Siman 51

A thorn or a needle that perforated into the cavity of the animal or the bird, we are concerned lest it perforated one of the places whose perforation in any amount renders it treifah. And it is not necessary to state if the thorn or the needle was found in the cavity of the animal or the bird and no defect is visible in the meat or the skin, for this is close to a certain treifah, as this came through its eating and drinking, and most things swallowed are via the esophagus, and of necessity it exited from the esophagus or from the intestines into the body cavity and perforated the esophagus or one of the intestines. But even if the thorn or the needle perforated from the outside through the wall, and it would be possible to say that it did not touch at all one of the organs whose perforation in any amount renders it treifah, nevertheless it is a doubtful treifah because of the concern lest it perforated one of the organs. And certainly if it did not reach the cavity, meaning that there is still some of the skin on the inner side that was not perforated, we are not concerned that perhaps it perforated and retracted and the perforation is not visible. But whenever the skin was perforated entirely in a manner that there is no interruption between the edge of the skin and the internal organs, even if we did not know clearly if the thorn or the needle entered the cavity of the animal or the bird, since the skin was perforated entirely, it is treifah, for we are concerned lest it perforated. And it is a simple matter that in a place where there is meat upon the skin, it must perforate all the meat; and likewise if the perforation was in the place of the meat that covers the rumen, which is the external rumen that was explained in siman 48, it must perforate all this meat, and if not, there is no concern at all for the internal organs, as is understood. But when it perforated entirely, even if according to appearance the point of the thorn or the needle was level with the meat and did not enter the cavity at all, it is treifah, for we are concerned that it perforated and retracted due to the movement of the animal [Tevu'ot Shor]. And thus the sages, of blessed memory, said [Chullin 53b]: And the halakhah regarding a thorn is until it perforates into the cavity, that is to say, until the cavity.

Therefore, all the organs regarding which the sages taught that if they were perforated on one side they are kosher, such as the heart, the thick part of the beit hakosot, and the gizzard—if the perforation is from the outside, it is only kosher if the perforation was caused by illness. However, if it is due to a needle or a thorn, it is treifah because of the concern for one of the organs. And if it is a doubt whether it was caused by a needle or by illness, it has already been explained in siman 49 that it is kosher due to a double doubt. And see there in section 7, where we wrote that if the perforation is recognizable from the outside, one should attribute it more to a thorn or a needle, and the doubt is only found when the skin is not before us. But when it is before us, there is no doubt here; one way or the other, if it was not perforated, it was certainly caused by illness, and if it was perforated more, one should attribute it to a thorn. See there.

However, from the words of our teacher, the Rema, who wrote regarding this law where we are concerned that perhaps one of the organs was perforated, this is his wording: And if it is a doubt whether it was caused by illness or by a thorn or needle, it is kosher; and all the more so one should rule it kosher in such a case where the skin and the flesh were perforated until the cavity. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words is that when we see a perforation from the outside, and the outer side of one of the organs such as the heart or the gizzard was perforated, and there is a doubt whether it was caused by a thorn or by illness, it is kosher due to a double doubt. And all the more so if we saw a perforation only until the cavity and no further, and there is a doubt from what it was caused, it is kosher by reason of a double doubt [Pri Megadim in Mishbetzot Zahav, subsection 2]. And according to what I wrote in the previous section, that when the perforation is recognizable from the outside it was certainly caused by a thorn, behold there is no double doubt here; rather, it is certain that he does not hold of this reasoning, and even if the perforation is from the outside, there is also a doubt whether it was by a thorn or by illness [ibid.]. And I wonder at the great authorities who did not sense this [see Atzei Levonah, subsection 3, and his words were not clear to me, and examine it closely].

Our teacher, the Rema, did not mention that an examination is required in such a case where it is perforated until the cavity, and some say that an examination is required opposite the perforation [Yam Shel Shlomo, section 7]. And the matter is perplexing, for how is it possible to estimate opposite the perforation? Behold, the organs move during life, and how is it possible to align exactly opposite the perforation [Taz, subsection 2]? And it must be said that nevertheless, whatever appears to the eyes that this organ or part of it was opposite the perforation, we shall examine it, and what would we lose by this? However, this is certainly so: if it is impossible to align or if it was lost, the examination is not a prerequisite; but everything that we are able to examine, why should we not examine [and such is the implication of the opinion of the Shach, subsection 2]?

A thorn or a needle that is stuck into the cavity of the animal has no inspection even according to the law of the Gemara, for there is a concern lest the intestines were perforated, and through inspection it is impossible because a fine perforation is not discernible in them [Rashi 53b]. And even though the Rambam wrote in chapter 11, law 4, and this is his wording: If a thorn struck it, or an arrow or a spear and the like were thrown at it and entered its cavity, we are concerned for it and it requires inspection against the entire cavity, lest one of the organs whose perforation renders it treifah was perforated, thus far his words; we do not rule accordingly. And so all our teachers and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch agreed, because the locations are many and it is impossible to ascertain a minute perforation through inspection [Tur]. And even according to the opinion of the Rambam, it is only when it is known that it occurred now; but if it is not known that it occurred now, we are concerned that a membrane formed in one of the places and it closed, and a membrane that formed due to a wound is not a membrane [Bach and Derishah]. However, we do not rule accordingly, but rather in any case inspection is not effective [and although the Bahag also holds like the Rambam as the Tur wrote, nevertheless we rule like Rashi; and it is a wonder that in this matter Rashi is for stringency and the Bahag is for leniency, while in the inspection of a fallen, broken, or clawed animal it is the opposite, as Rashi wrote on page 52a, starting with the words "the Bahag wrote," see there].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote: However, if it was pierced by a thorn in our presence, and the animal was slaughtered and the thorn was found stuck in our presence from the wall of the animal into one of the organs, it appears that it did not pierce in another place; therefore, if it struck the heart or the like and did not pierce into its cavity, it is kosher. Thus far his words. The explanation of the matter: even if we did not see initially exactly which organ it pierced, but rather we saw that the thorn entered from the outside opposite the heart, and now we see it with one end in the wall and its second end stuck in the heart or in another organ and it did not pierce into its cavity, it is kosher, for it is clearly evident that it did not strike another place [see Bach]. And so it is explained from the wording of the Rashba [in Torat HaBayit], which is the source of this law, who wrote, and this is his wording: For example, where the thorn pierced in our presence through the walls of the animal and was stuck in the heart, and it is still before us from the wall to the heart, for one need not be concerned in such a case for the piercing of one of the internal organs. Thus far his words. Behold, he wrote "from the wall to the heart."

And some say that when we saw that it was inserted from the outside opposite the heart and part of it is now found in the heart, it is kosher, even though its other end is not in the chest wall [the Rema in Darkei Moshe]. And some say further that when one end is in the chest wall and one is in the heart, even if we did not see at all to which place it entered from the outside, but rather it is now found so, it is also kosher [Mordechai]. And all agree on this [Bach] when there is a mark on the outside that it came through the chest wall, and we do not fear that perhaps it perforated another of the other places, for if so, how did it intend to return and enter the chest wall at the place where it entered initially? And so is the primary ruling according to this opinion [Shach subsection 3, and Yam Shel Shelomo section 77, and Taz subsection 3]. And all the more so one should rule according to the first opinion in this section [see Shach ibid., for the opinion of the Mordechai is more lenient, and if so, all the more so one should rule like the Rema in Darkei Moshe. And know that the Shach and the Bach understood the opinion of the Beit Yosef as requiring that one see that it was actually inserted into the heart, and the Bach wondered how it is possible to sense this during the life of the animal, see there. And in truth, his intention is also opposite the heart, only that it must also be stuck in the chest wall, and in this the Rema in Darkei Moshe disagrees, and the words of the Shach require further study; and delve into it].

This matter, that we declare it terefah because of a thorn or a needle which are thin and it is impossible to check for a puncture of any size, but with a reed or its like it is kosher through an examination of the organs whose puncture is of any size, for since if it were punctured the hole would be large, it is easy to check and to feel. However, with a needle, even with a thick needle, nevertheless the puncture is not large and it is impossible to feel and to check in all the organs. And if there are found in the cavity of the bird small lead rounds called "shrot," and this is according to one who shot with a weapon and it entered into it, it is also terefah, for we fear that perhaps at the time of the forceful shooting, just as it punctured the bone, so too it punctured one of the organs, and a puncture of any size is not noticeable in them. However, if they are large like small legumes, there is an examination for this, for the puncture is large and it is like a reed and its like [Yad Ephraim in the name of She'elat Yaakov].

Some say that this which we have validated regarding a reed is only if he slaughtered immediately, but if there was a long duration of time, we are concerned lest a membrane grew upon it and it became closed [Tevuat Shor]. And some say that with a large perforation we are not concerned for the growth of a membrane, and even if it would grow a membrane, it would be recognizable [Shulchan Yavo and Panim Hadashot cited in Pitchei Teshuvah]. And it is simple that logic suggests this, and one may rely on this in a case of great loss. And so it implies explicitly from Rashi, that only a small perforation, when it is closed, is not recognizable, but not a large perforation [Yevamot 76a, s.v. "nikav nakav katan" which was closed with any amount and is not recognizable, etc.].

An animal in which no defect was visible from the outside, for the hide was whole, and after the hide was flayed a perforation was found in the flesh between the ribs opposite the lung or opposite another organ that is rendered treifah by a perforation—it appears clearly that this came about due to the goring of another animal or that it was struck with force by some wood or stone, and due to this a perforation was made in the flesh. Even though there is reason to fear that at the time of the act a perforation was made in the lung or in the other organ, nevertheless, post facto we do not fear for it, and we do not establish a defect, for this is not similar to a thorn or a needle, and it is more appropriate to compare it to a reed. For through a forceful blow, it is not relevant to say that because of this a small perforation was made, and if it had been made because of this, the organ would have been torn or at least have a large perforation. Therefore, one examines the organs as with a reed, and it is kosher.

And similarly, regarding an ox that gored an animal with its horn in its belly, and there is no perforation of the skin, but rather the place became swollen like a type of protrusion on the belly, one should not maintain a presumption of defect because of this when we do not see any defect in the internal organs. And even if it gored it in the ribs and we see a defect in the flesh, nevertheless, as long as we have not seen a defect in the lung or in one of the other internal organs, we have no concern [Yad Ephraim]. And the reason for the matter is that since the horn did not perforate the skin from side to side, there is no concern here of any perforation whatsoever; and if there were some damage because of this in the organs, the damage would be very recognizable, as some wound would have been made there, and since we do not see any wound, for what should we be concerned?

There is one who is uncertain in a case where a thorn was thrust into the side and immediately exited, such as when a thorn from a tree entered into the flank of the animal with sudden force and the animal immediately distanced itself from the tree and the thorn remained in the tree, whether one must be concerned in such a case for the perforation of one of the organs. For perhaps that which the sages, of blessed memory, said, that a thorn that perforated into the cavity we are concerned for, this is specifically when the thorn remained there for some time and through the movement and the walking it perforated the organ; but when the thorn exited immediately we are not concerned that in this moment it perforated. Or, it is possible that even for a brief moment we are concerned, and it is treifah [Pitchei Teshuvah subsection 3 in the name of Panim Masbirot].

And behold, even though according to logic it would seem appropriate to say that there is no concern that it would be perforated in a single moment, nevertheless, from the wording of the Rambam that we cited in section 5, it is explicitly proven that there is no distinction in the matter. For he wrote: "If a thorn struck it, or an arrow or a spear was thrown at it and entered its cavity," etc. And behold, regarding a spear, it is certain that they removed the spear immediately, for if the spear were to remain in its body, it would surely cut all the organs and it would die immediately. And presumably, a thorn also refers to such a case. Furthermore, the wording "a thorn struck it" implies explicitly a thorn attached to something that entered its cavity and exited. Similarly, from the wording of the Shas which said "with a thorn, until it is perforated to the cavity," it also implies that perforation to the cavity alone is sufficient, and we do not require that the thorn remain in its body. Therefore, one should not be lenient in this matter. However, it appears to me that if according to the appearance of the eye the thorn did not reach inside the cavity, but only up to the cavity, and it was immediately dislodged from the thorn, that one may be lenient in a case of great loss; for it had not yet reached the internal organs, and there was also no movement such that we should concern ourselves that it subsequently perforated and then retracted, since it was dislodged immediately and instantly. And one should deliberate on this. And see what I wrote at the end of section 1.

Animals that have a disease in the spleen and their cure is that the expert physician pierces with a needle from the flank until the spleen and pierces the outer skin, and there is concern lest he made a puncture in the thickness of the spleen, and likewise lest he struck one of the other organs. Great authorities were asked about this and they inclined toward permitting it [according to Pitchei Teshuvah there], for the expert is presumably proficient to act in a manner that no damage will reach another place. And behold, when a thorn is stuck from the flank to the heart, it was explained in section 6 that it is kosher if it was stuck before us; all the more so in the case of the handiwork of a man who is proficient in this. And it is an explicit Mishnah: one may cut from the spleen and from the kidneys, etc. [Chullin 68a], and the animal was not forbidden by this; behold, we do not concern ourselves lest he damaged another place. And likewise there is a proof from what the sages, of blessed memory, said: he reached his hand into the womb of the animal and slaughtered a live nine-month-old fetus, see there [ibid. 74a]; behold, we do not concern ourselves lest he cut one of the internal organs with the knife. And one should not distinguish between an Israelite and a non-Israelite, for from where do we have a basis to distinguish in this? Furthermore, in several matters we rely on the presumption that an expert will not damage his reputation. Nevertheless, ab initio one should refrain from this, but post facto one should not forbid it, and all the more so if it survived afterwards twelve months, for certainly there is no doubt in this. And see what I wrote in siman 48, section 7 [and see Tosafot, Beitzah 6a, starting with "V'chi"].

If the thorn or the needle did not perforate into the cavity of the animal, but rather the needle is hidden within the flesh of the wall—such as where the needle is placed lengthwise across the width of the wall, or even if it is inserted in its usual manner but it is in the thigh of the animal which is very thick—it is kosher. And we say that it came from the outside through rubbing against walls, and we do not fear that perhaps it came from the inside from the intestines and was inserted into the flesh. And for this the Sages, of blessed memory, said regarding a thorn: "until it perforates into the cavity," for as long as it has not reached the cavity, we do not presume a defect. And even if the eye is facing inward—which is to say that the thick side of the needle is toward the inside, where there is reason to say that it came from the inside, for if it were from the outside, how did it perforate with the thick side through the entire thickness of the thigh—nevertheless, we do not fear, for since it is its way to rub against walls, the needle may enter into it even with the thick side.

Some say that we only say this regarding an animal, but regarding a bird it is terefah [Bach and Shach], as it is not the way of a bird to rub against walls, and we attribute it to the needle having come from the inside. And some say that even in a bird it is kosher, for it is also the way of a bird to enter a narrow place when they pursue it, and it is possible that from there it was inserted [Taz subsection 4], for so it is clarified from the language of the Shas and the poskim, that as long as it did not reach the cavity we are not concerned, neither in an animal nor in a bird [ibid.]. And some wish to decide that in a bird that is not domestic it is terefah, but in a domestic bird such as a hen or a goose and the like, whose way is to rub in refuse heaps, it is certainly probable that it came from the outside [some say in the name of Shevut Yaakov Part 2 Siman 67 and Machazik Berakhah], and it is a correct reasoning; and even those who prohibit admit regarding a thin needle that it is kosher.

An incident occurred where many long feathers were found in a goose, in the fat adjacent to the intestines, and the great authorities ruled that it is kosher, and one must not add to the list of treifot; for due to their fat, it was not within its natural power to expel the feathers outward, and they grew inside [Bach and Taz ibid.]. Nevertheless, the posek must investigate, for perhaps he will recognize that they came from the outside and perforated the intestines, and we must examine the intestines as much as we can. And if a thorn or a needle is found in them, it is obvious that it is treifa, for any thorn or needle found behind the wall of the animal or the bird is considered a needle in the body cavity and is treifa [Aruch HaShulchan in the name of Panim Meirot].

Our sages, of blessed memory, said [58b]: If one fed it hiltit, it is treifah. What is the reason? Because it perforates the intestines, for since it is sharp, it perforates the internal organs [Rashi]. For us, it is not known what hiltit is. They wrote that only a grain of hiltit perforates, but the root does not perforate. However, from this one must learn that any matter that has sharp points should not be fed to the animal or the bird. And even if they slaughtered it immediately and in a short time it did not perforate, nevertheless, anything that is destined to perforate is considered as if perforated and is treifah [Pri Chadash]. One must be in doubt whether the intention of our sages, of blessed memory, was specifically when one fed it by hand, for so implies the language of "fed," but if it eats on its own we are not concerned for a perforation, or if it is not specifically so. The poskim did not distinguish in this, and any matter where there is a doubt if it perforates is treifah due to doubt. There was an incident in the days of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, with animals that ate a grass called in Arabic "kalakh" and many of them died, and our teacher, the Beit Yosef, forbade them. There were those who did not heed this ruling and several Jewish souls died, and then everyone admitted to his words [Avkat Rochel siman 213]. There is a type of illness common in sheep from which they die, and several communities decreed not to eat them [Pri Megadim subsection 5], for danger is more severe than a prohibition. They wrote the sign that the liver in them is afflicted and turned to whiteness [ibid.].