Zevachim 74a — the Talmud in English

And we learned

below in our chapter: the limbs of valid burnt-offerings that became mixed with the limbs of a blemished burnt-offering, which may not be offered,

Rabbi Eliezer says:

Initially, it is forbidden to offer all the limbs in the mixture. But

if

after the fact, already

the head of one of them was offered—

the heads

from now on

may all be offered.

And the reason for Rabbi Eliezer is that, by Torah law, the invalid item is nullified by the majority of valid items. But the Sages were stringent concerning such a mixture, that the law of nullification by a majority should not apply to it. Therefore, on the other hand, the Sages were lenient: if it is possible to “attribute” and say that the forbidden item is no longer found within the mixture—for example, one head has already been offered, in which case it is possible to attribute and say that it was the invalid head—then, although it is uncertain whether it was the valid one or the invalid one, “we attribute” it to the invalid one. They then restore the law of nullification by a majority to its Torah-law status, that “one among two is nullified,” and all the heads are permitted to be offered.

And now this is difficult: before the first head was offered, all the heads were rejected from being offered, and this rejection occurred while they were slaughtered. Nevertheless, we do not say that rejection while they are slaughtered rejects them forever; rather, we say that from the moment the first head was offered, they all became fit to be offered. If so, why did Rava say that if an invalid animal became mixed with valid offerings and afterward the valid offerings were identified, nevertheless they are rejected forever, and if one offers them, they do not effect acceptance!?

And we answer: Rava holds in accordance with the Sages, who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer and hold that there is a law of rejection. Therefore, even rejection caused by a mixture of a forbidden item is considered rejection.

But

he,

Rabbi Eliezer, who said that if the head was offered they may all be offered, held this way because

he said in accordance with Hanan the Egyptian,

who holds that even slaughtered items are not rejected, as we find concerning the goats of Yom Kippur.

The two goats of Yom Kippur [one is the inner goat, whose blood is sprinkled inside and within, and the other is the goat sent away into the wilderness] are considered a “pair,” each of which “prevents” the other. That is, if one is lacking, it is impossible to perform the service with the other.

As it was taught: Hanan the Egyptian says:

If it happened that the goat sent away died,

even

if it died after the goat performed inside had already been slaughtered, and its blood had already been received

the blood

of the inner goat

in a cup,

the inner goat is not rejected from being offered because its partner is lacking,

but he brings its partner,

another goat,

and pairs it with him

with the inner goat as its partner, as the goat sent away; and he sprinkles the blood of the inner goat, which had already been received in the cup, and offers its sacrificial portions.

And we do not say: Since the inner goat was rejected from being offered when the goat sent away died, it is rejected forever.

And it is demonstrated that Hanan the Egyptian holds that even offerings that were rejected from being offered while they were slaughtered are not rejected forever. And Rabbi Eliezer holds like him.

Rav Nahman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha, who said in the name of Rav: A ring

an ornament

of idolatry,

which is not nullified by a majority, because the Sages decreed that idolatry is not nullified even in a thousand,

that became mixed with one hundred rings,

thereby rendering the entire mixture forbidden,

and one of them fell into the Great Sea,

and we do not know whether the ring that fell into the sea was a permitted one or was one of idolatry—

the rings

are permitted

all.

For by Torah law, “one among two is nullified,” but the Sages were stringent concerning idolatry, that it should not be nullified by a majority. Therefore, on the other hand, the Sages were lenient when there is room to attribute and say that the idolatry is no longer found in the mixture—for example, there is room to say that the ring of idolatry is the one that fell into the sea, and it is no longer present among the rings. Although this is a distant attribution, with only a one-in-one-hundred chance that the ring that fell was the ring of idolatry, nevertheless, in such a case the Sages did not forbid the mixture. Rather, they restored it to the Torah-law status, that one among two is nullified,

for we say: this

ring

that fell

into the sea, is the ring

of the forbidden item

that

fell.

And all the rings that remained are the permitted rings.

Rabbah raised an objection to Rav Nahman:

We learned in our Mishna that if an invalid animal became mixed with valid offerings,

even

one

single

invalid animal that became mixed

with ten thousand

valid offerings—

they shall all die.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Before the first head was sacrificed, all the heads had been disqualified from sacrifice, and this disqualification occurred when they were already slaughtered. Nevertheless, we do not say that disqualification while they are slaughtered disqualifies them forever. Rather, we say that once the first head has been sacrificed, all of them become fit for sacrifice. If so, why did Rava say that if a disqualified animal became mixed with valid offerings and the valid offerings were subsequently identified, they are nevertheless disqualified forever, and if one sacrifices them they do not effect acceptance!?

And according to your words, this is difficult:

why

shall they all die? Why should we not

say

that from the moment the first animal among all the animals in the mixture died, there is room to attribute and say that

this one that died,

that animal which died, was an animal

of the forbidden item that

died, and all the rest may be offered!?

—

He said to him

Rav Nahman to Rava:

Rav

who permitted the ring that fell into the sea did so because

he said in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer.

As we learned: Rabbi Eliezer says,

if the limbs of a blemished burnt-offering became mixed with the limbs of valid burnt-offerings, then

if

after the fact

the head

of

one of them was offered, all the heads may all be offered.

For we “attribute” that the head which was offered was the invalid head. And the same law applies to the ring of idolatry: we attribute that the ring which fell was the forbidden ring. Whereas our Mishna, which says that if an invalid animal became mixed with valid offerings they shall all die, and they are not permitted after the first one dies, follows the opinion of the Sages, who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer and do not hold that there is a law of attribution in such a case.

But Rava raised an objection to Rav Nahman:

Is that so? But Rabbi Elazar said: Rabbi Eliezer did not permit

offering all the heads [that remained after the first head was offered] one by one,

but two by two.

But

And the reason for this matter is that an additional “side of permission” is required in order to be lenient and have the item nullified by a majority: the two heads must be offered specifically together. For then we say concerning each of the heads: If you say that it is forbidden, you are establishing that it is the forbidden one, and if so, necessarily its fellow is the permitted one. And since its fellow is offered, it too is offered. This “statement” has no basis in the essential law; rather, in such a manner the Sages were lenient concerning the severity of their prohibition that the item not be nullified by a majority, in cases in which such a “statement” can be made.

But

to offer

one by one, he did not

Rabbi Eliezer permit.

And if so, here too, when one ring fell from the mixture, this is difficult: why did Rav permit using each of the rings separately, and did not require using two rings together, just as Rabbi Eliezer required offering two heads together?

He said to him

Rav Nahman to Rava:

I too am speaking of two by two.

It was not permitted to derive benefit from each ring separately; rather, the rings must be sold two by two, so that it will be possible to “say” concerning each ring among the two: Just as the second one is permitted, so too it is permitted.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: A ring of idolatry that became mixed with one hundred rings

of permitted items,

and forty separated

rings from the rings

to one place, and sixty to another place,

and afterward

one separated from the forty

rings and became mixed with other permitted rings,

does not prohibit

the rings with which it became mixed, as he proceeds to explain.

But if

one ring separated

from

the sixty

rings [after they separated from the one hundred] and the separating ring became mixed with permitted rings, it

prohibits

all the rings with which it became mixed.

And the Gemara analyzes Rav’s words:

What is different

if

one separated from the forty

rings

that it does not

prohibit its mixture, because

we say: the forbidden item,

that ring of idolatry which became mixed with the one hundred when they were together,

is found in the majority?

For we attribute that the forbidden ring is among the sixty rings, which are the majority in relation to the forty. [And this attribution applies only after one ring separated from the forty, but when the forty themselves separated, they were not permitted on the basis of the attribution that “the forbidden item is found in the majority.”]

And if so, this is difficult: when a ring

one

separated from

the sixty as well [after all sixty had separated to another place], why does it prohibit its mixture, and do we not attribute, and do we not

say, “the forbidden item is found in the majority,”

that the forbidden ring remained among the fifty-nine, and the one that separated is a permitted ring!?

Rather, say

this is what Rav said:

forty separated

rings from the one hundred, and the separation of the forty rings was

all to one place,

and there they became mixed with other rings;

they do not prohibit

their mixture, because we say, “the forbidden item is found in the majority,” and the forbidden ring remained among the sixty that remained. But if

sixty

rings separated from the one hundred

to one place,

and they became mixed with others, they

prohibit

their mixture.

And now there is no longer a difficulty concerning one ring that separated, for according to this interpretation of Rav’s words, we find no distinction between one that separated from the forty and one that separated from the sixty.

And Rav Yehuda said:

When I stated,

when I stated Rav’s ruling, that forty rings which separated and became mixed with others do not prohibit their mixture,

before Shmuel, he said to me

Shmuel:

Leave idolatry,

from being lenient and permitting it, even in such a case, which is a compound uncertainty—for the ring first became mixed with one hundred permitted rings, and afterward forty separated and became mixed with others—and nevertheless one may not be lenient. For idolatry has a stringent status,

that its uncertainty, and its compound uncertainty, are forbidden forever,

therefore its mixture and the mixture of its mixture are forbidden forever.

He raised an objection

to Shmuel from what we learned:

An uncertainty concerning idolatry is forbidden.

But

a compound uncertainty is permitted.

How so? A cup of idolatry that fell into a storehouse full of cups—

he,

they are all forbidden.

One separated from them,

from the cups with which a cup of idolatry became mixed, and the cup became mixed with other cups; even if it became mixed

with ten thousand

permitted cups, they are all forbidden [for it is still called “an uncertainty concerning idolatry” and not “a compound uncertainty,” because the first mixture, within which the forbidden item

certainly

was found, is considered entirely as the body of the forbidden item and not as its uncertainty; only when one separated from the mixture and became mixed with others, so that we are uncertain whether the forbidden item itself is found in the new mixture, is the mixture considered “an uncertainty concerning idolatry.”]

But if afterward one separated

from the ten thousand to a

mixture of

ten thousand

permitted items, they are all

permitted.

Rabbi Eliezer, who said that if the head was sacrificed all of them may be sacrificed, held this way because

And it is demonstrated that the tanna of the beraita held that a compound uncertainty is permitted concerning idolatry. And this is difficult for Shmuel, who forbade it in the case of a compound uncertainty, even to the end of the world!?

And we answer: this is not difficult for Shmuel, because

there is a dispute between tannaim,

the tannaim disagreed concerning the matter:

As it was taught: Badan pomegranates

that were forbidden because of orla or because of teruma are not nullified by a majority, because they are one of the six significant things that are not nullified, as explained above. Therefore they

prohibit

their mixture

in any amount.

How so?—

he ruled in accordance with Hanan the Egyptian,

One of them fell into ten thousand

permitted Badan pomegranates,

and

one separated

from ten thousand to

a mixture of

ten thousand

other permitted items; they are all

forbidden.

who maintains that even slaughtered offerings are not permanently disqualified, as we find with regard to the two goats of Yom Kippur.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon:

If forbidden Badan pomegranates became mixed

with

a

thousand

permitted ones—they are all

forbidden.

But

if one separated

from a thousand to

a mixture of

three

Badan pomegranates [the pomegranate that separated from the thousand, and two others with which it became mixed],

and

afterward one separated from the

three to another place, it is permitted

to eat the one that separated. And the pomegranates from which it separated were likewise permitted, because of a compound uncertainty.

And the reason for Rabbi Shimon is as we said above: every mixture in which the forbidden item itself is certainly found is not considered “an uncertain forbidden item”; rather, its status is that of a certain forbidden item. Only the second mixture, in which one item that separated from the first is mixed, is considered uncertain, since we do not know with certainty that the forbidden item is mixed within it. And if one separated from the second mixture and became mixed in a third mixture, the third mixture is a “compound uncertainty.” Therefore, the one who separates from it is permitted to eat, and it too becomes permitted through the separation of that one, since from now on there is room to attribute the forbidden item to the one that separated.

Therefore, Shmuel properly said that idolatry has no permission to the end of the world, because he held in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who said that even if one separated from a thousand to a thousand, they are all forbidden. And the stringency of idolatry, which is not nullified, is like the stringency of Badan nuts, which are not nullified.

But the Gemara still analyzes according to Shmuel, who said, “Leave idolatry, for its uncertainty and its compound uncertainty are forbidden to the end of the world”:

Shmuel—

The two goats of Yom Kippur—the first being the goat whose blood is sprinkled within and before the innermost chamber, and the second being the goat sent to the wilderness—are considered a “pair,” with each one “preventing” the other from being used. That is, if one of them is absent, the service cannot be performed with the other.

in accordance with whom did he say this?

If it is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda

that he holds, why does he say, “Leave idolatry”? For

even concerning other prohibitions as well Rabbi Yehuda forbade

because he held that a significant item that is not nullified is forbidden to the end of the entire world!?

If

Shmuel held

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

this is difficult, for

even concerning idolatry as well Rabbi Shimon permitted

a compound uncertainty, just as with a significant item!?

And if you would say

that perhaps you will say: We do not find explicitly that Rabbi Shimon said that concerning idolatry there is permission in a compound uncertainty, and let us say,

Rabbi Shimon distinguishes for himself between idolatry and other prohibitions,

and he holds that a compound uncertainty concerning idolatry is forbidden, and Shmuel holds in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, this is still difficult:

Rather, this that was taught: An uncertainty concerning idolatry is forbidden, and a compound uncertainty is permitted.

As it was taught: Hanan the Egyptian says:

Whose

is this tanna, the tanna of the beraita?

Not Rabbi Yehuda,

who forbids every compound uncertainty,

and not Rabbi Shimon.

For we said that he is stringent concerning idolatry, and holds concerning it in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda!?

And we answer:

Actually,

this beraita is according to

Rabbi Shimon,

and Rabbi Shimon holds that both concerning idolatry and concerning other prohibitions, a compound uncertainty is permitted.

And Shmuel—

If it happened that the goat sent away died,

held in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda in one matter,

concerning the law of idolatry, that one must be stringent concerning it and forbid a compound uncertainty to the end of the world.

And disagreed with him in one matter,

for concerning other prohibitions we are not stringent, but permit a compound uncertainty.

The master said:

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Forbidden Badan pomegranates that fell into a thousand permitted pomegranates—they are all forbidden.

And if they fell

from a thousand to three, and from three

one fell

to another place,

it is

permitted.

even

And the Gemara assumed that what was stated, “they fell from a thousand to three,” means that one pomegranate separated from the pomegranates in the mixture of a thousand and became mixed with three pomegranates.