slaughtered it in proper fashion, it is invalid, for it is written, Then thou shalt kill...and thou shall eat:1 that which thou slaughterest shalt thou eat. If the knife fell [while a man was slaughtering] and he picked it up, or if his clothes fell down and he pulled them up, or if he had whetted the knife2 and become weary, [and he broke off during the slaughtering] and his fellow came and slaughtered — if there befell a delay long enough to slaughter [a beast], it is invalid. R. Simeon says: A delay long enough to examine [the knife].
4. If he cut through the gullet but tore open the windpipe, or cut through the windpipe but tore open the gullet, or if he cut through but one of them and w'aited until the beast died, or if he sank the knife beneath the second [of the tubes] and so severed it, R. Yeshebab declares it carrion, but R. Akiba terefah.1 R. Yeshebab in the name of R. Joshua laid down a general rule: That which becomes invalid through its manner of slaughter is carrion; but if the manner of slaughter was proper and some other matter rendered it invalid, it becomes terefah. And R. Akiba agreed with him.
5. If a man slaughtered cattle or a wild animal or a bird, and the blood did not flow forth, they are valid; moreover they may be eaten with un¬ washed hands since they have not been rendered susceptible to uncleanness through the blood.4 R. Simeon says: They have been rendered susceptible to uncleanness through slaughtering.
6. If a man slaughtered a beast that was at the point of death, R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says: [It is not valid] unless it can jerk a fore-leg and a hind-leg. R. Eliezer says: It suffices if [when it is slaughtered] the blood spirts forth. R. Simeon said: [Even] if he had slaughtered it by night and came early in the morning and found the walls [of the neck] filled with blood, it is still valid, since its blood had spirted forth, and it has thus fulfilled the condition of R. Eliezer. But the Sages say: [It is not valid] unless it can jerk a fore-leg or a hind-leg or move its tail, no matter whether it is a small beast or a large beast. If a small beast stretched out its fore-leg but did not withdraw it, it is invalid, since this was but [a token of] its expiring. This applies if the beast was presumed to be at the point of death; but if it was presumed to be sound it is valid even if none of these tokens appeared in it.
7. If a man slaughtered for a gentile, what he slaughters is valid, but R. Eliezer declares it invalid. R. Eliezer said: Even if he slaughtered it [with the intention] that the gentile should eat but the midriff, it is invalid, since an unexpressed intention in a gentile is directed to idolatry.5 R. Jose said: It is an argument from the less to the greater: if, where intention can render a result invalid (as with animal-offerings) it depends on him alone that performs the acts [required in the offering],6 how much more, there¬ fore, where intention does not render a result invalid (as in the slaughtering of unconsecrated beasts) does it depend only on him that slaughters them!
8. If a man slaughtered in honour of mountains or of hills or of seas or of rivers or of wildernesses, what he slaughters is invalid. If two took hold of the knife and slaughtered, the one in honour of any among these things 1 Deut. 12”. 1 Before the slaughtering.
3 See App. I. 47. It does not convey uncleanness like carrion.
4 See Maksh. 64; Lev. ti*4.
s Even if the gentile had not said so the presumption is that he intended to eat or offer the flesh in honour of his god.
* In the course of his slaughtering, receiving the blood, conveying it, and sprinkling it. See Zeb. 4*. The intention of the owners has no power to render the offering invalid.
and the other in honour of a thing permitted, what is slaughtered is invalid.
9. None may slaughter [in such wise that the blood falls] into the sea or into rivers1 or into vessels; but they may slaughter [in such wise that the blood falls] into a hollow filled with water, or over the outside of vessels on a ship [so that the blood flows into the sea]. 2 None may slaughter [in such wise that the blood falls] into any manner of [empty] hole, but a man may make a hole in his house for the blood3 to flow into; he may not, however, do so in the [open] street lest he confirm the heretics4 in their ways.
10. If a man slaughtered [an unconsecrated beast outside the Temple Court] under the name of a Whole-offering or a Peace-offering or a Suspen¬ sive Guilt-offering5 or a Passover-offering or a Thank-offering, what he slaughters is invalid. But R. Simeon declares it valid. If two took hold of the knife and slaughtered, the one under the name of any of these things, and the other under the name of a thing permitted, what is slaughtered is invalid. If a man slaughtered [an unconsecrated beast outside the Temple] under the name of a Sin-offering or an Unconditional Guilt-offering6 or as a Firstling7 or as Tithe [of Cattle]8 or as a Substitute[-offering],9 what he slaughters is valid. This is the general rule: If it is a beast that can be vowed or offered as a freewill-offering, and a man slaughtered it under that name, it is invalid; but if it is not such that can be vowed or offered as a freewill-offering and a man slaughtered it under that name, it is valid.
3. 1. These10 are accounted terefah among cattle: if the gullet is pierced or the windpipe torn; or if the membrane of the brain is pierced; or if the heart is pierced as far as the cells thereof; or if the spine is broken and the spinal cord severed; or if the liver is gone and naught soever of it remains; or if the lung is pierced or defective (R. Simeon says: [It is not terefah ] unless its bronchial tubes11 are pierced); if the maw is pierced, or the gall¬ bladder, or the intestines; or if the innermost stomach is pierced, or if the greater part of its outer coating is torn (R. Judah says: A handbreadth in large cattle, or the greater part in small cattle); or if the omasum12 or the second stomach is pierced on its outermost side; or if the beast has fallen from the roof, or has most of its ribs broken, or if it has been mauled by a wolf (R. Judah says: Small cattle — if they have been mauled by a wolf; large cattle — if they have been mauled by a lion; small birds — if they have been mauled by a hawk; and larger birds — if they have been mauled by a vulture). This is the general rule: If it could not continue alive13 in like state it is terefah.
2. And these are accounted [still] valid among cattle: if the windpipe is pierced or slit (How large may be the hole? Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: As large as an Italian issar);14 if the skull is defective but the membrane of the brain unpierced; if the heart is pierced but not so far as the cells thereof; if the spine is broken but the spinal cord is unsevered; if the liver 1 Lest he appear to slaughter in their honour.
2 So that he will not appear to be collecting the blood to sprinkle idolatrouslv, but only as saving the ship from becoming dirty. 3 Of a beast slaughtered in the courtyard.
4 Whose method of slaughtering this is. s Lev. 5lwa.
'* As enjoined in the cases detailed (see Zeb. s5) in Lev. s‘s; 66; 1412; n/ofi; Num. 612.
Iu Eighteen signs of terefah. Maimonides defines seventy signs.
II Or main lung arteries. 12 The third stomach of a ruminant.
" For twelve months. 14 App. II, A.
FIFTH DIVISION: KODASHIM is gone but an olive’s bulk of it remains; if the omasum or the second stomach is pierced [with holes leading] the one into the other; if the spleen is gone or the kidneys or the lower jaw or the womb, or if [a lung] is dried by an act of heaven.1 If it has lost its hide R. Meir declares it valid, but the Sages invalid.
3. These are accounted terefah among birds: if the gullet is pierced or the windpipe severed; or if a weasel has wounded it in the head where it could render it terefah-,1 or if the stomach is pierced, or the small intestines. If it fell into the fire and its inward parts were scorched and they have turned green, it is invalid, but if they remained red, it is valid. If a man mauled it or knocked it against a wall, or if cattle trampled over it but it still flutters and continues alive for one day, and it is then slaughtered, it is valid.
4. And these are accounted [still] valid among birds: if the windpipe is pierced or slit; if a weasel has wounded it on the head where it cannot render it terefah-, or if its craw has been pierced (Rabbi says: Even if it is gone); if its inward parts protrude but are not pierced; if its wings are broken; if its legs are broken, or if its wing-feathers are plucked. R. Judah says: If its down is gone it is invalid.
5. If [a beast] suffers from congestion of the blood, or is overcome by smoke, or is frozen,3 or if it has eaten oleander or fowl’s offal or drunk filthy water, it is still valid; but if it has eaten poison, or if a serpent has bitten it, although it is not forbidden as terefah it is forbidden as a danger to life.4 6. The tokens5 in cattle and wild animals are enjoined in the Law, but not those in birds.6 But the Sages have said: Any bird that seizes food in its claws is unclean; and any that has an extra talon and a craw and the skin of whose stomach can be stripped off, is clean. R. Eliezer b. Zadok says: Any bird that parts its toes evenly is unclean.
7. Among locusts7 [these are clean]: all that have four legs, four wings, and jointed legs, and whose wings cover the greater part of their bodies. R. Jose says: Or that are called by the name ‘locust’.8 And among fishes: All that have fins and scales. R. Judah says: Two scales and one fin [suffice]. The scales must be such as are immovable, and the fins the means by which it swims.9 4. i. If a beast was in hard travail and the young put forth its fore-leg and then withdrew it,10 it* 1 may be eaten. If it put forth its head yet withdrew it again, it is deemed [fully] born. If aught was cut off from the young while it was yet in the womb,'2 it may be eaten; but if aught was cut from the spleen or the kidneys [of the dam] it may not be eaten. This is the general rule: What is from the dam’s body is forbidden; but what is not from her body is permitted. | 2. If a beast that had not before borne young was in hard travail, the: members [of the young] may be cut off one by one and thrown to the dogs; I Shrivelled from fright by thunder and lightning. But if by act of man or by the roar¬ ing of a lion, or the like, it is terefah.
3 By piercing the membrane of the brain.
3 Some texts omit ‘frozen’. * Cf. Ter. 8*.
5 By which they are recognized as clean or fit for food. See Lev. n,_*; Deut. 14*"*.
* To include the varieties (Cf. Lev. 1 1 **) that come under the general title of ‘locust’.
9 And not limbs by which it can propel itself on dry land.
10 And the dam was then slaughtered.
II The young; it does not count as a born and living beast that must itself be slaughtered before it may be eaten, 12 And it was left there, and the dam was then slaughtered.
if the greater part of it had come forth it must be buried, and the dam is exempt from the law of the Firstling.1 3. If the young of a beast died in the dam’s womb and the herdsman put in his hand and touched it he remains clean whether it was a clean or an un¬ clean beast. R. Jose the Galilean says: He is unclean if it was an unclean beast but clean if it was a clean beast. If the young of a woman died in its mother’s womb, and the midwife put in her hand and touched it, the mid¬ wife contracts seven -day uncleanness,2 but the mother remains clean until the child comes forth.
4. If a beast was in hard travail and the young put forth its fore-leg and a man cut it off and then slaughtered the dam, the [whole] flesh is clean.3 But if he slaughtered the dam and afterward cut off the fore-leg, the flesh [is reckoned as flesh that] has suffered contact with carrion.4 So R. Meir. But the Sages say: [Only as flesh that has suffered] contact with terejah s that has been slaughtered; for like as we find that slaughtering renders clean what is terefah,6 so the slaughtering of the beast renders clean the [protruding] member. R. Meir answered: Not so! if the slaughtering of terefah renders it clean where the beast [alone] is concerned, can it also render clean the limb which does not pertain to the beast? Whence do we learn that slaughtering renders terefah clean? An unclean beast is forbidden as food; terefah also is forbidden as food; then as slaughtering does not render clean an unclean beast [must we conclude that] slaughtering does not render terefah clean? Not as thou arguest of an unclean beast (which has had no time when it was valid) canst thou argue also of terefah (which has had a time when it was valid). Take away such ground for inference! Whence do we learn [the like] touching what was bom terefah from the womb? [From this inference]: Not as thou arguest of an unclean beast (to which kind slaughtering does not apply) canst thou argue also of terefah (to which kind slaughtering does apply). Slaughtering does not render clean a live eight months’ birth7 since slaughtering does not apply to such a kind.8 5. If a man slaughtered a beast and found therein an eight months’ birth, living or dead, or a dead nine months’ birth, he need only sever it and let the blood flow away.’ If he found a living nine months’ birth it needs to be slaughtered and he thereby becomes culpable by virtue of [the law of] It and its young.10 So R. Meir. But the Sages say: The slaughtering of the dam renders it clean. 1 1 R. Simeon of Shezur says: Even if it grew into a five- year -old beast and ploughed the field, the slaughtering of the dam renders it clean. If a man had cut into the beast and found therein a living nine months’ birth, it requires slaughtering,'2 since the dam was not slaughtered.
6. If a beast’s hind-legs were cut off below the knee, it is valid;'3 but if * Num. 18“. What it next bears is not deemed a Firstling.
J Although it had touched a severed member from a living creature (Ohol. i').
* The young is deemed not validly slaughtered. Although the young may not, therefore, be eaten, it does not convey uncleanness.
4 See Zeb. 7*. 7 That had been bom and slaughtered.
* Slaughtering applies only to a living creature, and an eight months’ birth is not deemed such.
* i.e. it may be eaten without having been slaughtered; but its blood is forbidden equally with that of the dam. See below, 5Ifl.
11 i.e. suffices to make it also permissible.
11 In the prescribed manner by cutting the gullet and windpipe.
11 It is not terefah. This paragraph belongs to the subject of ch. 3.
FIFTH DIVISION: KODASHIM above the knee it is invalid; so, too, if the juncture of the [thigh-]sinews was removed. If the bone was broken but most of the flesh remained, slaughter¬ ing renders it clean; otherwise slaughtering does not render it clean.
7. If a man slaughtered a beast and found therein an afterbirth, he whose appetite is robust1 may eat it; it is not susceptible to food-uncleanness or to carrion-uncleanness.2 If he ate it of set purpose, it can contract food- uncleanness but not carrion-uncleanness. 3 If the afterbirth had emerged in part only,4 it is forbidden as food; it is a token of [the birth of] young in a woman5 and a token of [the birth of] young in a beast.6 If a beast that had not before borne young cast an afterbirth, it may be thrown to the dogs7 but, if the beast had been set aside as an offering, it must be buried.8 * It should not be buried at cross-roads or hung on a tree, for such are the ways of the Amorite.6 5. 1. The law of It and its young10 is binding both in the Land [of Israel] and outside the Land, both during the time of the Temple and after the time of the Temple, both for unconsecrated beasts and for animal-offerings. How does it apply? If a man slaughtered a dam and its young and they were unconsecrated beasts and [slaughtered] outside [the Temple Court], they are both valid, but for the second of them he incurs the Forty Stripes.11 If they were both animal-offerings and [he slaughtered them] outside [the Temple Court], for the first he is liable to punishment by Extirpation,12 and they are both invalid, and for each he incurs the Forty Stripes. If they were unconsecrated beasts and [he slaughtered them] within [the Temple Court] they are both invalid and for the second he suffers the Forty Stripes. If they were animal-offerings and [he slaughtered them] within [the Temple Court], the first is valid, and by reason of it he is not culpable, but for the second he incurs the Forty Stripes, and it is invalid.
2. If [the one was] an unconsecrated beast and [the second] an animal- offering [and he slaughtered them] outside [the Temple Court], the first is valid and by reason of it he is not culpable, but for the second he incurs the Forty Stripes, and it is invalid. If [the first was] an animal-offering and [the second] an unconsecrated beast [and he slaughtered them] outside [the Temple Court], for the first he is punishable by Extirpation, and it is invalid; and the second is valid, but for each he incurs the Forty Stripes. If [the one was] an unconsecrated beast and [the second] an animal-offering [and he slaughtered them] within [the Temple Court], both are invalid and 2 It is accounted neither food nor flesh, being only skin. Some texts read only, ‘It is not susceptible to carrion uncleanness’.
3 Though he has given it the status it is still not flesh.
* Before the slaughtering of the dam.
s Signifying her uncleanness (Lev. i2,fl) even if no embryo was found.
6 And it may imply that the head of the young had already protruded before the slaughter¬ ing of the dam, making the slaughter of the young necessary before it could be used as food. Cf. Bekh. 3' 7 Without feeling scruple that the sanctity of the firstborn male attached to it.
* Since the offspring, male or female, to which it pertained cannot be used as common food.
* A superstition that thus the beast will be prevented from miscarrying again. Cf. Shab. 6U.
10 Which must not be killed both on the one day. Lev. 22**.
11 For a transgression of the negative command.
12 Lev. 1 7*. He is not liable to Extirpation for the second beast since this could not have been brought as an offering without a transgression of the Law; and Extirpation cannot apply to misuse of what was an invalid offering.
for the second he incurs the Forty Stripes. If [one was] an animal-offering and [the second] an unconsecrated beast [and he slaughtered them] within [the Temple Court], the first is valid and by reason of it he is not culpable, while for the second he incurs the Forty Stripes, and it is invalid. If they were both unconsecrated beasts [and he slaughtered the one] outside and [the second] inside [the Temple Court], the first is valid and by reason of it he is not culpable, and for the second he incurs the Forty Stripes, and it is invalid. If both were animal-offerings [and he slaughtered the one] outside and [the second] inside [the Temple Court], for the first he is punishable by Extirpation, and both are invalid, and for each he incurs the Forty Stripes. If both were unconsecrated beasts [and he slaughtered the one] within and [the second] outside [the Temple Court], the first is invalid and by reason of it he is not culpable, while for the second he incurs the Forty Stripes, and it is valid. If [both were] animal-offerings [and he slaughtered the one] inside and [the second] outside [the Temple Court], the first is valid and by reason of it he is not culpable, and for the second he incurs the Forty Stripes, and it is invalid.
3. If a man slaughtered a beast and it was found to be terefah, or if he slaughtered it in honour of an idol, or if he slaughtered the [Red] Heifer of the Sin-offering,1 or an ox that was to be stoned,1 or the heifer that was to have its neck broken,3 R. Simeon declares him exempt [from the law of It and its young], but the Sages declare him liable. If he slaughtered a beast and it became carrion4 at his hand, or if he pierced or tore out [the wind¬ pipe or gullet], he is not culpable by virtue of the law of It and its young. If two bought a cow and its offspring, he that bought first should slaughter first; yet if the second did so first his right holds good. If a man slaughtered a cow and then two of its offspring, he incurs eighty stripes; if he first slaughtered the cow, then its offspring, and then its offspring’s offspring, he incurs eighty stripes; if he slaughtered the cow, then its offspring’s offspring, and then he afterward slaughtered the cow’s offspring, he incurs forty stripes. Symmachos says in the name of R. Meir: He incurs eighty stripes. Four times in the year5 must he that sells a beast to his fellow tell him, ‘Its mother have I also sold to be slaughtered’, or ‘Its daughter have I also sold to be slaughtered’, namely, on the eve of the last Festival-day of the Feast [of Tabernacles], on the eve of the first Festival-day of Passover, on the eve of the Feast of Pentecost, and on the eve of the New Year (also, according to R. Jose the Galilean, on the eve of the Day of Atonement in Galilee).® R. Judah said: This applies when there was no space of time7 [between the sales]; if there was a space of time he need not tell him. But R. Judah agrees that if a dealer sold the dam to the bridegroom and the daughter to the bride, it is needful to tell the matter, since it is known that they will both slaughter [their beast] the same day.
4. At these four times they may make the butcher slaughter a beast against his will; even if it was an ox worth a thousand denars and the buyer had but one denar9 they may compel the butcher to slaughter it; * If it was not killed in the manner prescribed for slaughtering.
s When all Israelites were accustomed to eat flesh the next day, and when the presump¬ tion was that they would slaughter the beasts on the day of buying them.
6 Where the custom was to eat a rich and hekvy meal in preparation for the Fast.
7 i.e. at least one day.
* i.e. he only wanted one denar’s worth of flesh. If the denar passed into the butcher’s hand he must fulfil the sale.
522 FIFTH DIVISION: KODASHIM therefore if it dies the loss falls on the buyer.1 But on other days in the year it is not so; if, therefore, the beast dies the loss falls on the seller.
5. The one day spoken of in the law of It and its young means the day together with the night that went before. This was expounded by R. Simeon b. Zoma: In the story of Creation it is written, one day, 1 and in the law of It and its young it is written, one day. as the one day spoken of in the story of Creation means the daytime together with the night that went before, so, too, the one day spoken of in the law of It and its young means the daytime together with the night that went before.
6. 1. [The law of] the covering up of the blood3 is binding both in the Land [of Israel] and outside the Land, both during the time of the Temple and after the time of the Temple; for unconsecrated beasts but not for animal-offerings; and it applies both to wild animals and to birds,4 whether captive or not captive. It applies also to the Aov5 since it is an animal about which there is doubt; it may not be slaughtered on a Festival-day, and if a man did slaughter it he need not cover up the blood.6 2. If a man slaughtered a beast and it was found to be terefah, or if he slaughtered it in honour of an idol, or if he slaughtered unconsecrated beasts within [the Temple Court] or animal-offerings outside, or a wild animal or a bird that was condemned to be stoned,7 R. Meir declares him liable, but the Sages declare him exempt [from the law of covering up the blood]. If a man slaughtered [k wild animal or a bird] and it became carrion at his hand, or if he pierced or tore out [the windpipe or gullet], he is exempt from the law of covering up the blood.
3. If a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor had slaughtered [a wild animal or a bird] and others beheld them, [one of them that beheld] must cover up [the blood]; but if they were alone, it need not be covered up. So, too, with the law of It and its young: if they had slaughtered [one of the two] and others beheld them, it is forbidden to slaughter [the other] afterward [on the same day]; but if they were alone, R. Meir declares it permissible j to slaughter [the other] afterward; but the Sages forbid it. But they agree 1 that if a man did slaughter [the second beast] he does not incur the Forty I Stripes.
4. If a man slaughtered a hundred wild animals in one place, covering up the blood once suffices for all; if [he slaughtered] a hundred birds in one place, covering up [the blood] once suffices for all; if [he slaughtered] a wild animal and a bird in one place, covering up [the blood] once suffices for all. R. Judah says: If a man slaughtered a wild animal he should [first] cover up its blood and then slaughter the bird. If a man slaughtered aught and did not cover up [the blood], and another beheld him, the other must cover it up. If he covered it and it became uncovered, he need not cover it up again; but if the wind covered it up [and it became uncovered], it must be covered up again.
5. If the blood was mixed with water but still had the appearance of 1 Who had thus already acquired part ownership in the ox. 2 Gen. js.
5 Lev. I-71’. « But not to cattle.
5 App. I. 19. It is in doubt whether it is a wild beast; and an injunction in the Law (in contradistinction to rabbinical rules) is assumed to be applicable in a matter of doubt.
6 In this matter the stringency of the Festival-day rule (p. 181, n. i i ) applies, since it is in doubt whether it is a tame beast (cattle), to which the law of covering up the blood does not apply. 7 Cf. Eduy. 6*.
blood, it must be covered up; if it was mixed with wine, this is looked upon as though it was water. If it was mixed with the blood of cattle or of an animal that is still living, this is looked upon as though it was water. R. Judah says: Blood cannot make other blood of none effect.
6. Splashings of blood and blood that remains on the knife must be covered up. R. Judah said: This applies only when there is none other blood there than that; but if there is other blood there than that it need not be covered up.
7. With what may they cover and with what may they not cover up [the blood]? They may cover it up with fine dung or with find sand, with lime, or with [pieces of] potsherd or a brick or the plug of a jar' that have been crushed; but they may not cover it up with coarse dung or coarse sand, or with a brick or a plug that have not been crushed, nor may they set over it a vessel turned upside down.2 Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel laid down a general rule: They may cover it up with aught in which they can grow plants; they may not cover it up with aught in which they cannot grow plants.