💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Forbi… captured on 2024-05-10 at 12:30:23. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
4 [1] A 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*." 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. [2] Only 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, only because one ate the meat of a non-kosher animal. [3] When a person eats an [entire] kosher fowl 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. If he ate it after it died, it must be the size of an olive [for him to be liable]. 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*. [4] When a person partakes of an olive-sized portion of a stillborn fetus 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]. For whenever an animal has not lived for eight days, we consider it as stillborn, but lashes are not administered [for partaking] of it. [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. [5] The placenta that is expelled together with the newborn is forbidden to be eaten. A person who eats it, however, is not liable, because it is not [considered] meat. [6] When a person eats an olive-sized portion of a kosher 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."
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. 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. [7] If 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? 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. [8] Thus 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, 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. [We are forced] to say this. If not, only an animal that was mortally wounded in the field would be forbidden. 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. [9] The intent of the verse is that [an animal] that is mortally wounded and will not live because of these wounds is forbidden. On this basis, our Sages said: "This is the general principle: Whenever [an animal] in this condition will not live, it is *trefe*." In *Hilchot Shechitah*, we will explain which conditions cause an animal to be deemed *trefe* and which do not cause it to be deemed *trefe*. [10] Similarly, when one cuts meat from a living kosher animal, one receives lashes for partaking of a *trefe*. 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? 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, it is *trefe*. [11] When 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. [12] Although it is permitted, the great sages would not partake [of the meat] of an animal which people were hurrying to slaughter before it died. [This applies] even if it makes convulsive movements after being slaughtered. This is a matter that does not involve a prohibition. Nevertheless, whoever desires to accept this stringency upon himself is praiseworthy. [13] When 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. [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 *nevelah* 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. [14] What 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. 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 eyelid or swatted its tail, it is considered a convulsive movement. [15] When one slaughters an animal that is dangerously ill at night and does not know whether or not it made convulsive movements, it is forbidden, because of the possibility that it is a *nevelah*. [16] None 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. 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. [17] All [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, 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, 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. 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. 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*. [18] When a person eats the skin, the bones, the sinews, the horns, or the hoofs 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, 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. [19] [Milk found in] the stomach of a *nevelah* and the stomach of a non-kosher animal 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. The skin of the stomach, by contrast, is like the other digestive organs and is forbidden. [20] The placenta of a donkey 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. [21] The following [types of] skins are considered like meat: the skin of a human, the skin of a domesticated pig, 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. When all of these skins are soft, they are considered like meat with regard to all matters, whether with regard to [liability for] the prohibition against partaking of them or with regard to the laws of ritual purity. [22] With regard to an ox condemned to be stoned, [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*? 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. 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." It is permitted [to benefit from] the dung of an ox condemned to be stoned.
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].
Version: Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007
Source: https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001020101/NLI
License: CC-BY-NC