Shechitah - Chapter 5

Hilchot Ma ‘achalot Assurot 4:8-9.

All the 70 conditions the Rambam mentions in Chapter 10 are included in these eight general categories.

These tenns are defined in this and the following chapters.

And thus all are judged with the severity appropriate for questions of Scriptural Law.

Exodus 22:30 speaks of “meat torn apart in the field.”

The Beit Yosef (Yoreh De ‘ah 29) questions the Rambam’s statements, for since these other conditions are considered questions of Scriptural Law, whenever a doubt arises, we rule stringently. The Turei Zahav 29: 1 explains that the severity involving derisah concerns a sefek sefeikah, a condition of multiple doubt. Although generally, we tend to leniency in such situations, an exception is made in this instance. See also the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh which offers several resolutions to this question.

As will be explained in the following halachot, the laws of derisah do not concern only the wounds to the victim’s organs that the attacking animal causes. Instead, the concern is that even a superficial wound can cause the victim to die, because there is poison in the attacker’s claws that will affect the victim. (Exactly, what that means in contemporary terms is difficult to understand. Some have suggested that the attacker’s claws are infected with bacteria which could be considered comparable to poison. That explanation, however, cannot be easily resolved with some of the points in the subsequent halachot.)
The intent of this and the following halachah is that “the poison” of certain animals or fowl is effective in harming some and not in harming others.

An ox.

If, however, it is attacked by smaller animals of prey, even a tiger, we assume that its strength will enable it to defend itself (Kessef Mishneh). The Rama (Yoreh De’ah 57:1) follows a more stringent opinion which rules that the laws of derisah apply when any predator larger than a wolf attacks a large animal.

A sheep or a goat.

We have quoted the definition of this term given by Rashi. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bava Batra 2:5), the Rambam defines the term in Arabic as alnamas, a small predator.

See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 57:5) which discusses the question whether leniency can be granted when a cat enters a chicken coop.

For it can harm fowl larger than itself.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 57:3) qualifies this matter, saying that these laws do not apply when a hawk attacks a chicken. The Tur and the Rama, however, state that this applies only to large chickens, but not to smaller ones.

Here also, the Tur and the Rama loc. cit.) add a further point, stating that the laws of derisah apply with regard to a falcon regardless of the size of the bird it attacks.

Compare to the following halachah. The Kessef Mishneh explains that in this halachah, the Rambam is not concerned with the question of whether the attacker perforated one of the organs whose perforation disqualifies an animal. For if so, it would not have been necessary for the Rambam to mention derisah. If such an organ was perforated, even a large animal is disqualified. Instead, the intent is whether the “poison” of the attacker is sufficient to kill the victim.

This refers to a beast. The laws of derisah apply, by contrast, when a fowl attacks with its feet (Turei Zahav 57: 10; Siftei Cohen 57: 19).

Needless to say, if it delivers a mortal wound with its hindlegs, the victim is disqualified. Here, however, we are speaking about “poisoning” an animal through derisah and that applies only when it attacks with its foreleg and with its claws [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 57:6)].

With regard to this and wounding with its legs, the Shulehan Aruch (loc. cit.) states, “they are no different than a thorn,” i.e., there is no question of “poison.”

For then it will not release its poison.

For it releases its “poison” only when it withdraws its claws and only when it is alive.
For this same reason, if ritual slaughter is performed on the animal that is being attacked before the attacking animal removes its claws, the slaughtered animal is permitted [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 57:8)].

As explained in the following halachah.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 57:18) mentions a difference of opinion among the Rabbis if such an examination can be relied upon in the present age. The Rama rules that we should be stringent, not rely on the examination, and hence, declare any animal that was attacked - or there is a question whether it was attacked - forbidden.

In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro explains that the fact that the flesh turns red indicates that the poison from the predator has penetrated the animal’s flesh and will ultimately, cause the intestines to be perforated. The Kessef Mishneh questions, however, why the Rambam mentions only the intestines. Since - as mentioned in the previous halachah - it is necessary to inspect the entire body, seemingly (and indeed, the Tur rules accordingly), the same laws would apply if red marks were found on the flesh above any organ whose perforation can disqualify the animal. He explains that perhaps this is indeed the Rambam’ s intent and he mentions the intestines only because there are many disqualifying factors involved with them. Nevertheless, in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 57:16), he quotes the Rambam’s wording without emendation. The Siftei Cohen 57:38) quotes the Tur’s ruling.

Here also we assume that the poison will ultimately cause the organ below the flesh to become perforated (Kessef Mishneh).

Here too the rationale is that once the poison has begun to have an effect, it will ultimately penetrate through and perforate the entire organ. There is, however, a difference between the signs and the other organs. With regard to the other organs, as soon as the flesh above the organ is affected, the animal is considered treifah. With regard to the signs, they themselves must be affected. It is possible to explain that the signs are tougher and more resilient than the other organs. Hence, the fact that the flesh above them is affected is no proof that they will also be affected (Kessef Mishneh ).

This applies even when a small portion of the windpipe becomes red. Although a perforation in the windpipe does not disqualify it unless it is the size of the majority of its cavity (Chapter 3, Halachah 23), we assume that the poison of the predator will ultimately cause such a perforation (Siftei Cohen 57:40).

As mentioned in Halachah 8. As stated in the notes to that halachah, there are authorities - and this is the custom cited by the Rama - it is customary in the present era not to rely on this examination and to regard any animal that was attacked - or even if there is a doubt whether it was attacked - as treifah.

An animal does not release its poison until the claw is removed (Halachah 7), and is this instance, it is implanted in the victim. We, nevertheless, disqualify the victim, for in this instance, we say that the attacker released its poison when it lost its claw (Turei Zahav 57:21). Alternatively, we fear that the victim was also attacked with another claw and that claw was removed (Rambam LeAm ).

And the claw which had been implanted in the wall became stuck in it. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 57:14) emphasizes that this ruling is followed even if the claw is dried out (and thus is unlikely to have come from an animal recently).

And that is why they are clamoring.

The Rama (Yoreh De ‘ah 57:9) states that this applies when we do not see that he attacked others. If, however, we see that he attacked others, we do not assume that his rage subsided.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 57:11) states that this applies only when we see that he did not attack any animals. If, however, we saw an attack, the fact that he and the victims were silent is not significant.

For there is a multiple doubt involved. Perhaps the predator entered and perhaps it did not. Even if it entered, perhaps it wounded the animal and perhaps it did not (see Chullin 53b).

I.e., it scratched itself and caused itself a wound. We must, however, check to see that the gullet was not perforated (Radbaz). The Rama (Yoreh De ‘ah 57: 13) states in the present age we do not rely on our inspection and therefore forbid any fowl that comes to us with a neck that is bleeding.