Chullin 11a — the Talmud in English

And Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov

will answer you: This case, where the priest confines him from within his house, is speaking of [a case such as this:]

where the men are standing in a row

[line]

of men

from the afflicted house until the priest’s house. And the one standing at the threshold of the afflicted house says to the one after him,

and

so on,

they say

to one another,

“The affliction is not intensified,”

the affliction,

“The affliction is not intensified; it is as it stands”—

“it stands,”

until the report reaches the priest in his house, and on the basis of this he confines him.

And the Gemara discusses:

From where is this matter that the Sages said, “Follow the majority”?!

And we are astonished:

From where do we know it?!

What is your question? But it is an explicit verse,

as it is written: “After the majority to incline”?!

And we explain:

A majority that is present before us, such as nine shops

that sell slaughtered meat, and one sells unslaughtered carcass meat, and meat is found in the city, and it is not known from which shop it separated.

And

so too

a Sanhedrin,

where 212 judges find the accused innocent, and 11 judges find him liable.

In every case of this kind,

we do not ask

from where we know that we follow the majority. For the verse, “After the majority to incline,” speaks of judges, where the majority of the opinions finding innocence is recognizable and standing before us against the minority of opinions finding liability, and the Torah said to determine the truth of the law on the basis of the majority. And from here we likewise derive the case of nine shops selling slaughtered meat and one selling unslaughtered carcass meat, where there is a majority recognizable before us in contrast to the one shop selling unslaughtered carcass meat.

When we ask: A majority that is not present before us, such as

a levir,

a minor

and a yevama,

a minor girl,

for the Sages said, “Let these grow up together,” and we do not fear that perhaps the minor will be found to be a eunuch when he grows up, and the minor girl an aylonit [in which case they do not have the mitzva of levirate marriage, for the Merciful One said, “to establish a name for his brother,” and these are not fit for establishing a name, and it turns out that he violates the nakedness of his brother’s wife where there is no mitzva], rather we follow the majority who are not eunuchs and the majority who are not aylonitot. And this majority is not a majority existing and standing before us; rather, it is an estimation of the mind based on the nature of the world. And concerning such a majority we ask:

from where do we know

that we follow it?

Rabbi Elazar said:

A sign: time, praise, assembled.

It is derived from the head

[from the head]

of the burnt offering,

which is brought to the altar as it is, without examining it to ascertain that it has no signs of being a terefah, but we rely on the natural majority of animals that are fit.

For the verse says

concerning the burnt offering,

“And he shall cut it into its pieces.”

And we expound:

“It” into its pieces, and not

cut

its pieces into additional pieces.

Therefore, he cannot split the head and examine the brain membrane.

And

if so,

let us suspect that perhaps the brain membrane was punctured,

and this is one of the eighteen conditions of terefah. And a terefah is not fit for the altar, as we exclude it from the verse “from the cattle,” to exclude a terefah.

Rather, is it not that

necessarily, the reason we do not fear this is

because we say: “Follow the majority.”

And the majority of animals are not terefot, although the majority does not stand before us, but is a majority inherent in nature.

And from here we have learned for the entire Torah that one follows the majority, even a majority that is not present before us.

And we reject this:

From what

do you know that we rely on the majority? Perhaps indeed they do not burn the burnt offering until

he splits

[splits]

it

at the head of the burnt offering in a manner that does not divide it into two parts,

and examines it

for the brain membrane.

And if

this is difficult for you—after all, this may not be done

because of

the exposition of

“It into its pieces, and not its pieces into pieces”—

it is not difficult, for

this matter applies

to what is prohibited,

where he cuts it completely

into two pieces.

But where

he cuts it but does not separate it into two,

for

it is still

joined

[connected],

we have no concern

with this prohibition, and it is permitted to do so. If so, there is no proof that we rely on the majority.

Mar, son of Ravina, said: It is derived

the law of majority

from the breaking of a bone on Passover. For the Merciful One said

concerning the Passover offering,

“And you shall not break a bone in it”!

And it is forbidden to break the skull bone.

And

if so,

let us suspect that perhaps the brain membrane was punctured,

and how is it permitted to eat it? After all, it is a doubtfully terefah animal.

Rather, is it not because we say, “Follow the majority,”

of animals that are not terefot. And from here we learn the law of majority for the entire Torah.

And we reject this:

From what

do you know that we do not examine it?

Perhaps he places a coal

[ember] upon it,

and burns it

the skull bone,

and

after it is burned, he can

examine it

for the membrane, and in fact we do not rely on the majority. It is permitted to do so, for we learned that breaking a bone in the Passover offering is not considered to occur in this manner.

As

it was taught in a beraita: One who cuts through the sinews

of the Passover offering, even though they are hard like bones,

and one who burns the bones—

there is no violation of breaking a bone.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is derived

the law of majority

from the tail-fat

of a lamb peace offering, for the tail-fat is brought whole upon the altar with the sacrificial portions without being cut, even though the spinal cord passes through it, beginning at the brain and ending at the tail-fat. It is forbidden to cut it; rather, it is brought whole to the altar, because

the Merciful One said

[Leviticus 3]

“Its fat”—

the tail-fat, complete.

Opposite the kidneys he shall remove it. And since it is impossible to cut it,

let us suspect that perhaps the spinal cord was severed

that passes through it, and through this it became a terefah. For we do not find that it can be examined.

Rather, is it not

that we do not fear this

because we say, “Follow the majority.”

And if you would say

to reject this,

that he cuts it from below

to the tail-fat [cutting it not at its very beginning, but beyond the place called “between the excretions,” which is opposite the thighs, where the spinal cord ends. From there until the end of the tail is the “tail-fat,” and no more. Therefore it does not require examination, because the cord passing through it no longer has the status of a spine. And even if it is severed there, the animal does not thereby become a terefah. Only from there upward until the brain must it not be severed, and there it could properly be examined]—this cannot be said.

For

“opposite the kidneys

he shall remove it,”

the Merciful One said.

And “kidneys” refers to the kidneys. [As we say: “The heart understands and the kidneys advise.”] And it implies that the beginning of the tail-fat is from

the place where the kidneys advise.

And there it is still inward from “between the excretions,” and it has the status of a spine. And if the cord is severed there, the animal becomes a terefah through this.

And since it is impossible to split it in order to examine whether the spinal cord has not been severed within it—for “complete” is required—it is properly proven that we rely on the majority of animals that are fit.

And again we reject this: And still,

from what

do you know that we do not examine it?

Perhaps he opens it

to the tail-fat

and examines it. And if it is because of “complete,”

that it is impossible to open it,

this matter applies

to what is forbidden, specifically

where he cuts it completely

and separates it into two parts.

But where

he opens it in a manner that does not completely separate it into two,

for

it is still

joined, we have no concern

with this prohibition, because it is still called “complete.” And in such a manner he can examine it to ensure that it has not become a terefah.

Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: It is derived

the law of majority

from the beheaded heifer. For

concerning it

the Merciful One said

[Deuteronomy 21], “And all the elders of that city who are nearest to the slain shall wash their hands over the beheaded heifer in the valley,” and we expound:

“The beheaded”—

when it is whole,

so that

it shall be

always as it was at the time of decapitation.

And

since it is impossible to cut it and examine it,

let us suspect that perhaps it is a terefah.

Rather, is it not

that it does not require examination

because we say, “Follow the majority.”

And if you would say

that it is not because we rely on the majority, but in any event it does not require examination, because

what difference does it make

whether it is a terefah or not? After all, it is not an offering—this cannot be said.

For

the school of Rabbi Yannai said:

The beheaded heifer is forbidden for benefit, because

“atonement” is written concerning it

in the beheaded heifer,

as

in

sacred offerings.

As it is stated concerning it: “Atone for Your people Israel, and so on, and let them be atoned for from the blood.” And the same law applies for deriving the matter of a terefah: just as a terefah is disqualified for the altar, so it is disqualified for the beheaded heifer.

And necessarily, because we rely on the majority, we do not fear this. And the law of majority is properly proven from here.

Rabba bar Rav Shila said: It is derived

the law of majority

from the red heifer. For

concerning it

the Merciful One said, “And he shall slaughter

it before him,”

and in the following verse it says

“And he shall burn

the heifer before his eyes.” And we expound:

Just as its slaughter is when it is whole, so its burning is when it is whole.

And since it is impossible to cut it and examine it before its burning,

let us suspect that perhaps it is a terefah.

Rather, is it not

that the reason it does not require examination is

because we say, “Follow the majority.”

And the majority of animals are fit.

And if you would say

to reject this, that the reason we do not require examination is because it is not an offering, and therefore

what difference does it make

whether it is a terefah or not?—this cannot be said.

For

the Merciful One calls it “a sin offering.”

As it is written concerning it, “For water of impurity; it is a sin offering.” And we derive from this that the law of the red heifer is like the law of offerings brought upon the altar, even though its sanctity is the sanctity of Temple maintenance. And also with regard to the fact that a terefah disqualifies it, it is like offerings brought upon the altar. And the law of majority is properly proven from it.

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said: It is derived

the law of majority

from the goat that is sent away

of Yom Kippur.

For the Merciful One said, “And he shall take the two goats.”

And we expound:

that both of them shall be

the two goats [the goat for the Lord and the goat for Azazel]

equal.