Siman 2

The sages taught in the Mishnah [13a]: The shechitah of a Kutite is nevelah. Even if he slaughtered properly with a checked knife and with one standing over him, from the Torah his shechitah is nevelah, as is explained in the Tosefta at the beginning of Chullin, as it is said: "And you shall slaughter... and you shall eat," but not the shechitah of a Kutite, see there. And this is the explanation: "And you shall slaughter and you shall eat"—what you slaughter, you may eat [Tosafot 3b]; because the Kutite was not commanded regarding shechitah, therefore his shechitah is not shechitah at all. And even if he does not worship stars, since he was not commanded regarding shechitah. And the Rambam derived it from that which is written: "And he will call to you, and you will eat of his sacrifice," implying that even if he slaughters in your house with proper shechitah it is forbidden, for "of his sacrifice" cannot be explained as one who slaughters in his own house according to his custom, for regarding this the Torah already warned not to eat tereifah, nevelah, chelev, and blood, and in his house all of these are present; rather, it is certainly that even if he slaughters according to the law of shechitah it is forbidden [Bach]. And also according to the Rambam it is forbidden from the Torah even when he does not worship stars [Shach, subsection 2]. And that which the Rambam wrote in chapter 4, "and they fenced a great fence in the matter," that even a Kutite who is not a worshiper is forbidden, this refers to the Samaritan Kutites [ibid.], for they treated them like star-worshipers. And the Sadducees, the Boethusians, the heretics, and the apikorsim who do not believe in the Oral Torah, their shechitah is completely forbidden [see Shach subsection 24, what he wrote in the name of the Responsa of Rabbi Bezalel Ashkenazi].

It is stated in the Gemara [4a]: Rava said, an Israelite transgressor who eats nevelot to satisfy his appetite—one checks the knife and gives it to him, and it is permitted to eat from his shechitah. The explanation of the matter is that nevelah refers to anything that was not slaughtered properly, and he is a wicked person driven by desire and not to provoke, and his way is that when he finds kosher meat he will not eat nevelah, but when he does not find kosher meat he does not trouble himself to seek out kosher and eats nevelah. Therefore, it is impossible to believe him regarding the shechitah, as he will not trouble himself to prepare the knife properly. But when they give him a checked knife and he slaughters, the shechitah is valid even without one standing over him, for he will certainly slaughter properly; since he is a craftsman and an expert, there is no trouble in this to slaughter properly, and he will not cause the public to stumble, for aside from his desire he is not suspected of feeding forbidden food or of violating "before a blind person do not put a stumbling block." And this is specifically when they know of him that he knows the laws of shechitah and is a craftsman, for with such a wicked person it is impossible to rely on the principle that "the majority of those engaged in shechitah are experts." And besides checking the knife, nothing else avails him, even when an Israelite comes in and goes out. For we find in the Gemara regarding the Kutim—the Samaritans—that it avails because he is afraid to slaughter with a blemished knife when an Israelite comes in and goes out, but with a transgressor it does not avail, for he considers himself a complete Israelite, and also in the eyes of people he is a complete Israelite, and he does not imagine that they will check after him [Tosafot and the Rosh]. And it is forbidden to give to him ab initio to slaughter without checking the knife, even when an expert stands over him and will check the knife after shechitah; nevertheless, it is forbidden to give to him based on this because we fear perhaps he will not check afterward and it will be forbidden ex post facto. And anything that is forbidden ex post facto, one should not give based on a check after shechitah, as written in siman 1, section 2, that only in a case where it is permitted ex post facto is it permitted to give based on this; see there. And if it happened that they gave to him to slaughter without checking the knife, it is forbidden to eat until they check his knife after the shechitah, and if it is found to be good, it is permitted to eat. And even if we did not see with which knife he slaughtered, he is believed to say that he slaughtered with this knife, and we do not fear perhaps he slaughtered with a blemished knife and afterward this knife came to hand [Shach, subsection 7], for aside from his desire he is not suspected. And this is specifically immediately after the shechitah, but if some time has passed, he is not believed [see there in the Shach].

Our teacher Yeruham wrote: There is one who wrote that since the knife of the transgressor was inspected before the shechitah, there is no further need to inspect it after the shechitah. But the Geonim wrote that ab initio one must inspect it after the shechitah, and such is the primary ruling. Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book, decided that it is not necessary; see there. In the Shulchan Aruch, this is not mentioned at all. And behold, it is a simple matter, since we maintain in siman 18 that every shochet must inspect the knife before shechitah and after shechitah, and only ex post facto is it permitted when it was not inspected after shechitah, the shechitah of a transgressor is no better than the shechitah of a fit Israelite. And it is also obvious that to rely on the inspection of the transgressor after the shechitah is nothing, for the essence of the inspection is that perhaps the knife will be found to be notched and he will render the animal treifah, and this transgressor certainly would not do so, for even regarding the preparation of the knife he is suspect, as has been written, and all the more so that he would not render it treifah if he finds the knife notched. If so, his inspection after the shechitah is nothing, and certainly we must inspect the knife after shechitah ab initio like the words of the Geonim. And it must be said that the intention of those who disagree is this: that according to the words of the Geonim, we must necessarily see that he comes before us immediately after the shechitah in order to inspect it, and according to this, if we inspect a knife and he wishes to slaughter in a place far from us in a manner where we will not see the knife after the shechitah, it is forbidden according to the opinion of the Geonim. And on this they disagree, since the inspection after the shechitah is not a disqualifying factor ex post facto, we do not have the power to forbid him from slaughtering in another place when we have inspected the knife for him, for so implies the language of the Talmud, and this is considered like ex post facto. [And this is the intention of the Taz in subsection 2; and the words of the Shach in subsection 4, who wrote that we say that presumably he inspected it and found it good etc., requires further study, for can we rely on his inspection? Behold, it is as if it were not inspected at all; and delve into this].

A transgressor who slaughtered without an inspection of the knife, even if he swore that he slaughtered with a fine knife, he is not believed, for he is suspected regarding an oath concerning nevelot; for he is already sworn and stands from Mount Sinai not to eat nevelot, and nevertheless, for his desire he transgresses, so how can we believe him with an oath in this matter [Beit Yosef]. And even though this oath that he swears—that he slaughtered with a fine knife—is not similar, as it is an oath regarding the past, for at the moment he swears, the oath leaves his mouth as a lie, to the oath of Mount Sinai, which is an oath regarding the future and his inclination overcame him to transgress it, as is explained in Choshen Mishpat siman 34 regarding those disqualified from testimony, see there; nevertheless, regarding this animal which was in a status of prohibition, and he is not believed to remove it from its status because of his transgressions in that he eats prohibited food, how is it possible to abrogate the status of prohibition by means of his oath in a matter where he himself is suspected regarding this prohibition, even in the matter of an oath.

A transgressor out of appetite who slaughtered by himself, and we knew that he has two knives, one checked and one that is not checked, or we saw the two knives in his possession immediately after the slaughter [see Shach subsection 13 and subsection 7], and he says that he slaughtered with the good one, he is believed, for he would not leave that which is permitted and eat that which is forbidden. Not only this, but even when meat is found in his hand, he is believed to say, "Such-and-such expert slaughtered for me," because since he mentions the name of the expert, he will not lie, for he will fear that they will ask the expert and he will be found a liar; therefore, when he did not mention the name of the expert, it is of no avail [Shach and Taz]. And even though there is one from whose words it is implied that since there are experts in the city, we no longer suspect him of slaughtering with one who is not an expert, for he would not leave that which is permitted and eat that which is forbidden, and even though he does not want to trouble himself with the preparation of the knife, nevertheless he will trouble himself to go to the proficient one to slaughter, just as the Sages said regarding the leaven of transgressors, that they exchange it for that which is permitted [Beit Yosef in the name of Sefer HaTerumah], and if so, he does not need to say "Such-and-such expert," nevertheless we do not rule accordingly, for who can estimate which trouble he will undertake and which he will not undertake, and it is impossible to be lenient in this regarding a prohibition of suspected nevelah. And so too regarding that which we wrote, that when he has two knives in his possession he is believed to say "I slaughtered with the good one," some say that even if he did not say so, it is also kosher, for his statement neither adds nor subtracts—for is he believed by his statement? Rather, since he has also a checked knife in his possession and he knows that it is checked, he would not leave that which is permitted and eat that which is forbidden; if so, even without his statement it is kosher [Shach and Taz]. Nevertheless, it appears that one should not be lenient without his statement, for from where do we know that he knew that he had a checked knife with him? And perhaps even in this he would not want to trouble himself to see if it is checked or not. But when he says so, even though he is not believed by his statement alone, nevertheless when there is a checked knife to support his statement, he is believed [see Tevuot Shor].

And there is a question regarding this: how do we permit the transgressor to slaughter with a checked knife, for behold we hold that one must check the simanim after slaughtering, and if they did not check, it is forbidden to eat from it, as written in siman 25? And how can we believe the transgressor regarding this checking? For granted that it is not a burden to check the simanim and he will certainly check, nevertheless, what benefit is his checking? For would he declare it treif if he finds that the majority were not slaughtered? Behold, he is one who eats nevelot to satisfy his appetite, and his checking neither adds nor subtracts. And should we say that we are obligated to check the simanim, we have not found this in the Gemara nor in the poskim [only the Shiltei HaGibborim wrote so in the name of the Riaz]. And it appears to me that this which the sages required to check the simanim was not because of a concern that perhaps the majority were not slaughtered, for certainly the one who slaughters slaughters in his usual manner; rather, since the animal stood until now in a status of prohibition, and by means of the slaughter of the majority of the simanim it departs to a status of permission, it is impossible for us to permit it when we have not checked the slaughter of the majority of the simanim, as this is the primary factor that removes it from the status of prohibition, and as long as we have not checked this, it has not yet departed from the status of prohibition. But it is not because there is truly a concern that the majority were not slaughtered. Therefore, the transgressor is indeed believed to say that he checked the simanim, as there is no burden in this, and automatically, since he checked, it is permitted. And it is not similar to the checking of the knife after slaughtering, where we concern ourselves that perhaps it was nicked by the skin. Therefore, even though in the essential law the checking of simanim is more stringent than the checking of the knife, nevertheless, regarding the essential concern, it is more lenient [so it appears in my humble opinion] [P'ri Megadim in Mishbetzot Zahav subsection 2, and according to our words everything is settled, and this is the intention of the Rashba]. But according to what will be explained later in siman 25, that there is truly a concern that perhaps the majority were not slaughtered, it requires great study, unless he holds like the Shiltei HaGibborim.

It appears to me that regarding what our sages, of blessed memory, said concerning a transgressor who eats nevelot, the same law applies to one who eats tereifot, for the prohibition is the same: this is a negative commandment and that is a negative commandment. Similarly, there is no distinction between one who eats a large amount and one who eats a half-measure, for a half-measure is prohibited by the Torah. However, one who is suspected regarding a rabbinic tereifah, such as one who eats meat that was not salted, for the blood of the limbs is a rabbinic prohibition, he is not suspected regarding the prohibition of shehitah which is from the Torah, when he eats this only out of appetite and not to provoke [and in our times one should be stringent even in such a case, as I wrote in section 16, see there].

And specifically for appetite, but one who eats nevelah to provoke, who leaves the permitted and eats the forbidden, and the permitted tastes as good as the forbidden, his shechitah is forbidden even if he slaughtered well and while standing over him, and his shechitah is like the shechitah of a Kutite, for he is not called a "son of slaughtering" at all [the Rosh, the Ran, and the Ittur]. And some say that certainly ab initio it is forbidden to give him to slaughter even with a checked knife and while standing over him, for he is suspected of causing failure intentionally; but ex post facto, when he slaughtered with a checked knife and they stood over him from beginning to end and he slaughtered well, his shechitah is permitted, for he is not like a Kutite, as a transgressor for one matter is not a transgressor for the entire Torah, except for idol worship and desecration of Shabbat, as will be explained [the Rashba].

And anyone who is neither [motivated] by appetite nor to provoke, such as when kosher and nevelah are placed before him and he is not particular to take specifically the kosher one, and likewise he is not particular to take specifically the nevelah—even according to the first opinion, he is not like a Kutite, but rather he has no reliability at all. And even if they inspected the knife and gave it to him, if he slaughtered by himself, it is forbidden to eat from his slaughtering, for without being particular, he will produce nevelah, unless they stood over him from beginning to end [Ran, beginning of Chullin, see there]. And according to the Rosh, his law is like one who acts to provoke.

There is a further distinction between one who sins out of appetite and one who sins out of defiance. For out of appetite, an examination of the knife is not required according to the opinion of most poskim, except in the case of a transgressor regarding nevelah or terefah; however, when he is a transgressor regarding another transgression, an examination of the knife is not required, as will be explained. But regarding defiance, there is no distinction, for if he transgresses even one matter of the Torah or of rabbinic law out of defiance, his status is like a Kutite according to the first opinion in section 8, and according to the latter opinion, he also possesses no reliability whatsoever. There is a further distinction, for out of appetite, he does not become a transgressor through a single instance, as will be explained; but regarding defiance, he becomes a transgressor even through a single instance, for since he provokes the Creator, may He be blessed, why should we wait for him [Shach, subsection 16, in the name of the Rashal].

A transgressor of many mitzvot in the Torah, even when he does so for his appetite, nevertheless his status is like a Kuti and his shechitah is forbidden. And that which our Sages, of blessed memory, said, "a transgressor of the entire Torah," the intention is not to all 613 mitzvot or to the majority of the mitzvot, for they only said that a transgressor of one matter is not a transgressor of the entire Torah, and it implies explicitly that a transgressor of many mitzvot is a transgressor of the entire Torah. And in truth, our Sages, of blessed memory, did not say that we require him to be a transgressor of the entire Torah except regarding one matter: whether his status is like the entire Torah or not. Therefore, the poskim and the Shulchan Aruch, section 5, who wrote that a transgressor of the entire Torah has the status of a Kuti, employed the language of the Gemara, and the intention is that he is a transgressor of many mitzvot. And it appears to me that whether he is a transgressor of many negative commandments to violate them, or whether he is a transgressor of many positive commandments by not fulfilling them, his status is like a Kuti, for this is a literal casting off of the yoke. And similarly, a transgressor regarding the worship of idols or the desecration of Shabbat is like a transgressor of the entire Torah and his status is like a Kuti, for the prohibition of idols and the mitzvah of Shabbat are equivalent to the entire Torah. Therefore, even if he does this for his appetite, his status is like a Kuti and his shechitah is forbidden in every case. However, regarding the desecration of Shabbat, we specifically require that he transgress in public before ten from Israel, for then his status is like a Kuti; but when he keeps Shabbat in public and desecrates it in private, his status is like one of the other transgressions. And the law of one who allowed treifah to leave his hand will be explained in siman 4 with the help of Heaven.

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 6 that a transgressor of one of the other transgressions may slaughter even when he is by himself, and there is no need even for the checking of the knife beforehand or afterward. The Rambam, of blessed memory, also required the checking of the knife. Thus far the words of the Tur. And according to the opinion of the Tur, most of our teachers wrote that a transgressor regarding one matter is not a transgressor regarding other matters, and regarding other matters he is as a valid Israelite. The proof is that in the Gemara they only required the checking of the knife for a transgressor regarding that specific matter, but the Rambam did not hold so, as will be explained:

This is the wording of the Rambam in chapter 4, law 14: A Jew who is a transgressor regarding one of the transgressions, if he was an expert, he may slaughter ab initio, but a fit Jew must check the knife and afterward give it to this transgressor to slaughter with, because the presumption is that he will not trouble himself to check. But if he was a transgressor regarding idol worship, or one who desecrates the Shabbat publicly, or an apikoros, he is like a non-Jew and his slaughtering is nevelah. Thus far his words. He further wrote: One who is disqualified from testimony due to a transgression of the transgressions of the Torah, he may slaughter by himself if he was an expert, for he does not leave aside a permitted thing and eat a forbidden thing, as this is a presumption regarding all of Israel, even the wicked among them. Thus far his words.

And it is explained from his words that even regarding a transgressor of one of the other transgressions, he requires an inspection of the knife; for since he has become lawless to constantly transgress for his desire one of the transgressions in the Torah, we certainly must be concerned that he will not trouble himself to perform any mitzvah according to its law. And that which they cited in the Gemara, "eating nevelot for desire," is for a greater novelty: that we should not say that since he is accustomed to this transgression we should not believe him at all even regarding the inspection of the knife; it comes to teach us that regarding the inspection of the knife he is believed even if he eats nevelot. But in truth, even regarding another transgression, it is forbidden without an inspection of the knife [Rosh]. And furthermore, he holds that specifically when he is a constant transgressor does he require an inspection of the knife, but if he happened to transgress for his desire and through this became disqualified for testimony, as is explained in Choshen Mishpat siman 34, he does not require an inspection of the knife at all. And there is one who says that specifically regarding other transgressions, but regarding one who eats nevelah, even in such a case he requires an inspection of the knife [Beit Yosef]. And thus ruled our teacher, the Rema, in section 6; and even though there are those who disagree on this, nevertheless, such is the primary ruling [see Shach subsection 20 and Pri Chadash].

And for the halakha, several of the Rishonim agreed with the Rambam, and it appears to me that his words are explicit in the Tosefta and the Gemara. For it was taught in the Tosefta at the beginning of Chullin: Everyone is fit to slaughter, even a Kuti, even an uncircumcised person, even a Jewish transgressor. And it is explained that they have one law [and that which regarding a Kuti it is sufficient with one who "enters and leaves" because he is afraid, as the Tosafot wrote on 3b, starting with the words "He checks," see there], for if not so, the language "even" is not applicable when their law is not equal. And they established it in the Gemara [4b] that a "Jewish transgressor" is one who eats nevelot out of appetite, and an "uncircumcised person" is when he is a transgressor regarding uncircumcision. That is to say, if he does not circumcise himself because his brothers died due to circumcision and he fears that he too might die, he is like a kosher Jew; rather, he is a transgressor who does not fear death and nevertheless does not allow himself to be circumcised, and he is a transgressor regarding one of the rest of the commandments, and his law is equal to a transgressor who eats nevelot. According to this, since the Tanna cited uncircumcision—which is a matter that necessarily makes him a constant transgressor, for if he only circumcises himself once, it is no longer possible to transgress it, and he did not cite another transgression—it presumably teaches us that it is specifically when he is a constant transgressor, and not when he is disqualified only for testimony [and from this it is explained that also regarding eating nevelot the law is so, and like the opinion of the Talmid Chakham brought by the Shach in subsection 2].

And know that from the language of the Rambam that we brought, it appears explicitly that even regarding one who profanes the Sabbaths or an idolater, his shechitah is not nevelah except when he is habituated to it, meaning he is a constant transgressor, and not when he transgressed one time. And so it is implied from his words in chapter 3 of Maaseh HaKorbanot and in chapter 3 of Shegagot, see there, for the title of "transgressor" only applies to one who transgresses constantly. This is the opinion of our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot [Eruvin 69a s.v. Hotzi, and this is their intention also in Chullin 14a s.v. HaShochet]. And there are some of our teachers from whose words it is implied that even on the first occasion he becomes a transgressor regarding Shabbat and idolatry [Rashi, Eruvin ibid. s.v. Yachol, and so wrote the Rashba in Chullin ibid. in the name of the Tosafot, and so wrote the Hagahot Ashri there], but that specific shechitah is not yet forbidden because he had not transgressed previously, and his shechitah and his transgression come as one [Mishneh LaMelech, chapter 3 of Shegagot]. However, from this shechitah onward he is a transgressor. And there are some of the poskim who decided in favor of this view [Shach, subsection 17], and it requires further study as a matter of law [and also the Mishneh LaMelech there did not decide thus, see there]. And likewise there is one who says that profaning Shabbat regarding a rabbinic prohibition does not make one a transgressor, but it does not appear so. And likewise there is a dispute regarding an informer, whether his shechitah is forbidden or not, and it requires further study as a matter of law. And one who transgresses many rabbinic commandments, it appears clear to me that his shechitah is forbidden, and even if he transgresses them out of desire, his law is like a transgressor regarding the entire Torah, and clearly heresy has been cast into him, and particularly in these times; and see what I wrote in siman 11, section 3.

The Tur wrote: If one of those disqualified from slaughtering began to slaughter and an Israelite completed it through him, or an Israelite began and the disqualified person completed it through him, it is disqualified. In what case does this apply? When the disqualified person began with something that makes it nevelah, such as the esophagus or the majority of the trachea. But if he began with half of the trachea and the Israelite completed it through him, it is kosher. Thus far his words. And so wrote the Shulchan Aruch in section 10. And it implies explicitly that only when the Israelite began and the disqualified person completed it [is it disqualified], but when the Israelite slaughtered the majority of the simanim and the disqualified person completed it, it is kosher [Shach, subsection 27]. And so it is explained explicitly in the Tosefta at the beginning of Chullin, and this is its wording: An Israelite who slaughtered and a Cuthite finished the slaughtering through him, his slaughtering is disqualified. If he slaughtered two or the majority of two, his slaughtering is kosher. A Cuthite who slaughtered and an Israelite finished the slaughtering through him, his slaughtering is disqualified [so it should be said]. If he slaughtered something that does not make it treifah and an Israelite came and completed it, it is permitted for eating. Thus far the words of the Tosefta [and I wonder at the Beit Yosef who wrote that its source is from the Torat HaBayit of the Rashba, when it is an explicit Tosefta].

And know that according to what we establish later in siman 23, that shehiyah renders it treifah whether during the first minority or the last minority, it is only valid when the valid person slaughtered the majority of the simanim and the disqualified person finished it in a manner where there was not even a minimal shehiyah. And this fact that the disqualified person finished it, we do not judge this with the law of shehiyah such that it should be rendered treifah through this [Shach, subsection 26], for only actual shehiyah disqualifies even when the disqualified person finished it. And this fact that the disqualified person finished it, there is no status of shechitah upon this at all to disqualify it by reason of his shechitah, and it is similar regarding this disqualification to one who slaughtered the majority of the simanim and trampled with his foot, which is kosher. And that which is rendered treifah by the disqualified person when he slaughtered in the place where one must slaughter is because his shechitah is nothing. And also regarding this which was explained, that when the disqualified person slaughtered half the trachea and the valid person finished it, that the shechitah is kosher, it must also be in a manner where it is clear to us that the esophagus was not perforated during the slaughter of half the trachea, such as if the disqualified person grasped the trachea alone, as will be explained at the end of siman 21 [ibid., subsection 29], and there it will be explained that in this too there are those who disagree.

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch further wrote: If the Israelite and the disqualified person were holding one knife and slaughtering, it is disqualified; and it is unnecessary to say if each has his knife in his hand. It is not only required if the slaughter of the Israelite is only through the joining of the disqualified person, but even if each slaughtered the majority of a siman, it is disqualified. Thus far their words. Many disagree with this [see the Bach and Shach], and so it is explicitly explained in the Tosefta: An Israelite and a Kutite who were holding a knife and slaughtering, even if one is above and one is below, their slaughter is kosher; see there. Nevertheless, in practice, the great later authorities were concerned for the words of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, and this is the opinion of the Rashba, of blessed memory, in the book Torat HaBayit [and he brought a proof from one who slaughters for the sake of mountains, as we learned in the Mishnah [40.]: Two holding etc. one for the sake of one of all these etc. it is disqualified. And in truth, this is no comparison at all, as the Bach wrote, for there it is disqualified because of the intent of idolaters; see there].

And it appears to me that this dispute depends on the two versions of the Gemara in Bava Kamma [53a] regarding two who caused damage: whether we say "this one performed the entire damage and this one performed the entire damage," or "this one performed half the damage and this one performed half the damage," see there. And similarly, one must investigate regarding two who slaughtered: whether "this one performed the entire shechitah and this one performed the entire shechitah," in which case it is kosher when a fit person and an unfit person slaughtered since there is an entire shechitah from the fit person; or "this one performed half the shechitah and this one performed half," and it is unfit. Therefore, they rejected this Tosefta from the halakhah, for the Tosefta holds "this one performed the entire and this one performed the entire," but according to the established conclusion of the Gemara there that "this one performed half and this one performed half," this shechitah is forbidden.

It is further possible to say that they do not disagree with the Tosefta at all, for behold, from the perspective of logic it appears clear that two who performed one labor equally, their law is half on this one and half on this one. And such is the law regarding the labor of Shabbat, as we learned in a Mishnah [Shabbat 92b]: One who carries out a loaf to the public domain is liable; if two carried it out, they are exempt, see there. And the reason is because we consider that each one did not perform a complete labor. And such is the law regarding two who slaughtered: we consider it as if each one did not perform a complete shechitah, and it is treifah, like the ruling of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch. And even according to that version in Bava Kamma there, that this one performed the entire damage and that one performed the entire damage, it is possible to say that this is only regarding the payment of damages, where there are cases where one is liable for a partial damage like a full damage, such as one who digs a pit nine handbreadths deep and another comes and completes it to ten, where the latter is liable for the whole thing, and similar to this. But in other matters, we judge it as half. However, if one is primary, such as if he began the labor and another came and assisted him, an assistant is of no substance, as is explained there in Shabbat, see there. And according to this, it can be said that the Tosefta is dealing with a case where the Israelite previously held the knife and came to slaughter, and the disqualified person came after him and assisted him, as is implied by the language of the Tosefta: "An Israelite and a Kuti who were holding the knife etc.," that the Israelite is primary and the Kuti is secondary. And the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch are dealing with a case where both did it together. And in practice, it is forbidden in any case, unless it is recognizable to all that the fit person is the primary one and the disqualified person is merely an assistant, for then it may be declared fit [and so wrote the Tevuot Shor]. And the law of the shechitah of a monkey will be explained in the next siman with the help of Heaven. And a disqualified person who held the hand of a fit person and slaughtered, it is disqualified, and similarly the reverse. And one must deliberate on this, and everything is according to what the eyes see [see Tevuot Shor and Minchat Yaakov siman 340]. But a disqualified person who held [the knife], it is certainly disqualified.