Siman 40

The heart has three cavities: one large one in the middle, one small one on its right, and one small one on its left. If it was perforated into one of the cavities, it is a terefah. However, if the perforation did not reach the cavity, even if it reached near the cavity, it is kosher [Tosafot, beginning of the third chapter]. And similarly, even if it was perforated from one side to the other, as long as it is not into the cavity—for example, if it was perforated in the flesh of the heart that precedes the cavity—it is kosher [Ran on the Mishnah of "And these are kosher"]:

And know that the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote that the heart has three chambers, but the Rambam and the Bartenura in the commentary on the Mishnah wrote that the heart has two chambers, see there. And Rashi, Chullin 45b, wrote that it has many small rooms around the large opening. And there is one who wishes to establish a dispute between the poskim [Tevuat Shor and Pri Megadim], but it is not so, for how is a dispute possible regarding physical reality? However, according to what we have examined and seen, the matter is as follows: around the large chamber there are four chambers, but two of the chambers are actually one, meaning that only from above is there a membrane spread between them that separates one from the other, and below the membrane they are one chamber. And at the beginning of the chamber there is a chamber larger than them into the large middle chamber, and they are literally as one with the large chamber. Furthermore, there is one chamber that is a chamber unto itself, and only at the bottom of the chamber does it pour into the large chamber. And there is yet another chamber that is hollow unto itself from its beginning to its end and does not pour into the large chamber. Therefore, they do not disagree regarding the din; rather, Rashi took according to the appearance of the eye from above, that there are many chambers around the large chamber. And the Rambam did not count except for the small chamber that does not pour at all into the large one, for the remaining three are as one with the large chamber. And the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch count also the chamber that at its bottom pours into the large one, since until its bottom it is a chamber unto itself. But the two that only have a membrane spread between them and immediately open into the large chamber, they do not count, for they are literally one with the large chamber. And know that there appear there other very thin chambers, but this is not a chamber; rather, they are from the arteries and the tubes [according to what I have written, the difficulty of the Pleiti, subsection 1, regarding the Rosh is answered, see there and examine closely].

Regarding which cavity, if it is perforated, it is a certain terefah: there is one who wishes to say that if it was perforated into the small ones it is only a doubtful terefah, but it is not so. And so it is clear from the wording of our teachers, the Rishonim, that there is no difference between a perforation into the large cavity and a perforation into the small cavity. And so the great Acharonim agreed [the Kereti U-Peleti, Tevuot Shor, and Pri Megadim]. And even though from the wording of the Shas [45b] it implies somewhat that the small cavity is a doubt, see there, nevertheless they agreed that according to the conclusion it is a certain terefah. [And it requires further study, for Rava inquired about it and he is the one who refuted Abaye, see there; behold it remains in doubt. And in my humble opinion it appears that the whole matter is from the words of Abaye, and this is the explanation: Abaye said to him, "What is your inquiry?"—meaning, according to your view that it is not proven from the wording, what is your inquiry? Rather, it is certainly proven from the wording; since it did not teach "to the house of the cavities," learn from this that they are all equal. And so it is now, Abaye said it. And there is similar to this in the Shas, Shabbat 101a, "Is it comparable etc." according to Rashi's commentary there.]

It is a known matter that regarding any puncture that renders [the animal] treif, if permitted fat plugs the puncture, it is as if it were not punctured and it is kosher, as will be explained in siman 46, because permitted fat adheres well and plugs effectively. And behold, upon the heart there are two types of permitted fat: the first is the fat that grows on the heart itself across its width above, and the second is called the tarfasha de-liba, which is the sac in which the heart is placed and is made like a hat. And regarding this fat, our sages, of blessed memory, said [49b] that it does not plug the puncture, for because it is made like a hat, it does not adhere well and is not an effective plugging [Ran]. However, the fat that grows on the heart itself constitutes a plugging, for it adheres well [Beit Yosef].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that there are those who say that the sealing of the fat of the heart is not effective, as is stated nearby at the end of this siman, and one should be concerned for their words. Thus far his words. And his intention is from what will be explained there, that when a speck of blood is found in the thickness of the heart it is treifah, and the sealing of the fat is not effective. And in truth, there is no proof from there; first, because one can say that even there it deals with the membrane of the heart [Bach and Taz, subsection 2]. Furthermore, even if it deals there with the fat of the heart itself, behold there one must be concerned lest the fat was also perforated opposite it, just as there is a concern in the flesh of the heart, and the fat is no better than the flesh where we concern ourselves that it is entirely perforated [Tevuat Shor, subsection 3]. But the Rambam wrote in chapter 6, law 10, that the fat of the heart does not seal, see there. And so it is implied in the Bahag, who wrote: Fat that is made like a hat does not seal, etc., the fat of the membrane of the heart, and from here we declare treifah regarding the fat of the heart. Thus far his words. That is to say, since the membrane does not seal, we declare treifah also regarding all fat of the heart, for its sealing is not effective for the perforation just as the membrane is not effective. And the reason is that all fat of the heart is one, for they lie together, and the nature of this fat is that it will not seal the perforation well. And since the Bahag and the Rambam hold so, it is simple that one should not be lenient. And in a bird, the fat of the heart certainly seals.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote: If it was perforated but it did not reach the cavity, if it is due to illness it is kosher, and if by a thorn or a needle it is terefah. Thus far his words. For even a needle found in the body cavity that is not embedded anywhere is terefah [Tur]. And it is not kosher unless it is evident that it is due to illness; but if there is a doubt whether it is by way of illness or by way of a thorn or needle, it is terefah. Even if a thorn or needle is not found before us, as long as there is a doubt that this perforation on the outer side is not due to illness, it is terefah [Perishah]. And there is one who wishes to permit in a case of doubt of illness or doubt of a thorn or needle based on a double doubt: perhaps it was by way of illness, and if you say it was by way of a thorn or needle, perhaps it did not perforate one of the organs in which a perforation disqualifies it [Chiddushei HaGershuni and as is implied in the Shach, subsection 4]. And the first opinion appears primary, and it is not similar to a perforation in the gizzard which is kosher in a case of doubt of illness or doubt of a thorn, as will be explained in siman 49. For there we are dealing with a bird, and most birds have a crop; therefore, even if we say that most swallowed items pass through the esophagus and necessarily perforated a place where a perforation disqualifies it, nevertheless one can say perhaps it exited through the crop in a place where a perforation does not disqualify it. But in an animal, where the skin is whole from the outside and most swallowed items pass through the esophagus, it necessarily perforated a place where a perforation disqualifies, and there is no double doubt here [Pri Megadim in Shiftei Da'at, ibid.]. And such is the primary ruling [and I wonder that they did not mention at all the words of the Perishah who renders it terefah in a case of doubt]. However, if the thorn was embedded before us from the outside and it struck the heart but did not perforate to the cavity, it should be permitted as written in siman 51 [ibid.].

The law of a needle found in the heart that did not reach the cavity was not explained in the Gemara as the law of a needle found in the liver or in the lung was explained. However, the Bahag explained this law and the Tur brought it, and this is his wording: A needle that is found in the heart, even though it did not perforate, it is treifah. And these words apply when it is found in the large vessel of the heart on the inside, for it has no place to exit; and when the head is facing downward, for as it moves it will certainly perforate, and it is treifah. But if the eye is facing downward, such that it only enters the large vessel, we suspend the judgment, for perhaps while coughing she expelled it, and we do not presume a prohibition that it exited from there and perforated another place. Thus far his words. And many interpretations were said regarding this [see Beit Yosef, Bach, Perisha, Yam Shel Shlomo section 12, Taz subsection 4, and Pri Megadim]:

And in my humble opinion, it appears that this is the explanation: for behold, regarding the explanation of "the eye-end outward" and "the eye-end inward" stated in the Gemara concerning the liver, there are two explanations, as will be explained in siman 41. The Ba'al HaHalachot Gedolot holds according to the explanation of the Rif, the Rambam, and the Rashba that will be explained there, that "outward" is called toward the side of the head and "inward" is called toward the side of the body cavity. For he holds that we do not fear that it entered through the esophagus, but rather it entered through the trachea. Therefore, with the eye-end outward it is treifah, for since it traveled with the point downward, we fear lest during its travel it perforated one of the organs; and with the eye-end inward it is kosher, for with the eye-end it does not have the ability to perforate [and so wrote the Taz there and the Bach in the second approach, see there].

The Bahag is dealing with a case where the needle was found in one of the bronchi and is embedded in the flesh of the heart but did not reach the cavity. This is what he means when he says: "when it is found in the bronchus of the heart internally, where it has no place to exit," meaning that it was found in one of the bronchi and is embedded within the flesh of the heart and cannot exit from there, and the head of the needle is downward, meaning toward the side of the body cavity, which is "eyelet outward" according to his interpretation as I have written. And since it traveled with the point, we fear that perhaps in the course of its travel it perforated until the cavity, and here it is impossible to check like a lung, where we check by means of inflation as I wrote in siman 36, section 77, for regarding the heart inflation is not applicable, and therefore it is terefah in such a case. But "eyelet downward," meaning that the thick side is toward the side of the body cavity, which is according to his interpretation "eyelet inward," it is kosher. And he explains the reason: that since it traveled with the eyelet, it must have traveled through the large bronchus, for in another place it could not have entered with the eyelet, as we do not fear that perhaps it traveled through the esophagus, but rather we say that it traveled through the trachea to the large bronchus, which is a wide place. And as for it being found now in another bronchus and embedded in the flesh, we attribute it to the fact that through coughing it entered from the large bronchus to this bronchus and became embedded in the flesh, for such is the way of coughing, to eject a swallowed object from place to place. And if you say that if so, let us fear that perhaps through coughing it exited from the large bronchus and perforated until the cavity and returned backward to where it is found now, to this he says that we do not presume a prohibition, to fear that it exited from there, meaning from the large bronchus, and perforated another place until the cavity; rather we say that just as it is found now, so it was previously, that it entered from the large bronchus into the other bronchus and became embedded slightly in the flesh and did not reach the cavity [so it appears to my humble opinion clearly, and I do not know why our teachers labored over this].

And behold, the Rashba, of blessed memory, in his book the short Torat HaBayit, wrote simply: A needle found in the heart is terefah, see there. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book, wondered why he did not distinguish according to the words of the Bahag, which he himself cited in the long Torat HaBayit. And according to what I have written, it is simply settled; for since according to the Bahag it is terefah when its point is downward, for this is "the eyelet is outside" as I have written, and according to Rashi it is terefah when its point is upward, for this is "the eyelet is outside" according to the explanation of Rashi, and the reason is that we concern ourselves that perhaps it entered through the esophagus as I wrote in siman 41. Therefore, even though regarding the liver the Rashba agreed not according to the explanation of Rashi as I wrote there, nevertheless regarding the heart, where the concern is not found in the Gemara, even according to the explanation of Rashi one should be stringent. Furthermore, the Rashba himself wrote regarding the liver that we are not experts in distinguishing between a thin needle and a thick needle, and therefore it is automatically terefah in every case, for with a thin needle there is no difference between "the eyelet is outside" and "the eyelet is inside" as I wrote there. And for the law, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, also ruled so, for he wrote in section 3: If a needle is found in the heart, even though it is not visible from the outside, it is terefah; and the same applies if it is found in the pericardium. Thus far his words.

And behold, a needle found in the heart is a case of doubtful terefah, as has been explained. And when it is found in the pericardium, he wrote in his great book that it is a certain terefah, for whichever way you look at it: if it came from the heart, then the heart was perforated and it is a terefah; and if it came from the outside, it is a needle found in the body cavity. And he wondered about the Rashba, who wrote that it is a doubtful terefah, and he answered that it is because a needle found in the body cavity is also only a doubtful terefah, for perhaps it perforated one of the internal organs, see there. And it seems to me that even if it came from the heart, it is also only a doubtful terefah, for who says that it came through the cavity of the heart? Perhaps it came through the heart below the cavities, for in such a case, even if it was perforated from side to side, it is kosher, as I wrote in section 1.

And according to what we have explained, the Ba'al HaHalachot Gedolot is only dealing with a case where it was found in some tube and embedded in the flesh of the heart; but if it was found in the large tube of the heart, it is kosher in any event, just as when found in the large tube of the lung it is kosher, as was written in siman 36 there, for the heart and the lung are both in one place near the neck, and it is not similar to the liver which hangs below and is far from the neck [and so wrote the Taz there].

However, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 3, and this is his wording: Nevertheless, if it was found only in the large bronchus of the heart and the eye is outward, that is, toward the cavity of the heart, if the head of the needle is like a date stone it is kosher, for we suspend that it entered through the windpipe into the bronchus of the heart, and since its head is downward it is not destined to puncture and the animal will discharge it through coughing and expectoration. Thus far his words. And he wrote this based on his words in his book Darkei Moshe, where he explained that this was the intention of the Bahag—that what he wrote, "but if the eye is downward, that it only entered the large bronchus etc.," his intention was that he only declares it kosher in such a case where the eye is outward and it is found in the large bronchus, but if the eye is inward it is terefah even in the large bronchus, for the reason that when the point is downward there is concern that as it moves it will puncture; and even though it has not yet punctured, since it is destined to puncture, it is as if it were punctured. See there. And these matters are very puzzling, to declare it terefah for this reason, and our teacher, the Beit Yosef, already wondered at this in his great book, as did other great authorities. And this is not similar to a sircha that is not in its order according to the approach of the Tosafot, where the terefah status is because it is destined to puncture, for there the illness has already begun, as I wrote in siman 39, which is not the case here. However, in practice, we must not transgress the words of our teacher, the Rema [and so ruled the Bach and the Shach in sub-section 6, while the Taz declares it kosher, see there in sub-section 4]. And a needle that was thrust into the chest wall and is stuck in the heart will be explained in siman 51.

There was an incident in ancient times where a bone was found inside the heart of an ox, and the sages of the generation declared it kosher. Their reasoning was because such is found in the heart of a deer; when the blood hardens, it becomes a bone, and it is possible that this may also occasionally be found in a domestic animal [Bach]. However, there is reason to doubt this. Firstly, even in a deer, if it is positioned in a manner that a needle would cause a prohibition due to it being destined to perforate, what does it benefit us that it was formed from the blood of the heart? Ultimately, it is destined to perforate [Taz]. And according to the opinion of our teacher, the Rema, as has been explained, anything that is destined to perforate is treifah [Pri Megadim]. Furthermore, how can we learn from a deer regarding an ox [Taz]?

Regarding the law, the great later authorities concluded that if a bone is found in the cavity of the heart, if it is black or red, one can say it was formed from the blood of the animal and it is kosher in all animals; we do not say that it will eventually perforate, for since it is of its own kind, the expelling force does not reject it. If it is white, it should not be permitted except in a deer. However, if it is found in the thickness of the meat of the heart, then it appears that it has been so since its creation in order to strengthen the heart, and one should be lenient even in other animals. However, if they see that the bone has points and sharp edges, these things indicate that it is a bone from elsewhere and it is terefah [Pri Chadash, Tevuot Shor, and Pri Megadim]. If there is a doubt whether it is a bone or congealed blood, they should place it in lukewarm water for twenty-four hours or more, and if some of it dissolves, it is a sign that it is blood and it is kosher [Tevuot Shor]. There was an incident where a wide, thin, and somewhat long bone was found in the meat of the heart in the shape of a knife, and it was attached such that it was impossible to separate it, and it was evident that it was created so; the butchers testified that it is sometimes found so in large cattle, and they declared it kosher [ibid. in the name of Lechem HaPanim]. There was an incident regarding the heart of a rooster that had a covering full of water upon it and the entire heart was inside it, and they peeled it and there was no perforation in it, and they declared it kosher [Pri Chadash]. When two hearts are found it is terefah, for "anything extra is considered as if it were missing." Similarly, when bruises and wounds are found on the meat of the heart, if it does not reach the cavity, it is kosher; one must cut the meat until the cavity to see if the meat is spoiled and decayed until the cavity, it is terefah, and if not, it is kosher.

The large artery of the heart has the same law as the heart to be forbidden by any amount when it is perforated. And what is the large artery of the heart? According to the opinion of the Rashba and the Tur, it is the fat that is upon the walls of the cavity. And according to the opinion of the Rambam, it is the large vessel that goes out from it to the lung. And we have already explained at the end of siman 34 that this is the fat that descends between the cavities of the lung, which the heart is suspended by and goes from above to below. The butchers call this the "wick" or "candle," and it is permitted fat that descends from behind the trachea until the end of the cavities of the lung, and it is hollow; see there. And there it was explained that it is common for there to be thin perforations in it, and that is its natural growth; see there.

If the heart was removed, whether by hand or by disease, it is terefah. The Rambam, of blessed memory, in the enumeration of the terefot that he counted in chapter 10, did not count the removal of the heart, because the category of terefot is only relevant to something where it is nevertheless possible for the living creature to live for some time, such as when the intestines or the lung or the heart were perforated. But regarding something where it would not live even a single moment without this organ, such as the removal of the heart—since the life of any living creature cannot be imagined without a heart—this is not included in the category of terefot, and it is like a complete nevelah [Kesef Mishneh there, Halakhah 9]. And the reason he did not count it among the nevelot is because it is obvious that once the heart is removed, it is completely dead, and this is the primary definition of nevelah [Aruch LaNer, subsection 4; and according to what I wrote it is well-settled, and delve into it].

An incident occurred with a certain girl who opened a chicken to remove the intestines, and a cat was standing near her. The girl said that she did not find a heart in the chicken, and the mistress of the house said that certainly the cat snatched the heart, and the girl surely did not notice when the heart fell to the ground. The greats of the generation declared it kosher on the grounds that it is a remote thing that a living creature would not have a heart, and we hang the matter even on a remote reality. However, if witnesses testify that they saw the opening of the chicken and no heart was found, there is nothing after the testimony of witnesses, and the chicken is treifah. Even though this is a strange thing, nevertheless, "by the mouth of two witnesses shall a matter be established." However, regarding the shape of the heart, one need not be particular; and even if it is not like its natural shape, nevertheless it is kosher, and we have not found in the Gemara or in the poskim that the shape of the heart is a hindrance [so it appears to me, and see the Keneset HaGedolah there, for it implies thus also from the words of the physicians, see there, and his words require further study, and delve into it].

The Mordekhai wrote [first chapter of Chullin]: It happened that they brought before the Ra'avyah a case where the fat of the heart was very, very attached to the heart and strongly fastened to it, and he cut the fat from the heart with a knife at the place where it was attached and did not see any defect on the outside of the heart at the place where it was attached. Afterward, he cut at the place where it was attached until the cavity and saw in the thickness of the heart, but not in its cavity, a small speck of blood, and he prohibited it. Thus far his words. And it appears to me that this is the explanation: even though all fat is attached to the meat beneath it, nevertheless, this attachment was unusual in a way that the attachment proved that the fat had become fused to the meat of the heart due to some cause. He cut the fat and did not see any defect on the meat from the outside, but when he cut into the thickness of the meat inside, he saw a speck of blood, and the speck of blood reached until the cavity but not in the cavity itself, and he declared it treifah because the speck of blood testifies to a perforation. Since it reached until the cavity, even though the speck of blood was not seen in the cavity itself, nevertheless, since it reached until the cavity, it is a certain treifah. And certainly so if the speck of blood had been seen in the cavity itself; that is to say, even though the entire cavity of the heart is full of blood, nevertheless, it is not like a speck of blood, for a speck of blood is clotted blood due to a wound. In that case, we would not have needed to examine the thickness of the meat since it reached the cavity itself, but because here it did not reach the cavity itself, he was forced to cut through the entire thickness of the meat.

And based on this, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 6: There is one who says that if the fat of the heart is attached to the heart and very tight, one separates it with a knife, and if a speck of blood is found there or in the thickness of the heart, it is treifah, and it goes without saying if it is found in its cavity. Thus far his words. And his intention is also both where the speck of blood is found in the fat and descends until the cavity, and where it is not found there but the speck of blood is found in the thickness of the heart and descends until the cavity, like that incident of the Ra'avyah, it is treifah. And certainly if the speck of blood is found in its cavity, for then there is no need to examine the thickness of the meat as I have written. The commentators of the Shulchan Aruch understood his intention to be that the speck of blood did not reach until the cavity, and they wondered about him [see Shach subsection 7, and Pri Chadash, and Tevuot Shor]. In my humble opinion, it seems clear from the source of the law that the intention is that it reached until the cavity, since it says "and he saw in the thickness of the heart and not in its cavity" etc. And if you were to think that it did not reach until the cavity, it should have said "and it did not reach until the cavity." Rather, it is certain that it reached until the cavity and not in the cavity itself, and therefore he ruled it treifah. They also raised a difficulty: is not the entire cavity of the heart full of blood, and what is this that he says, "and it goes without saying if it is found in its cavity" [Shach ibid.]? But we have already explained that a speck of blood is a different matter, and so wrote the later authorities.

According to what the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch understood, he ruled it treif even if the clot of blood did not reach the cavity, and they wondered at this. There is one who answered that this is the reason: since the clot of blood is found in the middle and is not visible from the outside, this necessarily means that the affliction took hold from the outside, and the proof is from the fact that we see the fat was very much attached; rather, it is certain that a membrane formed on the outside and healed and is not visible. We have a great principle that a membrane that formed due to a wound is not a valid sealing. If so, we fear that perhaps the wound also took hold toward the side of the cavity and a membrane formed over it and it healed. But if the clot of blood is visible from the outside and not from the inside, it is kosher. Likewise, if there was no deficiency from the attachment of the fat and a clot of blood was found in its middle, and the clot of blood is visible neither from the outside nor from the inside, or if it is visible from the outside and not from the inside, it is kosher [Tevu'ot Shor, subsection 5]. This requires further study regarding the law, and in practice, it is difficult to be lenient against the great Acharonim.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: If blood was collected within the thickness of the meat, it is like a speck of blood and is treifah. Thus far his words. This is when it is recognizable that the blood was collected due to a wound, as written in siman 67. According to this, even if the meat is exceedingly red and it is recognizable that the blood is collected within it, this is like blood being collected [Ran, Perek Gid HaNasheh]. If it is recognizable that it is due to a wound, it is treifah. It appears to me that all of this is when it reached the cavity, as I wrote previously. It is possible that whoever holds that a speck of blood is treifah even if it did not reach the cavity, as written in the previous section, it is possible that in the case of collected blood he also renders it treifah in such a case, and it requires further study. [And know that there are those who wrote that the incident of the Raviah was regarding the pericardium, but this is not necessary, for the matter is simple as I wrote in section 19, and reflect on this].