Answer: Yehoshafat did not separate himself from Achav.

Question: What is the source for this?

Suggestion: "I am like you. My nation is like your nation."

Rejection: It says also "my horses are like your horses." Clearly, he spoke only about war!

Answer: Rather, we learn from "(Achav) and Yehoshafat... sat... in the Goren of the entrance to the gate of Shomron."

Question: What does Goren mean?

It cannot simply mean a threshing floor. The gate of Shomron is not a threshing floor!

Answer: Rather, they sat like a Goren.

(Mishnah): The Sanhedrin sat as a semi-circle, so they could see each other.

Suggestion: From Eliyahu we can support Rav Anan's law.

(Rav Yehudah): "The Orvim (ravens) brought (Eliyahu) bread and meat" - the meat was from Achav's slaughterers.

Rejection: Perhaps Shechitas Mumar is forbidden, but Hash-m gave special permission to Eliyahu.

Question: What were the Orvim?

Answer (Ravina): They were ravens.

Suggestion (Rav Ada bar Minyomi): Perhaps they were two men named Orev!

We find that this is a name -"they killed Orev at the rock of Orev"!

Rejection (Ravina): It is unreasonable to say that both men had this name.

Suggestion: Perhaps they are called Orvim because they come from Orev (like we find elsewhere)!

Question: "They captured from Yisrael a Na'arah, a minor" - if she is a Na'arah, she is not a minor!

Answer (R. Pedas): She was a minor from Ne'uran.

Rejection: If so, they would be called 'Orviyim'.

Suggestion: A Beraisa supports Rav Anan.

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

Question: What is the case of the Arel?

If his brothers died through circumcision, he is a fully Kosher Yisrael!

Answer: Rather, he rejects the Mitzvah of circumcision.

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

If he is a Mumar to one (regular) Mitzvah, this is the same as a Mumar to circumcision, which was already taught!

Answer: Rather, he is a Mumar to idolatry. We learn that he may slaughter, like Rav Anan!

Rejection: No. Really, a Mumar to idolatry may not slaughter.

Anyone who admits to idolatry is like one that denies the whole Torah. Anyone who denies idolatry is like one that admits to the whole Torah.

Rather, the Seifa discusses a Mumar to eat Neveilah (for pleasure), like Rava taught (4a. One checks a knife, and the Mumar slaughters with it.)

Question (Beraisa): "(One who will offer an Olah) from you" connotes only some of you. This excludes a Mumar;

"From you" teaches that we distinguish only among you (Yisraelim), but not among other nations. (Any Nochri may volunteer an Olah.)

"From an animal" includes people who resemble animals'

This is the source that sinners of Yisrael may bring Korbanos, so that they will repent.

We do not accept Korbanos from a Mumar, one who is Menasech (offers wine libations to idolatry), or one who publicly desecrates Shabbos.

Question: The Reisha uses "from you" to exclude a Mumar; and the middle clause permits sinners of Yisrael to bring Korbanos!

Answer: A Mumar to the whole Torah may not bring Korbanos. A Mumar to one Mitzvah may.

(Seifa): A Mumar, a Menasech, or one who publicly desecrates Shabbos (may not bring Korbanos).

Question: What kind of Mumar is this?

If he is a Mumar to the whole Torah, the Reisha taught this!

If he is a Mumar to one Mitzvah, this is unlike the middle clause!

Answer: Rather, the Seifa says that a Mumar who is Menasech or publicly desecrates Shabbos (may not bring Korbanos).

Inference: A Mumar to idolatry is like a Mumar to the whole Torah. This refutes Rav Anan.

Question: A different source teaches that a Mumar may not bring Korbanos!

(Beraisa): "From commoners" excludes a Mumar;

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.

Question: What do they argue about?

Answer (Rav Hamnuna): They argue about one who wantonly eats Chelev (forbidden fats), and mistakenly consumed blood. (The first Tana exempts him from a Korban. R. Shimon obligates him.)

Answer: The verses quoted in this Beraisa exempt a Mumar from a Chatas. "From you" disqualifies a Mumar from a voluntary Olah.

We need both sources.

Had we learned only that a Mumar is exempt from a Chatas, we would say that this is because he is not Kosher for atonement, but he may bring an Olah!

Had we learned only that a Mumar may not bring Olos, we would say that this is because it is voluntary, but he may bring a Chatas, which is obligatory!

Question: (On Amud Aleph, we said that "animal" refers to sinners.) Sometimes 'animal' alludes to people in a positive way!

(Rav Yehudah): "Hash-m will save man and animals" refers to men who make themselves (humble) like animals.

Answer: There, it says "man and animals", so the connotation is favorable. When it only says 'animal', it is derogatory.

Question: Sometimes it says "man and animals", the connotation is derogatory!

"I will seed Beis Yisrael, the seed of man and the seed of animals".

Answer: There, the words are separated - "the seed of man" and "the seed of animals".

(R. Yakov bar Idi): R. Gamliel and his Beis Din voted, and prohibited the Shechitah of Kusim.

Question (R. Zeira): Perhaps that is only when a Yisrael did not supervise?

R. Yakov bar Idi: Such a question befits one who has not learned!

It is not necessary to teach that if he slaughtered unsupervised, it is forbidden!

Question: Did R. Zeira accept R. Yakov's answer?

Answer: (We learn from the following episode.): R. Yochanan and R. Asi ate from the Shechitah of a Kusi.

R. Zeira was astonished. Did they not hear of R. Gamliel's decree, or did they not accept it?

He concluded that it cannot be that they did not hear it, for if so, they accidentally sinned by eating.

Hash-m does not allow a pitfall to come even through animals of Tzadikim, and all the more so through Tzadikim themselves!

Rather, they heard the decree and disagreed.