Rambam — 3 Perakimרמב״ם ג׳ פרקים

א׳מִכְּלָל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד ו) "וְכָל בְּהֵמָה מַפְרֶסֶת פַּרְסָה וְשֹׁסַעַת שֶׁסַע שְׁתֵּי פְרָסוֹת מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה" שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁכָּל שֶׁאֵינָהּ מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה וּמַפְרֶסֶת פַּרְסָה אֲסוּרָה. וְלָאו הַבָּא מִכְּלַל עֲשֵׂה עֲשֵׂה הוּא. וּבְגָמָל וּבַחֲזִיר וּבְאַרְנֶבֶת וּבְשָׁפָן נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא יא ד) (דברים יד ז) "אֶת זֶה לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִמַּעֲלֵי הַגֵּרָה וּמִמַּפְרִיסֵי הַפַּרְסָה" וְגוֹ' הֲרֵי לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁהֵן בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן סִימָן אֶחָד. וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן שְׁאָר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה וְחַיָּה טְמֵאָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ סִימָן כְּלָל שֶׁאִסּוּר אֲכִילָתָם בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה יֶתֶר עַל עֲשֵׂה הַבָּא מִכְּלַל אוֹתָהּ תֹּאכְלוּ:

¹Since it is written [Deuteronomy 14:6]: "Any animal that has split hooves, [whose foot] is divided into two hoofs and chews the cud, [this may you eat],"1Similar verses are also stated in that passage with regard to fish, fowl, and locusts. Like verses are also stated in Leviticus, except that in Leviticus, there is no such commandment with regard to a kosher fowl. To include that as well, the Rambam refers to the passage in Deuteronomy. one may derive that any animal that does not chew its cud and have split hoofs is forbidden. A negative commandment that comes as a result of a positive commandment is considered as a positive commandment.2I.e., it does not have the severity of a negative commandment. Hence its violation is not punishable by lashes.The Rambam is explaining that the Torah is not commanding us to eat kosher species, for there is no obligation to partake of them. Instead, it is commanding us to take precautions - through checking distinguishing signs - against partaking of non-kosher ones. See Sefer HaMitzvot (General Principle 6) where the Rambam elaborates in the explanation of the concept of a prohibition derived from a positive commandment. See also Chapter 1, Halachah 1, and notes which deals with this issue.With regard to the camel, the pig, the rabbit, and the hare, [Leviticus 11:4]3Here the Rambam cites the verses from Leviticus - although like verses also appear in Deuteronomy - for Leviticus comes first in the Torah. states: "These you may not eat from those which chew the cud and have split hoofs." From this, you see that they are forbidden by a negative commandment, even though they possess one sign of kashrut. Certainly, this applies to other non-kosher domesticated animals and wild beasts that do not have any signs of kashrut.4The commentaries have raised a question concerning the Rambam's statements. There is a general principle (Pesachim 24a, et al): "We do not issue a warning on the basis of logical deduction." Implied is that a person is not given lashes when a prohibition is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah, but instead derived through logic. Why then, these commentaries ask, are lashes given for partaking of non-kosher species other than the four mentioned specifically by the Torah?The Rambam offers a resolution to this question in his Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 172). There he explains that in this instance, we are not deriving the prohibition on the basis of logic, for it is already stated in the positive commandment. We are using logic only to derive that this prohibition is also included in the negative commandment. The prohibition against eating them involves a negative commandment in addition to the positive commandment that is derived from "This may you eat."

ב׳לְפִיכָךְ כָּל הָאוֹכֵל מִבְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה טְמֵאָה כְּזַיִת לוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה. בֵּין שֶׁאָכַל מִן הַבָּשָׂר בֵּין שֶׁאָכַל מִן הַחֵלֶב. לֹא חִלֵּק הַכָּתוּב בִּטְמֵאִים בֵּין בְּשָׂרָם לְחֶלְבָּם:

²Therefore anyone who eats an olive sized portion5Approximately, an ounce in contemporary measure. of the meat of a non-kosher domesticated animal or wild beasts is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law. This applies whether he partook of the meat or the fat. For the Torah did not distinguish between the meat and fat of non-kosher animals.6Such a distinction is made with regard to the meat and fat of kosher animals. With regard to non-kosher animals, by contrast, the two are included in the same category and the same prohibition applies to both of them.

ג׳הָאָדָם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ (בראשית ב ז) "וַיְהִי הָאָדָם לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה" אֵינוֹ מִכְּלַל מִינֵי חַיָּה בַּעֲלַת פַּרְסָה לְפִיכָךְ אֵינוֹ בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה. וְהָאוֹכֵל מִבְּשַׂר הָאָדָם אוֹ מֵחֶלְבּוֹ בֵּין מִן הַחַי בֵּין מִן הַמֵּת אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. אֲבָל אָסוּר הוּא בַּעֲשֵׂה שֶׁהֲרֵי מָנָה הַכָּתוּב שִׁבְעַת מִינֵי חַיָּה וְאָמַר בָּהֶן (ויקרא יא ב) "זֹאת הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכְלוּ" הָא כָּל שֶׁהוּא חוּץ מֵהֶן לֹא תֹּאכְלוּ וְלָאו הַבָּא מִכְּלַל עֲשֵׂה עֲשֵׂה:

³With regard to humans: Although [Genesis 2:7] states: "And the man became a beast with a soul," he is not included in the category of hoofed animals. Therefore, he is not included in the [above] prohibition.7For the prohibition mentions the animal's hoofs. Accordingly, one who partakes of meat or fat from a man - whether alive or deceased - is not liable for lashes. It is, however, forbidden [to partake of human meat] because of the positive commandment [mentioned above].8The Ra'avad and the Rashba differ with the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that there is no prohibition at all against partaking of meat from a human. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 79:1) follows the Rambam's ruling.The Maggid Mishneh explains the Rambam's position, noting that - as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 2, and in Chapter 6, Halachot 1-2 - there is no Scriptural prohibition against partaking of milk and blood from a human. Now these leniencies are derived from the exegesis of verses from the Torah. Were the meat of a human not to be forbidden, why would it be necessary to teach that his milk and blood are permitted? Who would have thought otherwise? For the Torah [Leviticus 11:2] lists the seven species of kosher wild beasts and says: "These are the beasts of which you may partake." Implied is that any other than they may not be eaten. And a negative commandment that comes as a result of a positive commandment is considered as a positive commandment.

ד׳הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִבְּשַׂר עוֹף טָמֵא לוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יא יג) "וְאֶת אֵלֶּה תְּשַׁקְּצוּ מִן הָעוֹף לֹא יֵאָכְלוּ". וַהֲרֵי עָבַר עַל עֲשֵׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד יא) "כָּל צִפּוֹר טְהֹרָה תֹּאכֵלוּ" הָא טְמֵאָה לֹא תֹּאכְלוּ. וְכֵן הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִדָּג טָמֵא לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יא יא) "וְשֶׁקֶץ יִהְיוּ לָכֶם" (ויקרא יא יא) "מִבְּשָׂרָם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ". וְעָבַר עַל עֲשֵׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד ט) "כּל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת תֹּאכֵלוּ" מִכְּלַל שֶׁמִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת לֹא יֵאָכֵל. הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁכָּל הָאוֹכֵל דָּג טָמֵא אוֹ בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה טְמֵאָה אוֹ עוֹף טָמֵא בִּטֵּל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה וְעָבַר עַל לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה:

⁴When one partakes of an olive-sized portion of a non-kosher fowl, he is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, as [Leviticus 11:13] states: "These shall you detest from the fowl. You shall not partake of them." And he violates a positive commandment, as [Deuteronomy 14:11] states: "You may partake of all kosher fowl." Implied is that the non-kosher may not be eaten.Anyone who partakes of an olive-sized portion of a non-kosher fish is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, as [Leviticus 11:11] states: "They shall be detestable for you. Do not partake of their meat." And he violates a positive commandment, as [Deuteronomy 14:9] states: "All that possess fins and scales, you may eat." Implied is that those that do not possess fins and scales may not be eaten. We thus learn that anyone who partakes of a non-kosher fish, domesticated animal, wild beast, or fowl nullified a positive commandment and violated a negative commandment.9Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 172, 173, 174) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvot 154, 156, 157) include these among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

ה׳חָגָב טָמֵא הֲרֵי הוּא בִּכְלַל שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף וְהָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִשֶּׁרֶץ הָעוֹף לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד יט) "כָּל שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף טָמֵא הוּא לָכֶם לֹא יֵאָכֵלוּ". וְאֵי זֶהוּ שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף כְּגוֹן זְבוּב אוֹ יַתּוּשׁ וְצִרְעָה וּדְבוֹרָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן:

⁵A non-kosher locust is included among [the category of] flying teeming animals.10I.e., there is no separate commandment not to partake of a non-kosher locust. Instead, this is included in the general prohibition against partaking of non-kosher teeming animals. The Lechem Mishneh and others note that, in contrast, to the previous halachot, the Rambam does not mention the fact that there is a prohibition against partaking of locusts that results from the positive commandment to partake of them. One who partakes of an olive-sized portion11Or an entire teeming animal even if it is smaller than an olive; see Halachah 21. of flying teeming animals is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, as [Deuteronomy 14:19] states: "All flying teeming animals are non-kosher for you. They may not be eaten."12Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 175) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 471) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.As explained in the halachot that follow and summarized in Halachah 23, there are five prohibitions in the Torah that refer to teeming animals. The categories are not mutually exclusive and it is possible that one particular creature may be included in several - or all - of these categories.What is meant by a flying teeming animal? For example, a fly, a mosquito, a hornet, a bee, or the like.

ו׳הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִשֶּׁרֶץ הָאָרֶץ לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יא מא) "וְכָל הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל הָאָרֶץ שֶׁקֶץ הוּא לֹא יֵאָכֵל". וְאֵי זֶהוּ שֶׁרֶץ הָאָרֶץ כְּגוֹן נְחָשִׁים וְעַקְרַבִּים וְחִפְשִׁית וְנַדָּל וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן:

⁶When one partakes of an olive-sized portion of a teeming animal of the land, he is liable for lashes, as [Leviticus 11:41] states: "Any teeming animal that swarms on the ground is detestable to you. It should not be eaten."13Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 176) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 162) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.What is meant by a teeming animal of the land? Snakes, scorpions, beetles, centipedes, and the like.

ז׳וּשְׁמוֹנָה שְׁרָצִים הָאֲמוּרִים בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁהֵן (ויקרא יא כט) "הַחלֶד וְהָעַכְבָּר וְהַצָּב" (ויקרא יא ל) "וְהָאֲנָקָה וְהַכֹּחַ וְהַלְּטָאָה וְהַחֹמֶט וְהַתִּנְשֶׁמֶת" הָאוֹכֵל מִבְּשָׂרָם כַּעֲדָשָׁה לוֹקֶה. שִׁעוּר אֲכִילָתָן כְּשִׁעוּר טֻמְאָתָן. וְכֻלָּם מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה בְּכַעֲדָשָׁה:

⁷The eight teeming animals that are mentioned in the Torah14Leviticus 11:29-30. The translation of the names of these eight species is a matter of debate among both Torah commentaries and zoologists. Our translation is taken from Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's Living Torah. Consult the notes there for a detailed discussion of the matter.The Torah singles these teeming animals out from others and states that they convey ritual purity. It does not mention anything about them with regard to the prohibition against partaking of their flesh. Nevertheless, since this quantity of their flesh is significant in another halachic context, it is also considered significant with regard to this prohibition (Meilah 16b). This explains why the minimum measure for which they are liable is less than that associated with other prohibitions. are: the weasel, the mouse, the ferret, the hedgehog, the chameleon, the lizard, the snail, and the mole. A person who eats a lentil-sized portion of their meat is liable for lashes. The minimum measure that one is prohibited to partake of their meat is the same as the minimum measure that conveys ritual impurity. They all may be combined together to reach the measure of a lentil.

ח׳בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁאָכַל מֵהֶן אַחַר מִיתָתָן. אֲבָל הַחוֹתֵךְ אֵיבָר מִן הַחַי מִן אֶחָד מֵהֶן וַאֲכָלוֹ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה עָלָיו עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בּוֹ כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר. וְכֻלָּן מִצְטָרְפִין לִכְזַיִת. אָכַל אֵיבָר שָׁלֵם מִן הַשֶּׁרֶץ אַחַר שֶׁמֵּת אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בּוֹ כַּעֲדָשָׁה:

⁸When does the above apply? When one partakes of them after they have died.15For their flesh only conveys ritual impurity after they have died. If, however, one cuts off a limb from a living creature from one of these species and eats it, he does not receive lashes unless he [partakes of] an olive-sized portion of meat. They all may be combined together to reach the measure of an olive.One who eats an entire limb of a teeming animal after it dies does not receive lashes unless it contains a lentil-sized amount of meat.16Hilchot Shaar Avot HaTumah 4:3 states that there is no minimum measure with regard to the limbs of a teeming animal within the context of ritual impurity. A person who touches an entire limb of a such an animal after its death becomes impure even if the limb is smaller than the size of a lentil. Nevertheless, we do not rule that one is liable if he eats such a limb.Meilah, loc. cit., explains that although the limbs of other animals also convey ritual impurity no matter what their size, one is not liable unless he partakes of an olive-sized portion. Hence, there is no reason to extend the stringency that applies with regard to these teeming animals any further.

ט׳דַּם שְׁמוֹנָה שְׁרָצִים וּבְשָׂרָן מִצְטָרֵף לְכַעֲדָשָׁה וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַדָּם מְחֻבָּר לַבָּשָׂר. וְכֵן דַּם הַנָּחָשׁ מִצְטָרֵף לִבְשָׂרוֹ לִכְזַיִת וְלוֹקֶה עָלָיו לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּשָׂרוֹ חָלוּק מִדָּמוֹ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ מִשְּׁאָר שְׁרָצִים שֶׁאֵינָן מְטַמְּאִין:

⁹The blood of these eight teeming animals and their flesh can be combined to reach the minimum measure of a lentil, provided the blood is still attached to their flesh.17If not, one is not liable until he partakes of an olive-sized portion, as stated in the following halachah. Similarly, the blood of a snake18Which is not one of the teeming animals explicitly mentioned by the Torah. is combined with its flesh to reach the measure of an olive and one receives lashes for it. The rationale is that its flesh is not separate from its blood, even though it does not impart ritual impurity.19In contrast to the blood of the eight teeming animals that were singled out by the Torah. Similar concepts apply with regard to other teeming animals that do not convey ritual impurity.

י׳דַּם שְׁרָצִים שֶׁפָּרַשׁ וּכְנָסוֹ וַאֲכָלוֹ לוֹקֶה עָלָיו בִּכְזַיִת. וְהוּא שֶׁיַּתְרוּ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל שֶׁרֶץ. אֲבָל אִם הִתְרוּ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל דָּם פָּטוּר. שֶׁאֵין חַיָּבִין אֶלָּא עַל דַּם בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף:

¹⁰When a person collects the blood of teeming animals that has been separated [from their bodies] and partakes of it, he receives lashes if he partakes of a portion the size of an olive.20The Maggid Mishneh (in his gloss to Halachah 9) states that this applies even to the eight teeming animals mentioned explicitly in the Torah. Once their blood is separated from their bodies, the minimum measure is the same as that of other species. [This applies] provided he was warned against partaking of it because [of the prohibition against partaking of] a teeming animal. If, however, he is warned against partaking of it because [of the prohibition against partaking of] blood, he is not liable. For we are liable only for the blood of domesticated animals, wild beasts, and fowl.21As stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 1.

י״אכָּל הַשִּׁעוּרִין וּמַחְלְקוֹתָם הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי:

¹¹All these measures - and the distinctions between them22That for some one is liable for an olive-sized portion and for others, for a lentil-sized portion. - are halachot received by Moses at Sinai [and transmitted via the Oral Tradition].

י״בהָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִשֶּׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם לוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יא מג) "אַל תְּשַׁקְּצוּ אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם בְּכָל הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ וְלֹא תִטַּמְּאוּ בָּהֶם". הֲרֵי כָּלַל בְּלָאו זֶה שֶׁרֶץ הָאָרֶץ וְשֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף וְשֶׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם. אֵי זֶהוּ שֶׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם אֵלּוּ הַבְּרִיּוֹת הַקְּטַנּוֹת כְּמוֹ הַתּוֹלָעִים וְהָעֲלוּקָה שֶׁבַּמַּיִם וְהַבְּרִיּוֹת הַגְּדוֹלוֹת בְּיוֹתֵר שֶׁהֵן חַיּוֹת הַיָּם. כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר כָּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּצוּרַת הַדָּגִים לֹא דָּג טָמֵא וְלֹא דָּג טָהוֹר כְּגוֹן כֶּלֶב הַמַּיִם וְהַדַּלְפוֹן וְהַצְּפַרְדֵּעַ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן:

¹²One who partakes of an olive-sized portion of an aquatic teeming animal is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, as [Leviticus 11:43] states: "Do not make your souls detestable [by partaking] of any teeming animal that swarms... and do not become impure because of them." Included in this prohibition are teeming animals of the land, that fly, and of the water.23Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 179) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 164) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. As obvious from the Rambam's words here and as explained in greater length in Sefer HaMitzvot, this is not a specific commandment relating to aquatic teeming creatures, but a general commandment relating to all teeming animals. Accordingly, when a person partakes of a teeming animal of the land or a flying teeming animal, he is liable for two transgressions.The Ramban (Hasagot to Sefer HaMitzvot, General Principle 9) and the Maggid Mishneh differ with the Rambam and maintain that this is not considered as a separate mitzvah.What is meant by a aquatic teeming animal? Both small creatures like worms and leeches that inhabit the water24See Halachot 18-19. and larger creatures that are beasts of the sea. To state a general principle: Any aquatic creature that does not have the characteristics of a fish, neither a non-kosher fish or a kosher fish, e.g., a seal, a dolphin, a frog, or the like.

י״גאֵלּוּ הַמִּינִין שֶׁנִּבְרָאִין בְּאַשְׁפּוֹת וּבְגוּפֵי הַנְּבֵלוֹת כְּגוֹן רִמָּה וְתוֹלַעַת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן שֶׁאֵינָן נִבְרָאִין מִזָּכָר וּנְקֵבָה אֶלָּא מִן הַגְּלָלִים שֶׁהִסְרִיחוּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן הֵן הַנִּקְרָאִין רוֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאָרֶץ. וְהָאוֹכֵל מֵהֶן כְּזַיִת לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יא מד) "וְלֹא תְטַמְּאוּ אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם בְּכָל הַשֶּׁרֶץ הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאָרֶץ" וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין פָּרִין וְרָבִין. אֲבָל (ויקרא יא מא מב) "הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשּׁוֹרֵץ עַל הָאָרֶץ" הוּא שֶׁפָּרֶה וְרָבֶה מִזָּכָר וּנְקֵבָה:

¹³The species that come into existence in garbage heaps and the carcasses of dead animals, e.g., maggots, worms, and the like which are not brought into being from male-female [relations],25The Rambam is stating - based on Midrashic and Talmudic sources - that there are creatures which spontaneously regenerate. It is not our place to defend these concepts against the findings of science. It must, however, be said that many Rabbinical leaders who are aware of the work of Pasteur and others did not doubt the teachings of the Torah and accepted these laws. but from filth that decays and the like are called "those which creep on the earth." A person who partakes of an olive-sized portion [of these creations] is liable for lashes,26Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 177) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 165) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. as [Leviticus 11:44] states: "Do not make your souls impure with any teeming animal that creeps on the earth," even thought they do not reproduce. Teeming animals that swarm on the earth, by contrast, are those that reproduce from male-female [relations].

י״דאֵלּוּ הַמִּינִין הַנִּבְרָאִין בְּפֵרוֹת וּבְמַאֲכָלוֹת אִם פָּרְשׁוּ וְיָצְאוּ לָאָרֶץ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָזְרוּ לְתוֹךְ הָאֹכֶל מִי שֶׁאָכַל מֵהֶן כְּזַיִת לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יא מב) "לְכָל הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל הָאָרֶץ" לֶאֱסֹר אֵלּוּ שֶׁפָּרְשׁוּ לָאָרֶץ. אֲבָל אִם לֹא פָּרְשׁוּ מֻתָּר לֶאֱכל הַפְּרִי וְהַתּוֹלַעַת שֶׁבְּתוֹכוֹ:

¹⁴[The following laws apply with regard to] species that come into being from fruits and other foods.27See Halachot 18-19. Should they depart from [the source from where they came into being] and go to the earth,28The Rambam's wording is borrowed from the prooftext cited. Even if these crawling animals do not reach the earth, but merely appear on the surface of the fruit, they become forbidden., as stated in Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 178). Note, however, Halachah 16. a person who partakes of an olive-sized portion of them is liable for lashes,29Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 178) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 163) include this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. as [Leviticus 11:42] states: "With regard to any teeming animal that swarms on the earth, [do not eat them]." This forbids those that departed to the earth, even though they returned to the food. If, however, they did not depart, it is permitted to eat the fruit together with the worm in it.

ט״ובַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁהִתְלִיעַ הָאֹכֶל אַחַר שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר מִן הָאָרֶץ. אֲבָל אִם הִתְלִיעַ וְהוּא מְחֻבָּר. אוֹתָהּ הַתּוֹלַעַת אֲסוּרָה כְּאִלּוּ פֵּרְשָׁה לָאָרֶץ שֶׁעַל הָאָרֶץ נִבְרֵאת וְלוֹקִין עָלֶיהָ. וְאִם סָפֵק אֲסוּרָה. לְפִיכָךְ כָּל מִינֵי פֵּרוֹת שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לְהַתְלִיעַ כְּשֶׁהֵן מְחֻבָּרִין לֹא יֹאכַל עַד שֶׁיִּבְדֹּק הַפְּרִי מִתּוֹכוֹ שֶׁמָּא יֵשׁ בּוֹ תּוֹלַעַת. וְאִם שָׁהָה הַפְּרִי אַחַר שֶׁנֶּעֱקַר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ אוֹכֵל בְּלֹא בְּדִיקָה שֶׁאֵין תּוֹלַעַת שֶׁבּוֹ מִתְקַיֶּמֶת שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ:

¹⁵When does the above apply? When the food became worm-ridden after it was uprooted from the earth.30Or removed from its tree. If, however, it became worm-ridden while it was connected [to its source of nurture], that worm is forbidden as if it became departed to the earth. For it was created on the earth. One is liable for lashes [for partaking of it]. If there is a doubt, it is forbidden.Therefore all fruits that commonly become worm-ridden31This is a halachic issue that is given much attention today. We find certain Jewish groups who have taken it upon themselves to grow vegetables without any exposure to insects. There is a heightened consciousness with regard to the need to check and many books and tools have been produced with this purpose in mind. It must be emphasized, however, that although there are no vegetables that are absolutely insect and larvae free, the common halachic approach is not to show concern for any insects and/or larvae that are not visible to the naked eye. Conversely, we assume that all insects we discover came from male-female relationships or came into being while the fruit was connected to its source and do not permit any because they might have come from the fruit itself after it was detached. when connected [to their source of nurture] should not be eaten until one checks the fruit from its inside,32I.e., an external search is not sufficient and one must cut the fruit or vegetable open and search from the inside. for perhaps it contains a worm. If the fruit remains twelve months after being severed [from its source], it may be eaten without being inspected. For a worm inside of it will not endure for twelve months.33Since a crawling animal will not live for more than twelve months inside produce and the produce has been detached for more than twelve months, it follows that the animal came into being from the produce itself and thus the produce and the animal can be eaten together.Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 84:8) states that the produce should be checked lest there be crawling animals that have left the produce. One of the ways to select grains, legumes, and the like is to soak them first. Any ones with holes will float to the top. They should be discarded, lest they be worm-ridden.

ט״זפָּרְשׁוּ לָאֲוִיר וְלֹא נָגְעוּ לָאָרֶץ. אוֹ שֶׁפָּרְשׁוּ מִקְצָתָן לָאָרֶץ. אוֹ שֶׁפָּרְשׁוּ אַחַר שֶׁמֵּתוּ. אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת תּוֹלַעַת עַל הַגַּרְעִינָה מִבִּפְנִים. אוֹ שֶׁיָּצְאוּ מִתּוֹךְ הָאֹכֶל לְתוֹךְ אֹכֶל אַחֵר. כָּל אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין מִסָּפֵק וְאֵין לוֹקִין עֲלֵיהֶן:

¹⁶If [the worm] departed to the atmosphere, but did not reach the earth, or only a portion of it reached the earth, it departed after it died, the worm was found on the seed on the inside, or it departed from one food to another, [in] all these [situations, the worm] is forbidden because of the doubt, but lashes are not administered [if one partakes of it].

י״זתּוֹלַעַת הַנִּמְצֵאת בִּמְעֵי הַדָּגִים וּבַמֹּחַ שֶׁבְּרֹאשׁ הַבְּהֵמָה וְהַנִּמְצֵאת בַּבָּשָׂר אֲסוּרָה. אֲבָל דָּג מָלִיחַ שֶׁהִתְלִיעַ הֲרֵי הַתּוֹלַעַת שֶׁבּוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. שֶׁהֵן כְּפֵרוֹת שֶׁהִתְלִיעוּ אַחַר שֶׁנֶּעֶקְרוּ מִן הָאָרֶץ שֶׁמֻּתָּר לְאָכְלָן כֻּלָּן כְּאַחַת בַּתּוֹלַעַת שֶׁבְּתוֹכָן. וְכֵן הַמַּיִם שֶׁבַּכֵּלִים שֶׁהִשְׁרִיצוּ הֲרֵי אוֹתָן שְׁרָצִים מֻתָּר לִשְׁתּוֹתָן עִם הַמַּיִם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יא ט) "וְכָל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת בַּמַּיִם בַּיַּמִּים וּבַנְּחָלִים אֹתָם תֹּאכֵלוּ". כְּלוֹמַר בַּמַּיִם וּבַיַּמִּים וּבַנְּחָלִים הוּא שֶׁאַתָּה אוֹכֵל אֶת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ וְאֵין אַתָּה אוֹכֵל אֶת שֶׁאֵין לוֹ. אֲבָל בְּכֵלִים בֵּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בֵּין שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מֻתָּר:

¹⁷A worm found in the stomach of a fish, in the brain within the head of an animal, and one found in meat are forbidden. When, however, salted fish becomes worm-ridden, the worms in it are permitted.34Provided they have not departed from the fish itself (Maggid Mishneh).The Maggid Mishneh explains the Rambam's approach as follows: All worms that are found in both meat and fish while the animals are alive are forbidden, for we assume that they entered from the outside. Even after a fish dies, we can assume that the worms in its stomach were swallowed when it was alive. Similarly, those in an animal's brain can be assumed to have entered its nose from the outside and are hence, forbidden. Those found in the body of a fish are considered to have been spontaneously generated are hence permitted. Those found in the meat of an animal are not permitted. The rationale is that anything that comes from an animal is permitted to be eaten only after it has been slaughtered according to law. Even though the animal itself was slaughtered, since that slaughter preceded the existence of the worms, they are not permitted.The Ra'avad and many other Rishonim differ with the Rambam's understanding and permit worms that came into being in meat from animals that were ritually slaughtered, e.g., in meat that was salted to be used at a later time. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 84:16) quotes both views, but appears to favor the more lenient one. The Rama states that it is customary to follow the more lenient view. In practice, in the present age, this problem is far less prevalent, for because of refrigeration and freezing, it is less likely for worms to exist in meat. This is comparable to fruit which has become worm-ridden after it has been separated from the earth. It is permitted to eat them together with the worm that is in them.Similarly, if water35Or other beverages (Siftei Cohen 84:1). This is evident from Halachot 19-20. in a utensil produces teeming animals, those teeming animals are permitted to be drunk together with the water, as [can be inferred from Leviticus 11:9]: "All that possess fins and scales in the water, seas, and rivers, they you may eat." Implied is that you may eat those that possess [fins and scales] in the water, seas, and rivers and those that do not possess them, you may not eat. But those creatures [that come into existences] in utensils are permitted whether they possess [fins and scales] or not.

י״חשֶׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם הַנִּבְרָא בְּבוֹרוֹת וּבְשִׁיחִין וּבִמְעָרוֹת הוֹאִיל וְאֵינָן מַיִם נוֹבְעִין וַהֲרֵי הֵן עֲצוּרִים הֲרֵי הֵן כְּמַיִם שֶׁבְּכֵלִים וּמֻתָּר. וְשׁוֹחֶה וְשׁוֹתֶה וְאֵינוֹ נִמְנָע וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבּוֹלֵעַ בִּשְׁעַת שְׁתִיָּה מֵאוֹתָן הַשְּׁרָצִים הַדַּקִּים:

¹⁸[Since the water found] in cisterns, trenches and caves is not flowing water, but instead is collected there,36I.e., water that is stored in storage compartments dug into - or naturally found within - the earth.The Maggid Mishneh states that irrigation ditches and breeding ponds which water flows through are not included in this category, because - in contrast to water found in containers - the water in them does not stand still. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 84:1) quotes a difference of opinion on this issue. it is comparable to water found in containers. [Hence], aquatic teeming animals that are created [in these places] are permitted. A person may bend down and drink37Commenting on the citation of this ruling by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 84:2), the Rama states that if one finds worms in a bucket of water drawn from such bodies, the worms are forbidden, because we fear that the worms came from the bucket and not from the water. without holding back even though he swallows these flimsy teeming animals when drinking.38Or other beverages (Siftei Cohen 84:1). This is evident from Halachot 19-20.

י״טבַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁלֹּא פָּרְשׁוּ מִמְּקוֹם בְּרִיָּתָן. אֲבָל אִם פֵּרַשׁ הַשֶּׁרֶץ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָזַר לְתוֹךְ הַכְּלִי אוֹ לְתוֹךְ הַבּוֹר אָסוּר. פָּרַשׁ לְדָפְנֵי הֶחָבִית וְחָזַר וְנָפַל לְתוֹךְ הַמַּיִם אוֹ לְתוֹךְ הַשֵּׁכָר מֻתָּר. וְכֵן אִם פָּרַשׁ לְדָפְנֵי הַבּוֹר אוֹ הַמְּעָרָה וְחָזַר לַמַּיִם מֻתָּר:

¹⁹When does the above apply? When the teeming animals did not depart from the place where they came into being. If they did, even though they later return to the container or the cistern, they are forbidden. If they went out to the walls of the barrel and then fell back into the water or the beer, they are permitted.39For the walls are still considered as "the place where the teeming animals came into existence." Similarly, if they went out to the walls of the cistern and the cave and returned to the water, they are permitted.

כ׳הַמְסַנֵּן אֶת הַיַּיִן אוֹ אֶת הַחֹמֶץ אוֹ אֶת הַשֵּׁכָר וְאָכַל אֶת הַיַּבְחוּשִׁים אוֹ אֶת הַיַּתּוּשִׁין וְהַתּוֹלָעוֹת שֶׁסִּנֵּן לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם שֶׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם אוֹ מִשּׁוּם שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף (וְשֶׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם) אֲפִלּוּ חָזַר לַכְּלִי אַחַר שֶׁסִּנְּנָן שֶׁהֲרֵי פָּרְשׁוּ מִמְּקוֹם בְּרִיָּתָן. אֲבָל אִם לֹא סִנְּנָן שׁוֹתֶה וְאֵינוֹ נִמְנָע כְּמוֹ שֶׁפֵּרַשְׁנוּ:

²⁰When a person strains wine, vinegar, or beer and eats the insects, bugs, and worms that he strains, he is liable for lashes for partaking of an aquatic teeming animal or [for partaking of] a flying teeming animal and an aquatic teeming animal.40If the insect has the characteristics of both the prohibited species, as stated in Halachah 23. [This applies] even if they returned to the container after they were strained, for they departed from the place where they came into existence. If, however, they did not depart, one may drink without holding back, as we explained.41Halachah 18. I.e., he need not worry that perhaps they became separated (Maggid Mishneh).

כ״אזֶה שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ בְּפֶרֶק זֶה הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת. כְּשֶׁאָכַל כְּזַיִת מִבְּרִיָּה גְּדוֹלָה אוֹ שֶׁצֵּרֵף מְעַט מִבְּרִיָּה זוֹ וּמְעַט מִבְּרִיָּה זוֹ שֶׁבְּמִינָהּ עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל כְּזַיִת. אֲבָל הָאוֹכֵל בְּרִיָּה טְמֵאָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ כֻּלָּהּ הֲרֵי זֶה לוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה פְּחוּתָה מִן הַחַרְדָּל. בֵּין שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ מֵתָה בֵּין שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ חַיָּה. וַאֲפִלּוּ סָרְחָה הַבְּרִיָּה וְנִשְׁתַּנֵּית צוּרָתָהּ הוֹאִיל וַאֲכָלָהּ כֻּלָּהּ לוֹקֶה:

²¹When, in this chapter, we have spoken about partaking of an olive-sized portion, [the intent is that] one ate an olive-sized portion of a large creature or one collected some from one species and some from another similar species42For the portions of forbidden insects to be combined, they need not be of the same species. They must, however, be included in the same prohibition. See Chapter 4, Halachah 17. until one partakes of an olive sized portion. If, however, one eats an entire forbidden creature by itself, one is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law even if it is smaller than a mustard seed.43This is a general principle applying in many contexts in the laws of kashrut. The creature must, however, be visible to the naked eye.[This applies] whether one partook of it after it died or while it was alive. Even if the creature decayed and lost its form,44If, however, it has decayed to the extent that it is no longer fit for human consumption, one is not liable, as stated in Chapter 14, Halachah 11. one is liable for lashes since one consumed it in its entirety.

כ״בנְמָלָה שֶׁחֲסֵרָה אֲפִלּוּ אַחַת מֵרַגְלֶיהָ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא בִּכְזַיִת. לְפִיכָךְ הָאוֹכֵל זְבוּב שָׁלֵם אוֹ יַתּוּשׁ שָׁלֵם בֵּין חַי וּבֵין מֵת לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף:

²²When an ant has lost even one of its legs,45For it is no longer considered as a complete creation. one is not liable for lashes for partaking of it unless one eats an olive-sized portion. For this reason,46This phrase refers to the previous halachah. one who eats an entire fly or an entire mosquito whether alive or dead is worthy of lashes for partaking of a flying teeming animal.

כ״גהֲרֵי שֶׁהָיְתָה הַבְּרִיָּה מִשֶּׁרֶץ הָעוֹף וּמִשֶּׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם וּמִשֶּׁרֶץ הָאָרֶץ כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיוּ לָהּ כְּנָפַיִם וְהִיא מְהַלֶּכֶת עַל הָאָרֶץ כִּשְׁאָר שְׁרָצִים וְהָיְתָה רָבָה בַּמַּיִם וַאֲכָלָהּ לוֹקֶה שָׁלֹשׁ מַלְקִיּוֹת. וְאִם הָיְתָה יֶתֶר עַל זֶה מִן הַמִּינִין שֶׁנִּבְרְאוּ בְּפֵרוֹת לוֹקֶה עָלֶיהָ אַרְבַּע מַלְקִיּוֹת. וְאִם הָיְתָה מִן הַמִּינִין שֶׁפָּרִין וְרָבִין לוֹקֶה חָמֵשׁ. וְאִם הָיְתָה מִכְּלַל עוֹף טָמֵא יֶתֶר עַל הֱיוֹתָהּ מִשֶּׁרֶץ הָעוֹף לוֹקֶה עָלֶיהָ שֵׁשׁ מַלְקִיּוֹת. מִשּׁוּם עוֹף טָמֵא. וּמִשּׁוּם שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף. וּמִשּׁוּם שֶׁרֶץ הָאָרֶץ. וּמִשּׁוּם שֶׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם. וּמִשּׁוּם רוֹמֵשׂ עַל הָאָרֶץ. וּמִשּׁוּם תּוֹלַעַת הַפֵּרוֹת. בֵּין שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ כֻּלָּהּ בֵּין שֶׁאָכַל מִמֶּנָּה כְּזַיִת. לְפִיכָךְ הָאוֹכֵל נְמָלָה הַפּוֹרַחַת הַגְּדֵלָה בַּמַּיִם לוֹקֶה חָמֵשׁ מַלְקִיּוֹת:

²³[The following laws apply if] a particular creature is [included in the categories of] a flying teeming animal, an aquatic teeming animal, and a teeming animal of the earth, e.g., it has wings, it walks on the earth like other [earthbound] teeming animals, and it reproduces in the water. If one partakes of it, he is liable for three [sets of] lashes.47The Rambam's statements are based on Makkot 16b: "If one eats a potisa, one is liable for four [sets of] lashes, an ant, five [sets of] lashes." As he explains in Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 179), the intent is not that one is liable for additional sets of lashes because several prohibitions are stated with regard to a particular creature. Instead, the intent is that if one creature falls into several forbidden categories, one is liable for a set of lashes for every forbidden category. See Maggid Mishneh.It must be emphasized that the Ra'avad, Rav Moshe HaCohen, the Ramban, and other Rishonim do not accept the Rambam's interpretation and instead, maintain that the prohibitions mentioned in Makkot, loc. cit., refer to the repetition of prohibitions concerning a single creature.If, in addition to the above, it is one of the species which are brought into being in the earth in fruit, he is liable for a fourth [set of] lashes. If it is one of the species that reproduce,48I.e., although this particular creature was spontaneously generated, it was brought into being in a manner that it could reproduce and bear offspring. he is liable for a fifth [set of] lashes. If it also can be considered as a non-kosher fowl in addition to being considered a flying teeming animal,49In Sefer HaMitzvot (loc. cit.), the Rambam is sensitive to the question that might arise and states: "Do not wonder how it is possible for a fowl to come into being from the decay of fruits, for we have seen this take place frequently." In that source, he also explains that it is possible for a single creature to have the characteristics of a non-kosher fowl and a flying teeming animal. he is liable for six [sets of] lashes: [for partaking of] a non-kosher fowl, a flying teeming animal, a teeming animal of the earth, an aquatic teeming animal, an animal that swarms on the earth, and a worm from fruit.[This applies whether] he partook of the entire creature or he partook of an olive-sized portion of it. Therefore one who eats an ant that flies that breeds in the water is liable for five [sets of] lashes.

כ״דרִסֵּק נְמָלִים וְהֵבִיא אַחַת שְׁלֵמָה וְצֵרְפָהּ לְאֵלּוּ שֶׁנִּתְרַסְּקוּ וְנַעֲשָׂה הַכּל כְּזַיִת וַאֲכָלוֹ לוֹקֶה שֵׁשׁ מַלְקִיּוֹת. חָמֵשׁ מִשּׁוּם הַנְּמָלָה הָאַחַת וְאַחַת מִשּׁוּם כְּזַיִת מִנִּבְלַת הַטְּמֵאִים:

²⁴When one crushed ants, added another complete ant to those that were crushed so that the entire quantity was equal to an olive-sized portion, and partook of it, he is liable for six [sets of] lashes: five [for partaking of] the one ant50As stated in the previous halachah. and an additional one, because he partook of an olive-sized portion of dead non-kosher animals.51The Rambam is not referring to the prohibition against partaking of an animal that is not ritually slaughtered. For that prohibition applies only with regard to kosher animals, as stated in Chapter 4, Halachah 2. For this reason, the Maggid Mishneh (in his gloss to that halachah) raises questions with the Rambam's statement here. The Kessef Mishneh and others attempt to offer resolutions.

א׳כָּל מַאֲכָל הַיּוֹצֵא מִמִּין מִן הַמִּינִין הָאֲסוּרִין שֶׁלּוֹקִין עַל אֲכִילָתָן הֲרֵי אוֹתוֹ הַמַּאֲכָל אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה. כְּגוֹן חֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה הַטְּמֵאִים וּבֵיצֵי עוֹף וְדָג הַטְּמֵאִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יא טז) (דברים יד טו) "וְאֵת בַּת הַיַּעֲנָה" זוֹ בֵּיצָתָהּ. וְהוּא הַדִּין לְכָל הָאָסוּר כְּיַעֲנָה וּלְכָל הַדְּבָרִים הַדּוֹמִין לְבֵיצָה:

¹Any food that is produced from forbidden species for which lashes are given for partaking of1I.e., foods that are forbidden by a negative commandment. is forbidden to be eaten according to Scriptural Law, e.g., milk from a forbidden species of domesticated animal or wild beast or the eggs of a forbidden species of birds or fish. [This is derived from Leviticus 11:16 which mentions]: "the bat of the ostrich." [Our Sages2Chullin 64b. The term literally means "the daughter of the ostrich." Our Sages, however, expanded the interpretation of the term as the Rambam explains. commented:] "This refers to its egg." The same law applies to all species that are forbidden like an ostrich and all entities [that are produce] like eggs.

ב׳חֲלֵב הָאָדָם מֻתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבְּשַׂר הָאָדָם אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה. וּכְבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁהוּא בַּעֲשֵׂה:

²Human milk is permitted to be eaten,3I.e., even by an adult. Note, however, Halachah 4. although the meat of a human is forbidden to be eaten. We have already explained4Chapter 2, Halachah 3. that it is forbidden by virtue of a positive commandment.5Thus it does not contradict the general principle mentioned in the previous halachah.

ג׳דְּבַשׁ דְּבוֹרִים וּדְבַשׁ צְרָעִים מֻתָּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתַּמְצִית גּוּפָן אֶלָּא כּוֹנְסִין אוֹתוֹ מִן הָעֲשָׂבִים בְּתוֹךְ פִּיהֶן וּמְקִיאִין אוֹתוֹ בַּכַּוֶּרֶת כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּמְצְאוּ אוֹתוֹ לֶאֱכל מִמֶּנּוּ בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים:

³Honey produced by bees and hornets6As the Maggid Mishneh mentions, there is a difference of opinion among the Sages in Bechorot 7b whether the honey of hornets is forbidden. This difference of opinion is perpetuated among the later authorities. See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 81:9). is permitted. [The rationale is that] it is not a product of their bodies. Instead, it is collected in their mouths from herbs and then expelled in their hive so that they will be able to partake of it in the rainy season.

ד׳אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחֲלֵב אָדָם מֻתָּר אָסְרוּ חֲכָמִים לְגָדוֹל לִינֹק אוֹתוֹ מִן הַשָּׁדַיִם אֶלָּא חוֹלֶבֶת אִשָּׁה לְתוֹךְ הַכְּלִי וְשׁוֹתֶה. וְגָדוֹל שֶׁיָּנַק מִן הַשָּׁד כְּיוֹנֵק שֶׁרֶץ וּמַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת:

⁴Although human milk is permitted, our Sages prohibited an adult to nurse from [a woman's] breasts. Instead, the woman should express it into a container7Or into a person's hands. She may not, however, express it into the person's mouth [the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 81:7)]. and the adult should partake of it. An adult who nurses from [a woman's] breast is like one who nurses from a teeming animal.8The Ra'avad and the Turei Zahav 81:9 explains that these words of censure were issued because an observer might think that the milk of a non-kosher animal is also permitted. He is given stripes for rebellious conduct.

ה׳יוֹנֵק תִּינוֹק וְהוֹלֵךְ אֲפִלּוּ אַרְבַּע אוֹ חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים. וְאִם גְּמָלוּהוּ וּפָרַשׁ שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים אוֹ יֶתֶר מֵחֲמַת בֻּרְיוֹ לֹא מֵחֲמַת חָלְיוֹ אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר וְיוֹנֵק. וְהוּא שֶׁגְּמָלוּהוּ אַחַר כ"ד חֹדֶשׁ. אֲבָל בְּתוֹךְ זְמַן זֶה אֲפִלּוּ גְּמָלוּהוּ חֹדֶשׁ אוֹ שְׁנַיִם מֻתָּר לַחֲזֹר וְלִינֹק עַד סוֹף כ"ד חֹדֶשׁ:

⁵An infant may continue to nurse for even four or five years. If, however, he was weaned for three days or more in a state of health and not because of sickness, he should not be allowed to nurse again.9Needless to say, if there is a danger to the child's life, he may be allowed to nurse again regardless of the amount of time for which he had been weaned [the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 81:7)]. [The above applies] provided he was weaned after 24 months. If he was weaned within that time, even if he was weaned for a month or two, it is permitted to have him nurse again until the conclusion of 24 months.10When an infant has never been weaned, he may continue past the 24 month limit as the Rambam states at the beginning of the halachah. If, however, he has been weaned, he is bound by this restriction [Beit Yosef (Yoreh De'ah 81)].

ו׳אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה וּבֵיצֵי עוֹף טָמֵא אֲסוּרִין מִן הַתּוֹרָה אֵין לוֹקִין עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יא ח) (דברים יד ח) "מִבְּשָׂרָם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ" עַל הַבָּשָׂר הוּא לוֹקֶה וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. עַל הַבֵּיצָה וְעַל הֶחָלָב. וַהֲרֵי הָאוֹכֵל אוֹתָן כְּאוֹכֵל חֲצִי שִׁעוּר שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה אֲבָל מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת:

⁶Although the milk of a non-kosher animal and the egg of a non-kosher fowl are forbidden according to Scriptural Law, [one is] not [liable for] lashes [for partaking of them. [This is derived from Leviticus 11:8] which states: "You may not eat from their flesh." [Implied is that] one is liable for lashes for [partaking of] their flesh, but is not liable for lashes for [partaking of] their eggs and milk. One who partakes [of these substances] is like one who eats half the minimum measure [of a forbidden substance]. This is forbidden according to Scriptural Law, but one is not liable for lashes. Instead, he receives stripes for rebellious conduct.11See Chapter 4, Halachah 16, Hilchot Shivitat Esor 2:3, et al.

ז׳יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁהָאוֹכֵל בֵּיצֵי דָּגִים טְמֵאִים הַנִּמְצָאִים בִּמְעֵיהֶם כְּאוֹכֵל קִרְבֵי דָּגִים טְמֵאִים וְלוֹקֶה מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וְכֵן בֵּיצֵי הָעוֹף הַטָּמֵא הַתְּלוּיוֹת בְּאֶשְׁכּוֹל שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא פָּרְשׁוּ וְנִגְמְרוּ. הָאוֹכֵל אוֹתָן לוֹקֶה כְּאוֹכֵל בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם שֶׁלָּהֶן:

⁷It appears to me that eating the eggs of non-kosher species of fish that are found in their bellies is comparable to eating the insides of the forbidden fish themselves12For they are part of the fish's body and are not separated by a shell. and one is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law. Similarly, when a person partakes of the eggs of a non-kosher fowl that are hanging in a cluster without being separated from the mother's body or completed, he is liable for lashes as if he ate the insides of [the fowl itself].13For this instance as well, the eggs are not a distinct entity, but instead are considered part of the fowl's body. The Maggid Mishneh brings proof of this concept from Chapter 9, Halachot 4-5, which states that it is forbidden to eat such eggs together with milk and from Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah 3:10 which states that they convey ritual impurity like the meat of the fowl itself.

ח׳בֵּיצַת עוֹף טָמֵא שֶׁהִתְחִיל הָאֶפְרוֹחַ לְהִתְרַקֵּם בָּהּ וַאֲכָלוֹ לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף. אֲבָל בֵּיצַת הָעוֹף טָהוֹר שֶׁהִתְחִיל הָאֶפְרוֹחַ לְהִתְרַקֵּם בָּהּ וַאֲכָלָהּ מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת:

⁸When one partakes of the egg of a non-kosher fowl inside of which an embryo has begun to take form, he is liable for eating a flying teeming animal.14The embryo is not considered as a non-kosher fowl. Nevertheless, it is already a distinct entity. Hence it is considered as a non-kosher teeming animal. The Maggid Mishneh mentions that there are other Rishonim who do not accept the Rambam's position.The Siftei Cohen 15:1 explains that while the embryo is within the egg, it has the characteristics of a teeming animal. If, however, one partakes of the egg of a kosher fowl inside of which an embryo has begun to take form, he is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct.15From Chullin 64a, it appears that there is only a Rabbinic prohibition against partaking of this embryo. Hence, this punishment is given.

ט׳נִמְצָא עָלֶיהָ קֹרֶט דָּם. אִם עַל הַחֶלְבּוֹן זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם וְאוֹכֵל אֶת הַשְּׁאָר. וְאִם עַל הַחֶלְמוֹן אֲסוּרָה כֻּלָּהּ. בֵּיצָה הַמּוּזֶרֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַיָּפָה תֹּאכְלֶנָּה:

⁹[The following laws apply if] a blood spot is found on an egg.16This refers to an egg that could have been fertilized. If, however, we know that an egg was not fertilized, it is acceptable no matter where the blood spot is found. The blood itself, however, must be discarded [the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 66:7)]. Most of the eggs commercially sold are not fertilized. If it is found on the white, one should discard the blood and eat the remainder of the egg.17For the embryo has not begun to form and has not affected the entire egg. If it is found on the yolk, the entire egg is forbidden.18At this stage of development, the entire egg has been affected. See the Shulchan Aruch and Rama (Yoreh De'ah 66:2-3) which also mention other halachic perspectives with regard to blood found in fertilized eggs. Unfertilized eggs - a refined person partakes of them.19Even though they could be considered spoiled [see Rashi, Chullin 77a; Rama (Yoreh De'ah 66:7)].

י׳אֶפְרוֹחַ שֶׁנּוֹלַד אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְפַּתְּחוּ עֵינָיו מֻתָּר לְאָכְלוֹ. בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה שֶׁנִּטְרְפָה חֲלָבָהּ אָסוּר כַּחֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה. וְכֵן בֵּיצַת עוֹף טָהוֹר שֶׁנִּטְרַף כְּבֵיצַת עוֹף טָמֵא וְאָסוּר:

¹⁰When a chick is hatched, even if its eyes have not opened, it is permitted [to slaughter it and] eat it.20Until it is hatched, however, it is forbidden as indicated by Halachah 8. See also Siftei Cohen 15:2 who mentions authorities who suggest that one should wait until its wings start to develop before slaughtering it.When a kosher animal became trefe,21Forbidden because it contracted a wound that will cause it to die within a year. its milk is forbidden like the milk of a non-kosher animal.22Although the milk comes from a kosher species, since the animal itself is unacceptable, its milk is also deemed unacceptable. Similarly, the egg of a kosher fowl that became trefe is comparable to the egg of a non-kosher fowl and is forbidden.23According to Rabbinic decree, this law applies to eggs that are found within a fowl that died without being ritually slaughtered [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 86:3)].

י״אאֶפְרוֹחַ שֶׁנּוֹלַד מִבֵּיצַת טְרֵפָה מֻתָּר שֶׁאֵין מִינוֹ טָמֵא. הָיָה הָעוֹף סְפֵק טְרֵפָה כָּל הַבֵּיצִים שֶׁתֵּלֵד בַּעֲרֵמָה רִאשׁוֹנָה מַשְׁהִין אוֹתָן. אִם טָעֲנָה עֲרֵמָה שְׁנִיָּה וְהִתְחִילָה לֵילֵד הֻתְּרוּ הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת שֶׁאִם הָיְתָה טְרֵפָה לֹא הָיְתָה יוֹלֶדֶת עוֹד. וְאִם לֹא יָלְדָה הֲרֵי הֵן אֲסוּרוֹת:

¹¹When a chick is hatched from an egg from a trefe fowl, it is permitted, for it is not from a non-kosher species.24Chulin 31a states that the fact that the egg from which the embryo is formed is trefe does not present a halachic problem. The rationale is that, for the embryo to form, the egg must decompose. Hence its halachic status does not affect that of the embryo. When there is an unresolved question whether a fowl is trefe or not, we retain25For 21 days [Bechorot 8a; the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 86:99]. This is the amount of time our Sages thought necessary for a fowl to begin laying a new batch of eggs. all the eggs it lays in its first batch.26I.e., the eggs it was carrying when it first became trefe. Although Chulin 58a states that a fowl which is trefe will not lay eggs, the intent is that it will not lay a new batch of eggs. It will, however, lay the batch it is presently carrying. If it grows another batch and begins laying them, the first ones are permitted.27There are opinions in the Ashkenazic halachic tradition that forbid such a chick. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 86:7) states that the initial and preferred option is to respect these views. For if it was trefe, it would no longer lay eggs. If it does not lay eggs, [the first batch] are forbidden.

י״בחֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה אֵינוֹ נִקְפֶּה וְעוֹמֵד כַּחֲלֵב הַטְּהוֹרָה. וְאִם נִתְעָרֵב חֲלֵב טְמֵאָה בַּחֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה כְּשֶׁתַּעֲמִיד אוֹתוֹ יַעֲמוֹד חֲלֵב הַטְּהוֹרָה וְיֵצֵא חֲלֵב הַטֻּמְאָה עִם הַקּוֹם שֶׁל גְּבִינָה:

¹²The milk of a non-kosher animal will not congeal and solidify as the milk of a kosher animal does. If the milk of a non-kosher animal is mixed together with the milk of a kosher animal, when the mixture is [set aside for cheese to be made], the kosher milk will solidify and the non-kosher milk will be expelled together with the whey of the cheese.

י״גוּמִפְּנֵי זֶה יִתֵּן הַדִּין שֶׁכָּל חָלָב הַנִּמְצָא בְּיַד עַכּוּ"ם אָסוּר שֶׁמָּא עֵרֵב בּוֹ חֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה. וּגְבִינַת הָעַכּוּ"ם מֻתֶּרֶת שֶׁאֵין חֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה מִתְגַּבֵּן. אֲבָל בִּימֵי חַכְמֵי מִשְׁנָה גָּזְרוּ עַל גְּבִינַת הָעַכּוּ"ם וַאֲסָרוּם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ בְּעוֹר קֵבָה שֶׁל שְׁחִיטָתָן שֶׁהִיא נְבֵלָה. וְאִם תֹּאמַר וַהֲלֹא עוֹר הַקֵּבָה דָּבָר קָטָן הוּא עַד מְאֹד בֶּחָלָב שֶׁעָמַד בּוֹ וְלָמָּה לֹא יִבָּטֵל בְּמִעוּטוֹ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא הַמַּעֲמִיד הַגְּבִינָה. וְהוֹאִיל וְדָבָר הָאָסוּר הוּא שֶׁהֶעֱמִיד הֲרֵי הַכּל אָסוּר כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר:

¹³Accordingly, logic would dictate that any milk found in the possession of a gentile is forbidden, lest the gentile have mixed the milk of a non-kosher animal with it. And the cheese of the gentiles should be permitted, for the milk of a non-kosher animal will not form cheese. Nevertheless, during the age of the Sages of the Mishnah, they issued a decree against gentile cheese and forbade it, lest they use the skin of the stomach of an animal they slaughtered - which is forbidden as a nevelah28This term refers to an animal from a kosher species which died without being ritually slaughtered. - to cause it to solidify.29For milk to solidify as cheese, it needs a catalyst, rennin, to cause it to curdle. One of the most common sources of rennin was the digestive organs of an animal. For the enzymes that facilitate the digestion of food also produce such an effect. Using the skin of a non-kosher organ causes the cheese to be non-kosher for the reasons the Rambam proceeds to explain. See also Chapter 4, Halachah 19, and Chapter 9, Halachah 15.As the Ra'avad and Maggid Mishneh mention, Avodah Zarah 35a gives several additional reasons for these prohibitions. The Rambam, however, does not mention them because the factors causing the prohibition could be nullified as explained in the following note. The Maggid Mishneh mentions that there are opinions that maintain that the motivating factor behind the prohibition against non-Jewish cheese is to prevent social interaction between Jews and non-Jews. Hence the prohibitions are never nullified even if there is a substantially larger quantity of the kosher substance.If one would say: The stomach skin is a very small entity when compared to the milk that it is used to solidify. Why is it not nullified because of its insignificant size?30As will be explained, according to Scriptural Law, when a forbidden substance is mixed together with a kosher substance, it is nullified - i.e, considered as if it has become part of the permitted substance - if the quantity of the permitted substance is greater than it. According to Rabbinic Law, this is true when the quantity of the permitted substance is so great that the taste of the forbidden substance would not be detected. That would certainly be true in the instance at hand. Nevertheless, the forbidden substance is not nullified for the reason explained by the Rambam. Because it is used as the catalyst to cause the cheese to curdle. Since the catalyst which causes it to curdle is forbidden, everything is forbidden, as will be explained.31Chapter 9, Halachah 16; Chapter 16, Halachah 26.

י״דגְּבִינָה שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ הָעַכּוּ"ם בַּעֲשָׂבִים אוֹ בְּמֵי פֵּרוֹת כְּגוֹן שְׂרַף הַתְּאֵנִים וַהֲרֵי הֵן נִכָּרִין בַּגְּבִינָה הוֹרוּ מִקְצָת הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה. שֶׁכְּבָר גָּזְרוּ עַל כָּל גְּבִינַת הָעַכּוּ"ם בֵּין שֶׁהֶעֱמִידוּהָ בְּדָבָר אָסוּר בֵּין שֶׁהֶעֱמִידוּהָ בְּדָבָר הַמֻּתָּר גְּזֵרָה מִשּׁוּם שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ בְּדָבָר הָאָסוּר:

¹⁴[The following laws apply when] cheese is left to solidify with herbs or fruit juice, e.g., fig syrup, and it is apparent [that these substances were used for] the cheese. There are some of the Geonim who have ruled that it is forbidden, for [our Sages] already decreed that all the cheeses of gentiles are forbidden, whether they caused them to solidify with a forbidden entity or with a permitted entity.32This is also the Rambam's view. It is quoted by the the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 115:2. The Rama states that it is customary to follow this view. The Rama continues, stating that when a Jew observes a gentile milking the cows and making the cheese, it is permitted to partake of it even though the cheese belongs to the gentiles. He continues, stating that even if the Jew does not observe the gentile milking the cow, as long as he observes him making the cheese, the cheese is acceptable after the fact. The Turei Zahav 115:11 and the Siftei Cohen 115:22 quote opinions that differ and maintain that the prohibition should be observed even if a Jew did not observe the milking.This difference of opinion is relevant today, reflecting the difference between chalav Yisrael cheese and ordinary kosher cheese. In both instances, the cheesemaking process is supervised. Chalav Yisrael cheese uses milk that was supervised when milked, while ordinary kosher cheese does not. This is a decree, [instituted] because they cause them to solidify using forbidden entities.

ט״והָאוֹכֵל גְּבִינַת הָעַכּוּ"ם אוֹ חָלָב שֶׁחֲלָבוֹ עַכּוּ"ם וְאֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל רוֹאֵהוּ מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת. הַחֶמְאָה שֶׁל עַכּוּ"ם מִקְצָת הַגְּאוֹנִים הִתִּירוּהָ שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא גָּזְרוּ עַל הַחֶמְאָה וַחֲלֵב הַטְּמֵאָה אֵינוֹ עוֹמֵד. וּמִקְצָת הַגְּאוֹנִים אֲסָרוּהָ מִפְּנֵי צִחְצוּחֵי חָלָב שֶׁיִּשָּׁאֵר בָּהּ. שֶׁהֲרֵי הַקּוֹם שֶׁבַּחֶמְאָה אֵינוֹ מְעֹרָב עִם הַחֶמְאָה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּבָּטֵל בְּמִעוּטוֹ. וְכָל חָלָב שֶׁלָּהֶן חוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ שֶׁמָּא עֵרְבוּ בּוֹ חֲלֵב בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה:

¹⁵When a person partakes of cheese from gentiles or milk that was milked by a gentile without a Jew observing him, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct.33For his behavior is in violation of an explicit Rabbinic prohibition. Even though the rationale for the original decree is no longer applicable, the prohibition established by our Rabbis is still in force. (See Hilchot Mamrim 2:2.)In the present era, there are certain Rabbis (see Rav Moshe Feinstein, Igros Moshe) who give a rationale for leniency with regard to this prohibition, stating that government supervision makes it impossible for gentiles to mix non-kosher milk together with cow's milk and thus there is no necessity to heed that prohibition. It must be emphasized, however, that this responsum was authored before the time when it became relative easy to procure chalav Yisrael and that many other Rabbinical authorities never accepted this decision. On the contrary, basing themselves on the ruling of Hilchot Mamrim 2:2, they explain that the original decree must still be observed. As a result of their forceful stance, at present, it is possible to obtain chalav Yisrael products in almost every major Jewish community. With regard to butter produced by gentiles, some of the Geonim permit it, for [our Sages] did not decree against butter and some of the Geonim forbid it,34The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 115:3) states that one should not rebuke those who permit the use of such butter, but if the local custom is to forbid it, that custom should be respected. At present, since it is possible to obtain chalav Yisrael butter in almost every major Jewish community, many Rabbis urge that this prohibition be observed. because of the drops of milk that remain in it. For the whey in the butter is not mixed with the butter35We are speaking about homemade butter which always has some small drops of whey within it. These drops, however, are not mixed with the butter itself, but instead remain as a separate entity. Hence, they cannot be nullified. See Kessef Mishneh. so that it will be nullified because of its minimal quantity. And we suspect that any milk [from gentiles] is mixed with the milk of a non-kosher animal.

ט״זיֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאִם לָקַח חֶמְאָה מִן הָעַכּוּ"ם וּבִשְּׁלָהּ עַד שֶׁהָלְכוּ לָהֶן צִחְצוּחֵי חָלָב הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. שֶׁאִם תֹּאמַר נִתְעָרְבוּ עִמָּן וְנִתְבַּשְּׁלוּ כֻּלָּן בָּטְלוּ בְּמִעוּטָם. אֲבָל הַחֶמְאָה שֶׁבִּשְּׁלוּ אוֹתָהּ עַכּוּ"ם אֲסוּרָה מִשּׁוּם גִּעוּלֵי עַכּוּ"ם כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר:

¹⁶It appears to me36This expression connotes a law derived by the Rambam through his deductive reasoning without an existing prior Rabbinic source. that if one purchased butter from gentiles and cooked it until the drops of milk in it disappeared, it is permitted.37The Kessef Mishneh explains that not only is this permitted after the fact, one may do so at the outset (lechatchilah). For it is possible that there is no forbidden substance present at all.The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 115:3) quotes this ruling. Nevertheless, most of the authorities who forbid using non-Jewish butter maintain that, in practice, one should refrain from cooking it as well. For if one will say that [drops of non-kosher milk] were mixed with the butter and it was all cooked together, they became insignificant because of the small quantity [involved].38I.e., the amount of non-kosher milk is surely insignificant in relation to the quantity of the mixture as a whole. Hence it is nullified. When, however, the butter is cooked by gentiles themselves,39I.e., in their own utensils. it is forbidden because of the effusion of gentile [foods], as will be explained.40As explained in Chapter 17, Halachah 2, it is forbidden to cook food in utensils belonging to gentiles, for the utensil will have absorbed some of the non-kosher food cooked in it previously and will discharge it into the kosher food during the cooking process.The Kessef Mishneh and the Rama (loc. cit.) differ with the Rambam regarding this issue. See the notes to Chapter 17 Halachah 18, for a discussion of this matter.

י״זיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיָּשַׁב בְּצַד הָעֵדֶר שֶׁל נָכְרִי וּבָא הַנָּכְרִי וְהֵבִיא לוֹ חָלָב מִן הָעֵדֶר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּעֵדֶר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתָּר. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא רָאָה אוֹתוֹ חוֹלֵב. וְהוּא שֶׁיָּכוֹל לִרְאוֹתוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא חוֹלֵב כְּשֶׁיַּעֲמֹד. שֶׁהַנָּכְרִי מִתְיָרֵא לַחֲלֹב מִן הַטְּמֵאָה שֶׁמָּא יַעֲמֹד וְיִרְאֶה אוֹתוֹ:

¹⁷When a Jew sits near a herd belonging to a gentile and the gentile brings him milk from the herd, it is permitted [for him to partake of it] even though there are non-kosher animals in the herd. [This applies] even though he did not see him milk the animal, provided he could have seen him were he to stand.41Similarly, if the Jew walks in and out of the place where the milking is taking place, it is acceptable. For the gentile will fear that any moment, the Jew will return (Turei Zahav 115:3). [The rationale is that] the gentile is afraid to milk the non-kosher animal lest [the Jew] stand and see him.42The Rambam is explaining that although our Sages require that a Jew observe the milking of an animal, it is not necessary that he watch the actual milking. As long as he is present and could see what the gentile is doing, the gentile will refrain from mixing in a non-kosher substance.The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 115:1) states that this ruling applies only after the fact. At the outset, the Jew must observe the milking and also check the container into which the gentile is milking.The Maggid Mishneh clarifies that this ruling applies only when the gentile is milking the animal for the Jew and knows that the Jew will not drink the milk of the non-kosher animal. If he is not aware of the prohibition, we suspect that he will give the Jew milk from any animal in his herd.

י״חבֵּיצָה שֶׁשְּׁנֵי רָאשֶׁיהָ כַּדִּין אוֹ שֶׁשְּׁנֵי רָאשֶׁיהָ חַדִּין. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה חֶלְמוֹן מִבַּחוּץ וְחֶלְבּוֹן מִבִּפְנִים בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהוּא בֵּיצַת עוֹף טָמֵא. רֹאשָׁהּ אֶחָד כַּד וְרֹאשָׁהּ אֶחָד חַד וְחֶלְבּוֹן מִבַּחוּץ וְחֶלְמוֹן מִבִּפְנִים. אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁהִיא בֵּיצַת עוֹף טָמֵא וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁהִיא בֵּיצַת עוֹף טָהוֹר. לְפִיכָךְ שׁוֹאֵל לַצַּיָּד יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁמּוֹכְרָהּ. אִם אָמַר לוֹ שֶׁל עוֹף פְּלוֹנִי הוּא וְעוֹף טָהוֹר הוּא סוֹמֵךְ עָלָיו. וְאִם אָמַר שֶׁל עוֹף טָהוֹר וְלֹא אָמַר לוֹ שְׁמוֹ אֵינוֹ סוֹמֵךְ עָלָיו:

¹⁸When both of the ends of an egg are rounded, both are pointed, or the yolk is on the outside and the white is on the inside, it is certainly from a non-kosher species. If one end is pointed, the other rounded, and the white is on the outside and the yolk is on the inside, it is possible that it is the egg of a non-kosher species and it is possible that it is the egg of a kosher species.43I.e., all kosher eggs have these characteristics, but not all eggs with these characteristics are kosher. Accordingly, the Jew should inquire of the Jewish44But not a non-Jewish hunter, as evident from the following halachah. hunter who sells them. If he tells him that they are from such-and-such a fowl and that this fowl is kosher, he may rely on him.45We are certain that he will not lie, because it is possible to bring other eggs from that species and see that they are not alike (Turei Zahav 86:1; Siftei Cohen 86:3). If, however, he tells him that they are from a kosher fowl, but does not mention its name, he may not rely on him.46For the method of verification mentioned in the previous note does not apply.The Ra'avad rules that if the hunter has an established reputation for observance, we may rely on his word, even though he does not name the species of the fowl. The Maggid Mishneh states that, as indicated by the conclusion of Halachah 20, the Rambam would also accept that ruling. According to this understanding, the hunter we are speaking about is not known for his observance. Nevertheless, we rely on his statements.In his notes to Halachah 20, the Rashba emphasizes that we are not speaking about a person who is known to sell non-kosher food as kosher. As evident from Hilchot Maaserot 12:16, such a person is considered as a gentile and his word is not accepted at all. Instead, the intent is someone whose reputation for observance has not been established, but is also not suspect to cause others to transgress.

י״טלְפִיכָךְ אֵין לוֹקְחִים בֵּיצִים מִן הָעַכּוּ"ם אֶלָּא אִם הָיָה מַכִּיר אוֹתָן וְיֵשׁ לוֹ בָּהֶן טְבִיעוּת עַיִן שֶׁהֵן בֵּיצֵי עוֹף פְּלוֹנִי הַטָּהוֹר. וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהֶן שֶׁמָּא הֵן בֵּיצֵי טְרֵפָה אוֹ בֵּיצֵי נְבֵלָה. וְאֵין לוֹקְחִין מִן הָעַכּוּ"ם בֵּיצָה טְרוּפָה כְּלָל:

¹⁹For this reason, we do not purchase eggs from gentiles unless one recognizes the eggs and can identify them as being from a particular kosher species of fowl.47The Maggid Mishneh quotes the Ramban who differs with the Rambam and maintains that there is no difference between a Jew whose reputation for observance is not established and a gentile. Just like we accept the Jew's word, we accept that of the gentile. For we assume that he will not risk his reputation by making false statements. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 86:1) quotes the Rambam's ruling, while the Tur and the Rama cite that of the Ramban.The Maggid Mishneh also quotes Rashba who states that in the present age, we purchase eggs from gentiles without compunction, because non-kosher species are uncommon and the overwhelming proportion of eggs sold are from chickens or geese. This ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 86:2). We do not suspect that they came from a fowl that was trefe or nevelah.48I.e., that died without being ritually slaughtered; see Chapter 4, Halachah 1. We rule leniently, because it is very uncommon to have eggs from fowl in such a condition (Maggid Mishneh). And we do not purchase an [unshelled and] stirred egg from a gentile at all.49For we fear that it came from an egg that was trefe (Maggid Mishneh).

כ׳בֵּיצֵי דָּגִים סִימָנֵיהֶם כְּסִימָנֵי בֵּיצֵי הָעוֹף. אִם הָיוּ שְׁנֵי רָאשֶׁיהָ כַּדִּין אוֹ חַדִּין טְמֵאָה. אֶחָד כַּד וְאֶחָד חַד שׁוֹאֵל לְיִשְׂרְאֵלִי הַמּוֹכֵר. אִם אָמַר לוֹ אֲנִי מְלַחְתִּים וְהוֹצֵאתִים מִדָּג טָהוֹר אוֹכֵל עַל פִּיו. וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ טְהוֹרִין הֵם אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה אָדָם שֶׁהֻחְזַק בְּכַשְׁרוּת:

²⁰The distinguishing signs of fish eggs are the same as those for fowl. When both of the ends of an egg are rounded or both are pointed, it is non-kosher. If one end is pointed and the other rounded, he should inquire of the Jew who sells them.50For the distinguishing signs themselves are not sufficient for the eggs to be considered kosher. The Maggid Mishneh explains that although Avodah Zarah 40a would appear to indicate that the distinguishing signs are sufficient, since Chullin 64a compares fish eggs to fowl eggs, we assume that all the laws that apply to one apply to the other.In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 83:8), Rav Yosef Caro quotes the Rambam's ruling, but states that at present, it has become customary to buy any red fish eggs, even from gentiles. Black fish eggs, however, may not be purchased. In his Beit Yosef 81:12, he explains that the Rabbinic authorities of the earlier ages researched the matter and discovered that there are no common non-kosher fish that lay red eggs. See Siftei Cohen 83:27 who quotes other sources from which it is not clear whether or not this ruling was accepted in all communities. If he tells him that he salted them51I.e., to preserve them, for it is common to bring fish eggs from distant places. and removed them from a kosher species,52Naming the species as in Halachah 18. he may partake of them on the basis of his statements. If he tells him that they are kosher, he may not rely on him unless he is a person who has an established reputation for observance.

כ״אוְכֵן אֵין לוֹקְחִין גְּבִינָה וַחֲתִיכַת דָּג שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ סִימָן אֶלָּא מִיִּשְׂרְאֵלִי שֶׁהֻחְזַק בְּכַשְׁרוּת. אֲבָל בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּשֶׁהָיְתָה רֻבָּהּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לוֹקְחִין מִכָּל יִשְׂרְאֵלִי שֶׁבָּהּ. וְהֶחָלָב לוֹקְחִין אוֹתוֹ מִכָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל מִכָּל מָקוֹם:

²¹Similarly, we may not purchase cheese and pieces of fish that do not have distinguishing signs except from a Jew who has an established reputation for observance. In Eretz Yisrael, at the time it was populated primarily by [observant] Jews,53As indicated by Chapter 11, Halachah 25, today, the same principles that apply in the Diaspora apply in Eretz Yisrael. one could purchase these items from any Jew located there. And it is permitted to purchase milk from any Jew, anywhere.

כ״בהַכּוֹבֵשׁ דָּגִים טְמֵאִים צִירָן אָסוּר. אֲבָל צִיר חֲגָבִים טְמֵאִים מֻתָּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם לַחְלוּחִית. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין לוֹקְחִין צִיר מִן הָעַכּוּ"ם אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה בּוֹ דָּג טָהוֹר מְשׁוֹטֵט בּוֹ אֲפִלּוּ דָּג אֶחָד:

²²When a person pickles non-kosher fish, the brine produced is forbidden. The brine produced by non-kosher locusts, by contrast, is permitted, because they do not possess any moisture.54In the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 10:9), he states that they possess very little moisture. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling and forbids brine from non-kosher locusts. Accordingly, we do not purchase brine from gentiles unless there is a kosher fish floating in it.55For then we assume that the brine came from this species of fish. Even one fish is sufficient.

כ״געַכּוּ"ם שֶׁהֵבִיא עֲרֵבָה מְלֵאָה חָבִיּוֹת פְּתוּחוֹת שֶׁל צִיר וְדָג אֶחָד טָהוֹר בְּאַחַת מֵהֶם כֻּלָּן מֻתָּרוֹת. הָיוּ סְתוּמוֹת פָּתַח אַחַת וְנִמְצָא בָּהּ דָּג טָהוֹר שְׁנִיָּה וְנִמְצָא בָּהּ טָהוֹר כֻּלָּן מֻתָּרוֹת. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל דָּג וּשְׁדֵרוֹ קַיָּם כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא נִכָּר שֶׁהוּא דָּג טָהוֹר. לְפִיכָךְ אֵין לוֹקְחִין דָּגִים מְרוֹצָצִין מְלוּחִין מִן הָעַכּוּ"ם וְהֵם הַנִּקְרָאִים טָרִית טְרוּפָה. וְאִם הָיָה רֹאשׁ הַדָּג וּשְׁדֵרוֹ נִכָּר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מְרוֹצָץ מֻתָּר לִקַּח אוֹתוֹ מִן הָעַכּוּ"ם:

²³When a gentile brings a trough filled with open barrels of brine and there is a kosher fish in one of them, they are all permitted.56For we consider all the open barrels as a single entity and the one fish indicates that the entire quantity is acceptable. See Kessef Mishneh. This represents the Rambam's understanding of Avodah Zarah 39b-40a. The rulings of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 83:6) quotes the Rambam's ruling, but also those of others who interpret that passage differently. If they are closed, one opens one and finds a kosher fish and one opens a second and finds a kosher fish, they are all permitted.57The intent is not that all the barrels are considered as a single entity, but that since two barrels are discovered to be kosher, we assume that the others are also kosher (Kessef Mishneh). [This applies] provided the head of the fish and its backbone are present so that it is recognizable that they are from a kosher species of fish.58I.e., by looking at the head and the backbone, the person is able to recognize that the fish comes from a kosher species. One alone, i.e., either the head or the backbone, is not sufficient (Avodah Zarah 40a).For this reason, we do not purchased crushed, salted fish from gentiles which are called terit terufah.59In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 2:6), the Rambam explains that it was customary to crush and stir the fish until it produces a mixture like dough that was used as a dip. If, however, the head and the backbone of a fish is recognizable, even though it is crushed, it is permitted to purchase it from a gentile.60I.e., if we discover the head and the backbone of one fish, we may purchase a larger quantity, because we do not expect that kosher fish and non-kosher fish were salted together (Maggid Mishneh).

כ״דעַכּוּ"ם שֶׁהֵבִיא גָּרָב שֶׁל חֲתִיכוֹת דָּג שֶׁחִתּוּכָן שָׁוֶה וְהֵן נִכָּרִין שֶׁכֻּלָּן מִדָּג אֶחָד וּמָצָא בַּחֲתִיכָה אַחַת מֵהֶן קַשְׂקַשִּׂין הֲרֵי כֻּלָּן מֻתָּרוֹת:

²⁴When a gentile brings a keg of pieces of evenly cut up fish and it is obvious that they are from one fish,61The Siftei Cohen 83:4 notes that the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 83:4) does not quote the Rambam's wording and explains that according to that source, it is not necessary for it to be obvious that they all come from one fish.If it is not obvious that they come from one fish, the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) rules that only the piece with scales is permitted. they are all permitted if he finds scales on one of the pieces.62For every fish that has scales will also have fins.

א׳הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִבְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה שֶׁמֵּתָה אוֹ חַיָּה שֶׁמֵּתָה אוֹ עוֹף שֶׁמֵּת לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד כא) "לֹא תֹאכְלוּ כָל נְבֵלָה". וְכָל שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁחֲטָה כָּרָאוּי הֲרֵי זוֹ מֵתָה. וּבְהִלְכוֹת הַשְּׁחִיטָה יִתְבָּאֵר הַשְּׁחִיטָה שֶׁהִיא כָּרָאוּי וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ כָּרָאוּי:

¹A person who partakes of an olive-sized portion of a domesticated animal, wild beast, or fowl which dies is liable for lashes, as [Deuteronomy 14:21] states: "Do not partake of any nevelah."1Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 180) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 472) include this among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. All animals that were not slaughtered in the appropriate manner are considered as if they died. In the Laws of Shechitah, we will explain which types of slaughter are appropriate and which are not.

ב׳אֵין אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם נְבֵלָה אֶלָּא מִינִים טְהוֹרִים בִּלְבַד מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן רְאוּיִין לִשְׁחִיטָה וְאִם נִשְׁחֲטוּ שְׁחִיטָה כְּשֵׁרָה יִהְיוּ מֻתָּרִין בַּאֲכִילָה. אֲבָל מִינִין טְמֵאִין שֶׁאֵין שְׁחִיטָה מוֹעֶלֶת בָּהֶן בֵּין שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה כָּרָאוּי בֵּין שֶׁמֵּתָה כְּדַרְכָּהּ בֵּין שֶׁחָתַךְ בָּשָׂר מִן הַחַי מִמֶּנָּה וַאֲכָלוֹ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל בְּשַׂר טְמֵאָה:

²Only animals from kosher species are forbidden as a nevelah, for they are the species that are fit to be ritually slaughtered and if they are slaughtered in a kosher manner, it is permitted to partake of them. [When,] by contrast, one partakes of [meat from] a non-kosher species, [since] ritual slaughter is of no consequence with regard to them, whether they are slaughtered in a kosher manner, whether they died in a natural manner, or whether one cut meat from a living animal and ate it, one does not receive lashes for partaking of a nevelah or partaking of trefe meat,2See Halachah 10. only because one ate the meat of a non-kosher animal.3From Chullin 100b, it would appear that the rationale for this ruling is the general principle: "One prohibition does not fall upon another prohibition." Since the meat is already prohibited because it is from a non-kosher species, the prohibition of nevela does not apply to it. The Rambam's wording, however, is slightly different and may be alluding to a slightly different rationale.

ג׳הָאוֹכֵל עוֹף טָהוֹר חַי כָּל שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל נְבֵלָה וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ כְּזַיִת הוֹאִיל וַאֲכָלוֹ כֻּלּוֹ. וְאִם אֲכָלוֹ אַחַר שֶׁמֵּת עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה בּוֹ כְּזַיִת. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בְּכֻלּוֹ בָּשָׂר כְּזַיִת הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ בְּכֻלּוֹ כְּזַיִת חַיָּב עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם נְבֵלָה:

³When a person eats an [entire] kosher fowl4Which was not correctly slaughtered. of any size, he is liable for lashes for partaking of a nevelah, even though he ate less than an olive-sized portion. [The rationale is that] he consumed it in its entirety.5This reflects a general concept with regard to the laws of kashrut. As stated in Chapter 2, Law 21, whenever "one eats an entire forbidden creature by itself, one is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law even if it is smaller than a mustard seed."The commentaries (Maggid Mishneh, Rav Moshe HaCohen) question why the Rambam states that the person is liable for eating a nevelah. Seemingly, the prohibition he transgresses is eating a limb from a living animal (see Chapter 5). The Meiri explains the Rambam's position, stating that an entire creature cannot be considered as "a limb." If he ate it after it died, it must be the size of an olive [for him to be liable].6For the conception of being liable for an entire creature even though it is not the size of an olive, applies only when that creature is inherently forbidden (Meiri). While alive, the bird is considered as an entire forbidden entity, like a non-kosher species. After its death, that distinction does not apply. Even though it does not have an olive-sized portion of meat on it, since as a whole, it is the size of an olive, he is liable for [partaking of] a nevelah.7For we include the bones and the sinews as well (Chullin 102b).

ד׳הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִבְּשַׂר נֵפֶל בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל נְבֵלָה. וְאָסוּר לֶאֱכל מִן הַבְּהֵמָה שֶׁנּוֹלְדָה עַד לֵיל שְׁמִינִי שֶׁכָּל שֶׁלֹּא שָׁהָה שְׁמוֹנָה יָמִים בִּבְהֵמָה הֲרֵי זֶה כְּנֵפֶל. וְאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו. וְאִם נוֹדַע לוֹ שֶׁכָּלוּ לוֹ חֳדָשָׁיו בַּבֶּטֶן וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹלַד שֶׁהֵן תִּשְׁעָה חֳדָשִׁים לִבְהֵמָה גַּסָּה וַחֲמִשָּׁה לְדַקָּה הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר בַּיּוֹם שֶׁנּוֹלַד:

⁴When a person partakes of an olive-sized portion of a stillborn fetus8The same laws apply if the fetus is born alive, but it is obvious that the birth is not viable. Even if the animal is slaughtered in the appropriate manner, we are forbidden to partake of it. of a kosher animal, he is liable for lashes for partaking of a nevelah.It is forbidden to partake of a newborn animal until the night of the eighth day [of its life].9I.e., even if the animal is slaughtered properly, it is forbidden because it is possible that the birth is not viable. Although our Sages (Chulin 136a) spoke of the eighth day of an animal's life, their intent was the beginning of the eighth day (Maggid Mishneh). For whenever an animal has not lived for eight days, we consider it as stillborn, but lashes are not administered [for partaking] of it.10Since it is not a definite matter, lashes are not administered (ibid.). [Moreover,] if it is known that the animal was born after a full term period of gestation, i.e., nine months for a large domesticated animal and five months for a small domesticated animal, it is permitted on the day that it was born.11In contrast, an animal may not be offered as a sacrifice until the eighth day of its life (Exodus 22:29; Turei Zahav 15:3).

ה׳הַשִּׁלְיָא שֶׁיָּצָאת עִם הַוָּלָד אֲסוּרָה בַּאֲכִילָה וְהָאוֹכְלָהּ פָּטוּר שֶׁאֵינָהּ בָּשָׂר:

⁵The placenta that is expelled together with the newborn is forbidden to be eaten. A person who eats it, however, is not liable,12I.e., he is not considered to have partaken of a nevelah. because it is not [considered] meat.13For as stated in Halachah 18, these are not considered meat, but rather comparable to an animal's wastes. For that reason, the Ra'avad (in his gloss to Chapter 5, Halachah 13) states that there is no prohibition against partaking of a placenta.

ו׳הָאוֹכֵל כְּזַיִת מִבְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה אוֹ חַיָּה אוֹ עוֹף טְהוֹרִים שֶׁנִּטְרְפוּ לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כב ל) "וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵפָה לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ לַכֶּלֶב תַּשְׁלִכוּן אֹתוֹ". טְרֵפָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַּתּוֹרָה זוֹ שֶׁטָּרְפָה אוֹתָהּ חַיַּת הַיַּעַר כְּגוֹן אֲרִי וְנָמֵר וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. וְכֵן עוֹף שֶׁטָּרַף אוֹתוֹ עוֹף הַדּוֹרֵס כְּגוֹן נֵץ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ. וְאֵין אַתָּה יָכוֹל לוֹמַר שֶׁטָּרְפָה אוֹתָהּ וְהֵמִיתָה אוֹתָהּ שֶׁאִם מֵתָה הֲרֵי הִיא נְבֵלָה. וּמַה לִּי מֵתָה מֵחֲמַת עַצְמָהּ אוֹ הִכָּה בְּסַיִף וֶהֱמִיתָהּ אוֹ שְׁבָרָהּ אֲרִי וֶהֱמִיתָהּ. הָא אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁנִּטְרְפָה וְלֹא מֵתָה:

⁶When a person eats an olive-sized portion of a kosher14I.e., like the prohibition of nevelah, the prohibition of trefe does not apply with regard to non-kosher species. domesticated animal, wild beast, or fowl that was mortally wounded is liable for lashes, as [Exodus 22:30] states: "Do not eat meat [from an animal that was] mortally wounded (trefe) in the field. Cast it to the dogs."15I.e., even if it was slaughtered properly before it died, the meat is, nevertheless, forbidden, as stated in the following halachah. Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 181) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 73) include this among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.The term trefe employed by the Torah refers to [an animal] mortally wounded by a wild beast, e.g., a lion, a tiger, or the like, or a fowl mortally wounded by a bird of prey, e.g., a hawk or the like.16As the Rambam proceeds to explain in Halachah 8, the term trefe also applies in other situations. Nevertheless, there is an added dimension of severity to the laws applying to animals that are mortally wounded by beasts, as stated in Hilchot Shechitah 5:3 (Maggid Mishneh; Kessef Mishneh). We cannot say that the term trefe refers to an animal that was attacked and killed, for if it died, it is a nevelah. What difference does it make if it died naturally, was struck by a sword or died, or was battered by a lion and died? Thus [the term trefe] must refer to an instance when it was mortally wounded, but did not die.

ז׳וְאִם הַטְּרֵפָה שֶׁלֹּא מֵתָה אֲסוּרָה יָכוֹל אִם בָּא זְאֵב וְגָרַר הַגְּדִי בְּרַגְלוֹ אוֹ בִּזְנָבוֹ אוֹ בְּאָזְנוֹ וְרָדַף אָדָם וְהִצִּילוֹ מִפִּיו יִהְיֶה אָסוּר שֶׁהֲרֵי נִטְרַף תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (שמות כב ל) "וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵפָה" וְגוֹ' (שמות כב ל) "לַכֶּלֶב תַּשְׁלִיכוּן אֹתוֹ". עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ בָּשָׂר הָרְאוּיָה לַכֶּלֶב. הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁהַטְּרֵפָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַּתּוֹרָה הִיא שֶׁטָּרְפָה אוֹתוֹ חַיַּת הַיַּעַר וְשָׁבְרָה אוֹתָהּ וְנָטָה לָמוּת וַעֲדַיִן לֹא מֵתָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּדַם וּשְׁחָטָהּ קֹדֶם שֶׁתָּמוּת הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה מִשּׁוּם טְרֵפָה הוֹאִיל וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּחְיֶה מִמַּכָּה זוֹ הַבָּאָה עָלֶיהָ:

⁷If an animal that is mortally wounded is forbidden, shall we say that if a wolf or a lion comes and drags a kid by its foot, its tail, or its ear, and a man pursues [the beast] and saves [the kid], it will be forbidden, because it was attacked?17The term trefe literally means "preyed upon." Our translation "mortally wounded" is the halachic definition as the Rambam proceeds to explain. The Torah states: "Do not eat meat [from an animal that was] mortally wounded (trefe) in the field. Cast it to the dogs." [An animal is not considered trefe] unless it was brought to a state that its meat is fit [only] for the dogs. Thus we have learned that the term trefe employed by the Torah refers to [an animal] that was attacked by a wild beast and battered by it that has not died yet. Even if the person hurries and slaughters it before it dies, it is forbidden as trefe. For it is impossible that it will live after suffering such wounds.

ח׳נִמְצֵאתָ לָמֵד שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה אָסְרָה הַמֵּתָה וְהִיא הַנְּבֵלָה. וְאָסְרָה הַנּוֹטָה לָמוּת מֵחֲמַת מַכּוֹתֶיהָ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא מֵתָה וְהִיא הַטְּרֵפָה. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁלֹּא תַּחֲלֹק בְּמִיתָה בֵּין מֵתָה מֵחֲמַת עַצְמָהּ בֵּין שֶׁנָּפְלָה וָמֵתָה בֵּין שֶׁחֲנָקָהּ עַד שֶׁמֵּתָה בֵּין שֶׁדְּרָסַתָּה חַיָּה וַהֲרָגַתָּה. כָּךְ לֹא תַּחֲלֹק בְּנוֹטָה לָמוּת בֵּין שֶׁטְּרָפַתָּה חַיָּה וּשְׁבָרַתָּה בֵּין שֶׁנָּפְלָה מִן הַגַּג וְנִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ רֹב צַלְעוֹתֶיהָ בֵּין שֶׁנָּפְלָה וְנִתְרַסְּקוּ אֵיבָרֶיהָ בֵּין שֶׁזָּרַק בָּהּ חֵץ וְנָקַב לִבָּהּ אוֹ רֵאָתָהּ בֵּין שֶׁבָּא לָהּ חלִי מֵחֲמַת עַצְמָהּ וְנָקַב לִבָּהּ אוֹ רֵאָתָהּ אוֹ שִׁבֵּר רֹב צַלְעוֹתֶיהָ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. הוֹאִיל וְהִיא נוֹטָה לָמוּת מִכָּל מָקוֹם הֲרֵי זוֹ טְרֵפָה. בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה הַגּוֹרֵם בִּידֵי בָּשָׂר וָדָם בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם. אִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר בַּתּוֹרָה (שמות כב ל) "טְרֵפָה". דִּבֵּר הַכָּתוּב בַּהוֹוֶה. שֶׁאִם לֹא תֹּאמַר כֵּן לֹא תֵּאָסֵר אֶלָּא אוֹתָהּ שֶׁנִּטְרְפָה בַּשָּׂדֶה אֲבָל אִם נִטְרְפָה בֶּחָצֵר לֹא תֵּאָסֵר. הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁאֵין הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בַּהוֹוֶה:

⁸Thus we have learned that the Torah forbade [an animal] that died, a nevelah, and it forbade one that was on the verge of death because of its wounds even though it has not died yet, i.e., a trefe.Now we do not make a distinction with regard to an animal that has died regardless of whether it died naturally, it fell and died, it was strangled until it died, or it was attacked by a wild beast who killed it. Similarly, we do not make a distinction between an animal that is on the verge of death, regardless of whether it was attacked by an animal and battered, fell from the roof and broke the majority of its ribs,18This and the following examples are specifically mentioned by the Rambam in Hilchot Shechitah 10:1, 9:8, 11:4, 6:1. fell and crushed its limbs, it was shot with an arrow and its heart or lung pierced, it developed an illness that caused its heart or lung to be perforated, one broke the majority of its ribs, or the like. Since it is on the verge of death regardless of the cause, it is a trefe. [This applies] whether [its wound] was caused by flesh and blood or by God's hand.If so, why does the Torah use the term trefe? For Scripture speaks with regard to prevalent situations.19This is a general principle employed by our Sages with regard to the interpretation of the Torah's language. When it mentions a specific situation, it is not confining itself to the limited setting mentioned in the verse, but applies to other circumstances as well. Why is that situation mentioned? Because it is common. [We are forced] to say this. If not, only an animal that was mortally wounded in the field would be forbidden.20For only that is in the direct scope of the verse. One that is mortally wounded in a courtyard would not be forbidden. Thus we learn that Scripture [is employing this example,] only because it speaks with regard to prevalent situations.

ט׳וְעִנְיַן הַכָּתוּב שֶׁהַנּוֹטָה לָמוּת מֵחֲמַת מַכּוֹתֶיהָ וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לָהּ לִחְיוֹת מֵחֲמַת מַכָּה זוֹ אֲסוּרָה. מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל שֶׁאֵין כָּמוֹהָ חַיָּה טְרֵפָה. וּבְהִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה יִתְבָּאֵר אֵי זֶה חלִי עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ טְרֵפָה וְאֵי זֶה חלִי אֵין עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ טְרֵפָה:

⁹The intent of the verse is that [an animal] that is mortally wounded and will not live21Longer than twelve months (Hilchot Shechitah 11:1). because of these wounds is forbidden. On this basis, our Sages said:22Chulin 42a. "This is the general principle: Whenever [an animal] in this condition will not live, it is trefe." In Hilchot Shechitah,23From Chapter Five to Chapter Eleven. A concise list is found in Chapter 10, Halachah 9. we will explain which conditions cause an animal to be deemed trefe and which do not cause it to be deemed trefe.

י׳וְכֵן הַחוֹתֵךְ בָּשָׂר מִן הַחַי מִן הַטְּהוֹרִים הֲרֵי אוֹתוֹ הַבָּשָׂר טְרֵפָה וְהָאוֹכֵל מִמֶּנּוּ כְּזַיִת לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל טְרֵפָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי בָּשָׂר זֶה מִבְּהֵמָה שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁחֲטָה וְלֹא מֵתָה. מַה לִּי טָרְפָה אוֹתָהּ חַיָּה מַה לִּי חֲתָכָהּ בְּסַכִּין מַה לִּי בְּכֻלָּהּ מַה לִּי בְּמִקְצָתָהּ. הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר (שמות כב ל) "וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵפָה לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ" כֵּיוָן שֶׁנַּעֲשֵׂית הַבְּהֵמָה בָּשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה הֲרֵי הִיא טְרֵפָה:

¹⁰Similarly, when one cuts meat from a living kosher24For as mentioned above, the prohibition against partaking of a trefe applies only with regard to kosher animals. animal, one receives lashes for partaking of a trefe.25See Chapter Five, Halachot 2-3, where the Rambam distinguishes between this prohibition and the prohibition against partaking of a limb from a living animal. Note, however, Hilchot Melachim 9:10-11 where the Rambam includes eating the meat from an animal and eating a limb from an animal as a single prohibition for a gentile. For this meat comes from an animal that has not been ritually slaughtered and has not died. [Hence it is comparable to a trefe.] What difference does it make to me if it was attacked by an animal or cut by a knife? And what difference does it make if [the animal] was [wounded] in its totality or only a portion of it was wounded?26I.e., just as we forbid the meat of an animal that was mortally wounded, we should forbid a portion of meat that was cut off with a knife. For the verse states: "Do not eat meat [from an animal that was] trefe in the field." Since [a portion of] the animal was made meat in the field,27I.e., the meat was cut off from its natural place. See also Chapter 5, Halachah 9. it is trefe.

י״אבְּהֵמָה שֶׁהִיא חוֹלָה מֵחֲמַת שֶׁתָּשַׁשׁ כֹּחָהּ וְנָטְתָה לָמוּת הוֹאִיל וְלֹא אֵרְעָה מַכָּה בְּאֵיבָר מֵאֵיבָרֶיהָ הַמְּמִיתִים אוֹתָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. שֶׁלֹּא אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא כְּעֵין טְרֵפַת חַיַּת הַיַּעַר שֶׁהֲרֵי עָשָׂה בָּהּ מַכָּה הַמְּמִיתָה אוֹתָהּ:

¹¹When an animal is sick because it is weakened and is on the verge of death, it is permitted, because it did not suffer a wound in any one of the limbs and organs that will cause it to die. For the Torah forbade only those situations resembling an animal mortally wounded by a preying wild beast. In that situation, the animal wounded it with a blow that caused it to die.28With this explanation, the Rambam is clarifying the distinction Chulin 37a makes between an animal which is misukenet (dangerously ill) and trefe. The trefe condition is a result of wound, while in the case of a misukenet, all of its limbs and organs are sound. Nevertheless, as stated in Hilchot Trefot 5:2, there are other physical conditions which render an animal trefe even if it has not been attacked by an animal. These conditions were communicated as halachot to Moses at Sinai.

י״באַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא מֻתֶּרֶת גְּדוֹלֵי הַחֲכָמִים לֹא הָיוּ אוֹכְלִין מִבְּהֵמָה שֶׁמְּמַהֲרִין וְשׁוֹחֲטִין אוֹתָהּ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תָּמוּת וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁפִּרְכְּסָה בְּסוֹף שְׁחִיטָה. וְדָבָר זֶה אֵין בּוֹ אִסּוּר אֶלָּא כָּל הָרוֹצֶה לְהַחֲמִיר עַל עַצְמוֹ בְּדָבָר זֶה הֲרֵי זֶה מְשֻׁבָּח:

¹²Although it is permitted, the great sages would not partake [of the meat] of an animal which people were hurrying to slaughter before it died.29The Maggid Mishneh (based on Chullin 37b) interprets this as a gesture of pious conduct. Note, however, Siftei Cohen 17:8. [This applies] even if it makes convulsive movements after being slaughtered.30Such a convulsive movement is a sign that it was alive at the time that it was slaughtered, as the Rambam continues to explain in the following halachah. This is a matter that does not involve a prohibition. Nevertheless, whoever desires to accept this stringency upon himself is praiseworthy.31The Maggid Mishneh quotes opinions that maintain that this leniency was granted only to alleviate the financial loss a Jewish owner of an animal would suffer. Therefore, meat from an animal belonging to a gentile which is in such a condition should not be eaten. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 116:7) quotes this ruling.

י״גהַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף וְלֹא יָצָא מֵהֶן דָּם הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין וְאֵין אוֹמְרִין שֶׁמָּא מֵתִים הָיוּ. וְכֵן הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַבְּרִיאָה וְלֹא פִּרְכְּסָה הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. אֲבָל הַמְסֻכֶּנֶת וְהִיא כָּל שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ וְאֵינָהּ עוֹמֶדֶת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא אוֹכֶלֶת מַאֲכַל בְּרִיאוֹת אִם שְׁחָטָהּ וְלֹא פִּרְכְּסָה כְּלָל הֲרֵי זוֹ נְבֵלָה וְלוֹקִין עָלֶיהָ. וְאִם פִּרְכְּסָה הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הַפִּרְכּוּס בְּסוֹף הַשְּׁחִיטָה. אֲבָל בִּתְחִלָּתָהּ אֵינוֹ מוֹעִיל:

¹³When a person slaughters a domesticated animal, wild beast, or fowl and blood does not flow out from them, they are permitted. We do not say: perhaps they were dead already. Similarly, when one slaughters a healthy animal and it does not make convulsive movements, it is permitted.Different [rules apply with regard to an animal that] is dangerously ill, i.e., one which cannot maintain itself when others cause it to stand it up.32It must be able to stand up on its own when called or hit with a switch. If it is stood up by hand, it is still considered dangerously ill even if it is able to remain standing [Rama (Yoreh De'ah 17:1); Siftei Cohen 17:1]. [It is placed in this category] even if it eats the food of healthy animals. If [such an animal] is slaughtered and does not make any convulsive movements at all, it is a nevelah33I.e., we assume that it died before the slaughter was completed (see Chulin 38a). and one is liable for lashes [for partaking] of it. If it makes convulsive movements, it is permitted.The convulsive movements must be made at the end of the slaughter. If they are made at the beginning, they are of no consequence.

י״דכֵּיצַד הוּא הַפִּרְכּוּס בִּבְהֵמָה דַּקָּה וּבְחַיָּה גַּסָּה וְדַקָּה. בֵּין שֶׁפָּשְׁטָה יָדָהּ וְהֶחֱזִירָה אוֹ שֶׁפָּשְׁטָה רַגְלָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הֶחֱזִירָה אוֹ שֶׁכְּפָפָה רַגְלָהּ בִּלְבַד הֲרֵי זֶה פִּרְכּוּס וּמֻתָּר. אֲבָל אִם פָּשְׁטָה יָדָהּ וְלֹא הֶחֱזִירָתָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ אֲסוּרָה שֶׁאֵין זוֹ אֶלָּא הוֹצָאַת נֶפֶשׁ בִּלְבַד. וּבִבְהֵמָה גַּסָּה אֶחָד הַיָּד וְאֶחָד הָרֶגֶל בֵּין שֶׁפָּשְׁטָה וְלֹא כָּפְפָה בֵּין כָּפְפָה וְלֹא פָּשְׁטָה הֲרֵי זוֹ פִּרְכּוּס וּמֻתֶּרֶת. וְאִם לֹא פָּשְׁטָה לֹא יָד וְלֹא רֶגֶל וְלֹא כָּפְפָה כְּלָל הֲרֵי זוֹ נְבֵלָה. וּבְעוֹף אֲפִלּוּ לֹא רִפְרֵף אֶלָּא בְּעֵינוֹ וְלֹא כִּשְׁכֵּשׁ אֶלָּא בִּזְנָבוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה פִּרְכּוּס:

¹⁴What is meant by convulsive movements? For a small domesticated animal and for both a small and a large wild beast, the intent is that it extended its foreleg and returned it, extended its hind leg even though it did not return it, or merely bent its hind leg.34The Maggid Mishneh and the Siftei Cohen 17:4 quote opinions that rule that if a small domesticated animal's foreleg was extended and it bent it, that is sufficient to render it acceptable. This is considered a convulsive movement and [the animal] is permitted. If, however, it merely extended its foreleg and did not return it, it is forbidden. [This movement is] merely a result of the expiration of the soul.With regard to a large domesticated animal, [more lenient laws apply]. If it either extended its foreleg or its hind leg without bending it or bent its foreleg or hind leg without extending it, it is considered as a convulsive movement and it is permitted. If, however, it neither extended or bent its foreleg or its hind leg at all, it is considered as a nevelah.With regard to a fowl, even if it only blinked its eyelid35Note the Siftei Cohen 17:5 which quotes different versions of Chullin 38b that state that a fowl must move its wing. Winking its eyes is not sufficient. or swatted its tail, it is considered a convulsive movement.36The Maggid Mishneh (and the Turei Zahav 17:4 and the Siftei Cohen 17:6) quote opinions that maintain that swishing its tail is also sufficient for an animal to be considered as having made a convulsive movement.

ט״והַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַמְסֻכֶּנֶת בַּלַּיְלָה וְלֹא יָדַע אִם פִּרְכְּסָה אוֹ לֹא פִּרְכְּסָה הֲרֵי זוֹ סְפֵק נְבֵלָה וַאֲסוּרָה:

¹⁵When one slaughters an animal that is dangerously ill at night and does not know37I.e., because he cannot see. Needless to say, if the room is illuminated, this law does not apply. whether or not it made convulsive movements, it is forbidden, because of the possibility that it is a nevelah.38I.e., we follow the principle that when a doubt concerning a Scriptural prohibition is involved, we rule stringently.

ט״זכָּל אִסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה חוּץ מֵאִסּוּרֵי נָזִיר כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר שָׁם. לְפִיכָךְ הַלּוֹקֵחַ מְעַט חֵלֶב וּמְעַט דָּם וּמְעַט בְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה וּמְעַט בְּשַׂר נְבֵלָה וּמְעַט בְּשַׂר דָּג טָמֵא וּמְעַט בְּשַׂר עוֹף טָמֵא וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּאֵלּוּ מִשְּׁאָר הָאִסּוּרִין וְצֵרֵף מִן הַכּל כְּזַיִת וַאֲכָלוֹ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה וְדִינוֹ כְּדִין אוֹכֵל חֲצִי שִׁעוּר:

¹⁶None of the substances prohibited by the Torah can be combined with each other [to reach the minimum measure for which one is liable for lashes] with the exception of the prohibitions that apply to a nazarite, as explained in that source.39As stated in Hilchot Nazirut 5:3, although there are separate prohibitions against eating raisins, grape peels, grape seeds, and partaking of wine, if one combined all these substances together, one is liable. Therefore when a person takes a small amount of fat, a small amount of blood, a small amount of the meat of a non-kosher animal, a small amount of the meat of a nevelah, a small amount of the meat of a non-kosher fish, a small amount of the meat of a non-kosher fowl, or the like from other prohibited substances, although he collects an olive-sized portion from the entire mixture and partakes of it, he is not liable for lashes. He is bound by the laws that apply when one eats half the minimum measure [of a forbidden] substance.40In which instance, the prohibition is Scriptural in origin, but lashes are not given (Chapter 3, Halachah 6).The Rambam's statements in this and the following halachah touch on an issue of general significance. Rabbi Meir (Avodah Zarah 66a) maintains that forbidden substances of different types can be combined together to make a person liable for lashes. The Sages differ and maintain that they cannot be combined, but instead are judged individually. If there is enough of the one substance to make one liable, he is liable. If not, he is exempt.The principle stated in Halachot 18-19 is a correlory to these concepts. Since the forbidden substances are not combined with each other, but are instead considered as discrete entities, they help nullify each other, as explained there.

י״זכָּל הַנְּבֵלוֹת מִצְטָרְפוֹת זוֹ עִם זוֹ. וּנְבֵלָה מִצְטָרֶפֶת עִם טְרֵפָה. וְכֵן כָּל בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה הַטְּמֵאִים מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה. אֲבָל בְּשַׂר נְבֵלָה עִם בְּשַׂר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין. כֵּיצַד. הַלּוֹקֵחַ מִנִּבְלַת הַשּׁוֹר וְנִבְלַת הַצְּבִי וְנִבְלַת הַתַּרְנְגוֹל וְקִבֵּץ מִן הַכּל כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר וַאֲכָלוֹ לוֹקֶה. וְכֵן אִם קִבֵּץ חֲצִי זַיִת מִנִּבְלַת בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה וַחֲצִי זַיִת מִן הַטְּרֵפָה אוֹ חֲצִי זַיִת מִבְּשַׂר נְבֵלָה וַחֲצִי זַיִת מִבָּשָׂר מִן הַחַי מִן הַטְּהוֹרָה וַאֲכָלוֹ לוֹקֶה. וְכֵן בְּשַׂר הַגָּמָל וְהַחֲזִיר וְהָאַרְנֶבֶת שֶׁקִּבֵּץ מִכֻּלָּם כְּזַיִת וַאֲכָלוֹ לוֹקֶה. אֲבָל אִם צֵרֵף חֲצִי זַיִת מִנִּבְלַת הַשּׁוֹר וַחֲצִי זַיִת מִבְּשַׂר הַגָּמָל אֵינָן מִצְטָרְפִין. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְכֵן בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה וְעוֹף טָמֵא אוֹ דָּג טָמֵא אֵין בְּשַׂר שְׁנֵיהֶן מִצְטָרֵף. לְפִי שֶׁהֵן שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת. שֶׁהֲרֵי כָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶן בְּלָאו בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. אֲבָל כָּל הָעוֹפוֹת הַטְּמֵאִין מִצְטָרְפִין כְּמוֹ שֶׁמִּצְטָרְפִין כָּל בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה הַטְּמֵאִין. זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל שֶׁאִסּוּרָן בְּלָאו אֶחָד מִצְטָרְפִין. בִּשְׁנֵי לָאוִין אֵין מִצְטָרְפִין. חוּץ מִנְּבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה הוֹאִיל וְהַטְּרֵפָה תְּחִלַּת נְבֵלָה הִיא:

¹⁷All [types of] nevelot may be combined together. A nevelah may be combined with a trefe. All the non-kosher animals and wild beasts may be combined with each other. But the meat of a nevelah and the meat of a non-kosher animal may not be combined.What is implied? When one takes [some meat] from a nevelah of an ox, some from the nevelah of a deer, some from the nevelah of a chicken and combined it so that he has an olive-sized portion of meat, he is liable for lashes if he eats it. Similarly, if he collected half of an olive-sized portion from the nevelah of a kosher animal and half of an olive-sized portion from a trefe, or half of an olive-sized portion from the meat of a nevelah and half from meat taken from a living kosher animal,41For this is included in the prohibition against a trefe, as stated in Halachah 10. he is liable if he eats it. Similarly, if he collects an olive-sized portion [by combining] the meat of a camel, a pig, and a hare,42Although each one of these species is mentioned separately in the Torah, they are all included in the same prohibition. he is liable if he eats it.If, by contrast, he takes half of an olive-sized portion of a nevelah of an ox and half an olive-sized portion of a camel [an eats it], they are not combined.43The Ra'avad mentions that this point is the subject of a difference of opinion among the Sages of the Talmud, seemingly implying that the opinion which maintains that they should be combined should be followed. The Maggid Mishneh justifies the Rambam's position. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations. Similarly, the meat of a non-kosher animal, fowl, or fish are not combined for they involve different prohibitions. For each one is forbidden by a separate negative commandment, as we explained.44See Chapter 2. Nevertheless, all the forbidden species of fowl can be combined as may all the forbidden species of domesticated animals and wild beasts.This is the general principle: Whenever substances are included in the same prohibition, they may be combined. [If they are included] in two [separate] prohibitions, they are not combined. The [only] exceptions are a nevelah and a trefe. [The rationale is that] a trefe is the beginning of [an animal] becoming a nevelah.

י״חהָאוֹכֵל מִנְּבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה אוֹ מִבְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה הַטְּמֵאִים מִן הָעוֹר וּמִן הָעֲצָמוֹת וּמִן הַגִּידִים וּמִן הַקַּרְנַיִם וּמִן הַטְּלָפַיִם וּמִן הַצִּפָּרְנַיִם שֶׁל עוֹף מִמְּקוֹמוֹת שֶׁמְּבַצְבֵּץ מִשָּׁם הַדָּם כְּשֶׁיֵּחָתְכוּ וּמִן הַשִּׁלְיָא שֶׁלָּהֶן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵלּוּ אֵינָן רְאוּיִין לַאֲכִילָה וְאֵין מִצְטָרְפִין עִם הַבָּשָׂר לִכְזַיִת:

¹⁸When a person eats the skin, the bones, the sinews,45Note the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chulin 9:1) which interprets the Hebrew term giddim as also referring to veins, arteries, and nerves. the horns, or the hoofs46This applies even if the portions eaten were soft and blood spurts from them. of a nevelah, a trefe, or a non-kosher domesticated animal or wild beast, from the nails of a non-kosher fowl in the places where blood would spurt through when they are cut off, or from their placenta,47As stated in Halachah 5. although this is forbidden, he is not liable. [The rationale is that] they are not fit to be eaten. They cannot be combined with meat [in the measure of] an olive-sized portion.

י״טקֵיבַת הַנְּבֵלָה וְקֵיבַת הַטְּמֵאָה מֻתֶּרֶת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא כִּשְׁאָר טִנֹּפֶת שֶׁבַּגּוּף. וּלְפִיכָךְ מֻתָּר לְהַעֲמִיד הַגְּבִינָה בְּקֵיבַת שְׁחִיטַת הָעַכּוּ"ם וּבְקֵיבַת בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה טְמֵאָה. אֲבָל עוֹר הַקֵּבָה הֲרֵי הוּא כִּשְׁאָר הַמֵּעַיִם וְאָסוּר:

¹⁹[Milk found in] the stomach of a nevelah and the stomach of a non-kosher animal48The Rambam does not distinguish between milk that has coagulated and milk that is fluid. For even if it is fluid, it is already considered as a waste product. (Kessef Mishneh). is permitted, for it is like other waste products of the body. Therefore, it is permitted to use [milk found in] the stomach of an animal slaughtered by a gentile or the stomach of a non-kosher domesticated animal or wild beast to cause cheese to solidify.49I.e., since the digestive juices from the animal's stomach have already mixed with this milk, it will be an effective catalyst to cause the large quantity of milk to curdle and harden into cheese. See also Chapter 3, Halachah 13, and Chapter 9, Halachah 15.The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 81:6) differs and quotes Rabbenu Tam's opinion states that liquid milk found in the stomach of a forbidden species is forbidden. Moreover, at the outset, one should not use even dried milk found in the stomach of a non-kosher animal as a catalyst because of the impression it will create. After the fact, it is permitted. The skin of the stomach, by contrast, is like the other digestive organs and is forbidden.

כ׳עוֹר הַבָּא כְּנֶגֶד פָּנָיו שֶׁל חֲמוֹר מֻתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּמוֹ הַפֶּרֶשׁ וּמֵי רַגְלַיִם שֶׁהֵן מֻתָּרִין. יֵשׁ עוֹרוֹת שֶׁהֵן כְּבָשָׂר וְהָאוֹכֵל מֵהֶן כְּזַיִת כְּאוֹכֵל מִן הַבָּשָׂר. וְהוּא כְּשֶׁיֹּאכַל אוֹתָן כְּשֶׁהֵן רַכִּים:

²⁰The placenta of a donkey50Our translation is based on the glosses of Rashi and Tosafot, Bechoros 7b. The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling and maintains that this placenta is forbidden. The Maggid Mishneh justifies the Rambam's ruling. is permitted to be eaten because it is like dung and urine which is permitted. There is skin which is considered like meat and one who partakes of an olive-sized portion is considered like one who eats an olive-sized portion of meat, provided one partakes of it when it is soft.51And not processed so that it becomes hard like leather.

כ״אוְאֵלּוּ שֶׁעוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן כִּבְשָׂרָן. עוֹר הָאָדָם וְעוֹר הַחֲזִיר שֶׁל יִשּׁוּב וְעוֹר חֲטוֹטֶרֶת שֶׁל גָּמָל שֶׁלֹּא טָעֲנוּ עָלָיו מַשָּׂא מֵעוֹלָם וְלֹא הִגִּיעַ לְמַשָּׂא שֶׁעֲדַיִן הִיא רַכָּה וְעוֹר בֵּית הַבּשֶׁת וְעוֹר שֶׁתַּחַת הָאַלְיָה וְעוֹר הַשָּׁלִיל וְעוֹר הָאֲנָקָה וְהַכֹּחַ וְהַלְּטָאָה וְהַחֹמֶט. כָּל אֵלּוּ הָעוֹרוֹת כְּשֶׁהֵן רַכּוֹת הֲרֵי הֵן כְּבָשָׂר לְכָל דָּבָר בֵּין לְאִסּוּר אֲכִילָה בֵּין לְטֻמְאָה:

²¹The following [types of] skins are considered like meat: the skin of a human, the skin of a domesticated pig,52That of a wild boar, by contrast, is too tough to be eaten. the skin of a camel's hump upon which a burden has never been loaded, [because] it has not reached the age [to serve as a beast] of burden, for then it is still soft, the skin of genital area, the skin that is below the tail, the skin of a fetus, the skin of the hedgehog, the chameleon, the lizard, the snail.53As mentioned in the notes to Chapter 2, Halachah 7, the names of these species are a matter of debate. When all of these skins are soft, they are considered like meat with regard to all matters, whether with regard to [liability54This addition is necessary, for there is a prohibition against partaking of any skin, as stated in Halachah 18. for] the prohibition against partaking of them or with regard to the laws of ritual purity.55For an olive-sized portion of the meat of a nevelah can convey ritual impurity, while a hide or a piece of leather that size does not.

כ״בנֶאֱמַר בְּשׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל (שמות כא כח) "וְלֹא יֵאָכֵל אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ". וְהֵיאַךְ הָיָה אֶפְשָׁר לְאָכְלוֹ אַחַר שֶׁנִּסְקַל וַהֲרֵי הוּא נְבֵלָה. אֶלָּא לֹא בָּא הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ לִסְקִילָה נֶאֱסַר וְנַעֲשָׂה כִּבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה. וְאִם קָדַם וּשְׁחָטוֹ שְׁחִיטָה כְּשֵׁרָה הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה. וְאִם אָכַל מִבְּשָׂרוֹ כְּזַיִת לוֹקֶה. וְכֵן כְּשֶׁיִּסָּקֵל לֹא יִמָּכֵר וְלֹא יִתְּנֶנּוּ לִכְלָבִים וְלֹא לְעַכּוּ"ם לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר לֹא יֵאָכֵל אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ. וּפֶרֶשׁ שֶׁל שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל מֻתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה. נוֹדַע שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר מִסְּקִילָה אַחַר שֶׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ כְּגוֹן שֶׁהוּזְמוּ הָעֵדִים יֵצֵא וְיִרְעֶה בָּעֵדֶר. וְאִם נוֹדַע אַחַר שֶׁנִּסְקָל הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר בַּהֲנָיָה:

²²With regard to an ox condemned to be stoned,56For goring a human being. See Hilchot Nizkei Mammon, ch. 10, which explains the pertinent laws. [Exodus 21:28] states: "Its meat shall not be eaten." Now, how could one think that it would be eaten after it was stoned to death, for it is a nevelah?57For it died without ritual slaughter. Instead, the Torah is coming to teach you that once it has been sentenced to execution by stoning, it becomes forbidden; it becomes like a non-kosher animal. [Even] if one hurried and slaughtered it in an acceptable manner [before it was executed], it is forbidden to benefit from it.58Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 188) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 52) include this among the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.Instead, the corpse of the executed animal should be buried (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:11). If one eats an olive-sized portion of its meat, he is liable for lashes. And when it is executed by stoning, its [meat] should not be sold or given to the dogs or to a gentile, [as implied by the phrase]: "shall not be eaten."59As stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 15, unless there is a teaching that states otherwise, this phrase implies both a prohibition against eating and a prohibition against deriving benefit. It is permitted [to benefit from] the dung of an ox condemned to be stoned.60As stated in Hilchot Ishut 5:2, the rationale is that the dung is considered of negligible importance with regard to the ox itself. As implied by Halachah 20, the dung of an animal is not considered as part of the animal itself, nor is it included in the prohibitions applying to it.If it is discovered that [a condemned ox] is not liable to be stoned after it was sentenced, e.g., the witnesses who testified against it were disqualified, it may be sent out to pasture with the herd. If this was discovered after it was executed, it is permitted to benefit from [its meat].