Insights and More for Daf 11

The Lots for the Goats

The halachah that that the lot (for the two goats) does not assign the goat to Azazel unless it is fit to be the one offered to Hashem can be explained in two ways. Either, that it is a law in the assigning of the lot - to be regarded as a proper lot - they both have to be fit for the chatas which will be offered to Hashem - if one is found to be a tereifah, it is a deficient lot; or perhaps there is an inherent law that the goat being sent to Azazel must be fit to be offered as the chatas for Hashem; a tereifah is therefore disqualified from being the goat sent to Azazel, and that is why it is not considered a lot. 

Rav Elchanan Wasserman in Koveitz Heoros says that a practical difference between the two explanations is if it became a tereifah after the lot. According to the first explanation it is valid because at the time of the lot it was not a tereifah. According to the second understanding, it is still invalid because the goat being sent to Azazel cannot be a tereifah.

As they Intended

The Mishna teaches us that the zomemin witnesses are only punished if they attempted to have someone executed, but they were found to be zomemin before the defendant was executed (as long as it was after the verdict was handed down). However, if they were discredited through hazamah only after the defendant had been executed, they will not be punished. This is derived from the Scriptural verse: as they intended to do; but not as they actually accomplished.

The Kesef Mishnah explains this seemingly perplexing halachah in two manners:

1.       When the zomemin witnesses actually carry out their plan and the accused is executed - such a sin is of such a magnitude that they cannot get punished in this world. The punishment for such a hideous sin can only take place in the next world- in Gehinnom.

2.       Alternatively, he explains, if the accused was actually executed, we assume that he was indeed guilty and deserved to die. Hashem is present by every court case and it must be attributed to Divine Providence that the second set of witnesses did not arrive until after the defendant was executed.

DAILY MASHAL

By: Meoros HaDaf HaYomi

Most Drunkards

HaGaon Rabbi Yehonasan Eibeschitz zt”l was once asked by a gentile king why he doesn’t convert as gentiles constitute a majority as compared to the Jews. He replied that a majority is only used in case of a doubt but not when the situation is definite. Though this is true, there’s another simple answer. A hundred drunkards do not outweigh one chacham and who is like the wise of Israel who are pure of ulterior motives? (HaGaon E. Wasserman, Beiurei Agadaos ‘al Derech HaPeshat).

From Sacrifices

to Honoring One’s Father

The source of the halachah of the majority stems from sacrifices, which are offered without worrying about treifos. Maharal Tzintz writes that it is possible that we can thus explain the verse “And you will sanctify him for he offers the bread of your G-d” (Vayikra 21:8). You should sanctify the kohen and if you have a doubt if he is a kohen lest his declared father is not his true father (see Chulin 11b: “…and maybe he is not his father”), the answer is “for he offers the bread of your G-d” – learn from sacrifices that we should follow the majority and if so, he’s certainly his father and you should sanctify him (Melo Ha’Omer).

Who Distinguishes Between the Holy and the Mundane

Our sugya says that the two goats of Yom Kippur, the chatas and the goat for Azazel, must be equal. This teaches us that the holy and the mundane are likely to be equal, almost without any difference. How much must we concentrate to know what is holy and what is mundane! (Leket Amarim).

Read more!

Majority in Monetary Halachah

Shmuel states that we do not follow the majority in monetary halachah. We rule in accordance with Shmuel (Tur and Shulchan Aruch C”M 232:23). The Rishonim and Acharonim discuss the rationale and parameters of Shmuel's position, in context of other sources in Shas.

The Gemora implies that if the buyer always buys for plowing, we assume this sale was for plowing as well, and the sale is void. Rashbam says that this is true only when the seller knows the buyer, and therefore had to assume that he was buying it for plowing. Rashi (BK 46a) says that even if the seller does not know the buyer, if we know that he only buys animals for plowing, he may void the sale.

The Gemora also implies that if the price of oxen for plowing is different than the price for meat, then the sale price can prove what the purpose of the purchase was. Although the Sages (77b) rule that we cannot use the sale price to prove what was included in an ambiguous sale, they agree that the sale price can resolve the doubt in the sale of an ox. Rashbam explains that in the earlier case, the simple understanding of the sale (for a plow attachment) would not support the buyer, and the buyer must therefore prove his position. Simply paying a higher price is not a sufficient proof. However, in the case of Shmuel, since we already know that this buyer does sometimes buy oxen for plowing, the sale price can resolve that this sale followed a normal pattern of purchase.

Tosfos (92a vLechze) says that in this case, either side has a support to their position – the buyer has a majority, and the seller has possession. Therefore, the sale price is enough to tip the case to either one's supported position. In the earlier case, the sale price is not enough to support the buyer against the seller, who is supported by both majority (of people who mean only to the plow accessory) and possession (of the purchase money).

The Ramah (quoted by the Tur CM 232) states that Shmuel only precludes following the majority when it would remove money from one currently in possession. Therefore, in the case of the goring ox sold, we allow the seller to retain the purchase money, and may not remove the money based on a majority. However, if the buyer has not yet paid, we allow the buyer to retain the money.
Tosfos (B”K 27b Ka mashma lan) asks how Shmuel is consistent with the fact that we follow majority rule in monetary court cases. Tosfos answers that in a court case, the minority is subsumed in the majority, and neither party is considered in possession, since the court has the power to remove money from anyone's possession.

The Terumas Hadeshen (314) quotes Tosfos saying that Shmuel only precludes majorities that are based on general rules (deductive), but not observed majorities (inductive). This will explain how we can follow a majority in a court case.

The Ketzos in Kuntras hasefeikos (2) quotes the Maharam Chaviv, who explains that the dissenting judges nullify their opinion to the majority opinion, and therefore we are no longer following merely a majority. The Ketzos himself (3) explains that Tosfos is saying that a court has the power to nullify a litigant's possession. Since Shmuel only precludes majorities in monetary halachah due to the possession of a litigant, a court's majority is applicable in monetary cases.

Rav Shimon Shkop (Sha'arai Yosher 3:3) explains Tosfos's explanation of court majority. He states that Shmuel's principle is based on the fact that in monetary halachah, we follow possession, due to simple logic. To defy the current possession, we need a clear proof, and majority is a Torah rule, not a clear proof. However, the Torah rules for a court mandate that its decisions are decided by majority. Once that is decided, the court has full power to render and impose judgments, even in monetary halachah. [See also Chidushei Rabbi Shimon Shkop BK 27, where he explains that court rulings are an attempt to arrive at an intellectual conclusion, based on a majority of opinions. Once that intellectual conclusion has been reached, it has full force in all areas of halachah].

Rav Dovid Lifshitz (Chulin Shiur 22:2) explains, based on Rav Shimon Shkop, that Tosfos means that the minority is subsumed in the majority, just as a minority of non kosher meat is subsumed in a majority of kosher meat. Once that occurs, the court is not simply a majority, but a full unit, all ruling the majority's conclusion. To prove this idea, he notes that if a court of three imposed a judgment based on a 2-1 ruling, if the ruling is reversed, all three judges must equally make amends. This indicates that even the dissenting judge is considered to have ruled the majority's opinion.

Tosfos (Kesuvos 15b l'hachazir) says that Shmuel only precludes majority in a case where the buyer willingly gave his money to the seller, in the context of a sale. To remove that money requires more than a majority. However, in the case of a lost object, whose owner never willingly parted with his property, we do apply majority, to decide if it was lost by a Jew or non Jew.

Tosfos (Sanhedrin 3b Dinei Nefashos) asks why Shmuel does not apply majority to monetary cases. The Gemora proves that we follow a majority of judges in monetary cases with a kal vachomer (a fortiori) from capital court cases. Tosfos asks why this kal vachomer will not apply to Shmuel's case. Tosfos further explains that we apply even deductive majorities in capital cases, and therefore should do so in monetary halachah, as well. Tosfos answers that Shmuel only rejects inferior majorities in monetary halachah, but accepts bona fide majorities in all areas of halachah.

See Bach (CM 232) who explains that an inferior majority is one where only one aspect of the case is a majority. For example, although most oxen sold are for plowing, most buyers buy oxen for meat. A buyer who buys oxen for plowing buys many more than any individual buyer who buys for meat.

See Shev Shma'atsa (4:8-9), who explains that Tosfos in Sanhedrin and Tosfos in Bava Kamma disagree on whether a bona fide majority can be used in monetary halachah.

Read more!

Proximity and Majority

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary http://www.daf-yomi.org




The Gemora cites a braisa: If someone found something without an identifying mark next to something with an identifying mark, he is required to announce it (everything).









The Ketzos Hachoshen asks: Isn’t there an established principle (Bava Basra 23b) that when a conflict arises between a “majority” and a “proximity,” we follow the majority!? If so, why do we assume that the produce originated from the barrel which is nearby, we should say that it fell from a passerby, for that is the majority!?



He answers according to the Ramban, who says that that where something is found in its actual place, that principle does not apply. Since the produce is found within four amos of the utensil, it is regarded as if it is resting in its place – we therefore follow the proximity.



The Chasam Sofer answers that besides the “proximity,” there is a definite claim from the claimant. Accordingly, we do not follow the majority in such cases.



The Chazon Ish answers that when the “proximity” is also a “probability,” we do not follow the majority. Since it is most probable that the produce originated from this container, we do not assume that it fell from a passerby.

Read more!

Majority of Jews

And Rabbi Shimon ben Elozar also said: If one rescues anything from a lion, a bear, a leopard, a hyena, or from the tide of the sea, or from the flood of a river, or if one finds anything on the highway, or in a big public square, or in any place where many people are commonly found, it belongs to the finder because the owner has given it up from recovering them.

They inquired: Did Rabbi Shimon ben Elozar state his halachah (that one may keep a lost object when he finds it in any place where many people are commonly found) only in a place where the majority of the people are Canaanites (for one is not obligated to return a Canaanite’s lost object, and even if it belongs to a Jew, he would have given up hope of recovering it), or did he state his halachah even in a place where the majority of the people are Jews?

Tosfos explains that since it was found in a place where there are many people, there are certainly dishonest people amongst them who will not be concerned about the mitzvah of returning a lost article; therefore, the owner will despair of recovering it.

The Raavad explains that it is because the minority of Canaanites that reside in the area are regarded as significant, and we may assume that it fell from them. And even if it fell from a Jew, the Jew will despair from recovering it, for he will assume that a Canaanite will find it and keep it for himself.

Tosfos asks: Why are these reasons necessary? Could we not apply the principle that we do not follow the majority with respect to monetary law? Let the finder say that perhaps it fell from a Canaanite, and it cannot be taken away from him, for he is a muchzak (he is presently holding it, and there is no proof against him)!?

Tosfos answers that this principle only applies in cases where the money came into his hands with permission; however, in our case, the owner had no knowledge that it entered his possession – the finder’s chazakah is not stronger than the majority.

Read more!

Born into a Mixture - Kiddushin 64

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here

The Mishna states: If a man has two sets of daughters by two wives, and he declares, “I have given my elder daughter in betrothal, but I do not know whether it was the eldest of the elder group (the first marriage) or the eldest of the younger group (the second marriage), or the youngest of the elder group, who is older than the eldest of the younger group,” they are all forbidden, except for the youngest of the younger group. This is Rabbi Meir’s opinion.

The Makneh asks: Why are they all forbidden? Let us apply the principle of “following the majority”! We should say that each one of these women came from the majority of women that are permitted!?

He answers based upon the following opinion of the Mordechai: We say that something becomes nullified in a majority only when it was once recognized, and afterwards it became intermingled with others. However, something which was created in a state of mixture, it is not possible for it to be nullified by the majority. In our case, we never knew which daughter he was referring to and therefore they will all be forbidden.

Read more!

Following the Majority

The Beraisa states (Nedarim 52a): If someone makes a vow not to have oil in Eretz Yisroel, he is permitted to have sesame oil and not olive oil. In Babylon, he may not have sesame oil but he can have olive oil. In a place where both are used, he is forbidden to have both.

The Gemora asks: This is obvious! The Gemora answers: The case is where most people use one kind of oil. One might think that the vow is considered like the usage of most people. This is why the Beraisa tells us that he is forbidden to both oils, because a doubt regarding a prohibition is judged stringently.

The Ra”n explains what we would have thought: Even though there is a minority that makes use of the other kind, there is a possibility that his intention might have been even from those.

The Lechem Mishna asks: Why don’t we follow the majority? Why, in all matters of prohibition, we issue a ruling based upon the majority?

He explains: If it would be a certainty that the vower was referring to the oil used by most people, we would definitely rule that that the vow takes effect only upon that type of oil. However, here he used a language which may include both types of oil, therefore, there is an assumption that he is excluding himself from the majority. We therefore rule stringently and forbid him on both types of oil, since his language can include both.

The Netziv answers that we only follow the majority in cases where the minority is in conflict with the majority. However, here, the minority is not in contradiction with the majority, since he may have intended for both. We therefore rule stringently and forbid him on both types of oil.

Read more!

Calculation for Determining a “Minority of a Minority”

The Beis Yosef (E”H 128) states that a “ten percent chance” is considered a “minority of a minority,” and even Rabbi Meir would not take that amount into consideration.

Sheorim Mitzuyanim B’halacha asks: Why should this be? According to his calculation, even a “fifteen percent chance” should be regarded as a “minority of a minority”? For sixty percent is considered a legitimate majority; this would result in “forty percent” being the minority. If we would divide the “forty percent-minority” into a majority and a minority, it would result in twenty-five percent joining the majority and fifteen percent becoming the “minority of a minority.” Why does the Beis Yosef state that ten percent only is a “minority of a minority,” when according to our calculation, even fifteen percent should be regarded as a “minority of a minority”?

Perhaps, it can be explained by saying that a recognizable majority is needed. Rabbeinu Yonah in Brochos states that a recognizable majority is when there is a two to one ratio. Accordingly, the original minority would be thirty-three percent. A minority of that would be a little more than ten percent. This could be the explanation for the Beis Yosef.

Read more!