Siman 48

An abomasum that was perforated is terefah. The abomasum is between the omasum and the intestines, for the food enters first into the rumen, and from the rumen to the reticulum—which is at the end of the rumen itself and is shaped like a hat—and the reticulum pours the food into the omasum, and the omasum into the abomasum, and from the abomasum to the intestines. The butchers call the rumen "vampin," and the reticulum "pants" or "hoib" or "shaptshacha," and the omasum they call "knia."

The abomasum is surrounded by fat and is shaped like a bow; the fat on the outside that follows the curve is called "of the bow," and it is forbidden fat, and that which is on the inside is called "of the string" because above it runs like a string stretched over the bow, and it is permitted fat. Even though we do not eat it, as I wrote in siman 64, it is merely a custom; therefore, the fat of the bow does not seal a hole, but the fat of the string does seal. We have already explained this in siman 46, section 7. Know that there are those who wish to say and to infer from the wording of the Rambam, chapter 7 of Ma'achalot Assurot, law 6, who wrote regarding the fat of the string "a drawn thread like a string," that there is no permitted fat here except for the upper thread alone. This is not implied by any of the Rishonim, and it will be explained in siman 64 with the help of Heaven.

If a thorn or a needle is found embedded at the end of the abomasum, and the abomasum was not perforated from one side to the other, but a hard wart, which is called a "wartzel," stands upon the abomasum opposite that place where the needle is embedded from within, behold the wart is proof that it was perforated from one side to the other, and it is considered a membrane that arose due to a wound and is treifah. However, if the wart is covered by the fat that is on the permitted portion, behold this seals the perforation and it is kosher. And even if the fat adjacent to the wart is black and is considered as though it has decomposed and is not a sealing, if there is thick fat upon it in a manner that there is much more white fat upon the black, and from the outside we do not see blackness upon the fat, it should be ruled kosher [Pri Chadash in the Kuntres Acharon in the name of She'elat Yaakov]. And even if the thorn or the needle is embedded in the wall of the abomasum, if a small amount of the skin remains that was not perforated, it should be ruled kosher if there is no speck of blood on the outside [ibid.]. And there is one who is concerned to be stringent, but in a case of significant loss one may rely on this and permit it [Atzei Levonah siman 40]. And see what I wrote in section 68, and the same applies here.

An incident occurred involving a stomach from which three branches emerged, a half-finger in length or more, like pieces of intestine, and it was closed at its end, and the flesh was like the flesh of the stomach without any change at all. They declared it kosher based on testimony that such is the common occurrence in many fat animals due to the fat [in the Be'er Heitev and the Chiddushei HaGershuni in the name of the Chavat Yair]. However, were it not for the testimony that such is the common occurrence, they would have declared it treif on the grounds of a surplus, and it requires further study [and see what I wrote in siman 47, section 10, and examine it closely].

The Rambam in chapter 6 and the Shulchan Aruch in section 2 wrote: A rumen that was perforated is treifah, and there is nothing to seal it, for the fat upon it is forbidden. Thus far his words. And the Tur wrote: The inner rumen that was perforated in any amount is treifah. And what is the inner rumen? Some say: Wherever the butcher flays—meaning, all that is visible of the rumen when the butcher flays and opens from the thighs until the chest; and that which is on this side and that side, situated under the ribs, is the outer rumen and is not forbidden by a perforation of any amount. And some say that the entire rumen is the inner rumen, to forbid it by a perforation of any amount, and such is the primary view. Thus far the words of the Tur.

And know that regarding this matter we must clarify things, for we have seen those who act wisely as if to disagree with our teachers, the poskim, and like madmen shooting firebrands; and already they have cried out about this like a crane [the Beit Shmuel and the Tevuot Shor]. However, these are merely outcries, and they claim that the law is with them and that the poskim did not direct themselves correctly in this. Therefore, I am here to show them, with the help of Heaven, that they have not found their hands or feet and did not descend to the depths of the words of our holy teachers, of blessed memory, and did not know the sugya of the halacha:

Behold, a gloss is found in the Tur with this wording: The glossator said, my ears heard from those who tell the truth that in the western lands during the days of Adar, when the grasses are tall and the ox grazes on the greenery of the field in abundance, it fills its belly excessively; and so that it does not die, they tear it on its back between its ribs and tear the rumen and remove much excrement from it, and it returns and is healed, and in this way it is saved from death; and they do similarly to camels in this time, and the senses and experience will not be denied by man, and the words of the first explanation are correct. Thus far his words. And the author of this gloss set out to disagree with all the words of our teachers, and the great authorities cried out against this and wrote that it is a mitzvah to erase it from the books, for we have nothing other than what the sages, of blessed memory, said, as the Rashba wrote in a responsum. And there are those who relied somewhat on this gloss because they saw that the truth is so [see the Chacham Tzvi who permitted it after a stay of twelve months based on the words of the glossator]. And see what I wrote in siman 51, section 14.

Therefore, it is necessary to explain this law. In the Mishnah of "These are the Treifot," we learned: If the inner rumen was perforated, or if the majority of the outer one was torn. From this it is clear that there are two rumens in an animal, an inner and an outer. However, our eyes see that it has only one rumen. Regarding this, Rashi wrote: The Gemara explains; meaning that in the Gemara it will be explained what this inner and outer is. For this purpose, they came to explain in the Gemara [50b]: Nathan bar Shila testified before Rabbi in the name of Rabbi Nathan: Which is the inner rumen? Meaning, that the Tanna divided this one rumen into two parts, inner and outer. And the inner is the sania divei, and all the rest of the rumen is the outer and is kosher if perforated. Rabbi Ishmael says: The istumkha of the rumen. And Rashi wrote: And I do not know what it is. Until here are the words of the Tannaim, and from here onwards are the words of the Amoraim. Rabbi Assi said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: There is a narrow place in the rumen and I do not know which it is, etc. Rabbi Assi said: From the narrowing and below. And Rashi explained: From the place where the rumen goes and narrows toward the side of the esophagus, it is called inner, etc. Shmuel said: The place where there is no downy hair. And Rashi explained: There is a smooth place in the rumen, etc. Rav said: A handbreadth in the esophagus adjacent to the rumen, this is the inner rumen. And Rabbah bar Rav Huna said: Where the butchers tear. And Rashi explained: The side of the rumen facing the ground, which is seen immediately when they open the animal, etc. And it is clear that the Amoraim do not have the ability to disagree with the Tannaim, but rather they are explaining the words of the Tannaim; one Master said this and one Master said that, except for Rav, who is a Tanna and may disagree, see there. And they said there that all of them are included in the words of Rabbah bar Rav Huna; meaning, those who said sania divei and istumkhei and the place where there is no downy hair, all of them stand on that same side, either above or below, and when you render it treifah on that entire side with a perforation of any size, you satisfy all of them [Rashi].

However, it is further stated there: They said in the West in the name of R. Yose b. R. Hanina: The entire rumen, this is the inner rumen; and what is the outer rumen? The flesh that covers the majority of the rumen. And Rashi explained that this is a thick membrane that passes over the entire cavity and exists from the chest until the thighs, etc. And behold, this R. Yose disagrees with all the previous Tannaim and Amoraim, and it is clear to me that this is R. Yose b. R. Hanina the Tanna, for there is a Tanna R. Yose b. R. Hanina as the Tosafot wrote in Nazir [29a]. [And see the end of the first chapter of Sanhedrin and in the Tosafot there s.v. mahku, and it requires further study, and examine it closely]:

And behold, the matter is clear that Ribach is a lone opinion against all the earlier Tannaim and Amoraim, and the halacha is not like him. Furthermore, there is clear proof that the anonymous voice of the Shas at the beginning of the chapter "Elu Terefot" does not hold like Ribach, for it asks there regarding the Mishnah: "But are there not seven traditions?" and it counts there "flesh that covers the majority of the rumen." Now, according to Ribach, this is the "outer rumen" that we learned in the Mishnah; rather, [the Shas] does not hold like him. And it is also proven on page 52 that Rav Ashi does not hold like Ribach, see there.

And for this reason, the Rif wrote that there is one who rules like Rabbah bar Rav Huna, see there. And this is for the reason we wrote, that the words of Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina are the words of an individual; however, since there are various opinions, and they all relate to the words of Rabbah bar Rav Huna, therefore, automatically, when one rules like him, one rules like the many. This is the opinion of the Ittur [see Beit Yosef].

However, the Rambam and most of the poskim ruled like R. Yose bar Chanina, and not because the halacha follows him, but because the Amoraim are divided, this one saying thus and that one saying thus. And even though they all relate to the words of Rabbah bar Rav Huna, nevertheless, since they did not all speak from one reasoning, therefore one must be stringent regarding the entire rumen according to the words of R.Y.B.H. And according to this, regarding what they ruled that a perforation of any size in the entire rumen renders it treifah, all agree that there are many places in the rumen where it would not die from a perforation there, and there is only a specific place in the rumen where the animal would die from a perforation there. And this which they ruled to be stringent regarding the entire rumen is due to a matter of doubt, and it is impossible to rule otherwise because of the multitude of opinions.

And all that we have written, Rashi, of blessed memory, explained to us in brief words. This is his wording: And since the halacha was not decided, we act stringently and we declare it terefah in the entire rumen with a puncture of any size, like the people of the West. Thus far his words. Behold, he explained explicitly that because of the doubt we are stringent, and not because according to the essential law it is so. And according to this, the glossator did not innovate anything for us at all, for certainly it is so, that there are many places in the rumen that are not declared terefah according to the essential law with a puncture of any size; rather, because of the doubt, we are compelled to declare it terefah in the entire rumen, like the opinion of the Rambam, the Tur, the Shulchan Aruch, and most of the poskim.

And according to this, it appears to me as the law in practice that when a hole occurred in the kers of a beast belonging to a gentile and it survived twelve months, it is permitted, for through this it was revealed that this location where the hole was is not from the location of the inner kers, which is the essence of the law. However, in a beast belonging to an Israelite, it is forbidden to do so ab initio. But if it occurred that one did so—meaning that they thrust it between the ribs into the kers until the excrement emerged—it appears to me permitted to keep it for twelve months. And even though we hold in siman 57 that a doubtful terefah may not be kept for twelve months, see there, nevertheless, regarding a hole in the kers opposite the ribs, which according to many Tannaim and Amoraim is certainly kosher—for in the Gemara they said that all of them agree with Rabbah bar Rav Huna, and that is in the place of its parting, the side of the kers facing the ground and the location is far from the ribs; and also according to Rav who said a handbreadth in the gullet near the kers, this is the inner kers, it is clear that it is not that which is near the ribs from below, for it is still in the gullet—there remains only the lone opinion of Rabbi Yitzchak bar Yosef. And granted that due to the stringency we ruled like him and it is forbidden to do so ab initio, and also the milk is forbidden all twelve months, nevertheless, regarding the matter of keeping it twelve months, one may be lenient [and perhaps in combination with the opinion of the Ittur, the milk may also be permitted, and it requires further study].

And behold, that which they wrote, that there is nothing that closes the rumen, even though a portion of the spleen is attached to the rumen, nevertheless, since there is forbidden chelev there, it does not close [Taz, subsection 2]. And behold, in the thick part of the spleen there is actual chelev; however, in its thin part, the early authorities wrote that the prohibition of its membrane is only due to a mere distancing, as written in siman 64 [in the Beit Yosef there]. And why should it not close the perforation opposite it? This requires further study. [And that which the Taz wrote, that it is prohibited by rabbinic law, requires further study; for in any case it is pure and closes by its nature, and the prohibition is only a mere distancing, as the Beit Yosef wrote in siman 64 in the name of the Rokeach and the Smag. And in my humble opinion, it would seem that because only a small amount of the thin part is attached to the rumen, they therefore did not explain this; but if a perforation occurred opposite the thin part, it certainly closes. And in practice, this requires great further study.]

A hen whose belly is swollen, and when they opened it, much water flowed from it—if the intestines and all the organs are healthy and whole, it is permitted. And so too regarding a beast. However, there is one who wrote that he heard from doctors that one who eats from this can bring upon himself the illness called wasser-sucht [Shevut Yaakov]. And similarly, there is one who wrote something like this regarding hens whose legs are swollen, even in the lower bone, that one should be concerned for the illness podagra, and "the Lord preserves the simple." And it is a simple matter that one must see if the flesh of the belly is healthy and whole, for if through the blow the flesh became decomposed, certainly its law is like that of a perforation, and it is treifah.

If there is a hole in the skin opposite the rumen and the entire skin is perforated, the matter is simple: the rumen requires inspection in this place opposite the skin, and even post facto it appears to me that the inspection is indispensable. However, to forbid the milk during its lifetime because of this does not seem correct, for why should we maintain a presumption of defect that the rumen was also perforated? And so wrote one of the great authorities [there]. However, if dung emerges through the hole, it is certainly treifah, for the rumen has been perforated. And if it lived afterwards for twelve months, there is room to deliberate on this, and there is reason to permit it in a case of great loss according to what we explained in section 14, but one must deliberate on this. But when dung is not seen through the hole, the milk should be permitted based on a double doubt: a doubt whether the rumen was perforated there, and if you say it was perforated there, perhaps this is not a location of treifot according to the essence of the law, according to what was written there [and there is no need for what was written before, that one should not maintain a presumption of defect].

Worms found inside the rumen are kosher, for they grow from the dung or the animal ate them. If they were found on the outside of the rumen, and it is not known whether they perforated the rumen and exited to the outside before slaughter or if they exited after slaughter, we hang the matter on the assumption that they exited after slaughter, as with the lung in siman 36 [Taz, subsection 3]. There are those who disagree and forbid [Tevuot Shor and Bach, siman 31], for it is not comparable to the lung; since it is always fluttering, it is impossible for the worm to perforate it during life, which is not the case with the rumen [and the Shach in siman 36 also ruled leniently like the Taz, see there].

The flesh that covers the majority of the kers, and this is the thick membrane that is beneath the skin and passes over the entire cavity of the animal and goes from the chest until the thighs, and the kers is beneath that membrane. And this is when one opens this membrane, it appears that the majority of the kers is opposite this membrane, and the minority of the kers is hidden within the ribs of the chest. And behold, this membrane has no terefot from its own perspective [Bach], and therefore in the part of the membrane that is not opposite the kers, there is no terefot at all. And only in the part that is opposite the kers, if it was perforated it is kosher, but if it was torn to the length of a tefach it is terefah, and likewise to the width of a tefach it is terefah. And the terefot is because of the ruin of the kers, for thus did our Sages, of blessed memory, receive as a tradition, that with a tear of a tefach the kers will be ruined. [And what the Tur wrote regarding this, that this is the external kers, it is not so according to most of the Tannaim and Amoraim, for the internal kers is only a part of the kers, and only according to the one who holds that the entire kers is terefah with a perforation is this called the external kers; but according to the others, the external kers mentioned in the Mishnah is in the kers itself, and "the flesh that covers" is from the seven traditions at the beginning of the chapter "Elu Terefot." And therefore the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch did not write "external kers" regarding this, and the Tur was not concerned with this because we establish the stringency that the entire kers is the internal kers, as I wrote in section 12. And see Rashi 50b, starting with the words "the flesh that covers," and examine it closely].

And this that we required a tefach was specifically regarding a large ox, where the length of the membrane opposite the rumen is two tefachim or more; but when there are not two tefachim in this, it is treifah even without a tear of a tefach, if only the majority of it was torn. And thus our sages, of blessed memory, said [50b]: a tefach even if it is not the majority, and the majority even if it is not a tefach. And know that in a bird there is no rumen and no flesh that covers, and therefore the treifot of the rumen and the flesh that covers do not apply to birds.

And behold, the words of the Rambam in this matter are different, for behold, all our teachers agreed that that which the Sages, of blessed memory, said—that with a tearing of the flesh that covers the rumen in its majority or in a tefach it is treifah—this is when the entire thickness of the flesh is torn until the rumen is revealed. And logic dictates this, for even regarding organs where a perforation renders them treifah due to the treifot themselves, such as the lung, the rumen, and the small intestines, the perforation does not forbid until it is perforated from one side to the other; and all the more so regarding the tearing of the flesh that covers the rumen, where the treifah is not due to itself, that it is not rendered treifah until the tear is perforated. But the Rambam, of blessed memory, holds that even if it is not perforated, but rather it is torn through the majority of its thickness, it is treifah.

This is the wording of the Rambam in chapter 9, law 5: How is it "torn"? The flesh that covers the majority of the rumen, etc. if this flesh is torn, it is treifah, even if the tear did not reach the rumen such that it is visible; rather, once the majority of the thickness of this flesh is torn or removed, it is treifah. Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, followed after him in the Shulchan Aruch, section 3. All the great authorities wrote that the primary ruling is not according to his words, and one should only be stringent because it was written so in the Shulchan Aruch [Taz subsection 5 and Shach subsection 4], but in a case of great loss one should be lenient [Pri Chadash, Kereti U'Peleti, Tevuot Shor, and Pri Megadim]. Furthermore, they wondered about him, from where did he derive this stringency which is not in the Gemara?

In my humble opinion, it appears that the words of the Rambam are necessitated by the sugya of the Shas. For behold, in the Mishnah of "Elu Terefot," we learned: "In the inner rumen that was perforated, or if the majority of the outer one was torn; Rabbi Yehuda says: in a large one, a tefach, and in a small one, its majority." And one should be precise: if so, why do we establish the law like Rabbi Yehuda, for in a case of an individual and many, the law follows the many? However, they wrote that it is because in the Gemara [50b] the Amoraim explained the words of Rabbi Yehuda [see Kesef Mishneh and Bach]. In truth, this is not a definitive proof, for in many places we find this and nevertheless we rule the law like the many. Furthermore, if so, why did the Shas not establish it by saying "the law is like Rabbi Yehuda"? Therefore, the Rambam explains that certainly for all those who explain "inner rumen" and "outer" as being all within the rumen itself, certainly we establish the law like the Sages. But this one who explains that the entire rumen is the inner rumen, and the "outer" is called the flesh that covers the majority of the rumen—if so, it is difficult: what is this that they said, "the majority of the outer," which implies explicitly that the majority of the outer must be torn? Behold, this flesh passes over the entire cavity of the animal and there is no terefah in it, as I have written. If so, what relevance does it have to join to a majority or to impede the majority? And if you explain that his intention is regarding the part that is opposite the rumen, if so, the main point is missing from the words of the Mishnah. Rather, it is certain that it does not refer at all to the span of the length or the width, but rather to the thickness—that the majority of the thickness of the outer part was torn opposite the inner rumen, and it does not deal with the span at all. And for this, Rabbi Yehuda came to explain that regarding the span, it is a tefach in a large one and the majority in a small one, and he does not disagree at all with the Sages. Therefore, we establish the law like Rabbi Yehuda. According to this, for the Rambam and all the poskim who ruled regarding the inner rumen like the one who is stringent—that the entire rumen is "inner" and is rendered terefah by a perforation of any size—it is necessary that we also rule regarding the outer part like the Sages regarding the thickness and like Rabbi Yehuda regarding the span. [And with this, the difficulty of the Tevuot Shor, subsection 5, is also settled, who questioned what the Gemara said on 52b regarding the inquiry of Rabbi Elazar about "the majority torn," etc., "let it be resolved for him from this of Rabbi Yochanan ben HaNuri," for from where do we know that he holds like Rabbi Yochanan ben HaNuri? See there. And according to what I have written, it is settled, for it questions according to the law that we are stringent like Rabbi Yochanan ben HaNuri, and in the entire rumen it is terefah with a perforation of any size; if so, the inquiry is automatically resolved. See there and delve into it.]

And there is further proof, for behold the Gemara [52b] inquires regarding this law of the flesh that covers the rumen in its majority, whether the intent is the majority torn or the majority removed, see there. And the Rambam, the Tur, the Shulchan Aruch, and all the poskim ruled that in both cases it is terefah, and this is what they wrote: if it is torn etc. or removed it is terefah. And it must be understood what this definition of "removed" is according to all the poskim; if we explain that a piece of flesh was removed entirely from one side to the other, if so, what was his inquiry? For behold it is explicitly stated there [50b]: if it was perforated like a sela it is terefah, and that is "removed," a piece from one side to the other, as will be explained. Rather, it is certain that the definition of "removed" is not from one side to the other, but rather removed within its thickness. And since he inquired regarding the majority torn or the majority removed, hear from this that it is of one type. And from this the Rambam compelled that even "majority torn" is not from one side to the other [and see the Bach].

And regarding the reason for this terefah according to the opinion of the Rambam, it appears to me that behold, this covering flesh supports the rumen so that it does not fall down and become ruined, as for this reason it is a terefah as I wrote in section 19. Therefore, according to all the poskim, if the rumen is revealed it is a terefah, and according to the Rambam, even with the tearing of the majority of the thickness of this flesh, the minority will not have the strength to hold the rumen, and through the weight of the rumen, this minority will eventually tear as well and the rumen will fall and be ruined.

It is stated in the Gemara [50b]: If this flesh was hollowed out in a circle like a round chimney, and the width of the hollowing is like a sela, it is kosher. And even though with a width of a sela in a circle the circumference is like a tefach—for a sela is a third of a tefach, and anything that has a width of a tefach has a circumference of three tefachim, and it turns out that if you were to stretch the hollowing to pull it straight it would be a tefach—nevertheless it is kosher; more than a sela, it is terefah. And they asked in the Gemara: how much more than a sela? And they answered: enough so that three date stones could enter the hollowing; and if there is a bit of fruit around the stones, they should enter with pressure, and if there is no fruit around them, they should enter easily, see there.

And there is a question regarding this: behold, with a simple tear of a handbreadth it is treifah even if there is no missing piece, as has been explained, and certainly with a hollowed-out area where there is a missing piece, why is it kosher up to the size of a sela? For if you were to stretch it, it would reach the length of a handbreadth, and is a case where there is a missing piece superior to one where there is no missing piece? And behold, in siman 34 it is explained regarding the windpipe that a case where there is a missing piece is more severe than one where there is no missing piece. And the answer to this is that certainly in an organ where the treifah status is due to the organ itself, it is much more severe when there is a missing piece than when there is no missing piece; however, the treifah status of this flesh is not due to itself, but rather due to the falling of the rumen and its ruin, as we have explained. Therefore, the primary factor depends on the extension, for if in the length or the width there is a tear of a handbreadth, the rumen will fall because of the size of the tear in its length or its width. This is not the case when the tear is circular; even if there is a missing piece, nevertheless, since the extension of the tear is small, it will hold the rumen and it will not fall. Therefore, we require a larger measure [so it appears to me, and with this the question of the Gemara is understood: "And how much more than a sela?" and it is difficult, what kind of question is this? But according to our words it is well, and this is the explanation: that certainly if even a bit more than a sela the rumen would not fall, why is it treifah in such a case? Rather, it is certainly a measure much greater than a sela, and regarding this it asks "And how much?" and delve into this].

And behold, the Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in this language: if this flesh was hollowed out in a circle or in length, if it was more than a sela, such that three date stones could be inserted into it, etc., it is treifah. Thus far their words. And they raised a difficulty regarding this, for if it is in length, it has already been explained that its measure is a tefach even when torn [Beit Yosef in the name of Rabbi Levi ben Chaviv]. And there are those who wished to erase this [Derishah in the name of Rabbi Natan Shapira]. And the commentators answered that this is the explanation: that there is not a tefach in the length, but rather much less than this, yet when we wrap a string around it, it would be a tefach just as in a circle. And there are those who explained that if a circle were made from the length, it would be like a sela [Shach and Taz]. And it requires further study, for a sela is kosher, and one must say that their intention was to exclude more than a sela.

And behold, the Rif, the Rambam, and the Shulchan Aruch concluded in their words that if one stretches this tear, it will stand at a tefach, thus far their words. And there is great wonder, for in the Gemara there it is stated: If it was perforated like a sela it is terefah, for if it is stretched it will stand at a tefach, etc. For me it is explained, etc. Like a sela it is kosher, more than a sela it is terefah. And how much more than a sela? For example, if three barleycorns enter, etc. See there. Behold, it is explicit that "like a sela" is when it is stretched it will stand at a tefach, and "more than a sela" is when it is stretched it will stand at more than a tefach. And if so, how did they say regarding "more than a sela" that it stands at a tefach? And one cannot say that they explain that according to the conclusion of the Gemara it is so, that more than a sela is a tefach when it is stretched, and not as was thought previously, for how is it possible to say they would disagree on a physical reality? And in truth, the Tur did not write this wording [and see in siman 30 in the Shach, Pri Chadash, Kereti U-Peleti, and Tevuot Shor who were pressed in this, and some say that "like a sela" and "more than a sela" are the same thing, except that one is loose and one is exact, and some say that because in measuring the circumference it is impossible to give a precise sign, they were stringent in this].

In my humble opinion, a different intention appears in the words of the Gemara and in the words of the Rif, the Rambam, and the Shulchan Aruch, when we examine closely why they needed to say at all that if it were stretched it would stand at a tefach. Rather, it is certainly because the measure of a tear in length without a deficiency is a tefach; for this they said that the measure of a sela in the stomach is a tefach in length. And now it is difficult, for if we were to stretch it upon thin threads around the circumference, would it not be many tefachim? And even with a small hole, if we came to stretch it upon thin threads, it would be a tefach or more, as is understood. Rather, it is certainly that our sages, of blessed memory, established that even though when the tear is a tefach in length we require some deficiency, nevertheless, when the deficiency is in the circumference, we require that when we stretch it lengthwise there will be some cavity as well. For since the terefah is not due to itself but because of the falling out of the stomach, our sages, of blessed memory, established that with less than this measure of a cavity, it will not harm the stomach.

And according to this, the matter is understood: that previously, when they said in the Gemara that if it was perforated like a sela it is terefah because if it were stretched it would stand at a tefach, perforce this is the explanation: that it would stand at a tefach in the void, and the void would be of some measure in its width while the length would be a tefach. And if so, when they subsequently said that like a sela it is kosher and more than a sela it is terefah, this was also based on this foundation—that if it were stretched it would stand at a tefach, for this is the primary reason as I have written, except that the width of the void would be greater than the width of the void of the sela. And according to this, the intention of the Rif, the Rambam, and the Shulchan Aruch is as follows: so that you should not say that this requirement of "more than a sela" is because it requires the stretching to be more than a tefach, for this is impossible to say, as the primary terefah is in the length of a tefach. Therefore, in this case too, the reason is because when it is stretched it will stand at a tefach, except that the void will be greater in width [and with this, the difficulty of the Ma'adanei Yom Tov in chapter 3, siman 33, letter 30 is also settled; see there and examine it carefully].

And it appears that regarding a puncture, there is no difference between a small animal and a large one; for even though regarding a tear there is a difference, in that a small animal is ruled by the majority of its size even if it does not have a handbreadth, nevertheless regarding a puncture there is no difference. Since they did not mention in the Gemara or in the poskim that there is a distinction in this, it can be said that this is what was established by our sages of blessed memory: that regarding a puncture less than this measure, it will not damage the rumen even in a small animal [and so wrote the Kereti U'Peleti subsection 13, and not like the Netah Shoref brought by the Pitchei Teshuva subsection 4].

And if this flesh has decomposed until the doctor scrapes it away, it is considered as if it were removed, and we do not say that since the treifut is not due to itself we do not care about the corruption of the flesh; for whenever the flesh is corrupted, it is as if it were removed. It has been explained several times that we are not experts regarding flesh that the doctor scrapes away, and whenever the flesh is corrupted by decay or has melted, we consider it as if it is not present [and therefore the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch needed to mention this law here because the treifut is not due to itself, and examine this closely].

A needle that is found in the cavity of the abomasum or the rumen, its law is like a needle found in the reticulum; if it is not embedded in it, it is simple that it is permitted. And even if it is embedded in it but did not perforate from side to side, and there is no drop of blood on the second side, it is also permitted [Beit Yosef]. And there is room to doubt according to the approach of Rashi that will be explained, that in the omasum even if it perforated from one side it is treifah because it has only one skin; if so, in the abomasum and rumen the law should also be so, for they too have only one skin. Or perhaps in them the skin is thick and their law is like the reticulum.

And from the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 6, who wrote that their law is like the beit hakosot, there is no proof, for he did not bring the opinion of Rashi at all later on. However, since our teacher, the Rema, did not comment on this that one should be stringent as with the hemses—for he did bring the opinion of Rashi later on that where there is no great loss one should be stringent—it also appears from one perspective that here one should not be stringent. And it is possible that he did not see fit to write regarding this because certainly the law is equal to the hemses. And there is one who wrote with simplicity that their law is equal to the hemses [Tevuat Shor, subsection 9].

If a hole is found in the flesh that covers the rumen and the skin is intact, and it is known that this resulted from the goring of animals, it is kosher [Bach], and we do not fear that one of the internal organs was perforated. And know that this which was explained, that if it is torn with a perforated tear it is terefah specifically with a length of a tefach, and with less than this measure it is kosher, this is specifically regarding a tear caused by illness. However, if it was torn by a knife or a needle, it is terefah, for we fear for a perforation of one of the organs such as the intestines and their like [Taz, subsection 5]. And it is simple; and even if it was perforated by a needle into the flesh that covers, if one was not careful that from there and further it should not go, certainly there is reason for concern, and the craftsmen are expert in being careful in this.

The omasum and the reticulum are attached to one another, for the reticulum is at the end of the rumen itself, shaped like a pouch or a hat, and this is the neck of the rumen which is shaped like a pouch and has pits [the Rambam in the Commentary on the Mishnah]. The omasum, which is called "kenye," is connected to it and they are attached to one another. The sages taught in the Mishnah of "These are the terefot": An omasum or a reticulum that were perforated to the outside is a terefah. And in the Mishnah of "These are kosher" we learned [54a]: An omasum or a reticulum that were perforated one into the other is kosher. That is to say, they are connected to one another and are literally attached together at their place of connection, and there is a part above this where they are connected together by fat. Therefore, at the place of their attachment, even though the entire omasum or the entire reticulum is perforated, it is kosher because its fellow protects it. And if it is because the perforation reaches the cavity and waste emerges, behold, even without this they are open to one another and waste emerges from the reticulum to the omasum. But if they were perforated above the place of their connection, if the entire omasum was perforated from side to side or the entire reticulum, it is a terefah. And so too, if one of them was perforated in the place where they are connected together by fat, it is also a terefah, for the fat is forbidden fat and does not seal [Tosafot 50b, s.v. "mahat"]. And behold, from this it is explained that both are equal in their law, and even the omasum, if it was not perforated to the outside such that there is a bit of skin that was not perforated, it is kosher.

It is further found in the Gemara [50b; and Shabbat at the end of the second chapter; and Chullin 76b]: A needle that is found in the thickness of the beit hakosot on one side is kosher; on two sides, it is terefah. Rashi explained that the beit hakosot is like a cup, and around its rim there is a thickness of two folds, doubled and attached, and a needle is found stuck in that thickness; and within its thickness, it is possible for it not to have perforated it entirely [Ketubot ibid.]. Therefore, it is specifically in the beit hakosot that there is reason to distinguish between one side and two sides, but in the hemses, even on one side where the perforation is not visible on the outside, this is not considered a closing because the wall is very thin [Shabbat ibid.].

From this wording it is explained that even in the beit hakosot it is only kosher from one side in the thick part which has two folds, as is explained from the wording of the Gemara: "A needle found in the thickness of the beit hakosot." But in the rest of the beit hakosot, its law is like the hemeses [and so wrote the Shach in subsection 13]. And so it appears that even in the thick part it is only kosher when one side remains entirely whole, which is to say that one fold was perforated and the second fold was not perforated at all. But if the second fold was also perforated, even if it was not perforated entirely, it is terefah, for it is like the hemeses, as this is not considered a sealing when only a thin wall remains [and so wrote the Pri Megadim in Mishbetzot Zahav subsection 10].

And according to this, that which we learned in the Mishnah, that the omasum and the like which were perforated to the outside are treifah, the explanation is that it was perforated toward the outside [Tosafot], but we do not require that it be perforated from side to side. Or further, it can be said that in a case where it was perforated by way of illness, we require it to be from side to side, and even if only a small amount of the skin remains that was not perforated, it is kosher, whether in the omasum or in the reticulum. And only when it was perforated by a needle is it not kosher, neither in the omasum nor in the reticulum in the thin place, even when it was not perforated from side to side, because we fear that certainly the needle perforated all of it, but that it retracted slightly, and it is like a crust that formed due to a wound, which is not a crust [ibid.]. And there are some of the great authorities who adopted the second explanation [Shach, subsection 12] and there are those who adopted the first explanation [Taz, subsection 11].

However, most of our teachers [Rabbeinu Tam, the Rosh, the Rashba, the Ran, and the Tur] disagree with him and hold that also in the omasum and the reticulum, as long as it was not perforated from one side to the other, it is kosher. We are not to assume a defect that it was perforated entirely, for a beast, once slaughtered, stands in its presumptive status of permissibility, unless there is a drop of blood on the second side, for then it is clarified that it was perforated from one side to the other, for if not so, from where would the drop of blood come? This appears to be the opinion of the Rambam as well in chapter 6, see there. And that which they said regarding the thickness of the reticulum, that from one side it is kosher—which implies but not in the omasum—on the contrary, it comes to teach us a greater novelty: that even though one entire skin was perforated, nevertheless it is kosher, and all the more so in the omasum when the entire skin was not perforated [Tosafot]. And that which we learned in the Mishnah, "these are kosher: the omasum and the reticulum that were perforated one into the other," and it does not teach "that they were not perforated to the outside," also comes to teach us a greater novelty: that even if the entire skin was perforated it is kosher, and all the more so when it was not perforated entirely [Torat HaBayit of the Rashba].

And this is what our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 7: The omasum and the reticulum are attached to one another, and if they were perforated at the place of their connection, even if the perforation is through and through from one to the other, it is kosher. And if the perforation is on the other sides that are not attached together, if the perforation is through and through from one side to the other, it is terefah; and if not, it is kosher, whether in the omasum or in the reticulum. And there are those who forbid in the omasum even without a through and through perforation, and such is the custom, except in a case of great loss, for then one may rely on those who permit. Thus far their words. And they were brief in their words, for according to the opinion of those who forbid, also in the reticulum not in the thick part it is terefah, and even in the thick part if the skin and a half were perforated it is terefah, and from their wording it implies that only in the omasum is it terefah, and it requires further study. And it appears that their opinion is that only in the omasum should one be stringent because its skin is inherently thin, but the reticulum, its skin is thick and one should not be stringent regarding it at all. And there is one who says that one should only be stringent regarding a needle, but the wording of the Shulchan Aruch does not imply so; however, in a case of great loss one should not be stringent at all.

It is stated in the Gemara [50b-51a]: Our Rabbis taught: A needle that is found in the thickness of the beit hakosot on one side is kosher; on two sides, it is terefah. If a drop of blood is found upon it, it is certain that it was before the shechitah; if a drop of blood is not found upon it, it is certain that it was after the shechitah. Thus far his words. It is further stated there: A case came before Rabbi of a needle that was found in the thickness of the beit hakosot on one side, and Rabbi turned it over and found a drop of blood upon it and declared it terefah, and he said that if there is no wound, from where would a drop of blood come? Thus far his words. And according to this, there is a great question: if so, how does the Baraita differentiate between one side and two sides? For without a drop of blood, even on two sides it should be kosher, and with a drop of blood, even on one side it should be terefah.

And therefore some say that the difference is that on one side, it is valid by default and there is no need to search for a drop of blood, and that which Rabbi flipped it was not because by law one must flip it, but rather that the incident occurred in that manner; and from two sides, it is treifah by default until one searches that there is no drop of blood there. And consequently, according to this, when it is impossible to search for a drop of blood, such as if it was lost or if it was rinsed in water—for then even if there were a drop of blood, the water would have removed it—the law remains that on one side it is valid, and from two sides it is treifah [Beit Yosef and the Rema in Darkhei Moshe]. And they wrote that this is the opinion of the Rambam in chapter 6, law 12, and the Rosh in chapter 3, siman 34; see there.

And some say that in a case of one side, it is not forbidden until a speck of blood is found on the outside opposite the point of the needle, for through this it is evident that the needle passed to the outside and returned. But if the speck of blood is on the inside, and even on the outside if it is around the needle and not opposite the point of the needle, it is kosher. And in a case of two sides, in any event it is treifah, even if the speck of blood is inside, and certainly if it is outside not opposite the needle [Mordechai in the name of the Ra'avyah, and the Beit Yosef, and the Bach, and the Shach, and the Taz]. And that which was taught in the Baraita regarding two sides, "it is found upon it," means around it, and regarding one side, "upon it" specifically [ibid.]. And according to this opinion, even in a case of one side there is an obligation to examine the second side to see if there is a speck of blood.

And so it is implied from the wording of the Tur, who wrote: If a needle is found embedded in one of them and it did not pierce from side to side, one turns it over and examines it from the outside; if a drop of blood is found upon it, it is certain that it pierced entirely and it is terefah, and if not, it is kosher, even if its thick head is toward the outside [although in the liver we rule it terefah when the eye of the needle is outward in siman 41, for the reason that it is impossible to pierce with the eye, and perforce it entered through the esophagus and exited from there and entered here; nevertheless, here we say that food and drink pushed it and it pierced even with the eye, Gemara ibid.]. And if the needle passed from side to side and is still embedded in it, one examines it: if a drop of blood is found around the needle, it is certain that before the shechitah it pierced entirely and it is terefah, and if not, after the shechitah it was pushed and passed through and it is kosher, for since the needle is still there, had it passed during life, the blood would be around it; but when the needle is not before us, it is forbidden if it pierced entirely even if there is no drop of blood. Thus far his words. Behold, he wrote regarding one side "if a drop of blood is found upon it," and regarding two sides he wrote "around the needle." And there is one who says that even regarding one side it is terefah when there is a drop of blood around the needle from the outside, and the proof is that even the Tur did not write "opposite the point of the needle" but rather "upon it," which means around the needle; and regarding two sides, even from the inside if the blood is attached to the needle, it is terefah [Bach]. And also the primary opinion of the Tur implies that the distinction between one side and two sides is when the needle is not before us, for then on one side it is kosher and on two sides it is terefah, and the beginning of the Baraita deals with this case; but when there is a needle before us, in truth there is no distinction between one side and two sides [ibid.]. And so too if it was salted and rinsed such that it is impossible to recognize if there is a drop of blood, then on one side it is kosher and on two sides it is terefah [Yam Shel Shlomo siman 61]. And that which the Tur wrote in the name of Rabbeinu Peretz, that if they salted it or rinsed it, it is forbidden even if there is no drop of blood upon it, for we fear perhaps it passed through by means of salting or rinsing, thus far his words—this refers to two sides, as is proven from his wording, see there [and see the Beit Yosef who did not write so].

This is the wording of the Rambam in chapter 6: A needle that is found in the thickness of the beit hakosot from one side is kosher; and if it perforated a hole through to the cavity of the beit hakosot and a drop of blood is found at the site of the perforation, it is terefah, for certainly it perforated before slaughter. But if there is no blood at the site of the perforation, it is permitted, for certainly after slaughter the needle pressed and perforated. Thus far his words. And he did not mention at all the law that from one side, when a speck of blood is found on the other side, it is terefah; and also the Rif did not mention this, see there. And from the plain meaning of his words, it appears that from one side it is kosher in any case, even when a speck of blood is found. And this is certainly impossible to say, for Rebbe declared it terefah in such a case. Therefore, they explained that his intention is that from one side there is no need to inspect, as I wrote in section 44.

And also that which he wrote, "and if it was perforated with a perforated hole into the cavity of the beit hakosot," for it is clear from his words that "from one side" means that it is inserted from the cavity of the body into the beit hakosot, and this is certainly astonishing. All of our teachers have already agreed that this which is kosher "from one side" is only from the cavity of the beit hakosot into the skin of the beit hakosot, and "from two sides" is when it protrudes until the cavity of the body. But by way of the cavity of the body, even "from one side" it is treifah, for this is literally a needle found in the cavity of the body, where we concern ourselves with the perforation of one of the organs, as I wrote in siman 51. And they wrote that in truth his intention was to examine all the organs whose perforation is with any amount, for he ruled thus at the beginning of chapter 11, that in a case of a doubt regarding treifot, an examination of the entire body is effective [Kesef Mishneh]. But we do not rule accordingly, as I wrote in siman 51. And perhaps this is why we do not find in the words of the Rambam this law of a needle found in the cavity of the body, for he included it in all the doubts regarding treifot that he wrote there.

And as for what compelled the Rambam to explain thus, it can be said that for him as well it is difficult: why do we not suspect in a case of one side that perhaps there is a drop of blood on the second side? Therefore, he explained in such a case that certainly if the perforation came from the inside to the outside, it is proper to suspect that through the pressure of the food, the needle was thrust outward and now it has returned and is not discernible; in such a case, certainly even with one side, one must examine the second side. But when it was perforated from the outside to the inside, there is no concern at all that perhaps it was perforated also on the second side on the inner part, for on the contrary, the food and the drink push it outward. Therefore, the Rambam explained the Baraita thus [Kereiti U-Peleiti subsection 12], and it is a correct reasoning, and the incident of Rabbi was from the inside to the outside.

Nevertheless, the core of the matter is perplexing, for how could the Rif and the Rambam omit the incident of Rabbi, that even on one side, if a speck of blood is found, it is treifah? And if we were to say that it is a simple matter and they did not need to explain it, it is impossible to say so, for it is explained in the Gemara that even one of the Amoraim held that a speck of blood is nothing, see there. And it is not their way to omit a law explicitly stated in the Gemara. Furthermore, from their wording it implies explicitly that on one side there is no concern regarding the speck of blood.

Therefore, it appears to me that for the Rif and the Rambam, the incident of Rabbi was also difficult based on the language of the baraita, where it is explicitly explained that with only one side there is no concern at all. Therefore, they hold that it is certainly so: just as a speck of blood without a needle at all is nothing, so too if we knew clearly that it was only pierced from one side—for example, if immediately after shechitah they saw that the needle was stuck in one side—we do not establish a flaw at all to fear that perhaps it was pierced from both sides and the needle moved backward. And even if a speck of blood is found, we attribute it to something else, as the plain meaning of the baraita implies. And the incident of Rabbi is a different matter: for behold, this beit hakosot, when they brought it before Rabbi in the beit midrash, and Rabbi saw that it was pierced from one side, but he did not know clearly if it was found this way at the time of shechitah. Perhaps at the time of shechitah the piercing was from one side to the other, and afterward, through the handling of hands until they brought it before Rabbi, the needle moved backward. And the questioners were simple people and were not precise in this, and it was incumbent upon Rabbi to see if perhaps a hole would be found on the second side. Therefore, when he found a speck of blood, it is like a hole, since it is not clear that the piercing is from only one side. Therefore, the Rif and the Rambam did not write this law at all, for this is included in every doubt of terefot that he wrote at the beginning of chapter 11. And here they only wrote the law of the baraita, that clearly it was only pierced from one side, and this is when it is found so immediately after the shechitah, and we do not establish a flaw that it moved back on its own during life. [And with this, that which Rav Avira erred in is also settled, for he held that clearly it was only found on one side, and Abaye innovated that it was not so, but rather the questioner did not know at all how it was found, and Rabbi feared that until they brought it to the beit midrash it moved backward due to the handling of hands. And this is only to resolve the words of the Rif and the Rambam, but for the law, we follow the majority of the poskim].

And behold, it has already been explained that the opinion of most poskim is that even on one side there is an obligation to examine if there is a drop of blood on the other side, even if it is clear that only one side was pierced, and thus we rule. And if it was lost, or salted, or rinsed, such that it is impossible to recognize if there was a drop of blood there, the opinion of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, is to forbid, as he wrote in section 8, and such is the opinion of the Rashba in the Responsa, siman 266. However, the opinion of our teacher, the Rema, is to permit, for the language of the Tur also implies this, as I wrote in section 46, and the great Acharonim agreed to this [Yam Shel Shlomo siman 61, and Shach subsection 25, and Pri Chadash, and Kereti U-Peleti, not like the Taz subsection 12]. And specifically when it is clear that it was not pierced from side to side; but if there is a doubt even in this, and the lung was lost before the clarification, it is treifah even in a case of great loss, and most of the greats agreed to this [ibid.]. And there is one who is lenient even in such a case [Yam Shel Shlomo ibid.], but most of the greats did not agree to this [and so wrote the Tevuot Shor and the Pri Megadim in Mishbetzot Zahav subsection 12], and such is the primary ruling in halacha.

And there is one who says that in a case where they did not see a speck of blood on the inside, it is certainly to be permitted as I have written. But if they saw a speck of blood on the inside, it is forbidden even post facto if they did not check for a speck of blood on the outside; for since it certainly left its status of presumptive fitness during its lifetime, we do not say "once slaughtered, it is permitted," as I have written in siman 50. And conversely, if they checked on the inside and did not find a speck of blood, then it is to be permitted even if we do not know clearly that it was not perforated from side to side, and we say "once slaughtered, it is permitted," for it is more likely to say that during its lifetime it was not perforated at all [Da'at G'morat]. And these are words of reason. And similarly, if according to the appearance of the eye the perforation was not from side to side, one may also be lenient in a case of great loss.

And if the speck of blood was found around the outside and not exactly opposite the point of the needle, it has already been explained that there are poskim who permit in such a case, and this is specifically when it is clear that it did not pierce from one side to the other. But if this was not clarified, it is simple that it is treifah in any case, even if it was not found exactly opposite the point of the needle, for behold, there are those who say that even if one did not search at all for a speck of blood it is treifah, as I have written, and all the more so in such a case. However, there are those who disagree with the essence of this law and hold that even not opposite the point of the needle it is treifah, as will be explained regarding a piercing from two sides. However, most of the poskim agreed with the first opinion, that it is specifically opposite the point of the needle [Shach and Kereti U-Peleti subsection 17].

If it was perforated from two sides, such as where the needle is found stuck from one side to the other, but it is not known if it was so during life and is treifah, or if after slaughter, through the handling of hands or through another matter, it was stuck through to the second side, there is an inspection for this. For if a drop of blood is found around the needle, whether from the outside or from the inside [Shach, subsection 26], and all the more so if it is found upon the needle itself, it is a definitive sign that it was perforated from one side to the other during life. And if a drop of blood is not found, neither from the inside nor from the outside around the needle, and even as far from the needle as the width of a straw a drop of blood is also not found, it is certainly kosher. For since there is a needle, if it had been perforated from one side to the other during life, a drop of blood would have been found in its place. And certainly, if a perforation is found from one side to the other without a needle, it is treifah in any case, even when there is no drop of blood; for only with a needle, since the blood has something to become entangled with, the blood would adhere to the needle or around it, but without a needle, there is nothing for the blood to become entangled with. And so too, even with a needle, if a drop of blood is found further than the width of a straw from the needle, it is also nothing, for this is not due to the needle [ibid.]. And the measure of the width of a straw has not been clarified to us precisely, and one should be stringent in this until it leaves the category of doubt, for it is a Torah prohibition.

The matter is simple: if it was perforated on both sides and was lost before the inspection for a drop of blood, or if one salted it or rinsed it, it is a terefah, for it stands in a status of prohibition until it is known to you that there was no drop of blood. Similarly, if a recognizable path is found leading to the outside, it is a terefah in all cases [Yam Shel Shlomo, ibid.], for in this case it is clearly recognizable that it was perforated during its lifetime from one side to the other, and what does it matter to us if there is a drop of blood or not.

And know that there is one who wishes to say that this which they validate in two sides when a drop of blood is not found, this is when they did not find the perforation immediately after slaughtering but rather after some time; however, if it was found immediately after the slaughtering, it is treifah in all cases [Tevuat Shor in the name of Torat Chattat]. And this is not understood at all, for is it so that after the slaughtering one cannot attribute it to the handling of the butcher's hands while he is occupied with it, or attribute it to the fact that at the time of the convulsion after the slaughtering the food pushed it to go outside? For certainly, to the contrary, when it is found from one side, there is well a reason to say so, that the needle did not return backwards, for the food pushes it to go outside and how would it return inside? But when it is found from two sides, one can well say that during its life it was not stuck through to the outside, and only after the slaughtering, through the convulsion or through the handling of the hand, the food pushed it outside, and the clarification is through the drop of blood. And more than this, it is difficult, for how did the poskim not mention a thing of this, for the plain meaning of the language of the Baraita implies that it was found immediately after the slaughtering; and it requires further study.

The poskim wrote that rust is like a drop of blood, and it is a correct reasoning, for the rust upon the needle is clear testimony that it has been there for a long time. And one of the great poskim wrote that rust is only effective to render it treifah when it perforated from two sides, but not when it perforated from one side, for what do we care about this? Ultimately, it only perforated from one side [Yam Shel Shlomo ibid.]. And even if rust is found on the meat from the outside, it is nothing, for rust is only relevant upon the needle; when it perforated from two sides and rust is found on the head of the needle, this is a clear sign that it is from a long time ago, but not rust on the meat [ibid.]. However, our teacher, the Rema, in section 9 wrote that if rust is found on the outside opposite the needle, if it perforated from one side it is treifah as if a drop of blood were found. Thus far his words. And also if the rust is in the middle of the needle, there is a dispute among the Acharonim [see Bach, and Shach subsection 35, and Pri Chadash subsection 23, whose opinion is to be stringent in all cases].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 8 that there are those who say that in this time, when we are not expert in examinations, one must rule it treif if the needle perforated from both sides, even if neither a drop of blood nor rust was found, for we do not rely on our examination in this matter since it was perforated from both sides, and such is the custom. Thus far his words. Nevertheless, in a case of great loss, one should rule it kosher and rely on the examination even in this time [Shach subsection 30 and Bach, and also the Levush omitted this stringency]. And likewise regarding the omasum, according to the opinion of Rashi, a drop of blood is required in any event [ibid.].

The consensus of most of the poskim is that that which we said, that if it is from one side it is kosher, this refers to from the inside toward the waste; for if it is the side that is on the outside toward the cavity of the body, even if it was not perforated at all but rather a needle was found in the cavity of the body, it is terefah, and no examination is effective. And even though the opinion of the Rambam is not so, as I have written, we establish the law according to the opinion of most of the poskim.

And know that our teacher, the Rema, wrote three glosses regarding this matter and they require explanation. For first he wrote on the words of the author regarding where it was punctured on one side, that there is an obligation to search for a drop of blood, and if they salted it or rinsed it, it is treifah, he wrote, and this is his wording: And there are those who are lenient to permit it if it was not punctured from side to side and it was rinsed and salted, or if it was lost and he did not check from the outside if there was a drop of blood upon it, and one may rely upon them in a case of great loss. Thus far his words. And regarding the law when it was punctured from side to side, where the author also wrote that they search for a drop of blood and if they salted it or rinsed it, it is treifah, he wrote, and this is his wording: Any place that requires inspection, if they did not inspect it, such as if it was lost or they took the needle from there, it is treifah, for it is as if they rinsed it and salted it. Thus far his words. And at the end of the section he wrote, and this is his wording: There are those who are lenient that even if the needle punctured from one side, there is no need to inspect from the outside if there is a drop of blood upon it, and one may rely upon them if it is a great loss and it is impossible to inspect, such as if it was salted or rinsed or lost. Thus far his words.

And now one must examine closely, for the second gloss contradicts the first. Since he wrote that in any place that requires inspection, if they did not inspect it, etc., it is treifah, if so, why did he write previously regarding one side that one may rely in a case of hefsed merubba to permit it when it was rinsed, salted, or lost? For since it requires inspection, it is treifah if they did not inspect it. And one cannot say that his intention in the second gloss is where there is no hefsed merubba, for if so, what did he innovate over the first gloss? And also one cannot say that his intention is regarding two sides, for that is obvious, and behold, even the author wrote so. And there is one who says that his intention is to inform us that even if it is not clear that it was pierced only from one side and it was lost, its law is like one that was rinsed and it is kosher in a case of hefsed merubba [Shach, subsection 29]. And this is very difficult, for if so, the main point is missing from the text; and furthermore, most of the great authorities have already agreed that in such a case it is treifah. And all his words are explained such that the inspection is only for the clot of blood, but it is certainly so that it is not kosher in a case of hefsed merubba except when it is certain that it was pierced only from one side. Therefore, it appears that his intention is the opposite: for behold, in a case where it was salted or rinsed, the doubt is only regarding the clot of blood, but in a case where it was lost, the doubt can also be regarding the essence of the piercing, whether it is from one side or from two sides. And this is what he says, that "lost" is like "salted" or "rinsed," which is not kosher in a case of hefsed merubba except when it is certain that it was pierced only from one side; and he added to the words of the author that even if there is a doubt whether it was pierced from one side or from two sides, it is also treifah even in a case of hefsed merubba [see Atzei Levonah, subsection 15, who wrote something similar to this]. And in the third gloss, he comes to resolve the first gloss about which we raised a difficulty: how can we be lenient in a case of hefsed merubba regarding one side when they did not inspect for a clot of blood, for behold, it requires inspection by law, and anywhere that requires inspection, the inspection is a prerequisite? And to this he resolves: since there are those who say that it does not require inspection at all regarding one side, and this is the opinion of the Rambam and the Rosh, therefore, granted that we do not rule accordingly, nevertheless, in a case of hefsed merubba when the inspection is missing, we rely on this opinion to be lenient.

And if a needle or a thorn is found in the cavity of the omasum or the reticulum and it is not embedded in any place, it is kosher in any case and does not require examination. And even if a drop of blood is found on the inside or on the outside, we are not concerned by it. And even though there are those who forbid when a drop of blood is found on the outside opposite the needle or the thorn [Taz and Shach subsection 31], nevertheless, the great later authorities disagreed with them and declared it kosher in all manners [Pri Chadash and Tzemach Tzedek and Shevut Yaakov]. And in a case of significant loss, one should not be stringent at all [Tevu'ot Shor and Pri Megadim in the Mishbetzot Zahav and in the Siftei Da'at there].

There are those who wrote that all this which we validate with a check on one side as has been written, this is only when the needle is positioned crosswise and embedded in the skin of the omasum and the reticulum or the rumen, for the rumen has the same law as the omasum and the reticulum. However, when the needle is lying like a bolt, meaning that it is lying in the wall of the omasum or the reticulum or the rumen along the length of the needle, one should not be lenient at all. This is not for the reason that perhaps it perforated both sides, but for another reason: for when it is positioned crosswise, we say that it traveled through the esophagus to the omasum or to the reticulum or to the rumen and became slightly embedded in the skin. But in such a case, it certainly did not come through the esophagus, for if it had traveled through the esophagus, they would have found it positioned crosswise and not on the wall, and certainly it came from some place outside and perforated one of the organs [this is the explanation of the words of the Taz, subsection 15].

And according to this, even if the needle is found between the folds of the omasum and the reticulum or within the wrinkles and was not embedded at all, it is also treifah, as is understood; and all the more so if it is also embedded a bit in the skin itself as I have written. But it is not clear to say so, for if so, how did the poskim not mention anything of this regarding incidents that occur frequently at all times? And the language of the Shas and the poskim, "a needle that is found from one side," indicates explicitly that there is no difference how the needle is positioned. Also, our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, did not mention this matter in the Shulchan Aruch, which is to teach halacha to the public, and also all the authorities of instruction do not practice accordingly. Furthermore, the core of the reasoning is perplexing, for behold, the food is cooked there and it is boiling, and the food goes in its boiling through all the cavities of the omasum, the reticulum, and the rumen, and it carries the needle with it until the wall, and there it becomes embedded in the wrinkles or in the folds or along the skin. And it seems to me that the custom of the authorities of instruction is that if it is found in the folds or between the wrinkles and was not embedded at all, its law is as if it were found on the dung; and if it is embedded in the skin, its law is as "from one side," as has been explained. And there are also some of the great Acharonim who disagree with this, and so one should instruct, and particularly in a case of great loss [see section 7, subsection 19, that in the wrinkles he permits, and this is against what he wrote here; and delve into it].

If the two membranes of the beit hakosot were perforated not opposite one another, it is kosher, and it is not similar to the esophagus where it is treifah in such a case, as I wrote in siman 33. For in the esophagus, since it eats with it and the membranes are constantly moving, it is possible that the perforations will meet one another, one opposite the other; but these organs, their membranes are still and quiet in their place and will not meet one another, one opposite the other. Our Sages, of blessed memory, explicitly said so regarding the gizzard [Gemara 43a], and naturally the same applies to the beit hakosot, for the gizzard in a hen is like these organs in an animal, unless a path runs from this perforation to that perforation, for then it is treifah.

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 11: A needle that is found in the gizzard and is entirely swallowed within the thickness of its flesh, and there remains about half a finger’s breadth on the side of the pocket as well as on the outer side where the needle was not consuming and no perforation was discernible, neither toward the inside nor toward the outside, we attribute it leniently, for the needle came from the inside and it is like a perforation on one side; and if there is no drop of blood on it from the outside, it is kosher. And there are those who are stringent and forbid even in such a case, and one should be concerned for their words unless it is a case of great loss. Thus far their words. And the reason for the first opinion is that since perforce one of the perforations became closed, we attribute that it went its way through the esophagus, and most swallowed items are through the esophagus. And that which they wrote "about half a finger's breadth" is not exact, for the same law applies even if only a little remained. And if they did not check for a drop of blood, seemingly its law is like the omasum and the reticulum. However, some say that even according to those who are stringent there, they admit regarding the gizzard because its skin is thick [Shach, subsection 38 in the name of Yam Shel Shlomo], and there are those who disagree and hold that their law is equal [ibid.], and one should deliberate on this. And the matter is simple: that if there is any discernment whatsoever from where it came, we follow it, whether to be lenient or to be stringent. However, the discernment that in one place a little remained and from the second side more remained, this is no discernment at all [and so wrote the Pitchei Teshuvah in the name of Meil Tzedakah]. And if there is a drop of blood from the inside, it is certainly discernible that it came from the inside, since from the inside there is a drop of blood and not from the outside. And if the two skins were perforated, even if there is no drop of blood around the needle, it appears that one must forbid, as is our custom regarding the omasum and the reticulum according to the words of our teacher, the Rema, that will be explained [Taz, subsection 17]. And even though there are those who disagree on this, nevertheless, this is the primary ruling. And on the contrary, in a gizzard whose skin is thick, one must forbid by the letter of the law, for since it is thick, we do not attribute that after slaughtering the needle exited to the outside [ibid.], and so is the primary ruling.

There are some among the great authorities who wrote that just as it has been explained that when there is a drop of blood on the outside it is treifah, even if it was pierced only from one side, so too if there is a sircha opposite the needle, for this is like a drop of blood. And behold, we have already elaborated on something similar to this in siman 41, section 36, regarding the law of the diaphragm of the liver being attached to the beit hakosot, and we brought there that some say a sircha is not like a drop of blood; see there. However, even without this, it appears to me that it is not comparable to there, for indeed several great authorities asked regarding this law: do we not hold that a sircha does not render one treifah in other organs? And they answered that there a tradition was received that when the diaphragm is attached to the beit hakosot, it testifies to a needle in the rumen, and this is only regarding that law. But here, where a needle is found embedded from one side and a sircha is opposite it on the other side, who is to say to us that it testifies to a perforation from side to side? And if you say so, you have made other organs like the lung; and even though in the lung we do not require a needle, nevertheless, the very reasoning that a sircha testifies to a perforation from side to side when there is a needle on the other side would be like the lung. And behold, logic tends toward the view that because of the pain the sircha arose. And behold, where there is no great loss, one certainly must forbid it unless the sircha is not opposite the needle; but in a case of great loss, it is possible that one may rely on this and permit it, as I wrote there. And know that even according to those who forbid in the case of a sircha opposite the needle, it is only in the case of an actual sircha; but if it is slightly swollen on the second side, it is nothing, provided one sees that the flesh has not been spoiled such that it is like it has decomposed, for if it has decomposed it is treifah regardless when the flesh is spoiled from side to side. And also regarding a drop of blood, the flesh must be healthy and only a drop of blood is upon it from the second side, for if not so, it is treifah regardless. And a hard wart opposite the needle is considered like a perforation from side to side, as I wrote in section 3, see there; and specifically when it goes thus through all the flesh.

And know that the "speck of blood" explained in this matter is not merely the appearance of blood, but rather that it has substance like a small seed, such as a speck of asafoetida [Avodah Zarah 35b] and a speck of frankincense [Menachot 11], and in Niddah [20a] "a speck of ink," see there, and similarly at the end of the third chapter of Shabbat "that contains specks," see there. And so it is explicitly clear from the words of Rashi in Avodah Zarah [32a s.v. "yesh alav k.d."]. But a mere appearance, we have no concern for it, unless the reddish appearance is strong throughout all the meat from one side to the other, for then it is possible to judge it as having dissolved, and it depends on the sight of the eyes of the posek [and so wrote the Pri Megadim at the end of siman 46].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 12: A minor who found a needle embedded in the stomach, one must be stringent and forbid based on his word if he is sharp enough to know and be precise in these matters. Thus far his words. And this is not due to the reason of credibility, for even an adult is not believed regarding that which has an established status of permissibility in a matter that is not in his power, as was written in siman 127, and the animal, once slaughtered, stands in a status of permissibility. Rather, the reason here is that it is like a mere disclosure of the matter, for since a needle was certainly there, it is like a basis for the matter [Shach, subsection 42]. And according to this, it must be said that it deals with a case where, regarding the primary finding of the needle, his testimony as a minor is not needed, for in this there is no doubt at all; rather, the doubt is whether it was embedded or not.

And if an adult says that he found a needle in a manner that, according to his statement, it is treifah, even though it is not known at all to the owner of the animal whether there was a needle or not, nevertheless, if the man is trusted by him, it is treifah based on his word. And even though he is able to say "I do not believe you," nevertheless, if in his heart he is trusted by him, it is forbidden for him to say that he does not believe him. And that which will be explained in siman 127, that we instruct him to say "I do not believe you," that is regarding yayin nesech which is essentially rabbinic, but regarding a Torah prohibition it is forbidden to say so, as will be explained there with the help of Heaven. And all the more so if, when he spoke to him, he remained silent, it is "silence is like admission," as is written there.

An incident occurred involving a Kutite who performed labor for an Israelite in the skinning of an animal, and the Kutite came and said to him that he found a needle stuck there; certainly he has no credibility, neither to permit nor to prohibit. However, if there is a semblance of "feet to the matter," he is believed to prohibit [see Turei Zahav subsection 19, and in Nekudot HaKesef, and in Pri Chadash there]. And an incident occurred involving a Kutite woman who washed the omasum of an Israelite and came and said, "I found a needle stuck there with the thread," and they saw that the needle and the thread were as new, and they permitted the animal, and she is not believed [Pri Megadim there]. And see what I wrote in siman 36, section 22 regarding something similar to this, and from there one may learn for here as well. And know that a woman who has needles found in her scarves and veils and was occupied with a chicken, or with the omasum and the reticulum or with the rumen and the like, and a needle was found there in the water or in the organs—if they are placed there in a manner where there is no necessity to say that it was stuck there during life, it is possible to attribute that it fell from her at the time she was occupied with it. And all of this is according to the sight of the eyes of the teacher, for it is not possible to give general rules in laws such as these.