Previous daf

1)

(a) Abaye answers the original Kashya (regarding 'ha'Kol Shochtin u'Shechitasan Kesheirah') differently. He establishes 'ha'Kol Shochtin' by a Kuti, who may Shecht Lechatchilah - as long as a Yisrael watches him Shechting from beginning to end.

(b) If a Yisrael walked in and out during the Shechitah ('Yotzei ve'Nichnas') - Abaye validates the Kuti's Shechitah, but only if the Kuti accepts a piece of meat from the animal that he Shechted and eats it.

(c) The problem with a Kuti's Shechitah is - that even though he is meticulous in the performance of Mitzvos vis-a-vis himself, he cannot be trusted vis-a-vis others, even with a Yisrael Yotzei ve'Nichnas during the Shechitah - because the Kutim do not hold of the La'av of 'Lifnei Iver Lo Siten Michshol' (the prohibition of causing others to sin).

(a) They interpret the Pasuk in Kedoshim - literally, as a prohibition of placing a stumbling-block in front of a blind man.

(b) 'u'Shechitasan Kesheirah' according to Abaye - speaks after one handed them a piece of meat from the animal that they Shechted, and they ate it.

(c) The problem with the Seifa 've'Chulan she'Shachtu, va'Acherim Ro'in Osan, Shechitasan Kesheirah' is - what it can possibly refer to. If it refers to the Shechitah of a Chashu, which it follows in the Mishnah, then the Tana ought have said 've'Im Shachtu' (and not 've'Chulan she'Shachtu'), whereas it cannot refer to that of a Kuti, whose Shechitah is Kasher even Lechatchilah, as long as the Kuti eats the piece of meat that he has been offered, as we just established.

(d) This Kashya remains unanswered.

(a) Rava queries Abaye from a Mishnah in Avodah-Zarah. The Tana there rules that if someone leaves a Nochri in his wine-store, and arranges with a Yisrael to go in from time to time - the wine is Kasher, ostensibly even Lechatchilah.

(b) And what prevents us from learning from there that a Kuti too, may Shecht Lechatchilah under the same circumstances is - the fact that the Tana is talking (not about Lechatchilah, but) Bedi'eved, as 'ha'Meni'ach implies.

(c) Rava does prove his opinion however, from the Seifa of that Mishnah, where the Tana specifically absolves a Shomer (a supervisor) from having to remain on the spot continuously, but is permitted to be a 'Yotzei ve'Nichnas.

(d) The Seifa does not contradict the Reisha, which only permits such a case Bedieved - inasmuch as it is a case of 'Lo Zu Af Zu' (meaning that it permitted not only Bedi'eved, but even Lechatchilah).

(a) So Rava too, establishes our Mishnah by a Kuti, and 'ha'Kol Shochtin' Lechatchilah speaks - by 'Yotzei ve'Nichnas'.

(b) 'u'Shechitasan Kesheirah' Bedi'eved - speaks where the Yisrael arrived after the Kuti Shechted, and the Shechitah is only Kasher if he accepts the piece of meat that he is offered and eats it.

(c) The problem with the Seifa 've'Chulan she'Shachtu va'Acherin Ro'in Osan ... ' is - once again how it speaks, since it can neither refer to a Chashu, as we have already explained, nor can it refer to a Kuti when a Yisrael is Yotzei ve'Nichnas, since then his Shechitah is Kasher even Lechatchilah.

(a) Rav Asi solves the problem in the Mishnah by establishing the case by a Yisrael Mumar - which means either an apostate, or a Yisrael who has thrown off the yoke of one Mitzvah (one who eats Neveilos, in this case).

(b) Based on a statement of Rava, 'ha'Kol Shochtin' speaks - by a Mumar le'Te'avon (who Shechts with a knife that one inspected and handed to him).

(c) A Mumar le'Te'avon' - is one who will only eats Neveilos when it benefits him (but not for example, where Kasher meat is avilable at the same price). We therefore trust his Shechitah here (even Lechatchilah) - because he has nothing to lose by Shechting properly with the pre-inspected knife.

(d) Whereas 'u'Shechitaso Kesheirah' speaks - where he Shechted with his own knife, but which we inspect after the Shechitah.

1. ... previously inspected - because his Shechitah would then be Kasher Lechatchilah (as we just explained).
2. ... not previously inspected, assuming that the knife is available - because then there would be no reason not to inspect it now.
3. ... not previously inspected, assuming that it is not - because then, as long as the knife has not been inspected, why would others supervising the Shechitah render it Kasher? Perhaps the knife was defected?

7)

(a) Ravina learns 'ha'Kol Shochtin', 'ha'Kol Mumchin Shochtin' - with reference to someone who is fluent in Hilchos Shechitah.

(b) This speaks even though he does not have experience, by which we mean - that he has not Shechted at least three times in front of us.

(c) We might otherwise have thought that in spite of his fluency - without experience, perhaps he is a finicky person who faints at the sight of blood, and whose Shechitah can therefore not be trusted.

(d) And ...

1. ... 'u'Shechitasan Kesheirah' refers to - where we did not know at the time that he Shechted, whether he was conversant with Hilchos Shechitah or not, in which case we examine him afterwards. If he passes the examination, then his Shechitah is Kasher.
2. ... 've'Chulan she'Shachtu' refers to where, at the time that he Shechted, we did not know whether he was conversant with Hilchos Shechitah or not, and he subsequently became unavailable for testing.

(a) Alternatively, Ravina learns 'ha'Kol Muchzakin Shochtin', with reference to an experienced Shochet - irrespective of whether we know him to be conversant in Hilchos Shechitah or not.

(b) And ...

1. ... 'u'Shechitasan Kesheirah' then refers to - where he Shechted without our having seen him Shecht before, and his Shechitah is Kasher if he assures us that he did not faint in the process of Shechting.
2. ... 've'Chulan she'Shachtu' refers to - the same circumstances as the previous case, only where he is simply not available to ask.

(a) Ravina ('ha'Kol Shochtin Mumchin/Muchzakin') and Rabah bar Ula ('ha'Kol Shochtin Afilu Tamei be'Chulin') decline to learn like Abaye ('ha'Kol Shochtin Afilu Kuti ... be'Yisrael Omdin al Gabav'), Rava ('ha'Kol Shochtin Afilu Kuti ... be'Yotzei ve'Nichnas') and Rav Ashi ('ha'Kol Shochtin Afilu Yisrael Mumar') - because none of the latter are able to explain 've'Chulan she'Shachtu ... ' (as we explained earlier).

(b) The other Amora'im decline to learn like ...

1. ... Rabah bar Ulah in the first Lashon, which considers the Mishnah in Chulin to be the Ikar - because they consider our Mishnah the Ikar.
2. ... Rabah bar Ulah in the second Lashon, which considers the Mishnah in Zevachim to be the Ikar - because they hold 'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas ha'Kodesh, La'av ke'Kodesh Damu', in which case, a Tamei may even Shecht it Lechatchilah, and it is not necessary to learn Mukdashin on account of it.
3. ... Ravina in the first Lashon ('ha'Kol Mumchin Shochtin') - because they hold of the principle 'Rov Metzuyin Eitzel Shechitah Mumchin Hein (the majority of people who Shecht are experts.
4. ... Ravina in the second Lashon ('ha'Kol Muchzakin Shochtin') - because they are not afraid that the Shochet might faint during the Shechitah.

(c) Rava declines to learn like Abaye, because of his Kashya from the Mishnah in Avodah-Zarah ('Ein ha'Shomer Tzarich Lih'yos Yoshev u'Meshamer ... '). And Abaye declines to learn like Rava - because whereas the Nochri in the store did not touch the wine, whereas the Kuti who Shechted, definitely touched the animal (with the knife). Consequently, whereas by the former (from which Rava cites his proof), Yotze ve'Nishnas is sufficient, by the latter, it is not, since it takes but a split second to render the animal a Neveilah, the moment the Shomer leaves the store.

(a) Rav Ashi declines to learn like Abaye and Rava - because he holds - already at the time of the Mishnah Kutim were Geirei Arayos (not genuine Geirim, as will be explained later).

(b) Abaye declines to learn like Rav Ashi, because he disagrees with Rava ('Yisrael Ochel Neveilos le'Te'avon ... '), on whom Rav Ashi's opinion is based. Rava, on the other hand, obviously concurs with Rav Ashi - and the only reason that he cites 'ha'Kol Shochtin Afilu Kuti ... be'Yotzei ve'Nichnas' is - to counter Abaye (to say that even if one were to establish the Mishnah by a Kuti, it would be by a case of 'Yotzei ve'Nichnas' (and not by 'Omed al Gabav').