Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This week’s learning is dedicated by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Robert’s brother (my uncle), Richard Cohen on his first yahrzeit. “A true Baal Chesed who helped anyone in need without seeking recognition, he was a friend to everyone, young or old, and always put others’ needs before his own. He is truly missed by so many.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Two additional answers are offered to explain why, in the Mishna, the animal is not nullified among the others if one follows Rabbi Yochanan, who holds that only items sold exclusively by unit are not nullified in a mixture. The first answer is that the Mishna follows Rabbi Yehoshua according to Rabbi Yehuda in the case of a litra of dried figs, teaching that items sometimes sold individually are not nullified. The second answer is that live animals are considered significant and therefore cannot be nullified.
The Gemara continues to ask why animals designated for sacrifices, when intermingled with an animal forbidden for benefit, are all left to die. It suggests resolving the issue through the laws of probability: one could remove an animal at a time and assume each emerged from the majority of permitted animals. The difficulty is that, according to halakhic rules of probability, this only applies once an animal has already been separated, allowing us to presume it came from the majority. But if the animals remain fixed and one is taken directly from the group, the law treats it as either permitted or forbidden (50/50), with no majority to rely upon.
The Gemara further proposes creating a situation where the animals scatter from their fixed location, so they are no longer considered fixed, and each could then be assumed to come from the majority. Rava offers three explanations why this solution fails, the first two of which are rejected. The final answer is that, although theoretically possible, it was prohibited by decree, lest people apply the same reasoning in cases where the animals remain fixed.
Rava concludes that since the animal is not nullified by rabbinic decree, if any of the animals in the mixture are sacrificed on the altar, they do not achieve atonement, and a new sacrifice must be brought. Rav Huna raises a difficulty with this explanation based on two Mishnayot in Kinnim 1:2 and 3:1. The difficulty is resolved by explaining that Rava holds live animals and birds can be rejected from the altar, whereas the Mishna rules that they cannot.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This week’s learning is dedicated by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Robert’s brother (my uncle), Richard Cohen on his first yahrzeit. “A true Baal Chesed who helped anyone in need without seeking recognition, he was a friend to everyone, young or old, and always put others’ needs before his own. He is truly missed by so many.”
Zevachim 73
כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מִנְיָן – אֲפִילּוּ בִּדְרַבָּנַן לָא בָּטֵיל, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן בִּדְאוֹרָיְיתָא.
Any item that is counted, even if it is prohibited by rabbinic law, e.g., teruma of fruit, cannot be nullified, and all the more so items prohibited by Torah law, such as animals that are disqualified for the altar, as in the mishna.
דְּתַנְיָא: לִיטְרָא קְצִיעוֹת שֶׁדְּרָסָהּ עַל פִּי עִיגּוּל, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּאֵיזוֹ עִיגּוּל דְּרָסָהּ; עַל פִּי חָבִית, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּאֵיזוֹ חָבִית דְּרָסָהּ; עַל פִּי כַּוֶּורֶת, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּאֵיזוֹ כַּוֶּורֶת דְּרָסָהּ –
This is as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 5:11): The baraita discusses three cases, all of which relate to the tithing of figs, which is an obligation by rabbinic law. The first is the case of a litra of untithed dried figs that were pressed in different vessels and shaped into circles, that one placed into a barrel containing tithed figs, and during the process of producing a circle he pressed the figs onto the opening of one of the circular vessels in which the circles are formed, and he does not know into which circular vessel he pressed it. The second is the case in which he recalls that he pressed it on the opening of a barrel containing tithed figs, but he does not know into which barrel he pressed it. The third case is that he recalls that he pressed it on the opening of a straw receptacle containing tithed figs, but he does not know into which receptacle he pressed it. In all of these cases, there is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda as to the details of a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua.
רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: רוֹאִין אֶת הָעֶלְיוֹנוֹת כְּאִילּוּ הֵן פְּרוּדוֹת, וְהַתַּחְתּוֹנוֹת מַעֲלוֹת אֶת הָעֶלְיוֹנוֹת.
Rabbi Meir says that Rabbi Eliezer says: One views the upper layers of possibly untithed dried figs as though they are separate pieces, rather than one unit. And the lower ones, which were there beforehand and have certainly been tithed, nullify the upper ones, as there are enough circles of figs to nullify the upper layer. One does not need to tithe the figs at the top of any of the containers.
רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אִם יֵשׁ מֵאָה פּוּמִּין – יַעֲלוּ, וְאִם לָאו – הַפּוּמִּין אֲסוּרִין וְהַשּׁוּלַיִם מוּתָּרִין.
Rabbi Meir continues: By contrast, Rabbi Yehoshua says: If there are one hundred openings of containers present there, the untithed litra of figs on the opening of one of the containers is nullified in a ratio of one part of untithed figs to one hundred parts of similar, tithed figs. But if not, all of the layers of figs at the openings of the containers are prohibited, i.e., viewed as untithed, as one of them certainly contains an untithed litra that has not been nullified. And the figs on the insides of the vessels are permitted, as the untithed figs certainly did not reach there. This is Rabbi Meir’s version of the dispute.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם מֵאָה פּוּמִּין – יַעֲלוּ, וְאִם לָאו – הַפּוּמִּין אֲסוּרִין וְכוּ׳.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda says that Rabbi Eliezer says: If there are one hundred openings of containers with tithed figs present there, in addition to the untithed figs, it is nullified in the one hundred. But if not, all of the layers of figs at the openings of the containers are prohibited, i.e., viewed as untithed, as one of them certainly contains an untithed litra that has not been nullified. And the figs on the insides of the vessels are permitted, as the untithed figs certainly did not reach there.
רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ יֵשׁ שָׁם שְׁלֹשָׁה מֵאוֹת פּוּמִּין – לֹא יַעֲלוּ.
Rabbi Yehuda continues his statement: By contrast, Rabbi Yehoshua says: Even if there are three hundred openings present there, the layer at the top of the container is not nullified. This litra cannot be nullified in any manner, as Rabbi Yehoshua maintains that even an item occasionally sold by unit, such as a circle of dried figs, can never be nullified.
דְּרָסָהּ בְּעִיגּוּל, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּאֵיזֶה מְקוֹם בְּעִיגּוּל דְּרָסָהּ – אוֹ לִצְפוֹנָהּ אוֹ לִדְרוֹמָהּ, דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל יַעֲלוּ.
Rabbi Yehuda continues: But if one pressed the litra of dried figs into a circular vessel along with other dried figs, but does not know onto which place, i.e., which side, of the circular vessel he pressed it, whether, e.g., to its northern side or to its southern side, in this case, as the prohibited litra is not located in a defined place and it cannot be distinguished from the others, it is not considered an item of significance, and everyone agrees that it is nullified. Accordingly, the ruling of the mishna that animals that are disqualified from being sacrificed are not nullified is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua as stated by Rabbi Eliezer, that an item occasionally sold by unit is not nullified. Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement, that only an item whose manner is exclusively to be counted is significant and cannot be nullified, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים חֲשִׁיבִי וְלָא בָּטְלִי.
Rav Ashi says: You may even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, i.e., Rabbi Meir, who maintains that an item that is not always counted is nullified in a majority. The reason is that living creatures are significant, and therefore they are not nullified.
וְנִמְשׁוֹךְ וְנַקְרֵב חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ, וְנֵימָא: כֹּל דְּפָרֵישׁ – מֵרוּבָּא פָּרֵישׁ! נִמְשׁוֹךְ?! הָוֵה לֵיהּ קָבוּעַ,
§ The Gemara raises a difficulty with the ruling of the mishna that all of the animals are prohibited. And let us draw out and sacrifice one animal from the mixture, and say, i.e., apply the principle: Any item that separates from a group is assumed to have separated from the majority. Accordingly, the animal that was sacrificed is presumed to be fit. One can continue in this manner until only two animals from the mixture remain. The Gemara questions this suggestion: Should we draw out an animal from the mixture? But this is the removal of an item from its fixed place,
וְכׇל קָבוּעַ כְּמֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה דָּמֵי! אֶלָּא נִיכְבְּשִׁינְהוּ (דְּנָיְידִי) [דְּנִינַיְידָּן], וְנֵימָא: כֹּל דְּפָרֵישׁ – מֵרוּבָּא פָּרֵישׁ!
and there is a principle that anything fixed is considered as though it was half and half, i.e., equally balanced, and it remains a case of uncertainty. The Gemara clarifies its suggestion: Rather, let us push the intermingled animals so that they all move from their places, which negates the fixed status of the prohibited item. And accordingly, let us say with regard to each animal: Any item that separates from a group is assumed to have separated from the majority.
אָמַר רָבָא: הַשְׁתָּא דַּאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן לָא נִיקְרַב, גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יָבֹאוּ עֲשָׂרָה כֹּהֲנִים בְּבַת אַחַת וְיַקְרִבוּ.
Rava says: Now that the Sages have said that we do not sacrifice any of them, this is evidently a rabbinic decree, lest ten priests come simultaneously and sacrifice all the animals in the mixture together, not one at a time. Therefore, the fact that there could be a method to permit the animals is immaterial.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן לְרָבָא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, מְגִיסָא אֲסִירָא?!
One of the Sages said to Rava: If that is so, do you hold that the large basin [megisa] on which the sacrificial portions of the animal are placed is prohibited? In other words, is it possible that these animals, which were slaughtered when they were initially declared permitted after being separated from their places, could later become prohibited again when their sacrificial portions are ready to be burned on the altar?
מִשּׁוּם שֶׁמָּא יָבֹאוּ עֲשָׂרָה כֹּהֲנִים בְּבַת אַחַת וְיִקְחוּ. בַּעֲשָׂרָה כֹּהֲנִים בְּבַת אַחַת מִי אֶפְשָׁר?! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: מִשּׁוּם קָבוּעַ.
Rava responded that he did not mean there is a concern that ten priests would sacrifice their sacrificial portions simultaneously. Rather, the decree is due to the concern lest when the animals move, ten priests will come simultaneously and take them from the mixture. As all or most of the animals were separated simultaneously in this case, it is assumed that the prohibited animal is among those that were separated. The Gemara asks: Is it possible for ten priests to take these scattered animals simultaneously? Rather, Rava says that one may not allow the animals to be sacrificed by moving them due to a decree that if this is allowed, one may, in another circumstance, allow them to be sacrificed even when they are taken from a fixed location.
אָמַר רָבָא: הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן לָא נַקְרֵיב, אִי (נַקְרֵיב) [מַקְרֵיב] – לָא מְרַצֵּי. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בַּר יְהוּדָה לְרָבָא: חַטָּאת שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בְּעוֹלָה, וְעוֹלָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בְּחַטָּאת, אֲפִילּוּ אַחַת בְּרִיבּוֹא – יָמוּתוּ כּוּלָּן.
§ Rava said: Now that the Sages say in the mishna that we do not sacrifice any of the animals, if we did sacrifice one of them, the offering does not effect acceptance for the owner. Rav Huna bar Yehuda raised an objection to Rava from a mishna (Kinnim 22b): With regard to a bird sin offering that was intermingled with a bird burnt offering, or a bird burnt offering that was intermingled with a bird sin offering, even if the ratio is one in ten thousand, they all must die, as there is no remedy for these birds. It is not known which is which, and their sacrificial rites are performed differently.
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בְּכֹהֵן נִמְלָךְ; אֲבָל בְּכֹהֵן שֶׁאֵין נִמְלָךְ, עֲשָׂאָן לְמַעְלָה – מֶחֱצָה כָּשֵׁר וּמֶחֱצָה פָּסוּל.
The mishna continues: In what case is this statement said? In the case of a priest who consulted the court to ask how he should proceed. But in the case of a priest who did not consult the court, but sacrificed them of his own accord, if there was an equal number of bird sin offerings and burnt offerings, and he performed all their sacrificial rites above the red line that circumscribes the altar at its midpoint, as required for a burnt offering, half of the birds are fit, as in any event the burnt offerings were sacrificed properly, and half are unfit.
לְמַטָּה – מֶחֱצָה כָּשֵׁר וּמֶחֱצָה פָּסוּל. אַחַת לְמַטָּה וְאַחַת לְמַעְלָה – (שְׁנֵיהֶן) [שְׁתֵּיהֶן] פְּסוּלוֹת, שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: חַטָּאת קְרֵיבָה לְמַעְלָה וְעוֹלָה קְרֵיבָה לְמַטָּה.
Likewise, if he performed all of their sacrificial rites below the red line, half are fit, as in any event the sin offerings were sacrificed properly, and half are unfit. If he performed the sacrificial rites of one of the birds below the red line and one of the birds above the red line, they are both unfit, as I say that the sin offering was sacrificed above the red line and the burnt offering was sacrificed below. This mishna proves that an offering that is prohibited to be sacrificed as part of a mixture is fit after the fact, which contradicts the statement of Rava.
אֶלָּא הָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים נִדְחִין, הָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים אֵינָן נִידְחִין.
Rather, Rava would claim that this matter depends on a dispute between tanna’im. This statement of Rava is in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that living creatures that become disqualified are permanently rejected from being sacrificed on the altar, and this animal was rejected when it was part of the mixture. That ruling of the mishna in Kinnim is in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that living creatures are not permanently rejected from the altar. Therefore, if the animal was sacrificed it is fit.
הֲרֵי שְׁחוּטִין – דִּלְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא נִידְחִין;
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But there is the case of slaughtered offerings that are rejected from the altar, concerning which everyone agrees that these are rejected. Even those who say that living creatures generally are not rejected agree that, in this case, they should be rejected.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Jerusalem, Israel
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Bet Shemesh, Israel
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
Bronx, United States
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Far Rockaway, United States
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
New York, United States
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
Bronx, United States
Zevachim 73
כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מִנְיָן – אֲפִילּוּ בִּדְרַבָּנַן לָא בָּטֵיל, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן בִּדְאוֹרָיְיתָא.
Any item that is counted, even if it is prohibited by rabbinic law, e.g., teruma of fruit, cannot be nullified, and all the more so items prohibited by Torah law, such as animals that are disqualified for the altar, as in the mishna.
דְּתַנְיָא: לִיטְרָא קְצִיעוֹת שֶׁדְּרָסָהּ עַל פִּי עִיגּוּל, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּאֵיזוֹ עִיגּוּל דְּרָסָהּ; עַל פִּי חָבִית, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּאֵיזוֹ חָבִית דְּרָסָהּ; עַל פִּי כַּוֶּורֶת, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּאֵיזוֹ כַּוֶּורֶת דְּרָסָהּ –
This is as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 5:11): The baraita discusses three cases, all of which relate to the tithing of figs, which is an obligation by rabbinic law. The first is the case of a litra of untithed dried figs that were pressed in different vessels and shaped into circles, that one placed into a barrel containing tithed figs, and during the process of producing a circle he pressed the figs onto the opening of one of the circular vessels in which the circles are formed, and he does not know into which circular vessel he pressed it. The second is the case in which he recalls that he pressed it on the opening of a barrel containing tithed figs, but he does not know into which barrel he pressed it. The third case is that he recalls that he pressed it on the opening of a straw receptacle containing tithed figs, but he does not know into which receptacle he pressed it. In all of these cases, there is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda as to the details of a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua.
רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: רוֹאִין אֶת הָעֶלְיוֹנוֹת כְּאִילּוּ הֵן פְּרוּדוֹת, וְהַתַּחְתּוֹנוֹת מַעֲלוֹת אֶת הָעֶלְיוֹנוֹת.
Rabbi Meir says that Rabbi Eliezer says: One views the upper layers of possibly untithed dried figs as though they are separate pieces, rather than one unit. And the lower ones, which were there beforehand and have certainly been tithed, nullify the upper ones, as there are enough circles of figs to nullify the upper layer. One does not need to tithe the figs at the top of any of the containers.
רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אִם יֵשׁ מֵאָה פּוּמִּין – יַעֲלוּ, וְאִם לָאו – הַפּוּמִּין אֲסוּרִין וְהַשּׁוּלַיִם מוּתָּרִין.
Rabbi Meir continues: By contrast, Rabbi Yehoshua says: If there are one hundred openings of containers present there, the untithed litra of figs on the opening of one of the containers is nullified in a ratio of one part of untithed figs to one hundred parts of similar, tithed figs. But if not, all of the layers of figs at the openings of the containers are prohibited, i.e., viewed as untithed, as one of them certainly contains an untithed litra that has not been nullified. And the figs on the insides of the vessels are permitted, as the untithed figs certainly did not reach there. This is Rabbi Meir’s version of the dispute.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם מֵאָה פּוּמִּין – יַעֲלוּ, וְאִם לָאו – הַפּוּמִּין אֲסוּרִין וְכוּ׳.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda says that Rabbi Eliezer says: If there are one hundred openings of containers with tithed figs present there, in addition to the untithed figs, it is nullified in the one hundred. But if not, all of the layers of figs at the openings of the containers are prohibited, i.e., viewed as untithed, as one of them certainly contains an untithed litra that has not been nullified. And the figs on the insides of the vessels are permitted, as the untithed figs certainly did not reach there.
רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ יֵשׁ שָׁם שְׁלֹשָׁה מֵאוֹת פּוּמִּין – לֹא יַעֲלוּ.
Rabbi Yehuda continues his statement: By contrast, Rabbi Yehoshua says: Even if there are three hundred openings present there, the layer at the top of the container is not nullified. This litra cannot be nullified in any manner, as Rabbi Yehoshua maintains that even an item occasionally sold by unit, such as a circle of dried figs, can never be nullified.
דְּרָסָהּ בְּעִיגּוּל, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּאֵיזֶה מְקוֹם בְּעִיגּוּל דְּרָסָהּ – אוֹ לִצְפוֹנָהּ אוֹ לִדְרוֹמָהּ, דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל יַעֲלוּ.
Rabbi Yehuda continues: But if one pressed the litra of dried figs into a circular vessel along with other dried figs, but does not know onto which place, i.e., which side, of the circular vessel he pressed it, whether, e.g., to its northern side or to its southern side, in this case, as the prohibited litra is not located in a defined place and it cannot be distinguished from the others, it is not considered an item of significance, and everyone agrees that it is nullified. Accordingly, the ruling of the mishna that animals that are disqualified from being sacrificed are not nullified is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua as stated by Rabbi Eliezer, that an item occasionally sold by unit is not nullified. Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement, that only an item whose manner is exclusively to be counted is significant and cannot be nullified, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים חֲשִׁיבִי וְלָא בָּטְלִי.
Rav Ashi says: You may even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, i.e., Rabbi Meir, who maintains that an item that is not always counted is nullified in a majority. The reason is that living creatures are significant, and therefore they are not nullified.
וְנִמְשׁוֹךְ וְנַקְרֵב חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ, וְנֵימָא: כֹּל דְּפָרֵישׁ – מֵרוּבָּא פָּרֵישׁ! נִמְשׁוֹךְ?! הָוֵה לֵיהּ קָבוּעַ,
§ The Gemara raises a difficulty with the ruling of the mishna that all of the animals are prohibited. And let us draw out and sacrifice one animal from the mixture, and say, i.e., apply the principle: Any item that separates from a group is assumed to have separated from the majority. Accordingly, the animal that was sacrificed is presumed to be fit. One can continue in this manner until only two animals from the mixture remain. The Gemara questions this suggestion: Should we draw out an animal from the mixture? But this is the removal of an item from its fixed place,
וְכׇל קָבוּעַ כְּמֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה דָּמֵי! אֶלָּא נִיכְבְּשִׁינְהוּ (דְּנָיְידִי) [דְּנִינַיְידָּן], וְנֵימָא: כֹּל דְּפָרֵישׁ – מֵרוּבָּא פָּרֵישׁ!
and there is a principle that anything fixed is considered as though it was half and half, i.e., equally balanced, and it remains a case of uncertainty. The Gemara clarifies its suggestion: Rather, let us push the intermingled animals so that they all move from their places, which negates the fixed status of the prohibited item. And accordingly, let us say with regard to each animal: Any item that separates from a group is assumed to have separated from the majority.
אָמַר רָבָא: הַשְׁתָּא דַּאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן לָא נִיקְרַב, גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יָבֹאוּ עֲשָׂרָה כֹּהֲנִים בְּבַת אַחַת וְיַקְרִבוּ.
Rava says: Now that the Sages have said that we do not sacrifice any of them, this is evidently a rabbinic decree, lest ten priests come simultaneously and sacrifice all the animals in the mixture together, not one at a time. Therefore, the fact that there could be a method to permit the animals is immaterial.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן לְרָבָא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, מְגִיסָא אֲסִירָא?!
One of the Sages said to Rava: If that is so, do you hold that the large basin [megisa] on which the sacrificial portions of the animal are placed is prohibited? In other words, is it possible that these animals, which were slaughtered when they were initially declared permitted after being separated from their places, could later become prohibited again when their sacrificial portions are ready to be burned on the altar?
מִשּׁוּם שֶׁמָּא יָבֹאוּ עֲשָׂרָה כֹּהֲנִים בְּבַת אַחַת וְיִקְחוּ. בַּעֲשָׂרָה כֹּהֲנִים בְּבַת אַחַת מִי אֶפְשָׁר?! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: מִשּׁוּם קָבוּעַ.
Rava responded that he did not mean there is a concern that ten priests would sacrifice their sacrificial portions simultaneously. Rather, the decree is due to the concern lest when the animals move, ten priests will come simultaneously and take them from the mixture. As all or most of the animals were separated simultaneously in this case, it is assumed that the prohibited animal is among those that were separated. The Gemara asks: Is it possible for ten priests to take these scattered animals simultaneously? Rather, Rava says that one may not allow the animals to be sacrificed by moving them due to a decree that if this is allowed, one may, in another circumstance, allow them to be sacrificed even when they are taken from a fixed location.
אָמַר רָבָא: הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן לָא נַקְרֵיב, אִי (נַקְרֵיב) [מַקְרֵיב] – לָא מְרַצֵּי. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בַּר יְהוּדָה לְרָבָא: חַטָּאת שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בְּעוֹלָה, וְעוֹלָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בְּחַטָּאת, אֲפִילּוּ אַחַת בְּרִיבּוֹא – יָמוּתוּ כּוּלָּן.
§ Rava said: Now that the Sages say in the mishna that we do not sacrifice any of the animals, if we did sacrifice one of them, the offering does not effect acceptance for the owner. Rav Huna bar Yehuda raised an objection to Rava from a mishna (Kinnim 22b): With regard to a bird sin offering that was intermingled with a bird burnt offering, or a bird burnt offering that was intermingled with a bird sin offering, even if the ratio is one in ten thousand, they all must die, as there is no remedy for these birds. It is not known which is which, and their sacrificial rites are performed differently.
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בְּכֹהֵן נִמְלָךְ; אֲבָל בְּכֹהֵן שֶׁאֵין נִמְלָךְ, עֲשָׂאָן לְמַעְלָה – מֶחֱצָה כָּשֵׁר וּמֶחֱצָה פָּסוּל.
The mishna continues: In what case is this statement said? In the case of a priest who consulted the court to ask how he should proceed. But in the case of a priest who did not consult the court, but sacrificed them of his own accord, if there was an equal number of bird sin offerings and burnt offerings, and he performed all their sacrificial rites above the red line that circumscribes the altar at its midpoint, as required for a burnt offering, half of the birds are fit, as in any event the burnt offerings were sacrificed properly, and half are unfit.
לְמַטָּה – מֶחֱצָה כָּשֵׁר וּמֶחֱצָה פָּסוּל. אַחַת לְמַטָּה וְאַחַת לְמַעְלָה – (שְׁנֵיהֶן) [שְׁתֵּיהֶן] פְּסוּלוֹת, שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: חַטָּאת קְרֵיבָה לְמַעְלָה וְעוֹלָה קְרֵיבָה לְמַטָּה.
Likewise, if he performed all of their sacrificial rites below the red line, half are fit, as in any event the sin offerings were sacrificed properly, and half are unfit. If he performed the sacrificial rites of one of the birds below the red line and one of the birds above the red line, they are both unfit, as I say that the sin offering was sacrificed above the red line and the burnt offering was sacrificed below. This mishna proves that an offering that is prohibited to be sacrificed as part of a mixture is fit after the fact, which contradicts the statement of Rava.
אֶלָּא הָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים נִדְחִין, הָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים אֵינָן נִידְחִין.
Rather, Rava would claim that this matter depends on a dispute between tanna’im. This statement of Rava is in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that living creatures that become disqualified are permanently rejected from being sacrificed on the altar, and this animal was rejected when it was part of the mixture. That ruling of the mishna in Kinnim is in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that living creatures are not permanently rejected from the altar. Therefore, if the animal was sacrificed it is fit.
הֲרֵי שְׁחוּטִין – דִּלְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא נִידְחִין;
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But there is the case of slaughtered offerings that are rejected from the altar, concerning which everyone agrees that these are rejected. Even those who say that living creatures generally are not rejected agree that, in this case, they should be rejected.
