Siman 59

An animal whose skin was flayed, whether by the hands of man or by way of illness, or due to a boil, or due to labor [Rashi 54a], is terefah when all the skin is removed. And even though skin is not something upon which life depends, and it is no greater than flesh, nevertheless it is terefah because the air dominates it and it will eventually die [Niddah 55a]. If there remained on it a measure that will be explained, it is kosher, because through the remainder it will heal and all its skin will return to its original state [Rashi Chullin 55b]. And I have a question regarding this: since the terefah status is because of the air, as I have written, what benefit is there that it will return to its original state? For until it returns to its original state, the air will dominate it! And it must be said that this is how our Sages, of blessed memory, received the tradition: that when it is entirely flayed, even though the skin is capable of returning—as our Sages, of blessed memory, said in Niddah ibid. that skin, its stock will renew—nevertheless, until it returns, a long time will pass and the air will dominate. This is not the case with the remainder of a portion, where it will return to its original state in a short time, and the dominance of the air during a short time will not function enough to cause it to die, and it is kosher.

And know that in Niddah ibid. there are two versions in the Gemara: according to the first version, the skin's root regenerates, and the reason it is a terefah is due to the dominance of the air. And according to the "there are those who say," the skin's root does not regenerate, and the reason it is a terefah is because without skin at all, the animal cannot live. According to this version, there is no need to make the distinction we made in the previous section, for the reason is simple: when a portion of skin remains, it can return to its original state, whereas when it is entirely removed, it will never return to its original state. The distinction we wrote is according to the first version, for it is necessary to distinguish thus, for if not so, what distinction is there between when it is entirely removed and when a portion remains?

And behold, this treifut where its skin was removed, our teachers, the sages of the Mishnah, called it "geludah," and its meaning is that its skin was removed. And it appears to me that the language of the sages is wisdom, and they informed us of a great matter in this. For there is reason to doubt whether this treifut of the skin being removed is specifically when the flesh is bare and has no type of covering upon it, but when there is some covering upon it, such as when a crust like the inflammation of a boil formed over the flesh, it is kosher; or perhaps even in such a case it is treifah. And since the sages called it by the name "geludah," it implies that even in such a case it is treifah. For behold, the name "geludah" is found in Job [16]: "I have sewed sackcloth upon my skin (galdi)," and its explanation is when a thin crust arose over his wound, and it is the way of people to place something soft upon it, and Job lamented that he did not have anything soft and was forced to sew thick sackcloth over the crust (gelad) of the wound. And so we learned at the beginning of the ninth chapter of Mikvaot: "the crust (gelad) that is outside the wound" and "crusts of excrement," see there. And from this language it says in the Gemara: "the opening of the wound formed a crust (huglad)." And for this reason they called it by the name "geludah," to teach us that even if a crust like a thin membrane arose over the place of the skin, nevertheless it is treifah [and a proof for this is from Niddah 55a, which says: "and even Rabbi Meir only permits it when the flesh becomes hard, etc." and Rashi explained: its flesh hardens and becomes like skin].

How much must remain of the skin for it to be kosher? The Rif, of blessed memory, ruled that we require a width of a sela to remain along the entire spine. The Rambam, of blessed memory, ruled in chapter 9 that we require the width of a sela along the entire spine, and the width of a sela upon every single joint of its joints—meaning all the joints of its vertebrae and the bones of the shank and the thigh [Rashi 55b]—and the width of a sela upon the location of its navel. The Rosh, of blessed memory, ruled [in chapter 3, siman 47] that in any location of the body, if there remains a sela, it is kosher. The Bahag also ruled accordingly, that in the entire body the remainder saves, except for the skin of the place of the hooves—meaning from the knee and below—which is not considered skin because it is soft [Rashi].

And behold, their dispute depends on the sugya of the Shas there [see the Beit Yosef], and for the halacha, since it is a doubt regarding a Torah law, the Rashba, of blessed memory, decided to rule like the Rambam, who is the most stringent of them all. And so ruled our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, who wrote: And if there remained of the skin the width of a sela over the entire spine, and the width of a sela over the navel, and the width of a sela over the ends of its limbs, behold, this is permitted. Thus far their words. And they did not bring another opinion at all, and such is our established ruling.

The Rambam wrote: If it was removed to the width of a sela from across the entire surface of the spine, or from across the navel, or from across the ends of its limbs, and all the rest of the skin remains, this is a doubt; and it appears to me that we permit it. Thus far his words. Many have asked: since it is a doubt, as it is an inquiry in the Gemara, how could he write that we permit it? For a doubt regarding a Torah law is to be treated stringently. However, the truth is that the Rambam follows his own reasoning which we wrote in siman 29, that regarding other treifot, aside from a claw-strike, there are those where we follow the lenient path in their doubt, see there. The primary reason is that since the skin was removed from one of these three places, which remained in the Gemara as a doubt, there is nonetheless a possibility that perhaps the halacha is not at all like that Amora who disqualifies when it did not remain in that specific place; and if you will say the halacha is like him, perhaps even he admits that it is kosher when the skin was removed from that place alone and all the rest of the skin remains [Kesef Mishneh]. According to this, if the skin was removed from all three places and all the skin remains, it is a doubtful treifa. This is what our teacher, the Rema, wrote, and this is his wording: But if it was removed from all three of them and all the rest of the skin remains, it is treifa. Thus far his words. Because in this case there is only one doubt, and we follow the stringent path. And that which he wrote "treifa," his intention was a doubtful treifa, as he is accustomed in several places, because regarding the animal itself there is no practical difference between a certain treifa and a doubtful treifa [The double doubt we wrote is not a complete double doubt, as the Pri Chadash wrote that a doubt regarding an inquiry is not a doubt, but it is like a double doubt; and since there are poskim who permit it entirely, one should not be so exacting].

Some say that specifically when a sela was removed from all three locations it is terefah, but if less than this was removed, even if a sela's width did not remain, it is kosher. And that which we required a sela's width, this is when the entire skin was removed and we are saving it by means of these locations, it requires a sela's width; but when the entire skin exists and it was removed from those locations, as long as a sela's width was not removed, it is kosher [Yam Shel Shlomo, siman 91]. And there are those who disagree on this [Shach, subsection 1], and to this the great authorities agreed, that even in such a case it is terefah, since in all the locations a sela did not remain [Pri Chadash and Kreiti U'Pleiti]. And so too there are many who disagree with the words of the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch in the previous section, and they ruled that even when a sela's width was removed from one of these locations it is also terefah, and only in this do they be lenient: that if in one of the three locations a sela was not removed, even though less than a sela remained, nevertheless since in the entire body and in two locations the skin exists, we do not care that in one location a sela did not remain [Shach, subsection 2 in the name of the Rashba and Rabbeinu Yerucham and Yam Shel Shlomo ibid. and Acharonim].

A bird whose feathers were removed is kosher, though some forbid it because the feathers are to a bird as the skin is to a beast, for the skin of a bird is soft and thin. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that it is good to be stringent if they all fell out; however, if its feathers fell out due to excessive fat, even if they all fell out and it remained naked, it is nevertheless kosher since it occurred due to its excessive fat. Thus far his words. This means that it is impossible that it should become treifah through a matter by which it is improved. And although there are those who hesitate regarding this, nevertheless one should not be stringent, for according to the essential law, the opinion of most of our teachers is to permit it entirely, as is explained in the Gemara [57b]. However, an istanis whose soul is repulsed by it should not eat it because of "do not make yourselves detestable" [Yam Shel Shlomo, subsection 70], for something similar to this was explained in siman 15 regarding a chick whose feathers have not yet grown; see there. Regarding a deficiency of flesh, the poskim did not explain it, for it is obvious that we have no concern regarding it, as its stock will regenerate [Niddah 55a]. And it is impossible for all its flesh to be deficient, for it would not live; and with a partial deficiency of flesh, even if a scar formed in its place, we have no concern regarding it [as is implied in Niddah ibid.]. And if all the skin was peeled from the bird, it is obviously treifah even according to those who permit it when the feathers are removed, for there is no difference between a beast and a bird in a matter that the sages of the Shas did not explicitly explain. And with a deficiency of part of the skin in a bird, it is kosher just as in a beast, and the remainder must also be the same as in a beast.