SECTION 23 The Laws Governing Shehiyah, the Interruption of Ritual Slaughter (1-6)
סימן כג דִּינֵי שְׁהִיָּה בִּשְׁחִיטָה וּבוֹ ו' סְעִיפִים
1
(1) The laws of ritual slaughter –
“See sec. 1:2 regarding what [a shochet] must know” (Sifsei Kohen, [Yoreh Deah 23:1]). Darchei Moshe, [Yoreh Deah 23:1] makes a similar statement. Their statements imply that this law applies even in the present age, in contrast to the statements of Tevuos Shor [sec. 1, note 11, who rules far more stringently].1
It is forbidden to partake of [the animals or fowl] slaughtered by any shochet who does not know the laws of ritual slaughter. (1) Theseare [the fundamental activities that disqualify ritual slaughter]: shehiyah ‒ interrupting [the slaughter], derasah ‒ pressing [the knife against the animal’s neck during the slaughter], chaladah ‒ concealing [the knife under either of the simanim, i.e. under the windpipe or the gullet in the course of an inverted slaughter,] hagramah ‒ diverting [the knife from the place of slaughter],and ikur ‒ ripping [the simanim from their original place before cutting them].
אכָּל טַבָּח שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ הִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה (א) אָסוּר לֶאֱכֹל מִשְּׁחִיטָתוֹ, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: שְׁהִיָּה, דְּרָסָה, חֲלָדָה, הַגְרָמָה וְעִקּוּר.
Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch (SIE)
The new layout – with the original text and the facing translation – provides a unique user-friendly approach to studying the Alter Rebbe’s work. An inclusive commentary provides insightful explanations and guidelines for actual practice.
2
(2) Lifted up –
The same law applies if the shochet did not lift [the knife,] but interrupted in some other way. Lifting up the knife] is mentioned only because this is the most common [type of interruption] (Sifsei Kohen, [Yoreh Deah 23:2]).
Nevertheless, [the slaughter is disqualified only if the shochet] ceased [the act of] slaughtering (Maharshal, [Yam shel Shlomoh, Yoreh Deah 2:15]; Turei Zahav, [Yoreh Deah 23:2]), i.e., he [lifted up his hand while] drawing [the knife] back and forth over the simanim. However, if [the shochet continued] drawing the knife back-and-forth over the simanim, but did not slit anything, e.g., because the knife was dull, this is not considered an interruption at all2 since he is involved in slitting the simanim and [is in the process of] drawing the knife back-and-forth over the simanim to slit them (Rashi, [Chulin 32a]; Rabbeinu Nissim [Chulin 7b]).
[By contrast,] lifting up the knife even slightly – [i.e., raising it] so it does not actually touch the simanim – although [the shochet] continues drawing it back and forth over the neck, is considered an interruption, as will be explained below.3 (Perhaps this is the reason that [Rav Yosef Caro] mentions “lifting up his hand” [in his] Shulchan Aruch, because this is a clear-cut situation that is always considered an interruption.)
Furthermore, it is possible to say that [Rav Yosef Caro] mentioned a clear-cut instance because it is common practice [for the shochet] to press the knife on the [animal’s] neck slightly when [the knife] is not very sharp. [Nevertheless,] as long as he is drawing it back and forth [over the animal’s neck], it is not considered derasah, [pressing the knife against the organs], thereby disqualifying [the slaughter]. However, if [the shochet] ceases [drawing the knife back and forth], even for a moment, it is deemed derasah. [In such an instance, the slaughter] is disqualified, even if the tiniest portion [of the gullet or the tiniest portion of the windpipe that causes the greater portion of the windpipe to have been slit is cut by pressing the knife on the organ], as will be stated at the beginning of sec. [24:1, note 2]. Therefore, [the shochet] must lift up his hand slightly so that it will not remain pressing on the [animal’s] neck even slightly.
This leads to a difference in actual practice even according to our [custom, which is to rule leniently when there is merely a doubt regarding whether the shochet interrupted the slaughter.4 In an instance] where there is a doubt as to whether the shochet interrupted his slaughter even slightly, one should not rule leniently unless he was certainly careful not to press the knife [even] slightly without moving it back-and-forth. [Only when] the doubt is whether [the shochet interrupted the slaughter by] lifting up the knife slightly or [whether] he continued the back-and-forth motion without interrupting at all [is leniency granted].
(3) If the interruption is long enough that … and (until [i.e., also including the time it takes to]) slit the greater portion of the simanim –
This is the proper version [of the text].5
In Chulin, ch. 2, it is taught6 that, “the measure of a disqualifying interruption is the time it takes to slaughter another [animal or fowl].” The Talmud6 clarifies this, stating:
Rav said, “[The measure of a disqualifying interruption is as follows:] The time necessary to slaughter an animal is the measure of the length of an interruption for an animal. The time it takes to slaughter a fowl [is the measure that disqualifies the slaughter of] a fowl.”7
Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan said, “[The time it takes] to slaughter an animal is the measure [that disqualifies even the slaughter of] a fowl.” Rabbi Yossi b’Rabbi Chanina said, “For a large [animal, the measure is[ the amount of time it takes to lift up a large [animal], lay it back down and slaughter it. For a small [animal, the measure is the amount of time it takes to do so] for a small [animal],” (i.e., the measure of time [of a disqualifying] interruption for a small animal is the time it takes to slaughter a small animal similar to it).8
Rashi6 states, “Although [generally when there is a difference of opinion between] Rav and Rabbi Yochanan, the halachah follows Rabbi Yochanan, [in this instance,] since Rabbi Yossi b’Rabbi Chanina ruled according to Rav’s opinion, saying, ‘for a small [animal, the measure is the amount of time it takes to do so] for a small [animal],’ we see that for a fowl, [the measure is the amount of time it takes to do so] for a fowl, we rule stringently.”
Nevertheless, Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi9 and Rambam10 maintain that Rabbi Yossi b’Rabbi Chanina does not differ from Rabbi Yochanan and Shmuel. [The latter Sages] who say that [the length of an interruption that invalidates the slaughter of an animal is the amount of time it takes to slaughter] an animal maintain that this applies to a fowl as well. [However,] even though we consider the measure of [time it takes to slaughter] an animal [to be the length of an invalidating interruption when slaughtering] a fowl, we do not consider the measure of [time it takes to slaughter] a large [animal to be the length of an invalidating interruption] for a small [animal]. The rationale is that it is a halachah LeMoshe MiSinai, a law transmitted to Moshe at Sinai, that [the length of a disqualifying] interruption is no less than the time it takes to slaughter an animal which – to be kosher – requires [slitting] both simanim. This is a complete slaughter. By contrast, the slaughter of a fowl is not [necessarily] deemed a complete slaughter [in this context] because [the slaughter of a fowl] is acceptable even if only one of the simanim is slit.11
It is also a halachah LeMoshe MiSinai that [we determine the length of an invalidating interruption when slaughtering an animal] by measuring [the amount of time it takes to] slaughter a similar animal – i.e., [we look at the amount of time it takes to slaughter] a large [animal when determining the length of time considered an invalidating interruption] for a large [animal] and [the amount of time it takes to slaughter] a small [animal when determining the length of time considered an invalidating interruption] for a small [animal. However, the duration of an interruption that disqualifies the slaughter of] a fowl cannot be measured by [the amount of time it takes to slaughter a different fowl] similar to it [in size,] because [as mentioned above, the slaughter of a fowl] is not [necessarily] considered a complete slaughter.12 [Therefore, the duration of an interruption in its slaughter] is measured according to the [average amount of] time [it takes to slaughter] a small animal (see Yam shel Shlomoh, [Chulin 2:14]).
The Talmud’s statement6 that Rabbi Yochanan and Shmuel maintain, “[The time it takes toslaughter] an animal is the measure [that disqualifies even the slaughter of] a fowl,” must thus be interpreted as referring to a small animal. [The time it takes to slaughter it] is [the minimal duration of a disqualifying interruption when slaughtering] a fowl. The reason [Rabbi Yochanan and Shmuel] did not explicitly state this is that they were only clarifying [that the law] does not follow Rav, who maintains that, “[the time it takes to slaughter] a fowl is the measure [of time that disqualifies the slaughter of] a fowl.” However, they were not intent on mentioning all the details [regarding] the measure [of time] necessary for [a disqualifying] interruption. Therefore, they also did not mention the measure of “the time it takes to lift [an animal] up and lay it back down.”
However, it is possible to say that according to Rashi – who maintains that Rabbi Yossi b’Rabbi Chanina and Rabbi Yochanan differ, they also differ regarding “the time it takes to lift [an animal] up and lay it back down,” that Rabbi Yossi b’Rabbi Chanina mentions. [Hence, it is possible that Rashi understands that] although Rabbi Yochanan rules more leniently than Rabbi Yossi b’Rabbi Chanina and maintains that [the amount of time it takes to slaughter] a fowl is [the minimum length of a disqualifying interruption when slaughtering] an animal, he [nevertheless] does not include, “the time it takes to lift [an animal] up and lay it down.” Rav and Shmuel follow that same approach [as is evident from the fact that] they did not mention lifting up [an animal or fowl] and laying [it] down.
In practice, we rule stringently, following Rashi’s approach. Sefer Mitzvos Gadol rules in this manner as well, quoting the author of Halachos Gedolos. Sefer Mitzvos Kattan, Mordechai, and Hagahos Maimonios also ruled this way. This is the second opinion mentioned [by Rav Yosef Caro] in his Shulchan Aruch. As he explains in his Beis Yosef, with regard to practice, he gives weight to that opinion.
Nevertheless, citing Rabbeinu Nissim, Rama writes in his Darchei Moshe (Yoreh Deah 23:2), that we do not calculate the [the amount of time considered as a disqualifying interruption] by including only [the amount of time it takes] to slit the simanim. [Rather, we] also [include the amount of time it takes] to slit the hide. [The rationale for this is that] it was conveyed [by the Oral Tradition] that [the length of a disqualifying interruption] is the time it takes to slaughter an animal in the normal manner, in which instance, [the shochet] slits the hide first.
Rama also intended [to make this point] by adding the word ad, “until” [in his notes on Rav Yosef Caro’s Shulchan Aruch, i.e., “until he slit the greater portion of the simanim.” Rama’s intent is that] the amount [of time considered to be a disqualifying interruption] does not only include [the amount of time it takes to slit] the majority of the simanim, but rather [it is the time it takes to slit] the hide and the greater portion of the simanim. Needless to say, the measure includes [the time it takes to slit] the entire greater [portion] of the simanim. This differs with the view of [Sefer] HaAgudah, which maintains that the measure of time [of an interruption that disqualifies the slaughter of a fowl] is the amount of time it takes to complete the slitting of the small portion of the windpipe that differentiates between its minor portion being slit and its major portion being slit.13 Therefore, that text states that [because] slitting one siman is sufficient for the slaughter of a fowl, [a fowl’s slaughter] is disqualified after the slightest interruption according to law.
The halachah does not follow this view even according to [the second] opinion mentioned [by Rav Yosef Caro] in [his] Shulchan Aruch [which begins with the words yesh omrim]. That opinion states that the length of a [disqualifying] interruption for a fowl is very brief. However, it does not state that even the slightest [interruption disqualifies it]. Nevertheless, the custom is to disqualify [the slaughter of a fowl] for even the slightest [interruption. This goes beyond what] the law [requires].
Similarly, [when calculating the length of this interruption,] we do not measure the amount of time it takes to slit the greater portion of the simanim when they are held together and laid down one next to the other, in which instance, they are both slit at the same time. If [that were how we were to determin] the length of [a disqualifying] interruption, [such an interruption] would only be the amount of time it takes to slit the greater portion of one [siman]. Instead, [the length of the interruption is defined] as the [the amount of time it takes to slit the simanim when the] organs are attached in the body, in which instance, the windpipe is closer to the hide and is slit first. See subsection 4 [below]. This rationale follows Rabbeinu Nissim’s [opinion, presented in his commentary on Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi (Chulin 7b)], that [when defining] the length of time [it takes to] slaughter [an animal, we look at how long it takes] one [who] follows the ordinary practice [when slaughtering].
Darchei Moshe, [Yoreh Deah 23:2], quoting Rashba [Vol. 1, responsum 116,] writes that [when calculating the amount of time it takes to slaughter,] we do not include the [amount of] time it takes to pull out the feathers from a fowl [to prepare the place for slaughter] or the time it takes to pull out hair from an animal [to prepare the place for its slaughter], only the amount of time [it takes for] the actual slaughter.
(4) For slaughter to be acceptable –
Although we rule leniently and [include] the amount of time it takes to lay the animal down [in the minimal length of time considered as a disqualifying interruption], that is because laying the animal down is a necessary element of the process of shechitah, since it is impossible to slaughter [an animal] unless one [first] lays it down. However, after one slit the larger portion of the simanim, the amount of time for the slaughter to be acceptable has been completed (Rabbeinu Asher, [Chulin 2:9]).
One should not take [further] leniencies and measure [the amount of time it takes to slaughter an animal] according to the knife that one used to slaughter and the person slaughtering – i.e., [even] if the knife is inferior and blunt and the shochet is weak-handed and [thus] delays [when] slaughtering, [the measure is not prolonged]. Instead, we measure [according to the average time it takes to slaughter an animal], calculating that most knives are appropriate for slaughter and most shochtim are agile in their slaughter (Simlah Chadashah, [sec. 23:3]). This can also be inferred from subsection 4 below.
(5) Without lifting it up or laying it [back] down –
[According to this opinion,] for an animal, [the amount of time for a disqualifying interruption would be the time it takes to slit] the greater portion of both [simanim] without lifting the animal up and laying it down. [Nevertheless, Rav Yosef Caro] mentions a fowl [in his Shulchan Aruch] because slitting the greater portion of one siman in a fowl is accomplished very quickly. Therefore, “one must be [particularly] careful,” as [that text] concludes. [He] also mentions [this point] in [his] Beis Yosef.
(6) [Causing] blood to flow –
Maharik [responsum 34] and Maharshal, [Yam Shel Shlomoh (Chulin 2:14),] state that it is only when blood actually flows that we suspect that the gullet may have been perforated. However, Beis Yosef writes that [the Rabbis] were speaking about what ordinarily happens. [However,] even if blood does not flow, we are [still] concerned that [the knife] encountered the gullet since he cut all the skin of a fowl, because [a fowl’s] skin is thin and it is impossible to distinguish between cutting it entirely and cutting a portion of it, as stated later in this section (Turei Zahav, [Yoreh Deah 23:8]). This is also the opinion of all the later authorities (Sifsei Kohen, [Yoreh Deah 23:4]).
(7) From the gullet –
Although the windpipe is [the siman that is] closest to the hide, there are times when the gullet is also [brought] close to the hide because of [the way the shochet] holds the simanim.
Regarding the windpipe, all authorities agree that [the laws regarding] making an interruption do not apply [when slitting] the smaller portion, since this is similar to an instance of a blemish in half of the windpipe, as stated above, at the end of sec. 21.14 By contrast, there is the possibility of a [disqualifying] interruption being made when slitting the first, lesser portion of the gullet, because [the gullet is disqualified] when there is even the slightest perforation.15 However, the windpipe [is disqualified only when] its major portion is cut [by a means other than ritual slaughter], as will be stated below [in] sec. 3416 (Sifsei Kohen, Yoreh Deah 23:11).
(8) Blood –
However, if blood did not flow, and [the shochet] says, “I am certain [that I did not touch the gullet],” all authorities agree that his word may be relied on. Note what is written below, [in] subsection 6.17
(9) Examine it –
Note the explanation of this law and all its details, which is stated below.18
(10) First –
This is the fundamental [opinion] according to [Rav Yosef Caro in his] Beis Yosef, because it is the position of Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi [in his Halachos, Chulin 7a,] and Rambam, [Hilchos Shechitah 3:3], who are the fundamental pillars of instruction in [his text]. Therefore, [Rav Yosef Caro] relied on them and ruled leniently in the instance of a severe financial loss even though [in general, the fact that there is] a difference of opinion among the Rabbis is [a sufficient cause for leniency] only when [there is a question regarding] a Rabbinical [safeguard. By contrast, when the issue concerns a Scriptural prohibition – as in the case at hand – even in an instance involving a severe financial loss, the general rule is not to grant leniency]. (See Toras Chatas, Introduction.)
(11) One should not deviate [from this practice] –
[This applies] even when a severe financial loss is involved (Sifsei Kohen, [Yoreh Deah 23:7]). Bach, [Yoreh Deah 23] writes that the rationale for this stringency – which is followed in these regions in accordance with Rav Yaakov Weil’s [ruling in his] Hilchos Shechitah – is that we rule according to the approach of Rashi and those who share his reasoning, who maintain that the length of a [disqualifying] interruption is the amount of time it takes to slit the larger portion of the simanim without [including the time it takes] to lift up [the animal] and lay [it] back down. If so, this is a minimal amount of time, even with regard to a large or small [animal], and needless to say with regard to a fowl. Accordingly, it has become the widespread custom to disqualify [even] the slightest interruption, even when a severe financial loss is involved, because we are not knowledgeable enough to define the measure [of the interruption] so precisely.
Turei Zahav, [Yoreh Deah] 20[:7,] writes that the reason for the custom of [accepting] this stringency is that it is a decree, [instituted as safeguard,] lest one make a prolonged interruption. For this reason, in these regions, a distinction is not made between a prolonged interruption and a minimal one. Therefore, one should not rule stringently [and forbid the meat when the shochet made a minimal interruption while slaughtering] unless he lifted up his knife even slightly. [The rationale is that] since [the shochet] removed [the knife] from the [animal’s] neck, [we disqualify the slaughter as] a decree. [We forbid an instance when the knife] was lifted up and a minimal interruption was made because [we want to prevent the possibility that] a lengthy interruption will be made [when he lifts up the knife a different time]. However, if [the shochet] did not lift up [the knife] at all [while he was slaughtering, but] instead, he merely moved the knife from place to place, [the slaughter] is acceptable even according to our custom [of disqualifying the slaughter when the shochet made even the slightest interruption]. This is evident from sec 21,19 above, [which discusses a shochet] who slits [one of the simanim] in two or three places. It is a [common,] day-to-day practice to accept [such a slaughter,] because such a decree is not appropriate in this situation. These are the comments of Turei Zahav in that source. [Turei Zahav makes similar statements] in this section, [23:2].
Nevertheless, [for the animal to be disqualified,] it is not necessary for [the shochet] to have lifted up the knife. The same law applies even if he did not lift it up, but [merely] ceased slitting [the simanim] and tarried briefly, as Turei Zahav writes in this section in the name of Maharshal [Yam shel Shlomoh, Chulin 2:15]. However, if the knife was moved from place to place [on the simanim], it is not considered ceasing [or interrupting] the slaughter. On the contrary, [the shochet] is involved in the slaughter when he pushes [the knife in this manner. The rationale is that this is not a disqualifying interruption since] he pushes his hand to another place to complete the slaughter there, [without] lifting up [the knife] to interrupt the slaughter. [The shochet] is considered [to have] ceased slaughtering only when his hand rests in one place briefly, and is not occupied in the [process of] slaughtering at all. In such a situation, there is reason to issue a decree [as a safeguard,] lest one make a prolonged interruption. However, when one’s hand moves [from one] place to [another] to complete the slaughter there, there are no grounds for a decree lest one make a prolonged interruption because making a prolonged interruption in such a manner is not common at all. (If [moving the knife] in such a manner would occur, it would be considered an interruption even if [the shochet] was [continuously] involved in the slaughter, since [this] is not the manner in which one slaughters – i.e., drawing the knife back and forth over the simanim to slit them, as stated above.20)
However, Sifsei Kohen, [Yoreh Deah] 21[:3] writes with regard to the law concerning a person who slits [the simanim] in two or three places that, according to our practice, it is necessary that the shochet not interrupt [the slaughter] for even the slightest amount of time. He does not accept the distinction between lifting up the knife and not lifting it up. With regard to actual practice, [since the matter concerns] an issue of Rabbinic Law, the more lenient opinion should be followed. Certainly, this applies in the present [instance, where] merely [the observance of] a custom is involved.
Similarly, if there is doubt as to whether the slightest interruption was made, one should not be stringent at all (Simlah Chadashah, [23:6]). When there is doubt as to whether one made an interruption long enough to slit the majority of both simanim without lifting up and laying down the animal, one may rule leniently if a severe financial loss is involved. [The rationale is that in this instance there is the following] compounded doubt: perhaps [the shochet] did not interrupt [the slaughter], and even if one would say that he did interrupt the slaughter, perhaps the halachah follows the approach of those who maintain that [a disqualifying interruption must include the time it takes to] lift up and lay down an animal, as Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi and Rambam maintain. However, if a serious financial loss is not involved, one should not rule leniently. [The rationale is that] according to Rashi and those who follow his approach, Rav, Shmuel, and Rabbi Yochanan [all] differ with the opinion of Rabbi Yossi b’Rabbi Chanina who maintains that [the time it takes to] lift up and lay down [an animal should be included in the measure of a disqualifying interruption]. The halachah follows the majority view.
When, however, there is a question about whether an interruption made while slaughtering a fowl took the amount of time it takes to slit the majority of a fowl’s simanim, but it was certain that [the shochet] did not delay the amount of time it takes to slit the majority of the simanim of a large animal together with its hide, one may rule leniently even if a severe financial loss is not involved. [The rationale is that] even Rashi and those who follow his approach [rule stringently merely] because of a doubt [regarding whose opinion the halachah follows.] Generally, when there is a difference of opinion between Rav and Rabbi Yochanan, the halachah follows Rabbi Yochanan. It is only because Rabbi Yossi b’Rabbi Chanina follows Rav’s approach that we rule stringently [in an instance where the shochet certainly interrupted]. Hence, [when there is a doubt as to whether the interruption was even a lesser amount of time, as long as it takes just to slit the majority of a fowl’s simanim,] there is a compounded doubt involved.21 Therefore, [in this instance, the fowl] is permitted even though generally there is an established presumption that it is forbidden [unless it is known to have been slaughtered properly], as stated in section 1[:1, note 5] above.
When, however, there is doubt whether [the shochet] made an interruption [that is long enough so] that all authorities would agree that it disqualifies [the slaughter], Rambam and those who follow his approach deem [the status of the slaughtered animal to be] questionable [regarding] whether or not it is a neveilah, while Rashba and those that follow his approach, [see] sec. 1 above, maintain that [the animal] is definitely [classified as] a neveilah. True, most schochtim slaughter without making an interruption and [the mandate to follow the practice of] the majority is of greater halachic strength than a chazakah,22 an existing presumption. [In this instance, the existing presumption is that an animal is forbidden until it is known to have been slaughtered properly.] Nevertheless, [in this instance we rule stringently, since] this majority [is one] that is dependent upon [the performance of] an action, [and, as such, it is not considered a factor to be taken into consideration when issuing a halachic ruling]. This follows the ruling stated below in sec. 25[:2] in the name of Rashba23 with regard to an instance where [after being slaughtered, an animal] was not examined [to see whether the larger portions of] the simanim [were slit and thus,] there is doubt as to whether the major [portion] was indeed slit. The same principle applies with regard to a doubt [as to] whether the shochet interrupted [the slaughter,] as is evident from Yevamos 30b, [concerning which Rashba states that we say to the one who desires to rule leniently,] “It is your responsibility to bring proof that the action [that would release the prohibition] was performed.” [In this instance, that refers to the shochet’s] drawing [the knife] back-and-forth continuously, without an interruption in between, as stated in sec. 1, [note 23].
(12) [That suffices to render the animal] tereifah –
The source for this ruling is Terumas HaDeshen [responsum 185]. This is the wording [in that source]:
Question: [A person] slaughtered a goose. After the slaughter, he found a soft and round bulrush reed stuck [in the gullet of the goose], its length aligned with the length of the gullet. The windpipe and the gullet were slit effectively. Is [the goose] kosher or not?
Response: It appears that one should not rule that this slaughter is kosher at all. [The rationale for this stringent] ruling is that the slightest interruption in the slaughter of the fowl [disqualifies it], just as its slaughter [can be completed in the slightest amount of time], for [even] if one found half the windpipe blemished and added [only] the slightest measure [by slitting it further, the slaughter] is kosher.
In the instance at hand, it is impossible to complete the slaughter without making [at least] a slight interruption, because when [the shochet] cuts the reed, he interrupts slitting the siman. Even if he was involved in slaughtering the entire time and drew [the knife] back and forth until he completed [the slaughter], nevertheless, he is considered to have interrupted the slaughter in such an instance.
There is a straightforward proof of this from the chapter entitled Hashochet, [Chulin 32a], “What is the law when [a shochet] makes an interruption when slitting the lesser portion of the simanim?”24 The fundamental interpretation is that the question [concerns an instance] when [the shochet] slaughtered an animal with a dull knife, and after slitting the major portion of one siman, he took a long time – an amount of time sufficient to be considered an interruption – in slitting the lesser portion of that siman before beginning to slit the second siman.
[The Talmud is asking] whether the delay in slitting the lesser portion of the first siman is considered equivalent to interrupting [the slaughter] by cutting off the animal’s foreleg or hindleg [in which instance, the slaughter is disqualified] (as mentioned in subsection 4, [below]). The Talmud leaves the matter unresolved. Thus, we see that even though [the shochet] is constantly occupied in the slaughter and is continually drawing [the knife] back and forth, if he delays by cutting a portion [of the simanim that are] not required for slaughter, it is considered an interruption [in the process of slaughtering the animal]. How much more so does this apply regarding slitting the reed that is not even part of the animal’s body!
If one would ask: Who says that [the shochet] made an interruption by slitting the reed? Maybe he slit the gullet and the reed simultaneously, at the same time, in one even motion? If so, the slitting of the siman [with the knife] was not interrupted for even one moment.
It appears that we are forced to say that this was not the situation. [The rationale is that] the siman is extended [and taut] at the time of slaughter. [By contrast,] the reed is not extended because it is not attached to the [animal’s] jaw and body. As is well known, whenever the blade of a knife comes in contact with an entity that is soft and extended, it will be cut much faster than if it was not extended. Therefore, [in this instance,] since the reed is also soft, [but] not extended [as the simanim are], we are forced [to say], that the blade of the knife delayed [when] cutting [the reed] more than it did when cutting the simanim. Thus, [the gullet and the reed] were not slit in one even motion.
[Terumas HaDeshen’s] intent is that something that is soft and not extended [i.e., pulled taut,] will be pushed and bent downward and to the sides due to [the pressure of] the knife when it encounters [the soft substance]. This is not the case with a firm entity, even though it is not extended, and will also be pushed downward and to the sides. However, when [the firm substance] reaches the back of the siman, and the knife cuts it there, it will be cut in one even motion together with the walls of the siman that are opposite it at the back [of the siman]. Even though the walls of the siman are soft and extended, they will not be slit quickly since the firm entity opposite them slows down the knife. Even if this entity is very thin, nevertheless, if it was not slit when the walls of the siman were slit, but was pushed down to the back of the siman because of the knife, still when the knife reaches the back of the siman and presses against the firm entity and slits it, [the back of the siman which is soft will wrap around the firm entity. Thus, [the back of the siman] will be like a wall surrounding the firm entity and [the entity and the siman] will be slit in one even motion. Accordingly, [the shochet] will not have interrupted [the animal’s slaughter for even] one moment by cutting the firm entity alone without cutting part of the siman together with it.
By contrast, when a soft entity will be pushed down to the back of the siman, even if it is not very thin, it will not be slit in one even motion with the walls of the siman that are opposite it at the bottom [of the siman], for the skin [of the siman] is extended, [i.e., pulled taut,] and will be cut first, while [this entity] is soft and not [pulled taut]. Therefore, [the soft substance] will be bent slightly under the knife when it encounters [the soft substance. The soft substance will] also [be pushed] to the sides and will not be slit until after [the sides of the siman] are slit.
[Moreover,] even when [this entity] is slit, the back of the siman will not bend upwards at all while the entity is being slit so that [the siman] could serve as walls surrounding [that entity. Since the foreign entity] is soft, when it is slit with the knife, the entire siman will already have been slit except for the bottom of the siman where [this entity] is lodged. Thus, slitting [the soft foreign entity] will interrupt between slitting the [two parts of the] siman, i.e., between slitting the skin [and the front] of the siman at the bottom of the siman, because where [the entity] is lodged, it is blocking the back of the siman and causing it to be cut at the end. Thus, an interruption will have been made [when slitting the siman]. In light of our custom to rule an animal as tereifah if any interruption [was made when slaughtering, even one made when slitting] the second portion of the siman [which is] slit [after the minimum requirement for slaughter has been met], as will be stated in [Rama’s] note to sec. 5, [the interruption described here is sufficient to disqualify the slaughter]. This is Rama’s intent [here], in stating, “after he slit the siman,” i.e., [after he slit] the entire siman with the exception of the place where the reed lodged at the back [of the siman] which was slit after the entire siman was slit.
Even though when one draws [the knife] back-and-forth over the simanim, even [if he does so] for the entire day, it is not considered an interruption25 – although he did not slit anything, i.e., when the knife was dull – provided his intent was to slit [the siman], as mentioned above.26 [This applies specifically] when the knife was actually drawn over the flesh of the siman in order to cut it and thus, was [constantly] in contact with it. However, in this instance, the reed interrupts between the knife and the back of the siman where it is lodged. All the sides of the siman had already been slit before the reed is slit. Thus, at the moment the reed was slit, the knife was not being drawn over the flesh of the siman and was not in contact with [the siman] at that moment. For this reason, Terumas HaDeshen compares the situation to one in which [a shochet] slaughters with a dull knife and interrupts [when slitting] the latter portion of the first siman, at which time, the knife is not yet in contact with the second siman.
Also, if it were the case that at the time the reed was slit, the knife was in contact with the siman while being drawn back-and-forth and did not cut it at all, [nevertheless,] it is possible that this would [still] be deemed an interruption, since [in this instance,] the knife itself is sharp, and were it not for the reed holding back [the knife], it would have then slit the siman while being drawn back-and-forth. [The rationale is that our Sages’ ruling] that drawing [the knife] back and forth while intending to slit [a siman] is not considered an [invalidating] interruption even if [the shochet] does not [actually] slit anything applies only when the knife does not cut because it is dull. However, if there is something [other than the dullness of the knife] which is preventing it from cutting – and if [this entity] were not preventing [the knife from cutting], it would cut the siman – this is deemed an interruption. [The rationale is that the knife] is being interrupted by something [that is] preventing it from cutting the siman and thus [the shochet] is occupied with something other [than slaughtering the animal]. By contrast, when one cuts with a dull knife, he is not involved in anything other than slaughtering the animal.
However, [such a situation] could not occur at all with a reed [or] any similar soft entity. [The rationale is that] when [a soft entity] is cut with a knife and [the knife] comes in contact with the siman as it cuts [the soft object], it is impossible that the siman not be cut along with it. Such a situation would apply only regarding something firm. However, even regarding a firm entity, we are not concerned regarding this and maintain that when [the shochet] cuts the firm [entity], he will not cut the siman at all. Instead, we say that the siman will be slit little by little [together] with the firm [entity]; it is just that the firm [entity] will prevent the knife from cutting the siman quickly.
The reason Terumas HaDeshen specifically mentions a fowl, even though in his era it was already customary to deem as tereifah [any slaughter that was] interrupted even slightly, even the slaughter of an animal (see [Terumas HaDeshen,] responsum 186), is that with regard to a fowl, he maintains that the slightest interruption disqualifies [the slaughter] according to the letter of the law, following the opinion of Chidushei Agudah mentioned above,27 as mentioned in Terumas HaDeshen, [responsum 185, cited above, which mentions,] “if one found half the windpipe blemished.” Similarly, [regarding slitting] the latter portion [of the siman, Terumas HaDeshen] follows Rashi’s interpretation stated in subsection 5 below, that according to the letter of the law, an interruption of [the latter portion of the siman] disqualifies [the slaughter] even of a fowl [and even if it occurred while the shochet was slitting] the second siman.28 Therefore, if a reed was found [when slaughtering a fowl,] it may not be deemed permitted because there was certainly [at least] a slight interruption made when slitting [the simanim], as Rama states and – as explained in Terumas HaDeshen, who states that “in the case at hand, it is impossible that there would not be an interruption.”
However, [different laws apply regarding the slaughter of] an animal. Since all authorities agree that a slight interruption does not disqualify the slaughter according to the letter of the law, [and such slaughter is] only [disqualified] according to custom, no greater [stringency] should be applied than [that of the original custom]. Therefore, [the slaughter of an animal] should not be disqualified except [in the instance that] was accepted as custom – i.e., an interruption that is apparent, [when an observer] can [easily] see that [the shochet] made an interruption for at least a moment. In that instance, there are grounds to [disqualify the slaughter as] a decree, lest one make a longer interruption [while slaughtering]. However, in an instance like the one at hand, when the interruption is not apparent or recognizable at all, there are no grounds to [disqualify it as] a decree lest one make a longer and recognizable interruption.
Also, it could be said – as mentioned above28 in the name of Turei Zahav – that the custom [to disqualify a slaughter when even the slightest interruption was made] applies only when [the shochet] lifted up the knife or ceased slaughtering. However, [in this instance, the shochet is not considered to have] lifted up the knife or ceased slaughtering, since it is impossible to complete slitting the siman without slitting the reed first, because it is located at the back of the siman. Thus, [the shochet] is considered as [having] been occupied with the slaughter [the entire time, as in the instance] when he slits [the siman] in two or three places, as stated above.29
We are forced to say that Rama, who stated [this rule] in general terms without specifying that it applies only to fowl, does not agree that a distinction [between a fowl and an animal] should be made. [Rama] explains that Terumas HaDeshen [specifically mentioned a fowl] because the incident [concerning which he ruled] involved a goose. The same law would apply regarding an animal, as reflected by the concluding words [of Terumas HaDeshen], “How much more so would this apply regarding slitting the reed that is not even part of the animal’s body!”
Moreover, even Turei Zahav, [since] he did not comment, [can thus be understood as] agreeing with Rama. [This is so,] although he maintains that one should not rule stringently as is the custom if [the shochet] did not interrupt the slaughter, lift up the knife, or remove it from the neck at all. It could be said that [Turei Zahav] maintains that in such an instance, [the shochet] is considered to have ceased slaughtering or lifted [the knife] from the neck slightly since the reed interrupted between [the knife] and the back of the siman. Thus, [such an instance] is considered as part of the original decree and the stringency that was accepted as a custom: that a distinction should not be made between a prolonged interruption and a minimal one. [The slaughter is disqualified] in all instances when the knife was lifted slightly from the neck, in contrast to an instance when one slits the simanim from the side, as mentioned in sec. 20,30 above. In that instance [the shochet] does not lift up the knife from the neck at all. Therefore, we are not at all concerned that [even a slight] interruption [was made], as stated there in the name of Turei Zahav.28
According to this [explanation], one should rule stringently only regarding the slaughter of an animal with a reed or the like – i.e., something that has some height [or thickness] – like a reed [lodged in one of the animal’s simanim, since it] is a round stalk, as explained in Terumas HaDeshen, but not [rule stringently] regarding a thin blade of grass [that is found there].
The statement of Sifsei Kohen [Yoreh Deah 23:8], that one should rule stringently even regarding a long, thin blade of grass – differing with Bach (Yoreh Deah 23), who rules leniently – follows [Sifsei Kohen’s] established approach. As stated above,31 Sifsei Kohen does not accept the distinction made by Turei Zahav between [an interruption made by] lifting up the slaughtering knife and [one made without] lifting it up at all.)
[Moreover,] one may rule leniently regarding a thin blade of grass and the like even regarding a fowl. This applies even according to the approach that the slightest interruption disqualifies the slaughter of a fowl according to the letter of the law. [The rationale is that] even Rashi agrees that an interruption when slitting the latter portion of a siman disqualifies the slaughter only because there is an unresolved halachic issue regarding the matter, as mentioned in subsection 5, below. Hence, when speaking about a thin blade of grass and the like, the halachic doubt is compounded, because there is another questionable factor: perhaps [the grass] was slit at exactly the same time as the back of the siman near the place where [the grass] was lodged, when [the siman] was slit, or at the very least, perhaps [the shochet] was drawing the knife back-and-forth, and it was touching the back of the siman near the place where the grass was lodged when it was slit.
Terumas HaDeshen wrote that it is impossible [for the slaughter to be completed] without even a slight interruption only [when a reed was found within the simanim] with regard to a bulrush reed, which is round and somewhat thick. [Thus,] even if one would say that the thick [bulrush reed] is soft enough to bend over when the knife [presses it, it is still sufficiently substantial] after being bent that it is not as thin as a [bent] blade of grass. [Since] the sides of the siman were already cut, [cutting the reed would be causing an interruption. The rationale is that] even after being slightly bent over, its thickness is sufficient to lift the knife when it is cutting [the reed] above the back of the siman where it is lodged. [Therefore, the reed would prevent the knife from cutting the siman in that place.] This is not true of a thin blade of grass and the like. Even [if it would be posited that] the back of the siman where [the grass] is lodged is not cut with the grass at the same time, [but is] only [cut] afterwards [this is not a valid argument. The rationale is that in reality,] the back of the siman, [i.e.,] the place immediately adjacent to where [the grass] is lodged could be cut together with [the grass] at the same time, since [the grass] has no height at all. (At the very least, [while the shochet] was drawing [the knife] back-and-forth, he would have touched the [siman with the] knife, [because a thin blade of grass would not lift the knife off the siman].) [Hence, any interruption would not be considered disqualifying.]
This was the intent of Terumas HaDeshen when specifically writing “a reed which is round” [i.e., it is somewhat thick]. And this was Rama’s intent when writing, “a reed and the like,” i.e., [Rama added the words “and the like” as] an exclusion, [implying that the stringency does not apply to substances] that do not resemble [a reed.]
All the above applies when the reed was slit. However, if it was not slit, but merely found within the siman – [or] even if the gullet was found [to be] filled with barley or bran – there are absolutely no grounds for stringency, because it could be said that the knife made a place for itself [next to the reed or between the kernels,] and passed through [to the back of the siman] (Tevuos Shor, [sec. 23, note 13]).
Similarly, if the shochet cut his finger while slaughtering, there is no basis for stringency at all, since it can be said that his finger and the simanim were cut in one motion. This does not resemble the reed described above [at all] (Teshuvos HaGershoni, [responsum] 96). The examiners [of ritual slaughter] have written in their texts [that one should] be stringent regarding such an instance because of a doubt – perhaps [the shochet] interrupted slightly because of fear [at the time he cut his finger]. This is not the correct [ruling], because one should not rule stringently regarding a [mere] doubt [as to] whether a slight interruption was made.28 Even Tevuos Shor agreed with [such an approach] only regarding a fowl, because he maintains that the slightest interruption disqualifies [the slaughter of] a fowl according to the letter of the law. However, that is also not the correct [ruling to be practiced. It is the position of Sefer] HaAgudah. [That text is] the sole authority [that rules in this manner] and [that position] is not accepted [as halachah], as stated above.32 Similarly, other stringencies stated by examiners [of ritual slaughter] that concern the interruption [of the slaughter of an animal] need not be followed unless there are grounds for a question involving an interruption that disqualifies [the slaughter of an animal] according to the letter of the law or in an instance where a slight interruption was certainly made.
(ב) וְהִגְבִּיהַּ.
הוּא הַדִּין לֹא הִגְבִּיהַּ וְשָׁהָה אֶלָּא אוּרְחָא דְמִלְּתָא נָקַט (שַׁ"ךְד). וּמִיהוּ הַיְנוּ דַוְקָא כְּשֶׁפָּסַק מִלִּשְׁחוֹט (רְשַׁ"לה טַ"זו) דְּהַיְנוּ שֶׁפָּסַק מִלְּהוֹלִיךְ וּלְהָבִיא עַל הַסִּימָנִים אֲבָל אִם הֵבִיא וְהוֹלִיךְ עַל הַסִּימָנִים אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא חָתַךְ כְּלוּם כְּגוֹן שֶׁהַסַּכִּין רָעָה לֹא מִקְּרֵי שְׁהִיָּה כְּלָל מֵאַחַר שֶׁעָסוּק בִּשְׁחִיטַת הַסִּימָנִים וּמוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא עֲלֵיהֶם לְשָׁחֲטָם (רַשִׁ"יז וְרַ"ןח). וּבְהִגְבִּיהַּ הַסַּכִּין קְצָת שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹגֵעַ בַּסִּימָנִים מַמָּשׁ אַף שֶׁמּוֹלִיכוֹ וּמְבִיאוֹ תָּמִיד עַל הַצַּוָּאר מִקְּרֵי שְׁהִיָּה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר לְקַמָּןט (וְאֶפְשָׁר דְּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי נָקַט הַשֻּׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ וְהִגְבִּיהַּ יָדוֹ דְּהָא מִלְּתָא דִפְסִיקָא דְּבִכְהַאי גַּוְנָא מִקְּרֵי שְׁהִיָּה בְּכָל עִנְיָן). וְעוֹד יֵשׁ לוֹמַר דְּמִלְּתָא דִפְסִיקָא נָקַט מִשּׁוּם דְּאוּרְחָא דְמִלְּתָא לִדְחוֹק הַסַּכִּין קְצָת עַל הַצַּוָּאר כְּשֶׁאֵינָהּ חַדָּה בִּמְאֹד וְאֵין בְּזֶה מִשּׁוּם דְּרָסָה כָּל זְמַן שֶׁמּוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא אֲבָל כְּשֶׁפָּסַק אֲפִלּוּ רֶגַע יֵשׁ בְּזֶה מִשּׁוּם דְּרָסָה שֶׁפּוֹסֶלֶת בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב רֵישׁ סִימָן כ"ד. וְלָכֵן צָרִיךְ לְהַגְבִּיהַּ יָדוֹ קְצָת שֶׁלֹּא תִשָּׁאֵר עַל הַצַּוָּאר בְּדֹחַק אֲפִלּוּ כָּל שֶׁהוּא. וְנַפְקָא מִנָּהּ מִזֶּהי אַף לְדִידָן בִּסְפֵק שְׁהִיָּה מַשֶּׁהוּיא שֶׁאֵין לְהָקֵל אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁנִּזְהַר בְּוַדַּאי מִלִּדְחוֹק הַסַּכִּין מַשֶּׁהוּ בְּלֹא הוֹלָכָה וְהוֹבָאָה וְהַסָּפֵק הוּא אִם הִגְבִּיהַּ הַסַּכִּין מַשֶּׁהוּ אוֹ הוֹלִיךְ וְהֵבִיא בְּלֹא הֶפְסֵק וּשְׁהִיָּה כְּלָל:
(ג) אִם שָׁהָה כוּ' וְיִשְׁחֹט (עַד) רֹב הַסִּימָנִים שֶׁהוּא כוּ'.
כֵּן צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר.יב וּבְפֶרֶק ב' דְּחֻלִּיןיג תְּנַן דְּשִׁעוּר שְׁהִיָּה כְּדֵי שְׁחִיטָה אַחֶרֶת.יד וּבִגְמָרָא אָמַר רַב כְּדֵי שְׁחִיטַת בְּהֵמָה הָוֵי שִׁעוּר שְׁהִיָּה לִבְהֵמָה וּכְדֵי שְׁחִיטַת עוֹף לְעוֹף שְׁמוּאֵל וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמְרֵי אֲפִלּוּ כְּדֵי שְׁחִיטַת בְּהֵמָה מְשַׁעֲרִים לְעוֹף וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אוֹמֵר כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּגְבִּיהֶנָּה וְיַרְבִּיצֶנָּה וְיִשְׁחוֹט גַּסָּה לְגַסָּה וְדַקָּה לְדַקָּה (שְׁהִיַּת בְּהֵמָה דַקָּה מְשַׁעֲרִים בִּשְׁחִיטַת בְּהֵמָה דַקָּה דִּכְוָתָהּטו). וְכָתַב רַשִׁ"יטז דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּרַב וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן כֵּיוָן דְּקָם לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בְּשִׁיטָתֵיהּ דְּרַב דְּאָמַר וְדַקָּה לְדַקָּה וּמִמֵּילָא שָׁמְעִינָן דְּהוּא הַדִּין עוֹף לְעוֹף עָבְדִינָן לְחוּמְרָאיז עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ. אֲבָל הָרִי"ףיח וְהָרַמְבַּ"םיט סְבִירָא לְהוּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא לֹא פָלִיג אַדְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמְרֵי אֲפִלּוּ בְּהֵמָה לְעוֹף דְּאַף עַל גַּב דִּמְשַׁעֲרִין בִּבְהֵמָה לְעוֹף לֹא מְשַׁעֲרִין בְּגַסָּה לְדַקָּה מִשּׁוּם שֶׁכָּךְ הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי דְּאֵין שְׁהִיָּה פְּחוּתָה מִשִּׁעוּר שְׁחִיטַת בְּהֵמָה שֶׁהֶכְשֵׁרָהּ בְּב' סִימָנִים וְהִיא שְׁחִיטָה גְמוּרָה מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בִּכְדֵי שְׁחִיטַת עוֹף שֶׁאֵינָהּ שְׁחִיטָה גְמוּרָה שֶׁהֶכְשֵׁרוֹ בְּסִימָן אֶחָדכ וּגְמִירִי נַמִי הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי דְּבִכְדֵי שְׁחִיטַת בְּהֵמָה דִכְוָתָהּ מְשַׁעֲרִינָן בְּגַסָּה לְגַסָּה וְדַקָּה לְדַקָּה וּבְעוֹף שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְשַׁעֵר בְּדִכְוָתָהּ שֶׁאֵינָהּ שְׁחִיטָה גְמוּרָה מְשַׁעֲרִינָן בְּדַקָּה שֶׁבִּבְהֵמָה (עַיֵּן יַם שֶׁל שְׁלֹמֹהכא). וְהָא דְּקָאָמְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וּשְׁמוּאֵל כְּדֵי בְהֵמָה לְעוֹף הַיְנוּ נַמִי כְּדֵי בְּהֵמָה דַקָּה לְעוֹף. וְהָא דְּלֹא פֵרְשׁוּ הָכִי בְּהֶדְיָא מִשּׁוּם דְּלֹא אָתוּ אֶלָּא לְאַפּוּקֵי מִדְּרַב דְּאָמַר מֵעוֹף לְעוֹף אֲבָל לֹא נָחֲתֵי לְפָרוּשֵׁי כָּל שִׁעוּרֵי שְׁהִיָּה. וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי נַמִי לֹא פֵרְשׁוּ שִׁעוּר כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּגְבִּיהֶנָּה וְיַרְבִּיצֶנָּה. אֲבָל לְשִׁיטַת רַשִׁ"י דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן פְּלִיגִי אַהֲדָדִי יֵשׁ לוֹמַר דִּפְלִיגִי נַמִי בְּשִׁעוּר כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּגְבִּיהֶנָּה וְיַרְבִּיצֶנָּה דְּקָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לֵית לֵיהּ הַגְבָּהָה וְהַרְבָּצָה כְּלָל אַף עַל גַּב דְּמֵקֵל אֲפִלּוּ בִּבְהֵמָה לְעוֹף טְפֵי מֵרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא. וְהָכִי נַמִי סְבִירָא לְהוּ לְרַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל שֶׁלֹּא הִזְכִּירוּ הַגְבָּהָה וְהַרְבָּצָה. וְעָבְדִינָן לְחוּמְרָא לְפִי דַעַת רַשִׁ"י. וְכֵן כָּתַב סְמַ"גכב בְּשֵׁם בַּהַ"ג.כג וְכֵן כָּתְבוּ סְמַ"קכד וְהַמָּרְדְּכַיכה וְהַגָּהוֹת מַיְמוֹנִיּוֹת.כו וְזֶהוּ דַּעַת הַיֵּשׁ אוֹמְרִים שֶׁבְּשֻׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ כִּמְבֹאָר בְּבֵית יוֹסֵף שֶׁחָשַׁשׁ לְדִבְרֵיהֶם לְעִנְיַן מַעֲשֶׂה.
וּמִיהוּ כָּתַב הָרְמָ"א בְּדַרְכֵי מֹשֶׁהכז בְּשֵׁם הָרַ"ןכח דְּלֹא מְשַׁעֲרִינָן בַּחֲתִיכַת הַסִּימָנִים לְבָד אֶלָּא אַף בַּחֲתִיכַת הָעוֹר דְּשִׁעוּר שְׁחִיטָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ גְּמִירִי שֶׁהוּא שׁוֹחֵט הָעוֹר לְכַתְּחִלָּה עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹן הָרַ"ן. וְלָזֶה נִתְכַּוֵּן גַּם כֵּן רְמָ"א שֶׁהִגִּיהַּ תֵּבַת עַד כוּ' לוֹמַר שֶׁלֹּא בְּרֹב הַסִּימָנִים לְבָד מְשַׁעֲרִינָן אֶלָּא מֵהָעוֹר עַד רֹב הַסִּימָנִים וְעַד בִּכְלָל. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁמְּשַׁעֲרִים בִּכְדֵי שְׁחִיטַת כָּל רֹב הַסִּימָנִים. וְלֹא כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב הָאֲגֻדָּהכט דִּמְשַׁעֲרִים בְּקָנֶה בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ הַמַּשְׁלִים לְרֻבּוֹ וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי כָּתַב בְּעוֹף שֶׁהֶכְשֵׁרוֹ בְּסִימָן אֶחָד שִׁעוּר הַשְּׁהִיָּה בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ מִדִּינָא. וְלֹא קַיְמָא לָן הָכִי מִדִּינָא אַף לְפִי דַעַת הַיֵּשׁ אוֹמְרִים וּכְמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב הַשֻּׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ בְּדַעַת הַיֵּשׁ אוֹמְרִים דְּשִׁעוּר הַשְּׁהִיָּה בְּעוֹף הוּא מוּעָט אֲבָל מִכָּל מָקוֹם לֹא מַשֶּׁהוּ מַמָּשׁ אֶלָּא שֶׁהַמִּנְהָג הוּא לְהַטְרִיף בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ אֲבָל לֹא מִדִּינָא. וְכֵן אֵין מְשַׁעֲרִים בִּכְדֵי שְׁחִיטַת רֹב הַסִּימָנִים כְּשֶׁתּוֹפְסָן וּמַשְׁכִּיבָן יַחַד זֶה אֵצֶל זֶה שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם נִשְׁחָטִים כְּאַחַתל וְאִם כֵּן הַיְנוּ כְּדֵי שְׁחִיטַת רֹב אֶחָד בִּלְבָד אֶלָּא כְּמוֹ שֶׁהֵם מְחֻבָּרִים בַּגּוּף שֶׁהַקָּנֶה הוּא סָמוּךְ לָעוֹר יוֹתֵר וְנִשְׁחָט תְּחִלָּה עַיֵּן סִימָן ד'לא וְהַיְנוּ טַעְמָא כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב הָרַ"ןלב דְּשִׁעוּר שְׁחִיטָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ גְּמִירִי. וְכָתַב בְּדַרְכֵי מֹשֶׁהלג בְּשֵׁם הָרַשְׁבָּ"א בִּתְשׁוּבָהלד דְּלֹא מְשַׁעֲרִינָן בִּכְדֵי מְרִיטַת נוֹצָה מִן הָעוֹף אוֹ מְרִיטַת שֵׂעָר בִּבְהֵמָה אֶלָּא כְּדֵי שְׁחִיטָה לְבָד עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ:
(ד) הֶכְשֵׁר שְׁחִיטָה.
אַף עַל גַּב דִּמְקִלִּינָן לְהַצְרִיךְ כְּדֵי הַרְבָּצָה הַיְנוּ לְפִי שֶׁהַרְבָּצָה הָוֵי בִּכְלַל כְּדֵי שְׁחִיטָה לְפִי שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לְשָׁחֲטָהּ עַד שֶׁיַּרְבִּיצֶנָּה אֲבָל מִשֶּׁשָּׁחַט רֹב סִימָנִים אָזְלָא לָהּ הֶכְשֵׁר שְׁחִיטָה (רֹא"שׁלה).
וְאֵין לְהָקֵל לְשַׁעֵר לְפִי אוֹתוֹ הַסַּכִּין שֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט בּוֹ וּלְפִי אוֹתוֹ אָדָם הַשּׁוֹחֵט כְּגוֹן אִם הַסַּכִּין רָע וְאֵינוֹ חַד וְהַשּׁוֹחֵט רְפֵה יָדַיִם וּמִתְעַכֶּבֶת הַשְּׁחִיטָה אֶלָּא מְשַׁעֲרִים בְּרֹב סַכִּינִים שֶׁהֵם יָפִים לִשְׁחִיטָה וּבְרֹב הַשּׁוֹחֲטִים שֶׁהֵם זְרִיזִים (שִׂמְלָה חֲדָשָׁהלו) וְכֵן מַשְׁמַע לְקַמָּן סְעִיף ד':
(ה) בְּלִי הַגְבָּהָה וְהַרְבָּצָה.
וּבִבְהֵמָה רֹב שְׁנַיִם בְּלִי הַגְבָּהָה וְהַרְבָּצָה. וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי נָקַט עוֹף דִּכְדֵי שְׁחִיטַת רֹב סִימָן אֶחָד בְּעוֹף נַעֲשֶׂה מַהֵר וְהִלְכָּךְ יֵשׁ לִזָּהֵר כוּ' כִּדְמַסִּיק. וְכֵן הוּא בְּבֵית יוֹסֵף:לז
(ו) שֶׁהַדָּם יוֹצֵא.
מַהֲרִי"קלח וְרַשַׁ"ללט כָּתְבוּ דְּדַוְקָא כְּשֶׁהַדָּם יוֹצֵא חַיְשִׁינָן לִנְקִיבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט. אֲבָל הַבֵּית יוֹסֵףמ כָּתַב דְּאוּרְחָא דְמִלְּתָא נָקַט וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא יָצָא הַדָּם חַיְשִׁינָן שֶׁמָּא נָגַע בַּוֵּשֶׁט כֵּיוָן שֶׁחָתַךְ כָּל הָעוֹר בְּעוֹף שֶׁעוֹרוֹ דַק וְלֹא שַׁיָּךְ לְחַלֵּק בּוֹ בֵּין חָתַךְ כֻּלּוֹ לְמִקְצָתוֹ כְּדִלְקַמָּן סוֹף סִימָן זֶה (טַ"ז שָׁםמא). וְכֵן דַּעַת כָּל הָאַחֲרוֹנִים (שַׁ"ךְמב):
(ז) מֵהַוֵּשֶׁט.
דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּהַקָּנֶה סָמוּךְ לָעוֹרמג מִכָּל מָקוֹם לִפְעָמִים שֶׁגַּם הַוֵּשֶׁט סָמוּךְ לָעוֹר עַל יְדֵי אֲחִיזַת הַסִּימָנִים.מד דִּבְקָנֶה לֹא שַׁיָּךְ שְׁהִיָּה בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא לְכוּלָא עָלְמָא מִדֵּי דַהֲוָה אַחֲצִי קָנֶה פָּגוּם דִּלְעֵיל סוֹף סִימָן כ"אמה מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בַּוֵּשֶׁט דְּשַׁיָּךְ שְׁהִיָּה בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא שֶׁנְּקִיבָתוֹ בְּמַשֶּׁהוּמו אֲבָל קָנֶה פְּסִיקָתוֹ בְּרֻבּוֹ כְּדִלְקַמָּן סִימָן ל"דמז (שַׁ"ךְמח):
(ח) הַדָּם.
אֲבָל אִם לֹא יָצָא הַדָּם וְאוֹמֵר בָּרִי לִי סוֹמְכִין עָלָיו לְכוּלָא עָלְמָאמט וְעַיֵּן בְּמַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב לְקַמָּן סעיף ו':נ
(ט) וְיִבְדֹּק אוֹתוֹ.
עַיֵּן בְּמַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב לְקַמָּןנא בֵּאוּר דִּין זֶה וְכָל פְּרָטָיו:
(י) הָרִאשׁוֹנָה.
שֶׁהִיא עִקָּר לְפִי דַעַת הַבֵּית יוֹסֵף לְפִי שֶׁהִיא דַּעַת הָרִי"ף וְהָרַמְבַּ"ם שֶׁהֵם עַמּוּדֵי הַהוֹרָאָה בְּבֵיתוֹנב וּלְכָךְ סָמַךְ עֲלֵיהֶם לְהָקֵל בְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה. אַף עַל גַּב דְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה לֹא מְהַנֵּי בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבְוָתָא אֶלָּא בִּדְרַבָּנָן (עַיֵּן תּוֹרַת חַטָּאת בְּהַקְדָּמָהנג):
(יא) וְאֵין לְשַׁנּוֹת.
אֲפִלּוּ בְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה (שַׁ"ךְנד). וְטַעַם חוּמְרָא זוֹ שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ בִּמְדִינוֹת אֵלּוּ עַל פִּי שְׁחִיטַת מַהֲרִי"ו כָּתַב הַבַּ"חנה דְּנָקְטִינָן כְּשִׁיטַת רַשִׁ"י וְסִיעָתוֹ דְּשִׁעוּר שְׁהִיָּה הוּא כְּמוֹ שְׁחִיטַת רֹב סִימָנִים בְּלִי הַגְבָּהָה וְהַרְבָּצָה וְאִם כֵּן שִׁעוּר מוּעָט הוּא אֲפִלּוּ בְּגַסָּה וְדַקָּה וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בְּעוֹף וְעַל כֵּן נִתְפַּשֵּׁט הַמִּנְהָג לִפְסוֹל כָּל שְׁהִיָּה מוּעֶטֶת אֲפִלּוּ בְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵין אָנוּ בְּקִיאִין לְכַוֵּן הַשִּׁעוּר בְּצִמְצוּם כָּל כָּךְנו עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ. וְהַטַּ"ז סִימָן כ'נז כָּתַב דְּטַעַם הַמִּנְהָג בְּחוּמְרָא זוֹ הוּא מִשּׁוּם גְּזֵרָה אָטוּ שְׁהִיָּה מְרֻבָּה וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי לֹא פָלְגִינָן בִּמְדִינוֹת אֵלּוּ בֵּין שְׁהִיָּה מְרֻבָּה לְמוּעֶטֶת וְהִלְכָּךְ אֵין לְהַחֲמִיר אֶלָּא אִם הִגְבִּיהַּ הַסַּכִּין אֲפִלּוּ מַשֶּׁהוּ דְּכֵיוָן שֶׁעֲקָרוֹ מִן הַצַּוָּאר גּוֹזְרִין מַגְבִּיהַּ וְשׁוֹהֶה קְצָת מִשּׁוּם שׁוֹהֶה הַרְבֵּה אֲבָל אִם לֹא הִגְבִּיהַּ כְּלָל רַק שֶׁנִּדְחַף הַסַּכִּין מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם כָּשֵׁר אַף לְדִידַן כְּמוֹ שֶׁמָּצִינוּ בְּשׁוֹחֵט בְּב' אוֹ בְּג' מְקוֹמוֹת דִּלְעֵיל סִימָן כ"אנח שֶׁהוּא מַעֲשֶׂה בְּכָל יוֹם לְהַכְשִׁיר מִשּׁוּם שֶׁבְּזֶה לֹא שַׁיָּךְ לִגְזוֹר בּוֹ גְּזֵרָה זוֹ עַד כַּאן דִּבְרֵי הַטַּ"ז שָׁם וּבְסִימָן זה.נט וּמִיהוּ לָאו דַּוְקָא הִגְבִּיהַּ הַסַּכִּין אֶלָּא הוּא הַדִּין לֹא הִגְבִּיהַּ אֶלָּא פָּסַק מִלִּשְׁחוֹט וְשָׁהָה מְעַט כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב הַטַּ"ז בְּסִימָן זֶה בְּשֵׁם רְשַׁ"לס אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁנִּדְחַף הַסַּכִּין מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם לֹא מִקְּרֵי פָּסַק מִלִּשְׁחוֹט דְּאַדְּרַבָּה עָסוּק בִּשְׁחִיטָה הוּא בִּדְחִיפָה זוֹ שֶׁדּוֹחֵף יָדוֹ לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר כְּדֵי לִגְמוֹר שְׁחִיטָתוֹ שָׁם וְאֵינוֹ מַגְבִּיהַּ לְהַפְסִיק שְׁחִיטָתוֹ וְלֹא מִקְּרֵי פָּסַק מִלִּשְׁחוֹט אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁיָּדוֹ נָחָה בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד מַשֶּׁהוּ שֶׁלֹּא עָסְקָה בִּשְׁחִיטָה כְּלָל דִּבְזֶה יֵשׁ לִגְזוֹר מִשּׁוּם שְׁהִיָּה מְרֻבָּה אֲבָל כְּשֶׁנִּדְחֵית יָדוֹ לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר לִגְמוֹר הַשְּׁחִיטָה שָׁם לֹא שַׁיָּךְ לְמִגְזַר מִשּׁוּם שְׁהִיָּה מְרֻבָּה דְּלֹא מִשְׁכַּחַת לָהּ כְּלָל שְׁהִיָּה מְרֻבָּה בִּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא (דְּאִי הֲוָה מִשְׁכַּחַת לָהּ בִּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא הָוֵי שְׁהִיָּה אַף עַל גַּב דְּעָסוּק בִּשְׁחִיטָה מֵאַחַר שֶׁעֵסֶק זֶה אֵינוֹ דֶּרֶךְ שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁהִיא הוֹלָכָה וְהוֹבָאָה בְּסַכִּין עַל הַסִּימָנִים לְחָתְכָן כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְעֵילסא). אֲבָל הַשַּׁ"ךְ בְּסִימָן כ"אסב כָּתַב בְּדִין הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּב' וְג' מְקוֹמוֹת דִּלְדִידַן צָרִיךְ שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁהֶה אֲפִלּוּ כָּל שֶׁהוּא וְלֹא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ לְחַלֵּק בֵּין הִגְבִּיהַּ הַסַּכִּין לְלֹא הִגְבִּיהוֹ. וּלְעִנְיַן הֲלָכָה בְּדִבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הַמֵּקֵל וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ אֶלָּא מִנְהָג.סג
וְכֵן בִּסְפֵק שְׁהִיָּה מַשֶּׁהוּ אֵין לְהַחֲמִיר כְּלָל (שִׂמְלָה חֲדָשָׁהסד). וּבִסְפֵק שְׁהִיָּה כְּדֵי שְׁחִיטַת רֹב הַסִּימָנִים בְּלִי הַגְבָּהָה וְהַרְבָּצָה בִּבְהֵמָה יֵשׁ לְהָקֵל בְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה מִשּׁוּם סְפֵק סְפֵיקָא דְּשֶׁמָּא לֹא שָׁהָה כְּלָל וְאִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר שָׁהָה שֶׁמָּא הֲלָכָה כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר דִּמְשַׁעֲרִינָן בְּהַגְבָּהָה וְהַרְבָּצָה כְּדַעַת הָרִי"ף וְהָרַמְבַּ"ם. אֲבָל שֶׁלֹּא בְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה אֵין לְהָקֵל. מִשּׁוּם דִּלְרַשִׁ"י וְסִיעָתוֹ רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לֹא סְבִירָא לְהוּ הַגְבָּהָה וְהַרְבָּצָה כִּדְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא וַהֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּים.
אֲבָל סְפֵק שְׁהִיָּה בְּעוֹף כְּדֵי רֹב סִימָנֵי הָעוֹף וְלֹא שָׁהָה בְּוַדַּאי כְּדֵי רֹב סִימָנֵי בְּהֵמָה גַסָּה עִם הָעוֹר יֵשׁ לְהָקֵל אֲפִלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם הֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה. מִשּׁוּם דְּאַף לְרַשִׁ"י וְסִיעָתוֹ לֹא הָוֵי אֶלָּא סְפֵיקָא דְּהָא רַב וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּקָם לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בְּשִׁיטָתֵיהּ דְּרַב עָבְדִינָן לְחוּמְרָאסה הֲוָה לֵיהּ סְפֵק סְפֵיקָא וְשָׁרֵיסו אַף עַל גַּב דִּבְהֵמָה בְּחֶזְקַת אִסּוּר עוֹמֶדֶתסז כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְעֵיל סִימָן א'.סח
אֲבָל בְּסָפֵק שָׁהָה שְׁהִיָּה גְמוּרָה הַפּוֹסֶלֶת לְכוּלֵי עָלְמָאסט הֲרֵי זֶה סְפֵק נְבֵלָה לְפִי דַעַת הָרַמְבַּ"םע וְסִיעָתוֹ וּנְבֵלָה וַדָּאִית לְפִי דַעַת הָרַשְׁבָּ"א וְסִיעָתוֹ דִּלְעֵיל סִימָן א'.עא דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּרֹב הַשּׁוֹחֲטִין מְצוּיִין לִשְׁחוֹט בְּלִי שְׁהִיָּה וְרוּבָּא עָדִיף מֵחֲזָקָהעב מִכָּל מָקוֹם רוּבָּא דְּתָלִי בְּמַעֲשֶׂה הוּא כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְקַמָּן בְּסִימָן כ"העג בְּשֵׁם הָרַשְׁבָּ"אעד גַּבֵּי לֹא בָדַק בְּסִימָנִים וְסָפֵק אִם נִשְׁחֲטוּ רֻבָּן. וְהוּא הַדִּין בְּסָפֵק שָׁהָהעה
כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב בְּפֶרֶק ג' דִּיבָמוֹתעו דְּעָלֶיךָ הָרְאָיָה שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה הַמַּעֲשֶׂה כוּ' דְּהַיְנוּ הוֹלָכָה וְהוֹבָאָה רְצוּפָה בְּלִי הֶפְסֵק בֵּינְתַיִם כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְעֵיל סִימָן א':עז
(יב) טְרֵפָה.
מְקוֹרעח דִּין זֶה מִתְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁןעט וְזֶה לְשׁוֹנוֹ שְׁאֵלָה. שָׁחַט אַוְזָא אַחַת וּמָצָא אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה קָנֶה שֶׁל גֶּמִי רַךְ וְעָגֹל תָּחוּב אָרְכּוֹ לְאָרְכּוֹ שֶׁל וֵשֶׁט וְנִשְׁחַט הַקָּנֶה הַהוּא עִם הַוֵּשֶׁט יָפֶה כְּשֵׁרָה אוֹ לֹא. תְּשׁוּבָה. יֵרָאֶה דְּאֵין לְהַכְשִׁיר שְׁחִיטָה זוֹ כְּלָל מִשּׁוּם דְּקַיְמָא לָן שְׁהִיַּת הָעוֹף בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ כְּמוֹ שְׁחִיטָתוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי אִם מָצָא חֲצִי קָנֶה פָּגוּם וְהוֹסִיף עָלָיו כָּל שֶׁהוּא כָּשֵׁר וּבְנִדּוֹן דִּידַן אִי אֶפְשָׁר בְּלִי שְׁהִיָּה מַשֶּׁהוּ שֶׁהֲרֵי בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁחָתַךְ הַגֶּמִי הִפְסִיק בִּשְׁחִיטַת הַסִּימָן. וְאַף עַל גַּב שֶׁעָסַק כָּל הַזְּמַן בִּשְׁחִיטָה וְהוֹלִיךְ וְהֵבִיא עַד שֶׁגָּמַר מִכָּל מָקוֹם מִקְּרֵי שְׁהִיָּה בִּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא. וּרְאָיָה פְּשׁוּטָה מִפֶּרֶק הַשּׁוֹחֵטפ שָׁהָה בְּמִעוּט סִימָנִים מַהוּ וְהַפֵּרוּשׁ שֶׁהוּא עִקָּרפא דְּבָעֵי כְּגוֹן שֶׁשָּׁחַט בְּהֵמָה בְּסַכִּין רָעָה וּכְשֶׁנֶּחְתַּךְ רֹב סִימָן הָא' מַאֲרִיךְ הוּא בִּשְׁחִיטַת מִעוּט הַסִּימָן כְּשִׁעוּר שְׁהִיָּה קֹדֶם שֶׁמַּתְחִיל לַחְתּוֹךְ בְּסִימָן הַב' אִי אָמְרִינָן דְּמַה שֶּׁהוּא שׁוֹהֶה בַּחֲתִיכַת מִעוּט סִימָן הָא' הָוֵי כְּאִלּוּ שׁוֹהֶה בַּחֲתִיכַת יָד אוֹ רֶגֶל דִּבְהֵמָה (כְּדִלְקַמָּן סְעִיף ד') וְסָלְקָא בְּתֵיקוּ. הָא קַמָּן דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּעוֹסֵק כָּל זְמַן בִּשְׁחִיטָה וּמוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא אִם שׁוֹהֶה בַּחֲתִיכָה שֶׁאֵין עָלֶיהָ תּוֹרַת שְׁחִיטָה הָוֵי שְׁהִיָּה וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן בִּשְׁחִיטַת גֶּמִי דַּאֲפִלּוּ מִגּוּף הַבְּהֵמָה אֵינוֹ. וְאִם תֹּאמַר מַאן לֵימָא לָן דְּשָׁהָה בַּחֲתִיכַת גֶּמִי דִּלְמָא לְעוֹלָם שָׁחַט הַוֵּשֶׁט וְהַגֶּמִי בְּבַת אַחַת וְשָׁוֶה בְּשָׁוֶה מַמָּשׁ וְאִם כֵּן לֹא פָסְקָה חֲתִיכַת הַסַּכִּין אֲפִלּוּ רֶגַע אֶחָד מִן הַסִּימָן. נִרְאֶה דְּעַל כָּרְחָךְ אֵין לוֹמַר הָכִי שֶׁהֲרֵי הַסִּימָן הוּא מָתוּחַ בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה וְהַגֶּמִי אֵינוֹ מָתוּחַ כִּי אֵינֶנּוּ מְחֻבָּר אֶל הַלֶּחִי וְהַגּוּף וְהַדָּבָר יָדוּעַ שֶׁכָּל דָּבָר רַךְ שֶׁפּוֹגֵעַ בּוֹ חִדּוּד הַסַּכִּין וְהוּא מָתוּחַ נֶחְתָּךְ מַהֵר יוֹתֵר מִשֶּׁאִם לֹא הָיָה מָתוּחַ וּלְכָךְ הוֹאִיל וְהַגֶּמִי גַּם כֵּן רַךְ הוּא וְאֵינֶנּוּ מָתוּחַ עַל כָּרְחָךְ חִדּוּד הַסַּכִּין שָׁהָה לְחַתְּכוֹ יוֹתֵר מִבַּחֲתִיכַת הַסִּימָנִים וְנִמְצָא שֶׁלֹּא נֶחְתְּכוּ שָׁוֶה בְּשָׁוֶה מַמָּשׁ עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ.
וְרוֹצֶה לוֹמַר דְּדָבָר רַךְ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מָתוּחַ הוּא נִדְחָף וְנִכְפָּף לְמַטָּה וְלִצְדָדִין מִפְּנֵי הַסַּכִּין בְּפָגְעוֹ בּוֹ. מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּדָבָר קָשֶׁהפב שֶׁאַף שֶׁאֵינוֹ מָתוּחַ וְהוּא נִדְחֶה לְמַטָּה וְלִצְדָדִין מִכָּל מָקוֹם לְבַסּוֹף כְּשֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לְמַטָּה לְתַחְתִּית הַסִּימָן מִפְּנֵי הַסַּכִּין וְהַסַּכִּין חוֹתְכוֹ שָׁם הוּא נֶחְתָּךְ שָׁם שָׁוֶה בְּשָׁוֶה מַמָּשׁ עִם דָּפְנֵי הַסִּימָן שֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ שָׁם לְמַטָּה. שֶׁאַף שֶׁדָּפְנֵי הַסִּימָן רַכִּים וּמְתוּחִים אֵינָם נֶחְתָּכִים מַהֵר מִפְּנֵי הַדָּבָר הַקָּשֶׁה שֶׁכְּנֶגְדָּם שֶׁמְּעַכֵּב אֶת הַסַּכִּין כְּנֶגְדָּם אֲפִלּוּ אִם הוּא דָּבָר דַּק מְאֹד מִכָּל מָקוֹם אִם לֹא נֶחְתָּךְ בַּחֲתִיכַת דָּפְנֵי הַסִּימָן אֶלָּא נִדְחֶה וְיוֹרֵד לְמַטָּה לְתַחְתִּית הַסִּימָן מִפְּנֵי הַסַּכִּין הֲרֵי כְּשֶׁמַּגִּיעַ שָׁם הַסַּכִּין לְתַחְתִּית הַסִּימָן וְדוֹחֵק עַל הַדָּבָר הַקָּשֶׁה הַהוּא וְחוֹתְכוֹ נִכְפָּף מְעַט תַּחְתִּית הַסִּימָן שֶׁהוּא רַךְ מִפְּנֵי הַדָּבָר הַקָּשֶׁה הַהוּא וְנַעֲשֶׂה כִּדְפָנוֹת מַקִּיפוֹת לְהַדָּבָר הַקָּשֶׁה וְנֶחְתָּכִים עִמּוֹ שָׁוֶה בְּשָׁוֶה מַמָּשׁ וְנִמְצָא שֶׁלֹּא שָׁהָה רֶגַע אֶחָד בַּחֲתִיכַת הַדָּבָר הַקָּשֶׁה הַהוּא לְבַדּוֹ בְּלִי שֶׁיַּחְתּוֹךְ בְּרֶגַע הַהוּא גַּם בַּסִּימָן. אֲבָל דָּבָר רַךְ שֶׁנִּדְחֶה לְבַסּוֹף לְמַטָּה לְתַחְתִּית הַסִּימָן אַף אִם אֵינוֹ דַּק מְאֹד אֵינוֹ נֶחְתָּךְ שָׁם שָׁוֶה בְּשָׁוֶה מַמָּשׁ עִם דָּפְנֵי הַסִּימָן שֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ שָׁם לְמַטָּה שֶׁהֵם מְתוּחִים וְנֶחְתָּכִים תְּחִלָּה וְהוּא רַךְ וְאֵינוֹ מָתוּחַ וְנִכְפָּף הוּא מְעַט תַּחַת הַסַּכִּין בְּפָגְעוֹ בּוֹ וְגַם לִצְדָדִין וְאֵינוֹ נֶחְתָּךְ עַד לְאַחַר שֶׁנֶּחְתָּכִים הֵם. וְגַם כְּשֶׁנֶּחְתָּךְ הוּא אֵין תַּחְתִּית הַסִּימָן נִכְפָּף כְּלָל בַּחֲתִיכָתוֹ לִהְיוֹת לוֹ כִּדְפָנוֹת מַקִּיפוֹת הוֹאִיל וְהוּא רַךְ כְּשֶׁהוּא נֶחְתָּךְ בְּסַכִּין כְּבָר כָּל הַסִּימָן הוּא חָתוּךְ לְבַד תַּחְתִּית הַסִּימָן בִּמְקוֹם הַנָּחָתוֹ מַמָּשׁ וּמַפְסֶקֶת חֲתִיכָתוֹ בְּאֶמְצַע שְׁחִיטַת הַסִּימָן דְּהַיְנוּ בֵּין חֲתִיכַת דָּפְנֵי הַסִּימָן וּבֵין חֲתִיכַת תַּחְתִּית הַסִּימָןפג שֶׁבִּמְקוֹם הַנָּחָתוֹ כְּשֶׁנֶּחְתָּךְ הוּא לְבַסּוֹף וְהָוֵי שְׁהִיָּה לְמִנְהָגֵנוּ שֶׁמַּטְרִיפִין שְׁהִיָּה בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא כְּדִלְקַמָּן סְעִיף ה' בְּהַגָּ"ה. וּלְזֶה נִתְכַּוֵּן רְמָ"א בְּמַה שֶּׁכָּתַב לְאַחַר שֶׁשָּׁחַט הַסִּימָן פֵּרוּשׁ כָּל הַסִּימָן לְבַד מְקוֹם הַנָּחַת הַגֶּמִי בְּתַחְתִּיתָהּ שֶׁנֶּחְתַּךְ שָׁם הַגֶּמִי אַחַר שְׁחִיטַת כָּל הַסִּימָן.
וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּהַמּוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא אֲפִלּוּ כָּל הַיּוֹם הַסַּכִּין בְּסִימָנִים לֹא מִקְּרֵי שְׁהִיָּהפד אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ חוֹתֵךְ כְּלוּם כְּגוֹן שֶׁהַסַּכִּין רָעָה רַק שֶׁמִּתְכַּוֵּן לַחְתּוֹךְ כְּדִלְעֵיל.פה הַיְנוּ דַוְקָא כְּשֶׁהַסַּכִּין הוֹלֵךְ עַל בְּשַׂר הַסִּימָן מַמָּשׁ לְחַתְּכוֹ וְנוֹגֵעַ בּוֹ אֲבָל כַּאן הַגֶּמִי מַפְסִיק בֵּין הַסַּכִּין לְתַחְתִּית הַסִּימָן שֶׁהוּא מֻנָּח עָלָיו וְכָל דָּפְנֵי הַסִּימָן כְּבָר הֵם חֲתוּכִים קֹדֶם שֶׁנֶּחְתַּךְ הַגֶּמִי וְנִמְצָא שֶׁבְּרֶגַע שֶׁנֶּחְתַּךְ הַגֶּמִי לֹא הָיָה הַסַּכִּין הוֹלֵךְ עַל בְּשַׂר הַסִּימָן מַמָּשׁ וְלֹא הָיָה נוֹגֵעַ בּוֹ רֶגַע הַהוּא. וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי מְדַמֵּי לָהּ הַתְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁןפו לְשׁוֹחֵט בְּסַכִּין רָעָה וְשָׁהָה בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא דְּסִימָן קַמָּא שֶׁאֵין הַסַּכִּין נוֹגֵעַ אָז עֲדַיִן בְּסִימָן ב'. וְגַם אִי הֲוָה מִשְׁכַּחַת לָהּ שֶׁבְּרֶגַע שֶׁנֶּחְתַּךְ הַגֶּמִי הָיָה הַסַּכִּין נוֹגֵעַ בְּסִימָן בְּהוֹלָכָה וְהוֹבָאָה וְלֹא הָיָה חוֹתֵךְ בּוֹ כְּלָל אֶפְשָׁר דְּמִקְּרֵי שְׁהִיָּה כֵּיוָן שֶׁהַסַּכִּין חַד וְאִם לֹא הָיָה הַגֶּמִי מְעַכְּבוֹ הָיָה חוֹתֵךְ בְּסִימָן בְּהוֹלָכָה וְהוֹבָאָה זוֹ. וְלֹא אָמְרוּ שֶׁמּוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא לַחְתּוֹךְ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ חוֹתֵךְ לֹא מִקְּרֵי שְׁהִיָּה אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ חוֹתֵךְ מִפְּנֵי הַסַּכִּין שֶׁהוּא רָע אֲבָל כְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ דָּבָר אַחֵר הַמְעַכְּבוֹ מִלַּחְתּוֹךְ
וְאִלּוּ לֹא הָיָה מְעַכְּבוֹ הָיָה חוֹתֵךְ בְּסִימָן מִקְּרֵי שְׁהִיָּה מַה שֶּׁשּׁוֹהֶה בְּדָבָר אַחֵר הַמְעַכְּבוֹ מִלַּחְתּוֹךְ בְּסִימָן וּמִתְעַסֵּק בְּעֵסֶק אַחֵר מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּסַכִּין רָעָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְעַסֵּק כְּלָל בְּדָבָר אַחֵר רַק בִּשְׁחִיטָה לְבַדָּהּ. אֶלָּא דְּלֹא מִשְׁכַּחַת לָהּ כְּלָל בְּגֶמִי וְכַיּוֹצֵא בוֹ שֶׁהוּא רַךְ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה נֶחְתָּךְ בְּסַכִּין הַהוֹלֵךְ וְנוֹגֵעַ גַּם בְּסִימָן כְּשֶׁחוֹתֵךְ וְלֹא יִהְיֶה הַסִּימָן נֶחְתָּךְ עִמּוֹ בַּחֲתִיכָה זוֹ אֶלָּא בְּדָבָר קָשֶׁה הוּא דְּמִשְׁכַּחַת לָהּ בִּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא. וּמִיהוּ אַף בְּדָבָר קָשֶׁה לֹא חַיְשִׁינָן לְהָכִי לְמֵימַר שֶׁמָּא כְּשֶׁחוֹתֵךְ בַּקָּשֶׁה אֵינוֹ חוֹתֵךְ כְּלָל בְּסִימָן אֶלָּא אָמְרִינָן שֶׁהַסִּימָן נֶחְתָּךְ מְעַט מְעַט כְּמוֹ הַקָּשֶׁה שֶׁהַקָּשֶׁה מְעַכֵּב הַסַּכִּין מִלַּחְתּוֹךְ הַסִּימָן מַהֵר. וְהָא דְּנָקַט הַתְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן עוֹף דַּוְקָא אַף עַל פִּי דִּבְיָמָיו כְּבָר נָהֲגוּ לְהַטְרִיף כָּל שְׁהִיָּה בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ אֲפִלּוּ בִּבְהֵמָה (עַיֵּן סִימָן קפ"ופז) הַיְנוּ מִשּׁוּם דִּבְעוֹף סְבִירָא לֵיהּ דְּמִדִּינָא שְׁהִיָּה פּוֹסֶלֶת בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ כְּדַעַת הָאֲגֻדָּה דִּלְעֵילפח כִּמְבֹאָר בִּתְרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן שֶׁהֲרֵי אִם מָצָא חֲצִי קָנֶה פָּגוּם כוּ'. וְגַם בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ כְּפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י דִּלְקַמָּן סְעִיף ה' דְּמִדִּינָא שְׁהִיָּה פּוֹסֶלֶת בּוֹ אֲפִלּוּ בְּעוֹף בְּסִימָן ב'. לְכָךְ אֵין לְהַכְשִׁיר בְּנִמְצָא גֶּמִי חָתוּךְ כֵּיוָן דְּוַדַּאי שָׁהָה מַשֶּׁהוּ בַּחֲתִיכָתוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב רְמָ"א וְכִמְבֹאָר בִּתְרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן וּבְנִדּוֹן דִּידַן אִי אֶפְשָׁר בְּלֹא שְׁהִיָּה כוּ'. אֲבָל בִּבְהֵמָה כֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵין שְׁהִיָּה מַשֶּׁהוּ פּוֹסֶלֶת לְכוּלָא עָלְמָא מִדִּינָא אֶלָּא מִמִּנְהָגָא הָבוּ דְּלֹא לוֹסִיף עֲלָהּ דְּאֵין לֶאֱסוֹר אֶלָּא כְּמוֹ שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ דְּהַיְנוּ בִּשְׁהִיָּה הַנִּכֶּרֶת וְנִרְאֵית לָעֵינַיִם כְּשֶׁהוּא שׁוֹהֶה בָּהּ אֲפִלּוּ רֶגַע אֶחָד דְּיֵשׁ לִגְזוֹר בָּהּ מִשּׁוּם שְׁהִיָּה מְרֻבָּה אֲבָל לֹא בִּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא דִּכְשֶׁשָּׁהָה לֹא הָיָה נִכָּר וְנִרְאֶה כְּלָל שֶׁהוּא שׁוֹהֶה וְאֵין לִגְזוֹר בָּהּ מִשּׁוּם שְׁהִיָּה מְרֻבָּה הַנִּרְאֵית לָעֵינַיִם. וְגַם יֵשׁ לוֹמַר כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְעֵילפט בְּשֵׁם הַטַּ"ז שֶׁאֵין בִּכְלַל מִנְהָג זֶה אֶלָּא אִם הִגְבִּיהַּ הַסַּכִּין אוֹ שֶׁפָּסַק מִלִּשְׁחוֹט וְזֶה לֹא הִגְבִּיהוֹ וְלֹא פָסַק מִלִּשְׁחוֹט שֶׁהֲרֵי אִי אֶפְשָׁר לִגְמוֹר שְׁחִיטַת הַסִּימָן בְּלִי שֶׁיַּחְתּוֹךְ הַגֶּמִי תְּחִלָּה שֶׁהוּא מֻנָּח עַל תַּחְתִּית הַסִּימָן וּמִקְּרֵי מִתְעַסֵּק בִּשְׁחִיטָה כְּשׁוֹחֵט בְּב' וְג' מְקוֹמוֹת דִּלְעֵיל.צ וּרְמָ"א שֶׁסָּתַם וְלֹא פֵרֵשׁ דְּדַוְקָא בְּעוֹף דִּינָא הָכִי עַל כָּרְחָךְ לֹא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ לְחַלֵּק בְּהָכִי. וּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ דְּבִתְרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיָה כָּךְ הָיָהצא בְּאַוְזָא וְהוּא הַדִּין בִּבְהֵמָה מִדִּמְסַיֵּם אַחַר כָּךְ וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן בְּגֶמִי שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ מִגּוּף הַבְּהֵמָה אֵינוֹ. וְאַף הַטַּ"ז שֶׁשָּׁתַק וְהוֹדָה לִרְמָ"א אַף עַל גַּב דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ שֶׁאֵין לְהַחֲמִיר כְּמִנְהָג זֶה בְּלֹא פָסַק מִלִּשְׁחוֹט וְלֹא הִגְבִּיהַּ הַסַּכִּין וְלֹא עֲקָרוֹ מִן הַצַּוָּאר כְּלָל, יֵשׁ לוֹמַר דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ דְּבִכְהַאי גַּוְנָא
מִקְּרֵי פָּסַק מִלִּשְׁחוֹט אוֹ דְּבִכְהַאי גַּוְנָא מִקְּרֵי עֲקָרוֹ מִן הַצַּוָּאר קְצָת מֵאַחַר שֶׁהַגֶּמִי הָיָה מַפְסִיק בֵּינוֹ וּבֵין תַּחְתִּית הַסִּימָן וְהוּא בִּכְלַל גְּזֵרַת וְחֻמְרַת הַמִּנְהָג דְּלֹא פְלוּג בֵּין שְׁהִיָּה מְרֻבָּה לְמוּעֶטֶת כֹּל שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר הַסַּכִּין מַשֶּׁהוּ מִן הַצַּוָּאר מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּשׁוֹחֵט מִן הַצְּדָדִים דִּלְעֵיל סוֹף סִימָן כ'צב שֶׁלֹּא עֲקָרוֹ מִן הַצַּוָּאר כְּלָל מִשּׁוּם הָכִי לֹא חַיְשִׁינָן הָתָם לִשְׁהִיָּה מַשֶּׁהוּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב שָׁםצג בְּשֵׁם הַטַּ"ז. וּלְפִי זֶה אֵין לְהַחֲמִיר בִּבְהֵמָה אֶלָּא בְּגֶמִי וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָהּ דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ גֹּבַהּ קְצָת כְּגֶמִי שֶׁהוּא קָנֶה עָגֹל כִּמְבֹאָר בִּתְרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן אֲבָל לֹא בְּעֵשֶׂב דַּק. וּמַה שֶּׁכָּתַב הַשַּׁ"ךְצד לְהַחֲמִיר אֲפִלּוּ בְּעֵשֶׂב דַּק וְאָרֹךְ וְחָלוּק עַל הַבַּ"חצה שֶׁמֵּקֵל בְּזֶה אָזִיל לְשִׁיטָתוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְעֵילצו דְּהַשַּׁ"ךְ לֹא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב הַטַּ"ז לְחַלֵּק בֵּין הִגְבִּיהַּ הַסַּכִּין לְלֹא הִגְבִּיהַּ כְּלָל. וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּעוֹף אֶפְשָׁר לְהָקֵל בְּעֵשֶׂב דַּק וּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא אֲפִלּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַרצז דִּשְׁהִיָּה כָּל שֶׁהוּא פּוֹסֶלֶת בְּעוֹף מִדִּינָא. מִשּׁוּם דִּשְׁהִיָּה בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא אֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה אַף לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"יצח אֶלָּא מִסָּפֵק כְּדִלְקַמָּן סְעִיף ה'צט וּבְעֵשֶׂב דַּק וּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא שֶׁהוּא סְפֵק סְפֵיקָאק לְפִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ עוֹד סָפֵק דְּשֶׁמָּא נֶחְתַּךְ שָׁוֶה בְּשָׁוֶה מַמָּשׁ עִם תַּחְתִּית הַסִּימָן שֶׁאֵצֶל מְקוֹם הַנָּחָתוֹ כְּשֶׁנֶּחְתַּךְ שָׁם אוֹ לְפָחוֹת הָיָה מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא הַסַּכִּין וְהָיָה נוֹגֵעַ בְּתַחְתִּית הַסִּימָן שֶׁאֵצֶל מְקוֹם הַנָּחַת הָעֵשֶׂב בְּתַחְתִּית הַסִּימָן כְּשֶׁנֶּחְתַּךְ שָׁם. וְלֹא כָתַב בִּתְרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן דְּאִי אֶפְשָׁר בְּלֹא שְׁהִיָּה אֶלָּא בְּקָנֶה שֶׁל גֶּמִי שֶׁהוּא עָגֹל וְיֵשׁ לוֹ קְצָת גֹּבַהּ בְּעָבְיוֹ שֶׁאַף אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר שֶׁגֹּבַהּ עֹבִי זֶה רַךְ וְנִכְפַּף מִפְּנֵי הַסַּכִּין לֹא נַעֲשָׂה דַּק כְּעֵשֶׂב בִּכְפִיפָה זוֹ וְגֹבַהּ עֹבִי זֶה אַף לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּכְפַּף מְעַט יֵשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהַגְבִּיהַּ הַסַּכִּין הַחוֹתֵךְ בּוֹ מִן תַּחְתִּית הַסִּימָן שֶׁאֵצֶל מְקוֹם הַנָּחָתוֹ וְדָפְנֵי הַסִּימָן כְּבָר חֲתוּכִים הֵם. מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּעֵשֶׂב דַּק וּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא אַף שֶׁתַּחְתִּית הַסִּימָן מְקוֹם הַנָּחָתוֹ מַמָּשׁ כְּשֶׁנֶּחְתָּךְ לְבַסּוֹף אֵינוֹ נֶחְתָּךְ עִם הָעֵשֶׂב בְּבַת אַחַת אֶלָּא אַחַר כָּךְ מִכָּל מָקוֹם תַּחְתִּית הַסִּימָן שֶׁאֵצֶל מְקוֹם הַנָּחָתוֹ מַמָּשׁ יוּכַל לִהְיוֹת שֶׁנֶּחְתָּךְ עִמּוֹ בְּבַת אַחַת מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵין לוֹ גֹּבַהּ כְּלָל (וּלְפָחוֹת הָיָה מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא וְנוֹגֵעַ בְּסַכִּין). וּלְזֶה נִתְכַּוֵּן בִּתְרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן שֶׁדִּקְדֵּק לִכְתּוֹב שֶׁהוּא קָנֶה עָגֹל. וּלְזֶה נִתְכַּוֵּן רְמָ"א גַּם כֵּן שֶׁכָּתַב גֶּמִי וְכַיּוֹצֵא בוֹקא דַּוְקָא לְאַפּוּקֵי דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ. וְכָל זֶה כְּשֶׁנֶּחְתַּךְ הַגֶּמִי אֲבָל אִם לֹא נֶחְתַּךְ רַק נִמְצָא בְּתוֹךְ הַסִּימָן אֲפִלּוּ נִמְצָא הַוֵּשֶׁט מָלֵא שְׂעוֹרִים אוֹ סֻבִּין כְּהַאי גַּוְנָא אֵין לְהַחֲמִיר כְּלָל דְּיֵשׁ לוֹמַר שֶׁהַסַּכִּין עָשָׂה מָקוֹם לְעַצְמוֹ וְעָבַר (תְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹרקב). וְאִם חָתַךְ הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה גַּם כֵּן אֵין לְהַחֲמִיר כְּלָל דְּיֵשׁ לוֹמַר דְּהָאֶצְבַּע וְהַסִּימָנִים נֶחְתְּכוּ כְּאֶחָד וְלֹא דָמֵי לְגֶמִי דִּלְעֵיל (תְּשׁוּבַת עֲבוֹדַת הַגֵּרְשֻׁנִּי צ"ו). וּמַה שֶּׁכָּתְבוּ הַבּוֹדְקִים בְּסִפְרֵיהֶם לְהַחֲמִיר בְּזֶה מִסָּפֵק שֶׁמָּא שָׁהָה מְעַט מֵחֲמַת בִּיעֲתוּתָא זֶה אֵינוֹ דְּאֵין לְהַחֲמִיר כְּלָל בִּסְפֵק שְׁהִיָּה
מַשֶּׁהוּ.קג וְגַם הַתְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹרקד לֹא הִסְכִּים עִמָּהֶם אֶלָּא בְּעוֹף דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ דִּשְׁהִיָּה מַשֶּׁהוּ פּוֹסֶלֶת בְּעוֹף מִדִּינָא.קה אֲבָל גַּם זֶה אֵינוֹ דְּהָאֲגֻדָּה יְחִידָאָה הוּא וְלֹא קַיְמָא לָן הָכִי כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר לְעֵיל.קו וְכֵן מַה שֶּׁכָּתְבוּ הַבּוֹדְקִים עוֹד כַּמָּה חֻמְרוֹת מִשּׁוּם שְׁהִיָּה אֵין לְהַחֲמִיר בָּהֶם אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יֵשׁ לְהִסְתַּפֵּק בִּשְׁהִיָּה הַפּוֹסֶלֶת מִדִּינָאקז אוֹ בְּוַדַּאי שְׁהִיָּה מַשֶּׁהוּ:
What is meant by shehiyah, interrupting [the slaughter]? If [the shochet] began to slaughter [an animal] and lifted up his hand (2) before he completed the slaughter, thereby interrupting [the act of slaughter] – whether unintentionally, or intentionally, whether [he was] forced [to do so] or [did so] willfully – should he or another person complete the slaughter [of the animal], if the interruption was long enough that he could have lifted up the animal and laid it back down, and [Note:] (until [i.e., also including the time it would take to]) slit the greater portion of the simanim (3) –this being what is necessary for slaughter to be acceptable (4) – the slaughter is invalid.
[The time that invalidates the slaughter depends on the animal being slaughtered.] If it was a small animal, the length of the [disqualifying] interruption is the amount of time it takes to lift up a small animal, lay it back down, and slaughter it. If it was a large [animal, the length of the disqualifying interruption] is the amount of time it takes to lift up a large animal, lay it back down, and slaughter it. For a fowl, it is the amount of time it takes to lift up a small animal, lay it back down, and slaughter it. There are those who maintain that the length of the [disqualifying] interruption [when slaughtering] a fowl is the amount of time it takes to slit one siman, without lifting it up and laying it [back] down. (5)
According to their opinion, [a shochet] must be [particularly] careful that if he began slaughtering a fowl and slit [its throat] slightly, [causing] blood to flow (6) and then lifted up his knife from the neck, he should not complete the slaughter. [The reason for this is] that there are grounds for concern that perhaps he slit the gullet slightly (7) [and thus, invalidated the slaughter]. Even if he only lifted up the knife for a very brief moment, there are grounds for concern because [the length of] the interruption for a fowl is very brief – [only] the amount of time that it takes to slit the greater portion of one of the fowl’s simanim, [and that] is accomplished very quickly.
Even if the shochet said, “I am certain that I slit only the skin,” we do not rely on his word, since blood (8) already flowed.
If [the shochet appears before us and] asks what to do after he already lifted up his knife, he should be told to slit only the windpipe in another place. Afterwards, he should turn the gullet [inside out] and examine it (9) [to see whether he had originally slit the larger portion].
With regard to actual practice, one should rule stringently in accordance with this opinion, unless it is a pressing situation or a severe financial loss is involved. In such circumstances, one may rely on the first (10) opinion. Note: In these regions, the prevailing custom is to declare [the slaughter] invalid even if [merely] the slightest interruption was made, both for [the slaughter of] a fowl and for an animal (Mordechai; Rav Yaakov Weil, Hilchos Shechitah). One should not deviate from [this practice]. (11) If, after the slaughter,one found a reed or the like stuck in the gullet or the windpipe and it was slit together with [the siman, the animal or fowl] is tereifah. [The rationale is that the shochet] certainly found it necessary to interrupt [the slaughter] slightly to cut [that substance] after he slit the siman. Thus, there was [at least] a slight interruption and [that suffices to render the animal] tereifah (12) (Terumas HaDeshen, responsum 185).
בשְׁהִיָּה כֵּיצַד, הֲרֵי שֶׁהִתְחִיל לִשְׁחֹט וְהִגְבִּיהַּ (ב) יָדוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּגְמֹר הַשְּׁחִיטָה וְשָׁהָה, בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד, בֵּין בְּאֹנֶס בֵּין בְּרָצוֹן, וּבָא הוּא אוֹ אַחֵר וְגָמַר הַשְּׁחִיטָה, אִם שָׁהָה כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּגְבִּיהַּ הַבְּהֵמָה וְיַרְבִּיצֶנָּה וְיִשְׁחֹט [הַגָּה:] עַד רֹב הַסִּימָנִים שֶׁהוּא (ג)הֶכְשֵׁר שְׁחִיטָה, (ד) שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. הָיְתָה בְּהֵמָה דַקָּה, שִׁעוּר שְׁהִיָּתָהּ כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּגְבִּיהַּ בְּהֵמָה דַקָּה וְיַרְבִּיצֶנָּה וְיִשְׁחֹט. וְאִם הָיְתָה גַּסָּה, כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּגְבִּיהַּ בְּהֵמָה גַסָּה וְיַרְבִּיצֶנָּה וְיִשְׁחֹט. וּבְעוֹף, כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּגְבִּיהַּ בְּהֵמָה דַקָּה וְיַרְבִּיצֶנָּה וְיִשְׁחֹט. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים דְּשִׁעוּר שְׁהִיַּת עוֹף כְּדֵי שְׁחִיטַת רֹב סִימָן אֶחָד בְּעוֹף בְּלִיהַגְבָּהָה וְהַרְבָּצָה. (ה) וּלְפִי דִבְרֵיהֶם יֵשׁ לִזָּהֵר כְּשֶׁהִתְחִיל לִשְׁחֹט בָּעוֹף וְחָתַךְ מְעַט עַד שֶׁהַדָּם יוֹצֵאו וְהִגְבִּיהַּ סַכִּינוֹ מֵהַצַּוָּאר, שֶׁלֹּא יִגְמֹר הַשְּׁחִיטָה, לְפִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא שָׁחַט מַשֶּׁהוּ מֵהַוֵּשֶׁט. (ז) וַאֲפִלּוּ לֹא הִגְבִּיהַּ סַכִּינוֹ אֶלָּא מְעַט יֵשׁ לָחוּשׁ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשְּׁהִיַּת הָעוֹף מוּעֶטֶת מְאֹד, דִּכְדֵי שְׁחִיטַת רֹב סִימָן א' בָּעוֹף הוּא נַעֲשֶׂה מַהֵר. וַאֲפִלּוּ אָמַר הַשּׁוֹחֵט: בָּרִי לִי שֶׁלֹּא חָתַכְתִּי כִּי אִם הָעוֹר, אֵין סוֹמְכִין עָלָיו כֵּיוָן שֶׁיָּצָא הַדָּם. (ח) וְאִם בָּא לִשְׁאֹל אַחַר שֶׁהִגְבִּיהַּ סַכִּינוֹ כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה, אוֹמְרִים לוֹ שֶׁיִּשְׁחֹט הַקָּנֶה לְבַדּוֹ בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר, וְאַחַר כָּךְ יַהֲפֹךְ הַוֵּשֶׁט וְיִבְדֹּק אוֹתוֹ. (ט) וּלְעִנְיַן מַעֲשֶׂה יֵשׁ לְהַחֲמִיר כִּסְבָרָא זוֹ, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הוּא שְׁעַת הַדְּחַק אוֹ הֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה, שֶׁאָז יֵשׁ לִסְמֹךְ עַל סְבָרָא הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. (י) הַגָּה: וְהַמִּנְהָג פָּשׁוּט בִּמְדִינוֹת אֵלּוּ לְהַטְרִיף כָּל שְׁהִיָּה, אֲפִלּוּ מַשֶּׁהוּ, בֵּין בְּעוֹף בֵּין בִּבְהֵמָה (מָרְדְּכַי וּמהרי"ו בְּהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה), וְאֵין לְשַׁנּוֹת. (יא) וְאִם נִמְצָא לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָהגֶּמִי אוֹ כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ מֻנָּח בַּוֵּשֶׁט אוֹ בַּקָּנֶה וְנִשְׁחַט עִמּוֹ, טְרֵפָה, (יב) דְּוַדַּאי הֻצְרַךְ לְהַשְׁהוֹת מְעַט בַּחֲתִיכַת הַדָּבָר הַהוּא לְאַחַר שֶׁשָּׁחַט הַסִּימָן, וְהָוֵי שְׁהִיָּה בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ וּטְרֵפָה (תְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן סִימָן קפ"ה).
כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב בְּפֶרֶק ג' דִּיבָמוֹתעו דְּעָלֶיךָ הָרְאָיָה שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה הַמַּעֲשֶׂה כוּ' דְּהַיְנוּ הוֹלָכָה וְהוֹבָאָה רְצוּפָה בְּלִי הֶפְסֵק בֵּינְתַיִם כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְעֵיל סִימָן א':עז
וְאִלּוּ לֹא הָיָה מְעַכְּבוֹ הָיָה חוֹתֵךְ בְּסִימָן מִקְּרֵי שְׁהִיָּה מַה שֶּׁשּׁוֹהֶה בְּדָבָר אַחֵר הַמְעַכְּבוֹ מִלַּחְתּוֹךְ בְּסִימָן וּמִתְעַסֵּק בְּעֵסֶק אַחֵר מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּסַכִּין רָעָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְעַסֵּק כְּלָל בְּדָבָר אַחֵר רַק בִּשְׁחִיטָה לְבַדָּהּ. אֶלָּא דְּלֹא מִשְׁכַּחַת לָהּ כְּלָל בְּגֶמִי וְכַיּוֹצֵא בוֹ שֶׁהוּא רַךְ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה נֶחְתָּךְ בְּסַכִּין הַהוֹלֵךְ וְנוֹגֵעַ גַּם בְּסִימָן כְּשֶׁחוֹתֵךְ וְלֹא יִהְיֶה הַסִּימָן נֶחְתָּךְ עִמּוֹ בַּחֲתִיכָה זוֹ אֶלָּא בְּדָבָר קָשֶׁה הוּא דְּמִשְׁכַּחַת לָהּ בִּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא. וּמִיהוּ אַף בְּדָבָר קָשֶׁה לֹא חַיְשִׁינָן לְהָכִי לְמֵימַר שֶׁמָּא כְּשֶׁחוֹתֵךְ בַּקָּשֶׁה אֵינוֹ חוֹתֵךְ כְּלָל בְּסִימָן אֶלָּא אָמְרִינָן שֶׁהַסִּימָן נֶחְתָּךְ מְעַט מְעַט כְּמוֹ הַקָּשֶׁה שֶׁהַקָּשֶׁה מְעַכֵּב הַסַּכִּין מִלַּחְתּוֹךְ הַסִּימָן מַהֵר. וְהָא דְּנָקַט הַתְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן עוֹף דַּוְקָא אַף עַל פִּי דִּבְיָמָיו כְּבָר נָהֲגוּ לְהַטְרִיף כָּל שְׁהִיָּה בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ אֲפִלּוּ בִּבְהֵמָה (עַיֵּן סִימָן קפ"ופז) הַיְנוּ מִשּׁוּם דִּבְעוֹף סְבִירָא לֵיהּ דְּמִדִּינָא שְׁהִיָּה פּוֹסֶלֶת בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ כְּדַעַת הָאֲגֻדָּה דִּלְעֵילפח כִּמְבֹאָר בִּתְרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן שֶׁהֲרֵי אִם מָצָא חֲצִי קָנֶה פָּגוּם כוּ'. וְגַם בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ כְּפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י דִּלְקַמָּן סְעִיף ה' דְּמִדִּינָא שְׁהִיָּה פּוֹסֶלֶת בּוֹ אֲפִלּוּ בְּעוֹף בְּסִימָן ב'. לְכָךְ אֵין לְהַכְשִׁיר בְּנִמְצָא גֶּמִי חָתוּךְ כֵּיוָן דְּוַדַּאי שָׁהָה מַשֶּׁהוּ בַּחֲתִיכָתוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב רְמָ"א וְכִמְבֹאָר בִּתְרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן וּבְנִדּוֹן דִּידַן אִי אֶפְשָׁר בְּלֹא שְׁהִיָּה כוּ'. אֲבָל בִּבְהֵמָה כֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵין שְׁהִיָּה מַשֶּׁהוּ פּוֹסֶלֶת לְכוּלָא עָלְמָא מִדִּינָא אֶלָּא מִמִּנְהָגָא הָבוּ דְּלֹא לוֹסִיף עֲלָהּ דְּאֵין לֶאֱסוֹר אֶלָּא כְּמוֹ שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ דְּהַיְנוּ בִּשְׁהִיָּה הַנִּכֶּרֶת וְנִרְאֵית לָעֵינַיִם כְּשֶׁהוּא שׁוֹהֶה בָּהּ אֲפִלּוּ רֶגַע אֶחָד דְּיֵשׁ לִגְזוֹר בָּהּ מִשּׁוּם שְׁהִיָּה מְרֻבָּה אֲבָל לֹא בִּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא דִּכְשֶׁשָּׁהָה לֹא הָיָה נִכָּר וְנִרְאֶה כְּלָל שֶׁהוּא שׁוֹהֶה וְאֵין לִגְזוֹר בָּהּ מִשּׁוּם שְׁהִיָּה מְרֻבָּה הַנִּרְאֵית לָעֵינַיִם. וְגַם יֵשׁ לוֹמַר כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְעֵילפט בְּשֵׁם הַטַּ"ז שֶׁאֵין בִּכְלַל מִנְהָג זֶה אֶלָּא אִם הִגְבִּיהַּ הַסַּכִּין אוֹ שֶׁפָּסַק מִלִּשְׁחוֹט וְזֶה לֹא הִגְבִּיהוֹ וְלֹא פָסַק מִלִּשְׁחוֹט שֶׁהֲרֵי אִי אֶפְשָׁר לִגְמוֹר שְׁחִיטַת הַסִּימָן בְּלִי שֶׁיַּחְתּוֹךְ הַגֶּמִי תְּחִלָּה שֶׁהוּא מֻנָּח עַל תַּחְתִּית הַסִּימָן וּמִקְּרֵי מִתְעַסֵּק בִּשְׁחִיטָה כְּשׁוֹחֵט בְּב' וְג' מְקוֹמוֹת דִּלְעֵיל.צ וּרְמָ"א שֶׁסָּתַם וְלֹא פֵרֵשׁ דְּדַוְקָא בְּעוֹף דִּינָא הָכִי עַל כָּרְחָךְ לֹא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ לְחַלֵּק בְּהָכִי. וּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ דְּבִתְרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיָה כָּךְ הָיָהצא בְּאַוְזָא וְהוּא הַדִּין בִּבְהֵמָה מִדִּמְסַיֵּם אַחַר כָּךְ וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן בְּגֶמִי שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ מִגּוּף הַבְּהֵמָה אֵינוֹ. וְאַף הַטַּ"ז שֶׁשָּׁתַק וְהוֹדָה לִרְמָ"א אַף עַל גַּב דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ שֶׁאֵין לְהַחֲמִיר כְּמִנְהָג זֶה בְּלֹא פָסַק מִלִּשְׁחוֹט וְלֹא הִגְבִּיהַּ הַסַּכִּין וְלֹא עֲקָרוֹ מִן הַצַּוָּאר כְּלָל, יֵשׁ לוֹמַר דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ דְּבִכְהַאי גַּוְנָא
מִקְּרֵי פָּסַק מִלִּשְׁחוֹט אוֹ דְּבִכְהַאי גַּוְנָא מִקְּרֵי עֲקָרוֹ מִן הַצַּוָּאר קְצָת מֵאַחַר שֶׁהַגֶּמִי הָיָה מַפְסִיק בֵּינוֹ וּבֵין תַּחְתִּית הַסִּימָן וְהוּא בִּכְלַל גְּזֵרַת וְחֻמְרַת הַמִּנְהָג דְּלֹא פְלוּג בֵּין שְׁהִיָּה מְרֻבָּה לְמוּעֶטֶת כֹּל שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר הַסַּכִּין מַשֶּׁהוּ מִן הַצַּוָּאר מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּשׁוֹחֵט מִן הַצְּדָדִים דִּלְעֵיל סוֹף סִימָן כ'צב שֶׁלֹּא עֲקָרוֹ מִן הַצַּוָּאר כְּלָל מִשּׁוּם הָכִי לֹא חַיְשִׁינָן הָתָם לִשְׁהִיָּה מַשֶּׁהוּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב שָׁםצג בְּשֵׁם הַטַּ"ז. וּלְפִי זֶה אֵין לְהַחֲמִיר בִּבְהֵמָה אֶלָּא בְּגֶמִי וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָהּ דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ גֹּבַהּ קְצָת כְּגֶמִי שֶׁהוּא קָנֶה עָגֹל כִּמְבֹאָר בִּתְרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן אֲבָל לֹא בְּעֵשֶׂב דַּק. וּמַה שֶּׁכָּתַב הַשַּׁ"ךְצד לְהַחֲמִיר אֲפִלּוּ בְּעֵשֶׂב דַּק וְאָרֹךְ וְחָלוּק עַל הַבַּ"חצה שֶׁמֵּקֵל בְּזֶה אָזִיל לְשִׁיטָתוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְעֵילצו דְּהַשַּׁ"ךְ לֹא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב הַטַּ"ז לְחַלֵּק בֵּין הִגְבִּיהַּ הַסַּכִּין לְלֹא הִגְבִּיהַּ כְּלָל. וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּעוֹף אֶפְשָׁר לְהָקֵל בְּעֵשֶׂב דַּק וּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא אֲפִלּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַרצז דִּשְׁהִיָּה כָּל שֶׁהוּא פּוֹסֶלֶת בְּעוֹף מִדִּינָא. מִשּׁוּם דִּשְׁהִיָּה בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא אֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה אַף לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"יצח אֶלָּא מִסָּפֵק כְּדִלְקַמָּן סְעִיף ה'צט וּבְעֵשֶׂב דַּק וּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא שֶׁהוּא סְפֵק סְפֵיקָאק לְפִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ עוֹד סָפֵק דְּשֶׁמָּא נֶחְתַּךְ שָׁוֶה בְּשָׁוֶה מַמָּשׁ עִם תַּחְתִּית הַסִּימָן שֶׁאֵצֶל מְקוֹם הַנָּחָתוֹ כְּשֶׁנֶּחְתַּךְ שָׁם אוֹ לְפָחוֹת הָיָה מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא הַסַּכִּין וְהָיָה נוֹגֵעַ בְּתַחְתִּית הַסִּימָן שֶׁאֵצֶל מְקוֹם הַנָּחַת הָעֵשֶׂב בְּתַחְתִּית הַסִּימָן כְּשֶׁנֶּחְתַּךְ שָׁם. וְלֹא כָתַב בִּתְרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן דְּאִי אֶפְשָׁר בְּלֹא שְׁהִיָּה אֶלָּא בְּקָנֶה שֶׁל גֶּמִי שֶׁהוּא עָגֹל וְיֵשׁ לוֹ קְצָת גֹּבַהּ בְּעָבְיוֹ שֶׁאַף אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר שֶׁגֹּבַהּ עֹבִי זֶה רַךְ וְנִכְפַּף מִפְּנֵי הַסַּכִּין לֹא נַעֲשָׂה דַּק כְּעֵשֶׂב בִּכְפִיפָה זוֹ וְגֹבַהּ עֹבִי זֶה אַף לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּכְפַּף מְעַט יֵשׁ בּוֹ כְּדֵי לְהַגְבִּיהַּ הַסַּכִּין הַחוֹתֵךְ בּוֹ מִן תַּחְתִּית הַסִּימָן שֶׁאֵצֶל מְקוֹם הַנָּחָתוֹ וְדָפְנֵי הַסִּימָן כְּבָר חֲתוּכִים הֵם. מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּעֵשֶׂב דַּק וּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא אַף שֶׁתַּחְתִּית הַסִּימָן מְקוֹם הַנָּחָתוֹ מַמָּשׁ כְּשֶׁנֶּחְתָּךְ לְבַסּוֹף אֵינוֹ נֶחְתָּךְ עִם הָעֵשֶׂב בְּבַת אַחַת אֶלָּא אַחַר כָּךְ מִכָּל מָקוֹם תַּחְתִּית הַסִּימָן שֶׁאֵצֶל מְקוֹם הַנָּחָתוֹ מַמָּשׁ יוּכַל לִהְיוֹת שֶׁנֶּחְתָּךְ עִמּוֹ בְּבַת אַחַת מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵין לוֹ גֹּבַהּ כְּלָל (וּלְפָחוֹת הָיָה מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא וְנוֹגֵעַ בְּסַכִּין). וּלְזֶה נִתְכַּוֵּן בִּתְרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן שֶׁדִּקְדֵּק לִכְתּוֹב שֶׁהוּא קָנֶה עָגֹל. וּלְזֶה נִתְכַּוֵּן רְמָ"א גַּם כֵּן שֶׁכָּתַב גֶּמִי וְכַיּוֹצֵא בוֹקא דַּוְקָא לְאַפּוּקֵי דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ. וְכָל זֶה כְּשֶׁנֶּחְתַּךְ הַגֶּמִי אֲבָל אִם לֹא נֶחְתַּךְ רַק נִמְצָא בְּתוֹךְ הַסִּימָן אֲפִלּוּ נִמְצָא הַוֵּשֶׁט מָלֵא שְׂעוֹרִים אוֹ סֻבִּין כְּהַאי גַּוְנָא אֵין לְהַחֲמִיר כְּלָל דְּיֵשׁ לוֹמַר שֶׁהַסַּכִּין עָשָׂה מָקוֹם לְעַצְמוֹ וְעָבַר (תְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹרקב). וְאִם חָתַךְ הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה גַּם כֵּן אֵין לְהַחֲמִיר כְּלָל דְּיֵשׁ לוֹמַר דְּהָאֶצְבַּע וְהַסִּימָנִים נֶחְתְּכוּ כְּאֶחָד וְלֹא דָמֵי לְגֶמִי דִּלְעֵיל (תְּשׁוּבַת עֲבוֹדַת הַגֵּרְשֻׁנִּי צ"ו). וּמַה שֶּׁכָּתְבוּ הַבּוֹדְקִים בְּסִפְרֵיהֶם לְהַחֲמִיר בְּזֶה מִסָּפֵק שֶׁמָּא שָׁהָה מְעַט מֵחֲמַת בִּיעֲתוּתָא זֶה אֵינוֹ דְּאֵין לְהַחֲמִיר כְּלָל בִּסְפֵק שְׁהִיָּה
מַשֶּׁהוּ.קג וְגַם הַתְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹרקד לֹא הִסְכִּים עִמָּהֶם אֶלָּא בְּעוֹף דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ דִּשְׁהִיָּה מַשֶּׁהוּ פּוֹסֶלֶת בְּעוֹף מִדִּינָא.קה אֲבָל גַּם זֶה אֵינוֹ דְּהָאֲגֻדָּה יְחִידָאָה הוּא וְלֹא קַיְמָא לָן הָכִי כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר לְעֵיל.קו וְכֵן מַה שֶּׁכָּתְבוּ הַבּוֹדְקִים עוֹד כַּמָּה חֻמְרוֹת מִשּׁוּם שְׁהִיָּה אֵין לְהַחֲמִיר בָּהֶם אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יֵשׁ לְהִסְתַּפֵּק בִּשְׁהִיָּה הַפּוֹסֶלֶת מִדִּינָאקז אוֹ בְּוַדַּאי שְׁהִיָּה מַשֶּׁהוּ:
3
[The following law applies if a shochet] made a slight interruption [while] slaughtering, resumed [the act of slaughter], slit [the simanim] a little bit [more, and continued this pattern until he completed the slaughter:] If when adding together all of the interruptions, their sum amounts to the length of a [disqualifying] interruption, the slaughter is invalid. (13) [Note:] (According to the practice [mentioned in the previous section, the animal] is deemed tereifah in all instances.)
גשָׁחַט מְעַט וְשָׁהָה מְעַט, וְחָזַר וְשָׁחַט מְעַט וְשָׁהָה מְעַט, אִם כְּשֶׁתְּצָרֵף כָּל הַשְּׁהִיּוֹת יֵשׁ שִׁעוּר שְׁהִיָּה, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. (יג) [הַגָּה:] וּלְפִי הַמִּנְהָג בְּכָל עִנְיָן טְרֵפָה.
4
(14) [The slaughter] is invalid –
In this instance as well, [there is] a doubt whether [the animal] is deemed a neveilah (Sifsei Kohen).35 [The rationale is that also] this question [was raised] in the Gemara33 [and left unresolved].
[To quote: The Sages asked,] “If one [cut the greater portion of the simanim, but] interrupted [the slaughter before cutting] the lesser portion of the simanim, what is [the halachah]? – [The question] stands [unresolved].”
Rashi interprets the [Sages’ question as follows]:
The lesser portion of the simanim – [the shochet] slit the larger portion [of the siman], and interrupted while slitting the lesser portion afterwards, and then, completed his slaughter. What is [the halachah]?
Do we say that since [the shochet] performed the greater portion [of the slaughter in an acceptable manner, the slaughter] is acceptable?36 Or perhaps, since he [continued and] completed [slitting the remainder of the siman even though it was unnecessary], it is considered one act of slaughter, [and an interruption while slitting the lesser portion that remains disqualifies it?]
[The above applies when the shochet already slit the greater portion of the siman.] However, [different rules apply regarding slitting] the lesser portion of a siman [at the outset]. With regard to the windpipe, [the shochet’s act of slitting the lesser portion initially] is of no consequence.37 [Hence, if he ceases the act of slaughtering for a time and then continues, he] is not considered to have made an interruption. [However,] with regard to the gullet, even the slightest perforation renders [the animal] tereifah regardless. [If the shochet began slitting the gullet and then ceased for a time,] the first act is not considered [as part of the act of slaughter] since he made an interruption. Thus, [his act] is considered merely making a perforation, and [the animal] is rendered tereifah.
Tosafos38 questions [Rashi’s] statement based on a teaching of the Tosefta39 that if [a shochet] slit the larger portion of a fowl’s windpipe, [the fowl] is kosher even if [he] did not complete the slaughter until a long time [passed. Based on that teaching, Tosafos asks: How can Rashi say that there is an unresolved question if a shochet made a slight interruption before he completed slitting the lesser portion of the windpipe? It seems the Tosefta clearly rules that such a slight interruption does not invalidate the slaughter.]
Instead, [Tosafos] offers the following interpretation: [The shochet] delayed when [slitting] the lesser portion of the simanim, i.e., he prolonged and delayed slitting the lesser, final portion of the first siman for the amount of time [considered to be a disqualifying] interruption because his knife was dull. It is possible that [the ruling that deems a slaughter acceptable even when] the knife was dull and [the shochet] drew it back-and-forth the entire day (mentioned above in sec. 18[:7]) applies only when [the shochet] was [continuously] involved in slitting [the initial portion of] the siman. However, in this instance, since the major portion [of the animal’s siman] was slit, it is as if [the siman] was slit in its entirety. [Thus,] when [the shochet] draws the knife back-and -forth over the lesser portion [of the siman] that remains, it is as if he draws it over [an entity that has nothing to do with the slaughter, e.g., over the animal’s] foreleg or hindleg, and it is [therefore] considered a [disqualifying] interruption.
Sifsei Kohen [Yoreh Deah 23:10] states:
Rama also did not note that, in this instance, according to the prevailing custom, [mentioned in subsection 2 above, the animal is deemed] tereifah in all instances, even if [the shochet] did not delay for the amount of time deemed a [disqualifying] interruption. Accordingly, the implication is that [Rama] maintains that in this instance, since [the shochet] was [continuously] involved in slitting the simanim, [for the slaughter to be disqualified, the shochet] must delay for the amount of time necessary for it to be deemed a [disqualifying] interruption even [though we ordinarily follow a more stringent custom].
Rama follows this logic in his note to sec. 18:7, where he writes that, “in such circumstances, there are times when the animal is tereifah.” [By saying, “there are times,” Rama implies that the slaughter] is not necessarily [invalid, i.e.,] when [the shochet] did not delay for the amount of time necessary for it to be deemed a [disqualifying] interruption, [the slaughter is acceptable.]
Nevertheless, [we rule stringently,] in light of what was stated above40 in the name of Bach, [i.e.,] that we follow the approach of Rashi, [who maintains] that the amount of time deemed a [disqualifying] interruption is merely [the time it takes to] slit the majority of the simanim, without lifting up and laying down [the animal]. This is a minimal amount of time, and we are not knowledgeable enough to determine its exact duration. [According to this approach], one should rule stringently, even after the fact, when [the shochet] slaughters with a knife that is so dull that there is concern that after [slitting the greater portion of the first siman], he delayed when slitting its lesser portion for the time it takes to slit the greater portion of [both] simanim with a sharp knife.
However, as an initial preference, one should not slaughter with a dull knife under any circumstances because of the possibility of there being an interruption when slitting the last, lesser portion of the first siman after [slitting its greater portion. The rationale for this stringent stance is that], as an initial preference, one should not delay [at all], even for less [time] than is deemed a [disqualifying] interruption.
The statement of [Rav Yosef Caro in his] Shulchan Aruch [Yoreh Deah] 18:7, that one may slaughter with [such a knife] – which implies that [one may do so even] as an initial preference – [should not be interpreted as a contradiction to what was stated immediately beforehand]. That source is relevant only regarding the laws pertaining to the [slaughtering] knife [and not the laws of a disqualifying interruption] and deals with an instance where there will be no interruption, e.g., [the shochet] places both simanim together, next to each other, and slits them at [the same] time (Sifsei Kohen [Yoreh Deah 18:12]). [Moreover,] even if [the shochet] does not slit both [simanim] at exactly the same time, as long as he begins [slitting] the second [siman] before he completes slitting the remaining, lesser portion of the first [siman, after having slit its greater portion], there is no concern about [there being] an interruption (Tevuos Shor [sec. 23, note 17]).
All the above applies to [the slaughter of] an animal. However, [even] as an initial preference, it is permissible to slaughter a fowl with a knife that is so dull that, [after slitting the greater portion of the first siman, the shochet] will delay when slitting its remaining, lesser portion for the amount of time [considered to be a disqualifying] interruption. [The rationale is that] according to Scriptural Law, [the slaughter of] a fowl is valid [even when only] one siman [is slit]. True, according to Rabbinic Law, as an initial preference, it is necessary [to slit] both simanim [when slaughtering] a fowl, and, thus, according to Rabbinic Law, it is [still] necessary to slit the remaining lesser portion [of the first siman.41 Nevertheless, the statement that drawing [the knife] back-and-forth [over the remaining, lesser portion of the siman is] the same as drawing it over [an animal’s] foreleg or hindleg applies only [regarding a matter of] Scriptural Law, [i.e., regarding the slaughter of] an animal [in which instance, slitting] both simanim is necessary according to Scriptural Law (Pri Chadash).42
[Similarly,] regarding the remaining lesser portion of the second siman, there are no grounds for concern regarding a [disqualifying] interruption when one slaughters with a dull knife, even [when slaughtering] an animal. Similar [laws apply] regarding [slaughtering] a fowl [with a dull knife], whether [the delay occurs while slitting] the remaining lesser portion of the first [siman] or the initial or remaining lesser portion of the second [siman. This applies] even according to our custom to rule stringently, following Rashi’s approach to invalidate an interruption [when slitting] the remaining lesser portion [of the second siman], whether for a fowl or for an animal (Sifsei Kohen).43
[The rationale is that] Rashi understands the question [in Chulin 32a quoted above] regarding interrupting when slitting the lesser portion of the simanim as referring to making a complete interruption44 [when slitting] the remaining lesser portion [of the siman after slitting the greater portion]. Accordingly, when slaughtering an animal with a dull knife, there is no [Talmudic source] for a prohibition against interrupting [the slaughter when slitting] the remaining lesser portion of the first siman.
However, we follow the interpretation of Tosafos, who understands the question as applying to the remaining, lesser portion of the first [siman] when slaughtering an animal with a dull knife. Nevertheless, Tosafos maintain that there is no concept of a [disqualifying] interruption [when slitting] the remaining lesser portion of the second [siman]. The same [concept applies regarding slitting] the remaining lesser portion of the first [siman] and the entire second siman for a fowl.45 Accordingly, it is not appropriate for us to rule stringently, at least when [the interruption was never complete] – for example, slaughtering with a dull knife – [instead,] only in an instance of a complete interruption,44 to show concern for Rashi’s view.
(The statement of Terumas HaDeshen that one should rule stringently when a slit reed was discovered in a [fowl’s] gullet because [of the possibility that] an interruption [was made when slitting] the remaining, lesser portion of the second [siman] in the fowl, [is,] as explained above,46 based on [the law pertaining to] a dull knife, [and is not relevant to the present instance. In that instance, the comparison was made to] drawing the knife back-and-forth over a portion [of the animal] concerning which the laws of ritual slaughter do not apply, for example, the remaining lesser portion of the first [siman] according to Tosafos. All authorities agree that the laws of ritual slaughter do not apply to a reed.
However, according to Rashi’s commentary, it is possible that the laws of ritual slaughter certainly do apply, and there is no interruption as long as one [continuously] draws [the knife] back-and-forth to slaughter [the fowl or animal. Thus, Rashi maintains that] the question was raised only in an instance when one ceased drawing [the knife] back-and-forth for the amount of time that constitutes a total interruption44 while slitting the remaining lesser portion of the second [siman]. Similar laws apply regarding all factors that disqualify ritual slaughter in the remaining lesser portion, whether of the first [siman] or the second [siman], as will be stated in sec. 24. [The rationale is that] it is possible that [a disqualifying factor] in the lesser portion [of a siman] is not sufficient to disqualify the slitting of [its] greater portion, which was slit in an acceptable manner. [The rationale is that] according to Scriptural Law, it is sufficient to slit the greater portion [of the siman]; it is not necessary to slit its lesser portion.
However, if one did slit a lesser portion [of the siman] in an acceptable manner, according to Rashi, it is included as part of the acceptable slaughter,47 and the concept of an interruption does not apply when slitting it. [The rationale is that] this lesser portion is fit to become part of the greater portion of the siman by combining it with another lesser portion. [In this way, it is considered that] the greater portion of the siman [is] slit. [In such an instance,] the slaughter would be valid. [Once these portions were combined,] even were the remaining lesser portion [to have been] slit in an unacceptable manner, or [if it were] not slit at all [the slaughter would be acceptable.] On the contrary, because the remaining lesser portion is considered as part of the slaughter according to Rashi for the reason mentioned [above], according to Rashi’s commentary, the question [of the Talmud] is: Does interrupting or [performing any of the] other disqualifying actions mentioned in sec. 24 [while the lesser portion of the siman is being slit] disqualify [the slaughter]?)
(יד) הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה.
הָכִי נַמִי סְפֵק נְבֵלָה הִיא (שַׁ"ךְקי) דְּבַעְיָא הִיא בִּגְמָרָאקיא שָׁהָה בְּמִעוּט סִימָנִים מַהוּ תֵּיקוּ. וּפֵרֵשׁ רַשִׁ"י בְּמִעוּט סִימָנִים שֶׁשָּׁחַט הָרֹב וְשָׁהָה בְּמִעוּט הָאַחֲרוֹן וְגָמַר שְׁחִיטָתוֹ מַהוּ מִי אָמְרִינָן כֵּיוָן דַּעֲבַד לֵיהּ רוּבָּא אִתְכַּשַּׁר אוֹ דִּילְמָא כֵּיוָן דַּהֲדַר וּגְמָרָהּ כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא אֲבָל בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא אִי דְּגַרְגֶּרֶת לָאו מִדֵּי עָבִיד וְלָאו שְׁהִיָּה הִיא וְאִי דְּוֵשֶׁט דִּנְקוּבָתוֹ בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ מִיטַּרְפָא מִמָּה נַפְשָׁךְ דְּהָא כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁהָה אָזִיל לֵיהּ מַעֲשֶׂה קַמָּא וַהֲוָה לֵיהּ נֶקֶב בְּעָלְמָא וּטְרֵפָה עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ. וְהַתּוֹסְפוֹתקיב הִקְשׁוּ עָלָיו מֵהָא דְּתַנְיָא בְּתוֹסֶפְתָּאקיג שָׁחַט רֹב הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת בְּעוֹף אֲפִלּוּ אִם גְּמָרוֹ לִזְמַן מְרֻבֶּה שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה אֶלָּא הָכִי פֵּרוּשׁוֹ שָׁהָה בְּמִעוּט סִימָנִים שֶׁשָּׁהָה וְנִתְעַכֵּב בִּשְׁחִיטַת מִעוּט הָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁל סִימָן רִאשׁוֹן כְּשִׁעוּר שְׁהִיָּה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָיְתָה הַסַּכִּין רָעָה דְּדִלְמָא הָא דְמַכְשְׁרִינָן בְּסַכִּין רָעָה אֲפִלּוּ הוֹלִיךְ וְהֵבִיא כָּל הַיּוֹם כֻּלּוֹ (כְּדִלְעֵיל סִימָן י"חקיד) הַיְנוּ בְּמִתְעַסֵּק לַחְתּוֹךְ הַסִּימָן אֲבָל כַּאן שֶׁכְּבָר חָתַךְ רֻבּוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא כְּאִלּוּ נֶחְתַּךְ כֻּלּוֹ וּכְשֶׁמּוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא בְּמִעוּט הַנִּשְׁאָר הָוֵי כְּאִלּוּ מוֹלִיךְ בְּיָדָהּ אוֹ בְּרַגְלָהּ וְהָוֵי שְׁהִיָּה עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ.
וְכָתַב הַשַּׁ"ךְקטו מִדְּלֹא הִגִּיהַּ רְמָ"א נַמִי כַּאן דִּלְפִי הַמִּנְהָג בְּכָל עִנְיָן טְרֵפָה אֲפִלּוּ לֹא נִתְעַכֵּב שִׁעוּר שְׁהִיָּה מַשְׁמַע דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ דְּהָכָא בָּעֵי שִׁעוּר שְׁהִיָּה דַּוְקָא אַף לְדִידַן כֵּיוָן שֶׁמִּתְעַסֵּק בִּשְׁחִיטַת הַסִּימָנִים עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ. וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי נַמִי כָּתַב רְמָ"א בְּסִימָן י"ח סְעִיף ז' בְּהַגָּ"ה דְּבִבְהֵמָה כְּהַאי גַּוְנָא לִפְעָמִים טְרֵפָה לְאַפּוּקֵי לֹא שָׁהָה שִׁעוּר שְׁהִיָּה.קטז וּמִיהוּ לְפִי מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב לְעֵילקיז בְּשֵׁם הַבַּ"חקיח דְּנָקְטִינָן כְּשִׁיטַת רַשִׁ"י דְּשִׁעוּר שְׁהִיָּה הוּא כְּדֵי שְׁחִיטַת רֹב סִימָנִים לְבָד בְּלֹא הַגְבָּהָה וְהַרְבָּצָה וְהוּא שִׁעוּר מוּעָט וְאֵין אָנוּ בְּקִיאִין לְצַמְצֵם כָּל כָּךְ יֵשׁ לְהַחֲמִיר אֲפִלּוּ בְּדִיעֲבַד בְּשׁוֹחֵט בְּסַכִּין שֶׁאֵינָהּ חַדָּה כָּל כָּךְ בְּעִנְיָן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא שָׁהָה בְּמִעוּט הָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁל סִימָן הָרִאשׁוֹן כְּדֵי שְׁחִיטַת רֹב סִימָנִים בְּסַכִּין יָפֶה. אֲבָל לְכַתְּחִלָּה אֵין לִשְׁחוֹט בְּכָל עִנְיָן בְּסַכִּין רָעָה מִשּׁוּם סְפֵק שְׁהִיָּה בְּמִעוּט הָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁל סִימָן רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלְּכַתְּחִלָּה אֵין לִשְׁהוֹת אֲפִלּוּ פָּחוֹת מִכְּדֵי שִׁעוּר שְׁהִיָּה. וּמַה שֶּׁכָּתַב הַשֻּׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ בְּסִימָן י"ח סְעִיף ז' שׁוֹחֲטִין בּוֹ דְּמַשְׁמַע לְכַתְּחִלָּה הַיְנוּ מִשּׁוּם דְּהָתָם לֹא בָא אֶלָּא לְלַמֵּד דִּין הַסַּכִּין וּמַיְרִי בְּגַוְנָא דְּלֵיכָּא מִשּׁוּם שְׁהִיָּה כְּגוֹן שֶׁמַּנִּיחַ ב' הַסִּימָנִים יַחַד זֶה אֵצֶל זֶה וְשׁוֹחֵט שְׁנֵיהֶם כְּאַחַת (שַׁ"ךְקיט). וְאַף אִם אֵינוֹ שׁוֹחֵט שְׁנֵיהֶם כְּאַחַת מַמָּשׁ כֵּיוָן שֶׁמַּתְחִיל בַּשֵּׁנִי קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּשְׁחוֹט מִעוּט הָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁל הָרִאשׁוֹן אֵין לָחוּשׁ מִשּׁוּם שְׁהִיָּה (תְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹרקכ).
וְכָל זֶה בִּבְהֵמָה אֲבָל בְּעוֹף מֻתָּר לִשְׁחוֹט לְכַתְּחִלָּה בְּסַכִּין רָעָהקכא כָּל כָּךְ בְּעִנְיָן שֶׁיִּשְׁהֶה שִׁעוּר שְׁהִיָּה בְּמִעוּט הָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁל סִימָן הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהֲרֵי עוֹף הֶכְשֵׁרוֹ בְּסִימָן אֶחָד מִדְּאוֹרַיְתָא. וְאַף דְּמִדְּרַבָּנָן צָרִיךְ ב' סִימָנִים גַּם בְּעוֹף לְכַתְּחִלָּהקכב הֲרֵי מִדְּרַבָּנָן צָרִיךְ לִשְׁחוֹט לְכַתְּחִלָּה גַּם בְּמִעוּט הָאַחֲרוֹן וְלֵיכָּא לְמֵימַר דְּהָוֵי כְּאִלּוּ מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא בְּיָדָהּ אוֹ בְּרַגְלָהּ אֶלָּא מִדְּאוֹרַיְתָא וּבִבְהֵמָה דְּבָעֵי ב' סִימָנִים מִדְּאוֹרַיְתָא (פְּרִי חָדָשׁקכג). וּבְמִעוּט בַּתְרָא דְּסִימָן ב' אֵין לָחוּשׁ מִשּׁוּם שְׁהִיָּה בְּשׁוֹחֵט בְּסַכִּין רָעָה אֲפִלּוּ
בִּבְהֵמָה וְכֵן בְּעוֹף בֵּין בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא דְּקַמָּא בֵּין בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא וּבַתְרָא דְּבַתְרָא אַף לְפִי מִנְהָגֵנוּ שֶׁמַּחְמִירִים כְּפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י לִפְסוֹל שְׁהִיָּה בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא בֵּין בְּעוֹף בֵּין בִּבְהֵמָה (שַׁ"ךְקכד). מִשּׁוּם דִּלְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י דְּבַעְיָא דְּשָׁהָה בְּמִעוּט סִימָנִים אַמִּעוּט בַּתְרָא קַיְמָא וּבְשׁוֹהֶה שְׁהִיָּה גְמוּרָה אִם כֵּן לֹא מָצִינוּ אִסּוּר שְׁהִיָּה כְּלָל בְּשׁוֹחֵט בְּסַכִּין רָעָה אֲפִלּוּ בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא דְּקַמָּא בִּבְהֵמָה. אֶלָּא דְּקַיְמָא לָן כְּפֵרוּשׁ הַתּוֹסְפוֹת דְּהַבַּעְיָא הִיא בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא דְּקַמָּא בְּשׁוֹחֵט בְּסַכִּין רָעָה בִּבְהֵמָה אֲבָל בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא דְּבַתְרָא סְבִירָא לְהוּ לְהַתּוֹסְפוֹת דְּאֵין שְׁהִיָּה פּוֹסֶלֶת כְּלָל וְכֵן בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא דְּקַמָּא וְכָל סִימָן ב' בְּעוֹף. וְאִם כֵּן אֵין לָנוּ לְהַחֲמִיר כְּלָל בִּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא בְּסַכִּין רָעָה עַל כָּל פָּנִים אֶלָּא בִּשְׁהִיָּה גְמוּרָה לָחוּשׁ לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י (וּמַה שֶּׁכָּתַב הַתְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן לְהַחֲמִיר בְּנִמְצָא גֶּמִי חָתוּךְ בַּוֵּשֶׁט מִשּׁוּם שְׁהִיָּה בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא דְּבַתְרָא בְּעוֹף כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר לְעֵילקכה וּלְמָדָהּ מִסַּכִּין רָעָה. הַיְנוּ לְעִנְיָן דַּאֲפִלּוּ שֶׁמּוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא בַּחֲתִיכָה שֶׁאֵין עָלֶיהָ תּוֹרַת שְׁחִיטָה כְּמוֹ מִעוּט בַּתְרָא דְּקַמָּא לְפֵרוּשׁ הַתּוֹסְפוֹת וּבְגֶמִי אֵין תּוֹרַת שְׁחִיטָה עָלָיו לְכוּלֵי עָלְמָא. אֲבָל לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י יֵשׁ לוֹמַר דְּתוֹרַת שְׁחִיטָה עָלָיו בְּוַדַּאי וְאֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם שְׁהִיָּה כְּשֶׁמּוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא לְשָׁחֲטוֹ וְלֹא קָמִבַּעְיָא לָן אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁפָּסַק מִלְּהוֹלִיךְ וּלְהָבִיא וְשָׁהָה שְׁהִיָּה גְמוּרָה בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא דְּבַתְרָא וְכֵן בִּשְׁאָר פְּסוּלֵי שְׁחִיטָה בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא בֵּין דְּקַמָּא בֵּין דְּבַתְרָא כְּדִלְקַמָּן סִימָן כ"ד דְּשֶׁמָּא אֵין הַמִּעוּט כְּדַאי לִפְסוֹל שְׁחִיטַת הָרֹב שֶׁכְּבָר נִשְׁחַט בְּהֶכְשֵׁר דְּהָא מִדְּאוֹרַיְתָא סַגִּי בְּרוּבָּא וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לִשְׁחוֹט הַמִּעוּט אֲבָל אִם שָׁחַט גַּם הַמִּעוּט בְּהֶכְשֵׁר יֶשְׁנוֹ בְּהֶכְשֵׁר שְׁחִיטָה לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י וְאֵין בִּשְׁחִיטָתוֹ מִשּׁוּם שְׁהִיָּה שֶׁהֲרֵי מִעוּט זֶה רָאוּי לְהִצְטָרֵף לְרֹבקכו לְהַכְשִׁיר הַשְּׁחִיטָה עַל יְדֵי מִעוּט בְּצֵרוּף מִעוּט אַחֵר הַמַּשְׁלִימוֹ לְרֹב אַף אִם מִעוּט הַנִּשְׁאָר נִשְׁחַט בְּפִסּוּל אוֹ לֹא נִשְׁחַט כְּלָל. וְאַדְּרַבָּה מִשּׁוּם דְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא יֶשְׁנוֹ בְּתוֹרַת שְׁחִיטָה לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י מֵהַאי טַעְמָא דַּאֲמָרָן מִשּׁוּם הָכִי קָא מִבַּעְיָא לָן לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י אִם פּוֹסֶלֶת בּוֹ שְׁהִיָּה אוֹ שְׁאָר פְּסוּלֵי שְׁחִיטָה דִּלְקַמָּן סִימָן כ"ד):
When [a shochet] slaughters with a knife that is not sharp and was delayed [in completing the slaughter] for the amount of time that [is classified] a [disqualifying] interruption when slaughtering the lesser portion of the first siman [after the greater portion of the siman has been slit, the slaughter] is invalid. (14)
דהַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה בְּסַכִּין שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַד, וְנִתְעַכֵּב כְּשִׁעוּר שְׁהִיָּה בִּשְׁחִיטַת מִעוּט אַחֲרוֹן שֶׁל סִימָן רִאשׁוֹן, הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה. (יד)
בִּבְהֵמָה וְכֵן בְּעוֹף בֵּין בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא דְּקַמָּא בֵּין בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא וּבַתְרָא דְּבַתְרָא אַף לְפִי מִנְהָגֵנוּ שֶׁמַּחְמִירִים כְּפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י לִפְסוֹל שְׁהִיָּה בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא בֵּין בְּעוֹף בֵּין בִּבְהֵמָה (שַׁ"ךְקכד). מִשּׁוּם דִּלְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י דְּבַעְיָא דְּשָׁהָה בְּמִעוּט סִימָנִים אַמִּעוּט בַּתְרָא קַיְמָא וּבְשׁוֹהֶה שְׁהִיָּה גְמוּרָה אִם כֵּן לֹא מָצִינוּ אִסּוּר שְׁהִיָּה כְּלָל בְּשׁוֹחֵט בְּסַכִּין רָעָה אֲפִלּוּ בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא דְּקַמָּא בִּבְהֵמָה. אֶלָּא דְּקַיְמָא לָן כְּפֵרוּשׁ הַתּוֹסְפוֹת דְּהַבַּעְיָא הִיא בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא דְּקַמָּא בְּשׁוֹחֵט בְּסַכִּין רָעָה בִּבְהֵמָה אֲבָל בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא דְּבַתְרָא סְבִירָא לְהוּ לְהַתּוֹסְפוֹת דְּאֵין שְׁהִיָּה פּוֹסֶלֶת כְּלָל וְכֵן בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא דְּקַמָּא וְכָל סִימָן ב' בְּעוֹף. וְאִם כֵּן אֵין לָנוּ לְהַחֲמִיר כְּלָל בִּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא בְּסַכִּין רָעָה עַל כָּל פָּנִים אֶלָּא בִּשְׁהִיָּה גְמוּרָה לָחוּשׁ לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י (וּמַה שֶּׁכָּתַב הַתְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן לְהַחֲמִיר בְּנִמְצָא גֶּמִי חָתוּךְ בַּוֵּשֶׁט מִשּׁוּם שְׁהִיָּה בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא דְּבַתְרָא בְּעוֹף כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר לְעֵילקכה וּלְמָדָהּ מִסַּכִּין רָעָה. הַיְנוּ לְעִנְיָן דַּאֲפִלּוּ שֶׁמּוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא בַּחֲתִיכָה שֶׁאֵין עָלֶיהָ תּוֹרַת שְׁחִיטָה כְּמוֹ מִעוּט בַּתְרָא דְּקַמָּא לְפֵרוּשׁ הַתּוֹסְפוֹת וּבְגֶמִי אֵין תּוֹרַת שְׁחִיטָה עָלָיו לְכוּלֵי עָלְמָא. אֲבָל לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י יֵשׁ לוֹמַר דְּתוֹרַת שְׁחִיטָה עָלָיו בְּוַדַּאי וְאֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם שְׁהִיָּה כְּשֶׁמּוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא לְשָׁחֲטוֹ וְלֹא קָמִבַּעְיָא לָן אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁפָּסַק מִלְּהוֹלִיךְ וּלְהָבִיא וְשָׁהָה שְׁהִיָּה גְמוּרָה בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא דְּבַתְרָא וְכֵן בִּשְׁאָר פְּסוּלֵי שְׁחִיטָה בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא בֵּין דְּקַמָּא בֵּין דְּבַתְרָא כְּדִלְקַמָּן סִימָן כ"ד דְּשֶׁמָּא אֵין הַמִּעוּט כְּדַאי לִפְסוֹל שְׁחִיטַת הָרֹב שֶׁכְּבָר נִשְׁחַט בְּהֶכְשֵׁר דְּהָא מִדְּאוֹרַיְתָא סַגִּי בְּרוּבָּא וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לִשְׁחוֹט הַמִּעוּט אֲבָל אִם שָׁחַט גַּם הַמִּעוּט בְּהֶכְשֵׁר יֶשְׁנוֹ בְּהֶכְשֵׁר שְׁחִיטָה לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י וְאֵין בִּשְׁחִיטָתוֹ מִשּׁוּם שְׁהִיָּה שֶׁהֲרֵי מִעוּט זֶה רָאוּי לְהִצְטָרֵף לְרֹבקכו לְהַכְשִׁיר הַשְּׁחִיטָה עַל יְדֵי מִעוּט בְּצֵרוּף מִעוּט אַחֵר הַמַּשְׁלִימוֹ לְרֹב אַף אִם מִעוּט הַנִּשְׁאָר נִשְׁחַט בְּפִסּוּל אוֹ לֹא נִשְׁחַט כְּלָל. וְאַדְּרַבָּה מִשּׁוּם דְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא יֶשְׁנוֹ בְּתוֹרַת שְׁחִיטָה לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י מֵהַאי טַעְמָא דַּאֲמָרָן מִשּׁוּם הָכִי קָא מִבַּעְיָא לָן לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י אִם פּוֹסֶלֶת בּוֹ שְׁהִיָּה אוֹ שְׁאָר פְּסוּלֵי שְׁחִיטָה דִּלְקַמָּן סִימָן כ"ד):
5
(15) At all –
[This deals with an instance] where the gullet has not been perforated, as [explained] above. [For] it is only [regarding] the gullet that an interruption [will cause the slaughter] to be disqualified if the greater portion of the windpipe has not yet been slit. This is the opinion of Tosafos and those who concur with his opinion,48 as mentioned above.49
(16) An interruption disqualifies [the slaughter] –
As mentioned above,49 Rashi maintains that [the slaughter is disqualified] because [this matter] is [the focus of] an unresolved question [in the Talmud].50 Even regarding a fowl, which is [permitted] if only one siman [is slit], since [the shochet] continued and completed [slitting] the second siman, his actions are considered as one act of slaughter. According to Rabbeinu Asher,51 who follows the opinion of Rivam,48 [the status of the slaughtered animal] is in doubt – [perhaps it is] a neveilah according to Scriptural Law. [The rationale is that Rivam] makes a distinction between [the following three acts that disqualify ritual slaughter: a) making an] interruption, [b)] pressing [the knife against the simanim], and [c)] concealing [the knife – since] they are performed in the place of [the actual] slaughter, the entire act is considered as one [continuous act of] slaughter52 – and [a fourth action,] diverting [the knife from the place of slaughter]. Since [the shochet] does not [divert the knife] in the place of slaughter, [diverting the knife is considered an independent act, and] does not disqualify [the slaughter when occurring with regard] to the remaining lesser portion [of a siman], as stated in sec. 24[:12].53
Rashba,54 however, [offers a different interpretation,] maintaining that according to Rashi,50 the question is one of Rabbinic Law: [Did the Sages disqualify] an interruption when slitting the remaining lesser portion [of a siman]? We follow the stringent view, showing concern regarding everything [a shochet] does as part of the slaughter, even [slitting] the lesser portion in an invalid manner. This is a decree [enacted as a safeguard lest the shochet perform a similar act] before he slits the greater portion of the simanim, whether the act is one of interrupting [the slaughter], pressing [the knife against the simanim], concealing [the knife], or diverting [the knife from the place of slaughter. However,] according to Scriptural Law, there is certainly no need for concern ‒ at least regarding diverting [the knife from the place of slaughter. This is based on the Mishnah] which teaches,55 “[Slitting] the greater portion of one [siman] is like [slitting the entire siman].” [This is also what] the Gemara states [in Chulin] 19[a]. The Tosefta56 cited above,57 [by contrast,] refers [to this unresolved question from the standpoint] of Scriptural Law.
This is our custom – to deem as tereifah [any disqualifying action, even one done on the remaining lesser portion of a siman], even regarding diverting [the knife from the place of slaughter], as will be stated in [Rama’s] note to sec. 24[:12], according to Rav Yaakov Weil’s Hilchos Shechitah. [Thus, it is a] Rabbinic safeguard, as Rav Yaakov Weil states regarding making an interruption; consult that source.58
Nevertheless, even according to Rabbeinu Asher [who, like Rivam, maintains that the matter concerns Scriptural Law], if there is a question as to whether [the shochet] interrupted [the slaughter], pressed [the knife against the simanim], or concealed [the knife], there is room for leniency because it is a sefek sefeika, a compounded doubt, as mentioned above.59
[a) perhaps the shochet did not slaughter in a problematic manner;
b) Even if he did, when such an action is performed on the latter portion of the simanim, does it disqualify the slaughter?]
(17) To kill it –
Rashi60 highlights this [point. When stating this law,] Sefer HaTerumah61 adds, “provided he does not break the neck.” To explain [this addition:] The Talmud62 states that if the neck of an animal is broken before it dies, its blood will be absorbed in its limbs. [This law is stated] below in sec. 67.63 According to the version of the Talmud Rashi cites, the meat [from such an animal] may not be cooked,64 even if it was cut [into pieces] and salted. Rashi understands [that this stringency applies] specifically when one breaks [the animal’s] neck, but not when one hastens the animal’s death through other means, for example, striking it on its head or the like.
There are, however, other authorities65 who maintain that the same law applies when one hastens the animal’s death through means [other than breaking its neck. They maintain that, in such instances,] not all the animal’s lifeblood66 flows out and [instead, some] becomes absorbed in the [animal’s] limbs. Nevertheless, [these authorities] maintain that even though [some of the blood] becomes absorbed in the [animal’s] limbs, it is forbidden to eat the animal’s meat raw only if it had not been salted,67 as [reflected in] the version of the Talmud cited by Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi and those who follow his approach.68 This is the opinion [accepted by Rav Yosef Caro, as reflected by his] ruling in [his] Shulchan Aruch, [Yoreh Deah,] sec. 67[:3], below.63 [According to this view,] unless one desires to eat the meat raw [without first salting it], there is no absolute prohibition [against hastening the animal’s death], regardless of whether it is [hastened] by breaking its neck [after being ritually slaughtered,] or through other means. All that is necessary is that as an initial preference, extra care be taken [not to hasten its death] since the blood is absorbed in the limbs.
[In his notes to Rav Yosef Caro’s Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.,]63 Rama cites this view as an initial preference with regard to taking extra care [not to hasten the animal’s death], whether one breaks the [animal’s] neck or hastens its death through other means, e.g., piercing its heart with a knife, as [Rama] states in that source. The same law applies if one strikes [the animal] on its head or the like, for there is absolutely no reason to make a distinction between these [different options], as explained in Darchei Moshe.69 This is also the opinion of Turei Zahav and Derishah in that source,70 in contrast to the ruling of Sifsei Kohen in that source.71 Nevertheless, with regard to actual practice, as an initial preference, it is desirable to give weight to [the ruling resulting from] Rashi’s version [of the Talmud. As mentioned above, Rashi] maintains that when [the animal’s] neck was broken [to hasten its death], the animal’s meat may not be cooked even if [it] was cut up and salted.72
(18) And slit –
I.e., [the prohibition applies against further slitting the simanim] with a knife or even with a hatchet, even if [that utensil] is entirely blemished, and even if [the person] does not draw [the knife or hatchet] back and forth. Even so, [cutting the simanim in this manner] is considered as slaughter that is not acceptable, [and as such, it invalidates the entire slaughter when cutting] the remaining lesser portion [of the simanim] (Sifsei Kohen in the name of S’mak).73
[This ruling applies] even if the shochet does not [complete] the slaughter himself with a knife or a hatchet, but [instead,] another person who is fit to slaughter does so. [The entire process] is [still] considered one slaughter according to Rashi. [Hastening the animal’s death in this manner] therefore disqualifies [the slaughter, because it involves] making an interruption, pressing [the knife against the simanim,] and ripping [the simanim from their place] because of the effect of the blemish [on the utensil] on the remaining lesser portion [of the siman]. (Note the statements in sec. 24, [note 36,] below, that when one [completes the slaughter using] a serated sickle or [other utensil] that is entirely blemished [and thus invalid to slaughter with], there is room for leniency when a severe financial loss is involved or there are other similar [pressing] circumstances. Consult that source regarding the reason.)74
However, if a non-Jew or other individuals who are similarly disqualified from ritually slaughtering75 [complete the animal’s] slaughter, there is no concern even according to Rashi. This applies even when a person who is an acceptable shochet supervises him. [The rationale is that in such an instance,] we do not say the entire act is one [act of] slaughter since [these individuals] are disqualified from slaughtering altogether, as stated above in [the Shulchan Aruch of Rav Yosef Caro,] sec. 2:10 (Derishah and Sifsei Kohen).76
(טו) כְּלָל.
אִם לֹא נִקַּב הַוֵּשֶׁט כְּדִלְעֵיל אֶלָּא בַּוֵּשֶׁט הוּא דְּפוֹסֶלֶת שְׁהִיָּה אִם לֹא נִשְׁחַט עֲדַיִן רֹב הַקָּנֶה וְזֶהוּ דַּעַת הַתּוֹסְפוֹתקכז וְסִיעָתָם דִּלְעֵיל:קכח
(טז) פּוֹסֶלֶת שְׁהִיָּה.
מִסָּפֵק דְּבַעְיָאקכט דְּלָא אִפְשִׁיטָא הִיא לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י כְּדִלְעֵיל.קל וַאֲפִלּוּ עוֹף שֶׁהֶכְשֵׁרוֹ בְּסִימָן אֶחָד מִכָּל מָקוֹם כֵּיוָן דַּהֲדַר וְגָמַר סִימָן הַב' כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא. וַהֲוָה לֵיהּ סְפֵק נְבֵלָה דְּאוֹרַיְתָא לְפִי דַּעַת הָרֹא"שׁקלא בְּשֵׁם הָרִיבָ"ם שֶׁמְּחַלֵּק בֵּין שְׁהִיָּה דְּרָסָה וַחֲלָדָה שֶׁהֵן בִּמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה וְכֻלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא וּבֵין הַגְרָמָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ בִּמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי אֵינָהּ פּוֹסֶלֶת כְּלָל בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא כְּדִלְקַמָּן סִימָן כ"ד.קלב אֲבָל הָרַשְׁבָּ"אקלג כָּתַב לְשִׁיטַת רַשִׁ"יקלד דְּמִדְּרַבָּנָן הוּא דְּמִבַּעְיָא לָן בְּשָׁהָה בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא וְנָקְטִינָן לְחוּמְרָא דְּכָל שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה אֲפִלּוּ הַמִּעוּט בְּפִסּוּל כְּדֶרֶךְ שְׁחִיטָה חוֹשְׁשִׁין וְגוֹזְרִין אָטוּ קֹדֶם שֶׁשָּׁחַט רֹב הַסִּימָנִים בֵּין בִּשְׁהִיָּה דְּרָסָה וַחֲלָדָה וּבֵין בְּהַגְרָמָה. דְּמִדְּאוֹרַיְתָא וַדַּאי דְּאֵין לָחוּשׁ כְּלָל בְּהַגְרָמָה עַל כָּל פָּנִים דְּהָא תְּנַןקלה וְרֻבּוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד כָּמוֹהוּ כִּדְאִיתָא בִּגְמָרָא דַּף י"ט.קלו וְהַתּוֹסֶפְתָּאקלז דִּלְעֵילקלח מַיְרִי מִדְּאוֹרַיְתָא. וְכֵן מִנְהָגֵנוּ לְהַטְרִיף אֲפִלּוּ בְּהַגְרָמָה כְּדִלְקַמָּן סִימָן כ"דקלט בְּהַגָּ"ה עַל פִּי שְׁחִיטַת מַהֲרִ"י וַיְל וְהַיְנוּ מִדְּרַבָּנָן כִּמְבֹאָר שָׁם בְּמַהֲרִ"י וַיְל גַּבֵּי שְׁהִיָּה עַיֵּן שָׁם.קמ וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם אַף לְפִי דַּעַת הָרֹא"שׁ יֵשׁ לְהָקֵל בִּסְפֵק שְׁהִיָּה דְּרָסָה וַחֲלָדָה מִשּׁוּם סְפֵק סְפֵיקָא כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְעֵיל:קמא
(יז) לַהֲמִיתוֹ.
כֵּן כָּתַב רַשִׁ"י.קמב וְסִיֵּם בְּסֵפֶר הַתְּרוּמָהקמג וּבִלְבָד שֶׁלֹּא יִשָּׁבֵר הַמַּפְרֶקֶת עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ. פֵּרוּשׁ מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמְרִינָן בִּגְמָרָאקמד הַשּׁוֹבֵר מַפְרַקְתָּהּ שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה קֹדֶם שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשָׁהּ מַבְלִיעַ דָּם בָּאֵבָרִים כְּדִלְקַמָּן סִימָן ס"זקמה וּלְגִרְסַת רַשִׁ"י שָׁם בִּגְמָרָאקמו אָסוּר אֲפִלּוּ לִקְדֵרָה וַאֲפִלּוּ עַל יְדֵי חֲתִיכָהקמז וּמְלִיחָה. וּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ לְרַשִׁ"י דְּהַיְנוּ דַוְקָא בְּשׁוֹבֵר הַמַּפְרֶקֶת וְלֹא בִּשְׁאָר קֵרוּב מִיתָה כְּמוֹ בְּהַכָּאָה עַל הָרֹאשׁ וּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא.קמח אֲבָל יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִיםקמט דְּהוּא הַדִּין עַל יְדֵי שְׁאָר קֵרוּב מִיתָה אֵין כָּל הַדָּם יוֹצֵא וְנִבְלָע בָּאֵבָרִים. אֶלָּא דִּסְבִירָא לְהוּ דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּנִבְלָע בָּאֵבָרִים אֵין אָסוּר אֶלָּא לֶאֱכוֹל הַבָּשָׂר חַי בְּלֹא מְלִיחָה וּכְגִרְסַת הָרִי"ףקנ וְסִיעָתוֹ בִּגְמָרָא. וְכֵן פָּסַק הַשֻּׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ לְקַמָּן סִימָן ס"ז. וְהִלְכָּךְ אִין אִסּוּר גָּמוּר מִדִּינָא בֵּין בִּשְׁבִירַת הַמַּפְרֶקֶת בֵּין בִּשְׁאָר קֵרוּב מִיתָה אִם אֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לֶאֱכוֹל הַבָּשָׂר חַי אֶלָּא זְהִירוּת לְכַתְּחִלָּהקנא מֵאַחַר שֶׁמַּבְלִיעַ הַדָּם בָּאֵבָרִים. וְהֵבִיא רְמָ"א דַּעַת יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים אֵלּוּ לְקַמָּן שָׁם לְעִנְיַן זְהִירוּת לְכַתְּחִלָּה בֵּין בִּשְׁבִירַת הַמַּפְרֶקֶת בֵּין בִּשְׁאָר קֵרוּב מִיתָה כְּגוֹן לִתְחוֹב הַסַּכִּין בְּלִבָּהּ כִּמְבֹאָר שָׁם וְהוּא הַדִּין לְהַכָּאָה עַל הָרֹאשׁ וּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא דְּאֵין לְחַלֵּק בֵּינֵיהֶם כְּלָל כִּמְבֹאָר בְּדַרְכֵי מֹשֶׁהקנב וְכֵן דַּעַת הַטַּ"זקנג וְהַדְּרִישָׁהקנד שָׁם בְּזֶה דְּלֹא כְּהַשַּׁ"ךְ שָׁם.קנה וּמִכָּל מָקוֹםקנו לְעִנְיַן מַעֲשֶׂה רָאוּי לָחוּשׁ לְגִרְסַת רַשִׁ"י לְכַתְּחִלָּה בִּשְׁבִירַת הַמַּפְרֶקֶת דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ דַּאֲפִלּוּ חֲתִיכָה וּמְלִיחָה לֹא מְהַנֵּי לִקְדֵרָה:
(יח) וְיִשְׁחוֹט.
בְּסַכִּין אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ בְּקַרְדֹּם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא פָּגוּם וְגַם אֵין מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא אֲפִלּוּ הָכִי מִקְּרֵי שְׁחִיטָה בְּפִסּוּל בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא (שַׁ"ךְקנז בְּשֵׁם סְמַ"[ק]קנח). וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם אֵין הַשּׁוֹחֵט חוֹזֵר וְשׁוֹחֵט בְּעַצְמוֹ בְּסַכִּין אוֹ בְּקַרְדֹּם אֶלָּא אִישׁ אַחֵר הַכָּשֵׁר לִשְׁחִיטָה כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיאקנט לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י וּפְסוּלָה מִשּׁוּם שְׁהִיָּה וּדְרָסָה וְעִקּוּר עַל יְדֵי פְּגִימָה דְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא (וְעַיֵּן בְּמַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב לְקַמָּן סִימָן כ"דקס דִּבְמַגָּל וְכַיּוֹצֵא בוֹ שֶׁכֻּלּוֹ פָּגוּם יֵשׁ לְהָקֵל בְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה וּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא עַיֵּן שָׁם הַטַּעַם). אֲבָל אִם נָכְרִי וְכַיּוֹצֵא בוֹ מֵהַפְּסוּלִים לִשְׁחוֹט אֲפִלּוּ בְּכָשֵׁר עוֹמֵד עַל גַּבָּיו חוֹזֵר וְשׁוֹחֵט אֵין לָחוּשׁ אַף לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י דְּלֹא אָמְרִינָן כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא כֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּתוֹרַת שְׁחִיטָה כְּלָל וּכְדִלְעֵיל סִימָן ב' סְעִיף י'קסא (דְּרִישָׁהקסב שַׁ"ךְ שָׁם):
After one slits the greater portion of one [siman] in a fowl or the greater portion of both [simanim] in an animal, an interruption no longer disqualifies [the slaughter]. Accordingly, there cannot be a [disqualifying] interruption [when slitting] the windpipe of a fowl at all. (15) There is an authority who maintains that as long as one has not completed slitting both simanim, an interruption disqualifies [the slaughter]. (16) As an initial preference, one should give weight to his words. Note: Even after the fact, the custom is [to consider an animal slaughtered in this manner] as tereifah. Therefore, if the animal or the fowl does not die immediately after [a shochet] slits the greater portion of both [simanim], he should strike it on its head to kill it (17) rather than return and slit (18) [the simanim] further (Terumas HaDeshen, according to the opinions of Rashi, Sma”k, Rav Yaakov Weil, and other authorities).
האַחַר שֶׁשָּׁחַט רֹב אֶחָד בְּעוֹף אוֹ רֹב שְׁנַיִם בִּבְהֵמָה, אֵין שְׁהִיָּה פּוֹסֶלֶת, וּלְפִי זֶה אֵין שְׁהִיָּה בַּקָּנֶה בְּעוֹף כְּלָל. (טו) וְיֵשׁ מִי שֶׁאוֹמֵר שֶׁכָּל שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה שְׁחִיטַת כָּל שְׁנֵי הַסִּימָנִים פּוֹסֶלֶת שְׁהִיָּה, (טז) וּלְכַתְּחִלָּה יֵשׁ לִזָּהֵר לָחוּשׁ לִדְבָרָיו. הַגָּה: וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּדִיעֲבַד הַמִּנְהָג לְהַטְרִיף. וְלָכֵן אִם לְאַחַר שֶׁשָּׁחַט רֹב שְׁנַיִם שׁוֹהָה הַבְּהֵמָה אוֹ הָעוֹף לָמוּת, יַכֶּנּוּ עַל רֹאשׁוֹ לַהֲמִיתוֹ, (יז) וְלֹא יַחֲזֹר וְיִשְׁחֹט (יח) (תְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן לְדַעַת רַשִׁ"י וּסְמַ"ק וּמַהֲרִי"ו וְעוֹד פּוֹסְקִים).
6
(19) In another place –
[Rav Yosef Caro] is providing [a shochet] with good advice. It is possible that originally when slitting [the windpipe, the shochet] did not touch the gullet, but, at this time, if he slits [the windpipe] in the place where he [originally] slit it, he may touch the gullet – because, [in such an instance,] it is easy [to accidentally] touch the gullet. By doing so, the shochet would cause the fowl to be disqualified when [such a ruling] would not [otherwise be] required by law (Beis Yosef;77 Sifsei Kohen78). For this reason, [i.e., that this instruction is not a halachic imperative but rather only sage advice], S’mak79 and Mordechai80 did not mention [it].
(20) Inner [membrane] –
[It is necessary to inspect the inner membrane] of the gullet, [because] an external inspection is not effective. [The rationale is that the gullet] is deemed tereifah if there is even the slightest perforation. [The Sages were concerned that] a drop of blood would enter the perforation [and coagulate,] and [the shochet] would not be [able to] recognize [the blood there because] the external surface [of the gullet] is red. However, the inner membrane [of the gullet] is white and a drop of blood would be noticeable (Rashi).81
(21) [The fowl] is kosher –
However, if a drop of blood is discovered on [the inner membrane of the gullet, the fowl] is forbidden, even [if the drop of blood] was not opposite [the place of] the original slit. [The reason is] that doubt exists – perhaps, [at the time of slaughter,] the slit was originally opposite this drop [of blood. We suspect this] since the gullet frequently contracts and expands. (Otherwise, there is no reason for concern over a trace of blood, as will be stated below in sec. 33.)82
For this reason, this measure is not effective [when slaughtering] an animal. Since it is also necessary to slit its gullet, there is concern that [the shochet] will slit it in the place where the original cut was made. [This concern applies] even when he intends to slaughter in a lower or higher [place on the neck] since the gullet contracts and expands (Beis Yosef;83 Tevuos Shor.84 Tashbetz, Vol. 2, responsum 146, also rules in this manner, in contrast to Sifsei Kohen HaAruch).
All the above applies when [the shochet] does not know [whether or not] the gullet was perforated. However, if he definitely knows that the gullet was not perforated, e.g., he held only the windpipe in his hand, his slaughter is acceptable even if the gullet was not examined. Therefore, at present, even we who are not knowledgeable [regarding the inspection of the gullet] should not be stringent [and forbid it], as stated in sec. 21 above.85
(However, one should examine the windpipe. If only the lesser portion was slit, [the shochet] should complete slitting [it]. If its greater portion was slit, [the shochet] should not complete slitting it. [The rationale is that if the shochet completed slitting the windpipe after ascertaining that its greater portion was slit, the slaughter would be disqualified] because of the interruption [made before slitting] the remaining lesser portion [of the windpipe].)
[This situation, e.g., where the shochet held the windpipe alone,] does not resemble the ruling of [Rav Yosef Caro in his] Shulchan Aruch above,86 that even if the shochet says, “I am certain that I slit only the hide,” we do not rely on his words. [The difference between these two instances is that in the instance presented above, the shochet] did not have this intent originally. [Therefore,] we follow the principle87 that whenever a person is not obligated to act in a particular matter, nor is it something that is expected of him, he will act without paying attention [to what he is doing and not focus on the details involved; therefore, he will not remember them]. This resembles the ruling above, [in] sec. 18:4, as stated [previously]88 (Sifsei Kohen).89
(22) In such a state –
[The concern is that] perhaps the non-Jew will sell it to another Jew after [the wound] heals externally and [the disqualifying factor] will not be apparent. Note what is written in sec. 57.90
(23) He should kill it –
However, he should not complete its ritual slaughter (Rav Yaakov Weil [Hilchos Shechitah]; Darchei Moshe [Yoreh Deah 23:7]) out of concern that [doing so] will lead to a mishap, lest [others see the shochet slaughtering it, think that it was slaughtered properly, and] come to eat from it, as mentioned above, at the end of sec. 1.91
(24) To a non-Jew –
However, it is forbidden to leave [the fowl] in one’s home while it is alive lest [doing so] will lead to a mishap (Mordechai [Chulin, sec. 606]). However, if it is only necessary to keep [the fowl alive] for 21 days so that it will become pregnant and lay eggs, it is permissible [to keep it alive in one’s home for this brief amount of time], as will be explained below, in sec. 5792 (Sifsei Kohen, [Yoreh Deah 23:19])
(25) The gullet had been perforated –
(Sifsei Kohen, [Yoreh Deah 23:6] writes in the name of Bach93 that when a severe loss is involved or [the fowl] is necessary for a mitzvah,94 it appears that one should rule leniently and rely on the later authorities of great stature, who established [the custom] and ruled regarding actual practice that [the fowl] may be permitted by examining the gullet. [The concern mentioned by Rama] – that we are not knowledgeable regarding the inspection of the gullet – applies only when we are not certain regarding the place [where the disqualifying blemish might have been made. However, in this instance, the place where the shochet made the initial cut is known.] Consult the source in Maharshal’s [Yam shel Shlomoh, Chulin] 2:14.) Rama [rules stringently because] he maintains that even in such a situation it is considered that we are not certain regarding the place [where the disqualifying blemish might have been made,] because the gullet [frequently] contracts and expands.95 (See Sifsei Kohen, Yoreh Deah 33:7.)
(26) A perforation of the gullet –
This refers [specifically] to [an instance where one] cut the hide of an animal. If, however, one pulled feathers from a fowl, there is no need to be concerned regarding the perforation of the gullet, even if blood flowed [from the fowl. The authorities] who inspect [ritual slaughter] follow the custom of deeming [such a fowl] tereifah as [a safeguard. They] decreed [that such a fowl should be disqualified] in case the skin was torn from the [fowl’s] neck [when the feathers were removed]. Therefore, one should not rule stringently in the instance of a severe loss or the like, e.g., [when the fowl is necessary] to honor the Shabbos or [when it belongs to] a poor person.
Do not pay attention to the statement in [the books about the laws of] Shechitah [written by the later authorities], that one should be stringent in such a situation involving a dove, because that stringency is not supported by any rationale. These are the words of Maharshal, [loc. cit.]. Sifsei Kohen accepted his ruling in his Sifsei Kohen HaAruch, [sec. 23].
(27) Was not cut –
[Implied is that,] according to our [custom] that follows Rama’s ruling, if blood emerged, even if [the shochet] did not cut all of the hide or he cut all of the hide, but no blood emerged, [the slaughter] is not deemed acceptable even if [the gullet] is inspected. However, Maharshal96 [rules that the slaughter] is acceptable whether [the shochet] slit only part of the hide and blood emerged or he slit the entire hide, but no blood emerged, even without inspecting [the animal’s organs]. He forbids [a fowl’s meat] only if all of the skin was slit and blood flowed.
Sifsei Kohen97 agrees with [Maharshal’s] statement that one may rule leniently when [the shochet] slit [only] a portion of the hide [or skin], even if blood flowed. What basis is there for concern when [the shochet] did not slit the entire hide [or skin]? [Surely,] the blood that emerged is the blood of the hide. Nevertheless, [Sifsei Kohen writes that] one should rule leniently only when a severe loss is involved or the like. [The rationale for this stringency is that] the situation resembles pulling feathers [from the neck of a fowl], regarding which the custom is to rule [that the fowl] is tereifah if blood flowed. (According to what was stated [in note 26] in the name of Sifsei Kohen HaAruch, the same law would apply in the present situation.) However, when one slit the entire hide, even when blood did not flow, one should not rule leniently as does Maharshal. [This ruling applies] even when a severe loss is involved. Instead, as Beis Yosef writes, “[The Rabbis] were speaking about what ordinarily happens,” [i.e., that when one slits the entire hide or skin, it is likely that blood will flow,] as stated above.98 (Nevertheless, were one to examine the [animal’s or fowl’s] gullet, even Beis Yosef permits [the meat,] even when blood flowed. If so, one may rely on Maharshal’s [ruling] if blood did not flow even if the entire skin was slit and at least permit [the meat of the fowl based on the] examination of the gullet when a severe loss is involved. [There is a basis for this ruling,] since Maharshal permits [the meat of such a fowl] when a severe loss is involved on the basis of the examination, even when blood flowed. Sifsei Kohen99 cites this ruling and does not disagree with it. When one slit only a portion of the hide or skin, even if blood flowed, anyone who relies on Maharshal and permits [the meat of the animal or fowl after] examining it, even when a severe loss is not involved, does not [sacrifice his yiras Shamayim].)
All the above applies when [the shochet] does not state, “I am certain that I did not touch the gullet [with the knife].” If, however, [the shochet] states, “I am certain [that I did not touch the gullet,” the meat of the animal] is kosher even if he slit the entire hide, provided blood did not emerge. [This ruling applies] even without any examination at all, as stated above.100
In an instance where [the shochet] initially took care not to touch the gullet, e.g., he took hold of the windpipe alone, [the meat of the animal] is permitted even if he cut the entire hide and blood flowed, even if he did not examine [the gullet] at all, even if he cut [a portion of] the windpipe [before cutting the gullet], as stated above101 (Sifsei Kohen).102
(יט) בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר.
עֵצָה טוֹבָה קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן דְּשֶׁמָּא מִקֹּדֶם לֹא נָגַע בַּוֵּשֶׁט וְעַתָּה אִם יִשְׁחוֹט בִּמְקוֹם הַחֲתָךְ מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁקַּל לִפְגּוֹעַ בַּוֵּשֶׁט יִפְגַע בּוֹ וְנִמְצָא פּוֹסְלוֹ שֶׁלֹּא כַדִּין (בֵּית יוֹסֵףקסג שַׁ"ךְקסד) וּמֵהַאי טַעְמָא לֹא כָּתַב כֵּן הַסְּמַ"[ק]קסה וּמָרְדְּכַי:קסו
(כ) מִבִּפְנִים.
שֶׁהַוֵּשֶׁט אֵין לוֹ בְּדִיקָה מִבְּחוּץ לְפִי שֶׁהוּא טְרֵפָה בְּנֶקֶב מַשֶּׁהוּ וְטִפַּת דָּם נִכְנֶסֶת לוֹ בִּפְנִים בַּנֶּקֶב וְאֵינוֹ נִכָּר אֲבָל קְרוּם הַפְּנִימִי לָבָן הוּא וְטִפַּת דָּם נִכֶּרֶת בּוֹ אֲבָל הַחִיצוֹן אָדֹם (רַשִׁ"יקסז):
(כא) וּכְשֵׁרָה.
אֲבָל אִם נִמְצָא בּוֹ טִפַּת דָּם אֲפִלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד חֲתָךְ הָרִאשׁוֹן אָסוּר מִסָּפֵק שֶׁמָּא הָיָה חֲתָךְ הָרִאשׁוֹן כְּנֶגֶד טִפָּה זוֹ דְּהַוֵּשֶׁט דַּרְכּוֹ לִהְיוֹת גְּמִיד וּפָשִׁיט (אֲבָל בְּלָאו הָכִי אֵין לָחוּשׁ מִשּׁוּם קֹרֶט דָם לְחוֹד כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְקַמָּן סִימָן ל"גקסח). וּמֵהַאי טַעְמָא נַמִי לֹא מְהַנֵּי הַאי תַּקַּנְתָּא בִּבְהֵמָה דְּכֵיוָן דְּצָרִיךְ לִשְׁחוֹט בָּהּ גַּם הַוֵּשֶׁט חַיְשִׁינָן שֶׁיִּפְגַּע בַּנֶּקֶב שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה בַּחֲתָךְ הָרִאשׁוֹן אַף שֶׁמִּתְכַּוֵּן לִשְׁחוֹט לְמַטָּה אוֹ לְמַעְלָה כֵּיוָן דְּהַוֵּשֶׁט גְּמִיד וּפָשִׁיט (בֵּית יוֹסֵף.קסט תְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹר.קע וְכֵן כָּתַב הַתַּשְׁבֵּ"ץ חֵלֶק ב' סִימָן קמ"ו. דְּלֹא כְּשַׁ"ךְ בְּסֵפֶר הָאָרֹךְקעא).
וְכָל זֶה כְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אִם נִקַּב הַוֵּשֶׁטקעב אֲבָל אִם יוֹדֵעַ בְּבֵרוּר דְּלֹא נִקַּב הַוֵּשֶׁט כְּגוֹן שֶׁתָּפַס הַקָּנֶה לְבַדּוֹ בְּיָדוֹ שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה אַף בְּלֹא בְּדִיקַת הַוֵּשֶׁט.קעג וְהִלְכָּךְ אַף לְדִידַן דְּלֹא בְּקִיאִינָן אֵין לְהַחֲמִיר בְּזֶה כְּדִלְעֵיל סִימָן כ"אקעד (רַק שֶׁיִּבְדּוֹק בַּקָּנֶה אִם לֹא נִשְׁחַט רַק מִעוּטוֹ יִגְמוֹר שְׁחִיטָתוֹ וְאִם נִשְׁחַט רֻבּוֹ לֹא
יִגְמוֹר מִשּׁוּם שְׁהִיָּה בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָאקעה). וְלֹא דָמֵי לְמַה שֶּׁכָּתַב הַשֻּׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ לְעֵילקעו דַּאֲפִלּוּ אָמַר הַשּׁוֹחֵט בָּרִי לִי שֶׁלֹּא חָתַכְתִּי כִּי אִם הָעוֹר אֵין סוֹמְכִין עָלָיו דְּהָתָם כֵּיוָן שֶׁלֹּא כִּוֵּן מִתְּחִלָּה לְכָךְ הֲוָה לֵיהּ מִלְּתָא דְּלָא רַמְיָא עֲלֵיהּ דֶּאֱינָשׁ וְלָאו אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ וְדָמֵי לְדִלְעֵיל סִימָן י"ח סְעִיף ד'קעז כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר (שַׁ"ךְקעח):
(כב) כָּךְ.
דְּשֶׁמָּא יַחְזוֹר וְיִמְכְּרֶנּוּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל כְּשֶׁיִּתְרַפֵּא מִבְּחוּץקעט וְלֹא יִהְיֶה נִכָּר וְעַיֵּן מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב סִימָן נ"[ז]:קפ
(כג) יְמִיתֶנּוּ.
אֲבָל לֹא יִגְמוֹר שְׁחִיטָתוֹ (מַהֲרִי"ו. דַּרְכֵי מֹשֶׁהקפא) מִשּׁוּם חֲשַׁשׁ תַּקָּלָה שֶׁלֹּא יָבֹא לֶאֱכוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְעֵיל סוֹף סִימָן א':קפב
(כד) לְנָכְרִי.
אֲבָל אָסוּר לְהַשְׁהוֹתוֹ בְּבֵיתוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא חַי דִּלְמָא אָתֵי לִידֵי תַּקָּלָה (מָרְדְּכַיקפג) אֲבָל אִם אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהַשְׁהוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא כ"א יוֹם שֶׁתִּתְעַבֵּר וְתֵלֵד מֻתָּר כְּדִלְקַמָּן סִימָן נ"זקפד (שַׁ"ךְקפה):
(כה) לִנְקִיבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט.
(הַשַּׁ"ךְקפו כָּתַב בְּשֵׁם הַבַּ"חקפז דִּבְהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה אוֹ לְצֹרֶךְ מִצְוָה נִרְאֶה לְהָקֵל וְלִסְמוֹךְ עַל הַגְּדוֹלִים הָאַחֲרוֹנִים שֶׁהִנְהִיגוּ וְהוֹרוּ הֲלָכָה לְמַעֲשֶׂה לְהַתִּיר עַל יְדֵי בְּדִיקַת הַוֵּשֶׁט דְּדַוְקָא לִבְדּוֹק בְּנֶקֶב בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָדוּעַ הוּא שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ בְּקִיאִין בִּבְדִיקָה. עַיֵּן שָׁם בְּרַשַׁ"ל סוֹף סִימָן י"ד פֶּרֶק ב'קפח). וּרְמָ"א סְבִירָא לֵיהּ דְּהָכָא נַמִי מִקְּרֵי מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָדוּעַ כֵּיוָן דְּוֵשֶׁט גְּמִיד וּפָשִׁיטקפט (עַיֵּן שַׁ"ךְ סִימָן ל"ג סְעִיף קָטָן ז'):
(כו) לִנְקִיבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט.
אַחָתַךְ הָעוֹר בִּבְהֵמָה קָאֵי.קצ אֲבָל בְּתָלַשׁ נוֹצוֹת מִן הָעוֹף אֵין לָחוּשׁ כְּלָל לִנְקִיבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיָּצָא דָם אֶלָּא שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ הַבּוֹדְקִים לְהַטְרִיף בְּזֶה מִשּׁוּם גְּזֵרָה אָטוּ נִקְרַע הָעוֹר מִן הַצַּוָּאר.קצא הִלְכָּךְ אֵין לְהַחֲמִיר בְּזֶה כְּלָל בְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה וּכְהַאי גַּוְנָאקצב כְּגוֹן לִכְבוֹד שַׁבָּת אוֹ לְעָנִי.קצג וְאַל תַּשְׁגִּיחַ בְּמַה שֶּׁכָּתְבוּ בִּשְׁחִיטוֹת לְהַחֲמִיר בְּזֶה גַּבֵּי יוֹנָה כִּי הוּא חוּמְרָא בְּלִי טַעַם עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹן רְשַׁ"ל.קצד וְהִסְכִּים עִמּוֹ הַשַּׁ"ךְ בְּסֵפֶר הָאָרֹךְ:קצה
(כז) חָתַךְ.
הָא אִם יָצָא דָם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא חָתַךְ כָּל הָעוֹר אוֹ שֶׁחָתַךְ כָּל הָעוֹר אֲפִלּוּ לֹא יָצָא דָם אֵין לְהַכְשִׁירקצו אֲפִלּוּ עַל יְדֵי בְּדִיקָה לְדִידַן לְפִי דַּעַת רְמָ"א. אֲבָל רְשַׁ"לקצז הִכְשִׁיר בֵּין בְּחָתַךְ מִקְצָת הָעוֹר וְיָצָא דָם וּבֵין חָתַךְ כָּל הָעוֹר וְלֹא יָצָא דָם אֲפִלּוּ בְּלֹא בְּדִיקָה וְאֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר אֶלָּא בְּחָתַךְ כָּל הָעוֹר וְיָצָא דָם. וְהִסְכִּים עִמּוֹ הַשַּׁ"ךְקצח בְּמַה שֶּׁכָּתַב לְהָקֵל בְּחָתַךְ מִקְצָת הָעוֹר דַּאֲפִלּוּ שֶׁיָּצָא דָם מַאי חֲשָׁשָׁא אִיכָּא כֵּיוָן שֶׁלֹּא חָתַךְ כָּל הָעוֹר וְדָם זֶה דַּם הָעוֹר הוּא. אֶלָּא דְּאֵין לְהָקֵל שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם הֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה וּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא דְּלֹא יְהֵא אֶלָּא תְּלִישַׁת הַנּוֹצָה דְּנוֹהֲגִים לְהַטְרִיף בְּיָצָא דָם (וּלְפִי מַה שֶּׁנִּתְבָּאֵרקצט בְּשֵׁם הַשַּׁ"ךְ בְּסֵפֶר הָאָרֹךְר הוּא הַדִּין הָכָא). אֲבָל בְּחָתַךְ כָּל הָעוֹר אֲפִלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא יָצָא דָם אֵין לְהָקֵל אֲפִלּוּ בְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה כִּרְשַׁ"ל אֶלָּא כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב הַבֵּית יוֹסֵףרא דְּאוּרְחָא דְמִלְּתָא נָקַט כְּדִלְעֵילרב (וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם עַל יְדֵי בְּדִיקַת הַוֵּשֶׁט שֶׁגַּם הַבֵּית יוֹסֵף מַתִּיר אֲפִלּוּ בְּיָצָא דָם אִם כֵּן יֵשׁ לִסְמוֹךְ עַל כָּל פָּנִים עַל רְשַׁ"ל בְּלֹא יָצָא דָם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָתַךְ כָּל הָעוֹר לְהַתִּיר בִּבְדִיקַת הַוֵּשֶׁט בְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה עַל כָּל פָּנִים. מֵאַחַר שֶׁרְשַׁ"ל מַתִּיר בְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה בִּבְדִיקָה אֲפִלּוּ בְּיָצָא דָם וּמְבִיאוֹ הַשַּׁ"ךְרג וְלֹא חָלַק עָלָיו. וּבְחָתַךְ מִקְצָת הָעוֹר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיָּצָא דָם הַסּוֹמֵךְ עַל רְשַׁ"ל לְהַתִּיר בִּבְדִיקָהרד עַל כָּל פָּנִים אֲפִלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם הֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה לֹא הִפְסִיד).
וְכָל זֶה כְּשֶׁאֵין הַשּׁוֹחֵט אוֹמֵר בָּרִי לִי שֶׁלֹּא נָגַעְתִּי בַּוֵּשֶׁט אֲבָל אִם אוֹמֵר בָּרִי לִי אֲפִלּוּ חָתַךְ כָּל הָעוֹר אִם לֹא יָצָא דָם כָּשֵׁר אֲפִלּוּ בְּלֹא בְּדִיקָה כְּלָלרה כְּדִלְעֵיל.רו וְהֵיכָא שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּן מִתְּחִלָּה שֶׁלֹּא לִגַּע בַּוֵּשֶׁט כְּגוֹן שֶׁתָּפַס הַקָּנֶה לְבַדּוֹ בְּיָדוֹ אֲפִלּוּ חָתַךְ כָּל הָעוֹר וְגַם יָצָא דָם כָּשֵׁר אֲפִלּוּ בְּלֹא בְּדִיקָה כְּלָל וַאֲפִלּוּ חָתַךְ בַּקָּנֶה כְּדִלְעֵילרז (שַׁ"ךְרח):
If one slit [the windpipe of] a fowl and made an interruption [while slaughtering], but was unsure whether he had perforated the gullet [in the course of slaughter], he should slit just the windpipe again in another place (19) and leave [the fowl] to die. He should then turn the gullet inside out and check its inner [membrane]. (20) If he did not find a drop of blood, it is known that [the gullet] was not perforated and [the fowl] is kosher. (21)
Note – The custom is to declare any [fowl or animal] as tereifah even if [the shochet] made an interruption only when slitting the first lesser portion of the windpipe (Rabbi Yaakov Weil). It is forbidden to sell [a fowl or animal] to a non-Jew in such a state. (22) Instead, he should kill it (23) and then sell it to a non-Jew (24) (Hagahos S’mak and Mordechai). [The rationale is that] we are not knowledgeable regarding [how to conduct a thorough] inspection of the gullet and we are concerned that the gullet had been perforated (25) (Sefer HaAgur). For this reason, if one pulled feathers from [the neck area of] a fowl [in preparation for its slaughter,] causing blood to flow, or one cut the hide [from the neck area] of an animal, causing blood to flow, [the fowl or the animal] should be deemed tereifah because we are concerned about a perforation ofthe gullet (26) (Rabbi Yaakov Weil; Rabbi Meir of Padua, responsum 83; this ruling is also found in [the books about the laws of] shechitah by the later authorities). However, if no blood flowed and the entirety of the hide was not cut, (27) one may [determine whether the fowl or animal is] kosher by slitting above or below the place of [the original cut] and inspecting [the gullet] opposite the place of [the original] cut; ([this is the ruling of Beis Yosef,] which does not follow the ruling of Maharik, responsum 34). Therefore, one should be careful not to pull out the feathers [from a fowl’s neck] if one can slaughter it without doing so (Or Zarua).
ושָׁחַט עוֹף וְשָׁהָה בּוֹ, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אִם נִקַּב הַוֵּשֶׁט, חוֹזֵר וְשׁוֹחֵט הַקָּנֶה לְבַדּוֹ בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר (יט) וּמַנִּיחוֹ עַד שֶׁיָּמוּת, וְהוֹפֵךְ הַוֵּשֶׁט וּבוֹדְקוֹ מִבִּפְנִים; (כ) אִם לֹא נִמְצָא בּוֹ טִפַּת דָּם, בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁלֹּא נִקַּב וּכְשֵׁרָה. (כא)הַגָּה: וְהַמִּנְהָג לְהַטְרִיף הַכֹּל אֲפִלּוּ לֹא שָׁהָה רַק בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא דְּקָנֶה (מהרי"ו וּמָרְדְּכַי). וְאָסוּר לְמָכְרוֹ לְנָכְרִי כָּךְ, (כב) אֶלָּא יְמִיתֶנּוּ (כג) וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִמְכְּרֶנּוּ לְנָכְרִי (כד) (הַגָּהוֹת סְמַ"ק וּמָרְדְּכַי), מִשּׁוּם דַּאֲנַן לֹא בְּקִיאִין בִּבְדִיקַת הַוֵּשֶׁט וְחַיְשִׁינָן לִנְקִיבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט (כה) (אָגוּר). וּמִטַּעַם זֶה אִם תָּלַשׁ הַנּוֹצוֹת מִן הָעוֹף וְיָצָא דָּם, אוֹ חָתַךְ הָעוֹר בַּבְּהֵמָה וְיָצָא דָּם מִמֶּנָּה, יֵשׁ לְהַטְרִיף, דְּחַיְישִׁינָן לִנְקִיבַתהַוֵּשֶׁט (כו) (מהרי"ו וּמַהֲרַ"ם פַּדָּווָאה סִימָן פ"ג וְכֵן הוּא בִּשְׁחִיטוֹת הָאַחֲרוֹנִים). אֲבָל אִם לֹא יָצָא דָּם, וְלֹא חָתַךְ (כז) כָּל הָעוֹר, יֵשׁ לְהַכְשִׁיר עַל יְדֵי שֶׁיִּשְׁחֹט לְמַעְלָה אוֹ לְמַטָּה וְלִבְדֹּק נֶגֶד מְקוֹם הַחֲתָךְ (דְּלֹא כְּמַהֲרִי"ק שֹׁרֶשׁ ל"ד). וְלָכֵן יֵשׁ לִזָּהֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִמְרֹט הַנּוֹצוֹת אִם יוּכַל לִשְׁחֹט בְּלֹא זֶה (אוֹר זָרוּעַ).
יִגְמוֹר מִשּׁוּם שְׁהִיָּה בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָאקעה). וְלֹא דָמֵי לְמַה שֶּׁכָּתַב הַשֻּׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ לְעֵילקעו דַּאֲפִלּוּ אָמַר הַשּׁוֹחֵט בָּרִי לִי שֶׁלֹּא חָתַכְתִּי כִּי אִם הָעוֹר אֵין סוֹמְכִין עָלָיו דְּהָתָם כֵּיוָן שֶׁלֹּא כִּוֵּן מִתְּחִלָּה לְכָךְ הֲוָה לֵיהּ מִלְּתָא דְּלָא רַמְיָא עֲלֵיהּ דֶּאֱינָשׁ וְלָאו אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ וְדָמֵי לְדִלְעֵיל סִימָן י"ח סְעִיף ד'קעז כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר (שַׁ"ךְקעח):
