The lungs have two membranes. If only one of them is perforated, [the animal] is permitted.¹ 46a). If they are both perforated, [the animal] is trefe.² (Yoreh De'ah 36:1) rules that the animal is kosher, but the Rama considers it trefe. Even if the entire upper membrane³, for certainly, part of the lung will be lacking. is peeled off and dissolves, [the animal] is permitted. If there was even a slight perforation in the portion of windpipe in the chest⁴ or lower, [the animal] is trefe. For this is a place in the lower portion of the windpipe that is not fit for ritual slaughter.⁵

footnotes: ¹ For the other will protect the lung (Chullin ² If both membranes are perforated, but the perforations do not correspond, the Shulchan Aruch ³ The Radbaz states that if, by contrast, the lower membrane alone is peeled off, the animal is trefe ⁴ I.e., from the beginning of the ribcage. ⁵ 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.

If a person began slaughtering the animal and slit the windpipe entirely, then perforated the lung, and afterwards, completed the slaughter, [the animal] is trefe, for [the lung] was perforated before the completion of the slaughter.⁶, it is given that status (Chullin 32b). Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

footnotes: ⁶ Although the functioning of the lung is dependent on the windpipe, since a perforation in the lung causes an animal to be considered trefe

If one of the bronchioles⁷ was perforated, even if the perforation is covered by another bronchiole, [the animal] is trefe.⁸ 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 trefe if its lungs are perforated even if they are sealed closed by other inner organs. If one saw that it was perforated and then it developed a scab, [the scab] is of no consequence.⁹ 47b). If the mass of the lung is perforated, [the animal] is trefe, even if one of the ribs seals the perforation.¹⁰ If it was perforated in a place where the lung breaks into lobes and the lobe lies on [a rib, the animal] is kosher.¹¹, 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.

footnotes: ⁷ The small extensions of the windpipe that convey air within the lungs itself. ⁸ Because the walls of the bronchioles are firm and not pliant. Hence, they will not serve as effective seals (Rashi, Chullin ⁹ For ultimately it will open (Rashi, Chullin ¹⁰ Since this portion of the lung is located below the ribs, the perforation will never be sealed thoroughly. ¹¹ 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

When does the above apply? When the perforation in the lobes is sealed by flesh.¹², as quoted by Siftei Cohen 39:44). If, however, the perforation is pressed against the bone, it does not protect it.¹³ (ibid.). If, however, the perforation in the lobes was clinging both to the bone and the flesh, [the animal] is permitted.

footnotes: ¹² It is not necessary to inspect the lung to see if air escapes (Tur ¹³ For the bone is firm and will not move when the lung expands and contracts. Even if one inspects the lung and no air escapes, the animal is still considered trefe

When the body of the lung is found adhering to the ribs, we suspect that it was perforated. [This applies] whether or not growths¹⁴ appeared on it. What do we do [to check it]? We separate it from the rib while taking care not to perforate it. If it is discovered to be perforated and a bruise is discovered on the rib in the place where it was perforated, we assume that the perforation was caused by the bruise.¹⁵ emphasizes that we are talking about a situation where the perforation is opposite the bruise. If they do not correspond, the animal is trefe. If there was no bruise on the rib, it is clear that this perforation existed within the lung before the animal was slaughtered and it is trefe.¹⁶ [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.

footnotes: ¹⁴ Boils or carbuncles filled with pus. This heightens the probability that it could have been perforated. ¹⁵ And we postulate that the animal was bruised after its slaughter. Hence it is acceptable. The Maggid Mishneh ¹⁶ Here, also, even if one inspects the lung and no air escapes, the animal is still considered trefe

When it is discovered that there is a closed place in the lung which air does not enter and it does not inflate, it is as if it had been perforated and [the animal] is trefe.¹⁷ How do we inspect it? We cut off the portion [of the lung]¹⁸ 36:9) offers a different interpretation. PAGE 239 that would not inflate when [air was] blown [into the lung]. If fluid was discovered within it,¹⁹ it is permitted, because it was due to the fluid that the air did not enter. If no fluid is found within, we put some saliva, a straw, a feather or the like over [the separated portion] and blow air into it. If they move, [the animal] is kosher.²⁰ If not, it is trefe, because air does not enter [that portion of the lung].

footnotes: ¹⁷ I.e., unless it is checked as the Rambam continues to explain. ¹⁸ According to the Rambam, the portion of the lung itself is cut off and we inspect it. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah ¹⁹ I.e., the feather is placed on the portion of the lung that was cut off. One blows throw the brochia. If the air passes through the bronchioles, the feather should flutter. ²⁰ The movement indicates that air flows through it.

[The following rules apply when] a sound is heard when a lung is inflated. If the place from which the sound emanates can be detected, saliva, a straw, or the like should be placed over it. If they flutter, it is apparent that the lung is perforated and [the animal] is trefe. If the place [from which the sound emanates] cannot be detected, the lung should be placed in lukewarm²¹ 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)]. water and blown. If the water bubbles, [the animal] istrefe.²² If not, it is apparent that only the lower membrane has been perforated, the air is moving between the two membranes. For this reason, it will be possible to hear a hushed sound when it is inflated.

footnotes: ²¹ Chullin ²² For obviously the lung has been perforated and the air is flowing out from it.

Keep this encompassing general principle in mind: Whenever air was blown into a lung that was placed in lukewarm water and the water did not bubble, [the lung] is intact, without a perforation.²³, adhesions, in Chapter 11. The Ra'avad (whose interpretation is paralleled by that of Rashi and other Rishonim) maintain that inflating the lung represents a stringency: If air escapes, an animal is considered trefe 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.

footnotes: ²³ This principle is significant with regard to the discussion concerning sirchaot

[The following laws apply when the insides of] a lung²⁴ 36:21 states that this leniency applies even if the entire lung has degenerated and can be poured out like water. can be poured out like [water from] a pitcher, but the outer membrane is intact, without a perforation. If the bronchioles remain in their place and have not degenerated, it is acceptable. If even one of the bronchioles have degenerated, it is trefe.²⁵. Certainly, that ruling applies if it has degenerated. What should be done? We perforate [the membrane of the lung] and pour it out into a container glazed with lead²⁶ (Yoreh De'ah 36)]. or the like. If white strands can be seen, it is apparent that the bronchioles have degenerated²⁷ and it is trefe. If not, it is only the flesh of the lung that has degenerated and [the animal] is acceptable.²⁸ (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.

footnotes: ²⁴ The Siftei Cohen ²⁵ As stated in Halachah 3, if one of the bronchioles is perforated, the animal is trefe ²⁶ Because it is glazed, one will be able to see the white strands clearly if they exist [Beit Yosef ²⁷ And the white strands are the remnants of the bronchioles. ²⁸ When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch

[The following rules apply when] boils²⁹ 48a, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 37:1) states that even if boils are very large, the animal may still be kosher. are discovered on a lung. If they are filled with air, clear water, fluid that is viscous like honey or the like, dried fluid that is firm like a stone, [the animal] is permitted. If putrid fluid or putrid or murky liquid is found within it, it is trefe.³⁰. 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. When one removes the fluid and checks it, one should check the bronchiole below it. If it is discovered to be perforated, it is trefe.³¹ 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 possibilility 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 accpeted by the Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.), there is no need for the inspection the Rambam requires.

footnotes: ²⁹ Based on Chullin ³⁰ The Rambam's ruling is cited by the Shulchan Aruch ³¹ The Kessef Mishneh

When one discovers two boils on a lung close to each other, [the animal] is trefe,³² and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 37:3) state that even if the boils are filled with clear fluid, the animal is trefe. If, however, they are hard, it is acceptable. for it is very likely that there is a perforation between them³³ 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. and there is no way of checking the matter. If there is one which appears like two, one should perforate one, if the other flows into it, it is only one and [the animal] is permitted.³⁴ 37:5; Siftei Cohen 37:7). If not, [the animal] is trefe.

footnotes: ³² The Maggid Mishneh ³³ Rashi (Chullin ³⁴ The Maharil requires a further check: to see whether they share the same pocket (Turei Zahav

If the lung degenerated, [the animal] is trefe. What is implied? For example, it was discovered intact and when it is hung up, it will break apart and fall into separate pieces. When a lung was discovered to be perforated in the place where it was handled by the butcher's hand, the animal is permitted. We assume that [it was blemished by his] hand and say: "It was perforated by the butcher's hand after slaughter."³⁵ 36:5) suggests that the shape of the perforations must indicate that they were made by the butcher. If the perforation was discovered in another place and it is not known whether it took place before ritual slaughter or afterwards, we make another perforation and compare the two as is done with regard to the digestive organs.³⁶

footnotes: ³⁵ The Rama (Yoreh De'ah ³⁶ See Chapter 6, Halachah 14.

We do not compare the lung of a small domesticated animal to the lung of a large domesticated animal. Instead, [the lung of] a small animal [must be compared to that] of a small animal and that of a large animal to that of a large animal.³⁷ 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. If a perforation is found in one of the boils of a lung, [the animal] is *trefe.*We do not say: "Perforate another boil and compare them,"³⁸ because the matter is not clearly apparent.³⁹

footnotes: ³⁷ This represents the Rambam's understanding of Chullin ³⁸ With the intent of seeing whether the perforation was made before or after the slaughter. ³⁹ I.e., in this instance, it is not easy to differentiate based on the comparison.

When a needle is found in the lung, we blow up the lung. If no air is released from it, it is apparent that this needle entered via the bronchioles and did not perforate [them].⁴⁰ (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 trefe. the Rama rules that unles a significant loss is involved, whenever a needle is found in the lungs, the animal is considered trefe. If the lung was cut open before it was blown up and a needle was found in it,⁴¹ [the animal] is forbidden. For there is a high probability that it perforated [the lung] when it entered.

footnotes: ⁴⁰ 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 Shulchan Aruch ⁴¹ And thus it is impossible to check it by blowing air into it, for the air will be released through the portion cut off.

When there is a worm in the lung and it perforated the lung and emerged and we see the lung perforated by the worm, [the animal] is permitted. We rely on the prevailing assumption that it perforated [the lung] after ritual slaughter⁴² 36:8). and emerged [then]. There are ways that certain organs appear [that can disqualify the organ].⁴³ 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. For if the appearance of the organ is changed to that undesirable appearance, it is considered as if it was perforated.⁴⁴ For since the appearance of this flesh changed to the [undesirable] appearance, it is considered as if it was dead. It is as if the flesh whose appearance changed does not exist. Similarly, [Leviticus 13:10] states: "And there is a spot of living⁴⁵ flesh in the blemish...," and [ibid. 13:10] states: "On the day when he will present living flesh...." Implied is that flesh whose appearance has changed is not "alive."

footnotes: ⁴² 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 ⁴³ The remaining halachot in this chapter are expressions of this principle. The Rama (Yoreh De'ah ⁴⁴ And as stated above, the perforation of a lung disqualifies it. ⁴⁵ 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."

[The following principles apply if] the color⁴⁶ of a lung changes, whether part of its color changes or its entire color changes. If it changes to a permitted color, even if its entire color changes, it is permitted. If, however, even the slightest portion of it changes to a forbidden color, [the animal] is trefe. [The rationale is that] the forbidden color is considered equivalent to a perforation as explained [above].⁴⁷

footnotes: ⁴⁶ Our translation is dependent on the following halachah. ⁴⁷ And even the slightest perforation of the lung disqualifies the animal.

There are five forbidden hues for the lung: black like ink, greenish-yellow⁴⁸ (Yoreh De'ah 38:1) offers for the Talmudic term yerok quoted by the Rambam. like hops, [yellow] like the yolk of an egg, or like safflower,⁴⁹ 3:2). Rashi (Chullin 47b) renders the term as saffron. There is little difference between the two colors. or like the color of meat.⁵⁰)]. Safflower is a color which clothes are dyed. It is comparable to hairs that are slightly red, leaning towards gold.

footnotes: ⁴⁸ This represents the translation the Shulchan Aruch ⁴⁹ Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Chullin ⁵⁰ Which is reddish [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.

If the lung is discovered to be the color of the branches of a date palm, we forbid it because of the doubt involved, because this is very close to a forbidden color. We do not forbid any of these colors until the lung is inflated and massaged by hand. If it changes to a permitted color, [the animal] is permitted.⁵¹ If it retains the [forbidden] color, it is forbidden.

footnotes: ⁵¹ For during the animal's lifetime, the lung is repeatedly inflated.

There are four permitted hues [for the lung]. They are: blackish blue, green like a leek, red, or the color of the liver. Even if the lung was entirely colored in these four hues patch by patch, spot by spot, [the animal] is permitted.

When a fowl⁵² (Yoreh De'ah 52:7]. The Rama, however, does not accept this leniency. The Ra'avad (Chapter 10, Halachah 11) also accepts the Rama's view. fell into a fire and its heart, its liver,⁵³ and in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 52:1), Rav Yosef Caro qualifies the ruling with regard to the liver, 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. or its craw turned green or its digestive organs turned red, [the fowl] is trefe.⁵⁴; Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.)]. [This applies if] even the slightest portion of the organs [changed color]. For whenever a fire causes organs that were green to turn red or those which were red to turn green, it is considered as if the organ was removed and [the animal] is trefe. [This applies] provided they retain this color after they were cooked slightly and massaged.⁵⁵

footnotes: ⁵² These laws do not apply with regard to an animal because its skin is tough and its ribs protect it [Shulchan Aruch ⁵³ In his Kessef Mishneh ⁵⁴ Significantly, if the lungs change color, the fowl is not disqualified, because its ribs protect it [Kessef Mishneh ⁵⁵ For it is possible that the cooking and/or the massage will restore the organ's natural color.

Whenever the liver of a fowl appears like the digestive organs or [the appearance of] the other digestive organs change and the change remains after they were cooked slightly and massaged as explained [above], we can assume that the fowl fell into a fire,⁵⁶; the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah 3:3)]. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 52:6) quotes this ruling, but the Rama rules leniently and states that we must see that the fowl actually fell into a fire. its digestive organs were burnt, and it is trefe. Moreover, when there was no change detected in the digestive organs of a fowl, but when they were cooked slightly they changed color, those that were green turned -red or those that were red turned green, we can assume that the fowl fell into a fire, its digestive organs were burnt, and it is trefe.⁵⁷ (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. Similarly, if [the color of] the gullet [has changed] - the outer skin appears white and the inner red - it is considered as if the organ is not present, and it - either an animal or a fowl - is trefe.

footnotes: ⁵⁶ 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 ⁵⁷ The Shulchan Aruch