diff --git "a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter/English/merged.json" "b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter/English/merged.json"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Kedushah/Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter/English/merged.json"
@@ -0,0 +1,330 @@
+{
+ "title": "Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter",
+ "language": "en",
+ "versionTitle": "merged",
+ "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah,_Ritual_Slaughter",
+ "text": [
+ [
+ "It is a positive commandment for one who desires to partake of the meat of a domesticated animal, wild beast, or fowl to slaughter [it] and then partake of it, as [Deuteronomy 12:21] states: \"And you shall slaughter from your cattle and from your sheep.\" And with regard to a firstborn animal with a blemish, [ibid.:22] states: \"As one would partake of a deer and a gazelle.\" From this, we learn that a wild beast is [governed by] the same [laws] as a domesticated animal with regard to ritual slaughter.
And with regard to a fowl, [Leviticus 17:13] states: \"that will snare a beast or a fowl as prey... and shed its blood.\" This teaches that shedding the blood of a fowl is analogous to shedding the blood of a wild beast.",
+ "The laws governing ritual slaughter are the same in all instances. Therefore one who slaughters a domesticated animal, beast, or fowl should first recite the blessing: \"[Blessed...] who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning ritual slaughter.\" If he did not recite a blessing, either consciously or inadvertently, the meat is permitted.
It is forbidden to partake of a slaughtered animal throughout the time it is in its death throes. When a person partakes of it before it dies, he transgresses a negative commandment. [This act] is included in the prohibition [Leviticus 19:26]: \"Do not eat upon the blood.\" He does not, however, receive lashes.
It is permitted to cut meat from it after it has been ritually slaughtered, but before it dies. That meat should be salted thoroughly, washed thoroughly, and left until the animal dies. Afterwards, it may be eaten.",
+ "Fish and locusts need not be slaughtered. Instead, gathering them causes them to be permitted to be eaten. [This is indicated by Numbers 11:22]: \"Can sheep and cattle be slaughtered for them that will suffice them? If all the fish of the sea would be gathered for them....\" This indicates that gathering fish is like slaughtering cattle and sheep. And with regard to locusts, [Isaiah 33:4] states: \"the gathering of the locusts,\" i.e., gathering alone [is sufficient]. Therefore if fish die naturally in the water, they are permitted. And it is permitted to eat them while they are alive.",
+ "The slaughter which the Torah mentions without elaboration must be explained so that we know: a) which place in the animal is [appropriate] for ritual slaughter?, b) what is the measure of the slaughtering process?, c) with what do we slaughter?, d) when do we slaughter?, e) in which place [on the animal's neck] do we slaughter? f) how do we slaughter, g) what factors disqualify the slaughter? h) who can slaughter?
We were commanded concerning all of these factors in the Torah with the verse [Deuteronomy 12:21]: \"And you shall slaughter from your cattle... as I commanded you.\" All of these factors were commanded to us orally as is true with regard to the remainder of the Oral Law which is called \"the mitzvah,\" as we explained in the beginning of this text.",
+ "The place where an animal should be slaughtered is the neck. The entire neck is acceptable for slaughtering.
What is implied? With regard to the gullet, from the beginning of the place where when it is cut, it contracts until the place where hair grows and it begins appearing fissured like the stomach, this is the place of slaughter with regard to the gullet.",
+ "If one slaughters above this place - in the area called the entrance to the gullet - or below this place - i.e., the beginning of the digestive system, the slaughter is unacceptable.
The measure of the entrance to the gullet above which is unfit for slaughter in an animal or a beast is so one can grab it with two fingers. With regard to a fowl, it depends on its size. The lower limit extends until the crop.",
+ "Where is the place of slaughter with regard to the windpipe? From the slant of its cap downward until the beginning of the flank of the lung when the animal extends its neck to pasture, this is the place of slaughter with regard to the windpipe. The area opposite this place on the outside is called the neck.",
+ "When the animal strained itself and extended its neck exceedingly or the slaughterer applied exertion to the signs and extended them upward, but slaughtered in the neck at the place of slaughter, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the animal] is a nevelah. For the place where the gullet and windpipe were cut is not the place where [the animal] is [usually] slaughtered.",
+ "The slaughterer must slaughter in the center of the neck. If he slaughters to the side, it is acceptable.
What is the measure of slaughter? That one [cut] the two identifying marks, the windpipe and the gullet. Superior slaughter involves cutting both of them, whether for an animal or a fowl and a slaughterer should have this intent. [After the fact,] if one cut the majority of one of them for a fowl and the majority of both of them for an animal or a beast, the slaughter is acceptable.",
+ "When one cut one sign entirely and half of the other sign when slaughtering an animal, his slaughter is unacceptable. If he cut the majority of both signs, even though in each instance he cuts only a hair's breadth more than half, it is acceptable. Since he cut even the slightest amount more than half, he has cut the majority.",
+ "If he cut half of one and half of the other - even in a fowl - the slaughter is unacceptable. When a windpipe is half slit and one cut a little more on the place of the slit, making the cut a majority, the slaughter is acceptable. [This applies] whether one begins [on a portion of the windpipe] that is intact and reaches the slit or one inserts the knife into the slit and [increases its size until it] reaches the majority.",
+ "Every slaughterer must check the signs after he slaughters. If he did not check and the animal's head was cut off before he could check, [the animal] is [considered] a nevelah. [This applies even] if the slaughterer was adroit and expert.",
+ "During its lifetime, every animal is considered to be forbidden until it is definitely known that it was slaughtered in an acceptable manner.",
+ "With what can we slaughter? With any entity, with a metal knife, a flint, glass, the edge of a bulrush, or the like among the entities that cut. [This applies] provided its edge is sharp and does not have a barb. If, however, there was a spike at the edge of the entity with which one slaughters, even if the spike is very small, the slaughter is unacceptable.",
+ "If the spike was on only one side of the knife, one should not slaughter with it [at the outset]. [After the fact,] if one slaughtered with it using the side on which the blemish was not detectable, the slaughter is acceptable.",
+ "What is implied? There was a knife that was checked by passing it [over one's finger] and no blemish was felt on it, but when one drew it back, one felt that it had a blemish. If one slaughtered with it by passing it forwards and did not draw it back, the slaughter is acceptable. If one drew it back, the slaughter is unacceptable.",
+ "When a knife ascends and descends [in a curve] like a snake but does not have a blemish, one may slaughter with it as an initial and preferred option. When the edge of a knife is smooth, but is not sharp, one may slaughter with it, since it does not have a blemish. Even though one passes it back and forth the entire day until the slaughter [is completed], the slaughter is acceptable.",
+ "When a sharp knife has been whetted, but its [blade] is not smooth, instead, touching it is like touching the tip of an ear of grain which becomes snarled on one's finger, [nevertheless,] since it does not have a blemish, one may slaughter with it.",
+ "When a person uproots a reed or a tooth or cuts off a flint or a nail, if they are sharp and do not have a blemish, one may slaughter with them. If one stuck them into the ground, one should not slaughter with them while they are stuck into the ground. [After the fact,] if one slaughtered [in such a situation], one's slaughter is acceptable.",
+ "When one slaughtered with these entities when they were connected from the beginning of their existence, before they were uprooted, the slaughter is unacceptable even if they do not have a blemish.",
+ "If one took the jawbone of an animal that had sharp teeth and slaughtered with it, it is unacceptable, for they are like a sickle. When, however, only one tooth is fixed in a jaw, one may slaughter with it as an initial and preferred option, even though it is set in the jaw.",
+ "When one made a knife white-hot in fire and slaughtered with it, the slaughter is acceptable. If one side of a knife is [jagged-edge like] a sickle and the other side is desirable, [i.e., smooth,] one should not slaughter with the desirable side as an initial and preferred measure. [This is] a decree lest one slaughter with the other side. If one slaughtered [with it], since one slaughtered with the desirable side, the slaughter is acceptable.",
+ "A slaughterer must check the knife at its tip and at both of its sides [before slaughtering]. How must he check it? He must pass it over and draw it back over the flesh of his finger and pass it over and draw it back over his fingernail on three edges, i.e., its tip and both of its sides so that it will not have a blemish at all. [Only] afterwards, should he slaughter with it.",
+ "It must [also] be inspected in this manner after slaughter. For if a blemish is discovered on it afterwards, there is an unresolved doubt whether the animal is a nevelah. For perhaps [the knife] became blemished [when cutting] the skin and when he cut the signs, he cut them with a blemished knife.
For this reason, when a person slaughters many animals or many fowl, he must inspect [the knife] between each [slaughter]. For if he did not check, and then checked [after slaughtering] the last one and discovered [the knife] to be blemished, there is an unresolved doubt whether all of them - even the first - are nevelot or not.",
+ "When one inspected a knife, slaughtered with it, but did not inspect it after slaughtering, and then used it to break a bone, a piece of wood, or the like, and afterwards, inspected it and discovered it to be unacceptable, his slaughter is acceptable. [The rationale is that] the prevailing assumption is that the knife became blemished on the hard entity which it was used to break. Similarly, if one was negligent and did not check his knife [after slaughtering] or the knife was lost before it could be checked, the slaughter is acceptable.",
+ "Whenever a slaughterer does not have the knife with which he slaughters inspected by a wise man and uses it to slaughter for himself, we inspect it. If it is discovered to be desirable [and passes] the examination, we, nevertheless, place him under a ban of ostracism [lest] he rely on himself on another occasion and then the knife will be blemished, but he will still slaughter with it. If [upon examination] the knife is discovered to be blemished, he is removed from his position and placed under a ban of ostracism. We pronounce all the meat that he slaughtered to be unacceptable.",
+ "How long must the knife with which one slaughters be? Even the slightest length, provided it is not [overly] thin to the extent that it pierces and does not slit like the head of a blade or the like.",
+ "When can one slaughter? Any time, whether during the day or during the night, provided that [at night] he has a torch with him so that he sees what he is doing. If a person slaughters in darkness, his slaughter is acceptable.",
+ "When a person inadvertently slaughters on Yom Kippur or the Sabbath, his slaughter is acceptable, even though were he to have been acting willfully he would be liable for his life or for lashes [for slaughtering] on Yom Kippur."
+ ],
+ [
+ "It is permitted to slaughter an animal in any place except the Temple courtyard. For only animals consecrated for [sacrifice on the altar] may be sacrificed in the Temple courtyard. Ordinary animals, by contrast, whether domesticated animals, beasts, or fowl, are forbidden to be sacrificed in the Temple courtyard. Similarly, [Deuteronomy 12:21] states with regard to meat [which man] desires [to eat]: \"When the place that God will choose will be distant from you... and you shall slaughter from your cattle and your sheep... and you shall eat in your gates.\" One may infer that meat [which man] desires [to eat] may be slaughtered only outside \"the place that God will choose.\"",
+ "[Meat from animals] slaughtered outside this [holy] place is permitted to be eaten everywhere. If, however, one slaughters an ordinary animal in the Temple courtyard, that meat is ritually pure, but it is forbidden to benefit from it like meat mixed with milk and the like. It must be buried; [if it is burnt,] its ashes are forbidden [to be used].
[The above applies] even if one slaughters for healing purposes, to feed a gentile, or to feed dogs. If, however, one cuts off an animal's head in the Temple courtyard, one rips the signs from their place, a gentile slaughters, [a Jew] slaughters, but the animal was discovered to be trefe, or one slaughters a non-kosher domesticated animal, beast, or fowl in the Temple courtyard, it is permitted to benefit from all of the above.",
+ "This does not apply only to domesticated animals or beasts. Instead, it is forbidden to bring all ordinary food into the Temple courtyard. [This includes] even meat from a slaughtered [animal], fruit, or bread. If one transgresses and brings in such food, it is permitted to partake of this food as it was beforehand.
All of the above concepts are part of the Oral Tradition. Whenever anyone slaughters in the Temple courtyard or eats an olive-sized portion of the meat of ordinary [animals that were] slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, he is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.",
+ "[The following rule applies when] a person says: \"This animal is [consecrated as] a peace offering, but [the fetus it is carrying] remains of ordinary status.\" If it is slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, it is permitted to partake of its offspring, because it is forbidden to slaughter [the mother] outside [the Temple courtyard].",
+ "One should not slaughter into seas or rivers, lest [an onlooker] say: \"He is worshipping the water,\" and it would appear as if he is offering a sacrifice to the water. Nor should one slaughter into a utensil filled with water, lest one say: \"He is slaughtering into the form that appears in the water.\" Nor should he slaughter into utensils or into a pit for this is the way of idolaters. If one slaughters in the above manner, his slaughter is acceptable.",
+ "One may slaughter into murky water in which an image may not be seen. Similarly, one may slaughter outside a pit and allow the blood to flow and descend into a pit. One should not do this in the marketplace so as not to mimic the gentiles. [Indeed,] if one slaughters into a pit in the marketplace, it is forbidden to eat from his slaughter until his [character] is examined, lest he be a heretic.
It is permitted to slaughter on the wall of a ship, [although] the blood will flow down the wall and descend into the water. [Similarly,] it is permitted to slaughter above [the outer surface of] utensils.",
+ "How does one slaughter? One extends the neck and passes the knife back and forth until [the animal] is slaughtered. Whether the animal was lying down or it was standing and one held the back of its neck, held the knife in his hand below, and slaughtered, the slaughter is acceptable.",
+ "If one implanted a knife in the wall and brought the neck [of an animal back and forth] over it until it was slaughtered, the slaughter is acceptable, provided the neck of the animal is below and the knife is above. For if the neck of the animal will be above the knife, it is possible that the animal will descend with the weight of its body [on the knife] and cut [its throat] without [it being brought back and forth]. This is not ritual slaughter, as will be explained. Therefore, if we are speaking about a fowl, whether its neck is above the knife that is implanted or below it, the slaughter is acceptable.",
+ "When a person slaughters and draws the knife forward, but does not draw it back, draws it back, but does not draw it forward, his slaughter is acceptable.
If he drew the knife back and forth until he cut off the head entirely, his slaughter is acceptable. [The following rules apply if] he drew the knife forward, but did not draw it back, drew it back, but did not draw it forward, and cut off the head while drawing it forward alone or drawing it back alone. If the knife is twice as long as the width of the neck of the animal being slaughtered, his slaughter is acceptable. If not, his slaughter is not acceptable.
If one slaughters the heads [of two animals] together, his slaughter is acceptable.",
+ "When two people hold unto a knife together - even when one is holding from one side and the other from the other side - and they slaughter together, the slaughter is acceptable. Similarly, if two people hold two knives and both slaughter simultaneously in two places in the neck, their slaughter is acceptable. This applies even if one slit the gullet alone or its majority and the other cut the windpipe or its majority in another place, this slaughter is acceptable even though the slaughter was not entirely in the same place.
Similarly, slaughter in the form of a reed and slaughter in the form of a comb are acceptable.",
+ "The slaughter of ordinary animals does not require focused attention. Even if one slaughtered when [wielding a knife] aimlessly, in jest, or [even] if he threw a knife to implant it in the wall and it slaughtered an animal as it was passing, since it slaughtered properly in the appropriate place and with the appropriate measure, it is acceptable.",
+ "Accordingly, when a deafmute, an emotional or an intellectual unstable individual, a minor, a drunk whose mind is befuddled, a person who became overtaken by an evil spirit slaughters and others observe that he slaughters in the correct manner, [the slaughter] is acceptable.
If, by contrast, a knife falls and slaughters [an animal] on its way, it is not acceptable even if it slaughtered it in [the appropriate] manner. For [Deuteronomy, loc. cit.] states: \"You shall slaughter,\" implying that a man must slaughter. [His actions are acceptable,] even if he does not intend to slaughter.",
+ "[The following laws apply if there is] a stone or wooden wheel with a knife affixed to it. If a person turned the wheel and placed the neck of a fowl or an animal opposite it and slaughtered by turning the wheel, [the slaughter] is acceptable. If water is turning the wheel and he placed the neck of [the animal] opposite it while it was turning causing it to be slaughtered, it is unacceptable. If a person caused the water to flow until they turned the wheel and caused it to slaughter by turning it, [the slaughter] is acceptable. For [the activity] came as a result of man's actions.
When does the above apply? With regard to the first turn, for that comes from man's power. The second and subsequent turns, however, do not come from man's power, but from the power of the flowing water.",
+ "When a person slaughters for the sake of mountains, hills, seas, rivers, or deserts, his slaughter is unacceptable even when he does not intend to worship these entities, but merely for curative purposes or the like according to the empty words related by the gentiles, the slaughter is unacceptable. If, however, one slaughtered for the sake of the spiritual source of the sea, the mountain, the stars, the constellations, or the like, it is forbidden to benefit from the animal like all offerings brought to false deities.",
+ "When a person slaughters an animal [with the intent of] sprinkling its blood for the sake of false deities or burning its fats for the sake of false deities, it is forbidden. For we derive [the laws governing] one's intent outside [the Temple] with regard to [slaughtering] ordinary animals from those pertaining to the intent with regard to [slaughtering] consecrated animals within [the Temple]. For such an intent disqualifies them, as will be explained in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim.",
+ "When a person slaughtered [an animal] and afterwards, thought to sprinkle its blood for the sake of false deities or to burn its fats for the sake of false deities, it is forbidden because of the doubt involved. Perhaps the ultimate result showed what his initial intent was and it was with this intent that he slaughtered.",
+ "When a person slaughters [an animal] for the sake of [a type of] sacrifice for which one could consecrate an animal through a vow or through a pledge, the slaughter is unacceptable. For this is comparable to slaughtering consecrated animals outside [the Temple courtyard]. If he slaughters [an animal] for the sake of [a type of] sacrifice for which one could not designate an animal through a vow or through a pledge, the slaughter is acceptable.",
+ "What is implied? When one slaughters [an animal] for the sake of a burnt offering, for the sake of a peace offering, for the sake of a thanksgiving offering, or for the sake of a Paschal offering, the slaughter is unacceptable. Since a Paschal offering may be designated every year at any time one desires, it resembles a sacrifice that can be consecrated through a vow or through a pledge.
If one slaughters [an animal] for the sake of a sin offering, for the sake of a certain guilt offering, for the sake of a doubtful guilt offering, for the sake of a firstborn offering, for the sake of a tithe offering, or for the sake of a substitute [for any offering], the slaughter is acceptable.",
+ "When a person is liable for a sin offering and he slaughters, saying: \"For the sake of my sin offering,\" his slaughter is unacceptable. If he had a sacrificial animal in his home and he slaughters, saying: \"For the sake of a substitution for my sacrifice,\" his slaughter is unacceptable, for he substituted the animal [for the consecrated one].",
+ "When a woman slaughters for the sake of the burnt offering brought by a woman who gave birth, saying: \"This is for the sake of my burnt offering,\" her slaughter is acceptable. [The rationale is that the obligation to bring] the burnt offering of a woman who gave birth cannot be initiated through a vow or through a pledge and this woman has not given birth and thus is not obligated to bring a burnt offering. We do not suspect that she had a miscarriage. For it will become public knowledge if a woman miscarries.
When, by contrast, a person slaughters for the sake of a burnt offering brought by a Nazarite, his slaughter is unacceptable even if he is not a Nazarite. [The rationale is that] the fundamental dimension of being a Nazarite is a vow like other vows.",
+ "When two people hold a knife and slaughter, one has in mind an intent that would disqualify the slaughter and the other has nothing at all in mind - or even if he had in mind an intent that is permitted - the slaughter is unacceptable. Similarly, if they slaughtered one after the other and one had an intent that disqualifies the slaughter, it is disqualified.
When does the above apply? When [the person with the undesirable intent] has a share in the animal. If, however, he does not have a share in the animal, it does not become forbidden. For a Jewish person does not cause something that does not belong to him to become forbidden. He is acting only to cause his colleague anguish.",
+ "When a Jew slaughters for a gentile, the slaughter is acceptable regardless of the thoughts the gentile has in mind. For we are concerned only with the thoughts of the person slaughtering and not the thoughts of the owner of the animal. Therefore when a gentile - even a minor - slaughters for the sake of a Jew, the animal he slaughters is a nevelah, as will be explained."
+ ],
+ [
+ "There are five factors that disqualify ritual slaughter and the fundamentals of the laws of shechitah are to guard against each of these factors: They are: shehiyah, dirasah, chaladah, hagramah, and ikur.",
+ "What is meant by shehiyah? A person began to slaughter and lifted up his hand before he completed the slaughter and waited. Whether he did so inadvertently, intentionally, or because of forces beyond his control, [the following rules apply] if he or another person completed the slaughter. If he waited the amount of time it would take to lift up the animal, cause it to lie down, and slaughter it, his slaughter is not acceptable. If he waited less than this amount of time, his slaughter is acceptable.",
+ "With regard to a small domesticated animal:, the measure of shehiyah is the amount of time it would take to lift up the animal, cause it to lie down, and slaughter it. With regard to a large domestic animal, the measure of shehiyah is the amount of time it would take to lift up the animal, cause it to lie down, and slaughter it. With regard to a fowl, the measure of shehiyah is the amount of time it would take to lift up a small animal, cause it to lie down, and slaughter it.",
+ "When a person cut [the signs] for a while, waited for a while, cut for a while, waited for a while until he concluded the slaughter without waiting the measure that disqualifies an animal at any one time, but over the times he waited over the entire period would equal the measure of shehiyah, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the animal is considered] a nevelah.
Similarly, if he waited the amount of time it takes to lift up the animal, cause it to lie down, and cut only a portion of the signs, but not to slaughter it entirely, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the animal is considered] a nevelah.",
+ "If he slaughtered the majority of one of the signs for a fowl or the majority of both signs for an animal, the slaughter is permitted even if he waited half the day and then returned and finished cutting the signs. For since the minimum measure for slaughter was met, it is as if he is cutting slaughtered meat.",
+ "If one cuts half or less of the windpipe and waits an extended period, he may return and complete the slaughter; [his previous acts] are of no consequence. If, however, he cut the majority of [an animal's] windpipe or perforated the gullet even slightly and then waited the [disqualifying] measure, [the slaughter] is unacceptable. [This applies] whether he returned and completed cutting where he began or slaughtered the animal entirely in a different place. [The rationale is] that when the majority of the windpipe is slit or the gullet of either an animal or a fowl is perforated even slightly, the animal is comparable to a nevelah and ritual slaughter is not effective for it, as will be explained.",
+ "It is thus explained for you that the concept of shehiyah does not exist with regard to the windpipe of a fowl at all. For if he slit the majority of the windpipe and waited, he has already completed the slaughter of [the fowl]. When he goes back and completes it, it is as if he is cutting meat. If he slit less than half the windpipe and waited, he may return and [complete the] slaughter whenever he desires, for it is not disqualified as a nevelah unless the majority of the windpipe has been cut.",
+ "[The following rules apply when] one slaughtered a fowl and waited, but does not know whether the gullet was perforated or not. He should return and cut the windpipe alone in another place, let [the fowl] be until it dies, and then check the gullet from the inside. If a drop of blood was not found on it, it is apparent that it was not perforated and it is acceptable.",
+ "What is meant by chaladah? For example, one inserted the knife between one sign and another. Whether one then slits the upper sign above or cuts the lower sign below in the manner of ritual slaughter, [the slaughter] is unacceptable.",
+ "If he inserted the knife beneath the [animal's] skin and slit both the signs in the ordinary fashion, hid the knife under tangled wool, or spread a cloth over the knife and the neck and slaughtered under the cloth, since the knife is not openly revealed, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the animal is considered] a nevelah. Similarly, if slaughtered less than half the signs with chaladah and completed the slaughter without chaladah, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the animal is considered] a nevelah.",
+ "What is meant by dirasah? For example, one struck the neck with a knife as one strikes with a sword, cutting the signs at one time, without passing [the knife] back and forth or one placed the knife on the neck and pressed, cutting downward like one cuts radishes or squash until he cuts the signs, [the slaughter] is unacceptable.",
+ "What is meant by hagramah? This refers to one who slaughters at a high point on the windpipe where it is not fit to slaughter. There are two [nodes, like kernels of] wheat at the top of the windpipe, at the large ring. [The following rules apply if] one slaughtered in the midst of these kernels. If he left even the slightest portion of them intact above [the place of slaughter], it is acceptable, for he slaughtered from the slanting cap [of the windpipe] or lower. This is within the place that is fit for ritual slaughter. If, however, he did not leave any portion of them intact, but instead cut above them, this is considered as [being slaughtered with] hagramah and it is unacceptable.",
+ "If one slit the majority of one sign [for a fowl] or the majority of both signs [for an animal] and then completed the slaughter through dirasah or hagramah, it is acceptable, for the minimum measure was slaughtered in the proper manner.
If at first, he slit a third [of the windpipe] through hagramah, and then cut two thirds in the appropriate manner, the slaughter is acceptable. If he cut a third in the appropriate manner, cut a third through hagramah, and then cut the last third in the appropriate manner, the slaughter is acceptable. If at first, he slit a third through hagramah, cut a third in the appropriate manner, and then cut a third through hagramah, the slaughter is unacceptable. If one cut [a portion of] an animal's throat with derisah or chaladah, it is unacceptable, whether it was the first or second third.",
+ "What is meant by ikur? That the gullet and/or the windpipe were displaced and slid [from their place] before the conclusion of the slaughter. If, however, one slit an entire sign or its majority in a fowl, and then the second sign slipped, the slaughter is acceptable.",
+ "If one of the signs was displaced and afterwards, one slit the other, the slaughter is unacceptable. If one slit one of the signs [of a fowl] and then discovered that the other one was displaced, but it is unknown whether it was displaced before slaughter or after slaughter, there is an unresolved question whether [the fowl] is a nevelah.",
+ "If the sign that was cut for ritual slaughter is discovered to have been displaced, [the fowl or animal] is acceptable, for certainly, it was displaced after the slaughter. For if it had been displaced before ritual slaughter, it would have hung loosely and it would not have been able to be slaughtered [effectively].",
+ "When does the above apply? When [the slaughterer] did not hold the signs in his hand when he slit them. If, however, he held the signs and slaughtered, it is possible that [the signs] could have been slit [effectively even] after they were displaced. Therefore, if a sign is discovered to be displaced and slaughtered, there is an unresolved question whether [the animal or the fowl] is a nevelah.",
+ "Whenever we have used the term \"unacceptable,\" the animal is a nevelah and if a person partakes of an olive-sized portion of it, he is liable for lashes for partaking of a nevelah. For only an acceptable slaughter as commanded by Moses our teacher of blessed memory prevents an animal from being considered a nevelah as we explained. Whenever there is an unresolved doubt whether slaughter [is acceptable], there is an unresolved doubt whether the animal is a nevelah. A person who partakes of it is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.",
+ "When the thigh of an animal and [the meat of] its hollow were removed and thus it appears lacking when it crouches, it is a nevelah. [It is] as if half of it was cut away and it was divided into two bodies. Thus slaughter is not effective with regard to it.
Similarly, if [the animal's] backbone was broken together with the majority of the meat, its back was ripped open like a fish, the majority of the windpipe was been severed, or the gullet was perforated in a place fit for slaughter, it is considered as a nevelah while alive and slaughter will not be effective with regard to it. The same laws apply to both an animal and a fowl with regard to all these matters.",
+ "The gullet has two membranes: the external membrane is red and the inner membrane is white. If only one of them is perforated, [the animal] is acceptable. If they are both perforated even to the slightest degree in a place fit for slaughter, it is a nevelah. [This applies] whether it was slaughtered in the place of the perforation or in another place, slaughter will not be effective with regard to it. If they were both perforated, [even when] one [hole] does not correspond to the other, the animal is a nevelah.",
+ "When the gullet is perforated and a scab forms which covers it, the scab is of no consequence and it is considered perforated as it was beforehand. If a thorn is detected standing in the gullet, there is an unresolved doubt whether the animal is a nevelah. We fear that perhaps a scab developed in the place of a perforation and it is not visible. If, however, a thorn is lying lengthwise in the gullet, we are not concerned about it, for most desert animals eat thorns continuously.",
+ "The gullet cannot be checked from the outside, only from the inside. What is implied? One should turn it inside out and check it. If a drop of blood is found upon it, it can be concluded that it was perforated.",
+ "When the majority of the cavity of the windpipe has been severed in the place fit for slaughtering, [the animal] is a nevelah. This also applies if it has a hole the size of an isar.
[The following rules apply if the windpipe of an animal] was perforated with small holes. If the perforations did not detract [from the flesh, they disqualify the animal if,] when they are added together, they constitute the majority [of the windpipe]. If they detract from the flesh, [they disqualify the animal if,] when they are added together, their sum is the size of an isar. Similarly, if a strand [of flesh] is removed from [the windpipe], it [disqualifies the animal if its area] is the size of an isar.
With regard to a fowl, [a more stringent rule applies]: Whenever the strip [of flesh that was removed] or the holes that detract from the flesh [are large enough so that they] could be folded so that when placed over the opening of the windpipe, it would cover the majority [of its cavity], it is a nevelah. If not, it is acceptable.",
+ "If the windpipe was perforated on both sides with a hole large enough for the thickness of isar to be inserted into it, it is a nevelah. If it is slit lengthwise, even if only the slightest portion of the place fit to slaughter [an animal] remains above and below, it is acceptable.",
+ "When a windpipe has been perforated and it is not known whether it was perforated before the slaughter or afterwards, we perforate it again in another place and compare the two holes. If they resemble each other, it is permitted.
We compare only [a hole in] a large ring to [a hole in] a large ring or [a hole in] a small [ring] to [a hole in] a small [ring], but not [a hole in] a small [ring] to a [a hole in] a large [ring]. For the entire windpipe is made up of a series of rings. Between each [large] ring is a small, soft ring."
+ ],
+ [
+ "When a Jew who does not know the five factors that disqualify ritual slaughter and the like concerning the laws of shechitah that we explained slaughters [an animal] in private, it is forbidden for him and others to partake [of the animal that] he slaughtered. It is close to being considered a nevelah because of the doubt involved. When a person eats an olive-sized portion of its meat, he is worthy of stripes for rebellious conduct.",
+ "Even if [such a person] slaughtered [animals] properly in our presence four or five times and this slaughter which he performed in private appears to be a proper and complete slaughter, it is forbidden to partake of it. Since he does not know the factors that can disqualify ritual slaughter, it is possible that he will cause the slaughter to be disqualified unknowingly. For example, he may wait, apply pressure to the animal's neck and slit it, slaughter with a blemished knife, or the like inadvertently.",
+ "[Even] when a Jew knows the laws of ritual slaughter, he should not slaughter in private as an initial and preferred option until he slaughters in the presence of a wise man many times until he is familiar and ardent. If, however, at the outset, he slaughtered in private, his slaughter is acceptable.",
+ "When one knows the laws of ritual slaughter and slaughters in the presence of a wise man until he becomes familiar with ritual slaughter, he is called an expert. Any expert may slaughter in private as an initial and preferred option. Even women and servants may slaughter as an initial and preferred option.",
+ "When a deaf-mute, an intellectually or emotionally imbalanced person, a child, or a drunkard whose mind became befuddled slaughters, their slaughter is unacceptable. Since they do not have [adequate] mental control, we fear that they blundered. Therefore if they slaughtered in the presence of a knowledgeable person and he saw that they slaughtered properly, their slaughter is acceptable.",
+ "When a person whose reputation has not been established among us slaughters in private, we question him. If it is discovered that he knows the fundamental principles of ritual slaughter, his slaughter is acceptable.",
+ "When we saw from a distance that a Jew slaughtered [an animal] and departed and we do not know whether or not he knows the laws of ritual slaughter or not, [the animal] is permitted. Similarly, if a person tells his agent: \"Go out and slaughter an animal on my behalf,\" and he finds a slaughtered animal, but does not know whether his agent or another person slaughtered it, [the animal] is permitted. [The rationale for both these laws is] that the majority of people who slaughter are expert.",
+ "[The following rules apply when a person] loses a kid or a chicken. If he finds it slaughtered at home, it is permitted. [The rationale is that] the majority of people who slaughter are expert. If he finds it in the market place, it is forbidden; perhaps [it was slaughtered improperly and] became a nevelah and was therefore cast into the market place. Similarly, if he finds it on the waste dump at home, it is forbidden.",
+ "When an expert [slaughterer] loses his power of speech, but he is [still] capable of understanding, he can hear and he is of sound mind, he may slaughter as an initial and preferred option. Similarly, a person who does not hear, may slaughter.",
+ "A blind man should not slaughter as an initial and preferred option unless others supervise him. If he slaughters, his slaughter is acceptable.",
+ "When a gentile slaughters, even though he slaughters in the presence of a Jew, [using] a finely [honed] knife, and even if he was a minor, his slaughter is a nevelah. According to Scriptural Law, one is liable for lashes for partaking of it, as [implied by Exodus 34:15]: \"[Lest] he shall call you and you shall partake of his slaughter.\" Since the Torah warns lest one partake of his slaughter, you can infer that his slaughter is forbidden. He cannot be compared to a Jew who does not know the laws of ritual slaughter.",
+ "[Our Sages] established a great safeguard concerning this matter, [decreeing] that even [an animal] slaughtered by a gentile who does not serve false deities is a nevelah.",
+ "If a gentile began to slaughter and slit the minority of the signs and a Jew completed the slaughter or a Jew began the slaughter and a gentile completed it, it is invalid. [The rationale is that] slaughter [is considered an integral act, a single continuity] from the beginning to the end. If, however, a gentile slit [a portion of] an organ that does not cause the animal to be considered a nevelah, e.g., he slit half the windpipe and a Jew completed the slaughter, it is acceptable.",
+ "A Jew who is an apostate because of his transgression of a particular transgression who is an expert slaughterer may slaughter as an initial and preferred option. A Jew of acceptable repute must check the knife and afterwards give it to this apostate to slaughter with, for it can be presumed that he will not trouble himself to check [the knife].
If, by contrast, he was an apostate because of worship of false deities, one who violates the Sabbath in public, or a heretic who denies the Torah and [the prophecy of] Moses our teacher, as we explained in Hilchot Teshuvah, he is considered as a gentile and [an animal] he slaughters is a nevelah.",
+ "[Even though] a person is disqualified as a witness because of his violation of a Scriptural prohibition, he may [still] slaughter in private if he was an expert. For he would not leave something which is permitted and partake of something that is forbidden. This is a presumption that applies with regard to all Jews, even those who are wicked.",
+ "These Tzadukkim, Beotosim, their disciples and all that err, following their path, who do not believe in the Oral Law - their slaughter is forbidden. If, however, they slaughtered [an animal] in our presence, it is permitted. For their slaughter is forbidden only because it is possible they blunder. Since they do not believe in the laws of ritual slaughter, we do not accept their word when they say, \"We did not blunder.\"",
+ "When the Jews were journeying through the desert, they were not commanded to slaughter non-sacrificial animals. Instead, they would cut off their heads or slaughter them and eat as the other nations do. In the desert, they were commanded that everyone who desires to slaughter an animal [in the prescribed way] should slaughter only for the sake of a peace offering, as [Leviticus 17:3-5] states: \"When a man from the house of Israel will slaughter an ox... and he will not bring it to the Tent of Meeting... [it will be considered as (spilled) blood]... so that the Children of Israel will bring their sacrifices... and slaughter these sacrifices as peace-offerings.\" If, however, a person desired to cut an animal's head off and partake [of the animal], in the desert, this was allowed.",
+ "This mitzvah is not observed forever, nor in the desert alone, at the time it was permitted to kill animals [and partake of them]. There they were commanded that when they would enter Eretz Yisrael, killing animals [for food] would be forbidden and ordinary animals could only be eaten after ritual slaughter. They would be allowed to slaughter in every place except the Temple Courtyard, as [Deuteronomy 12:20-21] states: \"When God your Lord will expand your boundaries... and you shall slaughter from your cattle and your sheep which God your Lord gave you.\" This is the mitzvah to be observed for generations - to slaughter and then to eat."
+ ],
+ [
+ "We have already explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot that the term trefe employed by the Torah refers to an animal that is on the verge of death. The term trefe - which literally means \"torn apart\" - was employed only because the Torah speaks with regard to prevalent situations, e.g., a lion or the like attacked it and wounded it, but it had not died yet.",
+ "There are other maladies which if they affect an animal will cause it to be considered trefe. They were transmitted as a halachah to Moses at Sinai. [In particular,] eight [conditions that cause an animal to be considered as] trefe were transmitted to Moses at Sinai. They are derusah, nekuvah, chaseirah, netulah, pesukah, keru'ah, nefulah, and sheburah.",
+ "Although they were all transmitted as halachot to Moses at Sinai, since only derusah is explicitly mentioned in the Torah, [our Sages] ruled more stringently with regard to it. Any questionable situation that arises with regard to derisah [causes the animal] to be forbidden. There are, by contrast, questionable situations that may arise with regard to the seven other conditions [that render an animal] trefe in which [the animal] is permitted as will be explained.",
+ "Derusah refers to a situation where a lion or the like will attack an animal and assault it with its paw or a hawk, an eagle, or the like will assault a fowl. [The laws of] derisah apply with regard to a large domesticated animal or a large wild beast only when it is attacked by a lion. [The laws of derisah apply with regard to] a small domesticated animal or a small wild beast only when it is attacked by a wolf or a larger animal. [The laws of] derisah apply with regard to kids and lambs even when attacked by cats, foxes, martens, and the like. Needless to say, this applies with regard to fowl.",
+ "When a hawk attacks, the laws of derisah apply even with regard to a larger fowl. With regard to other birds of prey the laws of derisah apply only with regard to fowl their size and not with regard to fowl which are larger than they are.",
+ "[The laws of] derisah apply [when] a weasel attacks a fowl. [The laws of] derisah do not apply at all when a dog attacks, not when it attacks a fowl, an animal, or a beast. [The laws of] derisah apply [when] a hawk attacks kids or lambs should its claws penetrate to [the animal's] inner cavity.",
+ "[The laws of] derisah apply only [when] the attacking animal [strikes its victim] with its forelegs. If it strikes it with its hindlegs, we show no concern. [Similarly, the laws of] derisah apply only [when the attacking animal strikes its victim] with its claw. If it bites it, we show no concern unless it penetrates to its internal cavity. We then check if it perforated one of the organs [that cause an animal to be considered trefe if] even the tiniest perforation was made.
[The laws of] derisah apply only [when] the attacking animal has that intent. If, however, the beast of prey fell and its claws became lodged in the other animal, [the laws of] derisah do not apply. [Similarly, the laws of] derisah apply only [when the attacking animal] is alive. If, however, it attacked and was killed, but its claws remained lodged in the victim and were not removed until after [the attacker's] death, we are not concerned.",
+ "What are the laws applying to an animal that was attacked? Whenever we stated that \"we show concern,\" the attacked animal should be slaughtered and its entire internal cavity - from its feet to its forehead - must be checked. If it is found to be flawless with regard to all the factors [that render an animal] trefe and there is no sign that it was attacked, it is permitted. If there is a sign that it was attacked, it is trefe and forbidden by Scriptural Law.",
+ "What is meant by \"a sign that it was attacked\"? That the flesh above the intestines turns red. If the flesh above the intestines decays to the extent it becomes like flesh which a doctor would scrape from a wound, we consider that flesh as if it were lacking and [rule that the animal is] trefe.",
+ "If [the predator] attacked the \"signs\" [which must be cut for ritual slaughter, the animal is] trefe if they turn red. The slightest wound [is significant]. If even the smallest portion of them becomes red because of an attack, [the animal is] trefe.",
+ "When there is a question whether [an animal] has been attacked or not, we do not permit it unless it is checked as one would [an animal] that had definitely been attacked.
What is implied? When a lion enters among oxen and a claw was found in the back of one of them, we suspect that the lion attacked it. We do not rationalize and say: \"Maybe it scratched itself on a wall.\"
Similarly, if a fox or a marten enters among fowls, [the predator] is silent and they crowing, we fear that he attacked. If, however, the predator is roaring and they are crowing, [we assume that] they are crowing out of fear of him and his roaring. Similarly, if he cuts off the head of one of them, we assume his fury has subsided. Similarly, if both [the predator] and [the fowl] are silent, we do not suspect [anything]. For if he had harmed them, they would crow.",
+ "When there is a question of whether or not a predator entered [a place where animals are kept] or we saw [an animal] enter [such a place], but were unable to see if it is one of the predators or not, we do not harbor suspicions.
Similarly, if a fowl entered a woods or reeds and came out with its head or neck dripping blood, we do not suspect that it was attacked. Instead, we say: \"Perhaps it was wounded among the trees.\""
+ ],
+ [
+ "What is meant by nekuvah? There are eleven organs that if there is a perforation of the slightest size that reaches their inner cavity, [the animal] is trefe. They are: the entrance to the gullet, the membrane of the brain in the skull, the heart and its large arteries, the gall-bladder, the arteries leading to the liver, the maw, the stomach, the abdomen, the gut, the intestines, and the lung and the bronchia.",
+ "We have already mentioned the definition of the entrance to the gullet. It refers to a portion of the esophagus above the gullet which is not fit for ritual slaughter. If there is a perforation of the slightest size that reaches its inner cavity, [the animal] is trefe.",
+ "The brain in the skull has two membranes. If the outer one near the skull bone alone is perforated, [the animal] is permitted. If the lower one near the brain is perforated, it is trefe. With regard to the portion where the brain extends to the spinal cord, i.e., the portion below the glands where the neck begins, the laws governing [the perforation of] its membranes change. If they are perforated beyond the glands, [the animal] is permitted.",
+ "When the brain itself is perforated or crushed, [the animal] is acceptable if its membrane is intact. If, however, [it has degenerated to the extent that] it can be poured like water or melts like wax, [the animal] is trefe.",
+ "When there is a perforation of the heart to its inner cavity - whether to the larger cavity on the left or the smaller cavity to the right - [the animal] is trefe. If, however, the flesh of the heart is perforated, but the perforation does not reach the inner cavity, [the animal] is permitted. The arteries leading from the heart to the lung is considered as the heart itself. If there is a perforation of the slightest size that reaches its inner cavity, [the animal] is trefe.",
+ "When the gall-bladder is perforated and the liver seals it, [the animal] is permitted. If, however, the perforation is not sealed, it is trefe even if the perforation is located close to the liver.",
+ "[The following rules apply when] a kernel is found in the gall-bladder. If it was shaped like a date seed, i.e., its head is not pointed, [the animal] is permitted. If, however, its head is pointed like an olive seed, it is forbidden, for we can assume that it perforated [the gall bladder] when it entered. [The reason that] the perforation cannot be seen is that a scab developed over the opening of the wound.",
+ "When there is a perforation of the slightest size in one of the arteries of the liver where the blood develops, [the animal] is trefe. Accordingly, [the following rules apply] if a needle is found in the lobes of the liver. If it was a large needle and its pointed edge was facing inward, it can be assumed that it perforated [the liver] when it entered. If its rounded edge was facing inward, we say that it entered through the blood vessels and [the animal] is permitted.",
+ "If it was a small needle, [the animal] is trefe, because both of its heads are sharp and it certainly perforated [the liver]. If it is found in the large blood vessel, the wide artery through which food enters the liver, it is permitted. If the flesh of the liver became wormridden, [the animal] is permitted.",
+ "When the maw is perforated and kosher fat seals [the perforation], [the animal] is permitted. Similarly, whenever a perforation is sealed by flesh or fat that is permitted to be eaten, [the animal] is permitted. The [only] exceptions are the fat of the heart, the membrane that is above the entire heart, the diaphragm in the midst of the belly that separates between the digestive organs and the respiratory organs, i.e., the one that when it is cut open, the lungs could be seen and which is called the membrane [above] the liver, the white place in the center [of the liver], and the fat of the colon. In these organs, we do not say that they shield [the perforation] because they are firm. A perforation that is sealed with one of these is not considered as sealed.
A portion of fat from a beast that corresponds to a portion of forbidden fat in a domesticated animal does not seal [a perforation] even though it is permitted to be eaten.",
+ "When the stomach is perforated, [the animal] is trefe. There is nothing that can seal it for the fat upon it is forbidden. Similarly, when there is a perforation of the abdomen or gut that extends to its outer periphery, [the animal] is trefe. If one of them was perforated and the perforation leads to the cavity of the other, [the animal] is permitted.",
+ "[The following rules apply when] a needle is found in the folds of the gut: If it was from one side, [the animal] is permitted. If it caused a complete perforation extending [from the outer side] to the cavity of the gut and a drop of blood was found at the place of the perforation, [the animal] is trefe. For we are certain that the perforation occurred before the slaughter. If there is no blood at the place of the perforation, [the animal] is permitted. For we are certain that after the slaughter, under pressure the needle caused the perforation.",
+ "When an animal swallowed a substance that will perforate the intestines, e.g., the root of the asafetida plant or the like, it is trefe, for we can be certain that it perforated them. If there is a question whether or not a perforation was made, [the animal] must be inspected.
When one of the organs of the digestive system through which the food waste passes, i.e., the intestines, are perforated, [the animal] is trefe. Among them are those which are curved and surrounded by each other like a snake that is coiled, they are referred to as the small intestines. If one of them was perforated [on the side where] another [is located], the animal is permitted, for the other [intestine] will shield [the perforation].",
+ "When the digestive organs were perforated and viscous body fluids seal them, [the animal] is trefe for this seal will not endure.
When a wolf, a dog, or the like, snatched [an animal's] intestines and they were perforated after they were abandoned, we surmise that [the predator caused the perforation and the slaughtered animal] is permitted. We do not say that perhaps [the predator] made a perforation in a place where one already existed.
If [an intestine] was discovered to be perforated and it was not known whether it was perforated before [the animal's] slaughter or afterwards, we perforate it again and compare the two. If the first perforation resembles this one, [the animal] is kosher. If there was a difference between them, [we presume that the first] occurred before the slaughter and [the animal] is trefe. If the perforation in doubt was handled, the perforation to which it is being compared must also be handled before the comparison is made.",
+ "When [an animal's] digestive organs protrude outside [its body] without having been perforated, [the animal] is permitted. If they were turned upside down, [the animal] is trefe even if they were not perforated. [The rationale is that] once [the digestive organs] have been turned upside down, they will never return to their ordinary functioning and [the animal] will not live.",
+ "The final digestive organ that is straight and not curved from which feces are excreted in the genital area and is joined [to the body] between the thighs is called the colon. If it is perforated even slightly, [the animal] is trefe, as applies with regard to the other digestive organs.
When does the above apply? When the perforation faced the cavity of the belly. When, however, it was perforated at the point where it is joined between the thighs, [the animal] is permitted. [Indeed,] even if the entire place where it is joined between the thighs is removed, [the animal] is permitted, provided a length of at least four fingerbreadths remains in an ox.",
+ "A fowl does not have a stomach, an abdomen, or a gut. Instead of them, it has a crop and a craw.
All the factors that render an animal trefe apply equally to a domesticated animal, a wild beast, and a fowl.
When the roof of the crop receives even the slightest perforation, [the animal] is trefe. What is meant by the roof of the crop? That which becomes extended with the gullet when the fowl extends its neck. If, however, the remainder of the crop becomes perforated, [the fowl] is permitted.",
+ "The craw has two [membranes] covering it. The outer one is red like meat; the inner one is white like skin. If one was perforated and not the other, [the fowl] is permitted unless they are both perforated, even slightly. If they are both perforated, but in places that do not correspond, [the fowl] is permitted.",
+ "The spleen is not one of the limbs which is disqualified because of a perforation of even the slightest size. Therefore our Sages did not include it in that category. Instead, a perforation that disqualifies it has a measure which is not uniform throughout it.
What is implied? One of the ends of the spleen is thick and the other thin, like the shape of the tongue. If the thick end was perforated by a hole that extends from side to side, [the animal] is trefe. If the hole does not extend from side to side, [more lenient rules apply]: If a portion the thickness of a golden dinar remains, [the animal] is permitted. If less than that remains, [the perforation] is considered as if it extends from side to side and [the animal] is trefe. If the thin side is perforated, [the animal] is acceptable.",
+ "[The following principle applies with regard to] all of the organs concerning which our Sages said that even the slightest perforation [causes the animal to be considered] trefe. If [that organ] was removed entirely, [the animal] is trefe. This applies whether it was eliminated through sickness, removed by hand, or [the animal] was created lacking the organ.
The same laws also apply if it was created with two of that organ, for any extra limb or organ is considered as if it was lacking.
What is implied? If one of an animal's or fowl's digestive organs, its gall-bladder, or the like was removed, it is trefe. Similarly if it was discovered to have two gall-bladders or two of a [particular digestive] organ, it is trefe. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. If, however, the spleen was removed or two spleens were found, [the animal] is permitted, for [that organ] is not among those listed [by our Sages in this category].",
+ "[The statement that] an extra digestive organ causes an animal to be considered trefe applies only when there is an entire extra organ from its beginning to its end and thus two digestive organs are found next to each other as is [sometimes found in] the digestive organs of a fowl or the extra organ projects outward like a branch from a bough and it is a separate entity. [The latter applies] whether in a fowl or in an animal. If, however, the extra organ returns and becomes combined with the main organ and they are fused at the two ends even though they are separate in the middle, [the animal] is permitted and the organ is not considered as extra."
+ ],
+ [
+ "The lungs have two membranes. If only one of them is perforated, [the animal] is permitted. If they are both perforated, [the animal] is trefe. Even if the entire upper membrane is peeled off and dissolves, [the animal] is permitted. If there was even a slight perforation in the portion of windpipe in the chest or lower, [the animal] is trefe. For this is a place in the lower portion of the windpipe that is not fit for ritual slaughter.",
+ "If a person began slaughtering the animal and slit the windpipe entirely, then perforated the lung, and afterwards, completed the slaughter, [the animal] is trefe, for [the lung] was perforated before the completion of the slaughter. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.",
+ "If one of the bronchioles was perforated, even if the perforation is covered by another bronchiole, [the animal] is trefe. If one saw that it was perforated and then it developed a scab, [the scab] is of no consequence.
If the mass of the lung is perforated, [the animal] is trefe, even if one of the ribs seals the perforation. If it was perforated in a place where the lung breaks into lobes and the lobe lies on [a rib, the animal] is kosher.",
+ "When does the above apply? When the perforation in the lobes is sealed by flesh. If, however, the perforation is pressed against the bone, it does not protect it. If, however, the perforation in the lobes was clinging both to the bone and the flesh, [the animal] is permitted.",
+ "When the body of the lung is found adhering to the ribs, we suspect that it was perforated. [This applies] whether or not growths appeared on it.
What do we do [to check it]? We separate it from the rib while taking care not to perforate it. If it is discovered to be perforated and a bruise is discovered on the rib in the place where it was perforated, we assume that the perforation was caused by the bruise. If there was no bruise on the rib, it is clear that this perforation existed within the lung before the animal was slaughtered and it is trefe.",
+ "When it is discovered that there is a closed place in the lung which air does not enter and it does not inflate, it is as if it had been perforated and [the animal] is trefe.
How do we inspect it? We cut off the portion [of the lung] that would not inflate when [air was] blown [into the lung]. If fluid was discovered within it, it is permitted, because it was due to the fluid that the air did not enter. If no fluid is found within, we put some saliva, a straw, a feather or the like over [the separated portion] and blow air into it. If they move, [the animal] is kosher. If not, it is trefe, because air does not enter [that portion of the lung].",
+ "[The following rules apply when] a sound is heard when a lung is inflated. If the place from which the sound emanates can be detected, saliva, a straw, or the like should be placed over it. If they flutter, it is apparent that the lung is perforated and [the animal] is trefe.
If the place [from which the sound emanates] cannot be detected, the lung should be placed in lukewarm water and blown. If the water bubbles, [the animal] is trefe. If not, it is apparent that only the lower membrane has been perforated, the air is moving between the two membranes. For this reason, it will be possible to hear a hushed sound when it is inflated.",
+ "Keep this encompassing general principle in mind: Whenever air was blown into a lung that was placed in lukewarm water and the water did not bubble, [the lung] is intact, without a perforation.",
+ "[The following laws apply when the insides of] a lung can be poured out like [water from] a pitcher, but the outer membrane is intact, without a perforation. If the bronchioles remain in their place and have not degenerated, it is acceptable. If even one of the bronchioles have degenerated, it is trefe.
What should be done? We perforate [the membrane of the lung] and pour it out into a container glazed with lead or the like. If white strands can be seen, it is apparent that the bronchioles have degenerated and it is trefe. If not, it is only the flesh of the lung that has degenerated and [the animal] is acceptable.",
+ "[The following rules apply when] boils are discovered on a lung. If they are filled with air, clear water, fluid that is viscous like honey or the like, dried fluid that is firm like a stone, [the animal] is permitted. If putrid fluid or putrid or murky liquid is found within it, it is trefe. When one removes the fluid and checks it, one should check the bronchiole below it. If it is discovered to be perforated, it is trefe.",
+ "When one discovers two boils on a lung close to each other, [the animal] is trefe, for it is very likely that there is a perforation between them and there is no way of checking the matter. If there is one which appears like two, one should perforate one, if the other flows into it, it is only one and [the animal] is permitted. If not, [the animal] is trefe.",
+ "If the lung degenerated, [the animal] is trefe. What is implied? For example, it was discovered intact and when it is hung up, it will break apart and fall into separate pieces.
When a lung was discovered to be perforated in the place where it was handled by the butcher's hand, the animal is permitted. We assume that [it was blemished by his] hand and say: \"It was perforated by the butcher's hand after slaughter.\"
If the perforation was discovered in another place and it is not known whether it took place before ritual slaughter or afterwards, we make another perforation and compare the two as is done with regard to the digestive organs.",
+ "We do not compare the lung of a small domesticated animal to the lung of a large domesticated animal. Instead, [the lung of] a small animal [must be compared to that] of a small animal and that of a large animal to that of a large animal.
If a perforation is found in one of the boils of a lung, [the animal] is trefe. We do not say: \"Perforate another boil and compare them,\" because the matter is not clearly apparent.",
+ "When a needle is found in the lung, we blow up the lung. If no air is released from it, it is apparent that this needle entered via the bronchioles and did not perforate [them]. If the lung was cut open before it was blown up and a needle was found in it, [the animal] is forbidden. For there is a high probability that it perforated [the lung] when it entered.",
+ "When there is a worm in the lung and it perforated the lung and emerged and we see the lung perforated by the worm, [the animal] is permitted. We rely on the prevailing assumption that it perforated [the lung] after ritual slaughter and emerged [then].
There are ways that certain organs appear [that can disqualify the organ]. For if the appearance of the organ is changed to that undesirable appearance, it is considered as if it was perforated. For since the appearance of this flesh changed to the [undesirable] appearance, it is considered as if it was dead. It is as if the flesh whose appearance changed does not exist. Similarly, [Leviticus 13:10] states: \"And there is a spot of living flesh in the blemish...,\" and [ibid. 13:10] states: \"On the day when he will present living flesh....\" Implied is that flesh whose appearance has changed is not \"alive.\"",
+ "[The following principles apply if] the color of a lung changes, whether part of its color changes or its entire color changes. If it changes to a permitted color, even if its entire color changes, it is permitted. If, however, even the slightest portion of it changes to a forbidden color, [the animal] is trefe. [The rationale is that] the forbidden color is considered equivalent to a perforation as explained [above].",
+ "There are five forbidden hues for the lung: black like ink, greenish-yellow like hops, [yellow] like the yolk of an egg, or like safflower, or like the color of meat.
Safflower is a color which clothes are dyed. It is comparable to hairs that are slightly red, leaning towards gold.",
+ "If the lung is discovered to be the color of the branches of a date palm, we forbid it because of the doubt involved, because this is very close to a forbidden color. We do not forbid any of these colors until the lung is inflated and massaged by hand. If it changes to a permitted color, [the animal] is permitted. If it retains the [forbidden] color, it is forbidden.",
+ "There are four permitted hues [for the lung]. They are: blackish blue, green like a leek, red, or the color of the liver. Even if the lung was entirely colored in these four hues patch by patch, spot by spot, [the animal] is permitted.",
+ "When a fowl fell into a fire and its heart, its liver, or its craw turned green or its digestive organs turned red, [the fowl] is trefe. [This applies if] even the slightest portion of the organs [changed color]. For whenever a fire causes organs that were green to turn red or those which were red to turn green, it is considered as if the organ was removed and [the animal] is trefe. [This applies] provided they retain this color after they were cooked slightly and massaged.",
+ "Whenever the liver of a fowl appears like the digestive organs or [the appearance of] the other digestive organs change and the change remains after they were cooked slightly and massaged as explained [above], we can assume that the fowl fell into a fire, its digestive organs were burnt, and it is trefe.
Moreover, when there was no change detected in the digestive organs of a fowl, but when they were cooked slightly they changed color, those that were green turned -red or those that were red turned green, we can assume that the fowl fell into a fire, its digestive organs were burnt, and it is trefe.
Similarly, if [the color of] the gullet [has changed] - the outer skin appears white and the inner red - it is considered as if the organ is not present, and it - either an animal or a fowl - is trefe."
+ ],
+ [
+ "What is meant by the term chasairah? There are two organs that render [an animal] trefe if it is lacking the proper number. They are the lungs and the feet.
The lungs have five lobes. When a person will drape them over his hand with the inner portion of the lung facing his face, there will be three [lobes] on the right and two on the left. In addition, at the right of [the lung], there is a small ear-like attachment. It is not in the row of the lobes. It has a pocket of its own and it is located in the pocket. This [attachment] is called a rose, because that is what it looks like. It is not counted as one of the number of lobes.
Accordingly, if [an animal] does not possess this \"rose,\" it is permitted. For this is the pattern with regard to [this organ], there are some animals in which it is found and some in which it is not found. If it is perforated, [the animal] is trefe even though its pocket seals it.",
+ "If the number of lobes was lacking and one was discovered on the left side or two on the right side, [the animal] is trefe. If, however, there were two on the right side and this \"rose,\" [the animal] is permitted.",
+ "If the position of the lobes was switched and three were found on the left and two on the right without a \"rose\" or the \"rose\" was found together with three on the left side, it is trefe, for it is lacking on the right side.",
+ "[The following rules apply if] the number of lobes was increased. If the extra lobe was on the side of the [other] lobes or in front of the lungs on the side of the heart, [the animal] is permitted. If [the extra lobe] is on its back, near the ribs, [the animal] is trefe for an extra [organ] is considered equivalent to one that is lacking. [This applies] provided it is [at least] the size of a myrtle leaf. If it is smaller than this, it is not considered as a lobe and [the animal] is permitted.",
+ "When one lobe is found clinging to the one next to it, [the animal] is permitted. If, however, [the lobes] became attached out of the ordinary order, e.g., the first lobe became attached to the third, [the animal] is trefe.",
+ "[The following laws apply if] there are two lobes [that appear] as one lobe and do not appear as two lobes joined together. If there was a space about the size of a myrtle leaf between them - whether at their root, in their center, or at their end - so that it is clear that they are two which are attached, [the animal] is permitted. If not, it is lacking [one of the lobes] and is trefe.",
+ "If the entire lung appears like two rows and it is not divided into lobes, it is trefe. Similarly, if the body of the lung itself was lacking, even if it was not perforated, it is considered as if the required number of lobes were missing and [the animal] is trefe. Therefore if a dried portion that could be chipped away with one's nail of even the slightest size was discovered within it, it is considered as lacking and [the animal] is trefe.",
+ "When a lung was discovered to be inflated like the leaves of a palm tree, we rule that it is forbidden because of the doubt involved. For this is an abnormal addition to its body and perhaps an addition to its body is considered as equivalent to a lack in its body, as stated with regard to the number of lobes.",
+ "[The following rules apply when] an animal became frightened and was terrified to the extent that her lung shriveled and came closer to becoming dried out: If it became frightened through the hand of heaven, e.g., it heard a thunderclap, saw lightening, or the like, it is permitted. If it became frightened through human activity, e.g., another animal was slaughtered in its presence or the like, it is considered as if it were lacking and it is trefe.",
+ "How do we inspect it? We place the lung in water for an entire day. In the winter, we place it in lukewarm water, in a container which will not cause the water to condense on its back and flow so that they will not become cold rapidly. If the season was hot, we place it in cold water in a container on which the water will condense on its back so that the water will remain cold. If [the lung] returns to its natural state, [we assume that the animal was frightened] by the hand of heaven and it is permitted. If it does not return, we [we assume that] it happened due to mortal causes and [the animal] is trefe.",
+ "An animal that was lacking a foot from the time it came into being is trefe. The same ruling applies if it possesses an extra foot, for an extra limb or organ is considered as if it was lacking. If, however, it has three forefeet or only one forefoot, [the animal] is permitted. Accordingly, if [an animal's] forefoot is cut off, [the animal] is permitted.
If its leg is cut off from the joint and above, [the animal] is trefe. From the joint and below, it is permitted. Which joint are we speaking about? The joint that is at the end of the hip close to the body.",
+ "When the bone is broken above the joint, if it emerges outward entirely or in its majority, it is considered as if it were cut and fell off, and [the animal] is trefe. If the flesh or the skin was covering both the majority of the thickness and the majority of the circumference of the broken bone, [the animal] is permitted. This applies even if part of the broken bone fell off and no longer is present. Soft sinews are not considered as flesh.",
+ "The juncture of the sinews is a place in an animal and in a beast which is above the heel, at the place where the butchers hang the animal. There are three white sinews there, one thick and two thin. From the place where they begin and are firm and white until [the place] where the whiteness is removed from them and they begin to become red and soften is considered the juncture of the sinews. It is approximately sixteen fingerbreadths [long] in an ox.",
+ "In a fowl, there are sixteen such sinews. They begin on the lowest bone, from the extra talon and [continue] until the conclusion of the foot which is [covered by a series of] crusted scales.",
+ "When an animal's feet are cut off at the juncture of the sinews, it is trefe. Do not be amazed and say: \"How is it possible that [an animal] will be permitted if its [legs] are cut off above the juncture of the sinews - indeed, it is permitted unless its [legs] are cut off above the highest joint as we explained- but forbidden if they are cut off at a lower point, at the juncture of the sinews?
[The resolution is as follows: With regard to the designation of an animal] as trefe, [there are times when] one will cut from this point and it will live, but if [one would cut] from this point, it would die. We have not forbidden this animal, because its feet were cut off at a particular point, but rather because its sinews were severed and this renders it trefe, as will be explained.",
+ "What is meant by the term Netulah? There are three limbs and organs which even though they do not [cause an animal to be deemed trefe] when they are perforated or if they are lacking [when the animal is born], cause the animal to be deemed trefe. They are: the juncture of the sinews, the liver, and the upper jaw-bone.",
+ "We already explained that when an animal or a fowl has had its legs cut off at the place of the juncture of the sinews, it is deemed trefe only because the sinews were cut. Therefore if the sinews alone were severed even though the foot remains intact, the animal is trefe, because the juncture of the sinews has been removed.",
+ "In an animal, if the thick sinew alone was severed, [the animal] is permitted, for the two [thin] ones remained. If both thin ones were severed, [the animal] is permitted, for the one thick one is larger than both of them. [In both cases,] the entire juncture was not removed, only its smaller portion. If the majority of each of them was severed, [the animal] is trefe. Needless to say, this applies if they were all severed or removed.",
+ "With regard to a fowl, even if the majority of one of the sixteen were severed, [the animal] is trefe.",
+ "When a fowl's wings are broken, it is permitted like an animal whose forelegs have been cut off.",
+ "When the entire liver has been removed, [the animal] is trefe. If an olive-sized portion remains at the place from which it is suspended and there is an olive-sized portion at the place of the gall-bladder, it is permitted.
If the liver slipped from its place and it is [in disarray, as long as it is still] connected with the diaphragm, [the animal] is permitted. If the place from which it is suspended and the portion at the place of the gall-bladder were removed, it is trefe even if the remainder is intact as it was previously.",
+ "If there remained an olive-sized portion at the place of the gall-bladder and an olive-sized portion at the place from which it was suspended, [the animal] is kosher. If, however, the portions of the liver which remain intact were scattered, some here and some there, flattened, or elongated like a strap, there is a doubt concerning its status. It appears to me that it is forbidden.",
+ "When the upper jaw-bone is removed, [the animal] is trefe. If, however, the lower jaw-bone is removed, i.e., it was cut away until the place of the gullet and the windpipe, but they were not uprooted [from their connection to the throat, the animal] is permitted.",
+ "Whenever it is said that an animal is trefe if a limb or organ is lacking, so, too, it is trefe if that organ is removed. If, however, it is said that an animal is trefe if an organ is removed, [the animal] is not forbidden unless that organ was cut off. If, however, the animal was created lacking that organ, it is permitted. For if not, the categories of chasairah and netulah would be identical. Whenever it is said that [an animal] is permitted if a limb is removed, it is certainly permitted if this organ was lacking from the beginning of the animal's existence and was never created.",
+ "When the uterus of an animal, i.e., its womb, was removed or its kidneys were removed, it is permitted. Therefore if it was created with only one kidney or with three kidneys it is permitted. Similarly, it is permitted if a kidney was perforated.",
+ "Although [an animal] is permitted despite the fact that a kidney was removed or it was created without it, if its kidney is extremely undersized, it is trefe. For a small animal, this means the size of a bean, for a large one, the size of a grape. Similarly, [an animal could be deemed trefe] if a kidney became afflicted, i.e., its flesh became like the flesh of a dead [animal] that decayed after several days, [degenerating] to the extent that were one to take hold of a portion of it, it would decompose and fall apart. If this condition reached the white portion in the kidney, the animal is trefe. Similarly, if moisture - even if it is not putrid - is found in the kidney or murky or putrid fluid is found there, it is trefe. If, however, clear water is found there, [the animal] is permitted."
+ ],
+ [
+ "What is meant by the term pesukah? If the skin that covers the marrow of the spinal cord is severed, [the animal] is trefe. [This applies] provided the majority of the circumference [of the skin] is severed. If, however, the skin is split lengthwise or perforated, [the animal] is permitted. Similarly, if the backbone was broken, but the spinal cord was not split or the marrow within the cord was crushed and it would wobble, [the animal] is permitted because its skin is still intact.",
+ "If the marrow decomposes and it can be poured like water or like molten wax to the extent that the spinal cord cannot stand when it is lifted up, [the animal] is trefe. If [the reason] it cannot stand is because of its weight, [the animal's] status is doubtful.",
+ "To where does the spinal cord extend? It begins behind the two glands at the beginning of the neck and extends until the second divider. Thus nothing remains after it except the third divider which is close to the beginning of the tail.",
+ "There are three dividers. They are three bones that cleave to each other below the vertebrae of the backbone. The spinal cord of a fowl extends to in between the wings. Below these places, we are not concerned with the cord that extends there, even if its skin was severed or its marrow decays.",
+ "What is meant by the term keru'ah? [This concerns] the flesh which covers the majority of [the animal's] belly. If it is ripped open, the belly will [fall] out. If this flesh is ripped open, [the animal] is trefe. [This applies] even if the tear did not reach the belly itself to the extent that it is seen. Instead, since the majority of the thickness of this flesh was ripped open or removed, [the animal] is trefe.
What is the measure of the tear? It must be a handbreadth long. If the animal was small and the majority of the length of the flesh covering the belly was torn, it is trefe even though the tear is not a handbreadth long. For the majority [of its length] was torn.",
+ "[The following rules apply if] a circular or oblong portion of this flesh was cut. If it was larger than a sela, i.e., large enough to fit tightly three date seeds next to each other, [the animal] is trefe. For when this size cut will be extended, it will be a handbreadth in length.",
+ "When the skin of an animal was removed from it entirely - whether it was torn off by hand or [decomposed due to] sickness - the animal is trefe. This is called geludah. If a [portion of] skin as wide as a sela remained on the entire backbone, one as wide as a sela remained on the navel, and one as wide as a sela remained on the tips of the limbs, [the animal] is permitted.
If [a portion] as wide as a sela was removed from the entire backbone, from the navel, or from the tips of the limbs, but the remainder of the skin remained intact, there is a doubt [concerning the ruling]. It appears to me that we permit [the animal].",
+ "What is meant by the term nefulah? When an animal fell from a high place - at least ten handbreadths high - and one of its organs was crushed, it is trefe.
To what extent must it be crushed? It must be smashed and become ailing because of the fall to the extent that its form and appearance have been destroyed. Even though [the organ] is not perforated, cracked, or broken, [the animal] is trefe. Similarly, if one struck it with a stone or a staff and crushed one of its organs, it is trefe.
To which organs are we referring? To those in the body's inner cavity.",
+ "If an animal walks after falling from a roof, we do not suspect [that it became trefe]. If it stood, but did not walk, we harbor such suspicions. If it jumped [from the roof] on its own [initiative], we do not harbor suspicions. If [a person] left his animal on the roof and found it on the ground, we do not suspect that it fell.",
+ "When bulls butt each other, we do not harbor suspicions. If one falls to the ground, we do harbor suspicions. Similarly, [if we see] an animal dragging its feet, we do not suspect that its organs were crushed or that its backbone was severed.",
+ "When thieves steal lambs and throw them outside the corral, we do not suspect that their organs were crushed, because they throw them only with the intent that they will not be broken. If they returned them and threw them back to the corral because of fear, we suspect that they [may have become trefe]. If they returned them out of a desire to repent, we do not harbor suspicions about [the lambs], because [the thieves] have the intent of returning them intact and therefore they will be careful when throwing them back.",
+ "When an ox was forced to lie down for slaughter, we do not suspect [that its internal organs were crushed]. [This applies] even if it fell considerably to the extent that it made a great noise when it fell. [The rationale is that] it implants its hooves into it and strengthens itself until it falls to the ground.",
+ "If one struck an animal on its head and the blow extended toward its tail or [one hit it] on its tail and the blow extended toward its head - even if one struck it on the entire backbone - we do not suspect [that it became trefe]. If the staff had bulges at different points, we harbor suspicions [concerning the animal]. If the head of the staff reached a portion of the backbone, we harbor suspicions. Similarly, we harbor suspicions if he struck the animal across the breadth of the backbone.",
+ "When a fowl is knocked against a firm article, e.g., a heap of grain, a mound of almonds, or the like, we suspect that its organs may have been crushed. If, by contrast, it is knocked against something soft, e.g., a folded garment, straw,, ashes, or the like, we do not harbor such suspicions.",
+ "[The following rules apply when a fowl's] wings became stuck with glue when it was being captured and it received a blow. If only one wing became stuck, we do not suspect [that it became trefe]. If both of its wings became stuck and it receive a blow on its body, we harbor suspicions.",
+ "[The following rules apply if] it is knocked against water. If it swam for its full height upriver, against the current, we do not suspect [that it became trefe]. If, however, it swims downriver, with the current, we harbor suspicions, for perhaps the water is carrying it. If it advances toward straw or hay that is floating on the river, it is swimming on its own power and we do not harbor suspicions.",
+ "In all situations where we said: \"We do not harbor suspicions,\" it is permitted to slaughter [the animal] immediately and it is not necessary to check whether an organ was crushed. In all situations where we said: \"We harbor suspicions,\" if one slaughters the animal, one must check its entire internal category from the head to the hind-thigh. If any of the factors that render an animal trefe mentioned above were discovered or one of the inner organs was crushed to the extent that its form was destroyed, [the animal] is trefe. Even if one of the organs whose removal does not render the animal trefe, e.g., the spleen or the kidneys, is crushed, [the animal] is trefe. [There is] an exception, the uterus; if it is crushed, the animal is permitted.",
+ "[The gullet and the windpipe] do not require examination in these situations, for a fall will not crush them.",
+ "When an animal fell from a roof and did not stand [afterwards], it is forbidden to slaughter it until one waits an entire day. If one slaughtered it during this time, it is trefe. When one slaughters it after a day has passed, an examination is required, as we explained.",
+ "Similarly, if a person treaded on a fowl with his feet, an animal trampled it, or it was crushed against a wall and it is in its death throes, we leave it alive for a day. Afterwards, we slaughter it and examine it, as we stated.",
+ "When the majority of [the windpipe and the gullet were separated and] hang loosely, [the animal] is trefe. [This applies] even if [this condition occurs] due to reasons other than a fall. Similarly, if they became folded over, [the animal is unacceptable,] because they are no longer fit for ritual slaughter. If, by contrast, [even though] the majority of the throat was set loose from the jaw-bone, [the animal] is permitted, for the throat area is not fit for ritual slaughter, as we explained."
+ ],
+ [
+ "What is meant by the term sheburah? That the majority of [an animal's] ribs are broken. An animal has eleven ribs on either side of its body. If six were broken on one side and six on the other, or eleven were broken on one side and one on the other, [the animal] is trefe. [This applies] provided it is the half that faces the backbone and not the half that faces the chest.",
+ "When six [ribs] were broken on either side, [the animal] is trefe [only] when they are large ribs that have marrow. If not, even though they represent the majority of the animal's ribs and they were broken facing the backbone, [the animal] is permitted.
Similarly, if the majority of the ribs were uprooted, [the animal] is trefe. [Moreover,] if even one rib is uprooted together with half of the vertebra in which it is lodged, it is trefe. Similarly, if even one vertebra was uprooted from the backbone, it is trefe, even if was a vertebra that is below the flanks where there are no ribs.",
+ "[The following rules apply when] the thigh of an animal has slipped from its place and has left its socket. If its sinews, i.e., the peg-like projections from the bones of the socket which extend toward the bone that enters the socket and holds it have degenerated, [the animal] is trefe. If they have not degenerated, it is permitted.",
+ "Similarly, with regard to a fowl, if its hip is dislocated, it is trefe. If its wing is dislocated from its socket, we fear that it perforated the lung. Therefore we conduct an examination. Afterwards, it may be eaten. When the foreleg of an animal is dislocated from its socket, it is permitted. We do not harbor any suspicions.",
+ "When a portion of the skull of a domesticated animal or wild beast the size of a sela was removed, [the animal] is trefe even though the membrane was not perforated. If a skull was perforated by a number of small holes that [detract from the skull's] substance, they are all added together [to see if their combined size equals] a sela.",
+ "Similarly, if the majority of the height and the majority of the circumference of a skull was crushed, [the animal] is trefe, even though its membrane is intact and it is not lacking any substance. If the majority of its height was crushed, but the majority of its circumference was intact or the majority of its circumference was crushed, but the majority of its height was intact, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the animal] is trefe or not. It appears to me that we forbid it.",
+ "When the bones of the skull of a water fowl, e.g., a goose, is perforated, [the fowl] is trefe even though the membrane has not been perforated. [The rationale is that] the membrane is soft.
[The following procedure should be adhered to when] a weasel struck a land fowl on the head or it was struck by a stone or a piece of wood. One places his hand next to the hole and applies pressure or he inserts his hand into the fowl's mouth and applies pressure upward. If [the fowl's] brain emerged from the hole, it can be concluded that the membrane has been perforated and it is trefe. If not, it is permitted.",
+ "When an animal's blood pressure causes it to choke, it was affected by a black gall bladder secretion or a white gall bladder secretion, it ate a poison which kills animals, or drank fowl water, it is permitted. If it ate a poison that could kill a human or it was bitten by a snake or the like, it is permitted with regard to the laws of trefe, but it is forbidden because of the mortal danger [partaking of it could cause].",
+ "Thus the total number of conditions that cause a domesticated animal or a wild beast to be deemed trefe when singled out are seventy. They are: 1) an animal that has been attacked;
2) the perforation of the entrance to the gullet;
3) the perforation of the membrane of the brain;
4) the degeneration of the brain itself;
5) the perforation of the heart itself to its cavities;
6) the perforation of the arteries leading from the heart;
7) the perforation of the gall-bladder;
8) the perforation of the arteries of the liver;
9) the perforation of the maw;
10) the perforation of the stomach;
11) the perforation of the abdomen;
12) the perforation of the gut;
13) the perforation of the digestive organs;
14) the digestive organs protruded outside the animal's body and became overturned;
15) the perforation of the thick portion of the spleen;
16) a lack of a gall-bladder;
17) being born with two gall-bladders;
18) a lack of a maw;
19) being born with two maws;
20) a lack of a stomach;
21) being born with two stomachs;
22) a lack of an abdomen
23) being born with abdomens;
24) a lack of a gut;
25) being born with two guts;
26) a lack of one of the digestive organs;
27) being born with an extra digestive organ;
28) the perforation of the lung;
29) the perforation of the windpipe in a place where it is not fit for ritual slaughter;
30) the perforation of the bronchioles of the lungs, even if it is covered by another one;
31) a portion of the lungs has become closed;
32) the degeneration of one of the bronchioles of the lungs;
33) the discovery of putrid fluid in the lungs;
34) the discovery of putrid liquid in the lungs;
35) the discovery of murky liquid in [the lungs] even if it has not become putrid;
36)the degeneration of the lung;
37) a change in the lung's appearance;
38) the reversal of the gullet's appearance;
39) a lack of one of the required number of lobes of the lung;
40) a change in the order of the lobes;
41) the addition of a lobe on the back [of the lung];
42) the attachment of one lobe to another out of the ordinary order;
43) the discovery of a lung without division into lobes:
44) the lack of a portion of the lung;
45) a portion of the body of the lung is dried out;
46) the discovery of the lung in an inflated state;
47) a lung became shriveled because of fear of humans;
48) the lack of a hindleg; whether from birth or because it was cut off;
49) the possession of an extra leg;
50) the removal of the junction of the sinews;
51) the removal of the liver;
52) the removal of the upper jaw-bone;
53) a kidney that became extremely undersized;
54) a kidney that has become afflicted;
55) the discovery of fluid in the kidney;
56) the discovery of murky liquid in the kidney, even if it is not putrid;
57) the discovery of putrid liquid in the kidney;
58) the severance of the spinal cord;
59) the softening and degeneration of the spinal cord;
60) the ripping open of the majority of the flesh that covers the belly;
61) the removal of [an animal's] skin;
62) the crushing of [an animal's] organs due to a fall;
63) the slippage of the gullet and windpipe;
64) the breaking of the majority of [the animal's] ribs;
65) the uprooting of the majority of the ribs;
66) the uprooting of one rib together with its vertebra;
67) the uprooting of one vertebra;
68) the slippage of the thigh from its socket;
69) the lack of a portion of the skull the size of a sela;
70) the crushing and smashing of the majority of the skull;",
+ "These seventy conditions of infirmity which cause a domesticated animal or a wild beast to be forbidden as a trefe were each explained together with all the particular laws. All of the possible parallels that can be found with regard to a fowl in the organs that are common to an animal and a fowl are the same with regard to an animal and a fowl. The only exceptions are the conditions that render an animal trefe in the kidneys, the spleen, and the lobes of the lung. For a fowl does not have a division of lobes like an animal does. If there is such a division, there is no fixed number. The spleen of a fowl is round like a grape and is not the same shape as that of an animal. [The conditions of infirmity] concerning the kidneys and the spleen [that render] an animal trefe were not mentioned in order to find parallels with regard to a fowl. Therefore no set measure was given concerning a fowl with regard to a kidney whose size was reduced. Similar concepts apply in other analogous situations.",
+ "There are two conditions that render a fowl trefe in addition to those that render an animal [trefe] despite the fact that [an animal] also possesses these organs. They are: a) a fowl whose digestive organs have changed color because of [exposure to] fire;
b) a water fowl whose skull bone has been perforated.",
+ "One should not add to these conditions that render an animal trefe at all. For any condition that occurs with regard to a domesticated animal, wild beast, or fowl aside from those listed by the Sages of the early generations and which were agreed upon by the courts of Israel can possibly live. [This applies] even if it is known to us according to medical wisdom that ultimately it will not live.",
+ "Similarly, with regard to those [conditions] which [our Sages] listed as [causing an animal to be] deemed trefe even though it appears from the medical knowledge we possess that some of them will not kill and it is possible for the animal to live - we follow only what the Torah says, as [Deuteronomy 17:11] states: \"According to the Torah in which they will instruct you.\"",
+ "Whenever a butcher is knowledgeable about these [conditions that cause an animal to be deemed] trefe and he has established a reputation for observance, he may slaughter [animals], inspect them himself, and sell them without any suspicion. [The rationale is the word of] one witness is accepted with regard to the Torah's prohibition whether his testimony will lead to benefit for him or not.
We already explained that we do not purchase meat from a butcher who slaughters and inspects [the animal] himself in the Diaspora or [even] in Eretz Yisrael in the present age unless he established a reputation as an expert. If he sold an animal that was trefe, we place him under a ban of ostracism and remove him from his position. He cannot reestablish his credibility until he goes to a place where his identity is not recognized and he returns a lost article that is very valuable or [slaughters an animal] for himself and declares it trefe even though it involves a significant loss."
+ ],
+ [
+ "[The following principles apply] whenever a situation arises that creates a doubt that an animal or fowl should be deemed trefe because of one of the above conditions - e.g., an animal that fell and did not walk, it was attacked by a wild beast and we do not know whether the flesh near the intestines turned red or not, its skull was crushed and we do not know if the majority of the skull was crushed or not, or other similar circumstances: If the animal was male and it remained alive for twelve months, we operate on the assumption that it is intact like all other animals. If it was female, [we wait] until it gives birth.
With regard to a fowl: If it is male, [we wait] twelve months. If it is female, [we wait] until it lays all the eggs that it is carrying, spawns a new load, and lays them.",
+ "During this course of time, it is forbidden to sell an animal concerning which doubt has arisen whether it is a trefe to a gentile lest he sell it to a Jew.",
+ "We operate under the presumption that all domesticated animals, wild beasts, or fowl are healthy and we do not suspect that they possess conditions that would render them trefe. Therefore when they are slaughtered in the proper manner, they do not require an examination to see whether they possess a condition that would render them trefe. Instead, we operate under the presumption that they are permitted unless a situation arises that arouses suspicion. Afterwards, we inspect it with regard to that condition alone.",
+ "What is implied? For example if the wing of a fowl is displaced, we check the lung to see if it was perforated. If an animal fell, we check it to see if its organs were crushed. If the skull was crushed, we check the membrane of the brain to see if it was perforated. If it was struck by a thorn or shot by an arrow, a javelin, or the like and it entered its inner cavity, our suspicions are aroused and we require an inspection of the entire inner cavity lest it have perforated one of the organs whose perforation renders an animal trefe. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.",
+ "Therefore when there are growths on a lung or sirchos upon it - i.e., strands or adhesions - hanging from it to the ribcage, the heart, or the diaphragm, we suspect that it was perforated and require an inspection. Similarly, if a swelling was found that contained fluid, we fear that a bronchiole below it was perforated and [the lung] must be inspected.",
+ "[Following the logic] of this law, [the following rules] would apply if it was discovered that sirchos like strands were hanging from the lung, whether they extended from the body of the lung to the ribcage or to the heart or to the diaphragm. We cut the sirchah, take out the lung, and [place it] in lukewarm water, and blow it up. If it is discovered to be perforated, [the animal] is trefe. If the water does not bubble, it is intact, without any perforations, and [the animal] is permitted. For [the sirchah] was not at the place of a perforation or perhaps only the outer membrane [of the lung] was perforated. Nevertheless, I never saw anyone who ruled in this manner, nor did I hear of a place that follows such practice.",
+ "Even though this is what appears [to be the ruling] from the words of the Sages of the Gemara, the widespread custom among the Jewish people is as follows: When a domesticated animal or a wild beast is slaughtered, we tear open the diaphragm and check the lung in its place. If a sirchah is not discovered hanging between the one of the lobes and the flesh where it lies, whether on the flesh that is between the ribs or the flesh on the breastbone, or a sirchah was found, extending from one lobe to the other in order, or from the body of the lung to the lobe which is next to it, we permit [the animal].",
+ "If a strand is discovered leading from the lung to any place which it is extended, even if it is thin as a hair, we forbid [the animal].",
+ "Similarly, if there was a strand extending from the lung to the heart, the diaphragm, the protective covering of the heart, or the rose, we forbid [the animal]. [This applies] whether the strand came from the body of the lung or whether it came from a lobe and [applies regardless of its size], even if it was a hairsbreadth.
Similarly, when the rose is attached to its pocket or a strand extends from it to its pocket, we forbid it. And when a strand extends from lobe to lobe in improper order, we forbid [the animal].",
+ "There are places where the custom is that if a sirchah is from the lobe to the flesh and the bones of the ribs and the sirchah is attached to both of them, they forbid it. My father and teacher is from those who forbid it. I, by contrast, am one of those who permit it. In a small number of places, they permit it even when it is attached to the bone alone, and I forbid it.",
+ "There are places where a lung is [always] blown up to see whether or not it is perforated. In most places, however, it is not blown up, because there is no factor that raised a suspicion [concerning it]. In Spain and in the West, we never blew up a lung unless there was a factor that caused suspicion.",
+ "All of these factors are not dictated by law, but rather are a result of custom, as we explained. I never heard of anyone who had a fowl's lung inspected unless a factor that raised suspicions arose.",
+ "If, [after] a person slaughtered an animal and cut open its belly, a dog or a gentile came, took the lung, and departed before [the slaughterer] checked the lung, [the animal] is permitted. We do not say that perhaps it was perforated or perhaps it was attached [to the bone], for we do not presume that [an animal] was forbidden. Instead, we operate under the presumption that the animal is kosher unless we know what factor caused it to become trefe. Just like we do not suspect that the membrane of the brain was perforated, the backbone [was severed], or the like, we do not raise suspicions over a lung that has been lost. There are no customs regarding such a situation, because customs are not instituted with regard to factors that are not commonplace.",
+ "If a gentile or a Jew comes and takes out a lung before the lung was inspected, but the lung [still] exists, we blow it up. [This applies] even if we do not know whether there were growths or not, because of the widespread custom.",
+ "There are places who rule that we forbid [an animal] if there are sirchot hanging from the lung, even if they are not attached to the chest or to another place. This practice causes great loss and the forfeit of Jewish money. This was never the custom in France or in Spain and it was never heard in the West. It is not proper to follow this custom. Instead, all that is necessary is to blow up [the lung]. If it is discovered to be intact without a perforation, [the animal] is permitted."
+ ],
+ [
+ "When a person slaughters an animal and its offspring on the same day, the meat is permitted to be eaten. The slaughterer, however, is punished by lashes, as [Leviticus 22:28] states: \"Do not slaughter [an ox or a sheep] and its offspring on one day.\" He receives lashes only for slaughtering the second animal. Accordingly, if one person slaughtered one of such a pair and another person slaughtered the second, [the one who slaughtered the second alone] receives lashes.",
+ "The prohibition against slaughtering [an animal] and its offspring applies in all times and in all places, with regard to ordinary animals and sacrificial animals. [With regard to the latter category, it applies] with regard to sacrifices of which we partake and with regard to sacrifices of which we do not partake. Therefore if one slaughtered the first animal in the Temple courtyard and the second outside of it or the first outside the Temple courtyard and the second inside, the one who slaughtered the second animal receives lashes [for violating the prohibition against slaughtering] an animal and its offspring. [This applies] whether they were both ordinary animals, they were both sacrificial animals, or one was an ordinary animal and one, a sacrificial one.",
+ "The prohibition against slaughtering [an animal] and its offspring applies only with regard to ritual slaughter, as the verse states: \"Do not slaughter.\" [Implied] is that the prohibition involves the slaughter of both animals. If, however, one chopped off the head of one of them or it became a nevelah in his hand, it is permitted to slaughter [the other]. Similarly, if he slaughtered the first and chopped off the head of the second or it became a nevelah in his hand, he is not liable.",
+ "When a deaf-mute, an intellectually or emotionally incapable person, or a minor slaughtered the first animal privately, it is permitted to slaughter the second animal afterwards because their slaughter is not considered as slaughter.",
+ "When one slaughters the first animal, but a question arises whether it is a nevelah or not, it is forbidden to slaughter the second [animal]. If one slaughters it, he is not liable for lashes.",
+ "Slaughter from which it is not fit to eat is, nevertheless, considered slaughter. Therefore if the first person slaughtered an ordinary animal in the Temple courtyard, one which is trefe, an ox condemned to be stoned, a calf whose neck is to be broken, a red heifer, or slaughtered for the sake of a false deity, a person who slaughters the second animal is liable. Similarly, if one slaughtered the first animal and another slaughtered the second though it is an ordinary animal in the Temple courtyard, an ox condemned to be stoned, a calf whose neck is to be broken, or a red heifer, [the second person] is liable for lashes.",
+ "When [the second animal] is slaughtered for the sake of a false deity, [the slaughterer] is not liable because of [the prohibition against slaughtering] an animal and its offspring, for he is liable for capital punishment. If, however, he was given a warning for [the prohibition against slaughtering an animal] and its offspring and was not given a warning for the worship of false deities, he receives lashes.",
+ "The prohibition against slaughtering [an animal] and its offspring applies only with regard to a kosher domesticated animal. [This is derived from the exegesis of Leviticus, loc. cit.]: \"Do not slaughter [an ox or a sheep] and its offspring on one day.\"
[This prohibition] does apply with regard to hybrid species. What is implied? When a [male] deer mates with a [female] goat and one slaughters the goat and its offspring, one is liable. When, however, a [male] goat mates with a [female] deer and one slaughters the deer and its offspring, it is forbidden to slaughter [the deer and its offspring], if one slaughters them, however, one is not liable for lashes. The Torah forbade slaughtering a cow and its offspring and not a deer and its offspring.",
+ "If the offspring of this deer was female and it gave birth to offspring, one is liable for lashes should he slaughter the female offspring of this deer and its offspring [on the same day]. Similarly, if a hybrid species is produced by mating a sheep and a goat - regardless of which is male and which is female - [the slaughterer can be held liable for] lashes for [violating the prohibition against slaughtering] an animal and its offspring.",
+ "It is permitted to slaughter a pregnant animal. The fetus is considered as a limb of its mother. If the fetus emerged alive after the slaughter of its mother and stepped on the ground, one should not slaughter it on the same day. If one did, one is not liable for lashes.",
+ "The prohibition against slaughtering [an animal] and its offspring applies with regard to a mother, for the offspring is certainly its own. If one knows with certainty that a male fathered offspring, the two should not be slaughtered on the same day. If one slaughtered [them together, however,] he is not liable for lashes, for there is a doubt whether or not the prohibition applies with regard to males.",
+ "When a person slaughters a cow and afterwards slaughters two of its offspring, he is liable for two sets of lashes. If he slaughters [several of] its offspring and then it, he is liable for [only] one set of lashes. If he slaughtered it, its female offspring and the offspring of its offspring, he is liable for two sets of lashes. If he slaughtered it, the offspring of its offspring and its female offspring, he is liable for [only] one set of lashes.",
+ "When two people [each] purchased an animal: one the mother and one the offspring and they brought the matter for judgment, the one who purchased [the animal] first is allowed to slaughter it first, the other one should wait until the next day. If the second purchaser slaughtered [his animal] first, he gains and the first must wait until the next day.",
+ "Four times a year, it is necessary for a person who sells an animal to a colleague to inform him that he already sold the mother or the daughter of the animal to another person for the sake of slaughtering it so that the latter purchaser will wait and not slaughter until the next day. They are: the day preceding the final holiday of Sukkot, the day preceding the first holiday of Pesach, the day preceding Shavuot, and the day preceding Rosh HaShanah.",
+ "When does the above apply? When he saw that the person who purchased it last was anxious to buy and it was at the end of the day, [in which instance,] it can be presumed that he will slaughter it immediately. If, however, there was ample time during the day, he is not required to inform him, for perhaps he will not slaughter until the following day.",
+ "When one sells the mother to a groom and the daughter to the bride, he must notify them. For certainly, they will slaughter them both on the same day. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.",
+ "[With regard to the term] one day mentioned in the context of [the prohibition against slaughtering an animal] and its offspring, the day follows the night. what is implied? He slaughtered the first animal at the beginning of Tuesday night, he may not slaughter the other one until the beginning of Wednesday night. Similarly, if he slaughtered one at the close of Wednesday, before bein hashemashot, he may slaughter the other one at the beginning of Wednesday night. If he slaughtered the first during bein hashemashot Wednesday evening, he may not slaughter the second until after nightfall on Thursday. If he slaughtered it during the day on Thursday, he does not receive lashes."
+ ],
+ [
+ "When a person takes a mother together with its young and slaughters it, the meat is permitted to be eaten. He is, however, liable for lashes for slaughtering the mother, as [Deuteronomy 22:6] states: \"Do not take the mother together with its offspring.\" Similarly, if it died before he sent it away, he is liable for lashes. If he sent it away after he took it, he is not liable.",
+ "Similarly, [with regard to] all negative commandments that can be corrected by a positive commandment, one is obligated to fulfill the positive commandment. If he does not fulfill it, he is liable for lashes.",
+ "If another person comes and seizes the mother bird from his hands and sends it away or it took flight from his possession without his knowledge, he is liable for lashes. [This is implied by ibid.:7]: \"You shall certainly send away [the mother],\" i.e., he must send away [the mother bird] himself. [If not,] he did not fulfill the related positive commandment.",
+ "If he took a mother bird together with its young, cut off its wings so that it cannot fly and sent it away, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct. [He must] keep [the mother bird] in his possession until her wings grow back and then send her away. If [the mother] died before this or fled and was lost, he is liable for lashes, for he did not fulfill the related positive commandment.",
+ "How must one send away the mother? He holds her by her wings and has her fly away. If he sent her away and she returned, he sent her away and she returned - even if this happens - four or five times, he is obligated to send her away, as [implied by the repetition of the verb in the] phrase: \"You shall certainly send away.\"",
+ "Although a person says \"I will take the mother bird and send away the young,\" he is obligated to send away the mother bird, as the verse states: \"You shall certainly send away the mother.\"",
+ "If he [sent away the mother,] took the offspring and [then] returned them to the nest and the mother came back to them, he is not obligated to send [her] away.
It is permitted to send away the mother and then snare her again. The Torah forbade snaring only when she cannot fly away because of her offspring over which she is hovering so that they not be taken, as [ibid.:6] states: \"And the mother is resting on the chicks.\" If, however, he removed her from his grasp and then snared her again, it is permitted.",
+ "[The mitzvah to] send away the mother bird applies only with regard to a kosher species of fowl that are not at hand, e.g., doves that rested in a dovecote or on a loft, wild fowl that nested in an orchard. [This is derived from the phrase (ibid.)]: \"When you will chance upon.\" When, however, [fowl is] at hand, e.g., ducks, chicken, and doves that nested in a building, one is not liable to send away the mother.",
+ "If the chicks could fly and thus they no longer needed their mother or [the mother was sitting on] unfertilized eggs, he is not obligated to send away [the mother]. If the chicks were trefot, it is comparable to unfertilized eggs and he is not liable to send away [the mother].",
+ "When a male fowl is resting on a nest, one is not obligated to send him away [before taking the young]. When a non-kosher bird is resting on the nest of the eggs of a kosher fowl or a kosher fowl is resting on the eggs of a non-kosher fowl, one is not obligated to send away [the fowl that is resting].",
+ "When a [kosher fowl] was resting on kosher eggs of a different species, one should send [the bird] away. If, however, one fails to do so, one is not liable. If the mother is trefe, he is obligated to send her away.",
+ "When one slits a portion of the gullet [of the mother] before he took her, he is liable to send her away. If he did not send her away, he is not liable for lashes.",
+ "[The following laws apply if the mother bird] was hovering [over the nest]: If her wings were touching the nest, one is obligated to send her away. If not, he is not obligated. If there was a cloth or feathers intervening between her wings and the nest, he must send her away. If he did not send her away, he is not liable for lashes.",
+ "If there were two rows of eggs and [the mother bird's] wings were touching [only] the top row, [the mother bird] was sitting on unfertilized eggs, but there were good eggs below them, one female was sitting on another female, a male was sitting on the nest and the female was sitting on the male - [in all these situations,] one should not take [the mother bird with the offspring]. If he takes [her], he should send her away. But if he does not send her away, he is not liable for lashes.",
+ "If [the mother bird] was sitting among the young or the eggs and was not touching them, one is not liable to send her away. Similarly, if she was at the side of the nest and her wings were touching the nest from the side, he is not obligated to send her away.",
+ "When [the mother bird was perched] on two branches of a tree and the nest was positioned between them, we make an evaluation. In all instances where the mother would fall on the nest if the branches were removed, one is obligated to send her away.",
+ "When the mother is resting on one chick or on one egg, one is obligated to send her away. When a person finds a nest floating on the water or positioned on the back of an animal, he is obligated to send the mother away. [The verse] mentions \"chicks or eggs\" and \"on any tree or on the ground\" [not as exclusions], but because the Torah speaks about the commonplace situations.",
+ "It is forbidden to acquire the eggs as long as the mother is resting upon them. Therefore even if a mother bird was resting on eggs or chicks in one's loft or dovecote, they are not considered as \"at hand\" and his courtyard does not acquire them for him. Just as he cannot acquire them on behalf of others [until he sends away the mother], so, too, his courtyard cannot acquire them on his behalf. Therefore, he must send [her] away.",
+ "It is forbidden to take a mother bird together with her offspring, even to purify a person with tzara'at. If he took [the mother], he is obligated to send her away. If he did not, he is liable for lashes. [The rationale is that] a positive commandment does not supersede the observance of a negative commandment [that is reinforced] by a positive commandment. And a positive commandment does not supersede another positive commandment.",
+ "[The following rule applies when] a person consecrates a wild fowl to the Temple treasury, it flies away from his hand, but he recognizes it and finds it resting on chicks or on eggs. He should take the entire [nest] and bring it to the Temple treasurer. [The rationale is that the mitzvah of] sending away the mother bird does not apply with regard to consecrated [fowl], as [implied by Deuteronomy 22:7]: \"And you may take the offspring for yourself.\" These may not [be taken] for yourself.",
+ "When a fowl killed a human being, one is not obligated to send it away. [The rationale is that] one is commanded to bring it to court so that it will be judged."
+ ],
+ [
+ "It is a positive commandment to cover the blood of a kosher wild beast or fowl that was slaughtered, as [Leviticus 17:13] states: \"If you will snare a wild beast or a fowl that may be eaten, you shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth.\" Therefore, before covering it, he is obligated to recite the blessing: Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the earth who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to cover the blood.",
+ "[The mitzvah] to cover the blood applies to animals that are at hand and those that are not at hand. [The verse mentions:] \"If you will snare\" only because it speaks about the commonplace situation. It applies with regard to ordinary animals, but not to those consecrated: whether they were consecrated [to be offered on] the altar or consecrated to the Temple treasury. If a person transgresses and slaughters [such an animal], he is not obligated to cover its blood.",
+ "If a person slaughters a wild beast or a fowl and afterwards, consecrates them - or consecrates the blood - he is obligated to cover the blood.",
+ "It is necessary to cover the blood of a hybrid that comes from the mating of an animal and a wild beast or an animal that we do not know whether to classify as a domesticated animal or a wild beast, but one does not recite the blessing. When a person slaughters for the sake of a sick person on the Sabbath, he is obligated to cover the blood after the Sabbath. Similarly, when a person slaughters an animal whose status is doubtful or is a hybrid on a festival, he should cover its blood after the festival.",
+ "When a person slaughters many fowl and several types of wild beasts in one place, he should recite one blessing and cover the blood of all of them together at one time.",
+ "When blood becomes mixed with water, one is obligated to cover it if it has the appearance of blood. If not, one is not liable. If it became mixed with wine or the blood of a domesticated animal, one considers it as if they were water. If were [the wine or blood] to have been water, [the mixture] would have appeared to be blood, he is obligated to cover the entire mixture. If not, he is not obligated.",
+ "If a person covered blood and then it became revealed, he is not obligated to cover it a second time. If blood was covered by [dust blown] by the wind, one is not obligated to cover it. If it became revealed again after the wind covered it, he is obligated to cover it.",
+ "If there is no other blood [from the slaughter] except the blood which spurted out [while the animal was being slaughtered] and the blood on the knife, one is obligated to cover it.",
+ "[The following rules apply if] one slaughters and the blood is absorbed in the ground. If a mark remains, he is obligated to cover it. If not, it is as if it was covered by the wind and he is not obligated to cover it.",
+ "The only blood that must be covered is the blood of slaughter [that produces meat] that is fit to be eaten, as [the prooftext cited] states: \"that may be eaten.\" Therefore, if a person slaughters and the animal is discovered to be trefe, one slaughters ordinary [fowl or beasts] in the Temple Courtyard, one slaughters fowl or beasts that were condemned to be stoned to death, one slaughters an animal and causes it to become a nevelah, one is not obligated to cover the blood. Similarly when a deaf-mute, a mentally or emotional incompetent person or a minor slaughters in private, there is no obligation to cover the blood [of the animal] they slaughtered.",
+ "With what should [the blood] be covered? With earth, lime, gypsum, fine fertilizer, fine sand that need not be crushed by a potter, crushed rocks and earthen-ware, fine flax chips, fine saw dust, bricks, burnt mud, and sealing clay that are crushed, for all of these are types of \"earth.\" If, however, one covered it with a utensil or with stones, it is not considered as \"covered,\" for the verse states \"with earth.\"",
+ "For this reason, we do not cover [blood] with coarse fertilizer, coarse sand, flour, bran, grain fiber, or filings from metal utensils, for these are not types of \"earth.\" There is one exception: filings of gold alone may be used to cover [blood], for they are called \"dust,\" as [Job 28:6] states: \"And it possesses the dust of gold\" and [Deuteronomy 9:21] speaks [of grinding the Gold Calf] \"until it was thin, into dust.\"",
+ "We may cover [blood] with oven soot, stibium, powder from mills, and ashes. [This includes] ashes from trees and ashes from clothes, even ashes from meat that was burnt, for [Numbers 19:17] speaks of \"the ashes of the burnt sin-offering.\" It is permitted to cover [blood] with the ashes of a city that went astray [and was therefore destroyed].",
+ "One who slaughters must place earth below and then slaughter, [pouring the blood] into [the earth]. Afterwards, he covers it with earth. He should not slaughter [and pour the blood] into a container and then cover it with earth.",
+ "The person who slaughters [the animal] should cover its blood, as [the above prooftext ] states: \"[You shall pour out its blood and] cover it with earth.\" If he did not cover the blood and another person sees it, he is obligated to cover it, for this is an independent mitzvah and is not dependent on the slaughterer alone.",
+ "When a person covers the blood, he should not cover it with his feet, but instead with his hands, a knife, or a utensil, so that he will not treat it with disdain and regard the mitzvoth with scorn. For the mitzvot in and of themselves are not worthy of honor. Instead, [the honor is] due He, blessed be He, who commanded us to observe them and [thus] saved us from groping in darkness and thus granted us a lamp to straighten crooked paths and a light to illumine the upright ways. And so [Psalms 119:105] states: \"Your words are a lamp to my feet and a light for my ways.\"
Blessed be G‑d who grants assistance."
+ ]
+ ],
+ "versions": [
+ [
+ "Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007",
+ "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001020101/NLI"
+ ]
+ ],
+ "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות שחיטה",
+ "categories": [
+ "Halakhah",
+ "Mishneh Torah",
+ "Sefer Kedushah"
+ ],
+ "sectionNames": [
+ "Chapter",
+ "Halakhah"
+ ]
+}
\ No newline at end of file