Chullin — Daf 11b

דילמא חד מינייהו טריפה הוא אלא לאו משום דאמרינן זיל בתר רובא

וכי תימא מאי נפקא לן מינה הא אין גורל קובע לעזאזל אלא בדבר הראוי לשם וכי תימא דבדקינן ליה והתנן לא היה מגיע למחצית ההר עד שנעשה אברים אברים

רב מרי אמר אתיא (שמות כא, טו) ממכה אביו ואמו דאמר רחמנא קטליה וליחוש דלמא לאו אביו הוא אלא לאו משום דאמרינן זיל בתר רובא ורוב בעילות אחר הבעל

ממאי דלמא כגון שהיו אביו ואמו חבושים בבית האסורין אפילו הכי אין אפוטרופוס לעריות

רב כהנא אמר אתיא מהורג את הנפש דאמר רחמנא קטליה וליחוש דלמא טרפה הוה אלא לאו משום דאמרינן זיל בתר רובא

וכי תימא דבדקינן ליה הא קא מינוול וכי תימא משום איבוד נשמה דהאי נינווליה וניחוש שמא במקום סייף נקב הוה

רבינא אמר אתיא מעדים זוממין דאמר רחמנא (דברים יט, יט) ועשיתם לו כאשר זמם וגו' וליחוש דלמא הך דאסהידו ביה טרפה הוה אלא לאו משום דאמרינן זיל בתר רובא

וכי תימא דבדקינן ליה והתניא ברבי אומר לא הרגו נהרגין הרגו אין נהרגין

רב אשי אמר אתיא משחיטה עצמה דאמר רחמנא שחוט ואכול וליחוש שמא במקום נקב קא שחיט אלא לאו משום דאמרינן זיל בתר רובא

אמר רב אשי אמריתא לשמעתא קמיה דרב כהנא ואמרי לה רב כהנא קמיה דרב שימי ואמר ליה ודלמא היכא דאפשר אפשר היכא דלא אפשר לא אפשר

דאי לא תימא הכי לר"מ דחייש למיעוטא הכי נמי דלא אכיל בישרא וכי תימא הכי נמי

that one of them is trefah?1 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!2 And should you say: It can be examined?3 Surely we have learnt: Before it reached half way down the mountain it was already broken into pieces! 4 R. Mari said: It is derived from the case of one that smiteth his father, or his mother,5 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!6 — Even so there is no guardian against unchastity. 7 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?8 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.9 Rabina said: It is derived from the law concerning witnesses who are found to be zomemim,10 in connection with whom the Divine Law says. Then shall ye do unto him, as he had purposed [to do unto his brother].11 Now why do we not fear that the person against whom they gave false evidence [that he committed a capital offence] is trefah?12 Is it not because we follow the majority! And should you say. We can examine him now? Sure]y it has been taught: Beribbi13 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! 14 R. Ashi said: It is derived from the law of Shechitah itself;15 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?16 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.17 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: it was sent away alive. to be such as might have been sacrificed to the Lord; it follows therefore that neither goat might be trefah. This answer, however, is omitted in MS.M; if it is omitted. R. Mari's argument stands disproved. wound, and in so doing removed all traces of the previous wound. In such a case it is clear that no amount of post mortem examination would show that the victim was trefah; hence it is proved that we follow the majority. to these false witnesses is the sentence which the court had pronounced upon the person who was found guilty on the strength of their false evidence. This law, as will be seen from the subsequent statement, does not apply where the sentence has in fact been carried out. are not punished at all, and if he has not been executed then it is not possible to examine him as to whether or not he is a trefah; hence it is proved that we follow the majority. is true that the majority principle is adopted, it is not to be enlarged into a general principle, for in each of those cases it was impossible to ascertain the true facts; where, however, it is possible to do so one should not follow the majority.