Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Pesukah is also one of the eight categories of treifot mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachah 2. The term literally means “severed.”

We are using this term to translate the Hebrew term moach. It is a loose term that means the material inside a bone. Chullin 45b states that this marrow is of no significance with regard to thP. category of pesukah. Therefore the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 3 2:1) rules that if the skin is severed, even if the marrow is entirely intact, the animal is treifah.

And hence, forbidden. This ruling is granted because this question is left unresolved by Chullin 45b. The Kessef Mishneh quotes Rashi who explains that this is speaking about a situation where the spine has become thick and heavy, but has not become soft inside. The question is whether this state results from sickness or not.

See the following halachah for a definition of this term. Diagram

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 32:5) interprets this as meaning the place where the wings are attached to the body. The Rama follows the opinion of Tosafot who state that the term refers to the place where the wings lie on the body, a point somewhat lower on the fowl’s back. Diagram

For these portions are not fundamental for the body’s functioning.

Keru’ah is also one of the eight categories of treifot mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachah 2. The term literally means “ripped apart.”

I.e., but some flesh remained. The animal is deemed treifah, because in such a condition, ultimately, the entire flesh will tear open.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that many others authorities interpret Chullin 50b, the Rambam’s source, as implying that if the cut extends over the greater part of the animal’s belly, the animal is treifah. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro quotes the Rashba as explaining that the Rambam does not accept this approach because if so, there would be no difference between the categories of pesukah and keru ‘ah. The Rashba himself does not require such a distinction and instead, maintains that these categories overlap. In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 48:3), he quotes the Rambam’s view. The Turei Zahav 48:5 and the Siftei Cohen 48:4 mention the other positions.

The dissenting perspectives also maintain that the same ruling applies with regard to the greater part of the breadth of the belly (Siftei Cohen 48:6).

The previous halachah was speaking about a slit where the flesh was not necessarily cut away. This halachah speaks about a situation where a portion of flesh was removed (Kessef Mishneh).

A coin of the Talmudic era with a diameter that is a third of a handbreadth, i.e., 2.6 cm. According to Shiurei Torah.

Chullin 55b mentions a tradition that maintains that if an animal’s entire skin is removed except for a portion the size of a sela, the animal is acceptable. [For from this portion, the entire skin will be regenerated (Rashi).] The Talmud continues mentioning three views, concerning where the skin must remain. Since the matter remains unresolved and we do not know which of these views should be followed, the Rambam rules that all of the different views must be respected and a portion of skin the size of a sela must remain in each place (Kessef Mishneh). [Significantly, in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Chullin 3:2), the Rambam mentions only the view that requires skin on the backbone and not the other opinions.]

This question is left unresolved by Chullin, loc. cit. Hence there is a doubt concerning the ruling.

Many authorities question the Rambam's ruling. Seemingly, if the question was left unresolved by the Talmud, on what basis does the Rambam permit it?
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro offers two explanations for the Rambam's ruling:
a) As the Rambam states in Chapter 5, Halachah 3, since all the categories of treifot aside from a derusah are not mentioned explicitly in the Torah, we rule leniently concerning doubts.
b) Since the skin was removed from only one of three places mentioned, there is a multiple doubt (sefek s'feikah) involved. Perhaps the place from which the skin was removed was in fact not the vital area (for the halachah could follow one of the other views). Even if it was the vital area, perhaps the fact that the skin on the remainder of the body is intact is enough for the animal to be permitted.

Nefulah is also one of the eight categories of treifot mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachah 2. The term literally means “one which fell.”

In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Y osef Caro quotes Chullin 50b which states that this refers to a height of four handbreadths above the ground, for there are six handbreadths from the bottom of an animal’s belly until the ground. He also cites this view in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 58:1).
Moreover, in both those sources, Rav Y osef Caro also quotes views that state that this law applies only when the animal fell on its own or knew that it was being pushed by others. If, however, it was pushed suddenly by others, it is considered treifah even if it fell from a lesser height.

In this instance, the distance of ten handbreadths is not significant. Instead, if it was thrown with enough force to cause mortal damage, it can cause the animal to be rendered treifah.

Therefore all of those organs must be inspected (Chullin 51 a). The Ra’ avad states that every organ that would render the animal treifah if crushed must be inspected.
The Rama (Yoreh De ‘ah 58:6) writes that in the present era, we are not knowledgeable with regard to conducting these examinations and an animal that falls should be permitted only if it walks, as stated in the previous halachah.

Walking is adequate proof that the animal was not injured by the fall to the extent that it would no longer survive. Since it walks, we assume that it is healthy and do not require an internal examination, as stated in Halachah 1 7. The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that this applies only when the animal stood up on its own and then walked. If it was lifted up by others, we harbor suspicions. Similarly, he quotes authorities who maintain that it must walk in an ordinary manner. If it limps as it proceeds, an inspection is required. See Rama (Yoreh De ‘ah 58:6).
In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 58:5), Rav Yosef Caro quotes the opinion of the Rashba who writes that even if an obvious change was seen in its organs, as long as it was able to stand and walk, we do not suspect that it has become treifah.

And require an inspection.

For we assume that it prepared itself and jumped in a manner that would not cause injury. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 58:11) states that this applies even if the animal is not able to walk afterwards.

We assume that it jumped intentionally, as explained above.

We do not assume that their inner organs were crushed, because this is ordinary behavior.

Chullin 51 a states that we harbor suspicions, not because of the butting, but because the animal fell and we fear that it was injured by the fall.

I.e., if we do not know that it fell.

Otherwise, the stolen animal will not be of any benefit to them.

I.e., the fear of being caught.

For the thieves will not show any care for the animal while throwing it back into the corral.

Rashi (Chullin, loc. cit.) interprets this as meaning that the ox bellowed, but this does not appear to be the Rambam’ s understanding.

I.e., it is aware that they are trying to push it to the ground and it fights against them, thus lessening the impact of its fall. The Rama (Yoreh De’ah 58:10) writes that if the ox’s feet are tied when it is pushed to the ground, we suspect that it may have become treifah. For when its feet are tied, it cannot control its fall.

For the blows dealt by the bulges will be far more severe. Hence the backbone must be inspected to see that it is intact. See Turei Zahav 32:4.

In the previous clauses, the head of the staff did not carry with the brunt of the blow, because the lower portion of the staff struck the animal’s body first. Here we are speaking about a situation where the first and primary focus of the blow is delivered to the backbone by the top of the staff. This is a far more dangerous situation.

For the entire blow is focused on one point of the spinal cord.

Or conversely, if a firm article like a stone falls upon it [Rama (Yoreh De ‘ah 58:2)].

I.e., a mound of loose straw. Straw that has been bundled, by contrast, is considered as a firm article (Chullin 51 b).

One of the techniques with which hunters would trap wild fowl would be to set traps for them which would glue their wings to boards or other articles that prevented them from flying.

For by flapping the other wing, it will slow its fall and lessen the impact.

For there is nothing to soften the blow.

It was snared and fell unto a river.

For this exertion indicates that the animal is fundamentally healthy. It is equivalent to - or exceeds - the walking mentioned in Halachah 9.

In a still body of water that has no current, any swimming is a sign of health (see Siftei Cohen 58:10).

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 58:3) quotes the Rambam’s ruling. As mentioned above, the Rama (Yoreh De‘ah 58:6) states that in the present age, we are not knowledgeable with regard to conducting these examinations and an animal is permitted only if it walks after falling or receiving a blow.

The Ra’avad differs and maintains that there is an unresolved doubt with regard to the ruling in this instance. As mentioned, the Shulchan Aruch follows the Rambam’s position.
The Kessef Mishneh explains the Rambam’s ruling as follows: Since Chullin 51a states that if the uterus is crushed, it is not significant, we conclude that the crushing of all other internal organs is significant. Otherwise, it would not be necessary to single out the uterus. Moreover, he explains that crushing an organ can be more painful and more injurious to an animal than removing it.

I.e., if it stands - even if it does not walk - it can be slaughtered immediately and deemed acceptable through an examination, as above.

For sometimes the effects of a fall are not immediately evident. It is possible that an animal would be inspected and no difficulty found, but in truth, the effects of the fall would be enough to kill it. To reduce the possibility of such an occurrence, Chullin 51 b requires waiting an entire day before slaughtering the animal. See Kessef Mishneh.

See Halachah 17.

Chullin 56a describes such a situation with regard to an animal. The Rambam speaks of a fowl instead, for this is a more commonplace possibility.

Lest its organs have been crushed.

This addition is made on the basis of the Kessef Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 33:10).

Nevertheless, the Rambam mentions this condition here in connection with an animal that has fallen, because this is the most frequent situation in which this condition will occur.

They came loose from the place where they are attached within the throat area. See Chapter 3, Halachah 14, and Chapter 8, Halachah 23.

The Kessef Mishneh states that the Rambam rules that the animal is unacceptable, not because it would die because of this condition, but because it is impossible to slaughter it correctly.

If, however, the entire throat became loose from the jaw, the animal is treifah. For the egullet and the windpipe themselves, however, must remain taut and this is impossible if the entire throat has become loose (Kessef Mishneh).

I.e., the area referred to by the halachic term “the entrance to the gullet.”

Chapter 1, Halachah 6.

Shevurah is also one of the eight categories of treifot mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachah 2. The term literally means “broken.”

An animal also has several smaller ribs, but they’re being broken does not impair the animal’s functioning. Diagram

I.e., the portion close to the backbone. If the ribs are broken there, the animal's functioning can be impaired. If they are broken closer to the chest, the impairment will be less severe.

Speaking in analogy, the Rambam refers to this as “the male” bone.

The Ra’avad states that if the thigh is dislocated from its upper socket, the animal is treifah even if the sinews have not degenerated. According to the Ra’ avad, the law stated by the Rambam applies when the thigh is dislocated from its lower socket. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 55:2) follows the Rambam’s perspective. The Rama mentions that there are opinions that maintain that in the present age, we are not knowledgeable with regard to the determination of whether the sinews have degenerated and we should rule an animal treifah whenever its thigh has dislocated. He advises following these views whenever there is not a significant loss involved. Diagram

Similarly, even if they have degenerated, but the bone has not slipped out of its socket, the animal is permitted. As long as the bone is in its socket, we· assume that the sinews will regenerate [Maggid Mishneh; Rama (Yoreh De‘ah 55:2)].

And the sinews have degenerated (Kessef Mishneh).

I.e., the dislocation of the wing is not sufficient to render the fowl treifah in its own right. Nevertheless, we fear that perhaps it perforated the lung and hence require an examination.

And inflate the lung [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 53:3)].

For the shoulder socket is substantial and will prevent the arm bone from perforating the lung (Kessef Mishneh). The Rama (Yoreh De’ah 52:1) quotes views that rule that an animal is treifah if its arm is broken close to its body and there are signs of internal bleeding.

As mentioned above, a sela is one third of a handbreadth wide. Thus its diameter is 2.6 cm according to Shiurei Torah and 3.2 cm according to Chazon Ish.

I.e., the majority of the portion of the skull from the eyes up (Rashi, Chullin 52b).

This question is left unresolved by Chullin, loc. cit.

The Kessel Mishneh clarifies why it is necessary for the Rambam to make this statement, seemingly, it is obvious. Whenever there is an unresolved question concerning a Torah prohibition, we rule stringently. He explains that it is possible to interpret the Talmud’s question is implying that in one circumstance, when the greater part of the skull’s height alone is crushed or the greater part of its circumference alone is crushed, the animal is kosher, but we are unsure of which one. Therefore the Rambam must clarify that because of the doubt, both situations are forbidden.

Even the smallest perforation can render the fowl treifah (Kessel Mishneh).

If it is not protected by the skull, it will most likely be perforated in the near future (Rashi, Chullin 56a).

The Kessel Mishneh explains that we are speaking about a situation where the weasel bit the fowl on the skull. If it struck it with its paws, the fowl is treifah, because it is a derusah, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 6.

According to the Rambam, both of these procedures are equally effective (Kessel Mishneh). The Rama (Yoreh De‘ah 30:2) writes that in the present age, we are not knowledgeable with regard to this process of examination and should rule that a fowl is treifah whenever its skull is perforated.

Our translation is based on Rav Kapach’s translation of the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 3:5).

Here also our translation follows the above source. Rav Kapach draws support for his interpretation from Psalms 74:1.

Which, when not released according to the proper · measure, causes the animal to become very heavy and to have difficulty moving (ibid.). It must be emphasized that other commentaries offer different interpretations of all three of these conditions.

In this context, the commentaries have cited Hilchot Ma ‘achalot Assurot 4:11: “When an animal is sick because it is weakened and is on the verge of death, it is permitted, because it did not suffer a wound in any one of the limbs and organs that will cause it to die. For the Torah forbade only those situations resembling an animal mortally wounded by a preying wild beast. In that situation, the animal wounded it with a blow that caused it to die.”

For the poison or the venom could kill the person who partakes of the animal's meat. See Hilchot Rotzeach UShemirat Nefesh 12:1. 24.

The Kessef Mishneh explains the basis for the Rambam’s reckoning: Whenever a condition that causes an animal to be deemed treifah is mentioned explicitly by the Talmud, it is considered as being in a separate category even though it is a derivative of another category. For example, the degeneration of the bronchioles is considered a separate category even though it is a derivative of the category of the perforation of the bronchioles.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 4 ff.

See Chapter 6, Halachah 2.

See Chapter 6, Halachah 3.

See Chapter 6, Halachah 4.

See Chapter 6, Halachah 5.

See Chapter 6, Halachah 6.

See Chapter 6, Halachah 8.

See Chapter 6, Halachah 10.

See Chapter 6, Halachah 11.

See Chapter 6, Halachot 13-14.

See Chapter 6, Halachah 15.

See Ch~pter 6, Halachah 19.

This - and the instances mentioned in situations 18, 20, 22, 24, and 26 - are derived from the principle stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 20, that whenever the perforation of an organ causes an animal to be deemed treifah, the animal is also deemed treifah if that organ is lacking.
The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam’s mentions a lack of only those organs that an animal could exist for a brief time without. If, however, it is impossible for an animal to exist at all without these organs, e.g., the brain and the heart, it is improper to call the animal treifah. Instead a more severe term is appropriate.

This - and the instances mentioned in situations 19, 21, 23, 25, and 27 - are derived from the principle stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 20, that whenever an animal is deemed treifah if an organ is lacking, the animal is also deemed treifah if it possesses two of that organ.

See Chapter 7, Halachot 1-2.

See Chapter 7, Halachah 3.

See Chapter 7, Halachah 6.

See Chapter 7, Halachah 9.

See Chapter 7, Halachah 10.

See Chapter 7, Halachah 12.

See Chapter 7, Halachot 15-19.

See Chapter 7, Halachah 21.

See Chapter 8, Halachot 1-2.

See Chapter 8, Halachah 3.

See Chapter 8, Halachah 4.

See Chapter 8, Halachah 5.

See Chapter 8, Halachah 7.

See Chapter 8, Halachah 8.

See Chapter 8, Halachot 9-10.

See Chapter 8, Halachot 11-12.

See Chapter 8, Halachah 11.

See Chapter 8, Halachot 13, 15-18.

See Chapter 8, Halachot 21-22.

See Chapter 8, Halachah 23.

See Chapter 8, Halachah 26.

See Chapter 9, Halachah 1.

See Chapter 9, Halachah 2.

See Chapter 9, Halachot 5-6.

See Chapter 9, Halachah 7.

See Chapter 9, Halachot 8-9.

See Chapter 9, Halachah 21.

Halachah 1 of the present chapter.

Halachah 2 of the present chapter.

Halachah 3 of the present chapter.

Halachah 5 of the present chapter.

Halachah 5 of the present chapter..

Therefore the distinction between its thick and thin end that applies with regard to an animal does not apply with regard to a fowl. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 43:6) rules that a perforation of the spleen does not render a fowl treifah. The Siftei Cohen 43:10, however, quotes opinions that rule that a perforation does render it treifah.

I.e., other factors concerning a kidney which render an animal treifah, as mentioned in Chapter 8, Halachah 26. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 44:10) states bluntly: “There are no factors involving the kidneys of a fowl that render it treifah.”

See Chapter 7, Halachot 20-21. An animal will not be affected in this way, because his ribs will protect him and the skin of his digestive organs are stronger than that of a fowl. The Ra’avad differs and states that if an animal is subjected to heat and it bums its internal organs to this degree, it will surely die immediately. Therefore, our Sages did not mention it as a treifah.
The Kessef Mishneh notes that there are two other conditions that render a fowl treifah. They involve perforations in the stomachs. Since parallel - albeit not identical - conditions apply with regard to an animal, the Rambam does not list them as separate categories.

See Halachah 7 of this chapter. This stringency applies only to a water fowl, because its membrane is very soft.

Chullin 54a makes this statement, implying that in the Talmudic era, these rulings were already established.

Kin‘at Eliyahu cites Hilchot Kiddush HaChodesh 17:24 which states:
Nevertheless, since these concepts can be proven in an unshakable manner, leaving no room for question, the identity of the author, be he a prophet or a gentile, is of no concern. For when the rationale of a matter has been revealed and has proven true..., we do not rely on [the personal authority of] the individual who made the statement... but on the proofs he presented.
From that perspective, it would appear that the empirical evidence with which science presents us should be followed. Nevertheless, in this source, the Rambam is very adamant in following the Rabbinic perspective. See Chapter 8, Halachah 25, as a clear example.

The Rama (Yoreh De’ah 57:18) states that even if the animal survives for over a year, it is still deemed treifah and it is forbidden to partake of it.

Hilchot Ma ‘achalot Assurot 8:7-9.

The Maggid Mishneh writes that although he is not permitted to sell meat on his own, he is permitted to sell under the supervision of a trustworthy expert.
The Rama (Yoreh De’ah 2:2) rules leniently concerning this manner and allows such a person to continue slaughtering in certain situations. The Siftei Cohen 2:11 questions this leniency.

I.e., if it gives birth successfully, that is a sign that it is intact. There is no need for an inspection or waiting twelve months. Even the Rama, who maintains that we are not knowledgeable with regard to inspections in the present age, will consider an animal acceptable if it lives this amount of time (Yoreh De’ ah 57:18).

Without informing him of the doubt involved.
The Rama quotes the Sha‘arei Dura who writes that if a condition that renders an animal treifah is obvious, we permit its sale to a gentile. For a Jew who seeks to purchase it will immediately become aware of the difficulty.
The Rama also mentions the ruling of the Terumat HaDeshen that if there is merely a question of whether an animal is treifah, it may be sold to a gentile. The Siftei Cohen 57:51 accepts this leniency only with regard to an animal regarding which there is a question whether or not it was attacked, but not with regard to other conditions.

Chullin 11 b explains that this is based on the principle that we follow the treifah. Since most animals are healthy we assume that this is an animal’s condition unless there is reason to suspect otherwise. Note, however, Halachah 7.

Based on Chullin 51a, the Kessef Mishneh goes further and states that even if the animal possesses a condition that is somewhat problematic, if we can find a commonplace explanation for it that will not render an animal treifah and the factor that will render it treifah is uncommon, we do not require an examination.

See Chapter 10, Halachah 4.

See Chapter 9, Halachah 1 7.

See Chapter 10, Halachah 7.

I.e., the strands and similarly, the other conditions the Rambam proceeds to mention, are abnormal factors that lead us to the supposition that there was a perforation in the lung. See Chapter 7, Halachot 5-11 that mention several situations of this nature.

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, maintaining that even if the swelling is an indication that the bronchiole has been perforated, that does not disqualify the animal, for it is possible that it is sealed by flesh. The Radbaz explains that the Rambam would also accept that ruling and one of the points that one must inspect is whether there is flesh under the swelling or not.

See Chapter 7, Halachah 8. As mentioned in the notes to that halachah, there is a difference of opinion among the Rishonim concerning this issue.
The Ra’avad also mentions that the Rambam’s ruling here appears to contradict his ruling in Chapter 7, Halachah 5. For there, the Rambam differentiates between whether or not there is a bruise on the chest, and there he does not speak of inspecting the lung in warm water. In a lengthy discussion in his gloss to Chapter 7, the Kessef Mishneh explains that there is no contradiction between the two rulings.

I.e., if the water bubbles.

There is a difference of opinion among the halachic authorities if this situation is possible or not.

I.e., as the Rambam proceeds to explain in the following halachah, the common custom is more stringent.

See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 39:1) which states that we must check the lungs for sirchot and concludes: “Whoever breaks ranks and eats without checking [the lung] should be bitten by a snake.”

For as stated in Chapter 7, Halachot 3-4, even a perforation found in this place does not render the animal treifah.

For as stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 5, an adhesion of such a type does not render the animal treifah.

See the notes to Halachah 9. Depending on the version of that text, the Rambam’ s ruling concerning this matter may be questioned.

The Rama (Yoreh De’ah 39:18) writes that it is common custom in the Ashkenazic community to rule that all sirchot in the lung cause an animal to be deemed forbidden except those extending from a lobe to the lobe next to it or those from the body of the lung to the lobe next to it. He does, however, permit leniency if it is possible to rub out the sirchah and then examine it to see that there is no perforation.

I.e., except to the lobe that is near it (Radbaz).

See Chapter 8, Halachah 1, which explains that this is a tiny lobe found on the right side of the lung.

For we fear that it will cause a perforation in the lung. See the gloss of the Radbaz to Halachah 6.

The text of the Mishneh Torah which the Ra’avad had seemed to imply that even a strand extending from the body of the lung to the lobe is unacceptable. The Ra’avad therefore protests and maintains it is acceptable. The Migdal Oz states that he also saw texts of the Mishneh Torah with this version, but that the authoritative manuscripts do not follow that reading. This is also the position of the Kessef Mishneh.

If the sirchah is attached to the flesh alone, it does not cause an animal to be considered treifah (see Chapter 7, Halachah 4). Here, however, it is attached to both the flesh and the bone and that creates the problem.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 39:18) cites the Rambam’s position.
Parenthetically, the commentaries have questioned the Rambam’ s statements here from the standpoint of kibud av, “honoring one’s father.” Seemingly, after mentioning his father, he should have stated - as he himself rules in Hilchot Mamrim 6:5 - “May he be remembered for the life of the world to come.” Also, that same source (Halachah 3) forbids “offering an opinion that outweighs [that of his father].”

The Ra’avad follows the more lenient view. Here also the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) cites the Rambam’s position.

The Rama (Yoreh De’ah 39:1) mentions both the custom of inflating the lung in all cases and the Rambam’s position that it is not necessary to inflating all lungs. He concludes that the Rambam’s position should be given primacy.

I.e., the stringencies forbidding an animal because of certain sirchot and requiring the lungs to be blown up.

Halachot 6 and 7.

At present, there are certain Rabbinic authorities who require that the lungs of a chicken be inspected, because in the present age, since chickens are raised in a manner very different from their natural circumstances, it ·is common for there to be difficulties with regard to their lungs.

If there is no evidence that a factor existed that caused the animal to become treifah, we do not assume that one existed. Even according to the custom that requires an animal to be checked, we are assuming only the possibility that it might have a disqualifying factor. If there is no way to check it, we assume that the animal is kosher.
The Ra’avad differs and maintains that since disqualifying factors involving the lung are common, if a lung was not inspected, we cannot consider the animal as kosher. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 39:2) quotes the Rambam’s view. The Rama mentions the position of the Ra’avad and states that the Rambam’s position may be followed only when there is a possibility of severe financial loss.

Normally, we would not inflate a lung unless there was a factor that aroused suspicion. Nevertheless, in this instance, since we did not see it in its natural situation - and the possibility exists that there were such factors - we require an examination. The Turei Zahav 39:2 states that, according to our custom [see Rama (Yoreh De’ah 39:4)] that we do not rely on an examination whenthere is a clearly problematic situation, we do not rely on an examination in this instance as well.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 39:8) rules that such an animal is permitted without the lung being inspected. The Turei Zahav 39:12 states that an examination must be conducted to see whether the lung is perforated or not.
This represents the difference between glatt meat and meat that is not glatt. Glatt means “smooth,” i.e., there are no sirchot, adhesions, or growths, extending from the animal’s lungs. Thus there is no need to inspect it. When meat is not glatt, there were sirchot and/or the like extending from the lungs. They were inspected and no perforation was discovered. Hence, the meat is kosher. Nevertheless, there are many who follow the stringency of not partaking of it.
(It must be emphasized that, at present, glatt is sometimes used as a general term to connote a higher level of punctilious observance of the details of kashrus in general without specifically referring to questions concerning the lungs.)