Siman 65

There are threads in an animal, meaning veins and membranes, some of which are forbidden due to chelev, and they have already been explained in the previous siman. And there are some that are forbidden due to blood; that is to say, they are not similar to the blood absorbed within the meat of the animal which is removed via melichah, for the blood in the veins and in the membranes is not absorbed blood, but rather actual blood resting within the cavities of the veins and the membranes, and it will not emerge via melichah unless one cuts them so that there will be a place for the blood to flow, and then the melichah removes the blood. However, for roasting, it is the opinion of the Rambam in chapter 7 of Ma'achalot Assurot, law 10, that one does not need to cut it, because the fire removes the blood through the walls of the veins. And such is the opinion of most of the poskim, and so it is explicitly stated in the Gemara [133a] regarding the threads of the jaw; see there.

And some say that even for roasting, cutting is required, for certainly when the surface of the veins is facing the fire—such as if one removed the vein from the limb or if the vein is on the surface of the limb as in the cheeks—the fire draws out the blood even when it is not cut. However, when the veins are swallowed within the limb, the fire does not draw [the blood] unless one cuts them. This is the opinion of the Rashba, of blessed memory [Beit Yosef siman 67]. And it appears that the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch were concerned for this opinion, and so one should do. And it appears to me that regarding membranes, even this opinion admits that for roasting, cutting is not required, for the membranes are thin and the veins within them are as if they are facing the fire, except for the membrane of the brain in the skull, whose law will be explained in siman 68.

If one did not cut the threads and the membranes and salted them as such and cooked them, one requires sixty against the threads and the membranes. And if there is not sixty in this piece within which the threads are contained against the threads, the piece itself becomes nevelah, and there must be sixty in the pot against the piece. And it stands to reason that this is against the threads that were explained in the Gemara [93a] as prohibited, but against threads regarding which we are stringent as will be explained, sixty is not required; it is sufficient to be stringent ab initio and not to prohibit post facto. And I saw one who writes so [Haggahot Givat Shaul]. And so too regarding the sinews of the neck which will be explained, if one cut the animal limb by limb, they do not prohibit post facto [Shach, subsection 4], as with the veins in siman 22, see there. And regarding roasting, for the one who prohibits, a kelipah is sufficient, and the same applies to salting. And some say that even a kelipah is not required, for as it absorbs, so it emits, and post facto if one did not peel it, it is permitted [ibid.]. And that which we required removal around the veins in siman 22 is because these threads are thicker than veins and do not emit at all into the meat [ibid., subsection 6]. And also regarding the prohibited membranes, one requires sixty in this piece against the membrane, and if there is not sixty in it, one requires sixty against the entire piece, as with the threads. And all this is regarding cooking, as I have written [Ateret Zaken, subsection 2, who learned from the words of the Darchei Moshe who wrote that when one removed the brain with its membrane from the skull and roasted it, the membrane is prohibited and the brain is permitted, for it is permitted to roast liver when it is wrapped in paper all around, as the paper is like a membrane, see there; and these are puzzling matters, for the paper is like a vessel that is not perforated, whereas a membrane is different because it emits through the membrane, and they have already challenged him, and see the Pri Megadim there].

And behold, in the Gemara they warned regarding three types of gidim: those in the foreleg, those in the jaw [93a], and the mizraki [ibid.], which are the veins of the neck, namely the jugulars and gidim [Rashi ibid. and Pesachim 74b]. And the Rambam there wrote: the veins of the heart, the veins of the foreleg, the veins of the tail-end, and the veins of the lower jaw that are on the side of the tongue from here and from there, and likewise the thin veins within the chelev of the intestines which are like a spider web intertwined with one another etc. are forbidden because of blood. Thus far his words. And regarding the mizraki, he wrote there in chapter 6, and this is his wording: And likewise the neck which contains the mizrakim that are full of blood, if he cut them and salted them, it is permitted to cook them. Thus far his words. And this fact that he counted the veins of the tail-end follows his reasoning which we wrote in siman 64, section 49, for he explains that which is stated in the Gemara there, "veins in the tail-end," as being veins of blood and not the veins of the chelev of the kofla like the explanation of Rashi. And we have already explained there that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, there adopted the wording of Rashi and his intention was regarding the veins of the kofla, while here he adopted the wording of the Rambam; and the tail-end is the tail or the end of the spine [and I wonder at the Pri Megadim in Mishbetzot Zahav, subsection 2, who made from this a difficulty against the Beit Yosef, as if there he explains that in the tail-end they are veins of chelev and here they are veins of blood, and he did not remember that there it refers to the veins of the loins and he only adopted the wording of Rashi; and the one who provided the citation there who brought the explanation of the Aruch did not direct it well; and the reason Rashi explains it as the hip-bone is because this term includes everything, the entire spine, as the Derisha wrote there, and examine this].

But the threads of the heart and the threads of the intestines were not mentioned in the Gemara, and they wrote that they hold that the Gemara cited those in the foreleg and those in the jaw as a novelty—that even though they are close to the place of slaughter, they nonetheless require cutting, and all the more so these [the Maggid Mishneh]. And behold, the Tur brought the words of the Rambam and afterwards wrote, and this is his wording: A Gaon wrote that in a large animal there are tendons and several threads that are full of blood, and one must cut all the places so that the blood will exit during salting; and it is a stringency that he applied, and not according to the law of the Gemara, for according to the law of the Gemara one only needs to cut those tendons that I mentioned. Thus far his words. And also in the Rokeach it is stated that there are fifty-one threads in an animal, twenty-five from this side and twenty-five from that side and one inside the fat-tail, and your sign is "Do not eat of it raw [na]." Thus far his words. And the Tur at the beginning of the siman only counted the threads that are in the Gemara; see there.

There is reason to doubt the intention of the Tur, whether he also refers to the words of the Rambam—that the threads of the heart and the thin ones are only a mere stringency—or if he refers only to the words of the Gaon. The commentators wrote that his intention was only regarding the words of the Gaon, but if so, it is difficult: from where does the Tur know this? For just as according to the Rambam there are other threads by law, so too we should say regarding the words of the Gaon. And there is one who says that the Rambam interprets "the point of the corner," meaning the threads in the corners that extend here and there, and this includes also the threads of the heart and the thin threads [Bach]. But I do not understand; for does the Rambam not count the threads of the point separately? This proves that this is a specific place called the "point." Furthermore, if the name "point" included several things, then from where do we know that the threads of the Gaon are also not included in this? Furthermore, if so, the Gemara should have said "the threads in the points" in the plural. It appears more likely that he also refers to the words of the Rambam, for the Tur only counted what was mentioned in the Gemara: those in the foreleg, and in the shoulder, and in the tongue, and in the neck, and in the jaw. See there, for the foreleg and shoulder are one and were included in the term "foreleg" in the Gemara; and those in the jaw and tongue were included in the term "throat"; and those in the neck are the "sprinklers" in the Gemara [see also the Perisha who wrote as well that the Tur also refers to the words of the Rambam as I have written, see Perisha sign 10; however, what he wrote, that even those of the Tur were not all mentioned in the Gemara, requires further study, and see there what he pressured himself with in this, but in truth the matters are simple, and examine it].

And know that these strings mentioned in the Gemara which must be cut, this is even when the veins in the neck have also been slaughtered, as was explained in siman 22, because the blood within the strings is not drawn out through the veins [Shach, subsection 1]. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that it is customary to also remove three longitudinal strings near the chest from the inside, and similarly they remove strings behind the ears, and it is only a mere stringency. Thus far his words. For even though blood is visible in them, and therefore the custom is to remove them or cut them, nevertheless it is only a mere stringency, as this is not blood but rather like mere fat [Ran]. He further wrote that they are accustomed to take from the shoulder the meat called "dreiz," and there is no prohibition in it, rather it is due to repulsiveness. They are further accustomed regarding the "lumbil" called "lidvitz" to roast it and not to boil it, and there is no prohibition if one boils it, and it is even permitted ab initio. Similarly, they are accustomed to remove the "enunita de-varda" and cast it away and not eat it, and there is no prohibition in the matter. Similarly, they are accustomed to cut between the hooves of the animal's feet and remove from there white and thin meat due to repulsiveness, and if one did not do so, there is no concern. Thus far his words. And know that the "lumbil" belongs to the hindquarters, and therefore among us, where there is no menaker, we do not eat it even when roasted.

One who wishes to fulfill the obligation regarding these veins in the best possible manner should not rely on the cutting of the meat alone, saying that through this the veins will also be cut, because sometimes the veins adhere to the bone and by cutting the meat alone the veins have not yet been cut. Therefore, he should cut the meat and also the bone in two, and then the veins are also cut and an opening is made for the exit of the blood within them. Furthermore, he should not rely on the dismembering of the limbs from one another, for when they spread within the limb they soften with the moisture of the meat and there the blood is abundant, and from there one must cut them and open them. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that for the veins of the neck it is not effective if he merely cut them, but rather he must cut the spinal column in two. Thus far his words. And I do not know the reason; perhaps it is because without cutting the spinal column in two it is impossible to find them all and cut them.

The wing of a bird is like the foreleg of an animal, and therefore one must cut the bone of the wings and salt them, and likewise the jawbone in a bird, so that the veins are cut and the blood will flow. However, some say that it is not necessary to remove these veins in a bird because they are thin and the blood exits them by means of salting even without cutting, and therefore this was not mentioned in the Gemara. And such is the simple custom, that we do not remove any veins from the bird except for the veins of the neck, and with those one must be careful to remove them from there or to cut the neck bone in two. However, post facto, if only the head was removed from the bird, it is sufficient. And we are accustomed to cut the thighs of the birds at the lower joint because sometimes red veins are found in the legs of the birds; and if one did not do so, it is permitted post facto even if they were cooked thus, even though red veins were found, because they are nothing more than mere fat. And in siman 68 it will be explained that in an animal one must cut the tips of the hooves slightly so that the blood will flow through there, for if not so, it is like a vessel that is not perforated, and it implies that in a bird this is not necessary. But the custom even in birds is to cut a bit from the claws below, and especially in large birds, in a goose and a duck and a turkey [see there in the Ba'er Heitev, subsection 11, what he wrote in the name of the Behag].

And know that our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 1 regarding the cutting of the veins that it requires the cut to be facing downward, and his source is from the Ran in the name of the Ra'avad [chapter 5 of Hilkhot Ma'akhalot Assurot], and he brings proof from the beginning regarding the head of an animal pressed down, which will be explained in siman 68, that it requires the cut to be facing downward, see there. And there is no proof from there, because the head is like a vessel and the blood will gather there, and it is exactly like a vessel that is not perforated; but here there is ample space, and even if its cut is facing upward, blood slides off. And perhaps because of this the Levush omitted this gloss, see there. However, we indeed find in the Gemara [111a] also regarding the liver that it requires its cuts to be facing downward, see there. And so the Tur wrote in siman 67, and this is his wording: There are some of the Geonim who wrote that one must place the site of the cut downward at the time of salting so that the blood will flow out, and so too in any place that requires cutting, etc. Thus far his words. And one must say the reason is that we consider the blood in the veins as distinct blood, regarding which we do not say "it slides off," as I wrote at the beginning of siman 69. Nevertheless, it appears to me that post facto one should not prohibit if he did not place the cut facing downward, for the Rambam and all the poskim did not mention this at all. And from the liver there is no proof, because it is abundant in blood, for its law is not like meat regarding the matter of salting. However, among us, we remove all the veins entirely and there is no practical difference in this law, and for the final ruling it requires further study.

Two membranes were forbidden because of blood and also require cutting for cooking, and these are: the membrane that is upon the brain in the skull, and its law will be explained in siman 68, and the membrane that is upon the testicles. This is the wording of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, section 4: The testicles of a male, as long as it has not reached thirty days, are permitted for the pot without peeling even if they have something like red threads; and if it has reached thirty days, if they have something like red threads, they are forbidden for the pot without peeling, but for roasting they are permitted. Thus far his words. That is to say, when he did not cut the membrane before the salting, for then it requires peeling for the pot [Shach]. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And they are accustomed to purge the testicles even when they are less than thirty, and likewise to remove from there the large sinew and to cut many incisions in them. Thus far his words. And it appears to me that the reason for the custom is founded upon the wording of the Gemara which said: These testicles of a kid until thirty days, etc. [93b], and it implies that only regarding kids is the law so, because they are weak and until thirty days the blood is still minimal and is not absorbed in the organs; but regarding another species, from where do we know it? And it is true that Rashi explained "kid" is not specifically meant. Thus far his words. But perhaps his intention was that the same applies to lambs, which are also of the small species; but regarding large livestock, from where do we know it? And the wording of the Rambam in chapter 6 indicates so, for he wrote "a kid or a lamb," see there. However, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch took it as certain that also regarding large livestock the law is so. But the custom is according to the wording of the Rambam and the Gemara, and in order not to distinguish between species since not everyone is expert in the reason for this distinction, therefore they were accustomed to purge the testicles of all species. And the law of the testicles of a male that were detached and are still attached to the scrotum was explained in siman 62, section 22, see there.

The gid hanasheh that the Torah forbade, as it is written: "Therefore the children of Israel shall not eat the gid hanasheh which is upon the hollow of the thigh," applies to pure domestic animals and wild animals, and even to their nevelot and terefot, in the sense that if one ate the gid hanasheh of a nevelah or a terefah, he is also lashed for eating the gid; for because it became a terefah or a nevelah, the prohibition of gid hanasheh did not depart. And it likewise applies to consecrated animals, whether they are among the consecrated animals that are eaten, such as shelamim and chatat, or whether they are not eaten, such as an olah. And thus the sages taught in the Mishnah [at the beginning of the chapter Gid HaNasheh]:

The words of the Rambam are very perplexing in this matter, as he wrote in chapter 8 of Ma'akhalot Assurot, halacha 6: One who eats the gid hanasheh of a nevelah, or of a terefah, or of an olah, is liable for two [punishments], since it was included in the prohibition of the rest of its body which was permitted, the gid was also included and another prohibition was added to it. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words is that we should not say the prohibition of nevelah, terefah, and olah does not take effect upon the prohibition of the gid which preceded it, for regarding a comprehensive prohibition (issur kolel), we hold that a prohibition takes effect upon a prohibition. And here it is a comprehensive prohibition, for when it became a nevelah or a terefah or he consecrated it, a prohibition was added to the meat which was permitted, and therefore these prohibitions took effect also upon the gid. Now, it is true that it is a comprehensive prohibition, but this is all according to the one who holds that gidin possess the ability to impart flavor; but we, who hold that gidin do not possess the ability to impart flavor, for it is merely wood and the Torah prohibited it (99b), and the Rambam himself ruled accordingly in chapter 15 of Ma'akhalot Assurot, halacha 17, see there—the prohibitions of nevelah, terefah, and olah do not apply to the gid hanasheh at all. And this is explicitly proven in the Gemara (100b) regarding an impure animal, and similarly regarding consecrated items they said explicitly in the Gemara that if gidin do not possess the ability to impart flavor, the prohibition of the gid exists but the prohibition of consecrated items does not exist (89b). And so wrote the Tosafot there regarding nevelah, see there. [And the Kesef Mishneh already cited that the Rashba, of blessed memory, wondered at him regarding this]. And more perplexing than this is that he himself there in chapter 4, halacha 18, wrote: One who eats from a nevelah or a terefah etc. from the skin, or from the bones, or from the gidin etc. behold, he is exempt etc. Thus far his words. And we have already explained this in siman 29.

And it appears to me regarding his opinion that this is what he holds: since in the Gemara [100a] Rava said that one who eats the gid hanasheh of a nevelah, Rabbi Meir obligates two [punishments] and the Sages say he is only obligated for one, and the Sages agree with Rabbi Meir regarding one who eats the gid hanasheh of an olah or of a stoned ox that he is obligated for two, see there, for they argue regarding an "inclusive prohibition" (issur kolel), and we established that in an issur kolel, a prohibition falls upon a prohibition like Rabbi Meir. And it did not seem correct to the Rambam to say that Rabbi Meir and the Sages hold that there is "giving of flavor" (noten ta'am) in gidim, which is not according to the halacha, for if so, we should have ruled accordingly; and furthermore, the Shas should have mentioned this. And indeed, according to Rav it is not difficult at all, for he holds [93b] that the Torah only prohibited the tendrils within it which have flavor; however, we established like Ulla there that it is wood, and the Torah prohibited it. And if so, we would need to say that Rabbi Meir and the Sages hold that there is noten ta'am in gidim, and this is not a reasonable logic at all. Rather, certainly even though it has no flavor and is like mere wood, nevertheless, since the Torah prohibited it in any event, it automatically becomes like all the flesh of the animal and is removed in this matter from the general rule of all gidim, and when any prohibition is added to the animal, it is added to it as well. And only regarding an impure animal is it nothing, as will be explained, because in an impure animal the gid was never prohibited, but in a pure animal one must say that the Torah made it like food, for it prohibited eating it, and automatically all prohibitions of food apply to it. And furthermore, granted if gid hanasheh were among the prohibitions of benefit (issurei hana'ah), I would say that it is like all types of issurei hana'ah even though they are not food, and automatically it would also be prohibited to eat it, not because of a prohibition of eating but because of a prohibition of benefit, for eating is also included in benefit; but we established that it is permitted for benefit, as will be explained, and the Torah only prohibited it regarding eating, and we learn from this that the Torah made it food like all the flesh of the animal. And that which the Shas at the beginning of Perek Gid HaNasheh made dependent on the prohibition of consecrated items (kodashim) applying to the gid, which depends on whether there is noten ta'am in gidim or not, this is only according to the "give and take" (shakla v'tarya), for in the conclusion it establishes it with another resolution, see there. And there is proof for this from Pesachim [22a] which says there that the one who holds that when nevelah was permitted for benefit, its fat and its gid were also permitted, holds that there is noten ta'am in gidim, and the one who holds that it was not included in nevelah holds that there is no noten ta'am in gidim and the gid hanasheh remains under prohibitions of benefit, see there. And according to this, we who establish that there is no noten ta'am in gidim, we should have ruled that it is prohibited for benefit, yet the Rambam and all the poskim ruled that it is permitted for benefit. And they have already raised this difficulty against him [as the Maggid Mishneh wrote, Chapter 8, Law 14], and the Ramban already answered that in the conclusion there, gid hanasheh is permitted for benefit even if there is no noten ta'am in gidim, see there. And he did not clarify his words as to where it is said so there. And the clarification is thus: for there later [23b] the Shas says regarding Rabbi Akiva that he holds when nevelah was permitted, its fat and its gid were also permitted, and it does not mention at all that he holds there is noten ta'am in gidim. And furthermore, it is not a reasonable logic at all to say that Rabbi Akiva would hold not according to the halacha. And furthermore, there the Shas says that we learn this from an a fortiori argument (kal v'chomer) from fat, see there. And all of this is not like the previous discussion, and we see from this that only for the sake of mere shakla v'tarya does the Shas say so, but according to the conclusion, after the Torah prohibited it for eating, it is like meat, and the prohibitions of nevelah, terefah, and kodashim also fall upon it. [And therefore there in Pesachim at the conclusion of the discussion of Hezekiah and Rabbi Abbahu, where it asks "what is the difference between them" and why it did not prohibit, for there is a practical difference regarding gid hanasheh whether it is permitted for benefit, and the Pnei Yehoshua already raised this difficulty as did other commentators and they did not produce a correct answer, see there; but according to our words it is settled simply, for according to the conclusion it is not so, and like the words of the Ramban that the Maggid Mishneh brought there. And I am wondered that these words of the Ramban were hidden from the Gaon, the author of the Pnei Yehoshua, see there].

But regarding an impure animal, there is no prohibition of gid hanasheh, as it is written: "Therefore the Children of Israel shall not eat the gid hanasheh"—one whose gid is forbidden and its flesh is permitted; this excludes this [impure animal] whose flesh is forbidden [101a]. For this is the implication: the gid you shall not eat, but its flesh you may eat [Rashal, Pesachim ibid.]. And regarding an impure animal, this is not applicable, and therefore one who eats the gid hanasheh of an impure animal is exempt from lashes. Furthermore, there is no prohibition of an impure animal in it, for there is no flavor in the gidim. The Rambam wrote likewise there, Law 5. And one should not ask, for the incident of the gid hanasheh occurred with Yaakov our forefather and was prior to the giving of the Torah, and at that time impure animals were not yet forbidden; for in truth the sages, of blessed memory, said that this prohibition was stated at Sinai, only that the Holy One, Blessed be He, commanded Moshe to write this prohibition in Vayishlach regarding the incident that occurred. Therefore it is written: "Therefore the Children of Israel shall not eat," for from the giving of the Torah and onward they were called the Children of Israel [101a].

And know that there are those who wrote that one who eats the gid hanasheh of a human is liable for malkot, since the primary matter was applicable to him [Mishneh LaMelech chapter 8 and Pri Chadash subsection 15], and so it is in the Responsa of the Rashba, siman 364. And it appears to me that the Rashba follows his own reasoning there, as he holds that human flesh is permitted from the Torah and its prohibition is only rabbinic. However, according to the opinion of the Rambam in chapter 2 of Ma'achalot Assurot and other poskim that it is prohibited from the Torah, as will be explained in siman 79, it is impossible for its gid to be prohibited. For just as we derive regarding an impure animal that the prohibition of the gid does not apply to it because its flesh is prohibited, as has been written, so too regarding a human. And even though human flesh is under a positive commandment prohibition, as has been written there, and an impure animal is under a negative commandment, nevertheless, ultimately its flesh is prohibited, and what difference is there to me between a negative commandment prohibition and a positive commandment prohibition? [The Pri Megadim in Mishbetzot Zahav subsection 4 did not write so, see there, and it requires further study].

Regarding birds, the prohibition of gid hanasheh does not apply, as it is written: "which is upon the kaf of the thigh," and kaf means meat that is high and round like a kaf. And this is what the Merciful One said: the Children of Israel shall not eat the gid hanasheh that is pressed around the high and round meat which is on the thigh, and that is the upper femur bone. And since the Merciful One made it dependent on the kaf, we learn from this that all species that have a kaf, the prohibition of gid hanasheh applies to them, and all species that do not have a kaf, the prohibition of gid hanasheh does not apply to them. And birds do not have a kaf, for the bone is elongated and not round, and the meat that is upon their femur is thick and is not round around the bone; therefore, gid hanasheh does not apply to them.

And if occasionally a bird is found that has a rounded palm like that of an animal, or conversely, when an animal occurs that does not have a rounded palm, the Sages said [92b] that both are forbidden due to doubt. For it can be said that the Torah made it dependent upon the species that has a palm, and if so, the bird is permitted and the animal is forbidden; or, that the Torah made it dependent upon this living creature itself, such that when it has a palm it is forbidden and when it does not have a palm it is permitted, and according to this, the bird is forbidden and the animal is permitted. Every doubt regarding a Torah law is ruled stringently, and therefore both are forbidden, but one is not lashed for them, as there are no lashes for a doubt. And it is certain that one does not need to examine a bird to see if perhaps it has a rounded palm, and we follow the majority.

Gid hanasheh applies to a koy just like chelev, and to all types of koy that were explained in siman 64 regarding chelev. It does not apply to a fetus since it does not require shechitah, for its law is like chelev. And some say that it applies to it if its months were completed and it was found alive; this is the opinion of the Rambam also regarding chelev, as I wrote there. And it is the custom to be stringent like this opinion regarding gid hanasheh. This is certainly so if it requires shechitah rabbinically, such as if it stepped upon the ground, for because of appearances it requires shechitah as I wrote in siman 13, its gid hanasheh is also forbidden rabbinically. And know that there is no difference between a wild animal and a domestic animal in anything forbidden because of the gid, even its surroundings and its fat that are removed because of the prohibition of the gid are also removed in a wild animal. Likewise, regarding the sinews of blood, there is no difference between a domestic animal and a wild animal. Only that which is forbidden because of chelev in a domestic animal does not need to be removed in a wild animal, for the chelev of a wild animal is permitted like a bird.

The prohibition of the gid hanasheh applies to the two thighs, the right and the left, and if one ate from this one and from that one, he is lashed with two sets of lashes when he ate them with two warnings and in two acts of eating [Rashi 91a, s.v. "from this"]. And thus the sages taught in the Mishnah [96a]. And the novelty is that both of them are definite prohibitions, not like the one who holds that the primary prohibition is only on the right one; see there.

Our Sages, of blessed memory, estimated [91a] that there are two tendons in the thigh: the inner one, adjacent to the bone, is forbidden and one is liable for it; the outer one, adjacent to the flesh, is forbidden but one is not liable for it, for the primary gid hanasheh according to the Torah is the inner one adjacent to the bone. "Inner" refers to the side facing the other thigh while the animal is alive, and "outer" refers to the side facing outward [Rashi]. The inner one is a long tendon placed along the length of the thigh-bone when the thigh is exposed, and it extends throughout the entire thigh; one end is attached to the bone of the rump, and from there it extends along the length of the thigh-bone until the place where the hip-joint and the thigh-bone connect, and there it is adjacent to the bone [ibid.]. However, even this tendon turns back and enters the flesh like a key entering a lock [93b]. The outer one is the short tendon placed across the width of the thigh-bone, and at its end it is swallowed in the socket surrounding the hip-joint, and it is on the outer side of the thigh [Rashi 91a]. It is swallowed in the flesh, but at the place where the thigh is cut, when the butchers open it and it is separated from the rump, the head of that tendon is attached to the socket of the hip-joint [Rashi 93b], and there it is revealed and not swallowed in the flesh [ibid.]. Both of them are forbidden and one must dig after them, except that the inner one is forbidden by the Torah and the outer one is forbidden by rabbinic law, for the Torah stated "which is upon the socket of the thigh," and the outer one is swallowed within the thigh.

The filaments in both of them are forbidden by rabbinic law, for the Merciful One said "the nerve" and not the filaments. These are the thin nerves that run along the length of the thigh from the outer nerve to the inner nerve, and therefore one must dig after them wherever they are. Also, the fat of the nerve is forbidden, for Israel are holy and have treated it as forbidden [Gemara]. The substance of the nerve itself is merely like wood, but the Torah forbade it [ibid.], and therefore its discharge does not forbid and one does not require sixty against it. However, the filaments and the fat possess flavor, and one requires sixty against them if they were cooked with other foods.

Regarding the gid hanasheh, some forbid it for benefit, but the Rambam, the Rosh, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch ruled that it is permitted for benefit. We have already explained the reason in section 14. In the Zohar, Parashat Vayishlach, it is forbidden for benefit, but the author of the Zohar is Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, and he holds in the Gemara [Pesachim 22b] that it is forbidden for benefit, and the halacha does not follow him but rather follows Rabbi Yehuda, for in a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, the halacha follows Rabbi Yehuda [the Rema in Darkei Moshe, note 12]. Therefore, it is permitted to sell the gid hanasheh to those who perform work with sinews [ibid.]. However, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great work, was concerned for the words of the Zohar and wrote that it is proper to be careful [and so wrote the Bach and the Pri Chadash].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that the ends of the tendons enter the ends of the bones, and therefore the menaker must break the ends of the bones in order to remove the tendons from their source, and one should not learn the order of nikkur except through visual observation from an expert who is proficient in its nikkur. Thus far his words. And despite all this, we will explain at the end of the siman the order of nikkur with the help of Heaven.

The Rambam wrote that it is only forbidden by the Torah that which is upon the spoon of the thigh alone, as it is said, "which is upon the spoon of the thigh." However, the rest of the gid that is above the spoon and that which is below until its end, and likewise the fat that is upon the gid, is only forbidden by the words of the scribes. Thus far his words. However, from the wording of the Tur, who wrote that the inner one is forbidden by the Torah, and this is the one that extends throughout the entire thigh, thus far his words, it implies that the entire gid is forbidden by the Torah, and that which the Torah said, "which is upon the spoon of the thigh," is a marker: the gid which is upon the spoon of the thigh, this is the forbidden one, and its prohibition applies to the entire gid. Yet in the Gemara [96] it is explicitly stated like the Rambam, that the Torah only forbade that which is upon the spoon alone. And Rashi explained that even though the gid is long, only that which lies upon the spoon is forbidden. Thus far his words. And it must be said that this is also the intention of the Tur, and he took a marker that the inner one is the one that extends throughout the entire thigh, but its prohibition is only that which is upon the spoon [see the Pri Chadash section 16 who brought the wording of the SeMag that gid hanasheh applies to males and females, and explained that it refers to animals, see there. And I did not find this in the SeMag at all, see there in Prohibition 139, and also not in the SeMak. And even according to his words, one could say it refers to humans, and the intention is so that one should not err because it is written "therefore the children of Israel shall not eat," that it only refers to males, because the entire Torah was stated in the masculine tongue].

And what is the measure of its eating for which one is liable? The Rambam wrote: And what is the measure of eating? A kazayit. And if he ate the entire gid that is upon the kaf, even though it does not have a kazayit, he is lashed because it is like a separate biryah. Thus far his words. For anything that has life and is forbidden from the beginning of its creation, and when it is divided its name is no longer upon it—as it is called a "piece of gid" and not "the gid"—it is a biryah, as I wrote in siman 100, see there [and so wrote the Tosafot, Chullin 96a, s.v. "mai ta'ama"]. And one must ask: behold, the entire gid is not forbidden, only that which is upon the kaf alone; if so, from the start it is not complete but rather a piece of gid, and if so, even when it is divided, its name is still upon it? And it must be said that this piece which is upon the kaf, since the Torah forbade it, it is considered as complete. And it appears to me that this is the intention of our teacher, the Rema, in siman 100, who wrote regarding the words of the Mechaber on the definitions of a biryah, and this is his wording: And the essence of gid hanasheh is only upon the kaf alone, and it is like the width of four fingers, and if it is complete it is called a biryah. Thus far his words. And why did he not write this in this siman, which is the primary law of gid hanasheh? Rather, it is certainly as his intention is as I wrote: that the prohibition is only that which is upon the kaf alone, and therefore even though it is a piece of the gid, and if so even in its half its name is upon it, to this he says that this is like a complete entity because of its importance, as the Torah forbade that alone. And the poskim wrote that in a large animal its width is four fingers, and in a small animal two fingers [Taz ibid.].

I saw one who wrote that just as we say regarding a limb from a living animal that one must place it into his mouth at one time, but if he separated it outside he is exempt because it does not contain an olive's bulk of meat alone, as is written in siman 62, section 11—and the reason is that a limb from a living animal is a novelty, in that one is liable for sinews and bones, and you have nothing in it but its novelty—so too regarding the sciatic nerve, his liability is only when he places the entire olive's bulk or the entire forbidden nerve into his mouth at once, and it does not combine little by little within the time of eating a half-loaf as with all other prohibitions, because the sciatic nerve is also a novelty in that one is liable for mere wood [Pri Megadim in Mishbetzot Zahav, section 4]. And these matters are astonishing in my eyes, for in any such case the Shas and the Rambam should have explained it regarding the sciatic nerve just as they explained it regarding a limb from a living animal. And in truth, there is no similarity between them at all, for regarding a limb from a living animal, this is what we say: that the Torah did not obligate for the sinews and bones of a limb from a living animal except when it is attached to the meat in its entirety and the name "limb" is upon it; but when it is separated, the name "limb" is not upon it, but rather the name "bone" and "sinew" and not the name "limb." But regarding the sciatic nerve, even when you cut it into several pieces, behold the name "piece of nerve" is upon it and its name has not changed, for originally it was a nerve and now it is a nerve. And so it is explained from the words of the Rambam in chapter 5, law 3, and this is his wording: One who eats an olive's bulk from a limb from a living animal is lashed etc. but if he separated the limb etc. and separated the meat from the sinews and from the bones etc. and the bones and the sinews do not combine etc. since he changed its original form. Thus far his words. Behold, he was precise to say that it is by reason of the change of its original form because he separated the meat from them; but when the entire prohibition is of one type, such as the sciatic nerve, we have no concern with this [and proof is from a limb from a living animal that has no bone or sinew, as the Rambam wrote there].

The Tur wrote: A person may send a thigh to a Kuti with the gid hanasheh inside it, even though he is grateful to him for the gid [because it is permitted for benefit]. If he does not give it to the Kuti in the presence of an Israelite, he may give it to him whether it is whole or cut. But if he gives it to him in the presence of an Israelite, he shall not give it to him when it is cut unless he removed its gid, for there is a concern lest this Israelite who saw that he gave it to the Kuti will think that its gid was removed before it was given to him, and he will take it from him and eat it with its gid; for any thigh that leaves the hand of an Israelite cut in the manner that the meat-purgers cut it is presumed that its gid was removed. Thus far his words. For with a whole one, it is impossible to mistakenly think that its gid was removed, for they see that its gid was not removed; but with a piece, it is impossible to recognize and one will come to err. And it is clear from the words of the Tur that even if he did not say to the Kuti that it is kosher, nevertheless there is a concern that the Israelite will take it from the Kuti for the reason that he wrote, that any thigh, etc.

But our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 11 wrote: And if he gave it to him in the presence of the Israelite and says to him that it is kosher, he should not give it to him when it is cut unless its gid was removed. Thus far his words. And it is explicitly explained that specifically in such a case do we fear that the Israelite will purchase it from him, but if he gave it to him without specification, we do not fear, because the Israelite will fear that perhaps it is treifah. And even though he later wrote in section 12 also this law: every thigh that leaves the hand of an Israelite cut in the manner, etc., is under the presumption that its gid was removed, see there; he holds that this is only when it leaves the hand of an Israelite to another Israelite, and not from an Israelite to a Cuthean. Therefore, he wrote it in a section by itself. And his reason is that even though the cutting constitutes a sign, nevertheless, as long as the Israelite did not explicitly say that it is kosher, he will not purchase meat from a Cuthean and will fear that it contains some concern of treifot. And that which he wrote later in siman 118, that if one sends to his fellow via a Cuthean a purged thigh, we rely on this sign—that is because he is sending it to an Israelite, see there [and see Taz subsection 5]. And in siman 118 we will explain further with the help of Heaven.

One who performed nikkur and left, and we do not know if he is an expert in nikkur, and there is no one here who is an expert in nikkur to show it to him, it is permitted to eat; for just as we say the majority of those found engaged in shechitah are experts, so too we say regarding nikkur. And this is specifically when they know that he completed his nikkur, but otherwise it is forbidden, lest he did not complete his nikkur; and as for the fact that he did not inform that he had not yet completed it, perhaps an accident occurred to him, and it was in his mind to inform, and because of the accident he did not inform. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: if we do not know him to be an expert in nikkur and established in fitness, even though the majority of those found engaged in nikkur are experts, nevertheless it is good to be stringent. Thus far his words. And the reason is that nikkur is not similar to shechitah, for in the nikkur of the hindquarters the details are many and it is easy to err; therefore, one should be more stringent [Bach]. And behold, he actually disagrees with our teacher, the Beit Yosef, and he did not write it in the language of "there are those who say" because he too did not be stringent as a matter of absolute law, and therefore he wrote that "it is good to be stringent," meaning that it is proper to be stringent. And in truth, in this time of ours, Heaven forbid to rely on just anyone regarding nikkur even if he has documents and proofs, unless we know him to be established in the fear of God, and one must not deviate.

The butchers are trusted regarding the gid hanasheh just as they are regarding the chelev, and even though there is more exertion in this, nevertheless they are trusted. In our times, the butchers do not purge the hindquarters, and there are specific purgers for this with certification and traditions like those for shechitah. Nevertheless, one must know them and their actions in detail, as I wrote in the previous section, for now the generations are corrupted. In general, it is a great enactment in our city that it is forbidden to eat meat slaughtered outside, and the vessels are also forbidden, and it is a great enactment in this our time [see Pitchei Teshuvah subsection 4 what he wrote in the name of Shevut Yaakov, and it is a mitzvah to erase it for one who is expert in this our time, and you have no greater safeguard for the religion of our holy Torah than this]. The Maharshal also in his days wrote that he would not eat purged meat until he showed it to another purger, and all the more so in our times [see Taz subsection 7].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote at the end of this siman: However, one may not purchase meat from any butcher who slaughters for himself and sells to others, unless he was established in kashrut. Thus far his words. And this is from the words of the Rambam in the eighth chapter of Ma'akhalot Assurot. And we have already elaborated on this in siman 1 from section 6 until section 12; see there well.

The order of the nikur that the Tur wrote in the name of the Ittur is as follows: He begins with the head and cuts it and removes the brain and removes the membrane that is upon it, and afterwards removes the membrane that is beneath the brain which is attached to the bone. And he takes the cheeks in his hand and cuts with a knife from the side of the tongue and removes one gid, and cuts from the second side and removes one gid, and cuts with a knife beneath the root of the tongue and removes from it a thread of blood. And he descends from there to the windpipe to the place of shechitah and removes from there two gidin from this side adjacent to the meat and two gidin from this side adjacent to the meat [there is one who says that there is only one gid from this side and one gid from that side [Derishah], and so it is in the Levush; and some say that this is in a bird, but in an animal there are two from each side [Shach]]. And know that these gidin must be removed even if the veins were cut or if the head was removed, for it is as if the veins were cut [ibid. in the name of the Rashal; and see the Beit Yosef, and they challenged him because these gidin do not open even when the veins are cut].

And afterwards he cuts the brisket into two sides, and from that adjacent red meat he removes a vein of blood that holds a portion of the breast until its exit, and likewise from the second breast. And he takes the knife and separates between the shoulder and the body and takes the forearm and the shoulder, and begins at the head of the shoulder in its middle and cuts and removes a thick sinew, and leads the knife and cuts until the forearm and until the hand until its ends, until he pulls the entire sinew that holds from the edge of the shoulder adjacent to the spine until the ends of the hand. And he must sink the knife well until he uproots that sinew and the veins that extend from it from its source [that which he wrote "cuts until the forearm and until the hand," behold the forearm and the hand are all one, but the intention is this: that first he wrote that he should cut the sinew from the shoulder, and afterwards he leads the knife from there and cuts the forearm until its end, and the "hand" that he wrote is not the hand literally, but rather it is as if he said that he cuts the forearm through its path along its length until its end, and he should sink the knife into the depth of the meat of the forearm, and this is simple].

And at the time that he separates between the shoulder and the body, he must sink the knife into the edge of the shoulder near the spine and uproot the root of this gid that we mentioned above, for there is its root; and he extracts from the side of the shoulder from above one thread, and likewise for the second shoulder. And he takes the foreleg and cuts into it and extracts from it one gid, and it does not extend upward, and its measure is like the measure of the foreleg. And he cuts from the side of the foreleg and extracts from there one gid that is near the bone of the foreleg. As for what he wrote, that he extracts from the side of the shoulder one thread, his intention is that aside from what they extract from the middle of the shoulder as has been said, they also extract from the side of the shoulder. And what he wrote, "and he cuts from the side of the foreleg," is also thus: that aside from that thread which he extracts from the middle of the foreleg as has been said, he also extracts a thread from the side of the foreleg. and from his words it is clarified that the threads of the foreleg and the threads of the shoulder are two different matters, for the shoulder is from above and the foreleg is along the length of the foreleg. See the Derisha.

And afterward, he begins from the place where the gid that he removes from the breast ends, and he peels with his hand that membrane which is upon the fold. When he peels, the heads of the threads that are in the fold are visible; they are three on the right and two on the left. The three on the right divide into two and two, and the two on the left divide into three and three. He takes the heads of the gid in his hand and pulls, and they are drawn out of their own accord while it is warm; but when cold, one must search after them. Therefore, one must be careful to purge them while warm. [These threads are the threads of the tail according to the method of Rashi 93a, as I wrote in siman 64, and the Tur also wrote so there. However, the Tur wrote there that the heads of the branches are attached under the breast at the heads of the ribs, see there; that is, they go on an incline from below to above on the side of the ribs, such that they are held by their heads along the length of the breast. But here he wrote that the heads of the threads are in the fold; if so, they are others. And from the wording of Rashi it is clear that there are none here besides them. And perhaps the heads of the threads, three on the right and two on the left, are visible in the fold, but the heads of the branches, in the place where they divide into two and two and into three and three, are visible under the breast. The wording of Rashi there is also "the heads of the branches," see there and examine carefully.]

And he scrapes that chelev which is beneath the meat of the loins and peels it very well from both sides of the animal, and afterward he removes the meat of the loins which is called loin-fillet, and it is only fit for roasting, and he scrapes it well from both sides, and that bone which is placed in between, he cuts it and removes all the protrusions until it is level with the meat so that nothing of the roots of the threads and the meat of the loins remains [the chelev beneath the loins, which is the "fat beneath the loins" for which we explained several interpretations in siman 64 section 29, and according to this sage it is like the interpretation of the Rif that we wrote there, see there; and for the halacha one must be concerned for all the interpretations mentioned there. And that which he wrote that this meat is only fit for roasting, the Beit Yosef wrote that it is a foolish custom and even ab initio it is permitted to cook it. And that which he wrote that nothing should remain of the heads of the loins is not because there is some prohibition in the meat of the loins, but rather because the heads of the threads of the chelev are tied to the bone beneath the loins, and it is impossible to purge them unless one removes this meat; and see the Beit Yosef and Perisha].

And he returns to the intestines and draws them out from the place where they are fixed, and he brings out the ends of the intestines through that filthy rectum which they call in Arabic "al-tur," and he cuts that rectum with an amah of the intestines and casts it away because it is not fit for eating. Thus far his words. And afterwards, later on, he wrote in this wording: And he draws out the rectum and peels the membrane of chelev that is upon it with that strand of blood from end to end, and he takes the knife and uproots all that chelev adjacent to the rectum from all sides, from the base of the alya until the place where he uprooted from it the flesh of the loins that we mentioned above, with all those strands mixed with that chelev, until the place where the rectum is fixed is purged very well from chelev and strands and everything. Thus far his words. And these matters require explanation. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, explained that this is all regarding the "head of the intestines for an amah which requires scraping," for most of the commentators explained that this is where they begin to exit from the abomasum, and there are some of the Geonim who explained that this is on the second side, which is the end of the intestines, the intestine through which the dung exits, and that is the rectum, as written in siman 64. For this reason, he first wrote that the amah of the intestines begins in the place where they begin to exit from the abomasum, and that which he casts away even the intestine itself from the amah is not because of a prohibition but because of repulsiveness, as it is not fit for eating. And afterwards, that which he wrote, "and he draws out the rectum etc.," this is according to the second explanation, that the amah is at the end of the intestines. And it must be said according to this that what he also wrote previously, that he should cut the rectum, this refers to the head of the rectum and not the length of the amah mentioned later, for the reason that the head of the rectum is repulsive because of the filth [the words of the Derisha are lacking in understanding, see there]. And later he wrote regarding the amah on the side of the rectum that he only peels the chelev, but the main part of the intestine is not repulsive and he eats it after he has cut the actual head of the rectum because of the repulsiveness. And regarding what he wrote, "that strand of blood," our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote that he did not see this in any place, neither in the Gemara nor in the poskim, see there. And afterwards he explained to clean the chelev and the strands adjacent to the rectum very well.

That place which is fixed for the intestines is called the kanta, and in the vernacular yablon, and it is forbidden for cooking but permitted for roasting [this is what the Tur wrote in siman 75, because they are full of small grains of blood and it is impossible to purge them well; however, the Tur wrote there in the name of the Rashba that they are accustomed to permit the matter, for one who is expert in them, they are stripped well until not one of them remains, and there it is explained, see there].

And one takes the hadra de-kanta and removes from upon it the membrane of chelev, and the chelev that is upon the abomasum, and of the reticulum, and of the hovlila of the navlula known as al-kachata—this is its name in Arabic—along with the congealed part that they made, all of which they remove [the navlula is the omasum, and in his days they called it navlala, and some say that the hovlila is the omasum and the navlula is the sagia dibi and is placed in the bladder; thus wrote Chiddushei Hagahot on the Tur, see there; and the Rema in Darkhei Moshe, sign 18, wrote in the name of Issur V'Heter that the women were accustomed to remove from the hadra de-kanta of a lamb only the upper membrane on one side, and in that of cattle and oxen they remove also the lower membrane, and he disagrees with them, for even in a lamb they should take both membranes, see there]:

And he takes the spleen and peels from it the membrane with the chelev that is upon it, and he takes the head of the vein that is inside the spleen and pulls it, and three threads that are within it are pulled with it. And he takes the chelev and cuts the "ears" and casts them away, and tears it and removes its blood [and this is the "sting of the heart" where there are cavities filled?]. And he takes the kidney and removes the chelev that is upon it and purges it very well [and also that which is within the indentations]. And he takes the knife and cuts and removes the membrane that is upon each and every one, and cuts into the kidney and purges that root of the vein from within the kidney as it is with its ends that are visible from the outside, and likewise for the second kidney. And he removes the testicles and removes the membrane that is upon them, and pulls the rectum etc. [this we have already explained in section 38, and this stringency to uproot there is because the roots of the chelev that are upon the flanks are tied there, and also because of the chelev of the rectum]:

And he takes the knife and cuts into the tail and extracts from it a thread that divides into two, and he draws the thread from the base of the tail until its end from those faces that knock against the thighs of the animal. And afterward he takes the knife and scrapes from those faces themselves those substances called in Arabic "aqar" from the bones, and he scrapes well until the place of the height of the substances is equal with the low areas between them, and there shall not remain upon the entire face of the tail either meat or fat, but rather they scrape well. [It appears that he explains what the sages, of blessed memory, said [13a], "the threads in the tail-end are forbidden," neither like Rashi nor like the Rambam that we wrote in siman 64, section 49, but rather like the words of the Yereim that we cited there, that it refers to the threads of the tail and because of chelev, see there; and their prohibition is because they draw from the chelev of the kidneys. Therefore, he scrapes the high places there until those places are equal with the low places, and there shall not remain upon the entire face of the tail either meat or fat (Beit Yosef)].

And he severs the one thigh and separates with a knife at the place where there are protrusions in the bone in which the gid hanasheh is located, and he cuts the male and female parts and casts it away. And the meat that is on the sides he purges very well from all types of strings and chelev that are in it, and from that fat which they call vandola, and from the gid hanasheh that is there in the middle bone, and the strings and the chelev are recognizable in it, and it is impossible to understand it except through the sight of the eye. And afterwards he takes the middle bone from which he severed part of the male protrusion and purges the chelev and the types of strings from it, and cuts with a large knife the second end which is adjacent to the bone of the shok from which he severed it, and it turns out that this middle bone is cut from two sides. And even that adjacent bone he cuts with a large knife at that place adjacent to this bone we mentioned, and searches after small strings and small pieces of chelev that are there, and removes that one gid that extends from the ends of the middle bone until the ends of the shok, and it is visible to the eyes, and it is impossible to explain in writing more than this. And so for the second thigh. And all gidim in the thigh are forbidden, whether roasted or cooked, until he purges them well and extracts all the strings and all the chelev that are inside the thigh, for all of it is chelev, and afterwards he may eat it roasted or cooked. [This sage calls the third bone, which is the kolit, the middle bone, because above it is the tail bone, and the lower joint has already been cut with the head, which is the joint sold with the head, and therefore he calls it middle. And the male part is the buchna and the female part is the asita of the thigh, for this is the hip bone that was dislocated from its place. And the vandola is the meat that looks like silver, and even though it is not actual chelev, nevertheless it must be purged. And the gid hanasheh spreads in this bone from its beginning to its end. And according to this, the head of this bone which is the male part with the asita of the thigh he chops and casts away entirely, and also on the second side adjacent to the shok he also chops with a cleaver and casts away. And even the shok at its upper head which is adjacent to the kolit bone he also chops. And in this bone, all the meat surrounding it, and so too the meat surrounding the male and female parts, and so too above in the thigh, one must purge from there all types of chelev and all types of gidim, and there are small strings there and small pieces of chelev, and everything must be purged well. And that which he wrote "and removes that gid that extends etc." he specified it particularly because this is the essence of the gid hanasheh. And more than this it is impossible to explain in writing because the entire thigh is full of gidim and chelev, and one must learn this from an expert purger and see with the sight of the eye, for even white meat that looks like silver is forbidden. And so he shall do with the second thigh, and afterwards he may eat it whether roasted or cooked.]

And the sinews that are beneath the shoulder and the foreleg, if one roasts them, they are fit for eating, for they shrivel in the fire, and such is the halacha [meaning, because they are blood vessels and do not require cutting except for salting to cook, but not for roasting, according to the opinion of most poskim at the beginning of this siman, see there]. And the warmth of the brain that comes from the head to the spine, they remove it and the membrane beneath it, and one de-veins the chelev that is in the spine with a thorough de-veining [this matter is not mentioned anywhere, and what chelev is there? And perhaps he holds that it is from the roots of the chelev of the flanks and the kidneys. And the Beit Yosef wrote that in all the orders of de-veining and likewise in the responsa of the Geonim this is not mentioned at all, and also in the old books of the Tur this is not found, and the world conducts itself with permissibility in the matter, and I have not seen anyone who challenged it. Thus far the words of the Beit Yosef, and so wrote the Derisha]:

And Rav Amram, of blessed memory, sent: There is no difference between the gid ha-nasheh and its fat, and Israel are holy and have treated it like the gid ha-nasheh; and this sage was stringent, and one who is stringent, a blessing shall come upon him. Thus far the words of the Tur in the name of the Ittur. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote that even though in some matters he was more stringent than the line of the law, nevertheless, conversely, he also omitted what requires nikkur by absolute law. Namely, the fat of the flanks that is under the thick white membrane, as was explained in siman 64, which some are accustomed to treat as prohibited; and he also omitted the fat attached to the stomach; and also the explanation of the Rif regarding the white part under the loins, see there; and also the fat in the diaphragm of the liver, as was explained there that some prohibit it. And even though there are those who disagree, one should not be lenient in a doubt regarding a prohibition of karet, and one must be stringent in every place where there is a doubt of chelev. Thus far his words.

And although it is impossible to explain in writing the entire craft of nikur, and particularly regarding the hindquarters, nevertheless, for the completion of the holy work, I saw fit to transcribe the nikur printed in the Levush from the book Lechem HaPanim. First and foremost, anyone who fears the word of Hashem must have these three principles in hand: The first principle is that every menaker is obligated to know which tendons are forbidden because of gid hanasheh, and which because of blood, and which because of chelev. All the tendons in total are 111, and your sign is "for all tables are full of vomit [קי"א]" (Isaiah 28:8). The tendons that are because of chelev and gid hanasheh are 51, and your sign is "do not eat of it raw [נ"א]" (Exodus 12:9), and the rest are because of blood. The tendons of chelev and gid hanasheh must be dug after to their root. The second principle is that every menaker should intend to peel finely and well in order to have pity on the money of Israel, as the Maharshal wrote, that just as it is forbidden to permit the forbidden, so too it is forbidden to forbid the permitted. Any menaker who does not first open the place of the tendon and afterwards cut it from the place of its root will certainly destroy the kosher meat. One must know the location of the tendons, and not all animals are equal; there are tendons that lie deep in the flesh of some animals, and in some animals they lie in a curve above. Consequently, if he does not first open the place of the tendon, he will destroy the money of Israel. Similarly, if he does not reveal the tendon until the place of the root, it is impossible for him to dig it out, and fibers will remain in it, and he will feed treifot, Heaven forbid. Every menaker must know that the reason we peel from the meat is because the fat from gid hanasheh and from chelev spreads there. The third principle is that all those who perform nikur on meat should not let the meat leave their hand until they examine it two and three times to see if they acted according to the law and properly.

And this is the order of the nikur in brief: the hoiv-felik, which is the hoiv-geshtel, and in the Russian language bakia—one removes from it a thick white skin, a decree because of the fat of the cow which is forbidden due to meat and milk. And one removes from it eggs and peels from it two skins and cuts it in two and roasts it opposite the chadrizuan that are in them, which are forbidden. And the meat that is under the hoiv-felik, one peels at its head in the white place where the kalibusha fat is situated, and one removes from within it one sinew in the shape of a shin, and it is forbidden due to chelev and requires digging out until its end.

The thin membrane upon the flanks is removed with the thin piece of meat, for they are forbidden due to chelev. And the middle meat is peeled from two sides, and they call it "das kalner." And the third meat, which they call "die deck," is peeled from one side. And between the flank and the "kushlitz" there is chelev, and it is the chelev beneath the loins; one peels and scrapes well.

The kushlitz is peeled on one side that was attached to the spine, and on the second side there is a silver appearance, and one scrapes well until the halfway point in an ox or a calf, and in a lamb until the end. And one removes five gidim from the kushlitz: the three upper ones are forbidden due to chelev, and the two lower ones are forbidden due to blood. And one should be careful not to separate the kushlitz from the fat beneath it with a knife, but rather with the finger, and the reason you will find in the order of nikur at length [I have not seen this long order]. And with it is a small piece of meat resting on the kushlitz; in a lamb, one must peel it with the chelev until the end. And the tzenah, which they call in the vernacular "tirtish" or "shilshlintz," is peeled above and below, and inside it there are gidim and they are forbidden due to blood. And the small piece of meat upon it, which they call the "stolen piece," is peeled from one side, and from the second side one scrapes the silver appearance well.

The "planken," and in the Russian tongue "kalyan," are peeled from one side, and on the second side lies a thick piece of fat that they call in the Russian tongue "pakhvya" and in the German tongue "griff"; one should not peel them. And inside there is one tendon along the length, and its shape is like the shape of a scorpion, and it is forbidden due to the gid hanasheh. And between the "tartish" and the "planken" there is chelev there, and it requires peeling and he should scrape it.

The alyah is peeled over its entire surface, and within it are many tendrils, and one cuts the tendrils and removes them. And the tze"ch brati"n is peeled until the appearance of the silver, and the appearance of the silver is scraped and peeled well, and one removes from within it tendons, and they are placed on an incline, sometimes two, sometimes three, and they are forbidden because of gid hanasheh. And beneath these tendons there are two more tendons, and they are forbidden because of blood. And furthermore, there is one tendon standing within a white thread, and it is the end of the gid hanasheh itself. And furthermore, there is in its lower part one tendon in the shape of a nun at its bottom. And the kailichdi"g breti"l is peeled on both sides, and within it there are tendons forbidden because of gid hanasheh. And between the tze"ch brati"n and the kailichdi"g breti"l there is fat, and it requires scraping and peeling.

The hand or the spoon is peeled on its two sides, and the meat upon it which they call "die deck" is on one side. At its head there is one tendon in the shape of a tet, and in its middle it is in the shape of two shins. In the place of its thickness there is one tendon in the shape of a shin, and they call it the thumb finger. In the thin place beneath it there is one tendon in the shape of a deer like this: shin shin. Next to this tendon there is another tendon in the shape of a gimmel. All of them are forbidden due to the gid hanasheh and require digging out. Between the hand and the "keilichdig brettel" there is fat, and it requires peeling and scraping. [It appears that when he says the hand or the spoon, his intention is the spoon of the thigh, which is the main part of the gid hanasheh]:

The kany"a ripf"l, in the German language and in Poland called kam shiky"a and in the Russian language hatshk"a, is peeled from the outside, and one scrapes the silver appearance well on the inside and peels over the entirety of it. On one side, in a wide place, there is one vein in this shape ד, and next to it there are three veins one next to the other, and a white thread of meat separates between them. Next to the thread there are another three veins, one on top of the other, and all of them are forbidden due to blood. Under these three that are placed one on top of the other, there is another vein, and it is placed at an incline until the kany"a ripf"l, and it is forbidden due to chelev in a large animal. However, in a small animal, the vein that is forbidden due to chelev is placed on the outside upon that vein which is in this shape ד.

The baitish: they peel the one side with the silver appearance because of the gid hanasheh that lies upon it, and on the second side they scrape the silver appearance well. And within it there are sinews along its length visible to the eyes, and they themselves are the gid hanasheh itself. And from one side on the inside, in the wide place, the end of the gid hanasheh goes in this shape: ך. And they scrape the silver appearance within it and peel the red appearance and the middle finger, and they scrape the silver appearance well from the sides. And in a beast, they peel two sides and also scrape the silver appearance well.

The maizil is peeled well from the outside where it is embedded, and inside it there are sinews, and they are the gid hanasheh itself, and they are visible to the eyes and require digging out until their end. In some animals, an extra bone is found near that bone which they call the knochen, and it is the kuku bone, and there is no prohibition in it; they only hide it away because they say it is good for a toothache. The tail is peeled and purged over its entire surface until the bone, and they remove from within it the spinal cord which is divided into two or three until its end.

The ledvitza is cut and uprooted along with the treifa ledvitza, and afterwards one separates the kosher from the treifa with a finger and not with a knife, and one peels it across its entirety; and that which is filled with "silver" is scraped well, and inside it there are tendrils that require digging out, and also at its head there is one sunken nerve:

From the kidneys, one removes the two membranes from upon them, and cuts them in two, and removes from them all the whiteness that is in them. From the udder, one removes from it the thick white skin which is forbidden due to meat and milk, and one tears it and cuts from it all the veins, and they are forbidden due to being repulsive, and one strikes it against a wall.

From the spleen, one removes the white skin from it which is forbidden due to chelev; also within it there is one vein along its length and it is forbidden due to chelev, and in the thick part there is one vein in the shape of this letter "shin" and one uproots it [his intention is like the three threads in the spleen that were explained in siman 64]. And the large fat that is between the two kislim, one cuts it from the bones that the spine is fixed in, and one scrapes from it the thread of the spine with its fat entirely because it draws from the chelev of the kidneys.

From the testicles of a male, one removes the two membranes and the red veins and cuts them in two. Regarding the hip bone, one cuts it from its two sides. Regarding the knochen bone, one cuts it from one side. Regarding the neck bone, one cuts it from its two sides. Also, from the knie-rippel, one peels the white part that is in it and cuts many incisions within it. This is the order of the nikur in brief.