Shevurah is also one of the eight categories of treifot mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachah 2. The term literally means “broken.”
An animal also has several smaller ribs, but they’re being broken does not impair the animal’s functioning. Diagram
I.e., the portion close to the backbone. If the ribs are broken there, the animal's functioning can be impaired. If they are broken closer to the chest, the impairment will be less severe.
Speaking in analogy, the Rambam refers to this as “the male” bone.
The Ra’avad states that if the thigh is dislocated from its upper socket, the animal is treifah even if the sinews have not degenerated. According to the Ra’ avad, the law stated by the Rambam applies when the thigh is dislocated from its lower socket. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 55:2) follows the Rambam’s perspective. The Rama mentions that there are opinions that maintain that in the present age, we are not knowledgeable with regard to the determination of whether the sinews have degenerated and we should rule an animal treifah whenever its thigh has dislocated. He advises following these views whenever there is not a significant loss involved. Diagram
Similarly, even if they have degenerated, but the bone has not slipped out of its socket, the animal is permitted. As long as the bone is in its socket, we· assume that the sinews will regenerate [Maggid Mishneh; Rama (Yoreh De‘ah 55:2)].
And the sinews have degenerated (Kessef Mishneh).
I.e., the dislocation of the wing is not sufficient to render the fowl treifah in its own right. Nevertheless, we fear that perhaps it perforated the lung and hence require an examination.
And inflate the lung [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 53:3)].
For the shoulder socket is substantial and will prevent the arm bone from perforating the lung (Kessef Mishneh). The Rama (Yoreh De’ah 52:1) quotes views that rule that an animal is treifah if its arm is broken close to its body and there are signs of internal bleeding.
As mentioned above, a sela is one third of a handbreadth wide. Thus its diameter is 2.6 cm according to Shiurei Torah and 3.2 cm according to Chazon Ish.
I.e., the majority of the portion of the skull from the eyes up (Rashi, Chullin 52b).
This question is left unresolved by Chullin, loc. cit.
The Kessel Mishneh clarifies why it is necessary for the Rambam to make this statement, seemingly, it is obvious. Whenever there is an unresolved question concerning a Torah prohibition, we rule stringently. He explains that it is possible to interpret the Talmud’s question is implying that in one circumstance, when the greater part of the skull’s height alone is crushed or the greater part of its circumference alone is crushed, the animal is kosher, but we are unsure of which one. Therefore the Rambam must clarify that because of the doubt, both situations are forbidden.
Even the smallest perforation can render the fowl treifah (Kessel Mishneh).
If it is not protected by the skull, it will most likely be perforated in the near future (Rashi, Chullin 56a).
The Kessel Mishneh explains that we are speaking about a situation where the weasel bit the fowl on the skull. If it struck it with its paws, the fowl is treifah, because it is a derusah, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 6.
According to the Rambam, both of these procedures are equally effective (Kessel Mishneh). The Rama (Yoreh De‘ah 30:2) writes that in the present age, we are not knowledgeable with regard to this process of examination and should rule that a fowl is treifah whenever its skull is perforated.
Our translation is based on Rav Kapach’s translation of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 3:5).
Here also our translation follows the above source. Rav Kapach draws support for his interpretation from Psalms 74:1.
Which, when not released according to the proper · measure, causes the animal to become very heavy and to have difficulty moving (ibid.). It must be emphasized that other commentaries offer different interpretations of all three of these conditions.
In this context, the commentaries have cited Hilchot Ma ‘achalot Assurot 4:11: “When an animal is sick because it is weakened and is on the verge of death, it is permitted, because it did not suffer a wound in any one of the limbs and organs that will cause it to die. For the Torah forbade only those situations resembling an animal mortally wounded by a preying wild beast. In that situation, the animal wounded it with a blow that caused it to die.”
For the poison or the venom could kill the person who partakes of the animal's meat. See Hilchot Rotzeach UShemirat Nefesh 12:1. 24.
The Kessef Mishneh explains the basis for the Rambam’s reckoning: Whenever a condition that causes an animal to be deemed treifah is mentioned explicitly by the Talmud, it is considered as being in a separate category even though it is a derivative of another category. For example, the degeneration of the bronchioles is considered a separate category even though it is a derivative of the category of the perforation of the bronchioles.
See Chapter 5, Halachah 4 ff.
See Chapter 6, Halachah 2.
See Chapter 6, Halachah 3.
See Chapter 6, Halachah 4.
See Chapter 6, Halachah 5.
See Chapter 6, Halachah 6.
See Chapter 6, Halachah 8.
See Chapter 6, Halachah 10.
See Chapter 6, Halachah 11.
See Chapter 6, Halachot 13-14.
See Chapter 6, Halachah 15.
See Ch~pter 6, Halachah 19.
This - and the instances mentioned in situations 18, 20, 22, 24, and 26 - are derived from the principle stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 20, that whenever the perforation of an organ causes an animal to be deemed treifah, the animal is also deemed treifah if that organ is lacking.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam’s mentions a lack of only those organs that an animal could exist for a brief time without. If, however, it is impossible for an animal to exist at all without these organs, e.g., the brain and the heart, it is improper to call the animal treifah. Instead a more severe term is appropriate.
This - and the instances mentioned in situations 19, 21, 23, 25, and 27 - are derived from the principle stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 20, that whenever an animal is deemed treifah if an organ is lacking, the animal is also deemed treifah if it possesses two of that organ.
See Chapter 7, Halachot 1-2.
See Chapter 7, Halachah 3.
See Chapter 7, Halachah 6.
See Chapter 7, Halachah 9.
See Chapter 7, Halachah 10.
See Chapter 7, Halachah 12.
See Chapter 7, Halachot 15-19.
See Chapter 7, Halachah 21.
See Chapter 8, Halachot 1-2.
See Chapter 8, Halachah 3.
See Chapter 8, Halachah 4.
See Chapter 8, Halachah 5.
See Chapter 8, Halachah 7.
See Chapter 8, Halachah 8.
See Chapter 8, Halachot 9-10.
See Chapter 8, Halachot 11-12.
See Chapter 8, Halachah 11.
See Chapter 8, Halachot 13, 15-18.
See Chapter 8, Halachot 21-22.
See Chapter 8, Halachah 23.
See Chapter 8, Halachah 26.
See Chapter 9, Halachah 1.
See Chapter 9, Halachah 2.
See Chapter 9, Halachot 5-6.
See Chapter 9, Halachah 7.
See Chapter 9, Halachot 8-9.
See Chapter 9, Halachah 21.
Halachah 1 of the present chapter.
Halachah 2 of the present chapter.
Halachah 3 of the present chapter.
Halachah 5 of the present chapter.
Halachah 5 of the present chapter..
Therefore the distinction between its thick and thin end that applies with regard to an animal does not apply with regard to a fowl. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 43:6) rules that a perforation of the spleen does not render a fowl treifah. The Siftei Cohen 43:10, however, quotes opinions that rule that a perforation does render it treifah.
I.e., other factors concerning a kidney which render an animal treifah, as mentioned in Chapter 8, Halachah 26. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 44:10) states bluntly: “There are no factors involving the kidneys of a fowl that render it treifah.”
See Chapter 7, Halachot 20-21. An animal will not be affected in this way, because his ribs will protect him and the skin of his digestive organs are stronger than that of a fowl. The Ra’avad differs and states that if an animal is subjected to heat and it bums its internal organs to this degree, it will surely die immediately. Therefore, our Sages did not mention it as a treifah.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that there are two other conditions that render a fowl treifah. They involve perforations in the stomachs. Since parallel - albeit not identical - conditions apply with regard to an animal, the Rambam does not list them as separate categories.
See Halachah 7 of this chapter. This stringency applies only to a water fowl, because its membrane is very soft.
Chullin 54a makes this statement, implying that in the Talmudic era, these rulings were already established.
Kin‘at Eliyahu cites Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 17:24 which states:
Nevertheless, since these concepts can be proven in an unshakable manner, leaving no room for question, the identity of the author, be he a prophet or a gentile, is of no concern. For when the rationale of a matter has been revealed and has proven true..., we do not rely on [the personal authority of] the individual who made the statement... but on the proofs he presented.
From that perspective, it would appear that the empirical evidence with which science presents us should be followed. Nevertheless, in this source, the Rambam is very adamant in following the Rabbinic perspective. See Chapter 8, Halachah 25, as a clear example.
The Rama (Yoreh De’ah 57:18) states that even if the animal survives for over a year, it is still deemed treifah and it is forbidden to partake of it.
Hilchot Ma ‘achalot Assurot 8:7-9.
The Maggid Mishneh writes that although he is not permitted to sell meat on his own, he is permitted to sell under the supervision of a trustworthy expert.
The Rama (Yoreh De’ah 2:2) rules leniently concerning this manner and allows such a person to continue slaughtering in certain situations. The Siftei Cohen 2:11 questions this leniency.
