Shechita by a Gentile

 

          The first mishna in Chulin describes several individuals whose shechita is invalid: a deaf person, a minor and a mentally ill person.  According to the mishna, their invalidation is based upon technical considerations; in each case the chances are high that the shechita will be executed incorrectly.  The mishna, subsequently, adds a fourth pesul: the shechita of a Gentile is invalid.  Clearly, one cannot attribute this disqualification to his  technical inability since in theory, a Gentile is fully capable of mastering the techniques of shechita.  Evidently, there must exist some "formal" category and basic rationale for disqualifying his shechita.  This article will explore a fundamental machloket regarding this rule and attempt to locate some of the practical manifestations of this debate.

 

          The Rambam in Hilkhot Shechita 1:4 associates this law with the pasuk in Shemot 34:15, "Lest you sign pacts with the local inhabitants and be seduced by their idols; they (the Gentiles) will sacrifice to their idols and call you to eat from these sacrifices."  According to the Rambam the issur is considered a biblical 'seyag' - or safeguard-meant to protect us from lapsing into actual avoda zara.  By invalidating a Gentile's shechita the Torah distances us from his ceremonial world, the dominant part of which was centered around sacrifice.  What the Rambam describes is not an internal disqualification but an external one, geared toward achieving a secondary goal - i.e. separating us from the world of avoda zara.  Tosafot (Chulin 2b) and the Rosh (Chulin 1:4) each offer an alternate explanation and, moreover, an alternate biblical basis.  In two locations in Sefer Devarim (27:7; 12:21) the Torah inserts two words in close proximity to each other: ve-zavachta ve-akhalta - you will sacrifice and eat.  According to these Ba'alei Ha-Tosafot only an individual for whom an act of shechita is a pre-requisite for eating is halakhically authorized to perform shechita in the first place.  The Torah is, in effect, limiting shechita to those who REQUIRE it.  Since a Gentile is not commanded to adhere to the laws of shechita, his act is disqualified.

 

          From a logical standpoint the two positions are very different.  The Rambam sees nothing integrally problematic with a Gentile's shechita.  Instead it is disqualified as a defense against idolatry.  In contrast, the position of Tosafot and the Rosh maintains that a Gentile's shechita is inherently invalid; a Gentile cannot accomplish a halakhically valid shechita.  The Torah indeed presents this in a somewhat roundabout fashion but essentially imposes a formal disqualification.  What might be the practical differences between these two stances?

 

          According to the Rambam, we are confronted with an initial concern.  Given that the entire halakha is geared to prevent idolatry, how would we judge the shechita of a Gentile who does not sacrifice to his idol or, for that matter, is an atheist?  Conceptually we might have ruled that, in cases where technically his shechita is sound, it should be validated.  The Rambam himself is aware of this problem and offers an enigmatic answer: 'THEY' made an important "geder" (loosely translated "extension") so that even the shechita of a non-idolatrous Gentile is disqualified.  Hence, the Rambam does extend the halakha to all Gentiles.  What is not clear is at what level this extension was made.  Is it inherent within the biblical prohibition or was it effected by the Rabbis as an appendage to the biblical law?  Be that as it may, what is clear is that even the Rambam does not differentiate between different types of Gentiles.

          There might, however, still be one type of Gentile whose shechita is permissible. Even if we equate all Gentiles because they are associated with a general milieu of idolatry, what about a Gentile who actively disassociates himself with that world.  A ger toshav might represent such a Gentile.  By living in a Jewish community and observing the seven No'achide commandments (one of which is the prohibition of idolatry) he has certainly removed himself from that environment.  Certainly, though, according to the Rosh this makes little difference; since he isn't commanded in the laws of shechita his shechita is still halakhically invalid.  What about the Rambam?  Would he recognize this shechita as one which does not threaten to draw us into the world of avoda zara?  This question essentially forms the basis of a machloket between the Shakh and the Taz.  The Shakh rules that according to the Rambam, at least on a biblical level, the shechita of a ger toshav is permissible.

 

          A similar question might be raised regarding a Jew, who though unconnected to the world of idolatry, has abandoned the halakhic system per se.  Such an individual is known as a "mumar," one who on principle (either because of personal preference or as an act of rebellion) has abdicated his halakhic responsibilities.  According to the Rambam we would expect his shechita to be valid and indeed this is how he rules in halakha 14.  According to the Rosh, though, since he does not actively adhere to the laws of shechita and for him shechita is no longer a pre-condition for eating, we would expect his act of shechita to be invalid.  Indeed the Shakh (Hilkhot Shechita 1:16) concurs with this inference in the Rosh.

 

          A second distinction would focus upon the halakhic status of a Gentile's shechita.  An invalid shechita (such as one which fails technically) does not only confer an issur to eat the ensuing neveila.  In addition, the meat itself enters the category of impurity called tamei tum'at neveila.  What about an animal upon which a Gentile performed shechita?  Would the meat also become tamei?  Presumably, according to the Rosh we might expect this to be a standard case of halakhically invalid shechita and hence the meat should become tamei.  According to the Rambam, however, this shechita is not inherently invalid but rather is disqualified as a safeguard.  For a technically proper shechita which is invalidated for peripheral reasons we might anticipate an absence of tum'a.  This indeed is the Rambam's position in Hilkhot Avot Ha-tum'a 2:10.

 

          A third difference might focus upon an additional structural distinction between the Rambam and the Rosh.  According to the latter, a Gentile's shechita is invalid because of a deficiency: a legitimate act of shechita has not been performed.  According to the Rambam we might relate to a Gentile's shechita as containing a pesul (blemish) that which actively undermines the heter (permit).  The specter of avoda zara casts a shadow over this shechita and nullifies it despite the fact that technically it is sound and that no formal exclusion of a Gentile exists.  What would happen if a Gentile and a Jew combine to perform a shechita?  According to the Rosh we might validate the act because it was partly sponsored by a Jew.  According to the Rambam, however, the presence of the Gentile hand within this shechita renders the entire act unfit.  What would happen if a Jew and Gentile simultaneously perform shechita?  The gemara does not address this case although the Shakh alludes to it.  In fact the Haga'ot Ha-ashri (a commentary written on the Rosh) rules that the shechita would be valid.  This is consistent with the Rosh's position that a Gentile's shechita is not tainted but halakhicallly invalid.  The presence and participation of a Jew validates it.

          Instead, the gemara addresses a related instance.  The gemara in Chulin (29b) discusses a case in which a Gentile performed the first stage of shechita and then a Jew completed the process.  Though the gemara invalidates this shechita it does not provide a rationale.  Rashi explains that the shechita fails because the Gentile has already turned this animal into a tereifa - an animal which cannot live and upon which shechita can no longer be performed.  Since he began cutting its trachea the animal is now considered a tereifa when the Jew begins his shechita.  According to Rashi we do not consider the two acts of shechita as one long shechita and we invalidate the second act because it seeks to perform shechita on a "critically wounded" animal.  The Rambam (4:13), however, disqualifies the shechita on more fundamental grounds: The initial participation of the Gentile marks the entire shechita as partially his (since it is all one long process) and his role invalidates the entire act.  Again the Rambam displays consistency.  Shechita of a Gentile is not merely deficient; it is tainted and subverts the process even when a Jew contributes.

 

METHODOLOGICAL POINTS:

----------------------------------------

1) Different sources quoted for the same halakha almost always reflect fundamentally different ways of understanding the said halakha.

 

2) Disqualifications come in two forms: inherent, internal problems or external concerns.  It is always important to hold a halakha up to this test.

 

3) Likewise often the following question is phrased: Is the breakdown of a halakha of the invalidation based upon a chisaron or a pesul?  Is the shechita of a Gentile merely inadequate and deficient (the position of the Rosh - chisaron) or is it positively invalid because it is tainted (position of the Rambam - it is pasul since it might lead us to avoda zara)?

 

Shabbat Shalom

Moshe Taragin

 

 

Copyright (c) 1995 Yeshivat Har Etzion.  All rights reserved.