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.
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
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
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Teaneck NJ, United States
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
Richmond, CA, United States
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Hashmonaim, Israel
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Panama, Panama
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
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’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Teaneck, United States
Los Angeles, 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.
