בניו ממזרין

his sons are mamzerim, as he is indifferent to his wife’s engaging in adultery.

ותנא קמא אשתו לא מפקר

The Gemara asks: And the first tanna, why did he not include the ruling that the sons of a heretic are mamzerim? The Gemara answers: In his opinion, a heretic does not release his wife and allow her to engage in adultery.

אמר מר שחיטת נכרי נבלה וניחוש שמא מין הוא אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אין מינין באומות

The Master said in the mishna: Slaughter performed by a gentile renders the animal an unslaughtered carcass. The Gemara challenges this: And let us be concerned that perhaps he is a heretic who is a devout idolater and deriving benefit from his slaughter is prohibited. Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh says: There are no such heretics among the nations of the world.

והא קאחזינן דאיכא אימא אין רוב אומות מינין סבר לה כי הא דאמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן גוים שבחוצה לארץ לאו עובדי עבודה זרה הן אלא מנהג אבותיהן בידיהן

The Gemara asks: But don’t we see that there are? The Gemara answers: Say the majority of the people of the nations of the world are not heretics, and with regard to slaughter one follows the majority. The Gemara notes: Rabba bar Avuh holds in accordance with that which Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The status of gentiles outside of Eretz Yisrael is not that of idol worshippers, as their worship is not motivated by faith and devotion. Rather, it is a traditional custom of their ancestors that was transmitted to them.

אמר רב יוסף בר מניומי אמר רב נחמן אין מינין באומות למאי אילימא לשחיטה השתא שחיטת מין דישראל אמרת אסירא דגוי מבעיא אלא למורידין השתא דישראל מורידין דגוים מבעיא

Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Naḥman says: There are no heretics among the nations of the world, i. e., gentile heretics do not have the halakhic status of actual heretics. The Gemara asks: With regard to what matter did Rav Naḥman state the halakha? If we say that it is with regard to slaughter, now that you said the slaughter of a Jewish heretic is forbidden, is it necessary to say the slaughter of a gentile heretic is forbidden? Rather, it is with regard to the halakha that one lowers them into a pit, i. e., one may kill a heretic, and Rav Naḥman holds that one may not kill them. But this too is difficult, as now if one lowers a Jewish heretic into a pit, is it necessary to say that one lowers a gentile heretic?

אמר רב עוקבא בר חמא לקבל מהן קרבן דתניא מכם ולא כולכם להוציא את המשומד מכם בכם חלקתי ולא באומות

Rav Ukva bar Ḥama said: It is stated with regard to accepting an offering from them, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “ When any person of you shall bring an offering” (Leviticus 1:2): The verse states:“ Of you, ” and not: Of all of you, to exclude the Jewish transgressor who regularly violates a prohibition. Furthermore, God states:“ Of you, ” to mean that among you, the Jews, I distinguished between a transgressor and other Jews, but not among the nations. One accepts an offering from all gentiles, even a heretic.

ממאי דלמא הכי קאמר מישראל מצדיקי קבל מרשיעי לא תקבל אבל באומות העולם כלל כלל לא לא סלקא דעתך דתניא איש מה תלמוד לומר איש איש לרבות הגוים שנודרים נדרים ונדבות כישראל

The Gemara asks: From where do you draw that conclusion? Perhaps this is what the verse is say ing: With regard to offerings from Jews, from righteous Jews accept the offering and from wicked Jews do not accept the offering; but with regard to the nations of the world, do not accept their offerings at all. The Gemara rejects that possibility: That should not enter your mind, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “ Any man [ish ish] from the house of Israel …who shall sacrifice his offering” (Leviticus 22:18): Since it would have been sufficient to write: A man [ish], what is the meaning when the verse states: “ Any man [ish ish]”? It serves to include the gentiles, who may vow to bring vow offerings and gift offerings like a Jew.

ומטמאה במשא פשיטא כיון דנבלה היא מטמאה במשא אמר רבא הכי קתני זו מטמאה במשא ויש לך אחרת שהיא מטמאה אפילו באהל ואיזו זו תקרובת עבודה זרה וכרבי יהודה בן בתירא

§ The mishna states with regard to an animal slaughtered by a gentile: And the carcass imparts ritual impurity through carrying. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious? Since it is considered an unslaughtered carcass it imparts ritual impurity through carrying. Rava said that this is what the tanna is teaching: This slaughtered animal imparts ritual impurity through carrying, and you have another animal that imparts impurity even in a tent, i. e., if one is beneath the same roof with this animal he becomes impure even though he neither touched it nor carried it. And which animal is that? That animal is an idolatrous offering, and this statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira cited below.

איכא דאמרי אמר רבא הכי קתני זו מטמאה במשא ויש לך אחרת שהיא כזו שמטמאה במשא ואינה מטמאה באהל ואיזו זו תקרובת עבודה זרה ודלא כרבי יהודה בן בתירא

There are those who say an alternative version of Rava’s statement: Rava said that this is what the tanna is teaching: This slaughtered animal imparts ritual impurity through carrying, and you have another animal that is like this one in that it imparts ritual impurity through carrying and does not impart impurity in a tent. And which animal is this? This animal is an idolatrous offering, and this statement is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira.

דתניא רבי יהודה בן בתירא אומר מנין לתקרובת עבודה זרה שהיא מטמאה באהל שנאמר ויצמדו לבעל פעור ויאכלו זבחי מתים מה מת מטמא באהל אף תקרובת עבודה זרה מטמאה באהל

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: From where is it derived with regard to an idolatrous offering that it imparts impurity in a tent? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “ They adhered to Ba’al - Peor and ate the offerings to the dead” (Psalms 106:28). Just as a corpse imparts impurity in a tent, so too an idolatrous offering imparts impurity in a tent.

מתני׳ השוחט בלילה וכן הסומא ששחט שחיטתו כשרה

MISHNA: In the case of one who slaughters an animal at night, and likewise in the case of the blind person who slaughters an animal, his slaughter is valid.

גמ׳ השוחט דיעבד אין לכתחלה לא ורמינהי לעולם שוחטין בין ביום ובין בלילה בין בראש הגג בין בראש הספינה

GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the formulation of the mishna: One who slaughters, and not: One may slaughter, that with regard to the slaughter of one who slaughters at night, after the fact, yes, it is valid, but ab initio, one may not do so. The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita ( Tosefta 1: 4): One may always slaughter, both during the day and at night, both on the rooftop and atop a ship, indicating that slaughter at night is permitted ab initio.

אמר רב פפא בשאבוקה כנגדו אמר רב אשי דיקא נמי דקתני התם דומיא דיום והכא דומיא דסומא שמע מינה

Rav Pappa said: The tanna of the baraita is referring to a case where there is a torch opposite the slaughterer; therefore, it is permitted ab initio. Rav Ashi said: The language of the baraita is also precise, as slaughter at night is taught there in the baraita similar to slaughter during the day, based on the juxtaposition: Both during the day and at night. And here slaughter at night is taught similar to the slaughter performed by a blind person, with no light, based on the juxtaposition: One who slaughters at night, and likewise the blind person who slaughters. Therefore, the slaughter is valid only after the fact. The Gemara concludes: Learn from it.