Siman 46

If the small intestines were perforated with a penetrating perforation, it is terefah. Even if it is evident that the perforation is congenital, it is terefah [Levush]. This applies both to an animal and to a bird; it is terefah because the waste will exit through the perforation into the cavity and it will die. Even if the fluid within them plugs the perforation, it is nothing. And even if it is so firmly attached to them that it cannot be removed except with difficulty, the Sages of blessed memory received a tradition [50a] that it is not a plugging, and it is terefah.

Our sages of blessed memory received a tradition [49b] that pure fat seals a perforation, but impure fat does not seal. The reason is that all impure fat has a thin membrane over it, and the membrane peels off from the fat because it is not so tightly attached to it; thus it is found that the fat does not provide a superior seal, but rather is spread like a garment. However, pure fat is very tightly attached to the place where it lies, and therefore it provides a good seal. Therefore, there is also pure fat that does not seal for this reason, such as the membrane over the heart—which is the tarfasha de-liba that was explained in siman 40—and the fat over the karkashta, which is the rectum, because these two fats are not well-attached, for the tarfash is made like a hat, and similarly the fat of the karkashta is round like a hat, and therefore they do not seal the perforation [Rashi ibid.]. And it is not specifically pure fat that seals, but rather the same applies to meat, which seals a perforation, as the Rambam wrote in chapter 6; see there.

The fat of a wild animal, even though it is entirely pure in that there is no impure fat within it, nevertheless, regarding the sealing of a perforation, it only seals that which seals in a domestic animal. For the sealing of a perforation does not depend on the reason that it is pure, as there is also pure fat that does not seal, as I have written, but rather because it is well-attached, and the impure is not well-attached. Therefore, even regarding the fat of a wild animal, where its counterpart in a domestic animal does not seal, it also does not seal in a wild animal. For granted that the Torah permitted it for eating, nevertheless, ultimately it is not well-attached.

But regarding birds, all of their fat seals, for in kosher birds there is no forbidden chelev at all and all of their fat is well-attached. Now, in the Gemara it is not explicitly mentioned that in a bird the fat seals the perforation, yet all of our teachers, the Rishonim and the Acharonim, wrote so. There are some among the great authorities who hesitate regarding this on the grounds that the fat of a bird is soft and is not a proper seal [Yam Shel Shelomo, siman 52]. But this is no objection at all, for the matter does not depend on softness, but rather on being well-attached; for even in small livestock the fat is soft. On the contrary, if according to the law it did not seal, the Shas would not have refrained from mentioning this explicitly. Therefore, no one pays heed to this. And there is clear proof for this, for in the Gemara [50a] there is one who holds that even fluid seals, and you have nothing softer than that, as it is merely like saliva. And granted that we do not rule accordingly, nevertheless, regarding soft fat it is obvious that it seals, and there is no doubt in the matter. And know that the fat only seals a perforation of any size, but something that requires a specific measure for its perforation and its sealing, such as in the spleen, the sealing is of no avail, for perhaps it was not sealed to the necessary measure [Atteret Zekenim and Shach, subsection 3].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 1 that it only closes it up in that organ where the fat is attached to it by its nature, but if it closes a hole of another organ, it is not called a closing and it is terefah. Thus far his words. And it is true that our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, wrote this: that only the fat that lies upon it constantly and is very tightly attached closes the hole, and not that of another organ. Therefore, the closing of fat is not effective in the lung because it has no fat [49a: except for the heart]. And so wrote the Rosh and the Mordechai there and other poskims [see Bach]. And thus we hold [and the Taz, subsection 3, is lenient regarding meat even from another organ, and all the Acharonim disagree with him; see there].

But from the words of Rashi, of blessed memory, it is explicitly explained that it also seals in another organ, for he wrote [ibid.] regarding what the Sages, of blessed memory, said that the pericardium does not seal, and this is his wording: And this is the reason that a lung which is adhered to the fat of the heart, even though this is its place of growth and it grows near it, it is treifah, etc. Thus far his words. Behold, he wrote explicitly that it is only because the pericardium is not a good sealing, but other fat seals even if it is not in that same organ. And the Ran, of blessed memory, also wrote so, see there. And so it is implied from the words of the Rashba, of blessed memory, in Torat HaBayit, see there, for he did not mention this matter. And from the Rambam, chapter 6, law 10, it is explicitly explained that even in another organ it seals, as he wrote there that the membrane of the liver does not seal because it is hard and does not protect, see there. And behold, the Rambam did not count the perforation of the membrane among the treifot, as this is only from the stringency of the Geonim, as I wrote in siman 41, and he does not hold so, see there. And of necessity his intention is regarding the matter of sealing a perforation of another organ, and it does not seal because of its hardness, but other pure fat seals even if not in that same organ. Therefore, it appears to me that although in practice one should rule according to the words of our teacher, the Rema, that in another organ it does not seal, nevertheless, to join with another basis for permission, one may join the opinion of Rashi, the Rambam, the Rashba, and the Ran, of blessed memory [and so it appears to me is the opinion of the Bach, see there].

Regarding the fat that is on the abomasum, there are two types of fats: one is called "of the bow" and the second is "of the string," for the abomasum is shaped like a bow. The fat on the outer side that follows the curve is called "of the bow," as it is shaped like a bow, and it is forbidden fat and does not seal. That which is on the inner side is called "of the string," and it is permitted fat and seals. Even though we do not eat it, as will be explained in siman 64, nevertheless, regarding sealing, it seals [Rashba in Torat HaBayit 25a]. And there is a doubt regarding fat about which the poskim, our teacher Yoel and our teacher Ephraim, disagreed, as will be explained there, and similarly in cases like this. And we follow the words of those who forbid; should we say that in any event regarding sealing, even according to us it seals, as they said in the Gemara [49b]: "They eat it, but for us it does not even seal," see there. Or perhaps since we hold that this is complete forbidden fat, it follows that it also does not seal [see Pri Megadim in Mishbetzot Zahav siman 48, subsection 1]. And such is the primary ruling, as I wrote in siman 64, section 20, see there.

When the fat plugs the perforation, even if there is a needle in the perforation and the fat covers it, it is kosher. We do not say that the needle will certainly perforate outward beyond the fat, or perhaps it already perforated and retracted, for we do not establish a defect in this case. This matter is simple in the mouths of all the poskim, though there is one who hesitates regarding this, but it is not the primary view [Shach, subsection 2]. However, the head of the needle must be properly covered by fat [Pri Megadim].

There is one who wishes to say that regarding a bird that was fattened and the fat increased through the fattening, it does not seal, for specifically the fat from its birth seals and not what comes through fattening. And this is not the primary view, for if so, our teachers should not have written without qualification but rather should have specified, since this matter is very common. Furthermore, who could estimate the primary fat and the fat that comes through fattening? There is also one who was concerned that perhaps if it becomes lean, it will eventually separate [Chagat Shmuel, subsection 6 in the name of Be'er Eshek], and his intention is that according to this, even if it has not become lean, this is not a sealing because it is destined to separate. This too is nothing, for if so, even with the primary fat, if they withhold food from it, it will certainly become lean, and these are matters that have no measure [and the Minchat Yaakov also rejected this, as the Chagat Shmuel wrote there].

Regarding the thin intestines, there are some that are wound and surrounded one inside the other in a circle like a coiled snake [Rambam], and this is called in the language of the Gemara "hadra de-kanta." If one of them was perforated into its fellow, it is kosher because its fellow protects it, unless the outermost one was perforated toward the outside. And all the more so if the fat of the kanta itself plugs it, it is kosher, for it is pure fat and it plugs. Therefore, even the outermost one that was perforated in a place where the kanta plugs it is kosher [for regarding the inner ones, one does not need the kanta; and examine this carefully].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4: A needle found in the intestines is terefah, for we fear perhaps it perforated. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words is that this refers to the coils of the intestines, for since they go in a circuit and their membrane is soft, there is reason to fear that food and drink pressed it outward and made a minute perforation, and there is no inspection for this [Beit Yosef in the name of the Ran, see there]. However, all the great later authorities disagreed on this, for we should not establish a defect, as the intestines are connected to the esophagus, and it traveled through the esophagus to the intestines and rested there without perforating. It is not similar to the gallbladder in siman 42, for the gallbladder is connected to the trachea, and if it entered through the esophagus as is the way of most swallowed things, then necessarily the gallbladder was perforated, which is not the case with the intestines. Therefore, they all ruled that if the needle is placed lengthwise along the intestines it is certainly kosher, and especially in a case of great loss. However, if it is embedded slightly in the wall, one must forbid it, and even if it is not embedded but the length of the needle is placed across the width of the intestines and is pressed against the wall, one should also be stringent, and in a case of great loss one should deliberate on this [see Shach, Taz, Pri Chadash, and Tevuot Shor].

The rectum, which is the final intestine that is straight without curvature and from which the waste exits, if it is perforated by any amount, it is treifah. In what case does this apply? If it is perforated into the cavity of the abdomen, or even if not into the cavity but rather it was perforated in a place where it is not attached to the thighs, it is treifah. But if it was perforated in the place attached to the thighs, it is kosher, for the thighs support it there. And even if that entire place was removed, it is kosher, provided that there remains of it approximately the fullness of four fingers in a large ox, and according to the proportion of this measure in small livestock: the large according to its size and the small according to its size. And some say that in small livestock there is also no less than two fingers [Shach, subsection 13, in the name of the Ra'avan]. And in a kid or a lamb, some say that one finger is sufficient, and for a large sheep, two fingers are required [ibid. in the name of the Rokeach]. And if it was perforated within those four fingers, some say it is forbidden by any amount, and some say until the majority of its width is removed. But the sealing of the fat that is in this place is of no use at all, even though it is pure fat, for it has already been explained in section 2 that the fat of the rectum is round and is not tight and does not seal the perforation; see there.

Some of the poskim have decided according to the second opinion, that specifically until the majority is removed it is treifah, and not with any minimal amount. It is a simple matter that in a case of great loss one should rely on this opinion [Shach, subsection 14]. However, regarding the definition of "the majority of its width," the poskim are divided. For some say that we specifically require a majority of the total, meaning that two fingers and a minimal amount are removed from the length, and likewise from the width [Taz, subsection 6 in the name of the Rashal]. And some say that it is sufficient from one side, meaning two and a minimal amount from the length and any amount of the width, or two and a minimal amount from the width and any amount of the length [Shach, subsection 15 in the name of Rabbeinu Yerucham and Rabbi Levi ibn Habib, and also the Maharshal retracted in his Issur V'Heter, and such is the primary ruling]. The measure of a finger is at the width of the thumb of an average man. It is a simple matter that when the flesh of the rectum is spoiled, such as with rot or if it has dissolved, we judge this as a perforation. In a place where a perforation is kosher as has been explained, this is also kosher, and in a place where a perforation is treifah, this is also treifah. If it has dissolved extensively, its law is as if it were removed. Know that it is impossible to determine by sight after the shechitah the place where the thighs hold it, because after the shechitah the limbs relax and move from their place; but during the life of the animal, it is as we have explained [see Rashi, 50b, s.v. "in its majority"].

An incident occurred in a certain place where they examined several animals and a hole was found in the intestines near their exit from the stomach, and the hole ran diagonally. The butchers said that most animals are thus, and it comes from the tubes of the liver. They ruled that it is kosher, since the hole is always in one form and in one place and in many animals, it is certainly the vein that goes from the intestines to the liver. The physicians say that its function is for the liver to cast gall through this vein to the intestines and from there to the stomach to digest the food [Noda BiYehudah, Second Edition, siman 21; and even though the Rashba in a responsum did not believe the butchers who said this because the matter had not yet been clarified, there is no obligation to investigate after this, see there].

The sages taught in the Mishnah in "And these are kosher among fowl" [56b]: If its intestines came out but were not perforated. And they said in the Gemara there: They only taught this if he did not invert them, but if he inverted them, it is terefah, as it is said, "He made you and established you" (Deuteronomy 32:6), which teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created "establishments" in man such that if one of them is inverted, he cannot live. And this terefah is included in the category of "perforated" because once it has been inverted, it will eventually be perforated and decay [Tosafot]. And Rashi explained: "Inverted them"—when he returned them inside, he inverted the top to the bottom, or this coil above its original position, such that he switched this one to be above and that one to be below. Thus far his words.

It is clear from the wording of Rashi that even if he inserted the intestines into the body with his hands, if he only did not invert them, having inserted them as they were, it is kosher. And so wrote the Tur: if the intestines went outside and he inverted them and returned them, it is treifah even if they are whole; but if he returned them and did not invert them, it is kosher. Thus far his words. And it is implied from his wording that only ex post facto is it permitted when he returned them and did not invert them, but initially one should not return them due to the concern that perhaps he will invert them; for if it were not so, he should have said that it is permitted to return them when he does not invert them. And logic dictates this, for when they enter on their own, they enter according to their nature, but when a person returns them, it is difficult to manage to return them to how they were. Therefore, only ex post facto is it permitted if he knew that he did not invert them; and if he did not take care to know if he inverted them or not, it is forbidden. And such is the opinion of several of the great authorities [see Shach subsection 8, and according to what I wrote his words are understood, and examine this closely].

The words of the Rambam in chapter 6, law 15, require explanation, as he wrote: Intestines that exited outside and were not perforated, it is permitted; but if they were inverted, even though they were not perforated, it is terefah, for it is impossible for them to return as they were after they were inverted, and it will not live. Thus far his words. And why did he change from the language of the Shas which says that a person inverted them? And it appears to me in his intention that truly, according to Rashi and the Tur, that the primary prohibition is in the returning of them to the inside, why did the Gemara not mention anything regarding this matter of returning them to the inside? Rashi and the Tur were forced to explain thus, for certainly while they are outside the body we do not care if they are inverted or not inverted, rather the prohibition is when they are returned inside, and therefore they explained thus. And to this the Rambam understood to explain that only if they were inverted is it terefah even without being returned, because when they are inverted it is impossible that they be returned as they were even on their own. And that which the Tanna declares fit when its intestines exited is because of the reason that there is no danger in this, for afterwards they will be returned inside, but in "inverted them," even when they are returned it will not live. Therefore the Rambam did not write the inversion regarding a person, so as not to err by saying that specifically when a person inverted them and returned them it is terefah, as is implied superficially from the language of the poskim. And for this he wrote that only if they were inverted it is terefah, and there is no difference if a person inverted them or if they were inverted on their own. And Rashi and the Tur also hold thus in the law [and the Beit Yosef in the Shulchan Aruch section 2 combined the two wordings, and that which he wrote "that it is impossible that they return it etc." is a printing error, and it should be "that it is impossible that they be returned," and examine closely].

And according to this, when its intestines have protruded, they should do nothing; and if they wish to slaughter it, they should slaughter it as it is. And similarly, if they returned on their own, it is kosher. But if a person returned them, he must be careful that they do not become inverted, and if he was not careful, it is treifah, for presumably they became inverted. And he should also be careful not to feel them, lest he invert them. Therefore, the Shas did not mention the matter of returning them at all, because there is no practical difference in this; for if they were not inverted, whether they returned or did not return, it is kosher, and if they were inverted, in either case it is treifah. And there is no practical difference in this law between an animal and a bird; and that which the Mishnah was taught regarding a bird is because in birds this matter of the protrusion of the intestines is common, and not in animals [Beit Yosef].

And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote that the same law applies if they did not exit and were found to be inverted, it is treifah. Thus far his words. That is to say, if they opened a hen and the intestines were found inverted, not according to the order of all intestines, it is treifah. And seemingly, this law is simple, for since the essence of the treifot is the inversion, as has been explained, what does it matter to me if they were inverted outside or inside? Ultimately, they are inverted. However, there are some of the early authorities who permit in such a case, for the inversion only forbids when they exited to the outside [Shach, subsection 9, in the name of the Raviah and Sha'arei Dura]. And so wrote the Maharshal in Yam Shel Shlomo, siman 98, for from where do we have the authority to add to the treifot? And he wrote that therefore the Gemara only mentioned the language "inverted them," for if they were inverted on their own, we have no concern with it; see there. And the matters are not understood, for if so, even if they exited to the outside and were inverted on their own, we should permit for this reason, and yet the Rambam wrote explicitly to the contrary. Rather, certainly, the reason the Gemara mentioned the language "inverted them" is because without human action it is not their way to be inverted, but if they were inverted in any case, it is certainly treifah. And so ruled the Rashba and the Tur [and so wrote the Bach, and the Pri Chadash, and the Kereti U'Peleti, and the Tevu'ot Shor, and such is the primary ruling].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And similarly, if the intestines were found between the skin and the flesh and a stitch was found there, there is a concern that they exited and were inverted; but if no stitch was found there, and it was not evident there that it was torn, and no defect was evident in it, it is kosher. Thus far his words. That is to say, that during its life no defect was evident in it, for it walked a proper gait; but if any defect was evident during its life, it is terefah [Shach and Acharonim]. And our teacher, the Rema, holds that this case where they fell between the skin and the flesh is not included in the category of inversion, for it is not called inversion unless the upper part was inverted to the bottom and the lower part to the top, and anything similar to this; but when they were all displaced from their location, it is not called inversion [and therefore, even though the source of this law is from the Raviah and he holds that internal inversion is kosher and we do not hold so, as has been written, nevertheless the Rema holds that in this case everyone agrees; and see the Tevuot Shor who hesitated regarding this, and see the Kereti U-Peleti; but when there is a stitch or a tear, certainly the intestines were damaged].

There are places where the gentiles castrate male roosters in order to fatten them and sew up the place of the incision, and the custom of the world is to eat them and no one opens his mouth or chirps, and they say that the one who engages in this is an expert so that he does not touch the intestines. And even if at the time of the incision the intestines fall between the skin and the flesh, they came out on their own and he did not overturn them. And even if he inserts them by hand, presumably they know how to insert them in a manner that they are not overturned [Ba'er Heitev in the name of Dammesek Eliezer]. And so I remember that in my youth they would eat this species of roosters and call them "Kapauner," and they are very fat. And every sensitive soul should distance himself from this. And now in these days of ours, I have not seen them nor have I heard of places that do so in our country.

There is one who says that this rule, that if the intestines protruded outward it is kosher, applies when they protruded through the belly; but if they protruded through the rectum, it is treifah, because it is impossible for them to be returned in their proper order into the intestines in such a narrow place [Pri Megadim, subsection 9, in the name of the Rashal in his Issur V’Heter]. These are puzzling words, for just as they protruded in order, so too they may be returned in order. Furthermore, this law is equal in animal and in fowl, and the Mishnah explained this law regarding fowl. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in his great book that the reason is because this is common in fowl, as I wrote in section 18. And we see with our own senses that it is common in fowl for them to protrude through the rectum and not through the belly. Furthermore, since this matter is common regarding protrusion through the rectum, how could the poskim not have mentioned this? And the Maharshal himself in his great work, Yam Shel Shelomo, did not mention anything of this. Rather, it is certainly not so. And such is the simple custom in all the House of Israel, to rule it kosher when the intestines protruded through the rectum, and all the more so if only a portion of the rectum protruded [and perhaps this is not included in the category of the protrusion of intestines, and it requires further study].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 6: If a sircha emerges from the intestines or from one of the other organs whose perforation is in any amount, and it is attached to the wall or to another place, it is kosher, for we do not find the law of a bu'a or a sircha except in the lung. Thus far his words. And so we hold, and even though there are those who disagree with him and hold that the law of sircha in the lung is equal to other organs, we do not hold so, for it is thus clarified from the wording of Rashi [46b] and all our teachers, the Rishonim, that a sircha of the lung is formed because it draws in all types of liquid, and little by little a membrane is made, which is not applicable to other organs.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote on this that nevertheless one must be precise, for sometimes many bubbles are found and through them the intestines are blocked, and then it is treifah; and one must check with a straw or a feather if they are blocked. Thus far his words. It is implied from his wording that there is no concern of prohibition except due to the blockage of the intestines, as the food will be delayed, but due to the bubbles themselves there is no concern. This is according to the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in the previous section, that there is no concern of a bubble except in the lung. However, in his book Darkhei Moshe, he wrote that one must cut the bubbles and see if there is moisture in them, it is a defect and treifah. Thus far his words. And his intention is when the flesh beneath it is bad, as it is like it has decomposed, but when the flesh is whole and beautiful, we do not care about the moisture [Shach, subsection 16]. And there is one who wishes to say that here in the Shulchan Aruch he retracted what he wrote in the Darkhei Moshe [Taz, subsection 7], but it is not compelling, and there is no dispute here; for certainly regarding the bubble itself, we have no concern, but that the skin must be whole and beautiful is obvious that it is required, and who would dispute this? And here in the Shulchan Aruch it deals with a case where we see from the outside that the skin is whole and beautiful, and the concern is only due to the blockage of the intestines. But in a place where there is reason to fear the ruin of the skin, one certainly must check. And so is the simple custom and it is not to be changed; except that our custom is to cut three bubbles and check them—if in these three places the flesh is found whole and beautiful, we establish all of them also on the presumption of permissibility. And although one might question this, that in a place where a defect is found one should not rely on a presumption, nevertheless, since our eyes see that in most instances the skin is whole and beautiful, therefore they practiced so, and one should not question this. However, if one sees some bubble that is very ruined, it is obvious that one must check it specifically and not rely on the fact that we checked three other bubbles.

The manner of checking the buot: everyone may check according to his will, whether to cut the intestine in two lengthwise at the location of the bua and scrape it to see from the inside if the skin is whole and beautiful, or to scrape the bua from the outside and see the skin beneath it from the outside, and there is no concern in this. And if the intestines were lost before the checking, it appears to me in my humble opinion that if the buot were smaller than the usual buot, one may be lenient post facto and rely on the majority that they are kosher. However, when there was one large bua that was not in the manner of other usual buot, one must prohibit because of two things: one, that perhaps the skin is corrupted, and the second, perhaps the intestines were blocked. And know that any liver that has buot or wounds and bruises upon it, even though from its own perspective it is kosher when there remains the measure that was explained in siman 41, nevertheless one must check the intestines, for in most instances we have seen through our senses that when the liver has buot or wounds and bruises upon it, so too they are found in the intestines. And except for a minority of them, I have seen that it is not so, but in the majority of them, so it is; therefore, the obligation is to check the intestines. However, if they were lost, it is possible that one may be lenient. And a hen that sits upon eggs, one must be more stringent with them, for due to their weakness their intestines are prone to become corrupted. And there was an incident with a goose that was struck on its belly, and they opened the belly and saw that the intestines were whole and they declared it kosher, for due to a blow on the belly this is not terefot, as a bird does not have a rumen. And know that in wild geese, which are called "entlach," small buot are common in their intestines; ab initio they require checking, but post facto one may declare them kosher, for such is their nature; because they always float upon the water, their intestines have become weakened. And also in animals at the end of the summer days, buot are common in animals, and it is better then to discard the intestines and not see them, because for the most part the animals do not have buot even then, and therefore they do not require checking when we have not seen the buot. But if we saw the buot, then the obligation is to check, and like the checking we mentioned [so it appears to me in my humble opinion in these laws].