side and the four that came out on that side are exempt. And the six that remain combine with animals born later, to be tithed in another designated time of gathering.

The Gemara asks: What is Rava teaching us? Is he teaching that any animal that comes out of the pen as part of a tally fit to reach ten is exempt? But didn’t Rava say that already once? The Gemara answers: Rava’s statement is necessary, lest you say that only if the animals emerge as part of a tally that is definitely fit to reach ten do we say they are exempt. But if they come out as part of a tally with regard to which it is uncertain whether it is fit to reach ten, such as in this case where the remaining animals are fit to come out here and are fit to come out there, and therefore the first animals might not be part of a counting that will reach ten, we do not say they are exempt. Therefore, Rava teaches us that even a tally that is uncertain to reach ten exempts the animals from tithe.

§ And Rava says: If one had fifteen lambs, he may not say: I will separate ten and bring them into the pen, and I will take one of them as animal tithe, and the rest will be exempt. Rather, he must bring them all into the pen, and remove ten of them by causing them to emerge from the opening, and take one of them, i.e., the one that emerges tenth, as animal tithe. And the remainder combine with animals born later, to be tithed in another designated time of gathering. This is also taught in a baraita: If one had fifteen lambs,