Shochet
From Halachipedia
 | This article is okay. |
The Mishna (73a) lists ‘shocheit’ (slaughtering) as one of the 39 avot melachot on Shabbos. It is clear in the gemara and rishonim that the av melacha is not limited to ritual slaughtering per se, but actually includes killing more broadly.[1]
Killing Harmful Creatures
Killing Lice
- The gemara defines the type of creature that one may not kill on shabbat to be one which procreates via sexual reproduction.[2] It therefore excludes killing lice from the melacha of shocheit.[3]
- Nowadays
Chovel (lit: wounding)
- Background
- The Mishna (107a) teaches that one who is chovel (causes a wound) in a person or animal has violated a melacha on Shabbat.
- What av melacha does one violate when doing chovel?
- The Rambam (Hilchot Shabbat 8:7) writes that one who is chovel has violated dosh (threshing), because when a wound is caused, blood is removed from a person’s capillaries, which is similar to the threshing process.
- Tosafot (shabbat 75a s.v. ki) writes that one is liable for shocheit. Tosafot explains that the pasuk states “ki hadam hu hanefesh” (lit: the blood is the soul), and one who causes a person to have a wound removes a bit of the soul, which is equivalent to the melacha of shocheit.
- Rashi (shabbat 107a s.v. v'hachoveil) cites an opinion that one who hits an animal and causes it to bruise is considered to have "dyed" the hide, thereby violating the melacha of tzoveah.
- What's the Nafka Minah (practical ramification)?
- Shiur
- After death
- Removing blood that is unwanted
- The Shulchan Aruch (316:8) does not take a firm stance on whether to rule in accordance with the Rambam or Tosafos.[6]
- However, the commentaries on Shulchan Aruch appear to hold like Tosafot.[7]
- Practical Example
- Doctor drawing blood
- In situations where the blood is part of the general circulation (and is needed by the doctor to perform a blood test or the like), then this may violate shocheit, and would prohibited except in cases of pikuach nefesh.
- In contrast, if either the blood or fluid needed is not part of the general circulation[8], or if a needle must enter a person’s skin but no blood actually needs to be removed for the procedure to be effective, then there may be more room to be lenient to administer such a procedure for a choleh shein bo skana since shocheit wouldn’t apply to such blood[9].
- All doctors should consult their respective rabbanim for guidance on how to deal with these and similar questions that relate to their field of work.
- Doctor drawing blood
Sources
- ↑ Rambam (hilchot shabbat 11:1) states that not only is slaughtering part of this melacha, but actually any taking of a life (e.g. beating, stabbing, etc.) of an animal, bird, fish, or insect, is included in this melacha. However, he then remarks that strangling a living creature until it dies is only a toldah of the melacha, but not the av melacha itself. This is somewhat surprising, as one would have assumed that if the definition of the melacha is "taking life" then strangling would have been part of the av itself, and not merely a toldah. Perhaps strangling is different because it is merely preventing the creature from breathing and is thus a less direct form of killing, and is seen as a sort of grama. The Mirkevet Hamishna suggets that perhaps strangling is different because really the definition of the melacha is "removing blood", and strangling does not involve any removal of blood. Regardless, it is clear that the melacha is much more expansive than simply "slaughtering".
- ↑ The gemara shabbat 107b cites a beraita in which rebbe eliezer holds that one who kills a "כינה" (lit: louse) on shabbat is considered as if he killed a camel (i.e. it is prohibited). However, the gemara continues that the rabanan disagree and hold that one may kill a louse on shabbat. The gemara explains that the root of this debate is how to define the type of creature which we are commanded not to kill on shabbat. Everyone agrees that we learn from what was done in the preparations of the mishkan; in the mishkan they used to kill the "אילים" (lit: rams) for the purpose of using the hides. Rebbe Eliezer says that the key feature of these rams was simply that they were alive, and so the melacha should be applicable to any live creature. The rabanan argue that the key feature of these rams was that they reproduced via sexual reproduction (פרו ורבו), and so the melacha should only be applicable to those creatures which do likewise. [as an aside, it is interesting to consider why this feature is deemed important by the rabanan. Presumably they think that part of the definition of life is the ability to procreate and pass on life to the next generation, and as such, only creatures with this capability can truly be defined as "alive"].
- ↑ Shulchan Aruch 316:9 paskens that it is permitted to kill a כינה (louse) on shabbat.
- ↑ Dirshu Mishna Brurah (316:38 footnote 72) cites from Rav Dessler (Michtav M'eliyahu V4 pg 355 ft 4) that even though the מציאות (lit: realia) that we perceive differs from that which chazal understood when they established the halacha, this doesn't change anything. We may still rely upon the halacha as they defined it. Perhaps chazal also knew that lice really did sexually procreate, but since this is invisible to the naked eye, chazal treated them as if they do not (thus chazal were not wrong in their assessment of the situation, but were merely saying something different than their words might imply).
- ↑ The Pachad Yitzchak (Tzeida pg 21b), a work written by the late-17th-century Italian sage Yitzchak Lampronti, suggests that actually nowadays one should be strict and refrain from killing lice on shabbat, given that we observe that they do sexually procreate. The halacha as defined by chazal is that one may not kill creatures which sexually procreate, and therefore these creatures are included. There was never a special leniency for lice per se, but rather they just fit into a category of leniency. The Dirshu footnote cites Rav Elyashiv (orchot shabbat V1 Ch14 footnote 47) as also being strict.
- ↑ It seems unanimous amongst the poskim to reject Rashi, since most of the time one isn't interested in dying the hide and so would not be chayav for tzoveah. However, if indeed one was interested in dying the hide, and dyed the requisite amount to violate the melacha of tzove'ah, then they would be chayav for this melacha (see Biur Halacha 316:8 s.v. v'hachoveil).
- ↑ Magen Avraham 316:8 and Mishna Brurah 316:29. Beit Yosef 316:8 also appears to side with Tosafot.
- ↑ The Gemara Ketubot 5b states that there is no issue of Shocheit if the blood is mifkad pakid. Rashi s.v. mifkad explains that blood that is mifkad pakid stays collected in a certain valve and isn’t absorbed into the flesh. The language of “not part of the general circulation” is borrowed from Rav Schachter’s translation of mifkad pakid regarding Tosfos Shabbos 75a s.v. ki.
- ↑ Even though there is no issue of Shocheit, nonetheless, there is a rabbinic issue of creating a hole (Ketubot 5b, Shabbos 107a, Rambam Shabbos 23:1). For a choleh shein bo sakana, it may be permitted (S”A 328:17).
