Monday, January 30, 2017

CHABAD - TODAY IN JUDAISM: Tuesday, 31 January 2017 - Today is: Tuesday, 4 Shevat, 5777 · 31 January 2017.

CHABAD - TODAY IN JUDAISM: Tuesday, 31 January 2017 - Today is: Tuesday, 4 Shevat, 5777 · 31 January 2017.
Today in Jewish History:
• Passing of R. Abraham Kalisker (1810)
Rabbi Abraham of Kalisk (1741-1810) was a controversial figure in the 3rd generation of Chassidic leaders. In his youth, he was a study partner of Rabbi Elijah "the Gaon of Vilna", who led the initial opposition against Chassidism; but later Rabbi Abraham himself joined the the forbidden kat ("sect", as the Chassidic movement was derisively called by its opponents) and became a disciple of Rabbi DovBer, the Maggid of Mezeritch, the successor to Chassidism's founder, Rabbi Israel Baal Shem Tov. After Rabbi DovBer's passing in 1772, much of the opposition to Chassidism was directed against Rabbi Abraham's disciples, who, more than any other group within the movement, mocked the intellectual elitism of the establishment's scholars and communal leaders; even Rabbi Abraham's own colleagues were dismayed by the "antics" of some of his disciples. In 1777, Rabbi Abraham joined the first Chassidic "aliyah", in which a group of more than 300 Chassidim led by Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk emigrated to the Holy Land. Rabbi Abraham passed away in Tiberias on the 4th of Shevat of the year 5570 from creation (1810 CE).
• R. Israel Abuchatzera (1984) Rabbi Israel Abuchatzera (1890-1984), known as "Baba Sali," was born in Tafillalt, Morocco to the llustrious Abuchatzera family. From a young age he was renowned as a sage, miracle maker and master kabbalist. In 1964 he moved to the Holy Land, eventually settling in the southern development town he made famous, Netivot. He passed away in 1984 on the 4th of Shevat. His graveside in Netivot has become a holy site visited by thousands annually.
Daily Quote:
The First Tablets, which were given in great fanfare and noise, were destroyed, while the Second Tablets, given in private, endured. For there is nothing better than tzniut (modesty)[Rashi (on Exodus 34:3)]
Today's Study:
Chitas and Rambam for today:
Chumash: Bo, 3rd Portion Exodus 10:24-11:3 with Rashi

• Exodus Chapter 10
24Pharaoh summoned Moses and said, "Go! Worship the Lord, but your flocks and your cattle shall be left. Your young children may also go with you." כדוַיִּקְרָ֨א פַרְעֹ֜ה אֶל־משֶׁ֗ה וַיֹּ֨אמֶר֙ לְכוּ֙ עִבְד֣וּ אֶת־יְהֹוָ֔ה רַ֛ק צֹֽאנְכֶ֥ם וּבְקַרְכֶ֖ם יֻצָּ֑ג גַּם־טַפְּכֶ֖ם יֵלֵ֥ךְ עִמָּכֶֽם:
shall be left: Heb. יֻצָּג, lit., shall be placed. Shall be left in its place. יצג: יהא מוצג במקומו:
25But Moses said, "You too shall give sacrifices and burnt offerings into our hands, and we will make them for the Lord our God. כהוַיֹּ֣אמֶר משֶׁ֔ה גַּם־אַתָּ֛ה תִּתֵּ֥ן בְּיָדֵ֖נוּ זְבָחִ֣ים וְעֹלֹ֑ת וְעָשִׂ֖ינוּ לַֽיהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵֽינוּ:
You too shall give: Not only will our livestock go with us, but you too shall give [of your livestock or something else to sacrifice]. גם אתה תתן: לא דייך שמקננו ילך עמנו, אלא גם משלך תתן:
26And also our cattle will go with us; not a [single] hoof will remain, for we will take from it to worship the Lord our God, and we do not know how [much] we will worship the Lord until we arrive there." כווְגַם־מִקְנֵ֜נוּ יֵלֵ֣ךְ עִמָּ֗נוּ לֹ֤א תִשָּׁאֵר֙ פַּרְסָ֔ה כִּ֚י מִמֶּ֣נּוּ נִקַּ֔ח לַֽעֲבֹ֖ד אֶת־יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֵ֑ינוּ וַֽאֲנַ֣חְנוּ לֹֽא־נֵדַ֗ע מַה־נַּֽעֲבֹד֙ אֶת־יְהֹוָ֔ה עַד־בֹּאֵ֖נוּ שָֽׁמָּה:
hoof: Heb. פַּרְסָה, the sole of a foot, plante in French. — [from Targum Yerushalmi, Rome ms. cited by The Pentateuch with Rashi Hashalem] פרסה: פרסת רגל פלנט"א בלעז [כף רגל]:
do not know how [much] we will worship-: How intense the worship will be. Perhaps He will ask for more than we have in our possession. — [from Exod. Rabbah 18:1] לא נדע מה נעבד: כמה תכבד העבודה שמא ישאל ממנו יותר ממה שיש בידינו:
27The Lord strengthened Pharaoh's heart, and he was unwilling to let them out. כזוַיְחַזֵּ֥ק יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶת־לֵ֣ב פַּרְעֹ֑ה וְלֹ֥א אָבָ֖ה לְשַׁלְּחָֽם:
28Pharaoh said to him, "Go away from me! Beware! You shall no longer see my face, for on the day that you see my face, you shall die!" כחוַיֹּֽאמֶר־ל֥וֹ פַרְעֹ֖ה לֵ֣ךְ מֵֽעָלָ֑י הִשָּׁ֣מֶר לְךָ֗ אַל־תֹּ֨סֶף֙ רְא֣וֹת פָּנַ֔י כִּ֗י בְּי֛וֹם רְאֹֽתְךָ֥ פָנַ֖י תָּמֽוּת:
29[Thereupon,] Moses said, "You have spoken correctly; I shall no longer see your face." כטוַיֹּ֥אמֶר משֶׁ֖ה כֵּ֣ן דִּבַּ֑רְתָּ לֹֽא־אֹסִ֥ף ע֖וֹד רְא֥וֹת פָּנֶֽיךָ:
You have spoken correctly: You have spoken appropriately, and you have spoken at the right time. It is true that I shall no longer see your face. — [from Mechilta on Exod. 12:31] כן דברת: יפה דברת ובזמנו דברת, אמת שלא אוסיף עוד ראות פניך:
Exodus Chapter 111The Lord said to Moses, "I will bring one more plague upon Pharaoh and upon Egypt; afterwards he will let you go from here. When he lets you out, he will completely drive you out of here. אוַיֹּ֨אמֶר יְהֹוָ֜ה אֶל־משֶׁ֗ה ע֣וֹד נֶ֤גַע אֶחָד֙ אָבִ֤יא עַל־פַּרְעֹה֙ וְעַל־מִצְרַ֔יִם אַֽחֲרֵי־כֵ֕ן יְשַׁלַּ֥ח אֶתְכֶ֖ם מִזֶּ֑ה כְּשַׁ֨לְּח֔וֹ כָּלָ֕ה גָּרֵ֛שׁ יְגָרֵ֥שׁ אֶתְכֶ֖ם מִזֶּֽה:
completely: Heb. כָּלָה [Onkelos renders: גְמִירָא. כָּלָה is therefore the equivalent of] כָּלִיל, complete. [I.e.,] He will let all of you out. כלה: גמירא, (כלה) כליל, כולכם ישלח:
2Please, speak into the ears of the people, and let them borrow, each man from his friend and each woman from her friend, silver vessels and golden vessels." בדַּבֶּר־נָ֖א בְּאָזְנֵ֣י הָעָ֑ם וְיִשְׁאֲל֞וּ אִ֣ישׁ | מֵאֵ֣ת רֵעֵ֗הוּ וְאִשָּׁה֙ מֵאֵ֣ת רְעוּתָ֔הּ כְּלֵי־כֶ֖סֶף וּכְלֵ֥י זָהָֽב:
Please, speak-: Heb. דַבֶּר-נָא is only an expression of request. [The verse is saying] I ask you to warn them about this, [i.e., to ask their neighbors for vessels] so that the righteous man, Abraham, will not say He fulfilled with them [His promise] “and they will enslave them and oppress them” (Gen. 15:13), but He did not fulfill with them “afterwards they will go forth with great possessions” (Gen. 15:14). — [from Ber. 9a] I דבר נא: אין נא אלא לשון בקשה, בבקשה ממך הזהירם על כך שלא יאמר אותו צדיק אברהם (בראשית טו יג) ועבדום וענו אותם קיים בהם, (שם יד) ואחרי כן יצאו ברכוש גדול לא קיים בהם:
3So the Lord gave the people favor in the Egyptians' eyes; also the man Moses was highly esteemed in the land of Egypt in the eyes of Pharaoh's servants and in the eyes of the people. גוַיִּתֵּ֧ן יְהֹוָ֛ה אֶת־חֵ֥ן הָעָ֖ם בְּעֵינֵ֣י מִצְרָ֑יִם גַּ֣ם | הָאִ֣ישׁ משֶׁ֗ה גָּד֤וֹל מְאֹד֙ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם בְּעֵינֵ֥י עַבְדֵֽי־פַרְעֹ֖ה וּבְעֵינֵ֥י הָעָֽם:
• Daily Tehillim: Psalms Chapters 23 - 28
• 
Chapter 23
When King David was in the forest of Cheret and nearly died of starvation, God provided nourishment for him with a taste of the World to Come. David then composed this psalm, describing the magnitude of his trust in God.
1. A psalm by David. The Lord is my shepherd, I shall lack nothing.
2. He lays me down in green pastures; He leads me beside still waters.
3. He revives my soul; He directs me in paths of righteousness for the sake of His Name.
4. Though I walk in the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for You are with me; Your rod and Your staff-they will comfort me.
5. You will prepare a table for me before my enemies; You have anointed my head with oil; my cup is full.
6. Only goodness and kindness shall follow me all the days of my life, and I shall dwell in the House of the Lord for many long years.
Chapter 24
If the fulfillment of one's prayer would result in the sanctification of God's Name, he should pray that God act for the sake of the holiness of His Name. One should also invoke the merit of his ancestors, for we know that "the righteous are greater in death than in life"
1. By David, a psalm. The earth and all therein is the Lord's; the world and its inhabitants.
2. For He has founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the rivers.
3. Who may ascend the mountain of the Lord, and who may stand in His holy place?
4. He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who has not used My Name in vain or sworn falsely.
5. He shall receive a blessing from the Lord, and kindness from God, his deliverer.
6. Such is the generation of those who search for Him, [the children of] Jacob who seek Your countenance forever.
7. Lift up your heads, O gates, and be lifted up, eternal doors, so the glorious King may enter.
8. Who is the glorious King? The Lord, strong and mighty; the Lord, mighty in battle.
9. Lift up your heads, O gates; lift them up, eternal doors, so the glorious King may enter.
10. Who is the glorious King? The Lord of Hosts, He is the glorious King for all eternity.
Chapter 25
The verses in this psalm are arranged according to the alphabet, excluding the letters Bet, Vav, and Kuf, which together equal the numerical value of Gehenom (purgatory). One who recites this psalm daily will not see the face of purgatory.
1. By David. To You, Lord, I lift my soul.
2. My God, I have put my trust in You. May I not be put to shame; may my enemies not gloat over me.
3. Indeed, may all who hope in You not be put to shame; let those who act treacherously without reason be shamed.
4. O Lord, make Your ways known to me; teach me Your paths.
5. Train me in Your truth and teach me, for You are the God of my salvation; I yearn for You all day.
6. O Lord, remember Your mercies and Your kindnesses, for they have existed for all time.
7. Do not recall the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions; remember me in accordance with Your kindness, because of Your goodness, O Lord.
8. Good and upright is the Lord, therefore He directs sinners along the way.
9. He guides the humble with justice, and teaches the humble His way.
10. All the paths of the Lord are kindness and truth for those who observe His covenant and testimonies.
11. For the sake of Your Name, O Lord, pardon my iniquity, for it is great.
12. Whoever is a God-fearing man, him will He teach the path that he should choose.
13. His soul will abide in well-being, and his descendants will inherit the earth.
14. The secret of the Lord is to those who fear Him; He makes His covenant known to them.
15. My eyes are always turned to the Lord, for He releases my feet from the snare.
16. Turn to me and be compassionate to me, for I am alone and afflicted.
17. The sufferings of my heart have increased; deliver me from my hardships.
18. Behold my affliction and suffering, and forgive all my sins.
19. See how numerous my enemies have become; they hate me with a violent hatred.
20. Guard my soul and deliver me; may I not be put to shame, for I place my trust in You.
21. Let integrity and uprightness guard me, for my hope is in You.
22. Redeem Israel, O God, from all its afflictions.
Chapter 26
In this psalm King David inundates God with prayers and acts of piety, because he envies those who are his spiritual superiors, saying, "If only I were on their level of piety and virtue!"
1. By David. Judge me, O Lord, for in my innocence I have walked, and in the Lord I have trusted-I shall not falter.
2. Try me, O Lord, and test me; refine my mind and heart.
3. For Your kindness is before my eyes, and I have walked constantly in Your truth.
4. I did not sit with men of falsehood, and with hypocrites I will not mingle.
5. I detested the company of evildoers, and with the wicked I will not sit.
6. I wash my hands in purity, and circle Your altar, O Lord,
7. to give voice to thanks, and to recount all Your wonders.
8. I love the shelter of Your House, O Lord, and the place where Your glory resides.
9. Gather not in my soul with sinners, nor my life with men of bloodshed,
10. In whose hands are schemes, and whose right hand is filled with bribes.
11. But I walk in my innocence; redeem me and show me favor.
12. My foot stands on level ground; in assemblies I will bless the Lord.
Chapter 27
King David acknowledges and praises God, placing his trust in Him because of his victories in war. "Nevertheless, it is not wars that I desire, for I cannot gain perfection with them. Only one thing do I ask: to abide day and night in the study hall studying Torah, to gain perfection so that my soul may merit the life of the World to Come."
1. By David. The Lord is my light and my salvation-whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life-whom shall I dread?
2. When evildoers approached me to devour my flesh, my oppressors and my foes, they stumbled and fell.
3. If an army were to beleaguer me, my heart would not fear; if war were to arise against me, in this I trust1
4. One thing I have asked of the Lord, this I seek: that I may dwell in the House of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the pleasantness of the Lord, and to visit His Sanctuary.
5. For He will hide me in His tabernacle on a day of adversity; He will conceal me in the hidden places of His tent; He will lift me upon a rock.
6. And then my head will be raised above my enemies around me, and I will offer in His tabernacle sacrifices of jubilation; I will sing and chant to the Lord.
7. Lord, hear my voice as I call; be gracious to me and answer me.
8. In Your behalf my heart says, "Seek My countenance"; Your countenance, Lord, I seek.
9. Do not conceal Your countenance from me; do not cast aside Your servant in wrath. You have been my help; do not abandon me nor forsake me, God of my deliverance.
10. Though my father and mother have forsaken me, the Lord has taken me in.
11. Lord, teach me Your way and lead me in the path of righteousness, because of my watchful enemies.
12. Do not give me over to the will of my oppressors, for there have risen against me false witnesses, and they speak evil.
13. [They would have crushed me] had I not believed that I would see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living.
14. Hope in the Lord, be strong and let your heart be valiant, and hope in the Lord.
FOOTNOTES
1.I trust that “the lord is my light and salvation” etc. (Rashi)
Chapter 28
A prayer for every individual, entreating God to assist him in walking the good path, to prevent him from walking with the wicked doers of evil, and that He repay the wicked for their wickedness and the righteous for their righteousness.
1. By David. I call to You, O Lord; my Strength, do not be deaf to me; for should You be silent to me, I will be like those who descend to the pit.
2. Hear the sound of my pleas when I cry out to You, when I raise my hands toward Your holy Sanctuary.
3. Do not draw me along with the wicked, with evildoers who speak of peace with their companions, though evil is in their heart.
4. Give them according to their deeds, and the evil of their endeavors; give them according to their handiwork, render to them their just desserts.
5. For they pay no heed to the acts of the Lord, nor to the work of His hands; may He destroy them and not rebuild them.
6. Blessed is the Lord, for He has heard the voice of my pleas.
7. The Lord is my strength and my shield; in Him my heart trusted and I was helped; my heart exulted, and with my song I praised Him.
8. The Lord is a strength to them; He is a stronghold of deliverance to His anointed.
9. Grant salvation to Your people and bless Your heritage; tend them and exalt them forever.
Tanya: Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 19
• Lessons in Tanya

• Today's Tanya Lesson
• Tuesday, 4 Shevat, 5777 · 31 January 2017
• Likutei Amarim, end of Chapter 19
• 
אלא שגלות הזה לבחינת חכמה אינו אלא לבחינה המתפשטת ממנה בנפש כולה להחיותה
But this exile of the faculty of Chochmah affects only that aspect of it which is diffused throughout the Nefesh and animates it [with Divine vitality].
Being in exile, it is unable to pervade the entire soul, and through it the entire body, with the feeling of self-nullification before G‑d characteristic of Chochmah; thus, in this state of exile, it is unable to prevent one from sinning.
אבל שרש ועיקר של בחינת חכמה שבנפש האלקית הוא במוחין, ואינה מתלבשת בלבוש שק דקליפה שבלב בחלל השמאלי בבחינת גלות ממש
Yet, the root and core of the Chochmah in the divine soul is in the brain, and does not clothe itself in the sackcloth of the kelipah in the left part of the heart, in a true state of exile, i.e., so that it be powerless to prevent one from sinning.
רק שהיא בבחינת שינה ברשעים ואינה פועלת פעולתה בהם, כל זמן שעסוקים בדעתם ובינתם בתאות העולם
It is merely dormant in the case of the wicked, not exercising its influence within them (i.e., not creating within the Jew the spirit of self-nullification before G‑d that it ought to create), as long as their knowledge and understanding are preoccupied with mundane pleasures.
The soul-faculties of “knowledge” (Daat) and “understanding” (Binah) are lower than Chochmah; yet the level of Chochmah is prevented from acting upon them (and upon the other, still lower, faculties) as long as they are immersed in mundane pleasures. Thus, the Chochmah of their divine soul is dormant, not dead. It has lost none of its potency, only its ability to exercise it; just as when one sleeps he retains full possession of his faculties though he cannot use them.
אך כשבאים לידי נסיון בדבר אמונה, שהיא למעלה מהדעת ונגעה עד הנפש לבחינת חכמה שבה
However, when they (the wicked) are confronted with a test of faith, which transcends knowledge, touching the very soul and the faculty of Chochmah within it — the source of faith,
אזי היא ניעורה משנתה ופועלת פעולתה בכח ה׳ המלובש בה
then it “arises from its sleep” (i.e., Chochmah reveals itself) and it exerts its influence with the Divine force that is clothed in it (its influence being to create a spirit of self-sacrifice for G‑d, as the Alter Rebbe states further).
וכמו שכתוב: ויקץ כישן ה׳
As it is written:1 “Then the L‑rd awakened as one out of sleep.”
This verse refers also to the level of Chochmah and the light of the Ein Sof clothed therein, which was previously in a state of “sleep” — inactive — but “arises” and exerts its influence when faced with a test of faith.
לעמוד בנסיון באמונת ה׳ בלי שום טעם ודעת ושכל מושג לו
The revelation of Chochmah leads even the sinner to withstand the test of faith in G‑d, without any reasoning or knowledge that he can comprehend which would motivate him to sacrifice his life,
להתגבר על הקליפות ותאוות עולם הזה בהיתר ובאיסור שהורגל בהם, ולמאוס בהם
and to prevail over the kelipot and over his desires toward worldly matters, both permitted and forbidden, which he was accustomed to indulge, and even to despise them,
I.e., in this state of readiness for martyrdom, the sinner not only overcomes his desires for worldly pleasures, but loses them entirely, and the objects of his past desires are now detestable to him,
ולבחור לו ה׳ לחלקו ולגורלו
and to choose G‑d as his portion and his lot,
I.e., he dedicates to G‑d both his internal faculties of intellect and emotion, referred to as one’s “portion”, and his higher transcendent faculties — his will and pleasure, which are called one’s “lot”,
למסור לו נפשו על קדושת שמו
so that he is prepared to offer his soul to G‑d in martyrdom for the sanctification of His Name.
ואף כי הקליפות גברו עליו כל ימיו ולא יכול להם, כמאמר רז״ל: שהרשעים הם ברשות לבם
Although the kelipot prevailed over him (over this sinner who is now prepared to accept martyrdom) all his life, and he was impotent against them, as the Rabbis have said that2 “The wicked are under the control of their heart,” i.e., the animal soul of the kelipah, situated in the left part of the heart,
מכל מקום כשבא לידי נסיון בדבר אמונה בה׳ אחד, שיסודתה בהררי קודש היא בחינת חכמה שבנפש האלקית, שבה מלובש אור אין סוף ברוך הוא
nevertheless, when he faces a test challenging his faith in the one G‑d, [a faith] whose foundation is in [that level of the divine soul called] “the heights of holiness,” namely, the faculty of Chochmah which is called קודש— the source of holiness — as previously explained, in which is clothed the light of Ein Sof, blessed be He,
הרי כל הקליפות בטלים ומבוטלים, והיו כלא היו ממש לפני ה׳
then all the kelipot become nullified, and they vanish as though they had never been, in the presence of the L‑rd.
כדכתיב: כל הגוים כאין נגדו וגו׳, וכתיב: כי הנה אויביך ה׳ כי הנה אויביך יאבדו יתפרדו וגו׳, וכתיב: כהמס דונג מפני אש יאבדו וגו׳, וכתיב: הרים כדונג נמסו
So it is written:3 “All the nations including also the kelipot are as nothing before Him”; and4 “For all Your enemies, O L‑rd, referring also to thekelipot, which are the ”enemies of G‑d,“ all Your enemies will perish, they will be scattered…”; and again,5 “As wax melts before fire, so shall the wicked perish”; and6 “The hills referring to the kelipot which are compared to hills by reason of their hauteur melted like wax.”
All these verses illustrate how the kelipot vanish when the light of G‑d found in the Chochmah of the divine soul reveals itself. Therefore, despite the fact that kelipot always had the upper hand over a sinner, he is able to overcome them when his faith is challenged. We thus see that every Jew has an inherent ability to overcome temptation by virtue of his soul’s “hidden love” of G‑d originating in its faculty of Chochmah. He need merely arouse it.
The Alter Rebbe now goes on to explain how this “hidden love” also comprises the fear of G‑d necessary in observing the prohibitive commandments.
והנה אור ה׳ אין סוף ברוך הוא המלובש בחכמה שבנפש, גדול ועצום כחו כל כך
The force of the Divine light of the Ein Sof that is clothed in the soul’s faculty of Chochmah is so intense
לגרש ולדחות הסטרא אחרא והקליפות שלא יוכלו יגעו אפילו בלבושיו, שהם מחשבה דבור ומעשה של אמונת ה׳ אחד
as to banish and repel the sitra achra and the kelipot so that they are unable to touch even its “garments”, namely the thought, speech, and action that express one’s faith in the unity of G‑d.
That is, not only can the kelipot not weaken one’s faith, but they cannot even prevent his faith from expressing itself in thought, speech and action.
דהיינו לעמוד בנסיון למסור נפשו אפילו שלא לעשות רק איזה מעשה לבד נגד אמונת ה׳ אחד, כגון להשתחוות לעבודה זרה אף שאינו מאמין בה כלל בלבו
This means that the Divine light vested in Chochmah enables him to withstand a test of self-sacrifice, to the extent of even refusing to do a mere (empty) act that is contrary to his belief in the one G‑d, e.g., to bow down before an idol, even without acknowledging it in his heart at all, in which case it is not his faith that is being challenged, but its expression in the act of prostrating oneself; and even for his expression of faith a Jew will give his life.
וכן שלא לדבר תועה חס ושלום על אחדות ה׳ אף שאין פיו ולבו שוין, רק לבו שלם באמונת ה׳
So too he will sacrifice his life so as not to speak falsely (G‑d forbid) concerning the unity of G‑d, even where his words do not reflect his true feelings, for his heart is perfect in its belief in G‑d.
This readiness for self-sacrifice is not an expression of one’s love of G‑d which reveals itself when confronted with a test of faith, for his love is not directly affected by such empty actions or words. Rather, it expresses the fear contained in the “hidden love,” the fear of being torn away from G‑d.
וזה נקרא דחילו הנכלל ברחימו, שהיא אהבה הטבעית שבנפש האלקית שבכללות ישראל, שחפצה ורצונה בטבעה לידבק בשרשה ומקורה אור אין סוף ברוך הוא
This is called “the fear contained in love,” meaning the natural love found in the divine soul of all Jews, whose intrinsic desire and will is to be attached to its origin and source — the light of the blessed Ein Sof.
שמפני אהבה זו ורצון זה היא יראה ומפחדת בטבעה מנגוע בקצה טומאת עבודה זרה חס ושלום, שהיא נגד אמונת ה׳ אחד
For by virtue of this love and this desire it instinctively recoils in fear and dread from touching (G‑d forbid) even the fringe of the impurity of idolatry, which denies the faith in G‑d’s unity,
אפילו בלבושיה החיצונים שהם דבור או מעשה, בלי אמונה בלב כלל
even where such contact involves only its outer garments, namely, (idolatrous) speech and action, without any faith whatever in the heart in the validity of the idol worship.
Even this the soul dreads; and this dread represents the fear contained in the “hidden love.”
When a Jew considers that he would willingly give up his life rather than be parted from G‑d, he will surely realize that: (a) he should certainly refrain from sin for the very same reason, since every sin tears one away from G‑d; and (b) he ought to fulfill all the commandments, for through them one achieves the objective of his “hidden love” — unity with G‑d. In this way one may utilize his “hidden love” and the fear of G‑d contained in it as a motivation for observing all the commandments, as will be explained at length in the coming chapters.
——— ● ———
FOOTNOTES
1.
Tehillim 78:65.
2.
Bereishit Rabbah 34:11.
3.
Yeshayahu 40:17.
4.
Tehillim 92:10.
5.
Ibid. 68:3.
6.
Ibid. 97:5.
• Rambam - Tuesday, 4 Shevat, 5777 · 31 January 2017
• Today's Mitzvah
A daily digest of Maimonides’ classic work "Sefer Hamitzvot"
• 
Negative Commandment 101 (Digest)
• Slaughtering an Animal and its Offspring on the Same Day
"You shall not slaughter it and its child on the same day"—Leviticus 22:28.
It is forbidden to slaughter an animal and its offspring on the same day—even if offered as a sacrifice to G‑d.
• Slaughtering an Animal and its Offspring on the Same Day
The 101st prohibition is that we are forbidden from slaughtering an animal and her child on the same day. This applies both to sanctified and non-sanctified animals.
The source of this prohibition is G‑d's statement,1 "Do not slaughter an animal and her child on the same day."
One who transgressed this prohibition and slaughtered them is punished by lashes.
The details of this mitzvah are fully explained in the fifth 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.Lev. 22:28.
• Rambam - 1 Chapter: Rotzeach uShmirat Nefesh Rotzeach uShmirat Nefesh - Chapter Six 
• Rotzeach uShmirat Nefesh - Chapter Six
1
There are three categories of unintentional killers.
א
שלשה הם ההורגים בלא כוונה:
2
There is a person who kills unintentionally, without at all knowing that this will be the consequence of his actions. Concerning such a person, Exodus 21:13 says: "Who did not lay in ambush." The law applying to such a person is that he should be exiled to a city of refuge, as we have explained in the previous chapter.
ב
יש הורג בשגגה והעלמה גמורה וזהו שנאמר בו ואשר לא צדה ודינו שיגלה לערי מקלט וינצל כמו שביארנו:
3
There is a person who kills unintentionally, whose acts resemble those caused by forces beyond his control - i.e., that the death will be caused by an extraordinary phenomenon that does not commonly occur. Such a person is not liable to be exiled, and if he is slain by the blood redeemer, the blood redeemer should be executed for killing him.
ג
ויש הורג ותהיה השגגה קרוב לאונס והוא שיארע במיתת זה מאורע פלא שאינו מצוי ברוב מאורעות בני אדם ודינו שהוא פטור מן הגלות ואם הרגו גואל הדם נהרג עליו:
4
There is a person who kills unintentionally, whose acts resemble those willfully perpetrated - e.g., they involve negligence or that care should have been taken with regard to a certain factor and it was not. Such a person is not sentenced to exile, because his sin is very severe and exile cannot bring him atonement, nor do the cities of refuge served as a haven for him. For they serve as a haven only for those obligated to be exiled. Therefore, if the blood redeemer finds this killer anywhere and slays him, he is not liable.
ד
ויש הורג בשגגה ותהיה השגגה קרובה לזדון והוא שיהיה בדבר כמו פשיעה. או שהיה לו להזהר ולא נזהר. ודינו שאינו גולה מפני שעוונו חמור אין גלות מכפרת לו ואין ערי מקלט קולטות אותו שאינן קולטות אלא המחוייב גלות בלבד. לפיכך אם מצאו גואל הדם בכל מקום והרגו פטור:
5
What should such a person do? Sit and protect himself from the blood redeemer.
Similarly, if the blood redeemer slays any of the murderers whose acts were observed by only one witness, or who were not given a warning or the like, the blood redeemer is not liable for execution. Killing such individuals should not be considered more severe than killing a person who killed unintentionally.
ה
ומה יעשה זה ישב וישמור עצמו מגואל הדם.  וכן כל הרצחנים שהרגו  בעד אחד או בלא התראה וכיוצא בהן אם הרגן גואל הדם אין להם דמים לא יהיו אלו חמורים מההורג בלא כוונה:
6
What does the above imply? When a person throws a stone into the public domain and it causes death or he tears down his wall into the public domain, and a stone falls and causes death - whether he tears down the wall during the day or during the night - he is considered to be close to having acted intentionally. A city of refuge does not serve as a haven for him. For he should have checked the surroundings and then thrown the stone or torn down the wall.
ו
כיצד הזורק אבן לרשות הרבים והרגה או הסותר כתלו לרשות הרבים ונפלה אבן והמיתה. בין שסתרו ביום בין שסתרו בלילה הרי זה קרוב למזיד ואינו נקלט מפני שזו פשיעות היא שהרי היה לו לעיין ואחר כך יזרוק או יסתור:
7
The following rules apply if a person tears down a wall into a garbage dump at night. If it is likely that people are there, he is considered to be close to having acted intentionally, and a city of refuge does not serve as a haven for him. If people are never found there, the death is considered close to having been caused by forces beyond his control, and he is not liable for exile.
ז
סתרו לאשפה בלילה אם הרבים מצויין בה הרי זה קרוב למזיד ואינו נקלט ואם אין הרבים מצויין בה כלל הרי זה קרוב לאונס ופטור מן הגלות:
8
Different rules apply if people would use a garbage dump to relieve themselves at night, but would not use it for this purpose during the daytime. If it happened that a person sat there during the day, and he was killed by a stone that came from a person tearing down his wall, the person who tore down his wall should be exiled.
If after the stone began to fall, the person came and sat down, and the stone struck him and caused his death, the person who tore down his wall is not liable to be exiled.
ח
היתה האשפה עשויה להפנות בה בלילה ואינה עשויה להפנות בה ביום ונקרה אדם וישב שם ונפלה עליו אבן בשעת סתירה ומת הרי זה גולה. ואם אחר שנפלה האבן בא זה וישב ונפלה עליו ומת הרי זה פטור מן הגלות:
9
Similarly, if a person threw a stone into the public domain, and after the stone left his hand, the victim stuck his head out from a window and was struck by it, the person who threw the stone is not liable for exile. This is derived from Deuteronomy 19:5, which states: "the iron slips from the wood and finds his fellow." This excludes an instance when the victim causes himself to be found by the iron or other object that causes death.
ט
וכן הזורק את האבן ואחר שיצאת מידו הוציא הלה את ראשו וקבלה פטור מגלות שנאמר ומצא את רעהו פרט לממציא עצמו:
10
When a person who hates the victim kills unintentionally, the city of refuge does not serve as a haven for him. This is implied by Numbers 35:23, which states that a person who is exiled: "is not the victim's enemy." We operate under the presumption that one who is an enemy is close to having acted willfully.
Who is considered to be an enemy? A person who did not speak to the victim for at least three days because of animosity.
Similarly, all the following individuals are considered close to having acted willfully, and a city of refuge does not serve as a haven for them:
a) a person who entered an intersection holding an open knife in his hand without realizing that the victim was approaching from the other side and unintentionally stabbed him, causing his death;
b) a person who unintentionally pushed a colleague to his death with his body and not with his hands;
c) a person who intended to throw a stone that could kill two cubits, and instead threw it four;
d) a person who thought that it was permitted to kill;
e) a person who intended to kill one person and instead killed another. This applies even if he intended to kill a gentile or an animal and instead killed a Jew.
י
השונא שהרג בשגגה אינו נקלט שנאמר והוא לא אויב לו חזקתו שהוא קרוב למזיד. ואי זהו שונא זה שלא דבר עמו שלשה ימים מפני האיבה. וכן אם נכנס לקרן זוית והמיתו שם בשגגה או שדחפו בגופו או נתכוון לזרוק שתים וזרק ארבע. או שעלה על דעתו שמותר להרוג. או שנתכוון להרוג זה והרג את זה אפילו נתכוון להרוג עובד כוכבים או בהמה ונמצא ישראל הרי כל אלו קרובין למזיד ואינן נקלטין:
11
When a person enters a courtyard of a homeowner without permission, and the homeowner kills him unintentionally, the homeowner is not liable to be exiled as can be inferred from Deuteronomy 19:5, which, when describing a person who must be exiled speaks of one: "Who encounters his colleague in the forest." Our Sages commented: A forest is a place that the victim has the right to enter. Similarly, in all such places, and only in such places, is a killer liable to be exiled.
Therefore, if a person enters a carpenter's shop without permission, and a block of wood flies forth and strikes him in the face and kills him, and he dies, the carpenter is not liable to be exiled. If he entered with permission, the carpenter should be exiled.
יא
הנכנס לחצר בעל הבית שלא ברשות והרגו בעל הבית בשגגה פטור מן הגלות שנאמר ואשר יבא את רעהו ביער מה יער שיש רשות לנהרג להכנס לשם אף כל כיוצא בו. לפיכך הנכנס לחנות הנגר שלא ברשות ונתזה בקעת וטפחה לו על פניו ומת פטור מגלות. ואם נכנס ברשות הרי זה גולה:
12
When a person was lifting a barrel with a pulley to bring it up to a roof, and the the rope broke, causing it to fall on a colleague, or a person was climbing up a ladder and fell on a colleague and killed him, the person who caused the death is not liable to be exiled. This is considered to be something beyond his control. For this is not something that is likely to happen, but is rather an extraordinary occurrence.
If, by contrast, a person was lowering a barrel with a rope and it fell on a colleague and killed him, he was descending on a ladder and fell on a colleague, or he was shining with a polisher and it fell on a colleague and killed him, the person responsible should be exiled.
This is derived from Numbers 35:23, which states: "And it fell upon him, and he died," implying that the article must descend in an ordinary manner. An object that descends frequently causes damage. Indeed, it is likely that this will happen, for the nature of a heavy object is to descend downward speedily. Therefore, if the person did not hurry and act appropriately and properly while the object descended, he is responsible and should be exiled. The same applies in other analogous situations.
יב
מי שהיה דולה את החבית להעלותה לגג. ונפסק החבל ונפלה על חבירו והרגתהו. או שהיה עולה בסולם ונפל על חבירו והרגו פטור מן הגלות. שזה כמו אנוס הוא. שאין זה דבר הקרוב להיות ברוב העתים אלא כמו פלא הוא. אבל אם היה משלשל את החבית ונפלה על חבירו והרגתהו. היה יורד בסולם ונפל על חבירו. היה מעגל במעגלה ונפלה על חבירו והרגתהו גולה. שנאמר ויפל עליו וימת שיפול דרך נפילה. שהרי דרך נפילה מצוי ברוב העתים להזיק ודבר קרוב הוא להיות. שהרי טבע הכבד לירד למטה במהרה. והואיל ולא זירז עצמו ותיקן מעשיו יפה בשעת ירידה יגלה. וכן כל כיוצא בזה:
13
The following rules apply when a butcher was cutting meat and lifted his hands backward while holding a cleaver, and then brought them forward to break a bone, as butchers do. If anyone is killed while he draws the cleaver back - i.e., while he lifts it up in front of him or while he causes it to descend behind him, the butcher is not exiled. If anyone is killed when he brings the cleaver forward - i.e., while he lifts it up behind him or while he causes it to descend in front of him - the butcher should be exiled.
This is the governing principle. Whenever the object that kills is descending, the person responsible should be exiled. If it is not descending, he should not be exiled. Even a descent for the purpose of ascent does not cause the person to be exiled.
יג
קצב שהיה מקצב והגביה ידו בקופיץ לאחוריו והחזירו לשבר העצם כדרך שעושין הקצבים כל שימות בהולכה שהיא ההגבהה מלפניו וירידה מאחריו אינו גולה עליו. וכל שימות בחזרה שהיא עלייה מאחריו וירידה מלפניו גולה. זה הכלל כל שבדרך ירידתו גולה שלא בדרך ירידתו אינו גולה. ואפילו בירידה שהיא צורך עלייה אינו גולה:
14
What is an example of a "descent for the purpose of an ascent"? If a person was ascending on a ladder, and a rung gave way under his feet and fell and caused death, the person climbing is not obligated to be exiled.
Similarly, in the following situations, the death is considered close to having been caused by factors beyond the control of the individuals involved and they are not exiled:
a) a person intended to throw an article in one direction and it went in another direction,
b) a person had a stone in his bosom that he had never been made aware of and when he stood up it fell, or
c) a blind man killed someone unintentionally.
יד
כיצד היה עולה בסולם ונשמטה שליבה מתחת רגליו ונפלה והמיתה פטור מן הגלות. וכן המתכוין לזרוק בצד זה והלכה לה לצד אחר או שהיתה לו אבן מונחת בחיקו ולא הכיר בה מעולם ועמד ונפלה והמיתה. וכן [א] הסומא שהרג בשגגה. כל אלו פטורין מן הגלות מפני שהן קרובין לאונס:
15
If there was a stone in his bosom that he was aware of and he forgot it, and then he stood up, the stone fell and caused death, he is exiled, as implied by Numbers 35:15, which mentions the death taking place "unintentionally." From the use of that term, we can infer that he knew of the stone's existence beforehand.
If the iron slips from the axe rebounding from the tree he is chopping, he is not exiled, because this does not come from his own force, but from the effect generated by his force. Thus, it is like a factor that is beyond his control.
Similarly, if a person throws a stone into a date palm to knock down dates, and the dates fall on an infant and kill him, the person who throws the stone is not liable to be exiled, because the infant was killed, not by force that he generated, but from the effect generated by his force. Similar principles apply with regard to other blows brought about by analogous situations.
טו
היתה אבן בחיקו והכיר בה ושכחה ועמד ונפלה והמיתה גולה שנאמר בשגגה מכלל שהיתה לו ידיעה. נשמט הברזל מן העץ המתבקע אינו גולה מפני שאין זה בא [ב] מכחו אלא מכח כחו ונמצא כמו אונס. וכן הזורק אבן לתמר להפיל תמרים ונפלו מן התמרים על תינוק והרגוהו פטור מפני שנפלו מכח כחו וכן כל כיוצא בזה משאר הסיבות:
• Rambam - 3 Chapters: Shechitah Shechitah - Chapter 3, Shechitah Shechitah - Chapter 4, Shechitah Shechitah - Chapter 5
• 
Shechitah - Chapter 3
1
There are five factors that disqualify ritual slaughter and the fundamentals of the laws of shechitah are to guard against each of these factors: They are: shehiyah, dirasah, chaladah, hagramah, and ikur.1
א
חמשה דברים מפסידין את השחיטה, ועיקר הלכות שחיטה להזהר בכל אחת מהן, ואלו הן: שהייה, דרסה, חלדה, הגרמה, ועיקור.
2
What is meant by shehiyah? A person began to slaughter and lifted up his hand before he completed the slaughter and waited. Whether he did so inadvertently, intentionally, or because of forces beyond his control, [the following rules apply] if he or another person completed the slaughter. If he waited the amount of time it would take to lift up the animal, cause it to lie down, and slaughter it, his slaughter is not acceptable. If he waited less than this amount of time, his slaughter is acceptable.
ב
שהייה כיצד הרי שהתחיל לשחוט והגביה ידו קודם שיגמור השחיטה ושהה בין בשוגג בין במזיד בין באונס וחזר הוא או אחר וגמר את השחיטה, אם שהה כדי שיגביה את הבהמה וירביצנה וישחוט שחיטתו פסולה, ואם שהה פחות מכדי זה שחיטתו כשרה.
3
With regard to a small domesticated animal:2, the measure of shehiyah is the amount of time it would take to lift up the animal, cause it to lie down, and slaughter it. With regard to a large domestic animal,3 the measure of shehiyah is the amount of time it would take to lift up the animal, cause it to lie down, and slaughter it.4 With regard to a fowl, the measure of shehiyah is the amount of time it would take to lift up a small animal, cause it to lie down, and slaughter it.5
ג
היתה בהמה דקה שיעור שהייתה כדי שיגביה בהמה דקה וירביצנה וישחוט, ואם היתה גסה כדי שיגביהנה וירביצנה וישחוט, ובעוף כדי שיגביה בהמה דקה וירביצנה וישחוט.
4
When a person cut [the signs] for a while, waited for a while, cut for a while, waited for a while until he concluded the slaughter without waiting the measure that disqualifies an animal at any one time, but over the times he waited over the entire period would equal the measure of shehiyah, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the animal is considered] a nevelah.6
Similarly, if he waited the amount of time it takes to lift up the animal, cause it to lie down, and cut only a portion of the signs, but not to slaughter it entirely, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the animal is considered] a nevelah.
ד
שחט מעט ושהה מעט וחזר ושחט מעט ושהה מעט עד שגמר השחיטה ולא שהה בפעם אחת שיעור השהייה אבל כשתחשוב כל זמן השהיות יצטרף מכולן שיעור שהייה הרי זו ספק נבלה, וכן אם שהה כדי שיגביהנה וירביצנה וכדי שישחוט כמו מיעוט הסימנין בלבד לא כדי שישחוט שחיטה גמורה הרי זו ספק נבלה. 65
5
If he slaughtered the majority of one of the signs for a fowl or the majority of both signs for an animal, the slaughter is permitted even if he waited half the day and then returned and finished cutting the signs.7 For since the minimum measure for slaughter was met, it is as if he is cutting slaughtered meat.
ה
שחט רוב אחד בעוף או רוב שנים בבהמה אע"פ ששהה חצי היום וחזר וגמר חתיכת הסימנין הרי זו מותרת, מאחר שנשחט בה כשיעור הרי זה כמחתך בשר השחוטה.
6
If one cuts half or less of the windpipe and waits an extended period, he may return and complete the slaughter; [his previous acts] are of no consequence.8 If, however, he cut the majority of [an animal's] windpipe or perforated the gullet even slightly and then waited the [disqualifying] measure, [the slaughter] is unacceptable.9 [This applies] whether he returned and completed cutting where he began or slaughtered the animal entirely in a different place. [The rationale is] that when the majority of the windpipe is slit or the gullet of either an animal or a fowl is perforated even slightly, the animal is comparable to a nevelah and ritual slaughter is not effective for it, as will be explained.10
ו
שחט בקנה לבדו חציו או מיעוטו ושהה זמן מרובה הרי זה חוזר וגומר השחיטה אין בכך כלום, אבל אם שחט רוב הקנה או שנקב בושט כל שהוא ושהה כשיעור בין שחזר וגמר השחיטה שהתחיל בין ששחט שחיטה גמורה במקום אחר הרי זו פסולה, מפני שהבהמה או העוף שנפסק רוב הקנה שלה או שניקב הושט במשהו נבלה ואין השחיטה מועלת בה כמו שיתבאר.
7
It is thus explained for you that the concept of shehiyah does not exist with regard to the windpipe of a fowl at all. For if he slit the majority of the windpipe and waited, he has already completed the slaughter of [the fowl]. When he goes back and completes it, it is as if he is cutting meat.11 If he slit less than half the windpipe and waited, he may return and [complete the] slaughter whenever he desires,12 for it is not disqualified as a nevelah unless the majority of the windpipe has been cut.
ז
הנה נתבאר לך שאין שהייה בקנה בעוף כלל, שאם שחט רוב הקנה ושהה כבר נגמרה שחיטתו כשחזר וגמר מחתך בשר הוא, ואם שחט במיעוט הקנה ושהה הרי זה חוזר ושוחט כל זמן שירצה שאינה נאסרת משום נבלה עד שיפסק רוב הקנה.
8
[The following rules apply when] one slaughtered a fowl and waited, but does not know whether the gullet was perforated or not.13 He should return and cut the windpipe alone in another place,14 let [the fowl] be until it dies, and then check the gullet from the inside.15 If a drop of blood was not found on it, it is apparent that it was not perforated and it is acceptable.
ח
שחט העוף ושהה בו ואינו יודע אם ניקב הושט או לא ניקב חוזר ושוחט הקנה לבדו במקום אחר ומניחו עד שימות ובודק הושט מבפנים, אם לא נמצאת בו טיפת דם בידוע שלא ניקב וכשרה.
9
What is meant by chaladah?16 For example, one inserted the knife between one sign and another.17 Whether one then slits the upper sign above or cuts the lower sign below in the manner of ritual slaughter, [the slaughter] is unacceptable.
ט
חלדה כיצד, כגון שהכניס הסכין בין סימן לסימן בין שפסק הסימן העליון למעלה בין ששחט התחתון למטה שהוא דרך שחיטה הרי זו פסולה.
10
If he inserted the knife beneath the [animal's] skin and slit both the signs in the ordinary fashion, hid the knife under tangled wool, or spread a cloth over the knife and the neck18 and slaughtered under the cloth, since the knife is not openly revealed, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the animal is considered] a nevelah. Similarly, if slaughtered less than half the signs with chaladah and completed the slaughter without chaladah, there is an unresolved doubt whether [the animal is considered] a nevelah.
י
הכניס את הסכין תחת העור ושחט שני הסימנים כדרכן, או שהחליד את הסכין תחת צמר מסובך, או שפרס מטלת /מטלית/ על הסכין ועל הצואר ושחט תחת המטלת הואיל ואין הסכין גלויה הרי זו ספק נבלה, וכן אם שחט מיעוט הסימנים בהחלדה וגמר השחיטה שלא בהחלדה הרי זו ספק נבלה.
11
What is meant by dirasah?19 For example, one struck the neck with a knife as one strikes with a sword, cutting the signs at one time, without passing [the knife] back and forth or one placed the knife on the neck and pressed, cutting downward like one cuts radishes or squash until he cuts the signs, [the slaughter] is unacceptable.
יא
דרסה כיצד, כגון שהכה בסכין על הצואר כדרך שמכין בסייף וחתך הסימנין בבת אחת בלא הולכה ולא הובאה, או שהניח הסכין על הצואר ודחק וחתך למטה כחותך צנון או קישות עד שחתך הסימנין הרי זו פסולה.
12
What is meant by hagramah?20 This refers to one who slaughters at a high point on the windpipe21 where it is not fit to slaughter. There are two [nodes, like kernels of] wheat at the top of the windpipe, at the large ring.22 [The following rules apply if] one slaughtered in the midst of these kernels. If he left even the slightest portion of them intact above [the place of slaughter], it is acceptable, for he slaughtered from the slanting cap [of the windpipe] or lower. This is within the place that is fit for ritual slaughter. If, however, he did not leave any portion of them intact, but instead cut above them, this is considered as [being slaughtered with] hagramah and it is unacceptable.
יב
הגרמה כיצד, זה השוחט בקנה למעלה במקום שאינו ראוי לשחיטה, וכמו שני חטים יש בסוף הקנה למעלה בטבעת גדולה, שחט בתוך החטים אם שייר מהן כל שהוא למעלה הרי זו כשרה, שהרי שחט משיפוי כובע ולמטה, והוא מן המקום הראוי לשחיטה, ואם לא שייר מהן כלום אלא שחט למעלה מהן הרי זו מוגרמת ופסולה.
13
If one slit the majority of one sign [for a fowl] or the majority of both signs [for an animal] and then completed the slaughter through dirasah or hagramah, it is acceptable, for the minimum measure was slaughtered in the proper manner.23
If at first, he slit a third [of the windpipe]24 through hagramah, and then cut two thirds in the appropriate manner, the slaughter is acceptable.25 If he cut a third in the appropriate manner, cut a third through hagramah, and then cut the last third in the appropriate manner, the slaughter is acceptable.26 If at first, he slit a third through hagramah, cut a third in the appropriate manner, and then cut a third through hagramah, the slaughter is unacceptable.27 If one cut [a portion of] an animal's throat with derisah or chaladah, it is unacceptable, whether it was the first or second third.28
יג
שחט רוב האחד או רוב השנים והשלים השחיטה בדרסה או בהגרמה הרי זו כשרה שהרי נשחט השיעור כראוי, הגרים בתחלה שליש ושחט שני שלישים הרי זו כשרה, שחט שליש והגרים שליש וחזר ושחט שליש האחרון כשרה, הגרים שליש ושחט שליש וחזר והגרים שליש האחרון הרי זו פסולה, ואם דרס או החליד בין בשליש הראשון בין בשליש האמצעי הרי זו פסולה.
14
What is meant by ikur? That the gullet and/or the windpipe were displaced29 and slid [from their place] before the conclusion of the slaughter. If, however, one slit an entire sign or its majority in a fowl, and then the second sign slipped, the slaughter is acceptable.30
יד
עיקור כיצד, כגון שנעקרה הגרגרת והיא הקנה או הושט ונשמט אחד מהן או שניהן קודם גמר שחיטה, אבל אם שחט אחד בעוף או רובו ואח"כ נשמט הסימן השני שחיטתו כשרה.
15
If one of the signs was displaced and afterwards, one slit the other, the slaughter is unacceptable.31 If one slit one of the signs [of a fowl] and then discovered that the other one was displaced, but it is unknown whether it was displaced before slaughter32 or after slaughter,33 there is an unresolved question whether [the fowl] is a nevelah.
טו
נשמט אחד מהן ואחר כך שחט את השני שחיטתו פסולה, שחט אחד מהן ונמצא השני שמוט ואין ידוע אם קודם שחיטה נשמט או אחר שחיטה הרי זו ספק נבלה.
16
If the sign that was cut for ritual slaughter is discovered to have been displaced, [the fowl or animal]34 is acceptable, for certainly, it was displaced after the slaughter. For if it had been displaced before ritual slaughter, it would have hung loosely and it would not have been able to be slaughtered [effectively].35
טז
נמצא הסימן השחוט שמוט הרי זו כשרה, שודאי אחר שחיטה נעקר, שאילו נעקר קודם שחיטה היה מתדלדל ולא נשחט.
17
When does the above apply? When [the slaughterer] did not hold the signs in his hand when he slit them. If, however, he held the signs and slaughtered, it is possible that [the signs] could have been slit [effectively even] after they were displaced.36 Therefore, if a sign is discovered to be displaced and slaughtered,37 there is an unresolved question whether [the animal or the fowl] is a nevelah.
יז
במה דברים אמורים שלא תפס הסימנין בידו כששחט, אבל אם תפסן ושחט אפשר שתשחט אחר העיקור ולפיכך אם נמצאת שמוטה ושחוטה הרי זו ספק נבלה.
18
Whenever we have used the term "unacceptable," the animal is a nevelah and if a person partakes of an olive-sized portion of it, he is liable for lashes for partaking of a nevelah. For only an acceptable slaughter as commanded by Moses our teacher of blessed memory prevents an animal from being considered a nevelah as we explained.38 Whenever there is an unresolved doubt whether slaughter [is acceptable], there is an unresolved doubt whether the animal is a nevelah.39 A person who partakes of it is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.
יח
כל מקום שאמרנו בשחיטה פסולה הרי זו נבלה, ואם אכל ממנה כזית לוקה משום אוכל נבלה שאין מוציא מידי נבלה אלא שחיטה כשרה כאשר צוה משה רבינו ע"ה =עליו השלום= כמו שביארנו, וכל ספק בשחיטה הרי הוא ספק נבלה והאוכל ממנה מכין אותו מכת מרדות.
19
When the thigh of an animal and [the meat40 of] its hollow were removed and thus it appears lacking when it crouches, it is a nevelah.41 [It is] as if half of it was cut away and it was divided into two bodies. Thus slaughter is not effective with regard to it.
Similarly, if [the animal's] backbone was broken together with the majority of the meat, its back was ripped open like a fish, the majority of the windpipe was been severed,42 or the gullet was perforated in a place fit for slaughter,43 it is considered as a nevelah while alive and slaughter will not be effective with regard to it. The same laws apply to both an animal and a fowl with regard to all these matters.
יט
בהמה שניטל ירך שלה וחללה עמה עד שתראה חסרה כשתרבץ הרי זו נבלה, כמו שנחתך חציה ונחלקה לשני גופות ואין השחיטה מועלת בה, וכן אם נשברה מפרקת ורוב בשר עמה או שנקרעה מגבה כדג או שנפסק רוב הקנה או שניקב הושט בכל שהוא במקום הראוי לשחיטה הרי זו נבלה מחיים ואין השחיטה מועלת בה, ואחד הבהמה ואחד העוף בכל הדברים האלה.
20
The gullet has two membranes: the external membrane is red and the inner membrane is white.44 If only one of them is perforated, [the animal] is acceptable.45 If they are both perforated even to the slightest degree in a place fit for slaughter, it is a nevelah.46 [This applies] whether it was slaughtered in the place of the perforation or in another place, slaughter will not be effective with regard to it. If they were both perforated, [even when] one [hole] does not correspond to the other, the animal is a nevelah47.
כ
שני עורות יש לו לושט, החיצון אדום והפנימי לבן, ניקב האחד מהן בלבד כשרה, ניקבו שניהן בכל שהוא במקום הראוי לשחיטה הרי זו נבלה, ובין שנשחטה במקום הנקב בין שנשחטה במקום אחר אין השחיטה מועלת בה, ניקבו שניהם זה שלא כנגד זה נבלה.
21
When the gullet is perforated and a scab forms which covers it, the scab is of no consequence and it is considered perforated as it was beforehand.48 If a thorn is detected standing in the gullet, there is an unresolved doubt whether the animal is a nevelah. We fear that perhaps a scab developed in the place of a perforation and it is not visible.49 If, however, a thorn is lying lengthwise50 in the gullet, we are not concerned about it, for most desert animals eat thorns continuously.51
כא
ניקב הושט ועלה בו קרום וסתמו אין הקרום כלום והרי הוא נקוב כשהיה, נמצא קוץ עומד בושט הרי זו ספק נבלה שמא ניקב הושט ועלה קרום במקום הנקב ואינו נראה, אבל אם נמצא הקוץ לאורכו בושט אין חוששין לו שרוב הבהמות המדבריות אוכלות הקוצים תמיד.
22
The gullet cannot be checked from the outside, only from the inside.52 What is implied? One should turn it inside out and check it. If a drop of blood is found upon it, it can be concluded that it was perforated.
כב
ושט אין לו בדיקה מבחוץ אלא מבפנים, כיצד הופכו ובודק אם נמצא עליו טיפת דם בידוע שהיה נקוב.
23
When the majority of the cavity of the windpipe53 has been severed in the place fit for slaughtering,54 [the animal] is a nevelah. This also applies if it has a hole the size of an isar.55
[The following rules apply if the windpipe of an animal] was perforated with small holes.56 If the perforations did not detract [from the flesh, they disqualify the animal if,] when they are added together, they constitute the majority [of the windpipe]. If they detract from the flesh, [they disqualify the animal if,] when they are added together, their sum is the size of an isar.57 Similarly, if a strand [of flesh] is removed from [the windpipe], it [disqualifies the animal if its area] is the size of an isar.
With regard to a fowl, [a more stringent rule applies]:58 Whenever the strip [of flesh that was removed] or the holes that detract from the flesh [are large enough so that they] could be folded so that when placed over the opening of the windpipe, it would cover the majority [of its cavity],59 it is a nevelah. If not, it is acceptable.
כג
גרגרת שנפסק רוב חללה במקום הראוי לשחיטה הרי זו נבלה, וכן אם ניקבה כאיסר, ניקבה נקבים קטנים אם נקבים שאין בהן חסרון הם מצטרפין לרובה ואם נקבים שיש בהם חסרון מצטרפין לכאיסר, וכן אם ניטלה ממנה רצועה מצטרפת לכאיסר, ובעוף כל שאילו מקפל הרצועה או הנקבים שיש בהן חסרון ומניחן על פי הקנה אם חופה את רובו נבלה ואם לאו כשרה.
24
If the windpipe was perforated on both sides with a hole large enough for the thickness of isar60 to be inserted into it, it is a nevelah. If it is slit lengthwise, even if only the slightest portion of the place fit to slaughter [an animal] remains above and below, it is acceptable.61
כד
ניקבה הגרגרת נקב מפולש משני צדדיה כדי שיכנס איסר לרחבו נבלה, נסדקה לארכה אפילו לא נשתייר מן המקום הראוי בה לשחיטה אלא משהו למעלה ומשהו למטה כשרה. 66
25
When a windpipe has been perforated62 and it is not known whether it was perforated before the slaughter or afterwards,63 we perforate it again in another place and compare the two holes. If they resemble each other, it is permitted.64
We compare only [a hole in] a large ring to [a hole in] a large ring or [a hole in] a small [ring] to [a hole in] a small [ring], but not [a hole in] a small [ring] to a [a hole in] a large [ring]. For the entire windpipe is made up of a series of rings. Between each [large] ring is a small, soft ring.
כה
גרגרת שניקבה ואין ידוע אם קודם שחיטה ניקבה או אחר שחיטה ניקבה, נוקבין אותה עתה במקום אחר ומדמין הנקב לנקב אם נדמה לו מותרת, ואין מדמין אלא מחוליא גדולה לחוליא גדולה או מקטנה לקטנה, אבל לא מקטנה לגדולה שכל הקנה חליות חליות הוא ובין כל חוליא וחוליא חוליא אחת קטנה משתיהן ורכה.
FOOTNOTES
1.
The Rambam describes each of these terms in the subsequent halachot in this chapter.
2.
I.e., a sheep or a goat.
3.
I.e., a cow.
4.
I.e., each animal is considered according to its category. It will take more time to deal with a large animal than a smaller one and the time factor is adjusted accordingly.
5.
The Rambam's ruling favors the opinion of Shmuel over Rav. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro explains that generally, we follow the principle that the halachah follows Rav's approach with regard to the Torah prohibitions. Nevertheless, in this instance, since there are other Sages who support Shmuel's view, the Rambam favors his opinion. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 23:2), in addition to the Rambam's view, Rav Yosef Caro quotes Rashi's position which rules much more stringently with regard to shehiyah for a fowl. The Rama states that the common custom is to disqualify any ritual slaughter involving shehiyah of the slightest time for both animals and fowl.
6.
Although the Ra'avad and Rav Moshe HaCohen dispute the Rambam's ruling, it is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah23:3). The Rama reiterates the stringency stated above.
7.
In addition to the Rambam's view, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 23:5) quotes the view of Rashi cited by the Tur that as long as the cutting of the signs is not completed, shehiyah can disqualify an animal. Hence, as an initial and preferred option, one should show respect for this view. The Rama rules even more stringently, stating that even after the fact, the slaughter is disqualified. For that reason, he continues, if the majority of the signs are cut, but the animal is lingering alive, rather than cut the signs further, one should hit it on its head to kill it.
8.
For until half of the windpipe is cut, the animal is not considered as trefe.
9.
He cannot return and correct the slaughter, for the animal is already considered as a nevelah.
10.
Halachah 19.
11.
As stated in Halachah 5.
12.
As stated in Halachah 6.
13.
If the gullet was perforated, the slaughter is unacceptable. If not, it is acceptable.
14.
Theoretically, he could also cut the windpipe in the same place and complete the slaughter in that manner. Nevertheless, our Sages advised against doing so, for in this way, it is much easier to perforate the gullet when cutting the windpipe and thus he might disqualify the slaughter unnecessarily (Kessef Mishneh). See the Turei Zahav 23:6 who offers another rationale. As mentioned above, the Rama rules that whenever one waits during the slaughter of a fowl or an animal, the slaughter is disqualified.
A parallel law - slaughtering the animal in a different place - does not apply with regard to an animal. For to slaughter the animal, he must slit the gullet and we fear that he will cut at a place where it had been perforated previously (Kessef Mishneh).
15.
I.e., he should cut the gullet off at its top and/or bottom and turn it inside out. If he is able to find a drop of blood, he can assume that it is perforated and it is unacceptable. An external examination of the gullet is not sufficient for the surface of the gullet is red and a drop of blood will not be noticeable. Its inner surface, however, is skin-colored and the blood will be noticed (Kessef Mishneh).
16.
Chullin 20b states that this term is derived from the word chuldah meaning "weasel," i.e., an animal that hides in the foundation of homes. Similarly, chaladah involves "hiding" the knife when slaughtering; i.e., inserting it in a way that the blade is not open to the eye. Implied is that the proper way to slaughter is for the slaughterer to hold the animal or fowl with its neck upward and to draw the knife back and forth across the neck.
17.
Certainly, this applies when he inserted the knife below both signs and slaughtered the animal by moving the knife back and forth while pointed upward (Siftei Cohen 24:6).
18.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro quotes other authorities who explain that this is referring to a situation where the person tied the cloth around the animal's neck, attached it with wax, or the like. If, however, he merely loosely spread the cloth over the animal, the slaughter is acceptable. He concludes, however, that the Rambam's opinion should be respected. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 24:8), he rules according to the other views, but states: "One should show concern for his (the Rambam's) opinion at the outset."
19.
The term doreis means "prey" or "strike," i.e., killing with a blow, rather than drawing back and forth as is required for ritual slaughter.
20.
The Maggid Mishneh gives two interpretations of the term hagramah:
a) "lift up," as in II Kings 9:13; i.e., he lifted the knife above its proper place; and
b) "tip," as in Bava Batra 88b; i.e., he tipped the knife upward.
21.
The Rambam speaks only with regard to the windpipe, because he defines hagramah as slaughtering the animal in an improper place. If one would slit the gullet above the proper place, the animal would become disqualified as a trefe immediately (Kessef Mishneh).
22.
The Maggid Mishneh states that the windpipe is made up of many rings. Over the top ring, there is a flap (cap) of flesh which is slanted. (This is the area of the larynx. See also Chapter 1, Halachah 7, and notes.) At the top of this flap, there are two kernel-like buttons of flesh. As long as the slaughterer leaves some portion of these kernels intact, the slaughter is acceptable.
23.
The Rambam derived this concept from a comparison to the laws of shehiyah mentioned in Halachah 5. The same concept applies if one slaughters more than half the signs appropriately and then completes the slaughter through chaladah. Indeed, it can be explained that the Rambam does not mention this law with regard to chaladah, because it is obvious. For in chaladah, the slaughter is essentially correct; it is only the manner in which one inserts the knife that is unacceptable (Kessef Mishneh).
As mentioned in the notes to Halachah 5, there are opinions who differ and disqualify the slaughter. Similarly, with regard to the laws at hand, there are opinions that are more stringent, except with regard to hagramah. In that instance, they accept the leniency mentioned by the Rambam. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 24:12) quotes both of the views without stating which should be followed. The Rama goes further and states that it is customary to rule stringently even with regard to hagramah, and even with regard to fowl.
24.
This addition is necessary, for as stated above, if the gullet is perforated, the slaughter is disqualified.
25.
For the majority of the windpipe was cut in an acceptable manner and the preliminary cutting did not cause the animal to be considered as a trefe.
26.
Here also, the majority of the windpipe is cut in an acceptable manner. The fact that the two thirds were not cut directly after each other is not significant.
27.
For the majority of the windpipe has not been slit in an acceptable manner.
28.
The rationale for the Rambam's words has been discussed at length by the commentaries, because with regard to chaladah, in Halachah 10, he writes that there is an unresolved question whether the slaughter is disqualified, while here he appears to say that it is definitely unacceptable. The Rivosh (Responsum 187), the Kessef Mishneh, the Maggid Mishneh, and the Siftei Cohen 24:18 all offer lengthy - and somewhat forced - explanations to attempt to resolve the apparent contradiction. The core of the explanation of the Kessef Mishneh is that since the majority of the windpipe was slit in the proper place, it is not disqualified because a portion was not.
Needless to say, if one cuts the last third in either of these fashions, according to the Rambam, the slaughter is not disqualified, for it has already been completed (through slitting more than half of the sign[s] in an acceptable manner). The Rama, however, would disqualify the slaughter as stated above.
29.
The term ikur means "uproot." The Kessef Mishneh states that, according to the Rambam, the fact that the signs have slipped from their place does not cause the animal to be deemed a trefe (see, however, Chapter 9, Halachah 21, and notes). Nevertheless, such a condition disqualifies the animal, for it is impossible for the ritual slaughter to be carried out in the proper manner.
30.
For the slaughter was already completed in an acceptable manner. Compare to the following halachah.
31.
This applies even with regard to a fowl. Although it is only necessary for one of the signs of a fowl to be cut in the appropriate manner, the other one must be fit to be slit in an appropriate manner (Kessef Mishneh).
32.
In which instance it would disqualify it.
33.
In which instance, it would be acceptable.
34.
With regard to a fowl, the sign in question is the only sign slit. With regard to an animal, the other sign must have been slaughtered effectively.
35.
The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 24:18) rule more stringently and maintain that it is necessary to slaughter another animal, displace its signs afterwards, and compare the two. Only if they are similar is the slaughter accepted. Moreover, the Shulchan Aruch continues stating that, at present, we are not expert at making this comparison and hence, forbid an animal whenever such a condition arises.
36.
Because the slaughterer will hold the signs in the proper position by hand.
37.
And we do not know whether the slaughterer held it by hand or not.
38.
See Chapter 1, Halachot 1 and 4.
39.
Since an animal is forbidden during its lifetime, its meat is permitted only when we are certain that the slaughter was acceptable (Radbaz).
40.
The addition is made on the basis of the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh.
41.
I.e., even though the animal still has a certain vestige of vitality, it is considered as if it has died already and it imparts ritual impurity as a nevelah does (Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTumah 2:1).
42.
In this and the following instance, the Siftei Cohen 33:4 rules that the animal is a trefe and not a nevelah.
43.
If, however, the gullet was perforated at a higher point in the neck (see Halachah 12), it is considered as a trefe and not a nevelah.
44.
I.e., skin-colored.
45.
For the one that is not perforated is sufficient to protect the animal sufficiently for it to survive.
This leniency applies when the inner membrane is perforated due to sickness. If, however, it is perforated due to a thorn, we fear that the outer membrane may also be perforated, but that perforation cannot be detected [see Halachah 22; Rama (Yoreh De'ah 33:4)].
46.
As above, if the gullet was perforated at a higher point in the neck (see Halachah 12), it is considered as a trefe and not a nevelah (Kessef Mishneh).
47.
With regard to other organs which have two membranes, e.g., the brain and the lungs, the animal is not considered as trefe unless the holes correspond to each other. In this instance, however, the ruling is much more severe because the gullet is stretched and becomes extended. Thus even if the place of the holes do not correspond, they can match each other at times [Kessef MishnehShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 33:4)].
48.
For as the gullet expands, it is possible that the scab will open (Rashi, Chullin 42a).
49.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 33:9) rules more leniently, stating that unless a trace of blood is detected on the outer side, we do not disqualify an animal because a thorn was implanted in the gullet.
50.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 33:9) rules that this applies even if the thorn is lying widthwise, as long as it is not implanted in the membrane. [Indeed, some versions of the Mishneh Torah substitute widthwise for lengthwise.]
51.
And yet do not suffer any internal damage.
52.
Because, as stated above (see Halachot 8, 19), since its outer membrane is red, a trace of blood will not be obvious.
53.
I.e., the slit goes from side to side in a manner in which the majority of the cavity is slit. The Rambam (based on Chullin 44a,b) is emphasizing that this measure disqualifies an animal even if when including the thickness of the flesh of the windpipe, the slit would not cover the majority of the windpipe.
54.
See Chapter 1, Halachah 7, and notes.
55.
An Italian coin, frequently used in the Talmudic era. In his commentary to the Mishnah (Mikveot 9:5), the Rambam states that an isar is the weight of four barley corns.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 34:2) states that we are unfamiliar with the measure of an isar. Therefore, the laws applying to an animal should resemble those applying to a fowl and if the slit covers the majority of the cavity of the windpipe, it is disqualified. The Rama states that, for an animal, an isar is smaller than the majority of the cavity of the windpipe. Therefore he states that perhaps the intent of the Shulchan Aruch, is the majority of the cavity of a fowl. He cautions anyone who has a doubt to rule stringently and disqualify the animal.
56.
When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 33:3) speaks of perforating the windpipe "like a sifter."
57.
In his Kessef Mishneh and his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 34:3), Rav Yosef Caro writes that as long as the flesh between the holes is not larger than the holes themselves, it is included together with them in this measure.
58.
For the entire windpipe of a fowl may not be the size of an isar (Rashi, Chullin 45a).
59.
The addition is based on the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh. For each particular fowl, this measure is calculated individually (Maggid Mishneh).
60.
Our translation is based on the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh who quotes the Tur (Yoreh De'ah 34) who explains that in contrast to the previous halachah which speaks of a hole the area of an isar, this halachah is speaking about a hole through which an isar can be slipped through on its side.
It must be emphasized that the Rambam's ruling depends on the interpretation of Chullin 54a advanced by Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi. Rashi advances a different interpretation of that passage on which basis, the Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 34:5-6) quotes both opinions without stating which is favored.
61.
The Kessef Mishneh quotes Rashi who explains that if the windpipe is slit across we rule more stringently, for the stress of breathing will extend the windpipe and cause the slit to expand. This does not apply when it is split lengthwise.
62.
In a manner that would disqualify the animal.
63.
Were it to have been perforated afterwards, the perforation would not be significant.
64.
For it is apparent that the first hole was also made after the animal's death. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 34:9) states that we are not proficient in inspecting the animal in this way and should disqualify it in all situations.
65.
וכן אם שהה כדי שיגביהנה וירביצנה וכו'. א"א זו הסברא לא טובה היא ולא נכונה ומפירוש משובש הביאה והלא אמרו במשנה אם שהה כדי שחיטה אחרת ומיעוט שחיטה לא נכנסה בזה הספק ועוד היה לו לומר כדי מיעוט שחיטה ועוד שאין זה הפירוש מתנהג בהחליד במיעוט סימנים אבל הפירוש השוה לשניהם ששחט הרוב ושהה וגמר מי אמרינן כיון דגמר שהייה בשחיטה היא מאן מוכח או דילמא לא חיישינן להכי ובחצי קנה דעוף ליכא למיחש כלל וכל שכן לרוב ונראה לי באותן שתי הבעיות תיקו ולקולא.
66.
ניקבה הגרגרת נקב מפולש משני צדדיה. א"א זה פירוש משובש ופירש אותו על נפחתה.

Shechitah - Chapter 4

1
When a Jew who does not know the five factors that disqualify ritual slaughter and the like concerning the laws of shechitah that we explained1slaughters [an animal] in private,2 it is forbidden for him and others to partake [of the animal that] he slaughtered. It is close to being considered a nevelah because of the doubt involved.3 When a person eats an olive-sized portion of its meat, he is worthy of stripes for rebellious conduct.
א
ישראל שאינו יודע חמשה דברים שמפסידין את השחיטה וכיוצא בהן מהלכות שחיטה שביארנו ושחט בינו לבין עצמו אסור לאכול משחיטתו, לא הוא ולא אחרים, והרי זו קרובה לספק נבלה והאוכל ממנה כזית מכין אותו מכת מרדות.
2
Even if [such a person] slaughtered [animals] properly in our presence four or five times and this slaughter which he performed in private appears to be a proper and complete the slaughter, it is forbidden to partake of it. Since he does not know the factors that can disqualify ritual slaughter, it is possible that he will cause the slaughter to be disqualified unknowingly.4 For example, he may wait, apply pressure to the animal's neck and slit it, slaughter with a blemished knife, or the like inadvertently.
ב
ואפילו שחט בפנינו ארבע וחמש פעמים שחיטה כשרה והרי שחיטה זו ששחט בינו לבין עצמו שחיטה נכונה וגמורה אסור לאכול ממנה, הואיל ואינו יודע דברים המפסידים אפשר שיפסיד השחיטה והוא אינו יודע כגון שישהה או ידרוס או ישחוט בסכין פגומה וכיוצא באלו בלא כונתו.
3
[Even] when a Jew knows the laws of ritual slaughter, he should not slaughter in private as an initial and preferred option until he slaughters in the presence of a wise man many times until he is familiar and ardent.5 If, however, at the outset, he slaughtered in private, his slaughter is acceptable.6
ג
ישראל שיודע הלכות שחיטה הרי זה לא ישחוט בינו לבין עצמו לכתחלה עד שישחוט בפני חכם פעמים רבות עד שיהיה רגיל וזריז, ואם שחט תחלה בינו לבין עצמו שחיטתו כשרה.
4
When one knows the laws of ritual slaughter and slaughters in the presence of a wise man until he becomes familiar with ritual slaughter, he is called an expert. Any expert may slaughter in private as an initial and preferred option. Even women7 and servants8 may slaughter as an initial and preferred option.
ד
היודע הלכות שחיטה ושחט בפני חכם עד שנעשה רגיל הוא הנקרא מומחה וכל המומחין שוחטין לכתחלה בינן לבין עצמן ואפילו נשים ועבדים אם היו מומחין הרי אלו שוחטין לכתחלה.
5
When deaf-mute,9 an intellectually or emotionally imbalanced person, a child,10 or a drunkard whose mind became befuddled11 slaughters, their slaughter is unacceptable. Since they do not have [adequate] mental control, we fear that they blundered. Therefore if they slaughtered in the presence of a knowledgeable person and he saw that they slaughtered properly, their slaughter is acceptable.
ה
חרש שוטה וקטן ושכור שנתבלבלה דעתו ששחטו שחיטתן פסולה מפני שאין בהן דעת שמא יקלקלו, לפיכך אם שחטו בפני היודע וראה אותן ששחטו כהוגן שחיטתן כשרה.
6
When a person whose reputation12 has not been established among us slaughters in private, we question him. If it is discovered that he knows the fundamental principles of ritual slaughter,13 his slaughter is acceptable.14
ו
מי שאינו יודע אצלנו ששחט בינו לבין עצמו שואלין אותו, אם נמצא יודע עיקרי הלכות שחיטה שחיטתו כשרה.
7
When we saw from a distance that a Jew slaughtered [an animal] and departed and we do not know whether or not he knows the laws of ritual slaughter or not, [the animal] is permitted. Similarly, if a person tells his agent: "Go out and slaughter an animal on my behalf," and he finds a slaughtered animal, but does not know whether his agent or another person slaughtered it, [the animal] is permitted.15 [The rationale for both these laws is] that the majority of people who slaughter are expert.16
ז
הרי שראינו ישראלי מרחוק ששחט והלך לו ולא ידענו אם יודע אם אינו יודע הרי זו מותרת, וכן האומר לשלוחו צא ושחוט לי ומצא הבהמה שחוטה ואין ידוע אם שלוחו שחטה או אחר הרי זו מותרת, שרוב המצויין אצל שחיטה מומחין הן.
8
[The following rules apply when a person] loses a kid or a chicken. If he finds it slaughtered at home, it is permitted. [The rationale is that] the majority of people who slaughter are expert. If he finds it in the market place, it is forbidden; perhaps [it was slaughtered improperly and] became a nevelah and was therefore cast into the market place.17 Similarly, if he finds it on the waste dump at home, it is forbidden.18
ח
אבד לו גדי או תרנגול ומצאו שחוט בבית מותר, שרוב המצויין אצל שחיטה מומחים הן, מצאו בשוק אסור שמא נתנבל ולפיכך הושלך, וכן אם מצאו באשפה שבבית אסור.
9
When an expert [slaughterer] loses his power of speech, but he is [still] capable of understanding, he can hear and he is of sound mind, he may slaughter as an initial and preferred option.19Similarly, a person who does not hear,20 may slaughter.
ט
מומחה שנשתתק והרי הוא מבין ושומע ודעתו נכונה הרי זה שוחט לכתחלה, וכן מי שאינו שומע הרי זה שוחט.
10
A blind man should not slaughter as an initial and preferred option unless others supervise him.21 If he slaughters, his slaughter is acceptable.22
י
הסומא לא ישחוט לכתחלה אלא אם כן אחרים רואים אותו ואם שחט שחיטתו כשרה.
11
When a gentile slaughters, even though he slaughters in the presence of a Jew, [using] a finely [honed] knife,23 and even if he was a minor,24 his slaughter is a nevelah. According to Scriptural Law, one is liable for lashes for partaking of it,25 as [implied by Exodus 34:15]: "[Lest] he shall call you and you shall partake of his slaughter." Since the Torah warns lest one partake of his slaughter, you can infer that his slaughter is forbidden. He cannot be compared to a Jew who does not know the laws of ritual slaughter.
יא
עכו"ם ששחט אע"פ ששחט בפני ישראל בסכין יפה ואפילו היה קטן שחיטתו נבלה ולוקה על אכילתה מן התורה, שנאמר וקרא לך ואכלת מזבחו, מאחר שהזהיר שמא יאכל מזבחו אתה למד שזבחו אסור ואינו דומה לישראל שאינו יודע הלכות שחיטה.
12
[Our Sages] established a great safeguard concerning this matter, [decreeing] that even [an animal] slaughtered by a gentile who does not serve false deities26 is a nevelah.27
יב
וגדר גדול גדרו בדבר שאפילו עכו"ם שאינו עובד ע"ז שחיטתו נבלה.
13
If a gentile began to slaughter and slit the minority of the signs and a Jew completed the slaughter or a Jew began the slaughter and a gentile completed it,28 it is invalid.29 [The rationale is that] slaughter [is considered an integral act, a single continuity] from the beginning to the end.30 If, however, a gentile slit [a portion of] an organ that does not cause the animal to be considered a nevelah, e.g., he slit half the windpipe and a Jew completed the slaughter, it is acceptable.31
יג
התחיל העכו"ם לשחוט מיעוט סימנין וגמר ישראל או התחיל ישראל וגמר העכו"ם פסולה, ישנה לשחיטתו מתחלה ועד סוף, אבל אם שחט העכו"ם דבר שאינו עושה אותו נבלה כגון ששחט חצי הגרגרת בלבד וגמר ישראל הרי זו כשרה.
14
A Jew who is an apostate because of his transgression of a particular transgression32 who is an expert slaughterer may slaughter as an initial and preferred option.33 A Jew of acceptable repute must check the knife and afterwards give it to this apostate to slaughter with, for it can be presumed that he will not trouble himself to check [the knife].34
If, by contrast, he was an apostate because of worship of false deities, one who violates the Sabbath in public,35 or a heretic who denies the Torah and [the prophecy of] Moses our teacher, as we explained in Hilchot Teshuvah,36 he is considered as a gentile and [an animal] he slaughters is a nevelah.
יד
ישראל מומר לעבירה מן העבירות שהיה מומחה הרי זה שוחט לכתחלה וצריך ישראל כשר לבדוק את הסכין ואח"כ יתננה למומר זה לשחוט בה מפני שחזקתו שאינו טורח לבדוק, ואם היה מומר לעבודה זרה או מחלל שבת בפרהסיא או אפיקורוס והוא הכופר בתורה ובמשה רבינו כמו שביארנו בהלכות תשובה הרי הוא כעכו"ם ושחיטתו נבלה.
15
[Even though] a person is disqualified as a witness because of his violation of a Scriptural prohibition,37 he may [still] slaughter in private if he was an expert.38 For he would not leave something which is permitted and partake of something that is forbidden.39 This is a presumption that applies with regard to all Jews, even those who are wicked.
טו
מי שהוא פסול לעדות בעבירה מן העבירות של תורה הרי זה שוחט בינו לבין עצמו אם היה מומחה, שאינו מניח דבר מותר ואוכל דבר איסור שזו חזקה היא על כל ישראל ואפילו הרשעים מהן.
16
These Tzadukkim, Beotosim, 40 their disciples and all that err, following their path, who do not believe in the Oral Law - their slaughter is forbidden. If, however, they slaughtered [an animal] in our presence, it is permitted. For their slaughter is forbidden only because it is possible they blunder. Since they do not believe in the laws of ritual slaughter, we do not accept their word when they say, "We did not blunder."41
טז
אלו הצדוקין והבייתוסין ותלמידיהן וכל הטועים אחריהן שאינן מאמינים בתורה שבעל פה שחיטתן אסורה, ואם שחטו בפנינו הרי זו מותרת, שאין איסור שחיטתן אלא שמא יקלקלו והם אינן מאמינין בתורת השחיטה לפיכך אינן נאמנין לומר לא קלקלנו.
17
When the Jews were journeying through the desert, they were not commanded to slaughter non-sacrificial animals.42Instead, they would cut off their heads or slaughter them and eat as the other nations do. In the desert, they were commanded that everyone who desires to slaughter an animal [in the prescribed way] should slaughter only for the sake of a peace offering, as [Leviticus 17:3-5] states: "When a man from the house of Israel will slaughter an ox... and he will not bring it to the Tent of Meeting... [it will be considered as (spilled) blood]... so that the Children of Israel will bring their sacrifices... and slaughter these sacrifices as peace-offerings." If, however, a person desired to cut an animal's head off and partake [of the animal], in the desert, this was allowed.
יז
כשהיו ישראל במדבר לא נצטוו בשחיטת החולין אלא היו נוחרין או שוחטין ואוכלין כשאר האומות, ונצטוו במדבר שכל הרוצה לשחוט לא ישחוט אלא שלמים שנאמר איש איש מבית ישראל אשר ישחט שור וגו' ואל פתח אהל מועד וגו' למען אשר יביאו וגו' וזבחו זבחי שלמים לה' וגו', אבל הרוצה לנחור ולאכול במדבר היה נוחר.
18
This mitzvah43 is not observed forever, nor in the desert alone, at the time it was permitted to kill animals [and partake of them]. There they were commanded that when they would enter Eretz Yisrael, killing animals [for food] would be forbidden and ordinary animals could only be eaten after ritual slaughter. They would be allowed to slaughter in every place except the Temple Courtyard,44 as [Deuteronomy 12:20-21] states: "When God your Lord will expand your boundaries... and you shall slaughter from your cattle and your sheep which God your Lord gave you." This is the mitzvah to be observed for generations - to slaughter and then to eat.
יח
ומצוה זו אינה נוהגת לדורות אלא במדבר בלבד בעת היתר הנחירה, ונצטוו שם שכשיכנסו לארץ תאסר הנחירה ולא יאכלו חולין אלא בשחיטה, וישחטו בכל מקום לעולם חוץ לעזרה שנאמר כי ירחיב ה' אלהיך את גבולך וגו' וזבחת מבקרך ומצאנך אשר נתן ה' אלהיך וגו', וזו היא המצוה הנוהגת לדורות לשחוט ואחר כך יאכל..
FOOTNOTES
1.
The five factors mentioned in the previous chapter and how to prepare a knife [Kessef Mishneh; Rama (Yoreh De'ah 1:2)].
2.
If, however, a wise man supervises his actions, the slaughter is acceptable, as indicated by Halachah 5. The Maggid Mishneh quotes the Rashba as ruling that such a person may slaughter in the presence of a wise man even as an initial and preferred option. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:3) accepts this ruling, but the Rama does not.
3.
There is no factor that we see that would cause us to disqualify the slaughter. Nevertheless, since it is highly probable that he slaughtered the animal in a way that disqualified it and rendered it a nevelah, the animal is prohibited and placed in this category.
4.
Moreover, even if afterwards, he is taught the laws of ritual slaughter and states that he observed them when he slaughtered the animal, the ruling is not revised. Since he did not know the laws at that time, we fear that he did not observe them (Kessef Mishneh).
5.
This training process is still observed in the present age. Even though a person is familiar with the laws of ritual slaughter, he must first undergo apprenticeship under the guidance of a master and receive authorization to slaughter [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 1:1).
6.
I.e., after the fact, since he knows the laws, we do not disqualify the slaughter.
7.
The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 1:1) states that woman should not be allowed to slaughter as an initial and preferred option.
8.
This refers to Canaanite servants whose Halachic status is the same as women. The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 1) rules that in general servants may not serve as ritual slaughterers. See Siftei Cohen 1:2.
9.
See Halachah 9 which grants a person with only one of these handicaps to slaughter.
10.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:5) states that this refers to a child who does not know how to maneuver his hands for ritual slaughter. If he knows how to maneuver his hands he may be given an animal to slaughter at the outset. The Rama emphasizes that even so, the child may only slaughter in the presence of others. He may not slaughter alone. Furthermore, the Rama states that it is not customary for a person to receive authorization to slaughter until he is eighteen. The Siftei Cohen 1:25, however, rules more stringently.
11.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:8) states that one who becomes as drunk as Lot (see Genesis, ch. 19) may not slaughter. One who has not reached this stage of inebriation may slaughter at the outset. The Rama rules more stringently, stating that a person should never slaughter when drunk, for it is likely that he will disqualify the slaughter.
12.
With regard to his proficiency in the laws of ritual slaughter.
13.
Those mentioned in the previous chapter and how to check a knife; there is no need for him to be knowledgeable with regard to all the particulars of the laws of ritual slaughter.
14.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that when there is no alternative (see the following halachah), we rely on the principle that most of those who slaughter are knowledgeable regarding its laws. Nevertheless, in this instance, since we have the opportunity to clarify the matter, we do so.
15.
With regard to questions of business law, we rely on the presumption that an agent will perform the mission with which he was charged. We do not, however, accept this principle with regard to questions involving the Torah's prohibitions (Hilchot Terumot 4:6). Nevertheless, even if we know for certain that the agent did not slaughter the animal, we consider it as permitted because of the reason stated by the Rambam.
16.
And when there is no alternative we can rely on this presumption.
From the statements of the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 1:1), it appears that there is a slight difference between the present age and the Talmudic period. In the Talmudic era, most people were proficient in both the laws and practice of ritual slaughter. In the present age, this applies only to those who are occupied professionally in this field. Nevertheless, the laws remain the same, for we assume that only a person who is knowledgeable will actually slaughter animals.
17.
We are not speaking about a waste dump in the market place. In such an instance, all opinions would agree that the animal is forbidden. Instead, we are speaking about a situation where it was found in the marketplace at large. Chullin 12b records a dispute between two Sages concerning this matter and the Rambam chooses the more stringent ruling.
18.
For the circumstances indicate that it was discarded.
As mentioned, there is a difference of opinion in the Talmud regarding this issue. Most Rishonim follow the more lenient view and rule that if the slaughtered animal is found in an ordinary place in the marketplace or in a waste dump at home, it is permitted. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:4) also follows this view.
19.
Another person should recite the blessing for him [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:7)].
20.
As long as he has the ability to speak, he is not considered to be intellectually underdeveloped.
Rabbenu Asher explains that such a person should not slaughter as an initial and preferred option, because there is a difficulty with his recitation of the blessing. For a person must recite a blessing in a manner that enables him to hear it and that is impossible for such an individual. Indeed, the Jerusalem Talmud (Terumot 1:6) rules that a person who is dumb should not separate terumah at the outset for that reason [Maggid MishnehShulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 1:6)].
21.
For we fear that he will err and not detect his error. The Siftei Cohen 1:35 quotes opinions that rule that a blind person should not slaughter even when others are watching him.
22.
In this instance as well, the Siftei Cohen 1:36 mentions views that maintain that a person who was never able to see should not slaughter. Even after the fact, one should not partake of his slaughter.
23.
And is well-versed in the laws of ritual slaughter [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 1:1)].
24.
One might think that the slaughter of a minor has an advantage, because a minor's worship of idols is not significant.
25.
Thus a gentile's slaughter is not recognized by Scriptural Law. See, however, the following halachah.
In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam explains that the reason the animal is forbidden is that, in general, when a gentile slaughters, his intent is that the animal is an offering to his false deity, it is, however, permissible to benefit from the animal. We do not consider it as a sacrifice to idols (Chullin 13b; see Chapter 2, Halachah 2), because we assume the gentile is not really sincere in his worship, he is merely mimicking his ancestors.
Rabbeinu Asher differs and explains that the Scriptural command for ritual slaughter states: "And you shall slaughter," implying that the slaughtering must be a Jew. Hence, a gentile is inherently disqualified; his thoughts are of no consequence. See the Siftei Cohen 2:2 and the Turei Zahav 2:1 who discuss this issue.
26.
E.g., a resident alien who accepts the Seven Universal Laws Commanded to Noah and his descendants (see Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 14:7).
27.
According to the Rambam, if he does not serve false deities and knows the laws of ritual slaughter, his slaughter is acceptable according to Scriptural Law.
One might ask: If so, why is an animal slaughtered by a child a nevelah? A child is not liable for the service of false deities. The Lechem Mishneh answers that ultimately, the child will grow up and worship false deities.
28.
See the Siftei Cohen 2:27 maintains that if the Jew slit the majority of the gullet and windpipe, the slaughter is acceptable even if the gentile completed it.
29.
Thus if a gentile slit the majority of the windpipe or any portion of the gullet, the slaughter is disqualified [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 2:10)].
30.
See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 1:18 for another application of this principle.
31.
For, as stated in Chapter 1, Halachah 11, even if the windpipe is half slit because of other factors, it can be slaughtered acceptably.
32.
As the Rambam states in Hilchot Teshuvah 3:9, there is a concept of an apostate with regard to one transgression, i.e., "a person who has made a fixed practice of willfully violating a certain transgression [to the extent that] he is accustomed to transgressing and his deeds are public knowledge... provided he does so with the intent of angering God."
33.
Although he repeatedly violates that particular transgression, we do not assume that he will not slaughter correctly.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro cites Chullin 4a which states that as long as if given a choice whether to eat kosher meat or non-kosher meat, the person would choose the kosher meat - even if he would partake of the non-kosher meat if kosher meat was not available - it is permitted to partake of an animal he slaughtered. The Kessef Mishneh continues, explaining that as long as one does not transgress with the intent of angering God, one may partake of an animal he slaughtered. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 2:5), he rules that an apostate who transgresses with the intent of angering God resembles a gentile and his slaughter is inherently unacceptable.
Kin'at Eliyahu notes that there is some difficulty with the Kessef Mishneh's interpretation, because Hilchot Teshuvah specifically states that a person is deemed an apostate only when his transgression is performed with the intent of angering God.
34.
Although we do not assume that he will definitely transgress, it is logical to presume that he will not be careful in his observance.
Although it also cites the Rambam's view, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 2:6) mentions the opinion of the Tur and others who rule that if the person is not an apostate with regard to partaking of non-kosher meat, it is not even necessary to check his knife. He may slaughter in private. If, however, he is an apostate with regard to partaking of non-kosher meat, his knife must be checked. Moreover, if he shows no concern for kashrut at all, his slaughter is not acceptable [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 2:50].
35.
See the conclusion of Hilchot Shabbat.
36.
Hilchot Teshuvah 3:8.
37.
See Hilchot Edut 10:1-3.
38.
In this instance, the Rambam does not even require him to have another person observe him. Since his disregard for Jewish observance is not as severe as that of an apostate, he is allowed to slaughter on his own.
39.
I.e., he would not slaughter the animal in an invalid way when it would be just as easy for him to slaughter it in an acceptable way.
40.
Tzadok and Beotus were two of the greatest students of Antigonus of Socho. As the Rambam states in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Avot 1:3), after they heard Antigonus teach: "Do not be as servants who serve their master for the sake of receiving a reward," they forsook Jewish practice, saying: "Is it just that we labor without receiving a reward?"
They began splinter sects with the intent of swaying the people after them. At first, they sought to abandon Jewish practice entirely. They saw, however, the people would not accept this and so they focused their complaints on the Oral Law, arguing that although the Written Law was of Divine origin, the Oral Law was not. Their intent, however, was to deny the entire Torah.
41.
The Rambam appears to be saying that there is no inherent difficulty with these individuals slaughtering an animal. The only question is whether or not they slaughtered correctly. Hence, when it is possible to verify that the slaughter was performed correctly, the animal is permitted. They are not placed in the same category as apostates. Kin'at Eliyahu adds that, based on the previous halachah, these Tzadukim must also be Sabbath observant.
42.
There is a difference of opinion concerning this point among the Sages (Chullin 17a). The Rambam follows Rabbi Akiva's perspective.
43.
The obligation to offer as a sacrifice an animal which one desires to ritually slaughter.
44.
See Chapter 2, Halachah 1.

Shechitah - Chapter 5

1
We have already explained in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot1that the term trefe employed by the Torah refers to an animal that is on the verge of death. The term trefe - which literally means "torn apart" - was employed only because the Torah speaks with regard to prevalent situations, e.g., a lion or the like attacked it and wounded it, but it had not died yet.
א
כבר ביארנו בהלכות איסורי מאכלות שהטרפה האמורה בתורה היא הנוטה למות, ולא נאמר טריפה אלא שדבר הכתוב בהווה כגון שטרפה ארי וכיוצא בו ושברה ועדיין לא מתה.
2
There are other maladies which if they affect an animal will cause it to be considered trefe. They were transmitted as a halachah to Moses at Sinai. [In particular,] eight [conditions that cause an animal to be considered as] trefe were transmitted to Moses at Sinai.2 They are derusah, nekuvah, chaseirah, netulah, pesukah, keru'ah, nefulah, and sheburah.3
ב
ויש שם חלאים אחרים אם יארעו לה תחשב טריפה והן הלכה למשה מסיני, ושמונה מיני טרפות נאמרו לו למשה בסיני ואלו הן: דרוסה, נקובה, חסרה, נטולה, פסוקה, קרועה, נפולה, ושבורה.
3
Although they were all transmitted as halachot to Moses at Sinai,4since only derusah is explicitly mentioned in the Torah,5[our Sages] ruled more stringently with regard to it. Any questionable situation that arises with regard to derisah [causes the animal] to be forbidden. There are, by contrast, questionable situations that may arise with regard to the seven other conditions [that render an animal] trefe in which [the animal] is permitted as will be explained.6
ג
אע"פ שכולן הלכה למשה מסיני הן, הואיל ואין לך בפירוש בתורה אלא דרוסה החמירו בה, וכל ספק שיסתפק בדרוסה אסור, ושאר שבעה מיני טרפות יש בהן ספקין מותרים כמו שיתבאר.
4
Derusah refers to a situation where a lion or the like will attack an animal and assault it with its paw or a hawk, an eagle, or the like will assault a fowl.7 [The laws of] derisah apply with regard to a large domesticated animal8 or a large wild beast only when it is attacked by a lion.9 [The laws of derisah apply with regard to] a small domesticated animal10 or a small wild beast only when it is attacked by a wolf or a larger animal. [The laws of] derisah apply with regard to kids and lambs even when attacked by cats, foxes, martens,11 and the like. Needless to say, this applies with regard to fowl.12
ד
הדרוסה הוא שיטרוף הארי וכיוצא בו הבהמה וידרוס עליה בידו, או ידרוס הנץ והנשר וכיוצא בהן על העוף, ואין דריסה בבהמה גסה ובחיה גסה אלא לארי בלבד, ובבהמה דקה מן הזאב ולמעלה, ובגדיים וטלאים אפילו חתול ושועל ונמייה וכיוצא בהן יש להן דריסה וכל שכן בעופות.
5
When a hawk attacks, the laws of derisah apply even with regard to a larger fowl.13 With regard to other birds of prey the laws of derisah apply only with regard to fowl their size and not with regard to fowl which are larger than they are.14
ה
והנץ יש לו דריסה ואפילו בעוף גדול ממנו, אבל שאר עופות הדורסים יש להן דריסה בעוף שכמותן, ואין להן דריסה בעוף שהוא גדול מהן.
6
[The laws of] derisah apply [when] a weasel attacks a fowl. [The laws of] derisah do not apply at all when a dog attacks, not when it attacks a fowl, an animal, or a beast. [The laws of] derisah apply [when] an hawk attacks kids or lambs should its claws penetrate to [the animal's] inner cavity.15
ו
ויש לחולדה דריסה בעופות, וכלב אין לו דריסה כל עיקר לא בעוף ולא בבהמה וחיה, והנץ יש לו דריסה בגדיים וטלאים והוא שיקוב בצפרניו לבית החלל.
7
[The laws of] derisah apply only [when] the attacking animal [strikes its victim] with its forelegs. If it strikes it with its hindlegs,16 we show no concern.17 [Similarly, the laws of] derisah apply only [when the attacking animal strikes its victim] with its claw. If it bites it, we show no concern unless it penetrates to its internal cavity.18 We then check if it perforated one of the organs [that cause an animal to be considered trefe if] even the tiniest perforation was made.
[The laws of] derisah apply only [when] the attacking animal has that intent. If, however, the beast of prey fell and its claws became lodged in the other animal, [the laws of] derisah do not apply.19[Similarly, the laws of] derisah apply only [when the attacking animal] is alive. If, however, it attacked and was killed, but its claws remained lodged in the victim and were not removed until after [the attacker's] death, we are not concerned.20
ז
אין דריסה אלא ביד הטורף אבל ברגליו אין חוששין לה, ואין דריסה אלא בצפורן אבל בשן אין חוששין לה אלא אם כן נקב עד בית החלל בודקין שמא נקב אחד מן האיברים שנטרפת בנקיבתן, ואין דריסה אלא בכוונת הטורף, אבל אם נפל הדורס ונשתקעו צפרניו בנטרף אין זו דריסה, ואין דריסה אלא מחיים, אבל אם דרס ונהרג ועדיין ידו בדרוסה ולא שמט צפרניו ממנה אלא אחר מותו אין חוששין לה.
8
What are the laws applying to an animal that was attacked? Whenever we stated that "we show concern," the attacked animal should be slaughtered and its entire internal cavity - from its feet to its forehead - must be checked. If it is found to be flawless with regard to all the factors [that render an animal] trefe and there is no sign that it was attacked,21 it is permitted.22 If there is a sign that it was attacked, it is trefe and forbidden by Scriptural Law.
ח
וכיצד דין הדרוסה, כל מקום שאמרנו חוששין לה שוחטין את הנטרף ובודקין כל החלל שלו מכף הירך עד הקדקד, אם נמצאת כולה שלימה מכל מיני טרפות ולא נמצא בה רושם הדריסה הרי זו מותרת, ואם נמצא בה רושם הדריסה הרי זו טריפה ואסורה מן התורה.
9
What is meant by "a sign that it was attacked"? That the flesh above the intestines turns red.23 If the flesh above the intestines decays to the extent it becomes like flesh which a doctor would scrape from a wound, we consider that flesh as if it were lacking and [rule that the animal is] trefe.24
ט
אי זה הוא רושם הדריסה, שיאדים הבשר כנגד בני מעים ואם נמוק הבשר כנגד בני מעים עד שנעשה כבשר שהרופא גוררו מן החבורה, רואין אותו הבשר כאילו חסר וטרפה.
10
If [the predator] attacked the "signs" [which must be cut for ritual slaughter, the animal is] trefe if they turn red.25 The slightest wound [is significant]. If even the smallest portion of them becomes red because of an attack, [the animal is] trefe.26
י
ואם דרס בסימנין משיאדימו טריפה ודריסתן במשהו כיון שהאדים בהן כל שהוא מחמת דריסה טריפה.
11
When there is a question whether [an animal] has been attacked or not, we do not permit it unless it is checked as one would [an animal] that had definitely been attacked.27
What is implied? When a lion enters among oxen and a claw was found in the back of one of them,28 we suspect that the lion attacked it. We do not rationalize and say: "Maybe it scratched itself on a wall."29
Similarly, if a fox or a marten enter among fowls, [the predator] is silent and they crowing, we fear that he attacked.30 If, however, the predator is roaring and they are crowing, [we assume that] they are crowing out of fear of him and his roaring. Similarly, if he cuts off the head of one of them,31 we assume his fury has subsided. Similarly, if both [the predator] and [the fowl] are silent, we do not suspect [anything]. For if he had harmed them, they would crow.32
יא
ספק דרוסה אסורה עד שתבדק כדרוסה ודאית, כיצד ארי שנכנס לבין שוורים ונמצא צפורן בגבו של אחד מהן חוששין שמא ארי דרסו, ואין אומרים שמא בכותל נתחכך, וכן שועל או נמייה שנכנס לבין העופות והוא שותק והן מקרקרין חוששין שמא דרס, אבל אם היה הוא נוהם והם מקרקרין מיראתו ומנהימתו הן מקרקרין, וכן אם קטע ראש אחד מהן הנה נח רגזו, וכן אם שתק הוא והם אין חוששין שאילו הזיק היו מקרקרין.
12
When there is a question of whether or not a predator entered [a place where animals are kept] or we saw [an animal] enter [such a place], but were unable to see if it is one of the predators or not, we do not harbor suspicions.33
Similarly, if a fowl entered a woods or reeds and came out with its head or neck dripping blood, we do not suspect that it was attacked. Instead, we say: "Perhaps it was wounded among the trees."34
יב
ספק שנכנס לכאן טורף או לא נכנס, או שראינו ולא נודע אם זה מן הטורפין או אינו מן הטורפין אין חוששין, וכן עוף שנכנס לבין העצים או לבין הקנים ויצא וראשו מנטף דם או צוארו אין חוששין לו שמא נטרף אלא אומרים שמא בעצים ניזק..
FOOTNOTES
1.
Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot 4:8-9.
2.
All the 70 conditions the Rambam mentions in Chapter 10 are included in these eight general categories.
3.
These terms are defined in this and the following chapters.
4.
And thus all are judged with the severity appropriate for questions of Scriptural Law.
5.
Exodus 22:30 speaks of "meat torn apart in the field."
6.
The Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 29) questions the Rambam's statements, for since these other conditions are considered questions of Scriptural Law, whenever a doubt arises, we rule stringently. The Turei Zahav 29:1 explains that the severity involving derisah concerns a sefek seifkah, a condition of multiple doubt. See also the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh which offers several resolutions to this question.
7.
As will be explained in the following halachot, the laws of derisah do not concern only the wounds to the victim's organs that the attacking animal causes. Instead, the concern is that even a superficial wound can cause the victim to die, because there is poison in the attacker's claws that will affect the victim. (Exactly, what that means in contemporary terms is difficult to understand. Some have suggested that the attacker's claws are infected with bacteria which could be considered comparable to poison. That explanation, however, cannot be easily resolved with some of the points in the subsequent halachot.)
The intent of this and the following halachah is that "the poison" of certain animals or fowl is effective in harming some and not in harming others.
8.
An ox.
9.
If, however, it is attacked by smaller animals of prey, even a tiger, we assume that its strength will enable it to defend itself (Kessef Mishneh). The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 57:1) follows a more stringent opinion which rules that the laws of derisah apply when any predator larger than a wolf attacks a large animal.
10.
A sheep or a goat.
11.
We have quoted the definition of this term given by Rashi. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Bava Batra 2:5), the Rambam defines the term in Arabic as alnamas, a small predator.
12.
See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:5) which discusses the question whether leniency can be granted when a cat enters a chicken coop.
13.
For it can harm fowl larger than itself.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:3) qualifies this matter, saying that these laws do not apply when a hawk attacks a chicken. The Tur and the Rama, however, state that this applies only to large chickens, but not to smaller ones.
14.
Here also, the Tur and the Rama (loc. cit.) add a further point, stating that the laws of derisah apply with regard to a falcon regardless of the size of the bird it attacks.
15.
Compare to the following halachah. The Kessef Mishneh explains that in this halachah, the Rambam is not concerned with the question of whether the attacker perforated one of the organs whose perforation disqualifies an animal. For if so, it would not have been necessary for the Rambam to mention derisah. If such an organ was perforated, even a large animal is disqualified. Instead, the intent is whether the "poison" of the attacker is sufficient to kill the victim.
16.
This refers to a beast. The laws of derisah apply, by contrast, when a fowl attacks with its feet (Turei Zahav 57:10; Siftei Cohen 57:19).
17.
Needless to say, if it delivers a mortal wound with its hindlegs, the victim is disqualified. Here, however, we are speaking about "poisoning" an animal through derisah and that applies only when it attacks with its foreleg and with its claws [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:6)].
18.
With regard to this and wounding with its legs, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) states, "they are no different than a thorn," i.e., there is no question of "poison."
19.
For then it will not release its poison.
20.
For it releases its "poison" only when it withdraws its claws and only when it is alive.
For this same reason, if ritual slaughter is performed on the animal that is being attacked before the attacking animal removes its claws, the slaughtered animal is permitted [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:8)].
21.
As explained in the following halachah.
22.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:18) mentions a difference of opinion among the Rabbis if such an examination can be relied upon in the present age. The Rama rules that we should be stringent, not rely on the examination, and hence, declare any animal that was attacked - or there is a question whether it was attacked - forbidden.
23.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro explains that the fact that the flesh turns red indicates that the poison from the predator has penetrated the animal's flesh and will ultimately, cause the intestines to be perforated. The Kessef Mishneh questions, however, why the Rambam mentions only the intestines. Since - as mentioned in the previous halachah - it is necessary to inspect the entire body, seemingly (and indeed, the Tur rules accordingly), the same laws would apply if red marks were found on the flesh above any organ whose perforation can disqualify the animal. He explains that perhaps this is indeed the Rambam's intent and he mentions the intestines only because there are many disqualifying factors involved with them. Nevertheless, in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:16), he quotes the Rambam's wording without emendation. The Siftei Cohen 57:38) quotes the Tur's ruling.
24.
Here also we assume that the poison will ultimately cause the organ below the flesh to become perforated (Kessef Mishneh).
25.
Here too the rationale is that once the poison has begun to have an effect, it will ultimately penetrate through and perforate the entire organ. There is, however, a difference between the signs and the other organs. With regard to the other organs, as soon as the flesh above the organ is affected, the animal is considered trefe. With regard to the signs, they themselves must be affected. It is possible to explain that the signs are tougher and more resilient than the other organs. Hence, the fact that the flesh above them is affected is no proof that they will also be affected (Kessef Mishneh).
26.
This applies even when a small portion of the windpipe becomes red. Although a perforation in the windpipe does not disqualify it unless it is the size of the majority of its cavity (Chapter 3, Halachah 23), we assume that the poison of the predator will ultimately cause such a perforation (Siftei Cohen 57:40).
27.
As mentioned in Halachah 8. As stated in the notes to that halachah, there are authorities - and this is the custom cited by the Rama - it is customary in the present era not to rely on this examination and to regard any animal that was attacked - or even if there is a doubt whether it was attacked - as trefe.
28.
An animal does not release its poison until the claw is removed (Halachah 7), and is this instance, it is implanted in the animal. We, nevertheless, disqualify it, for in this instance, we say that the animal released its poison when it lost its claw (Turei Zahav 57:21). Alternatively, we fear that it was also attacked with another claw and that claw was removed (Rambam LeAm).
29.
And the claw which had been implanted in the wall became stuck in it. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:14) emphasizes that this ruling is followed even if the claw is dried out (and thus is unlikely to have come from an animal recently).
30.
And that is why they are clamoring.
31.
The Rama 57:9 states that this applies when we do not see that he attacked others. If, however, we see that he attacked others, we do not assume that his rage subsided.
32.
The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 57:11) states that this applies only when we see that he did not attack any animals. If, however, we saw an attack, the fact that he and the victims were silent is not significant.
33.
For there is a multiple doubt involved. Perhaps the predator entered and perhaps it did not. Even if it entered, perhaps it wounded the animal and perhaps it did not (see Chullin 53b).
34.
I.e., it scratched itself and caused itself a wound. We must, however, check to see that the gullet was not perforated (Radbaz). The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 57:13) states in the present age we do not rely on our inspection and therefore forbid any fowl that comes to us with a neck that is bleeding.
• Hayom Yom: Today's Hayom Yom
• Tuesday, 4 Shevat, 5777 · 31 January 2017
• "Today's Day"
• 
Sunday, Sh'vat 4, 5703
Torah lessons: Chumash: Bo, first parsha with Rashi.
Tehillim: 23-28.
Tanya: Ch. 17. with the above (p. 71)...commandments and Torah. (p. 73).
Mitzrayim (Egypt) expresses constriction, limitation. The spiritual Egyptian exile is the animal soul's restricting and concealing the G‑dly soul so severely that the G‑dly soul is compressed to the degree that it is diminished and obscured. "Exodus from Egypt" is the removal of the constriction and bounds; i.e. the intellect in the brain illuminates the heart, bringing about fine character traits translated into actual practice.
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:
Elevation
The entire cosmos, the ancients explained, climbs ever upward.
The elements move upward to grow as living flora.
Flora rise upward, consumed by creatures that swim, run, fly, love and fear.
Those mobile, loving and fearing fauna may too be elevated into the realm of a conscious being that acts with enlightened mindfulness—a human being.
And this human being, to where can it rise?
To the ultimate fulfillment of intellect and yet higher, to a place that existed before Mind was born, a place without constriction or borders.
And where is that place?
It is the act of doing good for the sake of good alone.[Igrot Kodesh, vol. 7, p. 376; ibid., vol. 11, p. 421. Night of Simchat Torah 5723:6.]
-------

No comments:

Post a Comment