Zevachim 74b — the Talmud in English

And we raised it:

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, there is also a majority

to nullify the pomegranate that became mixed among them; and why did the tanna state “three”?

And we answer: Indeed, so.

What does “three” that he teaches mean? —

Two, and it.

That the one pomegranate became mixed with two, and it is found to be the third.

And if you wish, say

to answer the Gemara’s question above: With whose view does Shmuel accord?

He holds

Shmuel

with Rabbi Eliezer,

who holds in tractate Avoda Zara that one must be stringent with idolatry and forbid in it even a mixture of a mixture.

Reish Lakish said: A barrel of teruma

that is sealed, which we said above is included among the six important things that are not nullified,

that became mixed with one hundred barrels

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

And

if afterward

one of them fell into the Dead Sea,

and was lost,

all of them became permitted.

For the Sages were lenient concerning what they had been stringent about, to forbid mixtures of important things, and they said that if it is possible to attribute that the forbidden item was lost, the law returns to its foundation, and there is nullification by a majority, because

we say: This

barrel

that fell —

the forbidden one fell.

And the remainder are permitted by the law of nullification by a majority.

And this should not be difficult for you, that the foundation of this law was stated earlier by Rav Nahman concerning rings of idolatry; rather,

Rav Nahman’s teaching was necessary, and Reish Lakish’s teaching was necessary.

For if from Rav Nahman alone, I would say, these words

that they were lenient when one of them fell, mean specifically

idolatry,

for it was a prohibition

that has no permitted alternative;

therefore they were lenient with it where attribution is possible, for it to be nullified by a majority.

But if teruma became mixed,

for

it is a thing that

has a permitted alternative,

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

not

that the Sages were lenient for it to become nullified even when one of them was lost.

And if from Reish Lakish,

who said concerning a barrel of teruma that when one fell into the Dead Sea all of them became permitted,

I would say,

these words apply to

a barrel, for its falling is recognizable,

because the large place of a barrel is recognizable when it is absent from its place, and everyone will know that its falling is what permits, and they will not come to err and permit nullification by a majority even without one of them falling into the Dead Sea.

But a ring,

which fell from the mixture,

for its falling is not recognizable, I would say not

that we should permit the mixture through its falling, out of concern lest they come to err and permit it without a falling. Therefore

it is necessary

to inform us of the law of falling also with regard to a ring.

Rabba said: Reish Lakish permitted

the mixture from which a barrel had fallen

only

in a mixture of barrels from which

a barrel fell, for its falling is recognizable. But

if

a fig

of prohibition, which is not nullified among figs, became mixed, and a fig fell from the mixture,

not

did Reish Lakish permit it, because its falling is not recognizable.

And Rav Yosef said: Even a fig

that fell rendered its mixture permitted. For

just as its falling

forbids,

so is its rising

what permits. Just as we were stringent to forbid its mixture because of its falling, although by Torah law one among two is nullified, so must we be lenient and attribute that the fig that fell from the mixture is the forbidden fig, and those that remained are permitted. And we need not be stringent and forbid them lest they not recognize its falling and come to forbid without a falling.

Rabbi Elazar said: A barrel

that is sealed

of teruma,

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

that became mixed with one hundred barrels

of non-sacred produce, and the entire mixture became forbidden with the prohibition of teruma —

he opens one of them,

and it is thereby permitted. For even on the possibility that this barrel is the barrel of teruma, once it has been opened it no longer has the importance of a sealed barrel, and it is nullified by a majority, as is the law of teruma in a mixture of one to one hundred.

And

since the Sages enacted that whenever teruma becomes mixed in one to one hundred, one takes from it one part of one hundred of the entire mixture and gives it to a priest, here too, once the barrel was opened and became nullified among one hundred,

he takes from it

one part of one hundred of it, which is called

“the amount of its teruma,” and drinks

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

Rav Dimi was sitting and stating this teaching

of Rabbi Elazar.

Rav Nahman said to him: If so, I see here an initial permission of

and drinks

“gulp and drink”!

For if he 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 takes from it the amount of its teruma,

one part of one hundred,

and drinks

the remainder. But if he opened it with his hands, it remains in its prohibition.

Rav Oshaya said: A barrel of teruma that became mixed with one hundred and fifty barrels, and one hundred of them were opened, he takes from them

from each open barrel

the amount of its teruma,

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

and drinks.

And the remaining

fifty barrels that remained sealed, and do not have the permission of nullification by a majority,

are forbidden until they are opened

as well, and then the law of nullification by a majority applies to them. And as long as they have not been opened, they are forbidden,

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

also among the fifty sealed ones,

and we do not say,

we do not attribute that

the forbidden one is in the majority,

among the one hundred open barrels—which are the majority of the one hundred and fifty—and he will take one from the hundred, and the fifty barrels too will become permitted for him to open them initially,

and this is

to exclude the view of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav,

who holds that in such a case we say “the forbidden one is in the majority,” and according to him they may initially open the fifty barrels after they take one barrel from the hundred.

We learned in the Mishna:

The animal that had intercourse with a human, and the animal with which a human had intercourse,

and the animal with a fatal defect prohibit all the offerings that became mixed with them.

And the Gemara discusses:

Granted, all the others

are prohibitions; it is proper that they should prohibit their mixture, because

it is not known

which is the forbidden one.

But this one with a fatal defect—what are the circumstances?

If it is known to him,

that its fatal defect is visible to the eye,

let him come and take it,

let him remove the animal with the fatal defect from the mixture, and all of them will become permitted.

If he does not know it,

because its fatal defect is not recognizable from outside, if so,

from where does he know that a fatally defective animal became mixed

among the fit animals?

The scholars of the house of Rabbi Yannai say: Here we are dealing with a case where a

beast with a puncture caused by a thorn became mixed

with one mauled by a wolf.

That is, there was an animal about which we know that a thorn caused punctures in it, and these punctures are only in the flesh and not in the cavity of the animal, and they do not render it a fatally defective animal; and it became mixed with one mauled by a wolf, which also has punctures made by the wolf’s teeth, and it is a fatally defective animal because the venom burns it. And once the one punctured by a thorn became mixed with the one mauled by a wolf, it is no longer possible to distinguish by their punctures which is the fit one punctured by a thorn and which is the fatally defective one mauled by a wolf.

Reish Lakish said: Here we are dealing

with a case

such as where it became mixed with a “fallen animal,”

with an animal that fell from a high place downward and cannot stand, and it is a doubtful fatally defective animal, lest its internal organs have been crushed. [And with such an animal, if it was slaughtered within twenty-four hours of its fall, it is forbidden, and an examination will not help it. After twenty-four hours, it has the status of a “doubtful fatally defective animal,” and requires examination for all the signs of fatal defects.] And they do not bring it into the Temple courtyard to slaughter it, because since it has acquired the status of a “doubtful fatally defective animal” and requires examination, it is forbidden as an offering because of “Present it, please, to your governor,” for it is disgraceful to bring into the courtyard something that one would not consider fit to bring to an important person.

And the Gemara discusses: Why did you disqualify it as an offering because it requires examination for signs of fatal defects on account of its falling? After all,

a “fallen animal” too—let him examine it

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

And we answer:

He holds

Reish Lakish:

if it stood

after the fall, it

needs

to remain

twenty-four hours

before we declare it fit; and if it did not remain for twenty-four hours and they slaughtered it, it is a fatally defective animal, and an examination for signs of fatal defects will not help it, because we are concerned that the internal organs were crushed. And even if

it walked, it requires examination

after its slaughter. And since in every case it requires examination after slaughter, it is impossible to bring it into the courtyard, because of “Present it, please, to your governor.”

Rabbi Yirmeya said: Here we are dealing

with a case

such as where it became mixed with the offspring of a fatally defective animal,

which itself has none of the signs of a fatal defect, and all its disqualification is because it was born from a fatally defective animal. Therefore it is impossible to recognize it when it becomes mixed;

and it is Rabbi Eliezer’s view, who says: An

offspring born from a

fatally defective animal may not be brought upon the altar.

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

All of them,

Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yirmeya,

according to Rabbi Yannai,

who established it as a case in which the one punctured by a thorn became mixed with the one mauled by a wolf,

do not say so,

because in their view the difference

between the one punctured by a thorn and the one mauled by a wolf is known,

for the difference between them is recognizable. For

this one,

the one mauled by a wolf, its puncture is not round, because the wolf’s claw tears the flesh; rather, it is

drawn out. And

whereas

this one,

the one punctured by a thorn, its puncture is

round,

because the thorn that penetrated it leaves a round puncture.

All of them, Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Yirmeya,

do not say according to Reish Lakish,

because

they hold,

if it

stood

after the animal fell, it

does not need

waiting

twenty-four hours,

and even if they slaughtered it within twenty-four hours, it is possible to examine its signs of fatal defects and declare it fit.

And likewise they hold that if

the animal walked

again, it

does not require examination.

And if so, it is impossible to establish the Mishna as referring to a fallen animal that became mixed, because it can be examined through walking and declared fit.

All of them, Rabbi Yannai and Reish Lakish,

do not say according to Rabbi Yirmeya,

because

according to Rabbi Eliezer,

who forbids the offspring of a fatally defective animal,

they do not establish it,

because in their view the offspring of a fatally defective animal is not itself a fatally defective animal.

We learned in the Mishna:

Sacred animals

that became mixed

with sacred animals

of the same species—this one shall be sacrificed for the sake of its owner, and that one shall be sacrificed for the sake of its owner.

And the Gemara discusses:

But does it not require laying of hands

by the owners!? And since these became mixed with one another, the owners do not know which is their offering, upon which they can perform laying of hands; and how can they sacrifice them without laying of hands by the owners?

And we answer:

Rav Yosef said: Here we are dealing

with a case

of an offering of women,

which does not require laying of hands. But

with an offering of men,

which requires laying of hands,

not

does the Mishna speak, because there is no remedy for sacrificing each one for the sake of its owner, since they cannot perform laying of hands, because they do not know which is their offering.