skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Earlier we said that if no blood flowed during the shechitah, the meat does not become susceptible to ritual impurity. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says that the shechitah alone prepares the meat to become impure. According to him, the reason that wetting the food makes it susceptible to impurity is because this is the final step in food preparation. But the final step in meat preparation is the shechitah itself. The shechitah then takes the place of wetting the food, and thus makes the meat susceptible to impurity.
Art: Christoffel Lubieniecki - Food Lovers
However, there is a problem with this understanding. While it is true that one cannot eat the food of the second tithe while being impure, the mention of the hands implies that one cannot even touch the food – and that nobody ever said. Therefore, we must re-interpret the rule as talking about sacrifices after all. What about the argument that wild animals were never brought as sacrifices? That is true, and we have to further modify our understanding as talking about people who undertook to eat regular food with all the stringencies applicable to sacrificial meat. Such a diet could include venison. Game meat can be confused with regular meat, so game meat was also treated stringently.
Art: Evert Pieters - Preparing The Meal
The slaughter of an animal produces blood, and the owner of the animal is content with it, thus blood prepared the animal to become ritually impure. However, we have a rule that states “if one slaughtered a domesticated animal, a wild kosher animal, or a bird, and blood did not come out of them, they are kosher. We do not assume that the animal died just prior to shechitah. It may be eaten with unwashed hands.”
Unwashed hands are considered ritually impure. But why should this rule be true? It cannot be talking about sacrifices, because kosher wild animals, such as deer, are never brought as sacrifices. The only situation where this rule can be applicable is when animals were bought with the money of the second tithe.
Art: Jean-Baptiste Oudry - A Deer Chased by Dogs
If in doing the shechitah one properly severed the trachea, but tore the esophagus with a nicked knife, then Rabbi Yesheivav says that the animal becomes a nevelah – not slaughtered at all – and therefore carries ritual impurity. Rabbi Akiva says that the animal becomes a trefah: it is slaughtered, but considered to have an internal defect that would cause it to die within a year. Trefah cannot be eaten, but it does not carry ritual impurity.
Rabbi Yesheivav stated a rule: any animal that became unfit through slaughter becomes a nevelah, but if another incidental defect caused it to become unfit, it becomes trefah, and subsequently Rabbi Akiva agreed to it.
Art: Gerard Terborch - Woman Washing Hands
Rava examined an arrow for Rav Yonah, found it smooth, and then Rav Yonah slaughtered with it a bird in flight. But perhaps the arrow entered the side of the neck and burrowed between the pipes? - They saw that the feathers around the neck were sliced. But they need to cover the blood of the bird both below and above? - They plowed the whole field over which the bird was flying, and thus the loose earth served for covering below.
Art: Hans Memling - Portrait of a Man with an Arrow
Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav, “If one severs the pipe in two or three places, his slaughter is valid.” But when he repeated this teaching in front of Shmuel, Shmuel said it was invalid. A defense for Rav: as we will learn later, two people can hold a knife and together make a shechitah to an animal. This proves that you can make two cuts! Answers Shmuel, “No! They are holding the same knife together and cutting. We need a clearly visible single cut.”
Art: Caspar David Friedrich - Two men at moonrise by the sea
An objection against Rav comes from the laws of purity. If one split a ritually impure earthenware oven into two pieces, ostensibly of the same size – they both remain impure, because it is impossible to be precise in anything, and any of the two pieces might be the larger one. However, if it were possible to be precise, the pieces would be pure! But, according to Rav, exactly half is considered like more than half, and thus the pieces should remain impure, which proves that Rav is wrong! Said Rav Pappa in Rav's defense, in an oven both pieces cannot be the larger ones, but in slaughter we care only about the part that is cut.
In the end the Rav's point of view is revised as untenable, and instead we say that the argument is not about shechitah, but about half of all Jews being impure on Passover.
Art: Pieter Harmansz Verelst - A young boy reclining, eating from an earthenware bowl
Objection to the statement of Rabbi Yitzchak! We learned a rule that “If one was doing the shechitah, and inadvertently rendered it a nevelah, or if he pierces or tears the creature's pipes, he does not have to cover the blood. We see from here that piercing is not considered shechitah, to the extent that even blood covering is not required! What will Rabbi Yitzchak answer? He says that this rule is only about a wild animal - since covering the blood is also required for a wild animal - and not about a bird.
Art: Jan Fyt - A cat stalking dead songbirds on a ledge
Why from the neck? Said Rav Kahana, the word “shechitah” says it: “shach” means something that bends, that is the neck, and “chat” means to prepare. But the tail also bends, so perhaps we should cut from the tail? - No, the tail is already bent, and we need something that bends occasionally. But perhaps we should cut from the ear, because it sometimes bends? - No, we need the lifeblood, and it does not go from the ear. Still, how would we know the five disqualifications of the shechitah, which are pausing, pressing, burrowing, cutting beyond and tearing? - We are forced to conclude that cutting from the neck was taught to Moses on Sinai and is not based on a word in the Torah.
Rav Yeimar said, the word slaughter, “zavach” means to cut where it (the blood) flows (“zav”). But perhaps we should cut from the nose, from which mucus flows? - No, mucus always flows, and blood – only when cut.
Art: Thomas Wade - Man Tickling a Woman's Nose with a Feather
Soaked grape-seeds – before they ferment are like water and cannot be bought with second tithe money, after they ferment, they are food (wine) and can be bought with with second tithe money. The brothers whose father died – before they divide the estate they have the law of a single person (father) and have to separate animal tithe; after they divided it, even if they continue together, are like partners and do not have to separate animal tithe.
A girl who is a minor – her father can sell her as a maidservant, but there is no fine for seduction; once she grows up, her father can't sell her, and there is a penalty for rape or seduction. The Sages disagree and say that there is always a penalty.
Art: Artemisia Gentileschi - Judith and Her Maidservant
How do we know this highly unusual law of earthenware utensils? The Torah said, “an earthenware utensil into whose interior one of the eight dead reptiles will fall … will become impure” - even if the reptile does not touch it. It also said,“any open utensil under the same roof with a dead body, if it does not have a cover, will become impure”, to teach that if it does have a cover, it remains pure and protects from impurity – even if it is touched from the outside.
What is pure in the case of wooden utensils is impure in the case of metal utensils, and vice versa. Wooden utensils can be used before they are fully finished, and are thus susceptible to impurity. However, if they lack a hollow of any kind, they remain pure. The reverse is true of metal utensils.
Art: Edgar Degas - Still Life With Lizard
What is fit for the kohanim is unfit for the Leviim, and vice versa. The kohanim were disqualified by blemishes, but they could serve at any age. In contrast, the Leviim were not disqualified by blemishes, but they had age limitations: they would start studies at 25 and continue on to service at 30. They retired at 50.
The service of the Leviim included guarding the gates, singing in the Temple choir and playing in the Temple orchestra. From them we have a rule that any student who does not see success in the first five years of his studies will never see it. Some say that at this point he should try Kabbalah.
Art: Emil Jacobs - Young Student
Try this answer: the Torah said “sacrifices … from birds,” and this means that some birds are excluded. Which ones? Isn't it ones with yellowing feathers? - No! Excluded are birds that were sodomized or worshiped, and Rabbi Zeira does not get an answer.
He asked a similar question about sheep. A sheep younger than twelve months is a lamb, one older than thirteen is a ram, what is its status in between? Does it require libations like either a lamb or a ram, or is it a separate creature with no libations? Again, no answer. He also asked about dough in intermediate stages of leavening, can it be brought as part of a thanksgiving offering.
Art: Antonio Paoletti - Feeding The Pigeons At Piazza St. Marco, Venice
What is acceptable in the case of turtledoves is unacceptable in the case of pigeons, and vice versa. The beginning of yellowing in both types is unacceptable. That is when a turtledove is not fully mature yet, and a pigeon begins to become mature. The reason for this is that the Torah calls pigeons “bnei yonah,” “sons of pigeons”; conversely, we understand that turtledoves must be mature.
But logic should dictate otherwise: if turtledoves, which are not acceptable when young, are acceptable when mature, then pigeons, which are acceptable when young, should surely be acceptable when old! To dispel this, the Torah never called a pigeon a pigeon, but only a “son of a pigeon” to emphasize that only young ones are acceptable.
Art: James E. Bourhill - Pouter Pigeons
Said Rav Chisda, “We already learned this! If one did melikah to the bird with a knife instead of his fingernail, the bird becomes a nevelah. That is exactly the case of Zeiri, where the bird's neck is broken before it is slaughtered.” They told him, “No, Zeiri's rule is new and necessary! In the case of the bird, melikah - killing the bird from the back of the neck - is not considered shechitah at all, but the case of an animal whose neck is broken it might have be different.”
And why is melikah not considered a valid shechitah? Rav Huna said, “Because one burrows the knife under the neck bone,” and Rav said, “Because he presses the knife downwards.” These are two of the five invalidations of shechitah.
Art: Francis Barlow - An Ostrich
Shechitah is the way of kosher slaughter for birds. In the Temple, however, birds were an exception, and there they were killed in a different way, called melikah. While shechitah is done from the front of the neck, the melikah is done from the back of it. Therefore we have the following rules.
If one performs shechitah from the side of the neck, it is valid, but if one performs melikah from the side of the neck, it is invalid. If one performs shechitah from the back of the neck, it is invalid, but if he performs melikah from the back of the neck, it is the proper way to do it. Finally, if one performs shechitah from the throat, it is valid, but if he performs melikah that way, it is invalid.
We thus find that the complete back of the neck is valid for melikah, and the complete front and the sides are valid for shechitah, and what is fit for melikah is unfit for shechitah and vice versa.
Art: Jozef Chelmonski - Greeting Of The Sun Cranes
Why would it be kosher? Because when the animal's life departs in the middle of the cut, it departs through valid shechitah. And why would it be not kosher? Because you need the majority of the trachea cut within the designated area, and here only one-third of it was cut this way.
In the reverse case, Rav Huna and Rabbi Yehudah again disagreed, and Rav Yehudah became upset. On hearing this, Rav Huna wanted to retract his opinion, because Rav Yehudah was the direct student of Rav, while Rav Huna only heard Rav's opinion through others. Said Rav Chisda to him, "Don't retract both opinions, for they are logical, just retract that one which you did not hear directly from Rav." Thus, you will combine logic and your respect for tradition the reason for which may escape you.
Art: Henry Towneley Green - A Disagreement
The correct place for the slaughter cut is the front of the neck of the animal, and the knife should cut more than half of the trachea and esophagus. The trachea itself is encircled by many successive rings of cartilage, which are horseshoe shaped. The uppermost ring is a complete ring, and it forms the upper limit of the cut. If he cut above the upper ring, the shechitah is not kosher. Rabbi Yose ben Yehudah says that as long as he cut the major part of the trachea within the upper ring, it is valid, even if the knife went higher in the remaining part of the cut. Rabbi Chanina ben Antignos testified that even if he cut above the uppermost ring, but still under the thyroid, it is valid, and his is the accepted point of view.
Art: Leon Bonvin - Still Life With Basket Of Grapes, Walnuts And Knife
“We always slaughter” according to Rabbi Ishmael, means this. In the desert, the Jews were not allowed to eat meat for pleasure, but only if brought as a peace offering. When they entered the Land of Israel, the Torah allowed them to eat meat whenever they wanted, even if not brought as a sacrifice. You might think that in exile the meat is again prohibited – so the rule teaches that it remains allowed. According to Rabbi Akiva, meat eaten for pleasure was always permitted, but the shechitah in the desert was not required. In Israel shechitah became obligatory. You might think that in exile the shechitah requirement is again not applicable, just like in the desert beforehand, so the rule teaches you otherwise – that now the shechitah is always needed.
Art: Jozef Chelmonski - Dawn. The Kingdom of Birds
“If one slaughters” implies that one really should not, but if he did, it is valid. Why? This is the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah the Prince, who invalidates the slaughter done by an implement attached to the ground. If it was detached, and then later reattached, then Rabbi Yehudah asks not to use it, but if it was used anyway, he considers the shechitah valid.
Rabbi Chiya always permits the shechitah done with something that is attached to the ground. Once Rav and Rabbi Chiya were sitting in a lecture of Rabbi Yehudah who said, “How do we know that shechitah must be done with a detached implement? – Because it is written, 'And Abraham took the knife to slaughter his son.'”
Said Rabbi Chiya, “This proof is as full of cracks as a letter vav written on a piece of a tree trunk. Abraham was zealous and brought a knife. But in truth anything sharp on the mountaintop would do.”
Art: Caravaggio - The Sacrifice of Isaac
Why would Rav silence someone? Could it be because Rav subscribes to the view of Rabbi Yehudah, who only allows to eat this food after Shabbat, whereas the student recited the view of Rabbi Meir, who allows to eat it immediately? – No! This cannot be. Just because Rav himself does not agree to someone's point of view, he would never silence a person reciting it, since it was a logically valid opinion held by Rabbi Meir. Rather, Rav silenced him because he misunderstood Rabbi Meir's point of view. He actually recited the rule as applicable to slaughter. Said Rav to him, “Do not think that Rabbi Meir allows to eat meat slaughtered on Shabbat, just as he allows to eat cooked food. For the food could be eaten even uncooked, but the animal could not be eaten if not slaughtered.”
Art: Reinier or Reynier Coveyn or Covyn - A Woman Preparing Fish in her Kitchen
If one slaughtered an animal on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur, even though he incurs punishment for the violation, his slaughter is valid and the animal's meat is fit for consumption. Said Rav, “Even though the meat is kosher, it may not be eaten until the end of Shabbat.” Why? Following Rabbi Yehudah, we say that the animal was not designated for food before the Shabbat. Since it was not thus prepared for use, it should not be used as food. However, why don't we say that animals are designated for food, although they are also designated for growth. If later on they are slaughtered, it is now retroactively clarified that they were originally from those designated for food? – No, we cannot say so, because Rabbi Yehudah does not agree with the principle of retroactive designation, also called breirah.
Art: Blind Musician - Cawen Alvar Sokea Soittoniekka
A non-Jew does not need to eat kosher meat. Since the Torah said, “And you shall slaughter... and you may eat,” one who does not need to eat kosher meat cannot slaughter it either. Therefore, if he did slaughter it, the animal becomes a nevelah, same as if it died by itself, and its meat conveys ritual impurity, which was important when the Temple was standing. It is not, however, prohibited for benefit – as would be the case with idol sacrifices – because today's idolaters are considered idol-worshipers by rote, and not out of ideological conviction.
Art: Lombard School - A man eating and drinking at a partly-draped table in an interior
Rav Dimi then asked, “If one told his agent to go and separate terumah, the kohen's portion, then went to his produce and found the terumah separated, what is the law?” Rav Nachman answered, “He cannot presume that this was done properly.”
Asked Rav Dimi, what is the difference between the two cases? If one can rely on an agent to accomplish his mission, he should rely on his in all cases. Said Rav Nachman, “When you measure me a kor of salt (about 25 pounds) of salt as my commission, I will explain.” In fact, he cannot presume that his agent did what he was told to do. However, in the case of slaughter, even if another man did it, most who slaughter know the laws. In contrast, the separation of the kohen's portion requires the knowledge of the owner.
Art: Winslow Homer - Salt Kettle - Bermuda
Chazakah says that we can assume things to stay the way they were when we last observed them (absent indications to the contrary). It is derived from the way the kohen inspects houses for signs of spiritual leprosy (tzaraat): once he sees a specific discoloration on a wall of a house, he can close the house off for seven days and pronounce it under quarantine. But how can he do it? Perhaps while he was going to the door, the discoloration became smaller or disappeared. We see that he is allowed to assume that the status quo has not changed. This principle can then be used in other areas of the law.
How do we know the principle of majority? – One who strikes his parent is to be executed. But how do we know that it is his real father? Since the majority of the cohabitations of a wife are with her husband, we can presume that her husband is the father of her children and execute the son based on this presumption.
If the knife was not inspected immediately after slaughter, but only some time afterward, and a nick was found on it, then Rav Huna declares the slaughter invalid. This is true even if the butcher was later smashing bones with the knife later in the day, and it is likely that the nick originated then. Rav Huna is consistent with his own opinion that an animal is considered forbidden for consumption unless for know with certainly how it was slaughtered.
Rav Chisda, however, declares the meat kosher. What is his logic? The nick may have been caused by the animal's hide or by a bone. The hide is unlikely to cause the nick, while the bone is likely to do so. Weighing unlikely against the likely, we say that the nick was caused by a bone later on, and the slaughter was done with a good knife and is therefore valid.
Art: Frans Wilhelm Odelmark - The Snake Charmer
If while slaughtering one paused, this invalidates the slaughter. How long is the pause? Enough to inspect the pipes, that is, the trachea and esophagus, to make sure that the majority of both pipes were cut and that the knife did not leave the area designated for slaughtering.
After slaughtering, he must indeed inspect the pipes as explained above, and if he did not inspect them, the meat is forbidden to eat. Rabbi Eliezer ben Antignos said that it is forbidden as terefah (sick or incorrectly slaughtered animal), but others say that it is forbidden as nevelah (meat that was not slaughtered at all).
What is the argument? Both agree to the principle of Rav Huna, “An animal during its lifetime is in a prohibited state, until it becomes known that it was slaughtered properly. Once it has been slaughtered, it is in a permitted state, unless we know that it became a terefah,” but they argue about how far to take its prohibited state.
Art: Benjamin Gerritsz. Cuyp - The Circumcision
A terefah is an animal or bird possessing one a well-defined group of life-threatening body defects that will results in its death within twelve motnhs. The meat of an animal or bird that is terefah may not be eaten even if the animal was killed through ritual slaughter, or shechitah.
A nevelah, on the other hand, is the carcass of an animal or bird that did not undergo a proper shechitah.
One is allowed to slaughter with the knife of idolatry, because he damages the animal by killing it, and does not derive benefit, but he is not allowed to cut the meat with this knife, because this improves it.
However, the forbidden fat collected on the knife of idolatry surely makes the meat non-kosher!? Rav agrees and says that one must peel away some meat at the place of incision, and Rabbah bar bar Channah says that one needs only wash the meat. What is the argument? Rav considers the place of the incision hot enough to absorb the forbidden fat. Alternatively, both consider it hot, but Rabbah says that the pipes are busy expelling the blood and do not absorb fat. Or perhaps both consider the place of incision cold, yet Rav says that it absorbs the forbidden fat because of the pressure exerted by the knife.
Art: Francis Wheatley - Knives, Scissors and Razors to Grind
Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair was on his way to redeem captives – which is one of the most important commandments – when he encountered the river Ginai. He said to the river, “Ginai, split your waters, so that I may cross through you.” The river answered, “You are trying to do the will of your Maker, but you may or may not succeed, while I will certainly accomplish the will of my Maker and continue to flow.” Rabbi Pinchas said, “If you do not split, I decree that water shall never flow again through you,” at which the river split.
There was a man with Rabbi Pinchas, bringing flour for matzah. “Split also for him!” - commanded Rabbi Pinchas, and the river obeyed. There also was an Arab merchant with them, and Rabbi Pinchas made the river split for him yet again.
When Rabbi Pinchas arrived at an inn, they poured barley for his donkey, but it refused to eat. They sifted and then cleaned the barley, but it still did not eat. “Perhaps you bought it from a source that cannot be trusted to separate the tithes,” - suggested Rabbi Pinchas - “The poor creature is going to perform the will of its Maker, so it should not be given forbidden foods.” Then the donkey ate.
But, when one buys grain for an animal, he needs not tithe it? - True, if he buys it initially for the animal. In this case, however, they bought it for the needs of Rabbi Pinchas, who was known to never accept presents, and thus the exemption from tithing did not apply.
Art: Willem Maris - A Herdboy With Donkeys On Scheveningen Beach
Later, Rabbi Yochanan drank their wine. Did he not hear about Rabbi Meir's decree, or did he not agree to it? Based on the rule that the righteous do not accidentally eat forbidden foods, we can deduce that he knew about it, but did not agree to it.
Rabbi Zeira and Rav Assi were served roasted eggs mixed with wine, and Rabbi Zeira did not eat them, because he suspected that tithes were not separated from the wine. However, seeing that Rav Assi ate the food, he reasoned that the righteous do not accidentally eat forbidden food, searched the stores of his knowledge and found that one should not worry about doubtful tithes when they are served in a mixture.
Art: Antoine Vollon - Still Life with a Pen, Jug, Bottle and Eggs on a Table
The Torah said, “When a man among you brings an offering to God: from the animals...” The words “among you” tell us that some people are excluded from bringing voluntary offerings to God, namely, completely non-observant Jews. Further, “among you” means that only to Jews can the term “non-observant” apply, but all non-Jews can bring offerings. The words “from the animals” are extra and teach another law: people who are similar to animals in that they do not recognize their Creator are included and are still allowed to bring sacrifices, in the hope that they will improve their behavior.
Then who is considered non-observant? Those who deny the complete Torah, that is, those who pour libations to idols and those who violate Shabbat in public. With this, Rav Anan's proof is refuted, and only people who observe Shabbat but violate some commandments, such as eating non-kosher meat, are allowed to do shechitah.
Art: Sir Edwin Henry Landseer - Isaac van Amburgh and his Animals
