On Chullin 4b we encounter a statement by Shmuel, brought forth by Rav Anan:
Besides the proof Rav Anan / Shmuel himself brings from the verse, which is sustained, the gemara suggests two other proofs. One is from a statement of Rav Yehuda citing Rav that ravens brought Eliyahu (in hiding) meat from the kitchen of Achav. This would form a strong pair of Rav and Shmuel in accord, but the gemara pushes off the proof. The other is an ambiguous brayta in which the seifa speaks of a mumar who is different than the mumar for all mitzvot as well as one who is a mumar to circumcision. Since this other mumar could either be Rava's mumar (namely, to that same mitzvah of consuming kosher meat) or Shmuel's mumar (to idolatry), this is ambiguous and cannot form a definitive proof to either Rava or Shmuel.
Then, the gemara brings a conclusive refutation to Rav Anan from a brayta. On Chullin 5a:
Before you go about contrasting the mumar of the reisha with the poshei yisrael of the metziata, why don't you contrast the mumar of the reisha with the benei adam shedomin le-beheima of the reisha? Obviously they are different, and the benei adam shedomin leveheima of the reisha is a mumar ledavar echad, which is then equivalent to the poshei yisrael of the metziata. So that is established.
Then, what is your question regarding the seifa? That the mumar of the seifa is an apparent duplication of the mumar of the reisha?! And since this cannot be, we must reinterpret / reread the seifa of mumar or libator or public Shabbat transgressor to instead be a mumar in terms of libating or public Shabbat transgressing?!
If it is indeed so, that you cannot have reduplication and repetition in the brayta, then you need to go and reinterpret either poshei yisrael of the metziata or the benei adam shedomin leveheima of the reisha!
In fact, you should not reinterpret any of these. The brayta employed a joining phrase, between the reisha and the metziata as follows:
That is, the derivation from pesukim appears in the reisha. And from there, we have (in the metizata and the seifa) the application. Mikem == mumar + the other two categories. Min Habeheima = poshei yisrael who are domin leveheima.
Where the brayta explicitly connects the two, with the end part being the straightforward application of the first part, it is eminently reasonable to see overlap between the reisha and the seifa. Just because the setama degemara wants to kvetch the text of the brayta and darshen it in the way it does does not mean that there is a refutation to the position of Shmuel, which has a Biblical proof, which seems to accord with Rav and which is consistent with a brayta.
גופא אמר רב ענן אמר שמואל ישראל משומד לעבודה זרה מותר לאכול משחיטתו שכן מצינו ביהושפט מלך יהודה שנהנה מסעודת אחאב שנאמר ויזבח לו אחאב צאן ובקר לרב ולעם אשר עמו ויסיתהו לעלות אל רמת גלעד
§ The Gemara analyzes the matter itself: Rav Anan says that Shmuel says : With regard to a Jew who is a transgressor with regard to idol worship, it is permitted to eat from what he slaughters, as we found with regard to Jehoshaphat , king of Judea, who partook of the feastprepared by Ahab , king of Israel, who was a transgressor with regard to idol worship, as it is stated: “ A nd Ahab slaughtered sheep and cattle for him in abundance, and for the people that were with him, and incited him to go up with him to Ramoth Gilead ” (II Chronicles 18: 2).
Besides the proof Rav Anan / Shmuel himself brings from the verse, which is sustained, the gemara suggests two other proofs. One is from a statement of Rav Yehuda citing Rav that ravens brought Eliyahu (in hiding) meat from the kitchen of Achav. This would form a strong pair of Rav and Shmuel in accord, but the gemara pushes off the proof. The other is an ambiguous brayta in which the seifa speaks of a mumar who is different than the mumar for all mitzvot as well as one who is a mumar to circumcision. Since this other mumar could either be Rava's mumar (namely, to that same mitzvah of consuming kosher meat) or Shmuel's mumar (to idolatry), this is ambiguous and cannot form a definitive proof to either Rava or Shmuel.
Then, the gemara brings a conclusive refutation to Rav Anan from a brayta. On Chullin 5a:
I find this refutation less than compelling, and wish to offer a fairly strong rejoinder on behalf of Rav Anan. Actually, this is a rejoinder on behalf of the first generation Amora Shmuel, who is no slouch, and quite possibly was aware of the brayta. Amar lecha Shmuel... Here is what Shmuel would say to you... (The girsa has either meshumad or mumar. I am running with mumar throughout.)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 בפרהסיאThe Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Anan from that which is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “ W hen any man of you brings an offering unto the Lord, from the animal” (Leviticus 1:2) . The tanna infers:“ O f 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 ישראלThis 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 אחדThe 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 מציעתאThe 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 תיובתאRather, is it not that this is what the mishna is saying 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, andthis baraita is a refutation of the opinion of Rav Anan . The Gemara concludes: It is indeed a conclusive refutation.
Before you go about contrasting the mumar of the reisha with the poshei yisrael of the metziata, why don't you contrast the mumar of the reisha with the benei adam shedomin le-beheima of the reisha? Obviously they are different, and the benei adam shedomin leveheima of the reisha is a mumar ledavar echad, which is then equivalent to the poshei yisrael of the metziata. So that is established.
Then, what is your question regarding the seifa? That the mumar of the seifa is an apparent duplication of the mumar of the reisha?! And since this cannot be, we must reinterpret / reread the seifa of mumar or libator or public Shabbat transgressor to instead be a mumar in terms of libating or public Shabbat transgressing?!
If it is indeed so, that you cannot have reduplication and repetition in the brayta, then you need to go and reinterpret either poshei yisrael of the metziata or the benei adam shedomin leveheima of the reisha!
In fact, you should not reinterpret any of these. The brayta employed a joining phrase, between the reisha and the metziata as follows:
מכאן אמרו From here, the Sages stated:
That is, the derivation from pesukim appears in the reisha. And from there, we have (in the metizata and the seifa) the application. Mikem == mumar + the other two categories. Min Habeheima = poshei yisrael who are domin leveheima.
Where the brayta explicitly connects the two, with the end part being the straightforward application of the first part, it is eminently reasonable to see overlap between the reisha and the seifa. Just because the setama degemara wants to kvetch the text of the brayta and darshen it in the way it does does not mean that there is a refutation to the position of Shmuel, which has a Biblical proof, which seems to accord with Rav and which is consistent with a brayta.
