חולין 5 — Soncino English Talmud

¹Jehoshaphat would not have kept himself aloof. How do you know this? Shall l say because it is written: I am as thou art, my people as thy people? If so, can [the following words]. ‘My horses as thy horses’, bear such a meaning? You must therefore say that the meaning of the last phrase is: Whatever [burden] shall be on thy horses shall be on my horses; then the first phrase too might mean: Whatever [burden] shall be upon thyself and upon thy men shall be upon myself and upon my men! — Rather it is derived from this verse: Now the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat king of Judah sat each on his throne, arrayed in their robes, in a threshing floor, at the entrance of the gate of Samaria. Now, what is meant by ‘threshing-floor’? Shall l say it is to be taken literally? But surely the entrance of the gate of Samaria was not a threshing-floor! It can only mean [that they sat together] as in the ‘threshing floor’ [the court room], for we learnt: The Sanhedrin sat in the form of a semi-circular threshing-floor so that they might see one another. Can we say that the following supports his [R. ‘Anan's] view? It is written: And the ravens brought him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in the evening, and Rab Judah explained this in the name of Rab that [the ravens brought the flesh] from Ahab's slaughterers! — Being a Divine command it is different. What is meant by ‘the ravens’ [Orebim]? — Rabina said: It means actually ravens. R. Ada b. Manyomi, however, suggested to him: May it not mean two men whose names were Oreb, as we find it written: And they slew Oreb at the rock of Oreb, and Zeeb? — He replied. Could it have happened that both were named Oreb? But perhaps they were so named after the town in which they lived? Just as it is written: And the Arameans had gone out in bands and had brought away captive out of the land of Israel a little maid. Now the difficulty was pointed out; [first] the verse refers to this girl as a maid [na'arah] and then as little [ketannah], and R. Pedath explained this to mean a little girl from the town of Na'aran! — If so, the verse should read Orebiim. Can we say that the following supports his [R. ‘Anan's] view? [For it was taught:] All may slaughter, even a Cuthean, even an uncircumcised Israelite, even an Israelite apostate. Now, what is meant by an uncircumcised Israelite? Shall I say, it is one whose brothers have died as a result of circumcision? Surely such a one is a good Israelite! Clearly, then, it can only mean one who is opposed to the law of circumcision. Let us now read the last statement: ‘Even an Israelite apostate’. What is meant by an Israelite apostate? Shall I say it means one who is opposed to one particular law, then is not this the same as [the case of] an uncircumcised Israelite? Hence it can only mean one who is an apostate in respect of idolatry [and yet he may slaughter] , thus supporting R. ‘Anan's view! — No. I ‘might still maintain that an apostate in respect of idolatry may not [slaughter], for it has been said, Grave is idolatry in that he who denies it is as if he accepts the whole Torah; and by ‘Israelite apostate’ is meant one who is opposed to this particular practice [of shechitah]; [and yet such a one may slaughter] in accordance with Raba's view. An objection was raised: [It is written]. Of you, but not all of you, thus excluding an apostate. Of you, that is, among you [Israelites] does this distinction apply but not among other nations. ‘Of the cattle’ includes persons who are [devoid of merit] like animals; hence [the Rabbis] have declared: One should accept sacrifices from the transgressors in Israel, so that they may be inclined to repent, but not from an Israelite apostate, or from one who offers a wine libation [to idols], or from one who profanes the Sabbath publicly. Now this [Baraitha] is self-contradictory. It says. ‘Of you, but not all of you, thus excluding an apostate’; and then it says: ‘One may accept sacrifices from the transgressors in Israel’! — This is no difficulty. The former statement refers to one who is opposed to the whole Torah, while the latter statement refers to one who is opposed to one particular law. Consider now the last statement of the Baraitha: ‘But not from an Israelite apostate, or from one who offers a wine libation [to idols], or from one who profanes the Sabbath publicly’. What is meant by apostate in this statement? If it means one who is opposed to the whole Torah, then it is identical with the first statement; and if it means one who is opposed to one particular law, then it is inconsistent with the middle statement. Of necessity this must be the meaning of the last statement: But not from an Israelite apostate for offering a wine libation [to idols] or for profaning the Sabbath publicly. This proves that one who is an apostate in respect of idolatry is regarded as opposed to the whole Torah; consequently R. ‘Anan's opinion is refuted. This is a conclusive refutation. But is this rule derived from the above? Surely it is derived from the following statement, which was taught:29^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ

^ᵃnote:By having his own men slaughter for him; for this would give rise to mistrust in the mind of Ahab. Nevertheless Jehoshaphat would not have eaten of Ahab's slaughtering had he been in doubt as to Ahab's observance of the law of Shechitah.
^ᵇnote:I Kings XXII, 4. This verse suggests that the followers of the one king were as reliable in religious matters as the followers of the other king.
^ᶜnote:It is surely impossible for these words to have any religious significance.
^ᵈnote:Meaning: We shall bear the burden equally in the battle.
^ᵉnote:That Jehoshaphat regarded Ahab as reliable in religious matters even though the latter served idols.
^ᶠnote:I Kings XXII, 20.
^ᵍnote:I.e., just as among the Sanhedrin there was trust and friendship between one another so also between Jehoshaphat and Ahab.
^ʰnote:V. Sanh. 36b (Sonc. ed.) p. 230, n. 10.
^ⁱnote:I.e., Elijah.
^ʲnote:I Kings XVII, 6.
^ᵏnote:Thus proving that the meat slaughtered by Ahab's men, though idolaters, was permitted.
^ˡnote:It may have been forbidden food, but God permitted it on that occasion. There is therefore no support from this verse for R. ‘Anan's view.
^ᵐnote:Judg. VII, 25, hence we find a person named Oreb,
^ⁿnote:II Kings V. 2. Heb. vbye vrgb.
^ᵒnote:I.e., a girl over the age of twelve years and one day.
^ᵖnote:I.e., a girl under the age of twelve years and one day.
^ᵠnote:V. I Chron. VII, 28. Thus showing that people were called after the name of the town in which they lived.
^ʳnote:Which would mean: Inhabitants of the town of Oreb.
^ˢnote:V. supra p. 14.
^ᵗnote:V. Sheb. 29a (Sonc. ed.) p. 160, n. 9.
^ᵘnote:And conversely, he who accepts it denies the whole Torah.
^ᵛnote:Supra p. 13.
^ʷnote:Lev. I, 2: When any man of you bringeth an offering unto the Lord, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle.
^ˣnote:‘Of’ has a partitive meaning, i.e, some of you but not all.
^ʸnote:From other nations all may bring offerings to the Temple.
^ᶻnote:Therefore he is precluded from offering sacrifices.
^ᵃᵃnote:Why should it be repeated?
^ᵃᵇnote:Of not accepting sacrifices from apostates.
^ᵃᶜnote:V. Hor. 11a (Sonc. ed.) p. 78,

²Of the common people excludes an apostate. R. Simon b. Jose said in the name of R. Simeon: The verse: And doeth through error any of the things which the Lord his God hath commanded not to be done, and is guilty, implies that only he who repents when he becomes conscious of his sin brings a sacrifice for his error, but he who does not repent on becoming conscious of his sin does not bring a sacrifice for his error. And it was asked: What practical difference is there between them? And R. Hamnuna replied: The difference between them lies in the case of one who, being an apostate in respect of the eating of forbidden fat, brings a sacrifice for having eaten blood [in error]! — [The rule is derived from both passages], but one speaks of the sin-offering, while the other of the burnt offering; and both are required. For if it were taught only in respect of a sin-offering, it would have been argued that the reason why he [the apostate] is precluded is because a sin-offering is brought for an atonement, but a burnt-offering, being in the nature of a gift [to the Lord], we might say should be accepted from him. And on the other hand, if it were taught only in respect of a burnt-offering, it would have been argued that the reason why he is precluded is because there is no obligation on his part to offer it, but a sin-offering, being obligatory, we might say should be accepted from him. [Therefore both statements] are required. But is it a general rule that whenever Scripture uses ‘cattle’ it implies contempt? But is it not written: Man and cattle. Thou preservest, O Lord, and Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: This verse refers to those who are wise in understanding and conduct themselves humbly like cattle? — There is this difference; in the latter verse it reads: ‘Man and cattle’, but in our text it says, cattle by itself. But is it a general rule that whenever Scripture uses ‘Man and cattle’ it implies merit? But is it not written: And I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of mail and with the seed of cattle? — In this latter case Scripture clearly distinguishes between the two, referring to the seed of man separately and to the seed of cattle separately. (Mnemonic: Niklaf[P]). R. Hanan reported in the name of R. Jacob b. Idi, who reported in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi, who reported in the name of Bar Kappara, as follows: R. Gamaliel and his Court took a vote concerning the slaughtering by a Cuthean, and declared it invalid. Thereupon R. Zera suggested to R. Jacob b. Idi: May it not be that my Master heard this ruling only in the case where no Israelite was standing over him? — He retorted: This student is as one who has never studied the law! Where no Israelite was standing over him is it necessary to rule [that it is invalid]. Now, the question arises: Did R. Zera accept [the retort] or not? — Come and hear: R. Nahman b. Isaac reported in the name of R. Assi as follows: I saw R. Johanan eating the flesh of an animal slaughtered by a Cuthean. Even R. Assi ate of the flesh of an animal slaughtered by a Cuthean. Now R. Zera was astonished at this. Could it be that they had not heard of this ruling [of the Court of R. Gamaliel], but had they heard of it they would have abided by it; or did they know of it but did not accept it? In the end R. Zera came to the conclusion: It is reasonable to suppose that they knew of it but did not accept it; for if you were to say that they had not heard of it, but had they known of it they would have accepted it, it is difficult [to understand] how it should come about that such righteous men should eat something forbidden. If the Holy One, Blessed be He, would not permit the beast of the righteous to sin in error. how much less the righteous themselves!^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ

^ᵃᵈnote:Lev. IV, 27. The context of this verse is: And if anyone of the common people sinned through error . . . 28. Then he shall bring for his offering a goat.
^ᵃᵉnote:From whom no sin-offering may be accepted.
^ᵃᶠnote:Lev. IV, 22.
^ᵃᵍnote:I.e., a sin-offering.
^ᵃʰnote:I.e., between the first Tanna and R. Simeon. According to either view, one who is rebellious or opposed to the laws of the Torah is precluded from offering a sacrifice.
^ᵃⁱnote:According to the first Tanna his sacrifice is not accepted because he is an apostate, whereas according to R. Simeon's view it is, for he is not an apostate in respect of that particular law for which he is bringing his sacrifice. It is clear, however, that the rule precluding an apostate from offering sacrifices is derived from the verse quoted in this Baraitha and not from the verse quoted above ‘Of you’.
^ᵃʲnote:I.e., the second Baraitha which derived the rule from the phrase ‘of the common people’.
^ᵃᵏnote:A sin-offering was an obligatory sacrifice to be brought whenever certain sins were committed; a burnt-offering was brought voluntarily as a gift to the Lord.
^ᵃˡnote:And an apostate is not worthy of atonement since he would sin again and again.
^ᵃᵐnote:The Gemara now deals with the statement quoted above: ‘Of the cattle’ includes such persons who are devoid of merit like animals.
^ᵃⁿnote:Ps. XXXVI, 7.
^ᵃᵒnote:Jer. XXXI, 27. V. Sot. 22a. The seed of man is explained as referring to the righteous, and the seed of cattle as referring to the ignorant common people.
^ᵃᵖnote:Lit., ‘peeled’. A mnemonic of the characteristic letters of the respective Rabbis in whose names the statement is reported. N = Hanan, K = Jackob, L = Levi, FP = Kappara.
^ᵃᵠnote:Aliter: This student thinks that men do not study the law.
^ᵃʳnote:Of R. Jacob b. Idi (that it is forbidden to eat of the Cuthean's slaughtering even if an Israelite stands over him) and abide by it.
^ᵃˢnote:R. Johanan and R. Assi.
^ᵃᵗnote:V. infra p. 28.