Siman 44

The sages taught in the Mishnah [54a] that if the kidneys were removed, it is kosher. Therefore, if it was born with one kidney or with three kidneys, it is kosher, for behold, "any excess is like the removed," and the removed is kosher. And even if they are attached at the place of the cleft, which is the white part of the kidney, it is kosher [Bach]. And only for a sacrifice is it disqualified by a missing kidney or an extra one due to the reason of deficiency [Bekhorot 39a]. And from this itself there is proof: since the Merciful One disqualified it for the Most High, it implies that for a commoner it is permitted [the Rif]. And later it will be explained if there is a distinction between being removed by hand or being removed by way of illness. And there is one who wishes to say that according to the one who holds that the explanation of "any excess is like the removed" is like being removed from its place, as I wrote at the end of siman 41, see there; and according to what will be explained that a kidney that diminished until it is like a bean in a small animal or like a grape in a large animal is terefah, if so, if they are attached to one another such that when they are removed from each other from the place of their connection there would not remain this measurement, it is terefah [Pri Megadim in Mishbetzot Zahav, subsection 1]. But it does not appear so, for behold, it will be explained that if it diminished it is terefah specifically due to illness, but if it was born thus, it is kosher, and in such a case it is simple that we should not judge it more strictly than if it were born thus. And furthermore, in practice certainly one should not be concerned with this, for the primary view is according to the explanation of most commentators that "any excess is like the removed" means like one was removed, as I wrote in siman 43, section 15, see there.

It is stated in the Gemara [55a]: If it was stricken in one kidney, it is terefah, provided that the affliction reaches the place of the slit; and this is the white area beneath the loins where the sinews are attached, and it is the middle of the kidney [Rashi], and this is the whiteness beneath the loins that enters into the kidney [Rashba], for in that place is the primary vitality of the kidneys. And being stricken is worse than being removed, for if even both kidneys were removed it is kosher, but if it was stricken even in one it is terefah, and all the more so in two [Rashi]. And this is not a matter of wonder that a defect in the organ would be more severe than the removal of the entire organ, for so it is also regarding the spleen, where if it is removed it is kosher, but if it is perforated in its thick part it is terefah, as I wrote in siman 43.

And the reason for the matter is that thus our sages, of blessed memory, received until the halacha to Moshe from Sinai: that there are cases where the corruption in the body of the organ is worse than if the entire organ were removed. For when the entire organ is removed, it can live, as this organ is not among the vital organs; however, with the corruption of the organ, it cannot live because of the pain, as this reason was also written regarding the spleen. Therefore, when the affliction reaches the place of the whiteness of the kidney, for there is the primary vitality of the kidney organ, it will die because of the pain, or because through this the entire body will become corrupted. And as long as it has not reached the whiteness, the wound is not strong, and it can endure the pain and it will not harm the entire body.

And what is a "lesion"? Rashi explained, for example, that it is filled with pus; see there. However, the Rambam and the Tur wrote that these are two different things, and pus is a terefah on its own, and a "lesion" is called such whenever the flesh has dissolved to the extent that if a person holds a part of it, it dissolves and falls away. This is provided that the lesion or the pus reaches onto the white [Tur]. And as long as it has not reached the white, even if it reached until the white, it is kosher [Shach, subsection 5]. And there are those who are stringent even when it reaches until the white if there is no healthy flesh separating between the lesion or the pus and the white [Levush and Tevuot Shor]. But this is not the opinion of most of the poskim, and the version before us in the Tur is also "onto the white," meaning within the white, and so it is explained from the words of our teachers, the Rishonim.

However, there is one who says that only regarding a lesion do we require the place of the groove, but regarding pus, even if it did not reach the groove, it is terefah as long as the wound is recognizable from the outside [Yam Shel Shlomo, siman 86]. And seemingly, this is also implied from the wording of the Rambam at the end of chapter 8, who wrote: And likewise, if the kidney was afflicted, and this is when its flesh becomes like the flesh of a corpse that has putrefied after days, such that if you hold a part of it, it dissolves and falls away, and this illness reached until the white that is inside the kidney, this is terefah. And likewise, if discharge—which is pus—is found in the kidney, even if it is not foul-smelling, or if turbid or foul-smelling water is found in it, this is terefah; but if clear water is found in it, this is permitted. Thus far his words. And since he did not mention regarding discharge, which is pus, that it must reach until the white, we learn from this that regarding pus we do not require it to reach until the white at all [and see Kesef Mishneh].

But the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote explicitly that even with pus we require it to reach the white, and so wrote the Rashba. And certainly according to the explanation of Rashi, who explains that "lesion" is pus, for does the Gemara not say explicitly that we require it to reach the white? And there are those who were concerned to be stringent according to the first opinion, to distinguish between a lesion and pus, and that with pus, as long as the wound is recognizable from the outside, it is terefah even if it did not reach the place of the groove [Shach subsection 5 and Taz subsection 6]. And there are those who were not concerned at all for this opinion [Pri Chadash and Pleiti subsection 6], and there is a proof for it, for a lesion where it has decomposed is much worse than pus, as is proven from a lung, where blisters full of pus are kosher and a lung that has decomposed is terefah. And since regarding a kidney, with decomposition we require it to reach the white, certainly with pus. And furthermore, for the primary terefah of the kidney is in the white. And furthermore, since according to the explanation of Rashi this is explained explicitly in the Gemara, and in the words of the Rambam it is not explicitly stated to the contrary and it can be said that he relies on the first clause, we adopt this. And so it appears primary. And it is a simple matter that in a case of great loss one may rely simply on these views.

It has already been explained that secretion, even if it is not foul-smelling, is terefah, and turbid or foul-smelling water is terefah when it reaches the white matter. However, clear water, even if it reaches the white matter, is kosher. And it appears that if before reaching the white matter the water was turbid or foul-smelling, but upon reaching the white matter it became clear, it is also kosher, for the primary matter depends upon the white matter. And even if clear water was found in a small blister, it is also kosher. If it was found full of water whose appearance is bad, but it was not thick or turbid, rather its appearance was saffron-like, like the appearance of honey, it is kosher, for this is like clear water. There is one who forbids and holds that the appearance of honey has the status of secretion, and our teacher, the Rema, wrote that such is the custom. But if blood was found in it, according to all opinions its status is like clear water; for even though blood tends much toward turbid water, nevertheless, since the kidney is entirely blood, this is not in the category of a defect at all [Shach and Taz]. There is one who wishes to say that even with clear water we require that some of the white matter be whole, such that even clear water should not be in it, but we do not know from where this stringency comes to us, and there is no basis for this stringency [see Taz subsection 8 and subsection 10, and see Pri Megadim there, and examine it well]. And know that regarding all the terefot that were explained in the kidney, where we require that it reach the white matter as has been written, the same applies if the defect is in the white matter alone and the entire kidney is healthy and whole, it is also terefah, for the primary vitality of the kidney depends upon the white matter.

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 1: If the kidneys were removed, it is kosher, etc. And likewise, if the kidney was perforated or cut, even until the place of the groove, it is kosher. And in the Tur he wrote: If they were perforated or missing, even if the deficiency or the perforation reached until the white, it is kosher. Thus far his words. And behold, in the explanation of "missing," it can be explained either that it is missing due to illness or due to a cut. And it appears that in the Shulchan Aruch he intentionally changed from the wording of the Tur to indicate that specifically regarding a deficiency by a knife it is kosher, but by illness it is like it has dissolved. And likewise, if it was perforated by illness, it is like it has dissolved. And indeed, there is one who holds so [the Bach in the name of the Issur Ve-Hetter Ha-Aruch], but the rest of the poskim did not distinguish in this [ibid.]. And in practice, one must deliberate on this [ibid.]. And indeed, even if it was perforated or missing due to illness, it can be said that it is not similar to "dissolved," for what has happened has happened and the pain will not increase further, whereas in "dissolved" the pain will increase [the Taz and the Pri Chadash]. However, from the wording of the Shulchan Aruch it implies that there is no distinction, and it requires further study.

And it appears that if it was perforated or cut, even if it reached into the groove, it is kosher; for if not so, then even if it dissolved it is kosher. And that which is written in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, "until the groove," the intention is "until and including," meaning into the groove [Taz and Shach and Pri Chadash]. And there is one who says that only in the case of perforation is it kosher, but if it was cut it is treifah [Hagahot Ashri]. And this is a minority opinion, and all the poskim do not hold accordingly. And his reasoning is because it is written in Job [16], "He cleaves my kidneys and does not spare," and in the Gemara [43a] it is explained that it was a miracle, but without a miracle it would be a fatal wound. But in truth, there is no proof from this, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2: The law of a blow from a sword is like the law of a kidney that was struck. Thus far his words. And they questioned him, for this follows the one who holds that if it was cut it is treifah, but according to what we maintain that if it was cut it is kosher, if so, what difference is there to me if it was cut with a knife or with a sword? And there is one who says that a blow from a sword means that it was divided into two, and this is treifah [Taz, subsection 5]. And it is not understood what distinction there is between being divided into two or into three, and there is no logic to distinguish in this [Shach, subsection 7]. Furthermore, if so, the main point is missing from the text, for does a blow from a sword imply specifically being divided into two? And there is one who says that a blow from a sword means a blow with force [ibid.]. And so it appears to be the primary view, for a strike with a sword is a strike with force, whereas a cut with a knife is not so. And this is what Iyov said, "He cleaves my kidneys," for the expression "cleaves" implies with force, as it is written in Mishlei, "Until an arrow cleaves his liver," and it is known that the arrow strikes with force. And so too in Tehillim, "As one who cleaves and breaks open the earth," which is with force in the manner that one splits wood.

There are some of the great authorities who rejected this explanation on the grounds of: who can estimate what is called "with force" and what is called "without force" [Pleiti]? But this is no rejection at all, for anything done by way of cutting is "without force," and anything done by way of striking is "with force." Furthermore, they rejected this explanation from what is explained in the Gemara [54a]: Rav Papa Rishba struck the kidney by means of an arrow and they declared it kosher, see there; and we do not find that they scrutinized whether the strike reached the place of the groove or not, see there, and behold this is "with force" and they declared it kosher [Pri Chadash]. And this too is not a difficulty at all, for perforce one must say that they scrutinized that it did not reach the place of the groove, for if not so, perhaps the arrow fell into the cavity of the body. And so Rashi explained there, and this is his wording: They strike the kidney—they strike the animal with an arrow in the kidney from above, and they intend that the arrow does not enter and descend below the kidneys into the cavity. Thus far his words. And since they scrutinized that it should only be from above, behold the place of the whiteness is not there at all. [And the Pleiti explained: a sword wound, that through it wounds and bruises are made and it generates heat, and it is a danger to the entire body, see there].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4: If stones were found in the kidney, it is kosher. Thus far his words. And he did not distinguish between the location of the cleft and other than the location of the cleft, and it implies that even if they were found in the location of the cleft, it is kosher. And so all the Acharonim agreed [Shach, and Taz, and Pri Chadash, and Kereti U'Peleti]. And of necessity one must say so, for if it were other than the location of the cleft, what is the novelty? For in truth this is not an illness at all, as it is the way of the kidney to produce stones, and from there they descend to the urinary tract [Shach in the name of the Rokeach]. And this is from the laws of the physicians, as is known. And even though it is possible that through the stones the urine will be obstructed, nevertheless, this is not among the terefot that the sages enumerated. And there are those from whose words it is implied that when the stones are in the location of the cleft it is terefah [see Beit Yosef], and perhaps because of this reason of the obstruction of urine. Nevertheless, we do not rule accordingly, and so all the great poskim agreed.

An incident occurred involving an animal where a defect was found in the kidney, which was foul-smelling, and they did not manage to examine if it reached the groove before it was lost; it is treifah [Ba'er Heitev in the name of Knesset HaGedolah], for whenever there is a defect before us, the examination is indispensable even post facto. Similarly, if two say they saw the kidney and did not see the foulness, and two say they saw the foulness, there is no contradiction here and it is treifah, for these saw and these did not see, as they do not say that there was no foulness, but rather that they did not see the foulness. Therefore, if they truly say they saw that there was no foulness in it, establish two against two, and an animal, once it has been slaughtered, stands in its status of permissibility [ibid.]. And if they saw water in the kidney and smelled a foul odor, and they do not know with certainty that the foulness is from the water in the kidney, we hang the matter that the foulness is from it and it is treifah; even though one could attribute the foulness to something else, nevertheless, since they did not see explicitly that the water was clear without foulness, it is treifah [ibid.]. And it is possible that if they also did not see that the water reached the groove, one may be lenient by reason of a double doubt: if it reached the groove, and if you say it reached the groove, perhaps the water was clear and the foulness was from another place; and this requires further study for practical application.

A kidney that has diminished in size is treifah. And how much must it diminish to be treifah? In a small animal, until it is like a bean; and a bean is included in the treifah status. And in a large animal, until it is like a medium-sized grape; and a grape is included in the treifah status. And a grape is of the grapes of the vine, and it is much larger than a bean. And even though nowadays this is not so, this is because the fruits have deteriorated, and in ancient times they were much larger than a bean. For behold, also regarding an olive, we have a tradition that it is like half an egg, yet our eyes see in our time that it does not reach even a quarter of an egg [Taz subsection 12 in the name of the Rashal].

In the Gemara [55b] it is stated in this wording: A kidney that has shrunk, in a small animal until a bean, in a large animal until a medium grape. All our teachers, the Rishonim, wrote that even a bean and a grape is treifah, and the reason is that it is explicitly stated in the Gemara there that all the measurements of the sages are to be stringent. According to this, we say "until" but not including "until," since it is for stringency. They wondered about the Bahag, who wrote that a bean and a grape is kosher. There are those who wished to justify his words, that this applies only to the measurements of the sages in the Mishnah and the Baraita and not in the Gemara [Bach and Pri Chadash]. Nevertheless, from where do we know to interpret leniently? Therefore, the primary ruling is according to the words of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, that it is treifah [ibid.].

In my humble opinion, it appears that the Bahag was precise based on the wording of the Gemara itself. For when is it relevant to say "until and including" or "until and not including"? When the term "until" is necessary, as in the Mishna there [54a] regarding a dried fig, where we learned: "Until how much must it be diminished? Until like an Italian issar." And similarly in the Mishna in Kelim [Chapter 2, Mishna 2]: "From a log until a seah, from a seah until two seah," and so too in every place. But here, if it should enter your mind that even like a bean or like a grape it is treifah, it should have said: "A kidney that has diminished in a small animal to a bean, and in a large animal to a grape, is treifah," and it would automatically be understood that all the more so when it has diminished to less than this measure. Rather, certainly this is the explanation: that when it has diminished until a bean and until a grape it is kosher, but with less than a bean and a grape it is treifah, and a bean and a grape are kosher. However, for the halacha, we maintain that it is treifah, like the ruling of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch.

And this, that the diminished kidney is treifah, is specifically when it was diminished due to illness; but if it was small from its birth, it is kosher. And how do we know if it is due to illness or not? If we see that its membrane is shriveled, it is known that it is due to illness. And if it is not shriveled, but rather is formed according to the proportions of a kidney, the matter is proven that it was so from the beginning of its creation, and it is kosher. And the simple examination is to check its place: if it is entirely full and there is no cavity around it nor any decay at all, then it is evident that it was so from the beginning of its creation; and if a cavity is found there, it has diminished and is treifah [Shach, subsection 14]. And if it is not possible to determine clearly whether it diminished due to illness or not, it is treifah, unless there is some proving evidence that this is from birth, such as if the second kidney is also atypical in its creation, or similar to this [according to Pitchei Teshuvah, subsection 6].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 6: There is one who wrote that when they said if the kidneys were removed it is kosher, this refers to when they were removed by hand or when it was created thus; but if it was removed by way of illness, since it diminished to less than the required measure it was already forbidden, and how could it return to its kashrut when they finished being consumed and rotting? And according to this, one must examine if their sac is full of fat, it is evident that this is its initial creation and it is kosher, and if a cavity and empty space are found there, it is evident that it had kidneys but they melted away and it is terefah. Thus far his words.

And there are those who disagree regarding this, for since we learned: if the kidneys were removed it is kosher, this implies in any case. And this is not a matter of wonder that it should return to its state of kashrut, for we find similar to this regarding a lung that was perforated and the chest wall seals it, it is kosher, and prior to the sealing it is treifah. And so too regarding the lobe of the liver that was perforated and afterwards was sealed, it returns to its state of kashrut [Rashal at the end of siman 88 and Pri Chadash]. And that which the sages, of blessed memory, said [68b] that once it has become a treifah it no longer has a remedy, this is through the act of human beings [ibid.], such as in that which we established: if it was cut at the tzomet hagidim it is treifah, and above this it is kosher, as I wrote in siman 56. Therefore, if there was a cut at the tzomet hagidim and we wish to render it kosher by cutting above this, it is impossible for it to return to its state of kashrut; but in that which developed of its own accord, it returns to its state of kashrut.

The great later authorities agreed with the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch, for certainly it is impossible for a treifah to return to its fitness, even on its own. And that which a lung that was perforated and the chest wall closes it is kosher, this is because it is a closing from the beginning, as was written in siman 39 [Shach and Taz]. And from the lobe of the liver there is no proof at all, for this treifah was not mentioned in the Gemara at all, and it is a stringency from the Ba'al HaHalachot Gedolot on the grounds that the liver will eventually be removed; therefore, when it is closed, the liver is not eventually to be removed. And in my humble opinion, it seems that kidneys are also similar to this, for behold, all types of treifot in the kidneys, the treifah is not from the aspect of the organ itself, but rather because of the pain or because the damage will be over the course of time in the entire body, as the kidneys themselves are not among the organs upon which life depends, as we have explained. And since we see that the pain was removed by way of it being entirely missing and the entire body was not damaged, why should we declare it treifah? However, in practice, it is difficult to rule in this against the Shulchan Aruch and the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch, and it requires further study for the law.

He further wrote in section 7: If there were three lobes or more, and the extra ones were diminished and two remained according to their law which were not diminished, it is kosher. Thus far his words. And there is one who infers from this wording [that this is only] when it is known which one is the extra one, such as when the third does not stand in a row with the two, and similar to this; but when all of them stand in one row and one of them was diminished, it is treifah, for who is to say that the extra one was diminished? Perhaps the essential one was diminished [Bach]. And some say that this is not a logical reasoning at all, for since two remained according to their law, we have no reason to cast upon them the status of "extra," and it is not relevant to clearly call one of them extra; and as long as two remained according to their law, it is kosher [Taz, subsection 14]. And several of the poskim agree with this reasoning and hold that it is not treifah unless two of them are in one place and the third is distant from them, and one of the two was diminished, and this is also like the "some say" [see Shach, subsection 16, who wrote that the Maharshal holds so, and this is according to the opinion of the "some say" and not like the Bach, and the inference of the Pri Megadim there is settled].

And there is one who disagrees with the essence of this law and holds that it is treif in every case [Pri Chadash, subsection 14]. His reasoning is that since the treifot of the kidneys is not due to the organ itself but rather because of the pain, if so, even if the pain is in the extra kidney, ultimately it will not live because of the pain; and these are words of reason [and so wrote the Tevuot Shor, subsection 12]. However, it is difficult to say that all the poskim would not sense this, and it appears to me regarding their reasoning that behold, we find in the Gemara [54a] regarding the kidney that what the sages did not count among the treifot is kosher, even if we see that it dies because of this; nevertheless it is kosher, for it is learned by tradition that if one applies a drug to it, it will live; see there. And behold, in Chullin, neither in the Mishnah nor in the Gemara was this law of an extra kidney brought, and consequently, that which was stated in the Gemara there regarding the law of a kidney that diminished applies only to the two regular kidneys. Therefore, our teachers spoke well that in an extra kidney, since it is not explained there in the Shas, it is kosher. And even though it dies because of the pain, it is learned by tradition that if one applies a drug to it, it will live. Nevertheless, in practice, it is difficult to be lenient, and it requires further study.

A kidney that has shrunk, and they did not manage to measure whether there remained in it more than a bean and like a grape before it was lost, it is kosher by reason of a double doubt: perhaps there remained in it the required measure, and if you say there did not remain the required measure, perhaps it was so from its birth. Therefore, if there is some proof that it is due to illness, such as if in the second kidney there is some disease, it is treifah [Ba'er Heitev in the name of Knesset HaGedolah]. However, now I do not know if we are experts in the measure of a grape according to what has been explained, that this is not like the grapes of our times; if so, who can measure in a large animal unless according to the appearance of the eye there certainly is in it the required measure, and it requires further study for practical application.

Even though a change of appearance does not disqualify in all organs except for the lung, nevertheless the Tur wrote in the name of the Ittur that it stands to reason that whiteness in a kidney is an affliction, and any change of appearance disqualifies in it; and if it is green, it is kosher. Thus far his words. The explanation of the matters is that since an affliction disqualifies in a kidney as has been explained, automatically this change of appearance is an affliction, for the kidney tends toward redness and therefore whiteness disqualifies in it. And we require that the change of appearance reach into the whiteness [of the fat], and even though it is impossible to recognize in the whiteness if it reached the place of the groove, since it is white there regardless, nevertheless it is forbidden due to doubt, for this is a doubt regarding a Torah law [Shach, subsection 17, in the name of the Rashal], unless it is visible to the eye that the whiteness of the affliction did not reach there. And so too any change of appearance [disqualifies], except that green is kosher, and this is "green like a leek" which is called "blue," for the reason that we say the blood has not yet fallen into it, as is written in siman 38 regarding the lung. And some say that specifically the appearance of "gelb" is kosher, and this is "green like wax," but "blue" and "green" are treifah. And this is the opinion of our teacher, the Rema, in his book Torat Chattat, and his reason is that "gelb" tends toward redness. And the great Acharonim [Shach, subsection 18, and Taz, subsection 15] wondered about him, for on the contrary, regarding the matter of niddah blood in siman 188, it is explained that "gelb" is not like a red appearance, see there. And it seems to me that his reason is that behold, even the appearance of gold is kosher regarding niddah blood even though it certainly tends toward red, but rather we do not learn from there, for from the essential Torah law only five types of red are treifah, and it is we who are stringent with anything tending toward redness, and therefore they were lenient with the appearance of gold and the appearance of "gelb." But in reality, we see with our senses that it tends more toward redness than "green" and "blue." And the opinion of the great ones is as I wrote before: that "gelb" is treifah, and "blue" and "green" are kosher.

But our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great work, intends to say that with any change of appearance it is treifah, and therefore he wrote in section 8 that any change of appearance disqualifies it. And since even regarding the words of the Tur, who validated a green one, there is a dispute as to which type of green he intended, as I have written, therefore, for the law, it is proper to be stringent in all colors like the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef. And so wrote the great Acharonim [Pri Chadash, Tevuot Shor, and Kereti U'Pleti]. And since it is a doubt regarding a Torah law, one must be stringent. However, if they boiled it and it returned to its normal appearance, it is kosher [there are those who say]. And know that the white part of the kidney has a thin membrane over it, and sometimes blackness is found; if under this membrane it is white like the rest of the white of the kidney, it is kosher [Pri Chadash]. And a kidney that became red, entirely or partially, and has no discharge or bad substance in it, even if the redness is strong, it is kosher, for even without this it tends toward redness; but black is treifah. And even though regarding the blood of a niddah we establish that black is red, only that it has been degraded, nevertheless, this degradation in a kidney is treifah. And know that there is no treifot in the kidneys of a bird because they are enclosed in the bone and the intestines do not reach there, and the degradation of the kidneys is treifah for the reason that the spoilage will reach the intestines, and in a bird this is not applicable. Furthermore, since they are enclosed in the bone, they do not serve for life at all and are nothing more than mere pieces of meat [Tevuot Shor], and they also have no white part, and it is of no consequence.