Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

The term literally means “perforated.”

The Rambam explains the particular laws regarding the perforation of these organs in this chapter with the exception of those concerning the lung. The latter, because they are many and are of more common application, are given greater focus and an entire chapter, Chapter 7, is devoted to them.

If the gullet itself is perforated, the animal is considered a nevelah as stated in Chapter 3, Halachah 13.

A kosher domesticated animal has four stomachs. If any one of them is perforated, the animal is trefe. This and the following three terms refer to those stomachs.

See Chapter 1, Halachah 6.

The Rama (Yoreh De’ah 31:1) quotes authorities who maintain that even if the upper membrane alone is perforated, the animal is treifah. He states that unless a significant loss is involved, this perspective should be followed. The Turei Zahav 31: 1 and the Siftei Cohen 31: 1 quote views that advocate stringency even if a significant loss is involved. Diagram

There is a question among the commentaries with regard to the law if only the bottom membrane is perforated. Many Rishonim - and this is the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 31: 10) - rule that the animal is considered treifah in such a situation, for that membrane is the primary protection for the brain.
There are those who maintain that this is alluded to in the Rambam’s wording: “If the lower one near the brain is perforated, it is treifah,” i.e., its perforation alone causes the animal to be considered treifah. Others maintain that this is not the Rambam’ s intent and some even maintain that the proper version of the text is “If also the lower one ... ,” which would imply that both membranes must be perforated.
[The more stringent ruling is also stated in the popular translation of the Rambam’ s Commentary to the Mishnah ( Chullin 3: 1 ). However, Rav Kappach - while not disputing the ruling - maintains that the translation there is in error.]

Instead, it is governed by the laws pertaining to the breach of the spinal cord, as described in Chapter 9, Law 1.

In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro quotes a different version substituting nirkav (“decayed”) for nikeiv (“perforated”). He also quotes this version in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 31:2).

For the animal will still be able to function.

In Chapter 10, the Kessef Mishneh includes this - as the implication from the Rambam’s order here - in the category of nekuvah. For in such a situation, ultimately, the brain’s membrane will become perforated.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 40:2) follows the opinion of the Tur who accepts the Rambam’s ruling with regard to a perforation stemming from sickness, but rules more stringently with regard to a perforation caused by a thorn or a needle. In such an instance, even if the perforation does not extend to the cavity of the heart, the animal is treifah. Diagram

For flesh will cling to flesh. Diagram

Needless to say, these laws apply when a needle or a thorn is found in the gall-bladder [Rama (Yoreh De ‘ah 42:9)].

We assume that instead of perforating the gall bladder from the outside, it entered through the blood vessels and became lodged there.

And as indicated by Chapter 3, Halachah 21, the sealing of a perforation by a scab is
not significant in these contexts.

The Ra’avad and other Rishonim take issue with the Rambam, maintaining that this ruling applies only with regard to the arteries leading to the liver, but not with regard to those within the liver itself. The Rivosh (Responsum 189) supports the challenge to the Rambam by citing the ruling (Chapter 8, Halachah 21) that if the liver is removed entirely except for a small portion, the animal is not treifah.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro explains the Rambam’s position as follows: Even when the liver is removed, its blood vessels must remain intact. A parallel to that concept exists with regard to the lungs (see Chapter 7, Halachah 9): Nevertheless, in his Shulchan Aruch, he follows the position of the other Rishonim and does not mention a perforation in the liver as a factor that disqualifies an animal.

Here also the Ra’avad and other Rishonim take issue with the Rambam, maintaining that his understanding of Chullin 45b, the source for this halachah, is in error. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 41:6) follow their understanding.

I.e., regardless of the direction it entered.

I.e., blood from the stomach; for food does not enter the liver.

Since this blood vessel is large, it cannot be taken for granted that the needle perforated the blood vessel.

We do not suspect that the blood vessels of the liver were perforated.

See Hilchot Ma ‘achalot Assurot, ch. 7, for an explanation which fat is kosher and which is forbidden. Halachah 6, of that chapter speaks explicitly of the fat on the maw.

Concerning this point, there is a difference of opinion among the Rishonim. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 40:1) follows the lenient view and permits the animal in such a situation, while the Rama follows the more stringent perspective.

And thus they will not bend in a manner that will seal the perforation. Kosher fat and flesh, by contrast, are pliable and will seal any perforation over which they are located.

All fat in a wild beast is permitted to be eaten. Hence, in this instance, the general principle stated above is not followed and we determine which fat can seal a perforation by comparing it to the corresponding situation in a domesticated animal. With regard to a fowl, all its kosher fat will seal a perforation beneath it [S”A Y”D 46:1)].

The Turei Zahav 48:2 questions: Seemingly, the spleen should be able to seal it, for the spleen may be eaten and lies on the stomach. He explains that since the membrane covering the spleen is forbidden, it is not an effective seal.

This is possible for some of these stomachs are located within each other.

For the perforation will not reach beyond the digestive system.

From the following clause, it appears that according to the Rambam, this refers to a needle lodged in the outer side of the gut. See the following note. Diagram

There are other authorities (their perspective is reflected in the objections of the Ra’avad) who maintain that even in this instance, an examination is required. Moreover, they explain that we are speaking about a needle lodged in the inner side of the gut. If a needle is lodged in the outer side of the gut, according to this view, the animal is treifah.
According to the Rambam, as mentioned above, we are speaking about a needle that comes from the outside. As the Rambam states in Chapter 11, Halachah 4, in such an instance, all of the inner organs of the body must be checked (Kessef Mishneh ). Thus this halachah is speaking only with regard to the gut. Since the perforation does not breach the digestive system, the animal is not considered treifah.
Both perspectives are based on a comparison of two Talmudic passages ( Chullin 50b and 5 la) that are difficult to reconcile. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 48:8, 10) follows the perspective of the other authorities. The Rama cites the Rambam’s perspective with regard to a hole made on the inside that does not pass from one side to the other and states that we may rely on it in a situation where a severe financial loss is involved.

The Ra’avad and the other authorities state that the drop of blood must be found on the outer side of the gut.

Since the animal was slaughtered, it blood was not flowing and it is unlikely that there will be sufficient pressure to force it outside the gut.

A yellow-brown, bitter, offensive-smelling resinous material used for medicinal purposes in the ancient Middle East.

The Maggid Mishneh, the Tur (Yoreh De ‘ah 51), and others quote a different version of the Mishneh Torah concerning which questions are raised. The Kessef Mishneh justifies the version translated here and the Frankel edition of the Mishneh Torah states that it is followed by most of the authoritative manuscripts.

The Ra’avad states that the inspection of the intestines is difficult. That position is reflected in the ruling of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 51 :4) who rule that in such a situation, because of its questionable status, the animal is considered as treifah.

When the digestive system is under pressure, the viscous fluids will not seal effectively. The Siftei Cohen 46: 1 states that the same ruling applies even if a scab has developed over the wound.

I.e., after the animal was slaughtered.

Chullin 9a explains that, unless there is a known factor that certainly indicates otherwise, we assume that an animal that has been slaughtered is acceptable. In this instance, the perforation would lead us to rule stringently. Nevertheless, since the fact that it was snatched by a predator can serve as an explanation, we rely on the original assumption. Accordingly, for this ruling to apply, we must know that the animal was slaughtered properly [Rama (Yoreh De ‘ah 25:3)].

As indicated by the Rambam’s explanation, in this instance, we do not know how it was perforated.

In which instance, the animal would be considered as treifah.

The Rama (Yoreh De’ah 50:1) rules that in the present generation, we are not knowledgeable regarding the making of such a comparison. Hence, we forbid the animal because of the doubt.

I.e., the animal's belly was cut open while it was alive. It could no longer support the digestive organs and they protruded beyond the skin. Nevertheless, the digestive organs themselves were not blemished.

As might happen if a person was trying to reinsert them into the animal’s belly.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 46:2) rules that if an animal’s digestive organs are discovered to have turned upside down, the animal is treifah, even if the organs did not fall out of its belly.

Even though the fat upon it is kosher, it does not seal it [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 46: l); see also Halachah 10].

For the thighs will support it (Chui/in 50a).

The Rambam (based on Rabbeinu Yitzchak Alfasi) considers this the meaning of the term “in order to grasp it” used by Chullin, loc. cit. Although there are more lenient views, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 46:5) follows the Rambam’s ruling.
According to Shiurei Torah, a fingerbreadth is 2 cm, according to Chazon lsh 2.48 cm.

For other animals, the minimum measure is calculated proportionately (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.).

Unlike a domesticated animal that has four stomachs, a kosher fowl has two. Diagram

I.e., though the laws above were stated with regard to a domesticated animal, they apply equally to a beast and to a fowl if they possess the same organs.

Hence just as the perforation of the gullet disqualifies a fowl; so, too, the perforation of this portion of the crop (see Chullin 58b ).

Compare this entire halachah to Chapter 3; Halachah 20, concerning the gullet, noting the similarities and differences.

This is less .than half the thickness of the spleen (Rashba as quoted by the Kessef Mishneh).

This applies with regard to an animal and a beast. More lenient rules apply with regard to a fowl and the perforation of its spleen never causes it to be considered as treifah, as stated in Chapter 10, Halachah

Since the perforation of an organ impairs its functioning to the point that the animal is treifah, the implication is that the organ must function excellently for the body to be maintained. Hence, we can certainly assume that an animal will be considered treifah when the organ does not exist at all.

The commentaries explain that since the organ is duplicated, neither one of the two organs will be able to function satisfactorily. Thus it is as if the animal is lacking that organ entirely.

The Radbaz states that if we do not see a gall-bladder, we have the liver tasted. If its taste is bitter, we assume that the gall-bladder was absorbed by the liver. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 52:3).

Thus this phenomenon does not render a fowl treifah, only an animal (Chullin 58b).

The S(ftei Cohen 47: 1 rules that this applies only when the extra organ branches off from the stomach. If it branches off from the intestines, it is acceptable.

If, however, each off the organs branches of from a different place in the animal’s digestive system, the animal is treifah even if the organs merge at their end (Maggid Mishneh).

For the other will protect the lung (Chullin 46a). Diagram

If both membranes are perforated, but the perforations do not correspond, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 36: 1) rules that the animal is kosher, but the Rama considers it treifah.

The Radbaz states that if, by contrast, the· lower membrane alone is peeled off, the animal is treifah, for certainly, part of the lung will be lacking.

I.e., from the beginning of the ribcage.

Chapter 1, Halachah 7 defines the portion of the windpipe acceptable for ritual slaughter. If, however, the windpipe is perforated in a such a place, the animal is kosher.

Although the functioning of the lung is dependent on the windpipe, since a perforation in the lung causes an animal to be considered treifah, it is given that status ( Chullin 32b ).

The small extensions of the windpipe that convey air within the lungs itself.

Because the walls of the bronchioles are firm and not pliant. Hence, they will not serve as effective seals (Rashi, Chullin 48b ).
In his Kessef Mishneh and his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 36:6), Rav Yosef Caro rules that if a perforation in a bronchiole is sealed by flesh, the animal is acceptable. See also the comments of Siftei Cohen 36:20. As the Rama states (Yoreh De’ah 39:18), the custom in the Ashkenazic community is to rule that an animal is treifah if its lungs are perforated even if they are sealed closed by other inner organs.

For ultimately it will open (Rashi, Chullin 47b).

Since this portion of the lung is located below the ribs, the perforation will never be sealed thoroughly.

For the lobes lie on the ribs themselves and the seal will be maintained.
One of the issues related to the question of whether a lung is perforated or not is sirchaot, adhesions, where the lung becomes attached to the ribs and/or other portions of the body. For a discussion of that matter, see the latter half of Chapter .11.

It is not necessary to inspect the lung to see if air escapes (Tur, as quoted by Siftei Cohen 39:44).

For the bone is firm and will not move when the iung expands and contracts. Even if one inspects the lung and no air escapes, the animal is still considered treifah (ibid.).

Boils or carbuncles filled with pus. This heightens the probability that it could have been perforated.

And we postulate that the animal was bruised after its slaughter. Hence it is acceptable.

Here, also, even if one inspects the lung and no air escapes, the animal is still considered treifah [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 39:22)]. The Ra’avad states there is an apparent contradiction to the Rambam’s ruling here and that in Chapter 11, Halachah 6.
See the notes to that halachah for a discussion of this issue.

I.e., unless it is checked as the Rambam continues to explain.

According to the Rambam, the portion of the lung itself is cut off and we inspect it. The Rama (Yoreh De ‘ah 36:9) offers a different interpretation.

I.e., the feather is placed on the portion of the lung that was cut off. One blows throw the bronchia. If the air passes through the bronchioles, the Diagram

The movement indicates that air flows through it.

Chullin 47b states that hot water will cause the lung to contract and cold water will cause it to become firmer. If it was put in either hot or cold water first, it may not be checked in lukewarm water afterwards [Rama (Yoreh De ‘ah 36:4)].

For obviously the lung has been perforated and the air is flowing out from it.

This principle is significant with regard to the discussion concerning sirchaot, adhesions, in Chapter 11. The Ra’avad (whose interpretation is paralleled by that of Rashi and other Rishonim) maintains that inflating the lung represents a stringency: If air escapes, an animal is considered treifah even though there is reason to permit it. The same principle cannot be applied as a leniency. The Rambam - and his approach is shared by Rabbenu Tam, Rashba, Rabbenu Nissim, and others - maintains that this principle was instituted as a leniency.

The Siftei Cohen 36:21 states that this leniency applies even if the entire lung has degenerated and can be poured out like water.

As stated in Halachah 3, if one of the bronchioles is perforated, the animal is treifah. Certainly, that ruling applies if it has degenerated.

Because it is glazed, one will be able to see the white strands clearly if they exist [ Beit Yosef (Yoreh De’ah 36)].

And the white strands are the remnants of the bronchioles.

When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 36:7) adds a concept stated in the following halachah: that the fluid poured out may not be putrid. (The commentaries to the Shulchan Aruch maintain that the Rambam would follow this stringency.) The Rama, however, rules leniently, maintaining that as long as the bronchioles are not visible, the animal is acceptable.

Based on Chullin 48a, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 37:1) states that even if boils are very large, the animal may still be kosher.

The Rambam’s ruling is cited by the Shulchan Aruch. The Tur and the Rama follow the opinion of many other Rishonim who permit the animal even if the fluid in the boils is putrid

The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam’s ruling is based on his decision in the previous halachah. The Rambam maintains that the fluid indicates that there is a strong possibility that a perforation exists. Other opinions maintain that the animal is permitted, for the fluid is not necessarily a sign that a perforation exists. According to those views (and they are accepted by the Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.), there is no need for the inspection the Rambam requires.

The Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 37:3) state that even if the boils are filled with clear fluid, the animal is treifah. If, however, they are hard, it is acceptable.

Rashi (Chullin 47a) explains that most likely the membrane was perforated and therefore the boils developed. Rabbenu Nissim explains that since the two boils are next to each other, it is likely that one perforated the other.

The Maharil requires a further check: to see whether they share the same pocket (Turei Zahav 37:5; Siftei Cohen 37:7).

The Rama (Yoreh De ‘ah 36:5) suggests that the shape of the perforations must indicate that they were made by the butcher.

See Chapter 6, Halachah 14.

This represents the Rambam’s understanding of Chullin 50a. Rashi interprets the passage slightly differently. The Rama (Yoreh De ‘ah 36:5) follows Rashi’s understanding and states that we do not compare a lung from one animal to that of another one at all. And even within one animal, we do not compare a perforation in a large lobe to one in a small lobe.

With the intent of seeing whether the perforation was made before or after the slaughter.

I.e., in this instance, it is not easy to differentiate based on the comparison.

In contrast to the liver where some authorities make a distinction in the ruling depending on the direction it is facing (see Chapter 6, Halachah 8), no such contrast is made with regard to a needle found in the lung. See also Shu/chan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 36: 16-17) which states that if a drop of blood is found on the exterior of the lung, the animal is considered treifah. The Rama rules that unless a significant loss is involved, whenever a needle is found in the lungs, the animal is considered treifah.

And thus it is impossible to check it by by inflating it, for the air will be released through the portion cut off.

For while the animal was alive, the lung was continually expanding and contracting and it would be very hard for the worm to perforate it (Turei Zahav 36:8).

The remaining halachot in this chapter are expressions of this principle. The Rama (Yoreh De’ah 48:5) rules that we are not knowledgeable with regard to the correct appearance of the lung. Hence, if its appearance changes and one might think it became unacceptable, we rule stringently.

And as stated above, the perforation of a lung disqualifies it.

We have translated the verses literally to convey the meaning mentioned by the Rambam. In its ordinary context, the terms would be translated as “healthy flesh.”

Our translation is dependent on the following halachah.

And even the slightest perforation of the lung disqualifies the animal.

This represents the translation the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 38:1) offers for the Talmudic term yerok quoted by the Rambam.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Chui/in 3:2). Rashi (Chui/in 47b) renders the term as saffron. There is little difference between the two colors.

Which is reddish [the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.)].

For during the animal's lifetime, the lung is repeatedly inflated.

These laws do not apply with regard to an animal because its skin is tough and its ribs protect it [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 52:7]. The Rama, however, does not accept this leniency. The Ra’avad (Chapter 10, Halachah 11) rules similarly.

In his Kessef Mishneh and in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 52:1), Rav Yosef Caro qualifies the ruling with regard to the fiver, stating that to disqualify a fowl, it must change color at its thin end, the portion next to the gall-bladder, or at the place where it derives its nurture.

Significantly, if the lungs change color, the fowl is not disqualified, because its ribs protect it [Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (foe. cit.)].

For it is possible that the cooking and/or the massage will restore the organ’s natural color.

I.e., even though we do not know that the fowl fell into a fire, the fact that these organs changed color serves as evidence of such [Kessef Mishneh; the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Chullin 3:3)]. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 52:6) quotes this ruling, but the Rama rules leniently and states that we must have seen the fowl actually fall into a fire.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 52:3) does not accept this stringency, following the opinion of the Rashba who maintains that we do not disqualify an animal unless we definitely know that it fell into a fire.

Chasairah means “lacking.” This category disqualifies an animal if it lacks one of its fundamental organs.

It is true that there are more organs that render an animal trefe if they are lacking. Nevertheless, the lack of these organs is not placed in this category. Instead, the organ is considered as nekuvah, “perforated.” As stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 20, if the perforation of these organs will disqualify an animal, surely, it will be disqualified when the organs are lacking entirely. Diagram

I.e., he will be holding the animal from behind. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 35:2).

I.e., it is small and red.

The Rama (Yoreh De ‘ah 35:2 states that it is customary within the Ashkenazic community to declare an animal treifah, if it lacks this “rose” or if there is an extra “rose.”

For it does not seal it thoroughly.

For the “rose” functions in place of the missing lobe. If, however, the “rose” is found on the left and there is only one lobe, the animal is not acceptable. Since it is not in its proper place, it cannot replace a lobe (Kessef Mishneh). The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 35:7) quotes the Rambam’s ruling, but the Rama differs.

In this instance, the “rose” does not compensate for the lack of the lobe, because it is not on the right side.

“In the row of the lungs” to borrow the expression used by Chullin 47b. Generally, we follow the principle that every addition is considered as if it were lacking. In this instance, however, since the extra lobe is found in the row of the lobes, it will not disturb the lungs’ ordinary functioning.

In this instance as well, the Rambam maintains that the position of the extra lobe prevents it from disturbing the lungs’ ordinary functioning. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 35:3) accepts the Rambam’s ruling.The Ra,ma quotes more stringent views that state that any extra lobe that is not found in the row of the lungs is treifah. Nevertheless, the custom is to rule leniently.

I.e., even when inflated.

If the portions of the lungs that follow their natural pattern become attached to each other, all authorities agree that the animal is acceptable, for this attachment will not create any difficulties. And if the third lobe becomes attached to the first, all agree that it is unacceptable, because as the lungs inflate, the attached portions will separate, cause the attachment to tear, and in doing so, perforate the lobe.
The commentaries question - and the Maggid Mishneh actually maintains that the text of the Mishneh Torah reads in this manner - whether the animal is also treifah if the back of one lobe is attached to the back of the lobe next to it. For in this instance as well, since the lobes are attached in an unnatural order, the attachment will tear and perforate the lungs. In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro maintains that the Rambam’s wording implies that as long as the attached lobes are next to each other, the lung is acceptable, even if they are attached back to back. He does note, however, that there are authorities who rule stringently. He concludes in his Kessef Mishneh and also rules accordingly in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 39:4), that the attachments do not disqualify an animal only when the lobes are attached side to side”’.’ and not back to back - in the natural order. If they are attached in such an order, however, the lungs need not be checked. The Rama differs, requiring an examination. He also states that there are authorities who maintain that we are not knowledgable regarding how to make such an examination and therefore such an animal should be considered as treifah. Nevertheless, his ruling also leaves room for leniency if less than half of the body of the lobes are attached. See Siftei Cohen 39: 11. Diagram

I.e., they appear as one flush mass, without differentiation. If they are distinct, but attached, they are governed by the laws stated in the previous halachah. Diagram

From Halachah 4, it appears that this is the size of a lobe that is significant. Hence, just as it is significant in disqualifying an animal, it is significant in causing it to be deemed kosher (Maggid Mishneh). The Rambam’s ruling is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 35:8). The Rama cites authorities that maintain that even if a smaller portion is distinct, the lobes are considered as separate and the animal is kosher. The Rama states that we may rely on these opinions if there is a significant loss involved.

I.e., it is lacking part of its ordinary mass.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that in Chapter 7, Halachah 9, the Rambam rules that if a lung has decayed, it is kosher as long as its bronchioles and outer membrane are intact despite the fact that it has lost a large amount of its substance. He explains that this is not necessarily a contradiction to the ruling here. In that instance, since the lung has decayed significantly and yet, the bronchioles have not been perforated, we assume that they will not be perforated. In this instance, by contrast, we suspect that the lack of substance within the lung will cause it to become perforated.
Many other Rishonim, however, do not make such a distinction and maintain that a lung is acceptable if it is lacking some of its inner substance. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 36:8) quotes both views. The Rama states that certain circumstances call for leniency and others, for stringency.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that others explain that it is considered as if the dried portion is perforated and therefore the animal is treifah.

As stated in Halachah 4, an extra lobe is considered as a missing lobe and disqualifies a lung. Similarly, there is reason to think that an increase in the size of a lung is equivalent to a decrease in its size and disqualifies it in a similar fashion.

When quoting this law, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 36: 14) speaks of an “entire lung” shriveling.

For in the near future, it will regain its natural size, as indicated by the followin halachah.

Chui/in 55b states that earthem-ware utensils made of white clay will have water condense upon them easily.

Chui/in, loc. cit., also debates what the ruling would be if one animal is frightened by another animal. The Rambam does not discuss the issue for seemingly, it would be able to be resolved by the same test mentioned here. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 36:14 considers being frightened by other animals as equivalent to being frightened by the hand of heaven.
The Radbaz also states that if the lung returns to normal, it is acceptable even if the animal was frightened by human activity. Other authorities differ and maintain that if we know that the animal was· frightened by human activity, this examination is not acceptable (Siftei Cohen 36:30).
See also Rama (Yoreh De’ah 36:15) who rules that in the present era, we are not knowledgeable with regard to the various inspections that our Sages spoke about and hence, should not employ them. If, however, it appears that an animal’s lung shrunk due to the hand of heaven, it should not be permitted without undergoing this examination.

The category of chasairah involves two organs: the lungs and the feet. Having discussed the lungs, the Rambam proceeds to discuss the feet. As the Rambam continues to explain, here the intent is the hindlegs.

The severed foot itself, however, is forbidden.

There are three segments of an animal's leg between its trunk and its hoofs. We are speaking about the joint between the highest and middle portions of the leg.

Note, however, Halachah 15.

I.e., the highest of the three bones of the animal’s legs.

For it will never heal.

Even the covering of the skin alone is sufficient. This represents a revision of the Rambam’s thinking. The initial text of his Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 8:13) stated “there was flesh and skin covering it” and he altered it to read “flesh or skin covering it.”

For the leg will heal. Not only is the animal permitted, the leg itself is permitted. We do not consider it as if it had been severed and removed during the animal’s lifetime.

I.e., it is customary for the butchers to make a hole in the lowest bone of the leg and hang the animal head downwards. so that they can skin it and cut off its meat. The definition of “the juncture of the sinews” is important, as reflected in Halachot 15-18. Diagram

A fingerbreadth is approximately 2 cm according to Shiurei Torah and 2.4 cm according to Chazon Ish.

The Ra’ avad takes issue with the Rambam’ s statements, admitting that the sinews of a fowl - as do those of an animal - begin in its actual feet. Nevertheless, he states, it is only from the joint between the second and third bone of the leg that they are considered halachically significant. For the laws of treifot that govern a fowl parallel those which govern an animal.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Y osef Caro cites authorities that maintain that the text of the Mishneh Torah is in error and it should be amended to parallel the Ra’avad’s comments. He cites a responsum attributed to the Rambam sent to the Sages of Provence which also follows this understanding. And in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 56:8), he rules in this manner. Diagram

Halachah 11.

Thus according to the Rambam - and his position is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 55:1) - if an animal’s leg is severed in the top bone, it is treifah. If it is severed in the bottom bone, it is kosher, and if it is severed in the middle bone, the ruling depends on whether it was severed above the juncture of the sinews or not.
The Shulchan Aruch also cites a more stringent view - and the Rama states that it should be followed - that if the middle bone was severed, even above the juncture of the sinews, the animal is treifah. Moreover, even if it is severed at the lower joint, above the cartilage called the irkum, the animal is treifah.

The Kessef Mishneh states that the Rambam is explaining that a severed leg causes an animal to be considered treifah, because it is in the category of chasairah. When the juncture of its sinews is lacking, it is considered treifah, because it is in the category of netulah, as the Rambam proceeds to explain.

See Halachot 16-1 7.

Netulah is one of the eight types of treifot mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachah 2. The term literally means "removed."

I.e., there are many organs besides these three that cause an animal to be deemed lacking if they are removed. The disqualification of these other organs, however, is not included in the category of netulah, rather that of nekuvah, perforated, or chasairah, lacking, i.e., the organ’s removal is the greatest perforation or lack that could be. See Chapter 6, Halachah 20.

The Ra’avad notes that seemingly, the disqualification of an animal because the junction of its sinews was severed would cause it to be placed in the following category, pesukah (Chapter 9, Halachah 1). He and the Kessef Mishneh explain that since our Sages (Chullin 57a, 76a) use the expression: “If the juncture of the sinews was removed,” it should be placed in this category and not in the other. Note the Siftei Cohen 56: 1 who interprets the Ra’avad slightly differently.

Halachah 15.

I.e., the fact that this portion of the leg is missing is not significant.

As long as a majority - either a majority in number or the greater portion - remains intact, the animal is permitted (Chullin 76b).

The Kessef Mishneh explains this ruling as follows. Since we are stringent with regard to a fowl and require that all sixteen be intact, we extend that stringency and disqualify it if the greater part of one is impaired. For when the greater part of a sinew is impaired, it is as if the entire sinew is impaired.

As stated in Halachah 11. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 53:2-3) which explains details about this situation.

I.e., near the kidneys. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin 3:1), the Rambam refers to it as the place attached to the blood vessels from which blood from the liver is dispersed throughout the body. Diagram

For these are fundamentally necessary for its functioning.

Because it - and its two fundamentally necessary portions - are still intact.

For these two portions are of primary necessity.

Chullin 46a raises questions regarding these situations and does not resolve them. The commentaries question why the Rambam rules definitively that the animal is unacceptable. The Kessef Mishneh explains that this applies even if there is one olive-sized portion that is entirely intact.

The Tur (Yoreh De’ah 33) objects to the Rambam’s ruling, stating: “I am amazed at his prohibition [ of the animal] when the upper jaw is removed since this is not explicitly stated. Are we to add to the treifot?”
To explain: Chullin 54a states that if the lower jaw is removed, the animal is permitted. The Rambam deduces that the implication is that if the upper jaw is removed, the animal is treifah. The Tur claims that this deduction is not explicitly stated and hence, we have no right to make this deduction on our own. The sages of Provence wrote to the Rambam, voicing similar objections and he replied to them, explaining that the upper jaw is necessary for an animal’s breathing. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De‘ah 33:2) states that it is proper to show respect for the Rambam’ s ruling.
Based on the gloss of the Rogatchover Gaon, it is possible to explain why this defect is not mentioned by the Sages of the Talmud. This defect is not in and of itself a direct cause for an animal’s death, it is only a side factor that will lead to its death. Hence ourSages did not mentioned it, for they mentioned only those factors which are direct causes (Yayin Malchut).

When quoting this ruling, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 33:1) adds that the animal must be able to continue to survive by being force-fed.

I.e., the lungs and the hindlegs as stated in Halachah 1.

As mentioned above (Chapter 6, Halachah 20), all the organs which render an animal treifah if they are perforated, also render it treifah when they are lacking or removed. Nevertheless, the Rambam places them in the category of nekuvah, for that is the most inclusive classification.

And our Sages listed them as separate categories, as stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 2.
The Rashba ( as quoted by the Kessef Mishneh, Chapter 6, Halachah 20) differs andmaintains that an animal is also treifah if it is lacking a liver from the beginning of itsexistence. Why then did our Sages mention chasairah and netulah as two separatecategories? Because if they were not listed so, one might argue that an animal is treifah only when an organ is removed and not when it was lacking from the beginning of theanimal’s existence or vice versa. The Tur follows the Rashba’s view. The Shulchan Aruch(Yoreh De’ah 50:72) quotes both opinions, but appears to favor the Rashba’s view. TheRama states that we may rely on the Rambam when a significant loss is involved.

For the ruling is more lenient if at the outset, it was not created with this organ, as above.

I.e., even if both kidneys were removed. Even though according to medical knowledge, there is no way such an animal can live, our Sages did not deem this condition treifah. See Chapter 10, Halachah 12.

For we follow the principle that any extra organ is considered as if it were removed.

It is, however, considered a blemish and the animal may not be offered as a sacrifice (Hilchot /ssurei Mizbe ‘ach 2: 11 ).

In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro states that many Rishonim disqualify an animal only when its kidneys shrank because of illness. If, however, it was born with an undersized kidney, it is acceptable. And in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 44:5), he accepts this ruling as law.

The Turei Zahav 44: 12 and the Siftei Cohen 44: 13 quote authorities who explain that the grapes of Eretz Yisrael were very large during the Talmudic period. At that time, a grape was significantly larger than a bean.

The white fat from the loins enters the kidneys, because the different sinews are all interwoven there, causing a split to appear within the kidney. This is located in the midst of the kidney (Rashi, Rabenu Nissim, Chullin 55b).

Even if it reached the white portion [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De ‘ah 44:2)].