Parallel
חולין 11
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
[The Baraitha refers to a case] where there was a row of men who reported that the leprous spot remained unaltered. Whence is derived the principle which the Rabbis have adopted, viz.: Follow the majority? Whence? [you ask]; is it not expressly written: Follow the majority? — In regard to those cases where the majority is defined, as in the case of the Nine Shops or the Sanhedrin, we do not ask the question. Our question relates to cases where the majority is undefined, as in the case of the Boy and Girl. Whence then is the principle derived? (Mnemonic: Zeman SHebah Mekanesh.) R. Eleazar said: It is derived from the head of a burnt-offering. The verse reads: And he shall cut it into its pieces, which means, he shall cut it up into its pieces but not its pieces into [smaller] pieces. Now why do we not fear that the membrane which encloses the brain is perforated? Is it not because we follow the majority? But is this really so? Perhaps he splits open [the head] and examines the membrane, and as for the rule, ‘he shall cut it into its pieces but not its pieces into [smaller] pieces’, this only prohibits the cutting up of a limb into pieces but does not prohibit [the mere splitting open of a limb] so long as the parts remain joined! Mar the son of Rabina said: It is derived from the rule concerning breaking the bones of the paschal lamb. The verse reads: And ye shall not break a bone thereof. Now why do we not fear that the membrane which encloses the brain is perforated? Is it not because we follow the majority! But is this really so? Perhaps he places a burning coal upon the head, burns away the bone and examines the membrane; for it has been taught: He who cuts the sinews or burns away the bones [of the paschal lamb] has not transgressed the law of breaking the bones. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: It is derived from the law concerning the tail [of sheep]. The verse reads: The fat thereof, and the fat tail entire. Now why do we not fear that the spinal cord is severed? Is it not because we follow the majority! And should you say. He can cut off the fat tail lower down? Surely the Divine Law says [Which he shall take away] hard ‘by the rump bone’, that is to say, hard by the place where the counselling kidneys are seated! But perhaps he cuts open the fat tail and examines it; and as for [the law that] the fat tail be entire, this only prohibits the complete severing of it but does not prohibit cutting it open so long as it is still one piece! R. Shesheth the son of R. Idi said: It is derived from the case of the heifer whose neck was to be broken. The Divine Law says: Whose neck was broken, [which has been interpreted] to mean that [after the neck has been broken] the heifer must remain whole. Now why do we not fear that it has some defect which makes it trefah? Is it not because we follow the majority! And should you say. What does it matter [even if it is trefah]? Surely it was taught in the school of R. Jannai: Forgiveness is mentioned in connection therewith as with sacrifices! Rabbah b. Shila said: It is derived from the case of the Red Cow. The Divine Law says. And he shall slaughter it . . . and he shall burn it, which signifies, just as for the slaughtering the animal must be whole, so for the burning it must be whole. Now why do we not fear that it is trefah? Is it not because we follow the majority? And should you say. What does it matter [even if it is trefah]? Surely the Divine law calls it a sin-offering! R. Aha b. Jacob said: It is derived from the case of the Scapegoat. The Divine Law says. And he shall take the two goats, which implies that the two shall be alike in all respects, Now why do we not fear
—
that one of them is trefah? Is it not because we follow the majority! And should you say, What does it matter [even it if is trefah]? Surely it has been taught: The lot cannot determine [the goat] for Azazel unless it is fit to be for the Lord! And should you say: It can be examined? Surely we have learnt: Before it reached half way down the mountain it was already broken into pieces! R. Mari said: It is derived from the case of one that smiteth his father, or his mother, for which offence the Divine law prescribes death. Now why do we not fear that the person struck may not have ben his father? Is it not because we follow the majority, and a woman cohabits with her husband more often [than with a stranger]? But perhaps [the law applies] only to the case where the father and mother were locked up in prison! — Even so there is no guardian against unchastity. R. Kahana said: It is derived from the case of a murderer, for whom the Divine law prescribes death. Now why do we not fear that the victim may have been trefah? Is it not because we follow the majority! And should you say: We can examine the body? [This is not allowed because] it would thereby be mutilated! And should you say: Since a man's life is at stake, we should mutilate the body? Surely there is always the possibility that there was a hole [in the victim] in the place [where he was stuck] by the sword. Rabina said: It is derived from the law concerning witnesses who are found to be zomemim, in connection with whom the Divine Law says. Then shall ye do unto him, as he had purposed [to do unto his brother]. Now why do we not fear that the person against whom they gave false evidence [that he committed a capital offence] is trefah? Is it not because we follow the majority! And should you say. We can examine him now? Sure]y it has been taught: Beribbi said: If the person [against whom their evidence was directed] has not been executed they are put to death; if he has been executed they are not put to death! R. Ashi said: It is derived from the law of Shechitah itself; for the Divine Law says [in effect]. Slaughter and eat. Now why do we not fear that there is a hole [in the gullet] in the place where It was cut through? Is it not because we follow the majority! R. Ashi added: I put forward this argument to R. Kahana — others say: R. Kahana put forward this argument to R. Shimi — and he replied: perhaps the law is that where it is possible to ascertain the facts we must do so; it is only where it is impossible to ascertain the facts that we follow the majority. For if you do not accept this [argument], then the question will be asked: Did R. Meir, who is of the opinion that the minority must be taken into consideration, always abstain from eating meat? And if you reply that this indeed was the case, then it will be asked:
—