SECTION 26 The Law [Regarding] a Perforation in the Gullet or the Intestines Before Ritual Slaughter (1-2)
סימן כו דִּין נֶקֶב בַּוֵּשֶׁט אוֹ בִּבְנֵי מֵעַיִם קֹדֶם הַשְּׁחִיטָה וּבוֹ ב' סְעִיפִים
1
(1) Already –
Maharshal,1 Turei Zahav,2 and Sifsei Kohen3 write that [this ruling applies] only when [the perforation occurred] before [the shochet] slit the greater portion [of the gullet]. However, after he slit the greater portion [of the gullet], it is not at all logical to say [that the animal] should be disqualified because of a perforation, even though the windpipe is still intact. The same law applies if the windpipe was [pulled from its place] after its larger portion was slit, [but] before the gullet was slit. Sifsei Kohen concludes that, “even [according to the prevailing custom] that prohibits [the meat of an animal] when any [disqualifying factor mentioned in the] laws of ritual slaughter [occurs] in the remaining lesser portion [of a siman], this instance is an exception. [That custom applies] regarding a disqualifying factor in the remaining lesser portion [of the siman] itself. However, [once] a siman was [properly] slit, [the animal] was already [deemed] kosher. Furthermore, there is a distinction here, because the disqualifying factor did not occur via the process of slaughter.”
Sifsei Kohen’s words imply that even if [the siman] was perforated due to [the shochet’s] actions at the time of slaughter by the knife and the like, [a factor of] this nature is not considered to have happened via the process of slaughter at all. How much more so does this apply when one actually detaches [or perforates the siman] with his hands!
With regard to the first distinction [that Sifsei Kohen] made, [i.e.,] the distinction between [a perforation made in] the remaining lesser portion [of a siman] and [one made] on the portion where the slitting is [already] completed, [Sifsei Kohen] maintains that regarding [a perforation in] the remaining lesser portion [of the siman], the custom is to be stringent even if the disqualifying factor did not occur via the process of ritual slaughter. [This applies] as long as [the disqualifying factor] was brought about [by the shochet’s] actions, and not as a matter of course, [e.g.,] as a result of the animal’s [own movements], like the detached [siman] mentioned in sec. 24, as explained there.4 (Consult that source, [which states] that we do not follow this ruling but rather that of Turei Zahav in that source.)5
However, according to the second distinction [made by Sifsei Kohen], there is no need for stringency even when a disqualifying factor occurs in the remaining [attached] portion [of the siman], provided it does not occur via the process of ritual slaughter. [Moreover,] even according to the first distinction, the reason for stringency is based solely on custom, [i.e.,] it is our custom to follow the ruling of Rashi6 regarding the question raised in sec. 23[:5]7 above. [There the discussion revolves around whether all of the shochet’s actions] are considered one [continuous] act of slaughter. However, according to law, with regard to the laws of tereifos, there is no difference between the lesser portion [of a siman] remaining [to be slit] and the portion [of the siman that was] already slit. This follows the understanding of Maharshal, Turei Zahav, and Sifsei Kohen.8
(א) כְּבָר.
כָּתַב רְשַׁ"לא וְטַ"זב וְשַׁ"ךְג דְּהַיְנוּ דַוְקָא קֹדֶם שֶׁשָּׁחַט הָרֹב אֲבָל לְאַחַר שֶׁשָּׁחַט הָרֹב לֹא מִסְתַּבֵּר כְּלָל שֶׁיִּפְסוֹל בּוֹ נֶקֶב אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַקָּנֶה קַיָּם וְהוּא הַדִּין אִם נִפְסַק הַקָּנֶה אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט רֻבּוֹ קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטַת הַוֵּשֶׁט. וְסִיֵּם הַשַּׁ"ךְ דַּאֲפִלּוּ לְדִידַן דְּפָסְלִינָן כָּל הִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה בְּמִעוּט בַּתְרָא הַיְנוּ בַּמִּעוּט הַנִּשְׁאָר עַצְמוֹ אֲבָל מַה שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט כְּבָר נִכְשַׁר. וְעוֹד דְּשַׁאֲנִי הָכָא דְּלֹא אֵרַע הַפְּסוּל דֶּרֶךְ שְׁחִיטָה כְּלָל עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ. וּמַשְׁמַע מִדְּבָרָיו דַּאֲפִלּוּ נִקַּב בְּיָדַיִם בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה עַל יְדֵי סַכִּין וּכְהַאי גַּוְנָא לֹא מִקְּרֵי דֶּרֶךְ שְׁחִיטָה כְּלָל וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן לְעִקּוּר בְּיָדַיִם מַמָּשׁ. וּלְחִלּוּק הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁחִלֵּק בֵּין מִעוּט הַנִּשְׁאָר לְמַה שֶּׁכְּבָר נִשְׁחַט סְבִירָא לֵיהּ דִּבְמִעוּט הַנִּשְׁאָר נוֹהֲגִים לְהַחֲמִיר אֲפִלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּדֶרֶךְ שְׁחִיטָה כְּלָל כְּשֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה הַפְּסוּל בְּיָדַיִם וְלֹא מִמֵּילָא עַל יְדֵי הַבְּהֵמָה עַצְמָהּ כִּשְׁמוּטָה דִלְעֵיל סִימָן כ"דד כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר שָׁם (עַיֵּן שָׁם דְּלֹא קַיְמָא לָן הָכִי אֶלָּא כְּהַטַּ"ז שָׁםה). וּלְחִלּוּק הַב' אֵין לְהַחֲמִיר אֲפִלּוּ בַּמִּעוּט הַנִּשְׁאָר בִּפְסוּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּדֶרֶךְ שְׁחִיטָה כְּלָל. וְגַם לְחִלּוּק הָרִאשׁוֹן אֵין לְהַחֲמִיר אֶלָּא מִמִּנְהָגָא שֶׁנּוֹהֲגִים כְּפֵרוּשׁ רַשִׁ"י בְּבַעְיָא דִלְעֵיל סִימָן כ"גו דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר כֻּלָּהּ חֲדָא שְׁחִיטָה הִיא אֲבָל מִדִּינָא מִשּׁוּם טְרֵפוֹת אֵין חִלּוּק בֵּין מִעוּט הַנִּשְׁאָר לְמַה שֶּׁנִּשְׁחַט כְּבָר לְפִי דַּעַת רְשַׁ"ל וְשַׁ"ךְ וְטַ"ז:ז
If the gullet became perforated at the time of ritual slaughter opposite the place where [the shochet] had already (1) slit, [the animal] is tereifah.
אנִקַּב הַוֵּשֶׁט בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה כְּנֶגֶד הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁחַט כְּבָר, (א) טְרֵפָה.
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
If one slit the windpipe and the lungs became perforated before he slit the gullet, or if one slit the gullet and the intestines became perforated before he slit the windpipe, [the animal] is tereifah.
בשָׁחַט הַקָּנֶה וְנִקְּבָה הָרֵאָה קֹדֶם שֶׁשָּׁחַט הַוֵּשֶׁט, אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁחַט הַוֵּשֶׁט וְנִקְּבוּ בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם קֹדֶם שֶׁשָּׁחַט הַקָּנֶה, טְרֵפָה.
