זבחים ע״ב א:ג׳-ע״ג א:ז׳

The Gemara explains that both the mishna here and the mishna in Avoda Zara are necessary, as, if this halakha had been learned only from there, the mishna in Avoda Zara, I would say that this applies only if the prohibited animal is intermingled with a non-sacred animal and thereby becomes prohibited to an ordinary person. But if it is intermingled with offerings that are designated to the Most High so a loss to the Temple would ensue, one might say that we should not lose all the valid offerings, and therefore the prohibited animal should be nullified in a simple majority. Accordingly, the ruling of the mishna here was necessary, to teach that the same applies to a mixture involving offerings.,The Gemara continues: And conversely, if this halakha were learned only from here I would say that this statement, that the entire mixture is prohibited, applies specifically to sacrificial animals, as it is repulsive to sacrifice to God an animal from a mixture that includes a prohibited animal. But with regard to deriving benefit from a non-sacred animal from this mixture, which is not a repulsive act, one might say: Let the items from which deriving benefit is prohibited be nullified in a majority. Therefore, the mishna in Avoda Zara is also necessary.,The Gemara questions the ruling of the mishna: But let the prohibited animals be nullified in a majority, as is the halakha concerning other matters, in which the minority items assume the status of the majority. And if you would say in response that animals are significant, as they are counted individually and therefore they are not nullified in a majority, this answer is unsatisfactory. The Gemara elaborates: This suggested answer works out well according to the one who says that we learned in the mishna discussing nullification in a majority (see Orla 3:6–7): Any item whose manner is also to be counted, i.e., that are sometimes sold by unit rather than weight or volume, is considered significant. This definition includes animals, as they are sometimes sold as individual animals, and therefore they would be considered significant.,But according to the one who says that we learned in that mishna: An item whose manner is exclusively to be counted, i.e., one that is always sold by unit, is considered significant, what can be said? Although animals are often sold by unit, they are occasionally sold as part of a herd, and would therefore not be considered significant. The Gemara cites the mishna in which this dispute appears. As we learned (Orla 3:6–7): With regard to one who had bundles of fenugreek, a type of legume, that were diverse kinds planted in a vineyard, from which it is prohibited to derive benefit, those bundles must be burned. If the bundles were intermingled with others, and those others were intermingled with others, they all must be burned. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: They can be nullified when the total is 201 items, i.e., one prohibited item intermingled with two hundred permitted ones.,The mishna continues: Rabbi Meir holds that they all must be burned, as Rabbi Meir would say: Any item whose manner is to be counted renders its mixture prohibited, as it is considered significant and cannot be nullified. And the Rabbis say: Only six items are sufficiently significant to render their mixture prohibited. Rabbi Akiva says: There are seven. And they are: Nuts with brittle shells, and pomegranates from Badan, and sealed barrels of wine, and beet greens, and cabbage stalks, and Greek gourd. Rabbi Akiva adds: Loaves of a homeowner are also in this category.,The mishna continues: Different prohibitions apply to these items. That which is fit to be forbidden due to the prohibition against eating the fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting [orla], i.e., nuts, pomegranates, and sealed barrels of wine, prohibit their mixture as orla. That which is fit to be forbidden due to diverse kinds planted in a vineyard, i.e., beets, cabbage, and gourd, prohibit their mixture as diverse kinds in a vineyard.,And it was stated that there is a dispute between amora’im with regard to the wording of Rabbi Meir’s opinion in this mishna. Rabbi Yoḥanan says that we learned: Only an item whose manner is exclusively to be counted is significant and cannot be nullified, and it therefore renders its mixture prohibited according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says that we learned: Any item whose manner is also to be counted is significant and cannot be nullified.,The Gemara reiterates its question: This works out well according to the opinion of Reish Lakish, but according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, what can be said? According to his opinion, since animals are not sold exclusively by unit, they are not sufficiently significant. Therefore, a prohibited animal should be nullified in a simple majority. Rav Pappa says: According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, this tanna, who says that a prohibited animal cannot be nullified, is the tanna of the halakha concerning a litra of dried figs, who says: Any item that is counted, even if it is prohibited by rabbinic law, e.g., teruma of fruit, cannot be nullified, and all the more so items prohibited by Torah law, such as animals that are disqualified for the altar, as in the mishna.,This is as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 5:11): The baraita discusses three cases, all of which relate to the tithing of figs, which is an obligation by rabbinic law. The first is the case of a litra of untithed dried figs that were pressed in different vessels and shaped into circles, that one placed into a barrel containing tithed figs, and during the process of producing a circle he pressed the figs onto the opening of one of the circular vessels in which the circles are formed, and he does not know into which circular vessel he pressed it. The second is the case in which he recalls that he pressed it on the opening of a barrel containing tithed figs, but he does not know into which barrel he pressed it. The third case is that he recalls that he pressed it on the opening of a straw receptacle containing tithed figs, but he does not know into which receptacle he pressed it. In all of these cases, there is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda as to the details of a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua.,Rabbi Meir says that Rabbi Eliezer says: One views the upper layers of possibly untithed dried figs as though they are separate pieces, rather than one unit. And the lower ones, which were there beforehand and have certainly been tithed, nullify the upper ones, as there are enough circles of figs to nullify the upper layer. One does not need to tithe the figs at the top of any of the containers.,Rabbi Meir continues: By contrast, Rabbi Yehoshua says: If there are one hundred openings of containers present there, the untithed litra of figs on the opening of one of the containers is nullified in a ratio of one part of untithed figs to one hundred parts of similar, tithed figs. But if not, all of the layers of figs at the openings of the containers are prohibited, i.e., viewed as untithed, as one of them certainly contains an untithed litra that has not been nullified. And the figs on the insides of the vessels are permitted, as the untithed figs certainly did not reach there. This is Rabbi Meir’s version of the dispute.,The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda says that Rabbi Eliezer says: If there are one hundred openings of containers with tithed figs present there, in addition to the untithed figs, it is nullified in the one hundred. But if not, all of the layers of figs at the openings of the containers are prohibited, i.e., viewed as untithed, as one of them certainly contains an untithed litra that has not been nullified. And the figs on the insides of the vessels are permitted, as the untithed figs certainly did not reach there.,Rabbi Yehuda continues his statement: By contrast, Rabbi Yehoshua says: Even if there are three hundred openings present there, the layer at the top of the container is not nullified. This litra cannot be nullified in any manner, as Rabbi Yehoshua maintains that even an item occasionally sold by unit, such as a circle of dried figs, can never be nullified.,Rabbi Yehuda continues: But if one pressed the litra of dried figs into a circular vessel along with other dried figs, but does not know onto which place, i.e., which side, of the circular vessel he pressed it, whether, e.g., to its northern side or to its southern side, in this case, as the prohibited litra is not located in a defined place and it cannot be distinguished from the others, it is not considered an item of significance, and everyone agrees that it is nullified. Accordingly, the ruling of the mishna that animals that are disqualified from being sacrificed are not nullified is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua as stated by Rabbi Eliezer, that an item occasionally sold by unit is not nullified. Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement, that only an item whose manner is exclusively to be counted is significant and cannot be nullified, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.,Rav Ashi says: You may even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, i.e., Rabbi Meir, who maintains that an item that is not always counted is nullified in a majority. The reason is that living creatures are significant, and therefore they are not nullified.,§ The Gemara raises a difficulty with the ruling of the mishna that all of the animals are prohibited. And let us draw out and sacrifice one animal from the mixture, and say, i.e., apply the principle: Any item that separates from a group is assumed to have separated from the majority. Accordingly, the animal that was sacrificed is presumed to be fit. One can continue in this manner until only two animals from the mixture remain. The Gemara questions this suggestion: Should we draw out an animal from the mixture? But this is the removal of an item from its fixed place,