Why are three different? [presumably] because there is a majority? Then [if it fell] among two, there is also a majority? — What does he mean by ‘three’? two together with itself. Alternatively, he agrees with R. Eliezer. (1) Resh Lakish said: If a cask of terumah was mixed up with a hundred casks [of hullin], and one of them fell into the Salt Sea, (2) all of them become permitted, for we assume: The one which fell was the forbidden one. (3) Now, the rulings of both R. Nahman (4) and Resh Lakish are necessary. For if [we learnt] from R. Nahman's [ruling], I would say: It applies to idolatry only, because it has no remedy to permit it; (5) but in the case of terumah, which has a remedy,6 I would say that it is not so. (7) While if [we learnt] from Resh Lakish, I would say: It applies only to a cask, whose fall is noticeable; but as for a ring, whose fall [loss] is not noticeable, I would say that it is not so. (8) Thus they are both necessary. Rabbah said: Resh Lakish permitted only a cask, whose fall is noticeable, but not a fig. (9) But R. Joseph said: Even a fig: as its fall, so its removal [rise]. (10) R. Eleazar said: If a [closed] cask of terumah fell among a hundred casks, he opens one of them, removes therefrom the proportion of the mixture, (11) and drinks [the rest]. R. Dimi sat and reported this ruling. Said R. Nahman to him: We see here quaffing and drinking! (12) Say rather: If one of them was opened, (13) he removes thereof the proportion of the mixture, and drinks. R. Oshaia said: If a [sealed] cask of terumah was mixed up with a hundred and fifty casks, and a hundred of them were opened [accidentally], he removes from them the proportion of the mixture and drinks, but the rest are forbidden until they are opened [accidentally], [for] we do not say, The forbidden article is in the majority. (14) A ROBA’ OR A NIRBA’, etc. As for all the others, it is well; [for their disqualification] is not perceptible; (15) but how is this [case of] Terefah possible? if it is perceptible, let [the priest] come and remove it? (16) whilst if he cannot distinguish it, how does he know that [a Terefah] was mixed up? (17) The school of R. Jannai said: The circumstances here are e.g., that [an animal] perforated by a thorn was mixed up with one attacked by a wolf. (18) Resh Lakish said: It was mixed up e.g. with a fallen animal. [You say,] ‘A fallen animal’? that too can be examined? (19) He holds [that] if it, stood up, it needs [observation for] twenty-four hours; if it walked, it needs examination. (20) R. Jeremiah said: E.g., it was mixed up with the young of a Terefah, this being in accordance with R. Eliezer, who maintained: The young of a Terefah cannot be offered at the altar. All these [Rabbis] did not explain it as the school of R. Jannai, [because they hold that] you can distinguish [an animal] perforated by a thorn from one attacked by a wolf, [as the perforation of] the former is elongated, whereas [that of] the latter is round. They did not explain it as Resh Lakish, [for] they hold: If it arose, it does not need twenty-four hours; if it walked, it does not need examination. They did not explain it as R. Jeremiah, because they would not make it agree with R. Eliezer. (21) [IF] A SACRIFICE [WAS MIXED UP] WITH A SACRIFICE, BOTH BEING OF THE SAME KIND, etc. But [the sacrifice] requires laying on [of hands]? (22) — Said R. Joseph: It refers to sacrifices of women. (23) But not to men's sacrifices?

---

(1). ↑ V. supra a, where it is stated that R. Eliezer permits the heads to be offered only in twos. Similarly here, the pomegranates can be used only in twos, and for that reason it must have fallen into at least three, so that there are four in all; otherwise, two could be used, while the third would be forbidden. (Rashi gives two explanations: this is the second, which is adopted by Tosaf. too, though Rashi favors the first.)
(2). ↑ The Dead Sea.
(3). ↑ Sc. that of terumah.
(4). ↑ V. supra a: he gives a similar ruling on a ring of idolatry.
(5). ↑ In itself; hence it would be too rigorous to say that they remain forbidden.
(6). ↑ The lot can be sold to a priest, to whom it is permitted.
(7). ↑ There is no need for this lenient assumption.
(8). ↑ A cask is a large object, and its loss is noticeable. Hence when the rest are permitted, one can see that it is because one fell out. But a ring is small and its loss out of a large number is not noticeable. Therefore it might be thought that if the rest are permitted, one will not know the reason and believe that they are all permitted, even if none fell out.
(9). ↑ Which is small. — Sh. M.: This is only if the fig was mixed up with less than a hundred, as otherwise it is neutralized in any case. But a closed cask is not neutralized by any number (supra 72b.).
(10). ↑ Just as you consider it sufficiently important to render all forbidden when it falls among other figs, so must its removal be considered sufficiently noticeable to render them all permitted.
(11). ↑ One cask is forbidden, while a hundred are permitted; hence the proportion of the forbidden is 1/101st part; this he must remove, and the rest is permitted, for an open cask can be neutralized (Sh. M. reads in Rashi: he must remove 1/100th part, not 1/101st part).
(12). ↑ If he is permitted to open the cask, how is this law, that a sealed cask can never be neutralized, possible?
(13). ↑ Accidentally.
(14). ↑ As Rab supra a. If we did say thus, we would assume the cask of terumah to be in the hundred, so that the other fifty are immediately permitted.
(15). ↑ Lit., ‘known’. Hence they can be mixed up with others.
(16). ↑ From the other animals. — It is perceptible when it is an outward form of Terefah, e.g., if the skull was perforated. But then it is distinguishable from the other animals.
(17). ↑ If it is an internal form of Terefah, so that it is not distinguishable from the others, how indeed does he know that it is Terefah until it is slaughtered and examined?
(18). ↑ Both show marks of perforation, and so are indistinguishable; but the former is not Terefah (unless the thorn penetrated right through the flesh into the interior of the animal, which it did not here), whereas the latter is (any animal attacked by a beast of prey is Terefah).
(19). ↑ If it can get up and walk, it is entirely fit, as there is an opinion that in such a case one need not wait but can slaughter it immediately, and it need not even be examined after slaughter to see if there is a lesion of the vital organs, which would render it Terefah. Hence it is merely necessary in the present instance to see which animals can walk.
(20). ↑ If the animal merely succeeded in rising, but could not walk, it must be kept to see if it can live twenty-four hours; if it is slaughtered before, it is Terefah even if no internal lesion is discovered. But if it succeeded in walking, it can be slaughtered at any time, save that after slaughtering all the vital organs, e.g., the spinal cord, lungs, heart, etc, must be examined for injury (this is not required in the case of an ordinary animal); thus it is considered as a doubtful Terefah and may not be offered. In this instance all the animals can walk, yet as there remains the doubt, none can be offered.
(21). ↑ His ruling is generally rejected, v. Shab. 130b, (Sonc. ed.) p. 653, n. 9.
(22). ↑ By its owner, whereas he is unknown.
(23). ↑ Which did not require it.