Siman 80

Since the chelev of a behemah is forbidden and the chelev of a chayah is permitted, as I wrote in siman 64, and similarly a behemah does not require kisuy hadam while a chayah requires it, as I wrote in siman 28, and similarly regarding "it and its offspring" there is a distinction, and furthermore regarding several matters, therefore we must know the signs to recognize what is a behemah and what is a chayah. In the Torah this was not explicitly stated, and only in the Oral Torah did the tradition come to our sages, of blessed memory, regarding the distinctions between them, as will be explained:

This is the wording of the Rambam in chapter 1 of Ma'akhalot Assurot, law 10: The signs of a chayah according to the oral tradition are: any species that has split hooves and chews the cud and has branched horns, such as the deer, this is certainly a pure chayah, etc. Thus far his words. It is clear from his words that the sign of branched horns alone is not sufficient; for even though it is certainly not a behemah, as the horns of a behemah are not branched, nevertheless there is a doubt regarding an impure chayah, and therefore it requires split hooves and chewing the cud [and this is the opinion of the Ribam in Tosafot Chullin 59, see there].

The sages taught in the Mishnah [Niddah 51b]: Everything that has horns has hooves, which implies from this that the sign of horns alone is sufficient. However, the halakhah is not according to this Mishnah, for there is already a dispute regarding this in a Baraita there, and we establish that the law is not like this Mishnah. Some wished to infer from this Mishnah that an impure animal does not have horns, and they raised a difficulty against our teacher, the Rema, in Orach Chaim siman 586, who wrote that a shofar of an impure animal is invalid—and yet such a thing is not found. But this is an error on their part, for even according to this Mishnah, the intention is not regarding ordinary horns, but rather horns like the horns of a chayah [and so wrote the Tosafot Yom Tov there], as this is clarified from the sugya of the Shas in Chullin there, and so wrote all the Rishonim. But ordinary horns can also exist in an impure animal, and all the more so since we do not establish the law like this Mishnah. The great Acharonim [see Pri Chadash and Kereiti U'Peleiti] agreed to this. There is further proof from what Chazal said there: "When he was walking in the desert etc.," as I wrote in siman 79; why did they not mention the sign of horns? Rather, it is certain that this is not a sign of taharah [and truth be told, the wording of Rashi and the Bartenura in Niddah there implies that it is a sign, and the Tosafot Yom Tov there already wondered at this and wrote that it is not from Rashi, see there; and the wording of the Rambam in his Commentary on the Mishnah is precise, see there. And even according to Rashi, it is only according to Rabbi Dosa and not according to the Rabbis. And regarding the sugya in Shabbat 28b concerning the tachash having one horn, one could say that one horn is different. Now, the Pri Chadash cited many cases of one horn and that they are impure, see there and in the Kereiti U'Peleiti. And in my humble opinion, it appears when we examine there: why did the sages not decide whether the tachash was a species of chayah or a species of behemah by resolving it from the ox of Adam HaRishon, which was a behemah since it had one horn, just as he resolves it regarding taharah? Rather, it is certain that they are not related to one another. Rather, this is the explanation: he resolves it from the fact that it was necessary to say that the tachash had one horn—and what practical difference does it make? Granted, between a chayah and a behemah there is a legal difference, but what does it matter to us if it has one horn or more? Rather, it is to teach that it was tahor, because we find a statement regarding one horn in Adam HaRishon's ox which was tahor; hear from this that here too such was their intention, and not because horns are a proof for taharah. And delve into this].

The explanation of "mefutzalot" according to the explanation of Rashi is an expression of splitting, that the horns divide into several branches like branches emerging from the boughs of a tree. Rabbenu Tam explained that they are sharp and upright, and at their tips they are bent [Tur]. And seemingly, since there is a doubt, one should be stringent in a Torah matter according to both explanations. However, the Rashba, of blessed memory, wrote in Torat HaBayit that either of the two explanations is effective, see there. And it must be said that this is because it is impossible to have one without the other, and Rashi and Rabbenu Tam did not disagree except regarding the explanation of "mefutzalot," but when one sign is present, the second is automatically present as well. But it is impossible to say so, for behold, the horns of a deer are "mefutzalot" according to the explanation of Rashi and not according to the explanation of Rabbenu Tam, as Rashi and Tosafot wrote there. Rather, it must be said that because in a behemah it is impossible for even one of them to be present, therefore it was necessarily a chayah [Beit Yosef].

And thus our Sages, of blessed memory, said there that when the horns are branched, there is no law and no judge, meaning that it is certainly a chayah and its chelev is permitted and it requires kisuy hadam. However, when its horns are not branched, other signs are required regarding the horns to recognize that this is a chayah and not a behemah, and these are: "wrapped," "pointed," and "notched," and provided that their notches are "swallowed." Rashi explained: "wrapped"—layers upon layers, husk upon husk, like the horns of an ox; "pointed"—that they are sharp at the top like the horns of a ram or a deer; and "notched"—full of defects and grooves; and "their notches are swallowed"—that their grooves are frequent and close and swallowed into one another.

And the Rambam wrote [there]: Wrapped like the horns of an ox, and notched like the horns of a goat and the notch must be swallowed within them, and forked like the horns of a deer, this is a pure wild animal, provided that the horns have these three signs: wrapped, notched, and forked. Thus far his words. And it can be said that he explains like Rashi, and only in the explanation of "their notches are swallowed" does he explain in a different manner, and that is that the notch should be swallowed within them, meaning very deep. But from his words in the Commentary on the Mishnah it appears that he explains a completely different explanation. This is his wording there: If they were similar to a simple body that has a known height with fixed edges, meaning that its horns are at right angles, and he wove it and twisted it like they make a bracelet for an arm, and after he twisted it he bent it until it inclines even the slightest bit, this is a wild animal, such as the deer and those similar to them, because the horns of an ox are bent and do not have twists, and the horns of goats are bent and split, but their twists are like the twist of a round object that does not have a sharp edge. Thus far his words.

And it appears that he interprets "krukhot" as their heads are twisted and tight, "mefutzalot" as split, and "hadurot" as derived from the language of "hadur," meaning that their ends are fixed such that their corners have right angles [Beit Yosef]. And some say that according to his wording this is not from the language of "hidur," and on the contrary, his version of the Gemara followed the version of Rashi, "khadurot," and it is possible that his version was "khadudot," meaning that the twists have a sharpness [Lechem Mishneh]. And some have the version "hdukot" and "hadurot," meaning "hdukot" that they should be very tight, unlike the horn of an ox where the layers are loose until they peel off from one another, but rather the layers should be tight with one another; and "hadurot" means that they are revealed, unlike the horns of a goat which are wide and "mivla charkaihu," that the layers are swallowed one within the other [Rashba and Ran, see there]. And one should be stringent according to all the interpretations [Bach].

If one of these three signs is missing and they are also not branched, their chelev is forbidden. In what case does this apply? To a species that he does not recognize. However, regarding the seven species of chayah mentioned in the Torah, if he recognized one of them, even if he did not find horns on it, its chelev is permitted and its blood requires kisuy. Thus ruled the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch. However, the Tur did not bring this, and seemingly from the sugya of the Shas it appears explicitly that every pure chayah has horns. Furthermore, how can the Rambam say "if he recognized one of them, even if he did not find horns on it, it is permitted"? For behold, regarding the hart and the gazelle we know that they have horns, and presumably the others also have horns. Furthermore, what kind of phrasing is "he did not find horns on it"? Therefore, it appears to me that this is what he means: certainly if we knew that it has no horns, it is not a species of chayah; rather, because it is the way of the chayot to occasionally shed their horns from upon them, as is written in the books of nature. And this is the intention of the Rambam: if he recognizes one of them, such as recognizing that it is a gazelle or the like, even if it has no horns now, we attribute it to the fact that its horns fell off from it. And this is why he says "he did not find horns on it," meaning that now he did not find horns on it. And it requires further study regarding the law. [And among the impure ones there are certainly chayot without horns, such as the lion, the bear, the leopard, and the dog, which is also a species of chayah, as we learned in the ninth chapter of Kilayim].

There are some of our teachers who said that the hooves of a wild animal are not similar to the hooves of a domestic animal, and they are distinct from the hooves of a domestic animal, and it is visible to the eyes that those of a wild animal are long and sharp and those of a domestic animal are wide [the Rosh, chapter 3, section 57, in the name of Rabbeinu Tam]. And I wonder why the poskim did not mention this matter; perhaps they relied on the Mishnah in Niddah [51b]: "Whatever has horns has hooves." However, we have already written that several of the Rishonim hold that we do not rule according to this Mishnah, and it requires further study.

The opinion of the Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch has already been explained, that for the three signs that were explained, it is also necessary that their horns be notched, as has been written. And some say that it is not necessary, for the reason that it is necessary for their horns to be notched is explained in the Gemara there due to the doubt regarding the "karkuz goat," a species of goat called by that name, and it possesses all three signs, and nevertheless they were in doubt regarding it whether it is not a species of chayah; therefore they added the sign that their horns be notched, and this is according to the initial thought. However, according to the conclusion of the Talmud that it is a species of chayah, it follows that this sign is not necessary [Rashba in Torat HaBayit]. However, the Rambam explains that even the karkuz goat has notched horns, but they are not notched well, and they thought that this is not a species of chayah, and we conclude that even this is called notched; however, in any event, this sign is also a necessity [the Maggid Mishneh]. But all this is regarding the law, but in practice we do not rely on signs in which we are not expert, and a chayah is not eaten except by tradition, as will be explained in siman 82 regarding birds, see there [Shach, subsection 1].

The keresh, even though it has only one horn, is a species of chayah and its chelev is permitted. The keresh was explained in the Gemara [59b] as being the deer of the forest of Ilai, and the length of its hide is sixteen cubits and its horn is black like paint [Rashi, end of the first chapter of Bava Batra] and it is a unique creature [see Tosafot there who raised a difficulty from Shabbat 28b, and according to what I wrote in section 3 it is settled, and observe carefully]. The wild ox is a species of behemah, but our teacher, the Rema, in siman 28 wrote that it requires kisuy out of doubt, perhaps it is a species of chayah. Regarding the wild goat, the Tur wrote that it is a species of chayah, see there. The Rambam did not mention this, and it implies that he holds it is like all goats and is a species of behemah, and consequently he did not need to mention that it is a species of behemah since its name is "goat." The Rashba and the Rosh ruled like the Tur, for so the sugya of the Shas in Chullin [80a] implies explicitly. The commentators justified his words with difficulty [see Beit Yosef]. It appears his reason is that since many Amoraim were in doubt regarding it and many hold that it is a species of behemah, even though at the end the Shas says that one Amora treated them as chayot, we do not heed this, see there [but nevertheless, he should have ruled that it is a legal doubt and is liable for kisuy out of doubt; however, this is included in what he wrote, "anything that is a doubt to us etc.," as will be explained, and this too is included].

The buffaloes that we have, which are called bufali, the Tosafot wrote at the end of Zevachim that this is a species of behemah, and this is not the re'em of the category of hayah which is exceedingly large. And behold, this is the wild ox that we have already explained in the previous section. And in any case where you are in doubt whether it is a species of hayah or behemah, its chelev is forbidden but one is not lashed for it, and one covers its blood. And see Orach Chaim siman 498 regarding whether one covers it on Yom Tov. And kilayim that comes from a pure behemah with a pure hayah is what is called a koy, and its law is also thus: its chelev is forbidden and one is not lashed for it, and one covers its blood. And know that even though the species of behemot are only three and the species of hayot are seven, nevertheless, in a case of doubt we do not follow the majority, because behemot are much more numerous than hayot, and it is simple. [According to Pitchei Teshuvah subsection 1 in the name of Beit Yitzchak, and he challenged him, see there; and there is no practical difference in this if you will examine it closely, and examine it.]

And know that regarding a koy that comes from two species, a wild animal and a domestic animal, there are many practical legal ramifications whether the father is a wild animal or the mother, because we certainly concern ourselves with the seed of the mother, but regarding the seed of the father there is a doubt, as I wrote in siman 15 regarding the matter of "it and its offspring," and from there all the details of the laws in this matter will be explained regarding the ramifications that exist between a domestic animal and a wild animal. Nevertheless, regarding a deer and the like, we do not need to concern ourselves that perhaps it comes from two species, as this is an uncommon matter [see the Kereiti U'Pleiti subsection 5; and what he wrote in subsection 4 regarding "izzei karkuz" that they are ordinarily considered a wild animal, I am astonished, for there its entire appearance is like a wild animal in all details except for the swallowing of their horns and etc. Compare this to other types of doubts, see there and delve].