Siman 37

It is the way of the lung to grow growths, and in the language of the Gemara [48a], the general term for them is "buot," and they change into three names: "tzimchi," "kandi," and "tinari." Rashi, and similarly the Aruch [entry tinari], explained that tzimchi are small, kandi are larger than tzimchi, and tinari are larger than kandi. The Aruch concludes: and all of them are buot. It is clear from the Shas there that in all manners it is kosher. And know that what is found in the Gemara [46b], "black crusts are a [natural] appearance," and Rashi explained that they are like wounds, see there—nevertheless, this is not related to buot, for there it refers to the skin itself where the appearance of the membranes has changed, and this will be explained in siman 38; as opposed to the buot that were explained, which are wounds raised from the flesh of the lung, and they are between the skin and the flesh. [The Pri Megadim in section 47, subsection 1, cited in the name of the Bach that in the Gemara there are four names and he considers buot a specific name, but it is not so, for it is a general name as is clear from the words of the Aruch, and so it is in the Bahag, see there. Also the Levush, subsection 1, elaborated to scrutinize what Rashi wrote that kandi are large—what is the novelty in this? But it is nothing, for such is the definition of the words as the Bahag and the Aruch wrote. It is clear from the Bahag there that it informs us that in every case it is kosher, and the Shas was compelled to this because the name tzimchi is more common, and tzimchi are specifically small, as is proven in the Mishnah in Bekhorot, chapter 7, mishnah 4, according to the version of the Aruch, entry tzimach: "hatzimuch and hatzimun—which is tzimuch? That its ears are small," see there. And I would have said that large ones are forbidden; it comes to teach us [otherwise], and so it appears in the Bahag and the Aruch there. And he elaborated on this for no reason; and examine this carefully]:

And in the language of the poskim there are also three other names whose laws differ from one another, as will be explained in this siman, and they are: buot, tinre, and mursot. Regarding buot, some are filled with air, some are filled with clear water, and some are filled with turbid or foul water, or turbid and foul pus, or clean pus, or fluid like honey and the like; and they grow between the skin and the flesh and are raised from the flesh of the lung. A tinari is also raised from the flesh of the lung, except that it is hard as a stone and has no pus at all. And if you should ask that if so, this is an atum—it is not so, for an atum has no growth there and does not change from the lung, except that it does not rise during inflation [Rashi 48b] and as I wrote in siman 36. However, a tinari does not have the appearance of the lung at all, like a bua, and it is raised from the flesh of the lung like a bua, except that it contains neither fluid nor pus. And they are called mursot when they have the appearance of fluid like the appearance of the precious stone called turquoise, and it is hardly raised from the flesh of the lung, and when they inflate the lung, the membrane of the lung covers it. And it is a great principle that any bua, if through inflation the flesh of the lung covers it, it is neither a bua nor a tinari, but a mursa. And the Rashba, of blessed memory, wrote [47b] that the matter of buot is due to the fluid that collects between the skin and the flesh and spoils there and becomes pus. Thus far his words. [Regarding a mursa, it must be said that it contains fluid, as we learned in Eduyot chapter 2 mishnah 5: "One who pierces a mursa on Shabbat etc. and if to extract fluid from it, he is exempt," and it is cited in Shabbat 107a. This is the wording of the Aruch, entry mursa: "And pierces a mursa, meaning a bua, that is to say, he presses the bua to extract from it the pus and the fluid." Thus far his words, see there.]

The Rambam wrote in chapter 7, law 10: A lung in which blisters were found—if they were filled with air, or clear water, or fluid that stretches like honey and the like, or dry and hard fluid even like a stone, behold, this is permitted. But if foul-smelling fluid or foul-smelling or murky water was found in them, behold, this is treifah. And when one removes the fluid and examines it, he must examine the simpon beneath it; if it is found to be perforated, it is treifah. Thus far his words. For he holds that since the fluid or the water within the blister has become spoiled to the point that they became foul-smelling or murky, it is certain that the membranes have also become spoiled and decayed, and they are as if perforated. And likewise, he is concerned for the simponot if the blister stands in a place where there is a simpon; for even though the blister stands between the skin and the flesh and the simponot are within the flesh, nevertheless, who is to say that it did not enter into the depth of the flesh and perforate the simpon? Therefore, he must examine the simpon beneath it; even when he removes clear water from the blister, nevertheless, it is possible that by the pressure of the blister against the flesh, the simpon was perforated in a place where the flesh does not seal it. And this is the opinion of the Rif as well, see there. And also our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 1, transcribed his words, except for the examination of the simpon, see there.

But all of our teachers, the Rishonim and Achronim, challenged this system and permitted buot in every case, even if they are full of foul secretion or foul and turbid water, for the membranes have no connection to the buot, and the buot are beneath them. Also, there is no need for examinations of the simponot, for even if the bua is deep in the flesh, it pushes itself between the simponot. This is not similar to a lung that poured out like a jug in siman 36, which requires examination of the simponot, for there all the flesh of the lung is spoiled and it is likely that the simponot are also spoiled; but with buot, where the flesh is healthy and good, and the simponot are within the flesh and the buot are upon the flesh beneath the skin, we have no concern for the simponot at all. And there is clear proof, for in the Gemara [48a] it is stated explicitly that several Amoraim saw in various places, in a location where they sell meat, lungs full of many buot, large and small, soft and hard, and they said nothing; and they themselves bought from the meat and did not perform any examination of the simponot, nor did they open the buot to see if they were clear water or foul. And in truth, according to the Rif and the Rambam, one must say that we do not rule like this sugya at all, but like another sugya [55b], where according to the explanation of the Rif and the Rambam, turbid water in the lung is also disqualified [so wrote the Ramban in Milchamot]. Furthermore, it is very difficult according to their system, for they forbid foul or turbid water, and likewise foul or turbid secretion, yet they permit pus; what difference is there between one and the other? For pus is made from the spoiling of secretions. And they were forced to say that pus is closer to healing than turbid and foul water [ibid.]. And this too is very difficult, for it is explicitly explained in the Gemara [48a] that in a place where foul and turbid water is forbidden, such as in a kidney, pus is also forbidden, for they said there: a kidney full of pus is treifah, clear water is kosher, see there. Behold, it is explicit that pus is similar to turbid and foul water. And so ruled our teacher, the Rema, and this is his wording: And many permit even with turbid and foul ones, and such is the custom to permit buot in every case if they are not adjacent. Thus far his words. And also examination of the simponot we do not require, and so ruled all the Achronim, and such is our ruling. And see what I wrote in siman 36, section 44.

There is one who wrote that an old bubble is treifah. How so? When the examiner inserts his hand to examine and it dissolves in the hand of the examiner because it is moldy, it is treifah. And likewise, if a type of bubbles are found on the lung which one peels with the hands and the lung remains whole in the place of the bubble—and this is called a blister—it appears to me to rule it treifah; and even inflation does not avail, for perhaps it was perforated in the place of the bubble and a membrane arose due to a wound [according to the Beit Shmuel, subsection 2, in the name of the Ma'adanei Melekh].

And behold, regarding the first law, certainly if the membrane also dissolved in the hand of the examiner, and he did not handle it with force nor tear it, and it was not in the boundary of the chest, behold the membrane is as if perforated. And even if only the upper membrane dissolved, behold we maintain in siman 36 that a bu'a situated on a place where the upper skin was peeled is treifah, as I wrote there in section 7, see there [and this is the discovery I found written by the Taz, subsection 8]. But if only the bu'a dissolved and the membrane is intact, it is simple that we have no concern with it; and what does it matter to me if it is a new bu'a or an old one? And all the poskim did not mention anything regarding this, and there is no basis to be stringent in this matter.

However, the second law is certainly puzzling, and on the contrary, since the bubble was peeled by hand and the lung remained intact, this is a sign that it healed and only a hard crust remained. This is the "scar of the boil" written regarding nega'im, as we learned in chapter 6 of tractate Nega'im, mishna 8: "The boil, the burn, and the carbuncle that formed a scar," and the Bartenura explained that they healed and skin formed over them, see there. And we say that this bubble was like a boil on the skin and it healed and skin formed over it, and this is what was peeled while the membranes remain. From where do we have the right to maintain a presumption of defect to say that there was a bubble between the skin and the flesh and that which was peeled is the membrane of the lung? One who is stringent in this is nothing other than a destroyer of the money of Israel. [And all the words of the Levush are puzzling; and who is the prophet who told him that there was a complete bubble between the skin and the flesh? And see the Pri Megadim in the Mishbetzot Zahav, subsection 8, who also cited this, and this is nothing but one of the puzzling things. It is a thing of wonder regarding the great authorities to rely on everything they found written. Our teacher, the Rema, did not do so in the Darchei Moshe, letter 1, where he wrote that he found written that a bubble whose appearance is like the appearance of "kretin-stein" or like an eye is treifa, and he rejected this. And so wrote the Yam Shel Shlomo, siman 39, and this is his wording: I found written that a bubble that has a spot like the appearance of "weinshel" is treifa, but it is not clear; why should we add to the treifot etc. Thus far his words. See there.]

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 2: If a hanging sircha emerges from a bua, it is terefah. And the same law applies to a bua located in a place of another defect, even though it would be kosher otherwise—such as on a gavshushit, or in a place that emits a sound, or if the bua itself emits a sound—it is terefah. Thus far their words. The explanation of the matter is clarified in the source of the law from the Ra'avad [Siftei Da'at, siman 12]: That even though we rule a hanging sircha to be kosher based on the Geonim, because it is not attached to anything, nevertheless, when it emerges from a bua, the bua testifies to a perforation. Thus far his words.

And the reason for the matter is that, in truth, every bu'a casts a doubt upon the membranes that are over the lung corresponding to the bu'a, for a bu'a is fluid that gathers between the skin and the flesh and spoils there and becomes pus, and it is very likely that the skin was perforated through this [the wording of the Rashba 47b]. And for this reason, there were some of the sages who would hesitate regarding the matter of bu'ot, as is explained in the Shas [48a]. And the Rif and the Rambam prohibited bu'ot filled with turbid and foul fluid, as has been explained, and it is all due to the corruption of the membranes. And in most cases, we see that the lung membranes over the bu'ot have changed their appearance, and even so, we declare them kosher because it was slaughtered while standing in its status of permissibility and the majority of animals are kosher, and we say that the lung membranes were not corrupted. And if so, when there is also a sircha—and there is no sircha without a perforation, and only in a hanging sircha do we declare it kosher according to the Geonim because it is not attached to another place—nevertheless, there is no clear proof here that this sircha is not due to a perforation. Rather, because it stands in its status of permissibility and the majority of animals are kosher, we say that it is merely mucus. But since the membranes are corrupted, it is more likely that the sircha is due to the perforation and a membrane grew over it and it was closed up.

And there are some of the poskim who permit a sircha hanging from a bua containing clear water [the Bach and the Shach in the name of the Haratz], and their reasoning is that when it is clear water, the membranes have not yet been corrupted. A proof for this is that even the sages who hesitated regarding the fitness of buot also admit regarding clear water, as is explained in the Gemara [ibid.]. And even regarding the kidney, there is a distinction between clear water and pus [ibid.]; it follows that clear water is not a deficiency at all. And there are those who are stringent even regarding clear water [the Rashal and the Taz, subsection 3]. According to the decision of some great authorities, in a case where they permit two adjacent buot with clear water, as will be explained, one should also be lenient regarding a sircha from a bua; and in a case where they forbid there, here too it is forbidden. Logic dictates this, for two adjacent buot is a law of the Gemara, and since in that case they are lenient regarding clear water, it follows that this is not in the category of a defect at all, certainly regarding this law which was not mentioned in the Gemara at all. And so one should instruct [and so wrote the Levush, subsection 7].

The same applies to a bu'ah on a protrusion on the back of the lung, which is like a myrtle leaf [Pri Megadim], or if it produces a sound, for we see that here there is some damage to the membranes, for if not so, why does it produce a sound? And a protrusion as well, even though this is not damage to the membranes, nevertheless it is liable to rub against the chest wall and the membranes will be perforated. And granted that we declare it kosher and do not fear this, as written in siman 35, nevertheless when there is also a bu'ah upon it—since through the bu'ah the membranes were also damaged, and in combination with this the fear of rubbing—one must fear a perforation. And all the more so when it produces a sound, which is somewhat of a sign that the lower membrane has peeled, as written in siman 36, that one must fear the bu'ah there for a perforation. For there it was explained that a bu'ah on a place where the upper membrane has peeled is treifah, and the same applies to the lower membrane. And all these matters are when the membrane upon the bu'ah has changed from the appearance of the lung, but when it is like the appearance of the lung, or if through inflation the skin of the lung rose upon it, it is kosher, for we see the skin of the lung in its proper state and there is no fear at all to say that the skin of the lung was perforated [Shach, subsection 5]. And also regarding a hanging sircha emerging from the bu'ah, the law is also thus: that if it has the appearance of the lung, we have no concern with it and it is kosher [and so it appears from the Pri Megadim there].

And know that this law of a hanging sircha that emerges from a bua is the source of the laws of "twofold deficiency," which several of the later authorities expanded upon and derived from them general rules, details, and minute details. Their primary foundation is based on what the sages, of blessed memory, said at the beginning of Tractate Niddah regarding matters of impurity: that since there is a twofold deficiency, it is considered like certain impurity, see there. And he compares there a matter of prohibition to impurity in this regard [Bach]. In truth, the matter there was stated regarding a mikveh that was measured and found lacking, that all purities performed upon it are impure due to the reason of twofold deficiency: one, that the impure person is established in his presumption of impurity, and the second, that the presumption of purity of the mikveh has a deficiency, for it is lacking before you, see there. If so, what does this have to do with a lung, which has a presumption and a majority toward permissibility, for the majority of animals are kosher, and an animal, once slaughtered, stands in a presumption of permissibility? And even according to the opinion that will be explained in siman 50, that whenever the deficiency certainly occurred during life we do not apply this presumption, nevertheless, it has not left the category of the majority of animals being kosher, as we have proven this at the end of siman 29 from the words of the Rambam, chapter 2 of Rotzeach, halacha 8, see there, unlike the one who disagrees on this. And the twofold deficiency of Niddah means that the presumption of prohibition is superior to the presumption of permissibility, as I wrote, that the presumption of the impure person stands in its strength and the presumption of the mikveh is weakened; and what relevance does that have here?

They further said there regarding this matter that which we learned in a Mishnah: A sheretz found in an alleyway renders the pure items impure retroactively, see there. Even though the pure items have a chazakah of purity, nevertheless, since there are the sheretzim found there in the alleyway and sheretzim that come from elsewhere, it constitutes a "double deficiency." And ostensibly, this is a complete comparison to the "double deficiency" of a lung, for there as well there is a chazakah of purity. However, in truth, the primary reason there is because a doubt of impurity in a private domain is ruled impure, as is explained from the words of the Rambam and the Bartenura in the commentary on the Mishnayot, chapter 6 of Niddah, see there. And so wrote the Rambam in his work in chapter 18 of Hilkhot Shear Avot HaTumot, see there. [And the "double deficiency" of barrels is like a mikveh by reason of a chazakah of prohibition, see there; and aside from this, there are other resolutions there in the sugya].

And the matter is clear that their primary derivation is not from the sugya in Niddah, and they only brought it from there as a mere asmachta; rather, the primary derivation is from this law of a hanging sircha that emerges from a bua. For just as the Ra'avad ruled this treifah due to the reasoning of "two flaws," so too regarding every instance of "two flaws." And the proof is that regarding this law they wrote that from here the checkers learned to rule treifah in every place where there are two defects [Taz, subsection 3]. However, even this is not a comparison, for the Ra'avad did not rule treifah due to the reasoning of two flaws, as he explicitly stated that the bua testifies regarding the sircha that it is perforated. And as we explained in section 9, in truth the reason for the permission of a hanging sircha is tenuous in our hands. And the Rashba explicitly wrote in a Responsum [siman 377] that according to the approach of those who hold there is no sircha without a perforation, even a hanging sircha is treifah since it is perforated, and only according to those who hold that it is destined to be dismantled is a hanging one permitted because it does not have the pulling force from two ends; see there. But a matter has emerged from the mouths of the Gaonim that a hanging one is permitted, and they say that a hanging one is not formed due to a perforation, but in the buot we see a corruption of the membranes, and therefore it is very close to saying that it is perforated.

Furthermore, is the ruling of the Ra'avad, of blessed memory, agreed upon? For behold, many disagree with him, as the Rashdam wrote in his responsa [siman 37] that in Salonika they are lenient regarding a hanging sircha emerging from a bubble, see there. And similarly, the Mahari ibn Lev in his responsa [part 3, siman 106] wrote that the world is accustomed not to follow the Ra'avad, see there [the Pri Chadash cited them in siman 39, subsection 21]. And granted that we rule like the Ra'avad, of blessed memory, nevertheless, to learn from this regarding all matters of two defects and to establish generalities and details as if it were an explicit Gemara is certainly very wondrous.

And also our teacher, the Rema, was only stringent regarding bubbles, such as a bubble upon a scab in siman 36, and a bubble at the lower edges, and a bubble upon a furrow or a fold which will be explained in this siman, and likewise a bubble upon a protrusion and in a place where it emits a sound, which has already been explained. And this is not due to the reason of a double defect, for behold, he did not mention this reason at all, but rather because the Rif and the Rambam rule them treif in cases of murky or foul bubbles because it is clear to them that the membranes have been damaged. And granted that we do not rule accordingly, nevertheless, our eyes see the damage to the membranes; however, we say that the damage has not yet reached the flesh that the physician scrapes. And since we see another damage in them, certainly one must be very concerned for the damage of the membranes, but this matter does not apply to all types of double defects.

Furthermore, I have a difficulty, for behold, in the sugya of a lung adjacent to the chest wall, which will be explained with the help of Heaven in siman 39, according to the approach of the poskim who hold that even when there is a defect in the lung, the examination is effective to render it kosher even if there is no defect in the chest wall—and this is the approach of Rabbeinu Tam and the Baal HaMaor, as will be explained there—is there not a double defect there, the sirka and the growths, as is written there? And more than this, the Ra'avad himself, who renders treif in the case of a hanging sirka emerging from a blister, also stands by this approach, as is explained in his words there in the book Temim De'im [siman 12]. How then could he contradict himself? Rather, it is certain that one matter has no relation to the other. And more than this, it is difficult, for the Sages, of blessed memory, have already said that one does not compare the laws of treifot to one another; how then shall we arise and derive from one law that one posek innovated to learn from it regarding all matters? [And see the Bach there, but it does not appear so from all the poskim; and delve into this.]

And there is one who wishes to bring a proof for the universality of this rule from a lung adjacent to the chest wall, according to the poskim who forbid when there is a defect in the lung even if there is a defect in the chest wall, as is written there, and this is due to the reason of "two things that weaken the presumption." And I wonder at this, for there are many opinions in this sugya, and there are those who are even more stringent even where there is no defect in the lung if there is no defect in the chest wall, as is written there. And behold, in this case there is certainly no "two things that weaken the presumption," but rather it is by another name, for since there is a doubt from where the adhesion came—whether from the chest wall or from the lung—in this the poskim disagreed. And those who are stringent hold that if there is any defect in the lung, it is a clear sign that the adhesion is from the lung and not from the chest wall. And there are further reasons for this, as will be explained there with the help of Heaven, and what does this have to do with "two things that weaken the presumption"? On the contrary, our proof in the previous section is a clear proof, for behold, those who are lenient and attribute the adhesion to the chest wall permit even when there are "two things that weaken the presumption." And behold, even regarding "two things that weaken the presumption" in the Gemara Niddah that we brought concerning a mikveh found to be lacking—where one presumption is for prohibition and the second has its presumption weakened, as I wrote—it is not a universal rule. For behold, regarding shechitah, we permit in a case where the knife was lost and afterwards found to be notched and we did not check it after the shechitah, or if he broke bones with it immediately after the shechitah, where we permit the shechitah, as is written in siman 18, section 35, see there. And there, there is also a presumption for prohibition, for an animal in its lifetime stands in a presumption of prohibition, and the presumption of permissibility of the knife has been weakened, and this is exactly like the case of the mikveh, and nevertheless we permit it. And it is true that our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, raised a difficulty there in Niddah from this law and labored to distinguish one from the other, and we also explained much regarding these laws in siman 18, see there. However, in any event, it is not a universal rule, and if so, how can we innovate from our own minds to make this a complete rule based on the ruling of one of the poskim who did not mention the reason of "two things that weaken the presumption" at all, as I wrote.

Therefore, it appears to me that these primary rules did not originally emanate from the mouths of the great Acharonim; rather, the inspectors themselves were stringent and established this as an absolute rule. This is as we brought in section 14 from the words of the Taz, of blessed memory, who wrote that from here the inspectors learned to declare treif in any instance where there are two defects, see there. The sages of Israel in that generation did not protest against them because there was no loss to the money of Israel, as is known that in previous generations there were few Jewish butchers, and they would take from gentile butchers when it was kosher, and when it was not kosher, they would not take the meat. Therefore, the sages of Israel in that generation were not concerned about this, just as even now there are still cities where few Jews are found, and Jews take the kosher meat from gentile slaughterhouses and sell to Jews. In ancient times, most or all of them were thus. Furthermore, in ancient times meat was inexpensive and there was no loss in this. Over the course of time, since they conducted themselves thus, it followed that even the great authorities were stringent. Most of the great authorities were in the lands of Ashkenaz and Poland where there was no loss to Israel through these stringencies, and even now it is so there, as there is no difference in prices between kosher and treif except for a small amount. This is not the case now in all our provinces where there are many Jews and the butchers are Jews and the loss is very great, and there are times when the loss on a single animal reaches up to one hundred gold coins and more. Certainly, it appears to me clear that one should not make "trei lereuta" (two defects) into an absolute rule. It is true that the shochatim do not have the power to weigh these matters, and therefore they are obligated in every case of "trei lereuta" to ask a question of a sage. The rabbi who sits upon the seat of instruction and is an expert and proficient in instruction from the Shas and the poskim, he shall weigh with the scales of his intellect whether to permit or to forbid according to the matter of the defects. As for the books of the inspectors who made from this rules of rules and details of details, and divided them by names to say this is a great defect and this is a small defect and this is intermediate, it requires further study.

Nevertheless, since they have already spread through the books of the examiners, it is necessary to mention them, and the teacher shall rule according to what his eyes see, based on the matters of the defects and the loss. And the general rule of "two defects" established by the great later authorities is as follows: any matter regarding which there is a dispute in the Shas or among the poskim, even if we rule leniently, it is nevertheless called a defect, such that when another defect is joined to it, it becomes "two defects." This applies specifically to an opinion among the early poskim or many of the later authorities, but a single opinion from the later authorities that we do not rule in accordance with is not relevant to join to "two defects." Similarly, when there is only a negotiation in the Shas, it is not relevant to make "two defects" from it. So too, when there is someone in the Shas who is uncertain about a law and the halacha was decided not in accordance with him, a doubt does not override a certainty and it does not join to "two defects." [So it appears to me, and according to this, regarding Rabbeinu Yitzchak who was uncertain about blisters filled with pus, and similarly the students who were hesitating about this on page 48a, and it was ruled leniently, we should not have joined it to "two defects." However, is not the source of "two defects" from the ruling of the Ra'avad regarding a blister, as I have written? And those who are lenient also only be lenient regarding clear fluid, as I have written. And perhaps this is the reasoning of Mahari ibn Lev and the Rashdam that we brought in section 15 who disagree on this, see there, and it requires further study. However, in any case, regarding clear fluid, one certainly may rely on the lenient ruling according to this rule, for regarding clear fluid there is no one who forbids it. And I wonder that the later authorities did not mention that this rule is apart from blisters, and since they did not mention it, then blisters are also included, and if so, why should we forbid in the case of clear fluid? And delve into this.] [And see the Be'er Sheva at the end of siman 37 in the laws of "two defects," subsection 123].

Trei larei re'uta is not formed unless the two impairments stand one upon the other, and not when one is at a distance from the other. And if they are close such that there is no gap of a straw between them, there are different opinions regarding this, and the majority of the Acharonim agreed that even this is considered trei larei re'uta [the Pri Megadim in the Mishbetzot Zahav in this siman regarding the second condition of trei larei re'uta is in doubt about this, and the Tevuot Shor in subsection 10, and the Levushai Serad in subsection 124, and the Beit Ephraim at the end of siman 39 in the laws of trei larei re'uta letter 32 agreed to forbid, and he wrote that with a gap of two hairs one may be lenient in case of need; see there]:

The two defects must be of one category, such as a bu'a and a sircha, which are both due to the reason of a hole. However, when one defect is due to the reason of a hole and the second is from the perspective of a deficiency, they do not combine into tarti lerei'uta. And similarly the reverse, that they must be two distinct types of one category; to the exclusion of one type of one category, such as a bu'a and a bu'a or a sircha and a sircha and the like, for this is not tarti lerei'uta. And know that we have already explained at the beginning of siman 35 that not all tereifot of the lung are due to the reason of a hole, see there. And a doubt regarding tarti lerei'uta is kosher [Tevu'ot Shor and Atzei Levonah siman 35, subsection 1, ot 12]. And whenever there is a separation between the two defects like the width of a straw or at least like two hairs, such that they do not combine into tarti lerei'uta as I wrote in the previous section, the membrane in between must be good and whole. But if it is very corrupted, they are as one. And if there is a doubt whether it is good and beautiful or not, this is like a doubt regarding tarti lerei'uta [Atzei Levonah in the seventh condition, and examine this]. And the details of tarti lerei'uta that the Acharonim enumerated will be explained at the end of this siman. And the primary law of a hanging sircha that emerges from a bu'a will be further explained in siman 39 in the laws of sirchot, and there it will be explained that from tinari it is kosher, and all the more so from a mursa.

Two bubbles that are adjacent to one another are treifah by the law of the Gemara [47a]. And thus our sages, of blessed memory, said: These two bubbles that are adjacent to one another have no examination; meaning, that the examination is of no use to see if there is a hole beneath them or not, for it was established by our sages, of blessed memory, that their adjacency is due to the fact that there was a hole in the lung and the hole produced these bubbles around it [Rashi]. And even if we examine and no hole is found there, we say that a membrane grew over it and it was closed [Ra'ah in Bedek HaBayit]. And some say the reason is that since they are adjacent to one another, because each one presses against its fellow, the skin will eventually be perforated, and it is as if it were perforated now [Ran and Rashba]. And the Rambam wrote in this wording: A lung in which two bubbles were found adjacent to one another is treifah, for it is very likely that there is a hole between them and they have no method of examination. Thus far his words. And it implies that his intention is according to the first explanation [Beit Yosef]. And it is also possible to say that he follows his own reasoning, as he wrote previously that every bubble requires examination to see if they are clear water or turbid and foul water, and one also needs to examine the bronchus beneath it as we wrote in section 3. And regarding this he says that with two bubbles no examination is of use, for even if we examined and clear water was found, and we also examined the bronchi and they were found intact, it is of no use, for certainly there is some hole either in the membranes or in the bronchi. [And according to his explanation the phrasing "they have no examination" is well-settled, for since every bubble requires examination and for these the examination is of no use; and from the Bahag it is explained like the some say, see there].

And behold, according to the first reason, the primary matter depends on whether they are adjacent to one another at the root; but if at their root they are not adjacent, even if they expand above and at their tops they are adjacent to one another, it is kosher. However, according to the "there are those who say" reason, it is treifah, for at their tops they press against one another. And so there is a practical difference, for according to the first reason there must be between them the width of a thin straw, or at the very least a separation the width of two hairs, but with less than this it is not a separation. But according to the "there are those who say," as long as they do not press against one another it is kosher, even if the separation is less than the measure that has been explained. And it is a simple matter that one must be stringent like both reasons in a Torah prohibition. And also, regarding the separation between them, it must be the appearance of a lung without pus; for if there is pus in the separation, even though this is of the kosher appearances that will be explained in siman 38, nevertheless, since there is pus there, they are considered adjacent. And all the more so regarding hard growths and an abscess.

Some say there is another practical difference between the reasons, for according to the first reason, it is specifically with two bubbles that it is treifah, but a bubble and a tinra, or a bubble and an abscess, or two tinrot or two abscesses that are adjacent to one another is kosher, for the perforation only produces two bubbles. However, according to the reason of the "some say" that they press against one another, even a bubble and a tinra press against one another [Taz, subsection 4], and similarly two tinrot and two abscesses, and similarly even if they are filled with air, they nevertheless press against one another [Pri Chadash, subsection 9]. And some say that even according to the second reason, it is not treifah except with two bubbles, for the tinra is hard and remains in its place and does not press against the bubble [Nekudot HaKesef], and all the more so two tinrot or two abscesses; and similarly when they are filled with air it is kosher even according to the second reason [Bach]. And it is all for the reason that has been explained, that in such a case they do not press against one another. And so it is explained from the words of our teacher, the Rema, who wrote without qualification and ruled at the end of section 3 that a bubble and a tinra are kosher, see there; and it implies explicitly that according to all reasons it is kosher, for if it were not so, he should have explained [and so ruled the Simlah Chadashah]. And there is one who requires that there be no appearance of pus in the tinra, but it is not so, for even if it has the appearance of pus it is kosher [Tevu'ot Shor, subsection 15], and similarly according to the reason of the Rambam, in a tinra and an abscess there is a check.

The Tur wrote that two adjacent bubbles are treifah even with clear water, and there are some among the Rishonim who permit it with clear water [see Beit Yosef]. And seemingly, according to the first reason, it is possible to permit it with clear water since they do not cause a perforation; but according to the reason of the "there are those who say," one must rule it treifah, for even when they are clear, they press against one another. Yet it is possible that even according to the reason of the "there are those who say," one could say that they will not eventually perforate one another since the membranes are healthy and there is no lesion, and they are also likely to return to their health before they perforate; and also, it is their way to have a sac aside from the skins of the lung, as will be explained, and it is somewhat strengthened by this [Tevuat Shor]. This is the wording of our teacher, the Rema, in section 3: There are those who permit even two adjacent bubbles if the water within them is clear, transparent, and sweet; and one should follow the custom in this matter, or according to the circumstances of the loss and a time of great need; and bubbles at the edges of the lung with clear water have the same law as adjacent ones. Thus far his words. And it implies that in a case of loss and a time of great need, one may permit it even in a place where there is no clear custom.

And since he required clear and sweet ones, it is explained that if they are bitter or salty, even when they are clear, it is treifah. It is found in the examinations of the later authorities that these clear waters must have a separate sac and be peelable from the lung, and no air should exit from them when the blister is punctured, and the skin of the blister is white even on the inside [Shach, subsection 15]; that is to say, that the sac should be white from the inside and also the skin of the blister from the inside should be white. In addition to this, one must open the blisters and pour them out and taste them; if they are clear, translucent, and sweet, one may permit it in a place where there is a custom to permit it, or in a case of loss, and also in a time of pressing need. The great authorities wrote that when one comes to open the blisters, he should not open them with a knife, for the iron spoils the water so that it becomes salty, but rather he should puncture them with a wooden thorn. Likewise, he should not put the water in his hand to taste them with his tongue because the hand embitters the water, but rather he puts them in a vessel and tastes them with his tongue [Pri Chadash and Simlah Chadashah]. And it is obvious that if he punctured them with a knife and poured them into his hand and behold they are clear, translucent, and sweet, it is certainly kosher.

Initially, he certainly must do everything that has been explained, and the tasting certainly is a requirement even ex post facto; even if he checked that they have a pouch and everything that has been explained, nevertheless, the tasting is the primary factor. However, if he checked by tasting that they are pure, clear, and sweet, and forgot to check the signs of the pouch that were explained, there are those who prohibit [see Shiftei Chakhamim] and there are those who permit, and so it appears primary [to the Be'er Sheva, subsection 29]. And if he checked and there is no pouch on its own, it is certainly difficult to permit [ibid.], even though our teacher, the Rema, did not mention this at all; and it requires further study.

There is one who wishes to say that even those who are lenient regarding clear waters, this is specifically when both blisters are clear, but if one is full of pus, it is treifah [SM"Ch]. And there are those who disagree on this, for since in one of them they are clear, it is like a blister and hard nodules [LBS"K 30]. And in a case of great loss or a time of pressing need, even the first opinion admits to permit it. And know that if by means of inflation the lung skin rose over the blisters, there is a doubt whether one may permit it in the case of two adjacent blisters; and although regarding a sircha from within a blister one may certainly permit it, nevertheless, two adjacent blisters, which is a law of the Gemara, there is a doubt. And also the great later authorities were in doubt about this [see SM"Ch and LBS"K 35]. And regarding two adjacent blisters, there is no difference whether they are large blisters or small, or one small and one large, and this is simple.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: A bu'a upon a cleft or a wrinkle is treifa, for it is like two adjacent bu'ot. Two bu'ot opposite one another between two lobes is kosher, but a bu'a opposite a tinra in such a manner is treifa, for the tinra is hard and punctures the bu'a opposite it. A bu'a and a tinra adjacent to one another is kosher. Thus far his words. And regarding what he wrote, "a bu'a upon a cleft or a wrinkle," he explained his words in his book Darkhei Moshe [letter 4], and this is his wording: I further found that a bu'a in the upper right lobe in the place of the cleft surrounding it is treifa, and likewise any bu'a standing upon the wrinkle is treifa because it is like two adjacent bu'ot. Thus far his words. And there are those who explained his words in the Shulchan Aruch that only in the place of the cleft of the upper lobe or the cleft of the varda is it treifa for the reason that it is like two adjacent bu'ot, but in a place where there is not normally a cleft, it is treifa regardless for the reason of "twofold deficiency" [Simlat Chadasha section 15 and Pri Megadim subsection 18]. And these are astonishing words, for if so, why did he mention a wrinkle? Behold, a wrinkle is not a natural creation from birth. Furthermore, he himself explained his words in the Darkhei Moshe. And that which compelled them, that otherwise it would regardless be a "twofold deficiency," they follow their own reasoning where they made "twofold deficiency" a fixed law, and it is not so, as I wrote in section 19 [and also the Levushei Serad subsection 66 challenged them, see there, except that he wrote that a wrinkle is not a deficiency and he was pressed in this, see there; and the truth is as I have written].

However, one must also ask regarding his reasoning, for what of it if it is like two adjacent bu'ot? For it will be explained that in a case of one that appears as two, if they flow into one another it is kosher. If so, why do we care that it appears as two adjacent bu'ot? They have already raised this difficulty against him and wrote that his intention is as follows: because the nature of the bu'a is to raise the skin of the lung and to expand, whereas here the nature of the skin is to wrinkle and to adhere to the flesh, and when the bu'a seeks to expand it, the skin will tear [Tevu'ot Shor, subsection 27]. According to this, it must be said that what he wrote—that it is like two adjacent bu'ot—his intention was not because of the appearance to the eye, but rather this is the explanation: that this defect is like the defect of two adjacent bu'ot. And it appears to me that this is the explanation: just as with two bu'ot it was established by our sages, of blessed memory, that there is a hole or that they will cause there to be a hole, so too one bu'a that stands not in a level place but in a groove or a wrinkle, and stands as if suspended, it will necessarily wobble and cause it to be pierced. And it appears that with clear water one should certainly rule it kosher; even those who rule it treif in the case of two bu'ot even with clear water, nevertheless, regarding this law which was not mentioned in the Gemara, the matter is simple that one should rule it kosher with clear water without all the conditions that were explained regarding two adjacent bu'ot. And "give us that we should not add to it" with a stringency that was not mentioned in the Shas [and so it appears from the words of the Simlah Chadashah, see there carefully].

And that which he wrote, that two bubbles opposite one another between two lobes are kosher, his intention is even in a place where the lobes lie one upon the other; nevertheless, we do not judge them as two adjacent bubbles, for even though they are adjacent to one another, ultimately they are not on a single lobe and they will not damage one another. Furthermore, during the life of the animal, even there they are somewhat separated because they are constantly hovering. And even though a sirka there is called "in their order," as I wrote in siman 39, because they are considered truly adjacent, see there; nevertheless, regarding the matter that one bubble should damage the second, we do not say so.

And that which he wrote, that a bu'a opposite a tinra in such a case is tereifah, the reason is that since every lobe is constantly hovering during the life of the animal, and the tinra is hard as a stone and strikes the bu'a opposite it with its constant hovering, it is liable to perforate it. This is worse than a bu'a and a tinra adjacent to one another in one place, as is understood. And it appears that in this case it is not effective even when the bu'a is clear water, for since here the reason is due to the striking of the tinra, what benefit is there that it is clear water? However, if through inflation the appearance of the lung arises upon the bu'a, it is kosher, for the name bu'a is not upon it. And a tinra opposite a tinra in such a case is also kosher [Simlah Chadashah], for even if they strike one another, nevertheless, since both are hard, they will not perforate one another. And so too a mursa opposite a bu'a in such a case, it appears to me that there is no concern in this, for since the mursa is equal to the flesh of the lung, it will not strike the bu'a. And know that this which was explained to prohibit a bu'a upon the groove or upon the fold, this is specifically upon the actual groove or upon the fold; but adjacent to them, we have no concern [and so wrote the Simlah Chadashah].

Our sages, of blessed memory, said [47a] that if there is one bua and it appears as two, such as when there is a crack in its middle [Rashi], and we do not know if they are truly two or only appear as two, one takes a thorn and pierces it on one of its sides and sees: if they pour into one another, it is one and is kosher, and if not, they are two and it is terefah. And some say that even if they pour into one another, one must see if perhaps they have two pockets, and this is a definitive sign that they are two buot, and the fact that they pour into one another is because a hole was made between them [Shach, subsection 7, in the name of the Rashal]. And if they do not pour into one another, even in one pocket it is terefah. And with two actual buot, it does not help if they pour into one another [ibid.], and it is obvious that in this case it is revealed that there is a hole between them. And if they pierced them and they did not pour into one another, nevertheless, if they inflated one and the second also rose through this inflation, or if they placed water in one of them and through this the second also became filled, this is a definitive sign that they are one and it is kosher [Be'er Heitev in the name of the Knesset HaGedolah]. And it is a correct reasoning, and the fact that they do not pour into one another, one can say that the fluid is thick and they do not pour throughout. And there are those who disagree on this and hold that when they do not pour into one another, it is terefah in any case, even if one rises through the inflation of its fellow or the water goes from this one to that one, and we say that there is a small hole between them, for the pus does not pour from one to the other but the air and water go from this one to that one [Simlah Chadashah]. And certainly one should be stringent like this opinion, since in the Gemara only the test of whether they pour into one another was mentioned. And with two pockets, in any case it is terefah as I wrote, but if he did not check for the pockets, it does not invalidate post facto when they pour into one another [ibid.].

A bubble found at the edges of the lung renders it forbidden if there is not at least some flesh, even like a hairsbreadth, surrounding it entirely. This law is not found in the Gemara but rather in the Behag, and all our teachers, the Rishonim, labored to find a proper reason for this and did not find one. Nevertheless, since all the words of the Behag are words of tradition, the early authorities practiced to forbid it. Some wrote the reason is that since it is at the edges, it appears like two bubbles, and one must be concerned for the appearance of the eye [see Shach, subsection 21]. But it is impossible to say so, for it has already been explained regarding one that appears like two, that if they flow into one another it is kosher, and what appearance of the eye is there in this? Furthermore, the Rishonim cited in the name of the Behag that his reason is due to a deficiency and based on the principle that "anything extra is considered as if it were removed," and they labored over this. However, the intention is as follows: that whenever a thread of flesh does not surround it, it is destined to be severed in this place because the pus weighs heavily there and it has no strength upon which to rely. This is what they meant by "anything extra is considered as if it were removed," meaning this additional bubble is like the removal of a portion of the lung, meaning that it is destined to be perforated and become deficient because the pus weighs upon it and this piece of lung will be severed [and so wrote the Simlah Chadashah, see there].

And in my humble opinion, it seems appropriate to add a correct reason regarding the intent of the Bahag, and its foundation is from his system regarding two adjacent blisters mentioned in the Gemara. For behold, regarding this we have already written two reasons: one because they arose through a perforation, and the second because they press against one another and will eventually be perforated, as I wrote in section 23. And behold, the Bahag wrote regarding this as follows: Rava said, these two adjacent blisters, we view the place of connection between them as if it were perforated, and do not declare it kosher. Thus far his words. And ostensibly, it should be interpreted according to the second reason, that they will press against one another and eventually be perforated. But in truth, it seems to me that this is the explanation: for we have already written in the name of the Rashba, of blessed memory, that regarding every blister, since it is due to fluid that collects between the skin and the flesh and spoils there and becomes pus, it is a very close matter that the skin will be perforated through this. However, nevertheless, the sages possessed a tradition that the skin of the lung will not be ruined and will eventually heal; since it sits in rest, it will return over time to be healed. And this is when in all its surroundings there is healthy and good lung flesh—we say that the flesh surrounding it will strengthen it and heal it. And this is when flesh surrounds it all around. But if on one side flesh does not surround it, it is automatically prone to be ruined, diminished, and perforated. Therefore, in two adjacent blisters, behold, in the place where they connect, each blister does not have a surrounding of flesh on that side. And this is what the Bahag says: "we view the place of connection between them as if it were perforated," meaning that because in the place of their connection there is no surrounding of flesh for each one. And now, we automatically learn that when it stands at the edges and there is no thread of flesh surrounding it, it is also prone to be perforated for this very same reason as two adjacent blisters, because on one side there is no surrounding of flesh and it is prone to be perforated. And according to this, this is exactly the law of two adjacent blisters in the Gemara [and it seems to me that this is the intent of the Ra'avan brought by the Levushei Serad in subsection 88, see there].

What is called the "shippulei"? Some say this is only the bottom of the uma or the una, meaning the second side that hangs down opposite the side that is rooted [see Pri Toar, subsection 21, and it requires further study]. And some say that any place where there is a sharp edge is called "shippulei reiah," and in every place of its incision, whether in the unot or in the umot; and even above, in the place where the lung is attached to the spine opposite the incision of the unot, it is called "shippulei" because the lung is sharp there. However, opposite the umot, where the lung is wide there, it is not called "shippul." And one should follow the custom in this. And specifically a bu'a, but a tinra in the shippulei is kosher. And even regarding a bu'a, there is one who says that if the bu'a is smaller than a thumb it is kosher [Bach], but from all the poskim it does not imply so, as they did not distinguish between large and small, and such is the primary ruling [Tevuat Shor and Levushei Serad, subsection 87].

It has already been explained that when a thread of flesh surrounds it, it is kosher, and even a thread like a single hair is sufficient. One may employ any tactic so that a thread of flesh will arise; for example, if a thread of flesh does not arise through inflation, one inflates it and massages the sides of the bubble, and if through this they produced a thread of flesh, it is kosher. This is specifically when the circumference has the appearance of a lung, but many great authorities permit even when it does not have the appearance of a lung, provided it is not of the disqualifying appearances that will be explained in siman 38 [Rashal, Taz, Pri Chadash, and Simlah Chadashah section 20]. If it is impossible to determine its appearance due to the thinness of the thread, one should permit it since this is not a law of the Gemara [Simlah Chadashah]. However, in the case of two adjacent bubbles, one should not be lenient since it is a law of the Gemara.

If a bubble was found on the lower edges and they did not manage to inflate it and see if a thread of flesh surrounds it before it was cut, and it is impossible to examine it, it is treifah. This is specifically where they did not see before inflation if a thread of flesh surrounds it; however, if they saw a thread of flesh surrounding it, even though initially one must inflate it and see that there is also a thread of flesh during inflation, nevertheless, post facto it is kosher. We say that since before inflation a thread of flesh was visible, presumably it was so during its inflation as well. There are those who permit it even if they did not see it at all before it was cut, and one may rely on them in a case of great loss [Siman 38, section 23], since this is not a law of the Gemara. However, if they intentionally tore the bubble, one should forbid it [ibid.].

A bubble on the lower lobes, and two say that they inflated it and there was no thread of flesh surrounding it, and two others say that they inflated it and there was a thread of flesh surrounding it, it is to be ruled kosher, and we do not judge them as contradicting one another, for it can be said that the latter ones had greater strength than the former ones and brought up a thread of flesh. And if in one inflation they contradict one another, where these say there is a thread of flesh surrounding and those say there is no thread of flesh surrounding here, it is a contradiction. And there are those who wish to be lenient even in such a case since this is not a law of the Gemara [ibid. section 24]. And a bubble on the lower lobes in clear water, in a place where they rule kosher in clear water for two bubbles that are adjacent, it is simple that in this case as well it is kosher, and one filled with air is kosher.

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 5: A bubble in the lung that is visible from the other side, even though they do not flow into one another, is kosher, provided they do not stand in the place of the bronchi. But if they stand in the place of the bronchi—which is two fingers from the bottom in a small animal and four in a large animal—it is the custom to declare it treifa and one should not deviate, even if there is clear water in the bubble, and specifically when they flow into one another; but if they do not flow into one another, it is kosher even with turbid or foul water. A bubble that is beneath the varda in the thin part where there is a bronchus is treifa if it is visible from one side to the other. Hard cysts that are visible from one side to the other, their law is like bubbles. Thus far their words. And the commentators labored much in the explanation of these matters, and we shall explain them with the help of Heaven:

Behold, at the beginning of this siman it was explained that the Rambam requires an examination of the simponot in the case of buot, and we do not rule accordingly. Seemingly, the words of the Rambam are compelling, for we clarified in siman 36, section 44, that a lung that was poured out like a jug is more lenient than buot; see there, as there is clear proof for this, for the one who permitted in the Gemara regarding a lung that was poured out like a jug was in doubt regarding buot. If so, since the Sages of blessed memory said regarding a lung that was poured out like a jug that it requires an examination of the simponot, as I wrote there, all the more so regarding buot. However, it is not so; for certainly regarding the matter of the corruption of the membranes, there is more concern with buot than with one poured out like a jug, as I wrote there. But regarding the concern of the simponot, it is the opposite; for when it is poured out like a jug, it perforce reached the location of the simponot, and it is close to suspecting that they were corrupted. This is not the case with buot, which are between the skin and the flesh and did not touch the simponot at all. And even if the bua is deep, we say that it found for itself a place between the simponot. And all this is when the bua is on one side of the lung; but when it is from side to side, it perforce touched the location of the simponot as well. Since this is so, one could say there is more concern in this than in one poured out like a jug, just as with the corruption of the membranes. And this is the reasoning of some of the Rishonim who forbade a bua from side to side, as is explained in the Mordechai. And one should not ask that if so, why did we permit a bua at the edges when there is a thread of flesh surrounding it, even though it is from side to side? For this is no question, as the concern of the simponot is not relevant at the edges of the lung, for the main parts of the simponot begin about two fingers' breadth in a small animal from the edges, and four in a large animal. And the matter is understood that for the reason of the concern of the simponot, there is more concern when they flow into one another than when they do not flow; for when they do not flow, one can say that they are two buot, this one on this side and this one on the other side, and both are between the skin and the flesh and did not touch the simponot. Also, this is not a case of two adjacent buot, for that is only when they are on one side of the lung, and not when this one is on this side and this one is on the other side, for they do not touch each other. But when they flow into one another, it is perforce one and it touched the simponot. And behold, there are those who were concerned about a bua from side to side because of another concern, namely the reason of two adjacent buot, and we do not distinguish between when they are on one side and when they are on two sides. And in this, it is certainly more lenient when they flow into one another than when they do not flow, according to the law of two adjacent buot that was explained. And with this, all their words will be clarified with the help of Heaven.

And this is the explanation: A bu'a in the lung that is visible on the other side, even though they do not pour into one another, is kosher. That is to say, we do not rule like the one who is concerned for two adjacent bu'ei, for it is not similar since they are on two different sides. Therefore, even though they do not pour into one another—which in such a case would be terefah in two adjacent bu'ei—nevertheless, from side to side it is kosher. And all the more so when they pour into one another, for even in adjacent ones it is kosher. And this is specifically not in the place of the simponot, where the concern there is only because of two adjacent bu'ei, and that is nothing. But in the place of the simponot where they pour into one another, which is a clear indication that the bu'a dominated from side to side in the place of the simponot, it is terefah in any case, even with clear water. For since we say that the bu'ot dominated the simponot, and bu'ot are worse than "poured like a jug" regarding spoilage, as is proven from the concern for the membranes of the lung, except that regarding all bu'ot we say they did not dominate at all in the place of the simponot; but in this case where they certainly dominated, even an examination of the simponot does not avail as it does in "poured like a jug," because a bu'a is more inferior. But if they do not pour into one another and it is revealed that they are two bu'ot, one on this side and one on the second side, then they are like all bu'ot where we say they did not dominate in the place of the simponot, and it is superior to "poured like a jug." And a bu'a under the varda in the thin part—even though this is like the lower edges in the rest of the lung where we are not concerned for simponot as I have written—nevertheless, in the varda there is a simpon there. Therefore, there it is terefah from side to side if they pour into one another because of the reason of the spoilage of the simpon. And all the more so above the lower edges in the varda, it is terefah as in all the lobes [Taz, subsection 15]. And according to this, the law of a bu'a in the lower edges of the rest of the lung, which is kosher when there is a thread of flesh surrounding it, this is not the case in the varda [ibid.]. And also tinari from side to side is terefah because of the concern for the simponot [and the words of the Shach, subsection 28, who brought proof for this law from "poured like a jug," were correct according to the opinion of the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, and the Kereti U'Peleti and the Tevu'ot Shor challenged him in vain; and see the Pri Chadash who also agreed with the words of the Shach, and examine this closely].

All of this is according to the approach of the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, but there are some among the great later authorities who do not hold this way, and there is no comparison to "poured out like a jug," for there the flesh is melted and became like water, and it is likely that the simponot will be ruined, and therefore it requires an examination of the simponot to see if they were ruined. This is not the case with a bua from side to side, for the flesh is intact and nothing is missing, and the buot push the flesh and the simponot to the sides; the simponot are not ruined. And with clear water, it does not require examination. But when they are full of pus, it is possible that from the pressure the simponot were perforated or ruined, and in this case it requires examination as in "poured out like a jug." However, when they are turbid and foul-smelling, it is more likely that they will be ruined, and even examination will not avail, for the Rif and the Rambam forbid even in all buot in such a case. And there are those who require examination even with clear water. Also, that which they were stringent about regarding the varda does not seem correct at all, for even in the entire lung there are some simponot near the edges, but we say that up to four fingerbreadths for a large animal and two for a small one, these are not the primary simponot; if so, we should not be more stringent regarding the varda than in the rest of the lung. Also, that which they were stringent about regarding a tinra does not seem correct at all, and since this law was not mentioned in the Shas at all, it does not seem appropriate to be stringent [Yam Shel Shelomo siman 37, and Taz, and Kereti U-Peleti, and Levushai Serad subsections 100 and 106, and Tevuot Shor subsection 39]. And one must doubt whether they are stringent regarding turbid and foul-smelling fluids even if they do not pour into one another, and in this they are more stringent than the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, or specifically when they pour into one another. And so it appears primary, for from their words it is clear that they came to be lenient regarding the words of the authors of the Shulchan Aruch. And there are those who, regarding the varda, agreed to forbid according to the words of the Shulchan Aruch [Simlah Chadashah section 28].

A bubble from one side to the other, where on one side it is in the location of the large bronchial tubes and on the other side it is below the large bronchial tubes, one may be lenient [ibid. section 27]. And if on one side there is a bubble and on the other side there is a hard growth or an abscess, its law is like a bubble from one side to the other. However, if he cuts inside and sees that there is a separation between the bubble and the hard growth, one may be lenient [ibid. section 26]. And similarly, if by means of inflation there rises on one side a bit of skin and flesh and the bubble is not recognizable there at all, and even the recognition of an abscess is not there, it is considered as being on one side and is kosher [Tevuat Shor subsection 40].

It is the way of large blisters that sometimes the water within them does not fill the entire blister and is poured like a jug here and there within the blister, and it is kosher even if there is an empty space within it of more than a revit. And so too in a blister from side to side or in the lower curves, and in a manner where there is no prohibition on account of twenty-four hours or on account of the lower curves according to the laws that have been explained, then even if there is an emptiness within the blister of more than a revit, it is kosher [according to the Be'er Sheva].

A bubble in which a perforation was found, in a place where the hand of the butcher handles it, such as at the edge of the breast, or where he tore with force, we attribute it [to the butcher] as has been written in siman 36. However, where it is not in a place where the hand of the butcher handles it, and it is not known if it was perforated while alive or after slaughter, it is treifah. We do not say "once slaughtered it stands in its status of permissibility," and we do not say to perforate another perforation in the bubble and compare the perforations to one another as is the case with a perforation in the lung according to the law of the Talmud, as has been written in siman 36, section 36, see there; for bubbles are prone to change at every moment, and perhaps it had a different appearance and it changed [Rashi 46a, s.v. "one does not compare bubbles"]. Therefore, even according to the law of the Talmud it is not effective. And why do we not say "once slaughtered it is permitted" and attribute it to the perforation having been made after slaughter? Because, as has been written in siman 50, it is a remote thing to attribute it to after slaughter since the hand of the butcher does not handle it, and it appears more likely that it occurred before slaughter. Nevertheless, this is only a case of a doubtful treifah. And know that even in a place where the hand of the butcher handles it, one must examine the ribs opposite the perforation, and if a defect is found there, it is treifah. And if he did not look at the ribs, it does not invalidate after the fact.

And know that we have not found a bua that renders a carcass terefah except in the lung, and even the lung of a bird. However, in all other locations, even though their perforation in any amount renders them terefah, the law of bua does not apply to them, for the bua does not testify to a perforation. Therefore, some say that even an examination is not required in other organs such as the rumen and the intestines. But some say that an examination is required to open the bua and see if the flesh beneath it is intact [see Tevuot Shor, subsection 46]. And even if it is only one bua, it is not similar to a bua in the lung which does not require examination, for in the lung it is common, whereas there, since it is an exception to the rule, one must examine [ibid.]. And if he did not examine, it does not invalidate [ibid.]. However, in the intestines, when there are many buot, certainly the examination is indispensable, for you have no greater defect than this; and it will be explained with the help of Heaven in siman 46.

And now we will explain the types of tarti lereiuta that the great later authorities wrote: a bua upon a yoteret on the rows of the lobes is tarti lereiuta [Tevuat Shor and Pri Megadim]. And some say it is not tarti lereiuta because a yoteret on the rows is not a reiuta at all [Levushei Serad section 35, subsection 92]. And similarly, regarding a sircha or a kosher color or another reiuta upon a yoteret, it depends on this dispute [ibid.]. However, regarding a sircha shelo kesidran upon a yoteret on the rows, massaging does not avail [ibid.]. And this is also specifically when the two lobes that are joined shelo kesidran to one another are the additional ones [see there]. But a yoteret mikama, in places where they permit it, is a reiuta, and any reiuta upon it combines for tarti lereiuta, except for a hanging sircha or a sircha attached from place to place on the yoteret that passes through massaging, which one may permit [ibid.]. And a bua standing upon a yoteret mikama is tarti lereiuta, but a tinra or a mursa one may permit [ibid.]. And the shrinking of part of a lobe in a yoteret is not tarti lereiuta [ibid.]. And the shrinking of the lung will be explained in section 55.

A protrusion from the back like a thumbnail is a defect, and less than this is not a defect, and from the front in any case it is not a defect. A split from the back is not called a defect, even if the split is shorter than the pit that we validate in a case of great loss, as is written in siman 35 [ibid.]. A split from the front less than a thumbnail, which we validate in a case of great loss, is a defect [ibid.]. The types of changes that some validate, as is written there, are not a defect. However, two rose-like appendages in a place where they validate is a defect. Two rose-like appendages on one root, even if one of them is inverted and is kosher in the manner explained there, is not a defect, even if the other defect stands upon the inverted one. Similarly, regarding the defect of the pocket of the rose-like appendage, it does not join for the defect of three defects in one place. Regarding two rose-like appendages on one root that were attached to one another, some say that massaging helps and some say that it does not help [see Levush siman 35 subsection 132]. If the rose-like appendage is as large as one lobe, and not like the large one that we permit in a case of great loss, its law regarding three defects in one place is like the law of an extra lobe from the front. Similarly, if a small part of the rose-like appendage is missing and the missing piece is found on the right or the left, which we validated there, if there is any defect upon it, its law is like an extra lobe from the front [ibid.].

The upper membrane of the lung that was perforated, or partially, mostly, or entirely peeled, constitutes a deficiency. When another deficiency is joined to it, such as a bubble or a sircha and the like, it becomes a deficiency that depends on another deficiency. Except for a bubble with clear fluid in a place where they permit two adjacent bubbles with clear fluid, it is not a deficiency when it stands upon the peeled area where the majority was not peeled or the upper skin was perforated. And a hanging sircha, or from lobe to lobe below their midpoint where it is slightly peeled, one may permit. However, if the majority or all of it is peeled, it is terefah [see Levushai Serad siman 36, subsection 18]. And if the casing of the lobe of the rose was perforated, it is not a deficiency, and for a sircha from the casing of the rose to the lung, massaging is effective [ibid. subsection 135], and all the more so for the rose itself, massaging is effective.

If the membrane was broken by inflating it excessively, it is a re'uta. If in the place where it broke or adjacent to it there is some re'uta, it is a terefah due to two re'utot that occurred at the same time, and specifically when the re'uta did not pass during this inflation through which the membrane was torn. And likewise, specifically when both membranes were broken, but if only one membrane was broken, it is not a re'uta. A hole in a place where the hand of the butcher frequently handles it, or when they hang it on a hook, is not a re'uta, unless there is some re'uta there that requires examination, and the examination is prevented; it is a terefah, for there is no examination here because of the hole.

The perforations of the murna: if there are worms on the lung corresponding to the number of perforations, it is not a reiuta, and if not, it is a reiuta. There are those who require that each worm have part of it inside the perforation and part of it outside the perforation, but this is not the primary view. A lung that poured out like a jug and a lung that was partially emptied is not a reiuta; however, when it was emptied of more than a revit, even the one who permits it, nevertheless, it is a reiuta. A bua that contains a worm will be explained in section 56.

A lung that has a deficiency, or a defect, or a wrinkle—if it is evident that it came to it by way of illness or an affliction, it is a disqualification. And if it is evident that this is from the beginning of its creation, it is not a disqualification and does not combine for the purposes of "three lungs on one side," except for a bubble upon the wrinkle, which must be forbidden. And if there is a doubt whether it is from birth or by way of illness or an affliction, one must be stringent. An obstruction in the lung, even though the saliva moves, is nevertheless a disqualification; but if through inflation it is healthy and rises during inflation like the rest of the lung, it is not a disqualification at all, and we attribute it to the obstruction being caused by phlegm. A dryness in the lung that has not reached the measure of dryness is like one that has shriveled.

If a portion of the lung shriveled, it is not a defect, for shriveling is not related to a perforation at all [Levushei Serad, beginning of siman 35, letter 27]. And even if it shriveled entirely, or the majority of it, or an entire lobe according to the one who renders it treif, and it returned to its original state through the examination, it is not a defect at all. And if a portion of it shriveled and there is a sircha not in its natural order which prevents the examination, there is one who says it is forbidden, for behold, regarding shriveling there is no examination here [Levushei Serad, end of siman 36]. But it does not appear so, for all of our examinations are only as a stringency, since by the letter of the law we are not experts in examination, as will be explained in siman 39. However, since the massaging itself is a great leniency, one should not add leniencies in this regard; just as a sircha not in its natural order that emerges from a hard spot where massaging does not avail [as the Taz wrote, siman 37, subsection 2, and as the Levushei Serad wrote, siman 35, subsection 93]. And so too regarding a sircha from lobe to lobe below their midpoint where there is a gap, or above their midpoint without a gap, the massaging is a prerequisite, and in shriveling there is no massaging [ibid., end of siman 36]. And there is no difference whether both ends of the sircha emerge from the shriveled part or whether only one side emerges from the shriveled part [ibid.]. And all this requires further study, and it appears that if the sircha peeled off easily and the lung is very beautiful, one may rely on this in a case of great loss to be lenient.

A bubble is a defect, and a bubble in clear fluid in a place where they permit two adjacent bubbles in clear fluid is not a defect. Similarly, a bubble filled with air is not a defect at all. In a place where they forbid two adjacent bubbles in clear fluid, it is a defect, but regarding air, it is not a defect in any place. And a bubble that has a worm inside it, if there is no perforation in the bubble but only when they opened the bubble was a worm found inside it, it is certainly kosher. And if there is a perforation in the bubble, if the worm is partially in the perforation and partially outside the perforation, it is also kosher. And if the worm is not inside the perforation but only on the lung, it is a case of "a worm that perforated it from the inside out" [according to the Beit Shmuel at the end of siman 37]. And according to what I wrote in siman 36, section 30, that there is no need for worms in the perforation or near it, and when worms are found on the lung it is completely kosher, it appears that even when found on the lung it is not a case of "a worm that perforated it from the inside out."

A bubble that arises through inflation upon which the appearance of the lung ascends is not a deficiency, and even if it is still slightly elevated and resembles a small mound, it is nothing more than a boil, and we say that over the course of time it would have healed and would not have been higher than the flesh of the lung [Shulchan Aruch Siman 37, section 4]. Two bubbles that are adjacent are a deficiency even in clear water and in a place where they validate, but two hard swellings or two boils or a hard swelling and a boil are not a deficiency. However, a bubble and a hard swelling or a bubble and a boil are a deficiency, for even a single bubble is a deficiency, and even in clear water it is possible that together with a hard swelling and a boil it is a deficiency; and one who is lenient in this in a case of great loss, we do not protest against him [see Levush Siman 37].

A bua at the lower edges, when there is a thread of flesh surrounding it, its law is only like a single bua regarding the matter of tartei lerei’uta; but when there is no thread of flesh surrounding it, even if it is filled with air or clear water in places that they declare kosher, nevertheless it is a deficiency. And when it was cut and there is a doubt whether there was a thread of flesh surrounding it, it is a doubt of tartei lerei’uta and it is kosher [ibid.]. And such is the law in a contradiction of two against two witnesses as to whether there was a thread of flesh surrounding it or not. And such is the law regarding a bua from side to side; when it is kosher, its law regarding the matter of tartei lerei’uta is only like a single bua, and its law is like the law of the lower edges that has been explained. And a bua at the lower edges upon which the appearance of the lung arose is not a deficiency, and similarly from side to side when the appearance of the lung arose from both sides. And there are other types of tartei lerei’uta and they will be explained in the coming simanim, and we have already revealed our opinion regarding the generalities of the laws of tartei lerei’uta in section 19, see there.