SECTION 24 The Laws Governing Derasah, Chaladah, Hagramah, and Ikur (1-20)
סימן כד דִּינֵי דְּרָסָה וַחֲלָדָה הַגְרָמָה וְעִקּוּר וּבוֹ כ' סְעִיפִים
1
(1) Downward –
Without drawing [the knife] back and forth (Tur; Rambam, consult Hilchos Shechitah 3[:11]). [This is derived from the word,1] vishochat, “and he shall slaughter,” [concerning which our Sages said,] “the sole meaning of vishochat is vimoshach, ‘and he drew,’ as it is written,2 ‘their tongue is a drawn arrow’ (Talmud).3 If, however, [the shochet] draws the knife back-and-forth even if pressing it on the neck while doing so, this is of no consequence (Rashi, [Chulin 30b], cited by Beis Yosef). [The rationale is that despite the pressure,] the simanim [i.e., the gullet and windpipe] are slit by drawing the knife back-and-forth over them. Although [the shochet] presses downward when drawing [the knife] back-and-forth, [the knife] does not descend downward in a straight line, but rather at an angle since it is being drawn back-and-forth without interruption when being pressed down. Thus, the knife is being drawn across the width [of the simanim] and cutting them while they are being pressed down.
[This ruling applies] provided that when drawing the length of the knife across [the width of the simanim, the knife is long enough] to cut the simanim when being drawn [across them], as will be stated in subsection 2 below.
(2) At one time –
[The intent is] that it is not necessary for all of the simanim [to be cut while being pressed] at one time [for the slaughter to be disqualified. Since,] if even the tiniest portion of the gullet or the tiniest portion of the windpipe is cut by pressing [the knife on the organ, the slaughter] is disqualified when it is that tiny portion that causes the majority of the windpipe to have been slit, as will be stated at the end of subsection 6.
Instead, the intent in saying “at one time,” is that [the simanim are not cut] by drawing the length of the knife over [the width of the simanim], but [rather] by pressing down on the simanim with one part of the knife. [The rationale is that] every tiny portion of the simanim, must be cut by drawing the length of the knife over [their width] and cutting them by drawing it [back-and-forth], rather than by pressing it down upon them in [even] one place. This is the intent of the phrase, “at one time.” This is what is meant whenever the term derasah is used.
(א) לְמַטָּה.
בְּלֹא הוֹלָכָה וְהוֹבָאָה (טוּר. רַמְבַּ"ם עַיֵּן שָׁם פֶּרֶק ג'א הִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה). דִּכְתִיבב וְשָׁחַט אֵין וְשָׁחַט אֶלָּא וּמָשַׁךְ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַרג חֵץ שָׁחוּט לְשׁוֹנָם (גְּמָרָאד). אֲבָל אִם מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁדּוֹחֵק הַסַּכִּין עַל הַצַּוָּאר בַּהֲלִיכָתָהּ וְהוֹבָאָתָהּ עָלָיו אֵין בְּכָךְ כְּלוּםה (רַשִׁ"יו הוּבא בֵּית יוֹסֵףז) לְפִי שֶׁמִּכָּל מָקוֹם הַסִּימָנִים נֶחְתָּכִים עַל יְדֵי מְשִׁיכַת הַסַּכִּין לְאָרְכָּהּ בְּהוֹלָכָתָהּ וְהוֹבָאָתָהּ עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁדּוֹחֵק כְּלַפֵּי מַטָּה בְּהוֹלָכָתָהּ וְהוֹבָאָתָהּ אֵינָהּ יוֹרֶדֶת לְמַטָּה בְּשָׁוֶה אֶלָּא בַּאֲלַכְסוֹן מֵאַחַר שֶׁמְּבִיאָהּ וּמוֹלִיכָהּ בִּדְחִיקָתָהּ בְּלִי הֶפְסֵק וְנִמְצָא שֶׁיֵּשׁ כַּאן מְשִׁיכַת הַסַּכִּין לְאָרְכָּהּ בִּדְחִיקָתָהּ וַחֲתִיכָתָהּ. וְהוּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ בִּמְשִׁיכָה זוֹ שֶׁנִּמְשְׁכָה הַסַּכִּין לְאָרְכָּהּ כְּדֵי לַחְתּוֹךְ הַסִּימָנִים בִּמְשִׁיכָתָהּ כְּדִלְקַמָּן סְעִיף ב':
(ב) בְּבַת אַחַת.
לָאו דַּוְקָא כָּל הַסִּימָנִים בְּבַת אַחַת אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ מַשֶּׁהוּ מֵהַוֵּשֶׁט אוֹ מַשֶּׁהוּ הַמַּשְׁלִים לְרֹב הַקָּנֶה שֶׁנֶּחְתַּךְ בִּדְרָסָה פְּסוּלָה כְּדִלְקַמָּן סוֹף סְעִיף ו'. אֶלָּא רוֹצֶה לוֹמַר בְּבַת אַחַת הַיְנוּ שֶׁלֹּא עַל יְדֵי מְשִׁיכַת הַסַּכִּין לְאָרְכָּהּ אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי דֹּחַק הַסַּכִּין בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד מִמֶּנָּה עַל הַסִּימָנִים כִּי כָּל מַשֶּׁהוּ מֵהַסִּימָנִים צָרִיךְ לִהְיוֹת נֶחְתָּךְ עַל יְדֵי מְשִׁיכַת הַסַּכִּין שֶׁנִּמְשֶׁכֶת עָלֶיהָ לְאָרְכָּהּ וְחוֹתַכְתּוֹ כְּדֶרֶךְ מְשִׁיכָתָהּ וְלֹא עַל יְדֵי דֹּחַק שֶׁדּוֹחֲקָהּ בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד מִמֶּנָּה לְבָד שֶׁזֶּה נִקְרָא בְּבַת אַחַת וְהִיא דְרָסָה הָאֲמוּרָה בְּכָל מָקוֹם:
What is meant by derasah (“pressing [the knife against the animal’s neck]”)? For example, [if the shochet] placed the knife [on the animal’s neck and] applied pressure, cutting it by [pushing] downward (1) like one cuts a radish or a cucumber, [the slaughter] is invalid. Needless to say, [this ruling applies] if [the shochet] struck the [animal’s] neck with a knife like one strikes [an object] with a sword, cutting [both of] the simanim at the same time. (2)
אדְּרָסָה כֵּיצַד, כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִנִּיחַ הַסַּכִּין עַל הַצַּוָּאר וְדָחַק וְחָתַךְ לְמַטָּה (א) כְּחוֹתֵךְ צְנוֹן אוֹ קִשּׁוֹת, הֲרֵי זֶה פְּסוּלָה, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם הִכָּה בְּסַכִּין עַל הַצַּוָּאר כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמַּכִּין בְּסַיִף וְחָתַךְ הַסִּימָנִים בְּבַת אַחַת. (ב)
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
(3) An animal –
Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi [also rules in this manner,] stating,5 “There is an opinion that [the leniency of allowing a knife of minimal length] applies only regarding a fowl, whose neck is thin, but not for an animal.” [Commenting on that ruling,] Rabbeinu Nissim writes, “These are the words of Rabbeinu Chananel and they do not have a source in the Talmud.”
Mordechai6 and Hagahos Asheri7 in the name of Or Zerua also state that Rabbeinu Chananel maintains that the Sages’ teaching [in the mishnah8] that even [a slaughtering knife] of minimal length [is acceptable] applies only regarding a fowl whose neck is thin. However, for an animal, it is necessary that [the knife] be “as long as the neck and that it also extend beyond the neck for that same length.”
From the wording of Mordechai and Or Zerua in the name of Rabbeinu Chananel, it appears that, according to Rabbeinu Chananel, if [the portion of the knife] that extends beyond the neck is not as long as the neck, [the slaughter of] an animal is disqualified even after the fact. For this reason, it is necessary for Rabbeinu Chananel to understand the mishnah as applying specifically to a fowl and not to an animal, albeit, only after the fact. Nevertheless, in his Toras HaBayis Ha-Aruch,9 Rashba states that Rabbeinu Chananel [applied this stringency] only as an initial preference. However, Rashba asserts that after the fact, all authorities agree that the slaughter is acceptable.
(4) Slightly longer than the width of the [animal’s] neck –
The reason for this practice is to show consideration for the opinion of Rabbeinu Chananel who, as reflected in the wording of Mordechai and Or Zerua, disqualifies [slaughter with a knife that is not twice the width of the neck,] even after the fact. [Nevertheless,] even though Rabbeinu Chananel requires a knife to be of that length, we do not follow that stringency in its entirety since all authorities differ with Rabbeinu Chananel and do not make a distinction in this matter between a fowl and an animal, as explained in Beis Yosef.
The implication of the wording of the mishnah10 supports [this lenient approach], because the entire mishnah speaks about [the slaughter of] animals. Therefore, in this instance, consideration is given to Rabbeinu Chananel’s approach only as an initial preference, but not to the extent that we are stringent and disqualify [the slaughter of an animal] even after the fact, [for] this contradicts the implication of the wording of the mishnah. Rabbeinu Chananel’s [stringent stance is not followed because] he is a lone authority and all [other] authorities differ with him. Also, it is possible that Rabbeinu Chananel accepts [a lenient stance] after the fact, as stated by Rashba.11
However, with regard to [the custom that the knife be] slightly longer than the [width of the animal’s] neck, there is absolutely no indication in the wording of the mishnah [as to whether or not there is such a requirement]. It is possible – as Kolbo writes in the name of Raavad, as cited by Beis Yosef, sec. 8 – that the words, “even the slightest amount,” [used] by the mishnah refer to [the portion of the knife] that extends beyond the [animal’s] neck, as in the first clause[of the mishnah that mentions] “the full-width of the neck,” and is referring to [the portion of the knife that extends] beyond the neck, [i.e., the knife should] be [that length], as stated in [the Talmud’s discussion of the mishnah].12
(When the Talmud10 asks whether it is acceptable to slaughter with a cobbler’s needle, the intent is not that [the shochet] slaughters with the tip [of the needle]13 which is [obviously only] slightly wide, as stated in sec. 8,14 but rather, [the question concerns one who] slaughters with the length of [the needle, because a cobbler’s needle] is sharp along its entire edge on both of its sides, as Rashi explains. Nevertheless, since [the needle] is not at all wide, [the Talmud is asking whether using it is acceptable because] perhaps there are grounds for concern, [lest one] conceal it [and invert the slaughter.15 The needle] does not resemble an arrow, which is slightly wide, [and which the Talmud12 therefore states may be used for slaughter, for that reason].)
Therefore, [when the knife does not extend beyond the animal’s neck,] consideration is given to Rabbeinu Chananel’s approach because he is not the sole authority [who disqualifies the slaughter] in this instance. The author of Halachos Gedolos also writes that the mishnah’s words, “even the slightest amount,” refer only to a fowl, but not to an animal. He did not explicitly write that for [the slaughter of] an animal [to be valid], the knife must be twice the width of the neck as Rabbeinu Chananel maintains. Therefore, it is possible that [also the author of Halachos Gedolos agrees that] it is sufficient for the knife to be only slightly longer than the animal’s neck, as is the view of Raavad.
However, we do not show concern for Raavad’s view to the extent that [the slaughter of] a fowl is disqualified even after the fact when [the slaughtering knife] is not slightly longer than the width of the neck. [This would be necessary according to] Raavad’s interpretation of the mishnah’s words, “even the slightest amount,” as referring to [the amount the knife extends] beyond the neck. We do not rule in that manner, but [rather accept a knife of any length], as Beis Yosef does in sec. 8, [citing] authorities who differ with Raavad.
Nevertheless, with regard to [the slaughter of] an animal, we are stringent in keeping with [the ruling of the author of] Halachos Gedolos whose words all [stem from] the received tradition. [The ruling is followed] since this stringency does not run contrary to the apparent meaning of the mishnah – which could be interpreted as Raavad does. [We accept that possibility] even though we do not rule according to Raavad’s interpretation.
This is the reason for the custom based on Shechitos [U’Bedikos] by Rav Yaakov Weil. However, with regard to actual practice, after the fact, there is no basis to rule stringently regarding [the slaughter of] an animal when [the knife used] was shorter than the width of the [animal’s] neck, just as we are not so stringent [as to require the knife to be] twice the width of [the animal’s] neck, because all authorities differ with this ruling. Similarly, they also differ [with the requirement that the knife be] the width of the neck.
Moreover, the only basis for this stringency is Raavad’s interpretation [of the mishnah,] and we do not rule according to his approach at all, as is evident from the fact that we rule leniently regarding [the slaughter of] a fowl and [accept a knife] of even the slightest length, as explained by Rav Yaakov Weil and cited in Darchei Moshe.16 [This ruling is] also apparent from the wording of Rama in his note. Maharshal,17 Bach,18 and Pri Chadash, [Yoreh Deah, 8:1] also rule accordingly. Therefore,19 leniency can be taken when a severe loss is involved, as stated by Bach [loc. cit.] and [also by] Sifsei Kohen, sec. 25[:20] and at the end of sec. 23.
(ג) בִּבְהֵמָה.
כֵּן כָּתַב הָרִי"ףח אִיכָּא מַאן דְּאָמַר הַנֵּי מִלֵּי בְּעוֹף שֶׁצַּוָּארוֹ דַק אֲבָל בִּבְהֵמָה לֹא עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ. וְכָתַב הָרַ"ןט דִּבְרֵי רַבֵּנוּ חֲנַנְאֵל הֵם וְאֵין לָהֶם עִקָּר בִּגְמָרָא עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ. וְכֵן כָּתַב הַמָּרְדְּכַיי וְהַגָּהוֹת אֲשֵׁרִ"ייא מֵאוֹר זָרוּעַיב בְּשֵׁם רַבֵּנוּ חֲנַנְאֵל דְּהָא דִתְנַן אֲפִלּוּ כָּל שֶׁהוּא הַיְנוּ דַוְקָא בְּעוֹף שֶׁצַּוָּארוֹ דַק אֲבָל בִּבְהֵמָה בְּעִינָן כִּמְלֹא צַוָּאר וְחוּץ לַצַּוָּאר כִּמְלֹא צַוָּאר עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ. וּמַשְׁמַע לִכְאוֹרָה מִלְּשׁוֹן הַמָּרְדְּכַי וְאוֹר זָרוּעַ בְּשֵׁם רַבֵּנוּ חֲנַנְאֵל דַּאֲפִלּוּ בְּדִיעֲבַד פּוֹסֵל רַבֵּנוּ חֲנַנְאֵל בִּבְהֵמָה בְּפָחוֹת מִכִּמְלֹא צַוָּאר חוּץ לַצַּוָּאר מִשּׁוּם הָכִי אִצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ לְרַבֵּנוּ חֲנַנְאֵל לְאוֹקְמֵי מַתְנִיתִין בְּעוֹף דַּוְקָא וְלֹא מוֹקִים לֵיהּ אֲפִלּוּ בִּבְהֵמָה וּבְדִיעֲבַד דַּוְקָא. אֲבָל הָרַשְׁבָּ"א בְּתוֹרַת הַבַּיִת הָאָרֹךְיג כָּתַב דְּאַף רַבֵּנוּ חֲנַנְאֵל לֹא קָאָמַר אֶלָּא לְכַתְּחִלָּה אֲבָל בְּדִיעֲבַד לְכוּלָא עָלְמָא שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ:
(ד) מַשֶּׁהוּ.
טַעַם מִנְהָג זֶה הוּא לָחוּשׁ לְדַעַת רַבֵּנוּ חֲנַנְאֵל וּכְמַשְׁמָעוּת לְשׁוֹן הַמָּרְדְּכַי וְהָאוֹר זָרוּעַיד דַּאֲפִלּוּ בְּדִיעֲבַד פּוֹסֵל רַבֵּנוּ חֲנַנְאֵל. וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּרַבֵּנוּ חֲנַנְאֵל מַצְרִיךְ כִּמְלֹא צַוָּאר חוּץ לַצַּוָּאר לֹא מַחְמִירִינָן כּוּלֵי הַאי מֵאַחַר שֶׁכָּל הַפּוֹסְקִים פְּלִיגִי אַרַבֵּנוּ חֲנַנְאֵל וְלֹא חִלְּקוּ בְּדָבָר זֶה בֵּין עוֹף לִבְהֵמָה כִּמְבֹאָר בְּבֵית יוֹסֵף.טו וּמַשְׁמָעוּת לְשׁוֹן הַמִּשְׁנָהטז מְסַיַּע לְהוּ דְּכוּלָא מַתְנִיתִין מַיְרִי בִּבְהֵמָה.יז הִלְכָּךְ לֹא חַיְשִׁינָן לְדַעַת רַבֵּנוּ חֲנַנְאֵל בְּזֶה אֶלָּא לְכַתְּחִלָּה אֲבָל לֹא לְהַחֲמִיר כָּל כָּךְ לִפְסוֹל אֲפִלּוּ בְּדִיעֲבַד נֶגֶד מַשְׁמָעוּת לְשׁוֹן הַמִּשְׁנָה מֵאַחַר דְּרַבֵּנוּ חֲנַנְאֵל יְחִידָאָה הוּא וְכָל הַפּוֹסְקִים פְּלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ. וְגַם יֵשׁ לוֹמַר דְּמוֹדֶה רַבֵּנוּ חֲנַנְאֵל בְּדִיעֲבַד כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב הָרַשְׁבָּ"א.יח אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן מַשֶּׁהוּ חוּץ לַצַּוָּאר אֵין הֶכְרֵעַ כְּלָל מִלְּשׁוֹן הַמִּשְׁנָה דְּיֵשׁ לוֹמַר כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב הַכָּלְבּוֹיט בְּשֵׁם הָרַאֲבַ"ד הוּבָא בֵּית יוֹסֵף סִימָן ח' דְּהָא דִתְנַן אֲפִלּוּ כָּל שֶׁהוּא הַיְנוּ כָּל שֶׁהוּא חוּץ לַצַּוָּאר דּוּמְיָא דְרֵישָׁא דְּקָתָנֵי כִּמְלֹא צַוָּאר וְהַיְנוּ חוּץ לַצַּוָּאר כְּדִמְפָרֵשׁ בִּגְמָרָא (וְהָא דְּמִבַּעְיָא לָן בִּגְמָרָא בְּמַחְטָא דְאוּשְׁכְּפֵי דְּהַיְנוּ מַחַט שֶׁל רַצְעָנִים לָאו כְּשֶׁשָּׁחַט בְּפִיהָ שֶׁהוּא רָחָב קְצָת מַיְרִי כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְעֵיל סִימָן ח' אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁשָּׁחַט בְּאָרְכָּהּ שֶׁהִיא חַדָּה עַל פְּנֵי כָּל אָרְכָּהּ מִשְּׁנֵי רוּחוֹתֶיהָ כִּדְפֵרֵשׁ רַשִׁ"י.כ אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין רֹחַב כְּלָל קָא מִבַּעְיָא לָן דִּלְמָא אִיכָּא לְמֵיחַשׁ לַחֲלָדָה. וְלֹא דָמֵי לְגִירָאכא שֶׁהִיא רְחָבָה קְצָת). הִלְכָּךְ חַיְשִׁינָן בְּהָא לְדַעַת רַבֵּנוּ חֲנַנְאֵל דְּלָאו יְחִידָאָה הוּא בְּהָא. דְּגַם בְּבַהַ"גכב כָּתַב דְּכָל שֶׁהוּא דִתְנַן הַיְנוּ בְּעוֹף וְלֹא בִּבְהֵמָה וְלֹא כָתַב בְּהֶדְיָא דְּבִבְהֵמָה בְּעִינָן כִּמְלֹא צַוָּאר חוּץ לַצַּוָּאר כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב רַבֵּנוּ חֲנַנְאֵל הִלְכָּךְ אֶפְשָׁר דְּסַגְיָא בְּכִמְלֹא צַוָּאר וְחוּץ לַצַּוָּאר מַשֶּׁהוּ כְּדַעַת הָרַאֲבַ"ד.
וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם אָנוּ לֹא חַיְשִׁינָן לְדַעַת הָרַאֲבַ"ד לְהַחֲמִיר אֲפִלּוּ בְּעוֹף בְּפָחוֹת מִכִּמְלֹא צַוָּאר וְחוּץ לַצַּוָּאר מַשֶּׁהוּ לִפְסוֹל אֲפִלּוּ בְּדִיעֲבַד מֵאַחַר דְּכָל שֶׁהוּא דִתְנַן הַיְנוּ חוּץ לַצַּוָּאר לְהָרַאֲבַ"ד. דַּאֲנַן לֹא קַיְמָא לָן הָכִי אֶלָּא כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב בֵּית יוֹסֵף סִימָן ח' בְּשֵׁם הַפּוֹסְקִים דִּפְלִיגִי אַרַאֲבַ"ד. אֶלָּא דְּבִבְהֵמָה מַחְמִירִים כְּבַהַ"ג שֶׁכָּל דְּבָרָיו דִּבְרֵי קַבָּלָהכג הוֹאִיל וְאֵין חוּמְרָא זוֹ נֶגֶד מַשְׁמָעוּת לְשׁוֹן הַמִּשְׁנָה מֵאַחַר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹמַר כְּפֵרוּשׁ הָרַאֲבַ"ד בְּמִשְׁנָה אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא קַיְמָא לָן כְּפֵרוּשׁ הָרַאֲבַ"ד. זֶהוּ טַעַם הַמִּנְהָג עַל פִּי שְׁחִיטַת מַהֲרִי"ו. אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן דִּינָא אֵין מָקוֹם לְהַחֲמִיר בִּבְהֵמָה בְּפָחוֹת מִכִּמְלֹא צַוָּאר בְּדִיעֲבַד כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלֹא מַחְמְרִינָן בְּפָחוֹת מִב' צַוָּארִין מִשּׁוּם שֶׁכָּל הַפּוֹסְקִים פְּלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ וְהוּא הַדִּין בְּכִמְלֹא צַוָּאר אֶחָד פְּלִיגִי. וְגַם הַאי שִׁעוּרָא אֵין לוֹ מָקוֹם כְּלָל אֶלָּא עַל פִּי פֵּרוּשׁ הָרַאֲבַ"ד וַאֲנַן לֹא קַיְמָא לָן כְּהָרַאֲבַ"ד כְּלָל מִדְּמְקִלִּינָן בְּעוֹף אֲפִלּוּ בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ מַמָּשׁ כִּמְבֹאָר בְּמַהֲרִי"ו הוּבָא בְּדַרְכֵי מֹשֶׁה.כד וְכֵן מַשְׁמַע מִלְּשׁוֹן רְמָ"א בְּהַגָּ"ה.כה וְכֵן פָּסַק רְשַׁ"לכו וּבַ"ח סִימָן ח'כז וּפְרִי חָדָשׁ שָׁם. הִלְכָּךְכח אֶפְשָׁר דְּיֵשׁ לְהָקֵל בְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתְבוּ הַבַּ"ח וְשַׁ"ךְ סִימָן כ"ה וְסוֹף סִימָן כ"ג:כט
[The following laws apply if a shochet] slaughtered [an animal or fowl] by drawing [the knife in only one direction, i.e.,] only forward or backward: If the length of the knife equals the width of the neck [of the animal or fowl] and also extends beyond the neck for that same length (Note: Including the hide and the cervical spine (RavYaakov Weil),) [the slaughter] is acceptable. If not, it is invalid. [The rationale is that] whenever [a knife] is not that long, if one only draws [the knife] forward or backward, it is impossible to slaughter without pressing the knife [on the simanim].
If [the shochet] drew [the knife] back-and-forth, even if he slaughtered with [the shortest of scalpels, the slaughter] is kosher.
Note – There are authorities who rule stringently regarding [the slaughter of] an animal [with a short knife] (3) (Mordechai and Rabbeinu Nissim in the name of Rabbeinu Chananel, one opinion cited by Rav Yitzchak Alfasi and mentioned in Chidushei Agudah, Kolbo, and Hagahos Asheri in the name of Or Zerua). The custom in these regions is to disqualify [the slaughter of] an animal, even if [the shochet] drew the knife back and forth, if the slaughtering knife is not slightly longer than the width of the [animal’s] neck (4) (this is the opinion of Rav Yaakov Weil).
בשָׁחַט בְּהוֹלָכָה אוֹ בְּהוֹבָאָה לְבָד, אִם יֵשׁ בַּסַּכִּין כִּמְלֹא צַוָּאר וְחוּץ לַצַּוָּאר כִּמְלֹא צַוָּאר (הַגָּה: עִם הָעוֹר וְהַמַּפְרֶקֶת (מהרי״ו)), כְּשֵׁרָה, וְאִם לָאו, פְּסוּלָה, שֶׁכָּל שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כַּשִּׁעוּר הַזֶּה אִי אֶפְשָׁר לִשְׁחֹט בְּלֹא דְרָסָה עַל יְדֵי הוֹלָכָה אוֹ הוֹבָאָה לְבָד. וְאִם הוֹלִיךְ וְהֵבִיא, אֲפִלּוּ שָׁחַט בְּאִזְמֵל כָּל שֶׁהוּא, כְּשֵׁרָה. הַגָּה: וְיֵשׁ מַחְמִירִין בִּבְהֵמָה (ג) (מָרְדְּכַי וְרַ״ן בְּשֵׁם ר״ח וְאִכָּא מַאן דְּאָמַר בְּרִי״ף וְנִזְכַּר בַּאֲגוּדָה וְכָל בּוֹ וְהַגָּהוֹת אֲשֵׁרִי מֵאוֹר זָרוּעַ). וְהַמִּנְהָג בִּגְלִילוֹת אֵלּוּ לִפְסֹל בַּבְּהֵמָה אֲפִלּוּ הוֹלִיךְ וְהֵבִיא אִם אֵין בַּסַּכִּין כִּמְלֹא צַוָּאר וְחוּץ לַצַּוָּאר מַשֶּׁהוּ (ד) (זֶהוּ דַּעַת מהרי״ו).
3
(5) Three times [as long as the width of the animal’s] neck –
[The intent is that the shochet] placed [a portion of] the knife [equal to] twice [the width of] an animal’s neck on the necks of the two animals [as they were positioned one next to each other in front of him], and [then] drew the knife over the full width [of the animals’] necks.
In this way, when he slaughtered by only extending the knife [away from him], the third portion of the knife that is [equivalent to] the full [width] of the [animal’s] neck that [originally] projected beyond the necks of the animals towards the shochet, now entered the neck of the first [animal] that was next to the shochet, and the second [portion of the knife that is a] full [width] of [an animal’s] neck that was placed on the neck [of the first animal] entered the neck of the second [animal]. Thus, the slaughter of both [animals] was completed at once by extending [the knife] in this manner, [i.e.,] extending it the full [width of the animal’s] neck. Thus, [a portion of the knife that was equivalent to the] full [width of] the [animal’s] neck [from the part of the knife] that was originally on [the animal’s neck] and a full [width of] the neck that was outside [its neck] passed over each [of these animals]. (This is the opinion of Sifsei Kohen;20 it also appears to be clearly implied by Rashba21 and Rabbeinu Nissim;22 it is not in accord with [the ruling of] Tevuos Shor23).
The same principle applies if one slaughtered four or five animals at the same time. It is sufficient [for the knife to] protrude [towards the shochet] for the width of an [animal’s] neck beyond all of their [necks] (Rabbeinu Nissim,22 Darchei Moshe24).
(6) [The slaughter] is acceptable –
[The intent is that the slaughter is only acceptable] after the fact. [However,] as an initial preference, one should not even slaughter one animal by merely [drawing the knife] either forward or back, as stated above.25 If, by contrast, [one draws the knife] back and forth, it is permissible to slaughter several animals in one act of slaughter even as an initial preference. This [practice] is forbidden only [when slaughtering] sacrificial animals, but not [when slaughtering animals] for ordinary use (Gemara).26
(7) Both [animals] should be forbidden –
“[The rationale is that] they were both slaughtered with the same act of slaughter. Since the first [animal’s] slaughter involved pressing [the knife on the simanim, presumably] the second [animal’s slaughter] was also done in the same manner; since the shochet slaughtered both [animals] at the same time and drew the knife over both of them in the same way” [Rashba (Toras HaBayis HaAruch27); Rabbeinu Nissim28].
[When saying] “the first [animal,” Rashba’s] intent is that [the shochet] placed the knife on both animals [simultaneously] and slaughtered them by extending the knife, [i.e., by pushing the knife only away from himself]. Thus, the term “first [animal]” refers to the one that is [closer to] the shochet. [This is also the animal] from which the knife will exit first and its slaughter will appear to be completed first. Afterwards, the knife will [exit] the second animal.
Nevertheless, [in truth,] the slaughter of both [animals] is completed at once and accordingly, [he] is described as having slaughtered two heads as one. [The rationale is that] when the [first part of the] knife exited the inner [animal, the one that was closer to the shochet], and entered the neck of the outer [animal, the slaughter of the inner animal was completed.] We are forced to say that the slaughter of the outer animal was completed [at the same time, because, at the same time that this portion of the knife is entering the second animal, another portion is emerging from it.]
Were it not so, the hide of the neck [of the other animal] – together with its flesh and the simanim inside of it – which are on its side near the inner animal, would not be cut [all the way through] to its bottom [portion. Thus, the second animal] would not have been properly slaughtered.29 [This is because the knife is not long enough to completely slit the second animal’s simanim in one motion, unless the shochet pressed down on the animal’s neck.] Thus, the slaughter [of the second animal] would not be complete, as it would be if the knife emerged from it, as stated above.
The same law [– that both animals are rendered invalid –] applies [in an instance where] we are forced to say that [only] the second [animal] was slaughtered by pressing [the knife down on the simanim], e.g., [the shochet] did not place the knife on both [animals at once]. Instead, he placed it only on the inner animal, i.e., he placed the tip of the knife [diagonally] on the [top] edge of the neck [of the animal] that was next to him.
When he extended [the knife] the full [width] of the neck, the tip of the knife will have reached the second side [of that animal’s] neck [albeit] above [it], and the middle of the knife, [i.e., the section that is] at the end of a full neck-width, will have reached the low point at the bottom of the simanim [but still] on the side of the neck [of the first animal, which was] near the shochet [because he] pressed the knife downward while extending it.
When he continued to extend the tip of the knife [through the second animal] towards the second side of the second animal’s neck and pressed it downward while extending it, the middle of the knife would have reached the second side of the bottom of the simanim of the first animal. [Thus, in and of itself,] the slaughter [of the first animal] would have been completed in an acceptable manner, as stated above. (See Rabbeinu Asher, [Chulin 2:8].)30
With regard to the second animal: If [the shochet] did not press [the knife] down, it would not be slaughtered as of yet, since [at this point in time] the tip of the knife should have reached [only] the top of the second side of the [second animal’s] neck. It is only because [the shochet] applied pressure and pressed the knife downward powerfully on a level plane that the slaughter of both [animals] was completed at the same time.
Even so, the first [animal] is also forbidden because [the shochet] passed the knife over both [animals] with one motion. Rashba did not [feel it necessary] to clarify this issue, since it is only a matter of semantics, and not a matter involving a fundamental point of law.31
However [there is a possible circumstance in which the law would be different:] if the shochet placed the tip of the knife’s [blade] on top of the [inner] edge of the inner [animal’s] neck, [right] next to [himself], and extended the knife and drew [it] into [the neck of] the outer [animal] and the slaughter of [the outer animal] was completed [only] when [a part of the front portion of] the knife as long as the complete [width] of [an animal’s] neck exited from it, and a second portion of the knife as long as the complete width of [an animal’s] neck filled the entire width of the bottom of [the second animal’s] neck when the slaughter was completed.
[In this instance,] the second [animal] was also slaughtered without pressing the knife down [on the animal’s simanim], and [accordingly, the slaughter of] both [animals] is acceptable.32
However, Rashba and the other halachic authorities are not referring to such a situation at all, because such a situation cannot be described as slaughtering two heads at the same time. [This is because] the slaughter of [the animal] next to [the shochet] was completed first, as soon as the [first part of the] knife [whose length equaled] the full [width of an animal’s] neck [exited its neck] and the second [part] of the knife [that comprised] a full [width of an animal’s] neck entered and entirely filled the width of the neck by the time the slaughter was completed. This is the opinion of Beis Yosef, Maharshal,33 and Sifsei Kohen,34 with regard to actual practice.
If, however, [the shochet] placed the tip of the knife across the entire width of the neck [of the animal closer to him] and not [just] on its inner edge, [the slaughter] is invalid.35 [The rationale is that] when slaughtering an animal by extending [the knife] only outward with a knife that extends a full [width] of a neck outside [the neck] toward the shochet and [the forward portion of the knife that comprises] a full [width] of [an animal’s] neck is [lying] on the width of the entire neck at the beginning of the slaughter, this [portion of the knife that comprises] a full [width of the animal’s] neck would have to descend downward at an angle, as explained above.36
In this instance, [however], the knife will not immediately descend downward because it is [also being] drawn over the neck of the outer [animal,] and the tip of the knife reaches the very top [of the] second side of its neck at the beginning of the slaughter. [To then complete the slaughter of both animals at the same time, the shochet would have to press the knife down on the simanim, thereby invalidating the slaughter of both animals.]
The same law applies in the opposite of each of these [situations], when [the shochet] slaughters [two animals at one time] by only drawing the knife [toward himself].
(ה) ג' צַוָּארִים.
וְהִנִּיחַ כִּמְלֹא ב' צַוָּארִין מֵהַסַּכִּין עַל גַּבֵּי ב' צַוָּארֵי הַבְּהֵמוֹת וּמָשַׁךְ הַסַּכִּין כִּמְלֹא צַוָּאר אֶחָד עַד שֶׁכִּמְלֹא צַוָּאר הַג' מֵהַסַּכִּין שֶׁהָיָה חוּץ לְצַוָּארֵי הַבְּהֵמוֹת כְּלַפֵּי הַשּׁוֹחֵט כְּשֶׁשָּׁחַט בְּהוֹלָכָה בִּלְבָד עַתָּה בָּא וְנִכְנַס לְתוֹךְ צַוָּאר הָרִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁאֵצֶל הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְכִמְלֹא צַוָּאר הַב' שֶׁהָיָה עַל צַוָּאר זֶה בָּא וְנִכְנַס לְתוֹךְ צַוָּאר הַשֵּׁנִי וּבְכָךְ נִגְמְרָה שְׁחִיטַת שְׁנֵיהֶם כְּאֶחָד בִּמְשִׁיכָה זוֹ שֶׁנִּמְשְׁכָה הַסַּכִּין כִּמְלֹא צַוָּאר אֶחָד וְכָל אַחַת מֵהֶן עָבְרָה עָלֶיהָ כִּמְלֹא צַוָּאר שֶׁהָיָה עָלֶיהָ בַּתְּחִלָּה וְכִמְלֹא צַוָּאר שֶׁהָיָה חוּצָה לָהּ (כֵּן דַּעַת הַשַּׁ"ךְ.ל וְכֵן מַשְׁמַע בְּהֶדְיָא בְּרַשְׁבָּ"אלא וְרַ"ן.לב דְּלֹא כִּתְבוּאוֹת שׁוֹרלג). וְהוּא הַדִּין אִם שָׁחַט ד' וְה' בְּהֵמוֹת כְּאַחַת סַגִּי בְּצַוָּאר אֶחָד יוֹצֵא חוּץ לְכֻלָּן (רַ"ןלד דַּרְכֵי מֹשֶׁהלה):
(ו) כְּשֵׁרָה.
בְּדִיעֲבַד דְּלִכַתְּחִלָּה אֵין לִשְׁחוֹט אֲפִלּוּ בְּהֵמָה אַחַת בְּהוֹלָכָה אוֹ הוֹבָאָה לְבַדָּהּלו כְּדִלְעֵיל.לז אֲבָל בְּמוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא מֻתָּר לִשְׁחוֹט אֲפִלּוּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה כַּמָּה בְּהֵמוֹת בִּשְׁחִיטָה אַחַת דְּאֵין אִסּוּר בְּזֶה אֶלָּא בְּקָדָשִׁים וְלֹא בְּחֻלִּין (גְּמָרָאלח):
(ז) שְׁתֵּיהֶן.
דִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן בִּשְׁחִיטָה אַחַת נִשְׁחֲטוּ וְכֵיוָן שֶׁהָרִאשׁוֹנָה בִּדְרָסָה נִשְׁחֲטָה אַף הַשְּׁנִיָּה כֵּן שֶׁהֲרֵי בְּבַת אַחַת וּבְעִנְיָן אֶחָד הֶעֱבִיר הַסַּכִּין עַל שְׁתֵּיהֶן עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹן הָרַשְׁבָּ"א בְּתוֹרַת הַבַּיִת הָאָרֹךְלט וְהָרַ"ן.מ וְרוֹצֶה לוֹמַר הָרִאשׁוֹנָהמא כְּשֶׁהִנִּיחַ הַסַּכִּין עַל גַּבֵּי שְׁתֵּיהֶן וְשָׁחַט בְּהוֹלָכָה לְבַדָּהּ הֲרֵי בְּהֵמָה הַפְּנִימִית שֶׁאֵצֶל הַשּׁוֹחֵט נִקְרֵאת רִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁהַסַּכִּין יוֹצֶא מִמֶּנָּה תְּחִלָּה וְנִרְאֶה גְּמַר שְׁחִיטָתָהּ תְּחִלָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יוֹצֵא מֵהַשְּׁנִיָּה.מב וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן גְּמַר שְׁחִיטָתָן הוּא בְּבַת אַחַת וּמִקְּרֵי שׁוֹחֵט ב' רָאשִׁים כְּאֶחָד לְפִי שֶׁכְּשֶׁיָּצָא הַסַּכִּין מֵהַפְּנִימִית וְנִכְנַס תּוֹךְ צַוַּאר הַחִיצוֹנָה עַל כָּרְחָךְ כְּבָר נִגְמְרָה שְׁחִיטַת הַחִיצוֹנָה בִּכְנִיסָה זוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁהִיא נִמְצֵאת שְׁחוּטָה בִּיצִיאַת הַסַּכִּין מִמֶּנָּה דְּאִם לֹא כֵן לֹא הָיָה עוֹר הַצַּוָּאר עִם הַבָּשָׂר וְהַסִּימָנִים שֶׁבְּתוֹכוֹ מִצִּדּוֹ שֶׁאֵצֶל הַפְּנִימִית חֲתוּכִים עַד לְמַטָּה וְלֹא הָיְתָה כַּאן שְׁחִיטָה גְמוּרָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁהִיא נִמְצֵאת גְּמוּרָה בִּיצִיאַת הַסַּכִּין כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְעֵיל.מג
וְהוּא הַדִּין דְּמִשְׁכַּחַת לָהּ דְּהַשְּׁנִיָּה עַל כָּרְחָךְ בִּדְרָסָה נִשְׁחֲטָה. כְּגוֹן שֶׁלֹּא הִנִּיחַ הַסַּכִּין עַל גַּבֵּי שְׁתֵּיהֶן אֶלָּא עַל גַּבֵּי הַפְּנִימִית לְבָד הִנִּיחַ רֹאשׁ הַסַּכִּין בִּקְצֵה הַצַּוָּאר שֶׁאֵצֶל הַשּׁוֹחֵט מַמָּשׁ.מד וּכְשֶׁמָּשַׁךְ
כִּמְלֹא צַוָּאר אֶחָד הִגִּיעַ רֹאשׁ הַסַּכִּין מַמָּשׁ אֶל עֵבֶר הַב' עַל גַּבֵּי צַוָּאר זֶה מִלְמַעְלָהמה וְאֶמְצָעִית הַסַּכִּין מַמָּשׁ בְּסִיּוּם כִּמְלֹא צַוָּאר אֶחָד הִגִּיעַ לְמַטָּה בְּתַחְתִּית הַסִּימָנִים מִצַּד הַצַּוָּאר שֶׁאֵצֶל הַשּׁוֹחֵט כְּשֶׁדָּחַק הַסַּכִּין כְּלַפֵּי מַטָּה בִּמְשִׁיכָתָהּ. וּכְשֶׁמָּשַׁךְ עוֹד רֹאשׁ הַסַּכִּין לְעֵבֶר הַב' דְּצַוַּאר הַבְּהֵמָה הַשְּׁנִיָּה וּדְחָקָהּ כְּלַפֵּי מַטָּה בִּמְשִׁיכָתָהּ אֲזַי הִגִּיעַ אֶמְצָעִית הַסַּכִּין לְעֵבֶר הַשֵּׁנִי דְּצַוַּאר בְּהֵמָה אַחַת לְמַטָּה בְּתַחְתִּית הַסִּימָנִים וְנִגְמְרָה הַשְּׁחִיטָה בְּהֶכְשֵׁר כְּדִלְעֵיל (עַיֵּן רֹא"שׁמו). וּבְהֵמָה הַב' אִלּוּ לֹא דָרַס בָּהּ לֹא הָיְתָה שְׁחוּטָה עֲדַיִן שֶׁהֲרֵי עֲדַיִן רֹאשׁ הַסַּכִּין מַמָּשׁ רָאוּי לִהְיוֹת בְּעֵבֶר הַב' דְּצַוָּאר הַב' מִלְמַעְלָה אֶלָּא לְפִי שֶׁדָּרַס בָּהּ וְדָחַק הַסַּכִּין בְּכֹחַ כְּלַפֵּי מַטָּה בְּשָׁוֶה מִלְמַעְלָה לְמַטָּה הִלְכָּךְ נִגְמְרָה שְׁחִיטַת שְׁתֵּיהֶן כְּאַחַת. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָכִי גַּם הָרִאשׁוֹנָה אֲסוּרָה הוֹאִיל וּבְעִנְיָן אֶחָד הֶעֱבִיר הַסַּכִּין עַל שְׁתֵּיהֶן. וְלֹא חָשׁ הָרַשְׁבָּ"א לְדַקְדֵּק בְּזֶה הוֹאִיל וְאֵין בְּזֶה אֶלָּא שִׁנּוּי הַלָּשׁוֹן בִּלְבָד וְלֹא בְּעִקָּרָא דְדִינָא. אֲבָל אִם הִנִּיחַ רֹאשׁ הַסַּכִּין עַל גַּבֵּי הַפְּנִימִית בִּקְצֵה הַצַּוָּאר מַמָּשׁ שֶׁאֵצֶל הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְהוֹלִיךְ וּמָשַׁךְ הַסַּכִּין לְתוֹךְ הַחִיצוֹנָה וְלֹא נִגְמְרָה עֲדַיִן שְׁחִיטַת הַחִיצוֹנָה עַד שֶׁיָּצָא מִמֶּנָּה הַסַּכִּין כִּמְלֹא צַוָּאר אֶחָד חוּצָה לָהּ וְכִמְלֹא צַוָּאר ב' דְּסַכִּין הָיָה מְמַלֵּא כָּל רֹחַב הַצַּוָּאר לְמַטָּה בִּגְמַר שְׁחִיטָה הֲרֵי גַם הַשְּׁנִיָּה לֹא נִשְׁחֲטָה בִּדְרָסָה וּשְׁתֵּיהֶן כְּשֵׁרוֹת. אֶלָּא דְּהָרַשְׁבָּ"א וּשְׁאָר פּוֹסְקִים לֹא מַיְרִי כְּלָל בִּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא מִשּׁוּם דְּבִכְהַאי גַּוְנָא לֹא מִקְּרֵי כְּלָל שׁוֹחֵט ב' רָאשִׁים כְּאֶחָד שֶׁהֲרֵי הַפְּנִימִית נִגְמְרָה שְׁחִיטָתָהּ תְּחִלָּה מִיָּד שֶׁיָּצָא מִמֶּנָּה כִּמְלֹא צַוָּאר דְּסַכִּין וְנִכְנַס לְתוֹכָהּ כִּמְלֹא צַוָּאר ב' וְהָיָה מְמַלֵּא רֹחַב הַצַּוָּאר בִּגְמַר שְׁחִיטָה. כֵּן דַּעַת הַבֵּית יוֹסֵףמז וּרְשַׁ"למח וְשַׁ"ךְמט לְדִינָא. אֲבָל אִם הִנִּיחַ רֹאשׁ הַסַּכִּין עַל גַּבֵּי כָּל רֹחַב צַוָּאר הַפְּנִימִית וְלֹא בְּקָצֵהוּ הַפְּנִימִית פְּסוּלָהנ שֶׁהֲרֵי בִּשְׁחִיטַת בְּהֵמָה בְּהוֹלָכָה לְבַדָּהּ בְּסַכִּין שֶׁיּוֹצֵא מִמֶּנָּה חוּץ לַצַּוָּאר כִּמְלֹא צַוָּאר כְּלַפֵּי הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְכִמְלֹא צַוָּאר אֶחָד הוּא עַל גַּבֵּי רֹחַב כָּל הַצַּוָּאר בִּתְחִלַּת הַשְּׁחִיטָה צָרִיךְ לִהְיוֹת כִּמְלֹא צַוָּאר זֶה שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי הַצַּוָּאר נִמְשָׁךְ וְיוֹרֵד מִיָּד כְּלַפֵּי מַטָּה בַּאֲלַכְסוֹן כְּדִלְעֵילנא וְכַאן אֵינוֹ יוֹרֵד מִיָּד כְּלַפֵּי מַטָּה שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא נִמְשָׁךְ עַל הַצַּוָּאר הַחִיצוֹנָה וְרֹאשׁ הַסַּכִּין מַגִּיעַ עַד עֵבֶר הַב' דְּצַוָּארָהּ מִלְמַעְלָה מַמָּשׁ בִּתְחִלַּת שְׁחִיטָתָהּ. וְהוּא הַדִּין אִפְּכָא בְּכָל זֶה בְּשׁוֹחֵט בְּהוֹבָאָה לְבַדָּהּ:
[The following laws apply if the shochet] slaughtered the heads of two [animals] at the same time, while drawing [the knife] only [in one direction,] either forward or backward: If the knife is three times [as long as the width of the animal’s] neck, (5) [the slaughter] is acceptable. (6) If not, there are grounds for concern and both [animals] should be forbidden. (7)
גשָׁחַט שְׁנֵי רָאשִׁים כְּאֶחָד בְּהוֹלָכָה אוֹ בְּהוֹבָאָה בִּלְבָד, אִם יֵשׁ בַּסַּכִּין כְּדֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה צַוָּארִים (ה)כְּשֵׁרָה, (ו) וְאִם לָאו יֵשׁ לָחוּשׁ וְלֶאֱסֹר שְׁתֵּיהֶן. (ז)
כִּמְלֹא צַוָּאר אֶחָד הִגִּיעַ רֹאשׁ הַסַּכִּין מַמָּשׁ אֶל עֵבֶר הַב' עַל גַּבֵּי צַוָּאר זֶה מִלְמַעְלָהמה וְאֶמְצָעִית הַסַּכִּין מַמָּשׁ בְּסִיּוּם כִּמְלֹא צַוָּאר אֶחָד הִגִּיעַ לְמַטָּה בְּתַחְתִּית הַסִּימָנִים מִצַּד הַצַּוָּאר שֶׁאֵצֶל הַשּׁוֹחֵט כְּשֶׁדָּחַק הַסַּכִּין כְּלַפֵּי מַטָּה בִּמְשִׁיכָתָהּ. וּכְשֶׁמָּשַׁךְ עוֹד רֹאשׁ הַסַּכִּין לְעֵבֶר הַב' דְּצַוַּאר הַבְּהֵמָה הַשְּׁנִיָּה וּדְחָקָהּ כְּלַפֵּי מַטָּה בִּמְשִׁיכָתָהּ אֲזַי הִגִּיעַ אֶמְצָעִית הַסַּכִּין לְעֵבֶר הַשֵּׁנִי דְּצַוַּאר בְּהֵמָה אַחַת לְמַטָּה בְּתַחְתִּית הַסִּימָנִים וְנִגְמְרָה הַשְּׁחִיטָה בְּהֶכְשֵׁר כְּדִלְעֵיל (עַיֵּן רֹא"שׁמו). וּבְהֵמָה הַב' אִלּוּ לֹא דָרַס בָּהּ לֹא הָיְתָה שְׁחוּטָה עֲדַיִן שֶׁהֲרֵי עֲדַיִן רֹאשׁ הַסַּכִּין מַמָּשׁ רָאוּי לִהְיוֹת בְּעֵבֶר הַב' דְּצַוָּאר הַב' מִלְמַעְלָה אֶלָּא לְפִי שֶׁדָּרַס בָּהּ וְדָחַק הַסַּכִּין בְּכֹחַ כְּלַפֵּי מַטָּה בְּשָׁוֶה מִלְמַעְלָה לְמַטָּה הִלְכָּךְ נִגְמְרָה שְׁחִיטַת שְׁתֵּיהֶן כְּאַחַת. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָכִי גַּם הָרִאשׁוֹנָה אֲסוּרָה הוֹאִיל וּבְעִנְיָן אֶחָד הֶעֱבִיר הַסַּכִּין עַל שְׁתֵּיהֶן. וְלֹא חָשׁ הָרַשְׁבָּ"א לְדַקְדֵּק בְּזֶה הוֹאִיל וְאֵין בְּזֶה אֶלָּא שִׁנּוּי הַלָּשׁוֹן בִּלְבָד וְלֹא בְּעִקָּרָא דְדִינָא. אֲבָל אִם הִנִּיחַ רֹאשׁ הַסַּכִּין עַל גַּבֵּי הַפְּנִימִית בִּקְצֵה הַצַּוָּאר מַמָּשׁ שֶׁאֵצֶל הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְהוֹלִיךְ וּמָשַׁךְ הַסַּכִּין לְתוֹךְ הַחִיצוֹנָה וְלֹא נִגְמְרָה עֲדַיִן שְׁחִיטַת הַחִיצוֹנָה עַד שֶׁיָּצָא מִמֶּנָּה הַסַּכִּין כִּמְלֹא צַוָּאר אֶחָד חוּצָה לָהּ וְכִמְלֹא צַוָּאר ב' דְּסַכִּין הָיָה מְמַלֵּא כָּל רֹחַב הַצַּוָּאר לְמַטָּה בִּגְמַר שְׁחִיטָה הֲרֵי גַם הַשְּׁנִיָּה לֹא נִשְׁחֲטָה בִּדְרָסָה וּשְׁתֵּיהֶן כְּשֵׁרוֹת. אֶלָּא דְּהָרַשְׁבָּ"א וּשְׁאָר פּוֹסְקִים לֹא מַיְרִי כְּלָל בִּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא מִשּׁוּם דְּבִכְהַאי גַּוְנָא לֹא מִקְּרֵי כְּלָל שׁוֹחֵט ב' רָאשִׁים כְּאֶחָד שֶׁהֲרֵי הַפְּנִימִית נִגְמְרָה שְׁחִיטָתָהּ תְּחִלָּה מִיָּד שֶׁיָּצָא מִמֶּנָּה כִּמְלֹא צַוָּאר דְּסַכִּין וְנִכְנַס לְתוֹכָהּ כִּמְלֹא צַוָּאר ב' וְהָיָה מְמַלֵּא רֹחַב הַצַּוָּאר בִּגְמַר שְׁחִיטָה. כֵּן דַּעַת הַבֵּית יוֹסֵףמז וּרְשַׁ"למח וְשַׁ"ךְמט לְדִינָא. אֲבָל אִם הִנִּיחַ רֹאשׁ הַסַּכִּין עַל גַּבֵּי כָּל רֹחַב צַוָּאר הַפְּנִימִית וְלֹא בְּקָצֵהוּ הַפְּנִימִית פְּסוּלָהנ שֶׁהֲרֵי בִּשְׁחִיטַת בְּהֵמָה בְּהוֹלָכָה לְבַדָּהּ בְּסַכִּין שֶׁיּוֹצֵא מִמֶּנָּה חוּץ לַצַּוָּאר כִּמְלֹא צַוָּאר כְּלַפֵּי הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְכִמְלֹא צַוָּאר אֶחָד הוּא עַל גַּבֵּי רֹחַב כָּל הַצַּוָּאר בִּתְחִלַּת הַשְּׁחִיטָה צָרִיךְ לִהְיוֹת כִּמְלֹא צַוָּאר זֶה שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי הַצַּוָּאר נִמְשָׁךְ וְיוֹרֵד מִיָּד כְּלַפֵּי מַטָּה בַּאֲלַכְסוֹן כְּדִלְעֵילנא וְכַאן אֵינוֹ יוֹרֵד מִיָּד כְּלַפֵּי מַטָּה שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא נִמְשָׁךְ עַל הַצַּוָּאר הַחִיצוֹנָה וְרֹאשׁ הַסַּכִּין מַגִּיעַ עַד עֵבֶר הַב' דְּצַוָּארָהּ מִלְמַעְלָה מַמָּשׁ בִּתְחִלַּת שְׁחִיטָתָהּ. וְהוּא הַדִּין אִפְּכָא בְּכָל זֶה בְּשׁוֹחֵט בְּהוֹבָאָה לְבַדָּהּ:
4
(8) Either one caused the other –
Since [the person situated on one side of the knife] will pull in this direction and the other [one will pull] in the other direction, [there are grounds to suspect] that they will both push the knife against the neck (Rashi37).
[The slaughter of an animal in this manner is] acceptable only after the fact. [Then, the above possibility] is not considered. However, initially, [two people] should not [slaughter together with] one person situated on one side [of the animal] and the other on the opposite side (see Rambam, [Hilchos Shechitah 2:10]; Pri Chadash, Yoreh Deah 24:6; this is also the approach of the Shulchan Aruch [of Rav Yosef Caro], in contrast to that of the Tur.)38
(ח) זֶה עַל זֶה.
מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁזֶה מוֹשֵׁךְ לְכַאן וְזֶה לְכַאן וּשְׁנֵיהֶם דּוֹחֲקִים הַסַּכִּין עַל הַצַּוָּאר (רַשִׁ"ינב). מִיהוּ הַיְנוּ דַוְקָא בְּדִיעֲבַד לֹא חַיְשִׁינָן לְהָכִי אֲבָל לְכַתְּחִלָּה לֹא יֶאֱחוֹז אָדָם בְּסַכִּין מִצַּד זֶה וְהַב' מִצַּד ב' כְּנֶגְדּוֹ (עַיֵּן רַמְבַּ"םנג וּפְרִי חָדָשׁנד וְכֵן דַּעַת הַשֻּׁלְחָן עָרוּךְנה דְּלֹא כְּטוּרנו):
If two people held a slaughtering knife and performed the act of slaughter [together], even if one [of their hands was held] towards the [animal’s] head and the other’s [hands were held] towards its chest and thus they [performed the slaughter] at an angle, [the slaughter] is acceptable. It is not suspected that either one caused the other (8) to press [the knife against the simanim, i.e., against the windpipe or the gullet].
דשְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בַּסַּכִּין וְשׁוֹחֲטִין, אֲפִלּוּ זֶה לְמַעְלָה לְצַד הָרֹאשׁ וְזֶה לְמַטָּה לְצַד הֶחָזֶה, שֶׁאוֹחֲזִין אוֹתוֹ בַּאֲלַכְסוֹן, כְּשֵׁרָה וְלֹא חַיְשִׁינָן שֶׁמָּא יִדְרְסוּ זֶה עַל זֶה. (ח)
5
(9) In this manner –
Rabbi Eliezer ben Yoel HaLevi cited by Mordechai,39 derived this [ruling] from Rashi’s words at the beginning of the second chapter of Chulin40 concerning the [following] statement there:
Rav Kahana asked, “What is the source that teaches that slaughter must be from the neck? It is written, ‘He shall slaughter (טחשו).’ {That term can be divided into the words חשטח, implying} in the place where {the animal} חש (‘bends’),41 there you should והטח (‘make it fit for consumption and purify it’; alternatively, {that term can be interpreted as meaning} ‘remove its blood and clean it’).”42
The Talmud concludes that slaughtering from the neck was a halachah transmitted by Rabbinic tradition. [Accordingly, it asks,] “If so, what does the term טחשו come to teach?” [and answers,] “that one should not leave the animal ‘broken in two.’”
Rashi interprets [the last phrase as meaning] “One should not cut the entire cervical spine [of the neck] into two,” ]and continues[, “The term והטח implies the removal of its blood and nothing more. According to the alternate understanding, it implies ‘making it fit for consumption,’ i.e., {by cutting} the simanim, but nothing more.”
Mordechai writes concerning this, in the name of Rabbeinu Baruch:
This does not appear {to be correct}. Once {the shochet} slits the simanim, what does it matter to us if afterwards, he slits the cervical spine. Nevertheless, the Tosefta states,43 “It was taught: when one slit [the simanim] and severed the [animal’s] head at the same time, if one had this intent originally, the slaughter is invalid. If not, it is acceptable.”
Our master, Rabbeinu Meir [of Ruttenburg] told us that an incident occurred with [a shochet] who slaughtered [an animal] and severed the entire cervical spine of its [neck]. On the basis of an analysis of Rashi’s words, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yoel HaLevi forbade [the meat from this animal. His interpretation did not] find favor in the eyes of our master, Rabbeinu Meir. Our master interpreted Rashi’s words as meaning, “The term והטח implies the removal of its blood; nothing more is necessary.”
Mishmeres HaBayis44 writes in the name of Tosafos that Rashi’s words [of caution], “Remove its blood, nothing more,” [were necessary because] when the cervical spine [of the animal’s neck] is slit, the [animal’s] blood becomes absorbed in its limbs.45 [In the source in the Torah,] the command, “he shall slaughter,” is referring to sacrificial animals.45 [In that instance,] the blood is necessary for being sprinkled and poured [on the altar. Therefore, it is necessary that the blood not be absorbed in the animal’s limbs].46
Beis Yosef and Sifsei Kohen47 explain that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yoel HaLevi is a lone authority [who rules in this manner], and all [other] halachic authorities differ with [his approach]. Turei Zahav48 further wonders: [How was it possible for Rabbi Eliezer ben Yoel HaLevi to arrive at such a ruling], based on the Mishnah and the Talmud,49 which, as mentioned at the end of sec. 20 above,50 state that if [the shochet] moved the simanim to the back of the neck and then slaughtered [the animal] from the back, the slaughter is acceptable?
Nevertheless, Turei Zahav states that, “since Rama ruled that one should not deviate from the custom that follows the rule [that such a slaughter] is tereifah, we do not possess the halachic authority to rule leniently. Instead, [this matter should be considered as] permissible [but] forbidden by others according to custom.” Similarly, Sifsei Kohen writes that “[such a slaughter] is permissible according to law and perhaps Rama ruled stringently only in an instance where a severe loss or the like was not involved.”
According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yoel HaLevi, it is necessary to give a forced interpretation and say that the ruling at the end of sec. 20 above refers to a situation where [the shochet] specifically did not intend to cut the cervical spine, as stated by Derishah, at the beginning of section 1.51 If [the shochet] did not intend [to slit the cervical spine of the animal’s neck], one should not rule stringently at all, even if a severe loss is not involved. Turei Zahav concludes that:
One should rule leniently whenever there is a doubt involved. Even if one sees that the cervical spine was cut, it is not necessary to check whether the majority of it [was slit]. Needless to say, [one should not rule stringently] when the cervical spine is no longer present.
[When speaking about] the majority of the cervical spine, it appears to me that fundamentally the matter depends on the spinal cord. Even Rabbi Eliezer ben Yoel HaLevi who interpreted Rashi’s words, “and nothing more,” as implying that it is forbidden to cut [anything else] after [cutting the simanim], we are forced to say that he objected only to cutting the spinal cord, on which the life energy [of the animal] is dependent. Concerning this, the Torah instructed that one should kill an animal only by cutting the simanim and not [by cutting] anything else.
Turei Zahav’s intent when saying, “not [by cutting] anything else,” is [not to kill the animal by cutting something else] together with the simanim, as the Tosefta cited above states, “when one slaughtered and severed the head at the same time.” However, when [the simanim are not being slit], there is no prohibition against killing the animal in another manner. [The only concern is] that [doing so] causes the blood to be absorbed in the animal’s limbs, as mentioned above in sec. 23, [note 17].
According to all the halachic authorities who differ with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yoel HaLevi, it is possible that the distinction the Tosefta makes between acting intentionally and unintentionally [when severing the animal’s head while cutting the simanim] is referring to an instance when the shochet slaughtered either by only extending the knife forward or by only drawing it towards himself. [Slaughtering] in this manner is referred to as “decapitating [the animal] in one motion” in the mishnah cited above.52 This refers to an instance where [the length of] the knife conforms to the [minimum] measure given by our Sages – “that it project beyond the [animal’s] neck for [an amount equal to] the full width of the [animal’s] neck.”53 This measure is sufficient only when one cuts the simanim until the cervical spine but not including [the cervical spine],54 as stated by Mishmeres HaBayis55 and Pri Chadash.56 Nevertheless, since the knife is of the measure required by the Sages, if one unintentionally cut the cervical spine [of the animal’s neck, the slaughter is not disqualified. Instead,] we attribute [the cutting of the cervical spine to] the sharpness of the knife, for there are times that the knife is sharp and [thus, is capable of] slitting the simanim, even if it is shorter than the measure given by our Sages, as indicated by Tosafos57 and RabbeinuAsher,58 as understood by Tevuos Shor.59
However, according to Ramban, Rashba, and Rabbeinu Nissim60 – who [all] differ with Tosafos and Rabbeinu Asher, and their opinion is accepted by [Rav Yosef Caro in his] Shulchan Aruch (as stated in the Kuntreis Acharon)61 – it is possible that the Tosefta is not at all referring to an instance where the cervical spine [of the animal’s neck] was severed. Instead, [the Tosefta’s words,] “severed the [animal’s] head,” refers only to the simanim. [Although the Tosefta explicitly mentions, “severing the [animal’s] head,” that could be interpreted] in the same manner as [the words of] the mishnah,49 which speaks of “cutting off the head,” [but which is understood to be referring to] merely [cutting] the simanim, as explained above.62 [The words] “at the same time” used in the Tosefta are also used in the mishnah, and are interpreted [there] to mean [in one motion, i.e.,] “either by [the shochet] only extending [the knife] or by [him] only drawing it towards [himself].” The [words of the] Tosefta imply that if one slits [the simanim] in one motion [the slaughter] is acceptable only if he did so unintentionally. This is so even if the knife is as long as the measure specified by our Sages, i.e., [the length of the knife] extending beyond [the animal’s] neck [is equivalent to the width] of [an animal’s] neck. [In other words, the shochet] cut off the head [i.e., slit the simanim,] by extending the knife alone without having the opportunity to draw it back, as Rashi explained57 with regard to the aforementioned mishnah. However, if [the shochet] did so intentionally, there are grounds for concern that he pressed [the knife against the simanim], (as explained in the Kuntreis Acharon61).
Therefore, shochtim must be very careful about this, showing an extra measure of caution since there is concern [that the slaughter will be disqualified as] derasah [i.e., pressing the knife against the simanim], even after the fact. [This applies] in addition to the concern that should be shown as an initial preference, for it is a mitzvah to slaughter by drawing [the knife] back and forth, (as explained above).63
(ט) כֵּן.
רַאֲבִיָ"ה בְּמָרְדְּכַינז דִּקְדֵּק כֵּן מִפֵּרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י רֵישׁ פֶּרֶק ב' דְּחֻלִּיןנח אַהָא דְאָמְרִינָן הָתָם אָמַר רַב כַּהֲנָא מִנַּיִן לִשְׁחִיטָה שֶׁהוּא מִן הַצַּוָּאר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְשָׁחַט מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁח (שֶׁכּוֹפֵףנט) חַטֵּהוּ (הַכְשֵׁרֵהוּ לַאֲכִילָה וְטַהֲרֵהוּ לִישְׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא חַטֵּהוּ הוֹצֵא אֶת דָּמוֹ וְנַקֵּהוּ). וּמַסְּקִינָן דִּשְׁחִיטָה מִן הַצַּוָּאר הִלְכְתָא גְמִירָא לָהּ אֶלָּא קְרָא דִוְשָׁחַט לְמַאי אָתָא דְּלֹא לְשַׁוְיָהּ גִּיסְטְרָא. וּפֵרֵשׁ רַשִׁ"י שֶׁלֹּא יַחְתּוֹךְ כָּל הַמַּפְרֶקֶת לִשְׁנַיִם דְּהָכִי מַשְׁמַע חַטֵּהוּ הוֹצֵא אֶת דָּמוֹ וְתוּ לֹא וּלְאִידָךְ לִישְׁנָא הַכְשֵׁר אֲכִילָתוֹ דְּהַיְנוּ הַסִּימָנִים וְתוּ לֹא עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ. וְכָתַב עַל זֶה הַמָּרְדְּכַי בְּשֵׁם ר' בָּרוּךְ וְלֹא נְהִירָא דְּכֵיוָן שֶׁשָּׁחַט הַסִּימָנִים אִם שָׁחַט אַחַר כָּךְ גַּם הַמַּפְרֶקֶת מַאי אִכְפַּת לָן. וּמִיהוּ בְּתוֹסֶפְתָּאס תַּנְיָא הָיָה שׁוֹחֵט וְחָתַךְ אֶת הָרֹאשׁ בְּבַת אַחַת נִתְכַּוֵּן לְכָךְ שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה וְאִם לָאו שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאָמַר לָנוּ מוֹרֵנוּ ר' מֵאִיר שֶׁמַּעֲשֶׂה הָיָה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁשָּׁחַט וְחָתַךְ כָּל הַמַּפְרֶקֶת וְדִקְדֵּק רַאֲבִיָ"ה מִפֵּרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י וְאָסַר. וְלֹא נְהִירָא לְמוֹרֵנוּ ר' מֵאִיר וּמְפָרֵשׁ מוֹרֵנוּ כָּךְ פֵּרֵשׁ רַשִׁ"י חַטֵּהוּ הוֹצֵא אֶת דָּמוֹ וְתוּ לֹא צָרִיךְ יוֹתֵר עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹן הַמָּרְדְּכַי. וּבְמִשְׁמֶרֶת הַבַּיִתסא בְּשֵׁם הַתּוֹסְפוֹת כָּתַב דְּמַה שֶּׁכָּתַב רַשִׁ"י הוֹצֵא אֶת דָּמוֹ וְתוּ לֹא הַיְנוּ מִשּׁוּם דְּבַחֲתִיכַת הַמַּפְרֶקֶת מַבְלִיעַ דָּם בָּאֵבָרִיםסב וּקְרָא דִוְשָׁחַט בְּקָדָשִׁים כְּתִיב דִּלְדָם הוּא צָרִיךְ לְהַזָּיוֹת וְלִזְרִיקוֹת.
וּמְבֹאָר בְּבֵית יוֹסֵףסג וְשַׁ"ךְסד דְּרַאֲבִיָ"ה יְחִידָאָה הוּא וְכָל הַפּוֹסְקִים פְּלִיגִי עֲלֵיהּ. וְהַטַּ"זסה הוֹסִיף לְהַפְלִיא עָלָיו מִמִּשְׁנָה וּגְמָרָאסו וְנִתְבָּאֵר לְעֵיל סוֹף סִימָן כ'סז דְּאִם הֶחֱזִיר הַסִּימָנִים לַאֲחוֹרֵי הָעֹרֶף וְשָׁחַט מִן הָעֹרֶף שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה אֶלָּא שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁרְמָ"א כָּתַב שֶׁאֵין לְשַׁנּוֹת מִן הַמִּנְהָג שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לְהַטְרִיף אֵין בְּיָדֵינוּ לְהָקֵל דְּלֹא יְהֵא אֶלָּא דְּבָרִים הַמֻּתָּרִים וַאֲחֵרִים נָהֲגוּ בָּהֶם אִסּוּר עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹן הַטַּ"ז. וְכֵן כָּתַב הַשַּׁ"ךְ דְּמִן הַדִּין שָׁרֵי וְאוּלַי דַּעַת רְמָ"א לְהַחֲמִיר דַּוְקָא בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין הֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה וּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹן הַשַּׁ"ךְ.
וּלְפִי דַּעַת רַאֲבִיָ"ה צָרִיךְ לִדְחוֹק וְלוֹמַר דִּבְהַהִיא דִלְעֵיל סוֹף סִימָן כ' דְּמַיְרִי דַוְקָא בְּלֹא נִתְכַּוֵּן לַחְתּוֹךְ הַמַּפְרֶקֶת כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב הַדְּרִישָׁה רֵישׁ סִימָן א'.סח וְאִם כֵּן בְּלֹא נִתְכַּוֵּן אֵין לְהַחֲמִיר כְּלָל אֲפִלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה. וְסִיֵּם הַטַּ"ז שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְהָקֵל בְּזֶה בְּכָל הַסְּפֵקוֹת דַּאֲפִלּוּ רוֹאֶה חֲתָךְ בַּמַּפְרֶקֶת אֵין צָרִיךְ לִבְדּוֹק אַחֲרָיו אִם הוּא רֹב וְקַל וָחֹמֶר כְּשֶׁאֵין הַמַּפְרֶקֶת לְפָנֵינוּ וְהַאי רֹב הַמַּפְרֶקֶת נִרְאֶה לִי דְּהָעִקָּר תָּלוּי בְּחוּט שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ לְרַאֲבִיָ"ה שֶׁפֵּרֵשׁ דִּבְרֵי רַשִׁ"י וְתוּ לֹא שֶׁאָסוּר לַחְתּוֹךְ אַחַר כָּךְ עַל כָּרְחָךְ לֹא קָפִיד אֶלָּא אַחוּט שֶׁהַחַיּוּת תָּלוּי בּוֹ וְעַל זֶה אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה דְּלֹא יָמִית הַבְּהֵמָה אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי הַסִּימָנִים וְלֹא בְּדָבָר אַחֵר עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ. וְרוֹצֶה לוֹמַר בְּדָבָר אַחֵר הַיְנוּ בְּבַת אַחַת עִם הַסִּימָנִים דַּוְקָא כִּדְתַנְיָא בְּתוֹסֶפְתָּא דִלְעֵיל הָיָה שׁוֹחֵט וְחָתַךְ אֶת הָרֹאשׁ בְּבַת אַחַת. אֲבָל שֶׁלֹּא בְּבַת אַחַת אֵין אִסּוּר לְהָמִית הַבְּהֵמָה בְּדָבָר אַחֵר אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם מַבְלִיעַ דָּם בָּאֵבָרִים כְּדִלְעֵיל סִימָן כ"ג.סט
וּלְפִי דַעַת כָּל הַפּוֹסְקִים הַחוֹלְקִים עַל רַאֲבִיָ"ה יֵשׁ לוֹמַר הָא דִבְתוֹסֶפְתָּא דְּמַפְלִיג בֵּין נִתְכַּוֵּן לְכָךְ לְלֹא נִתְכַּוֵּן מַיְרִי בְּשׁוֹחֵט בְּהוֹלָכָה לְבַדָּהּ אוֹ בְּהוֹבָאָה לְבַדָּהּ דִּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא מִקְּרֵי בְּבַת אַחַת בְּמַתְנִיתִין דִּלְעֵיל. וּמַיְרִי בִּסְתָם סַכִּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ כַּשִּׁעוּר שֶׁנָּתְנוּ חַזַ"ל כִּמְלֹא צַוָּאר חוּץ לַצַּוָּאר. וְהַאי שִׁעוּרָא לֹא סַגִּי אֶלָּא לַחֲתִיכַת הַסִּימָנִים עַד הַמַּפְרֶקֶת וְלֹא עַד בִּכְלָל כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב בְּמִשְׁמֶרֶת הַבַּיִתע וּפְרִי חָדָשׁ.עא אֶלָּא דְּמִכָּל מָקוֹם כֵּיוָן שֶׁיֵּשׁ בַּסַּכִּין כַּשִּׁעוּר שֶׁנָּתְנוּ חַזַ"ל אִם חָתַךְ הַמַּפְרֶקֶת בְּלֹא מִתְכַּוֵּן תְּלִינָן בַּחֲרִיפוּת הַסַּכִּין כִּי לִפְעָמִים הַסַּכִּין חָרִיף וְשׁוֹחֵט הַסִּימָנִים בְּפָחוֹת מִכַּשִּׁעוּר שֶׁנָּתְנוּ חַזַ"ל כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתְבוּ הַתּוֹסְפוֹתעב וְהָרֹא"שׁעג לְפִי דַּעַת הַתְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹר.עד
אֲבָל לְפִי דַּעַת הָרַמְבַּ"ן וְהָרַשְׁבָּ"א וְהָרַ"ןעה דִּפְלִיגִי בְּהָא אַתּוֹסְפוֹת וְרֹא"שׁ וְכֵן דַּעַת הַבֵּית יוֹסֵף בְּשֻׁלְחָן עָרוּךְעו (כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב בְּקוּנְטְרֵס אַחֲרוֹןעז) יֵשׁ לוֹמַר דִּבְתוֹסֶפְתָּא לֹא מַיְרִי כְּלָל בְּחָתַךְ הַמַּפְרֶקֶת אֶלָּא לַחֲתִיכַת הַסִּימָנִים לְבַדָּם קָרֵי חָתַךְ הָרֹאשׁ כְּדִתְנַןעח בְּמַתְנִיתִין הִתִּיז הָרֹאשׁ וְהַיְנוּ סִימָנִים לְבַדָּם כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר לְעֵיל. וּבְבַת אַחַת דִּבְתוֹסֶפְתָּא הַיְנוּ נַמִי בְּבַת אַחַת דְּמַתְנִיתִין שֶׁהִיא הוֹלָכָה לְבַדָּהּ אוֹ הוֹבָאָה לְבַדָּהּ. וְקָא מַשְׁמַע לָן בְּתוֹסֶפְתָּא דְּלֹא מַכְשְׁרִינָן בְּבַת אַחַת אֲפִלּוּ בְּסַכִּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ כַּשִּׁעוּר שֶׁנָּתְנוּ חַזַ"ל שֶׁהוּא כִּמְלֹא צַוָּאר חוּץ לַצַּוָּאר אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁלֹּא נִתְכַּוֵּן לְכָךְ רַק שֶׁלֹּא הִסְפִּיק לְהָבִיא עַד שֶׁהֻתַּז הָרֹאשׁ בְּהוֹלָכָה לְבַדָּהּ כִּדְפֵרֵשׁ רַשִׁ"י בְּמַתְנִיתִין דִּלְעֵיל אֲבָל אִם נִתְכַּוֵּן לְכָךְ אִיכָּא לְמֵיחַשׁ לִדְרָסָה (כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב בְּקוּנְטְרֵס אַחֲרוֹן).
וְעַל כֵּן צְרִיכִים הַשּׁוֹחֲטִים לִזָּהֵר בְּזֶה בְּאַזְהָרָה יְתֵרָה מֵאַחַר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּזֶה חֲשַׁשׁ דְּרָסָה אֲפִלּוּ בְּדִיעֲבַד מִלְּבַד הַזְּהִירוּת לְכַתְּחִלָּה שֶׁמִּצְוָה לְהוֹלִיךְ וּלְהָבִיא לְכַתְּחִלָּה (כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר לְעֵילעט):
If a [shochet] was slaughtering and cut the entire cervical spine [of the animal’s neck, the animal] is kosher. Note – The [prevailing] custom is to rule [that the animal is] tereifah even if [the shochet] cut only the major portion of the cervical spine (Rav Yaakov Weil; Agur; Terumas HaDeshen). One should not deviate [from this practice], because there are leading authorities who rule in this manner (9) (Rabbi Eliezer ben Yoel HaLevi derives this from Rashi’s words).
ההָיָה שׁוֹחֵט וְחָתַךְ כָּל הַמַּפְרֶקֶת, כְּשֵׁרָה. הַגָּה: וְהַמִּנְהָג לְהַטְרִיף אֲפִלּוּ לֹא חָתַךְ רַק רֹב הַמַּפְרֶקֶת (מהרי״ו וְאָגוּר וּתְרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן), וְאֵין לְשַׁנּוֹת כִּי יֵשׁ מֵרַבְוָתָא סוֹבְרִין כֵּן (ט) (דִּקְדֵּק רַאֲבִיָ״ה מִפֵּרוּשׁ רַשִׁ״י).
6
(10) So that he will not press it [on the simanim –
Nevertheless, this is merely a precautionary measure to be followed as initial preference. However, after the fact,64 it is not a reason for concern. In these regions, the shochtim have followed the custom of forbidding [this practice] even after the fact. Perhaps [the Rabbis] saw the need for a safeguard and applied a stringency.65 Nevertheless, when a severe loss or the like is involved, there is room for leniency (Tevuos Shor66).
(11) Of the gullet, [the slaughter] is disqualified –
[See] Beis Yosef, quoting Kolbo and Hagahos Maimonios, who cites Rabbeinu Peretz in Hagahos S’mak, [where] it is explicitly explained that this ruling refers to what was stated previously [in this subsection]: that “if [the shochet] does not grip [the simanim] well, occasionally… he [may] come to press [the knife on the simanim].” Pressing [the knife against the simanim, “derashah,”] disqualifies [the slaughter] even if [the shochet pressed only] on the slightest portion of the gullet. [
However, with regard to the windpipe, [Beis Yosef] follows the opinion of Rabbeinu Peretz that pressing [the knife against it] disqualifies [the slaughter] only if [the shochet] does so on its majority, or on a small partthat completes the slitting of the larger portion [of the windpipe]. As mentioned below,67 this is the opinion of most halachic authorities regarding hagramah, [i.e., diverting the knife from the place of slaughter], and chaladah, [i.e, concealing the knife under the windpipe or the gullet in the course of an inverted slaughter.]
[However, in his] Shulchan Aruch, [Rav Yosef Caro] follows [the approach of] Rambam,68 who disqualifies pressing [the knife against] or concealing the knife under even the smaller portion of the windpipe [that was cut] initially, as will be stated in subsections 11 and 13. [Nevertheless, Rav Yosef Caro] did not wish to alter the wording of Rabbeinu Peretz in this law. [The rationale is that] the wording used is also appropriate according to Rambam. i.e., one should be more careful not to press [the knife against] the gullet than [against] the windpipe because [pressing against] the gullet definitely disqualifies [the slaughter, while pressing against] the windpipe disqualifies it [only because the matter] is unresolved, as [will be explained in] subsections 11 and 13;69 consult those sources.
*
Note what is written in subsections 10 and 12 regarding the reason for this custom.70
(י) שֶׁלֹּא יָבֹא לִידֵי דְרָסָה.
וּמִיהוּ זֶה אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא זְהִירוּת לְכַתְּחִלָּה אֲבָל בְּדִיעֲבַד אֵין לָחוּשׁ. וּבִמְדִינוֹת אֵלּוּ שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ הַשּׁוֹחֲטִים לֶאֱסוֹר אֲפִלּוּ בְּדִיעֲבַד אוּלַי בִּקְעָה מָצְאוּ וְגָדְרוּ בָּהּ גָּדֵר וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם בְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה וּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא יֵשׁ לְהָקֵל (תְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹרפ):
(יא) מִן הַוֵּשֶׁט פְּסוּלָה.
בְּבֵית יוֹסֵףפא בְּשֵׁם הַכָּלְבּוֹפב וְהַגָּהוֹת מַיְמוֹנִיּוֹתפג בְּשֵׁם הָר' פֶּרֶץ בְּהַגָּהַת סְמַ"קפד מְבֹאָר בְּהֶדְיָא דְּקָאֵי אַדִּלְעֵיל שֶׁאִם אֵינוֹ אוֹחֵז אוֹתָם בְּטוֹב פְּעָמִים כוּ' וְיָבֹא לִידֵי דְרָסָה וּדְרָסָה פְּסוּלָה אֲפִלּוּ בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ מִן הַוֵּשֶׁט. אֲבָל בַּקָּנֶה סְבִירָא לֵיהּ לְהָר' פֶּרֶץפה דְּאֵין דְּרָסָה פּוֹסֶלֶת אֶלָּא בְּרֻבּוֹ אוֹ בְּמִעוּט הַמַּשְׁלִים לְרֻבּוֹ. וְכֵן דַּעַת רֹב הַפּוֹסְקִים כְּדִלְקַמָּןפו גַּבֵּי הַגְרָמָה וְהַחְלָדָה. וְהַשֻּׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ אַף דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ כְּהָרַמְבַּ"םפז לִפְסוֹל דְּרָסָה וְהַחְלָדָה אַף בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא דְּקָנֶה כְּדִלְקַמָּן סְעִיף י"אפח וּסְעִיף י"גפט לֹא רָצָה לְשַׁנּוֹת לְשׁוֹן הָר' פֶּרֶץ בְּדִין זֶה מִשּׁוּם דְּאַף לְהָרַמְבַּ"ם אָתֵי שַׁפִּיר לָשׁוֹן זֶה לִזָּהֵר שֶׁלֹּא יָבֹא לִידֵי דְרָסָה מַשֶּׁהוּ בַּוֵּשֶׁט יוֹתֵר מִבַּקָּנֶה דְּבַוֵּשֶׁט פְּסוּלָה וַדַּאי וּבַקָּנֶה הִיא פְּסוּלָה מִסָּפֵק כְּדִלְקַמָּן סְעִיף י"א וּסְעִיף י"ג עַיֵּן שָׁם:צ
When a person slaughters a fowl and holds the simanim with his two fingers, he must grip them well, because if he does not grip them well, they will occasionally slip to either side and he will not be able to slaughter [the fowl] by extending the knife. [Instead, he will] proceed to press [the knife on the simanim.]
Note: Likewise, [The shochet] should not place his finger on the knife, but rather should hold it by the handle so that he will not press it [on the simanim] (10) (this is based on [Rama’s] own logic, [based on] the tradition of shochtim and Maharshal, [Chulin,] the chapter entitled HaShochet, sec. 12).
Even if [the shochet] pressed [the knife] down only on a small portion of the gullet, the slaughter] is disqualified. (11) Note: It is customary to rule [an animal] tereifah whenever [any portion of the simanim was cut] by pressing down [with the knife], whether this involved a small portion before [the majority of the siman was slit] or a small portion after [the majority of the siman was slit,] whether [this involved] the windpipe or the gullet * (Rav Yaakov Weil’s Shechitos [U’Bedikos]).
וכְּשֶׁאָדָם שׁוֹחֵט עוֹף וְאוֹחֵז בַּסִּימָנִים בִּשְׁתֵּי אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֶּאֱחֹז אוֹתָם יָפֶה, שֶׁאִם אֵינוֹ אוֹחֵז אוֹתָם בְּטוֹב, פְּעָמִים שֶׁיִּהְיוּ נִשְׁמָטִין לְכָאן וּלְכָאן וְלֹא יָכוֹל לְשָׁחֲטָן עַל יְדֵי הוֹלָכָה, וּבָא לִידֵי דְרָסָה. הַגָּה: וְכֵן לֹא יַנִּיחַ הָאֶצְבַּע עַל הַסַּכִּין אֶלָּא יַחֲזִיק אוֹתוֹ בַּקַּתָּא, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹא יָבֹא לִידֵי דְרָסָה (י) (דַּעַת עַצְמוֹ מִקַבָּלַת הַשּׁוֹחֲטִים וּמַהַרְשַׁ״ל פֶּרֶק הַשּׁוֹחֵט סִימָן י״ב). וַאֲפִלּוּ לֹא עָשָׂה דְּרָסָה אֶלָּא בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ מִן הַוֵּשֶׁט, פְּסוּלָה. (יא) הַגָּה: וְהַמִּנְהָג לְהַטְרִיף כָּל דְּרָסָה, בֵּין בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא * בֵּין בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא, בֵּין בַּקָּנֶה בֵּין בַּוֵּשֶׁט (שְׁחִיטוֹת מהרי״ו).
7
(12) Chaladah –
[This term shares the root] of the word chuldah, “mole,” i.e., [slaughtering in this manner] resembles a mole that creeps below [the ground] and is hidden in the holes [found in] homes.71 [This is similar to the instance described here, when] the knife is hidden by the upper72 siman at the time when the lower siman is being slit, or at the time when the upper siman is slit from below.
The prohibition against chaladah definitely applies if the knife is covered by the siman, for [slitting it] is part of the slaughter. However, if [the knife] is covered by something that is not required to be slit for the slaughter to be acceptable, e.g., [it is] under the hide [of the animal], the Talmud73 [states that] Rav was in doubt regarding the status [of the slaughter], quoting him as saying, “I do not know.” [Therefore, such a slaughter] is invalid because of the doubt, as stated in subsection 8 [below].
(יב) חֲלָדָה.
לְשׁוֹן חֻלְדָּה כְּחֻלְדָּה זוֹ שֶׁהִיא תְּחוּבָה וּמְכֻסָּה בְּחוֹרֵי הַבָּתִּיםצג וְהָכִי נַמִי הַסַּכִּין מְכֻסָּה בְּסִימָן הָעֶלְיוֹן בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטַת סִימָן הַתַּחְתּוֹן אוֹ בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטַת הָעֶלְיוֹן מִמַּטָּה לְמַעְלָה. וְדַוְקָא בְּסִימָן שֶׁהוּא בִּכְלַל שְׁחִיטָה הָוֵי וַדַּאי חֲלָדָה אֲבָל אִם מְכֻסָּה בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בִּכְלַל שְׁחִיטָה כְּגוֹן תַּחַת הָעוֹר מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ לְרַב בִּגְמָרָאצד וְאָמַר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ וּפָסוּל מִסָּפֵק כְּדִלְקַמָּן סְעִיף ח':
What is meant by chaladah, [i.e., slaughtering in a concealed manner]? (12) For example, [the shochet] inserted the knife between one siman and the other. [The slaughter] is disqualified whether he slit the lower siman, [i.e., the gullet,] as required by law, from top to bottom, and then drew out the knife and slit the upper siman, [i.e., the windpipe,] or he slit the upper siman from the bottom upward in a manner that is not in accordance with the law.
זחֲלָדָה (יב) כֵּיצַד, כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִכְנִיס הַסַּכִּין בֵּין סִימָן לְסִימָן, בֵּין שֶׁשָּׁחַט הַתַּחְתּוֹן כְּהִלְכָתוֹ מִלְמַעְלָה לְמַטָּה וְחָזַר וְהוֹצִיאוֹ וְשָׁחַט הָעֶלְיוֹן, בֵּין שֶׁשָּׁחַט הָעֶלְיוֹן מִמַּטָּה לְמַעְלָה שֶׁלֹּא כְּהִלְכָתוֹ, פְּסוּלָה.
8
(13) His slaughter is invalid –
i.e., because of the doubt involved. [The laws mentioned here] involve questions raised by the Talmud72 that were left unresolved, [as stated in that source:] “According to Rav, who says, ‘[if the shochet placed the knife] under the hide, I do not know [whether the slaughter is valid]’ – what is [the law if the knife is concealed] under a cloth? What is [the law if it is concealed] under gnarled wool? [These questions are left] unresolved.”
Rashi comments: “What is [the law]… – [The question is as follows: Slitting] the hide is not part of the [actual act of] slaughter and [yet Rav] was in doubt whether [placing the knife under it is considered] chaladah. Thus, the same doubt applies in this instance as well. Or perhaps [we say that the two instances are different because the hide] is part of the [animal’s] body and [the cloth] is not.”
Rabbeinu Asher writes,
“What is [the law if the knife is concealed] under gnarled wool? Since the wool is going to be sheared, [it might be posssible that] it is not considered [the same] as the hide. And if you will say that since at the time of [the slaughter the wool] is connected to the animal, [and therefore placing the knife under it] is considered chaladah, what is the law regarding [placing the knife under] a cloth tied around the animal’s neck, [since it is attached to the animal at least at the time of slaughter]? [The questions are left] standing.
[Therefore,] we rule stringently. (This is not considered a sefek sefeika [i.e., a compounded doubt],74 because it is all [considered as] one doubtful situation: whether or not slaughtering in such a manner is considered chaladah.) However, if [the shochet’s] garment fell over the place of slaughter, [and concealed the knife,] it is clear that it would not be considered chaladah. [The rationale is that] the question raised [by the Talmud] concerned only a piece of cloth that is always tied around the neck of the animal, and thus resembles wool [in that it is always attached to the animal].
The author of Halachos Gedolos also wrote that the Talmud is speaking about an instance where there is a wound on the neck of the animal and therefore, [the owner] attached a cloth there with wax. This differs from [the understanding of] Rambam,69 who wrote that if one spread a cloth over the knife and over the [animal's] neck, and [then] slaughtered under the cloth, [the slaughtered animal] is considered a neveilah of doubtful status since the knife is not in open view.
[Although when speaking of a cloth, Rabbeinu Asher, uses the phrase,] “that is always tied [around the neck of the animal],” the same law would also apply if the cloth is bound [around the animal’s neck in a manner] that it would remain there for a significant time (Tevuos Shor).75
(14) The gnarled wool –
[This law does] not necessarily apply [only to gnarled wool], but applies also if the [animal’s] hairs are separate [and loose]. As long as the knife is beneath them, [the slaughter] is considered chaladah [and is thus invalid]. The Talmud, Shulchan Aruch [of Rav Yosef Caro], and Rama were merely describing the more common situation, because when [the wool] is gnarled to the extent that [the shochet] cannot separate it, he [might well] insert the knife under it (Tevuos Shor).76
Nevertheless, according to law, it is sufficient to move the wool to the sides. Removing it is necessary only as a measure of [extra] caution that is adopted as an initial preference. Similarly, with regard to fowl, it is customary to pull out the feathers [on the neck] even though this causes the fowl pain (Mordechai).77 Nevertheless, if [the shochet] can slaughter without removing [the feathers], he should be careful to [slaughter without] removing [them], as Rama writes in sec. 23[:6].
(יג) שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה.
מִסָּפֵק דְּאִבַּעְיוֹת וְלֹא אִיפְשְׁטוּ נִינְהוּ בִּגְמָרָאצה לְרַב דְּאָמַר תַּחַת הָעוֹר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ תַּחַת מַטְלִית מַהוּ תַּחַת צֶמֶר מְסֻבָּךְ מַהוּ תֵּיקוּ וּפֵרֵשׁ רַשִׁ"י מַהוּ דְּהָא עוֹר נַמִי לָאו בִּכְלַל שְׁחִיטָה הוּא וּמְסַפְּקִינָן לֵיהּ בַּחֲלָדָה הָכִי נַמִי לֹא שְׁנָא אוֹ דִלְמָא הַאי גּוּפָהּ וְהַאי לָאו גּוּפָהּ עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ. וְהָרֹא"שׁצו כָּתַב תַּחַת צֶמֶר מְסֻבָּךְ מַהוּ כֵּיוָן דְּצֶמֶר עוֹמֵד לִגֹּז לֹא הָוֵי כְּעוֹר וְאִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר כֵּיוָן דְּהַשְׁתָּא מִיהָא מְחֻבָּר לַבְּהֵמָה מִקְּרֵי חֲלָדָה תַּחַת מַטְלִית הַקְּשׁוּרָה סְבִיב הַצַּוָּאר מַהוּ תֵּיקוּ וְעָבְדִינָן לְחוּמְרָא (וְלֹא הָוֵי סְפֵק סְפֵיקָא מִשּׁוּם דְּהַכֹּל שֵׁם סָפֵק אֶחָד אִי מִקְּרֵי חֲלָדָה בִּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא וְאִם לָאו) אֲבָל אִם נָפַל טַלִּיתוֹ עַל מְקוֹם הַשְּׁחִיטָה פְּשִׁיטָא דְּלֹא הָוֵי חֲלָדָה דְּלֹא מִבַּעְיָא אֶלָּא בְּבֶגֶד שֶׁקָּשׁוּר תָּמִיד בְּצַוַּאר הַבְּהֵמָה דּוּמְיָא דְצֶמֶר וְכֵן כָּתַב בַּהַ"גצז דְּמַיְרִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ מַכָּה בְּצַוַּאר הַבְּהֵמָה וְדָבַק עָלֶיהָ מַטְלִית בְּשַׁעֲוָה וּדְלֹא כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב הָרַמְבַּ"םצח אִם פֵּרֵשׂ מַטְלִית עַל הַסַּכִּין וְעַל הַצַּוָּאר וְשָׁחַט תַּחַת הַמַּטְלִית הוֹאִיל וְאֵין הַסַּכִּין גְּלוּיָה הֲרֵי זֶה סְפֵק נְבֵלָה עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹן הָרֹא"שׁ. וּמַה שֶּׁכָּתַב הַקָּשׁוּר תָּמִיד הוּא לָאו דַּוְקָא אֶלָּא דְּהוּא הַדִּין כָּרוּךְ וְעָשׂוּי לְהִתְקַיֵּם זְמַן מָה (תְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹרצט):
(יד) הַמְּסֻבָּךְ.
לָאו דַּוְקָא אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ הַשְּׂעָרוֹת מֻבְדָּלוֹת זוֹ מִזּוֹ כֹּל שֶׁהַסַּכִּין תַּחְתֵּיהֶן הֲוָה לֵיהּ חֲלָדָה אֶלָּא אוּרְחָא דְמִלְּתָא נָקַט בִּגְמָרָא וְשֻׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ וּרְמָ"א דְּבִמְסֻבָּךְ שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַפְרִידָן מַכְנִיס הַסַּכִּין תַּחְתֵּיהֶן (תְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹרק). וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם מִדִּינָא סַגֵּי לְפַנּוֹת הַצֶּמֶר אֵילַךְ וְאֵילַךְ וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לִתְלוֹשׁ אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם זְהִירוּת לְכַתְּחִלָּה. וְכֵן בְּעוֹפוֹת נָהֲגוּ לִמְרוֹט הַנּוֹצוֹת וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּאִיכָּא צַעַר בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים (מָרְדְּכַיקא). וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם אִם יָכוֹל לִשְׁחוֹט בְּלֹא זֶה יֵשׁ לִזָּהֵר מִלִּמְרוֹט כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב רְמַ"א בְּסִימָן כ"ג:קב
[If the shochet] concealed the knife beneath [the animal’s] hide, or beneath gnarled wool matted around the animal’s neck, or under a cloth tied to its neck or a cloth attached to its [neck] with wax, and [then] slaughtered [the animal], his slaughter is invalid. (13)However, if the cloth was [merely] spread over [the animal's] neck [when the shochet] slaughtered, the slaughter is valid. [Nevertheless,] there is an authority who disqualifies such a slaughter as well, and as initial preference, it is desirable to give weight to his words.
Note: Similarly, one should be careful regarding [the slaughter of] lambs, for they [often] have gnarled wool around their necks. [One must] remove the gnarled wool (14) lest [the slaughter be disqualified as] chaladah (Mordechai, [Chulin,] the chapter beginning HaShochet; Rokeiach).
חהֶחְלִיד אֶת הַסַּכִּין תַּחַת הָעוֹר, אוֹ תַּחַת צֶמֶר מְסֻבָּךְ בְּצַוַּאר הַבְּהֵמָה, אוֹ תַּחַת מַטְלִית הַקָּשׁוּר בְּצַוָּארָהּ, אוֹ שֶׁהַמַּטְלִית מְדֻבָּק בּוֹ בְּשַׁעֲוָה וְשָׁחַט, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. (יג)אֲבָל אִם הַמַּטְלִית פָּרוּשׂ עַל צַוָּארָהּ וְשָׁחַט, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. וְיֵשׁ מִי שֶׁפּוֹסֵל גַּם בָּזֶה, וּלְכַתְּחִלָּה יֵשׁ לָחוּשׁ לִדְבָרָיו. הַגָּה: וְכֵן יֵשׁ לִזָּהֵר בִּכְבָשִׂים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם צֶמֶר מְסֻבָּךְ בְּצַוְּארֵיהֶם לִתְלֹשׁ הַצֶּמֶר הַמְּסֻבָּךְ, (יד) שֶׁלֹּא יָבֹא לִידֵי חֲלָדָה (מָרְדְּכַי פֶּרֶק הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְרוֹקֵחַ).
9
(15) By the hide –
[Slaughtering in this manner] is considered as chaladah. Even after the fact, the slaughter is invalid because of the doubt involved, as mentioned above78 (Sifsei Kohen.79)
(טו) מֵהָעוֹר.
וְהָוֵי לָהּ חֲלָדָה וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּדִיעֲבַד שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה מִסָּפֵק כְּדִלְעֵיל (שַׁ"ךְקג):
A person who slaughters must be careful if he is concerned about [preserving] the hide and [consequently] does not make a large tear [in the hide, lest he] slaughter with the tip of the knife, and [this will result in the knife] being covered by the hide. (15) However, if [the person] slaughters with the middle of the knife, there is no concernif its tip becomes covered by the hide,since the section of the knife with which he slits the simanim is not covered. There is an authority who rules stringently even in such [a situation] and one should give weight to his words as an initial preference.
טצָרִיךְ לִזָּהֵר כְּשֶׁאָדָם שׁוֹחֵט וְחָס עַל הָעוֹר שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה בּוֹ קֶרַע גָּדוֹל, וְשׁוֹחֵט בְּרֹאשׁ הַסַּכִּין וּמִתְכַּסֶּה מֵהָעוֹר. (טו) אָמְנָם אִם שׁוֹחֵט בְּאֶמְצַע הַסַּכִּין אֵין לָחוּשׁ אִם רֹאשׁוֹ מִתְכַּסֶה בָּעוֹר, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהַסַּכִּין בַּמָּקוֹם שֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט בּוֹ כְּנֶגֶד הַסִּימָנִים אֵינוֹ מְכֻסֶּה. וְיֵשׁ מִי שֶׁמַּחְמִיר גַּם בָּזֶה, וְיֵשׁ לָחוּשׁ לִדְבָרָיו לְכַתְּחִלָּה.
10
(16) Who disqualifies [such a slaughter] –
This is Rashi’s opinion in his interpretation of the question raised by Rav Pappa,80 [regarding the law] when [the shochet] conceals the knife [while slitting] the lesser portion of the simanim. [The Talmud leaves that question] unresolved. Rashi [explains that the question involves] concealing the knife [while slitting] the lesser portion of the simanim after one slit the larger portion in a permissible manner. [Rav Pappa’s question is,] “Do we say that [the animal] was slaughtered properly because of [the slitting of] the larger portion of the simanim, [which was done properly,] or perhaps [we say that] the entire action is considered one [act of] slaughter, and hence, [the prohibition against] chaladah applies?”
Tosafos and those who follow their approach question Rashi’s interpretation, just as they questioned his [similar] interpretation of the question81 regarding [how we should] rule when one interrupted [the slaughter while slitting] the lesser portion of the simanim [after slitting their major portion. This issue is presented] in sec. 23.82
[Tosafos] explains [Rav Pappa’s] question in a different manner, as [will be explained] in subsection 11, below. According to their interpretation, there is no prohibition at all [resulting from] chaladah, even regarding the remaining lesser portion of the first siman of an animal, [provided the majority of the siman was slit in a kosher manner. Their rationale is that] since the majority of both simanim were slit in a kosher manner, the fact that the lesser portion was slit in an unacceptable manner is of no consequence. For this reason,83 [Rav Yosef Caro] simply states in his Shulchan Aruch, “or of only one of them,” without being specific. (Note [the comments of] Perishah.)84
(17) [This involved] the windpipe –
Sifsei Kohen85 explains that the rationale of [the authorities who] rule stringently regarding initially [slitting] the lesser portion of the windpipe [in an unacceptable manner], whether it involved chaladah, derasah,86 or hagramah,87 is that we are not experts regarding the examination of the gullet, and we are concerned that [the knife may have] touched the gullet [when the windpipe was slit], as stated in sec. 23[:2, 6] above. Nevertheless, all authorities agree that, according to law, initially slitting the lesser portion of the windpipe [in a manner] that involved derasah or chaladah should not [cause the meat of the animal to be] forbidden, just as an interruption [when initially slitting the lesser portion of the windpipe] does not [cause the meat of the animal to be] forbidden. [The rationale is that these instances] resemble [a situation where less than] half the windpipe was slit [and one continued cutting until the majority of the siman was cut, thus completing the slaughter], as stated above at the end of sec. 21.88
However, in his Shulchan Aruch, [Rav Yosef Caro] maintains that when the lesser portion of the windpipe is initially slit by derasah or chaladah, the slaughter should be forbidden because weight should be given to Rambam’s understanding, [as will be stated in] subsection 13 below. Note the explanation of the rationale that is written there.89
(טז) שֶׁאוֹסֵר.
כֵּן דַּעַת רַשִׁ"יקד לְפֵרוּשׁוֹ בְּהָא דְּבָעֵי רַב פָּפָּא הֶחְלִיד בְּמִעוּט סִימָנִים מַהוּ תֵּיקוּ וּפֵרֵשׁ רַשִׁ"י הֶחְלִיד בְּמִעוּט סִימָנִים לְאַחַר שֶׁשָּׁחַט רֻבָּן בְּהֶכְשֵׁר מִי אָמְרִינָן הָא אִשְׁתְּחִיט שַׁפִּיר בְּרֹב סִימָנִים אוֹ דִּילְמָא כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא וְאִית בָּהּ חֲלָדָה עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ. וְהַתּוֹסְפוֹתקה וְסִיעָתָם הִקְשׁוּ עַל פֵּרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י כְּמוֹ שֶׁהִקְשׁוּ עַל פֵּרוּשׁוֹקו שֶׁפֵּרֵשׁ בְּבַעְיָא דְּשָׁהָה בְּמִעוּט סִימָנִים בִּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא מַמָּשׁ כְּדִלְעֵיל סִימָן כ"ג.קז וּפֵרְשׁוּ בַּעְיָא זוֹ בְּעִנְיָן אַחֵר כְּדִלְקַמָּן סְעִיף י"א. וּלְפֵרוּשָׁם אֵין לֶאֱסוֹר כְּלָל חֲלָדָה אֲפִלּוּ בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא דְּסִימָן הָרִאשׁוֹן בִּבְהֵמָהקח שֶׁכֵּיון שֶׁרֹב הַסִּימָנִים נִשְׁחֲטוּ בְּהֶכְשֵׁר לֹא אִכְפַּת לָן בְּמִעוּט שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט אַחַר כָּךְ בְּפִסּוּל. וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי כָּתַב הַשֻּׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ סְתָם אוֹ מֵאֶחָד מֵהֶםקט (עַיֵּן פְּרִישָׁהקי):
(יז) בַּקָּנֶה.
פֵּרֵשׁ הַשַּׁ"ךְקיא הַטַּעַם שֶׁמַּחְמִירִים אַף בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא דְּקָנֶה בֵּין בַּחֲלָדָה בֵּין בִּדְרָסָה בֵּין בְּהַגְרָמָה הוּא מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵין אָנוּ בְּקִיאִין בִּבְדִיקַת הַוֵּשֶׁט וְחַיְשִׁינָן שֶׁמָּא נָגַע בַּוֵּשֶׁט כְּדִלְעֵיל סִימָן כ"גקיב אֲבָל מִדִּינָא אֵין לֶאֱסוֹר לְכוּלֵי עָלְמָא בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא דְּקָנֶה בִּדְרָסָה וַחֲלָדָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁאֵין לֶאֱסוֹר בִּשְׁהִיָּה מִדֵּי דַהֲוָה אַחֲצִי קָנֶה חָתוּךְ דִּלְעֵיל סוֹף סִימָן כ"א.קיג אֲבָל הַבֵּית יוֹסֵף בְּשֻׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ סְבִירָא לֵיהּ לֶאֱסוֹר בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא דְּקָנֶה מִדִּינָא בִּדְרָסָה וַחֲלָדָה לָחוּשׁ לְדַעַת הָרַמְבַּ"םקיד כְּדִלְקַמָּן סְעִיף י"ג עַיֵּן בְּמַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב שָׁםקטו הַטַּעַם:
If, after slitting the major portion of the simanim, [the shochet] concealed the knife under the remaining smaller portion of both [simanim] – or of only one of them – and cut it, [the animal’s meat] is permitted. There is an authority who disqualifies [such a slaughter] (16) as well, and as an initial preference, it is desirable to give weight to his words. Note: It is customary to rule [an animal] tereifah whenever [any portion of the simanim was cut when the knife] was concealed, whether this involved a small portion [of the siman] before the majority [was slit] or a small portion [of the siman] after the majority [was slit], whether [this involved] the windpipe (17) or the gullet (Rav Yaakov Weil’s Shechitos [U’Bedikos]).
יאִם לְאַחַר שֶׁשָּׁחַט רֹב הַסִּימָנִים הֶחְלִיד הַסַּכִּין תַּחַת מִעוּט הַנִּשְׁאָר מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם אוֹ מֵאֶחָד מֵהֶם וּפְסָקוֹ, מֻתָּר. וְיֵשׁ מִי שֶׁאוֹסֵר (טז) גַּם בָּזֶה, וְרָאוּי לָחוּשׁ לִדְבָרָיו לְכַתְּחִלָּה. הַגָּה: וְהַמִּנְהָג לְהַטְרִיף כָּל חֲלָדָה, בֵּין בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא בֵּין בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא, בֵּין בַּקָּנֶה (יז) בֵּין בַּוֵּשֶׁט (שְׁחִיטַת מהרי״ו).
11
(18) In the proper manner –
This is the interpretation given by Tosafos80 in the name of Rabbeinu Tam and the Tur in the name of Rambam90 regarding the question [raised by the Talmud] concerning the concealment [of a knife when slitting] the lesser portion of the simanim that was discussed above.91
[There is, however, a difference between these two approaches.] According to Rambam, this law applies both with regard to the windpipe and the gullet,90 as will be stated in subsection 13 below, while according to Rabbeinu Tam,92 it applies only regarding the gullet. Similarly, [Rabbeinu Tam] maintains that the same law applies when an interruption is made when initially [slitting] the lesser portion of the gullet or [when it was slit through] derasah. [The rationale is that] Rabbeinu Tam maintains that these issues are questions [raised by the Talmud] that were not resolved. [Therefore, i.e., because of the unresolved question, the animal is considered] a neveilah of doubtful status. However, according to Rav Yosef Caro’s understanding of Rambam’s ruling [which he presents] in his Kessef Mishneh,93 the classification of an animal as a neveilah of doubtful status applies only when the lesser portion of the gullet was initially slit via derasah or chaladah. However, [Rav Yosef Caro maintains that] if one interrupted the slaughter, [the animal] is definitely considered a neveilah. This is the opinion of all the later authorities, [as stated in] section 23.94 [The rationale is that] since [the shochet] made an interruption, his first action is considered as having been concluded, and [the gullet] is considered [to be disqualified in the same manner] as if it had been perforated with a thorn, for even the slightest perforation of the gullet disqualifies it.95
However, with regard to derasah or chaladah, since [the shochet] continued the slaughter, [it is considered] one act of slaughter. Thus, it could be said that the Merciful One taught Moshe that the larger portion [of the simanim] should not be slit via derasah and chaladah. However, [the slaughter] is acceptable if the lesser portion [of the simanim are slit in such a manner]. Therefore, [the animal] is considered merely a neveilah of doubtful status (Rivash,96 Kessef Mishneh,97 Lechem Mishneh98).
(19) The second siman –
This is the interpretation given by Tosafos99 in the name of Rav Oshaya regarding the question [in the Talmud] presented above. Rabbeinu Asher and the other halachic authorities agree with this approach. [Rabbeinu Asher100 maintains that] the question [raised by the Talmud] should be understood [as follows]:
Perhaps you will say that slaughtering under the hide or under gnarled wool is not considered chaladah – that [could only have been true] because they are not considered [part of] the animal. Or, [conversely,] if [they are considered part of the animal and thus,] it is considered chaladah [and the slaughter is not acceptable], perhaps this instance is different: Since the greater portion [of the siman] was slit [properly], the remaining lesser portion is considered as slit?
(20) Via chaladah –
This is speaking about an instance where [the shochet slaughtered the animal] via chaladah in a complete sense, where there is absolutely no doubt [regarding the matter], i.e., he inserted the knife between one siman and the other101 and slit the lesser portion of the siman via chaladah in this manner.
This differs from the first clause in which [the shochet did not] conceal [the knife when inserting it] below [the entire siman, but] only below its lesser portion. [In such an instance,] it is possible that since [slitting] the lesser portion of the siman does not disqualify the slaughter, [concealing the knife below it] resembles [concealing it below] the hide,102 in which instance, there is [merely] a doubt [as to] whether this is considered chaladah.103 [Accordingly, in such a situation,] since [the shochet] slit only the lesser portion of the siman in this doubtful manner of chaladah, there are two factors [which would seem to argue for permitting the slaughter. However,] the first clause teaches us that even such an instance is included in the question [raised by Rav Pappa in the Talmud. Therefore, we are forced to rule stringently] (see Tevuos Shor, sec. 24, note 11; this [interpretation is also] explicitly apparent from Beis Yosef, [sec. 24,] s.v. eini ro’eh; consult that source; if one carefully analyzes [the words Rav Yosef Caro uses in that source], it can easily [be seen that this is the meaning].
(יח) כְּדַרְכָּהּ.
זֶהוּ פֵּרוּשׁ הַתּוֹסְפוֹתקטז בְּשֵׁם רַבֵּנוּ תַּם וְהַטּוּר בְּשֵׁם הָרַמְבַּ"םקיז בְּבַעְיָא דְּהֶחְלִיד בְּמִעוּט סִימָנִיםקיח דִּלְעֵיל.קיט
אֶלָּאקכ דִּלְהָרַמְבַּ"םקכא הִיא בֵּין בַּקָּנֶה בֵּין בַּוֵּשֶׁט כְּדִלְקַמָּן סְעִיף י"גקכב וּלְרַבֵּנוּ תַּם הִיא בַּוֵּשֶׁט לְבָד.קכג וְהוּא הַדִּין בִּשְׁהִיָּה וּדְרָסָה בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא דְּוֵשֶׁט הִיא בַּעְיָא דְּלָא אִיפְשִׁיטָא לְפֵרוּשׁ רַבֵּנוּ תַּםקכד וַהֲוָה לֵיהּ סְפֵק נְבֵלָה.קכה אֲבָל לְהָרַמְבַּ"ם לְפִי דַּעַת הַבֵּית יוֹסֵף בְּכֶסֶף מִשְׁנֶהקכו לֹא הָוֵי סְפֵק נְבֵלָה בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא דְּוֵשֶׁט אֶלָּא בִּדְרָסָה וַחֲלָדָה אֲבָל בִּשְׁהִיָּה הֲוָה וַדַּאי נְבֵלָה. וְכֵן דַּעַת כָּל הָאַחֲרוֹנִים סִימָן כ"ג.קכז מִשּׁוּם שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁהָה אָזִיל לֵיהּ מַעֲשֶׂה קַמָּא וַהֲוָה לֵיהּ כִּנְקוּבַת הַקּוֹץ וּנְקוּבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט בְּמַשֶּׁהוּקכח אֲבָל בִּדְרָסָה וַחֲלָדָה כֵּיוָן שֶׁהַשְּׁחִיטָה נִמְשֶׁכֶת וּשְׁחִיטָה אַחַת הִיא אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר הָכִי אַגְמְרֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לְמֹשֶׁה לֹא תִשְׁחוֹט רוּבָּא בִּדְרָסָה וַחֲלָדָה אֲבָל מִעוּטָא שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי מִשּׁוּם הָכִי לֹא הָוֵי אֶלָּא סְפֵק נְבֵלָה (רִיבָ"שׁ.קכט כֶּסֶף מִשְׁנֶה.קל לֶחֶם מִשְׁנֶהקלא):
(יט) סִימָן הַשֵּׁנִי.
זֶהוּ פֵּרוּשׁ הַתּוֹסְפוֹתקלב בְּשֵׁם הָרַב ר' אוֹשַׁעְיָא בְּבַעְיָא דִלְעֵיל וְהִסְכִּים עִמּוֹ הָרֹא"שׁקלג וּשְׁאָר פּוֹסְקִים. דְּאִיבַּעְיָא לָן אַף אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר תַּחַת הָעוֹר וְצֶמֶר מְסֻבָּךְ לֹא הָוֵי חֲלָדָה הַיְנוּ מִשּׁוּם דְּלֹא חֲשִׁיבִי כִּבְהֵמָה. אוֹ דִלְמָא אַף אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר דְּהָוֵי חֲלָדָה הָכָא שַׁאֲנִי כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט הָרֹב הַמִּעוּט הַנִּשְׁאָר כְּחָתוּךְ דָּמֵי עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹן הָרֹא"שׁ:
(כ) בַּחֲלָדָה.
כְּלוֹמַר בַּחֲלָדָה גְמוּרָה וַדַּאי בְּלִי שׁוּם סָפֵק דְּהַיְנוּ שֶׁהֶחְלִיד הַסַּכִּין בֵּין סִימָן לְסִימָן וְשָׁחַט מִעוּט הַסִּימָן בַּחֲלָדָה זוֹ. מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּבָבָא הָרִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁלֹּא הֶחְלִיד אֶלָּא תַּחַת מִעוּט הַסִּימָן דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר דְּמִעוּט סִימָן כֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְעַכֵּב בַּשְּׁחִיטָה דָּמֵי לְעוֹרקלד שֶׁהִיא סְפֵק חֲלָדָהקלה וְכֵיוָן שֶׁלֹּא שָׁחַט בִּסְפֵק חֲלָדָה זוֹ אֶלָּא מִעוּט סִימָן אִיכָּא תַּרְתֵּי לְמַעַלְיוּתָא. וְקָא מַשְׁמַע לָן בְּרֵישָׁא דַּאֲפִלּוּ הָכִי הוּא בִּכְלַל בַּעְיָא דִלְעֵיל (עַיֵּן תְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹר.קלו וְכֵן מַשְׁמַע בְּהֶדְיָא בְּבֵית יוֹסֵףקלז אֵינִי רוֹאֶה כוּ' עַיֵּן שָׁם ודו"ק):
If [the shochet] concealed the knife under the initial lesser portion [of the windpipe], and slit it from below, and afterwards, completed the slaughter in the proper manner, (18) and similarly, if he slit the greater portion of one siman in an animal and concealed the knife below the lesser portion that remained and slit the second siman, (19) and similarly if he slit the initial lesser portion via chaladah (20) and completed the slaughter without chaladah – [in all these instances, the slaughter] is disqualified.
יאאִם הֶחְלִיד הַסַּכִּין תַּחַת מִעוּט הָרִאשׁוֹן וּשְׁחָטוֹ מִמַּטָּה לְמַעְלָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ גָּמַר הַשְּׁחִיטָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ, (יח) וְכֵן אִם שָׁחַט רֹב סִימָן אֶחָד בַּבְּהֵמָה וְהֶחְלִיד הַסַּכִּין תַּחַת מִעוּט הַנִּשְׁאָר וְשָׁחַט סִימָן הַשֵּׁנִי, (יט) וְכֵן אִם שָׁחַט מִעוּט הָרִאשׁוֹן בַּחֲלָדָה (כ) וְגָמַר הַשְּׁחִיטָה שֶׁלֹּאבַּחֲלָדָה, הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה.
12
(21)
The word המרגה [means “deviation,” “diversion,” or “tilting”], i.e. [the shochet diverts and/or tilts] his hand, causing it to depart [from] the appropriate place for ritual slaughter (Rashi).104
(22) The majority of the windpipe –
Note what is stated at the beginning of sec. 21.105
(23) Disqualifies [such a slaughter] if it is performed via derasah –
This is the perspective of Rabbeinu Asher, quoting Rav Yitzchak ben Meir, who maintains that there is a difference between [a disqualification due to] derasah [pressing down on the simanim], chaladah, [slitting the simanim when the knife is covered by one of the simanim], and shehiyah [i.e., interrupting the slaughter], and one due to hagramah or ikur [i.e., ripping the simanim from their place. This differentiation applies] even according to Rashi’s interpretation of the [Talmud’s] question106 regarding [a shochet who] slit the lesser portion of a siman via chaladah mentioned above107 and the [Talmud’s] question108 regarding making an interruption when slitting the lesser portion of the siman mentioned in sec. 23109 – i.e., [Rashi maintains that this refers to] the lesser portion [of either siman] after [its greater portion was slit]. The same law applies when one [slit the] lesser portion via derasah. [In such an instance, the animal is considered] a neveilah of doubtful status.
Nevertheless, Rabbeinu Asher maintains that one should not rule stringently as Rashi does regarding hagramah or ikur. [His rationale is] that [the manner in which] the larger portion [of the siman was] slit [is the determining factor] regarding hagramah, “because [when the siman was slit outside] the place of slaughter, it is as if [the shochet] moved [the knife] back-and-forth on [the animal’s] leg after the slaughter [was completed].”110 The same law applies if, “after slitting the greater portion [of a siman, the shochet] ripped its lesser portion from its place.111 Since [this action is performed after the minimum requirements for slaughter are completed and it is not an element] of ritual slaughter, [the slaughter] is acceptable.”
The first [and more lenient] opinion [presented by Rav Yosef Caro] in [his] Shulchan Aruch is that of Tosafos, who interpreted the two questions [raised by the Talmud] in a manner different than Rashi did. [Tosafos] do not maintain that there is a distinction between [a disqualification due to] hagramah and ikur, and [one due to] derasah, chaladah, and shehiyah. [This leads to Tosafos’ ruling leniently in all instances.] Rashi112 himself also maintains that a distinction should not be made between these different [types of disqualifications. However,] Rashi maintains that [since there is no distinction between these situations,] one should rule stringently even when there is a doubt regarding hagramah and ikur concerning the lesser portion of a siman after [the greater portion had been slit], both regarding the first siman [(i.e., the windpipe)] and the second siman [(i.e., the gullet).113 Rashi maintains that this stringency applies] even regarding a fowl, as stated in sec. 23[:5]. Note what is stated there114 regarding whether this doubt applies according to Scriptural or Rabbinic Law. This [– i.e., ruling stringently –] is our custom, as stated by Rama.
(24) Before [its larger portion was slit] –
Note what is stated above115 in the name of Sifsei Kohen116 – that the reason for the stringency when slitting the lesser portion of the windpipe [via derasah or hagramah before its major portion is slit] is that we are concerned that the knife might have touched the gullet. According to this [rationale], when [the shochet] grasped only the windpipe in his hand, there is no concern that [the knife] might have touched the gullet. [Hence,] one should not rule stringently at all when the lesser portion of the windpipe is initially slit via derasah, chaladah, hagramah, or ikur, just as there is no need to rule stringently in such a situation when an interruption was made [when slitting it], as stated in sec. 23.117
However, Tosafos118 write that according to the letter of law, one should rule stringently regarding hagramah when slitting the initial portion of the windpipe, even when there is no question regarding a perforation of the gullet. [The rationale is that] concern should be shown for the opinion of Rashba,119 who rules according to the opinion cited in the Talmud,120 that if one slit a third of a siman [via hagramah] and two-thirds in the proper manner, [the slaughter] is disqualified. [Furthermore,] this ruling applies even if less than a third [of the siman was slit via hagramah. The rationale is that] an animal’s life force departs when the greater portion of the siman [is slit. In the above instance, a section of the greater portion of the siman was not slit in an acceptable manner, i.e., in the correct place for ritual slaughter.
Such a situation does not resemble an instance where [slightly less than] half the windpipe was slit, as described in sec. 21.121 To quote Rashi:
In that instance, [the shochet] created a blemish, and that slit was in the [appropriate] place for slaughter. [Accordingly,] since there is no concept of tereifos regarding the windpipe until more than half [of it is slit], it is as if it was not blemished at all. True, [in this instance as well,] when the animal’s life-force departed with [the slitting of] the greater portion of the siman, the entire greater portion had not been [slit in a manner acceptable] for ritual slaughter. Nevertheless, all of [the animal’s] life-force departed from the place of slaughter. By contrast, [when the siman was cut] via hagramah, [the animal] was not slaughtered in an appropriate manner, and [the slit] did not take place in the [correct] place [for] ritual slaughter. Thus, when [the animal’s] life-force departed through [the slitting of] the greater portion of the first siman, it departed in an invalid manner, for [the animal’s] life-force departed when cutting that half [of the siman].
This concludes Rashi’s words.
The same applies when less than half the siman is cut [via hagramah], because it is necessary that every [aspect of the slaughter] that causes the animal’s life-force to depart is done in the [correct] place of slaughter. Therefore, initially slitting [even] the slightest portion of the windpipe via hagramah disqualifies the slaughter according to Rashba. [This law applies] even if [the shochet] did not complete the slaughter in the place where he performed hagramah, but instead removed the knife from the place where he performed hagramah and slit [the siman] lower down, in the [correct] place for ritual slaughter, [i.e.,] at the beginning of the windpipe from above. [Even so, the change] is not effective [in altering the status of the slaughter]. Since a certain measure of [the animal’s] life-force departed [due to a slit] that was not in the place of slaughter, the [departed] life-force does not return. (This is also the opinion of Rama, as he states. [This] does not [follow the understanding of] Tevuos Shor.122)
Nevertheless, in an instance where a severe loss is involved, one may rule leniently even when [the shochet] did not remove the knife from the place [where he performed hagramah], relying on the opinion of [Rav Yosef Caro in his] Shulchan Aruch, in subsection 13 below. [In that source, Rav Yosef Caro] rules according to the authority cited in the Talmud who maintains that if one slit a third [of the siman] via hagramah and [then slit] the latter two-thirds [of the siman] in an acceptable manner, the slaughter is acceptable (Tevuos Shor.123)
However, with regard to [the disqualifying factors of] derasah and chaladah, even when a severe loss is involved, it is difficult to rule leniently against the [ruling of Rav Yosef Caro in his] Shulchan Aruch, [in] subsection 13 below,124 [because a question of] Scriptural Law is involved. [These factors] do not resemble making an interruption, as will be explained in that source.125
Ikur, [i.e., ripping the simanim from their place, which is done] in the [correct] place for ritual slaughter, is governed by the same law as making an interruption. [However,] if one does [ikur] in a place other than the [correct] place for ritual slaughter, [the situation] is governed by the same law that applies to slaughtering via hagramah, as will be explained in subsection 14 below.126
(כא) הַגְרָמָה.
לְשׁוֹן הַגְרָמָה שֶׁמַּכְרִיעַ יָדוֹ לָצֵאת חוּץ מִמְּקוֹם הֶכְשֵׁר שְׁחִיטָה (רַשִׁ"יקלח):
(כב) רֹב חֲלַל.
עַיֵּן בְּמַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב רֵישׁ סִימָן כ"א:קלט
(כג) שֶׁפּוֹסֵל בִּדְרָסָה.
זֶהוּ דַּעַת הָרֹא"שׁקמ בְּשֵׁם רִיבָ"ם דִּדְרָסָה חֲלָדָה וּשְׁהִיָּה לֹא דָמֵי לְהַגְרָמָה וְעִקּוּר. דְּאַף לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י בְּבַעְיָא דְּהֶחְלִיד בְּמִעוּט סִימָןקמא דִּלְעֵילקמב וּבְבַעְיָא דְּשָׁהָה בְּמִעוּט סִימָןקמג דִּלְעֵיל סִימָן כ"גקמד דְּהַיְנוּ מִעוּט בַּתְרָא וְהוּא הַדִּין לִדְרָסָה בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא וַהֲוָה לֵיהּ סְפֵק נְבֵלָה מִכָּל מָקוֹם בְּהַגְרָמָה וְעִקּוּר סְבִירָא לֵיהּ לְהָרֹא"שׁ שֶׁאֵין לְהַחֲמִיר כְּלָל כְּפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י מִשּׁוּם דִּפְשִׁיטָא לָן דְּאָזְלִינָן בָּתַר רוּבָּא בְּהַגְרָמָה מִשּׁוּם דְּלֹא מְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה הוּא הֲוָה לֵיהּ כְּאִלּוּ הוֹלִיךְ וְהֵבִיא בָּרֶגֶל אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה. וְכֵן נַמִי אִם אַחַר שְׁחִיטַת הָרֹב עָקַר הַמִּעוּטקמה כֵּיוָן דְּהָוֵי שֶׁלֹּא כְּדֶרֶךְ שְׁחִיטָה כָּשֵׁר עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ.
וּסְבָרָא הָרִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁבְּשֻׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ הוּא דַּעַת הַתּוֹסְפוֹת שֶׁפֵּרְשׁוּ ב' בַּעְיוֹת אֵלּוּ בְּעִנְיָן אַחֵר דְּלֹא כְּפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י מִשּׁוּם דְּלֹא סְבִירָא לְהוּ לְחַלֵּק בֵּין הַגְרָמָה וְעִקּוּר לִשְׁהִיָּה דְּרָסָה וַחֲלָדָה. וְרַשִׁ"יקמו סְבִירָא לֵיהּ גַּם כֵּן שֶׁאֵין לְחַלֵּק בֵּינֵיהֶם וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ לְרַשִׁ"י דְּגַם בְּהַגְרָמָה וְעִקּוּר יֵשׁ לְהַחֲמִיר מִסָּפֵק בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא בֵּין דְּסִימָן קַמָּא בֵּין דְּבַתְרָא וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּעוֹף כְּדִלְעֵיל סִימָן כ"ג.קמז וְעַיֵּן בְּמַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב שָׁםקמח אִם הוּא סְפֵיקָא דְאוֹרַיְתָא אוֹ דְרַבָּנָן. וְזֶהוּ מִנְהָגֵנוּ שֶׁבִּרְמָ"א:קמט
(כד) קַמָּא.
עַיֵּן מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב לְעֵילקנ בְּשֵׁם הַשַּׁ"ךְ דְּטַעַם הַחוּמְרָא בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא דְּקָנֶה הוּא מִשּׁוּם שֶׁמָּא נָגַע בַּוֵּשֶׁט. וּלְפִי זֶה הֵיכָא דְּתָפַס הַקָּנֶה לְבַדּוֹ בְּיָדוֹ שֶׁאֵין לָחוּשׁ כְּלָל שֶׁמָּא נָגַע בַּוֵּשֶׁט אֵין לְהַחֲמִיר כְּלָל בִּדְרָסָה חֲלָדָה וְהַגְרָמָה וְעִקּוּר בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא דְּקָנֶה כְּמוֹ שֶׁאֵין לְהַחֲמִיר כְּלָל בִּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא בִּשְׁהִיָּה כְּדִלְעֵיל סִימָן כ"ג.קנא אֲבָל הַתּוֹסְפוֹתקנב כָּתְבוּ דִּבְהַגְרָמָה יֵשׁ לְהַחֲמִיר מִדִּינָא בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא דְּקָנֶה אַף בְּלֹא חֲשָׁשָׁא דִּנְקוּבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט לָחוּשׁ לְדַעַת הָרַשְׁבָּ"אקנג דְּפָסַק כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּגְמָרָאקנד הִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ וְשָׁחַט ב' שְׁלִישִׁים פְּסוּלָה וְהוּא הַדִּין פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלִישׁ מִשּׁוּם דִּיצִיאַת חַיּוּתָא דִּבְהֵמָה בְּרֹב סִימָן הוּא וּכְשֶׁנֶּחְתַּךְ רֹב הַסִּימָן לֹא נֶחְתַּךְ אוֹתוֹ הָרֹב בִּשְׁחִיטָה דְּהַיְנוּ בִּמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה. וְלֹא דָמֵי לַחֲצִי קָנֶה חָתוּךְ דִּלְעֵיל סוֹף סִימָן כ"אקנה דְּהָתָם פְּגַם וַחֲתָךְ הַהוּא בִּמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה הוּא וְכֵיוָן דְּאֵין טְרֵפוֹת בַּקָּנֶה עַד שֶׁתִּפָּסֵק רֻבָּהּ הֲוָה לֵיהּ כְּאִלּוּ לֹא נִפְגְּמָה כְּלָל וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּבִיצִיאַת חַיּוּתָא בְּרֹב סִימָן לָאו כֻּלָּהּ רוּבָּא בִּשְׁחִיטָה נָפַק מִיהוּ בִּמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה נָפַק כֻּלָּהּ חַיּוּתָא אֲבָל הַגְרָמָה לָאו שְׁחִיטָה הִיא וְלָאו מְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה הִיא וְכִי נָפְקָא חַיּוּתָא בְּרֹב סִימָן הָרִאשׁוֹן בִּפְסוּלָא נָפַק דְּשֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה הָוְיָא פַּלְגָּא דְּמִפַּק חַיּוּתָא עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹן רַשִׁ"י.קנו וְהוּא הַדִּין לְפָחוֹת מִפַּלְגָּא דְּכֻלָּהּ מִפַּק חַיּוּתָא בָּעֵי בִּמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה וְהִלְכָּךְ אֲפִלּוּ הַגְרָמָה מַשֶּׁהוּ פּוֹסֶלֶת בַּקָּנֶה בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא לְפִי דַּעַת הָרַשְׁבָּ"א. וַאֲפִלּוּ לֹא גָמַר הַשְּׁחִיטָה בְּאוֹתוֹ מְקוֹם הַחֲתָךְ שֶׁהִגְרִים בּוֹ אֶלָּא הוֹצִיא הַסַּכִּין מֵאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם שֶׁהִגְרִים וְשָׁחַט תַּחְתָּיו בִּמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה מִתְּחִלַּת הַקָּנֶה מִלְמַעְלָה לֹא מְהַנֵּי מִדֵּי דְּכֵיוָן דְּנָפַק פַּלְגָּא דְחַיּוּתָא שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה תּוּ לֹא הֲדַר (כֵּן דַּעַת רְמָ"א כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר. דְּלֹא כִּתְבוּאוֹת שׁוֹרקנז). וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם בִּמְקוֹם הֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה יֵשׁ לְהָקֵל אֲפִלּוּ לֹא הוֹצִיא הַסַּכִּין מִמְּקוֹם הַחֲתָךְ וְלִסְמוֹךְ עַל דַּעַת הַשֻּׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ דִּלְקַמָּן סְעִיף י"ג דְּפָסַק כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּגְמָרָא הִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ וְשָׁחַט שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישִׁים כְּשֵׁרָה (תְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹרקנח).
אֲבָל בִּדְרָסָה וַחֲלָדָה קָשֶׁה לְהָקֵל בִּדְאוֹרַיְתָא אֲפִלּוּ בְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּהקנט נֶגֶד הַשֻּׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ דִּלְקַמָּן סְעִיף י"ג. וְלֹא דָמֵי לִשְׁהִיָּה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר שָׁם.קס
וְעִקּוּר בִּמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה דִּינוֹ כִּשְׁהִיָּה וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה דִּינוֹ כְּמוֹ בְּהַגְרָמָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר לְקַמָּן סְעִיף י"ד:קסא
* בִּתְחִלָּה שְׁלִישׁ.
כֵּן צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר:קסב
What is meant by hagramah? (21) [This term] refers to an instance where [the shochet] slit the windpipe [of a fowl] above the place where it is fit to slaughter, or he began to slaughter in the place where it is fit to slaughter, slit a small portion [of the siman] and [then] tilted the knife above the place where it is fit to slaughter, and completed the slaughter there. However, if [the shochet] slit the majority of the windpipe in the place (22) where it is fit to slaughter and then diverted the knife above the place of slaughter and completed the slitting of the windpipe there, [the slaughter] is kosher.
The same law applies if [the shochet] cut the greater portion of both [of the simanim] of an animal in a place [that is] fit for slaughter. [Although] he completed the slaughter via hagramah or derasah, [the animal] is kosher. [Nevertheless,] there is an authority who disqualifies [such a slaughter] if it is performed via derasah, (23)and it is desirable to give weight to his words as an initial preference.
Note: It is customary to rule [that an animal is] tereifahwhenever [any portion of the simanim was cut] via derasah or hagramah, whether [this involved slitting] a small portion [of the siman] before [its larger portion was slit] (24)or a small portion after [the larger portion of the siman was slit], whether [this involved] the windpipe or the gullet. (This, too, [is sourced] in Rav Yaakov Weil’s [Shechitos U’Bedikos]).
יבהַגְרָמָה (כא) כֵּיצַד, זֶה הַשּׁוֹחֵט בַּקָּנֶה לְמַעְלָה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לִשְׁחִיטָה, אוֹ שֶׁהִתְחִיל לִשְׁחֹט בִּמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה וְשָׁחַט מְעַט וְהִטָּה הַסַּכִּין חוּץ לִמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה לְמַעְלָה וּגְמָרָהּ שָׁם. אֲבָל שָׁחַט רֹב חֲלַל (כב) הַקָּנֶה בִּמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה וְהִטָּה הַסַּכִּין חוּץ לִמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה לְמַעְלָה וְגָמַר שָׁם חֲתִיכַתכָּל הַקָּנֶה, כְּשֵׁרָה. וְהוּא הַדִּין אִם שָׁחַט רֹב שְׁנַיִם בִּבְהֵמָה בִּמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה וְהִשְׁלִים הַשְּׁחִיטָה בְּהַגְרָמָה אוֹ בִּדְרָסָה, כְּשֵׁרָה.וְיֵשׁ מִי שֶׁפּוֹסֵל בִּדְרָסָה, (כג)וְיֵשׁ לָחוּשׁ לִדְבָרָיו לְכַתְּחִלָּה. הַגָּה: וְהַמִּנְהָג לְהַטְרִיף בֵּין בִּדְרָסָה בֵּין בְּהַגְרָמָה, בֵּין בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא (כד) בֵּין בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא, בֵּין בַּקָּנֶה בֵּין בַּוֵּשֶׁט (גַּם כֵּן במהרי״ו).
וּסְבָרָא הָרִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁבְּשֻׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ הוּא דַּעַת הַתּוֹסְפוֹת שֶׁפֵּרְשׁוּ ב' בַּעְיוֹת אֵלּוּ בְּעִנְיָן אַחֵר דְּלֹא כְּפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י מִשּׁוּם דְּלֹא סְבִירָא לְהוּ לְחַלֵּק בֵּין הַגְרָמָה וְעִקּוּר לִשְׁהִיָּה דְּרָסָה וַחֲלָדָה. וְרַשִׁ"יקמו סְבִירָא לֵיהּ גַּם כֵּן שֶׁאֵין לְחַלֵּק בֵּינֵיהֶם וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ לְרַשִׁ"י דְּגַם בְּהַגְרָמָה וְעִקּוּר יֵשׁ לְהַחֲמִיר מִסָּפֵק בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא בֵּין דְּסִימָן קַמָּא בֵּין דְּבַתְרָא וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּעוֹף כְּדִלְעֵיל סִימָן כ"ג.קמז וְעַיֵּן בְּמַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב שָׁםקמח אִם הוּא סְפֵיקָא דְאוֹרַיְתָא אוֹ דְרַבָּנָן. וְזֶהוּ מִנְהָגֵנוּ שֶׁבִּרְמָ"א:קמט
13
(25) [The slaughter] is acceptable –
[The rationale is that] the greater portion [of the siman] was slit [in a manner that is acceptable] for ritual slaughter. [This ruling applies] even though [the animal’s] life force departs when the greater portion [of the siman] is slit initially, and [in this instance,] the initial [part of] the greater portion [of the siman] was not slit [in an acceptable manner], only the lesser portion [of the initial half was slit in an acceptable manner] (Talmud).128
(26) [The slaughter] is acceptable –
[In this instance as well, the rationale is that] since the greater portion [of the siman] was slit [in an acceptable manner, the slaughter is acceptable. This ruling applies] even though [the animal’s] life force departs when the greater portion of the siman is slit and [the greater portion became slit specifically during the time the shochet] slit [the siman] via hagramah (Talmud).129
(27) [The slaughter] is invalid –
[This ruling applies] even though [the animal’s] life force departed [specifically at the time the shochet] slit [the siman] in an acceptable manner. [Nevertheless,] since the greater portion [of the siman] was not slit [in an acceptable manner, the slaughter is invalid] (Talmud).130
(28) The middle third –
This is speaking about the windpipe as will be stated in subsection 14. Even so, [the slaughter] is definitely invalid if the middle third – or even less than a third – [was slit via derasah or chaladah. The rationale is that] as long as the small portion of the windpipe that completes its larger portion [was slit] via derasah or chaladah, [the slaughter is invalid] because when [the animal’s] life force departed, [i.e.,] when the larger portion of the windpipe [was slit], it departed due to an invalid [slitting]. (For this same reason, one blemish disqualifies a knife even if [the shochet] only [uses the knife to] slit the windpipe of a fowl, as stated above in sec. 21.131)
[This situation] does not resemble one in which [the shochet slit] the middle third of the siman via hagramah. [The difference is that] hagramah does not take place in the place of slaughter. Accordingly, since [the shochet] slit the first and the last third [of the siman] in the [correct] place of slaughter, it is of no concern that he [slit] the middle third via hagramah. [The rationale is that] the greater portion [of the siman] was slit in the [correct] place (Kesef Mishneh).132
[Rambam is of the opinion that, if the shochet] slit the first third of the windpipe [via chaladah, the slaughter] is disqualified due to doubt. Rambam133 maintains that the question [raised by the Talmud134 and left] unresolved, regarding one [who slit the lesser portion of] the simanim via chaladah as [explained] above, refers to the initial lesser portion.135 The same law applies [if that portion was slit] via derasah.
Rambam – whose ruling is quoted here by [Rav Yosef Caro] in his Shulchan Aruch – understands that the [unresolved] question applies with regard to both the gullet and the windpipe. ([The fact that the Talmudic passage quotes] Rav Pappa as speaking about “simanim,” using the plural form, [is his source for this contention.]) This instance does not resemble [one in which the shochet interrupted the slaughter when slitting] the initial, lesser portion of the gullet, in which instance, the slaughter is definitely invalid. [By contrast, if one interrupts the slaughter while slitting] the initial lesser portion of the windpipe, [the slaughter] is definitely valid. [The rationale is that] since [the shochet] made an interruption, his initial act [of slaughter] is [considered to have been] concluded. [Hence, the situation] resembles [one in which] the gullet was perforated by a thorn, [and the law is that] even the slightest perforation of the gullet [disqualifies the slaughter. By contrast, only] a slit in the greater portion of the windpipe disqualifies it. However, [different laws apply] with regard to derasah and chaladah. Since the disqualifying action was performed at the time of slaughter and during the act of slaughter, it is possible that [the slitting of the siman] is considered a single act of slaughter [which was] performed in an invalid manner. Hence, [the slaughter] is [not acceptable] due to the doubtful [situation] that exists. [This ruling applies] even [if the disqualifying action was performed] in the initial portion of the windpipe (Beis Yosef). For this reason,136 the animal is not definitely considered a neveilah even [if the act was performed when slitting] the initial portion of the gullet, as stated above.137
All the above applies [only] according to the opinion of Rambam and [Rav Yosef Caro in his] Shulchan Aruch. However, Rashi,138 Tosafos, Rabbeinu Asher, and the other halachic authorities differ with this approach. Similarly, Sifsei Kohen follows the latter view, as stated above.139
(כה) כְּשֵׁרָה.
דְּהָא אִיכָּא רוּבָּא בִּשְׁחִיטָה אַף עַל גַּב דְּמִפַּק חַיּוּתָא הוּא בְּרֹב רִאשׁוֹן וְרֹב רִאשׁוֹן לֹא הָיָה בִּשְׁחִיטָה אֶלָּא מִעוּטוֹ (גְּמָרָאקסג):
(כו) כְּשֵׁרָה.
כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא רוּבָּא בִּשְׁחִיטָה אַף עַל גַּב דְּכִי נָפְקָא חַיּוּתָא בְּרֹב סִימָן בְּהַגְרָמָה קָא נָפְקָא (גְּמָרָאקסד):
(כז) פְּסוּלָה.
אַף עַל גַּב דְּכִי נָפְקָא חַיּוּתָא בִּשְׁחִיטָה קָא נָפְקָא כֵּיוָן דְּלֵיכָּא רוּבָּא בִּשְׁחִיטָה (גְּמָרָאקסה):
(כח) אֶמְצָעִי.
בַּקָּנֶה קָמַיְרִי כְּדִלְקַמָּן סְעִיף י"ד. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָכִי פְּסוּלָה בְּוַדַּאי בִּשְׁלִישׁ אֶמְצָעִי וְהוּא הַדִּין בְּפָחוֹת מִשְּׁלִישׁ כֹּל שֶׁדָּרַס אוֹ הֶחְלִיד בְּמִעוּט הַמַּשְׁלִים לְרֹב הַקָּנֶה דְּכִי נָפְקָא חַיּוּתָא בְּרֹב הַקָּנֶה בִּפְסוּלָא קָא נָפְקָא (וּמֵהַאי טַעְמָא פְּגִימָה אַחַת פּוֹסֶלֶת בְּסַכִּין אַף לִשְׁחוֹט הַקָּנֶה לְבַדּוֹ בְּעוֹף כְּדִלְעֵיל סוֹף סִימָן כ"אקסו). וְלֹא דָמֵי לְהִגְרִים בִּשְׁלִישׁ אֶמְצָעִי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַגְרָמָה אֵינָהּ מְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה וְלָכֵן כְּשֶׁשָּׁחַט שְׁלִישׁ רִאשׁוֹן וְאַחֲרוֹן בִּמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה מַה לָּנוּ בָּאֶמְצָעִי שֶׁהִגְרִים כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁחַט הָרֹב בִּמְקוֹמוֹ (כֶּסֶף מִשְׁנֶהקסז).
וּבִשְׁלִישׁ רִאשׁוֹן בַּקָּנֶה הִיא פְּסוּלָה מִסָּפֵק לְפִי דַּעַת הָרַמְבַּ"ם בְּבַעְיָא דְּהֶחְלִיד סִימָנִיםקסח דִּלְעֵילקסט דְּהַיְנוּ בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא. וְהוּא הַדִּין לִדְרָסָה. וּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ לְהָרַמְבַּ"םקע שֶׁהֶעְתִּיק לְשׁוֹנוֹ בְּשֻׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ כַּאן דְּהַבַּעְיָא הִיא בֵּין בַּוֵּשֶׁט בֵּין בַּקָּנֶהקעא (מִדְּנָקַט רַב פָּפָּא סִימָנִים לְשׁוֹן רַבִּים). וְלֹא דָמֵי לִשְׁהִיָּה דִּבְמִעוּט קַמָּא דְּוֵשֶׁט הִיא פְּסוּלָה בְּוַדַּאיקעב וּבְמִעוּט קַמָּא דְּקָנֶה הִיא כְּשֵׁרָה בְּוַדַּאיקעג מִשּׁוּם שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁהָה אָזִיל לֵיהּ מַעֲשֶׂה קַמָּא וַהֲוָה לֵיהּ כִּנְקוּבַת הַקּוֹץ וּנְקוּבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט בְּמַשֶּׁהוּקעד וּפְסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת בְּרוּבָּאקעה אֲבָל בִּדְרָסָה וַחֲלָדָה כֵּיוָן שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה הַפִּסּוּל בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה וּבְמַעֲשֵׂה שְׁחִיטָה אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר דְּכֻלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא וְנַעֲשֵׂית בְּפִסּוּל וּפְסוּלָה מִסָּפֵק אַף בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא דְּקָנֶה (בֵּית יוֹסֵף). וּמֵהַאי טַעְמָא נַמִי אֵינָהּ וַדַּאי נְבֵלָה אַף בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא דְּוֵשֶׁט כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְעֵיל.קעו וְכָל זֶה לְפִי דַּעַת הָרַמְבַּ"ם וְשֻׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ. אֲבָל רַשִׁ"יקעז וְהַתּוֹסְפוֹתקעח וְהָרֹא"שׁקעט וּשְׁאָר פּוֹסְקִיםקפ חוֹלְקִים עַל זֶה. וְכֵן דַּעַת הַשַּׁ"ךְ כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְעֵיל:קפא
If one initially [*] slit a third of the windpipe via hagramah and [then] slit two-thirds [in an acceptable manner, the slaughter] is acceptable. (25) If one slit a third [of the windpipe in an acceptable manner], a third via hagramah, and then slit the final third [in an acceptable manner, the slaughter] is acceptable. (26) If one slit a third [of the windpipe] via hagramah, [then] slit a third [in an acceptable manner], and slit the final third via hagramah, [the slaughter] is invalid. (27) If one slit [a third] – whether the first third or the middle third (28) via derasah or chaladah – [the slaughter] is invalid. * [The text] should [follow] this [version]. [127]
יגהִגְרִים בַּקָּנֶה בִּתְחִלָּה * שְׁלִישׁ וְשָׁחַט שְׁנֵי שְׁלִישִׁים, כְּשֵׁרָה. (כה) שָׁחַט שְׁלִישׁ וְהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ וְחָזַר וְשָׁחַט שְׁלִישׁ הָאַחֲרוֹן, כְּשֵׁרָה. (כו) הִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ וְשָׁחַט שְׁלִישׁ וְחָזַר וְהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ הָאַחֲרוֹן, הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה. (כז) וְאִם דָּרַס אוֹ הֶחְלִיד, בֵּין בִּשְׁלִישׁ רִאשׁוֹן בֵּין בִּשְׁלִישׁ אֶמְצָעִי, (כח) הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה.* כצ"ל
14
(29) Is certain –
Note sec. 23[:6].140
(30) Its lower side –
[The rationale is that the gullet] resembles the lungs in that even the slightest perforation [of either organ] disqualifies [the animal]. See the end of sec. 34 below.141
(31) Is invalid –
It appears that the intent is [that the slaughter] is definitely invalid. [This instance] does not resemble [a disqualification due to] derasah or chaladah in the lesser portion of the gullet, [in which instance, the animal] is deemed a neveilah of questionable status according to Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch [of Rav Yosef Caro]. In that instance, since [the simanim were slit] in the manner of ritual slaughter, it is possible that when [the small portion is cut via derasah or chaladah], it is not considered a perforation. “This is what the Merciful One taught Moshe, ‘Do not slit the greater portion [of the siman] via derasah or chaladah. However, [slitting] the lesser portion [in this manner] is permissible.’ ” By contrast, [slitting even the lesser portion of the simanim via] hagramah is considered a perforation since [the action] is not performed in the [correct] place for ritual slaughter (Sifsei Kohen).142 Nevertheless, [the animal] is not classified as a neveilah, but merely as a tereifah, as will be explained in secs. 33143 and 34.144
If [the shochet] slit the gullet first and [then] slit the lesser portion via hagramah after [the larger portion was slit in the proper manner, slitting it] upward towards the wide portion of the gullet,145 [the animal] is deemed a tereifah of doubtful status according to the understanding of Rabbeinu Asher146 and those who follow his opinion, as is the law regarding the perforation of the wide portion of the gullet that occurred after the slitting of the gullet, but before the slitting of the windpipe, [as will be explained] in sec. 26[:2] below. (See the gloss of Rabbeinu Asher, [Chulin,] the beginning of the chapter [entitled] Eilu Tereifos.)147
The same law applies if [the shochet] slit the lesser portion [of the gullet] via hagramah after [the larger portion was slit in the proper manner, i.e., slitting it] downward. Similarly, [the same law applies if he] slit the windpipe first and, after the larger portion [was slit in the proper manner, he slit] the lesser portion via hagramah downward. [The rationale is that] even the slightest perforation [of the lowest section of the windpipe disqualifies it], as [is the law regarding] the lung. [The situation] resembles a lung that was perforated after the windpipe was slit [but] before the gullet was slit, as will be mentioned in that source.148
This is also the opinion of [Rav Yosef Caro in his] Shulchan Aruch here, [where he] states, “the windpipe [is touched by the knife] on its lower side before the completion of the [slitting of the] minimum [amount of the simanim] necessary for the slaughter to be valid.” [This wording] indicates that [if the windpipe was perforated] even after the greater portion of the windpipe was slit, [as long as the slitting of the larger portion of] the gullet was not completed,149 [the slaughter is invalid]. See also what I wrote in sec. 26.150
However, [if] the lesser portion of the gullet [was slit] via derasah or chaladah after [the greater portion] was previously slit [in an acceptable manner, the slaughter] should not be forbidden even according to the opinion of Rabbeinu Asher mentioned [in sec. 26. This does not] resemble [the law that applies] if the gullet was perforated after it was slit, [but] before the windpipe was slit. [In that instance,] Rabbeinu Asher rules that [the animal] is [deemed] a tereifah of doubtful status, as stated in that source.151 [However, this applies] specifically when the perforation is aligned with the slit either above it or below it on a portion of the gullet that remained whole. By contrast, [it does not apply] to [a perforation made on] the lesser portion that remains in the place where the slit was made. Since the greater portion [of the siman] was slit [properly] in this place, the lesser portion is considered as if it were slaughtered [properly], as Rashba writes in his responsa, [Vol. 1,] responsum 367 (cited in Sifsei Kohen HaAruch).152 Note what I wrote in sec. 26.153
(כט) וַדַּאי.
עַיֵּן סִימָן כ"ג:קפב
(ל) מַטָּה.
דִּנְקִיבָתוֹ בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ כְּרֵיאָה כְּדִלְקַמָּן סוֹף סִימָן ל"ד:קפג
(לא) פְּסוּלָה.
מַשְׁמַע וַדַּאי פְּסוּלָה. וְלֹא דָמֵי לִדְרָסָה וַחֲלָדָה בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא דְּוֵשֶׁט דְּהָוֵי סְפֵק נְבֵלָה לְפִי דַּעַת הָרַמְבַּ"ם וְשֻׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ. דְּהָתָם כֵּיוָן שֶׁבְּדֶרֶךְ שְׁחִיטָה הוּא יֵשׁ לוֹמַר דְּלָאו נֶקֶב הוּא דְּהָכִי אַגְמְרֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לְמֹשֶׁה לֹא תִשְׁחוֹט רוּבָּא בִּדְרָסָה וַחֲלָדָה אֲבָל מִעוּטָא שָׁרֵיקפד אֲבָל הַגְרָמָה כֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵינָהּ בִּמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה הֲוָה לֵיהּ נֶקֶב (שַׁ"ךְקפה). וּמִיהוּ אֵינָהּ נְבֵלָהקפו אֶלָּא טְרֵפָה כְּדִלְקַמָּן סִימָן ל"גקפז ול"ד.קפח
וְאִם שָׁחַט הַוֵּשֶׁט תְּחִלָּה וְהִגְרִים בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא לְצַד מַעְלָה בְּתֻרְבַּץ הַוֵּשֶׁט טְרֵפָה מִסָּפֵק לְפִי דַּעַת הָרֹא"שׁקפט וְסִיעָתוֹ כְּדִין נִקַּב הַתֻּרְבַּץ אַחַר שְׁחִיטַת הַוֵּשֶׁט קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטַת הַקָּנֶה דִּלְקַמָּן סִימָן כ"[ו]קצ (עַיֵּן רֹא"שׁ רֵישׁ פֶּרֶק אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹתקצא). וְכֵן אִם הִגְרִים בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא לְצַד מַטָּה. וְכֵן אִם שָׁחַט הַקָּנֶה תְּחִלָּה וְהִגְרִים בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא לְצַד מַטָּה דִּנְקִיבָתָהּ בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ כְּרֵיאָה וְהָוֵי לָהּ כְּרֵיאָה שֶׁנִּקְּבָה אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט הַקָּנֶה קֹדֶם שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט הַוֵּשֶׁט דִּלְקַמָּן שָׁם.קצב וְזֶהוּ דַּעַת הַשֻּׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ כַּאן שֶׁכָּתַב בַּקָּנֶה לְצַד מַטָּה קֹדֶם גְּמַר הֶכְשֵׁר שְׁחִיטָה דְּמַשְׁמַע אֲפִלּוּ אַחַר שְׁחִיטַת רֹב הַקָּנֶה קֹדֶם גְּמַר הַוֵּשֶׁט.קצג עַיֵּן מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב סִימָן כ"[ו].קצד
אֲבָל בִּדְרָסָה וַחֲלָדָה בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא דְּוֵשֶׁט שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט תְּחִלָּה אֵין לֶאֱסוֹרקצה אֲפִלּוּ לְפִי דַּעַת הָרֹא"שׁ דִּלְקַמָּן שָׁם כְּמוֹ אִם נִקַּב הַוֵּשֶׁט אַחַר שְׁחִיטָתוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט הַקָּנֶה שֶׁהוּא טְרֵפָה מִסָּפֵק לְפִי דַּעַת הָרֹא"שׁ כְּדִלְקַמָּן שָׁם.קצו דְּהַיְנוּ דַוְקָא כְּשֶׁנִּקַּב כְּנֶגֶד מְקוֹם הַחֲתָךְ לְצַד מַעְלָה אוֹ לְצַד מַטָּה בְּמָקוֹם הַשָּׁלֵם אֲבָל מִעוּט הַנִּשְׁאָר בִּמְקוֹם הַחֲתָךְ עַצְמוֹ מֵאַחַר שֶׁהָרֹב שָׁחוּט בְּמָקוֹם הַזֶּה מִעוּטָא כְּמַאן דְּשָׁחוּט דָּמֵי כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב הָרַשְׁבָּ"א בִּתְשׁוּבָה סִימָן שס"ז (הוּבְאָה בְּסֵפֶר הָאָרֹךְ לְהַשַּׁ"ךְקצז). וְעַיֵּן מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב סִימָן כ"[ו]:קצח
All the distinctions mentioned above apply when [the shochet] is certain (29) that he did not touch the gullet, [but] only [touched] the windpipe on its upper side. However, if the [the shochet] slit any amount of the gullet outside of the [acceptable] place of shechitah – whether on its upper side or its lower side, (30) – and similarly, [if] the windpipe [is touched by the knife] on its lower side – before the completion of [slitting] the minimum [amount of the simanim] necessary for theslaughter to be valid, even if [the shochet] completes [slitting] the remainder of [the simanim] in the [correct] place for ritual slaughter, [the slaughter] is invalid. (31) [The rationale for this ruling is] that the slightest perforation in these places [disqualifies the slaughter.] [Note:]The custom is to rule [an animal slaughtered in such a manner] as tereifah regardless [of where the slit outside the correct place of slaughter] was made. One should not deviate [from this custom] (Rav Yaakov Weil).
ידכָּל אֵלּוּ הַחִלּוּקִים כְּשֶׁהוּא וַדַּאי (כט) שֶׁלֹּא נָגַע בַּוֵּשֶׁט, אֶלָּא בַּקָּנֶה לְצַד מַעְלָה. אֲבָל בַּוֵּשֶׁט, אֲפִלּוּ שָׁחַט בּוֹ כָּל שֶׁהוּא חוּץ לִמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה, בֵּין לְצַד מַעְלָה בֵּין לְצַד מַטָּה, (ל) וְכֵן בַּקָּנֶה לְצַד מַטָּה, קֹדֶם גְּמַר הֶכְשֵׁר שְׁחִיטָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁגָּמַר כָּל הַשְּׁאָר בִּמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה, הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה, (לא) מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנְּקִיבַת מְקוֹמוֹת הַלָּלוּ בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ. [הַגָּה:] וְהַמִּנְהָג לְהַטְרִיף מִכָּל מָקוֹם, וְאֵין לְשַׁנּוֹת (מהרי״ו).
15
(32) And the flesh –
If, however, the flesh was torn from the jawbone together with the simanim, even if [the simanim] were uprooted [from the jawbone] entirely, [the animal] is kosher and ritual slaughter is effective for it, just as it is effective if the jaw was detached from the flesh and the simanim, as stated [in a mishnah] whose author’s name is not mentioned154 in the chapter [of the tractate in Chulin] entitled Eilu Tereifos:155 “If the lower jawbone [of an animal] was removed, [the slaughter of the animal] is kosher.” The implication is that [the animal] is permitted to be eaten after its slaughter, and [indeed,] the beginning of the chapter in the Gemara entitled Eilu Tereifos [explicitly] states:156
Shmuel says, “[When] the pharynx [– the wide portion at the entrance to the gullet –] was completely detached from the jaw, [the slaughter of the animal] is kosher.”
This was also taught in the mishnah155 ([i.e., the opinion of] the Sage quoted in the mishnah serves as support [for this opinion]),157 “If the lower jawbone [of an animal] was removed, [the slaughter of the animal] is kosher.”
(Since the lower jawbone was removed, the simanim were [also] pulled from their place because they are attached to the lower jawbone.)
Rav Pappa poses a question [regarding Shmuel’s ruling], “Does this not involve ripping the simanim [from their place]?”
[Other Sages note that the statement of] the mishnah, “If the lower jawbone [of an animal] was removed, [the slaughter of the animal] is kosher’, [would in turn appear to] present a difficulty to Rav Pappa’s [approach]!”158
[The Talmud responds,] It can be said that the mishnah does not present a difficulty for Rav Pappa’s [approach. The law that ripping the simanim from their place renders an animal tereifah applies only when the simanim are] ripped off entirely (from the jaw bone and from the flesh). [However, the mishnah is dealing with an instance where the lower jaw] is severed above the simanim (i.e., the jawbone was severed from the flesh that lies above the simanim, [i.e., the flesh is lying] between the jawbone and the siman. [The simanim] are not considered to have been uprooted [from their place], because the simanim remain connected to the flesh). However, [the law regarding ripping out the simanim remains] difficult for Shmuel [to resolve because] (it appears that, according to his opinion, [the slaughter of an animal is kosher even when] a siman was ripped off, as he states, “[Although] the pharynx is removed, [the animal is kosher].” The implication is that the gullet was detached entirely and pulled away from the flesh.)
[In defense of Shmuel’s opinion, it could be said,] “Do not say [that Shmuel deems the animal kosher if the pharynx was] completely [detached]. Instead, say [that he maintains it is kosher only when the pharynx was] mostly [detached].”
[That proposed resolution is also problematic.] Has Shmuel not said [previously] that if the larger portion of the simanim were detached, [the animal] would be tereifah?
Rav Sheisha… said: This [– i.e., Shmuel‘s ruling that the animal is kosher even if the simanim are mostly detached – applies only in an instance where the pharynx] was peeled off ([i.e.,] it was peeled off from the flesh. [The Talmud uses the term] ikpal, which has the same meaning as the word niklaf, peeled.)
This [– the instance where Shmuel deems the animal a tereifah – applies when the simanim] were removed ([i.e.,] like an entity forcibly separated, a bit pulled off here, a bit pulled off there, until the majority [of the siman] was detached. In this instance, the small portions that remain attached are not joined together. Therefore, [the simanim] are not considered connected [to the flesh], because the animal will not recover and regain its health.)
This concludes this Talmudic [passage, as] interpreted by Rashi.
[Concerning this passage,] Rashba writes,159
Some analysis is appropriate: When the larger portion [of the gullet] was peeled off, [the animal is permitted] although only the lesser portion [of its gullet] remained [attached]. No minimum measure was mentioned regarding this [remaining] lesser portion. [If so,] why would the slaughter be deemed invalid when there remains a lesser portion here, and a lesser portion there, any more than when [only] a single lesser portion remains [attached] in one place?
[Rashba answers his own query, stating:]
It seems to me that if [the gullet] was detached in many places, it is obvious that it was forcibly detached. [Thus,] what remains attached is a loosely hanging attachment [that will not grow back]. However, if [the gullet] is detached in [only] one place, the remaining attached portion is as firmly attached as it was originally. Therefore, it is [halachically] considered to be attached, and it may grow back in a healthy manner.
([Rashba’s] statement that “it may grow back in a healthy manner” applies according to Rashi’s approach. However, Rashba himself does not follow that approach, as will be stated below.160)
However, in sec. 33, Bayis Chadash161 comments regarding [the Talmud’s] final conclusion: “Do not say [that Shmuel deems the animal kosher if the pharynx was] completely [detached]. Instead, say [that he maintains that it is kosher when the pharynx was] mostly [detached].” If so, the mishnah’s teaching that when the lower jawbone was removed, [the animal] is kosher should be interpreted as referring specifically to an instance where the larger portion [of the pharynx] was removed. Accordingly, there is no distinction between whether [the simanim] were ripped off entirely or [the jawbone] was severed [above the flesh that lies over the simanim]. Instead, even if the jawbone was severed above the flesh that lies over the simanim and the simanim remain attached to the flesh, [the animal] is kosher only when [at most,] the larger portion [of the jawbone] was removed. However, if [the jawbone] was removed entirely, [the animal] is [disqualified because of] ikur. The same law applies if the siman was removed together with the flesh from the jawbone. This is in contrast to the ruling of [Rav Yosef Caro in his] Shulchan Aruch.162
Sifsei Kohen163 rules leniently, in accordance with the Shulchan Aruch and does not mention the opinion of Bayis Chadash at all. This is also the opinion of the majority of the Acharonim, [the later authorities]. However, Turei Zahav164 cites the stringency of Bayis Chadash, and Tevuos Shor165 also rules in this manner. Nevertheless, when a severe financial loss is involved, one may rely on the majority of the Acharonim [who, as mentioned, rule leniently].
[In his] Shulchan Aruch, [Rav Yosef Caro] mentions a windpipe that was torn from its place, and in subsection 16, he rules that if even the slightest portion remains, [the animal] is kosher. True, Shmuel mentioned that [an animal] is kosher only [in an instance] where the majority of the pharynx was removed. [Although Shmuel did not mention the windpipe, he did not intend to exclude it. Instead,] he was adding a further point. Although the gullet [is disqualified] by even the slightest perforation, nevertheless when it is [partially] detached from the place where it was attached, it is considered neither perforated, nor severed. [Instead,] even if the larger portion [of the gullet was detached], it is kosher. How much more so does this apply regarding the windpipe.
Tosafos [in Chulin, loc. cit.,] cite Rabbeinu Chananel who interprets the Talmud’s expression ifrok ifruki differently than Rashi. [Rashi] interpreted [this expression] to mean that [the simanim] were pulled away forcefully from the place where they were attached. [Rabbeinu Chananel,] by contrast, [interprets the phrase to mean that] the simanim were separated from each other along the majority of their length. [Rav Yosef Caro] rules stringently in [his] Shulchan Aruch according to both of these interpretations, [because] one must act stringently when a Scriptural [prohibition is involved.] Accordingly, [his] ruling in subsection 16 here follows Rashi’s [interpretation] while [his ruling] in sec. 33[:10, follows] that of Rabbeinu Chananel.
(33) And… detached [from their place] –
[The wording used by Rav Yosef Caro in his Shulchan Aruch differs slightly from that of] the Tur, which states “or… detached.” We must say that [the word] “uprooted” [used by Rav Yosef Caro at the beginning of this subsection] refers to [an action performed] by a person, while [the word] “detached,” [which is used here,] refers to [the simanim becoming detached] from the force of the animal itself, [i.e.,] due to its movement (Turei Zahav166).
In the Kuntreis Acharon to Bayis Chadash, [the term] ne’ekar, [which has been translated here as “uprooted,”] is interpreted as meaning “perforated from side to side.” The term nishmat, [which has been translated here as “detached,” is interpreted as meaning,] “detached from its place and having slid downward, without a perforation at all.” This is the meaning of the term ikpal ikpulei167 according to Rambam168 – that the siman was peeled off from its membrane and slid downward. Despite [the fact that] the membrane remains attached to its place on the jaw, [the siman] is [considered to be] dangling, and is not [considered to be] attached. This is also the opinion of Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi, as I wrote in the Kuntreis Acharon.169
(34) Before the completion of the slaughter –
This is the wording used by Rambam.170 From his phrasing, the implication is that [this rule applies] even if one of [the simanim] was detached from its place before the second [siman] was slit, i.e., before slitting the greater portion of both [simanim] in an animal. Although the siman that was detached was already slit [in the halachically correct manner, the slaughter] is disqualified.
Rambam is following his established approach – which is also followed by the Shulchan Aruch [of Rav Yosef Caro in] sec. 26[:2] – that we do not considere the siman no longer relevant to the slaughter171 after its larger portion, or even the entire siman, was slit. Note what I wrote in subsection 18 regarding this.172
(35) The slaughter is invalid –
The first chapter of Chulin quotes a bereisa:173
[If] one slit the gullet, and then the windpipe slipped from its place [where it was connected to the jaw], the slaughter is kosher. If, [in the process of slaughtering,] the windpipe slipped from its place and then one slit the gullet, the slaughter is invalid. [Regarding a circumstance where] a doubt [is involved] – there was such an incident [brought to the Sages,] and they said: Whenever there is a doubt regarding [the permissibility of] slaughter, [the slaughter] is invalid.
Although the beraisa mentions slitting the gullet and the slipping of the windpipe, the Talmud174 states that the opposite is also true. [The beraisa used the above wording] because that is what ordinarily occurs, since the windpipe is likely to slip.
Rashi explains that [when the gullet or the windpipe slips from its place,] the reason [the animal] is disqualified is because it became tereifah while it was alive. [In such an instance, ritual slaughter is not effective.] Rashi maintains that ikur (the uprooting of the simanim from their place) also [causes an animal] to be considered tereifah during its lifetime. Regarding the windpipe, [the animal becomes tereifah] as it would if [the majority of the section of] the windpipe [where shechitah would have been valid]175 were severed [while the animal was still alive]. Regarding the gullet, [the animal becomes tereifah] as it would in the event that [the section of the gullet which is attached to the cheekbone] (the pharynx) were severed [while the animal was still alive].176
However, [there is a difference between the instance of the simanim being severed while the animal is alive and the simanim slipping and becoming detached from the cheekbone.] Severing the greater portion of the windpipe [disqualifies the animal]. Similarly, with regard to the gullet [itself], one opinion [in the Talmud] maintains that the larger portion [of the gullet must be] severed to disqualify the animal, and another opinion [in the Talmud] maintains that [even the perforation of just] the slightest portion [of the gullet disqualifies the animal] and the halachah follows that opinion.
[By contrast,] with regard to ikur [the detachment of the simanim] from the jaw, [the animal is disqualified only if either] the windpipe or the gullet was entirely detached. Even if the larger portion [of one of the simanim] is detached, [it does not disqualify the animal] unless the lesser portion that remains is hanging loosely, [attached merely] a little bit here and a little there, as stated above.177
However, if the entire siman was uprooted from [the jaw, the animal] would be deemed tereifah during its lifetime, [in the same manner] as if the siman itself were severed, as Shmuel said,178 “[If] the greater portion of the simanim was hanging loosely, [the animal] is tereifah.” This means that the lesser portion that remained [attached] is not [attached] in one place, [and] thus, it will not grow back in a healthy manner. Therefore, it is considered as if the entire [siman] was pulled [from its place].
[A difficulty arises: As stated above, the concept of ritual slaughter does not apply regarding an animal that is tereifah. Seemingly, this should also apply when the windpipe or the gullet was detached. Why then are these laws included in the laws of ritual slaughter?]
True, Shmuel himself included ikur in the laws of ritual slaughter179 together with shehiyah [i.e., making an interruption during the slaughter], derasah, etc., as did the Shulchan Aruch [of Rav Yosef Caro, sec. 23:]1, as stated in sec. 1.180 However, this was only to say that, ritual slaughter is not at all effective [in making this animal permitted], and [the animal] is considered a neveilah after its slaughter, as is the law regarding shehiyah, derasah, [or the like]. It is not considered [an animal] that was tereifah and which was slaughtered [while so categorized].181 Nevertheless, [such an animal] is [also] considered to [have been] a tereifah while alive, if the siman was uprooted from the place where it is attached [to the jaw, for this is] similar to an instance where the greater portion of the windpipe itself was severed. [In that instance,] the animal is considered [to have been] a tereifah while alive and a neveilah after its slaughter, as stated in sec. 34 below.182 [This situation resembles one] in which the greater portion of the pharynx [at the top of the gullet] was severed. (However, if only a small portion [of the pharynx was severed, the animal] is not [classified as] a neveilah after [its] slaughter. [That ruling] applies only regarding [the perforation of] the gullet itself, as stated in sec. 33.183) The reason Rashi184 mentions [the animal being classified as] a tereifah and not a neveilah is that he is speaking of a fowl, in which instance, the slitting of one siman in the appropriate manner is sufficient for [the fowl] not to be considered as a neveilah.
Rashba,185 however, [differs with Rashi,] and maintains that it is impossible that Shmuel would include [an animal] that is tereifah in the laws of ritual slaughter, for if so, one should also include [an animal] whose gullet is perforated. (See the explanation below186 in the name of Tosafos, [which explains why] there is no difficulty regarding Rashi’s understanding.) [According to Rashba,] ikur, i.e., the siman being uprooted from the place where it is attached, does not render [the animal] tereifah during its lifetime as it would were the siman itself to be severed. [There are grounds for this distinction,] because the measures [that disqualify an animal in each instance] are not the same [as those mentioned previously] (see Tosafos, [Chulin] 44a). Instead, the explanation is, as Tosafos187 states in the name of the author of Halachos Gedolos, that it is a halachah [transmitted to Moshe at Sinai] that ritual slaughter is not effective when the simanim have been uprooted from the place where they were attached to the jaw. Even for a fowl, when a shochet slits one of the simanim, both simanim must be attached and fit to be slit, for this is the halachah that was communicated [to Moshe at Sinai].
The difference between the approach of Rashi and that of Tosafos and those who accept their approach and follow Halachos Gedolos, leads to a difference in practice with regard to milk and eggs [from such an animal or fowl], as will be stated in [Rama’s] note below.188
Rashba interprets Shmuel’s phrasing,189 “when the greater portion of the simanim were hanging loosely, [the animal or fowl] is tereifah” to mean, “not that it is actually tereifah, but rather that it is forbidden, for whenever [an animal or fowl] is forbidden, it is referred to as ‘tereifah.’” The difference in practice is that if one slaughters [such an animal or fowl], it is [classified as] a neveilah, and not as a tereifah that was ritually slaughtered. [This is] because there is no concept of ritual slaughter when the simanim [of an animal or fowl] were uprooted from their place.”
Nevertheless, in the chapter entitled Eilu Tereifos,190 Tosafos maintain that [Shmuel’s] wording [when stating that] “when the greater portion of the simanim were hanging loosely, [the animal or fowl] is tereifah,” [should be understood] literally. [Tosafos maintain that Shmuel] is speaking about an instance when a siman was uprooted forcefully and will never grow back in a healthy manner. Therefore, [the animal or fowl] is classified as tereifah during its lifetime. By contrast, if the siman was peeled away gently from the flesh – even if the entire siman was peeled away – since it was not uprooted forcefully, it may heal in a healthy manner. Therefore, [the animal or fowl] is not [classified as] tereifah during its lifetime. [Nevertheless,] slaughter is not effective when [the animal’s or fowl’s siman] is peeled offentirely. [The rationale is that] even though [the siman] may grow back in a healthy manner, since [at the time of slaughter] it is not attached to the flesh of the jaw at all, [ritual slaughter is not effective for such an animal]. This is a halachah transmitted to Moshe at Sinai – ritual slaughter is not [effective] when a siman is uprooted [from its place].
If, however, only the larger portion [of the siman] was peeled off, [the animal or fowl] is entirely kosher, and ritual slaughter is effective. In this instance, it is not said that [since] the larger portion [of the siman is peeled off, it] is considered as if the entire [siman] was peeled off, and hence, ritual slaughter is not effective. The rationale is that it is possible that [the siman] will grow back in a totally healthy manner, [since a small part of the siman is still attached to the flesh of the jaw]. By contrast, if [a portion of the siman] was uprooted [from its place] forcefully, it will not grow back in a healthy manner and ultimately the entire [siman] will become detached [from the flesh of the jaw. Therefore, in this instance] it is said [that since] the larger portion [of the siman] is [uprooted, it] is considered as if the entire [siman was uprooted. Consequently] it is considered as if [the entire siman] was severed. Accordingly, even after [the animal or fowl] is slaughtered [in the halachically correct manner], it is also considered to be a neveilah since ritual slaughter is not effective for it.
Rashba, [nevertheless,] maintains that [the animal or fowl] is not classified as tereifah during its lifetime,191 because [the siman] will grow back in a healthy manner. Nevertheless, [if the animal or fowl] was slaughtered [before the siman grew back], it is considered a neveilah. [The rationale is that] the [portion of the siman that] remains [connected] is merely hanging loosely. Therefore, the siman] is considered to have been uprooted entirely. (Note the explanations above.192)
In his commentary on the Talmud193 and in his gloss to Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi’s [Halachos],194 Rabbeinu Nissim introduces a fourth approach [to this concept based on] Ramban’s understanding that Shmuel’s statement – that [the animal or the fowl] is tereifah in a situation where the larger portions of the simanim were hanging loosely – should be understood in a simple, literal sense. [According to this approach, the animal or the fowl] is considered tereifah because [the siman] will not grow back in a healthy manner. Certainly, this ruling applies when [a siman] is peeled off from its place entirely, because it will not grow back in a healthy manner. Thus, [the animal] is a tereifah. Nevertheless, [according to this approach, such an animal] is not deemed a neveilah; this applies even after it was slaughtered.
[The above refers to] an instance where the siman was hanging loosely and was peeled off [before] the time of slaughter [due to the animal’s movements]. However, if this occurred at the time of slaughter, [i.e.,] once [the shochet] begins [slitting] the simanim, [then] ritual slaughter is ineffective and [the animal or fowl] is deemed a neveilah. [This ruling applies] even if only the larger portion [of the siman] is peeled [from its place. The rationale is that] in all aspects of Torah [Law], the greater portion [of an entity] is considered equivalent to the entire [entity].195 This [– that the greater portion of the siman was detached during slaughter –] is [the definition of] ikur that Shmuel considers one of the laws of shechitah,179 [i.e.,] it is a halachah transmitted to Moshe at Sinai that ritual slaughter is not effective for [such a fowl or animal,] and it is deemed a neveilah.
[True,] Shmuel stated189 that if the larger portion of the pharynx was detached from the jaw, [the animal or the fowl] is kosher, as stated above.196 [From the context,] it appears that [the animal or the fowl] is absolutely kosher, and ritual slaughter is effective for it. [This does not contradict the above statement that slaughter is not effective if the greater portion of the siman was detached during slaughter because] it is referring to an instance [where the siman] was detached [before] the time of slaughter. The rationale [for this distinction] is that if the simanim were detached initially, it would be possible [for the shochet] to hold them in his hand and slit them in the proper manner. Accordingly, ritual slaughter is effective in protecting [the animal] from contracting the impurity associated with its becoming a neveilah in an instance where it could have become tereifah, e.g., the larger portion [of the simanim] was hanging loosely or [the simanim] were peeled off entirely from [the place where they were attached.] (However, if [the simanim] were not peeled off entirely [– even though a portion was peeled off – the animal] is kosher in a complete sense.)
However, [different rules apply if the simanim] were uprooted [from where they were attached] at the time of ritual slaughter. [In such an instance,] it is impossible for the simanim to be slit in a proper manner because they [will] wobble. Therefore, [the fowl or the animal] is considered a neveilah even if [the simanim were not detached to the extent that the animal or fowl] would be considered as tereifah – (this is the version cited in the Sifsei Kohen HaAruch;197 this understanding is also reflected in Rabeinu Nissim’s words198) – e.g., if the larger portion of [the siman] was peeled off, or even if the entire [siman was peeled off], i.e., it was pulled off from the jaw together with the flesh, which would resemble [the instance presented in the passage from Chulin 44a cited above196] concerning which it was said that [the animal or fowl] is kosher. Even so, the ritual slaughter is not effective if the disqualifying factor occurred during the actual slaughter. [The rationale is that in such an instance] the simanim [will] wobble [when the animal or fowl is being slaughtered]. This is [the interpretation that] can be inferred from Rabbeinu Nissim’s gloss to ch. 1 [of Rabbeinu Yitchak Alfasi’s Halachos]194 and his commentary on the chapter entitled Eilu Tereifos,193 in the name of Ramban.
The teaching in the beraisa,173 “[If] the windpipe was detached and afterwards, [the shochet] slit the gullet, his slaughter is invalid,” [does not represent a contradiction to the above]. Although it is possible to slit the gullet in the proper manner despite the windpipe being detached, [the animal is forbidden] because it became tereifah initially, [when this happened,] as explained according to Rashi’s interpretation above.
With regard to actual practice, one should follow the stringencies applied by all the different approaches, as will be explained,199 because a Scriptural prohibition is involved.196
Now, in his commentary on [Chulin] 9[a], Rashi interprets ikur [as follows], “This is as stated in the mishnah: ‘If one slit the gullet [via shechitah] and severed the windpipe [not via shechitah], [the animal] is a neveilah.’ ”
Tosafos comments on this:
This is difficult to understand. This [law] is not relevant to the laws of shechitah. [The animal] is disqualified because it was not slaughtered. Thus, it does not resemble the other laws of shechitah [where the problem involves the actual act of slaughtering].
It is possible that this is speaking about an instance where [the shochet] slaughtered with a blemished knife or a harvest sickle. This is referred to as “the severance of the windpipe” and it disqualifies [the slaughter] because [such a utensil] does not slaughter the animal but rather causes it to die due to lack of oxygen.200
([See] sec. 18, above.201)
[Tosafos’] intent is not that according to Rashi [the example cited of] ikur is the sole manner [in which the slaughter is disqualified], because the Talmud explicitly states in the passage cited above156 that when the entire pharynx was detached from its jaw [the animal is disqualified] because of ikur. Instead, Tosafos’ intent is that according to Rashi’s understanding – that Shmuel is referring only to ikur that occurs during the process of slaughter – [then, in this context, ikur] refers to [slaughter] with a blemished knife, for [such an instance] is relevant to the laws of ritual slaughter. However, if [a siman] was uprooted from the place where it was attached to the jaw, or the siman was severed in a way other than [through] slaughter (with a blemished knife), [although the occurrence is called ikur,] it is not relevant to the laws of ritual slaughter [but to the laws of tereifos].
[According to this view,] even though ritual slaughter is not effective [for an animal] in such a state, [i.e., one whose simanim have been uprooted, or whose windpipe was severed,] and [the animal] is considered a neveilah, nevertheless, if the shochet [who slaughtered] the animal was not aware of this [law], one may partake of [other animals] he slaughtered. We do not suspect that the simanim [of those animals] were uprooted or that the windpipe was severed [before the animal was slaughtered], just as we do not suspect that there was a perforation in the gullet, which [disqualifies an animal] regardless of the size [of the perforation. Moreover,] it is impossible to know [with certainty whether or not the gullet was perforated before slaughter], for even one who is proficient in the laws of ritual slaughter [and is aware of the need] to inspect the gullet after [an animal is] slaughtered [will not be able to determine this,] because it is possible that he slit [the gullet] in [the exact] place where there was a perforation. Instead, we [rule according to] the majority of instances, [and assume that the gullet was not perforated,] since – as the Talmud states202 – the majority of animals are kosher, healthy, and whole, without any [of their organs] having been perforated. This being so, [based on this same logic,] we also do not suspect that the windpipes [of the animals this shochet slaughtered] were severed.
The same applies with regard to the simanim being uprooted from the place where they were attached to the jaw. According to Rashi’s interpretation – that Shmuel included [only] ikur in the laws of ritual slaughter when speaking about the laws that one who slaughters must know – he was not referring to ripping [the simanim] from the place where they were attached. Instead, [Shmuel] was speaking about the severance of the windpipe. [According to Tosafos’ understanding of Rashi, this interpretation] forces us to say [that Shmuel was] referring to an instance in which [the shochet] slaughtered with a blemished knife.203
However, Halachos Gedolos [maintains that the term] ikur refers to [an instance in which a siman] was uprooted from the place where it was attached. According to his view, it is in reference to such a situation that Shmuel said179 that it is forbidden to partake [of an animal] slaughtered by someone who does not know [the laws of ritual slaughter, including those of ikur. Hence, Halachos Gedolos understands that Shmuel] maintains that ripping the simanim from their place is different than a severed windpipe or a perforated gullet. [A shochet] need not be concerned [regarding the latter disqualifying factors. However,] concern must be shown regarding simanim having been ripped [from their place], for it is common for them to be displaced. [Hence,] it is necessary to inspect [the simanim to be certain that this did not occur] according to the opinion of Halachos Gedolos, as [will be stated] below in sec. 25[:1].204
Even the authorities who differ [with Halachos Gedolos] in that source [and do not require that the simanim be examined specifically, differ only] regarding [a shochet] who knows the laws of ritual slaughter and knows that ikur disqualifies [slaughter. Their assumption is that a shochet with this knowledge] will be careful when he takes hold of the simanim and extends them fully, [being watchful] to hold them gently so that he will not rip them [from their source] by hand. [Halachos Gedolos requires the simanim to be examined because of the] concern that [either the simanim] could have been uprooted through the animal’s own [movements] when it shifted position or when the shochet held [the simanim] gently. Those who differ with the position [of Halachos Gedolos] are not concerned about this occurring because they rely on the premise that most animals are healthy by nature. [Thus,] the simanim will not slip from their place or be uprooted as a matter of course or when they are held gently.
However [these assumptions do not apply] when [a shochet] is not at all aware that ripping away [the simanim] disqualifies [the slaughter] and, [therefore,] is not careful about [this] when he grips the simanim to fully extend them. All authorities agree that [in such a situation] there is concern that [the shochet] might have grabbed [the simanim] and extended them forcefully to the extent that he uprooted them [from their place]. In particular, this is true regarding the windpipe, which is likely to slip. [The rationale is that] we operate under the [halachic] presumption that an animal is forbidden until we know that it was slaughtered [in an appropriate manner. This situation is thus problematic.] Since the shochet does not know to be careful [regarding detaching the simanim], it is a matter that is noton his mind, and, therefore, he may act in this manner without realizing it, as is stated in sec. 1 above.205 [Accordingly,] it cannot be assumed with certainty that the slaughter was performed in a proper manner since the shochet himself does not know [to show concern for] this. The statement that it can be assumed that when an intellectually capable person slaughters, disqualifying factors will not occur by happenstance, applies only [if the disqualifying factors occur] against [the shochet’s] will, and if [the shochet knows to] pay careful attention [to these factors]. For [it can be assumed that] an intellectually capable person carefully oversees [the manner] in which he slaughters [to ensure that he does so] in a halachically acceptable manner, as stated in secs. 1 and 2 above. However, this does not apply if [the shochet] is not aware of the need to watch carefully and show concern about a particular disqualifying factor.
(On the contrary, according to Turei Zahav,206 such a person is considered as likely to disqualify [the slaughter]. Although we do not accept that view,207 nevertheless, [the shochet’s lack of knowledge creates doubt and,] whenever there is doubt regarding ritual slaughter, the slaughter is invalid.)208
This is not true regarding a perforation of the gullet or a severed windpipe. There is absolutely no need for concern that perhaps a shochet who did not know the laws of ritual slaughter perforated the gullet through his actions or severed the windpipe. Instead, [we would be concerned that] perhaps that was the original state [of the animal]. However, we are not concerned about such matters, for we rely on the [state of the] majority [of animals], as is the ruling regarding other [disqualifying factors that would render an animal] tereifah, for which there is absolutely no need to check. For this same reason, it is permissible to partake [of an animal] slaughtered by [a shochet] who does not know [that a severed windpipe or perforated gullet renders an animal tereifah].
True, a perforated gullet and a severed windpipe [render an animal tereifah and] disqualify ritual slaughter, and we operate under the presumption that an animal is forbidden until we know that it was slaughtered [properly. In this way], the laws [of a perforated gullet and a severed windpipe] differ from those of other [factors that render an animal] tereifah.209 [Even so,] since we rely on the majority, and most animals do not have a perforated gullet or a severed windpipe, it is considered that the manner in which the animal was slaughtered is known – because a majority [has greater halachic weight] than the presumed status of the animal.210 We do not factor in the minority [of animals that could have these disqualifying factors] together with the presumed prohibited status of the animal and thus consider the matter an equally balanced doubt.211 [The rationale is that the number of animals with] perforated gullets or detached windpipes is so minute and uncommon [that it is as if they do not exist]. The lungs [are] the only [organs] where tereifos are frequently found. Therefore, it is necessary to inspect the lungs [of a slaughtered animal], as stated in sec. 39 below.212 When a factor is [extremely] uncommon, we do not say that it can be used as support for an established presumption, as stated in sec. 1 above.213 [Accordingly,] we should not rule any more stringently regarding a question as to whether the gullet was perforated or the windpipe was severed than [we do] regarding questions concerning other tereifos. [Stringency is required] only when a factor raising concern is present,214 [for example,] one sees that [the gullet] is perforated or [the windpipe] is severed, as mentioned below.215
Nevertheless, if [a shochet] does not know that ikur disqualifies [slaughter], it is not appropriate to follow the majority and [permit animals he has slaughtered because] most animals are kosher and healthy by nature. That rationale is relevant only regarding a [shochet] who knows to be careful not to uproot [the simanim] by force. [In such an instance,] we are not concerned that perhaps [the simanim] were severed of their own accord or because they were held lightly, since most animals are healthy and [the simanim] generally do not become severed by themselves or because they were held lightly. However, if [a shochet] does not know to be careful and thus, there are grounds for concern that he possibly uprooted [the simanim] through his actions, it is not appropriate to follow the majority. Rather, [in this instance] the [original] presumptions regarding the animal’s state [– that it is forbidden –] should be allowed to stand. [In other words,] the presumption regarding the state of the simanim – that they were whole and not uprooted initially – should be allowed to stand. However, this presumption is balanced by the presumption regarding [the animal’s original classification]216 – that it is forbidden. Hence, [the two presumptions are balanced against each other, and as a result,] there is an unresolved issue regarding a matter of Scriptural Law, in which instance, we rule stringently. Consequently, it is forbidden to partake of [an animal] slaughtered by [such a shochet].
([This conclusion would] also [be accepted] by Rashi according to the prevailing version of Rashi’s [commentary]217 which does not explicitly define ikur as the severance of the windpipe, but rather associates the term ikur with the words of the mishnah, “slit the gullet and severed the windpipe.” Rashi’s intention is to [borrow the phrase “severance of the windpipe” and apply it to ikur, i.e., that the shochet] severed and uprooted [the windpipe] from the place where it was attached [to the jaw. Thus, Rashi] does not differ with Halachos Gedolos, for he218 also maintains that [if the windpipe was uprooted, the animal] would be deemed as tereifah while still alive. [The rationale is that uprooting the windpipe] is included in [what is referred to as] the detachment of the windpipe, [which is listed as one of the factors that causes an animal to be deemed tereifah] in the chapter entitled Eilu Tereifos. Tosafos and Rashba had a different version of Rashi’s commentary. [In their version,] it was explicitly stated that ikur refers to the detachment of the windpipe. For this reason, Rashba and Rabbeinu Nissim raised the question: Why was the perforation of the gullet not mentioned as well? [And based on that version,] Tosafos raised a question [discussed earlier in this note regarding Rashi’s commentary]. See what is written below219 regarding the difference in actual halachic practice regarding all this.220)
(36) Our custom –
[In his] Shulchan Aruch, [Rav Yosef Caro] rules that “If, [when a fowl is being slaughtered,] one of [the simanim] – or even when the larger portion of one [siman] – was slit [in the proper manner] and afterwards, the second [siman] was detached [from its place], the slaughter is kosher.”
The implication is that even if [the shochet] also slit the second siman after it was pulled [from its place], since it was pulled [from its place] after the greater portion of the first siman was slit [in the correct manner] – and [since the slaughter of] a fowl is kosher even if [only] one siman [was slit] – this slaughter is kosher.
[Rama states] that [our custom] is not to follow this ruling. Instead, we deem as tereifah every [animal or fowl that had one siman] detached, and was later slaughtered, even if the majority of the siman was slit properly and only the lesser portion [of the siman] was slit after the siman was pulled entirely from the place where it was attached. [This applies] whether [the question involves] the windpipe, i.e., the first siman, or the gullet, [i.e.,] the second siman. [It] applies even regarding a fowl which is kosher if only one siman [was slit]. Nevertheless, if the entire gullet was uprooted from where it was attached after its major portion was slit, and afterwards, [the shochet] completed slitting it – thus, [the shochet] slit the remaining lesser portion of the gullet after the simanim were uprooted from their place – the custom is to rule [that the animal is] tereifah.
[The rationale for this stringency is that] it is possible that the entire [act of slitting the simanim] is considered one continuous act of slaughter. Thus, ikur is involved [in the act of slaughter], as Rashi explains221 regarding the question [concerning an instance] when [the shochet] interrupted [the slaughter] or performed chaladah on a lesser portion of the simanim, as stated above.222 (However, if the windpipe was uprooted [from its place] after it was slit, [but] before the gullet was slit, there is no reason for concern, as will be explained below.)
Rama’s words, “every instance of ikur,” are meant to [include] even the remaining lesser portion of the second siman, and are [meant to] apply even to a fowl – because that is the subject of this statement. How much more so does this [statement] apply regarding the initial lesser portion [of a siman] that was slit after [the siman] was detached from its place. [The rationale is that] in such an instance, the entire siman was slit after it was uprooted. [Indeed,] this [law] is obvious and is thus a teaching that is not [absolutely] necessary.223 [However,] this is the way of the Sages ‒ they would teach the obvious law first, as Tosafos state in several sources.224 How much more so does this apply regarding the arbiters of halachah whose practice is to explain and elaborate to an even greater degree.
Furthermore, Rama quoted Rav Yaakov Weil’s [Shechitos U’Bedikos,] where Rav Yaakov Weil first wrote, “What is meant by ikur? That one slaughtered with a blemished knife.” This is the meaning of ikur according to Rashi, as understood by Tosafos.225 [Rav Yaakov Weil continues,] “alternatively, [ikur can mean] that a siman was uprooted from the place where it was attached.” All authorities agree that the latter [instance] is ikur. On this statement, [Rav Yaakov Weil] comments, “All [forms of] ikur are disqualified, whether they were performed in the initial lesser portion [of the siman.]…”226 The intent [of Rav Yaakov Weil’s comment], “all [forms of] ikur,” is to [include] even ikur [due to having slaughtered] with a blemished knife,227 i.e., [the shochet] slit only the initial, lesser portion [of the siman] with the blemished portion of [the knife]. Even so, [the slaughter] is disqualified. [The rationale for this stringency is that] we are not knowledgeable regarding the inspection of the gullet, and perhaps the blemished [portion of the knife] touched the gullet.228
Similarly, if one slit the final, lesser portion [of a siman] – even the windpipe – with this blemished knife, [the slaughter] is disqualified. [Although the windpipe is disqualified only] when its larger portion [is slit improperly], it can be said that the entire [slitting] is considered one act of ritual slaughter. [Therefore, it can be said that the disqualification of slitting with] a blemished knife which is considered ikur according to Rashi as understood by Tosafos, [applies. The rationale is that, according to Tosafos’ understanding of Rashi,] this is ikur as understood by Shmuel179 when describing the laws of ritual slaughter, [which he mentioned] together with [the disqualifying acts of] derasah, shehiyah, chaladah, and hagramah. [To explain:] When the final, lesser portion [of a siman] – even of the windpipe – is slit with shehiyah, derasah, chaladah or hagramah, [the slaughter is disqualified] according to Rashi,229 as mentioned in the question above.230 [The rationale is that] it can be said that the entire [act of slitting the simanim] is considered one act of ritual slaughter [with regard to those factors. Similarly, regarding the] disqualification of ikur according to Rashi as understood by Tosafos. Similar statements were made by Rabbeinu Yerucham and the Tur in [their] Remazim.
[The same applies] with regard to the later, [i.e., second,] lesser portion that was slit after the entire siman was detached from the place where it had been attached. It could be said that the entire [slitting of the siman] is considered one act of ritual slaughter and [therefore, the slaughter should be disqualified because of] ikur. [In other words, the slaughter would be disqualified if] the later, lesser portion was slit after the siman was detached from its place because it is a halachah that was transmitted to Moshe at Sinai that ritual slaughter is not effective once the siman has been detached. Tosafos231 and Ramban198 understand this [to mean that] the entire siman was peeled away, or according to Rashba,185 even if [only] the larger portion [of the siman] was forcefully pulled away as explained above.232
[The discussion that follows revolves around the following point: If [anything] less than [the larger portion of the siman] has been detached, it is not considered ikur at all. Therefore, when the initial, lesser portion or the later, lesser portion was detached [from its place,] whether before the slaughter or at the time of slaughter, even though it was slit after it was uprooted, [we do not follow] the principle that the entire [slitting] is considered one act of ritual slaughter and therefore, disqualify [the slaughter] because the [siman] was uprooted. [The rationale is that] the measure of ikur that would disqualify [the slaughter] is not present. Thus, this is not the ikur that Shmuel included in the laws of ritual slaughter179 together with shehiyah, derasah, chaladah, and hagramah.
Were we not to say this, how could Shmuel have ruled that when the larger portion of the pharynx was detached from the jaw, [the animal] is kosher and ritual slaughter is effective for it? [This applies] even if only a small portion [of the siman] remained [attached to the jawbone] in one place, as stated above.232 [In that instance, the shochet] is slitting the lesser portion [of a siman] when that portion [of the siman] had been detached [from its place] previously, [and yet Shmuel ruled that ritual slaughter was effective.]
There are no grounds for distinguishing between slitting the lesser, later portion [of the siman] that was detached from its place before the slaughter and [slitting this same portion of the siman that was] detached at the time of slaughter based on the contention that the entire act [of slitting the siman] is considered one act of ritual slaughter. Therefore, [the slaughter] could be disqualified because of ikur, similar to ikur due to slitting the lesser, final portion with a blemished knife. The latter situation is different because one is drawing the knife back and forth as one does when slaughtering. However, when [a siman] was detached from the place where it is joined [to the jaw], this is not the manner of ritual slaughter, and [therefore] the principle that [all the actions comprise] one [continuous] act of ritual slaughter does not apply.
[Support for this distinction] can be drawn from the explicit teaching,233 “If the gullet [of a fowl] was slit, and afterwards the windpipe slipped [from its place, the meat from the fowl] is kosher.” Now, if one were to say that [all the actions comprise] one [continuous] act of ritual slaughter – [a principal that] applies even regarding the second siman of a fowl, as stated in sec. 23[:5]234 – [the slaughter would be deemed invalid]. Rather, it is certainly not said that the detachment of the second siman [after] the slitting of the first is [considered] one act of ritual slaughter, because ikur is not an act of ritual slaughter. The same principle applies [regarding] the detachment of the final, lesser portion [of a siman] and the slitting of its greater portion. [These actions] are not [considered] one act of ritual slaughter.
It is possible to say only that slitting the latter, lesser portion [of a siman] in a manner that [involved] ikur and slitting the [first,] greater portion [of the siman] are all one act of ritual slaughter. In that context, a distinction should not be made between whether [that lesser portion of the siman] was detached from its place at the time of slaughter or before slaughter, because when one slits [both] the greater portion [of the siman] and [its] lesser portion at one time, it is all [considered] one act of ritual slaughter.
Accordingly, when Shmuel said that when the greater portion of the pharynx was detached from the jaw, [the animal] is kosher and ritual slaughter is effective for it, [he was speaking about an instance in which the pharynx] had been detached before ritual slaughter. Even though [the shochet] slit the final lesser portion [of the siman] when part of [that lesser portion] had already been detached, we do not [disqualify the slaughter on the basis of the principle that] the entire slaughter is one act, although [the shochet] slit both the greater portion and the lesser portion [of the siman] at the same time. From this ruling, we can [infer] that we do not concern ourselves with [the principle that] the entire slaughter is one act in an instance where [the portion of the siman that is detached] is not of the size [that disqualifies the slaughter because] of ikur as defined by the halachah transmitted to Moshe at Sinai. If so, the same concept applies when the later, lesser portion [of a siman] was detached from the place where it had been attached at the time of slaughter. Even though it was slit afterwards, and thus one could say that [the principle that] the entire slaughter is one act [applies, the detachment of a portion of the siman] is not of concern to us at all because [the part of the siman that was detached] is not large enough to be considered ikur according to the halachah transmitted to Moshe at Sinai.
How much more so does [this concept apply] regarding the initial lesser portion of the windpipe that was slit after a portion smaller than the measure [that would disqualify it as] ikur according to the halachah transmitted to Moshe at Sinai was detached from the place where it had been attached. [Proof of this is that,] even [though one might think that the disqualification of] ikur [should apply] because [the shochet] slit the initial lesser portion of the windpipe with a blemished knife, [the animal] will not be forbidden because of the principle that the entire slaughter is one act even according to Rashi’s understanding regarding the question raised above. This [principle] is applied regarding the latter lesser portion [of the windpipe] but not regarding the initial lesser portion. [The rationale is that slitting the initial lesser portion of the windpipe] is of no consequence at all, as Rashi states regarding shehiyah.235 Rashba explicitly states this in his responsa, [(Vol. 1,] responsum 367), quoting Rabbeinu Asher.236 Rashi also [agrees with] this position regarding hagramah.235 He makes a distinction between [first] slitting one-third of a siman with hagramah and [then slitting the remaining] two-thirds [in the proper manner], and [first] slitting two-thirds [of the siman in the proper manner] and [then slitting the remaining] one-third [of the siman] with hagramah. [Only in the latter instance does Rashi apply the principle that the slaughter] is disqualified because the entire act is one act of ritual slaughter. If so, [it can be presumed] that Rashi maintains the same position regarding derasah, chaladah, and ikur.
Our practice of ruling that [if any of the above disqualifying activities was performed even] in the initial, lesser portion of the windpipe, [the animal is deemed] tereifah237 is [only] out of concern that perhaps [the knife] touched the gullet. That concern is relevant only regarding ikur [according to the view that includes slitting the simanim with] a blemished knife [in this category. However, it is] not [relevant] if the siman was uprooted from the place where it was attached [to the jaw]. For even if the gullet was already slit, what difference would it make if a portion of the siman smaller than the size that would disqualify it was uprooted from the place where it was attached?
[One might] say that the reason for [ruling] stringently in all instances with the exception of shehiyah is to give weight to Rambam’s238 interpretation of the question raised above regarding an instance where one slit the lesser portion of the simanim – [i.e., even] the initial lesser portion [of the windpipe] – via chaladah. The reason [for doubt] is that the entire [slitting] could possibly be [considered] one act of slaughter. Nevertheless, Rambam acknowledges that [this concern] does not apply regarding hagramah because [the slit] is not [made] in the place of ritual slaughter, as explained above.239 How much more so does this apply regarding ripping [a siman] from the place of its attachment. We do not maintain that ikur and slitting [the simanim] are all oneact of ritual slaughter.240 Instead we maintain that, the lesser portion [of a siman] which was slit when [that portion] was uprooted from its place is considered a single act of ritual slaughter together with the [slitting of the] greater portion [of the siman. Ikur] is of consequence only when the siman is slit [after] it was entirely uprooted from the place where it had been attached. This is the measure that disqualifies [slaughter because of ikur. This principle does] not [apply] when [the siman] was slit when less than the disqualifying measure was uprooted [from its place. This statement is substantiated by] Shmuel’s ruling that [an animal] is kosher if the greater portion of its pharynx was detached from the jaw. Ritual slaughter is effective [for such an animal] even if the initial lesser portion and the final lesser portion were slit when [those portions of the siman] were already detached from their place.
Only in an instance involving ikur [in which the shochet slit the simanim] with a blemished knife can a rationale be given for the custom of ruling stringently even regarding the initial lesser portion of the windpipe. [It can be said that the stringency was] not only instituted out of concern that perhaps [the knife] touched the gullet, but also to show concern for Rambam’s interpretation of the question raised above. [According to Rambam, that question] involved the initial lesser portion [of the windpipe] and the question [was] whether [the slaughter was disqualified] because [slitting the simanim] is considered a single act of ritual slaughter, as is the ruling regarding chaladah and derasah. That same ruling applies regarding a case of ikur involving slaughtering with a blemished knife according to Rashi’s interpretation as understood by Tosafos – that this is the definition of ikur that was included in the laws of ritual slaughter together with shehiyah, derasah, etc. ([Indeed,] this is the question that Rabbeinu Asher posed to Rashba, [as recorded in] Rashba’s responsa, [Vol. 1,] responsum 367.)
True, according to Rambam himself, [the definition of] ikur is, as Tosafos writes in the name of Halachos Gedolos, [that the siman was detached from its place.241 Thus,] it could be said that according to Rambam, [tearing a siman with] a blemished knife is not [classified as the disqualification of ikur] included in the laws of ritual slaughter, because [the shochet] is not slitting [the siman smoothly], but is rather ripping [it] and [thus] causing the animal to die by asphyxiation,242 as mentioned in [Chulin,] ch. 1. [Accordingly, the principal] that [all the acts involved in] ritual slaughter [are considered to be] one act does not apply.
It should be known that according to Rambam, [slaughtering with] a blemished knife is not [a disqualification] included in the laws of ritual slaughter,243 [because according to Rambam’s approach, doing so] does not resemble derasah or chaladah at all. [The rationale is that] according to Rambam’s interpretation, the question that is raised regarding derasah and chaladah is, “perhaps the Merciful One taught Moshe, ‘Do not slit the greater portion [of a siman] with derasah or chaladah.’ However, [perhaps slitting] the lesser portion [of a siman in that fashion] is permissible, even for the gullet?”244 This cannot be said with regard to [slitting the simanim with] a blemished knife because there is no authority who maintains that [slitting] with a blemished [knife] does not disqualify [the slaughter], regardless of the size of the blemish. The rationale is that a blemished [knife] rips and perforates [the siman], and does not slit [it. Therefore, the disqualification of a siman slit with a blemished knife] is not included in the laws of ritual slaughter. [As mentioned,] the slightest perforation of the gullet [disqualifies it, and hence the act does not qualify as ritual slaughter at all]. Nevertheless, it is possible to say that the rationale for the custom [to rule stringently is] that we [want to] follow the stringencies stemming from both approaches.245
Whatever the reason for the custom of ruling stringently regarding ikur in the initial lesser portion of the windpipe – whether it is because of concern that maybe [the knife] touched the gullet, or whether it is because weight is given to [the coupling of] Rambam’s interpretation and Rashi’s interpretation as understood by Tosafos – nevertheless, these [two] rationales are not sufficient to forbid [an animal that was slaughtered] when a portion of the siman less than the measure that would disqualify it due to ikur was detached [from its place], even if it was detached during the time of ritual slaughter.
Although in this section [of his] Shulchan Aruch, [Rav Yosef Caro] did not mention [the opinion that slaughter is disqualified due to] ikur because [the shochet slaughtered] with a blemished knife, Rama did not desire to change the wording of Rav Yaakov Weil, “whether during the slitting of the initial lesser portion.” [This is because this wording] is also appropriate for ikur with regard to a siman that was uprooted from the place where it had been attached, as explained above.246 Know [that this is the correct interpretation,] for Rav Yaakov Weil originally mentioned ripping a siman from the place where it was attached and, even so, concluded with the words, “all instances of ikur are disqualified, whether in the initial lesser portion….” Turei Zahav247 also interprets Rama’s words in this manner, and Tevuos Shor248 follows this understanding [when determining the] halachah.
[However,] this does not follow Sifsei Kohen’s249 [interpretation of Rama’s words. Sifsei Kohen] explains Rama’s ruling that “whenever [either of the simanim] were uprooted from their place, [the animal should be deemed tereifah],” as meaning that even if a very slight portion of the initial lesser portion [of a siman] was detached from its place at the time of slaughter, and similarly when a very slight portion of the lesser, later portion [of the siman] was uprooted from the place where it is attached, [the slaughter should be disqualified]. Sifsei Kohen explains that the reason for the custom to [disqualify] the initial lesser portion [of the siman] is that we are not knowledgeable regarding the examination of the gullet, and it is possible that [the knife] touched the gullet.
Sifsei Kohen explains that our custom is to rule stringently, following Rashi’s approach regarding the question [raised by the Talmud, discussed] above. [Rashi] understands [this question] as applying to the later, lesser portion [of the siman], for it is possible to say250 that the entire [slitting of the siman] is one act of ritual slaughter. However, with regard to the initial lesser portion, [a blemish is not significant;] it is of no consequence, as Rashi states there.251
[Sifsei Kohen explains that the above applies] specifically when [the knife] did not yet touch the gullet. If, however, [the knife] already touched the gullet, [the animal is disqualified] no matter how small the [resulting] perforation is. [In such a situation] it cannot be said that [the shochet’s] actions are of no consequence, for [the animal] becomes categorized as a neveilah [once] the gullet is perforated,252 in which instance, ritual slaughter is not effective in making it permissible, as is the case when the greater portion of the windpipe was detached.253
If so, when the greater portion of the windpipe was detached [during ritual slaughter], we do not say that [the shochet’s] actions are of no consequence when the later lesser portion [of the siman] was slit in a manner that disqualifies it. [The reason is that we follow the principle that all] the actions [are considered] one act of ritual slaughter, and a disqualifying factor is involved. Similarly, we do not say that [the shochet’s] actions are of no consequence when the initial lesser portion of the windpipe was slit after [the animal was] disqualified since the gullet was already perforated. Instead, we maintain that it is one act of ritual slaughter and there is a disqualifying factor.
There is no difference with regard to the disqualifying factors of shehiyah, derasah, chaladah, and hagramah, [between the disqualification of the animal within the context of ritual slaughter and its disqualification because of tereifos. In both contexts, disqualification due to these four factors] can be derived from the disqualification of the gullet itself. The difference [between the contexts] applies only [to] ikur, i.e., if the initial lesser portion of the windpipe was uprooted from the place of its attachment at the time of ritual slaughter, after [the knife] touched the gullet, we apply the principle that it is considered a single act of ritual slaughter. [Therefore, the slaughter can be disqualified] because of ikur as would be true regarding the later lesser portion.
Shmuel’s statement that [an animal] is kosher [despite] the pharynx having been detached from the jaw applies if it was detached before the time of ritual slaughter. [This is relevant regarding the laws of tereifos.] However, at the time of ritual slaughter, if even a small portion [of a siman] was detached, it can be said that the slitting and the ikur are all one act of ritual slaughter [and, therefore, the slaughter is disqualified].
Although it is taught,254 “[If] the gullet [of a fowl] was slit and, afterwards, the windpipe was detached, [the slaughter] is kosher,” that ruling applies only if [the windpipe] was detached of its own accord.255 [In such an instance,] it cannot be said that everything involved [– including the detachment of the windpipe –] is one act of ritual slaughter, because [the shochet] did nothing [to cause the windpipe’s detachment]. By contrast, when [the siman] was pulled away through the actions [of the shochet], it cannot be said that he did nothing. [Therefore,] it is possible to say that everything [– including the detachment of the windpipe –] is [considered] one act of ritual slaughter. (This is the understanding of Rav Tzvi Hirsh Chayus in his Hagahos Shechitah, as quoted by Darchei Moshe [Yoreh Deah 24:11].) This is also explicitly stated in Rav Yaakov Weil’s Hagahos Shechitos [Yeshanim] – where a distinction is made between [a siman that was] uprooted [from its place and one] that was detached, i.e., that no action was performed [with it].256
Alternatively, it can be said that the custom of ruling that [an animal] is deemed tereifah when even the slightest portion [of a siman] was uprooted at the time of ritual slaughter refers to ikur that results from pressing the knife against the simanim, in which instance, it can be said that [all the actions connected to the ritual slaughter of the animal are considered] one act of ritual slaughter since [the ikur] was brought about by the knife. [This resembles] an instance cited by Darchei Moshe in the name of Rav Tzvi Hirsh Chayus who quoted Maharil:257 a portion of one of the rings [of the windpipe] was found on the slaughtering knife, as stated below in subsection 19. When, however, [one of the simanim] was detached as a matter of course, or even if it was uprooted by act [performed by the shochet by hand, but] it was not done in the course of slitting [the simanim] at all, it cannot be said that [the actions are considered] one act of ritual slaughter.
[We find a parallel ruling] in sec. 26 regarding a perforation of the gullet [by the shochet’s] actions during the slaughter, as stated there in the name of Sifsei Kohen,258 [where it is evident that Sifsei Kohen] meant to make a distinction between these two instances, [differentiating] between [a siman that was] uprooted [from its place] and one that was detached. Nevertheless, from the wording Rama and the other Acharonim use [regarding this matter], it appears that [the halachos governing a siman that was] uprooted [from its place] and [those that govern] one that was detached are identical ‒ there is no difference in law between them. This follows the approach of Turei Zahav259 who disputes Rav Yaakov Weil’s Hagahos Shechitos [Yeshanim] where such a distinction is made. [The approach of Turei Zahav] is fundamentally correct. This does not follow [the approach of] Sifsei Kohen, [who does not make a distinction between] the initial lesser portion [of a siman] and the later lesser portion.
(Similarly, it is explicitly understood from Toras HaBayis HaAruch260 that even Rashi acknowledges [the need to distinguish between] ikur that involves slitting [the simanim and ikur that] does not. This situation] does not resemble the question raised above [concerning the other disqualifications] in which there was doubt as to whether the entire [slitting] is considered one act of ritual slaughter. Therefore, primacy is [given to the ruling of] Turei Zahav.)261
[One might question this ruling] based on the approach of Tevuos Shor262 cited above.263 [Tevuos Shor] gives weight to the ruling of Rashba264 who follows the opinion265 that if [the shochet] slit one-third [of the windpipe] via hagramah and two-thirds [in the correct manner, the slaughter] is disqualified because it is necessary that all of the [animal’s] life force depart [due to the simanim being slit] in the correct place for ritual slaughter. [According to this opinion,] even if the smallest amount [of the animal’s life force] departs [due to the simanim being slit] in an incorrect place, [the slaughter] is disqualified. With regard to dislodging the lesser initial portion [of a siman] from its place of attachment, [it is possible that] according to Rashi and Ramban,266 if the entire [siman is dislodged], the entire life-force [of the animal] departs and it is deemed tereifah. Accordingly, if a slight portion of [a siman is dislodged], a slight aspect of its life-force departs. This is similar to when the larger portion of the windpipe is severed, [and the animal] is [deemed] tereifah. Similarly, even when a slight portion [of a siman is dislodged], a slight aspect of its life force departs. [Therefore, according to the above logic, the slaughter of such an animal is not acceptable.]
Nevertheless, in such a situation, even where a significant [financial] loss is not involved, one may rely on Rama’s conclusion mentioned later on267 – that in the case of [such an issue regarding a fowl or animal whose windpipe or gullet was uprooted from its place] during its lifetime, [the animal in question] is kosher.268 [The rationale is that] the life force does not depart, even if [one of the simanim is] entirely [detached].
However, one should not rule leniently based on a combination of a) Rashba’s opinion [that a fowl or animal whose windpipe or gullet was uprooted from its place] during its lifetime is kosher and b) Rashi’s269 opinion who – although he maintains [that such an animal] is tereifah – does not accept [the ruling that] slitting [a third of a siman] with hagramah disqualifies [the slaughter. True, one could say that we combine the rationales of both opinions] to arrive at a lenient ruling. [However, in this instance,] this logic is not accepted [since] a Scriptural [prohibition is involved], as stated in the general principles of Rabbinic rulings.270 Therefore, a meticulous person271 should be stringent regarding his own conduct regarding the initial272 lesser portion [of the siman. This applies] even if [the siman was detached] before the time of ritual slaughter.
A similar ruling applies if the entire first siman of an animal273 became detached after slitting its greater portion273 but before slitting the second siman. One should not rule stringently for others if he left [the lesser, later portion of the first siman intact] and did not slit [its] lesser portion at all.274 The fact that the second siman was slit after the detachment of the first is also not [a reason] for concern since [the first siman] was detached after its larger portion was slit, as will be stated below.275 However, every meticulous person271 should be stringent regarding his own conduct and show concern for the interpretations of Rashi and Ramban, who maintain that [an animal whose simanim] are detached is tereifah.
[The need for stringency is reinforced because] there are authorities who maintain that when indications that [an animal is] tereifah appear between [the slitting] of one siman and the other, [the slaughter is] disqualified. [According to these authorities, this rule applies] even if the disqualifying factor occurred regarding the siman that was slit, as will be stated below in sec. 26.276 [This stringency is suggested] despite the fact that according to [the letter of] the law, in such an instance, one may rely on the ruling of Rama, that a detached [siman] does not [render an animal] tereifah, since regardless, there are [authorities] who differ with the [abovementioned] authorities who, as stated below, disqualify [an animal when indications that it is tereifah appear between slitting one siman and the other]. Furthermore, even the authorities who disqualify [the slaughter] do so only because of the doubt involved, as will be stated there.
Similar laws apply regarding ikur that came about because one slit the initial lesser portion of the windpipe with a blemished knife, while holding only the windpipe in his hand. [In such an instance,] there is no concern that the gullet became perforated, as stated above in sec. 23.277 Nevertheless, a meticulous person should rule stringently regarding his own conduct, and show concern for the interpretation of Rambam278 regarding the question raised above,27 which involves the initial lesser portion [of a siman. In such an instance,] there is a question whether the [the slitting of the two simanim] is considered one act of ritual slaughter. Also, one should show concern for Tosafos’ understanding of Rashi’s interpretation – that ikur that came about because one slit [a siman] with a blemished knife is one of the laws of ritual slaughter, and it could be said that [the slitting of the simanim] is [considered] one act of ritual slaughter.280 [This interpretation reinforces the need for stringency.] However, according to the letter of the law, there is no [reason to show] concern. True, in his Shulchan Aruch,281 Rav Yosef Caro rules according to Rambam. Nevertheless, many [authorities] differ with Rambam’s interpretation and, [furthermore,] even according to Rambam, [the reason for the prohibition] is only because of an unresolved question.282 [As such,] obviously, in such a situation, one may rely on the decision of Rama mentioned below, even when a substantial loss is not involved. [Rama favors] the interpretation of Halachos Gedolos, that ikur, [i.e., the uprooting of a siman] from the place where it is attached is one of the laws of ritual slaughter. [This is] in contrast to Rashi’s interpretation as understood by Tosafos, that [the term] ikur refers [to slaughtering with] a blemished knife.280 [This is evident from] Rama’s ruling [that when a siman is detached while the animal is] alive, [the animal] is kosher.283
According to this understanding, Rav Pappa challenged Shmuel’s statement that if an animal’s pharynx was entirely detached from its jaw, [the animal] is kosher,284 because in such a situation, the simanim would be uprooted. We are forced to say that when ikur is mentioned in the laws of ritual slaughter, the intent is the detachment of the simanim from the place where they would [naturally] be attached, as Tosafos writes in the name of Halachos Gedolos.
Rama maintains that this [interpretation] is fundamentally correct because it is the opinion of Tosafos at the beginning of the chapter entitled Eilu Tereifos, [and it is also followed by] Rashba, Rabbeinu Nissim, Rabbeinu Asher, and other halachic authorities. [We follow the principle that] the halachah follows the ruling of the latest authorities. Rama relied on this decision to permit the milk [of an animal] and the eggs [of a fowl whose simanim were detached285 although] a Scriptural prohibition is involved.286
The reason we rule stringently regarding ikur when slitting the later lesser portion [of a siman] with a blemished knife [in accordance with that which is] stated by Rav Yaakov Weil,287 is to give weight to Rashi’s interpretation as understood by Tosafos ‒ [i.e.,] that ikur due to slitting with a blemished knife is part of the laws of ritual slaughter, and thus it could be said that the entire [slitting of the simanim] is one act of ritual slaughter. [The rationale is that, until it is known that an animal was slaughtered properly,] we operate under the existing presumption that it is forbidden. Therefore, all of the stringencies involving ritual slaughter are followed and should be observed [in communities] where they are practiced. However, additional [stringencies] should not be applied, and the milk and eggs [of animals and fowl with detached simanim should not be forbidden], for there is no existing presumption that they are prohibited.
Alternatively, it is possible to say that Rama does not maintain that one should rule stringently regarding ikur when slitting the later lesser portion [of the siman] with a blemished knife, [as evidenced by the fact that] he did not mention this stringency in his gloss [on Rav Yosef Caro’s Shulchan Aruch], nor in his Darchei Moshe. The reason [Rama] did not write that one should rule stringently regarding the initial lesser portion [of the windpipe] out of concern that the gullet was perforated [can be explained as follows]: We are forced to say that [the statements regarding the initial lesser portion of a siman] are speaking about an instance where [the shochet] lifted his hand from [the animal’s] neck and saw that he had slit only the lesser portion of the windpipe. Afterwards, he completed the slaughter with a proper knife. If so, [the meat would be forbidden since the slaughter would be disqualified because] it would be placed in the category of shehiyah because it is forbidden [for the shochet to lift the knife before completely slitting the windpipe], since there is concern that the gullet was perforated.
However, [there is a halachic difference between the law that applies when slitting] the later lesser portion of a siman [with a blemished knife and the law that applies when using a blemished knife to slit the initial lesser portion of the siman]. If ikur when slitting the latter lesser portion with a blemished knife does not disqualify the slaughter because [doing so] is not considered part of the slaughter, and [therefore] we do not consider the entire [slitting] as one act of ritual slaughter, [then it can also be said that the meat of an animal] is permitted if [a shochet] slit the latter lesser portion of a siman with a harvest sickle or [some other] similar [knife] which is entirely blemished. [The rationale is that slitting a siman with such a knife] is not considered ritual slaughter at all.288
[Moreover,] there is also no issue regarding shehiyah, because shehiyah applies only when one interrupts the act of ritual slaughter. [That does not apply in the instance described,] because [the shochet is considered to have] ceased slaughtering [before he continued to slit the siman with the blemished knife]. However, cutting [the latter lesser portion of a siman with a serrated blade with space between each serrated edge] is forbidden because between one blemish and another there is an unblemished space.289
However, if ikur – when slitting the latter lesser portion [of a siman] with a blemished knife – disqualifies the slaughter, [the meat of the animal] is forbidden, even [when that portion is slit] with a harvest sickle, [and] even after the fact.290 In truth, it is [very] uncommon to slit the latter lesser portion of a siman (specifically) with a harvest sickle or the like. [Accordingly, we follow the principle that] it is not relevant to speak of a prevailing custom regarding an uncommon matter, as Rambam states at the end of ch. 11 [of Hilchos Shechitah]. If so, [in such a situation,] we follow the letter of the law, and according to the letter of the law there are certainly no grounds to forbid [the meat] after the fact, since fundamentally, the halachah follows the approach of Tosafos [who maintain] in the name of Halachos Gedolos that the term ikur, when used in the context of the laws of ritual slaughter, refers [only] to detaching [a siman] from the place where it was attached. Furthermore, according to the understanding of Rashba and Rabbeinu Nissim,291 even Rashi does not interpret ikur as referring to [slaughter with] a blemished knife. (Rashba specifically states this in his responsa. In [Vol. 1,] responsum 367, he states that even according to Rashi’s interpretation, one should not rule stringently at all regarding ikur with a blemished knife when [slitting] the latter lesser portion [of a siman].) How much more so does this apply according to the version of Rashi’s commentary that we possess.291
Moreover, even according to Tosafos’ understanding of Rashi, [a disqualifying factor] in the latter lesser portion [of a siman is prohibited] only because there is doubt in the matter. [Furthermore,] according to the opinion of Rashba292 and Rabbeinu Nissim,293 this involves doubt regarding a Rabbinic prohibition. [This concept is also evident from the statements of] Rav Yaakov Weil, as stated above in sec. 23.294 Therefore, one who rules leniently in an instance where a significant [financial] loss is involved will not have forfeited [anything.]
(37) Specifically –
The [word “specifically”] is referring to the previous scenarios [mentioned by Shulchan Aruch] – and not necessarily [only the] immediately preceding [scenarios depicted by Rama in the name of Rav Yaakov Weil – regarding the law] when only the initial lesser portion of the siman was uprooted from its place. [The intent is that one might think that leniency is granted] even according to the understanding of Sifsei Kohen,295 when the initial lesser portion [of the siman] was uprooted [from its place, the animal] is not forbidden according to the letter of the law, but [only as a stringency] because we are not knowledgeable regarding examination of the gullet. [However, the lenient ruling does not apply only in such an instance.] Instead, it applies even when the animal is forbidden according to the letter of the law. [Hence,] even [in such an instance], its milk is kosher (Sifsei Kohen, [loc. cit.]).
(38) Are kosher –
This situation does not resemble [the situation described] above in sec. 14,296 [where] the Talmud297 leaves unresolved a question [regarding milk from an animal that possesses a forbidden limb. Since all the milk the animal produces is somewhat affected by that forbidden limb, there are grounds to say that such milk is forbidden. One of the Sages in the Talmud sought to permit such milk, by the following logic: All milk comes from the limb [i.e., an organ] of a living animal, and hence, should be forbidden just like that organ is. Nonetheless, we permit all milk. Likewise, that Sage argued, the milk from this animal, which is forbidden due to the forbidden limb, should also be permitted. However, the Talmud rejects that hypothesis, explaining] that, [in an ordinary instance,] since the forbidden organ of a living animal can [become] permitted by slaughtering the animal, [its milk] is not forbidden. However, when [the animal or limb] cannot become permitted through shechitah, [its milk should not be permitted either].
However, [we cannot extend the logic used in the instance presented in sec. 14, to the instance presented here. In the instance described in sec. 14, the entire animal] can never become permitted [through ritual] slaughter [i.e., the limb that is forbidden will always remain forbidden, even after the animal is slaughtered in a halachically acceptable manner]. By contrast, in the present instance, [although the simanim were uprooted from their place, the animal] is [nevertheless deemed] kosher and not tereifah because it can become healed and healthy. If so, it could become permissible when slaughtered after it becomes healthy, as evident from the words of Tosafos, [Chulin] 44[a]; consult that source. Nevertheless, even without that [explanation], it is possible to say that the [two] situations are not alike, as the later authorities explain.298 Consult [their] texts.
Even so, when [the simanim] were pulled away forcefully [from the place where they were attached], there are grounds to be stringent according to the opinion of Tosafos and those who follow their perspective, [who rule] that the animal is considered tereifah [even] while alive (Sifsei Kohen [24:23]).299
Pri Chadash300 and Tevuos Shor301 write that one should give weight to the interpretations of Rashi and Ramban302 and rule stringently even if [the simanim] were [merely] peeled from their place. This is also the opinion of Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi,303 Rambam,304 and Rav Aharon HaLevi in his Bedek HaBayis.305 Nevertheless, if there is a serious [financial] loss involved, one should not rule stringently for others against [the lenient stance of] Rama and the other later authorities [who follow his approach]. However, every meticulous person271 should be stringent regarding his own conduct.
(לב) וּמֵהַבָּשָׂר.
אֲבָל אִם נִתְלַשׁ הַבָּשָׂר עִם הַסִּימָנִים מֵהַלֶּחִי אֲפִלּוּ נֶעֶקְרוּ כֻלָּן כְּשֵׁרָה וּמוֹעֶלֶת בּוֹ שְׁחִיטָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁמּוֹעֶלֶת אִם נִטַּל הַלֶּחִי מֵעַל הַבָּשָׂר וְהַסִּימָנִים. כְּדִתְנַןקצט סְתָמָא בְּפֶרֶק אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת נִטַּל לֶחִי הַתַּחְתּוֹן כְּשֵׁרָה וּמַשְׁמַע דְּמֻתֶּרֶת בַּאֲכִילָה אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה. וְכִדְאָמְרִינָן בְּהֶדְיָא בִּגְמָרָא רֵישׁ פֶּרֶק אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹתר אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל תֻּרְבַּץ הַוֵּשֶׁט שֶׁנִּטַּל כֻּלּוֹ מִלֶּחִי כָּשֵׁר וְתַנָּא תּוּנָא (תַּנָּא דְמַתְנִיתִין מְסַיַּע לָן) נִטַּל לֶחִי הַתַּחְתּוֹן כְּשֵׁרָה (וְכֵיוָן שֶׁנִּטַּל הַלֶּחִי נִתְלְשׁוּ הַסִּימָנִים שֶׁבַּלֶּחִי הַתַּחְתּוֹן הֵם מְחֻבָּרִים). מַתְקִיף לָהּ רַב פָּפָּא וְהָא אִיכָּא עִקּוּר סִימָנִים. וּלְרַב פָּפָּא קַשְׁיָא מַתְנִיתִין נִטַּל לֶחִי הַתַּחְתּוֹן כְּשֵׁרָה. בִּשְׁלָמָא מַתְנִיתִין לְרַב פָּפָּא לָא קַשְׁיָא הָא דְּאִעֲקוּר עֲקוּרֵי (מִן הַלֶּחִי וּמִן הַבָּשָׂר) הָא דְּאִגּוּם אִגּוֹמֵי מֵעִלָּוֵי סִימָנִים (שֶׁנִּגְמַם הַלֶּחִי מִן הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁמֻּטָּל עַל הַסִּימָנִים בֵּין הַלֶּחִי וְהַסִּימָן דְּלָאו עִקּוּר הוּא שֶׁהַסִּימָנִים מְעֹרִים בַּבָּשָׂר) אֶלָּא לִשְׁמוּאֵל קַשְׁיָא (דִּלְדִידֵיהּ אִיכָּא עִקּוּר סִימָנִים דְּקָאָמַר תֻּרְבַּץ הַוֵּשֶׁט שֶׁנִּטַּל דְּמַשְׁמַע דְּהַוֵּשֶׁט לְבַדּוֹ נִתַּק וְנִתְלַשׁ מִן הַבָּשָׂר). לָא תֵימָא כֻּלּוֹ אֶלָּא רֻבּוֹ. וְהָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל סִימָנִים שֶׁנִּדַּלְדְּלוּ בְּרֻבָּן טְרֵפָה. אָמַר רַב שֵׁישָׁא הָא דְּאִקְפַּל אִקְפּוּלֵי (שֶׁנִּקְלַף מִן הַבָּשָׂר אִקְפַּל כְּמוֹ נִקְלַף) הָא דְּאִפְרוֹק אִפְרוּקֵי (כְּדָבָר הַנֶּעֱקָר בְּכֹחַ שֶׁנֶּעֱקָר כַּאן מְעַט וְכַאן מְעַט עַד רֻבּוֹ דְּאוֹתוֹ מִעוּט הַמְחֻבָּר אֵינוֹ מְחֻבָּר בְּיַחַד הִלְכָּךְ לָאו חִבּוּר הוּא דְּלָא הֲדַר בָּרְיָא) עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹן הַגְּמָרָא וּפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י. וְכָתַב הָרַשְׁבָּ"ארא וְיֵשׁ לְדַקְדֵּק קְצָת כֵּיוָן דַּאֲפִלּוּ נִקְלַף רֻבּוֹ שָׁרֵי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּיֵּר אֶלָּא מִעוּטוֹ וּמִעוּט זֶה לֹא אָמְרוּ בּוֹ שִׁעוּר הֵיאַךְ אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּפָּסֵל יוֹתֵר כְּשֶׁנִּשְׁתַּיֵּר בּוֹ מִעוּט כַּאן וּמִעוּט כַּאן מִכְּשֶׁנִּשְׁתַּיֵּר מִעוּט אֶחָד בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד.
וְנִרְאֶה לִי דִּכְשֶׁהוּא מִתְפָּרֵק בִּמְקוֹמוֹת רַבִּים הַדָּבָר נִכָּר שֶׁנִּתְפָּרֵק בְּכֹחַ וּמַה שֶּׁנִּשְׁאָר מְחֻבָּר חִבּוּר מְדֻלְדָּל הוּא אֲבָל כְּשֶׁנִּתְפָּרֵק בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד אוֹתוֹ הַמִּעוּט נִשְׁאָר בְּחִבּוּרוֹ בְּחֹזֶק כְּשֶׁהָיָה הִלְכָּךְ הָוֵי חִבּוּר וַהֲדַר בָּרְיָא עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ (וּמַה שֶׁכָּתַב וַהֲדַר בָּרְיָא הַיְנוּ לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"ירב אֲבָל הָרַשְׁבָּ"א גוּפֵיהּ לֹא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ הָכִי כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְקַמָּןרג). אֲבָל הַבַּ"ח סִימָן ל"גרד כָּתַב דִּלְמַסְקָנָא דְּאָמְרִינָן לָא תֵימָא כֻּלּוֹ אֶלָּא רֻבּוֹ אִם כֵּן הָא דְאָמְרִינָן וְתַנָּא תּוּנָא נִטַּל לֶחִי הַתַּחְתּוֹן כָּשֵׁר מוּקְמָא מַתְנִיתִין בְּרוּבָּא דַוְקָא וְלֹא מִפְלְגִינָן בֵּין אִעֲקוּר אִעֲקוּרֵי לְאִגּוּם אִגּוֹמֵי אֶלָּא אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִגּוּם הַלֶּחִי מֵעִלָּוֵי סִימָנִים וְהַסִּימָנִים מְעֹרִים בַּבָּשָׂר לֹא מַכְשְׁרִינָן אֶלָּא בְּרוּבָּא דַוְקָא אֲבָל בְּכֻלָּהּ הֲוָה לֵיהּ עִקּוּר וְהוּא הַדִּין אִם נִתְלַשׁ הַסִּימָן עִם הַבָּשָׂר מֵהַלֶּחִי דְּלֹא כְּשֻׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ.רה וְהַשַּׁ"ךְרו סָתַם לְהָקֵל כְּהַשֻּׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ וְלֹא הֵבִיא דַּעַת הַבַּ"ח כְּלָל. וְכֵן דַּעַת רֹב הָאַחֲרוֹנִים. אֲבָל הַטַּ"זרז הֵבִיא חֻמְרַת הַבַּ"ח. וְכֵן פָּסַק הַתְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹר.רח וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם בְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה אֶפְשָׁר לִסְמוֹךְ עַל רֹב הָאַחֲרוֹנִים. וּמַה שֶּׁכָּתַב הַשֻּׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר הַקָּנֶה וְעַל זֶה
כָּתַב בִּסְעִיף ט"ז שֶׁאִם נִשְׁתַּיֵּר מַשֶּׁהוּ כָּשֵׁר אַף עַל גַּב דִּשְׁמוּאֵל לֹא קָאָמַר אֶלָּא תֻּרְבַּץ הַוֵּשֶׁט שֶׁנִּטַּל רֻבּוֹ כָּשֵׁר הַיְנוּ מִשּׁוּם דִּרְבוּתָא אַשְׁמוֹעִינָן דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּוֵשֶׁט נְקוּבָתוֹ בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ אֲפִלּוּ הָכִי בְּנִטַּל מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ אֵינוֹ כְּנָקוּב וְלֹא כְּפָסוּק אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ בְּרֻבּוֹ כָּשֵׁר וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן בַּקָּנֶה.רט וְהַתּוֹסְפוֹתרי בְּשֵׁם רַבֵּנוּ חֲנַנְאֵל פֵּרְשׁוּ הָא דְּאִפְרוֹק אִפְרוּקֵי לֹא כְּפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר בְּכֹחַ מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּפְרְדוּ הַסִּימָנִים זֶה מִזֶּה בְּרֹב שִׁעוּר אָרְכָּן. וְהַשֻּׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ פָּסַק כְּב' הַפֵּרוּשִׁים לְהַחֲמִיר בְּשֶׁל תּוֹרָה וְלָכֵן פָּסַק כַּאן בִּסְ[עִיף] ט"ז כְּפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י וּלְקַמָּן סִימָן ל"גריא כְּפֵרוּשׁ רַבֵּנוּ חֲנַנְאֵל:
(לג) וְנִשְׁמַט.
בְּטוּר כָּתַב אוֹ נִשְׁמַט. וְצָרִיךְ לוֹמַר פֵּרוּשׁוֹ דְּנֶעֱקַר הַיְנוּ בְּכֹח אָדָם וְנִשְׁמַט הוּא מֵעַצְמָהּ שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה עַל יְדֵי נִדְנוּדָהּ (טַ"זריב). וְהַבַּ"ח בְּקוּנְטְרֵס אַחֲרוֹןריג פֵּרֵשׁ דְּנֶעֱקַר הַיְנוּ דְּאִיכָּא נֶקֶב מְפֻלָּשׁ וְנִשְׁמַט הַיְנוּ שֶׁנִּשְׁמַט מִמְּקוֹמוֹ וְיָרַד לְמַטָּה וְלֵיכָּא נֶקֶב כְּלָל עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ. וְזֶהוּ פֵּרוּשׁ דְּאִקְפַּל אִקְפּוּלֵי לְפִי דַּעַת הָרַמְבַּ"םריד שֶׁנִּתְקַלֵּף הַסִּימָן מִקְּרוֹמוֹ וְיָרַד לְמַטָּה וְאַף שֶׁהַקְּרוּם מְחֻבָּר בִּמְקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ בַּלֶּחִי מְדֻלְדָּל הוּא וְאֵינוֹ חִבּוּר. וְכֵן דַּעַת הָרִי"ףרטו כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב בְּקוּנְטְרֵס אַחֲרוֹן:רטז
(לד) קֹדֶם גְּמַר שְׁחִיטָה.
כֵּן הוּא לְשׁוֹן הָרַמְבַּ"ם.ריז וּמַשְׁמַע מִסְּתִימַת לְשׁוֹנוֹ דַּאֲפִלּוּ נִשְׁמַט אֶחָד מֵהֶם קֹדֶם גְּמַר שְׁחִיטַת הַשֵּׁנִיריח דְּהַיְנוּ קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטַת רֹב שְׁנַיִם בִּבְהֵמָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַסִּימָן שֶׁנִּשְׁמַט נִשְׁחַט כְּבָר פְּסוּלָה. וּלְשִׁיטָתֵיהּ אָזִיל הָרַמְבַּ"םריט וְכֵן הַשֻּׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ דִּלְקַמָּן סִימָן כ"ורכ סְבִירָא לֵיהּ דְּלֹא אָמְרִינָן כְּמַאן דְּמָנַח בְּדִקּוּלָא דָּמְיָא לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטַת רֻבּוֹ אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ כֻּלּוֹ. וְעַיֵּן מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב סְעִיף י"ח עַל זֶה:רכא
(לה) פְּסוּלָה.
בְּפֶּרֶק קַמָּא דְחֻלִּיןרכב תַּנְיָא שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֵּשֶׁט וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשְׁמְטָה הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה נִשְׁמְטָה הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֵּשֶׁט שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה אִם סָפֵק זֶה הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה וְאָמְרוּ כָּל סָפֵק בִּשְׁחִיטָה פְּסוּלָה עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹן בָּרַיְתָא. וְהָא דְנָקַט הַתַּנָּא שְׁחִיטָה בַּוֵּשֶׁט וּשְׁמוּטָה בַּגַּרְגֶּרֶת אָמְרִינָן בִּגְמָרָארכג דְּהוּא הַדִּין אִפְּכָא אֶלָּא דְּאוּרְחָא דְמִלְּתָא נָקַט מִשּׁוּם דְּגַרְגֶּרֶת עֲבִידָא לְאִשְׁתְּמוּטֵי. וּפֵרֵשׁ רַשִׁ"ירכד הַטַּעַם דִּפְסוּלָה מִשּׁוּם דַּהֲרֵי נִטְרְפָה מֵחַיִּים. דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ לְרַשִׁ"י דְּעִקּוּר טְרֵפָה מֵחַיִּים נַמִי הָוְיָא: בַּקָּנֶה מִשּׁוּם פְּסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶתרכה וּבַוֵּשֶׁט מִשּׁוּם פְּסוּקַת הַתֻּרְבַּץ.רכו אֶלָּא שֶׁגַּרְגֶּרֶת עַצְמָהּ שֶׁנִּפְסְקָה שִׁעוּרָא בְּרוּבָּא וְכֵן תֻּרְבַּץ עַצְמוֹ שֶׁנִּפְסַק אִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּגְמָרָא דְּשִׁעוּרוֹ בְּרוּבָּא וְאִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ וְהָכִי קַיְמָא לָן וּבְעִקּוּר מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ בַּלֶּחִי בֵּין בַּקָּנֶה בֵּין בַּוֵּשֶׁט שִׁעוּרוֹ בְּכֻלָּן דַּוְקָא וְלֹא אֲפִלּוּ בְּרֻבָּן. אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מִּעוּט הַנִּשְׁאָר הוּא מְדֻלְדָּל כַּאן מְעַט וְכַאן מְעַט כְּדִלְעֵיל.רכז אֲבָל כְּשֶׁנֶּעֱקַר כֻּלּוֹ טְרֵפָה מֵחַיִּים נַמִי הָוֵי כְּמוֹ בְּנִפְסַק הַסִּימָן עַצְמוֹ. כִּדְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵלרכח סִימָנִים שֶׁנִּדַּלְדְּלוּ בְּרֻבָּן טְרֵפָה דְּהַיְנוּ כְּשֶׁאֵין הַמִּעוּט הַנִּשְׁאָר בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד דְּלָא הֲדַר בָּרְיָארכט וַהֲוָה לֵיהּ כְּנֶעֱקַר כֻּלּוֹ.
וְהָא דִשְׁמוּאֵל גּוּפֵיהּ קָחָשִׁיברל עִקּוּר בְּהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה בַּהֲדֵי שְׁהִיָּה דְּרָסָה כוּ' כְּדִלְעֵיל בְּשֻׁלְחָן עָרוּךְרלא סְעִיף א' כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְעֵיל סִימָן א'.רלב הַיְנוּ לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין שְׁחִיטָה זוֹ מוֹעֶלֶת כְּלוּם וַהֲרֵי זוֹ גַּם נְבֵלָה לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה כְּמוֹ בִּשְׁהִיָּה דְּרָסָה וְאִינָךְ וְלֹא כִּטְרֵפָה שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה. אֲבָל מִכָּל מָקוֹם מֵחַיִּים נַמִי טְרֵפָה הָוְיָא כְּשֶׁנֶּעֱקַר הַסִּימָן מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ כְּמוֹ בְּגַרְגֶּרֶת עַצְמָהּ שֶׁנִּפְסְקָה בְּרֻבָּהּ שֶׁהִיא טְרֵפָה מֵחַיִּים וּנְבֵלָה לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה כְּדִלְקַמָּן סִימָן ל"דרלג וְכֵן בְּתֻרְבַּץ שֶׁנִּפְסַק בְּרֻבּוֹ אֲבָל בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ אֵינָהּ נְבֵלָה לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה אֶלָּא בַּוֵּשֶׁט עַצְמוֹ כְּדִלְקַמָּן סִימָן ל"ג.רלד וְהָא דְנָקַט רַשִׁ"ירלה טְרֵפָה וְלֹא נְבֵלָה הַיְנוּ מִשּׁוּם דְּקָאֵי בְּעוֹף דְּסַגִּי לֵיהּ בְּסִימָן אֶחָד שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט כָּרָאוּי לְהוֹצִיאוֹ מִידֵי נְבֵלָה. אֲבָל הָרַשְׁבָּ"ארלו כָּתַב שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר דִּשְׁמוּאֵל קָחָשִׁיב טְרֵפָה בְּהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה דְּאִם כֵּן לִחְשׁוֹב נַמִי נְקוּבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט (וְעַיֵּן בְּמַה שֶּׁיִּתְבָּאֵר לְקַמָּןרלז בְּשֵׁם הַתּוֹסְפוֹת דְּלֹא קָשֶׁה מִדֵּי עַל פֵּרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י). אֶלָּא עִקּוּר שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר הַסִּימָן מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ לָאו טְרֵפָה הִיא כְּלָל מֵחַיִּים כְּנִפְסַק הַסִּימָן עַצְמוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין שִׁעוּרֵיהֶם שָׁוִים (עַיֵּן תּוֹסְפוֹת דַּף מ"ד ע"ארלח). אֶלָּא כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתְבוּ הַתּוֹסְפוֹתרלט לְפִי דַּעַת בַּהַ"גרמ דְּהִלְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לָהּ שֶׁאֵין שְׁחִיטָה מוֹעֶלֶת בְּסִימָנִים עֲקוּרִים מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרָם בַּלֶּחִי וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּעוֹף בְּעִינָן שֶׁיִּהְיוּ ב' הַסִּימָנִים מְחֻבָּרִים וּרְאוּיִם לִשְׁחִיטָה בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט אֶחָד מֵהֶם דְּהָכִי גְּמִירִי לָהּ הִלְכְתָא. וְנַפְקָא מִנָּהּ הָאִידְנָא לְדִינָא בֵּין שִׁיטַת רַשִׁ"י וּבֵין שִׁיטַת הַתּוֹסְפוֹת וְסִיעָתָם בְּשֵׁם בַּהַ"ג לְעִנְיַן חָלָב וּבֵיצִים כְּדִלְקַמָּן בְּהַגָּ"ה.רמא וְהָא דְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵלרמב סִימָנִים שֶׁנִּדַּלְדְּלוּ בְּרֻבָּן טְרֵפָה פֵּרֵשׁ הָרַשְׁבָּ"ארמג דְּלָאו טְרֵפָה מַמָּשׁ קָאָמַר אֶלָּא אֲסוּרָה קָאָמַר דְּכָל שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה טְרֵפָה קָרֵי לָהּ. וְנַפְקָא מִנָּהּ שֶׁאִם שָׁחַט נְבֵלָה הָוֵי וְלֹא כִּטְרֵפָה שְׁחוּטָה שֶׁאֵין שְׁחִיטָה בְּסִימָנִים עֲקוּרִים עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ. אֲבָל הַתּוֹסְפוֹת בְּפֶרֶק אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹתרמד סְבִירָא לֵיהּ דִּטְרֵפָה מַמָּשׁ קָאָמַר בְּסִימָנִים שֶׁנִּדַּלְדְּלוּ בְּרֻבָּן דְּהַיְנוּ שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר הַסִּימָן בְּכֹחַ כְּדִלְעֵילרמה דְּלָא הֲדַר בָּרְיָא וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי טְרֵפָה מֵחַיִּים נַמִי הָוְיָא. אֲבָל בִּדְאִקְפַּל אִקְפּוּלֵי בְּנַחַת מֵעַל הַבָּשָׂר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּקְלַף כֻּלּוֹ כֵּיוָן שֶׁלֹּא נֶעֱקַר בְּכֹחַ הֲדַר בָּרְיָא וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי אֵינָהּ טְרֵפָה מֵחַיִּים אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין שְׁחִיטָה מוֹעֶלֶת בָּהּ כְּשֶׁנִּקְלַף כֻּלּוֹ אַף עַל גַּב דַּהֲדַר בָּרְיָא כֵּיוָן שֶׁעַכְשָׁו
אֵינוֹ מְחֻבָּר כְּלָל בִּבְשַׂר הַלֶּחִי שֶׁכָּךְ הִיא הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי שֶׁאֵין שְׁחִיטָה בְּסִימָן עָקוּר. אֲבָל אִם לֹא נִקְלַף אֶלָּא רֻבּוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה לְגַמְרֵי וּמוֹעֶלֶת בּוֹ שְׁחִיטָה וְלֹא אָמְרִינָן בְּזֶה רֻבּוֹ כְּכֻלּוֹ כֵּיוָן דַּהֲדַר בָּרְיָא לְגַמְרֵי. אֲבָל אִם נֶעֱקַר בְּכֹחַ דְּלָא הֲדַר בָּרְיָא וְסוֹפוֹ לִפָּרֵק כֻּלּוֹ אָמְרִינָן רֻבּוֹ כְּכֻלּוֹ דִּכְמַאן דְּפָסֵק דָּמֵי וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי הִיא גַם כֵּן נְבֵלָה לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה דְּאֵין שְׁחִיטָה מוֹעֶלֶת בָּהּ. וְהָרַשְׁבָּ"א סְבִירָא לֵיהּ שֶׁאֵינָהּ טְרֵפָה מֵחַיִּים מִשּׁוּם דַּהֲדַר בָּרְיָא אֶלָּא לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה נְבֵלָה הִיא. דְּמַה שֶּׁנִּשְׁאַר חִבּוּר מְדֻלְדָּל הוּא וַהֲרֵי זֶה כְּאִלּוּ נֶעֱקַר כֻּלּוֹ (עַיֵּן בְּמַה שֶּׁנִּתְבָּאֵר לְעֵילרמו). וְהָרַ"ן בְּחִדּוּשָׁיורמז וּבְפֵרוּשׁוֹ לְהָרִי"ףרמח כָּתַב בְּזֶה שִׁיטָה ד' בְּשֵׁם הָרַמְבַּ"ןרמט דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ דְּהָא דְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל סִימָנִים שֶׁנִּדַּלְדְּלוּ בְּרֻבָּן טְרֵפָה טְרֵפָה מַמָּשׁ קָאָמַר מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא הֲדַר בָּרְיָא וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן בִּדְאִקְפּוּל אִקְפּוּלֵי כֻּלּוֹ דְּלָא הֲדַר בָּרְיָא וּטְרֵפָה הִיא אֲבָל מִכָּל מָקוֹם אֵינָהּ נְבֵלָה וַאֲפִלּוּ לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה. וְהַיְנוּ כְּשֶׁנִּדַּלְדֵּל וְנִקְלַף שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה אֲבָל אִם אֵרַע לוֹ כֵּן בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה מִשֶּׁהִתְחִיל בַּסִּימָנִים אֵין שְׁחִיטָה מוֹעֶלֶת בּוֹ וּנְבֵלָה הִיא. וַאֲפִלּוּ לֹא נִקְלַף אֶלָּא רֻבּוֹ דְּרֻבּוֹ כְּכֻלּוֹ בְּכָל הַתּוֹרָהרנ כֻלָּה. וְזֶהוּ עִקּוּר דְּקָחָשִׁיב שְׁמוּאֵל בְּהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁהוּא הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי שֶׁאֵין שְׁחִיטָה מוֹעֶלֶת בּוֹ וְהִיא נְבֵלָה. וְהָא דְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵלרנא תֻּרְבַּץ הַוֵּשֶׁט שֶׁנִּטַּל רֻבּוֹ מִלֶּחִי כָּשֵׁר כְּדִלְעֵילרנב דְּמַשְׁמַע כָּשֵׁר לְגַמְרֵי וּמוֹעֶלֶת בּוֹ שְׁחִיטָה הַיְנוּ כְּשֶׁנֶּעֱקַר שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה. וְטַעְמָא דְמִלְּתָא דְּכֹל שֶׁהַסִּימָנִים עֲקוּרִים מִתְּחִלָּה אֶפְשָׁר לֶאֱחוֹז בְּיָדָיו בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה וּלְשָׁחֲטָם כָּרָאוּי וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי מְהַנֵּי שְׁחִיטָה לְטַהֵר מִידֵי נְבֵלָה בְּדָבָר שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ טְרֵפָה כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּדַּלְדְּלוּ רֻבָּן אוֹ שֶׁנִּקְלַף כֻּלּוֹ וְאִם לֹא נִקְלַף כֻּלּוֹ כָּשֵׁר לְגַמְרֵי אֲבָל נֶעֶקְרוּ בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּשָּׁחֵט כָּרָאוּי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַסִּימָנִים מִתְנַדְנְדִים וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי הָוֵי לָהּ נְבֵלָה אֲפִלּוּ בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ טְרֵפָה (כֵּן הוּא הַגִּרְסָא בְּסֵפֶר הָאָרֹךְ מֵהַשַּׁ"ךְ.רנג וְכֵן מַשְׁמַע בְּרַ"ןרנד)
כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּקְלַף רֻבּוֹ אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ כֻּלּוֹ וּכְגוֹן שֶׁנִּתְלַשׁ עִם הַבָּשָׂר מֵהַלֶּחִי דְּדָמֵי לְאִגּוּם אִגּוֹמֵי מֵעִלָּוֵי סִימָנִים דִּלְעֵיל דִּכְשֵׁרָה הִיא וַאֲפִלּוּ הָכִי אֵין הַשְּׁחִיטָה מוֹעֶלֶת בָּהּ כְּשֶׁאֵרַע כֵּן בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַסִּימָנִים מִתְנַדְנְדִים זֶהוּ הָעוֹלֶה מִדִּבְרֵי הָרַ"ן פֶּרֶק קַמָּא וּבְחִדּוּשָׁיו פֶּרֶק אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת בְּשֵׁם הָרַמְבַּ"ן. וְהָא דְתַנְיָארנה נִשְׁמְטָה הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֵּשֶׁט שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לִשְׁחוֹט הַוֵּשֶׁט כָּרָאוּי אַף שֶׁהַגַּרְגֶּרֶת שְׁמוּטָה הַיְנוּ מִשּׁוּם דַּהֲרֵי נִטְרְפָה תְּחִלָּה כְּפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י דִּלְעֵיל. וּלְעִנְיַן מַעֲשֶׂה יֵשׁ לְהַחֲמִיר כְּדִבְרֵי כֻלָּן לְהַחֲמִיר בְּשֶׁל תּוֹרָהרנו כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר לְקַמָּן.רנז וְהִנֵּה בְּפֶרֶק קַמָּא דַּף ט' פֵּרֵשׁ רַשִׁ"ירנח דְּעִקּוּר הַיְנוּ הָא דִתְנַן שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֵּשֶׁט וּפָסַק הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת הֲרֵי זֶה נְבֵלָה. וְכָתַב עַל זֶה הַתּוֹסְפוֹתרנט תֵּימָא דְּאֵין זֶה שַׁיָּךְ לְהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה דְּזֶה פָּסוּל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא שְׁחָטוֹ וְלֹא דָמֵי לִשְׁאָר הִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה. וְיֵשׁ לוֹמַר דְּמַיְרִי שֶׁשָּׁחַט בְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה אוֹ בְּמַגָּל וְזֶה נִקְרָא פָּסַק הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת וּפְסוּלָה הִיא מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין אֶלָּא חוֹנְקִין (כְּדִלְעֵיל סִימָן י"[ח]רס) עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ. וְאֵין כַּוָּנָתָם דִּלְרַשִׁ"י אֵין עִקּוּר אֶלָּא בִּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא דְּהָא בְּהֶדְיָא אָמְרִינָן בִּגְמָרָארסא בְּסוּגְיָא דִלְעֵיל דְּתֻרְבַּץ הַוֵּשֶׁט שֶׁנִטַּל כֻּלּוֹ מִלֶּחִי הָוֵי עִקּוּר. אֶלָּא כַּוָּנָתָם לוֹמַר דִּלְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י דִּשְׁמוּאֵל לֹא קָחָשִׁיב אֶלָּא עִקּוּר שֶׁהוּא בְּדֶרֶךְ שְׁחִיטָה דְּהַיְנוּ בְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה דְּזֶה שַׁיָּךְ לְהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה אֲבָל נֶעֱקַר מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ בַּלֶּחִי אוֹ שֶׁנִּפְסַק הַסִּימָן שֶׁלֹּא בְּדֶרֶךְ שְׁחִיטָה (בְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה) אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שְׁחִיטָה מוֹעֶלֶת בִּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא וּנְבֵלָה הִיא מִכָּל מָקוֹם הַטַּבָּח שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ זֶה מֻתָּר לֶאֱכוֹל מִשְּׁחִיטָתוֹ וְלֹא חַיְשִׁינָן שֶׁמָּא הָיוּ הַסִּימָנִים עֲקוּרִים אוֹ פְּסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת. כְּמוֹ דְּלֹא חַיְשִׁינָן לִנְקִיבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט שֶׁהוּא בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ וְאַף הַיּוֹדֵעַ הִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה אִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לִבְדּוֹק הַוֵּשֶׁט אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה דְּדִלְמָא בִּמְקוֹם נֶקֶב קָא שָׁחִיט אֶלָּא דְּאָזְלִינָן בָּתַר רוּבָּא כִּדְאִיתָא בִּגְמָרָארסב וְרֹב בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים כְּשֵׁרִים וּבְרִיאִים וּשְׁלֵמִים מִכָּל נֶקֶב. וְאִם כֵּן הוּא הַדִּין דְּלֹא חַיְשִׁינָן מֵהַאי טַעְמָא לִפְסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת. וְכֵן לְעִקּוּר סִימָנִים מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרָם בַּלֶּחִי לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"ירסג דִּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּקָא חָשִׁיב עִקּוּר בְּהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה לֶאֱסוֹר שְׁחִיטַת שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ לֹא מַיְרִי בְּעִקּוּר מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרָם
אֶלָּא בִּפְסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת וְעַל כָּרְחָךְ צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר דְּהַיְנוּ בְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה. אֲבָל לְבַהַ"גרסד דְּעִקּוּר אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ וּבְהָא קָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל שֶׁאָסוּר לֶאֱכוֹל מִשְּׁחִיטַת שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ. סְבִירָא לֵיהּ דְּשַׁאֲנִי עִקּוּר סִימָנִים מִפְּסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת וּנְקוּבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט דְּלֹא חַיְשִׁינָן לְהוּ וּלְעִקּוּר סִימָנִים חַיְשִׁינָן מִשּׁוּם דִּשְׁמוּטָה שְׁכִיחָא וְצָרִיךְ לִבְדּוֹק אַחֲרֶיהָ לְפִי דַּעַת בַּהַ"ג כְּדִלְקַמָּן סִימָן כ"ה.רסה וְאַף הַחוֹלְקִים עָלָיו שָׁם הַיְנוּ דַוְקָא בְּמִי שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ הִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה וְיוֹדֵעַ שֶׁעִקּוּר פּוֹסֵל שֶׁהוּא נִזְהָר כְּשֶׁתּוֹפֵס בַּסִּימָנִים וּמוֹתְחָן יָפֶה לֶאֱחוֹז בְּקַל שֶׁלֹּא יָבֹא לִידֵי עִקּוּר בְּיָדַיִם רַק שֶׁבָּאנוּ לָחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא הָיוּ עֲקוּרִים מִתְּחִלָּה מֵעַצְמָהּ שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה עַל יְדֵי נִדְנוּדָהּ אוֹ עַל יְדֵי אֲחִיזַת הַשּׁוֹחֵט בָּהּ בְּקַלּוּת וּלְהָא לֹא חַיְשִׁינָן לְהַחוֹלְקִים עַל בַּהַ"ג שָׁם מִשּׁוּם דְּסָמְכִינָן בְּהָא אַרוּבָּא דְּרֹב בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים הֵם בְּרִיאִים בְּטִבְעָם וְאֵין הַסִּימָנִים נִשְׁמָטִים וְנֶעֱקָרִים בָּהֶם מֵעַצְמָן וְלֹא עַל יְדֵי אֲחִיזָה בְּקַלּוּת. אֲבָל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁעִקּוּר פּוֹסֵל כְּלָל וְאֵינוֹ נִזְהָר כְּלָל מֵעִקּוּר כְּשֶׁתּוֹפֵס בַּסִּימָנִים לְמָתְחָן יָפֶה לְכוּלָא עָלְמָא חַיְשִׁינָן שֶׁמָּא תָּפַס וּמָתַח בְּכֹחַ עַד שֶׁבָּא לִידֵי עִקּוּר וּבִפְרָט בַּגַּרְגֶּרֶת דַּעֲבִידָא לְאִשְׁתְּמוּטֵי דִּבְהֵמָה בְּחֶזְקַת אִסּוּר עוֹמֶדֶת עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע לְךָ בַּמֶּה נִשְׁחֲטָהרסו וְכֵיוָן שֶׁהַשּׁוֹחֵט לֹא יָדַע לְהִזָּהֵר מִלְּתָא דְּלָא רַמְיָא עֲלֵיהּ דֶּאֱינָשׁ עָבִיד וְלָאו אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ כְּדִלְעֵיל סִימָן א'רסז אֵין אֲנִי קוֹרֵא בּוֹ נוֹדַע לְךָ בַּמֶּה נִשְׁחֲטָה כְּלָל מֵאַחַר שֶׁהַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּעַצְמוֹ אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ. שֶׁלֹּא אָמְרוּ חֲזָקָה עַל בֶּן דַּעַת שֶׁאֵין קִלְקוּלֵי שְׁחִיטָה נִקְרִים לוֹ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא בִרְצוֹנוֹ וּבְמַשְׁגִּיחַ דְּכָל בֶּן דַּעַת מַשְׁגִּיחַ לִשְׁחוֹט כַּהֲלָכָה כְּדִלְעֵיל סִימָן א' וב' אֲבָל לֹא בְּמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ לְהַשְׁגִּיחַ וְלִזָּהֵר מִקִּלְקוּל זֶה (דְּאַדְּרַבָּה מוּעָד הוּא לְקַלְקֵל לְפִי דַּעַת הַטַּ"ז.רסח וְאַף דְּלֹא קַיְמָא לָן הָכִירסט מִכָּל מָקוֹם מִידֵי סְפֵיקָא לֹא נָפְקָא וְכָל סָפֵק בִּשְׁחִיטָה פָּסוּל). מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בִּנְקוּבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט וּפְסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת שֶׁאֵין לָחוּשׁ בָּהֶן כְּלָל שֶׁמָּא יִנְקוֹב הַשּׁוֹחֵט שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ הִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה אֶת הַוֵּשֶׁט בְּיָדַיִם אוֹ יַפְסִיק אֶת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת אֶלָּא שֶׁמָּא הָיוּ כֵּן מִתְּחִלָּה וּלְהָא לֹא חַיְשִׁינָן דְּסָמְכִינָן אַרוּבָּא. כְּמוֹ בִּשְׁאָר טְרֵפוֹת שֶׁאֵין צָרִיךְ לִבְדּוֹק אַחֲרֵיהֶן כְּלָל
מֵהַאי טַעְמָא וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי נַמִי מֻתָּר לֶאֱכוֹל מִשְּׁחִיטָתוֹ שֶׁל זֶה שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ. וְאַף עַל גַּב דִּנְקוּבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט וּפְסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת הַשְּׁחִיטָה פְּסוּלָה וּבְהֵמָה בְּחֶזְקַת אִסּוּר עוֹמֶדֶת עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע לְךָ בַּמֶּה נִשְׁחֲטָה וְלֹא דָמֵי לִשְׁאָר טְרֵפוֹת.רע מִכָּל מָקוֹם כֵּיוָן דְּסָמְכִינָן אַרוּבָּא דְּרֹב בְּהֵמוֹת אֵינָן נְקוּבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט וּפְסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת הֲרֵי נוֹדַע לְךָ בַּמֶּה נִשְׁחֲטָה דְּרוּבָּא עָדִיף מֵחֲזָקָה.רעא וְלֹא סָמְכִינָן מִעוּטָא לְחֶזְקַת אִסּוּר דִּבְהֵמָה לְמֶהֱוֵי פַּלְגָּא וּפַלְגָּארעב מִשּׁוּם דְּמִעוּטָא דְּלֹא שְׁכִיחַ הוּא לִהְיוֹת נְקוּבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט וּפְסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת שֶׁטְּרֵפוֹת הָרֵיאָה לְבַדָּהּ הוּא דִשְׁכִיחָא וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי צָרִיךְ לִבְדּוֹק הָרֵיאָה כְּדִלְקַמָּן סִימָן ל"טרעג וּבְמִעוּטָא דְּלֹא שְׁכִיחַ לֹא אָמְרִינָן סְמוֹךְ מִעוּטָא לַחֲזָקָהעדר כְּדִלְעֵיל סִימָן א'.ערה וְאֵין לְהַחֲמִיר בִּסְפֵק נְקוּבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט וּפְסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת יוֹתֵר מִבִּסְפֵק שְׁאָר טְרֵפוֹת אֶלָּא בִּדְאִתְיַלְדָא רֵעוּתָארעו דַּהֲרֵי נְקוּבָה וּפְסוּקָה לְפָנֶיךָ כְּדִלְקַמָּן.רעז אֲבָל בְּשׁוֹחֵט שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁעִקּוּר פּוֹסֵל לֹא שַׁיָּךְ לְמֵיזַל בָּתַר רוּבָּא דְּרֹב בְּהֵמוֹת כְּשֵׁרוֹת וּבְרִיאוֹת בְּטִבְעָם דְּלֹא מְהַנֵּי הַאי טַעְמָא אֶלָּא בְּמִי שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ לְהִזָּהֵר שֶׁלֹּא לַעֲקוֹר בְּכֹחַ דְּלֹא חַיְשִׁינָן שֶׁמָּא נֶעֶקְרוּ מֵעַצְמָן אוֹ עַל יְדֵי אֲחִיזָה בְּקַלּוּת מִשּׁוּם דְּרֹב בְּהֵמוֹת בְּרִיאוֹת בְּטִבְעָן וְאֵין הַסִּימָנִים נֶעֱקָרִים מֵעַצְמָן וְלֹא עַל יְדֵי אֲחִיזָה בְּקַלּוּת. אֲבָל בְּמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ לְהִזָּהֵר דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵיחַשׁ בֵּיהּ שֶׁמָּא עָקַר בְּיָדַיִם לֹא שַׁיָּךְ לְמֵיזַל בָּתַר רוּבָּא אֶלָּא לְאוֹקְמָהּ אַחֶזְקָתָהּ דְּהַעֲמֵד הַסִּימָנִים בְּחֶזְקָתָן שֶׁהָיוּ הַסִּימָנִים שְׁלֵמִים וְלֹא עֲקוּרִים מִתְּחִלָּה וּמוֹקְמִינָן חֶזְקַת אִסּוּר דִּבְהֵמָה לַהֲדֵי חֲזָקָה זוֹרעח וְהָוֵי לָהּ סְפֵיקָא דְאוֹרַיְתָא וּלְחוּמְרָא וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי אָסוּר לֶאֱכוֹל מִשְּׁחִיטָתוֹ. (וְאַף לְרַשִׁ"י כֵּן לְפִי גִּרְסָא שֶׁלָּנוּ בְּפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"ירעט שֶׁלֹּא פֵרֵשׁ בְּהֶדְיָא דְּעִקּוּר הַיְנוּ פְּסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת אֶלָּא הָא דִתְנַן שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֵּשֶׁט וּפָסַק אֶת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת וְרוֹצֶה לוֹמַר שֶׁפְּסָקוֹ וַעֲקָרוֹ מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ. וְלֹא פָלִיג עַל בַּהַ"ג אֶלָּא דְּהָא דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ לְרַשִׁ"ירפ דִּטְרֵפָה מֵחַיִּים נַמִי הָוֵי שֶׁהוּא בִּכְלַל פְּסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת
דִּתְנַן בְּפֶרֶק אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת. וְהַתּוֹסְפוֹתרפא וְהָרַשְׁבָּ"ארפב הָיְתָה גִרְסָתָם בְּפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י שֶׁפֵּרֵשׁ בְּהֶדְיָא דְּעִקּוּר הַיְנוּ פְּסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי הִקְשׁוּ הָרַשְׁבָּ"א וְהָרַ"ןרפג אַמַּאי לֹא קָא חָשִׁיב נַמִי נְקוּבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט וְהַתּוֹסְפוֹת הִקְשׁוּ תֵּימָא כוּ'. עַיֵּן בְּמַה שֶּׁיִּתְבָּאֵר לְקַמָּןרפד נַפְקָא מִנָּהּ לְדִינָא מִכָּל זֶהרפה):
(לו) וְאָנוּ נוֹהֲגִים כוּ'.
פֵּרוּשׁ שֶׁאָנוּ נוֹהֲגִין דְּלֹא כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב הַשֻּׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ אֲבָל אִם שָׁחַט אֶחָד בְּעוֹף אוֹ רֻבּוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשְׁמַט הַשֵּׁנִי כוּ' דְּמַשְׁמַע שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ אִם שָׁחַט גַּם הַסִּימָן הַשֵּׁנִי אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁמַט כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּשְׁמַט אַחַר שְׁחִיטַת רֹב הַסִּימָן הָרִאשׁוֹן וְעוֹף הֶכְשֵׁרוֹ בְּסִימָן אֶחָד שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. וְאֵין אָנוּ נוֹהֲגִים כֵּן אֶלָּא מַטְרִיפִים כָּל עִקּוּר שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט אַחַר שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר אֲפִלּוּ לֹא נִשְׁחַט אֶלָּא מִעוּט בַּתְרָא אַחַר שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר כָּל הַסִּימָן מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ אַחַר שְׁחִיטַת רֻבּוֹ בֵּין בַּקָּנֶה שֶׁהוּא סִימָן הָרִאשׁוֹן בֵּין בַּוֵּשֶׁט שֶׁהוּא סִימָן הַב' וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּעוֹף שֶׁהֶכְשֵׁרוֹ בְּסִימָן אֶחָד וַאֲפִלּוּ הָכִי אִם נֶעֱקַר כָּל הַוֵּשֶׁט מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ אַחַר שְׁחִיטַת רֻבּוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ גָּמַר שְׁחִיטָתוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצָא שֶׁשָּׁחַט מִעוּט בַּתְרָא דְּוֵשֶׁט בְּעִקּוּר סִימָנִים נוֹהֲגִים לְהַטְרִיף. מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר דְּכוּלָא חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא וְאִית בָּהּ עִקּוּר כִּדְפֵרֵשׁ רַשִׁ"ירפו בְּבַעְיָא דְּשָׁהָה אוֹ הֶחְלִיד בְּמִעוּט סִימָנִים דִּלְעֵילרפז (אֲבָל אִם נֶעֱקַר הַקָּנֶה אַחַר שְׁחִיטָתוֹ לִפְנֵי שְׁחִיטַת הַוֵּשֶׁט אֵין לָחוּשׁ כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר לְקַמָּן). וְזֶהוּ שֶׁכָּתַב רְמָ"א כָּל עִקּוּר רוֹצֶה לוֹמַר אֲפִלּוּ מִעוּט בַּתְרָא דְּסִימָן בַּתְרָא וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּעוֹף דַּעֲלֵיהּ קָאֵי וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט בְּעִקּוּר כָּל הַסִּימָן מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת שְׁחִיטַת כָּל הַסִּימָן הוּא בְּעִקּוּר. וְזֶה פָּשׁוּט וּמִשְׁנָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה הִיא שֶׁכֵּן דֶּרֶךְ הַתַּנָּאִים לִשְׁנוֹת הַפָּשׁוּט תְּחִלָּה כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתְבוּ הַתּוֹסְפוֹת בְּכַמָּה דוּכְתֵּירפח וּמִכָּל שֶׁכֵּן הַפּוֹסְקִים שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לְפָרֵשׁ בְּיוֹתֵר.רפט וְעוֹד שֶׁרְמָ"א הֶעְתִּיק לָשׁוֹן זֶה מִשְּׁחִיטַת מַהֲרִ"י וַיְל וּבְמַהֲרִ"י וַיְל כָּתַב תְּחִלָּה עִקּוּר הֵיכִי דָמֵי כְּגוֹן שֶׁשָּׁחַט בְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה שֶׁזֶּהוּ עִקּוּר לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"ירצ לְפִי דַּעַת הַתּוֹסְפוֹתרצא אוֹ שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר הַסִּימָן מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ שֶׁזֶּהוּ עִקּוּר לְכוּלָא עָלְמָארצב וְעַל זֶה כָּתַב שֶׁכָּל עִקּוּר פָּסוּל בֵּין בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא כוּ' וְרוֹצֶה לוֹמַר כָּל עִקּוּר אֲפִלּוּ עִקּוּר דְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה שֶׁשָּׁחַט בִּפְגִימָה זוֹ מִעוּט קַמָּא לְחוֹד אֲפִלּוּ הָכִי פָּסוּל מִשּׁוּם שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ בְּקִיאִים בִּבְדִיקַת הַוֵּשֶׁט וְשֶׁמָּא נָגַע בַּוֵּשֶׁט בִּפְגִימָה זוֹ.רצג וְכֵן אִם שָׁחַט בִּפְגִימָה זוֹ מִעוּט בַּתְרָא לְחוֹד פָּסוּל אֲפִלּוּ בַּקָּנֶה דְּשִׁעוּר פְּסִיקָתוֹ בְּרֻבּוֹ מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא וְאִית בָּהּ עִקּוּר דְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י לְפִי דַּעַת הַתּוֹסְפוֹת שֶׁזֶּהוּ עִקּוּר דְּקָחָשִׁיב שְׁמוּאֵלרצד בְּהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה בַּהֲדֵי דְרָסָה וּשְׁהִיָּה וַחֲלָדָה וְהַגְרָמָה וְהִלְכָּךְ כְּמוֹ דְּפָסוּל בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט בִּשְׁהִיָּה דְּרָסָה חֲלָדָה וְהַגְרָמָה לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"ירצה בְּבַעְיָא דִלְעֵילרצו אֲפִלּוּ בַּקָּנֶה מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא וְאִית בָּהּ עִקּוּר הַפּוֹסְלָהּ לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י לְפִי דַּעַת הַתּוֹסְפוֹת. וְכֵן כָּתַב רַבֵּנוּ יְרוּחָם וְהַטּוּר בָּרְמָזִים. וְכֵן בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט אַחַר שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר כָּל הַסִּימָן מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא וְאִית בָּהּ עִקּוּר דְּהַיְנוּ הַמִּעוּט בַּתְרָא שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט בְּעִקּוּר סִימָנִים שֶׁהִיא הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי שֶׁאֵין שְׁחִיטָה מוֹעֶלֶת בּוֹ דְּהַיְנוּ עִקּוּר כָּל הַסִּימָן בִּדְאִקְלוֹף אִקְלוּפֵי לְפִי דַּעַת הַתּוֹסְפוֹת וְרַמְבַּ"ןרצז אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ רֻבּוֹ בִּדְאִפְרוֹק אִפְרוּקֵי לְפִי דַּעַת הָרַשְׁבָּ"ארחצ דִּלְעֵיל אֲבָל בְּפָחוֹת מִכֵּן לֹא מִקְּרֵי עִקּוּר כְּלָל.
וְהִלְכָּךְ בֵּין מִעוּט קַמָּא בֵּין מִעוּט בַּתְרָא שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר בֵּין לִפְנֵי שְׁחִיטָה בֵּין בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ אַחַר שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר לֵיכָּא לְמֵימַר כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא וְאִית בָּהּ עִקּוּר דְּהָא אֵין בָּהּ שִׁעוּר עִקּוּר הַפּוֹסֵל כְּלָל וְאֵין זֶה עִקּוּר דְּקָחָשִׁיב שְׁמוּאֵלרצט בְּהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה בַּהֲדֵי שְׁהִיָּה דְּרָסָה חֲלָדָה וְהַגְרָמָה. דְּאִם לֹא תֹאמַר הָכִי הֵיכִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵלש תֻּרְבַּץ הַוֵּשֶׁט שֶׁנִּטַּל רֻבּוֹ מִלֶּחִי כָּשֵׁר וּמוֹעֶלֶת בּוֹ שְׁחִיטָה וַאֲפִלּוּ לֹא נִשְׁתַּיֵּר בּוֹ אֶלָּא מַשֶּׁהוּ בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד כְּדִלְעֵילשא וְהָא קָא שָׁחִיט מִעוּט בְּעִקּוּר שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר מִקְצָתוֹ מִכְּבָר. וְאֵין לְחַלֵּק בֵּין מִעוּט בַּתְרָא שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר לִפְנֵי שְׁחִיטָה לְנֶעֱקַר בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה מִשּׁוּם דְּבִשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה יֵשׁ לוֹמַר כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא וְאִית בָּהּ עִקּוּר כְּמוֹ עִקּוּר דְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא. דְּשַׁאֲנִי הָכָא שֶׁמּוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא בְּסַכִּין כְּדֶרֶךְ שְׁחִיטָה אֲבָל בְּעִקּוּר שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר הַסִּימָן מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ כְּדֶרֶךְ שְׁחִיטָה כְּלָל לֵית לָן כְּלָל כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא. דְּהָא בְּהֶדְיָא תַּנְיָאשב נִשְׁחַט הַוֵּשֶׁט וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשְׁמְטָה הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה וְאִי אָמְרִינָן כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא אֲפִלּוּ בְּסִימָן ב' דְּעוֹף אָמְרִינָן הָכִי כְּדִלְעֵיל סִימָן כ"ג.שג אֶלָּא וַדַּאי דְּלֹא אָמְרִינָן דְּהָעִקּוּר דְּסִימָן ב' וּשְׁחִיטַת סִימָן אֶחָד כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא מִשּׁוּם דְּעִקּוּר אֵינוֹ כְּדֶרֶךְ שְׁחִיטָה כְּלָל וְהוּא הַדִּין דְּלֵית לָן דְּהָעִקּוּר דְּעִקּוּר
בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא וּשְׁחִיטַת הָרֹב כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא. וְלֵיכָּא לְמֵימַר אֶלָּא דִּשְׁחִיטַת מִעוּט בַּתְרָא שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט בְּעִקּוּר וּשְׁחִיטַת הָרֹב כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא וּבְזֶה אֵין לְחַלֵּק בֵּין נֶעֱקַר בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה לְנֶעֱקַר לִפְנֵי שְׁחִיטָה דְּמִכָּל מָקוֹם כְּשֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט הָרֹב וְהַמִּעוּט בְּבַת אַחַת כֻּלָּה חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא. וְאִם כֵּן מִדְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל תֻּרְבַּץ שֶׁנִּטַּל רֻבּוֹ מִלֶּחִי כָּשֵׁר וּמוֹעֶלֶת בּוֹ שְׁחִיטָה בְּנֶעֱקַר לִפְנֵי שְׁחִיטָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט הַמִּעוּט בַּתְרָא בְּעִקּוּר שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר מִקְצָתוֹ מִכְּבָר וְלֹא אָמְרִינָן כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא שֶׁהֲרֵי שׁוֹחֵט הָרֹב וְהַמִּעוּט בְּבַת אַחַת מִכְּלָל דִּבְכְהַאַי גַּוְנָא שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ שִׁעוּר עִקּוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי לֹא אִכְפַּת לָן מַאי דְּכֻלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא. וְאִם כֵּן הוּא הַדִּין בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט אַחַר כָּךְ וְאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא לֹא אִכְפַּת לָן כְּלָל הוֹאִיל וְאֵין בּוֹ שִׁעוּר עִקּוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי. וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא דְּקָנֶה שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט אַחַר שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר הַסִּימָן מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ פָּחוֹת מִשִּׁעוּר עִקּוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי. דְּגַם בְּעִקּוּר דְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא דְּקָנֶה אֵין לֶאֱסוֹר מִשּׁוּם דְּכוּלָא חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא אַף לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י בְּבַעְיָא דִלְעֵיל דְּאָמְרִינָן הָכִי בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא לֹא אָמְרִינָן הָכִי מִשּׁוּם דְּלָאו מִדֵּי עָבִיד כִּדְפֵרֵשׁ רַשִׁ"י גַּבֵּי שְׁהִיָּה.דש וְכֵן כָּתַב בְּהֶדְיָא בִּתְשׁוּבַת הָרַשְׁבָּ"א סִימָן שס"ז בְּשֵׁם הָרֹא"שׁ.שה וְהָכִי נַמִי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ לְרַשִׁ"ישו גַּבֵּי הַגְרָמָה לְחַלֵּק בֵּין הִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ וְשָׁחַט ב' שְׁלִישִׁים וּבֵין שָׁחַט ב' שְׁלִישִׁים וְהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ דִּפְסוּלָה מִשּׁוּם דְּכוּלָא חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא וְאִם כֵּן הוּא הַדִּין בִּדְרָסָה חֲלָדָה וְעִקּוּר סְבִירָא לֵיהּ הָכִי. וּמַה שֶּׁאָנוּ נוֹהֲגִים לְהַטְרִיף בְּכֻלָּן בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא דְּקָנֶהשז הוּא מִשּׁוּם שֶׁמָּא נָגַע בַּוֵּשֶׁט. וּבְעִקּוּר לֹא שַׁיָּךְ חֲשָׁשׁ זֶה אֶלָּא בְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה וְלֹא בְּעִקּוּר הַסִּימָן מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ שֶׁאַף שֶׁכְּבָר שָׁחַט בַּוֵּשֶׁט מַאי אִכְפַּת לָן בְּעִקּוּר הַסִּימָן מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ פָּחוֹת מִכְּשִׁעוּר הַפּוֹסֵל. וְאַף אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר טַעַם הַמִּנְהָג לְהַחֲמִיר בְּכֻלָּן לְבַד מִשְּׁהִיָּה הוּא לָחוּשׁ לְפֵרוּשׁ הָרַמְבַּ"םשח בְּבַעְיָא דִלְעֵיל דְּהֶחְלִיד בְּמִעוּט סִימָנִים שֶׁהוּא בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא וּמִשּׁוּם דְּכֻלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא. מִכָּל מָקוֹם הָא בְּהַגְרָמָה מוֹדֶה הָרַמְבַּ"םשט דְּלֵית לָן הָכִי מִשּׁוּם דְּלָאו מְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה הִיא כְּדִלְעֵיל. וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן בְּעִקּוּר מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ דְּלֵית לָן שֶׁהָעִקּוּר וְהַשְּׁחִיטָה כֻּלָּהּ
חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא.שי וְלֵית לָן אֶלָּא דְּהַמִּעוּט הַנִּשְׁחָט בְּעִקּוּר כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא עִם הָרֹב וְהָא לֹא אִכְפַּת לָן אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁנִּשְׁחַט בְּעִקּוּר כָּל הַסִּימָן מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ שֶׁזֶּהוּ שִׁעוּר הַפּוֹסֵל וְלֹא כְּשֶׁנִּשְׁחַט בְּעִקּוּר פָּחוֹת מִכְּשִׁעוּר הַפּוֹסֵל. כִּדְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵלשיא תֻּרְבַּץ שֶׁנִּטַּל רֻבּוֹ מִלֶּחִי כָּשֵׁר וּמוֹעֶלֶת בּוֹ שְׁחִיטָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט מִעוּט קַמָּא וּבַתְרָא בְּעִקּוּר שֶׁנֶּעֶקְרוּ מִכְּבָר. אֶלָּא בְּעִקּוּר דְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה הוּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹמַר כֵּן שֶׁטַּעַם הַמִּנְהָג לְהַחֲמִיר אֲפִלּוּ בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא דְּקָנֶה אֵינוֹ מִשּׁוּם חֲשָׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא נָגַע בַּוֵּשֶׁט בִּלְבָד אֶלָּא לָחוּשׁ לְפֵרוּשׁ הָרַמְבַּ"ם בְּבַעְיָא דִלְעֵיל שֶׁהִיא בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא וּמְסַפְּקָא לָן דִּלְמָא כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה כְּמוֹ גַּבֵּי חֲלָדָה וּדְרָסָה וְהוּא הַדִּין עִקּוּר דְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י לְפִי דַּעַת הַתּוֹסְפוֹת שֶׁזֶּהוּ עִקּוּר דְּקָחָשִׁיב בְּהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה בַּהֲדֵי שְׁהִיָּה דְּרָסָה כוּ' (וְזוֹ שְׁאֵלָה שֶׁשָּׁאַל הָרֹא"שׁ מֵהָרַשְׁבָּ"א בִּתְשׁוּבַת הָרַשְׁבָּ"א סִימָן שס"זשיב). וְאַף עַל גַּב דִּלְהָרַמְבַּ"ם גּוּפֵיהּ דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּשיג דְּעִקּוּר הוּא כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתְבוּ הַתּוֹסְפוֹתשיד בְּשֵׁם בַּהַ"גשטו יֵשׁ לוֹמַר דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ דְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה אֵינָהּ מֵהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ שׁוֹחֵטשטז אֶלָּא קוֹרֵעַ וְחוֹנֵק כְּדִתְנַן בְּפֶרֶק קַמָּאשיז וְלֵית לָן כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא. וְתֵדַע דִּלְהָרַמְבַּ"ם סַכִּין פְּגוּמָה אֵינוֹ מֵהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה וְלֹא דָמֵי כְּלָל לִדְרָסָה וַחֲלָדָה דְּהָא בִּדְרָסָה וַחֲלָדָה אִבַּעְיָא לָן לְפֵרוּשׁ הָרַמְבַּ"ם דִּלְמָא הָכִי אַגְמְרֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לְמֹשֶׁה לֹא תִשְׁחוֹט רוּבָּא בִּדְרָסָה וַחֲלָדָה אֲבָל מִעוּטָא שָׁרֵי אֲפִלּוּ בַּוֵּשֶׁטשיח וּבְסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה לֵיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁהַפְּגִימָה אֵינָהּ פּוֹסֶלֶת בַּוֵּשֶׁט אֲפִלּוּ בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהַפְּגַם הוּא קוֹרֵעַ וְנוֹקֵב וְלֹא שׁוֹחֵט וְאֵינוֹ מֵהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה וּנְקוּבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ. מִכָּל מָקוֹם בְּטַעַם הַמִּנְהָג יֵשׁ לוֹמַר מִשּׁוּם דְּנָקְטִינָן בְּתַרְוַיְהוּ לְחוּמְרָא.שיט וְאֵיךְ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה טַעַם הַמִּנְהָג לְהַחֲמִיר בְּעִקּוּר בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא דְּקָנֶה בֵּין מִשּׁוּם שֶׁמָּא נָגַע בַּוֵּשֶׁט בֵּין כְּדֵי לָחוּשׁ לְפֵרוּשׁ הָרַמְבַּ"ם וּלְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י לְפִי דַּעַת הַתּוֹסְפוֹת עַל כָּל פָּנִים בְּעִקּוּר הַסִּימָן מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ לֹא מְהַנֵּי הַנֵּי טַעְמֵי לֶאֱסוֹר בְּפָחוֹת מִשִּׁעוּר עִקּוּר הַפּוֹסֵל אַף אִם נֶעֱקַר כֵּן בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה. וְאַף עַל גַּב דִּבְשֻׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ סִימָן זֶה לֹא הֻזְכַּר כְּלָל עִקּוּר דְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה.שכ לֹא רָצָה רְמָ"א
לְשַׁנּוֹת לְשׁוֹן מַהֲרִי"ו בֵּין בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא כֵּיוָן דְּאָתֵי שַׁפִּיר גַּם בְּעִקּוּר הַסִּימָן מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ כְּדִלְעֵיל.שכא וְתֵדַע שֶׁהֲרֵי מַהֲרִי"ו כָּתַב תְּחִלָּה גַּם עִקּוּר הַסִּימָן מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ וַאֲפִלּוּ הָכִי סִיֵּם אַחַר כָּךְ בְּלָשׁוֹן זֶה וְכָל עִקּוּר פָּסוּל בֵּין בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא כוּ'. כֵּן דַּעַת הַטַּ"זשכב בְּפֵרוּשׁ לְשׁוֹן רְמָ"א. וְכֵן דַּעַת הַתְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹרשכג לַהֲלָכָה. דְּלֹא כְּשַׁ"ךְשכד דְּפֵרֵשׁ דְּמַה שֶּׁכָּתַב רְמָ"א כָּל עִקּוּר שֶׁרוֹצֶה לוֹמַר אֲפִלּוּ בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ דְּמִעוּט קַמָּא שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה וְכֵן מַשֶּׁהוּ דְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ. וְטַעַם הַמִּנְהָג בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא פֵּרֵשׁ הַשַּׁ"ךְ מִשּׁוּם שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ בְּקִיאִין בִּבְדִיקַת הַוֵּשֶׁט וְשֶׁמָּא נָגַע בַּוֵּשֶׁט. דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ לְהַשַּׁ"ךְ דִּלְמִנְהָגֵנוּ שֶׁמַּחְמִירִים כְּפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י בְּבַעְיָא דִלְעֵיל שֶׁהִיא בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא דל"לשכה כֻּלָּה חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא אֲבָל בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא לָאו מִדֵּי עָבִיד כִּדְפֵרֵשׁ רַשִׁ"י שָׁםשכו הַיְנוּ דַּוְקָא כְּשֶׁלֹּא נָגַע עֲדַיִן בַּוֵּשֶׁט אֲבָל כְּשֶׁנָּגַע כְּבָר בַּוֵּשֶׁט שֶׁנְּקוּבָתוֹ בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ תּוּ לֵיכָּא לְמֵימַר לָאו מִדֵּי עָבִיד דְּהָא בִּנְקוּבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט נַעֲשֵׂית נְבֵילָהשכז שֶׁאֵין שְׁחִיטָה מוֹעֶלֶת בָּהּ כְּמוֹ בִּפְסוּקַת רֹב הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת.שכח וְאִם כֵּן כִּי הֵיכִי דְּבִפְסוּקַת רֹב הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת לֹא אָמְרִינָן לָאו מִדֵּי עָבִיד בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט בְּפִסּוּל אֶלָּא אָמְרִינָן כּוּלָא חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא וְאִית בָּהּ פְּסוּל הָכִי נַמִי לֵיכָּא לְמֵימַר לָאו מִדֵּי עָבִיד בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא דְּקָנֶה שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט בְּפִסּוּל אַחַר שֶׁנִּקַּב הַוֵּשֶׁט כְּבָר אֶלָּא אָמְרִינָן כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא וְאִית בָּהּ פְּסוּל. אֶלָּא דִּפְסוּל דִּשְׁהִיָּה דְּרָסָה וַחֲלָדָה וְהַגְרָמָה לֵיכָּא נַפְקָא מִנָּהּ דְּתֵיפוֹק לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם פְּסוּל דְּוֵשֶׁט עַצְמוֹ אֶלָּא נַפְקָא מִנָּהּ בְּעִקּוּר לְחוּדֵיהּ שֶׁאִם נֶעֱקַר מִעוּט קַמָּא דְּקָנֶה מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה אַחַר שֶׁנָּגַע בַּוֵּשֶׁט אָמְרִינָן דְּכֻלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא וְאִית בָּהּ עִקּוּר כוּ' כְּמוֹ בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא. וְהָא דְּקָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל תֻּרְבַּץ שֶׁנִּטַּל רֻבּוֹ מִלֶּחִי כָּשֵׁר הַיְנוּ שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה אֲבָל בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה אֲפִלּוּ בְּעִקּוּר מַשֶּׁהוּ יֵשׁ לוֹמַר דְּהָעִקּוּר וְהַשְּׁחִיטָה כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא. וְהָא דְתַנְיָא נִשְׁחַט הַוֵּשֶׁט וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשְׁמְטָה הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת כְּשֵׁרָה הַיְנוּ דַוְקָא בְּנִשְׁמְטָה מֵאֵלֶיהָ דְּלֵיכָּא לְמֵימַר כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא כֵּיוָן דְּלָאו מִדֵּי עָבִיד מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּעִקּוּר דְּיָדַיִם דְּלֵיכָּא לְמֵימַר לָאו מִדֵּי עָבִיד יֵשׁ לוֹמַר כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא (וְזֶהוּ
דַּעַת מַהֲרַ"ץ בְּהַגָּהוֹת שְׁחִיטוֹתשכט הוּבָא בְּדַרְכֵי מֹשֶׁהשל). וְכֵן הוּא בְּהֶדְיָא בְּהַגָּהוֹת שְׁחִיטוֹת מַהֲרִי"ושלא לְחַלֵּק בְּזֶה בֵּין עִקּוּר לִשְׁמוּטָה דְּאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה. אִי נַמִי יֵשׁ לוֹמַר דְּהָא דְּנוֹהֲגִים לְהַטְרִיף כָּל עִקּוּר אֲפִלּוּ בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה הַיְנוּ בְּעִקּוּר שֶׁעַל יְדֵי דְּחִיקַת הַסַּכִּין בְּסִימָנִים דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא מֵאַחַר שֶׁנַּעֲשֶׂה עַל יְדֵי הַסַּכִּין כַּמַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהֵבִיא בְּדַרְכֵי מֹשֶׁה בְּשֵׁם מַהֲרַ"ץ בְּשֵׁם מַהֲרִי"לשלב שֶׁנִּמְצָא מִקְצָת טַבַּעַת עַל הַסַּכִּין כְּדִלְקַמָּן סְעִיף י"ט.שלג אֲבָל בִּשְׁמוּטָה דִּמְמֵילָא אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ בְּעִקּוּר בְּיָדַיִם שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּדֶרֶךְ שְׁחִיטָה כְּלָל לֵיכָּא לְמֵימַר כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא. כְּמוֹ בְּנִקַּב הַוֵּשֶׁט בְּיָדַיִם בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה דִּלְקַמָּן סִימָן כ"ו כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב שָׁםשלד בְּשֵׁם הַשַּׁ"ךְשלה שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּן שָׁם לִשְׁנֵי חִלּוּקִים אֵלּוּ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְחַלֵּק בֵּין עִקּוּר לִשְׁמוּטָה. אֲבָל מִסְּתִימַת רְמָ"א כַּאן וּשְׁאָר אַחֲרוֹנִים מְבֹאָר דְּעִקּוּר וּשְׁמוּטָה חֲדָא מִלְּתָא הִיא לְגַמְרֵי וְאֵין חִלּוּק בֵּינֵיהֶם לְדִינָא כְּלָל. וּכְדַעַת הַטַּ"זשלו שֶׁחָלַק עַל הַגָּהוֹת שְׁחִיטַת מַהֲרִי"ו שֶׁחִלְּקוּ בֵּינֵיהֶם. וְכֵן עִקָּר. דְּלֹא כְּשַׁ"ךְ בֵּין בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא בֵּין בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא (וְכֵן מַשְׁמַע בְּהֶדְיָא בְּתוֹרַת הַבַּיִת הָאָרֹךְשלז דְּאַף רַשִׁ"י מוֹדֶה בְּעִקּוּר שֶׁאֵינוֹ דֶּרֶךְ שְׁחִיטָה דְּלֹא דָמֵי לְבַעְיָא דִלְעֵיל דִּמְסַפְּקָא לָן דִּלְמָא כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא. וְהִלְכָּךְ הָעִקָּר כְּהַטַּ"זשלח). וְאַף לְפִי מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב לְעֵילשלט בְּשֵׁם הַתְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹרשמ לָחוּשׁ לְדַעַת הָרַשְׁבָּ"אשמא שֶׁפָּסַק כְּמַאן דְּאָמַרשמב הִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ וְשָׁחַט ב' שְׁלִישִׁים פְּסוּלָה דִּבְעִינָן כֻּלָּהּ מִפַּק חַיּוּתָא בִּמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ דְּנָפַק שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה פְּסוּלָה. וּבְעִקּוּר מִעוּט קַמָּא מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ כֵּיוָן דִּבְכֻלּוֹ אִיכָּא כֻּלָּהּ מִפַּק חַיּוּתָא וּטְרֵפָה לְפִי דַּעַת רַשִׁ"י וְרַמְבַּ"ןשמג אִם כֵּן בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ אִיכָּא מַשֶּׁהוּ דְּמִפַּק חַיּוּתָא כְּמוֹ בִּפְסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת דְּמִטַּרְפָא בְּרוּבָּא וַאֲפִלּוּ הָכִי בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ אִיכָּא מַשֶּׁהוּ דְּמִפַּק חַיּוּתָא. מִכָּל מָקוֹם בִּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא יֵשׁ לִסְמוֹךְ אֲפִלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּהשדמ אַהַכְרָעַת רְמָ"א דִּלְקַמָּן דִּבְחַיֶּיהָ כָּשֵׁרשמה וְלֵיכָּא מִפַּק חַיּוּתָא כְּלָל אֲפִלּוּ בְּכֻלּוֹ. אֲבָל מִשּׁוּם
דְּהָרַשְׁבָּ"א גוּפֵיהּ סְבִירָא לֵיהּ דִּבְחַיִּים כָּשֵׁר וְרַשִׁ"י דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ טְרֵפָה לֹא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר הִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ פְּסוּלָה הַאי טַעְמָא לֹא מְהַנֵּי לְהָקֵל בִּדְאוֹרַיְתָא כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב בִּכְלָלֵי הַהוֹרָאָה.שמו הִלְכָּךְ בַּעַל נֶפֶשׁ יַחְמִיר לְעַצְמוֹשמז בְּמִעוּט קַמָּאשמח אֲפִלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה. וְכֵן בְּנֶעֱקַר כָּל הַסִּימָן אַחַר שְׁחִיטַת רֹב הַסִּימָן הָרִאשׁוֹן לִפְנֵי שְׁחִיטַת סִימָן ב' בִּבְהֵמָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִנִּיחַ וְלֹא שָׁחַט כְּלָל מִעוּט בַּתְרָא דְּקַמָּא שֶׁאֵין לְהַחֲמִיר לַאֲחֵרִים מִשּׁוּם עִקּוּר בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא שְׁחָטוֹ כְּלָל וּמִשּׁוּם שֶׁשָּׁחַט סִימָן הַב' בְּעִקּוּר סִימָן הָא' אֵין לָחוּשׁ כֵּיוָן שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר אַחַר שְׁחִיטַת רֻבּוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְקַמָּן.שמט אַף עַל פִּי כֵן בַּעַל נֶפֶשׁ יַחְמִיר לְעַצְמוֹ לָחוּשׁ לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י וְרַמְבַּ"ןשנ דְּעִקּוּר טְרֵפָה הָוְיָא וּלְהָאוֹסְרִים בְּנוֹלְדוּ סִימָנֵי טְרֵפָה בֵּין סִימָן לְסִימָן אַף אִם נוֹלְדוּ בְּסִימָן עַצְמוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְקַמָּן סִימָן כ"ו.שנא אַף עַל גַּב דְּמִדִּינָא יֵשׁ לִסְמוֹךְ בִּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא אַהַכְרָעַת רְמָ"א דְּעִקּוּר אֵינוֹ טְרֵפָה מֵאַחַר דִּבְלָאו הָכִי יֵשׁ חוֹלְקִין עַל הָאוֹסְרִים דִּלְקַמָּן שָׁם וְגַם הָאוֹסְרִים אֵינָם אוֹסְרִים אֶלָּא מִסָּפֵק כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב שָׁם. וְכֵן בְּעִקּוּר דְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא דְּקָנֶה וְתָפַשׂ אֶת הַקָּנֶה לְבַדּוֹ בְּיָדוֹ דְּלֵיכָא לְמֵיחַשׁ לִנְקוּבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט כְּדִלְעֵיל סִימָן כ"ג.שנב אַף עַל פִּי כֵן כָּל בַּעַל נֶפֶשׁ יַחְמִיר לְעַצְמוֹ לָחוּשׁ לְפֵרוּשׁ הָרַמְבַּ"םשנג בְּבַעְיָא דִלְעֵילשנד שֶׁהִיא בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא וּמְסַפְּקָא לָן אִי אָמְרִינָן כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא וּלְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י לְפִי דַּעַת הַתּוֹסְפוֹתשנה דְּעִקּוּר דְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה הוּא מֵהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה וְאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר בֵּיהּ כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא.שנו אֲבָל מִדִּינָא אֵין לָחוּשׁ. שֶׁאַף שֶׁהַבֵּית יוֹסֵף בְּשֻׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ פָּסַק כְּהָרַמְבַּ"ם מִכָּל מָקוֹם כֵּיוָן שֶׁרַבּוּ הַחוֹלְקִים עַל פֵּרוּשׁ הָרַמְבַּ"ם וְגַם לְפֵרוּשׁ הָרַמְבַּ"ם אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא סָפֵקשנז פְּשִׁיטָא דְּבִכְהַאי גַּוְנָא יֵשׁ לִסְמוֹךְ אֲפִלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה אַהַכְרָעַת רְמָ"א דִּלְקַמָּן כְּפֵרוּשׁ בַּהַ"ג דְּעִקּוּר מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ הוּא מֵהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה דְּלֹא כְּפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י לְפִי דַּעַת הַתּוֹסְפוֹת דְּעִקּוּר הוּא סַכִּין פְּגוּמָה.שנח שֶׁהֲרֵי כָּתַב רְמָ"א דִּבְחַיִּים כָּשֵׁר.שנט
וְאִם כֵּן הָא דְמַתְקִיף רַב פָּפָּאשס אַהָא דְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל תֻּרְבַּץ שֶׁנִּטַּל כֻּלּוֹ מִלֶּחִי כָּשֵׁר וְהָא אִיכָּא עִקּוּר סִימָנִים כְּדִלְעֵיל עַל כָּרְחָךְ מִשּׁוּם דְּעִקּוּר שֶׁהוּא מֵהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה הוּא עִקּוּר מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתְבוּ הַתּוֹסְפוֹת בְּשֵׁם בַּהַ"ג. וּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ לִרְמָ"א שֶׁכֵּן עִקָּר לְפִי שֶׁכֵּן דַּעַת הַתּוֹסְפוֹת רֵישׁ פֶּרֶק אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת וְהָרַשְׁבָּ"א וְהָרַ"ןשסא וְהָרֹא"שׁשסב וּשְׁאָר פּוֹסְקִים וַהֲלָכָה כְּבַתְרָאֵי. וְסָמַךְ רְמָ"א עַל זֶה לְהַתִּיר הֶחָלָב וְהַבֵּיצִיםשסג דְּאִסּוּר מִדְּאוֹרַיְתָא הוּא.שסד וְהָא דְמַחְמִירִינָן בְּעִקּוּר דְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב בְּמַהֲרִ"י וַיְלשסה וְהַיְנוּ לָחוּשׁ לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י לְפִי דַּעַת הַתּוֹסְפוֹת דְּעִקּוּר דְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה הוּא מֵהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה וְיֵשׁ לוֹמַר בּוֹ כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא. הַיְנוּ מִשּׁוּם דִּבְהֵמָה בְּחֶזְקַת אִסּוּר עוֹמֶדֶתשסו מִשּׁוּם הָכִי נוֹהֲגִים כָּל הַחֻמְרוֹת גַּבֵּי שְׁחִיטָה וְהֵיכָא דְּנָהוּג נָהוּג וְהָבוּ דְּלָא לוֹסִיף עֲלָהּ לֶאֱסוֹר הֶחָלָב וְהַבֵּיצִים שֶׁאֵינָן בְּחֶזְקַת אִסּוּר.שסז אוֹ אֶפְשָׁר דִּרְמָ"א לֹא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ לְהַחֲמִיר גַּם בְּעִקּוּר דְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא הֵבִיא לְחוּמְרָא זוֹ בְּהַגָּהוֹתָיו וְלֹא בְּדַרְכֵי מֹשֶׁה.שסח וְהָא דְּלֹא כָתַב לְהַחֲמִיר בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא מִשּׁוּם חֲשַׁשׁ נְקוּבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט הַיְנוּ מִשּׁוּם דִּבְמִעוּט קַמָּא עַל כָּרְחָךְ מַיְרִי שֶׁהִגְבִּיהַּ יָדוֹ מִן הַצַּוָּאר וְרָאָה שֶׁלֹּא שָׁחַט אֶלָּא מִעוּט הַקָּנֶה בִּלְבָד וְאַחַר כָּךְ גָּמַר שְׁחִיטָתוֹ בְּסַכִּין יָפֶה וְאִם כֵּן תֵּיפוֹק לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם שְׁהִיָּה דַאֲסוּרָה מִשּׁוּם חֲשַׁשׁ נְקוּבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט. אֲבָל בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא נַפְקָא מִנָּהּ אִם אֵין עִקּוּר דְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה פּוֹסֵל בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא מִשּׁוּם דְּלָאו שְׁחִיטָה הִיא כְּלָל וְלֵית לָן כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא אִם כֵּן מֻתָּר מִעוּט בַּתְרָא בְּמַגָּל וְכַיּוֹצֵא בוֹ שֶׁכֻּלּוֹ פָּגוּם וְאֵין בּוֹ שְׁחִיטָה כְּלָל. וְאֵין בְּזֶה גַּם כֵּן מִשּׁוּם שְׁהִיָּה דִּשְׁהִיָּה אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁשּׁוֹהֶה בִּשְׁחִיטָה אֲבָל זֶה פָּסַק מִלִּשְׁחוֹט. אֲבָל בְּקַרְדֹּם אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם דְּבֵין פְּגַם לִפְגַם יֵשׁ רֶוַח מַשֶּׁהוּ. אֲבָל אִם עִקּוּר דְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה פּוֹסֵל בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא אֲפִלּוּ בְּמַגָּל אָסוּר אֲפִלּוּ בְּדִיעֲבַד.שסט וּבֶאֱמֶת דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מָצוּי הוּא לַחְתּוֹךְ מִעוּט בַּתְרָא בְּמַגָּל וְכַיּוֹצֵא בוֹ (דַּוְקָא) וּבְדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מָצוּי לֹא שַׁיָּךְ מִנְהָג כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב הָרַמְבַּ"ם סוֹף פֶּרֶק י"אשע וְאִם כֵּן מוֹקְמִינָן לֵיהּ אַדִּינָא וּמִדִּינָא וַדַּאי דְּאֵין לֶאֱסוֹר בְּדִיעֲבַד מֵאַחַר שֶׁהָעִקָּר הוּא כְּפֵרוּשׁ הַתּוֹסְפוֹת בְּשֵׁם בַּהַ"ג דְּעִקּוּר שֶׁבְּהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה הוּא עִקּוּר מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ. וְעוֹד שֶׁלְּפִי דַּעַת הָרַשְׁבָּ"א וְהָרַ"ןשעא אַף לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י אֵינוֹ עִקּוּר דְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה (וְכֵן הוּא בְּהֶדְיָא בִּתְשׁוּבַת הָרַשְׁבָּ"א סִימָן שס"ז דְּאַף לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י אֵין לְהַחֲמִיר כְּלָל בְּעִקּוּר דְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא). וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן לְגִרְסָא שֶׁלָּנוּ בְּפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י כְּדִלְעֵיל.שעב וְאַף לְפִי דַּעַת הַתּוֹסְפוֹת בְּפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא סָפֵק.שעג וּלְפִי דַּעַת הָרַשְׁבָּ"אשעד וְהָרַ"ן הוּא סָפֵק דְּרַבָּנָן וְכֵן הוּא בְּמַהֲרֵ"י וַיְל כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְעֵיל סִימָן כ"גשעה וְהִלְכָּךְ בְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה וּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא הַמֵּקֵל לֹא הִפְסִיד:
(לז) וְדַוְקָא כוּ'.
אַדִּלְעֵיל קָאֵי. וְלֹא קָאֵי דַוְקָא אַדְּסָמוּךְ לֵיהּ דְּהַיְנוּ עִקּוּר בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא אַף לְפֵרוּשׁ הַשַּׁ"ךְשעו דְּהַיְנוּ מִעוּט קַמָּא שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר דְּאֵין אִסּוּר מִדִּינָא אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ בְּקִיאִין בִּבְדִיקַת הַוֵּשֶׁט. אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ הֵיכָא דְּמִדִּינָא הַבְּהֵמָה אֲסוּרָה אֲפִלּוּ הָכִי חֲלָבָהּ כָּשֵׁר (שַׁ"ךְשעז):
(לח) כְּשֵׁרוֹת.
וְלֹא דָמֵי לְדִלְעֵיל סִימָן י"דשעח דִּמְסַפְּקָא לָן בִּגְמָרָאשעט דִּלְמָא לָא שָׁרֵי לָן רַחֲמָנָא דְּאָתֵי מֵאֵבֶר מִן הַחַי אֶלָּא הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא תַּקַּנְתָּא לְאִסּוּרֵיהּ בִּשְׁחִיטָה וְלֹא הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא לְאִסּוּרֵיהּ תַּקַּנְתָּא בִּשְׁחִיטָה.שפ דְּשַׁאֲנִי הָתָם דְּלֵיכָּא תַּקַּנְתָּא בִּשְׁחִיטָה עוֹלָמִית אֲבָל הָכָא כֵּיוָן דְּבַחַיִּים כָּשֵׁר וְאֵינָהּ טְרֵפָה מִשּׁוּם דַּהֲדַר בָּרְיָא וּמִתְרַפֵּא אִם כֵּן יֵשׁ לוֹ תַּקָּנָה בִּשְׁחִיטָה לִכְשֶׁיִּתְרַפֵּא כִּמְבֹאָר מִלְּשׁוֹן הַתּוֹסְפוֹת דַּף מ"דשפא עַיֵּן שָׁם. וּמִיהוּ בְּלָאו הָכִי נַמִי יֵשׁ לוֹמַר דְּלֹא דָמֵי לְהָתָם כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתְבוּ הָאַחֲרוֹנִים עַיֵּן שָׁם.שפב וּמִיהוּ בִּדְאִפְרוֹק אִפְרוּקֵי יֵשׁ לָחוּשׁ לְהַחֲמִיר לְדַעַת הַתּוֹסְפוֹתשפג וְסִיעָתָם דִּטְרֵפָה מֵחַיִּים הָוְיָא (שַׁ"ךְשפד). וְהַפְּרִי חָדָשׁשפה וְהַתְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹרשפו כָּתְבוּ לְהַחֲמִיר אֲפִלּוּ בִּדְאִקְלוֹף אִקְלוּפֵי לָחוּשׁ לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י וְרַמְבַּ"ןשפז וְכֵן דַּעַת הָרִי"ףשפח וְהָרַמְבַּ"ם.שפט וְכֵן דַּעַת הָרְאָ"ה בְּבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת.שצ וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם בְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה אֵין לְהַחֲמִיר בְּזֶה לַאֲחֵרִים נֶגֶד רְמָ"א וּשְׁאָר אַחֲרוֹנִים אֶלָּא כָּל בַּעַל נֶפֶשׁ יַחְמִיר לְעַצְמוֹ:
What is meant by ikur? For example, [the shochet began to slaughter and] the windpipe or the gullet were uprooted from the jawbone and the flesh (32) and one or both ofthem became detached [from their place] (33) before the completion of the slaughter. (34) [This disqualifies an animal.]
However, if, when a fowl is slaughtered, one of [the simanim] – or even the larger portion of one [siman] – was slit [in the proper manner] and afterwards, the second [siman] was detached [from its place], the slaughter is kosher. If one [siman] was detached [from its place] and afterwards, [the shochet] slit the second [siman in a proper manner], the slaughter is invalid. (35)
Note: Our custom (36) is to disqualify every form of ikur whenever either the windpipe or the gullet was uprooted from its place – whether initially, [when slitting] the lesser portion of the siman, or [when slitting] the lesser portion after the larger portion was slit – [the animal is deemed] tereifah; ([this custom is] based on [the rulings of] Rav Yaakov Weil). [However,] it applies specifically (37) after [the animal] was slaughtered. However, during its lifetime, [an animal or fowl whose windpipe or gullet was uprooted from its place] is kosher; it is only that ritual slaughter is not effective [so as to enable the siman to become permitted.] The practical result [of the latter ruling] is that the milk or eggs from such [an animal or fowl] are kosher (38) (Beis Yosef, citing a responsum of Rashba).
טועִקּוּר כֵּיצַד, כְּגוֹן שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר הַקָּנֶה אוֹ הַוֵּשֶׁט מֵהַלֶּחִי וּמֵהַבָּשָׂר, (לב) וְנִשְׁמַט (לג) אֶחָד מֵהֶם אוֹ שְׁנֵיהֶם קֹדֶם גְּמַר שְׁחִיטָה. (לד) אֲבָל אִם שָׁחַט אֶחָד בְּעוֹף אוֹ רֻבּוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשְׁמַט הַשֵּׁנִי, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. נִשְׁמַט אֶחָד מֵהֶם וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה. (לה)הַגָּה: וְאָנוּ נוֹהֲגִין (לו) לְהַטְרִיף כָּל עִקּוּר בֵּין בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא בֵּין בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא, בֵּין בַּקָּנֶה בֵּין בַּוֵּשֶׁט (עַל פִּי מהרי״ו); וְדַוְקָא (לז) לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט, אֲבָל בְּחַיָּיו כָּשֵׁר אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין שְׁחִיטָה מוֹעֶלֶת בּוֹ, וְנַפְקָא מִנָּהּ לְעִנְיַן חֲלָבוֹ אוֹ בֵּיצִים שֶׁלּוֹ שֶׁהֵם כְּשֵׁרוֹת (לח) (בֵּית יוֹסֵף מִתְּשׁוּבַת רַשְׁבָּ״א).
וְנִרְאֶה לִי דִּכְשֶׁהוּא מִתְפָּרֵק בִּמְקוֹמוֹת רַבִּים הַדָּבָר נִכָּר שֶׁנִּתְפָּרֵק בְּכֹחַ וּמַה שֶּׁנִּשְׁאָר מְחֻבָּר חִבּוּר מְדֻלְדָּל הוּא אֲבָל כְּשֶׁנִּתְפָּרֵק בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד אוֹתוֹ הַמִּעוּט נִשְׁאָר בְּחִבּוּרוֹ בְּחֹזֶק כְּשֶׁהָיָה הִלְכָּךְ הָוֵי חִבּוּר וַהֲדַר בָּרְיָא עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ (וּמַה שֶׁכָּתַב וַהֲדַר בָּרְיָא הַיְנוּ לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"ירב אֲבָל הָרַשְׁבָּ"א גוּפֵיהּ לֹא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ הָכִי כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְקַמָּןרג). אֲבָל הַבַּ"ח סִימָן ל"גרד כָּתַב דִּלְמַסְקָנָא דְּאָמְרִינָן לָא תֵימָא כֻּלּוֹ אֶלָּא רֻבּוֹ אִם כֵּן הָא דְאָמְרִינָן וְתַנָּא תּוּנָא נִטַּל לֶחִי הַתַּחְתּוֹן כָּשֵׁר מוּקְמָא מַתְנִיתִין בְּרוּבָּא דַוְקָא וְלֹא מִפְלְגִינָן בֵּין אִעֲקוּר אִעֲקוּרֵי לְאִגּוּם אִגּוֹמֵי אֶלָּא אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִגּוּם הַלֶּחִי מֵעִלָּוֵי סִימָנִים וְהַסִּימָנִים מְעֹרִים בַּבָּשָׂר לֹא מַכְשְׁרִינָן אֶלָּא בְּרוּבָּא דַוְקָא אֲבָל בְּכֻלָּהּ הֲוָה לֵיהּ עִקּוּר וְהוּא הַדִּין אִם נִתְלַשׁ הַסִּימָן עִם הַבָּשָׂר מֵהַלֶּחִי דְּלֹא כְּשֻׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ.רה וְהַשַּׁ"ךְרו סָתַם לְהָקֵל כְּהַשֻּׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ וְלֹא הֵבִיא דַּעַת הַבַּ"ח כְּלָל. וְכֵן דַּעַת רֹב הָאַחֲרוֹנִים. אֲבָל הַטַּ"זרז הֵבִיא חֻמְרַת הַבַּ"ח. וְכֵן פָּסַק הַתְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹר.רח וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם בְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה אֶפְשָׁר לִסְמוֹךְ עַל רֹב הָאַחֲרוֹנִים. וּמַה שֶּׁכָּתַב הַשֻּׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר הַקָּנֶה וְעַל זֶה
כָּתַב בִּסְעִיף ט"ז שֶׁאִם נִשְׁתַּיֵּר מַשֶּׁהוּ כָּשֵׁר אַף עַל גַּב דִּשְׁמוּאֵל לֹא קָאָמַר אֶלָּא תֻּרְבַּץ הַוֵּשֶׁט שֶׁנִּטַּל רֻבּוֹ כָּשֵׁר הַיְנוּ מִשּׁוּם דִּרְבוּתָא אַשְׁמוֹעִינָן דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּוֵשֶׁט נְקוּבָתוֹ בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ אֲפִלּוּ הָכִי בְּנִטַּל מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ אֵינוֹ כְּנָקוּב וְלֹא כְּפָסוּק אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ בְּרֻבּוֹ כָּשֵׁר וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן בַּקָּנֶה.רט וְהַתּוֹסְפוֹתרי בְּשֵׁם רַבֵּנוּ חֲנַנְאֵל פֵּרְשׁוּ הָא דְּאִפְרוֹק אִפְרוּקֵי לֹא כְּפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר בְּכֹחַ מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּפְרְדוּ הַסִּימָנִים זֶה מִזֶּה בְּרֹב שִׁעוּר אָרְכָּן. וְהַשֻּׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ פָּסַק כְּב' הַפֵּרוּשִׁים לְהַחֲמִיר בְּשֶׁל תּוֹרָה וְלָכֵן פָּסַק כַּאן בִּסְ[עִיף] ט"ז כְּפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י וּלְקַמָּן סִימָן ל"גריא כְּפֵרוּשׁ רַבֵּנוּ חֲנַנְאֵל:
וְהָא דִשְׁמוּאֵל גּוּפֵיהּ קָחָשִׁיברל עִקּוּר בְּהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה בַּהֲדֵי שְׁהִיָּה דְּרָסָה כוּ' כְּדִלְעֵיל בְּשֻׁלְחָן עָרוּךְרלא סְעִיף א' כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְעֵיל סִימָן א'.רלב הַיְנוּ לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין שְׁחִיטָה זוֹ מוֹעֶלֶת כְּלוּם וַהֲרֵי זוֹ גַּם נְבֵלָה לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה כְּמוֹ בִּשְׁהִיָּה דְּרָסָה וְאִינָךְ וְלֹא כִּטְרֵפָה שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה. אֲבָל מִכָּל מָקוֹם מֵחַיִּים נַמִי טְרֵפָה הָוְיָא כְּשֶׁנֶּעֱקַר הַסִּימָן מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ כְּמוֹ בְּגַרְגֶּרֶת עַצְמָהּ שֶׁנִּפְסְקָה בְּרֻבָּהּ שֶׁהִיא טְרֵפָה מֵחַיִּים וּנְבֵלָה לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה כְּדִלְקַמָּן סִימָן ל"דרלג וְכֵן בְּתֻרְבַּץ שֶׁנִּפְסַק בְּרֻבּוֹ אֲבָל בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ אֵינָהּ נְבֵלָה לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה אֶלָּא בַּוֵּשֶׁט עַצְמוֹ כְּדִלְקַמָּן סִימָן ל"ג.רלד וְהָא דְנָקַט רַשִׁ"ירלה טְרֵפָה וְלֹא נְבֵלָה הַיְנוּ מִשּׁוּם דְּקָאֵי בְּעוֹף דְּסַגִּי לֵיהּ בְּסִימָן אֶחָד שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט כָּרָאוּי לְהוֹצִיאוֹ מִידֵי נְבֵלָה. אֲבָל הָרַשְׁבָּ"ארלו כָּתַב שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר דִּשְׁמוּאֵל קָחָשִׁיב טְרֵפָה בְּהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה דְּאִם כֵּן לִחְשׁוֹב נַמִי נְקוּבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט (וְעַיֵּן בְּמַה שֶּׁיִּתְבָּאֵר לְקַמָּןרלז בְּשֵׁם הַתּוֹסְפוֹת דְּלֹא קָשֶׁה מִדֵּי עַל פֵּרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י). אֶלָּא עִקּוּר שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר הַסִּימָן מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ לָאו טְרֵפָה הִיא כְּלָל מֵחַיִּים כְּנִפְסַק הַסִּימָן עַצְמוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין שִׁעוּרֵיהֶם שָׁוִים (עַיֵּן תּוֹסְפוֹת דַּף מ"ד ע"ארלח). אֶלָּא כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתְבוּ הַתּוֹסְפוֹתרלט לְפִי דַּעַת בַּהַ"גרמ דְּהִלְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לָהּ שֶׁאֵין שְׁחִיטָה מוֹעֶלֶת בְּסִימָנִים עֲקוּרִים מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרָם בַּלֶּחִי וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּעוֹף בְּעִינָן שֶׁיִּהְיוּ ב' הַסִּימָנִים מְחֻבָּרִים וּרְאוּיִם לִשְׁחִיטָה בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט אֶחָד מֵהֶם דְּהָכִי גְּמִירִי לָהּ הִלְכְתָא. וְנַפְקָא מִנָּהּ הָאִידְנָא לְדִינָא בֵּין שִׁיטַת רַשִׁ"י וּבֵין שִׁיטַת הַתּוֹסְפוֹת וְסִיעָתָם בְּשֵׁם בַּהַ"ג לְעִנְיַן חָלָב וּבֵיצִים כְּדִלְקַמָּן בְּהַגָּ"ה.רמא וְהָא דְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵלרמב סִימָנִים שֶׁנִּדַּלְדְּלוּ בְּרֻבָּן טְרֵפָה פֵּרֵשׁ הָרַשְׁבָּ"ארמג דְּלָאו טְרֵפָה מַמָּשׁ קָאָמַר אֶלָּא אֲסוּרָה קָאָמַר דְּכָל שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה טְרֵפָה קָרֵי לָהּ. וְנַפְקָא מִנָּהּ שֶׁאִם שָׁחַט נְבֵלָה הָוֵי וְלֹא כִּטְרֵפָה שְׁחוּטָה שֶׁאֵין שְׁחִיטָה בְּסִימָנִים עֲקוּרִים עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ. אֲבָל הַתּוֹסְפוֹת בְּפֶרֶק אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹתרמד סְבִירָא לֵיהּ דִּטְרֵפָה מַמָּשׁ קָאָמַר בְּסִימָנִים שֶׁנִּדַּלְדְּלוּ בְּרֻבָּן דְּהַיְנוּ שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר הַסִּימָן בְּכֹחַ כְּדִלְעֵילרמה דְּלָא הֲדַר בָּרְיָא וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי טְרֵפָה מֵחַיִּים נַמִי הָוְיָא. אֲבָל בִּדְאִקְפַּל אִקְפּוּלֵי בְּנַחַת מֵעַל הַבָּשָׂר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּקְלַף כֻּלּוֹ כֵּיוָן שֶׁלֹּא נֶעֱקַר בְּכֹחַ הֲדַר בָּרְיָא וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי אֵינָהּ טְרֵפָה מֵחַיִּים אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין שְׁחִיטָה מוֹעֶלֶת בָּהּ כְּשֶׁנִּקְלַף כֻּלּוֹ אַף עַל גַּב דַּהֲדַר בָּרְיָא כֵּיוָן שֶׁעַכְשָׁו
אֵינוֹ מְחֻבָּר כְּלָל בִּבְשַׂר הַלֶּחִי שֶׁכָּךְ הִיא הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי שֶׁאֵין שְׁחִיטָה בְּסִימָן עָקוּר. אֲבָל אִם לֹא נִקְלַף אֶלָּא רֻבּוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה לְגַמְרֵי וּמוֹעֶלֶת בּוֹ שְׁחִיטָה וְלֹא אָמְרִינָן בְּזֶה רֻבּוֹ כְּכֻלּוֹ כֵּיוָן דַּהֲדַר בָּרְיָא לְגַמְרֵי. אֲבָל אִם נֶעֱקַר בְּכֹחַ דְּלָא הֲדַר בָּרְיָא וְסוֹפוֹ לִפָּרֵק כֻּלּוֹ אָמְרִינָן רֻבּוֹ כְּכֻלּוֹ דִּכְמַאן דְּפָסֵק דָּמֵי וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי הִיא גַם כֵּן נְבֵלָה לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה דְּאֵין שְׁחִיטָה מוֹעֶלֶת בָּהּ. וְהָרַשְׁבָּ"א סְבִירָא לֵיהּ שֶׁאֵינָהּ טְרֵפָה מֵחַיִּים מִשּׁוּם דַּהֲדַר בָּרְיָא אֶלָּא לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה נְבֵלָה הִיא. דְּמַה שֶּׁנִּשְׁאַר חִבּוּר מְדֻלְדָּל הוּא וַהֲרֵי זֶה כְּאִלּוּ נֶעֱקַר כֻּלּוֹ (עַיֵּן בְּמַה שֶּׁנִּתְבָּאֵר לְעֵילרמו). וְהָרַ"ן בְּחִדּוּשָׁיורמז וּבְפֵרוּשׁוֹ לְהָרִי"ףרמח כָּתַב בְּזֶה שִׁיטָה ד' בְּשֵׁם הָרַמְבַּ"ןרמט דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ דְּהָא דְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל סִימָנִים שֶׁנִּדַּלְדְּלוּ בְּרֻבָּן טְרֵפָה טְרֵפָה מַמָּשׁ קָאָמַר מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא הֲדַר בָּרְיָא וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן בִּדְאִקְפּוּל אִקְפּוּלֵי כֻּלּוֹ דְּלָא הֲדַר בָּרְיָא וּטְרֵפָה הִיא אֲבָל מִכָּל מָקוֹם אֵינָהּ נְבֵלָה וַאֲפִלּוּ לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה. וְהַיְנוּ כְּשֶׁנִּדַּלְדֵּל וְנִקְלַף שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה אֲבָל אִם אֵרַע לוֹ כֵּן בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה מִשֶּׁהִתְחִיל בַּסִּימָנִים אֵין שְׁחִיטָה מוֹעֶלֶת בּוֹ וּנְבֵלָה הִיא. וַאֲפִלּוּ לֹא נִקְלַף אֶלָּא רֻבּוֹ דְּרֻבּוֹ כְּכֻלּוֹ בְּכָל הַתּוֹרָהרנ כֻלָּה. וְזֶהוּ עִקּוּר דְּקָחָשִׁיב שְׁמוּאֵל בְּהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁהוּא הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי שֶׁאֵין שְׁחִיטָה מוֹעֶלֶת בּוֹ וְהִיא נְבֵלָה. וְהָא דְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵלרנא תֻּרְבַּץ הַוֵּשֶׁט שֶׁנִּטַּל רֻבּוֹ מִלֶּחִי כָּשֵׁר כְּדִלְעֵילרנב דְּמַשְׁמַע כָּשֵׁר לְגַמְרֵי וּמוֹעֶלֶת בּוֹ שְׁחִיטָה הַיְנוּ כְּשֶׁנֶּעֱקַר שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה. וְטַעְמָא דְמִלְּתָא דְּכֹל שֶׁהַסִּימָנִים עֲקוּרִים מִתְּחִלָּה אֶפְשָׁר לֶאֱחוֹז בְּיָדָיו בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה וּלְשָׁחֲטָם כָּרָאוּי וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי מְהַנֵּי שְׁחִיטָה לְטַהֵר מִידֵי נְבֵלָה בְּדָבָר שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ טְרֵפָה כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּדַּלְדְּלוּ רֻבָּן אוֹ שֶׁנִּקְלַף כֻּלּוֹ וְאִם לֹא נִקְלַף כֻּלּוֹ כָּשֵׁר לְגַמְרֵי אֲבָל נֶעֶקְרוּ בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּשָּׁחֵט כָּרָאוּי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַסִּימָנִים מִתְנַדְנְדִים וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי הָוֵי לָהּ נְבֵלָה אֲפִלּוּ בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ טְרֵפָה (כֵּן הוּא הַגִּרְסָא בְּסֵפֶר הָאָרֹךְ מֵהַשַּׁ"ךְ.רנג וְכֵן מַשְׁמַע בְּרַ"ןרנד)
כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּקְלַף רֻבּוֹ אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ כֻּלּוֹ וּכְגוֹן שֶׁנִּתְלַשׁ עִם הַבָּשָׂר מֵהַלֶּחִי דְּדָמֵי לְאִגּוּם אִגּוֹמֵי מֵעִלָּוֵי סִימָנִים דִּלְעֵיל דִּכְשֵׁרָה הִיא וַאֲפִלּוּ הָכִי אֵין הַשְּׁחִיטָה מוֹעֶלֶת בָּהּ כְּשֶׁאֵרַע כֵּן בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַסִּימָנִים מִתְנַדְנְדִים זֶהוּ הָעוֹלֶה מִדִּבְרֵי הָרַ"ן פֶּרֶק קַמָּא וּבְחִדּוּשָׁיו פֶּרֶק אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת בְּשֵׁם הָרַמְבַּ"ן. וְהָא דְתַנְיָארנה נִשְׁמְטָה הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֵּשֶׁט שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לִשְׁחוֹט הַוֵּשֶׁט כָּרָאוּי אַף שֶׁהַגַּרְגֶּרֶת שְׁמוּטָה הַיְנוּ מִשּׁוּם דַּהֲרֵי נִטְרְפָה תְּחִלָּה כְּפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י דִּלְעֵיל. וּלְעִנְיַן מַעֲשֶׂה יֵשׁ לְהַחֲמִיר כְּדִבְרֵי כֻלָּן לְהַחֲמִיר בְּשֶׁל תּוֹרָהרנו כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר לְקַמָּן.רנז וְהִנֵּה בְּפֶרֶק קַמָּא דַּף ט' פֵּרֵשׁ רַשִׁ"ירנח דְּעִקּוּר הַיְנוּ הָא דִתְנַן שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֵּשֶׁט וּפָסַק הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת הֲרֵי זֶה נְבֵלָה. וְכָתַב עַל זֶה הַתּוֹסְפוֹתרנט תֵּימָא דְּאֵין זֶה שַׁיָּךְ לְהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה דְּזֶה פָּסוּל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא שְׁחָטוֹ וְלֹא דָמֵי לִשְׁאָר הִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה. וְיֵשׁ לוֹמַר דְּמַיְרִי שֶׁשָּׁחַט בְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה אוֹ בְּמַגָּל וְזֶה נִקְרָא פָּסַק הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת וּפְסוּלָה הִיא מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין אֶלָּא חוֹנְקִין (כְּדִלְעֵיל סִימָן י"[ח]רס) עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ. וְאֵין כַּוָּנָתָם דִּלְרַשִׁ"י אֵין עִקּוּר אֶלָּא בִּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא דְּהָא בְּהֶדְיָא אָמְרִינָן בִּגְמָרָארסא בְּסוּגְיָא דִלְעֵיל דְּתֻרְבַּץ הַוֵּשֶׁט שֶׁנִטַּל כֻּלּוֹ מִלֶּחִי הָוֵי עִקּוּר. אֶלָּא כַּוָּנָתָם לוֹמַר דִּלְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י דִּשְׁמוּאֵל לֹא קָחָשִׁיב אֶלָּא עִקּוּר שֶׁהוּא בְּדֶרֶךְ שְׁחִיטָה דְּהַיְנוּ בְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה דְּזֶה שַׁיָּךְ לְהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה אֲבָל נֶעֱקַר מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ בַּלֶּחִי אוֹ שֶׁנִּפְסַק הַסִּימָן שֶׁלֹּא בְּדֶרֶךְ שְׁחִיטָה (בְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה) אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שְׁחִיטָה מוֹעֶלֶת בִּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא וּנְבֵלָה הִיא מִכָּל מָקוֹם הַטַּבָּח שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ זֶה מֻתָּר לֶאֱכוֹל מִשְּׁחִיטָתוֹ וְלֹא חַיְשִׁינָן שֶׁמָּא הָיוּ הַסִּימָנִים עֲקוּרִים אוֹ פְּסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת. כְּמוֹ דְּלֹא חַיְשִׁינָן לִנְקִיבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט שֶׁהוּא בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ וְאַף הַיּוֹדֵעַ הִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה אִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לִבְדּוֹק הַוֵּשֶׁט אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה דְּדִלְמָא בִּמְקוֹם נֶקֶב קָא שָׁחִיט אֶלָּא דְּאָזְלִינָן בָּתַר רוּבָּא כִּדְאִיתָא בִּגְמָרָארסב וְרֹב בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים כְּשֵׁרִים וּבְרִיאִים וּשְׁלֵמִים מִכָּל נֶקֶב. וְאִם כֵּן הוּא הַדִּין דְּלֹא חַיְשִׁינָן מֵהַאי טַעְמָא לִפְסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת. וְכֵן לְעִקּוּר סִימָנִים מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרָם בַּלֶּחִי לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"ירסג דִּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּקָא חָשִׁיב עִקּוּר בְּהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה לֶאֱסוֹר שְׁחִיטַת שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ לֹא מַיְרִי בְּעִקּוּר מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרָם
אֶלָּא בִּפְסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת וְעַל כָּרְחָךְ צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר דְּהַיְנוּ בְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה. אֲבָל לְבַהַ"גרסד דְּעִקּוּר אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ וּבְהָא קָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל שֶׁאָסוּר לֶאֱכוֹל מִשְּׁחִיטַת שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ. סְבִירָא לֵיהּ דְּשַׁאֲנִי עִקּוּר סִימָנִים מִפְּסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת וּנְקוּבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט דְּלֹא חַיְשִׁינָן לְהוּ וּלְעִקּוּר סִימָנִים חַיְשִׁינָן מִשּׁוּם דִּשְׁמוּטָה שְׁכִיחָא וְצָרִיךְ לִבְדּוֹק אַחֲרֶיהָ לְפִי דַּעַת בַּהַ"ג כְּדִלְקַמָּן סִימָן כ"ה.רסה וְאַף הַחוֹלְקִים עָלָיו שָׁם הַיְנוּ דַוְקָא בְּמִי שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ הִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה וְיוֹדֵעַ שֶׁעִקּוּר פּוֹסֵל שֶׁהוּא נִזְהָר כְּשֶׁתּוֹפֵס בַּסִּימָנִים וּמוֹתְחָן יָפֶה לֶאֱחוֹז בְּקַל שֶׁלֹּא יָבֹא לִידֵי עִקּוּר בְּיָדַיִם רַק שֶׁבָּאנוּ לָחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא הָיוּ עֲקוּרִים מִתְּחִלָּה מֵעַצְמָהּ שֶׁל בְּהֵמָה עַל יְדֵי נִדְנוּדָהּ אוֹ עַל יְדֵי אֲחִיזַת הַשּׁוֹחֵט בָּהּ בְּקַלּוּת וּלְהָא לֹא חַיְשִׁינָן לְהַחוֹלְקִים עַל בַּהַ"ג שָׁם מִשּׁוּם דְּסָמְכִינָן בְּהָא אַרוּבָּא דְּרֹב בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים הֵם בְּרִיאִים בְּטִבְעָם וְאֵין הַסִּימָנִים נִשְׁמָטִים וְנֶעֱקָרִים בָּהֶם מֵעַצְמָן וְלֹא עַל יְדֵי אֲחִיזָה בְּקַלּוּת. אֲבָל מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁעִקּוּר פּוֹסֵל כְּלָל וְאֵינוֹ נִזְהָר כְּלָל מֵעִקּוּר כְּשֶׁתּוֹפֵס בַּסִּימָנִים לְמָתְחָן יָפֶה לְכוּלָא עָלְמָא חַיְשִׁינָן שֶׁמָּא תָּפַס וּמָתַח בְּכֹחַ עַד שֶׁבָּא לִידֵי עִקּוּר וּבִפְרָט בַּגַּרְגֶּרֶת דַּעֲבִידָא לְאִשְׁתְּמוּטֵי דִּבְהֵמָה בְּחֶזְקַת אִסּוּר עוֹמֶדֶת עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע לְךָ בַּמֶּה נִשְׁחֲטָהרסו וְכֵיוָן שֶׁהַשּׁוֹחֵט לֹא יָדַע לְהִזָּהֵר מִלְּתָא דְּלָא רַמְיָא עֲלֵיהּ דֶּאֱינָשׁ עָבִיד וְלָאו אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ כְּדִלְעֵיל סִימָן א'רסז אֵין אֲנִי קוֹרֵא בּוֹ נוֹדַע לְךָ בַּמֶּה נִשְׁחֲטָה כְּלָל מֵאַחַר שֶׁהַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּעַצְמוֹ אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ. שֶׁלֹּא אָמְרוּ חֲזָקָה עַל בֶּן דַּעַת שֶׁאֵין קִלְקוּלֵי שְׁחִיטָה נִקְרִים לוֹ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא בִרְצוֹנוֹ וּבְמַשְׁגִּיחַ דְּכָל בֶּן דַּעַת מַשְׁגִּיחַ לִשְׁחוֹט כַּהֲלָכָה כְּדִלְעֵיל סִימָן א' וב' אֲבָל לֹא בְּמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ לְהַשְׁגִּיחַ וְלִזָּהֵר מִקִּלְקוּל זֶה (דְּאַדְּרַבָּה מוּעָד הוּא לְקַלְקֵל לְפִי דַּעַת הַטַּ"ז.רסח וְאַף דְּלֹא קַיְמָא לָן הָכִירסט מִכָּל מָקוֹם מִידֵי סְפֵיקָא לֹא נָפְקָא וְכָל סָפֵק בִּשְׁחִיטָה פָּסוּל). מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בִּנְקוּבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט וּפְסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת שֶׁאֵין לָחוּשׁ בָּהֶן כְּלָל שֶׁמָּא יִנְקוֹב הַשּׁוֹחֵט שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ הִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה אֶת הַוֵּשֶׁט בְּיָדַיִם אוֹ יַפְסִיק אֶת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת אֶלָּא שֶׁמָּא הָיוּ כֵּן מִתְּחִלָּה וּלְהָא לֹא חַיְשִׁינָן דְּסָמְכִינָן אַרוּבָּא. כְּמוֹ בִּשְׁאָר טְרֵפוֹת שֶׁאֵין צָרִיךְ לִבְדּוֹק אַחֲרֵיהֶן כְּלָל
מֵהַאי טַעְמָא וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי נַמִי מֻתָּר לֶאֱכוֹל מִשְּׁחִיטָתוֹ שֶׁל זֶה שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ. וְאַף עַל גַּב דִּנְקוּבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט וּפְסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת הַשְּׁחִיטָה פְּסוּלָה וּבְהֵמָה בְּחֶזְקַת אִסּוּר עוֹמֶדֶת עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע לְךָ בַּמֶּה נִשְׁחֲטָה וְלֹא דָמֵי לִשְׁאָר טְרֵפוֹת.רע מִכָּל מָקוֹם כֵּיוָן דְּסָמְכִינָן אַרוּבָּא דְּרֹב בְּהֵמוֹת אֵינָן נְקוּבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט וּפְסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת הֲרֵי נוֹדַע לְךָ בַּמֶּה נִשְׁחֲטָה דְּרוּבָּא עָדִיף מֵחֲזָקָה.רעא וְלֹא סָמְכִינָן מִעוּטָא לְחֶזְקַת אִסּוּר דִּבְהֵמָה לְמֶהֱוֵי פַּלְגָּא וּפַלְגָּארעב מִשּׁוּם דְּמִעוּטָא דְּלֹא שְׁכִיחַ הוּא לִהְיוֹת נְקוּבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט וּפְסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת שֶׁטְּרֵפוֹת הָרֵיאָה לְבַדָּהּ הוּא דִשְׁכִיחָא וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי צָרִיךְ לִבְדּוֹק הָרֵיאָה כְּדִלְקַמָּן סִימָן ל"טרעג וּבְמִעוּטָא דְּלֹא שְׁכִיחַ לֹא אָמְרִינָן סְמוֹךְ מִעוּטָא לַחֲזָקָהעדר כְּדִלְעֵיל סִימָן א'.ערה וְאֵין לְהַחֲמִיר בִּסְפֵק נְקוּבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט וּפְסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת יוֹתֵר מִבִּסְפֵק שְׁאָר טְרֵפוֹת אֶלָּא בִּדְאִתְיַלְדָא רֵעוּתָארעו דַּהֲרֵי נְקוּבָה וּפְסוּקָה לְפָנֶיךָ כְּדִלְקַמָּן.רעז אֲבָל בְּשׁוֹחֵט שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁעִקּוּר פּוֹסֵל לֹא שַׁיָּךְ לְמֵיזַל בָּתַר רוּבָּא דְּרֹב בְּהֵמוֹת כְּשֵׁרוֹת וּבְרִיאוֹת בְּטִבְעָם דְּלֹא מְהַנֵּי הַאי טַעְמָא אֶלָּא בְּמִי שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ לְהִזָּהֵר שֶׁלֹּא לַעֲקוֹר בְּכֹחַ דְּלֹא חַיְשִׁינָן שֶׁמָּא נֶעֶקְרוּ מֵעַצְמָן אוֹ עַל יְדֵי אֲחִיזָה בְּקַלּוּת מִשּׁוּם דְּרֹב בְּהֵמוֹת בְּרִיאוֹת בְּטִבְעָן וְאֵין הַסִּימָנִים נֶעֱקָרִים מֵעַצְמָן וְלֹא עַל יְדֵי אֲחִיזָה בְּקַלּוּת. אֲבָל בְּמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ לְהִזָּהֵר דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵיחַשׁ בֵּיהּ שֶׁמָּא עָקַר בְּיָדַיִם לֹא שַׁיָּךְ לְמֵיזַל בָּתַר רוּבָּא אֶלָּא לְאוֹקְמָהּ אַחֶזְקָתָהּ דְּהַעֲמֵד הַסִּימָנִים בְּחֶזְקָתָן שֶׁהָיוּ הַסִּימָנִים שְׁלֵמִים וְלֹא עֲקוּרִים מִתְּחִלָּה וּמוֹקְמִינָן חֶזְקַת אִסּוּר דִּבְהֵמָה לַהֲדֵי חֲזָקָה זוֹרעח וְהָוֵי לָהּ סְפֵיקָא דְאוֹרַיְתָא וּלְחוּמְרָא וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי אָסוּר לֶאֱכוֹל מִשְּׁחִיטָתוֹ. (וְאַף לְרַשִׁ"י כֵּן לְפִי גִּרְסָא שֶׁלָּנוּ בְּפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"ירעט שֶׁלֹּא פֵרֵשׁ בְּהֶדְיָא דְּעִקּוּר הַיְנוּ פְּסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת אֶלָּא הָא דִתְנַן שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֵּשֶׁט וּפָסַק אֶת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת וְרוֹצֶה לוֹמַר שֶׁפְּסָקוֹ וַעֲקָרוֹ מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ. וְלֹא פָלִיג עַל בַּהַ"ג אֶלָּא דְּהָא דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ לְרַשִׁ"ירפ דִּטְרֵפָה מֵחַיִּים נַמִי הָוֵי שֶׁהוּא בִּכְלַל פְּסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת
דִּתְנַן בְּפֶרֶק אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת. וְהַתּוֹסְפוֹתרפא וְהָרַשְׁבָּ"ארפב הָיְתָה גִרְסָתָם בְּפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י שֶׁפֵּרֵשׁ בְּהֶדְיָא דְּעִקּוּר הַיְנוּ פְּסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי הִקְשׁוּ הָרַשְׁבָּ"א וְהָרַ"ןרפג אַמַּאי לֹא קָא חָשִׁיב נַמִי נְקוּבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט וְהַתּוֹסְפוֹת הִקְשׁוּ תֵּימָא כוּ'. עַיֵּן בְּמַה שֶּׁיִּתְבָּאֵר לְקַמָּןרפד נַפְקָא מִנָּהּ לְדִינָא מִכָּל זֶהרפה):
בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא וּשְׁחִיטַת הָרֹב כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא. וְלֵיכָּא לְמֵימַר אֶלָּא דִּשְׁחִיטַת מִעוּט בַּתְרָא שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט בְּעִקּוּר וּשְׁחִיטַת הָרֹב כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא וּבְזֶה אֵין לְחַלֵּק בֵּין נֶעֱקַר בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה לְנֶעֱקַר לִפְנֵי שְׁחִיטָה דְּמִכָּל מָקוֹם כְּשֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט הָרֹב וְהַמִּעוּט בְּבַת אַחַת כֻּלָּה חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא. וְאִם כֵּן מִדְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל תֻּרְבַּץ שֶׁנִּטַּל רֻבּוֹ מִלֶּחִי כָּשֵׁר וּמוֹעֶלֶת בּוֹ שְׁחִיטָה בְּנֶעֱקַר לִפְנֵי שְׁחִיטָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט הַמִּעוּט בַּתְרָא בְּעִקּוּר שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר מִקְצָתוֹ מִכְּבָר וְלֹא אָמְרִינָן כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא שֶׁהֲרֵי שׁוֹחֵט הָרֹב וְהַמִּעוּט בְּבַת אַחַת מִכְּלָל דִּבְכְהַאַי גַּוְנָא שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ שִׁעוּר עִקּוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי לֹא אִכְפַּת לָן מַאי דְּכֻלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא. וְאִם כֵּן הוּא הַדִּין בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט אַחַר כָּךְ וְאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא לֹא אִכְפַּת לָן כְּלָל הוֹאִיל וְאֵין בּוֹ שִׁעוּר עִקּוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי. וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא דְּקָנֶה שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט אַחַר שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר הַסִּימָן מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ פָּחוֹת מִשִּׁעוּר עִקּוּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי. דְּגַם בְּעִקּוּר דְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא דְּקָנֶה אֵין לֶאֱסוֹר מִשּׁוּם דְּכוּלָא חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא אַף לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י בְּבַעְיָא דִלְעֵיל דְּאָמְרִינָן הָכִי בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא לֹא אָמְרִינָן הָכִי מִשּׁוּם דְּלָאו מִדֵּי עָבִיד כִּדְפֵרֵשׁ רַשִׁ"י גַּבֵּי שְׁהִיָּה.דש וְכֵן כָּתַב בְּהֶדְיָא בִּתְשׁוּבַת הָרַשְׁבָּ"א סִימָן שס"ז בְּשֵׁם הָרֹא"שׁ.שה וְהָכִי נַמִי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ לְרַשִׁ"ישו גַּבֵּי הַגְרָמָה לְחַלֵּק בֵּין הִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ וְשָׁחַט ב' שְׁלִישִׁים וּבֵין שָׁחַט ב' שְׁלִישִׁים וְהִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ דִּפְסוּלָה מִשּׁוּם דְּכוּלָא חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא וְאִם כֵּן הוּא הַדִּין בִּדְרָסָה חֲלָדָה וְעִקּוּר סְבִירָא לֵיהּ הָכִי. וּמַה שֶּׁאָנוּ נוֹהֲגִים לְהַטְרִיף בְּכֻלָּן בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא דְּקָנֶהשז הוּא מִשּׁוּם שֶׁמָּא נָגַע בַּוֵּשֶׁט. וּבְעִקּוּר לֹא שַׁיָּךְ חֲשָׁשׁ זֶה אֶלָּא בְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה וְלֹא בְּעִקּוּר הַסִּימָן מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ שֶׁאַף שֶׁכְּבָר שָׁחַט בַּוֵּשֶׁט מַאי אִכְפַּת לָן בְּעִקּוּר הַסִּימָן מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ פָּחוֹת מִכְּשִׁעוּר הַפּוֹסֵל. וְאַף אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר טַעַם הַמִּנְהָג לְהַחֲמִיר בְּכֻלָּן לְבַד מִשְּׁהִיָּה הוּא לָחוּשׁ לְפֵרוּשׁ הָרַמְבַּ"םשח בְּבַעְיָא דִלְעֵיל דְּהֶחְלִיד בְּמִעוּט סִימָנִים שֶׁהוּא בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא וּמִשּׁוּם דְּכֻלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא. מִכָּל מָקוֹם הָא בְּהַגְרָמָה מוֹדֶה הָרַמְבַּ"םשט דְּלֵית לָן הָכִי מִשּׁוּם דְּלָאו מְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה הִיא כְּדִלְעֵיל. וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן בְּעִקּוּר מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ דְּלֵית לָן שֶׁהָעִקּוּר וְהַשְּׁחִיטָה כֻּלָּהּ
חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא.שי וְלֵית לָן אֶלָּא דְּהַמִּעוּט הַנִּשְׁחָט בְּעִקּוּר כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא עִם הָרֹב וְהָא לֹא אִכְפַּת לָן אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁנִּשְׁחַט בְּעִקּוּר כָּל הַסִּימָן מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ שֶׁזֶּהוּ שִׁעוּר הַפּוֹסֵל וְלֹא כְּשֶׁנִּשְׁחַט בְּעִקּוּר פָּחוֹת מִכְּשִׁעוּר הַפּוֹסֵל. כִּדְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵלשיא תֻּרְבַּץ שֶׁנִּטַּל רֻבּוֹ מִלֶּחִי כָּשֵׁר וּמוֹעֶלֶת בּוֹ שְׁחִיטָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט מִעוּט קַמָּא וּבַתְרָא בְּעִקּוּר שֶׁנֶּעֶקְרוּ מִכְּבָר. אֶלָּא בְּעִקּוּר דְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה הוּא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹמַר כֵּן שֶׁטַּעַם הַמִּנְהָג לְהַחֲמִיר אֲפִלּוּ בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא דְּקָנֶה אֵינוֹ מִשּׁוּם חֲשָׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא נָגַע בַּוֵּשֶׁט בִּלְבָד אֶלָּא לָחוּשׁ לְפֵרוּשׁ הָרַמְבַּ"ם בְּבַעְיָא דִלְעֵיל שֶׁהִיא בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא וּמְסַפְּקָא לָן דִּלְמָא כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה כְּמוֹ גַּבֵּי חֲלָדָה וּדְרָסָה וְהוּא הַדִּין עִקּוּר דְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י לְפִי דַּעַת הַתּוֹסְפוֹת שֶׁזֶּהוּ עִקּוּר דְּקָחָשִׁיב בְּהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה בַּהֲדֵי שְׁהִיָּה דְּרָסָה כוּ' (וְזוֹ שְׁאֵלָה שֶׁשָּׁאַל הָרֹא"שׁ מֵהָרַשְׁבָּ"א בִּתְשׁוּבַת הָרַשְׁבָּ"א סִימָן שס"זשיב). וְאַף עַל גַּב דִּלְהָרַמְבַּ"ם גּוּפֵיהּ דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּשיג דְּעִקּוּר הוּא כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתְבוּ הַתּוֹסְפוֹתשיד בְּשֵׁם בַּהַ"גשטו יֵשׁ לוֹמַר דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ דְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה אֵינָהּ מֵהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ שׁוֹחֵטשטז אֶלָּא קוֹרֵעַ וְחוֹנֵק כְּדִתְנַן בְּפֶרֶק קַמָּאשיז וְלֵית לָן כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא. וְתֵדַע דִּלְהָרַמְבַּ"ם סַכִּין פְּגוּמָה אֵינוֹ מֵהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה וְלֹא דָמֵי כְּלָל לִדְרָסָה וַחֲלָדָה דְּהָא בִּדְרָסָה וַחֲלָדָה אִבַּעְיָא לָן לְפֵרוּשׁ הָרַמְבַּ"ם דִּלְמָא הָכִי אַגְמְרֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא לְמֹשֶׁה לֹא תִשְׁחוֹט רוּבָּא בִּדְרָסָה וַחֲלָדָה אֲבָל מִעוּטָא שָׁרֵי אֲפִלּוּ בַּוֵּשֶׁטשיח וּבְסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה לֵיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁהַפְּגִימָה אֵינָהּ פּוֹסֶלֶת בַּוֵּשֶׁט אֲפִלּוּ בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהַפְּגַם הוּא קוֹרֵעַ וְנוֹקֵב וְלֹא שׁוֹחֵט וְאֵינוֹ מֵהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה וּנְקוּבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ. מִכָּל מָקוֹם בְּטַעַם הַמִּנְהָג יֵשׁ לוֹמַר מִשּׁוּם דְּנָקְטִינָן בְּתַרְוַיְהוּ לְחוּמְרָא.שיט וְאֵיךְ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה טַעַם הַמִּנְהָג לְהַחֲמִיר בְּעִקּוּר בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא דְּקָנֶה בֵּין מִשּׁוּם שֶׁמָּא נָגַע בַּוֵּשֶׁט בֵּין כְּדֵי לָחוּשׁ לְפֵרוּשׁ הָרַמְבַּ"ם וּלְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י לְפִי דַּעַת הַתּוֹסְפוֹת עַל כָּל פָּנִים בְּעִקּוּר הַסִּימָן מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ לֹא מְהַנֵּי הַנֵּי טַעְמֵי לֶאֱסוֹר בְּפָחוֹת מִשִּׁעוּר עִקּוּר הַפּוֹסֵל אַף אִם נֶעֱקַר כֵּן בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה. וְאַף עַל גַּב דִּבְשֻׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ סִימָן זֶה לֹא הֻזְכַּר כְּלָל עִקּוּר דְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה.שכ לֹא רָצָה רְמָ"א
לְשַׁנּוֹת לְשׁוֹן מַהֲרִי"ו בֵּין בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא כֵּיוָן דְּאָתֵי שַׁפִּיר גַּם בְּעִקּוּר הַסִּימָן מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ כְּדִלְעֵיל.שכא וְתֵדַע שֶׁהֲרֵי מַהֲרִי"ו כָּתַב תְּחִלָּה גַּם עִקּוּר הַסִּימָן מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ וַאֲפִלּוּ הָכִי סִיֵּם אַחַר כָּךְ בְּלָשׁוֹן זֶה וְכָל עִקּוּר פָּסוּל בֵּין בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא כוּ'. כֵּן דַּעַת הַטַּ"זשכב בְּפֵרוּשׁ לְשׁוֹן רְמָ"א. וְכֵן דַּעַת הַתְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹרשכג לַהֲלָכָה. דְּלֹא כְּשַׁ"ךְשכד דְּפֵרֵשׁ דְּמַה שֶּׁכָּתַב רְמָ"א כָּל עִקּוּר שֶׁרוֹצֶה לוֹמַר אֲפִלּוּ בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ דְּמִעוּט קַמָּא שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה וְכֵן מַשֶּׁהוּ דְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ. וְטַעַם הַמִּנְהָג בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא פֵּרֵשׁ הַשַּׁ"ךְ מִשּׁוּם שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ בְּקִיאִין בִּבְדִיקַת הַוֵּשֶׁט וְשֶׁמָּא נָגַע בַּוֵּשֶׁט. דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ לְהַשַּׁ"ךְ דִּלְמִנְהָגֵנוּ שֶׁמַּחְמִירִים כְּפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י בְּבַעְיָא דִלְעֵיל שֶׁהִיא בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא דל"לשכה כֻּלָּה חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא אֲבָל בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא לָאו מִדֵּי עָבִיד כִּדְפֵרֵשׁ רַשִׁ"י שָׁםשכו הַיְנוּ דַּוְקָא כְּשֶׁלֹּא נָגַע עֲדַיִן בַּוֵּשֶׁט אֲבָל כְּשֶׁנָּגַע כְּבָר בַּוֵּשֶׁט שֶׁנְּקוּבָתוֹ בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ תּוּ לֵיכָּא לְמֵימַר לָאו מִדֵּי עָבִיד דְּהָא בִּנְקוּבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט נַעֲשֵׂית נְבֵילָהשכז שֶׁאֵין שְׁחִיטָה מוֹעֶלֶת בָּהּ כְּמוֹ בִּפְסוּקַת רֹב הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת.שכח וְאִם כֵּן כִּי הֵיכִי דְּבִפְסוּקַת רֹב הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת לֹא אָמְרִינָן לָאו מִדֵּי עָבִיד בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט בְּפִסּוּל אֶלָּא אָמְרִינָן כּוּלָא חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא וְאִית בָּהּ פְּסוּל הָכִי נַמִי לֵיכָּא לְמֵימַר לָאו מִדֵּי עָבִיד בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא דְּקָנֶה שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט בְּפִסּוּל אַחַר שֶׁנִּקַּב הַוֵּשֶׁט כְּבָר אֶלָּא אָמְרִינָן כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא וְאִית בָּהּ פְּסוּל. אֶלָּא דִּפְסוּל דִּשְׁהִיָּה דְּרָסָה וַחֲלָדָה וְהַגְרָמָה לֵיכָּא נַפְקָא מִנָּהּ דְּתֵיפוֹק לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם פְּסוּל דְּוֵשֶׁט עַצְמוֹ אֶלָּא נַפְקָא מִנָּהּ בְּעִקּוּר לְחוּדֵיהּ שֶׁאִם נֶעֱקַר מִעוּט קַמָּא דְּקָנֶה מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה אַחַר שֶׁנָּגַע בַּוֵּשֶׁט אָמְרִינָן דְּכֻלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא וְאִית בָּהּ עִקּוּר כוּ' כְּמוֹ בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא. וְהָא דְּקָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל תֻּרְבַּץ שֶׁנִּטַּל רֻבּוֹ מִלֶּחִי כָּשֵׁר הַיְנוּ שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה אֲבָל בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה אֲפִלּוּ בְּעִקּוּר מַשֶּׁהוּ יֵשׁ לוֹמַר דְּהָעִקּוּר וְהַשְּׁחִיטָה כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא. וְהָא דְתַנְיָא נִשְׁחַט הַוֵּשֶׁט וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשְׁמְטָה הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת כְּשֵׁרָה הַיְנוּ דַוְקָא בְּנִשְׁמְטָה מֵאֵלֶיהָ דְּלֵיכָּא לְמֵימַר כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא כֵּיוָן דְּלָאו מִדֵּי עָבִיד מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּעִקּוּר דְּיָדַיִם דְּלֵיכָּא לְמֵימַר לָאו מִדֵּי עָבִיד יֵשׁ לוֹמַר כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא (וְזֶהוּ
דַּעַת מַהֲרַ"ץ בְּהַגָּהוֹת שְׁחִיטוֹתשכט הוּבָא בְּדַרְכֵי מֹשֶׁהשל). וְכֵן הוּא בְּהֶדְיָא בְּהַגָּהוֹת שְׁחִיטוֹת מַהֲרִי"ושלא לְחַלֵּק בְּזֶה בֵּין עִקּוּר לִשְׁמוּטָה דְּאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה. אִי נַמִי יֵשׁ לוֹמַר דְּהָא דְּנוֹהֲגִים לְהַטְרִיף כָּל עִקּוּר אֲפִלּוּ בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה הַיְנוּ בְּעִקּוּר שֶׁעַל יְדֵי דְּחִיקַת הַסַּכִּין בְּסִימָנִים דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא מֵאַחַר שֶׁנַּעֲשֶׂה עַל יְדֵי הַסַּכִּין כַּמַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהֵבִיא בְּדַרְכֵי מֹשֶׁה בְּשֵׁם מַהֲרַ"ץ בְּשֵׁם מַהֲרִי"לשלב שֶׁנִּמְצָא מִקְצָת טַבַּעַת עַל הַסַּכִּין כְּדִלְקַמָּן סְעִיף י"ט.שלג אֲבָל בִּשְׁמוּטָה דִּמְמֵילָא אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ בְּעִקּוּר בְּיָדַיִם שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּדֶרֶךְ שְׁחִיטָה כְּלָל לֵיכָּא לְמֵימַר כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא. כְּמוֹ בְּנִקַּב הַוֵּשֶׁט בְּיָדַיִם בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה דִּלְקַמָּן סִימָן כ"ו כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב שָׁםשלד בְּשֵׁם הַשַּׁ"ךְשלה שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּן שָׁם לִשְׁנֵי חִלּוּקִים אֵלּוּ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְחַלֵּק בֵּין עִקּוּר לִשְׁמוּטָה. אֲבָל מִסְּתִימַת רְמָ"א כַּאן וּשְׁאָר אַחֲרוֹנִים מְבֹאָר דְּעִקּוּר וּשְׁמוּטָה חֲדָא מִלְּתָא הִיא לְגַמְרֵי וְאֵין חִלּוּק בֵּינֵיהֶם לְדִינָא כְּלָל. וּכְדַעַת הַטַּ"זשלו שֶׁחָלַק עַל הַגָּהוֹת שְׁחִיטַת מַהֲרִי"ו שֶׁחִלְּקוּ בֵּינֵיהֶם. וְכֵן עִקָּר. דְּלֹא כְּשַׁ"ךְ בֵּין בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא בֵּין בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא (וְכֵן מַשְׁמַע בְּהֶדְיָא בְּתוֹרַת הַבַּיִת הָאָרֹךְשלז דְּאַף רַשִׁ"י מוֹדֶה בְּעִקּוּר שֶׁאֵינוֹ דֶּרֶךְ שְׁחִיטָה דְּלֹא דָמֵי לְבַעְיָא דִלְעֵיל דִּמְסַפְּקָא לָן דִּלְמָא כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא. וְהִלְכָּךְ הָעִקָּר כְּהַטַּ"זשלח). וְאַף לְפִי מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב לְעֵילשלט בְּשֵׁם הַתְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹרשמ לָחוּשׁ לְדַעַת הָרַשְׁבָּ"אשמא שֶׁפָּסַק כְּמַאן דְּאָמַרשמב הִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ וְשָׁחַט ב' שְׁלִישִׁים פְּסוּלָה דִּבְעִינָן כֻּלָּהּ מִפַּק חַיּוּתָא בִּמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ דְּנָפַק שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה פְּסוּלָה. וּבְעִקּוּר מִעוּט קַמָּא מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ כֵּיוָן דִּבְכֻלּוֹ אִיכָּא כֻּלָּהּ מִפַּק חַיּוּתָא וּטְרֵפָה לְפִי דַּעַת רַשִׁ"י וְרַמְבַּ"ןשמג אִם כֵּן בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ אִיכָּא מַשֶּׁהוּ דְּמִפַּק חַיּוּתָא כְּמוֹ בִּפְסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת דְּמִטַּרְפָא בְּרוּבָּא וַאֲפִלּוּ הָכִי בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ אִיכָּא מַשֶּׁהוּ דְּמִפַּק חַיּוּתָא. מִכָּל מָקוֹם בִּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא יֵשׁ לִסְמוֹךְ אֲפִלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּהשדמ אַהַכְרָעַת רְמָ"א דִּלְקַמָּן דִּבְחַיֶּיהָ כָּשֵׁרשמה וְלֵיכָּא מִפַּק חַיּוּתָא כְּלָל אֲפִלּוּ בְּכֻלּוֹ. אֲבָל מִשּׁוּם
דְּהָרַשְׁבָּ"א גוּפֵיהּ סְבִירָא לֵיהּ דִּבְחַיִּים כָּשֵׁר וְרַשִׁ"י דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ טְרֵפָה לֹא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר הִגְרִים שְׁלִישׁ פְּסוּלָה הַאי טַעְמָא לֹא מְהַנֵּי לְהָקֵל בִּדְאוֹרַיְתָא כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב בִּכְלָלֵי הַהוֹרָאָה.שמו הִלְכָּךְ בַּעַל נֶפֶשׁ יַחְמִיר לְעַצְמוֹשמז בְּמִעוּט קַמָּאשמח אֲפִלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה. וְכֵן בְּנֶעֱקַר כָּל הַסִּימָן אַחַר שְׁחִיטַת רֹב הַסִּימָן הָרִאשׁוֹן לִפְנֵי שְׁחִיטַת סִימָן ב' בִּבְהֵמָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִנִּיחַ וְלֹא שָׁחַט כְּלָל מִעוּט בַּתְרָא דְּקַמָּא שֶׁאֵין לְהַחֲמִיר לַאֲחֵרִים מִשּׁוּם עִקּוּר בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא שְׁחָטוֹ כְּלָל וּמִשּׁוּם שֶׁשָּׁחַט סִימָן הַב' בְּעִקּוּר סִימָן הָא' אֵין לָחוּשׁ כֵּיוָן שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר אַחַר שְׁחִיטַת רֻבּוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְקַמָּן.שמט אַף עַל פִּי כֵן בַּעַל נֶפֶשׁ יַחְמִיר לְעַצְמוֹ לָחוּשׁ לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י וְרַמְבַּ"ןשנ דְּעִקּוּר טְרֵפָה הָוְיָא וּלְהָאוֹסְרִים בְּנוֹלְדוּ סִימָנֵי טְרֵפָה בֵּין סִימָן לְסִימָן אַף אִם נוֹלְדוּ בְּסִימָן עַצְמוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְקַמָּן סִימָן כ"ו.שנא אַף עַל גַּב דְּמִדִּינָא יֵשׁ לִסְמוֹךְ בִּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא אַהַכְרָעַת רְמָ"א דְּעִקּוּר אֵינוֹ טְרֵפָה מֵאַחַר דִּבְלָאו הָכִי יֵשׁ חוֹלְקִין עַל הָאוֹסְרִים דִּלְקַמָּן שָׁם וְגַם הָאוֹסְרִים אֵינָם אוֹסְרִים אֶלָּא מִסָּפֵק כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב שָׁם. וְכֵן בְּעִקּוּר דְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא דְּקָנֶה וְתָפַשׂ אֶת הַקָּנֶה לְבַדּוֹ בְּיָדוֹ דְּלֵיכָא לְמֵיחַשׁ לִנְקוּבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט כְּדִלְעֵיל סִימָן כ"ג.שנב אַף עַל פִּי כֵן כָּל בַּעַל נֶפֶשׁ יַחְמִיר לְעַצְמוֹ לָחוּשׁ לְפֵרוּשׁ הָרַמְבַּ"םשנג בְּבַעְיָא דִלְעֵילשנד שֶׁהִיא בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא וּמְסַפְּקָא לָן אִי אָמְרִינָן כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא וּלְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י לְפִי דַּעַת הַתּוֹסְפוֹתשנה דְּעִקּוּר דְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה הוּא מֵהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה וְאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר בֵּיהּ כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא.שנו אֲבָל מִדִּינָא אֵין לָחוּשׁ. שֶׁאַף שֶׁהַבֵּית יוֹסֵף בְּשֻׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ פָּסַק כְּהָרַמְבַּ"ם מִכָּל מָקוֹם כֵּיוָן שֶׁרַבּוּ הַחוֹלְקִים עַל פֵּרוּשׁ הָרַמְבַּ"ם וְגַם לְפֵרוּשׁ הָרַמְבַּ"ם אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא סָפֵקשנז פְּשִׁיטָא דְּבִכְהַאי גַּוְנָא יֵשׁ לִסְמוֹךְ אֲפִלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה אַהַכְרָעַת רְמָ"א דִּלְקַמָּן כְּפֵרוּשׁ בַּהַ"ג דְּעִקּוּר מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ הוּא מֵהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה דְּלֹא כְּפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י לְפִי דַּעַת הַתּוֹסְפוֹת דְּעִקּוּר הוּא סַכִּין פְּגוּמָה.שנח שֶׁהֲרֵי כָּתַב רְמָ"א דִּבְחַיִּים כָּשֵׁר.שנט
וְאִם כֵּן הָא דְמַתְקִיף רַב פָּפָּאשס אַהָא דְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל תֻּרְבַּץ שֶׁנִּטַּל כֻּלּוֹ מִלֶּחִי כָּשֵׁר וְהָא אִיכָּא עִקּוּר סִימָנִים כְּדִלְעֵיל עַל כָּרְחָךְ מִשּׁוּם דְּעִקּוּר שֶׁהוּא מֵהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה הוּא עִקּוּר מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתְבוּ הַתּוֹסְפוֹת בְּשֵׁם בַּהַ"ג. וּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ לִרְמָ"א שֶׁכֵּן עִקָּר לְפִי שֶׁכֵּן דַּעַת הַתּוֹסְפוֹת רֵישׁ פֶּרֶק אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת וְהָרַשְׁבָּ"א וְהָרַ"ןשסא וְהָרֹא"שׁשסב וּשְׁאָר פּוֹסְקִים וַהֲלָכָה כְּבַתְרָאֵי. וְסָמַךְ רְמָ"א עַל זֶה לְהַתִּיר הֶחָלָב וְהַבֵּיצִיםשסג דְּאִסּוּר מִדְּאוֹרַיְתָא הוּא.שסד וְהָא דְמַחְמִירִינָן בְּעִקּוּר דְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב בְּמַהֲרִ"י וַיְלשסה וְהַיְנוּ לָחוּשׁ לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י לְפִי דַּעַת הַתּוֹסְפוֹת דְּעִקּוּר דְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה הוּא מֵהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה וְיֵשׁ לוֹמַר בּוֹ כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא. הַיְנוּ מִשּׁוּם דִּבְהֵמָה בְּחֶזְקַת אִסּוּר עוֹמֶדֶתשסו מִשּׁוּם הָכִי נוֹהֲגִים כָּל הַחֻמְרוֹת גַּבֵּי שְׁחִיטָה וְהֵיכָא דְּנָהוּג נָהוּג וְהָבוּ דְּלָא לוֹסִיף עֲלָהּ לֶאֱסוֹר הֶחָלָב וְהַבֵּיצִים שֶׁאֵינָן בְּחֶזְקַת אִסּוּר.שסז אוֹ אֶפְשָׁר דִּרְמָ"א לֹא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ לְהַחֲמִיר גַּם בְּעִקּוּר דְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא הֵבִיא לְחוּמְרָא זוֹ בְּהַגָּהוֹתָיו וְלֹא בְּדַרְכֵי מֹשֶׁה.שסח וְהָא דְּלֹא כָתַב לְהַחֲמִיר בְּמִעוּט קַמָּא מִשּׁוּם חֲשַׁשׁ נְקוּבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט הַיְנוּ מִשּׁוּם דִּבְמִעוּט קַמָּא עַל כָּרְחָךְ מַיְרִי שֶׁהִגְבִּיהַּ יָדוֹ מִן הַצַּוָּאר וְרָאָה שֶׁלֹּא שָׁחַט אֶלָּא מִעוּט הַקָּנֶה בִּלְבָד וְאַחַר כָּךְ גָּמַר שְׁחִיטָתוֹ בְּסַכִּין יָפֶה וְאִם כֵּן תֵּיפוֹק לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם שְׁהִיָּה דַאֲסוּרָה מִשּׁוּם חֲשַׁשׁ נְקוּבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט. אֲבָל בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא נַפְקָא מִנָּהּ אִם אֵין עִקּוּר דְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה פּוֹסֵל בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא מִשּׁוּם דְּלָאו שְׁחִיטָה הִיא כְּלָל וְלֵית לָן כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא אִם כֵּן מֻתָּר מִעוּט בַּתְרָא בְּמַגָּל וְכַיּוֹצֵא בוֹ שֶׁכֻּלּוֹ פָּגוּם וְאֵין בּוֹ שְׁחִיטָה כְּלָל. וְאֵין בְּזֶה גַּם כֵּן מִשּׁוּם שְׁהִיָּה דִּשְׁהִיָּה אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁשּׁוֹהֶה בִּשְׁחִיטָה אֲבָל זֶה פָּסַק מִלִּשְׁחוֹט. אֲבָל בְּקַרְדֹּם אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם דְּבֵין פְּגַם לִפְגַם יֵשׁ רֶוַח מַשֶּׁהוּ. אֲבָל אִם עִקּוּר דְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה פּוֹסֵל בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא אֲפִלּוּ בְּמַגָּל אָסוּר אֲפִלּוּ בְּדִיעֲבַד.שסט וּבֶאֱמֶת דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מָצוּי הוּא לַחְתּוֹךְ מִעוּט בַּתְרָא בְּמַגָּל וְכַיּוֹצֵא בוֹ (דַּוְקָא) וּבְדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מָצוּי לֹא שַׁיָּךְ מִנְהָג כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב הָרַמְבַּ"ם סוֹף פֶּרֶק י"אשע וְאִם כֵּן מוֹקְמִינָן לֵיהּ אַדִּינָא וּמִדִּינָא וַדַּאי דְּאֵין לֶאֱסוֹר בְּדִיעֲבַד מֵאַחַר שֶׁהָעִקָּר הוּא כְּפֵרוּשׁ הַתּוֹסְפוֹת בְּשֵׁם בַּהַ"ג דְּעִקּוּר שֶׁבְּהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה הוּא עִקּוּר מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ. וְעוֹד שֶׁלְּפִי דַּעַת הָרַשְׁבָּ"א וְהָרַ"ןשעא אַף לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י אֵינוֹ עִקּוּר דְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה (וְכֵן הוּא בְּהֶדְיָא בִּתְשׁוּבַת הָרַשְׁבָּ"א סִימָן שס"ז דְּאַף לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י אֵין לְהַחֲמִיר כְּלָל בְּעִקּוּר דְּסַכִּין פְּגוּמָה בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא). וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן לְגִרְסָא שֶׁלָּנוּ בְּפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י כְּדִלְעֵיל.שעב וְאַף לְפִי דַּעַת הַתּוֹסְפוֹת בְּפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא סָפֵק.שעג וּלְפִי דַּעַת הָרַשְׁבָּ"אשעד וְהָרַ"ן הוּא סָפֵק דְּרַבָּנָן וְכֵן הוּא בְּמַהֲרֵ"י וַיְל כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְעֵיל סִימָן כ"גשעה וְהִלְכָּךְ בְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה וּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא הַמֵּקֵל לֹא הִפְסִיד:
16
[The slaughter of an animal] is disqualified because of ikur [only] when [one of the simanim] was pulled from its place entirely. However, [the animal] is kosher if even [just] a very small portion [of the siman] remains [attached].
[The above applies provided] the remaining portion [of the siman] is fixed in one place. However, if the small portion that remains is dangling, a little bit in one place, and a little bit in another, [the animal] is not kosher. [The rationale is that] it is obvious that [in this instance, the siman] was ripped from its place forcefully, and what remains is only loosely attached. [Therefore,] it is as if the entire [siman] was detached and [the animal] is not kosher.
The above applies only when the greater portion [of the siman] was detached. However, if only the lesser portion is detached, and the greater portion is [still attached to its place], even though this greater portion is dangling, a little bit in one place, and a little bit in another, [the animal] is kosher.
טזהָא דְּפָסוּל בְּעִקּוּר הַיְנוּ כְּשֶׁנֶּעֱקַר כֻּלּוֹ, אֲבָל אִם נִשְׁתַּיֵּר בּוֹ אֲפִלּוּ מַשֶּׁהוּ, כָּשֵׁר. וְהוּא שֶׁאוֹתוֹ שֶׁנִּשְׁאַר הוּא בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד, אֲבָל אִם מִעוּט הַנִּשְׁאָר הוּא מְדֻלְדָּל שֶׁהוּא מְעַט כָּאן וּמְעַט כָּאן, פָּסוּל, שֶׁנִּכָּר הַדָּבָר שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר בְּכֹחַ, וּמַה שֶּׁנִּשְׁאַר מְחֻבָּר חִבּוּר מְדֻלְדָּל הוּא וַהֲוָה לֵיהּ נֶעֱקַר כֻּלּוֹ וּפָסוּל. וְהָנֵי מִלֵּי כְּשֶׁנֶּעֱקַר רֻבּוֹ, אֲבָל אִם לֹא נֶעֱקַר אֶלָּא מִעוּט וְרֻבּוֹ קַיָּם, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרֹב זֶה הַנִּשְׁאָר הוּא מְדֻלְדָּל מְעַט כָּאן וּמְעַט כָּאן, כָּשֵׁר.
17
(39) Detached –
This is speaking about a fowl,306 and refers to the ruling [of the Shulchan Aruch of Rav Yosef Caro,] in subsection 15 [above], “If, when a fowl is being slaughtered, one of [the simanim] was slit….”
(40) Unacceptable –
[The reason the slaughtered animal is unacceptable] is that it is a neveilah of questionable status (Sifsei Kohen307). As stated in the beraisa308 cited above,309 [the animal is placed in this category] because there is an unresolved question regarding its slaughter.310
According to Rashi’s interpretation311 cited above309 – that the reason a detached siman disqualifies a fowl is that the fowl is considered as if it were tereifah before its slaughter – it is necessary to say that the beraisa’s statement that there is an unresolved question regarding the slaughter means that retroactively, a question arose regarding as to whether [the fowl] was kosher at the time of slaughter because there is a [clearly recognizable] negative factor – [the siman] is obviously detached. This negative factor clearly [disqualifies the slaughter] according to Scriptural Law.
[This ruling is somewhat similar to that of a person who was] ritually impure who remains in that halachic state [until he goes through an act of purification, for example, immersing in a mikveh.] If we see that the mikveh [used is not halachically acceptable, the fact that the ritually impure person immersed himself in it does not change his status. We do not say that the mikveh was acceptable at the time he immersed himself, and it became disqualified only afterwards, because] there are two factors leading to the disqualification [of his immersion].312 Hence, [the person] is considered to be definitely impure,313 and [any] terumah and sacrificial food [with which he came in contact] must be destroyed by fire,314 as stated in sec. 1 above.315
[A similar concept] is stated in sec. 18316 above, regarding an animal that was slaughtered with a knife that was [discovered to be] blemished. [Since] while the animal was alive, it was forbidden [to be eaten], we presume that it remains in that state [unless we know that it was slaughtered properly].
Similarly, in the present instance, there is an [obvious] disqualifying factor – we see that [one of the simanim] is detached. [If we would be certain that it became detached before the shechitah,] this would clearly disqualify [the animal] according to Scriptural Law. [Since we do not know when the siman became detached,] this [obvious] disqualifying factor causes [the situation] to be considered a halachic doubt [‒ i.e., a situation in which the halachah is not clear ‒] regarding a Scriptural prohibition. In such an instance, we rule stringently. [The rationale is that the animal] was never presumed to be permitted to be eaten — not even for one moment — for during its lifetime, its [meat] was forbidden as eiver min hachai, “a limb from a living animal.”317 For this reason, [when, after the slaughter, a siman was discovered to be detached,] it is considered as if there is doubt regarding the validity of the slaughter according to the understanding of Rabbeinu Yonah cited in [the gloss of] Rashba318 and Rabbeinu Nissim.319
(Alternatively,) this obvious disqualification has a retroactive effect, causing doubt that perhaps the siman was detached while [the animal] was alive [in which instance, it would have been a tereifah]. If a doubt arises [regarding whether or not an animal was a tereifah] when it was alive, the presumption that [its meat] is definitely forbidden [to be eaten] because of [its previous state] as eiver min hachai [continues to apply] according to the understanding of Issur VeHeter and Rama,320 as stated in sec. 1 above.321 (Note what is stated at the end of sec. 36 below,322 that Rashba himself was in doubt regarding this matter.)
However, according to the understanding of Tosafos who cite the author of Halachos Gedolos,323 and those who follow this approach, when one of the simanim is detached, the ritual slaughter is not effective. [This applies] even regarding a fowl. [Although it is only required to slit one siman when slaughtering a fowl,] if [after slitting both simanim, the shochet notices that the upper portion of] one of the fowl’s simanim was detached, [even if] the other [siman] was slit [correctly, it] is not effective [in causing the fowl’s meat to be permitted. According to this approach,] the beraisa [cited originally] does not serve as support regarding tereifos, for with regard to tereifos even if the doubt arose when the animal was alive, it could be said that we rely on the chazakah [i.e., the existing presumption] that [the animal] was permitted.324 True, [while the animal was alive, its meat] was forbidden because of the prohibition against partaking of meat from a living animal. Nevertheless, once it was slaughtered, that prohibition is no longer relevant, and the presumed state [of the animal] is that [its meat] is permitted. How much more so does this apply when the doubt arises after [the animal] was slaughtered. [This applies even when] there is an obvious disqualifying factor – [the siman] is clearly [detached] – as will be stated below.
When, as stated by the beraisa, there is a doubt whether [a siman] was detached while [the animal] was alive, the reason [the slaughter] is invalid is because [an animal’s] presumed state is that it is forbidden until we know the manner in which it was slaughtered, [i.e., whether its slaughter was effective in removing the presumption that the animal’s meat is forbidden. If a siman was discovered to be detached,] we do not know whether [the animal] was slaughtered [in such a manner.] For this reason, we do not follow the presumption that the simanim were intact and that it is [only after the slaughter that] they becamedetached. [The rationale is that] one presumption [– the presumption that the animal’s meat is forbidden due to the prohibition of eiver min hachai –] is balanced against the other [– the presumption that the simanim are intact – and the animal’s meat is therefore forbidden because] there is a disqualifying factor that is clearly evident – [i.e., the siman] is detached. [This] resembles [the instance of] a slaughtering knife that was discovered to be blemished [as mentioned in] sec. 18, above.325
Even according to the understanding of Rashba,326 [who maintains] that an animal is presumed to be forbidden, and [the shochet] must prove that an action that make it permissible was performed, [i.e. that the animal was slaughtered correctly, when a siman] was [found to be] detached, [one might suggest that] this rationale is not relevant because it could be argued [that since the slaughter may have been performed properly,] on the contrary, the burden of proof is [now on those who maintain that the slaughter is not valid; let them prove that the siman] was detached before [the animal’s] slaughter. [After all,] it could be said that the siman should be presumed to have been intact [at the time the animal was slaughtered]. Nevertheless, since at present, [the siman] is obviously detached and it is not known when it became detached, it could be argued that the burden of proof is on [those who wish to permit the slaughter ‒ let them prove that the siman] was detached after [the animal was] slaughtered. [Since neither instance can be proven,] the situation remains one of doubt, like the instance of the slaughtering knife mentioned above, [and therefore the slaughter is not considered valid].326
No distinction should be made between [a blemished] slaughtering knife and [a detached] siman even according to Ramban,327 who maintains that [an animal with] a detached [siman] is tereifah328 and will not live. [We are usually not concerned that an animal is tereifah, because] the majority of animals are kosher [i.e., not tereifah], and a majority has greater halachic weight than a chazakah.329 This logic [is reflected in the ruling] that we are not concerned [enough about the possibility that an animal’s] gullet might be perforated to check it [for perforations]. Nor [do we worry] that perhaps the shochet slit [the gullet] in the [exact] place where a perforation existed. True, [a chazakah exists that] an animal is presumed to be forbidden until it is known that it was slaughtered properly. [Nevertheless, the majority of animals do not have perforated gullets. Therefore,] we follow the majority,330 and a majority has greater halachic weight than a chazakah.
Despite [these arguments, when a siman is] detached, it is not appropriate to [say that we should] follow the majority at all, because there is an [obvious] halachic difficulty – [the siman] is clearly detached. For this very same reason, we do not follow the majority regarding a doubt that arose as to whether [the shochet] interrupted [the slaughter] or pressed [the knife against the simanim], as stated in sec. 1[:3].331
Even in an instance where a wolf came, snatched the intestines [of an animal], and returned them with perforations, the only reason that [the meat of the animal] is permitted is because of the accepted presumption [that once an animal was slaughtered properly, it is assumed to be kosher,]332 as stated in the Talmud.333 [The reason the meat is permitted is because of the accepted presumption regarding the animal’s state] and not because [the intestines of] the majority of animals [are not perforated.334]
[The reason the emphasis is placed on the chazakah and not on the majority is because when] the Torah335 teaches us to follow the majority [the intent is that we do so] only when there are no clearly evident disqualifying factors. For were we not [guided by the principle] of following the majority, [there could always be] a suspicion that there is a disqualifying factor even if none is evident. For example, [were we not to rely on the fact that the majority of animals are unblemished], we might suspect that the gullet was perforated in the [exact] place where [the shochet made the] slit,336 and the like.
However, if we see a disqualifying factor before us, and [to permit the animal’s meat,] it is necessary to say that the disqualifying factor occurred at this time, [i.e., after the slaughter], it is the accepted presumption [that is significant. In such an instance] we maintain that the established presumption that [the animal’s meat] was permitted is allowed to stand, and we say that the disqualifying factor occurred at the present time [i.e., after the animal was slaughtered].
[The above applies only when there is no chazakah that counterbalances the presumption that the animal’s meat is permitted.] Therefore, if [a siman] is detached – in which instance, the presumed state [of the animal] is that it is forbidden until we know that it was slaughtered [properly] – one established presumption is weighed against the other, and thus, there is a doubtful situation involving a Scriptural prohibition.337 Even if there is a factor that would allow for the possibility that [the siman was detached] after the slaughter, that factor is not considered according to the opinion of the author of Halachos Gedolos and those who follow his approach. Their rationale is that the doubt involves the actual slaughter, and does not at all resemble a doubt regarding as to whether [an animal] was tereifah [while alive].338
Even the authorities339 who rule leniently regarding [a blemished slaughtering] knife [would rule stringently in this instance. The rationale is that] when there is a greater reason to assume [that the knife became blemished] after the slaughter, [the meat of the animal is permitted], because [there, it is the status of] the knife that is in question, but not [the status of] the animal, as stated above in sec. 18.340 By contrast, when the siman of a fowl is [discovered to be] detached, in which instance, it is the status [of the fowl] itself that is in question, all authorities agree that we do not assume [that the siman became detached after the slaughter,] just as a similar assumption is not made when there is a question as to whether [the shochet] interrupted [the slaughter] or pressed [the knife against the siman.]
[Instead,] the ruling is the same as that which applies to a [blemished] knife according to the authorities341 who rule stringently in the above source, [maintaining] that we only assume [that the knife was blemished after the slaughter] if [it was used] to break bones. [The rationale is that using a knife to break bones will] certainly blemish it. Thus, the fact that [the knife] is [obviously] blemished is not considered a questionable factor that disqualifies [the slaughter]. However, if [the shochet accidentally] cut into the neckbone – or even other bones when it was drawn back and forth across them [while slaughtering the animal] – we do not assume [that this was what caused the blemish in the knife] even though it is more likely that these entities would cause a blemish [in the knife] than would [the animal’s] hide. Since it is not certain that this will cause a blemish, and [since] the knife is blemished at present, there is a disqualifying factor [regarding the slaughter, and that factor] combines with the existing presumption [regarding the animal, i.e.,] that [the animal] is forbidden, [causing the situation to be considered] a doubt regarding a Scriptural [prohibition.] The same rationale applies regarding [a siman] that is detached in such an instance.
Even according to the approach of Rashi – who maintains that a detached [siman] merely renders a fowl tereifah, but not a neveilah – one should not assume [that the siman was detached after the slaughter] unless there is an obvious justification for such an assumption. However, such an assumption may not be made because [the fowl] was thrown [after its slaughter] or because [of its movements during] its death throes, as stated by Rama.342 [This applies] even regarding the windpipe, which is [more] likely to be detached. As explained by Maharik in his responsa:343
It is obvious that [the animal’s movement during] its death throes are not forceful enough to cause the simanim to be detached from the place they are attached. For it is well known that most fowl have death throes after shechitah. [However,] go and see how many detached [simanim] are found. Therefore, clearly, most often, the windpipe is not detached because of [the fowl’s] death throes.
However, according to the understanding of the author of Halachos Gedolos, [a slightly different ruling applies]. Even if one manipulated [the simanim] forcefully by hand – in which case, [the manipulation] is powerful enough to detach them – we do not assume [that they were detached in this manner after the slaughter]. This is the halachah that is followed (Tevuos Shor,344 in contrast to [the approach of] Tosafos). However, if one manipulated [the windpipe] so forcefully that it certainly caused [the siman] to be detached, [the fact that the windpipe] was discovered to be detached is not considered as a disqualifying factor at all.
[This resembles an instance where a slaughtering knife was used] to break bones, in which case, that action can certainly cause a blemish.345 [This is also similar to the ruling regarding an instance in which an intervening substance was discovered on a woman’s flesh after she immersed herself in a mikveh.] If she handled that substance after [her] immersion, [the immersion is not disqualified,] as stated in sec. 18.346 For this reason, [in the instance] referred to in sec. 34:9, where a disqualifying factor [was found] in a windpipe, it is assumed that it was [caused by] the knife, as will be explained in that source.347
(41) At the time of the slaughter –
For example, [the shochet] said that he inspected [the siman] after [slitting it], as stated below in sec. 25[:1]. This teaches [us] that even in a situation where [the presumed state – that the animal] is prohibited – is established, and there is a [clearly evident] defect – for we see that [the siman] is detached – nevertheless, the word of one reliable individual [i.e., the shochet], is accepted regarding a matter that he had the potential [to correct.]348 True, [the shochet] cannot correct [the fact that one of the simanim] was detached. However, with regard to [the siman] being detached, that prohibition has not been established. On the contrary, it is presumed that [an animal] is permitted with regard to the detachment [of the simanim] because [the simanim of] most animals are not detached.349 There is a prohibition against partaking of eiver min hachai that has been established, [i.e., it is forbidden to partake of an animal’s meat while it is still alive]. However, [the shochet] has the potential to correct [that situation and remove the prohibition] through the ritual slaughter [of the animal] (Maharai).350
However, if [the shochet] did not examine [the siman] after slitting it, we do not assume that if it had been detached, he would have seen it or felt it, because who can determine such a matter? [The simanim] are [imperceptible to casual touch], “like objects [contained] in a full stomach” (Maharik).351 Therefore, one should not rely on the shochet who said, “I felt [that the siman] was not detached at the time of the slaughter,” because it is not possible to make such a determination.
Even if the portion of the siman that was detached was turned over and became positioned in the place where [the shochet] was slaughtering, that is not proof that it was detached after [the fowl’s] slaughter [was completed. For] it is possible that initially [the portion that was] detached was lying detached in its place at the time of the slaughter, and [only] afterwards, due to [the fowl’s] death throes, did it turn over and become positioned in the place of slaughter (Tevuos Shor).352
(לט) שָׁמוּט.
בְּעוֹף מַיְרִי.שצא וְקָאֵי אַדִּלְעֵיל סְעִיף ט"ו אֲבָל אִם שָׁחַט אֶחָד בְּעוֹף כוּ':
(מ) פְּסוּלָה.
פֵּרוּשׁ סְפֵק נְבֵלָה (שַׁ"ךְשצב) כִּדְתַנְיָא בְּבָרַיְתָאשצג דִלְעֵילשצד דְּהוּא סָפֵק בִּשְׁחִיטָה.שצה
וּלְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"ישצו דִלְעֵילשצז דִּשְׁמוּטָה דִּפְסוּלָה בְּעוֹף הוּא מִשּׁוּם דַּהֲרֵי נִטְרְפָה תְּחִלָּה. צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר דְּהָא דְּקָרֵי לָהּ תַּנָּא סָפֵק בִּשְׁחִיטָה הַיְנוּ מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנּוֹלַד סָפֵק לְמַפְרֵעַ אִם כְּשֵׁרָה הָיְתָה בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא רֵעוּתָא שֶׁהֲרֵי הִיא שְׁמוּטָה לְפָנֶיךָ. דְּרֵעוּתָא בְּרוּרָה מִדְּאוֹרַיְתָא הִיא זוֹ הָא דַהֲרֵי הִיא לְפָנֶיךָ מִדְּמִצְטָרֶפֶת לְחֶזְקַת טֻמְאָה גַּבֵּי מִקְוֶה לְמֶהֱוֵי תַּרְתֵּי לְרֵעוּתָאשצח לְשַׁוְיָהּ וַדַּאי טָמֵאשצט וְלִשְׂרוֹף עָלֶיהָ תְּרוּמָה וְקָדָשִׁים כְּדִלְעֵיל סִימָן א'ת וּלְחֶזְקַת אִסּוּר דִּבְהֵמָה בְּחַיֶּיהָ גַּבֵּי סַכִּין פְּגוּמָה דִּלְעֵיל סִימָן י"ח.תא וְהָכִי נַמִי כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא רֵעוּתָא דַּהֲרֵי שְׁמוּטָה לְפָנֶיךָ שֶׁהִיא רֵעוּתָא בְּרוּרָה מִדְּאוֹרַיְתָא מְהַנְיָא רֵעוּתָא זוֹ לִהְיוֹת סָפֵק דְּאוֹרַיְתָא וּלְחוּמְרָא הוֹאִיל וְלֹא הָיְתָה לָהּ חֶזְקַת הֶתֵּר בָּרוּר לַאֲכִילָה אֲפִלּוּ שָׁעָה אַחַת דִּבְחַיֶּיהָ הָיְתָה אֲסוּרָה מִשּׁוּם אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי.תב וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי מִקְּרֵי סָפֵק בִּשְׁחִיטָה לְפִי דַּעַת הָרַב רַבֵּנוּ יוֹנָה בְּרַשְׁבָּ"אתג וְרַ"ןתד (אוֹ) דִּמְהַנְיָא רֵעוּתָא זוֹ לִהְיוֹת נוֹלָד סָפֵק לְמַפְרֵעַ מֵחַיִּים שֶׁמָּא נִשְׁמְטָה. וּבְסָפֵק הַנּוֹלָד מֵחַיִּים הִיא בְּחֶזְקַת אִסּוּר מַמָּשׁ דְּאֵבֶר מִן הַחַי לְפִי דַּעַת אִסּוּר וְהֶתֵּרתה וּרְמָ"אתו כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְעֵיל סִימָן א'תז (וְעַיֵּן מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב לְקַמָּן סוֹף סִימָן ל"ותח שֶׁהָרַשְׁבָּ"א גוּפֵיהּ נִסְתַּפֵּק בְּזֶה).
אֲבָל לְפִי דַּעַת הַתּוֹסְפוֹת בְּשֵׁם בַּהַ"גתט וְסִיעָתָם דִּשְׁמוּטָה אֵין שְׁחִיטָה מוֹעֶלֶת וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּעוֹף שֶׁנִּשְׁמַט סִימָן אֶחָד אֵין שְׁחִיטָה מוֹעֶלֶת בַּשֵּׁנִי אֵין רְאָיָה מִבָּרַיְתָא זוֹ לְעִנְיַן טְרֵפוֹת דְּבִטְרֵפוֹת אֲפִלּוּ בְּסָפֵק הַנּוֹלָד מֵחַיִּים מַמָּשׁ יֵשׁ לוֹמַר דְּמוֹקְמִינָן בְּחֶזְקַת הֶתֵּר.תי וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָיְתָה אֲסוּרָה מִשּׁוּם אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי מִכָּל מָקוֹם מִשֶּׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה שֶׁאִסּוּר אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי חָלַף וְהָלַךְ לוֹ אָמְרִינָן נִשְׁחֲטָה בְּחֶזְקַת הֶתֵּר עוֹמֶדֶת. וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן בְּסָפֵק הַנּוֹלָד אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִכָּא רֵעוּתָא דַּהֲרֵי לְפָנֶיךָ וּכְמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְקַמָּן. וּבְסָפֵק נִשְׁמְטָה מֵחַיִּים דִּבְבָרַיְתָא זוֹ הַיְנוּ טַעְמָא דִּפְסוּלָהתיא מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהִיא בְּחֶזְקַת אִסּוּר עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע לְךָ בַּמֶּה נִשְׁחֲטָה וְזוֹ לֹא נוֹדַע לְךָ בַּמֶּה נִשְׁחֲטָה. וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי לֹא אָמְרִינָן הַעֲמֵד הַסִּימָנִים בְּחֶזְקָתָן שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁלֵמִים מִתְּחִלָּה וְהַשְׁתָּא הוּא דְּנִשְׁמְטָה מִשּׁוּם דְּמוֹקְמִינָן חֲזָקָה לַהֲדֵי חֲזָקָה מֵאַחַר דְּאִיכָּא רֵעוּתָא דַּהֲרֵי שְׁמוּטָה לְפָנֶיךָ. כְּמוֹ בְּסַכִּין שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת פְּגוּמָה דִּלְעֵיל סִימָן י"ח.תיב וְאַף לְפִי דַּעַת הָרַשְׁבָּ"אתיג דְּהַיְנוּ טַעְמָא דְּאָמְרִינָן בְּהֵמָה בְּחֶזְקַת אִסּוּר עוֹמֶדֶת מִשּׁוּם דְּעָלֶיךָ הָרְאָיָה שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה בָּהּ מַעֲשֶׂה הַמַּכְשִׁירָהּ וּבִשְׁמוּטָה לֹא שַׁיָּךְ הַאי טַעְמָא דְּאַדְּרַבָּה אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר עָלֶיךָ הָרְאָיָה שֶׁנִּשְׁמְטָה קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא לְאוֹקְמֵיהּ אַחֲזָקָה. דְּמִכָּל מָקוֹם כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִיא שְׁמוּטָה לְפָנֶיךָ וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָתַי נִשְׁמְטָה אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר נַמִי עָלֶיךָ הָרְאָיָה שֶׁאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה נִשְׁמְטָה וּמִידֵי סְפֵיקָא לֹא נָפְקָא כְּמוֹ בְּסַכִּין דִּלְעֵיל.תיד
וְאֵין לְחַלֵּק בֵּין סַכִּין לִשְׁמוּטָה אַף לְרַמְבַּ"ןתטו דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּטָה טְרֵפָהתטז וְאֵינָהּ חַיָּה וְרֹב בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים כְּשֵׁרִים וְרוּבָּא עָדִיף מֵחֲזָקָה.תיז דְּמֵהַאי טַעְמָא לֹא חַיְשִׁינָן לִבְדּוֹק בִּנְקוּבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט וְלֹא שֶׁמָּא קָשָׁחִיט בִּמְקוֹם נֶקֶבתיח אַף עַל גַּב דִּבְהֵמָה בְּחֶזְקַת אִסּוּר עוֹמֶדֶת עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע לְךָ בַּמֶּה נִשְׁחֲטָה מִשּׁוּם דְּאָזְלִינָן בָּתַר רוּבָּא וְרוּבָּא עָדִיף מֵחֲזָקָה.תיט דְּמִכָּל מָקוֹם גַּבֵּי שְׁמוּטָה לֹא שַׁיָּךְ לְמֵיזַל בָּתַר רוּבָּא כְּלָל כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא רֵעוּתָא דַּהֲרֵי שְׁמוּטָה לְפָנֶיךָ כְּמוֹ דְּלֹא אָזְלִינָן בָּתַר רוּבָּא בְּסָפֵק שָׁהָה וְסָפַק דָּרַס מֵהַאי טַעְמָא כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְעֵיל סִימָן א'.תכ וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּבָא זְאֵב וְנָטַל בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם וְהֶחֱזִירָם כְּשֶׁהֵם נְקוּבִים לֹא שָׁרִינָן אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם חֲזָקָה כִּדְאִיתָא בִּגְמָרָאתכא וְלֹא מִשּׁוּם רוּבָּא. דְּלֹא יָלְפִינָן מִקְּרָא לְמֵיזַל בָּתַר רוּבָּא אֶלָּא הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא רֵעוּתָא כְּלָל לְפָנֵינוּ דְּאִי לָאו דְּאָזְלִינָן בָּתַר רוּבָּא הָוֵי חַיְשִׁינָן אֲפִלּוּ לְרֵעוּתָא דְּלֹא חֲזִינָן כְּלָל כְּמוֹ שֶׁמָּא בִּמְקוֹם נֶקֶב בַּוֵּשֶׁט קָא שָׁחִיט וּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא. אֲבָל הֵיכָא דַּחֲזִינָן רֵעוּתָא קַמָּן וּבְעִינָן לְמֵימַר הַשְׁתָּא הוּא דְּאִתְרַע זֶהוּ עִנְיַן חֲזָקָה דְּמוֹקְמִינָן בְּחֶזְקַת הֶתֵּר וְאָמְרִינָן הַשְׁתָּא הוּא דְּאִתְרַע. וְהִלְכָּךְ בִּשְׁמוּטָהתכב דְּאִיכָּא נַמִי חֶזְקַת אִסּוּר עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע לְךָ בַּמֶּה נִשְׁחֲטָה מוֹקְמִינָן חֲזָקָה לַהֲדֵי חֲזָקָהתכג וַהֲוָה לֵיהּ סָפֵק דְּאוֹרַיְתָא.תכד וַאֲפִלּוּ יֵשׁ לְפָנֵינוּ דָּבָר לִתְלוֹת בּוֹ אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה לֹא תָּלִינָן מֵהַאי טַעְמָא לְפִי דַּעַת בַּהַ"ג וְסִיעָתוֹ דְּהוּא סָפֵק בִּשְׁחִיטָה מַמָּשׁ. וְלֹא דָמֵי לִסְפֵק טְרֵפוֹת כְּלָל.תכה וְאַף לְפִי דַּעַת הַמְּקִלִּיןתכו גַּבֵּי סַכִּין כְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ לִתְלוֹת יוֹתֵר בִּלְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה.תכז הַיְנוּ מִשּׁוּם דְּסַכִּין אִתְרְעִי בְּהֵמָה לֹא אִתְרְעִי כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְעֵיל סִימָן י"ח.תכח אֲבָל בִּשְׁמוּטָה דְּעוֹף גּוּפֵיהּ אִתְרַע לְכוּלֵי עָלְמָא לֹא תָּלִינָן כְּמוֹ דְּלֹא תָּלִינָן בְּסָפֵק שָׁהָה סָפֵק דָּרַס. וְדִינָהּ כְּסַכִּין לְפִי דַּעַת הַמַּחְמִירִיםתכט שָׁם שֶׁאֵין תּוֹלִין אֶלָּא בְּשִׁבַּר עֶצֶם דְּוַדַּאי פּוֹגֵם וְלֵיכָּא רֵעוּתָא כְּלָל בְּמַה שֶּׁהִיא פְּגוּמָה לְפָנֶיךָ אֲבָל לֹא בְּחָתַךְ בַּמַּפְרֶקֶת אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ שְׁאָר עֲצָמוֹת בְּדֶרֶךְ הוֹלָכָה וְהוֹבָאָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִתְלוֹת בָּהֶם יוֹתֵר מִבְּעוֹר לְפִי שֶׁמְּצוּיִם לִפְגּוֹם יוֹתֵר אֲפִלּוּ הָכִי לֹא תָּלִינָן. דְּכֵיוָן שֶׁאֵינָהּ וַדַּאי פּוֹגֵם אִיכָּא רֵעוּתָא בְּמַה שֶּׁנִּמְצֵאת פְּגוּמָה לְפָנֶיךָ וּמִצְטָרֶפֶת לְחֶזְקַת אִסּוּר לְמֶהֱוֵי סָפֵק דְּאוֹרַיְתָא. וְהוּא הַדִּין וְהוּא הַטַּעַם בִּשְׁמוּטָה כְּהַאי גַּוְנָא.
וְאַף לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י דִּשְׁמוּטָה אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא טְרֵפָה בְּעוֹף וְלֹא נְבֵלָה אֵין לִתְלוֹת אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ לְפָנֵינוּ דָּבָר מַמָּשׁ לִתְלוֹת בּוֹתל אֲבָל לֹא לִתְלוֹת בִּזְרִיקָה וּפִרְכּוּס כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב רְמָ"א וְאַף בְּגַרְגֶּרֶת דַּעֲבִידָא לְאִשְׁתְּמוּטֵי כִּמְבֹאָר בִּתְשׁוּבַת מַהֲרִ[י]"קתלא דִּפְשִׁיטָא דְּאֵין בְּפִרְכּוּס כֹּחַ לְהַשְׁמִיט הַסִּימָנִים מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרָם שֶׁהֲרֵי דָּבָר יָדוּעַ הוּא שֶׁרֹב הָעוֹפוֹת מְפַרְכְּסִין אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה וּפוּק חֲזִי כַּמָּה שְׁמוּטוֹת מִשְׁתַּכְּחִין מִשּׁוּם כָּךְ הֲלֹא דָּבָר פָּשׁוּט דִּבְרֹב פְּעָמִים אֵין הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת נִשְׁמֶטֶת מֵחֲמַת הַפִּרְכּוּס עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ. אֲבָל לְפִי דַּעַת בַּהַ"ג אֲפִלּוּ מִשְׁמְשׁוּ בָּהּ בְּיָדַיִם בְּחֹזֶק יָד דְּיֵשׁ כֹּחַ לְהַשְׁמִיט אֵין תּוֹלִיןתלב וְהָכִי קַיְמָא לָן (תְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹר.תלג דְּלֹא כְּתוֹסְפוֹת). אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מִשְׁמֵשׁ בְּחֹזֶק כָּל כָּךְ שֶׁבְּוַדַּאי מְשַׁמֵּט דְּבִכְהַאי גַּוְנָא לֵיכָּא רֵעוּתָא כְּלָל בְּמַה שֶּׁנִּמְצֵאת שְׁמוּטָה דְּדָמֵי לְשָׁבַר עֶצֶם דְּוַדַּאי פּוֹגֵםתלד וְכֵן בְּנִתְעַסֵּק בְּאוֹתוֹ הַמִּין אַחַר הַטְּבִילָה דִּלְעֵיל סִימָן י"ח.תלה וּמֵהַאי טַעְמָא תָּלִינָן בְּסַכִּין גַּבֵּי גַּרְגֶּרֶת דִּלְקַמָּן סִימָן ל"ד סְעִיף ט' כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר שָׁם:תלו
(מא) בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה.
כְּגוֹן שֶׁאוֹמֵר שֶׁבָּדַק אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה בִּבְדִיקָה דִלְקַמָּן סִימָן כ"ה.תלז וְקָא מַשְׁמַע לָן דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּאִתְחַזֵּק אִסּוּרָא וְאִיכָּא נַמִי רֵעוּתָא דַּהֲרֵי שְׁמוּטָה לְפָנֶיךָ אֲפִלּוּ הָכִי נֶאֱמָן יְחִידִי בְּדָבָר שֶׁהָיָה בְּיָדוֹ וְאַף עַל גַּב דִּשְׁמוּטָה אֵינָהּ בְּיָדוֹ לְתַקֵּןתלח הָא לְעִנְיַן שְׁמוּטָה לֹא אִתְחַזֵּק אִסּוּרָא דְּאַדְּרַבָּה הִיא בְּחֶזְקַת הֶתֵּר לְעִנְיַן שְׁמוּטָה דְּרֹב בְּהֵמוֹת אֵינָן שְׁמוּטוֹתתלט וְאִסּוּר אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי דְּאִתְחַזֵּק הָיָה בְּיָדוֹ לְתַקְּנוֹ בִּשְׁחִיטָה (מַהֲרַא"יתמ). אֲבָל אִם לֹא בָדַק אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה לֹא אָמְרִינָן אִי אִיתָא דַּהֲוֵי שְׁמוּטָה הֲוֵי חָזֵי לֵיהּ אוֹ מַרְגִּישׁ בּוֹ כִּי מִי יוּכַל לְהַבְחִין בְּזֶה הֲלֹא הוּא כַּעֲצָמִים בְּבֶטֶן הַמְּלֵאָה (מַהֲרִי"קתמא). וְלָכֵן אֵין לִסְמוֹךְ עַל הַשּׁוֹחֵט שֶׁאוֹמֵר הִרְגַּשְׁתִּי בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה שָׁמוּט שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְהַבְחִין בְּזֶה וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם מְקוֹם הָעִקּוּר בַּסִּימָן נִתְהַפֵּךְ וּבָא לוֹ לִמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁמִּתְּחִלָּה הָיָה הָעִקּוּר מֻנָּח עָקוּר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה וְעַתָּה עַל יְדֵי הַפִּרְכּוּס נִתְהַפֵּךְ וּבָא לוֹ לִמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה וְאֵינָהּ הוֹכָחָה כְּלָל שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה (תְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹרתמב):
If [the shochet] slit one of the simanim [of a fowl] and found the other [siman] detached, (39) and it is not known whether it became detached before the [first siman] was slit, or afterwards, [the slaughter] is unacceptable. (40)
Note: Even if [the shochet] threw the fowl from his hand [after slitting the siman], we do not say that [the other siman] became detached because he threw [the fowl] or [because of its] convulsive movements in its death throes (Maharik, responsum 35). Nevertheless, the word of the shochet is accepted were he to say that [the other siman] was not detached at the time of the slaughter (41) [i.e, when he slit the first siman] (Piskei Maharai, responsum 205).
יזשָׁחַט אֶחָד מֵהַסִּימָנִים וְנִמְצָא הַשֵּׁנִי שָׁמוּט, (לט) וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה נִשְׁמַט אוֹ אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה, הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה. (מ)
הַגָּה: וַאֲפִלּוּ זָרַק הָעוֹף מִיָּדוֹ, וְלֹא אָמְרִינָן דְּמֵחֲמַת זְרִיקָה אוֹ פִּרְכּוּס נִשְׁמַט (מַהֲרִי״ק שֹׁרֶשׁ ל״ה). מִיהוּ הַשּׁוֹחֵט נֶאֱמָן לוֹמַר שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה שָׁמוּט בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה (מא) (פִּסְקֵי מהרא״י סי׳ ר״ה).
18
(42) Detached –
[This refers to an instance where the person who discovers this does] not know whether [the siman] was detached before it was slit or afterwards. [This law] applies [not only to fowl,] but also to animals, as [the Shulchan Aruch of Rav Yosef Caro] proceeds to state, “One should bring [another] animal and slit….”
(43) Under the hide –
[Holding the hide in] such a manner produces an effect similar to holding the simanim with one’s hand. [Under normal circumstances, it is impossible for an animal with a detached siman to be slaughtered.353 However,] if [the shochet] held the simanim in his hand, it is possible for a detached [siman] to be slit. For this reason, [if a siman is discovered to be detached after the shochet slaughtered the animal while holding the simanim,] we are concerned that perhaps [the siman] was detached before it was slit. [Thus, the slaughter] is [considered] invalid due to the doubt [that exists]. However, if [the shochet] did not hold the simanim [in his hand], in most instances, it is impossible for a detached [siman] to be slit, because the detached siman will usually descend immediately, and will [therefore] not be slit (Rashi).354
However, there are [rare] instances when a detached siman can be slit [even if the shochet did not hold it in his hand]. For this reason, we [make an exception and] rely on a comparison. [Before issuing a ruling, we] compare the slit [siman of the slaughtered animal in question] to a slit [siman] of another animal to see if the slits are similar. [This accords with the first opinion in Rav Yosef Caro’s Shulchan Aruch]. By contrast, if [the shochet] held the simanim and slit them, it is possible for a detached [siman] to be slit. [Since slitting a detached siman in this manner is possible,] we do not [make an exception and] rely on this comparison, because [as a general rule,] we do not [decide whether an animal is tereifah] by comparing one animal to another, as stated below in sec. 36355 (Rabbeinu Asher.356)
Even the opposing authorities cited in that source357 would agree regarding the present instance – when [the shochet] grasps the simanim – that it is possible for a detached siman to be slit. [Therefore,] we do not rely on a comparison. This is also the opinion of [Rav Yosef Caro in his] Shulchan Aruch.
The rationale [for the distinction between the two instances] is that the comparison here – [where the shochet held the simanim] – does not resemble [the comparison] there. In the instance [mentioned in sec. 36], a comparison is being made to [an instance when] a slit [was made] after [the animal] was slaughtered, when [the animal] no longer possesses any vitality. [Therefore,] the slit will not become red at all. [By contrast, concerning] the present instance,358 the comparison is to a cut made as part of the slaughter, when the animal still possesses vitality, even though [there is a suspicion that] the siman had already been detached. It is only that the slit made when slaughtering the second animal that was made before [the siman] was ripped [from the place where it was attached] will become redder, as stated below.
For this reason, a comparison is also not effective in the instance mentioned above, [in] subsection 17. [Therefore, it is not effective] to bring another fowl and slit one siman and detach the other, and [then] compare the two slits. [It is] only in the instance at hand that we rely on a comparison because, in most instances, it is impossible for a detached siman to be slit if [the shochet] did not grasp the simanim, as Rabbeinu Asher writes.
(44) [The slaughter] is permitted –
[The rationale for this leniency is that] just as the second [animal] was slaughtered before the siman was detached, [it appears that] the same occurred to the first [animal], which is why they both have the same hue of red [where the siman was slit].
There is no difference regarding this as to whether [the question involves] the first siman or the second.359 [Even if the first siman was detached,] since it was slit before it was detached, [the animal’s meat] would be kosher. [This applies] even if [the first siman] was detached before the second siman was slit.
True, regarding a fowl, it is required that both simanim be attached and fit for ritual slaughter when [the shochet] slits [the first] one.360 Nevertheless, it is as if the [first] siman that was slit has been [entirely detached from the fowl and] placed in a basket,361 and its status has no effect on the second siman. Therefore, even though [the siman] was detached after it was slit, that is of no consequence. Even the authorities who [generally] maintain that [the first siman] is not considered as having been placed in a basket [after being slit, would not differ in this instance. Their opinion involves only] an instance where [other] factors that would render an animal tereifah arise between slitting the first siman and the second, as stated in sec. 26.362 In this instance, [however, these authorities] would agree that regarding [the laws of] ritual slaughter, [it is] not [necessary] to disqualify the slitting of the second siman because the first one is detached. [This is] because all authorities agree that, in this regard, [the first siman] is considered to have been placed in a basket.
[This law applies] even if only the larger portion [of the siman] was slit, because [slitting] the larger portion [of a siman] is considered [slitting] the entire [siman, i.e., the general rule that most of an entity is considered to be the same as the entire entity applies] to this matter as well [as to many other instances. Hence, the siman] is considered as if it had been placed in a basket, as [stated] in the above-mentioned source. For this reason, the Talmud363 and the halachic authorities364 did not make a distinction between [an instance when merely] the greater portion [of the siman was slit] and [one when the siman was slit] in its entirety.Nevertheless, according to Rashi,365 Ramban,366 and those who follow their approach367 that [an animal with] a detached siman is considered as tereifah during its lifetime, a comparison [to another animal] is not effective [in permitting the meat of the slaughtered animal to be eaten,] according to the opinion that [the siman] is not considered as as if it had been placed in a basket, [when there are] factors [present] that render an animal tereifah. [The rationale is that] there is concern that [the first siman] became detached before the second siman was slit, and thus [the animal] became tereifah [before the slaughter was completed.368 According to this approach,] a comparison is effective only regarding a fowl, which is kosher [when only] one siman [was slit]. Rambam explicitly rules in this manner.369 He follows his previously established approach, as I will explain in sec. 26.370
(45) The first [animal] –
[In such an instance, the difference in the hues of red between the slit in the first animal’s siman and the slit in the second animal’s siman] is an indication that the siman [in the first animal] slipped away before the animal was slaughtered. For that reason, the slit [in the siman] of [that animal] does not become as red.371
We do not, however, compare [the first slit] with another slit [which is] made after the [animal’s] slaughter in the detached siman itself to see whether the slit with which [the animal] was slaughtered resembles this [second] slit. [True, in this way, one might think that] there would [also] be some indication [as to whether the siman] was slit after it was detached. [Indeed,] we find a comparison made in such a manner regarding a windpipe that was severed, as [stated] in sec. 34372 below. [However,] there is a difference [between the two instances], because a detached siman [does not necessarily render an animal] tereifah. That being so, [when the slit with which the animal was slaughtered was made,] the siman was considered to be [part of the living animal]. Even if [the siman] was slit after it was detached, the slit [with which] the [animal was] slaughtered will have a darker hue of red than the slit made after the [animal’s] slaughter (Rabbeinu Asher).324
Perishah373 writes that even if [the animal] was slaughtered after [the siman] slipped away, [since the slaughter was performed] while the animal was alive, the slit will become a darker hue of red than a slit made after the slaughter, when the animal does not have any vitality at all, and is dead.
[This understanding] applies even according to the authorities who maintain that a slipped siman [renders the animal] tereifah,374 for even so, [at the time of its slaughter, the animal] is alive. It is only that it will not live for longer than twelve months [after the siman became detached].
(מב) שָׁמוּט.
וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אִם קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה נִשְׁמַט אוֹ אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה.תמג וּמַיְרִי הָכָא גַּם בִּבְהֵמָה כִּדְמַסִּיק שֶׁיָּבִיא בְּהֵמָה וְיִשְׁחוֹט כוּ':
(מג) תַּחַת הָעוֹר.
דִּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא מְהַנֵּי כְּאִלּוּ תָּפַס הַסִּימָנִים בְּיָדוֹ דְּאֶפְשָׁר לִשְׁמוּטָה שֶׁתֵּעָשֶׂה שְׁחוּטָה כְּשֶׁתָּפַס הַסִּימָנִים בְּיָדוֹ.תמד וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי חַיְשִׁינָן שֶׁמָּא נִשְׁמַט קֹדֶם שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט וּפְסוּלָה מִסָּפֵק מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן כְּשֶׁלֹּא תָּפַס הַסִּימָנִים אִי אֶפְשָׁר לִשְׁמוּטָה שֶׁתֵּעָשֶׂה שְׁחוּטָה בְּרֹב הַפְּעָמִים לְפִי שֶׁהַסִּימָן הַשָּׁמוּט הוּא יוֹרֵד לְמַטָּה מִיָּד בְּרֹב הַפְּעָמִים וְשׁוּב לֹא נִשְׁחָט (רַשִׁ"יתמה). אֶלָּא שֶׁלִּפְעָמִים אֶפְשָׁר לִשְׁמוּטָה שֶׁתֵּעָשֶׂה שְׁחוּטָה. וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי סָמְכִינָן אַהַקָּפָה שֶׁמַּקִּיף שְׁחִיטָה זוֹ לִשְׁחִיטַת בְּהֵמָה אַחֶרֶת לִרְאוֹת אִם דּוֹמוֹת הַשְּׁחִיטוֹת זוֹ לְזוֹ כִּדְמַסִּיק. אֲבָל בְּשֶׁתָּפַס בַּסִּימָנִים וְשָׁחַט שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לִשְׁמוּטָה שֶׁתֵּעָשֶׂה שְׁחוּטָה לֹא סָמְכִינָן אַהַקָּפָה זוֹ דְּאֵין מַקִּיפִין מִבְּהֵמָה לִבְהֵמָה כְּדִלְקַמָּן סִימָן ל"ותמו (רֹא"שׁתמז). וְאַף הַחוֹלְקִים שָׁםתמח מוֹדִים כַּאן בְּשֶׁתָּפַס בַּסִּימָנִים שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לִשְׁמוּטָה שֶׁתֵּעָשֶׂה שְׁחוּטָה לֹא סָמְכִינָן אַהַקָּפָה הָכָא. וְכֵן דַּעַת הַשֻּׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ. וְהַטַּעַם מִשּׁוּם דְּהַקָּפָה דְהָכָא לֹא דָמֵי לִדְהָתָם דְּהָתָם מַקִּיפִין לַחֲתָךְ דִּלְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵין חַיּוּת בִּבְהֵמָה כְּלָל וְאֵין הַחֲתָךְ מַאֲדִים כְּלָל וְהַקָּפָה דְהָכָא הִיא בַּחֲתַךְ הַשְּׁחִיטָה עַצְמָהּ שֶׁיֵּשׁ עֲדַיִן חַיּוּת בִּבְהֵמָה אַף אִם כְּבָר נִשְׁמַט הַסִּימָן תְּחִלָּה אֶלָּא שֶׁהַשְּׁחִיטָה שְׁנִיָּה שֶׁלִּפְנֵי הָעִקּוּר מַאֲדֶמֶת יוֹתֵר כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְקַמָּן. וּמֵהַאי טַעְמָא נַמִי לֹא מְהַנְּיָא הַקָּפָה בְּהַהִיא דִלְעֵיל סְעִיף י"ז לְהָבִיא עוֹף אַחֵר וְלִשְׁחוֹט בּוֹ סִימָן אֶחָד וְלַעֲקוֹר סִימָן הַב' וּלְהַקִּיף הַשְּׁחִיטוֹת זוֹ לְזוֹ. אֶלָּא הָכָא לְחוֹד סָמְכִינָן אַהַקָּפָה זוֹ מִשּׁוּם דְּרֹב פְּעָמִים אִי אֶפְשָׁר לִשְׁמוּטָה שֶׁתֵּעָשֶׂה שְׁחוּטָה כְּשֶׁלֹּא תָּפַס הַסִּימָנִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב הָרֹא"שׁ:
(מד) כְּשֵׁרָה.
שֶׁכְּמוֹ שֶׁהַשְּׁנִיָּה נִשְׁחֲטָה קֹדֶם שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר הַסִּימָן כָּךְ הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וּלְכָךְ הֵם שָׁוִים בְּאַדְמוּמִיּוּת.
וְאֵין חִלּוּק בְּזֶה בֵּין סִימָן רִאשׁוֹן לְשֵׁנִי שֶׁגַּם בְּרִאשׁוֹן מֵאַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט קֹדֶם שֶׁנִּשְׁמַט אַף אִם נִשְׁמַט קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטַת הַשֵּׁנִי כְּשֵׁרָה. דְּאַף עַל גַּב דִּבְעִינָן שֶׁיִּהְיוּ ב' הַסִּימָנִים מְחֻבָּרִים וּרְאוּיִם לִשְׁחִיטָה כְּשֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט אַחַת מֵהֶם בְּעוֹף מִכָּל מָקוֹם הַסִּימָן הַשָּׁחוּט הוּא כְּמֻנָּח בְּדִיקוּלָאתמט וְלֹא מְהַנְיָא מִדֵּי לְסִימָן הַשֵּׁנִי וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי אַף עַל גַּב דְּנִשְׁמַט אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט לֵית לָן בָּהּ. וְאַף לְמַאן דְּאָמַר דְּלֹא אָמְרִינָן דִּכְמֻנָּח בְּדִיקוּלָא הוּא לְעִנְיָן אִם נוֹלְדוּ בּוֹ סִימָנֵי טְרֵפוֹת בֵּין סִימָן לְסִימָן כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְקַמָּן סִימָן כ"ותנ מוֹדֶה הָכָא לְעִנְיָן לִפְסוֹל שְׁחִיטַת סִימָן הַב' מִשּׁוּם שְׁמוּטַת סִימָן הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁאֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵל דִּכְמֻנָּח בְּדִיקוּלָא הוּא לְעִנְיָן זֶה לְכוּלָא עָלְמָא אֲפִלּוּ אִם לֹא נִשְׁחַט אֶלָּא רֻבּוֹ דְּרֻבּוֹ כְּכֻלּוֹ גַּם לְעִנְיָן זֶה דִּכְמֻנָּח בְּדִיקוּלָא כְּדִלְקַמָּן שָׁם. וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי נַמִי לֹא חִלְּקוּ כַּאן בִּגְמָרָא וּפוֹסְקִים בֵּין רֻבּוֹ לְכֻלּוֹ. וּמִיהוּ לְרַשִׁ"י וְרַמְבַּ"ןתנא וְסִיעָתָם דִּשְׁמוּטָה טְרֵפָה מֵחַיִּים נַמִי הָוְיָא לֹא מְהַנֵּי הַקָּפָה זוֹ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר דְּלֹא אָמְרִינָן דִּכְמֻנָּח בְּדִיקוּלָא הוּא לְעִנְיַן טְרֵפוֹת שֶׁנּוֹלְדוּ בּוֹ דְּיֵשׁ לָחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא נִשְׁמַט קֹדֶם גְּמַר שְׁחִיטַת סִימָן הַב' וּטְרֵפָה הִיא.תנב וְלֹא מְהַנְיָא הַקָּפָה זוֹ אֶלָּא בְּעוֹף שֶׁהֶכְשֵׁרוֹ בְּסִימָן אֶחָד. וְכֵן הוּא בְּרַמְבַּ"םתנג בְּהֶדְיָא. וּלְשִׁיטָתֵיהּ אָזִיל כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב בְּסִימָן כ"ו:תנד
(מה) הָרִאשׁוֹנָה.
דְּרַגְלַיִם לְדָבָר שֶׁנִּשְׁמַט הַסִּימָן קֹדֶם שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט וּלְכָךְ אֵין הַשְּׁחִיטָה שֶׁבּוֹ מַאֲדֶמֶת כָּל כָּךְ.תנה וְהָא דְּאֵין מַקִּיפִין בְּסִימָן זֶה הַשָּׁמוּט בְּעַצְמוֹ לַחְתּוֹךְ בּוֹ חֲתָךְ אַחֵר אַחַר הַשְּׁחִיטָה וְלִרְאוֹת אִם חֲתַךְ הַשְּׁחִיטָה דּוֹמֶה לַחֲתָךְ זֶה רַגְלַיִם לְדָבָר שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁמַטתנו דִּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא מַקִּיפִין בְּקָנֶה שֶׁנִּפְסַק דִּלְקַמָּן סִימָן ל"דתנז דְּשַׁאֲנִי הָכָא דִּשְׁמוּטָה לָאו טְרֵפָה הִיא וְאִם כֵּן חָשׁוּב הַסִּימָן כְּחַיָּה וַאֲפִלּוּ נִשְׁחַט אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁמַט יַאֲדִים חֲתָךְ שֶׁל שְׁחִיטָה יוֹתֵר מֵחֲתָךְ זֶה שֶׁלְּאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה (רֹא"שׁ שָׁםתנח). וְהַפְּרִישָׁהתנט כָּתַב דַּאֲפִלּוּ נִשְׁחַט אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁמַט יַאֲדִים יוֹתֵר חֲתָךְ שֶׁל שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁהוּא בְּחַיֵּי הַבְּהֵמָה יוֹתֵר מֵחֲתָךְ שֶׁלְּאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵין חַיּוּת כְּלָל בִּבְהֵמָה וְהִיא מֵתָה לְגַמְרֵי. וְאָתֵי שַׁפִּיר אֲפִלּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַרתס דִּשְׁמוּטָה טְרֵפָה הִיא דְּמִכָּל מָקוֹם הִיא חַיָּה עַכְשָׁו אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵינָהּ חַיָּה י"ב חֹדֶשׁ:
[The following laws apply when] a siman that was slit was found to be detached: (42) If, while slaughtering, [the shochet] held the simanim in his hand or [held] the hide from behind [where the animal] was slaughtered and the siman was pushed under the hide, (43) [the slaughter] is invalid.
If [the shochet] did not [hold the simanim or the hide behind the animal’s neck in his hand, the meat of the animal] may be permitted via [the following] examination. One should bring [another] animal and slit the siman and then detach [the siman]. If the two slits resemble each other, [the first animal] is kosher. (44)If the second slit becomes a deeper hue of red, [the slaughter of] the first [animal] (45) is invalid.
At present, we are not knowledgeable with regard to this examination. Hence, in all instances, [the slaughter of an animal with a detached siman] is invalid.
יחנִמְצָא הַסִּימָן הַשָּׁחוּט שָׁמוּט, (מב) אִם כְּשֶׁשָּׁחַט תָּפַשׂ הַסִּימָנִים בְּיָדוֹ, אוֹ עוֹר בֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה מֵאֲחוֹרָיו, וְנִדְחַק הַסִּימָן תַּחַת הָעוֹר, (מג) הֲרֵי זוֹ פְּסוּלָה. וְאִם לָאו, מֻתָּר עַל יְדֵי בְּדִיקָה, שֶׁיָּבִיא בְּהֵמָה וְיִשְׁחֹט הַסִּימָן וְאַחַר כָּךְ יַעַקְרֶנּוּ, אִם דּוֹמוֹת שְׁתֵּי הַשְּׁחִיטוֹת זוֹ לָזוֹ, כְּשֵׁרָה, (מד)וְאִם הַשֵּׁנִית מַאֲדֶמֶת יוֹתֵר, פְּסוּלָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. (מה) וְעַכְשָׁו אֵין אָנוּ בְּקִיאִין בִּבְדִיקָה זוֹ, הִלְכָּךְ בְּכָל גַּוְנָא אָסוּר.
19
(46) Kosher –
[This ruling is delivered] because [we assume that the ring from the windpipe] became [detached] because the windpipe turned (Sefer HaAgur; Beis Yosef375). This is interpreted to mean that [the shochet] slit [the windpipe] in two places because [the fowl] turned [its neck during the slaughter]. Therefore, [the ring] separated [from the rest of the windpipe] (Darchei Moshe376). Maharshal377 interprets [the above statement by Sefer HaAgur to mean] that after [the shochet] slit the larger portion of the windpipe, it [then] turned, and therefore, [one ring] separated. For this reason, he differs with the above ruling, stating:
Who will testify that the windpipe turned and [the ring separated] after the slitting of the greater portion of the windpipe? Maybe [this happened] at the beginning of the slaughter or in the middle. Indeed, it is logical to say that because the knife pressed against the windpipe, one ring sprung from its place.
[Maharshal's] rationale and explanation [appear correct], for there is a [clearly apparent] disqualifying factor – the ring is obviously detached. [What is the rationale for saying that the fowl is kosher? One would say] that [it is due to the assumption that the ring] became detached [from the windpipe] after [the shochet] slit the majority of the siman. This involves a doubt concerning the slaughter itself, because it is not known whether [the siman] was slit in the proper manner. This situation resembles exactly [the one] described in subsection 17 [above,] concerning a siman that was discovered to be detached.
In his Beis Yosef, Rav Yosef Caro however, maintains – as the Darchei Moshe explains – that we assume that [the siman] was slit in two places because the windpipe turned [during the slaughter]. Thus, this ring is not considered to have been detached at all [at the time of slaughter. Accordingly, in his Shulchan Aruch, Rav Yosef Caro rules that the fowl is permitted because] it is considered that there is no disqualifying factor – [even though] the siman is obviously detached. We maintain that the presumption regarding the windpipe’s state – that it was not detached, but was rather intact before the slaughter, as is the case regarding most fowl – is still valid. We do not balance the presumption that [the fowl] is forbidden [until it is known to have been slaughtered properly] against this presumption [on which basis, the fowl] is permitted unless there is an [obvious] disqualifying factor, as explained above in sec. 18378 regarding a knife [that was discovered to be blemished] and a mikveh [that was discovered to be lacking water]. In this instance, however, there is no disqualifying factor at all because we assume that [the windpipe] was slit in two places, as stated by Rashba.379 Beis Yosef (sec. 34), and Rama 34:9 cite [this opinion] as halachah.
(47) In such an instance –
[Shechitos Yeshanim] maintains that such a situation will not have resulted from [the windpipe] being slit in two places, but rather because of ikur, i.e., this ring was detached because of the [combination of the] pressure of the knife and the siman being held taut (see Tevuos Shor380 and Shaaris Yosef, responsum 47), and [the shochet] does not know when this occurred.381
There is no difference in this regard whether [the ring from the windpipe] was found on the knife or on the ground, [or] whether it was whole or slit. And [there is] even [no difference] if both sides of the slit are resting on the two sides of the knife and the slit ring is found on the knife, whether [the slit is along] the width of the ring or even [if the ring was] slit and stuck along its length, which is its circumference. None of this constitutes proof that [the ring] was not detached, but [was] rather slit in two or three places.
[In support for the latter supposition, one might ask] if [the ring] was detached first, how could it have been slit?382 [However, that is not definitive proof because] it is possible that initially, the larger portion [of the ring] was detached, but [a small portion] was still slightly connected. Therefore, the knife slit the larger portion [of the ring], or even slit [the ring] in its entirety, and then [the ring] was detached entirely, and [popped] onto the knife. If the larger portion of the windpipe is detached, [the fowl] is deemed a neveilah, and ritual slaughter is not effective [in making the meat permissible]. Thus, the situation [reflects] doubt regarding the [effectiveness of the] slaughter, and whenever there is doubt regarding the slaughter, [the slaughter] is invalid. [This applies] even if the likelihood that [the slaughter is effective, and the meat] is permitted is greater than the likelihood that [the meat] is forbidden. We do not assume [that the fowl was slaughtered properly] unless it is clearly permitted, as stated above383 (Tevuos Shor;384 Sifsei Kohen.385 This is also the opinion of Bach,386 but it runs contrary to that of Turei Zahav387).
All the above applies regarding a ring [from the windpipe] that is whole, or [where at least] most of the ring [is present]. However, if a lesser portion of [one of the windpipe’s] rings was found [on the knife, the fowl] is kosher, because only when the larger portion of the windpipe is detached is [the fowl] disqualified.388 Similarly [in such an instance], there is no concern regarding ikur according to the interpretation of Turei Zahav389 and those who follow his approach, as mentioned above.390 [Those authorities maintain] that a minimal degree of ikur does not disqualify [a fowl] even [if it occurs] at the time of ritual slaughter. [The rationale is that] we do not say that the entire [process of slaughtering a fowl] is a single act with regard to ikur, for [the detachment of a siman] does not occur in the same manner as ritual slaughter at all.
Even if there is a doubt as to whether or not the greater portion [of the siman was detached,] Turei Zahav389 writes that one should rule leniently because [the following] compounded doubt is involved: Maybe the greater portion [of the ring] was not [detached,] and even if one would say that the greater portion was [detached], maybe it was brought about by the turning of the windpipe.
True, Turei Zahav389 maintains that a compounded doubt is not sufficient basis to change the prevailing presumption [that exists from the fowl’s] lifetime [i.e.,] that [the fowl] is forbidden [until it has been slaughtered correctly], as stated in sec. 1 above.391 However, this instance is different, because there are authorities392 who permit [the meat of the fowl] entirely even when there is no compounded doubt. For this reason, Turei Zahav permitted such a circumstance [if it was not known to what extent the windpipe was detached]. The implication of the wording [of Turei Zahav] is that even if [the fowl] is present before us, and it is evident that [a ring from the gullet is partially detached], and because of our lack of knowledge we are not able to determine if its greater portion [was detached, the fowl] is permitted because of the compounded doubt, even though in general [a doubt due to a lack of knowledge] is not considered a doubt [according to halachah].393
However, Tevuos Shor394 rules that [if the partially severed ring of the gullet] is present before us, one should not rule leniently if there is a question [as to] whether its greater portion [was detached. Moreover,] even if [the gullet] was lost, analysis is required [regarding whether the fowl] may actually [be permitted. After all,] there is no presumption that [the fowl] is permitted to counterbalance the doubt [as to] whether the greater portion [of the siman was detached].395 There is only a presumption that [the fowl] is forbidden [since that was its status] while it was alive. The possibility that perhaps the ring was detached by the turning of the gullet after the greater portion of the siman was slit is not sufficient basis to permit [the slaughter] because it is not an evenly balanced doubt. [On the contrary,] it is more likely that the greater portion of one ring was detached when the knife pressed down on the gullet at the beginning of the slaughter, as stated above in the name of Maharshal,396 and that it was only afterwards, when the knife reached thegreater portion [of the ring], it slit [the ring] across its width. True, by and large, we follow the principle that [even] a doubt that is not evenly balanced can be included as part of a compounded doubt.397 However, this situation is different because the one evenly balanced doubt is counteracted by the presumption that [the fowl] is forbidden and there is no presumption that [the fowl] is permitted to balance that [original presumption].398 Note what will be explained in sec. 110.399
(מו) כָּשֵׁר.
שֶׁעַל יְדֵי גִּלְגּוּל הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת נַעֲשָׂה כֵּן (אָגוּרתסא בֵּית יוֹסֵףתסב). פֵּרוּשׁ שֶׁשָּׁחַט בְּב' מְקוֹמוֹת עַל יְדֵי גִלְגּוּל וּלְכָךְ נִפְרַד (דַּרְכֵי מֹשֶׁהתסג). וּרְשַׁ"לתסד פֵּרֵשׁ שֶׁעַל יְדֵי גִּלְגּוּל הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת אַחַר שְׁחִיטַת רֻבָּהּ נִפְרַד וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי חָלַק עַל זֶה וְכָתַב מִי יָעִיד שֶׁעַל יְדֵי גִּלְגּוּל הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת שֶׁלְּאַחַר שְׁחִיטַת רֹב הַסִּימָן הוּא בָּא שֶׁמָּא הוּא בִּתְחִלַּת שְׁחִיטָה אוֹ בְּאֶמְצַע שְׁחִיטָה וְכֵן מִסְתַּבֵּר לְמֵימַר שֶׁבִּדְחִיקַת הַסַּכִּין עַל הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת בָּא שֶׁקָּפְצָה חֻלְיָא אַחַת מִמְּקוֹמָהּ עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ. וְטַעְמוֹ וְנִמּוּקוֹ עִמּוֹ דְּכֵיוָן דְּאִיכָּא רֵעוּתָא דַּהֲרֵי עִקּוּר טַבַּעַת אַחַת לְפָנֶיךָ אֶלָּא שֶׁבָּאתָ לִתְלוֹת בִּלְאַחַר שְׁחִיטַת רֹב הַסִּימָן הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק בִּשְׁחִיטָה דְּלֹא נוֹדַע לְךָ אִם נִשְׁחֲטָה כָּרָאוּי וְדָמֵי מַמָּשׁ לְנִמְצֵאת שְׁמוּטָה דִּלְעֵיל סְעִיף י"ז. אֲבָל הַבֵּית יוֹסֵף סְבִירָא לֵיהּ כְּפֵרוּשׁ הַדַּרְכֵי מֹשֶׁה דְּתָלִינָן שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה בְּב' מְקוֹמוֹת עַל יְדֵי גִּלְגּוּל הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת וְאֵין כַּאן עִקּוּר כְּלָל בְּטַבַּעַת זוֹ. וְכֵיוָן דְּלֵיכָּא הָכָא רֵעוּתָא דַּהֲרֵי עָקוּר לְפָנֶיךָ מוֹקְמִינָן הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת בְּחֶזְקָתָהּ שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בָּהּ עִקּוּר וְהָיְתָה שְׁלֵמָה קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה כְּרֹב בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים.תסה וְלֹא מוֹקְמִינָן חֶזְקַת אִסּוּר לַהֲדֵי חֲזָקָה דְּהֶתֵּרָא אֶלָּא בִּדְאִתְיַלְדָא רֵעוּתָא כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר לְעֵיל סִימָן י"חתסו גַּבֵּי סַכִּין וּמִקְוֶה אֲבָל הָכָא לֵיכָּא רֵעוּתָא כְּלָל דְּתָלִינָן שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה בְּב' מְקוֹמוֹת כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב הָרַשְׁבָּ"אתסז הוּבָא בֵּית יוֹסֵף סִימָן ל"דתסח וּבִרְמָ"א סְעִיף ט' שָׁם לַהֲלָכָה:
(מז) בָּזֶה.
דִּסְבִירָא לְהוּ דְּזֶה אֵינוֹ בָּא עַל יְדֵי שְׁחִיטָה בִּשְׁנֵי מְקוֹמוֹת אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי עִקּוּר שֶׁנֶּעֶקְרָה טַבַּעַת זוֹ עַל יְדֵי דֹּחַק הַסַּכִּין וּמְתִיחַת הַסִּימָן (עַיֵּן תְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹר.תסט שְׁאֵרִית יוֹסֵף סִימָן מ"זתע) וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ מָתַי נֶעֶקְרָה. וְאֵין חִלּוּק בְּזֶה בֵּין נִמְצֵאת עַל הַסַּכִּין וּבֵין נִמְצֵאת עַל הָאָרֶץ בֵּין שְׁלֵמָה בֵּין חֲתוּכָה וַאֲפִלּוּ ב' צִדֵּי הַחֲתָךְ מֻנָּחִים עַל ב' צִדֵּי הַסַּכִּין וְהַטַּבַּעַת חֲתוּכָה עַל הַסַּכִּין בֵּין בְּרֹחַב הַטַּבַּעַת אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ חֲתוּכָה וּתְחוּבָה לְאָרְכָּהּ שֶׁהוּא הֶקֵּפָהּ. אֵין בְּזֶה הוֹכָחָה שֶׁלֹּא נֶעֶקְרָה אֶלָּא נִשְׁחֲטָה בְּב' וְג' מְקוֹמוֹת שֶׁאִם נֶעֶקְרָה תְּחִלָּה הַאֵיךְ נֶחְתְּכָה. דְּאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁמִּתְּחִלָּה נֶעֱקַר רֻבָּהּ וַעֲדַיִן הָיְתָה מְעֹרָה בַּמִּעוּט וּלְכָךְ חָתַךְ בָּהּ הַסַּכִּין רֻבָּהּ אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ כֻּלָּהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נֶעֶקְרָה כֻּלָּהּ וּבָאָה לָהּ עַל הַסַּכִּין. וּפְסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת בְּרֻבָּהּ נְבֵלָה וְאֵין הַשְּׁחִיטָה מוֹעֶלֶת וַהֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק בִּשְׁחִיטָה וְכָל סָפֵק בִּשְׁחִיטָה פָּסוּל וַאֲפִלּוּ יֵשׁ לִתְלוֹת לְהָקֵל יוֹתֵר מִלְּהַחֲמִיר לֹא תָּלִינָן עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הֶתֵּר בָּרוּר כְּדִלְעֵילתעא (תְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹרתעב וְשַׁ"ךְתעג וְכֵן דַּעַת הַבַּ"חתעד דְּלֹא כְּטַ"זתעה).
וְכָל זֶה בְּטַבַּעַת שְׁלֵמָה אוֹ רֹב הַטַּבַּעַת אֲבָל מִעוּט הַטַּבַּעַת שֶׁנִּמְצָא בְּכָל עִנְיָן כְּשֵׁרָה דִּפְסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת בְּרוּבָּא.תעו וְגַם מִשּׁוּם עִקּוּר אֵין לָחוּשׁ לְפֵרוּשׁ הַטַּ"זתעז וְסִיעָתוֹ דִלְעֵילתעח דְּגַם בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה אֵין עִקּוּר פּוֹסְלוֹ בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא דְּלֹא אָמְרִינָן כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא בְּעִקּוּר שֶׁאֵינוֹ כְּדֶרֶךְ שְׁחִיטָה כְּלָל.
וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּסָפֵק אִם הוּא הָרֹב אוֹ לֹא כָּתַב הַטַּ"זתעט לְהָקֵל מִשּׁוּם סְפֵק סְפֵיקָא שֶׁמָּא לֹא הָיָה הָרֹב וְאִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר שֶׁהוּא הָרֹב שֶׁמָּא נַעֲשָׂה עַל יְדֵי גִּלְגּוּל הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת. וְאַף עַל גַּב דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ לְהַטַּ"ז דִּסְפֵק סְפֵיקָא בִּשְׁחִיטָה לֹא מְהַנֵּי לִסְתּוֹר חֶזְקַת אִסּוּר שֶׁמֵּחַיִּים כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְעֵיל סִימָן א'.תפ שַׁאֲנִי הָכָא דְּיֵשׁ מַתִּירִים לְגַמְרֵי בְּלֹא סְפֵק סְפֵיקָא. וּמֵהַאי טַעְמָא נַמִי הִתִּיר הַטַּ"ז בִּסְתָם וּמַשְׁמַע מִלְּשׁוֹנוֹ דַּאֲפִלּוּ יֶשְׁנוֹ לְפָנֵינוּ וְסָפֵק לָנוּ מִשּׁוּם חֶסְרוֹן יְדִיעָה לְשַׁעֵר אִם הוּא הָרֹב מֻתָּר מִשּׁוּם סְפֵק סְפֵיקָא אַף עַל גַּב דְּבִכְהַאי גַּוְנָא לֹא מִקְּרֵי סָפֵק בְּעָלְמָא.תפא
אֲבָל הַתְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹרתפב כָּתַב שֶׁאִם הוּא לְפָנֵינוּ אֵין לְהָקֵל כְּלָל בְּסָפֵק אִם הוּא הָרֹב. וְגַם בְּנֶאֶבְדָה צָרִיךְ עִיּוּן לְמַעֲשֶׂה דְּהָא לְסָפֵק אִם הוּא הָרֹב אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה דְהֶתֵּרָא כְּלָל אֶלָּא חֶזְקַת אָסוּר לְחוּד דִּבְהֵמָה בְּחַיִּים. וְסָפֵק דְּשֶׁמָּא נַעֲשָׂה עַל יְדֵי גִּלְגּוּל הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת אַחַר שְׁחִיטַת רֹב הַסִּימָן אֵינוֹ כְּדַאי לְהַתִּיר שֶׁאֵינוֹ סָפֵק שָׁקוּל דְּמִסְתַּבֵּר טְפֵי שֶׁבִּדְחִיקַת הַסַּכִּין עַל הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת בִּתְחִלַּת שְׁחִיטָה נֶעֶקְרָה חֻלְיָא אַחַת בְּרֻבָּא כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְעֵילתפג בְּשֵׁם רַשַׁ"ל אֶלָּא שֶׁאַחַר כָּךְ
כְּשֶׁהִגִּיעַ הַסַּכִּין אֵצֶל רֻבָּהּ חֲתָכָהּ הַסַּכִּין לְרָחְבָּהּ. וְאַף עַל גַּב דִּבְעָלְמָא קַיְמָא לַן דִּסְפֵק שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁקוּל מִצְטָרֵף לִסְפֵק סְפֵיקָאתפד שָׁאנֵי הָכָא שֶׁסָּפֵק אֶחָד הַשָּׁקוּל עוֹמֵד בְּחֶזְקַת אִסּוּר וְאֵין לוֹ חֶזְקַת הֶתֵּר כְּלָל כְּנֶגְדָּהּתפה עַיֵּן מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בסִימָן ק"י:תפו
If[a shochet] slaughtered a fowl in his usual manner [and the slaughter was] valid, but he found an intact ring from the windpipe on the slaughtering-knife after the slaughter, [the fowl remains] kosher. (46) Note: There are authorities who rule that [a fowl] is tereifah in such an instance. (47) Fundamentally, [their ruling should be followed] (Shechitos Yeshanim in the name of Rav Avraham Klozner; similarly, [the Rama quotes] his brother-in-law, Rav Yosef Katz, who said that Rav Moshe Yaffe established this as the practice to be followed). One should not deviate [from it].
יטשָׁחַט הָעוֹף כְּדַרְכּוֹ בְּהֶכְשֵׁר, וְאַחַר גְּמַר שְׁחִיטָה מָצָא טַבַּעַת מֵהַגַּרְגֶּרֶת שָׁלֵם עַל הַסַּכִּין, כָּשֵׁר. (מו) הַגָּה: וְיֵשׁ מַטְרִיפִין בָּזֶה, (מז)וְכֵן עִקָּר (שְׁחִיטוֹת יְשָׁנִים בְּשֵׁם מהרא״ק, גַּם עַל פִּי גִּיסוֹ מהרר״י כַּ״ץ שֶׁאָמַר כָּךְ הִנְהִיג מהר״ר מֹשֶׁה יָפֶה) וְאֵין לְשַׁנּוֹת.
כְּשֶׁהִגִּיעַ הַסַּכִּין אֵצֶל רֻבָּהּ חֲתָכָהּ הַסַּכִּין לְרָחְבָּהּ. וְאַף עַל גַּב דִּבְעָלְמָא קַיְמָא לַן דִּסְפֵק שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁקוּל מִצְטָרֵף לִסְפֵק סְפֵיקָאתפד שָׁאנֵי הָכָא שֶׁסָּפֵק אֶחָד הַשָּׁקוּל עוֹמֵד בְּחֶזְקַת אִסּוּר וְאֵין לוֹ חֶזְקַת הֶתֵּר כְּלָל כְּנֶגְדָּהּתפה עַיֵּן מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בסִימָן ק"י:תפו
20
(48) Implant its leg in the ground –
[This refers to an instance when the shochet] slaughters [the fowl while holding it] close to the ground.400 Similarly, when [the shochet] slaughters [a rooster] close to a wall, he should be careful [that the rooster does not push its legs against the wall]. The present practice is to be careful in all instances, and to press one [of the fowl’s] feet together with its wings. Even so, as a mere stringency [the shochet should] distance himself from the wall so that [the fowl] will not push its other leg against the wall (Maharshal, [Chulin] 2:16.)
(מח) יִנְעוֹץ רַגְלָיו בַּקַּרְקַע.
הַיְנוּ כְּשֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט סָמוּךְ לַקַּרְקַע.תפז וְכֵן יִזָּהֵר כְּשֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט סָמוּךְ לַכֹּתֶל.תפח וְעַכְשָׁו נִזְהָרִים בְּכָל עִנְיָן לִדְחוֹק רַגְלוֹ אֶחָד עִם הַכְּנָפַיִם וַאֲפִלּוּ הָכִי מַרְחִיקִין מִן הַכֹּתֶל לְחוּמְרָא בְּעָלְמָא שֶׁלֹּא יִדְחוֹק רֶגֶל הַב' בַּכֹּתֶל (רְשַׁ"ל ([פֶּרֶק] ב'תפט):
One who slaughters a rooster should be careful to push its legs into the ground or lift it up so that it does not implant its leg in the ground (48) so that the simanim will not be detached [from their place].
כהַשּׁוֹחֵט תַּרְנְגוֹל צָרִיךְ לִזָּהֵר שֶׁיִּדְחֹק רַגְלוֹ בַּקַּרְקַע, אוֹ יַגְבִּיהֶנּוּ שֶׁלּא יִנְעֹץ רַגְלוֹ בַּקַּרְקַע, (מח) כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲקֹר הַסִּימָנִים.
