SECTION 32 The Laws Governing a Wound to the Spinal Cord (1-7)
סימן לב דִּין מַכָּה בְּחוּט הַשִּׁדְרָה וּבוֹ ז' סְעִיפִים
1
(1) [The animal] is
If [the spinal cord] was perforated around its circumference with many [small] holes that do not detract from the substance [of the menbrane], they should be added together [and if their total size is equivalent to] the greater portion [of the spinal cord, the animal is tereifah. This law applies] even if the perforations were not [on] one [level], but rather one [perforation was higher up,] and one [was lower down]. Just as several slits are combined to reach a lenient ruling regarding the slaughter [of an animal] in sec. 211 above, surely, [they should be combined] with regard to ruling stringently regarding tereifos (Tevuos Shor).2
(א) טְרֵפָה.
וְאִם נִקַּב נְקָבִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם חִסָּרוֹן סְבִיב הֶקֵּפוֹ מִצְטָרְפִים לְרֹב אֲפִלּוּ לֹא נִקְּבוּ בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד אֶלָּא זֶה לְמַעְלָה וְזֶה לְמַטָּה כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמִּצְטָרְפִים לְרֹב לְהָקֵל גַּבֵּי שְׁחִיטָה כְּדִלְעֵיל סִימָן כ"אא וְקַל וָחֹמֶר לִטְרֵפוֹת לְהַחֲמִיר (תְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹ רב):
If the greater portion of the membrane surrounding the nerve matter of the spinal cord was severed, [the animal] is tereifah (1) even if all the nerve matter is intact. If the greater portion of the surrounding membrane was not severed, even if all the nerve matter within the [membrane] was severed, [the animal] is kosher.
אחוּט הַשִּׁדְרָה שֶׁנִּפְסַק רֹב הֶקֵּף עוֹר הַחוֹפֶה אֶת הַמּוֹחַ, טְרֵפָה, (א) אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּל הַמּוֹחַ קַיָּם. וְאִם לֹא נִפְסַק רֹב הָעוֹר, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּפְסַק כָּל הַמּוֹחַ שֶׁבִּפְנִים, כָּשֵׁר.
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
(2) Along its length –
[The intent is that the membrane was split] along its entire [length]. Even if nothing of [the spinal cord] remained above or below [the slit, the animal is kosher. This situation is] worthier of leniency than that concerning the windpipe described in sec. 34 ([in] Beis Yosef3). We do not [compare and] derive [laws regarding] tereifos from [one organ] to another,4 nor do we add to the number of [conditions that render an animal] tereifah explicitly mentioned by our Sages5 (Tevuos Shor;6 Rokeiach).
(3) The spine –
[This ruling applies if] it is known that the spinal cord was not severed. [Hence,] an examination [of the spinal cord] is required. (Note [the statements of] the author of Halachos Gedolos cited in Toras Yekusiel, sec. 58). How much more [does this apply in the present instance] than [in the instance mentioned] below [at the end of] subsection 6, regarding [an animal] that was beaten across the width of the backbone. The reason [Rav Yosef Caro] does not mention this [in his] Shulchan Aruch is that the matter is obvious: there is no possibility of [the backbone] being broken if there was no blow. Therefore, [Rav Yosef Caro] relied on what was to be stated below in subsection 6.7
It is quite common that at times a hen will have a crooked backbone, not because it was born that way, [but] because [its spine] was broken. Even though the broken pieces [of the spine] fused and bonded together, that is not effective [in enabling the hen to be considered kosher] without the spinal cord being examined, as is the case when an [animal’s] foot broke at the juncture of the sinews, as stated below in sec. 56,8 and as explained above in sec. 30.9
If the spinal cord is discovered to be intact [during the examination, the animal] is kosher even if the cervical spine (which is the uppermost section of the neckbone) is broken and the flesh around it has been severed (Turei Zahav, the end of sec. 27[:1]).
However, if the neckbone was broken, the spinal cord severed, and the greater portion of the flesh on the backbone behind the neck has been severed, [the animal] is considered a neveilah [even] during its lifetime (Gemara).10
(4) Was crushed –
From this point until subsection 5, [the concepts] were thoroughly explained in sec. 31.11 Consult that source.
(ב) לְאָרְכּוֹ.
עַל פְּנֵי כֻלּוֹ וַאֲפִלּוּ לֹא נִשְׁתַּיֵּר כְּלוּם לֹא לְמַעְלָה וְלֹא לְמַטָּה וְקִיל מִגַּרְגֶּרֶת דִּלְקַמָּן סִימָן ל"ד (בֵּית יוֹסֵףג) דְּאֵין לְמֵדִין בִּטְרֵפוֹת זוֹ מִזּוֹד וְאֵין מוֹסִיפִין עַל הַטְּרֵפוֹת שֶׁמָּנוּ חֲכָמִיםה בְּפֵרוּשׁ (תְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹרו רוֹקֵחַז):
(ג) הַשִּׁדְרָה.
וְיָדוּעַ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְסַק הַחוּט. וּצְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה (עַיֵּן [בַּ]הַ"גח הוּבָא בְּתוֹרַת יְקוּתִיאֵל סִימָן נ"חט) בְּמִכָּל שֶׁכֵּן דְּהִכָּה לְרֹחַב הַשִּׁדְרָה דִּלְקַמָּן סְעִיף ו'.י וְהָא דְּסָתַם כַּאן הַשֻּׁלְחָן עָרוּךְיא מִשּׁוּם דְּמִלְּתָא דִפְשִׁיטָא הִיא דְּאֵין שֶׁבֶר בְּלֹא מַכָּהיב וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי סָמַךְ אַדִּלְקַמָּן סְעִיף ו'.
וְזֶה דָּבָר הַמָּצוּי לִפְעָמִים בְּתַרְנְגֹלֶת שֶׁשִּׁדְרָתָהּ עֲקֻמָּה עַל יְדֵי שֶׁבֶר וְלֹא בְּתוֹלָדָה וְאַף שֶׁנִּקְשַׁר שֶׁבֶר אֶל שֶׁבֶר יַחְדָּו יְדֻבָּקוּ לֹא מְהַנֵּי בְּלֹא בְּדִיקָה בַּחוּטיג כְּמוֹ בְּנִשְׁבַּר הָרֶגֶל בִּמְקוֹם צֹמֶת הַגִּידִין דִּלְקַמָּן סִימָן נ"ויד וּכְמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר לְעֵיל סִימָן ל'.טו
וּכְשֶׁנִּמְצָא הַחוּט שָׁלֵם כְּשֵׁרָה אֲפִלּוּ בְּנִשְׁבְּרָה הַמַּפְרֶקֶת וְנִפְסַק גַּם הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁעָלֶיהָ (טַ"ז סוֹף סִימָן כ"ז).
אֲבָל אִם נִשְׁבְּרָה הַמַּפְרֶקֶת וְנִפְסַק הַחוּט וְגַם רֹב הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁעַל הַמַּפְרֶקֶת מֵאֲחוֹרֵי הַצַּוָּאר נִפְסַק הֲרֵי זֶה נְבֵלָה מֵחַיִּים (גְּמָרָאטז):
(ד) אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְמַעֵךְ כוּ'.
מִכַּאן וְעַד סְעִיף ה' נִתְבָּאֵר הֵיטֵב בְּסִימָן ל"איז עַיֵּן שָׁם:
If the membrane [around the spinal cord] was split along its length, (2) [the animal] is kosher. Similarly, if the spine (3) was broken but the [spinal] cord was not severed, or if the nerve matter in the [spinal] cord was crushed (4) and became shaky, since, [nevertheless,] the membrane is intact, [the animal] is permitted.
בנִסְדַּק הָעוֹר לְאָרְכּוֹ, (ב) כָּשֵׁר. וְכֵן אִם נִשְׁבְּרָה הַשִּׁדְרָה (ג) וְלֹא נִפְסַק הַחוּט, אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְמַעֵךְ (ד) הַמּוֹחַ שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הַחוּט וְנִתְנַדְנֵד, הוֹאִיל וְעוֹרוֹ קַיָּם, הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת.
3
If the nerve matter became liquefied [to the extent that it could be] poured like water or like molten wax to the extent that when one would hold the spinal cord in his hand, the small portion that protrudes [above] his hand bends over and would not be able to stand [erect, the animal] is tereifah (these are the words of the Tur). Similarly, even if [the spine] did not soften inside, but it [became] thick and heavy and therefore, could not stand because of its weight, [the animal] is tereifah.
גהֻמְרַךְ הַמֹּחַ וְנִשְׁפַּךְ כַּמַּיִם אוֹ כַּדּוֹנַג שֶׁנָּמֵס, עַד שֶׁיִּמָּצֵא הַחוּט כְּשֶׁמַּעֲמִידוֹ בְּיָדוֹ הָיָה הַמְעַט שֶׁחוּץ לְיָדוֹ שׁוֹחֶה וְלֹא הָיָה יָכוֹל לַעֲמוֹד, טְרֵפָה. וְכֵן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְרַכֵּךְ מִבִּפְנִים, אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא עָב וְכָבֵד וְאִם מַעֲמִידִין אוֹתוֹ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַעֲמוֹד מִפְּנֵי כָבְדּוֹ, טְרֵפָה.
4
If some of [the substance of] the nerve matter is lacking and it was emptied, [the animal] is kosher.
דנֶחְסַר קְצָת מֵהַמּוֹחַ וְנִתְרוֹקֵן, כָּשֵׁר.
5
(5) The third point of divergence –
The place where the spinal cord separates and [major individual] nerves diverge from it is called a point of divergence. The intent is that when the spinal cord reaches the thighs, [major individual] nerves begin to diverge from it, one to one thigh, another to the other [thigh], and the middle [– i.e., the spinal cord itself –] descends towards the tail. Approximately two fingerbreadths12 below that [first] point of divergence in a small [animal]13 or three fingerbreadths in a large animal14 (Tur, Bayis Chadash),15 [the spinal cord] again diverges into three [major nerves], and then below them it diverges more. [This pattern continues] in many places until the end [of the spine]. Every [plexus] from which [the nerves] diverge is called a point of divergence.
The Gemara states:16
How far does the spinal cord [extend] ([i.e.,] until which point is the strength of the spine [vitally necessary to the extent] that if it is severed, the animal is a tereifah)?17 Shmuel said, “Until between the points of divergence [of the spinal cord].” ([If] the greater portion of the spine will be severed in any place until between these points of divergence, [the animal] is tereifah. If [the spine] becomes severed below these points of divergence, its strength has already ceased and it is the thighs that will support the spine. [Therefore,] this [condition will] not [cause the animal] to die.)17
([The term,] “between the points of divergence” refers to the entire length of the middle cord of the spine between the first point of divergence and the second point of divergence. This encompasses about two or three finger breadths. This is referred to as “the first segment.” The entire span between the second and third points of divergence is [referred to as] the second segment. Similarly, “the third segment” [refers to the span between the third and fourth points of divergence]. (Rabbeinu Yerucham; Beis Yosef18).
[After briefly mentioning an incident related to this subject, the Talmud continues:19]
Shmuel said, “[If the spinal cord was severed] until [the end of] the first [segment, between the first and second points of diversion, the animal] is tereifah. (Any place [where the spine] of an animal is severed until the first segment, certainly [causes it] to be tereifah.)20 [If the spinal cord is severed within] the second [segment, i.e., between the second and third points of diversion], I do not know [the law. If it was severed within] the third segment, [the animal] is kosher. ([The intent is that] if the spine was severed within the third segment, i.e., the entire span after the third point of diversion, [the animal] is kosher.)
Rav Huna, the son of Rav Yehoshua, raised a question, “[When Shmuel said that the animal is certainly tereifah if the spinal cord is severed anywhere until the first segment, does he mean] until and including [the first segment]? (I.e., [if the spine of an animal is severed any place] until between the first segment and including that [entire] segment, [the animal] is tereifah?) Or perhaps he means [if the spine is severed] until and not including [the span of the segment itself] ([the animal] is certainly tereifah, but [if it is severed in the area after that point, the ruling is included in Shmuel’s statement that he] did not know [the law regarding that situation. The law regarding the first segment is then] obvious and does not have to be explained. It would be necessary [for Shmuel] to say only that he did not know [the law that applied to] the second segment.)
Rav Pappa raised a question: If you say [that Shmuel meant] until and not including [the span of the first segment], what is [the law] regarding the opening of [the first point of the first segment]? ([Rav Pappa’s question is:] Were the large central nerve, [i.e., the spinal cord,] to be severed at the opening of the first point of diversion, is [the animal] included in the category considered tereifah or is it included in the category concerning which [Shmuel said,] “I do not know”? Do we say, “until between the first two points of divergence [is considered, the first segment] and only that”? And thus, the opening of the point of diversion is tereifah. Or is that not necessarily the interpretation [and even the opening of the point of divergence21 is considered part of the first segment]?)
Rabbi Yirmeya raised a question: If you say [that Shmuel meant] until and including [the span of the first segment, the animal is a tereifah,] if [the spinal cord was severed at the first] point of diversion,22 what is the [law]?... The question remains unresolved.
The intent [of Rabbi Yirmeya‘s question is: What is the law when] the nerve that diverged is severed [some] distance from the place where it is joined to the spinal cord in a place opposite the portion between between the first and the second points of diversion, which [comprise] the first segment? This is the interpretation advanced by Tosafos.23 It is also true that one could raise a question regarding one [of the nerves that diverged from the second point of divergence and] parallels the second segment: Is [the nerve] included in [the second segment,] the category concerning which Shmuel] did not know, or not? [This is similar to] the question raised regarding whether a nerve that diverged from the first point of divergence is included in the category [of a blemish that] definitely [causes an animal to be deemed] tereifah, as is the case when [the spinal cord] is severed in the first segment if one would say that [Shmuel’s intent was] until and including [the first span]. However, concerning nerves branching out from the third point of divergence, there is no question that could arise, since even if [the spine itself] was severed in the third segment, [the animal] is kosher.24
Nevertheless, regarding the opening to the third point of diversion, there is room to question whether it is part of the third segment and therefore kosher, or not [part of that segment], in which case, it is included in [the category concerning which Shmuel said] “I do not know,” just as a question was raised regarding the opening to the first point of diversion,25 i.e., is it part of the first segment, [and included in [the categrory concerning which Shmuel said, “I do not know”? [In other words, did he mean that the first segment continued] until but not including the point mentioned, or perhaps [he meant that the opening] is not [part of the first segment] and [therefore, the animal] is tereifah? [Since the question involves] a doubt regarding a Scriptural prohibition, we rule stringently.26 This is the approach of Rabbeinu Nissim27 and [Rav Yosef Caro in his] Shulchan Aruch.28
However, Rambam29 and those who follow his approach maintain that a distinction can be made between the opening to the first segment ‒ concerning which there is a question that perhaps it is not part of these segments at all ‒ and the opening to the third segment which is definitely part of the segments. The only point that is questionable is whether [the opening to the third segment] is part of the second segment or the third [segment]. In truth, that is not a question at all. Certainly, the opening to the third segment is part of the third segment, and the opening to the second segment is part of the second segment. This is also the understanding of Maharshal,30 as cited by Sifsei Kohen.31 One may rely on this ruling in an instance where there is a severe [financial] loss since, even without considering this factor, there are many doubtful matters involved. Nevertheless, since all [the doubts] are in one category, they are not considered a compounded doubt, as will be explained below in sec. 110, when outlining the general principles regarding compounded doubts.32
(6) With regard to a fowl –
The Talmud33 [continues the discussion presented in the previous note, debating what laws apply to a fowl]:
With regard to a fowl, [the Sages disagreed as to the location of the point in the spinal cord, above which its severance causes the fowl to be considered tereifah].
Rabbi Yannai said, “[The crucial section of the spinal cord extends] until between the wings.” Reish Lakish said, “Until (note Rabbeinu Asher’s [comments])34 below the wings.”
This is the version [of the Talmud] cited by Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi,35 Rambam,36 and Rabbeinu Asher.34
Rambam ruled according to Rabbi Yannai’s [opinion] because [Rabbi Yannai] was the teacher of Rabbi Yochanan who was the teacher of Reish Lakish [and we follow the principle,] “The halachah does not follow [the opinion of] a student against that of his teacher.”37 How much more so does this apply [regarding the opinion of a student against that of] his teacher’s teacher.
However, the version [of the Talmud] followed by Rashi, Tosafos, and those who follow their opinion is the opposite.38 “Rabbi Yannai said, ‘[The spinal cord extends] until below the wings.’ Reish Lakish said, ‘Until between the wings.’ ” Based on this version, Sefer HaTerumah, S’mag, and those who follow their opinion ruled according to Rabbi Yannai, [since] he ruled stringently, and furthermore, he was the teacher of [Reish Lakish‘s] teacher.
Tosafos writes that there is room for doubt regarding Rabbi Yannai’s intent. [Did he mean] below the place where [the wings] are attached to the body? Or [did he mean] below the place where they lie on the body [of the fowl], i.e., below the end of the bone of the wing that is attached to the body? Similarly, in his notes on Sefer Mitzvos Kattan, Rabbeinu Peretz ruled, “There is room for doubt as to whether [Rabbi Yannai] meant ‘the end of the bone,’ i.e., the end of the place where the wings lie on the body, or maybe he was referring to the beginning of the bone, [i.e.,] the place where the wings are attached to the body. Because of the doubt, one should rule stringently.” This opinion was quoted by Sifsei Kohen.39 Rashba, [who follows the opinion of Rambam regarding the text in Chulin, loc. cit., differs with Rambam regarding the actual ruling, and follows the opinion of Reish Lakish according to that version of the text,] ruling accordingly in his Toras HaBayis HaAruch,40 [stating] that in all instances of this nature, we rule stringently. Or Zerua also rules in this manner. This is the opinion of the authorities who rule that [the animal] is tereifah, as [cited by Rama] in [his] note [here].
[However,] Rabbeinu Asher determined that the phrase [“below the wings”] was referring to the beginning of the bone, i.e., the place [where the wings] are attached to the body. [According to this understanding,] the Sage who said, “until between the wings,” meant [only] until that point, but not including that point. If [the spine was severed] at the place [where the wings] are attached, [the fowl] is kosher. [The fowl] is tereifah only [if the spine is severed] up until the beginning of the place [where the wings] are attached. The Sage who said, “[until] below the wings,” [meant] until below the point where they are attached, and that place is not included. [Hence, according to this opinion, the fowl] is tereifah only [if the spine is severed] at the place where the wings are attached [– but not below that point. In his] Shulchan Aruch, [Rav Yosef Caro] ruled [1)] in accordance with the decision of Rabbeinu Asher [that the argument – whether it is between or below the wings – applies regarding the place where the wings are attached to the body and, [2) following the understanding of those who maintain] that it was Rabbi Yannai who said, “[The spinal cord extends] until between the wings,” as is the version [of the text] possessed by Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi and Rambam. [The Shulchan Aruch thus rules according to Rav Yannai.]
Turei Zahav41 writes that Rama’s statement that one need not rule stringently in an instance of severe [financial] loss means that one need not rule stringently to the extent that [when the spine is severed] until the place where the end of the bone lies, [the fowl] should be deemed tereifah. However, one should not rule so leniently as to accept [a fowl] as kosher when [the spine] was severed at the place [where the wings] are attached to the body, thus, relying on the version [of the Talmud] cited by Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi and those who follow his approach.
In his Nekudos HaKesef,42 Sifsei Kohen [goes a step further and] writes that Rama’s understanding is that one should rule leniently in an instance of severe [financial] loss even [when the spine is severed] at the place [where the wings] are attached, as is the understanding of Rav Yosef Caro in his Shulchan Aruch. However, Maharshal43 and Bayis Chadash44 ruled that one must be stringent even if a severe [financial] loss is involved, [if the spine is severed] until the end of the place where the bone lies.
Therefore, with regard to the application of the halachah, in an instance of a severe [financial] loss, one should rule according to the decision of Turei Zahav: one should not rule leniently [when the spine is severed] opposite the place [where the wings are] attached [so as] to give weight to the version [of the Talmud] cited by Tosafos and those who follow their understanding, for they are the final authorities who ruled regarding the issue and we follow [the decisions of the latest authorities] in all instances.45 However, one should not rule stringently for others in an instance of severe [financial] loss [and disqualify a fowl if its spine is severed from the place the wings are attached] until the end of the place where the bone lies, because it resembles [a situation of] compounded doubt.
Nevertheless, every meticulous person should be stringent regarding their own conduct so as to give weight to the understanding of Maharshal and Bayis Chadash.
(ה) פָּרָשָׁה שְׁלִישִׁית.
פֵּרוּשׁ מָקוֹם שֶׁהַחוּט מִתְפָּרֵשׁ וּמִתְפַּצֵּל פִּצּוּלִין נִקְרָא פָּרָשָׁה.יח דְּהַיְנוּ כְּשֶׁמַּגִּיעַ הַחוּט כְּנֶגֶד הַיְרֵכַיִם הוּא מַתְחִיל לִפָּצֵל וְיוֹצֵא רֹאשׁ אֶחָד לְיֶרֶךְ זוֹ וְאֶחָד לְזוֹ וְהָאֶמְצָעִי יוֹרֵד לַזָּנָב. וּלְמַטָּה מֵאוֹתָן פִּצּוּלִין כִּשְׁנֵי אֶצְבָּעוֹתיט בְּדַקָּה וּכְג' אֶצְבָּעוֹת בְּגַסָּה (טוּר בַּ"חכ) הוּא חוֹזֵר וּמִתְפַּצֵּל עוֹד לִשְׁלֹשָׁה וּלְמַטָּה מֵהֶם עוֹד מִתְפַּצֵּל וְכֵן בְּהַרְבֵּה מְקוֹמוֹת עַד סוֹפוֹ וְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁמִּתְפַּצֵּל נִקְרָא פָּרָשָׁה.
וְאִתְּמַר בִּגְמָרָאכא עַד הֵיכָן חוּט הַשִּׁדְרָה (עַד הֵיכָן כֹּחוֹ שֶׁל חוּט לִהְיוֹת הַבְּהֵמָה נִטְרֶפֶת בְּהַפְסָקָתוֹכב) אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל עַד בֵּין הַפָּרָשׁוֹת (כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיִּפָּסֵק רֻבּוֹ עַד בֵּין הַפָּרָשׁוֹת הַלָּלוּ טְרֵפָה וְאִם לְמַטָּה מִבֵּין הַפָּרָשׁוֹת הַלָּלוּ נִפְסַק כְּבָר פָּסַק כֹּחוֹ וְהַיְרֵכַיִם מַעֲמִידִים אֶת שִׁדְרָתוֹ וְאֵינָהּ מֵתָה בְּכָךְכג) (וּבֵין הַפָּרָשׁוֹת הוּא כָּל אֹרֶךְ הַחוּט הָאֶמְצָעִי שֶׁבַּשִּׁדְרָה כְּב' אוֹ ג' אֶצְבָּעוֹת שֶׁבֵּין מְקוֹם פִּצּוּלִים שֶׁמִּתְפַּצְּלִים פִּצּוּלִים רִאשׁוֹנִים לְפִצּוּלִים שְׁנִיִּים וְכֵן כָּל אֹרֶךְ שֶׁבֵּין מְקוֹם שְׁנִיִּים לִשְׁלִישִׁיִּים וְכֵן כֻּלָּם וְהָאֹרֶךְ שֶׁבֵּין מְקוֹם פִּצּוּלִים רִאשׁוֹנִים וּשְׁנִיִּים נִקְרָא בֵּין הַפָּרָשָׁה א' וְשֶׁבֵּין שְׁנִיִּים לִשְׁלִישִׁיִּים נִקְרָא בֵּין הַפָּרָשָׁה ב' וְכֵן בֵּין הַפָּרָשָׁה ג') (רַבֵּנוּ יְרוּחָםכד בֵּית יוֹסֵףכה). וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל עַד אַחַת טְרֵפָה (כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיִּפָּסֵק מִן הַבְּהֵמָה עַד בֵּין הַפָּרָשָׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה טְרֵפָהכו וַדַּאי) שְׁנִיָּה אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שְׁלִישִׁית כְּשֵׁרָה (נִפְסַק בֵּין הַפָּרָשָׁה שְׁלִישִׁית דְּהַיְנוּ כָּל אָרְכּוֹ לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּתְפַּצֵּל פַּעַם שְׁלִישִׁית כְּשֵׁרָה). בָּעֵי רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ עַד וְעַד בִּכְלָל (וְהָכִי קָאָמַר עַד בֵּין הַפָּרָשָׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה וְאוֹתוֹ בֵּין בִּכְלַל טְרֵפָהכז וַדַּאי) אוֹ דִּלְמָא עַד וְלֹא עַד בִּכְלָל (טְרֵפָה וַדַּאי אֶלָּא בִּכְלַל אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ וּמִמֵּילָא מִשְׁתְּמַע וְלֹא אִצְטְרִיךְ לְפָרוּשֵׁי אֶלָּא בִּשְׁנִיָּה נַמִי אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַכח). בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר עַד וְלֹא עַד בִּכְלָל פִּי פָרָשָׁה מַהוּ (נִפְסַק הַחוּט הַגָּדוֹל הָאֶמְצָעִי כְּנֶגֶד פִּי הַפִּצּוּלִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים מַהוּ בִּכְלַל טְרֵפָה הוּא אוֹ בִּכְלַל אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מִי אָמְרִינָן עַד בֵּין דַּוְקָא וּפִי הַפָּרָשָׁה טְרֵפָה אוֹ לָאו דַּוְקָאכט). בָּעֵי רַב יִרְמְיָה אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר עַד וְעַד בִּכְלָל פָּרָשָׁה עַצְמָהּ מַהוּ תֵּיקוּ. פֵּרוּשׁ נִפְסַק הַפִּצּוּל עַצְמוֹ בְּרָחוֹק מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ בַּחוּט כְּנֶגֶד חוּט הַשִּׁדְרָה שֶׁבֵּין פִּצּוּלִים
רִאשׁוֹנִים לִשְׁנִיִּים שֶׁהוּא בֵּין הַפָּרָשׁוֹת רִאשׁוֹן כָּךְ כָּתְבוּ הַתּוֹסְפוֹת.ל וְהוּא הַדִּין דְּאִיכָּא לְמִבָּעֵי בְּנִפְסַק פִּצּוּל אֶחָד מִפִּצּוּלִים הַשְּׁנִיִּים כְּנֶגֶד בֵּין הַפָּרָשָׁה שְׁנִיָּה אִם הוּא בִּכְלַל אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ כְּבֵין הַפָּרָשָׁה שְׁנִיָּה אוֹ לָאו כְּמוֹ דְּמִבָּעֵי לֵיהּ בְּנִפְסַק פִּצּוּל אֶחָד מֵהָרִאשׁוֹנִים אִם הוּא בִּכְלַל וַדַּאי טְרֵפָה כְּבֵין הַפָּרָשָׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר עַד וְעַד בִּכְלָל.לא אֲבָל בְּפִצּוּלִים שְׁלִישִׁיִּים לֵיכָּא לְמִבָּעֵי מִדֵּי כֵּיוָן דַּאֲפִלּוּ בֵּין הַפָּרָשָׁה שְׁלִישִׁית כְּשֵׁרָה.לב אֲבָל בְּפִי פָּרָשָׁה שְׁלִישִׁית אִיכָּא לְמִבָּעֵי אִם הוּא בִּכְלַל בֵּין הַפָּרָשָׁה ג' וּכְשֵׁרָה אוֹ לָאו וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ כְּמוֹ דְּמִבָּעֵי לֵיהּלג בְּפִי פָּרָשָׁה א' אִם הוּא בִּכְלַל בֵּין הַפָּרָשָׁה א' וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר עַד וְלֹא עַד בִּכְלָל אוֹ לָאו וּטְרֵפָה. וּסְפֵיקָא דְאוֹרַיְתָא לְחוּמְרָא.לד וְזֶהוּ דַּעַת הָרַ"ןלה וְשֻׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ.לו אֲבָל הָרַמְבַּ"םלז וְסִיעָתוֹ סְבִירָא לְהוּ לְחַלֵּק בֵּין פִּי פָּרָשָׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה דְּמִבָּעֵי לָן שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ בִּכְלַל בֵּין הַפָּרָשׁוֹת כְּלָל וּבֵין פִּי פָּרָשָׁה שְׁלִישִׁית דְּהוּא בִּכְלַל בֵּין הַפָּרָשׁוֹת וַדַּאי וְלֵיכָּא לְמִבָּעֵי אֶלָּא אִם הוּא בִּכְלַל שְׁנִיָּה אוֹ שְׁלִישִׁית וְהָא לֵיכָּא לְמִבָּעֵי כְּלָל דְּוַדַּאי פִּי פָּרָשָׁה שְׁלִישִׁית הוּא בִּכְלַל שְׁלִישִׁית וּפִי שְׁנִיָּה הוּא בִּכְלַל ב'. וְכֵן דַּעַת רְשַׁ"ללח הוּבָא בְּשַׁ"ךְ.לט וְיֵשׁ לִסְמוֹךְ עַל זֶה בְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה מֵאַחַר דִּבְלָאו הָכֵי אִיכָא סְפֵיקֵי טוּבָא אֶלָּא דְּכֻלָּן שֵׁם אֶחָד וְאֵין נֶחְשָׁבִים לִסְפֵק סְפֵיקָא כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר לְקַמָּן סִימָן ק"י בִּכְלָלֵי סְפֵק סְפֵיקָא:מ
(ו) וּבְעוֹף.
בִּגְמָרָאמא אִתְּמָר בְּעוֹפָא רַבִּי יַנַּאי אָמַר עַד בֵּין הָאֲגַפַּיִם רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר עַד (עַיֵּן רֹא"שׁמב) לְמַטָּה מִן הָאֲגַפַּיִם. כֵּן הוּא גִּרְסַת הָרִי"ףמג וְהָרַמְבַּ"םמד וְהָרֹא"שׁ. וּפָסַק הָרַמְבַּ"ם כְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי לְפִי שֶׁהָיָה רַבּוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן שֶׁהָיָה רַבּוֹ שֶׁל רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ וְאֵין הֲלָכָה כְּתַלְמִיד בִּמְקוֹם הָרַבמה כָּל שֶׁכֵּן בִּמְקוֹם רַבּוֹ דְרַבּוֹ.מו
אֲבָל גִּרְסַת רַשִׁ"ימז וְתוֹסְפוֹת וְסִיעָתָם אִפְּכָא רַבִּי יַנַּאי אָמַר לְמַטָּה מִן הָאֲגַפַּיִם וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר עַד בֵּין הָאֲגַפַּיִם. וְעַל פִּי גִּרְסָא זוֹ פָּסְקוּ הַסֵּפֶר הַתְּרוּמָהמח וּסְמַ"גמט וְסִיעָתָם כְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי שֶׁמַּחֲמִיר וְעוֹד שֶׁהָיָה רַבּוֹ דְרַבּוֹ.נ וְכָתְבוּ הַתּוֹסְפוֹתנא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְהִסְתַּפֵּק בִּדְרַבִּי יַנַּאי אִם לְמַטָּה מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ בַּגּוּף קָאָמַר אוֹ לְמַטָּה מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁשּׁוֹכֶבֶת עַל הַגּוּף דְּהַיְנוּ לְמַטָּה מִסּוֹף עֶצֶם שֶׁל כָּנָף הַמְחֻבָּר בַּגּוּף. וְכֵן פָּסַק הָרַב ר' פֶּרֶץ בְּהַגָּהַת סְמַ"קנב דְּיֵשׁ לְהִסְתַּפֵּק אִי סוֹף הָעֶצֶם קָאָמַר דְּהַיְנוּ מָקוֹם שֶׁהַכְּנָפַיִם שׁוֹכְבוֹת עַל הַגּוּף בְּסוֹפָן אוֹ שֶׁמָּא אַתְּחִלַּת הָעֶצֶם קָאֵי מְקוֹם חִבּוּר הַכְּנָפַיִם בַּגּוּף וְיֵשׁ לְהַחֲמִיר מִסָּפֵק עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ. הוּבָא בְּשַׁ"ךְ.נג [א] וְכֵן כָּתַב הָרַשְׁבָּ"א בְּתוֹרַת הַבַּיִת הָאָרֹךְנד דְּכָל כִּי הָא אָזְלִינָן לְחוּמְרָא. וְכֵן כָּתַב הָאוֹר זָרוּעַ.נה וְזֶהוּ דַּעַת יֵשׁ מַטְרִיפִים שֶׁבַּהַגָּ"ה. וְהָרֹא"שׁנו הִכְרִיעַ דְּאַתְּחִלַּת הָעֶצֶם קָאֵי מְקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ בַּגּוּף וּמַאן דְּאָמַר עַד בֵּין הָאֲגַפַּיִם עַד וְלֹא עַד בִּכְלָל וּכְנֶגֶד מְקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה וְאֵינָהּ טְרֵפָה אֶלָּא עַד תְּחִלַּת מְקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ וּמַאן דְּאָמַר לְמַטָּה מִן הָאֲגַפַּיִם הַיְנוּ עַד לְמַטָּה מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ וְלֹא עַד בִּכְלָל אֶלָּא כְּנֶגֶד מְקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ מַמָּשׁ טְרֵפָה. וּפָסַק הַשֻּׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ כְּהַכְרָעַת הָרֹא"שׁ וּכְמַאן דְּאָמַר בֵּין הָאֲגַפַּיִם דְּהוּא רַבִּי יַנַּאי לְגִרְסַת הָרִי"ף וְהָרַמְבַּ"ם. וְכָתַב הַטַּ"זנז דְּהָא דְּכָתַב רְמָ"א דִּבְהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה אֵין לְהַחֲמִיר הַיְנוּ שֶׁאֵין לְהַחֲמִיר כָּל כָּךְ לְהַטְרִיף עַד מְקוֹם כְּלוֹת שְׁכִיבַת הָעֶצֶם אֲבָל לֹא לְהָקֵל כָּל כָּךְ לְהַכְשִׁיר בְּנִפְסַק כְּנֶגֶד מְקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ לַגּוּף וְלִסְמוֹךְ עַל גִּרְסַת הָרִי"ף וְסִיעָתוֹ. וְהַשַּׁ"ךְ בִּנְקֻדּוֹת הַכֶּסֶף כָּתַב דְּדַעַת רְמָ"א לְהָקֵל בְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה אֲפִלּוּ כְּנֶגֶד מְקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ כְּדַעַת הַבֵּית יוֹסֵף בְּשֻׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ. וּמִיהוּ רְשַׁ"לנח וּבַ"חנט פָּסְקוּ לְהַחֲמִיר אֲפִלּוּ בְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה עַד מְקוֹם כְּלוֹת שְׁכִיבַת הָעֶצֶם. הִלְכָּךְ לְמַעֲשֶׂה יֵשׁ לְהוֹרוֹת בְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה כְּהַכְרָעַת הַטַּ"ז שֶׁלֹּא לְהָקֵל בִּכְנֶגֶד מְקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ לָחוּשׁ לְגִרְסַת הַתּוֹסְפוֹת וְסִיעָתָם דְּבַתְרָאֵי נִינְהוּס וַאֲנַן גְּרִירִי בַּתְרַיְהוּ בְּכָל מָקוֹם.סא אֲבָל אֵין לְהַחֲמִיר לַאֲחֵרִים בְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה עַד מְקוֹם כְּלוֹת שְׁכִיבַת הָעֶצֶם מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵי כְּמוֹ סְפֵק סְפֵיקָא. אֶלָּא כָּל בַּעַל נֶפֶשׁ יַחְמִיר לְעַצְמוֹ לָחוּשׁ לְדַעַת רְשַׁ"ל וּבַ"ח:
[The laws outlined above that involve] the spinal cord apply until the third point of divergence (5) [in the lower portion of the spinal cord] and include [that point of divergence]. If one of the [major] nerves that branch off from the first or second point of divergence is severed, [the animal] is tereifah. However, if the [major] nerves that branch off from the third point of divergence are severed, [the animal] is kosher. With regard to a fowl, (6) [the laws regarding] tereifos [resulting fromproblems with] the spinal cord apply until [the portion] between the wings, [i.e.] the beginning of the place where they are attached to the body.
Note – There are authorities who rule that a fowl is tereifah [if there are problems regarding the spine] until the place where the tip of the bone [of the wing] that is attached to the body lies [at the sides of the body] (Tosafos; Or Zerua; Mordechai; Issur VeHeter HaAruch, K’lal 55:2; [Rabbeinu Yerucham;] Toldos Adam VeChavah, nesiv 15). This is the [common] practice unless a severe [financial] loss is involved ([this is Rama’s] own view).
הטְרֵפוּת זֶה שֶׁל חוּט הַשִּׁדְרָה הוּא עַד פִּי פָּרָשָׁה שְׁלִישִׁית (ה) וְעַד בִּכְלָל. וְאִם נִפְסַק אֶחָד מִשְּׁנֵי חוּטֵי פִּצּוּלִים רִאשׁוֹנִים וּשְׁנִיִּים, טְרֵפָה. אֲבָל נִפְסְקוּ חוּטֵי פִּצּוּל הַשְּׁלִישִׁי, כְּשֵׁרָה. וּבְעוֹף (ו) הוּא טְרֵפוּת הַחוּט עַד בֵּין הָאֲגַפַּיִם, הַתְחָלַת הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁהֵם מְחֻבָּרִים בּוֹ בַּגּוּף. הַגָּה: וְיֵשׁ מַטְרִיפִים בְּעוֹף עַד מְקוֹם כְּלוֹת שְׁכִיבַת הָעֶצֶם הַמְחֻבָּר לַגּוּף (תּוֹסְפוֹת וְאוֹר זָרוּעַ וּמָרְדְּכַי וְאִסּוּר וְהֶתֵּר הָאָרֹךְ כְּלָל נ''ה ד''ב וְתוֹלְדוֹת אָדָם וְחַוָּה נְתִיב ט"ו), וְהָכִי נָהוּג אִם לֹא בְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה (דַּעַת עַצְמוֹ).
רִאשׁוֹנִים לִשְׁנִיִּים שֶׁהוּא בֵּין הַפָּרָשׁוֹת רִאשׁוֹן כָּךְ כָּתְבוּ הַתּוֹסְפוֹת.ל וְהוּא הַדִּין דְּאִיכָּא לְמִבָּעֵי בְּנִפְסַק פִּצּוּל אֶחָד מִפִּצּוּלִים הַשְּׁנִיִּים כְּנֶגֶד בֵּין הַפָּרָשָׁה שְׁנִיָּה אִם הוּא בִּכְלַל אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ כְּבֵין הַפָּרָשָׁה שְׁנִיָּה אוֹ לָאו כְּמוֹ דְּמִבָּעֵי לֵיהּ בְּנִפְסַק פִּצּוּל אֶחָד מֵהָרִאשׁוֹנִים אִם הוּא בִּכְלַל וַדַּאי טְרֵפָה כְּבֵין הַפָּרָשָׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר עַד וְעַד בִּכְלָל.לא אֲבָל בְּפִצּוּלִים שְׁלִישִׁיִּים לֵיכָּא לְמִבָּעֵי מִדֵּי כֵּיוָן דַּאֲפִלּוּ בֵּין הַפָּרָשָׁה שְׁלִישִׁית כְּשֵׁרָה.לב אֲבָל בְּפִי פָּרָשָׁה שְׁלִישִׁית אִיכָּא לְמִבָּעֵי אִם הוּא בִּכְלַל בֵּין הַפָּרָשָׁה ג' וּכְשֵׁרָה אוֹ לָאו וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ כְּמוֹ דְּמִבָּעֵי לֵיהּלג בְּפִי פָּרָשָׁה א' אִם הוּא בִּכְלַל בֵּין הַפָּרָשָׁה א' וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר עַד וְלֹא עַד בִּכְלָל אוֹ לָאו וּטְרֵפָה. וּסְפֵיקָא דְאוֹרַיְתָא לְחוּמְרָא.לד וְזֶהוּ דַּעַת הָרַ"ןלה וְשֻׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ.לו אֲבָל הָרַמְבַּ"םלז וְסִיעָתוֹ סְבִירָא לְהוּ לְחַלֵּק בֵּין פִּי פָּרָשָׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה דְּמִבָּעֵי לָן שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ בִּכְלַל בֵּין הַפָּרָשׁוֹת כְּלָל וּבֵין פִּי פָּרָשָׁה שְׁלִישִׁית דְּהוּא בִּכְלַל בֵּין הַפָּרָשׁוֹת וַדַּאי וְלֵיכָּא לְמִבָּעֵי אֶלָּא אִם הוּא בִּכְלַל שְׁנִיָּה אוֹ שְׁלִישִׁית וְהָא לֵיכָּא לְמִבָּעֵי כְּלָל דְּוַדַּאי פִּי פָּרָשָׁה שְׁלִישִׁית הוּא בִּכְלַל שְׁלִישִׁית וּפִי שְׁנִיָּה הוּא בִּכְלַל ב'. וְכֵן דַּעַת רְשַׁ"ללח הוּבָא בְּשַׁ"ךְ.לט וְיֵשׁ לִסְמוֹךְ עַל זֶה בְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה מֵאַחַר דִּבְלָאו הָכֵי אִיכָא סְפֵיקֵי טוּבָא אֶלָּא דְּכֻלָּן שֵׁם אֶחָד וְאֵין נֶחְשָׁבִים לִסְפֵק סְפֵיקָא כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר לְקַמָּן סִימָן ק"י בִּכְלָלֵי סְפֵק סְפֵיקָא:מ
אֲבָל גִּרְסַת רַשִׁ"ימז וְתוֹסְפוֹת וְסִיעָתָם אִפְּכָא רַבִּי יַנַּאי אָמַר לְמַטָּה מִן הָאֲגַפַּיִם וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר עַד בֵּין הָאֲגַפַּיִם. וְעַל פִּי גִּרְסָא זוֹ פָּסְקוּ הַסֵּפֶר הַתְּרוּמָהמח וּסְמַ"גמט וְסִיעָתָם כְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי שֶׁמַּחֲמִיר וְעוֹד שֶׁהָיָה רַבּוֹ דְרַבּוֹ.נ וְכָתְבוּ הַתּוֹסְפוֹתנא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְהִסְתַּפֵּק בִּדְרַבִּי יַנַּאי אִם לְמַטָּה מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ בַּגּוּף קָאָמַר אוֹ לְמַטָּה מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁשּׁוֹכֶבֶת עַל הַגּוּף דְּהַיְנוּ לְמַטָּה מִסּוֹף עֶצֶם שֶׁל כָּנָף הַמְחֻבָּר בַּגּוּף. וְכֵן פָּסַק הָרַב ר' פֶּרֶץ בְּהַגָּהַת סְמַ"קנב דְּיֵשׁ לְהִסְתַּפֵּק אִי סוֹף הָעֶצֶם קָאָמַר דְּהַיְנוּ מָקוֹם שֶׁהַכְּנָפַיִם שׁוֹכְבוֹת עַל הַגּוּף בְּסוֹפָן אוֹ שֶׁמָּא אַתְּחִלַּת הָעֶצֶם קָאֵי מְקוֹם חִבּוּר הַכְּנָפַיִם בַּגּוּף וְיֵשׁ לְהַחֲמִיר מִסָּפֵק עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹנוֹ. הוּבָא בְּשַׁ"ךְ.נג [א] וְכֵן כָּתַב הָרַשְׁבָּ"א בְּתוֹרַת הַבַּיִת הָאָרֹךְנד דְּכָל כִּי הָא אָזְלִינָן לְחוּמְרָא. וְכֵן כָּתַב הָאוֹר זָרוּעַ.נה וְזֶהוּ דַּעַת יֵשׁ מַטְרִיפִים שֶׁבַּהַגָּ"ה. וְהָרֹא"שׁנו הִכְרִיעַ דְּאַתְּחִלַּת הָעֶצֶם קָאֵי מְקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ בַּגּוּף וּמַאן דְּאָמַר עַד בֵּין הָאֲגַפַּיִם עַד וְלֹא עַד בִּכְלָל וּכְנֶגֶד מְקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה וְאֵינָהּ טְרֵפָה אֶלָּא עַד תְּחִלַּת מְקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ וּמַאן דְּאָמַר לְמַטָּה מִן הָאֲגַפַּיִם הַיְנוּ עַד לְמַטָּה מִמְּקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ וְלֹא עַד בִּכְלָל אֶלָּא כְּנֶגֶד מְקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ מַמָּשׁ טְרֵפָה. וּפָסַק הַשֻּׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ כְּהַכְרָעַת הָרֹא"שׁ וּכְמַאן דְּאָמַר בֵּין הָאֲגַפַּיִם דְּהוּא רַבִּי יַנַּאי לְגִרְסַת הָרִי"ף וְהָרַמְבַּ"ם. וְכָתַב הַטַּ"זנז דְּהָא דְּכָתַב רְמָ"א דִּבְהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה אֵין לְהַחֲמִיר הַיְנוּ שֶׁאֵין לְהַחֲמִיר כָּל כָּךְ לְהַטְרִיף עַד מְקוֹם כְּלוֹת שְׁכִיבַת הָעֶצֶם אֲבָל לֹא לְהָקֵל כָּל כָּךְ לְהַכְשִׁיר בְּנִפְסַק כְּנֶגֶד מְקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ לַגּוּף וְלִסְמוֹךְ עַל גִּרְסַת הָרִי"ף וְסִיעָתוֹ. וְהַשַּׁ"ךְ בִּנְקֻדּוֹת הַכֶּסֶף כָּתַב דְּדַעַת רְמָ"א לְהָקֵל בְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה אֲפִלּוּ כְּנֶגֶד מְקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ כְּדַעַת הַבֵּית יוֹסֵף בְּשֻׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ. וּמִיהוּ רְשַׁ"לנח וּבַ"חנט פָּסְקוּ לְהַחֲמִיר אֲפִלּוּ בְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה עַד מְקוֹם כְּלוֹת שְׁכִיבַת הָעֶצֶם. הִלְכָּךְ לְמַעֲשֶׂה יֵשׁ לְהוֹרוֹת בְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה כְּהַכְרָעַת הַטַּ"ז שֶׁלֹּא לְהָקֵל בִּכְנֶגֶד מְקוֹם חִבּוּרוֹ לָחוּשׁ לְגִרְסַת הַתּוֹסְפוֹת וְסִיעָתָם דְּבַתְרָאֵי נִינְהוּס וַאֲנַן גְּרִירִי בַּתְרַיְהוּ בְּכָל מָקוֹם.סא אֲבָל אֵין לְהַחֲמִיר לַאֲחֵרִים בְּהֶפְסֵד מְרֻבֶּה עַד מְקוֹם כְּלוֹת שְׁכִיבַת הָעֶצֶם מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵי כְּמוֹ סְפֵק סְפֵיקָא. אֶלָּא כָּל בַּעַל נֶפֶשׁ יַחְמִיר לְעַצְמוֹ לָחוּשׁ לְדַעַת רְשַׁ"ל וּבַ"ח:
6
(7) The knots [struck the backbone] –
[This applies in an instance where the animal] did not walk [after being struck]. “There is an authority who maintains that even [if the animal] did walk [after being struck], we are concerned that the spinal cord [was severed].” These are the words of Rabbeinu Nissim.46 See what is stated below.47
(8) Powerfully –
“And crushes it. The same applies regarding the place where there are knots,” as Rashba states in his Toras HaBayis HaKatzar.48 Similarly, the Gemara49 appears to imply that we are concerned about [the spine being] crushed.[ii] Therefore, [the animal] must be kept [alive] for 24 hours, and [only] afterwards [may it] be slaughtered and examined. [The rationale is that] the crushing [of its organs] will not be revealed and noticed within [the first] 24-hour period [after the spine was struck], as will be stated below in sec. 58.50
Nevertheless, an examination is necessary only in the place where [the animal] was struck. We are concerned about that place, but not about [the animal’s] entire inner cavity, as stated in [Rama’s] note on subsection 3 [of sec. 58]. Therefore, since [the person] struck the animal over the surface of the spine, and [later] examined the spinal cord and found that it was intact, without being crushed or severed, it is not necessary to examine the internal organs under [the spine]. Since the blow did not have the power to crush the [spinal cord], it certainly did not have the power to crush the inner organs under it. [This ruling applies] provided [the animal] remained alive for a 24-hour period before being slaughtered.
However, if the animal was struck on the ribs and not directly on the backbone, it is necessary to examine the internal organs in the places where the knots [in the staff] and/or the end of the staff struck [the animal] powerfully to [ensure] that no [organs] had been crushed or severed. [This ruling applies] provided [the animal] remained alive for a 24-hour period [before being slaughtered].
This condition – [that the animal] remained alive for a 24-hour period [after being struck] – applies if [the animal] did not stand up and walk [after being struck], for example, [the person] struck [the animal] while it was lying down [and it continued to lie in that position]. However, if it walked in an ordinary manner for [a distance of at least] four cubits before being slaughtered, there is no concern that its limbs [or organs] were crushed. [In such an instance, the animal] does not require any examination at all, as stated in the above source.51 Therefore, even if [the animal] was struck on the spine, an examination is not necessary to see whether [the spinal cord] was crushed. [An examination is necessary] only because of the concern that the spinal cord was severed in the place [where it was struck by] the knots or the top of the staff according to the authority cited by Rabbeinu Nissim, above.52 This examination does not require waiting at all [before slaughtering the animal. Instead, the shochet] may slaughter [the animal] immediately and [then] examine [its spinal cord].53 The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch [of Rav Yosef Caro] are speaking about such a situation. For this reason, those texts mentioned only the concern about the spinal cord being severed (Darchei Moshe;54 this [approach] does not [follow the rulings of] Pri Chadash and Tevuos Shor55).
For the same reason, [the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch of Rav Yosef Caro] did not mention the requirement of waiting a 24-hour period [before slaughtering the animal]. Similarly, for this same reason, Rama did not write that we are not knowledgeable about this examination, as he did in sec. 58[:6. The rationale is that] we are not knowledgeable regarding an examination [performed to determine whether an animal’s limbs or organs] are crushed, [which] is the subject of that source. However, regarding whether the spinal cord is severed [– which is our concern here –] we are knowledgeable. (See the responsa of Maharam of Lublin, responsum 94.)
If we see that the backbone is intact and was not broken, it is not necessary to check the spinal cord. This is implied by Turei Zahav.56 The rationale and logic of his words is sound, as indicated by Rashi’s commentary at the beginning of the chapter [entitled] Eilu Tereifos,57 [where he writes that] the spinal cord is severed when the backbone is broken. This is why the mishnah in [that chapter] states, “When the backbone is broken and its [spinal] cord is severed.…”
Nevertheless, [the lack of the obligation to examine the spinal cord when the backbone is intact applies] specifically [to an instance] when, before [its] slaughter, the animal did not remain [alive] for a sufficient [amount of] time for [the backbone] to heal [if it had been broken], i.e., for the broken vertebrae to have joined together again. Instead, [the animal was slaughtered within] a day or two [of being struck]; that is the situation concerning which Turei Zahav spoke.56 However, if sufficient time had passed for the bones to heal, we are concerned that the backbone was broken and that the spinal cord was also severed, and then the vertebrae joined together again, piece to piece.58 For this reason, all the later authorities did not clarify the matter and did not explain that it is sufficient to examine the backbone. [Indeed,] Maharshal,59 Bayis Chadash,60 Maharam of Lublin, and Tevuos Shor53 [all] explicitly stated that it is necessary to examine the spinal cord. The amount of time it takes for bones to heal is no less than three 24-hour days. See sec. 81.61
At present, people are generally not careful to examine [animals even for] blows that are commonly [received], sometimes across the width of the backbone, and sometimes across its length, in the place [where] the knots or the end of the staff [hit the animal’s back] (see Tevuos Shor55). It is possible that [these people] are relying on the first opinion of Rabbeinu Nissim, that [if the animal] walked [after the blow], we are not concerned at all. This is also the understanding of Rashba.62 Nevertheless, every meticulous person should be stringent regarding his own [conduct], and at least check to see that the backbone was not broken, as implied by Turei Zahav.
Kolbo writes that if the staff broke while striking [the animal], we are concerned about the place [on the backbone] where [the staff broke], because the staff will create a gash or a severe wound at the place where it [broke, just] as it does at its end (Beis Yosef,63 Turei Zahav64).
(ז) הַקְּשָׁרִים.
וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא הָלְכָה וְאִיכָּא מַאן דְּאָמַר דַּאֲפִלּוּ הָלְכָה חַיְשִׁינָן לְחוּט הַשִּׁדְרָה עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹן הָרַ"ן.סב וְעַיֵּן מַה שֶׁכָּתוּב לְקַמָּן:סג
(ח) בְּכֹחַ.
וּמְרַסֵּק וְכֵן בִּמְקוֹם הַקְּשָׁרִים עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹן הָרַשְׁבָּ"א בְּתוֹרַת הַבַּיִת הַקָּצָר.סד וְכֵן מַשְׁמַע בִּגְמָרָאסה דְּחַיְשִׁינָן לְרִסּוּק. [ב] וְהִלְכָּךְ בָּעֵי שְׁהִיָּה מֵעֵת לְעֵת וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִשְׁחוֹט וְיִבְדּוֹק דִּבְתוֹךְ מֵעֵת לְעֵת אֵין הָרִסּוּק מִתְגַּלֶּה וְנִכָּר כְּדִלְקַמָּן סִימָן נ"ח.סו
וּמִיהוּ לֹא בְּעִינָן בְּדִיקָה אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם הַהַכָּאָה שֶׁחוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ וְלֹא בְּכָל הֶחָלָל כְּדִלְקַמָּן שָׁם סְעִיף ג' בְּהַגָּ"ה. וְהִלְכָּךְ כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִכָּה עַל פִּי הַשִּׁדְרָה וּבָדַק בְּחוּט הַשִּׁדְרָה וְנִמְצָא שָׁלֵם בְּלִי רִסּוּק וּפִסּוּק שׁוּב אֵין צָרִיךְ לִבְדּוֹק יוֹתֵר בָּאֵבָרִים הַפְּנִימִים שֶׁתַּחְתָּיו כִּי מֵאַחַר שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה כֹּחַ בַּהַכָּאָה לְרַסֵּק הַחוּט כָּל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁלֹּא יֵשׁ בּוֹ כֹּחַ לְרַסֵּק אֵבָרִים הַפְּנִימִים שֶׁתַּחְתָּיו. וְהוּא שֶׁשָּׁהֲתָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת לִפְנֵי שְׁחִיטָה.
אֲבָל אִם הִכָּה עַל הַצְּלָעוֹת וְלֹא עַל הַשִּׁדְרָה מַמָּשׁ בְּעִינָן בְּדִיקָה בָּאֵבָרִים הַפְּנִימִיִּים שֶׁבִּמְקוֹם הַקְּשָׁרִים וְרֹאשׁ הַמַּקֵּל הַמַּכֶּה בְּכֹחַ אִם אֵין שׁוּם רִסּוּק וּפִסּוּק.סז וְהוּא שֶׁשָּׁהֲתָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת.
וּמִיהוּ הַנֵּי מִלֵּי דְּבָעֵי שְׁהִיָּה מֵעֵת לְעֵת כְּשֶׁלֹּא עָמְדָה וְהָלְכָה כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִכָּה אוֹתָהּ כְּשֶׁהָיְתָה רְבוּצָה אֲבָל אִם הָלְכָה ד' אַמּוֹת הִלּוּךְ יָפֶה לִפְנֵי שְׁחִיטָה יָצְאָה מֵחֲשַׁשׁ רִסּוּק אֵבָרִים וְאֵין צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה כְּלָל כְּדִלְקַמָּן שָׁם.סח וְהִלְכָּךְ גַּם בְּהִכָּה עַל הַשִּׁדְרָה אֵין צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקַת הַחוּט מִשּׁוּם חֲשַׁשׁ רִסּוּק אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם חֲשַׁשׁ פְּסִיקַת הַחוּט בִּמְקוֹם הַקְּשָׁרִים וְרֹאשׁ הַמַּקֵּל לְאִיכָּא מַאן דְּאָמַר שֶׁבְּרַ"ןסט לְעֵיל.ע וְלִבְדִיקָה זוֹ לֹא בָעֵי שְׁהִיָּה כְּלָל וְיָכוֹל לִשְׁחוֹט מִיָּד וְלִבְדּוֹק.עא וּבִכְהַאי גַּוְנָא מַיְרִי הַטּוּר וְכֵן הַשֻּׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ. וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי לֹא הִזְכִּירעב כִּי אִם חֲשָׁשָׁא דִּפְסִיקַת הַחוּט (דַּרְכֵי מֹשֶׁה.עג דְּלֹא כִּפְרִי חָדָשׁעד וּתְבוּאוֹת שׁוֹרעה). וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי נַמִי לֹא הִזְכִּיר נַמִי דִּבְעִינָן שְׁהִיָּה מֵעֵת לְעֵת. וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי נַמִי לֹא כָתַב רְמָ"א דַּאֲנַן הָאִידְנָא לֹא קִים לָן בִּבְדִיקָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר לְקַמָּן סִימָן נ"חעו מִשּׁוּם דְּהָתָם דַּוְקָא בִּבְדִיקוֹת רִסּוּק לֹא קִים לָן אֲבָל בִּבְדִיקוֹת פְּסִיקַת הַחוּט קִים לָן שַׁפִּיר (עַיֵּן תְּשׁוּבַת מַהֲרַ"ם מִלּוּבְּלִין סִימָן צ"ד).
וְאִם רוֹאִים שֶׁהַשִּׁדְרָה שְׁלֵמָה שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁבְּרָה אֵין צָרִיךְ לִבְדּוֹק בַּחוּט. כֵּן מַשְׁמַע בְּטַ"ז.עז וְטַעְמוֹ וְנִמּוּקוֹ עִמּוֹ כִּדְפֵרֵשׁ רַשִׁ"י רֵישׁ פֶּרֶק אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹתעח דִּפְסוּקַת הַחוּט עַל יְדֵי שְׁבִירַת הַשִּׁדְרָה הִיא וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי תְּנַן בְּמַתְנִיתִין דְּאֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת נִשְׁבְּרָה הַשִּׁדְרָה וְנִפְסַק הַחוּט שֶׁלָּהּ.
וּמִיהוּ הַיְנוּ דַוְקָא אִם לֹא שָׁהֲתָה לִפְנֵי שְׁחִיטָה כְּדִי לְהַעֲלוֹת אֲרוּכָה לִהְיוֹת הַשֶּׁבֶר חוֹזֵר וְנִקְשָׁר אֶלָּא יוֹם אוֹ יוֹמַיִם דְּבִכְהַאי גַּוְנָא מַיְרִי הַטַּ"ז אֲבָל אִם שָׁהֲתָה כְּדֵי לְהַעֲלוֹת אֲרוּכָה חַיְשִׁינָן שֶׁמָּא נִשְׁבְּרָה וְנִפְסַק גַּם כֵּן הַחוּט וְחָזַר וְנִקְשַׁר הַשֶּׁבֶר שֶׁבֶר אֶל שֶׁבֶר יַחְדָּו יְדֻבָּקוּ.עט וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי סָתְמוּ כָּל הָאַחֲרוֹנִים וְלֹא פֵרְשׁוּ דְּבִבְדִיקַת הַשִּׁדְרָה סַגִּי. וּרְשַׁ"לפ וּבַ"ח וּמַהֲרַ"מ לוּבְּלִין וּתְבוּאוֹת שׁוֹרפא כָּתְבוּ בְּהֶדְיָא דִּבְעִינָן בְּדִיקָה בַּחוּט. וְשִׁעוּר לְהַעֲלוֹת אֲרוּכָה הוּא לֹא פָּחוֹת מִג' יָמִים מֵעֵת לְעֵת. עַיֵּן סִימָן פ"א.פב
וְהָעוֹלָם אֵין נִזְהָרִין עַכְשָׁו לִבְדּוֹק בְּהַכָּאוֹת הַמְּצוּיוֹת כַּמָּה פְּעָמִים לְרֹחב הַשִּׁדְרָה אוֹ בְּאֹרֶךְ בִּמְקוֹם הַקְּשָׁרִים וְרֹאשׁ הַמַּקֵּל (עַיֵּן תְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹר). וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁסָּמְכוּ עַל סְבָרָא הָרִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁבְּרַ"ן דִּלְעֵיל דִּבְהָלְכָה לֹא חַיְשִׁינָן מִדֵּי. וְכֵן דַּעַת הָרַשְׁבָּ"א.פג וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם כָּל בַּעַל נֶפֶשׁ יַחְמִיר לְעַצְמוֹ לִבְדּוֹק עַל כָּל פָּנִים אִם נִשְׁבְּרָה הַשִּׁדְרָה וּכְמַשְׁמָעוּת הַטַּ"ז.
כָּתַב הַכָּלְבּוֹפד שֶׁאִם נִפְסַק הַמַּקֵּל בִּשְׁעַת הַכָּאָה חוֹשְׁשִׁין לְמָקוֹם שֶׁנִּפְסַק שָׁם לְפִי שֶׁבְּמָקוֹם שֶׁנִּפְסַק הַמַּקֵּל עוֹשֶׂה חַבּוּרָה אוֹ מַכָּה רַבָּה כְּמוֹ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ (בֵּית יוֹסֵףפה טַ"זפו):
When an animal was struck on its spine with a staff that came in contact with the surface of the entire length of the spine, [the animal is] kosher. We are not concerned that the spinal cord may have been severed [by the forceful dislodging or movement of the spinal vertebrae].
If the staff has knots [i.e., protruding knobs], we are concerned about the place [where] the knots [struck the spine]. (7) Similarly, if the staff did not come in contact with the entire [length of the] spine, we are concerned that the tip of the staff, [i.e., the place] where [the staff] ends, struck [the backbone very] powerfully. (8) [Similarly, there is concern] that the spinal cord was severed [if a person] struck the spine across its width.
ובְּהֵמָה שֶׁהִכּוּ אוֹתָהּ עַל הַשִּׁדְרָה בְּמַקֵּל, וְהָלַךְ הַמַּקֵל עַל פְּנֵי כָּל אֹרֶךְ הַשִּׁדְרָה, כְּשֵׁרָה, וְלֹא חַיְשִׁינָן שֶׁמָּא נִפְסַק הַחוּט. וְאִם יֵשׁ בַּמַּקֵּל קְשָׁרִים, חוֹשְׁשִׁים לִמְקוֹם הַקְּשָׁרִים. (ז) וְכֵן אִם לֹא הִגִּיעַ הַמַּקֵּל עַל פְּנֵי כָּל הַשִּׁדְרָה, חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁרֹאשׁ הַמַּקֵּל בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא כָּלֶה מַכֶּה בְּכֹחַ. (ח) וְכֵן אִם הִכָּה לְרֹחַב הַשִּׁדְרָה, חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא נִפְסַק הַחוּט.
7
(9) [Contracted] shigrona –
[The rationale is that] shigrona, [i.e., pain affecting an animal’s feet] is common, while having a severed spinal cord is not common (Gemara).65
(10) The same law applies –
Although [a fowl] has only two legs and thus, [when it is affected by this condition,] it does not walk at all.
It is permissible to buy a fowl that cannot walk from a non-Jew, even one that cannot stand on its feet at all. We assume that [its infirmity results from] shigrona since we did not observe its fall (Hagahos Mordechai;66 K’nesses HaGedolah in the name of Damesek Eliezer).
(11) We are concerned [about an injury to the spinal cord] –
“[Our concern is that] perhaps the [animal’s] spinal cord was severed when it fell and therefore, it drags its feet. [The rationale is that] it is common for a spinal cord to be severed with a powerful fall,” as Rashba states in his Toras HaBayis HaKatzar.67 From [Rashba’s] wording, it sounds as if all that is necessary is to examine the spinal cord.
Tevuos Shor68 raises a question, [regarding Rashba’s ruling, noting that the halachah is that] whenever [an animal] falls, it is necessary to examine its entire inner cavity [and not merely the spinal cord], unless it walked four cubits in an ordinary manner [after the fall]. However, if [while walking, the animal] limps or drags even one leg, it is necessary to examine its entire inner cavity, as will be stated below in sec. 58.69
[Tevuos Shor] offers a resolution [to this difficulty] – that [Rashba] is speaking about a situation where [the animal] fell from a height of less than ten handbreadths. [In such a situation,] the laws that apply [to animals that] fell do not apply. [Hence, the animal in question] does not require an examination [of its inner cavity,] except in the place where the spinal cord [may have become] severed. [Since] the animal was dragging its legs, [such an examination is required].
[This appears to be the correct interpretation of Rashba’s comments. Therefore, Rama’s ruling that one should] show concern for [the possibility that] the spinal cord was severed [when the animal] fell from a height of less than ten handbreadths appears to be an excessive stringency. [The same reasoning would require an examination] even if [the animal] fell from a height of a [single] handbreadth. In such a situation, it would have been appropriate for Rashba to explain [his rationale], for Rashba [included]67 this law among the other laws cited later in sec. 58, which pertain to [an animal that] fell. At the beginning of his comments,67 [Rashba] specifically states that the laws pertaining to [an animal that] falls do not apply at all [if the animal fell] from a height of less than ten handbreadths. [His words imply] that this law applies if [an animal] fell from a height of ten handbreadths [or more].
However, [we can answer that Rashba] mentioned this law after the law that applies if an animal fell intentionally, i.e., it threw itself down [willingly]. In such an instance, we are not concerned [about internal injuries] because [we assume] that [the animal] evaluated [the situation for] itself [and landed safely].70 Similarly, we are not concerned if we find an animal that fell from a roof, because there is an existing presumption that [the animal jumped down] willingly, as will be stated [in sec. 58:11]. Immediately after mentioning that law, [Rashba] wrote this law concerning [an animal] that drags its legs. [Rashba’s intent was] to make [it clearly] known that if [an animal] drags its legs, we are concerned about the possibility of the spinal cord [being broken], provided it is known that [the animal] fell even though it was not seen to have fallen, but instead was found [only] after it fell. [In this instance,] we assume [the animal] jumped down willingly and there is no concern about its inner organs being crushed. Similarly, we are not concerned that the spinal cord was severed if [the animal] jumped down willingly in an instance where it was slaughtered before it stood up and walked. Nevertheless, if [the animal got up and] walked and dragged its legs, we are concerned about [the possibility of] the spinal cord having been severed, because that is common when [an animal] suffers a powerful fall. Even though [in this instance, the animal] evaluated [the situation for] itself, [we suspect that its spinal cord had been severed in the fall] since we see it dragging its legs (see sec. 58).
(ט) נָקְטָה.
מִשּׁוּם דְּשִׁגְרוֹנָא שְׁכִיחַ וּפְסִיקַת חוּט הַשִּׁדְרָה לֹא שְׁכִיחַ (גְּמָרָאפז):
(י) הָכִי.
אַף עַל גַּב שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא ב' רַגְלַיִם וְנִמְצָא שֶׁאֵין הוֹלֵךְ כְּלָל. וּמֻתָּר לִקְנוֹת לְכַתְּחִלָּה מִן הַנָּכְרִי עוֹף שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לֵילֵךְ וַאֲפִלּוּ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַעֲמוֹד כְּלָל עַל רַגְלָיו דִּתְלִינָן בְּשִׁגְרוֹנָא מֵאַחַר שֶׁלֹּא רְאִינוּהוּ שֶׁנָּפַל (הַגָּהוֹת מָרְדְּכַיפח וּכְנֶסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָהפט בְּשֵׁם דַמֶּשֶׂק אֱלִיעֶזֶרצ):
(יא) חוֹשְׁשִׁין.
שֶׁמָּא עִם נְפִילָתָהּ נִפְסְקָה חוּט הַשִּׁדְרָה וּלְכָךְ גּוֹרֶרֶת רַגְלֶיהָ שֶׁפְּסִיקַת חוּט הַשִּׁדְרָה מָצוּי עִם כֹּחַ נְפִילָתָהּ עַד כַּאן לְשׁוֹן רַשְׁבָּ"א בְּתוֹרַת הַבַּיִת הַקָּצָר.צא וּמַשְׁמַע מִלְּשׁוֹנוֹ דִּבְעִינָן בְּדִיקָה בַּחוּט לְבַדּוֹ. וְהִקְשָׁה הַתְּבוּאוֹת שׁוֹרצב דְּהָא כָּל נְפִילָה צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה בְּכָל הֶחָלָל אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָלְכָה ד' אַמּוֹת הִלּוּךְ יָפֶה אֲבָל אִם צוֹלֵעַ וְגוֹרֶרֶת אֲפִלּוּ רֶגֶל אַחַת צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה בְּכָל הֶחָלָל כְּדִלְקַמָּן סִימָן נ"ח.צג וְתֵרֵץ דְּהָכָא מַיְרִי גַּם בְּנָפְלָה מִגֹּבַהּ פָּחוֹת מִי' טְפָחִים דְּאֵין לָהּ דִּין נְפוּלָה וְאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה אֶלָּא מְקוֹם פְּסִיקַת חוּט הַשִּׁדְרָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁגּוֹרֶרֶת רַגְלֶיהָ. וְחוּמְרָא יְתֵרָה הִיא לָחוּשׁ לִפְסוּקַת הַחוּט בְּפָחוֹת מִי' טְפָחִים דְּאִם כֵּן אֲפִלּוּ בְּגֹבַהּ טֶפַח. וְכָל כְּהַאי גַּוְנָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַשְׁבָּ"א לְפָרֵשׁ דְּהָא הָרַשְׁבָּ"א כָּתַב דִּין זֶה בְּתוֹךְ דִּינֵי נְפוּלָה דִּלְקַמָּן סִימָן נ"ח וּפֵרֵשׁ שָׁם בְּהֶדְיָא בִּתְחִלַּת דְּבָרָיוצד דִּבְפָחוֹת מִי' טְפָחִים אֵין לָהּ דִּין נְפוּלָה כְּלָל וּמַשְׁמַע מִסְתָּמָא דְּגַם דִּין זֶה אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בִּנְפִילָה מִגֹּבַהּ י' טְפָחִים. אֶלָּא שֶׁסָּמַךְ דִּין זֶה לְדִין דְּאִם נָפְלָה מִדַּעְתָּהּ שֶׁהִפִּילָה עַצְמָהּ לְדַעַת דְּאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמְדָה נַפְשָׁהּצה וְגַם מִן הַסְּתָם אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין אִם מוֹצְאִים בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה מִן הַגַּג דַּחֲזָקָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְדַעַת כְּדִלְקַמָּן שָׁםצו וְאַחַר זֶה מִיָּד כָּתַב דִּין זֶה דְּגוֹרֶרֶת רַגְלֶיהָ לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינָן דְּאִם גּוֹרֶרֶת רַגְלֶיהָ חוֹשְׁשִׁין עַל כָּל פָּנִים לְחוּט הַשִּׁדְרָה אִם נוֹדַע שֶׁנָּפְלָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא רְאִינוּהָ כְּשֶׁנָּפְלָה אֶלָּא שֶׁמְּצָאוּהָ נְפוּלָה וּמִן הַסְּתָם נָפְלָה לְדַעַת וְאֵין לָחוּשׁ לְרִסּוּק אֵבָרִים וְגַם לִפְסִיקַת חוּט הַשִּׁדְרָה אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין בְּנָפְלָה לְדַעְתָּהּ אִם שְׁחָטָהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא עָמְדָה וְהָלְכָה מִכָּל מָקוֹם אִם הָלְכָה וְגוֹרֶרֶת רַגְלֶיהָ חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִפְסִיקַת חוּט הַשִּׁדְרָה דְּמָצוּי עִם כֹּחַ נְפִילָתָהּ וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּאָמְדָה נַפְשָׁהּ כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזִינָן שֶׁגּוֹרֶרֶת רַגְלֶיהָצז (עַיֵּן סִימָן נ"ח):
When an animal drags its feet, we are not concerned that perhaps its spinal cord is severed. Note: Instead, we say [that it contracted] shigrona, (9) [i.e.,] pain affecting the feet (Gemara). The same law applies (10) regarding a fowl (Hagahos Mordechai on Chulin; Issur Veheter Ha Aruch, K’lal 56). When does the above apply? When it is not known that [the animal] fell. However, if it is known that it fell, we are concerned [about an injury to the spinal cord]. (11)
זבְּהֵמָה שֶׁגּוֹרֶרֶת רַגְלֶיהָ אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא נִפְסַק הַחוּט. הַגָּה: אֶלָּא אָמְרִינָן, שִׁגְרוֹנָא, וְהוּא כְּאֵב הָרַגְלַיִם, נָקְטָה (ט) (גְּמָרָא). וְהוּא הַדִּין בְּעוֹף נַמִי דִּינָא הָכִי (י) (הַגָּהוֹת מָרְדְּכַי דְּחֻלִּין וְאִסּוּר וְהֶתֵּר הָאָרֹךְ כְּלָל נ''[ו]). בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, בְּשֶׁלֹּא נוֹדַע שֶׁנָּפְלָה, אֲבָל אִם נוֹדַע שֶׁנָּפְלָה, חוֹשְׁשִׁין. (יא)
