Question #2 (Mishnah): If two people slaughtered together, and one intended to serve (a mountain, etc.), and the other intended for proper Shechitah, the Shechitah is invalid. (The Mishnah does not distinguish whose animal it is. This shows that one can forbid another's property!)

Answer: No. The case is, they are partners in the animal.

Question #3 (Mishnah): If Reuven was Metamei Shimon's Terumah or Kodshim, or mixed Shimon's Chulin with Terumah, or was Menasech Shimon's wine (poured it for a libation to idolatry), if he was Mezid, Reuven must pay. If not, he is exempt. (This shows that his Nisuch forbids Shimon's wine!)

Rejection: The case is, Reuven is a partner in the wine. (Directly, he forbids only his own share. However, one may not drink Shimon's share, since it is mixed with Reuven's.)

Suggestion: Rav Huna argues with Rav Nachman (and Rav Amram and R. Yitzchak), like the following Tana'im argue.

(Beraisa): If a Nochri was Menasech a Yisrael's wine not in front of an idol, the wine is forbidden;

R. Yehudah ben Beseira and R. Yehudah ben Bava permit it for two reasons. Nisuch is only in front of an idol, and one cannot forbid what is not his.

Rejection: Rav Nachman can hold like the first Tana. Only a Nochri forbids another's property;

If a Yisrael was Menasech, we assume that he did not really intend for idolatry, rather to vex the owner of the wine.

Question (against the rejection - Mishnah): If two people slaughtered together, and one intended to serve (a mountain, etc.), and the other intended for proper Shechitah, the Shechitah is invalid.

Answer: The case is, the one with forbidden intent is a Mumar. (He is like a Nochri. He really would serve idolatry.)

Question (Mishnah): If Reuven was Metamei Shimon's Terumah or Kodshim, or mixed Shimon's Chulin with Terumah, or was Menasech Shimon's wine:

If he was Mezid, Reuven must pay. If not, he is exempt.

Answer: The case is, Reuven is a Mumar.

Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rava): If Levi was warned just before he was Menasech Shimon's wine, and he replied 'I do so, accepting that I will be executed for this', what is the law?

Answer (Rav Ashi): The wine is forbidden. This is the ultimate case of a Mumar!

(Mishnah): We do not slaughter above seas, rivers, or Kelim;

One may slaughter into a pit of water, and on a ship one may slaughter onto a Kli (in a way that the blood will run off into the sea).

We never slaughter above an (empty) pit. One may make a pit in his house in order that the blood will flow into it (this will be explained below);

This may not be done in Reshus ha'Rabim, lest it encourage Tzedukim. (This is how they slaughter to idolatry).

(Gemara): We do not slaughter above...

Question: Just like we may not slaughter above seas, lest people think that he serves the angel appointed over the sea, we should forbid to slaughter above a pit with water, lest people think that he serves his reflection!

Answer (Rava): He may slaughter above a pit of water only if it is cloudy (there is no reflection in it).

(Mishnah): We never slaughter above an (empty) pit...

Question: The Mishnah continues 'one may make a pit in his house...'!

Answer #1 (Abaye): We never slaughter above an empty pit in Reshus ha'Rabim.

Objection (Rava): Since the Seifa says 'this may not be done in Reshus ha'Rabim', this shows that the Reisha does not discuss this!

Answer #2 (Rava): Rather, the Mishnah teaches that we never slaughter above an (empty) pit. If one wants to keep his courtyard clean, he makes a furrow near the pit and slaughters above the furrow, and the blood flows into the pit;

One may not do so in Reshus ha'Rabim, lest it encourage the Tzedukim.

Support (Beraisa): If one is travelling on a ship, and does not have a place on the ship to slaughter, he sticks his hand outside the ship and slaughters. The blood runs down the sides of the ship;

We never slaughter above an (empty) pit. If one wants to keep his courtyard clean, he makes a furrow near the pit, and slaughters above the furrow, and the blood flows into the pit;

One may not do so in Reshus ha'Rabim, due to "do not go in the ways (of idolaters)".

If one did so, we investigate to see if he is an idolater.

(Mishnah): If one slaughters a Chulin animal (outside the Mikdash), and says that it is an Olah, Shelamim, an Asham Taluy (a Korban brought for a Safek Kares), a Korban Pesach, or a Todah, the Shechitah is invalid;

R. Shimon says, it is valid.

If two people hold a knife and slaughter, one intends for one of the above, and the other for a proper Shechitah, the Shechitah is invalid.

If one slaughters a Chulin animal, and says that it is a Chatas, an Asham Vadai (for a definite Aveirah), a Bechor (firstborn), Ma'aser, or a Temurah (an animal that one said should be in place of a Korban), the Shechitah is valid.

The rule is, if he says that it is a Korban that one may bring voluntarily, the Shechitah is invalid. If one may not bring the Korban voluntarily, it is Kosher.

(Gemara): If one slaughters and says that it is an Olah...

Question: May one bring an Asham Taluy voluntarily?

Answer (R. Yochanan): The Mishnah is R. Eliezer, who permits bringing an Asham Taluy every day.

Question: One may not bring Korban Pesach voluntarily. One may bring it only on Erev Pesach!

Answer (R. Oshaya): One may designate an animal to be a Korban Pesach at any time. (Therefore, people may believe that it really was a Pesach).

Opinion #1 (R.Yanai): The Shechitah is Pasul only if the animal is unblemished, but no one would believe that a Ba'al Mum is a Korban.

Opinion #2 (R. Yochanan): The law applies even to a Ba'al Mum. Sometimes, the blemish can be covered up, and people will not know that it has a Mum.

(Mishnah): If he says that it is a Chatas...

(R. Yochanan): It is valid only if he is not obligated to bring a Chatas. If he must bring a Chatas, people will think that he slaughtered his Chatas.

Question: He did not say that it is his Chatas!

Answer (R. Avahu): The case is, he said 'it is my Chatas.'

(Mishnah):...A Temurah.

(R. Elazar): It is only valid if he does not have a Korban in his house. If he has, people will think that this was a Temurah of his Korban!

Question: He did not say that it is a Temurah of his Korban!

Answer (R. Avahu): The case is, he said 'it is a Temurah of my Korban.'

(Mishnah): The rule is (anything that one may bring voluntarily...)

Question: What does this come to include?

Answer: It includes the Olah of a Nazir;

One might have thought that since people know that he is not a Nazir, there is no concern;

The Mishnah teaches that this is not so. They might think that he accepted Nezirus in private.

The Mishnah says 'any Korban that one may not bring voluntarily' to include a man who brings the Olah of a Yoledes (woman that gave birth).

Version #1 (our text) (R. Elazar): It is Kosher only if he is single, but if he is married, people will think he brings it for his wife.

Question: He did not say that he brings it for her!

Answer (R. Avahu): The case is, he said 'it is Olas Yoledes, for my wife'.

Question: If so, obviously we are concerned lest people think that it is a Korban!

Answer: One might have thought that births become known. (Since we did not hear that his wife gave birth, all will know that the animal is Chulin);

The Mishnah teaches that this is not so. People will think that she miscarried (something that obligates a Korban).

Version #2 (Rashi): One might have thought that we are concerned lest people think it is a Korban. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so. Had his wife given birth, people would know about this.