חולין 11:1 — Soncino English Talmud

[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^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ

^ᵃnote:The report being passed along the line up to the priest.
^ᵇnote:Ex. XXIII, 2. This is the traditional interpretation of the verse by the Rabbis. In the English versions it is rendered: to turn aside after a multitude to pervert justice.
^ᶜnote:Lit., ‘that is before us’; i.e., the number constituting the majority can be easily ascertained.
^ᵈnote:V. Pes. 9b. Where if in a particular neighbourhood there are nine shops which sell ritually slaughtered meat and a tenth which sells trefah meat, any meat found in that neighbourhood is kosher or permitted, it being presumed to have come from the majority, i.e., one of the nine shops.
^ᵉnote:V. Sanh. 40a. The Great Sanhedrin was the supreme court of the Jews and consisted of seventy-one Judges; the Small Sanhedrin was an inferior court and consisted of twenty-three Judges. In each case the decision of the majority of the Judges was the decision of the court.
^ᶠnote:Where a boy who is a minor marries his deceased brother's wife who is also a minor, in accordance with the law of Levirate marriage laid down in Deut. XXV, 5, the marriage is valid, and we do not fear that one of them may prove to be sterile, in which case, the purpose of the levirate marriage having failed, the marriage would be unlawful as coming within the prohibited degrees. The reason is that we follow the majority, and the majority of people are not sterile. V. Yeb. 61b, and 111b.
^ᵍnote:This mnemonic is formed by taking a characteristic letter from each of the names of the Rabbis who are quoted in the following passages. The Hebrew letters form three words which may be translated: Time brings profit.
^ʰnote:Lev. I, 6. The animal was cut up into limbs and these were offered on the altar whole, but it was not permitted to cut up a limb into smaller pieces.
^ⁱnote:This defect, as well as the other defects mentioned in these passages, would make the animal trefah and consequently unfit for a sacrifice. The sacrifice of the burnt-offering is nevertheless valid, in spite of the fact that it was not possible to cut open the head and examine the membrane by reason of the prohibition against cutting up a limb.
^ʲnote:And the majority of animals are not trefah.
^ᵏnote:Since in the way suggested it is possible to examine the animal as to any defect there is no proof from here that we follow the majority.
^ˡnote:Ex. XII, 46.
^ᵐnote:V. Pes. 84b. This suggestion thus fails to prove our principle.
^ⁿnote:Lev. III, 9. The fat tail of a sheep or ram in cases of sin-offerings or peace-offerings was offered in one whole mass upon the altar.
^ᵒnote:I.e., below the point of partition where the spinal cord branches off into three minor cords, one extending into the right thigh, the second into the left thigh, and the third continuing straight on into the tail. If any one of these minor cords is severed the animal does not become trefah. V. infra 45b. It is therefore suggested that the fat tail should be cut off below the point of partition, in which case even if the cord is severed in the tail it is of no consequence.
^ᵖnote:Lev. III, 9.
^ᵠnote:Cf. Ber. 61a, where it is stated that the function of the kidneys is to give counsel.
^ʳnote:Which is above the point of partition.
^ˢnote:Since it is possible to examine the tail in the manner suggested, there is no proof from this case that we follow the majority.
^ᵗnote:Deut. XXI, 6. After the breaking of the neck the heifer was immediately buried whole and on no account was it permitted to cut up the carcass.
^ᵘnote:Since it was not a sacrifice in the ordinary sense of that term.
^ᵛnote:Deut. XXI, 8: Forgive, O Lord, Thy people Israel.
^ʷnote:Therefore, just as a trefah animal was unfit for a sacrifice, so the heifer, if trefah, was unfit for the purpose. It is to be noted that R. Shesheth's argument succeeds in proving the principle of following the majority. This is also the case with the arguments used in the following passages, with the possible exception of R. Mari's argument. V. infra p. 51, n. 6.
^ˣnote:Num. XIX, 3, 5.
^ʸnote:Ibid. 9. And therefore like all sacrifices the Red Cow may not be trefah.
^ᶻnote:Lev. XVI, 7. On the Day of Atonement two goats were required, one to be a sacrifice unto the Lord and the other, the Scapegoat, to be sent away to Azazel (ibid. 8), i.e., it was taken into the wilderness where it was hurled down a steep mountain. Lots were cast to decide which goat was to be for the Lord and which for Azazel.
^ᵃᵃnote:This interpretation suggests that the goat for Azazel may not be trefah, just as the goat which was for the Lord clearly may not be trefah. This, however, would seem to be superfluous as the reason why it may not be trefah is stated subsequently. The words, ‘that the two shall be alike in all respects’ are omitted in MS.M.