Siman 49

All these terefot that exist in an animal also exist in a bird in the organs found in it equally with the animal. Therefore, the spleen and kidneys, even though birds have them, nevertheless, since their form is not similar to those of an animal, their law is not equal, as was written in siman 43 and siman 44. However, the rumen, the flesh that covers the rumen, the omasum, and the reticulum do not exist in a bird at all. Corresponding to them, birds have a crop and a gizzard. The laws of the crop were explained in siman 33, and a goose has no crop. The laws of the gizzard were partially explained in the previous siman and will be partially explained in this siman with the help of Heaven. [And therefore the Tur and Shulchan Aruch placed them adjacent to one another because this organ is in place of the omasum, which also grinds the food]:

The gizzard has two skins, meaning the inner pouch and all the flesh; the pouch is one skin and the flesh is the second skin. If one was perforated without the other, it is kosher, until both are perforated one opposite the other. But if one was not opposite the other, it is kosher, for specifically regarding the esophagus, where it eats and cries out, it is treifah even when not opposite each other, as I wrote in siman 33, because we fear perhaps they will happen to align. However, the gizzard remains at rest [Gemara 43a]. And this is also the reason regarding the omasum and the reticulum, as I wrote in siman 48, section 66. And if a path goes from this perforation to that perforation, it is simple that it is treifah.

And for this reason, that they are not similar to the esophagus as has been written, therefore we are not concerned when a portion of the skin is perforated that perhaps it was perforated entirely and a membrane arose and closed it, as we are concerned regarding the esophagus in siman 33. For the esophagus, because it is not at rest, it is possible that it was entirely perforated and the needle retracted and a membrane arose upon it; this is not the case for the gizzard, the rumen, the omasum, and the reticulum, for their skins remain at rest, we are not concerned for this [Rosh, Perek Elu Tereifot, section 34].

There is no difference in all of this whether the perforation is due to illness or due to a needle coming from the inside out, for it is not treifah unless the needle exited to the outside; and even if a portion of the skin was not perforated, it is also kosher. However, if the needle is from the outside and is stuck inward, it is in any case treifah due to the law of a needle found in the body cavity, and it will be explained in section 7. And likewise, if one skin of the gizzard decayed and the second did not decay, and even if a portion of it did not decay, it is kosher; and if one skin was removed and the second remains, it is also kosher.

And know that that which is written in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch with the language of "two skins" is not precise, for the outer one is the entire flesh of the gizzard, and the language of the Gemara is indeed not so. And thus it is stated in the Gemara: If the gizzard was perforated but its pouch remains intact, or if the pouch was perforated and the gizzard remains intact, it is kosher [43a]. And the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, in order to be brief, wrote the language of "two skins." And the Rambam in chapter 6 wrote: The gizzard has two pouches, an outer red one and an inner white one, see there; for the inner pouch is white on its interior and green on its exterior side, and even though they are separated from one another with difficulty, nevertheless, it is all one skin. And there is one who wishes to say that the intention is not regarding the flesh of the gizzard but rather regarding its thin skin that is on top, and it is an error, as is clear from the language of the Gemara. And so it is explained by the Rashba in his book, the short Torat HaBayit. And likewise, I saw one who wrote that the membrane that the women remove, even if it is not perforated, it is treifah [according to the Pitchei Teshuvah in the name of the Shivtei Leket], and Heaven forbid to say so and to cause a loss of the money of Israel; and in any such case, the poskim should not have remained silent but rather should have explained. And in a goose, the inner peel is not like in a hen, and they scrape and peel with a knife and a white skin remains.

If the kor-kaban was perforated and the fat upon it plugs it, it is kosher, for in a bird every type of fat plugs since everything is pure. And even if the needle protrudes outward, and upon the needle there is fat in such a manner that the head of the needle is not visible at all, it is kosher. And all the more so if both skins were not perforated, even though there remains only a small amount of the outer skin, which is the kor-kaban, that was not perforated, it is kosher. And there is one who wishes to say that the fat that comes through stuffing and not naturally does not plug [see the Tevuot Shor], because when it becomes lean, the fat will be removed from them. But this stringency was not mentioned by any posek, and who is the prophet who can know which fat it is? Furthermore, the primary reasoning is puzzling, for if so, even with natural fat we should concern ourselves with leanness, as we see with our senses that sometimes the animal is fat and afterwards it becomes lean. Rather, it is certain that we do not concern ourselves with this, and ultimately, even if it becomes lean, it is likely to return to its fatness. And so all halachic authorities conduct themselves, that every type of fat in a bird plugs.

And that which has been explained, that if this one was perforated without that one it is kosher—and this is even when the outer one, which is the flesh of the gizzard, was perforated without the inner lining, it is kosher—this is when it was perforated due to illness. However, due to a thorn or a needle it is treifah for another reason, for we fear perhaps one of the internal organs whose perforation is in any amount was perforated, since it came from the outside. And if he did not recognize if the perforation was due to a thorn or due to illness, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled in section 4 that one should be lenient because of a sefek sefeika: perhaps it was through illness, and if you say it was through a thorn or a needle, perhaps it did not perforate one of the internal organs. And even though this is not a reversible sefek sefeika, he holds that we do not require a reversible sefek sefeika. And there are those who forbid for this reason [Taz, subsection 3]. And in truth, even according to the one who holds regarding every sefek sefeika that we require it to be reversible, here it is not necessary, since you are forced to judge from where the perforation came, for one must necessarily begin from this doubt: a doubt if it was through illness or a doubt if it was through a thorn, etc., and as will be explained in siman 110 in the rules of sefek sefeika [Nekudat HaKesef]. And especially since there are many poskim who hold that we do not require a reversible sefek sefeika at all, as will be explained there with the help of Heaven. And it is obvious that if the perforation is also recognizable in the wall of the bird, until it is recognizable from the outside that there is a perforation there, one should attribute it more to a thorn than to illness [Pri Chadash]. And according to this, you do not find a doubt except when the skin is not before us, for if there is no perforation in it, it is simple that it is not from a thorn [Pri Megadim]. And see what I wrote in siman 33, section 14, and in siman 51, section 3, that our teacher, the Rema, does not hold so.

If a needle is found embedded in it from the inside, its law is like that of the omasum and the reticulum, where from one side a drop of blood is required opposite the point of the needle, and from two sides, wherever a drop of blood is found it is terefah. And some say that in the gizzard, in any case it is terefah if it was perforated from two sides even without a drop of blood. And we have already explained this in the previous siman, section 67, see there. And it is obvious that we declare it terefah in the gizzard even without a drop of blood, for even regarding the omasum and the reticulum our teacher, the Rema, ruled so, see there, and so one should instruct. And if it was entirely swallowed in the flesh and it is not recognizable if it came from the inside or from the outside, we hang the matter leniently that it came from the inside, as is the way of most swallowed objects which are swallowed through the esophagus, and as has been explained there. And likewise all the laws of rust that were explained there apply also to the gizzard. And if worms are emerging from the gizzard, being found on the gizzard from the outside, it is kosher, for we hang the matter that they emerged after shechitah, as with the lung in siman 36. And even though there are those who distinguish the gizzard from the lung, since the lung is always fluttering and the worm does not have the ability to emerge during life, which is not the case with the gizzard, nevertheless in the gizzard there is another reason to permit, for since its membranes are hard and thick, certainly the worm does not have the strength to perforate it, and it emerged after shechitah [Derishah].

And similarly, if at the time of salting the chicken, its soaking, or its cooking, a needle is found, if it is possible to attribute it to having fallen from the one occupied with it, we attribute it to this; and if not, it is treifah. And similarly, if at the time of eating the chicken they felt a needle in the mouth, likewise, everything is treifah, and we do not say perhaps the needle was in a manner that the chicken is kosher, for it is a doubt regarding a Torah law, and a doubt is resolved stringently. And if according to the perception of the teacher a permission is apparent in the matter, such as if it was found in the thigh and according to the perception of the eye it came from the outside and was hidden in the flesh of the thigh and things similar to this, or if they ate the gizzard and a piece of a needle was found in his mouth and it is recognizable that the needle was hidden inside the cavity of the gizzard, a judge has only what his eyes see. And similarly, anything similar to this [because there are those who are lenient in every case because the majority of swallowed items are through the esophagus, and previously they did not feel through the touch of hands that there was a needle and it was entirely hidden within it].