Siman 33

The sages taught in the Mishnah [54a]: If the lower jaw was removed it is kosher, for the jaw is removed from above the flesh and the simanim are attached to the flesh [Rashi]. We have already explained in siman 24, section 30, that when the jaw is peeled away from the esophagus and the flesh that is with it, it is kosher even if it was entirely peeled away. However, when the esophagus is peeled away from the jaw and from the flesh that is with it, according to Rashi it is a complete terefah, and according to all the poskim it is not a terefah during its lifetime, but rather that shechitah is not effective for it, and this is the uprooting of the simanim. This is specifically when it was entirely peeled away, but if a minority was peeled away and the majority remains, it is kosher even for shechitah. And even if the majority was peeled away, if the remaining minority is in one place, the shechitah is effective for it; see there.

This is the wording of the Tur: The Rambam wrote that if the upper jaw is removed it is treifah, but if the lower one is removed, such as if it was severed up to the simanim and they were not uprooted, this is permitted. And I wrote above in the laws of shechitah that even if most of the jaw was uprooted, if the minority remains attached in one place it is kosher, until it is entirely uprooted or if the minority does not remain in one place. And I also wonder regarding what he forbade if the upper jaw is removed; for is there authority to add to the treifot? And one should not infer that since he declared it kosher in the lower one, it implies that in the upper one it is treifah, for it was necessary to teach it regarding itself, even though the simanim are attached to it, and all the more so regarding the upper one. Thus far his words. And the commentators have already labored over the beginning of his words regarding what he challenged the Rambam, and the Rashba, of blessed memory, [in Torat HaBayit] also challenged him like the Tur.

And according to what we explained above in siman 24, all is well. For behold, the Tur, the Rashba, and the Sages of Lunel maintained that the simanim are attached to the lower jaw. Therefore, they interpreted the words of the Rambam, in what he wrote that it was cut until the simanim etc., that his intention was that along the entire length of the jaw the simanim remained attached as they were. Therefore, they challenged him, for even if the majority were uprooted it is kosher if the minority is in one place. According to this, they rightly wondered about him: from where does he know that if the upper jaw is removed it is terefah? For that which we learned in a Mishnah, "if the lower jaw is removed it is kosher," is to show the greater novelty, that even though the simanim are attached to it, it is kosher, and all the more so the upper jaw. Therefore, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, also wrote in section 2: If the upper jaw is removed, according to the Rambam it is terefah, and it is proper to be concerned for his words. Thus far his words. And the Rashba wrote similarly, and it is explained from this that according to the essential law they do not agree with him, only that it is proper to be concerned for his words.

However, in truth, according to the approach of the Rambam, everything is well-settled, for he explained in his response to the sages of Lunel that the simanim are not attached at all to the jaw; rather, only the turbetz is attached to the jaw, and the simanim hang between the base of the palate and the tongue near the lower edge of the jaw. According to this, his intention in what he wrote, "if the lower jaw was removed," is that it was severed until the location of the simanim, etc., as we explained there in section 34. That is, the entire turbetz was severed from the jaw, but the heads of the simanim are still attached to the edge of the jaw, and therefore it is completely kosher. But if even the edge of the simanim were torn from the jaw, this is "uprooting of the simanim," and this is "dislocated" because the simanim themselves will fall since they have no hold, as I wrote there in section 32; see there. According to this, the Rambam correctly infers it from the Mishnah itself, for why did it teach "if the lower jaw was removed"? It should have taught "jaw" without specification. Since the simanim are not connected to the jaw, there would be no novelty in this. Rather, it is certainly to infer that if the upper one was removed, it is treifah. The Rambam explained the reason in his response: because the air will enter into the lungs and the animal will immediately die [see the Beit Yosef who cited this response]. And they assumed that the Rambam innovated this on his own based on his great wisdom in the natural sciences, but Heaven forbid to say so, for he already wrote himself at the end of chapter 10 of Hilkhot Shehitah that we are not to innovate on our own even in a matter known to us through the ways of medicine in our hands, but only what our holy teachers, of blessed memory, received; see there. According to our words, the matter is clear that he inferred it from the Mishnah, but he explained the reason for it [see the Shach there, subsection 7, who rejected his words for this reason, but according to what I wrote, it is well-settled].

The Rosh and the Tur wrote in the name of the Geonim: If the lower jaw was removed, it is kosher, provided that it can live by means of hamra'ah and hal'atah; otherwise, it is a terefah. Thus far their words. And this is found before us in the Gemara [55b], but it is not from the primary text of the Shas, for Rashi, of blessed memory, did not explain anything regarding this, and also the Rif and the Rambam did not cite this. And what is hamra'ah and hal'atah? That one thrusts the food into its gullet until a place where it cannot return, and this is called hamra'ah; and to a place where it can return is called hal'atah. And similarly, a bird whose lower beak was removed, if it can live by means of hamra'ah and hal'atah, it is kosher, and if not, it is a terefah. But if its upper beak was removed in depth, in any case it is a terefah, for this is the removal of the upper jaw [Tevu'ot Shor]. And the later authorities wrote in the name of the Rokeach that if the tongue rotted away until the totlet, which is the epiglottis, it is kosher; but with the totlet, it is a terefah. And there are those who questioned him, for from where does he have the authority to add to the list of terefot [Pri Chadash]? However, the reason for this is because it cannot eat, and it is as if it cannot live by means of hamra'ah and hal'atah [Tevu'ot Shor]. And see what I wrote in section 7, and it requires further study.

And know that there is one of the great authorities who says that certainly the Geonim had this version in the Gemara, that if it cannot live through seeing and stuffing it is treifah, for if not so, from where would they have the authority to add to the treifot [Bach]. And I wonder further about this, for why should it be rendered treifah because of this? Is it so that the fact that it cannot eat is a matter of treifot? And if so, if it has a wound on its tongue such that it cannot eat and will certainly die because of hunger, shall we say that it is treifah? Behold, as long as it is alive it is completely kosher, and what is the relevance of hunger to treifot?

Therefore, it appears to me that according to what we explained regarding the intention of the Rambam, all is well. In truth, the Rambam mentioned this law, but he mentioned it in different language. For we have already written that the simanim are not dependent on the lower jaw, but rather on its edge, and the torbetz is attached to the jaw. We explained in siman 24, section 34, that what he wrote in chapter 9—that if the simanim were folded over it is treifah—his intention is that the torbetz was peeled until its end and the heads of the simanim folded over the simanim. And granted that this is not a treifut, nevertheless they are not fit for shechitah, as he concludes there, and this is his wording: because they are not fit for shechitah, see there. And the matter is understood, that the food must necessarily descend through the simanim, for it has no other place. Consequently, it is understood that when the torbetz is peeled with the heads of the simanim and the simanim are folded over, the simanim have fallen, and through what will the food enter? And this is what the Geonim said, that when it cannot live by means of cramming and stuffing it is treifah; meaning, that if the simanim fell, it is certain that it cannot live by means of cramming and stuffing, for there is no place for the food to enter, and consequently it is treifah. This is not because of the absence of food, but because it is not fit for shechitah, and this is the essence of simanim. In the Gemara [44a] this is explained, where it says there: that which was peeled off, see there, and what we explained in siman 24. According to this, the Geonim were merely stating a sign, that in such a case it is certainly treifah, for it is not fit for shechitah, and without shechitah it must necessarily die due to the absence of food, and consequently it is treifah. According to this, the Rif and the Rambam, of blessed memory, mentioned this, for it is known that his way is to bring all the words of the Geonim, and why would he not bring this? But according to what I have written, it is well.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 3: The esophagus or the turbetz ha-veshet that was perforated into its cavity by any amount is nevelah. Thus far his words. For it is a great principle regarding the perforations of terefot that anything which is rendered terefah by a perforation, if it is an object that has a cavity, it must be perforated into the cavity, and anything that does not have a cavity, until it is perforated with a through-and-through perforation from one side to the other, and without this it is not a terefah [Taz]. And that which he wrote that it is nevelah, it is certainly so according to the opinion of the Rambam; and even if we say that it is not nevelah while alive, nevertheless, shechitah is not effective for it, and after its shechitah it is nevelah, as written in siman 29, section 2. And there we explained that some say its law while alive is like nevelah regarding the prohibition but not regarding tumah, see there. However, regarding that which he ruled that even with a perforation of the turbetz it is nevelah, this requires further study, for this is not the place of shechitah, and the terefah of a perforation within it is like a perforation in the rumen or intestines, which even after shechitah is only a terefah and not nevelah, and certainly while alive it is not nevelah [Shach, sub-section 5]. And although from the wording of the Rambam, chapter 1, law 6, one may infer slightly that even in the turbetz it is nevelah, see there, nevertheless, there is no reason to say so, as our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote there in his book Kesef Mishneh, see there. Therefore, it appears that here too he was not precise in this, and on account of the esophagus he also wrote this wording regarding the turbetz [Pri Chadash], because in the essence of the law there is no difference between nevelah and terefah [and see Kereti U-Peleti and Tevu'ot Shor, the primary view is like the words of the Pri Chadash].

The esophogus has two skins; if one of them was perforated, it is kosher; if both were perforated, it is terefah, even if a strong membrane formed over it and it closed up. For it is a general rule regarding terefot that in any place where it became terefah through a perforation, the membrane that formed over it afterwards is of no avail, because it is destined to tear open and does not endure [Rashi 43a and Yevamot 76a]. And that which we are not concerned that perhaps a membrane formed and it closed up will be explained in section 30. And even if the perforations were not opposite one another—for example, if the upper skin was perforated above and the lower was perforated below—it is not similar to the gizzard, which will be explained in siman 49, where if the two skins were perforated not opposite one another it is kosher. For the gizzard rests in place, and it will never happen that the two perforations meet as one, and therefore each perforation in its place has the second one protecting it. But the esophagus, with which it eats and breathes, and the skins do not rest, it is possible that the two perforations will meet in one place. And even if they are very far from one another, nevertheless, the rabbis did not distinguish, for there is no measure for the matter that we could estimate how close they must be or how far they must be [Taz]. And according to this, specifically when both were perforated from one side; even though they are not exactly equal in one line, nevertheless, since they are on one side, it is possible they will meet one another. But when the second perforation is from the other side, it is kosher, for they will never meet one another. And there is one who wishes to be stringent even in such a case, but it is not the primary view [see Bach, and his words require further study for he follows the opposite, and examine it well]. And if one perforated in the turbetz and the second in the second skin of the esophagus, it also appears that it is terefah, because it is possible they will meet one another, for this is like one above and one below which was explained to be terefah [see Tevuot Shor, subsection 6]. And even if the esophagus was perforated above near the head, where it is attached to the flesh, one must rule it terefah, and we do not say that the flesh closes it up; for since it is not at rest, it is possible it will move from there, and it requires further study [Noda BiYehudah, siman 9]. However, according to what we explained in section 4, that is not the location of the esophagus but the location of the turbetz, and perhaps it is a closing [the Shevut Yaakov is lenient in this, and as for the law, it requires further study].

These two skins, the outer is red and the inner is white. It is stated in the Gemara [43a] that if they are reversed it is terefah, meaning if the outer is white and the inner is red. When both are red or both are white, our teachers disagreed regarding this; for there are those who say it is kosher [Tur in the name of the Ittur]. From the language of the Shas it appears so, since it did not say that if one of them is reversed it is terefah; we learn from this that it is specifically when both are reversed. This is also explicitly clear from the language of the Rambam at the end of chapter 7, who wrote: Similarly, an esophagus in which the outer skin was found to be white and the inner red, whether in a bird or in an animal, it is as if it is not there and it is terefah. Thus far his words. Also from the perspective of logic it appears so, for since if this one is perforated but not that one it is kosher, what does it matter to us if one skin changed from its appearance? It is like a perforation, and the second one protects.

But the Rosh, of blessed memory, wrote [at the beginning of chapter 3] that even if one of them was switched it is treifah, and it is not comparable to a puncture where the second skin protects, for here, since the entire skin is afflicted, it does not endure by means of the second. And thus they ruled in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch section 5. And some say that when the inner one turns to red it is treifah, for every red appearance is an affliction, but when the outer one turns to white this is not an affliction at all. And thus it is clarified from the wording of Rashi cited by the Ran, who wrote that if the inner one changed to redness it is treifah, for we say it was clawed. Thus far his words. And this is also the opinion of the Ran, of blessed memory, see there. And they cited that in the Tosafot they also ruled accordingly [Hagahot Ashri]. And from the wording of Rashi before us it implies that specifically when it changed completely it is treifah, but in one of them it is kosher [beginning of page 43a, see there]. And many of the great Acharonim also agreed that if both are white it is kosher [Yam Shel Shlomo siman 3, and Taz subsection 10, and Pri Chadash]. And therefore, that which is found in our times in birds occasionally, that both are white, and particularly in fat birds [as written by the Panim Meirot and the Chakham Tzvi], one should not doubt them at all. And also the opinion of the Rashba in Torat HaBayit inclines thus. And since all these authorities hold thus, the opinion of the Rosh is a minority against all the Rishonim and Acharonim who agreed upon the permission. And in our days we have not heard that they declare it treifah because of this, even though it is very common in birds that both skins are white.

If a portion of the inner skin became red, all the great authorities agreed that it is kosher, for specifically when all of it or the majority of it became red is it a defect, and not with a portion of it [Yam Shel Shlomo, and Taz subsection 8, and Shach subsection 9, and Pri Chadash, and Kereti U-Peleti]. And that which we brought from the wording of Rashi that the Ran, of blessed memory, cited, that there is a concern of derusah in this, and if so even with any amount it is terefah—this is when there is a concern of derusah regardless; but without this, there is no logic at all that because of a portion of redness we should concern ourselves with a doubt of derusah [Taz]. And there is one who wishes to say that this is specifically when there is no change in the outer skin, but if there is a bit of whiteness in the outer skin, it is terefah when there is a portion of redness in the inner skin [Tevu'ot Shor subsection 9]. And this does not appear correct at all, for this is only according to those who hold that when both are white it is terefah [as he wrote himself, see there], but we have already explained that when both are white one may rely on the majority of our teachers, the Rishonim and Acharonim, who permit it; if so, it is not a defect at all that the outer skin became slightly white. And know that there is one who wishes to permit it if one skin was removed entirely, but it is not so, and if one skin is removed it is terefah [as the Pri Chadash wrote, see there]. And all the more so if it has two esophagi or two windpipes it is terefah, for anything extra is considered as if it were missing. And if below and above they are joined as one and in the middle they are separated, it requires further study for the ruling. And in male geese, a kind of protrusion emerges at the head of the windpipe, and this is not like two windpipes for such is their natural growth; and there are those who permit it also in their females if it is found so, and it requires further study.

And regarding that which has been explained, that if one of them was perforated it is kosher, our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And all of this only deals with a case where it is evident that the perforation came about due to illness, but if there is reason to fear that it was perforated by a thorn, even if only the inner one was perforated, it is terefah, for we fear that perhaps the outer one was also perforated, and the esophagus cannot be inspected from the outside. Thus far his words. And in a case of a perforation due to illness it is kosher, and we do not fear that perhaps the outer one was also perforated and the perforation is not evident in it; for since we see that the illness did not take hold in the outer one, it is kosher, as we say: where it took hold, it took hold, and where it did not take hold, it did not take hold. And even if the illness took hold in a portion of the thickness of the outer skin, since it did not take hold in all of it, we have no concern regarding it. And for this an inspection is required, to see if the illness did not take hold through the entire thickness of the outer skin [Pri Megadim, Mishbetzot Zahav, subsection 6]. And regarding the expertise of whether the illness took hold, we also possess expertise in this; however, as long as we do not know clearly that it came about through illness, we attribute it by default to a thorn [Shach, subsection 8], for so it is implied from his wording where he wrote: "where it is evident that the perforation came about due to illness, but if there is reason to fear that it was perforated by a thorn," etc. It is explained that by default we attribute it to a thorn.

And according to this, there is a question: behold, in siman 49 regarding the gizzard and in siman 51, our teachers the authors of the Shulchan Aruch wrote that when there is a doubt whether it was perforated by a needle and is treifah or by illness and is kosher, we hang it to be lenient because of a sefek sefeika: perhaps it was by illness, and if you say it was by a needle, perhaps both skins were not perforated, see there. And if so, here too let us declare it kosher for this reason. And indeed, there is one who disagrees there as well and declares it treifah [Taz ibid.]. And there is one who says that the esophagus is not comparable to other organs, for it is common that it eats thorns, and therefore we always hang it on what is common [Nekudot HaKesef ibid.]. And furthermore, regarding the esophagus, since it eats with it and breathes with it, it is a near certainty that when one is perforated by a thorn, the second is also perforated, and therefore a sefek sefeika is not effective; whereas in other organs, it is properly a sefek sefeika [Pri Chadash ibid.]. And furthermore, a doubt in the esophagus is not comparable to a doubt in other organs, for there, there is a chazakah for permission that "once slaughtered it is permitted," whereas when the doubt is in the esophagus, if it was perforated, slaughtering is no longer effective for it and it is a nevelah, and it does not have the chazakah of "once slaughtered it is permitted" [Kereti U-Peleti]. And even though a sefek sefeika is effective even against a chazakah of prohibition, in truth this is not a complete sefek sefeika, for this is like a sefek sefeika of one type: a doubt whether the second skin was also perforated or not, and what does it matter to me if it was not perforated due to illness that dominated the first and did not dominate it, or that it was not perforated due to a thorn that perforated the first and did not perforate it—ultimately, it is one type [see Kereti U-Peleti siman 51]. Therefore, the primary basis for hanging it on permission there is because of the chazakah of permission, and in the esophagus this chazakah does not exist, as I have written.

And regarding that which he wrote, that if there is concern that it was perforated by a thorn, even if only the inner layer was perforated it is terefah, for we fear that perhaps the outer layer was also perforated and the esophagus cannot be inspected from the outside, thus far his words, the commentators disagreed on its interpretation. For some say that all the more so if only the outer layer was perforated it is terefah [Bach and Taz, subsection 7], since most swallowings are through the esophagus, and if so, in any case it is terefah; for if it came through the interior of the esophagus, then necessarily the inner skin was also perforated, and if we say that the thorn descended from the esophagus into the body cavity and afterwards was thrust into the outer skin, then when it exited the esophagus it necessarily perforated one of the internal organs. And some say that when the inner layer is perforated, we certainly fear for the outer layer, and in it there is no inspection for a minute perforation, but when the outer layer is perforated, we certainly can inspect the inner skin [Shach, subsection 7]. And that which will be explained later, that we are not experts in inspecting the esophagus for a minute perforation, that is when the perforation is not in a known location; but when the perforation is in a known location, even we are experts in inspection, and this is considered a known location [ibid.], because we see the location of the perforation in the outer layer and there is no need for inspection in the inner layer except opposite the perforation of the outer layer, and we have no reason to assume a defect further. However, this is specifically when it is possible to attribute that it was perforated from the outside by a thorn, such as when there is some damage also on the skin from the outside; or it is possible to say that even if no damage is recognizable from the outside, there is a double doubt here: a doubt whether it was through illness, and if you say it was through a thorn, perhaps it came from the outside and only perforated the outer skin alone. And regarding this matter, it is similar to other organs where we attribute it to illness because of a double doubt; so too regarding the esophagus, for although we do not attribute it to illness because it is more common that it comes through a thorn, nevertheless regarding this matter where there is also a doubt if it came through a thorn from the inside or a thorn from the outside, we certainly combine the doubt of illness into a double doubt [as appears to be the intention of the Shach, and all that the later authorities questioned against him is settled; nevertheless, for the law one should be stringent according to the first interpretation, as the majority of the great authorities agreed with his interpretation, and see Pri Megadim, Tevuot Shor, and Kereti U-Peleti, and look closely].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 6: The esophagus has no external examination regarding a drusa that requires examination, because since it is red, the redness of the venom is not recognizable upon it. What should be done? If it is a bird, one examines the trachea externally and slaughters it, and afterward turns the esophagus inside out and examines it from the inside; and if it is an animal, it has no remedy. And regarding a perforation as well, the esophagus has no external examination, only from the inside. Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And for us, who are not experts in examination, even a bird has no remedy. Thus far his words. [And this was written before "And regarding a perforation," see there.] And see what I wrote in section 31:

The explanation of the matter is that according to the law of the Gemara, there is an inspection for a suspected derusah, and according to the opinion of the Rambam, even for a certain derusah there is an inspection, as will be explained in siman 57. The simanim also require inspection, but in this regard the simanim are more lenient than other organs regarding derusah; for in other organs, such as the stomach and intestines, even if the mark of the venom is not visible on them themselves, if only the flesh opposite them has redness, it is treifah, for this is a sign that the venom dominated them themselves as well. However, in the simanim, even if the flesh opposite them became red, we are not concerned [Gemara 53b]. The reason is because the simanim are hard, and even though the venom dominated the flesh opposite them, nevertheless, the venom did not dominate them. Therefore, the Sages, of blessed memory, said [ibid.] regarding the simanim: until the simanim themselves become red. For this reason as well, even if we see that the venom dominated one membrane of the esophagus, nevertheless, as long as it did not dominate the second membrane, it is not treifah [Ran, beginning of chapter 3]. And this is why it says that they should not inspect for derusah on the outer membrane of the esophagus, for the redness of the venom is not visible in it; therefore, he should inspect only the inner membrane, and if there is no appearance of redness in it, we are not concerned about the outer one, for even if the venom dominated it, we are not concerned, as I have written. However, in a beast, since one must slaughter both simanim, there is no remedy for this, for we must fear that he slaughtered upon the place of the redness. But in a bird, even though initially one should slaughter both simanim in a bird as well, nevertheless, since in this case it is impossible, it is like a post-facto situation, and he should slaughter only one siman, which is the trachea. And even though it also requires inspection, nevertheless, it is possible to inspect it before the slaughtering, as it is only one membrane; therefore, he should tear the skin moderately and look at the trachea to see that there is no mark of derusah upon it, and then slaughter it, and afterwards tear out the esophagus and inspect it in the inner membrane. All of this is according to the law of the Gemara, but we are not experts in inspecting for a suspected derusah, as I have written in siman 57. Therefore, our teacher, the Rema, wrote that for us, even for a bird there is no remedy, and it is treifah in any case [see Beit Yosef and Bach, and we have explained according to the words of the Ran and according to the first resolution of the Rosh there, siman 3, see there and examine carefully].

And he added to say that regarding a hole as well, the veshet does not have an examination from the outside but only from the inside. Thus far his words. He means to say because there are those who say that only in a case of a doubt of derusah does the veshet not have an examination from the outside, because the redness of the venom is not recognizable in it since it is anyway red, but a hole we can recognize even in it, and there is an examination for the veshet regarding a hole even from the outside [Tosafot 28a, beginning with "Ata" in the name of Riva]. But many disagree on this and hold that even for a hole there is no examination for the veshet from the outside, because the redness covers the hole and it is difficult to recognize it, and also a drop of blood enters inside the hole and is not recognizable [Rashi 28a]. And the Rambam also holds this, and this is why they divided it into a separate law, to say that we do not rule like the one who holds that only regarding derusah is there no examination, but rather that even regarding a hole as well there is no examination. And therefore our teacher, the Rema, did not write after this that we are not expert in examination, because regarding a hole in a known location even we are expert in examination, as will be explained, whereas regarding derusah we are not expert even in a known location, and therefore he wrote this only regarding derusah and not regarding a hole [and this is the intent of the Shach, subsection 12, see there].

A bird that comes before us and its neck is soiled with blood because its neck was torn, and it is necessary to examine the simanim lest the trachea was severed or the esophagus perforated [Rashi 28a]. And regarding a doubt of derusah we are not concerned, since there is no predator before us [Taz], for if we were concerned for a doubt of derusah, an examination of the entire body cavity would be required. Therefore, since the concern is only because of perforation, it is not necessary to examine anything but the place that is soiled with blood, to see if the trachea was not severed or the esophagus perforated. And in the outer skin it is also impossible to examine, as has been explained, for a minute perforation is not recognizable in it, and he should only examine the inner skin. And how should he act? As I wrote previously: to examine the trachea and slaughter it alone, and afterwards he should remove the esophagus and examine it from within. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote that there are those who forbid any bird or animal whose neck is soiled with blood, for we are concerned for a perforation of the esophagus and we are not experts, and such is the custom. Thus far his words. Meaning, since the entire neck is soiled with blood and it is necessary to examine the entire length of the neck, it is a place that is not known, and we are not experts to examine even the inner skin. But in a known place, we too are experts. And the Acharonim wrote that this is when the thorn is embedded before us, but in my humble opinion it appears that this is not common; rather, even if a portion of its neck is soiled with blood, it is a known place and it is permitted to examine. [And proof for this is from the words of the Shach, subsection 7, who wrote there that it is a known place, and there the thorn is not embedded before us, for there is a doubt there whether it is due to illness or due to a thorn; rather, as long as the doubt is not along the entire length of the neck, it is called a known place. And the Tevuot Shor, subsection 8, was pressed on this, and according to what I wrote it is well-settled. And also what the Rema wrote in siman 34, section 9, there the doubt is regarding the entire neck, see there in the Shach, subsection 16; but in one soiled with blood, the concern is only for the soiled place, and for more than that we have no reason to maintain a presumption of defect. And see what I wrote in section 29].

And proof for this is that the essence of this law to distinguish between a known location and an unknown location originates from the Rishonim, who distinguished in this regarding the recognition of a minute perforation in the outer membrane of the esophagus, as the Rashba wrote in Torat HaBayit [Sha’ar 3, Bayit 2]. This is his wording: However, regarding a perforation such as this, it has an inspection in a known location even in the esophagus, even from the outside; but in an unknown location, like that goose of Rava which was dripping blood from its throat, where they needed to inspect the entire esophagus corresponding to the entire neck, a minute perforation in the red membrane cannot be inspected. Thus far his words. Behold, he wrote specifically that where they need to inspect the entire esophagus, it is an unknown location. And the Ran wrote similarly in the second chapter regarding that goose which was dripping blood from its throat. And more than this, the Rashba, of blessed memory, explained in his novellae at the beginning of the third chapter. This is his wording: For they only said the esophagus has no inspection from the outside except where there is doubt regarding the entire esophagus etc. because since the eye wanders over everything, and with a minute perforation, the perception passes etc. Thus far his words. And we are stringent even regarding the expertise of the inner membrane; but if the doubt is not in the entire esophagus but rather in a known location in the esophagus, why are we not experts in this?

And there is further proof for this from the words of our teacher, the Rema, himself, who wrote: "And there are those who forbid any bird or animal whose neck is soiled with blood, etc." And it is difficult: why should he mention an animal, for regarding an animal, even according to our teacher, the Beit Yosef, there is no remedy, as has been explained? And indeed, there is one who raised this difficulty against him. However, according to our words, it is well-settled, and this is the explanation: that there are those who forbid any bird or animal whose entire neck is soiled with blood, as this is like an unknown location. But when only part of its neck is soiled with blood, it is like a known location, and even for an animal there is a remedy—to slaughter above the soiled location or below the soiling, and afterwards we turn the esophagus inside out and examine it on the inner skin corresponding to the soiled location, because this is like a known location.

And so the Maharshal wrote explicitly [in Yam Shel Shlomo, chapter 2, siman 3], and this is his wording: Furthermore, I say that even though the Geonim disagree regarding the inspection of the esophagus from the outside with respect to a perforation even in a known location, nevertheless, where one knows the location of the wound, he should then slaughter above or below it and turn the esophagus over and inspect if there is a perforation in it, for it is well inspected from the inside in such a manner according to everyone, and even in an animal it is so. Thus far his words. And he wrote similarly there later in that same siman; see there. Therefore, it appears to me that even though several of the great Acharonim wrote that a "known location" is only when the thorn was inserted before us, nevertheless, since this is only a mere stringency and has no basis in the essence of the law, and it is easy to recognize a perforation in the inner skin which is white, therefore, in a case of great loss, one who is lenient in a place where the source of the wound is known—such as when part of its neck is soiled with blood—to slaughter above or below and afterwards to inspect the inner skin, has not lost out, and even in an animal. And especially since the Maharshal says this explicitly, and the matter is simple that we can rely on his great opinion.

The Rambam wrote in chapter 3, law 21: If a thorn is found standing in the esophagus, it is a doubtful nevela, for perhaps the esophagus was perforated and a membrane formed over the place of the perforation and it is not visible; but if the thorn is found lengthwise in the esophagus, we are not concerned about it, for most desert animals eat thorns constantly. Thus far his words. And that which he wrote, "standing in the esophagus," means that it is positioned across the width of the esophagus and presses against the walls of the esophagus in a manner that it does not move from its place, and therefore we are concerned about a perforation. And also the language of the Gemara, which said "a thorn sat in the esophagus" [43b], implies this; but if it is positioned across its width with space, we have no concern with it. And that which he wrote, that lengthwise we are not concerned, the same applies to across its width with space, for it is the same reasoning, and he taught the common occurrence [and so wrote the Tevuot Shor, subsection 12, and also the intention of the Kesef Mishneh is so, see there, and the words of the Shach, subsection 16, require further study]. And also the Tur, who wrote: And specifically when the thorn is found embedded in the esophagus, but if it is found lengthwise or across its width and is not embedded, it is kosher, thus far his words; and such is the language of the Shulchan Aruch, section 9—he does not disagree with the Rambam, as is proven from his words, see there, for even according to the Rambam the primary distinction is between embedded and not embedded; and if it is embedded, even lengthwise it is forbidden, and if it is not embedded, even across its width it is permitted. And it is called "embedded" when it presses against the walls, even though no perforation is discernible in the esophagus, we are concerned that perhaps a membrane formed over it and it closed [and the Ran who wrote there that if a thorn was embedded into the esophagus even though it is not visible on the outside etc., and such is the language of Rashi there, s.v. "yashav lo," and similar to this is the language of the Semak brought by the Shach, subsection 18—their intention is not that the entire inner skin was perforated and the doubt is only regarding the outer skin, but rather the doubt is also regarding the inner skin, and so it is explained from the words of the Bach and the Shach and the Peri Chadash; and only that which is implied from their words, that the inner skin was certainly perforated in part, such is the common occurrence, for since it is well-embedded, it follows that there is some perforation; but in truth, even if there is no perforation at all, since it is well-embedded, we are concerned for a perforation that healed, and delve into this].

From the silence of the wording of the Rambam, it is clear that even if there is no defect in the esophogus, such as if no speck of blood was found upon it neither from the inside nor from the outside, nevertheless it is a doubt of nevelah. The reason is that since in the Gemara [ibid.] they compared this to a doubt of derusah, and according to the approach of the Rambam they were stringent regarding a doubt of derusah for the reason we explained in siman 29—that only if the predator was among the animals, even though we saw no defect in them, we are concerned—so too here regarding the esophagus, when the thorn is found embedded, it is as if the predator was present. This is not similar to a doubt regarding other terefot where they were lenient according to the opinion of the Rambam, as I wrote there, because there we say "once slaughtered, it is permitted" and it stands in its status of permissibility. However, when the doubt is in the esophagus, it never left for a status of permissibility, for the shechitah is nothing, as a perforation of the esophagus makes it a nevelah. Therefore, even though the doubt arose after shechitah, nevertheless the matter is revealed that it never yet left its status of prohibition [and the difficulty of Tosafot ibid. s.v. Kasavar is answered; for Tosafot hold that since the doubt arose after shechitah, one can say even regarding the esophagus "once slaughtered, it is permitted," or they hold that a perforation of the esophagus is a terefah and not a nevelah; and see Tosafot 32a s.v. Verminehu].

And in truth the poskim are divided on this. This is the wording of the Tur: The Rashba wrote, when does this apply? When there is a drop of blood in the esophogus or around the thorn; but if no drop of blood was found upon it, it is known that it occurred after the shechitah and it is kosher. But some of the teachers forbade it in either case, and to this my opinion inclines. Thus far his words. And the reasoning of those who permit it without a drop of blood is like the case of the reticulum, where even if it was perforated from both sides, if no drop of blood was found it is kosher, as was written in siman 48. If so, the esophogus is no more stringent, where we do not yet know if it was perforated at all or not, and the concern is perhaps a crust formed over it and it was closed up, than a case where it was certainly perforated from both sides, which requires a drop of blood; and all the more so in a case of concern of perforation. However, those who forbid it hold that it is not comparable to the reticulum, which remains at rest, and if there were a drop of blood there would be nothing to rinse it or remove it. But in the esophogus we are concerned for this as well, that there was a drop of blood and the food and drink that pass there constantly washed it and removed it [Ran ibid.]. And furthermore, it seems to me that just as we are concerned regarding the perforation itself that perhaps a crust formed over it and it was closed up, so too we are concerned regarding the drop of blood that perhaps a crust formed over it and it was closed up; and on the contrary, it is easier to close up a drop of blood than to close up a perforation.

And one should not ask why, in truth, regarding the esophagus we are concerned that a membrane closed the hole, and why we should not also be concerned for this regarding the reticulum and say that even if it did not pierce from side to side it is treifah because of this concern that a membrane formed over it and it was closed, and similarly in other organs in such a case. However, know that this concern exists only regarding the lung and the esophagus, for regarding them we find that the sages, of blessed memory, were concerned for this, and not regarding other organs. And there is a great reason for the matter, for the lung, since it draws in all types of liquid and the liquid becomes thick inside it and exits little by little through the hole, it congeals and becomes a membrane [Rashi 46b, s.v. "Leit"]. And similarly the esophagus, since it is constantly in motion and also food and drink pass through it, it is possible that from the movement the thorn returned backward and then the membrane formed from the outside. But in organs that are at rest, this concern is not applicable, for if it had pierced both membranes, the needle or the thorn would not have returned backward [Rosh, chapter 3, section 34 in the name of Rabbeinu Tam, and so wrote the Semak, cited in the Shach, siman 48, subsection 19]. And it is true that there are some among the earlier authorities who hold that also regarding the omasum we are concerned for this concern [Tosafot, Shabbat end of chapter 2 and Chullin 50b], but we do not rule accordingly. And furthermore, even they were only concerned for the omasum because it is one skin, but regarding the reticulum, which has two skins, they were not concerned. And regarding the esophagus and lung, even though they have two skins, we are concerned for this because of the reason we wrote [see there, chapter 3, end of section 5].

And we establish the law according to the opinion of the majority of the poskim that in a case where it is embedded, it is a safek nevelah even where there is no speck of blood, neither on the inside nor on the outside. And so ruled our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 9; see there. However, in a case where it is found lying along the length of the esophagus or across its width and is not embedded in it at all, it would seem appropriate to say that even if a speck of blood is found on the outside, we have no concern with it. For even if we say that the speck of blood testifies to a perforation, it only perforated from the outside, but on the inside there is no defect. At most, we only need to examine the inner skin and not be concerned with the formation of a membrane. And likewise, all of our teachers did not mention that in a case where it is found, it is treifah because of a speck of blood. And there are others whose wording clarifies that in a case where it is found, it is permitted even with a speck of blood [see the Ran who wrote that perhaps because of the speck of blood Ulla needed to inform us, see there; and it is clear that in this, the halachah is certainly like Ulla, see there carefully].

But our teacher, the Rema, wrote specifically if there is no drop of blood on it from the outside, and several of the great later authorities [Taz, and Pri Chadash, and Tevuot Shor, and Tiferet Yisrael, and Kereti U'Peleti] agreed to this. And there are those who added to say that even if a drop of blood is found on the inside, one should be stringent [Taz and Pri Chadash]. And it must be said that the opinion of our teachers, the later authorities, is that since we find in the Gemara [51a] that a drop of blood is comparable to a perforation, if so, when it is found lying in the esophogus and there is a drop of blood on it, it is like being stuck in the esophagus. And without a drop of blood, certainly one must be stringent even with a drop of blood on the inside, for this is a doubt regarding a Torah prohibition, and in the esophagus where there is no presumption of permissibility via slaughter, as I have written that every doubt in the esophagus is worse than all doubts in other organs which have a presumption of permissibility via slaughter, which is not the case with the esophagus.

And know that there is a great question regarding this, for since with the vesophagus there is a concern that perhaps a crust formed upon it and it was sealed, if so, above in section 19 regarding a bird whose neck is soiled with blood, where it was explained that one should examine it from the inside—and so it is in the Gemara—let us be concerned that perhaps a crust formed upon it and it was sealed. And also our teacher, the Rema, who was stringent there due to a lack of expertise, why did he need this reason? Behold, the concern that perhaps a crust formed upon it and it was sealed would be sufficient. And the answer to this is that this concern is only relevant when a thorn was lodged in the vesophagus and the like, where we concern ourselves that perhaps it was from a long time ago and a crust formed upon it and it was sealed. But when the neck is soiled with blood, which was a recent occurrence, it is not relevant to say perhaps a crust formed, for there was not yet sufficient time for a crust to form [Kereiti U-Peleiti subsection 11]. And according to this, if its neck was soiled with blood and a long time passed until the blood dried, one must concern oneself with the formation of a crust, and there is no need for the reason that we are not experts in examination. And there is a practical legal difference regarding a known location that we wrote there, that even we are experts, see there; however, when a long time has passed, one must concern oneself with the formation of a crust.

One must further ask regarding what was written in section 9, that in the two skins of the oesophagus, if this one was perforated without the other it is kosher, and this is also an explicit Gemara [43a]: How can this be found, for should we not be concerned that perhaps a membrane formed on the second one and it was closed? The answer to this is that it was explained there in section 13 that this is only when it comes due to illness, see there. And in the case of illness, since we see that the illness did not take hold in the second one at all, we do not need to be concerned about the formation of a membrane unless we see the formation of a membrane like the sirkhot of the lung. But to be concerned for this, we are not concerned except when a thorn sat in the oesophagus. And that which was explained there, that by means of a thorn or a needle it is terefah because the oesophagus has no inspection from the outside, see there—truthfully, according to the concern of the formation of a membrane, we do not need the reason that it has no inspection; rather, there it took a definitive matter because regarding the primary concern of the formation of a membrane, there are several of the poskim who disagree, as will be explained [for they rule like Ulla 54b]. And for one who holds above in section 15 that when the outer one is perforated there is indeed an inspection in the inner skin [Shach, subsection 7], he truly holds that the concern of the formation of a membrane is only in the outer skin because inspection is difficult in it, but not in the inner skin [as written in subsection 21]. However, several of the great authorities took issue with this, and we have already written there that we do not hold like this opinion, see there [and also in the Gemara it can be said that it holds like Ulla, that we are not concerned that perhaps it healed].

And that which was explained in section 16, that the esophagus has no external inspection regarding derusa and one should inspect from the inside in a bird, see there, and we are not concerned for the formation of a membrane; it can be said that regarding derusa the concern for the formation of a membrane is not relevant, for the venom will not allow a membrane to form. And that which was explained there, that also regarding a puncture it has an internal inspection, it can be said that this refers to a fresh puncture that has not yet had time to form a membrane [and in the Gemara there, it can be said that it refers according to the view of Ulla]. And there is one who says that this concern for the formation of a membrane only applies when one skin was certainly punctured, for then we are concerned for the formation of a membrane on the second; but in a case where there is a doubt regarding both skins, we are not concerned for the formation of a membrane [Kereiti U-Peleiti there]. And according to this, we would have to say that this case where a thorn was lodged in the esophagus refers specifically to when we saw that one skin was punctured; yet from all the poskim it is explicitly implied to the contrary, that even if we did not see the puncture of the entire inner skin but merely an insertion that is difficult to remove from there, we are concerned for the formation of a membrane. And similarly, there is one who says the opposite: when one membrane was punctured, we are not concerned for the formation of a membrane on the second skin, for why did a membrane not form on the other? And the concern for the formation of a membrane is only when there is an equal concern regarding both skins, or when a thorn is inserted in the inner one, for we say that it formed a membrane on the outer one, and the thorn did not allow a membrane to form also on the inner one [Tevuat Shor, subsection 8]. And all these matters are forced, but it is a necessity to distinguish according to the opinion of the Rif and the Rambam in chapter 3 [who ruled not in accordance with Ulla, 43b].

And in truth, there are some of our teachers who ruled that we are not concerned with the rising of a membrane at all, as the Tur wrote that the Ra'avan and the Rosh ruled like Ula, that we are not concerned even with a stuck thorn, and in every case it is kosher; see there. And such is the opinion of the Sefer HaTerumah [Hagahot Ashri]. And even according to this opinion, if there is a speck of blood on it on the outside, it is certainly terefah, for it has certainly been perforated entirely [Tur]. However, for a speck of blood on the inside, there is no concern [Beit Yosef]. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, did not bring this opinion at all in the Shulchan Aruch, section 9.

But our teacher, the Rema, wrote, and this is his wording: And there are those who permit it if there is no drop of blood on the outside, for we do not fear that perhaps it healed. And so they were accustomed to be lenient in our city regarding those geese that they cram to produce fat from them, as there is a regulation in the city to inspect for a perforation of the oesophagus because it is more common than adhesions of the lung. And they were accustomed to be lenient if a thorn sat in the oesophagus if it is not perforated from both sides and there is no drop of blood on the outside. And one must be very exacting in this, for it is a Torah prohibition, and it would have been better not to inspect at all and to rely on the majority than to inspect and be lenient in a place where there is a flaw. Thus far his words. And many have labored in the understanding of his words.

And behold, even regarding the words of the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch, one must be precise: why do they require the reason of the concern of the rising of the membrane? For it has already been explained in section 16 that the vesophagus has no external inspection even regarding a perforation, and if so, even without the reason of the rising of the membrane it should be forbidden. And it must be said that the reason of the rising of the membrane is not needed at all when we see a hole in the inner skin, for even without this it is treifah because the outer skin has no inspection. However, if one separates the skins and sees that even the inner one was not entirely perforated, then the prohibition is only due to the concern of the rising of the membrane [Shach, sub-section 20]. And it has already been explained in section 18 that there are those who disagree and say that only for a doubt of a predatory attack does the vesophagus have no external inspection, but for a doubt of a perforation it has an external inspection, and with this the words of our teacher, the Rema, will be clarified:

And this is the explanation: "And there are those who permit if there is no drop of blood on the outside," meaning that this is the opinion we brought in section 32, that we do not concern ourselves with the rising of a crust at all. And according to this opinion, if the inner skin was not perforated entirely, an examination of the esophagus is effective even in the case of a thorn stuck in it. But if the inner skin was perforated, even according to this opinion it is treifah, because the esophagus has no examination from the outside, unless we also combine with this opinion the view of "there are those who disagree" in section 18, that for a doubtful perforation, an examination from the outside is also effective. And this is what he wrote: "And so they were accustomed in our city to be lenient, etc.," meaning that in his city they established to examine the esophagi because they would cram them and perforations were common in them. And against this, they had great leniencies, that as long as it is not perforated from both sides, even if the inner skin was perforated, if there is no drop of blood on the outside they would permit. And this is only by combining the two opinions: that we do not concern ourselves with the rising of a crust, and that the esophagus has an examination from the outside in a case of a doubtful perforation.

And regarding this, our teacher, the Rema, says that it would be better not to check at all, even though in this too there is a slight prohibition, for since it is a common occurrence one must check like the adhesions of the lung; nevertheless, in this the prohibition is at least not a concern of a Torah prohibition, for we follow the majority that are not perforated. This is not the case now, where they check and permit based on the two opinions that were explained, for this is against the opinion of the majority of our teachers and involves a Torah prohibition [see Taz subsection 18, who wishes to compare this to a perforation due to illness, see there; and they have already refuted him, for what does this have to do with illness, as the Nekudot HaKesef wrote, see there; and see Kereti U-Peleti who explained as I have written].

And for the law, even our teacher, the Rema, does not hold according to the custom of his city, and certainly it requires inspection, and there is no inspection for this due to the concern of the rising of the membrane as has been explained. Therefore, if a thorn is merely found embedded in the esophagus, it is treifah, and Heaven forbid one should be lenient in this. And so the great Acharonim agreed. And in my days, I have never heard in our regions that they cram geese, and if a place is found where they do so, one must decree upon them with all strength that they inspect the esophagi, and if they find a thorn embedded in the esophagus, it is treifah. And anyone who does not listen to this, one must separate oneself from his vessels. And even in the city of our teacher, the Rema, this custom has already been nullified, as the Bach, of blessed memory, wrote; see there.

If scabs are found on the esophogus or small blisters, they should be scraped off, and if the flesh beneath it is whole and healthy, it is kosher [Pri Megadim], as is the case with the intestines which will be explained in siman 46. However, if it was slaughtered through the lesion, it is treifah, for perhaps he slaughtered in the place of a perforation [ibid.]. And sometimes one sees in the esophagus, when peeling it, that there remains in the outer skin a kind of scar, and sometimes there are found things like white sinews that are harder than the flesh of the esophagus, and it is visible to the eye of all that there was a tear, only that it healed and a kind of membrane grew and it was closed; for this is like a membrane that grew because of a wound, and it is treifah [ibid.]. The general rule of the matter: any change in the esophagus, one must be more stringent regarding it than in other organs, as I have written, for it does not have the presumption of "once slaughtered, it is permitted," since a perforation of the esophagus makes it nevelah. And even if perhaps fat is found around the esophagus, it does not seal it, for it is not strongly attached and is made only like a kind of grains, and it is not similar to the fat of the gizzard [ibid.]. And also the flesh above it does not seal, as I have written in section 9; see there.

The esophogus and the trachea are attached to one another by membranes, and if they separated and became detached from one another along the majority of their length, it is treifah, and we have already explained this in siman 24.

The esophagus in all birds, except for the goose, widens as it goes down until it becomes like a pouch in which the food collects, and from there it descends to the gizzard. That pouch is called the zefek. If the zefek is removed, it is treifah, and even if enough of it remained so that the food could pass from the esophagus to the gizzard, it is treifah. Regarding a perforation, there is a part of it that is judged like the esophagus and is treifah with a perforation of any size, and there is a part of it where a perforation does not forbid it. Thus our sages, of blessed memory, said [56b]: The roof of the zefek is judged like the esophagus with a perforation of any size. And what is its roof? Anything that stretches with it—meaning, from the place where it begins to slope toward the esophagus and becomes over the zefek like a cover over the mouth of a pot. When the bird extends its neck, that part is pulled with the esophagus, and this is visible to the eye when one stretches the zefek and there is a slope toward the esophagus and a slope toward the other side. From the slope toward the side of the esophagus, it is judged like the esophagus and is treifah with a perforation of any size, and from the slope toward the other side, a perforation does not forbid it.

Between the crop and the gizzard there goes a kind of intestine that connects them, and there is a doubt whether its law is like the crop and a perforation does not forbid it, or its law is like the gizzard and it is treifah when perforated. Therefore, if this intestine was perforated, it is a case of doubtful treifah; so ruled our teacher, the Rema, at the end of this siman. And if a needle was found in this intestine and no perforation was visible in the intestine, it is kosher by reason of a double doubt: perhaps it was not perforated, and if you say it was perforated, perhaps its law is like the crop and it is not rendered treifah by a perforation [Be'er Heiteiv]. But in a case where it is stuck in it, one should be stringent [Pri Chadash] because the intestine is thin and it is more likely to say that it was perforated through its entirety [according to the Pri Megadim, subsection 21, who wondered about him, and according to what I wrote it is settled]. And birds that do not have a crop, such as a goose or a wild goose, if a needle is found stuck in the flesh adjacent to the gizzard on the side of the esophagus and it did not exit to the outside, it is kosher. And all the more so one should rule it kosher when there are found there things like small blisters, and sometimes when they are cut open there are found in them things like small worms, provided they did not perforate to the outside, for one should rule it kosher [Pitchei Teshuvah in the name of Panim Masbirot]. [And what the Yad Ephraim wrote in the name of the book Ginnat Veradim are puzzling matters, and the primary view is like the Responsa of Mahari Prag which he cited; see there].