Chullin 11b — the Talmud in English

And let us be concerned ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location on the page")

perhaps one of them

is the goat for Azazel,

is a tereifa

and is unable to effect atonement.

Rather, is it not

that we are not concerned with a tereifa

because we say, “Follow the majority.”

And if you say

to reject this, that since it does not go up upon the altar,

what difference does it make to us

whether it is a tereifa, and we are not concerned with this — it cannot be said thus.

For

this

is taught:

A lot does not establish

the goat to be sent

to Azazel except with regard to something [

in the goat]

fit for the Name.

For at the time of the lot it is not known which one will go up for the Name and which one for Azazel, and therefore we require that both of them be fit for the Name. And if one of them is a tereifa, then just as it is unfit for the Name, so it is unfit for Azazel. Rather, certainly, because we rely upon the majority of animals being fit, we are not concerned with a tereifa.

And if you say

to reject this

, that we examine it

— the goat — after its being pushed to the cliff, and we see that it is not a tereifa — it cannot be said thus.

For

we learned: “The goat did not reach

the goat

halfway up the mountain before it became limb after limb.”

And then it is already impossible to examine it as to whether it was a tereifa. For we do not know which limbs were broken in it while it was alive, and which after death.

Rav Mari said: The law of the majority is derived

from the law of the majority

from one who strikes his father and mother, for

concerning him

the Merciful One said: “Kill him!”

And let us be concerned that perhaps

the one who was struck

is not his father,

for perhaps his mother became pregnant from another man. And how can we kill one who struck his father on account of doubt?

Rather, is it not

that we presume that he is his father

because we say, “Follow the majority,” and most acts of intercourse

are

after the husband?

And although this assessment is a “majority that is not present before us,” we rely upon it to say that certainly his mother became pregnant from her husband, who is his father. And from here we learn the law of the majority for the entire Torah.

And we reject this:

From where

is it that the reason is because of the majority?

Perhaps

the fact that the Torah made one who strikes his father liable for death applies specifically

when his father and mother were imprisoned in a prison,

and there his mother conceived him. And in such a situation there is no concern that perhaps another man had relations with her, for they were alone until the fetus was recognized.

And we reject this:

Even so

there is a concern that perhaps another man happened to be there and committed adultery with her, because there is a principle that

“there is no guardian with regard to illicit relations,”

that is, it is impossible to guarantee that a woman will not commit adultery. Necessarily, the reason they kill one who strikes his father is only because they follow the majority.

Rav Kahana said: The law of the majority is derived

from the law of the majority

from one who murders a person. For the Merciful One said: “Kill”

the murderer.

And let us be concerned that perhaps the murdered person was a “tereifa”

and one is not liable for the death of a person who is in the category of a “tereifa,” for since he does not possess the vitality of a healthy person, the murderer killed a “dead man.” And how can we kill the murderer on account of doubt?

Rather, is it not

that we are not concerned that perhaps the murdered person is a tereifa,

because we say, “Follow the majority,”

and the majority of people are not tereifot.

And if you say

to reject this, that in fact we do not rely on the majority, but

we examine him

— the murdered person — that he is not a tereifa.

It is impossible to say this, for in order to examine him one must cut him open and dissect him, and

he is thereby being disgraced

through his cutting. And it is forbidden to do so, because it is forbidden to disgrace the body of the dead. And it is well demonstrated that we kill the murderer by virtue of the majority, without examination.

And if you say

to reject this

, that even though it is a disgrace to the murdered person to examine him, nevertheless, because of

the concern

for the loss of the soul of this

murderer without cause [if indeed the murdered person is a tereifa

— we disgrace him

the murdered person, and cut his body in order to examine him.

Even so, we have not emerged from doubt. For

let us be concerned that perhaps in the place

where the

sword

of the murderer cut the murdered person,

there was a perforation

in him already beforehand, and by virtue of that perforation the murdered person was already a tereifa, and we will never be able to clarify this. Rather, necessarily, we rely upon the majority.

Ravina said: The law of the majority is derived

from the law of the majority

from conspiring witnesses

who testified about a certain man that he was liable for death and were shown to be conspiring,

for the Merciful One said [

Deuteronomy 19]

“And you shall do to him as he plotted

to do to his brother”

and we kill them. And let us be concerned: perhaps this

man

about whom they testified

that he was liable for death

, was a tereifa.

And if so, they are not liable for death, for “as he plotted” does not apply to them, since they did not plot to kill a whole person, but only a “dead man.”

Rather, is it not

that we are not concerned with this,

because we say, “Follow the majority.”

And if you say

to reject this,

that

here too

we examine him

— the one about whom they testified — that he is not a tereifa, it cannot be said thus.

For

this is taught: Rabbi says:

Conspiring witnesses who testified about a person that he was liable for death and were shown to be conspiring — so long as

they did not kill

the one judged, by virtue of their testimony,

they are killed,

the conspiring witnesses.

But if they had already killed

the one judged,

the

conspiring witnesses

are not killed.

For we expound “as he plotted,” and not “as he did.” It follows that the entire law of conspiring witnesses applies specifically when the one judged is alive, and if so, how can he be examined while alive as to whether he is a tereifa or not? Necessarily, we rely upon the majority.

Rav Ashi said: The law of the majority is derived

from the law of the majority

from slaughter itself. For the Merciful One said: “Slaughter and eat!” And let us be concerned: perhaps in the place of a perforation

that was in the place of slaughter while it was still alive

he is slaughtering.

And a perforation of the gullet, even by the slightest amount, makes it a tereifa. And if so, we would never find it possible to eat meat.

Rather, is it not

that we are not concerned with this,

because we say, “Follow the majority,”

and most animals do not have a perforation, and are fit.

Rav Ashi said: I said this

matter

before Rav Kahana. And some say

that

Rav Kahana

said it

before Rav Shimi. And he said to him: But perhaps wherever it is possible

to clarify the doubt

, it is possible,

that is, it must be clarified, and one may not rely upon the majority. Therefore, one must examine every animal and clarify that it is not a tereifa, from among the eighteen types of tereifot.

And likewise with regard to the levirate obligation of a minor boy and a minor girl, one may not rely upon the majority. Rather, one must wait until they grow up and it becomes clear that they are not a eunuch or an aylonit.

But

wherever it is impossible

ever to clarify the doubt

, it is impossible!

And therefore, only in cases such as those above, where there is no possibility of clarification, do we rely upon the majority.

For if you do not say this, according to Rabbi Meir, who is concerned with the minority,

and holds that a minor boy and a minor girl do not undergo levirate marriage, because with regard to the minor boy he is concerned that he may be found to be a eunuch, and with regard to the minor girl that she may be found to be an aylonit,

is it also the case that he does not eat meat,

because he is concerned that perhaps he is slaughtering at the place of a perforation, and we do not rely upon the majority?