POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Zevachim 74
1) IF PART OF A MIXTURE BECAME SEPARATED
(a) (Rav Nachman citing Rav): If a ring of idolatry was mixed
with 100 rings and one of them fell into the sea, all the
rest are permitted, we assume that the forbidden one
(b) Question (Rava - Mishnah): Even if one (Chatas ha'Mesah
or Shor ha'Niskal) was mixed with 10,000, all must die.
1. After the first dies, we do not assume that it was
the forbidden animal!
(c) Answer (Rav Nachman): Rav holds like R. Eliezer.
1. (Mishnah - R. Eliezer): If one of the heads was
offered, we offer the rest of the heads.
(d) Question: But R. Elazar said that R. Eliezer only permits
offering two at a time (since one of them is surely
Kosher, we assume that the other is also), not one at a
(e) Answer (Rav Nachman): Indeed, Rav only permits the rest
of the rings to be sold two (or more) at a time.
(f) (Rav Nachman citing Rav): If a ring of idolatry became
mixed among 100 rings and 40 rings became separated from
the other 60:
1. If one of the 40 became mixed with other rings, it
does not forbid them; if the 60 became mixed with
others, it forbids them.
(g) (Shmuel): Even if the 40 became mixed, they forbid, for
we are always stringent regarding idolatry, no matter how
many doubts there are.
2. Objection: If one of the 40 became mixed, it does
not forbid because we assume that (it is permitted,)
the forbidden ring is among the majority (the
remaining rings) - we should say the same when one
of the 60 became mixed with others!
3. Correction: Rather, if all 40 became mixed with
other rings, they do not forbid the new mixture; if
all 60 became mixed, they forbid.
(h) Question (Beraisa): A doubtful case of idolatry is
forbidden; a Sefek Sefeka (there are two doubts, if at
least one of them is (in truth) 'favorable', the matter
is permitted) is permitted:
1. If a cup (forbidden on account) of idolatry fell
into a storehouse of cups, all are forbidden; if one
was mixed with 10,000, and one of those became mixed
with 10,000, they are permitted.
(i) Answer: Tana'im argue about Shmuel's law (he holds like a
1. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): (Forbidden) pomegranates of
Badan forbid a mixture of any size;
(j) Question: Like which Tana does Shmuel hold?
2. If one was mixed with 10,000 others, and one of this
mixture became mixed with 10,000 others, it forbids
all of them.
3. R. Shimon ben Yehudah says in the name of R. Shimon,
if one was mixed with 10,000, it forbids them; if
one of them became mixed with three, and one of
these became mixed with others, they are permitted.
1. He is unlike R. Yehudah, for R. Yehudah forbids a
Sefek Sefeka regarding all prohibitions;
(k) Answer (#1): He holds like R. Yehudah regarding idolatry,
he argues with him (and holds like R. Shimon) regarding
2. He is unlike R. Shimon, for R. Shimon permits a
Sefek Sefeka even regarding idolatry!
3. Suggestion: (The Beraisa did not explicitly mention
idolatry -) perhaps R. Shimon permits a Sefek Sefeka
regarding other prohibitions, but forbids regarding
4. Rejection: If so, the following Beraisa would not be
like R. Yehudah nor like R. Shimon (and we have no
source to say that there is a three-way argument
among the Tana'im!)
i. (Beraisa): A Safek regarding idolatry is
forbidden, a Sefek Sefeka is permitted.
(l) (Beraisa - R. Shimon): If one of the 10,000 became mixed
with three, and one of these became mixed with others,
they are permitted.
(m) Question: Why must we say that it became mixed with three
- even if it became mixed with two, they are the
2) IF PART OF A MIXTURE BECAME LOST
(n) Answer (#1): Indeed, it means that it became mixed with
two others, a total of three.
(o) Version #1 - Tosfos - Answer #2 (to Question (m)): R.
Shimon holds like R. Eliezer according to R. Elazar (we
must sell two at a time, so that surely at least one (and
possibly both) of them is permitted; if the entire
mixture has three, there is no way to benefit from all of
(p) Version #2 - Rashi - Answer #2 (to Question (j)): Shmuel
holds like R. Eliezer (who forbids a Sefek Sefeka
regarding idolatry, he requires throwing the value of the
idolatry into the sea.)
(a) (Reish Lakish): If a (sealed) barrel of Terumah became
mixed with 100 (permitted) barrels, and one of them fell
into the sea, the rest are permitted.
3) HOW A "TEREIFAH" BECAME MIXED
(b) We need to hear Reish Lakish's law and Rav Nachman's
(Amud A, when a ring of idolatry fell into the sea):
1. If we only heard Rav Nachman's law, one might have
thought that this applies only to idolatry, for Ein
Lo Matirim (there is no way to permit it other than
Bitul), but we do not permit Terumah in this way,
for Yesh Lo Matirim (Kohanim may eat it);
(c) (Rabah): Reish Lakish permits only regarding a barrel,
for this is recognizable, but he would not permit
regarding a date.
2. If we only heard Reish Lakish's law, one might have
thought that this applies only when a barrel falls
in, for this is recognizable, but people do not
notice when a ring falls, if we permit the rest
onlookers will think that a mixture is permitted
even if one did not fall.
(d) (Rav Yosef): He even permits regarding a date - just as
when it is mixed in, it is significant enough to forbid
the mixture, when one falls to the sea, it is significant
enough to permit the rest.
(e) (R. Elazar): If a barrel of Terumah became mixed with 100
barrels, we open one of them, remove Kedai Demai (the
proportionate amount of Terumah, i.e. one part in 101
(Rashi; Shitah Mekubetzes - one part in 100)) and one may
drink the rest of the barrel.
(f) Objection (Rav Nachman): This cannot be (if so, closed
barrels are not Mekadesh)!
(g) Correction: Rather, if one of them was opened, we remove
Kedai Demai and one may drink the rest of it.
(h) (R. Oshaya): If a barrel of Terumah became mixed with 150
barrels, and 100 of them were opened, we remove Kedai
Demai from each and the rest of the open barrels is
1. The other 50 barrels are forbidden until they are
opened - we do not assume that the Terumah was among
the majority of barrels that were opened.
(a) (Mishnah): The animal was Nirva or Rove'a...
(b) Question: (With the exception of Treifah,) all of these
are not recognizable, we understand how they are mixed -
but what is the case of Treifah?
1. If it is recognizably Treifah, we can remove it and
offer the others;
(c) Answer #1 (D'vei R. Yanai): The case is, an animal Nidras
by a wolf was mixed with animals that (have a similar
scar because they) were scratched by a thorn.
2. If it is not recognizably Treifah, how do we know
that a Treifah is among them?
(d) Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): An animal that fell (from the
roof) became mixed with other animals.
1. Question: If an animal that fell later walked, this
shows that it is Kosher!
(e) Answer #3 (R. Yirmeyah): The child of a Treifah became
mixed with other animals; the Mishnah is like R. Eliezer,
who says that such an animal is Pasul for a Korban.
2. Answer: Reish Lakish holds that even if it stood up,
we must wait 24 hours before slaughtering it (this
is irrelevant, only the coming law is pertinent),
and even if it walked, we must check it (internally,
1. The other (i.e. last two) opinions did not say like
D'vei R. Yanai, because they hold that the scars are
recognizable - Drisah is a long scratch, a thorn
makes a circular cut;
2. The others opinions did not say like Reish Lakish,
because they hold that if it stood up, we need not
wait 24 hours, if it walked, we need not check it,
it is Kosher (therefore, all animals in the mixture
that can walk are Kesherim);
3. The others did not say like R. Yirmeyah, they do not
want to establish a Stam Mishnah like R. Eliezer.