Siman 38

A lung whose appearance has changed from its constant appearance, the Sages, of blessed memory, said [47b] that there are appearances such that if it turned to that appearance, it is treifah, for it was established by the Sages, of blessed memory, that whenever this appearance is seen in the membranes, the membranes have become corrupted and are destined to be perforated, for this is like decay. Therefore, even if it changed only a minute amount to the disqualified appearance, it is like a minute perforation and is treifah. And although there are some among the poskim who said that the disqualified appearances do not disqualify unless the majority of the lung is of this appearance [Tosafot 46b s.v. Uchmei, and the Ra'avad, and in Sefer Torat Chatat siman 11], for they hold that this is not like a perforation, but rather if the majority of the lung is so, it is a sign that the whole of it is corrupted; however, all of our teachers, the Rishonim, do not hold so. And so ruled the Rif, and the Rambam in chapter 7, and the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch, that this is like a perforation, and even in a minute amount it is treifah, and such is our established ruling.

There are changes of appearance in the lung that are kosher, and even if it changed entirely to that appearance or in several places, for it was established by our sages, of blessed memory, that this is not a ruin and this is not a defect. And even if there are several appearances in it that differ from one another, since they are all from the kosher appearances, we have no concern with it. And not only that, but even if there are two appearances in it that indicate opposites from one another, such as a red appearance which will be explained and a green appearance like herbs which will be explained, and both are kosher appearances—only that red indicates that the blood has not yet been absorbed into it, and green indicates that blood has not yet fallen into it, and this is the opposite of red, where the blood has already fallen into it but has not been absorbed into the flesh and moves between the skin and the flesh and therefore it is red, and green is that blood has not yet fallen into it at all—and according to this, if part of it were red and part of it were green, we should have prohibited it. Nevertheless, we do not concern ourselves with this, and we say that in this place the blood has not yet fallen, and in this place it fell and the blood has not yet been absorbed into the flesh; and even if they are adjacent to one another, we have no concern with it [and so wrote the Pri Megadim subsection 1 and the Levushei Serad subsection 2].

And know that there are some of the great Acharonim who render it treifah in such a case, for from whichever way you look at it: if blood has not yet fallen into it, why is there redness, and if it has fallen and not yet been absorbed, why is there greenness? Therefore, they hold that it is treifah [Kereiti U-Peleiti, subsection 2]. But it is not so, for ultimately, these are kosher appearances and they do not indicate a defect in the membranes. And granted that the cause is hidden from us, nevertheless, since the Sages, of blessed memory, said that these are kosher appearances, how is it possible to forbid it? Furthermore, even the cause is not hidden from us, as I have written: that in one place the blood has not yet fallen, and in one place it has fallen but not been absorbed. And this is not a matter of wonder, for this matter of redness and greenness also exists in an infant standing for circumcision, whom one may not circumcise because of this, as is explained in Yoreh Deah siman 263. And we see this empirically many times in infants before the circumcision, that in one place there is redness and in one place greenness, and so it is in the lung. Logic also dictates this, for when the blood has not yet fallen and begins to fall and is destined to be absorbed into the flesh, it does not fall and become absorbed in a single moment throughout the entire body; rather, the blood falls and is absorbed little by little. Therefore, there is a place where it has not yet been absorbed and there is redness, and there is a place where it has not yet fallen and there is greenness, and this is not a defect at all.

And these are the invalid appearances that the sages enumerated [ibid.]: a lung that resembles an opata, and this is a splinter of wood, as it resembles a splinter in its appearance. This means it has become white like a splinter, it is treifah [Rashi]. But the Rambam in chapter 7, law 18, does not interpret this as a white appearance, for he wrote there: If it is found like the appearance of date palm branches, we forbid it out of doubt, for this is close to an forbidden appearance. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words is that even though the appearance of date palm branches leans somewhat toward the appearance of the sky, which is among the valid appearances as will be explained, nevertheless it also leans toward the appearance of wax, which is among the invalidating appearances as will be explained. And this is why he says it is close to an forbidden appearance [Beit Yosef]. According to this, the appearance of whiteness is not mentioned at all among the treifah appearances. And so I saw written by one of the great Rishonim, who wrote explicitly that whiteness in a lung is not an appearance of treifah [the Ittur, cited by the Beit Yosef in siman 44].

It appears to me that their reasoning is that regarding the four appearances of nega'im, all of which are appearances of whiteness, we do not find in Tractate Nega'im that the whiteness is compared to a wood chip. It counts there four levels of whiteness, one above the other: snow, wool, lime, and the membrane of an egg, and it does not count a wood chip. And one cannot say that a wood chip is the whitest of them all, for it is explained there that there is nothing higher than snow in whiteness, and so it is proven from the verse: "If your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow." Rather, one must say that, on the contrary, a wood chip is lower than all of them, meaning that even the membrane of an egg is whiter than it. According to this, the wording of our teacher, the Rema, is difficult, as he wrote: "And some say that even if it is like the whiteness of an egg it is treifah, and such is the custom." Thus far his words. For it implies from this that the whiteness of an egg is lower in whiteness than a wood chip, and it is impossible to say so. And one cannot say that his intention is like the whiteness of an egg while it is still raw, for it has no whiteness at all [Shach, subsection 3], but rather certainly after it has been cooked, and so he himself wrote in his book Darkhei Moshe, see there. And one must say that the membrane of an egg is higher in whiteness than a wood chip, and the whiteness of the egg itself is lower in whiteness than a wood chip [and the Pri Chadash wrote that it is like the membrane of an egg, and not like the Shach, and according to what I have written it is impossible to say so, see there].

However, one must wonder conversely regarding the opinion of the Rambam and the Ittur, for if so, why did the Shas not mention a white appearance among the valid appearances? And it must be said according to their opinion that a white appearance is the common appearance in a lung and the Shas did not need to mention it. And indeed, we see empirically when inflating the lung that most places in it tend toward white, and it must be said that it does not reach the whiteness of a valley nor even the whiteness of an egg. And this is all according to the opinion of Rashi and the Rosh and the Tur, who interpreted that it refers to a white appearance, but according to the Rambam and the Ittur, this is not necessary.

And for the law, we hold to the prohibition according to all opinions, for it is a doubt regarding a Torah prohibition. Therefore, whether it is white like the whiteness of an egg, and certainly if it is like a wood chip, and certainly if it is greater than this measure, and likewise if it is like the branches of a palm tree, it is treifah due to doubt. And one must be very precise regarding the appearance of the whiteness of the lung when it is inflated, that it should not be too white until it resembles the whiteness of an egg or like a chip or greater than this. And therefore, our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote both opinions for the law. And as for the fact that they did not mention that it is a doubtful treifah, this is because the Rambam wrote explicitly that it is a doubt, and even according to the first opinion, it is proven in the Gemara that it is only a doubt, for there are several versions, see there. This is because it is not their way to be precise in this between a doubtful treifah and a certain treifah, since both this and that are treifah, as I wrote in siman 36, section 64, see there.

There is further in the Gemara: like ink is treifah, which is black like a dry grain of ink, and this is an intense blackness, for black was originally red and afterwards turned to blackness, and it is a defect and its end is to rot and to be perforated [Rashi]. But if it is not so black, it is kosher. And it is proven in Niddah [20a] that blackness like pitch or like a raven or like an olive is kosher, for their blackness is not like the blackness of ink, see there. And all the more so if the blackness does not even reach these levels, it is kosher. And one should not ask: if so, why did the Sages say here "like kohl is kosher, like ink is treifah," see there, for even more than kohl, as long as it is not like ink, it is kosher? And behold, kohl was explained by Rashi as a blue dye which is like the appearance of lazur, neither green nor black, thus far his words. And behold, even black is kosher as long as it is not like ink. However, the truth seems to be that kohl, which is called in our language lazurak, when it is in its completeness and not soaked in water, is neither green nor black, and to this Rashi, of blessed memory, intended. But when they soak it in water, it is black, and therefore Rashi explained it as a blue dye. And so it is clarified from the wording of the Rambam there, who wrote: "it has four permitted appearances, and these are: black like kohl," see there; behold, it is black. [And so it appears in Shabbat 78b: "kohl enough to paint one eye," and the eyes are beautiful, it is the blackness. And so it appears in Chullin 88b: "the black and the kohl," see there. And so it appears in Sukkah 51b: "with stones of shaish, kohl, and marmara," and Rashi explained: "shaish is neither white nor black, and marmara is white marble, and kohl is dyed like kohl," thus far his words; behold, this is black as is understood, and until today these are the most precious stones when they are black. Therefore, it appears to me that anything that is not like ink is kosher. And the Simlah Chadashah, section 5, wrote: "anything that is not black like pitch is not called black like ink and is kosher," thus far his words. And I wonder, for from Niddah it is explicitly proven that pitch does not reach the blackness of ink, as I wrote. And so he himself brought in Tevuot Shor, subsection 7, from the Ra'avyah, who wrote "the blackness of ink," and he wants to reject his words that it is like the surface of ink. And I wonder, for Rashi also explained here "a dry grain of ink," see there. It is only possible to say that we are not so expert in this to distinguish between the blackness of pitch and the blackness of dry ink, but one who is expert, certainly for the halachah it is so; and delve into this.]

It is further stated in the Gemara there: A lung that resembles kishuta, which they call hoppen, or like morika, which they call saffron, or like an egg—meaning like the yolk of an egg—is treifah. All of these are a type of yarok that they call gelb, except that one is different from the other, and every crocus-like appearance is called yarok [Rashi]; meaning, that under the name yarok many appearances are included, specifically gelb and green and blue. Within the appearance of gelb itself there are several appearances, and regarding the lung their law is divided one from the other: for gelb is a treifah appearance, while green and blue are kosher appearances, as will be explained. And it appears to me that this is why the Shas enumerated three types within the gelb appearance: because in this appearance there is a very weak appearance, and this is like kishuta; and there is a very strong appearance, and this is like the yolk of an egg; and there is that which inclines toward a red appearance, like the appearance of gold, as was explained in siman 188 regarding the appearance of blood, that the appearance of gold is a kosher appearance because it is included in yarok and not included in red of niddah blood. But here it is the opposite, for a red appearance is kosher and a yarok appearance is treifah, and I might have said that the appearance of gold is kosher; therefore it comes to teach us that this too is included in yarok and is treifah, and this is the appearance of saffron, the morika in the Gemara. Therefore it enumerated these three appearances, for anything that inclines toward gelb is treifah, and likewise like the appearance of gelbsucht is treifah, and likewise like gold, and like wax, and like the wing of a peacock which they call pavo [Taz and Taz subsection 2]. And know that for "nerd and saffron" the Targum translated "reshak and morika," see there [Aruch, entry marka]. And the Rambam wrote on this the language of the Mishnah, "hariah," see there [and this is the language of the Mishnah in Kilayim chapter 2 mishnah 8, and it explains there in the Yerushalmi: what is hariah? morika, see there]:

And these are the valid colors that the sages enumerated there: a red appearance and a green appearance like leeks [karti], and this is the "grass" [hatzir] mentioned in the Torah (Numbers 11) which Onkelos translated as karti, see there. And so wrote the Rambam: green like grass, see there. And included in this are two colors that we call "green" and "blue," for Rashi explained green as being like herbs, which is "green," and regarding karti, the Tosafot and the Rosh wrote that this is like the appearance of tekhelet, which is similar to the sky, which is the appearance of "blue." And perforce it is not exactly like tekhelet, for they said in Berakhot (9b): "From when one can distinguish between tekhelet and karti," but rather because these two colors are similar to one another. And so wrote all the later authorities, that these two colors are valid (Rashal, and Shach subsection 6, and Tevuot Shor), and so it is proven from the words of the Tosafot and all the early authorities.

And so our sages, of blessed memory, counted among the kosher appearances "as kachala," and we explained in section 8 that this is a black appearance, only that it is not as black as ink. And so the Rambam wrote, "black as kachala," see there. And that which is written in the books of examinations, and was likewise emended in the Shulchan Aruch and in the Levush, that it is the appearance of the sky which is called "blue," it is impossible to say so, as I wrote there. Furthermore, this appearance they called in the Gemara "as karti," as I wrote. Rather, their intention is as I wrote in section 8, that kachala, before it is soaked in water, tends toward the appearance of the sky, but after its soaking in water it is black, for this is its nature, and this is what we call "azurak" [and see Sidrei Taharah section 10, and according to our words it is more settled, see there and examine it well].

They further said in the Gemara: like liver it is kosher, like meat it is terefah, and your sign is "and meat in the field is terefah." Our teachers explained that this refers to the appearance, but it is not understood, for the appearance of meat is a red appearance and it is kosher. There are some examiners who explained that it refers to the fat of a lean animal which tends toward a yellow appearance [Atzei Levonah, subsection 5], but it is impossible to say so, for if so, why did the Shas not say "like fat"? In truth, there are some of the Rishonim who explained that it refers to the feel, meaning that if in its feeling it is like meat it is terefah, and like liver it is kosher, and it does not refer to appearance at all [the Me'or and the Rashba]. There is one who was concerned to be stringent according to this opinion [Bach], and there is one who was not concerned at all for this opinion as it is against all the words of the Rishonim [Tevuat Shor, subsection 5]. However, the Rashba, of blessed memory, in his book Torat HaBayit, wrote, and this is his wording: And for us the matter is in doubt, whether it is by appearance or by touch; therefore, whether this way or that way, it is terefah. Thus far his words.

In my humble opinion, it would seem possible to reconcile the opinions somewhat, for indeed, regarding the appearance of meat, it is very difficult, as this is red. Therefore, one of the great authorities wrote that one must discern in the redness if it does not lean toward the appearance of meat [Siman 38, section 4]. But who is the wise man who can understand this? Therefore, it seems that what they wrote, "like the appearance of meat," is not because of the appearance of redness, but also regarding its essential appearance. For it is known that a lung is very smooth, and conversely, meat is not smooth at all, as it is drawn into thin fibers. Therefore, if the observer would not say of it that this is a lung, but rather that it is meat, it is terefah. But if the observer would say that this is liver, it is kosher; and the same law applies if he would say of it that this is a spleen, it is also kosher. According to this, that which they said, "like the appearance of meat is terefah," is not because of the appearance of redness, but because of the appearance of the substance, that its physical essence appears like meat [and with this, the difficulty of the Maor is resolved as to why the Shas did not say "like meat," see there].

And it is found according to this that there are four appearances of treifot in the lung and four that are kosher. The treifot are: black like ink; and white according to Rashi, or like the dried branches of a palm tree according to the Rambam; and like the yolk of an egg; and like meat. And in detail they counted six, because regarding the yellow appearance that is called "gel," they counted three: like hops, and like crocus, and like the yolk of an egg. And the kosher ones are also four: like kohl which is not black like ink; and like liver; and red; and green like grass or like the sky, which is "grin" and "blu-a." And the Rambam wrote there five forbidden appearances: black like ink, or green like hops, or like the yolk of an egg, or like safflower, or like the appearance of meat; and like the dried branches of a palm tree is a doubt of treifah. And regarding the kosher ones, four appearances: black like kohl, or green like leeks, or red, or like the appearance of liver, see there. And he did not count white, as I wrote in section 6, for he holds that white is its actual appearance, see there.

And some ask why the Talmud needed to enumerate the kosher colors, for since it enumerated the treifah colors, it follows that other colors are kosher. They wished to say that any color that is not like the kosher colors, even if it is also not like the treifot in the Gemara, nevertheless one must be stringent. Based on this, they wished to forbid the color "grau" and "brown," and the color "weinschiller," and the color "kreidestein" [Tevuat Shor subsection 13]. And there is one who rejected this and wrote that other colors should be permitted [Noda BiYehudah siman 10], and such is the primary view, for they permitted the color of the spleen and it is not in the Gemara. And so he wrote regarding the color "weinschiller" that it is kosher, and likewise "kreidestein" [Yam Shel Shlomo section 39]. Furthermore, if so, we would only permit green like the sky, but like herbs, from where would we know to permit it? For this is not explained in the Gemara. Rather, certainly anything that is not like the treifah colors in the Gemara is simply kosher. And that which the Talmud needed to enumerate the kosher colors, there is another reason for it: it enumerated "like kohl" because it is black, and I would have said it is treifah like ink; and it enumerated "red" because regarding the appearance of blood, where red is treifah, we say that black is also treifah for the reason that black is red but it has deteriorated, as written in siman 188. If so, regarding the lung where black is treifah, I would have said also for this reason that red is treifah; it comes to teach us that it is not so. And "like liver" it needed to say is kosher so that we should not say it is treifah like flesh. And "green like leeks" it was necessary to inform us, for behold, it is known in the science of colors that when one mixes black dye and white dye together, there emerges from this green like the sky which is called "blue," and when one mixes black dye with the green dye called "gelb" together, there emerges from this green like herbs. If so, I would have said that since these two colors have their foundation in black and white or in black and "gelb" green, which are treifah colors in the lung, then "green" and "blue" should also be treifah; it comes to teach us that it is not so [as appears to me clear with the help of Heaven].

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote that a red one is kosher, and even if it is extremely red it is kosher, and even if it is entirely so. If the redness was due to a wound that it has on the wall opposite it, it is treifah. Thus far the words of the Tur. And it is necessary to examine for this, and so is the custom [Rema]. The explanation of the matters is because there is one of the Rishonim who holds that a red one from its birth where the blood is not absorbed within it is kosher, but an extremely red one that comes due to an affliction is treifah [the Meor and the Rosh in section 13 in the name of "some distinguish," and the Rashba in Torat HaBayit in the name of the Ra'ah]. And all our teachers, the Rishonim, rejected these words [see Tosafot 46b, starting with "Rather, it makes no difference"]. Therefore, they wrote that even in the extreme of redness it is kosher. And that which they wrote, that if the redness is due to a wound in the wall it is treifah, this is also a solitary opinion, for since the blood is collected due to a wound, the skin will eventually be perforated and it is treifah, and it is not similar to redness that occurs on its own. The Rosh agreed with this opinion [ibid.]. And they were stringent in this, that one also needs to examine for this, for wherever it is possible to clarify, we clarify. And post facto, if he did not examine the wall, it appears that it does not invalidate [and so wrote the Tevuot Shor].

The Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote [ibid. Halacha 17]: And with all these appearances, one does not forbid them until one inflates it and massages it with his hand; if it changed to a permitted appearance, it is permitted, and if it remained as it was, it is forbidden. Thus far his words. And it is clear from this wording that even though it did not change through inflation and massaging to the constant appearance of a lung, but rather to a permitted appearance, it is also permitted. However, from the wording of the Tur it does not seem so, as he wrote that if through inflation it returns to the appearance of the lung, it is kosher. Thus far his words. And it implies specifically to the constant appearance of a lung. The great Acharonim disagreed on this, and most of them agreed to permit it [Shach, and Pri Chadash, and Simlah Chadashah, and Pri Megadim]. And it is possible that the Tur also only intended a permitted appearance, and that which he wrote "to the appearance of the lung" was because there is one who holds that even if it returns to the appearance of the lung it is forbidden, as the Rosh wrote there, and he rejected their words; therefore the Tur wrote this wording to exclude the opinion of the one who disagrees, but his primary intention was for a permitted appearance like the words of the Rambam. And so it is implied from all the Rishonim. And even if it reddened due to a wound in the chest wall opposite it, and they inflated it and handled it and it returned to the appearance of the lung or to a permitted appearance, it is also kosher, not like the one who says that when it reddens due to a wound it is of no avail, for it is not so [Shach subsection 9 and Taz subsection 4]. And even in a lung that has a wrinkle and a deficiency and a wound in the chest wall opposite it, and it rose through inflation, it is kosher [Givat Shaul section 86]. But when it reddened and also has a wrinkle and a deficiency and a wound in the chest wall opposite it, it is possible that it is "three things that are bad for a lung" and inflation is of no avail, and one should deliberate on this; and see what I wrote in section 23.

It has already been explained that regarding the valid colors, even if it is entirely so or has many shades of the valid colors, we have no concern with it. Regarding this they said in the Gemara [46b]: This lung that has patches upon patches, black spots upon black spots, or various appearances, is kosher, provided that all of them are from the valid colors mentioned in the Gemara [Rashi]. It is simple that "black spots" refers to when their blackness has not reached the level of ink, and "patches" refers to scales like a scab. This is what is written in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch at the end of this siman: If it has scales like a scab and it is whole, it is kosher. Thus far his words. And it is like tzara'at. There is one who wrote that it is kosher without an examination [Pri Chadash in the name of Maharashdam]. If there is a sircha between one scale and another, it is nothing, for these scales are not from the body of the lung [ibid.]. It is a wondrous thing to be lenient without an examination, and certainly, ab initio, it requires an examination [and so wrote the Simlah Chadashah, section 18]. There is one who says that the scale from the skin is a hindrance even post facto, for perhaps the lung beneath them is not whole and sound, and the inflation is not a hindrance post facto [Levushei Serad].

Invalid colors do not disqualify except when the change in the membranes is of their own accord; but if the change came about through the pus within them—meaning, when the pus is removed the membranes remain good in their appearance like the appearance of a lung, or even like the valid colors that were explained—it is kosher, for the essence of the treifot depends only on the corruption of the membranes. And so, even if there are many invalid colors in it, and when the pus within them is removed they all returned to valid colors, it is kosher [Shach, subsection 5]. And similarly, if the change came about due to black hair lying in the lung, or due to bound blood in the lung, and when they removed the hair or the bound blood the membranes returned to the appearance of a lung or to a valid appearance, it is kosher. And if he did not examine by removing the pus to see if the membranes returned to a valid appearance, it is forbidden even post facto [Simlah Chadashah, section 15]. And there are those who wish to be lenient in this and we say: since there is pus beneath them, we attribute the change to the pus [Pri Megadim, subsection 5 and Levushei Serad, subsection 49], and they wrote that one who is lenient in a case of great loss has not lost. And it appears to me that the first opinion is primary, for certainly if according to the appearance of the eye it is clearly visible as such, that the change is not due to the membranes themselves, one may be lenient; but if according to the appearance of the eye it appears that the change is in the membranes themselves, how is it possible to be lenient due to the pus without an examination? And it requires further study.

If the change of appearance is only in one membrane and not in the second membrane, there is one who forbids, for even if it is only on top of the membrane it is a forbidden appearance, as it is like venom that travels further [Taz subsection 4]. Many great authorities disagree regarding this, for it is no greater than a puncture which is kosher in one skin, as written at the beginning of siman 36; only into the flesh the appearance need not enter, but in both membranes it is required, and if not, it is kosher [Pri Chadash and Kereti U-Peleti]. And there is one who permits in a case of great need, and even this is when the second membrane is the appearance of a lung, but if it is also a strange appearance, even if it is of the kosher appearances, it is terefah [Simlah Chadashah section 14], for I say that it is destined to turn into a forbidden state since it has already been afflicted [ibid.].

An incident occurred regarding a lung where there was a single thick thread, like two threads, and long as the measure of a finger. They examined it by manual palpation, and at the head of the thread was a small bubble full of pus, and they felt that there was blood in it, as is common in the neck sinews. They cut the thread below until the blood emerged to see if it would change to white, but the appearance remained upon the lung black as at first, and they declared the animal treifah [Taz ibid.]. The intention is that the thread was black and it remained black as at first [Pri Megadim ibid.]. It is obvious that also in a bird, the appearances of the lung disqualify just as in an animal [Taz ibid.].

There is one who wishes to say that a kosher appearance is also considered a deficiency and combines for "two that are like four," and it is obvious that an invalid appearance that returns through inflation to a kosher appearance—but not to the appearance of a lung—combines for "two that are like four." This is all because they found it difficult to understand why the Shas needed to clarify the kosher appearances; however, according to what we explained in section 15, that the Shas was compelled to do this, there is no proof that a kosher appearance should be called a deficiency. According to this, regarding a bubble or a sircha with a kosher appearance, it is a matter of doubt whether it is called "two that are like four" or not. It appears to me that in a case of great financial loss or a time of pressing need, one who is lenient has not lost. If there is a treifa appearance on a bubble, one must open the bubble and remove the pus from it, and if the membranes returned to the appearance of a lung, it is kosher [Siman 38, section 15]. If he did not do so, it is forbidden, unless it is explicitly visible and recognizable from the outside that the appearance is from the side of the pus and not from the side of the membranes, for then it is kosher [ibid.]. Know that if after inflation the appearance returned to a kosher appearance, even though afterwards when it rested from the inflation the appearance returned to a treifa appearance, we are not concerned with it, for it has already been explained that all matters of the lung are assessed when it is inflated, because during life it is always inflated [ibid. section 12].

A red appearance that stands upon a bubble, or hard growths, or a lesion, or pus, and there is a wound in the chest wall opposite the appearance, they shall open them and empty the pus, and if it returned to the appearance of a lung, it is kosher. And if he did not open and did not examine, it is treifah [according to the Be'er Sheva, section 166]. And likewise, if they inflated the lung that has an appearance of treifah and saw that the appearance does not stand in one place but rather moves from place to place, it is kosher, for it is seen from this that the defect is not in the membranes, but only that there is some pus beneath them whose appearance is such, and that pus moves from place to place [Shulchan Melachim, section 17]. And nevertheless, ab initio it is proper to open the membranes and see [Pri Megadim], and ex post facto it is not a hindrance.

There is one who says that if there is the appearance of a terefah on the membranes of the lung, not in a place of a bubble or pus but rather in a place of flesh, and they peeled the membranes and the appearance departed from the membranes, one must forbid it. Even though it appears that the appearance comes from the flesh of the lung and was visible through the membranes, and it would be nothing other than an internal deficiency—and we maintain that an internal deficiency is not called a deficiency—nevertheless, here it is different, for it was established by our sages, of blessed memory, that in such a case it is an affliction [Siman 38, section 67]. And these are but words of wonder, for since the appearance was removed from the membranes, why should it be rendered terefah? And we have not seen any posek who mentions this matter [also the Levushai Serad, subsection 67, wondered at him greatly, and what he wrote that the book Minchat Yaakov was not before him, see there; we have the book Minchat Yaakov and there is nothing of this in it].

If there are red spots on the lung, one must inspect for perforations at the site of the redness, and if he did not inspect, it is forbidden [Siman 48, section 13]. However, in places where red spots are common and he inspected many times and did not find perforations, even though it is nevertheless proper to always inspect, nonetheless, if a case occurred by error where he did not inspect, it may be rendered kosher [Levush].

All the laws of these appearances apply also to wild animals and fowl, except that one need not search for them in fowl. Regarding a beast, when one performs the internal examination, if he is an expert, he can sense through the touch of the hand if there is an appearance within it, because the location of the appearance differs from the rest of the areas of the lung in its warmth or coldness, or in its smoothness like mucus, or in its dryness; and then he removes the lung and looks [siman 348, section 19]. And know that in fowl, blood clots are common and appear red or black, and this comes from the place of slaughter and does not even require examination, for it is recognizable to one who is an expert in chickens, and it is kosher because it is nothing other than the result of blood clots from the place of slaughter [Levush].