1) WHEN ONE NEED NOT RELY ON THE MAJORITY

(a) (Rav Kahana or Rav Simi): All these proofs are in cases where there is no alternative, we must rely on the majority; perhaps, when there is an alternative, we do not rely on the majority!
1. If you will not say so – according to R. Meir, who is concerned for the minority, it should be forbidden to eat meat (lest the animal had a hole where it was slaughtered).
i. Suggestion: Perhaps R. Meir indeed says, one may not eat meat!
ii. Rejection: We know that some meat is permitted – the Korban Pesach and other Korbanos!
2. We must say that R. Meir relies on the majority when there is no alternative;
3. Likewise, perhaps Chachamim rely on the majority only when there is no alternative!
2) DO MOST SLAUGHTERERS KNOW THE LAWS?
(a) (Rav Nachman): If Reuven saw Shimon slaughter from the beginning until the end, he may eat from the slaughter; if not, not.
(b) Question: What is the case?
1. Suggestion: If Reuven knows that Shimon knows the laws of slaughter, why must he see the entire slaughter?
2. Suggestion: If Reuven knows that Shimon does not know the laws, obviously, he must see the entire slaughter!
3. Suggestion: Reuven is unsure whether or not Shimon knows the laws.
4. Objection: We should say, most people that slaughter know the laws (it should be permitted, even if Reuven did not see the slaughter)!
i. (Beraisa): If a slaughtered chicken was found in the market, or if Levi told a Shali’ach to slaughter, and Levi (Rashi, according to Shitah Mekubetzes; Tosfos – the Shali’ach) found the animal slaughtered, we assume that it was slaughtered properly.
ii. We assume that the slaughterer knows the laws, since those that do not know do not slaughter!
(c) Answer: Really, Reuven knows that Shimon does not know the laws; the case is, he saw Shimon cut one Siman.
1. One might have thought, since he cut one properly, we may assume that he cut the second properly.
2. Rav Nachman teaches that this is not so, he must see both Simanim cut – perhaps he happened to cut the first Siman properly, but he paused or Daras while cutting the second Siman.
(d) Question (Rav Dimi bar Yosef): If Reuven asked a messenger to slaughter for him and later found the animal slaughtered, what is the law?
(e) Answer (Rav Nachman): He may assume that it was slaughtered properly.
(f) Question (Rav Dimi bar Yosef): If Reuven asked a messenger to take Ma’aser for him and later found the Ma’aseros separated, what is the law?
(g) Answer (Rav Nachman): He may not assume that the Ma’aseros were separated properly.
(h) Objection (Rav Dimi bar Yosef): This is inconsistent!
1. If Chazakah says that a Shali’ach fulfills his mission, we should also assume that Ma’aseros were separated properly!
2. If there is no such Chazakah, why may we assume that the animal was slaughtered properly?
(i) Answer (Rav Nachman): Really, there is no such Chazakah;
1. Regarding slaughter, even if someone (Ploni) overheard Reuven command the Shali’ach (and Ploni slaughtered the animal), most people that slaughter
know the laws, we assume Ploni is from the majority; 2. Regarding Ma’aser, if Ploni overheard and took Ma’aser for Reuven, it is invalid, for Ma’aser cannot be taken without the owner’s request.
(j) Suggestion: Tana’im argue whether or not most people that slaughter know the laws.
1. (Beraisa – R. Yehudah): Reuven lost his goats and chickens, and found them slaughtered – it is forbidden to eat them;
2. R. Chanina, son of R. Yosi ha’Galili permits them;
3. Rebbi: R. Yehudah’s opinion is Nir’eh (correct) when he found them in a trash heap; R. Chanina’s opinion is Nir’eh when he finds them in the house.
4. Suggestion: R. Yehudah holds, we do not say that most who slaughter know the laws; R. Chanina says, most who slaughter know the laws
(k) Rejection (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): No, all agree that most who slaughter know the laws;
1. If the slaughtered animals are found in the house, all agree that they are permitted; when found in a trash heap in the market, all agree that they are forbidden;
2. They argue when they are found in a trash heap in the house.
i. R. Yehudah holds, a person often casts a Neveilah in a trash heap in his house; R. Chanina holds, he does not.
(l) (Beraisa – Rebbi): R. Yehudah’s opinion is Nir’eh when he found them in a trash heap…
(m) Question: To which trash heap does he refer?
1. He cannot mean a trash heap in the market – Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said, they do not argue in that case!
(n) Answer: Rather, he refers to a trash heap in the house.
(o) Question (end of the Beraisa – Rebbi): R. Chanina’s opinion is Nir’eh when he finds them in the house.
1. Question: In what part of the house did he find them?
i. Suggestion: In the house proper.

ii. Rejection: Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak sad, they do not argue in such a case!
2. Answer: Rather, he found them in a trash heap in the house.
3. Contradiction: In the beginning of the Beraisa, Rebbi agreed with R. Yehudah in this case; in the end of the Beraisa, he sides with R. Chanina!
12b—————————————12b

(p) Answer: Rebbi meant, R. Yehudah’s opinion is Nir’eh (appears correct) *to R. Chanina* (i.e. R. Chanina agrees with him) regarding a trash heap in the market (they are forbidden);
1. They only argue regarding a trash heap in the house, and in this case, R. Chanina’s opinion is Nir’eh (to me, Rebbi).
3) SLAUGHTER WITHOUT INTENT
(a) (Mishnah): Except for a deaf person, lunatic or minor, lest they will slaughter improperly.
1. It does not say, lest they *slaughtered* improperly, rather lest they *will* slaughter improperly.
2. (Rava): This teaches, l’Chatchilah it is forbidden to let them slaughter Chulin.
(b) (Mishnah): If any of them slaughtered while others looked on, the slaughter is Kosher.
(c) Question: Who is the Tana of our Mishnah, who holds that slaughter of Chulin does not require intent?
(d) Answer (Rava): R. Noson.
1. (Beraisa – R. Noson): If a man threw a knife so it should stick into a wall, and as it went it slaughtered normally, the slaughter is valid;
2. Chachamim say, it is invalid.
3. (Oshiya Ze’ira of Chavriya): The law is like R. Noson.
(e) Question: But to slaughter, one must draw the knife back and forth (unless it is a long knife)!
(f) Answer: Indeed, the knife bounced off the wall and cut in the reverse direction as well.
4) CAN A MINOR HAVE INTENT?
(a) Version #1 (R. Chiya Bar Aba citing R. Yochanan) Question: Does intent of a minor take effect?
(b) R. Ami: He should ask whether a minor’s actions take effect!
1. Surely, he knew the Mishnah that teaches that a minor’s actions take effect – the same Mishnah teaches that his intent does not take effect!
i. (Mishnah): A child hollowed out an acorn, pomegranate or nut to measure dirt, or to use in a balance scale – this makes them vessels to Mekabel Tum’ah, because a minor’s actions take effect, his intent does not.