Sefer HaChinuch ספר החינוך

The commandment of slaughter: That anyone who wants to eat ([domesticated] beast, [wild] animal or bird) meat first slaughter them as is fit, and that there not be [another way to] permit [it] besides slaughter. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 12:21), “you may slaughter from your cattle or your flock [...], as I have commanded you, etc.” And the language of Sifrei Devarim 75:7,16 is, “Just like consecrated [animals] are with slaughter, so too are the non-sacred [animals] with slaughter. [...] ‘As I have commanded you’ teaches us that Moshe, our teacher, was commanded as to the esophagus and the trachea and as to the [cutting of] the majority of one in a bird and the majority of two, in a beast.” The understanding is not that it be such from the understanding of the verse, but rather that upon this commandment came the tradition that it was like this that he was commanded about all the matters of slaughter — as is known to us about the knife, the place of the slaughter [on the animal] on the esophagus and the windpipe and the rest of the matters.

And even though the verse only mentions cattle and flocks, we have known that [wild] animals are included in [domesticated] beasts, since Scripture compares them, as it is written about [domesticated beasts] disqualified from [having been] consecrated (Deuteronomy 12:22), “But as you eat the gazelle and the deer, so shall you eat it” (Chullin 27b). And birds also require slaughter (Chullin 27b), since it is compared to a beast, as it is written (Leviticus 11:46), “This is the law of the beast and the bird.” Yet the Sages [further] made an exacting inference, and the tradition supports them, that since Scripture places the bird between the beast that requires slaughter and the fish which has no slaughter — as it is written, “This is the law of the beast and the bird and any living soul that moves in the waters” — it is enough for you with one benchmark (siman, either the esophagus or the windpipe). And from where did they learn to say that there is no slaughter with fish? As it is written about them (Numbers 11:22), “if all of the fish of the sea were collected for them” — just with collection, whether they are collected alive or even dead. And so [too,] all species of locusts do not have slaughter (Keritot 21b), as the expression “collection” is written about them as well — as it is written (Isaiah 33:4), “the collection of the locusts.” And also the verse (Leviticus 11:46) mentions them after the fish at the end of the Order of Bayom Hashmini, as it is stated, “This is the law of the beast and the bird and any living soul that moves in the waters” — these are the fish — “and of any soul that swarms upon the earth” — these are the locusts. And also because they have scales on their bodies like fish.

I have already written at the end of the Order of Tsav about the prohibition of blood (Sefer HaChinukh 148) and at the beginning of Acharei Mot [about] the commandment of covering the blood (Sefer HaChinukh 187) all that I have known about the matter of distancing that the Torah distanced us from the blood of all flesh. And I say from the angle of the simple understanding that the commandment of slaughter is also from the same reason. Since it is well-known that the body’s blood comes out of the neck more than from other places of the body, hence we were commanded to slaughter from there before we eat it. As [in this way] all of its blood will come out from there, and we will “not eat the soul with the flesh.” And we can also say as a reason for slaughter from the neck with a checked knife, [that it is] in order that we not cause too much pain to living beings. As the Torah [only] permitted man — due to his status — to derive nourishment from them for all of his needs, but not to cause them pain for no reason. And the Sages have already spoken much about the prohibition of pain to living beings in Bava Metzia 32a and in Shabbat 128b, [as to] whether it is a Torah prohibition. And it appears to come out that it is a Torah prohibition. (See Mishneh Torah, Laws of Murderer and the Preservation of Life 13:13.)

From the laws of the commandment are that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 9a) that five things spoil the slaughter, if one of them happened during the slaughter. And these are them: pausing; pressing; submerging; sliding; and tearing. The content of pausing is, for example, that he began to slaughter the esophagus, and before he slaughtered its majority, he interrupted [the] slaughtering. If he paused with this interruption the measure of enough [time] for another slaughter, his slaughter is disqualified. The understanding of another slaughter is the [time needed to] slaughter the skin and the benchmarks of another beast like it, and like that of a small beast (lamb) for a chicken. And there are those that are stringent, that the measure is only enough for the slaughter of the majority of the [two] benchmarks with a beast, and the majority of one benchmark with a bird. But if he slaughters with a bad (meaning dull) knife, even if he goes back and forth the whole day, his slaughter is fit — except if he brings it back and forth after he slaughtered the majority of only one benchmark in a beast; as if he brings a bad knife back and forth on the minority that remains of it like the measure of pausing, his slaughter is disqualified.

The matter of pressing is one who presses the knife, like one who cuts a radish, at the time of the slaughter — meaning to say that he does not bring the knife back and forth — in this manner, the slaughter is disqualified (Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter 3:11).

The matter of submerging that we have received in the tradition is that the knife must stay revealed at the time that we slaughter. And because of this, they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 30b) that if one covered the knife under one benchmark and slaughtered the second, or even if he covered it under the skin and slaughtered the benchmarks, or even [if he did so] under the tangled wool or even under a cloth (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Ritual Slaughter 3:9, 10) that is very stuck to the neck, the slaughter is disqualified. But it if is not very stuck, it is not disqualified by [a cloth].

The matter of sliding is that which we received that even though the slaughter is from the neck, there are well-known boundaries upon the neck within which the slaughter is fit, but not below [the lower] boundary and not above [the higher one]. And the boundary of the place of slaughter on the windpipe is from the slant of the Adam’s apple and below (Chullin 19a) to the top of the small protrusions of the lungs — not until the bottom of the protrusions that are connected to the lungs, but rather their tops. And this measurement is the entire part of the neck that the beast stretches out at the time that it grazes naturally without duress. And on the esophagus (Chullin 44a), one leaves the grasp of a hand above. And below, the measurement is until the esophagus gets “hairy” — meaning to say that many perforations are found there, in the likeness of the stomach. And some (see Rashi and Tosafot on Chullin 44a) say that the understanding of the grasp of a hand is enough for three fingers, and some say [it is] enough that one grabs it with two fingers from the two sides of the neck, and that is the measurement of the width of one finger. And that measurement is with a [domesticated] beast and a [wild] animal, but with a bird, everything is according to its largeness or smallness. And they said in the Gemara (Chullin 19a) that [in the case of] one who began the slaughter of the windpipe and slaughtered a third, and afterwards moved the knife from the place of slaughtering — meaning above the slant of the Adam’s apple — and cut a third, and after that brought the knife back to the place of slaughtering and slaughtered a third, the slaughter is disqualified. As we always need in this law of sliding that the majority of the death of the beast be with slaughter and that at the time of the leaving of life from it — meaning the middle third — that then, the majority is with [proper] slaughter. Anything that is like that is fit; [but if was done] in another matter, it is disqualified. And this [particular] matter of sliding is only found with the windpipe and above adjacent to the slant of the Adam’s apple. As below, adjacent to the protrusions of the lungs, its [disqualifying] piercing is with the smallest amount, and the law of sliding one third is not relevant to it at all. And so too, with the esophagus — whether above or whether below — its piercing is with the smallest amount, and the law of sliding one third is not relevant to it at all.

Anyone who is not an expert in these four things that disqualify the slaughter is not permitted to slaughter (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Ritual Slaughter 4:1). And if he did slaughter, it is forbidden to eat from his slaughter. And even if after he slaughtered, they asked him if he was careful about them and he said, “Yes, yes,” there is no substance to his words — as since he did not know them at first, maybe he was negligent about them and it is not remembered [by him] at all.

And besides these four things that we mentioned that every slaughterer needs to know, the Sages obligated us to know a fifth thing — and even though it is not from the laws of slaughtering [per se] — since this matter always comes up at the time of slaughter, and the beast is made into a carcass with the thing. And if the slaughterer does not know it, he will be feeding carcasses to everyone. And therefore they also said about this [that] it is forbidden to eat from the slaughter of any butcher that does not know it. And this is the prohibition that is called tearing. And its matter is that the windpipe and the esophagus — both of them or even one of them — is torn from the place of their connection with the jawbone and the flesh upon it. And [it is] when they are torn from there completely, or even if they are not torn completely, but rather their majority dangles — [then,] behold it is forbidden. And that is when it is fully detached (Chullin 44a) — meaning to say [that] when we forbid it when its majority is dangling, it is to say that all of it is in this manner, that the dangling is from this [side] and that [side]. As [with] anything that is [detached] in this manner, even that [part of it] which is connected is not connected well, and so, they are considered completely torn. But if the benchmarks were dangling from one side — meaning to say it was detached and torn from the jawbone only in one place — even though the majority was torn — since the tear is only in one place, the minority is connected with a lasting connection [and] that minority saves [it] and it is fit; even though [the tear] is in the majority of the benchmark and there is only [a minority] remaining. And all the more so do we render it fit when the whole benchmark is connected to the flesh on the jawbone, even though the jaw is cut and completely taken out from the place of its connection in the head — the connection of the flesh with the benchmark saves [it]. And it comes out that tearing forbids when the benchmarks are torn in many places, this way and that, in the majority. But in any case, [if it is only] in one place, the prohibition of tearing does not [apply]. And this tearing that we said does not make a beast into a “torn” (terminally ill) animal. Rather, so have we learned from the tradition, that torn benchmarks cannot be slaughtered — meaning to say that the commandment of slaughter would not be [fulfilled] with torn benchmarks. And hence one who slaughters torn benchmarks — behold, it is as if he did not slaughter, and as if the beast died on its own, such that it is a carcass. And even though they made a bird fit with [only] one benchmark — as we said — so long as one is torn before he slaughtered the other, the slaughter does not permit it and it is forbidden. So have we learned from the tradition. Every one of Israel must know the five laws that we mentioned — pausing; pressing; submerging; sliding; and tearing — to be an expert in them, before he slaughters. And it is forbidden to eat from the slaughter of anyone who is not an expert in them and slaughtered [regardless]. And even if we ask him afterwards and he says, “I am sure that I slaughtered properly,” we do not listen to him at all.

And one who wants to slaughter also needs to know the matter of checking the knife — that the Sages required him to check with the fingernail and with the flesh in a knife’s three [relevant] directions (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Ritual Slaughter 1:23). And if we feel a nick in it — even the smallest size — the slaughter [done with such a knife] is forbidden. And it is permitted to slaughter with anything that cuts well that does not have a nick in it at all. And if the knife is found to be nicked after the slaughter, we say that it got nicked with the skin and that the benchmarks were slaughtered with a nicked knife. And we say this when bones were not cut with the same knife after the slaughter — meaning to say that the knife did not touch anything from which it is possible for it to be nicked. But if we know with certainty that something from which it is possible for it to be nicked touched the knife after the slaughter, we assume the nick is from that thing. And anytime we are in doubt if it touched something that [could] nick it or not, we assume it is from the skin. This is what appears [to come out] nicely from the disagreement between Rav Huna and Rav Chasda in this matter at the beginning of the first chapter of Chullin 10a. And [also] the law of that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 3b) that we assume anyone who is found proximate to [the involvement with] slaughter to be an expert. And even if he is in front of us, we do not have to test him, as we rely on the assumption. And there are some commentators that said that if they are in front of us, we do test them. And the rest of the details of the commandment are elucidated in Tractate Chullin in the first two chapters. (See Tur Yoreh Deah 1-28.)

And this commandment is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females, as even females are warned not to eat from a [domesticated] beast, a [wild] animal or a bird without proper slaughter. And [women] have permission to slaughter — and their slaughter is fit for any person — if they know the laws of slaughter and are expert in them. And the Sages said (Chullin 2a) that even the slaughter of minors is fit, so long as an adult who is an expert in the laws of slaughter sees them slaughter properly. Yet the Sages warned us (Chullin 12a) not to give them to slaughter at the outset, since they commonly blunder, due to their limited intellect, and a loss will be found in the matter.

And one who transgresses this and is not careful about eating the meat of a [domesticated] beast, a [wild] animal or a bird that has one of the five disqualifications that we mentioned happen to them or that was slaughtered with a knife that was not checked has violated this positive commandment, besides having violated the negative commandment of “You shall not eat any carcass,” [for which] he is lashed for eating a kazayit of them — as we shall write in this Order, with God’s help (Sefer HaChinukh 572). And they, may their memory be blessed, also said in the second chapter of Chullin 32a, “Everything that is disqualified by its slaughter is a carcass”; meaning to say, any time that the beast is disqualified in the place [on its body] of slaughter — which are the benchmarks — such as if one of the five disqualifications that we mentioned happened to it, or if he slaughtered it with a knife that was not checked, behold, that is called a carcass. “And anything, the slaughter of which was proper and something else caused it to be disqualified, is called ‘torn’”; meaning to say, if none of the disqualifications occurred regarding the slaughter, the checking of the knife or the benchmarks, but rather something else caused it to become disqualified — such as it becoming “torn” with one of the eighteen well-known [ways of being] “torn,” that I mentioned earlier (Sefer HaChinukh 73) — behold, that is called, “torn,” which is to say that he gets lashes on account of a “torn” animal. And even though there are lashes for both of them, the difference to us that comes of it is regarding the warning. And the matter of that which we learned, that everything that is disqualified by its slaughter is a carcass, is not that the main carcass that is mentioned in Scripture should be that which is made into a carcass by its slaughter. As it is certainly an animal that died on its own due to a sickness or with some matter [that causes it to die] that is called an undifferentiated carcass. Rather the author of the Mishnah is coming to teach that anything that is not slaughtered properly is considered like it died on its own.