minority

If the community or the majority thereof was unclean, or if the priests were unclean and the community clean, they make [the pesah sacrifice] in uncleanness. If a minority of the community were unclean: those who are clean observe the first [Pesah], while those who are unclean observe the second.

The inhabitants of a city seduced into worshipping idols have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “Certain men, wicked persons, have gone out from among you and seduced the inhabitants of their town” (Deuteronomy 13:14). They are not executed unless the seducers are of that city and that tribe, and until the majority of the city are seduced, and the seducers are men. If women or minors seduced it, or if a minority of the city were seduced, or if the seducers were from outside the city, they are treated as individuals, and therefore two witnesses and a formal warning are necessary for each [offender]. In this [the penalty of] individuals is severer than [that of] the multitudes, for individuals are stoned, therefore their property is saved; but the multitudes are decapitated; hence their possessions are destroyed.

If a hatat becomes mixed up with an olah, or an olah with a hatat, were it even one in ten thousand, they all must be left to die. If a hatat becomes mixed up with [unassigned] obligatory [bird] offerings, the only ones that are valid are those that correspond to the number of hatats among the obligatory offerings. Similarly, if an olah becomes mixed up with [unassigned] obligatory [bird] offerings, the only ones that are valid are those that correspond to the number of olot among the obligatory offerings [This rule holds true] whether the [unassigned] obligatory offerings are in the majority and the freewill-offerings in the minority, or the freewill-offerings are in the majority and those that are obligatory in the minority, or whether they are both equal in number.

If a hatat becomes mixed up with an olah, or an olah with a hatat, were it even one in ten thousand, they all must be left to die. If a hatat becomes mixed up with [unassigned] obligatory [bird] offerings, the only ones that are valid are those that correspond to the number of hatats among the obligatory offerings. Similarly, if an olah becomes mixed up with [unassigned] obligatory [bird] offerings, the only ones that are valid are those that correspond to the number of olot among the obligatory offerings [This rule holds true] whether the [unassigned] obligatory offerings are in the majority and the freewill-offerings in the minority, or the freewill-offerings are in the majority and those that are obligatory in the minority, or whether they are both equal in number.

From the Patriarch they sent Nicolaus dates to Rebbi Ḥanina bar Sisai. He left them for dessert after his meal and recited a benediction over them before and after. Rav Ḥuna ate dates with his bread. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said to him, are you disagreeing with your teacher? Leave them for dessert after your meal and you may recite a benediction over them before and after. He said to him, they are the main thing my teeth get to bite. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose went to the marriage feast of Rebbi Ḥanina Eyntanaya. They brought before them kisnīn bread after the meal. They said, let us leave our learning and let us bring a baraita: Rebbi Mana stated in the name of Rebbi Yehudah, who said in the name of Rebbi Yose the Galilean: Bread that comes kisnīn after the meal needs a benediction before and after. They said, since they are the minority and the rabbis disagree with them, let us act following the rabbis.

From one who has mostly merit and a minority of sins they collect in this world for the minority of light sins in order to give him his complete reward in the future. But to one who has mostly sins and a minority of merits they give the reward for light merits in this world in order to collect from him his complete punishment in the future world. But from one who tears away the yoke, who breaks the covenant, and who finds aspects in the Torah, even though he has meritorious deeds to his credit, they exact payment in this world and the capital remains for him in the future world. Idolatry and incest and adultery, Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose: One says, among the easy ones, and one says, among the hard ones. What are we talking about? If he repented, there is nothing that stands in the way of those who repent. But what we are talking about is one who did not repent but died in pain.

From one who has mostly merit and a minority of sins they collect in this world for the minority of light sins in order to give him his complete reward in the future. But to one who has mostly sins and a minority of merits they give the reward for light merits in this world in order to collect from him his complete punishment in the future world. But from one who tears away the yoke, who breaks the covenant, and who finds aspects in the Torah, even though he has meritorious deeds to his credit, they exact payment in this world and the capital remains for him in the future world. Idolatry and incest and adultery, Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose: One says, among the easy ones, and one says, among the hard ones. What are we talking about? If he repented, there is nothing that stands in the way of those who repent. But what we are talking about is one who did not repent but died in pain.

From one who has mostly merit and a minority of sins they collect in this world for the minority of light sins in order to give him his complete reward in the future. But to one who has mostly sins and a minority of merits they give the reward for light merits in this world in order to collect from him his complete punishment in the future world. But from one who tears away the yoke, who breaks the covenant, and who finds aspects in the Torah, even though he has meritorious deeds to his credit, they exact payment in this world and the capital remains for him in the future world. Idolatry and incest and adultery, Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose: One says, among the easy ones, and one says, among the hard ones. What are we talking about? If he repented, there is nothing that stands in the way of those who repent. But what we are talking about is one who did not repent but died in pain.

Rebbi Lazar said, they stated the Mishnah only for him who buys from a Gentile, but for him who buys from a Jew it is demay. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no difference, whether one buys from a Jew or from a Gentile it is demay. Rebbi Eleazar holds that most of the Land of Israel is in the hands of the Gentiles. Rebbi Joḥanan holds that most of the Land of Israel is in the hands of Jews. But even if Rebbi Eleazar agrees with Rebbi Joḥanan that most of the Land of Israel is in the hands of Jews, Rebbi Eleazar is anxious about a minority. Like that fortification, if for one day it got supplies from a forbidden source, that day will become proof for all days. Rebbi Yose asked: If that is so, a prospective proselyte who comes to convert should not be accepted; I say he is from Ammon and Moab, and one proselyte would become proof for all proselytes. Hence, Rebbi Eleazar must hold that most of the Land of Israel is in the hands of Gentiles and Rebbi Joḥanan must hold that most of the Land of Israel is in the hands of Jews.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “The Cohanim are permitted in all cases to change the preparation of the food, to eat it broiled, cooked a long time, or plain; to add profane and heave spices, the words of Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Meïr says, he should not add [heave spices], to cause heave to become unusable.” It turns out that the anonymous statement here becomes the minority opinion there. Is the anonymous statement here the minority opinion there? But the anonymous statement here is the opinion of Rebbi Meïr there and between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, practice follows Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Assi said, I asked those of the House of Rebbi Yannai and they said, we used to cook small portions and eat. How is that? Practice follows Rebbi Meïr there for his is the anonymous opinion here.

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated: “The Cohanim are permitted in all cases to change the preparation of the food, to eat it broiled, cooked a long time, or plain; to add profane and heave spices, the words of Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Meïr says, he should not add [heave spices], to cause heave to become unusable.” It turns out that the anonymous statement here becomes the minority opinion there. Is the anonymous statement here the minority opinion there? But the anonymous statement here is the opinion of Rebbi Meïr there and between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, practice follows Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Assi said, I asked those of the House of Rebbi Yannai and they said, we used to cook small portions and eat. How is that? Practice follows Rebbi Meïr there for his is the anonymous opinion here.

MISHNAH: One seah of impure heave which fell into 100 seah of pure heave, the House of Shammai forbid and the House of Hillel permit. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: Since pure it is forbidden to outsiders and impure is forbidden to priests; just as pure [heave] can be lifted, so impure should be lifted. The House of Shammai answered them no, if simple profane produce which is permitted to outsiders lets pure [heave] be lifted, can one infer that heave, operating under stringent rules, may let the impure be lifted? After they conceded, Rebbi Eliezer said it should be lifted and burned but the Sages say, it was lost in its minority. One seah of heave which fell into one hundred, was taken out, and fell into another place: Rebbi Eliezer says it creates dema‘ like certain heave but the Sages say, it creates heave only in proportion. One seah of heave which fell into less than one hundred and made it dema‘ and from the dema‘ fell into another place; Rebbi Eliezer says it creates dema‘ like certain heave but the Sages say, dema‘ creates heave only in proportion; sour agent makes sour only in proportion, and drawn water invalidates a ritual bath only in proportion. One seah of heave which fell into one hundred, was taken out, and another one fell in: the latter is permitted until there will be more heave than profane. A seah of heave fell into 100 [profane] and before he managed to lift it, another one fell in: that is forbidden but Rebbi Simeon permits it.

Are they not pressed in the houses? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, explain it where most people press in the fields. Rebbi Zeїra asked: Is it not recognizable whether it is pressed or not? Rebbi Saul said, sometime it jumps from under the roller, then it is pressed and looks as if not pressed. Sometimes a foot squeezes it, then it is not pressed and looks like pressed. Rebbi Eleazar said, that is, at a place where most people are not pressing in the fields. But at a place where most people are pressing in the fields, those who pressed and the minority who will press in the future are added together.

MISHNAH: If the public or a majority of it were impure or the Cohanim were impure and the public pure, it should be brought in impurity. If a minority of the public were impure, the pure people make the first and the impure the second.

In Rebbi Meïr’s opinion, how does one act if they are half and half? As majority or as minority? If you are saying as a majority, the pure persons cannot make the First. If you are saying as a minority, the impure persons cannot make the Second. Rebbi Yose said, he did not say that a majority of pure persons cannot make the First, a majority of impure persons cannot make the Second. He only said, a majority of impure persons is not pushed to the Second Pesaḥ.

In Rebbi Meïr’s opinion, how does one act if they are half and half? As majority or as minority? If you are saying as a majority, the pure persons cannot make the First. If you are saying as a minority, the impure persons cannot make the Second. Rebbi Yose said, he did not say that a majority of pure persons cannot make the First, a majority of impure persons cannot make the Second. He only said, a majority of impure persons is not pushed to the Second Pesaḥ.

If most of the public were pure but a minority impure, and some of the pure died between slaughter and pouring. After what are you going? Slaughter [or] pouring? If you are saying after slaughter, one does not celebrate in impurity; if you are saying after pouring, one celebrates in impurity. If most of the public were impure but a minority pure, and of the impure died between slaughter and pouring. After what are you going? Slaughter or pouring? If you are saying after slaughter, one celebrates in impurity; if you are saying after pouring, one does not celebrate in impurity.

If most of the public were pure but a minority impure, and some of the pure died between slaughter and pouring. After what are you going? Slaughter [or] pouring? If you are saying after slaughter, one does not celebrate in impurity; if you are saying after pouring, one celebrates in impurity. If most of the public were impure but a minority pure, and of the impure died between slaughter and pouring. After what are you going? Slaughter or pouring? If you are saying after slaughter, one celebrates in impurity; if you are saying after pouring, one does not celebrate in impurity.

MISHNAH: All spittle found in Jerusalem is pure except on the Upper Market, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, on all other days of the year, those in the middle of the road are impure, and those on the sides pure. On holidays, those in the middle of the road are pure and those on the sides impure since the minority will remove themselves to the sides. All implements which are found in Jerusalem on the road descending to the place of immersion are impure, on the way ascending they are pure since they were brought down on a way different from that on which they were brought up, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, all are pure except the bag and the rake set apart for graves. If a knife was found on the Fourteenth, one may slaughter with it immediately; on the Thirteenth one has to repeat and immerse. A dagger in either case one has to repeat and immerse. If the Fourteenth falls on a Sabbath, one may slaughter with it immediately; on the Fifteenth one may slaughter with it immediately. If it was tied to a knife its status is that of the knife.

There, we have stated: “About rural pans, that they are pure in a tent with a corpse but impure if carried by a person afflicted with gonorrhea. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq says, even if carried by a person afflicted with gonorrhea they are pure since their production was not finished.” It turns out that the minority opinion here corresponds to the majority opinion there and the minority opinion there corresponds to the majority opinion here.

There, we have stated: “About rural pans, that they are pure in a tent with a corpse but impure if carried by a person afflicted with gonorrhea. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq says, even if carried by a person afflicted with gonorrhea they are pure since their production was not finished.” It turns out that the minority opinion here corresponds to the majority opinion there and the minority opinion there corresponds to the majority opinion here.

Why does the verse say: “and the half of it”? This teaches that a minority was on Mount Gerizim and a majority on Mount Ebal. Why? Because the tribe of Levi was not completely there. For if the tribe of Levi had been completely there, they would have been equal. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: If the tribe of Levi had been completely there, they would not have been equal. Why? Since already 24’000 had fallen at Shiṭṭim from the tribe of Simeon. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if the tribe of Levi had been completely there, they would have been equal. Why? Because from the tribes of Reuben and Gad only 40’000 front line troops came there.

MISHNAH: In the following cases, one is trustworthy to testify as an adult about what one saw in one’s minority. A man is trustworthy to say, this is my father’s handwriting, my teacher’s handwriting, my brother’s handwriting; I remember that this person went out in hinuma and uncovered hair, or that this man left school to immerse himself to eat heave, or that he took his part with us on the threshing floor, or that this place is bet happeras, or this far we went on the Sabbath. But a person is not trustworthy to say that X had a right of way at this place, or that X had a space for eulogies at this place.

“In the following cases, one is trustworthy to testify as an adult about what he saw in his minority,” etc. They are only trustworthy as adults about what they saw as minors; therefore, not as minors! There, we have stated: “A woman or a minor are trustworthy when they said, from there a swarm of bees left. He then can enter another’s field and take his swarm.” And here, you say so? Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said this only about a swarm of bees because taking it is not robbery by biblical standards. Rav Oshaiah stated, only if it is swarming. But not if it clings to a branch. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: Is that not reasonable only when it happens, but not after some time? He said to him, I agree. And we have stated: When is this said? When they testified to what they said. But if they left and came back, I am saying that they speak out of fear or were seduced.

Rebbi Jacob bar Idi, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It turns out that the minority opinion here is the majority opinion there and vice-versa. As it was stated: “One who makes a vow to abstain from meat is forbidden all kinds of meat, is forbidden head, feet, neck, heart, and liver. But he is permitted fish meat and grasshoppers. In this vein, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, intestines are not meat and those who eat them are not humans.”

A majority of merits and a minority of transgressions: they let him pay for the minority of transgressions in this world in order to give him his complete recompense in the Future World. A majority of transgressions and a minority of merits: they give him the reward for his merits in this world in order to make him pay completely in the Future World.

A majority of merits and a minority of transgressions: they let him pay for the minority of transgressions in this world in order to give him his complete recompense in the Future World. A majority of transgressions and a minority of merits: they give him the reward for his merits in this world in order to make him pay completely in the Future World.

A majority of merits and a minority of transgressions: they let him pay for the minority of transgressions in this world in order to give him his complete recompense in the Future World. A majority of transgressions and a minority of merits: they give him the reward for his merits in this world in order to make him pay completely in the Future World.

MISHNAH: The people of a seduced town have no part in the World to Come, as it is said: Useless menleft your midstand seduced the inhabitants of their town as follows. Therefore they cannot be executed unless the seducers be from that town and from that tribe, unless the majority was seduced, unless the seducers were men. If women or minors seduced them, or if a minority were seduced, they are single individuals and need two witnesses and warning for each single one. This is more stringent for individuals than for the multitude since individuals are stoned, therefore their money escapes while the multitude is executed by the sword, therefore their money is lost.

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 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.

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.

Samuel spoke about the Mishnah: “I still am saying, if a minority acted they are liable because the Court will not bring a bull for them. The verse says, [from] the people of the Land. Even [all of them] (part of them), even most of them.” Rebbi Joḥanan explains the Mishnah: I still am saying, if a minority acted without ruling they are liable because with instruction the Court will not bring a bull. Samuel said, but they bring a female sheep or goat. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they do not bring a female sheep or goat. According to Samuel, who infers liability from liability, it is understandable. According to Rebbi Joḥanan, who infers liability from exemption? The statement of a baraita disagrees with Samuel. Or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; this excludes the apostate. A baraita disagrees with Samuel, “A person who would transgress; one would transgress; acting he would transgress; these are restrictions: the person depending on himself is liable, but one dependent on the Court is not liable.” This disagrees with Samuel and cannot be confirmed.

Samuel spoke about the Mishnah: “I still am saying, if a minority acted they are liable because the Court will not bring a bull for them. The verse says, [from] the people of the Land. Even [all of them] (part of them), even most of them.” Rebbi Joḥanan explains the Mishnah: I still am saying, if a minority acted without ruling they are liable because with instruction the Court will not bring a bull. Samuel said, but they bring a female sheep or goat. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they do not bring a female sheep or goat. According to Samuel, who infers liability from liability, it is understandable. According to Rebbi Joḥanan, who infers liability from exemption? The statement of a baraita disagrees with Samuel. Or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; this excludes the apostate. A baraita disagrees with Samuel, “A person who would transgress; one would transgress; acting he would transgress; these are restrictions: the person depending on himself is liable, but one dependent on the Court is not liable.” This disagrees with Samuel and cannot be confirmed.

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.

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?"

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.

R. Joseph said: Accept the version of R. Bibi, since it is Shmuel who rules according to the view of a minority opinion, as we have learned: ‘If a woman was waiting for the yavam [to make his decision], and a [younger] brother of his betrothed her sister, in the name of R. Judah b. Batera they said: They say to him, Wait till your elder brother acts [one way or the other];