Chullin 22

דילמא חד מינייהו טריפה הוא

that one of them is trefah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' l.e., the one which was to be sent to the wilderness. It was obviously impossible to examine it as to any defects, since it was sent away alive.');">¹</span>

אלא לאו משום דאמרינן זיל בתר רובא

Is it not because we follow the majority! And should you say, What does it matter [even it if is trefah]?

וכי תימא מאי נפקא לן מינה הא אין גורל קובע לעזאזל אלא בדבר הראוי לשם

Surely it has been taught: The lot cannot determine [the goat] for Azazel unless is fit to be for the Lord!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In other words, though only one of the goats was offered as the sacrifice to the Lord, it was necessary for both goats to be such as might have been sacrificed to the Lord; it follows therefore that neither goat might be trefah.');">²</span>

וכי תימא דבדקינן ליה והתנן

And should you say: It can be examined?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After being sent away.');">³</span>

לא היה מגיע למחצית ההר עד שנעשה אברים אברים

Surely we have learnt: Before it reached half way down the mountain it was already broken into pieces!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yoma 67a.');">⁴</span>

רב מרי אמר

R'Mari said: It is derived from the case of one that smiteth his father, or his mother,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 15.');">⁵</span>

אתיא (שמות כא, טו) ממכה אביו ואמו דאמר רחמנא

for which offence the Divine law prescribes death.

קטליה וליחוש דלמא לאו אביו הוא

Now why do we not fear that the person struck may not have ben his father?

אלא לאו משום דאמרינן זיל בתר רובא ורוב בעילות אחר הבעל

Is it not because we follow the majority, and a woman cohabits with her husband more often [than with a stranger]?

ממאי

But perhaps [the law applies] only to the case where the father and mother were locked up in prison!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where his mother conceived him and where it would be impossible for the mother to have intercourse with strangers.');">⁶</span>

דלמא כגון שהיו אביו ואמו חבושים בבית האסורין

- Even so there is no guardian against unchastity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the offence of striking a father is made punishable only by reason of the principle of following the majority. This answer, however, is omitted in MS.M; if it is omitted. R. Mari's argument stands disproved.');">⁷</span>

אפילו הכי אין אפוטרופוס לעריות

R'Kahana said: It is derived from the case of a murderer, for whom the Divine law prescribes death.

רב כהנא אמר

Now why do we not fear that the victim may have been trefah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A person afflicted with a fatal organic disease, for whose killing a person is not punishable as a murderer.');">⁸</span>

אתיא מהורג את הנפש דאמר רחמנא

Is it not because we follow the majority! And should you say: We can examine the body?

קטליה

[This is not allowed because] it would thereby be mutilated! And should you say: Since a man's life is at stake, we should mutilate the body?

וליחוש דלמא טרפה הוה

Surely there is always the possibility that there was a hole [in the victim] in the place [where he was stuck] by the sword.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The murderer may have killed the victim by striking him in a place where he was already suffering from a fatal wound, and in so doing removed all traces of the previous wound. In such a case it is clear that no amount of post mortem examination would show that the victim was trefah; hence it is proved that we follow the majority.');">⁹</span>

אלא לאו משום דאמרינן זיל בתר רובא

Rabina said: It is derived from the law concerning witnesses who are found to be zomemim,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A technical term for a particular form of perjury. Cf, Deut. XIX, 16ff and Mak, chaps 1. The punishment meted out to these false witnesses is the sentence which the court had pronounced upon the person who was found guilty on the strength of their false evidence. This law, as will be seen from the subsequent statement, does not apply where the sentence has in fact been carried out.');">¹⁰</span>

וכי תימא דבדקינן ליה הא קא מינוול

in connection with whom the Divine Law says.

וכי תימא משום איבוד נשמה דהאי נינווליה וניחוש שמא במקום סייף נקב הוה

Then shall ye do unto him, as he had purposed [to do unto his brother].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIX, 19.');">¹¹</span>

רבינא אמר

Now why do we not fear that the person against whom they gave false evidence [that he committed a capital offence] is trefah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf, p. 51, n. 7.');">¹²</span>

אתיא מעדים זוממין דאמר רחמנא

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

(דברים יט, יט) ועשיתם לו כאשר זמם וגו'

We can examine him now?

וליחוש דלמא הך דאסהידו ביה טרפה הוה

Sure]y it has been taught: Beribbi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' l.e., a prominent scholar, or as Rashi suggests in Mak. 5 b a teacher of that name. V.J. E. III, p. 52.');">¹³</span>

אלא לאו משום דאמרינן זיל בתר רובא

said: If the person [against whom their evidence was directed] has not been executed they are put to death; if he has been executed they are not put to death!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V.M ak. 5b. The position is this: if the person against whom the witnesses testified has been executed the witnesses are not punished at all, and if he has not been executed then it is not possible to examine him as to whether or not he is a trefah; hence it is proved that we follow the majority.');">¹⁴</span>

וכי תימא דבדקינן ליה והתניא ברבי אומר

R'Ashi said: It is derived from the law of Shechitah itself;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The basic law of Shechitah, which is that one may eat an animal which has been ritually slaughtered.');">¹⁵</span>

לא הרגו נהרגין הרגו אין נהרגין

for the Divine Law says [in effect].

רב אשי אמר

Slaughter and eat.

אתיא משחיטה עצמה דאמר רחמנא

Now why do we not fear that there is a hole [in the gullet] in the place where It was cut through?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore the slaughtering should not be valid because the animal may have been trefah.');">¹⁶</span>

שחוט ואכול

Is it not because we follow the majority!

וליחוש שמא במקום נקב קא שחיט

R'Ashi added: I put forward this argument to R'Kahana - others say: R'Kahana put forward this argument to R'Shimi - and he replied: perhaps the law is that where it is possible to ascertain the facts we must do so; it is only where it is impossible to ascertain the facts that we follow the majority.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'where (it is) possible, it is possible; where impossible, impossible'. Although in the cases previously quoted, it is true that the majority principle is adopted, it is not to be enlarged into a general principle, for in each of those cases it was impossible to ascertain the true facts; where, however, it is possible to do so one should not follow the majority.');">¹⁷</span>

אלא לאו משום דאמרינן זיל בתר רובא

For if you do not accept this [argument], then the question will be asked: Did R'Meir, who is of the opinion that the minority must be taken into consideration, always abstain from eating meat?

אמר רב אשי

And if you reply that this indeed was the case, then it will be asked:

אמריתא לשמעתא קמיה דרב כהנא ואמרי לה רב כהנא קמיה דרב שימי ואמר ליה

ודלמא היכא דאפשר אפשר היכא דלא אפשר לא אפשר

דאי לא תימא הכי לר"מ דחייש למיעוטא הכי נמי דלא אכיל בישרא

וכי תימא הכי נמי