Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

June 26, 2018 | 讬状讙 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Zevachim 74

More cases regarding forbidden items that are mixed up with regular items are discussed and various opinions are brought.

讜转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 拽专讘 讛专讗砖 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讬拽专讘讜 讻诇 讛专讗砖讬诐

And we learned in a mishna (77b) that in a case where sacrificial portions from unblemished burnt offerings became mixed with sacrificial portions from blemished burnt offerings, which are disqualified, Rabbi Eliezer says: If the head of one of them was sacrificed on the altar before they knew of the blemish, all the heads should be sacrificed, as it is assumed that the head of the disqualified animal was the one already sacrificed on the altar. This indicates that even with regard to slaughtered animals, if they were rejected from the altar due to being in a mixture, they are not permanently rejected, but are fit after the fact.

讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻讞谞谉 讛诪爪专讬 讚转谞讬讗 讞谞谉 讛诪爪专讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讚诐 讘讻讜住 诪讘讬讗 讞讘讬专讜 讜诪讝讜讜讙 诇讜

The Gemara explains that this mishna affords no proof, as Rabbi Eliezer states his ruling in accordance with the opinion of 岣nan the Egyptian, who maintains that even slaughtered animals are not permanently rejected. As it is taught in a baraita that 岣nan the Egyptian says, with regard to the two goats of Yom Kippur, the one sacrificed to God and the scapegoat designated to be sent to Azazel: Even if the blood of the sacrificed goat is already in the cup where it was collected and the scapegoat dies, the sacrificed goat is still a fit offering, and the priest brings another goat and joins it to this slaughtered goat to serve as the scapegoat. By contrast, the other tanna鈥檌m, who maintain that slaughtered animals are rejected, hold that once they have become rejected due to being in a mixture they are no longer fit for sacrifice, as stated by Rava.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 专讘 讟讘注转 砖诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖谞转注专讘讛 讘诪讗讛 讟讘注讜转 讜谞驻诇讛 讗讞转 诪讛诐 诇讬诐 讛讙讚讜诇 讛讜转专讜 讻讜诇谉 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讱 讚谞驻诇 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗讬住讜专讗

搂 Concerning a similar case, Rav Na岣an says that Rava bar Avuh says that Rav says: With regard to a ring used in idol worship, from which it is prohibited to derive benefit and which is not nullified even in a ratio of one in one hundred, that was intermingled with one hundred permitted rings, and subsequently one of them fell into the Great Sea [Yam HaGadol], they are all permitted. The reason is that we say: That ring that fell into the Great Sea is the prohibited ring.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞转 讘专讬讘讜讗 讬诪讜转讜 讻讜诇谉 讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讚诪讬转 讗讬住讜专讗 诪讬转

Rava raised an objection to Rav Na岣an from the mishna: With regard to all the offerings that were intermingled with animals from which deriving benefit is prohibited, even if the ratio is one in ten thousand, they all must die. According to the opinion of Rav, that we say the one that was lost is the prohibited item, why must they all die? Let us say, with regard to the first animal that died, that the prohibited animal died, and the rest should be permitted.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 拽专讘 讛专讗砖 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讬拽专讘讜 讻诇 讛专讗砖讬诐 讻讜诇谉

Rav Na岣an said to Rava: Rav states his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: If the head of one of them is sacrificed on the altar before the priests knew of the blemish, all the heads should be sacrificed, as it is assumed that the head of the disqualified animal was the one already sacrificed on the altar.

讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 讛转讬专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诇讗 砖谞讬诐 砖谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讗讞讚 讗讞讚 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 转专转讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗

Rava asked Rav Na岣an: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar say: Rabbi Eliezer permitted the sacrifice of all the heads only if they were sacrificed two by two, as at least one of them is certainly permitted; but he did not permit them to be sacrificed one by one, in case the priest sacrifices the prohibited head by itself? How, then, can Rav Na岣an permit the rings without qualification? Rav Na岣an said to Rava: I too am saying that Rav permits the rings only if they are sold two at a time, in which case one of them is certainly not from idol worship.

讗诪专 专讘 讟讘注转 砖诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖谞转注专讘讛 讘诪讗讛 讟讘注讜转 讜驻专砖讜 讗专讘注讬诐 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讜砖砖讬诐 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 驻专砖讛 讗讞转 诪讗专讘注讬诐 讗讬谞讛 讗讜住专转 讗讞转 诪砖砖讬诐 讗讜住专转

The Gemara discusses a similar case. Rav says: With regard to a ring used in idol worship that was intermingled with one hundred permitted rings, and then forty of them became separated to one place, and the other sixty became separated to another place, so that they are now two distinct groups of rings, if one ring from the group of forty became separated from them and then became intermingled with other rings, it does not render them prohibited. But if one ring from the other sixty became separated from its group and became mixed with other rings, it renders them prohibited.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗讞转 诪讗专讘注讬诐 讚诇讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬住讜专讗 讘专讜讘讗 讗讬转讬讛 讗讞转 诪砖砖讬诐 谞诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬住讜专讗 讘专讜讘讗 讗讬转讬讛 讗诇讗 讗诐 驻专砖讜 讗专讘注讬诐 讻讜诇谉 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讗讬谉 讗讜住专讜转 砖砖讬诐 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讗讜住专讜转

The Gemara asks: What is different concerning the case in which one ring from the group of forty separated, that it does not render the other rings prohibited? The reason is that we say: The prohibited ring is in the group that contains the majority of the rings, i.e., it is in the group of sixty. If so, in the case where one ring from the group of sixty became separated and became intermingled with the other rings, we should also say that the prohibited ring is still in the group that contains the majority of the rings, i.e., it is one of the fifty-nine remaining rings. Rather, Rav鈥檚 statement was as follows: If all forty became separated to one place, where they became intermingled with other rings, the forty rings do not render those other rings prohibited, as it is assumed that the prohibited ring is in the group of sixty. Conversely, if all of the sixty rings became separated to one place, where they became intermingled with other rings, the sixty rings render those other rings prohibited.

讻讬 讗诪专讬转讛 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬 讛谞讞 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖住驻讬拽讛 讜住驻拽 住驻讬拽讛 讗住讜专讛 注讚 住讜祝 讛注讜诇诐

Rav Yehuda, who said this statement citing Rav, added: When I said this ruling in the presence of Shmuel, that if the forty rings became intermingled with others they do not render them prohibited, he said to me: Disregard this halakha with regard to the case of idol worship, as this prohibition is so stringent that its uncertainty and its compound uncertainty are prohibited forever, i.e., no matter how many uncertainties are added they are all prohibited.

诪讬转讬讘讬 住驻拽 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗住讜专讛 讜住驻拽 住驻讬拽讛 诪讜转专转 讻讬爪讚 讻讜住 砖诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖谞驻诇 诇讗讜爪专 诪诇讗 讻讜住讜转 讻讜诇谉 讗住讜专讬谉 驻讬专砖 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诇专讬讘讜讗 讜诪专讬讘讜讗 诇专讬讘讜讗 诪讜转专讬谉

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Shmuel from a baraita: An uncertainty of idol worship is prohibited, but its compound uncertainty is permitted. How so? With regard to a cup used in idol worship that fell into a storeroom full of cups, they are all prohibited. If one of these cups separated from the rest and fell into a group of ten thousand other cups, and from that ten thousand cups a single cup fell into ten thousand other cups, they are permitted. This baraita teaches that only one uncertainty is prohibited, not a compound uncertainty.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 专讬诪讜谞讬 讘讗讚谉 讗讜住专讬谉 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讻讬爪讚 谞驻诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诇转讜讱 专讬讘讜讗 讜诪专讬讘讜讗 诇专讬讘讜讗 讗住讜专讬谉

The Gemara explains: This is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 5:10) that Rabbi Yehuda says: Prohibited pomegranates from Badan, which are too significant to be nullified, prohibit a mixture in any amount. How so? If one of them fell into a group of ten thousand other pomegranates, and one of that group fell from that ten thousand into another ten thousand, they are all prohibited, despite the fact that this is a compound uncertainty.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇专讬讘讜讗 讗住讜专讬谉 讜诪专讬讘讜讗 诇砖诇砖讛 讜诪砖诇砖讛 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 诪讜转专

The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: If a prohibited pomegranate fell into a group of ten thousand pomegranates, they are all prohibited, as he concedes that these pomegranates are not nullified in a majority. But if one pomegranate from the ten thousand fell into a group of three pomegranates, and one of these three pomegranates fell into a different place, it is permitted, as this is a compound uncertainty.

砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讻诪讗谉 讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讗专 讗讬住讜专讬诐 讗住讜专 讗讬 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 谞诪讬 砖专讬

The Gemara inquires: In accordance with the opinion of which of these tanna鈥檌m does Shmuel state his opinion that an item used in idol worship remains prohibited no matter how many uncertainties are involved? If you say that he stated his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, then even with regard to other prohibitions a compound uncertainty should be prohibited, as Rabbi Yehuda stated his ruling with regard to a prohibited pomegranate, not an item of idol worship. And if Shmuel stated his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, then even in the case of idol worship a compound uncertainty should be permitted, as Rabbi Shimon did not differentiate between different types of prohibitions.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 砖讗谞讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讬谉 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诇砖讗专 讗讬住讜专讬诐 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 住驻拽 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗住讜专讛 讜住驻拽 住驻讬拽讛 诪讜转专转 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

And if you would say that there is a difference according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon between idol worship and other prohibitions, and he prohibits compound uncertainties only in the case of idol worship, then if so, that which is taught in the baraita cited previously: An uncertainty of idol worship is prohibited but its compound uncertainty is permitted, whose opinion does this represent? It is neither the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda nor the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜砖诪讜讗诇 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讞讚讗 讜驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讘讞讚讗

The Gemara answers: Actually, that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as he permits a compound uncertainty in all cases. And Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to one matter, that a compound uncertainty is prohibited in the case of idol worship, and disagrees with him with regard to one matter, as Shmuel does not apply this stringency to other prohibitions.

讗诪专 诪专 诪专讬讘讜讗 诇砖诇砖讛 讜诪砖诇砖讛 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 诪讜转专

搂 The Gemara continues its analysis. The Master, Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda citing Rabbi Shimon, says above: If one pomegranate from the ten thousand fell into a group of three pomegranates, and one of these three pomegranates fell into a different place, the mixture is permitted.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖诇砖讛 讚讗讬讻讗 专讜讘讗 砖谞讬诐 谞诪讬 讗讬讻讗 专讜讘讗 诪讗讬 砖诇砖讛 讚拽转谞讬 转专转讬 讜讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: What is different about a case where the pomegranate fell into a group of three other pomegranates? The essential factor is that there is a majority of permitted pomegranates, which nullify the pomegranate that fell from the ten thousand. Even if it fell into a group of two others, there is a majority of permitted items. Why must it fall into a group of three? The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of three that the tanna of this baraita teaches? It means that there were two permitted pomegranates initially, and the pomegranate of uncertain status fell into them, for a total of three.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

The Gemara returns to the question concerning the opinion of which tanna is followed by Shmuel, who is stringent with regard to a compound uncertainty involving idol worship. And if you wish, say instead that Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as he is similarly stringent with regard to mixtures of items of idol worship, as explained in tractate Avoda Zara (49b).

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讞讘讬转 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖谞转注专讘讛 讘诪讗讛 讞讘讬讜转 讜谞驻诇讛 讗讞转 诪讛谉 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 讛讜转专讜 讻讜诇谉 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讱 讚谞驻诇 讚讗讬住讜专讗 谞驻诇

搂 The Gemara discusses a related topic. Reish Lakish says: In the case of a barrel of teruma produce, which may be eaten only by a priest and his household, that was intermingled with one hundred barrels of non-sacred produce, they are all considered as teruma, as a sealed barrel is significant and is not nullified. And if one of these barrels fell into the Dead Sea, all the barrels are permitted, as we say: Since there is that barrel that fell, the assumption is that it is the prohibited barrel that fell.

讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗讬 诪讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚讗讬谉 诇讛 诪转讬专讬谉 讗讘诇 转专讜诪讛 讚讬砖 诇讛 诪转讬专讬谉 诇讗

The Gemara comments: And it was necessary for the Gemara to record the ruling of Rav Na岣an with regard to rings used in idol worship, and it was also necessary for the Gemara to record the ruling of Reish Lakish with regard to barrels of teruma, despite the similarity between the two cases. The Gemara elaborates: As, if the halakha were taught only from the ruling of Rav Na岣an, I would say that this matter applies only with regard to a mixture involving an item of idol worship, which has no permitting factors; such items themselves cannot be permitted in any other manner. Therefore, the halakha is to be lenient, i.e., to assume that the prohibited ring fell into the sea. But in the case of teruma, which has permitting factors, as the mixture can be sold in its entirety to priests, perhaps the mixture should not be permitted because one of them fell into the sea.

讜讗讬 诪讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讞讘讬转 讚诪讬谞讻专讗 谞驻讬诇转讛 讗讘诇 讟讘注转 讚诇讗 诪讬谞讻专讗 谞驻讬诇转讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讬

And conversely, if the halakha was taught only from the ruling of Reish Lakish, I would say that the halakha is lenient only in the case of a barrel of teruma, as its falling is noticeable, and everyone will know that the other barrels were permitted due to the one that fell. Accordingly, they will not come to permit barrels in a similar case where no barrel became separated from the mixture. But with regard to a ring, whose falling is not noticeable, perhaps the rest of the rings should not be permitted. Therefore, both statements are necessary.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讗 讛转讬专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诇讗 讞讘讬转 讚诪讬谞讻专讗 谞驻讬诇转讛 讗讘诇 转讗讬谞讛 诇讗 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讗讬谞讛 讻谞驻讬诇转讛 讻讱 注诇讬讬转讛

Rabba says: Reish Lakish deemed the rest of the items permitted only in the case of a barrel, as its falling is noticeable. But in the case of a fig that fell from a group of figs that contained a fig of teruma, Reish Lakish does not deem the rest of the figs permitted, as the one that fell is too small for its fall to be discernible. And Rav Yosef says: Reish Lakish deemed the rest of the items permitted even with regard to a fig. The reason is that just as the initial falling of one fig rendered the entire mixture prohibited, so too, the emerging of one fig from the pile permits the rest.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讞讘讬转 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖谞驻诇讛 讘诪讗讛 讞讘讬讜转 驻讜转讞 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讜谞讜讟诇 讛讬诪谞讛 讻讚讬 讚讬诪讜注讛 讜砖讜转讛

Rabbi Elazar says: With regard to a barrel of teruma wine that fell among one hundred barrels of non-sacred wine, it cannot be nullified in its current state, as sealed barrels are significant and are therefore not nullified. How should one proceed? He should open one of them, so that it is no longer an item of significance, and take from it as much as ought to be taken from a normal mixture of teruma and non-sacred produce, i.e., one-hundredth. He should give that to a priest, and then he may drink the rest of the wine.

讬转讬讘 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讙诪注 讜砖转讬 拽讗 讞讝讬谞讗 讛讻讗 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 谞驻转讞讛 讗讞转 诪讛谉 谞讜讟诇 讛讬诪谞讛 讻讚讬 讚讬诪讜注 讜砖讜转讛

Rav Dimi sat and said this halakha, and Rav Na岣an said to him: I see a ruling of: Swallow and drink here, i.e., this formulation indicates that one may act in this manner ab initio, which is puzzling. Rather, say: If one of the barrels was opened, after the fact one may take from it as much as ought to be taken from a normal mixture of teruma and non-sacred produce. He should give that to a priest, and then he may drink the rest of the wine.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讞讘讬转 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖谞转注专讘讛 讘诪讗讛 讜讞诪砖讬诐 讞讘讬讜转 讜谞驻转讞讜 诪讗讛 诪讛谉 谞讜讟诇 讛讬诪谞讛 讻讚讬 讚讬诪讜注讛 讜砖讜转讛 讜砖讗专 讗住讜专讬谉 注讚 砖讬驻转讞讜 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬住讜专讗 讘专讜讘讗 讗讬转讬讛

With regard to the same issue, Rabbi Oshaya says: In the case of a barrel of teruma wine that was intermingled with 150 barrels of non-sacred wine, and one hundred of them opened, one may take from it as much as ought to be taken from a normal mixture of teruma and non-sacred produce. He should give that to a priest, and then he may drink the rest of the wine. And as for the rest of the fifty barrels, they remain prohibited, i.e., they have teruma status, until they are opened and the ratio of teruma is separated from them. This is because we do not say that the prohibited barrel is in the group that contains the majority of barrels and the one he opens is likely permitted.

讛专讜讘注 讜讛谞专讘注 讻讜壮 讘砖诇诪讗 讻讜诇讛讜 诇讗 讬讚讬注 讗诇讗 讛讗讬 讟专讬驻讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讬讚讬注 诇讬讛 诇讬转讬 讜诇讬砖拽诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讗 讬讚注 诇讬讛 诪谞讗 讬讚注 讚讗讬注专讘

搂 The mishna listed various categories of prohibited animals: An animal that copulated with a person, or an animal that was the object of bestiality, an animal that was set aside for idol worship or one that was worshipped as a deity, an animal that was given as payment to a prostitute or as the price of a dog, or an animal born of a mixture of diverse kinds, or an animal that is a tereifa. The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to all of the other examples in this list, the prohibited animal is not known. In other words, it is physically indistinguishable from the other animals. But with regard to this tereifa animal, what are the circumstances? If, due to its physical impairment, it is known to him which animal it is, let him come and take it from there, and all the other animals will be permitted. If it is not known to him, how does he know that a tereifa animal was intermingled with others in the first place?

讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬注专讘 谞拽讜讘转 讛拽讜抓 讘讚专讜住转 讛讝讗讘

They say in the school of Rabbi Yannai: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where an animal that was pierced by a thorn, which does not render it a tereifa, was intermingled with an animal that was clawed by a wolf, which renders it a tereifa. Since the skin of both animals has been pierced, one cannot identify the tereifa.

专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 [讻讙讜谉] 讚讗讬注专讘 讘谞驻讜诇讛 谞驻讜诇讛 谞诪讬 诇讬讘讚拽讛 拽住讘专 注诪讚讛 爪专讬讻讛 诪注转 诇注转 讛诇讻讛 爪专讬讻讛 讘讚讬拽讛

Reish Lakish says there is a different answer: The mishna is discussing a case where a healthy animal was intermingled with a fallen animal, i.e., one that has fallen from a great height. A fallen animal is prohibited in case it is a tereifa, despite the fact that it bears no external sign of injury. The Gemara raises a difficulty: With regard to a fallen animal as well, let us examine it and see if it can walk by itself, in which case it is not a tereifa. The Gemara answers: According to the opinion of Reish Lakish, even after an examination of this kind it is still a possible tereifa, which is prohibited to be sacrificed upon the altar, as he holds that if an animal fell and stood up again, it requires a twenty-four-hour waiting period to determine if it is in fact injured. Furthermore, even if it both stood up and walked after the fall, it requires inspection after slaughter to determine whether it was injured by the fall and rendered a tereifa.

专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬注专讬讘 讘讜诇讚 讟专讬驻讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讜诇讚 讟专讬驻讛 诇讗 讬拽专讘 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞

Rabbi Yirmeya says there is a third answer: The mishna is referring to a case where a healthy animal was intermingled with the offspring of a tereifa, which of course bears no sign of a tereifa. And this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says: The offspring of a tereifa may not be sacrificed upon the altar.

讻讜诇讛讜 讻专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬 讘讬谉 谞拽讜讘转 讛拽讜抓 诇讚专讜住转 讛讝讗讘 诪讬讚注 讬讚讬注 讛讗讬 诪砖讬讱 讜讛讗讬 注讙讬诇

The Gemara explains why each of these Sages suggests a different interpretation of the mishna: All of them, i.e., Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yirmeya, do not say that the explanation of the mishna is in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Yannai that an animal pierced by a thorn became mixed up with one clawed by a wolf, as they maintain that the difference between an animal pierced by a thorn and one that was clawed by a wolf is known, as this perforation caused by a wolf is elongated, and that perforation caused by a thorn is round.

讻专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 讗诪专讬 拽住讘专讬 注诪讚讛 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 诪注转 诇注转 讛诇讻讛 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讘讚讬拽讛

The Gemara continues: Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Yirmeya do not say that the explanation of the mishna is in accordance with the explanation of Reish Lakish, that the mishna is discussing a case where a healthy animal became intermingled with one that has fallen, as they hold that if a fallen animal stood, it does not require a twenty-four-hour waiting period, and if it walked it does not require any further inspection after slaughter at all. Consequently, one can simply examine the animals to see if they can walk, and if they can, they are fit.

讻专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讗 诪讜拽诪讬

Finally, Rabbi Yannai and Reish Lakish do not say that the explana-tion of the mishna is in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Yirmeya, that the mishna is discussing a case where a healthy animal became intermingled with the offspring of a tereifa, as they do not want to interpret the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer because the halakha does not follow his ruling.

拽讚砖讬诐 讘拽讚砖讬诐 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讻讜壮 讜讛讗 讘注讬 住诪讬讻讛

搂 The mishna teaches: In a case where sacrificial animals were intermingled with other sacrificial animals, if it was an animal of one type of offering with animals of the same type of offering, one should sacrifice this animal for the sake of whoever is its owner and one should sacrifice that animal for the sake of whoever is its owner, and both owners fulfill their obligations. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But each animal requires placing hands on its head, a rite that must be performed by its owner, and in this case the owner is unknown.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘拽专讘谉 谞砖讬诐 讗讘诇 讘拽专讘谉 讗谞砖讬诐 诇讗

Rav Yosef says: The halakha of the mishna is stated with regard to an offering of women, who do not perform the placing of hands. The Gemara is puzzled by this suggestion: But this indicates that with regard to an offering of men, the halakha stated in the mishna is not applicable, and therefore there is no way of rectifying a mixture of consecrated animals of the same type of offering.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Zevachim 74

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 74

讜转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 拽专讘 讛专讗砖 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讬拽专讘讜 讻诇 讛专讗砖讬诐

And we learned in a mishna (77b) that in a case where sacrificial portions from unblemished burnt offerings became mixed with sacrificial portions from blemished burnt offerings, which are disqualified, Rabbi Eliezer says: If the head of one of them was sacrificed on the altar before they knew of the blemish, all the heads should be sacrificed, as it is assumed that the head of the disqualified animal was the one already sacrificed on the altar. This indicates that even with regard to slaughtered animals, if they were rejected from the altar due to being in a mixture, they are not permanently rejected, but are fit after the fact.

讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻讞谞谉 讛诪爪专讬 讚转谞讬讗 讞谞谉 讛诪爪专讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讚诐 讘讻讜住 诪讘讬讗 讞讘讬专讜 讜诪讝讜讜讙 诇讜

The Gemara explains that this mishna affords no proof, as Rabbi Eliezer states his ruling in accordance with the opinion of 岣nan the Egyptian, who maintains that even slaughtered animals are not permanently rejected. As it is taught in a baraita that 岣nan the Egyptian says, with regard to the two goats of Yom Kippur, the one sacrificed to God and the scapegoat designated to be sent to Azazel: Even if the blood of the sacrificed goat is already in the cup where it was collected and the scapegoat dies, the sacrificed goat is still a fit offering, and the priest brings another goat and joins it to this slaughtered goat to serve as the scapegoat. By contrast, the other tanna鈥檌m, who maintain that slaughtered animals are rejected, hold that once they have become rejected due to being in a mixture they are no longer fit for sacrifice, as stated by Rava.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 专讘 讟讘注转 砖诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖谞转注专讘讛 讘诪讗讛 讟讘注讜转 讜谞驻诇讛 讗讞转 诪讛诐 诇讬诐 讛讙讚讜诇 讛讜转专讜 讻讜诇谉 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讱 讚谞驻诇 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗讬住讜专讗

搂 Concerning a similar case, Rav Na岣an says that Rava bar Avuh says that Rav says: With regard to a ring used in idol worship, from which it is prohibited to derive benefit and which is not nullified even in a ratio of one in one hundred, that was intermingled with one hundred permitted rings, and subsequently one of them fell into the Great Sea [Yam HaGadol], they are all permitted. The reason is that we say: That ring that fell into the Great Sea is the prohibited ring.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞转 讘专讬讘讜讗 讬诪讜转讜 讻讜诇谉 讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讚诪讬转 讗讬住讜专讗 诪讬转

Rava raised an objection to Rav Na岣an from the mishna: With regard to all the offerings that were intermingled with animals from which deriving benefit is prohibited, even if the ratio is one in ten thousand, they all must die. According to the opinion of Rav, that we say the one that was lost is the prohibited item, why must they all die? Let us say, with regard to the first animal that died, that the prohibited animal died, and the rest should be permitted.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 拽专讘 讛专讗砖 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讬拽专讘讜 讻诇 讛专讗砖讬诐 讻讜诇谉

Rav Na岣an said to Rava: Rav states his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: If the head of one of them is sacrificed on the altar before the priests knew of the blemish, all the heads should be sacrificed, as it is assumed that the head of the disqualified animal was the one already sacrificed on the altar.

讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 讛转讬专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诇讗 砖谞讬诐 砖谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讗讞讚 讗讞讚 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 转专转讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗

Rava asked Rav Na岣an: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar say: Rabbi Eliezer permitted the sacrifice of all the heads only if they were sacrificed two by two, as at least one of them is certainly permitted; but he did not permit them to be sacrificed one by one, in case the priest sacrifices the prohibited head by itself? How, then, can Rav Na岣an permit the rings without qualification? Rav Na岣an said to Rava: I too am saying that Rav permits the rings only if they are sold two at a time, in which case one of them is certainly not from idol worship.

讗诪专 专讘 讟讘注转 砖诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖谞转注专讘讛 讘诪讗讛 讟讘注讜转 讜驻专砖讜 讗专讘注讬诐 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讜砖砖讬诐 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 驻专砖讛 讗讞转 诪讗专讘注讬诐 讗讬谞讛 讗讜住专转 讗讞转 诪砖砖讬诐 讗讜住专转

The Gemara discusses a similar case. Rav says: With regard to a ring used in idol worship that was intermingled with one hundred permitted rings, and then forty of them became separated to one place, and the other sixty became separated to another place, so that they are now two distinct groups of rings, if one ring from the group of forty became separated from them and then became intermingled with other rings, it does not render them prohibited. But if one ring from the other sixty became separated from its group and became mixed with other rings, it renders them prohibited.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗讞转 诪讗专讘注讬诐 讚诇讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬住讜专讗 讘专讜讘讗 讗讬转讬讛 讗讞转 诪砖砖讬诐 谞诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬住讜专讗 讘专讜讘讗 讗讬转讬讛 讗诇讗 讗诐 驻专砖讜 讗专讘注讬诐 讻讜诇谉 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讗讬谉 讗讜住专讜转 砖砖讬诐 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讗讜住专讜转

The Gemara asks: What is different concerning the case in which one ring from the group of forty separated, that it does not render the other rings prohibited? The reason is that we say: The prohibited ring is in the group that contains the majority of the rings, i.e., it is in the group of sixty. If so, in the case where one ring from the group of sixty became separated and became intermingled with the other rings, we should also say that the prohibited ring is still in the group that contains the majority of the rings, i.e., it is one of the fifty-nine remaining rings. Rather, Rav鈥檚 statement was as follows: If all forty became separated to one place, where they became intermingled with other rings, the forty rings do not render those other rings prohibited, as it is assumed that the prohibited ring is in the group of sixty. Conversely, if all of the sixty rings became separated to one place, where they became intermingled with other rings, the sixty rings render those other rings prohibited.

讻讬 讗诪专讬转讛 拽诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬 讛谞讞 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖住驻讬拽讛 讜住驻拽 住驻讬拽讛 讗住讜专讛 注讚 住讜祝 讛注讜诇诐

Rav Yehuda, who said this statement citing Rav, added: When I said this ruling in the presence of Shmuel, that if the forty rings became intermingled with others they do not render them prohibited, he said to me: Disregard this halakha with regard to the case of idol worship, as this prohibition is so stringent that its uncertainty and its compound uncertainty are prohibited forever, i.e., no matter how many uncertainties are added they are all prohibited.

诪讬转讬讘讬 住驻拽 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗住讜专讛 讜住驻拽 住驻讬拽讛 诪讜转专转 讻讬爪讚 讻讜住 砖诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖谞驻诇 诇讗讜爪专 诪诇讗 讻讜住讜转 讻讜诇谉 讗住讜专讬谉 驻讬专砖 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诇专讬讘讜讗 讜诪专讬讘讜讗 诇专讬讘讜讗 诪讜转专讬谉

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Shmuel from a baraita: An uncertainty of idol worship is prohibited, but its compound uncertainty is permitted. How so? With regard to a cup used in idol worship that fell into a storeroom full of cups, they are all prohibited. If one of these cups separated from the rest and fell into a group of ten thousand other cups, and from that ten thousand cups a single cup fell into ten thousand other cups, they are permitted. This baraita teaches that only one uncertainty is prohibited, not a compound uncertainty.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 专讬诪讜谞讬 讘讗讚谉 讗讜住专讬谉 讘讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讻讬爪讚 谞驻诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诇转讜讱 专讬讘讜讗 讜诪专讬讘讜讗 诇专讬讘讜讗 讗住讜专讬谉

The Gemara explains: This is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 5:10) that Rabbi Yehuda says: Prohibited pomegranates from Badan, which are too significant to be nullified, prohibit a mixture in any amount. How so? If one of them fell into a group of ten thousand other pomegranates, and one of that group fell from that ten thousand into another ten thousand, they are all prohibited, despite the fact that this is a compound uncertainty.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇专讬讘讜讗 讗住讜专讬谉 讜诪专讬讘讜讗 诇砖诇砖讛 讜诪砖诇砖讛 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 诪讜转专

The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: If a prohibited pomegranate fell into a group of ten thousand pomegranates, they are all prohibited, as he concedes that these pomegranates are not nullified in a majority. But if one pomegranate from the ten thousand fell into a group of three pomegranates, and one of these three pomegranates fell into a different place, it is permitted, as this is a compound uncertainty.

砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讻诪讗谉 讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讗专 讗讬住讜专讬诐 讗住讜专 讗讬 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 谞诪讬 砖专讬

The Gemara inquires: In accordance with the opinion of which of these tanna鈥檌m does Shmuel state his opinion that an item used in idol worship remains prohibited no matter how many uncertainties are involved? If you say that he stated his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, then even with regard to other prohibitions a compound uncertainty should be prohibited, as Rabbi Yehuda stated his ruling with regard to a prohibited pomegranate, not an item of idol worship. And if Shmuel stated his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, then even in the case of idol worship a compound uncertainty should be permitted, as Rabbi Shimon did not differentiate between different types of prohibitions.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 砖讗谞讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讬谉 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诇砖讗专 讗讬住讜专讬诐 讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 住驻拽 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗住讜专讛 讜住驻拽 住驻讬拽讛 诪讜转专转 诪谞讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

And if you would say that there is a difference according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon between idol worship and other prohibitions, and he prohibits compound uncertainties only in the case of idol worship, then if so, that which is taught in the baraita cited previously: An uncertainty of idol worship is prohibited but its compound uncertainty is permitted, whose opinion does this represent? It is neither the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda nor the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜砖诪讜讗诇 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讞讚讗 讜驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讘讞讚讗

The Gemara answers: Actually, that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as he permits a compound uncertainty in all cases. And Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to one matter, that a compound uncertainty is prohibited in the case of idol worship, and disagrees with him with regard to one matter, as Shmuel does not apply this stringency to other prohibitions.

讗诪专 诪专 诪专讬讘讜讗 诇砖诇砖讛 讜诪砖诇砖讛 诇诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 诪讜转专

搂 The Gemara continues its analysis. The Master, Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda citing Rabbi Shimon, says above: If one pomegranate from the ten thousand fell into a group of three pomegranates, and one of these three pomegranates fell into a different place, the mixture is permitted.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖诇砖讛 讚讗讬讻讗 专讜讘讗 砖谞讬诐 谞诪讬 讗讬讻讗 专讜讘讗 诪讗讬 砖诇砖讛 讚拽转谞讬 转专转讬 讜讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: What is different about a case where the pomegranate fell into a group of three other pomegranates? The essential factor is that there is a majority of permitted pomegranates, which nullify the pomegranate that fell from the ten thousand. Even if it fell into a group of two others, there is a majority of permitted items. Why must it fall into a group of three? The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of three that the tanna of this baraita teaches? It means that there were two permitted pomegranates initially, and the pomegranate of uncertain status fell into them, for a total of three.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

The Gemara returns to the question concerning the opinion of which tanna is followed by Shmuel, who is stringent with regard to a compound uncertainty involving idol worship. And if you wish, say instead that Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as he is similarly stringent with regard to mixtures of items of idol worship, as explained in tractate Avoda Zara (49b).

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讞讘讬转 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖谞转注专讘讛 讘诪讗讛 讞讘讬讜转 讜谞驻诇讛 讗讞转 诪讛谉 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 讛讜转专讜 讻讜诇谉 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讱 讚谞驻诇 讚讗讬住讜专讗 谞驻诇

搂 The Gemara discusses a related topic. Reish Lakish says: In the case of a barrel of teruma produce, which may be eaten only by a priest and his household, that was intermingled with one hundred barrels of non-sacred produce, they are all considered as teruma, as a sealed barrel is significant and is not nullified. And if one of these barrels fell into the Dead Sea, all the barrels are permitted, as we say: Since there is that barrel that fell, the assumption is that it is the prohibited barrel that fell.

讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗讬 诪讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚讗讬谉 诇讛 诪转讬专讬谉 讗讘诇 转专讜诪讛 讚讬砖 诇讛 诪转讬专讬谉 诇讗

The Gemara comments: And it was necessary for the Gemara to record the ruling of Rav Na岣an with regard to rings used in idol worship, and it was also necessary for the Gemara to record the ruling of Reish Lakish with regard to barrels of teruma, despite the similarity between the two cases. The Gemara elaborates: As, if the halakha were taught only from the ruling of Rav Na岣an, I would say that this matter applies only with regard to a mixture involving an item of idol worship, which has no permitting factors; such items themselves cannot be permitted in any other manner. Therefore, the halakha is to be lenient, i.e., to assume that the prohibited ring fell into the sea. But in the case of teruma, which has permitting factors, as the mixture can be sold in its entirety to priests, perhaps the mixture should not be permitted because one of them fell into the sea.

讜讗讬 诪讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讞讘讬转 讚诪讬谞讻专讗 谞驻讬诇转讛 讗讘诇 讟讘注转 讚诇讗 诪讬谞讻专讗 谞驻讬诇转讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讬

And conversely, if the halakha was taught only from the ruling of Reish Lakish, I would say that the halakha is lenient only in the case of a barrel of teruma, as its falling is noticeable, and everyone will know that the other barrels were permitted due to the one that fell. Accordingly, they will not come to permit barrels in a similar case where no barrel became separated from the mixture. But with regard to a ring, whose falling is not noticeable, perhaps the rest of the rings should not be permitted. Therefore, both statements are necessary.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讗 讛转讬专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诇讗 讞讘讬转 讚诪讬谞讻专讗 谞驻讬诇转讛 讗讘诇 转讗讬谞讛 诇讗 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讗讬谞讛 讻谞驻讬诇转讛 讻讱 注诇讬讬转讛

Rabba says: Reish Lakish deemed the rest of the items permitted only in the case of a barrel, as its falling is noticeable. But in the case of a fig that fell from a group of figs that contained a fig of teruma, Reish Lakish does not deem the rest of the figs permitted, as the one that fell is too small for its fall to be discernible. And Rav Yosef says: Reish Lakish deemed the rest of the items permitted even with regard to a fig. The reason is that just as the initial falling of one fig rendered the entire mixture prohibited, so too, the emerging of one fig from the pile permits the rest.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讞讘讬转 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖谞驻诇讛 讘诪讗讛 讞讘讬讜转 驻讜转讞 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讜谞讜讟诇 讛讬诪谞讛 讻讚讬 讚讬诪讜注讛 讜砖讜转讛

Rabbi Elazar says: With regard to a barrel of teruma wine that fell among one hundred barrels of non-sacred wine, it cannot be nullified in its current state, as sealed barrels are significant and are therefore not nullified. How should one proceed? He should open one of them, so that it is no longer an item of significance, and take from it as much as ought to be taken from a normal mixture of teruma and non-sacred produce, i.e., one-hundredth. He should give that to a priest, and then he may drink the rest of the wine.

讬转讬讘 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讙诪注 讜砖转讬 拽讗 讞讝讬谞讗 讛讻讗 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 谞驻转讞讛 讗讞转 诪讛谉 谞讜讟诇 讛讬诪谞讛 讻讚讬 讚讬诪讜注 讜砖讜转讛

Rav Dimi sat and said this halakha, and Rav Na岣an said to him: I see a ruling of: Swallow and drink here, i.e., this formulation indicates that one may act in this manner ab initio, which is puzzling. Rather, say: If one of the barrels was opened, after the fact one may take from it as much as ought to be taken from a normal mixture of teruma and non-sacred produce. He should give that to a priest, and then he may drink the rest of the wine.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讞讘讬转 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖谞转注专讘讛 讘诪讗讛 讜讞诪砖讬诐 讞讘讬讜转 讜谞驻转讞讜 诪讗讛 诪讛谉 谞讜讟诇 讛讬诪谞讛 讻讚讬 讚讬诪讜注讛 讜砖讜转讛 讜砖讗专 讗住讜专讬谉 注讚 砖讬驻转讞讜 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬住讜专讗 讘专讜讘讗 讗讬转讬讛

With regard to the same issue, Rabbi Oshaya says: In the case of a barrel of teruma wine that was intermingled with 150 barrels of non-sacred wine, and one hundred of them opened, one may take from it as much as ought to be taken from a normal mixture of teruma and non-sacred produce. He should give that to a priest, and then he may drink the rest of the wine. And as for the rest of the fifty barrels, they remain prohibited, i.e., they have teruma status, until they are opened and the ratio of teruma is separated from them. This is because we do not say that the prohibited barrel is in the group that contains the majority of barrels and the one he opens is likely permitted.

讛专讜讘注 讜讛谞专讘注 讻讜壮 讘砖诇诪讗 讻讜诇讛讜 诇讗 讬讚讬注 讗诇讗 讛讗讬 讟专讬驻讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讬讚讬注 诇讬讛 诇讬转讬 讜诇讬砖拽诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讗 讬讚注 诇讬讛 诪谞讗 讬讚注 讚讗讬注专讘

搂 The mishna listed various categories of prohibited animals: An animal that copulated with a person, or an animal that was the object of bestiality, an animal that was set aside for idol worship or one that was worshipped as a deity, an animal that was given as payment to a prostitute or as the price of a dog, or an animal born of a mixture of diverse kinds, or an animal that is a tereifa. The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to all of the other examples in this list, the prohibited animal is not known. In other words, it is physically indistinguishable from the other animals. But with regard to this tereifa animal, what are the circumstances? If, due to its physical impairment, it is known to him which animal it is, let him come and take it from there, and all the other animals will be permitted. If it is not known to him, how does he know that a tereifa animal was intermingled with others in the first place?

讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬注专讘 谞拽讜讘转 讛拽讜抓 讘讚专讜住转 讛讝讗讘

They say in the school of Rabbi Yannai: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where an animal that was pierced by a thorn, which does not render it a tereifa, was intermingled with an animal that was clawed by a wolf, which renders it a tereifa. Since the skin of both animals has been pierced, one cannot identify the tereifa.

专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 [讻讙讜谉] 讚讗讬注专讘 讘谞驻讜诇讛 谞驻讜诇讛 谞诪讬 诇讬讘讚拽讛 拽住讘专 注诪讚讛 爪专讬讻讛 诪注转 诇注转 讛诇讻讛 爪专讬讻讛 讘讚讬拽讛

Reish Lakish says there is a different answer: The mishna is discussing a case where a healthy animal was intermingled with a fallen animal, i.e., one that has fallen from a great height. A fallen animal is prohibited in case it is a tereifa, despite the fact that it bears no external sign of injury. The Gemara raises a difficulty: With regard to a fallen animal as well, let us examine it and see if it can walk by itself, in which case it is not a tereifa. The Gemara answers: According to the opinion of Reish Lakish, even after an examination of this kind it is still a possible tereifa, which is prohibited to be sacrificed upon the altar, as he holds that if an animal fell and stood up again, it requires a twenty-four-hour waiting period to determine if it is in fact injured. Furthermore, even if it both stood up and walked after the fall, it requires inspection after slaughter to determine whether it was injured by the fall and rendered a tereifa.

专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬注专讬讘 讘讜诇讚 讟专讬驻讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讜诇讚 讟专讬驻讛 诇讗 讬拽专讘 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞

Rabbi Yirmeya says there is a third answer: The mishna is referring to a case where a healthy animal was intermingled with the offspring of a tereifa, which of course bears no sign of a tereifa. And this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says: The offspring of a tereifa may not be sacrificed upon the altar.

讻讜诇讛讜 讻专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬 讘讬谉 谞拽讜讘转 讛拽讜抓 诇讚专讜住转 讛讝讗讘 诪讬讚注 讬讚讬注 讛讗讬 诪砖讬讱 讜讛讗讬 注讙讬诇

The Gemara explains why each of these Sages suggests a different interpretation of the mishna: All of them, i.e., Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yirmeya, do not say that the explanation of the mishna is in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Yannai that an animal pierced by a thorn became mixed up with one clawed by a wolf, as they maintain that the difference between an animal pierced by a thorn and one that was clawed by a wolf is known, as this perforation caused by a wolf is elongated, and that perforation caused by a thorn is round.

讻专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 讗诪专讬 拽住讘专讬 注诪讚讛 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 诪注转 诇注转 讛诇讻讛 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讘讚讬拽讛

The Gemara continues: Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Yirmeya do not say that the explanation of the mishna is in accordance with the explanation of Reish Lakish, that the mishna is discussing a case where a healthy animal became intermingled with one that has fallen, as they hold that if a fallen animal stood, it does not require a twenty-four-hour waiting period, and if it walked it does not require any further inspection after slaughter at all. Consequently, one can simply examine the animals to see if they can walk, and if they can, they are fit.

讻专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇讗 诪讜拽诪讬

Finally, Rabbi Yannai and Reish Lakish do not say that the explana-tion of the mishna is in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Yirmeya, that the mishna is discussing a case where a healthy animal became intermingled with the offspring of a tereifa, as they do not want to interpret the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer because the halakha does not follow his ruling.

拽讚砖讬诐 讘拽讚砖讬诐 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讻讜壮 讜讛讗 讘注讬 住诪讬讻讛

搂 The mishna teaches: In a case where sacrificial animals were intermingled with other sacrificial animals, if it was an animal of one type of offering with animals of the same type of offering, one should sacrifice this animal for the sake of whoever is its owner and one should sacrifice that animal for the sake of whoever is its owner, and both owners fulfill their obligations. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But each animal requires placing hands on its head, a rite that must be performed by its owner, and in this case the owner is unknown.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘拽专讘谉 谞砖讬诐 讗讘诇 讘拽专讘谉 讗谞砖讬诐 诇讗

Rav Yosef says: The halakha of the mishna is stated with regard to an offering of women, who do not perform the placing of hands. The Gemara is puzzled by this suggestion: But this indicates that with regard to an offering of men, the halakha stated in the mishna is not applicable, and therefore there is no way of rectifying a mixture of consecrated animals of the same type of offering.

Scroll To Top