SECTION 25 The Requirement to Examine [the Simanim] after Ritual Slaughter (1-3)
סימן כה שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לִבְדּוֹק אַחַר הַשְּׁחִיטָה וּבוֹ ג' סְעִיפִים
1
(1) That their greater portion is slit –
In the instance of an animal, it is impossible to effectively examine [the simanim] by sight at the time of [the animal’s] slaughter [because] then the place of the slaughter is filled with blood. ([Additionally,] the custom [that the shochet] press his thumb [on the place of the simanim to verify that they were properly slit], is not applicable [to an animal.]) Instead, [the shochet] must pass his hand into the place where [the animal] was slaughtered to feel with his hand [whether the majority of the simanim] were slit1 (author of Halachos Gedolos, cited in Toras Yekusiel; Turei Zahav2 in the name of Maharil).
(2) Forbidden –
It is not said that since [the shochet] passed the knife over all the sides [of the simanim], it can be assumed that they were slit [properly. The rationale is that] at times, the simanim slip down on either side and [the shochet] will think that they were slit, when in reality they were not slit. Because this doubt exists, [one should not make the above assumption] since it may lead to permitting [an animal] when its presumed state is that it is forbidden (Rashba, Toras HaBayis HaAruch3).
True, most shochtim will generally slit the greater portion of the simanim and, [according to the rules of halachic reasoning,] a majority has greater halachic weight than an accepted presumption.4 [Nevertheless,] in this instance, we do not follow the majority although no disqualifying factor has arisen. [The rationale is that in this instance, following] the majority [involves presuming that] an action [was performed correctly, and] although the majority of shochtim [will indeed perform the relevant action correctly, slaughtering the animal effectively], there is a minority that will not. Under those circumstances, we do not follow the majority (Rashba in his chidushim5).
Since we do not follow the majority, [unless the simanim are examined,] we assume that they are still in their previous presumed state – [i.e.,] that their greater portion was not slit. Therefore, the animal is considered to definitely be a neveilah.6 [This applies] even according to the approach of Rambam, who maintains that whenever there is doubt as to whether [an animal] was slaughtered [correctly], it is [classified as] a neveilah of doubtful status,7 as stated in sec. 1 above.8
Nevertheless, according to Tosafos,9 there is an opinion in the Talmud that if a [shochet] did not examine the simanim, [the animal] is forbidden only according to Rabbinic decree. [The rationale is that] according to Scriptural Law, we rule according to the practice of the majority of shochtim, [and most shochtim slaughter correctly, slitting the greater portion of the simanim]. Weight should be given to this ruling [and when a matter of] Scriptural Law [is involved,] one should rule stringently, for example, with regard to [the prohibition against slaughtering] an animal and its offspring [on the same day] and [the mitzvah] to cover the blood [of a fowl]10 (Tevuos Shor11).
(3) [Any of] the other [factors that would render the animal]
[This ruling does not follow the approach of] Halachos Gedolos, which requires that [the shochet] examine [the simanim to check whether] they have been detached. [The author of Halachos Gedolos] follows his [established] logic that [a detached siman] is deemed [the disqualification of] ikur mentioned by Shmuel in the laws of ritual slaughter,12 as explained in sec. 24,13 above. [Accordingly,] since this is one of the laws of ritual slaughter, if one did not make such an examination, it is considered that it is not known whether [the animal] was slaughtered properly. [As such,] the presumption that [the animal] is forbidden14 remains intact, as stated by Bayis Chadash.15
Rabbeinu Asher16 differs with the author of Halachos Gedolos, and maintains that it is not necessary to examine [an animal to see whether either of the simanim] was detached, just as it is not necessary to examine the other [organs to see whether] they are tereifah. The exception [to this rule is] the lungs, because tereifos are common in them.17
[The rationale motivating Rabbeinu Asher’s ruling is that] it relies on the majority [of instances], i.e., that most animals are kosher. Similarly, [the simanim of] most animals are not detached. [Therefore, we rule that the animal is kosher] because a majority has greater [halachic weight] than does a chazakah [i.e., an existing presumption].18 For this reason, we are not concerned about [the possibility of] the gullet being perforated, as stated in the Talmud19 and as mentioned above, in sec. 24.20
Sifsei Kohen21 concludes that after the fact, one should not forbid [the meat of an animal] if one did not examine [the simanim to see whether they] were detached, as maintained by Rabbeinu Asher and those who follow his opinion. However, as an initial option, one should give weight to the words of the author of Halachos Gedolos, because his words are the words of the received tradition. [Moreover,] his rationale is logical because [the detachment of the simanim] resembles [the possibility of a condition which would render the animal tereifah existing in] the lungs, concerning which an examination is necessary as an initial option because [conditions in the lungs, rendering animals] tereifos are commonly found, as mentioned in sec. 39 below.22 Sifsei Kohen concludes, “Similarly, it is common for [a shochet] to detach [a siman] while slaughtering, as is evident from [the ruling regarding] slaughtering a chicken in the previous section.23 Rav Aharon HaLevi24 also wrote such a statement.
Similarly, Bayis Chadash writes that it is common for the simanim of fowl to be detached when being pulled in either direction or because the fowl implant their legs [in the ground] or the like.15 For this reason, it is not customary to inspect [slaughtered animals to see whether their simanim] were detached, only fowl. [This is done] by pressing one’s thumb [on the flap covering the windpipe25]; see the comments of Bayis Chadash cited above. Similarly, the Talmud26 states that the windpipe [of fowl] is more likely to become detached.
We rely on the [shochet’s] examination of [the fowl by] pressing his thumb [onto the windpipe,] and are not concerned that perhaps the simanim [became detached to the extent that] they hung loosely, i.e., the greater portion of the siman was ripped from the jaw forcefully and [only] a lesser portion remained attached to it hanging loosely, a small portion from one place and a small portion from another. In such an instance, ritual slaughter is not effective according to the opinion of Tosafos,27 Rashba,28 and the ruling of [Rav Yosef Caro in his] Shulchan Aruch, sec. 24:16, above. [In such a situation,] the simanim will nevertheless [retract and] reenter [their place] after [the shochet] removes his finger, because they are still partially attached to the jaw. Nevertheless, [we rely on this examination] because it is very uncommon for the greater portion [of a siman] to be forcefully detached while the lesser portion remains slightly attached. Instead, the usual example of a siman that is detached is one in which it is detached entirely and descends below (Kereisi U’Feleisi29). For this reason, the Talmud30 states that it is impossible for a detached [siman] to be slit [properly. Accordingly,] we are not concerned that maybe [part of the simanim] were hanging loosely first, and after the slaughter, the lesser portion that was hanging loosely was ripped away [entirely]. See sec. 24:18.31
(7) Without hagramah –
The case is one in which [the shochet] slit [the simanim] in a place where there is concern for hagramah, e.g., in the upper or lower portion [of the simanim]. In such an instance, [the animal’s meat] is forbidden according to Scriptural Law even after the fact. [This applies] even according to the opinion of Tosafos,33 who maintain that there is an authority in the Talmud who posits that with regard to slitting the greater portion of the simanim, [there is a prevailing assumption that the slaughter is acceptable to the extent that the animal is not considered a neveilah. Its meat is, nevertheless, forbidden to be eaten. The rationale for Tosafos’ opinion is that,] according to Scriptural Law, the practice of majority is the determining factor [for a halachic ruling], and the majority of shochtim slit the greater portion [of the simanim. Nevertheless, in questions] involving hagramah, it is not relevant to [speak of] following the majority. [The rationale for this decision is that] the majority of shochtim slit [the simanim] in the middle of the neck. Since this [shochet] deviated [from that practice] and slit [the simanim] either in a higher place or lower place, [i.e., in a place] where there is concern that hagramah was involved, [he is no longer included in the majority of shochtim. Therefore, the practice of the majority of shochtim is not relevant] (note [the statements of] Bayis Chadash34). When, however, [a shochet] slit [the simanim] in the middle of the neck – even if [the slit] is not exactly in the middle, but it is in a place where there is no concern about hagramah – it is not necessary to examine the simanim [to see if] perhaps [the simanim] were forced [out of their natural position and that] a portion [of either the windpipe or the gullet] that is not fit for ritual slaughter came [to rest in the place where the neck was slit] because this is a [very] unlikely possibility (Tevuos Shor35).
(4) Concerning this matter –
I.e., the examination of the simanim to see whether their greater portion was slit.
This note belongs before [the line from Rav Yosef Caro’s Shulchan Aruch, beginning], “There is an authority who maintains….” (Sifsei Kohen36).
(5) The fowl from his hand –
Since the tendency [of a slaughtered fowl] is to make uncontrolled movements [as part of] its death throes, and to jump and leap [during those death throes,] as an initial preference, there is a basis for concern that [due to those movements], the slit [made in the siman] may widen, and [even if only the lesser portion of the siman was slit,] it will appear that [its] greater portion was slit [at the time of slaughter]. This is implied by Darchei Moshe.37 For this reason, Rama specifically mentions a fowl.
However, Turei Zahav38 offers a [different] reason: Maybe [the shochet] will forget to examine [the simanim] afterwards. Rashi explains39 that this is the reason [the Sages] forbade slaughtering at night, as understood by Turei Zahav in sec. 11.40 Thus, as an initial preference, one must be careful even when [slaughtering] an animal, and examine its simanim immediately after its slaughter. Tevuos Shor41 also rules [in this manner].
(6) The slit –
Maharik42 substantiated [his reasoning] from the Talmud’s statement43 that Rabbi Yonah [shot an arrow and] slaughtered a fowl while it was flying. [The Sages ruled that the fowl was permitted] even though it fell to the ground and received a great blow, and underwent many death throes before [Rabbi Yonah] reached it and examined the simanim. However, Hagahos Shechitos Yeshanim writes in the name of Or Zerua [that if the shochet did not examine the simanim of the fowl while it is in his hand, i.e., immediately,] it is forbidden even after the fact.
In order to validate the opinion of Or Zerua, Bayis Chadash44 distinguishes between an instance where the greater portion of the siman was discovered to be slit – in which instance, we are concerned that the slit may have become wider due to [the fowl’s] death throes – and one in which the entire siman was slit. [When the siman is found to be slit entirely,] we are not concerned that perhaps [at the time of slaughter], its greater portion was not slit, and because of [the fowl’s] death throes, the slit became total. [According to this distinction] the siman of the fowl that Rabbi Yonah slaughtered was discovered to have been slit in its entirety.
Sifsei Kohen45 made a further distinction, [differentiating] between the gullet and the windpipe, [noting that] it is not common for the gullet to be ripped along its width, only across its length. [According to this distinction] this is what happened concerning the fowl that Rabbi Yonah slaughtered. By contrast, it is common for the windpipe [which is comprised of a series of stacked rings] to come apart and we are concerned that because of [the fowl’s] death throes, [the slit widened to the extent that] its greater portion [appeared to have been] slit. This is the intent of the Or Zerua. Nevertheless, we are not concerned that the entire [siman became split, not] even the windpipe, as stated by Bayis Chadash (see Tevuos Shor.46).
However, Turei Zahav47 writes that [the understanding attributed to Or Zerua] is not found in that text at all. This is also evident from what is stated in Or Zerua48 in the name of Halachos Gedolos, regarding the mishnah,49 “[When] one slaughters at night, his slaughter is kosher,” [cited in] sec. 11.50 [This mishnah is speaking about an instance where the shochet] examined the simanim [the next] day. Since the mishnah does not specify [whether the shochet slaughtered a fowl or an animal], the implication is that [the law applies] even to a fowl. There is no concern that perhaps the slit became wider due to [the fowl’s] death throes.
In his Nekudos HaKesef,51 Sifsei Kohen offers a very forced interpretation, saying that the mishnah is speaking about an instance where [the shochet] held the fowl in his hand until the next morning. A straightforward reading of the mishnah, the Gemara, and the halachic authorities does not imply this. Therefore, [in an instance where] a severe financial loss is involved or the like, one should not rule stringently against [the opinions of] Rama and Turei Zahav [when] ruling for others. Pri Chadash52 also rules in this manner. Nevertheless, all meticulous persons53 should be stringent regarding their own conduct, and show concern for the distinctions made by Bayis Chadash and Sifsei Kohen, and rule stringently regarding a Scriptural [prohibition]. How much more so does this apply regarding fowl which [often] jump and leap in their death throes. However, with regard to an animal, all authorities agree that there is no concern (Tevuos Shor).46
(א) שְׁחוּטִים רֻבָּן.
וּכְשֶׁבֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה מָלֵא דָם אִי אֶפְשָׁר לִבְדּוֹק יָפֶה בִּרְאִיָּה בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה בִּבְהֵמָה (שֶׁאֵין מִנְהָג בְּתוֹקֵף אֲגוּדָל) וְצָרִיךְ לְהַעֲבִיר יָדוֹ תּוֹךְ חֲתַךְ בֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה לְהַרְגִּישׁ בְּמִשְׁמוּשׁ הַיָּדא ([בַּ]הַ"גב הוּבָא בְּתוֹרַת יְקוּתִיאֵל.ג וְטַ"זד בְּשֵׁם מַהֲרִי"לה):
(ב) אָסוּר.
וְאֵין אוֹמְרִים כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֶחֱזִיר הַסַּכִּין עַל גַּבֵּי כָּל הַצְּדָדִין חֲזָקָה שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ כִּי פְּעָמִים שֶׁהַסִּימָנִין נִשְׁמָטִים אֵילַךְ וְאֵילַךְ וְסָבוּר הוּא שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ וְלֹא נִשְׁחֲטוּ וּמִן הַסָּפֵק אַתָּה בָּא לְהַתִּיר מַה שֶּׁהוּא בְּחֶזְקַת אִסּוּר (רַשְׁבָּ"א בְּתוֹרַת הַבַּיִת הָאָרֹךְו). וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּרֹב הַשּׁוֹחֲטִים מְצוּיִם לִשְׁחוֹט הָרֹב וְרוּבָּא עָדִיף מֵחֲזָקָהז לֹא אָזְלִינָן בָּתַר רוּבָּא הָכָא אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֹא אִתְיַלְדָא רֵעוּתָא כְּלָל מִשּׁוּם דְּרוּבָּא דְּתָלִי בְּמַעֲשֶׂה הוּא וּמִעוּטָא לֹא תַּלְיָא בְּמַעֲשֶׂה וּבִכְהַאי גַּוְנָא לֹא אָזְלִינָן בָּתַר רוּבָּא (רַשְׁבָּ"א בְּחִדּוּשָׁיוח). וְכֵיוָן דְּלֹא אָזְלִינָן בָּתַר רוּבָּא מוֹקְמִינָן הַסִּימָנִים בְּחֶזְקָתָם שֶׁלֹּא נֶחְתְּכוּ רֻבָּן וְהִיא וַדַּאי נְבֵלָהט אַף לְפִי דַּעַת הָרַמְבַּ"םי דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ בְּכָל סָפֵק בִּשְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ אֶלָּא סְפֵק נְבֵלָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְעֵיל סִימָן א'.יא אֶלָּא דִּלְפִי דַּעַת הַתּוֹסְפוֹתיב אִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּגְמָרָא דְּכִי לֹא בָדַק בְּסִימָנִים אֵינָהּ אֲסוּרָה אֶלָּא מִדְּרַבָּנָן דְּמִדְּאוֹרַיְתָא אָזְלִינָן בָּתַר רֹב שְׁחִיטוֹת. וְיֵשׁ לָחוּשׁ לְזֶה לְהַחֲמִיר בְּשֶׁל תּוֹרָה כְּגוֹן לְעִנְיַן אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ וְכִסּוּי הַדָּם (תְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹריג):
(ג) טְרֵפוֹת.
דְּלֹא כְּבַהַ"גיד דְּמַצְרִיךְ לִבְדּוֹק אַחַר שְׁמוּטָה מִשּׁוּם דְּאָזִיל לְשִׁיטָתֵיהּ דִּסְבִירָא לֵיהּטו שֶׁזֶּהוּ עִקּוּר דְּקָא חָשִׁיב שְׁמוּאֵלטז בְּהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה כְּדִלְעֵיל סִימָן כ"דיז וְכֵיוָן שֶׁהוּא מֵהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה אִם כֵּן אִם לֹא בָדַק לֹא נוֹדַע לְךָ אִם נִשְׁחֲטָה כָּרָאוּי וּבְחֶזְקַת אִסּוּר עוֹמֶדֶת כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב הַבַּ"ח.יח וְהָרֹא"שׁיט חָלַק עַל הַבַּהַ"ג וּסְבִירָא לֵיהּ שֶׁאֵין צָרִיךְ לִבְדּוֹק אַחַר שְׁמוּטָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁאֵין צָרִיךְ לִבְדּוֹק אַחַר שְׁאָר טְרֵפוֹת. לְבַד מִטְּרֵפוֹת הָרֵיאָה דִּשְׁכִיחִי.כ מִשּׁוּם דְּסָמְכִינָן אַרוּבָּא דְּרֹב בְּהֵמוֹת כְּשֵׁרוֹת הֵן וְהָכִי נַמִי רֹב בְּהֵמוֹת אֵינָן שְׁמוּטוֹת וְרוּבָּא עָדִיף מֵחֲזָקָה.כא דְּמֵהַאי טַעְמָא לֹא חַיְשִׁינָן לִנְקוּבַת הַוֵּשֶׁט כִּדְאִיתָא בִּגְמָרָאכב וּכְמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְעֵיל סִימָן כ"ד.כג
וְהַשַּׁ"ךְכד הִכְרִיעַ דִּבְדִיעֲבַד אֵין לֶאֱסוֹר אִם לֹא בָדַק אַחַר שְׁמוּטָה כְּדַעַת הָרֹא"שׁ וְסִיעָתוֹ אֲבָל תְּחִלָּה יֵשׁ לָחוּשׁ לְדִבְרֵי בַּהַ"ג שֶׁדְּבָרָיו דִּבְרֵי קַבָּלָה וּמִסְתַּבֵּר טַעֲמֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם דְּדָמֵי לְרֵיאָה שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְבָדְקָהּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה מִשּׁוּם דִּשְׁכִיחַ בָּהּ טְרֵפוֹת כְּדִלְקַמָּן סִימָן ל"טכה וְהָכִי נַמִי שְׁכִיחַ הוּא לַעֲשׂוֹת שְׁמוּטוֹת בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָהכו כִּדְמַשְׁמַע גַּבֵּי הַשּׁוֹחֵט תַּרְנְגוֹל בְּסוֹף סִימָן שֶׁלִּפְנֵי זֶה וְכֵן כָּתַב הָרְאָ"הכז עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹן הַשַּׁ"ךְ. וְכֵן כָּתַב הַבַּ"ח שֶׁבְּעוֹפוֹת רְגִילִים הַסִּימָנִים לְהִשָּׁמֵט עַל יְדֵי מְשִׁיכָתָן לְכַאן וּלְכַאן אוֹ עַל יְדֵי נְעִיצַת רַגְלֵי הַתַּרְנְגוֹלִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָזֶה וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי לֹא נָהֲגוּ לִבְדּוֹק אַחַר שְׁמוּטָה כִּי אִם בְּעוֹפוֹת עַל יְדֵי שֶׁתּוֹקֵף אֲגוּדָל עַיֵּן שָׁם בְּבַ"ח. וְהָכִי נַמִי אַשְׁכְּחָן בִּגְמָרָאכח גַּבֵּי עוֹף דְּגַרְגֶּרֶת עֲבִידָא לְאִשְׁתְּמוּטֵי.
וְהָא דְסָמְכִינָן אַבְּדִיקָה זוֹ דְּתוֹקֵף אֲגוּדָל וְלֹא חַיְשִׁינָן דִּלְמָא אִדַּלְדֵּל אִדַּלְדּוּלֵי דְּהַיְנוּ שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר הַסִּימָן בְּרֻבּוֹ בְּכֹחַ וּמִעוּטוֹ הַמְּחֻבָּר לַלֶּחִי הוּא מְדֻלְדָּל כַּאן מְעַט וְכַאן מְעַט שֶׁאֵין הַשְּׁחִיטָה מוֹעֶלֶת בִּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא לְפִי דַּעַת הַתּוֹסְפוֹתכט וְרַשְׁבָּ"אל וְשֻׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ דִּלְעֵיל סִימָן כ"ד סְעִיף ט"ז וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן נִכְנַס הַסִּימָן לִפְנִים אַחַר שֶׁהֵסִיר אֶצְבָּעוֹ מֵאַחַר שֶׁהוּא מְחֻבָּר לַלֶּחִי בְּמִקְצָת. הַיְנוּ מִשּׁוּם דְּמִלְּתָא דְּלֹא שְׁכִיחָא הִיא כְּלָל לִהְיוֹת נֶעֱקָר בְּכֹחַ בְּרֻבּוֹ וְהַמִּעוּט יִהְיֶה מְחֻבָּר כַּאן מְעַט אֶלָּא שְׁמוּטָה דִּשְׁכִיחָא הִיא לִהְיוֹת נִשְׁמָט כֻּלּוֹ וְיוֹרֵד לְמַטָּה (כְּרֵתִי וּפְלֵתִילא). וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי נַמִי אָמַר בִּגְמָרָאלב אִי אֶפְשָׁר לִשְׁמוּטָה שֶׁתֵּעָשֶׂה שְׁחוּטָה וְלֹא חַיְשִׁינָן דִּלְמָא אִדַּלְדֵּל תְּחִלָּה וְאַחַר הַשְּׁחִיטָה נֶעֱקַר הַמִּעוּט הַמְּדֻלְדָּל. עַיֵּן סִימָן כ"ד סְעִיף י"ח:לג
(ז) בְּלֹא הַגְרָמָה.
לד הַיְנוּ כְּשֶׁשָּׁחַט בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָחוּשׁ לְהַגְרָמָה כְּגוֹן לְמַעְלָה אוֹ לְמַטָּה וּבִכְהַאי גַּוְנָא אֲפִלּוּ בְּדִיעֲבַד אָסוּר מִדְּאוֹרַיְתָא. אֲפִלּוּ לְפִי דַּעַת הַתּוֹסְפוֹתלה דְּאִיכָּא מַאן דְּאָמַר בִּגְמָרָא גַּבֵּי שְׁחִיטַת רֹב הַסִּימָנִים דְּמִדְּאוֹרַיְתָא אָזְלִינָן בָּתַר רוּבָּא דְּרֹב הַשּׁוֹחֲטִים מְצוּיִים לִשְׁחוֹט הָרֹב גַּבֵּי הַגְרָמָה לֹא שַׁיָּךְ לְמֵיזַל בָּתַר רוּבָּא דְּרֹב הַשּׁוֹחֲטִים שׁוֹחֲטִים בְּאֶמְצַע הַצַּוָּאר וְזֶה שִׁנָּה וְשָׁחַט לְמַעְלָה אוֹ לְמַטָּה בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָחוּשׁ לְהַגְרָמָה (עַיֵּן בַּ"חלו). אֲבָל הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּאֶמְצַע צַוָּאר אַף שֶׁאֵינוֹ אֶמְצַע מַמָּשׁ רַק שֶׁהוּא מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין לָחוּשׁ בּוֹ לְהַגְרָמָה אֵין צָרִיךְ לִבְדּוֹק בַּסִּימָנִים שֶׁמָּא נֶאֶנְסוּ וּבָאוּ לְכַאן מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לִשְׁחִיטָה דַּחֲשָׁשָׁא רְחוֹקָה הִיא (תְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹרלז):
(ד) אַחַר זֶה.
פֵּרוּשׁ לִבְדּוֹק בַּסִּימָנִים אִם נִשְׁחַט הָרֹב. וְהַגָּ"ה זוֹ צְרִיכָה לִהְיוֹת קֹדֶם וְיֵשׁ מִי שֶׁאוֹמֵר (שַׁ"ךְלח):
(ה) הָעוֹף מִיָּדוֹ.
הוֹאִיל וְדַרְכּוֹ לְפַרְכֵּס וּלְדַלֵּג וְלִקְפּוֹץ בְּפִרְכּוּסוֹ וְיֵשׁ לָחוּשׁ לְכַתְּחִלָּה שֶׁמָּא עַל יְדֵי זֶה יִתְרַחֵב הַחֲתָךְ וְיִהְיֶה נִרְאֶה שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט הָרֹב כֵּן מַשְׁמַע בְּדַרְכֵי מֹשֶׁה.לט וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי נָקַט רְמָ"א עוֹף דַּוְקָא. אֲבָל הַטַּ"זמ כָּתַב הַטַּעַם מִשּׁוּם שֶׁמָּא יִשְׁכַּח מִלִּבְדּוֹק אַחַר כָּךְ כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָסְרוּ מֵהַאי טַעְמָא לִשְׁחוֹט בַּלַּיְלָה לְפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י לְפִי דַּעַת הַטַּ"ז דִּלְעֵיל סִימָן י"א.מא וּלְפִי זֶה גַּם בִּבְהֵמָה צָרִיךְ לִזָּהֵר לִבְדּוֹק תֵּכֶף וּמִיָּד אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה לְכַתְּחִלָּה. וְכֵן כָּתַב הַתְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹר:מב
(ו) הַחֲתָךְ.
בְּמַהֲרִי"קמג הוֹכִיחַ כֵּן מֵהָא דְאָמְרִינָן בִּגְמָרָאמד דְּרַבִּי יוֹנָה שָׁחַט עוֹפָא בַּהֲדֵי דְפָרַח אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָיָה נוֹפֵל לָאָרֶץ וְנֶחְבָּט חֶבֶט גָּדוֹל וְהָיָה מְפַרְכֵּס הַרְבֵּה קֹדֶם שֶׁהִגִּיעַ אֵלָיו וּבָדַק בַּסִּימָנִים. וּבְהַגָּהוֹת שְׁחִיטוֹת יְשָׁנִים כָּתַב בְּשֵׁם אוֹר זָרוּעַ לֶאֱסוֹר אֲפִלּוּ בְּדִיעֲבַד. וּכְדֵי לְיַשֵּׁב דַּעַת הָאוֹר זָרוּעַ חִלֵּק הַבַּ"ח בֵּין דְּנִמְצָא הַסִּימָן שָׁחוּט רוּבָּא דְּחַיְשִׁינָן שֶׁמָּא נִתְרַחֵב הַחֲתָךְ עַל יְדֵי פִּרְכּוּס וּבֵין הֵיכָא דְּנִמְצָא שָׁחוּט כֻּלָּהּ דְּכוּלֵי הַאי לֹא חַיְשִׁינָן שֶׁמָּא לֹא הָיָה שָׁחוּט רוּבָּא וְנִתְרַחֵב הַחֲתָךְ עַל יְדֵי פִּרְכּוּס עַד שֶׁנִּמְצָא שָׁחוּט כֻּלּוֹ וְעוֹף דְּשָׁחַט רַבִּי יוֹנָה נִמְצָא כָּל הַסִּימָן שָׁחוּט. וְהַשַּׁ"ךְמה חִלֵּק עוֹד בֵּין וֵשֶׁט לְקָנֶה דְּוֵשֶׁט אֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לְהִתְקָרַע אֶלָּא בְּאֹרֶךְ וְלֹא בְּרֹחַב כְּלָל וְכֵן הָיָה בְּעוֹף שֶׁשָּׁחַט רַבִּי יוֹנָה אֲבָל הַקָּנֶה וַדַּאי דַּרְכּוֹ לְהִתְפָּרֵק וְחַיְשִׁינָן דִּבְקַל נַעֲשָׂה רֻבּוֹ בְּפִרְכּוּס וּבִכְהַאי גַּוְנָא מַיְרִי הָאוֹר זָרוּעַ. וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם לְכֻלּוֹ לֹא חַיְשִׁינָן אַף בְּקָנֶה כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתַב הַבַּ"ח (עַיֵּן תְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹרמו).
אֲבָל הַטַּ"זמז כָּתַב שֶׁזֶּה אֵינוֹ נִמְצָא בְּסֵפֶר אוֹר זָרוּעַ כְּלָל. וְכֵן מַשְׁמַע בְּהֶדְיָא מִמַּה שֶּׁכָּתַב הָאוֹר זָרוּעַמח בְּשֵׁם בַּהַ"ג אַמַּתְנִיתִיןמט דְּהַשּׁוֹחֵט בַּלַּיְלָה שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה דִּלְעֵיל סִימָן י"אנ דְּהַיְנוּ אִם בָּדַק בַּסִּימָנִים בַּיּוֹם וּסְתָמָא תְּנַן וּמַשְׁמַע אֲפִלּוּ בְּעוֹף וְלֹא חַיְשִׁינָן שֶׁמָּא נִתְרַחֵב הַחֲתָךְ בְּפִרְכּוּס. וְהַשַּׁ"ךְ בִּנְקֻדּוֹת הַכֶּסֶףנא נִדְחַק מְאֹד לוֹמַר דְּמַיְרִי שֶׁתָּפַס הָעוֹף בְּיָדוֹ עַד לְמָחָר בַּיּוֹם וּמִסְּתִימַת הַמִּשְׁנָה וְהַגְּמָרָא וְהַפּוֹסְקִים לֹא מַשְׁמַע הָכִי. הִלְכָּךְ בְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה וּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא אֵין לְהַחֲמִיר לַאֲחֵרִים בְּזֶה נֶגֶד רְמָ"א וְטַ"ז וְכֵן פָּסַק הַפְּרִי חָדָשׁנב אֶלָּא כָּל בַּעַל נֶפֶשׁ יַחְמִיר לְעַצְמוֹ לָחוּשׁ לְחִלּוּקֵי הַבַּ"ח וְשַׁ"ךְ לְהַחֲמִיר בְּשֶׁל תּוֹרָה וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן בְּעוֹף שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְדַלֵּג וְלִקְפּוֹץ בְּפִרְכּוּסוֹ אֲבָל בִּבְהֵמָה אֵין לָחוּשׁ כְּלָל לְכוּלָא עָלְמָא (תְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹרנג):
The shochet must examine the simanim after the slaughter [to ensure] that their greater portion was slit. Alternatively, during the act of slaughter, he may visually ascertain whether their greater portion is slit. (1) If he did not ascertain that their greater portion was slit, [the animal or fowl] is forbidden. (2)
Note: It has become common practice to examine [the simanim of a fowl] in the following manner. [The shochet] should forcefully press his thumb on the incline of the flap [covering] the windpipe. Because of the pressure, the simanim will project outward and it will be possible to see whether their greater portions were slit. [It will] also [be possible to determine] whether [the shochet] had detached [the simanim when slaughtering,] for if the simanim will not [retract and] reenter [their place] after [the shochet] removes his finger, [it can be concluded that the simanim] were detached, and [the fowl] is deemed tereifah (Hagahos BeShechitos). Nevertheless, it is not necessary to examine whether [the simanim] were detached, because we rely on [the fact that in] the majority [of instances, they are not detached,] just as [we do not examine the organs of an animal, other than the lungs, to see whether any of] the other [factors that would render the animal]tereifah (3) [are present, because in most cases they are not].
There is an authority who maintains that it is necessary to see that [the simanim] were slit in the [proper] place for ritual slaughter, without hagramah. (7)
Note: The examination concerning thismatter (4) should be made before [the shochet] releases the fowl from his hand (5) (Maharik, responsum 38 in the name of Shechitos HaAshkenazim). However, if he did not examine [the fowl] first, he should examine it afterwards. We are not concerned about the possibility that the slit became wider (6) as a result of the fowl’s death throes (Maharik’s reasoning, [as stated in] that source).
אהַשּׁוֹחֵט צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּבְדֹּק בַּסִּימָנִים אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה אִם נִשְׁחֲטוּ רֻבָּן, אוֹ שֶׁיִּרְאֶה בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁהֵם שְׁחוּטִים רֻבָּן. (א) וְאִם לֹא רָאָה שֶׁרֻבָּן שְׁחוּטִים, אָסוּר. (ב)הַגָּה: וְנָהֲגוּ לִבְדֹּק בְּדֶרֶךְ זֶה, שֶׁתּוֹקֵף אֲגוּדָל עַל שִׁפּוּי כּוֹבַע וּמִתּוֹךְ הַדְּחַק יִפָּלְטוּ הַסִּימָנִים לַחוּץ, וְאָז יָכוֹל לִרְאוֹת אִם נִשְׁחֲטוּ רֻבָּן, גַּם אִם עֲבִיד שְׁמוּטָה, כִּי אִם לֹא יִכָּנְסוּ הַסִּימָנִים לִפְנִים לְאַחַר שֶׁהֵסִיר אֶצְבָּעוֹ, הֲוָה שְׁמוּטָה וּטְרֵפָה (הַגָּהוֹת בִּשְׁחִיטוֹת). מִיהוּ אֵין צָרִיךְ לִבְדֹּק אַחַר שְׁמוּטָה, דְּסָמְכִינָן אַרוּבָּא כְּמוֹ בִּשְׁאָר טְרֵפוֹת. (ג) וְיֵשׁ מִי שֶׁאוֹמֵר שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לִרְאוֹת שֶׁהֵם שְׁחוּטִים בִּמְקוֹם שְׁחִיטָה בְּלֹא הַגְרָמָה. (ז) הַגָּה: וְיֵשׁ לִבְדֹּק אַחַר זֶה (ד) קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּזְרֹק הָעוֹף מִיָּדוֹ (ה) (מהרי״ק שֹׁרֶשׁ ל״ח בְּשֵׁם שְׁחִיטוֹת אַשְׁכְּנַזִים); אֲבָל אִם לֹא בְדָקוֹ תְּחִלָּה בּוֹדֵק אַחַר כָּךְ, וְלֹא חַיְשִׁינָן שֶׁמָּא עַל יְדֵי הַפִּרְכּוּס נִתְרַחֵב הַחֲתָךְ (ו) (סְבָרַת מהרי״ק שָׁם).
אֲבָל הַטַּ"זמז כָּתַב שֶׁזֶּה אֵינוֹ נִמְצָא בְּסֵפֶר אוֹר זָרוּעַ כְּלָל. וְכֵן מַשְׁמַע בְּהֶדְיָא מִמַּה שֶּׁכָּתַב הָאוֹר זָרוּעַמח בְּשֵׁם בַּהַ"ג אַמַּתְנִיתִיןמט דְּהַשּׁוֹחֵט בַּלַּיְלָה שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה דִּלְעֵיל סִימָן י"אנ דְּהַיְנוּ אִם בָּדַק בַּסִּימָנִים בַּיּוֹם וּסְתָמָא תְּנַן וּמַשְׁמַע אֲפִלּוּ בְּעוֹף וְלֹא חַיְשִׁינָן שֶׁמָּא נִתְרַחֵב הַחֲתָךְ בְּפִרְכּוּס. וְהַשַּׁ"ךְ בִּנְקֻדּוֹת הַכֶּסֶףנא נִדְחַק מְאֹד לוֹמַר דְּמַיְרִי שֶׁתָּפַס הָעוֹף בְּיָדוֹ עַד לְמָחָר בַּיּוֹם וּמִסְּתִימַת הַמִּשְׁנָה וְהַגְּמָרָא וְהַפּוֹסְקִים לֹא מַשְׁמַע הָכִי. הִלְכָּךְ בְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה וּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא אֵין לְהַחֲמִיר לַאֲחֵרִים בְּזֶה נֶגֶד רְמָ"א וְטַ"ז וְכֵן פָּסַק הַפְּרִי חָדָשׁנב אֶלָּא כָּל בַּעַל נֶפֶשׁ יַחְמִיר לְעַצְמוֹ לָחוּשׁ לְחִלּוּקֵי הַבַּ"ח וְשַׁ"ךְ לְהַחֲמִיר בְּשֶׁל תּוֹרָה וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן בְּעוֹף שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְדַלֵּג וְלִקְפּוֹץ בְּפִרְכּוּסוֹ אֲבָל בִּבְהֵמָה אֵין לָחוּשׁ כְּלָל לְכוּלָא עָלְמָא (תְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹרנג):
Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch (Kehot Publication Society)
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
(8) The greater portion –
These people stick a feather into the siman through [the animal’s] mouth and remove it through the slit where it was slaughtered [under the assumption that if it emerges, this indicates that the greater portion of the siman was slit]. They are making an error because it is possible that the greater portion of the siman was not slit. Or Zerua54 writes that even if [only] the lesser portion [of the siman] was slit, the feather will [further] tear [the siman] and [therefore, be able to] emerge (Sifsei Kohen).55
(9) Are making an error –
May their souls expire because they are feeding neveilos to the Jewish people. It is forbidden to participate in the burial of those who feed non-kosher meat [to the Jewish people] (Hagahos Ashiri).
There is an allusion to this in the Torah. [With regard to meat that is tereifah, the Torah states,]56 “Throw it to the dogs”. [Implied is that the verse applies to] both the food and those who cause others to eat it.57
Those who make an examination with the feather [of a fowl] to determine whether the greater portion (8) [of the simanim] was slit, are making an error. (9)
בהַבּוֹדְקִים בְּנוֹצָה לִרְאוֹת אִם נִשְׁחַט הָרֹב, (ח) טוֹעִים הֵם. (ט)
3
(10) Were perforated [previously] –
[This ruling applies] even if there are many holes [in the intestines] in places other than the places that [were obviously caused by] the wolf’s teeth. It is assumed that [the holes were caused] by the wolf. This is comparable to an instance where a butcher [forcefully] handled the siman, [as stated in] sec. 3658 below ([see] Turei Zahav,59 Tosafos60). The rationale is that since it was slaughtered, its presumed state is that it is kosher, because [we follow] the majority and most animals are kosher. [Accordingly, that presumption is allowed to stand] until it is known how [the animal] became tereifah (Gemara and Rashi).61 See the statements above, sections 162 and 24,63 explaining this ruling.
(11) Regarding ritual slaughter –
For example, if there is a doubt as to whether [the shochet] made an interruption [during the slaughter] or pressed down [on the simanim], we do not assume that [it was slaughtered in the same way] most [animals] are slaughtered.64 [Instead,] the animal [is deemed forbidden,] because a questionable factor arose regarding it, since a doubt arose regarding [its slaughter] (Gemara).65 The doubt [that arose regarding its slaughter is sufficient] to be considered an invalidating factor. We do not [consider this an instance where] we follow the majority of slaughters [that are valid,] since a difficulty arose,66 as stated in sec. 1.62
(12) Tereifah –
I.e., forbidden. See what was written above, sec. 1,61 regarding the difference of opinion among halachic authorities as to whether it is a neveilah of doubtful status or definitely a neveilah.
(י) נִקַּב.
וַאֲפִלּוּ יֵשׁ נְקָבִים הַרְבֵּה שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם שִׁנָּיו תָּלִינָן כּוּלְהוּ בִּזְאֵב כִּי הֵיכִי דְּמַכְשְׁרִינָן הֵיכָא דְּמִשְׁמֵשׁ יְדָא דְּטַבָּחָא דִּלְקַמָּן סִימָן ל"וס (טַ"זסא תּוֹסְפוֹתסב) מִשּׁוּם דְּנִשְׁחֲטָה בְּחֶזְקַת הֶתֵּר עוֹמֶדֶת מִכֹּחַ הָרֹב דְּרֹב בְּהֵמוֹת כְּשֵׁרוֹת הֵן עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע לְךָ בַּמֶּה נִטְרְפָה (גְּמָרָאסג וְרַשִׁ"יסד). עַיֵּן בְּמַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב לְעֵיל סִימָן א' וכ"דסה בֵּאוּר דִּין זֶה:
(יא) בִּשְׁחִיטָה.
כְּגוֹן סָפֵק שָׁהָה סָפֵק דָּרַס לֹא אָזְלִינָן בָּתַר רֹב שְׁחִיטוֹתסו כֵּיוָןסז דְּאִתְיַלְדָא רֵעוּתָא בִּבְהֵמָה זוֹ מֵאַחַר שֶׁנּוֹלַד לוֹ בָּהּ סָפֵק (גְּמָרָאסח) דְּכֵיוָן שֶׁנּוֹלַד לוֹ סָפֵק מִקְּרֵי רֵעוּתָאסט וְלֹא אָזְלִינָן בָּתַר רוּבָּא דְּאִתְרַע כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב לְעֵיל סִימָן א':ע
If [an animal] was slaughtered in a proper manner and a wolf came, took the intestines, and returned them perforated, [the animal] is kosher. We do not suspect that [the wolf] perforated [the intestines] in a place where they had [previously] been perforated. (10)
Note: However, before it is known that [an animal or fowl] was slaughtered correctly, we operate under the presumption that it is forbidden (Tur, based on the Gemara). [Accordingly,] all doubts that arise regarding the ritual slaughter (11) [of an animal cause the animal to be deemed] tereifah (12) (Maharil, Hilchos Shechitah, [based on] the Talmud, Chulin 10, 28 and accepted by all halachic authorities in several sources).
גנִשְׁחֲטָה כָּרָאוּי וּבָא זְאֵב וְנָטַל בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם וְהֶחֱזִירָן כְּשֶׁהֵם נְקוּבִים, כְּשֵׁרָה, וְלֹא חַיְשִׁינָן שֶׁמָּא בִּמְקוֹם נֶקֶב נִקַּב. (י) הַגָּה: אֲבָל קֹדֶם שֶׁיָּדְעִינָן שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה כָּרָאוּי, בְּחֶזְקַת אִסּוּר עוֹמֶדֶת (טוּר עַל פִּי הַגְּמָרָא). וְכָל סָפֵק שֶׁאֵרַע בִּשְׁחִיטָה, (יא) טְרֵפָה (יב) (מַהֲרִי״ל הִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה וְהוּא בְּשַׁ״ס דְּחֻלִּין דַּף י׳ וכ״ח וּמֻסְכָּם מִכָּל הַפּוֹסְקִים בְּכַמָּה דּוּכְתֵי).
