Chullin 21

Chapter 21

א כגון דקיימי דרא דגברי ואמרי

1 [The Baraitha refers to a case] where there was a row of men who reported that the leprous spot remained unaltered.1

ב כדקאי קאי

2 Whence is derived the principle which the Rabbis have adopted, viz. : Follow the majority?

ג מנא הא מילתא דאמור רבנן זיל בתר רובא

3 Whence?

ד מנלן

4 [you ask]; is it not expressly written: Follow the majority?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXIII, 2. This is the traditional interpretation of the verse by the Rabbis. In the English versions it is rendered: to turn aside after a multitude to pervert justice.');">2

ה דכתיב

5 - In regard to those cases where the majority is defined,3

ו (שמות כג, ב) אחרי רבים להטות

6 as in the case of the Nine Shops<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Pes. 9b. Where if in a particular neighbourhood there are nine shops which sell ritually slaughtered meat and a tenth which sells trefah meat, any meat found in that neighbourhood is kosher or permitted, it being presumed to have come from the majority, i.e., one of the nine shops.');">4

ז רובא דאיתא קמן כגון ט' חנויות וסנהדרין לא קא מיבעיא לן

7 or the Sanhedrin,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Sanh. 40a. The Great Sanhedrin was the supreme court of the Jews and consisted of seventy-one Judges; the Small Sanhedrin was an inferior court and consisted of twenty-three Judges. In each case the decision of the majority of the Judges was the decision of the court.');">5

ח כי קא מיבעיא לן רובא דליתיה קמן כגון קטן וקטנה מנלן

8 we do not ask the question.

ט א"ר אלעזר

9 Our question relates to cases where the majority is undefined, as in the case of the Boy and Girl.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where a boy who is a minor marries his deceased brother's wife who is also a minor, in accordance with the law of Levirate marriage laid down in Deut. XXV, 5, the marriage is valid, and we do not fear that one of them may prove to be sterile, in which case, the purpose of the levirate marriage having failed, the marriage would be unlawful as coming within the prohibited degrees. The reason is that we follow the majority, and the majority of people are not sterile. V. Yeb. 61b, and 111b.');">6

י (סימן זמן שבח מכנש) אתיא מרישא של עולה דאמר קרא

10 Whence then is the principle derived?

יא (ויקרא א, ו) ונתח אותה לנתחיה אותה לנתחיה ולא נתחיה לנתחים

11 (Mnemonic: Zeman SHebah Mekanesh).<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This mnemonic is formed by taking a characteristic letter from each of the names of the Rabbis who are quoted in the following passages. The Hebrew letters form three words which may be translated: Time brings profit.');">7

יב וניחוש שמא ניקב קרום של מוח

12 R'Eleazar said: It is derived from the head of a burnt-offering.

יג אלא לאו משום דאמרינן זיל בתר רובא

13 The verse reads: And he shall cut it into its pieces,8

יד ממאי

14 which means, he shall cut it up into its pieces but not it pieces into [smaller] pieces.

טו דילמא דפלי ליה ובדק ליה

15 Now why do we not fear that the membrane which encloses the brain is perforated?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This defect, as well as the other defects mentioned in these passages, would make the animal trefah and consequently unfit for a sacrifice. The sacrifice of the burnt-offering is nevertheless valid, in spite of the fact that it was not possible to cut open the head and examine the membrane by reason of the prohibition against cutting up a limb.');">9

טז ואי משום אותה לנתחיה ולא נתחיה לנתחים ה"מ היכא דחתיך ליה לגמרי אבל היכא דלייף לית לן בה

16 Is it not because we follow the majority?10

יז מר בריה דרבינא אמר

17 But is this really so?

יח אתיא משבירת עצם בפסח דאמר רחמנא

18 Perhaps he splits open [the head] and examines the membrane, and as for the rule, 'he shall cut it into its pieces but not its pieces into [smaller] pieces', this only prohibits the cutting up of a limb into pieces but does not prohibit [the mere splitting open of a limb] so long as the parts remain joined!11

יט (שמות יב, מו) ועצם לא תשברו בו

19 Mar the son of Rabina said: It is derived from the rule concerning breaking the bones of the paschal lamb.

כ וניחוש שמא ניקב קרום של מוח

20 The verse reads: And ye shall not break a bone thereof.12

כא אלא לאו משום דאמרינן זיל בתר רובא

21 Now why do we not fear that the membrane which encloses the brain is perforated?

כב ממאי

22 Is it not because we follow the majority! But is this really so?

כג דלמא דמנח גומרתא עליה וקלי ליה ובדיק ליה דתניא

23 Perhaps he places a burning coal upon the head, burns away the bone and examines the membrane; for it has been taught: He who cuts the sinews or burns away the bones [of the paschal lamb] has not transgressed the law of breaking the bones.13

כד המחתך בגידים והשורף בעצמות אין בו משום שבירת עצם

24 R'Nahman B'Isaac said: It is derived from the law concerning the tail [of sheep].

כה ר"נ בר יצחק אמר

25 The verse reads: The fat thereof, and the fat tail entire.14

כו אתיא מאליה דאמר רחמנא

26 Now why do we not fear that the spinal cord is severed?

כז (ויקרא ג, ט) חלבו האליה תמימה

27 Is it not because we follow the majority! And should you say.

כח וליחוש שמא נפסקה חוט השדרה

28 He can cut off the fat tail lower down?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., below the point of partition where the spinal cord branches off into three minor cords, one extending into the right thigh, the second into the left thigh, and the third continuing straight on into the tail. If any one of these minor cords is severed the animal does not become trefah. V. infra 45b. It is therefore suggested that the fat tail should be cut off below the point of partition, in which case even if the cord is severed in the tail it is of no consequence.');">15

כט אלא לאו משום דאמרינן זיל בתר רובא

29 Surely the Divine Law says [Which he shall take away] hard 'by the rump bone',16

ל וכי תימא דמתתאי פסיק לה (ויקרא ג, ט) לעומת העצה אמר רחמנא מקום שהכליות יועצות

30 that is to say, hard by the place where the counselling kidneys17

לא ממאי

31 are seated!18

לב דלמא דפתח לה ובדיק לה

32 But perhaps he cuts open the fat tail and examines it; and as for [the law that] the fat tail be entire, this only prohibits the complete severing of it but does not prohibit cutting it o so long as it is still one piece!19

לג ואי משום תמימה הני מילי היכא דחתכה לגמרי אבל היכא דלייף לית לן בה

33 R'Shesheth the son of R'Idi said: It is derived from the case of the heifer whose neck was to be broken.

לד רב ששת בריה דרב אידי אמר

34 The Divine Law says: Whose neck was broken,20

לה אתיא מעגלה ערופה דאמר רחמנא

35 [which has been interpreted] to mean that [after the neck has been broken] the heifer must remain whole.

לו (דברים כא, ו) הערופה כשהיא שלמה תיהוי

36 Now why do we not fear that it has some defect which makes it trefah?

לז וליחוש דלמא טרפה היא

37 Is it not because we follow the majority! And should you say.

לח אלא לאו משום דאמרינן זיל בתר רובא

38 What does it matter [even if it is trefah]?21

לט וכי תימא מאי נפקא מינה הא אמרי דבי רבי ינאי

39 Surely it was taught in the school of R'Jannai: Forgiveness22

מ כפרה כתיב בה כקדשים

40 is mentioned in connection therewith as with sacrifices!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore, just as a trefah animal was unfit for a sacrifice, so the heifer, if trefah, was unfit for the purpose. It is to be noted that R. Shesheth's argument succeeds in proving the principle of following the majority. This is also the case with the arguments used in the following passages, with the possible exception of R. Mari's argument. V. infra p. 51, n. 6.');">23

מא רבה בר רב שילא אמר

41 Rabbah B'Shila said: It is derived from the case of the Red Cow.

מב אתיא מפרה אדומה דאמר רחמנא

42 The Divine Law says.

מג (במדבר יט, ג) ושחט ושרף מה שחיטתה כשהיא שלמה אף שריפתה כשהיא שלמה

43 And he shall slaughter it.

מד וליחוש דילמא טרפה היא

44 and he shall burn it,24

מה אלא לאו משום דאמרינן זיל בתר רובא

45 which signifies, just as for the slaughtering the animal must be whole, so for the burning it must be whole.

מו וכי תימא מאי נפקא מינה חטאת קרייה רחמנא

46 Now why do we not fear that it is trefah?

מז רב אחא בר יעקב אמר

47 Is it not because we follow the majority?

מח אתיא משעיר המשתלח דרחמנא אמר

48 And should you say.

מט (ויקרא טז, ז) ולקח את שני השעירים שיהו שניהם שוים

49 What does it matter [even if it is trefah]?

נ וליחוש

50 Surely the Divine law calls it a sin-offering!25 R'Aha B'Jacob said: It is derived from the case of the Scapegoat.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 7. On the Day of Atonement two goats were required, one to be a sacrifice unto the Lord and the other, the Scapegoat, to be sent away to Azazel (ibid. 8) , i.e., it was taken into the wilderness where it was hurled down a steep mountain. Lots were cast to decide which goat was to be for the Lord and which for Azazel.');">26 The Divine Law says. And he shall take the two goats, which implies that the two shall be alike in all respects,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This interpretation suggests that the goat for Azazel may not be trefah, just as the goat which was for the Lord clearly may not be trefah. This, however, would seem to be superfluous as the reason why it may not be trefah is stated subsequently. The words, 'that the two shall be alike in all respects' are omitted in MS.M.');">27 Now why do we not fear

Previous Chapter Next Chapter