Siman 56

The tzomet hagidim are in the middle bone of the leg, whether in a beast or in a bird. And that which is written in the Rambam, chapter 8, law 14, that in a bird they are in the first joint where the scales are visible, is an error, as he himself, of blessed memory, wrote to the sages of his generation that he never said such a thing and that an error fell into the transcription of his words, as our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in his great book; see there. And no man ever doubted this. They are called "tzomet" because they are joined and gathered together, from the expression "from behind your veil" (tzamatekh). They are the primary vitality of the living creature, and if they were removed or severed, the living creature would die. This is what we learned in the Mishnah, that when the tzomet hagidim are removed it is treifah [76a], even though the entire leg remains; and this is in the leg and not in the foreleg.

In a beast, their beginning is above the arkum, which is a small bone that connects the shok—which is the second joint—to the lower joint, which is the arkuba sold with the head. This bone is what the children play with, which they call "tshikh." Above it, these tendons connect and cluster, and they ascend and spread through the shok until they soften and return to being like flesh. In a bird, which has no arkum, their beginning is between joint and joint. There as well, if they were severed, or if the leg was broken between joint and joint, or if there is a wound there, or if it became swollen in a manner that renders it treif in the tzomet hagidim as will be explained, there too it is treifa. Similarly, in a beast, between the arkum and the shok, its law is like the shok itself, because the tzomet hagidim begins there.

But opposite the arkum itself, there is no law of tzomet hagidim according to the words of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, and if they were severed opposite the arkum, it is kosher, as the laws of tzomet hagidim do not apply to them. Nevertheless, some forbid it when the bone is broken at the location of the arkum itself, for there is concern that perhaps one of the tendons was severed, because we are not experts in discerning if it was not severed [Shach, subsection 4, in the name of Sha'arei Dura]. And there is one who wishes to forbid it even when it has healed, and some permit it when it has healed [see Pri Megadim there]. And I wonder: what of it if one of the tendons was severed? For in a beast, it is kosher when one of the tendons is severed, as will be explained with the help of Heaven, for so hold most of the poskim. And one must say that they were concerned for the position of Rashi, who renders it treif even with the severing of one of the tendons, as will be explained with the help of Heaven. But if so, behold there is reason to permit it based on a double doubt: a doubt whether it was severed, and if you say it was severed, perhaps the halacha is not like Rashi. And one must say it is because the first doubt is a doubt of lack of knowledge and is not a doubt; or it is possible to say that there is a doubt perhaps all the tendons were severed, and they did not mean specifically "one of the tendons." Therefore, it appears to me in my humble opinion that one who is lenient in this in a case of great loss has not lost out.

If the tzomet hagidim were removed, even if the leg remains, it is treifah. And likewise if they were severed or cut; and even if they were not cut and not removed, but only that they were folded and uprooted from the bone until above, it is treifah, for whenever they are folded from the bone, they are as if they are not there [Shach and Taz subsection 1], as the vitality is only when they are connected and attached to the bone. And from the language of the poskim it is explicitly implied that specifically when they are completely folded it is treifah, but when they are folded at their head or in their middle or at their end it is kosher, for since the majority is connected to the bone, we have no concern with it. And it is not similar in this regard to being cut, for a cut in any place whatsoever weakens their entire strength, but not so with being folded [and so wrote the Levushai Serad in siman 6, see there].

Our Sages, of blessed memory, said [76a] that in an animal there are three tendons: one is very thick and two are thin. The one thick one is called "the majority of the structure" because it is thicker than both of them together [Rashi], and the two are called "the majority of the number." It does not become treifah until the majority of the structure and the majority of the number are severed. Therefore, if the thick one alone is severed, it is kosher because the majority of the number remains; if the two alone are severed, it is kosher because the majority of the structure remains. If the thick one and also one of the thin ones are severed, it is treifah, as there is the majority of the structure and the majority of the number, and all the more so if the majority of each and every one was cut. The thick tendon is the one that they separate when they hang the animal, and it lies upon the two, and they are attached to the flesh and to the bone.

And there is one who is even more lenient, that even if the entire thick part was severed and also a minority of the two thin parts, it is kosher; and similarly, if the two thin parts were severed completely and also a minority of the thick part, it is also kosher. It is not rendered treif unless the entire thick part and also a majority of the thin parts were severed, or the thin parts and also a majority of the thick part were severed [Tur in the name of the Rosh]. And the opinion of Rashi, of blessed memory, is to render it treif even if only a majority of one of them was severed [according to the first version of Rav there]. And several of the great Rishonim hold thus [Semag and Semak and Sefer HaTerumah], and it is proper to be stringent in a matter of Torah law [Shach, subsection 6]. The first opinion is the opinion of the Rambam, and our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, brought only this opinion.

And in a bird there are sixteen tendons, and the halakha was decided in the Gemara there that even if one of them was severed it is treifah. This is not because a bird is more stringent than an animal, but because in a bird the tendons are weak, and when one of them is severed, they are all destined to be severed [Tosafot]. This is the opinion of Rashi, the Rambam, and most of the poskim. And even though there are some among the Rishonim who hold that even in a bird a majority of all sixteen must be severed [see in the Tur], the halakha is not so; rather, it is as I have written. And so our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, ruled without qualification. And even if the majority of one was severed it is treifah. There is no distinction in this between small birds and large ones, for even in geese and turkeys, which are large birds—and the tendons of the turkey are wide and hard like bone as we see—nevertheless they have one law, for so Chazal received that in birds it is rendered treifah by the severing of one of the tendons, and even by the majority of one, and so we maintain.

And know that the tzomet hagidim in an animal, which are three—one thick and two thin, as has been written—exist in two places in the leg: they exist on the outer side upon which the tail falls, and they exist on the inner side toward the cavity of the animal. The fathers of the world disagreed regarding this, for Rashi, Tosafot, the Rosh, and all our French and German teachers explained that they are on the outer side, and so Rashi received from his teachers [Rosh]. And so it is explicitly explained from the Rambam, chapter 8, law 13 [see there in Kesef Mishneh]. And so it is explained from the words of the Rif [see Rosh]. And it is known that the strength of the animal, its hardiness, and its vitality depend on the gidim on the outside, and regarding this no sage doubted [ibid.].

But the Ra'avad, of blessed memory, disagreed with this and holds that the tzomet hagidin are only those that are toward the inside, and the Rashba, the Ran, and our teacher Yerucham agreed with him, because those on the outside are neither shrunken nor joined together at all, but rather each sinew stands on its own, whereas the inner ones are shrunken and joined together. Furthermore, it is explained in the Gemara that the one thick one is greater in its thickness than the two thin ones, and this too is only in the inner ones and not in the outer ones, as our eyes see that the two emerging from the bone are both equal, and you will not find among them one that is larger than the two, nor even equal to two of them [Ran]. And there are also other threads in the inner ones, and they are not white like the tzomet hagidin, nor are they hard and strong like them. Furthermore, there are two small sinews, very white like the sinews themselves, and they enter into the thick sinew aside from the two thin ones that are joined with it, which are themselves the tzomet hagidin, as has been written.

Regarding the law, the matter is simple: one must be stringent according to both opinions. For the first opinion is the view of many and is a tradition from the ancients, and the view of the Ra'avad appears very sensible according to the words of the Shas, as I have written, and it is impossible to decide between them. From the words of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch in section 2, it is clear that they took the first opinion as the primary ruling, but that one should also be stringent according to the opinion of the Ra'avad. Accordingly, when there is a doubt regarding the inner ones as to whether they were severed or not, one may permit it based on a double doubt: perhaps they were not severed, and if you say they were severed, perhaps the halacha is not like the Ra'avad. However, when there is a doubt regarding the outer ones, one may not permit it based on this double doubt, for the primary halacha follows the first opinion [Smag, subsection 2 in Shem HaGedolim].

I have seen great authorities who wrote that even regarding a bird there is this dispute, and the primary ruling is that the outer ones are the essential ones [ibid. and in the Be'er Heitev]. And I am very much astonished, for regarding a bird we see that the tendons surround all around from the inside and from the outside, from the right and from the left, for they are sixteen; and also in a hen we see this, that the tendons are around the shok, and most clearly we see this in a turkey, that the tendons are wide and hard and go in a circle around the entire shok, and there is no dispute regarding a bird at all.

The measure of their length, from the place where they begin to be gathered until they spread into the flesh in a large ox, is sixteen fingers according to the Rambam, and according to Rashi only four fingers. For in the Gemara they said there: "four bitadi in an ox," and Rashi explains "bitadi" as a finger, and the Rambam explains according to the explanation of the Aruch [entry bitadi] that a "bitadi" is four fingers, and "four bitadi" are sixteen. Most of the poskim hold like the Rambam [see Beit Yosef]. And in a small animal, the sages did not give a measure, but rather by their appearance and their feel; for as long as they are white, hard, and thick, they have the law of tzomet hagidim. But when they begin to soften, or they are small and thin, they do not have the law of tzomet hagidim. And in a place where they are not so white, but rather slightly white and shining like glass, it is not tzomet hagidim.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 6 that there are other sinews that are swallowed within these masses in females, and those are not included in the gid hanasheh. Thus far his words. And I wonder that he left his words unexplained, for this is only according to the opinion of the Ra'avad that the inner ones are the gid hanasheh, for in them there are these sinews, as he wrote in section 9. However, according to the system of Rashi that they are the outer ones, these sinews are not in them. And even according to the Ra'avad, they are not swallowed in females except in rams alone, but in other species they are not swallowed so much, but rather enter into the thick sinew, as the Rashba wrote in Torat HaBayit [page 28a] and was brought in the great book of our teacher, the Beit Yosef; see there. And perhaps he did not care to elaborate on this because he who sees will see that it is so, and he relied on his words in the Beit Yosef.

The measure of the length of the tzomet hagidim in birds is like that of small livestock, which do not have a known measure in dimensions, and their signs are like those of small livestock. One who is expert in estimating should estimate for every bird according to its size and according to its smallness, for as long as they are hard, it is the tzomet hagidim, and in the place where they soften, it is not the tzomet hagidim. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 9 that one who is not expert in estimating should estimate like the width of a finger in a bird from the place where they begin, and the tzomet hagidim is never above the half of the middle bone. Thus far his words. His words require explanation, and it appears that his intention is this: that there is no more than a finger in any bird, but if the middle bone does not have two fingers in its length, there is not even a finger of tzomet hagidim here, but rather half the bone. And he took this as a leniency, meaning that even less than a finger, if it is only above half the bone, there is no tzomet hagidim in this, and the finger is the largest measure. [And with this, the difficulty of the Shach, subsection 9, is settled, and so it appears the Kereti u-Peleti understood in subsection 5, see there and examine closely]:

But in truth, there is a question regarding this, for he himself explained in his book Darkhei Moshe that there are two opinions: for the Maharil measured by the width of a finger, and in the Rokeach it is explained as up to half the bone, see there. And behold, the Rokeach preceded the Maharil by much and did not mention a finger at all, and certainly his intention was up to half the bone even if it is more than a finger. And more than this is puzzling, for since it has been explained that a bird has the same law as a small animal, which depends on their touch and their appearance, and behold our eyes see in a turkey—and some call it an "Englisher Hahn"—that its sinews are very long, and from their beginning until their end they have one appearance and one touch, and if so, the entire bone is the tzomet hagidim. And in truth, in his book Darkhei Moshe, he cited from the Agur who wrote in the name of the Rambam that the entire length of the bone is the tzomet hagidim, and he rejected his words, see there. And it must be understood in what the poskim disagreed. And the Maharshal in Yam Shel Shelomo [Chapter 4, Siman 12] wrote two fingers, see there. And it also must be understood that behold, regarding this finger, they wrote that it is the thumb [Shach, subsection 7, in the name of the Maharil], and the Maharshal there wrote that the Maharil is of the opinion of a finger and some say a thumb, see there; behold, there are two opinions [and the Simlah Chadashah already raised this difficulty in subsection 7, see there].

And it appears to me that there is no dispute here at all, and our teacher, the Rema, was compelled to say so because birds do not resemble one another in their largeness or their smallness; however, the majority of birds that the world uses are known to be chickens. From the essential law, it depends on their appearance and their feel, and they never passed more than half the bone. According to this, we should have ruled up to half the bone, but even this requires expertise to measure and to divide. He is teaching one who is not an expert, for the expert does not need all of this, as he will examine by appearance and feel as he wrote. For the one who is not an expert, even this is a burden for him to measure and to divide their half; therefore, in order to lighten the load, he said to measure in a bird by the width of a finger. This is in a chicken, for in truth the length of the bone is approximately two fingers, as we see with our senses. Therefore, in this it is easier to examine with the finger, and this is why the Maharil measured with a finger in the majority of birds, which are chickens. However, even chickens are not somewhat equal to one another; therefore, he did not clarify with which finger, and this depends on the sight of the eyes of the teacher: if it is large, he shall measure with the thumb, and if it is small, he shall measure with the second finger. And because there is no great difference in this, therefore he did not concern himself to clarify.

And this is all regarding a hen, but regarding large birds such as geese and wild geese where the bone is large, it is impossible to measure with a finger, for it is certainly two fingers in a large goose, as the Maharshal wrote. And conversely, with small ones like turtledoves and young pigeons, there is no thumb-breadth in the entire joint, and in any case there would not be two fingers; and how could we measure there with a finger? To this he says: and tzomet hagidim is never above the middle of the middle bone. And this is the explanation: that which we said to measure with a finger, this is regarding a hen; but regarding other birds, such as those that are larger or smaller where it is impossible to measure with a finger, one must perforce measure by the half-bone. For this is a great principle, whether in a bird or in an animal, that above the half-bone the law of tzomet hagidim does not apply to them, as the poskim wrote [Shach ibid.]. And this is why the Rokeach wrote "at the half-bone," and this is why the Maharshal wrote "two fingers," meaning in a goose and its like [and with this, all that the great Acharonim hesitated over and found difficult in his words is settled; see Pri Megadim ibid. and Pitchei Teshuvah subsection 2, and study it].

But regarding the indik, the matter is puzzling, for we see that they are equal in appearance and in feel throughout their entire length, as they are wide, and one sees very clearly that throughout the entire bone there is one appearance and one feel. It is very logical that regarding them, the law of tzimtum ha-guph applies throughout the entire length of the bone. And against our teacher, the Rema, there is no difficulty at all, for in his days this bird did not yet exist, as it is known that it has been only about three hundred years since it came to our lands from the land of India, which they call India, and therefore they call it indik. According to this, what the Agur wrote in the name of the Rambam—that the law of tzimtum ha-guph applies to the entire bone—was very correct, as I wrote in section 15, for the Rambam was in Egypt, and there this bird was known, as even in the days of the Rambam there was much commerce between Egypt and India, as is known. Our teacher, the Rema, rejected this because he did not know of this species, but the Rambam's intention was for this species. However, this is against the rule that above half the bone the law of tzimtum ha-guph does not apply. Therefore, in my humble opinion, one should be stringent regarding the indik, that the law of tzimtum ha-guph applies to it throughout the entire middle bone [this rule regarding a bird was written by the Rema in Torat Chattat and the Bach, as the Shach wrote there, and in their days this bird had not spread at all, as I wrote].

The examination of the tzomet hagidim in a bird such as a chicken, and all the more so in turtledoves and young pigeons, is an extremely difficult examination. Since if even one of them is severed it is treifah, and they are sixteen and thin, the examination is very difficult. The early authorities wrote to examine in this manner: to take a needle and separate one gid from another, and to insert the needle between gid and gid, and one ties it with a thread and inserts the needle and winds the thread around that gid until he finds them, and he must see that he does not separate one into two [Rokeach siman 405, and so wrote the Mordechai in the name of the Ri, see there]. And the matter is understood that in these days of ours, it is almost among the impossibilities.

Therefore, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 9, and this is his wording: And we are not experts in the examination of the tzomet hagidim of a bird because it is difficult to examine and it easily becomes treifah; therefore, in any place where there is a wound in the location of the tzomet hagidim, even if it is only swollen and the blood is clotted, since it would require examination and we are not experts regarding a bird, it is treifah. Thus far his words. And specifically when the blood is clotted significantly until the gidim are almost unrecognizable because of the blood, but a small clot of blood—why should we declare it treifah when we see no defect in the gidim? For if we come to declare treifah every case that comes before us where the blood is slightly clotted, we would declare the vast majority treifah [Levush]. And everything is according to the swelling, and the posek, before he declares it treifah, must cut the swelling and look into it, for if it appears from within the swelling that there is decay and it is melted, and there is concern that one of the threads was severed, then it must be forbidden and declared treifah [Yam Shel Shlomo, chapter 4, section 15]. But without decay there is no prohibition, even if the flesh changed from how it was [Turei Zahav, sub-section 8]. And one should not pay heed to a change of appearance alone, such as blue and green and yellow, for since there is no lesion and no swelling, it should be declared kosher simply [Bach], and even if the change is in the flesh, and all the more so if the change is only in the skin alone. And know that regarding turkeys and geese we are experts in the examination of the tzomet hagidim; so the Acharonim agreed [Pri Megadim, sub-section 10]. And the truth is so, for they are thick or wide and are clearly recognizable, and therefore examination is effective for them. And it is possible that also for the species of goose called ducks we are experts, and one should deliberate on this. Therefore, in a goose and a turkey, and all the more so in an animal, even if the flesh in the location of the tzomet hagidim is very swollen, which is called "geshwallen" [Darchei Moshe], and also the blood is clotted [ibid.], as long as we see no defect in the gidim themselves, one must examine the gidim, and if they are all found whole and healthy, we declare them kosher. And all the more so in an animal, where there are only three gidim, and when the thick one is whole and good, or the two thin ones are whole and good, it is kosher. But if in the gidim themselves there is a defect, it must be declared treifah and examination is not effective [Mordechai in the name of the Behag], even in an animal.

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 10: If the bone was broken in the location of the tzomet hagidim and it was bound and healed well, some permit it if the appearance of the flesh over the fracture has not changed, and some forbid it until the tzomet hagidim is inspected. And such is the primary ruling for us, as we are not experts in the inspection of a bird, it is treifah. Thus far their words. However, in a beast, where we are experts in the inspection of the tzomet hagidim, it should be validated through inspection [Shach, subsection 13]. And one should not ask that even in a bird, since it returned and was bound, why should we not validate it just as we validated at the end of siman 55 in a case where it returned and was bound, see there; for it can be said that they are not comparable. For there, the concern of treifah is because of the bone, therefore when it returns and is bound well, it is a sign that the bone did not protrude outward and the like. But here, where the concern is because of the tzomet hagidim, it is possible that even though the fracture of the bone, bone to bone, they are joined together, nevertheless the tendons were damaged [Beit Yosef]. And we have already explained some of this in siman 52, see there.

And know that there are some of the commentators on the Shulchan Aruch who wrote that even regarding a beast, examination is only effective when it has knitted; even if it did not knit "bone to bone they shall be joined," nevertheless, since it has knitted, examination is effective. But without having returned and knitted, when a broken bone comes before us in the place of the tzomet hagidim, even regarding a beast, examination is not effective [Shach, subsection 13]. And these are astonishing words, for since we are expert in the examination of the tzomet hagidim of a beast—as it is truly an easy examination, for the sinews are only three and are thick and well-recognized, and certainly the thick one is as thick as a rope, and if it alone was not severed and did not decay, it is kosher—if so, what do we care about the break? Ultimately, we see the sinews whole and beautiful, for it is truly an uncommon matter that through the break the thick and strong sinews of the beast would be severed. And in any case, if we come to concern ourselves that we are not expert in examination at the time of their breaking, what does their knitting avail if it is not "bone to bone they shall be joined"? For it has already been explained in the previous siman that whenever according to the letter of the law knitting is required, it specifically requires "bone to bone they shall be joined," and without this it is not effective. Yet here they permit even without it being knitted well, as is clear from their words, and so wrote the Acharonim [Pri Megadim, ibid.]. And perhaps even they only spoke where there is no significant loss, but in a case of significant loss, even without knitting, one should permit a beast through examination.

And there is clear proof for this from the source of the law, for the Rosh wrote [Chapter 4, Section 7], and this is his wording: And if the bone was broken in the place of the tzomet hagidim and it bound together and healed well, there are grounds to forbid it; for if the bird were brought before us before the bone bound together, we would be required to examine the sixteen sinews, and if so, even though the bone bound together, nevertheless an examination is still required, and one who is not expert in examining must declare it treif, etc. Thus far his words. And he elaborated on this and brought the opinions of those who forbid and the opinions of those who permit, see there. Behold, he wrote explicitly that if the bird were brought before us before it bound together, we would be required to examine, etc. And behold, it is explicit that according to the law, examination is effective even before it bound together, only that regarding a bird we are not experts; but regarding an animal, where we are experts, the examination is effective even before it bound together.

And according to this, that which the Tur wrote regarding this law in this wording: "And if the bone was broken in the place of the tzomet hagidim and it bound and healed well, there are those who prohibit it without examination," etc., and he did not mention a bird—this is because prior to this he was dealing only with the laws of tzomet hagidim of a bird, and he did not feel the need to mention a bird as it refers back to what was above. But the Rosh, who prior to this was not dealing with the laws of tzomet hagidim of a bird, was required to mention a bird; however, the intention of the Tur is also regarding a bird. And there is one who wishes to infer from the fact that the Tur did not mention a bird that it implies that even in a beast the law is so [see Bach], but it is impossible to say so, as is proven from the Rosh, and the Tur did not need to mention it because the entire matter there is only regarding a bird, see there.

And it also appears to me clear that this entire stringency is when it was broken and there is no skin and flesh covering the majority of it; for when skin and flesh cover the majority of it, since the break is not a ruinous flaw regarding the bone, it is a sign that it did not ruin the tzomet hagidim either. And proof for this is from the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book, and this is his wording: It is written in the Orchot Chaim that some say if the bone was broken inside, within the flesh, and does not protrude at all, there is no need to inspect for the tzomet hagidim, because the bone is easy to break since it is hard, but the tendon and the skin, which are soft, are not; and when we see that the skin was not severed, all the more so the tendons were not severed. But the Rama requires inspection, etc. Thus far his words. And from all these matters, it appears to me clear that in a case of great loss, one may rely regarding an animal upon the inspection even when it is still broken [see Noda BiYehuda siman 21 regarding a gander where the middle bone was broken higher than a finger's breadth and it knit together and it is not a case of "shiruy, achila, shetiya, yerida," and it was found after eating, and he agreed with those who permit, see there. And regarding a broken bone, a waiting period of twelve months is effective, or in a bird by the laying of eggs. And in the location of the tzomet hagidim, when it is broken, the Pri Megadim at the end of this siman forbids because every day it could ruin the tzomet hagidim].