Siman 34

The windpipe, and in the language of the Gemara the "kaneh," is hollow; it is thick above toward the front, and below toward the nape it is thin. When it is severed across its width in the majority of the cavity of the kaneh, it is a terefah. Specifically in the majority of its cavity, but in the majority of its thickness where there is no majority of its cavity—since above it is thick, it is possible that in the total thickness there is a majority while in the cavity there is no majority—it is not a terefah [Gemara 44b]. This is when it is severed from top to bottom in its usual manner, meaning from the front toward the nape; and consequently, conversely, when it is severed from the nape toward the front, it is a terefah in the majority of its cavity even though there is no majority of its thickness.

This is the wording of the Rambam, chapter 3, law 23: A windpipe whose cavity was severed in its majority in the place fit for shechitah, this is nevelah. Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 1: A windpipe whose cavity was severed in its majority in the place fit for shechitah or above this, this is forbidden. Thus far his words. For below the place of shechitah, its perforation in any amount [renders it treifah], as will be explained at the end of this siman [Taz and Shach]. And the Rambam also holds that above the place of shechitah its severing is in its majority, and that which he wrote "in the place fit for shechitah" was regarding the matter of nevelah, for above the place of shechitah it is a treifah and not nevelah [Kesef Mishneh]. However, the wording of the Tur is difficult, as he wrote: A windpipe whose cavity was severed in its majority in the place fit for shechitah is a treifah. Thus far his words. And since he did not mention nevelah, why did he not also write "above the place of shechitah"? And it must be said that his primary intention was to exclude below, which is not the place of shechitah, but above, its law is like the place of shechitah [Beit Yosef and Bach and it is simple]. Nevertheless, it is difficult how the Rambam and the Tur did not mention this treifah in any place. And it does not seem correct to say that since we establish that the place of shechitah in the windpipe is from the slope of the "helmet" and below, as written in siman 20, they hold that above this place it is nothing more than mere flesh; and that which they wrote that in shechitah above this place it is nevelah, this is because of the absence of shechitah—for in all such cases, he should not have remained silent but rather should have clarified. And it requires further study [and see Pri Megadim, Mishbetzot Zahav, subsection 1].

And this is when the trachea was severed across its width, for then when the majority of it is severed, since the neck pulls upward and the organs hanging from the trachea pull it downward, the opening of the cut widens and it cannot live. However, when the trachea is split along its length, even if the majority or more than the majority is split, if only a kol shehu remains of it above and below within the area fit for shechitah, it is kosher. This is because as much as the neck is pulled, the split continues to close; since it is nothing more than a split and nothing of it is missing, the two sides of the split return and join together until it heals completely. But when even a mashehu does not remain above or below, it will never join together and the animal will die. And some say that below, certainly a remnant of a mashehu does not avail except within the area fit for shechitah, for from there onwards it does not have the status of the trachea but rather the status of intestines, and it will not avail for the joining of the two sides of the split. However, above, the remnant avails even above the shipui kova, which is the limit of the area fit for shechitah, for even above the shipui kova the name of the trachea is upon it and it will avail for the joining [Beit Yosef and Levush]. But from the language of the Rambam it is clear that above as well, it is required specifically within the place of shechitah, and so is the primary ruling [Bach and Shach, subsection 13]. And there are those who are even more stringent, that above the large ring a remnant does not avail, but it is not the primary view, for within the place of shechitah, in any location, it avails for the joining of the two sides of the split [ibid.].

And all this is regarding a mere split, but when there are perforations in the trachea, there are other laws regarding this. And thus our Sages, of blessed memory, said [45a]: If it was perforated like a sieve, which is when there are thin perforations around the circumference of the trachea like a sieve [Rashi], the perforations combine to its majority; and if they were all joined together, the majority would be severed, it is treifah [ibid.]. And this is when there is no deficiency at all from the substance of the trachea, but rather mere perforations. Therefore, the precision is when the perforations are in the circumference of the trachea, and when there are perforations the size of the majority of the cavity of the trachea, it is automatically as if the trachea was severed across its width. And the space between each perforation does not combine with the perforations to the majority, even if there is not the width of a perforation between each perforation [Shach, subsection 6]. But when the perforations are not in the circumference of the trachea but rather in the length of the trachea, it is nothing, and their law is like one split along its length [the Rosh, ibid.]. Therefore, all perforations that are not in the circumference do not combine to the majority [Shach, subsection 5]. And this is regarding perforations in which there is no deficiency.

But regarding perforations that involve a deficiency of the substance of the gargeret, there is a different law, for in this there is no distinction as to where the perforations are located; even if they stand along the length of the gargeret, if there is in all the perforations the measure of the coin called the Italian issar, it is treifah. This is what the sages taught in the Mishnah [54a]: How much must the gargeret be deficient? Up to an Italian issar. In the days of the sages of the Shas, this coin was known to them. There is no distinction between whether this measure was deficient in one place or whether small perforations involving a deficiency are scattered throughout the length of the gargeret; they combine to this measure. Not only that, but even if there is not the width of a perforation between one perforation and another, the intact part between the perforations also combines to this measure, for thus it was established by our sages, of blessed memory, that in such a state the living creature will not live. But when there is the width of a perforation between one perforation and another, the intact part between them does not combine, and we require that the substance of the perforations themselves be deficient of this measure.

And some say that even regarding perforations that do not have a deficiency, the intact portion between them joins to form a majority when there is not the width of a perforation between each perforation, for even that which is between the perforations will not endure [Ran there]. And there are some of the great authorities who were stringent according to this view [Pri Chadash and Tevuot Shor]. And there are those who ruled according to the first view, that when they do not have a deficiency, the intact portion does not join [Shach and Kereti U-Peleti]. And in truth, the Rif and the Rambam do not hold at all that the intact portion between each perforation joins even in a perforation that has a deficiency, for they did not mention this matter at all. And so it is explained from the commentary of Rashi, see there. And only regarding a bird is the law thus, as will be explained. And the Rosh and the Tur wrote this, that the intact portion joins, and they wrote explicitly only regarding perforations that have a deficiency, and also in the Shulchan Aruch he ruled accordingly. And the opinion of the "some say" is a minority opinion, and it is also difficult to understand regarding perforations that do not have a deficiency what relevance there is to saying "between each perforation the width of a perforation." Nevertheless, since there are great authorities who incline to be stringent, it is difficult to be lenient regarding a Torah prohibition; however, in a case of great loss, it appears to me that it is possible to rely on the opinions of those who permit.

And there is a question regarding the essence of this law, for according to what has been explained, it turns out that punctures that do not have a deficiency are more stringent than those that have a deficiency. For regarding punctures that do not have a deficiency, we said that they combine to the majority, meaning to the majority of its circumference, and it is only like a thin thread without any width at all, whereas regarding those that have a deficiency, it is like an issar. And it is a known thing that if we were to cut the issar into thin threads, we could surround many windpipes with them. And the answer to this is that it is certainly so, but they have no relation to one another at all, and they are two types of terefot. For in those that have a deficiency, the terefah is because of the deficiency of the trachea, which was received by tradition that whenever an issar is missing, the living creature will die, but with less than this, it will live. But in those that do not have a deficiency, the terefah is not because of a deficiency but because the trachea will be severed into two parts. Therefore, this terefah only applies when they stand in the circumference of the trachea, as I wrote, and not in the length of the trachea. This is not the case with those that have a deficiency; the terefah is in any manner they stand, and even if a strip was removed from its length, we must measure if when it is rounded it would be like an issar it is a terefah, as the poskim wrote. Therefore, even if the punctures that have a deficiency stand in the circumference of the trachea and they do not encompass its majority, and also they and the complete parts between them do not amount to an issar, it is kosher. And even if when we cut the punctures into thin threads they would encompass several windpipes with them, nevertheless this is nothing, for we do not concern ourselves with the circumference of the windpipe regarding deficiency except that it should not be severed into two parts. Therefore, the entire puncture does not harm it at all, only its bottom thread. Therefore, if from all the punctures its majority is not encompassed by their bottom threads, we have no concern with it.

And all that has been explained is regarding an animal, but regarding birds there are other laws. And they asked in the Gemara [ibid.] what is the law regarding a bird? And they answered that regarding a bird the law is as follows: that one folds it and places it over the mouth of the windpipe; if it covers the majority of the windpipe, it is treifah, and if not, it is kosher. That is to say, one cuts below the holes and at their sides until one can fold the strip in which they are located toward the mouth of the windpipe, and places it at the location of the holes over the mouth of the windpipe. If it covers—between the holes and the intact part between one hole and another—the majority of the windpipe, even though in the holes themselves there is no majority, it is treifah since they contain a deficiency [Rashi]. But regarding holes that do not contain a deficiency, its law is like an animal: that if they stand in the circumference and encompass the majority of the windpipe, it is treifah, and if not, it is kosher [the Rosh, and so it appears from the Rambam chapter 3, see there]. And certainly it is so, for it is well and good regarding those that have a deficiency to differentiate between a bird and an animal, for this one's vitality is small and that one's vitality is great. But regarding those that do not have a deficiency, where the treifah status is because of a severed windpipe, what is the difference to me between a bird and what is the difference to me between an animal? For in both of them, when the windpipe is severed, it is impossible to live, and when it is not severed, it will live.

This is the wording of the Rambam [ibid.]: And regarding a bird, in any case where one folds the strip or the holes that have a deficiency and places them over the circumference of the trachea, if it covers the majority of it, it is nevelah, and if not, it is kosher. Thus far his words. And it is similarly clarified from the wording of the Rif, see there. And according to this, there is no difference in a bird between whether the hole is entirely as one—meaning that a piece of the trachea is missing—and whether there are many holes that have a deficiency; the measure is when it covers the majority of it. However, the Rosh, of blessed memory, wrote that this measure is only for holes that have a deficiency, but for one hole—meaning that a piece of the trachea is missing—the measure is according to the proportion of an issar in an animal, see there. And the Tur did not mention this at all. And our teacher, the Rema, in section 4, wrote both opinions. This is his wording: And if the trachea of a bird was deficient, some say that we measure it like a perforation as a wing, and some say that we measure the large according to its largeness and the small according to its smallness, according to the proportion of the measure that is in an animal like an issar. Thus far his words. And the first opinion is the view of the Rif and the Rambam, and the second is the view of the Rosh [and so it appears somewhat from Rashi, see there].

It appears to me that each one follows his own reasoning, for behold, the Rashba, of blessed memory, wrote in his novellae on Chullin [54b] in the name of the author of the Ittur, and this is his wording: How much must be missing? Up to an issar, etc. And we, for whom the measure is not visible, follow the stringency. And it appears that in any case, if the measure of the hole is not more than half the width of the circle of the opening of the trachea, it is kosher, as we say regarding birds, etc., he folds it and places it over the opening of the trachea, etc. Thus, even in a bird whose vitality is minimal, we follow the majority of the opening of the trachea; certainly in an animal whose vitality is great. And it requires further study. Thus far his words. And already the great later authorities [Pri Chadash, Kereti U'Peleti, and Tevuot Shor] wondered about this, for how is it possible to say so? For is it not obvious that the majority of the width of the cavity of the trachea in an animal is much more than an issar, which is a small silver coin of eight perutot? Therefore, there is one who rejected this matter entirely [Pri Chadash], and some answered that the Rashba holds that this measure of an issar is not because with more than this it cannot live, but rather the opposite, that even in a very small one it is not less than an issar, but the primary measure is the width of the majority of the cavity of the trachea [Tevuot Shor]. And this does not appear correct at all, for certainly the measure that the sages gave is precise. And the Tevuot Shor himself wrote that it does not appear so; see there. And some answered that he holds that we require both measures—meaning that if there is a deficiency of an issar but it does not have the width of the majority of the cavity of the trachea, or if it has the width of the majority of the cavity but does not have an issar, it is kosher [Kereti U'Peleti]. And this is similar to the previous answer, and it is impossible to say so, as I have written.

In my humble opinion, it appears that the approach of the Rashba in the name of the Ittur is the approach of the Rif and the Rambam, who do not hold that one combines the intact part between the holes, as I wrote in section 6. And the measure that the sages gave of "like an issar" requires that the void be like an issar, whether it is one deficiency or whether it is many holes—all the voids of the holes combine to an issar. And this applies both to a large animal and to a calf, a kid, or a lamb, for thus the tradition was received: that with a deficiency of an issar even the large living creature will die, and with less than this even the small one will not die. And they asked in the Gemara: what is the law regarding a bird? For there are very small birds where the trachea is not even an issar. For this, the sages gave another measure according to the width of the majority of the void of the trachea, and in this, one combines even the intact part between hole and hole, and also the intact part surrounding the hole for the sake of a "grasping area." For you must fold it and place it over the width of the opening of the trachea, and therefore, even if the deficiency is all at once and not in holes, nevertheless, since you must fold it and place it, it is necessary to take also from the area surrounding the deficiency for the sake of a "grasping area." And the larger the hole is, the larger the grasping area is, and the wider the opening of the trachea is, necessarily the place of the grasping area is also larger, as is understood [see Shabbat 78b: two letters and a grasping area]. According to this, even in the largest trachea, the sages had an established tradition that when it covers in its entirety the width of the majority of the void of the opening of the trachea, nevertheless, there will not be in the void itself more than an issar because of the place of the grasping area, and automatically, in a bird, the void will be a completely minimal thing.

But the Rosh, of blessed memory, who holds that regarding punctures where there is a deficiency we also combine the intact part between one puncture and another, if so, we do not require even in the largest animal a void like an issar. And according to this, one must say that the measure of an issar is the largest measure and in a large animal, but in a small one and certainly in birds, one must measure according to the proportion of an issar in a large animal when the void is all at once. And regarding this they did not ask at all in the Gemara, and they only asked regarding punctures where there is a deficiency and we combine also the intact part between one puncture and another; if so, according to this, in the proportion from the measure of an issar in a large animal to the small measure of a bird, if we also combine in this the intact part between one puncture and another, the measure will be very small, and for this the sages gave it another measure, and this is in a bird and not in an animal [see the Ran who wrote of the combining of the intact part between one puncture and another regarding the words of the Rif, and of necessity he does not hold like our words, but only the Ittur appears clear to me that he holds so in the opinion of the Rif and the Rambam, and therefore the Rashba concludes "and it requires further study" and also in his book Torat HaBayit he did not bring this because he was in doubt].

Our teacher wrote in section 2: If it was perforated with a hole that has a deficiency of an issar it is forbidden, and if a strip was removed from it lengthwise, if when it is rounded it would be like an issar it is forbidden. And there is one who says that we are not experts in the measurement of an issar, therefore we measure it as the majority of the width of the cavity of the trachea. Thus far his words. And these are the words of the Rashba in the name of the Ittur that we brought in section 10, for according to the plain meaning of the words it implies that the majority of the width of the cavity of the trachea is less than an issar [and the Beit Yosef took the words according to their plain meaning, even though the senses contradict this, nevertheless according to some explanation that we wrote or another explanation, his words will also be explained]:

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this: And according to what will be explained nearby, that the measure of an issar is less than the majority, if so, one who is not expert will come to be lenient; therefore, it appears that he meant the majority of the width of the cavity of the windpipe of a bird, which is less than an issar, and one who is not expert should declare it treif in any case. Thus far his words. And his intention is clear according to the words of the Rosh that he brought nearby in section 5, that regarding a deficiency occurring all at once, we measure in a bird according to the proportion of an issar in an animal, for it is proven from this that the measure of an issar is much less than the majority of the cavity of the windpipe of an animal, as we have explained. And granted that the words of the Rashba themselves can be settled in certain ways, but how could the author of the Mechaber leave the matters undefined? And one who is not expert to clarify every matter to its truth will come to be lenient according to its plain meaning and will come to a pitfall. Therefore, it is necessary to say that the intention of the author of the Mechaber was for the majority of the width of the cavity of the windpipe of a bird, which is less than an issar, and one who is not expert to measure even this should declare it treif in any case. [And the Shach and the Taz went to great lengths regarding the intention of the Rema based on an error that fell into the book Darkhei Moshe, that his intention was regarding section 3, and they challenged him; and all the great later authorities have already challenged them, and among them the son of the Shach, of blessed memory, in the book Nekudot HaKesef, and the intention of the Rema is for section 5 as I have written. And even though the source of the law that the Beit Yosef brought is regarding the majority of the width of the cavity of the windpipe of an animal, nevertheless the Rema was forced to interpret the words of the Beit Yosef regarding a bird because of the pitfall that would come from this, and the truth is so. And this too requires great study, for according to sight, even the majority of the width of the cavity of the windpipe in a large bird like a goose would be more than an issar; and according to what I wrote regarding the intention of the Ittur, that the Beit Yosef rules like the Rosh regarding the joining of the complete part between hole and hole, it is certainly impossible to uphold the words of the Ittur, and perhaps the Rema intended this].

Our Sages, of blessed memory, said [ibid.] that if the windpipe was perforated like a door, the measure is enough for an issar to enter through its width. That is to say, the piece removed from the windpipe was not completely detached, but rather hangs and stands there upright like a door on its doorpost; it requires a measure larger than an issar, and we require enough for the issar to enter and exit through its width [Rashi], for naturally when the issar enters and exits, there is more than an issar in its cavity. Since it was not completely removed, they were lenient regarding its measure. However, the Rif and the Rambam explain this with a different interpretation: that "perforated like a door" is more stringent, for its interpretation is that the hole is perforated through both sides of the hole. And "enough for an issar to enter and exit through its width" means through its thickness; that is to say, that the thickness of an issar enters and exits through the cavity, which is much less than the width of an issar. Both interpretations are true according to the halacha. [And in the Shulchan Aruch in section 5 he wrote the interpretation of Rashi, and in section 6 the interpretation of the Rif, and in both he wrote the phrasing "there are those who say," and it is not because they disagree on the essence of the law, but such is his way because they disagree on the interpretation of the Gemara. And see the Beit Yosef who wants to say that the Rif and the Rambam are dealing only with a bird, but the Shach has already written in subsection 11 that they are also dealing with an animal, see there. And for us, there is no practical halachic difference, for we are not experts in the measure of an issar, and therefore in every case it is treifah].

If one found a tracheal ring that was severed or missing and does not know if it occurred during life or not, according to the law of the Gemara [50b], he cuts the tracheal ring in another place and sees: if they are identical in their appearance, it is kosher, and it is a sign that it occurred after slaughter; and if not, it is forbidden. And one only compares from a hulya to a hulya, and from a bar hulya to a bar hulya, but not from a hulya to a bar hulya, nor from a bar hulya to a hulya, because the appearances differ from one another. A hulya is the thick part of the trachea, and a bar hulya is the thin part of the trachea from the sides and beneath it, where the strips of flesh connect the ends of the rings, and even the membrane becomes increasingly thin from its center to the sides here and there across the entire trachea [Rashi]. There are those who explain that a hulya is a ring and a bar hulya is the skin between the rings, and it is good to be concerned for the words of both explanations [Tur]. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 9: Since we are not experts in this examination, one must rule it treif in every case. Thus far his words. And he wrote likewise in siman 36 regarding a perforation in the lung; see there.

He further wrote that this case of treifah regarding a severed windpipe where it is unknown when it occurred applies specifically when it is impossible to attribute it to the shechitah, such as if he slaughtered in two places. Thus far his words. And specifically where there is absolute proof that it was caused by the knife, such as if, according to the understanding of the shochet, it is common for the knife to act in this manner; but to merely attribute it to the knife without basis, we do not so attribute. For regarding disqualifications of the esophagus and windpipe, it is impossible to say "it was slaughtered while in a state of presumed permissibility," since all disqualifications in them render them nevelah and it is not a shechitah at all, as has been written several times. [And the words of the Levush require further study, as the Pri Megadim wrote.] And know that all these laws regarding a perforation or a deficiency in the windpipe apply specifically when it is known that it occurred due to illness, or that he held the windpipe alone in his hand in a manner that there is no concern of perforating the esophagus. But if there is a doubt that perhaps it occurred due to a thorn or a needle, for us, who are not experts in examining the esophagus, it is treifah in any event, for it is no better than if the neck were soiled with blood, which is treifah for us, as was written in siman 33. And it is a simple matter that the measure for a severed windpipe in its majority is only up to the place of shechitah, but below the place of shechitah, even a minute amount is treifah, for from there onwards it is judged like the lung to be prohibited by a minute perforation. 18. Our Sages said [45b]: There are three pipes: one branches to the heart, one branches to the lung, and one branches to the liver. After the windpipe enters the chest, it splits into three heads: one inclines toward the heart, which is the large vessel that goes out from it to the lung [Shach, subsection 20]; and one to the liver, which is the large vessel in the liver, and it is called the "great pipe of the liver." However, the small pipes in the liver—their law will be explained in siman 41; and similarly, the small pipes in the lung—their law will be explained in siman 36 [ibid.]. And one to the lung. And all three of them, their perforation is in a minute amount. And according to the opinion of Rashi, that of the liver has the law of the liver [Tur]. This is the wording of the Rambam in chapter 6, law 8: The pipes of the liver, which are the vessels in it in which the blood is cooked—if one of them is perforated in a minute amount, it is treifah. Thus far his words. And the Ra'avad disputed him, for regarding the pipes that are inside the liver, there is no one who would hold that it is treifah by a minute perforation, but rather regarding that which is outside the liver, regarding that which extends from it to the lung, see there. And several of the Rishonim disputed him in this [see there in Kesef Mishneh]. And also regarding the wording of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch who wrote: "The windpipe at its end, once it enters under the chest, splits and from there it divides and becomes three heads: one inclining toward the heart, the second toward the liver, and the third toward the lung"—for from this wording it implies that they hold that the pipe of the lung is what enters the heart and the liver. And it is impossible to say so, and there is a decisive proof for this: for after you cut the entire liver and its large vein or pipe and separate it from the lung, and similarly after you cut and separate the entire heart and its large vein from the lung, despite all this, we inflate the lung through blowing; and if the pipe of the heart and the pipe of the liver branched off from the pipe of the lung, the air would have to exit through there after their separation from the lung, as hollow perforations would remain there. Rather, it is certain that the pipe of the lung splits and divides into pipes and filaments that enter into the lung and do not exit from the lung at all, and they bring the air and wind into the lung and take the air and wind out from it, and they do not bring blood at all. And that which is found in the lung—vessels and veins, pulsating and non-pulsating, which bring and take out blood and not air—they extend from the large pulsating vessel and from the large non-pulsating vessel called the "vena cava," which bring blood from the liver to the lung, and from the lung to the heart, and from the heart to the lung. And there is no connection at all between the windpipe and the pipes and filaments of the lung with these vessels, and they do not pour into one another at all. If so, the pipe that "branches to the heart and the liver" is not from the windpipe nor from the filaments which are in the lung, but rather from the large pulsating vein and from the large non-pulsating vein. And that which the Gemara said, "there are three pipes," the intent is that this one has its law and that one has its law, and the intent is not that this one extends and branches from that one [Pachad Yitzchak in the introduction]. And several of the sages of Italy agreed to this. And it appears that the opinion of the Rambam is also thus, for he did not mention at all this matter of "there are three pipes," because he holds that the explanation is not that they all exit from the pipe of the lung, but rather that the Gemara mentioned the law of these three because they differ in their laws, as is found there in the Gemara in two versions, see there. And we, who are stringent in all of them with a minute perforation because we are in doubt as to whom the halachah follows, see there—and the law of each one he wrote separately. This is his wording in chapter 6, law 5: A heart that was perforated, etc., and the pipe of the heart, which is the large vessel that goes out from it to the lung, it is like the heart, and if it was perforated to its cavity in a minute amount, it is treifah. Thus far his words. And this is the fat that descends between the rows of the lung upon which the heart is suspended and goes from above to below, and the butchers call this the "wick" or "candle," and it is permitted fat that descends from behind the windpipe until the end of the rows of the lung, and it is hollow, and it will be explained in siman 40 with the help of Heaven. Therefore, he was forced to explain regarding the pipes of the liver that they are the vessels in the liver itself. And similarly at the end of chapter 10, when he enumerated the details of the treifot, he enumerated these three: if the pipes of the liver were perforated, if the pipe of the heart was perforated, if the windpipe was perforated below its place of shechitah, see there. And perhaps it can be said that also his intent regarding the pipes of the liver is not regarding the vessels in the liver itself, but rather because the liver is suspended below the lung and the heart, and in its interior it goes from the vessel of the heart to the vessel of the liver, and as it appears, there are several vessels there until the liver itself, and his intent is to these vessels that reach the liver. And also the intent of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, it can be said that their intent is not that from the pipe that enters into the lung it branches to the heart and the liver, but rather because the vessels upon which the heart and the liver are suspended are as if attached to the windpipe, therefore it appears as if they all branch from it. And that which they wrote "once it enters under the chest" is not precise, but rather it means adjacent to this. And even though the pipe of the heart is in a minute amount as has been written, nevertheless our teacher, the Rema, wrote, and this is his wording: However, in the pipe of the heart, which is fat that descends between the rows of the lung to the heart, it is common for there to be small, thin perforations, for that is their natural growth and they are not called perforations, and it is kosher. Thus far his words. For these perforations are the openings of the pipes and are not perforations [Beit Yosef]. Therefore, if in another place there are perforations, it is treifah [Pri Megadim]. And there is another reason: because the fat that is over the perforations, which is pure fat, seals the perforations [ibid.]. And according to this, also in another place when it is perforated, if there is fat there, it seals it; and this requires further study as a matter of law [ibid.], for perhaps according to the first reason, this fat is not suitable for sealing as it is made like small grains. And similarly, there is one who says that if in the place of the openings of the pipes the fat was perforated corresponding to them, it is treifah [ibid.]. And this too requires great study, for if they are the openings of the pipes, why do they need sealing? And from the words of our teacher, the Rema, it is explicitly clear that the permissibility is due to the reason that "this is their natural growth"; if so, this is not a sealing at all, and this matter requires deliberation.