Study Chullin folio 11B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
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
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
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 God 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
The Talmud 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 Talmud answers
Rav Kahana said: It is derived from the halakha of one who kills another person, with regard to whom God 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