Chullin 7
דקוריא של צפרים קוטע ראשו של אחד מהן ונותן לו אכלו מותר לאכול משחיטתו ואם לאו אסור לאכול משחיטתו
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.
אביי דייק מרישא
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.
טעמא דישראל עומד על גביו אבל יוצא ונכנס לא
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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without the need of a further test.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
רבא דייק מסיפא
Now according to Abaye, is not the second clause difficult to explain?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the second clause implies that if the Israelite were going in and out at the time, the slaughtering would be valid without the necessity of administering the olive's bulk of flesh.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
אמר לך
And according to Raba, is not the first clause difficult to explain?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the first clause implies that if the Israelite were not standing by, but merely going in and out, the slaughtering would not be valid unless the Cuthean ate of the flesh.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
כיוצא בו מצא בידו דקוריא של צפרין קוטע ראשו כו'
Perhaps it was only this one bird that he slaughtered properly? - R'Manasseh said, (Mnemonic: putting a knife on rams).<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A mnemonic of the three laws taught by R. Manasseh in this Tractate. 'Putting' refers to the law dealt with here: 'where the Israelite put the basket . . ' 'Knife' v. infra 31a. 'Rams' v. infra 51a.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ליחוש דלמא האי הוא דהוה שחיט שפיר
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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus obliterating any distinguishing sign that may have been on it.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
אמר רב מנשה
But may it not be that the Cutheans maintain that birds do not require Shechitah according to the law of the Torah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the verse: Then thou shalt slaughter of thy herd and of thy flock . . as I have commanded thee, Deut. XII 21, does not specifically mention birds.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
(סימן מכני"ס איזמ"ל בזכרי"ם) במכניסן תחת כנפיו
- If you use this argument [you might ask:] Are the rules against pausing, pressing, thrusting, deflecting and tearing,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the meaning of these five technical terms vide infra ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
אין שחיטה לעוף מן התורה
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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During the festival of Passover an Israelite must abstain from eating anything which is leavened, whereas on the 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.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
כל מצוה שהחזיקו בה כותים הרבה מדקדקין בה יותר מישראל
- [No.] You might say that they are not versed in the regulation of careful supervision;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore one does not fulfil one's obligation by eating this Mazzah, even though it is unleavened.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
מצת כותי מותרת ואדם יוצא בה ידי חובתו בפסח
It may not be eaten, because they are not versed in the details o the precepts like an Israelite'; for he is of the opinion that they are not versed in [the regulation of] supervision.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to guard the dough against becoming leavened. Var. lec., they are not well versed in (what constitutes) leaven. V. Rashi.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
רשב"ג אומר
He should say: 'If they have adopted it'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The expression 'Whatever law' includes even unwritten laws; for if it refers to written laws only, then R. Simeon b. 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'.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
כל מצוה שהחזיקו בה כותים הרבה מדקדקין בה יותר מישראל
This, rather, is the real difference between them, namely: An unwritten law which has been adopted by them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g. the law relating to Shechitah.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
כיון דכתיבא אע"ג דלא אחזיקו בה
What is the reason for this? - Because, since there is the possibility of permissible and forbidden [food]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is at his disposal to slaughter according to ritual.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
אי אחזוק אין אי לא אחזוק לא
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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To prepare the knife. .nj');"><sup>20</sup></span>
אלא איכא בינייהו דלא כתיבא ואחזיקו בה
These is [a Baraitha] taught that supports your view, viz: The leavened bread<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb, Hamez, leavened bread, or any other matter containing leavened substance.');"><sup>21</sup></span>