לא הוה מפליג נפשיה מיניה מנלן אילימא מדכתיב כמוני כמוך כעמי כעמך אלא מעתה כסוסי כסוסיך הכי נמי אלא מה דהוי אסוסיך תהוי אסוסי הכי נמי מאי דהוי עלך ועילוי עמך תיהוי עלי ועילוי עמי
The Gemara rejects that suggestion: Jehoshaphat would not have separated himself from Ahab to eat and drink by himself, as he relied on him completely. From where do we derive this? If we say that it is derived from that which is written that Jehoshaphat said to Ahab:“ I am as you are, my people as your people” (I Kings 22: 4), i. e., I am equally reliable, this is difficult, as, if that is so, then when Jehoshaphat said at the conclusion of that verse:“ My horses as your horses, ” can this also be referring to reliability? Rather, Jehoshaphat’s intention was: That which will befall your horses will befall my horses; so too, that which will befall you and your people will befall me and my people.
אלא מהכא ומלך ישראל ויהושפט מלך יהודה ישבים איש על כסאו מלבשים בגדים בגרן פתח שער שמרון מאי גורן אילימא גורן ממש אטו שער שומרון גורן הוה אלא כי גורן דתנן סנהדרין היתה כחצי גורן עגולה כדי שיהו רואין זה את זה
Rather, it is derived that Jehoshaphat relied upon Ahab from here: “ And the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat, king of Judea, sat each on his throne, arrayed in their robes, in a threshing floor, at the entrance of the gate of Samaria” (I Kings 22: 10). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term threshing floor in this context? If we say that it was an actual threshing floor; is that to say that the gate of Samaria was a threshing floor? Typically, the gate of a city was the place of assembly for the city’s judges and elders, not a threshing floor. Rather, they were sitting in a configuration like that of a circular threshing floor, i. e., facing each other in a display of amity, as we learned in a mishna ( Sanhedrin 36b): A Sanhedrin was arranged in the same layout as half of a circular threshing floor, so that the judges would see each other. This verse demonstrates that Jehoshaphat deliberated with Ahab and relied on his judgment.
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the verse written with regard to Elijah supports the opinion of Rav Anan. The verse states:“ And the ravens [orevim] brought him bread and meat in the morning, and bread and meat in the evening” (I Kings 17: 6); and Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: They would bring the meat from the slaughterhouse of Ahab. Clearly, Elijah would not have eaten the meat if Ahab’s slaughter was not valid. The Gemara responds: Since he ate the meat according to the word of God, the case of Elijah is different, and no proof may be cited from there.
The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of orevim in this context? Ravina said: They were actual ravens. Rav Adda bar Minyumi said to him: And perhaps they were two men whose names were Oreb? Isn’t it written: “ And they slew Oreb at the Rock of Oreb, and Zeeb they slew at the winepress of Zeeb” (Judges 7:25), indicating that Oreb is a person’s name? Ravina said to him: Did the matter just so happen that the names of both of the people supplying Elijah with food were Oreb? The improbability of this occurrence indicates that they were actual ravens.
The Gemara suggests: And perhaps they are called orevim after the name of their place of origin. Isn’t it written: “ And the Arameans had gone out in bands, and had brought away captive out of the land of Israel a minor young woman [na’ara ketana]” (II Kings 5: 2)? And it is difficult for us to understand why the verse calls her a young woman and also calls her a minor, which are two different stages in a girl’s development. And Rabbi Pedat said: She was a minor girl who was from a place called Naaran. Perhaps in the case of Elijah they were two people from a place called Oreb. The Gemara rejects that suggestion: If so, Orebites [oreviyyim] should have been written in the verse.
לימא מסייע ליה הכל שוחטין ואפילו כותי ואפילו ערל ואפילו ישראל משומד האי ערל היכי דמי אילימא שמתו אחיו מחמת מילה האי ישראל מעליא הוא אלא פשיטא משומד לערלות
§ Let us say that the following baraita supports the opinion of Rav Anan, who says that it is permitted to eat from the slaughter of a Jew who is a transgressor with regard to idol worship: Everyone slaughters, and even a Samaritan, and even an uncircumcised man, and even a Jewish transgressor. The Gemara analyzes the baraita: This uncircumcised man, what are the circumstances? If we say that he is an uncircumcised man whose brothers died due to circumcision and the concern is that he might suffer a similar fate, clearly one may eat from what he slaughters, as he is a full-fledged Jew and not a transgressor at all. Rather, it is obvious that he is a transgressor with regard to remaining uncircumcised, as he refuses to be circumcised.
אימא סיפא ואפילו ישראל משומד היכי דמי אי משומד לדבר אחד היינו משומד לערלות אלא לאו משומד לעבודה זרה וכדרב ענן
Say the latter clause of the baraita: And even a Jewish transgressor. What are the circumstances? If he is a transgressor with regard to one matter, that is identical to the case of a transgressor with regard to remaining uncircumcised. Rather, is it not that he is a transgressor with regard to idol worship, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Anan?
לא לעולם אימר לך משומד לעבודה זרה לא דאמר מר חמורה עבודה זרה שכל הכופר בה כמודה בכל התורה כולה
The Gemara rejects that proof: No, actually I will say to you that a transgressor with regard to idol worship may not slaughter, as the Master said: Idol worship is a severe transgression, as with regard to anyone who denies it, it is as though he acknowledges his acceptance of the entire Torah. Conversely, with regard to one who accepts idolatry, it is as though he denies the entire Torah. Therefore, his halakhic status is that of a transgressor with regard to the entire Torah, and his slaughter is not valid.
אלא משומד לאותו דבר וכדרבא
Rather, the transgressor in the latter clause of the baraita is a transgressor concerning the same matter of eating unslaughtered carcasses, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rava, who said that one may rely on the slaughter of a transgressor with regard to eating unslaughtered animal carcasses to satisfy his appetite even ab initio.
מיתיבי מכם ולא כולכם להוציא את המשומד מכם בכם חלקתי ולא באומות מן הבהמה להביא בני אדם שדומים לבהמה מכאן אמרו מקבלין קרבנות מפושעי ישראל כדי שיחזרו בהן בתשובה חוץ מן המשומד ומנסך את היין ומחלל שבתות בפרהסיא
The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Anan from that which is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “ When any man of you brings an offering unto the Lord, from the animal” (Leviticus 1:2). The tanna infers:“ Of you, ” indicating: But not all of you. This serves to exclude the transgressor, from whom an offering is not accepted. The tanna continues: The term“ of you” is also interpreted to mean that I distinguished among you and not among the nations. Therefore, a gentile may bring an offering even if he is an idol worshipper. The expression“ from the animal” serves to include people who are similar to an animal in that they do not recognize God. From here, the Sages stated: One accepts offerings from Jewish transgressors so that they will consequently repent, except for the transgressor, one who pours wine as a libation to idolatry, and one who desecrates Shabbat in public [befarhesya].
הא גופא קשיא אמרת מכם ולא כולכם להוציא את המשומד והדר תני מקבלין קרבנות מפושעי ישראל
This baraita itself is difficult. Initially, you said: “ Of you, ” indicating: But not all of you. This serves to exclude the transgressor, from whom an offering is not accepted. And then the tanna teaches: One accepts offerings from Jewish transgressors.
הא לא קשיא רישא משומד לכל התורה כולה מציעתא משומד לדבר אחד
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. The first clause states that an offering is not accepted from a transgressor with regard to the entire Torah. The middle clause states that one accepts an offering from a transgressor with regard to one matter.
אימא סיפא חוץ מן המשומד ומנסך את היין ומחלל שבת בפרהסיא האי משומד היכי דמי אי משומד לכל התורה כולה היינו רישא ואי משומד לדבר אחד קשיא מציעתא
The Gemara challenges: Say the last clause: Except for the transgressor, and one who pours wine as a libation to idolatry, and one who desecrates Shabbat in public. With regard to this transgressor in the last clause, what are the circumstances? If the reference is to a transgressor with regard to the entire Torah, that is identical to the first clause: Of you, and not all of you, to exclude the transgressor. And if the reference is to a transgressor with regard to one matter, the middle clause is difficult, as it is stated there that one accepts an offering from a transgressor with regard to one matter.
אלא לאו הכי קאמר חוץ מן המשומד לנסך את היין ולחלל שבתות בפרהסיא אלמא משומד לעבודה זרה הוה משומד לכל התורה כולה ותיובתא דרב ענן תיובתא
Rather, is it not that this is what the mishna is say ing in the last clause: Except for the transgressor to pour wine as a libation to idolatry or to desecrate Shabbat in public? Apparently, a transgressor with regard to idol worship is a transgressor with regard to the entire Torah, and this baraita is a refutation of the opinion of Rav Anan. The Gemara concludes: It is indeed a conclusive refutation.
והא מהכא נפקא מהתם נפקא
The Gemara asks: And is this halakha that one does not accept an offering from a transgressor derived from the verse cited here? It is derived from the verse written there with regard to a sin offering: