Week Nine: Yoreh De’ah 41, Terefot of the Liver

Yoreh De’ah 41 takes up terefot of the liver, ways an animal’s liver can be damaged such that the animal cannot be rendered kosher even with proper shechitah. It is somewhat esoteric for most of us now, because of the professionalization of meat production. There are many advantages to that—the people who oversee it now know these areas much better than most of us—but it makes it all seem a bit distant to us. (Although the Daf Yomi is working its way through Chullin right now, so…) Let’s remind ourselves of a bit of it.

AH starts with the reminder that holes in the liver have no impact on terefah status (as opposed to other parts of the body, such as the lungs, where holes are signs of tarfut); the liver can be full of holes, from end to end, the animal will still be kosher.

How Much Liver Must Be Left, and Where

But it must still be there; should we discover the liver was removed during the animal’s life, it is a terefah. On the other hand, a Mishnah on Chullin 54a says even a kezayit, an olive’s worth of liver, suffices to sustain the animal’s kosher status, with a Tosefta on Chullin 83, the kezayit be someplace where the liver could have rejuvenated. [My father, a”h, passed away because of a liver problem, and I remember doctors telling us they could remove, I think they said 85% of it, and he could still be fine.]

Chullin 46a records a debate about the location of this rejuvenation place, one view putting it near the gall bladder, the other at its place of chiyyut, where it gets its sustenance. This latter site was disputed by rishonim, most holding it is where the liver attaches to the kidneys (Rashi, Rif, Rambam, Behag), but Rashi brought a second opinion, adopted by Mahari Weil and Rokeach, it’s where the liver attaches to the diaphragm.

The Gemara says the lasting uncertainty means we would need the animal to have two kezeitim of liver left before we would certify its kashrut, one in each of the named places. Since we have that further uncertainty, we need three (in se’if seven, AH says all three need to be connected, not some unusual formation of liver).

Exercising Our Sfek Sfeka Muscles

In se’if nine, AH notes Kereti U-Pleti suggested that a doubt about whether we have enough liver connected to the kidneys or diaphragm could be ruled kosher, because of a sfek sfeka, a frequent source of halachic leniencies.

Usually, we rule stringently in cases of doubt about Torah law, to be as sure as possible we obey God’s commands. Here, we have one doubt, there might be enough meat at this place, and, completely separately—crucial for sfek sfeka, that it not be another version of the same doubt—this might not be the needed place for the kezayit, because of the debate among rishonim on the liver’s makom chiyyut.

Sfek sfeka, in general, allows lenient rulings.

Peri Megadim did not accept the idea as stated, instead added a key qualification AH ratified. The debate about where that kezayit needs to be has a majority and minority view, the majority holding it is a place where the liver connects to the kidneys. A doubt on the amount left there, would just be a safek de-oraita, a doubt about Torah law. For the connection to the diaphragm, a minority opinion, would be open to the Kereti U-Pleti’s reasoning.

For the size of an olive’s worth, AH points out, some sources think it is half an egg, some only a third, but we must be strict about that, because it is a question of Torah law.

Not Only Leftovers

In se’if twelve, AH is surprised that neither Tur nor Shulchan Aruch quoted Rambam’s view that these olives’ worth of connection are needed regardless of how much other liver remained. From our discussion so far, it had seemed this is how much had to be left if all the rest of the liver was gone, leaving the possibility that if the liver was all there, these spots aren’t vital.

Rambam says not so, because these show the liver is still part of the functioning organism, and that is indispensable. AH seems to think Rambam sounds correct, and therefore does not know why SA didn’t have it.

Adjustable Sizes or Not

These amounts are irrespective of size, for animals, large and small ones both need these three olive’s worths of leftover liver. For birds, Tur and Shulchan Aruch said size did matter. In rulings he has seen, even very large birds did not need as much as animals, only enough to rejuvenate the liver for that type of bird.

Once we have the idea of a sliding scale, AH floats the idea of such a scale for animals, too, very large ones might need more than three olives’ worth, but he leaves it unsettled.

Other Signs of the Liver’s Decrepitude

The leftover liver cannot be dried out--any liver remnants where a fingernail scratch will tear or leave a lasting mark counts as no longer there. Rema included Bach’s idea that hardening of the liver also makes it as if not there, a stringency Shach thought—but many acharonim disagreed--might be ignored in cases of hefsed merubah, of great financial loss. In se’if fifteen, AH says if the inside is ok (not hardened), the animal is fine.

With birds, wounds on the liver obligate us to check the intestines, since they often go together, and the intestines have other standards of being a terefah. This idea fuels se’if sixteen as well, the presence of some puncturing item (sharp food or stone) in the liver tells us it likely went through the digestive tract and left holes there, where holes do make the animal a terefah.

Where There Are Working Two Olives’ Worth

If the liver is dying, blood coming out of it, Rema took it to be a sign of being a terefah, but Shach and Taz allowed the animal if the crucial two olives’ worth are still healthy, an idea accepted by Pri Chadash and Tevu’ot Shor. AH thinks any parts of the liver with these problems count as removed, and we check if the animal is kosher or not, with them out of the picture.

Worms in the liver, se’if eighteen tells us, also don’t matter, as long as the two needed kezeitim are there, even with holes, because those holes would fill back in in a live animal However, Re’ah held that if all we have left are those crucial parts of the liver, they have to be whole, and Tevu’ot Shor accepted his view.

Closing Points

I’ve skipped many technical parts of this chapter, as I pointed out at the start, because we have professionals to deal with these issues. Still, some further interesting points (to me). In se’if twenty-seven, AH reports a tradition of the Ge’onim, which Levush held to oblige us, a puncture all the way through the membrane of the liver makes the animal a terefah, because without repair, the liver would rot. In contrast to other punctures, however, were something to have sealed this one, the animal would not be a terefah.

The last se’if presents a debate about an Halacha le-Moshe mi-Sinai, a rule passed down orally from Sinai, that any extra parts on an internal organ are as if not there. Rashi and Rambam thought it meant we treat the entire organ as missing, where Ramban thought it excluded only the spot to which it was attached.

An extra liver attached other than to the kidneys, diaphragm, or gall bladder would be the distinguishing example. AH thinks we follow Rashi and Rambam, but to me it is more interesting as an example of a debate about an oral tradition with no sources to determine the answer.

Which is true of much of terefot. Rambam already pointed out that not all the wounds the Gemara includes in terefot necessarily kill the animal, and we know of others that do that are not on the list. He insists the list is a tradition we must follow, as everyone agrees is true, but it offers another good example of gray areas of halachah, where what we decide to do results from a long list of decisions by important but post-Talmudic authorities.

Next time, laws of yichud, making sure not to be in a position where illicit sexual relations are a possibility.

Adapted from articles previously published on Torah Musings