and every [case of] kabua’ is like half and half? (1) — Rather, [the difficulty is this]: Let us force them to scatter and then say, whatever is detached, is detached from the majority? — Said Raba: We fear lest [e.g.] ten priests come at the same time and offer them. (2) One of the Rabbis observed to Raba: If so, is the tray forbidden? (3) — [Rather the reason is] because [we fear] lest [e.g.] ten priests come and take them simultaneously. (4) Is that possible? (5) — Rather said Raba: The reason is because of kabua’. (6) Raba said: Since the Rabbis ruled that we must not offer them, if one does offer, it [each animal] does not propitiate. (7) R. Huna b. Judah raised an objection to Raba: If a sin-offering was mixed up with a burnt-offering, or a burntoffering with a sin-offering, (8) even one in ten thousand, all must die. (9) When is this? If the priest consulted [the authorities]. (10) But if the priest did not consult [the authorities], and he sacrificed them [all] above, (11) half are fit and half are unfit; (12) below, half are fit and half are unfit. [If he sacrificed] one above and one below, both are unfit, for I assume [that] the sin-offering was offered above, and the burntoffering below! (13) — Said he to him: (14) This [my ruling] is in accordance with the view that live animals can be [permanently] rejected; the other is in accordance with the view that live animals cannot be [permanently] rejected. (15) But what about slaughtered animals regarding which all agree that they are [permanently] rejected,

---

(1). ↑ This is a general rule in the Talmud: although the majority is always followed, that is only when the minority is not kabua’, fixed, settled in a certain place; otherwise it is equal to the majority; v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 531, n. 4. Here, the forbidden animal being kabua’, is therefore equal to the majority.
(2). ↑ This is now assumed to mean that after they are detached and slaughtered one after the other, ten priests will sprinkle the blood of ten animals or present their emurim (these are the essential acts of offering) simultaneously. Now, where e.g. the ten constitute the majority, they may therefore be assumed to include the forbidden one.
(3). ↑ After each animal has been slaughtered in the presumption that it is permitted, can they now become forbidden when their emurim are on the tray, waiting to be presented at the altar? That is absurd.
(4). ↑ From the confused herd.
(5). ↑ Surely not. Since they are scattered, it is impossible for the priests to take them at the identical moment.
(6). ↑ If we permit this when they are scattered, the priests may come and take them one by one even when they are not scattered, which, as stated above, is forbidden.
(7). ↑ This is a technical expression to denote that the sacrifice is invalid, and the owner still remains liable to his obligation.
(8). ↑ This refers to birds. These cannot be left until they are blemished, as bird-offerings cannot be redeemed.
(9). ↑ Since we do not know now how each is to be sacrificed.
(10). ↑ He asked what he was to do.
(11). ↑ As burnt-offerings.
(12). ↑ And if there was one bird of each, he must bring another for a sin-offering; similarly when it is reversed.
(13). ↑ I.e., this is possible; v. Kin. I, 2 and III, 1. — Thus although the priest is forbidden to offer them in the first place, yet if he does, those offered properly are fit. The same then should apply here.
(14). ↑ Marginal emendation.
(15). ↑ v. p. 295, n. 7, 10.