txt/Halakhah/Shulchan Arukh/Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah/English/Asher Meza without commentary.txt

Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah
שולחן ערוך, יורה דעה
Asher Meza (without commentary)
http://BeJewish.org

Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah



Siman 1

All may slaughter, at the outset, even women. Slaves and virtually anyone even though you do not know them who does not faint because of slaughtering. (is fit for slaughtering.)Even though you do not know where or whether he learned the laws of slaughtering.It is permitted from the outset to accept what he slaughters and permitted to eat it as well. This is because most are familiar with his slaughtering and his expertise is known as well. What are we saying? (We are saying) that if that person is not in front of us it is permitted to eat what he slaughters because we rely on what is generally known.However if he is before us we need to check if he is an expert in the laws of slaughtering, however we do not need to ask if he faints.
He does not need to know all of the different details of the laws, but rather if he says "concerning this matter I was in doubt and I asked (a competent rabbi)", such an individual is called "knowledgeable", until he calls that which is forbidden "permitted" (then he demonstrates his ignorance and incompetence).
Whoever doesn't know the laws of Slaughter, even if he slaughters in the presence of others 4 or 5 times in the correct manner, and if he slaughtered alone, what he slaughtered is unacceptable. Even if he is asked: Did you slaughter in such and such manner and from his response we see that the slaughter was done correctly. We don’t rely on his words.Even if he says “I am sure that I performed a good slaughter.If someone knows that he doesn't know the laws of slaughtering, he cannot slaughter alone,if someone stands over him to see him from the beginning of the slaughtering till the end. (It would be allowed).
If a lost kid or fowl or one that is stolen is found slaughtered properly in a place that is predominately jewish, (and the majority of the thieves in the city are jewish) It is permitted. Even if it is sought and found among either the marketplace or in the trash heap of a home but if we find it in the trash heap of the marketplace it is not permitted.
A deaf person who cannot hear and cannot speak or an imbecile, in other words someone who cannot go outside alone at night or who has ripped garments or who frequents cemeteries or loses things that are given to him even one of these things or conducts himself in a silly manner or a child that doesn't have a trained hand to slaughter we should not allow them to slaughter from the outset even if there is someone standing over them helping them. But if they slaughter (after the fact) their slaughter is kosher if there is a trained individual standing over them.However we should not allow them to slaughter from the outset without a trained individual standing over them. Even if he wants to feed the dogs.However if the child has a trained hand and a trained individual is standing over him he can slaughter from the outset and everyone is allowed to eat what he slaughters.
A deaf person who speaks but doesn't hear does not slaughter (from the outset) because he is not able to hear the blessing.If he does slaughter even for himself it is fit for consumption.
(If the deaf person) hears but does not speak: if he is an expert, he is allowed to slaughter even from the outset if someone else says the blessing.
A drunk who has reached the drunkenness of Lot according to Jewish law has the status of one who is crazy. And if he has not reached the drunkenness of Lot he may slaughter from the outset.
A blind person is not allowed to slaughter from the outset unless others watch him. If he slaughters what he slaughtered is acceptable.
A naked person is not allowed to slaughter from the outset due to not being able to say the blessing.
If a community instituted a pronouncement  that only a specific butcher would be allowed to slaughter,and another butcher goes ahead and slaughters, (regarding what he slaughtered) There are those who say that what he slaughtered is forbidden.
If someone slaughters an animal for a non-Jew in the presence of witnesses, and a Jew comes to purchase it from him, and he says "do not buy it, because it wasn't slaughtered in a kosher manner", we do not believe him, [and the buyer is allowed to purchase it (*based on the testimony of the witnesses who saw it was slaughtered in a kosher manner)].  However, for the shochet himself, it is forbidden for him to eat it, since he declared it to be a forbidden item for himself (i.e. by his statement that it wasn't kosher).
If a butcher made a sign on the head of a (kosher) slaughtered sheep, in order that it should appear to be treifah, and also he said it is treifah, but subsequently he said it was kosher, and he only said that it wasn't kosher earlier in order that he could take it for himself therefore it should remain (unpurchased) so he could take the meat from it, since he gave a reason for his words, he is believed (that it is indeed kosher and only appears non-kosher based on a post-slaughter butchering technique).
Concerning a slaughterer that one witness (alone) testified that he performed an improper slaughter, and he (the shochet) denies this, we say that "one witness who is contradicted by denial is nothing", and even the witness himself is allowed to eat from this shochet in the future.  However, in any event, all of this depends on the stature of the man in question. (both the witness and the shochet?)

Siman 2

Seif 1 A slaughtering performed by a gentile has the status of a nevilah*, even if the slaughterer was a child and even if the gentile did not worship idols and even if Jews were supervising him (while he slaughtered).
Seif 2 If a wanton sinner who eats a nevilah* and deliberately (slaughters), if a Jew first checks the knife that he is given, only then are we allowed to eat from what he slaughtered even if he slaughters alone (only) if he knows the laws of slaughter. However if the knife is not checked from the beginning, it is forbidden to eat what he slaughtered until we check the knife at the end. And if it’s not given to him in the beginning in order to slaughter, even if a trustworthy person stood over him to assist, without checking the knife from the beginning, we don’t rely that the knife was fit to slaughter.(even if you plan to check it at the end)
Seif 3 A wanton sinner * who intends to slaughter, even if he swears that he slaughtered with a good knife he is not believed. **a ”mumar leteiavon” does not mean an apostate, it means a wanton sinner who sins out of lust or desire, not out of heresy.
Seif 4 If a wanton sinner slaughters alone, and he has with him a proper knife and a knife that is not proper. And then says that he slaughtered with the correct knife, we trust them.And even if we find meat in his hand, if there are experts in the city, we accept his slaughter (if the experts say) an expert slaughtered this.
Seif 5 An (true) apostate*, even against one Jewish law, or if he is a Jew who worships foreign gods or who publicly desecrates the sabbath, or an apostate against all of torah apart from these two they have the status of non Jews *(Cuthean was added by the censors).*a Mumar Lehachis is someone who sins (in heresy) out of anger to G-d.
Seif 6 An apostate who continues committing the same transgression, we don’t need to check his knife, according to the Rambam it needs to be checked, specifically if he is an apostate because of a transgression, however if he is an invalidated witness by a transgression that make up the torahs list of transgressions, you don’t need to check the knife, even according to the Rambam.
Seif 7 If he is an apostate because of his foreskin, his status is like one who transgresses a specific law. And if he wasn't circumcised due to a fear of death during the circumcision, Indeed he is like the rest of the kosher Jews.*a mumar le'aveirah is worse than pasul le'edut.
Seif 8 A Samaritan nowadays has the status of an Idol Worshiper.
Seif 9 Saducees and Baiythiates (followers of Baiytus) what they slaughter is forbidden, however if they slaughter and an expert stood over them guiding them and they also checked the knife. (it is allowed).
Seif 10 If an invalidated person starts to slaughter and when he finishes he is no longer invalidated, or if someone begins to slaughter as a kosher Jew and by the end of the slaughter has become and invalidated person. What do we tell them? (We say)From the beginning you were invalidated with respect to an issue, this makes what you slaughtered a nevilah, for example if the gullet and the majority of the trachea (were cut when he found out it is not allowed), however if from the beginning someone is invalidated and half of the Trachea (is already cut) and he finished as a kosher jew, it is permissible.
Seif 11 If a kosher Jew and an invalidated slaughterer simultaneously slaughter, it is not allowed to be consumed.We don’t need to say anything if his (The Kosher Jew’s) hand is on the knife.

Siman 3

Seif 1 The slaughter of non consecrated (animals) does not require intention. Even if one didn’t intend to cut, or if one threw the knife and inserted it itself in a wall, and (in that manner) slaughtered (properly) according to Halacha. If one sees that the knife is not dulled between the required (integral) points or under the skin.And if one finds that a feather or a hair is cut by it, for sure it's not dulled.Even if he drops the knife from his hand or his foot with intention, and slaughters, it is permissible.However if it falls on its own, its forbidden, Because we require human power..(to perform it properly).And if there was a knife placed on your lap or your hand and it fell from your hand or lap by mistake, because it fell literally on its own, it is forbidden.


Siman 4

Seif 1 A slaughter done in the name of Idolatry, even if he doesn't have the intention to perform the act of slaughter and the act of worship, however he has the intention to slaughter it to throw the blood or to burn the fat to worship idols, indeed this is a sacrifices to dead things and it's forbidden to derive benefit from it.
Seif 2 A slaughter without intentions, afterwards, He has a desired intent to throw its blood or to burn the fat for idolatry, it is a question if these are a sacrifices to dead things. (and we say we are strict in a doubt in a Biblical matter, therefore it is forbidden) 
Seif 3 A Jew slaughters an animal belonging to a Gentile, even if he has the intention for the Samaritan to worship idols, it is kosher. And if a Jew intentionally threw it to a samaritan to worship idols, it is forbidden.
Seif 4 If a Jew slaughters an animal belonging to his friend (fellow Jew) for the sake of worshiping Idols, it is not forbidden, because certainly his intentions are only to cause him distress (and not to actually worship idols).  However, if he has a share in it, some say that also his friend's share is also forbidden, while others say that this is also directed to only cause distress to his colleague, and then it is not forbidden.
Seif 5 One who slaughters for the sake of hills or mountains, or for the sake of the sun or the moon, stars or constellations, oceans or rivers, it does not have the status of an item which was offered as an idolatrous sacrifice, therefore it is not prohibited to derive benefit from this meat, however the slaughter is invalidated, even though he did not intend to worship but to heal or some other practice derived from the meaningless superstitions the Samaritans speak about.
Seif 6 If someone slaughtered as a sacrifice for the angel or deity of a mountain, or for a god or spirit of anything, whether the slaughter is a sacrifice for the sake of the Archangel Michael or a sacrifice for the guardian angel of the smallest worm in the sea, it is considered to be a sacrifice to dead false gods and it is forbidden to derive benefit from it. 
Seif 7 If the Ishmaelites do not allow Jews to slaughter unless they turn their face to Al Kibla, (meaning they turn their face toward the east, to Mecca) in accordance with their custom, this is not similar to one who slaughters for the sake of a mountain [thus would not be prohibited].In any event, however, it is proper to do away with this custom and to castigate those who do so, (inasmuch as we are careful to avoid this).


Siman 5

Seif 1 A slaughter for the sake of holy sacrifices, offering as a sacrifice that is offered as a donation or to fulfill a vow, even if the animal has a deformity (and would not be a valid sacrifice), the slaughter is invalid (and not kosher even as a non-sacrificial meat), because it is like slaughtering a sacrifice outside of the Temple. However, a slaughter performed for the sake of a holy sacrifice which is not one of them which are offered as a donation or a vow, the slaughter is accepted as kosher. How is this so? Just like a slaughter done for the sake of a Burnt Offering,  a thanksgiving offering, or Passover offering it is invalidated (as these are offered as donations or to fulfill vows). (Why would the Passover be in this category?  Isn't it an obligation?)  Because on Passover we’re able to set aside all the time what we desire, which is similar to a willful vow. A slaughter for the sake of a sin offering, or a guilt offering, or a first born, or your tithe, or compensation exchanged for another sacrifice, then the slaughter is acceptable as kosher (as a non-sacrifice). However, if a person knows he committed a sin which would obligate him to offer a sacrifice in the Temple, and he declares this slaughter to be for the sake of his sin offering or his guilt offering, the slaughter is invalid (not kosher).
Seif 2 If someone slaughterers chickens and geese and the like (with intention for sacrificing), since these species are not fit for sacrificing they are permissible for consumption. This is also the case if one slaughters small pigeons or grown doves, (since only grown pigeons and small doves were sacrificed).
Seif 3 If two people slaughter the same animal together, whether both grab the same knife in their hands,or each one slaughters with a different knife simultaneously, if one of them has intention for the sake of a invalidated thing their (Slaughter) is invalidated. Also if they slaughter the same animal one after the other, and one has in mind for the sake of an invalidated thing, (the slaughter) is invalidated. This only refers to a case where they shared ownership of the animal, however if they did not share ownership, and the one with the improper intent is not the owner, it is not invalidated, because it is impossible for a Jew to cause his fellow Jew's property to become forbidden to him, and this could only be for the intent of causing him pain, therefore it is inactive.


Siman 6

Seif 1 One may slaughter with anything that is detached from the ground, whether slaughtering with a knife or a rock or a thin reed of a lake, or any of these that can cut. (one may slaughter).(These objects) must have a sharp edge, and cannot have a flaw.Regarding a knife that has one side that is bent and one side that is good, one must not slaughter with the good side from the outset, this was a parameter that was taken so as not to enable the slaughterer to come to use the bad side.If he does slaughter, because it was the good side that was used to slaughter, it is permissible.
Seif 2 If one slaughters with something connected to the ground, or a body, like a fingernail and a tooth connected to an animal, the slaughter is invalidated.Or something detached from the ground but that will end up connected to the ground, we don't slaughter, if one slaughters it is permitted, and even if it is nullified, as long as it is not rooted again after it is nullified.
Seif 3 If one cuts with a jaw of an animal that has sharp teeth and slaughters with it, his slaughter is invalidated. (because it is like a sickle). However with one tooth that is affixed to the jaw, if one slaughters (before the fact) it is permissible.
Seif 4 If someone inserts a knife into a wall, and passes it across the neck (of an animal) until  it is slaughtered, it is permissible, provided that the animal's neck is below and the knife above, if the neck of the animal will be above the knife, it is possible that the animal will descend with the weight of its body [on the knife] and cut [its throat] without [it being brought back and forth]. This is not considered as being slaughtered ritually, Even if he says I am sure that it (the animal) didn’t trample (it neck) over it (the knife), the slaughter is invalidated, therefore, if it was a fowl, whether its neck is above the knife that is implanted or below it, the slaughter is acceptable.

Siman 7

Seif 1 A person may set a knife on a wheel of stone or wood that rotates by one's hand or foot, and proceed (with the contraption) to the neck of the animal or fowl until it is slaughtered by turning the wheel. (and it is acceptable). And if water rotates the wheel and he places the neck of [the animal] opposite it while it was turning causing it to be slaughtered, it is unacceptable.An exemption is made if a person caused the water to flow until they turned the wheel and caused it to slaughter by turning it, [if so the slaughter] is acceptable after the fact because the act came as a result of man's actions. However (a slaughtering that results) from a second rotation is unacceptable because the force did not come from man's power, but from the power of the flowing water.

Siman 8

How long must a knife be to slaughter? Any size as long as it's not too thin that it ends up piercing and not slicing like the head of a small blade or the like. And a needle, even if it is wide like those who makes holes like those who work with leather we decide with the thread. You can't slaughter with such a needle, since it is impossible to determine its size.A slaughterer with a small knife needs to be careful and measure his understanding to make sure he will not come to trample; however an extremely small (knife) we may not be allowed to slaughter with.

Siman 9

Seif 1 If one slaughters with a knife that is white (hot) the slaughter is invalidated, although some opinions hold the slaughter may be kosher.

Siman 10

Seif 1 A new knife belonging to one who worships idols, or an old knife that has no question of being under the impurity of idolatry (or non-kosher use), it is permitted to slaughter a healthy animal with it because by doing so it it will cause a financial loss. However it is forbidden to slaughter an animal that will die anyway due to illness, because this is a positive financial gain (since otherwise, the animal would be lost). The knife (one acquired) belonged to an idolater that was sharpened on a kosher grinding wheel, or if there wasn't a defect on it one must stab it in the hard ground ten times, then one can slaughter permissibly. If someone slaughters with a non-kosher knife, one must wash the area of the neck where the slaughtering cut, and if one cuts away the meat from the area, it is praiseworthy.
Seif 2 A knife that slaughters in a kosher manner, even though it is dirty with blood is permissible to slaughter again with it. However it is forbidden to cut something hot with it.And it is permissible to cut something cold with it if you rinsed off the blood first.
Seif 3 A knife that slaughtered a trefa, it is forbidden to slaughter with it until it is washed with cold or it is wiped with something hard. The modern custom is to wipe the knife thoroughly on the animal's hair between each slaughtering, and this is proper to do, and if someone slaughters without washing it, we wash off the area of the neck where the slaughter cut.  If one finds that he is regularly slaughtering many trefot, we need to stick the knife in hard ground ten times.

Siman 11

Seif 1 One can slaughter at anytime, whether in the day or at night; what do we mean by this? It could be done anytime with a torch, however when there isn't a torch at all or in a dark place, we don't slaughter; and if one slaughters what was slaughtered is permissible.
Seif 2 A slaughter perform on Shabbat or Yom Kippur, even if it was done intentionally, on Shabbat one forfeits his life (if he slaughters), and on Yom Kippur he receives lashes. However what he slaughter will be permissible.
Seif 3 We don’t slaughter into the ocean or rivers, lest people say, that one slaughtered for the deity of the sea, we also don’t slaughter into vessels lest people say that one slaughtered to collect blood to throw it at idols; and if there is a vessel of water, so that the blood (that gets mixed) is not fit for throwing, if the vessels are clear we don’t slaughter into it, lest people say that one is offering a sacrifice to an image reflected by the water; and if (the water) is murky it's permitted; and if there are ashes (or dirt) in the vessel, it is permitted to slaughter in it.
Seif 4 If it happens to be that there is no free space to slaughter in on a boat, you may slaughter on the back of a vessel, and the blood of the slaughter will then trickle down to the water; Or stretch your arm outside of the boat, and slaughter off the side (of the boat), then the blood will flow into the water, without worry.


Siman 12

Seif 1 We don’t slaughter into a basin, even in a house; and if you will don’t want dirty your house with blood, make a place with a slope to the basin and slaughter there, and then the blood of the slaughter will flow in the basin; and in a market this is not done.
Seif 2 There are those who say that if you slaughter in a basin in the market, it is forbidden to eat what he (the person) slaughters until afterwards we check if he is a heretic (or not). There are those who say that it is permitted after the fact without checking (the character of) the slaughterer.

Siman 13

Seif 1 A domesticated land animal or an non domesticated land animal or fowl require ritual slaughter, fish and grasshoppers do not require ritual slaughter.
Seif 2 One who slaughters an animal and finds it Kosher, then found inside a fetus of 8 (months), whether alive or dead, or a fetus of 9 (months) dead, it may be eaten and does not require slaughter. And if he finds inside a fetus of 9 (months) that is a alive: if it stood on the ground, it requires slaughter, but other treifot do not prohibit it. If it did not place its hooves on the ground it does not require slaughter. And if its hooves are fused even though it stood on the ground, it does not require slaughter. And some are in doubt.
Seif 3 If while killing the mother, he rips her apart, and if while slaughtering you make her to become a neveilah or a trefa, if the fetus is alive and is in the 9th month you may slaughter itself to make it kosher. If it is a dead fetus of 9 months or even alive of 8 months, then it is prohibited (since the mother was not kosher).
Seif 4 If a living 9-month fetus was found in the womb of a kosher-slaughtered animal, and the fetus grew up and mated with a regularly-born animal and begot a child, the child cannot be made kosher by shechitah (?).  If the fetus grew up and mated with a female animal who was similarly a fetus from a kosher slaughter, then their children, and grandchildren, for all generations, are also halachically considered to be like a fetus taken from a kosher slaughter, just like their parents.  Although the Torah does not require these animal to be slaughtered by shechitah and are kosher without shechitah, the Rabbis still require them to have shechitah as a rabbinical law.  However, they are not rendered non-kosher if they have a treifah.
Seif 5 If after slaughtering an animal we find (a fetus) that resembles a fowl, although it resembles a kosher fowl, it is forbidden to eaten; When a fetus is found in an animal it is not allowed unless it has hooves.
Seif 6 If after slaughtering an animal we find (a fetus) that has two backs and two spines it is not permitted.

Siman 14

Seif 1 An animal (that we are slaughtering) that happens to be in the process of giving birth, (and) if the head (of the fetus) protrudes then returns, it is like it is born (and as if it exited its mother) and is not kosher to eat by virtue of the mother's slaughter.Therefore, if it in 8th month of pregnancy whether alive or dead, or in 9th month it is forbidden; if it is in 9th month and alive, it is kosher by its own slaughter.
Seif 2 If the fetus sticks out a limb and then retracts it (before the slaughter is performed) the limb that came out is forbidden.However what remained internal, from that place to cut,  it is allowed; what returns it slaughtered, once the part that made its way outside of the cavity is cut off, the fetus is permitted.But the area that made its way outside as well as the part that one cut is forbidden.However the rest of it is allowed even small amounts.
Seif 3 If the majority of the limb comes out, it is as if it was born. And if half of the whole limb, from the majority from the small limb, it is like it is born.
Seif 4 If one limb that comes out and went back in and then  another limb extends out completely and then majority of it goes back in, it is allowed; and if the whole limb is cut and the limb in an hour returns itself, also a small portion remains inside. (it is allowed)
Seif 5 Whenever an animal thrust its limb and then returned it and that limb becomes forbidden, and  afterwards its mother was slaughtered, If it is female, we are forbidden to drink its milk because the milk comes from all of the animal's limbs and it has a limb which is forbidden. Hence, it is comparable to milk from a trefe animal that becomes mixed with milk from a kosher animal.
Seif 6 If a person inserts his hand inside of an animal, cuts off the spleen, and or one of the kidneys or the like, but leaves (the cut organ) inside the animal, and then slaughters it, the pieces cut off are forbidden as Ever min HaChai although they remained within the animal's womb. Although if he cut away a section of the fetus within the womb, but did not remove it, and then slaughtered (its mother), the pieces or limbs of the fetus are permitted because they did not emerge (out of the mother). 

Siman 15

Seif 1 A chick anytime that it does not hatch (from its shell) is forbidden, after it hatches (from its shell)  it is allowed to be taken (and slaughtered).
Seif 2 When an animal is born, if you know it was born after a full-term pregnancy, which would be 9 months for large cattle and 5 months for small animals (such as sheep and goats), it is permitted to slaughter it immediately on the day it is born, since we are not worried that its limbs were ruined from the difficulty of childbirth.  However, if it is unknown whether it was from a full-term pregnancy, it is forbidden until the eighth night, inasmuch as it is possibly considered to be a miscarriage until the eighth day.
Seif 3 We don’t trust the word of an Idolater on whether a small goat is without defect or is 8 days old. (thus making it fit for slaughter).

Siman 16

Seif 1 It is forbidden to slaughter an animal and its offspring on the same day, it does not matter if you first slaughter the mother and afterward the son or daughter, or if you first slaughter the son or daughter and afterward the mother (it is forbidden either way no matter what order).
Seif 2 The prohibition (to slaughter) “ the mother and its offspring”  certainly applies to females, because when it comes to a mother we are always certain that it is her offspring. And if it's certain that it is known that its the father, we don’t slaughter them on the same day, and if it's (the father) slaughtered (The slaughterer) he is not lashed, because there is a question if the prohibition applies to fathers as well, or only to mothers.
Seif 3 If one violates this prohibition and slaughters a mother and its offspring on the same day, it is allowed to eat of it, There are those who do not allow it. (to eat the second one slaughtered on the same day).
Seif 4 When the Torah says "One day" regarding a mother and its offspring (if one slaughters) on one the day, the day follows the night, therefore we wait to slaughter the second one on the night that follows. What do we mean? if you slaughter the first one at the beginning of Tuesday night, we don’t start with the second one until the beginning of Wednesday night; and if you slaughtered the first one at the end of the Wednesday but before dusk; then slaughter the second one in the beginning of Wednesday night; And if you slaughter the first one at dusk of the Wednesday night, don’t slaughter the second one until the night of the Thursday night, and if you slaughtered on Thursday during day you won't receive lashes (although it is ideal not to do so).
Seif 5 If the child is following a female animal in a way that demonstrates that it is tied to her emotionally, we can assume she is his or her mother.
Seif 6 Someone who buys an animal does not need to worry that its mother or child was slaughtered that same day, however if the mother or child was slaughtered that same day, or if the mother or child was sold to someone else to be slaughtered that day, the seller is obligated to let the buyer know.  Furthermore, if it is one of the four times of the year when every Jew who purchases an animal can be assumed to slaughter it immediately; namely: Erev Pesach, Erev Shavuos, Erev Rosh Hashanah, and Hoshana Rabbah, the seller is obligated to inform the buyer if he sold the mother or child of that animal on the same day.  If the seller did not say anything, the buyer may slaughter the animal without worry, whether he purchased the animal from a Jew or from a gentile.  If he slaughtered the animal and was subsequently informed that its mother or daughter was slaughtered on the same day, it is a mistaken transaction.  This applies only if both were sold on the same day, however if the mother or daughter were sold on the previous day, there is no requirement to inform the purchaser.If one animal was sold to a groom and the second (either mother or child of the first animal) was sold to his bride, even if they were sold on different days, the seller needs to inform the buyer of the status of the animals, because we can assume that both animals will be slaughtered on the same day.If two people purchased a mother and child on the same day, the first purchaser should slaughter the animal and not the second purchaser.  When does this apply?  When they were both purchased from the same person, because as soon as the first one was sold, the remaining animal was not permitted to be slaughtered, because the first buyer purchased the animal in order to slaughter it immediately.  However, if they were purchased from two different sellers, each purchaser is equal, and whoever slaughters their animal first is performing his due diligence.
Seif 7 It is not forbidden to slaughter a mother and her offspring only if its a kosher domesticated animal, as it is said:(in Vayikra 22:28) Do not slaughter an ox or a sheep and its offspring on one day." However it is prohibited to slaughter it if it were a hybrid with a sheep or a goat" or with a wild animal such as a mountain goat or a deer, etc.
Seif 8 The offspring of a (male) deer and a (female) goat and one slaughters the goat and its offspring one is liable for lashes (from the Torah); it is forbidden to slaughter mother and son in the case where the offspring comes from a male goat and a female deer, but one does not receive lashes in that case.  If the female offspring of a doe deer with a male goat (i.e. the child of the previous case becomes a mother) one is liable for lashes should he slaughter the female offspring of this deer and its offspring on the same day.
Seif 9 It is not forbidden to slaughter a mother and her offspring together if they are not ritually slaughtered as [Leviticus 22:28] states: "Do not slaughter [an ox or a sheep]3 and its offspring on one day. However if one decapitates the first one or if it becomes a nevelah in his hand it is allowed allowed to ritually slaughter the second one. If a deaf person, or an imbecile or a child slaughter the first animal alone it is allowed to slaughter the second one, because what these slaughter is not considered slaughtered.
Seif 10 It is allowed to slaughter a pregnant animal, for the fetus has the status of it mother's thigh. And if the fetus is alive after the slaughter of its mother, and it stood on the ground, we don’t slaughter it on the same day, however if you do slaughter it you do not receive lashes.
Seif 11 An idolater that sells two animals and who then says,  I have been told that these are mother and child, we do not believe what they say after the sale is finalized and the animals are out of his possession, and if the gentile is (known to be) trustworthy then it is forbidden (to slaughter on the same day).
Seif 12 An animal that is slaughtered whether it is a mother or its offspring on that day and they get mixed together and the other one needs to be slaughtered the same day, what do we do? We slaughter one by one until two are left which cannot be slaughtered the same day because whatever is removed from a group is part of the majority which these two are not slaughtered on the same day.

Siman 17

Seif 1 When one slaughters a healthy animal and after slaughtering it does not make convulsive movements, it is permitted. However regarding an animal that is dangerously ill, i.e., one which cannot maintain itself when others cause it to stand it up, even if it eats the food of healthy animals. If such an animal is slaughtered and does not make any convulsive movements at all, it is a nevelah and one is liable for lashes [for partaking] of it. If it makes convulsive movements, it is permitted. The convulsive movements must be made at the end of the slaughter. If they are made at the beginning, they are of no consequence.What is meant by convulsive movements? For a small domesticated animal and for both a small and a large wild beast, the intent is that it extended its foreleg and returned it, extended its hind leg even though it did not return it, or merely bent its hind leg. This is considered a convulsive movement and [the animal] is permitted. If, however, it merely extended its foreleg and did not return it, it is forbidden. This movement is merely a result of the expiration of the soul. If it either extended its foreleg or its hind leg without bending it or bent its foreleg or hind leg without extending it, it is considered as a convulsive movement and it is permitted. If, however, it neither extended or bent its foreleg or its hind leg at all, it is considered as a nevelah.With regard to a fowl, even if it only blinked its eyelid or swatted its tail, it is considered a convulsive movement.
Seif 2 When one slaughters an animal that is dangerously ill at night and does not know whether or not it made convulsive movements, it is forbidden, because of the possibility that it is forbidden as nevelah.
Seif 3 Our great sages would not partake would not eat of an animal which people were hurrying to slaughter before it died, even if it made convulsive movements after being slaughtered. This is an issue that does not involve a prohibited act. Nevertheless, if one desires to accept this stringency upon himself it is considered praiseworthy.

Siman 18

Seif 1 If a slaughterer tested his knife and found it to be defective (what he slaughtered) becomes a nevela; even if the flaw occurred from the neck bone, We don't attribute the damage to after the slaughter, however we take into consideration that perhaps while it was in the skin the defect we found occurred and the knife was flawed, and this applies also for poultry.
Seif 2 What is the amount of defect which disqualifies a knife?  Even a slight amount.  As long as it accumulates even if it is a hair-size it disqualifies.
Seif 3 One needs to check his knife before (Slaughtering), slaughtering that is performed without first checking the knife, is not considered (proper) slaughtering, and if he transgresses and doesn't check (the knife) at the outset, and if after (the slaughter) we check (the knife) and we find it suitable the slaughter is acceptable.
Seif 4 If one inspected a knife (in one direction) and didn't feel a flaw, if he checks another time (in a different direction) and he feels a flaw, this checking is to be disputed, if you slaughter in the direction that the checking was conducted (without a flaw) and did not reverse the direction, the slaughter is acceptable. If perhaps he reversed the direction, the slaughter is unacceptable. And one who cuts and doesn't feel the flaw before the slaughter, only if we found his knife acceptable before the slaughter; however (now) after the slaughter we find a disputable flaw, as it is said: it is clear me that if he cut in only one direction, the direction without flaw alone, the slaughter is unacceptable.
Seif 5 A knife that has many flaws, even if everyone disputes them, even if slaughtered (under the rubric of) after the fact, it is not acceptable. Because the flaws are many we worry when he returns his hand and kills (he will) not feel it.
Seif 6 When a knife has been sharpened, but its edge is not smooth, instead, when one touches it, it is like touching the tip of an ear of grain which becomes stuck on one's finger, [nevertheless,] since it does not have a blemish, one may slaughter with it.
Seif 7 When the edge of a knife is smooth  and is not sharp, one may slaughter with it, since it does not have a flaw. Even though one passes it back and forth the entire day until the slaughter [is completed], the slaughter is acceptable.
Seif 8 A knife that (has a shape that) goes up and down like a snake without any flaws, one can use to slaughter with from the outset.
Seif 9 The checking of a knife requires the (use of the) skin and fingernail from three angles, in other words one must pass it over and draw it back over the flesh of his finger and afterwards pass it back on one's fingernail from three angles, (which are) its tip and both of its sides so that (to insure) it will not have a blemish at all.(after this) We check (the knife) slowly and with full concentration not turning one's mind to other things, and then repeat on another nail slightly to check, that damaged nail on the sharp part of the knife, and perhaps there is a flaw on both sides that he didn't feel by passing it in a damaged nail.
Seif 10 If a knife has a flaw, one may not slaughter even with the smooth part, lest he use the flawed part. On Yom Tov, the custom is to allow tying a cloth around the flaw (to ensure that it will not be used to slaughter), for one may not sharpen the knife. Even during a weekday, if one did not have a chance to sharpen the knife, one is allowed to slaughter by means of typing a cloth on the flaw.
Seif 11 If a person slaughters many animals or many fowl, he must inspect [the knife] between each [slaughter]. If he did not check, and then checked after slaughtering the last one and discovered [the knife] to be blemished, there is an unresolved doubt whether all of them even the first are considered nevelot.
Seif 12 Although one checks the knife before the slaughter one needs to perform a check after the slaughtering. This is talking about when he still has the knife, but if the knife got lost, the shechitah is kosher as long as the knife was checked before the shechitah, even if he slaughtered many one after the other.  If a damage was felt in the neck of one of them, one should be strict and worry about all those slaughtered afterwards.
Seif 13 If one slaughters with a knife that was checked, and checked before and the knife was lost before it was checked after the slaughter, and afterwards we find the knife and see it flawed, the slaughter is acceptable inasmuch as it performed properly. And if we find a flaw as stated that smashed a bone without knowing after the slaughter, and the knife remains with the established chazaka.
Seif 14 If one doesn't check the knife and slaughters and loses the knife before he makes the additional check which is necessary afterwards, if he slaughter without the additional check its is forbidden. When does this apply? when a regular knife is used, however if a butcher has a special knife for slaughtering in a special place put away there always, traditionally we check it, if it is slaughtered without an additional check, it is acceptable.
Seif 15 If somebody slaughters with a knife that has been checked and after the slaughter he chops bones with the knife in an unusual way (not in a manner of going back and forth)and if we then check and we find a flaw the slaughter is acceptable because we assume that it got chipped because he broke the bone.SO in any simliar case, like it falls on the hard ground.If we saw it specifically fall its blade (its flawed) however because of this doubt we don't attribute what is said if it did not fall on the blade. And if a break occurs because of a neck bone, even in the direction that the break occurred, we don’t attribute what occurs before it to it at all, because the neck is soft.
Seif 16 If one checks a knife after the slaughter and then stores it away and after we find that it is defective, we can have no objection, it is said someone else did it, so if we find a flaw as stated that smashed a bone without knowing after the slaughter.
Seif 17 A butcher who doesn't get his knife seen by a scholar, we place a ban on him.Presently our practice is to appoint well known people to slaughter and inspect,so the scholars gave up this honor to check by themselves and trust the shochtim, because they are careful and diligent.  There is need for a lot of clarity of mind and fear of heaven in checking the knife, If this is not apparent look that he checks it 3 times without feeling the damage for one minute, afterwards we find what he slaughtered recently, we test him to get a sense and feel in accordance with the intention of his heart.
Seif 18 A butcher needs to get paid for treifot as from kosher slaughter.
Seif 19 (If) Reuven tells Shimon, check this knife, and he checked it twice but needed to check it 12 times and he then hands it back to Reuven, while Reuven was going to slaughter Levi stopped his hand and found a defect on the knife.Reuven then apologizes and says he wants (the knife) re-checked further properly.(however) His actions prove him, and it was enough for him to check for this reason we remove him. And if we see that the situation arose out of error, and that he actually is kosher we then re-instate him, this is done solely that he understands not to repeat such a thing.
Seif 20 A butcher that finds a flaw on the head of the knife and says: "This flaw before me covers the blood of fowl on the head of the knife; and I slaughter and i’m careful that I do not touch the flaw", he is removed from his post; and it is close to say the vessels are prohibited as no longer kosher.


Siman 19

A slaughter must bless before (the slaughter), who has sanctified us by his commandments and commanded us regarding slaughtering; And if one slaughters without a blessing it's kosher.
If one slaughters domestic or wild animals or fowl this one blessing includes all of these.
(if you have) Two Slaughterers and two animals, One can make one blessing for (himself and) his friend. (if) he intended to make it himself.
One needs to be careful (not to) speak between the bracha and slaughtering regarding something not related to the slaughter. If he did speak he needs to recite the blessing another time.
If one wants to slaughter many animals, he needs to be careful not to speak about things not related to ritual slaughter between the animals he has slaughtered. If he did speak he needs to cover the blood of the first one he slaughtered and bless a second time on the slaughter. However on second covering (of blood) he does not make a second blessing. There are those that say that from the talk between slaughters, it is not an interruption.
If one had in mind to slaughter one wild animal when he recited the blessing, and afterwards they brought him more animals, he should cover the blood of the first then recite the blessing over it, and afterwards bless over the slaughter of the second one but not over the covered blood.The same would be if the next animal were brought before blessing for the first animal  for the blood being covered.
If their were before him many (animals) to slaughter, and he blessed over the slaughter, and afterwards came more (animals), if when he brought the last ones, there are still before him those that he blessed, there is no need to repeat the blessing. And if not you need to re-bless.And before the fact it is good to have in mind when reciting the blessing that is will count over all that is brought to him (even those not there yet).
If one slaughtered a beast or fowl and he intends to slaughter another, and forgot that he was planning to slaughter more, so he covered the blood and said the blessing over the mitzvah of covering, when he slaughters again he doesn't need to repeat the blessing on the slaughter, and covering the blood is not an interruption.

Siman 20

Seif 1 The place to slaughter is on the neck by the carotid that leading towards the head.From the opening of the sternohyoid and below. This is before the Esophagus becomes wide. That is where there are carotids left.They are located from the upper carotid, beneath the big cervical opening that is like two hoppers from the body to the dispenser . Those carotids are called “cheiti”.If he slit into the carotids and the cervices remained slightly connected on the top, it is kosher because he slit opening of the sternohyoid and below. If nothing is left from the carotid but slit from above the carotid that is a destruction—meaning the cause of using the knife  outside the place of slaughter towards the head of the body—is rejected. And its ring below is until the tip of the (upper) lobe of the lung… When you are going to inflate the lung and the laube, the place where it reaches at the tip that is the same place where it reached when the animal was alive and it was grazing in it regular way when it would stretch out its neck to graze without it having to stretch out its neck anymore then what's usual.
Seif 2 And in the gullet, (the place of slaughter) begins in the spot where when we cut it will shrivel, until the point down below that it begins getting scales and hair like the inside of a stomach. If you slaughter above from this place, this is called the “Turbatz haveshet”, or if you slaughter below this area which is the beginning of were the intestines begin, the slaughter is unacceptable. And this section of (Turbatz haveshet) that is not fit for shechitah up above,  Regarding a domesticated or wild animal it's an amount that you are able to grab with two fingers and regarding a fowl, it all depends how large or small. And the section (of the slaughter) is until the (roof of ) throat.
Seif 3 A slaughterer needs to slaughters it in the middle of the neck; and if you slaughter on sides of the neck, the slaughter will be acceptable, (only) if he turned the signs back and he knows that he cut them before cutting the neck bone, because the signs are soft and they get pushed away from the knife, It is the same halacha if you slaughter it from the back of the neck.
Seif 4 It is to good to be careful, to feel around the signs (before slaughtering) in order that the knife should cut them before it cuts the flesh of the neck. And with doves we find that the signs are on the sides so we insure that one must have skilled hands and have great caution, if we can’t feel the signs before slaughter it is likely that you may come to be negligent and you will cut the neck  before the simanim.


Siman 21

Seif 1 How much must one cut of the trachea and esophagus. The best way to slaughter is to cut both of them an animal and a fowl side by side this is what he (the slaughterer) should do.. If you cut one sign by a fowl, and one sign of an animal and a beast, the slaughter is acceptable, as long as when you measure it you find that it was slaughtered to the majority, and if you find that the part that was slaughtered was more than half even a hair breadths more than half it´s enough.
Seif 2 If one slaughters with one animal one full sign and half of a second one, and with a fowl you slaughtered both signs both half of each it is not acceptable.
 Seif 3 If one did not slaughter the sign (that makes an animal kosher) in one spot, for example if one started slaughtering and the sign turned over (moved) and one completed the slaughter, and between the two cuts you have a sizeable amount, it is acceptable whether you do it either by the windpipe or the esophagus.This applies not only in a case where both of these cuts are circling the same spot, (but) even if the first cut you made up near the head and the second cut you made further down, its acceptable, whether it's one person who  made a cut like this in two or three spots or if it was two people who slaughtered (in this manner) using two different knives, it is acceptable. But if both are on the same side of the sign, like in a case that he started slaughtering a little and then left his spot and then slaughtered above or below the spot on the same side, you need that the sizeable amount be in one of his cuts, one cannot combine the two because they are both on the same sign, if when you have the sizeable amount even it's only in the second cuts it acceptable although the slaughter is not revealed and obvious. 
Seif 4 A Slaughter that was performed like a quill (like cut at an angle) or  like the teeth of  comb (or up and down on an angle) it's acceptable.
 Seif 5 If 1/2 of the esophagus was cut, and then it was slaughtered completely to a sizable amount it is complete; it is permissible. Thus (in a case) where if one started slaughtering in a spot (in the sign) that is whole, and one found their was a flaw in the (original) cut, and one cut it completely to a sizeable amount, it is acceptable.

Siman 22

Seif 1 With fowl one needs to cut the veins or pierce them while it twitches and the blood is warm, in order that the blood should go out and not get cold. And if one didn't so, one should not roast it whole, and if one roasts it whole then one should throw out the veins and cut around a thin peel about the width of a finger. If one cooks it while its whole you search and dig out these blood vessels and what remains, and if you get everything (enough) from what was checked that you nullify the blood from all the blood vessels to 1/60th or less of the total than it is permissible.
Seif 2 On a domesticated animal one does not need to cut or pierce the blood vessels during slaughter. Because it's not common to roast it whole, however if one wants to roast it whole one needs to cut or pierce the blood vessels during slaughter, and if does not , it is forbidden to roast or cook whole.

Siman 23

Seif 1 All butchers that do not know the laws of slaughter it is forbidden to eat what they slaughter/butcher.And this what they have to know: “pausing”, “striking”, “hiding”, “lifting up/tipping” and “uprooting”.
Seif 2 What do we mean by “pausing”? When a person begins to slaughter and raises his hand before he completes the slaughter and then pauses. Whether it was done inadvertently or intentionally, willingly or unwillingly. If he or another person completed the slaughter but delayed the amount of time it would take to lift up the animal and cause it to lie down, even if he slaughtered the greater part of the signs required for slaughter, his slaughter is not acceptable. With regard to slaughtering a small animal: the amount of “pausing” is the amount that it would take to lift up a small animal, cause it to lie down, and then slaughter it. And with regard to a large animal, the measure of “pausing” is the amount of time it would take to lift up a large animal, cause it to lie down, and slaughter it. With regards to fowl, the measure of “pausing” is the amount of time it would take to lift up a small animal, cause it to lie down, and slaughter it. There are those who say that the amount of “pausing” regarding fowl is the amount of time it would take to cut the majority of one sign (Siman) without lifting it up or lying it down. And according to their reasoning one should take notice when one begins to slaughter a fowl and to cut slowly until the blood comes out and lifts up his knife from the neck without completing the slaughter. Also there is concern that perhaps he might cut elsewhere on the gullet. And even if he does not lift up his knife but for a moment, there is still concern since the amount pausing in fowl is very small. Accordingly if he slaughters most of one of the sign in the fowl, he should do so quickly. Even if the slaughterer says that it is clear to me that I only cut the skin,” we don’t rely on this because blood has come out. If another person comes to ask after the knife has been lifted how he did it, they say to him that he should slaughter the windpipe alone in another place and afterward turn out the gullet and inspect it.There are those that are more stringent in the matter, concluding that unless it is a dire time or there is potential for great financial loss, one should rely on the first argument. 
Seif 3 If a slaughterer who slaughters a little (of the neck) and then pauses a little and returns and slaughters a little and pauses a little. If when all of the pauses are combined they measure “shehiyah” (the amount of time it would take to lift up the animal, cause it to lie down) his slaughter is not acceptable..
Seif 4 If one slaughters cattle with a knife that is not sharp and delays in the measure of “shehiyah” in his slaughter a little after [cutting] the first sign, it is not acceptable.
Seif 5 After one slaughters most of one [sign] in fowl, or most of two [signs] in cattle, there is no “shehiyah” that can make it [the slaughter] not acceptable. Accordingly there is not “shehiyah” with the windpipe in fowl. But there are those that say that in any place that one does not finish the slaughter of both signs it [the slaughter] is not acceptable on the grounds of “shehiyah”, and ab initio they should take heed and be concerned about this..
Seif 6 If one slaughters a fowl and pauses without knowing if he perforated the esophagus, he should return and slaughter the windpipe in another place and wait until it dies. He then turns the esophagus out and checks it [the cuts] against each other. If spots of blood are not found, it is known that there are no perforations and it [the slaughter] is acceptable. 

Siman 24

Seif 1 What do we mean by “striking”? If when one rests the knife on the neck and presses, cutting downward in the same way as one cuts a radish or a squash. This is not permitted. It goes without saying that if one struck with a knife on the neck in the manner that one strikes a sword and cuts the signs at one time the animal is not permitted.
Seif 2 When one slaughters by only bringing the knife forward and backwards (on the neck)  if it is with a knife that is the fullness of the neck and extends off the neck, the fullness of the neck, it is acceptable  if not it is not acceptable.Any [knife] that is not this measurement; it is impossible to slaughter without “dirasah” by going in a forward and backward motion alone. But if he goes forward and backward with a very sharp knife it is kosher. There are those that are stringent with cattle. The custom being that these circular motions are not acceptable in cattle even if forward and backward if it is not with a knife that extends the fullness of the neck and outside the neck.
Seif 3 If one slaughters two heads [of cattle] with one forward and backward motion, if it with a knife [the width of] three necks it is kosher. If not, there is a concern and both of them [the slaughtered animals] are not acceptable.
Seif 4 Two [people] are holding the knife and slaughter, one from above, the side of the head, and one from below, the side of the chest, holding it [the knife] diagonally, it is kosher and there is no concern of “dirasah”. (one struck the neck with a knife as one strikes with a sword)
Seif 5 If one slaughters and cuts the entire neck, it is acceptable.
Seif 6 When a person slaughters a fowl and holds the signs between two fingers, he needs to hold them well and if he does not hold them well sometimes they will loosen here and there and he won’t be able to cut it in a slicing fashion, rather he will do “dirasah”. And thus one should not rest ones fingers on the knife but rather grip it by the handle so that he won’t cause “dirasah”. Even if one does not do “dirasah” with anything other than the gullet, it [the slaughter] in not acceptable. The custom is that all “dirasah” is unfit whether it be a little in the beginning [of cutting] or at the end [of cutting], whether with the windpipe or gullet.
Seif 7 What is meant by “hiding”? When one inserts the knife between the signs [that is between the gullet and the windpipe], slaughtering the lower sign in a manner from above to below and returns to remove it [his knife] and slaughters the one [sign] above in a manner from below to above, it is not acceptable.
Seif 8 If one hides the knife under the hide or under tangled wool in the neck of cattle or under knotted cloth on the neck or cloth that is stuck with wax and slaughters, his slaughter in not acceptable. If however, the cloth is spread on the neck and he slaughters, his slaughter is kosher. There are those [that say] this is also not permitted. Ab initio, there is a concern in the matter. Accordingly one should take heed with sheep as they have tangled wool on their neck. One should tear or pluck the clinging wool so as not to do “chaladah”. (as if one inserted the knife between one sign and another.)
Seif 9 One who slaughters should take heed and have consideration for the hide so that he does not tear it significantly and slaughtering with the head of the knife so that it is covered by the hide. If one slaughters with the middle of the knife there is no concern about the head of the knife being covered by hide since the knife is in the place of proper slaughter [that is] opposing the signs and not covered. There are those that are strict with this and there is a concern in the matter ab initio.
Seif 10 If after one slaughtered most of the signs and the knife becomes hidden under the remaining minority [of the signs], or from one of them [the signs] and divided [cut] it, it [the slaughter] is permitted. There are those [that say] that this is also forbidden and it is clear that there is concern in the matter ab initio (before the fact). 
Seif 11 If the knife is hidden under a little bit of the first [sign] and he cuts from below to above and afterwards finishes the slaughter in proper manner; or similarly if he slaughters most of one sign in cattle and the knife is hidden under the remaining remnant and he then slaughters the second sign; or similarly if he slaughters a little of the first [sign] by “chaladah” and finishes the slaughter not by “chaladah” all of these [means of slaughter] are not acceptable.
Seif 12 What is meant by “lifting up/tipping”? One slaughters the windpipe above the place that is not permitted for proper slaughter. Or if one begins to slaughter in a place permitted for proper slaughter and slaughters a little and inclines the knife outside of the place fit for slaughter from above and finishes there. However, if he slaughters most of the windpipe in a place fit for slaughter and inclines the knife outside a place fit for slaughter from above and finishes their, cutting the entire windpipe it is kosher. This is the law if he slaughters most of the two [signs] in cattle in a place fit for slaughter and completes the slaughter by doing “hagramah” or “dirasah” it is kosher. There are those [that say] this is not acceptable if it is by “dirasah” and there is concern in these matters ab initio.
Seif 13 If one inclines the knife in the in first third and slaughters the next two thirds properly, it is kosher. If one slaughters the first third properly, inclines [while cutting] the second third and then returns and cuts the final third properly, it is kosher. If one inclines on the first third, slaughter the second third properly and then returns to incline on the final third, it is not acceptable. If he presses or hides in the first third or the middle third, it is not acceptable.
Seif 14 All of these sections [that which has just been discussed], when he is certain that he did not strike the gullet but rather only the windpipe [moving] upward. But even if you slaughter the gullet with the slightest cut outside the place permitted for slaughter, be it from the upper side or the lower side; or similarly with the windpipe from the side below before he finishes it in a kosher slaughter even if he finish [cutting] all of the remainder in a place permitted for kosher slaughter, it is not acceptable since even the smallest of these perforations count.
Seif 15 What is meant by “uprooting”? When the windpipe or the gullet is ripped from the jaw and from the flesh and one or both of them slips before slaughter has been completed. If one [sign] in a fowl is slaughtered or most and afterward the second slipped, his slaughter is kosher. If one [sign] slips and afterward he slaughters the second his slaughter is not acceptable.
 Seif 16 As to the issue of “Ikur” being unacceptable, [this is the case when] we have a complete uprooting, but if there is a remnant, even a little bit, it is kosher provided that the remnant is in its place, but if a little bit of the remnant is loose - a little here and a little there - it is not acceptable. The matter is clear that it was uprooted with force and what remains is just loosely attached. These rules apply when most is removed but if only a little is uprooted here and most is enacted, if most remains loosely - a little here and a little there - it is kosher.
Seif 17 If one slaughters one of the signs and the second was found to be displaced but it is not known [if it was displaced] before the slaughter or after the slaughter. This [slaughter] in not acceptable. 
Seif 18 If a sign [either the windpipe or gullet] of the slaughter was found dislodged: if when he slaughtered he took hold of the signs in his hand or the skin from behind the place of slaughter and the signs were squeezed under the skin, this is not acceptable. If not, it is permitted after examination. If he brings cattle and he slaughters the sign and afterward it was dislodged, if it is the same in two of the slaughters,  comparing one to the other it is kosher. If the second is bloodier, the first one is not acceptable. We no longer have experts to check this and the custom in all of these cases is to rule them as not acceptable.
Seif 19 If one slaughters a fowl in the proper way that is acceptable and he finishes the slaughter, a coin is found from the throat on the knife it is acceptable. 
Seif 20 When one slaughters a rooster one needs to take heed and squeeze his feet on the on the ground or lift him up so that his feet do not wedge in the ground in order that he does not dislodge the signs.

Siman 25

Seif 1 A slaughterer must check the signs (that make an animal fit) after slaughter to see is they was slaughtered completely/properly/a sizeable amount. Or if you see during the slaughter that they slaughtered completely, and if you don't see that it was done completely and it prohibited. There are those who say that one needs to see them slaughter on the proper spot of slaughter and not on the part where it is not fit to slaughter.
Seif 2 Those who do the checking with a feather to see if the slaughter was done complete/proper/ to a sizable amount, they are making an error. 
Seif 3 An animal that was slaughtered properly and then a wolf and took its intestines and returned them punctured, it is permissible, we take into consideration (maybe) there was a whole in it before it was punctured. (nonetheless it is permissible).


Siman 26

Seif 1 If there is a puncture in the esophagus during the slaughter and its the opposite  the spot of slaughter, its considered Torn (not acceptable).
Seif 2 While one is slaughtering the gullet/esophagus and one finds that the lungs are punctured before he was able to slaughter the gullet, or if while one is slaughtering the gullet/esophagus and one finds that intestines are punctured before he was able to slaughter the gullet, it is considered Torn (It's unacceptable).


Siman 27

Seif 1 If one cuts from an animal a piece of meat after it was slaughtered properly and it is still twitching it is forbidden to eat from it before it (the animal) dies.


Siman 28



Siman 29



Siman 30



Siman 31



Siman 32



Siman 33



Siman 34



Siman 35



Siman 36



Siman 37



Siman 38



Siman 39



Siman 40



Siman 41



Siman 42



Siman 43



Siman 44



Siman 45



Siman 46



Siman 47



Siman 48



Siman 49



Siman 50



Siman 51



Siman 52



Siman 53



Siman 54



Siman 55



Siman 56



Siman 57



Siman 58



Siman 59



Siman 60



Siman 61



Siman 62



Siman 63



Siman 64



Siman 65



Siman 66



Siman 67



Siman 68



Siman 69



Siman 70



Siman 71



Siman 72



Siman 73



Siman 74



Siman 75



Siman 76



Siman 77



Siman 78



Siman 79



Siman 80



Siman 81



Siman 82



Siman 83



Siman 84



Siman 85



Siman 86



Siman 87



Siman 88



Siman 89



Siman 90



Siman 91



Siman 92



Siman 93



Siman 94



Siman 95



Siman 96



Siman 97



Siman 98



Siman 99



Siman 100



Siman 101



Siman 102



Siman 103



Siman 104



Siman 105



Siman 106



Siman 107



Siman 108



Siman 109



Siman 110



Siman 111



Siman 112



Siman 113



Siman 114



Siman 115



Siman 116



Siman 117



Siman 118



Siman 119



Siman 120



Siman 121



Siman 122



Siman 123



Siman 124



Siman 125



Siman 126



Siman 127



Siman 128



Siman 129



Siman 130



Siman 131



Siman 132



Siman 133



Siman 134



Siman 135



Siman 136



Siman 137



Siman 138



Siman 139



Siman 140



Siman 141



Siman 142



Siman 143



Siman 144



Siman 145



Siman 146



Siman 147



Siman 148



Siman 149



Siman 150



Siman 151



Siman 152



Siman 153



Siman 154



Siman 155



Siman 156



Siman 157



Siman 158



Siman 159



Siman 160



Siman 161



Siman 162



Siman 163



Siman 164



Siman 165



Siman 166



Siman 167



Siman 168



Siman 169



Siman 170



Siman 171



Siman 172



Siman 173



Siman 174



Siman 175



Siman 176



Siman 177



Siman 178



Siman 179



Siman 180



Siman 181



Siman 182



Siman 183



Siman 184



Siman 185



Siman 186



Siman 187



Siman 188



Siman 189



Siman 190



Siman 191



Siman 192



Siman 193



Siman 194



Siman 195



Siman 196



Siman 197



Siman 198



Siman 199



Siman 200



Siman 201



Siman 202



Siman 203



Siman 204



Siman 205



Siman 206



Siman 207



Siman 208



Siman 209



Siman 210



Siman 211



Siman 212



Siman 213



Siman 214



Siman 215



Siman 216



Siman 217



Siman 218



Siman 219



Siman 220



Siman 221



Siman 222



Siman 223



Siman 224



Siman 225



Siman 226



Siman 227



Siman 228



Siman 229



Siman 230



Siman 231



Siman 232



Siman 233



Siman 234



Siman 235



Siman 236



Siman 237



Siman 238



Siman 239



Siman 240



Siman 241



Siman 242



Siman 243



Siman 244



Siman 245



Siman 246



Siman 247



Siman 248



Siman 249



Siman 250



Siman 251



Siman 252



Siman 253



Siman 254



Siman 255



Siman 256



Siman 257



Siman 258



Siman 259



Siman 260



Siman 261



Siman 262



Siman 263



Siman 264



Siman 265



Siman 266



Siman 267

It is a positive commandment for a master to circumcise his slaves, If the master fails to circumcise them then it is a mitzvah on the Beit Din to circumcise them. A slave boy born in a Jewish household or one purchased from an idolater, you are (still) required to circumcise. A slave not born in your home is circumcised the same day, even if you acquired him the day he was born, you circumcise him the same day. There are slaves who are purchased  that are circumcised on the eighth day as well as slaves born in your home that you circumcise the same day. What do we mean?Should one purchase a maidservant and purchase the rights to her fetus (separately), when she gives birth, the baby should be circumcised on the eighth day.Although the fetus itself was purchased alone, since he purchased the mother before the child was born, the child should be circumcised on his eighth day.If one acquires a maidservant or her offspring or one acquires (purchases) a maidservant with the intent of not immersing her for the sake of slavehood, even though her offspring is born in his home, the child should be circumcised on the day he was born,This is because the child is considered as if he alone had been purchased , and it is as if he purchased him this day.His mother is not among the maidservants of the Jewish people, so that the child could be considered home-born slave. And if she immerses after she gives birth,  the child should be circumcised on the eighth day. Although the fetus itself was purchased alone, since he purchased the mother before the child was born, the child should be circumcised on his eighth day. If one acquires a maidservant or her offspring or one acquires (purchases) a maidservant with the intent of not immersing her for the sake of slavehood, even though her offspring is born in his home, the child should be circumcised on the day he was born, This is because the child is considered as if he alone had been purchased , and it is as if he purchased him this day. His mother is not among the maidservants of the Jewish people, so that the child could be considered home-born slave. And if she immerses after she gives birth,  the child should be circumcised on the eighth day.
Just as the circumcision of sons supersedes the Shabbat, so too, the circumcision of those slaves who are circumcised on the eighth day supersede Shabbat, with the exception of one born in your home and or purchased whose mother did not immerse herself until after she gave birth. Although such a slave is circumcised on the eighth day, his circumcision does not supersede Shabbat.
A Slave that was purchased from an idolater, we tell him: Do you wishe to enter and join the slaves of Israel and become acceptable or not? If he agrees we inform him of the fundamentals of the faith, some of the minor commandments and some of the more severe ones and punishments and rewards, like we do with a convert. Then we immerse him like we do with a convert and inform him while he is in the water. [And the slave recites the blessing over the immersion, not the master.] 
When one purchases a slave from an idolater and the slave does not want to be circumcised, we are patient with him for a total of twelve months. Any more than this it is forbidden to hold on to an uncircumcised individual so one must then sell him to idolaters.
If one circumcised and immersed his slave against his will for the sake of becoming a slave,  his actions are of no consequence.
A slave which is a child or an imbecile we immerse him on the authority of the court.
When a slave is released we immerse before three witness, he does not need to accept upon himself the commandments nor do we inform him of the fundamentals of the faith, because he was already informed when we immersed him for slavery.
A slave that was circumcised that rebels and becomes haughty and one sells him to idolaters, and then returns to the Jew who sold him, he is considered like an apostate Jew and their is no need to immerse him only lash him.
If one acquires a slave from an idolater, we do not own him until we are able to immerse him in the name of slavehood. If for whatever reason we purchase him before and then immerse him (it will end up being) for the sake of attaining his freedom, he therefore will be a free man. For this reason we need impose any form of servitude on him while in the water, so that it will look like he is a slave, if not beforehand he will say, I am immersing  for sake of becoming a free man. However if an idolater sells himself to a Jew,  we purchase him immediately and not give him the chance to immerse for the sake of his freedom.
This is what we are saying, that the slave we took from the Idolater we don’t own him (his body), when he (the) idolater purchases him as a slave by means of the slave selling himself. However if he is purchased (by the Idolater) according to the local law, his body belongs to him (his master), and then if he is acquired by a Jew (it belongs to him), and he purchased him (his body) before (immersion) and then he immerses him it will be for his freedom and he would of bought himself a free man.
He who has a maidservant and has still not immersed her for slavehood, it is forbidden to do so afterwards (before the fact) without permission from her master.
When one circumcises a slave he blesses, Blessed are you Lord King of the universe who has sanctified us with his commandments and commanded us to circumcise slaves. And afterwards we bless:AKB”V to circumcise slaves and extract from them the blood of the covenant and so forth, blessed are you Lord who establishes the covenant.
One needs to cover his nakedness while saying the blessing.
There is no authority for Hebrew Slaves except in the era that the Jubilee was observed. This is said in the terms of purchase (like from a Beth Din) relating to all the rules governing Hebrew Slaves. However, in the situation when his (Hebrew Slaves) talent is sold under the secular law, such as he was detained in war or sold by tax authorities, then he may employ (The Hebrew Slave) for that talent only.  The  (Hebrew Slave) serves his Jewish Master for the amount paid or the value of acquiring him, and he (Hebrew Slave) is released. The hand of the Master is at a loss to accept the least.
People who do not act in as they should— it is permissible to subjugate them by force and be served by them.
If a king decrees that all who do not pay taxes be enslaved to the person who pays the head tax for him, a person who pays the head tax for someone may use that person for labor beyond the ordinary measure. He may not, however, use him as a slave. If, however, that person does not conduct himself properly, he may utilize him as a slave.
If one buys an Idolatrous slave from a Jew or from another Idolater, and as well as an idolater who sold himself to a Jew or sold himself his sons and daughters, they are as Canaanite slaves. However if he is acquired by an Idolater we don’t purchase his body however we could purchase him for his talent/work, unless he was bought according to local law or similiar, anytime that we do not immerse him for slavery, they have the status idolaters in all respects. And if we immerse one for slavery, hes a slave and obligated to the mitzvot that pertain to woman, and because its a slave it is permitted to give him oppressive labor. Although this is the law according to our standards of decency and the ways of our sages which expects a person to be merciful and not make his slave carry a heavy yoke nor cause him distress, He should also allow them to partake of all the food and drink he serves, Similarly, we should not embarrass a slave by our  words nor should one shout or vent anger upon them but rather speak with them pleasantly, and hear their complaints.
An Idolatrous king that makes a war and brings captives to be sold, so he let anyone who wants to go and capture (people) from a nation we’re at war with and bring (captives) to sell as slaves, or if his laws state that whoever does not pay his taxes - or does such and such or fails to do such and such - may be sold as a slave, the laws he ordains are binding, and these individuals are considered Canaanite slaves  with regard to all matters.
A woman can own female slaves but not male slaves, even male children out of suspicion.
A master may tell his slave: "Work for me, but I will not feed you," however slaves a wife acquired through inheritance one has an obligation to feed.
If one amputates the hand of his neighbors  canaanite slave, he must give his master 5 things and to the slave he rightfully sustains him, although the master gets paid for his damages, you can say to him (the slave):work for me and I’ll sustain you. Although you must allow him to recover if he estimates his recuperation will take 5 days, and if you make him a tonic for strength and he quickly recuperates in 3 days, then the master can take and profit in spite of his slaves anguish (bec of the tonic).
Everything a slave purchases belongs to his master, whether he finds it or it is give to him as a gift, whether given to him by his master or someone else, It all belongs to the master, (as does) the field and what it produces, even if someone says to him: (i'm giving you this) on the condition that your master has no right to it, it is (still) of no effect unless you say: I am giving you this on the condition  that you go out with it to freedom.
A canaanite slave, whether you bought him while he was an idolater or whether you bought him after his master immersed him, is acquired by money or a document or under an accepted presumption, whether he bought him from an idolater whether he bought him from a Jew. It becomes an established presumption when he uses him, such as having the servant untie his shoe, put on his shoe, or having him carry his clothes to the bathhouse or dress him or undress him, washes him, anoints or scrubs him.
If the slave lifts  the master like a utilized commodity, the slave is acquired. If the master lifts the slave, the slave is not acquired.
If one acquires a slave through an exchange. he’s acquired through pulling, or forcibly pulling the slave to himself. However if one called the slave and then he came he is not acquired unless he was a child.
A slave acquires his freedom with either money, or from losing the tips of his limbs or with by securing a bill of ownership. How is it done by money? For example when someone else gave the slave’s master money and tell him: This amount is yours for the sake of giving your slave his freedom, Once his master receives the money or merchandise worth money, the slave is granted his freedom, this all could be done without the knowledge of the slave. Similarly, the slave can be freed if a person gives the slave money, specifying that it is given to him "with the intent that he use it to obtain his freedom." If the Master wishes to accept the money the slave acquires his freedom if not the slave does not (even) keep the money.
How does a slave acquire his freedom by the loss of one of his limbs? A slave that is circumcised and immersed for the sake of slavehood, if he was blinded by his master, or if he knocked out his tooth or is made to loose the tip of a finger or toes or nose or penis or nipples of a woman, he (or she) is granted his (or her) freedom and receives a bill of release. However if his tongue is cut off he is not set free.
If the slave was castrated completely, he is set free. However if his genitals are slightly cut but still intact he does not gain his freedom.
If there is a slave with an extra finger gets it cut off by his master, if the finger stands in the order of the other fingers he is set free.
If the master pulls out the slaves beard and by doing so dislocates his jaw bone he is granted his freedom.
If the master struck his hand and it became swollen, he doesn't receive his freedom.
If the master knocks out the tooth of child that will grow back the child (slave) does not receive his freedom.
If his eye was not functioning well and then it was struck and he was blinded, if at the beginning he was able to use it (atleast) some, he goes free. However  if  the master cut it out, even if he wasn't able to use it at all the slave goes free because the master caused him to lose an organ. The same law applies with regard to any other of the tips of the organs that are not functional and cannot be used for labor, if they are cut the slave is released because of losing an organ/limb.
If the master struck his eye and the slaves vision was impaired or struck him on his tooth and it becomes loose, if he is able to use them (where he was struck) he does not go free if not he does go free. 
If the master struck the eye and blinded the slave, or his ear and made him deaf, the slave is freed. However if he struck his eye or ear against a wall and in turn becomes mentally disturbed to the point that he can't see or cannot hear he doesn't go free.
In all these cases the slave doesn't go free for actions done unintentionally by the owner. Thus if the master intended to hit an animal with a rock but instead hit the slave and cut a finger or knocked out a tooth the slave does not go free. And If the master inserted his hand into the womb of his maid-servant and blinded the eye of the fetus within, he is not granted his freedom, for he was not aware of the entity thus he could intend to strike it. However if the Master is the slaves doctor and the slave told him: "Treat my eye for me," and he ends up blinded it, the slave goes free because his intention/attention was on the Limb/Organ.
One who is half slave and half free, or a slave which is owned by two masters he does not receive his freedom by losing the tips of his limbs, because the Pasuk says that one’s slave belongs uniquely to himself.
A slave that is considered a heritage asset is not released because of the loss of the tips of their limbs or organs if the husband was the cause but not if the wife caused it.  And if its usufruct property he doesn't go free because he neither belongs to the husband or wife.
If one knocks out the tooth of his slave and blinds his eye, he goes free and does not have to pay damages for his eye. If he seizes the money owed to him we don't remove it from his hand. And if he (his master) writes him a bill of release in the middle of  knocking his tooth and blinded his eye, he is obligated to pay damages for his eye.
The releasing of slaves because of lost limbs, even though it is a fine, our custom today is that if witnesses come regarding the thing tell him that he can’t use him.And there are some who write that we excommunicate him until he writes him a document of release.
How does a slave achieve his freedom through the transfer of a legal document? The master must write to him on a paper or on a shard: "Behold, you are a free man," "Behold, you are your own property," "I no longer have anything to do with you," And handed over to him or to another for him, Even without the knowledge of the slave because it is benefit to him to be freed from under the master's hand to freedom, however if he protests when he receives it he does not go free.
If others informed him with those expressions (verbally)  “ it is of no consequence”.
For his female slave if he writes: Behold you are permitted to anyone, it is of no consequence.
If he is given the document in the presence witnesses. or, if witnesses have signed on the bill of release and he gives the slave the bill of release in private, he attains his freedom. There are those who say that it needs to be given to him in the presence witnesses. And if we see it signed, there is no need for us to receive testimony ascribing that it was legally delivered.
There are six things in where a bill of release given to a slave is equivalent to a bill of divorce. With regard to other matters, a bill of release is equivalent to other legal documents. These are the six: 1) they are not acceptable if prepared by the courts of idolaters; 2) they are acceptable if one witness is a cuthean, 3) they must be written for the sake of the slave who is being freed; 4) they may not be written on an article that is attached to the ground; 5) the witnesses may sign only in the presence of each other; and 6) the same laws apply to a bill of divorce and a bill of release with regard to bringing these legal documents from one place to another.
What is implied? All legal documents that are composed by idolaters are acceptable provided they conform to all the conditions stated in Hilchot Halva'ah with the exception of bills of divorce for women and bills of release for slaves.
Any legal document that is signed by even one witness who is a cuthean is not acceptable, with the exception of bills of divorce for women and bills of release for slaves, provided the Cuthean is known to be precise in his observance. In the present age, when the Cutheans are considered as gentiles with regard to all matters, we apply the laws stated with regard to them to the Sadducees. For the Sadducees in the present era are considered like the Cutheans of the previous era, before it was decreed that they would be considered like gentiles.
With regard to a woman's bill of divorce, Deuteronomy 24:1 states: "And he shall write to her, “for her sake” and a document free a female (canaanite) slave reads “Nor was freedom given to her," Leviticus 19:2 teaching that the bill of release must be written for her sake.
With regard to a woman's bill of divorce, Deuteronomy 24:1 states: "And he shall write to her, he who does not (the bill should be written) on a substance that is lacking only to be given. This excludes a bill of divorce that is written while the article on which it is written is attached and afterwards detached. For it is lacking both being detached and being given. Similarly, with regard to a bill of release, it is written: "given to her," (Lev 19:2) teaching that the bill of release should be lacking only being given.
Witnesses may not sign bills of divorce for women and bills of release for slaves outside each other's presence. 
What is meant by the statement that the same laws apply to bills of divorce and bills of release with regard to bringing these legal documents from one place to another? When an agent brings a bill of release from one place to another in the land of Israel, he does not have to testify that it was written and signed in his presence. And in the diaspora, if there are no witnesses present to verify the authenticity of the bill of release, and the agent states that it was written and signed in his presence, its authenticity is considered as verified. Afterwards, if the master comes and protests, no attention is paid to him, as we have explained with regard to a bill of divorce.
Just as when a woman brings a bill of divorce, she does not have to have the authenticity of the document verified, because the bill of divorce is in her possession so when a servant's bill of release is in his possession, he does not have to have the authenticity of the document verified.
Just as the woman must say: "It was written and signed in my presence," when it was stipulated that she do so, as we have explained in that context, the same applies for a servant/slave.
Everyone who is acceptable to bring a bill of divorce to a woman (as the husband's agent) is also acceptable to bring a bill of release for a slave (as the agent of the master.)
A slave may receive a bill of release for another slave from that slave's master, but not from his own master.
If one transfers a bill of release for a servant with the intention that he be released in a court, we  do not differentiate if it says: Yourself and the assets you purchased, we  do not differentiate if it says: all my property is acquired by you, he acquired his own person by saying: Before me it was written and signed; However he does not acquire it until the authenticity of the document is verified.
If someone writes over all his assets to his slave, the slave acquires his freedom, for he is included in assets and acquires himself  in all those assets. However if is left over small assets, whether its attached to the ground or his personal belongings, whether he specifies a portion or not, whether he has other assets of those leftover whether they werent other assets, even if he writes to him : yourself and all my assets should be acquired to you besides one object, he does not go out free and does not acquire the assets.
Regarding a document for erusin of a maidservant, although it states: go out to freedom and go be betrothed, these are not the words of release, (thus) she is not betrothed nor released.
One who liberated two slaves with one document,  they do not acquire their freedom. Therefore if a person writes a single legal document transferring all his property to two slaves, they do not acquire their freedom. If the master wrote two documents, one for each slave, they acquire their freedom. When does the above apply? When the master wrote in each legal document: "All my property is given to so and so and so and so, my slaves. If, however, he writes: "Half of my property is given to so and so, my slave, and the other half is given to so and so, my slave," even if the owner wrote two documents, the slaves do not acquire anything.
If one free his slave halfway with a bill of release, the slave does not acquire half of his person, and he is a slave just as he was before. However if he releases half of a slave, because of a monetary payment - e.g., he took money for half his worth with the intent of freeing that half - he acquires (half his freedom). Thus, he is half slave and half free man. When does the above apply? When the master released half of the slave (with a bill of release) and retained half. If, however, he sold half the slave and gave away the other half after, whether the liberation was through the selling or as a gift likewise whether the sale preceded it or after the release the slave acquires half of his person, and acquires or accepts the other. Similarly, when a slave is owned by two partners, and one frees his half - whether through money or through a legal document - the slave acquires his half, and he is half slave and half free man.
When a master writes a bill of release for his maidservant who is pregnant, stating "You are free, but your child-to-be remains a slave," his words are binding. If, however, it states: "You remain a maid-servant, but your child- to-be is free," it is of no consequence.
A person who is a half slave and half free is not permitted to marry a maid-servant or a free woman. Therefore, we compel his master to write a bill for the other halfs value. And if he still doesn't write him a bill of (full) release, his talents (work of his hands) belong to himself, and if his bull kills he doesn't have to pay a fine or the kofer. When does the above apply? For a male slave. For a male is commanded to be fruitful and multiply. A maid-servant, however, should remain in her immediate state and serve her herself one day, and the master the next. If a man strikes her on the hand and it withered, but it will eventually return and heal, if he struck her on a day she was serving her master he is liable for the damages if on another day she is liable, however if he severs the hand, as well as all any body part that does not return or heal itself, the portion of the damage is split between her and her master. If the she dies we give half of the fine to the master and exempt him half of the kofer.
A slave owned by two masters. One set him free as to his half. We thus compel the second one to also free his share. However if he thought to himself: If the Rabbis hear of it, they will compel me to set him free. So he transferred him to his minor son, For no beit din can force his son to release the slave, however the court can appoint a guardian for the minor who will entice the child with coins and then the guardian will write a bill of emancipation in the child's name. And certainly like this intentionally take away the enactment of the sages, however if the father dies and minor son inherits his half, we do not appoint a guardian to the minor in order to free the slave, (what do we do) The slave will remain only half free and thus work for himself one day and one day for the minor until he (the minor) grows up (and the court could then compel him.) ...
If someone declare his slave ownerless, the slave is granted his freedom. A bill of release is composed for him. If the master who declared him ownerless dies, his heir should compose the bill of release.
A convert who dies without heirs, and they were older slaves, they acquire themselves and are free, however regarding children they cannot acquire themselves and thus are not freed.
A slave who is captured and then escapes, If his master despaired of regaining ownership of him, he is granted his freedom and we compel his master to write him a document of release.
A slave that is captured and his first master despaired of regaining ownership of him, anyone who redeems him with the intent that he remain a slave may subjugate him, and he becomes his property. If he redeemed him with the intent that he become free, he is granted his freedom. If the slave's first owner did not despair of regaining ownership, one who redeems the slave with the intent that he remain a slave should take back the money he spent to redeem him from his owner, and the slave is returned to his original owner. If he redeemed him with the intent of freeing him, he is returned to his original owner without any owing anything.
If a master makes a slave as collateral  for his creditor and then frees the slave, the slave is freed, because he was expropriated from slavery he is free, and thus the value must be paid to his debtors, and we compel his debtors to write him a document of freedom.
When Israelite has relations with a female slave, even though she is his slave her offspring is also (his) slave. Some say that if he has relations with his maid servant or a prostitute, the child is born free, for all who say this (Rav Nitrona Gaon and other poskim). there are (also) those who say that the rest of the things are similar to a male slave's freedom (however) it's not allowed for a free maidservant until she's receives a document of freedom.
If a master marries his slave to a free woman, places tefillin on his head, or tells his slave to read three pesukim from a sefer torah in front of others, regarding matters that only a freed person is obligated to he becomes a free man. (if his master refuses) We compel him to compose a bill of release for him. If, however, a person borrows money from his slave, makes him a guardian, if the slave puts on tefillin before his master, or reads three verses in the synagogue in his master's presence, and his master does not protest against him, he does not obtain his freedom.
It is forbidden for a master to teach his slave Torah. If he teaches him, he is not granted his freedom
There are those who say that if a slave takes a vow that obligates him on something,  such as he vowed not to eat meat or the like, and his master says: "The vow is annulled." (in other words) because he did not compel him in a situation (in which he should have compelled him,) he was showing that he was releasing him.
One who frees his slave speaking in any language and uttered words which state that his intentions are that he no longer has any authority over him, and he has resolved to accept this step, he cannot retract and we compel him to write a bill of release even though he has not written one already..
When a person writes a document that states: I’ll make my slave free, and he gives it to him he does not receive his freedom but if he writes I have made or he may go free or behold he is free or he will be free and then the document is given to him he goes free. However if he says this to him in one of these other languages he does not go free and in a case where the master is deathly ill person if he says it to him in one of these languages, he goes free and will need a document of release to be permitted to marry a free woman and we compel the heirs to write it. Even though he is healthy, if they told him through a confession he goes free and needs a bill of release and we compel his master to write one.
When one says: that he released his slave and the slave says has not been released, we suspect that the master had another person acquire the bill of release on behalf of the slave. If the he said: "I composed a deed of release and gave it to him," and the slave says: "You didn't write it nor did you give it," the admission of a litigant is equivalent to that of a 100 witnesses, and thus he remains a slave.
If he says afterwards take possession of this bill of release to free my slave, the slave goes free although he doesn't come near to the slave however if he says give this bill of release to my slave, he cannot change his mind, and the slave will not be free till the document reaches his hand. Therefore he who says: Give this document to my slave (and the master dies) the document is not given after his death.
When a master commands at the time of his death: "My heirs should not subjugate so and so, my maid-servant," she is still considered a maid-servant as before, but it is forbidden for his heirs to subjugate her. And if he says: "cause her to be content," we compel the heirs not to make her perform any tasks other than the ones that she desires to perform. If he commanded them to free her, we compel them to free her.
A deathly ill person who wrote that all his possessions be given to his slave, and then recovers from his illness, the statement regarding the possession is retracted. If this happened regarding giving the slave his freedom it is not retracted, for he has already gained the reputation of being a free man.
One who releases his slave transgresses a positive commandment (Lev 15:26) “forever you will make them work for you." it is permitted to free a slave for the sake of a Mitzvah, even a rabbinic one, for example if one was short a man in the synagogue for a making a minyan, if one only had 9 one should free his slave to make 10, and so forth. As well as a maid servant if it is customary for her to behave inappropriately with others we compel her master to free her, in order that the barrier be removed.
If one sells his slave to an idolater or  Ger toshav he goes free, and if he escaped from a gentile, the master could not enslave him again. If he didn't escape We compel the previous owner to buy him back from the gentiles at even ten times his value. He then composes a bill of release for him, and the slave is released from slavery. This fine is only collected and brought to judgment in a court of expert judges.If the seller dies, we do not require his heir to return the slave so that he can free him.
A slave who has been circumcised and immersed himself to become a slave, but afterwards he is captured by gentiles and his master cannot get him back and they refuse to sell him back it is permitted to take money and one can write a bill of sale for them.
If one sells his slave outside of the land of Israel, Syria or Acco he goes free, we compel his new master to write him a bill of release and he forfeits the sale at a loss. Even if he says: I won't take him out of the land, I will enslave him in the land of Israel we do not listen to him.
When a slave follows his master to Syria, and his master sells him there, the slave is considered to have forfeited his privilege. When does the above apply? When his master took him to the diaspora with the intent not to return to Eretz Yisrael. If, however, his master's intent was to return, and the slave followed him with that intent, should the master sell him there, he is granted his freedom, and we compel the purchaser to release him.
When a slave asks his master to move to Eretz Yisrael, we compel his master to move there with him or to sell him to someone who is moving there. When a master living in Eretz Yisrael desires to move to the diaspora, he cannot compel the slave to move with him against his will. This law applies in all times, even in the present era, when the land is ruled by gentiles.
When a slave flees from the diaspora to Eretz Yisrael, he should not be returned to slavery. Concerning such a person, it states: "Do not return a slave to his master." His master is told to compose a bill of release for him, and he writes a promissory note for his master for his worth, which the master holds until the freed slave earns that money and gives it to him. If the master does not desire to free him, the court invalidates his ownership of him, and the slave is free to go on his way.

Siman 268



Siman 269



Siman 270



Siman 271



Siman 272



Siman 273



Siman 274



Siman 275



Siman 276



Siman 277



Siman 278



Siman 279



Siman 280



Siman 281



Siman 282



Siman 283



Siman 284



Siman 285



Siman 286



Siman 287



Siman 288



Siman 289



Siman 290



Siman 291



Siman 292



Siman 293



Siman 294





























An Idolater that sells fruit and says it is Orlah or a four year sapling we don’t believe him even if he says I took it from so and so.