Siman 54

The sages taught in the Mishnah of "These are the terefot in an animal": if most of its ribs were broken. And they explained in the Gemara [52a] that "most of the ribs" are either six from here and six from here, or eleven from here and one from here, and from their midpoint toward the spine, and in the large ribs that have marrow, for there are twenty-two such ribs. And the explanation of the matter is that behold, the entire spine is made of vertebrae upon vertebrae and they are connected to one another, and within them goes the spinal cord which holds them, and this is the primary structure of the body of the living creature. And there are in the spine many more than twenty-two ribs, but the ribs that have marrow are only twenty-two, and twelve is the majority. And when most of them are broken, and the break is above toward the side of the spine and not below toward the side of the chest, even though the vertebrae are intact and the cord is in its place, nevertheless it will not live and it is a terefah. And we will explain how many ribs there are and how many vertebrae there are.

Behold, in the spine there are eighteen vertebrae [Berakhot 28b], and they begin at the back of the animal from the place where the neck-bone ends until the tail. In every vertebra there is a socket into which the rib enters, like a pestle in a mortar [Ran]. This is their order: the first vertebra adjacent to the neck-bone has two ribs fixed in it, one on the right and one on the left, and these two ribs are called the chaze, and there is no treifut in their breaking.

And after this vertebra there are eleven more vertebrae in which twenty-two large ribs are fixed that contain marrow, eleven on the right and eleven on the left, and these are the ribs that the sages taught in the Mishnah upon which the treifot depend; and all the ribs are fixed within the vertebrae, a rib from here and a rib from here, like a pestle in a mortar.

And after these vertebrae there are three more vertebrae in which six ribs are fixed, three from here and three from here, and they do not contain marrow, and they are also fixed within the vertebra like a pestle in a mortar, and they are called small ribs. And after these vertebrae there are three more vertebrae in which no ribs are inserted, and they are called in the Gemara [52b] the end of the loins, that is to say, the end of the folds which are called flanken.

Therefore, if twelve ribs were broken out of the twenty-two, and the breaks are from their midpoint and above toward the spine, or if they were uprooted from the vertebrae and the vertebrae remain intact—for this is also like being broken—it is terefah. But if eleven ribs were broken or uprooted from the vertebrae, it is kosher. And likewise, if the first two ribs or the six small ribs were broken or uprooted from the vertebra, it is kosher. Furthermore, even if eleven of the large ribs were broken or uprooted, and also the first two and also the six small ones, it is also kosher; for even to complete the count of the majority they do not avail, for thus our Sages, of blessed memory, received as a law given to Moses at Sinai.

When fewer than the majority were broken, such that the animal's flesh appears, it seems that the ribs are also kosher, and we do not judge them as if they were separated from the animal, even if they were uprooted from the vertebra. And it is not necessary to state that if skin and flesh cover the break, for in such a case even with a broken leg it is kosher, as I wrote in siman 55; rather, even if they do not cover it, nevertheless they are attached at the bottom to the rest of the bones. The poskim did not speak of this at all, and it seems that it was simple in their eyes to permit it.

And there is a question regarding this: when a minority of the ribs were broken and the break is toward the inside, why do we not fear for the perforation of one of the internal organs whose perforation is in any amount, just as we fear regarding a thorn that perforated into the cavity? However, the Rashba and the Ran, of blessed memory, answered that specifically regarding a thorn that perforates with force and pressure when it enters from the outside do we fear for this, and not regarding the breaking of the ribs which rest in their place. Therefore, whether the break inclines outward or whether it inclines toward the cavity of the animal, we do not fear for the perforation of the organs [Taz, subsection 1]. And see what we wrote in the previous siman, section 5. And regarding a bird, there is one who is stringent in this, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.

The law of broken ribs is the same for an animal and for a bird. Even though in a bird there is no known number of ribs, nevertheless, if most of its ribs were broken, it is treifah, and less than this, it is kosher. And even though there is one who is uncertain regarding this [see Pri Megadim in Mishbetzot Zahav, subsection 1], however, this matter is explained in Rashi and the Ran [Beitzah 7a, s.v. "Hachi Garsinan," see there] that the bird is equal in this to the animal, and all treifot that the sages enumerated in an animal, their counterparts are also in a bird [56a]. And there is one who wishes to forbid if one rib was broken in a bird in the place where the lung is hidden there, due to the concern of piercing the lung, just as when a wing is broken close to the body in siman 53 [Levush], and all the more so when there is a point in the break and there is no flesh covering the point [see Shach, subsection 3 and Pri Megadim]. And there are those who permit [Taz there], for in truth one must distinguish between a wing and a rib, as the rib lies at rest, whereas the wing moves back and forth. Nevertheless, regarding a point, it is proper to be stringent; however, in a case of great loss and for the sake of Shabbat, one should be lenient even regarding a point [Pri Megadim in Siftei Da'at, subsection 3].

There are times with birds where the spine is very crooked or has a kind of hump, and the great authorities have declared it kosher and wrote that this mostly occurs from the beginning of their creation, when the bird is formed within the egg and must emerge from the egg into the air of the world, and sometimes the egg cannot expel it, so the bird twists itself within the egg so that it may be expelled [Yad Ephraim in the name of Minchat Yaakov]. And there is one who says that it is good to take apart the vertebrae and see if the spinal cord is intact; however, according to the law, this examination is not required [ibid.]. Therefore, if the examination is difficult for him, he may permit it without examination. And one of the great authorities wrote in this wording: I have seen many times from the majority of halachic authorities regarding a bird whose body was broken or crooked, which is called "bilik," that is the chest, and they declared it kosher, for this is its way in its youth when they handle it excessively, and they did not declare it treifah on account of the lung hidden there [Ba'er Heiteiv subsection 9 in the name of Dammeshek Eliezer]. And see what I wrote in siman 32, section 4.

It has already been explained that if the rib was uprooted from the vertebra and the vertebra remains, its law is like one that was broken, and with less than a majority it is not rendered treifah. And it is called "uprooted" whether it came out completely from the socket hole or whether it is in the socket but is loose [Levush, siman 12]. And there is one who says that if previously six ribs were broken or uprooted and they healed well, such that "fracture to fracture they are joined together," and similarly when they were uprooted and afterwards they became strong and returned to their health, and afterwards six others were broken or uprooted, it is kosher. Since with the first six it was not yet rendered treifah, and when the latter ones were broken the first ones had returned to their original state, if so, there is no majority here [ibid.], and these are words of reason.

Even though when they are uprooted from the vertebrae it is not rendered treifah except in the majority, as I have written, this is when the vertebra is in its place. But if the vertebra was also uprooted, or even only half a vertebra—and that is, that from one side the socket was uprooted and with it the rib fixed in it was uprooted, even though from the other side both the rib and the half-vertebra remain—nevertheless it is treifah. And thus our Sages, of blessed memory, said [ibid.]: If a rib and half a vertebra were uprooted, it is treifah, because of the damage to the spinal cord; for since on one side the vertebra was uprooted from its place, it is necessary that the cord also moved from its place, and it is like the severing of the cord. And it is not specifically half a vertebra, but even less than half, if it was only uprooted from its place in a manner that according to appearances the cord is also not in its place properly, it is treifah. And there are some among the later authorities who were in doubt about this, whether it is specifically half a vertebra or not specifically [according to the Pri Megadim and Levushei Serad], and there is no doubt here, for certainly it is not specifically, and even with less than half it is rendered treifah.

The Tur wrote: If a rib was uprooted and half a vertebra with it, it is treifah. And the Rashba wrote: This is specifically regarding the large ribs, but regarding the small ones that do not contain marrow, even if a rib and half a vertebra were uprooted, it is kosher; and my father, the Rosh, of blessed memory, did not make a distinction in this. Thus far his words. Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, ruled in section 3 like the Rashba. The great Acharonim ruled stringently [the Shach and Taz], but in a case of great loss one should be lenient [the Pri Chadash and Kereti U'Pleti], for the primary view is like the first opinion. And so it is implied from the wording of the Rif and the Rambam at the beginning of chapter 10, see there. Furthermore, the Rosh did not write explicitly to the contrary, and it can be said that he also holds like the Rashba, for the primary strength of the spinal cord is in the bones that contain marrow; but in those that do not contain marrow, it is not rendered treifah except by the uprooting of the entire vertebra, as is the case with the vertebrae at the end of the loins, as will be explained. And all the more so regarding the first vertebra, which is called the breast, that it is not treifah in such a case, for the strength of the cord has not yet begun there [so it appears to me].

If one entire vertebra was uprooted, even from those that do not have ribs, namely at the end of the folds, it is treifah. This is so even if it is lower down in a place where the severing of the spinal cord does not disqualify there, for with the uprooting of the entire vertebra, it is certain that the cord will be ruined. And in the Gemara there, it implies that in the upper ribs, with the uprooting of the entire vertebra from its place, it is a nevelah, see there. And there is reason to doubt regarding the first vertebra, which is called the chest, if it becomes treifah through the uprooting of the entire vertebra, for perhaps this is nothing more than mere flesh; and the poskim did not mention this at all. One of the great Acharonim wrote that it is treifah, and it is possible that it is also a nevelah, but it is certainly treifah, for it is no worse than the end of the folds [Beit Shmuel siman 12 section 3]. I do not know from where he has this, but nevertheless, in practice one should forbid it, and it requires further study. And if the spine was broken but the cord was not severed, it has already been explained in siman 32 section 4 that it is kosher, and it requires an examination of the cord, see there. And likewise, when the marrow was crushed but its skin remains intact, it is permitted, see there.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding the law written by the author that if a rib and half a vertebra with it were uprooted from the large ribs, it is terefah. This is his wording: And specifically if it was uprooted, but if it happened that it was missing, it is kosher; and the same law applies if there is an extra vertebra, even with two ribs, such as if twelve large ribs containing marrow were found, it is kosher; and similarly if fifteen ribs were found on one side and on the other side it was according to its proper form. Thus far his words. And it is not specifically a missing half-vertebra, but even if a whole vertebra is missing, it is kosher [Shach, subsection 108].

The commentators raised a difficulty, for in siman 3 the dispute between the Rambam and the Rashba was explained regarding the statement of our sages, of blessed memory, that when it is removed it is treifah, what is the law if it was missing from the beginning of its creation? For according to the Rambam it is kosher and according to the Rashba it is treifah, and there it was explained that one should be stringent. How then did he rule here without qualification that what is created missing or extra is kosher, for this is only according to the Rambam and not according to the Rashba? Therefore, there are those who wrote that in truth the halacha is not so. And there are those who answered that according to the Rashba it is kosher for another reason, for he interprets "every extra is as if it were removed" as being as if it were removed from its place and not as if one were removed, as has been written several times; and if so, in the case of an extra it is certainly kosher, but in the case of a missing part it is still difficult [see the Bach, Shach, Taz, and Pri Chadash who dealt with this at length]:

However, the primary reason that he validated in the case of a missing vertebra or an extra vertebra is for another reason: for certainly, regarding a limb where the terefah is due to the limb itself, if it is removed, it must certainly be forbidden even in a case of missing or extra. But here, the terefah is not due to the limb itself, but rather because of the damage to the spinal cord, as I have written. If so, this is not relevant in a case of missing from its initial creation or in one born with an extra one, for the structure of the body is strong. It is understandable that when a vertebra or half a vertebra is removed, the structure is weakened and it is like a severance of the cord; but in a case of missing or extra from the initial creation, why should we care? [And so wrote the Levush]. [And that which the Terumat HaDeshen wrote based on the reasoning of the Rambam is merely as a preference, and perhaps this is also the intention of the Taz at the end of subsection 4].

The commentators wrote that in a case where extra ribs were found, such as thirteen, fourteen, or fifteen on each side, and they are all similar to one another, they are all kosher, except for the uppermost one which is left toward the hindquarters [Be'er Heitiv and Nezir HaKodesh]. Similarly, one should refrain from eating any extra rib because it is close to the fat of the kidneys [Shach, subsection 9]. Regarding that which they wrote, that they must all be similar to one another, I do not know their intention, for why should we care if they are similar to one another or not? Perhaps if they are not similar, they are not categorized as extra ribs; and this requires further study.

The poskim cited from the Ba'al HaHalachot that he renders it treifah if one rib was uprooted even though the entire vertebra remains intact, and one should be concerned for his words in a case where there is no great loss [Bach and Shach subsection 4]. However, in a case of great loss, one should not be concerned, as this is against the Gemara and all the poskim [ibid.]. And in truth, the matter is puzzling, for the Ba'al HaHalachot himself wrote before this that whether they were broken or uprooted, it must be in the majority. This is the wording of the Ba'al HaHalachot: If the majority of its ribs were broken, it is treifah, etc. And Rabbi Yochanan said, whether they were uprooted or whether they were broken, it must be in the majority of both sides, and the halacha follows Rabbi Yochanan. And the vitality of those that are uprooted, the upper ones, even without a single vertebra, it is treifah. And even though Rav said until a rib is uprooted and the vertebra with it, it is treifah, the halacha follows Rabbah, etc., who said in the name of Shmuel: when one rib is uprooted from its source, even without its vertebra, it is treifah. Thus far his words. And he contradicts himself. And they wrote that he wrote this for practical application to be stringent, and also the Gemara concludes for practical application to be stringent [Bach]. And the matters are puzzling. And in my humble opinion, it seems clear that the Ba'al HaHalachot had another system in this, and he distinguishes between a rib being uprooted and a rib being uprooted from its source. For behold, the rib is inserted at its head into the socket. Therefore, when it is uprooted only until the socket, and the part inserted in the socket remains in the socket, it is kosher until the vertebra is also uprooted. But if a rib was uprooted from its source, meaning it was uprooted entirely from the socket, it is treifah on the grounds that certainly since it was uprooted from the socket, it cannot be avoided that the socket also moved from its place, and it is like the uprooting of a vertebra. And with this, the wording of the Gemara is precise, for previously it said "uprooted" without qualification, meaning similar to "broken," which is only until the socket; but Shmuel said "a rib uprooted from its source," see there. And according to this, it is possible that even in a case of great loss one should not be lenient, even though all the poskim did not explain it so. And it seems to me that Rashi also holds so [see there, for he wrote regarding Shmuel's statement "from its source, even without its socket," thus far his words. And this is what he wrote on page 42b, starting with the words "a rib was uprooted": even though we learned in a Mishnah, etc., but if one rib was uprooted from its source until half its vertebra, etc., it is treifah, thus far his words. And they emended in the margin "with half its vertebra," see there. But it is not so, for his intention is that the rib was uprooted from its source from the vertebra, where it is inserted until half the vertebra, see there and examine carefully].