majority

Rebbi Hoshaia said, why do we not explain it according to everybody, as Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: They weighed for me my (sheqels) [wages], thirty pieces of silver. These are the thirty commandments which the descendants of Noah will take upon themselves in the future. But the rabbis say, there are the 30 just persons which the world never will be lacking, as Rebbi Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Mana, the world cannot be with less than 30 just men like our father Abraham. What is the reason? Abraham will certainly be, the numerical value of יהיה is 30. Sometimes the majority are in Babylonia and the minority in the Land of Israel; sometimes the majority are in the Land of Israel and the minority in Babylonia. It is a good sign for the world if most of them are in the Land. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Julianus in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: In the future the descendants of Noah will take all commandments upon themselves. What is the reason? Then I shall transform Gentiles’ purified lips. But at the end they will renege on it. What is the reason? Let us break their chains, and throw from us their ropes! That is the commandment of phylacteries; that is the commandment of ṣiṣit.

Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Did we not state, “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”? And Rebbi and his court permit what Daniel and his companions forbade? Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion: Rebbi Joḥanan said, I have a tradition in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq that any restrictive edict passed by a court which is not accepted by the majority of the public is not an edict. They checked and found in the matter of the edict about oil and did not find that a majority of the public followed it.

Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Did we not state, “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”? And Rebbi and his court permit what Daniel and his companions forbade? Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion: Rebbi Joḥanan said, I have a tradition in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq that any restrictive edict passed by a court which is not accepted by the majority of the public is not an edict. They checked and found in the matter of the edict about oil and did not find that a majority of the public followed it.

The colleagues in the name of Samuel. The Mishnah deals with an individual who complements the multitude. But any individual who acted on his own is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even any single individual who acted on his own brings a female sheep or goat. It is difficult. In Samuel’s opinion, would any single individual be atoned by two sacrifices? Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Samuel: The individual is suspended. If a majority ate, the court brings. If a minority ate, each individual brings. For any ruling for which the court [bring] a bull, the individual does not bring a female sheep or goat. For any ruling for which the court bring a bull, the individual does not bring a female sheep; for any ruling for which the court does not bring a bull, the individual brings a female sheep or goat. Samuel explains the Mishnah by majority and minority. If a majority ate, since the court does not bring a bull, an individual brings a female sheep or goat.

The colleagues in the name of Samuel. The Mishnah deals with an individual who complements the multitude. But any individual who acted on his own is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even any single individual who acted on his own brings a female sheep or goat. It is difficult. In Samuel’s opinion, would any single individual be atoned by two sacrifices? Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Samuel: The individual is suspended. If a majority ate, the court brings. If a minority ate, each individual brings. For any ruling for which the court [bring] a bull, the individual does not bring a female sheep or goat. For any ruling for which the court bring a bull, the individual does not bring a female sheep; for any ruling for which the court does not bring a bull, the individual brings a female sheep or goat. Samuel explains the Mishnah by majority and minority. If a majority ate, since the court does not bring a bull, an individual brings a female sheep or goat.

The colleagues in the name of Samuel. The Mishnah deals with an individual who complements the multitude. But any individual who acted on his own is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even any single individual who acted on his own brings a female sheep or goat. It is difficult. In Samuel’s opinion, would any single individual be atoned by two sacrifices? Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Samuel: The individual is suspended. If a majority ate, the court brings. If a minority ate, each individual brings. For any ruling for which the court [bring] a bull, the individual does not bring a female sheep or goat. For any ruling for which the court bring a bull, the individual does not bring a female sheep; for any ruling for which the court does not bring a bull, the individual brings a female sheep or goat. Samuel explains the Mishnah by majority and minority. If a majority ate, since the court does not bring a bull, an individual brings a female sheep or goat.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court gave an instruction; then they realized that they erred,” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Our Mishnah, for example, if Simeon ben Azzai was sitting before them. Where do we hold? If he removed them, their instruction would be invalid. If they removed him, his instruction would be invalid. But we hold in the case that each side stands by its answer. For him, their instruction is no instruction, for they did not remove him. For others it is an instruction, for he did not remove them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum, since Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, if a hundred came together, only if they instructed unanimously? One explains it, that he was not present. Does this invalidate? He explains it following Rebbi, since Rebbi said, no one invalidates but the distinguished member of the Court (at Lydda) [only]. Since Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, if a hundred came together, only if they instructed unanimously; is it the same in retraction or by majority? If it is obvious for you by majority, what kind of majority? The majority of those who instructed or the majority of those remaining? How is this? If there were a hundred but ten of them had died. If you say, a majority of those who instructed, 51. If you say, a majority of those remaining, 46.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court gave an instruction; then they realized that they erred,” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Our Mishnah, for example, if Simeon ben Azzai was sitting before them. Where do we hold? If he removed them, their instruction would be invalid. If they removed him, his instruction would be invalid. But we hold in the case that each side stands by its answer. For him, their instruction is no instruction, for they did not remove him. For others it is an instruction, for he did not remove them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum, since Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, if a hundred came together, only if they instructed unanimously? One explains it, that he was not present. Does this invalidate? He explains it following Rebbi, since Rebbi said, no one invalidates but the distinguished member of the Court (at Lydda) [only]. Since Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, if a hundred came together, only if they instructed unanimously; is it the same in retraction or by majority? If it is obvious for you by majority, what kind of majority? The majority of those who instructed or the majority of those remaining? How is this? If there were a hundred but ten of them had died. If you say, a majority of those who instructed, 51. If you say, a majority of those remaining, 46.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court gave an instruction; then they realized that they erred,” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Our Mishnah, for example, if Simeon ben Azzai was sitting before them. Where do we hold? If he removed them, their instruction would be invalid. If they removed him, his instruction would be invalid. But we hold in the case that each side stands by its answer. For him, their instruction is no instruction, for they did not remove him. For others it is an instruction, for he did not remove them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum, since Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, if a hundred came together, only if they instructed unanimously? One explains it, that he was not present. Does this invalidate? He explains it following Rebbi, since Rebbi said, no one invalidates but the distinguished member of the Court (at Lydda) [only]. Since Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, if a hundred came together, only if they instructed unanimously; is it the same in retraction or by majority? If it is obvious for you by majority, what kind of majority? The majority of those who instructed or the majority of those remaining? How is this? If there were a hundred but ten of them had died. If you say, a majority of those who instructed, 51. If you say, a majority of those remaining, 46.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court gave an instruction; then they realized that they erred,” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Our Mishnah, for example, if Simeon ben Azzai was sitting before them. Where do we hold? If he removed them, their instruction would be invalid. If they removed him, his instruction would be invalid. But we hold in the case that each side stands by its answer. For him, their instruction is no instruction, for they did not remove him. For others it is an instruction, for he did not remove them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum, since Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, if a hundred came together, only if they instructed unanimously? One explains it, that he was not present. Does this invalidate? He explains it following Rebbi, since Rebbi said, no one invalidates but the distinguished member of the Court (at Lydda) [only]. Since Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, if a hundred came together, only if they instructed unanimously; is it the same in retraction or by majority? If it is obvious for you by majority, what kind of majority? The majority of those who instructed or the majority of those remaining? How is this? If there were a hundred but ten of them had died. If you say, a majority of those who instructed, 51. If you say, a majority of those remaining, 46.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court gave an instruction; then they realized that they erred,” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Our Mishnah, for example, if Simeon ben Azzai was sitting before them. Where do we hold? If he removed them, their instruction would be invalid. If they removed him, his instruction would be invalid. But we hold in the case that each side stands by its answer. For him, their instruction is no instruction, for they did not remove him. For others it is an instruction, for he did not remove them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum, since Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, if a hundred came together, only if they instructed unanimously? One explains it, that he was not present. Does this invalidate? He explains it following Rebbi, since Rebbi said, no one invalidates but the distinguished member of the Court (at Lydda) [only]. Since Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, if a hundred came together, only if they instructed unanimously; is it the same in retraction or by majority? If it is obvious for you by majority, what kind of majority? The majority of those who instructed or the majority of those remaining? How is this? If there were a hundred but ten of them had died. If you say, a majority of those who instructed, 51. If you say, a majority of those remaining, 46.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court gave an instruction; then they realized that they erred,” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Our Mishnah, for example, if Simeon ben Azzai was sitting before them. Where do we hold? If he removed them, their instruction would be invalid. If they removed him, his instruction would be invalid. But we hold in the case that each side stands by its answer. For him, their instruction is no instruction, for they did not remove him. For others it is an instruction, for he did not remove them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum, since Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, if a hundred came together, only if they instructed unanimously? One explains it, that he was not present. Does this invalidate? He explains it following Rebbi, since Rebbi said, no one invalidates but the distinguished member of the Court (at Lydda) [only]. Since Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, if a hundred came together, only if they instructed unanimously; is it the same in retraction or by majority? If it is obvious for you by majority, what kind of majority? The majority of those who instructed or the majority of those remaining? How is this? If there were a hundred but ten of them had died. If you say, a majority of those who instructed, 51. If you say, a majority of those remaining, 46.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court gave an instruction; then they realized that they erred,” etc. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Our Mishnah, for example, if Simeon ben Azzai was sitting before them. Where do we hold? If he removed them, their instruction would be invalid. If they removed him, his instruction would be invalid. But we hold in the case that each side stands by its answer. For him, their instruction is no instruction, for they did not remove him. For others it is an instruction, for he did not remove them. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum, since Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, if a hundred came together, only if they instructed unanimously? One explains it, that he was not present. Does this invalidate? He explains it following Rebbi, since Rebbi said, no one invalidates but the distinguished member of the Court (at Lydda) [only]. Since Rebbi Mana bar Tanḥum said, if a hundred came together, only if they instructed unanimously; is it the same in retraction or by majority? If it is obvious for you by majority, what kind of majority? The majority of those who instructed or the majority of those remaining? How is this? If there were a hundred but ten of them had died. If you say, a majority of those who instructed, 51. If you say, a majority of those remaining, 46.

Are consequences of a ruling like the ruling? Do ruling within ruling combine? How is that? If the public ate forbidden fat and designated their sacrifices. If you say that consequences of a ruling are like the ruling, the Court is liable. If you say that consequences of a ruling are not like the ruling, the Court is not liable. The following should be obvious to you: the consequences of a ruling are like the ruling. Do ruling within ruling combine with each other? How is that? If the Court ruled that the fat in the right side kidney was permitted but that of the left side and its cover was forbidden; then they reversed themselves and said the opposite. Most ate the first time, and most the second time. If you say that they combine, they are liable for one. But if you say that they do not combine, they are liable for two. Do two instructions about one kind of work combine? How is that? If a majority ate and a majority slaughtered. In Rebbi Meïr’s opinion they are once liable; in Rebbi Simeon’s opinion they are twice liable. If a minority ate the first time and a minority the second time. In Rebbi Meïr’s opinion they are liable; in Rebbi Simeon’s opinion they are not liable.

Are consequences of a ruling like the ruling? Do ruling within ruling combine? How is that? If the public ate forbidden fat and designated their sacrifices. If you say that consequences of a ruling are like the ruling, the Court is liable. If you say that consequences of a ruling are not like the ruling, the Court is not liable. The following should be obvious to you: the consequences of a ruling are like the ruling. Do ruling within ruling combine with each other? How is that? If the Court ruled that the fat in the right side kidney was permitted but that of the left side and its cover was forbidden; then they reversed themselves and said the opposite. Most ate the first time, and most the second time. If you say that they combine, they are liable for one. But if you say that they do not combine, they are liable for two. Do two instructions about one kind of work combine? How is that? If a majority ate and a majority slaughtered. In Rebbi Meïr’s opinion they are once liable; in Rebbi Simeon’s opinion they are twice liable. If a minority ate the first time and a minority the second time. In Rebbi Meïr’s opinion they are liable; in Rebbi Simeon’s opinion they are not liable.

Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. For instructions they considered the settlement of the Land of Israel. For impurity they considered the majority of those coming to the Temple precinct. How? Do they estimate every group or only the first group? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, when they are still outside they estimate themselves. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: For appearance they consider from Levo- Ḥamat to the brook of Egypt. Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: The reason of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi is, at that time Solomon celebrated the holiday, and all of Israel, etc.

MISHNAH: If the Court ruled and all the public or a majority acted on their instruction, they bring a bull; or in a matter of idolatry a bull and a goat, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, the Twelve Tribes bring twelve bulls and in a matter of idolatry the Twelve Tribes bring twelve bulls and twelve goats. Rebbi Simeon says, thirteen oxen, and in a matter of idolatry thirteen bulls and thirteen goats; a bull and a goat for each tribe; a bull and a goat for the Court.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court ruled and all the public acted,” etc. Who stated “a majority”? Rebbi Meïr, as it was stated: Either half of the tribes or half of each tribe, if only it be a majority. Rebbi Jehudah says, half of each tribe, but only a majority of entire tribes. One tribe drags all tribes. Rebbi Meïr says, all tribes are called “the public”. Rebbi Jehudah says, each single tribe is called “public”. And Rebbi Simeon follows Rebbi Jehudah. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said, each single tribe is called “public”, so Rebbi Simeon says, each single tribe is called “public”. What is between them? Dragging. Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes. Rebbi Simeon says, one tribe does not drag all tribes. [Even though Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes,] he agrees that only if the ruling came from the ashlar hall. Rebbi Yose said, the reason of that Tanna: From this place which the Eternal will choose. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Bejamin ben Levi: The verse supports him who said that each tribe is called “public”, as it is written: A people and a public of peoples will come from you, and Benjamin was not yet born. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, just as they differ here, so they differ about impurity, as we have stated: If the public was half pure and half impure; pure [people] celebrate the first [Passover] and impure the second. Rebbi Jehudah said, the pure ones celebrate for themselves, and the impure ones celebrate for themselves. They told him, there is no split Passover; either all celebrate in impurity or all celebrate in purity. Who is “they told him”? Following Rebbi Jehudah? As it was stated: “If one of the loaves or one of the (leftovers) [orders] became impure, Rebbi Jehudah said, both have to be brought to be burned for a public offering cannot be split. But the Sages say, the impure in its impurity, and the pure shall be eaten.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, who is “they told him”? The Sages who argue like Rebbi Jehudah.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court ruled and all the public acted,” etc. Who stated “a majority”? Rebbi Meïr, as it was stated: Either half of the tribes or half of each tribe, if only it be a majority. Rebbi Jehudah says, half of each tribe, but only a majority of entire tribes. One tribe drags all tribes. Rebbi Meïr says, all tribes are called “the public”. Rebbi Jehudah says, each single tribe is called “public”. And Rebbi Simeon follows Rebbi Jehudah. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said, each single tribe is called “public”, so Rebbi Simeon says, each single tribe is called “public”. What is between them? Dragging. Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes. Rebbi Simeon says, one tribe does not drag all tribes. [Even though Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes,] he agrees that only if the ruling came from the ashlar hall. Rebbi Yose said, the reason of that Tanna: From this place which the Eternal will choose. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Bejamin ben Levi: The verse supports him who said that each tribe is called “public”, as it is written: A people and a public of peoples will come from you, and Benjamin was not yet born. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, just as they differ here, so they differ about impurity, as we have stated: If the public was half pure and half impure; pure [people] celebrate the first [Passover] and impure the second. Rebbi Jehudah said, the pure ones celebrate for themselves, and the impure ones celebrate for themselves. They told him, there is no split Passover; either all celebrate in impurity or all celebrate in purity. Who is “they told him”? Following Rebbi Jehudah? As it was stated: “If one of the loaves or one of the (leftovers) [orders] became impure, Rebbi Jehudah said, both have to be brought to be burned for a public offering cannot be split. But the Sages say, the impure in its impurity, and the pure shall be eaten.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, who is “they told him”? The Sages who argue like Rebbi Jehudah.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court ruled and all the public acted,” etc. Who stated “a majority”? Rebbi Meïr, as it was stated: Either half of the tribes or half of each tribe, if only it be a majority. Rebbi Jehudah says, half of each tribe, but only a majority of entire tribes. One tribe drags all tribes. Rebbi Meïr says, all tribes are called “the public”. Rebbi Jehudah says, each single tribe is called “public”. And Rebbi Simeon follows Rebbi Jehudah. Just as Rebbi Jehudah said, each single tribe is called “public”, so Rebbi Simeon says, each single tribe is called “public”. What is between them? Dragging. Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes. Rebbi Simeon says, one tribe does not drag all tribes. [Even though Rebbi Jehudah says, one tribe drags all tribes,] he agrees that only if the ruling came from the ashlar hall. Rebbi Yose said, the reason of that Tanna: From this place which the Eternal will choose. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Bejamin ben Levi: The verse supports him who said that each tribe is called “public”, as it is written: A people and a public of peoples will come from you, and Benjamin was not yet born. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, just as they differ here, so they differ about impurity, as we have stated: If the public was half pure and half impure; pure [people] celebrate the first [Passover] and impure the second. Rebbi Jehudah said, the pure ones celebrate for themselves, and the impure ones celebrate for themselves. They told him, there is no split Passover; either all celebrate in impurity or all celebrate in purity. Who is “they told him”? Following Rebbi Jehudah? As it was stated: “If one of the loaves or one of the (leftovers) [orders] became impure, Rebbi Jehudah said, both have to be brought to be burned for a public offering cannot be split. But the Sages say, the impure in its impurity, and the pure shall be eaten.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, who is “they told him”? The Sages who argue like Rebbi Jehudah.

MISHNAH: If the Court ruled and seven tribes or a majority acted on their saying they bring a bull and for idolatry they bring a bull and a goat, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Jehudah says, the seven tribes who sinned bring seven bulls, and the remaining tribes who did not sin bring because of them a bull each, for also those who did not sin each bring a bull because of the sinners. Rebbi Simeon says eight bulls, and for idolatry eight oxen and eight goats, a bull and a goat for each tribe and a bull and a goat for the Court.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court ruled and seven tribes acted,” etc. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in his name, if six sinned and they are a majority. Therefore seven even though they do not form a majority are liable. Rebbi Eleazar said, he only said “six and they are a majority”. Therefore for five, even though they are a majority, they are not liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a baraita said so: Half of the tribes on condition that they be most of the population. And similarly, half of the population on condition that they be most of the tribes. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the question of the Anointed Priest, is it as from the High Court or a lower court?

HALAKHAH: “If the Court ruled and seven tribes acted,” etc. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in his name, if six sinned and they are a majority. Therefore seven even though they do not form a majority are liable. Rebbi Eleazar said, he only said “six and they are a majority”. Therefore for five, even though they are a majority, they are not liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a baraita said so: Half of the tribes on condition that they be most of the population. And similarly, half of the population on condition that they be most of the tribes. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the question of the Anointed Priest, is it as from the High Court or a lower court?

HALAKHAH: “If the Court ruled and seven tribes acted,” etc. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in his name, if six sinned and they are a majority. Therefore seven even though they do not form a majority are liable. Rebbi Eleazar said, he only said “six and they are a majority”. Therefore for five, even though they are a majority, they are not liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a baraita said so: Half of the tribes on condition that they be most of the population. And similarly, half of the population on condition that they be most of the tribes. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the question of the Anointed Priest, is it as from the High Court or a lower court?

HALAKHAH: “If the Court ruled and seven tribes acted,” etc. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in his name, if six sinned and they are a majority. Therefore seven even though they do not form a majority are liable. Rebbi Eleazar said, he only said “six and they are a majority”. Therefore for five, even though they are a majority, they are not liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a baraita said so: Half of the tribes on condition that they be most of the population. And similarly, half of the population on condition that they be most of the tribes. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the question of the Anointed Priest, is it as from the High Court or a lower court?

The poor man and the priest have the same standard of time ! Against this I quote : From what time do we begin to read the Shema' in the evening ? From the time that the day becomes hallowed on the Sabbath-eve. These are the words of R. Eliezer. R. Joshua says : From the time the priests become ritually clean to partake of their Terumah. R. Meir says: From the time the priests bathe so as to be able to partake of their Terumah. (R. Judah asked him, "But do not the priests bathe while it is yet day ?") R. Hannina says : From the time the poor man goes home to eat his bread with salt. R. Ahai (another version : R. Aha) says : From the time when the majority of people go home to have their evening repast.

Rabban Gamaliel replied to him, "Thou art forbidden to enter the Community." R. Joshua said to him, "Thou art permitted to enter the Community." Rabban Gamaliel asked R. Joshua, "But has it not been said, 'An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord '?" (Deut. xxiii. 4). R. Joshua answered him, "Do, then, the Ammonites and Moabites still inherit their lands? Did not Sennacherib, king of Assyria, long ago come up and confuse all the nationalities ? As it is said, 'I have removed the bounds of the peoples, and have robbed their treasures, and have brought down as one mighty the inhabitants' (Is. 10:13) ; and whoever issues [from a mixed body] issues from the majority."

Rabbah b. Bar Hannah was marrying his son into the family of Rab Samuel b. Rab Kattina. He sat beforehand and taught his son : He who is to break the bread is not permitted to do so until the response "Amen" has been completed by all. Rab Hisda said : By the majority.

Rammi b. Hamma asked him, "What difference does the majority make since the benediction has not been completed, the minority having not yet completed it?"

Rab Judah b. Rab Samuel b. Shelat said in the name of Rab : If nine ate corn-food and one ate vegetables, they are to be reckoned together. R. Zera said, "I asked Rab Judah, 'How is it with eight or seven ?' He replied, 'It makes no difference.' Concerning six there was no need for me to ask." R. Jeremiah said to him, "Well hast thou done in not asking [about six]. What is the reason there? Because there is a majority [who have eaten cornfood]." But here also [with six] there is a majority ! But R. Zera was of opinion that we require a clearly recognisable majority.

Rab Judah b. Rab Samuel b. Shelat said in the name of Rab : If nine ate corn-food and one ate vegetables, they are to be reckoned together. R. Zera said, "I asked Rab Judah, 'How is it with eight or seven ?' He replied, 'It makes no difference.' Concerning six there was no need for me to ask." R. Jeremiah said to him, "Well hast thou done in not asking [about six]. What is the reason there? Because there is a majority [who have eaten cornfood]." But here also [with six] there is a majority ! But R. Zera was of opinion that we require a clearly recognisable majority.

Rab Judah b. Rab Samuel b. Shelat said in the name of Rab : If nine ate corn-food and one ate vegetables, they are to be reckoned together. R. Zera said, "I asked Rab Judah, 'How is it with eight or seven ?' He replied, 'It makes no difference.' Concerning six there was no need for me to ask." R. Jeremiah said to him, "Well hast thou done in not asking [about six]. What is the reason there? Because there is a majority [who have eaten cornfood]." But here also [with six] there is a majority ! But R. Zera was of opinion that we require a clearly recognisable majority.

Our Rabbis have taught : Were one walking [at the conclusion of the Sabbath] outside the town and saw a light, if the majority [of the inhabitants] are gentiles, he should not say the benediction [over that light], but if the majority are Israelites, he may say it.

Our Rabbis have taught : Were one walking [at the conclusion of the Sabbath] outside the town and saw a light, if the majority [of the inhabitants] are gentiles, he should not say the benediction [over that light], but if the majority are Israelites, he may say it.

This is self-contradictory ! Thou sayest, "If the majority are gentiles, he should not say the benediction," hence if they are half [gentiles] and half [Israelites] he may say it. Then it continues, "If the majority are Israelites, he may say it," hence if they are half and half, he may not say it !

This is self-contradictory ! Thou sayest, "If the majority are gentiles, he should not say the benediction," hence if they are half [gentiles] and half [Israelites] he may say it. Then it continues, "If the majority are Israelites, he may say it," hence if they are half and half, he may not say it !

It is quite right that even if they are half and half, he should also say the benediction ; but since he taught the first clause "If the majority are gentiles," he also adds "If the majority are Israelites."

It is quite right that even if they are half and half, he should also say the benediction ; but since he taught the first clause "If the majority are gentiles," he also adds "If the majority are Israelites."

Our Rabbis have taught : Were one walking outside the town and smelt a fragrant odour, if the majority [of the inhabitants] are gentiles, he must not pronounce a benediction ; but if the majority are Israelites, he does. R. Jose said : Even if the majority are Israelites he must likewise not pronounce a benediction, because the daughters of Israel use incense for purposes of sorcery.

Our Rabbis have taught : Were one walking outside the town and smelt a fragrant odour, if the majority [of the inhabitants] are gentiles, he must not pronounce a benediction ; but if the majority are Israelites, he does. R. Jose said : Even if the majority are Israelites he must likewise not pronounce a benediction, because the daughters of Israel use incense for purposes of sorcery.

Our Rabbis have taught : Were one walking outside the town and smelt a fragrant odour, if the majority [of the inhabitants] are gentiles, he must not pronounce a benediction ; but if the majority are Israelites, he does. R. Jose said : Even if the majority are Israelites he must likewise not pronounce a benediction, because the daughters of Israel use incense for purposes of sorcery.

But do all of them burn incense for sorcery ? Some for sorcery and some also to perfume their garments ; hence it will be found that the majority [in the town] do not use it for smelling, and where the majority do not use it for smelling, the benediction is not to be pronounced.

But do all of them burn incense for sorcery ? Some for sorcery and some also to perfume their garments ; hence it will be found that the majority [in the town] do not use it for smelling, and where the majority do not use it for smelling, the benediction is not to be pronounced.

"And He said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough [rab]" (ibid. v. 16). R. Eleazar said: Thus spake the Holy One, blessed be He, to the angel, Take for me the chief [rab] among them, so that through him I can punish them for their sins. At that moment Abishai b. Zeruiah died, who was equal [in worth] to the majority of the Sanhedrin.

"A land of olive-oil" [is an allusion to the] land all of whose [minimum] standards [for mandated and forbidden things] is the bulk of an olive. How can it possibly mean all minimum measures? But aren't there those which we have just mentioned? Say rather, ‘The majority of whose [minimum] measures are the bulk of an olive....

From the Torah if it is majority of one's hair and he does mind it, it interposes but if he doesn't mind it does not interpose. But they decreed concerning a case where it is a majority and he doesn't mind on account of a case where it is a majority and he does mind, and [they also decreed] concerning a case where it is a minority and he does mind it on account of a case where it is a majority and he does mind.

From the Torah if it is majority of one's hair and he does mind it, it interposes but if he doesn't mind it does not interpose. But they decreed concerning a case where it is a majority and he doesn't mind on account of a case where it is a majority and he does mind, and [they also decreed] concerning a case where it is a minority and he does mind it on account of a case where it is a majority and he does mind.

From the Torah if it is majority of one's hair and he does mind it, it interposes but if he doesn't mind it does not interpose. But they decreed concerning a case where it is a majority and he doesn't mind on account of a case where it is a majority and he does mind, and [they also decreed] concerning a case where it is a minority and he does mind it on account of a case where it is a majority and he does mind.

From the Torah if it is majority of one's hair and he does mind it, it interposes but if he doesn't mind it does not interpose. But they decreed concerning a case where it is a majority and he doesn't mind on account of a case where it is a majority and he does mind, and [they also decreed] concerning a case where it is a minority and he does mind it on account of a case where it is a majority and he does mind.

Let us also decree concerning a case where it is not a majority and he doesn't mind on account of a case where it is not a majority and he does mind, or on account of a case where it is a majority and he doesn't mind.

Let us also decree concerning a case where it is not a majority and he doesn't mind on account of a case where it is not a majority and he does mind, or on account of a case where it is a majority and he doesn't mind.

Let us also decree concerning a case where it is not a majority and he doesn't mind on account of a case where it is not a majority and he does mind, or on account of a case where it is a majority and he doesn't mind.

And what does R. Eliezer do with "All that are homeborn"? It is needed [to include] a convert who had converted in the meantime or a minor who had reached majority age in the meantime. And the Rabbis [how do they derive this]? Since they said that one may make a Sukkah during the Intermediate Days of the Festival no [special] verse is needed.

But is not this self-contradictory? You said that if the majority of its leaves fell off it is valid and then it is stated, "provided that its plaited quality remains." But since two [of the three leaves] have fallen off, how is it possible to have it "avot"?

7) If a rash spread out on a majority of it, or if its pitom is removed, if it is peeled, split, or perforated so that any part is missing, it is invalid. 8) If a rash spread out on a lesser part of it, if its stem was missing, or if it is perforated but no part of it is missing, it is valid. 9) An etrog [which is black] as an Ethiopian is invalid. 10) An etrog which is green as a leek: a) Rabbi Meir declares it valid b) And Rabbi Judah declares it invalid 11) The minimum size of an etrog: a) Rabbi Meir says: the size of a nut. b) Rabbi Judah says: the size of an egg. 12) The maximum [size] is such that two can be held in one hand, the words of Rabbi Judah. a) Rabbi Yose says, even one that can only be held with his two hands.

If a rash spread out on the majority of it [it is invalid]. R. Hisda said: The following was said by our great Master, may God be his help! This was taught only [where they were] in one place, but if they were in two or three places, [the etrog] is valid. Rava said: On the contrary! If they were in two or three places the etrog is as though it is striped and it is invalid.

and Rav says like the majority.

R' Yosef said, I never heard this. Abaye said to him, You told us and this is how you told us, that Rav did not learn [anything] missing from a kortov in the first clause, R' Yochanan disagreed only the last clause and Rav says like the majority.