Shechitah - Chapter 9

Pesukah is also one of the eight categories of treifot mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachah 2. The term literally means “severed.”

We are using this term to translate the Hebrew term moach. It is a loose term that means the material inside a bone. Chullin 45b states that this marrow is of no significance with regard to thP. category of pesukah. Therefore the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 3 2:1) rules that if the skin is severed, even if the marrow is entirely intact, the animal is treifah.

And hence, forbidden. This ruling is granted because this question is left unresolved by Chullin 45b. The Kessef Mishneh quotes Rashi who explains that this is speaking about a situation where the spine has become thick and heavy, but has not become soft inside. The question is whether this state results from sickness or not.

See the following halachah for a definition of this term. Diagram

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 32:5) interprets this as meaning the place where the wings are attached to the body. The Rama follows the opinion of Tosafot who state that the term refers to the place where the wings lie on the body, a point somewhat lower on the fowl’s back. Diagram

For these portions are not fundamental for the body’s functioning.

Keru’ah is also one of the eight categories of treifot mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachah 2. The term literally means “ripped apart.”

I.e., but some flesh remained. The animal is deemed treifah, because in such a condition, ultimately, the entire flesh will tear open.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that many others authorities interpret Chullin 50b, the Rambam’s source, as implying that if the cut extends over the greater part of the animal’s belly, the animal is treifah. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro quotes the Rashba as explaining that the Rambam does not accept this approach because if so, there would be no difference between the categories of pesukah and keru ‘ah. The Rashba himself does not require such a distinction and instead, maintains that these categories overlap. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 48:3), he quotes the Rambam’s view. The Turei Zahav 48:5 and the Siftei Cohen 48:4 mention the other positions.

The dissenting perspectives also maintain that the same ruling applies with regard to the greater part of the breadth of the belly (Siftei Cohen 48:6).

The previous halachah was speaking about a slit where the flesh was not necessarily cut away. This halachah speaks about a situation where a portion of flesh was removed (Kessef Mishneh).

A coin of the Talmudic era with a diameter that is a third of a handbreadth, i.e., 2.6 cm. According to Shiurei Torah.

Chullin 55b mentions a tradition that maintains that if an animal’s entire skin is removed except for a portion the size of a sela, the animal is acceptable. [For from this portion, the entire skin will be regenerated (Rashi).] The Talmud continues mentioning three views, concerning where the skin must remain. Since the matter remains unresolved and we do not know which of these views should be followed, the Rambam rules that all of the different views must be respected and a portion of skin the size of a sela must remain in each place (Kessef Mishneh). [Significantly, in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Chullin 3:2), the Rambam mentions only the view that requires skin on the backbone and not the other opinions.]

This question is left unresolved by Chullin, loc. cit. Hence there is a doubt concerning the ruling.

Many authorities question the Rambam's ruling. Seemingly, if the question was left unresolved by the Talmud, on what basis does the Rambam permit it?
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro offers two explanations for the Rambam's ruling:
a) As the Rambam states in Chapter 5, Halachah 3, since all the categories of treifot aside from a derusah are not mentioned explicitly in the Torah, we rule leniently concerning doubts.
b) Since the skin was removed from only one of three places mentioned, there is a multiple doubt (sefek s'feikah) involved. Perhaps the place from which the skin was removed was in fact not the vital area (for the halachah could follow one of the other views). Even if it was the vital area, perhaps the fact that the skin on the remainder of the body is intact is enough for the animal to be permitted.

Nefulah is also one of the eight categories of treifot mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachah 2. The term literally means “one which fell.”

In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Y osef Caro quotes Chullin 50b which states that this refers to a height of four handbreadths above the ground, for there are six handbreadths from the bottom of an animal’s belly until the ground. He also cites this view in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 58:1).
Moreover, in both those sources, Rav Y osef Caro also quotes views that state that this law applies only when the animal fell on its own or knew that it was being pushed by others. If, however, it was pushed suddenly by others, it is considered treifah even if it fell from a lesser height.

In this instance, the distance of ten handbreadths is not significant. Instead, if it was thrown with enough force to cause mortal damage, it can cause the animal to be rendered treifah.

Therefore all of those organs must be inspected (Chullin 51 a). The Ra’ avad states that every organ that would render the animal treifah if crushed must be inspected.
The Rama (Yoreh De ‘ah 58:6) writes that in the present era, we are not knowledgeable with regard to conducting these examinations and an animal that falls should be permitted only if it walks, as stated in the previous halachah.

Walking is adequate proof that the animal was not injured by the fall to the extent that it would no longer survive. Since it walks, we assume that it is healthy and do not require an internal examination, as stated in Halachah 1 7. The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that this applies only when the animal stood up on its own and then walked. If it was lifted up by others, we harbor suspicions. Similarly, he quotes authorities who maintain that it must walk in an ordinary manner. If it limps as it proceeds, an inspection is required. See Rama (Yoreh De ‘ah 58:6).
In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 58:5), Rav Yosef Caro quotes the opinion of the Rashba who writes that even if an obvious change was seen in its organs, as long as it was able to stand and walk, we do not suspect that it has become treifah.

And require an inspection.

For we assume that it prepared itself and jumped in a manner that would not cause injury. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 58:11) states that this applies even if the animal is not able to walk afterwards.

We assume that it jumped intentionally, as explained above.

We do not assume that their inner organs were crushed, because this is ordinary behavior.

Chullin 51 a states that we harbor suspicions, not because of the butting, but because the animal fell and we fear that it was injured by the fall.

I.e., if we do not know that it fell.

Otherwise, the stolen animal will not be of any benefit to them.

I.e., the fear of being caught.

For the thieves will not show any care for the animal while throwing it back into the corral.

Rashi (Chullin, loc. cit.) interprets this as meaning that the ox bellowed, but this does not appear to be the Rambam’ s understanding.

I.e., it is aware that they are trying to push it to the ground and it fights against them, thus lessening the impact of its fall. The Rama (Yoreh De’ah 58:10) writes that if the ox’s feet are tied when it is pushed to the ground, we suspect that it may have become treifah. For when its feet are tied, it cannot control its fall.

For the blows dealt by the bulges will be far more severe. Hence the backbone must be inspected to see that it is intact. See Turei Zahav 32:4.

In the previous clauses, the head of the staff did not carry with the brunt of the blow, because the lower portion of the staff struck the animal’s body first. Here we are speaking about a situation where the first and primary focus of the blow is delivered to the backbone by the top of the staff. This is a far more dangerous situation.

For the entire blow is focused on one point of the spinal cord.

Or conversely, if a firm article like a stone falls upon it [Rama (Yoreh De ‘ah 58:2)].

I.e., a mound of loose straw. Straw that has been bundled, by contrast, is considered as a firm article (Chullin 51 b).

One of the techniques with which hunters would trap wild fowl would be to set traps for them which would glue their wings to boards or other articles that prevented them from flying.

For by flapping the other wing, it will slow its fall and lessen the impact.

For there is nothing to soften the blow.

It was snared and fell unto a river.

For this exertion indicates that the animal is fundamentally healthy. It is equivalent to - or exceeds - the walking mentioned in Halachah 9.

In a still body of water that has no current, any swimming is a sign of health (see Siftei Cohen 58:10).

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 58:3) quotes the Rambam’s ruling. As mentioned above, the Rama (Yoreh De‘ah 58:6) states that in the present age, we are not knowledgeable with regard to conducting these examinations and an animal is permitted only if it walks after falling or receiving a blow.

The Ra’avad differs and maintains that there is an unresolved doubt with regard to the ruling in this instance. As mentioned, the Shulchan Aruch follows the Rambam’s position.
The Kessef Mishneh explains the Rambam’s ruling as follows: Since Chullin 51a states that if the uterus is crushed, it is not significant, we conclude that the crushing of all other internal organs is significant. Otherwise, it would not be necessary to single out the uterus. Moreover, he explains that crushing an organ can be more painful and more injurious to an animal than removing it.

I.e., if it stands - even if it does not walk - it can be slaughtered immediately and deemed acceptable through an examination, as above.

For sometimes the effects of a fall are not immediately evident. It is possible that an animal would be inspected and no difficulty found, but in truth, the effects of the fall would be enough to kill it. To reduce the possibility of such an occurrence, Chullin 51 b requires waiting an entire day before slaughtering the animal. See Kessef Mishneh.

See Halachah 17.

Chullin 56a describes such a situation with regard to an animal. The Rambam speaks of a fowl instead, for this is a more commonplace possibility.

Lest its organs have been crushed.

This addition is made on the basis of the Kessef Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 33:10).

Nevertheless, the Rambam mentions this condition here in connection with an animal that has fallen, because this is the most frequent situation in which this condition will occur.

They came loose from the place where they are attached within the throat area. See Chapter 3, Halachah 14, and Chapter 8, Halachah 23.

The Kessef Mishneh states that the Rambam rules that the animal is unacceptable, not because it would die because of this condition, but because it is impossible to slaughter it correctly.

If, however, the entire throat became loose from the jaw, the animal is treifah. For the egullet and the windpipe themselves, however, must remain taut and this is impossible if the entire throat has become loose (Kessef Mishneh).

I.e., the area referred to by the halachic term “the entrance to the gullet.”

Chapter 1, Halachah 6.