Siman 42

If the gallbladder was perforated, it is a terefah. Even though Iyov said regarding himself, "He pours out my gall upon the ground" [Iyov 16:13] and lived many years afterward, in truth this was by way of a miracle, and one does not mention miraculous events [Gemara 43a]. "Perforated gallbladder" is defined as when the sac is perforated, as with all organs where a perforation is defined as a perforation of the skin. The reason for this terefah is not because of the sac, for this is not an organ upon which life depends, as there are several species that have no gallbladder at all. Furthermore, there are poskim who permit it if the gallbladder was removed entirely, as will be explained, even though we do not rule accordingly. Rather, the terefah is because the function of the gallbladder is to quiet the heat and anger of the liver, as the Sages, of blessed memory, said: the liver is angry and the gallbladder throws a drop into it to quiet it. Without this, it is impossible for the living creature to live because of the great heat of the liver. Therefore, when it is perforated and all the bitterness is lost, there is nothing to quiet the heat of the liver. However, in those that have no gallbladder at all, the creation is in such a manner that the liver does not have much heat. This is the reasoning of those who permit it in the case of a total absence of the gallbladder, for since it was created thus, presumably its liver does not have great heat [as appears from Teshuvot Maimoniyot to the Laws of Ma'akhalot Assurot, siman 6, and from the words of the Kreiti U'Pleiti].

If it was perforated opposite the liver and the liver plugs it, it is kosher; but if the perforation was not plugged, even though the perforation is adjacent to the liver, it is terefah [Rambam chapter 6]. And if the liver was also perforated opposite the perforation of the gallbladder, it is terefah [Gemara 48a], for it has nothing to plug it. And even if a sircha arose over the perforation of the liver, it is of no avail. This is not similar to the perforation of the diaphragm where even any minimal plugging is effective because the status of terefah is not due to itself, as was written in the previous siman. Here too, the status of terefah is not because of the liver, but it is not similar at all; for there, the act of terefah has not yet begun, rather we say that through this the liver will eventually be removed, as was written there, and therefore with any minimal plugging it will not eventually be removed. But here, the status of terefah of the gallbladder being perforated is before us, only that we would say the liver shall plug it; and since there is no strong plugging in the liver, the status of terefah remains in its force [Tevu'ot Shor].

It is a simple matter that if the hole can be attributed to the handling of the slaughterer's hand, we attribute it so, for this is the law regarding all organs [Shach, subsection 1]. And similarly, if no gall bladder was found at all and it can be attributed to having been lost after slaughter, such as if they threw the intestines into the trash, and sometimes it is common to find it in birds between the intestines, we attribute that it was not near the liver but rather near the intestines, and when they threw away the intestines, they automatically threw it away as well, and it is kosher. Thus ruled the greats of the world [see Pitchei Teshuvah, subsection 5, what he wrote in the name of Shevut Yaakov]. And similarly, if there is any other attribution, we permit it. But when there is no attribution at all to say that it was lost, one should not permit it based on the reasoning of a double doubt: perhaps we establish the law like the poskim who permit when the gall bladder is entirely missing, and if you will say we do not establish the law like them, perhaps it was lost after slaughter; for since there is nothing to attribute its being lost after slaughter, one cannot make a doubt out of this [Pri Megadim, subsection 1]. Furthermore, most poskim declare it treif in the absence of the gall bladder, and in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch the opinion of those who permit was not brought at all, and therefore it is difficult to make this into a doubt, and only for some combination is it possible to combine this opinion toward permission [The Pri Megadim questioned what the novelty is in attributing it to the handling of the hand, see there, and according to what I wrote in section 13 it is well-settled, and examine it closely].

If the gallbladder is attached by a membrane to another place, it is kosher, for a membrane does not forbid except in the lung and not in other organs, as was written at the end of siman 37, for in other organs this is nothing but the spreading of moisture [Taz and Shach subsection 3]. And even though there are poskim who disagree with this rule [Terumat HaDeshen and Yam Shel Shelomo siman 48 and Peri Chadash at the end of siman 37] and hold that also in other organs a membrane forbids, nevertheless, since our teachers the authors of the Shulchan Aruch and likewise the commentators on their words ruled thus in every place and did not bring the forbidding opinion, we establish the law accordingly, and this is more reasonable. And it is not necessary to state according to the explanation of the Tosafot, that a membrane in the lung does not testify to a hole but rather that it is destined to be dismantled, as was written in siman 39, that certainly this is only in the lung which is always fluttering and not in other organs; but even according to the explanation of Rashi there, that there is no membrane without a hole, this is only in the lung, as Rashi explained that since the lung draws in all types of liquid and the liquid becomes thick inside it and exits little by little through the hole and becomes a membrane [46b], and not in other organs. And thus we establish the law.

An incident occurred regarding a gallbladder that was protruding from between the ribs outward between the skin and the flesh, and the gallbladder was whole, and they inflated it and it held the inflation, and they declared it kosher. For what should we be concerned? If because it was attached between the ribs, we maintain that there is no "sirka" except in the lung. And should we be concerned perhaps it was perforated by a thorn from the outside and the thorn reached the cavity of the body, and we should be concerned perhaps one of the internal organs was perforated? Since the skin is whole, it is visible to the eye that it was not perforated from the outside. Furthermore, when there is a doubt whether it was by a thorn or by illness, we attribute it to the gizzard to be lenient, as was written in siman 49, and the same applies to the gallbladder [Pri Chadash in the name of Tzemach Tzedek]. Therefore, if the skin is perforated from the outside, one must recognize that this was through illness and not through a thorn, and without this, it is treifa [ibid.], for since the skin is perforated, it appears more likely that it came through a thorn from the outside [Atzei Levonah; and we have already written that we maintain according to the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch, and examine this carefully].

If the gallbladder is completely removed or was missing from its creation, it is terefah. Thus ruled the Rambam [Chapter 6], the Rashba, the Rosh, the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, and most of the poskim; for since it is stated in the Shas that if it is perforated it is terefah, all the more so if it was removed or missing from its creation. Therefore, even though there are some among the early authorities who permit in a case where the gallbladder is missing—and even though if it is perforated it is terefah, one does not compare terefot to one another, just as with the spleen, where if it is perforated it is terefah and if it is removed it is kosher, as written in siman 43, and here too it is so [Mordechai and Hagahot Ashri at the beginning of chapter 3 in the name of the Raviah and other poskim]—and their reason is that this is not an organ upon which life depends, for turtledoves and young pigeons have no gallbladder at all; we do not rule accordingly, for one does not learn from one species about that which is not its species [Rosh, ibid.].

The Tur wrote in the name of the Bahag: If the gallbladder was removed, we taste its place; if there is a taste of bitterness, it is kosher, as it is known that it was absorbed in its place. The Ra'avan wrote: And if one did not taste the taste of bitterness while it is raw, he should roast it, and if it was absorbed within it, it will provide a taste. Thus far his words. And even though it is forbidden to taste a food item to know if there is a prohibition in it or not, nevertheless, in this the Geonim relied on the fact that it is an uncommon matter for the gallbladder to be removed, and it is more likely that it was absorbed in its place, and therefore they permitted tasting [Shach, subsection 4]. Furthermore, there is no tasting here but a mere licking, and it is nothing [Pri Chadash], for with a mere licking it will be sensed whether there is bitterness here or not.

From the language of the Tur it is clarified that one does not need to tear the liver and taste it, but rather we taste it in its place, meaning in the place where the gall bladder needs to be adjacent to the liver. However, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 3 wrote: if the gall bladder is missing, he tears the liver lengthwise and crosswise and tastes it with his tongue, etc. And several of the poskim wrote according to this language. Therefore, there is one who says that specifically when he tears the liver and tastes a bitter taste it is effective, but without tearing, even when he tastes a bitter taste on the liver from above, this is nothing, for perhaps the gall bladder was removed and the bitterness is from the time when the gall bladder was in it; this is not the case when they tear it and taste a bitter taste from within, for this is a sign that the gall bladder was absorbed into it [Tevuot Shor end of subsection 3].

However, in truth, we have not found any posek who holds this way, and in any such case, it should have been explicitly stated. Furthermore, if we were to be concerned regarding the bitterness on the outside that perhaps it is from before, if so, we should also be concerned regarding the inside that perhaps the bitterness is from the time the gall bladder was present and sprayed drops into the liver according to its nature. Rather, it is certainly established for the Geonim that based on the bitterness from before, it is impossible to taste a bitter taste now; if so, it is also the same regarding the outside. And perhaps the Tur intentionally wrote this wording to teach us that tearing specifically is not required. And such is the simple custom in all the dispersions of Israel, and we do not cast doubt on this [and so wrote the Gaon R. Zalman Margolios in Yad Ephraim in the name of the sages of Jerusalem, see there].

Regarding the essence of this law, great questions must be asked. First, what benefit is there in tasting the bitterness, for behold, nothing remains of the gallbladder [Pri Chadash]. Furthermore, since if it was perforated it is treifah by the law of the Gemara, if so, we should be concerned lest it was perforated recently and the bile spilled out, and because of this they do not taste the flavor of bitterness. Furthermore, if so, why is it treifah if it was perforated? For it implies explicitly that even if some of the bile remains in its gallbladder it is treifah; is the bitterness within the bile itself any worse than the bitterness that we taste in the liver?

The answer to this is that it is a tradition in the hands of the Geonim that this organ is not an organ upon which life depends, and it was created only to quiet the humming of the liver from its heat and its anger. When it is perforated, it is no longer capable of performing its function, for because of the perforation it is like an open flask and lacks the power to cast droplets to the liver, and therefore it is treifah. However, when it is lost entirely—and it is a remote thing that it should be lost entirely or be missing from its creation—therefore there is more reason to say that the liver, due to the greatness of its heat and its anger, drew after it all of that gall and its sac, and due to the greatness of the heat they became attached to the liver and were nullified in existence. Nevertheless, in any event, it performs its function; since it is all absorbed within it, it must necessarily quiet it from its anger and its heat. Therefore, the sign is that when one tastes a bitter taste, this is a sign that it was absorbed within it. We do not fear that perhaps the gallbladder was recently perforated and emptied, for if so, we would have found the gallbladder sac and seen that it was perforated; for where did the sac go? Rather, it is certain that it was all absorbed within it. See what I wrote in section 1 [the Pri Chadash who also wrote similarly to this, and we have explained it with the help of Heaven at length].

Some say that even if they taste a bitter taste in other places, such as in the gizzard or in the intestines, it is also kosher, and such is the simple custom. In truth, there is no reason for this, for since there is no bitter taste in the liver, even if we say that it spilled to other organs, nevertheless, it did not perform its function in the liver. Indeed, there are those who forbid this, as in the early authorities we find permission only regarding the tasting of the liver [according to the Pitchei Teshuva, subsection 3]. However, since such is the simple custom, certainly the custom has that upon which to rely.

And the truth appears to me to be so, that this custom was established for another reason. For behold, we see with our senses many hundreds of times that the gall bladder is found in its entirety in another location among the intestines or near the spleen. And so testified great ones who were in several generations before us [Kereiti U-Peleiti subsection 6, Shevut Yaakov siman 66], and so I can testify from the day I sat upon the seat of instruction; when they bring before us birds in which a gall bladder was not found, we find it in the majority of cases in its entirety among the intestines. And that we should taste a bitter taste in the liver is a remote occurrence [ibid.], and in the majority of cases one does not taste a bitter taste in the liver. However, the reason is that since in the majority of cases it is in its entirety near the intestines, how would we taste a bitter taste in the liver? And if it is truly not there, they will certainly find a bitter taste in the liver. And the way of the masters of instruction is that when they bring it before them, first of all they taste the liver, and when there is no bitter taste in the liver, they search for it among the intestines. And it is a near matter that through the searching they crush it, and therefore a bitter taste is found in other places. And according to this, that which they permit based on a bitter taste in other places is not because of the bitter taste in the liver, but rather as I have written.

And there is clear proof for this, for many great authorities permit when the intestines were thrown into the trash even if a bitter taste was not found in the liver, based on this presumption that it certainly adhered to the intestines and is there in its entirety [Shevut Yaakov ibid. on the Gilyon, section 10]. And if so, why should we not attribute it to the fact that through the handling of the hands it was crushed? For it is known that until they find it in another place they handle them much, and you have no greater handling of the hand than this. And such is the primary ruling. And when the intestines were lost, one should permit even if they do not taste a bitter taste in the liver. And conversely, if the intestines are before us and the gall bladder was not found in them, and also there is no bitter taste in them in any place, and the liver was lost, it is treifah. And we are not to attribute that if the liver were before us we would taste a bitter taste in it, since the senses testify that in most instances there is no bitter taste in the liver. And so several great authorities agreed not to permit when the liver is lost [as the Pri Megadim wrote in the Shiftei Da'at, sub-section 4]. And even though it could be said that since it is not among the intestines it is likely that a bitter taste would be found in the liver, nevertheless, since we see that this is a remote occurrence, it is difficult to permit. And perhaps in combination with the opinions of those who permit when the gall bladder is missing, one should permit even in such a case, and it requires further study [see the Pleiti, sub-section 5, who brought an opinion to permit].

If they tasted the liver and it was found to be bitter, and they tasted it again and the bitterness was not found, we hang it on the assumption that what the liver absorbed from the gall bladder was wiped away, and it is kosher [Pri Chadash in the name of Rikash]. And in other places in such a case, there is reason to doubt if it is effective, and it requires further study. And know that there is one who says that before the tasting of the liver one must rinse the blood that is upon it, but according to what has been explained it is impossible to say so, for perhaps he will also rinse away the bitterness and cause a loss of the money of Israel. And if it is because he licks the blood with his tongue, let him wipe it with his finger, and it has already been explained that this is not in the category of tasting at all, as I wrote in section 7. And so wrote a certain great authority in a responsum [Zera Yaakov brought in Pitchei Teshuva subsection 4]. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote that even now we can rely on this tasting, and such is the custom in all the dispersions of Israel.

A gallbladder that was emptied while the sac remains hanging in its place is kosher, for we attribute it to the bile having been poured out through the duct and not through a hole [Pri Chadash in the name of Ohel Moed]. However, an examination is certainly required to see if there is no hole there, and one must inflate the sac; and if after inflation no hole is found there, we attribute it to it having been poured out through the duct [ibid.]. And if they did not examine it, it appears it should be forbidden, for you have no greater deficiency than this, and it is sufficient that we are lenient to allow an examination and are not concerned that perhaps a membrane formed over it and it was closed; but to permit it without an examination does not appear correct at all.

Some say that one should not rely on women regarding the tasting of the liver, and they are not believed in this to say that it has a bitter taste [Pitchei Teshuva subsection 7 in the name of Zivchei Tzedek], but it does not appear so at all, for behold, there is no great exertion in this, and furthermore, since the matter is cast upon them, they certainly examine well. And so several great authorities ruled [Ephraim Yitzchak by the Gaon Rabbi Zalman Margolios, who cited in the name of several great authorities that they are believed], and so one should instruct. And know that there is one who says that if they did not find the gallbladder and also did not taste a bitter taste such that the chicken is treifa, one must also forbid its eggs that it laid three days prior. And certainly it is so, since we have established as the halacha that if the gallbladder was removed it is treifa, it is no better than a sircha, for which we declare the milk within three days to be treifa, as I have written below in siman 81. And there are types of birds that have no gallbladder at all, such as turtledoves and young pigeons, but other birds have them. And in a deer, the gallbladder is near its tail. And in all the laws we have explained, there is no difference between a domestic animal, a wild animal, and a bird; however, in our days we have not heard of the gallbladder being missing in types of domestic animals, and only in birds is this common.

One before whom there comes a bird that has no gall bladder, and it is not of the common species of birds, and it has been established that this is a pure bird—we do not say that certainly its entire species has no gall bladder like turtledoves and young pigeons. Rather, we say that presumably they have a gall bladder and only this one alone lacks it and is a terefah, until it is known with clarity that this entire species has no gall bladder. And some have written that also rams have no gall bladder [Shach subsection 12 in the name of Mahara"i and Sha'arei Dura]. And it is difficult to say that their intention is regarding the species of rams that are types of sheep, like the ram of Isaac and the sacrifices where they offered rams which are called "baran," in which it seems there is a gall bladder. And perhaps their intention is regarding that which is written, "the hart, and the gazelle, and the roebuck" [see Pri Megadim there].

If two gallbladders are found, it is treifah, for any surplus is considered as if it were removed, and it is as if it has no gallbladder. If it is one but appears as two, they are punctured; if they pour into one another, it is one and is kosher, and if not, they are two and it is treifah. Even if they do not pour into one another by means of a puncture, but when one is inflated the other also rises through this inflation, or when they placed water in one of them and through this the second also became filled with water, this is a sign that they are one and it is kosher. And that which they do not pour into one another by means of a puncture is because of the thickness of the fluid, and the puncture between them from which they would pour into one another was narrow, and the fluid could not exit from that puncture because the fluid is thicker than water; therefore the water passed through that puncture and the fluid did not pass, and similarly the air passed because it is thinner. However, in any event, it has been clarified that they are one gallbladder.

And if there were two gallbladders adjacent to the liver, one here and one there, and one duct pours bile into both of them, and when a person holds one upright the fluid returns to the place where the duct divides the bile and pours to both of them, but when they lie in the manner they are found during the life of the animal then they do not pour into one another, one should not permit this except in a case of great loss and not in any other case. The reason is that according to how they are during the life of the animal, they are indeed two; however, it could be said that when the life-force beats, it is possible that they pour into one another even in such a case, since they have one source as we see when they are held upright. Yet this is not a clear matter but merely an estimation, and therefore in a case that is not a great loss one should not permit it.

If two gallbladders were found, and at the place of their attachment to the liver they are one for the width of a finger, even though from there onwards they separated into two, or the opposite—that at the beginning they are two and at their end they joined together for the width of a finger—they are considered one and it is kosher. And one does not need to see if they pour into one another or not. And it appears that even if they do not pour into one another it is kosher, for if we were to say that it deals with them pouring into one another, if so, why do we require their attachment for the width of a finger? And as for that which in siman 47 regarding the intestines we require attachment like the width of a finger at the beginning and at the end, and here we do not require it except at the beginning or at the end, there it is different because the food must exit, and therefore we require a complete attachment; however, here it is only because of "anything extra is considered as if it were removed," and it is sufficient with attachment in one place [Shach, subsection 9].

If the two gallbladders are separated from one another and only at the place of their connection are they one, even if there is not a width of a finger in this, but when one raises one side it pours into the second through their connection, it is kosher [Pri Chadash subsection 9 in the name of the Radbaz]. And there is one who disagrees with this and holds that we do not rule it kosher through pouring except in the case of one that appears as two in section 19; but in the case of two actual gallbladders, even though they are connected at their beginning, since there is not a finger's width in their connection, even pouring from this one to that one does not avail [Tevuat Shor subsection 6]. And the primary ruling is according to the first opinion, for since they pour into one another, they are clearly one, and what does it matter to us if there is a finger's width in their connection on the outside or not, since on the inside they are one. And so there is clear proof for this law from what was explained in section 20, see there.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 7: A gall bladder that is visible from one side of the liver to the other—if they pour into one another, it is one and it is kosher; and if they do not pour into one another, it is terefah. Thus far his words. And even though regarding a bubble from one side to the other in a lung we say the opposite—that if they pour into one another it is terefah, and if not it is kosher, as was written in siman 37—this is because of the bronchi, as was written there. But in the liver, even if the bronchi were removed it is kosher [Shach in the name of Darkhei Moshe]. And I do not know how "visible from one side to the other" applies to the gall bladder, for it is not attached to the liver but rather is adjacent to the liver, and how does "visible from one side to the other" apply to this? Granted, regarding a bubble which is in the substance of the lung, it is relevant to say that it is visible on both sides of the lung, but regarding the gall bladder, how is it relevant to say so? Furthermore, what defect is there in it being visible from one side to the other? In a bubble, when it is from one side to the other, the defect is in the lung and not in the bubble, but in a gall bladder the defect is if they are two gall bladders, and if so, how does "from one side to the other" apply to this? And certainly the main intention is that they appear like two gall bladders, and if so, what did he innovate in this, for this law has already been explained? And it requires further study.

If the gallbladder sac is found swollen, which is called "geshvalin," one of the great authorities wrote that it is terefah [Chachmat Adam], for it is like flesh that a physician scrapes, and we are not experts in this. All the more so if the green bile within it has turned to putrefaction and rot, it is terefah, for the essence of the gallbladder's terefot is because of the fluid; and even if it did not turn to putrefaction, but the fluid hardened like a stone, it is a lesion and terefah [ibid.]. It is known that when there is a plague among the animals and they hasten to slaughter them, and the plague is from the gallbladder which becomes very swollen and from this they die, there is an obligation to examine the gallbladder. If the sac is very swollen until it is like flesh that has dissolved, or if the bile inside has become putrid, it appears that it is forbidden, and everything is according to the sight of the eyes of the experts [see there in Binat Adam, siman 16]. There are those who completely reject the words of the one who forbids, but to me the primary view appears like the words of the one who forbids, and especially during a time of plague, you have no case where "it cannot live" more than this when the gallbladder has swollen greatly, and perhaps there is also danger in this.

There is one who says that when two gallbladders are found and the liver has a bitter taste, it is kosher, for even in the case of a missing gallbladder we declare it kosher, and all the more so regarding an extra one which is considered as if it were removed [Pri Chadash subsection 8]. And there are those who disagree with this, for on the contrary, the reason we declare it kosher in the case of a missing one when there is a bitter taste is because we say it is not missing but rather attached to the liver, as has been explained. But regarding an extra one which is before us, but the tradition has come down that "any extra is considered as if it were removed," it is as if it were removed, along with its bitterness that is in the liver [Tevuat Shor and Shiftei Yeshenim]. Furthermore, since we explained that the primary reason for the permission based on the bitterness in the liver is because we say it is attached to the liver, but without this, the bitterness is of no avail; if so, when it is before us but is considered as if removed, of what avail is the bitterness? However, when one of the two gallbladders is not bitter, one should declare it kosher and attribute it to the fact that this is not a gallbladder but merely a type of blister. And there is one who wishes to declare it treif in the case of a single gallbladder when it does not have a bitter taste, unless the liver is bitter; and all this requires further study [see Teshuvot Maimoni to Hilkhot Ma'akhalot Assurot section 7, that all the greats of France declare it kosher in the case of two gallbladders, for this is not an organ about which it is said "any extra is considered as if it were removed," and Rabbeinu Tam responded in the name of our teacher, Isaac HaLevi, that it is permitted to all of Israel and is fit to be offered upon the altar, see there].

It is stated in the Gemara [49a] that if a date pit is found in the gallbladder it is kosher, but an olive pit is terefah. The Rambam wrote in the sixth chapter that the reason is because the head of a date pit is not sharp, while an olive pit, whose head is sharp, surely punctured it when it entered; and the reason the puncture is not visible is because the opening of the wound scabbed over. Thus far his words. And he follows the approach of his teacher, the Rif, which we wrote in the previous siman, section 24, that regarding the organs suspended from the windpipe, when something is found in them, we do not attribute it to having come through the esophagus, but rather it certainly entered through the windpipe via the bronchi. And an olive pit, since its two heads are sharp, its law is like a thin needle found in the liver, where we concern ourselves that perhaps during its passage it punctured one of the bronchi, which is rendered terefah there with a puncture of any size, as we wrote there. And even though the puncture is not before us, we concern ourselves that perhaps a membrane arose and it was closed [so it appears in Torat HaBayit 24b; see there]. And there is one who says the reason is that the concern is for the puncture of the gallbladder itself, for since its skin is thin, we concern ourselves that perhaps after its entry it punctured it and a membrane arose over it and it was closed [Beit Yosef]. And when a needle is found in the gallbladder, according to the first reason, its law is like in the liver, where one must distinguish in a thick needle between the eye facing outward and the eye facing inward; however, according to the "one who says," in any case it is terefah with a needle, since we concern ourselves that perhaps it punctured the skin of the gallbladder itself while being there [and with this we will understand the words of the Beit Yosef, the Bach, and the Shach, subsection 14, and examine it closely].

But Rashi and the Tosafot, who hold that even regarding the branches of the windpipe we are concerned that perhaps it entered through the esophagus, as they wrote there regarding the liver, explain here as well that with an olive pit, since it is sharp like a needle, we are concerned that perhaps it entered through the esophagus and exited from there and perforated the gallbladder and entered. And there is no distinction between the eye facing outward and the eye facing inward, for behold, both its ends are sharp as was written. And according to this, with a thick needle the law would be like with the liver, where there is a distinction between the eye facing outward and the eye facing inward. However, regarding an olive pit, it is explained from the words of the Tosafot there, who wrote that because they are coarse and cannot come easily through the bronchial tubes, we are concerned that perhaps it perforated the esophagus and returned and entered the liver. Thus far their words. And according to this, there is no distinction between the eye facing outward and the eye facing inward, and so it is explained from the words of the Rosh, see there. [And one must further study the Ma'aseh HaYateiv there, who found it necessary to distinguish between the bronchial tube of the lung and the bronchial tube of the liver, and the distinction is simple as the Tosafot wrote, and examine it closely]:

The Tur wrote in this wording: A pit found in it—if it is large like that of a date, it is kosher, for it cannot puncture and certainly entered through the bronchus; and if it is thin like that of an olive, it is terefah, for it is prone to puncture. Thus far his words. And his intention is not that the terefah status depends on the size difference between a date and an olive, for it is not so, as even an olive is large relative to a needle as has been written. Rather, his main intention is regarding the point, for the point of a date is large and lacks the ability to puncture, and therefore, even though it cannot enter easily through the bronchi, nevertheless it is necessary to say that it came through the bronchi since it lacks the ability to puncture. This is not the case with the olive, which is thin at its head and has the ability to puncture; we always hang the matter on it having come through the esophagus and not through the bronchi, because it cannot enter easily through there [and according to this, the Tur also follows the approach of Rashi and the Rambam in this, though the Beit Yosef distinguished between them, and the Bach already questioned him on this, see there]. 29. And behold, according to what we have explained, it appears that according to this approach, regarding a needle in the gallbladder, there is a distinction between the eye facing outward and the eye facing inward in a thick needle, just as in the lung. And our teacher, the Rema, who wrote in section 9: "all the more so if a needle or a thorn is found in the gallbladder, it is terefah," thus far his words, follows the approach of the "there are those who say" that we wrote in section 26, that in the gallbladder, because its skin is thin, we concern ourselves with the puncturing of the gallbladder itself [and this is the opinion of the Ran, see there]. If so, automatically, regarding this concern, whenever the puncturing object is thinner, there is more to concern ourselves with in this, and automatically there is no distinction between the eye facing outward and the eye facing inward, since the concern is due to the puncturing of the gallbladder itself. And so we rule in practice [see the Pri Chadash, subsection 14, who disagrees with the Rema, but according to what I have written his words are clear; also the Tevuot Shor, subsection 9, questioned him, see there, and on the words of Rashi see Maharsha and Kereti U-Peleti].