Siman 21

How much is the measure of the shechitah of the trachea and the esophagus? The superior shechitah is that he should slaughter both of them, whether in a domestic animal or in a bird, and this is what the shochet should intend for ab initio. And post facto, if he slaughtered the majority of one of them in a bird, or the majority of two in a domestic animal or a wild animal, his shechitah is kosher. This matter is explicit in the Mishnah, as we learned [at the beginning of the second chapter]: One who slaughters one in a bird and two in a domestic animal, his shechitah is kosher, and the majority of one is like it. And it was established in the Gemara that it taught the language of post facto because ab initio one must slaughter all of it and not its majority. And also in a bird, one must ab initio slaughter both of the two simanim entirely. Therefore, every shochet must be very careful in this, for this is not from the stringencies of the poskim but from the essence of the law of the Mishnah and Gemara. And so wrote the Rambam in chapter 1, law 9; see there.

It has already been explained that the rings of the trachea do not encircle the entire trachea, as there are strips of flesh that connect them, except for the large upper ring. Therefore, regarding that which they required a majority of the trachea, a majority of the rings is not sufficient; rather, there must be a majority of the circumference of the entire trachea from its beginning to its end. Also, in the esophagus, a majority of its two skins is required. Therefore, if the second skin of the esophagus was not slaughtered in its majority, even if the entire outer skin was slaughtered, it is treif [Shach, subsection 2]. It is permitted to slaughter from the large ring until the end of the place of slaughter that was explained in the previous siman, and there is no difference whether one slaughters within the rings or between one ring and another, for it is all the place of slaughter [see Rashi, page 18, beginning with "Rabbi Yosei etc." and "there are those who explain etc." and "it is not so etc."].

One must slaughter a majority of each siman, and we do not calculate the majority in the aggregate—for example, if one slaughtered one siman in its entirety in a beast and half of the other siman, and similarly in a bird when one slaughtered two halves of the simanim, even though in the aggregate there is more than a majority, it is treif. For this is how the Merciful One taught it to Moshe our teacher: slaughter a majority of each and every siman in a beast, and one majority of the simanim in a bird. And know that a bird is rendered kosher whether with the trachea alone or with the esophagus alone [Gemara 28:].

It is stated in the Gemara [29a] that regarding shechitah we require a majority that is visible to the eyes, and from the simplicity of the language it implies that a majority by means of measurement is not sufficient, but rather that the eye must see that the majority of the siman was slaughtered. And so it implies somewhat from the language of Rashi, who wrote: "Meaning, a complete majority that is recognizable." Thus far his words. And so wrote some books on shechitah, that a majority by means of measurement is not sufficient [Yam Shel Shlomo, chapter 2, section 1]. However, all of our early teachers did not write so, for the Rambam, chapter 1, law 10, wrote: "Even though he only slaughtered from each of them more than its half by a hair's breadth, this is kosher, etc." Thus far his words. And so wrote the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, and so wrote the Rashba and the Ran. And so it is stated explicitly in Torat Kohanim: "'To distinguish between the impure and the pure'—it is not necessary to say between a cow and a donkey, for are they not explicitly defined? Rather, between [a case] where the majority of the windpipe was slaughtered and where its half was slaughtered. And how much is between its majority and its half? A hair's breadth." Thus far its words. And that which they said in the Gemara, "a majority visible to the eyes," this is its explanation: for there we are dealing with the law that half-and-half is not like a majority, but rather a majority visible to the eyes; meaning, that regarding half-and-half, if we were to judge them as a majority, it would be a majority estimated in the heart, for we would consider half as a majority. Rather, we require a literal majority, that according to measurement it shall be a majority and everyone will see that this is a majority, and we will not need the understanding of the heart [Rashba and Tur]. And we can also say that this was the intention of Rashi, as is understood.

However, there are several of the great later authorities who cast doubt on this [Taz and Pri Chadash], and so it is somewhat implied in the Mordechai in the first chapter of Chullin, and in our teacher Yerucham, and in the Agudah, and in the laws of shechitah of Mahariw; and in every place where this language is used, it is explained that measurement is not sufficient [Avodah Zarah 37b]. And so it is explicitly stated by Rashi in another place, who wrote: We require that he cut the majority clearly, so that it is visible to the eyes that it is the majority, etc. Thus far his words [21a, s.v. HaDomim]. And truly, it is difficult to disagree even for stringency against our teachers, the early authorities; nevertheless, one of the great authorities already wrote that the custom in these lands is not to permit except by a complete majority [Tevu'ot Shor]. And we do not know if the custom is such in his land in this time, and therefore, where there is no great loss, one should act stringently, and in a case of great loss, one should not forbid [ibid.]. However, this is certainly the case: if he did not check the simanim immediately after shechitah but only after some time, and found that the majority is only by a hairsbreadth, one should not permit even in a case of great loss, for this minute amount could easily come about through struggling, and this is common, and we attribute it to the common occurrence; and it should be forbidden by the letter of the law even according to those who permit by a minute amount [Kreiti U'Pleiti].

The majority of a siman does not need to be in one place; rather, even if there is an unslaughtered area separating the slaughtered areas, if when the slaughtered areas are combined there is a majority of the circumference of the siman, his shechitah is kosher. This is what the Sages, of blessed memory, said [30b]: One who slaughters in two or three places, his shechitah is kosher. And how is this found? For example, if he began to slaughter and the siman turned over and he completed it there, and between the two incisions there is a majority, it is kosher, whether in the trachea or in the esophagus. And it is not only if the two incisions are equal on one circumference, but even if one is toward the head and the second is toward the bottom, it is kosher when they are within the circumference of the siman. For if they are not in the circumference, such as if all the incisions are toward the top or all of them are toward the bottom, this is nothing, for we require a majority within the circumference, as through this the life departs. There is no difference in this law between when one person slaughtered in two places as I have written, and when two people slaughtered with two knives, and we do not fear that perhaps they will rely on each other and there will not be a majority between the two of them. However, with one person, one must be careful that there is no pause of the prohibited duration between one incision and the next. And there is one who wrote that a scrupulous person should not eat from such shechitah [Tevu'ot Shor; and it requires further study, for in the Gemara there it is explicitly stated that Rabbi Yitzchak took the best portions, see there].

Shechitah performed like a quill—that is, he placed the knife on the neck at an angle, with one end of the knife toward the head and the second end toward the body, and slaughtered thus; or if he placed the knife straight but angled it with his hand and it descended downward or upward—his shechitah is valid, and he may even slaughter like a quill ab initio [ibid.]. However, from the wording of the Gemara it appears to me that one should not do so ab initio, for it teaches there in a Baraita "his shechitah is valid," and the Gemara establishes it as shechitah performed like a quill; and "is valid" implies ex post facto, and it requires further study [and according to what we will explain in section 10, it is possible there is no proof from the wording, see there and reflect].

It is stated in the Gemara [19b]: Shechitah performed like a comb is kosher. Its explanation is, for example, that he entered with his knife above in a curve like a quill and returned and curved below, and opposite the place where he began he returns and curves, and this is like the teeth of a comb [as is evident in the Beit Yosef]. Or, that he did not enter with his knife into the cavity at all, for if he entered into the cavity it is likely that he would tear the simanim; rather, he slaughtered the skins of the simanim all around until the cavity was revealed, and in the skins he slaughtered like a comb as has been explained [Derishah]. According to both explanations, it is a simple matter that one must forbid such a shechitah, for we are not experts in this and it is easy to come to a stumbling block, Heaven forbid.

It has already been explained that when there is a majority of the cut that is kosher in combination, it is specifically regarding the circumference, as I have written, and not on one side. Therefore, if he began to slaughter and left this place and began to slaughter in another place on that same side, and in a manner where there would not be the required measure, he should be careful to slaughter the majority of the simanim in the second place. And when there is a majority in the second place it is kosher, even though the slaughter is not exposed and revealed through the first cut—meaning, that the way of the place of slaughter is to widen and the cuts extend upward and downward, and here, because of the first cut, that which is opposite the first cut does not extend—nevertheless it is kosher, for we do not require an exposed slaughter [Tosafot 30a, s.v. Hashochet]. And see what I wrote in siman 23, that our custom is to declare it treif even if it was a minute amount.

The Rambam wrote in chapter 1, law 10: Two people who held a knife, even if one was on this side and the second was on the other side opposite him, and they slaughtered, their shechitah is kosher. Similarly, two people who held two knives and slaughtered as one in two places on the neck, their shechitah is kosher. And even if this one slaughtered the esophagus alone or the majority of it, and the second slaughtered in another place the trachea or the majority of it, behold this shechitah is kosher, even though the shechitah is not entirely in one place. Thus far his words. And ostensibly it is implied from his wording that specifically after the fact it is kosher, but not initially. However, in chapter 5 of Pesulei HaMukdashin where he wrote: "But two may slaughter one sacrifice in kodashim like chullin," see there, it is clarified that even initially it is permitted. And it must be said that here he employed the wording of the Shas, and in the Gemara [30a] it is implied that even initially it is permitted [from the fact that it says "we do not fear etc." see there]. Nevertheless, the matter is simple that we should prevent ourselves from doing so, for they could easily come to commit derasa or another spoilage [so wrote the Tevuot Shor, and see the Peri Chadash].

Later, in the laws of tereifot, it will be explained that the perforation of the esophagus is in any amount, and the trachea is in its majority. Therefore, if half the trachea was defective and one slaughtered there and completed it to a majority, or if one began to slaughter in a whole place and encountered a defect and the defect completes it to a majority, it is kosher. For as long as the majority of the trachea was not defective, it is considered as if whole, and the slaughterer has performed an act of a majority upon it. All this is specifically when it is known that it was caused by illness and we see that the illness did not take hold in the esophagus, or even if it was caused by human hands but there is no concern for the esophagus, such as if one held the trachea in his hand and knows that he did not touch the esophagus at all. But ordinarily, it is a tereifah because there is a concern that perhaps he touched the esophagus, and its perforation is in any amount, and we are not experts in the examination of the esophagus, as is written there. See what I have written in siman 23 and siman 33 with the help of Heaven.