(Continuation of Beraisa): Similarly, if one finds a string of birds slaughtered by a Kusi, he cuts the head of one and gives to the Kusi a k'Zayis of the meat. If he eats it, the birds are permitted. If not, they are forbidden.

Abaye leaned from the Reisha of the Beraisa. Rava learned from the Seifa.

Abaye deduced that the Reisha permits him to slaughter only if a Yisrael stands over him, but not if the Yisrael goes in and out.

Rava deduced that the Seifa forbids the animal (if the Kusi will not eat from it) only because the Kusi slaughtered on his own, but if a Yisrael goes in and out, he would be allowed to slaughter.

Question: The Seifa opposes Abaye!

Answer: He holds that if a Yisrael goes in and out, this is like an unsupervised Shechitah.

Question: The Reisha opposes Rava!

Answer: He holds that if a Yisrael goes in and out, this is like a supervised Shechitah.

(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, it is forbidden.

Question: Perhaps only the bird that he ate from was slaughtered properly!

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.

Question: Perhaps the Kusi had a sign which bird was slaughtered properly!

Answer (Rav Mesharshiya): The Yisrael mashed and diced it, so the sign would not be noticed.

Question: Perhaps the Kusi ate it because he believes that the Torah does not require Shechitah of birds! (Only Shechitah of animals is explicit in the Torah.)

Counter-question: Pausing, pressing, Chaladah, Hagramah (if the Shechitah traverses different rings of the Kaneh (windpipe)) or Ikor (uprooting the Kaneh or Veshet (foodpipe)) disqualify Shechitah. These are not explicit in the Torah (yet we trust Kusim to slaughter animals properly)!

Answer: You must say that since they are Muchzakim (established) to be careful about these things, we may rely on them;

Answer: Similarly, since Kusim are Muchzakim to slaughter birds properly, we may rely on them.

Tana'im argue about whether we may rely on Kusim for a Mitzvah that they are Muchzakim in, but the Mitzvah is not written in the Torah.

(Beraisa): Matzah of Kusim is permitted. One who eats it on the first night of Pesach fulfills the Mitzvah;

R. Eliezer forbids it, because they are not careful about the details of Mitzvos;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, every Mitzvah that the Kusim are Muchzakim in, they keep it more meticulously than Yisrael.

Question: Obviously, if their Matzah is permitted, one who eats it fulfills the Mitzvah!

Answer: One might have thought that they are not careful to guard the Matzah Lishmah (with intent for the Mitzvah). The Beraisa teaches that this is not so.

(Beraisa): R. Eliezer forbids it, for they are not careful about the details of Mitzvos.

He holds that they are not careful to guard Matzah (from becoming Chametz).

(Beraisa): R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, every Mitzvah the Kusim are Muchzakim in, they keep it more meticulously than Yisrael.

Question: Also the first Tana says that one may rely on their Matzah!

Answer #1: They argue about Mitzvos written in the Torah in which they are not Muchzakim;

The first Tana holds that one may rely on them for any Mitzvah written in the Torah, even if they are not Muchzakim in it. R. Shimon ben Gamliel holds that one may rely on them only if they are Muchzakim.

Objection: If so, why does R. Shimon say 'every Mitzvah in which they are Muchzakim'? (This implies that he includes more than the first Tana.) He should say, 'if they are Muchzakim in it'!

Answer #2: Rather, they argue about Mitzvos not written in the Torah in which they are Muchzakim;

The first Tana holds that one may not rely on them, since they are not written in the Torah, even though they are Muchzakim. R. Shimon ben Gamliel holds that since they are Muchzakim, one may rely on them.

(Rava): If a Yisrael Mumar eats Neveilos for pleasure:

If one checks a knife, one may let the Mumar slaughter with it. One may eat the animal.

Question: Why is he trusted to Shochet properly?

Answer: Since he can (slaughter properly, and) eat permitted food, he will not (slaughter improperly, and) eat Isur.

Question: If so, why can't we rely on him to check the knife himself?

Answer: If his knife is Pasul, he will not exert himself (to get a proper knife).

Suggestion: A Beraisa supports Rava.

(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 Nochrim).

Assumption: The Beraisa is like R. Yehudah, who holds that if a Yisrael keeps Chametz during Pesach, it is forbidden mid'Oraisa after Pesach.

Rejection: No. The Beraisa is like R. Shimon, who forbids only mid'Rabanan after Pesach.

We are lenient to assume that a Mumar minimizes his sins only regarding (what could be for us) an Isur mid'Rabanan, but not for a Torah Isur (such as Shechitah).

Rejection of rejection: Even if the Beraisa is like R. Shimon, it supports Rava!

It does not say 'we assume that he trades', rather 'he trades', i.e. definitely!

If a Mumar avoids even Isurim mid'Rabanan, all the more so, he avoids Torah Isurim!

Suggestion: Also the following supports Rava.

(Beraisa): Anyone may slaughter, even a Kusi, Arel (uncircumcised man), even a Mumar.

Question: What is the case of an Arel?

If (two or three 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.)

Answer: Rather, he rejects the Mitzvah of circumcision.

The Tana holds that one who rejects one Mitzvah is not like one who rejects the entire Torah.

Question: The Seifa says, 'even a Yisrael Mumar.' What is the case?

If he is a Mumar to a Mitzvah other than Neveilah, this is the same as Mumar to circumcision, which was already taught!

Answer: Rather, he is a Mumar to eat Neveilah, and it says that he may slaughter!

Rejection: No. Really, a Mumar to eat Neveilah cannot be trusted, for he considers it to be permitted!

Rather, the Seifa discusses a Mumar to idolatry. It supports Rav Anan;

(Rav Anan): If a Mumar to idolatry slaughters, the animal is Kosher.

Rav Anan learns from Yehoshafat (who was a Tzadik). He ate from the Shechitah of Achav's entourage, 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 Remos Gilad."

Question: Perhaps Yehoshafat did not eat!

Answer: "He enticed him" (with what he slaughtered).

Question: Perhaps he enticed him with words!

Answer: Enticement is not through words.

Question: It says "if your brother will entice you"!

Answer: That means through food and drink.

Question: It says "(Hash-m) was enticed"!

Answer: That is different. Hash-m does not eat, so it must mean with words.

Question: Perhaps Yehoshafat drank, but did not eat!

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!

Answer: No. really, a Mumar to idolatry is like a Mumar to the entire Torah. (He is considered like a Nochri.) Chachamim had not yet decreed against wine of Nochrim. (However, the Torah forbids Shechitah of a Nochri.)

Answer #1: Kings do not normally drink without eating.

Answer #2: "He slaughtered... and enticed him" - he enticed him through Shechitah.

Question: Perhaps Ovadyah (a Tzadik in Achav's entourage) slaughtered the animals!

Answer: He could not slaughter all of them.

Question: Perhaps the 7000 righteous men slaughtered them!

"I left in Yisrael 7000 men, the knees that did not bow to the (idol) Ba'al".

Answer: They were hiding from Izevel (Achav's wife).

Question: Perhaps Achav's men were righteous!

Answer: This cannot be. "A ruler who heeds falsity, all his servants are wicked." (Chasam Sofer citing Hafla'ah – Ovadyah was second to the king, so he was not drawn after him, but Achav's other servants were drawn after him.)

Question: Perhaps Yehoshafat's men were not Tzadikim, and they ate from the Shechitah of Achav's men, and Yehoshafat ate only from what Ovadyah slaughtered!

Rejection: Since "a ruler who heeds falsity, all his servants are wicked", we infer that a ruler who heeds truth, all his servants are Tzadikim.

Question: Perhaps Achav and his men ate what they slaughtered, and Yehoshafat and his men ate what they slaughtered!