skip to main |
skip to sidebar
However, a cut-up thigh should not be sent, because a Jew might buy it. But how could a Jew buy presumably non-kosher meat from an idolater? – We are dealing with a place where the majority butchers were Jewish, and when a non-kosher slaughter (terefah) occurred, they announced it. Jews then would refrain from buying from a re-seller on that day.
Another reason that a cut-up thigh may not be sent is that a Jew would then be deceiving an idolater, who would think that he got a super kosher piece of meat, and deceiving any person (literally, “stealing his mind”) is prohibited. One should not accustom himself to sleekness and enticement, and even one deceiving or misleading word is not allowed.
Art: Francisco De Goya y Lucientes - A Butcher's Counter
Rav Abba said, “The blood vessels in the foreleg are prohibited.” Rav Safra said to him, “Moses! Did the Merciful One say 'You shall not eat meat?'” Rava answered him, “Moses! Did the Merciful One say 'You may eat blood?'” Rather, if you are roasting the meat, the heat extracts the blood. However, if you are cooking the meat in a pot, you need to cut the vessels open first and salt them. Otherwise the prohibited blood gets reabsorbed into the meat.
Art: Esaias Boursse - Interior with Woman Cooking
We see from here that some angels sing a song to God only once in a lifetime. Even those that do it daily can only sing their song after the prayers are said on earth. Moreover, angels mention the name of God only after three words, “Holy, holy, holy (is) God of Multitudes,” whereas people say “Listen, Israel, God... Is One,” mentioning the name of God after two words.
Earlier we mentioned that the prohibition of sciatic sinew does not apply to fowl because they lack the spoon-shaped flesh over the thighbone. But we see that they do!? – Yes, there is a spoon, but it is not round. Rabbi Yirmiyah inquired, “What if some bird does have a round spoon-shaped flesh?” – Inquiry unresolved.
Art: Giorgio da Castelfranco Veneto ( Giorgione) - The Singing Lesson
Consider the following rule: if one ate a portion of the right sinew and of the left one, then according to the Sages he incurs double punishment, eighty lashes, but Rabbi Yehudah gives him only one punishment. Now if Rabbi Yehudah is in doubt about which sinew it is, then the person eating it can only be given a doubtful warning, which is no warning at all! Must be then that Rabbi Yehudah is certain that only the right sinew is prohibited. Why the right one?
One explanation is that the angel fighting with Jacob embraced him with his right hand and extended it to Jacob's right haunch and dislocated it. Another one – Jacob thought it was a non-Jew and positioned him to his right, to better protect himself. Yet another explanation, the angel looked like a Sage, and Jacob position himself to the left of the Sage, to show respect.
Art: Luca Giordano - Jacob Wrestling With The Angel
Rav Pappa said that they don't really argue. Rabbi Chiya is talking about the the sinew not removed from the thigh, and then there is no prohibition to burn it, whereas Rabbi Yochanan is discussing a case where the sinew was already removed, and then it is prohibited to burn it.
Rav Nachman bar Yitzhak said that they do disagree. According to Rabbi Yochanan, the complete thigh is brought to the Altar – because it would be unseemly to bring it cut – but then the sinew is removed and thrown onto the mound at the center of the Altar, which also contained ashes.
At times, the mound had 300 kor (4,000 cubic feet) of ashes on it. Rava said, “That is an exaggeration.” Other examples of exaggerations, according to Rava, are that they gave a lamb to drink from a golden cup, or that 300 kohanim were needed to purify the Temple curtain in a mikva. The Torah itself uses hyperbole when it said, “large cities fortified to the heavens.”
Art: Thomas George Cooper - A ewe with lambs in a coastal landscape
The sciatic sinew, “gid hanasheh,” is prohibited by the Torah on the account of the angel fighting with Jacob and striking him on the hip, dislocating his thighbone. The Torah says, “Therefore, the Children of Israel are not to eat the displaced sinew that is in the spoon of the thigh, to this day.” The “spoon” is the rounded, spoon-like flesh around the top of the thighbone.
The exact prohibition mentioned the sciatic sinew, and the commonly known sciatic nerve constitutes part of it. The prohibition applies both in the Land of Israel and outside, when the Temple is standing and now, to both regular animals and sacrifices. It applies to domestics and wild animals but not to fowl, because they do not have spoon-shaped flesh on their thigh.
Art: Francois-Andre Vincent - Job Being Scolded by his Wife
Blood that splattered – the Sages say that it too has to be covered, but Rabbi Yehudah says that covering any part of it is enough. All derive their opinion from the words in the Torah “its blood” but interpret them differently.
One may cover blood with fine sand or dung, lime or ground pottery, but not with course sand or dung, nor with uncrushed bricks. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel stated a rule: “Blood can be covered with anything in which plans can grow.”
Art: Francisco De Zurbaran - Still-Life with Pottery Jars
If one slaughtered an animal and did not cover its blood, and another person saw this, he is obligated to do blood covering. If one covered the blood, and it became uncovered, he does not have to cover it again. If the wind covered the blood with earth, one does not have to cover it, but if it became uncovered, one has to do blood covering.
Once a man slaughtered an animal, but another person covered the blood first. Rabban Gamliel obligated the mitzvah thief to pay the slaughterer ten golden dinars (about $12,000). Was the penalty for the mitzvah or for the blessing connected to the mitzvah? Consider the following story.
A Sadducee told Rabbi Yehudah the Prince, "The one who created the wind did not fashion the mountains," quoting Amos. Rabbi Yehudah said, "But the verse continues – it is God of Legions!" The Sadducee asked for three days to find an answer, during which time Rabbi Yehudah fasted and prayed to win the debate. When he was breaking the fast, a Roman arrived saying that the Sadducee did not find an answer and threw himself from a rooftop. Rabbi Yehudah invited the messenger to his meal, and at the end, asked him, "Do you want to hear the blessings after the meal or to take forty golden dinars (about $50,000)?" The Roman chose the blessings, and the Heavenly voice pronounced, "The four blessings after a meal are worth forty golden dinars." His family rose to prominence as a result, and we see that the penalty was for the blessing.
Art: Camille Pissarro - Strong Winds, Pontoise
But could it really happen? When Rabbi Chiya and his sons came to Israel, there ceased to be earthquakes and violent winds, the wine did not sour and the flax was not afflicted, since their merit protected everybody!? – Yes, it protected everybody but not them.
If a deaf-mute, a deranged person, or a minor slaughtered a wild beast or a bird, with others observing them, this is kosher, but the observer is the one obligated to cover the blood. If nobody saw them, their shechitah is surely bungled, and one need not cover the blood. The same applies for “it and its offspring,” - these are the words of Rabbi Meir, but the Sages disagree. Actually, the Sages disagree about covering the blood also, but they waited for Rabbi Meir to finish his words.
Art: John William Waterhouse - Windswept
If one slaughters a wild animal or a bird, but it is found to be terefah, then Rabbi Meir requires him to cover the blood, but the Sages exempt him. Why do the Sages exempt him? Because it is unfit slaughter, and it is not called slaughter at all. But this is Rabbi Shimon! Then why is he called “Sages” here, but back then in discussing the laws of “it and its offspring” he is called Rabbi Shimon, and there Rabbi Meir is called the Sages? That is because Rabbi Yehudah the Prince, the compiler of the Mishnah, agreed with Rabbi Shimon here, but agreed with his opponent, Rabbi Meir, over there. By ascribing an opinion to “the Sages” Rabbi Yehudah was indicating what he thought the law should be.
Art: Winslow Homer - The Dinner Horn
Why did the Torah mentioned “trapping,” since fowl don't need to be trapped? To teach that one should eat meat only occasionally, as if he had to trap it each and every time. Additionally, one should only eat meat if he has a great desire for it, has flocks, or is otherwise rich. Others should eat it only on Shabbat. However, later generations became weaker and should eat whatever is necessary to maintain their health.
One should underspend on himself, be within means for his children, and overspend on his wife.
Art: Jan Vermeer Van Delft - Young Girl in an Antique Costume
What is considered “one day” regarding the prohibition of “it and its offspring?” As Ben Zoma interpreted, “one day” is mentioned describing the creation of the world, and there it means “there was evening and there was morning, one day,” and “one day” is mentioned for the “cow and its offspring.” In both cases the day starts in the evening at sunset and continues on the next day till sunset.
Art: William Hart - Sunset With Cows
If one slaughtered a cow and then slaughtered its two calves, he transgressed twice and is liable to two sets of lashes, but if he slaughtered the calves and then the mother, he transgressed only once.
If one slaughtered a cow, its daughter and its daughter's daughter on one day, he transgressed twice, but if he first slaughtered a cow and its daughter's daughter's (for which he is not liable), and then slaughtered the daughter that day, he transgressed only once. However, Sumchos says that he transgressed twice here too: when he slaughtered the middle generation, he was doing two transgressions with one act, and it is Sumchos' opinion, for example, that for eating two portions of non-kosher food was is liable twice.
Art: George W. Horlor - Calves Feeding
In fact, according to Rabbi Shimon, the prohibition of “it and its offspring” does not apply to sacrifices at all. Rav Hamnuna said, this is because after slaughter the meat is not ready to be eaten until its blood is thrown on the Altar, and thus it is not a shechitah. Rava said that this is because perhaps they will not throw the blood on the Altar. Then the warning they can give him becomes doubtful at best, and one is not liable for transgressing a law without a clear unequivocal warning immediately prior to the act.
Art: English Provincial School - The Head Of A Prize Bull
When one slaughters a wild animal, one has to cover its blood with earth. A koy, being partly a wild animal, may require covering its blood – if we attach any importance to the father – or it may not. Accordingly, the Sages do not allow to slaughter a koy on a holiday, because we may dig the earth only for clear cases of blood covering, and not for doubtful ones.
Some say that crossbreeding between a deer and a goat is impossible, and that the “koy” is perhaps a wild ram, or a separate species, not clearly wild or domestic.
Art: Roelandt Jacobsz Savery : A stag, deers, herons, goats, parrots and other animals in a forest
The Sages compare the situation to that of a mother bird hovering over her young in the nest, where the mother bird is mentioned specifically and must be sent away. Chananyah says that you can't compare the two: sending away the mother bird does not apply to a nest that you own, whereas “it and its offspring” applies even to stray animals that are not yours.
Actually, the Sages agree to Chananyah in this, however, they say that “it” means only one parent, and now by analogy with the bird it must be the mother! And Chananyah, what does he have to say now? He answers that “it" means the father, and “its offspring” implies the mother.
Practically, if the father is known with certainty, then it should not be slaughtered on the same day as its offspring, even though one does not violate a definite Torah prohibition.
Art: Martin Johnson Heade - Two Hummingbirds At A Nest
For example, if one slaughtered an animal and its offspring, both regular animals, outside the Temple, and both are now fit for consumption, then for the second slaughter he is liable like for any other negative commandment of the Torah. However, if both the parent and the offspring were sacrifices and he slaughtered both outside the Temple Courtyard, then for the first slaughter he is liable because he did it outside the Temple, and may be cut off from the people, but the second animal is now unfit for slaughter on the same day, and thus the slaughterer is not liable for slaughtering it outside. He is liable for "it and its offspring" slaughter though.
Two different people can slaughter the two animals, and the second one – that one who does the action now forbidden – only he is liable.
Art: Eugène Verboeckhoven - Shepherd Girl With Cattle And Sheep At Rest
If an amniotic sac partially emerged from the womb before the the animal was slaughtered, the complete sac is prohibited for consumption even after the animal was slaughtered. There is a suspicion that the partially emerged part contained the head of the fetus, which would make it legally born, and then the shechitah of the mother would not make the sac permissible.
If an animal carrying its first miscarried an amniotic sac, it may or may not have been a male firstborn, and even if it was a male, it may have been deformed, therefore it can thrown to the dogs. However, if the mother was a sacrifice, the sac needs to be buried -- because both male and female young would be sanctified.
Art: Charles Émile Jacque - A Flock Of Sheep In A Barn
If an animal's hind leg was severed below the joint, it is still fit for consumption, but if it was severed above the joint, then it is unfit, because it has been rendered terefah. The animal's hind leg has two joins, so which one are we talking about? There are different opinions on that, and also different reported versions of these opinions.
A “junction of sinews” are the three sinews that attach the middle leg muscles to the bone of the lower leg. If they are removed, the animal becomes a terefah.
If a bone was fractured and the broken ends pierced the skin, the animal remains kosher, but the limb itself is in question. If the greater part of the flesh remains, the shechitah of the animal makes the limb fit for consumption, but if not, then this is a dangling limb, and it is forbidden for consumption.
Art: George Cochran Lamdin - The Little White Heifer
Rabbi Shimon Shezuri made a statement: the calf of a slaughtered cow, even when it is five years old and is plowing in the field, is still permitted through the shechitah of its mother and may be killed in any way and eaten. But we've been saying this all along!? – Actually, the Sages have prohibited this as soon its feet touch the ground, and have put the requirement of a regular shechitah back, because otherwise people watching it may decide that shechitah is never required. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says that the Sages made no such decree.
Art: Adrien Moreau - Plowing The Fields
If the nine-month fetus was alive, then it is an independent animal and requires shechitah; additionally, it cannot be killed today, on the same day as its mother – these are the words of Rabbi Meir, but the Sages disagree. For animals other than cows the law is the same, only the gestation term is adjusted accordingly.
A firstborn donkey cannot be used by its owner, until he redeems it with a lamb or a young goat, which he gives to a priest. Can the calf of a slaughtered cow be used for this redemption? Is it considered an independent animal, and then it could be used for redemption, or since it does not need a shechitah, is it considered like meat in a pot, and then it can't be used for redemption?
Art: Pieter Aertsen - The Cook
Resh Lakish says that the dangling limb is similar to a limb of a fetus protruding from its mother's womb, and it is subject to the disagreement between Rabbi Meir and the Sages. Rabbi Yochanan says that in the case of a dangling limb there is no disagreement, but rather it is considered attached to the body of the animal, and shechitah makes it permitted for consumption and free from impurity – except that the Sages later forbade to eat it. By contrast, if the animal with a dangling limb dies by itself, the limb is considered to have been detached before death, and its impurity is less than of a nevelah. How so? A piece of meat separated from a torn limb is pure, while a piece of meat separated from an animal that died by itself is impure.
Art: William Huggins - Rams and Ewes in a Landscape
If one first slaughtered its mother and then severed the foreleg, then the flesh of the fetus is impure because it touched the limb – so says Rabbi Meir. However, the Sages say that flesh is impure with a special light impurity decreed by the Sages, which would only make a difference in the case of sacrifices.
All agree that kosher slaughter makes the meat ritually pure. Why? Logically, one could even argue that should be impure, like non-kosher animals. However, since a kosher animal was fit for food when it was young, its slaughter purifies the meat even if it later became a terefah (sick), whereas non-kosher ones were never fit.
Art: Frans Snyders : The market game
The operative principle here is that of “swallowed-up,” or absorbed impurity, which does not transmit impurity to anything else. It is derived from the following phrase in the Torah, “And one who eats of the dead animal carcass shall immerse himself...” and become pure after sunset. This instruction includes even the case when he swallowed the meat just prior to sunset, and then immersed himself, so that the impure meat has not yet been digested – and he is nevertheless pure, which proves our principle.
Rabbah said that the same is true for a swallowed-up pure object: it does not become impure. What's the proof? Compare the human to a clay vessel, which protects from the impurity from outside. The power of a human is even stronger, since it protects from the swallowed-up impurity.
What about swallowing an impurity via the rectum? Its protection must be even stronger, since the rectum leads to digestion.
Art: G. Horning Jensen - Turning the clay in the pottery
If an animal's fetus died inside the womb and the shepherd extended his hand into the womb and touched it, the shepherd does not become impure with corpse-impurity. This is derived through logic: if its mother permits the fetus to be eaten, by her slaughter, then certainly it can purify from corpse-impurity. The law for non-kosher animals that are not slaughtered for food should be the same. Rabbi Yose HaGlili disagrees in the case of a non-kosher animal.
Art: Eugène Verboeckhoven - A Sheep And Two Lambs Resting In A Summer Landscape
Sometimes, when an animal was in difficult labor, they would cut off a piece of the fetus, to ease the pain of the animal. Since there is a necessity for this measure, it is not prohibited as cruelty to animals. If he leaves the limb inside the womb and later slaughters the mother, this limb (and the whole fetus) is permitted to be eaten. The Torah said, “Any that has a split hoof and chews its cud – among the animals...” “Among the animals” (ba behemah) can be understood as “within an animal” – and this serves as the source for the law about a fetus.
Art: Rosa Bonheur - Doe And Fawn In A Thicket
If an animal was in difficult labor and the fetus put forth its foreleg and then drew it back, the fetus can be eaten without shechitah, as above, except for the foreleg. However, if it put forth its head and then drew it back, it is considered to have been born, and it will require its own shechitah.
The foreleg that was put forth is prohibited because of the phrase “and meat in the field, terefah, you will not eat.” The words “in the field” are extra, since a predator can attack anywhere, and it teaches an additional lesson: once meat has gone outside of its bounds (its mother's womb), it becomes forbidden. The Talmud started this topic because of its connection to the laws of terefah discussed earlier.
Art: Jean-Francois Millet - Peasants Bringing Home a Calf Born in the Fields
Ran Huna said the rule: one should not pour beer through a sifter of wood chips at night, because a worm may part from the beer and crawl upon a chip momentarily. When it does, it becomes a creature that creeps upon the ground, and one would transgress a prohibition if he eats it while drinking the beer. But if so, let us suspect that the worm departed from the beer and adhered to the wall of the vessel and then fell back!? – That would not be a problem. The interior wall of the vessel is considered the worm's natural habitat, and the worm is not considered parted from the vessel.
Similarly, worms that germinate in detached fruit are permitted, until they emerge and crawl on the ground. Rav Yosef inquired, if a worm germinated in a detached fruit and died upon contact with the ground, or only part of the worm emerged, or if one swallowed it in mid-air? – Unresolved.
Art: William Huggins - The Diet of Worms
