Siman 20

The location of the shechitah in the neck, in the trachea, the halakhah was decided in the Gemara [19a]: From the slope of the "helmet" and below, its shechitah is kosher, and this is "that he left over some of the wheat-like grains." The explanation of the matter is that the trachea is made of ring after ring, and all the rings do not encompass its entirety, for strips of flesh run along the length of the trachea which connect the ends of the rings [Rashi 18a], except for the uppermost ring which encompasses the entire trachea [ibid.]. Upon this ring there is flesh, and the edge of the flesh is shaped like wheat-like grains, and upon those grains is a covering that resembles a myrtle leaf, and upon it is one bone like a large ring which covers around this flesh like a helmet. In the middle of this bone there is a slope from the body of the bone itself, and it is called the "slope of the helmet." The sages said that from the slope of the helmet and below, its shechitah is kosher, which is about a finger's breadth above the large ring [Beit Yosef in the name of the Kol Bo]. And this is "that he left over some of the wheat-like grains," meaning he left some of them toward the side of the head and some toward the side of the trachea [Rashi]. If he did not leave any of them at all, but rather slaughtered above the grains, this is "hagramah," which is one of the five laws of shechitah that will be explained in siman 24, and it has left the location of the fitness of shechitah and is treif or nevelah, as has been written.

And even though according to the essential law this is so, nevertheless the shochet should be meticulous not to slaughter above the large ring, because there are some among the Rishonim who hold that if the slaughtering touched any part of the "wheat-grains," it is invalid, for they thus interpret the meaning of "leaving over in the wheat-grains" [Hagahot Ashri, first chapter, in the name of the Raviah and the Rash, and the Mordechai, third chapter, in the name of Rabbeinu Chananel]. And ab initio, one should strive to slaughter in the middle of the neck. And there are some among the great authorities who wrote that even ex post facto one should not permit it above the large ring due to the concern of mishaps [Shach in the name of the Maharshal]. However, this is an excessive stringency, and in a case of great loss one should permit it [ibid.], for behold, the majority of our teachers hold thus, and it is also clear from the plain meaning of the halacha.

There are some among the great authorities who exerted themselves greatly regarding the wording of the Rambam in the Commentary on the Mishnah, as it is clear from his words that the lobes are within the large ring, yet in the Gemara it is explicitly clear that even above it, it is kosher [Tevu'ot Shor and Pri Megadim]. However, the truth is that his intention is not regarding the upper ring that surrounds the entire windpipe as we have written, but rather his intention is regarding the bone above it which is also like a ring, and there the lobes are located, as has been explained, and there is no reason to doubt this at all [and so the Tevu'ot Shor himself concludes, and so wrote the author of the Glosses of Rav Baruch Fraenkel].

And below on the trachea, the place of the shechitah is until opposite the upper lobe on the left side when the animal is hanging by its legs, and then it is the lowest, and it extends further than all of them toward the head; and everything opposite it on the trachea is not the place of shechitah. And this measure is when the lungs are inflated. And because at the time of shechitah they are unable to see this sign, the sages, of blessed memory, said [45a]: everything that extends its neck and grazes, provided that it is not forced; meaning, the entire length of the neck when the animal stretches its neck to graze in its usual manner, and not that it forces itself to stretch its neck more than its habit. And one must not pull the simanim during the shechitah from below, neither by a person nor by the animal itself [Gemara ibid.].

And in the esophogus, the lower limit is the place where it becomes hairy [44a], where there are hairs that are scraped with a knife from the inner rumen [Rashi], and there it begins to have many breaches like the rumen. And above, it also does not begin from the head of its attachment to the jaw, for first there is the turbetz ha-veshet and afterward the esophogus begins. And to recognize this, the sages [43b] gave a sign: anything that when one cuts it, it remains in its place such that the cavity does not close, this is the turbetz ha-veshet; and anything that when one cuts it, it shrinks such that the two sides of the cut approach one another until the cavity appears closed to the eye, this is the esophogus, and from there one should slaughter and not in the turbetz. And the measure of the turbetz in its length, the sages said [44a], is as much as a grasp. Rashi explained that this is about three or four fingers from the beginning of its attachment to the jaw, and this is in a large ox, and from this we shall estimate in each one according to this proportion [Tosafot]. The Rif and the Rambam explained: as much as one can hold with his two fingers, which is like the width of a finger, and so wrote the Ba'al HaHalachot Gedolot, and this measure can apply to all cattle and beasts. And some say like two fingers [see Bach]. And certainly one must distance oneself significantly from its beginning to fulfill all the interpretations. And some wrote that they have a tradition that the measure of the esophogus above corresponds to the trachea from the slope of the cova and below [Ran in the name of the Ra'ah]. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote that there is a tradition in the hands of the early authorities that in every cattle and beast, the measure is until the place where the ear of the beast or cattle reaches when one bends it. Thus far his words. And he means to say that from there the place of slaughter begins.

Regarding a bird, the measurement for the upper part of the trachea was not clarified, and it appears to be like that of an animal [Beit Yosef]. Below, in the trachea, it is like the esophagus, as will be explained. Above, in the esophagus, it is also after the turbetz, and the measurement of its length is according to the proportion of the measurement explained regarding an animal. Below, in the esophagus, it is until the roof of the crop, and its roof is not included. The sign is that in its roof there are not two skins like in the esophagus, and it is also white on the outside while the esophagus is red on the outside [Taz]. A bird that does not have a crop, such as a goose, it is until opposite the beginning of the attachment of the wings to the body. There are those who wish to distinguish between a pigeon and other birds, but it is not so, for there is no distinction. The early authorities wrote [Beit Yosef in the name of the Semak] that since not everyone is expert in all these measurements, it is therefore good to slaughter in the middle of the neck. However, when one distances four fingerbreadths in an ox, there is no longer a doubt, as this is the largest measurement, as has been written.

The sages taught in the Mishnah [19b]: One who slaughters from the sides, his shechitah is kosher; one who nips from the sides, his nipping is invalid. One who slaughters from the nape, his shechitah is invalid; one who nips from the nape, his nipping is kosher. One who slaughters from the neck, his shechitah is kosher; one who nips from the neck, his nipping is invalid. Thus far its words. And this refers to where he did not bring the simanim around behind the nape, for if he had brought the simanim around, his shechitah would be kosher [Gemara]. Since the simanim were slaughtered before the spinal column, what does it matter to me if he slaughtered them at the neck or at the nape? And according to this, in one who slaughters from the sides, it is kosher even without bringing the simanim around to the sides of the neck. And the reason is that even though he slaughters from the side and cuts the spinal column along with the cutting of the simanim, nevertheless, the slaughtering of the simanim precedes the cutting of the entire spinal column, and it is not even a treifah until he cuts all the simanim [Rashba in Torat HaBayit, the second House, gate 1].

Rashi, of blessed memory, wrote that even ab initio it is permitted for him to slaughter from the sides, and so wrote the Bartenura, and so wrote the Rashba there for the reason that has been explained, that the cutting of the simanim takes precedence as we have written. And that which was taught "one who slaughters," which implies specifically ex post facto, is because it taught regarding melikah that even ex post facto it is invalid; therefore, it also taught regarding shechitah the language of ex post facto, but the same law applies even ab initio [ibid.]. And a proof for this is that even regarding the neck it taught the language of ex post facto, and there it is simple that it is even ab initio, for this is the actual place of shechitah; rather, it is certain that it taught it incidentally to melikah.

It appears to me that the reason our teachers were forced to explain thus is that if it were not so, let them be taught in a single clause: "One who slaughters from the sides or from the neck, his slaughtering is valid; one who performs melikah, his melikah is invalid." However, if it had been taught thus, I would have said that it taught the language of post facto because of the sides, which is forbidden ab initio, and not because of melikah. Therefore, it taught each one individually, for just as regarding "from the neck" it is certainly the language of post facto because of melikah, so too regarding "from the sides" it is because of melikah, but regarding slaughtering it is valid even ab initio.

But our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, wrote, and this is their wording: One who slaughters from the sides, we can say it is specifically after the fact, and even if he turned the simanim, it is a decree lest he not turn them; and Rashi did not explain it so. Thus far their words. And it appears to me regarding their intent that one cannot say that when he turned them he may slaughter ab initio, for if so, let them be taught in one clause: "from the neck and from the sides," and I would have said that the language of "after the fact" is because of the sides, as I have written. Rather, since he divided them into two clauses, we learn from this that the Tanna is teaching us another novelty. And it was not pleasing to them like the explanation of Rashi that he teaches us that it is even ab initio, for from the perspective of logic it did not appear to them to permit it even ab initio without turning the simanim, for such is the opinion of most of the poskim, as will be explained. Rather, it is certain that for this reason he taught it in a clause by itself, to teach us that even when he turned them, it is specifically after the fact; for that which the Gemara establishes, that our Mishnah deals with where he did not turn them, this refers to the two latter clauses, "neck" and "back of the neck," but the first clause deals even with where he turned them. And what their opinion is regarding where he did not turn them was not explained in their words. And the great authorities disagreed on this: for some say that where he did not turn them, they hold that even after the fact it is invalid [Beit Yosef and Shach, subsection 8], and some say that they admit that after the fact it is kosher [Maharsha and Bach]. And one should not ask that if so, it is a decree upon a decree, for one can say that it is all one decree: not to slaughter from the sides at all ab initio.

The Rambam, of blessed memory, has another opinion on this, as he wrote in chapter 1, law 9: The shochet must slaughter in the middle of the neck, and if he slaughtered from the sides, his shechitah is kosher. Thus far his words. It is clear that his intention is without having turned the simanim, as is the way of standard shechitah, and he holds that without turning it is forbidden ab initio and permitted ex post facto. And with turning, it is possible that it is permitted even ab initio. This is the opinion of most of the poskim. According to his opinion, one must say that the reason the Tanna did not combine them into one clause is that, on the contrary, I would then have erred to say that there is one law for the sides and for the neck, and just as one slaughters in the neck ab initio, so too in the sides; and the fact that it teaches the language of ex post facto is because of the case of melikah. Therefore, he divided them into two clauses, for this law is separate and that law is separate: regarding the neck, he teaches the language of ex post facto because of the first clause and because of melikah, and regarding the sides, he specifically teaches the language of ex post facto regarding shechitah [see there in Kesef Mishneh, and it requires further study, and examine it closely].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 3 wrote: The shochet must slaughter in the middle of the neck, and if he slaughtered from the sides, his shechitah is kosher, provided that he turned the simanim and knew that he cut them before he cut the spinal column, for the simanim are soft and are pushed away from the knife; and the same applies to one who slaughters from the nape. Thus far his words. And it appears that his opinion is to equate the words of the Rambam with the words of the Tosafot, and according to his approach which we cited in section 10, that without turning, it is invalid even ex post facto. And so he wrote in his great work. And his words are puzzling, for if so, the Rambam should have also written regarding the nape that with turning it is kosher ex post facto. Furthermore, if the Rambam does not validate from the sides except with turning, why did he not explain this? For he transcribed the language of the Mishnah, and the Shas explained explicitly that it deals with a case without turning. And while one could say that the first clause deals even with turning, as I wrote in section 10 according to the opinion of the Tosafot, nevertheless, regarding the Rambam who did not mention turning at all, how is it possible to say that this is his opinion? Also, regarding that which he required turning the simanim and to know that he cut them beforehand, his words are puzzling, for when he turned them, why must he know? For presumably it is so. And already all the great Acharonim have challenged him on this. And there is one who wished to interpret his words as "turned the simanim or knew" [Shach], but it does not imply thus.

The Tur wrote that ideally one slaughters against the throat; if one slaughtered from the sides, his shechitah is kosher, provided that he knows that he cut the simanim before he cut the neck-bone, for the simanim are soft and are pushed aside by the knife, unless he knows with certainty. Thus far his words. And this refers to when he did not move the simanim back, for if he moved them back, he does not need to know. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wishes to explain that even when he moved them back he needs to know, but all the great Acharonim have already challenged him. The Rosh wrote according to the words of the Tur, and they disagree with the Rashba whom we cited, who holds that even ordinarily the simanim are slaughtered first. Such is also the opinion of Rashi, and it appears so from the Tosafot as well, for if not so, how could they write that we decree moving them back because of not moving them back? For since he knew that the simanim were cut first, what concern is there in not moving them back? And one cannot say that their intention was that we decree because of not knowing, for if so, they should not have said that we decree moving them back because of not moving them back; let us say that we decree knowing because of not knowing. And even if their intention was to forbid even when moving them back, nevertheless they should have said that we decree because of not moving them back and not knowing. Also from the Rif and the Rambam it does not appear so, for if not so, they should have explained it. And so it is explicitly clear from the words of the Ran; see there. However, regarding the law, since the Rosh, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch ruled so, one must not deviate from their words. Therefore, in one who slaughters from the sides and did not move the simanim back and does not know that the simanim were slaughtered before the neck-bone, one should not permit it. And all the more so according to our custom to declare treif upon the cutting of the majority of the neck-bone, as will be explained in siman 24, it is obvious that one should not permit it without knowledge. But with knowledge one may permit it according to what will be explained there, that in a case of great loss we are lenient regarding the cutting of the majority of the neck-bone. But when he moved the simanim back, he does not need knowledge at all, for so all the great Acharonim decided, as I have written.

Even when slaughtering toward the neck, it is good to be careful and to feel the simanim and grasp them before slaughtering, so that they will be positioned before the flesh of the neck. And in pigeons, the simanim are found on the sides, and it requires manual training and great care, for if one does not feel them and position them before him prior to slaughtering, it is very likely that he will be negligent and cut the spinal column before the simanim. [The Shach, in subsection 5, investigated whether slaughtering above the place of slaughtering renders it nevelah or tereifah, see there, and if it be the will of Heaven, this will be explained]: