Siman 23

Five laws of shechitah were told to Moses at Sinai, and they are: shehiyah, derasah, haladah, hagramah, and ikkur. Any shochet who does not know these laws and their details, it is forbidden to eat from his shechitah [Gemara 9a], for it is a near certainty that he will feed others nevelot. And what is shehiyah? Behold, if he began to slaughter and in the middle of the shechitah he lifted his hand or his hand was pushed aside before he finished the shechitah, and he paused for the duration of the measure of shehiyah that will be explained—whether this was intentional, or whether it was unintentional, or whether by duress, or whether by will—and he or another returned and finished the shechitah, behold, the shechitah is disqualified and it is nevelah:

And how much is the measure of pausing? The Rambam wrote in chapter 3, and this is his wording: If one paused long enough to lift the animal, lay it down, and slaughter, his slaughtering is invalid; and if he paused less than this, his slaughtering is valid. If it was a small animal, the measure of its pausing is long enough to lift a small animal, lay it down, and slaughter. And if it was a large animal, long enough to lift it, lay it down, and slaughter. For a bird, long enough to lift a small animal and lay it down. Thus far his words. And this is also the opinion of the Rif according to the explanation of the Rashba and the Ran, of blessed memory. However, the Rosh, of blessed memory, holds regarding the opinion of the Rif that for both a large and small animal, the measure is long enough to lift a large animal, lay it down, and slaughter, and there is no distinction in the measure of pausing between a small and large animal. But for a bird, the measure is only the time of the slaughtering of a large animal alone, without lifting and laying down. And the Tur wrote similarly regarding the opinion of the Rif. And even though it seemingly appears from the Rif that there is no distinction between a small animal and a bird, this is regarding the measure of the slaughtering, for we measure even for a bird like the measure of the slaughtering of a large animal; but regarding the matter of lifting and laying down, it is not needed at all for a bird. And according to this, for a small animal he is more lenient than the Rambam, and for a bird he is more stringent, for it is obvious that the time of the slaughtering of a large animal alone would not be like the measure of lifting a small animal, laying it down, and its slaughtering. And know that according to our version of the Rambam, it implies that for a bird one only needs long enough for the lifting of a small animal and its laying down, and not its slaughtering, and this does not accord at all with the sugya of the Shas [32a], see there. And in truth, the Rosh brings his words and concludes "also its slaughtering," see there [and it also appears from the Shulchan Aruch, section 2, that these are the words of the Rambam, see there, and so it is in the Tur].

But the opinion of Rashi, of blessed memory, is not so, for he ruled [ibid.] that lifting and laying down are not required at all; rather, only the time of slaughter itself constitutes shehiyah, and each according to its slaughter: for a large animal the measure is the time of slaughter for a large animal, for a small animal the measure is the time of slaughter for a small animal, and for a bird the measure is the time of slaughter for a bird. According to this, the measure of shehiyah is a very small amount, and all the more so regarding a bird, which is but the moment of its slaughter, and even for a large animal the slaughter is only a few moments. The Bahag also rules like Rashi [for they hold that Rav and Shmuel do not hold at all like that of Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri regarding lifting and laying down, and they rule like Rav].

The measure of "the time it takes for slaughter" has not been explicitly clarified, whether the delay is specifically the time it takes for the slaughter of all the simanim, whether in an animal or in a bird, and less than this is not a delay—since ab initio one must slaughter both simanim in their entirety even in a bird, when the Merciful One taught Moses the measure of delay, it was in this manner—or perhaps in the slaughter of the majority of the simanim it constitutes a delay even if he did not delay the time it takes for all the simanim. The Rosh writes explicitly so, that with a delay of the majority it constitutes a delay [Chapter 2, end of section 9], and so wrote the Shulchan Aruch in section 2. And some say that we require the delay of all the simanim [Yam Shel Shlomo, Chapter 2, section 15], and more will be explained regarding this with the help of Heaven, for so it appears is the opinion of the Rambam, of blessed memory. And according to the opinion of the Rosh, it appears that the delay of a bird is only the time it takes for the majority of one siman, and this is what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote there, and this is his wording: And some say that the measure of delay for a bird is the time it takes for the slaughter of the majority of one siman in a bird without lifting and laying down. Thus far his words. And this is the opinion of Rashi, of blessed memory; and even though it is not explicitly clarified so in Rashi, nevertheless he holds that since this is the valid slaughter in a bird, it follows that in this measure there is the measure of delay.

It is stated in the Gemara [32a]: Rava Huna bar Natan inquired: If one paused during the minority of the simanim, what is the law? It remained unresolved. Rashi explained that he slaughtered the majority in the normal manner, and during the final minority he made a pause. He ruled stringently. And even though it is taught in the Tosefta [Chapter 2]: If one slaughtered the majority of the trachea in a bird, even if he finished it after a long time, his slaughtering is kosher; nevertheless, since in the Gemara it remained in doubt, we do not concern ourselves with the Tosefta. There is one who says that the Tosefta is dealing with the Torah law, and in the Gemara the doubt is that perhaps it is forbidden by rabbinic law because one might come to substitute it with a complete pause [Yam Shel Shelomo there, section 9]. But this does not seem so, for if this is only by rabbinic law, Rashi should have ruled leniently according to the rule of every rabbinic doubt. And in truth, it appears that this is the opinion of the Ra'avad, of blessed memory, in Chapter 3, who wrote the explanation like Rashi and ruled leniently; see there. And they wondered about him, but according to this it is well, for he holds that the doubt is only by rabbinic law. But from Rashi it is implied that he holds it is a doubt of Torah law [and so wrote the Pri Chadash, subsection 11], and therefore he ruled to be stringent. [And according to our version in the Tosefta there is no difficulty at all, for thus it is taught: If one slaughtered half the trachea in a bird and paused etc. and afterwards slaughtered all of it, it is kosher; one or the majority of one in a bird, even though it is after a long time, it is kosher. Thus far its words. And according to this, on the contrary, there is proof for Rashi, that only with half the trachea does it permit, because a defect of half the windpipe is nothing, but with the majority of the trachea it is forbidden; and the end of the passage, "even though it is after a long time," Rashi will explain like that of Rava [32a]: One who slaughters with a bad knife; and examine this].

And there are some of our teachers who explained this regarding the first minority—if one paused for the duration of a pause during the first minority and afterwards completed the shechitah without a pause, whether it disqualifies or not [Rabbeinu Tam in Tosafot 30a, s.v. Hachlid]. And Rashi, of blessed memory, wrote [32a, s.v. Teiku] that regarding the first minority, you cannot find such a case regardless; for if it is in the trachea, it is nothing, just as it is with half a trachea that is damaged, and if it is in the esophagus, it is certainly a tereifah, for since he paused, the first act is gone, and it is like a hole in the esophagus and a tereifah. Thus far his words. But according to this opinion, one must say that the doubt is regarding the esophagus, and it is not similar to a hole in the esophagus since it is by way of shechitah; therefore, if a pause does not disqualify in the first minority, it is kosher since the whole thing is by way of shechitah. And according to this opinion, if we rule leniently in this inquiry, there would be no pause in a bird at all; for since they validated it with one siman, as long as he has not slaughtered the majority of the siman, there is no pause, and when he has slaughtered the majority of the siman, there is also no pause, as I wrote in the previous section. Yet it says explicitly in the Gemara that there is a pause in a bird, and one must say that only rabbinically is there a pause in a bird and not from the Torah [Tosafot and the Rosh]. However, it is possible to say there is a pause from the Torah in a bird in the esophagus when he slaughtered half of it and paused and completed it. And for the law, since this inquiry was not resolved, we hold to the prohibition regarding a pause in the first minority [and I do not understand the words of Tosafot and the Rosh who wrote that there is no pause in a bird from the Torah according to the method of Rabbeinu Tam if the inquiry is to be lenient, for you can find it in half of the esophagus as I wrote; and also what they questioned from the Tosefta where we learned: if he slaughtered a minority of the esophagus and paused for the duration of shechitah it is disqualified—this is not found in the Tosefta before us].

And there are some of our teachers who explained it regarding the final minority of the first siman in an animal, and the doubt is concerning that which we maintain: one who slaughters with a knife that is not sharp, even if he moved it back and forth all day, it is kosher, as written in siman 18. And the question was asked of us: if he slaughtered the majority of one and moved it back and forth all day during its minority, for perhaps that which we permit regarding moving it back and forth all day is when he is engaged in the main part of the siman; but here, where its majority was cut and the majority is like the whole, for the remainder of the siman is not indispensable, and consequently, when he paused during this, it constitutes a shehiyah between one siman and the other. Or perhaps, since it is the manner of slaughter, there is no shehiyah here at all. And many of the Rishonim agreed with this explanation [Tosafot ibid. according to the explanation of Rabbenu Oshaya, and so wrote the Meor, the Rashba, the Rosh, the Ran, and other poskim]:

The Rambam, of blessed memory, has another approach in this matter, as he wrote in chapter 3, law 4: And so, if one paused for the duration of lifting it and laying it down and for the duration of slaughtering like the minority of the simanim alone, not for the duration of slaughtering a complete slaughter, this is a doubtfully-nevela. Thus far his words. And according to his opinion, this is the explanation: that the inquiry is that which we learned in the Mishnah, that if one paused for the duration of slaughtering it is disqualified, is it for the duration of a complete slaughter, which is the majority of the simanim or all of them, or is even the minority of the simanim considered a pause? Thus the Rashba and the Ran [and the Maggid Mishneh and the Radbaz in the new edition] explained his words. And they raised an objection against him, for certainly "slaughtering" without qualification refers to the duration of the valid slaughter. And it appears to me that this is the explanation: since we see that the Mishnah was concise in its words when it said "the duration of slaughtering," for we require the duration of lifting and laying down, and this is a much longer time than slaughtering; rather, it relied on the clarification that the intention is for the duration of the preparation for slaughtering, which is lifting and laying down. According to this, the Mishnah does not deal with the essence of the slaughtering, and therefore perhaps only the name of the beginning of slaughtering alone is sufficient [and they wrote that the version in the Gemara before him was: "paused like the minority of the simanim," meaning that he performed a pause in another animal according to the minority of the simanim along with the lifting and laying down].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, explained his intention in a different manner, and this is the matter: for behold, if he paused for the duration of lifting it, and casting it down, and the slaughter of the majority of the simanim, it is certainly nevelah. And likewise, if he paused for the duration of lifting it, and casting it down, and the slaughter of a minority of the simanim, it is certainly kosher. And the doubt is if he paused for the duration that he would lift it and cast it down, and further paused for the duration that he would slaughter like a minority of the simanim—meaning that he paused for the duration that he would slaughter slightly less than the kosher slaughter, such that a small amount is missing which is almost not felt—it is a doubt of nevelah. [And they responded to him that his wording does not bear this, and also the essence of the inquiry is very forced. And the Shach in subsection 3 wrote that also the intention of the Rema, who added the word "until," also his intention was for this, see there; and the difficulty is clear, and his intention is simple, for behold there is no actual slaughter here, rather the continuation of the measure of the slaughter of the majority, the word "until" is applicable to this, see there well]:

The Rosh, of blessed memory, had before him another version of the Rambam: that if one paused for the duration of lifting it up, laying it down, and slaughtering a complete slaughter, it is a doubtful nevelah. And he wondered about it: what doubt is there here? And there is one who explained that this is the meaning: that he paused for the duration of slaughtering the majority of the simanim, which is a complete slaughter for the purpose of fitness, but did not pause for the duration of slaughtering all the simanim; and perhaps the measure of a pause is specifically for the duration of slaughtering all the simanim. And that which the Sages, of blessed memory, said, "if he paused during the minority of the simanim," this is the meaning: as if he did not pause during the minority of the simanim [Yam Shel Shlomo, chapter 2, section 15, and the difficulty is evident].

And behold, we can certainly say this reasoning: that when the Merciful One taught Moses the measure of a pause, He taught him the amount of time for the slaughter of the whole thing, and not for the majority alone. Therefore, according to this, it is possible to maintain the version in the Rambam as in our version, and only add one word: "and the time it takes to slaughter until like the minority of the simanim alone," meaning that he slaughters the majority of it and only the minority remains. And this is why he concludes, "not the time it takes to slaughter a complete slaughter," meaning that a complete slaughter is the slaughter of all the simanim, as is required ab initio. And also in the Gemara one should maintain the version, "paused for the time it takes for like the minority of simanim," as I have written. And all this requires further study.

And behold, regarding the halacha, it is obvious that we must be stringent like all the opinions, for it is a doubt regarding a Torah law. And so wrote all the Rishonim, that one must be concerned for the opinion of Rashi and the Behag, who are the most stringent of all of them, and the measure of a pause according to their opinion is a very small measure, and especially regarding a bird. And also regarding the first minority and the final minority, we must be stringent like all the opinions that have been explained. Therefore, one who slaughters a bird with the majority of the simanim and cast the bird from his hand, and the bird pauses before dying, it is forbidden to return and cut the minority as an act of shechitah. Therefore, he should strike it on the neck or wait until it dies [Rashi 32a]. And even with a knife that is not for shechitah, it is forbidden to cut what remains of the simanim, and even with a notched knife it is forbidden because there could be an ikkur in the final minority [Bach and Shach subsection 13], but post facto one need not be concerned regarding a notched knife.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 1 that certainly in practice one should be stringent according to the system of Rashi, of blessed memory; however, in a time of pressing need or great loss, one may rely on the opinion of the Rambam, of blessed memory, that in a large animal the measure of shehiyah is the time it takes for its raising, its laying down, and a bit of shechitah, and in a small animal and in a bird, the time it takes for the raising of a small animal, its laying down, and a bit of shechitah, for it appeared to him that the primary law is like the Rambam. But our teacher, the Rema, wrote that the simple custom in these lands is to declare treif any shehiyah, even a minute amount, whether in an animal or in a bird, and one must not change this even in a case of great loss. And this is not by way of stringency, but rather from the essential law, for perhaps we hold like Rashi, of blessed memory, and especially since the Bahag holds so, for all his words are words of tradition from the sages of the Shas, of blessed memory. And so wrote the later authorities [and see what I wrote in siman 24, section 18, and here too the explanation is so].

He further wrote that if after shechitah a reed or the like was found lying in the trachea or the esophagus and was slaughtered with it, it is treifah, for certainly he must have paused slightly in the cutting of that object after he slaughtered the siman, and this constitutes a pause of any amount and is treifah. Thus far his words. And even though one could say that there was no pause at all because the siman and the reed were cut as one, nevertheless it is more likely to say that this was not the case, because the siman is taut at the time of shechitah and the reed is not taut because it is not attached to the body. It is a known matter that any soft object that the sharpness of the knife strikes, if it is taut it is cut faster than if it is not taut. And since the reed is soft and not taut, it certainly takes longer in its cutting than in the cutting of the siman, and it turns out that there was a bit of a pause [Terumat HaDeshen siman 185].

Behold, the essence of this law is a great stringency, to maintain a presumption of defect and to say that there certainly was some delay and perhaps the law follows Rashi; therefore, one should only be stringent regarding a bird and not regarding an animal, for even according to the system of Rashi, a delay of some time is required. If so, there is a double doubt: perhaps there was no delay of the required duration even according to the system of Rashi, and even if there was a delay of the required duration according to the system of Rashi, perhaps the law follows the Rambam. And even according to those who hold in siman 110 that one does not permit a double doubt in a case of a presumption of prohibition, that applies to a doubt of a complete prohibition, whereas here the entire matter is nothing but a concern. And so there are those among the later authorities who agreed that regarding an animal one should be lenient in a case of great loss [Teu'ot Shor and Pri Megadim]. And even regarding a bird, if the object resting in the siman is a hard object like straw or stubble, one should be lenient in a case of great loss, for the senses testify that a hard object stretches well, and consequently there is a double doubt here: perhaps there was no delay at all, even a minute amount, and if you will say there was a delay of a minute amount, perhaps the law follows the Rambam that even regarding a bird there is the duration of lifting and laying down of a small animal. And all the more so if bran is found in the esophagus, one should not maintain a presumption of defect. And there are those among the great later authorities who ruled so in practice; however, without the inquiry of a sage, it is forbidden for the shochet himself to permit this.

According to the approach of those who are stringent regarding a pause of any duration, one must be careful with a bird when he began to slaughter and cut a small amount until blood emerged and he lifted his knife from the neck, that he should not complete the slaughter. For even though it is possible that he has not yet begun on the simanim and this blood is from the skin, nevertheless, perhaps he slaughtered a minute amount of the oesophagus and there is a pause here. And even if he only lifted his knife slightly, there is reason for concern because the slaughter of a bird is very minimal, for the amount of time to slaughter the majority of one siman in a bird is done quickly. Therefore, even if the shochet said, "It is clear to me that I have still only cut the skin," we do not rely upon him since blood emerged. However, if blood has not yet emerged and he says, "It is clear to me that I have not yet struck the simanim," we rely upon him. But when he does not say "it is clear to me," we concern ourselves that perhaps he struck the oesophagus even if blood has not yet emerged [Beit Yosef]. And there are those who are lenient in this [Rashal], but most of the Acharonim agreed to be stringent [Shach, subsection 4] since he cut the entire skin; and see what I wrote in section 100.

And know that even according to the opinion of the Rambam that there is a large measure for shehiyah, nevertheless, small delays combine and it is forbidden even according to his opinion; for example, if he slaughtered a little and delayed a little, and returned and slaughtered a little and delayed a little, if in the combination of all the delays there is the measure of shehiyah, his shehitah is invalid. However, for us there is no practical difference in all of this, since we are stringent according to the opinion of Rashi, of blessed memory.

And so too the reverse: even according to the method of Rashi, the prohibition of shehiyah during the first minority is only in the esophagus, because its perforation is in any amount; but in the trachea, there is no prohibition of shehiyah except during the final minority. However, during the first minority, shehiyah is not applicable, for even if half the trachea were damaged it is kosher, as the prohibition of the trachea is specifically in its majority [Rashi 32a, s.v. teiku]. According to this, in the law explained in section 16, there is fundamentally a remedy through examination: to slaughter the trachea alone in another place in the bird, not in the place where he began to cut. And so too, when one slaughtered a bird and performed shehiyah during it, and it is possible that only the trachea alone was slaughtered and the shehiyah was at its beginning, he may return and slaughter the trachea in another place, and leave it until it dies, and examine the esophagus in its inner skin which is white, and the examination is recognizable in it; for in its outer skin which is red, a drop of blood would not be recognizable, but in its inner skin it is recognizable. Therefore, he can flip the esophagus and see in its inner skin if a drop of blood is not found in it, it is known that it was not perforated, and it is kosher. However, in siman 33 it will be explained that we are not experts in the examination of the esophagus, as it is a difficult examination, and therefore the custom is to declare everything treifah even in the first minority of the trachea due to the concern of a perforation of the esophagus. And even to sell it to a non-Jew is forbidden due to the concern that perhaps the non-Jew will sell it to an Israelite. And even though we establish in siman 57 that any doubtful treifah is permitted to be sold to a non-Jew based on the reasoning of a double doubt—perhaps it is not a treifah, and if you say it is a treifah, perhaps he will not sell it to an Israelite—nevertheless here it is forbidden; for since the doubt is due to our lack of knowledge, as we are not experts in the examination, it does not enter the category of doubt, as written in siman 110. Therefore, there is no remedy for this except to kill the bird and sell it to a non-Jew [Shach, subsection 18]. And in siman 58 the law of a doubtful treifah will be explained, whether there is permission to delay it until it becomes clear that it is not a treifah, see there [see Shach, subsection 19].

And for this reason, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 6 that if one plucked the feathers from the bird and blood emerged, or if one cut the skin of the animal and blood emerged from it, it should be rendered treif, for we are concerned for a perforation of the esophagus. But if blood did not emerge and one did not cut through the entire skin, it should be rendered kosher by means of slaughtering above or below and checking opposite the place of the cut. Therefore, one must be careful not to pluck the feathers if one can slaughter without this. Thus far his words. And we are accustomed to plucking the feathers in large birds, and only with a dove and a pure bird we are not accustomed to plucking the feathers because their skin is very thin and blood easily emerges. And similarly, one who slaughters on Yom Tov is forbidden to pluck the feathers, as is explained in Orach Chaim siman 498; see there.

Many of the great authorities hesitated regarding this law, for what connection is there between the plucking of feathers and the perforation of the esophagus? Even if blood emerged, it is not from the esophagus. However, the world has already accustomed itself to be stringent in this matter, and specifically when drops of blood emerged; but with mere redness, one need not be concerned at all [Taz, subsection 7]. Also, regarding that which is explained from his words, that if the entire skin was cut, even if no blood emerged, one must render it treifah, and similarly if blood emerged even if only part of the skin was cut—there are those who disagree on this and hold that one should not render it treifah except when the entire skin was cut and blood emerged [Maharshal]. And for the halacha, if the entire skin was cut, there is a concern even when blood does not emerge, for since the entire skin was cut, one must easily fear for the perforation of the esophagus. But if only part of the skin was cut, even when blood emerged, what should we fear? [Shach, subsection 21]. Behold, it has not yet reached the end of the skin, and certainly one need not fear for the perforation of the esophagus, and the blood is from the skin, for the skin also contains blood, as is proven in the Gemara [Yoma 48a; and see Taz, subsection 7, who wrote that there is no blood in the skin, and they have already refuted him].

The craftsmen who let blood from animals for healing from the neck, even though there is reason to fear that perhaps at the time of the bloodletting he touched the esophagus and perforated it, nevertheless, one does not establish a defect post facto because the craftsmen are experts in not touching the simanim and only let blood from the veins of the neck. And nevertheless, if the Israelite is standing at the time of the bloodletting, it is good to tilt the simanim to the other side from the place of the bloodletting in a manner that there will be no concern of a perforation of the esophagus [according to the Pitchei Teshuva].

It has already been explained that we are very stringent regarding shehiyah, even for a shehiyah of a minimal amount, and not merely as a stringency but from the essential law, for perhaps the halacha follows Rashi that shehiyah is a very brief time. We are stringent even in a case of doubt regarding a minimal shehiyah, such as when a reed is found in the esophagus as we explained in section 14; when the reed is found severed, we are concerned for shehiyah, but if it is not found severed, there is no concern at all. Similarly, in any incident where we can judge it as shehiyah, such as if during the shechitah he cut his finger, one must see if the shochet was startled by the cut and lifted the knife, or if his hand was pushed away from the knife, it is shehiyah, and if not, it is kosher. Likewise, if the tip of the knife touched the ground during the shechitah, one must see if perhaps there was shehiyah, and everything is according to the perception of the eyes of the posek. However, the shochet himself shall not issue a ruling for himself in any matter regarding the affairs of shechitah, but shall ask the sage of the city, and he will rule according to his understanding of the matter. [And also regarding what was written concerning the plucking of feathers to be stringent when blood emerges, there is one who wrote regarding the bird called "indik" which has red fleshy curls on its neck called "kareril," and one of them was plucked; if the hole is perforated through to the simanim, one should be stringent and forbid it, and if it is not perforated and there is still a bit of skin, one should not be stringent].