Parallel
זבחים 74:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Why are three different? [presumably] because there is a majority? Then [if it fell] among two, there is also a majority? — What does he mean by ‘three’? two together with itself. Alternatively, he agrees with R. Eliezer. Resh Lakish said: If a cask of terumah was mixed up with a hundred casks [of hullin], and one of them fell into the Salt Sea, all of them become permitted, for we assume: The one which fell was the forbidden one. Now, the rulings of both R. Nahman and Resh Lakish are necessary. For if [we learnt] from R. Nahman's [ruling], I would say: It applies to idolatry only, because it has no remedy to permit it; but in the case of terumah, which has a remedy, I would say that it is not so. While if [we learnt] from Resh Lakish, I would say: It applies only to a cask, whose fall is noticeable; but as for a ring, whose fall [loss] is not noticeable, I would say that it is not so. Thus they are both necessary. Rabbah said: Resh Lakish permitted only a cask, whose fall is noticeable, but not a fig. But R. Joseph said: Even a fig: as its fall, so its removal [rise]. R. Eleazar said: If a [closed] cask of terumah fell among a hundred casks, he opens one of them, removes therefrom the proportion of the mixture, and drinks [the rest]. R. Dimi sat and reported this ruling. Said R. Nahman to him: We see here quaffing and drinking! Say rather: If one of them was opened, he removes thereof the proportion of the mixture, and drinks. R. Oshaia said: If a [sealed] cask of terumah was mixed up with a hundred and fifty casks, and a hundred of them were opened [accidentally], he removes from them the proportion of the mixture and drinks, but the rest are forbidden until they are opened [accidentally], [for] we do not say, The forbidden article is in the majority. A ROBA’ OR A NIRBA’ etc. As for all the others, it is well; [for their disqualification] is not perceptible; but how is this [case of] terefah possible? if it is perceptible, let [the priest] come and remove it? whilst if he cannot distinguish it, how does he know that [a terefah] was mixed up? The school of R. Jannai said: The circumstances here are e.g., that [an animal] perforated by a thorn was mixed up with one attacked by a wolf. Resh Lakish said: It was mixed up e.g. with a fallen animal. [You say,] ‘A fallen animal’? that too can be examined? He holds [that] if it, stood up, it needs [observation for] twenty-four hours; if it walked, it needs examination. R. Jeremiah said: E.g., it was mixed up with the young of a terefah, this being in accordance with R. Eliezer, who maintained: The young of a terefah cannot be offered at the altar. All these [Rabbis] did not explain it as the school of R. Jannai, [because they hold that] you can distinguish [an animal] perforated by a thorn from one attacked by a wolf, [as the perforation of] the former is elongated, whereas [that of] the latter is round. They did not explain it as Resh Lakish, [for] they hold: If it arose, it does not need twenty-four hours; if it walked, it does not need examination. They did not explain it as R. Jeremiah, because they would not make it agree with R. Eliezer. [IF] A SACRIFICE [WAS MIXED UP] WITH A SACRIFICE, BOTH BEING OF THE SAME KIND etc. But [the sacrifice] requires laying on [of hands]? — Said R. Joseph: It refers to sacrifices of women. But not to men's sacrifices?
—