Siman 43

The laws of the spleen are different from the laws of all other organs. For in all other organs, if it is perforated it is a terefah, and all the more so if it is removed; and where if it is removed it is kosher, all the more so if it is perforated, as was written in siman 50. But in the spleen it is not so, for when the spleen is removed, the sages taught in the Mishnah that it is kosher [54a], yet regarding perforation the Sages, of blessed memory, said [55b] that there is a place in the spleen where if it is perforated it is a terefah. And why did the Sages, of blessed memory, not count it in the Mishnah of "These are the terefot," that a perforated spleen is a terefah? Because the laws of its perforation are also different in two matters: First, that it is not in every place that if it is perforated it is a terefah, as will be explained, and this does not exist in any other organs except for the crop. And second, that in all other organs the terefah of a perforation is only when it is perforated through-and-through or into the cavity, such as the intestines, the gizzard, the omasum, the reticulum, and the like; and an organ that has no cavity, until it is perforated from one side to the other. But the spleen is not so, for even if it is not perforated from one side to the other, if there does not remain in the intact place the measure that will be explained, it is a terefah [this I learned from the words of the Rambam, chapter 6, halakhah 19 and 21].

The reason for the matter is because the spleen is not among the organs upon which life depends, for its entire function is only for laughter [Berakhot 61b], and among kings there were people whose spleen was removed by means of a drug [Sanhedrin 21b] and they survived for many years. Therefore, if the spleen is removed it is kosher, whether it was created missing or whether it was removed by means of illness or by means of a drug. And that which states that if it is perforated it is treifah is not due to the essence of the perforation as with all other organs, but rather thus did our sages of blessed memory receive by tradition: that due to the pain of the perforation it cannot live. Therefore, even if it was not perforated from one side to the other, as long as the integrity is not complete, as will be explained, the pain is very great and the living creature cannot bear the pain and will die. Therefore, we do not find the poskim saying that a sealing is effective for a perforation of the spleen, because its state of treifah is not from the perspective of the essence of the perforation but rather because of the pain; if so, there is no cure for this by sealing the perforation, for the pain is from its very essence. [And according to what I have written, one can settle the words of the Issur Ve'Heter which the Taz brought in siman 46, subsection 1, and the Darkhei Moshe questioned him, and the Taz labored to settle it; but according to our words it is well understood with simplicity. See the Taz, subsection 9 in this siman, and study it.] And in section 4 another reason for this will be explained [and the Levush wrote as I have written].

In which place does a puncture in the spleen forbid? On the thick side, for the spleen has one end that is thick and the other thin, like the shape of a tongue. And on its thick side, part of it is attached to the rumen and part is not attached to the rumen. And at the head of its thick side there is also a thin part; therefore, if it was punctured on its thick side in the part attached to the rumen, it is treifah, and likewise in the thin part that is on the thick side, if it was punctured there, it is treifah [Taz and Pri Chadash].

And regarding the thick part that is not attached to the stomach, if it was perforated there, some forbid [Da'at Kedoshim, chapter 3, sign 230 in the name of the sages of Prague] and some permit [Hagahot Asheri and Rabbeinu Yerucham and Da'at Kedoshim ibid.]. The opinion of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 3 inclines toward this, and it is simple that one may rely on this opinion in a case of great loss, and so the great later authorities agreed [Pri Chadash and Tevuot Shor]. And there is one who wavers regarding this, for in truth from the language of the Shas it is explained that the distinction is only between the thick side and the thin side [Kereti U'Peleti]. However, one could say that the primary reason for the treif status of a perforation in the spleen is because through this the stomach and the intestines could be damaged [Perisha in the name of Rabbeinu Nissim Shalom], and therefore everything that the sages spoke of in this regard is only in the place attached to the stomach. But according to this, why did the sages need to say that on the thin side it is kosher? For the thin side is not connected to the stomach at all; and this requires further study.

And even if it did not perforate from one side to the other, if there did not remain whole beneath it the thickness of a gold dinar, it is treifah, for it was established by our sages, of blessed memory, that whenever there does not remain this measure, the living creature will not live. And the measure of the thickness of a gold dinar we do not know, but the Rashba wrote that it is less than half its thickness, and his reasoning is from that which our sages, of blessed memory, said [Chullin 55b]: there remained the thickness of a gold dinar, and the language of "remainder" is in any case less than half. And even though the remainders of the meal-offerings are called "shiurayim" and they are much more than the kometz, this is on account of the importance, because the kometz ascends upon the altar; and similarly the remainders of the blood are called "shiurayim" on account of the fact that the sprinklings are upon the altar, therefore the surplus is called "shiurayim" even though they are much more, for "shiurayim" is also a term for that which is secondary [as in Rosh Hashanah 17a: "to the remnant of his inheritance," to one who makes himself like shiurayim; and one should be precise with the language of the Mishnah in Eruvin 80b: "but regarding the shiurayim of an eruv," and see Rashi there, and examine it closely].

And behold, according to what has been explained, that even in the thin part of the thick [wall] where it is pierced it is terefah, it must be said that even in this, the thickness of a gold dinar is less than half its thickness. For if it were not so, the Rashba, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch should have explained this. And so it must be said regarding thin calves, that in them as well the thickness of a gold dinar is less than half its thickness. For it is difficult to say that we only measure by half its thickness, each one according to what it is, as some of the great authorities hold [see Tevuot Shor subsection 9 and Pri Megadim subsection 1]. For in the Gemara they mentioned only the measure of the thickness of a gold dinar. And according to this, how did the Rashba and the Tur write that it is in any case less than half its thickness? For according to this calculation, in the thick [wall] it would not even reach a fourth part, as is understood. However, it is possible to say that the Gemara which said "like the thickness of a gold dinar" refers to the thick [wall] and in a large animal, and according to this proportion one must measure in every small animal and likewise in the thin part of the thick [wall], and the rule is that it is slightly less than half its thickness. And since this too is difficult to measure how much the "less" is, therefore one should measure that half its thickness remains, and it requires further study. [And if we say so, that which the Beit Yosef wrote in the name of the Rashba is well-settled, that anything pierced up to its half is kosher, and so he wrote in Torat Chatat. And the Tevuot Shor in subsection 8 raised a difficulty: is not even less than this kosher? See there. And according to what I wrote it is well-settled, for in the thin side of the thick [wall] and in calves it is necessary to say so. And see the Pri Chadash in the Kuntres Acharon, and the Tevuot Shor and the Pri Megadim rejected his words, but in my humble opinion his words are clear, and he holds as I wrote, that we have no measure other than a gold dinar; and delve into this].

It is a simple matter that the thickness of a dinar is only required beneath the perforation and not at the sides of the perforation. And even if the thin part was severed, and adjacent to this severance the thick part was perforated, and there is only a minute amount or even nothing at all between this perforation and the place of the severance, as long as there is the thickness of a dinar beneath it, it is kosher [Tevuat Shor, subsection 2]. And likewise, if its two sides were perforated—that is, the side attached to the stomach and the side opposite it—one facing the other, and in the middle there remained the flesh of the spleen the thickness of a dinar, it is kosher [ibid.]. And one should not forbid it on the grounds that the skin was perforated one facing the other, for regarding the spleen the matter does not depend on the skin, but only on the remaining thickness of a dinar; and in any manner that the thickness of a dinar remains, it is kosher. Not only this, but even if it was perforated in the thick part not facing each other—for example, it was perforated on this side and there remained the thickness of a dinar, and also on the opposite side it was perforated and there remained the thickness of a dinar, and had they been one facing the other it would have been a perforated hole through and through—it is also kosher. Only in this case we require that there also be the width of a gold dinar's thickness between one perforation and the other, for if not so, they are as if touching one another and it would be considered through and through [ibid.].

The skin of the spleen joins to the thickness of a dinar, but the membrane upon the spleen, which is forbidden chelev, does not join [Taz subsection 2 and see Pri Megadim], for it is not the substance of the spleen itself and how could it join? Furthermore, its sealing is not effective, for it is forbidden chelev as written in siman 64, and moreover, sealing is not effective for a perforation of the spleen as written in section 2.

If a portion of the spleen was cut, its law is like that of one that was perforated, such that in the thin part it is kosher and in the thick part it is treifah. There are those who permit it even if it was cut in the thick part, for a perforation is worse than a cut because the pain is greater [Beit Yosef in the name of the Ittur]. However, the Rashba and the Tur have already decided that it is similar to a perforation; see there. And know that this case where it was cut in the thin part and is kosher is only found where one inserted a knife from the outside and cut a portion of the spleen without hitting other organs; for if it was cut or perforated by a needle found in the spleen it is treifah, as it is a needle found in the cavity of the body. Therefore, that which we permitted in a perforation on the thin side or when there remained the thickness of a dinar is only in a perforation caused by illness, for by a needle it is treifah in all cases. So wrote the later authorities [and that which Rashi wrote there, "and the needle did not exit to the outside," he merely cited a general example, as the Shach wrote in subsection 1].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2: If the spleen was torn, or it dissolved, or it was afflicted with a change of flesh, its law is as if it were perforated; and so too, any place where the flesh is bad and rotted, its law is as if it were perforated. And if there is water in the spleen, even if it is turbid and foul-smelling, if the flesh around it is intact, it is kosher. Thus far his words. And all of this is when it is on the thick side, but on the thin side, we have no concern with it. And that which he wrote, "afflicted with a change of flesh," meaning that an affliction of a change of appearance alone is nothing; for specifically regarding the lung, whose treifah status is due to the membrane alone, a change of appearance indeed invalidates, but not regarding the spleen. Rather, in the spleen it depends on whether the flesh changed in its essential quality and became as if melted. Therefore, he was precise and wrote "change of flesh" and did not write "change of appearance." And so wrote all the great authorities, not like the one who wishes to be stringent in this [the Shach, and Taz, and Pri Chadash, and Kereti U-Peleti, and Noda BiYehudah, not like the Tevuot Shor who hesitated regarding this]. And this is why he concludes: "and so too, any place where the flesh is bad and rotted, its law is as if it were perforated," meaning not only in the spleen, but in all the organs the law is so. And from this it is explicitly explained that what he wrote previously regarding the spleen, "change of flesh," also deals with this manner, and when there does not remain the thickness of a dinar of intact and good flesh. And see in siman 50.

And that which he wrote, that if there is water in the spleen, even if it is murky and foul-smelling, if the flesh around it is intact it is kosher, this refers to when there remains flesh the thickness of a gold dinar [Taz and Shach]. And it comes to teach us that we do not say that it will eventually all rot and be treifah even when there remains the thickness of a dinar. And there is one who wishes to say that his intention is to permit it even when there does not remain the thickness of a dinar [Bach], and his words were rejected [and according to what I wrote in section 12, it could be said that this was the intention of the Bach].

And all this is when the deterioration begins from the outside, but if from the outside it is intact on every side and without any deterioration, even if from the inside it is entirely deteriorated in a manner where there does not remain the thickness of a dinar, it is kosher [Taz at the end of this siman, and Pri Chadash subsection 8, and Kereti u-Peleti subsection 4, and Tiferet LeMoshe, and Minchat Yaakov]. And there is one who forbids even in such a case [Tevuat Shor subsection 6, and see Pri Megadim]. And certainly in a case of great loss, one may rely on the opinion of those who permit. And it appears to me that this is if some of the flesh also remains around it, but if all the flesh is consumed and there remains only the skin of the spleen, it is difficult to be lenient; for just as the terefah does not depend on the skin of the spleen, so too it does not save from the terefah. Even though we combine it for the thickness of a dinar as I have written, nevertheless, it itself is nothing [and I found that the Pitchei Teshuvah wrote thus in the name of Nachalat Azriel, see there].

And similarly, when there are lesions and bruises on the spleen, if they are on the thin side, it is kosher; and if they are on the thick side, one cuts the lesions and bruises, and if there remains beneath them clean flesh the thickness of a dinar, it is kosher, and if not, it is terefah. And it has already been explained that the thin part of the thick side is judged like the thick side. And when the spleen is dried, it also appears that its law is like that of a perforation, as in the lung, and one cuts the dried place, and if there remains beneath it the thickness of a dinar, it is kosher. And regarding the lung, it has been explained what is called "dried," see there.

When they said that if the spleen is removed it is kosher, there is no difference whether it was born lacking a spleen or whether it was removed by way of illness. And even though regarding a kidney it will be explained in siman 44 that if it was removed by way of illness it is terefah, this is because a kidney has a minimum measure in its shrinking, as is written there; therefore, when it shrinks to less than the minimum measure and becomes terefah, it cannot return to its status of kashrut. This is not the case regarding the spleen, which has no minimum measure. Furthermore, even regarding a kidney there are those who disagree, as is written there. Nevertheless, there is one who says that specifically by way of illness where it shrank [it is kosher], but in an illness where it decomposed it is terefah, for when the decomposition reached the point where there did not remain the thickness of a dinar, it had already become terefah, and how could it return to its status of kashrut? [Kereti U-Peleti, subsection 8]. And there is one who says that even in such a case it is kosher, because the illness does not cause the terefah status, whereas regarding a kidney the smallness causes the terefah status [Tiferet Yisrael, siman 50, subsection 2]. And a proof for this is from the fact that the poskim did not mention this law regarding the spleen [ibid.]. Nevertheless, from the perspective of logic, it appears like the first opinion according to the one who rules it terefah regarding a kidney in such a case, and the law requires further study.

If two spleens are found, it is kosher, for even though "any excess is like a removal," nevertheless, regarding the spleen, even if it is removed it is kosher. This is according to the opinion of the commentators who understand "any excess is like a removal" literally. However, according to the one who holds that "any excess is like a removal from the place of its fellow," as I wrote in siman 41, section 39, see there, if they are attached to one another at the thick part, it is terefah, for a hole would remain there. This is what our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 5, that there are those who are stringent if something like a spleen is found on the thick side, and it is good to be stringent except in a case of great loss. Thus far his words. For in a case of great loss we do not concern ourselves with this opinion, because most poskim did not explain it so, as I wrote there. Furthermore, even according to this opinion, who is to say it is like a removal until its end? Perhaps it is like a removal until its middle, and the thickness of a dinar would remain, unless they are attached to one another on all sides of the thickness [see Beit Yosef at the end of siman 41]. Furthermore, it has already been explained that the reason for a hole is because of the pain, and in this case pain is not applicable, as is understood [Prisha]. This is the reasoning of the Tur, who wrote here that it is kosher and did not bring another opinion at all, even though at the end of siman 41 he brought it, see there [and see the Bach who was stringent in this, and according to what I wrote it is settled and there is no need for the reasoning of the Shach, subsection 9, see there and examine it carefully].

If there are two spleens and in one there is a puncture on the thick side, if it can be recognized that the punctured one is the extra one, it is kosher; and if not, it is terefah due to doubt [Tzemach Tzedek siman 98 and Minchat Yaakov]. And there is one who rules it terefah in any case, on the grounds that the terefah status is not due to the puncture itself but rather due to the pain; if so, what difference does it make if it is one or if it is an extra one, ultimately it will not be able to live because of the pain [Pri Chadash subsection 6]. And know that an extra spleen is only when the second one has the form of a spleen, but otherwise it is a mere shred and is kosher according to all opinions [Pri Megadim subsection 9, see there].

The Rambam wrote in chapter 6: The spleen of a bird is round like a grape and is not similar to that of an animal; therefore, a perforation does not disqualify it. Thus far his words. The Rashba, of blessed memory, wrote that, on the contrary, from the perspective of logic it would seem that its entirety is considered the "thick side," and in any location a perforation should disqualify it, but an elder has already ruled [Tur]. His opinion tends toward forbidding it, and so wrote the Yam Shel Shlomo [siman 85], that it is a great leniency to contradict the principle stated by our sages of blessed memory: "Whatever is treifah in an animal is also treifah in a bird." There are several poskim who forbid it [the Ra'ah in Bedek HaBayit and the Pri Chadash subsection 11]. There is one who says regarding the reasoning of the Rambam that the reason for the treifot is that when it is perforated in the thick part attached to the stomach, the stomach will become ruined, and in a bird this is not applicable, as the spleen in a bird sits by itself [Duvvev Siftei Yeshenim in the name of Rabbenu Nissim]. However, according to the reason we wrote, that it becomes treifah due to pain, this reason is nothing. It appears clear to me that the Rambam was precise in this from the Mishnah, for we have already written that the Rambam was precise in his words; for this reason, the sages of the Mishnah did not count a perforated spleen, because its treifah status is not in every part of the spleen. And if you should think that the spleen of a bird is entirely judged as the "thick part," why did they not count it in the Mishnah of bird treifot [56a]? Rather, it is certainly kosher in its entirety. And if you say: why did they not count it in the Mishnah of "these are kosher in a bird"? One can say that this is a Mishnah that is not necessary, for since we learned regarding the kashrut of an animal that if the spleen was removed it is kosher, all the more so if it was perforated; for in the case of removal, there is no difference between an animal and a bird. And that which the sages taught, that "whatever is in an animal, its counterpart is in a bird," this is when the entire organ has a single law, and not regarding the spleen, which in an animal has divided laws [and therefore he did not depend this law on his own reasoning].

If there is a hole in the spleen on the thick side and it is recognizable that it is from birth, such as if it has a lip around it and it appears clearly that it is from birth, many of the great authorities permit it. And it is not only if we judge this hole as a deficiency and not as a hole, for if the spleen is removed it is kosher, even if all of it was removed and certainly if part of it; but even if we judge it as a hole that was made afterwards, nevertheless, the treifot of a hole in the spleen is not due to the hole itself, but rather due to the pain or due to the rumen as has been explained, and all this does not apply to a hole from birth. However, there are those who say: who can testify for us that it is from birth? Perhaps it was pierced and healed and looks as if it is from birth. Nevertheless, if there are many found with such a hole and it is localized in one place, there is no doubt in the matter that it is from birth and it is kosher. Therefore, regarding the holes found in calves on the thick side in the thin part of it, and the matter is very common, it is simple that one should permit it. And although before the matter was common the great authorities were divided on this, nevertheless, when the matter is common there is no one who disagrees on the matter. Therefore, in our time when such a hole has also developed in oxen and beasts, as I saw with my own eyes when I was in the province of Raisin, and at first the matter was difficult for me to permit, however afterwards when the matter increased, their law returned to be like calves, for what distinction is there in the matter? And the matter spread to permit them. And it appears that it depends on the growth of the beasts according to the place. And here in the province of Lithuania, I have not heard that such holes are common in large ones, only in calves, and every river follows its own course [See Taz subsection 2, and Nekudat HaKesef, and Pri Chadash, and Tevuot Shor, and Pri Megadim, and Tzemach Tzedek, and further responsa, and all agree when the matter is very common that it is kosher].