Siman 47

It is a simple matter that since if the intestines were perforated it is treifah, all the more so if they were removed; and since if they were removed it is treifah, the same law applies if it has two types of intestines, for "any extra is considered as if it were removed." However, as to what is called "two types of intestines," the pillars of the world disagreed on this. For according to the opinion of the Rif, it is as follows: behold, the intestines extend from the stomach, and if there are two heads that extend from the stomach, even if they later joined and became one, it is treifah. And similarly if the opposite: when from the stomach only one intestine extends, but later at its end it separates into two in a manner that the waste exits from two places, it is also treifah. And it is not kosher according to the Rif unless at the head of the stomach there is a full finger-breadth that does not separate into two, and also at its end there is a width of one finger-breadth; and then, even if throughout the entire length of the small intestines they are like two, nevertheless, since there is a full finger-breadth at its beginning and a finger-breadth at its end, it is kosher. And all this is in an animal, but in a bird it is kosher [Rif, Perek Ellu Tereifot]. And it implies that in a bird it is kosher in any case, and more will be explained regarding this with the help of Heaven. And this is the opinion of the Ba'al HaHalachot Gedolot, the Rashba, the Rosh, the Tur, and several other poskim [who rule stringently in the dispute of R. Ami and R. Assi 58b: that we require they return and mix and conclude from above and from below, see there]:

And according to the opinion of Rashi, of blessed memory, the Rishonim wrote a further stringency: that aside from the requirement of a finger’s breadth at its beginning and its end as has been explained, it is further required that the place where they are separated into two intestines should not have in this separation a finger’s breadth, but rather less than this. This is what the Tur wrote: The small intestines of the animal from which a small intestine emerges like a branch emerging from a bough—if at the head of the stomach, the place from which the small intestines emerge, there is a whole finger’s breadth before this intestine begins to separate, and also below, after it has rejoined with the rest of the small intestines, there is a whole finger’s breadth, it is kosher. And if not, such that there is not a whole finger’s breadth above and below, it is treifah. And some say that it is not kosher unless there is in the length of the split less than a finger’s breadth; and the first is the primary opinion. And in a bird, the equivalent of this is kosher. Thus far his words. And the first opinion is the opinion of the Rif, and the opinion of the "some say" is the opinion of Rashi, and he agreed with the Rif.

And in truth, according to the approach of Rashi, that they are attached from their beginning until their end and are only separated in the middle for a duration of less than a finger's breadth, how is it relevant to call this "two intestines"? The Rosh, of blessed memory, already raised this difficulty [Chapter Elu Terefot, Siman 54], and for this reason he agreed with the Rif; see there. However, in my humble opinion, one who examines the Gemara according to the approach of Rashi, of blessed memory, it is explicitly dealing with a case where when they begin to exit the abomasum, two intestines exit adjacent to one another. For it is stated there in the Gemara: "they exit in one place and terminate within a finger's breadth," and Rashi explained: "they exit from one place adjacent to one another, and terminate within a finger's breadth—and return and attach within a finger's breadth." Thus far his words. And this is the explanation: regarding "they exit in one place," Rashi explains "adjacent to one another," but it is clearly recognizable that two intestines exit. And regarding "terminate within a finger's breadth," he explains that they return and attach within a finger's breadth. According to this, it can be said that they do not disagree regarding the law, but rather regarding the version of the Gemara. For according to Rashi, it is dealing with a case where two intestines exit from their beginning, and therefore if they do not attach together within less than a finger's breadth, it is terefah. And behold, even according to the Rif it is certainly so, and on the contrary, the Rif is even more stringent, as is understood. But in the manner of the Rif's explanation, Rashi also admits.

The words of the Rambam, of blessed memory, regarding this matter require clarification, for he wrote at the end of chapter 6, and this is his wording: The extra intestine for which one renders the animal treifah is an extra from its beginning to its end, such that two intestines are found side by side from beginning to end like the intestine of a bird, or where the intestine emerges like a branch from the bough and it is distinct, whether in a bird or in an animal. But if it returned and merged with the intestine and became one at its two ends, and the two of them are distinct in the middle, behold, this is permitted and there is no "extra" here. Thus far his words. And it appears from his words that when they emerge from two places it is more lenient than emerging like a branch from the bough, for from two places he permits in a bird, and in a branch from the bough he renders treifah even in a bird when it did not return and merge [Bach and Lechem Mishneh, and they explain that that which they said in the Gemara "but they emerge in one place etc." refers also to a bird, see there].

And these matters are perplexing, that a branch from the liver should be more stringent than two complete intestines. And in my humble opinion, his intention appears to be that it is certain that in the place where the waste exits there must be only one exit, even in a bird. And there is clear proof for this, for he wrote, "until two intestines are found side by side from beginning to end like the intestine of a bird," and there is no bird in the world that has two exits, and in no living creature is it possible for this to be found. Rather, that which he wrote "from beginning to end" means "up to but not including," for at the end they join together at the place where it casts waste, and this is "like the intestine of a bird," for in birds there are like two intestines: one that goes from the gizzard to the crop, and the second is the complete intestines, as Rashi explained, see there. But the exit is one. And that which he wrote afterward, "or if the intestine was emerging like a branch from the liver and it is separate, whether in a bird or in an animal," his intention is an intestine open at its end such that the waste exits from it into the body cavity, and this is certainly treifah even in a bird because of the waste exiting into the body cavity. But if the intestine is closed at its end, it is kosher even in an animal, for this is not in the category of an extra limb at all, but rather like a mere dangling piece, and many dangling pieces are found in living creatures. [And that which the Rambam did not mention the measurement of a fingerbreadth is because he holds that the intention is not regarding the measurement of a fingerbreadth but rather regarding the connection, as the Kesef Mishneh and the Lechem Mishneh wrote; see the Pri Chadash].

And the words of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, are entirely difficult in this matter, for they wrote, and this is their wording: An animal in which two intestines were found is treifah, such as if it has an extra intestine from its beginning to its end, until two intestines are found one beside the other from beginning to end like the intestine of a bird; or if the intestine was emerging like a branch from a bough and it is distinct, whether in a bird or in an animal. But if it returned and merged with the intestine and became one at its two ends, and they are both distinct in the middle, this is permitted and there is no "extra" here. And some say that when a small intestine emerges from the small intestines like a branch emerging from a bough, if at the head of the stomach, the place from which the small intestines emerge, there is a complete finger's breadth before this intestine begins to separate, and also below, after it has reconnected with the rest of the small intestines, there is a complete finger's breadth, it is kosher. And if not, that there is not a complete finger's breadth above and below, it is treifah, and such is the primary ruling. Thus far their words.

And in section 2 they wrote, and this is their wording: To what does this apply? To a beast; but in a bird, a similar case is kosher, and even if several branches emerge from it, it is kosher. Thus far their words. And in section 5 they wrote: The hadra de-kanta from whose middle an excess emerges that hangs from the intestines like a small intestine the length of a finger is kosher. And all this is where the excess is closed at the head and the waste does not exit from it; but if it is open at its head, it is terefah, for the waste falls into the body, and furthermore, it is a perforation of the intestines. Thus far their words.

And they have already raised an objection against them, that their words contradict one another; for since in section 1 they wrote the words of the Rambam, that it is like a branch from the cloth even in a bird it is treifah, how did they write in section 2 that in a bird it is kosher? And there is one who wishes to say that they wrote this according to the "there are those who say" and not according to the first opinion, which is the opinion of the Rambam [Taz, subsection 2]. But it does not imply so, for how could they write this in a section of its own? And furthermore, behold they wrote this as practical halacha, since they concluded: "and even if several branches emerge from it, it is kosher." And behold, their holy way is well known, that the first opinion is the primary one; so how could they reject the opinion of the Rambam entirely? And there is one who wishes to say that section 2 deals with a case where they returned and became intermingled [Shach, subsection 2]. And they have already rejected this as well, for explicitly it does not imply so. And furthermore, they raised an objection against what was written in section 5 regarding the hadra de-kanta, that an extra part emerging from its middle is kosher, for this is against what was explained in section 1.

However, according to what we explained in section 5 regarding the intent of the Rambam, that it deals with an open intestine, everything is settled. For that which they wrote in section 2, that in a bird it is kosher, this is when it is closed at the end; but in an animal, even in such a case it is treifah according to the opinion of the "there are those who say" in section 1. And that which they wrote in section 5, this is the explanation: that even according to the "there are those who say" who forbid in an animal regarding a branch extending out, this is specifically when it is somewhat long like an intestine, but if it is only the length of a finger, this is not the form of an intestine but merely a mere dangling. And the Rambam holds that even when it is long, since it is closed at its end, it is like a mere dangling. And this is what our teacher, the Rema, concluded, that specifically when it is closed at its head—meaning, and at the end of the intestine, if it is also closed, we have no concern with it since the waste does not fall from it. Or, it is possible to say that his intent was specifically at its head, but at its end it is forbidden according to the opinion of the "there are those who say," and this requires further deliberation. [And the Shach in subsection 7 wrote that regarding a small intestine extending from the small intestines, it is kosher in all manners, even more than a finger, as he wrote in subsection 8. And I am wondered by this, for this is exactly like a branch extending from the branch. And the Taz answered that it is equal in its position to the small intestines, and a "branch extending" means that it protrudes; see there. And this too is difficult, and already the Tevuot Shor in subsection 4 challenged them and also concluded like our words, that the Rambam deals with an open one; see there and examine carefully].

Regarding the law, the great later authorities wrote that one should be stringent according to all interpretations, meaning that one should only declare it kosher if at their beginning they are one for the width of a finger, and the separation is less than a finger, and afterwards they joined together; and this is as they understood the opinion of Rashi. In my humble opinion, it seems that in this matter one should not be stringent at all, for even according to their words, all our teachers disagree with him, and in the Shulchan Aruch the opinion of Rashi was not cited at all. All the more so according to what I wrote in section 3, even Rashi does not hold this way. And as long as they are joined together at their beginning and at their end for a length of the width of a thumb in its middle, one should declare it kosher. Regarding a thin piece that emerges from the thin pieces, if it is closed at its head, it is certainly a mere protrusion. And even if it is open at its head, if it is closed at its end and is only the width of a thumb, one may be lenient in a case of great loss; and in more than a thumb, one must deliberate.

The Kol Bo wrote that an incident occurred in the city of Béziers where an extra part was found in the intestine exiting the abomasum after it had extended a span or two, and they permitted it based on the sages. They said that all animals have one vein connected to the liver at one end and connected to the small intestines, etc. This vein is hollow and enters into the intestine exiting the abomasum. Sometimes the entire vein remains with the liver when they cut the liver from the body, and the intestine exiting the abomasum is found smooth such that it is not noticeable at all, etc. Sometimes they are not precise in cutting it so that the entire vein remains with the liver, but rather the head of the vein remains in the intestine where it is connected. Sometimes it remains there with a length and width of three fingers or more, and it appears as if it is extra, but it is not so. This vein's place of connection to the intestine is sometimes the width of a finger or more, and sometimes it is very thin. All of this they testified that the sages of Lunel also permitted [the Beit Yosef, and in the Yam Shel Shlomo siman 107 he wrote that this requires great precision and a gathering of expert slaughterers].

A chicken that has two openings in its rear through which it excretes waste: if they examined it and saw that the intestine through which the waste exits is only one, but the mouth of that intestine branched out into two places, and nevertheless there is only one opening in the body of the chicken itself, and likewise the entire intestine is one, it is kosher. For this is not a superfluity at all, but rather the mouth branched out into two places [Be'er Heitev subsection 5 in the name of the Rash Halevi siman 25 and Knesset HaGedolah].

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 3: An intestine that emerges from the beit hakosot to the hemses is kosher, but that which emerges from the beit hakosot to the kers is terefah. Thus far their words. And the reason is explicit in the Gemara [58b]: because from the beit hakosot to the hemses it is found in certain species of animals and such is their growth; therefore, it is kosher in every species of animal. But to the kers it is not found, and we do not compare terefot to one another. And the beit hakosot is at the end of the kers, and there it is shaped like a hat and is called the beit hakosot. And the hemses is attached to it, and the food enters from the beit hakosot to the hemses, and it is the stomach. And because it dissolves the food it is called hemses, from the expression "as when a standard-bearer faints."

In the Rambam this law is not found explicitly, and perhaps it is because the reason for the terefah is because it is an extra intestine, and "anything extra is considered as if it were removed" [Rashi ibid.], and this is included in his words in chapter 6, law 2, where he wrote that two intestines are a terefah. Nevertheless, he should have clarified that from the beit hakosot to the hemsas it is not called "two intestines," but to the kores it is called "two intestines," for we have seen in the Gemara that they had a discussion regarding this matter, and it requires further study.

They further wrote that if it has two sanya divei it is treifah, and if they pour into one another it is kosher. And the sanya divei is the wide intestine called seigo, and it is connected to the small intestines and they discard it [Beit Yosef in the name of Rabbeinu Yerucham]. Rashi explained [50b] that it is shaped like a pouch and closed at its end, and it is called sanya divei because it is a repulsive and lean place that even the wolves do not eat. In the Gemara ibid. there is an opinion that this is the internal rumen, see there. The Rambam also omitted this, and it requires further study. And there was an incident regarding the large intestine where an excess was found in its middle similar to a sanya divei and it was full of waste, and they ruled it treifah; for since its form is like the form of the sanya divei and it is full of waste like it, even though it is not in the location of the sanya divei, ultimately it is in the location of the intestines and it constitutes two sanya divei, and it is like an extra intestine and is treifah [Pri Chadash subsection 5 in the name of the Mabit]. And even according to what will be explained in siman 55 regarding an extra leg, that we require the excess to be in the location of the primary one, here it is also treifah, for all types of intestines are one and the entire area is considered their location.