Siman 39

Regarding all the terefot that the sages enumerated, one does not need to examine for them, for the chazakah of livestock, beasts, and fowl is that they are kosher, since the majority of living creatures are healthy and kosher [Tur and Bach]. Since it was slaughtered with a kosher shechitah, it stands in a chazakah of permissibility until something occurs to them that causes concern, and then one examines for that thing alone [the Rambam chapter 11]. This chazakah comes by power of the majority, for the majority are kosher, and "majority" is from the Torah, as it is written: "to follow the majority." And even though it is possible to examine for all the terefot, nevertheless, this is a Halakhah LeMoshe MiSinai to rely on the majority even where it is possible to examine [Rashi 12a]. And even though regarding several majorities the sages, of blessed memory, were stringent and said that wherever it is possible to clarify we clarify—such as regarding the majority of those who engage in shechitah are experts, as written in siman 1—this is when it is possible to clarify easily without exertion. But when there is great exertion, we do not say so; and if we were to require examining for all the terefot, you have no exertion greater than this [Pri Megadim in the name of Minchat Yaakov]. Therefore, we do not examine for all the terefot unless we see something that causes concern, in which case we examine that thing alone, as has been explained.

However, regarding the inspection of the lung, it is not so, and our sages, of blessed memory, said [Beitzah 25b]: A sapling cuts the legs of the butchers; meaning, the planting of orlah, regarding which the Torah said to wait three years before eating the fruit, cuts the legs of the butchers who hurry to eat before flaying and cutting, and sometimes it is found to be treifah [Rashi]. And so it is in the Yerushalmi Beitzah [ibid.], and thus it is brought in Midrash Tanchuma: Who will uncover the dust from your eyes, Adam the first man, for you could not etc. and your children etc. a Jewish person takes a beast, or a lamb, or a goat, or an ox, and slaughters and flays, inspects the lung and it is found to be treifah, he refrains and does not eat; this is what is meant by "the word of Hashem is refined." Thus far his words. Behold, it is forbidden to eat without inspection of the lung, and even in the Temple, during the slaughter of the sacrifices, they would inspect the lung [Rivash siman 163]. And those who interpret signs found a hint for this in the Torah, as it is written "And he slaughtered it and purified it" (Vayishchatehu Vayichatehu); "as the first" (K'rishon): kaf—in their order (kesidran), resh—lung (reiah), aleph—uma, shin—three lobes (shalosh onot) on the right and two on the left, vav—varda, nun—inflation (nefichah) [ibid.].

The reason they were more stringent regarding the inspection of the lung than all other terefot is because adhesions of the lung are a common occurrence, and they were concerned for a common minority; the inspection is only because of the adhesions. However, for other matters in the lung, such as appearances, missing lobes, blockages, and blisters, one need not inspect even ab initio, just as with other terefot, because these are not common [ibid.]. Rather, this happens of its own accord: since we inspect it for adhesions, we will naturally notice other matters as well. There is one who wrote that the decrees of our sages, of blessed memory, were to inspect for all types of terefot that exist in the lung [Siman 48, section 1], but it does not appear so from all the Rishonim. Also, from the language of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, section 1, it is explained that this is not so, for they wrote that they required inspecting the lung because adhesions are common in it [Tur], and one must inspect if there is an adhesion in it, and anyone who breaks the fence to eat without inspection, a snake shall bite him [Shulchan Aruch]. Behold, it is explicit that they were concerned only because of adhesions and not for other terefot [the Pri Megadim was in doubt about this, but there is no doubt here, and so the Levushei Serad, subsection 2, criticized them, see there].

And the Rishonim wrote another reason why they were more concerned with the lung than all other organs: in order to remove obstacles. For since sirchot are common, if we did not inspect for sirchot, the matter would lead to loss and to an obstacle. For at times another person will find a sircha in the lung and will return to all the purchasers of the meat to break their vessels and to cast the meat before the dogs; and it is possible that one who is not decent will have pity on his money and will gather and fill his belly with the forbidden matter even after it became known. However, regarding other treifot that are not common, the sages were not concerned with them [Rashba, Chullin 9a, in the name of the Ramban]. And furthermore, for we have already explained in section 1 that the reason we do not say "wherever it is possible to clarify, we clarify" is because there is great exertion in this, but in the inspection of the lung there is no exertion, for immediately when they open it, they behold the lung and inspect it [ibid.].

The Rambam wrote in chapter 11, law 11: There are places where they inflate the lung lest there be a perforation in it, but in most places they do not inflate, for nothing occurred that would cause concern; and we never inflated a lung in Spain or in the West unless something occurred for which we are concerned. Thus far his words. For the enactment of the sages of blessed memory was only to examine the lung with an internal examination: while it lies on the ground after the shechitah, one opens the diaphragm and inserts his hand and examines all of the lung calmly and moderately, and if there is no sircha in it and he does not feel any change, nothing more is required. And why should we remove it and inflate it? However, there are places that are stringent even in this, to remove it and inflate it, and where they have practiced so, they should practice so. This is the wording of our teacher, the Rema: And they also practiced to inflate every lung even if there is no defect in it, and in some places they are lenient not to inflate it unless there was a sircha in it that passes through massaging, and such is the primary ruling. Thus far his words. And it is simple that once there is some defect in it, whatever it may be, the inflation is mandatory and indispensable even ex post facto.

And there is one who says that even in places where they did not practice inflating, nevertheless, one should remove the lung after the internal examination in order to examine it by sight. And there are those who decreed a severe prohibition upon the examiners that they should not rely on the internal examination alone, unless he is an experienced examiner of many years in a city where the examination is frequent day by day [Siman 48, section 2]. And it is proper, for behold, this is not a great exertion, and why should we not clarify everything that is within our power to clarify:

And if he feels some slight deficiency inside, he is obligated to remove it and inspect it, and even ex post facto it is a requirement. And when he removes it and sees that the deficiency remains in its place, he is obligated to inflate it and check it. And if he did not do so, it is explained in each respective place which deficiency is treifa ex post facto when he did not check, and which deficiency is kosher. And when he comes to insert his hand, he should cut gently to open the diaphragm and incline toward the side of the ribs, and no more than the entry of his hand so that he does not cut some sircha there. And there are those who do not cut the diaphragm with a knife but only with a fingernail because of this concern. And there are those who cut a small hole only to insert his finger and check around, and afterwards he widens the hole [ibid. section 3].

If the lung was lost before examination through an accident or inadvertently, such as if one tore the abdomen and before they examined it with an internal examination a dog or a non-Jew came and took it and went away, or some other reason that it was lost, our teachers the Rishonim disagreed regarding this. Some forbid and some permit. The reasoning of those who permit is simple: for the majority are kosher, and yesterday we ate from its fat, so how can we now maintain it under a concern of terefot? And granted that the sages instituted to examine it, nevertheless, since it is impossible to fulfill the institution, why should it be forbidden? We establish it according to the law. The reasoning of those who forbid is that since the sages instituted the examination, one should not be lenient in this, for if not so, everyone will perform some stratagem to lose the lung and say that it was lost inadvertently, and in any event the institution of our sages of blessed memory will be nullified. Rashi [12a], the Rambam [Chapter 11], the Rosh, and the Rashba, of blessed memory, are among those who permit, and the opinion of the Tur tends toward prohibition; see there.

Our teacher, the Rema, decided that in a case of great loss one may rely on those who permit; however, regarding kids, lambs, and wild animals in which sirkhot are not commonly found, one should permit even without a loss. Kids and lambs are called such as long as people call them so, and some say this is as long as they nurse, but when they begin to eat, their law is like large animals, for most sirkhot come from foods that are not suitable for them. Lambs raised in houses are accustomed to having the lung attached to the chest wall [Siman 38, section 4]. Soft calves have the same law as kids and lambs [ibid.], and they too are so as long as they nurse. It depends on the knowledge of the butchers; if they know that in such as these sirkhot are not found, one should be lenient. It is simple that if they inspected with an internal inspection, even if only for sirkhot and not for other terefot that one need not be stringent about, even in a place where they are accustomed to removing the lung and inflating it [ibid.]. All this applies if it was lost inadvertently, but if he lost it intentionally, his law is like one who nullifies a prohibition ab initio, which is forbidden to the one who lost it and to the one for whom they lost it. It is forbidden for him to profit from this the difference between the high price of kosher and the price of a terefah. This applies even to a rabbinic prohibition, as will be explained in Siman 99 regarding the law of nullifying a prohibition [Shach, subsection 7], and especially in this matter which is a rabbinic enactment, and this person comes to uproot it, it is more severe than other rabbinic prohibitions, and one should penalize him for this [what the Simlah Chadashah wrote, that a person of soul should be stringent even in a case of great loss and with kids and lambs, the Shach in subsection 4 already rejected this, for there is no reason for it, see there].

If a non-Jew or an Israelite who is not expert came and took the lung from the animal before they checked it with the internal inspection, and he removed it from the animal and the lung is before us and it is whole without any defect, nevertheless it requires inflation, for perhaps there were sirkhot and the one who removed it detached them. Therefore, it also requires an inspection in lukewarm water to see if perhaps it will bubble in one place. And there are those who wish to be stringent since we are not experts in inspection in a place where inspection is required by the letter of the law [Taz, subsection 2], but this is an excessive stringency, for it is nothing more than a mere concern, and the great later authorities permitted it. And it is obvious that in a case of loss one should not be stringent [and so wrote the Simlah Chadashah]. And one must examine the ribs to see if sirkhot that were detached during the removal of the lung are found. And if he did not inflate it at all, it should not be permitted except in a case of great loss or with kids and lambs [ibid.]. And if he did not inflate it intentionally, it should be forbidden even after the fact [ibid.].

One of the great authorities wrote that if the shochet slaughtered the animal and before the inspection he departed and went on his way, and if we wait for his arrival the meat will spoil, it should be permitted to eat without inspection [Kereiti U-Peleiti] just as when the lung was lost. This is a great leniency, and although we find that the sages permitted it due to monetary loss without inspection in the case of a dangerously ill animal on Yom Tov where there is no time to inspect it—for if he can only eat a kezayit of meat from the place of its slaughtering on Yom Tov, it is permitted to slaughter it on Yom Tov even without inspection, as is found in Beitzah [25a] and in Orach Chaim siman 498, where they permitted it due to his monetary loss—nevertheless, in a case such as this where with a callous spirit and a high hand the shochet violates the enactment of the sages, even granted that the owner of the animal is not liable for this, nevertheless I do not know if it should be permitted. It is better that the shochet be judged as one who causes damage and must pay the owner of the animal for the loss. Certainly, if he was compelled to go, his law is like that of a lost lung, but if he went intentionally, it is difficult to permit it and he is liable to pay. And even though this is damage that is not visible, it is no worse than kohanim who rendered sacrifices pigul in the Temple, who are liable to pay when they rendered it pigul intentionally, either by reason of a fine or by reason that damage that is not visible is called damage, as is explained in Gittin [53a], and here too it is the same.

However, one may bring a proof for the permission, for behold, this law is like the law of one who nullifies a forbidden substance [Shach, subsection 7], as we established in siman 99 that it is forbidden to the one who nullifies it and to the one for whom it was nullified. The Maharshal wrote that this is specifically when the one for whom it was nullified knew of it and was pleased by it, even if he did not command him to nullify it; but where one nullified something that is not his and the owner did not know of it, it is certainly permitted to him [Yam Shel Shelomo, Perek Gid HaNasheh, siman 59]. And here too, we are witnesses that it is not pleasing to the owner of the animal; therefore, he should not be penalized. And it requires further study [see Chavat Da'at, siman 99, subsection 16, who rejected the words of the Yam Shel Shelomo, but his words do not seem sufficient to reject with a mere logical argument the words of the Yam Shel Shelomo].

One who slaughters an animal for a gentile who wishes to sell the meat to an Israelite should not leave it in his hand between the slaughter and the examination, for perhaps he will insert his hand between the slaughter and the examination through the place of the slaughter and tear the sirchot. And such is the law regarding a suspect Israelite. However, post facto it is permitted, as there is a double doubt here: a doubt whether he inserted his hand or did not insert it, and if you say he inserted it, perhaps there was no sircha in it [Levush]. And this is not a complete double doubt, and the primary reason is as our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 17, that since the examination of the lung is rabbinic, we follow the lenient path in a case of doubt. However, if the butchers are accustomed to doing so, one must be concerned even post facto, as it is like a willful act, and ab initio one must be careful in every case.

An examiner who withdrew his hand and said "treifah," and afterwards another inserted his hand and said that he did not find treifot, the first is believed; for perhaps the second examiner inserted his hand with force and removed the sircha, or the first removed it when withdrawing his hand [Shach, subsection 39]. Furthermore, for the Torah believed the examiner regarding the shechitah and the bedikah at the time he is engaged in it, and when he said "treifah," he is like two witnesses, and a single witness is not believed to contradict him. And according to the first reason, it is necessary that even if two inserted their hands and said they did not find treifot, the first is also believed [Atteret Zahav, subsection 19, and Pri Megadim there who labored over this, and according to our words it is settled simply; and examine this closely]:

An examiner who inserted his hand and said, "I found a terefah in the lung," and afterwards it became clear that the diaphragm had not yet been opened, and he said so in error for he had not yet reached the lung, and they opened the diaphragm and examined it and no terefot were found in it—they permit it. We do not say that perhaps he felt some terefot through his touch even before the opening of the diaphragm, and at the very least it should be forbidden to him personally because of the principle that "he makes it a forbidden object upon himself," for we do not suspend the law on an uncommon matter; rather, we attribute it to an error. We do not need to ask him what his intention was in this [see Levush, subsection 184, and according to what I wrote it is well understood, and examine it closely]. This is specifically when he said that he found a terefah in the lung, but if he said "terefah" without specification, it is of no avail that the diaphragm was not opened, for perhaps he found some terefah in another organ [Taz, subsection 20]. And if he says that his intention was regarding the lung and "I erred regarding the opening of the diaphragm," it appears that he is believed. There is one who says that he is not believed [Simlah Chadashah, section 49] on the grounds that an examiner is not prone to error. But it does not appear so, for furthermore he is not suspected of feeding terefot, and if it is because it is uncommon that he should err, behold, it is also uncommon that the terefot are not found now. Since the examiner is not suspected, it appears certain that he is believed.

The examiner says that the sircha was not in their order and it is treifa, and another examiner contradicts him and says it was in their order and it is kosher; if the first one came to beit din first, he is believed as two witnesses, and one witness cannot contradict him. And if they both came at once, we establish witness against witness and we establish the animal in its status of permissibility and it is kosher. And if two witnesses contradicted him, even if he came first, they are believed; for even if we consider him as two, establish two against two and establish the animal in its status of permissibility. And it is possible that since by rabbinic law we do not establish based on the status in a case of two against two, as is explained in Yevamot [31a], in such a case it is also forbidden, and one must deliberate on this.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 17: One who buys a lung and said that he found a sircha in it which renders it treifah, and the seller says that it was in a place where it is kosher, since they both came at once to beit din, there is no testimony here, and this is like a beast whose lung was lost before it was inspected. Thus far his words. Meaning, and therefore according to us, in a case of great loss it is permitted. But if the buyer came first to beit din, he is like two witnesses, and the seller is not believed to contradict him. The principles of these laws will be explained in siman 127. And that which we wrote, that only in a case of great loss is it permitted, this is according to what we maintain regarding a lost lung, as I wrote in section 9 [Rashal and Bach]. But some say that in this law, even according to us it is permitted in any case; for granted that we are stringent in a lost lung because of the concern of common sirchot, but in this beast where we do not see many defects, and only the buyer said there was one sircha in it that renders it treifah and the seller contradicts him, establish it on the law that it stands in its status of permissibility [Taz subsection 22]. Furthermore, there it was not inspected and was not done according to the enactment of the sages, but here it was inspected, only there is a contradiction between them; why should we not establish it on the law [Shach subsection 42]? And know that regarding this, that the buyer is believed even though the beast was never in his hand, only the lung, nevertheless since the Torah believed every individual of Israel regarding his own, and now the lung is his, and since he is believed regarding the lung, automatically the beast is forbidden, unless the seller contradicts him and they both came as one to beit din as I wrote [and the Levush subsection 186 raised many difficulties regarding this, see there, but it is not a difficulty at all; and the proof is from what the Shach wrote in siman 36 subsection 11 regarding a gentile who took the lung and returned it perforated, whether he is believed or not believed, and the great later authorities investigated this extensively, but regarding an Israelite in such a case, certainly he is believed even if he bought the lung afterward; and as for what he wrote, "since it emerged as permitted from the mouth of the inspector," see there, behold the inspector was not in beit din, and now that the lung is in the hand of the buyer and he came first to the beit din and testified, the Torah believed him, and automatically the entire beast is forbidden, and delve into this].

Regarding the matters of sirkhot and their being terefot, our teachers the Rishonim disagreed. Rashi and his school explained that there is no sirkha without a perforation, and the sirkha comes on account of a perforation; for since the lung draws in all types of liquid [Berakhot 61b] and the liquid becomes thick within it and exits little by little through the perforation, it congeals and becomes a membrane. And so he found in the Responsa of the Geonim. And even though the sirkha plugs the perforation and does not let air out, we maintain that a membrane that arose on account of a wound in the lung is not a membrane, for it is destined to disintegrate [46b, s.v. Layt]. And according to this reason, our teachers disagreed regarding a hanging sirkha: for some say it is terefah, since there is no sirkha without a perforation, what does it matter to me if it was attached to another place or was not attached? Ultimately, it is perforated [Rashba and Ran ibid.]. And some say that a hanging sirkha is not on account of a perforation, because the sirkha that comes on account of a perforation attaches to a place adjacent to it, since the liquids exit through the perforation and become a thick and strong thread and attach to the place it encounters; but a hanging sirkha is nothing but the peeling of the lung's moisture and did not come from a place of perforation [Rosh, siman 14].

And there is a question regarding this, for in truth, why should we not concern ourselves that perhaps it was attached to another place and was detached from there? And it must be said that if it were so that it was detached, it would have been perforated at that time [Beit Yosef]. But according to this, why should we not concern ourselves that it truly was detached and there is a hole there, and we do not recognize that place [Ma'aseh HaYom ibid. letter 20]? However, the Rambam wrote at the end of chapter 11 that a hanging sirka requires inflation to see if there is no hole there, see there. And according to this, this concern is removed. However, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 8 wrote that a hanging sirka does not require examination, see there. And this is according to the one who does not hold like this view of Rashi, and holds that there is a sirka without a hole, as will be explained. But according to the view of Rashi, it certainly requires examination [and so it appears in the Beit Yosef]. And if so, it is a wonder why they did not write so. And the main point for the halacha is that according to this view, one must examine a hanging sirka [and I wonder at the Taz subsection 12 who wrote that it requires examination due to the custom that our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding a sirka that passes through rubbing, see there; for according to the essential law of the view of Rashi it requires examination, and the Rambam ruled so, and according to the Pri Megadim there and the Tevuot Shor. And according to what I wrote, all is well and the examination is mandatory. And one should not say that since it is mandatory, we are not experts in examination when it is according to the essential law; for it can be said that in this we should not be so stringent, because according to the other views it does not require examination at all, and delve into this].

And there is further to ask, for if so, why did our teacher, the Beit Yosef, rule in section 9 that a sircha that goes from place to place on the same lobe or the same ouma has the status of a hanging sircha? Thus far his words. For according to this view, since it is attached to another place, there is no sircha without a perforation. And indeed, there are some of the poskim who hold so, that according to the view of Rashi it is treifah from place to place [Yam Shel Shlomo and Taz sub-section 14]. And the reasoning of those who permit it is also like the reasoning of a hanging sircha, for if it were a complete sircha, it would have attached to another lobe; and since it attached to that same place, it is nothing but an exudation of moisture and is kosher [Shach sub-section 27]. And this reasoning is not understood at all. It appears more likely to say that even though it is a complete sircha, nevertheless it is also a complete sealing, just as in "in their order" which is kosher, as will be explained, for the reason that it is a complete sealing and this is not like a crust that arose due to a wound. And here too, since the two ends are in one place, it lies at rest and is a fine sealing [Tevu'ot Shor sub-section 48].

And this which the Sages, of blessed memory, said [46b] that "in their order" means their natural growth and it is kosher even though it only comes on account of a hole, because since the sirka is in a place where they lie one upon the other, it does not detach and the membrane continues to strengthen [Rashi]. And more will be explained regarding this with the help of Heaven. And one should not ask how it is possible to say so, for behold the Sages, of blessed memory, said that a membrane that arose on account of a wound in the lung is not a membrane and its end is to be destroyed, even when the membrane is over the place of the wound and there is no one to pull it here and there, and all the more so when the membrane is in two places. For it can be said that when it has two ends it is much better, as one holds the other. Furthermore, regarding this sirka, we do not have to assume a defect that the hole is at both ends of the sirka, but rather on one side, and on the second side it became attached in the place it met there. And if so, it can be said that since from this side, which is a healthy place, it continues to strengthen, it strengthens and closes the second side as well, in which there is the hole. But a membrane on account of a wound, which has no grasp except in the place of the wound, it is a weak grasp and its end is to be destroyed [Pri Megadim in Shiftei Da'at, subsection 10]. And it is a good and correct reasoning.

However, that which we must ask regarding this approach is that if every sircha is due to a hole, perforce the hole was formed first, and afterwards over the course of time the fluid exited through the hole little by little and congealed and became a membrane, and prior to this there was a hole. If so, why do we see empirically that sirchot are very common, in almost the majority of animals, yet an actual hole in practice without a sircha we do not see even in one out of a hundred or even much more? Furthermore, how did it not happen that they should slaughter animals before the sirchot arose over the holes? Furthermore, behold it is a simple matter throughout the entire Shas that the majority of animals are kosher, and we see empirically that the majority of animals have sirchot in them; and if every sircha is not without a hole, it would be a contradiction in terms.

The answer to this question is as follows: certainly, if everything we see as sirkhot in an animal were certain sirkhot, it would be a great question for which there is no answer. However, the truth is that many of them are not sirkhot at all; some of them are merely secretions, and some of them appear to the eyes as a third membrane, like the incident of Reinus. Some of them are only from the upper skin, and we have seen in the poskim who wrote that there is a membrane called tela [Sefer Mitzvot Gadol] which is not a sirkha. Likewise, there are "day-old" sirkhot that break due to the lifting of the hand, as written in the Shulchan Aruch section 11. There are also sirkhot that are removed by watering the animal close to the shechita, as explained in section 12, see there. It is known that when these sirkhot are not removed and emerge into the air of the world, they strengthen and appear like actual sirkhot. Furthermore, all sirkhot whose two ends are not on the lung itself, but rather the second end is attached to the wall, the chest, the fat of the heart, or other places—even if they are complete sirkhot—are not certainly sirkhot from the lung, for perhaps they are from the other organ and became attached to the lung. Granted that we attribute it more to the lung because it is prone to this, as will be explained, nevertheless this is not a certainty but a doubt. Regarding everything we see, we do not possess the expertise to distinguish between a certain sirkha and an uncertain one, or one that is not a sirkha at all. Because of this, most animals among us have sirkhot. Nevertheless, true sirkhot that result from a perforation are few, and most of that minority develop a sirkha over the perforation, while a perforation without a sirkha is a minority of a minority; therefore, this is not common among us. Accordingly, all our sirkhot are nothing but a doubt of terefot. Indeed, this is the primary basis for the permission of massaging sirkhot, because it is clear to us that a complete sirkha will not pass through massaging, as will be explained with the help of Heaven. We see empirically that most of them pass through massaging and feeling, or by peeling according to our custom; if so, it is automatically clarified that most of them are not sirkhot at all, and all of them are doubts of sirkhot [and so wrote the Shulchan Aruch in siman 81 section 2 and the Tur there].

And the approach of our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, is such: that there is a sircha without a puncture, and the reason for the prohibition is because when it is not in its order, it is destined to detach and the skin of the lung will be punctured, and it is considered as if punctured since it is destined to detach, and anything destined to be punctured is considered as if punctured [Ran]. However, when it is in its order, it rests well and is not destined to detach; therefore, in its order it is kosher, and not in its order it is terefah. And we have already written in siman 35, section 6, that the reasoning is not understood, for what does it matter to us if it is destined to be punctured since it is not currently punctured? And we explained there that this is the explanation: since it is destined to be punctured, it is possible that in truth it has already been punctured, and the fact that it has not detached is because perhaps it began to detach and a puncture was made and then it closed again, and it is a crust that arose due to a wound and is not a crust. And it is true that from the wording of our teachers it implies somewhat that even if it is clear to us that it has not yet detached, it is terefah for the reason that it is destined to detach and is called "one like which cannot live," for it is impossible for it to live. But it is difficult to say so, for the act of terefut has not yet begun in it such that we should say it is destined to die, since it is still whole. And furthermore, from where do we know that it has not yet begun to detach? Perhaps it already began to detach and was punctured and the puncture closed; therefore, it appears as we have written.

However, despite this, there are some of our teachers from whose wording it is clear that it is a terefah even if it has not begun to decompose at all. This is the wording of the Rashba, of blessed memory, in his book Mishmeret HaBayit: Since it is impossible that it will not be perforated, therefore from now it has the status of terefot and is forbidden; and such is the measure of the sages regarding terefot, that anything which has a condition whose end is to certainly become a terefah through it is forbidden. Thus far his words. And so wrote the author of Sefer HaChinuch, and this is his wording in commandment 73: Regarding terefot of the lung, the sages required an inspection because of the prevalence of secretions called sirkot, and there is a concern regarding them that they will pull the membrane of the lung and perforate it; therefore one must see, etc., and if one finds them in a manner that it is possible that through their movement they will perforate the lung, it is a terefah, for we say that anything which is destined to be perforated in any event, we consider it as if perforated, for it is as if dead since it is impossible for it to be saved from death. And it is known that the same illness that causes those secretions in the places destined to be perforated is the beginning of the illness that leads to death once the secretions are made in those places, etc. Thus far his words. And according to this, it is well-settled that even though it has not yet begun to perforate at all, nevertheless the sirka itself is an illness, and since she will necessarily die from it, she is not whole and is a terefah. [And it requires further study, for the author of the Chinuch is the Ra'ah, and in his book Bedek HaBayit he wrote like Rashi, see there].

And according to this, there is no difference between this view and the view of Rashi. Even according to this view, if it is a certain sircha and it is not in its order, and both ends are on the lung itself, it is certainly terefah. When it is attached at the second end to another place that is not on the lung, it is a doubtful terefah, for perhaps it will detach from the other side and not from the side of the lung. And if the sircha is in its order, there is a slight difference between this view and the view of Rashi, as will be explained with the help of Heaven. Also regarding detachment, it is more likely to detach from the side of the lung, for its membrane is soft [Rashba].

However, even this reasoning that we wrote—that according to this approach, even in a case of "not in their order" it is not a certain terefah, for it is not yet a terefah, but rather we are concerned lest it began to detach and a hole was formed and became closed, as I wrote in siman 35, section 6, and above, section 24—I found in the name of the Ramban, of blessed memory, who holds accordingly. This is the wording of the Tashbetz in the book Yavin Shemuah [the Beit Ahron brought it in Kuntres Ha-Shemot, siman 39, letter 3]: And the Ramban's opinion is like the opinion of the Tosafot, and he explains the report thus: "not in their order" has no examination, for perhaps it detached slightly and the lung was perforated in some place of its attachment, and even if it does not emit air, etc. Thus far his words. And according to this, even in a case of "not in their order," it is only a doubt of terefah.

And there is another approach of the Ra'avad, of blessed memory, that regarding "not in their order," he holds like Rashi that it only comes on account of a hole, and regarding "in their order," he holds like the Tosafot that it does not come on account of a hole but rather on account of the spreading of moisture and the pressure of its place of resting, and there is no hole there at all, and it is not prone to tear because it is "in their order." According to this approach, we are not concerned at all for this concern that it will come apart and be perforated. However, the Rashba in his novellae [48a] wrote that even according to the Ra'avad there is a concern lest it come apart and be perforated, see there; and it requires further study.

And know that all the Rishonim wrote in the name of the Ra'avad as we have written, and according to this, a sirka not in their order is certainly treifah. And it is to be wondered at, for the Ra'avad in his book Tamim De'im [siman 12] wrote in this wording: And a lung where the majority of its sirka is to a permitted place, which is from the lobe to the wall, etc., they were accustomed in Narbonne to judge it after the majority, and so is the law, for the sirkot are doubts whether it is not a perforation, and even if it is a perforation, perhaps the moisture emerged from the lobe, etc. Thus far his words. Behold, he wrote explicitly that the sirkot are doubts [and also the Be'er Heitiv there questioned this, see there]. And it appears to me that he did not write this except regarding sirkot where its two ends are not in the lung, like the matter discussed there regarding one attached to the wall, and in this it is certainly a doubt as we have explained; but when its two ends are in the lung itself, it is certainly treifah. And according to all the systems that have been explained, a hanging sirka is permitted.

The opinion of the Rambam, of blessed memory, has not been clarified, and the poskim wrote that his opinion is like the opinion of the Tosafot, that there is a sircha without a puncture [see Beit Yosef]. In my humble opinion, this is not so, for regarding the matter of "in their order" and "not in their order" where its two ends are on the lung itself, he stated his words entirely without qualification. This is his wording in chapter 8, law 5: A lobe that is found attached to its neighbor adjacent to it is permitted; but if they were attached not according to the order, such as if the first was attached to the third, it is terefah. Thus far his words. And he did not explain at all if it is because of a puncture from before or if it is because it is destined to separate. On the contrary, from the fact that he stated his words without qualification, it implies explicitly that this is due to a puncture, for regarding all the terefot that he wrote previously in chapter 7, he explained explicitly that they are due to a puncture. And as for that which he wrote the law of "not in their order" in chapter 8 among the laws of "missing," we have already explained the reason at the beginning of siman 35, see there. And even if we were to press to explain it due to the reason of "missing," nevertheless, it is certain that his reason is not because it is destined to separate like the words of the Tosafot, for we have not found this reason in his words at all.

And only in chapter 11, when he speaks of the laws of sirkhot that go from the lung to another place, he wrote there, and this is his wording: By law it should be in this manner, that if the lung is found hanging by sirkhot like threads, if they were from the lobe of the lung to the chest wall, or if they were to the heart or to the diaphragm, one cuts the sirkha and removes the lung and inflates it in lukewarm water; if it is found perforated it is terefah, and if the water does not bubble, then it is whole from any perforation and is permitted, and this sirkha was not in a place of perforation, or perhaps only the upper membrane was perforated, etc. Thus far his words. Behold, he wrote that a sirkha is not a certain perforation, but this is when the second side is attached not to the lung, and even Rashi would admit to this; but when both its ends are in the lung, he also holds that there is no sirkha without a perforation. And one cannot say that we can attribute it to the upper membrane even when both its ends are in the lung, for it can be said that certainly we should not attribute it to the hanging of the upper membrane alone, for it is closer to say that after it was perforated, both membranes were perforated, and the examination is not effective as we say that the membrane closed the perforation and it is not a valid closing. But when the second side is also not in the lung at all, certainly it is a complete doubt. Therefore, it appears to me that the Rambam, of blessed memory, also holds like the system of Rashi, of blessed memory, and in cases where they are not in their order it is a certain terefah, and in a case of being attached to another place it is a doubtful terefah. And even though there is more reason to attribute it to the lung because it is prone to this, as I wrote in section 23, nevertheless, in combination with attributing it to the upper skin as the Rambam wrote, it is a complete doubt. And these are the general principles of sirkhot, and now we will explain them in detail with the help of Heaven:

It has already been explained that two onot that are attached to one another in their order is kosher, and not in their order is terefah. And what is "in their order"? Rashi and the Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote that from an ona to the ona adjacent to it, this is "in their order," and from the first ona to the third is "not in their order." And there is no difference whether the sircha goes above over the second ona or beneath it under the second ona [Tur]. And according to this, it is difficult to find "not in their order" on the left side, for there are only two onot there, unless it was attached from the left side to the right side where the sircha passes by way of the uma, or if it was attached from the uma on the left side to the ona distant from it and the sircha passes by way of the ona close to it. However, this is according to the one who holds that there is no difference between ona to ona and between ona to uma, for also from ona to uma "in their order" is kosher, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.

But all of our teachers, the Rishonim, wrote that "in their order" is only called such when they are literally in their order in the place where they lie one next to the other, specifically from cleft to cleft; that is to say, that the lobes appear as if they are cut from one another, and there, in the place of the clefts, they are attached to one another when it is inflated, as is visible to the senses, and this is the "greatness" mentioned in the Gemara. Therefore, a sirka that dwells there rests in tranquility, for its two ends are not pulled from one another, and when the animal is alive, even when they are not attached to one another, they press against each other and it is kosher [Aruch, entry "An"]. But when they are attached from the back of this one to the back of that one, which is to say from above on the backs of the lobes, or even from a cleft to the back of the second, or from the edge of this one to the edge of that one, or from the edge to a cleft, or from the edge to the back—and "edge" refers to all the sharp points that are on the lobe, even those that are below its back, for the lobe has many sharp points—and likewise from slope to slope, which is when one inflates the lung the lobes adhere to one another but at their end they are separated from one another and that is the "slope"; in all those places it is called "not in their order" and it is treifa.

The reason for all this is because in these places the sirka does not lie at rest, as this one pulls it here and that one pulls it there, and it will eventually detach, and this is not an effective sealing. Also, from edge to edge, even though they are adjacent to one another, nevertheless, since it is only on the edge, it will easily disconnect, and all the more so this is not an effective sealing. And all the more so from lower slope to lower slope, since there the lobes are not attached to one another, they will naturally be separated and this is not an effective sealing. And whenever one side of the sirka is not on the place of the division, even though the second side is on the place of the division, it is understood naturally that it does not lie at rest, as I have written.

And there are those who are even more stringent, that even from lobe-cut to lobe-cut it is only kosher when the sirka goes in a straight line; but diagonally, even though both are in the place of the cut, nevertheless it is "not in their order," for whenever it is so, it is destined to detach. And this is an excessive stringency, and the common custom is to permit [Ran and Rabbeinu Yerucham], for what does it matter to the sirka if it goes straight or diagonally? Ultimately, it lies at rest.

And so there are some of our teachers who say that even from incision to incision, it is necessary that the sirka travel along its entirety and that there be no perforation there, and if there is a perforation—that is, a space in one area—they separate from one another and it is tereifah [Tosafot and the Rosh in the name of Rabbeinu Chananel]. But our teachers did not accept this matter, for even when there is a window, since it is attached from incision to incision, they will not separate and it is kosher. And so ruled our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 4, that it is kosher even with a perforation and even diagonally, see there. And although from the language of the Rambam that we brought in section 30 it implies somewhat that the definition of "in their order" is when it is attached in its entirety, see there, it can be said that he did not mean this precisely [and furthermore, because he was previously dealing there with the count of the lobes, for this reason he says that in such a case we count them as two, see there carefully].

There are some of our teachers who wrote in this language: There is one who says that when Rava said that "not in their order" they have no examination, this is specifically when they are not attached except by a sirka, but if they are completely adjacent, even not in their order it is kosher, for they will not detach. And there is one who wrote the opposite: that they only validated "in their order" when they are completely adjacent, but with a sirka, even in their order they detach and it is treifa. And it is not like the words of this one nor like the words of that one; rather, whether it is slightly adjacent or entirely a sirka, in their order it is kosher, not in their order it is treifa [Ran]. And there is reason to doubt his intention: what is the difference between "completely adjacent" and "sirkot"? If the intention is regarding the perforation that was explained in the previous section, that "completely adjacent" is without a perforation and "sirkot" is with a perforation; or that both are with a perforation, but it is called a "sirka" when the sirka is like a string pulling from one to the other, and "completely adjacent" is not by means of a string but by means of the adhesion between them. And behold, although there is no practical halachic difference, as he says, "whether it is slightly adjacent etc.," yet previously he wrote according to the system of Rashi that there is no sirka without a hole, and in their order it is kosher because its fellow lobe closes the hole, that it is only kosher when they are adjacent and not connected by a sirka, see there. Therefore, one must know the difference between one and the other. However, in the other poskim I did not find these words, and it appears to me that he also, after his conclusion that there is no difference between one and the other, even according to the system of Rashi there is no difference; for if it were not so, he should have explained that this is according to the system of Rashi and not according to the system of Tosafot, and it requires further study.

And behold, regarding the reason why "in their order" it is kosher according to the approach of the Tosafot, the matter is simple, for in their order they will not separate from one another. However, according to the approach of Rashi that there is a hole, it must be said that "in their order" the fitness is due to the sealing of the hole. This is the wording of Rashi, of blessed memory: "In their order" is their greatness, this one protects that one and it returns to health, for since they lie one upon the other it does not separate and the membrane continues to strengthen. Thus far his words. And there is a question regarding this, for Rashi, of blessed memory, himself wrote [43] that regarding terefot no sealing that was newly formed afterward is effective unless it was a sealing from the beginning, such as a lung that was perforated and the chest wall seals it. And we explained this in siman 36, section 14, that any sealing that was not prepared beforehand does not seal well; see there. If so, what benefit is there that the membrane continues to strengthen, for it is not a sealing from the beginning? And it must be said that this too is considered a sealing from the beginning, as the second lobe seals it, and the lobe existed from the beginning like the chest wall. And there are some among the Rishonim who wrote this regarding his intention.

However, if so, it is surely necessary to say even according to his approach that "in their order" is only called from incision to incision, for in this case it is applicable that the second lobe closes it; but when the sircha is from back to back, behold, there the lobe does not close it, but rather the sircha alone closes it. And indeed, there are some among the Rishonim who wrote so, that according to the approach of Rashi, it is necessary to say that "in their order" is only called from incision to incision because of the reason that has been explained [Ran, see there]. But all the Rishonim did not write so, and they wrote explicitly that according to Rashi it is only called "not in their order" from the first to the third [and so the Kol Bo wrote like the Ran; see the Beit Yosef who rejected this, and indeed in the Tosafot, the Rosh, the Tur, and the Rashba it is explained that according to Rashi it is called "in their order" in every case, even from back to back, see there].

And it must be said that this also is called a "closure from the outset" based on what was written in section 21, that the perforation is at one end of the sircha and the other end which is on the second lobe has no perforation, and there it is obvious that the membrane is very strong, and since it is strong there, it also strengthens the other side, see there. And according to this, since the primary closure is due to the second lobe, it is properly called a "closure from the outset" even from back to back, and all the more so in other places [see Bach and Derisha who labored over this, and according to their words there is a difficulty from Rashi 43b. But according to what I wrote it is well-settled, and one can align this with the wording of the Rosh, section 14, and the one who delves will understand, see there and examine closely]:

And if there is an actual hole in the regular order, it is treifah. This is not only according to the approach of the Tosafot, but even according to the approach of Rashi, and even between one incision and another; for in any event, we require that the hole be closed [Pri Chadash, subsection 7]. And even if fat closes it, it is nothing, for there is no fat in the lung itself, and fat from another organ is not effective according to the opinion of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch later in siman 46 [ibid.]. And it is not similar to a lung that was perforated and the chest wall closes it, which is kosher as will be explained, for that is when it is attached to the flesh as will be explained, and in a lobe this is not applicable [ibid.].

Nevertheless, there is a question regarding this, for since according to the approach of Rashi, even if there is an actual perforation, it is nevertheless kosher in their order when a sirka has formed upon it, if so, even without a sirka we should declare the perforation kosher. And granted that now it has no sealing, nevertheless, since it is capable of being sealed when a sirka forms upon it, this is not a terefah, for a terefah is only something that has no remedy, as the sages, of blessed memory, said [68a]. And for this reason we maintain later in siman 44 that if the kidney was perforated it is kosher, and they explained in the Gemara [54a] because it has a cure. If so, since this perforation also has a cure by means of a sirka, we should declare it kosher even if the sirka has not yet formed upon it [Ran on the statement of "two lobes"].

And the answer to this matter is as follows: for certainly if all perforations were capable of producing a sirkha and sealing it, we would say so; but in truth, not all perforations are capable of producing a sirkha and sealing it, and this matter is known only to He who spoke and the world came into being. To human beings, this matter is not known—whether this perforation is capable of producing a sirkha upon it or not. Therefore, when there is a perforation without a sirkha, it is terefah, for perhaps this perforation is not capable of having a sirkha produced upon it [ibid. and the Ra'ah in Bedek HaBayit]. And when a sirkha has been produced upon it, it is clarified that this perforation is among the perforations that produce a sirkha upon them, and it is kosher [ibid.]. And according to this, there is a difference between the method of Rashi and the method of the Tosafot, for according to the method of Rashi, in an actual perforation in their normal order, it is only a doubtful terefah, and according to the method of the Tosafot, it is a definite terefah:

And behold, regarding a sirka in their order which is kosher, there is a dispute among the Rishonim whether it requires examination or not. For some say that it does not require any examination [the Rosh there in the name of the Gaon and other great authorities], and some say that it requires examination [ibid. in the name of Rabbeinu Gershom Me'or HaGolah]. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch ruled that it does not require examination. And it appears that this also depends on the dispute of Rashi and Tosafot; for according to Tosafot it does not require examination, as there is no perforation here, but according to Rashi it requires examination, as there is a perforation here, but the sirka plugs it. Therefore, one must examine it as it is with the sirka, to see if the sirka plugged it, for perhaps it will bubble and it will be revealed that it has not yet plugged the perforation [the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, and so it appears from the wording of Tosafot, see there].

However, it is impossible to say so, for the Rosh and the Tur hold like Rashi, and nevertheless they ruled that it does not require examination. Rather, in truth, those who hold that it does not require examination maintain that even according to the system of Rashi it is not required, and the reason is that we should not presume a defect—that the hole was not closed [Bach and Drisha]. Furthermore, according to what we explained in section 43, that if only this hole is fit to produce a sirka upon it, it is kosher even without a sirka, if so, why this examination? And so ruled our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 4. But our teacher, the Rema, wrote that there are those who say that even in their order it requires examination, for there is no hole in the lung; and since we are not expert in examination, any place where there is a defect, one must declare every sirka treif. Thus far his words. For he holds that according to the system of Rashi the examination is essential, and the examination must be in lukewarm water [Taz, subsection 5], which means to place it in lukewarm water or to pour lukewarm water on the location of the sirka during inflation to see if it does not bubble. And the great sages of France established the custom that in any place where examination is required by law, one should declare it treif and not examine, lest we are not expert, as is written in the Hagahot Maimoni chapter 11, and in the Hagahot Semak, and in the Maharik siman 37. And I have doubted whether this stringency they wrote—that we are not expert in examination—if their intention was even regarding the animal of an Israelite and in a case of loss. For behold, the Hagahot Maimoni wrote there that those great sages who permitted it, permitted it even in the animal of a gentile without examination, see there; and perhaps it is regarding this that he says to forbid even with examination, but regarding the animal of an Israelite they were not so stringent. Yet from the plain sense of the words it implies that in all cases they forbade, and so they understood in all the books of the bodekim. However, if the loss is very great, as in these days of ours, I do not know if they decreed in such a case, especially since according to the system of the Tosafot it does not require examination at all, and even according to the system of Rashi many hold that it does not require examination at all, and even according to the system of the Ran, even if a small hole remains there it is kosher since it is fit for a sirka, and such is the opinion of the Ra'ah, as I wrote in section 43. Therefore, to be so stringent in both matters—to follow those who hold it requires examination and to say that we are not expert in examination—requires much deliberation in a case of great monetary loss; but even without this, we follow the practice of mi'uch, as will be explained.

And one should not ask how our teacher, the Rema, wrote that we are not experts in the examination, for there are daily occurrences where they rub the sirkhot and examine the lung through inflation and lukewarm water; for the truth is indeed so, that we do not rely upon the examination, and our primary reliance is upon the rubbing, as will be explained, for when the sirkha is rubbed away we say that this is not a sirkha at all, and the examination is merely a stringency and not according to the law [Taz, subsection 6]. And for this reason, some say that if it was lost after the rubbing and it is impossible to examine through inflation, we do not forbid it; and there are those who disagree on this, but not in a case where according to the letter of the law an examination is required.

Our teacher, the Rema, further wrote: And there are those who say to declare it kosher if it is from the base of the lobes until their midpoint, even if it is perforated, and thus we are accustomed to declare such a case kosher when they are in their order; and similarly, if there is a type of membrane between one lobe and another, or between a lobe and the omah in their order, extending from its base until its middle, one should not declare it treifah, for it is common to find it so and this is not a sirka, and it is not common for this membrane to be found except between one lobe and another or between a lobe and the omah, but not in other places, and if it is found in another place it is nothing but a sirka; and anywhere that the sirka is kosher, even if there is a hanging sirka also on those sirkot, which is called a double sirka, it is kosher. Thus far his words. And his words require explanation, for they contradict one another: for previously he wrote that from the base of the lobes until their midpoint one should declare it kosher when they are in their order, and we rely on the opinions that one does not require an examination in such a case; if so, what is this that he says, that if there is a membrane from its base until its middle one should not declare it treifah because this is not a sirka? Behold, previously he said that even with a sirka we declare it kosher in such a case. And there is one who says that "its middle" is not literal, and the same law applies until its end, and this is the distinction between a sirka and a membrane [Shach, subsection 16]. And the matters are astonishing, for if so, the essence of his words is missing, and this is not his way, for his wording is well-exacted in every place [the Pri Megadim also wondered at this]. And there is one who says that this is the explanation: that he himself holds as the law that even when they are in their order an examination is required, and we are not experts and it is treifah, but that we are accustomed in these lands to declare it kosher when they are in their order without an examination when they are from the base of the lobes until their midpoint; and afterwards he wrote that regarding a membrane in such a case, even according to the essential law one should not declare it treifah even according to those who hold that an examination is required, because this is not a sirka [Levush, subsection 65, and similarly in Tevuot Shor, subsection 26 in the name of Be'er Heitev]. And in truth, there is no practical legal difference between a membrane and a complete sirka according to our custom; however, in this all the later authorities agreed, that even regarding a membrane his intention is to declare it kosher only from cleft to cleft, and not like our teacher the Beit Yosef in his great book who declares it kosher regarding a membrane even from back to back, see there.

And in my humble opinion, it appears that this is not so, for regarding a krum he did not mention that it is kosher even with a pilush, and it is explicitly proven that specifically without a pilush it is kosher. And so he wrote explicitly in his book, Darkhei Moshe, sign 7, and this is his wording: And it appears to me that one should not declare a krum kosher except between one una and another una in their order and without a window, etc. Thus far his words. And according to this, his words are very astonishing—that a krum should be more stringent than a complete sircha. Furthermore, it must be understood: since this is only a mere krum and not a sircha, what does it matter to me if they are from pilush to pilush or from back to back? For what should we be concerned about according to the system of Rashi, given that there is no hole here? And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote simply to declare it kosher even from back to back in a krum, and the Bach, of blessed memory, also agreed with him on this; see there. Therefore, I say that his intention is also thus, and he does not disagree at all with the Beit Yosef, as is proven from his language in the Darkhei Moshe, where he did not write "and it appears to me [in opposition]" but rather "and it appears to me [as a point of clarification]." And he came to innovate that it is only "in their order" between one una and another una, meaning from the first to the second and not to the third, for that is completely not in their order; and he did not descend to the precision of "in their order" that was explained regarding a complete sircha, which is from pilush to pilush. Therefore, previously he wrote that regarding a complete sircha they were accustomed to permit "in their order" like this—meaning from pilush to pilush—if it is from the base until its half; and regarding a krum, he wrote to declare it kosher in every type of "in their order," meaning even from back to back. Therefore, he only declared it kosher without a window, but from pilush to pilush it is obvious that it is kosher even with a window, for it is no worse than a complete sircha. And according to this, in a krum it is kosher even from back to back without a pilush. Nevertheless, regarding the law, it requires further study, since the great later authorities did not write so [and a proof for this is that he transcribed in the Shulchan Aruch all the words of the Beit Yosef on this matter, and from where do we know that he disagrees with him? And in my humble opinion, it is clear with the help of Heaven].

And regarding this membrane, some say specifically when it is a thin membrane, but when it is thick, it is considered a sirka [Beit Yosef in the name of the Agur]. And some say there is no difference between thick and thin [Beit Yosef]. And there are those who decided in accordance with the first opinion and wrote that the examiners are experts in this to distinguish between thick and thin, and this membrane is called in the Ashkenazic tongue "shleimel" [Bach]. And there are those who decided in accordance with the second opinion [Shach, subsection 14]. And certainly the examiner must be an expert in this, for if he is not an expert, who will tell us that it is not a complete sirka? Therefore, he should ask a sage, and the teacher and the examiner should both look into this and understand. And it has already been explained that according to the great later authorities, regarding this membrane from incision to incision, even when it goes until the end of the slope, it is also kosher if there is no perforation [Simlah Chadashah, section 17; and the Levushei Serad, subsection 65, elaborated to contradict his words, and in his opinion it is only kosher until the slope and not including the slope, see there, but there is no complete reason in his words to reject the words of the Simlah Chadashah, and so it is implied explicitly from the Taz, subsection 7, and from the Shach, subsection 16, and in the Bach there].

The reason they were accustomed to permit in cases of "in their order" up to their midpoint is because of the lower slopes, for there they are separated and this is not considered "in their order." And although we see with our senses that the lower slope begins only at the end of the lobe, and we should have permitted more than their midpoint, nevertheless, in order not to place the law in each individual's hand, they set a boundary up to its midpoint. Therefore, in a place where they were accustomed to permit even more than its midpoint until the lower slope, they have upon what to rely [siman 348, section 10]. And that which they were accustomed to permit even when there is a window, as has been explained, the same law applies if there are several windows [ibid. section 11], and they permit without examination. However, inflation is certainly required to see if it is from perforation to perforation, and if they did not inflate it, one must forbid it, for from where do they know that it was "in their order"? Therefore, if even before they inflated it they saw with complete clarity that it is from perforation to perforation, it should be permitted post facto even if they did not inflate it at all [ibid. section 8 and the Levush].

And although there is no need for an inspection of those in their order until their midpoint, as I have written, nevertheless, if it happened that they inspected and removed the sirka and it bubbles, it is treifah according to the opinion of the Tosafot and the Ra'avad, who hold that this is not due to a hole; but in the case of a hole, it is treifah according to their opinion, and now that it has been revealed that there is a hole since it bubbles, it is automatically treifah according to their opinion [ibid. section 9]. This is unless it can be attributed to the handling of the hand, such as if he removed the sirka with force, for then it is kosher even according to their system [ibid.]. And if they inflated it and the sirka rose during the inflation, it is treifah even according to the system of Rashi, for behold, we see that it is perforated and this is not a sealing [ibid.]. And if the sirka is on two lobes where one is long and one is short, it appears to me that one should measure the half for each one according to what it is, and there is one who is stringent to measure even in the long one according to the proportion of the short one [ibid. section 12], and I do not know why; and particularly since we have already explained that the midpoint is a great stringency, since the entire concern is because of the lower parts, and you have no lobe where the lower part begins from its midpoint. And it has already been explained that diagonally it is also kosher, only if it is wrinkled by the diagonal, its law is like a sirka from within the wrinkle, which will be explained with the help of Heaven. And know that everything below their midpoint should be ruled kosher in every case, even if at the time of inflation it appears that even there the lobes are separated from one another; nevertheless, it is "in their order" and it is kosher, not like the one who is stringent in such a case [Shach subsection 12, and Pri Chadash, and Pri Megadim, and Levushai Serad subsection 47].

And that which our teacher, the Rema, wrote, that any place where the sircha is kosher, even if there is a hanging sircha also among those sirchot—and it is called a double sircha—it is kosher, thus far his words, requires explanation. And behold, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great work wrote, and this is his wording: If the lobe and the lung-wall are attached to one another without any perforation, or with a perforation according to the one who permits with a perforation [see there], and opposite the attachment a single sircha rises, which is called a double sircha, etc. And if it is hanging, it is certainly kosher. And if it was attached to another lobe, it is certainly treifah. And even if it was attached to the lobe or the lung-wall itself, regarding which we wrote that it has the law of a hanging sircha, here there is reason to fear that it is invalid, for perhaps this sircha comes from the lung-wall and its second end was attached to the lobe, and it would be "not in their order." And one could say that it is kosher because perhaps it comes neither from the lobe nor from the lung-wall, but rather from the moisture between them, and it would be a double doubt: a doubt if it is due to the lung or due to the moisture; and if you say it is due to the lung, perhaps its one end came from the place to which its second end was attached. And to this my opinion inclines. Thus far his words.

The explanation of his words is this: when we see a sircha emerging from another sircha, we do not say that this is a new sircha, but rather we attribute it to the one from which it emerges, and their source is one. The practical legal difference is if this sircha is attached to another place. We have already explained in section 21 that we do not attribute every sircha to having a perforation at both its ends, but rather it perforated at one side and attached to the other side. Therefore, regarding this sircha that emerges from another, if it attached to some place, we have no doubt to say perhaps the essence of the sircha is from the place where the second end is attached; rather, the source of the sircha is from the place of the first sircha. According to this, in a sircha that is in its order from cleft to cleft between an una and an uma [and the same applies between an una and an una] and from this sircha another sircha emerges, it is clear to us that its source is from this sircha that is between cleft and cleft, and it is as if they are one sircha, and it is called a double sircha. Therefore, if it is hanging and not attached to any place, it is certainly kosher, for what should we fear? If because of "tali rabi akiva," it is one name, for everything is because of the sircha. And similarly the opposite: if it attached to another una entirely, to its back or its edge, a place that is not in its order, it is obvious that it is tereifah; for even though we attribute it to the first one, nevertheless it is not in its order. And it is true that according to the system of Rashi, that there is no sircha without a perforation, it would be possible to declare it kosher, for we attribute the source of the sircha to the first one, and there the sircha plugs the perforation; if so, what does it matter to us that it attached at the other end to another una? For there is no perforation there, since we do not attribute the perforation to both ends. Nevertheless, according to the system of the Tosafot, it is certainly tereifah, for it will become detached; and also according to the system of Rashi, the permit is not so clear.

However, if it was attached by a sirka to that same lobe or that same ouma that are attached by the previous sirka in their order—and this matter has already been explained in section 20, that a sirka from place to place has the same law as a hanging sirka, see there—seemingly there is no concern in this. However, if you examine it closely, it is not so; for while it is true that it is clear to us that the source of this sirka is from the previous sirka, nevertheless, the source of the previous sirka is unknown to us. For example, if the emerging sirka attached to its own lobe on its back or on its edge, it would be well if the previous sirka, which is in its order, also originated from this lobe and attached to the ouma or the lobe adjacent to it in its order; if so, this emerging sirka, which is not in its order, is a sirka from it and within it from place to place, and its law is like a hanging sirka and it is kosher. But why should we not fear that perhaps the previous sirka, which is in its order, originated from the ouma or the lobe adjacent to it, and it attached in its order to this lobe that the emerging sirka attached to not in its order? If so, it is a sirka from an ouma to a lobe or from a lobe to a lobe not in its order, and it is treifah. Nevertheless, his conclusion is to permit it based on the reasoning of a double doubt: for first, there is a doubt if the first sirka, which is in its order, has the status of a sirka upon it, and perhaps it did not emerge from any place but rather through moisture emerging from the lung they became attached together in their order, and therefore regarding the emerging sirka, there is no "not in its order" here. And even if we say that it is a sirka and its kashrut is because it is in its order, nevertheless, perhaps its source is from this lobe to which the emerging sirka is attached, and it is a sirka from place to place and is kosher, as we have already explained in section 23 that all sirkot are matters of doubt, see there.

And it can also be interpreted according to its plain meaning, for behold, regarding this sirka that emerges from between the sirka in their order between a lobe and a lung-lobe, it is clear to us that this emerging one also originates from here, but we do not know if it is from the lung-lobe or from the lobe. Therefore, when the other end is attached to its own lobe, if the origin of the emerging one is from this lobe, it is from place to place and is kosher; but if its origin is from the lung-lobe, it is not in their order and is terefah. However, regarding this there is a further doubt: perhaps this emerging sirka originates neither from the lobe nor from the lung-lobe, but rather from the fluids between them; and if you say it is not from the fluids, perhaps its origin is from this lobe to which the other end is attached, and it is from place to place and is kosher. [The Tevuot Shor subsection 23 and the Levushei Serad subsection 49 appear to have adopted this interpretation, and the Tevuot Shor raised many difficulties and rejected his words, and the Levushei Serad elaborated at great length and upheld his words. And according to our first interpretation, everything is settled. Also the Pri Megadim subsection 17 remained in further study, see there, and according to what I have written it is settled with the help of Heaven. And the Darkhei Moshe and the Shach subsection 17 and the Bach brought the words of the Beit Yosef as the halakhah, not like the Taz subsection 9, who does not compare a sirka from place to place to a hanging sirka, see there]:

And behold, our teacher, the Rema, brought his words only regarding the matter of a hanging sirka, and it must be understood what his opinion is regarding a sirka that emerges from it and is not hanging, but rather is attached to that same lobe or that same lung-wall that is adjacent to them. And from whichever way you look at it: if his opinion is to permit, why did he not write this in the Shulchan Aruch? And if his opinion is to forbid, all the more so he should have written this explicitly so as not to lead to a stumbling block through their words in the Tur [Beit Yosef and Darkhei Moshe]. Therefore, it seems clear that his intention is to permit, and it is his way to be brief, and he relied upon what is explained later in the Shulchan Aruch, section 9, that a sirka from place to place has the same law as a hanging sirka; and automatically, when he explained here that a hanging one is permitted, one from place to place is also permitted. And even though in this matter there is room to distinguish, nevertheless, the decision is to permit, and in the Shulchan Aruch it is their way to be brief. And that which he did not mention that on another lobe it is treifa, it is simple, since he wrote that only a hanging one is kosher, automatically one on another lobe is treifa, and only on this lobe from place to place, which is like a hanging one, is it kosher. And know that it is a great principle that in every place where a sirka is mentioned, there is no difference between one that is very thick and one that is thin as a hair, or one that is actually attached without any thread [Simlah Chadashah section 14]. And it is simple, since we are not experts to distinguish between a complete sirka and one that comes through mucus and the like, we must of necessity follow the stringency, as I wrote in section 23, see there.

A sircha in its normal order, but it stands at the edge of the cut, and there is a doubt whether it is on the back or on the cut; and when one inflates it significantly, it appears to be on the cut, and when one does not inflate it as much, it appears to be on the back—it is kosher. We follow the majority of animals, which are kosher, and since there is a doubt as to how it was inflated during the animal's life, whether much or little, establish it upon its status of permission based on the rationale that "once slaughtered, it is permitted" [Taz subsection 10 and Beit Yosef in the name of the Rashba]. From this there is proof for what we wrote at the end of siman 29, that even where there is a deficiency, it has not left the category of the majority of kosher animals or the status of permission from slaughter; see there.

And know that in the Gemara they did not say regarding a sirka in their order that it is kosher except between lobe and lobe, and therefore there are some of our teachers who said that specifically between lobe and lobe, but between a lobe and the ouma, even in their order it is terefah [Tosafot 47a and Rashi in the name of "there are those who forbid," see there]. And their reasoning is that specifically the lobes are placed in the narrow part of the chest and do not separate from one another, which is not the case for the ouma, which is in the open space and separates. But Rashi, the Rambam, the Rosh, and others of our teachers wrote that there is no distinction, for since "in their order" means their natural growth and they rest in stillness and plug the hole, and they also do not separate when in their order. Therefore, even a lobe to the ouma is kosher in their order. And the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch ruled accordingly [and in the Shulchan Aruch the opinion of the one who forbids was not cited at all, and see the Darkhei Moshe, letter 10, and examine it closely].

A bubble emerging from a sircha between lobe and lobe below their midpoint is kosher, and this is not a case of two-fold deficiency, for below the midpoint it does not have the status of a sircha at all [Taz siman 37, subsection 3]. And even though according to the method of Rashi, since there is a hole but it is sealed when they are in their natural order, and if so, one might say that when there is a bubble it does not seal well, we are not concerned for this. The Acharonim wrote likewise [Levushei Serad subsection 28 and subsection 159, and Simlah Chadashah section 44], and especially in a case of great loss, one should certainly permit it [ibid.]. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote likewise in Darkei Moshe, letter 7, and this is his wording: I found written that a bubble situated between lobe and lobe in their natural order with a sircha emerging from there is kosher, for that is their natural growth; but two bubbles situated there with a sircha emerging from one to the other is treifah. Thus far his words. And it appears to me that this is according to the method of Rashi, for since its two ends are attached to bubbles, the hole is certainly not sealed well; and it is possible even according to the method of the Tosafot one could say that with two bubbles it will break apart and create a hole.

And specifically when the sirka is in their order without a window, but when there is a window, even though we declare it kosher, nevertheless, since there are those who declare it treifa in a window as I wrote in section 36, it is a deficiency and joins with the bua to become two deficiencies [Taz ibid.]. And so too in their order between an una and an uma, even though we declare it kosher, nevertheless, since there are those who forbid it as I wrote in section 58, it joins to become two deficiencies [ibid.], and the great later authorities agreed to this [Pri Chadash and Tevuot Shor]. And if the sirka is removed by means of massaging, it appears that one may declare it kosher in a case of great loss. And a sirka hanging from a bua between an una and an una below their midpoint, its law is like in any other place and it is treifa [Simlah Chadasha section 44], for in this case "in their order" does not apply, as it is not strengthened in any place since it is hanging. And it appears to me that if the bua is clear water, in a place where they are accustomed to declare a sirka hanging from a bua of clear water kosher as I wrote in siman 37, in all these cases one may also declare it kosher.

But a sirka that emerges from a tinra or from a mursa below their midpoint, between lobe and lobe or between a lobe and the ouma, even if there is a perforation, if it is removed by means of massaging, it is certainly kosher [Siman 38, section 45]. And if it is not removed by means of massaging, one may rule it kosher without a perforation in a case of great loss, but with a perforation it is terefah [ibid.]. And that which is suspended from within a tinra or mursa is kosher in any location, as I wrote in Siman 37 [see Levush, subsection 169, and examine it carefully].

The varda, to wherever it adheres, is terefah, for regarding it, every location is considered "not in their order," since it stands by itself. Even if it adheres to its own pocket, and even if it is entirely attached to it, it is also called "not in their order"; although it rests near it, nevertheless, many times it emerges from the pocket and consequently becomes as "not in their order" [Ran and Rashba]. Therefore, even though there are those who permit it when attached to its pocket without a perforation [Beit Yosef in the name of Kol Bo], nevertheless, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch ruled to forbid it, for so it is implied from most of the poskim. And such is the law for any additional lobe from the front: if it is not in the row of the lobes, any sircha emerging from it is "not in their order," since it is not between the lobes. But when it stands in the row of the lobes, its law is like all the lobes. However, a hanging sircha on the varda or on an additional lobe is kosher, and the same applies to a sircha from one place to the same place, according to what we hold that its law is like a hanging sircha.

That which has been explained, that even if it is entirely attached to the pocket it is treifah, some say that this is specifically when it is attached and has a sircha; however, if it is attached without a sircha, he should separate it gently and examine it with inflation and lukewarm water, and if it does not leak, it is kosher [Yam Shel Shlomo 69 and Simlah Chadashah section 21]. And there are those who hesitate regarding this, but it is not the primary view, and if he did not examine it, it is forbidden [ibid.]. And similarly, if the varda was attached with a sircha at the bottom of its root with its pocket, it is kosher, for that is its natural growth and it is like "in their order"; and the root is called until the place where it begins to round into the shape of a varda.

Sometimes there is found in kids and lambs a rose-like growth upon the sinews, and it has a membrane below toward the lobe; that membrane does not have the law of a sirkha, for such is their natural growth. However, if that membrane is toward the head, it has the law of a sirkha. And sometimes it is attached to those sinews and is not in a pocket; and it appears that the place of its attachment which is near the lobe must be attached to those sinews, and that attachment must be its place of growth and not adhered, for if it were adhered it would be treifa. And this depends on the appearance of the eye, whether it is adhered or its place of growth [Beit Yosef in the name of the Ramban]. And one should not practice so except in places where they know that this is common in kids and lambs [Simlah Chadashah section 22].

An incident occurred involving an animal that was exceedingly fat, and the tips of the lobes were swallowed in fat due to the abundance of tallow, and they separated the fat from the lobes and no remnants of fat remained on the lung, and it rose during inflation without bubbling, and they declared it kosher [Taz, subsection 11]. And an incident occurred involving a lung that was attached by a sirka to the chest cavity, and the sirka was full of blood until the place where the sirka attached to the chest cavity was entirely surrounded by that appearance of blood, and they declared it treifa, for massaging is not effective in this case [ibid., section 37, subsection 3]. And it is obvious, for even a sirka that rises during inflation is treifa, all the more so one that is full of blood.

It has already been explained that a sirka emerging from the lung that is hanging, which is not attached to any place, is kosher and does not require examination. And so too even if it is attached, if it is only attached in that same place—that is, in that same lobe or in that same lung-base itself—and it is called a "sirka from it and within it," its law is like the law of a hanging sirka. We have already explained the reason for the matter in section 20. There are those who disagree on this [Taz, subsection 14], but many poskim rule to be lenient, and such is the custom [Shach, subsection 27]. It has already been explained in siman 37 that a hanging sirka emerging from a bubble is treifah, but from a hard growth it is kosher; see there in section 9 where we explained the reasons for the matters with the help of Heaven. And if through inflation and massaging the flesh of the lung rises over the bubble, it is nothing more than a lesion and is kosher, and squeezing is effective in a case of great loss. A sirka from within an opaque spot is like a sirka from a bubble [Pri Chadash, subsection 20]. There are places where they were accustomed to permit a hanging sirka from a bubble, as they consider this only a mere secretion [ibid. in the name of the Maharit ibn Lev and the Maharashdam regarding the custom of Salonika], but in all places they forbid it. Any hanging sirka that also rises with the inflation of the lung is treifah, for then the lung was certainly perforated and the air entered into the sirka and it rises with the inflation. So too, if there is a wound on the chest wall opposite it, it is treifah, for it certainly detached from there. According to this, one must examine the ribs in the case of every hanging sirka; this is according to our custom where we do not permit by means of a wound on the chest wall, as will be explained. However, in a place where they permit according to the law of the Gemara, which will be explained further on, one should not declare it treifah because of this, for a wound on the chest wall is a point of leniency.

Regarding that which has been explained, that a sirka from it and within it is like a hanging sirka, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 9 that this is specifically when the sirka is not shorter than the flesh of the lung when the lung is inflated; but if it is so short that by force of the sirka the flesh beneath it wrinkles and does not rise properly during inflation like the rest of the lung, it is treifah. Thus far his words. And the reason is because it is destined to be detached by the wrinkling and there will be a perforation, even though there is no perforation here now, for it is like a hanging one; but after it detaches, it will be perforated [Shach, subsection 28]. And behold, according to this, if the wrinkle and the sirka passed by means of rubbing, it is kosher, for it is no worse than a sirka not in its order that passes by means of rubbing [Pri Megadim]. However, there is another reason for this: that since it cannot rise during inflation, it is like an opaque spot in the lung [Rema in Darkei Moshe]. And according to this, even if it passed by means of rubbing, it would not be effective, as with an opaque spot. But the primary reason is the first one, and therefore in a case of great loss, if it passed by means of the customary rubbing and the wrinkle and the sirka passed, one may permit it [ibid.].

And behold, all this is when the wrinkle was formed because of the sirka, and when they remove the sirka, the wrinkle is removed; but if we see that the wrinkle is not because of the sirka, such as when they cut the sirka and the wrinkle remains in its place, ostensibly one should be lenient, for this is like a wrinkle without a sirka. For regarding this, it is not relevant to say perhaps it will eventually spread and be perforated, as this is only relevant when the cause of the wrinkle is because of the sirka, and not when they are unrelated to one another. And if so, even crushing is not necessary at all, for the sirka is mina u-vah. And such is the law regarding a sirka she-lo k'sidran where the sirka passed through crushing according to the custom and the wrinkle remained, that one should permit it for this reason. However, the great later authorities forbade this because of the reason of "talu b'rei'ah" [Pri Megadim and Tevuot Shor subsection 52]. Nevertheless, it can be said that regarding a sirka mina u-vah, where we hold that it is like a hanging sirka, and regarding a hanging sirka we explained that this is not a deficiency, if so, here too regarding mina u-vah [Noda BiYehudah siman 12]. And similarly, there is one who says that if it is evident that the wrinkle is from its initial creation, even crushing is not necessary in mina u-vah [Levushei Serad subsection 129].

A lung that was perforated in the place where the lobes are divided, on the back of the lobes facing the wall of the chest, is kosher because the lobes are in the narrow part of the chest and are very close to the wall; if so, the wall plugs the perforation. This is specifically when there is a sircha from the lobe to the wall, for through the sircha the wall plugs the perforation. But if the perforation is open and there is no sircha upon it at all, it is treifa, for even though it is close to the wall, nevertheless without a sircha this is not a plugging and the air escapes. And some say that even a plain sircha is not effective, only if the sircha is entangled and held to the wall with strength, for such is the language of the Gemara [48a]: A lung that was perforated and the wall plugs it is kosher, provided that it is entangled (savich) in the flesh, see there; and it did not say "attached" (sarich) to the flesh. The difference between "savich" and "sarich" is that entanglement is with short threads through which the lung adheres to the wall—the language of "caught in the thicket (savach) by his horns"—and it is called "sarich" when the threads are very thin, or even thick but long by two handbreadths, such that it is impossible to be entangled well due to their length [Beit Yosef]. However, for the law, most poskim have decided that there is no difference between "savich" and "sarich," and in all cases it is kosher. Therefore, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 18 did not mention anything of this and wrote "plain sircha," see there [Atzei Levonah subsection 75]. And there is one who wishes to say that even a sircha is not required [Pri Chadash subsection 40], but Heaven forbid to say so, for it is true that there is a single opinion that holds so, but it was rejected by all the Rishonim, and it is also not clear that this opinion holds so, as the Tur wrote, see there [The Pri Chadash wanted to strengthen his position that Rav Sar Shalom Gaon holds so and that the Tur did not accurately grasp the words of the Rosh, see there; and the Pleiti in 168 already rejected his words entirely, and the Tur grasped it well, see there carefully].

This sealing is only effective for the lobes and not for the lungs, for the lungs lie in the width of the cavity of the animal and are far from the wall. Therefore, a sircha from a lung to the wall is not effective when there is a hole in the lung, for since it is far, the sealing will be detached [Rashi]. And this is what they said in the Gemara there: in the place of growth, in the divisions of the lobe, see there. However, regarding the lobes, it is effective even if the hole is above the divisions, for it is known that above, in the place where the lung attaches to the spine, the name "separation of the lobes" does not yet begin, and the separations begin further down. Therefore, only that which is opposite the lobes until the roof of the lung is called the place of growth, and if there is a hole there and a sircha goes to the wall opposite it, it is a sealing, for there too it is adjacent to the wall like the lobes themselves. And this is what our Sages, of blessed memory, said: in the place of growth, in the divisions of the lobe, meaning in the place where it rests near the wall, and that place is in the area of the divisions of the lobe, but not specifically in the place of the separation of the lobes themselves. And there is one who wished to say that only two fingers above the separation of the lobes is considered like the lobes themselves and not above this [Beit Yosef in the name of the Rashba]. And there is one who wished to say that it is only in the place of the division of the lobes themselves [ibid. in the name of "some say"]. But we do not rule accordingly; rather, the entire whole area above until the spine that is opposite the lobes has the status of the lobes themselves. And so ruled the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, see there.

The sealing of the wall is only effective for the flesh in the wall, such as the flesh between rib and rib, or even on the ribs themselves in a place where there is flesh upon them [Radbaz], for the rib in its middle is only bone, but on the sides there is flesh upon it when it is a fat animal, for in a lean one there is only a membrane and it does not seal, as sealing is only from flesh which is soft, but the bone which is hard does not seal because it will detach from it. And if it is attached to flesh and to bone, the opinion of most of the poskim, and among them the Rambam in chapter 7 and the Ra'avad and the Rashba, is for permission, and the opinion of the Rosh is for prohibition because against the bone it does not seal, and what use is the sealing against the flesh since the hole will remain against the bone? And the opinion of the Tur tends likewise, see there. However, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 18 did not bring this opinion at all, and he holds that since it is also attached to flesh, that which is against the bone will also not detach and will eventually heal. And even if we are concerned for the opinion of the Rosh, there is one who says that this is only regarding an actual hole, but regarding a sirkha alone where we do not see the hole but only suspect a hole because of the sirkha, even the Rosh admits that it is kosher [Beit Yosef in the name of the Ri ibn Chaviv]. And behold, the Ra'avad, of blessed memory, permits a sirkha even when attached to bone alone, as is explained in his words in chapter 7, law 4, see there. And although we do not rule like him and his opinion was not brought at all in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, nevertheless when it is attached to both, to flesh and to bone, one should permit it simply.

And behold, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in the Shulchan Aruch did not mention at all whether we require the majority of the sircha to be on the flesh and the minority on the bone, or whether a majority on the flesh is unnecessary. In his great work, he wrote that even if the majority of the sircha is on the bone, it is kosher; see there. And some say that we specifically require a majority on the flesh [Radbaz in manuscript, and Pri Chadash subsection 41, and Simlah Chadashah section 58]. And know that in a place where it is kosher, it requires no examination at all, and in a place where it is terefah, examination is of no use [Beit Yosef and Shach subsection 44]. And as the Tur wrote, for the bone examination is of no use, and for the flesh examination is unnecessary; see there.

The sealing is only effective from the back of the lobe, but from the front it is nothing, for this is not a place of growth. Therefore, a sircha from the front to the chest wall is "not in their order." And even from the bottom of the lobe to the chest wall, the sircha does not seal and this is not a place of growth. If a sircha emerges from the bottom of a lobe and spreads over the back and is attached to the chest wall, and it is impossible to know if the source of the sircha is from the bottom and it spread to the back of the lobe—and it is treifa—or if the source of the sircha is from its back and it spread to the bottom—and it is kosher: if the majority of the sircha is on the back of the lobe, it is kosher, and if the majority is on the bottom, it is treifa, for it is logical to attribute its source to the place where there is a majority. And such is the law if it is from the front and from its back: we see if the majority is from the front, it is treifa, and if the majority is from the back, it is kosher. And it appears to me that according to our custom of massaging or peeling, as will be explained, if it all passed through massaging, it is certainly kosher, for even if it is only from the front, the custom is to massage, as massaging is practiced with all sirchot. However, if part of it passed through massaging and part of it remained and does not go away through massaging, we estimate according to what remains after the massaging. And if then the majority is from the front, it is treifa, and if the majority is from the back, it is kosher. And likewise, if from the front it passed through massaging and from the back it remained, it is kosher, for this is a sign that its source is in its back; and if from the back it passed and from the front it remained, it is treifa, for this is a sign that its source is from the front. For behold, anything that passes through massaging, we say that it is not a sircha, as will be explained, and if so, we only have to estimate based on what remains after the massaging. Furthermore, it appears to be a simple matter that half-and-half is treifa due to doubt, for we require a majority in the place of fitness. And such is the law regarding all types of sirchot that will be explained, that we require a majority from the place of fitness.

There is one who says that this which was explained, that a lifting is effective when it is attached to the flesh and to the bone if most of the sirka is to the flesh, this is specifically when the part attached to the bone is at least attached to the bone; but if the part facing the bone is separated and hanging near the bone, one should not declare it kosher. For that which we declared kosher when part of it is to the bone was when at least part of it is stuck to the bone, for there are two points in its favor: perhaps it will also strengthen on the bone, and if you will say it will separate, perhaps the connection to the flesh alone is sufficient. But when it is not stuck to the bone, one should not permit it. And all the more so if the sirka is entirely facing the flesh and some of it, even a minority of it, is hanging over the flesh and is not stuck to the flesh, it is treifa, for it appears from this that it is not a good attachment and its end is to be removed [Siman 38, section 58]. And there are those who disagree on this, for on the contrary, it can be said that at the place of the hole the sirka is stuck well, and the hanging minority is nothing but an expansion outside the hole; for if not so, even regarding a sirka from lobe to lobe in their order, we should also say that if part of it is hanging it is treifa, and this matter is not found in any posek, and on the contrary, the opposite is implied. But regarding flesh and bone, certainly there is reason for concern because bone does not attach well, and there is a concern that perhaps the bone is the primary part of the sirka, which is not the case when it is entirely in the flesh [Levushai Serad, subsection 197].

And know that the Rambam wrote in chapter 11, law 7, that the "place of growth" refers both to the meat between the ribs and the meat in the chest, see there. However, all the poskim did not write so, and the meat in the chest is not a "place of growth" and is treifah. Nevertheless, in a fat animal where the fat of the chest reaches down and the fat hangs over the ribs, it is like the ribs themselves; and if there is a sirkah from the back to the fat of the chest hanging over the ribs, it is kosher [Beit Yosef in the name of the Ittur].

Some say that the first two small ribs on the side of the head, which are detached with the breast for the kohen, are not called the dofen, and when a sircha is attached from the lung to the flesh between these two ribs it is treifah [Hagahot Maimoniyot]. In the Responsa of the Rashba siman 74 and in the Rokeach siman 381 they wrote that there is a dispute regarding this, and they were accustomed to rule it kosher, see there. And in the width of the animal—that is, its height—it is called the dofen until the cord that they remove from the breast; that is, from the top of the spine until this place is called the dofen, and from the cord onward is called the breast. If a sircha is attached there, it is treifah. If it is attached upon the cord itself, its law is as if it were attached to the breast and it is treifah. Thus agreed all the poskim.

Even though the sirkha is on an una, nevertheless, if it is attached diagonally and the other end reaches the dofen opposite the uma, it is terefah; for since the other end is in the wide area, it is not the natural growth of the una. And if the sirkha rises to the dofen on the side of the una and also to the dofen on the side of the uma, we follow the majority; and see what I wrote in section 72. And likewise, if the sirkha emerges from between the clefts that are between one una and another, even if it is attached to the dofen opposite it, it is terefah, for between the clefts is judged as the front and not as the back [as is evident in the Tur and the Rosh]. And all these laws apply when the sirkha emerges from the back of the unot and not from the back of the umot, for in this case the dofen does not seal, as I wrote. And a sirkha from the back of the uma is only effective if there is a wound in the dofen, as will be explained with the help of Heaven in the following sections before us; and see what I wrote in section 86.

A lung that is adjacent to the chest wall not in the place of the growth of the lobes—that is, the entire lung is stuck to the ribs of the wall or there is a sircha from the lobe to the ribs—there are many opinions regarding this according to the method of Rashi and Tosafot [48a]. If there is no defect in the wall, meaning there is no wound there, even if no defect is found in the lung as well, in that there are no growths surrounding the sircha, meaning a bubble or pus, it is treifa. And even if they detached it from the wall or removed the sircha from the wall and inflated it and placed it in lukewarm water and it does not bubble, nevertheless it is treifa. This is because we attribute the sircha to the lung and we do not attribute it to the wall having drawn it to itself for some reason; rather, the lung became adjacent or attached to the wall because of a hole that produced the sircha, according to the method of those who say there is no sircha without a hole, or that it is destined to be perforated according to those who say this is the reason for the prohibition of sirchot. And the fact that it does not bubble is due to the blockage of the sircha, and it is a crust that arose because of a wound in the lung, and it is not a valid crust. [And the Rashba there wrote that according to Rashi, an examination is effective in every case, even if there is no wound in the wall and it produced growths, see there, and it requires great study]:

And so, even if there is a defect in the wall [of the chest] in that it has a wound, if there is also a defect in the lung in that it has produced growths, a check is likewise of no avail and it is treifah in any event. However, when there is a wound in the wall and there is no defect in the lung, a check is required and the check is effective. And how is the check performed? One brings a very sharp knife and we detach the lung from the wall gently so that a hole is not made in it through the cutting. And if it is attached by a sircha to the wall, one cuts the sircha from the wall and it remains hanging from the lung, and we inflate it and place it in lukewarm water or place lukewarm water on the location of the sircha, and if it does not bubble, it is kosher. And the reason for the matter is that whenever both sides are equal—meaning that in both of them there is a defect or in both of them there is no defect—we attribute the sircha to the lung because it is prone to it, and therefore the check is of no avail at all, for the fact that it does not bubble is due to the blockage of the sircha as I have written. And according to this view, for us, even when there is a defect in the wall and there is no defect in the lung, it is treifah, for since by the law a check is required, we are not experts. And this is what the Tosafot wrote in the name of, and this is their wording: And now it is the custom to declare all sirchot treifah and we do not check them, etc. Thus far their words. And so wrote the Rosh there, that in Ashkenaz and France they were accustomed to declare everything treifah, see there, and the reason is as I have written.

The approach of the Rif, according to the opinion of the Rosh and the Tur, is that everything depends on a wound in the chest wall. For if there is a wound in it, even if there is also a deficiency of growths in the lung, nevertheless the examination that has been explained is effective for it; and if it does not bubble, we attribute it to the chest wall having drawn or adhered the lung to itself, and the cause is not due to the lung, and it is kosher. But when there is no wound in the chest wall, even if there is also no deficiency of growths in the lung, the examination is not effective and it is terefah, for we attribute it to the lung. And the reason for the matter is that certainly there is more reason to attribute it to the lung than to the chest wall because it is prone to this, except if we see a wound in the chest wall, for then we see a revealed cause for this, since it is the way of a wound to draw the lung to itself and it is also its way to create deficiencies in the lung. And behold, according to this approach, for us who are not experts in examination, there is also no benefit, since without examination he does not permit it in any case, even with a wound in the chest wall and no deficiency in the lung.

And the approach of Rabbeinu Tam and the Baal HaMaor, which the Rashba and the Ran wrote in their names, is this: that if there is a wound in the chest wall, even if there is an irregularity of growths on the lung, it is kosher and requires no examination at all. For since we see a wound in the chest wall, it is clear to us that the cause of the sirka is due to the chest wall, and it is what caused the growths on the lung. And when there is no wound in the chest wall, the examination is effective for it even when there is an irregularity on the lung. And according to this approach, the Raavad, of blessed memory, also wrote in the book Tamim De'im [siman 12], see there; however, in the Hassagot chapter 7, it does not imply this. [And the words of the Tur who wrote: "And there are those who say etc. and they permit when there is a wound in the chest wall and no irregularity on the lung and even without examination," thus far his words, require correction, as the Bach and the Hagahot Maharalnach wrote, for according to this approach even if there is an irregularity on the lung it is permitted without examination, see there, unless he did not intend for the approach of Rabbeinu Tam].

The words of the Rambam in this matter require explanation, for in chapter 7, law 5, he wrote: The lobe of the lung that is found adjacent to the chest wall, whether it produced growths or did not produce growths, we are concerned regarding it lest it was perforated. And how do we act regarding it? We detach it from the chest wall and we are careful with it so that it is not perforated. If it is found perforated, and there is found a wound on the chest wall in the location of the perforation, we attribute it to the wound and say that after slaughtering it was perforated when it was detached from the wound. And if there is no wound on the chest wall, it is certain that this perforation was in the lung before the slaughtering and it is treifah. Thus far his words. And in law 8 he wrote: This is a great principle that shall be in your hand, that any lung that we inflate in lukewarm water and the water does not bubble, behold it is whole from any perforation. Thus far his words. And in chapter 11, law 5, he wrote: Therefore, a lung that produced growths, or where sirkhot were found like threads hanging from it to the chest wall, or to the heart, or to the diaphragm of the liver, we are concerned regarding it lest it was perforated and it requires examination. Thus far his words. And in law 6 he wrote: By right it should have been in this manner, that if the lung is found hanging by sirkhot like threads, if they were from the lobe of the lung to the chest wall, or to the heart, or to the diaphragm of the liver, that we cut the sirkha and remove the lung and inflate it in lukewarm water; if it is found perforated it is treifah, and if the water does not bubble, behold it is whole from any perforation and it is permitted, and this sirkha was not in a place of perforation, or perhaps only the upper membrane was perforated, etc. Thus far his words. And afterwards he wrote that the custom is not so, and it will be explained before us with the help of Heaven. And many have labored in the understanding of his words, and their conclusion is this:

For the Rambam holds according to the method of Rabbeinu Tam and the Baal HaMaor, that if there is no wound on the chest wall, it requires examination whether there is a flaw or there is no flaw. And the examination is to cut the sirka from the chest wall, or if it is completely adjacent to the chest wall, to detach it with a thin knife so that it is not perforated. And if it was detached and there is no perforation in it, even if there is no wound on the chest wall, we inflate it and examine it in lukewarm water; and if it does not bubble, it is kosher. And this is according to the law of the Gemara, but the custom is not so, as he explained afterward, and we will explain further on this with the help of Heaven. But when a wound is found on the chest wall, we are no longer concerned even if it was perforated during its detachment, because when there is a wound on the chest wall, it does not require examination at all, and automatically we are not concerned if it was perforated, and we attribute it to having been perforated during its detachment after slaughter. And this is so even according to the custom, they rule thus. And that which the sages required a thin knife, this is because of the doubt, lest they do not find a wound on the chest wall and it will be rendered treifa when it is detached with a perforation, for behold it requires examination, and when there is a perforation, there is no examination here [Kesef Mishneh and Lechem Mishneh and Maggid Mishneh manuscript in the new printing and Radbaz, and from all of their words it appears that they understood his method thus, see there; and according to this, where there is a wound on the chest wall, even the Rambam permits without any examination, and see there in the critique of the Raavad, and his words in Torat HaBayit also agree with this method, and it requires further study]:

And according to this, the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in the Shulchan Aruch, section 22, are understood, where he wrote brief words. This is his wording: If the lung is attached to the chest wall, if there is a wound on the chest wall it is kosher and does not require examination, and if there is no wound on the chest wall it is terefah and examination is of no benefit to it. Thus far his words. And he did not mention at all a distinction regarding whether there is a defect in the lung or not. And his words are clear, for where there is no wound on the chest wall, he was concerned for the opinions of our teachers that even if there is no defect in the lung, examination is of no benefit. And even according to those who hold that examination is of benefit, the Rambam wrote that the custom is not so; and perhaps the reason is because we are not experts in examination, or that the custom was established based on the poskim who hold that examination is of no benefit. But when there is a wound on the chest wall, even if there is a defect in the lung, the Rambam, Rabbeinu Tam, and the Maor agreed, and the opinion of the Rashba and the Ran also incline this way, and they also wrote that this is the opinion of Rav Hai Gaon, that it does not require examination at all, and therefore he ruled accordingly.

What is called a wound? For example, if there is a lesion or a wound and a bruise, or if it is evident that there was a wound there and it healed; and the same applies if there is found there decayed flesh or pus in the flesh between the ribs [Mishbetzot Zahav]. However, if there are only black spots, it is not a sign of an actual wound. And if the rib was broken, even if it subsequently knit together, we certainly call this a wound [Tur and Shulchan Aruch]. And all the more so if it is still broken, and one must see that there is no splinter in the flesh, for if there is a splinter protruding toward the lung, it is nearly certain that it was perforated during its lifetime and is treifah. And if the splinter is buried in the flesh of the chest wall and does not protrude outward, one may permit it in a case of great loss.

And know that even regarding a sirka in a place of growth, such as from the lobe to the wall which we have declared kosher, the Mordechai wrote that this is only provided there is no boil or pustule in the place of the sirka of the lobes, and if there is a boil there, it is terefah, and so ruled the Geonim and Rabbeinu Chananel. Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book, rejected these words on the grounds that even if it were perforated it would be kosher, see there. However, the great Acharonim wrote that their words are correct, for it is true that even if it were perforated it is kosher as has been explained, and this is entirely because we say that the wall closes it; but whenever there is a boil around it or in its place, it is clear to us that the perforation was not closed, for the boil causes seepage and does not allow it to close. And so one should rule [Pri Chadash subsection 40 and Tevuot Shor subsection 85]. And there is one who wrote that their intention is that it requires an examination to see if it does not bubble, and with an examination it is kosher [Bach]. And it appears that the primary view is like the former opinion, that it does not close in such a case and in all instances it is terefah.

And behold, our teachers, the sages of the Gemara, did not mention regarding sirkhot anything other than a sirkha on the lung itself or from the lung to the chest wall. Other sirkhot, such as to the fat of the heart, to the breastbone, to the windpipe, or to the diaphragmatic membranes and the like, they did not mention at all in the Gemara. Yet we see with our own eyes that these sirkhot are very common. And indeed, the Rambam, Rabbeinu Tam, the Ra'avad, and the Maor hold that the law of a sirkha to other places is the same as a sirkha to the chest wall, and the Gemara merely cited one of them. According to their words, when there is a wound in these places, we attribute the sirkha to them, and it is kosher without an inspection. And even if there is no wound, an inspection is effective to cut the sirkha, inflate it, and inspect it in lukewarm water; if it does not bubble, it is kosher. However, the Rambam wrote, and this is his wording in chapter 11, law 7: And even though these are the matters that appear from the words of the sages of the Gemara, the simple custom in Israel is thus, etc., and if a thread is found extending from the lobe of the lung to any place it may stretch, even if it were like a strand of hair, they forbid it. And similarly, if there was a thread stretched from the lung to the heart, or to the membrane of the liver, or to the pericardium, or to the small lobe, whether the thread was from the lobe of the lung or whether it was from the ear, even if it were like a strand of hair, they forbid it. Thus far his words. And we have already explained the reason for the custom in section 83. And Rabbeinu Tam permitted it in practice regarding the animal of an Israelite, as is cited in the Rishonim and in the Ittur.

But our teachers who came after them, the Ramban, the Rashba, the Rosh, the Ran, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch, disagreed with the essence of their words, for even in the case of a wound, they only permitted it on the wall alone and not in other places; for specifically the wall, which is wide and its moisture is abundant, the lung attaches to it, but not to other organs [Rosh]. And furthermore, the wall is too hard to become attached due to the moisture in the lung, and therefore we attribute it to the lung, which is light, having become attached due to the moisture of the wall. But other places that are as prone to becoming attached to the lung as the lung is prone to becoming attached to them, we fear that perhaps they are due to the lung and it is treifah [Rashba in Torat HaBayit].

And based on this, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 7 that if the lobe or the lung-mass is attached to the windpipe, or to the chest, or to the fat of the heart, or to its sac, or to the diaphragm of the heart, or to the diaphragm of the liver which is called reit fleish, or to the diaphragm of the small lobe which is the end of the diaphragm of the heart, or to the womb, or to the al-ma'ada which is called muliga, or to the tube that descends between the two rows, or to the aorta, or to the fat of the tubes, or to the liver, it is treifa and examination does not avail [Shach], and even if it is attached to one of these places without perforation. Thus far their words. And regarding a wound, they wrote in section 22 that if it is attached to other places such as the chest, the windpipe, the fat of the heart, the diaphragm, and the like, even though there is a wound in them, it is treifa and examination does not avail for it. Thus far their words. And they did not bring the opinion of the lenient ones at all.

It has already been explained that if the sircha is from two places, from a permitted place and from a forbidden place, or to two places, to a permitted place and to a forbidden place, we follow the majority. Therefore, an una and an uma that are attached by a single sircha to the wall, if the majority is from the una, it is kosher, and if the majority is from the uma, it is treifa, if there is no wound in the wall. And similarly, an una attached by a single sircha to the chest and to the wall, we follow the majority; if its majority is to the wall, it is kosher, and if its majority is to the chest, it is treifa. And similarly, an uma attached by a single sircha to the wall where there is a wound, and the sircha is on the wound and outside of it, if its majority is on the wound, it is kosher, and if not, it is treifa. And similarly, if the uma was attached by a single sircha to the diaphragm and to a wound that is in the wall, if its majority is on the wound in the wall, it is kosher, and if not, it is treifa. And so they ruled in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, section 25 [what the Pitchei Teshuva wrote in the name of the Maharit, not to combine the majority from two sides, requires great study, as the Pri Chadash wrote in subsection 50].

The reason for all this is as in the entire Torah, that we follow the majority. And even though it is not entirely similar, for in the rest of the Torah the minority and the majority contradict one another and one must necessarily follow one of them, but here they do not contradict one another, for it is possible for both to exist—that the lobe and also the lung-nut were adhered, and the fluid that emerged from both became entangled and became one sirka. And similarly, regarding one adhered to the breast and to the wall, even if the wall is effective to seal the majority adhered to it, nevertheless, what does it help if the minority adhered to the breast is not sealed? And so too in all such cases. Nevertheless, the early authorities relied on following the majority even in this [Rosh, section 25]. And the Rosh explained the reason in a Responsum [Klal 20, Siman 29] because it is not logical to say that one sirka comes from two places and they joined together to make one sirka, and therefore one cannot say that half of it comes from the wound and half from the lung, and therefore we follow the majority; see there. And even though this reason only applies to a wound and outside a wound, but in a case where it is adhered to the breast and the wall, or from a lung-nut and a lobe to the wall, behold, one need not say that it came from two places and they joined, but rather it is a wide sirka and it is one [Beit Yosef]; nevertheless, it appeared to the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch that they have one law, for in these too it can be said that it is far-fetched to attribute that they took hold in two places or that they came from two places, but rather we say that one is primary and the second is secondary to it and is nothing but an expansion. And I am wonderstruck at our teacher, the Beit Yosef, who in his great work brought the opinion of the Rashba and the Ran to prohibit in such a case and not to follow the majority, and why did he not bring their opinion at all in the Shulchan Aruch? And it appears to me that the primary reason is that we see this with our senses in every sirka that expands in width, that its essence and its source is one place and the rest is nothing but expansion. And for this reason we wrote in section 73 that following the majority is after the customary massaging; see there. And therefore he holds that everyone agrees in this that we follow the majority, and the prohibitors that he brought in his great work perhaps deal with a case where it is recognizable that in both places there is a complete sirka, and in the Shulchan Aruch he deals with when we see one sirka at its source and its expansion is the majority. And nevertheless, it requires great study, and one must deliberate in practice, and it depends on the sight of the eyes of the experts, and many times we have seen that it is possible to recognize this.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 18 that for us there is no practical difference in these distinctions, nor in all the distinctions that will be explained until the end of the siman, for it is already the custom in these lands to declare everything treif, and one must not change this, for it is the custom of the ancients in Ashkenaz and France, of whose descendants we are. Therefore, one should not declare any sircha on the lung kosher, unless it is two lobes attached in their order below their midpoint toward their base, and the same applies to a lobe attached to the uma in its order in such a case. Thus far his words. And his intention refers to these two general laws: regarding a lobe attached from its back to the chest wall, and regarding the uma attached to the chest wall where there is a wound, for in both of them the simple custom is to declare them treif. The Maharshal in Yam Shel Shlomo [siman 44] agreed regarding the law of a wound in the chest wall, because according to the system of Rashi and Tosafot, an examination is always required even when there is a wound in the chest wall, as I wrote in section 79, and we are not experts in examination. However, regarding a sircha from the back of the lobe to the chest wall, where the chest wall seals it, since even Rashi and Tosafot agreed to permit it, why should we forbid it for no reason and cause a loss of the money of Israel? But all the Acharonim upheld the words of our teacher, the Rema, and such is the simple custom in most cities of Israel. Therefore, the Acharonim were very brief regarding these laws. Also, regarding a lobe adjacent to the chest wall, there is a reason for the custom, because there are some among the Rishonim who hold that even in a lobe adjacent to the chest wall an examination is required by the letter of the law, and we are not experts in examination. Furthermore, there are those who hold that we specifically require "savich" and not "sarich," and we are not experts in this.

And know that there are to this day several places that do not rule according to the stringency of our teacher, the Rema, but rather like the ruling of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, that regarding a wound on the chest wall they declare it kosher without examination, and regarding a lung lobe attached to the chest wall they also declare it kosher. And the city in which I currently reside also conducts itself thus, and therefore I have elaborated to explain these laws. And this matter has been practiced in these cities for several generations, as in several places they conducted themselves thus according to the Gaon Sha'agat Aryeh, of blessed memory, who instructed thus. And in my city they conducted themselves thus according to the instruction of the Gaon, our teacher and master Rabbi David, of blessed memory, the author of the book Galya Massekhet. And I saw one of the great authorities who complained bitterly about this, but in all his words there is no reasoned argument to refute this. For certainly, if the custom they were practicing according to our teacher, the Rema, was a mere custom—that they knew these things were permitted according to the law but they accepted these stringencies upon themselves—it would be like a vow and there would be no ability to permit it. However, the truth is that the custom was established based on the opinions of the poskim who are stringent as a matter of law; if so, it is subsequently within the power of the Rabbi sitting on the seat of instruction, in conjunction with the sages of the city, when another opinion appears correct to them, to rule according to that opinion. And I found similarly regarding this matter in the book Maggid Mishneh on the laws of shehitah, printed in the new Rambams in the Warsaw edition, chapter 11, law 7. This is his wording: But if we explain the words of our teacher etc. places that practiced not to declare kosher by means of inflation because their opinion was like the opinion of those who prohibit, and afterwards they wished to retract and hold like the opinion of those who permit, they may retract. And so wrote the great Rabbi, the author of the Kelalim, etc. If so, we find ourselves learning according to this that in places that practiced etc. and afterwards they wished to retract, they may retract, since they did not practice thus as a fence, but rather they held like the opinion of those who prohibit; any time they wish to retract and hold like the opinion of those who permit, the authority is in their hands, provided that it be with the agreement of the sages present in the city at that time according to their majority. And these words have support and a basis from the Talmud and the Geonim, of blessed memory. Thus far his words. And one who goes from a place where they practice prohibition to a place where they practice permission, and his intention is to return, must be careful regarding this meat [ibid.] when he knows that this meat is against the custom of his place. However, in an ordinary case one need not be concerned, and there is no need to ask, for the majority of animals are kosher according to all opinions [and regarding vessels one need not be concerned at all].

If the entire lung is attached to the chest wall, if there is no wound in the chest wall it is treifah, and examination does not avail it even if it is attached entirely without any perforation. There is one who wrote that whoever permits this is subject to excommunication and the vessels are forbidden. And if the entire roof of the umah, from the completion of the lobes and above, is attached to the spine, the Rashba wrote in the name of the Geonim that it is kosher, for so the matters appear that this is its natural formation. In what case does this apply? When the entire roof is attached to the spine; but if there is a separation where the entire roof is not attached to the spine, it is treifah [Tur]. And there is one who says that if the entire roof of the lobes is attached to the spine it is kosher even if there is a separation, for we do not differentiate regarding this law of separation except in the umah and not in the lobes [Perishah].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 7 that there are those who are lenient if the upper lobes adjacent to the windpipe are actually attached to the windpipe and there is no separation at all between them such that one could insert a finger between them; and likewise if the lobes or the larger lobes were completely attached from their beginning to their end to the fat that descends between the larger lobes; and likewise if the entire lung was attached to the spine, for they say that this is their way of growth and this is not a sirka. And one should not permit any of this without the inquiry of a wise and expert posek, and one should not learn from these places to other places where the lung is attached, for in other places there is no distinction whether it is entirely attached or not. Thus far his words.

And behold, from the language he wrote, "the upper lobes adjacent to the windpipe," it is clear that it refers to both lobes, the right and the left. Even though the left is not so adjacent to the windpipe, nevertheless, since it is the first on the left side, it is the place of growth. And since he did not write that the adhesion must be from its beginning to its end, as in an adhesion to the fat, it implies explicitly that we do not require from the beginning to the end; rather, as long as there is no perforation of a finger's breadth at the place of the adhesion, it is kosher [see Simlah Chadashah, section 25]. And there are those who are uncertain regarding the width of the adhesion, whether we require the entire width of the lobe or even if part of the width is adhered and part of it is separated. And it appears that we require the entire width. And there are those who permit when it is closed from both sides and in the middle it is not adhered, since on the sides there is no perforation [Shach, subsection 22, and see Simlah Chadashah ibid.].

And regarding those adhered to the fat that descends between the lobes, he did not mention the insertion of a finger, and it is evident that he holds that even if there is any perforation at all, it is treifah. In the Mordechai it is explained that in this case as well, specifically a finger's breadth is required, see there; however, he decided that even less than this is forbidden, and his reason is because there are those among the early authorities who hold this way regarding this law, that it is specifically when there is no perforation at all, as is explained in the Beit Yosef, see there. But regarding the first law, no one disagrees [Tevu'ot Shor, subsection 32], and such is the primary halachah, not like the one who says that here too we require a finger's breadth [see Pri Chadash]. And that which he wrote, "when the entire lung is adhered to the spine," this is the law that we explained in section 93, see there [see Simlah Chadashah that there is no difference whether both lobes are adhered to the windpipe or only one of them, and similarly regarding the lobes and the superior lobes adhered to the fat, there is no difference between one side and both sides].

An incident occurred regarding a hanging sirka that emerged from the lower edge of the lobe, and at the end of the sirka there was hanging from it something like a button, and it appeared as if filled with pus. There were those who wished to permit it, as this is only like a spreading of moisture, and there were those who declared it treifa, as this is a bu'a at the lower edge [Taz, subsection 23], and we say that it was a bu'a at the lower edge that became detached. The decision of the great later authorities is that this is not a bu'a at the lower edge, but merely pus, and only that there is reason to be concerned lest it is a hollow sirka and the lung is perforated. Therefore, if it is a thin sirka, it is kosher by means of inflation; to see if it does not rise through inflation, it is kosher, and if it rises through inflation, it is treifa. And if they did not examine it, one should not permit it. And if it is a thick sirka, it is treifa and examination is of no avail, for it is a sign that the entire sirka was filled with pus and the perforations of the lung are blocked and it will not rise through inflation [Pri Megadim and Pri Chadash, siman 37, subsection 23, and Simlah Chadashah].

An incident occurred where something like a long, thin bone was found on the lung, attached to the membrane of the lung, and the butcher peeled it off and it did not leak, and they declared it kosher on the grounds that the inspectors say it was peeled from the ribs of the animal and became attached to the lung. And some say that it is treifah on the grounds that it is capable of perforating the lung, and if so, it requires inspection according to the law, and in any case that requires inspection according to the law, we are not experts [Taz subsection 23]. And the great later authorities decided in favor of permission, for we should not presume a defect and say perhaps the lung was perforated; and it is not similar to a needle in the lung which moves, but this bone lies at rest, and therefore inspection is sufficient [Pri Chadash and Chacham Tzvi]. And in a case of great loss, one certainly should not be stringent, and we inspect with inflation; if it does not leak, it is kosher [Tevuat Shor subsection 96 and Pri Megadim in Mishbetzot Zahav there]. And likewise, if such a bone is found within the body cavity where it can be attributed to having been peeled from the ribs inside, it is also kosher in a case of great loss. And it is not similar to a needle found in the body cavity, for there we concern ourselves that perhaps it came by way of the esophagus and perforated one of the internal organs, and we also do not concern ourselves that perhaps while it was in the body cavity it perforated one of the organs, for we should not presume a defect, for how is it different from a fracture in the rib where we do not concern ourselves with this [Pri Megadim ibid.]. And some prohibit in this [Beit Ephraim siman 164].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote at the end of this siman: A lung upon which is found something like a fatty covering, which is worn flesh, one peels it off from upon it, and if the lung beneath it is whole and beautiful, it is kosher; however, one must examine the lung with inflation. Thus far his words. And that which he wrote, that if the lung is whole and beautiful, his intention is not that if it is not beautiful, even though there is no treifut in this on its own merits, it is nevertheless treifah on account of the worn flesh, for there is no reason for this at all, as worn flesh is not a deficiency at all. Furthermore, if so, he should have explained what is called "not beautiful." Rather, his intention is that we should not say that the worn flesh makes it treifah; he comes to teach us that it is nothing, for as long as the lung beneath it when it is peeled has no treifut in it, we are not concerned with the worn flesh. But it is not specifically "whole and beautiful," and the same law applies if there is beneath it something like a scar or wrinkles; it is kosher when there is no treifut in them on their own merits [Taz subsection 24]. And there is one who wishes to say that worn flesh is a deficiency and joins with a "triple-colored" lung [Tevu'ot Shor subsection 95], but it is not compelling. And in a case of great loss, one may certainly rely on it and say that this is not a deficiency at all [Levushai Serad subsection 24, see there; and so it appears from the Pri Megadim there, and so wrote the Pri Chadash].

And know that everything that has been explained in these simanim, that we are not experts in examination, the source of this matter stems from what was written in siman 57 regarding the examination for a claw-wound and a fall, where the Ba'al HaHalachot Gedolot wrote that we are not experts, and Rashi, of blessed memory, wrote that we are experts and a judge has only what his eyes see [52a]. The Rishonim adopted the law like the Ba'al HaHalachot Gedolot, and for this reason they also wrote that regarding the examination of the lung we are not experts. And even though the examination of one organ is not similar to the examination of the entire body, nevertheless, the lung also, due to its great size, requires great expertise to discern a minute perforation in the entire lung. According to this, it seems from the perspective of logic that specifically when the examination is of the entire lung, there is reason to say so, that we are not experts; but when the examination is only in one place, what expertise is there in this? Certainly we too are experts in this. And so wrote the Maharshal in Yam Shel Shlomo [end of siman 44]. And behold, the great authorities agreed thus in siman 33 regarding the esophagus, that in a known place we too are experts in examination [Shach there, subsection 14]. And why should the lung be diminished from such expertise? Therefore, one must wonder at certain poskim from whose words it implies that regarding the lung, even in a known place, we are not experts in examination, and this is nothing but astonishing. Therefore, it appears to me that in a case of great loss we may rely on the Maharshal, that in one place in the lung we too are experts in examination.

It has been about a hundred years since a question was renewed regarding a lung with a sweat of blood, meaning that it does not ooze except when they massage it, then red drops come out like the appearance of blood. When they wipe away these drops and return to massage it, other such drops come out. Most often it is under worn flesh; when they peel the worn flesh from the lung, the lung is whole and beautiful, and afterwards when they massage it, these drops come out. The dispute increased: these forbid and those permit, and both give reasons for their words. Those who forbid say, behold blood is oozing, and certainly this is from the arteries and the tubes within the lung and it oozes through the membranes; if so, the membranes were perforated, and the fact that it does not ooze by means of inflation is because we are not experts. And those who permit say that it is nothing but mere sweat, and it is a red sweat which is the way of the lung because it absorbs all types of liquid, and there is no perforation here at all; for if there were a perforation, it would ooze during inflation. And it is far-fetched to say that we are not experts regarding a known perforation in incidents that have occurred by the hundreds.

And there is one who wrote that they heard from expert examiners that very thin veins are found in the lung in all parts of the lung, and they examined many lungs where these veins are between membrane and membrane, and when the upper skin is peeled, the vein is also peeled with it and it no longer sweats. If so, this is a clear proof for those who permit, that this is from the upper skin and from what is between membrane and membrane, and the lower membrane is intact [She'eilat Shmuel, siman 57]. And if the things are true, then there is no doubt in this. But who says that all sweats are so? For behold, we see with our senses that these sweats are found more in animals standing in machines that make spirits, and they eat and drink the waste that comes from the spirits, and they call this "brahee," and the animals and oxen standing over this they call "brazna," and in them are found very thin sirchot that are easily crushed, and under the sircha blood oozes, which is this common sweat. And if we say that this is all from the upper skin, also the sircha is from the upper skin and the lower membrane is intact, yet according to this, the obligation is at least to peel the upper skin and see if it will no longer sweat. But without this examination, how is it possible to permit? And behold, in truth there is no clear decision in this law, and one should not elaborate further on this. However, it is simple that if one wipes the sweat a first and second time and it no longer sweats, the matter is simple to permit, and in this even those who forbid agreed.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 10: In any place where they prohibited a sircha of the lung, there is no difference whether the sircha is thin as a hair or whether it is thick, strong, and wide as a thumb; and not like those who massage with the hand and if it is crushed they depend on it to be lenient, and anyone who acts thus is as if he feeds terefot to Israel. There is one who wrote that he inserts his finger under the sircha and lifts slightly; if it is severed due to any lifting whatsoever, it is a "sircha of a day" and it is kosher. And one should not be lenient in this except regarding the animal of an Israelite, and one does not rely on this leniency except with a kosher examiner who fears Hashem. It is better to provide water for the animal to drink close to the shechitah. Thus far his words. For this is a tradition from all those who slaughter animals, that an animal that was not provided water to drink close to its shechitah is full of thin and hard sirchot, and when they provide it water to drink, the sirchot will depart. And this is explained in the Gemara, Beitza [40a], according to the commentary of the Rif there, see there [Shach, subsection 32].

He further wrote: There is one who says that the one who inspects should insert his hand quickly into the animal without slackness of hands [and the movement inside should be gentle], and if any sirka was detached when the inspector inserted his hand, he brings the lung outside and inspects it; if it is a sirka, he will find its head on the lung or on the chest wall, and if not, it is rira and is kosher. And one should not be lenient in this except regarding the animal of an Israelite, and we do not rely on this leniency except with an inspector who is fit and fears Hashem more than the many. Thus far his words. And so wrote the Rokeach in siman 382, that sirkot that are detached on their own by the insertion of the hand of the butcher and their place is not recognizable are merely ririn, see there. And the Tur wrote that Mar Yaakov Gaon instructed to grasp the windpipe and shake the lung three and four times very well, and any sirka that is severed by this shaking is kosher, see there. And they did not mention this in the Shulchan Aruch because they wrote that we are not experts in shaking and we do not practice thus [Beit Yosef and Shach, subsection 31]. And even those who agree to this, it is only regarding the fat of the heart and not regarding another sirka, and by way of an expert sage [Taz, subsection 15].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 13 that there are those who permit feeling the sirchot and massaging them, and they say that if a person were to massage a sircha all day it would not disconnect, and therefore any massage that results in it being massaged away, we attribute it to leniency and say that it is not a sircha but merely mucus [and after the massage it is customary to check with saliva or lukewarm water to see if it does not bubble, Shach and Acharonim; and if it was lost or torn after the massage without a check, some prohibit and some permit]. And even though it is a great leniency, all the residents of these provinces have already practiced it, and one should not protest against them since they have that upon which to rely. Nevertheless, the bodek must be a God-fearing person who knows to be careful to massage gently so that it does not disconnect with force. And there are places where they do not practice massaging and feeling sirchot of the varda if it is attached to another place, and any place it attaches is treifah; and there are places that practiced leniency even in this. And it seems to me like the first opinion, not to massage the varda and any sirchot that are not in their order, since a sircha not in its order being treifah is mentioned in the Gemara and no one disagrees with it, and one should not rely on the words of those who are lenient regarding the matter of massaging and feeling. However, the custom in our city is to massage and feel all sirchot, and there is no distinction between one sircha and another. And it is proper to be concerned for what I wrote except in a case of great loss [and one should not feel by means of dust or sand or with rags, and those who do so feed treifot to Israel; and likewise the massage is only gently, and those who massage with a strong hand feed treifot to Israel, Taz and Shach]. Furthermore, they practiced in our city to declare treifah all sirchot of kids, lambs, and tender calves, and not to massage them at all, for there is a tradition in this to declare treifah because the sircha is still soft and disconnects by means of massage. Thus far his words. And as long as they are called in the language of people "kid," "lamb," and "calf," one should practice this stringency [Siman 348, section 39]. And some say that specifically regarding kids and lambs it depends on the language of people, but tender calves are only within their first year and nursing, for such is the language of the Mishnah [Bach and Shach]. And it seems proper to be stringent like the first opinion, for one should not be as precise with the language of a posek as with the language of the Mishnah. And even though they did not practice massaging these, nevertheless, if the cuts of the lobes are stuck to one another, even more than half of them, and even if the lower edges are also stuck to one another, one should be lenient when they are separated by passing a finger gently between them, since in this case there are those who are lenient anyway that it does not require massage as this is "in their order" [Siman 348, ibid.]. And likewise one should not massage when there are two points of deficiency [Taz, subsection 18 and 13]. And in a case of a wound in the chest wall, it is obvious that massage is effective [and the words of the Tevuot Shor require great study].

And behold, regarding the matter of this rubbing, there are two interpretations. The first is that one must remove the entire sirka by rubbing gently, rolling it between the fingers until it is entirely crushed. Even if it was crushed in the middle or on one side, it is nothing; it is necessary that it be entirely crushed and that no shred remains, for the shreds are a hindrance. Likewise, one should not peel the shreds with a fingernail, but rather everything must be through rubbing. This is also the implication of the plain wording of this custom [siman 38, section 38]. This applies to a sirka whose two ends are on the lung; however, a sirka that is attached to another place, where the second end is not on the lung, one only needs to rub the side attached to the lung. And if after the entire thickness of the sirka was removed from the lung through rubbing and feeling, shreds like membranes or threads still remain beyond the area of the sirka's thickness, one does not need to feel them nor peel them. One only needs to ensure that the area of the sirka's thickness remains clean without any shred. And if it happened that he peeled those membranes and afterwards it bubbled there beyond the area of the sirka's thickness, one should not forbid it [ibid.]. This is the first interpretation:

And the second interpretation is that they crush by rolling the fingers, and when it is severed by the crushing in the middle, they peel the remainder gently. Those among them who are meticulous crush by rolling until near the lung, and that which still remains of the body of the sirka—short dangles that do not have enough to grasp and roll with the fingers—they peel gently [Shevut Yaakov and Pri Megadim in Mishbetzot Zahav subsection 17, and Levushei Serad in the Responsa and Tiferet Yisrael]. For with dangles, one does not need to be meticulous to remove gently, since after it has been dissolved in the middle, we say that this is not a sirka; nevertheless, one must examine with inflation and lukewarm water [Tiferet Yisrael]. And this custom was also with the consent of the sages, as is explained in the great books [see Keneset HaGedolah subsection 13, who cried out like a crane, and this is his wording: Many warnings they wrote, etc., but in our many sins, etc., they continue crushing until the sirka becomes thin, and then they push with a finger until it is severed, and afterward they detach the sirka from the lung, and the sages of the generation in Prague sensed this and there was a great outcry with the shochatim, etc. Thus far his words; see there].

However, it is now more than a hundred years since a new matter arose regarding the issue of miuch, that they do not perform miuch at all with gentleness and rolling between the fingers, but rather they peel the sircha with the fingernails off the lung until nothing remains of it, and they examine it by inflating it in saliva or lukewarm water. Many of the giants of Israel at that time raised an outcry against this custom, but they had no one to listen to them. This custom spread so much that for about two generations before us, they did not speak of this matter at all, and this custom spread in all the provinces, and there is no one who knows any other custom. Any shochet u-vodek who is unable to peel the sircha well is not called by the name of a craftsman, and they teach themselves this craft. In our time, and also in the generation before us, these matters—that there was an outcry regarding this issue—were almost forgotten, and everyone believes that according to the essence of the law, it is so. The giants of Israel began to search for merit and to provide correct reasons for this custom:

And behold, after the experience has been verified by thousands and tens of thousands who removed the sirchot and they did not leak during the inspection, and according to the method of Rashi that there is no sircha without a hole, it must necessarily follow that if it were a complete sircha, it would leak. And you must say one of two things: either that we are not expert in the removal of the sircha, for in truth it has not yet been entirely removed but we believe it was entirely removed and are mistaken in this; or that it was entirely removed and in truth it leaks, but we are not expert in the inspection and we believe that it does not leak. And behold, this matter requires no contradiction, for even if we say that we are not expert, do we not also have eyes and are not blind? And the examination is in one specific place. For do not hundreds and thousands of shochetim and bodekim perform acts every day and at every moment and every hour, and they see that the lung is clean and beautiful and whole? And it is simple that this is not a sircha at all, for if it were a sircha it would leak, as we indeed see with our senses that a complete sircha, when one begins to detach it, immediately leaks [Tiferet Tzvi, section 64, by the Gaon, our teacher, Rabbi Tzvi of Glogau].

And it is true that according to the opinion of the Tosafot, that it is destined to detach and for the time being there is no perforation here, behold there is no proof from the fact that it does not bubble; nevertheless, we can say that the custom was established based on the opinion of Rashi. Furthermore, even according to the opinion of the Tosafot, regarding all sirkhot where the second end is in another location outside of the lung, this custom is well-settled even according to their opinion. For since their reasoning is that it is destined to detach and anything that is standing to be perforated is considered as if it were perforated, this does not apply when the second end is to the chest wall or to the fat of the heart and the like. For from where do we know that it will detach from the side of the lung? Perhaps it will detach from the other side. And granted that the lung is more prone to detaching, nevertheless, it is not certain that it will detach from the side of the lung, and there is no certain prohibition in this, but rather a doubt, and in a doubt, we also are experts [ibid.].

Furthermore, the incident of "Reinuss" is known among the poskim, where there was a skin spread over the lung and they peeled it off, and the lung was found to be whole and they declared it kosher. And it is certain that the membrane is not formed all at once, but rather begins to form a membrane little by little until it forms a membrane over the entire lung. If so, whenever they peel the sircha and it is peeled from upon the surface of the lung, this is nothing other than a membrane that began to form, and because of this it is peeled from the lung. For if it were a complete sircha attached to the body of the lung, it would not be peeled. Indeed, what difference is it to me if there is a membrane over the entire lung or a membrane over part of it? Since it was separated from it by peeling, it is not categorized as a sircha but rather as a membrane and a garment, and the membranes come from the external fluids [Beit Asher siman 126 in the name of his uncle the Gaon, our teacher, the Rosh].

However, this reason applies only to a wide sircha that is like a membrane, and it is certainly a correct reason, for indeed we have seen in the books of the earlier authorities that they called it a wide sircha when it is as wide as a finger, and at most two fingers [see the Beit Yosef]. It appears from this that the majority of our sirchot which are very wide, perhaps they did not call them by the name sircha but rather by the name membrane. But regarding sirchot that are like thin or thick threads, the incident of Reinus does not apply to this, as is understood. But this we see with our senses: that sirchot that extend like threads are difficult to peel, and for the most part, if they were peeled, they would leak, as they are true sirchot. And the sirchot that are like membranes spread over the lung, for the most part they are peeled very well. And so too those that extend like thin threads and are peeled easily, it is recognizable that they are merely mucus. And this matter is perceived by the senses: that sirchot like threads, if it is a sircha, it is well-rooted, and it is impossible in any way to peel it such that it will not leak. And these are true sirchot, for indeed many animals are rendered treif because of them, and all these matters we see in practice every day.

Furthermore, when we reflect, this is exactly the second custom that was explained in section 108, which was established with the consent of the sages, namely, that in the middle of the sirka it was done through rubbing and the rest they peeled; see there. And what benefit is this, and who told them that the middle is the source of the sirka and the rest is nothing but an expansion? Perhaps the source of the sirka is not in the middle, and it turns out that they also peeled the source of the sirka. And we have heard from expert checkers that the peeling practiced among us is more permissible than the rubbing of ancient times. The end of the matter: Heaven forbid, Heaven forbid to say that the majority of Israel stumble in a prohibition, Heaven forbid, and it is not pleasing to their Master that you say this about them; and anyone who advocates well for Israel, the Holy One, Blessed be He, also appoints for him good advocates and defenders.

However, it is certainly necessary to remove the sirka entirely so that no shred remains of it, and afterwards to inflate it and check it with saliva or lukewarm water; if it does not bubble, it is kosher. Nevertheless, there are many who do not eat because of a sirka, for regarding all the leniencies, it is required that the checkers be God-fearing, as it is known that butchers, even if they are upright men, are nonetheless anxious over their money, and especially in our time when the loss is very great when the animal is rendered treifah, and they will entice and rebuke the shochet. Therefore, the shochet must be God-fearing and of great heart so as not to listen to the one standing at his right hand to hinder him.

The Acharonim wrote that sometimes there are pendulous growths on the lung, which are common in the lower parts, and it is not a sirka at all and is not called a defect, and it is recognizable to the experts. They further wrote that sometimes there is found on the lung a growth called a "shlufrok" or a froth called "shoim"; one must peel it and see if the lung beneath them is whole and beautiful and if it rises properly during inflation. And if he did not check it through inflation, it is to be forbidden, for it is sometimes common that there are punctures in the lung and because of this the "shlufrok" arose upon it. They further wrote that if at the time of opening the diaphragm a stream of water spurted from within, one must turn the animal on its side and pour out the water and afterwards check the lung to see if it rises during inflation. And there is no difference between turbid water and clear water. And most times it is common, when there is water inside it, that punctures will be found in the lung in a place where there are red spots, and likewise it is common for there to be dryness in the lung when there is water inside it; therefore, one is obligated to check for this [Beit Ephraim siman 162]. And the laws of "two defects" we have explained with the help of Heaven in siman 37, and there we wrote our opinion on this, see there. And know that there are times when a wide, thick, and long sirka rises from the lung to other places, and from within the sirka there rise vein-like structures full of blood, and the sirka peels away well and remains clean and pure without any oozing of blood, and it appears to the eye that this is like a membrane spread over the sirka from another place, and from there it rose upon it in the form of veins full of blood to the appearance of the eye; the shochet should ask a wise man's question, and according to the appearance of their eyes the sage shall judge. And it is impossible to detail everything in writing, and the sage and the expert shochet will understand what these are. And if they understand that this is not from the lung itself, it is to be permitted in a case of great loss. Give to a wise man and he will become yet wiser, for the matters of the lung are varied, and all that is written in books cannot depict all the various new occurrences that may happen in it. And one needs much expertise in this, and a fountain of wisdom, and the help of G-d so as not to stumble into a prohibition, Heaven forbid, and to have pity on the property of Israel.