UCLA Schita Class

1. All may slaughter (shecht), at the outset, even women . Rema: {There are those that say that women should not be permitted to shecht, as we have already established a custom that (women) are not to shecht, and thus the tradition (holds) that women do not shecht.} Slaves and anyone, even if you do not know that he does not faint (because of shechting), even if you do not know if he is an expert that knows the laws of shechita (kosher slaughter), it is permitted from the outset to let him shecht and it is permitted to eat from his shechita. This is because the majority of those that regularly shecht are under the presumption of being tested experts (in shechita). What situation are we talking about here? (We are talking about a situation) where that person is not in front of us, only then is it permitted to eat from his shechita, and we rely on the presumption (referenced to above). However if he is before us we need to check him, if he is an expert and knows the laws of shechita, however we do not need to ask if he faints. Rema: {There are those that say that one should only rely on the presumption after the fact,and that initially the presumption should not be relied upon if you are in a place where you can clarify him (the Shochet's [kosher slaughterer's] abilities). All this applies to those that aren't proficient and need to know if this Shochet is proficient. But the Shochet himself shall not shecht, even if he knows the laws of shechita and is proficient, until he has shechted 3 times in front of a learned man and one that is proficient in the laws of shechita. Therefor we practice that a man shall not shecht without having obtained kabalah (ordination) from before a learned one. And the learned one should not give kabalah until he knows that he (the Shochet) knows the laws of shechita and is proficient with his hands. Therefor we practice that all who come to shecht we trust them initially and we don't check them before or after. Because all that are found to be shechting have already received kabalah from before a learned one. And in a few places they are more stringent. That the one who received (kabalah) also gets a written letter from the learned one, as proof that he has given him kabalah. And every Shochet, even though he has recieved kabalah, it is fitting that he should return to the chapters of laws of shechita. That they (the laws of shechita) should live in his mouth and in his heart, so that he will not forget them. And like in the laws of shechita and with one that comes to shecht thus is the ruling in the laws of bedikaht hare'ah (checking the lungs for disqualifying sickness) and one that comes to check (the lungs). And their (shechita's and behikah's) rules and customs are all equal in all of this. And it is fitting for a Jewish court to investigate and the bodkim (checkers of disqualifying sickness) and shochtim (kosher slaughterers). Because large is the transgression in bedikot and shechitot, that are applicable to all. And if they checked some Shochet or bodek and it is found that he does not know, if at one time he received kabbalah we do not deem all everything he has shechted in the past to be treif (unkosher), for we say that only now did he become bad. But if one has never received kabalah, everything that he has shechted will become treif, and also all the dishes on which what he shechted was cooked would need to be kashered}...

2. One does not need to know all of the different details of the laws (of shechita), rather if one says "concerning this matter I would be in doubt and ask (a competent authority)", such an individual is called "knowledgeable", until he calls that which is forbidden permitted. Rema: {And we check him about the laws of shechita that will be explained later in the beginning of S23 and in the rules of checking of the knife and in the rules of checking the simanim after shechita that will be explained in S25. And if he shechts and is not here in front of us to check, we none the less check the simanim to see if the majority of them was shechted, because whatever is possible to check we do. And this is all in places where there is not a custom to get kabbalah, but in places where the custom is to get kabbalah, like the sons of Ashkenaz and others that follow them, we do not customarily check after him at all, as will be explained (later)}...

3. A person who we know that he does not know the laws of shechita, even if he shechts in front of us 4 or 5 times a proper and fitting shechita, and afterwards shechts privately his shechita is not kosher. Even if they ask him, "did you do such and such?" and from his answer it seems he shechted correctly, we do not rely on him. And even if he says "It is clear to me that I shechted beautifully." Rema: {a person who regularly faints, and we know he is not muchzak (established as not fainting), and he shechts and says "It is clear to me that I did not faint", (he is) believed. This is because he knows the laws of shechita.} And someone who we know does not know the laws of shechita, we can let him shecht if someone supervises him. This is only if he watches him from the beginning of the shechita until the end of it (the shechita). Rema: {And some are strict and forbid to let him shecht lehathila (initially). This is because he does not know the laws of schechita, and thus is the practice.}.

4. If his goats or chickens are lost or stolen, and he found them properly slaughtered; in a place where the majority of people are Jews (and also the majority of the thieves in the city are Jews), they are permissible (to eat) - whether he found them in the market or he found them in the refuse heap of a home. But if he found them in the refuse heap in the market, they are forbidden.

5. A person who is mute: that does not speak and does not hear; and a mentally disabled person, which is one who goes out himself at night or rips his clothes or sleeps in a graveyard or losses what is given to him… even just one of these, if he does it in the way of a crazy person; and a minor who does not know how to train his hands to shecht; we do not let them shecht lehat’hila (initially). Even if others are standing over them. And if they (none the less) shechted, their shechita is kosher if others were standing over them. But we do not allow them to shecht lehat’hila when others are not stand standing over them, even if we want to feed (the meat) to dogs. If a minor knows how to train his hands, if others are standing over him, he can shecht lehat’hila and it is allowed to eat from his shechita. Rema: { However, if he shechts for himself, than his shechita is disqualified, even if he knows the laws of shechita; he is considered a minor with regards to this matter (of shechita) until he has become bar-mitzvah, which is 13 years and 1 day [old]. There are those that are strict to not give kabalah to anybody less than 18 years old. For then he is a “man with wisdom”, and knows to be careful.}

6. One who is: a person with hearing-loss, which speaks but cannot hear- he shall not shecht. This is because he does not hear the blessing. If he shechts, even by himself, the slaughter is valid...

7. One who hears but does not speak, if he is skilled, he can even shecht lehat’hila if another blesses...

8. A drunk person who reaches the drunkenness of Lot, his ruling is that of a person of cognitive incapability(a mentally-disabled person. Refer above.) If he has not reached the drunkenness of Lot, he can shecht lehat’hila. Rema: {And there are those that say that one who is drunk should not shecht, because for him to come to derasa (chopping, which is forbidden in shechita).}...

9. A blind person, shall not shecht lehat’hila, unless others are watching him. And if he shechted, his shechita is kosher...

10. A naked person shall not shecht lehat’hila, this is because he cannot make a blessing...

11. If the community established a decree, that none should shecht other than a known butcher, and another shechted, there are those that say his shechita is forbidden . Rema: {If the decree was nullified than all the shochtim are in a presumption of kosher[shechita], as in the beginning.}...

12. One who shechts, in front of witnesses, an animal for an idol worshiper, then, when a Jew comes to buy it from him, he says “don’t buy (meat) from this animal because I did not shecht it” he is not believed. However, to himself(the Shochet) it(the meat) is forbidden , since he declared it to be a forbidden cut/slice for himself (by his statement that it wasn't kosher)...

13. A butcher that makes a sign on the head of the sheep that was shechted, that it should be seen that it (the sheep) is treif, and he also said that it is treif. And afterwards he said that it was kosher, and that he only said this in order that they would not take it so that he should be able to take meat from it. Because he gave a reason for his words, he is trusted...

14. If one witness said that a shochet did not shecht correctly. And he (the shochet) denies it, one witness against a denial is nothing (not considered sufficient proof). And to the witness himself it is allowed to eat from here (the shochet’s meat) and to the next. In any case, everything is according to the man...

Seif 1 One may slaughter with anything that is detached from the ground, whether slaughtering with a knife or a rock or a thin reed of a lake, or any of these that can cut. (one may slaughter).(These objects) must have a sharp edge, and cannot have a flaw.Regarding a knife that has one side that is bent and one side that is good, one must not slaughter with the good side from the outset, this was a parameter that was taken so as not to enable the slaughterer to come to use the bad side.If he does slaughter, because it was the good side that was used to slaughter, it is permissible.

Seif 2 If one slaughters with something connected to the ground, or a body, like a fingernail and a tooth connected to an animal, the slaughter is invalidated.Or something detached from the ground but that will end up connected to the ground, we don't slaughter, if one slaughters it is permitted, and even if it is nullified, as long as it is not rooted again after it is nullified.

Seif 3 If one cuts with a jaw of an animal that has sharp teeth and slaughters with it, his slaughter is invalidated. (because it is like a sickle). However with one tooth that is affixed to the jaw, if one slaughters (before the fact) it is permissible.

Seif 4 If someone inserts a knife into a wall, and passes it across the neck (of an animal) until it is slaughtered, it is permissible, provided that the animal's neck is below and the knife above, if the neck of the animal will be above the knife, it is possible that the animal will descend with the weight of its body [on the knife] and cut [its throat] without [it being brought back and forth]. This is not considered as being slaughtered ritually, Even if he says I am sure that it (the animal) didn’t trample (it neck) over it (the knife), the slaughter is invalidated, therefore, if it was a fowl, whether its neck is above the knife that is implanted or below it, the slaughter is acceptable.

How long must a knife be to slaughter? Any size as long as it's not too thin that it ends up piercing and not slicing like the head of a small blade or the like. And a needle, even if it is wide like those who makes holes like those who work with leather we decide with the thread. You can't slaughter with such a needle, since it is impossible to determine its size.A slaughterer with a small knife needs to be careful and measure his understanding to make sure he will not come to trample; however an extremely small (knife) we may not be allowed to slaughter with.

Seif 1 If one slaughters with a knife that is white (hot) the slaughter is invalidated, although some opinions hold the slaughter may be kosher.

Seif 1 A new knife belonging to one who worships idols, or an old knife that has no question of being under the impurity of idolatry (or non-kosher use), it is permitted to slaughter a healthy animal with it because by doing so it it will cause a financial loss. However it is forbidden to slaughter an animal that will die anyway due to illness, because this is a positive financial gain (since otherwise, the animal would be lost). The knife (one acquired) belonged to an idolater that was sharpened on a kosher grinding wheel, or if there wasn't a defect on it one must stab it in the hard ground ten times, then one can slaughter permissibly. If someone slaughters with a non-kosher knife, one must wash the area of the neck where the slaughtering cut, and if one cuts away the meat from the area, it is praiseworthy.

Seif 2 A knife that slaughters in a kosher manner, even though it is dirty with blood is permissible to slaughter again with it. However it is forbidden to cut something hot with it.And it is permissible to cut something cold with it if you rinsed off the blood first.

Seif 3 A knife that slaughtered a trefa, it is forbidden to slaughter with it until it is washed with cold or it is wiped with something hard. The modern custom is to wipe the knife thoroughly on the animal's hair between each slaughtering, and this is proper to do, and if someone slaughters without washing it, we wash off the area of the neck where the slaughter cut. If one finds that he is regularly slaughtering many trefot, we need to stick the knife in hard ground ten times.

Seif 1 One can slaughter at anytime, whether in the day or at night; what do we mean by this? It could be done anytime with a torch, however when there isn't a torch at all or in a dark place, we don't slaughter; and if one slaughters what was slaughtered is permissible.

Seif 2 A slaughter perform on Shabbat or Yom Kippur, even if it was done intentionally, on Shabbat one forfeits his life (if he slaughters), and on Yom Kippur he receives lashes. However what he slaughter will be permissible.

Seif 3 We don’t slaughter into the ocean or rivers, lest people say, that one slaughtered for the deity of the sea, we also don’t slaughter into vessels lest people say that one slaughtered to collect blood to throw it at idols; and if there is a vessel of water, so that the blood (that gets mixed) is not fit for throwing, if the vessels are clear we don’t slaughter into it, lest people say that one is offering a sacrifice to an image reflected by the water; and if (the water) is murky it's permitted; and if there are ashes (or dirt) in the vessel, it is permitted to slaughter in it.

Seif 4 If it happens to be that there is no free space to slaughter in on a boat, you may slaughter on the back of a vessel, and the blood of the slaughter will then trickle down to the water; Or stretch your arm outside of the boat, and slaughter off the side (of the boat), then the blood will flow into the water, without worry.

Seif 1 We don’t slaughter into a basin, even in a house; and if you will don’t want dirty your house with blood, make a place with a slope to the basin and slaughter there, and then the blood of the slaughter will flow in the basin; and in a market this is not done.

Seif 2 There are those who say that if you slaughter in a basin in the market, it is forbidden to eat what he (the person) slaughters until afterwards we check if he is a heretic (or not). There are those who say that it is permitted after the fact without checking (the character of) the slaughterer.

1. One that shechts with a checked knife and (after the shechita) finds it to be nicked, Rama: {Even from the side.} behold this is a neveila (animal which was killed improperly). Even if (the knife) touched the neck bone we do not attribute it to having been nicked by it (the neck bone) after the shechita. Rather we worry that maybe it was nicked by the skin and he happened to have shechted with a nicked knife, and this is even with a chicken (whose neck skin is very soft)...

2. The measure of a nick is anything, provided that something (can) gets stuck in it, even a strand of hair...

3. One must check the knife before shechita, and if one didn't check one shall not shecht. If one transgressed and did not check beforehand, and (instead) checked afterwards and found the knife to be suitable (not nicked), his shechita is kosher

Seif 4 If one inspected a knife (in one direction) and didn't feel a flaw, if he checks another time (in a different direction) and he feels a flaw, this checking is to be disputed, if you slaughter in the direction that the checking was conducted (without a flaw) and did not reverse the direction, the slaughter is acceptable. If perhaps he reversed the direction, the slaughter is unacceptable. And one who cuts and doesn't feel the flaw before the slaughter, only if we found his knife acceptable before the slaughter; however (now) after the slaughter we find a disputable flaw, as it is said: it is clear me that if he cut in only one direction, the direction without flaw alone, the slaughter is unacceptable.

Seif 5 A knife that has many flaws, even if everyone disputes them, even if slaughtered (under the rubric of) after the fact, it is not acceptable. Because the flaws are many we worry when he returns his hand and kills (he will) not feel it.

Seif 6 When a knife has been sharpened, but its edge is not smooth, instead, when one touches it, it is like touching the tip of an ear of grain which becomes stuck on one's finger, [nevertheless,] since it does not have a blemish, one may slaughter with it.

Seif 7 When the edge of a knife is smooth and is not sharp, one may slaughter with it, since it does not have a flaw. Even though one passes it back and forth the entire day until the slaughter [is completed], the slaughter is acceptable.

Seif 8 A knife that (has a shape that) goes up and down like a snake without any flaws, one can use to slaughter with from the outset.

Seif 9 The checking of a knife requires the (use of the) skin and fingernail from three angles, in other words one must pass it over and draw it back over the flesh of his finger and afterwards pass it back on one's fingernail from three angles, (which are) its tip and both of its sides so that (to insure) it will not have a blemish at all.(after this) We check (the knife) slowly and with full concentration not turning one's mind to other things, and then repeat on another nail slightly to check, that damaged nail on the sharp part of the knife, and perhaps there is a flaw on both sides that he didn't feel by passing it in a damaged nail.

Seif 10 If a knife has a flaw, one may not slaughter even with the smooth part, lest he use the flawed part. On Yom Tov, the custom is to allow tying a cloth around the flaw (to ensure that it will not be used to slaughter), for one may not sharpen the knife. Even during a weekday, if one did not have a chance to sharpen the knife, one is allowed to slaughter by means of typing a cloth on the flaw.

Seif 11 If a person slaughters many animals or many fowl, he must inspect [the knife] between each [slaughter]. If he did not check, and then checked after slaughtering the last one and discovered [the knife] to be blemished, there is an unresolved doubt whether all of them even the first are considered nevelot.

Seif 12 Although one checks the knife before the slaughter one needs to perform a check after the slaughtering. This is talking about when he still has the knife, but if the knife got lost, the shechitah is kosher as long as the knife was checked before the shechitah, even if he slaughtered many one after the other. If a damage was felt in the neck of one of them, one should be strict and worry about all those slaughtered afterwards.

Seif 13 If one slaughters with a knife that was checked, and checked before and the knife was lost before it was checked after the slaughter, and afterwards we find the knife and see it flawed, the slaughter is acceptable inasmuch as it performed properly. And if we find a flaw as stated that smashed a bone without knowing after the slaughter, and the knife remains with the established chazaka.

Seif 14 If one doesn't check the knife and slaughters and loses the knife before he makes the additional check which is necessary afterwards, if he slaughter without the additional check its is forbidden. When does this apply? when a regular knife is used, however if a butcher has a special knife for slaughtering in a special place put away there always, traditionally we check it, if it is slaughtered without an additional check, it is acceptable.

Seif 15 If somebody slaughters with a knife that has been checked and after the slaughter he chops bones with the knife in an unusual way (not in a manner of going back and forth)and if we then check and we find a flaw the slaughter is acceptable because we assume that it got chipped because he broke the bone.SO in any simliar case, like it falls on the hard ground.If we saw it specifically fall its blade (its flawed) however because of this doubt we don't attribute what is said if it did not fall on the blade. And if a break occurs because of a neck bone, even in the direction that the break occurred, we don’t attribute what occurs before it to it at all, because the neck is soft.

Seif 16 If one checks a knife after the slaughter and then stores it away and after we find that it is defective, we can have no objection, it is said someone else did it, so if we find a flaw as stated that smashed a bone without knowing after the slaughter.

Seif 17 A butcher who doesn't get his knife seen by a scholar, we place a ban on him.Presently our practice is to appoint well known people to slaughter and inspect,so the scholars gave up this honor to check by themselves and trust the shochtim, because they are careful and diligent. There is need for a lot of clarity of mind and fear of heaven in checking the knife, If this is not apparent look that he checks it 3 times without feeling the damage for one minute, afterwards we find what he slaughtered recently, we test him to get a sense and feel in accordance with the intention of his heart.

Seif 18 A butcher needs to get paid for treifot as from kosher slaughter.

Seif 19 (If) Reuven tells Shimon, check this knife, and he checked it twice but needed to check it 12 times and he then hands it back to Reuven, while Reuven was going to slaughter Levi stopped his hand and found a defect on the knife.Reuven then apologizes and says he wants (the knife) re-checked further properly.(however) His actions prove him, and it was enough for him to check for this reason we remove him. And if we see that the situation arose out of error, and that he actually is kosher we then re-instate him, this is done solely that he understands not to repeat such a thing.

Seif 20 A butcher that finds a flaw on the head of the knife and says: "This flaw before me covers the blood of fowl on the head of the knife; and I slaughter and i’m careful that I do not touch the flaw", he is removed from his post; and it is close to say the vessels are prohibited as no longer kosher.

A slaughter must bless before (the slaughter), who has sanctified us by his commandments and commanded us regarding slaughtering; And if one slaughters without a blessing it's kosher.

If one slaughters domestic or wild animals or fowl this one blessing includes all of these.

(if you have) Two Slaughterers and two animals, One can make one blessing for (himself and) his friend. (if) he intended to make it himself.

One needs to be careful (not to) speak between the bracha and slaughtering regarding something not related to the slaughter. If he did speak he needs to recite the blessing another time.

If one wants to slaughter many animals, he needs to be careful not to speak about things not related to ritual slaughter between the animals he has slaughtered. If he did speak he needs to cover the blood of the first one he slaughtered and bless a second time on the slaughter. However on second covering (of blood) he does not make a second blessing. There are those that say that from the talk between slaughters, it is not an interruption.

If one had in mind to slaughter one wild animal when he recited the blessing, and afterwards they brought him more animals, he should cover the blood of the first then recite the blessing over it, and afterwards bless over the slaughter of the second one but not over the covered blood.The same would be if the next animal were brought before blessing for the first animal for the blood being covered.

If their were before him many (animals) to slaughter, and he blessed over the slaughter, and afterwards came more (animals), if when he brought the last ones, there are still before him those that he blessed, there is no need to repeat the blessing. And if not you need to re-bless.And before the fact it is good to have in mind when reciting the blessing that is will count over all that is brought to him (even those not there yet).

If one slaughtered a beast or fowl and he intends to slaughter another, and forgot that he was planning to slaughter more, so he covered the blood and said the blessing over the mitzvah of covering, when he slaughters again he doesn't need to repeat the blessing on the slaughter, and covering the blood is not an interruption.

Seif 1 The place to slaughter is on the neck by the carotid that leading towards the head.From the opening of the sternohyoid and below. This is before the Esophagus becomes wide. That is where there are carotids left.They are located from the upper carotid, beneath the big cervical opening that is like two hoppers from the body to the dispenser . Those carotids are called “cheiti”.If he slit into the carotids and the cervices remained slightly connected on the top, it is kosher because he slit opening of the sternohyoid and below. If nothing is left from the carotid but slit from above the carotid that is a destruction—meaning the cause of using the knife outside the place of slaughter towards the head of the body—is rejected. And its ring below is until the tip of the (upper) lobe of the lung… When you are going to inflate the lung and the laube, the place where it reaches at the tip that is the same place where it reached when the animal was alive and it was grazing in it regular way when it would stretch out its neck to graze without it having to stretch out its neck anymore then what's usual.

Seif 2 And in the gullet, (the place of slaughter) begins in the spot where when we cut it will shrivel, until the point down below that it begins getting scales and hair like the inside of a stomach. If you slaughter above from this place, this is called the “Turbatz haveshet”, or if you slaughter below this area which is the beginning of were the intestines begin, the slaughter is unacceptable. And this section of (Turbatz haveshet) that is not fit for shechitah up above, Regarding a domesticated or wild animal it's an amount that you are able to grab with two fingers and regarding a fowl, it all depends how large or small. And the section (of the slaughter) is until the (roof of ) throat.

Seif 3 A slaughterer needs to slaughters it in the middle of the neck; and if you slaughter on sides of the neck, the slaughter will be acceptable, (only) if he turned the signs back and he knows that he cut them before cutting the neck bone, because the signs are soft and they get pushed away from the knife, It is the same halacha if you slaughter it from the back of the neck.

Seif 4 It is to good to be careful, to feel around the signs (before slaughtering) in order that the knife should cut them before it cuts the flesh of the neck. And with doves we find that the signs are on the sides so we insure that one must have skilled hands and have great caution, if we can’t feel the signs before slaughter it is likely that you may come to be negligent and you will cut the neck before the simanim.

Seif 1 How much must one cut of the trachea and esophagus. The best way to slaughter is to cut both of them an animal and a fowl side by side this is what he (the slaughterer) should do.. If you cut one sign by a fowl, and one sign of an animal and a beast, the slaughter is acceptable, as long as when you measure it you find that it was slaughtered to the majority, and if you find that the part that was slaughtered was more than half even a hair breadths more than half it´s enough.

Seif 2 If one slaughters with one animal one full sign and half of a second one, and with a fowl you slaughtered both signs both half of each it is not acceptable.

Seif 3 If one did not slaughter the sign (that makes an animal kosher) in one spot, for example if one started slaughtering and the sign turned over (moved) and one completed the slaughter, and between the two cuts you have a sizeable amount, it is acceptable whether you do it either by the windpipe or the esophagus.This applies not only in a case where both of these cuts are circling the same spot, (but) even if the first cut you made up near the head and the second cut you made further down, its acceptable, whether it's one person who made a cut like this in two or three spots or if it was two people who slaughtered (in this manner) using two different knives, it is acceptable. But if both are on the same side of the sign, like in a case that he started slaughtering a little and then left his spot and then slaughtered above or below the spot on the same side, you need that the sizeable amount be in one of his cuts, one cannot combine the two because they are both on the same sign, if when you have the sizeable amount even it's only in the second cuts it acceptable although the slaughter is not revealed and obvious.

Seif 4 A Slaughter that was performed like a quill (like cut at an angle) or like the teeth of comb (or up and down on an angle) it's acceptable.

Seif 5 If 1/2 of the esophagus was cut, and then it was slaughtered completely to a sizable amount it is complete; it is permissible. Thus (in a case) where if one started slaughtering in a spot (in the sign) that is whole, and one found their was a flaw in the (original) cut, and one cut it completely to a sizeable amount, it is acceptable.

Seif 1 With fowl one needs to cut the veins or pierce them while it twitches and the blood is warm, in order that the blood should go out and not get cold. And if one didn't so, one should not roast it whole, and if one roasts it whole then one should throw out the veins and cut around a thin peel about the width of a finger. If one cooks it while its whole you search and dig out these blood vessels and what remains, and if you get everything (enough) from what was checked that you nullify the blood from all the blood vessels to 1/60th or less of the total than it is permissible.

Seif 2 On a domesticated animal one does not need to cut or pierce the blood vessels during slaughter. Because it's not common to roast it whole, however if one wants to roast it whole one needs to cut or pierce the blood vessels during slaughter, and if does not , it is forbidden to roast or cook whole.

Any butcher which does not know the laws of shechita it is not permissible to eat from his shechita. And these are the laws: pausing(shehiya), chopping (drasa), covering (halada), missing Missing (cutting outside the permitted area - hagrama), and tearing (ikour).

Seif 2 What do we mean by “pausing”? When a person begins to slaughter and raises his hand before he completes the slaughter and then pauses. Whether it was done inadvertently or intentionally, willingly or unwillingly. If he or another person completed the slaughter but delayed the amount of time it would take to lift up the animal and cause it to lie down, even if he slaughtered the greater part of the signs required for slaughter, his slaughter is not acceptable. With regard to slaughtering a small animal: the amount of “pausing” is the amount that it would take to lift up a small animal, cause it to lie down, and then slaughter it. And with regard to a large animal, the measure of “pausing” is the amount of time it would take to lift up a large animal, cause it to lie down, and slaughter it. With regards to fowl, the measure of “pausing” is the amount of time it would take to lift up a small animal, cause it to lie down, and slaughter it. There are those who say that the amount of “pausing” regarding fowl is the amount of time it would take to cut the majority of one sign (Siman) without lifting it up or lying it down. And according to their reasoning one should take notice when one begins to slaughter a fowl and to cut slowly until the blood comes out and lifts up his knife from the neck without completing the slaughter. Also there is concern that perhaps he might cut elsewhere on the gullet. And even if he does not lift up his knife but for a moment, there is still concern since the amount pausing in fowl is very small. Accordingly if he slaughters most of one of the sign in the fowl, he should do so quickly. Even if the slaughterer says that it is clear to me that I only cut the skin,” we don’t rely on this because blood has come out. If another person comes to ask after the knife has been lifted how he did it, they say to him that he should slaughter the windpipe alone in another place and afterward turn out the gullet and inspect it.There are those that are more stringent in the matter, concluding that unless it is a dire time or there is potential for great financial loss, one should rely on the first argument.

Seif 3 If a slaughterer who slaughters a little (of the neck) and then pauses a little and returns and slaughters a little and pauses a little. If when all of the pauses are combined they measure “shehiyah” (the amount of time it would take to lift up the animal, cause it to lie down) his slaughter is not acceptable..

Seif 4 If one slaughters cattle with a knife that is not sharp and delays in the measure of “shehiyah” in his slaughter a little after [cutting] the first sign, it is not acceptable.

Seif 5 After one slaughters most of one [sign] in fowl, or most of two [signs] in cattle, there is no “shehiyah” that can make it [the slaughter] not acceptable. Accordingly there is not “shehiyah” with the windpipe in fowl. But there are those that say that in any place that one does not finish the slaughter of both signs it [the slaughter] is not acceptable on the grounds of “shehiyah”, and ab initio they should take heed and be concerned about this..

Seif 6 If one slaughters a fowl and pauses without knowing if he perforated the esophagus, he should return and slaughter the windpipe in another place and wait until it dies. He then turns the esophagus out and checks it [the cuts] against each other. If spots of blood are not found, it is known that there are no perforations and it [the slaughter] is acceptable.

Seif 1 What do we mean by “striking”? If when one rests the knife on the neck and presses, cutting downward in the same way as one cuts a radish or a squash. This is not permitted. It goes without saying that if one struck with a knife on the neck in the manner that one strikes a sword and cuts the signs at one time the animal is not permitted.

Seif 2 When one slaughters by only bringing the knife forward and backwards (on the neck) if it is with a knife that is the fullness of the neck and extends off the neck, the fullness of the neck, it is acceptable if not it is not acceptable.Any [knife] that is not this measurement; it is impossible to slaughter without “dirasah” by going in a forward and backward motion alone. But if he goes forward and backward with a very sharp knife it is kosher. There are those that are stringent with cattle. The custom being that these circular motions are not acceptable in cattle even if forward and backward if it is not with a knife that extends the fullness of the neck and outside the neck.

Seif 3 If one slaughters two heads [of cattle] with one forward and backward motion, if it with a knife [the width of] three necks it is kosher. If not, there is a concern and both of them [the slaughtered animals] are not acceptable.

Seif 4 Two [people] are holding the knife and slaughter, one from above, the side of the head, and one from below, the side of the chest, holding it [the knife] diagonally, it is kosher and there is no concern of “dirasah”. (one struck the neck with a knife as one strikes with a sword)

Seif 5 If one slaughters and cuts the entire neck, it is acceptable.

Seif 6 When a person slaughters a fowl and holds the signs between two fingers, he needs to hold them well and if he does not hold them well sometimes they will loosen here and there and he won’t be able to cut it in a slicing fashion, rather he will do “dirasah”. And thus one should not rest ones fingers on the knife but rather grip it by the handle so that he won’t cause “dirasah”. Even if one does not do “dirasah” with anything other than the gullet, it [the slaughter] in not acceptable. The custom is that all “dirasah” is unfit whether it be a little in the beginning [of cutting] or at the end [of cutting], whether with the windpipe or gullet.

Seif 7 What is meant by “hiding”? When one inserts the knife between the signs [that is between the gullet and the windpipe], slaughtering the lower sign in a manner from above to below and returns to remove it [his knife] and slaughters the one [sign] above in a manner from below to above, it is not acceptable.

Seif 8 If one hides the knife under the hide or under tangled wool in the neck of cattle or under knotted cloth on the neck or cloth that is stuck with wax and slaughters, his slaughter in not acceptable. If however, the cloth is spread on the neck and he slaughters, his slaughter is kosher. There are those [that say] this is also not permitted. Ab initio, there is a concern in the matter. Accordingly one should take heed with sheep as they have tangled wool on their neck. One should tear or pluck the clinging wool so as not to do “chaladah”. (as if one inserted the knife between one sign and another.)

Seif 9 One who slaughters should take heed and have consideration for the hide so that he does not tear it significantly and slaughtering with the head of the knife so that it is covered by the hide. If one slaughters with the middle of the knife there is no concern about the head of the knife being covered by hide since the knife is in the place of proper slaughter [that is] opposing the signs and not covered. There are those that are strict with this and there is a concern in the matter ab initio.

Seif 10 If after one slaughtered most of the signs and the knife becomes hidden under the remaining minority [of the signs], or from one of them [the signs] and divided [cut] it, it [the slaughter] is permitted. There are those [that say] that this is also forbidden and it is clear that there is concern in the matter ab initio (before the fact).

Seif 11 If the knife is hidden under a little bit of the first [sign] and he cuts from below to above and afterwards finishes the slaughter in proper manner; or similarly if he slaughters most of one sign in cattle and the knife is hidden under the remaining remnant and he then slaughters the second sign; or similarly if he slaughters a little of the first [sign] by “chaladah” and finishes the slaughter not by “chaladah” all of these [means of slaughter] are not acceptable.

Seif 12 What is meant by “lifting up/tipping”? One slaughters the windpipe above the place that is not permitted for proper slaughter. Or if one begins to slaughter in a place permitted for proper slaughter and slaughters a little and inclines the knife outside of the place fit for slaughter from above and finishes there. However, if he slaughters most of the windpipe in a place fit for slaughter and inclines the knife outside a place fit for slaughter from above and finishes their, cutting the entire windpipe it is kosher. This is the law if he slaughters most of the two [signs] in cattle in a place fit for slaughter and completes the slaughter by doing “hagramah” or “dirasah” it is kosher. There are those [that say] this is not acceptable if it is by “dirasah” and there is concern in these matters ab initio.

Seif 13 If one inclines the knife in the in first third and slaughters the next two thirds properly, it is kosher. If one slaughters the first third properly, inclines [while cutting] the second third and then returns and cuts the final third properly, it is kosher. If one inclines on the first third, slaughter the second third properly and then returns to incline on the final third, it is not acceptable. If he presses or hides in the first third or the middle third, it is not acceptable.

Seif 14 All of these sections [that which has just been discussed], when he is certain that he did not strike the gullet but rather only the windpipe [moving] upward. But even if you slaughter the gullet with the slightest cut outside the place permitted for slaughter, be it from the upper side or the lower side; or similarly with the windpipe from the side below before he finishes it in a kosher slaughter even if he finish [cutting] all of the remainder in a place permitted for kosher slaughter, it is not acceptable since even the smallest of these perforations count.

Seif 15 What is meant by “uprooting”? When the windpipe or the gullet is ripped from the jaw and from the flesh and one or both of them slips before slaughter has been completed. If one [sign] in a fowl is slaughtered or most and afterward the second slipped, his slaughter is kosher. If one [sign] slips and afterward he slaughters the second his slaughter is not acceptable.

Seif 16 As to the issue of “Ikur” being unacceptable, [this is the case when] we have a complete uprooting, but if there is a remnant, even a little bit, it is kosher provided that the remnant is in its place, but if a little bit of the remnant is loose - a little here and a little there - it is not acceptable. The matter is clear that it was uprooted with force and what remains is just loosely attached. These rules apply when most is removed but if only a little is uprooted here and most is enacted, if most remains loosely - a little here and a little there - it is kosher.

Seif 17 If one slaughters one of the signs and the second was found to be displaced but it is not known [if it was displaced] before the slaughter or after the slaughter. This [slaughter] in not acceptable.

Seif 18 If a sign [either the windpipe or gullet] of the slaughter was found dislodged: if when he slaughtered he took hold of the signs in his hand or the skin from behind the place of slaughter and the signs were squeezed under the skin, this is not acceptable. If not, it is permitted after examination. If he brings cattle and he slaughters the sign and afterward it was dislodged, if it is the same in two of the slaughters, comparing one to the other it is kosher. If the second is bloodier, the first one is not acceptable. We no longer have experts to check this and the custom in all of these cases is to rule them as not acceptable.

Seif 19 If one slaughters a fowl in the proper way that is acceptable and he finishes the slaughter, a coin is found from the throat on the knife it is acceptable.

Seif 20 When one slaughters a rooster one needs to take heed and squeeze his feet on the on the ground or lift him up so that his feet do not wedge in the ground in order that he does not dislodge the signs.

Seif 1 A slaughterer must check the signs (that make an animal fit) after slaughter to see is they was slaughtered completely/properly/a sizeable amount. Or if you see during the slaughter that they slaughtered completely, and if you don't see that it was done completely and it prohibited. There are those who say that one needs to see them slaughter on the proper spot of slaughter and not on the part where it is not fit to slaughter.

Seif 2 Those who do the checking with a feather to see if the slaughter was done complete/proper/ to a sizable amount, they are making an error.

Seif 3 An animal that was slaughtered properly and then a wolf and took its intestines and returned them punctured, it is permissible, we take into consideration (maybe) there was a whole in it before it was punctured. (nonetheless it is permissible).

Seif 1 If there is a puncture in the esophagus during the slaughter and its the opposite the spot of slaughter, its considered Torn (not acceptable).

Seif 2 While one is slaughtering the gullet/esophagus and one finds that the lungs are punctured before he was able to slaughter the gullet, or if while one is slaughtering the gullet/esophagus and one finds that intestines are punctured before he was able to slaughter the gullet, it is considered Torn (It's unacceptable).

Seif 1 If one cuts from an animal a piece of meat after it was slaughtered properly and it is still twitching it is forbidden to eat from it before it (the animal) dies.

One who slaughters a wild animal or a bird needs to cover its blood, whether it was just trapped now or whether it was already ready in his hand. Rema: And the covering is a commandment onto itself, but the slaughtering is valid even if [the blood] was purposely not covered.

One is obligated to make a blessing before he covers [the blood]: "... who sanctified us with his commandments and commanded us on covering blood in dirt." Rema: One who slaughters for the first time, makes a blessing of "that he gave us life" on the covering but not on the slaughtering since it damages a creature.

the Koy animal which is questionable if it's a wild animal, and mixed-breeds that come from domesticated and wild animals, one needs to cover their blood and there is no blessing made. And we don't slaughter them on holidays. And if they were slaughtered [on a holiday] their blood it not covered. And [after the holiday] at night, if [the blood's] imprint is recognizable, he should cover it.

The buffalo, we have the custom to not cover its blood. Rema: There are those who question if a buffalo is a "wild" ox or maybe it's a [species] of wild animal, therefore, it's good to cover [the blood] without a blessing or to also slaughter a bird and then he is able to make a blessing on the covering on account of the bird.

There needs to be loose earth below [the blood]. And one needs to designate it verbally, and there are those that say that there is no need.

One covers it with his hand or with a knife or with another utensil, but not with his foot so that the commandments aren't denigrated on account of it.

If one slaughtered and there was no earth below, he needs to scrape off the blood [from the knife] and put it on loose earth and cover it with loose earth.

The one who slaughters he is the one who should cover. And if he didn't cover and someone else sees [the blood, the other person] is required to cover it.

If one slaughters a hundred wild animals or a hundred birds or he slaughtered a wild animal and a bird in the same place, he does one covering for all of them.

One who slaughters and the blood got absorbed into the ground, if the imprint is recognizable he is required to cover it.

If the wind covered it he is exempt from covering it; but if after [the wind covered it] it returned and uncovered it, he is required to cover it. But if he himself covered it and it became uncovered, he is not required to cover it again.

Blood that fell into water or if water fell into the blood, if there is still the appearance of blood one is required to cover it, but if not he is exempt.

If the blood became mixed with red wine or the blood of a domesticated animal, we view the wine and the blood of the domesticated animal as if it were water, and if [the blood] would have mixed with that amount of water it would have still have had an appearance of blood one is required to cover it.

If one slaughtered a bird or a wild animal and then slaughtered a domesticated animal on top of it he is exempt from covering the blood, but if he slaughtered a domesticated animal and then slaughtered a bird or a wild animal on top of it he is obligated to cover the blood. Rema: If one slaughtered a bird or a wild animal and afterward while slaughtering another one it became a carcass (invalidly slaughtered) in his hand, if he knows that the latter's blood covers the former's blood he is exempt from covering, but in the simple situation he is obligated to cover it.

Blood that sprayed and that's on the knife, if there is no other blood but it one is required to cover it, and he scrapes it off and covers it in order that there should also be earth below it. However, if there is other blood there one does not need to cover it because there is no need to cover all the blood. Therefore, there is no need to wait to cover until all the blood comes out. Rema: However, he should wait until [the blood] starts dripping down in order that he should cover some of the life-blood.

One who slaughters for a sick person on Shabbat he does not cover, even if he has a shovel already stuck in the ground. And [after Shabbat] at night, if [the blood's] imprint is recognizable, he should cover it. And there are those who say that if he had ash set aside to cover dung there is something to covering the blood even on Shabbat.

One who slaughters and it became a carcass (invalidly slaughtered) in his hand or one who slaughters and finds [that the animal] has signs that make it unfit, he is exempt from covering it. And so too, if a deaf person or a mentally challenged person or a child slaughtered and there was no one watching them, there is an assumption that the they had a botched slaughter and it is exempt from being covered.

One who slaughters, even if he only wants the blood, he's obligated to cover. How should he perform [the slaughtering instead?] He should stab or tear out [the organs] in order to be exempt from covering.

One needs to check the signs and the knife before the covering in order that one doesn't come to make a wasted blessing.

One who slaughters a wild animal does not cover [the blood] until he checks the lungs, and if he finds a questionably invalid signs, he covers without making a blessing. And this is the law for all invalidations that arise from a questionable status, for example that [case] where we're worried that maybe [the knife] became notched while [cutting] the skin, and so too all similar cases. Rema: But anything that according to the law is valid [and] it's only [ruled invalid] because we're strict on it, for example if one cut the entire neck, and similar cases, one is obligated to cover [the blood].

One who has no earth to cover with should not slaughter. Rema: Rather, he should wait until he has earth. And if he is travelling in the desert or on a ship, and the bird is not worth the loss of a garment that he would [need to] burn for its ashes [to cover with] or the gold that he would [need to] grind [to cover with], the sages enacted to slaughter and to keep the blood in a garment or a sandal and make a blessing, and when he reaches a place with earth, he should wash the garment or the sandal so that the blood comes out, and cover it without a blessing, and this is the custom.

One who slaughters a wild animal or a bird and blood did not come out of it, it is permitted.

All things that if one plants seeds in them they would sprout, they are included in "earth" and one may cover [blood] with them. And if they don't sprout, if they are called "עפר" ("earth") one may cover with them. Therefore, one may cover with dung, and with very fine sand, [fine] enough that the potter doesn't need to crush it at all, and with lime, and with an earthenware shard and brick and barrel stopper of earthenware that was crushed, and with ground stones and ground earthenware shards, and scraps of fine flax, and sawdust, and with food or garments that were burnt until they were made into ash, and with powdered coal, and with stibium, and with millstone dust. But one may not cover with coarse dung, and not with sand that a potter needs to crush, and not with flour and bran-flour, and coarse bran, and not with ground metal if it's not burnt [to ash], except for ground gold which is called "עפר" ("earth"), as it is written "and it has earth of gold". And ash is called "עפר" ("earth"), as it is written "And they should take for the impure from the earth, the burnt [ashes] of the sin-offering".

One may not cover with desert earth because it's damp earth and [seeds] don't sprout in it. Rema: And therefore, one may not cover with earth that's damp from water, for example swampy earth. And one may not cover with snow.

There are eight types of terefot, and their signs are D"N (final), HN"K (initial), N (initial), P"Sh: attacked (derusah), perforated (nekuvah), missing (haserah), removed (netulah), torn (keruah), fallen (nefulah), severed (pesukah), and broken (sheburah).

If in a behemah (domesticated animal) or chaya (wild animal), most of the bone of the head is crushed, either most of its vault (gab) or most of its circumference (hekkef), the animal is a trefah, even though the membrane is intact.

If it was reduced, and there's missing from it [a piece] the size of a selah coin, it is an invalid animal. And if there punctured holes that are [big enough that there are pieces] missing, if between all of them [there's missing] the size of a selah coin, which is one third of a handbreadth, it is an invalid animal. Rema: But, less than this there is what to say it is valid even in our days since we're not worried in a domesticated animal for puncturing the membrane of its brain. And in a sea-bird, such as a goose and a duck, even if the bone is punctured any amount, it is an invalid animal. And a dry land bird that a weasel bit with its teeth [the bird's] head, or it became damaged on a tree or a stone, one places his finger on the side of the hole and sticks his finger there, or he puts in finger into its mouth and presses there, if the brain doesn't ooze out of the hole it is known that the membrane of the brain is not punctured, and it is valid, and if it comes out, it is an invalid animal. Rema: And we are not experts in checking for invalidations in animals, and therefore there's what to rule invalid if the bone of the skull has any hole at all in a bird, even for a dry land bird.

The blood of a domesticated or wild animal, whether it is a pure or impure animal, is forbidden. This includes the blood of an embryo (shalil), but the blood of fish and locusts is permitted.

Egg blood, if it is know that it is from a developed embryo (meaning, one that has begun to take on the form of a chick), one is liable. But if one does not know that it is from a developed embryo one is not liable, but the sages prohibit it.

If a pinch of blood is found, toss the blood and eat the rest, if it is found in the white. But if it is found in the yolk, the whole of the egg is forbidden, The Rema comments: And some say that blood found on the egg white lining and outside of it — that is, that has spread from the lining — makes all the egg forbidden (the Rosh, and Rashba, and Rashi, and the Tosafot, and more. And the Rosh and the Tur and R. Yeroḥam wrote that some are stringent on both measures) and some are more stringent that any that is found on the white linging, even if not spread, makes all the egg forbidden (Issur v-Heter ha-Arukh, Resh Klal 42, and the Maharai 304). And from this the custom of these lands has spread to forbid the entire egg that has blood, and not to distinguish between the white and the yolk. And in the place where the custom is to be lenient, to toss the blood and save the egg, in the place where it is permitted one must take a small amount of white (the thickness of a shell) with the blood when tossing it (Arukh there in the name of the Sefer Mitzvat Gadol)

Eggs that are scrambled in a bowl, and blood is found on the yolk of one of them, even if the yolk with blood on it is tossed, are forbidden, because since they are scrambled in a bowl the white is flimsy and it mixes together, so all of it is forbidden. But eggs that are broken together in a bowl and not scrambled, if blood is found on the yolk of one of them, take out the kosher yolks one at a time in its place, and they are permitted, and leave the one which had blood in the egg with the remaining white and toss them. The Rema comments: And all this that we know that if the blood was in a forbidden place, but if there was doubt if it was in a forbidden place or not then it is allowed to mix (as explained in the commentary of the Rosh) — whereas even if it had not happened one of the two is nullified, but the egg is alone is forbidden. And thus, if it is boiled or roasted and we don't know if it is in a forbidden place (entirely from Issur v-Heter ha-Arukh, and see also the Ta Ḥazi 62, law 3).

If the blood is found in an egg in a place where the whole is not forbidden, and the blood is not tossed but forgotten, and the egg is torn with the blood, it seems to me to be permitted.

If the blood is found in an egg that has been put in stew to shrink [translator's note: a preparation still found in Sephardic kitchens, known as huevos ḥaminados] , since there is no sauce in the egg's place the entire stew is permitted.

Strange eggs (that is, eggs which are non-viable, and formed like a web), even if the hen sat upon them for many days, are permitted to eat, as long as one tosses the blood.

It is permitted to eat roasted eggs even though they cannot be checked. The Rema comments: and thus there is no need to check the eggs if there is blood in them, for we rely on the majority of eggs which don't have blood in them (Hagahot Maimuniot and Arukh), and nevertheless it is customary to be stringent, that when you make a dish with eggs, on that day you look in them to see if there is blood in them.

Fish blood, although it is permissible if gathered in a container, is forbidden on account of looking bad. Thus, if it is apparent that it is from fish — for instance, if there are scales in it — it is permitted.

Human blood, if departed [from the person's body], is forbidden on account of Mar'it Ayin. Thus, if one bites a loaf with his teeth and finds blood from his teeth on the loaf, he needs to wipe it off, but if it is between his teeth he can suck it. REMA: and all blood of fish and of humans, since the law permits it, it is not forbidden to mix them. (Maimuni 87 on forbidden foods, in the name of the Rashba in Torat haBayit 3:5)

(1) [1] One must rinse the meat before salting it. [2] (2) And if the butcher rinsed it, one need not rinse it at home, and if after rinsing the meat [3] another cut was made, [4] or the hooves (3) were removed after being rinsed, one must go back and re-rinse. Rema: And if the re-rinsing was not performed it is as if the meat was never rinsed. Ideally, the most proper way to rinse the meat is to have it soak in water for about half an hour, and then to wipe it in the water. [5] However if one simply rinsed the meat without soaking, it would be sufficient. Afterwards [6] (4) wait a little so as to allow some of the water to evaporate so that the salt will not immediately dissolve from the water once placed on the meat, and thereby not remove any blood. [7] (5) It is customary not to use the vessel used for soaking meat for any other purpose. (6) If the meat was left soaking for twenty four hours then [8] the meat, and vessel are both forbidden to be used. [9] (see further on in this chapter) but one need not worry if it has been less than twenty four hours. Even in the case were the vessel has become forbidden, [10] one may use it for the purposes of soaking. [11] For the laws of frozen meat see chapter 78.

[12] If one salted without first rinsing the meat, then wash it now and then (7) re-salt it, however some forbid this. Rema: And this is our custom even if it was (8) only slightly salted as in preparation for roasting, and [13] even if it wasn’t sitting in the salt for the entire time requirement, (9) however in the case of a great loss we can permit it. (10) If the meat was rinsed only slightly before having been salted, it is [14] permissible post facto. [15] The same is true if there was a sixty to one ratio of meat against the blood on it. If one salted a piece of meat without previously washing it with other pieces, (11)[16] the other pieces are permitted, but this piece is forbidden.

The salting is not performed with [17] salt that is as (12) thin as flour nor with salt that is too thick so that it will fall off the meat however if the [18] only salt you have is thin then it may be used.

The salt should be spread over the meat so that no place on the meat is without salt and salted to the extent that it would not be edible with such an amount of salt. [19] More salt than this is not needed. The salting must be done on both sides of the meat, (13) and the insides of poultry must also be salted. In a case where one only salted the inside or outside, or only one side of the meat, it is acceptable. Rema: [20] And there are those who forbid it even post facto, and this is how one should act (14) unless there is a great need. [21] This is only if it was cooked already, but if it wasn’t cooked yet, it may not be cooked as is. [22] Rather, if it is within (15) twelve hours of having been salted one must go back and salt the side that was not salted and then cook it. If it is after twelve hours, then roast the meat [23] and through this process the heat and fire will draw out the blood. The side that was already salted won’t absorb blood from the side that wasn't.

(16)[24] If one cuts the meat after having salted it one need not re-salt the place of the cut.

The required salting time is no less than the time it takes to walk a mil, which [25] is about a third of an hour. Rema: [26] This can be relied upon post facto, or even initially in honour of guests or Shabbos. However, in other circumstances the custom is to leave the meat sitting in the salt for at least an hour. One should not deviate from this.

Before one puts the meat into the vessel in which it is to receive its final rinsings [27] the salt should be wiped off or the meat should be sprayed with water, and then the meat should be placed in the vessel to be used for rinsing. The meat is rinsed off twice and the vessel should be sprayed off as well between the two rinsings. [28] And some say that one must rinse off the meat three times, [29] and this is indeed the custom to be followed initially. (17) Therefore, rinse or wipe the meat well and then rinse it in water twice, and this will be considered as a total of three rinsings, or place water in a vessel, and then deposit the meat in that and then rinse it off three times, and this is the custom. Ideally one should use a lot of water in the first rinse so as to nullify the potency of the salt that may be in the tzir/remaining fluids. [30] (17*) It is permissible to rinse the meat in fruit juice, and one does not need water.

If one did not wipe off the salt, nor rinse it we don’t forbid the meat [31] because the water in the vessel will nullify the potency of the salt. Rema: Even if only a small amount of water is used, nevertheless the tzir’s strength will be nullified. Some will even permit the meat if it was placed in a vessel with no water [32] because we need not fear problems in the short period of time used for rinsing the meat, and one may rely on this and not worry except for the first rinsing, after the first rinsing there are no fears. (18) [33] it makes no difference if the rinsing took place in a kosher pot, treifa pot, or even a dairy pot, and even a small amount of water in the pot nullifies the potency of the salt, and it is no longer considered to be 'roseiach'. Even if the vessel is dairy or still dirty from treif remains, it is permitted....

Meat that was salted and then cooked without a final washing must have a sixty ratio (19) [34] against the salt that is upon it. Rema: (20) [35] And the entire pot is included in the sixty, [36] and if there is a piece of meat in the pot of equal size to this piece that was not washed off, everything is permitted for there must be sixty times the amount of salt on the piece (21), for the piece is certainly at least thirty times its salt. And if there is not sixty times against the salt [37], even if only placed in a kli sheini everything is forbidden (23) since [38] there is salt and tzir, it has cooked somewhat. [39] Dried meat can be permitted even in a kli rishon, for it must certainly be sixty times the size of the salt that is upon it since it has dried. However, initially one must be careful even with dry meat that it should not be cooked or even washed in hot water without being first washed of it’s salt. All this is referring to a case where meat has not been washed off of it's salt at all, however if even only slightly washed once, and then cooked, it is permitted, post facto, for post facto one washing is sufficient. Salt used once, [40] may not be used again, [41], and it goes without saying that it is forbidden to eat used salt.

[42] A non-Jew who works in Jew’s home, who is cooking a piece of meat that we’re not sure if it was washed off is subject to the following halacha: If the non-Jew knows Jewish customs, we may believe to say he washed it off if there was an adult Jew occasionally walking in and out, or if there was a knowledgeable child. Rema: One of these is sufficient (24) [43] either mesiach Ifi tumo that he washed it well, or a Jew, even a child was around walking in and out for he has some respect for Jewish customs. However if he told the non-Jew not to wash meat without permission, and the non-Jew went and did so, it is forbidden for we see that he has no fear and he should not be relied on.

[44] Meat that has been cooked without having been salted is permitted if there are [45] sixty times (26) that piece in the pot, (27) and all the other meat is permitted as well. Rema: (28) [47] Some forbid that piece even if there is sixty against it, and that is how we are to act if not for a great need (2) as in honour of Shabbos or [47] guests when we may rely on those who are lenient. If a piece of meat was not salted (30) properly it is as if it was never salted. Any meat that stood for three days without having been salted remains forbidden even if salted and if it is [48] cooked we require sixty against it.

Meat that was left for three full days without having been salted can no longer be saltedbecause the blood has dried and will no longer be released through salting. Therefore it [49] may not be cooked [50] only roasted (31) and after it is roasted [51] it still may not be cooked (32) but if it was it is permitted. [52] Meat should not be left for three days for fear that it may be cooked.

(33) [53] If the meat was soaked in water within three days, it may go another three days (34) (54) less half an hour. Meat that we are not sure if it was salted within three days is permitted.

Meat that was left unsalted for three days [55] and was then mixed up with other pieces is [56] nullified [57] among the permissible majority, and [58] all the pieces may be cooked (35) [59] even if it was a chaticha ha’ruya I’hischabed. This is also the rule for pieces cooked without being salted, and then mixed with others.

(36) [60] Meat covered in blood that was sitting in water for twenty four hours is forbidden by some unless it is roasted (37) [61] or unless there is sixty in the water against it, [62] Some even forbid it to be roasted, and this is how we should act.

We perform the salting only in a vessel with holes or upon straw or shavings or in a diagonal position insuring that if water was spilled onto it, it would flow off immediately. Rema: An especially smooth surface that water would flow from need not be placed in a slanted position. however if it’s not this smooth it must be placed slanted so that the water flows out. Even in a vessel with holes, one should be careful to make sure the holes are open, therefore it should not be placed on the ground, for then it is as a vessel without holes. As a result of this some people are stringent and place straw or shavings because even the meat can close up the holes. (38) Post facto, one need not worry about all this. If one performed the salting in a vessel without holes (39) [63] it is forbidden to use the vessel with very hot items. Rema: [64] And if it was used then one must take off a klipah for a dry item, and if it was a liquid we need sixty against the klipah of the vessel. [66] Some say that even with cold items it is forbidden to use the vessel unless it is washed down well, and if it was used without first being washed off, the item used should be washed off. (40) [67] However, it is permissible to re-use this vessel for salting once holes are made in it (41) [68] or even without holes if meat has been salted and washed off.

(42) But if it has holes [69] it is permissible to eat boiling hot food from it, and there are some that forbid boiling hot [70]One should be careful initially (43) but post facto, it is permitted.

Meat [71] that was salted in a vessel without holes [72] and was left for as long as it takes for water to begin boiling is subject to the following rules: Anything in the tzir is forbidden even for roasting, and what is outside the tzir is not forbidden [73] expect for a klipah’s worth, even if it is fatty. Rema: (44) [74] Some forbid the entire piece, even that which is outside the tzir, even if only salted slightly as is done in preparation for roasting [75] and even if it was not left for the required salting time rather only for a little while allowing for tzir to be seen [76] this is the custom, and it should not be changed. Nevertheless, only the actual piece that is touching the tzir is forbidden (45) [77] but the other pieces that are upon it and salted with it are permitted, and this is indeed the custom.

After meat has been salted and washed, it may even be placed in water that is not boiling [78] and there are those that require it to be placed in boiling water. Rema: The custom is to follow the first opinion.

Meat that was salted for as long as required and then placed in a vessel without holes without being washed off [79] and then filled up with tzir is permitted. (46) According to this, meat that fell into tzir that came out of the meat (47) after the required salting time is permitted. There are those who forbid it no matter what, and they should be followed initially. Rema: [80] And some forbid even post facto (48) [81] a klipah and this is the custom, regarding that which is in the tzir. However, anything outside the tzir is permitted. (49) [82] The vessel into which the tzir fell is forbidden, [83] Therefore if the vessel was dairy (50) and is dirty, the meat is forbidden since even after the salting time it is considered roseiach [84] however if it is a case of great loss and needed for a mitzvah (51) one may be lenient and say that once the required salting time has passed, it is no longer considered roseiach. (52) [85] According to his words even though meat sat in salt its required time, one may not eat it until it is washed off well. It is forbidden to cut it with a knife before it gets washed [86] and if cut, the knife must be kashered. Rema: [87] And some permit it to be cut with a knife after it went through it’s required salting time [88] for salt can not affect vessels [89] and it is indeed permitted [90] but the knife must be washed off [91] or thrusted into the ground if the tzir has already dried. Even if it is before the required salting time has passed (53) there is no prohibition on the knife, rather the problem is now that blood had come out from the meat to its surface, if one wants to now wash off that spot and go re-salt it one may do so. If one wants to then go and perform a salting in order to preserve the meat after it has been property salted for blood in a vessel with holes, [92] then the meat must be washed off well and re-salted. It may even be re-salted in a vessel without holes. If one wants [93] to salt meat and eat it roasted without washing one may do so and we are not worried about the blood that is on the salt, for the fire sucks out the blood and the salt can not absorb it. This is when it is salted and put on to be roasted, but if it sat in the salt, the salt absorbs blood, and the meat becomes forbidden. Therefore, it must be washed off well, then roasted, and then it may be eaten. See later on in section 76 regarding the law for meat that was salted without being washed off, and then roasted)

In a place where salt is not easily found, one should roast the meat (54) until its blood has come out, and then one may cook it.

One is permitted to salt many pieces of meat together, one on top of the other, even though the lower pieces will finish releasing their blood before the upper pieces. We do not assume that the lower pieces will now absorb blood from the upper pieces. This is because meat releases tzir for a long period of time and as long as (1) it is releasing it can not absorb. Even if a lot of tzir is gathering and sitting in the crevices of the meat, it is permitted. When do we say this rule? When meat is being salted with other pieces of meat, even if it is meat from one animal with the meat of another animal, even if it is poultry [1] which can not expel all its tzir before the meat of an ox can expel its blood. Rema: Nevertheless it is customary to initially be stringent with a piece of meat that has a pocket and invert it inside out as to allow the blood to flow out, however post facto one need not worry, [2] A piece of meat salted twice is permitted [3] and we are not worried that this second salting will cause it to absorb any remaining blood from the first salting. However meat with fish, and even poultry with fish are forbidden to be salted together for fish release all their tzir before even poultry can release its blood. [4] If one did salt them together, the poultry is permitted, but the fish must have a klipah removed [5] and if (3) one did not remove the scales when they were salted - it is permitted. Rema: There are those who forbid all the fish if there is not sixty against the poultry for we measure all cases of salting with sixty, and this is the custom. This is only if there are no scales, for they are soft and immediately release tzir, bur if there are scales it is permitted for they do not release immediately nor absorb from the poultry because as long as they are in the process of expelling they won't absorb and it is like any other case of meat being salted together

In which cases is this said? When they were salted together, or if the poultry was salted and the fish was not. (4) However if the fish is salty and the poultry is not and they were placed beside each other [6] or on top of each other, even the fish is permitted without removing a klipah. Rema: (5) [8] And so too if the fish [9] are placed on the poultry they are permitted even if they were salted together since the blood does not flow from bottom to top, and it is no worse then a piece placed in the tzir in which what is protruding from the tzir is permitted. If the fish were placed beside the poultry [11] only (6) after the [12] poultry lay in their salt for the required salting time, then even the fish are permitted even though they are both salty. [13] If fish were salted in a vessel in which meat was salted, the fish are permitted (7) for the fish do not absorb the blood in the vessel because the salting has no effect on a vessel [14] That which we say that the fish are forbidden if salty and the poultry is salty, is only when the fish [15] had released all of their blood and have been washed, (8) but if they still did not release their blood and were never salted, they are permitted because when they release their own blood, they will release the blood they absorbed from the poultry just like a piece that fell into tzir before being salted. It is permitted for this reason as will be explained below. [16] See further in section 91 regarding which salting is considered as roseiach.

(9) Kosher meat that was salted with non-kosher meat, or non-kosher meat that is salty with kosher meat that is not salty, [17] require the removal of a klipah if they are touching [18] because even though it does not absorb from the non-kosher blood, it absorbs from it’s tzir. However, if the kosher meat is salted and the non-kosher meat is non-salty then it is permitted even without removing a klipah as long as it is washed. This is true whether the kosher piece is on the top or on the bottom. (10) There are those who forbid it if they touch ,[19] and rule that the meat is not permitted even if they were merely standing close to each other if it allowed for their juices to touch. Rema: When the non-kosher meat is salty and the kosher one is not-salty it is still forbidden. [20] See later in section 105 regarding these laws.

(11) That in which we say that it is only forbidden to the extent of a klipah is dealing with cases where the pieces of meat are lean. However if one of them is fatty, [21] even if the non-kosher piece is lean and the kosher piece is fatty, the forbidden juice spreads throughout the meat [22] if the non-kosher salty piece was on the bottom. This is based on the rules of tatai gavar. [23] See later on in section 105 how one should act.

[24] There are those who say that meat that was salted is forbidden to remain sitting in the salt after all its tzir has been released, which is after twelve hours. This is because it begins to absorb from the drops of blood that are upon it and on the salt, (12) There are also those that permit it to lay in its salt for even several days. Initially one should follow the stricter opinion. (12) but post facto it is permitted.

There are those who forbid placing meat [25] that was not salted at all, [26] or that was salted and had released all of its blood, with already salted meat prior to its releasing of its blood. This is because the meat that wasn’t salted or that was salted and had already released all of its blood now absorbs what the other piece releases. [27] There are those who permit it if another salting will take place later since then it will release all of this newly absorbed blood. (14) [28] And there are those who permit it in any case. [29] Initially one should follow the stricter opinion. Rema: (15) [30] Even post-facto we customarily forbid meat [31] that has released all of its blood and tzir and fell into meat that still did not complete the required salting time. Some say that meat can release tzir for an entire twenty four hour period after being salted. (16) [32] If during this time it touched meat that had not completed the required salting time period, the meat is not forbidden, and this is indeed the custom. [33] However, if there is no great loss it should be forbidden if it is after 12 hours, but before this time one need not be stringent at all, and surely if it had not been salted yet for even if it had fallen into actual tzir it wouldn’t be forbidden for we say [34] that when it releases it’s own blood, it will release anything else that it could have absorbed. Even if the meat has been salted but has not sat for the required salting time and fell into tzir [35] it may be permitted,[36] if it did not sit in the tzir for an entire day. [37] If it had sat for the entire salting time and then fell into tzir, some forbid it even though the releasing of tzir has not been completed. Nevertheless, in a case of great loss it may be permitted during the entire time that the meat releases tzir [38] which is twelve hours [39] if it is re-washed and salted. [40] If it fell into tzir [41] before the end of the required salting period re-wash and re-salt it. (18) [42] However, if it was salted without being washed after it had fallen into tzir [43] it is permitted post facto. All these cases are referring to tzir that has the status of roseiach as explained in section 69. but blood (dam b’eyn) that fell on meat [44] during the salting period that is considered roseiach as explained later on in section 91, causes the meat to be forbidden, for regarding this blood we don’t say that since the meat is now in the process of releasing blood, it will release this blood as well, nor do we say that “as it absorbed so will it release." (19) Regarding the case in which we forbid it when it fell into tzir is only true for the part that is actually in the tzir [45] but whatever is protruding from the tzir is permitted, [46] however (20) what is in the tzir becomes forbidden immediately. Meat that fell into tzir that is on the ground [47] is as if it was in a vessel without holes. Meat that touched a piece that was salted in a vessel without holes and became forbidden [48] has the same law as if it had touched tzir. In a case of doubt of water or tzir, it is permitted, [49] for tzir is of rabbinical origin so in a case of doubt we are lenient. Tzir mixed with water, [50] even with only a little water, is no longer considered roseiach and cannot cause meat to become forbidden. For the laws of soaking see section 105.

The heart has much blood that gathered in it at the time of slaughtering. Therefore, it must be cut before salting to remove its blood, and can then be salted. [1] It may then even be cooked. (1) [2] Some are stringent regarding cooking it, and only roast it. Then it may be cooked.

If one salted it without having cut it open (2) then it is to be cut open after its salting, and is still permitted although it was salted while the blood was gathered inside of it [3] because “as it absorbed, so will it release.” It is also the case if it was roasted without having been cut open, that it should be cut after the roasting, and it will be permitted. (3) [4] However, if it was cooked without having been opened it is forbidden [5] unless there is sixty (4) against the heart, for we don’t know how much escaped from it. Rema: [6] Even if there would be sixty, (5) [7/ the heart itself remains forbidden [8] and a little bit should be sliced off from anything surrounding the heart. There are those who rule stringently even in a case of it having been salted. [9] and forbid all meat that was salted with it for they say that we can not assume the rule of "as it absorbed, so wilt it release” regarding blood gathered within it. (6) This is because of the actual blood and not simply blood that was released from it. (7) [10] The custom however is to be lenient, and we rule that this blood is considered blood that was released and it is possible to say that ׳׳as it absorbed so will it release” since it was blood of the veins, as was explained earlier in section 22. There are those who are stringent and rule that a piece must be peeled from the place the heart was touching. [ 11] It is proper to heed to their words and to peel a bit from anything that was around the heart, making everything permitted, [12] There is no difference between meat that is with the heart, or the heart itself. [13] There is also no difference (8) whether the heart was closed or open at the top. It is customary to cut the foreskin of the heart and to cut the sinews inside of it. [14] However this is only a stringency and an act of precaution.

[15] There is no bird (such as a chicken, etc.) that wouldn’t have [16] sixty against its heart, and it is permitted even if it was attached to the bird. Rema: Every bird has sixty (9) even if its head and bottom feet have been removed, as is customary to remove them until the lower knee. Therefore if the bird is whole, everything is permitted. If it is not whole and it is lacking sixty against the heart that is attached (10) [18] some say that the piece becomes as ‘nveilah', and now sixty is required from the other items in the pot against the whole bird, and this is indeed the custom. Even if there is sixty in the pot, the bird itself remains forbidden for it doesn’t have sixty against the heart that is still attached. If the heart is not attached to the bird, then everything in the pot can combine to achieve sixty against the heart. See later in section 92 regarding the laws of a piece that becomes nveilah. [19] There isn't an animal that has sixty against it’s heart.

The lungs need not be cut open, [20] however it is customary to do so, and to open its large tubes. It is indeed a good custom.

(1) The liver contains much blood. [1] It therefore not permissible to cook it even after salting it. Rather it must be sliced by its length and width and roasted while placed facing down, [2] Until it is fit to be eaten, and may then be cooked. Rema: (2) [3] If one makes many holes in it with a knife, it is as if cut lengthwise, and widthwise. As well as if the gall was removed from the liver allowing for the blood to flow out. Nevertheless, if this was not done the vessels must removed after the roasting, and may then be cooked. All this is regarding a liver that is whole. If it was cut, nothing need be done. When one wants to cook it after its roasting, [5] it is first washed after the roasting, before being cooked, however, if it was not washed before being cooked, it is still permitted. (3) [6] Post facto it is permitted if it was cooked alone in a pot [7] without roasting, but the pot becomes forbidden since it absorbs and does not release. (4) There are those who forbid it. Rema: [8] It is customary to forbid everything [9] even if the liver was salted before being cooked.

If it was boiled in vinegar, or in water, and a hole was made in it and blood that shot from it was removed, according to the halacha it would be permissible to cook it, but the sages forbade it. [10] Post facto it is permitted.

It must be cut in preparation for roasting due to the blood in the vessels. If it was not cut during roasting, [11] it may be cut afterwards. Rema: Some say that for roasting a cut need not be made (5) and this is our practice, even initially.

If it was roasted with meat in an oven such as the type that were common in the days of the Talmudic sages whose mouth faced upwards, then the liver should be placed on the bottom, and not on top, [12] however post facto, it is permitted.[13] Regarding the skewers that are roasted on the fire, it is forbidden to roast it initially with meat even if the liver is on the bottom. Rema: Nevertheless, if the liver had been salted, it is permitted to roast it with meat, (6) [14] even on top of meat, since its blood has been reduced, and is considered as any other piece of meat placed on another piece of meat.

[15] Initially it should not be salted on top of other meat, rather under it. Rema: [16] It is customary (7) not to salt the liver at all, even alone, and this is the custom and it should not be changed. It should only be lightly salted when put on the skewer or when placed on the fire for roasting. Nevertheless, if it is found that the liver was salted, whether alone or with other meat, even if on top of the meat, everything remains permitted. Some say that a slice should be cut from around the liver [17] if it is attached to poultry, and this is only a stringency. [18] It is customary to wash off every liver after being roasted because of the blood stuck to its surface, [19] however if it wasn’t washed, it is still permitted.

If a liver is found in an already roasted poultry, it is permitted. Rema: [20] Some say that a klipah should be removed from the area of the liver, [21] but it is only a stringency. [22] If it was cooked, then you need sixty against the liver. Rema: There is no whole poultry that would total sixty times its liver. Therefore if the liver is whole and attached to the poultry, the poultry becomes nveilah, and now sixty is needed against the entire poultry to permit everything else in the pot. The same is true if you have a piece of liver attached to a piece of poultry, for we have established that in all forbidden items chaticha na’asis nveilah as is later in section 92. If the liver is not attached then everything in the pot combines to nullify the liver, and if there is sixty, everything is permitted. (8) [23] Nevertheless the liver itself is forbidden just like the heart as is explained later in section 72. (9) Poultry that was stuffed with eggs [24] and the heart or liver is found, is as if it was cooked [24] and we require sixty from the poultry excluding the stuffing. If there isn’t then everything is forbidden. [26] If it was stuffed with meat and there are not any eggs that have been congealed and are blocking the blood from flowing is subject to the rules as if it was roasted.

(1) The spleen, although appearing red with a seemingly extensive amount of blood. [1 ] is as any other meat and must be salted. Rema: Some say that the custom [2] is not to cook the kidneys or [3] testicles even after nikkur, since they contain so much blood, but post facto, one need not worry. [4] It is permitted to salt all these with other meat, even though they contain much blood, [5] as long as the membrane and fats from them have been removed.

Blood is not assumed to be in the intestines (1) [1] such as in the paunch and the maw [2] and the bowels and the rectum (meaning the intestinal tube which is at the top of the anus), if they are without fat on them. Therefore if they were cooked in a pot without having been salted, they are permitted [3] unless they have a blush red appearance. Rema: And if they were salted in a vessel that does not have any holes, they are permitted. (2) [5] Nevertheless, initially they require salting in a vessel with holes and a preliminary washing as any other meat. Some disagree regarding the paunch and say that it does contain blood, [6] even post facto the paunch and reticulum of the ruminant stomach is forbidden as any other meat. However the fat that is upon them is as any other meat. Therefore when the rectum and other intestines are salted [7] they are not salted on the inner part over the actual food, (3) rather on the outside where the fat is attached. Rema: If the rectum was salted on the inner side and not on the outer side it is as if it wasn’t salted. [8] if it was cooked this way it is not kosher [9] if it has fat on the outside. If it wasn’t cooked yet (4) [10] go back and salt the outer part [11] and it is then permitted. Eggs that are found in poultry after being slaughtered if only the yolk was formed but not the white part of the egg, then it must be salted as any other meat. (5) [12] and it may be salted with other meat, if even the white part has been formed, even if the shell on it is as hard as the shell on eggs which are sold in the market, it is customary to salt it. However one must be careful not to salt it with other meat, put post facto one need not worry. All fat, even of poultry is considered as all other meat for the purposes of salting and washing.

Intestines without fat on them, even though not containing blood (6) [13] may be salted with other meat. Rema: Some forbid them to be salted with other meat (7) and this is initially how one should act, however post facto it is permitted.

The fat of the winding coil that is on the bowel is full of vessels containing blood. Therefore some forbid it to be cooked, even if cut and salted, but now we customarily permit it. Those blood vessels, which if someone is expert in, may be stretched and properly hung until not even one remains.

[1] Meat that is to be roasted need not be salted [2] since the fire will draw out the blood that is in it by itself. [3] However, if other blood had dripped on the grill, [4] even if it’s cold we do not say that the fire will draw it out, (1) [5] and it causes the meat to become forbidden to the depth of a netilah.

If one wishes to salt the meat before roasting it (2) [6] and eat it without washing it, one may do so and we are not worried about the blood remaining on the salt. Some say this ruling refers to one who salted it, and then immediately roasted it, (3) but if it lay in the salt (4) the salt absorbs and is forbidden. [7] Therefore it should be well washed before the roasting. Rema: [8] Some say that roasting requires a preliminary washing (Ramban), and some say that it requires a slight salting beforehand as well (Rashi). The custom is to wash it first and then to lightly salt it when it is on the skewer, and to then immediately roast it so that the salt will not absorb blood. [9] Nevertheless, if it wasn’t washed or salted at all, or it was salted without having been washed first, and then roasted, it is still permitted. This is only if it did not sit idle in the salt (5) without being washed for the entire salting period, but if it did indeed lay idle for this amount of time before being roasted, it is forbidden. [10] There is no difference in all this (6) between geese, or other birds with open cavities [11] as long as they are not stuffed with eggs or other meat. If they are stuffed they are subject to the same rules as have being cooked, and require salting just as any other meat to be cooked. It is customary to act stringently when roasting meat that has not been salted [12] and to refrain from always flipping over the skewer so that the blood will flow, but post facto, one need not worry. In makes no difference in all this if one wishes to eat after roasting, or if one wishes to cook it afterwards. [13] It simply must be roasted first to the point that it is fit to be eaten [14] which is about half it’s possible roasting. Some say [ 15] that all roasting requires a washing after being roasted because of the blood that is stuck to it. and this is the custom in the first instance. Nevertheless, it if wasn't washed and even if it was cooked, it is permitted. This is true even if it was first salted before being roasted and not washed after the salting that it is permitted. We are not worried about the blood that is upon it, for the fire draws it out.

[16] If the jugular vein of poultry was not pierced during the slaughtering then it is forbidden to eat it, even if roasted, unless it is cut limb by limb and roasted. [17] If one wished to eat it raw, it is forbidden until it is cut and salted. If the meat was cleaned from its veins of blood, it may be eaten raw even without being salted, [18] or roasted, even all of it at once. [19] There are those who rule stringently that it should not be eaten all at once even if roasted (8) [20] until the jugular vein and the majority of the two required tubes have been but.

There is one who forbids the cutting of roasted meat with a knife that is beside the fire if it wasn't salted, so long as it hasn't been fully roasted because of the blood that gets absorbed into the knife. [21] There is also one who forbids the skewer that was used for roasting meat that wasn't salted. There is also one who ruled that it is forbidden to leave roasted meat on the skewer [22] after it is removed from the fire (9) after the flow from the meat had concluded, for fear that the hot meat will now re-absorb it. There are those who permit all the above situations, and it is indeed the custom to permit it. [23] We are careful in the first instance (10) but post facto it is permitted.

Roasted meat that was not first salted, and was cut over a loaf of bread [24] does not cause the bread to become forbidden, even if it appears red, as long as the meat was roasted to the point of being edible to most people. That is, half its time. The same is true regarding the red juice that flows out of the meat.

(11) [25] Meat that is roasting without first having been salted should not have a vessel be placed below it in order to catch the fats that are dripping off it, until it has been roasted to the point that it can be eaten.

Poultry or goats that are filled with meat that was not salted are permitted if they are roasted, even if the mouth is facing upwards (1) [1] and even if the outer part was salted (2) for as it absorbs blood from the filling so will it release. Rema: [2] Of course if the inner part was salted and not the outer part it is permitted as well, for the flame draws out blood from the outside without it being absorbed in the inside. For cooking, it is forbidden [3] until salting (3) is performed on the outside on its own and in the inside on its own. !f after it was stuffed the outside was salted (4) [4] it does not release blood from the inner side. Rema: All this is post facto, but in the first instance one should not stuff anything until both are salted. [5] This is all referring to a case that the stuffing is meat or herbs, however if there are congealed eggs it is as if cooked in a pot. [6] Even post facto it should be ruled as forbidden (5) if they were both not salted. Meat that was not washed or salted that was roasted with meat that was washed and salted is permitted post facto. In the first instance it is forbidden to roast meat that was salted with meat that was not salted even if it was washed.

[1] If one places dough on poultry that was not salted, although the Gemara differentiates between coarse flour and other flour, and between it appearing red and not we are not expert in these rules therefore we should forbid it in every׳ case. Nevertheless if it was properly salted and washed it is permitted in all cases. Rema: Only placing dough on it is forbidden, but to smear it with oil is permitted, (1) or with the juice from meat that was not salted, for this will not block the release of blood. [2] A quiche has all the same rules as food that is to be cooked (2) with its leniencies and stringenies.

The signs of a kosher bird are not explained from the Torah, rather it only enumerated the non-kosher types, and the permitted types of birds. And the prohibited types, 24 were mentioned in the Torah (See: Rambam Forbidden Foods 1:14)

Anyone who is an expert in those types and their names, behold he eats all of the birds that are not from them, and he doesn't need checking. (Ibid.) And a kosher bird is eaten according to tradition, and that is the clear thing in that place that it is a kosher bird. And the hunter is believed saying: This bird, my hunting rabbi permitted for me, since that hunter is known to be in an expert in non-kosher types that are mentioned in the Torah and their names. Someone who does not know them and does not know their names, he should check the signs: every bird that is a bird of prey and he eats [it], and it is known that it is of non-kosher types. And if he does not know if it is a bird of prey or not, if, when they stand it up with wire, split along its legs, two fingers here and two fingers here, or it is [a bird that] clutches from the air and he eats [it], it is known that it is a bird of prey. If it is known that it is not a bird of prey, there are three signs of [its] kosher [status]: an extra finger, a crop [digestive pouch near gullet], and its gizzard is peeled by hand, excluding if it was only peeled with a knife. (See the Mechaber) If it hardened and was attached, and he placed it in the sun and it healed and then it was peeled by hand, behold this is a sign of [it being] kosher. And even though it has these three signs, it should not be eaten, because we are concerned lest it is a bird of prey, rather, unless they have a tradition that was transmitted to them by their ancestors that it is kosher. (See Rambam Forbidden Foods 1:18).

There are those who say that all birds that have a wide beak and the palm of its foot is wide like a goose, and it is known that it is not a bird of prey, and is permitted to eat if it has the three signs on its body. Gloss: And there are those who say that we don't rely even on this, and one should only eat a bird with an accepted tradition that it is kosher (in the Arukh...) and we are accustomed to this and it should not be changed.

One who is from a place that they are accustomed to a prohibition with a single bird because they do not have a tradition, and he went to a place where they do have a tradition, he is able to eat it in the place where he went, even if his intention to return. And if he went from a place that does have a tradition and he went to a place that does not have a tradition, it is permitted for him to eat it.

If the rest of the places that do not have a tradition are able to eat it relying upon the place that does have a tradition, there is one who forbids and there is one who permits. And there is [a reason] to be concerned regarding the words of the one who prohibits.

Anything that is specifically for eating and Biblically prohibited, even though it is not forbidden to derive benefit from it, is forbidden to do business in it. Rema: Or to lend with it as collateral. And even to purchase it to feed it to one’s idol worshipping workers is forbidden. Except for Biblically prohibited fats because the Torah says in regard to it: “it may be used for all kind of work” (Lev. 7:24). And if impure wild animals or birds or fish happened into the trap of a trapper, Rema: Additionally one into whose house happened a nevelah or treifah, he is permitted to sell them, assuming that he did not intend for them to come into his possession in the first place. Rema: And he needs to sell them immediately and not to wait until they become fat in his possession. And it is also permitted to collect impure things from an idol worshipper for a debt because this is like rescuing [what is yours] from their possession. It is forbidden to sell an idol worshipper nevelah claiming that it is kosher. And anything that is only prohibited rabbinically, it is permitted to use it for commerce.