json/Mishnah/Seder Kodashim/Mishnah Chullin/English/Eighteen Treatises from the Mishna.json

{
    "language": "en",
    "title": "Mishnah Chullin",
    "versionSource": "http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/etm/index.htm",
    "versionTitle": "Eighteen Treatises from the Mishna",
    "status": "locked",
    "license": "Public Domain",
    "versionTitleInHebrew": "שמונה עשרה מסכתות משנה",
    "shortVersionTitle": "David Aaron Sola and Morris Jacob Raphall, 1845",
    "actualLanguage": "en",
    "languageFamilyName": "english",
    "isBaseText": false,
    "isSource": false,
    "direction": "ltr",
    "heTitle": "משנה חולין",
    "categories": [
        "Mishnah",
        "Seder Kodashim"
    ],
    "text": [
        [
            "Everyone [may] slaughter and his slaughter is valid, except [that of] a deafmute, a simpleton or a minor, so that they will not spoil the slaughter [i.e., make a mistake]. But [if they] all slaughter and others see them, their slaughter is valid. The slaughter of a non-Jew - it is a nevelah and has the uncleanness of carry-on. [If] the slaughterer [slaughters] at night and thereby his slaughter is blind, his slaughter is valid. [If] the slaughterer [slaughters] on Shabbat, or on Yom Kippur - even though he is liable for his soul - his slaughter is valid.",
            "When a person had cut the throat [of an animal] with a hand sickle, a sharp flint stone, or with a reed, it is Cashér. All may slaughter, at any time, and with any instrument, excepting a reaping hook, a saw, the [sharp] teeth [of animals fixed in the maxillary bone], or with the finger nail, because the [first mentioned three] do not cut, but strangle [and tear]. When a person slaughtered an animal with a reaping hook, having teeth or notches, with the first or down stroke or cut only, it is unfit for use according to Beth Shammai, but Beth Hillel hold it to be Cashér; but if the teeth of the reaping hook had been ground away [so as to give it a sharp and even edge] it is the same as a knife.",
            "Should a person have to cut through the great or top ring of the trachea or windpipe, that but the width of a thread of the whole circumference of the ring remained [on the upper part], the animal so killed is Cashér. R. José bar Jehudah saith, \"It is Cashér when the greatest part of this breadth remained.\"",
            "An animal which was slaughtered by being cut at either side of the throat is Cashér, but if the neck of a bird brought as a sacrifice was wrung off sideways, it is thereby rendered an unfit sacrifice. If an animal was cut from the neck downwards, it becomes unlawful for use, but a bird whose neck was thus wrung is a valid sacrifice. An animal which was cut below the throat is Cashér, but the wringing off of birds’ heads from below the throat render them unfit sacrifices, because the whole region of the neck is appropriate for the wringing off of the head [of birds], and the whole region of the throat for slaughtering [animals], therefore whatever [in respect to cutting] renders an animal Cashér, must render a bird thus treated an unfit sacrifice, and the same in the reverse case.",
            "That which makes turtle-doves proper sacrifices, renders young pigeons improper ones, and whilst these are valid as young pigeons, they cannot be used as sacrifices of turtle-doves. When the neck feathers of either kind begin to shine and to turn yellow, they are unfit sacrifices.",
            "That which constitutes a [red] heifer a proper sacrifice, invalidates the calf [whose neck was to be broken, and also the reverse. That which does not disqualify priests [to minister in the Temple] disqualifies Levites, and the reverse. That which is [legally] clean in earthenware vessels, renders other vessels unclean, and the reverse takes place in other kinds of vessels. That which is considered [legally] clean in a wooden vessel is unclean in one of metal, and the reverse. The degree of ripeness which subjects bitter almonds to tithe, does not yet subject sweet almonds to the same; and when the latter become subject, the bitter ones are already free from the obligation of tithe.",
            "An infusion of water on grape lees which has not yet fermented, may not be bought for the money of second tithe, and renders a bath, however, unfit [for legal cleansing]; but when it has fermented it may be purchased for the money of second tithe, and its admixture does not render a bath unfit Brothers who, after sharing the inheritance from their parents, have entered into partnership, are not bound to pay the tithe of cattle while they are liable to the Kalbon, but whilst they are liable to the payment of cattle-tithe they are not subject to the Kalbon. While the right of sale is vested in the father [who may during the minority of his daughter sell her as a handmaid] no fine can be imposed, and when damages can be legally claimed the right of sale ceases. Whilst the right of refusal is in force Chalitzah does not take place, and when that ceremony is performed the right of refusal is no longer applicable. When the cornet is sounded no Habdallah is said, and when that is said the cornet is not sounded. When a festival happens on the eve of the Sabbath the cornet is sounded, but the Habdallah is not said. If on the day after the Sabbath, it is said, but the cornet is not sounded. What is the form of the [prayer] Habdallah? [Blessed art thou, &c.] \"who makest a distinction between holy and holy;\" but according to R. Dosa, \"who makest a distinction between the greater and minor degrees of holiness.\""
        ],
        [
            "When one of the pipes has been cut through in killing fowl, and both in killing cattle, they are Cashér; also when the greatest part of these had been cut through. R. Jehudah saith, \"It is necessary that in killing fowl the veins at the side of the throat should also be cut through.\" If but one half [of the trachea] is cut through in fowl, and one and a half [i.e. the trachea, and half of the œsophagus] in cattle, it is unfit; but if the greater part of one tube is cut through in fowl, and the greater part of the two in cattle, it is Cashér.",
            "One who slaughters two heads in one, his slaughter is valid. When two hold the knife and slaughter, even if one [held it] at the top and one at the bottom, their slaughter is valid.",
            "If he hewed or chopped off the head at one blow, it is Pasool. If, when killing, he had accidentally cut off the whole head, it is Cashér, if the knife extended the width of a neck [beyond the place cut]. When a person in killing cut off two heads at once: if the knife extends the width of one neck only beyond the places cut, it is Cashér. This is, however, only in case the knife had been passed down the throat of the animal only, without drawing it back, or that the second or back cut was only made without the down [or first] cut; but if the knife in cutting was drawn to and fro, if it exceeded in the least the width of the throat of the animals, even if it was as small as a penknive or lancet, it is Cashér. Should a knife happen to drop accidentally on the throat of an animal, although it was duly slaughtered in consequence, yet it is Pasool; for it is said [Deut. xxvii. 7], \"Thou shalt sacrifice, and thou shalt eat,\" viz. that only which thou [thyself] sacrificest, that shalt thou eat. If whilst in the act of slaughtering, the knife should drop from a person's hand, and he picked it up; or his clothes, and he picked them up; or, that having become exhausted by the exertion of setting or sharpening the knife, it was necessary that another person should finish the cutting; if the delay thereby occasioned was such, that during its duration another similar animal might have been slaughtered, it is Pasool. R. Simeon said, \"When a knife could have been examined during the interval.\"",
            "When the œsophagus had been duly cut through, but the trachea was torn off, or the reverse; or, that he cut through one of the tubes, and then waited till the animal died; or, that he covered or hid the knife by placing it under the second tube, and cut it off; it must, according to R. Jishbab, he considered as Nebelah [i.e. as an animal which died of itself], but, according to R. Akivah, as Terefá [i.e. an animal torn by wild beasts]. R. Jishbab gave the following rule from the authority of R. Joshua, \"Every animal which, owing to a defect in slaughtering, has become Pasool [or unfit for use], must be considered as Nebelah; but when the slaughtering was duly performed, and it became Pasool through another cause, it must be considered as Terefá.\" Then R. Akivah assented to him [R. Jishbab].",
            "When a domestic or wild animal or fowl was slaughtered, and no blood followed [the incision], it is Cashér, and may be eaten with unwashed hands; because the absence of blood rendered it unsusceptible of contracting and conveying pollution. R. Simeon saith, \"The slaughtering rendered it susceptible.\"",
            "If an animal is slaughtered when it is dangerously ill, according to Rabbon Simeon ben Gamaliel, \"It is sufficient [to render it Cashér] when it can move or struggle with its fore and hind legs.\" R. Eleazar saith, \"It suffices if the blood spirted after its throat was cut.\" R. Simeon teaches, \"That even when a person slaughtered such an animal at night, and found in the morning the walls [of the slaughter-house] covered with blood, it is Cashér, agreeable to R. Eleazar's opinion.\" But the sages hold it to be Cashér only, \"when the animal struggled with either his fore or hind leg, or that it wagged its tail;\" this applies to small as well as to large cattle. When a small cattle [a sheep or goat, &c.] is slaughtered [when dangerously ill], and extends its fore-leg, but does not draw it back, it is Pasool, because it only indicates the last throe of parting life. This is to be understood only in case the animal is supposed to be in imminent danger; but when it is considered sound, although it should not have exhibited any of the mentioned symptoms [after being killed], it is Cashér.",
            "When a person had slaughtered an animal for a heathen, it is Cashér; but R. Eleazar decides it to be Pasool. R. Eleazar teaches, \"That if he slaughtered it with the intention that the heathen should only eat the caul of the liver of the animal,  it is Pasool, because the tacit intention of the heathen is to use it for idolatrous purposes.\" R. Joshua argued against this, and demonstrated his opinion by a syllogism from minor to major [‏קל וחומר‎], \"If where the intention renders Pasool, as in the case of consecrated things, the matter is determined by the intention of the acting priest, does it not follow that in the present instance, which relates to non-consecrated things, and where the intention does not render them Pasool, it should be determined by the intention of him that slaughtered?\"",
            "When a person slaughtered an animal in or to the name of mountains, hills, seas, rivers, or deserts, it is Pasool. When one of two persons holding the same knife had killed the animal with the mentioned idolatrous intention, and the other with a lawful intention, the animal so killed is Pasool.",
            "It is not lawful to slaughter [so that the blood should run] into the sea, or in a river, or to place the animal within a vessel; but it is lawful to slaughter in a wet ditch, or within a utensil on board a ship. It is not permitted to slaughter in any pit at all, but it is lawful to make a pit within the house, that the blood may collect therein; but this is not permitted in the public street, not to countenance the custom of heretics.",
            "When a person slaughters an animal [for profane use out of the temple] as a burnt offering or [other] sacrifice, or as a doubtful sin offering, or as a Paschal sacrifice, or as a thanksgiving offering, it is Pasool; but R. Simeon considers it Cashér. When two persons take hold of a knife in slaughtering, and one of them did so with the intention of slaughtering it as one of the mentioned sacrifices, and the other with a lawful intention, it is Pasool. When it was slaughtered as a sin-offering, or as a certain trespass-offering, or as a firstborn, or as tithe [of animals], or as an exchanged sacrifice, it is Cashér; for this is the rule, \"If tine animal was slaughtered as a sacrifice that can be offered by voluntary vow, it is Pasool; but if it was slaughtered as any other sacrifice, it is Cashér.\""
        ],
        [
            "The following internal wounds or defects render animals Terefá: when the œsophagus is perforated; when the trachea is split or torn across in its width; when the membrane or thin skin [which is innermost and nearest] to the brain is perforated; when the heart is perforated till within the cavity of its two ventricles; when the spine is broken, and the spinal chord is severed; when the liver is wanting, and not a vestige thereof remains; when there is a perforation through the two membranes covering the lungs; when the lungs are deficient [of any of their lobes]; R. Simeon saith, \"[An animal is only then Terefá] when the lungs are perforated within the bronchial tubes;\" when there is a hole in the maw, or in the gallbladder, or in the thin or small intestines; when there is a hole in the interior or lower stomach, or that the greatest part of the external fleshy part thereof is torn; R. Jehudah saith, \"If a hand-breadth is torn off in large cattle [oxen or cows, it is Terefá], but in a small one [a calf, &c.] when the greatest part thereof is torn; when there is a perforation in the omasum [many plies] and the magnus venter or upper stomach, beyond the place where they are connected; when the animal fell off a roof; when the greater part of its ribs are fractured, or when it had been trampled by a wolf [with its fore-paws or claws]; R. Jehudah saith, \"The trample of a wolf causes small cattle only to become Terefá, but large ones only become so when a lion had struck its claws or fangs in them.\" Small birds are Terefá when a sparrow-hawk had struck its talons in them; and large birds [as fowls, geese, &c.] when they were struck by a [falcon, eagle, or other] large bird of prey. This is the rule. \"When an animal under similar circumstances cannot survive, it is Terefá.\"",
            "The following cases are Cashér: when the trachea is perforated or split. Of what size may the deficient part be? According to Rabbon Simeon ben Gamaliel, \"As large as an [Italian] asser.\" When the bones of the skull are wounded, but the interior skin of the brain is uninjured; when there is a perforation in the heart, but not quite through to within the ventricles; when the vertebræ of the spine are broken, but the spinal chord was not severed; when the liver is deficient, but a small piece thereof of the size of an olive remained; when the omasum and the upper stomach are pierced one within the other; when the animal is deficient of milt or kidneys, or nether jaw, or matrix, or when through fear [from the appearance of any of the phenomena of nature] caused by the hand of God, its lungs had become dessicated. R. Meir considers also an animal whose skin was stripped off as Cashér, but the other sages consider it Pasool,",
            "The following defects render fowl Terefá: when the œsophagus is perforated; when the trachea is torn off; when a weasel bit it on the head, in a place where it may render it Terefá [viz. near the brain]; when the stomach or thin intestines are perforated; when it had fallen into the fire; when its viscera had become scorched, if they had turned yellow it is Terefá, but when they remained red it is Cashér; when a person had trodden on it, or knocked it against a wall, or that it was trodden upon by cattle, and it struggles and lives twenty-four hours after the accident [and was then slaughtered], it is Cashér.",
            "The following cases are Cashér in fowl: when the trachea is perforated or split; when it was bitten by a weasel on its head, in a place where it does not render it Terefá; when the crop is perforated, and, according to Ribi, even when that organ is entirely deficient; when the intestines protruded from the body without being perforated; when its wings or legs are broken, or when its large feathers are plucked off; R. Jehudah saith, \"It is Pasool when stripped of its plumage.\"",
            "When an animal became ill through plethora of blood, or suffered from a bad state of bile, or viscosity of mucus, or that it had fed on the plant rosebay [or the oleander], or that it had swallowed fowl's dung, or drank noxious water, it is Cashér; but when it had swallowed poison, or had been bitten by a venomous serpent, although it is not prohibited as Terefá, yet it is forbidden to be eaten, on account of the danger it may cause to the persons eating thereof.",
            "The signs by which the clean animals, domestic and wild, may be distinguished [from the unclean and prohibited ones] are mentioned in the Holy Law, but not those of fowl. The sages have, however, established, \"That every [predaceous] bird, which strikes its talons into its prey, is of the unclean: every bird which has an additional claw, a crop, and of which the internal coat of the stomach may be readily peeled off, is of the clean species.\" R. Eleazar ben Zadok saith, \"Every bird which [when placed on a perch] divides its toes equally, is an unclean one.\"",
            "Of locusts, all the species are clean which have four feet, four wings, and four leaping legs, and whose wings cover the greatest part of its body; R. Jehudah saith, \"Only then when they are called by the name ‏חגב‎.\" Of fishes, are clean, those furnished with fins and scales; R. Jehudah saith, \"When they have at least two scales and one fin.\" Scales are attached to the body of the fish, and fins are the organs by which it moves through the water."
        ],
        [],
        [
            "The prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its young on the same day (Lev. 22:28), is obligatory in the Holy Land, and out of it, during and after the existence of the Temple, with respect to animals slaughtered for profane use [i.e. to eat them], and to those slaughtered as consecrated sacrifices, as follows. When a person slaughtered an animal and its young [on the same day] without the temple-court [not as holy sacrifices, but] as animals slaughtered for profane use though both animals are Kosher, yet in slaughtering the second, he incurred the penalty of the forty stripes. Should he have slaughtered them outside the temple-court as holy sacrifices, he has incurred the penalty of utter excision [‏כרת‎] for the slaughter of the first. Both animals are Pasul, and he has moreover incurred the penalty of forty stripes for the slaughtering of each animal. Should he have slaughtered them as ‏חולין‎ [i.e. for profane or ordinary use] within the temple-court, both animals are Pasul; and for the slaughter of the second, he incurred the penalty of forty stripes. If both were consecrated sacrifices, and were slaughtered within the temple-court, the animal first slaughtered is a valid sacrifice, and the person who slaughtered it has not incurred any penalty for so doing; but he incurred the penalty of the forty stripes for the slaughter of the second animal, and that animal is unfit for sacrifice.",
            "If the animal first slaughtered was ‏חולין‎, and the other a consecrated sacrifice, and they were slaughtered outside the temple-court, the first animal is Kosher, and the person who slaughtered it has not incurred any penalty; but for the slaughter of the second he incurred that of the forty stripes, and the animal is an unfit sacrifice. If the first animal was consecrated, and the second ‏חולין‎, and both were slaughtered outside the temple-court, he who slaughtered the first incurred the penalty of utter excision, and the animal is an unfit sacrifice; the second animal is Kosher, and for the slaughtering of each, the penalty of the forty stripes has been incurred. If the first animal was ‏חולין‎, and the second a consecrated sacrifice, and they were slaughtered inside the temple-court, both are Pasul; and for the slaughter of the second, the penalty of forty stripes has been incurred. If the first animal was consecrated, and the second ‏חולין‎, and they were slaughtered within the temple-court, the first animal is Kosher, and the person who slaughtered it has not incurred any penalty but that of the forty stripes for the slaughter of the second, and that animal is Pasul. If both animals were ‏חולין‎, and one of them was slaughtered outside, and the second inside the temple-court, the first animal is Kosher, and he who slaughtered it has not incurred any penalty but that of the forty stripes for the slaughter of the second, and that animal is Pasul. If both animals were consecrated sacrifices, and one of them was slaughtered outside, and the second inside the temple-court, the person who slaughtered them has incurred the penalty of excision for the slaughter of the first [both animals are Pasul], and that of the forty stripes for the slaughter of each. If both animals were ‏חולין‎, and one of them was slaughtered within, and the second without the temple-court, the first animal is Pasul, and he who slaughtered them has not incurred any penalty but that of the forty stripes for the slaughter of the second, but that animal is Kosher. If both were consecrated animals, and one of them was slaughtered inside, and the other outside of the temple-court, the first animal is Kosher, and the person who slaughtered it has not incurred any penalty but that of the forty stripes for the slaughter of the second, and that animal is an unfit sacrifice.",
            "When one of the animals was found to be Terefá, or that one had been slaughtered for idolaters, or that one is a cow of a sin-offering, or an ox condemned to death, or a calf whose neck was to be struck off, R. Shimon absolves [the person who slaughtered the second animal on the same day] from any penalty; but the sages hold \"That he incurred that [of the forty stripes].\" When one of the animals becomes Nevelah by being improperly slaughtered; or when it was killed by a knife being thrust up its nostrils; or that the trachea and esophagus were forcibly torn off, the law against slaughtering an animal and its young on the same day is not applicable: When a cow and its calf were bought by two persons, one buying the cow and the other the calf, the first buyer has a right to slaughter his purchase first; but if the other buyer anticipated him in slaughtering his, he has acquired his right. Should a person have slaughtered a cow and her two calves on the same day, he has incurred a penalty of eighty stripes; but if he slaughtered the two calves first, and then the cow, he has only incurred [one] penalty of forty stripes. If he slaughtered [on the same day] a cow and its young, and the calf of that young cow, eighty stripes shall be inflicted on him. If he slaughtered [on the same day] a cow, then the calf of its young, and lastly the young itself, the forty stripes shall be inflicted on him. Somchos, in the name of R. Meir, says, \"eighty [stripes].\" At four periods of the year a seller of cattle is bound to inform the buyer that he had sold the dam or leer young on the same day for the purpose of being slaughtered, viz. on the day preceding the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles, on those preceding the first day of Passover, the Feast of Weeks, and of the New Year; and according to R. Yose the Galilean, also on the day preceding the Day of Atonement in Galilee. R. Yehuda says, \"When is he bound to give that information? Only if there should not be a day's interval between the sale of one of the animals and that of the other; but if there was such an interval, the mentioned information is not required from the seller.\" Yet R. Yehuda admits, \"That in case he sold the dam to a bridegroom, and the young to his bride, he is bound to inform them thereof, because it is to be supposed that both animals will be slaughtered on the same day.\"",
            "On the mentioned four periods [or days], a butcher can be compelled to slaughter cattle against his will. Even if he had an ox worth a thousand dinars, and there was a purchaser for only a single dinars worth of meat, he will be compelled to slaughter it. Hence, should the animal die meanwhile [naturally], the loss falls on the purchaser; but it is not so at other times, for when the animal then dies of itself, the loss falls on the seller [or butcher].",
            "The expression of the law, \"One day,\" when treating of the prohibition of slaughtering an animal and its young in one [and the same] day, is to be understood, that the day and the night which preceded it are to be reckoned together [as forming one day]. For thus was it expounded by R. Shimon ben Zomah, \"The term (Genesis 1:5, Leviticus 22:28) 'one day' is used in the Creation story and also in the prohibition of slaughtering an animal and its young, to teach us, that just as in Creation the day followed night, thus also must it be understood in this case.\""
        ],
        [
            "The precept of covering the blood [of wild animals and fowl] (Lev. 17:19), is obligatory in and out of the Holy Land, during and after the existence of the Temple, in animals slaughtered for ‏חולין‎, but not in those which are consecrated sacrifices. It applies solely to wild animals and fowl, whether these were domesticated, or were caught in a wild state. Also to the ‏כוי‎, because it is doubtful [whether that animal is to be classed among the domestic or wild animals]. It may therefore not he slaughtered on the festival, but if it was slaughtered [thereon], its blood need not be covered [on that day].",
            "When an animal was slaughtered and found to be Terefá, or if it was slaughtered for idolatrous purposes, or as ‏חולין‎ within, or as consecrated offerings without the temple-court; or a bird or wild animal condemned to lapidation, R. Meir considers it obligatory [to cover the blood], but the sages hold, \"It is not obligatory to do so.\" When it became Nebelah by being slaughtered, or when it was killed by a knife being thrust up its nostrils, or that the trachea and œsophagus were forcibly torn off, it is not obligatory to cover the blood.",
            "When a deaf and dumb person, an idiot, or a minor, have slaughtered in the presence of other [i.e. qualified] persons, the latter are bound to cover the blood, but not if the above [disqualified persons] had slaughtered by themselves; and thus also in respect to the precept of not slaughtering an animal and its young [on the same day]: if any of these [unqualified persons] had slaughtered one of the animals in the presence of [qualified] persons, the other animal may not be slaughtered after them [on the same day]. If they had slaughtered one of the animals by themselves, R. Meir permits to slaughter the other after them [on the same day], but the sages decide it to be prohibited; they admit, however, \"That a person who did so slaughter it, is not liable to the punishment of the forty stripes.\"",
            "Should a person slaughter as many as a hundred wild animals or fowl in one place, one covering will suffice for all of them. If many fowl are killed in one place, one covering suffices for all. If many wild animals and fowl were killed in one place, one covering suffices for both kinds. R. Jehudah saith, \"When a person slaughtered the wild animal, he must cover its blood first, and then slaughter the fowl.\" When a person had slaughtered [a wild animal or fowl], and omitted to cover the blood, if another person had observed that omission, the latter is bound to cover the blood. When the blood, after it was duly covered, became uncovered, it is not necessary to cover it again; but if the wind had covered it [and it was afterwards uncovered], it is required to be again covered.",
            "When the blood was mixed with water, if the blood is still apparent, the obligation of covering it remains in force. If mixed with [red] wine, [that wine] must be considered as if it were water. If it was mixed with the blood of another domestic or wild animal, that blood must be considered as water; but R. Jehudah observes, \"One kind of blood does not neutralise another kind.\"",
            "The blood which spirts [from the throat of an animal on its being cut, and bespatters a wall, &c.] and that on the slaughtering knife, it is obligatory to cover. R. Jehudah saith, \"When is this the case? When there is no other blood but that; but when there is other blood besides, it is not required to do so.\"",
            "With what substances is it lawful to cover the blood, and with what may it not be covered? It is lawful to cover with pulverised manure, with fine sand, with mortar, with potsherds, with bricks, or with the earthenware cover [or bung] of a barrel, viz. when these substances had been pulverised, but not with unpulverised manure, coarse sand, or brick, or earthenware covering, which had not been pounded. Nor may it be covered by merely placing a vessel over it. Rabbon Simeon ben Gamaliel laid it down as a rule, \"That it is lawful to cover with any substance which would sustain vegetation, but not with substances unfit for the growth of plants.\""
        ],
        [
            "The precept concerning the prohibition of eating the \"sinew which shrank\" [‏גיד הנשה‎] is obligatory in and out of the Holy Land, during and after the existence of the Temple, in animals slaughtered for profane use [‏חולין‎], and in respect also to consecrated sacrifices, and applies to wild and domestic animals, and to both the right and left thighs of the animal; it does not apply to fowl, since these have no \"hollow in the thigh.\" It applies to a fetus in embryo, and its suet [‏חלב‎] it is permitted to use. According to R. Meir, \"The assertion of butchers in respect to their having removed the ‏גיד הנשה‎ [sciatic nerve] is not to be relied on;\" but the sages hold, \"That they may be relied on in this respect, and in that of the removal of ‏חלב‎, or suet.\"",
            "It is lawful to send to a non-Israelite a thigh having the ‏גיד הנשה‎ [sciatic nerve] yet within it, because its existence is easily ascertained. In removing the ‏גיד הנשה‎ [sciatic nerve] the whole sinew must be carefully cut out. R. Judah saith, \"It suffices if enough was removed so as to fulfill the precept.\"",
            "A person who eats the quantity of an olive in size of a ‏[sciatic nerve] גיד הנשה‎, incurs the penalty of forty stripes. Should a person have eaten the whole of that sinew, and it was under the mentioned size, he has nevertheless incurred the same penalty. If a person eat the size of an olive of the sinews of each hip, eighty stripes are to be inflicted on him; but according to R. Judah, forty stripes only.",
            "If a hip was boiled with the ‏גיד הנשה‎ [sciatic nerve]within it, if that sinew was of sufficient size to impart a flavor to the hip, this latter may not be used. How is this to be calculated? In the same proportion as meat boiled with turnips.",
            "When the גיד הנשה [sciatic nerve] was boiled with other sinews, if that sinew can be recognized [it must be removed, and] the other sinews are prohibited, if it could have imparted a flavor to them. But when it cannot be recognized, all the sinews are prohibited. The broth [or liquid in which it is boiled] may not be used if the גיד הנשה [sciatic nerve] imparted a flavor to it; and it is even so if a piece of Nebelah, or of a fish prohibited to be eaten, should have been boiled with other pieces of meat or fish allowed to be eaten: if the first mentioned pieces can be recognized, they are to be removed, and if they could have imparted a flavor to the other pieces, the latter may not be used. If they could not be recognized, all the pieces are prohibited; and thus in respect to the broth, which may not be used, if the flavor of the prohibited pieces could have been imparted to it.",
            "The prohibition of the גיד הנשה [sciatic nerve] applies to clean animals, and not to unclean ones. R. Judah said, \"It must be observed also in respect to unclean animals;\" for he argued thus, \"The גיד הנשה [sciatic nerve] was prohibited since the time of the sons of Jacob [i.e. before the promulgation of the law], when it was not yet prohibited to use unclean animals as food.\" The sages replied, \"This precept was first promulgated at Sinai, but it was written [incidentally] in its place.\""
        ],
        [
            "It is prohibited to boil any kind of flesh in milk, except that of locusts and fish; neither may meat and cheese be brought to table together, except locusts and fish. A person who vowed not to eat meat, may eat locusts and fish. Fowl and cheese may, according to Beth Shammai, be brought to table together, but may not be eaten together; but, according to Beth Hillel, they may neither be brought to table nor be eaten together. R. José saith, \"This is one of the cases in which Beth Shammai decide in a less rigid manner than Beth Hillel.\" What kind of table is here alluded to? The table on which the person is eating; but on the table on which food is prepared [a dresser], both kinds may without apprehension be placed near to each other.",
            "Meat and cheese may be wrapped up together in one cloth, if they do not touch each other [i.e. are placed in contact]. Rabbon Simeon ben Gamaliel saith, \"Two guests [at an inn or ordinary] may without apprehension eat at the same table, one of them meat, and the other cheese.\"",
            "When a drop of milk fell upon a piece of meat [in a pan], all the meat therein is prohibited if it could have communicated its flavor to the meat; but if the contents of the pot had been immediately stirred together [after the milk fell into it]: if it imparted its flavor to the whole, the contents of the pot are prohibited. The udder [of a cow or goat, &c.] must be torn, and the milk be pressed out of it; but if it had not been torn, the person who eats it has not transgressed; the heart must also be torn and the blood pressed out. If it had not been torn, the person who eats it thus has not transgressed; and he who has fowl and cheese brought to table together has not transgressed the negative commandment.",
            "It is prohibited to boil [in milk] or to derive any benefit from the flesh of a clean animal which was boiled in milk of a clean animal, but it is permitted to boil and to reap advantage of flesh of a clean animal boiled in the milk of an unclean one, or, of the flesh of an unclean animal boiled in the milk of a clean one. R. Akivah saith, \"Wild animals and fowl are not specified in the law [as subject to this prohibition]; for it is said, 'Thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother's milk,' but this precept was mentioned three times, to include wild animals, fowl, and unclean animals. R. José the Galilean saith, \"It is said (Deut. 14:21), 'Thou shalt not eat of any thing that dieth of itself' [Nebelah], and it is added immediately, 'Thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother's milk.' Consequently, those animals only which are prohibited as Nebelah may not be boiled in milk, and as it might be supposed that since a fowl may become prohibited as Nebelah, it would therefore be prohibited to boil it in milk, the Scripture uses the expression, 'in its mother's milk,' to except fowl, to which that expression cannot apply.\"",
            "It is prohibited to use the curdled milk in the maw of an animal slaughtered by a non-Israelite, which is Nebelah. When a person put milk in the interior membrane of the maw of a Cashér killed animal; if the milk can impart a flavor to it, it is prohibited. The milk in the maw of a Cashér animal, which sucked from one that is Terefá, is prohibited; but the milk of a Terefá, which sucked from a Cashér animal, may be used, because the milk remains gathered [enclosed] in the intestines.",
            "Several laws are more rigid in respect to the prohibition of eating suet [‏חלב‎] than they are in that against eating blood, and some, again, which relate to this latter prohibition, are more severe than those in respect to the first mentioned. More severe in respect to suet, inasmuch as a trespass [‏מעילה‎] may be thereby incurred, as also the guilt of having brought an abominable [i.e. unfit] sacrifice [‏פגול‎], and having eaten of what remained [‏נותר‎], and became unclean, which is not the case in respect to the blood. Some laws are more severe as regards blood, since this prohibition applies to the blood of domestic and wild animals, and also to fowl, whether they are of a clean or unclean species, but that against eating suet applies to clean animals exclusively."
        ],
        [
            "The skin [of a slaughtered animal], the broth, the meat dissolved by boiling, that which adheres to the bottom of a saucepan, the fragments of meat adhering to the skin when it is removed from the animal, bones [containing marrow], sinews, horns and hoofs, are computed together to form [with the edible matter or flesh in them] the quantity of the size of an egg, when they are liable to contract and communicate pollution to other edibles, but not the pollution of Nebelah. Thus also, if a person slaughters an unclean animal for a heathen, it pollutes edibles while it struggles, but it does not communicate the pollution of a dead body till life is extinct, or, if its head had been quite chopped off. There are consequently more cases in which edibles contract pollution than there are in respect to pollution by Nebelah. R. Jehudah saith, in reference to the fragments of meat adhering to the skin, \"If any of these, when computed together, are of the size of an olive in any one place, guilt is thereby incurred.\"",
            "In the following instances the skin is to be considered as flesh:—human skin, that of the domestic swine,  and, according to R. José, also that of wild swine, the tender skin on the hump of a young camel,  and that of the head of a young calf, the skin [between] the split hoofs, that over the matrix, and that of an animal fœtus in embryo, also that under the tail, and those of the ferret, the chameleon, the lizard, and the snail. R. Jehudah saith, \"That of a lizard must be considered like a weasel[’s skin].\"  If any of these had been tanned or converted into leather, or that they had been sufficiently trodden [in the process of converting the skin into leather], they are clean, excepting human skin. R. Jochanan ben Nouri saith, \"The eight creeping things have skins.\"",
            "When a person removes the skin of a domestic or wild animal, whether clean or unclean, large or small, in order to cover himself therewith, pollution is contracted and communicated when as much skin is removed as can be taken hold of, and if to make a bottle of skin, until the skin over the breast is removed. If the skinning was commenced from the legs, the whole is considered as connecting, and subject to contract and communicate pollution. The skin covering the neck is not considered as connecting by R. Jochanan ben Nouri, but the sages do so consider it until the whole skin is removed.",
            "When there is the size of an olive of flesh on a skin in one spot, any person who-touches the filaments proceeding therefrom, or the hairs on the skin which are opposite [and touch the said flesh], is unclean. If there were two pieces of flesh of the size of two half olives each, it pollutes by being carried, but not by the mere touching it. Such is the dictum of R. Ishmael, but R. Akivah holds \"That they do not pollute either by being carried or touched,\" but he admits, \"That if the size of two half olives were stuck on a skewer and moved, it is unclean.\" Why, then, does [R. Akivah], in respect to the skin, hold it to be clean? Because the skin prevents their contact.",
            "Whoever touches a marrow-bone of a dead body, or of a consecrated sacrifice, whether the said bones are open or closed, is unclean. Whoever touches a marrow-bone of an animal that is Nebelah, or of creeping animals, is clean when the bone is closed, but if it is open ever so little, pollution is contracted by contact with it. Whence is it proved that [the marrow-bone of a Nebelah] does also pollute the person carrying it? Because it is said (Lev. 11:24-25), \"Whoever toucheth [the carcase],\" and \"Whoever beareth aught of the carcase,\" &c., which proves that whatever communicates by being touched, does also communicate it by being carried, and that which cannot communicate pollution by contact, cannot communicate it by being carried.",
            "The egg of a creeping animal, in which the young animal is already developed, is clean, but when it has the smallest perforation it renders unclean. In respect to a mouse which is yet half flesh and half earth, 16 if the flesh is touched it renders unclean, but not if only the earth thereof had been touched. R. Jehudah saith, \"Whoever touches the earth which immediately adjoins the fleshy part is also unclean.\"",
            "Members, or pieces of flesh which had been forcibly torn off a [live] animal, but which are yet pendant to it, are subject to contract and communicate pollution like other edibles, while they remain thus pendant in their place, but require the susceptibility of contracting pollution to be communicated to them, before they contract it. When the animal was slaughtered they may contract pollution by its blood, according to R. Meir, but R. Simeon saith, \"They do not thereby contract it.\" When the animal dies of itself, it requires the susceptibility of contracting pollution to be communicated to it before it is unclean. The [pendulous] member does, however, pollute as a member taken off an animal while yet alive, but not as Nebelah. Such is the dictum of R. Meir; but R. Simeon saith, \"That member or the pieces of flesh [above mentioned] are clean.\"",
            "A limb or piece of flesh torn from a human body, but yet pendant to it, is clean [if the person is alive], but should he die, the flesh is clean, but the limb pollutes as a limb severed from a living being, but not as a part of a dead body. Such is the dictum of R. Mein; but R. Simeon holds the said limb to be clean."
        ],
        [
            "The law concerning the [right] shoulder, the two cheeks, and maw, due as oblation to the priest, is obligatory in and out of the Holy Land, during and after the existence of the Temple, and applies to animals for ordinary use [‏חולין‎], but not to those used as consecrated sacrifices. For it might have been concluded [thus], If in respect to animals slaughtered for ‏חולין‎, to which the precept of giving the breast and foreleg [to the priest] does not apply, it is nevertheless obligatory to give the above mentioned oblations: it would follow, a fortiori, that these oblations ought also to be given in respect to consecrated sacrifices which are subject to the gift of the breast and foreleg; but it is written [Leviticus 7:34], \"[For the wave-breast, and fore-leg, &c.] and have given them to Aaron the priest and his sons by a statute for ever.\" Hence we are taught, that the priest obtains only what is specified in the text [viz., the breast, &c.].",
            "All animals, for sacrifice, which had contracted a permanent [i.e. incurable] blemish before they were consecrated, and were ransomed, are subject to the laws concerning first-born and [the other sacerdotal] oblations, and may, like animals used for ‏חולין‎, be shorn and used for labor. The young and milk they produce after they were ransomed are also lawful for use, and no guilt is incurred if they were slaughtered outside [the temple]. They do not render an animal substituted for them a valid sacrifice, but they must be ransomed after their death. First-born of animals, and those given as tithe, are excepted. If they had been consecrated before they had contracted the blemish, or that a transitory blemish preceded the consecration, and they had subsequently contracted a permanent one, they are free, after they are ransomed, from the laws relating to first-born and other oblations; but they may not, like animals used for ‏חולין‎, be shorn nor used to labor with. The young and milk they produce may not be used, even after they were ransomed, and guilt is incurred by any person who slaughtered them outside [of the temple]. They also render an animal substituted for them a valid sacrifice, and must be buried when they die.",
            "If a blemished first-born animal was sold by a priest to an Israelite, and had become mingled with a hundred other animals; if these were slaughtered by a hundred persons, the firstborn which is among them releases them all [of the obligation of paying the sacerdotal dues]. If they were all slaughtered by one person, one only of these animals is free. A person who slaughters for a priest, or for a non-Israelite, is not bound to pay the oblations; if he had the animals in partnership with one of these, he must mark them. If a priest sold an animal [to an Israelite], reserving the oblations, the Israelite is not bound to give them. Should one [Israelite] say to another, Sell me the entrails of [this] cow,\" and there is yet of the oblations among it [viz. the maw], he [the buyer], must give it himself to the priest, and [the seller] need not allow him any deduction from the purchase-money on that account; but if the animal was bought by weight, the buyer must pay the sacerdotal dues, and may deduct it from the purchase-money.",
            "If a proselyte had a cow, which he slaughtered before he had embraced Judaism, he is free from the payment of the oblations, but not if the slaughtering took place after his conversion. In a doubtful case he is free, because the onus probandi lies with him who sets up the claim. What are the limits of the shoulder? From the bent of the knee until the hip-bone: this is also the case in respect to the shoulder mentioned in the sacrifice of the Nazarite, as also in respect to the hind-leg down to the hough [in peace-offerings]. The [limits of the] leg are, according to R. Jehudah, from the hip-joint until that of the thigh. The [limits of the] two cheeks are from their joints till the top ring of the trachea."
        ],
        [
            "The precept of giving to the priest the firstling of the fleece (Deut. 18:4) is obligatory in, and out of the Holy Land, 1 during, and after the existence of the Temple, and applies to animals for profane use [‏חולין‎], but not to consecrated sacrifices. The precept concerning the oblation of the shoulder, two cheeks, and maw, is more rigid than that which relates to the firstling of the fleece, in as much as the first-mentioned applies both to cattle and flock, but the latter is limited to sheep, and only when there are a number of them.",
            "What is considered \"a number\"? According to Beth Shammai, two sheep come under this category, since we find it written (Isaiah 7:21), \"A man shall nourish a young cow and two sheep;\" but Beth Hillel say, \"[At least] five, for it is also written (Samuel I 25:18), 'Five sheep ready dressed.'\" R. Dosa ben Arkinar saith, \"When the fleece of each of the five sheep amounts to the [minimum] weight of one half maneh, the obligation of paying the firstling of the wool is incurred;\" but the sages hold, \"That it is incurred as soon as five sheep are shorn, whatever the weight of their fleece may be.\" What quantity must be given to the priest? The weight of five selahim, in Judea, which are equal to ten selahim in Galilee, of white [i.e. clean], but not of dirty wool, and in sufficient quantity as to make therewith the smallest [sacerdotal] garment, for it is said (Deut. 18:5), \"Shalt thou give unto him,\" viz. a sufficient gift [which has some value]. If he could not give it to the priest before it was dyed, he is not bound to give it at all. If the owner of the wool had only bleached, but not yet dyed it, he is bound to give it. If any person buys from a heathen the fleece of sheep [yet to be shorn], he is not bound to pay to the priest the firstling of the fleece. If one Israelite bought it of another, if the seller reserved some of the wool to himself, he is bound to pay this oblation, but if he sold it without such reservation, this obligation is incumbent on the buyer. If he [the seller] had two kinds of wool, gray and white, if he sold the gray but not the white wool, or of rams but not of ewes, each party must pay the oblation to the priest."
        ],
        [
            "The precept of letting the parent bird, found in a nest, fly away (Deut. 22:6) is obligatory, in, and out of the Holy Land, during, and after the existence of the Temple, and applies to non-consecrated birds [‏חולין‎], but not to those which are consecrated sacrifices. The law is more rigid in respect to the obligation of covering the blood, than in that of letting the parent bird fly away, in as much as the first-mentioned precept applies to wild animals and fowl, whether ready at hand or not, and the latter applies to fowl only, and to those which are not ready at hand. By this latter expression is understood such as geese or fowls, which make their nest in an open field or orchard; but those which nestled within the house, or in respect to Herodian doves, this obligation does not apply.",
            "Nor to unclean birds, nor unclean birds incubating the eggs of clean birds, nor these latter hatching the eggs of unclean birds. R. Eleazar holds \"That it is obligatory to set at liberty a cock partridge found in a nest,\" but the sages do not consider this necessary.",
            "If the dam was fluttering about the nest, if she touched it with her wings, it is obligatory to let her fly away, but not when her wings do not touch it; if there was but one young bird, or one egg, it is nevertheless obligatory to let the dam fly away, because the Scripture uses the term (Deuteronomy 22:6): \"nest,\" i.e. any nest. When some of the young birds are already on the wing, or that the eggs are addled, the precept does not apply, for it is written, \"And the dam sitting upon the young birds, or upon the eggs.\" Even as the young birds are supposed in the text to be live ones, thus also must the eggs be fit for incubation [and to produce life], from which term addled eggs are [of course] excluded; and even as the eggs [to complete the process of incubation] require the care of the dam, thus also must the young bird mentioned in the text yet require the nurture of the dam, consequently those birds which are already able to fly are excluded. Should a person have let the dam fly away, and she returns constantly to the nest, even four or five times [or oftener], he is bound to let her fly away, for it is said, \"Thou shalt surely let the dam go,\" &c. When a person says, \"I take the dam, and set the young birds free,\" he must let the dam go also, since it is written, \"Thou shalt surely let the dam go.\" If he takes the young birds first, and then puts them again in the nest, and the dam returns, he is no longer bound to let her fly away again.",
            "When a person has taken the dam and the young birds from the nest, he shall, according to R. Jehudah, suffer the punishment of the stripes, but he is not bound to let the dam fly away; but the sages hold, \"That he is bound to let her fly, but is free of the punishment.\" For this is the rule, \"For the transgression of a negative precept, which may be rectified by an act, no punishment is to be inflicted when that rectifying act has been done.\"",
            "The dam and the young birds are not to be taken from a nest, even to [serve as a sacrifice] to cleanse the leper. If the Holy Law attaches so much importance to this precept, which is so easy to be observed, and though scarcely demanding the sacrifice of the value of an issar, does nevertheless use the expression (Deuteronomy 22:6): \"That it may be well with thee, and that thy days may be prolonged,\" how much more precious must be the reward attached to the observance of other [more difficult] precepts of the Holy Law. "
        ]
    ],
    "sectionNames": [
        "Chapter",
        "Mishnah"
    ]
}