CHABAD - Today in Judaism - TODAY IS: MONDAY, NISSAN 21, 5774 • APRIL 21, 2014 - PASSOVER - SEVENTH DAY • OMER: DAY SIX - YESOD SHEB'CHESSED

CHABAD - Today in Judaism - TODAY IS: MONDAY, NISSAN 21, 5774 • APRIL 21, 2014 - PASSOVER - SEVENTH DAY • OMER: DAY SIX - YESOD SHEB'CHESSED
TODAY'S LAWS & CUSTOMS:
• TORAH READING 
On the Seventh Day of Passover we read how on this day the sea split for the Children of Israel and drowned the pursuing Egyptians, and the "Song at the Sea" sung by the people upon their deliverance (Exodus 13:17-15:26; full summary with commentary here).
• PARTIAL HALLEL 
Unlike all the other festivals, only the abridged version of Hallel (Psalms 113-118, recited on special occasions in praise and thanksgiving to G-d) is said on the latter days of Passover. The reason for this is based on the Midrash which relates that when the Egyptians were drowning in the sea, the angels in heaven desired to sing; but G-d said to them: "The work of My hands is drowning in the sea, and you wish to sing?"
• COUNT "SEVEN DAYS TO THE OMER" TONIGHT 
Tomorrow is the seventh day of the Omer Count. Since, on the Jewish calendar, the day begins at nightfall of the previous evening, we count the omer for tomorrow's date tonight, after nightfall: "Today is seven days, which are one week, to the Omer." (If you miss the count tonight, you can count the omer all day tomorrow, but without the preceding blessing).
The 49-day "Counting of the Omer" retraces our ancestors' seven-week spiritual journey from the Exodus to Sinai. Each evening we recite a special blessing and count the days and weeks that have passed since the Omer; the 50th day is Shavuot, the festival celebrating the Giving of the Torah at Sinai.
Tonight's Sefirah: Malchut sheb'Chessed -- "Receptiveness in Kindness"
The teachings of Kabbalah explain that there are seven "Divine Attributes" -- Sefirot -- that G-d assumes through which to relate to our existence: Chessed, Gevurah, Tifferet, Netzach, Hod, Yesod and Malchut ("Love", "Strength", "Beauty", "Victory", "Splendor", "Foundation" and "Sovereignty"). In the human being, created in the "image of G-d," the seven sefirot are mirrored in the seven "emotional attributes" of the human soul: Kindness, Restraint, Harmony, Ambition, Humility, Connection and Receptiveness. Each of the seven attributes contain elements of all seven--i.e., "Kindness in Kindness", "Restraint in Kindness", "Harmony in Kindness", etc.--making for a total of forty-nine traits. The 49-day Omer Count is thus a 49-step process of self-refinement, with each day devoted to the "rectification" and perfection of one the forty-nine "sefirot."
Links:
How to count the Omer
The deeper significance of the Omer Count
TODAY IN JEWISH HISTORY:
• MOSES DEPARTS MIDIAN (1314 BCE) 
After seven days of contention with G-d at the burning bush (see entry for "Nissan 15"), Moses assumed the mission of taking the Children of Israel out of Egypt. Taking leave of his father-in-law, Jethro, he placed his wife and children on a donkey and set out for Egypt to demand of Pharaoh, "Let My people go!"
• RED SEA SPLITS (1313 BCE) 
On the eve of the seventh day after the Exodus, the Children of Israel found themselves trapped between the Egyptian army and cavalry pursuing them from behind and the waters of the Red Sea before them. G-d commanded Moses: "Speak to the Children of Israel, that they should move forward!"
Nachshon ben Aminadav of the tribe of Judah was the first to jump into the sea; the water split, and "the children of Israel walked across on the dry land in the midst of the sea." All that night, a pillar of fire intervened between the Egyptians and the Israelites. When the Egyptians followed, the waters returned to their natural state and place and drowned them. The Children of Israel sang the "Song at the Sea" in praise and gratitude to G-d.
Links:
The Exodus, Part II
Murky Depths
more on the Splitting of the Sea
DAILY STUDY:
CHITAS AND RAMBAM FOR TODAY:
Chumash: Kedoshim, 2nd Portion Leviticus 19:15-19:22 with Rashi
• Chapter 19
15. You shall commit no injustice in judgment; you shall not favor a poor person or respect a great man; you shall judge your fellow with righteousness. טו. לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ עָוֶל בַּמִּשְׁפָּט לֹא תִשָּׂא פְנֵי דָל וְלֹא תֶהְדַּר פְּנֵי גָדוֹל בְּצֶדֶק תִּשְׁפֹּט עֲמִיתֶךָ:
You shall commit no injustice in judgment: This verse teaches us that a judge who corrupts the law is called unjust, hated and disgusting, fit to be destroyed, and an abomination. For an unjust person is called an abomination, as the verse says, “For whoever does these things, whoever perpetrates such injustice, is an abomination to the Lord…” (Deut. 25: 16); and an abomination, is called a חֵרֶם, [something doomed to destruction], and a disgusting thing, as the verse says (Deut. 7:26), “Nor should you bring an abomination into your house, lest you be destroyed (חֵרֶם) like it, but you shall utterly detest it (שַׁקֵּץ תְּשַׁקְּצֶנּוּ) ” [and an abomination is called hated, as it is said, “for every abomination to the Lord which He hates”] (Deut. 12:31).
לא תעשו עול במשפט: מלמד שהדיין המקלקל את הדין קרוי עול, שנאוי ומשוקץ, חרם ותועבה. שהעול קרוי תועבה, שנאמר (דברים כה טז) כי תועבת ה' וגו' כל עושה עול, והתועבה קרויה שקץ וחרם, שנאמר (שם ז כו) ולא תביא תועבה אל ביתך והיית חרם כמוהו שקץ תשקצנו וגו':
You shall not favor a poor person: [This means] that you shall not say, “This man is poor, and the rich man is obligated to provide him with sustenance; therefore, I will acquit him in judgment, and he will thus be sustained respectably.”- [Torath Kohanim 19:37]
לא תשא פני דל: שלא תאמר עני הוא זה והעשיר חייב לפרנסו, אזכנו בדין, ונמצא מתפרנס בנקיות:
or show respect to the great: [This means] that you shall not say, “This man is rich, the son of prominent people; how can I embarrass him and behold his shame? That would surely be a punishable act!” Therefore, Scripture says here, “or respect a great man.” - [Torath Kohanim 19:38]
ולא תהדר פני גדול: שלא תאמר עשיר הוא זה בן גדולים הוא זה, היאך אביישנו ואראה בבושתו, עונש יש בדבר, לכך נאמר ולא תהדר פני גדול:
Judge your fellow with righteousness: [This is to be understood] according to its apparent meaning. Another explanation is: Judge your fellow favorably [i.e., give him the benefit of the doubt].
בצדק תשפט עמיתך: כמשמעו. דבר אחר הוי דן את חברך לכף זכות:
16. You shall not go around as a gossipmonger amidst your people. You shall not stand by [the shedding of] your fellow's blood. I am the Lord. טז. לֹא תֵלֵךְ רָכִיל בְּעַמֶּיךָ לֹא תַעֲמֹד עַל דַּם רֵעֶךָ אֲנִי יְהוָֹה:
You shall not go around as a gossipmonger: Heb. לֹא תֵלֵךְ רָכִיל. I say that, since all those who instigate quarrels and speak evil talk go (הוֹלְכִים) into their friends’ houses in order to spy out (לְרַגֵּל) what evil they can see there, or what evil they can hear, to tell in the market-place, they are called הוֹלְכֵי רָכִיל, [which is the same as] הוֹלְכֵי רְגִילָה, - “those who go about spying” ; espiement in Old French, spying. A proof for my words is that we do not find [anywhere in Scripture] where the term רְכִילוּת is used without expressing it in terms of הֲלִיכָה, “going”; [for instance here,] לֹא תֵלֵךְ רָכִיל, “You shall not go around as a gossipmonger,” and, “going tale bearing (הוֹלְכֵי רָכִיל) (Jer. 6:28); [like] copper and iron.” With any other expression for evil talk, however, Scripture does not mention the term הֲלִיכָה, “going”; [for instance,], “He who slanders his fellow in secret” (Ps. 101: 5), and, “you deceitful tongue” (Ps. 120:3), and, “the tongue that speaks great things” (Ps. 12:4). Therefore, I say that the expression רָכִיל is an expression of “going around and spying מְרַגֵּל,” whereby [the letter] כ [of the word רָכִיל] is interchanged with [the letter] ג \'82 [so that the word רָכִיל is equivalent to רָגִיל]. For all letters which stem from the same source are interchangeable with one another [i.e., letters by the same speech organs, namely, the lips, tongue, teeth, palate, or throat]. [For example], [the letter] ב [is interchangeable] with פ or ו [as they are all labials; the letter] ג \'82 [is interchangeable] with כ as is [the letter] ק [since they are all palatals; the letter] נ [is interchangeable] with ל [because they are both linguals, and [the letters] ר and ז [are interchangeable] with צ [as they are all dentals]. Similarly, [the following verses illustrate how רָגַל is employed in connection with slander, just as is רָכִיל in our verse:], “And he slandered (וַיְרַגֵּל) your servant” (II Sam. 19:28), [lit.,] he spied deceitfully to say evil about me, and [likewise], “He did not slander (רָגַל) with his tongue” (Ps. 15:3). And likewise, [the term] רוֹכֵל means a merchant who goes around spying out (מְרַגֵּל) merchandise; [similarly,] one who sells perfumes with which women beautify themselves, since he constantly goes around in the towns, he is called a רוֹכֵל, equivalent to the term רוֹגֵל -one who spies. And the Targum renders [the phrase in our verse, לֹא תֵלֵךְ רָכִיל, as]: לָא תֵיכוּל קוּרְצִין, [lit., “You shall not eat the food of winking,” a figurative expression for slandering], as, וַאֲכַלוּ קַרְצֵיהוֹן דִּי יְהוּדָיֵא [lit., “and they ate their food of winking concerning the Jews” (Dan. 3:8), i.e., they informed against the Jews], and, אֲכַל בֵּהּ קֻרְצָא בֵּי מַלְכָּא [lit., “he ate the food of winking, concerning him, to the king’s palace” (Ber. 58a), i.e., he informed against him to the king. And why is the expression “eating the food of winking” used to signify slander?] It appears to me that it was the practice of these [informers and slanderers] to eat some sort of small snack at the house of those who listened to their words, for this [eating] acted as a [gesture of] final reinforcement, that the slanderer’s words were indeed well-founded and that he maintained them as the truth. This snack, then, is referred to as אֲכִילַת קוּרְצִין, [where the term קוּרְצִין is] denoted by [Scripture’s description of a faithless man], “He winks (קוֹרֵץ) with his eyes” (Prov. 6:13), for so is the way of all those who go around speaking evil talk, to wink with their eyes, thereby alluding to their slanderous words by innuendo, so that any other people listening will not understand.
לא תלך רכיל: אני אומר על שם שכל משלחי מדנים ומספרי לשון הרע הולכים בבתי רעיהם לרגל מה יראו רע או מה ישמעו רע לספר בשוק, נקראים הולכי רכיל, הולכי רגילה אשפיימנ"ט בלע"ז [ריגול]. וראיה לדברי, שלא מצינו רכילות שאין כתוב בלשון הליכה לא תלך רכיל, הולכי רכיל נחשת וברזל (ירמיה ו כח), ושאר לשון הרע אין כתוב בו הליכה מלשני בסתר רעהו (תהלים קא ה), לשון רמיה (שם קכ ב), לשון מדברת גדולות (שם יב ד), לכך אני אומר שלשון רכיל לשון הולך ומרגל, שהכ"ף נחלפת בגימ"ל, שכל האותיות שמוצאיהם ממקום אחד מתחלפות זו בזו, בי"ת בפ"א ובוי"ו, גימ"ל בכ"ף וקו"ף, נו"ן בלמ"ד, ורי"ש וזי"ן בצד"י וכן (ש"ב יט כח) וירגל בעבדך, רגל ותרמה לומר עלי רעה, וכן (תהלים טו ג) לא רגל על לשונו, וכן רוכל הסוחר ומרגל אחר כל סחורה, וכל המוכר בשמים להתקשט בהם הנשים, על שם שמחזר תמיד בעיירות נקרא רוכל, לשון רוגל. ותרגומו לא תיכול קורצין, כמו (דניאל ג ח) ואכלו קרציהון די יהודיא, אכל ביה קורצא בי מלכא (ברכות נח א). נראה בעיני שהיה משפטם לאכול בבית המקבל דבריהם שום הלעטה, והוא גמר חזוק, שדבריו מקויימים ויעמידם על האמת, ואותה הלעטה נקראת אכילת קורצין, לשון קורץ בעיניו (משלי ו יג), שכן דרך כל הולכי רכיל לקרוץ בעיניהם ולרמוז דברי רכילותן, שלא יבינו שאר השומעים:
You shall not stand by [the shedding of] your fellow’s blood: [I.e., do not stand by,] watching your fellow’s death, when you are able to save him; for example, if he is drowning in the river or if a wild beast or robbers come upon him. — [Torath Kohanim 19:41; Sanh. 73a]
לא תעמד על דם רעך: לראות במיתתו ואתה יכול להצילו, כגון טובע בנהר, וחיה או לסטים באים עליו:
I am the Lord: faithful to pay reward [to those who heed the above warnings], and faithful to exact punishment [upon those who transgress them].
אני ה': נאמן לשלם שכר, ונאמן להפרע:
17. You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your fellow, but you shall not bear a sin on his account. יז. לֹא תִשְׂנָא אֶת אָחִיךָ בִּלְבָבֶךָ הוֹכֵחַ תּוֹכִיחַ אֶת עֲמִיתֶךָ וְלֹא תִשָּׂא עָלָיו חֵטְא:
but You shall not bear a sin on his account: I.e., [in the course of your rebuking your fellow,] do not embarrass him in public. — [Torath Kohanim 19:43; Arachin 16b]
ולא תשא עליו חטא: לא תלבין את פניו ברבים:
18. You shall neither take revenge from nor bear a grudge against the members of your people; you shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord. יח. לֹא תִקֹּם וְלֹא תִטֹּר אֶת בְּנֵי עַמֶּךָ וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ אֲנִי יְהוָֹה:
You shall neither take revenge: [For example:] He says to him, “Lend me your sickle,” and he [the latter] replies, “No!” The next day, he [the latter] says to him, “Lend me your ax.” [If] he says to him, “I will not lend it to you, just as you did not lend to me!” this constitutes revenge. And what constitutes “bearing a grudge?” [For example:] he says to him, “Lend me your ax,” and he [the latter] replies, “No!” Then the next day, he [the latter] says to him, “Lend me your sickle.” [Now, if] he says to him, “Here it is for you; I am not like you, who did not lend me!” this constitutes “bearing a grudge,” for he keeps the hatred in his heart, even though he does not take revenge. — [Torath Kohanim 19:44; Yoma 23a]
לא תקם: אמר לו השאילני מגלך. אמר לו לאו. למחר אמר לו השאילני קרדומך. אמר לו איני משאילך כדרך שלא השאלתני, זו היא נקימה. ואיזו היא נטירה, אמר לו השאילני קרדומך. אמר לו לאו. למחר אמר לו השאילני מגלך. אמר לו הא לך ואיני כמותך, שלא השאלתני. זו היא נטירה, שנוטר האיבה בלבו אף על פי שאינו נוקם:
You shall love your neighbor as yourself: Rabbi Akiva says: “This is a fundamental [all-inclusive] principle of the Torah.” - [Torath Kohanim 19:45]
ואהבת לרעך כמוך: אמר רבי עקיבא זה כלל גדול בתורה:
19. You shall observe My statutes: You shall not crossbreed your livestock with different species. You shall not sow your field with a mixture of seeds, and a garment which has a mixture of shaatnez shall not come upon you. יט. אֶת חֻקֹּתַי תִּשְׁמֹרוּ בְּהֶמְתְּךָ לֹא תַרְבִּיעַ כִּלְאַיִם שָׂדְךָ לֹא תִזְרַע כִּלְאָיִם וּבֶגֶד כִּלְאַיִם שַׁעַטְנֵז לֹא יַעֲלֶה עָלֶיךָ:
You shall observe My statutes: They are the following: “You shall not crossbreed your livestock with different species, etc.” [The term] חֻקִּים, “statutes,” refers to the decrees of the Divine King, which have no rationale.
את חקתי תשמרו: ואלו הן בהמתך לא תרביע כלאים וגו', חקים אלו גזרות מלך שאין טעם לדבר:
and a garment which has a mixture: Why is this stated? Since Scripture says, “ You shall not wear a mixture of wool and linen together” (Deut. 22:11), I might think that one may not wear [even] shearings of wool [beaten together with] stalks of linen. Therefore, Scripture says, “a garment” [thus excluding pieces of wool and linen combined together, which do not form a “garment”]. And how do we know that included [in this prohibition is also] felt [although it is not a garment, but only a belt]? Because Scripture employs the term שַׁעַטְנֵז, [an acronym of the terms] שׁוּעַ, combed, טָווּי, spun, and נוּז, woven. And נוּז, twisted. [i.e., even if the material in question is] “combed,” “spun” and “twined together” [although it does not form a garment]. And I say that [the term] נוּז denotes a material [made from fibers which have been] stretched and twined together in order to join it together; mestier in Old French, and similar to [the term employed by the Talmud], “…fit for use because of the hard [dry] seeds נַאֲזֵי that they have” (Moed Katan 12a), a term which we explain as meaning “hardened” [just as the fibers of the נוּז cloth become hardened when they are intertwined together]; flestre in Old French, wilted. And with regards to the actual term שַׁעַטְנֵז, Menahem [Ben Saruk] explains it to mean: “A combination of wool and linen.”
ובגד כלאים: למה נאמר, לפי שנאמר לא תלבש שעטנז צמר ופשתים יחדו (דברים כב יא), יכול לא ילבש גיזי צמר ואניצי פשתן, תלמוד לומר בגד. מנין לרבות הלבדים, תלמוד לומר שעטנז, דבר שהוא שוע טווי ונוז. ואומר אני נוז לשון דבר הנמלל ושזור זה עם זה לחברו, מישטי"ר בלע"ז [לערבב], כמו (מועד קטן יב ב) חזיין לנאזי דאית בהון, שאנו מפרשין לשון כמוש פלישטר"א [כמוש]. ולשון שעטנז פירש מנחם מחברת צמר ופשתים:
20. If a man lies carnally with a woman, and she is a handmaid designated for a man, and she had not been [fully] redeemed nor had her document of emancipation been granted her, there shall be an investigation; they shall not be put to death, because she had not been [completely] freed. כ. וְאִישׁ כִּי יִשְׁכַּב אֶת אִשָּׁה שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע וְהִוא שִׁפְחָה נֶחֱרֶפֶת לְאִישׁ וְהָפְדֵּה לֹא נִפְדָּתָה אוֹ חֻפְשָׁה לֹא נִתַּן לָהּ בִּקֹּרֶת תִּהְיֶה לֹא יוּמְתוּ כִּי לֹא חֻפָּשָׁה:
designated for a man: נֶחֱרֶפֶת, designated and specified for a [particular] man. And [regarding this term נֶחֱרֶפֶת,] I do not know of [a term] resembling it anywhere in Scripture, but the Scripture is speaking of a Canaanite handmaid, partly a handmaid and partly a free woman [i.e., she belonged to two partners and one freed his part of her], who is betrothed to a Hebrew slave, who is permitted to [marry] a handmaid. — [Torath Kohanim 19:52; Kereithoth 11a]
נחרפת לאיש: מיועדת ומיוחדת לאיש, ואיני יודע לו דמיון במקרא. ובשפחה כנענית שחציה שפחה וחציה בת חורין המאורסת לעבד עברי שמותר בשפחה, הכתוב מדבר:
and she had not been [fully] redeemed: Heb. וְהָפְדֵּה לֹא נִפְדְּתָה, she is redeemed, but not redeemed. And when the unqualified term פִּדְיוֹן, “redemption” is employed, it means [redeeming with money. — [Torath Kohanim 19:53]
והפדה לא נפדתה: פדויה ואינה פדויה וסתם פדיון בכסף:
nor had her document of emancipation been granted her: [the unqualified term חפשׁ, “freeing,” refers to doing so] with a document [of release]. — [Torath Kohanim 19:53]
או חפשה: בשטר:
there shall be an investigation: Heb. בִּקֹרֶת תִּהְיֶה [which will result in] the woman being given lashes but not the man (Torath Kohanim 19:54) The court is obligated to investigate the matter in order not to sentence him [her] to death, since “she had not been [completely] freed” [and therefore,] her marriage is not completely binding. Our Rabbis, however, learned from [this verse], that whoever is sentenced to lashes [as this woman, those lashes] shall be accompanied by a “recitation” [בִּקֹרֶת בִּקְרִיאָה, derived from the בִּקֹרֶת, so that the phrase בִּקֹרֶת תִּהְיֶה is expounded to mean “she is to be given lashes with a קֹּרֶת, a recitation.” And what is the recitation referred to here? It is] that the judges who mete out the lashes, shall recite to the one receiving them (Deut. 28:58-59),“If you will not observe to fulfill [all the words of this Torah]…the Lord will bring upon you…uniquely [horrible] plagues!”- [Kereithoth 11a]
בקרת תהיה: היא לוקה ולא הוא, יש על בית דין לבקר את הדבר שלא לחייבו מיתה, כי לא חפשה, ואין קידושיה קידושין גמורין. ורבותינו למדו מכאן שמי שהוא במלקות יהא בקריאה, שהדיינים המלקין קורין על הלוקה (דברים כח נח - נט) אם לא תשמור לעשות וגו' והפלא ה' את מכותך וגו':
because she had not been [completely] freed: And therefore, the man is not liable to the death penalty because of [his intimacy with] her, since her marriage is not binding. It follows then, that if she had been freed, her marriage would be binding, and he would be liable to the death penalty. — [Torath Kohanim 19:55; Gittin 43b]
כי לא חפשה: לפיכך אין חייב עליה מיתה, שאין קידושיה קידושין, הא אם חופשה, קידושיה קידושין וחייב מיתה:
21. He shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord, to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, a guilt offering ram. כא. וְהֵבִיא אֶת אֲשָׁמוֹ לַיהֹוָה אֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד אֵיל אָשָׁם:
22. And the kohen shall effect atonement for him with the guilt offering ram, before the Lord, for the sin that he had committed; and he shall be forgiven for the sin that he had committed. כב. וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן בְּאֵיל הָאָשָׁם לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה עַל חַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא וְנִסְלַח לוֹ מֵחַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא:
And he shall be forgiven for the sin that he had committed: [The apparently superfluous phrase, “for the sin that he had committed,” is written] to include the intentional sinner like the unintentional sinner [insofar as atonement is effected by bringing a guilt-offering]. — [Torath Kohanim 19:57; Kereithoth 9a]
ונסלח לו מחטאתו אשר חטא: לרבות את המזיד כשוגג:
-------
Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 104 - 105
• Chapter 104
This psalm tells of the beauty of creation, describing that which was created on each of the six days of creation. It proclaims the awesomeness of God Who sustains it all-from the horns of the wild ox to the eggs of the louse.
1. My soul, bless the Lord! Lord my God, You are greatly exalted; You have garbed Yourself with majesty and splendor.
2. You enwrap [Yourself] with light as with a garment; You spread the heavens as a curtain.
3. He roofs His heavens with water; He makes the clouds His chariot, He moves [them] on the wings of the wind.
4. He makes the winds His messengers, the blazing fire His servants.
5. He established the earth on its foundations, that it shall never falter.
6. The depths covered it as a garment; the waters stood above the mountains.
7. At Your exhortation they fled; at the sound of Your thunder they rushed away.
8. They ascended mountains, they flowed down valleys, to the place which You have assigned for them.
9. You set a boundary which they may not cross, so that they should not return to engulf the earth.
10. He sends forth springs into streams; they flow between the mountains.
11. They give drink to all the beasts of the field; the wild animals quench their thirst.
12. The birds of the heavens dwell beside them; they raise their voice from among the foliage.
13. He irrigates the mountains from His clouds above; the earth is satiated from the fruit of Your works.
14. He makes grass grow for the cattle, and vegetation requiring the labor of man to bring forth food from the earth;
15. and wine that gladdens man's heart, oil that makes the face shine, and bread that sustains man's heart.
16. The trees of the Lord drink their fill, the cedars of Lebanon which He planted,
17. wherein birds build their nests; the stork has her home in the cypress.
18. The high mountains are for the wild goats; the rocks are a refuge for the rabbits.
19. He made the moon to calculate the festivals; the sun knows its time of setting.
20. You bring on darkness and it is night, when all the beasts of the forest creep forth.
21. The young lions roar for prey, and seek their food from God.
22. When the sun rises, they return and lie down in their dens.
23. Then man goes out to his work, to his labor until evening.
24. How manifold are Your works, O Lord! You have made them all with wisdom; the earth is full of Your possessions.
25. This sea, vast and wide, where there are countless creeping creatures, living things small and great;
26. there ships travel, there is the Leviathan that You created to frolic therein.
27. They all look expectantly to You to give them their food at the proper time.
28. When You give it to them, they gather it; when You open Your hand, they are satiated with goodness.
29. When You conceal Your countenance, they are terrified; when You take back their spirit, they perish and return to their dust.
30. When You will send forth Your spirit they will be created anew, and You will renew the face of the earth.
31. May the glory of the Lord be forever; may the Lord find delight in His works.
32. He looks at the earth, and it trembles; He touches the mountains, and they smoke.
33. I will sing to the Lord with my soul; I will chant praise to my God with my [entire] being.
34. May my prayer be pleasant to Him; I will rejoice in the Lord.
35. May sinners cease from the earth, and the wicked be no more. Bless the Lord, O my soul! Praise the Lord!
Chapter 105
When David brought the Holy Ark up to the City of David, he composed this psalm and sang it before the Ark. He recounts all the miracles that God performed for the Jews in Egypt: sending before them Joseph, who was imprisoned, only to be liberated by God, eventually attaining the status of one who could imprison the princes of Egypt without consulting Pharaoh.
1. Offer praise to the Lord, proclaim His Name; make His deeds known among the nations.
2. Sing to Him, chant praises to Him, speak of all His wonders.
3. Glory in His holy Name; may the heart of those who seek the Lord rejoice.
4. Search for the Lord and His might; seek His countenance always.
5. Remember the wonders that He has wrought, His miracles, and the judgements of His mouth.
6. O descendants of Abraham His servant, children of Jacob, His chosen ones:
7. He is the Lord our God; His judgements extend over the entire earth.
8. He remembers His covenant forever, the word which He has commanded to a thousand generations;
9. the covenant which He made with Abraham, and His oath to Isaac.
10. He established it for Jacob as a statute, for Israel as an everlasting covenant,
11. stating, "To you I shall give the land of Canaan"-the portion of your inheritance,
12. when they were but few, very few, and strangers in it.
13. They wandered from nation to nation, from one kingdom to another people.
14. He permitted no one to wrong them, and admonished kings for their sake:
15. "Do not touch my anointed ones, and do not harm my prophets.”
16. He called for a famine upon the land; he broke every source of bread.
17. He sent a man before them; Joseph was sold as a slave.
18. They afflicted his foot with chains, his soul was put into iron;
19. until the time that His words came, the decree of the Lord purified him.
20. The king sent [word] and released him, the ruler of nations set him free.
21. He appointed him master of his house and ruler of all his possessions,
22. to imprison his princes at will, and to enlighten his elders.
23. Thus Israel came to Egypt, and Jacob sojourned in the land of Ham (Egypt).
24. He multiplied His nation greatly, and made it mightier than its adversaries.
25. He turned their hearts to hate His nation, to conspire against His servants.
26. He sent Moses, His servant; Aaron, whom He had chosen.
27. They placed among them the words of His signs, miracles in the land of Ham.
28. He sent darkness and made it dark, and they did not defy His word.
29. He transformed their waters to blood, and killed their fish.
30. Their land swarmed with frogs in the chambers of their kings.
31. He spoke, and hordes of wild beasts came, and lice throughout their borders.
32. He turned their rains to hail, flaming fire in their land;
33. it struck their vine and fig tree, it broke the trees of their borders.
34. He spoke, and grasshoppers came, locusts without number;
35. and it consumed all grass in their land, it ate the fruit of their soil.
36. Then He smote every firstborn in their land, the first of all their potency.
37. And He took them out with silver and gold, and none among His tribes stumbled.
38. Egypt rejoiced at their leaving, for the fear [of Israel] had fallen upon them.
39. He spread out a cloud for shelter, and a fire to illuminate the night.
40. [Israel] asked, and He brought quail, and with the bread of heaven He satisfied them.
41. He opened a rock and waters flowed; they streamed through dry places like a river,
42. for He remembered His holy word to Abraham His servant.
43. And He brought out His nation with joy, His chosen ones with song.
44. He gave them the lands of nations, they inherited the toil of peoples,
45. so that they might keep His statutes and observe His laws. Praise the Lord!
-------
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 42
• Lessons in Tanya
• Monday, 21 Nissan 5774 / April 21, 2014
• Today in Tanya
• Likutei Amarim, middle of Chapter 42
והשנית היא יגיעת הנפש, שלא תכבד עליה העבודה ליגע מחשבתה, להעמיק ולהתבונן בגדולת ה׳ שעה גדולה רצופה
And the second is the exertion of the soul — to reveal the powers of the soul, that the service of exerting one’s thought not be burdensome to it, to delve into and reflect upon the greatness of G‑d for a long and uninterrupted period,
כי שיעור שעה זו אינו שוה בכל נפש
for this measure of time necessary to immerse oneself in a G‑dly concept in order to arouse love or fear of G‑d is not the same for every soul. Some people require more time, others less.
יש נפש זכה בטבעה, שמיד שמתבוננת בגדולת ה׳, יגיע אליה היראה ופחד ה׳
There is the naturally refined soul which, immediately upon considering the greatness of G‑d, attains a fear and dread of Him.
כמו שכתוב בשלחן ערוך אורח חיים סימן א׳: כשיתבונן האדם שהמלך הגדול, מלך מלכי המלכים הקדוש ברוך הוא, אשר מלא כל הארץ כבודו, עומד עליו ורואה במעשיו, מיד יגיע אליו היראה וכו׳
As is written in Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim, sec. I, that “When a man reflects that the great King — the Supreme King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, with Whose glory the whole world is filled — stands over him and sees his actions, he will immediately be overcome with fear....”
And, as the Shulchan Aruch concludes, “he will be humbled and abashed before G‑d.” This is true of one whose soul is naturally refined; he is “immediately...overcome with fear,” without great effort or time required on his part.
ויש נפש שפלה בטבעה ותולדתה, ממקור חוצבה ממדרגות תחתונות די׳ ספירות דעשיה
Then there is a soul that is of lowly nature and origin, coming from the lower gradations of the Ten Sefirot of Asiyah,
Within the World of Asiyah itself, the lowest of all Worlds, this type of soul comes from the lowest of the Ten Sefirot. It is thus a soul of “lowly nature and origin,” which finds it difficult to conceptualize G‑dly matters.
ולא תוכל למצוא במחשבתה האלקות, כי אם בקושי ובחזקה
and it is unable to discover G‑dliness by contemplation except with difficulty and forceful insistence,1
I.e., only by expending a great amount of effort and contemplating G‑dliness for a long stretch of time will it be able to secure a degree of G‑dly illumination, and conceptualize a notion of G‑dliness. Only then will this contemplation penetrate such a person so that he will be fearful of G‑d.
ובפרט אם הוטמאה בחטאת נעורים, שהעוונות מבדילים כו׳ כמו שכתוב בספר חסידים סימן ל״ה
especially if the soul is not only of a lowly nature, but in addition it had been defiled by the “sin of youth,” for one’s sins interpose [between a Jew and G‑d] (2as is written in Sefer Chassidim, ch. 35).
ומכל מקום, בקושי ובחזקה, שתתחזק מאד מחשבתו באומץ ויגיעה רבה ועומק גדול, להעמיק בגדולת ה׳ שעה גדולה
Nevertheless, with difficulty and with forceful effort, when his thought greatly exerts itself with vigor and great toil and intense concentration, immersing [itself] in contemplation of the greatness of G‑d for a long time,
The previous Lubavitcher Rebbe of blessed memory once said in a talk that a “long time” means, “an hour today,... an hour tomorrow,” until ultimately the repetitiveness of intense concentration day after day will ensure that no matter how lowly the soul may be,
בודאי תגיע אליו על כל פנים היראה תתאה הנ״ל
there will certainly come to him at least the “lower-level fear” referred to above, i.e., enough to prevent him from doing something which is opposed to G‑d’s Will.
(With regard to the Alter Rebbe’s above assurance that no matter how lowly the soul and notwithstanding its previous sins, still with intense concentration on G‑d’s greatness it will surely attain the lower level of fear, the Rebbe comments: “We also understand from this that even before [attaining] this [level of fear], the person will surely succeed in undoing his separation [from G‑d] that was brought about through his sins; i.e., he will [regret his sins and] repent.”3)
וכמו שאמרו רז״ל: יגעתי ומצאתי, תאמין
And, as the Rabbis of blessed memory have said:4 “[If a man says,] ‘I have labored and I have found,’ believe him.”
The Rebbe explains: One’s labor not only helps a person achieve something commensurate with the amount of labor, similar to payment received for doing a job, but moreover enables him to say, “I have found.” For in the case of a person who finds an object, his find is incomparably greater in value than the labor invested in finding it.
וכדכתיב: אם תבקשנה ככסף, וכמטמונים תחפשנה, אז תבין יראת ה׳
It is also written, with regard to the success one achieves when he labors to attain the fear of G‑d:5 “If you seek it like money, and search for it as for hidden treasures, then you will understand the fear of G‑d.”
פירוש: כדרך שמחפש אדם מטמון ואוצר הטמון בתחתיות הארץ, שחופר אחריו ביגיעה עצומה
This means: In the manner of a person seeking a hidden treasure buried in the depths of the earth, for which he digs with tireless toil, for he knows that it is surely buried there,
כך צריך לחפור ביגיעה עצומה לגלות אוצר של יראת שמים הצפון ומוסתר בבינת הלב של כל אדם מישראל
so must one delve with unflagging energy in order to reveal the treasure of the fear of heaven, which lies buried and concealed in the understanding of the heart of every Jewish individual,
Since this treasure is surely concealed within every Jewish heart, all that needs to be done is to dig it out and seek to reveal it.
שהיא בחינה ומדרגה שלמעלה מהזמן
this “understanding of the heart” being of a quality and level transcending the limitations of time,
Hence it cannot be said that during a particular time this treasure is lacking and unattainable.
והיא היראה הטבעית המסותרת הנ״ל
and this is the natural, hidden fear referred to above.
A question now arises. If this fear is “natural” and is always found within a Jew’s heart, why then is it necessary to take measures involving profound contemplation of G‑d’s greatness in order to attain it? The Alter Rebbe therefore goes on to say, that since this fear is found in the recesses of the heart it does not affect one’s actions and enable him to refrain from sinning. It is thus necessary to take steps that will reveal this fear, and ensure that it will affect one’s actual deeds.
רק שכדי שתבא לידי מעשה בבחינת יראת חטא, להיות סור מרע במעשה דבור ומחשבה, צריך לגלותה ממצפוני בינת הלב שלמעלה מהזמן, להביאה לבחינת מחשבה ממש שבמוח
However, in order that it should be translated into action, in the sense of “fear of sin,” so that one will turn away from evil in deed, word and thought, one needs to bring it to light from the hidden depths of the understanding of the heart where it transcends time, and to place it within the realm of actual thought that is in the brain.
להעמיק בה מחשבתו משך זמן מה ממש, עד שתצא פעולתה מהכח אל הפועל ממש
[This means,] immersing his thought in it for a lengthy period of time until its effect will emerge from the potential into the actual, so that it affects the soul and body of man,
להיות סור מרע ועשה טוב במחשבה דבור ומעשה, מפני ה׳ הצופה ומביט ומאזין ומקשיב ומבין אל כל מעשהו, ובוחן כליותיו ולבו
so that he will turn away from evil and do good in thought, speech and action, because of G‑d who looks and sees, hears and listens, and perceives all his deeds, and searches his “kidneys and heart.”
When a man realizes that G‑d scrutinizes his innermost thoughts, he will surely refrain from sinning, and will seek instead to perform mitzvot.
וכמאמר רז״ל: הסתכל בשלשה דברים כו׳, עין רואה ואוזן שומעת כו׳
As the Rabbis, of blessed memory, said:6 “Reflect upon three things [and you will not come to sin: Know what is above you] — an Eye that sees, and an Ear that hears....”
FOOTNOTES
1.The Rebbe notes: “The wording is from Sefer Chassidim, and so too later on.”
2.Parentheses are in the original text.
3.The Rebbe notes: In the second edition of the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch, in which the subjects are discussed — as can plainly be seen — in more detail and in a more inward manner, the Alter Rebbe adds: “And if the person does not immediately attain fear of G‑d, he should immerse himself deeply.... He should also fully repent for his sins, for it is they that hinder him from attaining fear [of G‑d].”
This supplements the statement of the Shulchan Aruch and of the first edition of the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch (as quoted above in Tanya), that “when he will contemplate...he will immediately attain this fear....”
Thus, in the second edition of his Shulchan Aruch, the Alter Rebbe addresses the issue of what is to be done if fear is not immediately attained. The situation may be remedied by (a) “immersing himself more deeply, etc.,” and by (b) “fully repenting, etc.”
4.Megillah 6b.
5.Mishlei 2:4-5.
6.Avot 2:1.
-------
Rambam:
• Daily Mitzvah - Sefer Hamitzvos:
P147
Positive Commandment 147 (Digest)
Covering Blood
"...and spills its blood, and he shall cover it with earth"—Leviticus 17:13.
We are commanded to cover the blood of a ritually slaughtered bird or non-domesticated animal.
The 147nd mitzvah is that we are commanded to cover the blood when slaughtering a bird or a chaya.1
The source of this commandment is G‑d's statement,2 "When he spills its blood, he must cover [the blood] with earth."
The details of this mitzvah are explained in the 6th chapter of tractate Chulin.
Rabbi Berel Bell is a well-known educator, author and lecturer. He and his family reside in Montreal, Canada.
From "Sefer Hamitzvot in English," published by Sichos in English.
FOOTNOTES
1.An animal with antlers, such as a deer.
2.Lev. 17:13.
Rambam:
• 1 Chapter: Rotseah uShmirat Nefesh Rotseah uShmirat Nefesh - Chapter Seven 
Rotseah uShmirat Nefesh - Chapter Seven
Halacha 1
When a Torah scholar is exiled to a city of refuge, his teacher is exiled together with him. This is derived from Deuteronomy 19:5, which states: "He shall flee to one of these cities, and he shall live." Implied, is that everything necessary for his life must be provided for him. Therefore, a scholar must be provided with his teacher, for the life of one who possesses knowledge without Torah study is considered to be death. Similarly, if a teacher is exiled, his academy is exiled with him.
Halacha 2
When a servant is exiled to a city of refuge, his master is not obligated to provide for his sustenance. The income from his labor, however, belongs to his master.
When a woman is exiled to a city of refuge, her husband is obligated to provide for her sustenance. For he cannot tell her: "Take the fruits of your labor in exchange for your sustenance," unless the woman is capable of earning a sufficient amount to provide for herself.
Halacha 3
When a killer was sentenced to exile and died before the sentence was implemented, his bones should be taken to a city of refuge and buried there.
When a killer dies in his city of refuge, he should be buried there. When the High Priest dies, the bones of the killer may be taken to his ancestral plot.
Halacha 4
When any of the other Levites who live in the city of refuge dies, he should not be buried within the city or within its Sabbath boundary. As Numbers 35:3 states: "Their open space will be for their animals, for their property and for all their life." Implied is that these cities were given for life, and not for burial.
Halacha 5
When a killer kills accidentally in a city of refuge, he should be exiled from one neighborhood to another. He should not depart from the city.
Similarly, when a Levite kills in one of his own cities, he should be exiled to another one of the cities of the Levites. For they all serve as a haven, as will be explained. If he killed outside the cities of the Levites and fled to his own city, that city serves as a haven for him.
Halacha 6
When the majority of the inhabitants of a city of refuge are killers, it no longer serves as a haven. This is derived from Joshua 20:4, which speaks of the designation of the cities of refuge and states: "And the killer will speak his words in the ears of the elders of the city." Implied is that there is a distinction between their words and his words.
Similarly, a city that does not have elders does not serve as a haven, for it is written: "The elders of that city."
Halacha 7
When a killer was exiled to a city of refuge, and the inhabitants of the city desire to show him honor, he should tell them: "I am a killer."
If they say, "We desire to honor you regardless," he may accept the honor from them.
Halacha 8
A person who was exiled to a city of refuge should never leave his city of refuge, not even to perform a mitzvah or to deliver testimony - neither testimony involving monetary matters, nor testimony involving a capital case. He should not leave even if he can save a life by delivering testimony, or he can save a person from gentiles, from a river, from a fire or from an avalanche. This applies even if he is a person like Yoav ben Tz'ruyah, upon whom the salvation of the entire Jewish people may depend. He should never leave the city of refuge until the death of the High Priest. If he departs, he has allowed for his death, as explained.
Halacha 9
When it is said that a killer may return after the death of the High Priest, the intent is a High Priest anointed with the anointing oil, one who assumed his office through wearing his vestments, one who performs the service of a High Priest, and one who was removed from his office. When any of these four die, a killer may return from his city of refuge.
When, by contrast, a priest anointed to lead the nation in war dies, a killer may not return, for this priest is considered to be an ordinary priest.
Halacha 10
The following individuals are exiled and never return from their exile:
a) a person who was sentenced to exile at a time when the office of High Priest was not filled;
b) a person who killed a High Priest unintentionally and there was no other High Priest; or
c) a High Priest who killed unintentionally and there was no other High Priest.
Halacha 11
If, however, the killer was sentenced, but the High Priest died before the killer was actually exiled, he is not required to go into exile.
If before the killer was sentenced, the High Priest dies, and another High Priest was appointed in his stead, and then the sentence of exile was delivered, the killer returns after the death of the second High Priest, the one in whose term of office he was sentenced.
Halacha 12
If a killer was sentenced and it was discovered that the High Priest was the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman who underwent chalitzah, the High Priesthood is negated. It is as if he were sentenced without there having been a High Priest; he may never leave his city of refuge.
Halacha 13
When a killer returns to his city after the death of the High Priest, he is considered to be an ordinary citizen. If the blood redeemer slays him, the blood redeemer should be executed, for the killer has already gained atonement through exile.
Halacha 14
Although the killer has gained atonement, he should never return to a position of authority that he previously held. Instead, he should be diminished in stature for his entire life, because of this great calamity that he caused.
Halacha 15
Although a person who intentionally injures his father is liable to be executed by the court just like a person who kills another person, if a person unintentionally injured his parents, he is not liable for exile. For the Torah prescribed exile only for a person who unintentionally killed another man, as we have stated.
-------
Rambam:
• 3 Chapters: Shechitah Shechitah - Chapter 6, Shechitah Shechitah - Chapter 7, Shechitah Shechitah - Chapter 8 
Shechitah - Chapter 6
Halacha 1
What is meant by nekuvah?1 There are eleven organs that if there is a perforation of the slightest size that reaches their inner cavity, [the animal] is trefe. They are:2 the entrance to the gullet,3 the membrane of the brain in the skull, the heart and its large arteries, the gall-bladder, the arteries leading to the liver, the maw,4 the stomach, the abdomen, the gut, the intestines, and the lung and the bronchia.
Halacha 2
We have already mentioned the definition of the entrance to the gullet.5 It refers to a portion of the esophagus above the gullet which is not fit for ritual slaughter. If there is a perforation of the slightest size that reaches its inner cavity, [the animal] is trefe.
Halacha 3
The brain in the skull has two membranes. If the outer one near the skull bone alone is perforated, [the animal] is permitted.6 If the lower one near the brain is perforated, it is trefe.7 With regard to the portion where the brain extends to the spinal cord, i.e., the portion below the glands where the neck begins, the laws governing [the perforation of] its membranes change.8 If they are perforated beyond the glands, [the animal] is permitted.
Halacha 4
When the brain itself is perforated9 or crushed, [the animal] is acceptable if its membrane is intact.10 If, however, [it has degenerated to the extent that] it can be poured like water or melts like wax, [the animal] is trefe.11
Halacha 5
When there is a perforation of the heart to its inner cavity - whether to the larger cavity on the left or the smaller cavity to the right - [the animal] is trefe. If, however, the flesh of the heart is perforated, but the perforation does not reach the inner cavity, [the animal] is permitted.12 The arteries leading from the heart to the lung is considered as the heart itself. If there is a perforation of the slightest size that reaches its inner cavity, [the animal] is trefe.
Halacha 6
When the gall-bladder is perforated and the liver seals it, [the animal] is permitted.13 If, however, the perforation is not sealed, it is trefe even if the perforation is located close to the liver.
Halacha 7
[The following rules apply when] a kernel14 is found in the gall-bladder. If it was shaped like a date seed, i.e., its head is not pointed, [the animal] is permitted.15If, however, its head is pointed like an olive seed, it is forbidden, for we can assume that it perforated [the gall bladder] when it entered. [The reason that] the perforation cannot be seen is that a scab developed over the opening of the wound.16
Halacha 8
When there is a perforation of the slightest size in one of the arteries of the liver where the blood develops, [the animal] is trefe.17 Accordingly, [the following rules apply] if a needle is found in the lobes of the liver. If it was a large needle and its pointed edge was facing inward, it can be assumed that it perforated [the liver] when it entered. If its rounded edge was facing inward, we say that it entered through the blood vessels and [the animal] is permitted.18
Halacha 9
If it was a small needle, [the animal] is trefe, because both of its heads are sharp and it certainly perforated [the liver].19 If it is found in the large blood vessel, the wide artery through which food enters the liver,20 it is permitted.21 If the flesh of the liver became wormridden, [the animal] is permitted.22
Halacha 10
When the maw is perforated and kosher fat23 seals [the perforation], [the animal] is permitted. Similarly, whenever a perforation is sealed by flesh or fat that is permitted to be eaten, [the animal] is permitted. The [only] exceptions are the fat of the heart,24 the membrane that is above the entire heart, the diaphragm in the midst of the belly that separates between the digestive organs and the respiratory organs, i.e., the one that when it is cut open, the lungs could be seen and which is called the membrane [above] the liver, the white place in the center [of the liver], and the fat of the colon. In these organs, we do not say that they shield [the perforation] because they are firm.25 A perforation that is sealed with one of these is not considered as sealed.
A portion of fat from a beast that corresponds to a portion of forbidden fat in a domesticated animal does not seal [a perforation] even though it is permitted to be eaten.26
Halacha 11
When the stomach is perforated, [the animal] is trefe. There is nothing that can seal it for the fat upon it is forbidden.27 Similarly, when there is a perforation of the abdomen or gut that extends to its outer periphery, [the animal] is trefe. If one of them was perforated and the perforation leads to the cavity of the other,28 [the animal] is permitted.29
Halacha 12
[The following rules apply when] a needle is found in the folds of the gut: If it was from one side,30 [the animal] is permitted.31 If it caused a complete perforation extending [from the outer side] to the cavity of the gut and a drop of blood was found at the place of the perforation, [the animal] is trefe. For we are certain that the perforation occurred before the slaughter. If there is no blood at the place of the perforation,32 [the animal] is permitted. For we are certain that after the slaughter, under pressure the needle caused the perforation.33
Halacha 13
When an animal swallowed a substance that will perforate the intestines, e.g., the root of the asafetida34 plant or the like, it is trefe, for we can be certain that it perforated them. If there is a question whether or not a perforation was made,35 [the animal] must be inspected.36
When one of the organs of the digestive system through which the food waste passes, i.e., the intestines, are perforated, [the animal] is trefe. Among them are those which are curved and surrounded by each other like a snake that is coiled, they are referred to as the small intestines. If one of them was perforated [on the side where] another [is located], the animal is permitted, for the other [intestine] will shield [the perforation].
Halacha 14
When the digestive organs were perforated and viscous body fluids seal them, [the animal] is trefe for this seal will not endure.37
When a wolf, a dog, or the like, snatched [an animal's] intestines38 and they were perforated after they were abandoned, we surmise that [the predator caused the perforation and the slaughtered animal] is permitted. We do not say that perhaps [the predator] made a perforation in a place where one already existed.39
If [an intestine] was discovered to be perforated40 and it was not known whether it was perforated before [the animal's] slaughter41 or afterwards, we perforate it again and compare the two. If the first perforation resembles this one, [the animal] is kosher.42 If there was a difference between them, [we presume that the first] occurred before the slaughter and [the animal] is trefe. If the perforation in doubt was handled, the perforation to which it is being compared must also be handled before the comparison is made.
Halacha 15
When [an animal's] digestive organs protrude outside [its body] without having been perforated,43 [the animal] is permitted. If they were turned upside down,44 [the animal] is trefe even if they were not perforated. [The rationale is that] once [the digestive organs] have been turned upside down,45they will never return to their ordinary functioning and [the animal] will not live.
Halacha 16
The final digestive organ that is straight and not curved from which feces are excreted in the genital area and is joined [to the body] between the thighs is called the colon. If it is perforated even slightly, [the animal] is trefe,46 as applies with regard to the other digestive organs.
When does the above apply? When the perforation faced the cavity of the belly. When, however, it was perforated at the point where it is joined between the thighs, [the animal] is permitted.47 [Indeed,] even if the entire place where it is joined between the thighs is removed, [the animal] is permitted, provided a length of at least four fingerbreadths48 remains in an ox.49
Halacha 17
A fowl does not have a stomach, an abdomen, or a gut. Instead of them, it has a crop and a craw.50
All the factors that render an animal trefe apply equally to a domesticated animal, a wild beast, and a fowl.51
When the roof of the crop receives even the slightest perforation, [the animal] is trefe. What is meant by the roof of the crop? That which becomes extended with the gullet when the fowl extends its neck.52 If, however, the remainder of the crop becomes perforated, [the fowl] is permitted.
Halacha 18
The craw has two [membranes] covering it. The outer one is red like meat; the inner one is white like skin. If one was perforated and not the other, [the fowl] is permitted unless they are both perforated, even slightly. If they are both perforated, but in places that do not correspond, [the fowl] is permitted.53
Halacha 19
The spleen is not one of the limbs which is disqualified because of a perforation of even the slightest size. Therefore our Sages did not include it in that category. Instead, a perforation that disqualifies it has a measure which is not uniform throughout it.
What is implied? One of the ends of the spleen is thick and the other thin, like the shape of the tongue. If the thick end was perforated by a hole that extends from side to side, [the animal] is trefe. If the hole does not extend from side to side, [more lenient rules apply]: If a portion the thickness of a golden dinar remains,54 [the animal] is permitted. If less than that remains, [the perforation] is considered as if it extends from side to side and [the animal] is trefe. If the thin side is perforated, [the animal] is acceptable.55
Halacha 20
[The following principle applies with regard to] all of the organs concerning which our Sages said that even the slightest perforation [causes the animal to be considered] trefe. If [that organ] was removed entirely, [the animal] is trefe.56 This applies whether it was eliminated through sickness, removed by hand, or [the animal] was created lacking the organ.
The same laws also apply if it was created with two of that organ, for any extra limb or organ is considered as if it was lacking.57
What is implied? If one of an animal's or fowl's digestive organs, its gall-bladder,58 or the like was removed, it is trefe. Similarly if it was discovered to have two gall-bladders or two of a [particular digestive] organ, it is trefe. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. If, however, the spleen was removed or two spleens were found, [the animal] is permitted, for [that organ] is not among those listed [by our Sages in this category].
Halacha 21
[The statement that] an extra digestive organ causes an animal to be considered trefe applies only when there is an entire extra organ from its beginning to its end and thus two digestive organs are found next to each other as is [sometimes found in] the digestive organs of a fowl59 or the extra organ projects outward like a branch from a bough and it is a separate entity.60 [The latter applies] whether in a fowl or in an animal. If, however, the extra organ returns and becomes combined with the main organ and they are fused at the two ends61 even though they are separate in the middle, [the animal] is permitted and the organ is not considered as extra.
FOOTNOTES
1.The term literally means "perforated."
2.The Rambam explains the particular laws regarding the perforation of these organs in this chapter with the exception of those concerning the lung. The latter, because they are many and are of more common application, are given greater focus and an entire chapter, Chapter 7, is devoted to them.
3.If the gullet itself is perforated, the animal is considered a nevelah as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 13.
4.A kosher domesticated animal has four stomachs. If any one of them is perforated, the animal is trefe. This and the following three terms refer to those stomachs.
5.See Chapter 1, Halachah 6.
6.The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 31:1) quotes authorities who maintain that even if the upper membrane alone is perforated, the animal is trefe. He states that unless a significant loss is involved, this perspective should be followed. The Turei Zahav 31:1 and the Siftei Cohen 31:1 quote views that advocate stringency even if a significant loss is involved.
7.There is a question among the commentaries with regard to the law if only the bottom membrane is perforated. Many Rishonim - and this is the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 31:10) - rule that the animal is considered trefe in such a situation, for that membrane is the primary protection for the brain.
There are those who maintain that this is alluded to in the Rambam's wording: "If the lower one near the brain is perforated, it is trefe," i.e., its perforation alone causes the animal to be considered trefe. Others maintain that this is not the Rambam's intent and some even maintain that the proper version of the text is "If also the lower one...," which would imply that both membranes must be perforated.
[The more stringent ruling is also stated in the popular translation of the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 3:1). However, Rav Kappach - while not disputing the ruling - maintains that the translation there is in error.]
8.Instead, it is governed by the laws pertaining to the breach of the spinal cord, as described in Chapter 9, Law 1.
9.In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro quotes a different version substituting nirkav ("decayed") for nikeiv ("perforated"). He also quotes this version in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 31:2).
10.For the animal will still be able to function.
11.In Chapter 10, the Kessef Mishneh includes this - as the implication from the Rambam's order here - in the category of nekuvah. For in such a situation, ultimately, the brain's membrane will become perforated.
12.The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 40:2) follows the opinion of the Tur who accepts the Rambam's ruling with regard to a perforation stemming from sickness, but rules more stringently with regard to a perforation caused by a thorn or a needle. In such an instance, even if the perforation does not extend to the cavity of the heart, the animal is trefe.
13.For flesh will cling to flesh .
14.Needless to say, these laws apply when a needle or a thorn is found in the gall-bladder [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 42:9)].
15.We assume that instead of perforating the gall bladder from the outside, it entered through the blood vessels and became lodged there.
16.And as indicated by Chapter 3, Halachah 21, the sealing of a perforation by a scab is not significant in these contexts.
17.The Ra'avad and other Rishonim take issue with the Rambam, maintaining that this ruling applies only with regard to the arteries leading to the liver, but not with regard to those within the liver itself. The Rivosh (Responsum 189) supports the challenge to the Rambam by citing the ruling (Chapter 8, Halachah 21) that if the liver is removed entirely except for a small portion, the animal is not trefe.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro explains the Rambam's position as follows: Even when the liver is removed, its blood vessels must remain intact. A parallel to that concept exists with regard to the lungs (see Chapter 7, Halachah 9). Nevertheless, in his Shulchan Aruch, he follows the position of the other Rishonim and does not mention a perforation in the liver as a factor that disqualifies an animal.
18.Here also the Ra'avad and other Rishonim take issue with the Rambam, maintaining that his understanding of Chullin 45b, the source for this halachah, is in error. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 41:6) follow their understanding.
19.I.e., regardless of the direction it entered.
20.I.e., blood from the stomach; for food does not enter the liver.
21.Since this blood vessel is large, it cannot be taken for granted that the needle perforated the blood vessel.
22.We do not suspect that the blood vessels of the liver were perforated.
23.See Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot, ch. 7, for an explanation which fat is kosher and which is forbidden. Halachah 6, of that chapter speaks explicitly of the fat on the maw.
24.Concerning this point, there is a difference of opinion among the Rishonim. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 40:1) follows the lenient view and permits the animal in such a situation, while the Rama follows the more stringent perspective.
25.And thus they will not bend in a manner that will seal the perforation. Kosher fat and flesh, by contrast, are pliable and will seal any perforation over which they are located.
26.All fat in a wild beast is permitted to be eaten. Hence, in this instance, the general principle stated above is not followed and we determine which fat can seal a perforation by comparing it to the corresponding situation in a domesticated animal.
With regard to a fowl, all its kosher fat will seal a perforation beneath it [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 46:1)].
27.The Turei Zahav 48:2 questions: Seemingly, the spleen should be able to seal it, for the spleen may be eaten and lies on the stomach. He explains that since the membrane covering the spleen is forbidden, it is not an effective seal.
28.This is possible for some of these stomachs are located within each other.
29.For the perforation will not reach beyond the digestive system.
30.From the following clause, it appears that according to the Rambam, this refers to a needle lodged in the outer side of the gut. See the following note.
31.There are other authorities (their perspective is reflected in the objections of the Ra'avad) who maintain that even in this instance, an examination is required. Moreover, they explain that we are speaking about a needle lodged in the inner side of the gut. If a needle is lodged in the outer side of the gut, according to this view, the animal is trefe.
According to the Rambam, as mentioned above, we are speaking about a needle that comes from the outside. As the Rambam states in Chapter 11, Halachah 4, in such an instance, all of the inner organs of the body must be checked (Kessef Mishneh). Thus this halachah is speaking only with regard to the gut. Since the perforation does not breach the digestive system, the animal is not considered trefe.
Both perspectives are based on a comparison of two Talmudic passages (Chullin 50b and 51a) that are difficult to reconcile. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 48:8,10) follows the perspective of the other authorities. The Rama cites the Rambam's perspective with regard to a hole made on the inside that does not pass from one side to the other and states we may rely on it in a situation where a severe financial loss is involved.
32.The Ra'avad and the other authorities state that the drop of blood must be found on the outer side of the gut.
33.Since the animal was slaughtered, it blood was not flowing and it is unlikely that there will be sufficient pressure to force it outside the gut.
34.A yellow-brown, bitter, offensive-smelling resinous material used for medicinal purposes in the ancient Middle East.
35.The Maggid Mishneh, the Tur (Yoreh De'ah 51), and others quote a different version of the Mishneh Torah concerning which questions are raised. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the version translated here and the Frankel edition of the Mishneh Torah states that it is followed by most of the authoritative manuscripts.
36.The Ra'avad states that the inspection of the intestines is difficult. That position is reflected in the ruling of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 51:4) who rules that in such a situation, because of its questionable status, the animal is considered as trefe.
37.When the digestive system is under pressure, the vicious fluids will not seal effectively. The Siftei Cohen 46:1 states that the same ruling applies even if a scab has developed over the wound.
38.I.e., after the animal was slaughtered.
39.Chullin 9a explains that, unless there is a known factor that certainly indicates otherwise, we assume that an animal that has been slaughtered is acceptable. In this instance, the perforation would lead us to rule stringently. Nevertheless, since the fact that it was snatched by a predator can serve as an explanation, we rely on the original assumption. Accordingly, for this ruling to apply, we must know that the animal was slaughtered properly [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 25:3)].
40.As indicated by the Rambam's explanation, in this instance, we do not know how it was perforated.
41.In which instance, the animal would be considered as trefe.
42.The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 50:1) rules that in the present generation, we are not knowledgeable regarding the making of such a comparison and hence, forbid the animal because of the doubt.
43.I.e., the animal's belly was cut open while it was alive. It could no longer support the digestive organs and they protruded beyond the skin. Nevertheless, the digestive organs themselves were not blemished.
44.As might happen if a person was trying to reinsert them into the animal's belly.
45.The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 46:2) rules that if an animal's digestive organs are discovered to have turned upside down, the animal is trefe, even if the organs did not fall out of its belly.
46.Even though the fat upon it is kosher, it does not seal it [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 46:1); see also Halachah 10].
47.For the thighs will support it (Chullin 50a).
48.The Rambam (based on Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi) considers this the meaning of the term "in order to grasp it" used by Chullin, loc. cit. Although there are more lenient views, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 46:5) follows the Rambam's ruling.
According to Shiurei Torah , a fingerbreadth is 2 cm, according to Chazon Ish 2.48 cm.
49.For other animals, the minimum measure is calculated proportionately (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.).
50.Unlike a domesticated animal that has four stomachs, a kosher fowl has two.
51.I.e., though the laws above were stated with regard to a domesticated animal, they apply equally to a beast and to a fowl if they possess the same organs.
52.Hence just as the perforation of the gullet disqualifies a fowl; so, too, the perforation of this portion of the crop (see Chullin 58b).
53.Compare this entire halachah to Chapter 3, Halachah 20, concerning the gullet, noting the similarities and differences.
54.This is less than half the thickness of the spleen (Rashba as quoted by the Kessef Mishneh).
55.This applies with regard to an animal and a beast. More lenient rules apply with regard to a fowl and the perforation of its spleen never causes it to be considered as trefe, as stated in Chapter 10, Halachah 10.
56.Since the perforation of an organ impairs its functioning to the point that the animal is trefe, the implication is that the organ must function excellently for the body to be maintained. Hence, we can certainly assume that an animal will be considered trefe when the organ does not exist at all.
57.The commentaries explain that since the organ is duplicated, neither one of the two organs will be able to function satisfactorily. Thus it is as the animal is lacking that organ entirely.
58.The Radbaz states that if we do not see a gall-bladder, we have the liver tasted. If its taste is bitter, we assume that the gall-bladder was absorbed by the liver. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 52:3).
59.Thus this phenomenon does not render a fowl trefe, only an animal (Chullin 58b).
60.The Siftei Cohen 47:1 rules that this applies only when the extra organ branches off from the stomach. If it branches off from the intestines, it is acceptable.
61.If, however, each of the organs branches of from a different place in the animal's digestive system, the animal is trefe even if the organs merge at their end (Maggid Mishneh).
Shechitah - Chapter 7
Halacha 1
The lungs have two membranes. If only one of them is perforated, [the animal] is permitted.1 If they are both perforated, [the animal] is trefe.2 Even if the entire upper membrane3 is peeled off and dissolves, [the animal] is permitted. If there was even a slight perforation in the portion of windpipe in the chest4 or lower, [the animal] is trefe. For this is a place in the lower potion of the windpipe that is not fit for ritual slaughter.5
Halacha 2
If a person began slaughtering the animal and slit the windpipe entirely, then perforated the lung, and afterwards, completed the slaughter, [the animal] is trefe, for [the lung] was perforated before the completion of the slaughter.6 Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
Halacha 3
If one of the bronchioles7 was perforated, even if the perforation is covered by another bronchiole, [the animal] is trefe.8 If one saw that it was perforated and then it developed a scab, [the scab] is of no consequence.9
If the mass of the lung is perforated, [the animal] is trefe, even if one of the ribs seals the perforation.10 If it was perforated in a place where the lung breaks into lobes and the lobe lies on [a rib, the animal] is kosher.11
Halacha 4
When does the above apply? When the perforation in the lobes is sealed by flesh.12 If, however, the perforation is pressed against the bone, it does not protect it.13 If, however, the perforation in the lobes was clinging both to the bone and the flesh, [the animal] is permitted.
Halacha 5
When the body of the lung is found adhering to the ribs, we suspect that it was perforated. [This applies] whether or not growths14 appeared on it.
What do we [to check it]? We separate it from the rib while taking care not to perforate it. If it is discovered to be perforated and a bruise is discovered on the rib in the place where it was perforated, we assume that the perforation was caused by the bruise.15 If there was no bruise on the rib, it is clear that this perforation existed within the lung before the animal was slaughtered and it is trefe.16
Halacha 6
When it is discovered that there is a closed place in the lung which air does not enter and it does not inflate, it is as if it had been perforated and [the animal] is trefe.17
How do we inspect it? We cut off the portion [of the lung]18 that would not inflate when [air was] blown [into the lung]. If fluid was discovered within it,19 it is permitted, because it was due to the fluid that the air did not enter. If no fluid is found within, we put some saliva, a straw, a feather or the like over [the separated portion] and blow air into it. If they move, [the animal] is kosher.20If not, it is trefe, because air does not enter [that portion of the lung].
Halacha 7
[The following rules apply when] a sound is heard when a lung is inflated. If the place from which the sound emanates can be detected, saliva, a straw, or the like should be placed over it. If they flutter, it is apparent that the lung is perforated and [the animal] is trefe.
If the place [from which the sound emanates] cannot be detected, the lung should be placed in lukewarm21 water and blown. If the water bubbles, [the animal] is trefe.22 If not, it is apparent that only the lower membrane has been perforated, the air is moving between the two membranes. For this reason, it will be possible to hear a hushed sound when it is inflated.
Halacha 8
Keep this encompassing general principle in mind: Whenever air was blown into a lung that was placed in lukewarm water and the water did not bubble, [the lung] is intact, without a perforation.23
Halacha 9
[The following laws apply when the insides of] a lung24 can be poured out like [water from] a pitcher, but the outer membrane is intact, without a perforation. If the bronchioles remain in their place and have not degenerated, it is acceptable. If even one of the bronchioles have degenerated, it is trefe.25
What should be done? We perforate [the membrane of the lung] and pour it out into a container glazed with lead26 or the like. If white strands can be seen, it is apparent that the bronchioles have degenerated27 and it is trefe. If not, it is only the flesh of the lung that has degenerated and [the animal] is acceptable.28
Halacha 10
[The following rules apply when] boils29 are discovered on a lung. If they are filled with air, clear water, fluid that is viscous like honey or the like, dried fluid that is firm like a stone, [the animal] is permitted. If putrid fluid or putrid or murky liquid is found within it, it is trefe.30 When one removes the fluid and checks it, one should check the bronchiole below it. If it is discovered to be perforated, it is trefe.31
Halacha 11
When one discovers two boils on a lung close to each other, [the animal] is trefe,32 for it is very likely that there is a perforation between them33 and there is no way of checking the matter. If there is one which appears like two, one should perforate one, if the other flows into it, it is only one and [the animal] is permitted.34 If not, [the animal] is trefe.
Halacha 12
If the lung degenerated, [the animal] is trefe. What is implied? For example, it was discovered intact and when it is hung up, it will break apart and fall into separate pieces.
When a lung was discovered to be perforated in the place where it was handled by the butcher's hand, the animal is permitted. We assume that [it was blemished by his] hand and say: "It was perforated by the butcher's hand after slaughter."35
If the perforation was discovered in another place and it is not known whether it took place before ritual slaughter or afterwards, we make another perforation and compare the two as is done with regard to the digestive organs.36
Halacha 13
We do not compare the lung of a small domesticated animal to the lung of a large domesticated animal. Instead, [the lung of] a small animal [must be compared to that] of a small animal and that of a large animal to that of a large animal.37
If a perforation is found in one of the boils of a lung, [the animal] is trefe. We do not say: "Perforate another boil and compare them,"38 because the matter is not clearly apparent.39
Halacha 14
When a needle is found in the lung, we blow up the lung. If no air is released from it, it is apparent that this needle entered via the bronchioles and did not perforate [them].40 If the lung was cut open before it was blown up and a needle was found in it,41 [the animal] is forbidden. For there is a high probability that it perforated [the lung] when it entered.
Halacha 15
When there is a worm in the lung and it perforated the lung and emerged and we see the lung perforated by the worm, [the animal] is permitted. We rely on the prevailing assumption that it perforated [the lung] after ritual slaughter42 and emerged [then].
There are ways that certain organs appear [that can disqualify the organ].43For if the appearance of the organ is changed to that undesirable appearance, it is considered as if it was perforated.44 For since the appearance of this flesh changed to the [undesirable] appearance, it is considered as if it was dead. It is as if the flesh whose appearance changed does not exist. Similarly, [Leviticus 13:10] states: "And there is a spot of living45 flesh in the blemish...," and [ibid. 13:10] states: "On the day when he will present living flesh...." Implied is that flesh whose appearance has changed is not "alive."
Halacha 16
[The following principles apply if] the color46 of a lung changes, whether part of its color changes or its entire color changes. If it changes to a permitted color, even if its entire color changes, it is permitted. If, however, even the slightest portion of it changes to a forbidden color, [the animal] is trefe. [The rationale is that] the forbidden color is considered equivalent to a perforation as explained [above].47
Halacha 17
There are five forbidden hues for the lung: black like ink, greenish-yellow48like hops, [yellow] like the yolk of an egg, or like safflower,49 or like the color of meat.50
Safflower is a color which clothes are dyed. It is comparable to hairs that are slightly red, leaning towards gold.
Halacha 18
If the lung is discovered to be the color of the branches of a date palm, we forbid it because of the doubt involved, because this is very close to a forbidden color. We do not forbid any of these colors until the lung is inflated and massaged by hand. If it changes to a permitted color, [the animal] is permitted.51 If it retains the [forbidden] color, it is forbidden.
Halacha 19
There are four permitted hues [for the lung]. They are: blackish blue, green like a leek, red, or the color of the liver. Even if the lung was entirely colored in these four hues patch by patch, spot by spot, [the animal] is permitted.
Halacha 20
When a fowl52 fell into a fire and its heart, its liver,53 or its craw turned green or its digestive organs turned red, [the fowl] is trefe.54 [This applies if] even the slightest portion of the organs [changed color]. For whenever a fire causes organs that were green to turn red or those which were red to turn green, it is considered as if the organ was removed and [the animal] is trefe. [This applies] provided they retain this color after they were cooked slightly and massaged.55
Halacha 21
Whenever the liver of a fowl appears like the digestive organs or [the appearance of] the other digestive organs change and the change remains after they were cooked slightly and massaged as explained [above], we can assume that the fowl fell into a fire,56 its digestive organs were burnt, and it is trefe.
Moreover, when there was no change detected in the digestive organs of a fowl, but when they were cooked slightly they changed color, those that were green turned -red or those that were red turned green, we can assume that the fowl fell into a fire, its digestive organs were burnt, and it is trefe.57
Similarly, if [the color of] the gullet [has changed] - the outer skin appears white and the inner red - it is considered as if the organ is not present, and it - either an animal or a fowl - is trefe.
FOOTNOTES
1.For the other will protect the lung (Chullin 46a).
2.If both membranes are perforated, but the perforations do not correspond, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 36:1) rules that the animal is kosher, but the Rama considers it trefe.
3.The Radbaz states that if, by contrast, the lower membrane alone is peeled off, the animal is trefe, for certainly, part of the lung will be lacking.
4.I.e., from the beginning of the ribcage.
5.Chapter 1, Halachah 7 defines the portion of the windpipe acceptable for ritual slaughter. If, however, the windpipe is perforated in a such a place, the animal is kosher.
6.Although the functioning of the lung is dependent on the windpipe, since a perforation in the lung causes an animal to be considered trefe, it is given that status (Chullin 32b).
7.The small extensions of the windpipe that convey air within the lungs itself.
8.Because the walls of the bronchioles are firm and not pliant. Hence, they will not serve as effective seals (Rashi, Chullin 48b).
In his Kessef Mishneh and his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 36:6), Rav Yosef Caro rules that if a perforation in a bronchiole is sealed by flesh, the animal is acceptable. See also the comments of Siftei Cohen 36:20. As the Rama states (Yoreh De'ah 39:18), the custom in the Ashkenazic community is to rule that an animal is trefe if its lungs are perforated even if they are sealed closed by other inner organs.
9.For ultimately it will open (Rashi, Chullin 47b).
10.Since this portion of the lung is located below the ribs, the perforation will never be sealed thoroughly.
11.For the lobes lie on the ribs themselves and the seal will be maintained.
One of the issues related to the question of whether a lung is perforated or not is sirchaot, adhesions, where the lung becomes attached to the ribs and/or other portions of the body. For a discussion of that matter, see the latter half of Chapter 11.
12.It is not necessary to inspect the lung to see if air escapes (Tur, as quoted by Siftei Cohen 39:44).
13.For the bone is firm and will not move when the lung expands and contracts. Even if one inspects the lung and no air escapes, the animal is still considered trefe (ibid.).
14.Boils or carbuncles filled with pus. This heightens the probability that it could have been perforated.
15.And we postulate that the animal was bruised after its slaughter. Hence it is acceptable. The Maggid Mishneh emphasizes that we are talking about a situation where the perforation is opposite the bruise. If they do not correspond, the animal is trefe.
16.Here, also, even if one inspects the lung and no air escapes, the animal is still considered trefe [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 39:22)]. The Ra'avad states there is an apparent contradiction to the Rambam's ruling here and that in Chapter 11, Halachah 6. See the notes to that halachah for a discussion of this issue.
17.I.e., unless it is checked as the Rambam continues to explain.
18.According to the Rambam, the portion of the lung itself is cut off and we inspect it. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 36:9) offers a different interpretation. PAGE 239
19.I.e., the feather is placed on the portion of the lung that was cut off. One blows throw the brochia. If the air passes through the bronchioles, the feather should flutter.
20.The movement indicates that air flows through it.
21.Chullin 47b states that hot water will cause the lung to contract and cold water will cause it to become firmer. If it was put in either hot or cold water first, it may not be checked in lukewarm water afterwards [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 36:4)].
22.For obviously the lung has been perforated and the air is flowing out from it.
23.This principle is significant with regard to the discussion concerning sirchaot, adhesions, in Chapter 11. The Ra'avad (whose interpretation is paralleled by that of Rashi and other Rishonim) maintain that blowing the lung represents a stringency: If air escapes, an animal is considered trefe even though there is reason to permit it. The same principle cannot be applied as a leniency. The Rambam - and his approach is shared by Rabbenu Tam, Rashba, Rabbenu Nissim, and others - maintains that this principle was instituted as a leniency.
24.The Siftei Cohen 36:21 states that this leniency applies even if the entire lung has degenerated and can be poured out like water.
25.As stated in Halachah 3, if one of the bronchioles is perforated, the animal is trefe. Certainly, that ruling applies if it has degenerated.
26.Because it is glazed, one will be able to see the white strands clearly if they exist [Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 36)].
27.And the white strands are the remnants of the bronchioles.
28.When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 36:7) adds a concept stated in the following halachah: that the fluid poured out may not be putrid. (The commentaries to the Shulchan Aruch maintain that the Rambam would follow this stringency.) The Rama, however, rules leniently, maintaining that as long as the bronchioles are not visible, the animal is acceptable.
29.Based on Chullin 48a, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 37:1) states that even if boils are very large, the animal may still be kosher.
30.The Rambam's ruling is cited by the Shulchan Aruch. The Tur and the Rama follow the opinion of many other Rishonim who permit the animal even if the fluid in the boils is putrid.
31.The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam's ruling is based on his decision in the previous halachah. The Rambam maintains that the fluid indicates that there is a strong possibilility that a perforation exists. Other opinions maintain that the animal is permitted, for the fluid is not necessarily a sign that a perforation exists. According to those views (and they are accpeted by the Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.), there is no need for the inspection the Rambam requires.
32.The Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 37:3) state that even if the boils are filled with clear fluid, the animal is trefe. If, however, they are hard, it is acceptable.
33.Rashi (Chullin 47a) explains that most likely the membrane was perforated and therefore the boils developed. Rabbenu Nissim explains that since the two boils are next to each other, it is likely that one perforated the other.
34.The Maharil requires a further check: to see whether they share the same pocket (Turei Zahav 37:5; Siftei Cohen 37:7).
35.The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 36:5) suggests that the shape of the perforations must indicate that they were made by the butcher.
36.See Chapter 6, Halachah 14.
37.This represents the Rambam's understanding of Chullin 50a. Rashi interprets the passage slightly differently. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 36:5) follows Rashi's understanding and states that we do not compare a lung from one animal to that of another one at all. And even within one animal, we do not compare a perforation in a large lobe to one in a small lobe.
38.With the intent of seeing whether the perforation was made before or after the slaughter.
39.I.e., in this instance, it is not easy to differentiate based on the comparison.
40.In contrast to the liver where some authorities make a distinction in the ruling depending on the direction it is facing (see Chapter 6, Halachah 8), no such contrast is made with regard to a needle found in the lung. See also Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 36:16-17) which states that if a drop of blood is found on the exterior of the lung, the animal is considered trefe. the Rama rules that unles a significant los is involved, whenever a needle is found in the lungs, the animal is considered trefe.
41.And thus it is impossible to check it by blowing air into it, for the air will be released through the portion cut off.
42.For while the animal was alive, the lung was continually expanding and contracting and it would be very hard for the worm to perforate it (Turei Zahav 36:8).
43.The remaining halachot in this chapter are expressions of this principle. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 48:5) rules that we are not knowledgeable with regard to the correct appearance of the lung. Hence, if its appearance changes and one might think it became unacceptable, we rule stringently.
44.And as stated above, the perforation of a lung disqualifies it.
45.We have translated the verses literally to convey the meaning mentioned by the Rambam. In its ordinary context, the terms would be translated as "healthy flesh."
46.Our translation is dependent on the following halachah.
47.And even the slightest perforation of the lung disqualifies the animal.
48.This represents the translation the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 38:1) offers for the Talmudic term yerok quoted by the Rambam.
49.Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 3:2). Rashi (Chullin 47b) renders the term as saffron. There is little difference between the two colors.
50.Which is reddish [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.)].
51.For during the animal's lifetime, the lung is repeatedly inflated.
52.These laws do not apply with regard to an animal because its skin is tough and its ribs protect it [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 52:7]. The Rama, however, does not accept this leniency. The Ra'avad (Chapter 10, Halachah 11) also accepts the Rama's view.
53.In his Kessef Mishneh and in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 52:1), Rav Yosef Caro qualifies the ruling with regard to the liver, stating that to disqualify a fowl, it must change color at its thin end, the portion next to the gall-bladder, or it the place where it derives its nurture.
54.Significantly, if the lungs change color, the fowl is not disqualified, because its ribs protect it [Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.)].
55.For it is possible that the cooking and/or the massage will restore the organ's natural color.
56.I.e., even though we do not know that the fowl fell into a fire, the fact that these organs changed color serves as evidence of such [Kessef Mishneh; the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah 3:3)]. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 52:6) quotes this ruling, but the Rama rules leniently and states that we must see that the fowl actually fell into a fire.
57.The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 52:3) does not accept this stringency, following the opinion of the Rashba who maintains that we do not disqualify an animal unless we definitely know that it fell into a fire.
Shechitah - Chapter 8
Halacha 1
What is meant by the term chasairah?1 There are two organs that render [an animal] trefe if it is lacking the proper number. They are the lungs and the feet.2
The lungs have five lobes. When a person will drape them over his hand with the inner portion of the lung facing his face,3 there will be three [lobes] on the right and two on the left. In addition, at the right of [the lung], there is a small ear-like attachment. It is not in the row of the lobes. It has a pocket of its own and it is located in the pocket. This [attachment] is called a rose, because that is what it looks like.4 It is not counted as one of the number of lobes.
Accordingly, if [an animal] does not possess this "rose," it is permitted.5 For this is the pattern with regard to [this organ], there are some animals in which it is found and some in which it is not found. If it is perforated, [the animal] is trefe even though its pocket seals it.6
Halacha 2
If the number of lobes was lacking and one was discovered on the left side or two on the right side, [the animal] is trefe. If, however, there were two on the right side and this "rose," [the animal] is permitted.7
Halacha 3
If the position of the lobes was switched and three were found on the left and two on the right without a "rose" or the "rose" was found together with three on the left side, it is trefe, for it is lacking on the right side.8
Halacha 4
[The following rules apply if] the number of lobes was increased. If the extra lobe was on the side of the [other] lobes9 or in front of the lungs10on the side of the heart, [the animal] is permitted. If [the extra lobe] is on its back, near the ribs, [the animal] is trefe for an extra [organ] is considered equivalent to one that is lacking. [This applies] provided it is [at least] the size of a myrtle leaf.11 If it is smaller than this, it is not considered as a lobe and [the animal] is permitted.
Halacha 5
When one lobe is found clinging to the one next to it, [the animal] is permitted. If, however, [the lobes] became attached out of the ordinary order, e.g., the first lobe became attached to the third, [the animal] is trefe.12
Halacha 6
[The following laws apply if] there are two lobes [that appear] as one lobe and do not appear as two lobes joined together.13 If there was a space about the size of a myrtle leaf14 between them - whether at their root, in their center, or at their end - so that it is clear that they are two which are attached, [the animal] is permitted. If not, it is lacking [one of the lobes] and is trefe.
Halacha 7
If the entire lung appears like two rows and it is not divided into lobes, it is trefe. Similarly, if the body of the lung itself15 was lacking, even if it was not perforated, it is considered as if the required number of lobes were missing and [the animal] is trefe.16 Therefore if a dried portion that could be chipped away with one's nail of even the slightest size was discovered within it, it is considered as lacking17 and [the animal] is trefe.
Halacha 8
When a lung was discovered to be inflated like the leaves of a palm tree, we rule that it is forbidden because of the doubt involved. For this is an abnormal addition to its body and perhaps an addition to its body is considered as equivalent to a lack in its body, as stated with regard to the number of lobes.18
Halacha 9
[The following rules apply when] an animal became frightened and was terrified to the extent that her lung19 shriveled and came closer to becoming dried out: If it became frightened through the hand of heaven, e.g., it heard a thunderclap, saw lightening, or the like, it is permitted.20 If it became frightened through human activity, e.g., another animal was slaughtered in its presence or the like, it is considered as if it were lacking and it is trefe.
Halacha 10
How do we inspect it? We place the lung in water for an entire day. In the winter, we place it in lukewarm water, in a container which will not cause the water to condense on its back21 and flow so that they will not become cold rapidly. If the season was hot, we place it in cold water in a container on which the water will condense on its back so that the water will remain cold. If [the lung] returns to its natural state, [we assume that the animal was frightened] by the hand of heaven and it is permitted.22 If it does not return, we [we assume that] it happened due to mortal causes and [the animal] is trefe.
Halacha 11
An animal that was lacking a foot23 from the time it came into being is trefe. The same ruling applies if it possesses an extra foot, for an extra limb or organ is considered as if it was lacking. If, however, it has three forefeet or only one forefoot, [the animal] is permitted. Accordingly, if [an animal's] forefoot is cut off, [the animal] is permitted.24
If its leg is cut off from the joint and above,25 [the animal] is trefe. From the joint and below, it is permitted.26 Which joint are we speaking about? The joint that is at the end of the hip close to the body.
Halacha 12
When the bone27 is broken above the joint, if it emerges outward entirely or in its majority, it is considered as if it were cut and fell off,28 and [the animal] is trefe. If the flesh or the skin29 was covering both the majority of the thickness and the majority of the circumference of the broken bone, [the animal] is permitted.30 This applies even if part of the broken bone fell off and no longer is present. Soft sinews are not considered as flesh.
Halacha 13
The juncture of the sinews is a place in an animal and in a beast which is above the heel, at the place where the butchers hang the animal.31 There are three white sinews there, one thick and two thin. From the place where they begin and are firm and white until [the place] where the whiteness is removed from them and they begin to become red and soften is considered the juncture of the sinews. It is approximately sixteen fingerbreadths32 [long] in an ox.
Halacha 14
In a fowl, there are sixteen such sinews. They begin on the lowest bone, from the extra talon and [continue] until the conclusion of the foot which is [covered by a series of] crusted scales.33
Halacha 15
When an animal's feet are cut off at the juncture of the sinews, it is trefe. Do not be amazed and say: "How is it possible that [an animal] will be permitted if its [legs] are cut off above the juncture of the sinews - indeed, it is permitted unless its [legs] are cut off above the highest joint as we explained34- but forbidden if they are cut off at a lower point, at the juncture of the sinews?
[The resolution is as follows: With regard to the designation of an animal] as trefe, [there are times when] one will cut from this point and it will live, but if [one would cut] from this point, it would die. We have not forbidden this animal, because its feet were cut off at a particular point,35 but rather because its sinews were severed36 and this renders it trefe, as will be explained.37
Halacha 16
What is meant by the term Netulah?38 There are three limbs and organs which even though they do not [cause an animal to be deemed trefe] when they are perforated or if they are lacking [when the animal is born],39 cause the animal to be deemed trefe. They are: the juncture of the sinews,40 the liver, and the upper jaw-bone.
Halacha 17
We already explained41 that when an animal or a fowl has had its legs cut off at the place of the juncture of the sinews, it is deemed trefe only because the sinews were cut.42 Therefore if the sinews alone were severed even though the foot remains intact, the animal is trefe, because the juncture of the sinews has been removed.
Halacha 18
In an animal, if the thick sinew alone was severed, [the animal] is permitted, for the two [thin] ones remained. If both thin ones were severed, [the animal] is permitted, for the one thick one is larger than both of them. [In both cases,] the entire juncture was not removed, only its smaller portion.43 If the majority of each of them was severed, [the animal] is trefe. Needless to say, this applies if they were all severed or removed.
Halacha 19
With regard to a fowl, even if the majority of one of the sixteen were severed, [the animal] is trefe.44
Halacha 20
When a fowl's wings are broken, it is permitted like an animal whose forelegs have been cut off.45
Halacha 21
When the entire liver has been removed, [the animal] is trefe. If an olive-sized portion remains at the place from which it is suspended46 and there is an olive-sized portion at the place of the gall-bladder, it is permitted.47
If the liver slipped from its place and it is [in disarray,] connected with the diaphragm, [the animal] is permitted.48 If the place from which it is suspended and the portion at the place of the gall-bladder were removed, it is trefe49 even if the remainder is intact as it was previously.
Halacha 22
If there remained an olive-sized portion at the place of the gall-bladder and an olive-sized portion at the place from which it was suspended, [the animal] is kosher. If, however, the portions of the liver which remain intact were scattered, some here and some there, flattened, or elongated like a strap, there is a doubt concerning its status. It appears to me that it is forbidden.50
Halacha 23
When the upper jaw-bone is removed, [the animal] is trefe.51 If, however, the lower jaw-bone is removed,52 i.e., it was cut away until the place of the gullet and the windpipe, but they were not uprooted [from their connection to the throat, the animal] is permitted.
Halacha 24
Whenever it is said that an animal is trefe if a limb or organ is lacking,53 so, too, it is trefe if that organ is removed.54 If, however, it is said that an animal is trefe if an organ is removed, [the animal] is not forbidden unless that organ was cut off. If, however, the animal was created lacking that organ, it is permitted. For if not, the categories of chasairah and netulah would be identical.55 Whenever it is said that [an animal] is permitted if a limb is removed, it is certainly permitted56 if this organ was lacking from the beginning of the animal's existence and was never created.
Halacha 25
When the uterus of an animal, i.e., its womb, was removed or its kidneys were removed,57 it is permitted. There if it was created with only one kidney or with three kidneys58 it is permitted.59 Similarly, it is permitted if a kidney was perforated.
Halacha 26
Although [an animal] is permitted despite the fact that a kidney was removed or it was created without it, if its kidney is extremely undersized, it is trefe.60 For a small animal, this means the size of a bean, for a large one, the size of a grape.61 Similarly, if a kidney became afflicted, i.e., its flesh became like the flesh of a dead [animal] that decayed after several days. Thus if one would take hold of a portion of it, it will decompose and fall apart. If this condition reached the white portion62 in the kidney, the animal is trefe. Similarly, if moisture - even if it is not putrid - is found in the kidney or murky or putrid fluid is found there, it is trefe. If, however, clear water is found there,63 [the animal] is permitted.
FOOTNOTES
1.Chasairah means "lacking." This category disqualifies an animal if it lacks one of its fundamental organs.
2.It is true that there are more organs that render an animal trefe if they are lacking. Nevertheless, the lack of these organs is not placed in this category. Instead, the organ is considered as nekuvah, "perforated." As stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 20, if the perforation of these organs will disqualify an animal, surely, it will be disqualified when the organs are lacking entirely.
3.I.e., he will be holding the animal from behind. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 35:2).
4.I.e., it is small and red.
5.The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 35:2 states that it is customary within the Ashkenazic community to declare an animal trefe, if it lacks this "rose" or if there is an extra "rose."
6.For it does not seal it thoroughly.
7.For the "rose" functions in place of the missing lobe. If, however, the "rose" is found on the left and there is only one lobe, the animal is not acceptable. Since it is not in its proper place, it cannot replace a lobe (Kessef Mishneh). The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 35:7) quotes the Rambam's ruling, but the Rama differs.
8.In this instance, the "rose" does not compensate for the lack of the lobe, because it is not on the right side.
9."In the row of the lungs" to borrow the expression used by Chullin 47b. Generally, we follow the principle that every addition is considered as if it was lacking. In this instance, however, since the extra lobe is found in the row of the lobes, it will not disturb the lungs' ordinary functioning.
10.In this instance as well, the Rambam maintains that the position of the extra lobe prevents it from disturbing the lungs' ordinary functioning. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 35:3) accepts the Rambam's ruling.The Rama quotes more stringent views that state that any extra lobe that is not found in the row of the lungs is trefe. Nevertheless, the custom is to rule leniently.
11.I.e., even when inflated.
12.If the portions of the lungs that follow their natural pattern become attached to each other, all authorities agree that the animal is acceptable, for this attachment will not create any difficulties. And if the third lobe becomes attached to the first, all agree that it is unacceptable, because as the lungs inflate, the attached portions will separate, cause the attachment to tear, and in doing so, perforate the lobe.
The commentaries question - and the Maggid Mishneh actually maintains that the text of the Mishneh Torah reads in this manner - whether if the back of one lobe is attached to the back of the lobe next to it, the animal is also trefe. For in this instance as well, since the lobes are attached in an unnatural order, the attachment will tear and perforate the lungs. In his Kessef Mishneh maintains that the Rambam's wording implies that as long as the attached lobes are next to each other, the lung is acceptable, even if they are attached back to back. He does note, however, that there are authorities who rule stringently. He concludes in his Kessef Mishneh and also rules accordingly in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 39:4), that the attachments do not disqualify an animal only when the lobes are attached side to side - and not back to back - in the natural order. If they are attached in such an order, however, the lungs need not be checked. The Rama differs, requiring an examination. He also states that there are authorities who maintain that we are not knowledgable regarding how to make such an examination and therefore such an animal should be considered as trefe. Nevertheless, his ruling also leaves room for leniency if less than half of the body of the lobes are attached. See Siftei Cohen 39:11.
13.I.e., they appear as one flush mass, without differentiation. If they are distinct, but attached, they are governed by the laws stated in the previous halachah.
14.From Halachah 4, it appears that this is the size of a lobe that is significant. Hence, just as it is significant in disqualifying an animal, it is significant in causing it to be deemed kosher (Maggid Mishneh).
The Rambam's ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 35:8). The Rama cites authorities that maintain that even if a smaller portion is distinct, the lobes are considered as separate and the animal, kosher. The Rama states that we may rely on these opinions if there is a significant loss involved.
15.I.e., it is lacking part of its ordinary mass.
16.The Kessef Mishneh notes that in Chapter 7, Halachah 9, the Rambam rules that if a lung has decayed, it is kosher as long as its bronchioles and outer membrane are intact despite the fact that it has lost a large amount of its substance. He explains that this is not necessarily a contradiction to the ruling here. In that instance, since the lung has decayed significantly and yet, the brochioles have not been perforated, we assume that they will not be perforated. In this instance, by contrast, we suspect that the lack within the lung will cause it to become perforated.
Many other Rishonim, however, do not make such a distinction and maintain that a lung is acceptable if it is lacking some of its inner substance. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 36:8) quotes both views. The Rama states that certain circumstances call for leniency and others, for stringency.
17.The Kessef Mishneh explains that others explain that it is considered as if the dried portion is perforated and therefore the animal is trefe.
18.As stated in law 4, an extra lobe is considered as a missing lobe and disqualifies a lung. Similarly, there is reason to think that an increase in the size of a lung is equivalent to a decrease in its size and disqualifies it in a similar fashion.
19.When quoting this law, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 36:14) speaks of an "entire lung" shriveling.
20.For in the near future, it will regain its natural size, as indicated by the following halachah.
21.Chullin 55b states that earthern-ware utensils made of white clay will have water condense upon them easily.
22.Chullin, loc. cit., also debates what the ruling would be if one animal is frightened by another animal. The Rambam does not discuss the issue for seemingly, it would be able to be resolved by the same test mentioned here. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 36:14 considers being frightened by other animals as equivalent to being frightened by the hand of heaven.
The Radbaz also states that if the lung returns to normal, it is acceptable even if the animal was frightened by human activity. Other authorities differ and maintain that if we know that the animal was frightened by human activity, this examination is not acceptable (Siftei Cohen 36:30).
See also Rama (Yoreh De'ah 36:15) who rules that in the present era, we are not knowledgeable with regard to the various inspections that our Sages spoke about and hence, should not employ them. If, however, it appears that an animal's lung shrunk due to the hand of heaven, it should not be permitted without undergoing this examination.
23.The category of chasairah involves two organs: the lungs and the feet. Having discussed the lungs, the Rambam proceeds to discuss the feet. As the Rambam continues to explain, here the intent is the hindlegs.
24.The severed foot itself, however, is forbidden.
25.There are three segments of an animal's leg between its trunk and its hoofs. We are speaking about the joint between the highest and middle portions of the leg.
26.Note, however, Halachah 15.
27.I.e., the highest of the three bones of the animal's legs.
28.For it will never heal.
29.Even the covering of the skin alone is sufficient. This represents a revision of the Rambam's thinking. The initial text of his Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 8:13) stated "there was flesh and skin covering it" and he altered it to read "flesh or skin covering it."
30.For the leg will heal. Not only is the animal permitted, the leg itself is permitted. We do not consider it as if it had been severed and removed during the animal's lifetime.
31.I.e., it is customary for the butchers to make a hole in the lowest bone of the leg and hang the animal head downwards so that they can skin it and cut off its meat. The definition of "the juncture of the sinews" is important, as reflected in Halachot 15-18.
32.A fingerbreadth is approximately 2 cm according to Shiurei Torah and 2.4 cm according to Chazon Ish.
Together with the Rambam's view, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 56:5) also quotes Rashi's view that the juncture of the sinews is four fingerbreadths long.
33.The Ra'avad takes issue with the Rambam's statements, admitting that the sinews of a fowl - as do those of an animal - begin in its actual feet. Nevertheless, he states, it is only from the joint between the second and third bone of the leg that they are considered halachically significant. For the laws of trefot that govern a fowl parallel those which govern an animal.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro cites authorities that maintain that the text of the Mishneh Torah is in error and it should be amended to parallel the Ra'avad's comments. He cites a responsum attributed to the Rambam sent to the Sages of Provence which also follows this understanding. And in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 56:8), he rules in this manner.
34.Halachah 11.
35.Thus according to the Rambam - and his position is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 55:1) - if an animal's leg is severed in the top bone, it is trefe. If it is severed in the bottom bone, it is kosher, and if it is severed in the middle bone, the ruling depends on whether it was severed above the juncture of the sinews or not.
The Shulchan Aruch also cites a more stringent view - and the Rama states that it should be followed - that if the middle bone was severed, even above the juncture of the sinews, the animal is trefe. Moreover, even if it is severed at the lower joint, above the cartiledge called the irkum, the animal is trefe.
36.The Kessef Mishneh states that the Rambam is explaining that a severed leg causes an animal to be considered trefe, because it is in the category of chasairah. When the juncture of its sinews is lacking, it is considered trefe, because it is in the category of netulah, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.
37.See Halachot 16-17.
38.Netulah is one of the eight types of trefot mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachah 2. The term literally means "removed."
39.I.e., there are many organs besides these three that cause an animal to be deemed lacking if they are removed. The disqualification of these other organs, however, is not included in the category of netulah, rather that of nekuvah, perforated, or chasairah, lacking, i.e., the organ's removal is the greatest perforation or lack that could be. See Chapter 6, Halachah 20.
40.The Ra'avad notes that seemingly, the disqualification of an animal because the junction of its sinews was severed would cause it to be placed in the following category, pesukah (Chapter 9, Halachah 1). He and the Kessef Mishneh explan that since our Sages (Chullin 57a, 76a) uses the expression: "If the juncture of the sinews was removed," it should be placed in this category and not in the other. Note the Siftei Cohen 56:1 who interprets the Ra'avad slightly differently.
41.Halachah 15.
42.I.e., the fact that this portion of the leg is missing is not significant.
43.As long as a majority - either a majority in number or the larger portion - remains intact, the animal is permitted (Chullin 76b).
44.The Kessef Mishneh explains this ruling as follows. Since we are stringent with regard to a fowl and require that all sixteen be intact, we extend that stringency and disqualify it if the majority of one is impaired. For when the majority of a sinew is impaired, it is as if the entire sinew is impaired.
45.As stated in Halachah 11. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 53:2-3) which explains details about this situation.
46.I.e., near the kidneys. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin3:1) refers to it as the place attached to the blood vessels from which blood from the liver is dispersed throughout the body. Chullin 46a refers to this as "the place from which it derives its nurture." See the Siftei Cohen 41:1 and the Turei Zahav 41:1 which quote authorities that interpret this as meaning the place to which it is attached on the diaphragm.
47.For these are fundamentally necessary for its functioning.
48.Because it - and its two fundamentally necessary portions - are still intact.
49.For these two portions are of primary necessity.
50.Chullin 46a raises questions regarding these situations and does not resolve them. The commentaries question why the Rambam rules definitively that the animal is unacceptable. The Kessef Mishneh explains that this applies even if there is one olive-sized portion that is entirely intact.
51.The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 33) objects to the Rambam's ruling, stating: "I am amazed at his prohibition [of the animal] when the upper jaw is removed since this is not explicitly stated. Are we to add to the trefot?"
To explain: Chullin 54a states that if the lower jaw is removed, the animal is permitted. The Rambam deduces that the implication is that if the upper jaw is removed, the animal is trefe. The Tur claims that this deduction is not explicitly stated and hence, we have no right to make this deduction on our own. The sages of Provence wrote to the Rambam, voicing similar objections and he replied to them, explaining that the upper jaw is necessary for an animal's breathing. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 33:2) states that it is proper to show respect for the Rambam's ruling.
Based on the gloss of the Rogatchover Gaon, it is possible to explain why this defect is not mentioned by the Sages of the Talmud. This defect is not in and of itself a direct cause for an animal's death, it is only a side factor that will lead to its death. Hence our Sages did not mention it, for they mentioned only those factors whice are direct causes (Yayin Malchut).
52.When quoting this ruling, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 33:1) adds that the animal must be able to continue to survive by being force-fed.
53.I.e., the lungs and the hindlegs as stated in Halachah 1.
54.As mentioned above (Chapter 6, Halachah 20), all the organs which render an animal trefe if they are perforated, also render it trefe when they are lacking or removed. Nevertheless, the Rambam places them in the category of nekuvah for that is the most inclusive classification.
55.And our Sages listed them as separate categories, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 2.
The Rashba (as quoted by the Kessef Mishneh, Chapter 6, Halachah 20) differs and maintains that an animal is also trefe if it is lacking a liver from the beginning of its existence. Why then did our Sages mention chasairah and netulah as two separate categories? Because if they were not listed so, one might argue that an animal is trefe only when an organ is removed and not when it was lacking from the beginning of the animal's existence or vice versa. The Tur follows the Rashba's view. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 50:72 quotes both opinions, but appears to favor the Rashba's view. The Rama states that we may rely on the Rambam when a significant loss is involved.
56.For the ruling is more lenient if at the outset, it was not created with this organ, as above.
57.I.e., even if both kidneys were removed. Even though according to medical knowledge, there is no way such an animal can live, our Sages did not deem this condition trefe. See Chapter 10, Halachah 12.
58.For we follow the principle that any extra organ is considered as if it was removed.
59.It is, however, considered a blemish and the animal may not be offered as a sacrifice (Hilchot Issurei HaMizbe'ach 2:11).
60.In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro states that many Rishonim disqualify an animal only when its kidneys shrank because of illness. If, however, it was born with an undersized kidney, it is acceptable. And in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 44:5), he accepts this ruling as law.
61.The Turei Zahav 44:12 and the Siftei Cohen 44:13 quote authorities who explain that the grapes of Eretz Yisrael were very large during the Talmudic period. At that time, a grape was significantly larger than a bean.
62.The white fat from the loins enters the kidneys, because the different sinews are all interwoven there, causing a split to appear within the kidney. This is located in the midst of the kidney (Rashi, Rabenu Nissim, Chullin 55b).
63.Even if it reached the white portion [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 44:2)].
-------
Hayom Yom:
• MONDAY, NISSAN 21, 5774 • APRIL 21, 2014
Monday, Nissan 21, Shvi'i Shel Pesach, 6th day of the omer, 5703
One should stand during the Torah reading of the shira (the Song of the Red Sea).
Torah lessons: Chumash: Acharei Mot, Sheini with Rashi.
Tehillim: 104-105.
Tanya: Next is the exertion (p. 219)...and the Ear hears..." (p.221).
It was the custom in Lubavitch to stay awake on the night of the Seventh of Pesach as well as on Shavuot and on Hosha'ana Raba. By the age of nine I did not go to sleep on the Seventh of Pesach. One should study Torah the whole night.
Compiled and arranged by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, of righteous memory, in 5703 (1943) from the talks and letters of the sixth Chabad Rebbe, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, of righteous memory.
-------
Daily Thought:
The Inside Story on Passover In each one of us there is an Egypt and a Pharaoh and a Moses and Freedom in a Promised Land. And every point in time is an opportunity for another Exodus. Egypt is a place that chains you to who you are, constraining you from growth and change. And Pharaoh is that voice inside that mocks your gambit to escape, saying, “How could you attempt being today something you were not yesterday? Aren’t you good enough just as you are? Don’t you know who you are?” Moses is the liberator, the infinite force deep within, an impetuous and all-powerful drive to break out from any bondage, to always transcend, to connect with that which has no bounds. But Freedom and the Promised Land are not static elements that lie in wait. They are your own achievements which you may create at any moment, in any thing that you do, simply by breaking free from whoever you were the day before. Last Passover you may not have yet begun to light a candle. Or some other mitzvah still waits for you to fulfill its full potential. This year, defy Pharaoh and light up your world. With unbounded light.
-------