Zevachim 73a (עג.) — the Talmud in English

For this tanna said

that:

Anything that has [

even if only occasionally]

a count,

although ordinarily it is not sold by count, and even if its prohibition is

rabbinic—

is not nullified

by the majority.

And according to the one who says this,

all the more so

if the prohibited item was prohibited

by

a prohibition

from the Torah,

it is not nullified by the majority, because it is “an item that has a count.” Therefore, according to this opinion, an invalid offering that became mixed with valid offerings is not nullified, and the entire mixture is prohibited.

The usual practice of fig sellers is that, ordinarily, they do not sell individual litras of pressed figs. Rather, they press them into a round shape in a pressing vessel called an “igul,” and sell them as separate igulim. Sometimes, however, they sell individual litras, cutting a litra from the large igul and selling it.

As it is taught: a litra [

a particular measure] of

pressed figs,

dried figs that had the sanctity of teruma, whose sanctity is only rabbinic, since by Torah law teruma applies only to grain, wine, and oil [produce, wine, and oil],

that was pressed [

that is, the practice was to compress the dried figs and join them into large masses by pressing them in designated vessels, such as an “igul,” a round vessel into which the pressed figs are compressed until a solid mass in the shape of an “igul” is formed; alternatively, they were compressed in a barrel or in a kooret], if he pressed the litra of figs sanctified with the sanctity of teruma

on the mouth of an igul,

at the upper part of the vessel called an “igul,” without pressing it inside the vessel, but only at the mouth of the igul, above, while ordinary figs are located inside the igul; and there are many other igulim containing ordinary figs, among which the igul at whose mouth the litra of teruma figs is located became mixed,

and he does not know

the person who pressed the litra of teruma figs

on which igul he pressed it

the teruma litra. And there are not one hundred mouths of vessels containing ordinary figs, so that we could say that the mouth of the igul containing teruma is nullified by one hundred mouths of ordinary igulim.

It follows that all the figs located at the mouths of the igulim are prohibited for consumption by non-kohanim, due to the concern that they may be teruma. But the figs located at the bottoms of the igulim are not prohibited, since it is certain to us that the prohibited matter is located only at the mouth of the igul above, and not beneath it.

Or

he pressed

the litra of teruma figs

on the mouth of a barrel, and he does not know in which barrel he pressed it.

Or he pressed it

on the mouth of a kooret, and he does not know in which kooret he pressed it.

Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagreed about the opinions of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua in such a case:

Rabbi Meir says:

This is how Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagreed concerning this matter:

Rabbi Eliezer says:

Although the uncertainty concerns which one of the mouths of the igulim contains the teruma, and there are not one hundred vessel mouths corresponding to the prohibited mouth, nevertheless the Sages were lenient with regard to rabbinic teruma, combining all the figs located in all the vessels, even those located at the bottoms of the vessels, which are not mixed with the prohibited matter [since it is certain to us that the prohibited matter is located only at the mouth of the vessel and not beneath it], and

we regard

the figs

above as though they were detached

from the mouths and mixed with the figs located at the bottoms of the vessels.

And the lower ones,

which are permitted, join together and

raise

nullify

the

teruma figs

above.

And if there is one litra of teruma and one hundred litras of ordinary produce, the teruma litra is nullified by the majority of ordinary produce and does not render the entire mixture subject to the laws of teruma.

Rabbi Yehoshua says:

The figs at the bottoms of the vessels do not join [that is, the Sages were not so lenient as to combine them, although they are not included in the uncertainty] in order to nullify the teruma at the mouths of the vessels. Therefore, only

if there are one hundred mouths

of vessels, containing permitted figs,

will they rise,

will those one hundred mouths of ordinary produce nullify the teruma located at the mouth of the vessel containing the teruma.

And if not,

if there are not one hundred ordinary mouths, then all the figs located at the mouths of

the mouths are prohibited. And

however,

the bottoms

of the vessels, the figs located beneath the mouths,

are permitted,

since they are not included in the uncertainty.

Rabbi Yehuda says,

This is how Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagreed:

Rabbi Eliezer says: If there are one hundred mouths there

of ordinary produce,

they will rise,

the teruma figs at the mouth of the vessel will be nullified.

And if not,

if there are not one hundred ordinary mouths there,

the mouths

all of them

are prohibited, and so forth [

while the bottoms are permitted].

Rabbi Yehoshua says: Even if there are three hundred mouths there—

they will not rise.

And if

he pressed

the litra of teruma figs

in an “igul,”

inside the igul, which is very wide and contains many litras of figs,

and he does not know

now

at which place in the igul he pressed it, whether in its northern or southern part—

according to everyone, they will rise.

For once it has been pressed, there is no longer any item here that is sold by count at all, since that litra of teruma will no longer be sold as an individual litra, as it has been pressed and mixed into the large igul.

And this is the tanna of the baraita concerning “a litra of pressed figs,” who maintains that even an item that is sometimes sold by count, such as a litra of pressed figs, which is only sometimes cut from the igul and sold separately, is not nullified by the majority even when the prohibition is only rabbinic; and the tanna of our Mishna agrees with him.

Rav Ashi said: You may even say

that the tanna of the Mishna, who said that an animal unfit as an offering that became mixed with valid offerings is not nullified by the majority, is

the Sages,

who disagree with Rabbi Yehoshua and maintain that an item customarily sold by count is indeed nullified. The case here is different, because

living creatures are significant

by virtue of being “living creatures,” and their significance is not due to their being “an item customarily sold by count,”

and they are not nullified.

But there still remains a difficulty: Even if we say that living creatures are significant and are not nullified [and likewise if we say that they are not nullified because they are items customarily sold by count], why should we not permit the entire mixture for another reason, based on the principle of “follow the majority”?

And let us draw out one by one from among them,

from all the animals in the mixture,

and bring it as an offering,

bring each one out from the mixture,

and say

and state about each one that separates from the mixture: Every item

that separates, separates from the majority!?

But the Gemara is astonished by this difficulty: How could you say,

“Let us draw out

one by one from among them”!?