ה׳
א׳מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּתּוֹרָה (דברים יב כג) "לֹא תֹאכַל הַנֶּפֶשׁ עִם הַבָּשָׂר" לֶאֱסֹר אֵיבָר שֶׁנֶּחְתַּךְ מִן הַחַי. וְעַל אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי הוּא אוֹמֵר לְנֹחַ (בראשית ט ד) "אַךְ בָּשָׂר בְּנַפְשׁוֹ דָמוֹ לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ". וְאִסּוּר אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי נוֹהֵג בִּבְהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף בִּטְהוֹרִים אֲבָל לֹא בִּטְמֵאִים:
1According to the Oral Tradition, we learnt1Chullin 102b. that [the intent of] the Torah's statement "Do not partake of the soul together with the meat" [is to] forbid a limb cut off from a living animal.2Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 182) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 452) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. With regard to a limb cut off from a living animal, it was said to Noah [Genesis 9:4]: "But flesh, together with its soul, its blood, you may not eat."3This prohibition is also one of the seven universal laws commanded to Noah and his descendants (Hilchot Melachim 8:10).The prohibition against [partaking of] a limb from a living animal applies to kosher domesticated animals, wild beasts, and fowl, but not to non-kosher species.4Since the species is forbidden, no additional prohibitions apply.
ב׳אֶחָד אֵיבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ בָּשָׂר וְגִידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת כְּגוֹן הַיָּד וְהָרֶגֶל. וְאֶחָד אֵיבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ עֶצֶם כְּגוֹן הַלָּשׁוֹן וְהַבֵּיצִים וְהַטְּחוֹל וְהַכְּלָיוֹת וְחֵלֶב וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. אֶלָּא שֶׁהָאֵיבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ עֶצֶם בֵּין שֶׁחָתַךְ כֻּלּוֹ בֵּין שֶׁחָתַךְ מִקְצָתוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי. וְהָאֵיבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ עֶצֶם אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי עַד שֶׁיִּפְרשׁ כִּבְרִיָּתוֹ בָּשָׂר וְגִידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת. אֲבָל אִם פָּרַשׁ מִן הַחַי הַבָּשָׂר בִּלְבַד חַיָּב עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם טְרֵפָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ לֹא מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי:
2The term ever [translated as "limb"] applies both to a limb that has flesh, sinews, and bones, e.g., a hand or a foot, and to an organ that does not have a bone, e.g., the tongue, the testicles, the spleen, the kidneys, the heart, and the like.5The Merkevat HaMishneh notes that this represents a difference between this prohibition and the prohibition against ritual impurity stemming from a limb where the limb must possess a bone. He explains that there a bone is necessary, for the source of the impurity is that of a corpse, and a corpse possesses bones. [There is, however, one difference.] When an organ does not possess a bone, the prohibition [against partaking of] a limb from a living animal applies whether one cut off the entire organ or only part of it.6The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam and does not accept this distinction. He maintains that partaking of part of an organ is also included in the prohibition against partaking of a trefe. When, by contrast, a limb possesses a bone, a person is not liable [for violating the prohibition against] a limb from a living animal unless he separates it in its complete state, with its flesh, sinews, and bones. If, however, he only removes flesh from the living animal, he is liable for [the prohibition against partaking of] a trefe [animal] as explained,7Chapter 4, Halachah 10. and not because of a limb from a living animal.
ג׳הָאוֹכֵל מֵאֵיבָר מִן הַחַי כְּזַיִת לוֹקֶה וַאֲפִלּוּ אָכַל אֵיבָר שָׁלֵם אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ כְּזַיִת חַיָּב פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת פָּטוּר. חָתַךְ מִן הָאֵיבָר כִּבְרִיָּתוֹ בָּשָׂר וְגִידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת כְּזַיִת וַאֲכָלוֹ לוֹקֶה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ בָּשָׂר אֶלָּא כָּל שֶׁהוּא. אֲבָל אִם הִפְרִיד הָאֵיבָר אַחַר שֶׁתְּלָשׁוֹ מִן הַחַי וְהִפְרִיד הַבָּשָׂר מִן הַגִּידִים וּמִן הָעֲצָמוֹת אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל כְּזַיִת מִן הַבָּשָׂר לְבַדּוֹ. וְאֵין הָעֲצָמוֹת וְהַגִּידִים מִצְטָרְפִין בּוֹ לִכְזַיִת מֵאַחַר שֶׁשִּׁנָּה בְּרִיָּתוֹ:
3One is liable for lashes only for partaking of an olive-sized portion of a limb from a living animal. Even if one eats an entire limb or organ, if it is the size of an olive, one is liable;8We do not consider an organ or limb as a distinct creature and hold him liable, as he is liable for partaking of an ant, even if it is smaller than an olive. Chulin 102a explains that we require an olive-sized portion for the verse that states the prohibition speaks of "partak[ing] of the soul." The term partaking is appropriate only when one eats an olive-sized portion. if not he is exempt.If one cut off a olive-sized portion of flesh, sinews, and bones from the limb according to its natural form and ate it, one is liable, even if it possessed only the smallest amount of meat.9Since one did not alter its natural form, one is liable for the bones and sinews as well. If, however, one separated a limb which he tore off from a living animal and detached the flesh from the sinews and the meat, he is not liable for lashes unless he eats an olive-sized portion of the meat alone. The bones and the sinews are not included in the olive-sized portion since he changed [the limb's] natural form.
ד׳חִלְּקוֹ לְאֵיבָר זֶה וַאֲכָלוֹ מְעַט מְעַט. אִם יֵשׁ בְּמַה שֶּׁאָכַל כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר חַיָּב וְאִם לָאו פָּטוּר. לָקַח כְּזַיִת מִן הָאֵיבָר כִּבְרִיָּתוֹ בָּשָׂר וְגִידִים וַעֲצָמוֹת וַאֲכָלוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּחְלַק בְּפִיו בִּפְנִים קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּבְלָעֶנּוּ חַיָּב:
4When one divides this organ and eats it bit by bit, he is liable if there is an olive-sized portion of meat in what he ate.10Even though he did not detach the meat from the sinews and the bones, since he cut the limb and distorted its natural form, we consider only the meat and not the other elements of the limb. If not, he is exempt. If he took an olive-sized portion of a limb with flesh, sinews, and bones according to its natural form and ate it, he is liable, even though it became divided inside his mouth before he swallows it.
ה׳תָּלַשׁ אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי וְנִטְרְפָה בִּנְטִילָתוֹ וַאֲכָלוֹ חַיָּב שְׁתַּיִם. מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי וּמִשּׁוּם טְרֵפָה שֶׁהֲרֵי שְׁנֵי הָאִסּוּרִין בָּאִין כְּאַחַת. וְכֵן הַתּוֹלֵשׁ חֵלֶב מִן הַחַי וַאֲכָלוֹ לוֹקֶה שְׁתַּיִם. מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי וּמִשּׁוּם חֵלֶב. תָּלַשׁ חֵלֶב מִן הַטְּרֵפָה וַאֲכָלוֹ לוֹקֶה שָׁלֹשׁ:
5When a person rips a limb from a living animal and causes it to become trefe when doing so, he is doubly liable for partaking of it: once for [partaking of] a limb from a living animal and once for [partaking of] a trefe. Both of these prohibitions take effect at the same time.11This explains why the person is liable for the prohibition against partaking of a trefe, for seemingly, we should follow the principle "a prohibition does not fall on a substance which is already forbidden." This principle does not apply in this instance, for here, both prohibitions take effect at the same time. Hence, one does not take precedence over the other and the transgressor is liable for both. (See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 17:8-10; Chapter 14, Halachah 18, for explanation regarding these principles.) Similarly, if one rips fat from a living animal and partakes of it, he is doubly liable: for [partaking of] a limb from a living animal and for [partaking of] fat.12He is liable for both prohibitions, because the prohibition against partaking of a limb from a living animal is of a wider scope (issur mosif; i.e., it is forbidden to gentiles as well as Jews) than the prohibition against partaking of forbidden fat (Lechem Mishneh).Kin'at Eliyahu asks why a limb taken from a forbidden species is not forbidden. Here also, the prohibition against taking a limb from a living animal is of a wider scope than that against partaking of a forbidden species. If he rips fat from a trefe [animal], he is liable for [the violation of] three [negative commandments].13The two mentioned in the previous clause and the prohibition against partaking of a trefe.He is liable for all three prohibitions, because the prohibition against partaking of forbidden fat is of a wider scope than the prohibition against partaking of a trefe and the prohibition against partaking of limb of a living animal is of a wider scope than the other two (ibid.).
ו׳בָּשָׂר הַמְדֻלְדָּל בִּבְהֵמָה וְאֵיבָר הַמְדֻלְדָּל בָּהּ אִם אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחֲזֹר וְלִחְיוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא פָּרַשׁ אֶלָּא אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה אָסוּר וְאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו. וְאִם מֵתָה הַבְּהֵמָה רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִלּוּ נָפַל מֵחַיִּים. לְפִיכָךְ לוֹקִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי. אֲבָל הַיָּכוֹל לַחֲזֹר וְלִחְיוֹת אִם נִשְׁחֲטָה הַבְּהֵמָה הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר:
6[The following rules apply when] meat is disjoined from an animal and an organ is hanging from it. If it is impossible that this meat will again become a living part of the body, it is forbidden,14From a comparison to the following halachah, it appears that this prohibition is of Scriptural origin. but one is not liable for lashes for it. [This applies] even though it was not separated [from the animal] until after it was slaughtered. If the animal dies, we consider [the limb] as if it fell off while [the animal] was alive.15Chullin 74a makes this distinction between an animal that dies naturally and one which is ritually slaughtered. Therefore one receives lashes for [partaking] of it, because of the prohibition against [partaking of] a limb from a living animal. If, however, the limb could again become a living part of the body and the animal is ritually slaughtered, it is permitted.16For it is considered as part of the animal.
ז׳שָׁמַט אֵיבָר אוֹ מְעָכוֹ אוֹ דָּכוֹ כְּגוֹן הַבֵּיצִים שֶׁמָּעַךְ אוֹתָן אוֹ נִתְּקָן הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ אָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁהֲרֵי יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִקְצָת חַיִּים. וּלְפִיכָךְ אֵין מַסְרִיחַ. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן אָסוּר לְאָכְלוֹ מִמִּנְהָג שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל מִקֶּדֶם שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא דּוֹמֶה לְאֵיבָר מִן הַחַי:
7If one pulled an organ [from its natural position],17Without detaching it. crushed it, ground it, e.g., one crushed testicles or pulled them from their place [and then slaughtered the animal, the organ] is not forbidden according to Scriptural Law. [The rationale is] that it possesses a trace of life - as evidenced by the fact that it does not decay. Nevertheless, it is forbidden to partake of it as a result of a custom followed by the entire Jewish people from previous generations. For it resembles a limb separated from a living animal.
ח׳עֶצֶם שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּר אִם הָיָה הַבָּשָׂר אוֹ הָעוֹר חוֹפֶה רֹב עָבְיוֹ שֶׁל עֶצֶם הַנִּשְׁבָּר וְרֹב הֶקֵּף הַשֶּׁבֶר הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר. וְאִם יָצָא הָעֶצֶם לַחוּץ הֲרֵי הָאֵיבָר אָסוּר. וּכְשֶׁיִּשְׁחֹט הַבְּהֵמָה אוֹ הָעוֹף יַחְתֹּךְ מִמְּקוֹם הַשֶּׁבֶר וְיַשְׁלִיכוֹ וְהַשְּׁאָר מֻתָּר. נִשְׁבַּר הָעֶצֶם וְהַבָּשָׂר חוֹפֶה אֶת רֻבּוֹ אֲבָל הָיָה אוֹתוֹ בָּשָׂר מְרֻסָּס אוֹ נִתְאַכֵּל כְּבָשָׂר שֶׁהָרוֹפֵא גּוֹרְרוֹ. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מִתְלַקֵּט הָרֹב מִמְּקוֹמוֹת הַרְבֵּה. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁעָלָיו נְקָבִים נְקָבִים. אוֹ שֶׁנִּסְדַּק הַבָּשָׂר. אוֹ שֶׁנִּקְדַר כְּמִין טַבַּעַת. אוֹ שֶׁנִּגְרַר הַבָּשָׂר מִלְּמַעְלָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁאַר מִן הַבָּשָׂר אֶלָּא כִּקְלִיפָה. אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְאַכֵּל הַבָּשָׂר מִלְּמַטָּה מֵעַל הָעֶצֶם שֶׁנִּשְׁבַּר עַד שֶׁנִּמְצָא הַבָּשָׂר הַחוֹפֶה אֵינוֹ נוֹגֵעַ בָּעֶצֶם. בְּכָל אֵלּוּ מוֹרִין לְאִסּוּר עַד שֶׁיִּתְרַפֵּא הַבָּשָׂר. וְאִם אָכַל מִכָּל אֵלּוּ מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת:
8[The following laws apply when an animal's] bone was broken:18In Hilchot Shechitah 8:11-12, the Rambam mentions instances where a broken bone causes an animal to be designated as trefe. Here the Rambam is speaking of instances where the broken bone does not cause the animal to be trefe and the question involves merely the broken limb. May the meat from that limb be eaten or not? If the flesh or the skin covers the majority of the thickness of the broken bone and the majority of the circumference of the fracture, it is permitted. If the bone emerged outside [the skin], the limb is forbidden. When the animal or the fowl is slaughtered, one should cut off [the limb] at the place where it is broken and discard it. The remainder of the limb is permitted.We rule that [the limb] is forbidden until the flesh is healed [in all the following situations]: the bone broke, the flesh covers the bone, but that flesh was crushed or decayed like flesh which a doctor would remove, it is scattered in many different places,19I.e., when one would calculate the entire amount of the flesh, it would be large enough to cover the majority of the bone. Nevertheless, it is not located in large sections, but is instead, made up of many small pieces. there were many perforations within the flesh,20None of these perforations, however, caused a decrease in the mass of the flesh. the flesh was cracked or pierced like a ring, the flesh was rubbed off from above until only a [thin] peel remained, or the flesh decayed from below around the broken bone to the extent that the flesh surrounding the bone does not touch it.21Chullin 76b mentions all these circumstances without reaching a final ruling regarding them. Hence we rule stringently. If a person partook [of the limb] in any of these [circumstances], he is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.
ט׳הַמּוֹשִׁיט יָדוֹ לִמְעֵי הַבְּהֵמָה וְחָתַךְ מִן הַטְּחוֹל וּמִן הַכְּלָיוֹת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן וְהִנִּיחַ הַחֲתִיכוֹת בְּתוֹךְ מֵעֶיהָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ שְׁחָטָהּ. הֲרֵי אוֹתָן הַחֲתִיכוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בְּתוֹךְ מֵעֶיהָ. אֲבָל אִם חָתַךְ מִן הָעֻבָּר שֶׁבְּמֵעֶיהָ וְלֹא הוֹצִיאוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ שְׁחָטָהּ הֲרֵי חֲתִיכַת הָעֻבָּר אוֹ אֵיבָרוֹ מֻתָּר הוֹאִיל וְלֹא יָצָא. עֻבָּר שֶׁהוֹצִיא יָדוֹ אוֹ רַגְלוֹ נֶאֱסַר אוֹתוֹ אֵיבָר לְעוֹלָם בֵּין שֶׁחֲתָכוֹ קֹדֶם שֶׁתִּשָּׁחֵט אִמּוֹ בֵּין שֶׁחֲתָכוֹ אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה אִמּוֹ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הֶחֱזִיר אוֹתוֹ אֵיבָר לִמְעֵי אִמּוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשְׁחַט אוֹ נוֹלַד הַוָּלָד וְחָיָה כַּמָּה שָׁנִים הֲרֵי אוֹתוֹ הָאֵיבָר אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם טְרֵפָה. שֶׁכָּל בָּשָׂר שֶׁיָּצָא חוּץ לִמְחִצָּתוֹ נֶאֱסַר כְּבָשָׂר שֶׁפָּרַשׁ מִן הַחַי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב ל) "וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵפָה" כֵּיוָן שֶׁיָּצָא לְמָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא לוֹ כְּשָׂדֶה נַעֲשָׂה טְרֵפָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:
9When a person inserts his hand into the inside of an animal, cuts off the spleen, one of the kidneys, or the like,22I.e., organs that do not cause an animal to be considered as a trefe. but leaves [the severed organ] inside the animal, and then slaughters it, the pieces cut off are forbidden as organs from a living animal although they remained within the animal's womb. If, however, he cut away [a portion of] a fetus within the womb, but did not remove it, and then slaughtered [the mother], the pieces or limbs of the fetus are permitted because they did not emerge [outside the mother].23This distinction is made on the basis of Chulin 68a, 69a. The rationale is that the animal's organs are an integral part of it. On the basis of Deuteronomy 14:5, "You shall eat it," our Sages explain when it's whole, you may eat everything within it, but not when it is lacking. The fetus, however, is not considered an integral part of the animal. Hence, as long as its limbs have not emerged outside the womb, they are permitted with the slaughter of the mother.When a fetus sticks its foreleg or hind leg out of the womb, that limb is forbidden forever, whether one cuts off [the limb] before he slaughters the mother or afterwards.24From this halachah and Halachah 11, we see that there are two prohibitions involved: partaking of a limb considered trefe and partaking of a limb from a living animal. At times, one applies, and in other situations, the other applies. Even if it returns the limb to the womb of the mother and afterwards, [the mother] was slaughtered or the fetus was born and lived for several years,25The Maggid Mishneh and Kessef Mishneh interpret this as referring to a situation where the fetus was not born before the mother was ritually slaughtered (see also Halachah 12). Instead, the mother was slaughtered while the fetus was still in its womb. Afterwards, the fetus was taken out and it survived. If, however, the fetus is born before the mother is slaughtered, the leg which emerged is not forbidden. When the calf is slaughtered, all of its legs are permitted. There are authorities who differ whether this is the Rambam's intent. Most, however, agree that this ruling should be followed in practice [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 14:2)]. that limb is forbidden as a trefe. [The rationale is that] all meat that emerged from its natural position is forbidden as flesh that was separated from a living animal.[This is derived from the phrase (Exodus 22:30 :] "Meat [from an animal that was] mortally wounded (trefe) in the field." [Our Rabbis extrapolated:] When meat comes out to a place that is like a field for it,26I.e., it is not its natural place. it becomes trefe, as we explained.27See Chapter 4, Halachah 10.
י׳הוֹצִיא מִקְצָת הָאֵיבָר וְנִשְׁאַר מִקְצָתוֹ בִּפְנִים אֲפִלּוּ לֹא נִשְׁאַר אֶלָּא מִעוּטוֹ הַיּוֹצֵא אָסוּר וְשֶׁבִּפְנִים מֻתָּר. וְאִם חָתַךְ הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הָאֵיבָר אַחַר שֶׁהֶחְזִירוֹ וְנִשְׁחֲטָה. אוֹתוֹ שֶׁיָּצָא בִּלְבַד אָסוּר וּשְׁאָר הָאֵיבָר מֻתָּר. וְאִם לֹא הֶחְזִירוֹ וַחֲתָכוֹ וְהוּא בַּחוּץ. בֵּין שֶׁחֲתָכוֹ קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה אוֹ אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה. מְקוֹם הַחֲתָךְ אָסוּר. וְהוּא הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁנֶּגֶד הָאֲוִיר. אַחַר שֶׁיֵּחָתֵךְ הַיּוֹצֵא חוֹזֵר וְחוֹתֵךְ מְקוֹם הַחֲתָךְ:
10[When the fetus] sticks out a portion of a limb and a portion remains within, even if it is only the minority of it, the portion which emerged is forbidden and that which remained within is permitted.If he cuts off the portion of the limb that emerged after it was returned within the animal and the animal was slaughtered, only that portion is forbidden, the remainder of the limb is permitted. If he did not return it to the womb and it remained outside and he cut it off there, the place where he cut it off - i.e., the place on the limb open to the air after the limb was cut off - is forbidden. He must afterwards cut off this portion as well. [This applies] whether he [originally] cut off the portion of the limb before [the mother] was slaughtered or afterwards.
י״אכָּל אֵיבָר עֻבָּר שֶׁיָּצָא וַחֲתָכוֹ קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה וְהוּא בַּחוּץ הֲרֵי זֶה אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי וְלוֹקִין עָלָיו. וַאֲפִלּוּ מֵת הָעֻבָּר קֹדֶם שְׁחִיטָה. וְאִם נֶחְתַּךְ אַחַר שְׁחִיטָה הָאוֹכְלוֹ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה וַאֲפִלּוּ מֵת. וְאִם מֵתָה הַבְּהֵמָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ חֲתָכוֹ הָאוֹכְלוֹ לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי:
11Whenever a limb emerges and is cut off before the animal is slaughtered while it is outside, it is considered as a limb from a living animal28As evident from a comparison to Halachah 9, the prohibition against partaking of a trefe applies only when the limb was cut off following the ritual slaughter of the mother. and one is worthy of lashes for partaking of it. [This applies] even if the fetus dies before [the mother] is slaughtered.29For the ruling is dependent on the mother's condition, not that of the fetus. Even if the fetus dies, it is permitted to partake of it after the slaughter of the mother (see Tosafos, Chullin 72a). If it is cut off after ritual slaughter, one who partakes of it is not liable for lashes,30I.e., he is not liable for lashes for transgressing the prohibition against partaking of a limb of a living animal. As reflected by Halachah 9, he violates the prohibition against partaking of a trefe. The Ra'avad maintains that he is liable for lashes for this violation. The Maggid Mishneh maintains that this situation is comparable to a maimed limb as described in Halachah 6 in which instance a Scriptural prohibition is involved, but one is not liable for lashes. even if it dies. If [the mother] dies and then one cuts off this limb, one who partakes of it is liable for lashes for the prohibition against partaking of a limb from a living animal.31And not for either the prohibition against partaking of a trefe or a nevelah. The death of the mother causes the limb to be considered as if it fell off during the animal's lifetime. See Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 2:9 which explains the parallels that apply with regard to the laws of ritual impurity.
י״בעֻבָּר שֶׁהוֹצִיא אֵיבָר וְנֶאֱסַר הָאֵיבָר וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹלַד וַהֲרֵי הִיא נְקֵבָה. הֶחָלָב שֶׁלָּהּ אָסוּר לִשְׁתּוֹתוֹ מִסָּפֵק. הוֹאִיל וְהוּא בָּא מִכְּלָל הָאֵיבָרִין וְיֵשׁ בָּהּ אֵיבָר אֶחָד אָסוּר. וַהֲרֵי זֶה כַּחֲלֵב טְרֵפָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בַּחֲלֵב טְהוֹרָה:
12[The following rule applies when] a fetus sticks out a limb and that limb becomes forbidden and then the fetus is born.32The Maggid Mishneh states that this also refers to a situation where the fetus was born after the mother was slaughtered. If it is female, we are forbidden to drink its milk because of an unresolved halachic question.33Chullin 69a asks whether this milk can be compared to milk from a kosher animal or not. The distinction is that a kosher animal will become permitted if it is slaughtered in the ritual manner and this limb will never become permitted. For the milk comes from all of the animal's limbs and it has a limb which is forbidden. Hence, it is comparable to milk from a trefe animal that becomes mixed with milk from a kosher animal.
י״גהַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה מְעֻבֶּרֶת וּמָצָא בָּהּ שָׁלִיל בֵּין חַי בֵּין מֵת הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה. וַאֲפִלּוּ שִׁלְיָא מֻתֶּרֶת בַּאֲכִילָה. וְשִׁלְיָא שֶׁיָּצָאת מִקְצָתָהּ וְשָׁחַט אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה. אִם הָיְתָה שִׁלְיָא זוֹ קְשׁוּרָה בַּוָּלָד מַה שֶּׁיָּצָא מִמֶּנָּה אָסוּר וְהַשְּׁאָר מֻתָּר. וְאִם לֹא הָיְתָה קְשׁוּרָה בּוֹ כֻּלָּהּ אֲסוּרָה. שֶׁמָּא שִׁלְיָא זוֹ שֶׁיָּצָאת מִקְצָתָהּ הָלַךְ לוֹ וָלָד שֶׁהָיָה בָּהּ וְוָלָד זֶה שֶׁנִּמְצָא בַּבֶּטֶן הָלְכָה שִׁלְיָא שֶׁלּוֹ. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁאִם לֹא נִמְצָא בַּבֶּטֶן וָלָד כְּלָל שֶׁהַשִּׁלְיָא כֻּלָּהּ אֲסוּרָה:
13When a person slaughters a kosher animal that is pregnant and discovers a fetus - whether live or dead - within it, the fetus is permitted to be eaten.34With regard to a live fetus, see the following halachah. With regard to a dead fetus, the Rambam is emphasizing that it is not considered as a separate entity (in which case it would be forbidden as a nevelah), but instead as one of the limbs of the mother. Even the placenta is permitted to be eaten.35Chapter 4, Halachah 5, states that a placenta that is expelled together with the newborn is forbidden to be eaten. In this instance, however, since the placenta has not been expelled, it is still considered part of the mother's body and permitted.[The following rules apply if] a portion of the placenta emerged and then one slaughtered the mother. If the placenta was attached to the fetus, the portion which emerged is forbidden36Like the limb of a fetus that emerged before ritual slaughter (Maggid Mishneh).The Ra'avad states that the placenta is comparable to an animal's waste products and therefore is not forbidden at all. The Maggid Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling. and the remainder is permitted. If it is not attached to the fetus, it is forbidden in its entirety, for perhaps the fetus that was in this placenta disappeared37Which was not permitted because of the slaughter of the mother. and maybe the placenta of the fetus that is found in the womb disappeared. Needless to say, if a fetus is not found in the womb at all, the placenta is forbidden in its entirety.
י״דמָצָא בָּהּ עֻבָּר חַי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה חֳדָשִׁים גְּמוּרִין וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּחְיֶה אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שְׁחִיטָה אֶלָּא שְׁחִיטַת אִמּוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ. וְאִם הִפְרִיס עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע צָרִיךְ שְׁחִיטָה:
14If one finds a living fetus [in the womb of a slaughtered animal] - even though it has been carried for nine months,38I.e., the period of gestation was full term. and it is possible that it will live, it does not require ritual slaughter.39And can be killed in any manner. Instead, it is acceptable because of the slaughter of its mother. If it steps on the ground, it requires ritual slaughter.40Because of the impression that might be created (Chullin 75b).
ט״וקָרַע אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה אוֹ שָׁחַט בְּהֵמָה טְרֵפָה וּמָצָא בָּהּ בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה חַי צָרִיךְ שְׁחִיטָה לְהַתִּירוֹ וְאֵין שְׁחִיטַת אִמּוֹ מוֹעֶלֶת לוֹ. וְאִם לֹא גָּמְרוּ לוֹ חֳדָשָׁיו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא חַי בִּמְעֵי הַטְּרֵפָה הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּאֵיבָר מֵאִמּוֹ. כָּל עֻבָּר שֶׁהוֹצִיא רֹאשׁוֹ וְהֶחְזִירוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ שָׁחַט אֶת אִמּוֹ אֵין שְׁחִיטַת אִמּוֹ מוֹעֶלֶת לוֹ וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּיָלוּד וְצָרִיךְ שְׁחִיטָה:
15If a person ripped open an animal41Without slaughtering it according to Torah law. or slaughtered an animal that was trefe and found a live fetus that had been carried for nine months, [that fetus] must be ritually slaughtered to be permitted.42The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 13:3) states that at present, we do not permit any fetus found in the womb of a trefe even if it was ritually slaughtered. The slaughter of its mother is not effective.43Since the slaughter of the mother does not cause the mother to be permitted, it is not effective with regard to the fetus.If the period [of gestation] was not completed, it is forbidden even though it is alive in the womb of the trefe animal. [The rationale is that] it is considered as one of the mother's limbs.44Since the period of gestation has not been completed, it is not considered as an independent entity. Even if it is taken from the womb and lives for a brief time, ritual slaughter does not cause it to be permitted. Whenever an animal thrust its head [out of the womb] and then returned it and [only] afterwards its mother was slaughtered, the slaughter of its mother has no bearing on it, it is considered as if it was born and it must be ritual slaughtered [to be permitted].
ו׳
א׳הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִן הַדָּם בְּמֵזִיד חַיָּב כָּרֵת בְּשׁוֹגֵג מֵבִיא חַטָּאת קְבוּעָה. וְדָבָר מְפֹרָשׁ בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא עַל דַּם בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף בִּלְבַד בֵּין טְמֵאִין בֵּין טְהוֹרִין שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ז כו) "וְכָל דָּם לֹא תֹאכְלוּ בְּכל מוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם לָעוֹף וְלַבְּהֵמָה". וְחַיָּה בִּכְלַל בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד ד) "זֹאת הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכֵלוּ שׁוֹר" וְגוֹ' (דברים יד ה) "אַיָּל וּצְבִי" וְגוֹ'. אֲבָל דַּם דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים וּשְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים וְדַם הָאָדָם אֵין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם דָּם. לְפִיכָךְ דַּם דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים טְהוֹרִים מֻתָּר לְאָכְלוֹ וַאֲפִלּוּ כְּנָסוֹ בִּכְלִי וְשָׁתָהוּ מֻתָּר. וְדַם חֲגָבִים וְדָגִים טְמֵאִים אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהוּא תַּמְצִית גּוּפָן כַּחֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה. וְדַם שְׁקָצִים כִּבְשָׂרָן כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:
1When a person partakes of an olive-sized1Although blood is a liquid, the Rambam mentions an olive-sized portion, i.e., a measure of mass, rather than a fourth of a lug, a liquid measure. It is possible to explain that since the Torah uses the word "eat" while stating the prohibition, the intent is the same measure that applies with regard to other prohibitions involving "eating," an olive-sized portion. portion of blood intentionally, he is liable for karet.2The soul is cut off in this world (i.e., the person dies prematurely) and in the world to come (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1). Whenever a person is liable for karet, he is punished by lashes if he was warned before committing the transgression. If lashed, he is absolved from karet.Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 184) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 148) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. If he does so inadvertently, he is liable to bring a fixed sin-offering.3This term is used to differentiate this offering from a guilt offering whose value is adjusted according to the person's means.It is explicitly stated in the Torah that he is liable for partaking of blood from all domesticated animals, wild beasts, and fowl alone. This applies whether they are from a non-kosher or kosher species,4In contrast to the prohibition against partaking of cheilev, forbidden fat, which applies only with regard to kosher species of domesticated animals. as [Leviticus 7:26] states: "You may not partake of any blood from a fowl or an animal in all your dwellings." A wild beast is considered as an animal as [Deuteronomy 14:4-5] states: "These are the animals that you may eat: an ox... a gazelle and a deer...."5I.e., the verse uses the term behemah which more specifically refers to domesticated animals and mentions both domesticated animals and wild beasts.One is not, [by contrast,] liable for transgressing of the prohibition against partaking of blood6One may, however, be liable for another prohibition as the Rambam continues to explain. for partaking of the blood of fish, locusts, creeping animals, teeming animals, or humans. Therefore it is permitted to partake of the blood of kosher fish and locusts. Even if one collects it in a container and drinks it, it is permitted.7The Ra'avad and the Maggid Mishneh note that Keritot 21a states that it is permitted to partake of fish blood that has been collected only when fish scales are placed in it. Otherwise, it is forbidden because of the impression that may be created. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 66:9) quotes this view. The blood of non-kosher fish and locusts is forbidden because it comes from their bodies like the milk of a non-kosher animal.8As apparent from Chapter 3, Halachot 1 and 6, although this prohibition is of Scriptural origin, it is not punishable by lashes. See also Chapter 3, Halachah 22. The blood of creeping animals is comparable to their bodies, as we explained.9Chapter 2, Halachot 9-10.
ב׳דַּם הָאָדָם אָסוּר מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים אִם פֵּרַשׁ. וּמַכִּין עָלָיו מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת. אֲבָל דַּם הַשִּׁנַּיִם בּוֹלְעוֹ וְאֵינוֹ נִמְנַע. הֲרֵי שֶׁנָּשַׁךְ בְּפַת וּמָצָא עָלֶיהָ דָּם גּוֹרֵר אֶת הַדָּם וְאַחַר כָּךְ אוֹכֵל שֶׁהֲרֵי פֵּרַשׁ:
2The blood of a human is forbidden according to Rabbinic law if it departed [from the person's body]. One is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct for [partaking] of it. When, by contrast, one's teeth bleed, he may swallow it; he need not hold himself back. If one bit into bread and found blood upon it,10I.e., the same blood that he is permitted to swallow. he must scrape away the blood before partaking of it, for the blood has departed [from the body].
ג׳אֵין חַיָּבִין כָּרֵת אֶלָּא עַל דָּם הַיּוֹצֵא בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה וּנְחִירָה אוֹ הַתָּזַת הָרֹאשׁ כָּל זְמַן שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ אַדְמוּמִית. וְעַל הַדָּם הַכָּנוּס בְּתוֹךְ הַלֵּב. וְעַל דַּם הַקָּזָה כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהוּא מְקַלֵּחַ וְיוֹצֵא. אֲבָל הַדָּם הַשּׁוֹתֵת בִּתְחִלַּת הַקָּזָה קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּתְחִיל לְקַלֵּחַ וְדָם הַשּׁוֹתֵת בְּסוֹף הַקָּזָה כְּשֶׁיַּתְחִיל הַדָּם לִפְסֹק אֵין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו וַהֲרֵי הוּא כְּדַם הָאֵיבָרִים. שֶׁדַּם הַקִּלּוּחַ הוּא הַדָּם שֶׁהַנֶּפֶשׁ יוֹצְאָה בּוֹ:
3One is liable for karet only for blood that flows out [from the animal] when it is slaughtered, killed, or decapitated as long as it is tinted red, blood that is collected within the heart,11See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Keritot 5:1) where he states that this is the blood of fundamental importance. See also Halachot 5-6. and blood that is let, i.e., blood that flows forcefully [from the body]. One is not, however, liable for blood that drips at the beginning of bloodletting before it begins to flow forcefully or blood that drips at the ending of bloodletting when the bleeding begins to cease. It is like "blood within the limbs." [The reason for the distinction is that] blood that flows forcefully is bleeding through which the soul may expire.
ד׳דַּם הַתַּמְצִית וְדַם הָאֵיבָרִין כְּגוֹן דַּם הַטְּחוֹל וְדַם הַכְּלָיוֹת וְדַם בֵּיצִים וְדָם הַמִּתְכַּנֵּס לַלֵּב בִּשְׁעַת שְׁחִיטָה וְדָם הַנִּמְצָא בַּכָּבֵד אֵין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. אֲבָל הָאוֹכֵל מִמֶּנּוּ כְּזַיִת לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ג יז) (ויקרא ז כו) "וְכָל דָּם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ". וּבְחִיּוּב כָּרֵת הוּא אוֹמֵר (ויקרא יז יא) "כִּי נֶפֶשׁ הַבָּשָׂר בַּדָּם הִיא" אֵינוֹ חַיָּב כָּרֵת אֶלָּא עַל הַדָּם שֶׁהַנֶּפֶשׁ יוֹצְאָה בּוֹ:
4One is not liable for karet for concentrated blood12I.e., blood that flows slowly after the majority of the animal's blood has already been discharged. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit.). or the blood within the limbs, i.e., the blood of the spleen, the kidneys, the testicles, the blood that collects in the heart at the time the animal is slaughtered, and the blood found in the liver.13There is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis if the prohibition against the blood of the liver is Scriptural or Rabbinic in origin. See the gloss of Rav Moshe HaCohen. A person who partakes of an olive-sized portion of it, however, is liable for lashes, as it is written: "You may not partake of any blood."14The term "blood within the limbs" appears to refer to blood that is absorbed within the meat and organs of the animal. As indicated later in this chapter and as stated in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 67:1, this blood is forbidden only when it emerges from the meat or moves from place to place within the meat. See the notes to Halachah 12. With regard to one's liability for karet [Leviticus 17:11] states: "For the soul of the flesh is in the blood." [Implied is that] one is liable for karet only for blood that causes the soul to expire.
ה׳הַשָּׁלִיל הַנִּמְצָא בִּמְעֵי הַבְּהֵמָה הֲרֵי דָּמוֹ כְּדַם הַיָּלוּד. לְפִיכָךְ הַדָּם הַנִּמְצָא כָּנוּס בְּתוֹךְ לִבּוֹ חַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת אֲבָל שְׁאָר דָּמוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא כְּדַם הָאֵיבָרִין:
5When a fetus is found in an animal's womb, its blood is like the blood of an animal that has been born.15There is a distinction between the blood of a fetus and its fat (which is permitted in certain circumstances, see Chapter 7, Halachah 3). The rationale is that the verse forbidding blood prohibits "any blood" (Lechem Mishneh). Therefore one is liable for the blood that is collected in its heart.16As stated in Halachah 3. The remainder of its blood, by contrast, is considered as the blood of the limbs.17According to the Maggid Mishneh, even if one slaughters the fetus after removing it from its mother's womb, he is not liable for partaking of its blood.
ו׳הַלֵּב בֵּין לְצָלִי בֵּין לִקְדֵרָה קוֹרְעוֹ וּמוֹצִיא אֶת דָּמוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מוֹלְחוֹ. וְאִם בִּשֵּׁל הַלֵּב וְלֹא קְרָעוֹ קוֹרְעוֹ אַחַר שֶׁבִּשְּׁלוֹ וּמֻתָּר. וְאִם לֹא קְרָעוֹ וַאֲכָלוֹ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עָלָיו כָּרֵת. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּלֵב הָעוֹף שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כְּזַיִת דָּם. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה לֵב בְּהֵמָה חַיָּב כָּרֵת שֶׁהֲרֵי יֵשׁ בּוֹ כְּזַיִת מִדָּם שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הַלֵּב שֶׁחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת:
6Whether one [desires to] roast or cook a heart, one must cut it open, remove its blood, and then salt it.18As stated in Halachah 12, the Rambam maintains that even when one roasts meat, he must salt it first. As stated in the notes to that halachah, there are other Rabbis who differ with that point and require salting only when one cooks meat. See also the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 72:1) which quotes certain authorities that forbid eating a cooked heart, even if it was cut open and salted. If one cooks a heart without cutting it open, one may cut it open after it was cooked. It is then permitted.19Pesachim 74b states that the meat of the heart is smooth and hard and will not absorb the blood. Other substances that are cooked with it, however, are forbidden (Maggid Mishneh in the name of the Rashba). The Ra'avad and others differ with the Rambam and consider a heart cooked with its blood as forbidden. This is the view cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 72:2). If one did not cut it open and partook of it, one is not liable for karet.When does the above apply? With regard to the heart of a fowl, because it does not contain an olive-sized portion of blood.20The heart of a fowl is not large enough for there to be an olive-sized portion of blood absorbed within its meat before slaughter. And it is only that blood for which one is liable for karet. If an olive-sized portion of blood collects there when the animal is slaughtered, one is liable for lashes. If, by contrast, one [partakes] of the heart of an animal, one is liable for karet. For there is an olive-sized portion of blood within the heart and therefore one is liable for karet.21This indicates that according to the Rambam, even when one cooks blood, one is liable for kereit for partaking of it (Lechem Mishneh). Other authorities differ and maintain that if blood has been cooked or salted, one is not liable according to Scriptural Law (Siftei Cohen 87:15).
ז׳הַכָּבֵד אִם חֲתָכָהּ וְהִשְׁלִיכָהּ לְתוֹךְ הַחֹמֶץ אוֹ לְתוֹךְ מַיִם רוֹתְחִין עַד שֶׁתִּתְלַבֵּן הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת לְבַשֵּׁל אוֹתָהּ אַחַר כֵּן. וּכְבָר נָהֲגוּ כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַבְהֲבָהּ עַל הָאוּר וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְבַשְּׁלִין אוֹתָהּ בֵּין שֶׁבִּשְּׁלָהּ לְבַדָּהּ בֵּין שֶׁבִּשְּׁלָהּ עִם בָּשָׂר אַחֵר. וְכֵן מִנְהָג פָּשׁוּט שֶׁאֵין מְבַשְּׁלִין הַמֹּחַ שֶׁל רֹאשׁ וְלֹא קוֹלִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁמְּהַבְהֲבִין אוֹתוֹ בָּאוּר:
7If one cuts open the liver22The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 73:1) states: "The liver has an abundance of blood. Therefore at the outset, it is not a sufficient measure to prepare it for cooking by salting."The liver must be cut open thoroughly so that the blood contained in the blood vessels inside of it will flow out. Afterwards, placing it in vinegar or hot water causes the blood to be sealed in its place and not to flow into other portions of the liver. It is only blood that flows from place to place within the meat itself that is forbidden (Kessef Mishneh). and casts it into vinegar or boiling water until it turns white, it is permitted to cook it afterwards.23Implied is that if one desires to roast it, there is no difficulty (Maggid Mishneh).Many opinions maintain that we are not knowledgeable with regard to the process of casting a liver in vinegar or boiling water in the present age and should not rely on this practice. This view is quoted in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 73:2). It has already become universal Jewish custom to singe it over a fire24See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 10:11) where the Rambam mentions ordinary roasting and not singeing for the liver to be permitted. and then cook it. [This applies] whether one cooks it alone or one cooks it with other meat.25The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 73:1) states that it must be roasted to the extent that it is fit to be eaten. The Siftei Cohen 73:2 explains that this means that it must be roasted at least half the extent to which one would normally roast it.Similarly, it is a common custom that the brains are not cooked nor roasted until they are singed over a fire.26The Maggid Mishneh states that this custom is not as widespread as the custom of singeing the liver. Instead, he writes that it is customary to cut open the membrane surrounding it and then to salt it thoroughly. See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 71:3).
ח׳הַכָּבֵד שֶׁבִּשְּׁלָהּ וְלֹא הִבְהֲבָהּ עַל הָאוּר וְלֹא חֲלָטָהּ בְּחֹמֶץ אוֹ בְּרוֹתְחִין הֲרֵי הַקְּדֵרָה כֻּלָּהּ אֲסוּרָה הַכָּבֵד וְכָל שֶׁנִתְבַּשֵּׁל עִמָּהּ. וּמֻתָּר לִצְלוֹת כָּבֵד עִם הַבָּשָׂר בְּשִׁפּוּד אֶחָד וְהוּא שֶׁתִּהְיֶה הַכָּבֵד לְמַטָּה. וְאִם עָבַר וּצְלָאָהּ לְמַעְלָה מִבָּשָׂר הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹכְלוֹ:
8When a liver was cooked without being singed over a fire or cast into vinegar or hot water, the pot in which it was cooked is forbidden entirely: the liver and everything cooked with it.27The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 73:2) follows the opinion that the liver itself is permitted if it is cooked after being salted, though everything cooked with it is forbidden. The Rama, however, states that the Rambam's view should be followed.It is permitted to roast a liver together with other meat on one spit, provided the liver is positioned below [the other meat].28For then the blood will not flow from the liver to the other meat. Hence, even at the outset, this is permitted. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 73:4) states that this ruling applies with regard to the ovens that existed in the Talmudic era. In the present era, however, it is common to turn the spit upside down. Hence, one should not roast the liver together with other meat. If one transgressed and roasted it while it was positioned above the meat, [after the fact,] one may eat it.
ט׳הַטְּחוֹל מֻתָּר לְבַשְּׁלוֹ אֲפִלּוּ עִם הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁאֵינוֹ דָּם אֶלָּא בָּשָׂר הַדּוֹמֶה לְדָם. הַשּׁוֹבֵר מִפְרֶקֶת בְּהֵמָה קֹדֶם שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשָׁהּ הֲרֵי הַדָּם נִבְלַע בָּאֵיבָרִים וְאָסוּר לֶאֱכל מִמֶּנָּה בָּשָׂר חַי וַאֲפִלּוּ חֲלָטוֹ. אֶלָּא כֵּיצַד יַעֲשֶׂה. יַחְתֹּךְ הַחֲתִיכָה וְיִמְלַח יָפֶה יָפֶה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יְבַשֵּׁל אוֹ יִצְלֶה. וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁהַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף וְלֹא יָצָא מֵהֶן דָּם שֶׁהֵן מֻתָּרִין:
9It is permitted to cook a spleen29That has been salted [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 74:1)]. together with meat, because it is not blood, but meat that resembles blood.When one breaks the neck of an animal before its soul expires, the blood is absorbed into the limbs.30I.e., the animal suffers internal bleeding when its neck is broken. Since it is in the midst of expiring, it does not have the potential to expel this blood from its system. Instead, it becomes absorbed in its meat [Tur (Yoreh De'ah 67)]. It is forbidden to eat raw meat from it even if one causes the blood to be sealed.31By casting it into vinegar or boiling water.To explain the difficulty the Rambam is addressing: There is a certain amount of blood absorbed in the meat of an animal. It is forbidden to partake of blood that has moved from place to place within an animal's body and cooking meat will certainly cause such movement. To avoid this difficulty, we salt meat, for this removes the blood. Casting meat in vinegar or boiling water does not remove blood, but instead causes it to be sealed in its place without moving even when the meat is cooked. Hence, according to the Rambam, this process is effective for ordinary meat. It is not, however, effective in this instance, for the internal bleeding that resulted from the breakage of the neck leaves blood that is not in its natural place (Kessef Mishneh, see also his gloss to Halachah 12). What should be done? One should cut open32Our translation follows the gloss of the Lechem Mishneh who states that one should cut open the meat to allow its blood to flow out. The Maggid Mishneh states that it is unnecessary to cut open the meat and his view is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 67:3). The Rama, however, states that at the outset, one should be stringent. the piece and salt it thoroughly and afterwards, cook it or roast it.33It is then permitted, because the salting removes all the blood.We have already explained34Chapter 4, Halachah 13. In that chapter, the emphasis was that the animal was not dead when slaughtered. Here the Rambam is restating the law to emphasize that we do not fear that the blood became absorbed within the meat and will not be released through salting. that when a person slaughters a domesticated animal, wild beast, or fowl and no blood emerges, they are permitted.
י׳אֵין הַבָּשָׂר יוֹצֵא מִידֵי דָּמוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מוֹלְחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה וּמְדִיחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה. כֵּיצַד עוֹשֶׂה. מֵדִיחַ הַבָּשָׂר תְּחִלָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ מוֹלְחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה וּמַנִּיחוֹ בְּמִלְחוֹ כְּדֵי הִלּוּךְ מִיל. וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְדִיחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה עַד שֶׁיֵּצְאוּ הַמַּיִם זַכִּים וּמַשְׁלִיכוֹ מִיָּד לְתוֹךְ מַיִם רוֹתְחִין אֲבָל לֹא לְפוֹשְׁרִין כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּתְלַבֵּן מִיָּד וְלֹא יֵצֵא דָּם:
10Meat does not release [all] the blood it contains unless it is salted thoroughly and washed thoroughly. What should one do? One should wash the meat first35Among the reasons given for this initial washing are:a) it removes the blood on the external surface of the meat;b) it softens the meat and enables the blood inside to flow out more easily;c) it enables the salt to adhere well to the surface of the meat. and afterwards, salt it thoroughly. One should leave it in the salt for the time it takes to walk a mil36A mil is a Talmudic measure equivalent to approximately a kilometer. According to many Rabbinic opinions, it takes 18 minutes to walk a mil. [This view is cited in the present context by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 69:6).] The Rambam, however, follows a more stringent view [see his Commentary to the Mishnah (Pesachim 3:2)] and requires 24 minutes.The Rama states that these measures are acceptable only after the fact or when there is an urgent need to prepare meat quickly. Otherwise, meat should be allowed to soak in water for at least half an hour. and then wash it thoroughly, [continuing] until clean water emerges.37This washing removes the salt and blood from the meat. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 69:7) states that the meat should be washed twice and the Rama requires a third washing. Immediately afterwards, one should cast it into boiling water - warm water is not [sufficient] - so that it will become white immediately and [no further] blood will be released.38This follows the Rambam's view that we are knowledgeable in the process of casting meat into hot water to seal it in its place. (As mentioned above, there are many who maintain that we lack that knowledge.) Moreover, in this instance, once the meat has been salted, there is no need for this measure, because all its blood has been released. For this reason, the Ra'avad and the Maggid Mishneh object to the Rambam's ruling. It is, however, mentioned by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 69:19).
י״אכְּשֶׁמּוֹלְחִין הַבָּשָׂר אֵין מוֹלְחִין אוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא בִּכְלִי מְנֻקָּב. וְאֵין מוֹלְחִין אֶלָּא בְּמֶלַח עָבֶה כְּחוֹל הַגַּס. שֶׁהַמֶּלַח דַּק כְּקֶמַח יִבָּלַע בַּבָּשָׂר וְלֹא יוֹצִיא דָּם. וְצָרִיךְ לְנַפֵּץ הַבָּשָׂר מִן הַמֶּלַח וְאַחַר כָּךְ יְדִיחֶנּוּ:
11When we salt meat, we salt it only in a utensil that has holes.39So that the blood will drain out and not be reabsorbed by the meat. If one salted meat in utensil that did not have holes, all the meat lying in the brine is forbidden. Moreover, the outer surface of the meat above the brine becomes forbidden [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 69:18)]. The Rama maintains that the entire piece of meat becomes forbidden.We salt it only with thick salt that resembles coarse sand. [The rationale is that] salt that is thin like flour will be absorbed by the meat and will not extract the blood.40The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 69:3) states that one should be careful not to use salt with overly large crystals for they will not adhere to the meat. The Rama adds that if one has only thin salt, it is permitted to salt meat using it.One must shake the salt from the meat before washing it.41For the water will stop the meat from releasing blood. Afterwards, the salt may cause the blood on the surface to be reabsorbed into the meat (Siftei Cohen 69:27).
י״בכָּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ לְבָשָׂר שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְבַשְּׁלוֹ אֲבָל לְצָלִי מוֹלֵחַ וְצוֹלֶה מִיָּד. וְהָרוֹצֶה לֶאֱכל בָּשָׂר חַי מוֹלְחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה וּמְדִיחוֹ יָפֶה יָפֶה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יֹאכַל. וְאִם חֲלָטוֹ בְּחֹמֶץ מֻתָּר לְאָכְלוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא חַי. וּמֻתָּר לִשְׁתּוֹת הַחֹמֶץ שֶׁחֲלָטוֹ בּוֹ שֶׁאֵין הַחֹמֶץ מוֹצִיא הַדָּם:
12All of the above procedures apply with regard to meat that one must cook. For roasting, by contrast, one may salt the meat and roast it immediately.42When meat is cooked, the blood will enter the pot in which it is being cooked and cause the meat and any other substances to become forbidden. When it is being roasted, the blood will flow down from the spit without being absorbed.The Maggid Mishneh states that the Rambam's words imply that he maintains that one must salt meat before roasting it. There are other Rabbinic opinions that do not accept that approach. (They are favored by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 76:1).The Rashba emphasizes that if one salts meat and does not roast it immediately, he should wash off the salt and the blood. Otherwise, the blood may become reabsorbed. The Rama rules that one should wash meat and salt it slightly before roasting it and should roast it directly after salting it.When a person desires to eat raw meat, he should salt it thoroughly43The Rambam's statements have attracted the attention of the commentaries, for they appear to contradict his approach in Halachah 9 and in the latter clause of this halachah. To explain: From Halachah 9, it would appear that it is forbidden to eat raw meat that is not salted only when there is internal bleeding while the animal is being slaughtered. For although the meat contains blood, that blood is forbidden only when it moves from one part of the meat to another while cooking. If one eats the meat raw, such a transfer will not take place.Similarly, the latter clause of this halachah permits meat when it is cast into vinegar because the blood becomes sealed in its place. Implied is that the blood itself is permitted.This clause, by contrast, states that one must salt the meat to remove the blood even when one eats the meat without cooking it. Implied is that the blood is forbidden even though it has not moved from place to place within the meat. The Kessef Mishneh resolves the contradiction, explaining that since the blood is fit to move from place to place, it is forbidden. Hence, the latter clause which speaks about blood that is sealed in its place does not represent a contradiction. Similarly, this interpretation allows Halachah 9 to be understood in a manner that does not produce a contradiction.It must be emphasized that the Ra'avad and many other authorities object to the Rambam's ruling and maintain that as long as the blood has not actually moved from place to place, it is not forbidden. Therefore it is permitted to partake of raw meat without salting it. It must, however, be washed thoroughly to remove all blood on its surface. This view is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 67:2). and wash it thoroughly. If he causes the blood to be sealed [by casting the meat into] vinegar, it is permitted to eat the meat while raw.44As mentioned previously, in the Ashkenazic community (and also among many Sefardim), the custom of sealing blood by casting meat into vinegar is no longer practice. See Rama (Yoreh De'ah 67:6). And it is permitted to drink the vinegar which sealed it, for vinegar does not extract blood.
י״גחֹמֶץ שֶׁחָלַט בּוֹ בָּשָׂר לֹא יַחְלֹט בּוֹ פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה. וַחֲתִיכָה שֶׁהֶאֱדִימָה בְּתוֹךְ הַחֹמֶץ הִיא וְהַחֹמֶץ אֲסוּרִין עַד שֶׁיִּמְלַח אוֹתָהּ יָפֶה יָפֶה וְיִצְלֶה. בָּשָׂר שֶׁהֶאְדִּים וְכֵן בֵּיצֵי בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה בִּקְלִיפָה שֶׁעֲלֵיהֶן. וְכֵן הָעֹרֶף שֶׁבּוֹ הַמִּזְרָקִים שֶׁהֵן מְלֵאִים דָּם. אִם חֲתָכָן וּמְלָחָן כַּדָּת מֻתָּר לְבַשְּׁלָן. וְאִם לֹא חֲתָכָן וּצְלָאָן בְּשִׁפּוּד וְצָלָה הָעֹרֶף וּפִיו לְמַטָּה אוֹ שֶׁצְּלָאָן כֻּלָּן עַל הַגֶּחָלִים הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין:
13Vinegar in which meat was sealed should not be used to seal meat a second time.45For its power has been weakened (Rashi, Chulin 33a). When a piece of meat turns red within vinegar,46The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that it is based on an improper interpretation of Chulin 93b. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 67:4-5 appears to think that the interpretations are not mutually exclusive, for it accepts both of them. it and the vinegar are forbidden. [It can be permitted by] salting it thoroughly and roasting it.When meat turns red,47An indication that it has absorbed additional blood. similarly, the testicles of an animal or beast and their membranes,48For they also contain large quantities of blood. See Chulin 93a. and similarly the neck which contains large blood vessels that are filled with blood, it is permitted to cook them if they are cut open and salted as required. If one did not cut them open and instead roasted them on a spit, they are permitted if he roasted the neck with its opening facing downward or he roasted all of them on the coals themselves.
י״דרֹאשׁ הַבְּהֵמָה שֶׁצָּלָהוּ בְּתַנּוּר אוֹ בְּכִבְשָׁן אִם תָּלָהוּ וּבֵית שְׁחִיטָתוֹ לְמַטָּה מֻתָּר שֶׁהַדָּם יוֹצֵא וְשׁוֹתֵת. וְאִם הָיָה בֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה מִן הַצַּד מֹחוֹ אָסוּר. שֶׁהַדָּם מִתְקַבֵּץ לְתוֹכוֹ. וּשְׁאָר הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁעַל הָעֲצָמוֹת מִבַּחוּץ מֻתָּר. הִנִּיחַ חָטְמוֹ לְמַטָּה אִם הִנִּיחַ בּוֹ גֶּמִי אוֹ קָנֶה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּשָּׁאֵר פָּתוּחַ וְיֵצֵא דָּמוֹ דֶּרֶךְ חָטְמוֹ מֻתָּר וְאִם לָאו מֹחוֹ אָסוּר:
14[The following rules apply when one] roasts the head of an animal in an oven or a furnace. If one hangs the head with the opening to its neck49Literally, the place where the animal was slaughtered. hanging downward, it is permitted, for the blood will emerge and flow outward.50The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 68:1) states that, as an initial and preferred measure, it is customary to be stringent and not to roast the head while it is whole at all, even if the opening to the neck is positioned downward. If the opening to the neck is positioned to the side, the brain is forbidden, because the blood collects in it.51If, however, a hole is made in the skull and its membranes so that the blood can drain off, the brain is permitted [Rashba, as quoted by the Maggid Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 68:1)]. The remainder of the meat on the external surface of the bones is permitted.52The brain must, however, be removed from the skull, before the skull is cooked (Maggid Mishneh in the name of the Ramban).Should he [roast it] with its nose positioned downward, if he places a straw or a reed in its nose so that it will remain open and the blood can flow out through it, [the brain] is permitted. If not, it is forbidden.
ט״ואֵין מַנִּיחִין כְּלִי תַּחַת הַצָּלִי לְקַבֵּל מֵימָיו עַד שֶׁתִּכְלֶה כָּל מַרְאֶה אַדְמוּמִית שֶׁבּוֹ. וְכֵיצַד עוֹשִׂין. מַשְׁלִיכִין לְתוֹךְ הַכְּלִי מְעַט מֶלַח וּמַנִּיחַ הַכְּלִי עַד שֶׁיִּצָּלֶה וְלוֹקֵחַ הַשַּׁמְנוּנִית שֶׁל מַעְלָה וְהַמַּיִם שֶׁל מַטָּה שֶׁתַּחַת הַשַּׁמְנוּנִית אֲסוּרָה:
15One should not place a utensil beneath meat53That has not been salted and left to let the blood drain off. that is being roasted to collect the juice [dripping from it] until no red color remains in the juice. What should be done?54For if one waits until there is no trace of the blood, the fat that one wishes to collect will also have drained off. One places a small amount of salt55One should use only a small amount of salt. If one uses a large amount, the blood will become mixed with the fat (Maggid Mishneh). in the utensil and leaves the utensil there until the meat roasts. He then removes the fat resting on top. The liquid below the fat is forbidden.56Because it is mixed with blood. Since the fat does not mix with the other liquids but instead floats above them, it remains a distinct entity and is permitted.The Maggid Mishneh writes that there are opinions that we are not familiar with the details of this process. Hence one should not rely on this leniency. This approach is followed by the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 76:6) which state that one should not place a utensil under the meat until the meat is roasted to the extent that it can be eaten.
ט״זפַּת שֶׁחָתַךְ עָלֶיהָ בָּשָׂר צָלִי מֻתָּר לְאָכְלָהּ שֶׁאֵינָהּ אֶלָּא שַׁמְנוּנִית [א. ב] דָּגִים וְעוֹפוֹת שֶׁמְּלָחָן זֶה עִם זֶה אֲפִלּוּ בִּכְלִי מְנֻקָּב הַדָּגִים אֲסוּרִין שֶׁהַדָּג רָפֶה וּבוֹלֵעַ דָּם הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הָעוֹף. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם מָלַח דָּג עִם בְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה אוֹ חַיָּה:
16When roasted meat is sliced over a piece of bread, it is permitted to eat the bread, for [the liquid] which exudes is only fat.57I.e., once the meat is roasted to the extent that it is fit to be eaten, we assume that all the forbidden blood has drained off.When fish and fowl are salted together, even in a utensil with holes, the fish are forbidden. [The rationale is that] the fish is soft and will absorb the blood which is being exuded by the fowl.58Generally, when pieces of meat are being salted together and the utensil has holes so that the blood can run off, the meat is permitted even if the blood from other meat flows over it. The rationale is that since it is expelling its own blood and/or other juices, it will not absorb blood. Fish, however, will expel its blood and juices far faster than meat or fowl and will complete that process before the meat completes expelling its blood. Hence, we fear that it will absorb the blood from the meat or fowl (Maggid Mishneh).All that is forbidden is the external surface of the fish (kedai kelipah). Once that is cut off, the remainder of the fish is permitted [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 70:1)]. The Rama rules that all the fish are forbidden. This stringency applies when the fishes' scales have been removed. If they have not been removed, the fish are permitted. Needless to say, [this law applies] if one salted fish together with the meat of an animal or beast.
י״זעוֹפוֹת שֶׁהִנִּיחָן שְׁלֵמִים וּמִלֵּא חֲלָלָן בָּשָׂר וּבֵיצִים וּבִשְּׁלָן אֲסוּרוֹת שֶׁהֲרֵי דָּם יוֹצֵא לְתוֹכָן וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּלָחָן יָפֶה יָפֶה. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁבְּתוֹכָן שָׁלוּק אוֹ צָלוּי. וְאִם צְלָאָן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרוֹת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַבָּשָׂר שֶׁבְּתוֹכָן חַי וַאֲפִלּוּ פִּיהֶן לְמַעְלָה:
17When one leaves fowl whole, stuffs their cavity with meat and eggs, and cooks them, they are forbidden, for the blood flows into them.59I.e., into the stuffings. Afterwards, the blood will become reabsorbed into the fowl itself and cause it to become forbidden. This applies even if one salted them thoroughly,60The Maggid Mishneh interprets the Rambam's ruling as being dependent on his ruling in Halachah 10 that after being salted, meat must be placed in hot water. In this instance, the fowl's stuffing prevents the boiling water from having the desired effect on the fowl.Alternatively, the Rambam's ruling can be understood according to the statements of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 77:1) who rules that initially one must salt both sides of the fowl. If the fowl was already stuffed, salting just the exterior is not sufficient, because it will not effect the blood on the inside. See also the Rama who rules that at the outset, fowl must be salted properly and any meat placed within it must be salted properly. Only in such a situation should one cook a fowl with stuffing. and even if the meat inside them was cooked or roasted. If one roasted [the fowl], they are permitted.61For the fire will cause all the blood to drain out. [This applies] even if the meat inside them was raw and even if their opening was pointed upward.62Even in such a position, the power of the fire will cause the blood to drain downward.
י״חבְּנֵי מֵעַיִם שֶׁמִּלְּאָן עַל דֶּרֶךְ זוֹ בְּבָשָׂר צָלוּי אוֹ שָׁלוּק אוֹ שֶׁמִּלְּאָן בְּבֵיצִים וּשְׁלָקָן אוֹ קְלָאָן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין שֶׁאֵין מַחֲזִיקִין דָּם בִּבְנֵי מֵעַיִם. וְכֵן הוֹרוּ הַגְּאוֹנִים:
18When one filled intestines [that were not salted] with roasted or cooked meat in this manner or with eggs and cooked them or roasted them, they are permitted. [The rationale is that] we do not presume that there is blood in the intestines.63Hence salting is not required. The Geonim ruled in this manner.
י״טעוֹפוֹת שֶׁטְּפָלָן בְּבָצֵק וּצְלָאָן בֵּין שְׁלֵמִים בֵּין מְחֻתָּכִין אִם טְפָלָן בְּסלֶת גַּסָּה אֲפִלּוּ הִסְמִיקָה הַטְּפֵלָה אוֹכֵל אֶת הַטְּפֵלָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁסּלֶת גַּסָּה מִתְפָּרֶרֶת וְיוֹצֵא הַדָּם. וְאִם טְפָלָן בְּקֶמַח חִטִּים שֶׁלָּתְתָן אִם הָיְתָה הַטְּפֵלָה לְבָנָה כְּמוֹ הַכֶּסֶף מֻתָּר לֶאֱכל מִמֶּנָּה וְאִם לָאו אֲסוּרָה. טְפָלָן בִּשְׁאָר קְמָחִין אִם הֶאְדִּימוּ אֲסוּרִין וְאִם לֹא הֶאְדִּימוּ מֻתָּרִין:
19[The following rules apply when] one coated fowl64The Maggid Mishneh interprets this halachah as referring to fowl that were salted, but were not placed in water after the salting. According to the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 78:1), it applies to fowl that were not salted. The Shulchan Aruch continues, stating that according to the present custom, one should not coat meat that is being roasted unless it has been salted and washed first. with flour and roasted them, whether whole or cut in portions. If they were coated with coarse flour, one may partake of the coating, even if it became reddish. [The rationale is that] coarse flour will crumble65I.e., it will not stick thoroughly to the sides of the fowl. Thus there will be space for the blood to drain through. and the blood will flow outward. When they are coated with wheat flour that was moistened [before being ground],66In which instance, the flour is very thin and hence, clings tightly to the fowl. it is permitted to eat from the coating if it is white like silver. Otherwise, it is forbidden. If they were coated with other flours, they are forbidden if they turn red. Otherwise,67Even if they are not white like silver. they are permitted.
כ׳סַכִּין שֶׁשָּׁחַט בָּהּ אָסוּר לַחְתֹּךְ בָּהּ רוֹתֵחַ עַד שֶׁיְּלַבֵּן הַסַּכִּין בָּאוּר אוֹ יַשְׁחִיזֶנָּה בְּמַשְׁחֶזֶת אוֹ יִנְעָצֶנָּה בְּקַרְקַע קָשָׁה עֶשֶׂר פְּעָמִים. וְאִם חָתַךְ בָּהּ רוֹתֵחַ מֻתָּר. וְכֵן אֵינוֹ חוֹתֵךְ בָּהּ צְנוֹן וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ מִדְּבָרִים הַחֲרִיפִים לְכַתְּחִלָּה. וְאִם הֵדִיחַ הַסַּכִּין אוֹ שֶׁקִּנְּחָהּ בִּכְלִי מֻתָּר לַחְתֹּךְ בּוֹ צְנוֹן וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ אֲבָל לֹא רוֹתֵחַ:
20It is forbidden to use a knife that was used for ritual slaughter to cut hot meat68The Rambam's ruling is based on the following points. There is a difference of opinion among our Sages (Chullin 8b) whether the portion of the animal's neck where it is slaughtered is considered as "hot" at the time of slaughter, in which instance, when the animal is slaughtered some of its blood would be absorbed into the knife. Or it is not hot, in which instance, there is no such absorption.From the Rambam's ruling (here and in Chapter 17, Halachah 7), it appears that he maintains that the animal's neck is not "hot." Nevertheless, he requires certain safeguards in consideration of the other views.This issue is a matter of concern only when the meat being cut itself is hot. For otherwise, the blood absorbed in the knife will not be transferred to it.The Maggid Mishneh mentions that there is another opinion which maintains that even though the animal's neck is cold, the pressure of cutting causes the knife to absorb some blood. See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 10:2) and commentaries. unless the knife was exposed to fire until it turned white, sharpened in a sharpener or inserted into hard earth ten times. [After the fact,] if one cut hot meat with it, it is permitted.Similarly, one should not cut radishes or other sharp foods69Since these foods are sharp, they produce an effect similar to actual heat and have the potential to affect forbidden foods absorbed in a knife. Therefore safeguards should be taken. with it at the outset. If one washed the knife or cleaned it with a utensil, it is permitted to cut radish and the like with it, but not hot meat.
כ״אקְעָרָה שֶׁמָּלַח בָּהּ בָּשָׂר אֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה שׁוֹעָה בַּאֲבָר אָסוּר לֶאֱכל בָּהּ רוֹתֵחַ לְעוֹלָם שֶׁכְּבָר נִבְלַע הַדָּם בַּחֲרָסֶיהָ:
21When meat has been salted in a bowl,70Seemingly this refers to a bowl that does not have holes. Nevertheless, there are authorities who also forbid using a bowl that has holes. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 69:17) states that at the outset, one should not use even a bowl that has holes, but after the fact, the food is permitted. one is forbidden to eat hot food71The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 69:16) also quotes an opinion that forbids using the bowl for cold food at the outset if it has not been washed. in it for all time,72One of the fundamental principles of the laws of kashrut is that an earthenware vessel can never be kashered. Once it absorbs forbidden matter, it will never be dislodged from it (see Chapter 17, Halachah 2). Hence once the bowl has absorbed the blood, there is no way that the earthenware utensil will be permitted again. for the blood has already been absorbed in its clay.73And will be released when the hot food is placed in it, causing that food to become forbidden. [This applies] even if [the utensil] is coated with lead.74Were the utensil to be made of lead alone, it could be kashered by boiling water in it (hagalah), as is the law with regard to metal utensils. In this instance, however, the metal is just a coating and the blood will penetrate to the earthenware base. Hence, it remains forbidden.
ז׳
א׳הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת חֵלֶב בְּמֵזִיד חַיָּב כָּרֵת. בְּשׁוֹגֵג מֵבִיא חַטָּאת קְבוּעָה. וּבְפֵרוּשׁ אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא עַל שְׁלֹשָׁה מִינֵי בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה בִּלְבַד שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ז כג) "כָּל חֵלֶב שׁוֹר וְכֶשֶׂב וָעֵז לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ" בֵּין שֶׁאָכַל מֵחֵלֶב שְׁחוּטָה בֵּין שֶׁאָכַל מֵחֵלֶב נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה שֶׁלָּהֶן. אֲבָל שְׁאָר בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה בֵּין טְמֵאָה בֵּין טְהוֹרָה חֶלְבָּהּ כִּבְשָׂרָהּ. וְכֵן נֵפֶל שֶׁל שְׁלֹשָׁה מִינֵי בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה חֶלְבּוֹ כִּבְשָׂרוֹ וְהָאוֹכֵל מֵחֶלְבּוֹ כְּזַיִת לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל נְבֵלָה:
1When a person willfully eats an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat,1The term forbidden fat refers to the Hebrew term cheilev, to distinguish it from shuman which refers to fat that may be eaten. Unless otherwise mentioned, the term "fat" in this text will refer to forbidden fat. he is liable for kerat. If he partakes of it inadvertently, he must bring a fixed sin-offering.It is explicitly stated in the Torah that he is liable for partaking2There is, however, no prohibition against benefiting from forbidden fat. See Chapter 8, Halachah 15. [of the fat] of the three species of kosher domesticated animals alone, as [Leviticus 7:23] states: "Do not partake of any fat from an ox, lamb, or goat."3Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 185) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 147) include this prohibition among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. [This applies] whether one partakes of fat from an animal that is ritually slaughtered or one partakes of fat from a nevelah or a trefe [from a kosher species].4See the following halachah. With regard to other domesticated animals and wild beasts, whether non-kosher or kosher, their fat is comparable to their meat.5I.e., there is no separate prohibition concerning it. If the animal is kosher, its fat is not considered cheilev and is permitted. If the animal is not-kosher, its fat is of course forbidden, but it is not bound by a separate prohibition. This reflects a contrast to the prohibition against partaking of blood mentioned in the previous chapter. Similarly, the fat of a stillborn fetus of the three species of kosher animals is comparable to its flesh. When one partakes of an olive-sized portion of it, one is liable for lashes for partaking of a nevelah.6There is not, however, a separate prohibition for partaking of its forbidden fat. From Chulin 75a, it appears that this leniency applies only when the fetus is stillborn before its full period of gestation is completed. If, however, the full period of gestation is completed, the prohibition against cheilev does apply (Maggid Mishneh; Siftei Cohen 64:5). See also Halachot 3-4.
ב׳הָאוֹכֵל מֵחֵלֶב נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה חַיָּב מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל חֵלֶב וּמִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנּוֹסָף הָאִסּוּר בִּבְשָׂרָהּ שֶׁהָיָה מֻתָּר נוֹסָף עַל הַחֵלֶב וּלְפִיכָךְ לוֹקֶה שְׁתַּיִם:
2When a person partakes of the fat of a nevelah or a trefe, he is liable for partaking of fat and for partaking of a nevelah or a trefe. [The rationale]7I.e., why we do not follow the principle that one prohibition does not fall upon another. is that since a prohibition is added to its meat - for it was permitted beforehand - it is also added to its fat.8The fat was forbidden previously and a further prohibition is added when the meat becomes forbidden. Hence one is liable for two sets of lashes.
ג׳הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה וּמָצָא בָּהּ שָׁלִיל כָּל חֶלְבּוֹ מֻתָּר וַאֲפִלּוּ מְצָאוֹ חַי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּאֵיבָר מִמֶּנָּה. וְאִם שָׁלְמוּ לוֹ חֳדָשָׁיו וּמְצָאוֹ חַי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הִפְרִיס עַל הַקַּרְקַע וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שְׁחִיטָה חֶלְבּוֹ אָסוּר וְחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. וּמוֹצִיאִין מִמֶּנּוּ כָּל הַחוּטִין וְהַקְּרוּמוֹת הָאֲסוּרִין כִּשְׁאָר הַבְּהֵמוֹת:
3When a person slaughters an animal and finds a fetus in its womb, all of its fat is permitted.9Contrast this to the prohibition against gid hanasheh as stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 1. [This applies] even if the fetus is alive, because it is considered as a limb of [the mother]. If it was carried for the full period of gestation and discovered to be alive, its fat is forbidden and one is liable for kerat for partaking of it. [This applies] even if [the fetus] never stepped on the ground and does not require ritual slaughter.10As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 14. The Ra'avad mentions an opinion which states that one is not liable. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:2) cites both views.. [Instead,] we must remove all the forbidden strands of tissue and membranes from it as [is required] with regard to other animals.
ד׳הוֹשִׁיט יָדוֹ לִמְעֵי בְּהֵמָה וְחָתַךְ מֵחֵלֶב הָעֻבָּר שֶׁכָּלוּ לוֹ חֳדָשָׁיו וְהוֹצִיאוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב עָלָיו כְּאִלּוּ חֲתָכוֹ מֵחֵלֶב הָאֵם עַצְמָהּ. שֶׁהֶחֳדָשִׁים הֵן הַגּוֹרְמִין לְאִסּוּר הַחֵלֶב:
4When a person inserts his hand into an animal's womb and cuts off and takes out the fat of a fetus that has undergone a full period of gestation, he is liable11From the Rambam's inclusion of the phrase "takes out," the Kessef Mishneh concludes that the prohibition applies only when the fat is taken out from the mother's womb while the animal is still alive. If the fat is left inside the womb and then the animal is slaughtered, he maintains that the fat is permitted. This conclusion is cited by the Turei Zahav 64:4 and the Siftei Cohen 64:6. for it in the same way as if he cut off the fat of the animal itself. [The rationale is that the fulfillment of the gestation period] is what causes the prohibition against fat.12The Maggid Mishneh clarifies that this stringency does not apply when the fetus dies in its mother's womb even if it has completed the nine months of gestation.
ה׳שְׁלֹשָׁה חֲלָבִים הֵן שֶׁחַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶן כָּרֵת. חֵלֶב שֶׁעַל הַקֶּרֶב וְשֶׁעַל שְׁתֵּי הַכְּלָיוֹת וְשֶׁעַל הַכְּסָלִים. אֲבָל הָאַלְיָה מֻתֶּרֶת בַּאֲכִילָה. לֹא נִקְרֵאת חֵלֶב אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן קָרְבָּן בִּלְבַד כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּקְרְאוּ חֲלָבִים כְּלָיוֹת וְיוֹתֶרֶת הַכָּבֵד לְעִנְיַן קָרְבָּן. כְּמוֹ שֶׁאַתָּה אוֹמֵר (בראשית מה יח) "חֵלֶב הָאָרֶץ" וְ(דברים לב יד) "חֵלֶב כִּלְיוֹת חִטָּה" שֶׁהוּא טוּבָם. וּלְפִי שֶׁמְּרִימִין דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ מִן הַקָּרְבָּן לִשְׂרֵפָה לַשֵּׁם נִקְרְאוּ חֵלֶב. שֶׁאֵין שֵׁם דָּבָר טוֹב אֶלָּא הַמּוּרָם לַשֵּׁם. וּלְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר בִּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר (במדבר יח ל לב) "בַּהֲרִימְכֶם אֶת חֶלְבּוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ":
5There are three types of forbidden fat for which one is liable for kerat: the fat on the digestive organs, on both kidneys, and on the flanks. The fat-tail, by contrast, is permitted to be eaten.13The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:5) states that one must remove the fatty portion on the inner side. It is called fat only with regard to the sacrifices, just as the kidneys and the large lobe of the liver are referred to as "fat" with regard to the sacrifices.14Chulin 117a interprets Leviticus 3:16: "All of the cheilev to God" as referring to the portions of the animal offered on the altar. These include the kidneys and the lobe of the liver although they are not "fat" (see Hilchot Maaseh HaKorbanot 1:18). Instead, the intent of term cheilev in the verse is "choice portions." Similarly, we find the expressions15Genesis 45:18; Deuteronomy 32:14. "the fat of the land," and "wheat as fat as kidneys" [where the intent is not "fat,"] but "choice."Since these entities are being raised up from the sacrifice to be consumed with fire for God, they are called "the fat," i.e., the choice portion, for there is nothing more choice than the portion consumed with fire for God. For this reason, with regard to terumat ma'aser16The tenth of the tithe which the Levites who receive the tithe must separate and give the priests. [Numbers 18:30] states: "When you raise up its fat from it."17Here also the intent of the term cheilev is "choice portions."
ו׳חֵלֶב שֶׁעַל הֶמְסֵס וְשֶׁעַל בֵּית הַכּוֹסוֹת הוּא הַחֵלֶב שֶׁעַל הַקֶּרֶב. וְחֵלֶב שֶׁבְּעִקְּרֵי הַיְרֵכוֹת מִבִּפְנִים חַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת וְהוּא הַחֵלֶב שֶׁעַל הַכְּסָלִים. וְיֵשׁ שָׁם חֵלֶב עַל הַקֵּבָה עָקֹם כְּמוֹ קֶשֶׁת וְהוּא הָאָסוּר וְחוּט מָשׁוּךְ כְּמוֹ יֶתֶר וְהוּא מֻתָּר. חוּטִין שֶׁבַּחֵלֶב אֲסוּרִין וְאֵין חַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶן כָּרֵת:
6The fat on the abdomen18An animal has four stomachs. We have chosen synonyms arbitrarily to describe them. and on the gut is what is meant by the term "the fat on the digestive organs." One is liable for the fat at the joints of the thighs on the inside. This is what is meant by the term "the fat on the flanks." There is also fat on the maw which is bent like an arch; it is forbidden. There is a ligament that extends like a lobe; it is permitted. The strands [stemming from] the fat are forbidden, but one is not liable for kerat for them.
ז׳חֵלֶב שֶׁהַבָּשָׂר חוֹפֶה אוֹתוֹ מֻתָּר. שֶׁעַל הַכְּסָלִים אָסַר הַכָּתוּב לֹא שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הַכְּסָלִים. וְכֵן חֵלֶב שֶׁעַל הַכְּלָיוֹת נֶאֱסַר וְלֹא שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הַכְּלָיוֹת. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵּן נוֹטֵל אָדָם לֹבֶן שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הַכּוּלְיָא וְאַחַר כָּךְ אוֹכֵל אוֹתָהּ וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְחַטֵּט אַחֲרָיו:
7Fat which is covered by meat is permitted. Scripture forbids "fat on the flanks," but not within the flanks. Similarly, "fat on the kidneys" is forbidden, but not fat within the kidneys. Nevertheless, a person should remove the white matter within the kidney and only then, partake of it. It is not necessary, however, to remove all traces of it.19The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:12) cites the Rambam's view, but also that of the Tur which requires one to be stringent and remove all of its traces. The Rama states that, after the fact, even the stringent opinions do not consider the kidney forbidden if it was cooked without the traces of this fat being removed.
ח׳יֵשׁ כְּמוֹ שְׁתֵּי פְּתִילוֹת שֶׁל חֵלֶב בְּעִקְּרֵי הַמָּתְנַיִם סָמוּךְ לְרֹאשׁ הַיָּרֵךְ. כְּשֶׁהַבְּהֵמָה חַיָּה חֵלֶב זֶה נִרְאֶה בַּמֵּעַיִם. וּכְשֶׁתָּמוּת יִדְבַּק בָּשָׂר בְּבָשָׂר וְיִתְכַּסֶּה חֵלֶב זֶה וְאֵינוֹ נִרְאֶה עַד שֶׁיִּתְפָּרֵק הַבָּשָׂר מִן הַבָּשָׂר. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר. שֶׁאֵין זֶה חֵלֶב שֶׁהַבָּשָׂר חוֹפֶה אוֹתוֹ. וְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁתִּמְצָא בּוֹ הַחֵלֶב תַּחַת הַבָּשָׂר וְהַבָּשָׂר מַקִּיף אוֹתוֹ מִכָּל סְבִיבָיו וְלֹא יֵרָאֶה עַד שֶׁיִּקָּרַע הַבָּשָׂר הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר:
8There are two cords of fat in the primary loin area, near the top of the thigh. While an animal is alive, this fat can be seen on the intestines.20For while an animal is alive, its meat hangs loosely (Chulin 93b). When, however, it dies, one portion of meat will cling to another and cover this fat. It will not be visible until the portions of meat will be separated from each other. Nevertheless, it is forbidden, because this is not fat that is covered by meat.21For in its lifetime, it is not covered by meat.[In contrast,] wherever you find fat under meat, with the meat covering it and surrounding it in its entirety [so that] it will not be seen until the meat is cut away, it is permitted.
ט׳חֵלֶב הַלֵּב וְחֵלֶב הַמֵּעַיִם וְהֵן הַדַּקִּין הַמְלֻפָּפִין כֻּלָּן מֻתָּרִין וַהֲרֵי הֵם כְּשֻׁמָּן שֶׁהוּא מֻתָּר. חוּץ מֵרֹאשׁ הַמְּעִי שֶׁסָּמוּךְ לַקֵּבָה שֶׁהוּא תְּחִלַּת בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לִגְרֹר הַחֵלֶב שֶׁעָלָיו וְזֶהוּ חֵלֶב שֶׁעַל הַדַּקִּין שֶׁאָסוּר. וְיֵשׁ מִן הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁאוֹמֵר שֶׁרֹאשׁ הַמְּעִי שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְגָרְרוֹ הוּא הַמְּעִי שֶׁיֵּצֵא בּוֹ הָרְעִי שֶׁהוּא סוֹף הַמֵּעַיִם:
9The fat of the heart and the fat of all of the small intestines are permitted. They are considered like shuman which is permitted fat with the exception of the top of the intestine that is next to the maw and is the beginning of the small intestines. The fat must be scraped off it.22In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro mentions that some interpret Chulin 93b as stating that a cubit of the intestines are forbidden and he quotes this view as halachah in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:15). The Ramah, however, states that the forbidden measure is not a full cubit, but close to it. This is the fat of the small intestines that is forbidden. There are some of the Geonim who say that the top of the intestine from which the fat must be scraped off is the large intestine,23From the Rambam's statements in Hilchot Shechitah 6:10, it is obvious that he favors the first opinion. The Ra'avad differs and maintains that the second view should be followed. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:15) states that one should follow the stringencies of both views. i.e., the colon from which feces are excreted which is the last of the digestive organs.
י׳יֵשׁ בְּגוּף הַבְּהֵמָה חוּטִין וּקְרוּמוֹת שֶׁהֵן אֲסוּרִין. מֵהֶם מִשּׁוּם חֵלֶב וּמֵהֶן מִשּׁוּם דָּם. וְכָל חוּט אוֹ קְרוּם שֶׁאָסוּר מִשּׁוּם (ויקרא ג יז) (ויקרא ז כו) "כָּל דָּם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ" צָרִיךְ לְנָטְלוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִמְלַח וִיבַשֵּׁל הַבָּשָׂר כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ. וְאִם חֲתָכוֹ וּמְלָחוֹ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְנָטְלוֹ. וְכֵן לְצָלִי (אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְנָטְלוֹ). וְכָל חוּט אוֹ קְרוּם שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם כָּל חֵלֶב בֵּין לְצָלִי בֵּין לְבִשּׁוּל צָרִיךְ לְנָטְלוֹ מִן הַבְּהֵמָה:
10In the body of an animal, there are strands of tissue and membranes that are forbidden. Some are forbidden because of the prohibition against partaking of fat and others because of that against blood.24I.e., there is blood absorbed in the tissue or membrane. Whenever a strand of tissue or a membrane is forbidden because of the prohibition [Leviticus 3:17]: "Do not partake of any blood," one must remove it, and only then salt the meat as we explained.25The commentaries have cited Chapter 6, Halachot 10-12, as the Rambam's intent, but this point is not explicitly stated there. If one cut [the forbidden blood vessel], it does not have to be removed.26For the blood will flow out of it. Similarly, if one roasts [the meat], it does not have to be removed.27For the fire will cause the blood to drain off [see Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 65:1)]. As the Maggid Mishneh mentions, there are some authorities who require that the blood vessels be cut open even when one roasts the meat.Whenever a strand of tissue or membrane is forbidden because of the prohibition, "Do not partake of any fat," it must be removed from the animal whether one's intent is to cut it or roast it.28Otherwise, the fat will seep through the meat when it is being cooked or roasted.
י״אחֲמִשָּׁה חוּטִין יֵשׁ בַּכְּסָלִים. שְׁלֹשָׁה מִן הַיָּמִין וּשְׁנַיִם מִן הַשְּׂמֹאל. הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁמִּן הַיָּמִין מִתְפַּצֵּל כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶם לִשְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם. וְהַשְּׁנַיִם שֶׁמִּן הַשְּׂמֹאל מִתְפַּצְּלִין לִשְׁלֹשָׁה שְׁלֹשָׁה. וְכֻלָּן מִשּׁוּם חֵלֶב. וְחוּטֵי הַטְּחוֹל וְחוּטֵי הַכְּלָיוֹת מִשּׁוּם חֵלֶב. וְכֵן קְרוּם שֶׁעַל הַטְּחוֹל וּקְרוּם שֶׁעַל הַכְּסָלִים וּקְרוּם שֶׁעַל הַכְּלָיוֹת אֲסוּרִין מִשּׁוּם חֵלֶב. וּקְרוּם שֶׁעַל דַּד הַטְּחוֹל חַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. וּשְׁאָר הַקְּרוּם אָסוּר וְאֵין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו:
11There are five strands of tissue in the flanks:29The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 64:13) explains that these strands of tissue extend from the lower portion of the backbone. As will be explained in the notes to Halachah 13, there are differences between his interpretation and that of the Rambam. three on the right and two on the left. Each of the three on the right splits into two and each of the two on the left splits into three. All are [forbidden] as fat.The strands of tissue from the spleen and from the kidneys are forbidden as fat. Similarly, the membrane on the spleen, the membrane above the flanks, and the membrane on the kidneys are forbidden as fat. One is liable for kerat for the membrane on the thick side30Our translation follows the commentary of Rashi to Chullin 93a and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:10). of the spleen. The remainder of the membrane is forbidden, but one is not liable for it.
י״בוּשְׁנֵי קְרוּמוֹת יֵשׁ לַכּוּלְיָא. הָעֶלְיוֹן חַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת כַּחֵלֶב שֶׁעַל הַכּוּלְיָא. וְהַתַּחְתּוֹן הֲרֵי הוּא כִּשְׁאָר קְרוּמוֹת. וְחוּטִין שֶׁבָּהֶן אֲסוּרִין וְאֵין בָּהֶן כָּרֵת:
12The kidney has two membranes. One is liable for kerat for [partaking of] the upper one as one is for [partaking of] the fat of the kidney itself. The lower one is like other membranes.31I.e., they are forbidden, but one is not liable for kerat for them. The strands of tissue in them are forbidden, but one is not liable for kerat for them.
י״גחוּטֵי הַלֵּב וְחוּטֵי הַיָּד וְחוּטֵי הָעֹקֶץ וְחוּטֵי הַלְּחִי הַתַּחְתּוֹן שֶׁבְּצַד הַלָּשׁוֹן מִיכָּן וּמִיכָּן. וְכֵן הַחוּטִין הַדַּקִּין שֶׁהֵן בְּתוֹךְ חֵלֶב הַדַּקִּין כְּמוֹ בֵּית עַכָּבִישׁ מְסֻבָּכִין זֶה בָּזֶה. וּקְרוּם שֶׁעַל הַמֹּחַ שֶׁבַּקֹּדְקֹד. וּקְרוּם שֶׁעַל הַבֵּיצִים. הַכּל אֲסוּרִין מִשּׁוּם דָּם:
13The strands of tissue of the heart, of the foreleg, of the end of the spinal cord,32This follows the Rambam's interpretation of Chullin 93a. Rashi [and his view is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:13)] understands that passage as referred to the strands of fat mentioned in Halachah 11. of the lower jaw, those at either side of the tongue, and those within the fat of the small intestines which are interwoven like spiderwebs,33The Maggid Mishneh and Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 75:3) write that in the present age, leniency is granted with regard to these blood vessels. Nevertheless, it is customary to remove them. and the membrane above the brain in the cranium and the membrane on the testicles are all forbidden because [of the prohibition against partaking] of blood.34I.e., these are blood vessels in which blood will be lodged after the slaughter of the animal. Therefore they must be removed or cut open (see Halachah 10) before the animal is cooked or roasted.
י״דבֵּיצֵי גְּדִי אוֹ טָלֶה שֶׁלֹּא הִשְׁלִים שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם מֻתָּר לְבַשְּׁלָן בְּלֹא קְלִיפָה. לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם אִם נִרְאֶה בָּהֶן חוּטִין דַּקִּין אֲדֻמִּים בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהָלַךְ בָּהֶם הַדָּם וְלֹא יְבַשֵּׁל עַד שֶׁיִּקְלֹף אוֹ עַד שֶׁיֵּחָתֵךְ וְיִמָלַּח כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וְאִם עֲדַיִן לֹא נִרְאוּ בָּהֶן חוּטִין הָאֲדֻמִּים מֻתָּרִין:
14When a kid or a lamb35The Maggid Mishneh notes that the Rambam (and his source, Chullin 93b) do not mention a calf when stating this leniency. Implied is that even at a younger age, the testicles of a calf are considered as developed. is less than 30 days old, it is permissible to cook its testicles without peeling [the membranes from them].36Until the kid or lamb reaches that age, the blood vessels are not developed and there is not a large quantity of blood flowing through them. After 30 days, if thin red lines can be seen within them, it is recognizable that blood has circulated through them and one should not cook [the testicles] until their outer membrane has been removed or until they have been cut open and salted, as we explained.37Chapter 6, Halachah 13. If thin red lines have not yet been seen within them, they are permitted.
ט״ווְכָל בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם שֶׁהַמַּאֲכָל סוֹבֵב בַּחֲלָלָן אֵין מַחֲזִיקִין בָּהֶן דָּם:
15We do not assume that there is blood in any of the digestive organs38This refers to the organs themselves. Hence they need not be salted (Maggid Mishneh, see Chapter 6, Halachah 18). With regard to the fat on these organs, it is possible for there to be blood vessels within them as mentioned above.The Maggid Mishneh writes that we do assume that the stomach contains blood. This view is not, however, followed by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 75:1). The Siftei Cohen 75:1 and the Turei Zahav 75:1, however, state that we do assume that the stomach of a fowl contains blood. through which the food passes.
ט״זיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁכָּל אֵלּוּ הַחוּטִין וְהַקְּרוּמוֹת אִסּוּרָן מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים וְאִם תֹּאמַר שֶׁהֵן אֲסוּרִין מִן הַתּוֹרָה בִּכְלַל (ויקרא ג יז) "כָּל חֵלֶב וְכָל דָּם" אֵין לוֹקִין עֲלֵיהֶן אֶלָּא מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת וְיִהְיוּ כַּחֲצִי שִׁעוּר שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה וְאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו:
16It appears to me39This expression indicates a conclusion at which the Rambam arrived through his own powers of deduction without any explicit prior Rabbinic source. It appears that the Rambam did not arrive at a conclusive decision that the prohibition was of Rabbinic origin, but that he did favor this understanding. that all of these strands of tissue and membranes are forbidden according to Rabbinic Law. [Even] if one would say that they are forbidden according to Scriptural Law,40The verses mention kol, "any," fat or blood. That term could be understood as an inclusion beyond the ordinary scope of the term and hence, involving these substances as well. and are included in the prohibitions against partaking against any fat or any blood, one is not liable for lashes for them, only stripes for rebellious conduct. [Partaking of] them is comparable to partaking of half the measure of a forbidden substance. This is forbidden by Scriptural Law, yet one is not liable for lashes for it.41See Chapter 4, Halachah 16, Hilchot Shivitat Esor 2:3, et al.
י״זאֵין מוֹלְחִין חֲלָבִים עִם הַבָּשָׂר וְלֹא מְדִיחִין חֲלָבִים עִם בָּשָׂר. וְסַכִּין שֶׁחָתַךְ בָּהּ חֲלָבִים לֹא יַחְתֹּךְ בָּהּ בָּשָׂר. וּכְלִי שֶׁהֵדִיחַ בּוֹ חֲלָבִים לֹא יָדִיחַ בּוֹ בָּשָׂר. לְפִיכָךְ צָרִיךְ הַטַּבָּח לְהַתְקִין שָׁלֹשׁ סַכִּינִין. אַחַת שֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט בָּהּ. וְאַחַת שֶׁמְּחַתֵּךְ בָּהּ בָּשָׂר. וְאַחַת שֶׁמְּחַתֵּךְ בָּהּ חֲלָבִים:
17We do not salt42For we fear that the meat will absorb some of the fat. or wash fat together with meat. One should not use a knife used to cut fat to cut meat, nor a container in which fats were washed to wash meat.43If one cleans the knife or the container first, scrubbing it carefully, it is permitted (Maggid Mishneh in the name of the Rashba).Therefore a butcher should prepare three knives: one with which to slaughter, one to cut the meat,44For at the outset, the knife used to slaughter should not be used to cut meat (see Chapter 6, Halachah 20). and one to cut fat.
י״חוְאִם דֶּרֶךְ אוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם שֶׁיָּדִיחַ הַטַּבָּח הַבָּשָׂר בַּחֲנוּת. צָרִיךְ לְהַתְקִין לוֹ שְׁנֵי כֵּלִים שֶׁל מַיִם אֶחָד שֶׁמֵּדִיחַ בּוֹ בָּשָׂר וְאֶחָד שֶׁמֵּדִיחַ בּוֹ חֲלָבִים:
18If it is local custom for the butcher to wash the meat in his store, he should prepare two containers of water, one in which to wash meat and one in which to wash fat.45The Chulin 8b asks: Why isn't one container sufficient? First he will wash the meat in it and then the fat? The text answers that perhaps he will forget and wash the fat first. In this instance, by contrast, since he has two clearly designated containers, he will not make such a mistake.
י״טוְאָסוּר לַטַּבָּח לִפְרשֹׁ חֵלֶב הַכְּסָלִים עַל הַבָּשָׂר כְּדֵי לְנָאוֹתוֹ. שֶׁהַקְּרוּם שֶׁעַל הַחֵלֶב דַּק וְיִתְמַעֵךְ בְּיַד הַטַּבָּח וְיָזוּב הַחֵלֶב וְיִבָּלַע בַּבָּשָׂר. וְכָל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ אָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹתָן. וִאִם נַעֲשׂוּ לֹא נֵאֻסַר הַבָּשָׂר. וִאֵין מַכִּין אֶת הָעוֹשֶׂה אֶלָּא מְלַמְּדִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה:
19It is forbidden for a butcher to spread the fat of the flanks over the meat46The Maggid Mishneh mentions views that maintain that this restriction only applies directly after slaughter when the fat is still warm. Once it has cooled, it hardens. This ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:18). to make it appear attractive. [The rationale is that] the membrane over the fat is thin. It may become crushed by the butcher's hand and the fat will ooze out and saturate through the meat.[Although] it is forbidden to perform all of these acts, if they are performed, the meat is not forbidden.47Although there are some more stringent views regarding certain particulars, the Rambam's view is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:19). Nor is the person who performs them given corporal punishment. Instead, he is taught not to act in this manner.
כ׳וְכֵן אֵין מוֹלְחִין אֶת הַבָּשָׂר קֹדֶם שֶׁיָּסִיר מִמֶּנּוּ אֶת הַקְּרוּמוֹת וְאֶת הַחוּטִין הָאֲסוּרִין. וְאִם מָלַח מְסִירָם אַחַר שֶׁנִּמְלְחוּ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה בָּהֶן גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה מְסִירוֹ אַחַר שֶׁנִּמְלַח וּמְבַשֵּׁל:
20Meat should not be salted before the forbidden membranes and strands of tissue are removed.48This is a safeguard against the fat and blood being absorbed by the meat. If the meat was salted with them, they must be removed after the salting. Even if the gid hanesheh49See the following chapter. was among them, one may remove them after salting and cook [the meat].50According to the Rambam, after the fact, we do not say that the fat and/or blood was absorbed in the meat (see also Chapter 15, Halachah 32, and notes). The Rashba differs and maintains that one must remove the surface of the meat with them, because that surface also becomes forbidden. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 64:20) quotes both views. The Rama also cites a more stringent perspective, but concludes that one may rely on the Rashba's view.
כ״אוְטַבָּח שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְנַקּוֹת הַבָּשָׂר וְנִמְצָא אַחֲרָיו חוּט אוֹ קְרוּם מְלַמְּדִין אוֹתוֹ וּמַזְהִירִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יְזַלְזֵל בְּאִסּוּרִין. אֲבָל אִם נִמְצָא אַחֲרָיו חֵלֶב אִם הָיָה כִּשְׂעוֹרָה מַעֲבִירִין אוֹתוֹ. וְאִם נִמְצָא אַחֲרָיו כְּזַיִת חֵלֶב אֲפִלּוּ בִּמְקוֹמוֹת הַרְבֵּה מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת וּמַעֲבִירִין אוֹתוֹ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַטַּבָּח נֶאֱמָן עַל הַחֵלֶב:
21When a butcher follows the practice of cleaning meat [from forbidden strands of tissue and membranes and] such a strand or membrane is found after he [alleged to have cleaned the meat], we teach him and warn him not to act negligently with regard to prohibitions.51He is not removed from his position, because these prohibitions are Rabbinic in origin (Maggid Mishneh). This ruling is, however, somewhat difficult to understand according to the second view mentioned in Halachah 16. [More stringent rules apply] if forbidden fat is found after he [alleged to have cleaned the meat]. If it is a barley corn in size, he is removed [from his position]. If an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat is found - even in several places - after he [alleged to have cleaned the meat], he is given stripes for rebellious conduct52For he transgresses the prohibition: "Do not place a stumbling block before the blind," which is interpreted as a charge forbidding one to cause others to transgress. Nevertheless, lashes are not given for the violation of this prohibition. and he is removed from his position. The rationale is that a butcher's word is relied upon with regard to fat.53And his customers might cook the meat without checking for fat (or being knowledgeable about the details of the prohibition). Hence, he would cause them to transgress.