הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶחָד בָּעוֹף, וּשְׁנַיִם בַּבְּהֵמָה, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְשֵׁרָה. וְרֻבּוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד, כָּמוֹהוּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁחֹט אֶת הַוְּרִידִין. חֲצִי אֶחָד בָּעוֹף, וְאֶחָד וָחֵצִי בַּבְּהֵמָה, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְסוּלָה. רֹב אֶחָד בָּעוֹף וְרֹב שְׁנַיִם בַּבְּהֵמָה, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְשֵׁרָה: In the case of one who slaughters by cutting one siman, i.e., the windpipe or the gullet, in a bird, and two simanim in an animal, his slaughter is valid, and the halakhic status of the majority of one siman is like that of the entire siman. Rabbi Yehuda says: The slaughter is not valid until he cuts the veins [haveridin], i.e., the major blood vessels in the neck. If one cut half of one siman in a bird or one and a half simanim in an animal, his slaughter is not valid. If one cut the majority of one siman in a bird or the majority of two simanim in an animal, his slaughter is valid.
הַשּׁוֹחֵט שְׁנֵי רָאשִׁין כְּאֶחָד, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְשֵׁרָה. שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בַּסַּכִּין וְשׁוֹחֲטִין, אֲפִלּוּ אֶחָד לְמַעְלָה וְאֶחָד לְמַטָּה, שְׁחִיטָתָן כְּשֵׁרָה: With regard to one who slaughters by cutting two animals’ heads simultaneously, his slaughter is valid. If two people are grasping a knife and slaughtering one animal, even if each is holding a knife and slaughtering one above and one below, with each one slaughtering at a different point in the neck, their slaughter is valid.
הִתִּיז אֶת הָרֹאשׁ בְּבַת אַחַת, פְּסוּלָה. הָיָה שׁוֹחֵט וְהִתִּיז אֶת הָרֹאשׁ בְּבַת אַחַת, אִם יֵשׁ בַּסַּכִּין מְלֹא צַוָּאר, כְּשֵׁרָה. הָיָה שׁוֹחֵט וְהִתִּיז שְׁנֵי רָאשִׁים בְּבַת אַחַת, אִם יֵשׁ בַּסַּכִּין מְלֹא צַוָּאר אֶחָד, כְּשֵׁרָה. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים. בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוֹלִיךְ וְלֹא הֵבִיא, אוֹ הֵבִיא וְלֹא הוֹלִיךְ. אֲבָל אִם הוֹלִיךְ וְהֵבִיא, אֲפִלּוּ כָל שֶׁהוּא, אֲפִלּוּ בְאִזְמֵל, כְּשֵׁרָה. נָפְלָה סַכִּין וְשָׁחֲטָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשָּׁחֲטָה כְדַרְכָּהּ, פְּסוּלָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יב), וְזָבַחְתָּ וְאָכַלְתָּ, מַה שֶּׁאַתָּה זוֹבֵחַ, אַתָּה אוֹכֵל. נָפְלָה הַסַּכִּין וְהִגְבִּיהָהּ, נָפְלוּ כֵלָיו וְהִגְבִּיהָן, הִשְׁחִיז אֶת הַסַּכִּין וְעָף, וּבָא חֲבֵרוֹ וְשָׁחַט, אִם שָׁהָה כְדֵי שְׁחִיטָה, פְּסוּלָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אִם שָׁהָה כְדֵי בִקּוּר: If one decapitated the animal in one motion and did not slaughter the animal in the standard manner of drawing the knife back and forth, the slaughter is not valid. In a case where one was in the process of slaughtering the animal in the standard manner and he decapitated the animal in one motion, if the length of the knife is equivalent to the breadth of the animal’s entire neck, the slaughter is valid. If one was in the process of slaughtering two animals simultaneously, and he decapitated two heads in one motion, if the length of the knife is equivalent to the breadth of an entire neck of one of the animals, the slaughter is valid. In what case is this statement, that one must be concerned about the length of the knife, said? It is when one drew the knife back and did not draw it forth, or drew it forth and did not draw it back; but if he drew it back and forth, even if the knife was of any length, even if he slaughtered with a scalpel [be’izemel], the slaughter is valid. If a knife fell and slaughtered an animal, although the knife slaughtered the animal in the standard manner, the slaughter is not valid, as it is stated: “And you shall slaughter…and you shall eat” (Deuteronomy 27:7), from which it is derived: That which you slaughter you may eat, and that which was slaughtered on its own, you may not eat. If, when one was in the middle of slaughtering an animal, the knife fell and he lifted it and then completed the slaughter, or if his garments fell and he lifted them and then completed the slaughter, or if he had honed the knife and grew weary before completing the slaughter and another came and slaughtered the animal, if he interrupted the slaughter in one of these ways or in a different way for an interval equivalent to the duration of an act of slaughter, the slaughter is not valid. Rabbi Shimon says: The slaughter is not valid if he interrupted the slaughter for an interval equivalent to the duration of an examination.
שָׁחַט אֶת הַוֶּשֶׁט וּפָסַק אֶת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת, אוֹ שָׁחַט אֶת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת וּפָסַק אֶת הַוֶּשֶׁט, אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁחַט אַחַד מֵהֶן וְהִמְתִּין לָהּ עַד שֶׁמֵּתָה, אוֹ שֶׁהֶחֱלִיד אֶת הַסַּכִּין תַּחַת הַשֵּׁנִי וּפְסָקוֹ, רַבִּי יְשֵׁבָב אוֹמֵר, נְבֵלָה. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, טְרֵפָה. כְּלָל אָמַר רַבִּי יְשֵׁבָב מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, כֹּל שֶׁנִּפְסְלָה בִשְׁחִיטָתָהּ, נְבֵלָה. כֹּל שֶׁשְּׁחִיטָתָהּ כָּרָאוּי וְדָבָר אַחֵר גָּרַם לָהּ לִפָּסֵל, טְרֵפָה. וְהוֹדָה לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: If one cut the gullet in the standard manner of slaughter with a back-and-forth movement, and he severed the windpipe not in the standard manner, or if one severed the windpipe and thereafter cut the gullet, or if one cut one of the simanim and waited until the animal died, or if one cut one siman and concealed the knife beneath the second siman and severed it from below, Rabbi Yeshevav says: The animal is an unslaughtered carcass and imparts ritual impurity through contact with it and carrying it. Rabbi Akiva says: The animal is a tereifa, and although eating it is prohibited, it does not transmit ritual impurity. Rabbi Yeshevav stated a principle in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: Any animal that was rendered unfit during its slaughter because the slaughter was not performed properly is an unslaughtered carcass; any animal whose slaughter was performed properly and another matter caused it to become unfit is a tereifa. And Rabbi Akiva conceded to his opinion.
הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף וְלֹא יָצָא מֵהֶן דָּם, כְּשֵׁרִים, וְנֶאֱכָלִים בְּיָדַיִם מְסֹאָבוֹת, לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא הֻכְשְׁרוּ בְדָם. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, הֻכְשְׁרוּ בַשְּׁחִיטָה: In the case of one who slaughters a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or a bird, and blood did not emerge from them during the slaughter, all of these are permitted for consumption and do not require the ritual washing of the hands as they may be eaten with ritually impure [mesoavot] hands, because they were not rendered susceptible to ritual impurity through contact with blood, which is one of the seven liquids that render food susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Shimon says: They were rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of the slaughter itself.
הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַמְסֻכֶּנֶת, רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁתְּפַרְכֵּס בַּיָּד וּבָרָגֶל. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, דַּיָּהּ אִם זִנְּקָה. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, אַף הַשּׁוֹחֵט בַּלַּיְלָה וּלְמָחָר הִשְׁכִּים וּמָצָא כְתָלִים מְלֵאִים דָּם, כְּשֵׁרָה, שֶׁזִּנְּקָה, וּכְמִדַּת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, עַד שֶׁתְּפַרְכֵּס אוֹ בַיָּד אוֹ בָרֶגֶל אוֹ עַד שֶׁתְּכַשְׁכֵּשׁ בִּזְנָבָהּ, אֶחָד בְּהֵמָה דַקָּה וְאֶחָד בְּהֵמָה גַסָּה. בְּהֵמָה דַקָּה שֶׁפָּשְׁטָה יָדָהּ וְלֹא הֶחֱזִירָה, פְּסוּלָה, שֶׁאֵינָהּ אֶלָּא הוֹצָאַת נֶפֶשׁ בִּלְבָד. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, שֶׁהָיְתָה בְחֶזְקַת מְסֻכֶּנֶת. אֲבָל אִם הָיְתָה בְחֶזְקַת בְּרִיאָה, אֲפִלּוּ אֵין בָּהּ אַחַד מִכָּל הַסִּימָנִים הַלָּלוּ, כְּשֵׁרָה: In the case of one who slaughters an animal that is in danger of imminent death, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The slaughter is valid only in a case where after the slaughter it convulses with its foreleg and with its hind leg. Rabbi Eliezer says: It is sufficient if blood spurted from the neck. Rabbi Shimon says: In the case of one who slaughters at night and the next day he awoke and found walls full of blood, the slaughter is valid, as it is clear that the blood spurted, and this is in accordance with the rule of Rabbi Eliezer. And the Rabbis say: It is valid only in a case where it convulses with its foreleg or with its hind leg, or in a case where it wags its tail. This is the halakha with regard to both a small animal, e.g., a sheep, and a large animal, e.g., a cow, that is in danger of imminent death. The slaughter of a small animal that when being slaughtered extended its foreleg that was bent and did not restore it to the bent position is not valid, as extending the foreleg is only part of the natural course of removal of the animal’s soul from its body and not a convulsion indicating life. In what case is this statement said? It is in a case where the presumptive status of the animal was that it was in danger of imminent death. But if its presumptive status was that it was healthy, then even if there were none of these indicators, the slaughter is valid.
הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְנָכְרִי, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְשֵׁרָה. וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל. אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, אֲפִלּוּ שְׁחָטָהּ שֶׁיֹּאכַל הַנָּכְרִי מֵחֲצַר כָּבֵד שֶׁלָּהּ, פְּסוּלָה, שֶׁסְּתָם מַחֲשֶׁבֶת נָכְרִי לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, קַל וָחֹמֶר הַדְּבָרִים, וּמַה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהַמַּחֲשָׁבָה פוֹסֶלֶת, בְּמֻקְדָּשִׁין, אֵין הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אֶלָּא אַחַר הָעוֹבֵד, מְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַחֲשָׁבָה פוֹסֶלֶת, בְּחֻלִּין, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אֶלָּא אַחַר הַשּׁוֹחֵט: In the case of a Jew who slaughters the animal of a gentile for a gentile, his slaughter is valid, and Rabbi Eliezer deems it not valid. Rabbi Eliezer says: Even if the Jew slaughtered the animal with the intent to feed the gentile from its diaphragm [meḥatzar kaved], its slaughter is not valid, as the unspecified intent of a gentile is to slaughter the animal for idol worship, and it is prohibited to derive benefit from it. Rabbi Yosei says: The matter of the intent of the gentile is irrelevant in this case, as can be derived by means of an a fortiori inference. If in a place where intent while slaughtering the animal invalidates the slaughter, i.e., in sacrificial animals, such as when slaughtering an offering with the intent to sacrifice it beyond its designated time, everything follows only the intent of the priest performing the service and not the intent of the owner, then in a place where intent does not invalidate the slaughter, i.e., in non-sacred animals, is it not right that everything should follow only the intent of the one who slaughters the animal?
הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְשֵׁם הָרִים, לְשֵׁם גְּבָעוֹת, לְשֵׁם יַמִּים, לְשֵׁם נְהָרוֹת, לְשֵׁם מִדְבָּרוֹת, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְסוּלָה. שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בְּסַכִּין וְשׁוֹחֲטִין, אֶחָד לְשֵׁם אַחַד מִכָּל אֵלּוּ, וְאֶחָד לְשֵׁם דָּבָר כָּשֵׁר, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְסוּלָה: In the case of one who slaughters an animal for the sake of, i.e., to worship, mountains, for the sake of hills, for the sake of seas, for the sake of rivers, or for the sake of wildernesses, his slaughter is not valid. If there were two people grasping a knife together and slaughtering an animal, one slaughtering for the sake of one of all those enumerated in the first clause of the mishna and one slaughtering for the sake of a legitimate matter, their slaughter is not valid.
אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין לֹא לְתוֹךְ יַמִּים, וְלֹא לְתוֹךְ נְהָרוֹת, וְלֹא לְתוֹךְ כֵּלִים. אֲבָל שׁוֹחֵט הוּא לְתוֹךְ עוּגָא שֶׁל מַיִם, וּבִסְפִינָה, עַל גַּבֵּי כֵלִים. אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין לְגֻמָּא כָּל עִקָּר, אֲבָל עוֹשֶׂה גֻמָּא בְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיִּכָּנֵס הַדָּם לְתוֹכָהּ. וּבַשּׁוּק לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה כֵן, שֶׁלֹּא יְחַקֶּה אֶת הַמִּינִין: One may not slaughter an animal and have its blood flow, neither into seas, nor into rivers, nor into vessels, as in all those cases it appears that he is slaughtering the animal in the manner of idolaters. But one may slaughter an animal and have its blood flow into a round excavation containing water. And on a ship, one may slaughter an animal onto vessels as it is clear that his objective is to avoid sullying the ship. One may not slaughter an animal and have its blood flow into a small hole in the ground at all, but one may fashion a small hole inside his house so that the blood will enter into it. And in the marketplace one may not do so, so that he will not appear to emulate [yeḥakkeh] the heretics.
הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה, לְשֵׁם זְבָחִים, לְשֵׁם אָשָׁם תָּלוּי, לְשֵׁם פֶּסַח, לְשֵׁם תּוֹדָה, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְסוּלָה. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַכְשִׁיר. שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בְּסַכִּין וְשׁוֹחֲטִין, אֶחָד לְשֵׁם אַחַד מִכָּל אֵלּוּ, וְאֶחָד לְשֵׁם דָּבָר כָּשֵׁר, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ פְסוּלָה. הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת, לְשֵׁם אָשָׁם וַדַּאי, לְשֵׁם בְּכוֹר, לְשֵׁם מַעֲשֵׂר, לְשֵׁם תְּמוּרָה, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְשֵׁרָה. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁנִּדָּר וְנִּדָּב, הַשּׁוֹחֵט לִשְׁמוֹ, אָסוּר, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ נִדָּר וְנִדָּב, הַשּׁוֹחֵט לִשְׁמוֹ, כָּשֵׁר: In the case of one who slaughters an animal and asserts that he is slaughtering it for the sake of a burnt offering, for the sake of a peace offering, for the sake of a provisional guilt offering, for the sake of a Paschal offering, or for the sake of a thanks offering, his slaughter is not valid, as it appears that he is consecrating animals and slaughtering sacrificial animals outside the Temple. And Rabbi Shimon deems his slaughter valid. If there were two people grasping a knife together and slaughtering an animal, one slaughtering for the sake of one of all those enumerated in the first clause of the mishna and one slaughtering for the sake of a legitimate matter, their slaughter is not valid. With regard to one who slaughters an animal for the sake of a sin offering, for the sake of a guilt offering for a definite transgression, for the sake of the offering of a firstborn, for the sake of the offering of animal tithe, or for the sake of a substitute for a sacrificial animal, his slaughter is valid. All of these offerings may be brought only as obligations and not as gifts. Therefore, there is no concern that he consecrated the animals. This is the principle: For any item, i.e., offering, which is consecrated as a voluntary vow or gift, in the case of one who slaughters for its sake the animal is forbidden. And for any offering that is not consecrated as a voluntary vow or gift but is an obligation that is incumbent upon him, in the case of one who slaughters for its sake the animal is permitted.