Zevachim

yet we learnt, R. Eliezer said: If he offered the head of one of them, all the heads must be offered?1 — 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. 2 R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha [in Rab's name]:3 If a ring of idolatry4 was mixed up with a hundred rings, and one of them fell into the Great Sea,5 all are permitted, because we say: The one which fell was the one which was forbidden.6 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.7 But surely R. Eleazar8 said: R. Eliezer permitted [them to be offered] only in twos,9 but not singly? — I also meant in twos,10 he replied. Rab said:11 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];12 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?13 Rather [this is what he said]: If the forty were all separated to one place, they do not render [others] forbidden;14 [if] sixty [were detached] to one place, they render [others] forbidden.15 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.16 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?17 — 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,18 they are permitted .19 In accordance with whom did Samuel rule? If in accordance with R. Judah, it is forbidden even in the case of other interdicts?20 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,21 while Samuel agrees with R. Judah in one matter, but disagrees in another.22 The master said: ‘[If one] of the ten thousand [fell] into three, and [one]’ of the three [fell] among others, they are permitted.’ number of others, all of which become forbidden (supra 71b). 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. each ring: whether it is the forbidden one or not. Therefore we must adopt a rigorous ruling. 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.) three may not all be enjoyed simultaneously (v. n. 2.). The number three is discussed anon.