## Zevachim Daf 74a

###### Zevachim 74a:1
[Zevachim 74a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/74a:1)

וּתְנַן, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אִם קָרַב הָרֹאשׁ שֶׁל אֶחָד מֵהֶן – יִקְרְבוּ כָּל הָרָאשִׁים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Zevachim 74a:2
[Zevachim 74a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/74a:2)

הוּא דְּאָמַר – כְּחָנָן הַמִּצְרִי; דְּתַנְיָא, חָנָן הַמִּצְרִי אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ דָּם בְּכוֹס – מֵבִיא חֲבֵירוֹ וּמְזַוֵּוג לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that this mishna affords no proof, as Rabbi Eliezer **states** his ruling **in accordance with** the opinion of **Ḥanan the Egyptian,** who maintains that even slaughtered animals are not permanently rejected. **As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Ḥanan 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’im*, 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.


###### Zevachim 74a:3
[Zevachim 74a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/74a:3)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ אָמַר רַב: טַבַּעַת שֶׁל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בְּמֵאָה טַבָּעוֹת, וְנָפְלָה אַחַת מֵהֶם לַיָּם הַגָּדוֹל – הוּתְּרוּ כּוּלָּן; דְּאָמְרִינַן: הָךְ דִּנְפַל הַיְינוּ דְּאִיסּוּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Concerning a similar case, **Rav Naḥman 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.


###### Zevachim 74a:4
[Zevachim 74a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/74a:4)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: אֲפִילּוּ אַחַת בְּרִיבּוֹא – יָמוּתוּ כּוּלָּן. אַמַּאי? נֵימָא: דְּמִית – אִיסּוּרָא מִית!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman** 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.


###### Zevachim 74a:5
[Zevachim 74a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/74a:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רַב דְּאָמַר – כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר; דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אִם קָרַב הָרֹאשׁ שֶׁל אֶחָד מֵהֶן – יִקְרְבוּ כָּל הָרָאשִׁים כּוּלָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman **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.


###### Zevachim 74a:6
[Zevachim 74a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/74a:6)

וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא הִתִּיר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אֶלָּא שְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם, אֲבָל אֶחָד אֶחָד – לָא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא תַּרְתֵּי קָאָמֵינָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava asked Rav Naḥman: **But doesn’t 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 Naḥman permit the rings without qualification? Rav Naḥman **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.


###### Zevachim 74a:7
[Zevachim 74a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/74a:7)

אָמַר רַב: טַבַּעַת שֶׁל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בְּמֵאָה טַבָּעוֹת, וּפֵרְשׁוּ אַרְבָּעִים לְמָקוֹם אֶחָד וְשִׁשִּׁים לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר; פֵּרְשָׁה אַחַת מֵאַרְבָּעִים – אֵינָהּ אוֹסֶרֶת, אַחַת מִשִּׁשִּׁים – אוֹסֶרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Zevachim 74a:8
[Zevachim 74a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/74a:8)

מַאי שְׁנָא אַחַת מֵאַרְבָּעִים דְּלָא – דְּאָמְרִינַן אִיסּוּרָא בְּרוּבָּא אִיתֵיהּ; אַחַת מִשִּׁשִּׁים נָמֵי – אָמְרִינַן אִיסּוּרָא בְּרוּבָּא אִיתֵיהּ! אֶלָּא אִם פֵּרְשׁוּ אַרְבָּעִים כּוּלָּן לְמָקוֹם אֶחָד – אֵין אוֹסְרוֹת, שִׁשִּׁים לְמָקוֹם אֶחָד – אוֹסְרוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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’s 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.**


###### Zevachim 74a:9
[Zevachim 74a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/74a:9)

כִּי אַמְרִיתַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אָמַר לִי: הַנַּח לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – שֶׁסְּפֵיקָהּ וּסְפֵק סְפֵיקָהּ אֲסוּרָה עַד סוֹף הָעוֹלָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Zevachim 74a:10
[Zevachim 74a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/74a:10)

מֵיתִיבִי: סְפֵק עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אֲסוּרָה, וּסְפֵק סְפֵיקָהּ מוּתֶּרֶת. כֵּיצַד? כּוֹס שֶׁל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁנָּפַל לְאוֹצָר מָלֵא כּוֹסוֹת – כּוּלָּן אֲסוּרִין; פֵּירַשׁ אֶחָד מֵהֶן לְרִיבּוֹא, וּמֵרִיבּוֹא לְרִיבּוֹא – מוּתָּרִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Zevachim 74a:11
[Zevachim 74a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/74a:11)

תַּנָּאֵי הִיא; דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: רִימּוֹנֵי בָאדָן – אוֹסְרִין בְּכׇל שֶׁהוּא. כֵּיצַד? נָפַל אֶחָד מֵהֶן לְתוֹךְ רִיבּוֹא, וּמֵרִיבּוֹא לְרִיבּוֹא – אֲסוּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: This **is** a dispute between ***tanna’im*, 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.


###### Zevachim 74a:12
[Zevachim 74a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/74a:12)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: לְרִיבּוֹא – אֲסוּרִין, וּמֵרִיבּוֹא לִשְׁלֹשָׁה וּמִשְּׁלֹשָׁה לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר – מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Zevachim 74a:13
[Zevachim 74a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/74a:13)

שְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמַר כְּמַאן? אִי כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – אֲפִילּוּ בִּשְׁאָר אִיסּוּרִים אָסוּר! אִי כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – אֲפִילּוּ בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה נָמֵי שְׁרֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara inquires: **In accordance with** the opinion of **which** of these *tanna’im* **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.


###### Zevachim 74a:14
[Zevachim 74a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/74a:14)

וְכִי תֵּימָא שָׁאנֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֵּין עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לִשְׁאָר אִיסּוּרִים; אֶלָּא הָא דְּתַנְיָא: סְפֵק עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אֲסוּרָה, וּסְפֵק סְפֵיקָהּ מוּתֶּרֶת – מַנִּי? לָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְלָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Zevachim 74a:15
[Zevachim 74a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/74a:15)

לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן; וּשְׁמוּאֵל סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּחֲדָא, וּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ בַּחֲדָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Zevachim 74a:16
[Zevachim 74a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/74a:16)

אָמַר מָר: מֵרִיבּוֹא לִשְׁלֹשָׁה וּמִשְּׁלֹשָׁה לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר – מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.**