Siman 24

Drasa, how so? It is a law given to Moses at Sinai that the shechita must be performed by drawing, in that one moves the knife back and forth upon the neck, and not that one should press the knife upon the neck and cut with force like one who cuts a radish or a cucumber. And if one did so, behold, this is invalid; and it goes without saying if one struck with the knife upon the neck in the manner that one strikes with a sword and cut the simanim all at once. And they supported it from a verse, for every expression of shechita in the Torah is an expression of drawing, as it is written [I Kings 10], "beaten gold" (zahav shachut), for gold is soft and they draw it out in the manner that copper-smiths make wires from which they make needles [Rashi 30b]. And likewise, "their tongue is a sharpened arrow" (chetz shachut) [Jeremiah 9], for one who speaks with deceit draws out his words like an arrow.

It has already been explained in siman 8 that when one slaughters with a forward and backward motion, there is no required measure for the knife, for through a forward and backward motion one will not perform derasa even with a small knife, and so we learned in the Mishnah, see there. However, when one slaughters with a forward motion alone or with a backward motion alone, the knife must be the measure of the neck of the slaughtered object including the skin and the vertebrae, and outside the neck a full neck's breadth; that is to say, the length of the knife should be the measure of two necks. It is not necessary that he move the entire length of the knife before he slaughters the majority, for a person cannot be careful in this, as sometimes when the knife is sharp and keen it cuts the majority of the simanim before he moves it forward or backward this measure. And so the sages said, that when there is this measure in the knife, he will naturally slaughter with ease without derasa, see there. There are some of the poskim who hold that regarding a beast we require a full neck's breadth in any case, even when he slaughters with a forward and backward motion, and some say that even regarding a bird we require a full neck's breadth and any amount outside the neck, see there. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that the custom in these regions is to disqualify regarding a beast even if he moved it forward and backward if there is not in the knife a full neck's breadth and any amount outside the neck. Thus far his words. And it implies that regarding a bird one need not be particular ex post facto.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 3: If one slaughtered two heads as one with a forward stroke or a backward stroke alone, if there is enough in the knife for three necks, it is kosher; and if not, there is concern, and both are forbidden. Thus far his words. It is implied from his words that even if there is enough in the knife for three necks, it is kosher only post facto, and such is the wording of the Rambam in chapter 2, see there. And there is a question regarding this, for while it is true that such is the wording of the Mishnah [30b], however in the Gemara [29a] it is explicit that even ab initio it is permitted, and the Mishnah which employed the post facto wording did so regarding consecrated animals, see there. And there is one who says that because of the latter clause it was employed, for in the case of "if not," even post facto it is disqualified [Kereiti U'Peleiti]. And there is one who says that it deals with a forward stroke or a backward stroke alone, and in the Gemara it deals with a forward and backward stroke [Pri Chadash]. And regarding the Rambam it is impossible to say so, for he did not mention the latter clause at all, nor this matter of a forward stroke or a backward stroke, see there. Furthermore, why would they not mention the law explicit in the Gemara that one may slaughter two heads ab initio when slaughtering with a forward and backward stroke? And the Tur indeed wrote such ab initio wording, see there. And it appears to me that certainly from the essential law of shechitah it is permitted even ab initio, but the Rambam follows his reasoning in chapter 1 [halakhah 24] that one must check the knife between every shechitah and shechitah, lest it be found nicked and even the first will be rendered treif. And so he wrote in Shulchan Aruch siman 18 section 11, and we explained there in section 32 that even if he wishes to place himself in this doubt, it is forbidden ab initio so as not to violate "do not destroy," and all the more so if the animals are not his, there is a prohibition of theft in this, see there. Therefore they wrote post facto wording [and the Tur, it can be said that he holds like the Terumat HaDeshen brought by the Rema there, that one who wishes to place himself in doubt has the permission to do so].

The Tur wrote: A person may slaughter two heads as one, provided that the knife is long enough for three heads. If it was only long enough for two: if he brought [the knife] but did not lead it, the outer one is kosher and the inner one is invalid; if he led it but did not bring it, the inner one is kosher and the outer one is invalid. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words is that the inner one is that which is on the side of the slaughterer. In a case of bringing but not leading, he began to slaughter with the end near the handle and began with the outer one, and he brought it until the tip of the knife finished at the inner one; it turns out that upon the outer one the knife passed the length of two necks, and upon the inner one it passed only one neck, and therefore the outer one is kosher and not the inner one. In a case of leading but not bringing, he began to slaughter with the tip of the knife and began with the inner one, and he led it until the end of the knife finished at the outer one; it turns out that upon the inner one it passed two necks, and upon the outer one only one neck, and therefore the inner one is kosher and the outer one is invalid [Beit Yosef]. Now, if he truly led the entire length of the knife over the second one as well—for example, in leading, he led the knife until a full knife-length passed beyond the outer one, and in bringing, he brought the knife until a full neck-length passed beyond the inner one—both are kosher, for behold, upon each one passed the measure of two necks [ibid.]. However, the Tur is not dealing with this, for if so, the two slaughterings would not have finished equally, and also their beginning would not have been equal, and it would not be called "slaughtering two heads as one." He is only dealing with a case where both finished as one, and therefore even though the beginning was not as one, it is called "slaughtering two heads as one," and in such a case one is kosher and one is invalid, as has been written [Atzei Levonah, subsection 3]. And when the knife has the length of three necks, and he began with the tip of the knife at the inner one with leading alone until he finished with the end of the knife at the outer one, or if he began with the side near the handle at the outer one with bringing alone until he finished with the tip of the knife at the inner one, both are kosher, for upon one the knife passed three neck-lengths and upon one two neck-lengths. And this is called finishing at the same time, because the entire length of the knife passed over the necks, which is the manner of slaughtering. And this is according to the opinion of the Tur.

But there are some of our teachers who hold that with a knife that does not have three neck-widths, both are pasul in any case. The reason is that since their shechitah is as one, and he pressed upon one, he also pressed upon the second, for at one time and with one force he passed the knife over both of them [Ran chapter 2 in the name of the Ramban, and so wrote the Rashba]. This is the intention of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, who wrote that one must be concerned and forbid both; meaning, even though according to the opinion of the Tur one is permitted, nevertheless one must be concerned for the opinion of those who forbid. According to this, if he began to perform shechitah with the edge of the knife or its tip, and the knife passed to the other side until a full neck-width exited to the other side beyond the neck, in a manner that the entire knife passed over both of them, they are kosher according to everyone [Shach subsection 4 and Tevuot Shor]. However, from the plain sense of the words it implies that in any case one must be concerned, and the truth is so, because there are those who say that even if the entire knife passed, and even beyond the neck by a full knife-length to the second side, both are pasul. The reason is that when one performs shechitah on two heads, presumably the shechitah of both of them finished as one in a single moment. According to this, when the knife passed over one for the length of two necks and its shechitah was finished, of necessity the shechitah of the second was also finished then, yet the knife had not yet passed over it for the length of two necks, and of necessity it was pressed. And when it is pressed, presumably its fellow was also pressed as we have written, and therefore in any case one should not declare them kosher [see Bach and Taz subsection 1].

And one should not ask: since the entire essence of this law is because the measure of two necks did not pass over the one animal as has been written, why should we care about this? For it has already been explained in section 2 that only when the knife contains the measure of two necks is the shechitah kosher, even though he did not pass the entire length of the knife over the neck. For it can be said that this is certainly so regarding one animal; since the knife contains the length of two necks, there is ample space and he slaughters without derasa even without passing the entire knife. However, when slaughtering two heads where the space is cramped, he is likely to perform derasa when the knife does not contain the length of three necks, according to the opinions that have been explained [it appears to me]:

And if there is in the knife a length of three heads, it is kosher in any case. And it is not only necessary to say if he placed the knife upon the two heads equally and drew one head protruding outward and slaughtered with the entire draw of the knife until the knife passed the measure of two necks over each animal, for then the slaughter of both of them was completed equally; but even if he began to slaughter with the tip of the knife upon one animal and drew the entire knife over the two animals, such that now the slaughter of one was completed first and we should have been stringent according to the "there are those who say" in section 5, nevertheless it appears to me that since there is in the knife the measure of three heads and there is ample space, and he slaughters without pressing even without passing the entire knife as I wrote in the previous section—and granted that one should not declare it kosher if he did not pass the measure of two necks over each animal, for perhaps the slaughter was not yet completed in the second animal over which the measure of two necks did not pass—nevertheless, where he did pass it, one should not be stringent and say that because of the concern that the slaughter of one was completed first it should be forbidden because of this as in a knife that has two heads. For ultimately, did the knife not pass the measure of two necks over each animal? And also the matter is close to the slaughter of both of them being completed equally [see Shach subsection 3 who explicitly declared it kosher, but from him there is no proof for he does not hold like the "there are those who say" as he wrote in subsection 4, see there; and nevertheless it appears to me that even the "there are those who say" admit to this as I wrote, and see Pri Megadim in Shiftei Da'at subsection 3, and delve into this].

A great principle must be known: when we validated a knife of three heads, this is when he moved it forward or backward the entire length of the knife over the two animals. But when he did not move all of it, such as when he placed the knife over the two heads and moved the knife to that side which went out beyond the second head the measure of a neck, for this is considered as if there is only the measure of two necks in the knife [Shach subsection 4], and the law returns to the dispute between the Tur and those who disagree with him that we explained in section 5. And in this it is more stringent than one animal with a knife of two necks, where it is not a necessity that he move the entire length of the knife as I wrote in section 2. And even though here too there is ample space as I wrote in the previous section, nevertheless it is not as ample when slaughtering two heads with a knife of three heads as when slaughtering one head with a knife of two heads. And only regarding the matter that there is no concern if they were slaughtered in one moment or not, in this we said in the previous section that it is similar to one animal with a knife of two heads [see Pri Megadim there who wondered about the Shach as to what he came to teach us, and according to what I wrote there is a great novelty in this, not to compare it to one animal with a knife of two heads, and delve into this].

Two people holding a knife and slaughtering one animal [Rashi 30a]: even if this one is above toward the head and this one is below toward the chest, such that they hold the knife diagonally—this one holds it by the handle and this one holds it by its tip—we are not concerned that because this one pulls it here and this one pulls it there, and both of them press the knife upon the neck, they will come to perform derasa. For since they slaughter by means of moving it to and fro, they will not come to perform derasa. And it appears to me that two animals should not be slaughtered in this manner, for since each one will want the animal closer to him to be slaughtered, it is close to coming to perform derasa [and so it appears from the wording of Rashi]. And even with one animal, one of the great authorities wrote that ab initio they should not do so except for a great need [Tevuat Shor in siman 21]. But for both to hold the handle is permitted ab initio [and from the wording of the Rambam in chapter 2 it also implies that it is only ex post facto; and although he wrote in chapter 1 of Pesulei HaMukdashim that even regarding consecrated animals it is permitted ab initio, it could be said that in the Sanctuary they are meticulous, which is not the case regarding non-consecrated animals; and perhaps he holds that therefore the Mishnah also taught it in the language of ab initio because of consecrated animals, for this deals with consecrated animals, as it is stated at the beginning of chapter 2: the first clause deals with non-consecrated animals and the final clause with consecrated animals, etc., Rav Ashi said, etc., see there, and it requires further study].

If one slaughtered and cut the entire spinal column, it is kosher, for what do we care what he did after cutting the simanim? This is so according to the essential law. However, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 5 that the custom is to declare it treif even if he only cut the majority of the spinal column, and one should not deviate because there are some of the great authorities who hold thus. Thus far his words. For they hold that since he cut the majority of the spinal column, the shechitah was certainly by way of drasah, for if not so, the majority of the spinal column would not be cut. And there is support for this in the Tosefta [chapter 1] where it is taught: If one was slaughtering and cut the head in one stroke, if he intended to do so, his shechitah is invalid, and if not, his shechitah is kosher. Thus far its words. And perforce it deals with a case where he did not slaughter by way of drasah but rather with a forward and backward motion, for if it was by way of drasah, what difference is there whether he intended to do so or did not intend to do so? Rather, it is certain that he slaughtered by way of shechitah, and nevertheless, if he intended to do so, we say it was certainly drasah. And since by law it is forbidden when intending to do so, it is proper for us to forbid it in every case, for who knows if he intended to do so or did not intend to do so.

However, most of the great Acharonim rejected this ruling, for there is no logic to declare it treifah because of this, and also from the Gemara it is explicitly proven [19b: see Rashi there, starting with "his shechitah is invalid"] that there is no concern in this. And so it is explained from the words of the Rishonim [Shach and Taz and Pri Chadash and Kereti U-Peleti]. And from the Tosefta it appears there is no proof, and it is a different matter and does not refer to the neck-bone at all, but only to the simanim, for such is the language of the Mishnah [30a]: If one was performing shechitah and struck off the head in one stroke, if there is a neck's breadth in the knife, it is kosher. And to this it added to say that even if there was a neck's breadth in the knife, if he intended for it to be struck off in one stroke, we concern ourselves that perhaps he pressed. And on the contrary, from the Tosefta there is proof for permissibility, for one way or the other: if we say that the expression "the whole head" refers to the neck-bone, if so, the expression "the whole head" in the Mishnah also refers to the neck-bone, and it was taught explicitly that if there is a neck's breadth—that is, outside the neck by a neck's breadth—his shechitah is kosher. And the Tosefta only invalidates when one explicitly intends for this, and not in an ordinary shechitah.

Nevertheless, since our teacher, the Rema, wrote that the custom is to declare it treif, it is difficult to be lenient except in a case of great loss. If only a small part of the neck bone was severed, one should not be stringent at all. The Maharal of Prague performed an act to permit it even if the entire neck bone was severed [Taz, subsection 2]. Furthermore, it is not relevant to forbid this based on the principle of "matters that are permitted but others have treated them as forbidden," for in this case a custom is not applicable, as it is an uncommon occurrence, and regarding an uncommon occurrence a custom is not applicable. If it did not reach the cord within the neck bone, there is no concern at all, for the primary element is the cord. There are those who were stringent even in a case of great loss if the majority was severed until it passed the majority of the cord [Tevu'ot Shor]. However, it does not seem proper to be so stringent in a matter that the earlier and later authorities explicitly permitted, and there is no correct reason for the stringency.

When a person slaughters a bird and holds the simanim with his two fingers, he must hold them well, for if he does not hold them well, sometimes they will slip here and there and he will not be able to slaughter them via holacha and will come to commit derasa. The superior slaughtering, according to the custom of our slaughterers, is that they stretch the skin very well and hold with their left hand the skin around the neck while it is stretched, and automatically the simanim are positioned well. Likewise, one should not place his finger on the knife, but rather should hold it by the handle so that he does not come to commit derasa. Likewise, one should not slaughter while sitting, but rather while standing, for when one sits it is easy to come to commit derasa. Post facto, the placing of a finger or slaughtering while sitting does not invalidate.

In siman 23 it was explained that shehiyah disqualifies whether in the trachea or in the esophagus, and such is the law regarding derasah; and on the contrary, even according to the one who permits shehiyah in the first minority of the trachea, he admits regarding derasah that it is disqualified, because the disqualification occurred at the time of the shechitah and within the act of shechitah, which is not the case with shehiyah, since once he paused, the first act is gone and it is like one who found half the trachea damaged [Beit Yosef], for derasah in the first minority is comparable to shehiyah in the final minority, for there too, since he returned and slaughtered, he revealed his intent that he joins it to the first shechitah and it is considered like one shechitah [Yam Shel Shlomo chapter 2, section 2]. And one must wonder at the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 6, who wrote that even if he only performed derasah in a minute amount of the esophagus, it is disqualified. Thus far his words. And why did he not inform us of a greater novelty, that even in a minute amount of the trachea it is disqualified? And the simple custom is to declare treif any type of derasah, whether in the first minority or the final minority, whether in the trachea or in the esophagus, and according to the essential law it is so, and not from the perspective of a stringency [the Beit Yosef appears to hold like that which the Rivash wrote in siman 187, that also derasah and huldah in the first minority of the trachea are nothing; even though he himself cited the Ashkenazi Shechitot for a prohibition, he did not hold so, and see Pri Chadash subsection 19].

What is huldah? The term huldah is an expression of hiding and covering, from the language of the weasel [huldah] that dwells in the foundations of houses [9:b] and hides itself; so too, the knife is hidden during the time of shehitah and is not visible to the open air. This is a halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai, and there is also an asmachta for this from a verse. For behold, in the Gemara [30:a], there is one who requires that the incision of the shehitah itself be exposed and revealed in one place and not in two or three places, and he learns it from that which is written [Jeremiah 9]: "Their tongue is a sharpened [shakhut] arrow," see there. We do not rule accordingly, as I wrote in siman 21. However, regarding the essence of the shehitah during the time of shehitah, we certainly learn that it must be exposed and revealed and not in hiding [it appears to me].

And how is hachladah constituted? The Rambam wrote in chapter 3, law 9: For example, if he inserted the knife between one siman and the other, whether he cut the upper siman from above or slaughtered the lower one from below, which is an invalid manner of slaughter; if he inserted the knife under the skin and slaughtered the two simanim in their normal manner; or if he concealed the knife under tangled wool; or if he spread a cloth over the knife and over the neck and slaughtered under the cloth—since the knife is not revealed, this is a safek nevelah. And similarly, if he slaughtered a minority of the simanim with hachladah and completed the slaughter without hachladah, this is a safek nevelah. Thus far his words. And the minority of the simanim refers to either the first minority or the middle minority, as he explained further on in law 13. This is his wording: And if he performed deras or hachladah, whether during the first third or during the middle third, it is invalid. Thus far his words. Meaning, a safek nevelah. But if he performed hachladah or deras during the final third, he holds that it is kosher, for such is his opinion also regarding shehiyah during the final minority, as I wrote in siman 23. And he holds that that which remained in the Gemara [30b] in doubt regarding one who performed hachladah during a minority of the simanim, this refers to the first or middle minority; but regarding the final minority, there is no doubt here, for since the majority of the simanim were slaughtered properly, the kashrut of the slaughter is complete, and we no longer care about what was done afterward.

But Rashi, of blessed memory, and the Bahag and several others of our teachers hold that the doubt in the Gemara is regarding the final minority, for regarding the first minority it is obvious to us that it is certainly nevelah [Rashi], since the disqualification is in the validity of the shechitah. And only regarding the final minority is it possible to say that since the validity of the shechitah was completed we do not care, or perhaps it is all one shechitah and it is disqualified [ibid.], for since initially one must slaughter both simanim, when the Merciful One taught Moses that huldah or derasah disqualifies the shechitah, it is even in the final minority. And in the Gemara it remained in doubt, and it is a doubt of nevelah, and so we hold for the law even in a case of great loss.

This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 10: If after he slaughtered the majority of the simanim, the knife was covered under the remaining minority of both of them or of one of them and he cut it, it is permitted; but there is one who forbids even in this case, and it is proper to be concerned for his words ab initio. Thus far his words. And he takes the primary ruling like the Rambam, and therefore he wrote regarding the opinion of Rashi only that it is proper to be concerned ab initio. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this: And the custom is to declare treif any chalada, whether in the first minority or in the last minority, whether in the trachea or in the esophagus. Thus far his words. And this is not merely by way of a custom, but rather that such is the primary law according to the opinion of Rashi and the Behag, whose every word is a tradition; rather, this is the meaning: since they practiced declaring it treif in every case, it follows that we have accepted upon ourselves the opinion of Rashi and the Behag as the primary view, and so we establish the law. And this is much more stringent than shehiya, for in shehiya there is reason to say that since he already ceased from slaughtering, his shechita was completed; but in derasa and chalada, where it is all one shechita, there is more reason to forbid. [And according to the system of Rashi, it is well-understood why the doubt in the Shas is found only regarding shehiya and chalada and not regarding derasa, hagrama, and ikkur; because in these three, he proceeds literally in one slaughtering and it is certainly treif even in the last minority. However, in shehiya, since there is an interruption, there is a doubt in the matter. And so too chalada, perforce there must be a slight interruption when he wishes to cover the knife in the last minority, as is understood. And therefore the Shas first inquired regarding chalada [30a], and afterwards regarding shehiya [32a], by way of "if you will say" that in chalada it is disqualified because the interruption is minimal and it is all like one slaughtering, nevertheless in shehiya, which is a substantial interruption, we inquire. And examine this carefully.]

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 11: If the knife was concealed under the first minority and he slaughtered from below to above, and afterwards finished the shechitah in its usual manner; and similarly, if he slaughtered the majority of one siman in a beast and the knife was concealed under the remaining minority and he slaughtered the second siman; and similarly, if he slaughtered the first minority with huldah and finished the shechitah without huldah—behold, this is invalid. Thus far his words. And the difference between the first case and the third is that both are in the first minority, but in the first case he slaughtered the minority from below to above, not in the manner of shechitah, and in the third case there is a greater novelty, for he slaughtered even the minority in its usual manner from above to below and the huldah was under the skin [Taz]. And that which he wrote in the middle case regarding a beast is because he follows his own reasoning that regarding the final minority, the primary ruling is like the Rambam; therefore, in a bird, where its validity is with one siman, once he slaughtered the majority of the siman the shechitah is completed and huldah no longer invalidates it. However, for us, as we hold like Rashi, even in a bird it is treif in every instance. And there is one who says that even for us, the first minority does not forbid except in the esophagus and not in the trachea, just as it is with half a damaged trachea [Shach, sub-section 13]. And we have already written in section 14 regarding drasah that this is not so, for this is comparable to shehiyah in the final minority, see there; and the same applies to huldah. And such is the primary ruling, to render it treif for huldah in every instance, whether in the trachea or in the esophagus; and even regarding shehiyah we wrote thus in siman 23, section 18, see there.

And that which the Rambam wrote, that in a case where one spreads a cloth over the knife and over the neck and slaughtered it is a doubtful nevelah, many of the poskim disagree with this. And as the Tur wrote, specifically when the cloth is tied to its neck or was attached with wax to its neck and one slaughtered beneath it, it is a doubt and his slaughtering is invalid; but when the cloth is merely spread over its neck or wrapped without tying, this is not an invalidation and the slaughtering is kosher. And so they decided in the Shulchan Aruch, section 8, except they wrote that initially one should be concerned for the words of the Rambam, see there. [Also in the Aruch, entry "Garas," he wrote like the Tur, that specifically when the cloth is attached with wax or with another thing, see there; and even tying he did not mention, see there].

And for this reason, one must be very careful with sheep that have much tangled wool on their necks to pluck the wool so that the knife does not hide itself under the wool and come to the point of chaladah. And likewise, one should pluck the feathers from birds at the place of the shechitah for this reason. And on Yom Tov, when it is impossible to pluck, the shochet must be very careful to smooth the feathers to this side and that side so that the knife will be revealed.

One must be careful when a person slaughters and is concerned for the hide, such that he does not want to make a large tear in it and slaughters with the tip of the knife and it is covered by the hide, for if even a small part of the place of slaughtering on the knife is covered, even post facto it is invalid. However, if he slaughters with the middle of the knife, there is no concern if its tip is covered by the hide, since the knife in the place where it slaughters against the simanim is not covered. And there are some among the Rishonim who were stringent even in this [Tur in the name of the Re'em], and it is proper to be concerned for his words ab initio. And there is one who forbids even post facto [Bach], but it does not appear so [Shach, subsection 9]. And so too one must be careful when a rope is wound around the neck of the animal to remove it from its neck. And so too one must be careful with the wrapping of a cloth on the knife, that it should not be wrapped more on the thick side than on the thin side with which one slaughters [Teu'ot Shor].

Hagramah, how so? For example, if one slaughtered not in the place of shechitah that was explained above in siman 20. The term hagramah means that he inclines his hand to go outside the place of the validity of shechitah, as in "he was weighing eye to eye, he gives him his girumai" [Bava Batra 88b; Rashi Chullin 9a]. The term gerem refers to the equality of the measure, that he should not add nor subtract [Zevachim 62b, Tosafot s.v. Be-ammah]. This is a halachah le-Moshe mi-Sinai, and there is also an allusion to this in the verse, for the term shechitah written in the Torah regarding kodashim, "and he shall slaughter the young bull," indicates that the place of shechitah is from the neck and not from another place. And thus we expound [Chullin 27a]: From where do we know that shechitah is from the neck? As it is said: "Ve-shachat" — from the place where it bows [shach], prepare it [chatehu]; that is to say, from the place where it sometimes bends from there is its validity. "Shach" is a term of bending, as in "for our soul is bowed [shachah] to the dust," and "chatehu" is a term of preparation, as in "and he shall purify [ve-chitte] the house," "purify me [techateini] with hyssop," etc. Consequently, when one slaughters not in the place of the neck, such as from the slope of the "helmet" and above, and likewise below in the simanim, in the trachea from the top of the lobe of the lung and in the esophagus from the place where it becomes hairy, this is not in the neck in the place where it bows, and it is like one who cuts in the hand or in the foot.

The Rambam wrote in chapter 3, law 13: If one slaughtered the majority of one or the majority of two and completed the slaughter with derasa or with hagrama, it is kosher, for the required amount was slaughtered properly. If one performed hagrama at the beginning for a third and slaughtered two-thirds, it is kosher. If one slaughtered a third, performed hagrama for a third, and returned and slaughtered the final third, it is kosher. If one performed hagrama for a third, slaughtered a third, and returned and performed hagrama for the final third, it is invalid. And if one performed derasa or hachlada, whether in the first third or in the middle third, it is invalid. Thus far his words. And the reason he is more lenient regarding hagrama than regarding other matters is because hagrama is not the place of slaughter at all, and it is like cutting the hand or the foot; we only require that the majority of the simanim be in the place of slaughter, and the minority that was not in the place of slaughter is nothing, whether it is the first minority or the middle minority. It only invalidates when two-thirds were in hagrama and a third was in the place of slaughter, for the majority of the siman was not slaughtered in the place of slaughter. But regarding derasa and hachlada, where the invalidation occurs in the place of slaughter, it invalidates in the first minority and in the middle, and it is only kosher in the final minority, for the validity of the slaughter was already completed, as I have written. [And that which he said regarding derasa and hachlada for a third that it is invalid, he means a doubt of nevela, as I have written above in law 10 and as I have written in section 16, and so wrote the Lechem Mishneh, see there; and he relied on what was above, and here he only came to explain the difference between hagrama and derasa and hachlada, and they lengthily discussed this for no reason].

And there are some of our teachers who render it treifah even if he slaughtered a third, and performed hagramah for a third, and slaughtered a third, because when the life force departs at the slaughter of the majority, there was hagramah present [the Ran in the name of the Maor and the Ramban, who ruled like Rav Huna to be stringent and like Rav Yehuda to be stringent, 19]. And according to them, it is a doubt of treifah both in such a case and in a case where he performed hagramah for a third, slaughtered a third, and performed hagramah for a third. And according to the Rambam, in such a case it is certainly treifah [as he ruled like Rav Yehuda], but in a case where he performed hagramah for a third and slaughtered two-thirds, they permit it. And some say that even in such a case it is treifah [like Rav Assi there], and the reason is that when the life force departs at the majority, we require that the majority be slaughtered properly, and here, when the first two-thirds were completed, the first third was in a state of hagramah [Rashba]. And he only permits it where he slaughtered two-thirds and performed hagramah for a third. And Rashi, of blessed memory, renders it treifah even in such a case, as with all disqualifications of slaughter [30: and his reason is that perhaps we establish the law like Rav Assi there in the first version and like the Rabbis, see there]. And the general principle of Rashi is this: since ab initio one must slaughter the entire simanim, when the Merciful One taught Moses the disqualifications of slaughter, He taught him thus: that there should not be any of the disqualifications in any part of the siman. Therefore, even though hagramah is not in the place of slaughter at all, since it was taught together with all the disqualifications, its law is like theirs to disqualify even in the final minority, even regarding itself [as mentioned above regarding the reason of the Rabbis for the first version of Rav Assi, and such is found in Temurah 16b: see there in Rashi, beginning with the words "two etc." and since they are equal, in one tradition He taught them, certainly in one place etc. Thus far his words, and examine this].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 12, ruled like the Rambam, but our teacher, the Rema, wrote that the custom is to declare it treif even in a case of hagramah, whether in the first minority or in the last minority, whether in the trachea or in the esophagus. Thus far his words. And it is not by reason of custom alone, but rather from the essential law, because we uphold the opinion of Rashi, of blessed memory, and therefore one should not be lenient even in a case of great loss.

And know that all these cases of hagramah that we have declared kosher according to the poskim who permit them, it is only when he caused hagramah in the trachea above and it is known to him that he did not touch the esophagus. But in the trachea below, where its perforation is in any amount, if the slaughter of the majority was not completed, it is automatically treifah. And so too in the esophagus, whether toward the upper side or toward the lower side, because in the esophagus, its perforation in any place is in any amount. And automatically, even above in the trachea, when there is a doubt that perhaps he touched the esophagus, it is treifah due to doubt. And only when the majority was slaughtered do we no longer have concern. And all this is according to the opinion of those who permit, but for us, as we follow the rule of Rashi, it is treifah in any case, as I have written, and there is no practical difference in all this. Therefore, the shochet shall be careful to slaughter in the middle of the neck, and then he will not come to any hagramah, as I have written in siman 20.

Ikur is the fifth disqualification of the laws of shehitah that the Merciful One taught to Moses. Regarding the definition of ikur, our teachers disagreed; for Rashi, of blessed memory, explained [9a] that ikur is that which we learned in the Mishnah [32a]: if one slaughtered the esophagus and severed the trachea, or severed the trachea and slaughtered the esophagus. The explanation is not that he severed the trachea by hand, for if so, this would not belong to the laws of shehitah, as the disqualification would be because he did not slaughter it. Rather, it deals with one who slaughtered with a notched knife, and the notch does not slaughter but rather strangles [Tosafot 9a]. Consequently, this matter is explicit in the verse, as it is written, "And he shall slaughter," and this is not slaughtering but rather strangulation. This disqualification is called ikur because the notch uproots it from its place. Therefore, they attributed this more to the trachea than to the esophagus, for even though the disqualification of a notched knife is equal in both of them, as is the disqualification of ikur, nevertheless the name ikur applies more to the trachea than to the esophagus; for the esophagus is soft, and when a notch hits it, it strangles it in its place, but the trachea is hard, and when a notch hits it, it uproots it from its place [so it appears to me].

But the Rambam, of blessed memory, and most of the Rishonim did not understand the definition of ikur in this way; rather, that pertains to the laws of the knife which were explained in siman 18 and is not one of the five laws of shehitah. Rather, the definition of ikur is as the Bahag wrote, that the siman was uprooted or dislodged from its place, from the place of its attachment in the jaw and the neck, and afterward he performed shehitah, and the shehitah was performed properly, but the siman was uprooted from its place and shehitah is not effective for it. And thus did the Merciful One teach Moses, that the shehitah of the simanim is only effective when they are attached in their place, and not when they have been uprooted from the place of their attachment. And one should not ask that if so, why is a halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai necessary for this law, for behold the animal or the bird has already become a tereifah when the siman was uprooted from its place? For in truth, the uprooting of the siman from its place is not a tereifah, and as long as it is alive it is kosher; rather, it is a halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai that shehitah is not effective for a siman that was uprooted from its place [Tosafot ibid.]. And according to Rashi, even while alive it is a tereifah in such a case [ibid.].

And know that this which we have said, that the uprooting of the siman from its place as long as it is alive is not treifah, is not a universal rule, for the Sages, of blessed memory, explicitly said [44a]: simanin that have been loosened in their majority are treifah. And the matter is thus: that if the esophagus was peeled from the jaw, but the flesh between the jaw and the esophagus is attached to the esophagus—meaning that the jaw was peeled from the esophagus and from the flesh that is with it—even if it was all peeled, it is kosher. And this is what we learned in the Mishnah [54a]: if the lower jaw was removed, it is kosher. However, when the esophagus is completely peeled from the jaw and from the flesh, if it was all peeled, it is kosher while alive, but shechitah is not effective for it. And if a minority of it was peeled and its majority remains, shechitah is also effective for it. And if its majority was peeled, it depends on the manner of its separation: if the remaining minority is in one place, shechitah is effective for it; and if the minority is not in one place but rather scattered, a little here and a little there, even though the minority remaining in a scattered state is much more than the minority that remains in one place, nevertheless shechitah is not effective for it. And the reason for the matter is that when the minority is scattered, it is evident that it was torn with force from here and from there, but when the minority is only in one place, even though it is a small amount, nevertheless it is evident that it was peeled gently. And all this is when the esophagus was peeled from the jaw and from the flesh, but it did not separate from the second siman, which is the trachea. But when the esophagus is separated from the trachea along the majority of its length, it is treifah even while alive. And this is according to the opinion of the Tur in this siman and in siman 33, for this is the opinion of the Rosh, of blessed memory. And according to the opinion of Rashi, of blessed memory [44a], when it is uprooted a little here and a little there, it is also treifah while alive, and this is "simanin that have been loosened in their majority are treifah" that the Sages, of blessed memory, spoke of. But according to the Rosh and the Tur, this is an uprooting of simanin for which shechitah is not effective, but while alive it is kosher, and "simanin that have been loosened in their majority" is when the esophagus is separated from the trachea. [And the words of the Levush in section 15 require further study, and the Ma'adanei Yom Tov already wondered about him in Divrei Chamudot on Perek Ellu Tereifot, siman 6, letter 20, see there.] And in section 37, more will be explained regarding this.

The Rambam, of blessed memory, it appears to me, has another approach in all this, for in chapter 3 he wrote: What is "uprooting"? For example, if the windpipe, which is the kana, or the esophagus was uprooted, and one of them or both of them were displaced before the completion of the shechitah. Thus far his words. And in chapter 8 he wrote: If the upper jaw was removed, it is treifah; but if the lower one was removed, for example if it was severed until the place of the simanim but they were not uprooted, behold, this is permitted. Thus far his words. And in chapter 9 he wrote: Simanim that were mostly loosened are treifah, even if not due to a fall; and similarly if they were folded over, for they are not fit for shechitah. But if most of the turbetz of the esophagus was separated from the jaw, behold, this is permitted, for the turbetz is not fit for shechitah, as I have written. Thus far his words.

The explanation of his words appears to me to be that, behold, the turbetz of the esophagus is attached to the jaw [Rashi 43b], but the simanim themselves are not attached to the jaw, and they hang between the base of the palate and the tongue near the fork of the lower jaw [Responsa of the Rambam brought in the Beit Yosef siman 33], meaning near the lower edge of the jaw [Perisha ibid.]. The simanim themselves are connected to one another and to the neck by soft membranes. The reason that uprooting is invalid for shechitah is because on account of the uprooting the simanim wobble, and it is impossible that she should be slaughtered properly [Shach subsection 24 in the name of the Ran]. Consequently, it is understood that if the simanim are merely not connected as they were created, they wobble and are not fit for shechitah. Therefore, it is not only if the simanim themselves were torn from the membranes by which they were held to the neck and to one another, for they certainly wobble and are not fit for shechitah, but even if the simanim themselves are connected by their membranes as they were created, but above the place of shechitah, which is the turbetz, when it is torn from the jaw—if only the whole of it is torn, then consequently the simanim themselves which are connected to the lower edge of the jaw are also torn from there, and there is the primary attachment, necessarily the simanim themselves move from their place and are not fit for shechitah. The matter is understood that when the whole of it is torn from the jaw—the turbetz and the beginning of the heads of the simanim—and they stand in the air and they are soft, consequently the simanim themselves fall, as is known that this is shemutah. This is called "the simanim were folded," meaning that they are folded one upon the other, and the reason is because they were peeled from the jaw [and this is what is said in the Gemara "de-itkapel akpulei," from the language of folding and from the language of peeling, and see Rashi]. But if only the majority of the turbetz was torn and uprooted from the jaw, and its end is connected to the jaw, then consequently the place where the simanim are connected to the edge of the jaw is connected to the jaw; behold, the simanim are in their place and fit for shechitah. According to this, there are three divisions in these laws, as will be explained with the help of Heaven:

When the simanim themselves were torn from their membranes, or even one siman that was torn from the membranes through which they are connected to each other and to the neck, it is a treifah like all treifot. And this is what our sages, of blessed memory, said: simanim that were loosened in their majority are treifah, meaning if the majority of the length of the siman was loosened from its membranes, as we say elsewhere regarding a limb or flesh that are dangling [Chullin 127a], for the siman is no longer in its natural state. Therefore, even though it is attached at the jaw, it is a treifah. And if they are connected properly in their membranes, but at the place of connection at the jaw, there the turbetz separated from the jaw—if the separation reached until its end, such that automatically the heads of the simanim also separated from the edge of the jaw, then even though it is not a treifah, nevertheless the simanim will wobble during the time of shechitah and it constitutes ikur simanim [and this is "they were uprooted" mentioned in the Gemara, meaning it was uprooted from the jaw until its end]. But if only the majority of the turbetz separated from the jaw, such that automatically the heads of the simanim are still connected to the jaw at the lower edge, it is kosher even for shechitah [and this is "they were detached from above the simanim" in the Gemara, meaning it did not reach until its end]. And that which was transmitted to Moses from Sinai regarding ikur simanim, this is when during the time of shechitah they were uprooted before the completion of the shechitah, whether they were uprooted from the membranes or whether the turbetz separated from the jaw until its end; for at the time of shechitah there is no difference how the uprooting occurs. For while alive, there is a difference between when it is an actual treifah and when it is merely unfit for shechitah, for then the fat is permitted; but at the time of shechitah, either way, it is a treifah or a neveilah.

And this is what the Rambam, of blessed memory, explained: What is displacement? For example, if the windpipe was displaced, etc., before the completion of the shechitah. Thus far his words. Meaning, this is the displacement that was told to Moses at Sinai, that they were displaced at the time of the shechitah, and it was not stated therein how they were displaced, for there is no practical difference in this, as I have written. And in chapter 8 he wrote: If the lower jaw was removed, for example, if it was severed until the place of the simanim and they were not displaced, this is permitted. Thus far his words. Meaning, that it did not reach until its end, so that automatically the heads of the simanim are still attached to the jaw, therefore it is completely kosher. And in chapter 9 he wrote: Simanim that were mostly loosened are treifah. Meaning, that they were detached from their membranes even though they are attached to the jaw. And afterwards he wrote: And similarly if they were folded over, for they are not fit for shechitah. Meaning, that they are attached to the membranes properly, but above, the junction of the simanim was peeled from the jaw until its end, and the heads of the simanim folded over onto the simanim themselves, as I have written. And although it is not treifah, since the simanim are attached to their membranes, nevertheless, since the heads of the simanim separated from the jaw, they wobble and are not fit for shechitah. And afterwards he wrote: But if most of the junction was separated, etc., this is permitted, etc., as we have explained. Thus far his words. And he means as he explained in chapter 8, that this is the very law he wrote there, that it was severed until the place of the simanim. [And the entire sugya on page 44a is explained perfectly, see there. And this is why it asks from "simanim that were mostly loosened" against "a junction that was removed from the jaw," this is the explanation: Why there is it treifah in its majority, and here in its majority it is kosher? And it answers: This is where it folded over, and this is where it was separated. Meaning, why are you comparing them to one another? For in the case of being removed from the jaw, is it not merely a peeling from above? And since it did not reach the simanim themselves, we do not care. But in the case of being loosened, were the simanim themselves not separated from their membranes? And therefore even in its majority it is treifah. And also the wording of the Rif can be aligned with this with a slight emendation, or even without an emendation, but I do not wish to be lengthy; and examine it carefully].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great work, explained the words of the Rambam in this manner: that "signs that were loosened" means the signs were separated from one another, and it is an actual treifah; and "folded" is called when both of them or the majority of one of them were uprooted from their place of attachment along the length of the neck, and this is the "uprooting of signs" mentioned in the third chapter, and it is not a treifah but rather is unfit for shechitah; and if only the majority of the turbetz was detached from the jaw, it is kosher, see there. And behold, according to his words, when the signs were torn from the membranes of the neck, it is not a treifah but rather is unfit for shechitah, while according to our words, it is an actual treifah. And similarly, according to his words, when the signs were separated from one another, it is an actual treifah, while according to our words, this is not mentioned in his words, though it is possible that this is also included in "loosening." However, to say that if they were separated from one another it is an actual treifah, but if they were separated from the membranes of the neck it is not an actual treifah, is certainly astonishing, for the primary vitality of all organs is when they are attached to the body, and their attachment to one another seems not to be as critical, as each one has its own function: the trachea is for the respiratory system and the esophagus is for the digestive system. And granted that for the law it is certainly so, that if they were separated from one another it is a treifah, as the Rishonim cited in the name of Rabbeinu Chananel, of blessed memory, nevertheless, to say that this is worse than being separated from the neck certainly requires further study. He further wrote that what was explained, that if the majority of the turbetz was detached from the jaw it is kosher, but if it was entirely detached it is "uprooting of signs" and they are unfit for shechitah—this is when he grasped the signs and uprooted them from the jaw; but if he grasped the jaw and uprooted it from the signs, even if it was entirely so, it is kosher, and this is what he wrote in the eighth chapter regarding "the lower jaw was removed" etc., see there. And this is certainly a great wonder; what logic is there to distinguish between one and the other? [And the Ma'aseh Yom Tov already questioned him on this in the third chapter, siman 6, letter 70, see there]. And see what I wrote in section 38 in the explanation of his words.

And some say regarding the intention of the Rambam that the uprooting he wrote of in chapter 3 refers to when the simanim or one of them were uprooted from the flesh of the jaw, but if they were only severed until the place of the simanim, it is kosher, and this is "the lower jaw was removed" which he wrote of in chapter 8; and "simanim that were loosened" refers to when the esophagus separated from the trachea according to the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef; and "folded over" is called such when the majority of the siman was removed from the jaw and the minority that remains is not in one place [Bach], and as I wrote in section 30:

And behold, for the halacha, we certainly must be stringent like all the opinions, for this is a Torah prohibition. Therefore, when the simanim are separated from one another in their majority, it is treifah. Likewise, when they are separated from the membranes that are connected to the neck in their majority, it is also treifah. And if the entire lower jaw was removed, it is not fit for shechitah. Likewise, if the majority of it was removed, if the minority that remains is not in one place, it is also not fit for shechitah. And there are those who are even more stringent, that at the time of shechitah, even if only a small part of the simanim were uprooted, it is also treifah [Bach]. And there are those who disagree on this [Taz, subsection 11]. And that which we wrote in section 30, that when the esophagus is peeled only from the jaw and not from the flesh that is with it, even if it is entirely peeled it is kosher—this is only according to the method of Rashi. But in the Rambam, this distinction does not exist. Furthermore, according to Rashi, of blessed memory, this is the explanation of the Gemara there, that "it is gathered from above the simanim," but according to the Rambam, there is surely another intention in this, as I have written. Furthermore, the Tur also did not mention this distinction at all, and it implies that he also holds that in its entirety, even in such a case, shechitah is not effective for it [and so wrote the Taz, subsection 8].

According to this, one must wonder about our teacher, the Beit Yosef, who wrote in section 15: What is ikur? For example, if the trachea or the esophagus was uprooted from the jaw and from the flesh, etc. Thus far his words. For it is clear from his words that from the jaw alone it is kosher in any case, as this is only according to the opinion of Rashi. And it is possible that he follows his own approach, where he explained the intent of the Rambam to distinguish between one who uprooted the simanim from the jaw and one who uprooted the jaw from the simanim, as he wrote in section 35. And there we wondered about him, what logic is there to distinguish in this? Therefore, we shall say that his intent is thus: that when he uprooted the simanim from the jaw, the flesh remains near the jaw, and therefore it is ikur; but if he grabbed the jaw and uprooted it from the simanim, the simanim remained attached to the flesh, and therefore it is kosher. According to this, the reasoning of Rashi, of blessed memory, is also explained in the Rambam. [However, it appears that the Tur does not distinguish in this, and so wrote the Bach in siman 33. And behold, the Tur there challenged the Rambam regarding what he wrote concerning one where the lower jaw was removed up to the simanim, see there. And his words are not understood at all, and the Bach and the Derisha labored over his intent. However, the Rashba in Torat HaBayit, the second house, also challenged him like the Tur, and it is clear that they maintained that the simanim are attached along the entire length of the lower jaw, and so also thought the Sages of Lunel. But according to the response of the Rambam, of blessed memory, that they are not attached except at the lower end, and as I wrote in section 32, their challenge is removed, and he also holds like their words, see there. And in vain they labored over the intent of the Tur, and delve into this.]

He further wrote in section 16: That which renders it unfit regarding uprooting is when it is entirely uprooted, but if even a minute amount remains, it is kosher, provided that what remains is in one place. However, if the minority that remains is scattered, being a little here and a little there, it is unfit, for it is evident that it was uprooted with force, and what remains attached is a loose attachment, and it is as if it were entirely uprooted and is unfit. This applies when the majority was uprooted; but if only a minority was uprooted and its majority remains, even if this remaining majority is scattered, a little here and a little there, it is kosher. Thus far his words. We have already explained this according to the system of Rashi, the Rosh, and the Tur. And that which he wrote, that when the minority is scattered it is unfit, this is according to the system of all the poskim who adopted the opinion of the Bahag regarding uprooting. But according to the system of Rashi, that uprooting is when one slaughtered with a notched knife, in the case of a scattered minority it is not merely unfit, but it is a treifah from life [as the Tosafot wrote, 9a, starting with "all of them," etc., and according to the explanation of the Kuntres it is well-settled that he does not count the "dislocated" of the Bahag, for it is a treifah that he slaughtered and there is no need to mention it. Thus far his words. However, in the Shulchan Aruch, the opinion of Rashi was not brought at all].

This uprooting is what is called "shmuta" in the Gemara, meaning that the siman was uprooted from its place. There is no difference whether both simanim were uprooted, or only one siman, or the majority of it if the minority is not in one place, as has been explained. Furthermore, even a bird, for which they ruled one siman is sufficient, if one of the simanim was uprooted and afterwards he slaughtered the second one, his slaughtering is invalid. And even though we explained the reason for uprooting is because it is not fit for slaughtering, and here, he did not slaughter the uprooted siman, nevertheless, it is a received halakha that at the time of slaughtering, both simanim must be fit for slaughtering [Rashba]. And according to Rashi, it is a treifa from its lifetime, as he wrote:

Dislocation does not disqualify except before the slaughter of the majority; however, if after one slaughtered the majority of the two organs in a beast or the majority of one organ in a bird the organs were dislocated, the slaughter is kosher. Thus ruled the Tur and Shulchan Aruch in section 15, for the disqualification of dislocation is no worse than all other disqualifications of slaughter, and it is called kosher regarding the final minority. Such is the law regarding dislocation; on the contrary, dislocation is superior, as it is not a treifah while alive according to the approach of most poskim. Consequently, it is explained that according to the Behag, who holds like Rashi that in all disqualifications it is a treifah due to doubt even in the final minority, as written in siman 23, it follows that dislocation is also disqualified in the final minority. And although one could distinguish between dislocation and other disqualifications as has been written, nevertheless, it does not seem appropriate to distinguish in this. And according to the approach of Rashi that dislocation is a notched knife, certainly according to him it would be a doubtful treifah even in the final minority, as with all disqualifications according to his approach.

And this is the opinion of our teacher, the Rema, who wrote in section 15: And we are accustomed to declare treifah any displacement (ikur), whether in the first minority or in the last minority, whether in the trachea (kaneh) or in the esophagus (veshet); and specifically after it has been slaughtered, but while alive it is kosher, except that slaughtering is not effective for it, and the practical difference is regarding its milk or its eggs, which are kosher. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words appears to me to mean as follows: that we are accustomed to declare treifah every type of ikur, whether the ikur of Rashi or the ikur of the Behag, whether in the first minority or in the last minority. And the first minority is only relevant to the ikur of Rashi, where he slaughtered the first minority with a notch and all the rest without a notch; for the ikur of the Behag is not relevant in the first minority, since after the simanim were displaced in the first minority, they are displaced for the entire siman. And the last minority is relevant to both of them. And afterwards he says that while alive the ikur of the Behag is kosher; even though according to Rashi it is a treifah from life and the milk and eggs are forbidden, nevertheless we do not concern ourselves with this, as he is a single opinion against all the poskim. And that which we concerned ourselves with his words in the last minority is because in this the Behag also holds like him regarding all disqualifications, and presumably also regarding ikur. And that which we concern ourselves with his words in the first minority regarding his ikur, this is because everyone agrees in this that when he slaughtered with a notch it is a treifah in the first minority, as explained in siman 18, except that they hold that this is not the ikur that was transmitted to Moses from Sinai; and automatically, according to the system of Rashi and the Behag regarding all disqualifications that even in the last minority it is a treifah, the same applies to slaughtering with a notch in the last minority. But regarding the definition of ikur, the primary ruling is like the Behag, and therefore he declared it kosher from life. But the great later authorities (Acharonim) forbade it even from life, for perhaps we rule like Rashi regarding the definition of ikur, and the ikur of the Behag is a treifah from life; and such is the primary ruling, for it is a doubt regarding a Torah law [Shach subsection 23, and Pri Chadash, and Tevuot Shor; however, that which the Shach wrote that the Rif and the Rambam also hold like Rashi requires great study, for they hold like the Behag, and "loosened in their majority" is a different matter as we have explained; also that which he wrote regarding the intent of the Rema in the first minority refers to the ikur of the Behag, and his intent was that the majority of the siman was not displaced, for at the time of slaughtering even with a minority it is a treifah, and this is the opinion of the Bach, and the Taz already challenged him in subsection 11, and the wording of the Rema does not bear this, and his intent is clear regarding the ikur of Rashi, and so he wrote explicitly in his book Darkhei Moshe, sign 10, and this is his wording: However, Mahariw wrote that whether it is ikur according to the words of the Behag or according to the words of Rashi, it is disqualified, whether in a minority etc. Thus far his words, see there and examine carefully].

If one slaughtered one siman in a bird, which is its valid slaughter, and the second siman was found detached, and it is not known if it was detached before the slaughter of the other siman or afterward, it is treifah, for it is a doubt regarding a Torah law and a presumption of prohibition. The general rule is that every doubt in slaughter is forbidden. Therefore, even if there is some proof that it was detached after the slaughter, such as if after slaughtering the siman he threw the bird from his hand and it is likely that through the throwing and through the convulsing the second siman became detached, nevertheless, since he did not see before he threw it that it was not yet detached, it remains in its presumption of prohibition. This is unless the shochet says explicitly that he knows it was not detached at the time of slaughter, and he has credibility in this even after the slaughter. Even though it is no longer in his hand now, nevertheless, since the Torah believed the shochet because it is in his hand to slaughter, as I wrote in siman 1, it is impossible to say that it believed him before and not afterward, for there is no half-credibility. Furthermore, regarding credibility because it is in his hand, there is no difference between it being in his hand now and it having been in his hand previously, as I wrote in siman 127 [like Rava, Gittin 54b]. And even though the matter of being detached was never in his hand—for it is not in his hand to ensure it is not detached—nevertheless, the Torah must have believed him for this, for if not so, how is he believed regarding the slaughter because it is in his hand, when being detached is not in his hand? Rather, perforce, either the Torah believed him for this as well, or because the Torah was not concerned for this, as the majority of animals and birds do not have a detached siman. If so, in any case he is believed, either because of credibility or because of the majority. And even though the majority is now impaired since it is detached, nevertheless, it is simple that he is believed to say that it was detached after the slaughter because of the majority, and the majority remains in its place. But without his statement, it is impossible to permit it because of the majority, for it has been impaired. And the matter is simple that this is specifically when he says that he checked after the slaughter and saw that it was not detached, for if not so, how does he know it was not detached? For it is impossible to know this without checking [and so wrote the Tevuot Shor, subsection 32, and the Taz in subsection 14 labored in vain, and his words require study as the Tevuot Shor and the Atzei HaLevanon, Pesakim siman 205 wrote, and according to what I wrote his words are understood, and delve into it].

It has already been explained that a detached siman cannot be slaughtered properly because it wobbles. However, the matter is understood that when the shochet grasps the simanim themselves, or grasps the skin of the place of slaughter from behind until the simanim are pressed under the skin, he is able to slaughter because they do not wobble. Therefore, the Rambam wrote in chapter 3 that if the slaughtered siman is found to be detached, if he did not grasp the simanim it is kosher, for it is impossible for a detached one to be made slaughtered; and if he grasped the simanim, this is a doubtfully nevelah. Thus far his words. And he holds that when he did not grasp the simanim, the matter is clarified that the detachment occurred afterward, for otherwise the slaughter would not have been in the manner of slaughters. And conversely, in grasping the simanim, in any case it is a doubtfully nevelah, and it does not avail to slaughter another animal and compare the incisions to one another. And even though in the Gemara [54a] there is one who holds so, nevertheless the Rambam holds that the halacha is not so [for he holds that Rav Nachman is like Rav, and Rav Yehuda is an individual against them].

And there are some of our teachers who hold that even if it was caught in the simanim, it is permitted by means of comparison to another, and how shall he act? He shall bring another animal and slaughter the siman, and afterwards uproot it from its place; if the two slaughters are equal in appearance, it is kosher, for just as this one was slaughtered first, so too this one was slaughtered first. And if the second is redder, it is invalid, for this is a sign that the first was uprooted before slaughter. But in that same animal, comparison to a slaughter in another place is of no avail, because a shmuta is not a treifah while alive and it is like a living thing, and consequently it is impossible for the second slaughter to equal the first, for in the second it is no longer alive [Shach and Taz]. And according to this opinion, where it was not caught in the simanim, they agree with the Rambam that it does not require comparison and in any case it is kosher [Bach]. And there are some of our teachers who hold that if it was caught, in any case it is treifah and comparison is of no avail, and where it was not caught, it is not kosher without comparison, and this is the opinion of the Rosh, of blessed memory. And the poskim have already written that nowadays we are not experts in comparing one to another, and therefore according to what has been explained as the opinion of the Rosh, nowadays it is treifah in any case. [And that which they did not write to compare in the law in section 43, the Tosafot wrote there because in any event they will not be similar to one another even if the second was uprooted before the slaughter of the first, because then it had vitality from the first siman, which is not the case now; see there.]

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 19: If one slaughtered a bird in the proper manner, and after the completion of the slaughter he found a complete ring of the trachea on the knife, it is kosher. Thus far his words. For we assume that this is not a displacement, but rather occurred through the rolling of the trachea; that is to say, he slaughtered in two places due to rolling, and therefore the ring was separated. And even though this is a doubt regarding the slaughter, as perhaps the ring was displaced during the slaughter, nevertheless, since it is uncommon for a ring of the trachea to be dislodged during life without the wound being noticeable, we assume it happened through a common occurrence—that it was separated by rolling after the slaughter [Kereiti U-Peleiti].

But our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this that there are those who render it treifah in this case, and such is the primary ruling and one should not deviate, thus far his words. And most of the great authorities agreed with his words, for who can testify that it came about through the rolling of the windpipe that occurred after the slaughter of the majority of the simanim? Perhaps it was at the beginning of the slaughter or in the middle of the slaughter. And so it stands to reason to say that through the pressure of the knife upon the windpipe, one ring jumped from its place [Yam Shel Shlomo, chapter 1, siman 18]. And even if it occurred after the slaughter of the majority, it constitutes an uprooting in the final minority, and we establish that it is treifah. And there are those who wish to be lenient when the ring is found on the ground, but there is no correct reason to distinguish in this, and it is all a doubt regarding the slaughter. And to this the great Acharonim agreed [Shach, subsection 31, and Kereti U-Peleti, and Tevuot Shor], and such is the primary ruling in law. However, if a portion of a ring is found on the knife or on the ground, meaning less than half a ring, it should be rendered kosher [Taz, subsection 17], for even if we say it is an uprooting, it does not disqualify in the minority [and the Chochmat Adam, klal 7, wrote that the Rema in Darkhei Moshe rendered it treifah even in this case, see there; but it is not so, for he rendered treifah "portions of rings" and not "a portion of a ring," see there, and also the Tevuot Shor agreed to permit in this, and there is no doubt in the matter].

If after the shechitah one ring was found on the edge of the knife, meaning that it was partially cut and the two sides of the cut are on the two sides of the knife, it should be validated. For this clearly appears that it was not caused by the pressing of the knife upon the gargeret such that it was displaced from its location, for the ring was cut; and even though one could say perhaps it was first displaced and afterwards cut, why should we assume a defect that it was first displaced since we see the cut [the Taz, subsection 17, and several of the great authorities agreed to this. And likewise, if a ring was not missing but rather two halves of a ring were attached to one another with the skin between them, because it is not the way of displacement for the rings to be cut in two along their circumference and joined together by the skin that connects them; rather, it certainly occurred by way of shechitah through the forward and backward motion of the knife, and through the rolling of the gargeret it was cut in two along its circumference; the Shach, siman 34, subsection 16, see there. And know that the term "displacement" that we wrote regarding these laws is only a borrowed term, for displacement is a different matter as I have written; but when a ring was snapped from its place before shechitah, it is a treifah from its lifetime, for if the majority of the gargeret was severed across its width it is a treifah as I have written in siman 34, and all the more so in such a case].

Our sages, of blessed memory, said [Shabbat 128b]: One who slaughters a hen should either press its legs to the ground or, alternatively, lift them up, for perhaps it will place its claws on the ground and uproot the simanim; see there. For the nature of the hen and the rooster, when one stands them freely on the ground or against a wall and wishes to slaughter them, they drive their claws into the ground and pull the simanim toward themselves and uproot them. But when one presses their legs to the ground or against a wall, or they are hanging in the air, it is far-fetched that they would uproot the simanim, and therefore the sages commanded to do so. And there are those who wrote that any shochet who wishes to guard himself so that a ring of the trachea is not displaced should slaughter at an angle, and then he will be assured that he will not stumble in this, and especially regarding geese.