## Zevachim Daf 74b

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

מַאי שְׁנָא שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּאִיכָּא רוּבָּא? שְׁנַיִם נָמֵי אִיכָּא רוּבָּא! מַאי שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּקָתָנֵי – תַּרְתֵּי וְהוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.

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


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

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: חָבִית שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בְּמֵאָה חָבִיּוֹת, וְנָפְלָה אַחַת מֵהֶן לְיָם הַמֶּלַח – הוּתְּרוּ כּוּלָּן; דְּאָמְרִינַן: הָךְ דִּנְפַל – דְּאִיסּוּרָא נְפַל.

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


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

וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ דְּרַב נַחְמָן וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ; דְּאִי מִדְּרַב נַחְמָן, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, דְּאֵין לָהּ מַתִּירִין; אֲבָל תְּרוּמָה דְּיֵשׁ לָהּ מַתִּירִין – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And** it **was necessary** for the Gemara to record the ruling **of Rav Naḥman** 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 Naḥman, 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.


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

וְאִי מִדְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: חָבִית – דְּמִינַּכְרָא נְפִילָתָהּ; אֲבָל טַבַּעַת, דְּלָא מִינַּכְרָא נְפִילָתָהּ – לָא. צְרִיכִי.

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


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

אָמַר רַבָּה: לֹא הִתִּיר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אֶלָּא חָבִית, דְּמִינַּכְרָא נְפִילָתָהּ; אֲבָל תְּאֵינָה – לָא. וְרַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תְּאֵינָה, כִּנְפִילָתָהּ כָּךְ עֲלִיָּיתָהּ.

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


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

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: חָבִית שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה בְּמֵאָה חָבִיּוֹת – פּוֹתֵחַ אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְנוֹטֵל הֵימֶנָּה כְּדֵי דִימּוּעָהּ, וְשׁוֹתֶה.

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


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

יָתֵיב רַב דִּימִי וְקָאָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: גְּמַע וּשְׁתִי קָא חָזֵינָא הָכָא! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: נִפְתְּחָה אַחַת מֵהֶן – נוֹטֵל הֵימֶנָּה כְּדֵי דִּימּוּעַ, וְשׁוֹתֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Dimi sat and said this *halakha*,** and **Rav Naḥman 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.


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

אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: חָבִית שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בְּמֵאָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים חָבִיּוֹת, וְנִפְתְּחוּ מֵאָה מֵהֶן – נוֹטֵל הֵימֶנָּה כְּדֵי דִימּוּעָהּ וְשׁוֹתֶה, וּשְׁאָר אֲסוּרִין עַד שֶׁיִּפָּתְחוּ; לָא אָמְרִינַן אִיסּוּרָא בְּרוּבָּא אִיתֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

הָרוֹבֵעַ וְהַנִּרְבָּע כּוּ׳. בִּשְׁלָמָא כּוּלְּהוּ – לָא יְדִיעַ; אֶלָּא הַאי טְרֵיפָה הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי יָדַיע לֵיהּ – לֵיתֵי וְלִישְׁקְלֵיהּ! אִי לָא יָדַע לֵיהּ – מְנָא יָדַע דְּאִיעָרַב?

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


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

אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן דְּאִיעָרַב נְקוּבַת הַקּוֹץ בִּדְרוּסַת הַזְּאֵב.

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


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

רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: [כְּגוֹן] דְּאִיעָרַב בִּנְפוּלָה. נְפוּלָה נָמֵי לִיבְדְּקַהּ! קָסָבַר: עָמְדָה – צְרִיכָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת, הָלְכָה – צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה.

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


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

רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר: כְּגוֹן דְּאִיעָרַיב בִּוְלַד טְרֵיפָה – וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: וְלַד טְרֵיפָה לֹא יִקְרַב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ.

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


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

כּוּלְּהוּ כְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי לָא אָמְרִי – בֵּין נְקוּבַת הַקּוֹץ לִדְרוּסַת הַזְּאֵב מִידָּע יְדִיעַ; הַאי מְשִׁיךְ וְהַאי עֲגִיל.

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


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

כְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לָא אָמְרִי – קָסָבְרִי: עָמְדָה – אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת, הָלְכָה – אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

כְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה לָא אָמְרִי – כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לָא מוֹקְמִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Finally, Rabbi Yannai and Reish Lakish **do not say** that the explanation 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.


###### Zevachim 74b:17
[Zevachim 74b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/74b:17)

קָדָשִׁים בְּקָדָשִׁים מִין בְּמִינוֹ כּוּ׳. וְהָא בָּעֵי סְמִיכָה!

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


###### Zevachim 74b:18
[Zevachim 74b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/74b:18)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: בְּקׇרְבַּן נָשִׁים; אֲבָל בְּקׇרְבַּן אֲנָשִׁים – לָא.

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