Zevachim 72a (עב.) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

They are necessary.

It was necessary to state both Mishnayot:

For if you had only that one, I would have said: These words apply

only to the decree that the Sages enacted to prohibit a mixture of items forbidden for benefit, even in any amount,

with regard to non-sacred property

alone.

But

when items forbidden for benefit became mixed with animals designated as consecrated offerings, where prohibiting them would result in a loss

to the Most High, I would say that we should not cause all of them to be lost

as consecrated offerings. Rather, we should establish that in the case of consecrated offerings, items forbidden for benefit are indeed nullified when they constitute a minority, in accordance with their Torah law, and it would be permitted to sacrifice them since the prohibition was nullified by the majority. Therefore, the tanna teaches us here that the restriction was not relaxed in the case of consecrated offerings.

And if you had only this one, I would have said: These words apply

to a case in which the entire mixture becomes prohibited, even when items forbidden for benefit became mixed in only in any amount, because the matter concerns

consecrated offerings, which are repulsive

—it is repulsive to bring an offering from an animal that had been forbidden, even though it was nullified by the majority.

But non-sacred property, which is not repulsive

—there is no repugnance in deriving benefit from an item that had been forbidden for benefit and was nullified by the majority—

I would say that items forbidden for benefit should be nullified by the majority.

Therefore,

it is necessary

to teach us that even in the case of non-sacred property they are not nullified.

The Gemara now discusses the explanation of the Mishna: Why is the law of nullification by the majority not applied here, so that the entire mixture is prohibited?

And let

the prohibited animal

be nullified by the majority

of the permitted animals?

And if you would say

that perhaps the reason is that living creatures

are significant

,

and are not nullified,

and their significance is that they are “an item that is counted,” and therefore they are not nullified by the majority, there would still be a difficulty:

For

this works well according to the one who says: “We learned, any item whose manner is to be counted.”

That is, according to his opinion, when we learned that “an item that is counted” is not nullified, this refers to any item that some people consider important enough to count separately, rather than grouping it with others. For example, with animals, there are people who insist on counting their animals one by one, and when they sell them, they are unwilling to sell them as a “herd” of animals. Rather, they count each animal separately. Therefore, an animal is properly called “an item that is counted,” which is not nullified by the majority, even though there are other people who do not count each animal separately. Accordingly, it is understandable why an unfit animal is not nullified by a majority of fit animals.

But according to the one who says

only

“we learned: an item whose manner is to be counted,”

that is, according to his opinion, the only “item that is counted” that is not nullified is an item whose established practice is for everyone to count it separately because of its significance,

what can be said!?

There are people who do not insist on counting the animals individually. Rather, they sell an entire herd by estimation and not according to an exact count of the animals. If so, an animal should not be considered a significant item that is not nullified by the majority!?

The Gemara now explains where the dispute concerns whether a significant item must specifically be “an item whose manner is to be counted,” or whether it also includes “any item whose manner is to be counted.”

As we learned: [

Orla 3:6 ]

, “One who had bundles of fenugreek,

a very significant type of spice, and those bundles of fenugreek were prohibited by the prohibition

of kil'ei hakerem,