Siman 35

The sages taught in the Mishnah of "These are the terefot in an animal": the lung that was perforated or that was missing. And even though there are other types of terefot in the lung, such as a transposition of the lobes, and blisters that are adjacent to one another, and adhesions, and an obstruction in the lung, and changes of color, as will be explained; nevertheless, all of them are included in the general rule of these two. For blisters, adhesions, an obstruction, and changes of color testify to a perforation, as will be explained. And a transposition of the lobes is included in "missing," for it is missing from the place where it is fit to be [Rashi 43a, s.v. "lo"]. And it is likewise explained from the words of the Rambam, who in chapter 7 wrote the law of a lung that was perforated and all the terefot of the lung that pertain to perforation, and in chapter 8 wrote the law of a lung that was missing and the terefot that pertain to being missing; see there. And that which he mentioned there the perforation of the "varda" lobe was because he wrote that if the "varda" is missing it is kosher, and so as not to err and say that the same applies if it was perforated that it is kosher, he was therefore compelled to write that nevertheless, if it was perforated, it is terefah. And likewise, that which he mentioned there in Halacha 5 regarding a lobe adjacent to another lobe that were stuck together, that in an adjacent one it is permitted, but from the first to the third it is terefah, see there; even though this is also for the reason of a perforation, he was compelled to write it there because he wrote there that the absence of a lobe is terefah, and even if one lobe is like two lobes, when it appears that they are as one not due to an adhesion, it is terefah. And for this, he was compelled to first state that due to an adhesion it is kosher, for this is not like the absence of a lobe. And so as not to err that an adhesion also renders it kosher from the first to the third, for this he was compelled to clarify that from the first to the third, even due to an adhesion, it is terefah; see there carefully. And more will be explained regarding this with the help of Heaven.

And one should not ask: how is it possible to say that when the varda is missing it is kosher, yet when it is perforated it is treifah? For is it not a general rule that when a perforation renders it treifah, all the more so when it is missing, as the Rambam wrote in chapter 6 and as will be explained in siman 50? However, this is not a question at all, for regarding the lung this law does not apply. For even when there is an extra lobe in the lung and it is perforated, it is also treifah. For the treifah of a perforation in the lung is not because of the ruin of that specific place where the perforation is, but rather because of the ruin of the entire lung, as the air that sustains the living creature will exit through the perforation.

And we have learned from the words of Rashi and the Rambam, of blessed memory, that there are two types of terefot in the lung: perforated and missing. This is explained from the words of the Mishnah which stated: "A lung that was perforated or that was missing." Its explanation is that "missing" refers to, for example, a missing lobe or a displacement, as the Rambam and the Bartenura wrote in the commentary on the Mishnayot; see there. And even though in the Gemara [47b] it is explained that "missing" means a type of perforation, see there, nevertheless our teacher, the Beit Yosef, already wrote in his book Kesef Mishneh [Chapter 8, Halacha 7] that this is only according to the initial deliberation, but according to the conclusion, the explanation is that it is not due to the reason of perforation; see there. And one must add an explanation: for behold, the deliberation there in the sugya is from the early Amoraim, see there, and the law of a missing lobe or displacement was stated by Rava [47a], and therefore they did not state these things. But according to the halacha, certainly the explanation of "missing" is according to the words of Rava, as the Rambam and the Bartenura wrote [and the Tosafot there, who rejected with this reasoning those who are stringent regarding a crease in the lung, spoke well, for behold, we have not found this in the Gemara, and if it should enter your mind that by logic it is so, the Shas should have rejected it thus; rather, it is certain that by logic it is kosher; see there and examine carefully].

And there are those who wish to say that all treifot of the lung are due to a perforation that is destined to become perforated [Tevuat Shor and Pri Megadim and Beit Ephraim], but it is impossible to say so. For behold, regarding a shriveled lung, we maintain according to most poskim that specifically when it is entirely shriveled is it treifah, and even according to the stringent ones, it is also specifically a complete lobe, as will be explained in siman 36. And if you should think that we approach it from the reason of perforation, we should have declared it treifah even with partial shriveling. Rather, it is certain that we approach it from the reason of a deficiency, and it is not treifah except when it is entirely deficient; that is to say, the deficiency of shriveling is not called a deficiency except in its entirety and not in its partiality. For the treifah of shriveling is because it cannot fan the air upon the heart, and we see that it has a little air even when it has shriveled, and therefore it is able to fan upon the heart properly as long as the majority of it—which is like the whole—has not shriveled, for the majority that has not shriveled performs its function properly, and even that which has shriveled assists a little. Therefore, it is not a deficiency except when it is entirely shriveled, or the majority of it which is like the whole. And for those who are stringent regarding a complete lobe, their reason is because we require that each lobe perform its function properly. But in the case of an obstructed lung, it is treifah even in its partiality like a perforation, or because the place that is obstructed does not perform the function of fanning at all, and it is as if that place is deficient [And also the Levushei Serad in subsection 2 disagrees with the Tevuat Shor and holds that a deficiency is a treifah unto itself; only that which he wrote in subsection 27, that a shriveled lung is neither in the category of perforation nor in the category of deficiency, does not seem correct to me, and the main point is as I have written].

And regarding what they brought as proof from the words of the Tur, who opened with the law of a lung that was perforated and afterwards wrote the law of a change, a deficiency, or an excess [Tevuat Shor, subsection 1], I do not know what sort of inference this is; for behold, the Tur wrote the laws of appearances in siman 38 and the laws of adhesions in siman 39, and this is certainly by reason of "perforated," yet why did he not place them adjacent to a lung that was perforated? Rather, the matter is simple: that the Tur did not preserve the order of the principles, and he had a different order, as is explained in his words at the beginning of this siman. And the practical legal difference is regarding "two defects," that two defects do not combine when they are from two types of treifot, as will be explained. Therefore, when one defect is from the aspect of perforation and the second is from the aspect of deficiency, they do not combine to make it "two defects," and such is the primary ruling. [And so wrote the Levush, and according to him, "shriveled" and "obstructed" do not combine even with "deficient," but according to us they do combine with "deficient." And with that which we wrote, that "shriveled" is included in "deficient," it is well-settled why it was taught in "These are Kosher": "shriveled by the hand of Heaven is kosher," yet why was it not taught in "These are Treifot": "shriveled by the hand of man," like all the matters where the Tanna taught us a thing and its opposite, see there? Rather, it is because this is included in "deficient." Nevertheless, Ulla could not have answered Rabbi Abba that "deficient" comes to include "shriveled," for behold, it did not teach therein "by the hand of man," and perforce one must say that even aside from "shriveled" there is a "deficiency" that is treifah, and even so, "shriveled by the hand of man" is also included in "deficient." And delve into this.]

And regarding the defects that are due to a perforation, there are some where the defect testifies that there is a perforation there, and there are some that testify that it is destined to be perforated, such as with a sircha that is not in its natural order according to the poskim who hold that there can be a sircha without a perforation, but rather that when the sircha is not in its natural order it is destined to detach and is considered as if perforated since it is destined to be perforated [Tosafot 47a]. And anything that is destined to be perforated is considered as if perforated [Ran ibid.]. And it must be understood what kind of reasoning this is, for it has not yet been perforated; for certainly this is not related to that which we say generally [Bava Kamma 76b] that anything standing to be thrown is considered as if thrown and anything standing to be redeemed is considered as if redeemed. Firstly, because in that matter itself there is a dispute, and Rabbi Shimon holds so while the sages disagree with him, see there. Furthermore, what relevance does this have to tereifot? For if so, when a long needle was stuck into the hide of the animal and they slaughtered it immediately, and had they not slaughtered it, it would have perforated the intestines, shall we also say that it is tereifah for this reason? Therefore, it appears to me that the matter is thus: such a sircha is standing to perforate the membranes of the lung, and therefore we concern ourselves that perhaps it has already been perforated. And in siman 39 this will be explained further with the help of Heaven, see there section 24.

The form of the lung is thus: it is like two garden beds, and it has five lobes and two large lobes [umot]. The lobes [onot] are small relative to the umot, and therefore these two are called umot, like the mother [em] which is primary. Onot is from the language of "ear" [ozen], as they are like ears on the face. These lobes are two on one side and three on the other side. How so? When one hangs the animal by its legs and its face is toward the face of the examiner—for then the right of the examiner and the right of the animal are one—there are three lobes there. And this is their order: the umah is above, and the lobe adjacent to it is the largest of the lobes and is called "long and thick"; it is also possible to call it the "lower lobe" when the examiner holds the windpipe and inflates it, for then the one that was upper when hanging by the legs becomes lower, as is understood. The second to it is called the "middle lobe," and the third, which is now the lowest, becomes the uppermost when he inflates the windpipe as has been said, and it is called the "lobe adjacent to the windpipe" because it wraps around the windpipe, and therefore it sometimes splits, as will be explained. And from the left side, above, is the umah, and it is larger than the umah on the right side. Beneath it are two lobes: one adjacent to the umah, and the second adjacent to the windpipe, and it is smaller than the one on the right side adjacent to the windpipe. Aside from this, there is one small lobe in the lung, and it is the inunita de-varda, and its way is to stand on the right side, on the side of the three lobes; it does not stand in the order of the lobes, but is distant from them toward the inside and lies in a pocket.

Rava said: The lung has five lobes, etc. If it is missing, or has an extra, or they are switched, it is treifah. And the halacha is not like Rava regarding an extra lobe [47a], as will be explained. However, regarding missing or switched, the halacha is like him, as there is no one who disagrees with him [Rashi]. What is "missing"? If one of the lobes is missing, and even if in total there are five lobes—for example, if there are four on the right and one on the left, or three on the left and two on the right—it is treifah [Shach, subsection 3]. For there must specifically be three on the right and two on the left. Furthermore, three on the left and two on the right is "switched," as will be explained, for it is called "switched" when there are more on the left than on the right. Therefore, even if there are three on the right, if there are four on the left, it is "switched" and treifah. And when they are equal, it is kosher, as will be explained with the help of Heaven in section 11; see there. It is proper to be stringent [Yam Shel Shlomo, Shach, and Taz], for the entire essence of the lung is altered.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 1: The shapes of the lobes on the right do not resemble those on the left, and if their shapes are swapped, it is treifah. Similarly, when the middle lobe of the right is larger than the lower one, it is treifah. And if the upper lobe of the left is larger than the upper lobe of the right, it is treifah. Likewise, if the umah of the right is larger than that of the left, all of this is called "swapped" and is treifah. Thus far his words. However, these are merely stringencies, for in the Shas the shapes of the lobes and the umot are not explained at all, and the Shas spoke only regarding the number of the lobes [Yam Shel Shelomo, siman 34]. Certainly, in a case of significant loss, one who is lenient has lost nothing [Bach, Shach, and Taz]. There are those who wrote to forbid this based on custom, but it is not logical to say there is a custom regarding a remote occurrence. The matter is simple: in a case of significant loss, one should not forbid it. This is certainly true if the essence of the lobes themselves are not in their usual shape, such as when it is the way of the lobes to be elongated and pointed and this one is round like a rose, that one should not forbid it [Tevuot Shor], even without a significant loss, for one should not add to the treifot that which is not explained in the Gemara. However, when the umot are above and the lobes are below

Even according to the opinion of those who are stringent regarding the reversals that have been explained, if the forms on both sides are equal, or if those that are fit to be larger than their counterparts are equal to their counterparts, it is kosher [Tevuat Shor]. And so too, sometimes when a piece is missing from the lobe adjacent to the umah, and that piece is found in the umah, and when they inflate it, it fills the deficiency and is equal as is proper—if through the combination it is larger than the middle lobe and it has one root with the umah as the thickness of a finger, it is kosher [ibid.]. And it is a simple matter that regarding that piece which is in the umah, there must be some recognition that it is divided from the umah, for if not so, with what shall we combine it to the lobe? [And with this, the difficulty of the Beit Ephraim in 597 regarding the Tevuat Shor is settled; see there]. And there is one who says that even though one should not be stringent in all these reversals that have no foundation in the Gemara, nevertheless, if there is another blemish in it, even if it is not rendered treifah because of it, nevertheless, if there is in it another of the types of reversals mentioned, it combines into two blemishes and is treifah [Taz, subsection 2]. And it appears to me that this is specifically when the other blemish is in this place, but when it is in another place, it is not relevant to combine them, and it requires further study; and see what I wrote in section 32.

It has already been explained that the chalif of the Gemara is when there are two on the right and three on the left. And even though, if so, why do we require the reason of chalif, for it is missing one lobe from the right side? For it can be said that were it not for the treifah of chalif, I would have said that this is not called "missing" since in total there are five lobes; it comes to teach us that this too is a treifah for the reason that it is missing from the place where it ought to be [Rashi 43a, s.v. lo tipok, see there]. However, when there are three on the right and four on the left, there is no proof from the words of Rava that this is called chalif, for according to him it is a treifah for the reason of an extra lobe on the left, and even only three on the left is a treifah for the reason of an extra lobe. However, according to that which we do not rule like Rava regarding an extra lobe, certainly even with three on the right and four on the left it is called chalif, as our teacher, the Rema, ruled in section 5, see there. For just as according to Rava there must not be more on the left than on the right, so too according to us. And even though it is not comparable, for according to Rava when there are more on the left than on the right it is considered missing from the right, which is not the case with three and four. And so it is explained from the wording of the Rambam in chapter 8, law 3, and this is his wording: If the lobes were switched and three were found on the left and two on the right etc., this is a treifah because it is missing from the right side. Thus far his words. And so it is explained from the wording of Rashi [ibid.]. And in truth, there is one who holds so [Pri Chadash, subsection 24], and there is one who says that in a case of great loss one may permit it [Kereti U-Peleti].

But the opinion of the majority of the great later authorities is to rule it treifah even in a case of great loss, and so it appears to me to be the primary view. For this is certainly according to Rava himself, who holds that even in the case of an extra lobe it is treifah because of the principle "any addition is like a subtraction"; if so, according to him, it is impossible for the number of lobes to be otherwise. Therefore, in a case of transposition, the reason is clearly due to a deficiency. However, according to us, as we rule to permit an extra lobe and we are not concerned with "any addition is like a subtraction" even though it is a major principle in the laws of treifot—and the reason must be as will be explained with the help of Heaven in section 3, see there—it is explained from this that there is no upper limit to the number of lobes, and only for the minimum is there a measure, that they should not be fewer than five. It is impossible to say that the reason for transposition is because of a deficiency on the right side, for what of it? Behold, in total there are five. And if it is because the left has more strength than the right side, behold, we are not concerned about it when there are three on the right and four on the left. Rather, it must certainly be said according to us that the reason for transposition is because the left has more strength than the right, and consequently, even with three on the right and four on the left it would be treifah. But this is impossible to say, for in truth we do not rule like Rava regarding transposition, as the Gemara says explicitly that only regarding an extra lobe is the halacha not like him, but regarding a deficiency and transposition we rule like Rava. Nevertheless, even in this, the reason for its treifah status falls under the category of deficiency; for since this animal has seven lobes, it is necessary that on the right side there be four so that the left does not have more strength, and consequently, when there are four on the left and three on the right, it is missing one lobe from the right side. And what does it matter to me if the reason for the deficiency is because of the number or if it is because of the strength? Ultimately, the right side is deficient relative to the left side [so it appears to me]. But with three on the right and three on the left, or four on the right and four on the left, and so too more and more—as long as the left side does not have more strength and they are equal in their strengths, it is kosher. And even if there are large and small ones, we are not concerned about it, for so it implies from the wording of our teacher, the Rema, and the great later authorities.

And regarding that which an extra lobe is kosher, the sages, of blessed memory, said [47a] that this is specifically when it stands in the row of the lobes, but "between and between" it is terefah. As the Tur wrote: If the addition stands in the order of the other lobes it is kosher, and if not, it is terefah. Thus far his words. And the Rambam in chapter 8 wrote that only if the addition is toward the inner side of the lung is it kosher, and the addition does not forbid unless it is from the second side, on the back of the lung facing the ribs, see there. And his reasoning is that he holds that according to the conclusion of the Gemara, the extra lobe only renders it terefah from its back [Kesef Mishneh], or he holds that "between and between" in the Gemara refers specifically to its back [Lechem Mishneh and Bach]. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 3 ruled like him, and this is his wording: If the lobes were added to their number, if the extra lobe was on the side of the lobes or from the front of the lung which is toward the heart, it is permitted; and if it was on its back which is toward the ribs, behold this is terefah. Thus far his words.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote there: And there are those who are stringent to forbid any redundant lobe that is not in the row of the lobes, and so they practice in some places to forbid a redundant lobe even from the front, and they do not distinguish between the front and the back; rather, if it stands in the row of the lobes and when they inflate it, it leans toward the front, it is kosher, and if it leans toward the back, it is treifah. And in these provinces, the custom is to permit a redundant lobe from the front, and one should not change the custom. Thus far his words. And his words require explanation, for behold, all the later authorities understood his intent that according to his conclusion, following the custom of these provinces, the custom is to permit any redundant lobe from the front like the opinion of the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch. And they raised a difficulty against him, for behold, he himself declares treifah in the case of a redundant lobe of the rose-lobe, as he wrote in section 2, and behold, in the Gemara, the Tur, and most of the early authorities, it is explained that there is one law for a redundant lobe, whether of the rose-lobe or of the lobes, so how can he contradict himself? [Bach, and Taz subsection 4, and Shach subsection 17]. And they exerted themselves to distinguish between one and the other. And for me, there is a further difficulty, for behold, in his book Darkhei Moshe, he wrote at length that it is impossible to uphold the ruling of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, who ruled like the Rambam, because most of the great early authorities disagree with him, see there; so how could he rule so in practice? And there is a further difficulty: what is this that he said, "and so they practice in some places to forbid a redundant lobe even from the front," for in this lies the primary dispute, and since he wrote this opinion, which is the "there are those who are stringent" to forbid anything that is not in the row of the lobes, he should have said "and so they practice in some places" and nothing more.

Therefore, it appears clear to me that another intention is hidden in all his words, for behold, his source is from the Mahariw. This is the wording of the Mahariw [brought in the Bach and in the Darkei Moshe]: An extra lobe that stands not in the row of the lobes is treifah. And there are some of our teachers who rule an extra lobe as treifah even if it stands in the row of the lobes, but stands toward the front; and there are those who rule it kosher. And even according to the opinion of those who rule it kosher, it is specifically when it stands toward the front relative to the lobes, but toward the front relative to the lungs it is treifah. And an extra lobe that stands in the actual row of the lobes, and when they inflate the lung the extra lobe then inclines toward the side of the back of the lung, then it is treifah; but when they inflate the lung and it inclines toward the front side of the lung, then it is kosher. Thus far his words.

The explanation of his words is that it is a simple matter that we only declare it kosher when it stands in the row of the lobes. However, even in this there are several details. The first is that its primary standing, which is its root, is also exactly equal to the root of the lobes. The second is that its root begins slightly below the root of the lobes or slightly above, and nevertheless it is in the row of the lobes because the lobes protrude significantly and it is entirely within the protrusions. The third is that although its root is exactly equal to the root of the lobes, nevertheless its location is below the lobes, but if you measure you will find that its root is exactly equal to the root of the lobes along the length of the lung. Therefore, he first established a general rule that when it is not in the row of the lobes it is treifah, unlike the opinion of the Rambam. And afterwards he says: And there are some of our teachers who declare a surplus lobe treifah even if it stands in the row of the lobes, but stands in front. And this is the second case we wrote, where the root begins below, meaning on the front side, and nevertheless it lies between the row of the lobes. And afterwards he says that even according to the opinion of those who declare it kosher in such a case, it is only in front of the lobes and not in front of the large lobes, and this is the third case we explained. And afterwards he says that even that which stands exactly in the row of the lobes, meaning that even the root is equal with the lobes, nevertheless one must inflate the lung, and then if it inclines in its entirety toward the side of its back, it is also treifah.

And these are the words of our teacher, the Rema, except that he was brief as is his way. First he brought the opinion of those who prohibit when it is not in the row of the lobes, and afterwards he wrote: And so they are accustomed in some places to prohibit a redundant lobe even from the front, meaning even in the row of the lobes if it is not rooted exactly level with the lobes themselves, even if the root is from the front, and this is the second illustration. And this is what he wrote: And they do not distinguish between from the front or from the back, meaning just as if its rooting is slightly above the lobes toward the side of the back it is treifah, so too when its rooting is slightly below toward the side of the front it is also treifah. And on the contrary, even when it stands exactly in the row, they inflate it and see to which side it inclines. And afterwards he wrote: And in these provinces the custom is to permit a redundant lobe from the front, meaning when it is only in the row of the lobes they permit it in every case, even when its root is from the front, and similarly there is no distinction as to where it inclines during its inflation [as it appears to me], and see section 48.

It turns out that according to this, when it is not in the row of the lobes at all, it is treifah in every case, and when it is in the row, it is kosher in every case. And this is not according to our custom, for we declare it kosher from the front in every case, and when it stands in the row of the lobes and we inflate it, if it inclines toward the back we declare it treifah. In our opinion, it is not so [see Shach, subsection 17, who was troubled by the words of the Darkhei Moshe who wrote that we declare treifah any additional lobe that is not in the row of the lobes, and he wrote that it is a scribal error and should say "additional lobe of the rose-lobe," but according to our words it is well-settled]:

And also the wording of the Rif is very strange regarding this law, and this is his wording: And the halacha is not like Rava regarding an extra [lobe], rather if you find an extra one it is kosher, and these words apply when it stands in the row of the lobes, but between them it is treifah; and these words apply from the inside, but from the back, even like a myrtle leaf, it is treifah. Thus far his words. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote that his opinion is like the opinion of the Rambam, but it does not imply so [Tevu'ot Shor, subsection 16], for if he held like the Rambam, he should have only said "and these words apply from the inside etc." and why did he need to say "and these words apply when it stands in the row of the lobes," for it is kosher anywhere on the inside even if not in the row of the lobes [see the Ran who wrote "or else etc." and it requires great study]. And according to what we explained of the words of our teacher, the Rema, and the words of the Mahariw, his words are explained with a different intention, and this is the explanation: "and these words apply when it stands in the row of the lobes, but etc. and these words apply from the inside etc." meaning, even in the row of the lobes, specifically when it is rooted from the inside, but if it is rooted from the back like a myrtle leaf, even though most of it is in the row of the lobes, it is treifah. Or it can be explained regarding the matter of leaning that was explained, and this is what he meant: even in the row of the lobes, these words apply from the inside, meaning when they inflate it, it leans toward the inside, but from the back, meaning if when inflating it leans toward the back like a myrtle leaf, it is treifah [and only the varda is kosher from the front, for such is its natural growth].

Regarding that which has been explained, that when it stands in the row of the lobes and when they inflate it, it inclines toward the back, it is treifah, the Acharonim wrote that this is specifically a prominent protrusion, but if it is curved and goes upward, there is no cause for concern; for since it stands in a valid location, because it protrudes outward it is not rendered treifah. Thus far his words. [Beit Yosef, Darkhei Moshe, and Shach subsection 24]. And it appears to me that this is the explanation: specifically that at the time of inflation there is a prominent protrusion from the place of its root like a myrtle leaf toward the side of the back; but if at the place of the root it does not protrude toward the back like a myrtle leaf, even though after the place of the root it curves and goes upward toward the side of the back, we have no concern with it, for we must only follow the place of the root. And this stringency is sufficient for us, that we must see the place of the root when it is inflated. And so it appears to me explicitly from the wording of the Levush, section 3, see there. And there is one from whose words it is implied that this is the explanation: that even if it is curved and goes upward like a myrtle leaf, it is treifah, and this is a prominent protrusion; and that which they wrote, that if it is curved and goes upward there is no cause for concern, this is when the curvature is less than a myrtle leaf [Simlah Chadashah, letter 13]. And it does not appear so. And know that a protrusion and curvature do not forbid except in a redundant lobe, but in ordinary lobes we have no concern with it [ibid.]. And if there is an obligation to inflate a redundant lobe when it stands in the row of the lobes, it appears that if when it is not inflated it does not appear at all that upon inflation it will incline toward the back, there is no obligation to inflate; but if it appears that upon inflation it will incline toward the back, certainly the inflation is indispensable [see there, letter 14].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4: If an extra una is found at the end of the lower part of the uma, it is kosher, for this is called "in the row of the unaot." Thus far his words. This is not like the Mahariv whom we brought in section 16, see there. And in section 9 he wrote: If on one side of the lung one una is missing, but at the end of the uma on that same side there was a large protrusion like an una, even though it is the way of the unaot to be adjacent to one another and here the uma separates between them, it is kosher. Thus far his words. And our teacher, the Rema, emended, and this is his wording: And there are those who practice to declare it treif in such a case, because everything that is below the varda is called "not in the row of the unaot," and so we practice in these provinces. Thus far his words.

And this is why he did not emend this in section 4, for there, where the lobes are in their proper order, this is well-termed "in the row of the lobes," but in section 9, where one lobe is missing, granted that such a protrusion, if it were actually in the row of the lobes, would complete the count, but a protrusion at the end of the umah does not complete the count, and for this matter it is not termed "in the row of the lobes" [as appears to be the intention of the Shach, subsection 47], for we do not grant it two leniencies: that the protrusion should be considered a lobe and that below the umah should be considered "in the row of the lobes." And there is one who answered that in section 4 it is kosher due to the reason of a redundant lobe in the front [Taz, subsection 17], and this is according to what they understood of his words, that a redundant lobe in the front is kosher in every case; but according to what I wrote in section 17, it is not so. Furthermore, if so, what is this that he says, that below the rose-lobe is termed "not in the row of the lobes"? Behold, we do not require them to be in the rows, for even in the front it is kosher, and the main point he should have said is that a protrusion there is not considered a lobe. And although one could say that the intention is that regarding the number of five lobes one specifically requires them to be above the umah, nevertheless, it does not imply so.

The measure of an una, whether regarding the five unot that must be present in the lung or regarding an extra una in a place where it renders it terefah, such as on the back, or according to the one who holds that even on the front not in the row of unot it renders it terefah, and likewise regarding the varda in all the laws that will be explained concerning it—the measure is like a tarpa de-asa, which is a leaf of myrtle. And this measure is estimated after inflation. If it does not have this measure, it is not considered an una at all, neither to permit nor to render terefah. This measure has not been clearly clarified to us, for there are large myrtle leaves and there are small ones. There are some among the great authorities who said that this measure, its length and its width, is like the length and width of a medium thumb nail; and some say like the length and width of the middle joint of a medium thumb. Therefore, in every place where this measure is mentioned, one must follow the stringency of these two measures. And there is no difference between a large animal and a small animal regarding this. And in small kids and lambs, according to what will be explained later that we are not particular regarding them in the number of unot for the reason that when they grow, the unot will also grow, consequently we are also not particular regarding the measure of a tarpa de-asa for this reason. And in section 68 this was explained, see there. [And in this, even though on one side it is like the measure and on the second there is still not like the measure, nevertheless it appears to me to permit, see there and examine carefully].

There is one who says regarding a lobe that is smaller than a myrtle leaf and has a bubble on the edge from side to side with a thread of flesh surrounding it, in a manner that it is kosher from the perspective of the bubble, we combine the bubble to the measurement of a myrtle leaf because ultimately it will return to health and it is entirely a lobe [Pri Megadim, subsection 40 in the name of Knesset HaGedolah]. And likewise the opposite regarding an extra lobe on the back less than a myrtle leaf and a bubble on the edge and a thread of flesh surrounding it, it combines to render it treifah [ibid. Mishbetzot Zahav, subsection 11], and these are words of reason.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in his great work: If a protrusion is found on the lung like a mountain, wide at the bottom and thick at the top, it is called a gabshushit and is kosher; but if it is sharp at the top or bottom like a hat, it is considered a yoteret and is treifah. Thus far his words. In the Shulchan Aruch he did not write this, and it seems to me the reason is that in truth it is impossible to define this matter in writing, and the principle is that the eyes shall judge: if it has the form of an una, it is considered a yoteret, and if not, it is nothing. And we do not say that even though it does not have the form of an una, nevertheless it will rub against the ribs and perforate the lung, for this is not so, as we must not fabricate matters from our own minds; we have only what the sages, of blessed memory, said: that with a yoteret una on its back it is treifah, and similarly for the one who rules it treifah for a yoteret in the front, the law is such, and similarly regarding the completion of five unot the law is such [and see Shiftei Da'at, note 17].

The varda is called in the language of the Gemara "einunita de-varda" because it is smaller than all the other lobes and redder than them [Rashi], and also its shape is not like all the lobes which are elongated and sharp, whereas it is round and has a groove. Furthermore, it does not stand in the row of the lobes, for its location is on the right of the lung in the front, opposite the split between the bottom lobe and the uma, and the groove is aligned opposite the split, and its face is toward the kidneys and its back is toward the heart. It is placed in a pocket in order to protect it from the pushing of the lobes. One should not ask, according to the method of the poskim that an extra lobe that is not in the row of the lobes is treifa, and behold the varda is not in the row of the lobes—for this is no question at all, as only an extra lobe is treifa and not the varda, which is so from the primary creation.

We have already written that regarding the lobes, an extra one is kosher and a missing one is treifah, but regarding the varda there is a dispute among the Rishonim in this matter. There are some of our teachers who permit when it is missing and declare treifah with two vardas, and some say the opposite, and some permit in both cases. This is the wording of the Tur: And if the varda is missing, Rashi explained that it is kosher, and if it has two, it is treifah; and Rabbeinu Ephraim forbids when it is missing and permits with two; and the Geonim permit whether it has none at all or whether it has two, and such is the primary ruling. Thus far his words. And their dispute depends on the sugya of the Shas [47a]. And consequently, according to the opinion of the Geonim, even if it changed its location it is kosher, for what does it matter to us? Even if we consider it as missing from its place, and in the place where it is not supposed to be it is an extra one, behold, in both cases it is kosher. And this is what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 2: That the varda, if it is missing or if it has two, or if it is found on the left side, it is kosher. Thus far his words. And this is according to the system of the Geonim.

And one must ask a great question regarding these laws: behold, it is a great principle in the laws of terefot that "any addition is considered as if it were removed," as is written in siman 50. How then do we say regarding a missing lobe that it is a terefah, yet regarding an additional lobe that it is kosher? For behold, any addition is considered as if it were removed. And so too regarding the rose-lobe according to the opinion of Rashi, that if it is missing it is kosher, but if there are two it is a terefah; yet behold, any addition is considered as if it were removed, so why is it a terefah if there are two? And so too according to our teacher Ephraim, that if it is missing it is a terefah, but if there are two it is kosher; yet behold, any addition is considered as if it were removed. The answer to this matter will be explained in section 50 with the help of Heaven.

But our teacher, the Rema, wrote that in these lands the custom is to declare it treifa whether two varda are found, or if it is missing, or if it changed its location, and such is the custom because there are authorities who hold thus and one must not change the custom; and likewise if it changed its appearance or its usual form, it is treifa. Thus far his words. And the reason for the custom is that if it is missing, there is a doubt that perhaps we hold like Rabbeinu Ephraim, and with two, perhaps we hold like Rashi, and consequently, even if it changed its location one must declare it treifa according to both opinions, for in its place it is missing and not in its place it is extra. And likewise if it changed its appearance and its form, perhaps this is like missing, since it does not possess its appearance and its form. And there is a difference in the law between a missing una and a missing varda, for with a missing una it is a certain treifa, and with a missing varda it is only a doubtful treifa, and there are practical legal ramifications for several matters, as is understood.

If it changed its form, this is called when it is elongated like an una and not round, for certainly regarding an una there is no concern if it is not elongated and pointed, as only regarding the varda do we say if it changed its form it is terefah. For the laws of terefot depend on the ways the lung grows, and the rabbis established that an una is sometimes pointed and sometimes round, but a varda is always round. And likewise, if it is not smaller than all the unot, even if it is only as large as the middle una of the right side, which is the smallest of all the unot, it is terefah [Shach subsection 9 and Taz]. And some say specifically when it is as large as the una adjacent to the uma [ibid.], and in a case of great loss one may rely on this opinion [Simlah Chadashah]. And it is a simple matter that this is only when the unot are according to their normal way, but if it happened in an animal that there were small unot not according to the way of all animals, and the varda is according to the way of all vardot, we do not declare it terefah on the grounds that it is larger than the unot of this animal [Levushei Serad subsection 68], for this is not called "it changed its form and its shape," for behold it is in its form and its shape, and the unot are not in their form and their shape.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: The varda is accustomed to being in a pocket, and if no pocket is found for it, or if it has two pockets, or if it has a pocket and it is not placed within it, and even when they place it within it, it repeatedly emerges from it when they inflate the lung, it is treifah. Thus far his words. And there are those who permit in all of these cases, for the pocket is not a requirement at all [Shach, subsection 14 in the name of the Rashal and Maharshal], and it depends on the custom of the locales, for the primary laws of the varda regarding missing or extra also depend on the custom, as our teacher, the Rema, himself wrote. This is his wording: And all of these laws are only in places that are accustomed to declare treifah with two vardas or if it has no varda at all; but in places that permit, all of these distinctions are also kosher. Thus far his words. For in truth, the places that rely on the opinion of the Geonim who permit both in the case of a missing varda and in the case of an extra varda have upon what to rely. Furthermore, both in the case of missing and in the case of extra, the majority of opinions are to permit; for in the case of missing, it is the opinion of Rashi and the Geonim to permit, and in the case of extra, it is the opinion of the Geonim and our teacher Ephraim to permit. However, the places that accepted upon themselves to forbid due to doubt should not permit. If so, it is a fortiori that even in places that are accustomed to declare treifah, if they are accustomed to permit in the case of a missing pocket or an extra pocket, we have no concern regarding it.

There are those who wrote that if it does not have a groove it is terefah, for in this case the form of the varda is nullified; and likewise when the groove is in another place, not in the place where it is accustomed to be, and this is called an inverted varda [Siman 348], or if a bit is missing from it [ibid.]. And all of these are stringencies, and in a place where they are accustomed [to forbid], they are accustomed, and in a place where they are accustomed to permit, they permit. However, the great Acharonim wrote that even in a place where they are accustomed to be lenient regarding all these stringencies that have been explained, this is specifically when there is no other defect in the lung in another matter; but if there is another defect in it, even in something that we permit, nevertheless, in any amount it joins to support the hands of those who forbid, and we say it is a lesion and it is terefah [Shach, subsection 22 in the name of the Maharshal]. And see what I wrote in section 10, and it requires further study.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: If a portion of the varda is missing, one must examine the lobes or the umot on the left side; if the missing piece is found, some say it is kosher, for it is sometimes found thus in kids and lambs. Thus far his words. And he means to say: since in kids and lambs it is sometimes found thus, it follows that this is their way of growing, that when they grow, they continue to grow in their place, and since there is something similar to this, one should therefore be lenient even with large animals and with all species, and we attribute it to the fact that it was formed thus from its birth and has not yet had enough time to be corrected. And this is specifically if the missing piece, when joined, would have the form of a varda, for if not, it would be treifah regardless, as has been written [Shach, subsection 18]. And one should not say: what benefit is there in joining it, since the missing piece is on the left side, it should be considered "changed its location," which is treifah? And even if it were on the right side but not in the location of the varda, it would also be "changed its location"? For it can be said: since the essence and root of the varda is in its place, we are not concerned with the joining [ibid., subsection 19]. And from this we have learned that the treifot of "changed its location" and "changed its form" only apply when it changed its entire form and its entire location, but regarding a portion of it, we have no concern, for here in any case there is a change in a portion and we are not concerned with it [not like the Beit Ephraim, subsection 116].

He further wrote: And similarly, some permit it if it has the appearance of a rose at its root to the thickness of a finger, even though it does not have the appearance of a rose at its top, provided that it is not inverted and has not changed its location; and in all these matters one should be lenient since many permit it in any case. Thus far his words. And according to this, what we wrote in the previous section—that we require that when we join the missing piece it will have the form of a rose—this is when there is no form of a rose in the root; but if there is the form of a rose in the root to the thickness of a finger, we do not require that there also be the form of a rose in the joining [Pri Megadim, subsection 21]. And there is one who says that we require that in the root itself there be the measure of a myrtle leaf, and for this, the joining of the missing piece does not avail [Beit Ephraim, subsection 120]. And I do not know why, for since the joining avails, why should it not avail to complete the measure?

An inverted varda is called such, for example, if its face is toward the heart and its back is toward the kidneys, or if its head is below and the bottom is above, or if the groove is in another place as I wrote in section 32, or if the groove is inverted toward the heart. And know that all these are seen only after the inflation, for a beast during its life is inflated; therefore, if after the inflation it stands properly, even after feeling it by hand, it is kosher. Also, what was explained in section 31 regarding the treifot of two sacs in a place where they are accustomed to be stringent, it is only when there is upon the second the actual form of a sac, but without this, it is nothing but curls of flesh [ibid.]. And so, if there is found inside the sac a long piece that does not have the law of a varda, and through the inflation there is wrinkled in it something like a groove, and when they feel and massage with the hands around that piece the varda emerges according to its way and its form, one should rule it kosher even if afterward it returns to its previous state [ibid.]. And in places where there is no known custom, one should rule it kosher when the varda is missing [ibid. subsection 115], and all the more so one should be lenient in other stringencies. But in a place where they are accustomed to rule it treif, it is difficult to be lenient, and in a case of great loss, the Rav shall rule according to what his eyes see in the matter.

He further wrote that if two vradot are found and they have one root the thickness of a finger, even if there is a crack in it, it is kosher. And if one is inverted and the second is not inverted, we follow the larger one; if it is not inverted, it is kosher. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words is that when they have one root it is considered as one, and even though there is a crack in the root—and it will be explained later that regarding lobes, when there is a crack we count them as two lobes to complete the measure of five lobes, and according to this the root would also be like two vradot—nevertheless it is kosher, for we join cracks to permit and not to forbid, as will be explained with the help of Heaven. And the measure of the root is like the thickness of a finger, meaning when there is in the height of the varda the thickness of a finger, even though in its width it is not the thickness of a finger, it is kosher [Taz, subsection 5]. And the measure of the thickness of a finger is the width of the thumb at the wide place and not in its thickness [Acharonim]. And if they even have one root but one is inverted and one is not inverted, if both are equal in their size, it is treifa, for it is true that they are as one, behold it is inverted, and all the more so when the inverted one is the larger. But if the inverted one is the smaller, it is kosher, because we consider them as one and it turns out that the majority of the varda is not inverted. However, when they do not have one root, it is treifa in any case because of an extra varda, and it is an a fortiori argument: if with two vradot where both are not inverted it is treifa, all the more so when one is inverted [this is the intent of the Shach, subsection 12]. And know that there is one who says regarding when they have one root, that when the smaller one is the inverted one it is kosher, nevertheless if it changed its place it is treifa [Tevuat Shor, subsection 46]. And to me it does not appear so, for we have already written that even in a case where it changed its place it is not forbidden by a minute amount, and specifically when the majority of the varda changed its place; and here, where the smaller one changed its place, we have no concern with it [and that which the Rema wrote in Darkei Moshe, letter 3, this is his wording: And if the inunita changed its place even a little it is treifa, thus far his words—the intent is not a part of it, but rather meaning that it changed entirely even a little from the place where it was there. And the Be'er Heitev, subsection 116, understood it literally, see there; but it is impossible to say so, and there is clear proof from this law that when the smaller one is the inverted one it is kosher, and delve into this].

It has already been explained that a missing una is treifa, but when there is a crack in one una, it joins to permit it, for we consider it as two unot; and if there is in each one the size of a myrtle leaf, it is kosher. However, without a crack, even if the una is twice as wide as it needs to be, nevertheless we do not consider it as two. And know that the crack is effective only to permit and not to render treifa, such as if there are cracks in the two unot on the left side; if we were to consider a crack as two, then there would be four unot on the left and it would be more than on the right—this is not so, for a crack is not effective to render treifa. Not only that, but even in the same lung itself where we considered the crack to permit, it is not effective therein to render treifa, such as where in this lung there are only two unot on the right and two unot on the left, and on the right there is one una with a crack and on the left there are the two unot with cracks, nevertheless the crack of the right is considered as two and there are three on the right, and the cracks of the left are nothing. Not only that, but even in that same una itself it is effective to permit and not to render treifa, such as where on the left side there is only one una and in it are three cracks, we consider one crack as two and there are two unot on the left, and the other two cracks are considered as nothing [Shach, subsection 33]. And there is one who says that when there are two unot and a crack on the right, and three unot on the left, it is treifa [Taz, subsection 10], but it is not the primary view and thus is the world accustomed [Nekudot HaKesef]. And the measurement of the crack is like a myrtle leaf, for this is the measurement of an una [as is evident in the Beit Yosef]. And the reason that we rely on cracks to be lenient and not to be stringent is because the vast majority have five unot, and therefore regarding a crack that is needed for its permit, we say "go after the majority," but a crack through which it would be rendered treifa, we do not rely on it as an una unto itself, for that is a minority of a minority [Kereti U'Peleti, subsection 18].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 8: A lung that does not have the division of the lobes is treifah, and if there is a crack like the appearance of a separation between them the size of a myrtle leaf, whether at their base, in their middle, or at their end, it is kosher. Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And there are those who permit it with any recognition or crack whatsoever, even if it is not like a myrtle leaf, and one may rely on them if it is a substantial loss to declare it treifah. Thus far his words. And they understood this to be the opinion of Rashi, of blessed memory, who wrote [47b], and this is his wording: And where it is not divided with a complete division and crack, but rather a kind of appearance of a recognizable separation is in it, it is kosher. Thus far his words. And in truth, it is very puzzling where it is explained in Rashi that any amount whatsoever is sufficient, for Rashi only said that we do not require a complete division and crack, but rather a slight crack that is merely recognizable, but regarding the size of the crack, he did not speak. And it appears to me that he also only spoke regarding a lung that has no division of lobes at all, where we see that even with any crack whatsoever that is how they grow; but in a case where one or two lobes are missing, it is impossible to permit it with the recognition of a crack when it does not have the required size. And the Maharshal wrote this reasoning [Yam Shel Shlomo, siman 35]. Therefore, our teacher, the Rema, did not write this law in section 5, which deals there with a missing lobe, as I wrote in the previous section. And there are some of the great authorities who wrote explicitly that there is no distinction in this, and that even with one missing lobe one should permit it with any crack whatsoever [Shach, subsection 44]. Nevertheless, for the law, it appears to me that the main point is as I wrote, and so wrote the great later authorities [Tevu'ot Shor, subsection 8, and Levush]. And furthermore, even in a lung that has no divisions of the lobes at all, one should not be lenient with any crack whatsoever, and it requires further study. And it is obvious that the crack must be in the place where it is the way to be split there, but other cracks are not effective [ibid.].

There is one who wishes to be even more stringent, that for the recognition of a crack one requires two bronchial tubes, and if they inspected and found only one bronchial tube, the crack is of no avail [Shulchan Melachim, subsection 10]. There is no basis for these words, and several great authorities have already refuted him [Ginat Veradim and Levushai Serad], for either way: if the matter depended primarily on the bronchial tube, the sages of blessed memory should have said to inspect the bronchial tubes. Indeed, it is true that a bronchial tube is also effective, as will be explained, but it is clear that the recognition of a crack does not depend on the bronchial tube; for even if they inspected and found only one bronchial tube, one should not be stringent since there is the recognition of a crack. There are also those who wish to be stringent that the crack must also have a certain measure of depth [ibid.], but this is not at all clear. The primary rule is as I have written: when there is a crack along the length like a myrtle leaf, it is kosher [and all the words of the Shulchan Melachim in subsection 4 are unintelligible, as the Levushai Serad labored to show in subsection 5, and the primary rule is as I have written].

There was an incident in ancient times in the land of the Rhine where they slaughtered a fat cow and found in the lung neither a lobe, nor the main body of the lung, nor the accessory lobe, nor any fissure. There was a certain examiner there who took a sharp knife and cut the upper membrane—that is, that garment that had formed a crust over it—and he peeled and stripped it off gently and separated it entirely from it, and then they saw the lung like all other lungs and they declared it kosher [Taz, subsection 14, in the name of the Rashal]. And this is the incident of the Rhine mentioned in several places:

Our teacher, the Rema, further wrote, and this is his wording: The bottom lobe of the right side is typically thick and its length is greater than the middle lobe; it is also higher than that of the left. If it is completely attached to the uma, but these signs are recognizable in the place where the lobe ought to be, it is called "recognizable" and it is kosher. The same law applies if another sign is recognizable there by which the lobe is slightly recognizable, and even a recognition by way of the bronchial tube that is typically in the lobe—if a bronchial tube is found there in the place where a lobe is typically located, it is called "recognizable." And all these matters we examine and estimate after the lung has been inflated, because during the life of the animal the lung is inflated. Thus far his words.

And there are those who disagree with all these signs except for the recognition of a crack [Yam Shel Shlomo], but the great later authorities decided that certainly when the entire lung has no division of lobes, and this is what is similar to a block of wood mentioned in the Gemara, only the recognition of a crack is effective. However, in the case of a missing lobe where these signs are seen, such that it is clearly evident that this is the missing lobe, certainly one may rely on this, and we say that they were attached to one another from the beginning to the end [Shach subsection 45 and Pri Chadash]. And likewise, there is one who says that specifically from a lobe to the ouma these signs are effective, but not from a lobe to a lobe; and it is not so, for there is no difference, and even from a lobe to a lobe it is effective [Turei Zahav subsection 15].

There are those who wrote additional signs through which it can be recognized that they are two lobes [see Be'er Heitiv section 19], but we have only the words of our teacher, the Rema. Certainly, if the examiner is an expert and recognizes well through visual identification in this lung where a lobe is missing, and understands and recognizes through his expertise that two lobes were attached to one another, whatever the sign may be, it is obvious that he can rely on this by means of a question to a sage, provided they both agree that they are two lobes and they shall declare it kosher. However, regarding the signs that we explained according to our teacher, the Rema, every expert examiner can rely on this himself [so it appears to me].

Superficially, it appears to be a simple matter that regarding the signs we have brought, through which it appears that they are two lobes, one must recognize that nothing in the entire lung changes from what is customary when we say that they are two lobes. For example, regarding the size of the lobes and their appearance, which do not resemble one another, one must recognize by visual identification that if we say they are two, then each one is according to its appearance and the form it ought to have. Similarly, the verda stands according to its usual manner. And so there are some of the great authorities from whose words this appears to be so [Simlat Chadasha section 3 and Beit Aryeh section 26], for if it were not so, granted that they are two lobes, they have changed their form and also the verda has changed its place. And it is not only necessary according to our teacher, the Rema, who declares it treif upon a change in the forms of the lobes, but even according to the one who permits this, as I wrote in section 9, nevertheless, how can we rely on the signs against the majority of the forms of the lobes found in all animals?

However, according to this, it is difficult regarding our teacher, the Rema, who permits by means of the recognition of a crack—what is he dealing with? For if we say that by means of the crack, when we consider them as two lobes, each one will have its form and shape upon it, such as in length and thickness or in their largeness and smallness, if so, why do we need the recognition of the crack? Behold, there is another sign. Rather, perforce one must say that by means of the recognition of the crack, each one will not have its form and shape, and yet he is the one who declares it treif in the case of a change in the shapes of the lobes. And it is true that one could say, for example, that by means of the crack they will have equal shapes, and it has already been explained in section 9 and section 10 that even according to his opinion, when they are equal it is kosher, and there is no concern except from the shape of one lobe to the shape of its fellow; but that which they are not like their permanent form, we have no concern regarding it, see there. But it is a strained interpretation to say so, for in any such case he should have specified and not remained vague. Furthermore, all of our teachers, the Rishonim, who mentioned the permission from the recognition of cracks, did not mention anything about recognizing the shapes of the lobes.

Therefore, it appears to me clear that if there is only a recognition of a crack or another sign that they are two lobes, we no longer care about their image and their form, nor the position of the varda and the like. And the reason for the matter is that we say that because they became tangled and stuck together, their forms, their images, and the order of their positions also changed, and before they stuck together, everything was in its proper place, and afterwards they changed. Logic dictates this, for because they stuck together they became thicker, or shorter, or longer, in the manner of two organs that stick to one another, which cannot remain exactly as their original image due to the pressure and the crowding. For just as they stuck to one another due to some cause, so too their form changed due to this cause, and the varda also appears as if it stands in another place due to this cause, while in truth and in their root they are in the original place. Therefore, all of our teachers did not mention anything of this, and the kashrut remains in its place. And it is exactly comparable to one that partially shriveled, where we also see that the larger lobe becomes small, and nevertheless its kashrut remains; so too here, through their adhesion their form changed.

There is one who says that a split in the upper lobe joins to complete a lobe that is next to it when it is missing, for even though we are lenient such that it is not considered an extra lobe, as will be explained, nevertheless there is here enough to complete the count of the lobes, and it is preferable to a crack [Kereiti U-Peleiti subsection 5]. And these are bewildering words; what does a split have to do with completing the count of the lobes? For regarding the split, we consider that it split from that same lobe, so how can we consider it another lobe? It is understandable regarding cracks, for we consider that the crack separates and each one is a lobe unto itself, but regarding a split, by what would we consider it a lobe unto itself? Furthermore, it has already been explained that a crack is not effective unless it stands in a place where it is fit for there to be another lobe, and what does a split have to do with this? Therefore, one should not rely on this ruling, and so wrote one of the great authorities [Beit Ephraim section 31].

The opinion of the Rambam in chapter 8 and the Shulchan Aruch section 7 is that when one of the lobes of the right side is missing, the varda compensates for it. Rashi, of blessed memory, wrote [47a] that it does not compensate, for this is not in the row of the lobes, see there. According to this, the Rambam, who declares it kosher, follows his own reasoning that we do not require it to be in the row of the lobes, and any extra lobe from the front is kosher. Nevertheless, it only compensates for the right side, whereas when one lobe is missing from the left side, it does not compensate because the varda stands on the right side. Accordingly, if the varda stands on the left side, some say it compensates [Bach], and there are those who disagree on this [see Beit Yosef]. And one should not ask: behold, in any case the varda is missing if we count it toward the lobes? For in this too they follow their own reasoning that a missing varda is kosher, as this is the opinion of most of the poskim, as I wrote in section 27. And our teacher, the Rema, who wrote that some say the varda does not compensate and such is the custom, thus far his words, it must be said that his reason is because of the missing varda, for he follows his own reasoning that he declares it treif in this case, as I wrote there. But it is impossible to say it is because of the reason of Rashi, that it does not stand in the row of the lobes, for he himself declares it kosher in the case of an extra lobe from the front [Shach subsection 42]. And this is all according to the approach of the later authorities who understood his words in this way, but according to what we explained in section 17, this is not necessary, see there.

According to what has been explained, if one lobe is missing and there is an extra lobe in the front, it completes the count according to everyone, for those who rule an extra lobe in the front to be kosher. However, some say that even this does not complete the count, for the completion of the lobes is only through that which stands in the actual row of the lobes, and not when it stands in another place. And it can be said that this is the reasoning of our teacher, the Rema, who ruled that the "rose-lobe" does not complete the count [ibid.]. And all the more so if an extra lobe is found in the "garden-bed" above the lobes near the spine, inside the lung, that it does not complete the count even for the one who rules it kosher according to the law of an extra lobe in the front. However, to complete the number of lobes, it certainly does not complete the count. And some say that this is treifah even without the issue of completion, for this is called an extra lobe on the back, because this place is included more in the back than in the front [Taz, subsection 13].

It has already been explained that an extra limb on the back is terefah, and the reason was written by the Rambam in chapter 8: because the extra is like the missing. That is to say, any extra is considered as if it were removed. And if it is difficult, for if so, why is an extra limb on the front kosher? Rashi, of blessed memory, wrote [58b] regarding an extra leg, and this is his wording: And even though we said regarding the lobes of the lung that the halacha is not according to Rava regarding an extra lobe, we established it only when it stands in the row of the lobes, for the sages knew that this is their normal way; but in between, it is terefah. Consequently, it is considered as if it were removed. And regarding legs, where it is not their normal way, it is certainly terefah. Thus far his words. And so it must be said according to the system of the Rambam, who rules it kosher on the front because on the front it is their normal way, and on the back, where it is not their normal way, any extra is considered as if it were removed.

And there is a question regarding this, for if so, the law of "anything extra is like missing" in the lung is different than in other organs. For regarding the leg, we hold later in siman 55 that we do not say "anything extra is like missing" unless this extra part stands from the head of the lower bone and above. And similarly in siman 41 regarding the liver, they also do not forbid an extra part unless it is in the place of the gallbladder or in its vital area [see there in the Taz, subsection 11, and the Shach, subsection 16]. And according to this, also regarding an extra lobe, we should have forbidden it more when it stands exactly near the lobes, yet we say the opposite: that specifically when it is in the place of the lobes it is kosher, and when not in their place it is treifah. And it must be said that since we see that in the place of the lobes this is their way of growth, and not in their place is not their way of growth, it must necessarily be said so. Furthermore, since they all are drawn after the main part of the lung, it is in every place as if they stand near them, only that exactly near them this is their way of growth and it is kosher. And see section 54.

Furthermore, one must ask: behold, all the terefot were told to Moses at Sinai, and certainly this halacha as well, that "any surplus is like missing," was also told to Moses at Sinai. The Rashba, of blessed memory, wrote this explicitly in a responsum [Part 1, Siman 98], that it was thus told to Moses at Sinai that a surplus is like missing. Since this is a halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai, how is it possible to make a distinction in this to change their law from other organs? For it is a forced argument to say that it was thus told to Moses that specifically a surplus from the back is terefah, for if so, the sages of the Shas would not have disagreed about this. Certainly, the halacha was stated in general terms. Nevertheless, it can be said that ultimately, since we see that in the place of the lobes this is their way of growth, we automatically say that the halacha was not stated regarding this, just as with two rose-lobes, and similarly with the tube from the omasum to the abomasum, where we do not say "surplus is like missing" for the reason that all wild animals have them so [58b; see there]. And here too it is similar. However, it is not comparable, for there, in the entire species, it is not found otherwise, whereas a surplus in the rows of the lobes is also a rare occurrence, as is known.

And there is further to ask: if the reason that an extra lobe on the back is treifah is because of the principle "an extra is as if it were missing," if so, if there are six lobes in the lung and also an extra lobe on the back, we should declare it kosher. For even if one extra is as if one were missing, there would still remain five lobes. And this matter has not been explained anywhere, and it implies explicitly that in any case an extra lobe on the back is treifah. And it must be said that this is how the Merciful One taught Moses: that the extra is as if it were missing from the essence of the matter that must be there, and not from that which was added in this animal compared to other animals.

And know that the great later authorities disagreed regarding a surplus lobe that is like a dorda, as there is one who says that it is not treifah unless two lobes stand in one place, but when one is on the right and one is on the left it is kosher, just as with a surplus of the leg where we do not say "a surplus is as if it were removed" unless it stands next to it [Taz, subsection 4]. And there is one who says that in any case it is treifah [Shach, subsection 17]. And the primary view is like this opinion, that it is treifah in any case, for we have clarified in section 51 that in this detail, "a surplus is as if it were removed" regarding the lung is not similar to all other organs; on the contrary, regarding the lung, it is the opposite of all other organs, as I have written.

And behold, in truth, were it not for the words of our teachers, I would have said that the law of "any surplus is as if missing" does not apply at all to the lobes. The reason is that we only say "any surplus is as if missing" regarding the essential organ in its entirety, such as a surplus leg being like a missing leg, and similarly regarding the liver and all organs; and here too, if two lungs were found, we would say surplus is as if missing. However, regarding the details of the organ, such as the lobes, which are all nullified to the essence of the lung, one should not make them dependent on one another, for the details of the organ do not have the importance to be dependent on one another. Rather, the tradition was received such that if the variation is in this manner, the lung will not be ruined, and if in another manner, it will be ruined. And specifically regarding a surplus on the back, we have a simple reason why it is treifah: because it rubs against the ribs. For it is for this reason that all the great authorities wrote regarding a split on the back, where we establish that it is kosher, as will be explained with the help of Heaven, that if it is longer than its groove, it is treifah because it will rub against the ribs [Nekudat HaKesef subsection 12, Pri Chadash subsection 29, and the Rema in Darkei Moshe letter 11]. If so, it is obvious that a surplus lobe that has no groove at all will rub against the ribs. A proof for this is that the Maharil declared a surplus lobe beneath the varda kosher because the cleft protects the surplus [Darkei Moshe ibid.]. Now, if the reason were because "any surplus is as if missing," what benefit would the protection provide? As indeed they challenged him for this reason [ibid.]. And there it is explained that the great authorities of Israel agreed with this ruling, see there. Rather, it is certainly like our reasoning, that regarding lobes, this law of "any surplus is as if missing" does not apply at all. But what can we do, since Rashi, the Rambam, and many poskim did not say so; our opinion is completely nullified. And as for our teacher, the Rema, in the Shulchan Aruch at the end of section 5, declaring a surplus lobe opposite the cleft of the varda kosher in a case of great need and significant loss, even though he himself holds that even in the lung "surplus is as if missing," he nevertheless declared it kosher based on the reason of a surplus on the front, to rely in a case of great need and significant loss on the opinion of those who declare a surplus on the front kosher [Shach subsection 39]. However, the Maharil and the great authorities declared it kosher because of the protection, for they hold according to the view of Rashi that a surplus on the front is treifah [and from this too there is clear proof for our words in section 17 that the Rema does not declare a surplus on the front kosher, for if not so, why did he permit it only in a case of great need and significant loss].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 5 that it is not called a yitert unless it has the form of an una, but if there is found upon the lung a high place, wide at the bottom and thick at the top, which is not sharp at its head, it is called a gabsushit and is kosher. Thus far his words. We have already explained this in section 25, that for this reason our teacher, the Beit Yosef, omitted it, on the grounds that it is impossible to define this matter in writing, and he shall judge according to what his eyes see. And so too, if it is wide at the bottom and round at the top, it is kosher [Taz, subsection 11]. But if it is sharp at the top or at the bottom, it is terefah [ibid.], for this is a yitert [Shach, subsection 35]. And perhaps even if it is not considered a yitert, nevertheless, since it is sharp, it will rub greatly against the ribs and will eventually be perforated. According to this, if it is from the front, where rubbing against the ribs is not applicable, it would be kosher even according to those who rule a yitert from the front to be terefah; but according to the reason that it is a yitert, it is terefah [Tevuat Shor, subsection 22]. And so too, there is a practical difference between the two reasons if it is less than a tarpa de-asa, for according to the reason of yitert it is kosher, and according to the reason of rubbing it is terefah. And all of this we measure after the inflation, for during the life of the animal the lung is inflated. And all of this is when it is not separated from the lung, but if it is separated, it is certainly a yitert, and if it is like a tarpa de-asa, it is terefah [Beit Ephraim, section 49]. And all of this is when the gabsushit is the lung itself, but a high bu'a, even though it is sharp and elongated and has the appearance of an una, nevertheless its law is not like a yitert but like other bu'ot in the lung [ibid.].

He wrote further: And so too if a lobe is found upon the lung and a depression is beneath it, and when the lung is inflated the entire lobe falls into the depression and is level with the rest of the lung, even if it only enters the depression when one places the hand gently upon it, it is kosher, for this is not a surplus lobe but rather a split in the lung. And since it has a depression beneath it in which to rest, it is not destined to be detached like other surplus lobes and is kosher. And one may only declare such a split kosher on the back, where the split rests upon the depression, but on the front the split falls downward and is ultimately destined to be detached and is terefah. Thus far his words. And that which is implied by his wording, that the reason a surplus lobe on the back is terefah is because it is ultimately destined to be detached, is not exact, for it has already been explained that the reason is because "surplus is as if missing." Rather, this is what he is saying: even if we say regarding a surplus lobe on the back that what the sages, of blessed memory, said—that it is terefah—was due to the reason of friction against the ribs, and according to this the law would be the same for a split, to this he says that it is not so, for even according to that reason it is kosher in a split, for it is not destined to be detached because it has a depression in which to rest [so I am compelled to explain, for otherwise he contradicts himself, and examine this closely].

And that which he wrote, "falls into the pit and is level with the rest of the lung," his intention is that it fills the entire pit, to exclude if it protrudes upward; even if it is like a mound that is not sharp, it is terefah. And there is one who says that even if its height is not like a myrtle leaf, since in the entire split there is the size of a myrtle leaf, it is terefah, because there are two defects in this: one, that it was split from the lung, and the second, that the slight protrusion will rub against the ribs. And all the more so if it protrudes because it is wider than the pit and it is impossible for it to reach the bottom of the pit, it is terefah [Siman 38, section 18], not like those who are lenient when the protrusion is less than a myrtle leaf [see Tevuot Shor, subsection 23]. And it is simple that if by means of a strong inflation it is level with the rest of the lung, one should permit it. And if the entire split is less than a myrtle leaf, it is permitted simply, for even if we say that it will rub against the ribs, nevertheless, since an extra lobe on the back is permitted in less than this measure, all the more so a split on the back, even though it does not fill the pit; for anything less than this measure does not have the power to damage, for so did our Sages, of blessed memory, receive. Therefore, it seems to me that in a case of great loss, one should be lenient also when the protrusion is less than a myrtle leaf even if in its totality there is the measure, provided it is clear that this is a split and not an extra lobe, for anything less than the measure one should be lenient in a case of great loss; and it requires further study for the practical law.

And if the split is smaller than the indentation, such that it does not fill the entire indentation, some say it is treifah, for this is a sign that it is not a split but rather an extra lobe. And some say it is kosher, for ultimately, since it rests in an indentation, it is not destined to be separated. And if it is difficult to understand why, if it is a split from the lung, it does not fill the entire indentation, one can say that it has been split for a long time, and the lung grew along with the indentation, while the split, due to its weakness, did not grow as much as the main lung and the indentation. And since there is an indentation beneath it, it is like a clarification that this is a split and not an extra lobe.

The standard split is such that the side connected to it is toward the spine and the side of separation is below, and therefore our teacher, the Rema, ruled it kosher even though it does not enter into the cavity on its own, but rather when one places the hand upon it gently; for just as it enters into the animal with the placement of the hand, so too during its life, when the split reaches the chest wall, it descends into the cavity. But if the side of separation is toward the spine and the connected side is below, it is self-evident that it is not so stationary that it would enter into the cavity. Therefore, there are some of the books of the examiners who wish to be stringent in such a case, but from the silence of the wording of the poskim, it is clear that there is no distinction, for if it were not so, they should have explained this. Therefore, one of the great authorities wrote that in such a case we are not so lenient that the grasp of a human hand should suffice, rather if through inflation it goes on its own into the cavity, one must certainly rule it kosher, for it was certainly resting within the cavity during its life. But if they must place the hand upon it until it enters into the cavity, the experts look and estimate according to the value of the split and its connection; and if according to their estimation it fell into the cavity during its life when it struck the ribs, they rule it kosher, and if not, one should not be lenient [Siman 38, section 19], and these are words of reason.

And this that he rules treif regarding a split from the front, the reason is simple: because it is destined to separate since it is into the cavity. Thus it is found that a split is the exact opposite of an extra lobe, for an extra lobe from the front is kosher according to many poskim and from the back is treif, whereas a split is the opposite, as from the front it is treif and from the back it is kosher due to the reasons that have been explained. And that which we do not fear regarding an extra lobe from the front that perhaps it will separate is because it is rooted well in the manner of the lobes, for the essence of the creation is such; this is not the case with a split that split from the lung, for it has been damaged, and certainly there is a great concern that when it is from the front it will fall into the lung.

And know that there are several of the great authorities who said that even regarding a split from the beginning, if it is rooted well, we do not fear that it might become detached, and it is kosher. And there are those who cried out against this like a crane. And even according to the opinion of those who permit it, we do not know what is called "rooted well." And I saw one who says that if the split goes in a circle, and more than half of the circle is rooted in the lung, such that the hanging side is much less than the rooted side, this is called "rooted well," for it will automatically hold the small hanging part so that it does not become detached. But if the split is like a square—and not specifically a square, but even long and short—yet if the rooted side is not more than the hanging side, it is certainly easy for it to become detached. And it is a correct reasoning, and one whose heart is whole in the matter may be lenient in a case of great loss when it is rooted very well.

If there is a doubt whether this is a split or a redundancy in a manner where it is impossible to distinguish, there is one who says that one should attribute it more likely to a redundancy [B.A.]. I do not know why, for according to what our eyes see, both this and that are not very common. It would have been possible to say that since the majority of animals are kosher and it was slaughtered while standing in its status of permissibility, one should be lenient in this, whether from the front or from the back, and attribute it in every manner to declare it kosher. However, regarding a defect that occurred during life, there is room to doubt whether one may permit it based on this reason, as I wrote in siman 29, and as will be further explained in siman 50. Therefore, the primary rule in this is to gather the slaughterers of the city, and it is inevitable that they will not fail to recognize well whether this is a split or a redundancy.

He further wrote: A lobe that split and has one root the thickness of a finger is considered only as one. Thus far his words. The explanation of these matters is that this is not similar to the split that was explained, for a split is specifically when it does not stand at the slopes but in the body of the lung with a depression beneath it. But anything that is divided into two, whether in length, width, or thickness, is not to be considered a split but a division, as long as the observer sees with his eyes that it resembles the form of a division. Therefore, when they have one root the thickness of a finger, it is considered only as one. And some say that this is to declare it treif, but to declare it kosher, such as where a lobe is missing, it is obvious that it is no worse than the permissibility of a crack that was explained. And consequently, it is only effective in a place where a crack is effective, such as where it is in a place where there is normally a division of lobes. And if they do not have one root, one of them is an extra lobe. And if both of them lie equally, it is an extra lobe in the row of lobes and is kosher. And if one is higher than its fellow, and its fellow is as if it lies beneath it, the experts must identify according to their length, width, and thickness if one is the primary one and its fellow lying beneath it is the extra one—then it is an extra lobe from the front; and if its fellow is the primary one, then the one that is higher is the extra one, and it is an extra lobe on its back. And there is a great principle to know: that any matter that depends on expertise according to the sight of the eyes is impossible to explain entirely in writing, and a teacher has only what his eyes see, in conjunction with the expert shochatim, and with a prayer to Hashem that they should not stumble in a matter of halacha. For this we see with our eyes, that with all the abundance of books from the very latest authorities on the laws of examinations, nevertheless there are new cases every morning that are not explained in the books. Therefore, the sage whose heart is whole and who is expert in lungs—a judge has only what his eyes see.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 5: The right lobe adjacent to the windpipe in the narrow part of the chest right next to the neck—the lowest one which is the uppermost adjacent to the neck—if there is found upon its back something like a myrtle leaf, it is kosher because it is its nature to split. And specifically the right one, but not the left. And there is one who says that specifically above its half, but below its half it is treifah. Thus far his words. And in his great book he explained that in the rest of the lobes it is treifah, see there. And it must be understood, for we permit a split in all the lobes when it is on its back, and he himself brought this in his great book. And it must be said that this is the explanation: that in the other lobes it is not kosher unless there is a depression beneath it, but without a depression it is an extra growth from its back and is treifah. But in the lobe adjacent to the windpipe it is kosher even without a depression, because due to the pressure of the chest it is its nature to split, and therefore we attribute this to a split and not to an extra growth. And it is not specifically like a myrtle leaf, for the same law applies even to more than a myrtle leaf [acharonim]; rather, he mentioned the measurement of a lobe which is like a myrtle leaf, for in less than this measurement it is kosher in all the lobes and in the entire lung, as has been written. And therefore it is only kosher on the right and not on the left, because on the left there is no pressure of the chest and we do not attribute it to a split. and even though the upper left lobe is also adjacent to the windpipe, nevertheless it is not like the narrow part of the chest.

And that which he wrote, that there is one who says that specifically above its half, but below its half it is terefah, the interpretations of this have multiplied. Some say that both are in the width of the ouna, and "above its half" refers to what is toward the sharp edge, and "below its half" refers to what is toward the root; and according to this, what is toward the sharp edge is kosher throughout the entire length of the ouna. And some say that we even measure by the length of the ouna, meaning that the half-width that we declared kosher is only above its half in its length toward the windpipe, and not the second half which is toward the lung [Taz subsection 8 in the name of the Rashal]. And some say that the groove of the ouna is the boundary of the location, for from the groove toward the sharp edge it is kosher, and from the groove toward the root it is terefah [Shulchan Melachim section 15], and everything outside the groove is terefah in any location. And the reason for all these opinions is according to their estimation of in which location is the primary pressure of the chest. And there is one who wrote that the custom is to measure in this manner: that we take the left ouna and place it against the right, and from the place where the left ouna ends and onward is called "toward the sharp edge," which is toward the head, and it is kosher; and from the place where the left ouna reaches and toward the lung, it is called "below its half" and it is terefah [Be'er Heitev in the name of Atzei Levonah].

Superficially, it seems clear that this split which is validated in the upper lobe is only on the side of the back, but on the side of the front, a split on the front side is treifah as has been explained, because it is destined to separate; and what does it matter to me if it is other lobes or if it is this lobe, for ultimately it will separate. However, there are great later authorities who validated even on the front side in this lobe [Bach and Panim Me'irot, Noda BiYehudah siman 11] and wrote the reason is because the windpipe holds it so that it does not fall, and they validate even with a cavity beneath it [Noda BiYehudah]. And there are those who wrote that in a place where they validate an extra lobe on the front side, in this case too one should validate, but not in a place where they rule it treifah [Beit Ephraim subsection 60]. And there are those from whose words it is implied that specifically regarding an extra lobe one should validate in this lobe on the front side even in a place where they forbid an extra lobe on the front side, but not regarding a split, and this requires further study in all of this [in the Bach and in the Noda BiYehudah it is explained even regarding a split, and in the Tevuot Shor and Pri Megadim in the Mishbetzot Zahav subsection 8 it is implied regarding an extra lobe, see there].

All these matters were stated only regarding domestic and wild animals, but a bird does not have the division of lobes found in a domestic animal, and if they are found, they have no known number. And similarly regarding kids and tender lambs up to thirty days [Shach, subsection 46], some say that one should not declare it treifah if lobes are not found even without any recognition or slit at all, for such is their growth and their way, that in youth they do not have them, and as they grow, the lobes grow with them. And specifically when they have none at all; but if on one side they have a division of lobes, there must also be on the second side, and if not, it is treifah [ibid. and Taz], for we see that they have already grown, and we do not say that on one side they grew and on the second side they have not yet grown, for presumably both sides grow equally. And there is one who wavers even on the essence of this law [see Pri Chadash]. And similarly the great later authorities wrote that in wild animals and in the wild ox called "bufli," two varda lobes are always found [and it is possible that this is what Rav Huna said to Rav Assi in the Gemara, page 47: all these wild animals have them so; and according to the explanation of our teacher Ephraim in Tosafot there, it refers to two varda lobes].