Shechitah - Chapter 7

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.