Siman 53

An animal has two forelegs and two hind legs. The forelegs are those on the side of the neck, and the hind legs are those on the side of the tail. Their laws differ from one another, for in the forelegs there is no treifut at all, as the life of the living creature does not depend on them. Even if they were completely severed, or broken in any place whatsoever, or if it has three forelegs, it is kosher. All the treifot explained in the Gemara regarding the limbs of the legs—such as the hip bone being displaced from its socket, and likewise if it was severed from the joint and above, or if the tzomet hagidim were removed, and all similar cases—apply only to the hind legs, and will be explained in siman 55 and siman 56. However, the legs on the side of the neck are only like the hands of a human, and treifut does not depend on them, except that the limb itself, when it has no connection to the body, is forbidden, as will be explained with the help of Heaven:

And more than this they said in Chullin [57a], that even a dislocated foreleg in an animal is kosher, even if it was completely dislocated from the shoulder and the shoulder remained perforated, and even if the ligaments were decomposed it is kosher. And even though in a bird such a case is treifah when one wing is dislocated, as will be explained, because we concern ourselves with the perforation of the lung, this is because the lung of the bird is hidden between the ribs and the membrane of the flesh is soft and thin between rib and rib, and when its wing is dislocated it tears the lung [Rashi ibid.]. But in an animal this is not applicable, and furthermore, because of the thickness of the animal's shoulder and its width, there is no concern for the perforation of the lung [Mordechai ibid.].

And only this limb itself that was dislocated is forbidden, for it is as if it were completely severed from the body, and its law is like a limb from a living animal, which will be explained in siman 62, and it is forbidden even to a descendant of Noah. And in the case of a fracture, if skin and flesh cover its majority and there is no puncture from the outside, even the limb is permitted, for it is possible for it to return and heal and it is not like that which was severed from the body. But if skin and flesh do not cover its majority, or if there is a puncture from the outside, it is forbidden until the place of the fracture, and one must also cut a little above the fracture and discard it, for in such a case it is impossible for it to return and heal and it is as if it were severed, and it is forbidden due to the law of a limb from a living animal. And there are many detailed laws in this, and it will be explained in siman 55 regarding the leg, for regarding the law of a fractured limb, their law is the same.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And there are those who declare the animal treifah even if the wing is dislocated or broken near the body and we see that the blood is clotted on the other side of the ribs, for we see that the blow passed into the body; and such is the custom. However, there is no concern for this as long as we do not see that the blood is clotted, and it does not require examination. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words is that it is true that the Sages, of blessed memory, said a dislocated foreleg in an animal is kosher and we do not fear a perforation of the lung; however, this is when we do not see clotted blood on the other side of the ribs inside the body. But when we see clotted blood, which is a sign that the blow took hold inside the body, we fear a perforation of the lung, and such is the custom to declare it treifah in such a case. And this is when we see the clotted blood, but one does not need to examine for this, since most of the poskim do not hold of this law. And I wonder, for even if we see clotted blood, why should an examination of the lung not be effective? For it is well and good to say regarding a dislocated wing—which according to the law of the Gemara is forbidden until the lung is examined, as will be explained—that we are not expert in examination, just as we are stringent in several matters that require examination. But regarding a dislocated foreleg, which according to most poskim does not require examination at all, granted that we are concerned for this opinion, it should be enough to require examination like the law of the Gemara regarding a dislocated wing. But to also fear that we are not expert in examination—why should we be so stringent for the sake of a single opinion against many? And behold, regarding sirkhot whose status as treifot is according to the law of the Gemara, nevertheless, since it is not a certain treifah, we rely on our examination; certainly in this law, which is nothing but a mere stringency as those who are stringent are a minority of a minority, why should we be so stringent? And perhaps even our teacher, the Rema, would not be stringent regarding an animal belonging to an Israelite except to require an examination of the lung. And one of the great Acharonim wrote that regarding an animal belonging to an Israelite, one should not be stringent at all like this opinion (Pri Chadash, subsection 4). Therefore, it appears to me that in a case of great loss, one may be lenient with an examination of the lung by placing it entirely in water and inflating it, and if the water does not bubble in any place, it is kosher.

And there is one who asked how it is possible to say that we are concerned for a perforation of the lung, for behold, regarding broken ribs which will be explained in siman 54, we are not concerned for this, and as long as the majority of its ribs were not broken, it is kosher, even if the break was on the side adjacent to the lung. And how is it possible to be concerned for a perforation of the lung in a case where the wing was dislocated or broken near the body, for behold, if in this case we are concerned, all the more so regarding the breaking of the ribs [Levush]. And it is well understood that in the case of a dislocated wing we are certainly concerned for a perforation of the lung because the bird flaps it back and forth, and it is not similar to the ribs which rest in one place; but the wing is indeed similar to the ribs. However, even this is not similar, for regarding the ribs we certainly do not establish a defect to say that they entered beyond their boundary, which is not the case here, where when the blood is collected on the other side of the ribs, behold, we have seen that it entered beyond the boundary, and therefore we are concerned also for the lung [Taz, subsection 2]. And according to this, also in a case where the rib adjacent to the lung was broken from above and the blood was collected, there is also reason to be concerned for a perforation of the lung; however, the poskim did not mention this. And one can distinguish in another manner, for behold, the Rashba wrote the reason regarding a thorn that perforated into the cavity that we are concerned for the perforation of one of the organs; and why regarding the ribs are we not concerned, for behold, when they are broken they are similar to a thorn? But because the thorn perforates with force from the outside and enters through pressure, we are certainly concerned that by way of the force and the pressure it perforated one of the organs, but regarding the heads of the ribs there is nothing to be concerned about [Beit Yosef, siman 54]. And therefore, in a case of a dislocated or broken wing where the wound passed into the body and the blood was collected, it is like a thorn that perforated with force, and therefore we are certainly concerned [Chiddushei HaGershuni, subsection 7].

And know that in the Gemara [57a] it is stated in this wording: A dislocated foreleg in an animal is kosher; a dislocated thigh in an animal is treifah; a dislocated thigh in a bird is treifah; a dislocated wing in a bird is treifah, for we concern ourselves lest the lung was punctured. Thus far its words. And Rashi and Tosafot and all our teachers explained that a dislocated thigh refers to the law of the socket of the hip bone that was displaced from its location and the tendons were decayed, which is explained in the Gemara as treifah [54b]. Therefore it uses the language of "shmuta," which implies that the tendons were decayed [Tosafot]. And according to this, it was explained that regarding the foreleg, in every case it is kosher, as we have explained. And so the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch ruled without qualification, and they did not bring any other opinion.

And behold, there are found among some of the Rishonim wondrous things regarding this matter. This is the wording of the Semak: A dislocated foreleg in a beast, which is the front leg, is kosher; if it was dislocated from its place of attachment at the shoulder, it is treifah, lest its tendons were decayed, etc. Thus far his words. And so too in Sha'arei Dura, siman 87, he wrote: But the wing of a bird in the body is treifah, etc., and in a beast we fear the decay of the tendons, and even in a beast, a dislocated foreleg in the body is treifah. Thus far his words. And they have already written that this is against the Gemara [Yam Shel Shlomo, siman 99]. However, the truth is that they interpreted the Gemara in a different manner, namely, that the law of "the bone slipped from its socket and the tendons were decayed," which is treifah, applies both to the foreleg and the hind leg. And that which the Gemara said, "a dislocated thigh is treifah," is a different matter, namely, between the second joint and the third joint, which is between the leg and the femur. And that which it called "dislocated thigh," the intention is the femur because it is attached to the thigh, but this is on the second side at the place where it is attached to the leg. And this is so as not to err that the intention is the lower side of the leg at the place where it is attached to the first joint, for thus it says "dislocated thigh" and not "dislocated leg." And corresponding to this it said "a dislocated foreleg in a beast is kosher," namely, between the second and third joints. But when it is dislocated from the thigh, it is treifah, and this is "the bone slipped from its socket and the tendons were decayed." And in the case of a dislocated thigh, it is treifah even without the decay of the tendons. And the Rashba, of blessed memory, already brought this interpretation in Torat HaBayit [page 27b] and rejected it with both hands with several correct and clear proofs. And the greatest of them all is that a dislocated wing in a bird is certainly from its place of attachment to the body, since we fear for the perforation of the lung, and similarly, a dislocated foreleg and a dislocated thigh are also at their place of attachment to the body, for it is dealing with one category. Furthermore, it is wondrous how it is possible that a dislocation of the leg from the femur would be more severe than a dislocation of the femur from the body, for in the latter we require the decay of the tendons, while in a dislocation of the leg it is treifah in all cases [and the Bach aimed in his explanation at the words of the Torat HaBayit]. Therefore, I wonder at some of the great Acharonim who were concerned to be stringent according to this opinion, which is against all our teachers, the Rishonim, and the Rashba, of blessed memory, rejected it with both hands [see Bach and Shach, subsection 4]. And that which one of the great Acharonim spoke was well-said, that one should not be stringent at all according to this opinion [Pri Chadash, and also the Pri Megadim there agreed to this, see there]. Therefore, in any case of loss, it is simple that one should not be stringent at all [and I wonder greatly at the Levush Shei in his work Terefot HaAtzamot, siman 7, see there].

The wing of a bird is like the forelegs of an animal, and there is no treifut in it regardless of where it was broken, except regarding the limb itself as I wrote in section 3. Only regarding a dislocation did the sages say: a dislocated wing in a bird is treifah. This is not because of the wing, but because we concern ourselves that perhaps the lung, which is hidden between the ribs, was punctured, and through the dislocation it is easily punctured. Therefore, the lung requires examination; and since we are not experts in the examination of a bird's lung, it is treifah. Thus all the great authorities agreed [Yam Shel Shlomo ibid., and Taz, and Shach subsection 11]. However, when it is broken, or if it is missing a wing, or has an extra wing, or if its wings consist of only one joint or even less than a joint, we do not concern ourselves with this and it is kosher. Even if they were broken near their connection to the body, if the place of connection to the body—which is like a pestle in a mortar—remains intact; for if not, it would be considered dislocated [Beit Yosef]. And specifically that the break of the outer bone has no splinter, for if there were a splinter in it, we concern ourselves with the puncturing of the lung, and the lung requires examination to inflate it and examine it to see if it is whole; and since we are not experts in examination, it is treifah. And there are those who forbid when it is broken very near to the body, and they say its law is like a dislocation [Hagahot Maimoniyot]. And the reason is that since the lung is hidden there between the ribs and the membrane of the flesh is very soft there, it is very easy that when the break is very near to the body, through the break and the pain of the bird, the small amount remaining in the body will shake strongly and the lung will be punctured.

And for this reason, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2 that the common custom is to measure like the width of a thumb, and even exactly it is kosher, unless one sees that blood has collected beyond the ribs; however, we do not concern ourselves with this and we declare it kosher by default. And there is no difference whether it punctures through a fracture or not, since it is far from the body. But if there is not the width of a thumb between the place of the fracture and the body, then it is treifah in any case, and an examination of the lung does not avail, for we are not experts in examination in any place where there is a deficiency, and this is the custom. Thus far his words. And it is obvious that the thumb must be measured from the place of its connection to the body, and likewise it is known that the measurement of the thumb is at the first joint of the thumb at the widest place. And if there is exactly the width of a thumb between the fracture and the place of its connection to the body, we declare it kosher, and if not, we declare it treifah. And if the fracture does not run straight but rather diagonally, in a manner that if we measure from the second edge of the break it would be a thumb's distance away, but from the first edge it would not be a thumb, some say that it must be a thumb from the first edge [Taz, sub-section 4]. And some say to measure from the middle of the break because that is the main part of the fracture, and we do not concern ourselves with the beginning of the break that is toward the body, unless there is a puncture at the beginning of the fracture, for then it must be a thumb's distance from the point which is the puncture [this is implied by Shach, sub-section 9, and this is also the opinion of the Perishah to one who delves into his words, and so wrote the Kereti U'Peleti, sub-section 7; and in vain did the Levushei Serad, sub-section 13, wonder about him and wrote that one should not be stringent in these measurements since it is a mere stringency and has no root in the Gemara, and such is the primary ruling].

In a small bird where the entire bone does not have the width of a thumb, one measures by half the bone, for even without this there are those who hold to always measure by half the bone, and it is only our custom to measure by a thumb; therefore, when it is impossible with a thumb, one measures by half the bone [see Maharik, Shoresh 38]. And likewise, if the fracture is a thumb's distance from the body, but the fracture was set bone upon bone in a manner that from the half-bone that was set upon the second half or beneath it, there is also not a thumb's distance from the place of its fracture, we have no concern regarding it, since the bone of the fracture itself is a thumb's distance away [Shach ibid.], unless it has a point, for necessarily the point must be a thumb's distance away, as I have written.

There are some of the poskim who wrote that if the fracture healed and bone was joined to bone and they do not lie one upon the other, one should permit it even if the fracture is truly adjacent to the body [Bach in the name of Maharik]. And there are those who took issue with this, for the healing of a fracture is only effective when the prohibition is on this limb alone, because it separated from the body; in such a case, one may well say that since it healed properly it is kosher, as is written in siman 55. But here, where the prohibition is due to the concern of piercing the lung, what does the healing of the fracture avail? For there is concern that until it healed, the lung was pierced [Shach, subsection 6]. However, in truth, this is no objection at all, for the Tur wrote similarly in siman 56 regarding the breaking of the leg in the area of the tzomet hagidim, that if the fracture healed it is kosher, even though the primary treifut is due to the tendons, as is explained there. Rather, certainly the reason is that if the fracture were so great in a manner that it ruined the tendons, it certainly would not have healed well, and this itself is a sign that it did not ruin the tendons. And here too it is so, for if the fracture were so strong that the lung was pierced, it would not have healed well [Kereti u-Peleti, subsection 2]. And here there is another reason to be lenient as one of the great poskim wrote, and this is his wording: And regarding the breaking of the wing adjacent to the body, where we are accustomed to declare it treifah due to the concern of piercing the lung, wherever it healed and the fractures joined and no defect is noticeable in the ribs, it is kosher; for it is impossible that during that time that they bound and healed that a change in the ribs would not be felt, for there it is easily noticeable. Thus far his words. [Yam Shel Shlomo, chapter 4, section 16]. And according to this, when there is a defect in the ribs, one should prohibit even if it healed well, but when there is no change, one should not be stringent, and especially in a case of great loss, since this entire law is merely a stringency [and the Shach himself inclined at the end of his words to be lenient for the reason that most poskim permit it entirely in a case of a break, see there, for the law of the Shas is only in a case of dislocation, and in that case it is certainly treifah in any event, which is not the case with a break].

It has already been explained that if the wing is dislocated, it is treifah by the law of the Gemara due to the concern of puncturing the lung, and we are not experts in inspection. There is no difference between whether it was dislocated from the socket entirely to the outside or whether it did not exit entirely but only moved in its place; it is treifah, for the concern of puncturing the lung exists even in such a case, as is understood [Beit Shmuel, siman 7]. Even if the blood did not collect in the ribs and we saw no defect, it is treifah. Even if it was dislocated by the hand of the shochet before the completion of the shechitah, it is treifah [ibid.]. Even if the bone is not loose within the socket and is attached to it in its normal manner, but there is a fracture in the bone, its law in all matters is like one that is dislocated [ibid.]. Even if it returned and healed, it is treifah [ibid.]. One should not be lenient in this at all since it is the law of the Gemara. It is also forbidden to sell it to a non-Jew lest he sell it to an Israelite [ibid.], unless it is very recognizable that it is dislocated, for then it is permitted to sell it to a non-Jew because the Israelite will not take it, and we do not fear that it might heal. So too, if it survived twelve months, or if it survived twenty-one days and began to lay eggs, then it returns to its kashrut [ibid.], for this is a sign that the lung was not punctured. This is specifically when it has now healed completely, for if not so, then at every moment there is reason to fear lest the lung be punctured now.

A bird that was created lacking a wing, or if its two wings are missing, or if it has three wings, is kosher. However, a bird that comes before us lacking a wing and it is impossible to discern if this was from birth or if it was dislocated afterward, it is forbidden. Even though there is a double doubt—a doubt if it was from birth, and if you say it was dislocated afterward, perhaps the lung was not perforated—nevertheless, this is all considered a single doubt. Since the prohibition is not due to the wing itself but due to the lung, both doubts are of one category: perhaps the lung was not perforated [ibid. subsection 9]. All this applies when the bone-socket was also removed; but if the bone-socket is present and the doubt is regarding a fracture, it is kosher, because our forbidding a fracture is merely a stringency, and one should not be stringent in its case of doubt. Similarly, if it was born with a dislocated wing, it is also kosher, for there is no concern of a perforated lung in this case.

If a dislocation of the wing is found and we do not know if it occurred before slaughter or after slaughter, one must be stringent and forbid it. And even though there is a double doubt here—perhaps it occurred after slaughter, and if you say it occurred before slaughter, perhaps the lung was not perforated—nevertheless, this is not a complete double doubt, as I wrote in the previous section. Furthermore, the second doubt is only due to a lack of knowledge, for if we were experts in inspecting, this would not be a doubt, and this is not considered a double doubt. And even though it should be considered a double doubt for this reason since none of us are experts, as I wrote in the rules of double doubt in siman 110, nevertheless, since a dislocation of the wing is mentioned in the Gemara, one must be stringent. In a case of great loss, one may be lenient. However, if any defect is visible in the ribs or in the lung itself, it is treifah in any event, and even inspection is not effective, for we are not experts in inspection [Shach]. And if no defect is visible and there is room to attribute it to having occurred after slaughter due to some reason, certainly we permit it in any event, similar to the handling by hand of the lung.

And if the wing is found broken and it is not known whether it was before the shechitah or after the shechitah, if there is no protrusion in the break, it is certainly permitted even if there is no thumb-width, since this is merely a stringency. And if there is a protrusion, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote that it is treifah, such as in a case where it is impossible to examine the lung [see Turei Zahav and Shach, subsection 12]. However, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 4 that there are those who permit it by force of a double doubt: perhaps it was broken after shechitah, and if you say it was before shechitah, perhaps the lung was not punctured; and one may rely on this to permit a break, for there are those who permit it even without this. Thus far his words. And so one should instruct; but if a defect is found in the ribs or in the lung, it certainly must be forbidden, and all the more so if there is clear evidence that it occurred before the shechitah.

Those who tie the wings of the bird tightly should be rebuked, for through this many mishaps have occurred, and there is also the issue of tzaar baalei chayim; rather, they should tie them loosely. And sometimes it happens that when the shochet takes the bird to slaughter and grips the wings forcefully, he breaks them. Although according to the law there is no concern that in this moment until after the slaughter the lung would certainly not be perforated, nevertheless, the limb is forbidden, and one must be careful in this [Atzei Levonah subsection 9 and Pri Chadash subsection 7]. But if the wing was dislocated one moment before the slaughter, or even before the completion of the slaughter, it is treifah, for in the case of a dislocation there is concern even in a single moment.

There is one who is in doubt when the wing was broken or dislocated certainly after shechitah and afterwards a hole was found in the lung, whether we attribute that the hole was made after shechitah because of the wing, just as we attribute it to the handling of the slaughterer's hand, or we do not attribute it. And it appears to me that in a case where it was dislocated or broken and there is a point entering into the body, we can attribute it to this; and if not, we do not attribute it [according to Pitchei Teshuvah subsection 4 in the name of Tiferet LeMoshe].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 5: A bird that had a deep wound under the wing opposite the lung, and they placed a feather over the wound and inflated through the windpipe with a thin straw and the air did not exit, he should fill the place of the wound with water and inflate with a straw through the windpipe; if the water bubbles, it is treifah. Thus far his words. And even though we are not experts in examination, nevertheless, since this is only a stringency and not from the essential law—for there is no defect here of a break or a dislocation, and in an animal when there is a wound in the ribcage, as long as it is not attached we are not concerned for it, and only in a bird are we concerned as a stringency—therefore we too can rely on our examination [Shach and Taz]. And know that regarding a broken wing where we must measure if there is a distance of a thumb-breadth as has been explained, and the bone fell out and was lost and it is impossible to measure, one may permit it in a case of great loss or for the needs of Shabbat based on a double doubt: perhaps there was a thumb-breadth, and if you say there was not, perhaps the lung was not perforated [Pri Megadim in Mishbetzot Zahav, subsection 10]. And although this is not a complete double doubt, nevertheless, since the essential law is only a mere stringency, one may rely on this for the honor of Shabbat or in a case of great loss.