diff --git "a/txt/Mishnah/Rishonim on Mishnah/Bartenura/Seder Kodashim/Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin/English/merged.txt" "b/txt/Mishnah/Rishonim on Mishnah/Bartenura/Seder Kodashim/Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin/English/merged.txt"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/txt/Mishnah/Rishonim on Mishnah/Bartenura/Seder Kodashim/Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin/English/merged.txt"
@@ -0,0 +1,790 @@
+Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
+ברטנורא על משנה חולין
+merged
+https://www.sefaria.org/Bartenura_on_Mishnah_Chullin
+This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
+-Bartenura on Mishnah, trans. by Rabbi Robert Alpert, 2020
+-http://sefaria.org/
+-Sefaria Community Translation
+-https://www.sefaria.org
+
+Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin
+
+
+
+Chapter 1
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+הכל שוחטין – There is a refutation in the Gemara [that the words] הכל שוחטין –”everyone may [perform the act of ritual] slaughter [of animals]” [refer to the case] ab initio [and the words] ושחיטתן –”their slaughtering” [refers to a case] de facto, since from the beginning [of the Mishnah] [these words] imply that what we include from [the words]הכל שוחטין –”everyone may [perform the act of ritual] slaughter [of animals]” ab initio and from the conclusion [of the Mishnaic phrase] implies that when we include from [the word] הכל–”everyone” post facto, we [in fact] extend it, but ab initio, we do not extend [what is included in] it; and that we cannot say that our Mishnah withholds something ab initio and that one thing [only] is taught. And since [the Mishnah] teaches הכל שוחטין–everyone may [perform the act of ritual] slaughter [of animals], it is obvious that is fit [i.e. kosher] and that the upshot is [that] our Mishnah is explained as such in the Gemara. [The words] שוחטין–” [imply that] everyone may [perform the act of ritual] slaughter [of animals]” [means] that everyone who are specialists who know the laws of ritual slaughter [of animals] [may perform the act of] slaughter[ing] animals [ritually] even though they are not [necessarily] presumed for it, for they have not slaughtered [ritually] in the presence of us [i.e. the judges] three times to see if they have the [inner] fortitude not to be overcome (i.e., his hand not trembling – see Hullin 3b] while slaughtering and cause a pausing in the act of slaughtering [which would nullify their act ritually]. What case are we referring to? That they are considered specialists at the time that those who deliver to him [an animal] to ritually slaughter know and recognize in him that he knows the laws of ritual slaughter, but if they do not know concerning him if he [indeed] knows the laws of ritual slaughter, he should not [perform] a ritual slaughter, and if he did slaughter [an animal ritually], we examine him, and if he knows the laws of ritual slaughter, his [act of] slaughter[ing] is [considered] kosher–fit.
+חוץ מחרש שוטה וקטן – For even post facto, and [even if] they (i.e., the deaf-mute, imbecile and minor] know the laws of ritual slaughter, it is forbidden to eat from their slaughtering, since they are always presumed to ruin it since they lack [mature] awareness.
+וכולן ששחטו – Since it [our Mishnah] does not teach [the words] “ואם שחטו–and if they slaughtered” but rather [taught the words] “וכולן ששחטו–and everyone who slaughtered” implies that it [the words] do not [refer to] the deaf-mute, imbecile and minor alone, but even regarding those who they [i.e. the judges] do not know if [the individual] knows the laws of ritual slaughter since the first part of the Mishnah refers to [the fact] that they examine him or bring him before them to examine him and he slaughters and others seem him and bring him before them to examine him, his slaughtering is [considered] kosher–fit but the law does not follow this Mishnah but rather, even though others do not see him and bring him [i.e. the slaughterer] before them to examine him, his slaughtering is [considered] kosher–fit, since most [people who are engaged] in ritual slaughter are specialists and even ab initio, may slaughter, even if though others do not see him [perform this act].
+שחיטת עובד כוכבים – even [if the act of a ritual slaughter performed by an idolater] if it is done according to Jewish law with a Jew standing over him, it [his act of slaughtering] is considered to be like that of a carrion (an animal who died naturally) but it is not prohibited to derive benefit from [his act of slaughtering] since specifically the act of slaughtering of a person who holds fast to his idolatrous beliefs, [a Jew] is prohibited to derive benefit [from his acts], but not regarding the thinking of a heretic regarding idolatrous practices, but the idolater spoken of here is from those actions follow the behavior of his ancestors.
+ומטמאה במשא – As it is written (Leviticus 11:40): “[anyone who eats of its carcass shall wash his clothes and remain clean until evening;] and anyone who carries his carcass shall wash his clothes and remain clean until evening.” And even though he had not touched it. For the Mishnah did not have to teach this, for since it is something that died of itself (i.e., “neveilah”), it is known that an animal that died of itself defiles [an individual] by carrying it (i.e., a dead carcass), but it (the Mishnah) comes to inform you, that this defiles only via carrying alone, and there are others which defile even through content in the tent (where it is found). And which is this? An offering to an idol (Avodah Zarah 32b).
+השוחט בלילה וכן הסומא – The Mishnah teaches that an individual who slaughters [an animal] at night is compared to a blind individual. Just as a blind person in a dark place [should not engage in ritual slaughter], so too an individual who engages in ritual slaughtering at night in a dark place, and in this matter it [our Mishnah] teaches [through the use of the word] "השוחט"–he who performs ritual slaughter – post facto, yes, but not ab initio., but when there is a torch before him, even ab initio, he may perform acts of ritual slaughter at night.
+השוחט בשבת – Even though that if he acted (by performing an act of ritual slaughter on Shabbat) willfully, he would make himself liable [to the death penalty], his [act of] ritual slaughter is [considered] fit; but however, it would be forbidden to consume it on that day, and for this reason, it [the Mishnah] teaches “[he who ritually slaughters] on the Sabbath and on the Day of Atonement” in order to make an analogy between the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement. Just as it forbidden to eat [it] on Yom Kippur the entire day because [of the requirement] of “afflicting [of one’s soul],” so too on the Sabbath it is forbidden in eating it the entire day. But on Saturday night (i.e., the aftermath of the Sabbath), it is permitted [to be consumed] whether by him or by others. And a person who performs an act of ritual slaughtering on Shabbat for an infirm individual has acted in a permissible manner, and it is permitted for a healthy individual to eat from that [what had been slaughtered] raw meat, but not cooked, lest he increase it for him.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+מגל יד – It has two edges (the מגל יד is an implement combining knife and saw) – one smooth like a knife and the other which has notches; and on the side which is smooth, one should not ab initio engage in ritual slaughter [with it] as a preventative measure lest one perform a ritual slaughter with the side that is defective. And therefore, the Tanna taught [the word] "השוחט"–”he who performs a ritual slaughtering” and it implies, that de facto, one may slaughter [with this utensil] but not ab initio. And we learn from this that a defective knife, which contains enough to ritually slaughter with from the defect and beyond, it is prohibited to perform ritual slaughtering with it ab initio, other than if one wraps the defective part in a garment or in bulrushes–reed-grass so that now it would not be possible to decree that perhaps he might come to slaughter in the place of defect.
+בצור ובקנה – Our Mishnah is speaking about a flint and–or a reed which are detached and later they were attached and one performed a ritual slaughter with them when they were attached, and de facto, one may use [it–them] but ab initio, one may not [use it–them], but if it was initially attached, even de facto it is prohibited. And that which is completely detached, even ab initio, is permitted [for use].
+צור – A sharp rock. And it is a Biblical expression [being used here] (Exodus 4:25): “[So Zipporah] took a flint and cut off [her son’s foreskin…].”
+הכל שוחטין – To include a non-observant–non-conformist Jew in one area of transgression, or even for many transgressions – in that it is permitted to eat of his ritual slaughtering. And [as long as] that individual is not an apostate for idolatry or someone who violates the Sabbath in public. And a worthy (observant) Jew checks the knife and gives it to him, since he (the potential ritual-slaughterer) is considered as one who has not bothered to check [the knife] and afterwards performs the act of ritual slaughtering just for himself, and the [observant] Jew returns and checks his knife after the ritual slaughter, and if it [the knife] is fine, his ritual slaughter is considered valid. But those Sadducees whom we call Karaites who do not believe in the Oral Torah, their ritual slaughter is [considered] invalid, unless there was a Jew who would stand and watch the slaughtering from the beginning until the end.
+ולעולם שוחטין – Whether during the daytime or whether at night by the light of a torch, whether on the top of a roof, and we don’t worry lest people say that he [the ritual slaughterer] went up to the hosts of heaven to [perform] ritual slaughtering. And similarly, one can perform ritual slaughtering at the top of a ship, the matter is proven that he needs to chisel his ship and that he is not slaughtering for the Chief of the Sea.
+ובכל שוחטין – Whether [one uses] glass or uses the skin-like, scaly envelope of reed, which is tall grass in the lake which cuts like a knife. But the reed itself, one should not perform ritual slaughtering with it ab initio, on account of fibers that separate from it and perforate the organs and one might have [accidentally] passed the knife under cover (which invalidates a ritual slaughtering).
+מגל קציר – which is used to cut grain, as its notches bend slanting in one direction.
+מגירה – a knife filled with notches and each notch has projecting points in each direction which are knives having notches–indentations (see Hullin 17b – which catch the passing nail of the examiner).
+שינים – (teeth) which are inserted into the jawbone of the animal. And especially when there are two or more (teeth).
+והצפורן – Which is attached [to the finger].
+שהן חונקין – As they do not cut, but rather tear on account of the indentations [therein]. And these (a saw) produce anguish as if by choking (instead of cutting); this refers to the others, but not to the nail, and the reason concerning the nail is that it is attached.
+מגל קציר – It heads are very bent and its [cutting] process does not tear.
+בית שמאי אומרים נבילה – And it defiles by carrying, by which [the School of Shammai] decreed that walking it leads to bring it. And the School of Hillel does not make this decree, as the defilement does not increase as a result of this decree. But, they admit that it is eating it is prohibited, lest by walking with it, one will bring it (and it leads to someone consuming it).
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+השוחט מתוך הטבעת – In the large ring [of the trachea] which is above all of them, is [what the Mishnah] is speaking of.
+ושייר בה מלא החוט של פני כולה – on the side of the head, for he did not incline the knife to exit from the ring to the side of the head until he completed [cutting] the entire ring, it is considered valid.
+מלוא החוט – that is to say, a bit, but if it was before he completed the entire [ring], he slanted the knife to the side of the head and completed the ritual slaughter above from the ring which was not the place of the ritual slaughter, which is הגרמה (cutting the animal’s throat in a slanting direction – letting the knife slide beyond the space ritually designed for cutting), even though most of the windpipe was cut at the place of the ritual slaughter, the Rabbis invalidated it, since it concluded with a disqualification.
+רבי יוסי בר' יהודה אומר מלוא החוט על פני רובה – If he left in it as much as the breadth of a thread of the hair from the ring [of the trachea] at the side of the head over the majority of the ring, that is to say, he cut most of the windpipe within the ring, but the minority of it was cut in a slanted direction and it left its [body] at the side of its head, and he completed the slaughter above it, it is considered valid, as he slaughtered most it in a valid manner, but the other part, he slaughters by cutting mere skin. And the legal decision is that a person who slaughters above the large ring, where the thyroid cartilage (Adam’s apple) begins to protrude and above it is considered invalid, whereas from the thyroid cartilage and below is considered valid. And that means that he left glands, that he slaughtered these two glands of the flesh that are above the large ring but below the thyroid cartilage, and he left a bit of them at the side of the head.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+השוחט מן הצדדים – at the side of the [front-of-the] neck–throat
+שחיטתו כשרה – and even also ab initio, and since it is required to teach [in the Mishnah] "המולק מן הצדדים"–”He who pinches the bird’s neck with the fingernail from the side”, it also teaches, "השוחט" –”he who ritually slaughters” – post facto.
+המולק מן הצדדים מליקתו פסולה – that concerning the pinching of the bird’s head, it is written (Leviticus 5:8): “[He shall bring them to the priest, who shall offer first the one for the sin-offering,] pinching its head at the nape [without severing it],” that is from its back.
+השוחט מן העורף שחיטתו פסולה – And these words [indicate] that he (the ritual slaughter) did not restore the organs (i.e. the windpipe and the gullet) at the back of the neck but rather cut the nape [up to a point] where he reached to the organs (the windpipe and esophagus), for prior to his arriving at the organs, it [an animal] has been made organically defective [ritually for use] with the breaking of the neck, and even though that with the pinching of a bird’s neck, it is fit for use, there, it is such that all of it, from the beginning to the end is from the pinching of the bird’s neck [only – and not from any other ritual act of slaughtering] and it is like a ritual slaughterer who perforates the gullet little by little until he completes his act of ritual slaughter. But if one slaughtered from the back of the neck, since that [act of] slaughtering is not perfect, one cannot have the breaking of the neck from the slaughter, and it is ritually unfit–defective [literally, considered “torn”]. But, one who performs ritual slaughter from the sides, as is taught at the beginning of the Mishnah, even without restoring the organs, has performed the ritual slaughtering well prior to severing the neck.
+המולק מן העורף – not really the neck, that is what there is from the slanting of the head from the back [of the neck] with the face, for it is written (Leviticus 5:8): “at the nape” (see above), but rather, opposite one who sees the neck, that is, behind the neck, he pinched the bird with a finger-nail and cut the flesh and the neck until he reached the organs (i.e. windpipe and esophagus).
+מליקתו כשרה – As this is, ab initio, the commandment of pinching of the bird’s neck. And since the Mishnah teaches "השוחט מן העורף פסולה" –whomever performs the act of ritual slaughter from the back of the neck is invalid, and even post facto, it [the Mishnah] also teaches [concerning] one who pinches [the bird’s neck] post facto.
+השוחט מן הצואר – under the throat is called the neck, and that is the method of most ritual slaughtering.
+שכל העורף – all of the edge which sees the back of the neck (but not the back of the neck itself).
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+כשר בתורין פסול בבני יונה – that turtle-doves imply large but not small. Pigeons [refers to] small ones f brightening plumage (but not large ones. That we don’t dislocate the Biblical verse [from its natural flow] and write: “from the small turtle doves and from the doves, and since it is written [In the Bible] in all cases, “turtle doves and pigeons” we learn from this, it is to be an indispensable condition–absolute necessity.
+תחילת הציהוב – when it (speaking of either and–or both the turtle dove and the pigeon) is in the incipient stage of brightening plumage around its neck, both of them are invalid. The pigeons are invalid because of their large size and the turtle-dove because of its small size, since they have left the general category of being small, but to the category of “large,” they have not come. However, regarding, the smallest pigeons, when a wing is detached from them and bleeding does not occur, are invalid due to their tiny size.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+כשר בפרה פסול בעגלה – The Red Heifer (literally “Red Cow” – see Numbers chapter 19) and the heifer whose neck was broken are both performed outside, but what is appropriate–valid in terms of the ritual slaughter of a red heifer is invalid for the one [heifer] whose neck is to be broken. Regarding the heifer whose neck is to be broken, at its neck [when the ceremony takes place] is valid, but if ritually slaughtered is invalid. It is found that what is valid for the cow (i.e., Red Heifer) is invalid for the heifer [whose neck is to be broken] and what is valid for the heifer [whose neck is to be broken] is invalid for the cow [i.e. Red Heifer].
+כשר בכהנים פסול בלוים – Priests who have blemishes are unfit [for the altar, for priestly service], but in [matters of] age, they are fit (compared to Levites; Kohanim–Priests can begin to serve as soon as they reach the age of majority- Bar Mitzvah – and their service continues for the rest of their lives; Levites, on the other hand only serve from ages thirty through fifty and must be able to sing). Levites, [on the other hand] are considered fit to serve if they have blemishes, but in [matters of] years are unfit [for service], as it is written (Numbers chapter 8, verse 25): “But at the age of fifty they shall retire from the work force [and shall serve no more].” But in Shiloh and in the temple where there was no carrying [of the ark] by [one’s] shoulder, the years do not disqualify the Levites, but only the [matter of the] voice alone. It was found, whether one is speaking about the wilderness or Shiloh, what is valid for Priests is invalid for Levites and what is valid for Levites is invalid for Priests.
+טהור בכלי טמא בכל הכלים – The hollow–air [i.e. empty space] of an earthenware vessel is impure, if the defilement approached its hollow but did not touch it (the earthenware vessel), the earthenware vessel is defiled (see Mishnah Kelim, Chapter 2, Mishnah 1 for further details), as is written concerning it (Leviticus chapter 11 verse 33): “And if any of these falls into [an earthen vessel, everything inside it shall be pure and -the vessel- itself you shall break].” But if [it fell] on its back, it is ritually pure, and even if the defilement touched its back, it was not defiled through this. The hollow–air of all utensils is pure, as long as the defilement did not touch them, even if it was suspended in its air-space. But if its backs are impure, if the filament touched its backs, they have become impure. It is found [therefore], that [whatever is] pure in an earthenware vessel, becomes impure in all of the utensils [when it is touched by something impure], but that which is pure in all [other] vessels, is impure in an earthenware vessel.
+טהור בכלי עץ טמא בכלי מתכות – Unfinished wooden implements, which are [defined as] utensils which are not completely formed, but their engraving has been completed and are worthy for use are impure. But flat wooden implements are pure even if they are completely formed, as [Rabbis] made an analogy between a wooden implement and a sack, as it is written (Leviticus chapter 11, verse 32): “[And anything on which one of them falls when dead shall be impure: [be it any article of wood, or a cloth, or a skin, or a sack –[any such article that can be put to use shall be dipped in water, and it shall remain impure until evening; then it shall be pure].” Just as a sack is carried full or empty, so too anything is carried full or empty. Unfinished metal utensils are pure, since in recognition of their being made, they are not considered utensils to be filled until they are completely formed. But flat [metal] vessels are impure, for they [the Rabbis] do not make the analogy of a sack being like a wooden utensil. It is found therefore, that what is [considered] pure for a wooden utensil is impure regarding metal utensils; what is pure for metal utensils is impure for wooden utensils.
+החייב בשקדיים המרים – (see Mishnah Ma’aserot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 4)[Regarding] bitter almonds, the small ones require tithing, since it is customary to eat them when they are small prior to their becoming bitter, and large ones are exempt [from tithing], since they are not worthy for eating. Sweet [almonds, on the other hand], the large ones are liable [for tithing] since their fruits have been completed, but the small ones are exempt, since it is not appropriate to eat them as such. It is found [therefore], that which liable [for tithing] regarding bitter almonds is exempt regarding sweet ones, and that which is liable [for tithing] with sweet [almonds] is exempt with bitter ones.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+התמד עד שלא החמיץ – (See Mishnah Maaser Sheni, Chapter 1, Mishnah 3, for identical parallel text of the first part of the Mishnah). Up until now [in this chapter of Mishnah Hullin] we have been dealing with two things and the matter that is practiced with one is not practiced with the other, and now we are dealing with one thing, and when a certain thing is in vogue with it, another thing is not in vogue with it.
+תמד – water that is placed on the exterior or on the interior [of grapes] and when they are warmed and ferment, produce wine, or [when water is placed is placed] on the sediment and the water absorbs the flavor of the wine. And [this occurs] at the time when one places [on the wine] three parts of water and it produces four. Everyone holds that it is superior wine. But here we are dealing [with a case] where it did not produce other than what he put on it, or less or just a bit more.
+עד שלא החמיץ – It is mere water and is not purchased with the money of the [second] tithe, for the wine that is mentioned which is purchased with [second] tithe monies (as is written – Deuteronomy chapter 14, verse 26): “And spend the money on anything you want…” Just as the specification is spelled out, the usufruct of the fruit from the fruit and that which grows in the ground, so too every (usufruct of the fruit from fruit and that which grows in the ground.
+ופוסל את המקוה – since three “logs” (a “log” is a measurement which equals six eggs in volume) [amount of] drawn water make a Mikveh unfit [for immersion], but if it (the water that had been placed on the exterior or on the interior of grapes) fell into it (the Mikveh) prior to conducting the forty Seah of water (which is necessary for a Kosher Mikveh – see Mishnah Mikvaot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 7 and Mishnah Menahot Chapter 12, Mishnah 4) into a channel, the wine does not disqualify the Mikveh other than through a change in its appearance.
+משהחמיץ – (once it has fermented), it is considered wine, and we use it to be purchased with [the money of] the [second] tithe, and does not [by its being poured into the Mikveh] disqualify the Mikveh.
+האחין השותפין – brothers who were partners in their inheritance.
+שחייבין בקלבון פטורין במעשר בהמה – See Mishnah Bekhorot, Chapter 9, Mishnah 3 where this Mishnah fragment is also found. (See Mishnah Shekalim, Chapter 1, Mishnah 6 - in the Bartenura commentary for a definition of the word קלבון\קולבון – something light and small that is added to the one-half shekel requirement each person must pay as a poll tax – see Exodus, chapter 30, verses 11-16 - that is divided among the partners – if they are Levites, Israelites, converts or freed slaves, but not Priests, women, slaves or minors.) Brothers who divided [the inheritance at first] and at the end became partners, are obligated to pay the agio (a premium paid for changing one kind of money to another–an allowance or premium for the difference in value between two currencies being exchanged) and when they bring their two one-half Shekels, they give two Kalbonim–agios, and the Kalbon is the way of expressing a customary additional weight in retailing–boot – that they (the partners) are obliged to overbalance their Shekalim. And if they gave between the both of them a complete Shekel (i.e. adding to the obligatory one-half Shekel that each adult male is required to give - see the Biblical source from Exodus quoted above), they give two Kolbonot, which they have to pay the head-tax in halves. But they are exempt from the tithe for cattle (offered on the first day of Elul – see Mishnah Rosh Hashanah, Chapter 1, Mishnah 1), as is brought in (the Talmud) Tractate Bekhorot in the last chapter (56b). The words (Numbers chapter 18, verse 9) teach: “This shall be yours [from the most holy sacrifices, the gifts: every such offering that they render to Me as most holy sacrifices….shall belong to you and your sons],”and not [that which belongs] to partners. And there (in Berakhot 56b), they (the Rabbis) prove that this verse [as referring to] the tithe [of cattle] even though it is written in connection with the first-born [animals].
+וכחייבין במעשר בהמה – for example, if they never divided [their estate], they are obliged to give the tithe for cattle, to tithe all those [cattle] born to them all the days of their partnership, as it says there (Talmud Bekhorot 56b), they are able, even if they purchased it that which belongs to the estate (before division among heirs), as it teaches (Numbers, chapter 18, verse 9), “shall be [yours]” regardless.
+ופטורין מן הקלבון – (they are exempt from paying the Kolbon) completely, in that they offer the head-tax of a full shekel (half a shekel apiece) between them; since their father’s monies are presumed to be standing in his possession. And the father who pays the head-tax for his sons or for someone from his city, he exempts him (i.e., that individual) from paying the head-tax by his own [payment], and his [concerning] his sons also, the Mitzvah of paying the head-tax [of one-half Shekel per individual] is not upon him (i.e., the father), but they are likened to be like his neighbor or fellow city-dweller.
+כל מקום שיש מכר – that a man can sell his daughter, that is when she is a minor.
+אין קנס – (when her daughter was a נערה –between the ages of twelve and twelve years and six months) if she had been violated–outraged (raped) or seduced, her father does not receive the fifty shekels of silver (as it is written (Deuteronomy 22:29): “the may who lay with her shall give shall pay the girl’s father fifty [shekels of] silver, and she shall be his wife…”
+וכל מקום שיש קנס – that is when she is a נערה–a maiden between the ages of twelve and twelve years and six months.
+אין מכר – a man (i.e., the father) may not sell his daughter to another (man) after she has brought forth the signs of her maidenhood (i.e., puberty). And our Mishnah is [according to] Rabbi Meir (see the parallel Mishnah Ketubot, Chapter 3, Mishnah 8 – and the general rule that anonymous Mishnah texts accord with the opinion of Rabbi Meir in Sanhedrin 86a and Hullin 26b), who said that that a minor girl from the age of one day until she brings forth two pubic hairs (symptoms of maturity), she is able to be sold but there is no financial penalty. But the Halakha is like the Sages (that a minor daughter from the age of three years and one day until she brings form the signs of her maturity can be sold and there is a fine associated with this sale). And it is found that a daughter from the day she is born until she becomes fit for sex[ual relations], she can be sold but there is no fine regarding her. And when she is deemed fit for sexual relations until she brings forth signs of her maturity, she can be sold and there is a fine regarding to her. And there is no distinction between נערות–maidenhood and adulthood – other than a [period of] six months.
+כל מקום שיש מיאון – An orphaned girl who was married off by her mother and–or her brothers, even with her knowledge (i.e. acceptance), can refuse and leaves [this marriage] without a Jewish bill of divorce until she brings forth her signs of maturity. Throughout the days of her being a minor, she is not appropriate for her to have [her perform the ceremony of] חליצה–taking off the shoe of her dead husband’s brother and spitting in his face (see Deuteronomy chapters 25, verses 5-11) if she is a יבמה–widow of a brother who died without having any children, for the word "איש"–”a man” is written in the portion (Deuteronomy chapter 25, verse 7): “But if the man does not want [to marry his brother’s widow]…” And they [the Rabbis] raise an objection comparing a woman to a man. And when she appears able to conduct [the ceremony] of חליצה–taking off the shoe of her dead husband’s brother and spitting in his face, she is not able [any longer] to refuse [the marriage recommendations of her mother and–or brothers].
+כל מקום שיש תקיעות – On the eves of the Sabbath and Jewish Holy Days (Yom Tov), the Shofar is sounded with three Tekiot (succession of connected notes) to cause the people to cease from their [weekday] labor and at twilight, they sound the Tekiah (succession of connected notes), the Teruah (rapid succession of nine notes–tremolo) and [another] Tekiah and then they stop [working].
+אין הבדלה – There is no [recitation of the prayers of the Havdalah ceremony, concluding the Sabbath and–or Festivals] neither on the wine or in the Amidah (the fourth blessing of the Amidah on Saturday night contains the Havdalah prayer), for there is no Havdalah other than on aftermath of Sabbaths and Festivals.
+יום טוב שחל להיות בערב שבת תוקעים – Even though it was also the day of a Jewish holy day (Yom Tov), and there is no work [performed], we sound the Shofar (i.e. the succession of connected notes) to cause people to stop their food preparation (which is permissible on Jewish holy days during the weekdays).
+ולא מבדילין – Because he enters into the more stringent [day of the Sabbath] from what he is leaving [the less stringent day of the Holy Day].
+חל להיות במוצאי שבת מבדילין – Since one leaves the more stringent (i.e. the Sabbath), from what one is entering into (i.e. Jewish Holy Day], and there is no sounding of the Shofar here.
+כיצד מבדילין – [When going] from [the] Sabbath to Yom Tov (Jewish holy day), when a Jewish holy day occurs (and begins) on a Saturday evening (at the conclusion of the Sabbath).
+רבי דוסא אומר: בין קודש חמור – But the Halakha does not follow Rabbi Dosa since we do not treat lightly the Jewish holy day by calling it the unimportant [or of minor value] holy day.
+
+Chapter 2
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+השוחט אחד בעוף – Because in that ab initio, it was necessary to slaughter two organs (i.e, both the windpipe and the esophagus) even with fowl, the Mishnah teaches "השוחט" –” he who ritually slaughters”, which implies that [only] one organ, for fowl [is required] de facto, but not ab initio. But two [organs are required] for cattle, ab initio, for how far does one go to slaughter [ritually]. Alternatively, because it was necessary to teach most of one [organ must be ritually slaughtered] like it, specifically de facto, for ab initio one must intend to slaughter the entire organ. And one [organ] in regard to fowl, fulfills one’s duty that it is fit, is from a Biblical verse, as it is written (Leviticus chapter 11, verse 46): “These are the instruction concerning animals, birds, all living creatures that move in the water [and all creatures that swarm on the earth],” the Bible attached [the category of] fowl between cattle and fish, to obligate [the ritual slaughter of] two organs, it is impossible that there was [already] an analogy made with fish; to exempt him [from doing any slaughtering] was impossible, since it was already compared to cattle. How was this accomplished? They (the Rabbis) made it ritually valid (for fowl) with one organ. And the act of ritual slaughter from the neck and and with two organs. Five things invalidate the act of ritual slaughter: שהייה–pausing during the act of slaughtering, דרסה–pressing the knife (adding muscular force to the cutting capacity of the knife, instead of passing the latter to and back (Hullin 20b), חלדה–pressing the life under cover; הגרמה–cutting the animal’s throat in a slanting direction (letting the knife slide beyond the space ritually designated for cutting); and עיקור–tearing loose the windpipe and esophagus before cutting, all of them are derived in the Gemara, regarding the esophagus and the windpipe and on the majority of one organ for fowl and on the majority of two organs for cattle.
+עד שישחוט את הוורידים – like kinds of sinews upon the two sides of the windpipe, and regarding the foul alone, Rabbi Yehuda speaks, in order to remove its blood, since he roasted it entirely as one. And ritual slaughter, as stated by Rabbi Yehuda, not exactly, but rather that he should perforate the jugular vein prior to a skin–cover–membrane forms over the blood. For further blood will not come out, even though salting; but the Halakha does not follow Rabbi Yehuda.
+רוב איד בעוף וכו' – And even though it is taught at the beginning of the Mishnah that most of one organ is like it, the Mishnah retracted here by teaching that one organ [is required] for fowl, etc., whether one is speaking about non-sacred meat or with meat dedicated for sacrificial purposes., for if we would teach only about non-sacred meat, I might say that it is enough for most [of one organ] because it was not for the blood that he needed it, but for the Holy Things (i.e. Sacrifices) for which the blood was necessary, it would not suffice to slaughter most of the organ; hence it comes to teach us that this was not the case.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+שנים אוחזין בסכין ושוחטין – one animal
+אפילו אחד למעלה ואחד למטה – that one is holding at one edge of the knife and his fellow is holding at the other side.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+התיז את הראש – like a person who decapitates a reed or a gourd, when he pushes the [slaughtering] knife with force and divides it. And this is דרסה–cutting the throat of an animal by pressing (adding muscular force to the cutting capacity of the knife, instead of passing the latter to and back).
+היה שוחט – through pulling [the slaughtering knife] and he decapitated the head with [either] the drawing home [of the slaughtering knife] or the drawing of the slaughterer’s knife in a forward direction alone. But for the slaughter of the [two] organs in the appropriate measure, it is called severing the head.
+אם יש בסכין מלא צואר – other than neck of the animal or fowl that he is ritually slaughtering.
+כשרה – if there is on the knife [the ability to slaughter] through pulling and not through cutting the throat through the use of muscular force, . But if the length of the knife is only as long as thickness of the neck, or just beyond the neck a bit, it is considered [as if] one had used muscular force, for the organs (i.e., the windpipe and esophagus) are not just through just this pulling, if not for the use of muscular force.
+אם יש בסכין מלוא צואר אחד – outside of these two necks, that is the measurement of three necks.
+איזמל – a very small, thin razor. And we don’t enact a prohibition regarding one that lacks hornlike projections as an ornament for the sake of a knife which does have hornlike projections as an ornament. For an איזמל–knife which has hornlike projections, for it normally [customary] to make hornlike projections as an ornaments on its back bending towards its head, and since it [the knife] is very small, it was detached from the neck, and when [the knife is] passed towards and back, there is a fear lest the hornlike projections will pass the slaughtering knife under cover (i.e. חלדה ) [which is forbidden].
+נפלה סכין ושחטה – The reason that it [i.e., the knife] fell (then, the slaughtering is invalid); but if he threw it down [and it slaughtered the animal in an appropriate manner], it is valid, even though he did not intend to perform the act of ritual slaughtering, for we don’t require spiritual intention in the act of ritual slaughtering. And since it is necessary for the mentioning of the Biblical verse, regarding the ritual slaughtering of animals for the sacrificial purposes [of the Temple] (Leviticus 22:29): “[When you sacrifice a thanksgiving offering to the LORD, sacrifice it so that] it may be acceptable in your favor,” with your knowledge you shall sacrifice it, that is to say, with knowledge and spiritual intention (for purposes of the ritual sacrifices in the Temple). We learn from this that for חולין–non-consecrated animals (profane things), we do not require spiritual intentionality.
+נפלה סכין והגביהה – and he paused during the act of slaughtering [which makes the animal so cut unfit to eat) while it was lifted up.
+כליו – his clothing
+או שהשחיז את הסכין – prior to [engaging in] the act of slaughtering.
+ועף – he became tired and weary as a result of the sharpening–whetting of the knife, and when he began to ritually slaughter [the animal], he did not have the strength and stopped his slaughter, and his fellow came and slaughtered.
+כדי שחיטה אחרת – in order that he would slaughter most of the two [organs] in another animal like it, while it is lying down, a large animal next to a large animal and a small animal next to a small animal. and it is also necessary that he lift it up and lie it down, and they did not practice in such a manner.
+כדי בקור – For the interval that the ritual slaughterer checks and examines his knife (to determine its fitness). But the Halakha does not follow [the opinion] of Rabbi Shimon.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+ופסק את הגרגרת – that is עיקור–tearing loose the windpipe before cutting; and we are referring to cattle.
+תחת השני – under the second organ. When he inserted the knife between the organ and the neck.
+החליד – he covered, which is the language of חלדה– passing the knife under cover (Hullin 27a); like a weasel–mole who lives in the foundations of the house in a concealed location].
+ופסקו – from below to above
+נבלה – and which defiles through carrying it.
+טריפה – which does not defile
+ודבר אחר גרם לה להפסל – such as one of the animals torn by a beast of prey (or an animal afflicted with a fatal organic disease) which is taught in the [Mishnah of chapter 3} “Which are those who are considered torn?”
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+בידים מסואבות – without the ritual washing of the hands, for the Rabbis decreed that “hands” are [naturally considered] “second” degree of Levitical uncleanness and we are dealing with unconsecrated food that was made on the purification of food dedicated for sacred purposes for something that is “second” degree of Levitical uncleanness makes something else “third” degree of Levitical uncleanness, for had we been dealing with unconsecrated meat alone, if they had been made fit [ for Levitical uncleanness] by contact with blood, something that is second degree of Levitical uncleanness does not make something else third degree of Levitical uncleanness.
+לפי שלא הוכשרו בדם – since food does not receive susceptibility for ritual uncleanness until water comes upon it, or one of the seven liquids which are: water, wine, olive oil, milk and bees’ honey, blood and dew (see also Leviticus 11:34: “ As to any food that may be eaten, it shall become impure if it came in contact with water; as to any liquid that may be drunk, it shall become impure if it was inside any vessel.”).
+הוכשרו בשחיטה – for since ritual slaughter is permissible for this meat, anything like a limb from a living animal is also compared to food regarding defilement, but the Halakha does not follow Rabbi Shimon.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+השוחט את המסוכנת – All the while that we stand it [the animal] up and she cannot stand as a result of her illness, she is considered מסוכנת–to be in danger; and even if she has strength in her teeth to eat the terminal buds of a palm (cabbage tree) or to bite wood from trees (Hullin 37b).
+עד שתפרכס – [See Mishnah Ohalot 1:6 for parallel about this situation.] if it [the animal] did not move convulsively, we suspect that its soul was taken before the completion of the ritual slaughtering.
+אם זינקה – in the manner that animals’ throats become swollen and (its) blood gushes forth and squirts with force (when its jugular arteries were cut – see Hullin 38a).
+השוחט בלילה – it is necessary for an endangered animal to move convulsively, and he [the ritual slaughterer] does not know if it convulsed, and on the morrow when he arose early, he found that the walls of the cavity of the ritual slaughter of throat were filled with blood, it is fit (i.e., kosher) because the blood had squirted out, according to the approach of Rabbi Eliezer who validates blood squirting out (which proves that the animal did not expire prior to the ritual slaughtering); Rabbi Shimon said [that he who performs ritual slaughter at night – and in on the morrow rises early and finds that the walls of the throat are filled with blood, it is valid], and the Halakha is not like [the opinion of] Rabbi Eliezer.
+אחד בהמה דקה ואחד בהמה גסה – which requires the convulsion of the animal if it was endangered.
+שפשטה ידה – at the conclusion of the ritual slaughtering
+ולא החזירה פסולה – if it (i.e., the animal) was endangered. For this is not considered moving convulsively but such is its manner at the time when its soul leaves it. But this is not the manner for large animal. But whether it extended its paw but did not bend it [back] or bent it back but did not extend it, it is [considered] valid–kosher [to be eaten].
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+ורבי אליעזר פוסל – if the animal belongs to a heathen. For even though it is a Jew who is performing the slaughtering, it benefits the thought-processes of the heathen, since the unexpressed thought of the heathen is directed to idolatry.
+חצר כבד – the large lobe of the liver
+אמר רבי יוסי קל וחומר – Since there is no benefit for the thought-processes of its owner, since a Jew performs the slaughter.
+ומה במקום שמחשבה פוסלת – that is, with regard to Holy things, as it states (Leviticus 7:18): “[If any of the flesh of his sacrifice of well-being is eaten on the third day, it shall not be acceptable;] it shall not count for him who offered it. It is an offensive thing [and the person who eats of it shall bear his guilt”]. It [the Biblical verse] is read “he shall not think” -that is to say, he should not think about eating it outside of the appropriate time since it will be a rejected sacrifice in consequence of an improper intention in the mind of the officiating priest.
+אין הכל הולך אלא אחר העובד – as it is written (Leviticus 7:18) “it shall not count for him who offered it” – but the owners are not invalidated by their thoughts for the individual who offers it is the priest.
+מקום שאין המחשבה פוסלת – The Gemara (Hullin 39b) explains our Mishnah in that it should [understood] in this manner: just as thought-processes invalidate [something offered] in Holy matters through four forms of service, everything follows only [the thought-patterns of] the individual worshipper. Whereas concerning Hullin–ordinary meat, thought-processes only invalidate in two areas, does it not follow that everything follows after [the thought-processes of] the ritual slaughterer? In the place where thought-processes invalidate those sacrifices offered in the realm of the holy things with regard to four acts of divine worship: ritual slaughter, reception of the blood, sprinkling of the blood and the carrying of the portions of the sacrifice to the altar ascent, on which of these that he thought that on the condition that he would eat from the sacrifice at an inappropriate time, does it make the sacrifice rejected in consequence of an improper intention in the mind of the officiating priest? But even though there is this stringency, the thought-processes only follow after the individual worshipper. Regarding Hullin–ordinary meat, in the matter of idolatry, thought-processes do not invalidate in four aspects of worship but rather in only two: in slaughter and in sprinkling [of the blood]. And regarding these, it is written [in these verses] (Exodus chapter 22, verse 19): “Whoever sacrifices to a god [other than the LORD alone shall be proscribed]” [and] (Psalms 16 verse 4): “I will have no part of their bloody libations; [their names will not pass my lips].” But reception of the blood and the carrying of the portions of the sacrifice to the altar ascent are not written–mentioned in these verses. But burning on the altar, even though it is connected to idolatry, it is, however, not worship to lose an animal because of the burning of its fats on the altar for idolatrous worship where it is not slaughtered and where its blood is not sprinkled for idolatrous purposes, for even inside, the sacrifice is not invalidated if he thought about the eating of meat at the time of the burning of the fats, and since we found a leniency in thought-processes outside [the altar], it is the law that we can be lenient in this and that the matter will not be dependent upon anyone other than the actual slaughterer. And the Halakha follows [the opinion] of Rabbi Yosi.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+השוחט לשם הרים וכו' שחיטתו פסולה – an idolatrous offering does not prohibit one from deriving benefit from it, since all of these [things] are not done for idolatrous [purposes], as it is written (Deuteronomy chapter 12, verse 2): “[You must destroy all the sites at which the nations you are to dispossess worshiped] their gods, whether on lofty mountains [and on hills or under any luxuriant tree],” and not on the mountains of their gods. But however, it is prohibited to eat it, because it is similar to slaughter for the sake of idolatrous [purposes] by exchanging something [of their own in its place]. And specifically if he said: לשם הרים, לשם גבעות–in honor of mountains, in honor of hills (which is the language used in the Mishnah), but if he [the person making the offering] said: to the angel appointed on the mountains and on the hills, this is considered the sacrifices of the dead and it is prohibited to derive benefit [from them].
+
+Mishnah 9
+
+אין שוחטין לתוך ימים – that he [who is performing the act of ritual slaughter] should not say, that to the Prince of the Sea he is performing the act of ritual slaughter.
+ולא לתוך הכלים – that they should not say that he is sprinkling its blood for idolatrous purposes that he is worshiping.
+
+עוגה של מים – and specifically murky waters, but not in clear waters, lest people say that he is performing the act of ritual slaughter to the full face that appears in the water.
+ובספינה – He may perform the act of ritual slaughter on the utensils and the blood will flow gently and descend into the sea. For he who sees it would say that he did it, in order to not soil the ship.
+אין שוחטין לגומא כל עיקר – and even in the house, and the reason that in a hole [it is not permitted], is because it is seen as an imitation of the sectarians.
+אבל עושה גומא – The Gemara explains that this is how it should read: One does not perform an act of ritual slaughter in a hole at all. But if one desires to bore into his courtyard, how would he do it. He would create a space outside of the hole and he would perform the act of ritual slaughter and the blood would gently flow and descend into its hole.
+יחקה את המינים – He would strengthen their hands in their customs; יחקה–imitate is from the word חק– custom
+
+Mishnah 10
+
+השוחט – [He who does ritual slaughter] on unconsecrated animals outside [of the Temple]
+לשם עולה – because a burnt-offering comes from a vow and–or a voluntary donation, he who sees it states;: Now he is sanctifying [it] and performing ritual slaughter [on it] for a burnt offering, and sacred things outside [the Temple], are permitted [to do so]. Therefore, the Rabbis decreed on it that it is invalid, and similarly, peace-offerings, etc.
+אשם תלוי – which comes on a doubtful liability for extirpation, such as two pieces [of meat] (one of which is forbidden and one allowed) – of abdominal fat of cattle (which is forbidden) and the permitted fat of animals (that is permitted to consume) and it is not known which of them ate or [the case] of his wife or his sister with him in bed and he has sexual relations with one of them and he doesn’t know which of them he had sexual relations, he brings a guilt-offering offered when in doubt [as to the commission of a sinful act] to protect [himself] against suffering until it becomes known to him if he committed an undoubtful offense [for which] he brings his sin-offering. And our Mishnah is [according to] Rabbi Eliezer who stated {Keritut 25a) that a person brings a guilt-offering when in doubt [as to the commission of a sinful act] every day, for every day, he stands in the doubt of sin and his heart smites him lest I sinned, and it is found that it relates to something he either vowed or voluntarily donated.
+לשם פסח – The Passover sacrifice is also called something that is vowed or freely donated, since it can be separated out all the days of the year and set aside until its appropriate time; they say that he ritually slaughters peace-offerings outside of the Temple and consumes them.
+ורבי שמעון מכשיר – And he is not concerned with avoiding the semblance of wrong-doing (i.e., appearance-sake).
+אשם ודאי – such as the guilt-offering brought for theft, (or) someone who lied when taking an oath on denying money (owed), and the guilt-offering for misappropriation of sacred property and the guilt-offering for a maidservant designated to become the wife of one selected by her master (Gittin 43a), and on account that the guilt-offering for doubtful liability for having sexual relationships is referred to as the guilt offering for the undoubted commission of certain offenses.
+לשם בכור לשם מעשר – people surely know that it is a lie, for the First born offerings and tithes have a voice and people know before this, for if that time is not appropriate for their being set aside, that one would say that now is the time sanctifies them..
+זה הכלל – to include if a person said: Behold I am ritually slaughtering for the sake of burnt-offering of a Nazirite, which is invalid. For you might say that one should not be concerned for waste, for it is known that he did not make a vow, which comes to teach us that people will surely say that perhaps he made a vow in private [during] these thirty days which is the undefined [shortest period for being] a Nazirite, and on the thirtieth day, the matter is not known to his neighbors.
+ושאינו נידר ונידב – including the burnt-offering of a woman who gave birth, for he said, [this offering is made] explicitly for the purpose of a woman who gave birth, it is valid, even if he said that it was for the sake of a woman is not obligated to bring a sacrifice after giving birth, For you might have thought since that particular woman was not liable [to bring] a sacrifice upon giving birth, it [the sacrifice] was only a free-will donation, it comes to teach us that lest she miscarried, for a miscarriage has no voice and it is found that this sacrifice is obligatory and not a donation, and therefore, his ritual slaughter is valid.
+
+Chapter 3
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+אלו טרפות. מיקב הושט – the gullet has two skins: the red outer one and the white inner one. If he punctured this one without the other, it is valid–fit; if he punctured both of them, even this one that does not correspond to that one, it is “torn” [and not kosher]. And each perforation is a little bit.
+ופסוקת הגרגרת – through most of its width, and it is not torn until he tears most of the cavity. But the thickness of the tip–lobe doesn’t complete towards the majority. But especially, when it was torn in its width, it is disqualified–unfit in its majority., but in its length of the windpipe, even if there didn’t remain in it other than one limb–vertebra of the spinal column above to the side of the head and one vertebrae of the spinal column–limb below near the laps (i.e., extreme ends) of the lungs, it is kosher–fit, because all the time that the animal pulls its neck more, the slit becomes smaller and is not seen.
+ניקב קרום של מוח – the brain has two membranes [surrounding it]. The upper one is attached to the bone of the skull and the second is adjacent to the brain. If the upper one is punctured and the second [membrane] that is adjacent to the brain is enduring, it is kosher–fit. If he punctures the second [membrane] that is adjacent to the brain even though the upper [membrane] endures, it (i.e., the animal) is torn–not kosher, and even though the bone is not punctured.
+ניקב הלב לבית חללו – the heart has two cavities. The large one is to the right side of the animal. The smaller cavituy is to the left side. If the heart is perforated at all and the the perforation reaches to one of these two cavities, it is considered torn–unfit. And similarly, if it perforated the cartilage that is in the heart that is made like a canal–duct and it is called the stem of the heart, it is torn–unfit (i.e., not kosher).
+נשברה השדרה – the vertebrae of the spine–backbone.
+ונפסק החוט (the spinal cord is severed) – like a white cord that projects from the brain and passes through the entire length of the spine. And a thin membrane surrounds the [spinal] cord. But if the majority of what surrounds the width of this membrane, that is the [spinal] cord is severed and it is torn, even if the backbone is not broken, but rather, it (i.e., the Mishnah) took the usual incident, for most of the severing of the [spinal] cord is through the breaking of the backbone–spine.
+ניטל הכבד ולא נשתייר הימנו כלום – it is torn–unfit (i.e., not kosher). Until there should remain an olive’s bulk in the place of the bile–gall and an olive’s bulk in the place that it lives from there, which is the place of its suspension when it is interwoven and attached under the kidneys. But if there remained in it less than two olives-bulk in these two places, or even more than two-olives’ bulk but not in these two places, it is torn–unfit (i.e., not kosher).
+הריאה שניקבה – the lung has two thin membranes, if this one was punctured without that one, it is kosher–fit. If both were punctured and the wind–air comes out when we blow it up, it is torn–unfit (i.e., not kosher). And the reason for a punctured lung, they (i.e., the Rabbis) forbade all of the adhesions of the lobes of the lung to each other that are in the lung when they are in a place where they are made to be severed. Because there is no adhesion without a puncture, for the lung draws all kinds of liquids and the liquid becomes thick within it and goes out gradually through the puncture and it becomes thick and becomes a membrane. And when the adhesions are in a place where they don’t make to be severed, as, for example, a lobe with a lobe in their order (i.e.., the lung has five lobs – Talmud Hullin 47a), this one protects that one and returns to its health and the perforation is not revealed, but when they are in the place that they are made to be severed, the membrane breaks apart and the perforation is revealed.
+או שחסרה – such as, for example when one of the five lobs that the lung has is missing. But if one of the three lobes on the right side is missing, there are those who say that the minor lobe of the lung completes it and it is kosher. But if the minor lobe the lung is missing, there are those who pronounce it fit for use, for this is not something missing, for many animals lack a minor lobe of the lung. Such is proven in the Gemara (Tractate Hullin 47a at the bottom).
+עד שתנקב לבית הסמפונות (until the perforation of the lungs reaches the starting point of the ramified blood vessels–arteries or bronchia) – small branch sinews of the nervus ischiadicus–bronchial tubes that stretch out with the lung, all of which spill into the large arteries–bronchia. And the בית הסמפונות–bronchial tubes, as it is taught In this Mishnah, meaning to say, to the large bronchial tube from which all of the tubes pour into it. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.
+ניקבה הקיבה – a puncture going all the way through into the cavity, a bit.
+ניקבה המרה (if the gallbladder is pierced) – its pocket; to the place where the live does not close it off.
+ניקבו הדקין – the intestines ., to a place where there aren’t other small bowels near the perforation to protect it, but the anus sphincter retracts and makes a puncture to its neighbor, its neighbor defends it (see Rashi, Tractate Hullin 48b – which surround it.
+כרס הפנימי (innermost belly is pierced) – the entire belly–stomach is called the inner belly and its piercing is by a little bit. The outer belly, the flesh that covers most of the belly, and it is a thick membrane passing over all of the cavity from the chest to the thighs. But the belly, a small portion of which is hidden underneath the ribs of the chest. But most of it is under that same membrane. But if the majority of it was torn as stated, meaning that we say how much of the membrane corresponding to the majority of the stomach, if that membrane is torn, it is kosher.
+הגדולה טפח (in the case of a large animal – a handbreadth) – with a large bull, if it is torn a handbreadth, it is [considered] “torn”–unfit (i.e., not kosher), even though it is not the majority, but with a small calf, when the greater part is torn, even though it is not a handbreadth. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.
+המסס ובית הכוסות (the first stomach of ruminants and the second stomach of ruminants) – the end of the stomach is shaped like a hat and is called the second stomach of ruminants, and the first stomach of ruminants is attached to it. But surrounding their attachment, when one comes to separate them, there is a wall to this one and a wall to that one, and in the middle, they pour one into the other, and the food enters from the second stomach to the first stomach and from the first stomach to the maw and from the maw to the small intestines.
+שניקבו לחוץ – that the perforation appears from the outside. Such as, for example, that they perforated either this one or that one, that is not in the place where they are attached. This excludes if they perforated at the place of their attachment, which is kosher, because the wall of the first stomach protects over the perforations of the second stomach, and the wall of the second stomach protects over the perforations of the first stomach.
+נפלה מן הגג – and he slaughtered it immediately, it is [considered] “torn,”–unfit (i.e., not kosher0, if it could not walk on its legs after it fell, for we are concerned lest its limbs were crushed, but if it walked at its full height, it is [considered] fit–kosher and doesn’t require examination. But if it stood and couldn’t walk and he slaughtered it, it requires examination. And similarly, if he waited a period of twenty-four hours after it had fallen and he slaughtered it, even though it didn’t walk nor stand, it is kosher–it and requires examination. But this examination is in the inner cavities of the body to see if its limbs were crushed. But the womb and similarly the organs, the cutting of which is an indication that the animal has been slaughtered according to the ritual (i.e., the windpipe and the gullet), there is no concern regarding crushing of the limbs.
+נשתברו רוב צלעותיה – the animal has twenty-two large ribs which have marrow, eleven from here (i.e., one side) and eleven from there (i.e., the other side). If six were broken from here and six were broken from there, or eleven from here and one from here, this means that most of its ribs were broken. But this is when they were broken towards the spinal cord, because there is its life, and not from the half that are towards the side of the chest.
+ודרוסת הזאב – who strikes the animal with its nails and places in it poison and burns it. For there is no attacking with paws or claws other than by hand, but not with the foot. And there is no attack–mauling other than with foreknowledge. And the attack with paws or claws that they spoke of, requires examination corresponding to the intestines, such as, for example, a doubtful attack with paws–claws or that he saw that it was mauled, but the place of the attack is not recognized from the outside, it requires examination of its back and its stomach and its sides and all that corresponds to [the place of] the intestines. But if the flesh is reddened there, it is “torn”–unfit (i.e., not kosher). But if it is definitely a mauled animal, one examines the place of the mauling and sees if the flesh is reddened, it is “torn,” and if not, it is kosher.
+דרוסת הזאב בדקה – but with a large animal, its poison is not strong enough to burn it.
+ודרוסת ארי בגסה – and all the more so, with a small animal. But Rabbi Yehuda comes to explain the words of the First Tanna–teacher, but not to dispute him. And the Halakha is according to him.
+הנץ (hawk) – ASHPARVIR – in the foreign tongue.
+בעוף הדק – doves and birds.
+דרוסת הגס – ASHTOR.
+בעוף הגס – geese and chickens.
+זה הכלל – to include seven kinds of torn animals which are not mentioned in the Mishnah and these are: a) the thigh-bone that jumped from its place from the cavity in the bone of the fat-tail that is inserted into it, and that consumes its sinews; b) it smote even one kidney, and all the more so, in both of them. And its beating reached to the place of the indentation of the kidneys (Tractate Hullin 55b); c) spleen where a complete perforation was made in its thickest part. And if their remained there like the thickness of a golden Denar, it is kosher; d) the gullet and windpipe which are torn loose from the connection so that the larger portion of their circumference is detached (see Tractate Hullin 44a), meaning to say that they were detached in several places and w ere connected here and there a bit; e) a rib was uprooted completely from its root. For especially, they broke, as is taught I our Mishnah that we require the majority, but if one rib was uprooted from its root until half of the vertebrae of the spinal column, it is “torn”–unfit (i.e. not kosher); f) a skull that sustained many beatings on the skull and the membrane was not reduced in size nor perforated. If the larger portion of it was crushed (see Talmud Hullin 42b), that is, crushed, it is “torn” (not Kosher); g) and flesh hat covers the vast majority of the stomach, also is according to the one who sates that the Tanna–teacher brings it in [the words], “this is the general principle.” But it is not mentioned explicitly in the Mishnah, because they do not explain the outer stomach which is taught in the Mishnah which is flesh that covers most of the stomach, as I explain above. And similarly, the Tanna–teacher brings in “this is the general principle” an animal whose back legs were severed from the knee and its surrounding parts and above, it is “torn,” (i.e., not kosher). And a loss in the spine–backbone, if one vertebrae of the spinal column was missing, it is “torn,” (and not kosher). Skin flayed in consequence of bruises, scabs, etc. where the skin fell and completely stripped, or on account of boils or on account of work, is “torn.” And animal’s lungs that were shrunk, whose lungs had shriveled (see Tractate Hullin 55b) and became like dried palm branches on account of fear that humans are frightening the, specifically at the hand of Heaven as Is taught further on that the animal is kosher because of the adornment of the lung, but not by the hand of mankind. And all of these “torn” are included by the Tanna in “this is the general principle.”
+כל שאין כמוה חיה (Any the like of which does not live) – that were struck with a blow, for the cattle were not struck – its example is able to live.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+ניקבה הגרגרת (if the windpipe–gullet is pierced) – without a loss of an Issar as it is explained. But if it was pierced with many punctures, but not perforated throughout, and there is no loss, we view them when they are combined that there is with all of them a majority of the windpipe–gullet, it is “torn” (i.e., not kosher), but if there is in those punctures a loss or that they are missing long straps, we see that if when it is combined all that is missing is that it amounts to more than the measurement of an Issar, it is “torn,” but if equivalent to an Issar or less, it is Kosher, and that is the Halakha.
+או שנסדקה (or was slit) – and that which remains from it in the windpipe above and below is a bit.
+נפחתה הגלגולת (if the skull was hallowed out) – the bone was hallowed it, and we can see that the membrane of the brain was not pierced.
+ניטלה הכבד ונשתייר הימנה כזית – and here would be an olive’s bulk in the place of the bile, and an olive’s bulk in the place which is interwoven–intertwined.
+זה לתוך זה – that are adjacent and the walls of both of them are attached one to the other, and in their middle, they pour one to the other. But if they went back and pierced it in the place of the attachment of their walls, and the puncture is not visible towards the outside but rather only this within that, it is kosher, for they also pour into each other.
+ניטל הטחול – it is not taught other than taken out–removed, but if it is punctured in the place of its thickness and there doesn’t remain in it like the thickness of a golden Denar, it is “torn,” as we have explained above (Mishnah 1).
+ניטלו הכליות – whether they removed both of them or whether one of them was removed, it is kosher. And it did not teach [in the Mishnah] that it was removed, but a kidney that was made smaller on account of illness, with a small one until [the size of] a pea, and with a large one, until it is like an intermediate-size fruit on a tree–stalk of grapes, it is [considered] “torn,” (and not kosher). And if it became filled with decayed water, it is “torn,” but clear water, it is kosher.
+ניטל לחי התחתון (if the lower jaw was removed) – from upon the flesh and the gullet and the windpipe are attached to the skin. But the law only applies when it can live through stuffing [to a point of the throat from which the animal can bring it back again to the mouth] where they pour the food into the mouth. But if it cannot live through stuffing, it is “torn” (and not kosher).
+ניטלת האם – this is the womb, MATRITZ in the foreign tongue, where the fetus is lying.
+וחרותה ביד שמים (if the animal’s lungs are shrunk – wood-like – through an accident) – that its lung shrank and dried out like the dried branches of a palm tree from the sound of thunder and lightning [one should say, the seeing of lightning], it is kosher. But by violence done to it (literally: “at the hands of man”), such as, for example, that a person frightened it or the rest of the creatures, such as the roar of a lion or the sound–voice of a lion, it is “torn” (non-kosher). And how do we know if it was at the hands of heaven (i.e., an accident) and kosher, or by violence done to it (literally: “at the hands of man”) and it is “torn?” In the summer, a person brings white earthenware utensilsand fills them with cold water and places the lung in them for a period of twenty-four hours, if it returns healthy–in its natural condition, it is kosher, but if it does return in its natural condition, it had violence done to it (literally, “at the hands of man”) and is “torn.” But in the winter, he brings black earthenware utensils that do not perspire like the the white, and the water does not become cold. But thee are those who explain that he brings copper utensils and fills them with tepid water and places the lung in them for a period of twenty-four hours, if it returns healthy, it is kosher, and if not, it is “torn” (and not kosher – see Tractate Hullin 55b).
+הגלודה – that its skill was spread out from it. If there remained in its skin like the width of a Selah over the entire spine, that the vertebrae of the spinal column that were found were completely cover, then it is kosher. But if it was stretched from it the width over the width of the entire backbone, even though all the rest of its skin exists, it is “torn.” And such is the Halakhic decision.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+חכתה חולדה על ראשה – that it (i.e., the weasel) bit it (i.e., the chicken) with its teeth. For had it been by hand (i.e., paw), there is an animal – a bird having been attacked by a beast (which are suspected of leaving a poisonous substance in the body) by a weasel- all corresponding to the cavity that it tears.
+מקום שעושה אותה טרפה = for one suspects lest it punctured the membrane of the brain. How does it (i.e., the weasel) do this? It brings In its hand–paw into the mouth of the chicken and presses its finger upwards, if the brain breaks through and goes out, it is clearly known that the membrane was pierced and it is “torn.”
+ניקב הקורקבן – (if the thick muscular stomach–craw–gizzard of fowl was pierced) – that the perforation in the skin of the thick muscular stomach–gizzard of the bird and in the pocket that is within where the food passes through, meaning, that the pocket and the skin are perforated one corresponding to the other. But if the thick stomach that was pierced and it pocket endures, or even if both of them were pierced, but not corresponding one to the other, it is Kosher.
+ונחמרו בני מעיה (its bowels were affected by inhaling heat–parched) – they shrunk as a result of the heat and their appearance changed–was destroyed. The language of (Lamentations 1:20): “[See, O LORD, the distress I am in!] My heart (literally, ‘my intestines’) is (literally, ‘are’) in anguish.”
+ירוקים פסולים – this is what he said: limbs whose custom is to be red, as, for example, the heart and the liver and the thick muscular stomach which customarily are red, in geese, and in chickens and turtle doves and pigeons and things similar to this, if they changed and became green on account of the fire, they are disqualified, but if they remained red as they were, they are kosher. And same law applies regarding the small intestines which were customarily green. If they changed from their natural state and turned red, they are ineligible. And similarly, the water fowl where their heart, their liver and their gizzard are green, if they fell into the fire and turned red, they are ineligible. For all that changed from their appearance on account of the fire are ineligible. And the measurement of the change of the appearance, is the smallest amount, like the perforation in the smallest amount.
+דרסה – a person with his feet [tread on them].
+או שטרפה בכותל – that he it against the wall.
+או שרצצתה בהמה – that one should be worried for these three matters (i.e., fire, being trampled by humans and knocked against a wall) because of lesions of vital organs–internal injurie, and still making convulsive movements.
+אם שהתה מעת לעת ושחטה כשרה – and it requires examination, as we have written above (Mishnah 1 of this chapter) concerning cattle For all “tears” that the Sages counted in cattle, corresponding to fowl. The fowl has more of them, these which are taught in the Mishnah.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+ניקבה הגרגרת או שנסדקה – the perforation of the windpipe–gullet and its splitting in fowl, is like the perforation of the windpipe–gullet and its splitting in cattle. And we have explained this above (Mishnah 1 and Mishnah 3). If a perforation was made which has a loss, if the loss is like he measure of most of the cavity of the windpipe of that fowl, it is “torn,” and if not, it is kosher.
+זפק (bird’s crop) – I is adjacent to the gullet. And all which goes with the gullet when the fowl pulls its neck, its law is like that of the gullet and its perforation is of the smallest amount, but if the rest of the bird’s crop was perforated, it is Kosher.
+רבי אומר אפילו ניטל (even if It is removed)– But the Halakha is not according to Rebbe (i.e., Yehuda HaNasi).
+יצאו בני מעיה – it was not taught other than that at the time when they entered into it (i.e., the intestines), he did not switch its upper part (of the intestines to the lower part, or this round part above from where it was, when he switched this one to the top and that one to the bottom. But if he reversed them, it is “torn,” for since one of them was reversed, it is not able to live.
+נשתברו גפיה – the bones of the wings [were broken), and especially if they were broken, but the detaching of a wing in a fowl, makes it “torn,” we suspect, that perhaps, the lung was punctured. For since the lung is hidden between the ribs and the soft and thin membrane of the skin that is between each rib and when one detaches its wing, we tear loose the lung with the wing.
+נשתברו רגליה – from the knee and its surrounding parts and below, or even above, if the bone did not protrude outwards, it is taught in (chapter 4 of Tractate Hullin), “A beast which was in hard labor,” that it is “torn,” and there we will explain it.
+נמר��ו כנפיה (if its wing feathers are plucked) – that is the large feathers–down that are on her body.
+נוצה – this is the soft [feathers] on the skin, which lack on it reeds, for it is considered like a hide. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+אחוזת הדם – that it (i.e., the animal) was attacked with congestion and became sick.
+והמעושנת – that smoke entered into her body.
+והמצוננת – sickness on account of cold. But Maimonides explained that אחוזת הדם is that the blood overcame her, and המעושנת is that the black secretion had overcome her; and המצוננת is that the white secretion has overcome her. But it did not mention he fourth secretion which is red, because it is not found so much with cattle.
+הרדופני (creeper- the berries of which are injurious to animals) – it is a deathly drug of cattle, and similarly, the excrement of chickens, that animals–cattle that eat from eat die.
+המים הרעים – revealed water.
+סם המות – a thing that is a deadly drug to humans, but is not a deadly drug to animals.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+הדורס (that attacks with paws or claws) – it grasps with its nails and lifts up from the ground what it eats. And there are those who explained it, that it doesn’t wait for the living prey until it dies but rather eats it while [it is] living.
+אצבע יתירה – this is the high finger–digit (i.e., talon) that is behind the [other] fingers.
+וקרקבנו נקלף – the pocket that is within the thick muscular stomach–craw peals from the flesh of the thick muscular stomach–craw . But not that every pure–clean fowl has all of these organs, but one organ alone is sufficient, but as long as we know about it (i.e., the animal) that it doesn’t attack with paws or claws and eat. But the Gaonim wrote that the tradition in their hands was that they don’t validate fowl that comes with one organ and even though it is known to us regarding it that it does not attack with paws or claws and eats, other than if that that organ whose thick muscular stomach can be pealed by hand, but if it cannot be peeled by hand even though it always has a crop or an extra finger–talon, they did not permit it.
+החולק את רגליו – when he places it on a chord–sinew, it places its two fingers from there and two from there.
+טמא – whereby it is known that it attacks with its claws or paws.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+ובחגבים – this is the sign of their pu- ity.
+כל שיש לו ארבע רגלים וארבע כנפים ויש לו קרסולים (see Leviticus 11:21- jointed legs) – they are two long legs outside of the four. And they are adjacent to its neck, above from its legs to leap with them when it wishes to jump, it strengthens itself with them.
+רבי יוסי אומר ושמו חגב – even though it has these four distinguishing marks, it is not kosher, other than if it is known that its name is locust. And this is the Halakha.
+כל שיש לו סנפיר וקשקשת – even if it doesn’t have it now, and will in the future will grow one after a while, or that it has one now, and it will, in the future will drop it when it leaves the water (see Tractate Hullin 66a), it is permitted.
+וסנפירין הפורח בהם – that roam–swim with them over the face of the water.
+
+Chapter 4
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+בהמה המקשה. מותר באכילה – [it is permitted to eat – when the dam is properly slaughtered] the entire fetus and even the place cutting of the limb. For if it put out its hoof–hand and didn’t retracted, one must leave it from what is inside to the outside and to cut it, for the place of the cut you have distinguished the outer part, but the inner part is prohibited, because it stands on the rim of the womb. But if it withdrew it (i.e., its hoof–hand), one does not need to cut to the inner side, but one confines and cuts and the place that one cut is permitted. For what is the reason that the limb is forbidden when it leaves to the outside? Because of (Exodus 22:30): “[You must not eat] flesh torn by beasts in the field.” Meat that left outside of its compartment which for it is a field, is “torn.” Just as something that is “torn,” once it was “torn,” furthermore has no permit, even meat, since it went outside of its compartment. And the place of the cut did not leave outside of its compartment; furthermore, it is permitted when it returns prior to the ritual slaughter, for we call it (Deuteronomy 14:6): “and any other animal [that has true hoofs which are cleft in two and brings up the cud] – such (an animal) you may eat.”
+הרי הוא כילוד – and furthermore, he may not benefit from the ritual slaughter of its mother, and he requires a ritual slaughter of its own if he is found living. But if he (i.e., the offspring) is found dead, it is like something that died of itself.
+חותך מעובר שבמעיה – and he left the piece within her, it is permitted with the ritual slaughter of the animal and is not forbidden because of “the limb from a living animal” (one of the seven Noahide commandments).
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+מהבכרת המקשה לילד – with the first of her womb. It is permitted to cut it up limb by limb when it comes outfirst.
+ומשליך לכלבים – for as long as its majority had not left [the womb], it is not holy.
+יצא רובו – as one [complete animal], and [then] he cut it.
+הרי זה יקבר – for with the exit of most, the sanctity takes effect upon it and we call it (Deuteronomy 15:19): “[You shall consecrate to the LORD your God all male firstlings] that are born [in your herd and in your flock.”
+ונפטרה מן הבכורה – that which comes after him (i.e., the first-born male animal), is not a firstling, hether it first came out limb by limb, or whether the majority of it came out as one, for the second is not the first of the womb.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+בבהמה טהורה טהור – from an a fortiori inference (see Tractate Hullin 70b), if [being inside] its mother is effective to permit it for consumption through its slaughter, even though it (i.e., the fetus) is dead, then should being inside its mother not also be effective to render it pure from the impurity of an animal carcass? And from where do we learn that the same applies regarding an unclean animal? For it states in Scripture (Leviticus 11:39): “If an animal that you may eat has died, anyone who touches its carcass shall be impure until evening.” [The phrase:” “If an animal…. has died,” this is an unclean animal; “that you may eat,” this is a clean–pure animal. A comparison of these juxtaposed “unclean animal” and “clean animal” – just as in a clean–pure animal, its fetus is pure, even in an unclean animal, its fetus is pure.
+רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר בטמאה טמא – and he derives it from Scripture, as it is written (Leviticus 5:2): “Or when a person touches any impure thing -be it the carcass of an impure beast or the carcass of impure cattle,” Does the carcass of an impure beast defile and the carcass of a pure animal does not defile? But rather, which is it {that in an impure animal it defiles and that in a pure animal it doesn’t defile)? This is a [dead] fetus that is in the womb of an impure animal that is impure, and [a dead fetus] that is in a pure animal that is pure, from an a fortiori. But regarding the impure animal, there is no a fortiori [inference], and we don’t expound an analogy based upon biblical inference. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yosi.
+החיה טמאה טומאת שבעה – and it is from the Rabbis, as a decree lest the fetus bring forth its head outside the corridor–the lower end of the vagina or uterus, and he is like he was born and defiles and the midwife thinks that it (i.e., the fetus) is still in her womb and comes to be pure. But the shepherd who inserted his hand into the womb of the animal, as it is taught in our Mishnah is pure. We don’t make this decree, because the womb of the animal is revealed, and when it (i.e., the fetus) comes out, he sees it.
+ואשה טהורה עד שיצא הולד – for the woman creates excitement for herself when it (i.e., the fetus) brings forth its head outside of the corridor–the lower end of the vagina or uterus, and he does not come to be purified (see Talmud Hullin 72a).
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+הבשר טהור – the flesh–meat of the fetus is pure, for the animal does not receive impurity while living.
+הבשר מגע נבילה – the flesh–meat of the fetus touched a limb from a living animal, which defiles like carrion.
+מגע טריפה שחוטה – for the ritual slaughter, even though it does not permit the limb for consumption, purifies it from being carrion, and it is like something torn that is ritually slaughtered that does not defile from the Torah, but rather from the Rabbis with those things that are sanctified [for the Temple]: This is our reading.
+אף שחיטת בהמה תטהר את העבר – and we don’t have the reading “of the fetus.”
+לא אם טיהרה שחיטת טריפה אותה – this is according to the law, for it is a thing that is part of its body.
+ומנין לטריפה ששחיטתה מטהרתה – for perhaps it does not purify it, and from the law, does not purify it, for an unclean–impure animal is prohibited for consumption and a torn animal is forbidden for consumption.
+ומה טמאה אין שחיטתה מטהרתה – from being impure, for this is taught in Torat Kohanim (i.e., the Midrash Halakha on the Book of Leviticus – see Leviticus 11:26,24: “among all the animals...that has true hoofs….whoever touches their carcasses shall be impure until evening” – all who touch them shall be impure, to include an unclean animal that its slaughter will not purify it.
+תאמר בטריפה שהיתה לה שעת הכושר – for since it takes effect the law of ritual slaughtering, furthermore, it does not escape from it for it is within the general realm of the rest of sheep and cattle.
+טול לך מה שהבאת – take from here this proof that you brought.
+הרי שנולדה טריפה מן הבטן מנין – that it would make it pure.
+שיש במינה שחיטה – therefore, it does not escape from the generalization of sheep and cattle. But a living animal [fetus] that is eight [months] old that was born from a living animal, we don’t have with what to purify it even it is slaughtered, because it is not included with cattle and sheep. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.
+אין שחיטתה מטהרתו – from being carrion, for the ritual slaughter of an eight [month] fetus is of any benefit, but rather, when it is in the womb of its mother, it is permitted through the slaughter of its mother (as we will learn in the next Mishnah).
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+ומוציא את דמו – and its fat alone is permitted, as it is taught in Torat Kohanim (i.e., the Midrash Halakha on the Book of Leviticus), when it states, the fat and the two kidneys with a guilt-offering (see Leviticus 7:4: “the two kidneys and the fat that is on them at the loins”), and we don’t need to say that from an a fortiori we would derive it, for just as regarding an offering of well-being–peace offering that anything of their species requires the fat-tail, for they require the fat and two kidneys. The guilt offering, that all of its species requires the tail, is it not the law that it requires the fat and the two kidneys? And what does the inference teach us, but rather to tell us that just as fat and the two kidneys that are stated with the guilt offering is removed from the general category of the embryo, for you are not able to state that the fat of the embryo that is found in a guilt offering should be offered with a female animal, even all, even the sacrifices that come from a female, the fat that is mentioned regarding them one removes from the category of the embryo. But since the fat of the embryo is not offered with all the sacrifices, it is permitted for consumption. But its blood is not worse than the blood of the limbs and we hold that in the Tractate Keritot that the blood of the limbs one violates a negative commandment.
+טעון שחיטה – for newborns indirectly to compare an animal by itself, and to nt to be included–to be derived by implication with all the cattle that you may eat.
+וחייב באותו את בנו – that you should not slaughter it on the date that you ritually slaughter its mother.
+וחכמים אומרים שחיטת אמו מטהרתו – that the newly born and giving birth is the cause of it.
+ר' שמעון שזורי כו' – to the words of the Sages, since that it (i.e., the animal) walked on the ground, it requires ritual slaughter according to the Rabbis. For one might exchange it in order to eat an animal without ritual slaughter. Burt Rabbi Shimon Shezuri permits even after he it had a parted hoof on the
+קרעה – [cut into] the animal without ritual slaughter.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+בהמה שנתחכו – the hind–back [legs].
+מן הארכובה ולמטה – there are three bones in the thigh. The lowest is the bone that is cut with the split hoofs when they flay the animal and this joint is called the knee that is sold with the head, and in the foreign tongue, we call that limb–joint YEENOKLAV, and in Arabic DUKBA. And above it there is the middle bone and the bunch of converging sinews in the thigh (see Talmud Hullin 76a) underneath it adjacent to the limb–joint of the knee that is sold with the head. And the uppermost is the thigh-bone which is inserted in the tail. And the joint which is between the end of the thigh-bone to the top of the middle bone is known and seen in a camel when it lies down more than the rest of the living creatures. And from the knee and below as it is taught in our Mishnah that it is kosher, which is from the beginning of the knee that is sold with the head and below. But from the knee and upward, which is from the end of the middle bone, which is the place of bunch of converging sinews in the thigh, in every place where the foot is cut, from there and above is “torn” (not kosher).
+וכן שניטל צומת הגידין (if the juncture of the thigh sinews was removed – even if the foot was not cut off that the bone was not broken but the bunch of converging sinews in the thigh were removed, it is invalid–”torn.” So explained some of the Amoraim of the Mishnah in the Gemara (Talmud Hullin 76a-b). But this approach my teachers–Rabbis took hold of as essential and taught that in every place where the leg was cut off above from lower knee which they call Y’NUKLAV in the foreign tongue, whether in the place where the bunch of converging sinews or whether above from the bunch of converging sinews, it is [considered] “torn” (unfit, not kosher). But Maimonides and Rabbi Alfasi his teacher took hold as essential a different commentary–explanation – that from the knee and below is kosher and from the knee and above is unfit, for this is what he said: below from the upper knee which is the thigh-bone that is inserted in the tail, but not below immediately adjacent to it, but rather, below from the middle bone entirely, which is the lower bone, is definitely kosher. Above from the knee, which is the thigh-bone, is definitely “torn” (i.e., unfit, not kosher) in every place that he cut off. And similarly, if he removed the bunch of converging sinews, meaning to say, that in the middle bone, there is a place that is “torn” such as the bunch of converging sinews, and there is a place which is kosher, such as above from the bunch of converging sinew. But don’t be astonished how if he severed it above from the bunch on the middle bone, it is kosher, but when he lowers to cut the bunch, it is “torn,” that we can’t say that this torn part is similar to that one, for if one cuts from here and the animal dies, one cuts from there and the animal lives. And this animal is not forbidden because its leg was severed from this place, but rather because the bunch of sinews were cut, for their severing is within the general [definition] of those things that are torn. And the place of the bunch of the converging sinews begins from the place where they appear hard and white until the place that they begin to soften and redden.
+וצומת הגידין – they are three white sinews in the animal that meet and are connected together. One of them is thick and the [other] two are thin. If the thick one alone is removed, this is not the removal of the bunch of converging sinews, for two of them remain. But if the two think wones are removed from their place, it is permitted, for the one that is thick and larger than the other two, for the entire bunch of converging sinews were not removed, only a minority of them. But if most of each of them were severed, it is “torn” (i.e., not kosher). And one does not need to state if all of them were severed or if all of them were removed. And with fowl, they are sixteen white sinews, even if only the majority of one of them was severed, it is “torn” (i.e., not kosher).
+נשבר העצם – below from the knee in the place where it doesn’t make it “torn” (i.e., not kosher).
+‘אם רוב הבשר קיים – which is the hide and flesh cover most of its thickness and most of its circumference of the break. For sometimes it is found this without that, such as when it widens from one side and is narrow from the other side, for the bone is not round. Therefore, it requires both.
+שחיטתו מטהרתו – to the limb hanging down from the body, and it is permitted, even for consumption.
+ואם לאו – that the hide and the flesh do not cover the majority, the slaughtering does not render it clean. But even though the animal is permitted, the limb is forbidden because of (Exodus 22:30): “you must not eat flesh torn by beasts in the field; [you shall cast it to the dogs],” as we state (Tractate Hullin 73a), to include the limb and flesh hanging down from the body. But if the bone is broken form the knee and above to the place where it makes it “torn,” if most of the flesh exists, the limb and the animal are permitted. But if not, the limb and the animal are prohibited. And the law of the fowl is like the law of the animals of the field for this matter.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+שליא (placenta–after-birth) – a jind of pocket where the fetus is placed into it.
+נפש היפה – for it is not counted on in his mind (and therefore forbidden to handle) on account of its repulsiveness.
+תאכלנה – but we don’t say that it is the limb from a living animal (i.e., one of the seven Noahide commandments), but also is a remnant from the ritual slaughtering of the mother [animal].
+ואינה מטמאה – as it is not considered food.
+ולא טומאת נבילות – if the animal died.
+מטמאה טומאת אוכלין (if he gave thought to it – for use as food) – of it came in contact with defilement, that his thought considers it as food. But not the uncleanness of carrion, for it is not meat but rather, merely like the rest of food in general.
+אסורה באכילה – and even though only a small part of it (i..e, the placenta–after-birth) came out, and it is obvious that all that all of the cleansing of the fetus was not there, we are concerned perhaps that with that particular piece, the head of the offspring came out and that is considered like it is born.
+[הכי גרסינן] סימן ולד באשה. וסימן ולד בבהמה: המבכרת – this is her first issue of her womb.
+ישליכנה לכלבים – for there is no sanctity in it. For even though there is no placenta–after-birth without a offspring, here, the majority is not sanctified, for perhaps it was a female, or it was an animal suspected of looking like one (i.e., a lamb looking like a kid and vice-versa – or a hybrid), and it is not holy (see Mishnah 1 of this chapter).
+ובמוקדשין – as, for example, the cattle of peace-offering–well-being which expelled the after-birth–placenta.
+תקבר – for since there is no after-birth–placenta without offspring, it is sanctified, for whether a male or a female that left from the animal that was sanctified to the Temple is holy.
+בפרשת דרכים – a place where the paths separate into two. And the path of diviners to bury her there in order that she will not abort anymore.
+דרכי האמורי – sorcery, as it is written (Exodus 23:24}: “[you shall not bow down to the gods in worship] or follow their practices.”
+
+Chapter 5
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+אותו ואת בנו – the mother and the male offspring, or the mother and the female offspring, but the father with the male offspring or with the female offspring is not forbidden [to be slaughtered on the same day], for (Leviticus 22:28): “[However, no animal from the herd or from the flock shall be slaughtered] on the same day with its young,” implies whomever’s offspring is clinging, excluding the male (i.e., the father) whose male offspring is not clinging.
+בין בארץ בין בחוצה לארץ –since it is necessary to teach, whether with unconsecrated things whether with consecrated things, it (i.e., the Mishnah) teaches also “whether in the Land of Israel” or “whether outside the Land of Israel,” even though it is not necessary, for it is the obligation of personal duty (as opposed to laws connected with the soil of the Land of Israel), for personal duty applies whether in the Land of Israel or whether outside the Land of Israel.
+בפני הבית – at the time when the Temple exists.
+ושלא בפני הבית – you might think I would say, for since it is written regarding the matter of Holy Things, that when the Temple exists, we will apply it, when the Temple doesn’t exist, we will not apply it. Therefore, it comes to tell us the opposite.
+בחולין ובמוקדשים – whether both (i.e., the mother and the offspring) are unconsecrated or both are sanctified, and from where in the Torah do we learn that it applies to that which is sanctified? As it is written (Leviticus 22:27): “When an ox or a sheep or a goat is born,[it shall stay seven days with its mother, and from the eight day on] it shall be acceptable as a gift to the LORD,” and afterwards it is written (Leviticus 22:28): “However no animal from the herd or from the flock shall be slaughtered on the same day with its young.”
+בחוץ – outside of the Temple courtyard.
+שניהם כשרים – because it was necessary to teach in the concluding clause [of the Mishnah] that both of them are disqualified, the first clause [of the Mishnah] teaches that both are fit.
+והשני סופג את הארבעים – because of the negative commandment of “no animal…[shall be slaughtered on the same day] with its young” (Leviticus 22:28). And there is no difference whether he slaughtered the mother first, and makes no difference whether he slaughtered the offspring first. It makes no difference whether both were slaughtered by one person, and makes no difference if two people [slaughtered the mother and its young].
+הראשון חייב כרת – because of slaughtering outside of the Temple. But the second [of the pair of the mother and its offspring] is exempt from extirpation, for since the mother was slaughtered, the offspring is further not worthy to be slaughtered today inside, for it is disqualified because of lacking time (i.e., an offering cannot be offered because its time to be offered has not yet arrived), for it is not appropriate to slaughter it and to offer it today, and he is not liable because of slaughtering outside [the Temple] unless it is appropriate inside, as it is written (Leviticus 17:4): “and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,” that which is appropriate [to be brought] to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, he is liable for it outside, and if not, then not.
+ושניהם סופגים את הארבעים – the first because of slaughtering outside, for all who are liable for violating laws of extirpation are flogged, and the second because of the negative commandment of “the mother and its young.”
+חולין בפנים שנהים פסולין – because unconsecrated offerings which were slaughtered in the Temple courtyard.
+והשני סופג – because of “the mother and its young.” But because of unconsecrated animals in the Temple courtyard, there is the warning of a positive commandment (Deuteronomy 12:21): “If the place [where there LORD has chosen to establish His name] is too far from you, you may slaughter [any of the cattle or sheep that the LORD gives you],” when there is a distance of place, you slaughter, but you do not slaughter when the place is close.
+קדשים בפנים כו' והשני סופג – because of “the mother and its young.”
+ופסול – because of lacking time.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+חולין וקדשים בחוץ – specifically it [i.e., the Mishnah] took the first as unconsecrated produce and the second as Holy Things (i.e., belonging to the Temple). And similarly, all that is taught in the Mishnah, specifically it took them.
+והשני סופג – because of (Leviticus 22:28): “an animal…with its young.”
+קדשים – at first, and afterwards, unconsecrated produce outside.
+והשני כשר – for consumption. But since it (i.e., the Mishnah) taught it was invalid, it taught, it was fit.
+ושניהם סופגים – the first because of slaughtering outside [the Temple courtyard], and the second because of “an animal with its young” (Leviticus 22:28)
+חולין וקדשים בפנים שניהם פסולים – the first because of unconsecrated animals that were slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, and the second because of lacking time (i.e., that the time to be offered has not yet arrived).
+והשני סופג – because of “an animal with its young.”
+חולין בחוץ ובפנים – the first slaughtered outside [the Temple courtyard] and the second within [the Temple courtyard].
+קדשים בחוץ ובפנים הראשון בכרת – because of slaughtering outside[the Temple courtyard].
+ושניהם פסולים – the first because it was slaughtered outside [the Temple courtyard] and the second because of lacking time (i.e., that the time to be offered has not yet arrived).
+ושניהם סופגים – the first because of slaughtering outside [the Temple courtyard], and the second because of “an animal with its young.”
+קדשים בפנים ובחוץ – for the second, one receives [forty – actually, thirty nine] lashes] because of “an animal with its young,” but because of slaughtering outside [the Temple courtyard], one is not flogged, for because of lacking time (i.e., that the time to be offered has not yet arrived, and he it is not accepted inside [the Temple courtyard].
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+פרה חטאת – the red heifer, which is not for consumption.
+ושור הנסקל – after its verdict has been announced, for we hold hat it is prohibited to derive benefit even when slaughtering it.
+ועגלה ערופה – for he holds that it is forbidden while alive, and even if e slaughtered it, it is forbidden. But in the Gemara (Tractate Hullin 82a) reaches the definitive conclusion that the red heifer and the heifer whose neck is to be broken are not taught in our Mishnah. For regarding both of them, their slaughter is appropriate, and one must remove them from the Mishnah and Rabbi Shimon did not exempt them (for slaughter that is not appropriate for eating is not called slaughter).
+וחכמים מחייבין – this that the Sages make him liable when slaughtering for idolatrous purposes, they did not teach other than when he slaughtered the first for idolatrous purposes and the second [animal] came and he slaughtered it for his table to eat it, but if the first was for his table and the second was for idolatrous purposes, that through the latter slaughtering is what makes him liable because of “an animal and its young” (Leviticus 22:28), the law of killing comes upon him, and he is exempt from lashes–flogging because he who has committed two offenses simultaneously, must be held answerable for the severer penalty which is death (i.e., for slaughtering for idolatrous purposes, but he is exempt from flogging for the slaughtering of the animal and her young in one day – see Talmud Hullin 81b) for two [punishments] we don’t do to him. But sometimes, that even when he slaughtered the first for his table and the second for idolatrous purposes, he is liable, as, for example, when they (i.e., witnesses) warned him because of “an animal and its young” (Leviticus 22:28), but they didn’t warn him because of idolatrous purposes, for since they did not warn him regarding idolatrous purposes, he is not killed, but he is flogged because of “an animal and its young.” But the Halakha is according to the Sages.
+ונתנבלה בידו – inadvertently–unknowingly.
+והנוחר – inserting the knife in its nostrils and cuts [the windpipe].
+והמעקר – tearing loose the windpipe and gullet from the place where they are attached and he doesn’t slaughter them.
+פטור – and even according to the Rabbis. But it is not similar to ritual slaughter of above, for there, it is an appropriate ritual slaughter, and another things causes it to be invalidated, but here, there isn’t ritual slaughter at all.
+איזה שלקח ראשון ישחוט ראשון – if they came to the Jewish court, he who came first to slaughter and his fellow detains him and says: “I need it more than you,” we say to them, that the first purchaser should סperson and he detained for himself, the [original] purchaser would slaughter it. For such we taught in the Tosefta (Hullin, Chapter 5, Halakha 5), that he who purposes it from the owner, he precedes the owner, for on that account, he purchased it.
+ואם קדם השני זכה – that he advanced himself in order that he not come to a prohibition, and he has the interval that he eats meat today.
+סופג שמונים – for on every male offspring that he slaughters, he transgresses a negative commandment.
+סופג את ארבעים – for there isn’t here a forbidden slaughtering other than one.
+שחטה ואת בתה ואח"כ את בת בתה – there are two [violations] of “an animal and its young.”
+שחטה ואת בת בתה – there is [not] yet here a prohibition. ואח"כ שחט את בתה – and there is in this slaughtering two prohibitions, “an animal and its young” because of its mother,” and an offspring and it because of its female offspring of that which has already been slaughtered.
+סופג ארבעים – it is one negative commandment ‘violated] and one warning and one deed.
+סומכוס אומר סופג שמונים – for Sumachos holds that he is liable for one warning and with one negative commandment, two [punishments of] stripes. And the same law applies with the first clause [of the Mishnah] which teaches that if he slaughtered its two offspring and afterwards slaughtered her (i.e., the mother), he receives forty (actually thirty-nine) lashes. According to Sumachos, he receives eighty lashes. Such it is in the Tosefta (Hullin, Chapter 5, Halakha 7), if he slaughters her five offspring and afterwards slaughter it (i.e., the mother), Sumachos states in the name of Rabbi Meir that he is liable because of [the violation] of five negative commandments.
+בארבעה פרים בשנה – it is the manner of Israel to make meals on these four seasons [of the year], for a person who simply purchases an animal does not purchase it other than to slaughter it immediately, therefore, a person who sells an animal to his fellow and he sells first its mother or its female offspring on that selfsame day, he must state to the second [person]: “Know for yourself that I sold its mother for slaughter” or “I sold its female offspring for slaughter” lest it was already slaughtered.
+ביום טוב האחרון של חג – they would increase in joy because it is a festival of its own and was beloved to them. And this did not consider the eve of the first day of the Festival, because the entire world is preoccupied with [the building of] the Sukkah and [acquiring] a Lulav [and Etrog], and they don’t have free time to make a large slaughtering.
+אף ערבי יום הכיפורים בגלילי – but not in Judea and not in the rest of the lands, for they would not eat on the Eve of Yom Kippur anything other than meat, children and–or fish as is proven in Bereshit Rabbah, regarding a particular tailor who sold a fish.
+בזמן שאין לו ריוח – interruption between them, that he sold the mother [animal] today.
+אבל יש לו ריוח – that he sold the first yesterday and the second today.
+אין צריך להודיעו – for I say: “Yesterday, I slaughtered it first.” Another explanation: At the time when he doesn’t have space of time that he is in haste and hurries to purchase that shows that he wants to slaughter today. But if he has a space of time that he is not in haste to purchase it, he is not required to inform him, for lest it was for the need of another day that he purchases it. But Rabbi Yehuda, he comes to explain the matter of the first Tanna–teacher and not to dispute it.
+ומודה ר' יהודה – even hough that he purchased this [animal] today and that [animal] on the morrow, And regarding the second explanation, even though he is not in haste and hurried to purchase.
+את האם לחת ואת הבת לכלה – it is a usual incident, for it is the custom of the world to make a large meal at the house of the groom from the house of the bride; therefore, the mother fo the grow who is larger, and the offspring which is smaller to the bride.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+He slaughters the meat against his will: That if he accepts a Dinar from the buyer, he gives him a Dinar's worth of meat.
+..
+לפיכך אם מת מת ללוקח – And he loses his Denar, for it died when it was in his domain–possession.
+אינו כן – for we require “pulling” and all the while that he didn’t “pull,” the butcher can retract.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+יום אחד האמור באותו ואת בנו כו' – because the portion of “the animal and its young” (Leviticus 22:28) is adjacent to the sacrifice, and it is written (Leviticus 22:27): “[ad from the eighth day on] it shall be acceptable as a gift to [the LORD],” and adjacent to it, “the animal and its young” (Leviticus 22:28). But with Holy Things, the night follows after the day, as it is written (Leviticus 7:15): “[And the flesh of his thanksgiving sacrifice of well-being] shall be eaten on the day that it is offered; none of it shall be set aside until morning.” So we see that the night that is after it is called the “on the day...until morning.” It is possible that even this is the case [it is stated here, “one day”] and it is stated in the Creation story (Genesis 1:5): “[And there was evening and there was morning] the first day.”
+
+Chapter 6
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+כיסוי הדם כו' – because it was necessary to teach [in the Mishnah] with non-consecrated–profane things but not with sanctified–dedicated things, it took all of them.
+במוקדשין – the sin-offering of fowl and the burnt-offering of fowl, and similarly things sanctified for the repair of the Temple, if he transgressed and slaughtered them, they do not require covering [of the blood].
+ונוהג בחיה ובעוף – to exclude cattle as you would not say that the cattle is included among wildlife, and we derive it from what it is written regarding a firstborn having a blemish (Deuteronomy 15:23): “ [Only you must not partake of its blood;] you shall pour it out on the ground like water.” Just as water does not require covering, even the blood of cattle do not require covering.
+במזומן – fowl that grows in the house.
+ונוהג בכוי – it is a creature of its own and the Sages did not determine if it is [a kind of] wildlife that would require covering [of the blood], [or] if it is cattle and does not require covering [of its blood].
+ואין שוחטין אותו ביו"ט – because perhaps it requires covering [of its blood] and out of doubt, we don’t violate [the sanctity] of the Yom Tov–Jewish holy day.
+ואם שחטו ביו"ט אין מכסים את דמו – and even if there was dust prepared or ashes, lest the person who sees it will say that it is definitely wildlife and therefore, he covered its blood on the Jewish holy day, and he will come to permit its fat.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+רבי מאיר מחייב – for he holds that ritual slaughter that is inappropriate is called ritual slaughter.
+וחכמים פוטרים – as they hold that [inappropriate ritual slaughter] is not called ritual slaughter, and the Halakha is according to the Sages.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+ואחרים רואין אותם – for in that manner, their ritual slaughter was fit.
+חייבים לכסות – those others that see them are liable to cover [the blood] as it is taught further on. If he ritually slaughtered and did not cover [the blood] and another saw him, he is liable to cover [the blood].
+פטור מלכסות – Rabbi Meir said regarding it that he holds that the ritual slaughter of a deaf-mute, imbecile and–or a minor, among themselves, is complete carrion–not slaughtered according to the ritual rules, since most of their acts are corrupted. But the Rabbis dispute that of Rabbi Meir whether at the beginning [of the Mishnah] or at the end [of the Mishnah], but rather they observe him until he completes the matter and then return to dispute him, for the Rabbis think that it is doubtful carrion–not slaughtered according to the ritual rules, but not verifiable carrion. Therefore, regarding the matter of covering [the blood], they are obligated to cover [the blood], and they don’t do ritual slaughter after them of the animal and its young (see Leviticus 22:28), lest it is a good–valid ritual slaughtering. But the Halakha is according to Rabbi Meir.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+שחט חיה יכסנה ואחר כך ישחוט את העוף – as it is written (Leviticus 17:13): “[And if any Israelite or any stranger who resides among them hunts down] an animal or a bird [that may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth],” he interrupts from this one to the other one to put on a covering for each and every one. But the Rabbis think this or they require him to divide it, for it not, I would have said that there is no need to cover [the blood] unless he ritually slaughtered both of them. But everyone admits that regarding the blessing, he doesn’t recite other than one blessing, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.
+וראהו אחר חייב לכסות – as it is written in the portion of the covering of the blood, [and I say] (Leviticus 17:12): “[Therefore I say] to the Israelite people: [No person among you shall partake of blood],” this Mitzvah–commandment applies to all the Israelite people.
+כסהו הרוח חייב לכסות – this Mishnah was learned only that he returned and it was revealed–exposed, but if he did not return and it was revealed, he is exempt from covering [the blood].
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+נתערב ביין – which is red and the appearance of the blood is not recognized in it.
+רואין אותו – [we view that] wine as if [it is] water, for if the appearance of blood was recognized in the water according to this measurement, he would be liable to cover [the blood].
+נתערב בדם בהמה – which is not something covered, and the majority of it is the blood of a cattle.
+או בדם חיה – the blood bled by an animal–beast of chase or deer.
+רואין אותו – that it is not required to cover [the blood], as if it were water, but if this blood is from the ritual slaughter of an animal–beast of chase and fowl and it is recognized, one is required to cover it.
+אין דם מבטל דם – and even if the appearance of blood is not recognized in the water like the blood of this cattle, the blood of animals–beasts of chase are not nullified, for he holds that a mixture of homogeneous things (of which one is forbidden), the rule of neutralization by quantity takes no effect (see Talmud Hullin 100a). But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+דם הניתז – on the back of the wall.
+אימתי – it comes to explain but not to dispute.
+
+Chapter 7
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+גיד הנשה. ובמוקדשים – even a burnt offering which is burnt entirely, he removes the nervus ischiadicus (i.e., sinew of the hip, the sciatic nerve) and casts it upon the ashes of the communal altar that is called “pile” (the place on the altar where the ashes are piled up) and it is not offered up with the meat.
+שאין לו כף – it does not have a hollow [of the thigh or a spoon-shaped hip] similar to that of man which is round, but the rather, the meat that is upon the thigh-bone of the fowl is in its width. And if fowl is found that has a round sole, its sciatic nerve is prohibited.
+ונוהג בשליל – a living [embryo] nine [months old] that is found in the animal.
+And the Halacha is not like R. Yehuda.
+וחלבו – of the embryo is permitted. Another interpretation: and the fat of the sinew, meaning to say, the permitted fat of animals (as opposed to forbidden fat) is permitted according to al, but the Jewish people which is holy practiced a prohibition regarding it.
+ואין הטבחים נאמנים – [the butchers are not believed] to state we take it because of the trouble it is for them to hollow it out. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+שולח אדם ירך לנכרי וכו' – and we don’t take into consideration lest a Jew should see it when he sends it to him and he returns and purchases it from the heathen and eat it with its sinew. For since it is whole, the place of the sciatic nerve is known if it was hollowed out from it and the purchaser understands that it was not removed, and he removes it.
+שיטול את כולו – he will hollow it out afterwards.
+לקיים בו מצות נטילה – he peels the fat off even (see Talmud Hullin 92b) from the top and that is enough.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+אכלו ואין בו כזית חייב – because it is a living creature, he is liable for whatever the amount, like one who eats an ant of whatever the amount is liable.
+מזה כזית – from the right thigh an olive’s bulk and similarly from the left thigh.
+אינו סופג אלא ארבעים – for Rabbi Yehuda holds that this is not practiced other than with the right [thigh] for he expounds (Genesis 32:33): “[the socket] of the hip,” that means the strongest of the hips (i.e., the right” (see Talmud Hullin 91a). But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+כבשר בלפת – we view it as if the thigh is broken and the nerve is meat, and whereas if it provided a flavor in the meat like the size of the nerve–sinew, like turnips, [like the measurement of] the thigh, it is prohibited, for the measurement is a traditional law dating from Moses as delivered from Sinai, and we derive that in this we estimate, even though it if it were a cabbage or a leek with a head–porret, one would need less, or more, and that of our Mishnah would be superseded and is not the Halakha and we hold that there isn’t in the sinews–nerve for imparting a flavor, for whether it is cooked or whether it is salted or whether it is roasted, we cast it aside and it is permitted. But especially it, but its fat, it imparts a flavor and if he didn’t carry off the fat, it prohibits, and the imparting of a flavor that is mentioned with it must be of the same species, for a person cannot distinguish, we estimate it as one-sixtieth.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+גיד הנשה שנתבשל עם הגידים – [of those thighs] that are permitted.
+בזמן שמכירו – he casts it outside, and there is nothing here other than its remnants.
+בנותן טעם – if the prohibited nerve–sinew imparts a taste of flavor in all of these, they are all prohibited.
+ואם לאו – that he doesn’t recognize that all of them are forbidden, and in each one, one can say that this is it, but it is not neutralized through a majority for it is considered like a living creature and a living creature cannot be neutralized.
+בזמן שמכירין – for the forbidden pieces, we estimate with the imparting of a flavor and if there isn’t enough in order to impart a flavor, it is something permitted, and the rest is permitted.
+ואם אין מכירין – all the pieces are forbidden for each one of them, one can suspect and state that perhaps this is it, and it is not nullified in a majority, since it is appropriate to be adorned before the guests.
+והרוטב מותר – if there isn’t among the forbidden pieces in order to impart a flavor to the broth–juice and the sediment of boiled meat and the pieces and the Halakha in practice is that something forbidden that was mixed with something permitted, a species that is combined with something that is not its species, that one can establish it by taste, if it is priest’s due–heave offering that we combined with profane–unconsecrated produce, a Kohen should taste it. And if it is a forbidden thing, then a heathen professional baker should taste it. If he states that this mixture does not contain the taste of heave offering or the taste of something prohibited, everything is permitted, and the Rabbis believed the heathen professional baker, because it is his craft, he doesn’t lie so that he doesn’t lose his profession. And if there was a mixture of one species with something from the same species where it is not possible to establish the taste–flavor, or if it was one species with something from another species, and there was no Kohen present, or a heathen upon whom one can rely, if the prohibited [substance] is from fat and blood of animals that died of themselves (i.e., carrion) and torn animals, forbidden animals and reptiles, we estimate it with being [one-part] in sixty. If there are sixty [parts] of permitted [food] corresponding to the prohibited [part], it is all permitted, and if not, everything is prohibited. And similarly, the permitted fat of the sciatic nerve, we estimate it corresponding to the sixty [parts] of permissible [fat] but the udder that was cooked with the meat, we estimate it with sixty parts, and the udder is part of the number, because it’s prohibition is from the words of the Scribes; and an egg which has a chick [within] that was cooked with the rest of the permitted eggs, it requires sixty-one parts corresponding to it, but if the prohibited [part] is priest’s due–heave offering, Hallah and First-Fruits, if it is one species with material from the same species, or one species with material from another species, and there isn’t a Kohen or a heathen who can taste it, we estimate it with one-hundred [parts] of unconsecrated produce. But if it is fruit of trees of the first three years or mixed seats in the vineyard, we estimate it with two-hundred parts and all of these measures, we estimate with what is in the pot with the broth and the pieces and the spices and the sediments of boiled meat, and this is the smallest of the bowels at the rim–bottom of the pot, and what comes before us, we estimate, but we don’t estimate what the pot absorbed from that which is permitted, for even that which is prohibited is absorbed and reduced from the amount that was, for that which was permitted was absorbed, but that which was forbidden was not absorbed.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+ואינו נוהג בטמאה – for if he ate the sciatic nerve of prohibited [meat], the one who states that there is the imparting of a flavor by the nerve–sinew is flogged because it is a ritually impure, and not because of the sinew–nerve, and the one who states that the sinew–nerves have no flavor, is exempt from everything, for a pure piece of wood is what the Torah obligates him, but one that is impure, is not practiced.
+מבני יעקב נאסר – and yet that which is impure is permitted to them, until the Giving of the Torah.
+אמרו לו – this Biblical verse that they warned him at Sinai it was stated at Sinai, but until Sinai, they were not warned about it.
+אלא שנכתב במקומו – after it was stated at Sinai, when Moses came to arrange the Torah, he wrote this Biblical passage about the event, therefore, the children of Israel were warned afterwards that they should not eat the sciatic nerve [to known for which reason it was prohibited to them], but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.
+
+Chapter 8
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+כל הבשר אסור לבשל בחלב – there are those of them, from the words of the Torah, such as the flesh–meat of cattle. But there are those of them from words of the Scribes, such as the meat–flesh of fowl.
+חוץ מבשר דגים וחגבים – which are not either from the words of the Torah nor from the words of the Scribes.
+ואסור להעלותן עם הגבינה על השלחן – and even the flesh–meat of fowl whose eating is forbidden [with cheese] from the words of the Sages, it is forbidden to bring them up with the cheese on the table. It is a decree lest one brings cheese with the flesh–meat of cattle in a boiling tightly-covered pot, which is forbidden from the Torah, which is considered cooking.
+הנודר מן הבשר – in vows, he went after the language of human beings. And for every type of meat that a person calls “meat”, except for the meat of fish and locusts.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+ובלבד שלא יהיו נוגעים זה בזה – for if they (i.e., meat and cheese) touch–come in contact, even though it is something cold with something cold, they require rinsing.
+שני אכסנאין אוכלין על שלחן אחד – specifically if they don’t know one another, but if they know each other, it is forbidden, for perhaps one of them will take from that of his colleague and will eat it. But the Halakha is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+טיפת חלב שנפלה – into the pot of one of the pieces for all of it is outside of the sauce, and he did not stir the pot nor did he cover it. The taste of the drop [of milk] was not divided–spread other than upon that piece alone.
+אם יש בנותן טעם באותה חתיכה – meaning to say, if there is not in that piece alone sixty [parts] to nullify the drop, the piece [of meat] is immediately forbidden and prohibits [the pieces] next to it, and it requires sixty [parts] corresponding the entire [piece of] meat.
+ניער את הקדרה – that he stirred it immediately, before the piece actually absorbed the taste from the drop [of milk], for now, the drop [of milk] has been mixed with everything.
+אם יש בנותן אעם באותה קדרה – meaning to say, there isn’t power in the drop [of milk] to prohibit all of it, other than if it has the flavor to give to the entire pot.
+הכחל – the nipples [of the breast] of the cow.
+קורעו ומוציא את חלבו – tears it by its warp (i.e., longitudinal direction) and woof (i.e., latitudinal direction) and squeeze it–fasten it into the wall and he is permitted afterwards to cook it with the meat in the pot.
+לא קרעו אינו עובר עליו – of he cooked it alone in the pot, and it is permissible to do this even ab initio, but since it (i.e., the Mishnah) is required to teach the concluding clause regarding the heart, if he didn’t tear it, he doesn’t violate anything regarding it, but nevertheless, there is a prohibition, it is also taught in the opening clause, that he doesn’t violate anything, but if he cooked it with the meat without tearing it, we estimate it by sixty [parts], and the nipple itself is part of the count, but the nipple remains always forbidden.
+הלב קורעו ומוציא את דמו. לא קרעו אינו עובר עליו – to be in extirpation, and in Tractate Keritot [22a], it establishes it with the heart of a fowl that does not have an olive’s bulk of blood, but the heart of cattle, one is liable for extirpation if he did not eat it and did not tear it after cooking it. But the flesh of the heart is not forbidden, for the heart is part but does not absorb.
+אינו עובר לבא תעשה – he cannot come to [the violation of] a negative commandment, meaning to say, one should not worry lest he eat it and transgress it; or alternatively he consumes it and does not transgress the negative commandment.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+מותר לבשל ומותר בהנאה – there is nothing in it because of meat with milk, for “a kid” (“You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk” is written three times (i.e., Exodus 23:19, Exodus 34:26 and Deuteronomy 14:21) relating to the prohibition of meat in milk. And one of them is to exclude the unclean–levitically impure, for if he cooked the meat of unclean cattle, even in the milk of pure cattle it is permitted, but, however, regarding eating, it is prohibited because of unclean meat. And similarly, also, as the words “in its mother’s milk” is written three times, and one of those is to exclude impure milk, and even if the meat is pure.
+פרט לחיה ולעוף ולבהמה טמאה – a “kid,” excluding fowl which is not cattle. A “kid,” excluding a beast of chase, and even though a beast of chase is included within cattle. An additional Biblical verse comes to exclude it. A “kid,” and not unclean cattle, and we derive if from what is written (Genesis 27:16): “with the skins of the kids;” “Judah sent the kid [by his friend the Adullamite]” (Genesis 38:20) – here the Biblical verse explains to you that this “kid” is from the goats. But if he did not explain this, there is by implication, even the rest of the cattle, hence it was necessary for him to explain this.
+נאמר לא תאכלו כל נבלה – and it is stated in that same [Biblical] verse: “You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk, which implies that everyone who practices this prohibition of a carrion (i.e., an animal that has died a natural death), it has because of [the prohibition] of meat with milk. And there is a difference between Rabbi Yosi Haglili and Rabbi Akiva, for Rabbi Yosi Haglili holds that a beast of chase is according to Torah, for everything that is forbidden because of being a carrion, it also has the [prohibition of] meat with milk, except for the fowl, which has no mother’s milk. But Rabbi Akiva holds that beasts of chase are not from the Torah; alternatively, there is a difference between them concerning fowl according to the Rabbis. Rabbi Akiva who explained that it is not from the Torah, implying that it is from the Rabbis where regarding it there is a prohibition, but Rabbi Yosi Haglili did not explain this language and permitted it completely. But the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+קיבה – congealed milk that is within the maw.
+נכרי ושל נבלה – this is what he said, the maw [of the stomach] slaughtered by a heathen is carrion and this is prohibited.
+המעמיד – milk.
+בעור של קיבה – which is meat.
+אם יש בה – to impart a flavor with milk, it is prohibited, and if not, it is permitted, and even though he curdles [milk] since the flesh itself is of something permitted, and its prohibition is not other than on account of another matter that was combined with it, and we don’t say in this that everything follows after the curdling. But if he curdled the cheese in the flesh of the maw of a carrion, even if it doesn’t have what to impart a flavor in the milk, it is prohibited because the curdling is prohibited, and its prohibition is on account of itself. Therefore, [the Rabbis] prohibited the heathen cheeses because they curdle it in the skin of the maw of a carrion. But the rennet itself which is the congealed milk that is within the maw. We wind up that there isn’t a prohibition at all, that it is a mere secretion (see Tractate Hullin 116b). Maimonides wrote this, but Rashi wrote that the milk that is found congealed in the skin of the maw that we salt it in its hide. I would be wont to permit it until this point, for as long as no other milk is placed in it. But I would err in this for I would think as we state [in Talmud Avodah Zarah 29b -see Mishnah Avodah Zarah, Chapter 2, Mishnah 5) regarding the rennet from a whole [burnt] offering of a Kohen who is not squeamish sucks it out raw, we learn from it that it is a mere secretion and it is not forbidden. But it is not complete milk, as it is taught in our Mishnah that it is fit, when one sucked it from an animal with an organic inflicted disease, it is prohibited, we learn from it that it is milk. And the rennet of a burnt offering which is permitted, because it is not part of its body but rather that which is quaffed from its mother, and it is an entrance into the bowels like it is placed into a dish and it is permitted.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+שחחלב מועלין בו – and even offerings of lesser sanctity (I.e., individual peace offerings, the thanks-offering, the Nazirite’s ram, the male firstborn of a kosher animal, animal tithes, and the Paschal lamb) which are the money of their owners, there is no sacrilege during their lifetimes, [but] there is sacrilege with the portions of the offerings consumed on the altar (i.e., portions of sin-offerings, guilt-offerings and peace offerings consumed on the altar such as the fats, the kidneys and the fat-tail, etc.) after their blood has been sprinkled, as it is written regarding offerings of lesser sanctity (Leviticus 3:16): “All fat is the LORD’s,” and thus it is written for them “the LORD’s,” to state that we call them the holy things of God, regarding sacrilege–misappropriation.
+וטמא – if he ate it with an impure body, he is liable for two sin-offerings; one because of fat and one because of impurity of an impure body.
+משא"כ בדם (see Tractate Meilah, Chapter 3, Mishnah 3) – for relating to blood, it is written (Leviticus 17:11): “[For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have assigned it to you] for making expiation for your lives upon the altar,” for expiation–atonement it was given, but not that it should be called, “mine” to make sacrilege–misappropriation, for it does not endure other than to atone for yourselves, but it does not have [anything] because of a sacrifice that is disqualified by improper intention [of the officiating Kohen] (i.e., “piggul”) for another thing permits it, such as the meat of holy things as the blood permits it to the Kohanim with his sprinkling of it, and like the example of the burnt offering whose blood permits it to the altar, for if its blood was not sprinkled, its limbs are not offered, as it is written (Leviticus 17:6): “That the priest may dash [the] blood against the altar of the LORD [at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting],” and afterwards, “and turn the fat into smoke as a pleasing odor [to the LORD].” These have in them [the possibility of] an offering disqualified by improper intention. But blood which in and of itself permits, they are not liable for regarding an offering disqualified by improper intention. But they don’t have an offering left over [after the time permitted for it to be eaten – punishable by extirpation] and impure also, as it is written, “with blood” twice to exclude. – “him” and “they” – one to exclude from an offering left over, and one to exclude from defilement.
+אלא בבהמה טמאה – as it is written (Leviticus 7:25): “[If anyone eats the fat of] animals from which offerings by fie may be made to the LORD [the person who eats it shall be cut of from his kin].”
+
+Chapter 9
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+העור והרוטב (the hide and the juice of meat) – because it is taught in the Mishnah in the chapter [four]: “A beast which was in hard labor” regarding the placenta–after-birth, and that it does not defile the defilement of foods nor the defilement of carrions, it (i.e., the Mishnah) teaches, “The Hide and the Juice of Meat” – chapter 9). But this that separates–divides, because it (i.e., the Mishnah) teaches in the chapter “A beast which was in hard labor” (in Mishnah 5): “[If] he found a live nine-months’ birth, it requires slaughtering and he is liable for to the ruling of ‘it and its young’,” it (i.e., the Mishnah) taught afterwards [the chapter] “It and its young.” But since it (chapter 5) is speaking about ritual slaughtering that is not appropriate, it (i.e., the Mishnah) teaches after it (chapter 6), “the requirement to cover up its blood,” and since it (i.e., the Mishnah) teaches in “the requirement to cover up its blood,” and that it applies to wild beasts and fowl, it (i.e., the Mishnah) teaches “The sinew of the hip–the sciatic nerve” (Chapter 7) which applies to wild animals but not to fowl. But since it teaches in “The sinew of the hip–the sciatic nerve” with the thigh that was cooked with the sinew of the hip [with forbidden swallowing], it teaches “Every [kind of] flesh” (Chapter 8), and after it, it returns to the first matter of the placenta–after-birth, or that doesn’t become defiled with the defilement of foods.
+העור והרוטב – the hide of the ritually slaughtered animal, such as, for example, less than an egg’s bulk of flesh and its hide is attached to it, it combines, because it protects the flesh, and the guards combine for a light defilement which is defilement of food, as It is written regarding it (Leviticus 11:37): “[If such a carcass falls upon] seed grain that is to be sown, [it is pure],” in he manner that people find for sowing, wheat in its husk and barley in its husk and lentils in their husks. But even though that in this verse (Leviticus 11:37 referenced above), it is written that “it is pure,” the reason is that it did not become susceptible, but adjacent to it (Leviticus 11:38): “but if water is put on the seed, [and any part of a carcass falls upon it]” that it becomes susceptible, it is impure.(i.e., “it is impure for you”).
+והרוטב – that it is congealed–becomes solid in that it is the manner to eat it with the meat–flesh, and combines to complete the measurement, like the bulk of an egg. But it is not able to receive defilement on its own.
+והקיפה – spices. But they are not considered to be food on their own, but rather, to be combined with foods.
+האלל (fatty substance of meat) – sinews of the spine and of the neck, and it is wide, white and hard, and we call it KAPILO in the foreign tongue. And its example is in Job [13:4]: “[If you invent lies,] All of you are quacks.” For once it is split–broken in two, it has no remedy to be attached once again, so you [as well], a thing that has no remedy, you say to provide a remedy. Alternatively, the Tanna–teacher [of the Mishnah] calls it אלל–fatty substance of meat–flesh which the knife has taken off (see Talmud Hullin 121a), when they flay the animal, sometimes when the knife removes from the flesh near the hide, and it is not considered food, but combines with the food.
+והקרנים והטלפים (and the horns and the hooves) – all that they sever them and blood comes out from them near their roots from below which are soft. But however, on their own, they are not food.
+מצטרפין – because it protects.
+לטמא טומאת אוכלין – to complete the measurement like the bulk of an egg, for impure foods do not defile with less than an egg’s bulk.
+אבל לא טומאת נבילות – if they are carrion [meat], they do not defile, and they don’t combine to the equivalent of an olive’s bulk to complete the measurement of a carrion to defile a person and he clothing that are upon him, as it is written (Leviticus 11:39): “[If an animal that you may eat has died,] anyone who touches its carcass [shall be impure until evening],” and not on the hide which does not have the equivalent of an olive’s bulk of flesh and the hide completes the equivalent of an olive’s bulk, for the person who comes in contract with it is not ritually impure, because the guarding does not combine to defilement of carrions. And similarly, the spices and the juice of the meat that becomes congealed are not a species of carrion. And the fatty substance of meat and the sinews are not meat–flesh. But we consume them generally with flesh–meat.
+כיוצא בו – [there is] that which defiles the defilement of foods, to receive defilement from the unclean reptile and it defiles other foods, but does not defile of its own accord the defilement of carrion to defile others.
+השוחט בהמה טמאה לנכרי – a Jew who slaughtered an impure animal for the needs of a heathen, and it is still moves convulsively, even though It is not fit for a heathen, for ritual slaughter is not permitted to the children of Noah until it dies, even so, since an Israelite did a ritual slaughter, it is as good–valid slaughter, for since that slaughter is permitted regarding that an Israelite with a ritually pure animal, his intention–thought is considered as food with a ritual slaughter, even with something ritually impure for a heathen. But a heathen, regarding ritual slaughter does not consider it in his thought as food, and we do not find it as slaughter concerning him. But something ritually impure for a Jew is not considered as food for him., for his intention is void.
+אבל לא טומאת נבילות עד שתמות – for this [verse] (Leviticus 11:39): “If an animal that you may eat has die.”
+או עד שיתיז את ראשה – which would be an animal body maimed to disfigurement and a carrion while alive, and it is considered as dead, and even if it is maimed to disfigurement.
+ריבה הכתוב לטמא טומאת אוכלים = for all of these has regarding food, tat they are food but it is not called carrion even though that it is belonging to it.
+האלל המכונס (flayed off meat that is collected) – this fatty substance of the concluding segment [of the Mishnah], for everyone, it is flesh that the knife has taken off in flaying near the hide.
+המכונס – that is gathered in one place. For its intention is not abolished, and the flesh is considered carrion, and he is liable for it if he came in contact or entered in the Temple or ate Holy food. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+אלו שעורותיהן (their hide is deemed equivalent to their meat) – they defile like their meat–flesh.
+ועוד חזיר של ישוב – because it is soft and they eat it.
+אף עור חזיר הבר – for he holds that this also is soft–tender. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda (actually, it should read, Rabbi Yosi, here, as Rabbi Yehuda’s comment in the Mishnah does not come until much later in the text).
+חטוטרת של גמל הרכה (hump of a young camel) – all the while that it didn’t carry a burden.
+עגל הרך – all the while that it nurses.
+ועור הפרסות (skin of the hooves) – when they sever–cut off the legs, and it is soft.
+בית הבושת (pudenda) – the sides of the womb of the female.
+ועור שתחת האליה – the hide of the tail from under the place where there is no hair, because it is soft.
+האנקה (hedgehog) – RITZU
+והלטאה (a species of lizard) – LEVIYARDA.
+חומט (snail) – LUGMA.
+הלטאה כחולדה (the lizard is equivalent to the weasel) – its hide is smoother than its skin, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.
+וכולן שעיבדן (and all of them which one tanned) – all of these which they stated that defile like he meat, if he tanned them, they became hide and were abolished from the law of flesh and are pure.
+או שהלך בהן – that he stretched them in order to trample them, which is a bit like tanning them (and do not impart food uncleanness).
+חוץ מעור אדם – it is the law of the Torah that the skin of man, after it is tanned, it is pure, and what is the reason that they said tha the skin of man that is tanned is impure, as a decree lest a person work the skins of his mother and–or his mother into mats–rugs to sit and–or to lie upon them.
+יש להן עורות – and not one of them (i.e., the eight reptiles described in Leviticus 11:29-30) that 8ts hide will defile like its skin–meat. And it is not like the First Tanna–teacher who considers that four of them – their hides are like their meat–skin. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+בטהורה ובטמאה – whether it (i.e., the animal – beast or wild animal) is ritually slaughtered as a pure animal and the one who flays it is impure, or whether it is a impure carrion and the one who flays it is pure, if he flays it to make from the hide a spread–mat, that is, a mattress to spread out on top of the bed or on top of a table, as for example, when he tears and severs the hide completely lengthwise from the head of the animal until its tail, and he begins to flay the hide, there would be a connecting handle to remove the defilement from the carrion if a pure individual comes in contact with the hide, to bring in the defilement to the meat if it is pure.
+עד כדי אחיזה (enough for a hold [on the carcass]) – which are two handbreadths, but more than this it is not handle to bring in or to remove defilement, but if the meat is pure and defilement touched it with more than these two handbreadths, the meat was not defiled, but if the meat was carrion and something pure that is more than two handbreadths touched it, these did not defile the pure [meat].
+ולחמת (waterskin) – if he did not sever the hide lengthwise from the beginning, but rather flays it double for the needs of the waterskin, he begins from the neck and turns it over towards its tail.
+עד שיפשיט את החזה (until he will flay the breast) – which is the connector. And one who touches the hide is like one who touches the meat–skin – whether to become impure–contract uncleanness or whether to make impure–impart it, because the breast is the hardest to flay from all of the limbs.
+המרגיל (one who flays the animal from the foot upwards (the entire skin is considered as connected with the flesh – as long as the process lasts – for purposes of Levitical uncleanness) – that he begins from the feet of the animal to flay and he flays it double for the needs of the waterskin.
+כולו חבור – because e he breast is the end of his flaying. Therefore, it is all connected until the breast, and a person who touches the flayed hide, l=is like touching the skin–meat whether to impart uncleanness or to become unclean.
+עור שעל הצואר – and it was flayed of itself. Therefore, it is not connected to do the first playing that is connected in the manner that the breast makes.
+וחכמים אומרים וכו' – and the Halakha is according to the Sages.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+עור שיש עליו כזית בשר – in one place [of carrion meat].
+הנוגע בציב היוצא ממנו (the tassel–shred that proceeds from it – the tassel-like ends of the hide) – a strip and a wart that goes out from the same flesh and is suspended and connected in part. And with that tassel, there isn’t an olive’s handbreadth, but it is from its hide of an olive’s handbreadth.
+ובשערה – that is on the hide opposite that skin–meat.
+טמא – for the hair is a protection.
+מטמא במשא – for it carries an olive’s bulk of carrion.
+ולא במגע – for it is impossible to touch together, and the two touches–contacts do not combine.
+לא במגע ולא במשא – as it explains the reason in the concluding [clause], that the hide renders them negligible.
+ומודה ר"ע – and even though there isn’t an olive’s bulk from its hide in one place, in the same manner as for example, when he inserts two halves of olives on a spindle–chip, meaning to say, on a thin piece of wood, and shook them, that it is ritually impure. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+קולית (marrow-bone) – every bone that has in marrow is called a marrow-bone. And the marrow-bone of a corpse, one who touches it, whether it is stopped up or whether it is hollowed out, is ritually impure, for a bone like a barley corn of a corpse defiles through contact and carrying, as it is written (Numbers 19:16): “[And in the open, anyone who touches a person who was killed or who died naturally,] or human bone [or a grave, shall be impure seven days].”
+וקולית המוקדשים – the sacrifice that is rejected in consequence of improper intention in the mind of the officiating priest and the portions of the sacrifices left over beyond the legal time and bound to be burnt defile the hands, for the Rabbis decreed regarding them because of suspected Kohanim (of willfully unfitting a sacrifice in order to spite the owner) and–or Kohanim who shirked their duties, and they decreed even with the bones hat were used for the portions of the sacrifices left over beyond the legal time.
+קולית נבלה – the marrow-bone of a carrion – its bones do not defile, as it is written (Leviticus 11:39): “[If an animal that you may eat has died, anyone who touches] its carcass [shall be impure until evening],” and not the bones, and similarly for the moving creatures–reptiles. Therefore, those that are stopped up are pure, even from being defiled by carrying, and all the more so, through contact, for it is impossible for it to touch the bone-marrow that is inside. But even though the guard brings in and removes defilement, these words refer to a thing where it is possible to touch the defilement itself, even if only the guard touched it, it is impure, but where it is impossible to touch the defilement itself, the guard does not defile it.
+נקובים כל שהוא (hollowed out in any amount whatsoever) – een like the thread of hair where it is possible to bring into it a thread of hair of his head or his beard, for he becomes defiled through thins.
+מנין שאף במשא – it is referring to the bone-marrow of a carrion, for a moving creature–unclean reptile does not defile through carrying.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+ביצת השרץ – there are eight moving creatures–creeping things that attach eggs, such as the toad, the sand lizard and the lizard (see Leviticus 11:29-30: “The following shall be impure for you among the things that swarm on the earth: the mole, the mouse, and great lizards of every variety; the gecko, the land crocodile, the lizard, the sand lizard, and the chameleon.”).
+המרוקמת (the egg of a creeping thing in a developed state) – where a chick–young bird is formed within.
+טהורה – because it is impossible to touch the chick–young bird that is inside.
+ניקבה כל שהוא טמאה (if it is pierced in any measure, it is impure) – and even though he didn’t touch it, for the guard brings it and removes the defilement in something that is possible to touch.
+עכבר שחציו בשר – there is a species of mouse which is not “fruitful and multiply” but rather, from itself, it is formed from the ground, like garbage that breeds worms, and if it still has not completed the creation of the mouse, other than from one side – the right or the left, he who touches the flesh is ritually impure. The earth over against the flesh is pure.
+רבי יהודה אומר כו' – but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+האבר והבשר המדולדלים בבהמה – the limb is detached from it, which are the flesh, and sinews and bones, or only the flesh is detached from it, but they still are stirred up in it slightly. But there is a difference between a limb from a living animal to flesh from a living animal For the limb defiles man and utensils like a carrion, but the flesh which is not a limb, is pure from nothing, as we derive from Scripture as it is written (Leviticus 11:39): “If an animal that you may eat has died,” from part of he animal, as, for example, a limb from it, but the end of the Biblical verse, “anyone who touches its carcass shall be impure [until evening],” but since it is written, “if [an animal hat you may eat] has died,” implies that we require something similar to death that does not make an exchange–substitution, excluding flesh that makes substitutions that if one tears off flesh from the animal, other flesh will rise up under it (i.e., in its place).
+מטמאין טומאת אוכלין – if he thought about them to feed them to a heathen, they would be food that received defilement and [are able] to defile others, for their own defilement isn’t within them until he tears out all of them (i.e., the flesh, sinews and bones), but one receives defilement from the creeping thing and through it, they defile the others.
+וצריכים הכשר – to come into water after they are detached, and afterwards they are susceptible to ritual impurity forever.
+נשחטה הבהמה – they were purified from defiling more because of being carrion. But even though they are forbidden for consumption because of (Exodus 22:30): “[you must not eat] flesh torn by beasts in the field,” through carrion they became purified, for ritual slaughter does not make a limb detached from the body (see Leviticus 11:32 – and Talmud Hullin 74a – the natural death of an animal causes the hanging limb to be considered as if detached – in life-time, so that it does not come under the law of carrion – but slaughtering does not – and the dangling limb is considered as a part of the slaughtered animal – see also Talmud Hullin 129a).
+הוכשרו בדמיה – to be able to receive defilement without other preparation, like the law of the beast that was slaughtered and blood came out from it when its flesh had been preparated with that same blood.
+מתה הבהמה הבשר – that was dangling. צריך הכשר – to be susceptible for ritual impurity from the creeping animal if it had not been prepared once its skin was dangling. For it lacks the defilement of the carrion, for death makes the falling off of a limb detached from the body and it is considered as if that limb fell or that dangling flesh, and it is not made a carrion with it in its death, but rather, it separated from life, it and the flesh that separates from the pure life.
+האבר מטמא משום אבר מן החי – for death makes the hanging limb to be considered as if detached as we have explained, and does not make a carrion with it. Therefore, it does not defile because of carrion. But there is a difference between a limb from a living animal and a limb from a carrion, for flesh that separates from the limb of a living animal does not defile, for even flesh that separates from the living does not defile all the more so, flesh that separates from the limb of a living animal, whereas flesh that separates from a limb from a carrion defiles like the flesh that separates the carrion itself.
+ורבי שמעון מטהר – for it is impossible to maintain the words of Rabbi Shimon with this concluding phrase, for whichever way you turn, if death makes the hanging limb to be considered as if detached to become defiled because of the limb from a living animal, but does not make a hanging limb to be considered as if detached to be defiled because of a limb from a carrion. Therefore, by force, Rabbi Shimon refers to the opening clause [of the Mishnah] - the limb and flesh that are dangling on the animal defile food defilement in their place, but Rabbi Shimon purifies the limb all the while that hat it is from its hide in living creatures that does not defile through food defilement. But the reason of Rabbi Shimon, that stated the Biblical verse (Leviticus 11:34): “As to any food that may be eaten, [it shall become impure if it came in contact with water],” food that you can feed to heathens with permission is called fod and it defiles the defilement of food, excluding the limb and the dangling flesh that are forbidden to a heathen because of the limb of a living animal and flesh from a living animal. They are not called food and they do not make the defilement of food. But the Halakha is according to Rabbi Meir in both of these.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+המדולדלים באדם טהורים – for (Numbers 19:14): “when a person dies [in a tent]” it is written.
+מת האדם הבשר טהור – for death makes the dangling flesh and the the flesh that separated from the living human being pure–clean.
+האבר מטמא משום אבר מן החי – but the law of the limb that separates from the living human is what defiles, all the while that it is complete limb, it defiles through contact, and carrying and through tent-defilement. But an olive’s bulk of flesh that separated from him, or a bone the size of a barley-corn that separated from him, is pure–clean.
+
+Chapter 10
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+הזרוע והלחיים. בארץ ובחוץ לארץ (the shoulder and the cheeks [and the stomach] – because it was needed to teach [in the Mishnah] with regard to unconsecrated products but not with that which is dedicated [to the Temple], he teaches all of them.
+בפני הבית – at the time when the Temple existed.
+ואתן אותם – (Leviticus 7:34: “and given them [to Aaron the priests and to his sons as their due from the Israelites for all time].”) – it is written regarding the shoulder and the cheeks. They are a a limitation: Dקואthe shoulder and the cheeks, yes; anything else, no.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+כל הקדשים שקדם מדם קוע להקדישן – behold they are like one who dedicates–sanctifies wood and stones, and there isn’t in them an object which is consecrated as such.
+ונפדו חייבין בככורות – if they gave birth after hey were redeemed, but not prior to redemption, for that which is consecrated for its value is superseded from the first born [animal] for holiness does not takes effect on something already possessing holiness.
+וולדן וחלבן מותר לאחר פדיונן – but he dedicates–sanctifies [animals[ without physical blemish but if they became physically blemished and were redeemed, their offspring are forbidden as mentioned above. But whether regarding the first clause [of the Mishnah] where it is taught that is permitted or the latter clause [of the Mishnah] where it is taught that is forbidden, we are dealing with a case where the animal became pregnant prior to its redemption and that it gave birth after its redemption, and its milk also, when we sanctify [animals] without physical blemish and they were redeemed, he derives them that they are prohibited, as it is written regarding consecrated animals that are disqualified that were redeemed (Deuteronomy 12:15): “[But whatever you desire], you may slaughter and eat meat [in any of your settlements],’ you may slaughter, but not shear, you may eat, but not for your dogs, meat, but not milk–forbidden fat.
+ואין עושין תמורה – [and you don’t make an exchange of one sacrificial animal for another] even prior to their redemption. [An animal] that is good initially one can make an exchange of one sacrificial animal for another, and even I it becomes bad after one has sanctified it, but an animal that is initially bad, one does not do an exchange of one sacrificial animal for another.
+ואם מתו יפדו – and even though they ae not appropriate other than for dogs and we hold that we don’t redeem Holy Things to feed them to dogs. These are like mere wood and they do not remove the object which is consecrated which is irredeemable.
+חוץ מן הבכור והמעשר – and even though their physical blemishes preceded their dedication–sanctification, complete holiness takes effect for all their things, urt they are not fit to be sacrificed, for the All-Merciful assigned the firstborn in the womb, and it makes no difference whether it is pure or whether there is a physical defect, it is holy. He pure animal is offered up, but the one with a physical defect, the Kohen consumes with its defect, and the tithing of cattle is also written concerning it (Leviticus 27:32-33): “[All tithes of the herd or flock – of all that passes under the shepherd’s staff,] every thenty one -shalll be holy to the LOD. He must not look out for good as against bad, [or make substitution for it].” “Good” is an unblemished bull; bad is a bull with a physical defect.
+מום עובר קודם לשהקדישו – a passing physical defect is like he lacks it.
+פטורים מן הבכורה – as it is written regarding consecrated animals that are disqualified that were redeemed (Deuteronomy 12:15): “ [The unclean and the clean alike may partake of it,] as of the gazelle and the deer.” Just as the gazelle and the deer are exempt from the law appertaining to first-born animals, because it is written (Deuteronomy 15:19): }You shall.consecrate to the LORD your God all male firstlings that are born in your herd and in your flock,” even consecrated animals that are disqualified that were redeemed even if they were born after they were redeemed, they are exemot from the law appertaining to the first-born.
+המתנות – the shoulder, the cheeks and the stomach.
+וולדן וחלבן – we are speaking of when it became pregnant before its redemption and gave birth after its redemption, as was explained above. If it became pregnant and gave birth after its redemption, its offspring is a deer and a ram. But if it did not give birth prior to its redemption, even if its physical defect preceded its dedication–sanctification, also, its offspring are forbidden.
+והשוחטן בחוץ חייב – and even though they are not worthy for the entrance to the Tent of Meeting because they have physical defects, and it is taught in the Mishnah (actually a Baraita, Tractate Yoma 63b and Tractate Temurah 6b): That which is worthy for the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, we are liable for [if slaughtered] outside [the Temple courtyard], and that which is not worthy inside, we are not liable for [if slaughtered] outside, Our Mishnah establishes it as a veiled or withered spot in the eye–cataract and that it is [the opinion of] Rabbi Akiva who stated (see Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 9, Mishnah 3) that [regarding animals that are blemished], if they have gone up, they should not go down; therefore, for since they are inside, they do not go down, and we are liable for them outside if he slaughtered them prior to their redemption.
+ועושין תמורה – prior to their redemption, as it is written (Leviticus 27:10): “[One may not exchange or substitute another for it,] either good for bad, or bad for good; [if one does substitute one animal for another, the thing vowed and its substitute shall both be holy].”
+ואם מתו – from their own accord.
+יקברו – and we don’t redeem the Holy Things to feed them to the dogs.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+בכור שנתערב במאה – Our Mishnah is dealing with a firstling that came into the hand of a Kohen and a physical defect befell it while in the Kohen’s hand and he sold it to an Israelite with its physical defect. For if it had been a firstling in the hand of an Israelite prior to his giving it to the Kohen, why would we exempt all of them from priestly gifts? The Kohen should say to him: “If it is a firstling, all of it is mine, and if it is not a firstling, give me my gifts.” But, if had already come into the hand of the Kohen and he sold it with its physical defect to an Israelite, and it became mixed up with one hundred [unconsecrated animals], we exempt all of them from [being given] as priestly gifts, for each and every [person] can set himself aside and say to the Kohen: “Mine is the firstling, that he Kohen sold” and he is exempt from the gifts, and from the firstling, we don’t give gits for there can be no sanctity that occur to something [already] holy.
+אחד שוחט את כולן פוטרים לו אחד – that it is impossible that the firstiling would not be one of them, and he is able to say, “this is it.”
+צריך שירשום – that he should make on it a sign, that everyone will understand that the Kohen or the heathen have a joint-ownership in it.
+ואם אמר לו – if the Kohen told the Israelite: “I am selling you this cow, except for the [priestly] gifts that are within it.
+פטור – the Israelite [is exempt] from giving the [priestly] gifts.
+אמר לו – An Israelite [said] to his fellow, a slaughterer: “See me the intestines of this cow.
+והיו בהן מתנות -, the stomach, which is one of the [priestly] gifts.
+נותנו – takes this to the Kohen.
+ואין המוכר מנכה לו מן הדמים – for the purchaser knows that the [priestly] gifts are there, and this one did not sell him the stomach.
+לקח הימנו במשקל – So many Litra (pounds)., and he weighed for him the stomach and the purchaser gave it to the Kohen, for it was something stolen with him and he needed to return it, and the butcher would deduct for him from the monies, for he sold a thing that is not his. But if the ritual slaughterer sinned and did not give the [priestly] gifts from the animal,the eat is not forbidden for eating. But we excommunicate him. For even a Kohen who is exempt from the [priestly] gifts, if he is a butcher, that slaughters and sells it in the marketplace, we wait for him two or three weeks, and from then onwards, we remove from it the [priestly] gifts and give them to other Kohanim. But if he established a butcher house, we don’t wait for him, but rather remove it from him immediately bbut if he did not want to give them, we excommunicate him.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+מן הפרק של ארכובה (from the joint of the knee to the shoulder-blade of the forefoot) – which is sold with the head.
+עד כף של יד (until the palm of the hand) – a wide bone of the shoulder that we call ASPALDONE. And they are two bones. The middle bone which is from the joint of the knee to the shoulder blade of the forefoot which is sold with the head until the place that is opposite in the known camel. And the upper bone that is attached to the body. And the right foreleg alone is what they give to the Kohen, as it is written (Deuteronomy 18:3): “[he] must give the shoulder, [the cheeks and the stomach] to the priest,”ץ the dexterous part of the forearm.
+והוא של נזיר – meaning to say, and similarly (Numbers 6:19): “[The priest shall take] the shoulder [of the ram] when it has been boiled,” that is mentioned regarding the Nazir, such is taken
+וכנגדו ברגל שוק – that is stated regarding the offering of well-being–peace offering – these are two bones from the joint of the knee to the shoulder blade of the forefoot until the thickest part of the flank (i.e., the thigh, hip) which is all of the thigh.
+סובך של רגל (the fleshy part of the leg–calf) – that is the joint that is between the thigh-bone and the middle bone. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.
+הפרק של לחי – near the temples and cuts it towards downward.
+עד פיקח של גרגרת (protruding thyroid cartilage) – until the thyroid cartilage–Adam’s Apple which is the upper ring and the opening of the windpipe which is the lower jaw with the tongue. Another explanation: thyroid cartrilage is a large ring of the windpipe that is made round like a protruding cartilage, and the protruding cartilage is round like a ball and within it is a hole hat the women insert in the spindle to make it heavy when they spin with it.
+
+Chapter 11
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+ראשית הגז – Whomever shears his sheep and even if he shears them one-hundred times, he gives from the shearing a gift to the Kohen.
+נוהג בארץ ובחוצה לארץ – but today, the practice, of the world according to Rabbi Elai, who said, that the first of the fleece is not practiced other than in the Land [of Israel]. For it derives [through an analogy], from the laws of Terumah–heave offering (see Talmud Hullin 136a: See Deuteronomy 18:4: “You shall also give him….the first shearing of your sheep–וראשית גז צאנך תתן-לו and the fact that Terumah must take place in the land of Israel – Deuteronomy 26:2: “which you harvest from the land that the LORD your God is giving you”–אשר תביא מארצך אשר ה' אלהיך נתן לך ). Just as Terumah–heave-offering is not practiced other than in the Land [of Israel], so the first of the fleece is not practiced other than in the Land [of Israel]. But my teachers–masters taught that the gifts also are not practiced other than in the Land [of Israel], for the first of the fleece and the gifts are equivalent. But the rest of the Sages of that generation did not agree with them.
+במקודשים – even the offerings for Temple repair, because it is written (Deuteronomy 18:4): “the shearing of your sheep,” but not that of which is dedicated to the Temple.
+נוהגים בבקר ובצאן – as it is written (Deuteronomy 18:3): “[Everyone who offers a sacrifice,] whether an ox or a sheep, [must give he shoulder, the cheeks, and the stomach to the priest].”
+ובמועט – even if he only slaughtered one [animal].
+אלא ברחלות – It is written here (Deuteronomy 18:4): “the shearing of your sheep” and it is written there (Job 31:20): “As he warmed himself with the shearing of my sheep.” Just as there it is sheep, even here it is sheep.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+ושתי צאן – so we see that two are called sheep.
+שנאמר חמש צאן עשןיות – that they order their husbands say to him: “Arise and perform a new Commandment that was not commanded upon him that is less than this. And this corresponding per force, the first shearing, as it is written [in the Torah] regarding (Deuteronomy 18:4): “[the first shearing of] your sheep,” which implies many, whereas regarding the ox it is written (Numbers 18:17): “But the firstlings of cattle–בכור שור, [sheep or goats ]” (singular construction in the Hebrew) which implies even one. And similar gifts (Deuteronomy 18:3): “whether an ox or a sheep–אם שור אם שה .”
+מנה מנה ופרס – each one is a Maneh and one-half. But less than this is not considered shearing, for this is the least of shearing.
+בכל שהוא – not exactly, for since with less than sixty Selaim, he is not liable for the first of the fleece, but rather, since Rabbi Dosa [ben Harkinas] gives a large measure, the Tanna–teacher [of the Mishnah] calls for a small measurement according to the Rabbis of “however much they produce.” But the Selah – its weight is twenty-four Ma’ah. And the weight of each Ma’ah is sixteen stones–kernels of barley.
+כמה הוא נותן לו – he comes to divide the first of the fleece that is in his hand, he should not give less than the weight of five Selaim of wool to each Kohen.
+מלובן – but the Israelite will not be liable to bleach it, but rather, he will give him a measure from the dirty wool, which is that it is not bleached until the Kohen will, that is, which is not bleached until that the Kohen will bleach it, he will estimate the weight of five Selaim of bleached wool.
+כדי שיוכל לעשות ממנו בגד קטן – that is worthy for service [in the Temple]. And what is it? A belt–אבנט . Because the Biblical verse supported [by being adjacent to] after [the law of] the first shearing (Deuteronomy 18:5): “For the LORD your God has chosen him and his descendants, out of all your tribes, to be in attendance for service [in the name of the LORD for all time[.” We learn from it, that this is what it says: Give him from the first shearing of your sheep in order that he can make clothing to be in attendance for service. And the smallest of the clothing that is appropriate for [Divine] service is the belt, and it iis made from five Selaim of bleached wool. But the first shearing has no fixed measure from the Torah. But from the words of the Scribes, it should not be less than one sixtieth. But there is no obligation for the first shearing until he shears five sheep, and that the shearing of each one of these five, there is not less than twelve Selah, for if there was one of them less than twelve Selah, even though the five of them (i.e., sheep), shears more than sixty Selaim, this would be execmpt.
+עד שצבאו – its owners [would dye it] prior to giving it.
+פטור – from giving him more. For it was acquired through change, and it is like he damages the gifts of priesthood or that he consumes them, that he is exempt.
+ולא צבאו – this is not a change, and yet, in its natural form.
+הלוקח גז צאנו של נכרי – when it is attached to the sheep, he is exempt, for it is written (Deuteronomy 18:4): “the first shearing of your sheep.” But this sheep is not his, and the All-Merciful was stringent with sheep, and not on its shearing.
+אם שייר המוכרת המוכר חייב – for the purchaser said to him, the gift of the Kohanim is with you.
+ואם לאו הלוקח חייב – for the seller said to him, “I have not sold you the gift for the Priest.”
+שחופות – neither black nor white.
+זה נותן לעצמו – the purchaser gives to himself on what he purchased, and the seller gives to him on what remains with him. For the shearing of the white–bleached ones is better than that of indistinct color–grey. And similarly, regarding males and females, the shearing of the males is hard and that of the females is soft.
+
+Chapter 12
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+שלוח הקן. אבל לא במקודשין –consecrated [birds] are found, for if they were non-holy, they would be liable for letting [the dam] go forth from the nest, such as the example where he had a bird and he consecrated it while it was in his domain for keeping the Temple in repair, but it escaped and he found it afterwards lying on the nest and he recognized it. Alternatively, such as the example when he consecrated pigeons of [his dove-cote] to the Altar for a free-will burnt offering, and afterwards when these pigeons grew up, they escaped and built a nest in another place, for at the outset, when he sanctified them, they were his, and sacred Temple property takes effect upon them, and now that he found them, they are not designated–at his disposal–captive but if they were profane, they would be נו
+ואינו נוהג אלא בשאינו מזומן – as it is written (Deuteronomy 22:5): “[If, along the road,] you chance upon [a bird’s nest], excluding one that is at your disposal [in your courtyard](see Sifre Deuteronomy 227).
+שקננו בפרדס – that they rebelled and went out from the house, and they don’t return to the house and they become belonging to the desert. And an orchard is not designated because they can flee–escape.
+הרדסיות – for it is their manner to be raised with people and in the name of King Herod who was engaged in raising them, they are called, Herodian doves, by his name.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+עוף טמא פטור מלשלח – as it is written (Deuteronomy 22:6): “a bird’s nest.” A “bird” implies whether pure or impure, a pure bird, not an impure one.
+עוף טמא רובץ על ביצי עוף טהור – even though that this species of pigeons are ones that are sent out from the nest], he is exempt, for we require, “a bird’s nest” (Deuteronomy 22:5) that the mother who makes a nest is pure.
+ועוף טהור הרבץ על ביצי עוף טמא – for Scripture states (Deuteronomy 22:7): “and take only the young,” for you, but not for your dogs.
+קורא – In Arabic, we call him “Sonar,” and in the foreign language, “Pardiz,” for it is the manner of the male [bird] to lie down on the eggs like the female [bird], therefore, Rabbi Eliezer obligates to send away the male [bird], but with other birds, Rabbi Eliezer admits that the male is exempt, for the All Merciful stated, “mother” (Deuteronomy 22:7), and not the father, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+בזמן שכנפיה נוגעות בקן חייב לשלח – as Scripture states (Deuteronomy 22:6), “sitting over [the fledglings or the eggs]” but not flying. But since it is written, “sitting over,” and it didn’t write, “sitting,” we learn from it that if its wings touch the nest, she is liable to be sent away.
+שנאמר שלח – and it implies, forever.
+נטל את הבנים – for since he took the fledglings, he had a designated–captive nest.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+לקה ואינו משלח – even though this Is a prohibition that after its violation is transformed into a positive commandment, flogging is not administered. Here this is the reason, as Rabbi Yehuda holds that sending away is implied from the outset, but what are you able to do when you find the nest? You send away the mother bird, and there is not here a negative prohibition that after its violation is transformed into a positive commandment, but rather, you have violated a positive commandment and a negative commandment, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.
+אין לוקין עליה – if he fulfilled the positive commandment that is in it, but if he did not fulfill the positive commandment, such as when one takes the mother from the fledglings and slaughters it, it dies while under his control, he is flogged.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+מצוה שהיא כאיסר – that there is no loss of money in it, other than a small amount.
\ No newline at end of file