Daf Ditty 74: Eat Your Heart Out סע ן ד י י ן אה ַ ץר א ו י ס

This expression is originated back to the ancient Greeks. It was used by Homer in his legendary classic poem ‘The Odyssey’.

Everyone’s heart is the midpoint of feelings and emotions. This idiom is used to refer the phase of sadness and sorrow in which a person feels so much sad and gets disappointed as if he is eating his/her heart out.

This expression also gives another meaning and that is ‘to be very jealous’

The Greek philosopher Pythagoras is said to have used the saying `do not eat your heart out', meaning `do not waste your life worrying'.

1

MISHNAH ONE:

דַציֵכּ ןיִלוֹצ תֶא ,חַסֶפַּה ןיִאיִבְמ דוּפַּשׁ לֶשׁ ,ןוֹמִּר וֹבֲחוֹתּ וֹתִּמ ויִפּ דַﬠ תיֵבּ ,וֹתָבוּקְנ ןֵתוֹנְו תֶא תֶא ןֵתוֹנְו ,וֹתָבוּקְנ תיֵבּ ויָﬠָרְכּ תֶאְו יֵנְבּ ויָﬠֵמ ,וֹכוֹתְל יֵרְבִדּ יִבַּר יֵסוֹי .יִליִלְגַּה יִבַּר אָביִקֲﬠ ,רֵמוֹא ןיִמְכּ לוּשִּׁבּ אוּה ֶז ,ה, אָלֶּא ןיִלוֹת הָצוּח :וֹל

2 How is the paschal lamb roasted? A skewer made of pomegranate wood is brought, which is inserted through its mouth and its anus. Its legs and entrails were put inside according to Rabbi Yosé ha-Gelili; Rabbi Akiva says that that is a kind of broiling so they must be hung outside it.

1: When we started our study of this tractate I noted that its essential arrangement is chronological, following the developments associated with the eating of the paschal lamb at the seder service. The first three chapters were concerned with the search for and elimination of all leaven, which had to be done before the paschal lambs were slaughtered in the Bet Mikdash during the afternoon of Nisan 14th (chapters 5 and 6). (Chapter 4 had been concerned with the halakhic norms concerning Nisan 14th.) Chapter 7 now brings us to the moment when each group begins to prepare its lamb for the seder.

2: The Torah [Exodus 12:3-9] requires the lamb to be prepared for consumption at the seder in a very specific way:

Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying: In the 3 ג ,וּרְבַּדּ לֶא - לָכּ - דֲﬠ תַ לֵאָרְשִׂ י ,רֹמאֵל ,רֹמאֵל לֵאָרְשִׂ י תַ דֲﬠ tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a ,רֹשָׂﬠֶבּ שֶׁדֹחַל :הֶזַּה וּחְקִיְו ,םֶהָל ,םֶהָל וּחְקִיְו lamb, according to their fathers' houses, a lamb for a שׁיִא הֶשׂ תיֵבְל - תֹבָא -- הֶשׂ יָבַּל .תִ ַָ ֶ household;

and if the household be too little for a lamb, then shall he 4 ד םִאְו - טַﬠְמִי ,תִיַבַּה תוֹיְהִמ הֶשִּׂמ -- and his neighbour next unto his house take one according to ְו חַקָל אוּה וֹנֵכְשׁוּ בֹרָקַּה לֶא - ,וֹתיֵבּ ,וֹתיֵבּ the number of the souls; according to every man's eating ye תַסְכִמְבּ :תֹשָׁפְנ שׁיִא יִפְל ,וֹלְכָא וּסֹּכָתּ וּסֹּכָתּ ,וֹלְכָא יִפְל שׁיִא .shall make your count for the lamb לַﬠ - .הֶשַּׂה

;Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year 5 ה הֶשׂ םיִמָת רָכָ ז ןֶבּ - נָשׁ ,הָ יְהִ י הֶ הֶ יְהִ י ,הָ נָשׁ ;ye shall take it from the sheep, or from the goats ;םֶכָל ןִמ - םיִשָׂבְכַּה ןִמוּ - זִּﬠָה ,םיִ .וּחָקִּתּ ,םיִ זִּﬠָה

and ye shall keep it unto the fourteenth day of the same 6 ו הָיָהְו םֶכָל ,תֶרֶמְשִׁמְל דַﬠ הָﬠָבְּרַא הָﬠָבְּרַא דַﬠ ,תֶרֶמְשִׁמְל םֶכָל הָיָהְו month; and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel רָשָׂﬠ םוֹי שֶׁדֹחַל ;הֶזַּה וּטֲחָשְׁו ,וֹתֹא ,וֹתֹא וּטֲחָשְׁו ;הֶזַּה שֶׁדֹחַל םוֹי רָשָׂﬠ .shall kill it at dusk לֹכּ לַהְק תַדֲﬠ - לֵאָרְשִׂי -- ןיֵבּ יָבְּרַﬠָה .םִיבּרﬠהןֵ

-And they shall take of the blood and put it on the two side 7 ז ,וּחְקָלְו ןִמ - ,םָדַּה וּנְתָנְו לַﬠ - יֵתְּשׁ יֵתְּשׁ posts and on the lintel, upon the houses wherein they shall eat ,תֹזוּזְמַּה לַﬠְו - ףוֹקְשַׁמַּה -- ,לַﬠ ,םיִתָּבַּה ,םיִתָּבַּה ,לַﬠ .it רֶשֲׁא - וּלְכאֹי ,וֹתֹא .םֶהָבּ ,וֹתֹא וּלְכאֹי

And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and 8 ח וּלְכָאְו תֶא - ,רָשָׂבַּה יַלַּבּ הָלְ הָלְ יַלַּבּ ,רָשָׂבַּה .unleavened bread; with bitter herbs they shall eat it זַּה :הֶ יִלְצ - שֵׁא ,תוֹצַּמוּ לַﬠ - םיִרֹרְמ םיִרֹרְמ .וּהֻלְכאֹי

Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast 9 ט לַא - ֹתּ וּלְכא מִּ מ ֶ וּנּ ,אָ נ בוּ לֵשָׁ בְ מ לָשֻּׁ לָשֻּׁ בְ מ לֵשָׁ בוּ ,אָ נ וּנּ ֶ מִּ מ וּלְכא ֹתּ .with fire; its head with its legs and with the inwards thereof יָמַּבּ :םִ יִכּ םִא - יִלְצ - ,שֵׁא וֹשׁאֹר לַﬠ - ְכּ ויָﬠָר לַﬠְו - .וֹבְּרִק

3 Tell all the congregation of Israel that on the tenth day of this month, each person shall take a lamb... and you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month; and the whole assembly of the community of Israel shall kill it towards evening... They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted with fire, accompanied by unleavened bread and bitter herbs. Do not eat it rare, nor in any way boiled in water, but roasted by fire, with its head, its legs and its inner parts.

In particular we note that the lamb was to be well roasted and not boiled, and that even those inner (intestinal) parts which had been removed at the time of slaughter were to be included in the roasting process.

2: The lamb was to be skewered on a pole made of the wood of the pomegranate tree. It is the prohibition of boiling that prompts this requirement. The Torah requires the lamb to be 'roasted with fire' and 'in no way boiled'. The wood of most trees has moisture inside, however dry it may be on the outside. The concern was that when the heat of the fire releases that moisture, which would then come into contact with the meat of the lamb, parts of the lamb would be thus 'boiled in water' and not 'roasted by fire'. The wood of the pomegranate tree is very dry, which would lessen or obviate that danger.

3: This pole was thrust right through the animal so that it could thus be suspended above the fire to roast. Rabbi Yosé ha-Gelili understands the biblical requirement 'roasted by fire with its head, its legs and its inner parts' to indicate that these items were to be stuffed inside the cavity created by the removal of the entrails. Rabbi Akiva disagrees, since then these items would be cooked by the heat of the animal itself and not by direct contact with the fire. He, thus, requires these items to be suspended together with the animal's carcass. Halakhah follows the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

4

MISHNA: How does one roast the Paschal lamb? One brings a spit [shappud] of pomegranate wood and thrusts it into the mouth of the lamb until it reaches its anus, and one then puts its legs and entrails inside it and roasts it all together; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva says: One does not insert its legs and entrails inside it, as this is a type of cooking. Anything placed inside the offering does not get roasted directly by the fire and is considered to have been cooked. Rather, one suspends the legs and entrails from the spit above the animal’s head outside it. One may not roast the Paschal lamb on the metal spit nor on a metal grill [askela]. However, Rabbi Tzadok said: There was an incident with Rabban Gamliel, who said to his slave Tavi: Go and roast the Paschal lamb for us on the grill.

5

GEMARA: The Gemara suggests: Let them bring a metal spit. The Gemara answers: With regard to a metal utensil, once part of it is hot, it is all hot, and the meat is roasted due to the heat of the spit. And the Merciful One states in the Torah that the Paschal lamb must be roasted in fire and not roasted through something else. The Gemara asks why it is necessary to use specifically a spit of pomegranate wood: Let them bring a spit of palm wood. The Gemara answers: Since the palm branch has grooves between the leaves, it gives off a small amount of water from the grooves during roasting. The meat of the offering that touches the spit is as though it is cooked. The Gemara suggests: Let them bring a spit of fig wood. The Gemara answers: Since it is hollow and has sap inside, it gives off water, and it is as though the meat is cooked.

6

The Gemara notes that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: Just as the part of a spit of wood that is inside the animal is not burned, although it is over the fire, so the part of a spit of metal that is inside the animal does not become burning hot. There is no concern that the meat will be roasted from the heat of the spit. The Rabbis said to him: This is not the case. With regard to this, the metal, when part of it is hot, it is all hot. And with regard to that, the wood, when part of it is hot, not all of it is hot, and therefore the meat is cooked by the heat of the fire and not by the heat of the spit.

7

It was taught in the mishna that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, one places the legs and entrails inside the lamb’s body and roasts them together. It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael would call the Paschal lamb: Tokh, tokh, because when one roasts the legs and entrails inside the lamb, they make that sound, like other things that are cooked.

Rabbi Tarfon would call it: Helmeted kid. In his opinion, the entrails must be roasted when they are suspended from the spit above the head of the animal, somewhat resembling a helmet.

Jastrow

8

The Sages taught: Which is the kid roasted whole that it is prohibited to eat on the nights of Passover in modern times, so as not appear as though one sacrificed the Paschal lamb outside the Temple? It is any kid that one roasted all at once in the manner that the Paschal lamb was roasted. However, if one of its limbs is severed or one of its limbs is boiled, it is no longer considered a kid roasted whole.

The Gemara expresses surprise at the formulation of this baraita. Now, one can say that if one of its limbs is severed, although one roasts it together with the rest of the animal, you said that it is no longer considered a kid roasted whole, and it is permitted in modern times. If one of its limbs is severed and boiled, which is not an approved method of preparation of the Paschal lamb, is it necessary to say that that it is not considered roasted whole? Rav Sheshet said: This is referring to a case where one boiled the limb while it was attached to the rest of the animal. The halakha teaches that even if the animal remains whole, if one of its limbs is cooked it is no longer considered a kid roasted whole.

The Gemara raises a general halakhic discussion related to the mishna. Rabba said: This stuffing of raw meat inside another animal that is being roasted is permitted, even if the meat that is stuffed inside has not been salted to remove the blood. Abaye said to him: But the meat of the animal being roasted absorbs blood from the stuffing. He said to him: As it absorbs it, so it then emits it. The heat of the fire causes blood to be released from the meat used as stuffing into the meat of the animal being stuffed, and the heat then draws the blood out of that meat as well.

9

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this mishna supports him: He places its legs and its entrails inside the Paschal lamb and roasts them together. What is the reason that it is permitted to do this? Is it not because we say: As it absorbs it, so it emits it? Although Rabbi Akiva disputes this statement, his opinion is due to the unique halakhot of the Paschal lamb. It seems that everyone agrees that there is no concern about the prohibition against consuming blood. The Gemara refutes this proof: Say it is different there, in the case of the Paschal lamb. Since there is the place of the slaughter, which is hollow and open,

the blood flows out. However, in the case of regular stuffing, which is closed on all sides, there is no way for the blood to drain.

The Gemara suggests further: Let us say that the following mishna supports him: With regard to the heart of an animal, one must tear it and remove its blood before one roasts or cooks it. And if he did not tear it beforehand, he tears it after it is cooked, i.e., roasted, and it is permitted. What is the reason the heart is permitted although there is presumably still blood inside? Is it not because we say that as it absorbs it, so it emits it, and therefore as the heart is roasted the blood is absorbed in the meat and then discharged, so that no blood is left in the meat, and whatever is still inside the hollow part of the heart can be removed when it is torn open? This would support the opinion of Rabba.

10 The Gemara refutes the proof: A heart is different because it is smooth and does not absorb much blood. However, generally one does not necessarily rely on the principle that as it absorbs it, so it emits it.

RASHI

Summary

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:1

There is an argument regarding how the legs and innards of the korban pesach are roasted. Rabbi Tarfon says that the legs and innards are stuffed inside the body and then roasted. Rabbi Akiva says that the innards are not placed inside the animal, as it is more like cooking than roasting. Rather, they are hung on the spit outside the body of the animal.

One cannot use a metal spit to roast the korban pesach.

The Gemora explains that this is because the spit itself gets very hot and cooks whatever is near it. Being that the Torah said it should be roasted from the fire, implying it should not be roasted from anything else, a metal spit may not be used.

It is forbidden to eat roasted meat on pesach night if it was prepared in the same manner as a korban pesach was prepared when the Beis Hamikdash was extant.

The Mishna earlier (53a) stated that some places have a custom to forbid eating roasted meat on pesach night. This is in order that it should not look like a person is eating a korban pesach when he is forbidden to do so as there is no Beis Hamikdash (especially if he is eating outside of Yerushalayim, as it looks like he is eating kodshim outside the Beis Hamikdash).

Our Gemora states that the custom is not to eat it when it is prepared in the fashion of a korban pesach.

The Rema (Orach Chaim 469:1) indeed codifies the law of our Gemora that one may not serve a goat prepared in the manner of a korban pesach on pesach night. Many Acharonim are very stringent when it comes to the law not to say that this meat is “for the pesach” (another law mentioned earlier on 53a).

1 http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Pesachim_74.pdf

11 For example, although a korban pesach could only come from a sheep or a goat, the Berurah (469:2) codifies that one should not say about any animal that can be brought as a korban that “it is being bought for pesach.” This is because people will suspect that he dedicated the monetary value of the animal in order to buy a korban pesach, and when he eats it, he will therefore appear to be eating kodshim outside the Beis Hamikdash.

The Mishnah Berurah (ibid.) further quotes some Acharonim who even say that one should not even say that he is buying fowl or fish “for the pesach” for a similar reason.

HALACHAH: EATING ROASTED MEAT ON PESACH NIGHT

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2

It is a widespread custom to roast a shank bone the day before Pesach and place it on the Seder plate to commemorate the Korban Pesach (Shulchan Aruch OC 473).

The Mishnah earlier (53a) states that there are places where the practice is not to eat roasted meat on Pesach night in order not to appear as though one is eating Kodshim ba'Chutz, sanctified meat outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash. The TUR (OC 476) and other Poskim write that in their areas, it is the custom not to eat roasted meat on Pesach night.

May one eat the roasted shank bone at the Pesach Seder?

The Gemara here says that the prohibition against eating roasted meat applies only to meat that was roasted "Mekulas" -- the entire lamb or goat was roasted whole. If even one limb was cut off of the animal before it was roasted, the prohibition does not apply because it does not resemble the Korban Pesach.

Rashi explains that the prohibition applies only in a place that has the custom not to eat roasted meat on Pesach night. Accordingly, in all places one should be permitted to eat the roasted shank bone, which was roasted by itself, on Pesach night.

However, the RAMBAM (Hilchos Chametz u'Matzah 8:11) writes that even in places where the custom is to eat roasted meat on Pesach night, one may not eat roasted meat when the whole lamb was roasted. The Rambam understands that the Gemara here refers to a place where the custom is to eat roasted meat on Pesach night. In a place in which the custom is not to eat roasted meat, one is forbidden to eat even a piece of meat that was roasted by itself, such as the shank bone. This is also the opinion of the ROSH (4:6).

2 https://www.dafyomi.co.il/pesachim/insites/ps-dt-074.htm

12 HALACHAH: The opinion of the Rambam is cited as the Halachah by the TUR and SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 476). The Tur adds, based on the Yerushalmi, that even the meat of a calf or fowl, or any animal that requires Shechitah, may not be eaten roasted on Seder night. Roasted or fried fish is permitted, because fish does not require Shechitah.

Does the prohibition apply to Pesach morning as well? The CHASDEI DAVID (on the quoted in the Gemara) asserts that the prohibition applies in the morning as well. However, the DARCHEI MOSHE (OC 473) writes that the prohibition applies only on the first night of Pesach, as the Tosefta itself implies ("Leilei Pesachim").

The Tur also mentions that it is a "proper custom" ("Minhag Kosher") to eat cooked meat during the Seder. It is not clear exactly why he calls it a proper custom. The TAZ suggests that it is proper because of the obligation to experience Simchas Yom Tov through eating meat, while at the same time avoiding meat that was roasted.3

EATING HEART

Rav Z. Wainstein writes:4

The Mishnah (Chullin 109b) states that in order to permit an animal's udder to be eaten, one must tear it open and remove the milk. Nevertheless, if one cooks (and eats) the udder without tearing it open first, he does not transgress the Isur d'Oraisa of cooking (and eating) meat with milk. Similarly, in order to permit an animal's heart to be eaten, one must tear it upon and remove its blood. If one cooks and eats the heart without tearing it open first, he does not transgress the Isur d'Oraisa of eating blood.

Why does one not transgress the Isur d'Oraisa of eating blood when he cooks and eats the heart without first tearing it open and removing its blood? RASHI (DH ha'Lev) explains that the flesh of the heart does not become prohibited when it is cooked with its own blood, because the flesh of the heart is smooth and impermeable and does not absorb blood through cooking.

RASHBA (DH Leima) agrees with Rashi and explains that the law of the heart is taught in the same Mishnah as the law of the udder in order to show that they share the same Halachah. Neither one becomes prohibited if cooked before being torn open.

TOSFOS (DH ha'Lev) quotes RABEINU TAM who disagrees. Rabeinu Tam permits eating a heart (that was not first torn open) only when it was roasted (over fire) with its blood inside. If the heart was cooked (in a pot of water), then it becomes prohibited because the cooking causes the flesh to absorb the forbidden blood.

3 Cooked meat might also serve to commemorate the Korban Pesach, even though the Korban Pesach was roasted. 4 https://www.dafyomi.co.il/chulin/insites/ch-dt-109.htm

13 The SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 72:2) rules in accordance with the opinion of RABEINU TAM. The REMA mentions that there is a custom to cut off the "Orlas ha'Lev" (the tip of the heart) before eating the heart.

The SHACH, quoting the RIKANTI, explains that this is done in order to remove the Kochos ha'Tum'ah, the powers of defilement, which reside in the heart. (see below)

EATING COOKED BLOOD

Rav D. BLOOM writes:

The Mishnah (Chullin 109b) states that in order to permit an animal's heart to be eaten, one must tear it upon and remove its blood. Nevertheless, if one cooks and eats the heart without tearing it open first, he does not transgress the Isur d'Oraisa of eating blood.

RASHI (DH ha'Lev) explains that this means that one is not punished with Kares for eating blood, because the Mishnah refers to the heart of a bird that does not contain a k'Zayis of blood, and one is not Chayav for eating less than a k'Zayis of blood. (It nevertheless is forbidden mid'Oraisa to eat any amount of blood, because the Halachah follows the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan in (73b) who says that a partial amount (Chatzi Shi'ur) of forbidden food is Asur mid'Oraisa.) If, however, one ate the heart of an animal without tearing it open first, then he is Chayav Kares because he ate a k'Zayis of blood.

Rashi's words seem to contradict the Gemara in Menachos (21a), where Ze'iri states explicitly that one is not Chayav for eating blood that has been cooked. Rashi there (DH Dam) explains that the Torah gives a punishment only for eating the type of blood that can gain atonement for a person through being offered as a Korban. Cooked blood has undergone a fundamental change and no longer is considered blood that can gain atonement. Why, then, does Rashi here write that one is Chayav for eating the cooked blood of an animal's heart? (See CHIDUSHEI HA'RAN to 120a, DH Tenan.) (TOSFOS DH ha'Lev)

RITVA answers that it is possible that Rashi understands that the Gemara in Menachos refers only to the blood of Kodshim. Blood of non-sanctified animals, in contrast, remains forbidden to be eaten (and one is Chayav Kares for eating it) even when it is cooked.

The Ritva cites proof for this answer from the Gemara later (111a), in which Rav Dimi states that one may not roast liver above meat by placing both on an upright beam inside of an oven, because the blood of the liver drips down onto the meat. The Gemara clearly implies that the blood is forbidden, even though it has been cooked in an oven. (In contrast, Rav Dimi permits roasting an udder above meat, because the milk that drips from the udder is prohibited to be cooked with meat only mid'Rabanan.)

TOSFOS (DH ha'Lev), who maintains that one is not Chayav for eating blood of Chulin that has been cooked, understands the Gemara there differently. Tosfos there (111a, DH Dam) explains that the blood of the liver is prohibited only mid'Rabanan once it has been roasted. However, the intention of Rav Dimi there is that blood is forbidden mid'Oraisa before it is cooked, while milk

14 of an udder is never forbidden mid'Oraisa. Since blood is a more severe Isur than the milk of the udder, the Rabanan are more stringent and forbid roasting it over meat.

NEKUDAS HA'KESEF (to SHACH YD 87:15) answers that in the conclusion of the Gemara in Menachos (21a), a distinction is made between a Korban Chatas Penimis (brought on the inner Mizbe'ach) and a Korban Chatas Chitzonis (brought on the outer Mizbe'ach). Rashi there (DH Kan) explains that one who ate the cooked blood of a Chatas Chitzonis is Chayav Kares, and certainly one who ate the cooked blood of Chulin is Chayav Kares. When Ze'iri there says that one is not Chayav for eating cooked blood, he is referring only to the blood of a Chatas Penimis. (See also RASHASH.)

Drawing Out the Blood

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:

And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with 8 ח וּלְכָאְו תֶא - ,רָשָׂבַּה יַלַּבּ הָלְ :הֶזַּה יִלְצ - שֵׁא שֵׁא fire, and unleavened bread; with bitter herbs they shall מוּ ַ ,תוֹצּ ַ ﬠ ל - םיִרֹרְמ .וּהֻלְכאֹי םיִרֹרְמ eat it.

Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but 9 ט לַא - ֹתּ וּלְכא מִּ מ ֶ וּנּ ,אָ נ בוּ לֵשָׁ בְ מ שֻּׁ לָ לָ שֻּׁ בְ מ לֵשָׁ בוּ ,אָ נ וּנּ ֶ מִּ מ וּלְכא ֹתּ roast with fire; its head with its legs and with the יָמַּבּ :םִ יִכּ םִא - יִלְצ - ,שֵׁא וֹשׁאֹר לַﬠ - ויָﬠָרְכּ ויָﬠָרְכּ .inwards thereof לַﬠְו - .וֹבְּרִק Ex 12:8-9

And they shall eat the meat on that night, roast with fire and matzot; with bitter herbs they shall eat it.

Do not eat of it raw nor boiled in water; but roast it with fire, its head with its legs and with its inner parts.

The seventh perek of Massekhet Pesahim deals with how the korban Pesah is eaten. Perhaps the most basic rule about the preparation of the sacrifice is that the animal must be roasted whole. One of the concerns raised in the Gemara is the issue of removing the blood from the meat before it is eaten.

The prohibition of eating blood appears a number of times in the Torah, along with a severe punishment – karet (excision). Even though the only blood that is forbidden on a Torah level is the blood that comes from the animal at the moment it is slaughtered, nevertheless, due to the severity of the prohibition we try to remove as much of the blood as possible before cooking it and

15 eating it, which is why kosher meat is generally salted. According to the Sages, salt has the power to absorb the blood and to actually draw the blood out of the meat before it is washed off.

According to the letter of the law, as long as the blood remains in its place in the meat, it is not forbidden. Therefore, a person would be allowed to eat raw meat (referred to by the Gemara as umtza) even if it was not salted. The moment such meat is cooked, however, the heat would draw the blood into the water, which would be forbidden.

In theory, there are ways to “freeze” the blood in its place in the meat, for example by placing it in a strong vinegar solution, which would then allow the meat to be cooked, since the blood would never leave the meat. Already during the times of the Ge’onim this method was forbidden.

Another method that is recommended for removing blood is roasting. The heat of the fire acts as an agent to draw the blood from the meat, so there is no need to salt the meat at all, although tradition has it that a small amount of salt is sprinkled on.

Our Daf had stated that the Pesach sheep is roasted in a manner whereby the blood of the organs immediately flows out through the cut at the neck, and that the blood therefore has no chance of being absorbed in the outer layers of flesh. In order to reinforce this explanation, the Gemara brought a Baraisa which teaches that although a heart should be torn open to drain the blood within it before being cooked, if it was cooked without being drained, it may be torn afterwards. The assumption is that this is because the blood drains out by itself during cooking, rather than being absorbed.5

The Gemara responds by rejecting this as a conclusive proof. We are told that the nature of the flesh of the heart muscle is that it is smooth, and that it does not absorb the blood that is contained within it. This is why it may be drained even after being cooked.

Rashi (Chullin 109a) accepts this explanation as the halachah, that heart muscle does not absorb blood. Tosafos disagrees and understands that the answer in our Gemara is only a retort, and that the halachah does not accept the fact of heart muscle being incapable of absorbing the blood.

states that glass does not absorb, because it is smooth and non-porous, just as ”ה באר י (The (464 we find regarding the heart. Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 451:26) also rules that glass which was used for chometz does not need to be koshered for Pesach (see Mishna Brura #153).

Trumas HaDeshen rules that glass has the same status as earthenware, and that it cannot be because we hold, ה יבאר “ koshered for Pesach use at all. He states that we cannot rely upon the like Tosafos, and even the statement about the heart being smooth is not valid. The ruling of Rema is to be strict, and to not allow koshering of glass, even with boiling.

5 https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Pesachim%20074.pdf

16

The Knesses HaGedola concludes that the comment of Rema only applies to the strict case of chometz, and that glass should not be koshered for Pesach. However, in regard to other areas of and allow koshering באר”ה י halachah (meat and milk, non-kosher foods, etc.) we can rely upon the of glass.

Rashi explains that based on the logic of “as it comes in so it goes out,” when the Gemara says one should tear it after ‘cooking,’ cannot literally mean after cooking, but rather after roasting. But according to the logic of the heart being smooth, one could even tear it post cooking in a pot (even though in a pot the logic of “so it comes out” does not apply).

There are those who say (1) even if one tore and salted the heart as required, one should still not cook it lest one come to cook without tearing it. Rather, what one should do is roast the heart and only then should one subsequently cook it. The Rema (2) says that there are those who follow this stricter practice but adds that many (3) are lenient and once they tear the heart and salt it, they will cook it. Many Poskim (4) are lenient in the matter.

Nonetheless the Mishna Berura (5) writes, “One should be very careful not to eat the heart of any domesticated or wild animal or the hearts of birds.” [However, many kosher restaurants (6) do serve dishes with hearts in them.]

17 Salting Heart

Rav Ovadia Yosef writes:6

Question: I just purchased chicken hearts. May I cook them as is?

Answer: The Torah (Vayikra 17) states: “And any man among the Jewish nation or the stranger who resides among them that will eat any matter of blood, I shall set my face against the soul that eats blood, and I shall cut it off from the midst of its nation.” The Torah states explicitly in several places that the blood which is forbidden for consumption refers to the blood of either domesticated or non-domesticated animals or fowl.

Due to the prohibition to consume blood, we are obligated to salt meat before cooking it, for salt draws out the blood from meat that it is placed on. Nowadays, most cuts of meat and poultry are sold after they have already been salted and soaked in accordance with Halacha in the slaughterhouse. Nevertheless, there are cuts of meat that are sold without already being salted for several reasons.

Heart is sold in stores without being koshered first and there is still blood in it, and it may therefore not be consumed until it undergoes a halachically valid koshering process. The reason why heart is not salted before it is sold is because when the animal or bird is slaughtered, a large amount of blood is collected in the heart and it is like a container for this blood and it cannot be expelled through salting alone. Thus, even if they would salt the heart, this would not be sufficient to release the blood contained in it and consumption of the heart would still be absolutely forbidden.

Before the heart is salted, it must be torn open and the blood inside it must be washed off with water and only then may it be salted. Tearing the heart refers to cutting it at least once deep enough that it reaches all of the corridors of the heart along either its entire length or width. The Poskim

6 http://halachayomit.co.il/en/default.aspx?HalachaID=4474

18 write that some have the custom to cut the sinews inside the heart as well so that no blood remains collected within it. (These sinews are recognizable within the heart as they look like little tubes.)

After doing so, one should salt the heart well by covering it with fine cooking salt on all sides and leave it in this matter for approximately an hour on top of a rack or other perforated utensil so that all the blood can drip out of it.

If one does not wish to salt the heart (or any other piece of meat for that matter), one may kosher it by grilling it (preferably, one should place a small amount of salt on the meat and only then grill it) since grilling also causes the blood to flow out of it and it will then be permissible for consumption. Even when wishes to kosher the heart by grilling it, one must tear it properly as we have explained above regarding salting the heart. Restaurants which customarily stick the heart onto a skewer and grill it as such without adequately tearing it are causing the public to sin. Hagaon Harav Shalom Mesas zt” l, later former Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem, warned the public that it is imperative that the koshering of the heart be performed only after the heart is torn open properly by cutting it deeply with a knife, as we have explained.

Furthermore, the Siftei Kohen quotes the Piskei Recanati who writes that it is customary to cut off the pointed edge of the heart in order to remove the powers of impurity from it which is a Kabbalistic concept. The Kaf Ha’Chaim writes that if one forgot to cut off the pointed edge of the heart before cooking it, it may be done afterwards as well.

Summary: Chicken hearts sold in stores are not yet koshered and may not be cooked as is. One must cut it with a knife deeply along the length of the heart; some have the custom to also cut all of the tubes located in the heart so no blood remains inside. After this is done, the heart should be thoroughly washed off and it may then be salted or grilled in order to complete the koshering process.

19 HALACHA

RAMBAM: Forbidden Foods 6:6

Whether one [desires to] roast or cook a heart, one must cut it open, remove its blood, and then salt it.7 If one cooks a heart without cutting it open, one may cut it open after it was cooked. It is then permitted.8 If one did not cut it open and partook of it, one is not liable for karet.

When does the above apply? With regard to the heart of a fowl, because it does not contain an olive-sized portion of blood.9 If, by contrast, one [partakes] of the heart of an animal, one is liable for karet. For there is an olive-sized portion of blood within the heart and therefore one is liable for karet.10

7 As stated in Halachah 12, the Rambam maintains that even when one roasts meat, he must salt it first. As stated in the notes to that halachah, there are other Rabbis who differ with that point and require salting only when one cooks meat. See also the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 72:1) which quotes certain authorities that forbid eating a cooked heart, even if it was cut open and salted.

8 Our Daf states that the meat of the heart is smooth and hard and will not absorb the blood. Other substances that are cooked with it, however, are forbidden (Maggid Mishneh in the name of the Rashba). The Ra'avad and others differ with the Rambam and consider a heart cooked with its blood as forbidden. This is the view cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 72:2).

9 The heart of a fowl is not large enough for there to be an olive-sized portion of blood absorbed within its meat before slaughter. And it is only that blood for which one is liable for karet. If an olive-sized portion of blood collects there when the animal is slaughtered, one is liable for lashes.

10 This indicates that according to the Rambam, even when one cooks blood, one is liable for kereit for partaking of it (Lechem Mishneh). Other authorities differ and maintain that if blood has been cooked or salted, one is not liable according to Scriptural Law (Siftei Cohen 87:15).

20

Yoreh De’ah 72:1-2

The heart has much blood that gathered in it at the time of slaughtering. Therefore, it must be cut before salting to remove its blood and can then be salted. [1] It may then even be cooked. (1) [2] Some are stringent regarding cooking it, and only roast it. Then it may be cooked.

If one salted it without having cut it open (2) then it is to be cut open after its salting and is still permitted although it was salted while the blood was gathered inside of it [3] because “as it absorbed, so will it release.” It is also the case if it was roasted without having been cut open, that it should be cut after the roasting, and it will be permitted. (3) [4] However, if it was cooked

21 without having been opened it is forbidden [5] unless there is sixty (4) against the heart, for we don’t know how much escaped from it.

Rema: [6] Even if there would be sixty, (5) [7/ the heart itself remains forbidden [8] and a little bit should be sliced off from anything surrounding the heart. There are those who rule stringently even in a case of it having been salted. [9] and forbid all meat that was salted with it for they say that we cannot assume the rule of "as it absorbed, so wilt it release” regarding blood gathered within it. (6) This is because of the actual blood and not simply blood that was released from it. (7) [10] The custom however is to be lenient, and we rule that this blood is considered blood that was as it absorbed so will it release” since it was blood of the ׳׳ released, and it is possible to say that veins, as was explained earlier in section 22. There are those who are stringent and rule that a piece must be peeled from the place the heart was touching. [ 11] It is proper to heed to their words and to peel a bit from anything that was around the heart, making everything permitted, [12] There is no difference between meat that is with the heart, or the heart itself. [13] There is also no difference (8) whether the heart was closed or open at the top.

It is customary to cut the foreskin of the heart and to cut the sinews inside of it. [14] However this is only a stringency and an act of precaution.

Shulchan Aruch of the Rav

22 Rabbi Yaakov Goldstein writes:11

Introduction:

This chapter discusses how to salt the heart and lungs of an animal. The heart contains congealed blood which is unable to be removed through the salting process. This blood is considered blood that contains the life of the animal and hence carries the penalty of Kareis if consumed.[1]

Custom not to eat hearts:[2]

It is customary to beware against eating the hearts of animals or fowl[3] being that eating them leads to forgetfulness.[4] In addition eating a heart attaches ones soul to the animal’s soul and penetrates the person with bad character traits.[5] Torah scholars are to beware very much from eating them.[6] Some Poskim[7] rule that this practice only applies to Torah Scholars and pregnant or nursing women and not to a common layman.

1. Salting the heart:[8]

Removing the inner blood prior to salting: During slaughtering a large amount of blood gathers inside the heart. Therefore prior to salting the heart, one must tear open the heart and remove this congealed blood from within its compartments. After this is done the heart may be salted.

Q&A

Within how much time after the slaughtering is the inner blood to be removed?[9]

The custom is to be lenient to not require the inner blood to be removed within 24 hours from the slaughtering.[10] However there are Poskim[11] that are initially stringent to require the blood to be removed within 24 hours from the slaughtering in order to avoid the issue of Kavush Kemivushal.

2. May one cook the heart after salting it and removing its inner blood:[12]

• Michaber: Once the heart has had its inner blood removed and has been salted for its blood it may be cooked [even together with other meat[13]]. • GameFirst Opinion: Once the heart has had its blood removed and salted it may then even be cooked [with other meats[14]]. Second Opinion: However there are opinions which are stringent to always roast it.[15] [This applies even if one tore and salted the heart beforehand.[16] Nevertheless once the heart has been roasted it may then be cooking.]

11 https://shulchanaruchharav.com/halacha/chapter-72/

23 Final Ruling of Rama: In the Darkei Moshe the Rama writes that many are lenient in this matter and cook the heart after salting it. In the Toras Chatas[17] the Rama writes that in those areas that it is accustomed to follow the stringent opinion they are not allowed to swerve from this custom. However, Bedieved if they cooked the heart after tearing and salting it, it remains permitted according to all.

• Shach:[18]The Shach records the words of the Toras Chatas which rules that L’Chatchilah those communities which are stringent may not divert from this custom, although Bedieved the heart is permitted if it was cooked. • Taz:[19] Practically many are lenient to cook the heart after salting it, and so rules the Rashal that one may be lenient in this matter being that this custom is not found in the or Geonim.

Practical custom:[20]

Practically the custom is to allow cooking the heart after salting it. This applies even by the heart of chickens and certainly to the heart of animals.

Summary:

It is permitted to cook the heart once its inner blood has been removed and it has been salted, and so is the custom. However, some communities are stringent not to cook the heart even after it is salted, and they rather roast it over an open flame. Once the heart has been roasted it is permitted to cook it according to all.

3. Roasting the heart:[21]

Prior to roasting the heart[22] one is to tear it open, remove its inner blood, and then slightly salt it as is always the custom by roasting.

4. The law if one salted or roasted the heart prior to tearing it and removing its inner blood:[23]

If one salted or roasted the heart without tearing it open and removing its congealed blood, then one is to tear the heart and remove the congealed blood after it is salted or roasted and in such a case the heart remains permitted. Now although the heart was salted with its inner blood [and hence absorbed this blood during the salting process] nevertheless it also dissipated this blood through the salting process, following the rule Kebolo Kach Polto.[24]

The law if the heart was completely closed:[25] There is no difference in ruling in whether the heart was opened on its top, or was closed, during the salting [or roasting. Either way one is to tear the heart after the salting or roasting and then remove the blood[26]].

24 Summary:

If one salted or roasted the heart prior to removing its internal blood, then one is to remove the blood prior to cooking it and the heart remains permitted.

5. If one cooked the heart without removing the inner blood:[27]

If one cooked a heart prior to removing its inner blood then one needs 60x in the food versus the [entire] heart being we do not know how much blood has dissipated from it.[28] [This applies even if one roasted or salted the heart prior to the cooking, nevertheless one requires 60x versus the entire heart.[29] However there are opinions[30] which are lenient in such a case to only require 60x versus the blood that is within the compartments of the heart and not versus the entire heart.]

If the pot contains 60x is the heart itself permitted? [31] If the heart was cooked without having its inner blood removed then even if the food in the pot contains 60x the heart, nevertheless the heart itself is forbidden.[32] [This follows the opinion of the Rama. However according to the Michaber when there is 60x the heart then even the heart itself is permitted.[33] Practically Sefaradim may be lenient like the opinion of the Michaber in a case of great loss.[34]]

Removing a peel from the area around the heart:[35] In a case that one cooked a chicken together with an attached heart, without removing the inner blood of the heart, then even if there is 60x in the chicken versus the heart[36] nevertheless one must remove a peel worth of chicken from the area that the heart was attached to.[37] [This however only refers to a case that the chicken was previously salted together with the heart. If however the heart was not salted at all together with the chicken then if there is 60x versus the heart one does not have to remove a Kelipa.[38]]

Notes

[1] Rambam Hilchos Machalos Assuros 6/3

[2] Tractate Horiyos 13b; Magen Avraham 170/19; Shach 72/2 in name of Tashbatz 561; Peri Megadim 72 S.D. 2 “and so is the custom”.

[3] Tractate Horiyos 13b mentions animal hearts. The Magen Avraham 170/19, and Shach Yoreh Deah 72/2 adds hearts of poultry, and so is the ruling in Achronim [Kaf Hachaim157/28; Mishneh Berurah 170/45].

Other Opinions: Menachem Meishiv 1/19 rules that it is permitted to eat hearts of chickens and that eating it does not lead to forgetfulness.

[4] This falls under the acronym of “Melach” Moach, Leiv, Kavod. [Kaf Hachayim 157/28]

The reason: Based on the Arizal the Nefesh, Ruach and Neshama reside in the heart mind and liver and is thus not to be eaten. [Kaf Hachaim ibid]

25 [5] Kaf Hachayim ibid

[6] Magen Avraham 170/19 writes that although by olives those which have correct intentions do not need to beware from eating them, nevertheless regarding the heart he writes that all are to be stringent.

[7] See Chavas Daas 72; Beis Lechem Yehuda 72/3; Darkei Teshuvah 72/5

[8] 72/1

[9] Darkei Teshuvah 72/10

[10] Chesed Liavraham 34; Bashamayim Rosh 27; as the blood congeals within the 24 hours and it is hence not considered Kavush.

[11] Yad Yehuda 72; Tuv Taam Vadaas Telisai 147

[12] 72/1

[13] Shach 72/1; This is the novelty of the Rama’s seemingly superfluous mention of the lenient opinion which is already mentioned by the Michaber. The novelty is that according to the Michaber it may be cooked even with other meat. [Shach ibid; See Peri Megadim 72 S.D. 1]

[14] Shach 72/1

[15] This is due to a decree that one may forget to tear the heart and remove the inner blood prior to the cooking. [Shach 72/2; Taz 72/1]

Vetzaruch Iyun as this suspicion should apply even when roasting the heart [that one may come to eat it without tearing it open]. One can answer however that when one comes to eat it we are sure that one will notice that it has not been torn open. However by cooking we suspect that he may cook it prior to removing the blood and hence forbid the food in the pot.

[16] Shach 72/2; This is due to a decree that one may forget to tear the heart and remove the inner blood prior to the cooking. [Shach ibid]

[17] Klal 27 brought in Shach 72/2

[18] 72/2

[19] Taz 72/1

[20] Peri Megadim 72 S.D. 2

[21] Shach 72/2

[22] If one desires to cook the heart then according to the stringent opinion mentioned in Rama ibid it is always required to roast it beforehand.

[23] Michaber 72/2

26 Opinion of Bach: The Bach understands the Rama to rule that the heart itself is always forbidden if it was salted or roasted prior to removing its external blood. The Shach negates this opinion and states the Rama is only stringent regarding cooking [see Halacha 4] and not regarding salting or roasting. [Shach 72/12; See Peri Megadim 72 S.D. 12 which explains that the Bach understands the Rama to rule that the inner blood always dries up in the heart and cannot be removed, even if it is salted] To note the Bach himself rules that by Melicha all the meat including the heart remains permitted. [Shach 72/11; see Halacha 5]

[24] How is the heart able to expel the absorbed inner blood? The Michaber writes that we apply the rule of Kebolo Kach Polto. The Mahriy asks on this ruling of Michaber claiming that the rule of Kebolo Kach Polto does not apply by Dam Beiyn, and the blood that is in the heart is considered Dam Beiyn. A number of answers are recorded:

1. The Hagahos Sheid answers that since the blood of the heart congeals within the compartments of the heart therefore the blood which liquefies is considered like absorbed blood and is able to dissipate through salting. [brought in Taz 72/2; Shach 72/3] 2. Alternatively, the reason is because the heart is a very smooth and thus does not absorb much blood and regarding the little amount of blood that it does absorb we apply the rule of Kebolo Kach Polto. [Toras Chatas brought in Shach 72/3] 3. Others write that the heart is so smooth that it does not absorb any blood at all. [Ramban and Rashal brought in Shach ibid]

The practical ramifications: The practical ramification between the reasons is regarding if other meat was salted with the heart. According to the first reason the other meats are also permitted. However according to the second reason they are forbidden. [Shach 72/3] Another ramification is regarding if Dam Beiyn falls onto a heart. According to the first reason the heart is forbidden. According to the second reason it is permitted being that its smoothness prevents absorption. [Peri Megadim 72 S.D. 3] A third ramification is regarding if the heart falls into Tzir after it has been salted. According to the first two reasons the heart does absorb some of the Tzir and since it contains no more of its own blood the heart becomes forbidden. However according to the reason of the Ramban that the heart does not absorb any blood at all then the heart remains permitted. [Shach ibid] The main reason is like the first reason that the blood congeals. Hence, we rule stringently in a case that Dam Beiyn fell onto the heart, or if the heart fell into Tzir after Shiur Melicha. [Peri Megadim ibid]

[25] Rama 72/2

[26] Shach 72/13; Taz 72/8

There are two novelties in this ruling: A. Even if the heart was closed the heart remains Kosher and one is to simply tear it open and remove its inner blood after the salting or roasting. B. Even if the heart was open on its top it must be torn and have its blood removed after the salting or roasting. [Shach ibid in name of Toras Chatas]

Opinion of Issur Viheter and Bach: The Bach and Issur Viheter rule that if the heart was open during Melicha or roasting it does not need to be torn afterwards and if the heart was closed then the heart is forbidden. The Toras Chatas, Taz and Shach negate their opinion. [Shach and Taz ibid; Peri Megadim 72 S.D 13]

[27] 72/2

[28] Although the heart is smooth it is able to absorb through cooking. Likewise, during cooking the concept of Kebolo Kach Polto does not apply as all the blood leaves into the pot. [Shach 72/4]

Opinion of the Rambam: The Rambam rules that even if one cooked the heart without salting it prior to the cooking the heart remains permitted as it is a very smooth substance and hence does not absorb the blood. Hence this opinion of the Michaber is coming to negate the opinion of the Rambam. [Taz 72/3]

[29] Shach 72/5; Taz 72/4; Rama in Toras Chatas Klal 57; Mahril

The above Poskim rule that the above law applies even if one had previously salted the heart for its blood and merely did not remove the congealed blood within its compartments. The reason for this is because we are not expert regarding how much blood

27 is in the heart and hence we must measure 60x versus the entire heart. [Shach ibid] However see Taz 72/4 from which it is implied that even if we know the amount of blood contained within the compartments of the heart we still require 60x versus the entire heart. [However see Peri Megadim 72 M.Z. 4 which understands the Taz differently]

[30] Shaareiy Dura and Rashal brought in Shach and Taz ibid; Peri Chadash 72/5

The Rashal learns that in a case that the heart was already salted for its blood one only needs 60x versus the gathered blood, as we know exactly how much gathered blood the heart contains. Thus he rules that the Michaber here is referring to a case that the heart was not previously salted or roasted and hence he requires 60x versus the entire heart.

Opinion of the Tur: The Tur writes that one requires 60x versus the entire heart being we do not know how much blood left from it. The Rashal explains that the Tur is referring to a case that the heart was not previously salted and therefore he requires 60x versus the entire heart. However the Shaareiy Dura refers to a case that the heart was already salted and hence there is no contradiction between the Poskim. The Taz 72/4 agrees that the Tur himself must refer to a case that the heart was not previously salted as otherwise why would he write that we are not able to measure how much blood left the heart. [However see Peri Megadim 72 M.Z. 4 Vetzaruch Iyun]

Opinion of Michaber: The Shach ibid concludes with a Tzaruch Iyun regarding the opinion of the Michaber although he sides to explain that according to the Michaber if the heart was salted one does not require 60x the entire heart. [See Peri Megadim 72 S.D. 5 and Kaf Hachaim 72/10]

Final ruling of Taz: After the Taz ibid brings the dissenting opinions he concludes that being the Mahril is stringent “who can be lenient against him, as he was the greatness of Achronim”.

[31] Rama ibid

[32] This is because the blood of the heart dries up inside of it and cannot be removed. [Taz 72/5; Shach 72/7 in name of Mahriy in Hagahos Sheid] The heart is not forbidden due to an Issur Davuk being that it is smooth and hence does not absorb the blood any more quickly than any other food in the pot. [Mahriy ibid] This is unlike the opinion of the Levush which rules the heart is forbidden being that it becomes Chanan. [Shach ibid]

[33] Shach 72/6; Peri Chadash 72/6; List of Poskim brought in Kaf Hachaim 72/11

[34] Kaf Hachaim 72/11

[35] Rama ibid

[36] see Halacha 9

[37] Rama as explained by Shach 72/8

The reason a peel worth is required to be removed is because prior to cooking the chicken it was salted together with its heart and salt penetrates a Kelipa worth of the chicken. [Shach ibid] This is a mere stringency to suspect for those opinions [Hagahos Sheid, brought next] which are stringent to forbid the other pieces of meat that were salted together with the heart prior to it having its inner blood removed. Now although the Rama normally rules that Melicha forbids 60x, in this case he is lenient to only require a Kelipa being that some hold even a Kelipa is not required being that we apply the rule of Kebolo Kach Polto even to other pieces of meat. [Peri Megadim 72 S.D. 8; Shach 72/11]

[38] Peri Megadim 72 S.D. 8

28 R. Heather Miller writes:12

Our daf deals with the procedure for cooking the paschal lamb. The Torah requires that the lamb must be roasted “over fire” (Exodus 12:9) and cooked by no other method. Accordingly, the rabbis note:

And the Merciful One states that (the paschal lamb must be) roasted in fire and not roasted through something else.

Large ovens were constructed for this purpose. The animal was spitted and lowered in to be cooked over the fire.

But what kind of spit should be used? The rabbis prohibited the use of a metal spit. Why? Metal is a conductor of heat: if part of it is hot, all of it is hot. If one uses a metal spit, technically the inside part of the animal will be cooked by the hot metal rod and not the fire itself, and thus violate God’s command.

If you have ever roasted marshmallows over a campfire, you only have to use a metal hanger once to know that it conducts heat so well that it can melt the marshmallow from the inside while the open flame roasts the marshmallow from the outside. This doesn’t happen with a wooden stick because wood doesn’t conduct heat.

And that is exactly what the rabbis suggest — using a wooden spit so the meat doesn’t cook from within. Specifically, pomegranate wood.

Various types of wood are discussed on today’s page but most are ruled out because they emit water which would then steam the animal from the inside, again precluding all the flesh from cooking by means of the flames. Palm wood has grooves between the leaves which give off water; fig wood is hollow and gives off water; oak, carob and sycamore are hard, but they have knots which must be cut to straighten the branch — and anyway, those give off water too.

Pomegranate, however, though it has knots, has smooth knots that do not need to be straightened with a knife. You may even use a pomegranate branch that is less than a year old which doesn’t yet have knots. And, crucially, it doesn’t emit steam, so it won’t cook the meat from within.

A wise sage brings up the point that with all wood, the place where the branch is cut from the tree will emit water, even in the case of pomegranate wood. So the rabbis specify that this section should not be inserted in the animal, rather left outside so it doesn’t steam the inside of the animal.

Just when it seems everything is settled, Rabbi Yehuda wonders aloud if metal might actually be used after all. Maybe one shouldn’t be worried about the spit of metal becoming hot and cooking the roast from inside because, he says, since it is inside the animal and not exposed directly to the fire maybe it will not get hot enough to cook it from within.

12 Myjewishlearning.com

29 Ok, so maybe Rabbi Yehuda missed the lesson on thermal conductivity in physics class. Fortunately, his colleagues quickly correct him: even the metal inside the roast that is not directly exposed to fire will still conduct the heat from the part that is directly exposed. They remind him: if one part of it is hot, all of it is hot. And pomegranate wood is the way to go.

The Heartless Chicken Controversy

Gabe Greenberg writes:13

Chacham Zvi: 1656-1718, Rabbi in Hamburg and Amsterdam14

The following occurred: a young girl had opened the stomach of a [properly slaughtered] chicken in order to clean it out, on the edge of a table. A cat stood below, anticipating that might eat whatever would fall to the ground. Afterwards, the girl claimed that she did not find the chicken's heart. The mother of the girl said it was possible - in fact, almost certain - that the heart had been [accidentally] thrown to the ground and eaten by the cat, which was excited to eat whatever came close to it. The girl insisted that she did not give the heart to the cat. The chicken was fat, healthy, and good; there was nothing abnormal, nor was anything torn in its innards. There was no indication that its heart had shrunk or melted - nothing at all was abnormal in all of its innards. While it had been alive, it was strong, healthy, and had all its normal koach, eating and drinking, walking and flying. It had all of its normal function, was at full strength: in short, it was as healthy as all other healthy chickens. However, the girl insisted that she did not find the heart.

(2) This case came before the sages, and they deemed the chicken treif, for the reason that it was missing its heart. We would ask of the Teacher, what is the ruling regarding this chicken?

(3) Answer: All those who claim that the chicken was treif are in error. For it is clear to all whose hearts are wise, and whose brains are sharp, that it is impossible for any animal in the world to live, for even a moment, without a heart, as if they were healthy. One cannot imagine such a situation. Rather, as soon as the heart is cut out of a creature, they have been slaughtered. All the life and power of the body are dependent upon the heart. And what about the possibility that there had been sickness? It is impossible to say that the heart had shrunk, or melted, without the creature having been incredibly sickly. And yet this chicken wasn't sickly or ill; on the contrary - it was fat, healthy, good, and normally functioning! The matter is clear, that the heart fell out of the opening in the stomach, and that the cat ate it. This is indeed so obvious, that it does not require proof.

(4) However, to silence the mouths of the idiots who are so eager to rule in this case, I cite the ruling of the Kessef Mishna, the Laws of Slaughter (10), who gives a reason why Maimonides did not list "missing heart" or "born without a heart": limbs which, were they to be removed, the animal could not live for even a moment, [Maimonides] did not list them.

13 https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/152988?lang=en Hakham Tzvi Teshuva #74 םכח בצ י ד״ע 14

30

ילוח ן ב״מ ג:א ׳ - ׳ה תמ נ י ׳ לא ו תופרט המהבב תבוקנ וה טשו תקוספו תרגרגה נ בקי םורק לש חומ נ בקי בלה תיבל וללח הרבשנ הרדשה הרדשה הרבשנ וללח תיבל בלה בקי נ חומ לש םורק בקי נ תרגרגה תקוספו טשו וה תבוקנ המהבב תופרט קספנו טוחה הלש לטינ דבכה אלו רייתשנ ונמיה םולכ האירה הבקינש וא הרסחש ש"ר רמוא דע תש י נ ק ב ל ב י ת תיבל בקנית ופמסה נ תו נ הבקי הבקה נ הבקי הרמה נ ובקי יקדה ן סרכה נפה תימי נש הבקי וא ערקנש בור חה י צ ו נ ה בר י י ה ו הד ה ר הנוציח רמוא הלודגה חפט הנטקהו הבורב ססמה תיבו תוסוכה ובקינש ץוחל הלפנ ןמ גגה ורבתשנ בור היתועלצ תסורדו תסורדו היתועלצ בור ורבתשנ גגה ןמ הלפנ ץוחל ובקינש תוסוכה תיבו ססמה הבורב הנטקהו חפט הלודגה רמוא באזה יבר הדוהי רמוא תסורד באזה הקדב תסורדו ירא הסגב תסורד ץנה ףועב קדה תסורדו סגה ףועב סגה הז הז סגה ףועב סגה תסורדו קדה ףועב ץנה תסורד הסגב ירא תסורדו הקדב באזה תסורד רמוא הדוהי יבר באזה : ללכה לכ יאש ן הומכ היח הפרט היח הומכ ן יאש לכ ללכה Chullin 42a:3-5

MISHNA: These wounds constitute tereifot in an animal, rendering them prohibited for consumption: A perforated gullet, where the perforation goes through the wall of the gullet, or a cut windpipe. If the membrane of the brain was perforated, or if the heart was perforated to its chamber; if the spinal column was broken and its cord was cut; if the liver was removed and nothing remained of it, any of these render the animal a tereifa. Additionally, a lung that was perforated or that was missing a piece renders the animal a tereifa.... Likewise, if an animal fell from the roof, or if the majority of its ribs were fractured, or if it was clawed by a wolf, it

31 is a tereifa. Rabbi Yehuda says: If it was clawed by a wolf in the case of a small animal, i.e., a sheep or goat; or clawed by a lion in the case of a large animal...This is the principle: Any animal that was injured such that an animal in a similar condition could not live for an extended period is a tereifa, the consumption of which is forbidden by Torah law.

ילוח ן ג״מ ׳ב:א ג״מ ן ילוח רמא אלוע 'ח ינימ תופרט ורמאנ ול השמל יניסב הבוקנ הקוספו הלוטנ הרוסחו העורק הסורדו הלופנ הרובשו הרובשו הלופנ הסורדו העורק הרוסחו הלוטנ הקוספו יקופאל אתוקל שיכרד רב אפפ אפפ רב שיכרד אתוקל יקופאל Chullin 43a:2

§ Ulla says: Eight types of tereifot were stated to Moses at Sinai, and all the cases mentioned in the Mishna and elsewhere fall into these categories: An animal whose organ was perforated or severed, removed or missing a piece, one that was torn or clawed by wild animals, or that fell or was broken.

תופסות לע ילוח ן ב״מ ג:א ׳ ׳ב: בקינ בלה תיבל וללח - ראשב יבוקנ אל ךירטציא נתימל י תיבל וללח ןהש ןיקד אטישפו ןיאש בקנ בושח םהב םהב בושח בקנ ןיאש אטישפו ןיקד ןהש וללח תיבל י נתימל ךירטציא אל יבוקנ ראשב ללכ םא אל נ בקי תיבל וללח לבא בל אוהש בע ד"ס םאש נ בקי קמועב אוהש בושח בקנ ו נ לטי בלה האירהו האירהו בלה לטי נ ו בקנ בושח אוהש קמועב בקי נ םאש ד"ס בע אוהש בל לבא וללח תיבל בקי נ אל םא ללכ יקדהו ן אל ךירטציא נתימל י ללכבד םיבוקנ אוה ףאד לע בג לוחטבד רמא ארמגב נד לטי רשכ ו נ בקי הפרט לכב לכב הפרט בקי נ ו רשכ לטי נד נה י םיבוקנ אנתד אטישפ לכד ןכש לטינ הבקינו הרמה ימנ הארנ ש"כד לטינ הפירטד מ"מו הלטינ דבכה אלו אלו דבכה הלטינ מ"מו הפירטד לטינ ש"כד הארנ ימנ הרמה הבקינו לטינ יתשנ רי הנמיה םולכ ךירטציא רשפאד יהל תו נד לטי לכ דבכה אלו הרמה נש לטי לכ רשב דבכה ו ראשנ הרמה הרמה ראשנ ו דבכה רשב לכ לטי נש הרמה אלו דבכה לכ לטי נד תו יהל רשפאד ךירטציא םולכ הנמיה רי יתשנ הקובד ידיגב דבכה ופמסהו נ תו אהו ןנתד ןמקל( ןילוח ףד .דנ ) יבג ולאו תורשכ בקינ בלה אלו תיבל וללח ךירצ ךירצ וללח תיבל אלו בלה בקינ תורשכ ולאו יבג ) .דנ ףד רמול אכהמד אל הוה ןניעמש הוהד אנימא ה"ה ךומס תיבל וללח ופוסד בקניל דע תיב ללחה אהו ינתקד הבקינ הבקינ ינתקד אהו ללחה תיב דע בקניל ופוסד וללח תיבל ךומס ה"ה אנימא הוהד ןניעמש הוה אל אכהמד רמול תרגרגה הרשכ יה י נ ו םושמ יעבד נתימל י הקדסנ ו הרבשנ הרדשה ו אל קספנ טוחה הלש ךירטציא יאד אכהמ א"ה א"ה אכהמ יאד ךירטציא הלש טוחה קספנ אל ו הרדשה הרבשנ ו הקדסנ י נתימל יעבד םושמ ו נ י יה הרשכ תרגרגה וא אה וא אה יא נ ימ א"ה איעבד יתרת אק עמשמ ןל טוחבד ילת אתלימ ו נ לטי דבכה אלו יתשנ רי הנמיה זכ תי תי זכ הנמיה רי יתשנ אלו דבכה לטי נ ו אתלימ ילת טוחבד ןל עמשמ אק יתרת איעבד א"ה ימ : ךירפ ארמגב ןמקל( ילוח ן ומ . ) אשיר אפיסל אשיר ) . ומ ן ילוח ןמקל( ארמגב ךירפ Tosafot on Chullin 42a:3:2

While a missing heart did not make the list, it is nevertheless considered a treifa...

הנשמ ,הרות תוכלה הטיחש י ׳ ב״י: - ג״י

ןיֵאְו ףיִסוֹהְל לַﬠ תוֹפֵרְט וּלֵּא .לָלְכּ לָכֶּשׁ ֶשׁ עַרֵא הָמֵהְבִל וֹא הָיַּחְל וֹא ףוֹעְל ץוּח וּלֵּאֵמ וּנָמֶּשׁ יֵמְכַח תוֹרוֹדּ ( בי ) : םיִנוֹשׁאִרָה וּמיִכְּסִהְו ןֶהיֵלֲﬠ ֵתָּבְבּ י ניִ דּ ֵ י רְשִׂ י לֵאָ פֶא רָשְׁ תֶּשׁ חִ יְ .הֶ אַ ו פֲ וּלִּ עַדוֹנ ָ ל וּנ דִּמ רֶ ֶ רָה הָאוּפְ ןיֵאֶשׁ הָּפוֹס חִ ל תוֹיְח ָוֹ יאשׁהאפ ָ ֶר ִ נָלעדנוִּפ ַו.ֶי ִתּשׁרשׁ ֶ ֵָרשׂ י

ןֵכְו לֵּא וּ וּנָמֶּשׁ מָאְ ו וּרְ ןֵהֶשׁ רְט הָפֵ ףַא לַﬠ יִ פּ יֶּשׁ רֵ הֶאָ דְ בּ רַ ֵכְ י רָה הָאוּפְ בֶּשׁ יְ דָ וּניֵ מֶּשׁ תָצְקִ ןָ ניֵא ָ ן ִמְמ תי ִ י ן ְ ו ֶ א שְׁ פ ָ ר ( גי ) :" לַﬠ יִפּ הָרוֹתַּה רֶשֲׁא וֹי וּר " ( רבד םי י ז אי ) יְחִתֶּשׁ הֶ ןֶהֵמ ןיֵא ְל אָלֶּא הַמ וּנָמֶּשּׁ כֲח מָ םיִ נֶּשׁ רַמֱאֶ רַמֱאֶ נֶּשׁ םיִ מָ כֲח וּנָמֶּשּׁ הַמ אָלֶּא ְל ןיֵא ןֶהֵמ הֶ יְחִתֶּשׁ

Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter 10:12-13

12. And we may not add to this list of treifot at all. Whatever might befall an animal or a bird - other than these categories that our earliest sages compiled and was agreed upon by the courts of Israel - it is possible that the animal might live. And this is even if we might medically know that they cannot survive such an occurrence.

32 13. Similarly, these categories of treifot, even if we see through contemporary medicine that some of them may not in fact be fatal - we may only go by what the sages instituted. As the verse states, "according to the Torah which they will rule for you."

הרומ ,םיכובנ קלח 'ג ׳ב:ד״י גקח םכב הו

שיו לואשל יפל תעד םיפוסוליפה הזב ןינעה רמאלו יא ן קפס וליאש נרמא ו תילכתש ולא םילגלגה תגהנה שיא נבמ י (ב) םדא א ו ישנא ם םיבר לע ךרד לשמ היה הז רקש יפל יעה ו ן יפוסוליפה ; לבא יהב נתו ו םיבשוח םתילכתש - תגהנה ימ ן ןי גנ םדאה יא ן הקחרה יהב תו תילכת ולא םימרגה םימוצעה ישיאה םי - תואיצמ ישיא ימ נ םי רשא יפל םתעד יא ן תילכת תילכת ן יא םתעד יפל רשא םי נ ימ ישיא תואיצמ פסמל םר .םלועל יאו ן לשמה הזב אלא לשמ ןמוא השעש םילכ םלקשמש רככ לזרב - תושעל טחמ טק ן לקשמש ו גרג י ר ; ר קמ ןט ח וע וליאו היה הז רובעב טחמ דחא היה הז דספהמ הגהנהה יפל יע ו ן המ םג ןכ אלו היה דספהמ הגהנהה ירמגל ; לבא רחא רחא לבא ; ירמגל הגהנהה דספהמ היה אלו ןכ םג המ ן ו יע יפל הגהנהה דספהמ הז היה דחא טחמ רובעב הז היה וליאו אוהש השוע ולאב םילכה םידבכה טחמ רחא טחמ ןכו םירככ םיבר םיטחממ היהי השעמ םילכה םהה המכח וקיתו ן הגהנה הגהנה ן וקיתו המכח םהה םילכה השעמ היהי לע לכ .םינפ ןכו היהי תילכת םילגלגה - ךשמה והה הי דספההו תילכתו והה הי דספההו - תואיצמ ימ ן םדאה רשאכ רמאנ רמאנ רשאכ םדאה ן ימ תואיצמ רבכ ו אצמנ םיבותכ םירבדו וע םירז הזל ימדה ו ן . ףוסוליפהו ץרתמ תאז הישוקה רמואו וליא אל היה ףוליחה יב ן םימרגה םימרגה ן יב ףוליחה היה אל וליא רמואו הישוקה תאז ץרתמ ףוסוליפהו . ן ו ימדה הזל םירז וע םירבדו םיבותכ אצמנ ו רבכ ילגלגה םי ו יב ן ישיא ימה נ םי והה םי םידספנה אלא תולדגב נטקבו תו היה רשפא רמאיש ;הז םנמא רשאמ שרפהה יב נ םהי םהי נ יב שרפהה רשאמ םנמא ;הז רמאיש רשפא היה תו נטקבו תולדגב אלא םידספנה םי והה םי נ ימה ישיא ן יב - תלעמ םצעה אוה קוחר דאמ היהיש הלועמה ילכ תואיצמל תוחפה :לפשה ףוס רבד תאזש הלאשה רזעי הב המב ימאנש והנ וניאשהבה זי לש אשרד ו :פהתחהתאצל יכ לעהההשדמקח ו צהתע שודיחמ .םלועה בורו המ יתנוכש הזב קרפה היה הז ינעה ן . םגו ןכ יה תו י עמוש דימת לכמ ימ עדיש רבד תמכחמ הנוכתה הנוכתה תמכחמ רבד עדיש ימ לכמ דימת עמוש י אוהש בשוח וגל המז המ והורכזש םימכח'ה 'ל"ז ןמ םיקחרה - םהש ורמא יבעש לכ לגלג ךלהמ שמח תואמ הנש יבו ן לכ לכ ן יבו הנש תואמ שמח ךלהמ לגלג לכ יבעש ורמא םהש לגלג ו לגלג ךלהמ שמח תואמ הנש - םהו העבש םילגלג - היהי קחור לגלגה יעיבשה - נוצר י רמול נבג י ותונ זכרממ ץראה ץראה זכרממ ותונ י נבג רמול י נוצר - ךלהמ בש תע םיפלא !הנש ו בושחי לכ ימ עמשיש תאז שיש םהירבדב ג ו המז הלודג אלשו י ג עי קחרמה לא הז .רועישה.ויהה ל חמ יגי לו לד הזוג הרד י א עשש מל וח השםפאת הממו ראבתהש םיקחרב תפומב ו עדי ךל קחורהש יב ן זכרמ ץראה יבו ן בוביק יתבש אוהו לגלגה יעיבשה ךלהמ תעבש תעבש ךלהמ יעיבשה לגלגה אוהו יתבש בוביק ן יבו ץראה זכרמ ן יב קחורהש ךל עדי ו תפומב םיקחרב ראבתהש הממו םיפלא הנש עבראו םירשעו הנש .בורקב לבא קחורה רשא נרכז ו אוהו ךלהמ ומש תנ םיפלא עבשו תואמ הנש אוה דע דע אוה הנש תואמ עבשו םיפלא תנ ללח בוביק לגלגה ימשה נ י . ו הז רשא םאצמת םירמוא יב ן לגלג לגלגו קחור ךכ נע י נ ו - יבע םרגה רשא יב ן םילגלגה אל אל םילגלגה ן יב רשא םרגה יבע שיש םש ר י :תוק אלו שקבת ינממ םיכסיש לכ המ והורכזש נעמ י ן הנוכתה המל נעהש י ן אצמנ - יכ תומכחה ידומילה תו יה ו וי ויויהתמח י נמזב םי םהה תורסח ו אל ורבד םהב לע ךרד הלבק ןמ םיאיבנה לבא רשאמ םה ימכח תורודה םהה נעב י נ םי םהה וא רשאמ רשאמ וא םהה םי נ י נעב םהה תורודה ימכח םה רשאמ לבא םיאיבנה ןמ הלבק ךרד לע םהב ורבד אל םועמש ימכחמ תורודה .םהה אלו נפמ י הז רמוא םירבדב אצמנש םהל םהש םימיכסמ תמאל - םהש ב ל ת י מא י ת י י ם א ו וא םייתימ ה ולפנ ;הרקמב לבא לכ המ רשפאש שרפל ירבד םדאה דע ומיכסיש תואיצמל רשא ראבתה איצמ ותו תפומב אוה י רתו ואר י א ת אהתוב ת : םדאב הלועמה הדומה לע תמאה - ותושעל

Guide for the Perplexed, Part 3 14:2

...You must, however, not expect that everything our Sages say respecting astronomical matters should agree with observation, for mathematics were not fully developed in those days: and their statements were not based on the authority of the Prophets, but on the knowledge which they either themselves possessed or derived from contemporary men of science.

But I will not on that account denounce what they say correctly in accordance with real fact, as untrue or accidentally true. On the contrary, whenever the words of a person can be interpreted in such a manner that they agree with fully established facts, it is the duty of every educated and honest man to do so.

33 Responsa of the Rashba 1:94 (13th cent. Spain)

...Regarding the question of an animal which suffers a wound which would be considered a treifa, and behold, it lives more than 12 months, should we say that since it lived more than a year, the wound was not in fact a treifa - and thus the animal should be considered kosher? My answer is, if you have seen or heard of someone who is lenient in such a case, do not listen to them! Anyone who is would claim that this animal is kosher is, in my eyes, as one who is insulting the words of the Sages.... everyone who is truly God-fearing must be as a firm wall against this, and not to make the words of the Sages like a broken and pierced wall, through which the fox enters...

..And if you will reply, "what can we do? We have seen with our own eyes a wounded animal in this manner who nevertheless lived 12 months?!" We consider this as one who testifies on the impossible. We would ask them, "how do you know for certain that this is the same animal? Perhaps you forgot or made a mistake?" For it is impossible that the same animal would live for 12 months with a treifa.

תופסות לע הדובע הרז ד״כ :ב ׳א:ג״י בדכהז דב עתפו

יפ ' םדוקד שלש יאדו אל הדלי ו שי הומתל אהד השעמ לכב י םו הרפד - פ הר רומחו תב שלש נש םי יאדו ןהכל יאדו םי נש שלש תב רומחו הר תב יתש נש םי י תדלו ו ל"י יאדוד התע הנתשנ תעה ומכמ היהש תורודב ושארה נ םי ומכ יעב נ ו נ אתי אדרוד אדרוד אתי נ ו נ יעב ומכ םי נ ושארה תורודב היהש ומכמ תעה הנתשנ התע יאדוד ל"י ו תדלו י םי נש יתש תב רמאד י ' קרפ לא ו פרט ו ת ילוח( ן ףד זמ . )םשו לכ יח ו אי ירב אתי יכה תיא והל לא אמ אתייוג תיל והל התעו איה איה התעו והל תיל אתייוג אמ : לכב תומהבה נלש ו ל תמב כ Tosafot on 24b:13:1

The gemara states that a cow younger than three years old cannot give birth. But this does not make sense - we see every day that cows even two years old give birth? One must answer that nature has changed from what it was during the generations of the early Sages....

Responsa of R. Moshe Rothenburg (18th cent. Hamburg)

...According to Rambam, we don’t have the right to add or subtract from the list of treifos based on modern science. If so, how can we possibly invoke science (i.e., the fact that one cannot live without a heart) to remove one of the treifos from the list? Rather, perhaps something else might have happened. Perhaps the heart of the chicken was starting to wither away, getting smaller and smaller prior to its being slaughtered. The heart disappeared a moment before slaughtered and therefore, the chicken is a treifa...

34

Yonatan Eibishutz, Kreiti U'Pleiti (18th cent. Altona)

It is possible that another organ took on the functions of the heart and was circulating the blood throughout the body. That is how the chicken was able to survive without a heart. But if the actual heart is missing, the chicken is a treifa. That is the case that Tosafot are referring to when they say that a missing heart is a treifa....

Regarding scientific principles based on experimentation, today the hypothesis is one way, and when others observe the opposite phenomenon, they retract the initial hypothesis and replace it with another. And such is always the case. Even now, based on experimentation, scientists have actually retracted all the assumptions and conclusions of Galen and Aristotle. Therefore, how can we contradict our Sages based on a scientific claim that one cannot live without a heart?

In order to help clarify these things, and as not to make the Torah a disgrace, I wrote an inquiry to the scholars at Halle.

University of Halle in 1600’s

35 Response from University of Halle to Rabbi Yonatan Eibishutz

We have received two questions for which we do not know the reason. It has been requested of us to provide our expert medical opinion from this institution based on the principles of medicine and anatomy. We convened together and after analysis and discussion we agreed upon the following response, which we present before you.

The substance of the first question- Is it possible for an animal to live for any period of time after the heart has been removed either through sickness or through any other means? First of all, you should know that there is no possibility whatsoever for a heart to disintegrate through sickness. It is true that there are illnesses that affect the heart directly and experience has shown that these can weaken and diminish the heart’s function. The animal stricken with this cardiac illness will struggle to survive as long as the disease does not overcome him and the heart, the source of life, does not cease to beat entirely. But if the disease progresses to the extent that cardiac motion ceases, then certainly the creature stricken with this disease will die. It is evident from this that if it was conceivable for the heart to somehow be completely removed (through disease) surely the creature would succumb. For it is impossible for a creature to live even one moment, just as it is impossible for any being to live if the heart is physically removed or cut out. Such a creature would die immediately or within a brief time once the heart is removed...

Regarding your second query- If a chicken or similar bird is opened and no heart is found, is it possible that there is another structure that serves the function of the heart? We preface our response with this principle- It is physiologically impossible for any living creature, whether bird or animal, to live without a heart or some analogous structure which serves the same function. Such a structure must have a cavity with connected vessels, which serve to transmit and circulate the blood to the rest of the body. Therefore, if there is such an analogous organ with the required specifications for the physiological function usually required for the heart, it is certainly possible for a bird to live for a prolonged period of time, even if the organ does not bear external resemblance to the heart, even if the organ is found in a different anatomical location than the heart, either above or below. All this we have agreed upon.

36 Rav Moshe Feinstein, Choshen Mishpat, 2:73:4

...Maimonides writes "even if we know from contemporary medicine that the animal will live"; he does not write, "even if the doctors say it will live". This is a language of certainty; and yet, the law does not change. This is the meaning of "Law of Moshe at Sinai", to teach us that though the understanding of nature may change, the law does not....

[F]or we find in many other cases that the Torah relied on the Rabbis' assessment of reality, regarding absorption and transfer of taste [of foods in vessels], and when a planting takes root, and similar issues....[And when it comes to matters other than treifah,] the determination is based on the assessment of the doctors of any given time....We thus see that unless we are compelled otherwise, we should assume that matters that are dependent on nature should be based on the assessment of the rabbis of every given time....

And even the Rashba, were he living today - and I believe this applies to him now, in the Garden of Eden - would agree that some of the treifot that the Sages listed could in fact be endured by the animal....

Halachic Organ Donation Society

Rav Tzvi Hirsch ben Yaakov Ashkenazi, also known as the Chacham Tzvi, was born in 1660 and died in 1718. His responsa states that a beating heart is a requirement for life. But clearly the Chacham Tzvi was not talking about a case of brain death where the person (or chicken as in this case) can’t breathe. Those who claim that brain-stem death is not halachic death, quote this responsa to support their position because it put emphasis on the heart. But those who accept brain- stem death as halachic death point out that while the Chacham Tzvi writes one needs a beating heart to live, and it necessary for life, he does not write that a beating heart alone is sufficient in and of itself. When he writes the “soul is in the heart” it is rhetorical flourish to indicate that without a beating heart a person or animal can’t live. But again, that is not say it is sufficient for human life. An analogy would be that an airplane needs an engine to fly and to be called an airplane. But that does not mean if you have a working engine that you have an airplane.

Torah Temimah to Gen 17:14

And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised 14 די לֵרָﬠְו ,רָכָז רֶשֲׁא אֹל - לוֹמִּי תֶא - רַשְׂבּ רַשְׂבּ in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from רָﬠ וֹתָלְ -- הָתְרְכִנְו שֶׁפֶנַּה ,אוִהַה ,אוִהַה שֶׁפֶנַּה הָתְרְכִנְו '.his people; he hath broken My covenant :ָהיֶמַּﬠֵמ תֶא - ְבּ ,יִתיִר .רַפֵה }ס{

Gen 17:14

37 He cites the Rema (YD 72:2) and the Shach15 who quotes the Recanati “for the bris is exemplified in the heart therefore we cut the point of the heart to remove the powers of impurity. Rav Epstein then wonders why he did not cite the Pirke DeReb Eliezer …

15

38

Rabbi Ẓe'era || said: There are five kinds of 'Orlah (things uncircumcised) in the world: four with reference to man, and one concerning trees. Whence do we know this concerning the four (terms) applying to man? (Namely,) the uncircumcision of the ear, the uncircumcision of the lips, the uncircumcision of the heart, and the uncircumcision of the flesh. Whence do we know of the uncircumcision of the ear? Because it is said, "Behold, their ear is uncircumcised" (Jer. 6:10). Whence do we know of the uncircumcision of the lips? Because it is said, "For I am of uncircumcised lips" (Ex. 6:12).

Whence do we know of the uncircumcision of the heart? Because it is said, "Circumcise the foreskin of your heart" (Deut. 10:16); and (the text) says, "For all the nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in heart" (Jer. 9:26). Whence do we know of the uncircumcision of the flesh? Because it is said, "And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin" (Gen. 17:14). And "all the nations are uncircumcised" in all the four cases, and "all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in heart." The uncircumcision of the heart does not suffer Israel to do the will of their Creator.

39

And in the future the Holy One, blessed be He, will take away from Israel the uncircumcision of the heart, and they will not harden their stubborn (heart) any more before their Creator, as it is said, "And I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh" (Ezek. 36:26); and it is said, "And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin" (Gen. 17:11).

40