מ"ש שלשה דאיכא רובא שנים נמי איכא רובא מאי ג' דקתני תרתי והוא
The Gemara asks: What is different about a case where the pomegranate fell into a group of three other pomegranates? The essential factor is that there is a majority of permitted pomegranates, which nullify the pomegranate that fell from the ten thousand. Even if it fell into a group of two others, there is a majority of permitted items. Why must it fall into a group of three? The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of three that the tanna of this baraita teaches? It means that there were two permitted pomegranates initially, and the pomegranate of uncertain status fell into them, for a total of three.
ואיבעית אימא סבר לה כר' אליעזר
The Gemara returns to the question concerning the opinion of which tanna is followed by Shmuel, who is stringent with regard to a compound uncertainty involving idol worship. And if you wish, say instead that Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as he is similarly stringent with regard to mixtures of items of idol worship, as explained in tractate Avoda Zara (49b).
אמר ר"ל חבית של תרומה שנתערבה במאה חביות ונפלה אחת מהן לים המלח הותרו כולן דאמרינן הך דנפל דאיסורא נפל
§ The Gemara discusses a related topic. Reish Lakish says: In the case of a barrel of teruma produce, which may be eaten only by a priest and his household, that was intermingled with one hundred barrels of non-sacred produce, they are all considered as teruma, as a sealed barrel is significant and is not nullified. And if one of these barrels fell into the Dead Sea, all the barrels are permitted, as we say: Since there is that barrel that fell, the assumption is that it is the prohibited barrel that fell.
ואיצטריך דר"נ ואיצטריך דר"ל דאי מדר"נ הוה אמינא ה"מ עבודת כוכבים דאין לה מתירין אבל תרומה דיש לה מתירין לא
The Gemara comments: And it was necessary for the Gemara to record the ruling of Rav Naḥman with regard to rings used in idol worship, and it was also necessary for the Gemara to record the ruling of Reish Lakish with regard to barrels of teruma, despite the similarity between the two cases. The Gemara elaborates: As, if the halakha were taught only from the ruling of Rav Naḥman, I would say that this matter applies only with regard to a mixture involving an item of idol worship, which has no permitting factors; such items themselves cannot be permitted in any other manner. Therefore, the halakha is to be lenient, i.e., to assume that the prohibited ring fell into the sea. But in the case of teruma, which has permitting factors, as the mixture can be sold in its entirety to priests, perhaps the mixture should not be permitted because one of them fell into the sea.
ואי מדר"ל ה"א חבית דמינכרא נפילתה אבל טבעת דלא מינכרא נפילתה לא צריכי
And conversely, if the halakha was taught only from the ruling of Reish Lakish, I would say that the halakha is lenient only in the case of a barrel of teruma, as its falling is noticeable, and everyone will know that the other barrels were permitted due to the one that fell. Accordingly, they will not come to permit barrels in a similar case where no barrel became separated from the mixture. But with regard to a ring, whose falling is not noticeable, perhaps the rest of the rings should not be permitted. Therefore, both statements are necessary.
אמר רבה לא התיר ר"ל אלא חבית דמינכרא נפילתה אבל תאינה לא ורב יוסף אמר אפילו תאינה כנפילתה כך עלייתה
Rabba says: Reish Lakish deemed the rest of the items permitted only in the case of a barrel, as its falling is noticeable. But in the case of a fig that fell from a group of figs that contained a fig of teruma, Reish Lakish does not deem the rest of the figs permitted, as the one that fell is too small for its fall to be discernible. And Rav Yosef says: Reish Lakish deemed the rest of the items permitted even with regard to a fig. The reason is that just as the initial falling of one fig rendered the entire mixture prohibited, so too, the emerging of one fig from the pile permits the rest.
א"ר אלעזר חבית של תרומה שנפלה בק' חביות פותח אחד מהן ונוטל הימנה כדי דימועה ושותה
Rabbi Elazar says: With regard to a barrel of teruma wine that fell among one hundred barrels of non-sacred wine, it cannot be nullified in its current state, as sealed barrels are significant and are therefore not nullified. How should one proceed? He should open one of them, so that it is no longer an item of significance, and take from it as much as ought to be taken from a normal mixture of teruma and non-sacred produce, i.e., one-hundredth. He should give that to a priest, and then he may drink the rest of the wine.
יתיב רב דימי וקאמר לה להא שמעתא א"ל ר"נ גמע ושתי קא חזינא הכא אלא אימא נפתחה אחת מהן נוטל הימנה כדי דימוע ושותה
Rav Dimi sat and said this halakha, and Rav Naḥman said to him: I see a ruling of: Swallow and drink here, i.e., this formulation indicates that one may act in this manner ab initio, which is puzzling. Rather, say: If one of the barrels was opened, after the fact one may take from it as much as ought to be taken from a normal mixture of teruma and non-sacred produce. He should give that to a priest, and then he may drink the rest of the wine.
א"ר אושעיא חבית של תרומה שנתערבה במאה וחמשים חביות ונפתחו מאה מהן נוטל הימנה כדי דימועה ושותה ושאר אסורין עד שיפתחו לא אמרינן איסורא ברובא איתיה:
With regard to the same issue, Rabbi Oshaya says: In the case of a barrel of teruma wine that was intermingled with 150 barrels of non-sacred wine, and one hundred of them opened, one may take from it as much as ought to be taken from a normal mixture of teruma and non-sacred produce. He should give that to a priest, and then he may drink the rest of the wine. And as for the rest of the fifty barrels, they remain prohibited, i.e., they have teruma status, until they are opened and the ratio of teruma is separated from them. This is because we do not say that the prohibited barrel is in the group that contains the majority of barrels and the one he opens is likely permitted.
הרובע והנרבע כו': בשלמא כולהו לא ידיע אלא האי טריפה היכי דמי אי ידיע ליה ליתי ולישקליה אי לא ידע ליה מנא ידע דאיערב
§ The mishna listed various categories of prohibited animals: An animal that copulated with a person, or an animal that was the object of bestiality, an animal that was set aside for idol worship or one that was worshipped as a deity, an animal that was given as payment to a prostitute or as the price of a dog, or an animal born of a mixture of diverse kinds, or an animal that is a tereifa. The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to all of the other examples in this list, the prohibited animal is not known. In other words, it is physically indistinguishable from the other animals. But with regard to this tereifa animal, what are the circumstances? If, due to its physical impairment, it is known to him which animal it is, let him come and take it from there, and all the other animals will be permitted. If it is not known to him, how does he know that a tereifa animal was intermingled with others in the first place?
אמרי דבי רבי ינאי הכא במאי עסקינן כגון דאיערב נקובת הקוץ בדרוסת הזאב
They say in the school of Rabbi Yannai: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where an animal that was pierced by a thorn, which does not render it a tereifa, was intermingled with an animal that was clawed by a wolf, which renders it a tereifa. Since the skin of both animals has been pierced, one cannot identify the tereifa.
ריש לקיש אמר [כגון] דאיערב בנפולה נפולה נמי ליבדקה קסבר עמדה צריכה מעת לעת הלכה צריכה בדיקה
Reish Lakish says there is a different answer: The mishna is discussing a case where a healthy animal was intermingled with a fallen animal, i.e., one that has fallen from a great height. A fallen animal is prohibited in case it is a tereifa, despite the fact that it bears no external sign of injury. The Gemara raises a difficulty: With regard to a fallen animal as well, let us examine it and see if it can walk by itself, in which case it is not a tereifa. The Gemara answers: According to the opinion of Reish Lakish, even after an examination of this kind it is still a possible tereifa, which is prohibited to be sacrificed upon the altar, as he holds that if an animal fell and stood up again, it requires a twenty-four-hour waiting period to determine if it is in fact injured. Furthermore, even if it both stood up and walked after the fall, it requires inspection after slaughter to determine whether it was injured by the fall and rendered a tereifa.
רבי ירמיה אמר כגון דאיעריב בולד טריפה ור' אליעזר היא דאמר ולד טריפה לא יקרב לגבי מזבח
Rabbi Yirmeya says there is a third answer: The mishna is referring to a case where a healthy animal was intermingled with the offspring of a tereifa, which of course bears no sign of a tereifa. And this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says: The offspring of a tereifa may not be sacrificed upon the altar.
כולהו כרבי ינאי לא אמרי בין נקובת הקוץ לדרוסת הזאב מידע ידיע האי משיך והאי עגיל
The Gemara explains why each of these Sages suggests a different interpretation of the mishna: All of them, i.e., Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yirmeya, do not say that the explanation of the mishna is in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Yannai that an animal pierced by a thorn became mixed up with one clawed by a wolf, as they maintain that the difference between an animal pierced by a thorn and one that was clawed by a wolf is known, as this perforation caused by a wolf is elongated, and that perforation caused by a thorn is round.
כריש לקיש לא אמרי קסברי עמדה אינה צריכה מעת לעת הלכה אינה צריכה בדיקה
The Gemara continues: Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Yirmeya do not say that the explanation of the mishna is in accordance with the explanation of Reish Lakish, that the mishna is discussing a case where a healthy animal became intermingled with one that has fallen, as they hold that if a fallen animal stood, it does not require a twenty-four-hour waiting period, and if it walked it does not require any further inspection after slaughter at all. Consequently, one can simply examine the animals to see if they can walk, and if they can, they are fit.
כר' ירמיה לא אמרי כרבי אליעזר לא מוקמי:
Finally, Rabbi Yannai and Reish Lakish do not say that the explana-tion of the mishna is in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Yirmeya, that the mishna is discussing a case where a healthy animal became intermingled with the offspring of a tereifa, as they do not want to interpret the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer because the halakha does not follow his ruling.
קדשים בקדשים מין במינו כו': והא בעי סמיכה
§ The mishna teaches: In a case where sacrificial animals were intermingled with other sacrificial animals, if it was an animal of one type of offering with animals of the same type of offering, one should sacrifice this animal for the sake of whoever is its owner and one should sacrifice that animal for the sake of whoever is its owner, and both owners fulfill their obligations. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But each animal requires placing hands on its head, a rite that must be performed by its owner, and in this case the owner is unknown.
אמר רב יוסף בקרבן נשים אבל בקרבן אנשים לא
Rav Yosef says: The halakha of the mishna is stated with regard to an offering of women, who do not perform the placing of hands. The Gemara is puzzled by this suggestion: But this indicates that with regard to an offering of men, the halakha stated in the mishna is not applicable, and therefore there is no way of rectifying a mixture of consecrated animals of the same type of offering.