Section 18: The Laws Applying to a [Slaughtering] Knife and Its Inspection

SECTION 18 The Laws Applying to a [Slaughtering] Knife and Its Inspection (1-20)

סימן יח דִּין בְּדִיקַת הַסַּכִּין וּפְגִימוֹתָיו וּבוֹ כ' סְעִיפִים

[When a person] slaughters with a [slaughtering] knife that was examined and [later] it was discovered [that the knife] was blemished – even if [the blemish] is only on the side [of the knife] (1) (this is [Rama’s] own ruling) – [the animal] is a neveilah. (2)

Even if [the knife] touched the cervical spine, we do not presume that [the knife] became blemished [by touching the cervical spine] after slitting [the animal’s simanim, i.e. the gullet and the windpipe]. Instead, we are concerned that [the knife] may have become blemished [before reaching the simanim, from the animal’s] hide, and thus, [the person] slaughtered with a blemished knife. [This ruling applies] even regarding a fowl. [ii]

הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּסַכִּין בְּדוּקָה וְנִמְצֵאת פְּגוּמָה, [הַגָּה:] אֲפִלּוּ מִן הַצַּד (א) (דִּבְרֵי עַצְמוֹ), הֲרֵי זֶה נְבֵלָה. (ב) אֲפִלּוּ נָגַע בְּעֶצֶם הַמַּפְרֶקֶת, אֵין תּוֹלִין שֶׁנִּפְגְּמָה בּוֹ אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה, אֶלָּא חַיְשִׁינָן שֶׁמָּא בָּעוֹר נִפְגְּמָה וְנִמְצָא שָׁחַט בְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה, וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּעוֹף. [ב]

(1) On the side [of the knife] – This does not include the markings1 craftsmen make when fashioning the knife because [such markings] are far from the blade(Maharshal [in his notes to Rav Yaakov Weil’s Shechitos U’Bedikos,] Turei Zahav, Yoreh Deah 18:1).[i]

(2) A neveilah – The intent is that there is a doubt whether [the animal] is a neveilah [and, therefore, we act stringently. This interpretation is evident] from the conclusion [of Rav Yosef Caro’s words in his Shulchan Aruch], “we are concerned that it may have….” (Sifsei Kohen, Yoreh Deah [18:1]).

[This ruling applies in an instance when it is known that the knife definitely] touched the cervical spine.2 Alternatively, [the status of the animal as] a neveilah is a matter of doubt even when it was not definitively known that [the knife] touched the cervical spine, but there is a possibility [that it did]. True, [the knife] definitely touched the hide [during the slaughter,]3 while it is a matter of doubt whether [it touched] the cervical spine [after the slaughter] and [generally, we follow the principle,]4 “A factor concerning which we are uncertain does not override one about which we are certain.” Nevertheless, [in this situation, there would be room to maintain that the status of the animal as a neveilah is a matter of doubt. The rationale is that] since [the knife] could have [been blemished] by the cervical spine, it is possible to say that the knife retained its [previous, unblemished] halachic status. It became blemished only [following the slaughter] and not before that.

[On the other hand,] it is possible to say that the animal should be presumed to retain its previous halachic status [and deemed to be definitely forbidden. The rationale is that] during its lifetime, an animal is forbidden [to be eaten] until it is known that it was [properly] slaughtered. [Since both these possibilities exist,] there is a question as to whether [the animal] is a neveilah.

However, if [the shochet definitely] knows that [the knife] did not touch the cervical spine, the animal is definitely deemed a neveilah. [After all,] on what did [the knife] become blemished if not on the hide? We do not say that it became blemished on the minor portion of the simanim that remained [after the majority of the slaughter was completed] because it is common that hides blemish [knives], but not [that a knife be blemished by] flesh [i.e., the simanim], and it is always assumed that the more likely occurrence [indeed] took place. This is the opinion of Rashba in his gloss [on Chulin 8b, 10a, and 10b]. This [understanding is also accepted by] Mordechai [Chulin, sec. 588], Hagahos Asheri [Chulin 1:15], and Rabbeinu Nissim, as will be explained.5

It is possible that the Shulchan Aruch is also speaking about such a situation and therefore, the wording should be “and even,” [i.e., this is a second clause that speaks about different circumstances than the first]. However, Rabbeinu Asher [Chulin 1:15] maintains that a knife will not be blemished even by the hide, as will be explained below.5 Therefore, in all instances, the classification [of the animal] as a neveilah is a matter of question. This is also the understanding of [Sefer] HaAgur, as quoted by Sifsei Kohen, Yoreh Deah 110, (Klallei Sefek Sefeika, [law 13]).

(א) מִן הַצַּד. וְאֵין בִּכְלַל זֶה רוֹשְׁמֵי הַסַּכִּין שֶׁעוֹשִׂים הָאוּמָנִים בִּשְׁעַת עֲשִׂיָּה כֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּא רָחוֹק הַרְבֵּה מִן הַחוּד (רְשַׁ"לא טַ"זב) [א]:

(ב) נְבֵלָה. פֵּרוּשׁ סְפֵק נְבֵלָהג וְכִדְמַסִּיק אֶלָּא חַיְשִׁינָן שֶׁמָּא כוּ' (שַׁ"ךְד). וְהַיְנוּ בְּנָגַע בַּמַּפְרֶקֶת אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ דְּלֹא יָדַע בְּבֵרוּר דְּנָגַע אֶלָּא דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר דִּלְמָא נָגַע בַּמַּפְרֶקֶת וְלֹא יָדַע הֲרֵי זֶה סְפֵק נְבֵלָה.ה דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּבָעוֹר נָגַע בְּוַדַּאי וּבַמַּפְרֶקֶת סָפֵק וְאֵין סָפֵק מוֹצִיא מִידֵי וַדַּאיו מִכָּל מָקוֹם כֵּיוָן דְּאֶפְשָׁר לִתְלוֹת בַּמַּפְרֶקֶתז אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר הַעֲמֵד סַכִּין עַל חֶזְקָתָהּח וְהַשְׁתָּא הוּא דְנִפְגְּמָה בַּמַּפְרֶקֶת וְלֹא קֹדֶם לָכֵן וְאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר נַמִי הַעֲמֵד הַבְּהֵמָה עַל חֶזְקָתָהּט וּבְהֵמָה בְּחַיֶּיהָ בְּחֶזְקַת אִסּוּר עוֹמֶדֶת עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע לְךָ בַּמֶּה נִשְׁחֲטָהי הִלְכָּךְ הָוֵי לָהּ סְפֵק נְבֵלָה. אֲבָל אִם יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁלֹּא נָגַע בַּמַּפְרֶקֶת הֲרֵי זוֹ נְבֵלָה וַדָּאִית דְּבַמֶּה נִפְגְּמָה אִם לֹא בָּעוֹר. וְאֵין תּוֹלִין שֶׁנִּפְגְּמָה בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא לְפִי שֶׁהָעוֹר מָצוּי לִפְגּוֹם וְלֹא בָּשָׂר וּלְעוֹלָם תּוֹלִין בַּמָּצוּי. כֵּן דַּעַת הָרַשְׁבָּ"איא בְּחִדּוּשָׁיו (ד"ו:יב וד"ז:יג וד"ח ע"איד וב' וג'טו) לְקַמָּן וְכֵן הוּא בְּמָרְדְּכַיטז וּבְהַגָּהוֹת אֲשֵׁרִ"ייז וְכֵן דַּעַת הָרַ"ןיח כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר.יט וְאֶפְשָׁר דְּבִכְהַאי גַּוְנָא נַמִי מַיְרִי הַשֻּׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ וְכֵן צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר וַאֲפִלּוּ כוּ'.כ אֲבָל הָרֹא"שׁכא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ דְּגַם עוֹר לֹא שַׁיָּךְ דְּפָגִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר לְקַמָּןכב וְהִלְכָּךְ בְּכָל גַּוְנָא הָוֵי לֵיהּ סְפֵק נְבֵלָה.כג וְכֵן דַּעַת הָאָגוּרכד הוּבָא בְּשַׁ"ךְ סִימָן ק"י בִּכְלָלֵי סְפֵק סְפֵיקָא:כה

A blemish of the smallest measure [is sufficient to disqualify a knife for slaughtering], provided something, even a hair, could become lodged in it. (3)

שִׁעוּר הַפְּגִימָה, כָּל שֶׁהוּא. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁתֶּאֱגֹר בָּהּ כָּל שֶׁהוּא, אֲפִלּוּ חוּט הַשַּׂעֲרָה. (ג)

(3) A hair – The Tur6 writes, “Rashba7 also rules in this manner. However, my revered father, Rabbeinu Asher states that [to disqualify a knife], the blemish must be [larger], sufficient for a fingernail to be caught on it.”[iii]

With regard to the practical application, the [later authorities] agree with the ruling of [Rav Yosef Caro in his] Shulchan Aruch, who ruled according to Rashba and not according to Rabbeinu Asher. Shvus Yaakov8 explains that although the later authorities follow Rashba’s ruling, their rationale [for doing so] is [only] because the matter involves a question of Scriptural Law, and [when there is a question regarding Scriptural Law,] the more stringent opinion should be followed.9 Maharshal10 also maintains that a stringent ruling is required [only] since a Scriptural prohibition is involved.

Nevertheless, [in the realm of theory,] the question [of which approach to follow] remains unresolved. Accordingly, if there is another factor that would support a lenient ruling, [it might be possible to issue the more lenient ruling]. For example, were [the knife] to have touched the cervical spine of the animal’s neck, it could be assumed [that the knife was blemished after the conclusion of the slaughter] by the cervical spine. [Thus, it would follow that the slaughter was completed in an acceptable manner.] True, [by and large, when a blemish on the knife is discovered,] it is not assumed that [the knife was blemished by the cervical spine and thus, the slaughter was acceptable.] The rationale for [following] this [stringent approach] is that the matter involves a doubt regarding Scriptural Law. However, [that matter, i.e., whether to assume the knife was blemished by the cervical spine, also] remains unresolved. Therefore, if the blemish on the knife was so small that a fingernail would not be caught in it, even though a hair could lodge in it, there is a confluence of factors which leads to a sefek sefeika [i.e., a compounded doubt, that would allow for the meat of the animal to be permitted].

([Indeed,] based on the statements mentioned previously [in note 2] citing Rashba’s opinion [on Chulin 10b] – and it also seems that Sifsei Kohen, [Yoreh Deah 18:1] shares this view – that even if it is not known that the knife touched the cervical spine, [the meat of the slaughtered animal] is deemed [merely] a safek neveilah. [The rationale is that] there is a possibility that [the knife] touched [– and was blemished by –] the cervical spine. [Hence], one may also rule leniently in an instance when the blemish is so small that a fingernail will not be caught in it, if it is not known whether [the knife] touched the cervical spine. [The rationale is that this situation is also considered a sefek sefeika.]11

[True, there are grounds for stringency] according to the authorities who rule in Yoreh Deah, sec. 110,12 that we do not employ the leniency of a compounded doubt in a situation where there is an established presumption that a prohibition is involved, [and, in this instance,] there is an established presumption that an animal is forbidden until it is known that it was slaughtered correctly.13 Nevertheless, in this instance, [that countervailing presumption is offset] by the fact that there is a presumption that the knife was acceptable, as mentioned above [in note 2] quoting Rashba. Thus, [the situation resembles one involving] a shochet who received certification, as stated in sec. 1.)14

However, [these leniencies do not apply] when it is known that the knife did not touch the cervical spine of the [animal’s] neck. [In such a situation, we do not] say that there are grounds for leniency because it is possible that [the shochet] did not touch the simanim, [i.e., the gullet and the windpipe,] with the blemished portion of the knife at all. For example, [the knife was blemished, but] its length was more than the width of the necks of two [animals. In such an instance] it is possible to say that the blemish did not touch the simanim, but rather [the animal] was slaughtered with the part of the knife that was not blemished (see Rashba, [Chulin 10b]).

[In the above instance, such a possibility] is not considered a typical doubt, since in all probability, [the shochet] passed the entire knife over both simanim, as he is accustomed to doing (Nekudos HaKesef, sec. 1). [Hence, it is assumed that] the blemished portion [of the knife] certainly touched the simanim and [instead of slitting them, it] tore them and definitely rendered the animal a ne veilah according to the authorities who rule that [slaughtering an animal with a knife with] the slightest blemish [invalidates the slaughter].

The above applies to an animal, in which instance, both simanim [must be slit for the slaughter] to be kosher. However, [different rules apply when slaughtering] a fowl, [since the slaughter of a fowl] is acceptable even if only one of the simanim [is slit].15 If, when slaughtering, [the shochet] grasped the windpipe alone in a way that he would know that he slit at least the major portion of it before [the knife] touched the gullet, even a large blemish [on a knife] invalidates [the slaughter of the fowl] only because the possibility exists that it tore a tiny portion [of the windpipe as it completed the slitting of] the majority [of the windpipe], as stated above.16 If so, when there is only a small blemish, the situation is one of a sefek sefeika.17

However, if the [shochet] did not grasp the windpipe alone, a lenient ruling is inappropriate because the possibility that he slit the major portion of the windpipe before the blemish came in contact with the gullet is not considered a likely enough possibility for it to be considered an equally balanced safek [that would lead to a ruling that the slaughter is kosher. The rationale is that] there are two questionable factors (a sefek sefeika) that would lead us to forbid [the slaughter]: Perhaps the blemish came in contact with the gullet before the majority of the windpipe was slit. And even if the majority of the windpipe was slit before that happened, perhaps the blemish tore the small portion of the windpipe that completed [its slaughter].

It cannot be said that this [– that perhaps the blemish tore the small portion of the windpipe that completed the slaughter –] is an uncommon occurrence, [and therefore, halachically insignificant.] Were that to be true, when [a shochet]only grasps the windpipe of a fowl, [even a knife with a large blemish] should not invalidate [the slaughter] unless the major portion of the knife was blemished. [The rationale is that slitting] the windpipe is [halachically significant only when] its larger portion is slit.18 Even if the larger portion [of the knife] was blemished, if the cut that completes the slitting of the larger portion [of the windpipe] was done [with a portion of the knife] that was not blemished, the slaughter is still valid, as explained later in sec. 21.19 [The fact that we are concerned about the knife having a blemish on less than a majority of the blade indicates that we are concerned about a blemish of a smaller size tearing the critical portion of the windpipe.]

(ג) חוּט הַשַּׂעֲרָה. כֵּן כָּתַב הָרַשְׁבָּ"אכו וַאֲדוֹנִי אָבִי הָרֹא"שׁכז זַ"ל פֵּרֵשׁ כְּדֵי שֶׁתַּחְגּוֹר בָּהּ הַצִּפֹּרֶן עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹן הַטּוּר. [ג] וּלְעִנְיַן הֲלָכָה הִסְכִּימוּ לִפְסַק הַשֻּׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ שֶׁפָּסַק כְּהָרַשְׁבָּ"א דְּלֹא כְּהָרֹא"שׁ. וְכָתַב בִּתְשׁוּבַת שְׁבוּת יַעֲקֹבכח וְאַף שֶׁהִסְכִּימוּ הָאַחֲרוֹנִיםכט לִפְסוֹק כְּהָרַשְׁבָּ"א הַיְנוּ מִשּׁוּם דִּבְשֶׁל תּוֹרָה הַלֵךְ אַחַר הַמַּחְמִירל וְכֵן כָּתַב רְשַׁ"ללא בְּהֶדְיָא מִשּׁוּם לְהַחֲמִיר בִּדְאוֹרַיְתָא אֲבָל עַל כָּל פָּנִים מִידֵי סְפֵיקָא לֹא נַפְקָא וְהִלְכָּךְ בִּדְאִיכָּא עוֹד סְפֵיקָא לְקוּלָא כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּגַע בְּעֶצֶם הַמַּפְרֶקֶת דְּאִיכָּא לְמִתְלֵי בַּמַּפְרֶקֶת וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא תְּלִינָן בֵּיהּ הַיְנוּ מִשּׁוּם דִּסְפֵיקָא דְאוֹרַיְתָא לְחוּמְרָאלב אֲבָל מִידֵי סְפֵיקָא לֹא נָפִיק וְהִלְכָּךְ אִם נִמְצְאָה פְּגִימָה קְטַנָּה מִכְּדֵי חֲגִירַת צִפֹּרֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחוֹגֶרֶת וְאוֹגֶרֶת חוּט הַשַּׂעֲרָה הֲוָה לֵיהּ סְפֵק סְפֵיקָא וּלְקוּלָא (וּלְפִי מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב לְעֵיללג בְּשֵׁם הָרַשְׁבָּ"אלד וְכֵן מַשְׁמַע בְּשַׁ"ךְלה דַּאֲפִלּוּ אִם אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אִם נָגַע בַּמַּפְרֶקֶת הָוֵי לָהּ סְפֵק נְבֵלָה דְּשֶׁמָּא נָגַע בַּמַּפְרֶקֶת יֵשׁ לְהָקֵל נַמִי בִּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא בִּפְגִימָה קְטַנָּה מֵחֲגִירַת צִפֹּרֶן אִם אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁמָּא נָגַע בַּמַּפְרֶקֶת. וְאַף לְהָאוֹמְרִים דְּכָל הֵיכָא דְּאִתְחַזֵּק אִסּוּרָא לֹא אָמְרִינָן סְפֵק סְפֵיקָא לְקוּלָא כְּדִלְקַמָּן סִימָן ק"ילו וּבְהֵמָה בְּחַיֶּיהָ בְּחֶזְקַת אִסּוּר עוֹמֶדֶתלז מִכָּל מָקוֹם הָכָא אִיכָּא נַמִי חֲזָקָה אַחֶרֶת כְּנֶגְדָּהּלח דְּהַעֲמֵד סַכִּין עַל חֶזְקָתוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְעֵיללט בְּשֵׁם הָרַשְׁבָּ"אמ וְדָמֵי לְנָטַל קַבָּלָה דִּלְעֵיל סִימָן א'מא).

אֲבָל אִם נוֹדַע שֶׁלֹּא נָגַע בַּמַּפְרֶקֶת אֵין לְהָקֵלמב מִשּׁוּם שֶׁיֵּשׁ עוֹד סָפֵק שֶׁמָּא לֹא שָׁחַט בַּסִּימָנִים כְּנֶגֶד הַפְּגִימָה כְּגוֹן שֶׁהַסַּכִּין אֲרֻכָּה כִּמְלֹא ב' צַוָּארִים וְיוֹתֵר דְּיֵשׁ לוֹמַר שֶׁלֹּא פָגְעָה פְּגִימָתָהּ בַּסִּימָנִים כְּלָל דְּבַצַּד הַבְּדוּקָה נִשְׁחַט (עַיֵּן רַשְׁבָּ"אמג) דְּהָא לֹא הָוֵי סְפֵיקָא מַעַלְיָא דְּמִסְתָּמָא הוֹלִיךְ הַסַּכִּין עַל פְּנֵי כֻלָּהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁהוּא רָגִיל לַעֲשׂוֹת (נְקֻדּוֹת הַכֶּסֶף סִימָן א'מד) וּבְוַדַּאי פָּגְעָה הַפְּגִימָה בַּסִּימָנִים וְנִקְרְעוּ וְנַעֲשֵׂית נְבֵלָה וַדָּאִית לְהָאוֹמְרִים שֶׁשִּׁעוּר הַפְּגִימָה בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא. וְהַיְנוּ בִּבְהֵמָה שֶׁהֶכְשֵׁרָהּ בְּב' סִימָנִים אֲבָל עוֹף שֶׁהֶכְשֵׁרוֹ בְּסִימָן אֶחָד אִם תָּפַס הַקָּנֶה לְבַדּוֹ בְּיָדוֹ בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה בְּעִנְיָן שֶׁיָּדוּעַ לוֹ שֶׁשָּׁחַט רֻבּוֹ עַל כָּל פָּנִים קֹדֶם שֶׁנָּגַע בַּוֵּשֶׁט אֵין הַפְּגִימָה אֲפִלּוּ גְּדוֹלָה פּוֹסֶלֶת בּוֹ אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם סָפֵק שֶׁמָּא קָרְעָה מַשֶּׁהוּ הַמַּשְׁלִים לְרֻבּוֹ כְּדִלְעֵילמה אִם כֵּן בִּפְגִימָה קְטַנָּה הָוֵי לָהּ סְפֵק סְפֵיקָא. אֲבָל אִם לֹא תָפַס הַקָּנֶה לְבַדּוֹ בְּיָדוֹ אֵין לְהָקֵל מִשּׁוּם שֶׁמָּא נִשְׁחַט רֻבּוֹ שֶׁל קָנֶה קֹדֶם שֶׁפָּגְעָה הַפְּגִימָה בַּוֵּשֶׁט זֶהמו אֵינוֹ סָפֵק שָׁקוּלמז מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא הָכָא סְפֵק סְפֵיקָא לְאִסּוּרָא שֶׁמָּא פָּגְעָה הַפְּגִימָה בַּוֵּשֶׁט קֹדֶם שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט רֻבּוֹ שֶׁל קָנֶה וְאִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר שֶׁמָּא נִשְׁחַט רֻבּוֹ שֶׁל קָנֶה מִקֹּדֶם שֶׁמָּא קָרְעָה הַמַּשֶּׁהוּ הַמַּשְׁלִים לְרֻבּוֹ. דְּאֵין לוֹמַר שֶׁזֶּהוּ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מָצוּימח דְּאִם כֵּן כְּשֶׁתָּפַס הַקָּנֶה לְבַדּוֹ בְּיָדוֹ בָּעוֹף לֹא יַפְסִילֵהוּ פְּגִימַת הַסַּכִּין אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן רוּבָּא פָּגוּם דִּפְסִיקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת בְּרוּבָּא וְאַף בְּרוּבָּא פָּגוּם אִם הַמַּשֶּׁהוּ הַמַּשְׁלִים לְרֹב נֶחְתַּךְ שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם הַפְּגִימוֹת כָּשֵׁר כְּדִלְקַמָּן סוֹף סִימָן כ"א:מט

[The shochet] must examine the knife before he slaughters. If he did not examine it, he should not slaughter. (4) [However,] if he transgressed [and slaughtered] without examining [the knife] first, but examined it afterwards and discovered it to be acceptable, his slaughter is valid.

צָרִיךְ לִבְדֹּק הַסַּכִּין קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה, וְאִם לֹא בָדַק, לֹא יִשְׁחֹט. (ד) וְאִם עָבַר וְלֹא בְדָקָהּ תְּחִלָּה, וְאַחַר כָּךְ בְּדָקָהּ וּמְצָאָהּ יָפָה, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה.

(4) He should not slaughter – [This restriction applies even if he slaughters] with the intent of examining the knife afterwards, since it is possible that he will forget to do so. [Were a person to partake of the meat from an animal slaughtered in this manner], he would be considered to be partaking of a neveilah, because it is not assumed that knives are examined [and fit] to be used for ritual slaughter (Rashba, [Toras HaBayis HaKatzar, Bayis 1, shaar 2]). See sec. 1, [note 23, where it is stated] that according to Rambam, such an animal [is forbidden because it is likelythat there is a question regarding whether it is a neveilah, and according to Rashba, it is likely that [the animal] is definitely a neveilah. This applies to ordinary knives. However, as will be explained, in subsection 14, different rules apply to knives designated for ritual slaughter.

(ד) לֹא יִשְׁחוֹט. פֵּרוּשׁ אֲפִלּוּ עַל סְמַךְ שֶׁיִּבְדְּקֶנּוּ אַחַר כָּךְ אָסוּרנ דִּלְמָא יִשְׁכַּח לִבְדּוֹק אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּאוֹכֵל נְבֵלָה דִּסְתָם סַכִּינִים אֵינָן בְּדוּקִין לִשְׁחִיטָהנא עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹן הָרַשְׁבָּ"א.נב וְעַיֵּן מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בְּסִימָן א'נג דִּלְפִי דִּבְרֵי הָרַמְבַּ"םנד הִיא קְרוֹבָה לִסְפֵק נְבֵלָה וּלְפִי דַעַת הָרַשְׁבָּ"אנה קְרוֹבָה לְוַדַּאי. וְהַיְנוּ בִּסְתָם סַכִּינִים דְּעָלְמָא אֲבָל סַכִּין הַמְיֻחָד לִשְׁחִיטָה יִתְבָּאֵר בִּסְעִיף [י]"ד:

If a knife was examined while first passing it over [one’s finger] in a forward motion, [i.e., from the tip of its blade to its handle,] (5) and a blemish was not detected, however, when it was passed back in a backwards motion, [from its handle to the tip of its blade,] [iv] a blemish was detected, the knife is referred to as “thatched”. If [a shochet] slaughtered with [such a knife] while passing it in a forward motion, [i.e., from the tip of its blade to its handle,] and did not bring it back in a backwards motion, [i.e., from its handle to the tip of its blade,] the slaughter is kosher. If he did bring it back in a backwards motion, [from its handle to the tip of its blade,] (6) his slaughter is unacceptable. The above [ruling] applies when [the shochet] felt [the blemish on the knife] before he slaughtered with it. However, when he found the knife acceptable before slaughtering and discovered a thatched blemish after slaughtering, [even if] he says, “I am certain that I only passed it in a forward motion,” his slaughter is invalid. (7)

Note: There are [authorities] who rule stringently [and maintain that an animal slaughtered] with any thatched [knife] is forbidden unless [the blemish] was situated only on the front tip of the knife and [the animal] was slaughtered while passing [the knife] in a forward motion, [from the tip of its blade to its handle] or [the blemish was situated only] at the very end of the knife and [the animal] was slaughtered while passing [the knife] in a backwards motion, [from its handle to the tip of its blade] (Hilchos Shechitos Yeshanim, Hagahos S’mak, the authorities mentioned above).Since we are not knowledgeable regarding what exactly is considered the front tip of the knife, everything should be considered as tereifah (this is [Rama’s] own opinion, also found in a note in Shechitas Mahariv; this approach is also evident from Mordechai, Kolbo, Agudah, and Sefer HaAgur writes that this is the [prevailing] custom). This is common practice.

סַכִּין שֶׁתִּבָּדֵק בְּהוֹלָכָה (ה) וְלֹא תַרְגִּישׁ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ פְּגָם, וּכְשֶׁתַּחֲזִיר אוֹתָהּ בְּהוֹבָאָה ( [ד] ) תַּרְגִּישׁ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ פְּגָם, וְזוֹ הִיא הַנִּקְרָאת מְסֻכְסֶכֶת, אִם שָׁחַט בָּהּ דֶּרֶךְ הוֹלָכָה וְלֹא הֵבִיא, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה, וְאִם הֵבִיא, (ו) שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. וְהָנֵי מִלֵּי כְּשֶׁהִרְגִּישׁ בָּהּ קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה, אֲבָל אִם מָצָא סַכִּינוֹ יָפָה קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה, וְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה מָצָא בָּהּ פְּגִימָה מְסֻכְסֶכֶת, וְאָמַר: בָּרִי לִי שֶׁלֹּא עָשִׂיתִי אֶלָּא הוֹלָכָה לְבָד, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. (ז) הַגָּה: וְיֵשׁ מַחְמִירִים דְּכָל מְסֻכְסֶכֶת אֲסוּרָה, עַד דְּקַיְמָא אַרֵישָׁא דְסַכִּינָא מַמָּשׁ אִם שָׁחַט בְּהוֹלָכָה, וְאַסֵּיפָא דְסַכִּינָא מַמָּשׁ אִם שָׁחַט בַּהֲבָאָה (הִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטוֹת יְשָׁנִים וְהַגָּהוֹת סְמַ״ק וּפוֹסְקִים הַנַּ״ל). וּלְפִי שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ בְּקִיאִין הֵיכָן מִקְרֵי רֵישָׁא דְסַכִּינָא, יֵשׁ לְהַטְרִיף הַכֹּל (דִּבְרֵי עַצְמוֹ גַּם הַגָּ״ה בִּשְׁחִיטַת מהרי״ו וְכֵן מַשְׁמַע בְּמָרְדְּכַי וְכָל בּוֹ וַאֲגֻדָּה, וְכֵן כָּתַב הָאָגוּר שֶׁכֵּן הַמִּנְהָג) וְהָכֵי נָהוּג.

(5) In a forward motion, [i.e., from the tip of its blade to its handle] – I.e., by passing the knife over one’s finger. This was the customary manner in which a knife was checked in that era, as Rav Pappa said, [a knife should be checked] on one’s flesh and fingernail. Since he did not say with one’s flesh and with one’s nail, the implication is that [the shochet] would pass the knife over his finger from its tip to its handle, [in the same manner] as one passes it over the neck of the animal. Passing [the knife] back was done as one would pass it back on the neck of the animal. Our custom is the opposite (i.e., to pass the finger over the knife) (Turei Zahav, Yoreh Deah [18:3]; Sifsei Kohen, Yoreh Deah, [18:6]).

(6) If he did bring it back in a backwards motion [from its handle to the tip of its blade] – [Bringing the knife back in a backward motion with such a knife] invalidates [the slaughter,] even if [the shochet] had not passed it in a forward direction. [The rationale is that] the protrusion will come in contact with [the windpipe or the gullet] and tear it [instead of slitting it]. As an initial preference, one should not slaughter with such [a knife] even if he [only] passes it in a forward direction. [This is] a decree [instituted lest] he draw it back ([Chulin 17b]).

(7) Is unacceptable – [The rationale is that] whenever a person is not obligated in a particular matter, [nor is it something that is expected of him,] he will act without paying attention to what he is doing [or to the details involved], and will not remember [them].20 Therefore, his word is not accepted, as stated above in sec. 1:3.

(ה) בְּהוֹלָכָה. פֵּרוּשׁ בְּהוֹלָכַת הַסַּכִּין עַל הָאֶצְבַּענו שֶׁכָּךְ הָיוּ נוֹהֲגִים לִבְדּוֹק בִּימֵיהֶם וְכִדְאָמַר רַב פָּפָּאנז אַבִּשְׂרָא וְאַטּוּפְרָא וְלֹא קָאָמַר בְּבִשְׂרָא וּבְטוּפְרָא וְנִמְצָא שֶׁהוֹלָכַת הַסַּכִּין עַל הָאֶצְבַּע מֵרֹאשָׁהּ כְּלַפֵּי יָדָהּ הוּא כְּדֶרֶךְ הֲלִיכָתָהּ עַל צַוַּאר הַבְּהֵמָה וַהֲבָאָתָהּ אֵלָיו כְּדֶרֶךְ הוֹבָאָה שֶׁעַל צַוַּאר הַבְּהֵמָה מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן לְמִנְהָגֵנוּ הוּא אִפְּכָא (טַ"זנח שַׁ"ךנט):

(ו) וְאִם הֵבִיא. אֲפִלּוּ לֹא הוֹלִיךְ פְּסוּלָה דְּהָעֹקֶץ פּוֹגֵעַ בַּסִּימָן וְקוֹרְעוֹס וּלְכַתְּחִלָּה לֹא יִשְׁחוֹט בָּהּ אֲפִלּוּ דֶּרֶךְ הוֹלָכָה גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יָבִיא (גְּמָרָאסא):

(ז) פְּסוּלָה. דְּכָל מִלְּתָא דְּלָא רַמְיָא עֲלֵיהּ דֶּאֱנָשׁ עָבִיד וְלָאו אַדַּעְתֵּיהּסב וְלֹא מִדְכַּר כְּלָל הִלְכָּךְ לֹא מְהֵימַןסג כְּדִלְעֵיל סִימָן א' סְעִיף ג':סד

[When] a slaughtering knife has many spikes, even if they are all thatched, [the slaughter] is invalid. [This applies] even after the fact, [i.e., a shochet] already slaughtered with [such a knife. The rationale is that] since there are many spikes [on the knife], we suspect that [while slaughtering, the shochet] drew back his hand slightly without realizing it.

סַכִּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ פְּגִימוֹת הַרְבֵּה, אֲפִלּוּ כֻּלָּן מְסֻכְסָכוֹת, אֲפִלּוּ שָׁחַט בָּהּ בְּדִיעֲבַד, פְּסוּלָה. דְּמִתּוֹךְ שֶׁפְּגִימוֹתֶיהָ מְרֻבּוֹת, חַיְשִׁינָן שֶׁמָּא הֵשִׁיב יָדוֹ מְעַט וְלֹא הִרְגִּישׁ.

When a sharp knife was honed, [even if] it is not [entirely] smooth and thus, touching it is like touching the tip of a stalk of grain, i.e., a finger will get caught in it, one may slaughter with it since it does not have a blemish [(Rambam, Hilchos Shechitah 1:18)]. Note: Our custom is not to slaughter with [such a knife], (8) because we are not [knowledgeable enough to be considered] experts regarding [the fine distinction required to differentiate between a knife with a blemish that invalidates it and the knife described here] ([Sefer Ha]Agur, Beis Yosef, [Yam shel Shlomoh, Chulin] 1:37).

סַכִּין חַדָּה שֶׁהֻשְׁחֲזָה, וַהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ חֲלָקָה אֶלָּא מַגָּעָתָהּ כְּמַגַּע רֹאשׁ הַשִּׁבֹּלֶת שֶׁהוּא מִסְתַּבֵּךְ בְּאֶצְבַּע, הוֹאִיל וְאֵין בָּהּ פְּגָם שׁוֹחֲטִין בָּהּ. הַגָּה: וְאֵין אָנוּ נוֹהֲגִים לִשְׁחֹט בָּהּ, (ח) לְפִי שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ בְּקִיאִין בַּדָּבָר (אָגוּר וּבֵית יוֹסֵף וּמַהַרְשַׁ״ל פֶּרֶק קַמָּא סִימָן ל״ז).

(8) To slaughter with [such a knife] – [Rama’s ruling represents] the initial preferred option. However, after the fact, if one slaughtered with [such a knife], the slaughter is acceptable (Simlah Chadashah, 18:5).21

(ח) לִשְׁחוֹט בָּהּ. לְכַתְּחִלָּה אֲבָל אִם שָׁחַט בָּהּ שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה בְּדִיעֲבַד (שִׂמְלָה חֲדָשָׁהסה):

When the blade of a knife is smooth, but not sharp, one may slaughter with it since it does not have a blemish. Even if [it is necessary to] draw it back-and-forth the entire day until the slaughter [is completed, the slaughter is] acceptable. (9) Note: See sec. 23, below, [where it is stated] that in such circumstances, there are times when the animal is tereifah. (Similar statements are found in Beis Yosef.)

סַכִּין שֶׁפִּיהָ חָלָק וְאֵינָהּ חַדָּה, הוֹאִיל וְאֵין בָּהּ פְּגָם שׁוֹחֲטִין בָּהּ, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוֹלִיךְ וְהֵבִיא כָּל הַיּוֹם עַד שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה (ט) [הַגָּה:] וְעַיֵּן לְקַמָּן סִימָן כ״ג דְּבִבְהֵמָה כְּהַאי גַּוְנָא לִפְעָמִים טְרֵפָה (וְכֵן כָּתַב בֵּית יוֹסֵף).

(9) Is acceptable – Note sec. 23:3-4, where all the particulars regarding this law [are discussed].

(ט) כְּשֵׁרָה. עַיֵּן סִימָן כ"ג סְעִיף ג' וְד' כָּל פְּרָטֵי דִּין זֶה:

When a knife rises and dips like a snake, (10) but does not have a blemish, one may slaughter with it [even] as an initial and preferred option. (11)

סַכִּין שֶׁהִיא עוֹלָה וְיוֹרֶדֶת כְּנָחָשׁ (י) וְאֵין בָּהּ פְּגָם, שׁוֹחֲטִין בָּהּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה. (יא)

(10) Like a snake – [A snake’s] spine is crooked. When it raises [both] its head and its tail, something like a dip [is formed] between them.

(11) Even as an initial and preferred option – Even if [the blade of] the knife rises and dips two or three times, one may slaughter with it as an initial and preferred option (Turei Zahav [18:5], Sifsei Kohen [18:13].

(י) כְּנָחָשׁ. דְּשִׁדְרָתוֹ עֲקוּמָה כְּשֶׁמַּגְבִּיהַּ רֹאשׁוֹ וּזְנָבוֹ וּבֵינֵיהֶם כְּמוֹ גוּמָא:סו

(יא) לְכַתְּחִלָּה. וַאֲפִלּוּ ב' וְג' עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד בַּסַּכִּין שׁוֹחֲטִין בָּהּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה (טַ"זסז שַׁ"ךְסח):

One must examine the three surfaces [of the knife] on his flesh and on his nail: This means that one should pass it back and forth over the flesh of his finger, and then, back-and-forth over his fingernail, [doing so] for the three surfaces [of the knife], i.e., its blade and its two sides, [verifying] that it has no blemish at all. (12)

One must examine [the knife] slowly, [*] focusing his attention, without [allowing] his attention to be diverted to other matters.

It is necessary [for a person] to switch the nail [he uses for the examination] after having checked [his knives] a number of times, lest the nail have been blemished by the blade of the knife [and a groove formed. If that were the case,] if there were a blemish on its sides, (13)he would not detect it, because it would pass through the blemish on his nail. (14) Note: One should not examine both sides of the knife at the same time. Instead, each [side should be examined] individually (Rav Yaakov Weil).

בְּדִיקַת הַסַּכִּין צְרִיכָה אַבִּשְׂרָא וְאַטּוּפְרָא וְאַתְּלַת רוּחָתָא, דְּהַיְנוּ שֶׁמּוֹלִיכָהּ וּמְבִיאָהּ עַל בְּשַׂר אֶצְבָּעוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מוֹלִיכָהּ וּמְבִיאָהּ עַל צִפָּרְנוֹ מִשְּׁלֹשׁ רוּחוֹתֶיהָ, שֶׁהֵם פִּיהָ וּשְׁנֵי צְדָדֶיהָ, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה בָּהּ פְּגָם כְּלָל. (יב) וְיִבְדֹּק לְאַט * וּבְכַוָּנַת הַלֵּב, שֶׁלֹּא יִפָּנֶה לִבּוֹ לִדְבָרִים אֲחֵרִים, וְצָרִיךְ לְשַׁנּוֹת הַצִּפֹּרֶן אַחַר קְצָת בְּדִיקוֹת, שֶׁמָּא נִפְגַּם הַצִּפֹּרֶן בְּחֻדָּהּ שֶׁל סַכִּין, וְאוּלַי יֵשׁ פְּגִימָה בַּצְּדָדִין (יג) שֶׁלֹּא יַרְגִּישׁ בָּהּ לְפִי שֶׁעוֹבֶרֶת בְּתוֹךְ פְּגִימַת הַצִּפֹּרֶן. (יד) הַגָּה: וְלֹא יִבְדֹּק שְׁנֵי צְדָדֵי הַסַּכִּין בְּיַחַד, אֶלָּא כָּל אֶחָד בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ (מהרי״ו).

(12) At all – Thus, there will be a total of twelve examinations.22 There is an allusion to this in the verse [I Shmuel 14:34],23 “You shall slaughter with this”; [the Hebrew word הז, “this,” has a numerical value of twelve, which alludes to the twelve examinations that must be performed on a knife before it is used to slaughter] (Rabbeinu Asher, [responsum 24]).

[*] Slowly – See subsection 17.

(13) On its sides – The concern is not necessarily limited [to the sides] (Tevuos Shor sec, 18, note 18).

(14) The nail – Mishmeres HaBayis [Bayis 1, shaar 1] cites Raavad who writes that, after an animal is slaughtered, one should wash the knife before it is examined because sometimes blood coagulates in a blemish, [preventing the blemish from being felt]. Raavad testified that in fact this happened to him. He inspected a knife after [it was used for] slaughter and did not find a blemish. However, afterwards, after rinsing the knife in water, he discovered one (see Mishmeres HaBayis, loc. cit.; this [understanding] is not in accordance with that of Tevuos Shor).

(יב) כְּלָל. וְהֵן בֵּין הַכֹּל י"ב בְּדִיקוֹת וְאַסְמַכְתָּא וּשְׁחַטְתֶּם בָּזֶהסט (רֹא"שׁע).

* לְאַט. עַיֵּן סְ[עִיף י]ז:עא

(יג) בַּצְּדָדִין. הוּא לָאו דַּוְקָא (תְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹרעב):

(יד) הַצִּפֹּרֶן. וְכָתַב בְּמִשְׁמֶרֶת הַבַּיִתעג כָּתַב הָרַאֲבַ"ד דְּיֵשׁ לִרְחוֹץ הַסַּכִּין קֹדֶם בְּדִיקָה שֶׁלְּאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁהַדָּם פְּעָמִים שֶׁנִּקְרָשׁ בְּתוֹךְ הַפְּגִימָה וְהֵעִיד הָרַאֲבַ"ד שֶׁכֵּן אֵרַע לוֹ שֶׁבָּדַק אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה וְלֹא מָצָא פְּגִימָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ כְּשֶׁשִּׁכְשֵׁךְ בְּמַיִם מָצָא פְּגִימָה (עַיֵּן שָׁם בְּמִשְׁמֶרֶת הַבַּיִת דְּלֹא כִּתְבוּאוֹת שׁוֹרעד):

If a [slaughtering] knife has a blemish, it is forbidden to slaughter with it. [This applies] even if [the shochet] intends to slaughter [in a manner that] the blemish will not [touch the gullet or the windpipe, i.e., the simanim]. (15)

On a festival, it is customary to allow leniency by placing a patch over the blemish since [the knife] may not be sharpened [on that day]. If it is a pressing situation, i.e., [the shochet] lacks the means by which to hone [the blade], he may slaughter by covering the blemish with a patch even on a regular weekday. Note: See sec. 6:1, above [which discusses relevant issues]. If both sides of a knife have sharpened blades, [both] sides must be examined (16) (Tur, sec. 6).

סַכִּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ פְּגִימָה אָסוּר לִשְׁחֹט בָּהּ, אֲפִלּוּ אִם מְכַוֵּן לִשְׁחֹט שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד הַפְּגִימָה. (טו) וּבְיוֹם טוֹב נוֹהֲגִין הֶתֵּר לִכְרֹךְ מַטְלִית עַל הַפְּגִימָה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַשְׁחִיזָהּ. וְאִם הוּא שְׁעַת הַדְּחָק, שֶׁאֵין לוֹ הֲכָנָה לְהַשְׁחִיזָהּ, אֲפִלּוּ בְּחֹל מֻתָּר לִשְׁחֹט עַל יְדֵי כְּרִיכַת מַטְלִית עַל הַפְּגִימָה. הַגָּה: וְעַיֵּן לְעֵיל סִימָן ו׳ (סְעִיף א). סַכִּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ שְׁנֵי פִיּוֹת צָרִיךְ לִבְדֹּק שְׁנֵי הַצְּדָדִין (טז)(טוּר סִימָן ו׳).

(15) [In a manner that] the blemish will not [touch the gullet or the windpipe, i.e. the simanim] – See [Rama’s] note to sec. 6:1, and what is written there.24

(16) [Both] sides – This is a decree, [instituted as a safeguard] lest [the shochet] slaughter with the other side25 [of the knife], as stated in sec. 6.24

(טו) כְּנֶגֶד הַפְּגִימָה. עַיֵּן סִימָן ו' סְעִיף א' בְּהַגָּ"ה וּבְמַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב שָׁם:עה

(טז) הַצְּדָדִין. גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יִשְׁחוֹט בְּצַד הַב'עו כְּדִלְעֵיל סִימָן ו':

If a person slaughters many animals or many fowl [at one time], he must examine [the slaughtering knife] between each [animal or fowl he slaughters]. If he does not do so and he inspected the knife [only] after [slaughtering] the last [animal or fowl] and discovered the knife to be blemished, all [the animals orfowl] are deemed possible neveilos. [This includes] even the first one [slaughtered]. (17)Note: A person who is willing to take [the risk of] this possibility need not inspect his knife between slaughtering one [animal or fowl] and the next [vi] (Terumas HaDeshen, responsum 184, Beis Yosef, citing Baal HaMeor and Rashba; see subsection 18, [below]).

יא

הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמוֹת רַבּוֹת אוֹ עוֹפוֹת הַרְבֵּה, צָרִיךְ לִבְדֹּק בֵּין כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד, שֶׁאִם לֹא עָשָׂה כֵּן וּבָדַק בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה וְנִמְצֵאת סַכִּין פְּגוּמָה, הֲרֵי הַכֹּל סְפֵק נְבֵלוֹת וַאֲפִלּוּ הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. (יז)הַגָּה: וּמִי שֶׁרוֹצֶה לְהַכְנִיס עַצְמוֹ לְסָפֵק זֶה אֵין צָרִיךְ לִבְדֹּק סַכִּין בֵּין שְׁחִיטָה לִשְׁחִיטָה ( [ו] ) (תְּרוּמַת הַדֶשֶׁן סִימָן קפ״ד וּבֵית יוֹסֵף בְּשֵׁם בַּעַל הַמָּאוֹר וְהָרַשְׁבָּ״א וְעַיֵּן ס״ק י״ח).

(17) The first one [slaughtered] – [The rationale for this stringent ruling is that] we suspect that [the knife] became blemished on the hide of the first [animal or fowl] that was slaughtered.

When one inspects [the knife] between [slaughtering one animal or fowl and the next], this examination enables all the animals that were slaughtered before [the knife was found to be blemished] to be deemed kosher. Therefore, [between each slaughter,] it is necessary to inspect the knife as required – on one’s flesh, one’s nail, and on all three surfaces. One need not be concerned that [this inspection] will constitute an interruption between the blessing [recited before slaughtering the first animal or fowl] and the slaughter of the second. [The reason is that] anything necessary for the slaughter is not considered as an interruption, as [will be stated] below, in sec. 1924 (Sifsei Kohen, Yoreh Deah [18:16]).

[However,] it is the common practice to inspect [the knife on its blade alone – but] not on all three surfaces – between the slaughter [of one animal and the next] and after [completing] slaughtering. [Moreover,] even if [the slaughtering knife] was discovered to be blemished after slaughtering the last [animal or fowl], only the last one [slaughtered] is forbidden, even if [the shochet] did not inspect [the slaughtering knife] between [each animal slaughtered] on all three sides, but merely on the blade. [The rationale for this practice is that] regarding the examination after the slaughter – since it is possible to say that the knife should be presumed to retain its halachic status – we rely on the authorities who rule according to Rav Yeimar,26 as mentioned above,27 unless it is known that [the knife] touched the cervical spine of the [animal’s] neck. [In that instance,] that presumption is weakened, as will be explained in subsection 12 (K’nesses HaGedolah).[v]

(יז) הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. דְּחַיְשִׁינָן שֶׁמָּא בְּעוֹר הָרִאשׁוֹנָה נִפְגְּמָהעז וּכְשֶׁבָּדַק בֵּינְתַיִם בְּדִיקָה זוֹ מַכְשֶׁרֶת כָּל אוֹתָן שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ לְפָנֶיהָ הִלְכָּךְ בָּעִינָן בְּדִיקָה כְּהִלְכְתָא אַבִּשְׂרָא וְאַטּוּפְרָא וְאַג' רוּחָתָאעח וְאֵין לָחוּשׁ לְהֶפְסֵק בֵּין בְּרָכָה לִשְׁחִיטָה שְׁנִיָּה דְּצָרְכֵי שְׁחִיטָה לֹא הָוֵי הֶפְסֵק כְּדִלְקַמָּן סִימָן י"ט (שַׁ"ךְעט) וּמִנְהַג הָעוֹלָם שֶׁלֹּא לִבְדּוֹק אַג' רוּחָתָא בֵּין שְׁחִיטָה לִשְׁחִיטָה וְלֹא אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה וַאֲפִלּוּ נִמְצֵאת פְּגוּמָה אַחַר שְׁחִיטַת הָאַחֲרוֹנָה אֵין אוֹסְרִין אֶלָּא הָאַחֲרוֹנָה אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא בָדַק בֵּינְתַיִם אַתְּלַת רוּחָתָא אֶלָּא עַל הַחוּד בִּלְבָד מִשּׁוּם דְּבַבְּדִיקָה שֶׁלְּאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר הַעֲמֵד סַכִּין עַל חֶזְקָתָהּפ סָמְכִינָן אַפּוֹסְקִיםפא כְּרַב יֵימַרפב דִּלְעֵילפג אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יָדַע דְּנָגַע בַּמַּפְרֶקֶת דְּאִתְרַע לָהּ חֶזְקַת הַסַּכִּין כְּדִלְקַמָּן סְעִיף י"ב (כְּנֶסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָהפד) [ה]:

Even if [a shochet] examined his knife before slaughtering [with it], he must examine it again after slaughtering. (18) [The above applies] when the knife is available. However, if it was misplaced, [the animal(s)] slaughtered are acceptable provided [the knife] was examined before [he] slaughtered. [This ruling applies] even if he slaughtered [many animals] one after the other. [vii] If [the knife] touched the cervical spine of one of [the animals’ necks], it is proper to be stringent and show concern [by forbidding] all the [animals] that were slaughtered afterwards (19) (Tur, citing the Geonim; Rashba citing his teachers; Rabbeinu Nissim).

יב

אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבָּדַק הַסַּכִּין קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה, צָרִיךְ לַחֲזֹר וְלִבְדֹּק אַחַר הַשְּׁחִיטָה. (יח) וְהָנֵי מִלֵּי שֶׁהַסַּכִּין לְפָנֵינוּ, אֲבָל אִם נֶאֱבַד, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה הוֹאִיל וּבְדָקָהּ קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה, וַאֲפִלּוּ שָׁחַט בָּהּ הַרְבֵּה זֶה אַחַר זֶה. ( [ז] ) וְאִם נָגַע בַּמַּפְרֶקֶת שֶׁל אַחַת מֵהֶן, יֵשׁ לְהַחֲמִיר וְלָחוּשׁ לְכָל אוֹתָן שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ אַחַר כָּךְ. (יט) (טוּר בְּשֵׁם הַגְּאוֹנִים וְרַשְׁבָּ״א בְּשֵׁם רַבּוֹתָיו וְר״ן).

(18) Slaughtering – Since it is possible to examine [the knife], we do not rely on the established presumption, as stated in sec.1[:1 and in the Kuntreis Acharon (note 5),] above, with regard [to the assumption that] the majority of those involved in ritual slaughter are experts (Rashba, [Chulin 10b]).

(Note what is stated there regarding the rationale given by Rabbeinu Nissim, [Chulin 3b] – that [“The number of] those who are not experts [but slaughter, though a minority,] is [significant].” In this instance as well, he applies the same logic. As Rashba, [Chulin 10a,] writes, it is common that [before the blade reaches the simanim,] the hide [itself] will cause a blemish.28

[Now,] Rabbeinu Asher (Chulin 1:15) [disagrees with Rabbeinu Nissim, and] maintains that [the number of] those who slaughter but are not experts is not significant. Even so, he requires an examination [of the shochet’s proficiency] as an initial and preferred option. [The examination] is necessary since the animal has a presumption of being forbidden [until it is known to have been slaughtered according to law]. Similarly, regarding the matter at hand, [Rabbeinu Asher] maintains that although it is uncommon for [a knife] to be blemished by an animal’s hide, nevertheless, as an initial and preferred option, [the knife] must be examined [after slaughtering with it] because the animal has a presumption of being forbidden [as mentioned above].)

(19) Afterwards – Even if the knife was lost [and thus, we are not certain whether it was blemished at the time of slaughter, the animals are forbidden. The rationale is that] when a matter involves a doubt regarding a Scriptural prohibition, we rule stringently. Therefore, one should rule stringently [in this instance], taking into consideration the opinion of Rav Chisda [in Chulin 10a], who maintains that [the knife’s contact with] the cervical spine [of the animal’s neck] is just as likely to cause a blemish as breaking bones with it. [Since that approach] is taken into consideration even when it leads to a lenient ruling, [certainly, it should be taken into consideration in this instance]. Accordingly, the presumed status of the knife is no longer relevant. True, the halachah does not follow Rav Chisda.29 Nevertheless, his opinion is taken into consideration and we follow its stringency. (See [the relevant comments of] Rabbeinu Nissim [Chulin 3a] and Rashba [Chulin 10b].)

(יח) הַשְּׁחִיטָה. שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לְבָדְקוֹ אֵין סוֹמְכִין עַל הַחֲזָקָה כְּדִלְעֵיל סִימָן א'פה גַּבֵּי רֹב מְצוּיִין אֵצֶל שְׁחִיטָה מֻמְחִין הֵן (רַשְׁבָּ"אפו). (וְעַיֵּן מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב שָׁם הַטַּעַם בְּשֵׁם הָרַ"ןפז מִשּׁוּם דְּמִעוּט שֶׁאֵין מֻמְחִין שְׁכִיחַ. וְהָכִי נַמִי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ הָכָאפח כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב הָרַשְׁבָּ"אפט דְּעוֹר שְׁכִיחַ דְּפָגִים.צ וְהָרֹא"שׁ שָׁםצא דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ דְּמִעוּט שֶׁאֵין מֻמְחִין לֹא שְׁכִיחַ וַאֲפִלּוּ הָכִי צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה לְכַתְּחִלָּהצב לְהוֹצִיא מֵחֶזְקַת אִסּוּר דִּבְהֵמָה הָכִי נַמִי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ הָכָא דְּלֹא שְׁכִיחַ שֶׁיִּפְגּוֹם בְּעוֹרצג וַאֲפִלּוּ הָכִי צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה לְכַתְּחִלָּה מִשּׁוּם חֶזְקַת אִסּוּר דִּבְהֵמָה):

(יט) אַחַר כָּךְ. אַף אִם נֶאֶבְדָה הַסַּכִּין מִשּׁוּם דִּסְפֵיקָא דְאוֹרַיְתָא לְחוּמְרָאצד הִלְכָּךְ יֵשׁ לְהַחֲמִיר בְּזֶה כְּרַב חִסְדָּאצה דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ דְּעֶצֶם הַמַּפְרֶקֶת מָצוּי לִפְגּוֹם כִּשְׁבִירַת עֲצָמוֹת מִדְּתָלִינָן בֵּיהּ אֲפִלּוּ לְקוּלָא וְאִם כֵּן אָזְלָא לָהּ חֶזְקַת הַסַּכִּין. וְאַף דְּלֹא קַיְמָא לָן כְּרַב חִסְדָּאצו מֵיחַשׁ מִיהָא חַיְשִׁינָן לְהַחֲמִיר כְּרַב חִסְדָּא (עַיֵּן רַ"ןצז וְרַשְׁבָּ"אצח):

[When a person] slaughters [an animal using] a knife that had been examined [previously], but [the knife] was misplaced before it was examined [again] after the slaughter, and afterwards, it was found [and discovered] to be blemished, [the animal(s)] slaughtered are acceptable. [The rationale is that the knife] left [the person’s hand when it was presumed] to be [unblemished and] permitted [to be used. Although] it was [later] discovered to be blemished, [the shochet] could say that perhaps he used it to break bones and does not remember [having done so]. (20) [We consider this possibility based on the principle that the knife] is considered to retain its previous status [and hence, was deemed acceptable to slaughter with]. [viii]

יג

שָׁחַט בְּסַכִּין בְּדוּקָה וְנֶאֱבַד קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּבְדְּקֶנָּה אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצֵאת וְהִיא פְּגוּמָה, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה הוֹאִיל וְיָצְאָה בְּהֶתֵּר, וְזֶה שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת פְּגוּמָה אֵמוּר שִׁבֵּר בָּהּ עֲצָמוֹת וְלָאו אַדַּעְתֵּהּ, (כ) דְּאוֹקֵי סַכִּין אַחֶזְקָתֵהּ. ( [ח] )

(20) And does not remember – [We consider this possibility] only when [the shochet] is unsure whether [or not] he used the knife to break bones. However, when he [definitely] knows that the knife was not used to break bones, we do not consider the possibility that it was used to break bones and [the shochet] failed to remember this, unless it was examined after the slaughter [of the animal and found to be unblemished, and then a blemish was discovered later], as will be explained in subsection 16 below (Sifsei Kohen [18:]27).

(כ) אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ. הַיְנוּ דַוְקָא אִם אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אִם שִׁבַּר בָּהּ עֲצָמוֹת אֲבָל אִם יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁלֹּא שִׁבַּר בָּהּ לֹא תָּלִינָן שֶׁשִּׁבַּר בָּהּ וְלָאו אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁבָּדַק אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה כְּדִלְקַמָּן סְעִיף ט"ז (שַׁ"ךְ ס"ק כ"ז):

If [a shochet] slaughtered with a knife without examining it and the knife was lost after the slaughter, the [meat from the] slaughter is [not permitted].

Regarding what does the above apply? Regarding an ordinary knife. However, if a butcher has a special knife designated for ritual slaughter and he always keeps it in a special, discrete place, it can be assumed that [the knife] had been examined [before it was stored away and found acceptable]. If he slaughtered with [the knife] without [first] examining it and [then] the knife was lost, [the meat from] the slaughter is [permitted]. (21) Note: It is appropriate that every butcher have a knife that is designated [solely] for ritual slaughter with which it is forbidden to do anything else. [30] [When the butcher is not using this knife,] he should store it away so that it does not become blemished (22) (Rashi; Kolbo;Hagahos Asheri; Darchei Moshe, the end of sec. 6; see Tur and Beis Yosef to that source). Even so, as an initial preference, he should not slaughter with this knife without first examining it (Rashba; Beis Yosef, loc. cit.).

יד

אִם לֹא בָדַק הַסַּכִּין וְשָׁחַט בָּהּ וְנֶאֶבְדָה אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, בִּסְתָם סַכִּין, אֲבָל טַבָּח שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ סַכִּין מְיֻחֶדֶת לִשְׁחִיטָה וּמָקוֹם מְיֻחָד שֶׁמַּצְנִּיעָהּ שָׁם תָּמִיד, בְּחֶזְקַת בְּדוּקָה הִיא, וְאִם שָׁחַט בָּהּ בְּלֹא בְּדִיקָה וְנֶאֶבְדָה, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. (כא) הַגָּה: וְרָאוּי לְכָל טַבָּח שֶׁיְּהֵא לוֹ סַכִּין מְיֻחֶדֶת לִשְׁחִיטָה, וְאָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹת בָּהּ שׁוּם דָּבָר, וְיַצְנִיעֶנָּה שֶׁלֹּא יִפְגְּמֶנָּה (כב) (רַשִׁ״י וְכָל בּוֹ וְהג״א ד״מ סוֹף סִימָן ו׳ וְעַיֵּן טוּר וּבֵית יוֹסֵף שָׁם) וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם לֹא יִשְׁחֹט בּוֹ לְכַתְּחִלָּה בְּלֹא בְּדִיקָה (רַשְׁבָּ״א וב"י שָׁם).

(21) It is [permitted] – We do not suspect that it became blemished by itself while it was stored away. Rashba [(Toras HaBayis HaAruch, Bayis 1, shaar 2)] mentions this approach. Rabbeinu Nissim [Chulin 2b] disagrees with this [premise]. Tevuos Shor, [sec. 18, note 30] makes a distinction between [a knife that was stored] for a short time – e.g., about three days – and [one that was stored for] a longer period, during which there are grounds for concern that it became rusty [and therefore] blemished.

(22) Become blemished – [The rationale is that] we are concerned that [the butcher] will slaughter with [a knife] without examining it, the knife will be lost [or misplaced before it was examined after the slaughter is completed], and [the butcher] will rely on the presumption that it had been examined, while forgetting that he had used it [for another purpose, and] he may have blemished [the knife] while using it [for the other purpose].

This ruling has its source in Rashba [Chulin 8b] and in his Toras HaBayis HaAruch, [Bayis 1, shaar 2, where he] comments on the Talmud’s ruling [in Chulin, loc. cit.] regarding a butcher – that he must possess three knives: one for slaughtering, one for cutting meat and one for cutting [away the] forbidden fats.

Rashba writes that the reason [a butcher] should not cut meat with the knife he uses for slaughtering is because there are times when he will cut meat without being concerned that he might blemish [the knife] because generally meat will not cause such a blemish. [Nevertheless,] there are times when there are bones in the meat [and when cutting it, one will blemish the knife. Afterwards, the butcher] will forget [and fail to inspect the knife before using it for slaughter], relying on the initial inspection performed previously. This is forbidden. This is the end of Rashba’s words. From this explanation, [we see that] after the fact, there is no concern that cutting meat without bones will blemish [a knife. The same rule applies to] cutting any [other] similar soft substance.31

(כא) כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא עִם עֲמִידָתוֹ נִפְגְּמָה מֵעַצְמָהּ כֵּן כָּתַב הָרַשְׁבָּ"א.צט וְהָרַ"ןק חוֹלֵק עַל זֶה. וְהַתְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹרקא הִכְרִיעַ וְחִלֵּק בֵּין זְמַן מוּעָט עֶרֶךְ ג' יָמִים לְיוֹתֵר מִכַּאן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא נִפְגְּמָה עַל יְדֵי חֲלֻדָּה:

(כב) יִפְגְּמֶנָּה. דְּשֶׁמָא יִשְׁחוֹט בּוֹ בְּלֹא בְּדִיקָה וְיֹאבַד הַסַּכִּין וְיִסְמוֹךְ אַחֶזְקָתוֹ שֶׁהוּא בָּדוּק כִּי יִשְׁכַּח שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ וְשֶׁמָּא עָשָׂהוּ פָּגוּם בְּמַה שֶּׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ.קב וּמְקוֹר דִּין זֶה הוּא מֵהָרַשְׁבָּ"א שֶׁבְּחִדּוּשָׁיוקג וּבְתוֹרַת הַבַּיִת הָאָרֹךְקד אַהָא דְאָמְרִינָן בִּגְמָרָאקה הַטַּבָּח צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לוֹ ג' סַכִּינִים אֶחָד שֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט בָּהּ וְאֶחָד שֶׁמְּחַתֵּךְ בָּהּ בָּשָׂר וְאֶחָד שֶׁמְּחַתֵּךְ חֲלָבִים כָּתַב הָרַשְׁבָּ"א דְּהַיְנוּ טַעְמָא שֶׁלֹּא יַחְתּוֹךְ בָּשָׂר בְּסַכִּין שֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט בּוֹ כִּי לִפְעָמִים חוֹתֵךְ בָּהּ בָּשָׂר וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ לָהּ מִשּׁוּם פְּגִימָה לְפִי שֶׁאֵין הַבָּשָׂר מָצוּי לִפְגּוֹם וּפְעָמִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ עֲצָמוֹת בַּבָּשָׂר וּמִשְׁתְּלֵי וְשׁוֹחֵט וְסוֹמֵךְ עַל בְּדִיקָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְאָסוּר עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ. מְבֹאָר מִזֶּה שֶׁבְּדִיעֲבַד אֵין לָחוּשׁ לִפְגִימָה בַּחֲתִיכָתוֹ בָּשָׂר בְּלֹא עֲצָמוֹת וְכֵן בְּכָל דָּבָר רַךְ כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ:קו

When a person slaughters with a knife that had been examined, but after using it for slaughter, he broke bones with it, using it like a hatchet, rather than drawing it back and forth [Rashba, Rabbeinu Nissim, Rabbeinu Yerucham], and then examined it and discovered it to be blemished, [the animals he] slaughtered are permitted. [The rationale is that] we assume [the knife] became blemished when [the person] broke the bones.

Similar laws apply in all comparable situations, e.g., [the knife] fell on firm earth. [However, this leniency is granted] only when we saw [the knife] fall on its blade. However, if there is [merely] a doubt [as to whether or not it] fell on its blade, (23) we do not assume that it did.

If [the butcher] broke the cervical spine [of an animal’s neck with the knife], even if he used it as a hatchet, * we do not assume that this [is what caused the blemish] because the cervical spine [of an animal’s neck] is soft.

Note: There is no difference in all of the above whether the knife was examined initially, shortly before [it was used for] slaughter or it was [taken from a place where it had been kept] under the presumption that it had been examined beforehand. [In the latter instance, even if the knife] was not examined before the slaughter, it is still considered as a knife that was examined; ([this is Rama’s own ruling based] on Hagahos Mordechai to Chulin, ch. 1).

טו

הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּסַכִּין בְּדוּקָה וְאַחַר הַשְּׁחִיטָה שִׁבַּר בָּהּ עֲצָמוֹת דֶּרֶךְ שְׁבִירָה, שֶׁלֹּא בְּדֶרֶךְ הוֹלָכָה וַהֲבָאָה, וּבְדָקָהּ וְנִמְצֵאת פְּגוּמָה, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה, דְּאָנוּ תּוֹלִים שֶׁבִּשְׁבִירַת הָעֲצָמוֹת נִפְגְּמָה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה, כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּפְלָה עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע קָשֶׁה. וְדַוְקָא שֶׁרְאִינוּהָ שֶׁנָּפְלָה עַל חֻדָּהּ, אֲבָל מִסְּפֵקָא אֵין תּוֹלִין לוֹמַר שֶׁנָּפְלָה עַל חֻדָּהּ. (כג) וְאִם שִׁבַּר בָּהּ עֶצֶם הַמַּפְרֶקֶת, אֲפִלּוּ דֶּרֶךְ שְׁבִירָה, (*) אֵין תּוֹלִין בּוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא רַךְ. הַגָּה: וְאֵין חִלּוּק בְּכָל זֶה בֵּין שֶׁבָּדַק הַסַּכִּין תְּחִלָּה סָמוּךְ לַשְּׁחִיטָה, אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה בְּחֶזְקָת בְּדוּקָה תְּחִלָּה וְלֹא בְדָקָהּ סָמוּךְ לַשְּׁחִיטָה, דַּאֲפִלּוּ הָכֵי מִקְרֵי סַכִּין בְּדוּקָה (דִּבְרֵי עַצְמוֹ מֵהַגָּהוֹת מָרְדְּכַי פֶּרֶק קַמָּא דְּחֻלִּין).

(23) A doubt [as to whether or not it] fell on its blade – [This ruling applies] even according to Rabbeinu Asher32 who, as cited above,33 maintains that one should rule leniently when there is a possibility that [a knife was used to] break bones. Nevertheless, in this instance, stringency is required because there are compounded factors [leading to a presumption that the knife is] forbidden (sefeik sefeikah l’issura]. Perhaps [the blemished knife] did not fall on its blade and even if it were said that [it fell] on its blade, it is possible that it was not blemished by the earth, because according to Rabbeinu Asher, earth will not necessarily cause a blemish. This differs with the approach of Rashba and the Shulchan Aruch34 [whose statements imply that when the blade falls on the earth, it will certainly become blemished] (Sifsei Cohen [18:25]).

(כג) לוֹמַר שֶׁנָּפְלָה עַל חֻדָּהּ. וַאֲפִלּוּ לְהָרֹא"שׁקז דִּלְעֵילקח דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ לְהָקֵל בְּסָפֵק שִׁבַּר בָּהּ עֲצָמוֹת יֵשׁ לְהַחֲמִיר כַּאן מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא סְפֵק סְפֵיקָא לְאִסּוּרָא שֶׁמָּא לֹא נָפְלָה עַל חֻדָּהּ וְאִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר עַל חֻדָּהּ שֶׁמָּא לֹא נִפְגְּמָה בְּקַרְקַע דְּקַרְקַע אֵינָהּ וַדַּאי פּוֹגֶמֶת לְפִי דַעַת הָרֹא"שׁ אֶלָּא לְפִי דַעַת הָרַשְׁבָּ"אקט וְהַשֻּׁלְחָן עָרוּךְקי (שַׁ"ךְקיא):

If [a shochet] examined a knife after slaughtering [with it, saw that it was unblemished, and then] stored it away, should it be discovered to be blemished afterwards, [the blemish] does not affect [the validity of the previous slaughter]. Instead, it is said that [the knife] was blemished by another factor or that it was used to break bones without [the shochet] being aware. (24)

טז

אִם בָּדַק הַסַּכִּין אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה וְהִצְנִיעָהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצֵאת פְּגוּמָה, לֵית לָן בָּהּ, דְּאֵמוּר בְּדָבָר אַחֵר נִפְגְּמָה אוֹ שִׁבַּר בָּהּ עֲצָמוֹת וְלָאו אַדַּעְתֵּהּ. (כד)

(24) Without [the shochet] being aware – The intent is that although [the shochet] was certain that he did not use [the knife] to break bones, e.g., he placed it in a case – even so, since it was examined after the slaughter [and found to be unblemished] – we say that it was removed from the case and used to break [bones] without him being aware. Alternatively, we say that [the blemish] was caused by another factor of its own accord.

True, [the ruling] in subsection 14 above [depends on the concept that] there is no concern that [the knife] became blemished of its own accord while stored away. However, in that instance, there was no flaw [that arouses a question]. Hence, we operate under the existing presumption [that the knife is acceptable]. However, in this instance, the blemish is obvious. Therefore, we must say that [the blemish] was caused by another factor of its own accord while [the knife was] stored away (Sifsei Kohen, Yoreh Deah 18:27).

Mishmeres HaBayis [Bayis 1, shaar 1], however, [differs and] maintains that although the knife was examined after the [previous] slaughter and no blemish was found, if it was placed in a secure place and discovered to be blemished afterwards, [the animals slaughtered previously] are certainly not permitted. [The rationale for this stringent stance is that] a possibility [– that the knife was blemished by an external factor – without knowing the cause for the blemish], does not override the definite [fact that the knife] is obviously blemished. [Indeed,] whenever, a knife is obviously blemished and there is no known reason [for the blemish,] we do not rule leniently based on the first examination for several reasons:

a) It can be said that the first examination was carried out too hastily. It happens quite frequently that a person examines [a knife] and finds it unblemished and then examined it afterwards and discovered it to be blemished. [Now, it is logical to assume that the knife] did not become blemished [in the interim while it was stored away]. Instead, [it is more logical to assume that] originally, [the person who checked the knife] did not pay [sufficient] attention, his nail skipped over a small blemish, or he did not detect [the blemish]. Moreover,

b) not all fingernails [with which the examination is performed] are the same. [This applies] even to those of the same person, Also,

c) at times, [a blemish might not be detected because of an external] factor, [i.e.,] something became attached to the knife; [for example,] at times, blood will enter a blemish and coagulate there. Afterwards, the blood will become detached and the blemish will be revealed. For this reason, Raavad required that a knife be washed before the examination after slaughtering, as mentioned above.35

It cannot be said that the knife became blemished afterwards of its own accord. [That position is untenable, for if so, how can it be said36 that when] a butcher did not show his knife to a scholar [for inspection] and [afterwards], it was discovered to be blemished, he should be removed from his position and the meat [publicly] declared tereifah? [Were the above argument to be accepted,] why should this financial loss be caused [when we can say that it is possible that] the knife became blemished of its own accord after [the animal was slaughtered]? This concludes the argument [of Mishmeres HaBayis]. Accordingly, one should not rule leniently in such a situation unless the situation is pressing or a severe financial loss is involved (Simlah Chadashah, 18:19).

(כד) אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ. פֵּרוּשׁ דְּאַף עַל גַּב שֶׁיָּדַע בְּבֵרוּר שֶׁלֹּא שִׁבַּר בָּהּ עֲצָמוֹת כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִנִּיחוֹ בְּקֻפְסָא אֲפִלּוּ הָכִי כֵּיוָן שֶׁבְּדָקוֹ אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה אָמְרִינָן דְּהוֹצִיאוֹ מִן הַקֻּפְסָא וְשִׁבַּר בּוֹ וְלָאו אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ אוֹ אֵמוּר בְּדָבָר אַחֵר נִפְגַּם מֵעַצְמוֹ. וְאַף עַל גַּב דִּלְעֵיל סְעִיף י"דקיב לֹא חַיְשִׁינָן שֶׁמָּא עִם עֲמִידָתוֹ נִפְגַּם מֵעַצְמוֹ. הָתָם מִשּׁוֹם דְּאֵין רֵעוּתָא לְפָנֵינוּ לְפִיכָךְ מוֹקְמִינָן לֵיהּ אַחֶזְקָתֵיהּ אֲבָל הָכָא הֲרֵי פָּגוּם לְפָנֶיךָ וְעַל כָּרְחָךְ אָמְרִינָן עִם עֲמִידָתוֹ נִפְגַּם מֵעַצְמוֹ בְּדָבָר אַחֵר (שַׁ"ךְקיג).

אֲבָל בְּמִשְׁמֶרֶת הַבַּיִתקיד כָּתַב שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבָּדַק אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה וּמְצָאָהּ יָפָה אִם הִנִּיחָהּ בְּמָקוֹם הַמֻּצְנָע וּמִשְׁתַּמֵּר וְנִמְצֵאת אַחַר זְמַן פְּגוּמָה בְּוַדַּאי אֲסוּרָה הִיא זוֹ שֶׁאֵין סָפֵק מוֹצִיא מִידֵי וַדַּאי שֶׁהִיא פְּגוּמָה לְפָנֵינוּ שֶׁכָּל שֶׁהִיא וַדַּאי פְּגוּמָה לְפָנֵינוּ בְּלִי שׁוּם סִבָּה יְדוּעָה אֵין תּוֹלִין לְהָקֵל מִסָּפֵק בִּבְדִיקָתוֹ הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מִכַּמָּה טְעָמִים. הָאֶחָד שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִתְלוֹת בְּדִיקָתוֹ הָרִאשׁוֹנָה בְּמִקְרֶה שֶׁל מְהִירוּתקטו וְזֶה יֶאֱרַע כַּמָּה פְּעָמִים שֶׁאָדָם בּוֹדֵק וְנִמְצֵאת יָפָה וְחוֹזֵר וּבוֹדֵק לְשַׁעְתֵּיהּ וְנִמְצֵאת פְּגוּמָה וְלֹא שֶׁנִּתְחַדְּשָׁה פְּגִימָה אֶלָּא שֶׁבַּתְּחִלָּה לֹא נָתַן לֵב אוֹ שֶׁדִּלְּגָה צִפֹּרֶן עַל פְּגִימָה קְטַנָּה אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא הִרְגִּישׁ. וְעוֹד שֶׁאֵין כָּל הַצִּפָּרְנַיִם שָׁוִים וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּאִישׁ אֶחָד. וְעוֹד שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִפְעָמִים סִבָּה מִצַּד דָּבָר הַנִּדְבָּק עַל הַסַּכִּין דְּלִפְעָמִים יִכָּנֵס דָּם בַּפְּגִימָה וְיִקְרַשׁ בְּתוֹכָהּ וּלְאַחַר הַזְּמַן יִנָּעֵר הַדָּם מִמֶּנָּה וְתִתְגַּלֶּה הַפְּגִימָה. וְעַל כֵּן הִצְרִיךְ הָרַאֲבַ"ד לִרְחוֹץ הַסַּכִּין קֹדֶם בְּדִיקָה שֶׁלְּאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה כְּדִלְעֵיל.קטז וְלִתְלוֹת שֶׁהַסַּכִּין נִפְגַּם מֵעַצְמוֹ זֶהוּ דָּבָר שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְאָמְרוֹ שֶׁאִם כֵּן טַבָּח שֶׁלֹּא הֶרְאָה סַכִּינוֹ לְחָכָם וְנִמְצֵאת פְּגוּמָה דְּמַעֲבִירִין לֵיהּ וּמַכְרִיזִין אַבִּשְׂרָא דִּטְרֵפָה הִיא אַמַּאי מַפְסְדִינָן לֵיהּ מָמוֹנָא דִּלְמָא לְאַחַר מִכֵּן נִפְגְּמָה מֵעַצְמוֹ עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ. הִלְכָּךְ אֵין לְהָקֵל בְּזֶה אֶלָּא בִּשְׁעַת הַדְּחָק אוֹ בְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה (שִׂמְלָה חֲדָשָׁהקיז):

When a shochet did not show his knife to the [local] scholar [before slaughtering] – [Note:] ([but afterwards,] it was discovered to be unblemished (Tur) – [the shochet] should be placed under a ban of ostracism. [ix] Note: If [the knife] was discovered to be blemished, [the shochet] should [not only] be placed under a ban of ostracism [but should also be] removed [from his position] (25) (Tur). If [the knife] was discovered to be unblemished, the scholar may waive [the honor due him] (26) and need not place [the shochet] under a ban of ostracism (Hagahos Alfasi, Chulin, ch. 1).

In the present era, it has become customary to appoint distinguished men [to be responsiblefor] ritual slaughter and the examination [of slaughtering knives and blemishes that cause animals to be deemed tereifah]. The scholars waived the honor [due them in favor of these individuals] because they are [both] careful and vigilant [about their responsibility]. (27)

Much patience and fear of G‑d is required to [properly] examine a slaughtering knife. As can be seen, there are times when a person will examine [a knife] two or three times without feeling a slight blemish and afterwards, he will discover it because he then paid closer attention. [A person’s] sensitivity to [detecting a blemish by] touch is dependent on [the degree of] attention [he invests (Rabbeinu Yonah in Shaarei Teshuvah)].

יז

טַבָּח שֶׁלֹּא הֶרְאָה סַכִּינוֹ לְחָכָם [הַגָּה:] וְנִמְצֵאת יָפָה (טוּר), מְנַדִּין אוֹתוֹ. ( [ט] ) הַגָּה: וְאִם נִמְצֵאת פְּגוּמָה, מְנַדִּין אוֹתוֹ וּמַעֲבִירִין אוֹתוֹ (כה) (טוּר). וּבְנִמְצֵאת יָפָה, יָכוֹל הֶחָכָם לִמְחֹל, (כו) וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לְנַדּוֹתוֹ (הַגָּהוֹת אַלְפָסִי פֶּרֶק קַמָּא דְּחֻלִּין). וְהָאִידְנָא נָהֲגוּ לְמַנּוֹת אֲנָשִׁים יְדוּעִים עַל הַשְּׁחִיטָה וְהַבְּדִיקָה, וְלָהֶם מָחֲלוּ חֲכָמִים כְּבוֹדָם, כִּי הֵם זְהִירִים וּזְרִיזִים. (כז) וְהַרְבֵּה צָרִיךְ יִשּׁוּב הַדַּעַת וְיִרְאַת שָׁמַיִם לִבְדִיקַת הַסַּכִּין, הֲלֹא תִּרְאֶה כִּי יִבְדֹּק אָדָם פַּעֲמַיִם וְשָׁלֹשׁ וְלֹא יַרְגִּישׁ בִּפְגִימָה דַקָּה, וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִמְצָאֶנָּה כִּי הֵכִין לִבּוֹ בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה. וּבְחִינַת חוּשׁ הַמִּשּׁוּשׁ כְּפִי כַּוָּנַת הַלֵּב.

(25) Removed [from his position] – [In addition,] the meat that he slaughtered for himself without the scholar inspecting his knife is [publicly] declared to be tereifah (Rambam, [Hilchos Shechitah 1:26]; Tur).

Darchei Moshe [18:11] writes in the name of Rav Avraham Kloizner that this law applies in the present era as well. From his words, it appears that the intent is that even in the present age, the meat that [a shochet] slaughtered is retroactively declared to be tereifah because this is the law, and it must be heeded; this is not [merely] a penalty, as stated in sec. 1[:11].37 Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch [of Rav Yosef Caro] omitted this law. Perhaps, [the reason is that Rav Yosef Caro differs and] maintains that this [ruling] was merely a penalty imposed in that era because butchers were slaughtering [their animals] themselves. However, in the present era, [when a butcher does not slaughter the animals himself,] the butcher should not be penalized for [the acts] of the shochet. [After the fact,] one should not retroactively disqualify [animals this shochet had slaughtered unless [the shochet] exhibits flippancy, [i.e.,] he shows irreverence and examines a knife contemptuously, as Rashba38 writes with regard to the instance cited in subsection 19, below, which speaks about such a situation. However, [this] does not apply when [a shochet] blunders and does not examine a knife properly, although he is considered negligent for failing to do so, as stated in sec. 2 above.39

(26) May waive [the honor due him] – [The rationale for this ruling is that “When] a rabbi waives his honor, [he has that prerogative].”40 This is the view of Rashi (Chulin 18a) and Rabbeinu Nissim (Chulin 5a), [who maintain that the reason for the ban of ostracism is the affront to the honor of the scholar]. However, according to Rambam (Hilchos Shechitah 1:26) and those who follow his view mentioned above,41 [the scholar] cannot [simply] waive [his honor, since this is not the reason for the shochet’s removal from his position] (Sifsei Kohen [18:28]; Hagahos HaTur, note 25).42

(27) Vigilant [about their responsibility] – As a result, “[of this change in approach, the need for] a scholar to inspect a slaughtering knife was nullified entirely, even for a person who slaughters for his own personal use, although doing so is undesirable, since [the examination of a knife] requires great patience.” (Rabbeinu Asher [Chulin 1:24], Tur).

From this wording, it appears that [Rabbeinu Asher] follows the view of Rambam mentioned above.41 For this reason, Rabbeinu Asher wrote, “[the latter] is undesirable, because [the examination of a knife requires] great [patience]….” [Thus, the need to examine a slaughtering knife] is not only done as a gesture of honor to the scholar, because at present the scholars are [compelled] to waive their honor.43 [Indeed,] regarding the [Talmudic] era as well, it was said,44 “A Rabbinic scholar may inspect [the knife] himself,” as stated above.41 [Even so, it was desirable for him to show his knife to others.]

(כה) וּמַעֲבִירִין אוֹתוֹ. וּמַכְרִיזִין עַל בָּשָׂר שֶׁשָּׁחַט לְעַצְמוֹ בְּלֹא רְאוֹת הֶחָכָם אֶת סַכִּינוֹ שֶׁהוּא טְרֵפָה (רַמְבַּ"םקיח וְטוּר). וְכָתַב בְּדַרְכֵי מֹשֶׁהקיט בְּשֵׁם מהרא"ק דְּאַף הָאִידְנָא דִּינָא הָכִי עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ. וּמַשְׁמַע מִסְּתִימַת לְשׁוֹנוֹקכ דְּאַף הָאִידְנָא מַכְרִיזִין עַל בָּשָׂר שֶׁשָּׁחַט לְמַפְרֵעַ שֶׁהִיא טְרֵפָה מִשּׁוּם דְּדִינָא הוּא לָחוּשׁ לוֹ וְלֹא קְנָסָא וּכְמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְעֵיל סִ[ימָן] א'.קכא אֲבָל הַשֻּׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ שֶׁהִשְׁמִיט דִּין זֶה אֶפְשָׁר דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ דִּקְנָסָא הוּא שֶׁקָּנְסוּקכב בִּימֵיהֶם שֶׁהָיוּ הַקַּצָּבִים שׁוֹחֲטִים בְּעַצְמָם אֲבָל הָאִידְנָא אֵין לִקְנוֹס הַקַּצָּב בִּשְׁבִיל הַשּׁוֹחֵט.קכג וְאֵין לֶאֱסוֹר לְמַפְרֵעַ אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁנִּרְאָה בּוֹ קַלּוּת שֶׁהוּא מֵקֵל בִּבְדִיקַת הַסַּכִּין בִּשְׁאָט בְּנֶפֶשׁ כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב הָרַשְׁבָּ"אקכד אַעוֹבָדָא דִּלְקַמָּן סְעִיף י"ט דְּמַיְרִי בִּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא אֲבָל לֹא שֶׁאֵרַע לוֹ מִכְשׁוֹל שֶׁלֹּא בָדַק יָפֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא פּוֹשֵׁעַ וּכְמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְעֵיל סִימָן [ב']:קכה

(כו) לִמְחוֹל. דְּהָרַב שֶׁמָּחַל עַל כְּבוֹדוֹ כְּבוֹדוֹ מָחוּל.קכו וְהַיְנוּ לְרַשִׁ"יקכז וְרַ"ן.קכח אֲבָל לְהָרַמְבַּ"םקכט וְסִיעָתוֹ דִּלְעֵילקל אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִמְחוֹל (שַׁ"ךְקלא כְּנֶסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָהקלב):

(כז) וּזְרִיזִים כוּ'. וּמִתּוֹךְ כָּךְ נִתְבַּטְּלָה בְּדִיקַת הֶחָכָם לְגַמְרֵי גַּם לְמִי שֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט לְבֵיתוֹ אַף כִּי אֵינוֹ נָכוֹן כִּי הַרְבֵּה צָרִיךְ יִשּׁוּב הַדַּעַת כוּ' (רֹא"שׁקלג וְטוּר). וּמִלָּשׁוֹן זֶה מְבֹאָרקלד דִּסְבִירָא לְהוּ כְּהָרַמְבַּ"ם דִּלְעֵיל.קלה וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי כָּתַב אֵינוֹ נָכוֹן כִּי הַרְבֵּה כוּ' וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם כְּבוֹד הֶחָכָם לְחוֹד מִשּׁוּם דְּהָאִידְנָא נַמִי מוֹחֲלִין הַחֲכָמִים עַד כַּאןקלו וְגַם בִּימֵיהֶם אָמְרוּ צוּרְבָא מֵרַבָּנָן חָזִי לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ כִּדְלֵעיל:קלז

A shochet must be paid a wage for [slaughtering] animals that are [found to be] tereifah, just as he is [paid] for those that are kosher. (28) Note: [This practice was instituted] so that [the shochet] does not rule leniently and [say that animals are] kosher so that he will receive his wage from the animals [he ruled that are] kosher (29) (Beis Yosef in the name of Rivash).

[Because of this factor], it is customary in some places that a person does not slaughter and inspect [the animals] for himself. Instead, [the slaughter and inspections should be performed] by individuals appointed by the community. [x]

יח

הַטַּבָּח צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּטֹּל שָׂכָר מִן הַטְּרֵפוֹת כְּמוֹ מִן הַכְּשֵׁרוֹת. (כח) הַגָּה: שֶׁלֹּא יָבֹא לְהָקֵל לְהַכְשִׁיר כְּדֵי לְקַבֵּל שְׂכָרוֹ מִן הַכְּשֵׁרוֹת (כט) (בֵּית יוֹסֵף בְּשֵׁם רִיבַ״שׁ). וְלָכֵן נָהֲגוּ בִּקְצָת מְקוֹמוֹת שֶׁאֵין אָדָם שׁוֹחֵט וּבוֹדֵק לְעַצְמוֹ, אֶלָּא אוֹתָן הַמְמֻנִּים מִן הַקָּהָל. ( [י] )

(28) Just as he is [paid] for those that are kosher – [In certain communities,] a custom [was established to allow the shochet to] take the colon from the kosher animals [that he slaughtered as a wage for slaughtering], but not to take [the colons] from the tereifah ones. Rivash [responsum 500] and many of the later halachic authorities lodged protests against [this practice]. Similarly, Sifsei Kohen [Yoreh Deah 18:31] writes that this is a bad custom.

Turei Zahav [Yoreh Deah 18:14 justifies this custom]. The reason is we do not suspect [the shochtim] of causing [Jews] to eat tereifah [meat] for such a small matter. Pri Chadash [Yoreh Deah 18:30] and Tevuos Shor [section 18, note 37] rejected that argument [explaining that] with regard to financial matters, there is no difference between deriving a minimal benefit and a large benefit.

[True,] Rama in his note to [Yoreh Deah] 246:21 allows a halachic authority to taste [food] from an entity concerning which he delivered a [lenient] ruling in order to clarify that his ruling [was accurate]. However, to take something valuable from [an entity concerning which he ruled] as a gift is forbidden. [The license Rama granted] was specifically to clarify that the ruling [was accurate], but [he did not allow] receiving anything as a wage or even as a present, for receiving a wage or present, even if it is minimal, is forbidden because it [arouses] suspicion.

When [the halachic authority] is clarifying the ruling he issued, [i.e., he is given some of the food he permitted to partake of to clarify that it is in fact kosher,] there is a basis to make the distinction between [giving him] something small or something significant. [Giving him] something significant is forbidden, even if it is not given as a wage, [and] not as a present, but rather [the party involved] sends him a gift for him to taste what he permitted to verify his ruling. [Even so,] since it is significant, it is considered that he gave him a present for issuing [a ruling that the food is] permitted. This is forbidden, because it [arouses] suspicion.

Similarly, [a halachic authority] is even forbidden to purchase [food] that he permitted if it is an entity that is sold by estimate and not according to weight or the like, so that people will not say that [the seller] gave him a cheaper price because he permitted [the food] for him, as stated in the Talmud.45 [This applies] even if the reduction [in price] is minimal.

Nevertheless, [in the situation described by Rivash,] if [the shochet] takes [as his wage] the colons from [all the animals he slaughters, whether they are discovered to be kosher or] tereifah, even though [those from] the kosher animals are worth more, there is no concern about a suspicion arising because there is also [a possibility] that he will suffer a loss of his own [money],46 as mentioned above in the name of Rivash.

(29) The kosher animals – [This concern applies] even if [the shochet] is known to be a pious individual and he would not issue a lenient ruling [improperly]. Even so, the prohibition [applies to him] because of the suspicion that might be aroused among people at large, as it is written,47 “You shall be untainted in [the eyes of] G‑d and Israel” (see Tevuos Shor, [sec. 18, note 36]).

(כח) כְּמוֹ מִן הַכְּשֵׁרוֹת. הָרִיבָ"שׁקלח וְהַרְבֵּה מִן הָאַחֲרוֹנִים קָרְאוּ תִּגָּר עַל שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לִקַּח הַכַּרְכָּשׁוֹת מִן הַכְּשֵׁרוֹת וְלֹא מִן הַטְּרֵפוֹת. וְכֵן כָּתַב הַשַּׁ"ךְקלט שֶׁהוּא מִנְהָג רָע. וְהַטַּ"זקמ הֵלִיץ בַּעֲדָם דְּבִשְׁבִיל דָּבָר קָטָן כְּזֶה לֹא נֶחְשְׁדוּ לְהַאֲכִיל טְרֵפוֹת. וְחָלְקוּ עָלָיו הַפְּרִי חָדָשׁקמא וְהַתְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹרקמב דְּבִמִדֵּי דִדְרָרָא דְמָמוֹנָא אֵין לְחַלֵּק בֵּין הֲנָאָה מוּעֶטֶת לַהֲנָאָה מְרֻבָּה. וּמַה שֶּׁכָּתַב רְמָ"א סִימָן רמ"ו סְעִיף כ"א בְּהַגָּ"ה דְּשָׁרֵי לְתַלְמִיד חָכָם לְמִטְעַם מִדֵּי מֵהוֹרָאָתוֹ כְּדֵי לְבָרֵר הוֹרָאָתוֹ אֲבָל לִקַּח מַתְּנַת דָּבָר חָשׁוּב מֵהוֹרָאָתוֹ אָסוּר עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ הַיְנוּ דַוְקָא כְּדֵי לְבָרֵר הוֹרָאָתוֹ וְלֹא בְּתוֹרַת שָׂכָר וְלֹא אֲפִלּוּ בְּתוֹרַת מַתָּנָה דִּבְתוֹרַת שָׂכָר וּמַתָּנָה אֲפִלּוּ בְּדָבָר מוּעָט אִיכָּא חַשְׁדָא וּבִלְבָרֵר הוֹרָאָתוֹ הוּא דְּאִיכָּא לִפְלוּגֵי בֵּין דָּבָר מוּעָט לְדָבָר חָשׁוּב דְּדָבָר חָשׁוּב אָסוּר אֲפִלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּתוֹרַת שָׂכָר וְלֹא בְּתוֹרַת מַתָּנָה אֶלָּא שֶׁמְּשַׁגֵּר לוֹ דּוֹרוֹן כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּטְעוֹם מִמַּה שֶּׁהִתִּיר כְּדֵי לְבָרֵר הוֹרָאָתוֹ דְּכֵיוָן שֶׁהוּא דָּבָר חָשׁוּב הָוֵי לָהּ מַתָּנָה בְּעַד מַה שֶּׁהִתִּיר לוֹ וְאָסוּר מִשּׁוּם חַשְׁדָא. וְכֵן אָסוּר אֲפִלּוּ לִקְנוֹת בְּמָעוֹת מִמַּה שֶּׁהִתִּיר אִם הוּא דָּבָר הַנִּמְכָּר בְּשׁוּמָא וְלֹא בְּמִשְׁקָל וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָזֶה שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמְרוּ שֶׁמּוֹזִיל לוֹ בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁהִתִּיר לוֹ כִּדְאָמְרִינָן בִּגְמָרָאקמג אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמַּה שֶּׁמּוֹזִיל הוּא דָּבָר מוּעָט. אֲבָל אִם נוֹטֵל הַכַּרְכָּשׁוֹת גַּם מִן הַטְּרֵפוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַכְּשֵׁרוֹת שָׁווֹת יוֹתֵר אֵין לָחוּשׁ לְחַשְׁדָא בְּמַה שֶּׁמַּפְסִיד מִשֶּׁלּוֹ וּכְמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר לְעֵיל בְּשֵׁם הָרִיבָ"שׁ:

(כט) הַכְּשֵׁרוֹת. וַאֲפִלּוּ יוֹדְעִים בּוֹ שֶׁהוּא חָסִיד וְלֹא יָבֹא לְהָקֵל אֲפִלּוּ הָכִי אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם חַשְׁדָא שֶׁיַּחְשְׁדוּהוּ הַבְּרִיּוֹת דִּכְתִיבקמד וִהְיִיתֶם נְקִיִּים מֵה' וּמִיִּשְׂרָאֵל (עַיֵּן תְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹרקמה):

[The following ruling was delivered regarding the scenario to be described:] Reuven asked Shimon, “Examine this knife for me.” [Shimon] performed two of the twelve inspections required and returned [the knife] to Reuven. Reuven [considered this sufficient and] was going to slaughter [with it]. Levi took the knife from [Reuven] and discovered it to be blemished. [Note:] Reuven sought to justify himself, saying that [he had not yet concluded his inspections and] he still desired to examine the knife in the proper manner. (The entire [scenario is related] in the responsa of Rashba, responsum 594.)

[Reuven’s] actions demonstrate that [Shimon’s previous] examination was sufficient for him. Therefore, he should be removed [from his position as a shochet. However,] if it appears that he acted inadvertently and he is an upright individual, he [may be] returned [to his position], provided he takes it upon himself not to conduct himself in this manner again.

יט

רְאוּבֵן שֶׁאָמַר לְשִׁמְעוֹן: בְּדֹק סַכִּין זוֹ, וּבְדָקָהּ שְׁנֵי פְּעָמִים מֵהַי״ב שֶׁצָּרִיךְ וּנְתָנָהּ לִרְאוּבֵן, וּרְאוּבֵן הָיָה הוֹלֵךְ לִשְׁחֹט וּלְקָחָהּ לֵוִי מִיָּדוֹ וּמְצָאָהּ פְּגוּמָה [הַגָּה:] וּרְאוּבֵן מִתְנַצֵּל וְאוֹמֵר שֶׁעֲדַיִן הָיָה רוֹצֶה לְבָדְקָהּ כַּהֹגֶן (הַכֹּל בִּתְשׁוּבַת הָרַשְׁבָּ״א סִימָן תקצ״ד), מַעֲשָׂיו מוֹכִיחִים עָלָיו שֶׁהָיָה דַי לוֹ בְּאוֹתָהּ בְּדִיקָה, וּלְפִיכָךְ מַעֲבִירִין אוֹתוֹ. וְאִם נִרְאִים הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁהָיָה כְּעֵין שְׁגָגָה וְשֶׁהוּא אָדָם כָּשֵׁר, מַחֲזִירִין אוֹתוֹ, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּקַבֵּל עָלָיו שֶׁלֹּא יָשׁוּב עוֹד לְדָבָר כָּזֶה.

If a blemish was found at the tip of a slaughterer’s knife and he says, “this blemish came about because I cover the blood of fowl with the tip of the knife, and when I slaughter I am careful not to touch [the simanim with] the blemished portion [of the knife],” he should be removed [from his position.] It is very likely that utensils [in which meat from animals that this person slaughtered were cooked] are forbidden.

טַבָּח שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת פְּגִימָה בְּרֹאשׁ הַסַּכִּין, וְאָמַר: זֹאת הַפְּגִימָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֲנִי מְכַסֶה דַּם הָעוֹפוֹת בְּרֹאשׁ הַסַּכִּין, וּכְשֶׁאֲנִי שׁוֹחֵט אֲנִי נִזְהָר שֶׁאֵינִי נוֹגֵעַ בַּפְּגִימָה, מַעֲבִירִין אוֹתוֹ. וְקָרוֹב לוֹמַר שֶׁהַכֵּלִים אֲסוּרִים.

« Previous

Introduction to Section 18

Section 23: The Laws Governing Shehiyah, the Interruption of Ritual Slaughter

Footnotes

I.e. symbols or stamps to identify the craftsman who fashioned the knife.

As the Alter Rebbe proceeds to state, if the knife did not touch the cervical spine, the animal is definitely considered a neveilah because the knife must have become blemished on the hide. Therefore, we know that the animal was slaughtered with an unacceptable knife.

Were the knife to have been blemished by the hide, the animal would definitely be categorized as a neveilah, because it would have been slaughtered with a blemished knife.

Chulin 10a, Pesachim 9a, et al.

See note 18 below.

See Yoreh Deah 18.

See Toras HaBayis HaAruch, Bayis 1, shaar 2.

See Shvus Yaakov, Vol. 2, responsum 53. See also Yam shel Shlomoh, Chulin 1:38. Other authorities give similar explanations.

Avodah Zarah 7a.

10.

See Yam shel Shlomoh, Chulin 1:38. The implication is that theoretically, the more lenient ruling could be favored. However, because a Scriptural prohibition is involved, stringency is recommended.

11.

The sefek sefeika is as follows: Perhaps the knife was blemished by the cervical spine of the animal’s neck, but even if it was blemished by the hide, since the blemish is so small that a fingernail would not be caught in it, it is possible that such a small blemish does not disqualify the knife.

12.

This section is not extant in the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch. See Sifsei Kohen, Yoreh Deah 110, Klallei Sefek Sefeika, k’llal 28.

13.

Chulin 9a.

14.

The source to which the Alter Rebbe is referring is not extant.

15.

See the Shulchan Aruch of Rav Yosef Caro, Yoreh Deah 21:1.

16.

See note 7 of the introduction to this section.

17.

The Alter Rebbe is explaining that the following compounded doubt exists when the knife is found to have a small blemish: Perhaps the blemish on the knife touched the windpipe immediately after the slaughter of the fowl was completed – i.e., after the majority of the windpipe was slit. However, even if we say that the blemished portion of the knife came in contact with the windpipe just as the slaughter was completed, i.e., just as the majority of the windpipe was slit, perhaps the blemish is not significantly large enough to render the knife invalid.

18.

See the Shulchan Aruch of Rav Yosef Caro, Yoreh Deah 21:1.

19.

This section is not extant in the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch. See the Shulchan Aruch of Rav Yosef Caro, Yoreh Deah, 21:5; see also Alter Rebbe’s introduction to section 18.

20.

Shevuos 34b.

21.

See the Alter Rebbe’s responsa, responsum 7, where he discusses this issue.

22.

Running the knife back-and-forth counts as two examinations. Thus, running the knife back and forth over one’s finger counts as two examinations, and doing so over one’s fingernail counts as another two examinations. Performing these four checks on each of the knife’s three surfaces amounts to twelve examinations for a given knife.

23.

As mentioned in the introduction to this section above, this verse serves as the prooftext for the obligation to examine a knife before slaughtering with it.

24.

This section is not extant in the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch.

25.

I.e., the side he does not usually use.

26.

Chulin 17b.

27.

See the introduction to this section.

28.

See the Kuntreis Acharon (note 7), where the Alter Rebbe explains why, after the fact, the animal is deemed kosher.

29.

See subsection 1, above.

31.

It should be noted that Tevuos Shor (sec. 18, note 31), questions whether to rule leniently in this manner.

32.

See K’llal 20:15.

33.

As quoted in subsection 13, Kuntreis Acharon (note 8).

34.

The Alter Rebbe is referring to the ruling in this subsection.

35.

See note 14, above.

36.

See note 25, below.

37.

See note 53 to that section.

38.

See Rashba, Vol. 1, responsum 594.

39.

See the Kuntreis Acharon (note 5) to sec. 2.
The Alter Rebbe uses the word poshei’a, which has two meanings. It can either mean someone who was negligent, or it can mean someone who willfully transgresses a prohibition. In this note, we have translated the word poshei’a as “negligent” because the shochet does not exhibit any irreverence. Thus, he is not considered to be a transgressor, but rather someone who is negligent. However, as reflected in the Kuntreis Acharon (note 5) to sec. 2, this negligence could lead to his transgressing. Therefore, there are grounds for referring to him with the term poshei’a.

40.

Kiddushin 32a. The Alter Rebbe also mentions this concept in his Choshen Mishpat (Hilchos Metziah UFikadon, subsection 35).

41.

See Kuntreis Acharon (note 9).

42.

See Kuntreis Acharon (note 9), where the Alter Rebbe discusses the opinions of the various Rishonim regarding this matter.

43.

See the Alter Rebbe’s note 26, above.

I.e., by declaring the animal tereifah, the shochet suffered a financial loss because the colons from tereifah animals are less valuable than those from animals that are permitted. Similarly, we do not suspect a shochet who slaughters and sells the meat to others of selling meat from animals found to be tereifos as kosher meat, even though he loses money when an animal is discovered to be a tereifah. See Kuntreis Acharon (note 10).

47.

Bamidbar 32:22.

Sources

א.

בהגהותיו לשחיטות ובדיקות מהר"י ווייל ד"ה האידנא נוהגים.

ב.

ס"ק א. ש"ך ס"ק י. פר"ח ס"ק א, וסוס"י ט.

ג.

נפקא מינה לס"ס בפגימה קטנה מחגירת צפורן (כדלקמן ס"ק ג), ולענין אותו ואת בנו וכיסוי הדם (כדלקמן סי' כה ס"ק ב).

ד.

ס"ק א (שמלשון השו"ע נראה כדעת הרמב"ם פ"א הכ"ד ושאר הפוסקים, שהוא רק ספק נבילה).

ה.

כדמשמע מלשון השו"ע: ה"ז נבילה אפילו נגע כו' חיישינן כו' (הרי שבשניהם הוא רק ספק). וראה לקמן ס"ק ג (שכ"ה ברשב"א וכן משמע בש"ך), וסוף ס"ק זה (שאפשר לגרוס ולפרש בשו"ע באופן שלא תהיה משמעות זו).

ו.

קושית הרשב"א שם (על רב חסדא, שמטעם זה היה לו לאסור בספק נגע במפרקת), ומרדכי רמז תקפח (ומסיק שגם רב חסדא אוסר בזה), והגהות אשרי סי' טו (שמביא דברי המרדכי).

ז.

הוי על כל פנים ספק, אלא שאוסרים מטעם דאיכא למימר כו'.

ח.

כדלקמן קו"א ס"ק ז (הטעם שאוסרים בנמצא הסכין פגומה, דהוי תרתי לריעותא נגד העמד סכין על חזקתה), וש"נ. וראה פס"ד צ"צ רח, ב. חלקת יעקב יו"ד סי' ג ס"ב.

ט.

גמרא שם.

י.

רב הונא ט, א. ש"ך ס"ק ב.

יא.

הציונים דלקמן הן להוכיח שסוברים פוסקים אלו, שהעור מצוי לפגום הסכין ולא הבשר (ומזה לומד רבנו לדעתם שבזה הוי ודאי נבלה). מה שאין כן לדעת הרא"ש וסיעתו, שגם העור אינו עשוי לפגום (וכיון שנמצא פגום מספקינן אם נפגם בעור או בבשר). וכן מבוארת מחלוקת זו לקמן ס"ק יח-ט, וקו"א ס"ק ב וס"ק ז-ח. וראה דברי נחמיה אהע"ז סי' ב (ה, ג). עצי ברושים סי' ח. ביאורי הלכות ס"ק ו.

יב.

בדפי חדושי הרשב"א דפוס אמשטרדם תע"ה. והיינו בדפי הגמרא ח, ב ד"ה הא דאמרינן (שאין הבשר מצוי לפגום. וכדלקמן סוף ס"ק כב).

יג.

בדפי הגמרא י, א ד"ה מתיב (מוכיח שבין לרב הונא ובין לרב חסדא מצוי שהעור יפגום הסכין).

יד.

בדפי הגמרא י, ב סד"ה והילכתא (בספק נגע במפרקת יש מקום לומר שמסתמא נפגם מהעור).

טו.

שם ד"ה כמאן וד"ה כללא (שלדידן עצם המפרקת אינו מצוי לפגום יותר מעור. הרי שהעור מצוי לפגום). וראה לקמן ס"ק ג (שהציון כאן לרשב"א הוא גם לענין העמד סכין על חזקתה, והיינו ברשב"א י, א ד"ה השוחט. י, ב ד"ה ומיהו).

טז.

רמז תקפח, בשם רבנו ברוך (שבספק נגע במפרקת אף רב חסדא מודה שמסתמא נפגם מהעור).

יז.

פ"ק סי' טו (שהעתיק דברי המרדכי הנ"ל).

יח.

ראה לקמן ס"ק יח, ההוכחה שהר"ן ס"ל בזה כהרשב"א, שהעור מצוי לפגום הסכין (דאזיל בזה לשיטתו ממה שהובא ממנו לעיל סי' א קו"א ס"ק ה). וכ"ה לקמן קו"א ס"ק ז.

יט.

לקמן (ואולי תיבת לקמן, דלעיל, שייכת לכאן) ס"ק יח.

כ.

שלא כפי שהובא לעיל מהש"ך (שמ"ש בשו"ע ה"ז נבילה פירושו ספק), אלא: ה"ז נבילה (ודאי, כשלא נגע במפרקת), [ו]אפילו נגע במפרקת כו' חיישינן (ספק נבלה).

כא.

סי' טו, ובשו"ת כלל כ סי' טו (שלא מצוי שהעור יפגום).

כב.

ס"ק יח (שהרא"ש אזיל בזה לשיטתו ממה שהובא ממנו לעיל סי' א קו"א ס"ק ה). וקו"א ס"ק ב וס"ק ז-ח.

כג.

שאין טעם לתלות בעור יותר מבשר.

כד.

בהקדמה להל' אסור והיתר ראש ב גרגיר ד (כשנמצא הסכין פגום לאחר שחיטה יש מקום לומר דהוי ס"ס, שמא במפרקת נפגם ושמא במיעוט בתרא נפגם).

כה.

דין יג.

כו.

תורת הבית הארוך בית א שער ב (יג, א).

כז.

סי' כד.

כח.

ח"ב סי' נג. וראה שו"ת צ"צ סוס"י כו. סי' כז אות א. סי' רלט ד"ה ול"ד. סי' רנו (ח, ד). פס"ד צ"צ מ, ג. נב, סע"ב. רח, ב.

ראה ש"ך ס"ק ד.

ע"ז ז, א.

ביש"ש סי' לח.

ביצה ג, ב.

ס"ק ב.

י, ב ד"ה והילכתא (הובא לקמן קו"א ס"ק ב, שגם בזה מתיר רב חסדא, אלא דלא קיי"ל כוותיה בזה, וא"כ נראה דהוי ספיקא).

לה.

ס"ק א (דקאי על השו"ע דמיירי בספק נגע במפרקת, וכותב דהוי ספק נבלה).

לו.

סימן זה בשוע"ר לא הגיע לידינו, וראה ש"ך שם בכללי ס"ס דין כח. לעיל או"ח סי' תלג קו"א ס"ק ו וס"ק יד. לקמן קו"א ס"ק ח (דיבור הראשון). סי' כג סוף ס"ק יא וס"ק יב (ד"ה ולפי זה), וס"ק טז. סי' כד ס"ק מז.

לז.

גמרא ט, א.

לח.

ראה גם לקמן סי' כד סוף ס"ק מז, שאין להתיר מטעם ס"ס נגד חזקת איסור, אלא כשיש כנגדה גם חזקת היתר.

לט.

ס"ק ב.

מ.

י, א ד"ה השוחט. י, ב ד"ה ומיהו (לענין נאבדה הסכין).

מא.

וכן ציין לשם לקמן קו"א ס"ק ח (דיבור הראשון), וסי' כג סוף ס"ק יא, וסי' כד ס"ק מז, ולא הגיע לידינו. וראה רמ"א סי' א סוף ס"א. ט"ז ס"ק ו. ועד"ז צויין לשם (לתוכן ט"ז זה) לקמן קו"א ס"ק ז, וש"נ. וראה גם לעיל סי' א קו"א סוף ס"ק ז (כמו שיתבאר לקמן).

מב.

כדלעיל ס"ק ב, שלדעת רוב הפוסקים הוי נבלה ודאית.

מג.

י, ב ד"ה סכין, ובתורת הבית הארוך בית א שער ב (טז, ב), שזהו פירוש הגמרא סכין אתרעאי בהמה לא אתרעאי.

לט"ז ס"ק ו.

בהקדמה לסי' יח.

אוצ"ל: כי זה.

וכדלקמן סי' קפז קו"א ס"ק א (ד"ה אלא ודאי), שכשאינו שקול לא מהני אפילו בס"ס, וש"נ.

מח.

שהפגימה תקרע המשהו המשלים לרובו.

מט.

סימן זה בשוע"ר לא הגיע לידינו, וראה שו"ע שם ס"ה. לעיל בהקדמה לסי' יח. לקמן סי' כד ס"ק כח.

נ.

טור ולבוש ס"ג. וראה לעיל סי' ב ס"ק ו וס"ק ט. ולענין בדיקת השוחט אם יודע הל' שחיטה, ראה לעיל סי' א ס"ק ד.

נא.

כדלקמן סי"ד.

נב.

בתורת הבית הקצר שער ב (יג, א).

נג.

ס"ק כג (וסיומו חסר שם), וש"נ.

נד.

פ"ד ה"א-ב.

נה.

שכתב כדלעיל: כאוכל נבילה.

כדלקמן ס"ט.

יז, ב.

ס"ק ג.

ס"ק ו.

ש"ך ס"ק ז.

יז, ב. ורש"י שם ד"ה שחיטתו כשרה.

סב.

שבועות לד, ב.

סג.

הגהות סמ"ק סי' קצז (ע' קפא). מרדכי רמז תקצט. ש"ך ס"ק ח.

סד.

ס"ק כד, וש"נ.

סה.

סעיף ה. ונתבאר בשו"ת רבנו סי' ז.

סו.

כסף משנה פ"א הי"ז. ט"ז ס"ק ה.

סז.

ס"ק ה.

סח.

ס"ק יג.

סט.

שמואל א יד, לד. גמרא יז, ב.

ע.

סי' כד. טור ולבוש ס"ט.

עא.

ולקמן ס"ק כד, וקו"א סוף ס"ק ה.

עב.

ס"ק יח.

עג.

בית א שער א (ו, א). ש"ך ס"ק יד. וראה גם לקמן ס"ק כד.

עד.

ס"ק יט.

עה.

סימן זה בשוע"ר לא הגיע לידינו.

עו.

לבוש כאן ס"י, וטור רס"י ו.

עז.

רש"י י, ב ד"ה כרב הונא. ש"ך ס"ק יז.

עח.

מהרי"ל הל' שחיטה (ע' תקעה, בשינויי נוסחאות). דרכי משה ס"ק ד.

עט.

ס"ק טז.

פ.

אף שאוסרים מטעם תרתי דריעותא (חזקת איסור של הבהמה וסכין פגום לפנינו), כדלקמן קו"א ס"ק ז.

פא.

מרדכי רמז תקפט בשם יש פוסקים.

יז, ב.

בהקדמה לסי' זה.

הגה"ט אות טו.

ס"א, וקו"א ס"ק ה.

י, ב ד"ה ומיהו.

(ג, ב ד"ה והיכא).

לשיטת הר"ן לענין מומחין, צ"ל שסובר כן אף לענין סכין, כמ"ש הרשב"א כו'.

פט.

י, א ד"ה מתיב. י, ב סד"ה והלכתא. וכדלעיל ס"ק ב.

צ.

והטעם דכשרה בדיעבד, יתבאר בקו"א ס"ק ז.

צא.

סי' טו. שהובא לעיל סי' א קו"א ה.

צב.

כמ"ש הרא"ש סי' ה. וכדלעיל סי' א ס"א.

צג.

כמ"ש בסי' טו, ובשו"ת כלל כ סי' טו.

צד.

ביצה ג, ב.

צה.

י, א. וכמובא לעיל קו"א ס"ק ב.

צו.

לעיל ס"א.

צז.

(ג, א) בדיבור הראשון (אזלא לה חזקת בדיקתו של סכין).

צח.

י, ב ד"ה כמאן. ותורת הבית הארוך בית ראשון שער ב (טז, ג), דבזה חיישינן להחמיר כרב חסדא.

צט.

תורת הבית הקצר בית ראשון שער ב (יד, א). ש"ך ס"ק כג.

ק.

(ב, ב) ד"ה הטבח צריך.

ס"ק ל, ובשמ"ח סט"ז.

ש"ך ס"ק כד.

ח, ב ד"ה הא דאמרינן.

בית א שער ב (טז, א).

ח, ב.

וכדלעיל ס"ק ב (שהוכיח מכאן). ולענין עור העוף, ראה לעיל קו"א ס"ק ב.

קז.

בשו"ת כלל כ סי' טו.

קח.

סעיף יג, וקו"א ס"ק ח.

קט.

י, ב ד"ה והיכא (מספק אין תולין).

קי.

שאף שבסי"ג פסק כרא"ש, הביא בסט"ו דברי הרשב"א, שלדינא מודה לו הרא"ש (מטעם ס"ס לחומרא).

קיא.

ס"ק כה (שביאר חילוק זה, אף שלא ביאר המחלוקת בין הרא"ש לרשב"א בזה).

קיב.

וס"ק כא.

קיג.

ס"ק כז.

קיד.

בית א שער א (ה, סע"ב).

קטו.

ראה לעיל ס"ט ואחר ס"ק יב. קו"א סוף ס"ק ה.

קטז.

ס"ק יד.

קיז.

סעיף יט.

קיח.

פ"א הכ"ו. וכ"ה בגמרא יח, א.

קיט.

ס"ק יא.

קכ.

שכתב זאת על מ"ש הטור מכריזין כו' (ולא על מעבירין אותו).

קכא.

סי"א, וס"ק נג.

קכב.

ראה שו"ת צ"צ סי' ג סוף אות ג.

כדלעיל שם.

שו"ת ח"א סי' תקצד.

קו"א ס"ק ה.

קידושין לב, א. שלטי הגבורים ה, א אות ג. דרכי משה ס"ק י. לקמן הל' מציאה ופקדון סל"ה.

קכז.

יח, א ד"ה נמצאת. ונתבאר בקו"א ס"ק ט.

(ה, א) ד"ה דלא.

פ"א הכ"ו.

קו"א ס"ק ט.

ס"ק כח.

הגה"ט אות כה.

סי' כד.

כן הביא בשו"ת רבנו סי' ט, מתבואות שור ס"ק לה. וכ"ה בקו"א ס"ק ט (במוסגר).

קלה.

ס"ק כו, ובקו"א ס"ק ט. וראה ביאורי הלכות.

קלו.

על כרחם (שהרי נהגו שאין מראים לחכם).

קלז.

קו"א ס"ק ט.

קלח.

סי' תק, בשם הרמב"ם בפירוש המשניות בכורות פ"ד מ"ה. וראה לעיל סי' א ס"ק יא, וקו"א שם ס"ק ז.

ס"ק לא.

ס"ק יד.

ס"ק ל.

ס"ק לז.

מד, ב.

במדבר לב, כב.

סכ"א וס"ק לו.

Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi (18 Elul 1745-24 Tevet 1812), known as "the Alter Rebbe," was one of the main disciples of the Maggid of Mezritch, and the founder of the Chabad Chassidism. He is the author of Shulchan Aruch HaRav and Tanya as well as many other major works in both Jewish law and the mystical teachings.

Translated by Eliyahu Touger and Sholom B Wineberg.

The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.

Section 18: The Laws Applying to a [Slaughtering] Knife and Its Inspection

More in this section

Start a Discussion

More in this section

You may also be interested in...

Start a Discussion