1) THE SLAUGHTER OF A “KUSI”

(a) (Beraisa): If a Kusi slaughters, it is Kosher;
1. This is only if a Yisrael supervises, but if a Kusi slaughtered on his own, one gives him a k’Zayis of the meat. If he eats it, the animal is permitted; if not, not.
(b) Similarly: If one finds a string of birds slaughtered by a Kusi, he cuts the head of one and gives the Kusi a k’Zayis of the meat. If he eats it, the birds are permitted; if not, not.
1. Abaye leaned from the first clause of the Beraisa; Rava learned from the second.
i. Abaye derived: the first clause only permits him to slaughter if a Yisrael stands over him – not if the Yisrael goes in and out.
ii. Rava derived: the second clause only forbids the animal (if the Kusi will not eat from it) because the Kusi slaughtered on his own – but if the Yisrael goes in and out, he would be allowed to slaughter.
2. Question: The second clause opposes Abaye!
3. Answer: He holds that if a Yisrael goes in and out, this is like an unsupervised slaughter.
4. Question: The first clause opposes Rava!
5. Answer: He holds that if a Yisrael goes in and out, this is like a supervised slaughter.
(c) (Beraisa): Similarly: If one finds a string of birds slaughtered by a Kusi, he cuts the head of one and gives the Kusi a k’Zayis of the meat. If he eats it, the birds are permitted; if not, not.
(d) Question: We should be concerned that only the bird he ate from was slaughtered properly!
(e) Answer (Rav Menasheh): The Yisrael put all the birds under his cloak and took out one, so the Kusi does not know which bird he took.
(f) Question: Perhaps the Kusi had a sign, which bird was slaughtered properly!
(g) Answer (Rav Mesharshiya): The Yisrael mashed and diced it, so the sign would not be noticed.
(h) Question: Perhaps the Kusi believes that the Torah does not require birds to be slaughtered (only slaughter of animals is explicit in the Torah), therefore he eats it!
1. Counter-question: Slaughter is also disqualified by pausing, pressing, Chaladah, Hagramah (if the slaughter traverses different rings of the Kaneh (windpipe)) or Ikor (uprooting the Kaneh or Veshet (foodpipe)) – these are not explicit in the Torah (yet Kusim are trusted to slaughter animals properly)!
2. Answer: You must say, since they are Muchzakim (established) to be careful about these things, we may rely on them.
(i) Answer: Similarly, since Kusim are Muchzakim to slaughter birds properly, we may rely on them.
2) FOR WHICH MITZVOS ARE “KUSIM” BELIEVED?
(a) Tana’im argue whether or not we may rely on Kusim regarding a Mitzvah they are Muchzakim in, if the Mitzvah is not written in the Torah.
(b) (Beraisa): Matzah of Kusim is permitted; one who eats it on the first night of Pesach fulfills the Mitzvah;
1. R. Eliezer forbids it, because they are not careful about the details of Mitzvos;
2. R. Shimon Ben Gamliel says, every Mitzvah the Kusim are Muchzakim in, they keep it more meticulously than Yisrael.
(c) Question: Obviously, if their Matzah is permitted, one fulfills the Mitzvah by eating it!
(d) Answer: One might have thought, they are not careful to guard the Matzah Lishmah (with intent for the Mitzvah) – the Beraisa teaches, this is not so.
(e) (Beraisa): R. Eliezer forbids it, because they are not careful about the details of Mitzvos.
1. He holds that they are not careful to guard Matzah (from becoming Chametz).
(f) (Beraisa): R. Shimon Ben Gamliel says, every Mitzvah the Kusim are Muchzakim in, they keep it more meticulously than Yisrael.
(g) Question: The first Tana also says that one may rely on their Matzah!
(h) Answer #1: They argue regarding Mitzvos written in the Torah which they are not Muchzakim in.
1. The first Tana holds, one may rely on them regarding any Mitzvah written in the Torah, even if they are not Muchzakim in it; R. Shimon Ben Gamliel holds, if they are Muchzakim, one may rely on them; if not, not.
(i) Objection: If so, why does R. Shimon say ‘*every* Mitzvah they are Muchzakim in’ (implying that he includes more than the first Tana) – he should say, ‘*if* they are Muchzakim in it’!
(j) Answer #2: Rather, they argue about Mitzvos not written in the Torah which they are Muchzakim in.
1. The first Tana holds, one may not rely on them since they are not written in the Torah, even though they are Muchzakim; R. Shimon Ben Gamliel holds, since they are Muchzakim, one may rely on them.
3) WANTON SINNERS
(a) (Rava): here If a Yisrael Mumar eats Neveilos for pleasure:
1. If one checks a knife, one may let the Mumar slaughter with it; the animal may be eaten.
(b) Question: Why is he trusted to slaughter properly?
(c) Answer: Since he can eat permitted food (by slaughtering properly), he will not eat forbidden food (by slaughtering improperly).
(d) Question: If so, why can’t we rely on him to check the knife himself?
(e) Answer: He will not exert himself (to get a proper knife, if the one he has is invalid).
(f) Suggestion: A Beraisa supports Rava.
1. (Beraisa): If Reuven (transgresses and) keeps Chametz during Pesach, immediately after Pesach, others may benefit from his Chametz, because he trades (his Chametz with that of gentiles).
4b—————————————4b

2. Assumption: The Beraisa is like R. Yehudah, who holds that if a Yisrael keeps Chametz during Pesach, it is forbidden mid’Oraisa after Pesach.
(g) Rejection: No – the Beraisa is as R. Shimon, who says that it is only forbidden mid’Rabanan after Pesach.
1. We are lenient to assume that a Mumar minimizes his sins only regarding (what could be for us) a Rabbinic transgression, not for a Torah transgression (such as slaughter).
(h) Rejection of rejection: Even if the Beraisa is as R. Shimon, it supports Rava!
1. It does not say ‘we assume that he trades’, rather ‘he trades’ – definitely!
2. If a Mumar avoids even Rabbinic prohibitions, all the more so, he avoids Torah prohibitions!
(i) Suggestion: The following also supports Rava.
1. (Beraisa): Anyone may slaughter – even a Kusi, Arel (uncircumcised man), even a Mumar.
2. Question: What is the case of an Arel?
i. If (2 or 3) of his brothers died through circumcision (Tosfos – when they were adults, or after their blood was properly absorbed in the flesh), he is a fully Kosher Yisrael (he should never circumcise himself)!
3. Answer: Rather, he rejects the Mitzvah of circumcision.
i. The Tana holds that one who rejects 1 Mitzvah is not like one who rejects the entire Torah.
4. Question: The end of the Beraisa, says, ‘even a Yisrael Mumar’ – what is the case?
i. Suggestion: If he is a Mumar to a Mitzvah other than Neveilah – this is the same as Mumar to circumcision, which was already taught!
5. Answer: Rather, he is a Mumar to eat Neveilah, and it says that he may slaughter!
(j) Rejection: No – really, a Mumar to eat Neveilah cannot be trusted, for he considers it to be permitted!
1. Rather, the end of the Beraisa speaks of a Mumar to idolatry, it supports Rav Anan.
i. (Rav Anan): If a Mumar to idolatry slaughters, the animal is Kosher.
4) THE SLAUGHTER OF A “MUMAR” IDOLATER
(a) Rav Anan learns from Yehoshafat (who was a Tzadik), he ate from the slaughter of Achav’s men, who were Mumrim to idolatry – “Achav slaughtered flock and cattle in abundance, for Yehoshafat and the people with him, and he enticed him to ascend to Ramos Gilad”.
(b) Question: Perhaps Yehoshafat did not eat!
(c) Answer: It says “He enticed him”.
1. Question: Perhaps he enticed him with words!
2. Answer: Enticement is not through words.
3. Question: But it says, “If your brother will entice you”!
4. Answer: That means, through food and drink.
5. Question: But it says, “(Hash-m) was enticed”!
6. Answer: That is different – Hash-m does not eat, so it must mean with words.
(d) Question: Perhaps Yehoshafat drank, but did not eat!
1. Question: If he drank Achav’s wine, he must hold that a Mumar to idolatry is not like a Mumar to the entire Torah – for the same reason, he may eat!
2. Answer: No – really, a Mumar to idolatry is as a Mumar to the entire Torah (he is considered like a Nochri); Chachamim had not yet decreed against wine of Nochrim;
i. However, the slaughter of a Nochri is forbidden (mid’Oraisa\).
(e) Answer #1: It is not the way of kings to drink without eating.
(f) Answer #2: It says, “He slaughtered and enticed him” – he enticed him through slaughtering.
(g) here Question: Perhaps Ovadyah (a Tzadik) slaughtered the animals!
(h) Answer: He would not be able to slaughter all of them.
(i) Question: Perhaps the 7000 righteous men slaughtered them!
1. “I left in Yisrael 7000 men, the knees that did not bow to the (idol) Ba’al”.
(j) Answer: They were hiding from Izevel.
(k) Question: Perhaps Achav’s men were righteous!
(l) Answer: This cannot be – “A ruler that heeds falsity, all his servants are wicked”
(m) Question: Perhaps Yehoshafat’s men were not Tzadikim, and they ate from the slaughter of Achav’s men, and Yehoshafat only ate from what Ovadyah slaughtered!
(n) Rejection: Since “A ruler that heeds falsity, all his servants are wicked”, we infer, a ruler that heeds truth, all his servants are Tzadikim.