Chullin

Jehoshaphat would not have kept himself aloof.1 How do you know this? Shall l say because it is written: I am as thou art, my people as thy people?2 If so, can [the following words]. ‘My horses as thy horses’, bear such a meaning?3 You must therefore say that the meaning of the last phrase is: Whatever [burden] shall be on thy horses shall be on my horses;4 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 it5 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.6 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],7 for we learnt: The Sanhedrin sat in the form of a semi-circular threshing-floor so that they might see one another. 8 Can we say that the following supports his [R. ‘Anan's] view? It is written: And the ravens brought him9 bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in the evening,10 and Rab Judah explained this in the name of Rab that [the ravens brought the flesh] from Ahab's slaughterers!11 — Being a Divine command it is different.12 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?13 — 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.14 Now the difficulty was pointed out; [first] the verse refers to this girl as a maid [na'arah]15 and then as little [ketannah],16 and R. Pedath explained this to mean a little girl from the town of Na'aran!17 — If so, the verse should read Orebiim.18 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.19 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,20 Grave is idolatry in that he who denies it is as if he accepts the whole Torah;21 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.22 An objection was raised: [It is written]. Of you,23 but not all of you,24 thus excluding an apostate. Of you, that is, among you [Israelites] does this distinction apply but not among other nations.25 ‘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,26 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;27 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 rule28 derived from the above? Surely it is derived from the following statement, which was taught:29 Jehoshaphat would not have eaten of Ahab's slaughtering had he been in doubt as to Ahab's observance of the law of Shechitah. followers of the other king. Ahab. verse for R. ‘Anan's view.