Bartenura on Mishnah Chullin

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

2.7.6
מקום שאין המחשבה פוסלת – The Gemara (Hullin 39b) explains our Mishnah in that it should [understood] in this manner: just as thought-processes invalidate [something offered] in Holy matters through four forms of service, everything follows only [the thought-patterns of] the individual worshipper. Whereas concerning Hullin–ordinary meat, thought-processes only invalidate in two areas, does it not follow that everything follows after [the thought-processes of] the ritual slaughterer? In the place where thought-processes invalidate those sacrifices offered in the realm of the holy things with regard to four acts of divine worship: ritual slaughter, reception of the blood, sprinkling of the blood and the carrying of the portions of the sacrifice to the altar ascent, on which of these that he thought that on the condition that he would eat from the sacrifice at an inappropriate time, does it make the sacrifice rejected in consequence of an improper intention in the mind of the officiating priest? But even though there is this stringency, the thought-processes only follow after the individual worshipper. Regarding Hullin–ordinary meat, in the matter of idolatry, thought-processes do not invalidate in four aspects of worship but rather in only two: in slaughter and in sprinkling [of the blood]. And regarding these, it is written [in these verses] (Exodus chapter 22, verse 19): “Whoever sacrifices to a god [other than the LORD alone shall be proscribed]” [and] (Psalms 16 verse 4): “I will have no part of their bloody libations; [their names will not pass my lips].” But reception of the blood and the carrying of the portions of the sacrifice to the altar ascent are not written–mentioned in these verses. But burning on the altar, even though it is connected to idolatry, it is, however, not worship to lose an animal because of the burning of its fats on the altar for idolatrous worship where it is not slaughtered and where its blood is not sprinkled for idolatrous purposes, for even inside, the sacrifice is not invalidated if he thought about the eating of meat at the time of the burning of the fats, and since we found a leniency in thought-processes outside [the altar], it is the law that we can be lenient in this and that the matter will not be dependent upon anyone other than the actual slaughterer. And the Halakha follows [the opinion] of Rabbi Yosi.
2.8.1
השוחט לשם הרים וכו' שחיטתו פסולה – an idolatrous offering does not prohibit one from deriving benefit from it, since all of these [things] are not done for idolatrous [purposes], as it is written (Deuteronomy chapter 12, verse 2): “[You must destroy all the sites at which the nations you are to dispossess worshiped] their gods, whether on lofty mountains [and on hills or under any luxuriant tree],” and not on the mountains of their gods. But however, it is prohibited to eat it, because it is similar to slaughter for the sake of idolatrous [purposes] by exchanging something [of their own in its place]. And specifically if he said: לשם הרים, לשם גבעות–in honor of mountains, in honor of hills (which is the language used in the Mishnah), but if he [the person making the offering] said: to the angel appointed on the mountains and on the hills, this is considered the sacrifices of the dead and it is prohibited to derive benefit [from them].
2.9.1
אין שוחטין לתוך ימים – that he [who is performing the act of ritual slaughter] should not say, that to the Prince of the Sea he is performing the act of ritual slaughter.
2.9.2
ולא לתוך הכלים – that they should not say that he is sprinkling its blood for idolatrous purposes that he is worshiping.
2.9.4
עוגה של מים – and specifically murky waters, but not in clear waters, lest people say that he is performing the act of ritual slaughter to the full face that appears in the water.
2.9.5
ובספינה – He may perform the act of ritual slaughter on the utensils and the blood will flow gently and descend into the sea. For he who sees it would say that he did it, in order to not soil the ship.
2.9.6
אין שוחטין לגומא כל עיקר – and even in the house, and the reason that in a hole [it is not permitted], is because it is seen as an imitation of the sectarians.
2.9.7
אבל עושה גומא – The Gemara explains that this is how it should read: One does not perform an act of ritual slaughter in a hole at all. But if one desires to bore into his courtyard, how would he do it. He would create a space outside of the hole and he would perform the act of ritual slaughter and the blood would gently flow and descend into its hole.
2.9.8
יחקה את המינים – He would strengthen their hands in their customs; יחקה–imitate is from the word חק– custom
2.10.1
השוחט – [He who does ritual slaughter] on unconsecrated animals outside [of the Temple]
2.10.2
לשם עולה – because a burnt-offering comes from a vow and–or a voluntary donation, he who sees it states;: Now he is sanctifying [it] and performing ritual slaughter [on it] for a burnt offering, and sacred things outside [the Temple], are permitted [to do so]. Therefore, the Rabbis decreed on it that it is invalid, and similarly, peace-offerings, etc.
2.10.3
אשם תלוי – which comes on a doubtful liability for extirpation, such as two pieces [of meat] (one of which is forbidden and one allowed) – of abdominal fat of cattle (which is forbidden) and the permitted fat of animals (that is permitted to consume) and it is not known which of them ate or [the case] of his wife or his sister with him in bed and he has sexual relations with one of them and he doesn’t know which of them he had sexual relations, he brings a guilt-offering offered when in doubt [as to the commission of a sinful act] to protect [himself] against suffering until it becomes known to him if he committed an undoubtful offense [for which] he brings his sin-offering. And our Mishnah is [according to] Rabbi Eliezer who stated {Keritut 25a) that a person brings a guilt-offering when in doubt [as to the commission of a sinful act] every day, for every day, he stands in the doubt of sin and his heart smites him lest I sinned, and it is found that it relates to something he either vowed or voluntarily donated.
2.10.4
לשם פסח – The Passover sacrifice is also called something that is vowed or freely donated, since it can be separated out all the days of the year and set aside until its appropriate time; they say that he ritually slaughters peace-offerings outside of the Temple and consumes them.
2.10.5
ורבי שמעון מכשיר – And he is not concerned with avoiding the semblance of wrong-doing (i.e., appearance-sake).
2.10.6
אשם ודאי – such as the guilt-offering brought for theft, (or) someone who lied when taking an oath on denying money (owed), and the guilt-offering for misappropriation of sacred property and the guilt-offering for a maidservant designated to become the wife of one selected by her master (Gittin 43a), and on account that the guilt-offering for doubtful liability for having sexual relationships is referred to as the guilt offering for the undoubted commission of certain offenses.
2.10.7
לשם בכור לשם מעשר – people surely know that it is a lie, for the First born offerings and tithes have a voice and people know before this, for if that time is not appropriate for their being set aside, that one would say that now is the time sanctifies them..
2.10.8
זה הכלל – to include if a person said: Behold I am ritually slaughtering for the sake of burnt-offering of a Nazirite, which is invalid. For you might say that one should not be concerned for waste, for it is known that he did not make a vow, which comes to teach us that people will surely say that perhaps he made a vow in private [during] these thirty days which is the undefined [shortest period for being] a Nazirite, and on the thirtieth day, the matter is not known to his neighbors.
2.10.9
ושאינו נידר ונידב – including the burnt-offering of a woman who gave birth, for he said, [this offering is made] explicitly for the purpose of a woman who gave birth, it is valid, even if he said that it was for the sake of a woman is not obligated to bring a sacrifice after giving birth, For you might have thought since that particular woman was not liable [to bring] a sacrifice upon giving birth, it [the sacrifice] was only a free-will donation, it comes to teach us that lest she miscarried, for a miscarriage has no voice and it is found that this sacrifice is obligatory and not a donation, and therefore, his ritual slaughter is valid.
3.1.1
אלו טרפות. מיקב הושט – the gullet has two skins: the red outer one and the white inner one. If he punctured this one without the other, it is valid–fit; if he punctured both of them, even this one that does not correspond to that one, it is “torn” [and not kosher]. And each perforation is a little bit.
3.1.2
ופסוקת הגרגרת – through most of its width, and it is not torn until he tears most of the cavity. But the thickness of the tip–lobe doesn’t complete towards the majority. But especially, when it was torn in its width, it is disqualified–unfit in its majority., but in its length of the windpipe, even if there didn’t remain in it other than one limb–vertebra of the spinal column above to the side of the head and one vertebrae of the spinal column–limb below near the laps (i.e., extreme ends) of the lungs, it is kosher–fit, because all the time that the animal pulls its neck more, the slit becomes smaller and is not seen.
3.1.3
ניקב קרום של מוח – the brain has two membranes [surrounding it]. The upper one is attached to the bone of the skull and the second is adjacent to the brain. If the upper one is punctured and the second [membrane] that is adjacent to the brain is enduring, it is kosher–fit. If he punctures the second [membrane] that is adjacent to the brain even though the upper [membrane] endures, it (i.e., the animal) is torn–not kosher, and even though the bone is not punctured.
3.1.4
ניקב הלב לבית חללו – the heart has two cavities. The large one is to the right side of the animal. The smaller cavituy is to the left side. If the heart is perforated at all and the the perforation reaches to one of these two cavities, it is considered torn–unfit. And similarly, if it perforated the cartilage that is in the heart that is made like a canal–duct and it is called the stem of the heart, it is torn–unfit (i.e., not kosher).
3.1.5
נשברה השדרה – the vertebrae of the spine–backbone.
3.1.6
ונפסק החוט (the spinal cord is severed) – like a white cord that projects from the brain and passes through the entire length of the spine. And a thin membrane surrounds the [spinal] cord. But if the majority of what surrounds the width of this membrane, that is the [spinal] cord is severed and it is torn, even if the backbone is not broken, but rather, it (i.e., the Mishnah) took the usual incident, for most of the severing of the [spinal] cord is through the breaking of the backbone–spine.
3.1.7
ניטל הכבד ולא נשתייר הימנו כלום – it is torn–unfit (i.e., not kosher). Until there should remain an olive’s bulk in the place of the bile–gall and an olive’s bulk in the place that it lives from there, which is the place of its suspension when it is interwoven and attached under the kidneys. But if there remained in it less than two olives-bulk in these two places, or even more than two-olives’ bulk but not in these two places, it is torn–unfit (i.e., not kosher).
3.1.8
הריאה שניקבה – the lung has two thin membranes, if this one was punctured without that one, it is kosher–fit. If both were punctured and the wind–air comes out when we blow it up, it is torn–unfit (i.e., not kosher). And the reason for a punctured lung, they (i.e., the Rabbis) forbade all of the adhesions of the lobes of the lung to each other that are in the lung when they are in a place where they are made to be severed. Because there is no adhesion without a puncture, for the lung draws all kinds of liquids and the liquid becomes thick within it and goes out gradually through the puncture and it becomes thick and becomes a membrane. And when the adhesions are in a place where they don’t make to be severed, as, for example, a lobe with a lobe in their order (i.e.., the lung has five lobs – Talmud Hullin 47a), this one protects that one and returns to its health and the perforation is not revealed, but when they are in the place that they are made to be severed, the membrane breaks apart and the perforation is revealed.
3.1.9
או שחסרה – such as, for example when one of the five lobs that the lung has is missing. But if one of the three lobes on the right side is missing, there are those who say that the minor lobe of the lung completes it and it is kosher. But if the minor lobe the lung is missing, there are those who pronounce it fit for use, for this is not something missing, for many animals lack a minor lobe of the lung. Such is proven in the Gemara (Tractate Hullin 47a at the bottom).
3.1.10
עד שתנקב לבית הסמפונות (until the perforation of the lungs reaches the starting point of the ramified blood vessels–arteries or bronchia) – small branch sinews of the nervus ischiadicus–bronchial tubes that stretch out with the lung, all of which spill into the large arteries–bronchia. And the בית הסמפונות–bronchial tubes, as it is taught In this Mishnah, meaning to say, to the large bronchial tube from which all of the tubes pour into it. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.
3.1.11
ניקבה הקיבה – a puncture going all the way through into the cavity, a bit.
3.1.12
ניקבה המרה (if the gallbladder is pierced) – its pocket; to the place where the live does not close it off.
3.1.13
ניקבו הדקין – the intestines ., to a place where there aren’t other small bowels near the perforation to protect it, but the anus sphincter retracts and makes a puncture to its neighbor, its neighbor defends it (see Rashi, Tractate Hullin 48b – which surround it.
3.1.14
כרס הפנימי (innermost belly is pierced) – the entire belly–stomach is called the inner belly and its piercing is by a little bit. The outer belly, the flesh that covers most of the belly, and it is a thick membrane passing over all of the cavity from the chest to the thighs. But the belly, a small portion of which is hidden underneath the ribs of the chest. But most of it is under that same membrane. But if the majority of it was torn as stated, meaning that we say how much of the membrane corresponding to the majority of the stomach, if that membrane is torn, it is kosher.
3.1.15
הגדולה טפח (in the case of a large animal – a handbreadth) – with a large bull, if it is torn a handbreadth, it is [considered] “torn”–unfit (i.e., not kosher), even though it is not the majority, but with a small calf, when the greater part is torn, even though it is not a handbreadth. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.
3.1.16
המסס ובית הכוסות (the first stomach of ruminants and the second stomach of ruminants) – the end of the stomach is shaped like a hat and is called the second stomach of ruminants, and the first stomach of ruminants is attached to it. But surrounding their attachment, when one comes to separate them, there is a wall to this one and a wall to that one, and in the middle, they pour one into the other, and the food enters from the second stomach to the first stomach and from the first stomach to the maw and from the maw to the small intestines.
3.1.17
שניקבו לחוץ – that the perforation appears from the outside. Such as, for example, that they perforated either this one or that one, that is not in the place where they are attached. This excludes if they perforated at the place of their attachment, which is kosher, because the wall of the first stomach protects over the perforations of the second stomach, and the wall of the second stomach protects over the perforations of the first stomach.
3.1.18
נפלה מן הגג – and he slaughtered it immediately, it is [considered] “torn,”–unfit (i.e., not kosher0, if it could not walk on its legs after it fell, for we are concerned lest its limbs were crushed, but if it walked at its full height, it is [considered] fit–kosher and doesn’t require examination. But if it stood and couldn’t walk and he slaughtered it, it requires examination. And similarly, if he waited a period of twenty-four hours after it had fallen and he slaughtered it, even though it didn’t walk nor stand, it is kosher–it and requires examination. But this examination is in the inner cavities of the body to see if its limbs were crushed. But the womb and similarly the organs, the cutting of which is an indication that the animal has been slaughtered according to the ritual (i.e., the windpipe and the gullet), there is no concern regarding crushing of the limbs.
3.1.19
נשתברו רוב צלעותיה – the animal has twenty-two large ribs which have marrow, eleven from here (i.e., one side) and eleven from there (i.e., the other side). If six were broken from here and six were broken from there, or eleven from here and one from here, this means that most of its ribs were broken. But this is when they were broken towards the spinal cord, because there is its life, and not from the half that are towards the side of the chest.
3.1.20
ודרוסת הזאב – who strikes the animal with its nails and places in it poison and burns it. For there is no attacking with paws or claws other than by hand, but not with the foot. And there is no attack–mauling other than with foreknowledge. And the attack with paws or claws that they spoke of, requires examination corresponding to the intestines, such as, for example, a doubtful attack with paws–claws or that he saw that it was mauled, but the place of the attack is not recognized from the outside, it requires examination of its back and its stomach and its sides and all that corresponds to [the place of] the intestines. But if the flesh is reddened there, it is “torn”–unfit (i.e., not kosher). But if it is definitely a mauled animal, one examines the place of the mauling and sees if the flesh is reddened, it is “torn,” and if not, it is kosher.
3.1.21
דרוסת הזאב בדקה – but with a large animal, its poison is not strong enough to burn it.
3.1.22
ודרוסת ארי בגסה – and all the more so, with a small animal. But Rabbi Yehuda comes to explain the words of the First Tanna–teacher, but not to dispute him. And the Halakha is according to him.
3.1.23
הנץ (hawk) – ASHPARVIR – in the foreign tongue.
3.1.24
בעוף הדק – doves and birds.
3.1.25
דרוסת הגס – ASHTOR.
3.1.26
בעוף הגס – geese and chickens.
3.1.27
זה הכלל – to include seven kinds of torn animals which are not mentioned in the Mishnah and these are: a) the thigh-bone that jumped from its place from the cavity in the bone of the fat-tail that is inserted into it, and that consumes its sinews; b) it smote even one kidney, and all the more so, in both of them. And its beating reached to the place of the indentation of the kidneys (Tractate Hullin 55b); c) spleen where a complete perforation was made in its thickest part. And if their remained there like the thickness of a golden Denar, it is kosher; d) the gullet and windpipe which are torn loose from the connection so that the larger portion of their circumference is detached (see Tractate Hullin 44a), meaning to say that they were detached in several places and w ere connected here and there a bit; e) a rib was uprooted completely from its root. For especially, they broke, as is taught I our Mishnah that we require the majority, but if one rib was uprooted from its root until half of the vertebrae of the spinal column, it is “torn”–unfit (i.e. not kosher); f) a skull that sustained many beatings on the skull and the membrane was not reduced in size nor perforated. If the larger portion of it was crushed (see Talmud Hullin 42b), that is, crushed, it is “torn” (not Kosher); g) and flesh hat covers the vast majority of the stomach, also is according to the one who sates that the Tanna–teacher brings it in [the words], “this is the general principle.” But it is not mentioned explicitly in the Mishnah, because they do not explain the outer stomach which is taught in the Mishnah which is flesh that covers most of the stomach, as I explain above. And similarly, the Tanna–teacher brings in “this is the general principle” an animal whose back legs were severed from the knee and its surrounding parts and above, it is “torn,” (i.e., not kosher). And a loss in the spine–backbone, if one vertebrae of the spinal column was missing, it is “torn,” (and not kosher). Skin flayed in consequence of bruises, scabs, etc. where the skin fell and completely stripped, or on account of boils or on account of work, is “torn.” And animal’s lungs that were shrunk, whose lungs had shriveled (see Tractate Hullin 55b) and became like dried palm branches on account of fear that humans are frightening the, specifically at the hand of Heaven as Is taught further on that the animal is kosher because of the adornment of the lung, but not by the hand of mankind. And all of these “torn” are included by the Tanna in “this is the general principle.”
3.1.28
כל שאין כמוה חיה (Any the like of which does not live) – that were struck with a blow, for the cattle were not struck – its example is able to live.
3.2.1
ניקבה הגרגרת (if the windpipe–gullet is pierced) – without a loss of an Issar as it is explained. But if it was pierced with many punctures, but not perforated throughout, and there is no loss, we view them when they are combined that there is with all of them a majority of the windpipe–gullet, it is “torn” (i.e., not kosher), but if there is in those punctures a loss or that they are missing long straps, we see that if when it is combined all that is missing is that it amounts to more than the measurement of an Issar, it is “torn,” but if equivalent to an Issar or less, it is Kosher, and that is the Halakha.
3.2.2
או שנסדקה (or was slit) – and that which remains from it in the windpipe above and below is a bit.
3.2.3
נפחתה הגלגולת (if the skull was hallowed out) – the bone was hallowed it, and we can see that the membrane of the brain was not pierced.
3.2.4
ניטלה הכבד ונשתייר הימנה כזית – and here would be an olive’s bulk in the place of the bile, and an olive’s bulk in the place which is interwoven–intertwined.
3.2.5
זה לתוך זה – that are adjacent and the walls of both of them are attached one to the other, and in their middle, they pour one to the other. But if they went back and pierced it in the place of the attachment of their walls, and the puncture is not visible towards the outside but rather only this within that, it is kosher, for they also pour into each other.
3.2.6
ניטל הטחול – it is not taught other than taken out–removed, but if it is punctured in the place of its thickness and there doesn’t remain in it like the thickness of a golden Denar, it is “torn,” as we have explained above (Mishnah 1).
3.2.7
ניטלו הכליות – whether they removed both of them or whether one of them was removed, it is kosher. And it did not teach [in the Mishnah] that it was removed, but a kidney that was made smaller on account of illness, with a small one until [the size of] a pea, and with a large one, until it is like an intermediate-size fruit on a tree–stalk of grapes, it is [considered] “torn,” (and not kosher). And if it became filled with decayed water, it is “torn,” but clear water, it is kosher.
3.2.8
ניטל לחי התחתון (if the lower jaw was removed) – from upon the flesh and the gullet and the windpipe are attached to the skin. But the law only applies when it can live through stuffing [to a point of the throat from which the animal can bring it back again to the mouth] where they pour the food into the mouth. But if it cannot live through stuffing, it is “torn” (and not kosher).
3.2.9
ניטלת האם – this is the womb, MATRITZ in the foreign tongue, where the fetus is lying.
3.2.10
וחרותה ביד שמים (if the animal’s lungs are shrunk – wood-like – through an accident) – that its lung shrank and dried out like the dried branches of a palm tree from the sound of thunder and lightning [one should say, the seeing of lightning], it is kosher. But by violence done to it (literally: “at the hands of man”), such as, for example, that a person frightened it or the rest of the creatures, such as the roar of a lion or the sound–voice of a lion, it is “torn” (non-kosher). And how do we know if it was at the hands of heaven (i.e., an accident) and kosher, or by violence done to it (literally: “at the hands of man”) and it is “torn?” In the summer, a person brings white earthenware utensilsand fills them with cold water and places the lung in them for a period of twenty-four hours, if it returns healthy–in its natural condition, it is kosher, but if it does return in its natural condition, it had violence done to it (literally, “at the hands of man”) and is “torn.” But in the winter, he brings black earthenware utensils that do not perspire like the the white, and the water does not become cold. But thee are those who explain that he brings copper utensils and fills them with tepid water and places the lung in them for a period of twenty-four hours, if it returns healthy, it is kosher, and if not, it is “torn” (and not kosher – see Tractate Hullin 55b).
3.2.11
הגלודה – that its skill was spread out from it. If there remained in its skin like the width of a Selah over the entire spine, that the vertebrae of the spinal column that were found were completely cover, then it is kosher. But if it was stretched from it the width over the width of the entire backbone, even though all the rest of its skin exists, it is “torn.” And such is the Halakhic decision.
3.3.1
חכתה חולדה על ראשה – that it (i.e., the weasel) bit it (i.e., the chicken) with its teeth. For had it been by hand (i.e., paw), there is an animal – a bird having been attacked by a beast (which are suspected of leaving a poisonous substance in the body) by a weasel- all corresponding to the cavity that it tears.
3.3.2
מקום שעושה אותה טרפה = for one suspects lest it punctured the membrane of the brain. How does it (i.e., the weasel) do this? It brings In its hand–paw into the mouth of the chicken and presses its finger upwards, if the brain breaks through and goes out, it is clearly known that the membrane was pierced and it is “torn.”
3.3.3
ניקב הקורקבן – (if the thick muscular stomach–craw–gizzard of fowl was pierced) – that the perforation in the skin of the thick muscular stomach–gizzard of the bird and in the pocket that is within where the food passes through, meaning, that the pocket and the skin are perforated one corresponding to the other. But if the thick stomach that was pierced and it pocket endures, or even if both of them were pierced, but not corresponding one to the other, it is Kosher.
3.3.4
ונחמרו בני מעיה (its bowels were affected by inhaling heat–parched) – they shrunk as a result of the heat and their appearance changed–was destroyed. The language of (Lamentations 1:20): “[See, O LORD, the distress I am in!] My heart (literally, ‘my intestines’) is (literally, ‘are’) in anguish.”
3.3.5
ירוקים פסולים – this is what he said: limbs whose custom is to be red, as, for example, the heart and the liver and the thick muscular stomach which customarily are red, in geese, and in chickens and turtle doves and pigeons and things similar to this, if they changed and became green on account of the fire, they are disqualified, but if they remained red as they were, they are kosher. And same law applies regarding the small intestines which were customarily green. If they changed from their natural state and turned red, they are ineligible. And similarly, the water fowl where their heart, their liver and their gizzard are green, if they fell into the fire and turned red, they are ineligible. For all that changed from their appearance on account of the fire are ineligible. And the measurement of the change of the appearance, is the smallest amount, like the perforation in the smallest amount.
3.3.6
דרסה – a person with his feet [tread on them].
3.3.7
או שטרפה בכותל – that he it against the wall.
3.3.8
או שרצצתה בהמה – that one should be worried for these three matters (i.e., fire, being trampled by humans and knocked against a wall) because of lesions of vital organs–internal injurie, and still making convulsive movements.
3.3.9
אם שהתה מעת לעת ושחטה כשרה – and it requires examination, as we have written above (Mishnah 1 of this chapter) concerning cattle For all “tears” that the Sages counted in cattle, corresponding to fowl. The fowl has more of them, these which are taught in the Mishnah.
3.4.1
ניקבה הגרגרת או שנסדקה – the perforation of the windpipe–gullet and its splitting in fowl, is like the perforation of the windpipe–gullet and its splitting in cattle. And we have explained this above (Mishnah 1 and Mishnah 3). If a perforation was made which has a loss, if the loss is like he measure of most of the cavity of the windpipe of that fowl, it is “torn,” and if not, it is kosher.
3.4.2
זפק (bird’s crop) – I is adjacent to the gullet. And all which goes with the gullet when the fowl pulls its neck, its law is like that of the gullet and its perforation is of the smallest amount, but if the rest of the bird’s crop was perforated, it is Kosher.
3.4.3
רבי אומר אפילו ניטל (even if It is removed)– But the Halakha is not according to Rebbe (i.e., Yehuda HaNasi).
3.4.4
יצאו בני מעיה – it was not taught other than that at the time when they entered into it (i.e., the intestines), he did not switch its upper part (of the intestines to the lower part, or this round part above from where it was, when he switched this one to the top and that one to the bottom. But if he reversed them, it is “torn,” for since one of them was reversed, it is not able to live.
3.4.5
נשתברו גפיה – the bones of the wings [were broken), and especially if they were broken, but the detaching of a wing in a fowl, makes it “torn,” we suspect, that perhaps, the lung was punctured. For since the lung is hidden between the ribs and the soft and thin membrane of the skin that is between each rib and when one detaches its wing, we tear loose the lung with the wing.
3.4.6
נשתברו רגליה – from the knee and its surrounding parts and below, or even above, if the bone did not protrude outwards, it is taught in (chapter 4 of Tractate Hullin), “A beast which was in hard labor,” that it is “torn,” and there we will explain it.
3.4.7
נמרטו כנפיה (if its wing feathers are plucked) – that is the large feathers–down that are on her body.
3.4.8
נוצה – this is the soft [feathers] on the skin, which lack on it reeds, for it is considered like a hide. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.
3.5.1
אחוזת הדם – that it (i.e., the animal) was attacked with congestion and became sick.
3.5.2
והמעושנת – that smoke entered into her body.
3.5.3
והמצוננת – sickness on account of cold. But Maimonides explained that אחוזת הדם is that the blood overcame her, and המעושנת is that the black secretion had overcome her; and המצוננת is that the white secretion has overcome her. But it did not mention he fourth secretion which is red, because it is not found so much with cattle.
3.5.4
הרדופני (creeper- the berries of which are injurious to animals) – it is a deathly drug of cattle, and similarly, the excrement of chickens, that animals–cattle that eat from eat die.
3.5.5
המים הרעים – revealed water.
3.5.6
סם המות – a thing that is a deadly drug to humans, but is not a deadly drug to animals.
3.6.1
הדורס (that attacks with paws or claws) – it grasps with its nails and lifts up from the ground what it eats. And there are those who explained it, that it doesn’t wait for the living prey until it dies but rather eats it while [it is] living.
3.6.2
אצבע יתירה – this is the high finger–digit (i.e., talon) that is behind the [other] fingers.
3.6.3
וקרקבנו נקלף – the pocket that is within the thick muscular stomach–craw peals from the flesh of the thick muscular stomach–craw . But not that every pure–clean fowl has all of these organs, but one organ alone is sufficient, but as long as we know about it (i.e., the animal) that it doesn’t attack with paws or claws and eat. But the Gaonim wrote that the tradition in their hands was that they don’t validate fowl that comes with one organ and even though it is known to us regarding it that it does not attack with paws or claws and eats, other than if that that organ whose thick muscular stomach can be pealed by hand, but if it cannot be peeled by hand even though it always has a crop or an extra finger–talon, they did not permit it.
3.6.4
החולק את רגליו – when he places it on a chord–sinew, it places its two fingers from there and two from there.
3.6.5
טמא – whereby it is known that it attacks with its claws or paws.
3.7.1
ובחגבים – this is the sign of their pu- ity.
3.7.2
כל שיש לו ארבע רגלים וארבע כנפים ויש לו קרסולים (see Leviticus 11:21- jointed legs) – they are two long legs outside of the four. And they are adjacent to its neck, above from its legs to leap with them when it wishes to jump, it strengthens itself with them.
3.7.3
רבי יוסי אומר ושמו חגב – even though it has these four distinguishing marks, it is not kosher, other than if it is known that its name is locust. And this is the Halakha.
3.7.4
כל שיש לו סנפיר וקשקשת – even if it doesn’t have it now, and will in the future will grow one after a while, or that it has one now, and it will, in the future will drop it when it leaves the water (see Tractate Hullin 66a), it is permitted.
3.7.5
וסנפירין הפורח בהם – that roam–swim with them over the face of the water.
4.1.1
בהמה המקשה. מותר באכילה – [it is permitted to eat – when the dam is properly slaughtered] the entire fetus and even the place cutting of the limb. For if it put out its hoof–hand and didn’t retracted, one must leave it from what is inside to the outside and to cut it, for the place of the cut you have distinguished the outer part, but the inner part is prohibited, because it stands on the rim of the womb. But if it withdrew it (i.e., its hoof–hand), one does not need to cut to the inner side, but one confines and cuts and the place that one cut is permitted. For what is the reason that the limb is forbidden when it leaves to the outside? Because of (Exodus 22:30): “[You must not eat] flesh torn by beasts in the field.” Meat that left outside of its compartment which for it is a field, is “torn.” Just as something that is “torn,” once it was “torn,” furthermore has no permit, even meat, since it went outside of its compartment. And the place of the cut did not leave outside of its compartment; furthermore, it is permitted when it returns prior to the ritual slaughter, for we call it (Deuteronomy 14:6): “and any other animal [that has true hoofs which are cleft in two and brings up the cud] – such (an animal) you may eat.”
4.1.2
הרי הוא כילוד – and furthermore, he may not benefit from the ritual slaughter of its mother, and he requires a ritual slaughter of its own if he is found living. But if he (i.e., the offspring) is found dead, it is like something that died of itself.
4.1.3
חותך מעובר שבמעיה – and he left the piece within her, it is permitted with the ritual slaughter of the animal and is not forbidden because of “the limb from a living animal” (one of the seven Noahide commandments).
4.2.1
מהבכרת המקשה לילד – with the first of her womb. It is permitted to cut it up limb by limb when it comes outfirst.
4.2.2
ומשליך לכלבים – for as long as its majority had not left [the womb], it is not holy.
4.2.3
יצא רובו – as one [complete animal], and [then] he cut it.
4.2.4
הרי זה יקבר – for with the exit of most, the sanctity takes effect upon it and we call it (Deuteronomy 15:19): “[You shall consecrate to the LORD your God all male firstlings] that are born [in your herd and in your flock.”
4.2.5
ונפטרה מן הבכורה – that which comes after him (i.e., the first-born male animal), is not a firstling, hether it first came out limb by limb, or whether the majority of it came out as one, for the second is not the first of the womb.
4.3.1
בבהמה טהורה טהור – from an a fortiori inference (see Tractate Hullin 70b), if [being inside] its mother is effective to permit it for consumption through its slaughter, even though it (i.e., the fetus) is dead, then should being inside its mother not also be effective to render it pure from the impurity of an animal carcass? And from where do we learn that the same applies regarding an unclean animal? For it states in Scripture (Leviticus 11:39): “If an animal that you may eat has died, anyone who touches its carcass shall be impure until evening.” [The phrase:” “If an animal…. has died,” this is an unclean animal; “that you may eat,” this is a clean–pure animal. A comparison of these juxtaposed “unclean animal” and “clean animal” – just as in a clean–pure animal, its fetus is pure, even in an unclean animal, its fetus is pure.
4.3.2
רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר בטמאה טמא – and he derives it from Scripture, as it is written (Leviticus 5:2): “Or when a person touches any impure thing -be it the carcass of an impure beast or the carcass of impure cattle,” Does the carcass of an impure beast defile and the carcass of a pure animal does not defile? But rather, which is it {that in an impure animal it defiles and that in a pure animal it doesn’t defile)? This is a [dead] fetus that is in the womb of an impure animal that is impure, and [a dead fetus] that is in a pure animal that is pure, from an a fortiori. But regarding the impure animal, there is no a fortiori [inference], and we don’t expound an analogy based upon biblical inference. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yosi.

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