Siman 52

The sages taught in the Mishnah [26a] that a bird that fell into fire and its internal organs were scorched—meaning their appearance changed due to the heat of the fire—if they are green, they are disqualified; if they are red, they are kosher. And they explained in the Gemara that this refers to the heart, the liver, and the gizzard, whose nature is to be red, and they changed to a green like the herb called "green," it is treifah, for this is a sign that the fire took hold of them and ruined them until their appearance changed, and they are as if they do not exist. But if they are red, meaning even if they became more red than their natural state, nevertheless they are kosher; for although the heat took hold of them until they became redder than they were, nevertheless this is a sign of a slight heat that does not ruin the organ, for if it were an intense heat, it would have changed them to a completely different appearance. And regarding the intestines, the Sages, of blessed memory, said the opposite: that they are naturally green like an herb, and if they changed to redness, it is treifah, and if they are green, even if their greenness is more intense than their natural state, it is kosher for the reason we have written. [The Ran wrote regarding red ones, even if they increased in redness, see there; and the Shach cited him in subsection 1, and his reason seems clear to me, for if not so, what is it that we learned "red ones are kosher"—behold, they are red by nature? Rather, it is certain that they increased in redness, and for the reason we have written; and automatically the same applies to the greenness of the intestines as well, as I have written, and examine this closely]:

This change renders it treifah even with a minute amount, and it is more stringent than a perforation, for with a perforation it is not rendered treifah until it perforates into the cavity, but this change renders it treifah even if it did not reach the cavity; for since they changed due to the effects of fire, they will eventually be perforated in this place. Therefore, regarding the heart, the gizzard, and the intestines—that is, the small intestines—if even a minute change occurred in any place whatsoever, even if it did not reach the cavity, it is treifah if it fell into fire. But regarding the liver, where a perforation does not disqualify it, this change also does not render it treifah unless the change occurred over the entire kezayit in the place of the gallbladder or over the entire kezayit in the place of its vitality, for it is as if this place was removed and it is treifah, as I wrote in siman 41. And specifically when it spread over the entire kezayit in one of them, for with a minute amount it is not rendered treifah as long as a kezayit still remains in the place of the gallbladder and in the place of its vitality.

Furthermore, there is a place in the liver where a change in color renders it treifah even in the slightest amount, and not because of the liver itself but because of another organ. And thus our sages, of blessed memory, said there: If the liver turned green opposite the intestines—meaning the thin part of it at the lower edge that is opposite the intestines—it is known that her intestines were scorched and she is treifah. It was known to our sages, of blessed memory, that when she fell into fire and the liver near the intestines changed, the power of the fire has already dominated the intestines as well, except that it is not yet visible because it is not their way to be revealed in this so quickly; however, they are already spoiled and are as if they were perforated. But this is not so when the fire dominated another place in the liver, for the intestines were not spoiled at all, and from the perspective of the liver itself, a perforation does not disqualify, and therefore it is kosher. And the Rambam, of blessed memory, in chapter 7, law 20, renders it treifah in any part of the liver, and he has a different approach to all of this, and it will be explained before us with the help of Heaven in section 18. And know that when she fell into boiling water, its law is the same as when she fell into fire.

The Tur wrote in the name of the Rashba: There are two types of green; there is green like a leek and there is green like an egg. And it appears to me that the green that disqualifies in the liver of a bird is the green like a leek, for the liver is green like an egg if it is fatty. Thus far his words. And similarly, regarding the heart and the gizzard, the green does not disqualify unless it is like a leek, for anything that fire turns green like a leek, it turns green [Beit Yosef in the name of the Ra'ah]. And it appears to me that also the appearance of tekhelet, which is called blue, is treifah like the appearance of herbs, which is called green, for these two appearances are similar to one another and have one law, as we explained in siman 38, section 10, in the laws of the appearances of the lung. And there it was explained that the Tosafot interpreted regarding the appearance of leek that this is the appearance of tekhelet, which is called blue; see there.

And know that the Rashba, of blessed memory, wrote in Torat HaBayit [27a] that in the heart and the gizzard all types of greens disqualify even if it is the color of an egg, for only in the liver, which sometimes when it is fatty has this color, therefore even in a lean one one should not declare it treif, which is not the case in the heart and the gizzard. And there are those who were stringent to say that even in the liver it is not permitted in the color of an egg except in a fatty one and not in a lean one [Yam Shel Shelomo, siman 96]. However, from the words of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, it appears that they took as the halacha the first opinion and did not mention this opinion at all. And it appears that their opinion is that since in the Gemara they equated the liver to the heart and the gizzard, it implies that they have one law, for it was established by our sages, of blessed memory, that due to the cause of the heat it is only possible to change to the color of leek, and if they changed to the color of an egg, this is not due to the cause of the heat.

There is one who is uncertain what the law is if they changed to another color, for in the Gemara we only find red ones that turned green or green ones that turned red. For it seemingly implies that another color does not disqualify them, as the sages possessed the tradition that a change to another color is not caused by the fire. Or, perhaps even for another color it is treifah, and the sages informed us of a greater novelty: that even if they changed to the color found in a different organ in a hen it is treifah, and all the more so if it changed to an entirely different color [Tevu'ot Shor, subsection 3]. From the language of the poskim there is no proof, and there are arguments for both sides. However, in my humble opinion, it appears that this is not a reality at all. For behold, the primary change is because of the blood, as the blood is the life-force, and you do not find it except as one of these two: either the power of the blood overcomes and it becomes very red, or the opposite, that the blood departs and it becomes green. For so we also find regarding an infant in the matter of milah, that due to the blood it becomes red or green [Shabbat 134a], and as I wrote in Yoreh Deah, siman 263. Furthermore, it appears to me that red ones that turned green are much more common than green ones that turned red, and therefore in the Mishnah the sages only taught red ones that turned green. The reason is that this is understood by logic, for when the hen falls into the fire, a great terror falls upon it, and terror causes the blood to depart [Niddah 39a]. But in the Gemara they explained that if sometimes the opposite occurs, it is also treifah. This is because we say there on page 71a: fear constricts, fright relaxes. Generally, fear falls upon it, and occasionally fright, and it is the opposite. And delve into this.

Our sages, of blessed memory, said [57a] that regarding the lung of a bird, there is no concern regarding a change of appearance, even if it fell into fire, because the majority of the space of the ribs protects it, for the ribs do not lie on their width but on their edge, and their entire width is inward and the lung is hidden between them [Rashi]. Therefore, even if it fell into fire and the appearance of the lung changed, we attribute the change to another cause and we are not concerned for it. There are those who are stringent when it certainly fell into fire, but one should not be stringent in a case of significant loss [Shach, subsection 7].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: and a spleen that turned green in its thick part, even only a minute amount, is treifah, for it will eventually be perforated. Thus far his words. And behold, according to what has been explained at the end of siman 43, that a perforation does not disqualify in the spleen of a bird, there is no reason to declare this treifah, and this law applies only to an animal. And he follows his reasoning in section 7, that this law of "fell into fire" exists also in an animal, as will be explained with the help of Heaven. And know that according to what has been explained, that with a minute amount of change we judge it like a perforation opposite it until the other side and no more, the change does not disqualify in the heart except when it is opposite the chambers of the heart. But if it turned green below the chambers it is kosher, for even if it were perforated there from one side to the other it is kosher, as written in siman 40 [Pri Megadim in Mishbetzot Zahav, subsection 4].

This matter, that a change in appearance disqualifies these organs when it fell into fire, applies specifically when they remained in their changed state after one boiled them. However, if one boiled them and they returned to their original appearance, it is kosher, for through this it is revealed that only the steam of the fire took hold of them and not the essence of the fire; therefore, when they placed them in boiling water, the steam departed [Rashi]. And so too the reverse: if it fell into fire and these organs did not change, and by chance they boiled them and they changed, it is treifah since it fell into fire, for the primary examination is via boiling for the reason we have written. And ab initio, when we see that they have not changed, one does not need to boil them and may eat them roasted, for we do not presume a defect [Shach, subsection 11]. And so too if it did not fall into fire and it happened that one boiled them and they changed, we are not concerned for it, even according to those who disqualify due to a change in appearance even without falling into fire, as will be explained; nevertheless, when the change is only via boiling, we are not concerned for it without it having fallen into fire [ibid.]. And see what I wrote in section 18.

And know that in the Gemara there, only the law of red ones that turned green and one boiled them and they returned and became red was mentioned, that they are kosher; but green ones that turned red and one boiled them and they returned and became green was not mentioned in the Gemara. There are some among the Rishonim who said that in truth boiling does not avail in this case, as the Tur wrote in the name of the Rashba. However, most of the poskim wrote that there is no distinction in this, and thus they ruled in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch. The Gemara cited one of them and the same applies to the other. Furthermore, just as the Mishnah only mentioned red ones that turned green for the reason we wrote in section 6, so too the Gemara only mentioned such a case for this reason, because this is what is common, as was written there, but not that there is a difference in the law between one and the other.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4: Greenness does not disqualify the liver of a domestic bird, as there are wild birds of its species, for all wild birds have livers as green as leeks. Thus far his words. For so we find in the Gemara regarding the extra lobe of the lung, that because there are wild birds with an extra lobe, we therefore also declare the domestic ones kosher even though it is not their way [47a]. And here also it is similar, for even though in domestic birds the liver is red, nevertheless, since in wild birds it is green, it is possible that in this one it happened to be like a wild bird. And in section 5 he wrote: If it fell into fire and it is not known if its internal organs were scorched, it requires examination; and if it is not here before us to examine it, it is forbidden. Thus far his words. For anything that requires examination due to some occurrence and they did not manage to examine it, it is forbidden [Pri Chadash].

And according to this, these two laws contradict one another; for this domestic bird whose liver is green, we have a doubt whether it is by its nature similar to the wild ones or whether it is due to its falling into fire. In any event, it is no better than if it had fallen into fire, and it is not before us to examine it, and we should have to forbid it [Taz, subsection 9]. And although one could say that since the change was found only in the liver and not in other organs, and in this species the wild ones have greener livers, it is more likely to attribute it to this than to attribute it to the fire—for why did the other organs not change? Whereas when it is not before us to examine it, there is a doubt regarding all the organs [Nekudot HaKesef]—nevertheless, most of the great authorities agreed that this law regarding the greenness of the liver of a domestic bird that has a wild counterpart applies only when it did not fall into fire, and according to the view of the poskim who declare it treifah for a change even without falling into fire, as will be explained. But if it fell into fire and the liver was found to be green, it is treifah in every species of bird [Prisha, Pri Chadash, and Kereti U'Peleti]. And some permit it even if it fell into fire for the reason I have written [Bach and Shach]. And for the law, one should be stringent.

If a change is found in one of these organs, even though it is not known to us that it fell into fire, it is treifah, for we say that it certainly fell into fire and through this the change occurred. This is the opinion of the Rambam and the Rashba. However, many of our teachers disagree with this and hold that as long as we do not know that it fell into fire, we attribute the change to something else because falling into fire is uncommon, as is the possibility that the organs would be ruined through this, for as soon as it falls into fire it will fly and exit, and there is not yet enough time to be ruined. And if its wings are burnt, it will not exit and will die in its place [Rosh]. It is a remote occurrence that it would fall into fire and the fire would take hold of it and it would exit alive; therefore, we do not attribute it to this. And one may rely and be lenient according to this opinion in a case of great loss.

It is a simple matter that when it fell into fire and there was found in it some change that requires an examination of the intestines, such as if it was burned in the skin and flesh near the ribs and inside there was found a collection of blood in a manner that requires an examination of all the intestines, it is terefah, for we are not experts in the examination of all the intestines. And likewise, if fire wounds were found in the place of the tzomet hagidim and it is very red there, it is also terefah, for we are not experts in the examination of the tzomet hagidim of a hen, as I wrote in siman 56, and so too anything similar to this.

An incident occurred involving a liver that was green like a leek, and they boiled it and it returned to its appearance on the outside, but on the inside it still remained in its changed state, and the great authorities declared it kosher. For since it did not fall into the fire before us and its skin returned to the appearance of the liver, the matter was revealed that it turned green due to illness; and therefore on the inside it remains in its changed state, for if it were due to the fire, the primary heat and its dominance would be on the outside [Pri Chadash, subsection 8]. And it is implied from this that in a case where it fell into the fire, they certainly would not have declared it kosher in such a case; even though the primary dominance of the fire is on the outside, nevertheless, since it certainly fell into the fire, it is necessary to attribute the change to the falling into the fire, and since the entire body of the organ is still in its changed state, we do not pay heed to the skin. And it must be said that the incident occurred not in a case of great loss, for in a case of great loss we hold the rule to be lenient even without this, as I wrote in section 13. [And behold, the Pri Chadash, subsection 10, brings in the name of the Rikash that a woman who found greenness in the liver and did not know if it inclined toward red, and the liver was lost, that it is kosher; and he challenged him that we do not attribute leniently, see there. And it must be said that his intention is where it certainly fell into the fire, for if not so, behold he wrote himself in subsection 13 that one should attribute more to the permitted status, and as I wrote in section 13]:

The treifot of the change of these organs only disqualifies in a bird, but in an animal the change of these organs does not disqualify even if we know that it fell into fire, because its skin is tough and also the thickness of the ribs protects it, and also the intestines are difficult to heat up, and before they would heat up from the fall into the fire, its skin and flesh would be burnt. Therefore, even though all types of treifot that exist in this one exist in that one, nevertheless in this case it is not applicable; and it is not because this type of treifot does not exist in an animal, for certainly it exists, but rather it is a distant reality. Therefore, even if it fell into fire and its intestines changed, one must necessarily attribute the change to something else. Nevertheless, there are several of the poskim who hold that also in an animal the law is so, that if it is known that it fell into fire and its intestines changed, we attribute this to its falling into fire and we forbid it, and such is the custom. However, regarding a change in its intestines when it did not fall into fire, or if it fell into fire and they did not check the intestines and they were lost, one may rely simply on the first opinion and we permit it even without a case of great loss [Shach and Pri Chadash]. And know that even now we are experts in the examination of "fell into fire" regarding the change of appearances, unlike the one who wishes to be stringent in this [ibid.].

The Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote at the end of chapter 7: A bird that fell into fire and its heart or its liver or its gizzard turned green, or its intestines turned red in any amount, it is a terefah, for all green parts that turned red or red parts that turned green due to the fire in a bird are as if they were removed, and it is a terefah. This is provided that they remain in this appearance after they have been slightly boiled and rubbed. Any bird whose liver is found to be like the appearance of the intestines, or the other intestines changed and remained in their change after boiling and rubbing as we have explained, it is known that it fell into fire and its intestines were scorched, and it is a terefah. Not only this, but the intestines of a bird in which no change was found, and when they were boiled they changed and the green parts turned red and the red parts turned green, it is known that it fell into fire and its intestines were scorched, and it is a terefah. Thus far his words. And many labored over his words [Kesef Mishneh and Lechem Mishneh].

And that which appears to me in my humble opinion regarding his intent is that, behold, the name "green" includes the appearance of leek-green and the appearance of an egg yolk, as I wrote in section 4, and we hold that a change to greenness does not disqualify unless it is like a leek and not like an egg, as I wrote there. And the Rambam holds that every type of greenness disqualifies when it certainly fell into fire, for even though in most cases the fire changes the red to green like a leek, which is the appearance of the intestines; therefore, if it is not known for certain that it fell into fire and changed to green like an egg, we are not concerned about it, and specifically if it changed to the appearance of a leek, which is the appearance of the intestines, then we say it is known that it fell into fire and its intestines were scorched. And this is what he wrote, "Any bird whose liver is found to be like the appearance of the intestines, or if the rest of the intestines changed," etc., meaning all the red parts, if they changed to the appearance of the intestines, and the green parts if they turned red, it is known that it fell into fire and is treifah. And according to his view, this is what they said in the Gemara there, "If the liver turned green opposite the intestines," etc., meaning like the appearance of the intestines. For in the Mishnah we learned: "If it fell into fire and its intestines were scorched, if they are green they are disqualified," this refers to every appearance of green. But where it is not known that it fell into fire, it is obvious that like the appearance of an egg it is kosher, but regarding the appearance of a leek he was in doubt, and he resolved it that it is forbidden and he renders it treifah in the liver even with the slightest amount and in any location, for he holds that we do not judge this as a perforation but rather as if it were entirely removed, and if the liver is removed it is treifah. And according to his view, it is possible to say that this is why the Shas did not mention the spleen, because we hold that if the spleen is removed it is kosher, and therefore even if it fell into fire we are not concerned about it. And "shlika" he explains as a little cooking, for so he explains in the entire Shas, that this is the difference between "shlika" and "bishul" as is known. And he requires one to "meres" them, meaning to feel them, and this is from the perspective of logic, for also regarding the appearances of the lung it was explained in siman 38 that it requires "merus" and feeling, see there. And so too he renders it treifah when they did not change but through "shlika" they changed, even if we did not know that it fell into fire, and we say that it certainly fell into fire, unlike the opinion of most of the poskim that we wrote in section 9, see there. And this dispute depends on a variation of versions in the Shas there [and according to the Rambam it works well that the Mishnah mentioned only red parts that turned green because in this there is a novelty, that every type of green is treifah].