Siman 55

The sages taught in the Mishnah [76a]: An animal whose legs were severed from the arkuba and below is kosher; from the arkuba and above it is pasul, and likewise if the tzomet hagidim was removed. Thus far the wording of the Mishnah. For behold, in the leg there are three segments: the lower arkuba, which is sold with the head because it is the way of butchers to sever it with the hooves when skinning the animal and sell it with the head; and above it is the second segment, which is the middle one and is called the shok, and in this segment are the tzomet hagidim, and they are at the bottom of this segment near the lower arkuba; and above it is the third segment, called the kolit, which is inserted into the body like a pestle in a mortar, and the head of the kolya is called the buka, and this is like a pestle [Rashi 42b]. And sometimes this segment is also called by the name yarech, and this is what our sages, of blessed memory, said: "The buka de-atma that slipped from its place," meaning the kolit of the yarech that jumped from its place [ibid.]. And in the Mishnah in Bekhorot [40a] we learned: "Who is a shachul? One whose yarech was dislocated," see there. And in the Gemara in Chullin [51a]: "The yarech was removed and its cavity is visible," and Rashi explained: the yarech was removed from its place of connection at the buka de-atma. Thus far his words. Behold, this segment is called by the name yarech, and the language of the Torah is so: "And he was limping upon his yarech," "to make the belly swell and the yarech fall," and many such instances. And the primary meaning of the term yarech refers to its upper head, as this is the foundation of the body. And between the first segment and the second segment, and between the second and the third, are found additional small bones that children play with, and they are called tashik, and in the language of the Mishnah, arkum or arkub [Bekhorot 41a, and see Rashi there s.v. ve-kenegdo]. [And the segments of a human are not like those of an animal, as the Tosafot wrote in Menachot 37a].

This is the wording of the Rambam in chapter 8, law 11: If the leg was severed from the arkuba and above, it is terefah; from the arkuba and below, it is permitted. Regarding which arkuba did they speak? Regarding the arkuba that is the end of the thigh adjacent to the body. Thus far his words. Meaning, that which we learned in the Mishnah, "from the arkuba and below it is kosher," this refers to the middle arkuba called the shok, for from its beginning until the end of the leg, a severance does not disqualify it. And that which we learned, "from the arkuba and above it is terefah," this refers to the third one adjacent to the body. And afterwards in law 15 he wrote: An animal whose legs were severed at the place of the tzomet hagidim is terefah. And do not wonder and say, how is it that a severance above the tzomet hagidim is permitted until it is severed above the upper arkuba as we explained, yet if it is severed below the tzomet hagidim it is forbidden? For regarding terefot, it may be severed from here and live, and from here and die. And this animal was not forbidden because its leg was severed from this place, but rather because the gidim were severed, etc. Thus far his words. And therefore, even if only the tzomet hagidim were severed and the leg remains, it is also terefah, as he explained this later in law 17, see there. And this is what we learned: "and likewise if the tzomet hagidim was removed." And this is the opinion of the Rif and other poskim, that in the two joints there is no terefah if severed, and certainly if only broken, at the place of the tzomet hagidim, whether in an animal or in a bird. And only in the third joint is the terefah dependent on when it was severed there or broken in a manner that renders it terefah, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.

But Rashi, of blessed memory, ruled that only in the first segment, which is the arkuba sold with the head, is it kosher if it is severed, and all the more so if it is broken, and regarding this we learned "from the arkuba and below it is kosher." But in the two upper segments, which are the shok and the kolit, anywhere it is severed there it is treifah, and likewise if it is broken in a manner that renders it treifah even if the tzomet hagidim are intact. And regarding this we learned "from the arkuba and above it is treifah," meaning the middle arkuba that is connected to the lower one—anywhere it is severed there it is treifah because of the severance of the bone itself. And that which it said "from the arkuba and above," its explanation is from the end of the lower arkuba. And the tzomet hagidim is a treifut unto itself when they are removed or severed even if the entire leg is intact, and regarding this we learned "and likewise if the tzomet hagidim was removed." And with this opinion the Sefer HaTerumot, the Rosh, the Rashba, and all our French and Ashkenazic teachers agreed, and they wrote that so it is proper to instruct [these two opinions depend on two interpretations in the Gemara there, see there, for the Rambam ruled according to the latter version and Rashi according to the first version, and we hold like Rashi in practice as I have written].

We have already written that between the lower arkuba and the shok there is a small bone called the arkum, and similarly between the shok and the kulit. According to this, one must be in doubt according to the first opinion as to what the law of this arkum is, and what the law is when it was severed between the joints—that is, between the shok and the arkum and between the arkum and the kulit. And according to the latter opinion, what is the law of the arkum that is between the lower arkuba and the shok, and what is the law when it was severed between the joints—that is, between the arkuba and the arkum and between the arkum and the shok. The poskim disagreed regarding all of this, as we will explain with the help of Heaven.

And behold, from the wording of the Tur, who wrote: In the lower joint, any place where one cuts it, it is kosher; immediately above it, any place where one cuts it, it is treifah, and even within the joint that is between it and the shok according to the opinion of Rashi. Thus far his words. This implies explicitly that everything above the lower arkuba has the status of the second arkuba, which is the shok, and it is treifah. And this is what we learned: "From the arkuba and above it is disqualified," meaning whether it was cut between the lower arkuba and the arkum, and all the more so when it was cut in the arkum itself or between the arkum and the shok. And the treifut is either because of the leg bone or from the perspective of the tzomet hagidim, which begin immediately at the end of the lower arkuba. And several great authorities rule the law accordingly [Bach, and Shach subsection 1, and Ma'adanei Yom Tov], and they wrote explicitly that the reason is not because of the tzomet hagidim, for even if they are intact it is treifah because of the actual cutting of the leg bone [Shach].

But from the words of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, it does not appear so, for after they brought the two opinions, they wrote, and this is their wording: And so if it was severed within the joint that is between the arkuba sold with the head and the shok, at the end of the arkum between the arkum and the shok, it is treifa according to this opinion [the opinion of Rashi]; and if it was severed within the joint in the place where the kolit bone is connected with the shok, it is treifa [the opinion of the Rambam]; and the custom in all of Ashkenaz and France is according to the latter opinion and one should not deviate; therefore, in any place where it was severed from the arkum and above, it is treifa even though the tzomet hagidim are intact. Thus far their words. Behold, they only forbade where it was severed between the arkum and the shok, but in the arkum itself, and certainly between the arkum and the lower arkuba, it is kosher; and similarly between the shok and the kolit according to the first opinion. And they interpret that which we learned, "from the arkuba and above it is disqualified," as meaning from the beginning of the shok or immediately beneath it, for the arkum is also included in the lower arkuba. And to this several of the great authorities agreed [Taz, subsection 1 and Yam Shel Shlomo, chapter 4, siman 11]. And there are those who say to be stringent like the first opinion [Pri Chadash], but in a case of great loss one may rely on those who are lenient [Kereiti U-Pleiiti]. And know that in a bird there is no arkum, and when it is severed between the lower joint, which is like scales, and the second joint, it is treifa, for between the joints is considered like above it, and the tzomet hagidim begin between the joints, and there is a concern of treifot there because of the gidim [Pri Chadash]. And the practical difference is regarding a break between the joints, which is also treifa according to our custom even if it healed well, for we are not experts in the tzomet hagidim of a hen, as will be explained at the end of siman 56 with the help of Heaven.

The thigh bone that was displaced from its place at the point of its connection to the body—and this is the "buka de-atma" that slipped from its socket mentioned in the Gemara [54b]—is treifah, whether in a beast or in a bird. In this regard, this location is more stringent than the rest of the thigh bone, for in the rest of the bone, the treifot depend on it being completely severed or on a fracture which is like a severing, as will be explained; but in this location, even if it is not severed and not fractured, but only displaced from its place, it is treifah. And the Sages, of blessed memory, said [ibid.] that by displacement alone it does not become treifah unless the ligaments were also decayed.

And what are these "nivem"? The Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch wrote that they are the protrusions in the bone of the socket that extend over the male bone and grasp it. Thus far their words. And this is the white matter that surrounds the entire bone all around, and they are the strong tendons. And when one opens the "boka," it follows that they cut the tendons in the middle, and they remain both around the "asita" and around the joint of the "kulit." And one sees if they are white and beautiful, then they have not decayed and it is kosher. And if their whiteness has departed and they are like worn flesh and have the appearance of red blood in them, then the "nivem" have decayed, meaning they have rotted, and it is treifah. And this is the system of the Rambam and most of the poskim.

But Rashi, of blessed memory, explained the "nivim" in a different manner, as he wrote: "niviah" is the sinew at its head that is connected in the socket, and it is very small. Thus far his words. And so wrote the Ran, and this is his wording: And these words apply when "itchul niviah," that the sinew at its head which is connected in the socket has rotted, and it is very small. Thus far his words. And this is the small sinew in its interior that is inserted in the asita in its center and inserted in the male bone, for they read in the Gemara "niviah" in the singular, meaning its "niv." But the Rambam and most of the poskim read "nivei" in the plural, meaning the "nivim" that connect the kulya and the thigh and go all around. And it is a wonder that our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch and the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch, did not mention the words of Rashi at all. And perhaps it is because we see even in many healthy and good animals that this sinew is absent, and we have heard that in animals that perform labor, this small sinew of theirs is crushed; also, we have never seen that this sinew becomes decayed, but rather it is either present in its entirety and is well, or it is not present at all. This is not the case with the "nivim" of the Rambam, which we have seen many times have decayed. And we rule in this matter according to the words of the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch. And the Pri Chadash, subsection 3, brings the words of Rashi and wrote that one should be stringent according to both explanations, see there, and according to the Pri Megadim in the Shiftei Da'at, subsection 8, and the Levushai Serad.

It is called "displaced from its place" whether it was completely displaced from the socket and stands outside the socket, or whether it stands within the socket but not in its place, such that it wobbles there [and so wrote the Ba'er Heitev in subsection 2 in the name of the Dameshek Eliezer and the Knesset HaGedolah]. And there is one who wishes to say that when it has exited the socket completely, it is not included in "displaced from its place" and is treifah even without the decay of the ligaments [the Levushei Serad in the opening, letter 13]. And he inferred this from the words of the Ran, who wrote in this wording: It stands to reason that if the thigh was removed it is treifah, and even though its ligaments did not decay; for when we permit it without decay even though it was severed, that is because it can return to health, but here it is impossible since it was removed. Thus far his words. And he explains that what he wrote there, "removed the thigh," means that the bone-head exited completely from the socket to the outside. But it is not so, for the Rashba, of blessed memory, wrote in a Responsum [siman 89] that regarding the bone-head of the thigh that was displaced from its place, we do not distinguish between whether skin and flesh cover most of it or do not cover it, but rather between whether the ligaments decayed or did not decay, see there. And this is only relevant when it has exited the socket completely, for then it is possible for the skin and flesh to cover or not cover it; but when it is inside the socket, the skin and flesh always cover it. Furthermore, Rashi and the Tosafot explained that that which the Sages said [Chullin 54b] "a dislocated thigh is treifah," this refers to a bone-head that was displaced from its place, as I wrote in siman 53, section 6, see there. And the term "dislocated" (shmuta) obviously means that it was dislocated completely from its place, like "dislocated in the windpipe." Furthermore, we learned regarding the blemishes of a firstborn in Bekhorot [40a]: "And the shachul; what is a shachul? One whose thigh was dislocated." And Rashi explained: that the ligaments did not decay, for if the ligaments decayed it would also be treifah, as we say "this bone-head etc." Thus far his words. And behold, hidden blemishes are not considered blemishes, neither in a firstborn nor in consecrated animals, as is stated in Bekhorot [39a], as we derive from "blind or broken." If so, one must say that a shachul is one where it exited the socket completely. And the term shachul implies this, like "as one draws (mishchal) a hair from milk," where they remove it completely from the milk; behold, this is "displaced from its place." Furthermore, in a bird there is no socket, and perforce it must have been completely detached, yet the law is equal for an animal and a bird. Also in the Rambam it is explicitly stated to the contrary, see there.

And also the essence of his explanation of the words of the Ran is not at all clear, and what relevance does it have to "the thigh was removed"? Furthermore, what is meant by "even though it was severed"? However, the Ran intended another matter, namely that the bone-socket was removed entirely or the hip-socket was removed entirely and the ligaments remain in their place having not decomposed, but it is necessary to say they were severed, for it is impossible otherwise according to the explanation of Rashi and the Ran, as this is the small ligament inserted from the bone-socket to the hip-socket. And regarding this he said, "even though it was severed," because it is impossible otherwise, as is understood. Therefore, he calls it "the thigh was removed" because this place is called the thigh, as I wrote in section 1, and this is the expression "removed," meaning that the bone-socket or the hip-socket was removed entirely.

And know that the Tur wrote, and this is his wording: And the thigh bone, even if it was not cut but was dislocated from its place at the point of its connection to the body, it is terefah, whether in a beast or in a bird. In what case does this apply? When the tendons with which it is connected to the body were severed or decayed. But if they were not severed and did not decay, it is kosher. And Rabbeinu Elchanan wrote: And these words apply to a beast, but in a bird it is terefah even if they did not decay. And my father, my teacher, of blessed memory, did not distinguish in this. Thus far his words. And behold, that which he wrote that even if they were severed it is terefah is a printing error, for behold, in the Gemara [54b] it is stated explicitly: And the halakhah is, if they were severed it is also kosher until they actually decay [Rivash, siman 340]. And thus it must be emended in the Tur: In what case does this apply? When the tendons were severed and decayed, but if they were severed and did not decay, it is kosher [Beit Yosef]. And such is the opinion of all the poskim [see Bach, who wished to settle it according to the version of the Rif, and it requires further study, for even according to his version it is not explained that it is terefah when severed, and how could he write against his father, the Rosh, and not mention his opinion at all, see there and examine carefully].

And regarding that which he wrote that in a bird there is a dispute whether we require the decay of the tendons or not, behold, from the wording of the Rambam in chapter 10 one could seemingly infer this as well, for after he wrote the law of the animal, that we require the decay of the tendons, he wrote: And likewise in a bird, if its thigh was displaced, it is treifah. Thus far his words. And he did not write the decay of the tendons. However, the commentators wrote that he relied on the preceding [Kesef Mishneh]. And Rashi and Tosafot wrote explicitly that that which they said, a displaced thigh in a bird is treifah, this is specifically with the decay of the tendons. And also our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote without qualification that an animal is equal to a bird, and this is how we rule according to the essential law; and only in practice is there reason to be stringent regarding a bird for a reason that will be explained in section 15, see there.

The terefot depend on two things: on being displaced from its socket and on the decay of the ligaments. However, if it was displaced but did not decay, or decayed but was not displaced, it is kosher. There is one who wishes to forbid based on decay alone, but his words were rejected, for so it is explicitly proven from the language of the Shas, and so all the poskim ruled. And it is called "decayed" when the majority of the ligaments have decayed; even if the minority did not decay, it is a terefah. But if the minority decayed and the majority did not decay, it is kosher, for in everything we follow the majority. For the terefah of the ligaments is not due to themselves, but rather because they support the body; therefore, when the majority of them remain, they support the body. And all this is according to the law.

However, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2 that there are those who say that we are not experts in the decay of the tendons; therefore, one must forbid every dislocation of the thigh lest the tendons decayed. And similarly, if it was broken near the body, even though it subsequently set well, it is treifah lest the tendons decayed. And we measure four fingers in a large animal and two in a small animal, and in a bird, the large according to its size and the small according to its size, and it is good to be stringent in a place where there is no great loss. Thus far his words. But in a case of great loss, we stand by the law. And therefore, we are accustomed regarding a hen that if it merely slipped from its place to declare it treifah, and we have never inspected a hen to see if the tendons decayed or not, for there is not such a great loss in this, and also the inspection is difficult in a hen. But in geese and turkeys, and certainly in animals, we inspect for the decay of the tendons, whether they decayed or not, for in this there is a great loss and also the inspection is easy, as is known. And there is one who wishes to be stringent in practice even in an animal, but it is not so [Shach, subsection 2]. But in a hen we are stringent and do not inspect even if the tendons were also not severed [ibid., subsection 10]. And there are those who say that where they were not severed, one should not declare it treifah even from the side of custom, even without a great loss [Rashal], but we do not practice accordingly [see Shach ibid.].

And also that which he wrote, that if it was broken close to the body—four fingerbreadths in a large animal and two in a small animal, and according to this proportion in a bird—we are accustomed to rule it treifah, this too is only when there is no loss of great monetary value; but in a case of loss of great monetary value, it is kosher [Shach, subsection 6]. For in truth, this is an extreme stringency, as what is the connection between "broken" and "dislocated"? Rather, we judge that since it was broken close to the body, perhaps through this it became dislocated from its place. Therefore, in a case of loss of great monetary value, one should not be stringent in this, as I wrote regarding the decay of the tendons in the previous section. And know that this is when the skin and flesh cover the majority of it, for if not so, it would be a complete treifah due to the break itself alone, as will be explained. And here, due to the custom, we rule it treifah even if skin and flesh cover the majority of it, and even if the break healed such that it became reattached well, bone to bone joined together, for due to the break alone it would have been kosher, as will be explained. However, due to the concern of dislocation, we are accustomed to rule it treifah when there is no loss of great monetary value [and know that according to what I wrote in siman 53, section 11, it should have been ruled kosher when it healed well even without a loss of great monetary value, and from these words of the Rema there is a slight contradiction to what he wrote there, and a proof for the Shach there; and delve into this].

If the buka is found dislocated after shechitah and it is not known if it was dislocated before shechitah or after shechitah, it should be permitted on the basis of a double doubt: perhaps it was after shechitah, and if you say it was before shechitah, perhaps the ligaments were not decayed. And similarly, if the leg is found broken in a place that renders it treifah after shechitah, and it is not known if it was before shechitah or after shechitah, and the skin and flesh do not cover the majority of it, it should also be validated on the basis of a double doubt: perhaps it was after shechitah, and if you say it was before shechitah, perhaps the fracture did not protrude outward before shechitah, for this is the primary treifah according to the law of the Gemara, as will be explained. [The Shach in subsection 4 wrote that a lack of knowledge is not called a doubt, and I wonder at this, for since we are not experts, it is a doubt for everyone and is properly called a doubt, and so wrote the Pri Chadash in subsection 10, see there; and furthermore, regarding a fracture within the flesh we are experts, and if so, we should indeed examine and see, and delve into this]:

And some have written that this is not a double doubt because it is not reversible, for it is impossible to reverse it and say: perhaps the sinews were not consumed, and if you say they were consumed, perhaps it was after slaughtering—for after slaughtering, consumption is not applicable. And similarly regarding a break, it is impossible to reverse and say: perhaps it did not protrude outward, and if you say it protruded outward, perhaps it was after slaughtering—for after slaughtering, protruding outward is not applicable. However, this matter depends on the rules of double doubt that will be explained in the rules of double doubt in siman 110, whether we require the rule of "reversible" at all, ibid. However, if the doubt is only regarding a short time before the slaughtering, meaning that he knows that previously it was whole, but it is possible that close to the slaughtering it became dislocated, certainly one should permit it on the grounds that in such a short time the sinews certainly would not have been consumed, ibid. But regarding a break, one should not permit it, for protruding outward can occur even in a single moment. Yet on the grounds of a double doubt one should permit it, for many poskim do not hold at all of this requirement of "reversible." And even according to those who hold that we require "reversible," nevertheless, perhaps this too is not common, that at the moment of the break it would protrude outward. And one should deliberate on this, and see what I wrote in section 53.

An animal that was struck opposite the thigh and consequently limps, and similarly where they struck it in its leg in a place where a fracture renders it treifah as will be explained and consequently it limps, nevertheless one should not prohibit its milk based on the reasoning of a double doubt: perhaps it did not dislocate from its place, and if you say it did dislocate, perhaps the tendons were not decayed. And similarly regarding a blow to its leg, it is a double doubt as I have written. Furthermore, regarding a blow, we see that the skin and the flesh are intact and there is no treifah here at all. And even if the place is swollen, we do not concern ourselves with it, for ultimately skin and flesh cover it. And similarly regarding a blow to the thigh, even if the thigh is swollen, this is no proof of the decay of the tendons. However, if they recognize from the outside that the hip bone dislocated from its place, certainly one must prohibit the milk, for there remains only one doubt: perhaps the tendons were not decayed, and a doubt regarding a Torah law is resolved stringently. And it is a simple matter that if we saw the animal limping and we did not know for what reason it is limping, and we do not see a defect from the outside that renders it treifah, that all the more so one must permit it, for we say it was seized by a cramp, as I wrote in siman 32, section 21 regarding an animal that scrapes its legs, and the same law applies to one that limps.

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 3: The head of the thigh bone that is connected to the shank which was displaced from its location is kosher, even if the tendons were decayed; and some say specifically when the skin and flesh cover most of it. Thus far their words. The explanation of the matters is that we have already explained in siman 53, section 6, that there are some of the poskim who hold that that which the sages, of blessed memory, said [57a] that a dislocated thigh is terefah, this is not the hip joint that was displaced from its socket, but rather this is between the second segment and the third segment, which is the lower head of the thigh bone connected to the shank. According to them, it is terefah even without the decay of the tendons, and all the poskim disagree with this, as I wrote there. And to exclude this opinion, they wrote that no state of terefah is dependent upon this; and not only without the decay of the tendons, according to the opinion of those who hold so, but even if they were decayed, it is kosher.

But that which they wrote, that some say specifically when skin and flesh cover its majority, requires further study. What is the relevance of skin and flesh covering here? For this only applies to a fracture and not to a dislocation. And the Rashba explicitly wrote that regarding a bone that slipped from its place, there is no distinction between whether skin and flesh cover it or do not cover it, and we brought his words in section 10; see there. And in truth, there are some among the great later authorities who rejected their words for this reason [Shach, subsection 7, and Pri Chadash].

However, their words are truth and their Torah is truth when we examine closely why, in truth, we do not require "skin and flesh covering most of it" in the case of a bone displaced from its socket. Is a displacement superior to a break? But the reason is as follows: if the ligaments were decayed, skin and flesh do not avail and it is treifah, and if they were not decayed, there is no need for skin and flesh. For the reason for skin and flesh is because this is the primary sustenance of the body, and therefore regarding the hip joint where the primary sustenance is in the ligaments—which is why it is treifah when they are decayed—there is no need for the sustenance of the skin and the flesh. And all of this is regarding the upper head of the femur, but regarding the lower head connected to the drumstick, where the sustenance does not depend on the ligaments and therefore even if the ligaments decayed it is kosher, if so, this place is like any other joint, and it is obvious that it requires skin and flesh covering most of it, for it is no superior to a break.

And the Levush wrote, and this is his wording: And there are those who say that this is specifically when skin and flesh cover its majority it is kosher, and if not it is a terefah if the sinews have rotted. Thus far his words. And it appears that his opinion is such, that this requirement of skin and flesh is in a case of disintegration of the fibers, but without disintegration there is no need for skin and flesh. And according to this, there is no difficulty from the case of a joint that was displaced from its socket, for there, in a case of disintegration, it is a terefah in all circumstances, and without disintegration, even here it is kosher [and so wrote the Chagat Shmuel]. However, their wording does not imply this, and furthermore, there is no connection here to the fibers since the terefah status does not depend on them. Therefore, it appears to me that the primary view is as I have written, that here, even without disintegration, it requires skin and flesh covering its majority.

Since if the leg is severed it is treifah, therefore if it has three legs it is also treifah, for anything extra is considered as if it were removed, and it is like one missing a leg; and one missing a leg, even from the beginning of its creation, is also treifah [Bechorot 40a]. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote: And this is provided that this extra limb is from the head of the lower bone and above. Thus far his words. And the arkum is also included in "above" according to the second opinion in section 6, and according to the first opinion there it is included in "below," see there. And the reason he explained in his great work is that one should not declare a treifah due to an extra leg except in a place where if it were severed it would be treifah; but in the first arkובה where if it were severed it is kosher, why should we care about an extra limb? For even if it is considered as if it were removed, behold, even if it were removed it is kosher.

And there are some of the great authorities who challenged him, for this is only according to the view of those who hold that "any surplus is as if it were removed from its place," and therefore in a place where, if that part were removed, there would be no treifah, the surplus is also kosher. However, according to most of the poskim, that "any surplus of one is as if one were removed," there is no distinction as to which place the surplus stands. For to what is this comparable? To two livers that are attached to one another not in the place of the gallbladder and not in the place of vitality, which according to the first view is kosher and according to this view is a treifah. We have already explained this in siman 41, section 39; see there. And we hold according to this view; if so, what does it matter to me if the surplus is in this place or in that place [Taz, subsection 4 and Pri Chadash, subsection 12]. And according to this, there is one who ruled that in any place it is a treifah [Pri Chadash, ibid.].

In my humble opinion, the primary view appears to be the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, for certainly there is no concern regarding where the surplus limb stands; rather, only if it is adjacent to the primary organ is it treifah. However, all this applies if we can say of the surplus limb that it is a surplus of an organ, but if it is clear that it is not that organ, but merely a dangling piece of flesh, we have no concern with it. And as our teacher, the Rema, wrote, and this is his wording: And specifically that this surplus limb has the form of a leg and stands in the place of the legs, but without this, it is not called a surplus and is nothing but a dangling piece of flesh and is kosher. Thus far his words. And there is no one who disagrees with this. According to this, it is well-settled that certainly regarding all organs that are not divided into joints, such as the liver, gallbladder, spleen, and the like, if it merely has the form of that organ but is surplus, its law is like one that was removed, and we do not scrutinize whether it is as large as the actual organ or smaller than it, for these are matters that have no fixed measure. But regarding a leg, which must necessarily have three joints, it follows that if this surplus limb has only one joint, it is not a surplus leg but merely a dangling piece of flesh; for if it were a surplus leg, it would have to be in the form of a leg. Nevertheless, if the surplus limb is in the first two joints, in the drumstick and the thigh-bone, even if the lower shank is missing from it, we say that it is a surplus leg without the shank. But if the entire surplus limb is only the shank, in any case it is kosher; for if it is a dangling piece of flesh, it is certainly kosher, and if it is a surplus limb, does it not lack the main part of the leg upon which the treifah depends? And how can we call it a surplus leg? Even if it is a surplus, this is nothing but a surplus shank and not a surplus leg, and in any case it is kosher. But when it is a surplus drumstick or a surplus thigh-bone, it is treifah even according to the system that every surplus one is like one that was removed; for even if we say that this is not a surplus leg but rather a surplus drumstick or a surplus thigh-bone, behold, a surplus is like that which was removed, and if the drumstick was removed or the thigh-bone was removed, it is treifah. [See the Taz who challenged the Dumekh Parnesa, and perhaps he intended what I wrote and there is no challenge here; see there and examine it carefully]:

It has already been explained that when it does not have the form of a leg or does not stand in the place of the leg, this is not a redundant leg but merely a dangling appendage. Therefore, if the redundant part does not reach the ground and he does not walk upon it, even if it has the form of a leg, it is nothing more than curls of flesh and is kosher [Pri Chadash there]. In my humble opinion, it seems that if the redundant part has a femur and a shank it is treifah, for from where do we know that this is "curls of flesh"? Behold, it has the form of a leg upon it; and if it is because he does not walk upon it, let us say that it is missing the lower joint, and what of it? As I wrote in the previous section. And this is simple: that if there was found on the leg one redundant toe, even if it had a toe and a nail, or if a wart grew there and there was a bone in it, and so too anything similar to this, one must rule it kosher with simplicity [ibid. and Beit Yosef].

The Mordekhai wrote [chapter 3]: There was an incident involving a certain hen that had an extra part like a third leg toward the tail, and it was not attached at all to one of its legs, and the Rabbi permitted it. There is one who challenged this, for even this is only according to the position that "an extra part is as if it were removed from its place," but if it is as if one [leg] were removed, what does it matter to me if it stands in this place or in that place [Pri Chadash there]. And in my humble opinion, it appears that according to all positions it is kosher, similar to the distinction we wrote previously; for it is certainly so that it must be in a place where the creation of this limb belongs, as our teacher, the Rema, wrote. For if not so, how can we say of this that it is an extra leg? It does not stand in the place where the legs must be, but is merely a dangling growth, and for this reason they permitted it.

A broken leg is not similar to a severed leg, for even though ostensibly this and that are one and the same—since when the bone is completely broken it is separated from the entire body and is as if it were not there—nevertheless they are not similar. And the reason is that although the bone was broken, nevertheless, since it is inside and the fracture did not emerge outside to the air of the world, and the skin and the flesh surround it, over the course of time it will return to be joined bone to bone. Just as we see also in humans with a broken arm or a broken leg, that the doctors bandage the place of the break and over the course of time they join. Therefore, even if it was slaughtered before the joining, there is nothing to it; since this break is destined to connect, this is not a terefah such that the animal would die because of it.

This is what the sages taught in the Mishnah [76a]: If a bone broke, if the majority of the meat remains, its shechitah purifies it. And in the Baraita they explained further, and our Rabbis taught [ibid.]: If a bone broke and protruded outward, if skin and meat cover the majority of it, it is permitted; and if not, it is forbidden. And how much is its majority? The majority of its thickness and the majority of its circumference. Thus far the words of the Shas. And this applies both regarding the trefot of the animal, when the break is in a place where the severance renders it a terefah, such as from the arkuba and above, and regarding the limb itself which is forbidden even if the break is in a place where the severance does not render it a terefah, such as from the arkuba and below, for the limb is forbidden as it is like that which is separated from the body. And if skin and meat surround its majority, the limb is also permitted for the reason that has been explained. And this is the intent of the Mishnah which says "its shechitah purifies it," meaning for that broken limb; even in a place where the animal does not become a terefah, such as from the arkuba and below, nevertheless if the majority of the meat does not remain, its shechitah does not purify that limb and it is forbidden for eating, and if the meat remains, it is permitted.

And there are some of our teachers who wrote that the Mishnah and the Baraita are not dealing with the same case, for the Mishnah deals with a case where the bone did not protrude outward; therefore, we do not require that the skin and the flesh cover most of its thickness and most of its circumference, but rather only that most of the flesh be intact—that it was not removed—and even though it does not cover it, it is kosher. And the Baraita deals with a case where the fracture protruded outward; therefore, it is not sufficient for most of the flesh to be intact, but rather it must cover most of the thickness of the fracture and most of its circumference [Rashba in the name of his teacher]. But for most of our teachers, it appears that they do not hold accordingly, and they hold that the Baraita explains the Mishnah: that "most of the flesh intact" in the Mishnah means "skin and flesh covering most of it" in the Baraita. And the Mishnah also deals with a case where it protruded outward, for if it did not protrude outward, we do not require most of the flesh at all, neither that it cover nor that it be intact, for even if the flesh was removed, it is kosher [Ran in the name of Rashi]. And so it is explained from the words of the Rambam in chapter 8, law 12, who wrote: If the bone was broken above the joint, if all of it or most of it protruded outward, this is as if it were severed and fell, and it is treifah; and if the flesh or the skin covered most of the thickness and most of the circumference of the bone that was broken, it is permitted. Thus far his words. Behold, it is explicitly explained that when it protruded outward, it requires covering, and when it did not protrude outward, it does not require anything at all, even the intactness of the flesh, for he did not mention this at all in his words. And even though in the essence of the matter the words of Rashi and the words of the Rambam are equal, nevertheless, regarding the halachah they are not equal, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.

For behold, in the words of the Rambam it is explicitly explained that when skin and flesh cover the majority of its thickness and the majority of its circumference, even if the fracture protruded entirely to the outside, it is kosher; and where the fracture did not protrude to the outside, we do not require this at all, as I have written. This is the opinion of our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, the Rosh, the Rashba, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch in section 5. And what is the explanation of "the majority of its thickness and the majority of its circumference"? For seemingly they are one and the same, as when it covers the majority of the thickness of the fracture, it follows that there is a majority of the circumference of the fracture as well. However, the matter is thus: sometimes the circle of the bone is not of a single uniformity, but rather it narrows and proceeds, and protrudes like a point at another angle, and as much as this point lengthens, so the circumference increases. Therefore, in a fracture of the bone, if the covering is on that side of the point, even if the covering is much more than the majority of its circumference, nevertheless the majority of the thickness of the bone remains revealed and it is treifah. And if the covering is on the side of the thickness, it is considered covered over the majority of its thickness, but it is not covered over the majority of the circumference, for the majority of the circumference exists on the side of the point. And because of this, we require the majority of its thickness and the majority of its circumference [this is the intent of the Tosafot, the Rosh, and all the poskim; and there are those who wished to create a dispute regarding their intent, but it is not so, rather it is as I have written, and so wrote the Pri Chadash in subsection 14].

But Rashi, of blessed memory, explains in a different manner, that "the majority of its thickness" is a completely different matter than "the majority of its circumference." For "the majority of its thickness" refers to the cavity of the bone, and "the majority of its circumference" is the circumference from the outside. The explanation of the matter is that sometimes it is possible that the majority of the cavity of the break protruded outward through a small hole, and "the majority of its thickness" is not present here, even though "the majority of its circumference"—meaning the meat upon the bone—the majority of it remains, and this is "the majority of its circumference" and not "the majority of its thickness." And sometimes there is no "majority of its circumference" here—meaning that the bone is revealed from the outside such that there is no meat upon it around the break—yet the cavity of the bone is covered, meaning that the protrusion of the head of the break was aimed toward the side of the existing meat and the entire cavity of the bone from the break is covered, and this is called "the majority of its thickness" and not "the majority of its circumference." And we require both of them. According to this, even if skin and meat surround the majority of it, nevertheless, if the mouth of the break protruded outward during its lifetime, it is treifah. And know that regarding any protrusion of the bone mentioned in this matter, the intention is not that the bone literally protruded outside, for if so, all the meat would have been peeled from the bone; rather, the intention is its exposure to the outside, that one sees part of it from the outside, meaning that the mouth of the break literally protrudes outward [Pri Chadash ibid.].

And know that this which the sages, of blessed memory, required—most of its thickness and most of its circumference—is because of the doubt, for in the Gemara there [76b] they disagreed; one said most of its thickness and one said most of its circumference, and they ruled in the Gemara: Therefore we require most of its thickness and most of its circumference. That is to say, since there is a dispute and the halakha was not decided like which one, we follow the stringency. And according to this, when there is most of its thickness alone or most of its circumference alone, it is a doubtful terefah, and there is a practical legal difference in this as will be explained with the help of Heaven in section 38, see there.

And behold, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 5: Everywhere that if the leg were cut there it would be a terefah, even if it was not cut but rather broken and protruded outward, if skin and flesh do not cover most of its thickness and most of its circumference, it is a terefah; and if skin and flesh cover most of its thickness and most of its circumference, it is kosher. Thus far his words. And the Tur also wrote so, and this is his wording: Everywhere that if one were to cut the leg there it would be a terefah, such as from the lower bone and upward according to Rashi, even if it was not cut but rather broken, if skin and flesh do not cover most of it, it is considered as if it were cut and is a terefah, whether in an animal or in a bird; and if skin and flesh cover most of it, everything is permitted, both the animal and the limb, etc., and this "most" must be most of its thickness and most of its circumference, etc. Thus far his words. And this is according to the opinion of the Rambam, the Tosafot, the Rosh, the Rashba, and most of the poskim, and as we have explained.

But our teacher, the Rema, wrote, and this is his wording: And there are those who are stringent and forbid even if skin and flesh cover most of it, if the fracture emerged once during the animal's life through a small hole; and from this the custom spread in these lands to declare treifah any fracture in a bone in a place where, if it were severed, it would be treifah, and even if skin and flesh surround it from all its sides and there is no hole there at all, nevertheless the custom is to declare it treifah, for there are many distinctions in the law of the covering of flesh and many are not expert, and one should not change this except in a case of great loss according to the assessment of the teacher, where one should be lenient to rule according to the law; and specifically if it did not subsequently reconnect, but if it subsequently reconnected, we are accustomed to declare it kosher, and as will be explained. Thus far his words.

And behold, all the great later authorities have already complained about this stringency that he imposed where there is no great loss, and this stringency is not mentioned by any posek [Shach subsection 14]. And specifically regarding what he wrote to be stringent even when there is no hole at all because we are not experts in the covering of flesh, this is difficult, for when there is no hole there is no need for a covering of flesh since it did not exit to the outside [Taz subsection 8]. However, the reason for the custom is so that one does not come to permit it when the break is partially revealed, and therefore they were accustomed to declare it treif in every case, as he wrote in his book Darchei Moshe [Shach subsection 15]. But this is a stringency without reason and we have not found anything similar to it [Pri Chadash subsection 20].

Regarding the essence of the matter, one must wonder, for this stringency is built upon the view of Rashi, of blessed memory, that when the fracture emerged once during life, there is no longer a majority of its thickness, as I wrote in section 33. It has already been explained in section 34 that the reason they required a majority of its thickness is due to doubt; if so, how can we be so stringent? Aside from the fact that the view of Rashi is a minority opinion, even according to the view of Rashi there is a double doubt even in a small perforation: perhaps it did not emerge to the outside, and if you say it did emerge to the outside, perhaps the halacha follows the one who says a majority of its circumference. Furthermore, a third doubt is added: perhaps the halacha follows the majority of poskim that when it covers its majority, we do not concern ourselves with it emerging to the outside. If so, how can we add a decree even when there is no perforation at all? Therefore, certainly in a place where there is no custom, one should not cause a loss of Jewish money even when it is not a case of great loss, even with a small perforation, due to the three doubts we wrote. Certainly when there is no perforation here at all and the skin and the flesh are whole, one should not be stringent at all. However, in a place where there is a custom to be stringent when it is not a case of great loss, one should not be lenient there except in a case of great loss.

And know that this which we have said, that the bone protruded outward, is according to its plain meaning, literally outward into the air of the world. However, if the bone broke within the cavity of the body internally, where the skin and the flesh are intact, even though internally the bone protruded from the flesh entirely and is stripped of skin and flesh, it is kosher. For since the air does not rule over it, it will return to its original state and heal [Beit Yosef in the name of the Ra'avad], not like those who disagree on this [ibid.].

From the words of the Rambam that we brought in section 31, it is explained that a covering exists whether from flesh or from hide without flesh, see there. However, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, section 10, ruled that specifically hide and flesh cover most of it, meaning that flesh without hide certainly is effective, but hide without flesh is nothing. And even if there is a minority of flesh and most of it is hide, it is not effective; and specifically when the majority of the covering is from the flesh, then the minority of the hide is effective to join together. And this is only in a beast whose hide is hard and does not cover well, but in a bird whose hide is soft, even half hide and half flesh constitutes a covering. But a majority of hide and a minority of flesh, even in a bird, is not effective, and all the more so entirely hide without flesh [the Rambam ruled according to the first version in the Gemara 66b, and they ruled according to the "there are those who say" there, and see Tosafot Shabbat 42b, beginning with "And this is"].

And this fact, that skin without flesh is not effective, applies in a place where there was flesh and the flesh was emptied from beneath the skin and the skin remained alone. And even if a little flesh remained attached to the skin, but the lower flesh adjacent to the bone was removed, it is also not effective; for since it is no longer according to its natural creation, it will not return to its strength. However, in a place where it is never the way for there to be flesh, but rather the skin alone is attached to the bone from its birth, such as literally adjacent to the knee-joint, then even the skin alone protects even in a beast. And even in a place where it is the way for there to be flesh and it was emptied, if there are secretions between the skin and the bone, it protects, for they have the strength of flesh. But tendons do not protect like flesh, and even if they are currently soft, because they are destined to harden, and all tendons are destined to harden.

If the meat covering was not the majority in one place, but rather gathered a bit here and a bit there around the bone, and if you were to combine it, the majority would be covered; or if it is in one place but it is thinned, meaning that the meat was flattened and thin and covers the majority of the bone [Rashi, Avodah Zarah]; or if that covering meat was peeled off the bone and is not attached to the bone [ibid.]; or if the meat was scraped from above until nothing remained of the meat but a husk [the Rambam, chapter 5 of Ma'akhalot Assurot]; or if its lower third of the thickness of the meat adjacent to the bone was removed, and consequently the upper two thirds remain in the air [Rashi]; or if that covering meat was perforated without a deficiency [ibid.]; and the Rambam there wrote, this is his wording: that the meat upon it was full of holes, or the meat was cracked, or the meat was decomposed until a physician would scrape it away. And it has already been explained many times that we are not experts in this, and whenever the meat is spoiled and close to rot, it is like meat that a physician would scrape away and it does not protect. For all these are inquiries in the Gemara [Avodah Zarah] and were not resolved, and we follow the stringent view. And these laws apply both to the entire animal when the meat is in a place where the cut renders it terefah, and to the limb when the break is in the lower joint.

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 11: If the meat was cut with a knife above the fracture like a ring in a circle, and the majority of its circumference is covered, it is kosher. In what case does this apply? When the meat is attached to the bone around the cut, for then it will heal; but if it is not attached, it will not. Thus far their words. And this is according to the version of Rashi in the Gemara there, that "cut" was resolved as being kosher, see there. However, the Rambam there also included "cut" among the matters of doubt, and it is forbidden due to the doubt. And one must be concerned for his words [see Bach and Pri Chadash sub-section 28], and he certainly had a different version.

Even if a bit of the broken bone fell out, if there is enough skin and flesh to cover the break even if that bit of bone had not fallen out, it is kosher; for this bit of bone that fell out neither adds nor subtracts. But if there is not enough skin and flesh to cover it had it not fallen out, even though there is now enough to cover it, it is terefah; for we must measure the skin and flesh against the entire limb, as only then will it return to its original state.

And know that all that has been explained, that there must be flesh covering, this is all when there was a hole in the skin and it protruded outward, for then according to most poskim, except for Rashi, skin and flesh covering its majority is effective. But when all the skin is intact and there is no hole in it, and the bone did not protrude outward, we do not require any validation at all, even though the majority of the flesh is not intact, according to the Rambam and all the poskim, except for the first opinion that we cited in section 31, who holds that even if it did not protrude outward, the flesh must be intact, and this is a minority opinion.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 6: If the femur bone was broken and a bit was removed from its upper head which is connected to the spine, and a minority of its tendons were decayed, if skin and flesh cover the majority of it, it is kosher. Thus far his words. And it implies that if the majority of the tendons were decayed, the covering of skin and flesh does not avail and it is treifah. And they questioned him: for what should we be concerned? If because of the break, behold skin and flesh cover the majority of it and it is kosher according to the law of a break that was explained; and if because of the decay of the tendons, behold it has already been explained that decay of tendons without dislocation is kosher [Pri Chadash]. However, it is not a difficulty at all, for a break at its upper head, which is the socket, its law is like a dislocation; for just as with a dislocation of the thigh and decay of tendons it is treifah because the body has no stability, so too when the bone is broken there, the foundation of the body is loosened. And if the tendons exist, there is a foundation for the body, and if they are decayed, the foundation is lost and it is treifah. And on the contrary, it comes to teach us that in this it is more stringent than a dislocation; for whereas in a dislocation it depends only on the decay of the tendons, here we require, in addition to the tendons, that skin and flesh cover the majority of it as with all breaks. And both things are necessary: that the tendons be extant and that skin and flesh cover the majority of the break [and so wrote the Chagat Shmuel].

The Tur wrote: If a bone broke in a place that renders it a terefah, and it subsequently knit together, and it is unknown whether the majority of it protruded or not, the Geonim wrote that it is kosher, since it knit together it is known that the majority of it did not protrude. Thus far his words. And it appears that this is the explanation: that the skin and flesh did not cover the majority of it, for if they had covered it, we would not care about the protrusion of the bone according to the approach of most of the poskim, as has been explained. However, if the bone did not protrude outside, there is no need for the skin and flesh to cover it, as I wrote in section 31. And this is what the Geonim said, that since it knit together, this is a sign that the majority of the bone did not protrude outside, and there is no need for the skin and flesh to cover it [and so it appears from the Perishah; and the Bach wrote that this is according to the approach of Rashi, but that automatically this law applies even according to most of the poskim, for this is a sign that there was a covering of flesh, see there; and how forced this is, and examine this closely].

And also that which our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 12: If the bone broke in a place that renders it a terefah, and it healed and was knit back together, and it is not known if the majority of it protruded or not, it is kosher; and this is provided that it returned to its original place and the break joined with the break, together they shall cling, and even if it is still thick at the place of the break and it is still noticeable that it was broken. However, if it did not return to its original place, but rather the two pieces of the bone lie one upon the other, this one pulled upward and that one pulled downward, it is a terefah. And all this refers to a place other than the tzomet hagidim, but regarding the place of the tzomet hagidim, it will be explained in siman 56. Thus far his words. And his intention is also when skin and flesh do not cover the majority of it, and the doubt is whether the bone protruded outside and is a terefah, or did not protrude outside, for then there is no need for skin and flesh to cover it. And so wrote the great Acharonim, that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, refers to when skin and flesh do not cover the majority of it [Kereiti U'Peleiti subsection 18 and Pri Chadash subsection 31; however, that which the Pri Chadash wrote, that this is a sign that it was covered, see there, this is not necessary, but rather as I have written, and examine it closely]. And behold, one of the great commentators wrote that here it refers to when skin and flesh cover the majority of it [Shach subsection 20], and his words are very astonishing and there is no understanding of this, and it must be said that there is some error in his words, and already the giants of the world have wondered at him [the Gidulei Eretz Yisrael and the Levushai Serad].

Regarding that which was required specifically that "break to break they shall be joined together," there are those who disagree on this and hold that according to the essential law, even if they lie one upon the other it is also sufficient. Therefore, in a case of great loss, one may be lenient even when "break to break they shall be joined together" is absent [Bach]. And there is one who decided that if they lie literally one upon the other, one should not be lenient; however, if the break was on a slant like a quill and the fragments were joined on that slant, only that they were not aligned exactly as they were initially, but rather the point of this one extends slightly downward and the point of that one upward, it is kosher [Taz, subsection 11]. And similarly, when the break is from the knee and below, where the animal does not become forbidden and only this limb alone becomes forbidden, one may be lenient in it as well even when "break to break they shall be joined together" is absent [ibid.], because the prohibition of the limb is rabbinic [Pri Megadim, ibid.]. And similarly, in places where they are accustomed to be stringent even if skin and flesh cover its majority and it did not protrude outside, as was written in section 36, and as long as it was not knit they do not declare it kosher—one should declare it kosher if it was knit even if they lie one upon the other [Shach, subsection 14], since the basis of this stringency has no reason at all, as we explained in section 38.

It has already been explained that if it was cut or broken, even in a place that does not make it a terefah, such as from the lower joint and below, nevertheless, if the limb itself was not tied, it is forbidden when skin and flesh do not cover most of it. And in a place where they are accustomed to be stringent, as explained in section 36, even when skin and flesh cover most of it, they forbid the limb. This prohibition is rabbinic, because it appears like a limb from a living animal, for it is separated from the entire body. Also, the Sages, of blessed memory, supported this from the verse, "And flesh in the field, a terefah, you shall not eat," to include the limb and the flesh that are dangling in a domestic animal, a wild beast, or a bird, and one slaughtered them, for they are forbidden [Avodah Zarah 74a]. One must also cut a small amount from the permitted part when cutting the forbidden limb, because it is impossible to be exact. However, truly above the place of the break, one does not need to cut [Shach, sub-section 12]. And since this is rabbinic, therefore, when there is a doubt, we follow the lenient view [ibid., sub-section 11]. And if it is permitted to give it to a son of Noah, there is a dispute regarding this, for some say it is forbidden due to the reason of a limb from a living animal, and some say since for an Israelite the prohibition is only rabbinic, one should not forbid it to sons of Noah [the Semak forbids and the Rashba and the Ran permit].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 5 that one must cut it before salting it with the animal or with the poultry. Thus far his words. For if they were salted together, one requires sixty or peeling according to the opinions that will be explained in siman 105. And if they were cooked or roasted together, one requires sixty, for even regarding a rabbinic prohibition one requires sixty, as Chazal said [98a]: Do not treat rabbinic measurements lightly. Nevertheless, some say that this prohibition is more lenient than other rabbinic prohibitions because Chazal said regarding this that there is nothing in it but a commandment of separation alone [74a]. Therefore, regarding salting, one should be lenient in every case, and regarding cooking and roasting, one should not be lenient except in a case of doubt whether the bone protruded outward or not, for a rabbinic doubt is ruled leniently, and even this only in a case of great loss or for the honor of Shabbat [Taz sub-section 7 and Shach sub-section 13]. And all the more so if skin and flesh cover most of it, which by the law is permitted, except that some have the custom to declare it treif as I have written, that one should not prohibit the cooked dish and it is sufficient to discard that limb alone. And so too, even if it certainly protruded outward and skin and flesh do not cover it, such that we require sixty, nevertheless we do not say in this case "the piece becomes a carcass" regarding a connected prohibition since the prohibition is only rabbinic [ibid.]. And this is only regarding the matter of a connected prohibition to require sixty against everything connected to the break; but if there was not sixty in the pot against the broken part, one subsequently requires sixty against the entire pot since it has already become prohibited [ibid.]. And some are lenient even in such a case, for regarding a rabbinic prohibition we do not say "the piece becomes a carcass" [Pri Chadash sub-section 18], and it will be explained in siman 92 with the help of Heaven.

From the general rules that were explained in this siman, we have learned that when there is a break in the shok not in the location of the tzomet hagidim, or in the kolit far from the body according to the measure mentioned in section 15, if there is no re'uta in the skin and flesh, even if it was not knit together at all, one may be lenient in a case of great loss; and in a place where there is no custom to be stringent, one may be lenient even not in a case of great loss. And if it was knit together, even though the fragments lie one upon the other, one should be lenient in all manners and in every place. However, when there is a re'uta in the flesh, it is required that bone to bone they shall be joined together, and the re'uta is according to the sight of the eyes of the posek. And some permit even when there is a re'uta also when the fragments lie one upon the other [Bach], and one may rely on this in a case of great loss. However, in the location of the tzomet hagidim, it does not avail even if bone to bone they shall be joined together, and it will be explained in siman 56 with the help of Heaven. And similarly, in the kolit close to the body, knitting together does not avail; but in a case of great loss, one should be lenient even without it being knit together and even if the tendons were severed, provided they were not decayed [the Gaon Baruch Fraenkel]. And there is no difference in all this between an animal and a bird. And if the asita was broken, its law is like one that was displaced from its socket. And if the tendons were decayed, it is treifah. And besides this, it is further required that skin and flesh cover most of it, as I wrote in section 46 [and see what I wrote in section 16, that even in a case close to the body one should be lenient in a case of great loss].

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 13: If it was found broken and it is not known if it occurred during life or after death, if the place of the wound is black, it is known for certain that it occurred during life. If they cannot determine it, if there is something to attribute it to, such as if it was stepped on or crushed and the like, we attribute it to leniency; and if not, it is forbidden due to doubt. Thus far their words. This means that if the place of the wound is not black, there is no proof whether it occurred during life or after shechitah, for even if it occurred during life, it is possible that the place of the wound would not be black, such as if it occurred a short time prior. Therefore, when there is nothing to attribute it to, we follow the stringency, for since it occurred in a place where the break renders it treif, and we see that the break protruded outward and skin and flesh do not cover most of it, it is a doubt regarding a Torah prohibition. It is not similar to where a wolf came and took the lung where we attribute it to leniency in siman 36, for there the circumstances support it, and also here if it was stepped on or crushed we attribute it to leniency, but without this, no. And even according to those who hold in siman 50 that every doubt that arose after shechitah we attribute to leniency because we say "once slaughtered, it is permitted," nevertheless here we do not attribute it so, because this is a doubt due to a lack of knowledge, and this is not a doubt where one who knows would recognize if it occurred before shechitah or after [Shach, subsection 21]. Furthermore, since there is nothing to attribute it to, it therefore appears more likely that it occurred during life, and it is more logical to attribute it to the prohibition than to the permission, and therefore it is forbidden according to all opinions [ibid.]. However, if skin and flesh cover most of it, it is obvious that it is permitted, even in a place where they were accustomed to forbid when there is no great loss as I wrote in section 36; nevertheless, since there is a doubt when it occurred, certainly both the animal or the bird and the limb are permitted. There is no distinction in this between an animal and a bird, for there is one who wishes to say that only in a bird do we attribute it to stepping or crushing and not in an animal, but it is not so [see Pri Chadash subsection 35 who wrote that the Torat Chatat said so, and so it appears from the Ran, see there]. And it is simple that if the wound was blackened, stepping and crushing do not avail, because it certainly occurred during life [as mentioned above to explain that this deals with where skin and flesh do not cover it and it protruded outward, for otherwise there is no concern at all according to the fundamental law, and see what I wrote in section 18].