Chullin

baskets of [slaughtered] birds, he cuts off the head of one of the birds and gives to him; if he ate it, then we may eat of his slaughtering; if he did not, then we may not eat of his slaughtering. Now Abaye emphasizes the first part of this statement, whereas Raba emphasizes the second part of the statement.1 Abaye emphasizes the first part of the statement, [viz.] the reason [why the slaughtering of a Cuthean is valid is] that ‘an Israelite was standing over him at the time’, which implies that if the Israelite was merely going in and out it is not sufficient. Raba, on the other hand, emphasizes the second part of this statement, viz, the reason [why the prescribed test is necessary is] because ‘he came and found that [the Cuthean] had slaughtered’, which implies that if the Israelite was going in and out at the time it is in order.2 Now according to Abaye, is not the second clause difficult to explain?3 Abaye will tell you. A person going in and out can also be described as one who came and found that he had slaughtered. And according to Raba, is not the first clause difficult to explain?4 — Raba will say. A person going in and out is regarded as one who is standing over him. ‘And so, too, if [the Israelite] found in the possession of a Cuthean baskets of slaughtered birds, he cuts off the head of one of the birds etc.’. Is this a sufficient test? Perhaps it was only this one bird that he slaughtered properly? — R. Manasseh said, (Mnemonic: putting a knife on rams.)5 This is a case where [the Israelite] put the basket under the lap of his garments [and took out a bird at random]. But perhaps the Cuthean had made a sign on the bird [by which he recognized it]? — R. Merharsheya said: It is a case where [the Israelite] has crushed the bird.6 But may it not be that the Cutheans maintain that birds do not require Shechitah according to the law of the Torah?7 — If you use this argument [you might ask:] Are the rules against pausing, pressing, thrusting, deflecting and tearing,8 specifically written [in the Torah]? What you must therefore admit, is that, since they have adopted these rules, they certainly observe them;9 so in our case, too, since they have adopted [Shechitah for birds], they certainly observe it. Now, as to the observance or non-observance [by the Cutheans] of adopted unwritten customs, there are differences of opinion among Tannaim;10 for it has been taught: The unleavened bread of a Cuthean may be eaten [on Passover] and an Israelite fulfils his obligation by eating of it on the [first night of] Passover.11 R. Eliezer says. It may not be eaten, because they are not versed in the details of the precepts like an Israelite. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says. Whatever precept the Cutheans have adopted, they are very strict in the observance thereof, more so than Israelites. The Master said: ‘The unleavened bread of a Cuthean may be eaten, and an Israelite fulfils his obligation by eating of it on the [first night of] Passover’. Is not this obvious?12 — [No.] You might say that they are not versed in the regulation of careful supervision;13 he, therefore, teaches you [that an Israelite fulfils his obligation by eating of it.] ‘R. Eliezer says. It may not be eaten, because they are not versed in the details of the precepts like an Israelite’; for he is of the opinion that they are not versed in [the regulation of] supervision.14 ‘R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says: Whatever law the Cutheans have adopted, they are very strict in the observance thereof, more so than Israelites’. Is not this view the same as that of the first Tanna?15 — There is this difference between them, namely: A law which is written in the Torah but it is not known whether the Cutheans have adopted it. The first Tanna is of the opinion that, since it is a written law, even though we do not know whether they have adopted it, [we can rely upon them]. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel holds the view that only if they have adopted it can they be relied upon, but not otherwise. If this is so, why does R. Simeon b. Gamaliel say: ‘Whatever precept the Cutheans have adopted’? He should say: ‘If they have adopted it’.16 This, rather, is the real difference between them, namely: An unwritten law which has been adopted by them.17 The first Tanna is of the opinion that, since it is an unwritten law, even though they have adopted it, they do not [observe it]; R. Simeon b. Gamaliel holds the view that, since they have adopted it, they observe it. The [above] text [stated]:18 ‘Raba said: In the case of an Israelite apostate who eats carrion in order to satisfy his appetite, one prepares the knife and gives it to him, and then we may eat of his slaughtering’. What is the reason for this? — Because, since there is the possibility of permissible and forbidden [food]19 he would not leave what is permitted and eat what is forbidden. If so, [should we not argue in like manner] even where a knife is not prepared for him? — No, for he would not go to any trouble.20 Said the Rabbis to Raba. These is [a Baraitha] taught that supports your view, viz: The leavened bread21 of transgressors22 is, immediately after the Passover, going in and out, and Raba who does permit it, both find support for their respective views in the Baraitha cited. without the necessity of administering the olive's bulk of flesh. would not be valid unless the Cuthean ate of the flesh. ‘where the Israelite put the basket . . . ‘ ‘Knife’ v. infra 31a. ‘Rams’ v. infra 51a. does not specifically mention birds. first night of the festival there is an obligation to eat Mazzah, or unleavened bread, which has been carefully supervised and specially prepared for the festival, v. Pes. 400. V. Rashi. Gamaliel, controverting the decision of the first Tanna, who specifically deals with a written law, namely. Mazzah, should have said: ‘If they have adopted it they are reliable’. because of the loss it entails.