Shechita over Holes

Chulin (2:9) | Yisrael Bankier | 11 hours ago

The Mishnah (2:9) teaches that one is not allowed to slaughter an animal over an ocean or river. The Bartenura explains that this is because it appears to an onlooker that the person is doing so as part of idol worship. The Mishnah also adds that one cannot slaughter over a utensil. Again, the concern is that it appears one is doing so to collect the blood for idol worship. Sometimes, however the concern can be alleviated. For example, if one slaughters on a ship and the blood runs over kli before falling in the ocean. Similarly, while one is not allowed to slaughter directly over a hole -- which was again associated with idol worship. The Mishnah however teaches that in one's chatzer, they may slaughter next to it such that the blood runs into the hole. The Mishnah however adds that in the marketplace however, even this practice is forbidden so as not to support the practice of the heretics.

The Tosfot Yom Tov notes that when a practice is forbidden due to marit ayin then it is forbidden in all locations -- even in the privacy of one's home. Nevertheless, the Mishnah appears to permit it at home but not in the market. Why?

The Tosfot Yom Tov explains that that principle is only if the same concern due to marit ayin would exist if they were witnessed at home performing the same act. In this case however, if someone saw the person slaughtering in this manner, they would understand that they were doing so to keep the chatzer clean. In the marketplace however, people would not usually take those steps.

The Melechet Shlomo adds a further ramification of this law. He cites Rashi who explains that if one was seen doing this practice in the market, others would need to confirm that this individual was not a min. In other words, until that point, others would not be able to drink his wine or eat his bread. The Rambam writes that if one was seen slaughtering over a hole, others would not be able to eat from the shechita either.

The Rashba however find this conclusion difficult considering that our case is in between cases where the manners of shechita are invalid. In both those cases the Mishnah explicitly states shechitato pesula -- the slaughter is invalid. If one was not allowed to eat from the slaughter in this case, it should have stated explicitly shechitato pesula as it did in those Mishnayot. Instead, the Rashba maintains that that individual maintains his chezkat kashrut -- the assumption that he is not a min -- and the slaughter is valid. The investigation is required, like Rashi stated, "in case he is a Rasha", which would then impact the interactions with him once, and only once confirmed.

The Tosfot R' Akiva Eiger however cites the Turei Even who []{dir="rtl"}reject his proof. He explains that the pesulim in the previous Mishnayot are different to our case. In the previous cases, the issue was with that specific shechita (shechita for a goi, for an olah). In this case however it is not just the shechita that is the issue. This case also creates a pesul gavra; it creates an issue for this person going forward. Had the Mishnah just stated shechitato pesula one would have missed this point.

The Rashash however argues that that answer is insufficient. If it was true that it created a pesul gavra, the Mishnah should have stated shechitotav pesulot -- termed in the plural. His proof is from when the Mishnah teaches that if one takes bribes to judge or testify "his judgements are cancelled" or "his testimonies are cancelled". The Rashash however answers that our Mishnah still could not have taught shechitotav pesulot. Had the Mishnah termed it as such, one might have thought we would also invalidate prior shechitot. Indeed, if one took a bribe, it would impact his past judgments or testimonies.

Finally, the Pri Tohar provides a different reason why the Mishnah could not have taught shechitato pesula. Had it done so, one would have thought that the pesul was absolute and could not be remedied. That however is not the case. If one clarifies that the individual was upstanding and nothing was wrong with the shechita, then it would be fine.

Download