Zevachim 148
מ"ש שלשה דאיכא רובא שנים נמי איכא רובא מאי ג' דקתני תרתי והוא
<br> 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. <br>
ואיבעית אימא סבר לה כר' אליעזר
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, all of them become permitted, for we assume: The one which fell was the forbidden one. Now, the rulings of both R. Nahman 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; but in the case of terumah, which has a remedy, I would say that it is not so. 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. Thus they are both necessary.
אמר ר"ל חבית של תרומה שנתערבה במאה חביות ונפלה אחת מהן לים המלח הותרו כולן דאמרינן הך דנפל דאיסורא נפל
Rabbah said: Resh Lakish permitted only a cask, whose fall is noticeable, but not a fig. But R. Joseph said: Even a fig: as its fall, so its removal [rise]. <br>
ואיצטריך דר"נ ואיצטריך דר"ל דאי מדר"נ הוה אמינא ה"מ עבודת כוכבים דאין לה מתירין אבל תרומה דיש לה מתירין לא
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, and drinks [the rest]. R. Dimi sat and reported this ruling. Said R. Nahman to him: We see here quaffing and drinking! Say rather: If one of them was opened, he removes thereof the proportion of the mixture, and drinks.
ואי מדר"ל ה"א חבית דמינכרא נפילתה אבל טבעת דלא מינכרא נפילתה לא צריכי
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. <br>
אמר רבה לא התיר ר"ל אלא חבית דמינכרא נפילתה אבל תאינה לא ורב יוסף אמר אפילו תאינה כנפילתה כך עלייתה
A ROBA' OR A NIRBA' etc. As for all the others, it is well; [for their disqualification] is not perceptible; but how is this [case of] terefah possible? if it is perceptible, let [the priest] come and remove it? whilst if he cannot distinguish it, how does he know that [a terefah] was mixed up? 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. Resh Lakish said: It was mixed up e.g. with a fallen animal. [You say,] 'A fallen animal'? that too can be examined? He holds [that] if it, stood up, it needs [observation for] twenty-four hours; if it walked, it needs examination. 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.
א"ר אלעזר חבית של תרומה שנפלה בק' חביות פותח אחד מהן ונוטל הימנה כדי דימועה ושותה
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. <br>
יתיב רב דימי וקאמר לה להא שמעתא א"ל ר"נ גמע ושתי קא חזינא הכא אלא אימא נפתחה אחת מהן נוטל הימנה כדי דימוע ושותה
[IF] A SACRIFICE [WAS MIXED UP] WITH A SACRIFICE, BOTH BEING OF THE SAME KIND etc. But [the sacrifice] requires laying on [of hands]? - Said R. Joseph: It refers to sacrifices of women. But not to men's sacrifices?<br>