Siman 18

The knife of shechitah must be smooth across its entire surface without a notch, for if one slaughters with a notch, he will tear the simanim, and this is not shechitah but rather tearing. Therefore, the shochet is obligated to check the knife before the shechitah, and he should not rely on checking after the shechitah, for perhaps he will forget to check afterward and he would be as one who feeds nevelah. And even if he has a knife designated for shechitah, he is obligated to check it, for it is the way of a knife to become slightly damaged on its own without labor. Therefore, when he has not checked, he shall not slaughter. This is unlike the one who wishes to be lenient regarding a knife designated for shechitah to rely on the checking after the shechitah on the grounds that even if he forgets to check, the shechitah is kosher, as will be explained in this siman [Pitchei Teshuvah in the name of Tiferet LeMoshe], for it is not a general rule, as will be explained before us with the help of Heaven [according to the Pri Megadim, subsection 23]. Furthermore, regarding this law itself, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 14 that one should not slaughter with it ab initio without checking; see there. And it is not similar to what was written in siman 1, that we may give to someone to slaughter based on the assumption that we will check him after the shechitah if he is an expert, because of the principle that "the majority of those found engaged in shechitah are experts," and even if we do not check him, the shechitah is permitted; for there, the doubt is for us, but the shochet himself knows that he slaughters properly. This is not the case regarding the checking of the knife, where the shochet himself does not know, and how can we rely on this? Furthermore, in that case itself there are several detailed laws regarding this; see there. Furthermore, how could he recite a blessing over the shechitah, for perhaps they will find that it was notched? Furthermore, in the Gemara [17b] they supported this law with a verse; see there. And it implies that there is a mitzvah to check the knife, and we shall not be lenient in this [and see the Tevuot Shor who also is stringent in this unless it is a time of pressing need; see there. And it appears to me that one should not be lenient even in a time of pressing need. And even though there is apparently some proof for permissibility from the Shas there, which asks "it is obvious," etc., and does not answer that it comes to teach us even regarding one designated for shechitah—it is no proof, for in truth it answers that even if he checked it, he must show it to a sage; see there and examine carefully].

How is the inspection performed? We find among our sages, of blessed memory, [ibid.] several types of inspections. There were those who inspected in the sun, where they place the edge of the knife against the sun and see in its edge if there is a notch, or they look at the shadow of the knife's edge, for if there is a notch, the sun enters into the notch [Rashi]. And there were those who inspected with water, where they passed the edge over the surface of the water with a slight touch, and if there is a notch, the point makes a kind of groove in the water as it moves; or he holds the knife at an incline with its edge upward and drips water on the edge with his finger, and if there is a notch there, the water falls there [ibid.]. And there was one who inspected with the tip of his tongue, where he passed the knife over the tip of his tongue, and if there is a notch, he will feel it. And there was one who inspected with a strand of hair, for when there is a notch, the hair will not pass and will enter into the notch.

And afterward it is stated there: Rava said, it requires examination on the flesh, and on the fingernail, and on three sides. First he should examine on the flesh of the finger, which is soft, corresponding to the esophagus, which is soft; and afterward he should examine on the fingernail, which is hard, corresponding to the trachea, which is hard. For soft is not similar to hard, as soft feels a minute nick more, and a hard thing passes over a small nick and it is not noticed (ibid.). And on three sides: in its center, which is to say on its edge, and on its two sides, for perhaps it was nicked on the side of the knife and the organ is caught on the point and torn (ibid.).

And afterwards it is stated there in the name of Rav Hisda that the notch of the knife is such that the fingernail will be caught [hachgor] by it, meaning that the fingernail is delayed by it [Rashi, Bechorot 37b]. And the term "chagira" can be interpreted like "agira," as the letters Aleph, Het, He, Ayin, and Resh are interchangeable, and "agira" is an expression of gathering, as in "gathers [oger] in the summer." And in the language of the Shas there regarding the knife, "gathering [ogeret] is unfit," for the notch gathers the fingernail into it. Or it can be interpreted from the expression "chager" [lame], who does not walk with a proper gait and wavers; so too, the fingernail does not go with a proper gait over the knife. And the Rashba, of blessed memory, interprets [in Torat HaBayit] that it is from the expression "chagora" [belt], meaning that the fingernail is belted by it; and he wrote similarly in the name of the Rambam, of blessed memory. And the intention is that just as the belt surrounds the body, so too the notch surrounds the fingernail. And there are some of our teachers who interpreted it like "and they shall emerge limping [veyachgru] from their fastnesses," meaning so that the fingernail will feel it [the Ra'ah in Bedek HaBayit there]. And it is similarly explained from the words of the Rosh [Chapter 1, section 24]. And there is a great practical difference between these interpretations, as we will explain with the help of Heaven.

The opinion of the Ramban and the Rashba, of blessed memory, is that the catching of a fingernail is much more than the examinations of water, sunlight, the tongue, and a hair; and all those who examined with these held that even a slight nick that is not like the catching of a fingernail disqualifies. Therefore, the Rif and also the Rambam, of blessed memory, who did not cite this matter of the catching of a fingernail, held that any nick whatsoever is treifah. However, "any whatsoever" is not literal, for we require that it catch something, such as a hair, for if not so, this would be similar to a sasa'ah which is kosher [Ran], as will be explained, since it does not catch anything.

The opinion of the Ra'ah and the Rosh is that the catching of a fingernail is also considered a slight nick. This is the wording of the Rosh: The Rif, of blessed memory, did not bring the statement of Rav Chisda that a nick is like the catching of a fingernail. Some explain his opinion that he holds those who examine in the sun, with water, with the flesh, and with the fingernail disagree with Rav Chisda and hold that we declare it terefah for any nick whatsoever, even if the fingernail does not catch on it. But it seems to me that since he ruled that we require examining with the flesh and with the fingernail, this is in order that the fingernail shall catch on it, for any nick that one feels with the fingernail is one where the fingernail catches on it; therefore, he did not need to mention that statement of Rav Chisda. Thus far his words. And it is clear that his intention is as the Ra'ah, of blessed memory, wrote [in Bedek HaBayit], and this is his wording: This expression "that the fingernail shall catch on it" is not from the language of a belt as the Rashba holds, but rather from the language of limping, as in "and they shall limp from their enclosures," meaning that the fingernail shall feel it; for if it were according to his words, he should have said "so that the fingernail catches," for it is the nick that causes the catching. Thus far his words.

And they disagree regarding that which we wrote, for the Ramban and the Rashba interpret that the notch surrounds the fingernail, and according to this, it is a larger notch than "sun and water" and "flesh and nail." But the Rosh and the Ra'ah interpret that this too is only the sensation of the fingernail, for the fingernail has the ability to feel even the thinnest notch, provided that even a single hair can enter it; but if even a hair cannot enter it, it is nothing, even if the fingernail feels it, for this is similar to a "sasa'ah" which is kosher, as will be explained. And this is exactly the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 2, who wrote: The measure of the notch is any amount at all, provided that it catches any amount at all, even a hair. Thus far his words. And it is necessary to say that the Ramban and the Rashba also admit that the fingernail feels even a notch of any amount at all, for if not so, what is the examination of "on the flesh and on the nail" that the Rif, of blessed memory, brought? Rather, they hold that the catching of the nail is a different matter, as I wrote, and the Rosh and the Ra'ah hold that it is the same matter, as I wrote. It follows that in the practical law they do not disagree at all [and so wrote the Derishah, see there].

And there is clear proof that the Rambam and Rashi, of blessed memory, also hold like the Rosh and the Ra'ah, of blessed memory. For the words of the Rambam in chapter 1 are like the words of the Rif, who wrote there in law 14: that there should not be a notch in the knife, etc., and even if the notch was extremely small, his shechitah is invalid. Thus far his words. And in law 23 he wrote: How does one examine? He moves it back and forth over the flesh of his finger, and moves it back and forth over his fingernail on its three sides, which are its edge and its two sides, so that there will be no notch in it at all, and afterwards he shall perform shechitah with it. Thus far his words. And in chapter 1 of the Laws of the Chosen House, law 14, he wrote: Any stone that is notched such that the fingernail is caught by it, like a knife for shechitah, it is invalid for the ramp and for the altar. Thus far his words. Behold, it is explicit according to their words, that even though in the Laws of Shechitah he did not mention the catching of the fingernail but rather an extremely small notch, he mentioned in another place that this is the catching of the fingernail; learn from this that it is all one. And he does not interpret from the language of "girding" but from the language of "feeling" or from the language of "limping" that we explained in section 4. And so too Rashi, of blessed memory, interpreted the catching of the fingernail as the fingernail being delayed by it, as I wrote in section 4. And in Zevachim [88a] Rashi interpreted that a thin notch renders it treif, see there. Behold, it is explicit that the fingernail is delayed, meaning that he feels even a thin notch, and this is what Rashi, of blessed memory, calls the delay of the fingernail.

The words of the Tur are perplexing, for he wrote, and this is his wording: One who slaughters with a checked knife and it is found to be notched, this is a nevelah etc. and the Rambam wrote even if it is very small and did not mention the catching of a fingernail, and so wrote the Rashba that the measure of a notch is any amount at all, provided that it catches in any amount at all even like a hairbreadth, and my father, our teacher, of blessed memory, ruled that it must be enough to catch the fingernail. Thus far his words. And we have already brought that in another place the Rambam mentioned the catching of a fingernail, and one must say regarding his intention that since he did not mention the catching of a fingernail in the laws of shechitah but rather a notch of any amount, and granted that in the definition of catching a fingernail he does not hold like the Rashba, nevertheless regarding the law the Rambam holds like the Rashba that a notch of any amount is treifah, and this is true as we have clarified with the help of Heaven:

But that which he wrote, that the Rosh disagrees in the law with them and holds that it is not treifah except for that which catches the fingernail, is a wonder; for it has already been explained that he does not disagree except in the interpretation of "catching of the fingernail" and not in the essence of the law, for the Rosh wrote explicitly that the examination of the flesh and the nail is one and the same thing as the catching of the fingernail. And one must say that the Tur holds the opposite regarding the intent of the Rosh, that the examination of the flesh and the nail is a large notch like the catching of the fingernail and is not similar to the examination of the sun and water. And his opinion regarding the interpretation of "catching of the fingernail" is like the Rashba, that it is from the language of "girdle" and is a large notch, except that in this he disagrees: that the Rashba holds that the examination of the flesh and the nail is much smaller than the catching of the fingernail, and the Rosh holds that it is like the catching of the fingernail. Nevertheless, in the law the Tur would admit that any notch whatsoever is treifah, for even if the Rosh does not hold so according to his opinion, nevertheless the Rambam, the Ramban, and the Rashba are many against him, and such is our established law, and as our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled in the Shulchan Aruch which we brought in section 7.

And know that our teachers, the later authorities [Yam Shel Shelomo, Salach, and Shach subsection 4, and Taz subsection 2, and Tevuot Shor], wrote that this which we are accustomed to checking with the fingernail is because we are not concerned with a minute check; however, if any nick is found, such as through a check with a sesame seed or water, it is treifah, but one need not be concerned for this, see there. And according to their words, it is a great leniency, and it is a wonder how it is possible to be lenient in a Torah prohibition ab initio. However, in truth, according to what we have clarified with the help of Heaven, all our teachers, the early authorities, are equal in the matter that with the fingernail we are able to feel even the thinnest nick, such as if a hair's breadth enters into it, and less than this is not a nick at all [except for the Rosh, according to the opinion of the Tur, who does not hold so, and it is not certain as I wrote]. And in truth, we also in our times see through the senses that the fingernail feels a nick thinner than thin for one who has the sense of feeling, and you have no check finer than the check of the fingernail. And conversely, the check of the sun, the water, and the tongue—we almost do not grasp them. And also on the flesh, it is far from feeling any thin nick, as is known to all the shochatim of our time. And if so, this is not a leniency, and from the essential law it is so, and it is impossible in another way, and there is no stumbling block in it, as we see deeds every day how great is the power of the fingernail's feeling, and there is none like it. [And also the opinion of the Derishah, the Pri Chadash, and the Pri Megadim appears so, see there. And the words of the Bach are puzzling, as the Shach wrote, see there. And regarding the essential reasoning we wrote, that the fingernail feels all nicks, the Kreiti U'Pleiti also agreed, except that he distinguished between person and person, see there. And this is not necessary, and in vain he wrote that he found no rest in the words of the Pri Chadash, for the words of the Pri Chadash are clear; and only regarding what he wrote that Rashi does not hold so, we have already brought from Zevachim that Rashi also holds so. And the incident of Rashi that the Beit Yosef brought, it must be said that even a hair's breadth did not enter into it, and therefore he did not want to prohibit, and that which he said "that his fingernail does not catch in it," his intention was regarding the feeling, and like the words of the Ra'ah that we brought].

The common custom among us regarding the examination with the fingernail is that one moves the fingernail over the knife, and such is the wording of the Tur who wrote that his fingernail must pass over it, etc. And such is the wording of the Rosh who wrote that he moved his finger over it, etc. [Chapter 1, section 24]. And I saw one of the great later authorities who questioned this [Ma'adanei Yom Tov there, letters 20, 50] and held that one must move the knife over the fingernail, and he inferred this from the wording of the Gemara which said "it requires examination on the flesh and on the fingernail" (a-bishra v'a-tufra) and did not say "with the flesh and with the fingernail" (be-bishra u-ve-tufra), from which it is proven that one must move the knife over them and not them over the knife. And also from the wording of the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch he inferred thus, as they wrote "moves it back and forth over the flesh of his finger and over his fingernail," see there. And also from the perspective of logic it must be so, for one moves the knife over the neck at the time of shechitah, and consequently the examination of the knife must also be similar to this; and he wondered about our teacher, the Beit Yosef, that he did not differentiate between the wording of the Tur and the wording of the Rambam, see there. And there is no wonder in this, for there is no strict requirement in this, and each person may do according to what is best for his sensation. And certainly in the time of the Shas it appears that they moved the knife over the fingernail, for so it is explicitly proven regarding a "jagged" notch [17b] which distinguishes between "moved it back and forth" and "moved it but did not bring it back," for this "moving" refers to the knife over the finger [as the Taz wrote in subsection 3]. However, among us it is known that the sensation is stronger when one moves the fingernail over the knife, for when the fingernail is in motion, one feels more than when it stands in one place [and so it appears in Niddah 25b regarding bringing a splinter]. And one for whom it is better in his opinion to move the knife over the fingernail may do so [and so wrote the Mishbetzot Zahav there]. Therefore, he did well not to bring a distinction in wording between the Rambam and the Tur, because there is no practical difference in this. And from the wording of the Rosh and the Tur it is explained that in their lands in Ashkenaz the custom was thus, to move the finger over the knife. And perhaps they intentionally established the custom thus because in these lands and in Ashkenaz the cold is great during the winter days, and it is known that in a time of cold the hand becomes stiff and will not feel, and it is necessary to warm the hand; therefore, if they move the knife over the finger, they will not feel due to the finger's lack of sensation since it stands in one place. But when they move the finger, it is necessary to see if because of its coldness it lacks sensation, and he will warm the fingers. But the sages of the Shas who were in the Land of Israel and in Babylonia, and likewise the Rambam who was in hot countries, did not need this, and for them it was sufficient to move the knife over the finger. And if we say so, we must not change from our custom.

And I saw one who wrote that with the examination of the sun and the water mentioned in the Gemara, the notch is recognizable even though a hair does not enter it, and according to his opinion, the sages forbade it even in such a case. He rules accordingly as the law: that if one only feels a notch of the utmost thinness, even if a hair does not enter it, it is treifah [Pri Megadim in Mishbetzot Zahav subsection 2 and in the name of Dammesek Eliezer]. This is an excessive stringency and has nothing upon which to rely, for all our teachers, the Rishonim and Acharonim, stated explicitly that when a hair does not enter it, it is not a notch at all. Regarding the examination of the sun and the water, a hair does enter it, as is clearly explained from the words of the Rashba and the Ran, of blessed memory; see there. However, the truth is that if one only feels a notch, it is certainly treifah, for who can say that a hair does not enter it, as the examination is difficult in this regard. But if an expert and God-fearing shochet says with clarity that a hair does not enter it, certainly the shechitah is kosher without any doubt.

And specifically after the shechitah one should act as we have written, but before the shechitah, it is not only a question of any concern of a notch, even the slightest of the slight, and even if a hair does not enter it, but even if it is not properly smooth, the obligation rests upon the shochet to repair it until it is very smooth. And if he does not do so, he testifies about himself either that he is not a proper craftsman or that he does not have the fear of Hashem. For it is known in this time of ours that in the large cities there are special houses for the making of polished knives, and the iron is steel, which was not the case in the generations before us, and every shochet has the ability to establish that the knife be sharp and smooth. Therefore, if he does not do so, it is proper to remove him or at least to fine him. And even after the shechitah, the vast majority of them do not become damaged, as we have seen and heard. Therefore, if an incident occurred where after the shechitah the knife became slightly damaged, then one may rely on a shochet who is a craftsman and fears G-d, that if he says that this notch is not enough for a hair to enter it, one may permit it. [And the Kereti U'Peleti and the Chochmat Adam mention there how it was in their days and they cry out like a crane, see there; and also regarding those who rub on a strong rag, and I, in the places where I have been, have not seen or heard this, and it is obvious that now, according to our knives, they must be sharp and smooth in the best possible way, and there is no breach and no cry, thanks to Hashem in this time of ours].

When he comes to examine the knife, he shall see that it is clean on all its sides and especially on its edge, for if there is any dirt there, it is possible that there is a notch and the dirt covers it [Shach, subsection 14]. And among us, the simple custom among all the shochatim is that they always clean their knives even when it is not the time of slaughtering, and it is a beautiful custom. And he shall examine "on the flesh and on the nail and on three sides," which is to say that he moves it back and forth on the flesh of his finger, and afterwards moves it back and forth on his nail from its three sides, which are its edge and its two sides, so that there shall be no notch in it at all. And according to our custom, he moves the finger and the nail over the knife. And he shall examine slowly and with intention of the heart, that he should not turn his heart to other matters. And much composure, presence of mind, and fear of Heaven is needed for the examination of the knife; for do you not see that a man may examine twice or three times and not feel a fine notch, and afterwards he finds it because he prepared his heart at the end, and the quality of the sense of touch is according to the intention of the heart. And it is necessary to change the nail after a bit of the examination, lest the nail was notched by the edge of the knife, and perhaps there are notches on its sides that he will not feel because it passes within the notch of the nail. And he should not examine the two sides of the knife together, but rather each one individually. And there is no concern regarding which nail to examine with.

And know that in our times they almost do not know of the examination on the flesh, and we examine only on the fingernail. And when we wish to examine on the flesh of the finger, it is very far from feeling a slight nick, as is known to most shochatim of our times. And from the commentary of Rashi [17b, s.v. bishra] it is explained that on the flesh it is easier to feel than the feeling of the fingernail, but with us it is the exact opposite, for on the fingernail we feel a nick that is the thinnest of the thin, and on the flesh the feeling is very distant. And it appears to me that the reason is that in the time of the Shas the knives were not highly polished and the edge was not thin and sharp like our knives, and therefore it was possible to feel on the flesh; this is not the case now, for the edge is very thin and sharp and will cut the flesh immediately, and the feeling is distant. And in our examination on the fingernail, we feel even if it is not properly smooth. And more than this, in the examination in the sun, we see even today that they hold the edge upward and look at it, and if it is not completely equal from its beginning to its end, whether in sharpness or in smoothness, one sees white marks on the edge, as is known to the shochatim of our times. However, in any case, our examination is very good without any doubt whatsoever.

And it is true that in our youth we heard, and likewise we saw in books, that approximately two generations prior there was a great dispute among the sages of Israel regarding the setting of the knife; for these would set the edge of the knife very thin and sharp, and those would set it somewhat thick and very smooth, and it was not very sharp. Both sides established their positions that the primary examination must be thus, and there were those who would abstain from eating meat according to the setting of the opposing side. In truth, according to the law, one may not disqualify the setting of these nor the setting of those, and both are the words of the living God as we were commanded from the mouth of our teacher Moshe, of blessed memory, from the mouth of the Almighty. However, now there is no difference between one province and another, and all the shochtim in all the provinces have an identical setting regarding the essence of the sharpness and the smoothness.

By the law of the Gemara [18a], every butcher is obligated to show his knife to the sage of the city before each and every slaughtering, and they based this on a verse [17b]. They were very stringent in this matter, to the point that the sages, of blessed memory, said [ibid.] that if he did not show his knife to the sage, even if the knife was found to be fine, they excommunicate him [in ancient times]. If it was not found to be fine, they also remove him so that he shall no longer be a butcher. When it is found to be fine, the sage may waive his honor. However, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 17 that nowadays the sages have accustomed themselves to waive their honor, because they themselves appoint specific men known for their skill and their fear of Hashem over the shechitah and the bedikah, and to them they have waived their honor because they are very careful and diligent and were appointed by the sage of the city. Therefore, a shochet who is not appointed by the rabbi of the town, even if he was a shochet in another city, it is forbidden for him to slaughter within the city and its surroundings without the will of the sage of the city. If he slaughters without his permission, it is forbidden to eat from his shechitah, and he testifies about himself that he is not one who fears God and is not meticulous regarding the shechitah. This is not due to a stringency, but rather from the core of the law it is so; for since by the law of the Gemara one must show the knife to the sage for each and every slaughtering, and it is only that the sages waived their honor, it follows that the first time he comes to slaughter in the city of the sage and its surroundings, he certainly does not waive his honor, and he is not permitted to waive it so that the shechitah does not become lawless. Therefore, from the core of the law, any shochet whom the sage does not want to slaughter there, his shechitah is forbidden by law. The sage has the power to remove a shochet if he sees that he is not behaving properly, even if he has already slaughtered in this city having been appointed by the sage. It is a kal vachomer, the son of a son of a kal vachomer, regarding a shochet who has not yet been appointed until now in this place and slaughters against the will of the rabbi of the town, that his shechitah is forbidden and he is worthy of punishment. Anyone who supports such a shochet against the will of the rabbi of the town is destined to give an accounting, and it is as if they are eating treifot and their iniquity is very severe, and may their iniquities be upon their bones; but for the one who listens, a blessing shall come upon him.

A knife that has a notch is forbidden to slaughter with, even if one intends to slaughter not against the notch, for perhaps he will not sense when it passes over the notch and he will feed treifot. Post facto, if he slaughtered, it is kosher if he says, "it is clear to me that I did not slaughter against the notch," even without wrapping a cloth over the notch, as I wrote above in siman 6. This is specifically when he knew there was a notch, but if he did not know at all of the notch and says, "it is clear to me that I did not touch the notch," even post facto it is forbidden. And even if the notch was toward the head of the knife and he says that he slaughtered with the side at the end of the knife, or vice versa, nevertheless it is forbidden, for any matter that is not cast upon a person, he does it without realizing [Shach, subsection 15]. On Yom Tov, it is customary to permit wrapping a cloth over the notch and slaughtering, since he cannot sharpen it; and even on a weekday when his time is pressed, such as for a sick person, he may wrap a cloth over the notch and slaughter. See what I wrote in siman 6, and there it was explained that if the knife has two edges, one must examine both sides; see there. And know that in the Tosefta we learned [chapter 1]: if there is between one notch and another the full measure of two necks, his slaughtering is kosher; see there. And it must be said that this is dealing with a case where he knew there were notches, for if not so, even post facto it is treifah as I wrote. We learn from this that even when he knew, it is not kosher except post facto, and specifically when there is the full measure of two necks that have no notch in them; but without this, even post facto it is forbidden even when he knew, and we do not rely on his statement that he did not hit the notch. And I wonder at the poskim who did not cite this Tosefta. And the matter is simple, that if he knew of the notch and post facto it is kosher according to the ways that were explained, one should fine him or remove him for a duration of time according to the eyes of the sage [it appears to me]. [And I found in the Tevuot Shor, siman 6, who cited it from the Semag].

The Tur wrote: What constitutes a notch? Like that which Rava said [17b]: There are three measures regarding a knife: One that catches (ogeret)—he may not slaughter, and if he slaughtered, his slaughtering is invalid; one that is jagged (mesuchsechet)—he may not slaughter, and if he slaughtered, his slaughtering is valid; one that rises and falls—he may slaughter ab initio. The explanation of "catches" is that it has two points, and whether he moved it forward and did not bring it back, or brought it back and did not move it forward, it is invalid. "Jagged" is when it only has one point and the second side was smoothed by a whetstone; for example, if it stands at the tip of the knife and he moved it forward and did not bring it back, in a manner where he did not cut even the skin until the entire notch had passed. And if it stands near the handle, he must bring it back and not move it forward. But if it is in the middle of the knife, in any case it is invalid. The Rif ruled that even in the middle of the knife, if the point is toward the tip of the knife, it is valid if he moved it forward and did not bring it back, for the point of the notch only tears when it strikes the siman and not when it descends from it. And if the point is toward the tail, then it is valid if he brought it back and did not move it forward. The Rambam wrote likewise. Rashi wrote according to the first opinion, and to this my father, the Rosh, of blessed memory, agreed. "Rises and falls" is one that has no point at all, as its two points were whetted; one may slaughter with it ab initio. A knife that has many notches is judged like a saw [Gemara], and even post facto it is invalid. Rashi explained that this is even if they are all jagged. The author of the Ittur wrote that if they are jagged it is valid post facto if he slaughtered in a manner where he did not touch the point of the notch, but rather it deals with those that "catch." My father, the Rosh, of blessed memory, agreed with the explanation of Rashi. Thus far the words of the Tur.

The explanation of the matter is that every notch has two points, one toward the tip and one toward the handle. If one sharpened one point until it was smoothed, only one point remains, and this is a "mesuchsechet." If one sharpened both points until they were smoothed, this is "rising and falling." The opinion of Rashi and the Rosh is that even if only one point remains, it tears whether in its forward motion or in its return motion. Therefore, it is not kosher unless it is located at the tip of the knife and one performed a forward motion and did not bring it back; that is to say, he began to slaughter with the side of the tip of the knife and the point struck the neck at its beginning before the skin was yet cut, and consequently, when the knife reached the simanim, the point had already passed, and he performed a forward motion and not a return motion; if so, all the simanim were slaughtered without the notch. But if he also performed a return motion, it is treifah, for perhaps the slaughter of all the simanim was not completed until the end of the return motion and they struck the point, and even if they struck the final minority, it is also treifah, as I wrote in siman 24. And consequently, such is the law in the reverse case, when this mesuchsechet is near the handle and he performed a return motion and not a forward motion, it is also kosher, and when he also performed a forward motion, it is treifah for the reasons that have been explained. And if the mesuchsechet is in the middle, it is treifah in any case, because by the time the knife reaches its point, the skin and part of the simanim have already been cut, and the point strikes the simanim. And if there are many notches in the knife, even if all of them are mesuchsechet and all are at the tip of the knife and he performed a forward motion and not a return motion, it is treifah, because the first one tears the skin and the second strikes the siman and tears it, and all the more so when there are more than two [Rashi ibid.]. And that which the Sages, of blessed memory, said "many notches" is not literal, for the same applies even if there are only two, it is treifah [as is necessitated from Rashi ibid. s.v. sakin, see there].

The Rif, of blessed memory, has another approach in this, for he holds that when the notch has only one point and the second was ground and smoothed, it does not tear the siman except when it strikes it while ascending, but not when it descends. Therefore, in a jagged knife, it is kosher in any place where the point stands, even if not at the head of the knife, and it only depends on which point remains and which was smoothed. For if the point on the side of the handle was smoothed and the point on the side of the head remains, it is kosher if he moved the knife forward and did not bring it back, because the point descends there by way of its descent and does not tear. And if the point on the side of the head was smoothed and the point on the side of the handle remains, it is kosher if he brought it back and did not move it forward for this reason. And also at the head of the knife the law is so, and likewise at the end of the knife, for there is no difference in which place it stands. And according to this, there is a matter where the Rif is more stringent than the approach of Rashi, for according to Rashi, at the head of the knife it is kosher in any case if he moved it forward and did not bring it back, and at the end of the knife if he brought it back and did not move it forward, but according to the Rif it depends on which of the points remained, as I wrote. And one should not ask according to the approach of the Rif why it is treif with many notches, for if all the points on the side of the handle remained and those on the side of the head were smoothed and he brought it back and did not move it forward it should be kosher, since the points descend there by way of their descent and do not tear; for the reason is that since its notches are many, we fear perhaps he returned his hand slightly and did not feel it [Rashba and Ran and Beit Yosef]. And according to this, in this too there is a difference between Rashi and the Rif, for according to Rashi we explained that even if there are only two such notches it is treif, but according to the Rif specifically when they are many, and at the very least three, for with two this concern is not applicable, as is understood [it appears to me]. [And it appears to me that according to this explanation, that which the Gemara said that it stands at the head of the knife, it means that the point on the side of the head remains, and not like the explanation of Rashi; and the words of the Kesef Mishneh in chapter 1 require further study, and so it appears from the Rosh and the Rashba, see there. And that which he did not explain this is because it is self-evident, as the Ma'adanei Yom Tov wrote there in letter 8, see there. And the puzzling words of the Ittur are clarified as the Taz wrote in subsection 4, that even if there is the required measure for shechitah in between, it is disqualified with many jagged notches; however, that which the Taz wrote that even with two it is disqualified according to the Ittur, it does not appear so to me, as is proven from the Tosefta that we brought in section 19, and so implies the language "many notches," even though for Rashi it is necessary to explain so as I wrote; but the Ittur stands in the approach of the Rif as the Bach wrote, and it is necessary to say so, and delve into this].

The Rambam, of blessed memory, in chapter 1, law 16, was brief regarding this, and this is his wording: How so? A knife that is checked during the forward motion and you do not feel that there is a notch in it, but when you return it in the backward motion you feel that there is a notch in it—if one slaughtered with it by way of a forward motion and did not bring it back, his slaughtering is kosher; and if he brought it back, his slaughtering is disqualified. Thus far his words. And this is exactly the approach of the Rif that we cited. And it is clear that his intention is not that during the forward motion we do not feel anything at all, for that is impossible, since because the notch descends from it, perforce we must feel it; rather, his intention is that we do not feel that this is a notch that tears, but the descent we must necessarily feel [and so wrote the Ma'adanei Yom Tov there, letter 30, and the difficulty of the Rosh is resolved; see there].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 4 transcribed the wording of the Rambam that we wrote, and wrote further that specifically if he felt it before slaughtering, but if he found his knife fine before slaughtering and after the slaughtering he found in it a jagged notch, and he said, "It is clear to me that I performed only a forward stroke," his slaughtering is disqualified. Thus far his words. For regarding any matter that is not incumbent upon him to know, he performs it without noticing, as was written in section 19. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote there, and this is his wording: And there are those who are stringent that every jagged notch is forbidden unless it stands at the very tip of the knife if he slaughtered with a forward stroke, and at the very end of the knife if he slaughtered with a backward stroke; and since we are not experts in what is called the tip of the knife, one must declare everything treif, and such is the custom. Thus far his words. And it appears to me that his intention is not due to a lack of expertise alone—for what kind of expertise is this?—but rather because according to Rashi it must be specifically at the very tip, and according to the Rif the point must be only that which is toward the head, as we explained. If so, it is impossible to permit it except with both things together: that it be on the head of the knife, and that he grind the point that is toward the handle until it is smooth and the point toward the head remains, and in this one could certainly err. And it has already been explained that there is no difference whether the notch is at the head of the knife or on the side, but regarding the marks on the side made by the craftsmen, one need not be concerned [Shach].

And know that there are those who wish to say that in the law, Rashi and the Rif do not disagree at all, but only in the interpretation of "mesuchsachet." For Rashi interprets that the point which remains, remains upright, and therefore they feel it both during the forward stroke and during the backward stroke, and the Rif would also admit to this. However, the Rif interprets that the point which remains is not upright, but rather bent downward and curved, and therefore during the downward path they will not feel it, and in this Rashi would also admit. And if we say so, the words of the Rambam will be interpreted according to their plain meaning, that during the forward stroke we will not feel it at all. And for us there is no practical difference, for we declare it treif in any case. [See the Edut BiYehosef who interprets thus, and so it appears from the Ran, see there. However, that which the Bach wrote, that if the point is not higher than the rest of the knife the Rosh would admit, see there, it is impossible to say so, for the Rosh holds like Rashi, and Rashi wrote explicitly that a point that is not bent tears even in its descent, for the siman descends from it and enters into the notch. Thus far his words, see there.]

It is stated in the Gemara [ibid.] that what is similar to a grain ear is kosher even ab initio, and its explanation is that it contains no notch at all but is not smooth; rather, it is very sharp and its touch is like the touch of the tip of a grain ear which entangles the finger. Since it contains no notch, one may slaughter with it ab initio. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 6 that we are not accustomed to slaughter with it because we are not experts in the matter. Thus far his words. For in truth, if we permit this matter, they will come to say regarding light notches that this is also similar to a grain ear. Therefore, one must warn the ritual slaughterers that as long as the knife is not smooth, they should not slaughter with it. However, after the slaughter, if it was found to be similar to a grain ear, there is certainly no concern in this. Also ab initio, when he performed the act and slaughtered with it, it should be ruled kosher [Tevu'ot Shor], though it is proper to rebuke him.

And similarly, a knife whose edge is smooth but is not sharp, since it has no notch, one may slaughter with it; and even if he prolonged a great amount of time in his slaughtering, it is kosher. And thus our Sages, of blessed memory, said [32a]: One who slaughters with a poor knife, even if he moved it back and forth all day, his slaughtering is kosher, since the entire time he is moving it back and forth and did not pause in his slaughtering [Rashi]. And know that below in siman 23 it will be explained that one who slaughters with a knife that is not sharp and was delayed during the final minority of the first siman for the duration of a pause, it is invalid. And the reason is that when the majority of the siman is cut, it is as if it were all cut, and that which he pauses during the remaining minority is like cutting a hand or a foot; see there. And according to this, you do not find this law except regarding a bird and not regarding an animal, for the validity of a bird is with one siman. And even though we invalidate a pause during the final minority in any case, as is written there, that is regarding an actual pause and not regarding one who slaughters with a poor knife, for this is not an actual pause. And sometimes even regarding an animal it is possible to permit it when he placed the two simanim one next to the other [Shach], for it is the same reason. However, this is post facto, but ab initio one should not slaughter with it even a bird, for ab initio one must slaughter two simanim even in a bird, as is written in siman 21. And the language of the Gemara proves this, that only post facto is it permitted and not ab initio.

A knife that rises and falls like a snake whose spine is crooked, and when its head and tail are raised there is like a pit between them—since it has no notch, one may slaughter with it ab initio. There is one who says specifically one rise and fall and not two [Bach], and they disagreed with him, for what is the difference to me if there is one or if there are two [Shach and Taz]. In our time, we do not slaughter with it except in a case of great need [Be'er Heitev], and with two rises and falls, even in a case of great need one should not slaughter in our time [ibid.]. There are those who were not concerned for this at all, as there is no reason for this stringency [Tevu'ot Shor]; nevertheless, we have never seen one slaughter with such a knife.

It has already been explained that one is obligated to check the knife before shechitah, and if he did not check, he should not slaughter. And if he transgressed and slaughtered without checking, and afterwards he checked it and found it to be fine, his shechitah is kosher, for in any event he slaughtered with a fine knife. And just as one is obligated to check before the shechitah, so too he is obligated to check after the shechitah, even though he checked it before the shechitah. Thus agreed the Rambam, the Tur, the Shulchan Aruch, and most of the poskim, that this is an obligation by law. Therefore, we establish later in siman 28 regarding the shechitah of a wild animal or a bird not to cover the blood before the checking of the knife, see there. And there are some among the Rishonim [the Ra'avad in chapter 1 and the Me'or in the first chapter] who said that we do not find that there is an obligation by law to check afterwards, since he checked it before the shechitah, establish it on its chazakah. But it is not so, for this is only in a case where the knife was lost or he broke bones with it such that it is impossible to check it, as will be explained. But when it is before us, behold we establish that we do not rely on a chazakah in a place where it is possible to clarify. Furthermore, for if it is found flawed, we render the slaughtered item treif, and we suspend the matter that perhaps it became flawed in the skin, as will be explained. And if so, he performed an action upon it that is possible to remove it from its chazakah; and granted that when it is impossible to check it, one must of necessity rely on its chazakah, but when it is possible to check it, it is obvious that one should not rely on its chazakah, and so we establish.

One who slaughters with a knife that was checked before the shechitah, and it was found to be notched after the shechitah, even if the notch is on the side, this is a case of safeik nevelah. For we do not know if it became notched in the hide and he slaughtered the simanim with a notched knife, or perhaps after the slaughter of the simanim it touched the bone of the neck and became notched. Any doubt regarding shechitah is disqualified, for an animal in its lifetime stands in its status of prohibition until it becomes known to you that it was slaughtered properly [9]. Then it leaves its status of prohibition, and since after the shechitah the knife was found notched, it has not left its status of prohibition. Even though we checked it before the shechitah, nevertheless, it is notched before you, and we have no clear matter to say that it became notched after the shechitah, such as if he broke bones with it or it fell on its edge upon the ground, as will be explained. For the touching of the neck is not clearly more likely to notch than the hide, as the bone of the neck is soft, and it is an equal doubt. The animal or the bird has not left its status of prohibition from when it was alive, and therefore it is safeik nevelah, even in a bird whose skin is soft, because its neck is also soft, and even if it certainly touched the bone of the neck.

Therefore, one who slaughters many animals or many birds must check the knife after the slaughter of each one, and he must check it with a proper inspection. For if he does not do so, and after all the slaughters the knife is found to be notched, everything is rendered treif, even the first one. Since there is a doubt that perhaps it was notched by the skin, as has been written, if so, there is also a doubt that perhaps it was notched by the skin of the first one, and the animal or the bird has not left its status of prohibition, for it is not known to us that it was slaughtered properly, as has been written. And so the Sages, of blessed memory, ruled in the Gemara [10b]. And one should not say that we should permit the first one by means of a double doubt: a doubt whether it was notched by the bone of the neck, and if you say it was notched by the skin, perhaps it was by the skin of the second or the skin of the last. For it can be said that since the knife is notched before us and we have no clear thing that notched it upon which we can attribute it, and the fitness of the animal depends on the fitness of the knife, when we judge regarding the knife we have no double doubt, for the two doubts are of one category: a doubt before slaughter and a doubt after slaughter, just as we judge regarding one animal. For regarding the knife, there is no difference between one animal and many animals, and therefore, automatically, even the first is a doubtful nevelah. [And this is exactly like a mikveh that was measured and found lacking, where we say "behold, it is lacking before you," and "establish the impure person on his status." And here too, "behold, it is notched before you," and "establish the animal on its status." And regarding this, the resolution of the Tosafot there, starting with the words "the knife was impaired," is not applicable, where they resolved that here the reason is because bone certainly notches, and this resolution is the primary one as the poskim have written. And even according to their first and last resolutions, one can also distinguish, for here the animal was also impaired since there is no clear thing upon which to attribute it; see there and examine carefully].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 11: And one who wishes to place himself in this doubt does not need to examine the knife between each act of shechitah. Thus far his words. That is to say, that which was explained regarding one who slaughters many animals, that he should examine between each and every shechitah, is not an obligation but rather good advice. However, one who wishes to place himself in this doubt—that if it is found flawed afterward, everything will be rendered tereifah—the permission is in his hand. And it is simple that this is only when the animals are his own, but when he slaughters the animals of others, it is simple that it is forbidden for him to place himself in this doubt. And if he did place himself in it and everything was rendered tereifah, some say he is liable to pay, for he is negligent in that he did not examine between each shechitah [Levush and Shach, sub-section 19]. And some say that it is impossible to extract money based on this [Taz, sub-section 5], but by the laws of Heaven, he is certainly liable, for he caused the loss of Jewish money through his laziness. And there is one who says that even with his own animals, he is not permitted to place himself in doubt, for perhaps everything will be rendered tereifah and he will transgress "do not destroy," and also it is easily possible to come to a pitfall, to cut a bit from the first one and eat before the completion of all the acts of shechitah [Bach and Tevuot Shor].

If the knife was lost after slaughtering without an inspection, since they inspected it prior to the slaughtering, it is kosher. For the status of prohibition of the animal was already removed by the inspection prior to the slaughtering, and it is known to us with what it was slaughtered, and we are not to assume a defect to say perhaps it was damaged during the slaughtering, for the vast majority are not damaged, and the knife also has a status of a fine inspection. It is only if it is before us that we require an inspection, but not when it was lost, provided that he did not lose it intentionally, for then he should be penalized and it should be prohibited. And it is a fortiori from what will be explained in siman 39, that if he lost the lung by hand they penalize him, and all the more so regarding slaughtering. But if it was lost on its own, it is permitted. And it is not similar to the inspection of the simanim as to whether the majority of them were slaughtered, which is a hindrance even post facto as I wrote in siman 25, for the simanim were never in a status of having had their majority slaughtered, which is not the case with the knife, which is in a status of being inspected. And even if he slaughtered many animals and did not inspect between one and the other, and afterwards the knife was lost, all of them are permitted for the reason that has been explained.

And there are some of our teachers who say that this is specifically when he does not know if the knife touched the neck-bone of one of them, but if the knife touched the neck-bone, all those slaughtered afterward are forbidden [the Rosh, the Rashba, and the Ran]. And it is a logical reason, for even though according to what was explained previously, the touching of the neck-bone is not presumed to cause a notch more than the hide—for when it is found notched, we declare the animal treif and do not attribute it to the neck-bone, as I wrote in section 30—this is for stringency and not for leniency. And the proof for this is that in the Gemara [10a] there is one who attributes it even for leniency, and although we do not rule accordingly, nevertheless we see there is a reasoning to say that the bone of the neck is liable to notch; if so, all the animals and birds that were slaughtered afterward, in any event, have not yet left their presumption of prohibition, and it is not known to us with what they were slaughtered permissibly, and the knife has also lost some of its presumption of examination. And even though the Rosh, of blessed memory, hesitated regarding this law, nevertheless several of the Rishonim forbade it, and our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled accordingly, and according to what we have explained, there is a correct reason for this.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 13: If one slaughtered with an inspected knife and it was lost before he could inspect it after slaughtering, and afterward it was found and it is notched, his slaughtering is kosher since it went out with a status of permission; and regarding this which was found notched, we say perhaps he broke bones with it and was unaware, for we establish the knife in its status. Thus far his words. And in section 16 he wrote: If he inspected the knife after slaughtering and put it away, and afterward it was found notched, we have no concern, for we say it was notched by something else or he broke bones with it and was unaware. Thus far his words. Behold, he only declared it kosher when he inspected after the slaughtering; so how did he declare it kosher here without the inspection that is after the slaughtering? And the great later authorities challenged him from what he himself wrote in section 15, that even if the knife fell on the ground, we do not depend on saying that it fell on its edge unless we knew clearly that it fell on its edge, as will be explained. And how can we depend here on a doubt when he did not inspect after the slaughtering? Therefore they ruled for prohibition [Bach and Pri Chadash]. And there are those who answered that the essence of the permit is "since it went out with a status of permission," meaning that if he had come before us to ask when the knife was lost, we would have permitted it to him, and the knife went out into a status of permission; if so, even though it was found afterward notched, we depend on something else [Taz sub-section 10 and Shach sub-section 22]. And these are astonishing words, since it was revealed afterward that we erred in the status of permission of the knife, and the matter was revealed that we have nothing clear by which the animal left its status of prohibition from when it was alive. And there are many contradictions to this [see Pri Megadim; and the words of the Shach in sub-section 22 require great study, for he wrote that in the bone of the neck it is more common to notch than in the skin, see there; it is true that in the Responsa of the Rosh, Klal 100, he answers thus for the one who holds so, but we do not rule so, as the Rosh himself wrote in his rulings in the first chapter of Chullin; and also his words in sub-section 27 require great study, see there; and also what the Kreiti U'Pleiti wrote based on the reasoning of a double doubt requires study according to the words of Tosafot, page 10, starting with the word "Sakin," for we require something that certainly notches, and as wrote in section 31; and the essence of the double doubt was not clarified; and the logic of "since it went out with a status of permission" we only find once in the Talmud, Gittin 6a, regarding a rabbinic enactment and not for a Torah matter, and even there they did not conclude it before him as is stated there; and the words of the Bach are correct, as the Pri Chadash wrote].

And it seems to me that for this reason he was precise in section 16 to say "and he hid it," and the primary distinction depends on this. For here we are dealing with a case where the knife was lost and found afterwards after a period of time in a public place, where it is clear that many hands and many feet were upon it. And it is not a deficiency at all that it is found now to be defective, for it must necessarily become defective since it was lying in a public place, and it is as if it is certain that he broke bones with it. Therefore, since it left with permission—as it was lost during the act—we have a clear matter by which the animal left its status of prohibition, which is the inspection prior to the slaughter. For regarding that which is found now to be defective, we have a clear matter upon which to attribute it: that it was lying in a public place. But in section 16, where he hid it, therefore even though it is possible that he himself broke bones with it and was unaware, nevertheless since it was in a hidden place, we have no clear matter upon which to attribute it. Therefore, he only permitted it when he inspected it after the slaughter, and we attribute it even to a doubt that perhaps he broke bones with it, and we do not attribute it to him not having inspected it well, which is a more distant matter. [And therefore it is also not similar to the doubt of whether it fell on its edge, for there it is a doubt and here it is a certainty because it was in a public place; and there is something similar to this at the end of the first chapter of Niddah regarding the difference between placing it in a box or throwing it in the trash in the matter of inspections. And therefore he did not write the reasons found in the Responsa of the Rosh, which are not according to the halacha as I have written, and such is the way of the authors of the Shulchan Aruch in every place]:

He further wrote in section 14: If one did not check the knife before slaughtering and slaughtered with it and it was lost, his slaughtering is invalid. In what case does this apply? With an ordinary knife. But a butcher who has a knife designated for slaughtering and a designated place where he always hides it, it is in a state of being checked; and if he slaughtered with it without checking and it was lost, his slaughtering is valid. And it is proper for every butcher to have a knife designated for slaughtering, and it is forbidden to do anything else with it, and he should hide it so that he does not notch it. Nevertheless, he should not slaughter with it ab initio without checking. Thus far his words. And it is implied from this that a knife that is checked and placed in a hidden place, even if it was placed there for many days, is not prone to becoming damaged on its own. And as our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 15, and this is his wording: And there is no difference in all of this between whether he checked the knife first close to the slaughtering or whether it was in a state of being checked previously and he did not check it close to the slaughtering, for even so it is called a checked knife. Thus far his words. And he did not distinguish between a short time and a long time. But there is one who says that for more than three days it is prone to becoming damaged on its own through rust, and that expert slaughterers testified so [Simlah Chadashah section 16]. And so it is implied in the Mordechai in the first chapter, see there. And it is possible that the intention of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, also does not refer to a distant time [and therefore he was precise and wrote "and did not check it close to the slaughtering"]. And perhaps there is a difference in this between one knife and another, for soft iron is prone to becoming damaged and not hard iron. And from Rashi in Zevachim chapter 8 it is implied that it is forbidden to slaughter with a knife of soft iron, see there. And nevertheless, for the halachah, one should not be lenient for more than three days in any case, like the words of the Tevuot Shor.

One who slaughters with an inspected knife, and after the slaughter, before he inspected the knife, he broke bones with it in a manner of breaking and not in a manner of contact via forward and backward motion, and certainly in a manner of mere contact, and he inspected it and it was found to be notched—his slaughter is kosher. For we hang the matter on the fact that it was certainly notched by the breaking of the bones, and it is even better than if the knife were lost, for we see something upon which to hang the flaw. It is considered as though it is known to us that the animal left its status of prohibition via the inspection that preceded the slaughter. And so too regarding anything similar to this with a matter that certainly notches, such as if it fell on its edge on hard ground; and specifically when we saw it fall on its edge, but out of doubt we do not hang the matter to say that it fell on its edge. For based on a doubt, the animal does not leave its status of prohibition, and it is not known to us with what it was slaughtered in a permitted manner, for the inspection that preceded the slaughter has been undermined, since it is notched before us and we have no clear matter upon which to hang its notch. Therefore, the animal has not yet left its status of prohibition from when it was alive.

It has already been explained that touching the bone of the neck is not likely to cause a notch, but if the knife struck the bone of the neck, and all the more so if one broke the bone of the neck with the knife, it would appear from the perspective of logic that it certainly causes a notch like any other bone. This is also evident from the wording of Rashi, of blessed memory [10b], that only touching the bone of the neck does not cause a notch more than the hide, and not by way of striking, see there. And so wrote the Mordechai regarding an incident where the knife was found notched after the shechitah, and they commanded to rinse the blood and a cut was found in the bone of the neck, and they declared it kosher because they attributed the notch to the cut, see there; and all the more so by way of breaking. Also in the Rosh it is explicitly evident that when the cut was with force in the neck, we attribute it to it, and all the more so by way of breaking. And it is true that there are some poskim from whose words it is implied that we do not attribute it to the neck at all, but they are individuals against the many who permit, and the senses testify to this. Therefore, one must wonder about our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 15, who wrote, and this is his wording: And if one broke with it the bone of the neck, even by way of breaking, we do not attribute it to it because it is soft. Thus far his words. Why did he incline to be stringent against the majority of the poskim? And already all the great Acharonim have challenged him and permitted even in the bone of the neck by way of breaking. And with our senses we see that it is hard like all bones within the body, except for the hard bones of the hands and the legs, and in the Gemara they permitted regarding bones in general, and why should the bone of the neck be inferior to them?

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 18: The butcher must take payment for the tereifot just as for the kashrut, so that he will not come to be lenient and declare it kosher in order to receive his payment from the kashrut; and therefore they were accustomed in some places that a person does not slaughter and examine for himself, but rather those appointed by the community. Thus far their words. That is to say, since we are concerned due to financial suspicion that he will come to be lenient and declare it kosher against the law, they therefore were accustomed that the shochet should not also be the meat seller, for we are concerned he will come to be lenient; rather, the shochet is appointed by the community and he slaughters the animals of the butchers, as is the simple custom among us, and he receives his payment from the tereifot just as from the kashrut, as has been explained. According to this, also the internal organs and the fat that the shochatim take from the butchers, they must take also from the tereifot, yet the custom is not so, for they take only from the kashrut. Also in ancient times the custom was so, as is explained in Choshen Mishpat siman 306, see there. Also the Rambam, of blessed memory, in the Commentary on the Mishnah in Bekhorot chapter 4, cried out against the custom that existed in his days, that there were those who took payment only from the kashrut, see there. And we already wanted to establish the practice that the shochet should take the internal organs also from the tereifah, but the shochatim did not want to because it is worth almost nothing when it is tereifah, and according to this, even if they take from the tereifah, the concern returns to its place, that he will come to declare it kosher so that he will profit from the fat.

The great Acharonim have already exerted themselves regarding this permission. Some say that they practiced this because they are not suspected of permitting the forbidden for the sake of a small matter [Taz, subsection 14]. But this is not sufficient, for who can distinguish between a large matter and a small matter? [Rivash, siman 500]. Furthermore, in our time, there are sometimes good animals that are worth a great deal. They wrote that the Ra'avad, of blessed memory, established the practice in his locale to stipulate with the shochatim for a fixed annual salary, and afterwards he would arrange that they receive the innards from the kosher animals in exchange for that salary; in this, there is no suspicion, since they purchase the innards for an agreed price. Yet even this is not a complete remedy [ibid.]. Some have answered that the suspicion only exists when the shochet-bodek rules on a specific question, for we fear he may incline his heart to rule it kosher for the sake of profit; but now, no shochet-bodek issues rulings, but rather brings it to the sage, and thus there is no suspicion [Yam Shel Shlomo, chapter 3, section 8]. This too is not sufficient, for perhaps he will see the knife after the shechitah and see that it is not good, and he will incline his heart to rule it kosher, for in this matter one does not ask a sage. There is one who wrote that since the butchers must provide meat for all the townspeople, and when this animal is found to be treifah they must necessarily slaughter another, if so, the shochet is not an interested party, for he will slaughter another in its place [Kereti U-Peleti]. This is true in large cities, but in a small town, and certainly in rural settlements, it is a daily occurrence that when one is found to be treifah they do not slaughter another, particularly during the heat, as is known. And there, even if some small question arises regarding the lung, they will rule for themselves and will not trouble themselves to send to the rabbi because of the distance, especially in remote places with few Jews where there is no rabbi at all and the shochatim rule for themselves. Moreover, we know of many places where the shochet-bodek himself is the meat seller and slaughters for his own account, such that he is the shochet and he is the butcher.

However, is it not known that in the time of the Shas it was so, that the shochet was the one who sold the meat, for they said: Any butcher who does not know the laws of shchita, it is forbidden to eat from his shchita [9a]. And they said there [8b]: The butcher must have three knives, one with which he slaughters, and one with which he cuts meat, etc. Behold, the shochet was the butcher as well. Furthermore, it is very difficult regarding the essence of the suspicion, for where do we find that we should suspect a proper Israelite that for the sake of monetary profit he would feed treifot, Heaven forbid? And behold, it is explicitly explained later in siman 119 that we only suspect a suspected Israelite, and not one who is not suspected. And the essence of this law was learned from the inspection of blemishes in a firstborn [Bechorot 29a], where the sages required that he take an equal amount whether he permits it or does not permit it, because of suspicion, so they should not say that he permits it because of the profit, see there. And it can be said that it is not comparable, for a blemish-free firstborn slaughtered outside is a prohibition of karet, and therefore the Sages, of blessed memory, were concerned for a prohibition of karet, but not for a negative prohibition. And that which the Sages, of blessed memory, said in Yevamot [82a] that regarding everything from the Torah there is no difference between a negative prohibition and a prohibition of karet, see there, that is in a matter where there is concern from the essence of the law. But in a matter that is only a mere distancing, such as because of suspicion and the like, Rashi explained explicitly there that they were concerned for a prohibition of karet and not for a negative prohibition [Rashi there 119a, starting with "Mah"].

Furthermore, there in Bekhorot, this bekhor stands in a status of prohibition, and it is not in his power to remove it from this status; therefore, when he removes it from the status of prohibition with a mere statement, saying that it is a permanent blemish, they rightly feared that he should have no personal interest in this. This is not the case regarding shehitah, for it is in his power to remove it from the status of prohibition, and for this reason one person is believed, as written in siman 1. And after the shehitah, it stands in a status of permission, and the knife also has a status of being checked; there is no room here to suspect him [and see the Rash at the end of chapter 2 of Negaim]. Furthermore, it is not comparable at all to a bekhor, for there it is a ruling to decide if it is a blemish or not, and the Torah forbade receiving payment for a ruling, just as it is forbidden to receive payment for a Torah judgment or the delivery of testimony, as is explained there. They only permitted it for the sake of compensation for lost time. Therefore, since the primary payment is not according to Torah law, the sages rightly feared that there should not be a conspicuous matter in this, that he takes payment only because of a ruling of permission. Therefore, they enacted that he should take his payment whether he permits it or does not permit it. But this butcher who comes for his wage, both for his shehitah and for the sale of the meat, where there is no ruling here and no trace of prohibition in his wage, and he is nothing more than a mere laborer—and he enters into the task with this understanding: that if his work succeeds in his hand, he will take his wage, and if not, he will not take it—there is no room here for suspicion. Therefore, our sages, of blessed memory, did not fear this at all. And the early authorities who feared this, it is only as a measure of piety; and in a place where it is possible, it is possible. It is sufficient that it was enacted in most places that the shohet should not be the seller of the meat, and in places where even this is impossible, there is no suspicion here according to the essential law [so it appears to me].

They further wrote in section 19: Reuven who said to Shimon, "Examine this knife," and he examined it two times out of the twelve that are required and gave it to Reuven, and Reuven was going to slaughter, and Levi took it from his hand and found it damaged, and Reuven offers an excuse and says that he still intended to examine it properly—his actions prove his intent, that he was satisfied with that examination, and therefore he is removed. And if the matters appear to be a type of oversight and that he is a fit person, he is reinstated, provided that he accepts upon himself that he will not return to such a thing again. Thus far their words. And it is implied from their words that even if it appears that an oversight was in his hand, nevertheless he is removed for a time and then reinstated, since they did not write "he is not removed," but rather "he is reinstated." And the reason is that every unintentional transgressor also requires atonement, and he should have been careful not to come to an oversight, for it is for this reason the Torah obligated a sacrifice for one who acts unintentionally. Therefore, they shame him for a time and reinstate him immediately. And it is obvious that this is specifically when he knew that Shimon had not yet examined it properly, but when he did not know of this, there is no guilt upon him, and the guilt depends on Shimon who did not inform him [and so it appears from the Shach, subsection 32]. And regarding the core of these matters, it depends on the opinion of the beit din according to what their eyes see and according to the assessment of the shochet, according to the assessment of how he is established in the fear of Hashem and in the diligence of his craft, and so too everything similar to this.

They further wrote in section 100: A butcher in whose knife a notch was found at the tip of the knife, and he said, "This notch is because I cover the blood of the birds with the tip of the knife, and when I slaughter I am careful not to touch the notch," he is removed, and it is close to saying that the vessels are forbidden. Thus far his words. And it is simple that in this case it is of no avail to say that he erred in this, for he testifies about himself that he is not meticulous between a notched knife and one that is not notched, and furthermore, he slaughters with a notched knife ab initio [the Shach in the name of the Rashba]. And besides this, even if a notch was not found in it, if he is merely accustomed to cover the blood with the knife, it is proper to remove him, for we are meticulous regarding a knife of shechitah not to use it for any other use, and how could he dare to cover with it, to move earth with a knife of shechitah [the Rashba in a Responsum]. And a butcher whose knife was found notched not at the time of shechitah, he is not to be penalized [Maharam Lublin in a Responsum]. And although the butchers are accustomed to check their knives always and they are placed in a case, clean and beautiful, and it is a beautiful custom and an adornment of the mitzvah and the honor of our holy Torah, nevertheless, to penalize him for this is impossible; however, in any event, he is not among the choice butchers.

An incident occurred involving a shochet who inspected the knife and found a notch, and he gave it to his fellow who inspected it and did not feel the notch, and he slaughtered and fed many people. Afterward, the first one said that the knife was notched and he did not reveal it to him in order to cause him to stumble, as he was his enemy. They ruled to fine him and to remove the first one for not revealing it to him [Be'er Heitev subsection 24 in the name of the Rashdam]. And it appears to me that if it is not clearly known that there was truly a notch on the knife, the first one is not believed at all, and the meat and the vessels retain their status of kashrut, since the second one inspected it and found it good. And we do not remove the first one either, and it is only proper to fine him for his words like a madman who shoots firebrands, for making the matter of shechitah like a mundane matter. However, if it was clarified that there was truly a notch by which the animal became treifah, the meat and the vessels are forbidden, and we remove both of them from shechitah and inspection: the first one because he did not reveal it and caused treifot to be fed and testified about himself that he is a rasha, and the second one either because he does not feel a notch or because he is a rasha and is unconcerned with a notch.

Another incident occurred regarding a shochet who, after checking the knife after the shechitah, gave it to a youth to deliver it to another shochet, and the other checked it and found it nicked. They ruled that if he is a minor youth, we say that he damaged it on the way, and even if he says that he did not touch it, his words are of no consequence, and the animals that the first one slaughtered are completely kosher. However, if the youth is an adult and says with certainty that he did not touch the knife and that the knife was not struck by anything to which we could attribute the nick, the meat that the first one slaughtered must be forbidden [Pri Chadash subsection 32 in the name of the Maharit bin Lev]. And it appears to me that this law depends on the laws explained in siman 1 from section 63 until section 68, see there [and the Maharit bin Lev also there is of the opinion to be stringent, as written in the Ba'er Heitev there subsection 33].

The sages taught in the Mishnah [at the end of the second chapter of Negaim]: A person may see all firstborns except for his own firstborns. The intention is not that a person is not permitted to rule on his own matters, for the sages, of blessed memory, explicitly said the opposite [Eruvin 63a, Chullin 44b]. Therefore, one of our teachers explained that regarding a matter where a prohibition is established, such as a firstborn which is in a status of established prohibition, the sage does not have the ability to rule; but a matter that is not in a status of established prohibition, he may rule [the Rash]. And if he has the power to remove the established prohibition, such as to slaughter an animal or to inquire about consecrated items—where it is in his power to remove the status by slaughtering it or by inquiring of a sage and removing it to non-sacred status—he is also trusted regarding the ruling for himself. According to this, one of the great later authorities wrote that it is only permitted to slaughter, but if a question occurred to him regarding the slaughtering, he should not rule [Taz, subsection 15]. The explanation of his words is that since in a case of established prohibition he is not permitted to rule for himself unless it is a matter within his power, he is therefore only trusted to check the knife before slaughtering because it is in his power to slaughter. Similarly, it is permitted to slaughter on the grounds that most who are found near slaughtering are experts, or because even at the time of the act of slaughtering it is still called being within his power. Likewise, regarding terefot of the lung or other organs, he may see for himself, for since it was slaughtered, it stands in a status of established permission. But regarding a question of slaughtering, such as if a doubt arose concerning the knife after the slaughtering whether this is a nick or not, or some doubt regarding the slaughtering itself, it is forbidden for him to rule for himself, for behold, it has not yet left the status of established prohibition and now it is not within his power [as mentioned above in the explanation of the words of the Taz]. According to this, it must be said that that which the sages, of blessed memory, said, that a Torah scholar is permitted to check the knife for himself [Eruvin ibid.], is only before the slaughtering; but after the slaughtering, when he has a doubt, he shall not rule for himself. Similarly, that which they said, that he may see a terefah for himself, is only regarding a terefah that was not established. And all such matters should have been explained, and also we have not seen the poskim mention anything of this, and it requires further study.

In my humble opinion, this law applies only to a בכור for two reasons. The first is that that which we learned, that a person may not inspect his own בכורות, refers to a כהן, as Rashi explained at the end of the fourth chapter of בכורות, see there; and the כהנים are suspected of inflicting a blemish upon their בכורות, as is explained throughout the entire tractate there, and anyone suspected of a matter may neither judge it nor testify regarding it, and therefore it is forbidden for him to issue a ruling regarding his own בכורות. The second reason is that it is proven in the Gemara at the end of the fifth chapter of בכורות that the permitting of a בכור is similar to the permitting of a vow, for which reason we require three people for the permitting of a בכור, see there. And in that same Mishnah we learned there that a person may permit all vows except for his own vows, and we derive this from the verse, "He shall not profane his word," implying that he may not profane it, but others may profane it for him, see there. Therefore, the permitting of a בכור also cannot be done by himself, and for this reason the Tanna taught them together [see Tosafot Niddah 100b, s.v. "Kol," and in Ma'adanei Yom Tov at the end of the fourth chapter of בכורות, s.v. "Ot 21," who wrote that the Rosh does not hold the reasoning of the Rash, see there. And that which the Sages, of blessed memory, were required there to state the reasoning of "migo" regarding his consecrated items and his tithes, this is also because of suspicion, for because of the "migo" everyone is believed regarding his own animal tithe, as is explained there in the Mishnah, page 36a].