5) THE SLAUGHTER OF A “MUMAR” (cont.)

(a) Question: Perhaps Achav and his men ate what they slaughtered, and Yehoshafat and his men ate what they slaughtered!
(b) Answer #1: Yehoshafat did not separate himself from Achav.
1. Question: How do we know this?
i. Suggestion: It says, “I am as you, my nation is as your nation”.
ii. Rejection: But it also says “My horses are as your horses” – clearly, he only spoke regarding war!
(c) Answer #2: Rather, from the verse “(Achav) and Yehoshafat … sat … in the Goren of the entrance to the gate of Shomron.”
1. Question: What does Goren mean?
i. Suggestion: If it simply means the threshing floor – the gate of Shomron is not a threshing floor!
2. Answer: Rather, they sat as a Goren.
i. (Mishnah): The Sanhedrin sat as a semi-circle, so they could see each other.
(d) Suggestion: From Eliyahu we can support Rav Anan’s law.
1. (Rav Yehudah): “The Orvim (ravens) brought (Eliyahu) bread and meat” – the meat was from Achav’s slaughterers.
(e) Rejection: No – perhaps the slaughter of a Mumar is forbidden; Hash-m gave special permission to Eliyahu.
1. Question: What were the Orvim?
2. Answer (Ravina): Ravens.
3. Suggestion (Rav Ada Bar Minyomi): Perhaps they were 2 men named Orev.
i. We see that this is a name -“They killed Orev at the rock of Orev”!
4. Rejection (Ravina): It is unreasonable to say that both men had this name.
5. Suggestion: Perhaps they are called Orvim because they come from Orev (as we find elsewhere)!
i. Question: “They captured from Yisrael a Na’arah, a minor” – if she is a Na’arah, she is not a minor!
ii. Answer (R. Pedas): She was a minor from Ne’uran.
6. Rejection: If so, they would be called ‘Orvi’im’.
1) THE SLAUGHTER OF A “MUMAR” IDOLATER
(a) Suggestion: A Beraisa supports Rav Anan.
1. (Beraisa): Anyone may slaughter – even a Kusi, Arel (uncircumcised man), even a Mumar.
2. Question: What is the case of the Arel?
i. Suggestion: If (2 or 3) of his brothers died through circumcision – he is a fully Kosher Yisrael (he should not circumcise himself)!
3. Answer: Rather, he rejects the Mitzvah of circumcision.
4. Question: The end of the Beraisa, says, ‘even a Yisrael Mumar’ – what is the case?
i. Suggestion: If he is a Mumar to 1 (regular) Mitzvah – this is the same as Mumar to circumcision, which was already taught!
5. Answer: Rather, he is a Mumar to idolatry, and we learn that he may slaughter, as Rav Anan!
(b) Rejection: No – really, a Mumar to idolatry may not slaughter.
1. Anyone that admits to idolatry is as one that denies the whole Torah; anyone that denies idolatry is as one that admits to the whole Torah.
2. Rather, the end of the Beraisa speaks of a Mumar to Neveilah, as Rava.
2) “KORBANOS” OF A “MUMAR”
(a) Question (Beraisa): “(One that will offer an Olah) from you” – only certain of you – this excludes a Mumar;
1. “From you” – this distinction is only made among you, not among other nations (any non-Jew may volunteer an Olah).
2. “From an animal” – to include people that resemble animals.
i. This is the source that sinners of Yisrael may bring Korbanos, in order that they should repent.
3. We do not accept Korbanos from a Mumar, one who is Menasech (offers wine libations to idolatry), or one who publicly desecrates Shabbos.
(b) Question: The Beraisa teaches “From you” – to exclude a Mumar; but later it says that sinners of Yisrael may bring Korbanos!
(c) Answer: A Mumar to the whole Torah may not bring sacrifices, a Mumar to 1 Mitzvah may bring.
(d) (End of the Beraisa): A Mumar, a Menasech, or one who publicly desecrates Shabbos (may not bring Korbanos).
(e) Question: What kind of Mumar is this?
1. If he is a Mumar to the whole Torah – the beginning of the Beraisa taught this!
2. If he is a Mumar to 1 Mitzvah – this opposes the middle law of the Beraisa!
(f) Answer: Rather, the end of the Beraisa says, a Mumar who is Menasech or publicly desecrates Shabbos (may not bring Korbanos).
1. This shows that a Mumar to idolatry is like a Mumar to the whole Torah – this refutes Rav Anan.
(g) Question: A different source teaches that a Mumar may not bring Korbanos!
5b—————————————5b

1. (Beraisa): “From commoners” – this excludes a Mumar;
2. R. Shimon Ben Yosi says, “(Or became known to him his sin)” – one who sinned b’Shogeg (by mistake), and would not have sinned knowingly, he brings a Korban; one who would have sinned anyway does not bring a Korban.
3. Question: On what do they argue?
4. Answer (Rav Hamnuna): One who wantonly eats Chelev (forbidden fats), and mistakenly consumed blood. (The first Tana exempts him from a Korban; R. Shimon obligates him.)
(h) Answer: The verses quoted in this Beraisa exempt a Mumar from a Chatas; “From you” disqualifies a Mumar from an Olah brought voluntarily.
1. Both sources are needed.
2. If we only learned that a Mumar is exempt from a Chatas, we would say, this is because he is not fitting for atonement, but he may bring an Olah!
3. If we only learned that a Mumar may not bring Olos, we would say, this is because it is voluntary, but he may bring a Chatas, which is obligatory!
(i) Question: Sometimes people are referred to as animals in a positive way!
1. (Rav Yehudah): “Hash-m will save man and animals” – this refers to men that make themselves (humble) as animals.
(j) Answer: There, it says “man and animals”, the connotation is favorable; when it only says ‘animal’, it is derogatory.
(k) Question: Sometimes it says “man and animals”, the connotation is derogatory!
1. “I will seed Beis Yisrael, the seed of man and the seed of animals”.
(l) Answer: There, the words are separated – ‘the seed of man’ and ‘the seed of animals’.
3) SLAUGHTER OF A “KUSI”
(a) (R. Yakov bar Idi): R. Gamliel and his Beis Din voted, and prohibited the slaughter of Kusim.
(b) Question (R. Zeira): Perhaps that is only when a Yisrael did not supervise? (c) R. Yakov bar Idi: Such a question befits someone that has not learned!
1. It is not necessary to teach that if he slaughtered unsupervised, it is forbidden!
(d) Question: Did R. Zeira accept R. Yakov’s answer?
(e) Answer (we learn from the following episode): R. Yochanan and R. Asi ate from the slaughter of a Kusi.
1. R. Zeira was astonished – did they not hear of R. Gamliel’s decree, or did they not accept it?
2. He concluded: It cannot be that they did not hear it, for if so, they accidentally sinned by eating.
i. Hash-m does not allow a pitfall to come even through animals of Tzadikim, all the more so through Tzadikim themselves!
3. Rather, they heard the decree and opposed it.
(f) (Conclusion): If R. Zeira did not accept the answer – he would say, the decree was on unsupervised slaughter, and they ate from supervised slaughter!
1. Rather, R. Zeira accepted the answer.