📜 Houllin — 11b

that perhaps one of the animals, the scapegoat, is a tereifa. Since it is not slaughtered, but is rather cast from a cliff while alive, there is no way to ascertain that it is not a tereifa. Rather, is the reason we are not concerned for this not due to the fact that we say: Follow the majority of animals, which are not tereifot? And if you would seek to reject that proof and say that there is no need for an examination, as what practical difference is there to us whether it is a tereifa, since it is neither eaten nor sacrificed, and the two goats are fit after the fact even if they are not equal (see Yoma 62a); doesn’t the lot determine the goat for Azazel only with regard to an item, a goat, that is fit for sacrifice to the Lord? And if you would say that we examine the goat after it is cast from the cliff and do not rely on a majority, but didn’t we learn in a mishna (Yoma 67a): The goat did not reach halfway down the mountain until it was torn limb from limb. Rav Mari said: The fact that one follows a non-quantifiable majority is derived from the halakha of one who strikes his father or his mother, with regard to whom the Merciful One states: Kill him (see Exodus 21:15). Rav Mari clarifies: But let us be concerned that perhaps the man that he struck is not actually his father. Rather, is the reason we are not concerned for this not due to the fact that we say: Follow the majority, and the majority of acts of intercourse performed by a married woman are attributable to the husband. The Gemara asks: From where is that conclusion drawn? Perhaps the reference is to a case where at the time he was conceived his mother and father were incarcerated together in prison. Therefore, the fact that it was his father that he struck is based on certainty, not a majority. The Gemara answers: Even so, there is no steward [apotropos] for restraining sexual immorality, and the identity of his father is not based on certainty. Rav Kahana said: It is derived from the halakha of one who kills another person, with regard to whom the Merciful One states: Kill him (see Exodus 21:12). Rav Kahana clarifies: And let us be concerned that perhaps the person that he killed was a tereifa, one who has a wound or condition that will lead to his death within twelve months. One who kills a tereifa is exempt from capital punishment because in that sense, the halakhic status of a tereifa is that of a dead person. Rather, is the reason we are not concerned for this not due to the fact that we say: Follow the majority of people, who are not tereifot? And if you would seek to reject that proof and say that we examine the corpse to determine whether he was a tereifa, wouldn’t the corpse be mutilated through that examination? And if you would say that due to concern for the possibility of an unjustified loss of life of that murderer, we will mutilate the corpse to determine whether the victim was a tereifa, it would remain necessary to rely on the majority, as let us be concerned that perhaps there was a perforation in the place that he stabbed the victim with the sword. Ravina said: It is derived from the halakha of conspiring witnesses, with regard to whom the Merciful One states: “And you shall do unto him as he had conspired to do unto his brother” (Deuteronomy 19:19). If the witnesses testified falsely that a person is guilty of a capital offense, they are liable to receive the death penalty. And let us be concerned that perhaps that person against whom they testified was a tereifa, and they should not be executed for conspiring to have a tereifa executed. Rather, is the reason we are not concerned for this not due to the fact that we say: Follow the majority of people, who are not tereifot? And if you would say in rejection of that proof that we examine the corpse of the executed defendant to determine whether he was a tereifa, but isn’t it taught in a baraita that a distinguished Sage [beribbi] says with regard to witnesses who conspired to have a person killed based on their testimony: If the conspiring witnesses have not yet killed the accused with their testimony, they are executed; but if they killed the accused with their testimony, they are not executed. Rav Ashi said: The principle of following a non-quantifiable majority is derived from the halakha of slaughter itself, with regard to which the Merciful One states: Slaughter the animal and eat it. And let us be concerned that perhaps he is slaughtering the animal in the place of a preexisting perforation. Rather, is the reason we are not concerned for this not due to the fact that we say: Follow the majority of animals that are not tereifot? Rav Ashi said: I stated this halakha before Rav Kahana, and some say that Rav Kahana stated this halakha before Rav Shimi, and the Sage before whom the halakha was stated said to the one who stated it: And perhaps where it is possible to examine the situation it is possible, and the majority is not followed; but where it is not possible to examine the situation it is not possible, and the majority is followed. As if you do not say so, then according to Rabbi Meir, who despite the existence of a majority takes the minority into consideration and does not follow the majority, is it indeed true that one does not eat meat due to the concern that there was a perforation in the place that he slaughtered the animal? And if you would say, indeed, according to Rabbi Meir it is prohibited to eat meat,