Siman 41

A puncture does not render the liver prohibited; even if it is full of punctures from one side to the other, it is kosher. It is not prohibited unless it is entirely removed. Thus the sages taught in the Mishnah [54a]: If the liver was removed and an olive's bulk of it remained, it is kosher. However, an olive's bulk does not suffice in every part of the liver's span, for the reason that an olive's bulk suffices is explained in the Tosefta [Chapter 3]: because through this, the entire liver will heal; see there. Therefore, we require that the olive's bulk remain in the place upon which the primary vitality of the liver depends. Our sages, of blessed memory, disagreed [46a] regarding this: for there is one who says the olive's bulk must remain in the place of the gall bladder, and there is one who says it must be in the place from which it lives. Rashi, the Rif, the Rambam, and the Ba'al HaHalachot Gedolot explained that this is the place of its suspension where it is attached and joined beneath the kidneys. The halacha was decided in the Gemara [ibid.] that we require both of these olive's bulks. Some say that "the place from which it lives" is the place of its suspension to the diaphragm [Rashi in another version, Rabbenu Yerucham, and the Rokeach; see the Beit Yosef]. Accordingly, for us, due to the doubt, we require these three olive's bulks.

This measure applies even to a large ox and also to a small ox, and even regarding small livestock it is not effective with less than this measure. However, regarding a bird, the Tur wrote that everything is according to its size and smallness, see there, and so wrote the Shulchan Aruch. And it appears to me that this is the explanation: that regarding a large bird, one certainly requires this measure, but regarding a small bird, this measure is not applicable. And so it implies explicitly in the Teshuvot Maimoni, who wrote, and this is his wording: However, regarding a small bird, this measure is not applicable. Thus far his words. [In the laws of Ma'achalot Assurot, section 6]. And according to this, regarding large birds such as geese and the turkey bird that is called "Indik," their measure is like livestock, and only regarding a rooster and a hen do we measure with a small measure according to the proportion of livestock. But it seems to me that we do not instruct so, and so it implies from the responsa of the later authorities, that regarding every species of bird we do not require this measure.

And also in every place where it is mentioned that regarding a bird the measure is according to its size and smallness, such as in siman 20 and in siman 34, the explanation is that even in a large bird it is not like the measure of an animal, as is explained there. Therefore, it appears that here too this is the explanation: that even in the largest bird one must measure according to the proportion of a large animal, and in a small bird even less than this. And that which we brought from the Teshuvot Maimoni, it must be said that this is the explanation: "However, in a small bird," meaning a bird that is small relative to an animal, this measure is not applicable, and he is speaking of every species of bird. According to this, it can be said that in a small animal one also does not need this measure, for we measure according to the proportion of the measure of a large ox. And this requires further deliberation [see Kreti U'Pleti subsection 4 who wrote that according to the Rosh and the Tur it is so, and see Tevuot Shor subsection 5].

It is a clear matter that the terefah of the liver being removed is a terefah in its own right and not because of the absence of the gall bladder. This is not only according to the poskim who permit in a case where the gall bladder was removed or when two gall bladders were found [Teshuvot Maimoni ibid. in the name of Rabbeinu Tam and the Ra'avyah, see there], but even according to those who forbid when the gall bladder is removed; nevertheless, when the liver is removed, its terefah is due to itself. For it is explicitly proven in the Shas [48a] which says regarding a gall bladder that was perforated and the liver was perforated opposite it that it is a terefah, and even so, it does not teach it because the terefah is not due to itself, see there. It is explicitly explained that the terefah of the liver being removed is a terefah in its own right. Our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, wrote similarly [beginning of chapter Elu Terefot] that when all the flesh of the liver is removed, even though the sinews of the liver and the tubes upon which the gall bladder is suspended remained with the gall bladder, it is a terefah, see there. Consequently, the terefah is not because of the gall bladder, and automatically, that which we require a remnant of two olive-bulks as has been written, the remnant must be from the flesh of the liver itself, and one does not join the sinews of the liver and the tubes to this. This is also implied by the wording of all the poskim, and such is our established ruling.

And there is further proof for this from the words of the Rambam, who wrote at the end of chapter 6 that any organ that was perforated is treifah, and likewise if it was entirely removed or was created missing it is treifah, and therefore a missing gallbladder is treifah, see there. And at the end of chapter 8 he wrote that any organ of which they said if it was removed it is treifah, this is specifically when it was removed afterward, but when it was created missing it is kosher, see there. And therefore, when it was created without a liver it is kosher, and this will be explained in siman 50 with the help of Heaven, as there is a dispute of the poskim regarding this. However, according to the Rambam it is clear that when it was created missing the liver it is kosher, and missing the gallbladder it is treifah. And if so, one must say that what he permits in the case of a missing liver is when the gallbladder is present, and in such a case where the liver was removed he renders it treifah even though the gallbladder is present; behold, it is explicitly clear that this is a treifut in its own right.

Therefore, that which the Rashba, of blessed memory, wrote in Torat HaBayit [4:29], and this is his wording: And if the animal was created without a liver, it also lacks the gallbladder, and our entire prohibition when the whole liver is removed is only due to the absence of the gallbladder. Thus far his words. And for this reason, he challenged the ruling of the Rambam that we cited; see there. And these words are astonishing, for is it not possible to find a case where the flesh of the liver is missing while the gallbladder remains and is suspended by the sinews and vessels of the liver? And what does one have to do with the other? Furthermore, according to his words, in species that do not have a gallbladder, the removal of the liver would not render it prohibited; and it is impossible to say this, for if so, the Gemara should have explained this. And also, one cannot say that he holds that the primary vitality of the liver depends on the sinews and vessels upon which the gallbladder is suspended, and even in species that do not have a gallbladder, nevertheless, they possess the sinews and vessels, and therefore the removal of the liver applies to them as well—meaning that the sinews and vessels were removed. For it is impossible to say this, because if so, why did the sages require that two olive-bulks of flesh remain, since the vitality does not depend on the flesh? Rather, it is certain that the vitality depends on these two olive-bulks, and if so, even if the sinews and vessels remain, nevertheless, when these two olive-bulks do not remain, it is treifah. And if so, what connection is there to the absence of the gallbladder? And this requires great study. [However, regarding what we questioned from the Gemara (48a), one who examines the Chiddushei HaRashba there will see that he did not have that version of the text in the Gemara, for he wrote that if the gallbladder was perforated and the liver was perforated opposite it, it is kosher; see there. And the Pri Megadim in Siftei Da’at, subsection 1, pressured himself unnecessarily; and reflect on this.]

These two kazeit sizes must each be a complete kazeit in its place, but when the kazeit is not in one place but rather gathered, a half kazeit here and a half kazeit there, even if both are in the place of the gallbladder or in the place of vitality, or even if it is in one place but is not in its natural form, such as if it is like a strip, meaning long and thin, or if it is flattened and hammered out, meaning very wide and thin in its thickness like hammered metal sheets, and even if one kazeit is proper and the second is not in its natural form, it is also terefah [Levush], and so it is for us regarding three kazeit sizes.

And know that this which was explained in the previous section is a question that was not resolved in the Gemara [46a]. All the poskim ruled stringently, and I have a question regarding this: for behold, the question of "gathered" and "like a strip" appears first, and afterwards it asks regarding "thinned," see there. Rashi explained that "thinned" is worse than "a strip," and if so, it must be that it asks it as an "if you will say" that in the case of "a strip" it is kosher, for if not so, since "like a strip" is treifah, all the more so in the case of "thinned." We have a general rule from the Geonim that when the Shas says "if you will say," this is a resolution of the previous point. According to this, we should have ruled in the case of "a strip" and "gathered" leniently. It must be because here the Shas does not explicitly state this language of "if you will say," or that all the poskim do not explain that "thinned" is worse than "a strip." Perhaps it is because of this that the Rambam wrote in chapter 8 regarding these laws that it appears to him that it is forbidden, and they wondered about him why he hung this on his own opinion, for is it not a question that was not resolved? According to our words it is well, and his intention was regarding "gathered" and "like a strip" [however, the Beit Yosef also settled this because from the essential law one kezayit is sufficient, and therefore it is possible that it is like a double doubt; and the Lechem Mishneh answered that he follows his own reasoning that in all treifot, aside from "trampled," there are doubts that are permitted, see there].

There is one who says that regarding the olive-sized portion in the place of vitality—concerning which there are two interpretations, whether it is in the place where it hangs by the kidneys or in the diaphragm, as written in section 1—if one of these is whole and the second is shredded, one should permit it based on the reasoning of a double doubt [Kereiti U-Peleiti sub-section 3]. However, since most of the poskim agreed that this is in the place of the kidneys, it is impossible to be lenient regarding it; however, regarding the second olive-sized portion in the place of the diaphragm, one may be lenient [Pri Megadim sub-section 1]. And such is the primary ruling. And know that in those species that do not have a gall bladder, it is sufficient even ab initio with the measure of these two olive-sized portions proportionally, and there is no need for the proportion of three olive-sized portions [ibid. in Shiftei Da'at sub-section 1]. And the measure of an olive is known to be a dispute among the Rishonim, whether it is like a third of an egg or like half an egg, and it is obvious that one must be stringent here to require like half an egg, for this is a doubt regarding a Torah law.

It is stated in the Gemara [ibid.] that when these olives have become loose but are attached by the membranes, it is kosher. Rashi explained that this is the meaning: that it was uprooted in many places and is attached by the membranes, a little here and a little there, see there. And such is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 5, who wrote: If the liver was uprooted in many places and is attached by their membranes, a little here and a little there, it is kosher. Thus far his words. And the explanation of the matter is this: that the entire liver is whole, but it was uprooted from its source in the place where it ought to be suspended, and it is suspended only by the membranes, which is the inferior place. Nevertheless, since it is in its wholeness, and the locations of the olives are also in their wholeness within the essence of the liver, we are not concerned by the fact that these olives are not suspended in their place. And that which they wrote, "that it was uprooted in many places," this is because such is the language of "looseness," as in Sukkah [22a], "a loose sukkah," meaning that the sechach is a little here and a little there, and so too here. But the primary intention is that the liver is not attached in its proper place in its entirety.

The Rambam wrote in chapter 8: If the liver was loosened and it is attached to its diaphragm, it is permitted. Thus far his words. And similar to this is the wording of the Tur, see there. And their intention is also this, that the liver is not hanging entirely in its place, and they were not concerned with explaining the essence of the term "loosened" since there is no practical halachic difference in this. And also according to them, if it was uprooted in many places and is attached to the diaphragm a little here and a little there, it is kosher, for what practical difference is there in this? And there is one who wished to make a distinction between the wordings, and because of this, he wondered about our teacher, the Beit Yosef [Tevu'ot Shor subsection 2 and see Pri Megadim]. But it is not so, for there is no practical difference between the wordings [and one must further analyze that which he wished to load into Rashi, that his intention was for the other wording, see there, for it also deals with a kezayit in the place of the gallbladder, see there and examine carefully].

The Rambam wrote [there]: If these two kezayit measures were removed—the kezayit at the location of the gallbladder and the kezayit at the location of its vitality—even though the rest of the liver remains, it is treifah. This law is not found in the Gemara; however, it is certainly so, for since the essence of vitality depends on them and they were removed, what benefit is the remainder? One must look further into the Tur and the Beit Yosef who did not write this law [and regarding the Tur, one could say that he wrote this regarding a dried liver, see there, but regarding the Beit Yosef, one must look further].

And likewise, if the flesh of the liver dried until it crumbles with a fingernail, its law is as if it were removed, and if there did not remain in it the two or three zaitim that were explained without dryness, it is terefah. And likewise, if these zaitim dried, even if the entire liver did not dry, it is terefah because the primary vitality depends on them. And if one scratches with a fingernail upon the flesh of the liver and the scratch remains extant, this is also a sign of dryness, as with the lung above in siman 36 [Shach, subsection 2], and it is a case of doubtful terefah [Pri Megadim]. And specifically when the mark of the scratch remains extant in the flesh of the liver, but what remains extant on the skin of the liver is nothing [ibid.]. And know that this which we wrote regarding the removal of these two zaitim or if they dried, the intention is regarding one of these two zaitim when it is removed or dried [and also the intention of the Tur and our teacher, the Rema, is so; and see Tevuot Shor, subsection 6].

Some say that if the liver hardened like a stone it is terefah, even if it is not dry but rather hard and lacks moisture [Bach], this too is considered like dry [the Rema in the name of the Rokeach], if two zayit-sized pieces that are not hard as stone did not remain; and likewise if these two zayit-sized pieces hardened, or one of them, it is terefah. There are those who hesitate regarding this law [Beit Yosef and Pri Chadash], and there are those who wrote that in a case of great loss one may permit it [Shach, subsection 5], but the great later authorities forbid it even in a case of great loss [Bach and Tevuot Shor and Pri Megadim].

And if the liver is hard and white from above and below, and lesions are attached to it, if the flesh inside is proper, we do not concern ourselves with it. Therefore, one cuts it and sees how it is inside. And know that if bruises and wounds are found on the liver, even though from the perspective of the liver there is no prohibition when the two k'zeitim remain or when it is fine inside, nevertheless, in a bird one must check the intestines. For we have seen through our senses that in most cases, when there are bruises and wounds on the liver of a bird, there are also many blisters on the small intestines, and one must check them as will be explained in siman 46.

An incident occurred involving a goose liver where there was a kind of pocket of flesh on the lower side, covered by the skin of the liver, and it was raised and slightly harder than the flesh of the liver. They tore open the pocket and found inside it a grain of oats and other things, and they declared it treifah [Pri Chadash in Kuntres Acharon]. This is obvious, for they must have exited from the intestines or from the gizzard and entered into the liver, and thus the intestines or the gizzard were perforated; or if they exited from the esophagus, the esophagus was perforated. One should deliberate whether they ruled thus only regarding a goose because it has no crop, and of necessity they entered from a place where a perforation renders it treifah, but in other birds, one could say they entered from the bottom of the crop in a place where a perforation does not disqualify it. It appears that there is no distinction, and in any bird it is treifah in such a case, for this is similar to a needle in the body cavity; even though one could distinguish slightly, nevertheless, it does not appear so. And know that sometimes something like a stone is found in the liver of an animal, hidden within the flesh of the liver, and there is no concern regarding it at all, because this is formed from excess blood [ibid. in the name of the Rikash]. However, if it is recognizable that this is a stone that came from elsewhere, it is certainly treifah [and in a turkey, small stones are common in the liver, and one should permit it, as this comes on account of their agitation, where something like stones is born there].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 3: A liquefied liver—that is, blood that emerges from the flesh of the liver which has liquefied and become blood—is terefah, even though the two kezayit remained, because in the end it will all rot. Thus far his words. And some say that when the two kezayit remained which did not liquefy, it is kosher [Shach and Taz], and so the great later authorities agreed [Pri Chadash and Tevuot Shor]. And it is simple that if the flesh rotted, it is as if it was removed, and therefore when rot arose in the liver and the two kezayit did not remain unrotted, it is terefah. And in a bird, one must estimate according to the proportion of the two kezayit in a beast, for it is a great principle that flesh that has rotted or dissolved is judged as if it is not present.

If the liver became infested with worms, even if worms also went up into the two olive-sized portions that are in the place of the gall bladder and in the place of vitality and made perforations there, it is kosher. Even if the rest of the liver was removed and only these olive-sized portions remained, and worms also went up into them and perforated them, it is kosher; for whenever the deficiency is caused by worms and not by another illness, they are destined to be filled [Tevuat Shor, subsection 8]. This is the opinion of the Rashba, of blessed memory, in Torat HaBayit. However, there are those who disagree with him and hold that specifically when the entire liver is intact, then even if the worms perforated these two olive-sized portions, one may permit it; but when only the two olive-sized portions remained and the worms also perforated them, one must forbid it [Ra'ah in Bedek HaBayit]. And so one should instruct [Tevuat Shor, ibid.]. And even if the entire liver is full of worms that perforated it, and the worms also perforated these two olive-sized portions, it is kosher [see Rashi 48a, s.v. "ve-asrah," and see Shach, subsection 6, and examine carefully].

The Ba'ag wrote: And where the liver is thick, we look at its lung; if it is white like cotton, it is terefah, and if it is red, it returns to its health and is kosher. Thus far his words. There are some among the Rishonim who cited this and rejected his words [the Ran, the Rivash, and the Beit Yosef], and there are those who were concerned for his words because all his words are words of tradition [the Bach]. However, the matters are perplexing, for what is the connection of the lung to this? Furthermore, when the lung is white like cotton, it is anyway terefah, as was written in siman 36. Perhaps he employed a concise expression, and that which he wrote, "we look at its lung," he meant the appearance of the liver itself. This is the explanation: if the liver is swollen and very thick, which is called "geshollen," and this is a sign that it is entirely spoiled, we look at the appearance of the liver; if it is white, this is a sign that it is entirely spoiled, and if it is red, it returns to health and is kosher. In this, all the poskim would agree, and so one should rule. But when the liver is much larger than its normal measure and is not spoiled, there is no concern in this. Know that the liver of a fat goose tends slightly toward whiteness because of its fatness, and such is their nature, and it is permitted without any hesitation.

This is the wording of the Tur: The Rambam wrote [chapter 6] that the kanim of the liver—and these are the vessels in which the blood is cooked—if one of them is perforated, it is terefah. But this is not clear, for we rule it kosher even if it is entirely removed, except for a kezayit in the place of the gallbladder and a kezayit in the place of its vitality. Thus far his words. And behold, the commentators of the Rambam wrote that the Rambam is of the opinion that this which we rule kosher when it is entirely removed refers to the flesh, but the simponot must remain extant; see there [Kesef Mishneh and Bach]. And in my humble opinion, it appears that his intention is not at all regarding the simponot that are inside the liver, for they are called simponot and not kanim. Rather, his intention is as we explained in siman 34, section 18, because the liver hangs much lower than the heart and the lung, and in its interior it goes from the vessel of the heart to the vessel of the liver, and there are several vessels there until the liver itself. And regarding this, our sages of blessed memory said [45b]: There are three kanim: one branches to the heart, one to the lung, and one to the liver, and all of them cause it to be terefah with a perforation of any size; see there. And it is to these kanim that he intends, and not to the simponot that are inside the liver itself.

A needle that is found in the liver, the sages [48b] distinguished between the eye facing outward and the eye facing inward. The eye is the thick side that does not pierce. And thus our sages, of blessed memory, said: If the eye is outward, it certainly pierced its way in and is terefah; and if the eye is inward, it followed the path of the gallbladder duct and arrived there. And these words apply to a thick needle, meaning a thick needle where the eye is unable to pierce; but with a thin needle, a fine needle that pierces even through its eye, it certainly pierced its way in and is terefah in any case. And there are two opposite interpretations regarding the definition of "eye outward" and "eye inward." Rashi, the Tosafot, the Rosh, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch explain that "eye outward" is called such when the eye is toward the cavity of the animal and the sharp side is toward the head, for "outward" means outward from the liver and into the cavity of the body; and "inward" is called such when the eye is toward the head and the sharp side is toward the cavity of the body. And the Rif, the Rambam, and the Rashba explain the opposite: that "eye outward" is called such when the eye is toward the head, for "outward" means outward from the cavity of the animal; and "eye inward" is called such when the eye is toward the cavity of the animal. And behold, regarding the law for us, in any case it is terefah due to the variation in interpretations, and furthermore, because we are not expert in distinguishing between a thick needle and a thin needle. Nevertheless, we shall explain the reasons of our teachers in this matter, for these and those are the words of the living God, and all of them have a basis in the halachah:

Rashi, of blessed memory, and those who stand by his approach, hold that even though the liver is suspended from the trachea and we should have said that the needle traveled through the trachea until it reached the liver and did not touch any organ that is rendered treifah by its perforation, nevertheless, when the eye is outward—meaning when the thick side is toward the cavity of the body—if we say it entered through the trachea, we would have to say it entered with the thick side, and how could it enter the flesh of the liver? Behold, the thick side does not perforate. Rather, it certainly entered through the esophagus via its point, and exited from the esophagus or from the intestines and entered the liver from the other side via its point and perforated the flesh of the liver, and therefore its eye is now found toward the cavity and its point toward the head. Therefore, it is treifah because of the perforation of the esophagus or the perforation of the intestines. Furthermore, since most swallowed items are swallowed through the esophagus, we hang it more on swallowing through the esophagus than on swallowing through the trachea. For this reason, with a small needle, it is treifah in any case, because we say it entered through the esophagus. But when the eye is inward—meaning when the thick side is toward the head and the sharp side is toward the cavity—we say it entered through the trachea with the sharp side and perforated with its sharpness into the flesh of the liver and did not strike a place that is rendered treifah by a perforation. And if it is difficult: since most swallowed items are through the esophagus, why do we not hang it on having traveled through the esophagus as with a small needle? For it can be said that if it had traveled through the esophagus, it would not have been found in this manner with its point toward the cavity of the body and its eye toward the head; for perforce, when it exited the esophagus or the intestines and entered from the other side of the liver with its sharp side, its sharp side should have been found toward the head and its eye toward the cavity. And even if it entered from the side, the needle should have been found lying lengthwise across the width of the liver, and not with its point toward the cavity. This is not so with a small needle, where the matter is not discernible, and therefore we hang it on the esophagus as is the way of most swallowed items. And even though when the eye is inward it could also be said that it entered through the esophagus with its point, and at the beginning of the esophagus it exited and entered the liver with its point, and therefore it is found in the liver with its point downward—we do not hang it on this, for the esophagus is wide and presumably it traveled the whole esophagus or the whole intestines and afterwards entered the other side of the liver. [And according to what I have written, all that they questioned regarding this approach is settled; and examine this carefully].

Some say that according to the method of Rashi, where "the eye is inward" it is kosher, this is even when the needle is not entirely buried within the flesh of the liver; for even if a portion of the needle's point protrudes into the cavity of the body it is kosher, and we do not fear lest its point perforated one of the internal organs as we do with any needle found in the cavity of the body. This is because this needle entered gently and rests in its place in tranquility, which is not the case with a needle or thorn found in the cavity of the body, where there is concern that it entered with force from the outside and perforated one of the organs [Rashba in Torat HaBayit]. And some say that in such a case there is certainly no reason to be lenient, and that which we permit when "the eye is inward" is specifically when it is entirely buried within the flesh of the liver; but if its point protrudes into the cavity of the body, it is terefah.

And the approach of the Rif, of blessed memory, and those who stand by his approach is this: that since the liver is suspended from the trachea, we are not concerned at all that it entered via the esophagus, but rather it entered via the trachea. Therefore, in a case of "the eye facing outward"—meaning that the eye is toward the head and the point is toward the cavity—when it entered the trachea via its point, and the liver is suspended much lower than the heart and the lungs, and the needle traveled a long distance until it entered the flesh of the liver, we therefore fear lest it tilted with its point during its travel through the tubes of the liver, whose perforation is in any amount, as I wrote at the end of siman 34. But in a case of "the eye facing inward"—and that is where the eye is toward the cavity and the point is toward the head, and it entered via its eye, and the eye does not perforate—it is kosher. And if it is difficult to understand how it entered the flesh of the liver via the eye, one can say that by means of the attractive force within the organs, it pulled the needle into the flesh of the liver, for the attractive force is very great; and specifically the liver, which is entirely blood and full of warmth, pulled the needle even via the eye. And in the case of a small needle, it is terefah in all instances, because we fear that during its travel it tilted and perforated the tubes of the liver, as I wrote.

And according to both opinions, this is specifically when the needle is placed lengthwise along the length of the liver; but if it is placed across the width of the liver, and the eye and the point face the sides of the animal, it is terefah in any case, for this is a clear sign that it traveled through the esophagus and perforated the side of the liver and lies across its width. For if it had traveled through the trachea, why would it have bent so much, and who bent it? Rather, it certainly traveled through the esophagus. And know that according to both opinions there is no difference whether the needle was found in a whole liver or in a piece of liver; and there is one who wished to make a distinction in this, and his words were rejected [see Beit Yosef]. And so ruled the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, see there. And we have already written that we are not experts to distinguish between a thin one and a thick one; only if the eye is as large as a date stone did the Rishonim write that one should apply to it the law of an eye, which is not fit to perforate [Tur]. And it appears to me that regarding our needles, which are called "spilka," where one end is sharp and its second end is round, certainly with its eye-end it is not fit to perforate even if it is not like a date stone, and they wrote this measure even if it is not round [so it appears to me]. And for the law, there is no practical difference for us because of the doubts regarding the opinions of whether the eye is facing outward or inward, as I have written.

But if the needle was found in a large vessel of the liver, which is the vessel of the windpipe that enters into it, and similarly if it was found in a large vessel of the lung, it is kosher in any case according to all opinions, and even if it was found in a piece of liver or in a piece of lung [Taz, subsection 7]. The reason is that here there is no concern that perhaps it exited through the esophagus, for if so, how would it have been directed to enter this vessel? Rather, it certainly entered through the windpipe, and the windpipe and the vessel of the liver are adjacent to one another where they divide near the lung, and also the vessel of the heart and the vessel of the liver divide into vessels at one end; and it can be said that it entered from the vessels of the liver to the vessels of the windpipe of the liver and from there it ascended to the liver through the vessels [Rashi 49a]. And according to the method of the Rif as well there is no concern, for since the place is wide, we are not concerned at all for a perforation, and whether the eye is facing inward or the eye is facing outward, it is kosher.

The Geonim wrote that if the diaphragm of the liver was perforated with a piercing perforation, it is terefah. The terefah is not due to itself, but rather since the diaphragm was damaged, the entire liver will eventually be damaged and eventually be removed, and it is considered as if it were removed [Levush], for thus the Geonim received it. In the Shas, this terefah was not mentioned because the terefah is not due to its own essence [see Gemara 48a]. Furthermore, it is unlike all other terefot, in that any type of sealing is effective for this, such as a membrane or forbidden fat, as will be explained; therefore, the Shas did not count it [Pri Chadash and Tevuot Shor, subsection 11].

This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 8: If the diaphragm of the liver was perforated with a hole that passes through on the side of the liver, it is treifah; but if it was attached with a sircha to the rib, it is kosher. Thus far his words. And such is the wording of the Mordechai in the name of the Geonim, see there. And regarding the wording "on the side of the liver," some have explained that the intention is that the treif-status is on the side of the liver and not on its own side; and some have explained that because the diaphragm hangs opposite the liver and also outside the liver, the hole only renders it treifah in the part opposite the liver. But the great authorities did not agree to this, and therefore there is one who wrote that this is a printing error [Bach]. However, the primary view is indeed this: that it comes to exclude that part of the diaphragm spread over the wall of the animal, because the wall covers the hole even though it does not enter into it [Taz, subsection 8], and the hole only invalidates in the part of the diaphragm that stands in the air. The great later authorities agreed to this, and so is the primary ruling in the law.

And that which he wrote, that if it was attached by a sirka to a rib it is kosher, there are two intentions in this: The first is that even though there are those who hold that a sirka forbids in all organs, as will be explained in siman 46, nevertheless in the tarpesh it is not so, because the terefah is not due to itself [this is the intention of the Taz, subsection 9, and the precision of the Pri Megadim is settled, and examine this]. And the second is that regarding a perforation of the tarpesh, anything seals it; even if a sirka arose on the tarpesh and sealed the perforation, it is a sealing. For even though a sirka does not seal in the lung or in other organs whose terefah is due to a perforation—as it is a membrane that arose due to a wound and is not a membrane—nevertheless in the tarpesh, where the terefah is not due to itself but rather because the liver will eventually be removed, anything seals, even a sirka, and even impure chelev seals, and even any membrane whatsoever is a sealing [ibid. and Shach, subsection 14]. And there is one who wishes to be stringent regarding impure chelev, but it is not primary, and especially since the essence of this law is not in the Gemara, do not add to it.

According to what has been explained, that any closing is effective for the tarfasha when it is perforated, therefore if the hole was also closed by the spleen which was attached and entangled with it, it is kosher [Derisha]. And specifically in the manner of its natural placement, but if it was attached to it not in the manner of its natural placement and growth, it is like it was torn away and is treifa [ibid.]. And we have seen at times that there is a hole in the tarfasha but a piece of the liver closes it, meaning that a piece of liver entered the hole and closed it; it is certainly kosher. For what should we be concerned about? If because of the closing, it is obvious that it is a better closing than a sircha or the closing of the spleen. And if because this piece of liver is outside the tarfasha and is destined to be removed, what does it matter to us? Behold, much of the liver remains on the other side inside the tarfasha. And should we say that since that which is outside the tarfasha is destined to be removed, ultimately it will all be removed—from where do we have this to say so? Therefore, even though there is one who is doubtful regarding this [Chachmat Adam], nevertheless there is no doubt at all regarding this [and so it is explicitly implied from the Responsa of the Rashba, siman 21, see there and examine carefully]. And there is no obligation at all to check if there is a hole in the tarfasha [Taz].

If a needle is found in the diaphragm, it is a doubtful terefah, and every doubtful terefah is forbidden. And it is not necessary to state that if part of the needle protrudes into the body cavity it is like a needle found in the body cavity, but even if it is entirely hidden within the diaphragm, it is also a doubtful terefah, for we fear perhaps it perforated one of the internal organs upon its entry there [Shach, subsection 15]. Furthermore, perhaps it entered via the esophagus, and there is no difference whether the eye is facing inward or the eye is facing outward; in every case, it is a doubtful terefah [ibid.].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that if the diaphragm of the liver is attached by a sircha to the beit hakosot, one must examine the rumen, for there is certainly a thorn or a needle there that caused a perforation, and through this, this sircha came about; so I found in old examinations and I saw an actual case and such is the custom. Thus far his words. And he means to say that even though we hold that a sircha does not forbid in other organs except for the lung, nevertheless, the sircha from the diaphragm to the beit hakosot is checked and proven that it testifies that the rumen was perforated by a thorn or a needle, and because of this, this sircha came about.

And if they did not check the stomach, there is one who says that even post facto it is forbidden, for since he wrote that there is certainly a thorn or a needle there, it constitutes a clear defect, and one may not permit it without checking even post facto [Minchat Yaakov, Klal 89]. And there is one who permits post facto [Chut HaShani] because this is not a clear defect but merely a concern, and the expression that there is "certainly" a thorn or a needle there is not literal. And he himself, in his book Torat Chattat, wrote only "perhaps" there is a thorn or a needle, and so wrote the Levush, see there. And behold, this is certain: if the butcher did so intentionally, it should certainly be forbidden; however, if he did so unintentionally, one may permit it in a case of great loss or for the honor of Shabbat [and so it appears is the opinion of the Pri Megadim in Shiftei Da'at at the end of siman 41 and in the book Chagat Shmuel, see there].

And if they checked the rumen and found nothing, and even if they found the thorn or the needle lying in the waste, since it is not embedded in any place, there is no concern in this. And even though there are those who are stringent even in such a case due to the concern that perhaps it already perforated and returned backward into the waste, this is not a concern at all, for we have no judgment except according to what our eyes see, and we do not presume the needle moved from place to place in such a case. And even the one who holds that the checking is indispensable even post facto does not hold to be concerned in such a case [Noda BiYehudah, siman 15], and all the more so according to what we wrote to permit in a case of great loss post facto.

And if the needle is found stuck in the rumen, or in the omasum or the reticulum, even if it did not pierce through from one side to the other, nevertheless, since the needle is opposite the sirka, the great later authorities agreed that a sirka is like a drop of blood and even worse than it. And just as they said in the Gemara [51a] regarding a needle found in the thickness of the reticulum that pierced one side, and on the other side a drop of blood was found opposite the needle, that it is treifah, for this is like a perforation from one side to the other; for if there is no wound from one side to the other, from where would a drop of blood come? See there. So too, when there is a sirka opposite the needle, this is evidence that the perforation is from one side to the other. And if the needle is found in the omasum or the reticulum lying lengthwise between the folds and is not stuck in the flesh of the omasum or the reticulum, it should be permitted in a case of great loss even if it is opposite the sirka. And this is all according to the premise that a sirka is like a drop of blood and even worse than it, as I have written.

However, the sages of Prague said that a sircha is not like a drop of blood, for this matter is understood: when the needle begins to enter the flesh, the animal will immediately feel great pain, and because of the pain a sircha will arise opposite it, and the place will begin to be swollen, and with the increase of the swelling and the fluids, the tarfash also becomes attached. But this is no evidence at all of a puncture from side to side. And our teacher, the Rema, meant this: that one must examine the rumen and see if it was punctured from side to side or not, and if it was not punctured from side to side, it is kosher [Kereti U-Peleti, subsection 9]. And behold, if there are other combinations of factors to permit it and the loss is great, perhaps one may rely on this, and it requires further study [ibid.]. However, this is certain: that if there is a puncture on only one side, there is an obligation to examine with a straw if it does not follow a crooked path. And we have seen this many times, that it follows a crooked path and the puncture is from side to side, only that the puncture on the second side is not opposite the first side, but rather far from it, and a path goes from this one to that one. And if they did not examine it, it is a doubtfully treifah, since there is a puncture or a needle on one side, and there is no doubt that the examination is indispensable even after the fact, even if there is no sircha opposite it. And even if there is no puncture from side to side, there is an obligation to see if the flesh was not ruined opposite the puncture or the needle, and many times we have seen that the flesh was ruined and decayed until its end, and we declared it treifah, for this is like a puncture from side to side. And in this too, the examination is indispensable even after the fact, and even if there is no sircha opposite it [so it appears to me].

We have already written that if the diaphragm of the liver was perforated and there is no blockage upon it, it is treifah. And if it is recognizable that the perforation is innate, for example, that the perforation has a lip around it, and according to appearances it is as if the lip is sewn all around, and this is a sign that it is innate, perhaps there is room to permit it. And it is not necessary to state according to the opinion of the Rambam that we brought in section 5, that anything created deficient is not similar to that which was removed, that certainly one could say here as well that the Halachot Gedolot declared it treifah in the case of a perforation and not an innate perforation. And even though in every place where it says "if it was perforated it is treifah," the Rambam holds that even in a case of deficiency it is treifah, as was written there, that is regarding the deficiency of the entire organ. Furthermore, that is only regarding something where the treifut is due to its essence. However, there is reason to say the opposite: since the reason for the treifut is because the liver will eventually be removed, if so, what does it matter to me if the perforation is innate or not? Ultimately, the liver will be removed. But one could say that when the perforation is innate, the liver will not eventually be removed; for specifically when the liver was accustomed to the continuity of the diaphragm, it is difficult for it when it is perforated afterward, but when it is innate, it is possible that it does not harm it. And the law requires further study. And perhaps since this is not a law from the Gemara, one may rely on being lenient in its doubt in a case of significant loss. And one of the great authorities ruled this way simply, that an innate perforation is kosher [Noda BiYehudah, second edition, siman 12].

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote: If two livers are found in a beast or in a fowl, it is treifah, for "every addition is considered as if it were removed," and it is as if the liver was removed. Thus far their words. And even though "every addition is considered as if it were removed" means as if it were removed from its birth and created lacking, and if so, according to the opinion of the Rambam that we cited in section 5, that when the liver is lacking from its birth it is kosher, we should have ruled it kosher also in the case of an additional one; nevertheless, they did not concern themselves with the opinion of the Rambam in this. And as they wrote later in siman 50, that in every place where they said "removed" it is treifah, the same applies to one created lacking, see there; for although they cited the opinion of the Rambam there, nevertheless, for the halachah it appears their opinion is not like the Rambam. Therefore, they stated their words here without qualification to forbid it and did not cite his opinion at all. And such is the halachah, for it is a Torah prohibition, and one must be stringent in a dispute of the authorities, and especially since most of the poskim agreed so, and all the more so since the Rosh wrote this in the name of the Bahag [Perek Ellu Tereifot, siman 54]. And specifically when they are in the form of livers, but if the second one is not in the form of a liver, one should not declare it treifah [Darkhei Teshuvah ibid.]. And in geese, it is the way of the liver to be as if doubled and it appears like two, and such is their natural growth; and see what I wrote in siman 50, section 25.

And know that this which Moshe received from Sinai, that "any excess is considered as if it were removed," according to the opinion of Rashi, the Rambam, and the Rosh, its explanation is simple: that one excess is like one removed, as I have written. However, the opinion of the Ramban, of blessed memory, is that the intention is not as if it were entirely removed, but rather "any excess is considered as if it were removed" means this excess along with the place to which it is attached. For example, if there are two livers, and if both are attached at the place of the gallbladder or at the place of vitality, it is treifah, for we consider this place as if it were removed. But if they are attached in other places, it is kosher, for even if we consider this place as if it were removed, we have no concern since there remains [the liver] at the place of the gallbladder and at the place of vitality. And in this manner regarding all the organs. And the Rashba, of blessed memory, wrote [in Torat HaBayit 26b] that it is considered as if this alone were removed, and there is no treifut in this except in a place where if this alone were removed and the place remained perforated, it would be treifah because of this, such as two intestines and the like. But with two livers or two spleens, it is kosher; and with an extra leg, it is treifah because of the socket of the hip bone, see there. However, the primary rule in halacha is like the first opinion, and the Rashba himself wrote that he does not rely on this in practice. And our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, in this siman and in siman 55, brought only the first opinion, and so the Rosh, of blessed memory, decided ibid.