Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin

Sefaria · Mishnah > Rishonim on Mishnah > Bartenura > Seder Kodashim · 509 sections

1.1.1
הכל שוחטין – There is a refutation in the Gemara [that the words] הכל שוחטין –”everyone may [perform the act of ritual] slaughter [of animals]” [refer to the case] ab initio [and the words] ושחיטתן –”their slaughtering” [refers to a case] de facto, since from the beginning [of the Mishnah] [these words] imply that what we include from [the words]הכל שוחטין –”everyone may [perform the act of ritual] slaughter [of animals]” ab initio and from the conclusion [of the Mishnaic phrase] implies that when we include from [the word] הכל–”everyone” post facto, we [in fact] extend it, but ab initio, we do not extend [what is included in] it; and that we cannot say that our Mishnah withholds something ab initio and that one thing [only] is taught. And since [the Mishnah] teaches הכל שוחטין–everyone may [perform the act of ritual] slaughter [of animals], it is obvious that is fit [i.e. kosher] and that the upshot is [that] our Mishnah is explained as such in the Gemara. [The words] שוחטין–” [imply that] everyone may [perform the act of ritual] slaughter [of animals]” [means] that everyone who are specialists who know the laws of ritual slaughter [of animals] [may perform the act of] slaughter[ing] animals [ritually] even though they are not [necessarily] presumed for it, for they have not slaughtered [ritually] in the presence of us [i.e. the judges] three times to see if they have the [inner] fortitude not to be overcome (i.e., his hand not trembling – see Hullin 3b] while slaughtering and cause a pausing in the act of slaughtering [which would nullify their act ritually]. What case are we referring to? That they are considered specialists at the time that those who deliver to him [an animal] to ritually slaughter know and recognize in him that he knows the laws of ritual slaughter, but if they do not know concerning him if he [indeed] knows the laws of ritual slaughter, he should not [perform] a ritual slaughter, and if he did slaughter [an animal ritually], we examine him, and if he knows the laws of ritual slaughter, his [act of] slaughter[ing] is [considered] kosher–fit.
1.1.2
חוץ מחרש שוטה וקטן – For even post facto, and [even if] they (i.e., the deaf-mute, imbecile and minor] know the laws of ritual slaughter, it is forbidden to eat from their slaughtering, since they are always presumed to ruin it since they lack [mature] awareness.
1.1.3
וכולן ששחטו – Since it [our Mishnah] does not teach [the words] “ואם שחטו–and if they slaughtered” but rather [taught the words] “וכולן ששחטו–and everyone who slaughtered” implies that it [the words] do not [refer to] the deaf-mute, imbecile and minor alone, but even regarding those who they [i.e. the judges] do not know if [the individual] knows the laws of ritual slaughter since the first part of the Mishnah refers to [the fact] that they examine him or bring him before them to examine him and he slaughters and others seem him and bring him before them to examine him, his slaughtering is [considered] kosher–fit but the law does not follow this Mishnah but rather, even though others do not see him and bring him [i.e. the slaughterer] before them to examine him, his slaughtering is [considered] kosher–fit, since most [people who are engaged] in ritual slaughter are specialists and even ab initio, may slaughter, even if though others do not see him [perform this act].
1.1.4
שחיטת עובד כוכבים – even [if the act of a ritual slaughter performed by an idolater] if it is done according to Jewish law with a Jew standing over him, it [his act of slaughtering] is considered to be like that of a carrion (an animal who died naturally) but it is not prohibited to derive benefit from [his act of slaughtering] since specifically the act of slaughtering of a person who holds fast to his idolatrous beliefs, [a Jew] is prohibited to derive benefit [from his acts], but not regarding the thinking of a heretic regarding idolatrous practices, but the idolater spoken of here is from those actions follow the behavior of his ancestors.
1.1.5
ומטמאה במשא – As it is written (Leviticus 11:40): “[anyone who eats of its carcass shall wash his clothes and remain clean until evening;] and anyone who carries his carcass shall wash his clothes and remain clean until evening.” And even though he had not touched it. For the Mishnah did not have to teach this, for since it is something that died of itself (i.e., “neveilah”), it is known that an animal that died of itself defiles [an individual] by carrying it (i.e., a dead carcass), but it (the Mishnah) comes to inform you, that this defiles only via carrying alone, and there are others which defile even through content in the tent (where it is found). And which is this? An offering to an idol (Avodah Zarah 32b).
1.1.6
השוחט בלילה וכן הסומא – The Mishnah teaches that an individual who slaughters [an animal] at night is compared to a blind individual. Just as a blind person in a dark place [should not engage in ritual slaughter], so too an individual who engages in ritual slaughtering at night in a dark place, and in this matter it [our Mishnah] teaches [through the use of the word] "השוחט"–he who performs ritual slaughter – post facto, yes, but not ab initio., but when there is a torch before him, even ab initio, he may perform acts of ritual slaughter at night.
1.1.7
השוחט בשבת – Even though that if he acted (by performing an act of ritual slaughter on Shabbat) willfully, he would make himself liable [to the death penalty], his [act of] ritual slaughter is [considered] fit; but however, it would be forbidden to consume it on that day, and for this reason, it [the Mishnah] teaches “[he who ritually slaughters] on the Sabbath and on the Day of Atonement” in order to make an analogy between the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement. Just as it forbidden to eat [it] on Yom Kippur the entire day because [of the requirement] of “afflicting [of one’s soul],” so too on the Sabbath it is forbidden in eating it the entire day. But on Saturday night (i.e., the aftermath of the Sabbath), it is permitted [to be consumed] whether by him or by others. And a person who performs an act of ritual slaughtering on Shabbat for an infirm individual has acted in a permissible manner, and it is permitted for a healthy individual to eat from that [what had been slaughtered] raw meat, but not cooked, lest he increase it for him.
1.2.1
מגל יד – It has two edges (the מגל יד is an implement combining knife and saw) – one smooth like a knife and the other which has notches; and on the side which is smooth, one should not ab initio engage in ritual slaughter [with it] as a preventative measure lest one perform a ritual slaughter with the side that is defective. And therefore, the Tanna taught [the word] "השוחט"–”he who performs a ritual slaughtering” and it implies, that de facto, one may slaughter [with this utensil] but not ab initio. And we learn from this that a defective knife, which contains enough to ritually slaughter with from the defect and beyond, it is prohibited to perform ritual slaughtering with it ab initio, other than if one wraps the defective part in a garment or in bulrushes–reed-grass so that now it would not be possible to decree that perhaps he might come to slaughter in the place of defect.
1.2.2
בצור ובקנה – Our Mishnah is speaking about a flint and–or a reed which are detached and later they were attached and one performed a ritual slaughter with them when they were attached, and de facto, one may use [it–them] but ab initio, one may not [use it–them], but if it was initially attached, even de facto it is prohibited. And that which is completely detached, even ab initio, is permitted [for use].
1.2.3
צור – A sharp rock. And it is a Biblical expression [being used here] (Exodus 4:25): “[So Zipporah] took a flint and cut off [her son’s foreskin…].”
1.2.4
הכל שוחטין – To include a non-observant–non-conformist Jew in one area of transgression, or even for many transgressions – in that it is permitted to eat of his ritual slaughtering. And [as long as] that individual is not an apostate for idolatry or someone who violates the Sabbath in public. And a worthy (observant) Jew checks the knife and gives it to him, since he (the potential ritual-slaughterer) is considered as one who has not bothered to check [the knife] and afterwards performs the act of ritual slaughtering just for himself, and the [observant] Jew returns and checks his knife after the ritual slaughter, and if it [the knife] is fine, his ritual slaughter is considered valid. But those Sadducees whom we call Karaites who do not believe in the Oral Torah, their ritual slaughter is [considered] invalid, unless there was a Jew who would stand and watch the slaughtering from the beginning until the end.
1.2.5
ולעולם שוחטין – Whether during the daytime or whether at night by the light of a torch, whether on the top of a roof, and we don’t worry lest people say that he [the ritual slaughterer] went up to the hosts of heaven to [perform] ritual slaughtering. And similarly, one can perform ritual slaughtering at the top of a ship, the matter is proven that he needs to chisel his ship and that he is not slaughtering for the Chief of the Sea.
1.2.6
ובכל שוחטין – Whether [one uses] glass or uses the skin-like, scaly envelope of reed, which is tall grass in the lake which cuts like a knife. But the reed itself, one should not perform ritual slaughtering with it ab initio, on account of fibers that separate from it and perforate the organs and one might have [accidentally] passed the knife under cover (which invalidates a ritual slaughtering).
1.2.7
מגל קציר – which is used to cut grain, as its notches bend slanting in one direction.
1.2.8
מגירה – a knife filled with notches and each notch has projecting points in each direction which are knives having notches–indentations (see Hullin 17b – which catch the passing nail of the examiner).
1.2.9
שינים – (teeth) which are inserted into the jawbone of the animal. And especially when there are two or more (teeth).
1.2.10
והצפורן – Which is attached [to the finger].
1.2.11
שהן חונקין – As they do not cut, but rather tear on account of the indentations [therein]. And these (a saw) produce anguish as if by choking (instead of cutting); this refers to the others, but not to the nail, and the reason concerning the nail is that it is attached.
1.2.12
מגל קציר – It heads are very bent and its [cutting] process does not tear.
1.2.13
בית שמאי אומרים נבילה – And it defiles by carrying, by which [the School of Shammai] decreed that walking it leads to bring it. And the School of Hillel does not make this decree, as the defilement does not increase as a result of this decree. But, they admit that it is eating it is prohibited, lest by walking with it, one will bring it (and it leads to someone consuming it).
1.3.1
השוחט מתוך הטבעת – In the large ring [of the trachea] which is above all of them, is [what the Mishnah] is speaking of.
1.3.2
ושייר בה מלא החוט של פני כולה – on the side of the head, for he did not incline the knife to exit from the ring to the side of the head until he completed [cutting] the entire ring, it is considered valid.
1.3.3
מלוא החוט – that is to say, a bit, but if it was before he completed the entire [ring], he slanted the knife to the side of the head and completed the ritual slaughter above from the ring which was not the place of the ritual slaughter, which is הגרמה (cutting the animal’s throat in a slanting direction – letting the knife slide beyond the space ritually designed for cutting), even though most of the windpipe was cut at the place of the ritual slaughter, the Rabbis invalidated it, since it concluded with a disqualification.
1.3.4
רבי יוסי בר' יהודה אומר מלוא החוט על פני רובה – If he left in it as much as the breadth of a thread of the hair from the ring [of the trachea] at the side of the head over the majority of the ring, that is to say, he cut most of the windpipe within the ring, but the minority of it was cut in a slanted direction and it left its [body] at the side of its head, and he completed the slaughter above it, it is considered valid, as he slaughtered most it in a valid manner, but the other part, he slaughters by cutting mere skin. And the legal decision is that a person who slaughters above the large ring, where the thyroid cartilage (Adam’s apple) begins to protrude and above it is considered invalid, whereas from the thyroid cartilage and below is considered valid. And that means that he left glands, that he slaughtered these two glands of the flesh that are above the large ring but below the thyroid cartilage, and he left a bit of them at the side of the head.
1.4.1
השוחט מן הצדדים – at the side of the [front-of-the] neck–throat
1.4.2
שחיטתו כשרה – and even also ab initio, and since it is required to teach [in the Mishnah] "המולק מן הצדדים"–”He who pinches the bird’s neck with the fingernail from the side”, it also teaches, "השוחט" –”he who ritually slaughters” – post facto.
1.4.3
המולק מן הצדדים מליקתו פסולה – that concerning the pinching of the bird’s head, it is written (Leviticus 5:8): “[He shall bring them to the priest, who shall offer first the one for the sin-offering,] pinching its head at the nape [without severing it],” that is from its back.
1.4.4
השוחט מן העורף שחיטתו פסולה – And these words [indicate] that he (the ritual slaughter) did not restore the organs (i.e. the windpipe and the gullet) at the back of the neck but rather cut the nape [up to a point] where he reached to the organs (the windpipe and esophagus), for prior to his arriving at the organs, it [an animal] has been made organically defective [ritually for use] with the breaking of the neck, and even though that with the pinching of a bird’s neck, it is fit for use, there, it is such that all of it, from the beginning to the end is from the pinching of the bird’s neck [only – and not from any other ritual act of slaughtering] and it is like a ritual slaughterer who perforates the gullet little by little until he completes his act of ritual slaughter. But if one slaughtered from the back of the neck, since that [act of] slaughtering is not perfect, one cannot have the breaking of the neck from the slaughter, and it is ritually unfit–defective [literally, considered “torn”]. But, one who performs ritual slaughter from the sides, as is taught at the beginning of the Mishnah, even without restoring the organs, has performed the ritual slaughtering well prior to severing the neck.
1.4.5
המולק מן העורף – not really the neck, that is what there is from the slanting of the head from the back [of the neck] with the face, for it is written (Leviticus 5:8): “at the nape” (see above), but rather, opposite one who sees the neck, that is, behind the neck, he pinched the bird with a finger-nail and cut the flesh and the neck until he reached the organs (i.e. windpipe and esophagus).
1.4.6
מליקתו כשרה – As this is, ab initio, the commandment of pinching of the bird’s neck. And since the Mishnah teaches "השוחט מן העורף פסולה" –whomever performs the act of ritual slaughter from the back of the neck is invalid, and even post facto, it [the Mishnah] also teaches [concerning] one who pinches [the bird’s neck] post facto.
1.4.7
השוחט מן הצואר – under the throat is called the neck, and that is the method of most ritual slaughtering.
1.4.8
שכל העורף – all of the edge which sees the back of the neck (but not the back of the neck itself).
1.5.1
כשר בתורין פסול בבני יונה – that turtle-doves imply large but not small. Pigeons [refers to] small ones f brightening plumage (but not large ones. That we don’t dislocate the Biblical verse [from its natural flow] and write: “from the small turtle doves and from the doves, and since it is written [In the Bible] in all cases, “turtle doves and pigeons” we learn from this, it is to be an indispensable condition–absolute necessity.
1.5.2
תחילת הציהוב – when it (speaking of either and–or both the turtle dove and the pigeon) is in the incipient stage of brightening plumage around its neck, both of them are invalid. The pigeons are invalid because of their large size and the turtle-dove because of its small size, since they have left the general category of being small, but to the category of “large,” they have not come. However, regarding, the smallest pigeons, when a wing is detached from them and bleeding does not occur, are invalid due to their tiny size.
1.6.1
כשר בפרה פסול בעגלה – The Red Heifer (literally “Red Cow” – see Numbers chapter 19) and the heifer whose neck was broken are both performed outside, but what is appropriate–valid in terms of the ritual slaughter of a red heifer is invalid for the one [heifer] whose neck is to be broken. Regarding the heifer whose neck is to be broken, at its neck [when the ceremony takes place] is valid, but if ritually slaughtered is invalid. It is found that what is valid for the cow (i.e., Red Heifer) is invalid for the heifer [whose neck is to be broken] and what is valid for the heifer [whose neck is to be broken] is invalid for the cow [i.e. Red Heifer].
1.6.2
כשר בכהנים פסול בלוים – Priests who have blemishes are unfit [for the altar, for priestly service], but in [matters of] age, they are fit (compared to Levites; Kohanim–Priests can begin to serve as soon as they reach the age of majority- Bar Mitzvah – and their service continues for the rest of their lives; Levites, on the other hand only serve from ages thirty through fifty and must be able to sing). Levites, [on the other hand] are considered fit to serve if they have blemishes, but in [matters of] years are unfit [for service], as it is written (Numbers chapter 8, verse 25): “But at the age of fifty they shall retire from the work force [and shall serve no more].” But in Shiloh and in the temple where there was no carrying [of the ark] by [one’s] shoulder, the years do not disqualify the Levites, but only the [matter of the] voice alone. It was found, whether one is speaking about the wilderness or Shiloh, what is valid for Priests is invalid for Levites and what is valid for Levites is invalid for Priests.
1.6.3
טהור בכלי טמא בכל הכלים – The hollow–air [i.e. empty space] of an earthenware vessel is impure, if the defilement approached its hollow but did not touch it (the earthenware vessel), the earthenware vessel is defiled (see Mishnah Kelim, Chapter 2, Mishnah 1 for further details), as is written concerning it (Leviticus chapter 11 verse 33): “And if any of these falls into [an earthen vessel, everything inside it shall be pure and -the vessel- itself you shall break].” But if [it fell] on its back, it is ritually pure, and even if the defilement touched its back, it was not defiled through this. The hollow–air of all utensils is pure, as long as the defilement did not touch them, even if it was suspended in its air-space. But if its backs are impure, if the filament touched its backs, they have become impure. It is found [therefore], that [whatever is] pure in an earthenware vessel, becomes impure in all of the utensils [when it is touched by something impure], but that which is pure in all [other] vessels, is impure in an earthenware vessel.
1.6.4
טהור בכלי עץ טמא בכלי מתכות – Unfinished wooden implements, which are [defined as] utensils which are not completely formed, but their engraving has been completed and are worthy for use are impure. But flat wooden implements are pure even if they are completely formed, as [Rabbis] made an analogy between a wooden implement and a sack, as it is written (Leviticus chapter 11, verse 32): “[And anything on which one of them falls when dead shall be impure: [be it any article of wood, or a cloth, or a skin, or a sack –[any such article that can be put to use shall be dipped in water, and it shall remain impure until evening; then it shall be pure].” Just as a sack is carried full or empty, so too anything is carried full or empty. Unfinished metal utensils are pure, since in recognition of their being made, they are not considered utensils to be filled until they are completely formed. But flat [metal] vessels are impure, for they [the Rabbis] do not make the analogy of a sack being like a wooden utensil. It is found therefore, that what is [considered] pure for a wooden utensil is impure regarding metal utensils; what is pure for metal utensils is impure for wooden utensils.
1.6.5
החייב בשקדיים המרים – (see Mishnah Ma’aserot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 4)[Regarding] bitter almonds, the small ones require tithing, since it is customary to eat them when they are small prior to their becoming bitter, and large ones are exempt [from tithing], since they are not worthy for eating. Sweet [almonds, on the other hand], the large ones are liable [for tithing] since their fruits have been completed, but the small ones are exempt, since it is not appropriate to eat them as such. It is found [therefore], that which liable [for tithing] regarding bitter almonds is exempt regarding sweet ones, and that which is liable [for tithing] with sweet [almonds] is exempt with bitter ones.
1.7.1
התמד עד שלא החמיץ – (See Mishnah Maaser Sheni, Chapter 1, Mishnah 3, for identical parallel text of the first part of the Mishnah). Up until now [in this chapter of Mishnah Hullin] we have been dealing with two things and the matter that is practiced with one is not practiced with the other, and now we are dealing with one thing, and when a certain thing is in vogue with it, another thing is not in vogue with it.
1.7.2
תמד – water that is placed on the exterior or on the interior [of grapes] and when they are warmed and ferment, produce wine, or [when water is placed is placed] on the sediment and the water absorbs the flavor of the wine. And [this occurs] at the time when one places [on the wine] three parts of water and it produces four. Everyone holds that it is superior wine. But here we are dealing [with a case] where it did not produce other than what he put on it, or less or just a bit more.
1.7.3
עד שלא החמיץ – It is mere water and is not purchased with the money of the [second] tithe, for the wine that is mentioned which is purchased with [second] tithe monies (as is written – Deuteronomy chapter 14, verse 26): “And spend the money on anything you want…” Just as the specification is spelled out, the usufruct of the fruit from the fruit and that which grows in the ground, so too every (usufruct of the fruit from fruit and that which grows in the ground.
1.7.4
ופוסל את המקוה – since three “logs” (a “log” is a measurement which equals six eggs in volume) [amount of] drawn water make a Mikveh unfit [for immersion], but if it (the water that had been placed on the exterior or on the interior of grapes) fell into it (the Mikveh) prior to conducting the forty Seah of water (which is necessary for a Kosher Mikveh – see Mishnah Mikvaot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 7 and Mishnah Menahot Chapter 12, Mishnah 4) into a channel, the wine does not disqualify the Mikveh other than through a change in its appearance.
1.7.5
משהחמיץ – (once it has fermented), it is considered wine, and we use it to be purchased with [the money of] the [second] tithe, and does not [by its being poured into the Mikveh] disqualify the Mikveh.
1.7.6
האחין השותפין – brothers who were partners in their inheritance.
1.7.7
שחייבין בקלבון פטורין במעשר בהמה – See Mishnah Bekhorot, Chapter 9, Mishnah 3 where this Mishnah fragment is also found. (See Mishnah Shekalim, Chapter 1, Mishnah 6 - in the Bartenura commentary for a definition of the word קלבון\קולבון – something light and small that is added to the one-half shekel requirement each person must pay as a poll tax – see Exodus, chapter 30, verses 11-16 - that is divided among the partners – if they are Levites, Israelites, converts or freed slaves, but not Priests, women, slaves or minors.) Brothers who divided [the inheritance at first] and at the end became partners, are obligated to pay the agio (a premium paid for changing one kind of money to another–an allowance or premium for the difference in value between two currencies being exchanged) and when they bring their two one-half Shekels, they give two Kalbonim–agios, and the Kalbon is the way of expressing a customary additional weight in retailing–boot – that they (the partners) are obliged to overbalance their Shekalim. And if they gave between the both of them a complete Shekel (i.e. adding to the obligatory one-half Shekel that each adult male is required to give - see the Biblical source from Exodus quoted above), they give two Kolbonot, which they have to pay the head-tax in halves. But they are exempt from the tithe for cattle (offered on the first day of Elul – see Mishnah Rosh Hashanah, Chapter 1, Mishnah 1), as is brought in (the Talmud) Tractate Bekhorot in the last chapter (56b). The words (Numbers chapter 18, verse 9) teach: “This shall be yours [from the most holy sacrifices, the gifts: every such offering that they render to Me as most holy sacrifices….shall belong to you and your sons],”and not [that which belongs] to partners. And there (in Berakhot 56b), they (the Rabbis) prove that this verse [as referring to] the tithe [of cattle] even though it is written in connection with the first-born [animals].
1.7.8
וכחייבין במעשר בהמה – for example, if they never divided [their estate], they are obliged to give the tithe for cattle, to tithe all those [cattle] born to them all the days of their partnership, as it says there (Talmud Bekhorot 56b), they are able, even if they purchased it that which belongs to the estate (before division among heirs), as it teaches (Numbers, chapter 18, verse 9), “shall be [yours]” regardless.
1.7.9
ופטורין מן הקלבון – (they are exempt from paying the Kolbon) completely, in that they offer the head-tax of a full shekel (half a shekel apiece) between them; since their father’s monies are presumed to be standing in his possession. And the father who pays the head-tax for his sons or for someone from his city, he exempts him (i.e., that individual) from paying the head-tax by his own [payment], and his [concerning] his sons also, the Mitzvah of paying the head-tax [of one-half Shekel per individual] is not upon him (i.e., the father), but they are likened to be like his neighbor or fellow city-dweller.
1.7.10
כל מקום שיש מכר – that a man can sell his daughter, that is when she is a minor.
1.7.11
אין קנס – (when her daughter was a נערה –between the ages of twelve and twelve years and six months) if she had been violated–outraged (raped) or seduced, her father does not receive the fifty shekels of silver (as it is written (Deuteronomy 22:29): “the may who lay with her shall give shall pay the girl’s father fifty [shekels of] silver, and she shall be his wife…”
1.7.12
וכל מקום שיש קנס – that is when she is a נערה–a maiden between the ages of twelve and twelve years and six months.
1.7.13
אין מכר – a man (i.e., the father) may not sell his daughter to another (man) after she has brought forth the signs of her maidenhood (i.e., puberty). And our Mishnah is [according to] Rabbi Meir (see the parallel Mishnah Ketubot, Chapter 3, Mishnah 8 – and the general rule that anonymous Mishnah texts accord with the opinion of Rabbi Meir in Sanhedrin 86a and Hullin 26b), who said that that a minor girl from the age of one day until she brings forth two pubic hairs (symptoms of maturity), she is able to be sold but there is no financial penalty. But the Halakha is like the Sages (that a minor daughter from the age of three years and one day until she brings form the signs of her maturity can be sold and there is a fine associated with this sale). And it is found that a daughter from the day she is born until she becomes fit for sex[ual relations], she can be sold but there is no fine regarding her. And when she is deemed fit for sexual relations until she brings forth signs of her maturity, she can be sold and there is a fine regarding to her. And there is no distinction between נערות–maidenhood and adulthood – other than a [period of] six months.
1.7.14
כל מקום שיש מיאון – An orphaned girl who was married off by her mother and–or her brothers, even with her knowledge (i.e. acceptance), can refuse and leaves [this marriage] without a Jewish bill of divorce until she brings forth her signs of maturity. Throughout the days of her being a minor, she is not appropriate for her to have [her perform the ceremony of] חליצה–taking off the shoe of her dead husband’s brother and spitting in his face (see Deuteronomy chapters 25, verses 5-11) if she is a יבמה–widow of a brother who died without having any children, for the word "איש"–”a man” is written in the portion (Deuteronomy chapter 25, verse 7): “But if the man does not want [to marry his brother’s widow]…” And they [the Rabbis] raise an objection comparing a woman to a man. And when she appears able to conduct [the ceremony] of חליצה–taking off the shoe of her dead husband’s brother and spitting in his face, she is not able [any longer] to refuse [the marriage recommendations of her mother and–or brothers].
1.7.15
כל מקום שיש תקיעות – On the eves of the Sabbath and Jewish Holy Days (Yom Tov), the Shofar is sounded with three Tekiot (succession of connected notes) to cause the people to cease from their [weekday] labor and at twilight, they sound the Tekiah (succession of connected notes), the Teruah (rapid succession of nine notes–tremolo) and [another] Tekiah and then they stop [working].
1.7.16
אין הבדלה – There is no [recitation of the prayers of the Havdalah ceremony, concluding the Sabbath and–or Festivals] neither on the wine or in the Amidah (the fourth blessing of the Amidah on Saturday night contains the Havdalah prayer), for there is no Havdalah other than on aftermath of Sabbaths and Festivals.
1.7.17
יום טוב שחל להיות בערב שבת תוקעים – Even though it was also the day of a Jewish holy day (Yom Tov), and there is no work [performed], we sound the Shofar (i.e. the succession of connected notes) to cause people to stop their food preparation (which is permissible on Jewish holy days during the weekdays).
1.7.18
ולא מבדילין – Because he enters into the more stringent [day of the Sabbath] from what he is leaving [the less stringent day of the Holy Day].
1.7.19
חל להיות במוצאי שבת מבדילין – Since one leaves the more stringent (i.e. the Sabbath), from what one is entering into (i.e. Jewish Holy Day], and there is no sounding of the Shofar here.
1.7.20
כיצד מבדילין – [When going] from [the] Sabbath to Yom Tov (Jewish holy day), when a Jewish holy day occurs (and begins) on a Saturday evening (at the conclusion of the Sabbath).
1.7.21
רבי דוסא אומר: בין קודש חמור – But the Halakha does not follow Rabbi Dosa since we do not treat lightly the Jewish holy day by calling it the unimportant [or of minor value] holy day.
2.1.1
השוחט אחד בעוף – Because in that ab initio, it was necessary to slaughter two organs (i.e, both the windpipe and the esophagus) even with fowl, the Mishnah teaches "השוחט" –” he who ritually slaughters”, which implies that [only] one organ, for fowl [is required] de facto, but not ab initio. But two [organs are required] for cattle, ab initio, for how far does one go to slaughter [ritually]. Alternatively, because it was necessary to teach most of one [organ must be ritually slaughtered] like it, specifically de facto, for ab initio one must intend to slaughter the entire organ. And one [organ] in regard to fowl, fulfills one’s duty that it is fit, is from a Biblical verse, as it is written (Leviticus chapter 11, verse 46): “These are the instruction concerning animals, birds, all living creatures that move in the water [and all creatures that swarm on the earth],” the Bible attached [the category of] fowl between cattle and fish, to obligate [the ritual slaughter of] two organs, it is impossible that there was [already] an analogy made with fish; to exempt him [from doing any slaughtering] was impossible, since it was already compared to cattle. How was this accomplished? They (the Rabbis) made it ritually valid (for fowl) with one organ. And the act of ritual slaughter from the neck and and with two organs. Five things invalidate the act of ritual slaughter: שהייה–pausing during the act of slaughtering, דרסה–pressing the knife (adding muscular force to the cutting capacity of the knife, instead of passing the latter to and back (Hullin 20b), חלדה–pressing the life under cover; הגרמה–cutting the animal’s throat in a slanting direction (letting the knife slide beyond the space ritually designated for cutting); and עיקור–tearing loose the windpipe and esophagus before cutting, all of them are derived in the Gemara, regarding the esophagus and the windpipe and on the majority of one organ for fowl and on the majority of two organs for cattle.
2.1.2
עד שישחוט את הוורידים – like kinds of sinews upon the two sides of the windpipe, and regarding the foul alone, Rabbi Yehuda speaks, in order to remove its blood, since he roasted it entirely as one. And ritual slaughter, as stated by Rabbi Yehuda, not exactly, but rather that he should perforate the jugular vein prior to a skin–cover–membrane forms over the blood. For further blood will not come out, even though salting; but the Halakha does not follow Rabbi Yehuda.
2.1.3
רוב איד בעוף וכו' – And even though it is taught at the beginning of the Mishnah that most of one organ is like it, the Mishnah retracted here by teaching that one organ [is required] for fowl, etc., whether one is speaking about non-sacred meat or with meat dedicated for sacrificial purposes., for if we would teach only about non-sacred meat, I might say that it is enough for most [of one organ] because it was not for the blood that he needed it, but for the Holy Things (i.e. Sacrifices) for which the blood was necessary, it would not suffice to slaughter most of the organ; hence it comes to teach us that this was not the case.
2.2.1
שנים אוחזין בסכין ושוחטין – one animal
2.2.2
אפילו אחד למעלה ואחד למטה – that one is holding at one edge of the knife and his fellow is holding at the other side.
2.3.1
התיז את הראש – like a person who decapitates a reed or a gourd, when he pushes the [slaughtering] knife with force and divides it. And this is דרסה–cutting the throat of an animal by pressing (adding muscular force to the cutting capacity of the knife, instead of passing the latter to and back).
2.3.2
היה שוחט – through pulling [the slaughtering knife] and he decapitated the head with [either] the drawing home [of the slaughtering knife] or the drawing of the slaughterer’s knife in a forward direction alone. But for the slaughter of the [two] organs in the appropriate measure, it is called severing the head.
2.3.3
אם יש בסכין מלא צואר – other than neck of the animal or fowl that he is ritually slaughtering.
2.3.4
כשרה – if there is on the knife [the ability to slaughter] through pulling and not through cutting the throat through the use of muscular force, . But if the length of the knife is only as long as thickness of the neck, or just beyond the neck a bit, it is considered [as if] one had used muscular force, for the organs (i.e., the windpipe and esophagus) are not just through just this pulling, if not for the use of muscular force.
2.3.5
אם יש בסכין מלוא צואר אחד – outside of these two necks, that is the measurement of three necks.
2.3.6
איזמל – a very small, thin razor. And we don’t enact a prohibition regarding one that lacks hornlike projections as an ornament for the sake of a knife which does have hornlike projections as an ornament. For an איזמל–knife which has hornlike projections, for it normally [customary] to make hornlike projections as an ornaments on its back bending towards its head, and since it [the knife] is very small, it was detached from the neck, and when [the knife is] passed towards and back, there is a fear lest the hornlike projections will pass the slaughtering knife under cover (i.e. חלדה ) [which is forbidden].
2.3.7
נפלה סכין ושחטה – The reason that it [i.e., the knife] fell (then, the slaughtering is invalid); but if he threw it down [and it slaughtered the animal in an appropriate manner], it is valid, even though he did not intend to perform the act of ritual slaughtering, for we don’t require spiritual intention in the act of ritual slaughtering. And since it is necessary for the mentioning of the Biblical verse, regarding the ritual slaughtering of animals for the sacrificial purposes [of the Temple] (Leviticus 22:29): “[When you sacrifice a thanksgiving offering to the LORD, sacrifice it so that] it may be acceptable in your favor,” with your knowledge you shall sacrifice it, that is to say, with knowledge and spiritual intention (for purposes of the ritual sacrifices in the Temple). We learn from this that for חולין–non-consecrated animals (profane things), we do not require spiritual intentionality.
2.3.8
נפלה סכין והגביהה – and he paused during the act of slaughtering [which makes the animal so cut unfit to eat) while it was lifted up.
2.3.9
כליו – his clothing
2.3.10
או שהשחיז את הסכין – prior to [engaging in] the act of slaughtering.
2.3.11
ועף – he became tired and weary as a result of the sharpening–whetting of the knife, and when he began to ritually slaughter [the animal], he did not have the strength and stopped his slaughter, and his fellow came and slaughtered.
2.3.12
כדי שחיטה אחרת – in order that he would slaughter most of the two [organs] in another animal like it, while it is lying down, a large animal next to a large animal and a small animal next to a small animal. and it is also necessary that he lift it up and lie it down, and they did not practice in such a manner.
2.3.13
כדי בקור – For the interval that the ritual slaughterer checks and examines his knife (to determine its fitness). But the Halakha does not follow [the opinion] of Rabbi Shimon.
2.4.1
ופסק את הגרגרת – that is עיקור–tearing loose the windpipe before cutting; and we are referring to cattle.
2.4.2
תחת השני – under the second organ. When he inserted the knife between the organ and the neck.
2.4.3
החליד – he covered, which is the language of חלדה– passing the knife under cover (Hullin 27a); like a weasel–mole who lives in the foundations of the house in a concealed location].
2.4.4
ופסקו – from below to above
2.4.5
נבלה – and which defiles through carrying it.
2.4.6
טריפה – which does not defile
2.4.7
ודבר אחר גרם לה להפסל – such as one of the animals torn by a beast of prey (or an animal afflicted with a fatal organic disease) which is taught in the [Mishnah of chapter 3} “Which are those who are considered torn?”
2.5.1
בידים מסואבות – without the ritual washing of the hands, for the Rabbis decreed that “hands” are [naturally considered] “second” degree of Levitical uncleanness and we are dealing with unconsecrated food that was made on the purification of food dedicated for sacred purposes for something that is “second” degree of Levitical uncleanness makes something else “third” degree of Levitical uncleanness, for had we been dealing with unconsecrated meat alone, if they had been made fit [ for Levitical uncleanness] by contact with blood, something that is second degree of Levitical uncleanness does not make something else third degree of Levitical uncleanness.
2.5.2
לפי שלא הוכשרו בדם – since food does not receive susceptibility for ritual uncleanness until water comes upon it, or one of the seven liquids which are: water, wine, olive oil, milk and bees’ honey, blood and dew (see also Leviticus 11:34: “ As to any food that may be eaten, it shall become impure if it came in contact with water; as to any liquid that may be drunk, it shall become impure if it was inside any vessel.”).
2.5.3
הוכשרו בשחיטה – for since ritual slaughter is permissible for this meat, anything like a limb from a living animal is also compared to food regarding defilement, but the Halakha does not follow Rabbi Shimon.
2.6.1
השוחט את המסוכנת – All the while that we stand it [the animal] up and she cannot stand as a result of her illness, she is considered מסוכנת–to be in danger; and even if she has strength in her teeth to eat the terminal buds of a palm (cabbage tree) or to bite wood from trees (Hullin 37b).
2.6.2
עד שתפרכס – [See Mishnah Ohalot 1:6 for parallel about this situation.] if it [the animal] did not move convulsively, we suspect that its soul was taken before the completion of the ritual slaughtering.
2.6.3
אם זינקה – in the manner that animals’ throats become swollen and (its) blood gushes forth and squirts with force (when its jugular arteries were cut – see Hullin 38a).
2.6.4
השוחט בלילה – it is necessary for an endangered animal to move convulsively, and he [the ritual slaughterer] does not know if it convulsed, and on the morrow when he arose early, he found that the walls of the cavity of the ritual slaughter of throat were filled with blood, it is fit (i.e., kosher) because the blood had squirted out, according to the approach of Rabbi Eliezer who validates blood squirting out (which proves that the animal did not expire prior to the ritual slaughtering); Rabbi Shimon said [that he who performs ritual slaughter at night – and in on the morrow rises early and finds that the walls of the throat are filled with blood, it is valid], and the Halakha is not like [the opinion of] Rabbi Eliezer.
2.6.5
אחד בהמה דקה ואחד בהמה גסה – which requires the convulsion of the animal if it was endangered.
2.6.6
שפשטה ידה – at the conclusion of the ritual slaughtering
2.6.7
ולא החזירה פסולה – if it (i.e., the animal) was endangered. For this is not considered moving convulsively but such is its manner at the time when its soul leaves it. But this is not the manner for large animal. But whether it extended its paw but did not bend it [back] or bent it back but did not extend it, it is [considered] valid–kosher [to be eaten].
2.7.1
ורבי אליעזר פוסל – if the animal belongs to a heathen. For even though it is a Jew who is performing the slaughtering, it benefits the thought-processes of the heathen, since the unexpressed thought of the heathen is directed to idolatry.
2.7.2
חצר כבד – the large lobe of the liver
2.7.3
אמר רבי יוסי קל וחומר – Since there is no benefit for the thought-processes of its owner, since a Jew performs the slaughter.
2.7.4
ומה במקום שמחשבה פוסלת – that is, with regard to Holy things, as it states (Leviticus 7:18): “[If any of the flesh of his sacrifice of well-being is eaten on the third day, it shall not be acceptable;] it shall not count for him who offered it. It is an offensive thing [and the person who eats of it shall bear his guilt”]. It [the Biblical verse] is read “he shall not think” -that is to say, he should not think about eating it outside of the appropriate time since it will be a rejected sacrifice in consequence of an improper intention in the mind of the officiating priest.
2.7.5
אין הכל הולך אלא אחר העובד – as it is written (Leviticus 7:18) “it shall not count for him who offered it” – but the owners are not invalidated by their thoughts for the individual who offers it is the priest.

Bartenura on Mishnah, trans. by Rabbi Robert Alpert, 2020. Via Sefaria (sefaria.org), Sefaria-Export. Version source: http://sefaria.org/ Licence: CC-BY. Source.