זבחים 74 — Soncino English Talmud

¹yet we learnt, R. Eliezer said: If he offered the head of one of them, all the heads must be offered? — He ruled in accordance with Hanan the Egyptian. For it was taught: Hanan the Egyptian said: Even if the blood is in the cup, he brings its companion and pairs it. R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha [in Rab's name]: If a ring of idolatry was mixed up with a hundred rings, and one of them fell into the Great Sea, all are permitted, because we say: The one which fell was the one which was forbidden. Raba raised an objection to R. Nahman: EVEN ONE IN TEN THOUSAND, ALL MUST BE LEFT TO DIE. Yet why so; let us say that the first which dies is the forbidden one? Said he to him: Rab ruled in accordance with R. Eliezer, for we learnt: R. Eliezer said: if he offered the head of one of them, all the heads may be offered. But surely R. Eleazar said: R. Eliezer permitted [them to be offered] only in twos, but not singly? — I also meant in twos, he replied. Rab said: If a ring of idolatry was mixed up with a hundred rings, and forty of them [were] detached to one place, and sixty to another: if one [was] detached from the forty, it does not forbid [others]; if one [was detached] from the sixty, it renders [others] forbidden. Why is one from forty different? [presumably] because we say, The forbidden [article] is among the majority? Then [in the case of] one from sixty too we must say, The forbidden [article] is in the majority? Rather [this is what he said]: If the forty were all separated to one place, they do not render [others] forbidden; [if] sixty [were detached] to one place, they render [others] forbidden. When I stated this before Samuel, he said to me: Leave idolatry alone, for a doubt therein and a double doubt are forbidden for all time. An objection is raised: The doubt of idolatry is forbidden, but a double doubt is permitted. How so? If a goblet of idolatry fell into a storeroom filled with goblets, all are forbidden. If one of these was detached and mixed up with ten thousand, and from the ten thousand [one was detached into] ten thousand, they are permitted? — It is a controversy of Tannaim. For it was taught, R. Judah said: pomegranates of Badan, however small their proportion, render [others] forbidden. How so? If one of them fell into ten thousand, and [one] of the ten thousand into [another] ten thousand, all are forbidden. R. Simeon b. Judah said on R. Simeon's authority: [If it fell] into ten thousand, they are forbidden; but [if one] of the ten thousand [fell] into three, and [one] of the three [fell] among others, they are permitted . In accordance with whom did Samuel rule? If in accordance with R. Judah, it is forbidden even in the case of other interdicts? If in accordance with R. Simeon, then even in the case of idolatry too [a double doubt] is permitted? And should you say, R. Simeon allows a distinction between idolatry and other interdicts; then when it was taught, ‘A doubt of idolatry is forbidden, but a double doubt is permitted,’ who is its author? it is neither R. Judah nor R. Simeon? — In truth [the author of this is] R. Simeon, and he permits in the case of idolatry too, while Samuel agrees with R. Judah in one matter, but disagrees in another. The master said: ‘[If one] of the ten thousand [fell] into three, and [one]’ of the three [fell] among others, they are permitted.’^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ

^ᵃnote:V. infra 77b. Though had the priest asked, we would have instructed him not to offer any.
^ᵇnote:V. supra 34b.
^ᶜnote:Sh. M. deletes ‘in Rab's name’.
^ᵈnote:One which adorned an idol; all benefit thereof is forbidden, and it is not neutralized when it is mixed up with any number of others, all of which become forbidden (supra 71b).
^ᵉnote:Probably the Mediterranean. Of course, the same applies, to any place where it is lost.
^ᶠnote:We make this lenient assumption.
^ᵍnote:Thus the first is assumed to have been the forbidden one.
^ʰnote:The amora.
^ⁱnote:Where one is definitely not forbidden, and so we assume the same about the other.
^ʲnote:The remaining rings must be sold in twos.
^ᵏnote:Marginal emendation: Rab Judah said in Rab's name.
^ˡnote:If it became mixed up with others. ‘Separated’ in the whole passage means accidentally.
^ᵐnote:I.e., the remaining fifty nine.
^ⁿnote:If these forty were mixed up with others, because we assume that the forbidden one is in the sixty. If they were not mixed up with others, they would remain forbidden, for the forbidden ring cannot be nullified in the majority, and even R. Eliezer permits a lenient assumption only where an article is lost or destroyed, as where the head of one of them is offered. Nevertheless, when the forty are mixed up with others, all are permitted, because now there is a double doubt concerning each ring: Firstly, the forty may not have contained the forbidden one at all; and secondly, even if they did, each one of the present mixed group may not be of the forty. Hence they are all permitted.
^ᵒnote:Because we assume that the forbidden one is in the majority, and so now there is only a single doubt concerning each ring: whether it is the forbidden one or not. Therefore we must adopt a rigorous ruling.
^ᵖnote:No matter how slight the doubt, it is always forbidden. Thus even in the case of forty they render others forbidden.
^ᵠnote:This contradicts Samuel. — It is not clear why this second clause, ‘and from the ten thousand into ten thousand’ is necessary, for since a double doubt is permitted, when one of the storeroom is mixed up with the first ten thousand, the latter should be permitted. Sh. M. suggests that the first ten thousand are permitted, but they may not be all used simultaneously, for then we have only a single doubt, whether the one from the storeroom was the goblet of idolatry or not. (He rejects the explanation, given by Tosaf. in the next passage, that the second ten thousand is mentioned to shew that he who forbids, forbids even then, as inapplicable here since no view forbidding these is expressed in this Baraitha at all. Nevertheless, it is possible that the Baraitha is a fragment, the other half being lost even in Talmudic times, and so the Talmud cites it as a refutation of Samuel.)
^ʳnote:Lit., ‘into another place’.
^ˢnote:Rashi: both the first three and the others, because there is a double doubt in connection with both. Tosaf.: the first three may not all be enjoyed simultaneously (v. n. 2.). The number three is discussed anon.
^ᵗnote:Since R. Judah's ruling does not refer particularly to idolatry.
^ᵘnote:Emended text (Sh. M.).
^ᵛnote:He agrees that a double doubt of idolatry is forbidden, but does not apply it to other interdicts, as does R. Judah.

²Why 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?^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ

^ʷnote:V. supra a, where it is stated that R. Eliezer permits the heads to be offered only in twos. Similarly here, the pomegranates can be used only in twos, and for that reason it must have fallen into at least three, so that there are four in all; otherwise, two could be used, while the third would be forbidden. (Rashi gives two explanations: this is the second, which is adopted by Tosaf. too, though Rashi favours the first.)
^ˣnote:The Dead Sea.
^ʸnote:Sc. that of terumah.
^ᶻnote:V. supra a: he gives a similar ruling on a ring of idolatry.
^ᵃᵃnote:In itself; hence it would be too rigorous to say that they remain forbidden.
^ᵃᵇnote:The lot can be sold to a priest, to whom it is permitted.
^ᵃᶜnote:There is no need for this lenient assumption.
^ᵃᵈnote:A cask is a large object, and its loss is noticeable. Hence when the rest are permitted, one can see that it is because one fell out. But a ring is small and its loss out of a large number is not noticeable. Therefore it might be thought that if the rest are permitted, one will not know the reason and believe that they are all permitted, even if none fell out.
^ᵃᵉnote:Which is small. — Sh. M.: This is only if the fig was mixed up with less than a hundred, as otherwise it is neutralized in any case. But a closed cask is not neutralized by any number (supra 72b.).
^ᵃᶠnote:Just as you consider it sufficiently important to render all forbidden when it falls among other figs, so must its removal be considered sufficiently noticeable to render them all permitted.
^ᵃᵍnote:One cask is forbidden, while a hundred are permitted; hence the proportion of the forbidden is 1/101st part; this he must remove, and the rest is permitted, for an open cask can be neutralized (Sh. M. reads in Rashi: he must remove 1/100th part, not 1/101st part).
^ᵃʰnote:If he is permitted to open the cask, how is this law, that a sealed cask can never be neutralized, possible?
^ᵃⁱnote:Accidentally.
^ᵃʲnote:As Rab supra a. If we did say thus, we would assume the cask of terumah to be in the hundred, so that the other fifty are immediately permitted.
^ᵃᵏnote:Lit., ‘known’. Hence they can be mixed up with others.
^ᵃˡnote:From the other animals. — It is perceptible when it is an outward form of terefah, e.g., if the skull was perforated. But then it is distinguishable from the other animals.
^ᵃᵐnote:If it is an internal form of terefah, so that it is not distinguishable from the others, how indeed does he know that it is terefah until it is slaughtered and examined?
^ᵃⁿnote:Both show marks of perforation, and so are indistinguishable; but the former is not terefah (unless the thorn penetrated right through the flesh into the interior of the animal, which it did not here), whereas the latter is (any animal attacked by a beast of prey is terefah).
^ᵃᵒnote:If it can get up and walk, it is entirely fit, as there is an opinion that in such a case one need not wait but can slaughter it immediately, and it need not even be examined after slaughter to see if there is a lesion of the vital organs, which would render it terefah. Hence it is merely necessary in the present instance to see which animals can walk.
^ᵃᵖnote:If the animal merely succeeded in rising, but could not walk, it must be kept to see if it can live twenty-four hours; if it is slaughtered before, it is terefah even if no internal lesion is discovered. But if it succeeded in walking, it can be slaughtered at any time, save that after slaughtering all the vital organs, e.g., the spinal cord, lungs, heart, etc, must be examined for injury (this is not required in the case of an ordinary animal); thus it is considered as a doubtful terefah and may not be offered. In this instance all the animals can walk, yet as there remains the doubt, none can be offered.
^ᵃᵠnote:His ruling is generally rejected, v. Shab. 130b, (Sonc. ed.) p. 653, n. 9.
^ᵃʳnote:By its owner, whereas he is unknown.
^ᵃˢnote:Which did not require it.