Siman 83

The signs of pure fish are explicitly stated in the Torah in Parshat Shemini, as it is written: "These you may eat of all that are in the waters: everything that has fin and scale in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them you may eat. And everything that does not have fin and scale in the seas and in the rivers, of all the teeming life of the waters and of all the living creatures that are in the waters, they are an abomination to you. They shall remain an abomination to you; of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall abominate. Everything that does not have fin and scale in the waters is an abomination to you."

And our Rabbis taught [66b]: From the implication of that which is stated, "eat that which has [fins and scales]," I hear, "do not eat that which does not have [them]"; and from the implication of that which is stated, "do not eat that which does not have [them]," I hear, "eat that which has [them]." And why were they both stated? To make one liable for a positive commandment and a negative commandment. Thus far his words. And we have learned from this that one who eats an impure fish has nullified a positive commandment and transgressed a negative commandment [Rambam, chapter 2]. And why do we need the third verse, "everything that does not have etc. it is an abomination to you"? They expounded in Torat Kohanim: I might think I only have [the rule for] those that bring their signs of purity to the dry land; if they shed them in the water, from where [do we know they are permitted]? The verse states, "in the waters." Thus far his words. That is to say, specifically "everything that does not have fins and scales in the waters shall not be eaten," but if in the waters it has them, even though when it is brought up from the waters they fell off, they are permitted for eating, as will be explained.

They further expounded there: "Seas"—this is the Great Sea, as it is said, "And the gathering of the waters He called seas"; and "in the rivers"—these are the rivers, etc. I only have seas and rivers that flow in the summer season and in the rainy season; from where do we include other seas and other rivers that flow in the rainy season but do not flow in the summer season, until you include water in pits? The Torah teaches, "in the waters." Thus far his words. And the Great Sea includes all the seas, for behold, all the seas enter into it, and likewise all the rivers go to the sea. And "water in pits" means lakes and small rivers that cease in the summer season [see the commentary of the Ra'avad there].

Fins are those with which it swims, similar to the wing of a bird, and scales are those husks fixed upon it, in the manner of that which is stated: "and he was clothed with a coat of scales." The sages taught in the Mishnah [Niddah 51b]: Everything that has scales has fins. And the reason the Torah needed to write fins as well was so that one would not err by saying that scales are fins; and even though we knew this from the words of the Prophets, as it is written: "and he was clothed with a coat of scales," nevertheless, the Torah did not want to rely on that which is explained as such in another place. And regarding this they said, "to make the Torah great and glorious," meaning that here itself the Torah revealed what scales are, and through what did it reveal this? By writing fins as well [see Tosafot ibid.].

And know that there is one who wrote [Ma'adanei Yom Tov, chapter 3, end of section 7, letter 40] that a certain physician brought him a fish from the Spanish sea, and it has scales and four legs and has no fins, and this fish is a deadly poison to man, and the physicians extract the venom and make medicine from it. And he raised a difficulty regarding this rule that our sages, of blessed memory, formulated, that anything that has scales has fins—for behold, this fish has scales and has no fins. And even if we say that legs are in place of fins, how is it possible that the Torah would permit a deadly poison? For are its ways not "ways of pleasantness"? And he labored greatly to resolve this and wrote that this rule applies only to fish and not to other creatures in the sea. And there is one who wrote that certainly the fins fell off when it was brought up from the water, and if the concern is because of the deadly poison, the intent of the Torah is also to permit it after they extract the venom from it [Pri Chadash, subsection 4]. And there is one who wrote that the Torah spoke regarding the majority, and there are those that are exceptions to the rule [Kereiti U'Pleiti, subsection 3]. And all these words are not worth hearing, for behold, the Gemara raised the difficulty: for what purpose is a fin needed at all? For since there are scales, there are also fins. And if it should enter your mind that there are exceptions to the rule, or that there are those that remove the fins, it is obvious that it would be necessary to inform us [and according to the Pri Chadash one could answer with difficulty, but according to the Kereiti U'Pleiti it is very difficult].

And behold, for these great authorities it was obvious to them that all creatures in the sea are permitted for consumption when they have a fin and a scale, and seemingly the law is with them, for is it written "fish" in the Torah? Behold, it is written: "Everything that has a fin and a scale in the water," etc., and all creatures are included. However, the Rambam, of blessed memory, in chapter 2 of Ma'akhalot Assurot, law 12, wrote explicitly to the contrary. This is his wording: One who eats a kezayit of the swarming things of the water is lashed according to the Torah, as it is said, "You shall not make yourselves detestable with any swarming thing that swarms, and you shall not defile yourselves with them," etc. What are the swarming things of the water? These are the small creatures like the worms and the leeches that are in the water, and the very large creatures that are the beasts of the sea. The general rule of the matter: anything that is not in the form of fish—neither an impure fish nor a pure fish—such as the sea dog and the dolphin and the frog and their like. Thus far his words. Behold, he wrote explicitly that aside from species of fish, all creatures of the sea are forbidden for consumption, and this is the "swarming thing of the water."

And there are those who did not cite his words at all, and there are those who cited his words [Pri Chadash] and rejected them from the halacha entirely, and brought proof from the words of the Gemara in the chapter "Ein Ma'amidin" (Avodah Zarah 38b): "The sea-ass is permitted, the sea-ox is forbidden." And further proof from Torat Kohanim, which expounds there on that which is written "in the waters, in the waters" to teach that all waters are like seas and rivers, whether regarding permission when there are fins and scales, or regarding prohibition when there are no fins and scales. And afterwards it says: Therefore it is said "in the waters, in the waters." Or perhaps it is only that the same species I permitted, the same species I forbade; which species did I permit? That which has bones and procreates [for fish procreate and have bones], so too I should only forbid that which has bones and procreates. From where do we include to forbid that which has bones but does not procreate, or procreates but does not have bones? Until you include the snails and the frogs that grow in the sea and grow on the land; the verse teaches: "All that do not have fins and scales," etc. Thus far his words. They further said there: "And of every living creature that is in the waters"—"living" refers to the sea-beast; "creature" comes to include the sireni. Thus far his words. And the sireni is a species in the sea whose upper half is the form of a woman and its lower half is a fish [Aruch, entry "Sarni"]. Behold, it is explained that the verse includes all creatures that are in the sea. They further brought proof from the shibuta fish which they would eat, and it is a species of goat in the sea, as it is stated [at the end of the fourth chapter of Bava Kamma]: "He led with a goat and a shibuta." And by the power of all these, he rejected the words of the Rambam, of blessed memory. And there are those who wrote that the intention of the Rambam is regarding those beasts in the sea that do not have fins and scales [Pri Megadim in Mishbetzot Zahav, subsection 2]. And who will not see that the Rambam writes explicitly the opposite? For his words are clear in what he wrote, that anything that is not in the form of a fish is neither tamei nor tahor, and there is no need to elaborate on this.

And I say that Moses is true and his Torah is true and all his words are correct, for it is explicitly proven like his words in the very verses, and from the Torat Kohanim as well, on the contrary, there is clear proof for his approach as we will explain with the help of Heaven. And that which the Sages, of blessed memory, said "sea-donkey" and "sea-ox," these are actual fish and are called by this language, just as among us there are types of fish that are referred to by some nickname of animals, and so it is in all languages. And of necessity it must be so, since there are thousands of types of fish, for the Sages, of blessed memory, said [63b] that there are seven hundred types of impure fish, and of pure ones many more. Therefore, the Torah did not specify regarding fish as it did with domestic animals, wild animals, and birds, but wrote only the signs. If so, the agreement of specific names for every fish gives nicknames and sub-nicknames. And also what they said regarding the shibuta, that it is a type of goat, I do not know from where they have this, and Rashi explained in all places that shibuta is a fish, see there. And so I heard from one who ate in the city of Istanbul the shibuta fish, and it is like all fish except that it is very fatty. And that which the Sages, of blessed memory, said regarding one who leads a goat and a shibuta together, is it because of this that we should say it is also in the form of a goat? And that which the Rambam in chapter 9 of Kilayim called it a "sea beast," because there he is speaking only regarding the matter of kilayim, he did not descend to be precise in its details. And the Torah as well, in the creation of the works of Genesis, called them all "let the waters swarm with the swarm of a living soul," and the fish are also included in them. But when it came to specify regarding the matter of prohibition and permission, it specified them as will be explained in the next section with the help of Heaven.

For behold, regarding the permitted ones it is written: "Whatever has fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them you may eat," and regarding the prohibition it is written: "And all that do not have fins and scales, etc., of all the swarming things of the waters and of all the living creatures which are in the waters, they are an abomination to you." And it is difficult: why did it not also specify regarding the permitted ones, "Whatever has fins and scales, etc., of all the swarming things of the waters and of all the living creatures which are in the waters, them you may eat," for behold, the permission is written first? Rather, the reason is that all swarming things of the waters and all living creatures which are in the waters, even if they have fins and scales, are forbidden, and only fish alone did the Torah permit when they have fins and scales. And that which it did not specify "fish" is because the standard creatures of the water that human beings eat are only fish, and it did not need to specify. For behold, in the account of creation where the Torah wrote, "Let the waters swarm with swarming things, living creatures," all creatures were included, and nevertheless, afterwards in the blessing of "be fruitful and multiply," it was said only to the fish, as is explained at the beginning of Ketubot. And this is what is written afterwards, "and rule over the fish of the sea," even though previously it included them with all the creatures; rather, it is because they are the primary ones. And so said our teacher Moses, peace be upon him, regarding the complainers: "If all the fish of the sea were gathered for them," and he did not say "beasts of the sea." Therefore, regarding their prohibition, the Torah was forced to specify, so that you should not say that there is no prohibition upon them at all; for this the Torah specified that upon them there is always a prohibition, even when they have fins and scales. And this is the explanation of the verse: "And all that do not have fins and scales, etc." [and these are the species of fish], and likewise "of all the swarming things of the waters," and likewise "of all the living creatures which are in the waters," it is an abomination, whether they have fins and scales or whether they do not. And that which it did not write "and of all the swarming things of the waters," the way of the Torah is such, to write the conjunctive vav on the last one alone, like "Shem, Ham, and Japheth," "with cattle, with silver, and with gold."

And there is further clear proof from the Torat Kohanim itself, for behold, one must understand what it means when it says, "Or is it only that species which I permitted etc. which has bones and procreates," and this is difficult: is it written regarding the permitted ones which species it is, such that we should say it has bones and procreates? For behold, it is only written "all that have fins and scales." Rather, it is certain that the general statement refers to fish, and they have bones and procreate. And this is what it means when it says that perhaps the verse "in the waters, in the waters" comes to teach regarding other species that they are forbidden; for if it did not specify, I would have said that other species besides fish are entirely permitted. To this it says that for this one does not need "in the waters, in the waters," for it is written "all that have not fins and scales," and its intent is the end of the verse, "of all the swarming things of the waters, and of all the living creatures which are in the waters," for from here we learned to forbid everything that is not a species of fish. And as the Torat Kohanim concludes: "and of all the living creatures which are in the waters—'creature,' this refers to the beast of the sea," meaning that all species in the sea besides fish are forbidden, whether those that resemble swarming things or those that resemble beasts. And furthermore, it expounds "creature" to include the sireni, which is half woman and half fish, and therefore it is included in "creature." And from this itself there is proof for the Rambam, when we understand that if this creature that is half fish does not have fins and scales, why is it necessary to include it? Would it not be forbidden even if it were entirely a fish? Rather, it is certain that it has fins and scales, and I would have said that this half is permitted like all fish; to this the verse includes it, for since its half is not a fish, it is entirely forbidden. However, this is a simple matter: that anything that is not in the form of a fish is entirely forbidden, and fins and scales are of no avail. And if so, this fish that they brought from the Spanish sea, since it has four legs, it is a complete swarming thing and is not in the category of fish at all.

And regarding that which the Rambam cited for the negative prohibition the verse "do not make yourselves detestable with any swarming thing that swarms" and did not cite from this very same verse "of their flesh you shall not eat," they have already raised a difficulty against him [see Maggid Mishneh]. And even more than this is puzzling, for in the Sefer HaMitzvot [Negative Commandment 179] he wrote that for a swarming thing of the water there is no other specific negative prohibition besides this verse, see there. However, the truth is that he holds that the verse written afterward, "and they shall be detestable to you; of their flesh you shall not eat," refers only to impure fish and not to a swarming thing of the water. And proof for this is that behold, in the Mishneh Torah it is not written there regarding the prohibition "of all that swarm in the waters and of any living creature" etc., but rather it is written plainly "and all that have no fins and scales you shall not eat," because he is dealing there only with fish. Therefore, the Rambam automatically proved that also "you shall not eat" in Shemini refers also only to fish alone, and therefore he required the verse "do not make yourselves detestable" for the other creatures in the sea [so it appears to me clearly].

Furthermore, regarding the nature of their reproduction, fish are not similar to other sea creatures, for all sea creatures mate male and female with one another like all creatures, but fish are not so; rather, the male casts his seed upon the ground and the female does likewise, as is found in Midrash Bereshit [parashah 7], and so wrote the Tosafot at the end of the fifth chapter of Bava Kamma. Therefore, also regarding the matter of eating, they are not similar to one another. However, in Bekhorot [7b] it does not appear like the Midrash, see there, and it depends on the dispute in the chapter "Elu Terefot" 40b, see there and examine carefully.

The kashkasot must be peelable from the fish [Beit Yosef in the name of the Ramban]. And the proof is that Onkelos translated "kelipin," and also from the verse "a coat of kashkasot," which is a garment, proving it must be like a garment that one is able to remove. Therefore, if they are not peelable from the fish unless part of the skin and flesh of the fish is removed with them, this is not a sign of purity and it is forbidden to eat it. However, the peeling can be done either by means of a tool or by means of a stratagem, such as when it is impossible to peel it by hand but only with a tool or by soaking in boiling water; nevertheless, they are peelable [Noda BiYehudah]. And so too the early authorities who permitted the fish species "barbuta," it was only peelable by soaking in boiling water, and one should not cast doubt on this. And one should not ask that since the verse compares it to a garment, we should require it to be removed by hand like a garment, for this is not a difficulty at all; for it is also written, "with skin and flesh You have clothed me," and is the skin peelable by hand? But through boiling water, certainly even the skin is peeled.

The Rambam wrote [at the end of chapter 1]: One who does not have scales covering his entire body is permitted; even if he has only one fin and one scale, he is permitted. Thus far his words. This is the opinion of most of the poskim, for such is the plain meaning of the wording of the Mishnah [59a]. Therefore, even though we find in the Tosefta of Chullin [at the end of chapter 3] this wording: "And how many scales must be on it? Even one under its jaw, and one under its tail, and one under its fins." Thus far its words. This implies that three scales are required and specifically in these locations. They did not concern themselves with this since it is against the Mishnah. There are those who were concerned with it regarding the determination of the location, as this is not explicitly stated in the Mishnah to the contrary. This is the opinion of our teacher, the Rema, who wrote: "And there are those who say that one should not permit with one scale unless it stands under its tail, or its jaw, or its fin, and it is good to be stringent." Thus far his words. And they explain that the Tosefta is taught as "either/or": either under its jaw, or under its tail, or under its fin. They explained the reason being that in other locations there is a concern lest the scale became attached from another fish, but in these locations there is no concern. There are those who were concerned for the plain meaning of the words of the Tosefta and did not permit except with three and in these locations, and the Rashba wrote that one should be concerned for this [see the Beit Yosef; and the Rema was not concerned for it because in the Mishnah Rabbi Yehuda says two, and would Rabbi Yehuda be for stringency while in the Tosefta Rabbi Yehuda is for leniency? (expressed as a wonder). Therefore he explained that it is taught as "either/or." And were it not for the words of our masters, I would have explained the Tosefta according to its plain meaning, and it does not disagree with the Mishnah; for in the Mishnah one scale is not clarified because this is impossible to be, for if there are scales certainly there are many, rather the Tosefta says as follows: even if they are scattered. And Rabbi Yehuda says two in one place, and Rabbi Yehuda would be for stringency. And in the Mishnah as well it can be explained thus, and so it appears from the wording "even," and examine it closely].

There are types of kosher fish whose scales are very thin and are not recognizable, and therefore if they wrapped it in a cloth or placed it in a vessel full of water and scales were found, it is permitted, for the Torah did not specifically require large scales. Therefore, regarding species that are not known to us, if they performed an examination by wrapping in a cloth or in water and scales were found, it is kosher. And similarly, if they held the fish up against the sun and small scales are seen in it, it is permitted [Gemara Perek Elu Terefot 39a]. However, a mere appearance is not effective according to what has been explained, for it must be possible to peel them, and therefore the Tur and Shulchan Aruch did not write this law [see Shach subsection 2, and according to what I wrote it is well-settled, and observe carefully]. And know that it is a simple matter that regarding something which requires the sight of the eye, it is not effective if one sees via a magnifying glass, and one must see with the eye itself; and so it is in matters throughout the entire Torah regarding that which requires the sight of the eye.

We have already explained that fish that shed their scales at the time they emerge from the water are permitted, and in the Gemara there several species are enumerated, but they are not known to us. And so our sages, of blessed memory, said that if this species of fish does not have scales in its youth but is destined to grow them after a time, it is permitted to eat it even in its youth, for the Torah only required a species that has scales. And it has already been explained that anything that has a scale has a fin, but there are those that have a fin and do not have a scale; therefore, if one found pieces of fish that have a scale, he does not need to search for a fin; if he found a fin, he must search for a scale. And you do not find this law except in a piece, for in a whole fish you do not find it possible to find a scale without a fin.

If one found pieces of fish lying together and there is a scale on one piece: if the pieces match—that is, they are equal and when one places them together one next to the other they connect—all of them are permitted, as this is a sign that all of them are from one fish. If they do not match, those pieces that have scales on them are permitted, and those that do not have them are forbidden. Even if they were salted together, we are not concerned to forbid the pieces that have scales, because the brine of non-kosher fish is only Rabbinic, as will be explained, and they were not stringent in a case of doubt, for it is not clear to us that these other pieces are from a non-kosher fish; therefore, even if it is clear to us that they were salted together, it is kosher [see Shach subsection 5, who explained that it is because of a doubt that perhaps he mixed them after salting, as in section 5, but this requires further study, for there it deals with a certain non-kosher fish, but here it is a doubt, and so it appears from the wording of the Shulchan Aruch, that it is known they were salted together, and examine this closely].

The Tur wrote: There is yet another sign for a pure fish, which is that the impure [fish] has a pointed head and has no spinal column, and the pure [fish] does not have a pointed head and has a spinal column. And there are some of the great authorities who wrote that one may rely on these two signs to permit any fish. And my father, our teacher, the Rosh, of blessed memory, wrote that one may not rely on them. Nevertheless, he wrote: A Cuthite who brings a barrel full of pieces of salted fish, any fish whose head and spinal column are recognizable is permitted, and the rest are forbidden. Thus far his words. And his words require explanation.

And this is the explanation, as it is found in the Gemara [ibid. 99b]: that when they bring small salted fish and they are "terufot," meaning that besides not being whole, the pieces are further mixed such that there is not even one whole piece among them, they are forbidden, for perhaps they are from a non-kosher fish. But if the pieces are not mixed, such that the pieces are recognizable, if the heads and the spinal columns are recognizable as being of a pure species—for example, that the head is broad and not sharp and they have a spinal column—they are permitted. And the Gemara asks: if head and spinal column are signs of purity, why did we learn in the Mishnah only fins and scales? And it answers that there are also among the pure fish those whose head and spinal column resemble the non-kosher ones; see there. And the early authorities explained that this is the explanation: certainly they are a sign of purity, but the Torah and the Mishnah were not able to give this sign and say that anything whose head is sharp and has no spinal column is a sign of impurity, for it is not so, as there are pure fish that have fins and scales and their head and spinal column resemble the non-kosher ones. However, those whose head is broad and have a spinal column are certainly pure. And this is what the Tur wrote, that there are some of the great authorities who wrote that one may rely on these signs to permit them.

But the Rosh wrote there [siman 41] that this is what the Shas means: that since there are those among the pure whose head and spine resemble the impure, if so, this is not a definitive sign, and it could also be the opposite—that among the impure there are those whose head and spine resemble the pure. If so, one cannot rely on this sign to permit them. Nevertheless, regarding a barrel of salted fish pieces, one should permit them by means of this sign; for since there is no deficiency here in the fact that they lack scales—as they fall off during the time of salting—therefore one should permit them by means of this sign, and we do not concern ourselves with the minority of the minority, that impure fish possess these signs of pure fish. This is not the case when the fish is before us whole without scales, where it is impossible to permit it through this [Bach, Derisha, and Shach, subsection 6]. And there is one who explained that here it is dealing with a case where there are some pieces in the barrel that have scales, and therefore regarding those that do not have scales, we do not concern ourselves with them since they have the signs of the head and spine [ibid. in the name of Maharalacha]. But this is not implied by the wording of the Tur. And there are those who distinguish between initially and after the fact, and the Cuthean who brought it was a case of after the fact [Taz, subsection 5].

The Rambam, of blessed memory, has another opinion on this, as he wrote at the end of chapter 3: One may not purchase crushed salted fish from the idolaters, and these are what are called "crushed trita." But if the head of the fish and its spine were recognizable, even though it is crushed, it is permitted to purchase it from the idolaters. Thus far his words. And it appears that he explains that there is no difference regarding a definitive sign in the head and spine between the impure and the pure; rather, one must recognize through a distinct impression the head and the spine, that it is of such-and-such a species of fish. Then we do not concern ourselves with another impure fish that was mixed with them, for we do not presume a prohibition, and the head and the spine are the main part of the body; therefore, they provide a necessity [of identification] as to which fish it is [Kesef Mishneh]. He likewise explained his words in the Commentary on the Mishnah, see there. Therefore, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, omitted this entire law in the Shulchan Aruch.

But our teacher, the Rema, wrote it in section 4 regarding the law of pieces of fish, and this is his wording: And if a fish is found there that has a wide head and a spine, it is permitted to eat, for it certainly had scales; but if the fish is whole and we do not see scales on it, one may not rely on the head and spine. Thus far his words. And his intention is that regarding pieces, when there is reason to assume that the scales were removed for some reason, we assume so and rely on this, but not regarding a whole fish, as he wrote in section 20. [And he was not concerned for the opinion of the Rambam because most of the poskim do not hold accordingly; and only the Bach and the Shach in subsection 6, who wanted to interpret even the opinion of the Rambam that it is a sign, it is impossible to say so, as the Pri Chadash and the Kereti u-Peleti wrote, and they settled the sugya according to his words with difficulty; and also the Ra'avad holds accordingly as the Ran wrote there, but such is not the opinion of most of the poskim]:

They wrote in the name of our teacher, Judah the Pious, that a kosher fish has a tail split in two [Beit Yosef], and certainly one should not rely on this to be lenient, but rather to be stringent when it is not split in two [Pri Chadash, subsection 7]. And there is one who wrote in this wording in the name of the Riaz: A definitive sign in fish: any fish whose tail is bifurcated, if the bifurcations are equal, it is known that it has kashkeshet; and if the tips of the bifurcations—one is longer than the other—it is known that it does not have kashkeshet. But where its tail is not bifurcated, the tail of the kosher resembles the non-kosher in most fish [Shiltei HaGibborim, end of chapter 3 of Avodah Zarah]. And this is not like our teacher, Judah the Pious, for there are many where the tail is not bifurcated, meaning it is not divided in two, and only that which is divided must the bifurcations be equal; and most of the poskim did not mention this at all.

One of the great authorities wrote regarding a species of fish called in the vernacular a species of "Carpin," which is covered with a very thin skin, and beneath the thin skin there are like small square chambers in which a single scale is placed, and it is impossible to peel them except with a knife; and the sages of the holy community of Vilna permitted it for eating [Ba'er Heitev in the name of Knesset HaGedolah]. We, however, have not heard of this fish, and it is forbidden for us to eat only the fish known to us, and those that are not known to us are not to be eaten unless one sees scales upon them in the manner of fish. For we do not have a tradition regarding fish that do not have scales to say that they are from the species that shed their scales in the water. We have heard that in the generation before us there was a dispute among the sages of the generation regarding a fish called "Setrina," which has no scales, and they say that this is from the fish that shed their scales in the water, and the matter emerged as a prohibition; it is held among us to be a treifah fish, and Heaven forbid to permit it. Similarly, even if in one place they practice permission regarding some species of fish and in another place they practice a prohibition, one must not rely and permit in that place based on the tradition of the other place, as I wrote in siman 82 regarding birds; for perhaps in this place there are impure ones similar to this, and therefore they fenced a fence in this, and it is impossible to permit them [and so wrote the Noda BiYehudah, second edition, in siman 28, see there].

The brine of impure fish is only prohibited by rabbinic law, for it is merely perspiration, and it is not similar to the brine of carrion meat which is like meat, for fish do not have fatness and the brine that drips through salting is merely perspiration [Chullin 99b]. And even though in Torat Kohanim it is derived from "abomination" written regarding fish to prohibit their brine, their broth, and their sediment, it is merely an asmachta [Tosafot ibid.], or the primary verse refers to broth and sediment, and specifically to a fish that has no fatness; but as for fatty fish, their brine is prohibited by the Torah like meat. Therefore, any doubt that occurs regarding the brine of fish is a rabbinic doubt and we follow the lenient path, but with a fatty fish we follow the stringent path in its doubt, for it is a Torah doubt. And ordinary fish do not have fatness [Bach in the name of Issur V'Heter]; therefore, when there is a doubt whether they have fatness or not, we follow the lenient path [Shach, subsection 15]. And know that specifically brine through salting is rabbinic in fish, but brine through pickling for twenty-four hours, and certainly brine through cooking, is by the Torah [ibid.]. And some disagree regarding pickling [Noda BiYehuda, siman 26], and such is the primary view [Erekh HaShulchan, chapter 10 of Terumot, mishna 8, and the Rosh, Perek Af Al Pi, siman 42].

Since the brine produced by salting fish is a rabbinic prohibition, it is therefore permitted to buy pure salted fish from a gentile even though they are placed with impure ones in one vessel, for perhaps they were not salted together initially, but rather after he salted each one individually, he mixed them afterwards in one vessel. And therefore, even though we maintain later in siman 91 that even after the duration of salting it is considered as boiling—see there—and if so, since they are placed in one vessel and they are moist, the pure ones would absorb from the impure ones, we are not concerned for this because fish brine is minimal, and once they have stayed the duration of salting, they have already discharged all their brine [Shach, subsection 7]. And even if they are now placed together in a vessel full of cold water, we are not concerned for it as long as they did not soak for twenty-four hours together, for then it would be considered pickled [Issur Ve-Heter, siman 13 in the name of the Raviah, and so it appears in the Levush]. However, if there is brine in the vessel and the brine rises over all the fish, they are certainly forbidden even if it is not known that they soaked for twenty-four hours. And it is not only necessary to say this if we say that regarding brine one does not require twenty-four hours, as I wrote later in siman 105, but even if we say that fish brine after the duration of salting is only like water and requires twenty-four hours, nevertheless, it is more probable that they have been together in the vessel for many days, for such is the way of merchants to leave them in their salt in a vessel and the brine washes over them so that they do not spoil. For it is reasonable that when they are soaked in cold water, it is apparent to the eye that they were only recently soaked together, and since there is a doubt if they were together for twenty-four hours, we hang it on the lenient side; but when they are soaked in brine together in a vessel, who brought the brine here? Certainly they were placed together in this vessel a long time ago, and from the salting and the pressure, the brine rose over them [Atteret Zekenim, subsection 6, who implies that even in brine it is permitted when we do not know clearly that they soaked for twenty-four hours, and his words are astonishing; and even if they are not now in the vessel in which they transport them, such as a barrel, but rather they are in another vessel like a bowl or a tub, nevertheless, who placed the brine upon them? And a proof for this is from the Issur Ve-Heter that we cited, that only in cold water is there reason to be lenient, and Heaven forbid to be lenient regarding brine, and examine this carefully].

That which we have written is according to the essential law, and our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 5, and this is his wording: And there are those who forbid if they are placed with the impure ones in one barrel, and so we are accustomed not to buy them even if one only sees that they are placed with the salted impure ones in a mixture on the table where they sell them there, except for herring and "merkedesh," which they permit in any case, for certainly they are not salted with the impure ones because it is not the way to salt them with them. And even with other fish one should not be stringent to search and examine if there are impure fish among them. And if one sees that the impure fish are soaked in water with the pure ones, even with herring one should forbid it, but we do not concern ourselves that perhaps they were soaked as long as we do not see it. And all this is ab initio, but ex post facto, if he already bought it, one should permit it in any case because the brine of fish is rabbinic, and we say perhaps at first they were not salted together, and we do not concern ourselves afterward with their absorption from one another. And specifically when they do not have fatness, and ordinary salted fish do not have fatness, but if they have fatness it is forbidden by Torah law and a doubt is to be stringent. And where the salted fish are dry, it is permitted in any case since the impure ones are also dry, and they were accustomed to be stringent even in this ab initio if they are placed among them. Thus far his words.

The explanation of his words is that he does not disagree with all that has been explained, and certainly according to the essential law it is so, that one should assume they were not salted together. However, who would not understand this: that when they bring them in one vessel, it is more likely that they were also salted together. And so wrote one of the early authorities, this is his wording: However, a curse shall come upon a man who sees with his eyes pure and impure fish placed together in a vessel and buys them initially, and regarding them it is said, "and transgressors shall stumble over them" [Sha'arei Dura, siman 10]. And his intention is that even though one should not protest against them for the reason that has been explained, nevertheless the heart knows that they were salted together. And so wrote the Mordechai [end of Avodah Zarah] in the name of great ones, that regarding salted fish placed together with impure ones, they practiced a prohibition regarding them, see there. And the reason is as I have written. Therefore, if there are sixty of the pure ones against the impure ones, there is no concern at all, and we do not fear that perhaps some of the impure ones were sold and previously there were not sixty there, for one need not be concerned to such an extent [see Shach, subsection 8].

However, regarding herring, there is no concern, for they were certainly not salted with other non-kosher fish because they come from a distant place by the thousands and they salt them alone. Regarding them, there is no concern even when they are placed together with non-kosher fish on the table or in a vessel, and certainly after a long time they were placed near them. And even with other salted fish, one should not practice this stringency unless they see that they are placed with the non-kosher fish together on the table or in a vessel. But when a merchant brings pure salted fish, we do not have to probe and concern ourselves that perhaps there are non-kosher fish with them as well, for we do not have to concern ourselves with this even when it is possible to clarify, as there is no basis for this concern. Conversely, even regarding herring, where it was explained that there is no concern when they are placed together in a vessel, nevertheless, if one sees that they are soaking together in a vessel in the soaking water, and there is much brine in this soaking water, and that soaking water is potent, one must forbid it [Terumat HaDeshen siman 174 and Sha'arei Dura, and also the intention of the Rema is so, and that which he wrote "soaking in water," his intention was these soaking waters, and so it appears in Darkhei Moshe letter 2, for in actual water there is no concern; and among us they call this "lake," and the poor dip their bread in it because it is very salty and also has the taste of fish].

And this is when we saw that these herring were soaking with non-kosher fish, but when we did not see this, there is no concern. Even though we saw other herring that were soaking with non-kosher fish, we do not have to concern ourselves that perhaps these were also thus; and since we did not see these, we do not establish a deficiency and one should not be stringent in this. And all these matters in which we were stringent are ab initio because the reasoning is thus, as we explained. Therefore, even though according to the letter of the law one may be lenient, nevertheless one should be stringent ab initio. But ex post facto, if he already took them, we establish it according to the law as I wrote in section 26, and even if they are lying together and soaking together, and even with things other than herring, and one should permit it in every case, and we say perhaps initially they were not salted together but only afterwards became mixed, and we do not concern ourselves with their absorbing from one another. And specifically when they do not have fatness do we go toward leniency because it is a rabbinic doubt, but when they have fatness we go in their doubt toward stringency because it is a Torah doubt. And ordinary salted fish or ordinary fish that are not salted [Taz subsection 7] do not have fatness, and therefore if there is a doubt whether they have fatness, we go in its doubt toward leniency because the majority of them do not have fatness. And furthermore, it is a double doubt: perhaps they were not salted with them, and if you say they were salted, perhaps there is no fatness in them and it is permitted by the Torah; and since by the Torah there is a double doubt, it is permitted in a rabbinic matter like a single doubt [see Shach subsection 15 and Pri Megadim there].

And all these matters apply when the fish are moist and mixed with one another, but dry salted fish such as "taranes" and "tzubakes" and the like, where impure are mixed with pure and the impure are also dry, it is permitted in every case, and there is no concern to be stringent, even to consider a stringency, because there is no proof here that they were salted together. Certainly each one was salted individually, for such is the way of these fish: that when they are removed from the water, they tear each one individually and salt each one alone, and hang them and separate them from one another so that the wind and the sun may rule over them and they will dry there [Shach, subsection 16]. And he wrote that they were accustomed to be stringent even in this initially if they are placed among them. Thus far his words. Meaning, that the masses of Israel were accustomed even in this to be stringent, even though according to the law there is no basis for this stringency even according to the opinion of those who are stringent, for Israel are holy and were accustomed to be stringent. Therefore, in a place where they were not accustomed to this stringency, they are permitted to be eaten without any hesitation at all [ibid., subsection 17].

And know that even regarding this stringency, it does not apply to our dried fish such as taran, tzubak, samaykes, and the like, for in our days we have never heard that treif fish are found among them. Also, among the very small fish called stinkes, there are no treif fish, and perhaps if one is found, it is a minority of a minority; he throws them away and they are permitted. Similarly, those small fish that are strung on thin sticks called miatkes or izgarikes have no concern at all, and anyone who is stringent regarding these and their like is only among the wonderous. And similarly, those moist salted fish such as shange, bayele, rivitze, and laksin have no concern at all, for treif fish are not found among them at all. And I heard that in some cities of Lithuania they would not eat our dried fish such as taran, tzubak, and the like, and I do not know for what reason. I also heard that one of the great ones in the third generation before us prohibited them, and one giant of the generation disagreed with him and permitted them. And according to what we have explained, there is no reason at all to prohibit them, as I have written.

It is stated in the Mishnah [at the end of the chapter "Elu Terefot"] that regarding tzir, if it contains the kilbit fish, the tzir is permitted, and if it does not contain it, it is forbidden. The explanation of these matters according to Rashi is that it is the way of the tzir of kosher fish, when there are many in one barrel, for a species of non-kosher fish called kilbit to be created and grow there on its own. If tzir of non-kosher fish is mixed into it, it is not its nature to grow there at all; and furthermore, even if it grew in the tzir of kosher fish, if tzir of non-kosher fish was subsequently mixed into the tzir, the kilbit would not survive and would die. Therefore, we are not concerned when a Cuthite brings tzir of fish if one kilbit is swimming in it and it is alive, it is permitted, for this is a sign that it is from kosher fish. If no kilbit is swimming in it, or if the kilbit is dead, it is forbidden, for we fear perhaps tzir of a non-kosher fish was mixed into this. And our sages, of blessed memory, said that there is a distinction between sealed barrels and open ones, as will be explained.

When they brought many barrels of brine and a kilbit was found alive in one of them, if the barrels are open, all of them are permitted, for they are all considered as one. And if the barrels are closed, it is permitted and all the others are forbidden. However, in an open one there is another stringency, for one kilbit is not sufficient, as we fear that it came from the outside and was not formed from it, and two kilbit are required. But in a closed one, one is sufficient, for if it had come from the outside when it was open, it would have already died, and once it was closed, it is impossible to come from the outside. But in an open one, we fear that it fell into it a short time ago, and with two we do not fear. [So it is according to the commentary of Rashi there, and it requires further study regarding the Tur and Shulchan Aruch who omitted this law that in open ones all are permitted; and see the Bach who settled this with great difficulty, and see the Shach subsection 18, and examine closely.]

The Rambam, of blessed memory, at the end of chapter 3, has a different opinion in all this, and several of our teachers agreed with him; and that is, that in every barrel of fish brine they place one fish there as a sign that the brine is from this species of fish, and the kilbit is a pure fish that they placed there. And if they are all open, one fish in one barrel is sufficient, as they are all considered as one. And if they are closed, more clarification is required, which is that they find a fish in each of two barrels, and then we say that presumably all the barrels are pure brine. And he also holds that even if the fish is not whole and there is no recognition by way of scales, nevertheless, if the head and the spine are whole and he recognizes by a distinct impression that this is from a pure fish, it is permitted. [The Tur and Shulchan Aruch were very brief, see there, and it requires further study].

This is the wording of the Rambam there: One may not purchase brine from the idolaters unless a tahor fish is floating in it, even a single fish. If an idolater brought a wagon full of open barrels of brine and one tahor fish was in one of them, they are all permitted. If they were sealed, and he opened one and a tahor fish was found in it, and a second and a tahor fish was found in it, they are all permitted, provided that the head of the fish and its spine are intact so that it is recognizable as a tahor fish. Thus far his words. And this fact that we rely on two barrels regarding sealed ones is by reason of chazakah; even though every chazakah is established with three times, nevertheless, since fish brine is rabbinic, they were lenient with two, because in the Shas there is one who maintains that with two it is a chazakah [Yevamot 64b]; therefore they were lenient in this [it appears to me].

And that which we permitted by means of the fish found in the barrel, this is when there is no impure fish in it as well, such as a fish or a piece that does not have scales. But if an impure fish is found in it as well, even if many pure ones are also found, nevertheless the tzir is forbidden. And it is not only necessary to say if a certainly impure fish is found, but even when pieces are found regarding which there is a doubt if they are impure or pure, and it would have been the law to permit the tzir due to a double doubt—perhaps they too are pure, and if you will say they are impure, perhaps they did not soak for twenty-four hours together and the tzir is from the pure ones; and furthermore, that a doubt regarding kavush is also rabbinic according to those who disagree in section 25—nevertheless, they did not permit the tzir as a decree because of the fish themselves, for if we permit the tzir, they will also eat the doubtful fish, and this is a Torah doubt. Therefore, the recognizable pieces that are pure are permitted, and we are not concerned that they are soaked in the tzir, since the tzir itself is only a stringency [Shach, subsection 23]. And this law is like that in section 17 regarding pieces of fish that do not match, see there [and it must be said also there that the tzir is forbidden just as here, and so wrote the Levush there and the Shach, subsection 5, see there; and according to this, the words of the Levush who wrote here "and it is not similar etc. and we are lenient regarding the absorbed tzir etc." thus far his words, are very astonishing, for they have one law to the one who examines well, and reflect on this]:

It is stated in the Gemara [at the end of the chapter "Elu Terefot"] that regarding fish entrails and fish eggs—and this refers to the cluster of gathered eggs which are fish embryos, and in our language are called "roggen" or "ikra"—there is a distinction between the impure and the pure. For the pure, each cluster has one end blunt and one end sharp, like a chicken egg, and for the impure, both ends are blunt or both are sharp, like the egg of an impure bird. And similarly regarding fish entrails, there is this sign; not in the entrails themselves, for this is not applicable to them, but rather in the bladder of the fish placed within the entrails which is filled with air and is called "blase," and in the pure, its one end is blunt and its one end is sharp, and in the impure, both are blunt or both are sharp. And according to this, when fish entrails or fish embryos, which are fish eggs, come before us with these signs, it is permitted to eat them. And if the entrails and the eggs were crushed and it is impossible to recognize them by this sign, it is forbidden to take them except from an expert, meaning a Jew who is proficient and understands the nature of fish entrails and their eggs even when they are crushed, to recognize from which species of fish they are. And if there is no such expert there, they have no permit unless the Jew says, "I salted the fish and I saw that they are pure fish, and from them I removed these entrails and these eggs," and all the more so when he shows us the fish and says, "from this species of fish I removed them," for it is valid.

Everything we have explained is what emerges from the words of the Gemara there according to the commentary of Rashi and Tosafot, see there. And even though in Chullin [64a] we conclude that the signs of bird eggs themselves are not from the Torah because there are also impure ones whose eggs resemble pure ones, nevertheless, regarding fish it is from the Torah [Tosafot in the name of Rabbeinu Tam]. And according to this, the law remains as we have explained.

And afterwards, our teachers the authors of the Tosafot wrote that from the Yerushalmi it is explicitly implied that even regarding fish this is not a definitive sign, see there. And according to this, even when they are whole and have not dissolved, it is impossible to rely on these signs and one specifically requires an expert. And if there is no expert there, the Israelite must say, "I salted the fish and I saw that they are pure," as has been written. And one should not ask that if so, why did the sages state these signs since they are not entirely effective? For it can be said that these signs are effective such that one does not require an expert nor "I salted them," but rather it is sufficient when the seller says they are of such-and-such a fish. For since the signs are recognizable and the majority of pure fish have these signs, therefore, in combination with this, when the seller says they are of such-and-such a fish, even though he is not an expert and does not say "I salted them," he is believed and it is permitted to eat them. But when they have dissolved, this is not effective and one specifically requires an expert or "I salted them," for in such a case the law is also thus regarding the eggs of birds, as has been written in siman 86. [This is the intent of the Tosafot there, and therefore Rava was forced to answer "when they have dissolved," because then one specifically requires an expert, for when they have not dissolved it is sufficient when he says it is of such-and-such a fish; and see there in the Maharam Lublin who also intended this, and examine it closely]:

And the words of the Rambam and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch are very entangled regarding these laws. For behold, the Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote at the end of chapter 3, and this is his wording: The signs of fish eggs are like the signs of bird eggs; if both their ends were blunt or sharp, it is impure. One blunt and one sharp, he asks the Israelite seller; if he said to him, "I salted them and removed them from a pure fish," he eats based on his word. And if he said to him, "they are pure," he is not believed unless he was a person established in fitness. Thus far his words.

And behold, his words are perplexing in that he did not mention the entrails of fish at all. Furthermore, why would it not be effective when he says they are of such-and-such a fish, as with the eggs of birds, since he is dealing with a case where they have not been dissolved, for he did not mention this at all? Furthermore, according to him, why did the Sages, of blessed memory, state these signs since they are not effective at all? Furthermore, the Gemara distinguishes between when they are whole and when they have been dissolved, yet he makes no distinction at all. All the scholars of the generations have already wondered at him. Furthermore, why regarding fish eggs do we require that it be established as kosher, while regarding bird eggs none of this is necessary? He himself previously ruled regarding bird eggs that when the hunter tells him it is of such-and-such a bird and it is pure, he relies upon him, see there. The Maggid Mishneh wrote that because salted fish come from afar, he is more able to offer excuses than with eggs; therefore, it is specifically required that he say, "I salted them," see there. And it is a correct reason. [But that which he wrote, that therefore he did not mention the entrails of fish because according to Rava there no sign is taught regarding them, requires great study, for would Rava not admit to physical realities? They have already questioned him so. See there in the Lechem Mishneh, who raised many difficulties in this matter and remained in a state of "requires study".]

It appears to my humble opinion that the Rambam, of blessed memory, holds that since regarding bird eggs, which are recognizable to every person and are large in quantity, the Sages said that one may not rely on the signs, how much more so regarding fish eggs, where the recognition of their clusters is very difficult to identify, as I have seen with my own eyes that one cannot rely on the signs at all. Rather, that which the Sages said regarding the signs is for the opposite: that if both their ends are blunt or sharp, it does not avail even if he says "I salted them," and even if he is presumed to be of kosher status, for he is a liar. And conversely, when they possess the signs, one also does not rely on this because of two things: first, that signs are not of Torah authority, and second, that because of their softness they can easily be mistaken. Therefore, even if he says "it is of such-and-such a fish and it is tahor," it does not avail until he says "I salted them myself" or he is presumed to be of kosher status. And it is not similar to bird eggs, which are very common and recognizable to all, and they are hard and large in quantity. And consequently, when he says "I salted them," there is no difference between whether they were dissolved or whole, since we rely on him completely. Therefore, he did not mention this distinction at all. And also the Gemara did not mention that by saying "it is of such-and-such a fish" he should be believed. And that which it mentioned a distinction between dissolved and not dissolved is for stringency: that when not dissolved and one sees in it both ends blunt or sharp, it is completely treif and nothing avails. And this is why the Rambam wrote his words [and the words of the Shach, subsection 24, require further study; and examine carefully]:

And regarding that which he did not mention fish entrails, it appears to me that since the Sages, of blessed memory, said that in the entrails themselves there is no identifying mark except in their bladder, and in the Yerushalmi they said that one Amora erred regarding the bladder between an impure and a pure fish, it is a fortiori—the grandson of a fortiori—that it is impossible to rely on any person in the world in this matter, even on the greatest expert. Furthermore, our eyes see that fish entrails coming from afar, which are called "fish train" and in the Russian language "rybny zhir," come in thousands of barrels and do not contain the bladder; if so, it is impossible to rely on any sign, or on any expert or righteous person. Therefore, even though according to the law it is so, that they are equal to fish roe, nevertheless in practice the Rambam could not write this law at all. And it is true that if one who is established in his kashrut comes and brings fish entrails and says, "I removed them from a kosher fish," he is certainly believed; however, for this it is not necessary to explain this law here, and in all foods it is so. Furthermore, this is included in the general rule of what he wrote afterward, that one may not buy a piece of fish except from one who is established in his kashrut, see there; and automatically the same applies to fish entrails, since in them too we have no sign, as I have written.

The words of the Tur are extremely puzzling, for he wrote: Fish entrails may only be purchased from an expert, but from one who is not an expert, they may not be purchased from him. In what case does this apply? When they have been mashed; but if they are whole and the signs of purity are recognizable in them, they may be purchased from any person. And what are their signs, etc. And Rabbeinu Tam wrote that it is a definitive sign upon which to permit any fish, but in the Yerushalmi it implies that it is not a definitive sign, and such is the conclusion of my father, the Rosh, of blessed memory. And that which they may not be purchased from one who is not an expert when they are mashed, this is specifically in an ordinary case; but if he says, "it is from such-and-such a fish" and we recognize that it is pure, or if he says, "I salted them," or if he says, "these are the fish from which these entrails come," they may be purchased from any person. But if he said, "it is from such-and-such a fish and it is pure," he is not believed. And the Rashba wrote that even if they are whole and a sign of purity is recognizable in them, they may not be purchased from one who is not an expert unless he says, "it is from such-and-such a fish and it is pure," or "these are the fish and these are their entrails." And my father, the Rosh, wrote according to the first opinion. And the Rashba wrote further: Fish roe is permitted to be purchased from any person, etc., for an impure fish spawns live young and does not lay eggs. And I do not know why he wrote so, for even though the Talmud asks, etc., and answers, "remove roe," behold there are other answers that Rabbi Zera answers, etc., and since there are two answers, we adopt the stringency. Thus far his words.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, already wondered about him, for since according to the Rosh this was not a definitive sign, if so, even without them being dissolved, one would require an expert or that he say "they are from such-and-such a fish" or "I salted them." However, the truth appears evident that the Tur holds that although this is not a definitive sign to permit a fish in which we see a deficiency—that it has no scales—nevertheless, where there is no deficiency, we follow the majority and say that this is a sign of purity to permit the entrails of the fish or the eggs themselves. This is why he was precise in his words: that Rabbeinu Tam permitted "every fish" based on this sign, meaning that even though it has no scales, we say that it shed them in the water. Regarding this, the Rosh disagrees, since there is a deficiency before us. But to permit [the eggs] themselves, since the majority of fish are thus, do we not follow the majority in the entire Torah? And that which he wrote, that when he says "it is of such-and-such a fish" we must recognize that it is pure, he follows his own reasoning in siman 86, that even regarding eggs he requires this. And this is why he brought the words of the Rashba, meaning that the Rashba holds that since this is not a definitive sign, if so, it is also not effective to permit [the eggs] themselves. But the Rosh does not hold so, for only to permit the fish is it impossible based on these signs, but not regarding the permission of [the eggs] themselves. [And so wrote the Rema in Darkei Moshe, letter 5, and so wrote the Du"P, and this is explicitly proven in the Rosh, see there and examine closely.] [And see Turei Zahav, subsection 9, and his words are strained and require further study, and examine closely.]

This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 7: Fish entrails may only be purchased from an expert, unless the Israelite selling them says to him, "I salted them and removed them from a pure fish." But if he said to him, "They are pure," he is not believed unless he was a person established in kashrut. Thus far his words. And in section 8 he wrote: Fish eggs—if both their ends were blunt or pointed, they are impure; one blunt and one pointed, he asks the Israelite seller. If he said to him, "I salted them and removed them from a pure fish," he may eat based on his word. And if he said to him, "They are pure," he is not believed unless he was a person established in kashrut. Thus far his words.

And his words are perplexing, for why regarding fish entrails did he not require signs, yet regarding fish roe he required signs? And it appears to me that he holds like the opinion of most of the poskim, and certainly according to the letter of the law fish entrails are equal to fish roe in that they require signs, and we do not rely upon the signs themselves without the statement "I salted them" or an expert, just as he ruled regarding fish roe. However, since in fish entrails in the vast majority there are no signs, because in the entrails themselves there are no signs but only in the bladder, and most times they come without a bladder, and furthermore, behold in the Yerushalmi an Amora erred regarding the bladder as I have written, and certainly according to the letter of the law it is sufficient with either an expert or the statement "I salted them." And only regarding fish roe, since the signs are in the eggs themselves and it is possible to clarify, naturally wherever it is possible to clarify, we clarify. Therefore, he was precise and wrote regarding fish entrails "an expert," meaning one who has the ability to recognize from which fish these entrails come. But regarding roe he did not mention "an expert," for there is no need for an expert in that which is possible to see. And this is the explanation: Fish entrails are not purchased except from an expert since there are no signs in them themselves, unless he said to him "I salted them." But if he said to him "they are pure," he is not believed unless he was a person established in fitness. Thus far his words. And this is not the "expert" that he wrote previously. And afterwards he says: But fish roe, since the signs are in them themselves, therefore if both their ends are blunt or sharp, it does not avail anything and they are completely forbidden. And with one end blunt and one end sharp, it requires a statement or a person established in fitness. And if they were crushed, it is sufficient with "I salted them" or established in fitness. In fish entrails, since it is impossible to clarify the sign, therefore he did not write that we require specifically that they be whole, but rather that even when whole they require a statement and we do not rely on the signs. [This is clear as stated above with the help of Heaven. And the words of the Shach, subsection 24, require further study, and according to what I have written, that which was questioned against him is settled. Also the words of the Taz, subsection 10, who wrote that also regarding fish entrails it deals with whole ones and there are signs, is a great wonder. And examine this.]

And know that our teacher, the Rema, emended regarding fish innards—concerning what is written there, that when the Israelite seller says "I salted them" he is believed—he wrote that the same applies to a gentile. They have already wondered about him [see Shach subsection 25], for how is it possible to rely on his statement without signs? And they rejected his words. There are those who justified them with difficulty based on the reasoning of fear [see Kereti U-Peleti, and Shach, and Pri Chadash who rejected his words]. And who does not see this difficulty? For he equates him to an Israelite! Furthermore, what fear is relevant regarding something that comes from a distant place? And it appears to me that another intention is hidden in his words: for behold, in section 8, regarding what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote concerning the signs of fish eggs, he emended, and this is his wording: And the same law applies to the innards as well. Thus far his words. And his intention was to disagree with our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in that he did not require signs for fish innards; rather, he holds that even for innards one requires signs. Consequently, that which he wrote previously, "or a gentile," relied on what follows, which deals with where there are signs. He did not write it in the phrasing of "and there are those who say" because the opposite is not explicitly stated, as is his way in many places. And since there are signs of purity, he is certainly believed, for so wrote several of the Rishonim [so it appears to me clearly].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote that now the custom has spread to buy fish roe without specification, whether whole or crushed, and even from a non-Jew, provided that they are red; but the black ones, we do not eat them at all. Thus far his words. And he explained his words in his great work, that he heard that even though there are red ones among the impure fish, nevertheless, when they salt them they return to blackness, but the pure ones remain in their redness; see there. And there are some of the great authorities who cried out against this like a crane, for certainly if this matter were a tradition from the mouth of the Geonim we would rely upon it, but to rely on a Torah prohibition based on the rumors of the masses and the merchants, how is this possible? [Pri Chadash, subsection 26]. And certainly it is so, and Heaven forbid to rely on this, and we have never heard of eating fish roe that comes from afar, and they are held by us to be treif, whatever they may be, red or black. [And know that now the drinking of fish entrails, which they call "fish train," has increased. And behold, for the sick person the matter is simple, but there are also healthy people who drink them, and from where is the basis? And perhaps they are certain that they are from kosher fish, and so I heard from one apothecary regarding the matter of "fish train," that the large fish from which they take them have scales, and so he showed me in an illustration of a collection of fish; and one must deliberate on this and clarify it very thoroughly].

The sages taught in the Mishnah [Bechorot 7b]: A tamei fish that swallowed a tahor fish is permitted for eating, and a tahor fish that swallowed a tamei fish is forbidden for eating, because it is not its growth. And it is not specifically that it swallowed it in our presence; rather, even if a tahor fish is found within a tamei fish or a tamei fish within a tahor fish, it is as if we saw that it swallowed it. We do not fear that perhaps the tamei fish spawned the tahor fish—which would be like a tamei animal that gave birth to a tahor animal, which is forbidden like its mother, for that which emerges from the tamei is tamei—because the majority of fish spawn their own species, and therefore we have no doubt that it swallowed it [Gemara].

Therefore, the Rambam [in chapter 1], the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch wrote: A pure fish found in the entrails of an impure fish is pure, and an impure fish found in the entrails of a pure fish is forbidden. Thus far their words. And they did not write "that it swallowed," for "found" is also like "swallowed before us," as I have written. And in whatever place of the fish it is found, we are not concerned for it; whether it was found by way of the rectum or whether it was found by way of the throat, or if it came out, they have one law. And if it was found in the womb, some say that in such a case, even a pure fish found in an impure fish is forbidden, for we concern ourselves that she gave birth to it [Taz subsection 14 and Pri Chadash]. And ostensibly it implies such from the wording of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, see there. But some say that even in such a case it is permitted, because we are not concerned for it at all [Shach subsection 29]. And from the wording of the Gemara and the Rambam it implies such, that there is no difference at all between "swallowed before us" and "found in the fish." Nevertheless, since this is a Torah prohibition, one should not permit in such a case, and especially since the majority of opinions forbid [see the Kereti U'Peleti who is in doubt regarding this because perhaps Rav Ashi does not disagree on this, and I wonder, for behold Rav Ashi says this, that there is no need for the previous resolutions, and so it implies explicitly from the laws of the Ramban, see there; and that which the Tur and Shulchan Aruch wrote these cases is because they were mentioned in the Gemara in the previous resolutions, see there and examine closely].

And one should not ask why the pure that was swallowed by the impure is permitted—is it any less than the urine of a donkey, which we forbid at the beginning of siman 81 according to the opinion of most poskim, and there too the water entered from elsewhere? However, this is no question at all, for there, when the water rests in the body of the donkey, it is warmed by its flesh and the moisture of the body mixes with it; but with the fish, just as the pure entered, so it exits, and it does not absorb anything from the flesh of the impure fish [Rosh]. And one should also not ask the opposite: why do we forbid a pure fish that swallowed an impure fish? Let it be considered as digested, as we learned in Ohalot chapter 13 regarding the matter of tumah, that any food that remained in the entrails of a fish even for a short time is judged as digested and is like mere dust. Therefore, even if it were impure before the swallowing, such as the flesh of a corpse and the like, it becomes pure through its swallowing; and even according to the one who is stringent there and requires twenty-four hours for digestion, see there, however, at any rate, when we know that the impure fish remained in the pure one for twenty-four hours, let us not forbid it. Therefore, our teachers wrote that we do not derive laws of prohibition from laws of tumah [Tosafot and Rosh]. And some say there is a distinction between where one eats and chews with his teeth, as in such a case we consider it digested, and where one swallowed the thing whole, as we do not consider it digested since it is whole as it was at first [ibid. in the name of the Ram], and so we rule also regarding the matter of chametz on Pesach when a wheat grain is found in the entrails of a chicken and it was cooked thus on Pesach, that we forbid the cooked dish and do not permit it based on the reason of digestion, as is written in Orach Chaim siman 467, see there. And it appears that the Tur took the second excuse as the primary one, but in Orach Chaim there it does not imply so [see Shach subsection 30]. And some say that if it exited out through the rectum, in all cases it is considered digested [ibid. subsection 31], but from the wording of the Tur it implies that when it is found whole, even if it exited out, it is not considered digested [and regarding the Shach who raised a difficulty from the Rosh, I am wondered, for the Rosh wrote this before he brought the excuse of the Ram, see there, but according to the excuse of the Ram there is no distinction in this; and perhaps for this intention the Tur wrote this reason. And many raised a difficulty against him, for in Orach Chaim he wrote the reason that we do not derive laws of prohibition from laws of tumah, but according to what I wrote it is well, for he came to teach that in such a case even if it exited out it is forbidden, and delve into it].