Zevachim 74b (עד:) — the Talmud in English

We raised an objection to this:

What is different

about three pomegranates, because

there is a majority,

and the pomegranate that separated from the mixture is nullified among them? If so, if there were

two, too, there is a majority

to nullify the pomegranate that became mixed with them; why, then, did the tanna specify “three”?

And we answer: Indeed, it is so.

What does “three,” which he teaches, mean?

Two and it.

The one pomegranate became mixed with two, and it is therefore the third.

Alternatively,

to answer the Gemara’s earlier question: In accordance with whom does Shmuel hold? He

holds

that Shmuel

follows the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer,

who maintains in tractate Avoda Zara that one must be stringent with regard to idolatry and prohibit even a mixture that became mixed into another mixture.

Reish Lakish said: A barrel of teruma

that is sealed, which we said above is included among the six significant items that are not nullified,

that became mixed with one hundred barrels

of non-sacred produce: all of them are prohibited.

And

if afterward

one of them fell into the Salt Sea,

and was lost,

all of them are permitted.

The Sages were lenient in that which they had been stringent, prohibiting a mixture containing significant items, and said that if it is possible to attribute the disappearance to the prohibited item having been lost, the original law is restored and the item is nullified by the majority, because

we say: This

barrel

that fell—

the prohibited one fell.

And the rest are permitted by virtue of nullification by the majority.

And this should not be difficult for you, that the basis of this law was stated earlier by Rav Naḥman with regard to rings of idolatry; rather,

both Rav Naḥman’s statement and Reish Lakish’s statement were necessary.

For had we heard only Rav Naḥman’s statement, I would have said that this applies

to the leniency when one of them fell, specifically to

idolatry,

which is a prohibition

that has no permitted alternative;

therefore, the Sages were lenient concerning it when there is a basis for attribution, allowing it to be nullified by the majority.

But if

teruma, which

is something that

has a permitted alternative,

as he can sell the entire mixture to priests, I would say that

the Sages were not

lenient to allow it to be nullified even when one of them was lost.

And had we heard only Reish Lakish’s statement,

who said that in the case of a barrel of teruma from which one fell into the Salt Sea, all of them are permitted,

I would have said

that this applies only to

a barrel, whose fall is noticeable,

as the large space occupied by the barrel is noticeable when it is missing, and everyone will know that its falling is what permits the mixture; they will not come to err and permit nullification by the majority even without one of them falling into the Salt Sea.

But a ring,

which fell from the mixture,

whose fall is not noticeable, I would say that we may not

permit the mixture on account of its falling, because of the concern that people might err and permit it without a fall. Therefore,

it is necessary

to teach that the law of falling applies to a ring as well.

Rabba said: Reish Lakish permitted

the mixture from which a barrel fell

only

in the case of a mixture of barrels from which

a barrel fell, whose fall is noticeable. But

if

a fig

of prohibited produce, which is not nullified among figs, became mixed with figs and one fig fell from the mixture,

he did not

permit it, because its fall is not noticeable.

And Rav Yosef said: Even a fig

whose fall occurred permits its mixture. For

just as its falling

caused the prohibition,

so its rising

causes the permission. Just as we were stringent and prohibited the mixture because of its falling, although by Torah law one among two is nullified, so too we must be lenient and attribute the fallen fig to the prohibited fig, while those that remain are permitted. We need not be stringent and prohibit them out of concern that people will not recognize its fall and will come to permit a mixture without a fall.

Rabbi Elazar said: A barrel

that is sealed

of teruma,

which, because of its significance as a sealed barrel, is not nullified by a majority,

that became mixed with one hundred barrels

of non-sacred produce, so that the entire mixture became prohibited on account of teruma—

one opens one of them,

and it is thereby permitted. For even if this barrel is in fact the barrel of teruma, once it has been opened it no longer possesses the significance of a sealed barrel, and it is nullified by the majority, as is the law with teruma in a mixture of one to one hundred.

And

since the Sages instituted that when teruma becomes mixed in a ratio of one to one hundred, one removes one part in one hundred from the entire mixture and gives it to a priest, here too, once the barrel has been opened and nullified among the hundred,

he removes from it

one part in one hundred, which is called

“the amount of its mixture,” and drinks

the entire barrel except for that portion, which he gives to a priest.

Rav Dimi was sitting and reciting this teaching

of Rabbi Elazar.

Rav Naḥman said to him:

If so, I see here a blanket permission to begin with,

“Take a gulp and drink”!

For if one is permitted to open the barrel and is then permitted to drink it, where do we find the law that a sealed barrel is not nullified by a majority?

Rather, say: One of them was opened

by itself;

he removes from it the amount of its mixture,

one part in one hundred,

and drinks

the remainder. But if he opened it by hand, it remains prohibited.

Rav Oshaya said: If a barrel of teruma became mixed with one hundred and fifty barrels, and one hundred of them were opened, he removes from them

from each open barrel

the amount of its mixture,

one part in one hundred, and gives it to a priest,

and drinks

the rest,

the fifty barrels that remained sealed, in which there is no permission through nullification by the majority,

are prohibited until they are opened,

and then the law of nullification by the majority will apply to them as well. As long as they have not been opened, they are prohibited,

for we treat it as though the barrel of teruma is mixed into all the barrels,

including the fifty sealed ones,

and we do not say

that

the prohibited item is found among the majority,

namely, among the one hundred open barrels [which are the majority of the one hundred and fifty], so that he can remove one from the hundred and the fifty barrels would also be permitted to open them initially.

And this

excludes the opinion of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav,

who maintains that in such a case we say, “the prohibited item is found among the majority,” and accordingly they may initially open the fifty barrels after removing one barrel from the hundred.

We learned in the Mishna:

An animal that engaged in bestiality, an animal that was the subject of a sexual transgression,

and a tereifa prohibit all the sacrificial animals with which they became mixed.

The Gemara discusses this:

Granted, all the others

are prohibited animals, and it is fitting that they prohibit their mixture, because

it is not known

which one is the prohibited animal.

But this tereifa—what are the circumstances?

If it is known to him,

as its status as a tereifa is externally discernible,

let him come and remove it,

and all of them will be permitted.

If he does not know it,

as its status as a tereifa is not externally discernible, then

how did he know that a tereifa became mixed

among the fit animals?

The school of Rabbi Yannai said: Here we are dealing with a case in which

an animal with

a puncture caused by a thorn became mixed with an animal wounded by a wolf.

That is, there was an animal known to have been punctured by a thorn, but the punctures were only in the flesh and not in the animal’s cavity, and therefore they do not render it a tereifa. It became mixed with an animal wounded by a wolf, which likewise has punctures made by the wolf’s teeth, and it is a tereifa because the venom burns it. Once the animal punctured by a thorn became mixed with the animal wounded by a wolf, it is no longer possible to distinguish by their punctures which is the fit animal punctured by a thorn and which is the tereifa wounded by a wolf.

Reish Lakish said:

Here we are dealing with a case

in which it became mixed with a “fallen animal,”

an animal that fell from a high place and is unable to stand, and is therefore a possible tereifa, as perhaps its internal organs were crushed. [In the case of such an animal, if it was slaughtered within twenty-four hours of its fall, it is prohibited, and an examination will not help it. After twenty-four hours, it is presumed to be a “possible tereifa” and requires examination for all the signs of tereifot.] It may not be brought into the Temple courtyard for slaughter, because since it has the status of a “possible tereifa” and requires examination, it is prohibited as an offering on account of the verse, “Offer it, please, to your governor,” as it is disgraceful to bring into the courtyard something that one would not deem fit to bring before an important person.

The Gemara asks: Why did you disqualify it as an offering because it requires examination for the signs of tereifot as a result of its fall? After all,

a “fallen animal” can also be examined

if it stands and walks, in which case it is entirely fit [and the question is only according to the one who says that if a fallen animal stood and walked, it no longer requires an additional examination of its body].

And we answer:

He holds

—Reish Lakish—

that if it stood

after the fall, it

must

remain for

twenty-four hours

before we deem it fit. If it did not remain for twenty-four hours and they slaughtered it, it is a tereifa, and an examination for the signs of tereifot will not help it, because we are concerned that its internal organs were crushed. And even if it

walked, it requires examination

after slaughter. Since in every case it requires examination after slaughter, it cannot be brought into the courtyard, because of “Offer it, please, to your governor.”

Rabbi Yirmeya said:

Here we are dealing with a case

in which it became mixed with the offspring of a tereifa,

which itself has none of the signs of a tereifa, and its entire disqualification is because it was born from a tereifa. Therefore, it cannot be identified when it becomes mixed.

And it is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says: An offspring

born from

a tereifa may not be brought upon the altar.

The Gemara now explains why each of the three amoraim [Rabbi Yannai, Reish Lakish, and Rabbi Yirmeya] does not accept the interpretation offered by his colleagues:

All of them,

Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yirmeya,

with regard to Rabbi Yannai,

who established the case as one in which an animal punctured by a thorn became mixed with an animal wounded by a wolf,

did not say

so, because in their opinion the difference

between an animal punctured by a thorn and one wounded by a wolf is known,

as the difference between them is discernible. For

this one,

the animal wounded by a wolf, has a puncture that is not round, because the wolf’s claw tears the flesh; rather, it is

elongated. And

if

this one,

the animal punctured by a thorn, has a puncture that is

round,

because the thorn that penetrated it leaves a round puncture.

All of them, Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Yirmeya,

with regard to Reish Lakish, did not say

so, because

they hold

that if

it stood

after the animal fell, it

does not require

a waiting period of

twenty-four hours,

and even if it was slaughtered within twenty-four hours, its signs of tereifot may be examined and it may be deemed fit.

And they likewise hold that if

it walked

again, it

does not require examination.

If so, it is impossible to establish the Mishna as referring to a fallen animal that became mixed with others, because it can be examined by having it walk and can then be deemed fit.

All of them, Rabbi Yannai and Reish Lakish,

with regard to Rabbi Yirmeya, did not say

so, because

in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer,

who prohibits the offspring of a tereifa,

they did not establish

the Mishna, since in their opinion the offspring of a tereifa is not itself a tereifa.

We learned in the Mishna:

Sacred animals

that became mixed

with sacred animals

of the same species: This one shall be offered for the sake of its owner, and that one shall be offered for the sake of its owner.

The Gemara discusses this:

But it requires laying on of hands

by the owners! Since they became mixed with one another, the owners do not know which is their offering on which they can perform semikha. How can they offer them without the owners’ laying on of hands?

And we answer:

Rav Yosef said:

Here we are dealing

with a woman’s offering,

which does not require laying on of hands. But

with a man’s offering,

which requires laying on of hands,

the Mishna does not

deal, because there is no remedy allowing each one to be offered for the sake of its owner, since they cannot perform laying on of hands, as they do not know which is their offering.