Previous daf

1)

(a) The Beraisa 'Shechitas Kuti Muteres ... ke'she'Yisrael Omed al-Gabav' echoes what initially appears to be Abaye's interpretation of our Mishnah. The Tana goes on to say - that the same applies to a string of Shechted birds that a Kuti is holding, which is permitted as long as the Kuti accepts and eats the head of one of them is cut off and handed to him.

(b)

1. Abaye extrapolates from the Reisha of the Beraisa 'ke'she'Yisrael Omed al-Gabav' - that 'Yotzei ve'Nichnas' will not suffice by Kutim, whereas ...
2. Rava extrapolates from the Seifa 'Ba u'Matz'o she'Shachat, Chotech k'Zayis ve'Nosen Lo' - that it will.

(c) To reconcile ...

1. ... the Seifa with the Reisha, Abaye will explain - that 'Ba u'Matz'o' incorporates Yotzei ve'Nichnas.
2. ... the Reisha with the Seifa, Rava will explain - that 'Yotzei ve'Nichnas' is included in 'Omed al-Gabav'.

(a) To eliminate the suspicion that it was only the one bird which the Kuti Shechted properly, Rav Menasheh establishes the Seifa of the Beraisa, which permits all the birds on the string, on the basis of the fact that the Kuti ate the head of one of them - when the Yisrael hid the birds under his coat (so that the Kuti would not know which one he had produced).

(b) And Rav Mesharshaya adds, to eliminate the added suspicion that the Kuti had marked that particular bird with a Si'man - that he must also squash the head before handing it to him, to remove any possible Si'man that it might contain.

(a) We ask that perhaps the Kutim do not require a bird to be Shechted min ha'Torah (in which case we could not possibly trust their Shechitah). They might exempt a bird from Shechitah - on the grounds that there is no explicit Pasuk that requires it.

(b) We counter this Kashya however, from Shechitah, D'rasah, Chaladah, Hagramah and Ikur - which have no specific Pasuk either (since they are all 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai') ...

(c) ... yet we rely on the Kutim, because they meticulously observe the Mitzvah of Shechitah. By the same token, we can rely on their Shechitah of birds because they are equally meticulous regarding the Shechitah of birds.

(a) The Beraisa discusses Matzos baked by a Kuti. When the Tana Kama states ...

1. ... 'Matzas Kuti Muteres, he means - that one may eat them (because the Kutim can be relied upon not to let them become Chametz.
2. ... 've'Adam Yotzei Bah Yedei Chovaso ba'Pesach', he means - that one can also be Yotzei the Mitzvah of Matzah at the Seider, because they are careful to bake them 'le'Shem Matzas Mitzvah'.

(b) Rebbi Eliezer forbids even eating them - because in his opinion, the Kutim are not conversant with the details of the Mitzvos.

(c) We know that Rebbi Eliezer refers even to the Tana Kama's first statement (to forbid even eating the Kuti's Matzos) - because the word 'Oser' implies that (and not refer to the prohibition of not being Yotzei with them).

(d) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel counters Rebbi Eliezer's argument - by stressing that once a Kuti observe Mitzvos, he observes them more scrupulously than a Yisrael.

(a) In spite of having informed us that the Matzah of a Kuti is permitted, the Tana Kama needs to add that one is Yotzei one's obligation on Pesach - because we might have otherwise thought that whereas the Kutim are expert in baking the Matzos, they are not expert in baking them 'le'Shem Matzas Mitzvah'.

(b) And we have a precedent for this distinction - in the ruling that permits the flour and doughs of Nochrim, provided one eats a 'k'Zayis' of Matzas Mitzvah at the end.

(a) The problem with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's opinion is - that it appears to echo that of the Tana Kama.

(b) We try to answer that they argue over 'Kesiva ve'Lo Achziku', in which case - the Tana Kama believes a Kuti regarding Isurim that are recorded in the Torah (like that of Matzah), even though we have no proof that the Kutim are particular in the observance of that particular Mitzvah), whereas Raban Shimon ben Gamliel does not (unless they are also known to observe them scrupulously).

(c) The problem with this explanation is - that if Raban Shimon ben Gamliel was coming to be more strict than the Tana Kama, he ought to have said (not 'Kol Mitzvos she'Hichziku Bahen Kutim', [in inclusive term] but) 'Im Hichziku Bahen ... ' (which comes to qualify).

(d) So we switch the basis of their Machlokes - to 'de'Lo Kesiva ve'Achzuk', which the Tana Kama forbids, and which Raban Shimon ben Gamliel comes to permit.

(e) This proves - that whether or not, we trust the Kutim with regard to Mitzvos which they scrupulously observe, is in fact, a Machlokes Tana'im.

7)

(a) We elaborate on Rava's previous statement. Rava permits a Kuti to Shecht Lechatchilah, provided one hands him a knife that has been inspected - because since he has the choice of Heter and Isur, he will choose Heter.

(b) Otherwise, he does not allow him to Shecht - because should he discover that the knife is defected, he will not take the trouble to look for another one.

(c) The Beraisa permits the Chametz of sinners (who retained Chametz over Pesach) - immediately after Pesach, because we can safely assume that they will exchange it with the Chametz of a Nochri (which is readily available).

(a) We know that although *we* are permitted to eat that Chametz, the sinners themselves are not - because of the Mishnah in Pesachim, which exempts someone who eats Terumas Chametz on Pesach from paying, because Chametz on Pesach has no value (which would not be the case if Chametz could be exchanged after Pesach).

(b) And the reason that we are allowed to eat it is - because basically, there is no Isur Hana'ah which transfers onto what one exchanges it for, except for Avodas-Kochavim, Hekdesh and Shevi'is.

(c) In spite of the fact that in any event, the sinner is not permitted to eat the proceeds, he goes to the trouble of making the exchange - to minimise the sin of eating Chametz after Pesach (i.e. eating what he exchanges the Chametz for is less of a sin than eating the Chametz itself).

(a) We assume that the author of the Beraisa is Rebbi Yehudah, who holds - that Chametz after Pesach (that was in the possession of a Yisrael on Pesach) is Asur min ha'Torah (a proof that we rely on the sinner exchanging the Isur, even by an Isur d'Oraysa [like Rava].

(b) We attempt to refute the proof by establishing the author as Rebbi Shimon - who holds that Chametz after Pesach is only an Isur mi'de'Rabbanan ...

(c) ... in which case, we will no longer have a proof that we can rely on a sinner even in a case which involves an Isur d'Oraysa (like Rava does).

(a) We reject this explanation however, on the basis of the Lashon 'Mipnei she'Hein Machlifin' - which implies that the cause of the lenient ruling here is because we take for granted that the sinner exchanges the Chametz (and not because in the case of a de'Rabbanan, we assume that he does).

(b) To justify the rejection of the proof for Rava, the Tana would have had to say 'she'Ani Omer Hichlifu'. Establishing the Beraisa like Rebbi Shimon now only serves to fortify the proof - because if the sinners make the effort to exchange the Chametz by an Isur de'Rabbanan, how much more so would they do it by an Isur d'Oraysa.

(c) We try to prove Rava's opinion from another Beraisa 'ha'Kol Shochtin, va'Afilu Kuti, va'Afilu Areil, va'Afilu Yisrael Mumar. 'Areil' refers to - a Mumar le'Arlus.

(d) It cannot refer to someone whose father did not circumcise him on account of his two brothers having both died because of the Milah - since that would not be a reason to disqualify him from Shechting.

(a) We can extrapolate from here - that 'Mumar le'Davar Echad Lo Havi Mumar le'Chol ha'Torah Kulah'.

(b) So as not to repeat 'Mumar le'Arlus' of the Reisha, we attempt to explain the Seifa 'va'Afilu Mumar' with reference to - a Mumar li'Shechitah, a proof for Rava (that even in the very area where a Mumar is suspect, we will believe him if he has an easy option of not sinning).

(c) We refute this proof however, by establishing the Seifa like Rav Anan Amar Shmuel - who says 'Mumar la'Avodas-Kochavim Mutar Le'echol mi'Shechitaso', and the Seifa of the Beraisa too, speaks by a Mumar la'Avodas-Kochavim.

(d) But regarding a Mumar in the area where he is suspect, the Tana will hold - that he cannot be trusted at all, because he considers it pure Heter.

(a) Rav Anan proves his leniency by Mumar la'Avodas-Kochavim from the Pasuk "Va'yizbach Lo Achav Tzon u'Vakar la'Rov ve'la'Am Asher Imo". Achav was doing this on behalf of his brother-in-law Yehoshafat, King of Yehudah, to entice him to accompany him to attack Ramos Gil'ad.

(b) We know that Yehoshafat actually ate from the animals that Achav Shechted - because the Pasuk writes that he enticed him, and the concept of enticing is achieved through eating.

(c) The Pasuk writes ...

1. ... "Ki Yesischa Achicha (in connection with a Meisis) ... " - because, despite the fact the Pasuk only mentions words, eating together is an integral part of the enticing.
2. ... "Va'tesiseni Bo le'Val'o Chinam" (in connection with Hashem) - since, precisely because Hashem does not eat, it refers to words only.

(a) Perhaps, we ask, Yehoshafat only drank but did not eat. And we answer - that if they were allowed to drink their wine, it means that we do not suspect that maybe it was Yayin Nesech, a proof that Mumar la'Avodas-Kochavim, Lo Havi Mumar le'Chol ha'Torah, in which case they may as well have eaten. This is very difficult however, seeing as Rav Anan holds that a Mumar in the area where he is suspect - is indeed a Mumar.

(b) We attempt to refute this proof from the fact - that S'tam Yeinam had not yet been decreed (until the time of Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai), in which case if they had only drunk, there would be no reason to suspect that the wine was forbidden, and we cannot prove from here that the Shechitah of a Mumar is permitted.

(a) We conclude however, that for two reasons they must have eaten, too. One is because the Pasuk writes "Va'yizbach ... Va'yesiseihu", implying that he enticed him by means of the food, rather than the drink. The second proof - is based on the principle that there is no drinking without eating.

(b) We know that it was not ...

1. ... the Navi Ovadyah (who was also a servant of Achav) who performed the Shechitah - because one Shochet would not have sufficed to Shecht "la'Rov" as the Pasuk writes.
2. ... the seven thousand men who did not kneel before Ba'al - since they had to remain in hiding from the wicked Queen Izevel.

(c) We also know that Achav's servants ...

1. ... who performed the Shechitah, were not righteous - because of the principle based on a Pasuk in Mishlei, that a wicked king has wicked servants (though even if they had been, they would not have had to hide from Izevel [like the men who had not knelt before Ba'al]), any more than Ovadyah, who was a servant too, since they were all members of the royal household.
2. ... did not Shecht for Yehoshafat's servants (who were wicked), and Ovadyah Shechted for Yehoshafat - because, again based on the Pasuk in Mishlei, a righteous king has righteous servants.

(d) Finally, we ask how we know that Achav did not eat together with his servants, from their Shechitah, and Yehoshafat together with his servants, from theirs. And we answer - that Yehoshafat did not segregate from Achav, as we will now set out to prove.