Siman 32

The spinal cord emerges from the brain and extends along the entire spine until the end of the tail, and it is what supports and connects all the limbs and the sinews, and it is the primary source of the living creature's existence. If the majority of the circumference of the membrane that covers the marrow within the cord was severed across its width, it is a terefah, even though the entire marrow remains intact; for regarding this matter, the marrow is of no consequence, since once the membrane surrounding it is severed across the majority of its width, the marrow will inevitably separate and exit, as its existence is maintained by the membrane [see Rashi 45b]. And certainly if the entire membrane was severed it is a terefah. If the majority of the membrane was not severed, even if all the marrow inside was severed, it is kosher.

Some say that even though the law is also such regarding the windpipe, that when it is severed across its width in its majority it is terefah, and there they join together to form a majority when the severing is not all at once but rather there are holes in the circumference adjacent to one another, and when there is a majority among all of them it is terefah as written in siman 34; nevertheless, regarding the spinal cord it is not so, for only when it is severed in its majority all at once [is it terefah]. But when there are holes around the cord and there is a deficiency in them, and through the joining of the holes there would be a majority, it is kosher [Bach and Shach]. And the reason is logical, for specifically regarding the windpipe, whose vitality is from itself, in this case when the majority is deficient, even though it is not in one place, its vitality is severed; this is not the case regarding the skin of the cord, for the vitality is not from the side of the skin but rather because of the marrow within it, and the skin only holds it, and therefore as long as the majority is not together it still holds it and the marrow will not be undermined. Nevertheless, there are those who disagree on this [Pri Chadash and Tevuot Shor] because there is a reason to say that when its majority is severed even through joining, it no longer holds the marrow. And even according to the one who holds in siman 30 regarding the skull that holes which do not have a deficiency do not join to form a majority, nevertheless it is explained there that holes which have a deficiency join to form the size of a sela, and if so, why should we not join them to form a majority in the skin of the cord? And even if the majority is not in an equal circumference, for example if the cord was split slightly above and slightly below from its bottom, if through joining there will be a majority, it is terefah [ibid.]. And perhaps one should also be stringent if there is not the space of a hole between one hole and another, to join also the whole part between them as with the windpipe, and it requires further study for the practical law.

If the membrane was split along its length, it is kosher, for with a longitudinal split the brain still remains in its place and will not be crumbled. Even if it was split in its entirety and not even a minute amount remained at the top or the bottom that was not split, it is kosher [Beit Yosef]. All the poskim agreed to this, even though there is one who disagrees in this matter. The reason is that in this case it is not similar to the windpipe, as will be explained in siman 34, where it is required that a minute amount remain at the top and the bottom, for the windpipe’s vitality is of its own accord, which is not the case regarding the membrane of the cord. Since this does not cause harm to the brain, we have no concern regarding it, and such is the primary ruling.

And so too, if the spinal column was broken but the cord was not severed, or if the marrow within the cord was crushed and became loose, since its skin remains intact, it is permitted. And when the spinal column is broken, it requires an examination of the cord. And so too, there are birds where one side is higher than the other side and appears like a hump, and if it appears that this came about through a break, it requires an examination of the cord. And there is one who says that we are not experts now in this examination, and it is an excessive stringency, and particularly when it walked with a fine gait, and one may rely in this also on our examination. And so too, when the spinal column goes in a curve and it is possible to say that it was through a break and it healed, one must examine the spinal cord. And in section 18 it will be explained that most of the great authorities agreed that we are experts in this examination; and see what I wrote in siman 54, section 9.

An incident occurred where they found the cord to be black from its beginning to its end, and the sages of that generation [in Teshuvot Tzemach Tzedek] declared it kosher, for a change of appearance does not disqualify except in the case of a lesion. And it appears to me that this is not a general rule, for certainly a change of appearance does not disqualify; however, this is when we see that the membrane is strong like all other membranes of spinal cords. But when we see the membrane is loose and weak due to the change of appearance, it is close to saying that this is like decay, and it is obvious that decay disqualifies in the membrane since it has no strength. And so some say that this rule, that a change of appearance does not disqualify, applies when the marrow inside it is whole and good; but if the marrow is corrupted from within, even though without the change of appearance it would not have disqualified, nevertheless, the corruption of the marrow testifies also regarding the change of its appearance before the corruption took hold of it, and it is terefah [Pri Megadim].

That which was explained, that the marrow neither raises nor lowers, this is when it is separated from within; but if it dissolved or softened, as will be explained, it is treifah, for the sages established that from this affliction it is destined to be perforated and severed, and also you have no greater severing than this [Rashi 45b]. And "softened" is defined as whenever it pours like a flask, where the marrow within the membrane has become like water and pours from its beginning to its end and from its end to its beginning, and if they were to perforate it, it would exit through the perforation [ibid.]. And "dissolved" is defined as less than this, that it does not pour like water but rather melts like wax, until when they grasp it and leave part of it above the hand, it bends and falls. And the measure of "pours like a flask" is also like this measure, when it bends and falls [so it appears from the Rambam chapter 9 and from Rashi there who wrote in the heading "netmarach" where he wrote "even though etc. nevertheless the Tanna taught both of them etc." see there and examine carefully].

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote: And so, even if it has not softened from within, but it is thick and heavy, and if they stand it up it is unable to stand because of its weight, it is treifah. Thus far their words. And their intention is that this is a doubt of treifah, and so wrote the Rambam there, because this is an inquiry in the Gemara there and it was not resolved. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch were not concerned to be precise in this because regarding the primary law there is no practical difference in this, as is their way in every place. And the doubt is whether the primary treifot in a case where it has softened and dissolved is because it cannot stand, or because of the essence of the softening and dissolving, and this matter which depends on it being unable to stand is merely a sign, for whenever it reaches this sign, it is ruined. And if a small amount of the brain is missing and it is emptied, it is kosher; and if much is missing in a manner that when he stands it up, the empty part that is outside his hand would bend, it is treifah [Shach, subsection 6].

The spinal cord emerges from the brain and travels along the entire spine and the rump until the end of the tail. Our sages, of blessed memory, said [45b] that the power of the spinal cord to render an animal treifa through its severance is not until the end of the tail, but rather until "between the branchings," meaning until the place where it branches and splits into divisions. The beginning of the divisions is opposite the thighs, where one head emerges to this thigh and one to that one, and the middle one descends to the tail. Two fingers below those divisions, it returns and splits again into three, and below them it splits further, and so in many places until its end. If the cord was severed from the brain until between these branchings, in any place where the majority of it was severed, it is treifa. However, if it was severed below these branchings, the power of the cord there has already weakened, for there it does not support the spine, but rather the thighs support the spine, and the animal does not die because of the cord that was severed there. Therefore, when the cord is severed there, the animal is kosher.

The straight cord in the spine that is between one split and another split is called "between the parashot," and the cord that is between the two splits at their beginning when they are pulled this way and that is called "the mouth of the parasha," and the cords that are in the splits themselves are called "parashot." The Tur wrote: And in any place where the cord is severed until the third split, it is terefah, and from there onwards it is kosher. And if it was severed opposite the thickness of the split of the third parasha, which is "the mouth of the parasha," the Rashba wrote that it appears to be terefah, and there are those who permit it. And if one of the two cords of the first splits was severed, which are the "parashot," it is terefah, but if the cords of the third split were severed, it is kosher. Thus far his words. And know that it is a definite terefah only until the mouth of the first parasha, and from there onwards, whether between the mouths of the parashot, or the parashot themselves, or the large cord opposite them, they are terefot due to doubt [the Rashba in Torat HaBayit and the Ran there]. And we have already written that the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch were not concerned to clarify between a definite terefah and a doubtful terefah [and of necessity all of these are a doubt because they are inquiries in the Gemara there, and even though there is an "if you say" (im timtza lomar) "until and including," and according to the rule of the Geonim it is like a resolution, nevertheless, does not Rav Papa say "if you say" "until but not including"? See there and examine carefully].

Regarding that which the Tur wrote on the third case, that there are those who permit it, this is the opinion of the Rambam there. All the great authorities challenged him, for how is it possible to permit a matter that remained in doubt in the Gemara? Therefore, in the Shulchan Aruch, his opinion was omitted entirely. The great later authorities exerted themselves to settle his words [see Shach subsection 8, and Bach, and Yam Shel Shelomo section 15; the Pri Chadash already challenged them in subsection 4, see there].

And I am very much astonished at our teachers, the later authorities, for one who examines the words of the Rambam will see explicitly that he had a different approach in this, for he mentioned neither the "mouth of the parashah" nor the parashot themselves. This is his wording in chapter 9, law 3: Until where does the spinal cord [extend]? Its beginning is from outside the "beans" that are at the beginning of the nape, until the end of the second parashah, such that there remains after it only the third parashah adjacent to the beginning of the fat tail. And there are three parashot, and these are three bones joined to one another below the vertebrae of the spine. Thus far his words. Behold, he does not interpret the parashot according to the interpretation of all the early authorities, that they are the threads that branch out here and there many times; rather, according to him, there is no treifah except in the large central cord that goes along the entire spine, only that in the Gemara the question is regarding the place where its strength ends [see the Lechem Mishneh who wrote that according to his interpretation the question is regarding the bone itself, if it was broken, whether its law is like the cord; and I am astonished, for if so, why did the Rambam, of blessed memory, not mention them? Furthermore, what is the connection of a bone to the spinal cord? This requires great study].

And the clarification of the matters is as follows, for it is stated in the Gemara [ibid.]: until one, it is terefah; the third is kosher; the second, I do not know. And they asked in the Gemara whether "until" means "until and including," or "until but not including." And afterwards they asked: if "until but not including," what is the law regarding the parashah? And afterwards they asked: if "until and including," what is the law regarding the parashah itself? And it is resolved from a baraita, as it was taught: The parashah shall be judged as flesh. Does this not mean the first and second parashah? And it rejects this, for the intention is regarding the third parashah; see there.

And this is the explanation: for behold, one may interpret "until one" literally, and not that which is between the first and the second, and this is "until but not including." According to this, also that which he said—that the second is a doubt—this refers to what is between the first and the second, but what is between the second and the third is kosher; or, the explanation is "until and including," meaning that "until one" is called until the conclusion of the first, and that is until the second vertebra. And the doubt is regarding what is between the second and the third, and after the third it is only then kosher, and not before it. And afterwards he asked: if you say "until but not including," what is the law of the vertebra? Meaning, since the treif status is only until the second, and even this is a doubt as I wrote, what is the law at the edge of the second vertebra, which is the joint of the second, as is understood. And afterwards he asked: if you say "until and including," and the treif status is until the beginning of the third, what is the law regarding the vertebra itself? And this is a completely different question, and the explanation is: certainly the entire cord until the beginning of the third is included in the spinal cord, and when the majority of it is severed it is treifa. However, regarding the portion of the cord that lies between the bones, perhaps it does not prohibit when severed because the bones hold it, and even though it is severed there, it will not be ruined because the bones on its two sides will hold it. And he resolves it from that which was taught: "The vertebra shall be judged as flesh." Does this not mean the first and the second? Meaning, even though the treif status of the cord goes until the third, nevertheless, the portion of the cord between the first and second bones does not prohibit because the bones will hold it. And he rejects it: "No, the third," meaning only the third vertebra itself, and everything above that is a definite treifa. And this is why the Rambam was precise to say "that there does not remain after it except the third vertebra, etc." in order to include that everything above this, even what is between the bones, is treifa when severed. [And he ruled that it is definitely treifa according to the principle of the Geonim, and even though previously there was an "if you say" to the contrary, nevertheless, since this was mentioned afterwards, it is like a resolution. And delve into this.]

The terefot of the severing of the spinal cord are the same in an animal and in a bird. And until where does the power of the spinal cord in a bird extend, such that from there and below its severing does not render it forbidden? The opinion of the Tur is until between the wings; that is to say, since the wings are attached to the body, therefore until the beginning of the place where they are attached to the body it is terefah, and from here and further it is kosher. And this is the opinion of the Rambam and the Rosh, and so our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled in section 5. And there are some of our teachers who rule until the end of the place where they are attached to the body [like R. Yannai in the Gemara 46a: until below the wings]. And there are some of our teachers who rule until further down, at the place where they lie upon the body, for the wing protrudes and the bone extends from it from the place of its attachment to the body and lies thus upon the body, and until the place where it lies upon the body it is terefah when the cord is severed in its majority. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote that in a case where there is no great loss one should be stringent like the latter opinion, and in a case of great loss one may be lenient like the second opinion, until the end of the place where they are attached to the body [Taz, subsection 3]. And there are some of the great authorities who forbade by the essential law like the latter opinion even in a case of great loss [Bach, and Yam Shel Shelomo section 16, and Tevuot Shor, and Tiferet LeMoshe]. And there are some of the great authorities who ruled in a case of great loss like the first opinion [Shach in Nekudot HaKesef, and Pri Chadash, and so it appears from the Kereti U'Peleti].

An animal that was struck on the spine with a staff, and the staff traveled across the entire length of the spine, is kosher, and we do not fear that perhaps the cord was severed. But if the staff did not reach across the entire spine, or if there are knots in the staff, we fear that the head of the staff, at the place where it terminates, strikes with force, and similarly at the location of the knots. And likewise, if he struck across the width of the spine, we fear that perhaps the cord was severed. [All of this is in the Gemara 51a, and in the Rambam chapter 9, halacha 13, and they added: if he struck on its head and it traveled toward its tail or vice versa; and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch omitted this. And according to the explanation of Rashi there, it is simply understood that he did not strike the ribs at all, see there. And it appears the Rambam explains that he struck all the ribs, but it was not intentional, as he only intended to strike its head or its tail, and afterward he says "and even if he struck it etc.," meaning even intentionally; and see there in the Kesef Mishneh who labored over this.]

When we said we are concerned for it, the intention is for the severing of the spinal cord, as the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 6, see there. And even though in the Gemara [ibid.] the language is "we are concerned for the crushing of limbs," and so it is in the Rif and the Rosh, see there, they hold that the intention is for this organ of the severing of the cord. And only because the Gemara there deals with the laws of a fallen animal, where the concern is due to the crushing of all the limbs, it also employs this language here; but the intention is for the crushing of the cord, for why should we be concerned for the other limbs, since the stick only struck the spinal cord?

However, some say that certainly the concern is due to the crushing of organs, just as in the case of a fallen animal itself. On the contrary, in this case it is more stringent than a fallen animal, for regarding a fallen animal, once it has walked a proper gait of four cubits, it no longer requires examination, as written in siman 58. Yet here, even if it walked, it requires examination of the spinal cord. The reason is that we fear that the severing of the spinal cord does not always impede walking. They also hold that through this blow it is possible that all the organs were crushed as well [the Ran ibid., and one must say his intention is as I have written, and examine it closely].

And there is a major practical difference between the two reasons, for if we say that the concern is like that of a fallen animal, if it did not walk a proper walk it is treifah, for we are not experts in the examination of a fallen animal as is written in siman 58. However, if the concern is only because of the spinal cord, even we are experts in this, as is explained in the great later authorities, for in the examination of a single organ even we are experts [Yam Shel Shlomo siman 62, and Taz subsection 4, and so wrote the Tevuot Shor and the Pri Megadim], not like the one who wishes to say that even in this we are not experts to examine [see Bach], for this is not a great expertise and every eye can see if the cord was severed or not.

Regarding the law, it seems the primary view is like the words of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, that the concern is only regarding the thread. The Rambam leaves the matter undefined in chapter 9, where he wrote simply that we are concerned; see there. There is one who inferred from his undefined wording that the concern is like that of a fallen animal [Pri Chadash], but this is no proof at all. On the contrary, since he did not write using the language of the Gemara that the concern is due to the crushing of limbs, it implies that he holds the Talmud did not use that term precisely, and one should only be concerned with what is appropriate to be concerned with. Furthermore, Rashi, of blessed memory, wrote this explicitly, that the concern is regarding the thread; see there. [The Tevuot Shor also rejected his words, and his opinion tends toward what I have written; see there.] Since the opinion of Rashi, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch is explicitly so, and the opinion of the "there are those who say" is a minority opinion, it appears that the halacha follows the majority. There is one who wishes to distinguish between if it fell to the ground due to the blow and if it did not fall [Pri Chadash]; for if it fell to the ground and is unable to stand and walk, we are concerned for the crushing of limbs, but if it did not fall to the ground, the concern is only regarding the thread. Certainly this is so, but the Talmud and the poskim are not dealing with this law in a case where it fell to the ground [Tevuot Shor]. There is one whose words imply that even the opinion of the "there are those who say" is not regarding all the limbs, but only regarding the examination of the spine [Taz], and that is if the ribs were not broken. It appears that this depends on the magnitude of the blow. [See the Beit Yosef, who understood the words of the Rambam and the Ramban like the Ran, but this requires further study, for there is no proof at all as I have written; furthermore, the words of the Ramban refer to a fallen animal and not to this law, as the Tevuot Shor wrote. It appears that in the Shulchan Aruch he retracted his position, for he did not mention the concern of crushing of limbs at all.]

The poskim wrote that even if the stick traveled across the entire length of the spine, if the stick broke during the striking and the breaking reached the middle of the spine and not its end, we are concerned, because at the place where the stick broke it creates a bruise or a great wound like the tip of a rod [Beit Yosef in the name of Kol Bo]. In the Shulchan Aruch he did not bring this, and it requires further study for the halacha. And know that this entire law of striking that has been explained refers specifically to a great blow that is not in the manner that one strikes animals, for with a common striking, certainly there is no concern of severing the spinal cord, and this is a daily occurrence. And it appears that also regarding a bird, the law of striking with a stick applies if there is reason to fear that the striking caused the severing of the cord.

An animal that drags its legs and we do not know of any cause for it, such as a blow or a fall, we are not concerned for a severance of the spinal cord; rather, we say it was seized by shigrona, which is a pain in the thighs. Similarly, when one buys a bird from the market and it drags its legs, we are not concerned for it for this reason. And if the gentile seller says that this is due to a blow or a fall, even though according to the law his words neither add nor subtract, nevertheless, if according to the circumstances it appears that he is speaking in innocence, he is believed and it is forbidden. And whenever the animal or the bird had some cause, such as a blow or a fall, even though if it were not dragging its legs there would be no concern—for example, if the blow was minor or the fall was from less than ten tefachim—nevertheless, since there is a deficiency, we are concerned and it requires an examination of the spinal cord. And in a case of a complete fall, even if it walked four amot with a fine gait, which is effective even in a complete fall as I wrote in siman 58, nevertheless, since it drags its legs, the walking is naught and it requires an examination of the entire body, and in this we are not experts, as I wrote there. And it is stated in the Gemara [51a] that even if they examined one animal that drags its legs and found that the spinal cord was severed, nevertheless, if it is found in another animal, we are not concerned for it and it does not require examination at all [Rashi]. And even though an animal in its lifetime stands in a presumption of prohibition, nevertheless, since shigrona is common and severance of the spinal cord is uncommon, we always attribute it to the common occurrence [Gemara].