Siman 64

One who eats a kezayit of chelev intentionally is liable for karet, as it is written in parashat Tzav: "Any chelev of ox, sheep, or goat you shall not eat. And the chelev of a nevelah and the chelev of a terefah may be used for any work, but you shall surely not eat it. For whoever eats the chelev of the animal from which one may bring a fire-offering to Hashem, the soul that eats it shall be cut off from its people." And if he ate it unintentionally, he is liable for a korban, for the general rule is: anything for which one is liable for karet if done intentionally, one is liable for a korban if done unintentionally.

And that which the Torah wrote regarding the chelev of a nevelah or a terefah, "it may be used for any work," this is its explanation: so that we should not say that since it carries the penalty of karet for its consumption, it should also be forbidden for work; it comes to teach us that for work it is permitted. And even according to those who hold that it is forbidden by the Torah to engage in trade with a forbidden food item, as I wrote in siman 117, the Torah excluded chelev from the general rule of all forbidden items so that it would be permitted to engage in trade with it. And according to their opinion, this is the primary explanation of the verse, as will be explained there with the help of Heaven.

But that which the Torah said, "And you shall not eat it," requires explanation; for is it because the prohibition of nevelah or terefah was added to the chelev that it became lighter, such that it was necessary for the Torah to warn against the prohibition of eating? For this, our sages, of blessed memory, explained [Chullin 37a] that this is the meaning: the Torah said, let the prohibition of nevelah come and take effect upon the prohibition of chelev, let the prohibition of terefah come and take effect upon the prohibition of chelev. That is to say, you should not say that a prohibition cannot take effect upon another prohibition, for behold, the prohibition of chelev preceded it, and subsequently the prohibition of nevelah or terefah should not take effect upon it regarding the matter that if one ate it, he is only liable for the prohibition of chelev; it comes to teach us that he is liable for two sets of lashes, one for chelev and one for nevelah or terefah. And this is what the Rambam wrote in chapter 7 of Ma'akhalot Assurot, law 2: One who eats from the chelev of a nevelah or terefah is liable because of eating chelev and because of eating nevelah or terefah, since a prohibition was added to its meat which was previously permitted, it was added to the chelev, and therefore he is lashed twice. Thus far his words. And the Rambam explained the reason because this is an "added prohibition" (issur mosif); and it is not specifically an added prohibition, for that is when a prohibition is added to this specific piece, but rather this is an "inclusive prohibition" (issur kolel) which includes the meat with it. However, even one who does not hold of an inclusive prohibition regarding all prohibitions admits here because the Torah decreed so, as I have written, and one who holds of an inclusive prohibition in general learns it from here [see there in the Lechem Mishneh]. And do not wonder at what he wrote regarding lashes for the chelev, whereas it carries a liability of kared and not lashes; for indeed, in all cases of those liable for kared, the law is so, as we learned at the end of Makkot: All those liable for kared who were lashed are exempted from their kared. And the Rambam ruled so at the end of chapter 17 of Sanhedrin, see there.

The sages taught in the Mishnah [117a] that the prohibition of chelev applies only to a pure domestic animal; that is to say, in a wild animal or a bird all the chelev is permitted, and in an impure domestic animal or an impure wild animal or bird, the prohibition of their chelev is like that of their meat under a negative commandment, and they do not carry the prohibition of kareth, as it is written: "Any chelev of ox, or sheep, or goat, you shall not eat." And all types of pure domestic animals are included in them, for there is no other species of pure domestic animals besides them. And this is what is written: "For whoever eats chelev from the domestic animal from which one brings a fire-offering to Hashem, etc.," meaning from the species of domestic animal from which they bring sacrifices, and there are no sacrifices among domestic animals other than these. And one should not err and say that the intention is that it is only prohibited from a sacrificial animal and not from chullin, as the Sadducees erred in this, for if so, why did the Torah need to specify beforehand "any chelev of ox, or sheep, or goat"? Furthermore, because of this, the Torah wrote in Leviticus, after it wrote regarding the matter of sacrifices: "And if his offering is a sacrifice of peace-offerings, if he brings from the herd... and he shall offer... the chelev, etc. And if his offering is from the flock... and he shall offer... and the chelev, etc. And if his offering is a goat... and he shall offer... the chelev, etc." and afterwards it is written: "An everlasting statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, any chelev and any blood you shall not eat," to exclude the views of the Sadducees, so that you should not say that the Torah only prohibited chelev from a sacrificial animal, and consequently that it does not apply for future generations at a time when the Beit HaMikdash is not standing, and likewise outside the Land at any time. For this reason it said that this is "an everlasting statute for your generations," even for all generations to come, and likewise "in all your dwellings," even outside the Land, "any chelev and any blood you shall not eat," meaning even those not from sacrifices [see Kiddushin 37b].

The Tur wrote that the chelev of a koy is forbidden but one is not liable for it, and so it is stated in the Gemara [Yoma 74a] and in Torat Kohanim, and it is derived from "all chelev," and for a half-measure as a prohibition but not for punishment, see there. And know that there are three types of koy: the first is a creature unto itself; the second is a koy that comes from a domestic animal and a wild animal; and the third is one that comes from a goat and a sheep. However, for this one is certainly liable for kareth, since from both its sides it is a domestic animal and it is nothing other than kilayim. And we explicitly learned there in Torat Kohanim: I only have the chelev of a bull, a sheep, and a goat that are distinct; from where do we include kilayim? The verse states: "bull, and sheep, and goat," these are the words of Rabbi Akiva. Thus far his words. And it further derives there from "of the animal" to include kilayim, see there. And a koy from a domestic animal and a wild animal—if its mother is a domestic animal, one is liable for kareth, and even if we are concerned for the seed of the father, for we established "a lamb," and even a partial lamb, as written in siman 16 and in siman 61. And if its mother is a wild animal, it is a doubt whether we are concerned for the seed of the father or not, and therefore its chelev is forbidden but one is not lashed for it. And such is the law regarding a doubt whether it is a wild animal or a domestic animal. And that which is a creature unto itself, that is what the Torah included for a prohibition from "all chelev" [according to chapter 2 of Bikkurim, and it requires further study].

The Rambam wrote: One who slaughters a beast and finds within it a fetus, all of its chelev is permitted, and even if he found it alive, because it is like a limb of her. But if its months were complete and he found it alive, even though it did not tread upon the ground and does not require shechitah, its chelev is forbidden and one is liable for kareth for it, and one must remove from it all the veins and membranes that are forbidden in other beasts. Thus far his words. And most of the poskim disagree with him, for since it does not require shechitah, it follows that its chelev is permitted according to the law of a fetus. And the Tur also challenged him, and so implies the sugya of the Shas [74b], for it depends on one another, as it says there that the one who holds its chelev is forbidden follows his reasoning that he holds a nine-month-old living fetus requires shechitah, and the one who holds its chelev is permitted follows his reasoning that it does not require shechitah. And since we establish that it does not require shechitah, it follows that its chelev is permitted. And the Rambam holds that since we say there [75a] that one who reached his hand into the womb of a beast and tore the chelev of a nine-month-old living fetus is liable for kareth, for the months cause it to be chelev even though the offspring has not yet seen the air of the world, as will be explained, if so, how is it possible that through the shechitah of its mother it should be returned to a permitted state? Therefore, even though the Gemara hangs this on that, this is according to the opinion of those who disagree with this law and hold that one who tears chelev from a nine-month-old living fetus is exempt, for the air causes the prohibition, and not according to what we establish that the months cause it. And those who disagree hold that there is no proof from one who tears chelev from a nine-month-old living fetus, for even there we require that he bring it outside, but when he left it in the beast until after shechitah, the chelev is permitted; for granted that we do not require that the embryo see the air of the world, nevertheless we require that the chelev see the air of the world [see Beit Yosef and Pri Chadash]. And there is one who decides the law like the Rambam [Shach, subsection 4]. And this is regarding one found as a nine-month-old living fetus, but regarding one found as a nine-month-old dead fetus, everyone agrees that its chelev is permitted, for months without life are nothing. And so too, if it was born and trod upon the ground, according to all the poskim its chelev is forbidden, for behold it also requires shechitah due to the appearance of the eye, as I wrote in siman 13, see there, and all the more so its chelev.

He further wrote: Similarly, a fetus of the three types of pure animals, its chelev is like its meat, and one who eats a kezayit of its chelev is lashed for eating nevelah. Thus far his words. Meaning, a fetus whose months were not completed, its chelev does not have the status of chelev but rather the status of meat, for the months cause it to be chelev; therefore, when she miscarries a fetus, the fetus lacks shechitah and is nevelah, and there is no liability of karet. And know that in the Gemara [75a] there are two versions regarding this, and according to the first version, even in such a case one is liable for karet, for the air causes the prohibition without the months, see there. Only the Rambam ruled like the "there are those who say" there, according to the method of the Geonim throughout the Shas that the second version is the primary one. Consequently, according to Rashi, of blessed memory, who holds that in matters of Torah law one follows the stringent view [Tosafot Shabbat 42b s.v. "ve-hainu"], and similarly according to the method of Tosafot [ibid.] that every "there are those who say" is secondary to the first version, we maintain that one is liable for karet for this. And perhaps this is the intention of our teacher, the Rema, who wrote in section 2: And the chelev of a fetus is forbidden if the animal miscarried. Thus far his words. And they wondered about him: what is he coming to teach us? It is obvious, for it is complete nevelah [Taz and Shach]. But according to our words, his intention is that it is complete chelev for which one is liable for karet, unlike the Rambam. And although in most places the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch do not descend to distinguish between a prohibition of a negative commandment and a prohibition of karet, nevertheless, occasionally they include this distinction in brief words, like the Tur in this siman who wrote that the chelev of an impure animal is like its meat, and similarly in this law he brought the words of the Rambam that in a fetus there is no prohibition of chelev but only a prohibition of nevelah. And in truth, the great authorities toiled over his words to find some practical legal differences between one and the other [see Bach, and Shach subsection 2, and Taz subsection 1].

He further wrote: If one reached his hand into the womb of a beast and cut from the chelev of a fetus whose months were complete and removed it, he is liable for it as if he cut it from the chelev of the mother herself, for the months are what cause the chelev to be forbidden. Thus far his words. However, if he did not remove it to the outside, but left it inside the beast and afterwards slaughtered the beast, the chelev is permitted. And even though the Rambam holds that the chelev of a nine-month-old live fetus is not permitted through the slaughter of the mother, as he wrote, this is when it is attached to the fetus, for it is like a distinct limb regarding chelev; but when it is cut from the fetus and lying in the beast, it is included in "whatever is in the beast you may eat," as he wrote at the end of siman 14. According to this, we have learned that even according to the opinion of the Rambam that the months cause the prohibition of chelev and not the air, nevertheless, the air is required for the chelev, as I wrote in section 6 according to the opinion of those who disagree with him; see there. However, one could say that air is not required at all, but rather because in this case it is impossible otherwise, for when it is in the beast until after slaughter it is permitted because of "whatever is in the beast you may eat," as I wrote, and it is impossible to make him liable unless he ate it before the slaughter, and perforce he must remove it to the outside, for it is impossible to eat it in any other way, as is understood; but not because it requires air.

What is the definition of chelev? There is a dispute in the Gemara [49b] between R. Ishmael and R. Akiva, as it was taught: "The chelev that covers the innards." R. Ishmael says: Just as the chelev that covers the innards is a membrane and is peelable, so too all that is a membrane and is peelable. Rashi explained: A thin membrane is upon it, and the membrane peels off from the chelev because it is not so tightly attached to it. Thus far his words. R. Akiva says: Just as the chelev that covers the innards is a garment, a membrane, and is peelable, so too all that is a garment, a membrane, and is peelable. Rashi explained: "Tutav" is its garment, as we translate "it is his garment" as "hi tutaveih"; it is spread over the innards, and similarly over the intestines at their head. But the chelev of the stomach is not a garment, but rather it is pieces upon pieces and is tightly attached; and that which is on the intestines from the head and further etc. is not a garment but is tightly attached to them. Thus far his words. According to R. Ishmael, those on the stomach and those on the intestines are forbidden because they are a membrane and are peelable, see there. And the halacha is like R. Akiva, and it requires being a garment, a membrane, and peelable.

And behold, Rashi explained "membrane and peeled" as the membrane that is upon the chelev and is peeled from the chelev because it is not tightly attached to it. But the Tur wrote: What is chelev? Any which is "placed, membrane, and peeled," meaning that it is spread over the membrane in a manner that when the membrane is peeled, it is peeled with it. Thus far his words. Behold, he explained the opposite, that the membrane is beneath the chelev, such that by peeling the membrane, the chelev is also peeled. And consequently, this is "placed," which is spread like a garment over the body such that they can spread it out, and here too, by peeling the membrane, all the chelev is peeled. And he does not disagree with Rashi, of blessed memory, for Rashi explained this according to Rabbi Yishmael who does not require "placed," and consequently the membrane is upon the chelev. But according to Rabbi Akiva, who requires "placed," that it be spread like a garment, what do we care for the membrane that is upon the chelev? Everything depends on the membrane that is beneath it, through which it is peeled, as has been written [Derisha and Perisha, and Bach, and Taz, subsection 5]. And of necessity one must say so, for if according to Rabbi Akiva the intent of "membrane and peeled" was regarding the upper one, he should have said "membrane and peeled and placed." Rather, since he said "placed, membrane, and peeled," the primary point is "placed," and its "placed" status is by means of the membrane beneath it, as I have written. Therefore, Rashi did not explain the definition of "membrane and peeled" regarding Rabbi Akiva, but only explains the definition of "placed," and through this the definition of "membrane and peeled" is understood automatically. However, there is no proof from all this, as we will explain with the help of Heaven.

For behold, upon the rumen there is chelev and it is called the parisa, and it is the thick membrane spread over the rumen which they call "tarpa-leilech" or "netz" in the Ashkenazic tongue, and this is the chelev that covers the innards in the sacrifices. Beneath it there is a membrane, and beneath this membrane there is a layer of chelev upon the rumen attached to the rumen, and it is not like the parisa. Regarding this chelev that is beneath the membrane, two great ones among the early authorities disagreed: our teacher Ephraim and our teacher Yoel HaLevi. For our teacher Ephraim forbade it and our teacher Yoel permitted it. The argument of R. Yoel is that the Torah only forbade that which is "placed upon," "membranous," and "peelable," and only this parisa is "placed upon," and not that which is beneath the membrane, for it is not "placed upon." And that which the Torah wrote, "the chelev that covers the innards and all the chelev that is upon the innards," the intention is not regarding the chelev that is beneath this membrane, but rather regarding the chelev of the omasum and the reticulum, as is explained in the Gemara [93a]: Shmuel said, the chelev that is upon the omasum and the reticulum is forbidden and one is liable for karet because of it, and this is the "chelev that is upon the innards," see there. And why are they called "chelev that is upon the innards"? Rashi explained: because the omasum and the reticulum are at the end of the rumen, and that chelev which covers the innards is attached to the chelev that is upon the omasum and the reticulum. Thus far his words. That is to say, that therefore this chelev is called in the Torah "chelev that is upon the innards" [so it appears to me to explain for R. Yoel HaLevi, and examine it closely].

The argument of our teacher Ephraim, brought in the Mordechai [chapter 3], is that "attached, a membrane, and peels" is interpreted as follows: "attached" refers to the fat of the covering, and "a membrane and peels" refers to the membrane beneath the covering that peels off from the fat beneath it. It follows that the fat beneath it is also subject to kareth. This which the Torah said, "all the fat that is upon the innards," its intention is to this fat which is beneath the fat covering the innards, see there. And it must be said according to this that this which the Shas said, that the fat upon the omasum and the reticulum is "fat that is upon the innards," did not come to exclude the fat beneath the covering, but rather came to say that this is also included in "fat that is upon the innards."

And one should not ask: since R. Akiva forbids even a membrane that can be peeled alone, if so, in what way does he disagree with R. Ishmael? For it can be said that R. Akiva only forbids a membrane that can be peeled which is under a fold, as in the rumen. Therefore, the fat upon the abomasum, even though it is a membrane that can be peeled, nevertheless, since there is no fold upon it, it is not forbidden. And it must be said according to this that the fat upon the small intestines, which R. Akiva holds is complete fat as is stated there in the Gemara, is also like the rumen, where above there is a fold and afterwards there is a membrane that can be peeled.

And now, according to this, if we say that Rashi holds like our teacher Ephraim, it could be said according to his explanation of "membrane and can be peeled" which he explained according to Rabbi Yishmael, that it is also the same for Rabbi Akiva; for the "totev" is the spread fat, and the "membrane and can be peeled" is other fat on the omasum which is under the "totev." However, from Rashi it is evident that he does not hold like Rabbi Ephraim, for he explained regarding the fat that covers the innards that it itself is "totev, membrane and can be peeled" [93a, s.v. Hamessas]. And it is also evident from what he explained regarding the fat of the abomasum according to Rabbi Akiva, that it is not "totev" but rather it is attached piece by piece [49b], and he did not explain that it is because there is no "totev" fat upon it. Nevertheless, regarding the halacha, he agrees with him for another reason, because regarding the halacha he is stringent like Rabbi Yishmael [50a, s.v. Ki Peligi]. And it will be further explained with the help of Heaven in section 24; see there.

And in the She'iltot at the beginning of Vayikra and in the Behag, Hilkhot Helev, it is explicitly stated not like our teacher Ephraim, for this is their wording: And any fat that, regarding the matter of offering, is offered upon the altar, regarding the matter of eating it is also fat and it is forbidden, etc. And which is the fat that is offered? "The fat that covers the innards," this is the *pirusta*; "and that which is upon the innards," this is the fat that is upon the omasum and the abomasum, etc. And why is it different from the rest of the stomach? Because it is similar to "the fat that covers the innards"; just as "that which covers the innards" is placed upon, has a membrane, and is peeled, so too anything that is placed upon, has a membrane, and is peeled, this is fat, etc. The beginning of the intestines for a cubit requires scraping; what is the reason? It is placed upon, has a membrane, and is peeled, and this is the fat that is upon the small intestines. Thus far their words. Behold, they wrote explicitly that the fat that is upon the stomach is permitted, and they also explained that "placed upon, has a membrane, and is peeled" is in one location, and all fat that the Torah forbade, such as the fat that is upon the small intestines and the fat of the *aksheta* that is upon the abomasum, they are also "placed upon, has a membrane, and is peeled," for so it is explained there in the She'iltot also regarding the *aksheta*, see there. And I wonder why the poskim did not bring their words, for all their words are by tradition from the sages of the Shas, as is known.

And our teacher Ephraim brought a proof from the fact that the Torat Kohanim excludes the fat that is upon the walls; for if it should enter your mind that "placed, a membrane, and peels" refers to one location, why is an exclusion necessary for this? See there in the Mordechai. And I am wondered, for in the Semag, Prohibition 138, he wrote that in truth it is "placed, a membrane, and peels." This is his wording: And it appears that the reason it was necessary to exclude the fat that is upon the walls is because it is similar to other complete fat, in that it is like a spread garment and a thin membrane is upon it, and the fat peels from upon the meat easily. Thus far his words. And from his words it is also explicitly clear that he interprets "placed, a membrane, and peels" like Rashi and not like the Tur [see Tosafot 92b, starting with the words "Abaye said," who wrote regarding the fat of the walls that perhaps it is "placed, a membrane, and peels," see there; and the Semag wrote this with simplicity as I have written].

But the Rambam, of blessed memory, clearly appears to hold like our teacher Ephraim, for he wrote in chapter 7 of Ma’akhalot Assurot, halacha 5: There are three fats for which one is liable for karet: the fat that is upon the innards, and that which is upon the two kidneys, and that which is upon the flanks, etc. Thus far his words. Behold, he mentioned "the fat that is upon the innards" without qualification, and did not distinguish between the fat of the omentum and the fat of the entire rumen. And so it is explained from what he wrote in chapter 6 of Shechitah, halacha 11: A rumen that was perforated is treifah, and it has nothing to plug it, for the fat that is upon it is forbidden. Thus far his words. Behold, it is explicit that all the fat of the rumen is forbidden, and he did not mention at all this matter of "placed, a membrane, and peeled." And it must be said that regarding what he wrote there afterwards, "the fat that is upon the omasum and upon the reticulum is the fat that is upon the innards," his intention is that this too is included in "the fat that is upon the innards," as I wrote regarding our teacher Ephraim in the intent of the Gemara in section 12. And a proof for this is from what he wrote at the end of chapter 1 of Ma’aseh HaKorbanot regarding the offering of the emurim, and this is his wording: And these are the forbidden fats of an ox or a goat: the fat which is upon the innards, and included within it is the fat that is upon the abomasum. Thus far his words. And he did not mention the fat that is upon the omasum and reticulum, even though they are certainly offered upon the altar, as the She'iltot and the Ba'al HaHalakhot Gedolot wrote. Rather, it is certain that all the internal fats are included in "the fat of the innards," as he wrote in the Commentary on the Mishnah to Zevachim in the introduction; see there. Therefore, he also did not mention the fat covering the innards because it is included in "the fat of the innards." And that which he mentioned the fat of the abomasum is because there is a dispute regarding this in the Gemara, and he proved to rule like the one who holds that we offer this fat [and so wrote the Mordechai there, that the Rambam holds like our teacher Ephraim, see there; and see the Kesef Mishneh there who wrote that he rules like Rabbi Yishmael, but I do not know what forced him to this, for one could say that he ruled like Rabbi Akiva, and according to the first version that everyone holds regarding the arch that it is forbidden, and like the explanation of Rashi; and delve into this].

And the opinion of the Tur appears explicitly not like our teacher, Ephraim, for he wrote that it requires "totev, krum, and niklaf," and that the krum is beneath the chelev and is peeled with the krum, and he did not mention that the chelev beneath the krum is also chelev. From this we understand that he holds like our teacher, Yoel, that the chelev on the stomach beneath the parisa is permitted. Therefore, also at the beginning of siman 48, when he wrote that a stomach that was perforated is tereifah, he omitted the words of the Rambam who wrote that it has nothing to seal it, for according to him, certainly the chelev beneath the parisa seals. And as for why he did not write explicitly that this chelev is permitted, it seems to me that his reason is this: since later he agreed with the words of Rashi, of blessed memory, that the chelev of the ayitra is forbidden even though it is not "totev" because we follow the people of Babylonia who conducted themselves according to Rabbi Ishmael, if so, all the more so that the chelev beneath the parisa is forbidden to eat from the perspective of custom. Therefore, he first wrote what is according to the essential law, that we require "totev, krum, and niklaf," but from the perspective that we follow the people of Babylonia, it is forbidden for us to eat. Nevertheless, regarding the sealing of a perforation, it seals, as the Tur wrote above at the beginning of siman 48 that the chelev of the ayitra seals; see there.

And know that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4: Which is the chelev? Any that is like a covering, a membrane, and is peelable, etc. And in section 9 he wrote: The chelev that is under the diaphragm is forbidden, see there. And this would be a contradiction. And one cannot say as was written according to the opinion of the Tur, that this is due to custom like the chelev of the omentum, for behold in section 14 he wrote: The chelev of the abomasum that is on the curved side is forbidden by law from the Torah, and that which is on the straight side is forbidden due to a custom that they practiced as a prohibition. Thus far his words. And if we were to say that also regarding the chelev under the diaphragm it is forbidden from the side of custom, he should have explained it as he explained regarding the omentum. And it must be said that therefore he did not explain the definition of "covering, membrane, and peelable" as the Tur explained, because he holds like Rabbeinu Ephraim that "membrane and peelable" is under the "covering," and according to this, also what is under the diaphragm is forbidden from the Torah. And so it appears in his great work, that he leans toward the opinion of Rabbeinu Ephraim because the Rambam holds so, see there.

But our teacher, the Rema, appears not to hold this way, for he wrote regarding this law of the chelev that is beneath the membrane, and this is his wording: And such is the custom in every place, except for the people of the Rhine who practice permissiveness regarding part of it, and one should not protest against them as an elder already ruled for them; and in every place where they practice a prohibition, its law is like other chelev to be nullified in sixty, but one does not forbid the vessels of the people of the Rhine since they practice permissiveness regarding it. Thus far his words. Behold, he made the matter dependent on custom, and nevertheless, in a place where they practiced it as a prohibition, it is complete chelev because according to our teacher Ephraim it is so, as we have explained. And they wrote that in any event, regarding the matter of chanan, we do not say it regarding this chelev because Rabbeinu Ephraim himself holds that we do not say chanan except regarding meat in milk, as will be explained in siman 92 [Taz, subsection 8]. And nevertheless, regarding sealing, it does not seal since according to Rabbeinu Ephraim it is complete chelev. And know that even according to the opinion of our teacher Joel, one must remove the membrane that is beneath the fat [Shach, subsection 18]. And that which he wrote that one does not forbid the vessels etc., will be explained with the help of Heaven in siman 119; see there.

The alyah, even though in a lamb it is offered upon the altar, is nevertheless permitted for eating, as it is written: "All the chelev of an ox, a lamb, or a goat"—something that is equal in an ox, a lamb, and a goat; and since the alyah is not offered in an ox or a goat, it is not considered chelev even in a lamb. Similarly, the diaphragm of the liver, even though it is offered upon the altar, nevertheless, since it does not resemble chelev at all, it is permitted for eating [Hagahot Maimoniyot chapter 7]. And the chelev of the flanks is permitted for eating, and it is found in Torat Kohanim: "For whoever eats the chelev of which they offer etc."—and not the chelev of the flanks, see there.

This is the wording of the Rambam: But the fat tail is permitted for eating; it is not called chelev except regarding the matter of the sacrifice alone, just as the chelev of the kidneys and the diaphragm of the liver were called chelev regarding the matter of the sacrifice, and just as you forbid "the chelev of the land" and "the chelev of the kidneys of wheat," which refers to their excellence. And because they lift up these things from the sacrifice for burning to Hashem, they were called chelev, for there is no "good thing" except that which is lifted up to Hashem. Therefore it is said regarding the terumah of the tithe, "when you lift up its chelev from it." Thus far his words. [See there in the Lechem Mishneh].

The fat of the aliyah does not contradict except for that which is on the outer side, which was offered upon the altar, but that which is on the inner side is absolute chelev. Therefore, one must remove the chelev from the inner side, and one must also remove the strings of the aliyah because they draw from the chelev of the kidneys. In the order of nikur in the Tur, siman 65, this is explained very well; see there, for he wrote in this wording: And he takes the knife and cuts into the aliyah and extracts from it a string that divides into two, and he draws the string from the base of the aliyah until its ends, from those faces that knock against the thighs of the animal. Afterward, he takes the knife and scrapes from those faces themselves those substances called in Arabic 'aq'ar from the bones, and he scrapes well until the height of the substances is equal with the depressions between them, and there shall not remain upon the entire face of the aliyah neither meat nor fatness, but they scrape well. Thus far his words. And the Rokeach also wrote: He shall take the strings that are under the spine, and the chelev that is in the tail, and the string that is in it. Thus far his words. [Beit Yosef]. And there is no difference in this between an ox or a goat and a lamb, for in all of them the law is so, as has been explained.

The Tur wrote: In the abomasum there are two types of fats, one shaped like a bow and one shaped like a string; and the Rif permitted that which is on the string and forbade that which is on the bow, and so wrote the Rambam; and Rashi forbade both, and to this my father, our teacher, the Rosh, of blessed memory, agreed. Thus far his words. And according to what is explained in the Gemara [50a], that which is on the bow is forbidden even according to Rabbi Akiva, and it implies that it is "placed," "membrane," and "peels," and so it is explained from the words of the Sheiltot that we wrote in section 15; and that which is on the string is not "placed" and is permitted according to what we establish that the halakha follows Rabbi Akiva. However, in the Gemara it is stated there that the people of Babylonia conducted themselves with a prohibition regarding it and the people of the Land of Israel conducted themselves with permission regarding it, and Rashi explained that the people of Babylonia forbid it according to Rabbi Ishmael, that it does not require being "placed." Therefore, the Rif and the Rambam permitted it, and Rashi and the Rosh wrote that we follow after the people of Babylonia. And the Rosh wrote, and this is his wording: And the Rif ruled that the string is permitted, but it does not seem correct except as Rashi ruled; for although from the Torah it is permitted, as we establish the halakha follows Rabbi Akiva from his colleagues, nevertheless the people of Babylonia were stringent to conduct themselves with a prohibition regarding it, and all our customs are like the people of Babylonia. Thus far his words.

And with this, the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 14 is precise, as he wrote: The fat of the kana that is upon the kashat is forbidden by the law of the Torah, and that which is upon the yatar is forbidden by the custom that they practiced to treat it as forbidden. Thus far his words. And I wonder at our teacher, the Rema, who wrote: And there are those who say that by law it is forbidden, and therefore one should not be lenient regarding it. Thus far his words. For even the Rosh, who forbids it, wrote explicitly that it is merely a stringency. And also according to the opinion of Rashi one must say so, for it is simple that the halacha follows Rabbi Akiva over his colleague. Furthermore, from the Tur at the beginning of siman 48, who wrote that fat that is upon the yatar closes a hole, this is proven; for if by law it did not close the hole, it would be like fat that is under the parisa. And it is true that from the wording of Rashi, who wrote that the people of Bavel hold like Rabbi Yehuda, it implies that they hold so by law, and according to this, any fat that is a membrane and is peeled away is forbidden even if it is not a tutav. But Rashi, of blessed memory, is alone in this matter, for from the Rosh and the Tur it is explicitly proven to the contrary. And so I saw written by one of the great Acharonim, that regarding all fat one requires it to be a tutav, and only regarding the fat of the yatar were they stringent because of a decree, so that they should not eat the fat of the kashat [Pleiti, subsection 2]. And also the wording of Rashi can be settled with difficulty, that his intention is that in this matter he holds like Rabbi Yehuda because of the decree regarding the kashat; and it requires further great study.

And know that the wording of the Rambam is as follows: And there is fat upon the windpipe, curved like a bow, and that is forbidden, and a string drawn like a bowstring, and that is permitted. Thus far his words. And there are those who wished to infer from his words that only the upper string is permitted and not everything within the bowstring, and these are bewildering matters, for behold, everything within the bowstring is not a covering, and why should it be forbidden? And his intention is simple: that he provides a sign for this fat, that it is a drawn string, for since the windpipe goes in a semi-circle, that which is outside the circle is called a bow, and that which is inside the circle is called a bowstring. And behold, the Tur equated the opinion of the Rambam to the opinion of the Rif, as I have written. And there is clear proof from the words of the SeMag, Prohibition 138, who also wrote with this wording, for this is his wording: But the fat that is in the place, and it is a string that is in the place of the bowstring, etc. Thus far his words. Behold, this is only a sign for the location, and there is no logic to distinguish between one and the other. And know that even the people of the Land of Israel who permit the fat of the bowstring, nevertheless said in the Gemara "they curtail," meaning that they take a little above the bowstring because the fat of the entrails rests upon it [Beit Yosef]. And nowadays, in every place they forbid the fat of the bowstring because of the custom, as our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote, and there is no place where they eat it.

Another of the conditions of chelev is that meat should not cover it. This is the wording of the Rambam there: In any place where you find the chelev beneath the meat, and the meat surrounds it from all sides and it is not visible until the meat is torn, this is permitted. Thus far his words. And thus our sages, of blessed memory, expounded [93a]: The Merciful One said "upon the flanks," but not that which is within the flanks; the Merciful One said "upon the kidneys," but not what is within the kidneys. According to this, the white that is within the kidneys does not have the status of chelev from the Torah. Nevertheless, our sages, of blessed memory, commanded [ibid.] to tremble after it, or at least to remove the upper part of this chelev. This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 12: The kidney has two membranes upon it; for the upper one, one is liable; the lower one and the filaments within it are forbidden but one is not liable for them. And regarding the white within the kidney [so it should be said]: the chelev upon the kidneys was forbidden, but not that which is within the kidneys. Nevertheless, a person removes the white that is within the kidney and does not need to dig after it; and there are those who are stringent to dig after it. And if they did not dig after it and left part of it within the kidney, according to everyone it is permitted if it was cooked thus. And specifically what is within the kidney, but what is upon the kidney, according to everyone it is forbidden. Thus far his words.

Nevertheless, our sages, of blessed memory, said [ibid.]: This fat that is beneath the loins is forbidden. What is the reason? In a living animal it is exposed; that is to say, even though after slaughter it appears that meat covers this fat which is under the loins, nevertheless it is complete chelev, for in life it is not so, as in life this fat is visible, and in its death the meat adheres to the meat and the fat is not visible. And the Torah forbade it, for specifically when the meat covers it in life is it permitted, and not afterward.

And what is the fat that is beneath the loins? The Rambam wrote, and this is his wording: There are like two wicks of fat at the base of the loins near the head of the thigh; when the animal is alive, this fat is visible in the intestines, and when it dies, flesh adheres to flesh and this fat is covered and is not visible until the flesh is separated from the flesh, and nevertheless, this is forbidden, for this is not fat that the flesh covers etc. Thus far his words. And the Rif wrote: The masters say that the fat that is under the fat at the head of the flanks is the white fat beneath the loins, and a membrane separates between this white fat and the fat beneath it; this upper white fat is forbidden and the lower is permitted. Thus far his words.

The intention of the Rif is regarding the chelev that is below, after the end of the ribs near the spinal cord; between that meat and the surface of the meat adjacent to the skin, there is a kind of fat, and it is peeled with a knife just as chelev is peeled. This is what he wrote, that the chelev is under the fat that is at the head of the flanks, for this meat is at the head of the flanks. And that which he wrote, that under this white layer there is fat, this refers to the surface of the meat which is like fat, and all of this must be entirely removed [Beit Yosef]. And some say that the custom among meat porgeurs is to remove all of it in a lamb, but in an ox they remove only part of it, and they state the reason is because a lamb's joints loosen during its life more than an ox [Darchei Moshe, letter 2]. However, many and great ones complained about this [see Beit Yosef]. And know that this chelev is toward the outside of the small ribs that remain in the hindquarters, and it is between the fat that is visible on the outside and the meat resting on the ribs near the spine, and it is visible at the top of the hindquarters; and when one separates the thigh from the outside from upon that meat, that chelev is visible [Darchei Moshe]. Furthermore, the Rashba wrote in a Responsum that the chelev which is at the head of the flank under the membrane alone is considered chelev according to everyone, for the membrane alone is not called a covering of meat [ibid.]. And all of this is in the section of the hindquarters, and in the order of nikkur of the Tur at the end of siman 65 it is explained at length how one performs nikkur upon it.

Rashi, of blessed memory, wrote: Fat that the meat covers is permitted; fat that is upon the folds which are beneath the kidneys and appears on the height of the loins, and afterwards is swallowed beneath thin red meat and spreads beneath it, is kosher in all the loins, and once the meat covers it, it is permitted. And when that meat ends below, a thick and white membrane emerges from it, aside from a thin and faint membrane that spreads through all the folds which is forbidden as fat, as mentioned below [regarding the fat beneath the loins]. And beneath that thick membrane there is fat, and there are those who practice a prohibition regarding that fat because that membrane is not considered a covering of meat since it is thin, but in the land of Ashkenaz they practice a permission regarding it, and also in my eyes it appears that it is a complete covering. Thus far his words. And regarding the fat beneath the loins, Rashi explained, and this is his wording: This is the upper part and the height of that fat that I explained before the meat covers it, and that height itself is covered by the loins which they call "manvils" or "ledwitz," whose width expands below the small ribs and covers it. And when the butcher separates it, that fat is visible, for the animal in its life is disjointed; when it walks its limbs move, and the loins sometimes are pulled upwards and the flanks are pulled downwards and the fat is not covered by them. Thus far the words of Rashi, of blessed memory. And one must learn this from a menaker, for in writing it is impossible to understand well, as the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 6, that the order of these fats requires a demonstration from one expert in nikur, and it is impossible to explain well in a book, etc. And know that the last rib belongs to the hindquarters, and even when there are extra ribs, one should only leave the last rib for the hindquarters [see Shach subsection 10 and Pri Megadim there, and examine carefully].

The fat that is upon the flanks and the membrane that is upon them is forbidden, and thus our sages, of blessed memory, said [ibid.]: This fat of the kalybusta is forbidden and punished by karet, and this is the fat that is upon the flanks; that is to say, that this too is included in the fat that is upon the flanks. And Rashi explained: It is a small bone and it rests upon the bone called hancha, and it is connected to the vertebrae of the fat-tail from above, and upon it there is fat beneath the head of the loin called lumbil. Thus far his words. And the Rif wrote: Where the thighs are joined, and it is that bone which joins the thighs. And the Rambam wrote that it is the fat at the base of the thighs, see there. And one must forbid according to the words of all of them, and this too requires demonstration from an expert.

This is the wording of the Rambam there: There are three fats for which one is liable for koret: the fat that is upon the innards, that which is upon the two kidneys, and that which is upon the flanks. But the fat tail is permitted for eating. The fat that is upon the omasum and upon the reticulum is the fat that is upon the innards. And the fat that is at the base of the thighs from within, one is liable for koret for it, and this is the fat that is upon the folds, etc. Fat that the flesh covers is permitted; the verse prohibited that which is upon the flanks, not that which is inside the flanks. And similarly, the verse prohibited that which is upon the kidneys, and not that which is inside the kidneys. Nevertheless, a person removes the white that is inside the kidney and afterwards eats it, and he does not need to dig after it. Thus far his words. And we have already explained all of this.

The membranes upon the breast of the spleen—which is the thick side of the spleen, as one of its ends is thick and the other side is thin—that which is on the thick side is absolute chelev and one is liable for it to karet. The membrane upon the rest of the spleen and the filaments within it are forbidden, but one is not liable for them to karet. Rashi explained that because at its thick part it is attached to the rumen and to the chelev, meaning it is also included in the category of the chelev of the rumen. The reason is not due to the attachment alone, for because of this there would not be a liability of karet; rather, the attachment renders them as one. I have seen those who understood Rashi's explanation to mean that it is forbidden due to the attachment alone, but it does not seem correct to me at all. That which is on the rest of the spleen, the prohibition is due to distancing [see Beit Yosef].

The kidney has two membranes upon it: the upper one, for which one is liable for karet, as this is the chelev that is upon the kidneys; and the lower one and the filaments are forbidden, but one is not liable for karet for them. Regarding the white matter that is inside the kidney, the Tur wrote: some forbid it and some permit it, and Rashi ruled stringently. Thus far his words. And the opinion of the Rambam has already been explained.

The Rambam wrote: The fat of the heart and the fat of the intestines, which are the coiled small intestines, are all permitted, and they are like fat that is permitted, except for the head of the intestine adjacent to the abomasum, which is the beginning of the intestines, from which one must scrape the fat that is upon it, and this is the "fat upon the small intestines" which is forbidden. And there are some of the Geonim who say that the head of the intestine that requires scraping is the intestine through which the waste exits, which is the end of the intestines. Thus far his words. And this is what the sages, of blessed memory, said [ibid.]: The head of the intestine for the length of a cubit requires scraping, and this is the "fat upon the small intestines," see there. That is to say, that the "fat upon the small intestines" was included from "all the fat that is upon the innards" [49b]. And Rashi explained: because the fat of the innards, which they call "tela," is attached to it, see there. And his intention is not because of the attachment alone, but rather as the Mordechai wrote in chapter 7, and this is his wording: The head of the intestine for the length of a cubit requires scraping, and this is the "fat upon the small intestines," meaning that Rabbi Akiva included it from "all the fat"; and the small intestines are attached to the abomasum on one side, and the fat that covers the innards spreads over the small intestines, and the place of its spreading requires scraping. Therefore, one must pay attention to the place of its spreading; and when the butcher pulls the small intestines while they are still warm, the fat does not stick to them, and that fat which requires scraping remains in the "hadura de-kanta." Therefore, one who comes to eat from the "hadura de-kanta" should scrape a cubit of the fat toward the side of the abomasum. And if the butcher pulled the small intestines and the location of the side of the abomasum is not known, one must cut the "hadura de-kanta" around its thickness like a gold dinar in the place where he is in doubt. Thus far the words of the Mordechai. And it is clear from his words that the actual fat of the innards spreads over the small intestines, and this is the intention of Rashi as well.

This is the wording of the Rosh [Chapter 7, Section 6]: The beginning of the intestine, etc. Rashi explained that the head of the intestines where the small intestines emerge from the stomach, one must scrape the chelev from them for the length of an amah because they are adjacent to the chelev on both sides, and from there onwards they are attached to the hadura de-kanta, which is fat and is permitted, provided that one removes the veins within it. Thus far his words. Meaning, to purge the kanta of the veins, which are red strings full of blood. And also his intention is that for the length of an amah the adjacent chelev spreads, and it is a "placed" membrane that peels off, and regarding this he says "and from there onwards they are attached," etc., meaning they are not a "placed" skin. The Rosh wrote, and this is his wording: And the Rambam wrote "the chelev that is upon the head of the intestines adjacent to the canal," and he did not write "the length of an amah," which shows that he explains that for the intestines he calls it "amta" after the name of a water canal, etc. Thus far his words.

And our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, in section 15 wrote: The fat that is upon the small intestines is forbidden for the length of an amah from where they begin to exit the stomach, and from there onwards it is fat and is permitted. And there are those who say that the head of the intestine from which one must scrape the fat that is upon it is the intestine through which the waste exits, which is the end of the intestines. And a God-fearing person fulfills his obligation according to both of them by scraping the length of an amah from here and the length of an amah from here. And there are those who say that a literal amah is not required; therefore, they have accustomed to be lenient to measure with the arm, and a precise amah is not required. And one only needs to remove the membrane with that which is attached to it that is upon these lengths of an amah, but not the fat attached to the rectum beneath it. And so they practice, except that they also remove from the rectum a long vein that is upon it along with the fat that is next to it. Thus far his words.

And know that regarding what they wrote, that we only require removing the membrane etc. but not the fat attached to the muscle beneath it, approximately two hundred years ago some of the greats of the generation were aroused and shook the world, saying that our teacher, the Rema, did not direct according to the halacha, and that along the length of these cubits even the fat attached to the muscle is absolute chelev, and he took his words from the book Kol Bo and a scribal error fell in there [see Keneset HaGedolah siman 25 and in Kereti U-Peleti subsection 6 that the gaonim our teacher, the Rav Oppenheim, and the Shav Yaakov disagreed with him], and also from the language of the Levush it is implied so, as he omitted these matters, see there.

However, most of the greats of the generation rejected their words and agreed with the ruling of our teacher, the Rema [the Keneset HaGedolah, the Kereti U-Peleti, and the Pri Chadash in the Kuntres Acharon, and so it appears from the Shach and the Taz who did not dispute him] that the term "dragging" implies only dragging what is above, and especially according to the words of the Mordechai that we cited, that up to a cubit the fat of the stomach spreads over them, if so, this has no connection to the actual fat attached to the tabchaya. And in my humble opinion, from the wording of the Rosh that we cited, who wrote that from here onwards they are attached to the hadura de-kanta etc., it implies that in these cubits all the chelev is forbidden, for if it were not so, why did he need to say "from here onwards," for even in these cubits the attached fat would be permitted.

Were it not for the words of the Geonim, I would have said that this depends on the dispute between our teacher Ephraim and our teacher Yoel HaLevi regarding the fat attached to the stomach that we brought, and it depends on the interpretation of "totav, krum, and niklaf." According to our teacher Yoel, who interprets everything as referring to one place, certainly that which is attached to the butcher's side is permitted. But according to our teacher Ephraim, that since the upper part is "totav" it is forbidden, then also that which is beneath it is forbidden—that which is attached to the butcher's side—just as the fat attached to the stomach is forbidden. And perhaps the Rosh holds like our teacher Ephraim and the Mordechai like our teacher Yoel HaLevi. And our teacher, the Rema, appears to hold according to the essential law like our teacher Yoel HaLevi, as is apparent from his words in section 9 where he wrote that such is the custom like our teacher Ephraim, and he suspended the matter on custom as he wrote in section 2; see there. And the great later authorities have already agreed that most of the poskim disagree with our teacher Ephraim. Therefore, in this law of the "head of the intestine," since the custom to forbid it did not spread, our teacher, the Rema, was not concerned. This is not the case regarding the fat of the stomach, where the custom to forbid it did spread. And one should not raise a difficulty against the custom that it is a contradiction between two rulings. And in truth, it can be said that here, regarding the "head of the intestine," it is more lenient because the "totav" that is above is not from the intestines but rather from the fat of the stomach that spread over it; therefore, it is possible that in this, even our teacher Ephraim would admit, and this requires further study. [And see the Mishneh LaMelech, chapter 13 of Shegagot, where the glossator elaborated on this and concluded that in the cubit toward the abomasum, which is the opinion of most of the poskim regarding the "head of the intestine," one must scrape all of it; but toward the rectum, one need only scrape from above; and these are words of reason.]

Our teacher, the Rema, further wrote that if the butcher pulled the intestines from the animal while they were still warm, the chelev remains, etc., according to the words of the Mordechai that we cited in section 36, see there. Therefore, if he did not pull them while they were warm, but rather after they cooled, no chelev remains on the kanta. He further wrote that it is the custom in these lands to remove the membrane that is upon all the intestines in the hadra dekanta of a calf, because the intestines remain with the hadra dekanta and they eat everything together; therefore, they remove the entire membrane so that they do not also leave that which is upon the head of the intestines. And they are accustomed to take the membrane from both of its sides, which is not the case with a lamb, where it is not their way to leave them together and the head of the intestines is recognizable; so it appears the reason for the custom. However, one should be stringent and take the membrane from both sides also in a lamb. Thus far his words.

The Sefer Mitzvot Gadol wrote in the negative commandments [135]: The fats for which one is liable for kareth are the fat that covers the innards, and the fat that is upon the kidneys, and the fat that is upon the flanks, and the fat that is upon the omasum and the reticulum, and the fat that is at the base of the loins, and the fat that is upon the abomasum, and the fat that is upon the small intestines up to a cubit, etc. Thus far his words. And he did not include the fat attached to the rumen because he does not hold like our teacher Ephraim. And from his words it is clear that also for the fat of the abomasum and the small intestines one is liable for kareth [and in Mishneh LaMelech, Laws of Errors, chapter 13, the glossator decided otherwise, see there; but it is not clear, as the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol wrote further, since we include them for offering on the altar, they are certainly like other fat].

He further wrote: The membrane on the flanks near the loin, along with the membrane of the meat surrounding the ribs that they cut in order to insert one's hand there to check the lung, is forbidden by an obligation of the words of the scribes. You find yourself saying that the membranes forbidden because of fat are three: the membrane on the spleen, the membrane on the flanks, and the membrane on the kidneys. Thus far his words. And it has already been explained in section 35 that on the kidneys there are two membranes, and for the upper one one is liable for kareth and the lower one is from the words of the scribes; so too in the spleen, on the thick side one is liable for kareth and on the rest of the spleen it is from the words of the scribes. And the Maharshal wrote: It happened that a spleen was roasted without nikkur, and our teacher Meshullam permitted it because the chelev of the spleen was nullified in the spleen itself and in the pure fat within it; see there.

And one is obligated to root out the veins of the spleen, and likewise all the veins adjacent to absolute chelev because they draw nourishment from the chelev. And how does one root them out? Initially, he takes the head of the sinew that is inside the spleen and pulls it, and three veins that are inside it are pulled along with it. And he must be careful that no vein among them snaps, and if one of them snaps, he must root after it and remove it. And all these veins are by rabbinic decree because they draw nourishment from chelev, and not by Torah law, for the Merciful One said "chelev" and not "veins."

The yoteret of the liver is permitted, and it is only necessary to remove the upper membrane on the side of the liver because of the chelev of the innards that rests upon it. There are those who are further stringent to remove the fat that is under that membrane, but the inner side on the side of the lung does not require removal at all. Nevertheless, the custom is to remove and discard both membranes lest one come to err. Post facto, one does not require sixty except against the side of the liver [Taz]. The yoteret of the liver is called the diaphragm of the liver which separates between the lung and the liver, and it is called in our language "reit fleish."

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 7 that the order of the porging of these fats requires observation from one expert in porging, and it is impossible to explain it well in a book. And regarding all these fats, one need not be concerned for them except in the hindquarters of the animal, but in the front half of the animal, these fats are not present, except for a bit of the membrane that is upon the fat of the flanks which remains at the top of the ribs upon the flanks remaining there at its head, and one must remove that membrane from there. And some are accustomed to also separate the meat attached there, one upon the other, and to scrape the fat that is between them, and some permit it because it is considered a covering of meat, and such is the custom in Ashkenaz and in our city. Thus far his words.

It is stated in the Gemara [96a]: The sinews in the tail-end are forbidden. There are five sinews in the fold: three on the right and two on the left. The three split into two, two, and two; the two split into three and three. The practical difference is that if one pulls them out while they are still warm, they are drawn out, and if not, one must dig after them until they are found according to this number. Their one head is connected to the spine, and the heads of the branches are attached under the breast at the heads of the ribs [Rashi]. The digging is of rabbinic origin [Tosafot]. It is necessary to warn those who purchase the portion of the forequarters to dig after them until the breast [ibid.]. In our locales, the butchers do this and are experts in it, and one should not rely on the purchaser because they are not experts in this, as I wrote at the end of this siman; see there.

And behold, Rashi, of blessed memory, explained regarding the threads in the "oketz" that these are the five threads of the "kafla," and he explains "oketz" as "henka," and it is all one matter; first he says generally that the threads in the "oketz" are forbidden, and then he explains how many threads are in it. But the Rambam, of blessed memory, [there] wrote: There are five threads in the loins, etc., and all of them are because of chelev; and afterward he wrote: the threads of chelev, and the threads of the foreleg, and the thread of the "oketz," etc., are forbidden because of blood. Thus far his words. Behold, he divided them into two matters: that the threads of the "oketz" are because of blood, and the threads of the "kafla" are because of chelev. He explains "oketz" as the tail or the end, like the "oketz" of an etrog which is the end of the etrog, and this will be explained in siman 65. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, copied the words of Rashi in this siman, section 12, and the words of the Rambam at the beginning of siman 65; see there. And there is yet a third opinion in the Mordechai in the name of the Sefer Yereim, and this is his wording: It seems to me "oketz" is the tail, as it was taught "its oketz was removed," therefore one must remove the threads of the tail, and it appears that it is forbidden because they grow and draw nourishment from the chelev of the kidneys, and one is required to dig after them. Thus far his words. Behold, he also explains not like Rashi, but also not like the Rambam that they are because of blood, but rather because of chelev. And the Rambam, it appears, calls the "oketz" the end of the spine according to the explanation of the Aruch; see there. [And the Rema brought this in section 5 with brevity of words].

Regarding that which has been explained concerning the threads of the folds—that is, what are called "plankes"—that they must be removed specifically while they are hot, our teacher, the Rema, wrote that if they are soaked in water, they are considered as if they were hot and may be pulled out. And there are those who are lenient regarding these threads in a place where they are absorbed in the meat, but it is good to be stringent. Thus far his words.

One may not salt the chelev with the meat because the power of the salt heats and causes the taste of the chelev to be absorbed into the meat. Similarly, they should not rinse chelev with meat together in one vessel, so that the fat of the chelev does not stick to the meat. Furthermore, the sages, of blessed memory, commanded [100:] that the butcher should have two vessels, one in which he rinses meat and one for chelev. Even though according to the law one vessel is sufficient, and initially he should rinse the meat and afterwards the chelev, and for another time when he needs to rinse, will he not rinse with other water? And also he will be careful then to rinse the meat and afterwards the chelev, for the vessel certainly was not prohibited by meat and chelev for a short time; nevertheless, the sages, of blessed memory, commanded not to rely on this because of a decree, lest he rinse chelev and afterwards rinse meat in these waters, and the waters will be saturated with the fattiness of the chelev and it will stick to the meat.

And so our sages, of blessed memory, commanded [ibid.] that he should have two knives, one with which to cut meat and one for fats (chalavim), and he should not cut meat with the knife that he just used to cut fats, so that the fatness on the surface of the knife does not adhere to the meat. For even though it is cold with cold, and a mere rinsing would suffice, and he would indeed rinse the meat before the salting, nevertheless we fear that perhaps he will rely on the rinsing of the butcher and the buyer will not rinse it again and will salt the meat without rinsing, and then the meat will have the fatness of the chelev upon it [R"Z]. And even though one knife would suffice if he would cut meat first and afterwards fats, and another time when he needs to cut, the knife would presumably be clean since he presumably rinses it after finishing his cutting, nevertheless we decree lest he forget and cut fats first and afterwards meat. But when we require him to have two knives, he will remind himself and will not forget. And so too regarding two vessels [Gemara].

The Ran, of blessed memory, wrote: There are those who learned from here that one who removes the fats from meat requires two knives, one to cut meat and one to cut the chelev. But this does not seem correct, for if so, there is no end to the matter, since the one for meat, once he begins to cut with it in the place of the chelev, would be forbidden immediately. Rather, it is certain that it is not necessary. And that which the sages required two knives, this is when one cuts the heart itself close to the shechitah while it is warm. However, they practiced that the one removing the fats places a cloth upon his thigh, and every time he touches the chelev, he wipes it on the cloth. Thus far his words. And so wrote the Rashba, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch, and they wrote that it is proper for a person to teach the members of his household that they should rub the meat well with water.

And behold, in our butcher shops there is always treifah meat from the hindquarters, which in most places they do not perform nikkur upon and they sell to the gentiles, and likewise when it is rendered treifah by means of sirkhot; and they have only one knife and one sheet where they cut the meat and the treifah. And perhaps the reason is because among us, not even one in a thousand relies upon the rinsing of the butcher, and they soak the meat before the melihah for about half an hour, and therefore they are not concerned for this. And for the most part, the women also scrub the meat as well, and there is no stumbling block in this, Heaven forbid.

One may not spread the folds over the meat while the chelev upon them is warm and has not cooled, because the chelev melts and is absorbed into the meat, and rinsing with water will not avail for this; but after it has cooled, there is no concern, and it is an explicit verse: "And they put the chelev upon the breasts." The purgers of the meat have the custom to peel and remove the membrane that is upon the meat where the flanks lie, and it is a beautiful custom, for that membrane is forbidden because of the chelev upon it [Pri Chadash]. Similarly, one should purge the meat of the chelev within three days so that the chelev within it does not harden, and likewise the membranes and the sinews. Nevertheless, if they did not purge within three days, it is not to be forbidden, and one purges afterward, for all these matters are only ab initio and not ex post facto, as the Rambam wrote there. This is his wording: All these things are forbidden to be done, but if they were done, the meat is not forbidden, and we do not strike those who do them, but rather we teach them that they should not do them. Thus far his words. And so wrote the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch.

One does not salt the meat before removing from it the prohibited strings and membranes. If one salted it, he removes them afterwards; and even if the gid hanasheh was among them, he removes it after it was salted. Even though the gid hanasheh is prohibited by the Torah, we hold that "there is no imparting of flavor in sinews," for it is merely like wood and the Torah prohibited it. The strings and membranes are also lean and do not permeate into the meat. And some say that one must remove a peel's thickness from the meat surrounding the sinews and membranes. And there is one who is stringent and requires sixty, as with other prohibitions. For the law, one should be lenient with a peel's thickness, for there are those who permit even without a peel's thickness, and therefore we do not need to be so stringent. And also, one should not decree regarding them because of fatty chelev which permeates, because all membranes are lean. And there is no distinction between membranes prohibited by the Torah and those prohibited by the rabbis. And if one did not peel it and cooked it thus, it is permitted ex post facto, for anything that requires a peel's thickness and one did not peel it is permitted ex post facto, as will be explained in siman 91 with the help of Heaven. And know that this which we said, that it is only prohibited up to a peel's thickness, this is regarding salting; but regarding cooking, sixty is required even for rabbinic prohibitions. And the details of these laws will be explained with the help of Heaven in siman 105, see there.

Butchers are trusted regarding the chelev to remove it and to perform the nikkur well, and when one buys meat from them that has undergone nikkur, it is not necessary to inspect after him, as there is no great exertion in this [Tosafot 93b s.v. "ne'emanim"]. A butcher after whom a thread or a membrane of a forbidden substance was found is instructed and warned not to be negligent another time, but he is not removed, because their prohibition is not from the Torah. Therefore, if there was found after him actual chelev, or the upper membrane of the kidney, or of the head of the spleen, which is forbidden from the Torah—if the chelev is the size of a barley grain in one place, he is removed; and if it is in two places, he is not removed. If it is the size of a kezayit, even if it is in many places, he is removed and they strike him with makkat mardut. Nevertheless, we do not consider him as one who acts willfully such that he is suspected of doing so and to remove him forever; rather, we consider him as one who was negligent this time, and he is removed until they announce concerning him in the synagogue on Monday, Thursday, and Monday that so-and-so the butcher was removed because chelev was found after him. They shall remove him for one month, and afterward he shall come to the sage and he will give him a light penance, and they shall announce concerning him that he accepted the penance and returned to his fitness. And when a kezayit of chelev is found, he is obligated after the month to confess himself in the synagogue before the entire congregation. However, if he was found selling treifah as kosher, or chelev as fat, he is removed forever until he performs complete repentance. If he was unintentional in the matter, the sages of the place shall be stringent with him according to their assessment. Complete repentance will be explained in siman 119, see there. It is a proper custom that the butcher who sells meat should perform the nikkur before he sells it and they should not rely on the buyers, so that the buyers do not stumble therein, since most people are not experts in this; and so is the widespread custom, and it is not to be changed.