Chullin 8
מותר מיד מפני שהן מחליפין
permitted [to be eaten], because they exchange it [for non-Jewish bread].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the leavened bread of non-Jews which remained over Passover is permitted to be eaten immediately after Passover, v. Pes. 28a. However, the transgressor himself, who made the exchange, may not eat it; for otherwise, the law forbidding any benefit to be derived from the Hamez of a Jew which has remained over Passover can be circumvented by exchanging it for the Hamez of non.Jews.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
סברוה הא מני
Now, it was thought, that the author of this Baraitha was R'Judah, who holds that leavened bread which has remained over Passover is forbidden by Biblical law,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Pes. 28aff for the dispute between R. Judah and R. Simeon.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
וקתני
Perhaps the author [of the Baraitha] is R'Simeon, who holds that leavened bread which has remained over Passover is forbidden only by Rabbinic law,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Pes. 28aff for the dispute between R. Judah and R. Simeon.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
מפני שהן מחליפין אלמא לא שביק התירא ואכיל איסורא
and therefore st is only in connection with Rabbinic laws that a lenient view is taken, but not in connection with Biblical laws?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g, the law of nebelah, Deut. XIV, 21.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
דלמא ר"ש היא דאמר
It says: Because they exchange It,.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the leavened bread of non-Jews which remained over Passover is permitted to be eaten immediately after Passover, v. Pes. 28a. However, the transgressor himself, who made the exchange, may not eat it; for otherwise, the law forbidding any benefit to be derived from the Hamez of a Jew which has remained over Passover can be circumvented by exchanging it for the Hamez of non.Jews.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ותיהוי נמי ר"ש מי קתני
It follows, therefore, that if in connection with Rabbinic laws [we say] a person would not leave what is permitted and eat what is forbidden, how much more so in connection with Biblical laws!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a prohibition specifically enacted in the Torah would be more strictly observed by the Cutheans than a Rabbinic law. The result is that Raba's view is supported by the Baraitha quoted whether the author of it is R. Judah or R. Simeon.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
הכל שוחטין ואפילו כותי ואפילו ערל ואפילו ישראל מומר
Surely such a one is a good Israelite!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One whose two brothers have died because of circumcision is not to be circumcised because of the danger to his life; he is, however, considered a good Jew.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
מומר לדבר אחד לא הוי מומר לכל התורה כולה
If it means one who is opposed to one particular law, then it is identical with [our interpretation of] an uncircumcised Israelite'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was interpreted to mean one who is opposed to the law of circumcision.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ואפילו ישראל מומר
Indeed, it might be said that one who is opposed to this particular practice [Shechitah] may not [slaughter], because since he constantly disregards it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to trample it', hence to treat with contempt.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
האי מומר ה"ד
he deems it legitimate;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore one cannot apply to him the principle: 'He would not leave what is permitted and eat what is forbidden', for to him an animal which has not been slaughtered according to ritual is still permitted.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
אי מומר לדבר אחר היינו מומר לערלות
but [by 'Israelite apostate is meant] one who is an apostate in respect of idolatry, and the view expressed is in accordance with the view of R''Anan, who said in the name of Samuel: In the case of an Israelite who is an apostate in respect of idolatry, we may eat of his slaughtering.
אלא לאו מומר לאותו דבר וכדרבא
The text [above stated]: R''Anan said in the name of Samuel, 'In the case of an Israelite apostate in resp of idolatry, we may eat of his slaughtering'; for so we find it written concerning Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, that he partook of the feast of Ahab,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ahab was an apostate in respect of idolatry and yet Jehoshaphat ate of his slaughtering.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
לא לעולם אימא לך
as it is written: And Ahab slaughtered sheep and oxen for him in abundance, and for the people that were with him, and persuaded him to go up with him to Ramoth-gilead.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' II Chron. XVIII, 2.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ישראל מומר לעבודת כוכבים מותר לאכול משחיטתו שכן מצינו ביהושפט מלך יהודה שנהנה מסעודת אחאב שנאמר
But is it not written: And thou didst persuade Me to destroy him without cause?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Job II, 3.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
(דברי הימים ב יח, ב) ויזבח לו אחאב צאן ובקר לרוב ולעם אשר עמו ויסיתהו לעלות אל רמות גלעד
With reference to the Most High it is different.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case persuasion by eating and drinking is inapplicable.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ודלמא בדברים
The same then holds good with regard to eating [meat], for one that is an apostate in respect of idolatry is not regarded as opposed to the whole Torah? - How can you compare the two! With regard to drinking, the only ground for its prohibition is the law concerning the ordinary wine of gentiles,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ordinary wine of gentiles, about which it is not known whether it has been used for idolatrous purposes or not, was prohibited by the disciples of Shammai and Hillel in the first century C.E.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
דאמרינן
Perhaps the seven thousand [righteous men] slaughtered, for it is written: Yet will I leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XIX, 18.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
אכילה נמי מומר לעבודת כוכבים לא הוי מומר לכל התורה כולה
But perhaps the servants of Ahab were righteous! - You cannot assume such a thing, for it is written: If a ruler hearkeneth to falsehood, all his servants are wicked.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. XXIX, 12.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
הכי השתא
But perhaps the servants of Jehoshaphat too were not righteous; therefore, that which was slaughtered by Ahab's men was eaten by Jehoshaphat's men, but that which was slaughtered by Obadiah was eaten by Jehoshaphat! - You cannot assume such a thing, for 'if a ruler hearkeneth to falsehood all his servants are wicked', it follows that if a ruler hearkeneth to the truth a his servants are righteous.
שתיה סתם יינן הוא ועדיין לא נאסר יינן של עובדי כוכבים אבל אכילה אימא לך
But perhaps that which was slaughtered by Ahab's servants was eaten by Ahab and his men, but that which was slaughtered by Jehoshaphat's servants was eaten by Jehoshaphat and his men! -