Siman 19

One who performs shechitah must recite a blessing before the shechitah: "Blessed are You, Hashem, our God, King of the universe, Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning shechitah." And even though shechitah is not a positive commandment—as there is no obligation to slaughter and eat meat—and it would have been more appropriate to recite a blessing "Who has commanded us not to eat nevelah, tereifah, and a limb from a living animal, and has permitted shechitah to us," similar to the blessing recited for erusin, "Who has commanded us concerning forbidden relations, and has prohibited to us those who are betrothed, and permitted to us those who are married, etc."; however, the truth is that they never instituted a blessing over a prohibition, and a blessing is only over a positive commandment. And that which they instituted thus in the blessing of erusin, there is another reason for it, and we explained this with the help of Heaven in Even HaEzer, siman 34, section 2 and 3; see there. Therefore, it was not possible to recite such a blessing, and they instituted a blessing over the mitzvah of shechitah. For even though it is not obligatory, nevertheless, since anyone who desires to eat meat is obligated to slaughter, and it is the way of all mankind to eat meat, it follows that this is like a positive commandment. Furthermore, the verse expressed this in the language of a positive commandment: "And you shall slaughter... and you shall eat." Moreover, regarding consecrated animals, it is impossible without shechitah. Therefore, the Sages, of blessed memory, instituted a blessing over every shechitah [Rosh, first chapter of Ketubot, siman 12]. And the blessing of shechitah is clarified from the words of the Gemara in Chullin [86b, see there in Rashi, s.v. "regarding the blessing"] and Pesachim [7b], and it is explicit in the Yerushalmi, Berakhot, chapter 9, halachah 3. And know that in the Tosefta, Berakhot, chapter 6, it is stated: One who slaughters requires a blessing for himself "concerning shechitah"; one who covers the blood requires a blessing for himself "concerning the covering of the blood." See there. And it appears to me that this is the explanation: even though he will not eat from it, he is nevertheless obligated to recite the blessing, and even though the animal is not his. Likewise, the one who covers the blood, even though he did not slaughter, is obligated to recite the blessing over the covering when he covers it. Or, it is possible to say that this is the explanation: that he himself must recite the blessing, and another cannot recite the blessing unless he also slaughters. But if he does not slaughter, the other cannot recite the blessing, as in the case of the blessings of enjoyment which was explained in Orach Chaim, siman 213. And this is not similar to the blessing of the mitzvot where another can recite the blessing even though he is not performing the mitzvah, based on the principle that "all Israel are sureties for one another" [end of the third chapter of Rosh Hashanah], for shechitah is more similar to the blessings of enjoyment because the matter is not an obligation upon him like other positive commandments. And this is the opinion of most of the great authorities [as written by the Pri Chadash in siman 1, subsection 33, and the Tevuot Shor, subsection 59, and not like the Taz there, subsection 17].

It is a simple matter that if no Israelite will eat from this animal at all, such as when one slaughters for the army and will not examine the lung, he should slaughter without a blessing, for the primary blessing is over the eating, as I have written. However, if he examines the lung, even though the primary slaughtering is for the army, nevertheless, since he is careful to examine the lung, it is possible that an Israelite will also eat a little of it, and therefore he must bless [Pri Chadash in Kuntres Acharon and Pri Megadim in Shiftei Da'at at the end of subsection 2]. And one should not bless Shehecheyanu over the slaughtering even when he slaughters for the first time, and the reason will be explained with the help of Heaven in siman 28 regarding the matter of kisuy hadam; see there.

If one slaughtered and did not recite a blessing, his shechitah is valid, whether it was unintentional or intentional. This is the opinion of the majority of the Rishonim, and one should not disqualify the shechitah on the grounds that he is a wicked person; for even one who transgresses a single matter of the Torah, his shechitah is valid, as I wrote in siman 2, and all the more so regarding a blessing, which is rabbinic. There are some among the Rishonim who prohibited his shechitah when he did not recite a blessing intentionally, and we penalize him so that he may not eat from it, and we strike him with lashes of rebellion [Mordechai in the name of the Ra'avyah, chapter 25]. However, for others it is permitted [Bach]. There is one who says that regarding the prohibition for himself, all agree that it is prohibited [ibid.], but the majority of the poskim disagree on this [Yam Shel Shelomo, Shach, Pri Chadash, and Tevuot Shor]. Nevertheless, when the people are lax regarding blessings, one should penalize him for himself [Tevuot Shor].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And if he slaughtered something in which a defect arose and it requires inspection, he should slaughter it without a blessing, and when it is found to be kosher, he blesses over the slaughter, provided that it is close to the slaughter. Thus far his words. And the Rambam wrote in chapter 11 of Berakhot that if he slaughtered and did not bless, he should not bless after the slaughter, see there. Nevertheless, it can be said that in such a case he agrees, because it was not fit for a blessing beforehand. And there are some among the Rishonim who disagree with the Rambam, that even in a completely kosher animal, if he did not bless before the slaughter, he blesses afterward [Hagahot Ashri, first chapter of Chullin, see there], for specifically regarding blessings of enjoyment one should not bless after he has enjoyed, but not regarding the blessing of the mitzvot. And in this, slaughter is similar to the blessing of the mitzvot because there is no enjoyment in its slaughter. And the Rambam holds that regarding all blessings, one should not bless after their performance. And in Orach Chaim siman 158, they ruled in the Shulchan Aruch regarding the matter of netilat yadayim that if he did not bless until after drying, he should bless afterward, see there. And in this, it can be said that even the Rambam agrees, because the essence of the blessing of netilat yadayim must necessarily be after the washing because his hands are soiled, and therefore he can bless even after the drying [see there in Magen Avraham subsection 16]. But in a place where it is possible to bless beforehand, the Rabbis enacted that he must specifically bless prior to their performance, and if not, he should not bless afterward. And regarding the law, the great Acharonim disagreed, and it is simple that "a doubt regarding blessings is to be lenient." However, if he remembered in the middle of the slaughter, it seems simple that he should bless, but at the end of the slaughter, he should not bless. And it is a simple matter that for one who slaughters something in which a defect arose, if it is in his power to slaughter some bird beforehand and bless and intend to exempt this slaughter as well, he must do so; but if he cannot, he may bless afterward if it is close to the slaughter.

He further wrote: And if he slaughtered in a slaughterhouse, which is a filthy place, he should recite the blessing at a distance of four amot before he enters there, and he should not speak until after the shechitah. Thus far his words. And behold, if there are partitions for the slaughterhouse, he may recite the blessing before he enters and does not require a distance of four amot if the foul odor does not reach there, as is written in Orach Chaim siman 83 [Tevu'ot Shor]. And there is one who disagrees with the essence of this law and holds that one should only recite the blessing in the place where he slaughters, for even a final blessing is required specifically in the same place that he ate, as is written in Orach Chaim siman 184, and certainly a prior blessing [Magen Avraham end of siman 166]. And it appears to me that this applies only to blessings of enjoyment, where one must recite the blessing in the place where he enjoys, but not regarding blessings of the mitzvot. And the proof is from daily occurrences regarding the blessing of netilat yadayim, for they wash in this room and recite the blessing in another room if the room in which they wash is not clean of filth. And it is possible that the distance should not be twenty-two amot, which is called an interruption between the blessing and the shechitah, as with netilat yadayim which is explained there in Orach Chaim; however, even there this law is not agreed upon, as will be explained there. And although one could say that from room to room is not called a change of place when his intention was for this, as is written there in siman 178, but in a truly different place one should not recite the blessing; however, it is impossible to say so, for there in siman 6 it is explained regarding the morning netilat yadayim that some are accustomed to recite its blessing in the synagogue, see there, and you have no greater change of place than this. Therefore, the main point is according to the words of our teacher, the Rema [The Kereti U-Peleti subsection 5 raised a difficulty from the Yerushalmi Shekalim chapter 3 halakhah 2, where it was taught that they would speak with the one who contributes the baskets of shekalim until he exited the chamber so that they should not say that he hidden shekalim in his mouth. And it asks: let him fill his mouth with water? And it answers: because of the blessing that he needed to recite over the contribution, see there. And he raised a difficulty that according to the Rema, let him recite the blessing before he enters. And he answers that there was an interruption of twenty-two amot, see there, and it is a forced explanation. And in my humble opinion, it appears that this is the explanation: "let him fill his mouth with water" immediately after his exit; and it answers "because of the blessing," meaning that he would need to recite a blessing over the water, and perhaps he is not thirsty and his blessing would be in vain, and if he does not recite a blessing, perhaps he will swallow some of the water and derive enjoyment without a blessing, for perhaps he is slightly thirsty. And according to their explanation of the Yerushalmi, it is a manifest difficulty, for how is it possible for him to stand at the time of the contribution with his mouth full of water? Does he not need to say "I am contributing," as we learned there later? And furthermore, this is not proper conduct, and now, before a king of flesh and blood one does not do so, etc. Therefore, it appears as we explained].

If one slaughtered domestic animals, wild animals, and birds, one blessing serves for all of them, just as the law is regarding all blessings: that as long as the blessing is the same, even if they are many species and his intention is to eat all of them, he blesses over one and exempts the others. This is a simple matter, and thus the Tur and Shulchan Aruch in section 2 left it as an unqualified rule. However, in the Mordechai, chapter "Kol HaBasar," he wrote, and this is his wording: The Raviah found in the Responsa of the Geonim that one must bless over each and every slaughter, lest he forget and speak in the interim regarding matters that are not of the nature of slaughter. And so wrote Rabbenu Shmuel ben Chofni and our teacher Kalonymus of Rome, to bless over each and every slaughter. Thus far his words. And at the end of the chapter he wrote there, in this wording: In the Sha'arim of our teacher Shmuel ben Chofni it is written that the sages were stringent to bless the blessing of slaughter for each and every one, lest he divert his mind and converse or involve himself and interrupt; therefore he blesses for each and every one as a stringency. Thus far his words. But all the poskekim did not cite this, for on the contrary, there is a prohibition to increase unnecessary blessings. And in my humble opinion, it appears that the Geonim spoke regarding the slaughter of large animals in the slaughterhouse, where it is known that after each slaughter they delay a long time for the inspection of the knife, and until they prepare the slaughter of the next one there is a great interruption, and it is clear that the shochet also interrupts with matters that are not of the nature of the slaughter; in such a case, the Geonim spoke well. But regarding the slaughter of birds and small animals, where the slaughters are frequent, one after another, and the inspection of the knife is but a few moments, the Geonim did not say this. However, all the poskekim did not make this distinction, and the law requires further study.

Two people who are slaughtering two animals, or an animal and a bird, one recites the blessing and the second hears the blessing, answers amen, and slaughters. As it is taught in the Tosefta [Berakhot chapter 6]: Ten people who perform ten mitzvot, each one recites the blessing for himself; ten people who perform one mitzva, one recites the blessing for all of them. And he is obligated to answer amen, for whenever one fulfills his obligation through the blessing of the second, he must answer amen, as is written in Orach Chaim siman 167. Also, the one reciting the blessing must intend to fulfill the obligation of the other with the blessing, and the second must intend to fulfill his obligation, as is the law regarding all blessings. And then, even if the animal of the one who recited the blessing is found to be treifa, nevertheless the second has fulfilled his obligation; for since he was obligated to recite the blessing at the time of the slaughter, there is no concern regarding what was found to be treifa after the slaughter. Furthermore, the slaughter was effective, in any event, to purify it from the status of nevela. But even if it became nevela during the slaughter, we also have no concern regarding it because of the first reason. And see what I wrote on the Tur, Orach Chaim siman 585.

One must be careful not to speak between the blessing and the shechitah regarding matters that are not relevant to the shechitah, according to the law of all blessings, where it is forbidden to interrupt between the blessing and the mitzvah; and if he spoke, he must bless a second time. However, between shechitah and kisuy, it is permitted to interrupt, for kisuy is a mitzvah unto itself. And there is one who holds that kisuy is the completion of the mitzvah of shechitah, and therefore it is good to be careful ab initio not to speak until after the kisuy. And it has not been clarified for us what is considered an interruption—whether even a single word, according to the law of interruption in prayer as explained in Orach Chaim siman 66, or specifically a lengthy speech; and it requires further study.

If one wishes to slaughter many, he must be careful not to speak between one slaughtering and another regarding a matter that is not for the needs of the slaughtering. This is not similar to one who spoke in the middle of a meal, who does not need to recite the blessing of hamotzi over what he eats afterward, for there it is one meal; but here they are two mitzvot, and it is like one who spoke between the tefillin of the hand and the tefillin of the head according to the opinion that holds that if he did not speak he recites one blessing and if he spoke he recites two, as written in Orach Chaim siman 25. Therefore, if he spoke between one slaughtering and another, he must recite a blessing over the second slaughtering by itself. And if he slaughters two birds which require kisuy, he should first cover the blood of the first and afterward slaughter the second with a blessing, because he must first complete all the mitzvot pertaining to the first, and kisuy is the completion of the mitzvah of slaughtering. Therefore, he should not interrupt with the slaughtering of the second between the slaughtering of the first and its kisuy. And over the second kisuy he should not recite a blessing, for he fulfilled his obligation with the blessing of the first kisuy, and the second slaughtering is not an interruption, for it is possible to slaughter with one hand and cover with the second [Chullin 87a]. And the blessing of the slaughtering is also not an interruption [see the Beit Yosef who compares it to Yaknehaz, and this is not a complete comparison for there it is so by the enactment of the sages, and in truth the opinion of Rashi is that he must recite a blessing as the Ran wrote there; nevertheless, most of the poskim agreed that the blessing is not an interruption].

But there are some of the poskim who disagree with the essence of this law and hold that conversation between one slaughtering and another slaughtering does not constitute an interruption at all, and it is similar to conversation in the middle of a meal. It is not similar to conversation between one prayer and another prayer which we wrote, for there it is an obligatory mitzvah, but the slaughtering of the second is optional, for if he wishes, he does not slaughter. Therefore, even though it is a mitzvah, nevertheless regarding this matter it is similar to an optional act. And since it is a legal doubt, and the rule of "doubts regarding blessings are to be treated leniently" applies, he should not bless a second time [Taz, subsection 9]. And even though there are some of the great later authorities who decided that he must bless, nevertheless "sit and do not act" is preferable [Tevu'ot Shor]. It is good that if he spoke between one slaughtering and another slaughtering, he should divert his mind entirely and make a significant interruption, and then he will be obligated in a blessing according to all opinions [ibid.]. And if this is impossible for him, he should slaughter the second and not bless.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 6: One who recites a blessing with the intent to slaughter one wild animal and afterwards they brought him more, he should cover the blood of the first and recite a blessing over the second slaughtering but not over the covering; and these words apply when they brought it to him before he recited the blessing over the covering of the first. Thus far his words. And in section 7 he wrote: If there were many before him to slaughter and he recited the blessing over the slaughtering and afterwards they brought him more, if when they brought him the latter ones there are still before him some of those that were before him when he recited the blessing, he does not need to return and recite the blessing; and if not, he must recite the blessing. And ab initio it is good to be careful that his intent at the time of the blessing should be upon everything that they will bring to him. Thus far his words.

The Acharonim wrote that the same applies to the law in section 6: if they brought him more before he slaughtered the first, even if it was after the blessing, he does not need to bless over the others. This is also implied by his words in his great work [which he brought from the Rosh, see there and examine it closely], because before he has slaughtered, it is not yet called the conclusion of his first blessing. And it appears to me that this is only in an unspecified case, where even though it was not in his mind to slaughter more than one, nevertheless, he did not explicitly intend not to slaughter more, but rather it did not occur to him that they would bring him more. Therefore, before he finishes the slaughtering, even if he is in the middle of the slaughtering, it is called that his first blessing has not yet concluded. But if he explicitly intended to slaughter only one and no more, he must bless over the others even if it was still before the slaughtering, for he is a true case of changing one's mind. And so too, regarding the law in section 7, it also deals with an unspecified case; even though he imagined in his mind that he would only slaughter those before him, nevertheless, he did not resolve in his mind not to slaughter more. For if he truly resolved in his mind not to slaughter more than those which were before him, it is obvious that he must bless over the others. [And proof for this is that the law in section 7 is from the Sefer HaMitzvot, and the Tur disagrees with him and wrote that for anything that was not before him he must bless, unless his intention was for everything they would bring him, thus far his words. And the Sefer HaMitzvot holds even when his intention was not for what they would bring him; and how could we create such a distant dispute? Examine it closely.]

And know that in Orach Chaim siman 206 he wrote that one who recited a blessing over fruits before him, and afterward they brought him more of that same species or of another species whose blessing is the same as the blessing of the first, he does not need to recite a blessing. Thus far his words. And the matter is clear that there his intention is either that he still has some of the first fruits before him, and it is similar to section 7, and therefore he does not need to recite a blessing even though his intention was not for the others, since he also did not intend not to eat anymore; or that he explicitly intended at the time of the blessing that they should bring him more, and therefore even though he already ate the first ones, he does not need to recite a blessing over the latter ones since he explicitly intended for this [and the great Acharonim raised a difficulty from one to the other, and I do not know why; and see Pri Chadash and Magen Avraham there subsection 7].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding the law in section 6: And some say that if they brought him from the same species that he slaughtered, he does not need to cover the first and recite a blessing over the second slaughter, and such is the primary ruling. Thus far his words. And it must be understood, how is it possible to say this? For behold, there his intention was only to slaughter one, and he already finished the slaughter, so how could he not recite a blessing over the second? However, according to what I wrote it is well, for in truth his intention was only for one, but he did not intend not to slaughter more, rather he thought there would be no more. Therefore, he holds that since they brought him from that same species and it is still before the covering of the first, it is considered that the act of the first has not yet finished, and he does not need to recite a blessing over the second. But in a case that does not require covering, such as a beast, it seems to me that he would admit that one must recite a blessing when they brought it after the slaughter of the first [and so it appears in the Levush, and also the opinion of the Ittur must be so. And the later authorities questioned that in Orach Chaim there, he does not distinguish between the first species and another species since their blessings are identical, but it is not a difficulty at all, for there it can be said that some of the first are still before him or that he intended for them as I wrote. But here, behold, he intended for one and it was already slaughtered; it is enough for us to exempt this species and not another species. And there is no need to distinguish between slaughter and the eating of fruits. And regarding what the Shach questioned from circumcision, certainly circumcision is not similar to slaughter, for circumcision is not as common as slaughter, and it is as if it were explicit that he would circumcise only one, and therefore he must recite a blessing over the second, and delve into this].

All these laws apply only to a shochet who is not appointed for the public, but the shochet and bodek of the city who is appointed as a shochet and bodek by the community, it is simple that he does not need to recite a blessing over everything they bring him, even after the slaughter of the previous one, if he did not interrupt with speech in the meantime and there was no great interruption, for ordinarily his intent is for everything they bring him [Shach, subsection 11].

One who was slaughtering a wild animal or a bird and his intention was to slaughter another wild animal or bird after them, and he forgot and covered [the blood] and recited the blessing, when he returns and slaughters, he does not need to recite a blessing on the slaughtering, for the covering and the blessing are not called an interruption, as it is the completion of the slaughter of the first. Therefore, one who slaughters a wild animal or a bird and his intention is to slaughter a domestic animal after this, he should cover first and afterwards slaughter without a blessing, for the covering is not an interruption. And according to what will be explained in siman 28, that one should not cover until he examines the lung, and if so, there would be a great interruption between the wild animal and the domestic animal and he would need to recite a blessing on the slaughtering of the domestic animal a second time, and we should not multiply blessings in vain; therefore, it is better that immediately after the slaughtering of the wild animal he should slaughter the domestic animal, and afterwards examine the wild animal and cover [Shach, subsection 13]. And all the more so regarding one who slaughters a domestic animal and his intention is to slaughter more, that he should not examine the domestic animal first, for if so, there would be a great involvement and he would need to recite a blessing a second time on the slaughtering; rather, he should slaughter all that he has to slaughter and afterwards examine the lung.

Regarding the law that was explained concerning one who forgot and covered, it must be clarified what the law is for one who slaughters a wild animal or a bird afterward, where he does not need to recite a blessing on the second slaughter as has been explained; however, what shall he do regarding the second covering concerning the blessing? The Levush wrote: It appears that if his error was in that which he covered and recited a blessing because he thought that such is the law, that one must cover between each and every one and recite a blessing over it, he is obligated to recite a blessing on the second covering, for it was for this purpose that he acted. And likewise, if his error was that he forgot that he still had more to slaughter before him, then automatically his intent during his blessing was not for the second covering and he must recite a blessing. But if it was in his intent to slaughter more and to cover the others as well by the power of this blessing, he does not need to recite a blessing on the second covering, and thus all the great authorities agreed.