meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Mishnah/Seder Kodashim/Mishnah Chullin/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.txt"}
text: Mishnah Chullin
  משנה חולין
  Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
  
  
  Mishnah Chullin
  
  
  
  
  
  All may slaughter, and their slaughtering is valid, except a deaf-mute, an imbecile or a minor, lest they mess up [the animal] through their slaughtering. And if any of these slaughtered while others were standing over them, their slaughtering is valid. That which is slaughtered by a non-Jew is a nevelah and defiles by carrying. If one slaughtered at night, and also a blind man that slaughtered, the slaughtering is valid. One who slaughtered on Shabbat or Yom Kippur, even though he is liable for his own life, the slaughtering is valid.
  If one slaughtered with [the smooth edge of] a hand sickle, with a flint or with a reed, the slaughtering is valid. All may slaughter; at all times one may slaughter; and with any implement one may slaughter, except a scythe, a saw, teeth or a finger nail, since these strangle. One who slaughtered with a scythe, moving it forward only: Bet Shammai declare it invalid, But Bet Hillel declare it valid. If the teeth of the scythe were filed away it is regarded as an ordinary knife.
  If one slaughtered [by cutting] at the [top] ring [of the trachea] and left a hair's breadth of its entire circumference [towards the head], the slaughtering is valid. Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Judah says: if there was only left [towards the head] a hair's breadth of the greater part of its circumference, [the slaughtering is valid].
  If one cut at the side [of the neck], the slaughtering is valid. If one nipped off [the head of a bird sacrifice] from the side of the neck, the nipping is invalid. If one cut at the back of the neck, the slaughtering is invalid. If one nipped off [the head] from the back of the neck, the nipping is valid. If one cut at the front of the neck, the slaughtering is valid. If one nipped off [the head] from the front of the neck, the nipping is invalid. For the whole of the back of the neck is the appropriate place for nipping, and the whole of the front of the neck is the appropriate place for slaughtering. It follows, therefore, that the place which is appropriate for slaughtering is inappropriate for nipping, and the place which is appropriate for nipping is inappropriate for slaughtering.
  [The age] which qualifies turtle doves [for sacrifice] disqualifies pigeons, and [the age] which qualifies pigeons [for sacrifice] disqualifies turtle doves. At the period when the neck feathers begin to turn yellow in either kind they are disqualified.
  [The method of killing] which renders the red cow valid renders the heifer invalid, and the method which renders the heifer valid renders the red cow invalid. [The disability] which does not disqualify priests disqualifies Levites, and [the disability] which does not disqualify Levites disqualifies priests. That which cannot be rendered unclean in earthenware vessels can be rendered unclean in all other vessels, and that which cannot be rendered unclean in all other vessels can be rendered unclean in earthenware vessels. That which cannot be rendered unclean in wooden things can be rendered unclean in metal things, and that which cannot be rendered unclean in metal things can be rendered unclean in wooden things. When bitter almonds are subject to tithing sweet almonds are exempt, and when sweet almonds are subject to tithing bitter almonds are exempt.
  Temed: Before it has fermented it may not be bought with second tithe money and it renders a mikveh invalid; After it has fermented it may be bought with second tithe money and it does not render a mikveh invalid. Brothers who are partners [in their inheritance]: When they are liable to pay the kalbon, they are exempt from the cattle tithe, And when they are liable to the cattle tithe, they are exempt from the kalbon. Whenever there is [the power] to sell, there is no fine, and whenever there is a fine there is no power to sell. Whenever there is the right of refusal there can be no halizah, and whenever there can be halizah there is no longer the right of refusal. When the shofar is blown there is no havdalah, and when there is habdalah the shofar is not blown. [Thus], if a festival falls on the day before Shabbat the shofar is blown but there is no havdalah; If it falls on the day following Shabbat there is havdalah but the shofar is not blown. How do they recite havdalah [on a festival that follows Shabbat]? “Who distinguishes between holy and holy.” Rabbi Dosa says: “Who distinguishes between the more holy and less holy day.”
  
  
  
  If one cut one [of the organs of the throat] in the case of a bird, or both organs in the case of cattle, the slaughtering is valid. The greater part of an organ is equivalent to [the whole of] it. Rabbi Judah says: he must cut through the veins. [If one cut] half of one organ in the case of a bird, or one and a half organs in the case of cattle, the slaughtering is invalid. [If one man cut] the greater part of one organ in the case of a bird, or the greater part of each organ in the case of cattle, the slaughtering is valid.
  If one slaughtered two animals simultaneously, the slaughtering is valid. If two persons held the knife and slaughtered, even if one cut higher up and the other cut lower down [in the neck], the slaughtering is valid.
  If he chopped off the head with one stroke, the slaughtering is invalid. He was slaughtering and he cut through the neck with one stroke, if the knife was as long as the neck, the slaughtering is valid. If he was slaughtering and he cut off two heads at the same time, if the knife is as long as the neck it is valid. When is this so? When the slaughterer moved the knife forward and not backward, or backward and not forward; but if he moved the knife to and fro, however small it was, even if it was a scalpel, the slaughtering is valid. If a knife fell down and slaughtered [an animal], even though it slaughtered it in the proper way, the slaughtering is invalid, for it is said, "And you shall slaughter and eat," that which you slaughter, you may eat. If [while slaughtering] the knife fell and he picked it up, if his clothes fell and he picked them up, if he sharpened the knife, or if he got tired and his friend came and [continued] slaughtering, if he delayed the time that it takes to slaughter, it is invalid. Rabbi Shimon says: if he delayed the time it takes to examine the slaughtering.
  If one first sliced the esophagus and then cut away the windpipe, or first cut away the windpipe and then sliced the esophagus; or if he sliced one of these organs and paused until the animal died; or if he thrust the knife underneath the second organ and cut it: [In all these cases] Rabbi Yeshevav says: the animal is nevelah; Rabbi Akiva says: it is terefah. Rabbi Yeshevav stated this general rule in the name of Rabbi Joshua: whenever an animal is rendered invalid by a fault in the slaughtering it is nevelah; whenever an animal has been duly slaughtered but is rendered invalid by some other defect it is terefah. And Rabbi Akiba [ultimately] agreed with him.
  If one slaughtered cattle or a wild beast or a bird and no blood came out, they are valid and may be eaten by him whose hands have not been washed, for they have not been rendered susceptible to impurity by blood. Rabbi Shimon says: they have been rendered susceptible to impurity by the slaughtering.
  One who slaughtered a dying animal: Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: [the slaughtering is invalid] unless it jerked its foreleg and its hind leg. Rabbi Eliezer says: it is enough if it spurted [the blood]. Rabbi Shimon said: even if one slaughtered [a dying animal] by night and the following morning he got up early and found the sides [of the throat] full of blood, the slaughtering is valid, for this proves that it spurted [the blood], as is Rabbi Eliezer's measure. The sages say: [the slaughtering is invalid] unless it jerked either its foreleg or its hind leg, or it moved its tail to and fro. This is the test both with regard to large and small animals. If a small animal stretched out its foreleg [at the end of the slaughtering] but did not withdraw it, [the slaughtering] is invalid, for this was just an indication of the expiration of its life. When do these rules apply? To case of an animal which was believed to be dying. But if it was believed to be sound, even though it did not show any of these signs, the slaughtering is valid.
  If one slaughtered for a non-Jew, the slaughtering is valid. Rabbi Eliezer declares it invalid. Rabbi Eliezer said: even if one slaughtered a beast with the intention that a non-Jew should eat [only] its liver, the slaughtering is invalid, for the thoughts of a non-Jew are usually directed towards idolatry. Rabbi Yose said: is there not a kal vehomer argument? For if in the case of consecrated animals, where a wrongful intention can render invalid, it is established that everything depends solely upon the intention of him who performs the service, how much more in the case of unconsecrated animals, where a wrongful intention cannot render invalid, is it not logical that everything should depend solely upon the intention of him who slaughters!
  If one slaughtered [an animal] as a sacrifice to mountains, hills, seas, rivers, or deserts, the slaughtering is invalid. If two persons held a knife and slaughtered [an animal], one intending it as a sacrifice to one of these things and the other for a legitimate purpose, the slaughtering is invalid.
  One may not slaughter [so that the blood runs] into the sea or into rivers, or into vessels, But one may slaughter into a pool (or vessel) of water. And when on board a ship on to vessels. One may not slaughter at all into a hole, but one may dig a hole in his own house for the blood to run into. In the street, however, he should not do so as not to follow the ways of the heretics.
  If one slaughtered [an unconsecrated animal outside the Temple court] for it to be an olah or a shelamim or an asham for a doubtful sin or as a Pesah or a todah, the slaughtering is invalid. But Rabbi Shimon declares it valid. If two persons held one knife and slaughtered [an unconsecrated animal outside the Temple court], one declaring it to be one of the above and the other intending it for a legitimate purpose, the slaughtering is invalid. If one slaughtered [an unconsecrated animal outside the Temple court] for it to be a hatat or an asham or a first-born or the tithe [of cattle] or a substitute offering, the slaughtering is valid. This is the general rule: if one slaughtered an animal declaring it to be a sacrifice which can be brought either as a voluntary or a freewill-offering it is invalid, but if he declares it to be a sacrifice which cannot be brought either as a votive or a freewill-offering it is valid.
  
  
  
  The following [defects] render cattle terefah:If the esophagus was pierced; If the windpipe severed; If the membrane of the brain was pierced; If the heart was pierced as far as its cavity thereof; If the spine was broken and the cord severed; If the liver was gone and none of it remained; If the lung was pierced, Or if part of it was missing Rabbi Shimon says: only if it was pierced as far as the main bronchi; If the stomach, If the gall-bladder was pierced, If the intestines were pierced; If the innermost stomach was pierced, If the greater part of the outer stomach was pierced. Rabbi Judah says: in a large animal [if it was torn] to the extent of a handbreadth, and in a small animal the greater part. If the omasum (the third stomach of a ruminant) [was pierced]; Of if the second stomach was pierced on the outside; If the animal fell from the roof; If most of its ribs were fractured; Or if it was mauled by a wolf Rabbi Judah says: small animals [are terefah] if mauled by a wolf, large cattle if mauled by a lion; small fowl if mauled by a hawk, large fowl if mauled by a falcon. This is the rule: if an animal with a similar defect could not continue to live, it is terefah.
  And the following [defects] do not render cattle terefah:If the windpipe was pierced, or cracked [lengthwise]. To what extent may it be deficient? Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: up to an Italian issar. If the skull was cracked but the membrane of the brain was not pierced; If the heart was pierced but not as far as its cavity; If the spine was broken but the cord was not severed; If the liver was removed but an olive's size of it remained. If the omasum or the third stomach were pierced at their juncture; If the spleen was removed, or the kidneys, or the lower jaw-bone or the womb. If [the lung] was shrunken up by an act of Heaven. If an animal was stripped of its hide: Rabbi Meir declares it valid But the rabbis declare it invalid.
  The following [defects] render birds terefah:If the esophagus was pierced, If the windpipe was severed; If a weasel struck [the bird] on the head in such a place as would render it terefah. If the gizzard was pierced If the intestines were pierced. If it fell into the fire and its innards were scorched: If they turned green, it is invalid, But if they remained red it is valid. If one trod upon it or knocked it against a wall or if an animal trampled upon it, and it still jerks its limbs, and it remained alive after this for twenty-four hours, and it was thereafter slaughtered, it is valid.
  And the following [defects] do not render birds terefah:If the windpipe was pierced or cracked lengthwise; If a weasel struck it on the head in such a place as would not render it terefah. If the crop was pierced Rabbi says: even if it was gone. If the innards protruded [from the body] but were not pierced. If its wings were broken, or its legs; or if [the wing’s] feathers were plucked. Rabbi Judah says: if its down was gone it is invalid.
  [If an animal] suffered from congestion of the blood, or was overcome by smoke or by a cold, or if it ate oleander or chicken dung, or if it drank noxious water, it is permitted. If it ate poison or was bitten by a snake, it is not forbidden as trefah but it is forbidden as a danger to life.
  The characteristics of cattle and of wild animals are stated in the Torah. The characteristics of birds are not stated, but the sages said: every bird that seizes its prey is unclean. Every bird that has an extra toe, or a crop and a gizzard that can be peeled, is clean. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: every bird that parts its toes is unclean.
  Of locusts: all that have four legs, four wings, leaping legs, and wings covering the greater part of the body, [are clean.] Rabbi Yose says: its name must be locust. Of fishes: all that have fins and scales [are clean]. Rabbi Judah says: there must be [at least] two scales and one fin. The scales are those which are immovable, the fins are those [wings] by which it swims.
  
  
  
  If an animal was having difficulty giving birth and the fetus put forth a limb and then put it back in, it may be eaten [when its mother is slaughtered]. If it put forth its head, even though it put it back in, it is considered as born. Whatever is cut off from the fetus within the womb [and left inside] may be eaten, but whatever is cut off from the spleen or kidneys [of the animal and left inside] may not be eaten. This is the rule: that which is from the body of the animal is forbidden, but that which is not from the body of the animal is permitted.
  If an animal giving birth for the first time was having difficulty, one may cut off each limb [as it comes out] and throw it to the dogs. If the greater portion came forth it must be buried, and she is exempt from the law of the firstling.
  If a fetus died within the womb [of its mother] and the shepherd put in his hand and touched it, he is clean, whether it was a clean or unclean animal. Rabbi Yose HaGalili says: if it was an unclean animal he is unclean, and if it was a clean animal he is clean. If the fetus of a woman died within the womb of its mother and the midwife put in her hand and touched it, the midwife is unclean for seven days, but the mother is clean until the fetus comes out.
  If an animal was having difficulty in labor and the fetus put forth its limb and a person immediately cut if off and then slaughtered the mother, the flesh [of the fetus] is clean. If he slaughtered the mother first and then cut if off, the flesh [of the fetus] is unclean like that which had touched nevelah, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say, it is like that which had touched a slaughtered terefah, For just as we find that the slaughtering of a terefah animal renders it clean, so the slaughtering of the animal renders the limb clean. Rabbi Meir said to them: No, for when you say that the slaughtering of a terefah [animal] renders it clean you are concerned with [the animal] itself, but can you say that it will render clean the limb which is not part of [the animal] itself? From where do we learn that the slaughtering of a terefah animal renders it clean? [For we could have argued to the contrary:] An unclean animal may not be eaten, and a terefah also may not be eaten; just as slaughtering does not render an unclean animal clean so slaughtering should not render a terefah animal clean? No, if you said this of an unclean animal for at no time was it fit [for slaughtering]; can you also say this of a terefah animal which had a time when it was fit [for slaughtering]? Take away with this argument that you brought forth! For where would we know this of an animal that was born terefah from the womb? [Substitute therefore this argument]: No, if you said this of an unclean animal for none of its kind may be validly slaughtered; can you also state this of a terefah for whose kind there is valid slaughter? [Accordingly], the slaughtering of a live eight months birth does not render it clean, since there is no slaughtering of its kind.
  If one slaughtered an animal and found in it an eight months’ fetus, either living or dead, or a dead nine months fetus, he need only tear it open and take out the blood. If he found in it a living nine months’ fetus it must be slaughtered, and he would thereby [possibly] incur the penalty for “it and its young,” the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: the slaughtering of its mother renders it permitted. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: even if it is eights years old and is plowing the field, the slaughtering of its mother renders it permitted. If he ripped open [the mother] and found in it a living nine months fetus, it must be slaughtered, since its mother has not been slaughtered.
  If the hind legs of an animal were cut off below the joint, it is permitted; If above the joint, it is terefah. So too if the juncture of the tendons was gone, [it is terefah]. If the bone was broken but the greater part of the flesh [around the fracture] remained, it is rendered clean by the slaughtering; Otherwise it is not rendered clean by the slaughtering.
  If a person slaughtered an animal and found in it an amniotic sac, he who is not fastidious may eat it. It does not contract uncleanness, either food uncleanness or the uncleanness of nevelah. If he intended to eat it, it can contract food uncleanness but not the uncleanness of nevelah. If part of the amniotic sac emerged [before the slaughtering of the mother], it may not be eaten; For it is a sign of birth in a woman and also a sign of birth in an animal. If an animal which was pregnant for the first time miscarried an amniotic sac, it may be thrown to dogs. But in the case of a consecrated animal it must be buried. It may not be buried at cross-roads or hung on a tree, for these are amorite practices.
  
  
  
  [The law of] “It and its young” applies both within the land of Israel and outside it, both during the existence of the Temple and after it, in respect of both unconsecrated and consecrated animals. How so? If a person slaughtered an animal and its young, both animals being unconsecrated, [and they slaughtered them] outside [the sanctuary], they are both valid, but [he who slaughtered] the second incurs forty lashes. If both animals were consecrated [and they were slaughtered] outside [the sanctuary], [he who slaughtered] the first incurs the penalty of karet, both animals are invalid, and each incurs forty lashes. If both animals were unconsecrated [and they were slaughtered] inside [the sanctuary], both animals are invalid, and [he who slaughtered] the second incurs forty lashes. If both animals were consecrated [and they were slaughtered] inside [the sanctuary], the first is valid and [he who slaughtered it is] not culpable, but [he who slaughtered] the second incurs forty lashes, and it is invalid.
  If [the first animal was] unconsecrated and [the second] consecrated [and they were both slaughtered] outside [the sanctuary], the first is valid and [he who slaughtered it is] not liable, but [he who slaughtered] the second incurs forty lashes and it is invalid. If [the first was] consecrated and [the second] unconsecrated [and they were both slaughtered] outside [the sanctuary], [he who slaughtered] the first incurs the penalty of karet and it is invalid, and the second [animal] is valid, and each incurs forty lashes. If [the first was] unconsecrated and [the second] consecrated [and they were both slaughtered] inside [the sanctuary], they are both invalid, and [he who slaughtered] the second incurs forty lashes. If [the first was] consecrated and [the second] unconsecrated [and they were both slaughtered] inside [the sanctuary], the first animal is valid and [he who slaughtered it is] not liable, but [he who slaughtered] the second incurs forty lashes and it is invalid. If both were unconsecrated and [the first was slaughtered] outside [the sanctuary] and [the second] inside, the first is valid and [he who slaughtered it is] not liable, but [he who slaughtered] the second incurs forty lashes and it is invalid. If both were consecrated and [the first was slaughtered] outside [the sanctuary] and [the second] inside, [he who slaughtered] the first incurs the penalty of karet, each incurs forty lashes, and both animals are invalid. If both were unconsecrated and [the first was slaughtered] inside [the sanctuary] and [the second] outside, the first is invalid and [he who slaughtered it is] not liable, but [he who slaughtered] the second incurs forty lashes and it is valid. If both were consecrated and [the first was slaughtered] inside [the sanctuary] and [the second] outside, the first is valid and [he who slaughtered it is] not liable, but [he who slaughtered] the second incurs forty lashes and it is invalid.
  If a person slaughtered [an animal] and it was found to be terefah, or if he slaughtered [it as an offering] to idols, or if he slaughtered the red cow, or an ox which was condemned to be stoned, or a heifer whose neck was to be broken: Rabbi  Shimon exempts [him from having transgressed the law of “it and its young”]; But the sages make him liable. If a person slaughtered [an animal] and it became nevelah under his hand, or if he stabbed it, or tore away [the organs of the throat], he does not thereby transgress the law of it and its young. If two people bought a cow and its young, he who bought first can slaughter first; but if the second preceded him, he holds his advantage. If a person slaughtered a cow and then two of its calves, he is liable for eighty lashes. If he slaughtered its two calves and then the cow, he is liable for forty lashes. If he slaughtered it and then its calf and then the calf's offspring, he is liable for eighty lashes. If he slaughtered it and then its calf's offspring and then the calf, he is liable for forty lashes. Symmachos says in the name of r. Meir: he is liable for eighty lashes. At four periods in the year he who sells a beast to another must inform him, “I sold today its mother to be slaughtered,” or “I sold today its young to be slaughtered,” and these are they:  on the eve of the last day of the feast [of Sukkot], on the eve of the first day of Pesah, on the eve of Shavuot, and on the eve of Rosh Hashanah. According to Rabbi Yose the Galilean, also on the eve of Yom Kippur, in the Galilee. Rabbi Judah says, this is so, only when there was no time in between the sales, but if there was time, he need not inform him. Rabbi Judah agrees that if he sold the mother to the bridegroom and the young to the bride, he must inform them of it, for it is certain that they will each slaughter on the same day.
  At these four periods a butcher can be compelled to slaughter against his will. Even if the ox was worth a thousand dinars and the purchaser has only [paid] a dinar, they can force the butcher to slaughter it. Therefore if the animal died, the loss is upon the purchaser. At other times of the year it is not so, therefore if the animal died, the loss is upon the seller.
  The “one day” mentioned in connection with the law of “it and its young” means the day and the night preceding it. This was how Rabbi Shimon ben Zoma expounded (darash): it says “one day” (Genesis 1:5) in connection with the creation and it also says “one day” (Leviticus 22:28) in connection with “it and its young” Just as the “one day” mentioned in connection with the creation means the day and the night preceding it, so too the “one day” mentioned in connection with “it and its young” means the day and the night preceding it.
  
  
  
  [The law of] “covering up the blood” applies both within the land of Israel and outside it, both during the existence of the Temple and after it, It applies to unconsecrated animal, but not consecrated animals. It applies [only] to wild animals and birds, whether they are at one's disposal or not. It applies also to a koy, for it is an animal about which there is a doubt. It may [therefore] not be slaughtered on a festival; and if it was slaughtered [on a festival] one may not cover up its blood.
  If a person slaughtered [a wild animal or a bird] and it was found to be terefah, or if he slaughtered [it as an offering] to idols, or if he slaughtered that which was unconsecrated inside the sanctuary or that which was consecrated outside, or if he slaughtered a wild animal or a bird that was condemned to be stoned: Rabbi Meir makes him liable to cover up the blood; But the sages make him exempt. If he slaughtered [a wild animal or a bird] and it became nevelah under his hand, or if he stabbed it, or tore away [the organs of the throat], he is exempt from covering up [the blood].
  If a deaf-mute, an imbecile or a minor slaughtered while others watched them, one must cover up the blood; But if they were alone, they are exempt from covering it up. Similarly for the matter of “it and its young”: if they slaughtered while others watched them, it is forbidden to slaughter after them [the mother/young], But if they were alone: Rabbi Meir permits to slaughter after them [the mother/young]. But the rabbis forbid it. They agree, that if a person did slaughter [after them], he has not incurred forty lashes.
  If a person slaughtered a hundred wild animals in one place, one covering suffices for all. If [he slaughtered] a hundred birds in one place, one covering suffices for all. If [he slaughtered] a wild animal and a bird in one place, one covering suffices for both. Rabbi Judah says: if he slaughtered a wild animal he should cover up its blood and then slaughter the bird [and cover it up also]. If a person slaughtered and did not cover up the blood and another person saw it, the other must cover it up. If he covered it up and it became uncovered, he need not cover it up again. If the wind covered it up, he must cover it up again.
  If the blood became mixed with water and it still has the color of blood, it must be covered up. If it became mixed with wine, [the wine] is to be regarded as though it was water. If it became mixed with the blood of a beast or with the blood of a wild animal, it is to be regarded as though it was water. Rabbi Judah says: blood does not annul other blood.
  The blood which spurted out and that which is upon the knife must also be covered up. Rabbi Judah says: when is this the case? When there is no other blood but that; but when there is other blood besides this, it need not be covered up.
  With what may one cover up [the blood] and with what may one not cover it up?One may cover it up with fine dung, with fine sand, with lime, with white clay, or a brick or an earthenware stopper [of a cask] that have been ground into powder. But one may not cover it up with coarse dung or coarse sand, or with a brick or an earthenware stopper [of a cask] that have not been ground into powder. Nor may one cover it with a vessel. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel stated a general rule: one may cover it with anything in which plants would grow; but one may not cover it with anything in which plants would not grow.
  
  
  
  [The prohibition of] the sciatic nerve is in force both within the land and outside it, both during the existence of the Temple and after it, in respect of both unconsecrated and consecrated [animals]. It applies to cattle and to wild animals, to the right and left hip. But it does not apply to a bird because it does not have a socket [on its hip]. It applies to a fetus. Rabbi Judah says: it does not apply to a fetus. And its [forbidden] fat is permitted. Butchers are not trustworthy with regard to the [removal of the] sciatic nerve, the words of Rabbi Meir. The sages say: they are trustworthy with regard to it as well as with regard to the [forbidden] fat.
  One may send to a non-Jew a thigh in which the sciatic nerve has not been removed, because its place is known. When a person removes the sciatic nerve he must remove all of it. Rabbi Judah says: only so much as is necessary to fulfill the mitzvah of removing it.
  If a person ate an olive’s bulk of the sciatic nerve, he incurs forty stripes. If he ate all of it and it was not as much as an olive's bulk, he is liable. If he ate an olive’s bulk of it from one thigh and another olive’s bulk of it from the other thigh, he incurs eighty stripes. Rabbi Judah says: he incurs only forty stripes.
  If a thigh was cooked together with the sciatic nerve and there was enough [of the nerve] as to impart a flavor [to the thigh], it is forbidden. How does one measure this? As if it were meat [cooked] with turnips.
  A sciatic nerve which was cooked with other [permitted] nerves: If it can still be recognized, [then all the nerves are prohibited] if [the sciatic nerve] imparts a flavor. But if it can no longer [be recognized] then they are all forbidden. And the broth [is prohibited] if it [the sciatic nerve] imparts a flavor. And so it is with a piece of nevelah, or a piece of an unclean fish that was cooked together with other pieces of flesh [or fish]: If it can still be recognized, [then all are prohibited] if it imparts a flavor. But if it can no longer [be recognized] then they are all forbidden. And the broth [is prohibited] if it [the sciatic nerve] imparts a flavor.
  It applies to clean animals but not to unclean. Rabbi Judah says, even to unclean animals. Rabbi Judah said: was not the sciatic nerve prohibited from the time of the sons of Jacob, and at that time unclean animals were still permitted to them? They replied, this law was ordained at Sinai but was written in its proper place.
  
  
  
  Every kind of flesh is forbidden to be cooked in milk, except for the flesh of fish and of locusts. And it is also forbidden to place it upon the table with cheese, except for the flesh of fish and of locusts. One who vows not to eat meat, he is allowed to eat the flesh of fish and locusts. Fowl may be placed upon the table together with cheese but may not be eaten with it, the words of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel say: it may neither be placed [upon the table together with cheese] nor eaten with it. Rabbi Yose said: this is one of the leniencies of Bet shammai and the stringencies of Bet Hillel . Concerning what table did they speak? Concerning the table upon which one eats; but on the table whereon the food is set out one may place the one beside the other, and not be concerned.
  A person may wrap up meat and cheese in one cloth, provided they do not touch one another. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: two people at an inn may eat at the same table, the one meat and the other cheese, without concern.
  If a drop of milk fell on a piece of meat and it imparted a flavor into that piece, it is forbidden. If he stirred up the pot, then it is forbidden only if [the drop of milk] imparted a flavor into [all that was in] the pot. The udder: he must cut it open and empty it of its milk; If he did not cut it open he has not transgressed the law on its account. The heart: he must cut it open and empty it of its blood; If he did not cut it open he has not transgressed the law on its account. One who puts fowl onto a table with cheese has not transgressed a negative commandment.
  It is forbidden to cook the meat of a clean animal in the milk of a clean animal or to derive any benefit from it. But it is permitted to cook the meat of a clean animal in the milk of an unclean animal or the meat of an unclean animal in the milk of a clean animal and to derive benefit from it. Rabbi Akiva says: wild animals and fowls are not included in the prohibition of the Torah, for it is written three times, “You shall not seethe a kid in its mother's milk;” to exclude wild animals, fowl, and unclean animals. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says, it is said, “You shall not eat any nevelah” and [in the same verse] it says, “You shall not seethe a kid in its mother's milk” (Deuteronomy 14:21) anything that is prohibited because of nevelah it is forbidden to cook in milk. Fowl which is prohibited because of nevelah, it might also be forbidden to cook in milk, Scripture says, “In its mother’s milk;” this excludes fowl which has no mother's milk.
  The [milk in the] stomach [of an animal] of a Gentile or [in the stomach of] a nevelah is forbidden. If a man curdled milk with the skin of the stomach of an animal that was validly slaughtered and it imparted its flavor [to the milk] it is forbidden. The [milk in the] stomach of a validly slaughtered animal which had suckled from a terefah animal is forbidden. The [milk in the] stomach of a terefah animal which had suckled from a kosher animal is permitted, because the milk is collected inside.
  In certain respects the prohibition of the fat is stricter than the prohibition of the blood, and in certain respects the prohibition of the blood is stricter than the prohibition of the fat. The prohibition of the fat is stricter, in that the fat is subject to the law of sacrilege, and one is obligated over it for piggul, notar, and uncleanness which is not the case with the blood. And the prohibition of the blood is stricter, for it applies to cattle, wild animals and fowl, whether clean or unclean; but the prohibition of the fat applies to clean cattle only.
  
  
  
  The hide, meat juice, sediment, dried-up meat, bones, sinews, horns and hooves join together [to make up the minimum quantity in order] to convey food-uncleanness, but not to [make up the minimum quantity in order to] convey nevelah-uncleanness. Similarly, if a man slaughtered an unclean animal for a Gentile and it still has convulsions, it can convey food-uncleanness, but it conveys nevelah-uncleanness only after it is dead, or its head has been chopped off. [Scripture] has [thus] made more cases that convey food-uncleanness than those that convey nevelah-uncleanness. Rabbi Judah says: if an olive’s bulk of dried-up meat was gathered in one place, one would thereby become liable [for nevelah-uncleanness].
  In the following cases the skin is considered flesh: The skin of a person, The skin of the domesticated pig. Rabbi Yose says: even the skin of the wild pig. The skin of the hump of a young camel. The skin of the head of a young calf. The skin around the hooves. The skin of the pudenda. The skin of a fetus. The skin beneath the fat tail. The skin of the gecko, the monitor, the lizard and the skink. Rabbi Judah says: the lizard is like the weasel. If any of these skins was tanned or trampled upon as much as [was usual] for tanning, it becomes clean, excepting the skin of a man. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: the eight reptiles have [real] skins.
  One who was flaying cattle or wild animals, clean or unclean, small or large: In order to use the hide for a covering, if he stripped as can be taken hold of [the hide is no longer considered as connected to the flesh.] In order to make a water-skin, until the breast has been flayed. If he was flaying from the feet upwards, until the whole hide [has been flayed]. [All of these measures apply] for both conveying uncleanness and becoming unclean. As for the skin that is on the neck: Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: it is not connected. But the sages say it is connected until the whole hide has been flayed.
  A hide which had an olive’s bulk of [unclean] flesh clinging to it, one who touches a shred hanging from it, or a hair that was opposite to it, he becomes unclean. If there were two pieces of flesh attached to it, each the size of half an olive, they convey uncleanness by carrying but not by contact, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: neither by contact nor by carrying. Rabbi Akiva agrees that if there were two pieces of flesh, each the size of half of an olive, that he stuck on a twig and he waved them, he becomes unclean. Why then does Rabbi Akiva declare him clean in the [case where they cling to the] hide? Because the hide renders them negligible.
  With regard to a thigh-bone of a corpse or a thigh-bone of a consecrated animal, he who touches it, whether it be stopped up or pierced, becomes unclean. With regard to a thighbone of a nevelah or of a [dead] sheretz, if it was stopped up, he who touches it remains clean, but if it was at all pierced it conveys uncleanness by contact. From where do we know [the same rules apply] for carrying? Scripture says, “He that touches and he that carries” (Leviticus 11:39-40), anything that [can become unclean] by contact [can become unclean] by carrying. And anything that cannot [become unclean] by contact, cannot become [unclean] by carrying.
  The egg of a sheretz in which there has formed an embryo is clean. If it was pierced, however small the hole was, it is unclean. A mouse which is half flesh and half earth, if a man touched the flesh he becomes unclean, but if he touched the earth he remains clean. Rabbi Judah says: even if he touched the earth that is over against the flesh he becomes unclean.
  Limbs or pieces of flesh which hang loose from a [living] animal are susceptible to food uncleanness while they are in their place. And [in order to become unclean] they must be first rendered susceptible to uncleanness. If the animal was slaughtered, they have by the blood [of the slaughtering] become susceptible to uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says: they have not become susceptible to uncleanness. If the animal died, the hanging flesh must be rendered susceptible to uncleanness. The limb is unclean as a limb severed from a living creature, but is not unclean as the limb of a nevelah (carcass), the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon declares it clean.
  A limb or a piece of flesh which hangs loose from a person are clean. If the man died, the flesh is clean, the limb is unclean as a limb severed from the living body but is not unclean as a limb severed from a corpse, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon declares it clean.
  
  
  
  The [law of] the shoulder and the cheeks and the stomach is in force both within the Land and outside it, both during the existence of the Temple and after it, in respect of unconsecrated animals but not consecrated animals. For it might have been argued thus: if unconsecrated animals, which are not subject to the law of the breast and the thigh, are subject to these dues, how much more are consecrated animals, with are subject to the law of the breast and the thigh, subject also to these dues! Scripture states, “And I have given them to Aaron the priest and his sons as a due for ever” (Leviticus 7:34) only what is mentioned in this passage shall be his.
  All consecrated animals whose permanent physical blemish preceded their consecration and were then redeemed: Are subject to the law of the firstling and to the priestly gifts, And when they become like hullin [by being redeemed] they may be shorn and may be put to work. And their young and their milk are permitted after they have been redeemed. And he who slaughtered them outside the sanctuary is not liable. And they do not render what is substituted for them [holy]. And if they died they may be redeemed, except for the firstling and the tithe of cattle. All [consecrated animals] whose consecration preceded their permanent, or their impermanent blemish [preceded] their consecration and subsequently they contracted a permanent blemish, and they were redeemed: Are exempt from the law of the firstling, and from priestly gifts; And they are not like unconsecrated animals to be shorn or put to work; And [even] after they have been redeemed their young and their milk are forbidden; And he who slaughtered them outside the sanctuary is liable; And they render what was substituted for them [holy], And if they died they must be buried.
  A first-born got mixed up with a hundred other animals: If a hundred [and one] persons slaughtered them all, they are all exempt from the gifts. If one person slaughtered them all, only one animal is exempt from the gifts. If a man slaughtered an animal for a priest or a non-Jew, he is exempt from the gifts. If he had a share [in the animal] with them, he must indicate this by some sign. If he said, “Except the gifts” he is exempt from giving the gifts. If he said, “Sell me the entrails of a cow” and among them were the gifts, he must give them to a priest and [the seller] does not need to reduce the price. But if he bought them from him by weight, he must give them to a priest, and [the seller] must reduce the price.
  A convert who converted and owned a cow: If he slaughtered it before he converted, he is exempt from giving the gifts. If [he slaughtered it] after he converted, he is liable. If there was a doubt about it, he is exempt, for the burden of proof lies upon the claimant. What is ‘the shoulder’? From the joint up to the shoulder-socket of the forelimb, and this is the same for the nazirite. The corresponding part of the hind leg is called the thigh. Rabbi Judah says: the thigh extends from the joint up to the fleshy part of the leg. What counts as ‘the cheek? From the joint of the jaw to the last protrusion of the windpipe.
  
  
  
  The law of the first of the fleece is in force both within the Land and outside it, both during the existence of the Temple and after it, in respect of unconsecrated animals but not consecrated animals. The law of the shoulder and the cheeks and the stomach is of stricter application than the law of the first of the fleece; for the law of the shoulder and the cheeks and the stomach applies both to herds and flocks, whether they are many or few, whereas the law of the first of the fleece applies only to sheep, and only when there are many.
  How much is “many”? Bet Shammai say: [at least] two sheep, as it is said, “A man shall rear a young cow and two sheep (tzon)” (Isaiah 7:21). Bet Hillel say: five, as it is said, “Five dressed sheep (tzon)” (I Samuel 28:18). Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas says: five sheep, which each produce [a fleece which weighs] a maneh and a half, are subject to the law of the first of the fleece. But the sages say: five sheep, whatever their fleeces weigh. And how much should one give him?  The weight of five selas in Judah, which is equal to ten selas in Galilee. Bleached wool and not dirty wool, sufficient to make from it a small garment, for it is written, “Give him,” when there is enough to be considered a gift. If the owner did not manage to give [the fleece to the priest] until he dyed it, he is exempt. If he bleached it but did not dye it, he is still liable. If a man bought the fleeces of a flock belonging to a non-Jew, he is exempt from the law of the first of the fleece. If a man bought the fleeces of a flock belonging to his neighbor: If the seller kept some back, the seller is liable, But if he did not withhold anything, the buyer is liable. If he had two kinds of wool, grey and white, and he sold the grey but not the white, or [if he sold the wool] of the males but not of the females, each must give [the first of the fleece] for himself.
  
  
  
  The law of letting [the mother bird] go from the nest is in force both within the holy land and outside it, both during the existence of the Temple and after it, in respect of unconsecrated birds but not consecrated birds. The law of covering up the blood is of broader application than the law of letting [the mother bird] go; for the law of covering up the blood applies to wild animals as well as to birds, whether they are at one's disposal or not, whereas the law of letting [the mother bird] go from the nest applies only to birds and only to those which are not at one's disposal. Which are they that are not at one's disposal? Such as geese and fowls that made their nests in the open field. But if they made their nests within a house or in the case of Herodian doves, one is not bound to let [the mother bird] go.
  An unclean bird one is not obligated to let it go. If an unclean bird was sitting on the eggs of a clean bird, or a clean bird on the eggs of an unclean bird, one is not obligated to let it go. As to a male partridge: Rabbi Eliezer obligates [one to let it go]. But the sages exempt.
  If the mother was hovering [over the nest]: If her wings touch the nest, one is obligated to let her go; If her wings do not touch the nest, one is not obligated to let her go. If there was but one young bird or one egg [in the nest], one is still obligated to let the mother go, for it is written: “A nest,” [implying], any nest whatsoever. If there were there young birds able to fly or spoiled eggs, one is not obligated to let [the mother] go, for it is written, “And the mother sitting up on the young or upon the eggs:” Just as the young are living beings so the eggs must be such as [would produce] living beings; this excludes spoiled eggs. And just as the eggs need the care of the mother so the young must be such as need the care of the mother; this excludes those that are able to fly. If one let [the mother] go and she returned, even four of five times, he is still obligated [to let her go again], for it is written, “You shall surely let the mother go.” If one said, “I will take the mother and let the young go,” he is still obligated [to let her go], for it is written, “You shall surely let the mother go.” If one took the young and brought them back again to the nest, and afterwards the mother returned to them, he is not obligated to let her go.
  If one took the mother with the young: Rabbi Judah says: he has incurred [forty] lashes and he need not now let her go. But the sages say: he must let her go, and he does not incur lashes. This is the general rule: [For the transgression of] any negative commandment which has of a remedy by the subsequent fulfillment of a positive commandment one does not incur lashes.
  One may not take the mother with the young even for the sake of purifying the metzora. If in respect of so light a commandment, which deals with that which is but worth an issar, the Torah said, “In order that you may fare well and have a long life”, how much more [must be the reward] for the observance of the more difficult commandments in the Torah!