By Rabbi Yair Hoffman

The breathtaking complexity and intellectual rigor of the field of Kashrus often goes unappreciated, even by those well-versed in Jewish law. Deep within this vast ocean of knowledge lies an absolutely riveting debate that captures the essence of how nuanced this field truly is: Does a particular ligament count among the crucial 16 tendons that render a chicken treif? This fascinating controversy pits two towering giants of halachic scholarship against each other – the brilliant Rav Shmuel Vosner zt”l (pictured on the right) and the masterful Rav Meir Brandsdorfer zt”l (on the left).

What follows is nothing short of a intellectual feast – a careful translation of their remarkable responsa, each one a masterpiece of logical reasoning and deep analysis. But the story doesn’t end there! To uncover current practice, this author had the extraordinary privilege of consulting with none other than Rav Avrohom Rubin himself, shlita – universally acknowledged as the world’s preeminent authority on Tzumas HaGiddin. Though this rich topic could fill volumes, in the interest of brevity, it has been distilled  into less than 7,500 words. And as for Rav Rubin’s illuminating response? Stay tuned – until tomorrow.

 

Rav Shmuel Vosner  zt”l – Shaivet HaLevi Vol. IX #149

I was asked by distinguished rabbis and those responsible for kosher supervision in poultry slaughterhouses regarding the number of tendons relevant to determining treifah (non-kosher status) in the tzomes hagidin (tendon junction) of fowl, which Chazal defined in Tractate Chullin 76b as having sixteen tendons in birds. According to the legal ruling in Siman 56, we follow the Rambam’s opinion that if even one of these tendons is majority severed, the bird is treif (non-kosher). 5   89

The Question

The doubt that arose among these rabbis stems from finding a very small tendon in the junction area that doesn’t extend like the other tendons from the knee joint downward, but rather runs from bottom to top until it disappears into the flesh. Instead, it emerges from the cartilage above the knee joint and is very small, less than a finger’s width.

Runs Horizontally

It doesn’t run from bottom to top but rather horizontally, forming a kind of small loop above the actual tendons, and ends immediately at the bottom of the shin bone. Although visually it might resemble a tendon in color and quality, its location, size, and shape bear no resemblance to the other tendons. Some wish to be stringent and count this among the sixteen tendons, since without it they are missing one from the total count. However, I am inclined to disagree.

Analysis Part 1

The Rambam writes in Laws of Ritual Slaughter, Chapter 8, Law 14: “The number of these tendons in a bird is sixteen, beginning from the bone below the extra toe until the end of the leg.” This clearly excludes the aforementioned tendon that begins above the knee joint and doesn’t run along the leg at all.

Although it is known that the early authorities testified that the Rambam retracted this language, that was because the scales’ bone isn’t relevant to tendon junction injuries except above it, but the reality and nature of the tendons remains unchanged.

Ravad’s Position

The Ravad wrote there: “It is true that they descend downward, but they connect and strengthen at the knee joint, and from there they provide life and sustenance to the body.” None of this applies to that small tendon.

Further Analysis

The Rashba writes in his Toras HaBayis that while the upper limit of the tendon junction in birds isn’t explicitly defined, one could say they follow the same rules as small cattle, otherwise they would have needed to specify differently.

They Would Have Mentioned it

If there were such a distinction among the sixteen tendons in birds, where one runs horizontally for a small distance less than a finger’s width and ends approximately where the other fifteen begin, how could our teachers have omitted this from us? Furthermore, bird tendons are not like those of small cattle, where this phenomenon is not found at all.

The Ran’s Position

The Ran states that “the measure of the tendon junction in birds extends from the beginning of the shin bone that connects to the leg until they are absorbed into the flesh, after which they no longer have the status of tendon junction.” The Ra’ah wrote similarly. If this applies only to fifteen strands but the sixteenth already ends at the beginning of the shin and isn’t absorbed into the flesh, and its structure and form are completely different from the other tendons, how could our teachers have placed such a stumbling block before us? Rather, there is certainly no room for doubt here. The Holy One, Blessed be He, created this small cord to connect and tie the knee joint with the shin or to tie and strengthen the tendons below, but it does not provide vitality to the body as the early authorities defined regarding the other tendons.

The Meiri’s View

Consider also the Meiri’s language on this matter. He writes: “And in birds, its measure is also from the head of the middle knee joint until it begins to enter the flesh in the bone called ‘gainul,’ and this too is white but not entirely white, as when they begin to enter the flesh they start to redden.

Mar bar Ashi was slightly more stringent, holding that when they begin to enter the flesh they are not yet red but rather have an intermediate, luminous color.” All these signs and color progressions are absent in this small cord that forms a small loop. The Meiri later writes, after explaining the fineness of bird tendons, that “they extend as we explained regarding animals” until they begin to enter the flesh.

The Rashba’s Response

See also the Rashba’s response in Siman 36 regarding bird tendon junctions, where he explains why the Talmud didn’t specify the measure of bird tendon junctions. He writes that this was due to the great variance in bird sizes, from very small to very large birds, and therefore they gave a sign based on small cattle to clarify the matter for both small cattle and birds. If you were to say that this small cord is one of the sixteen tendons in birds – something we never learned anything similar about in small cattle, where they properly extend into the bone’s flesh above – then they came to explain but failed to clarify such a fundamental point about birds.

The Eshkol’s Position

In the Sefer Eshkol’s section on eighteen types of treifot, it states: “In birds their number is sixteen; if one of them is severed in the majority it is treif. They begin as in animals, and from where they are absorbed in the flesh they no longer have the law of tendon junction.” That small tendon neither begins where animal and fifteen bird tendons begin, nor is it absorbed into the flesh.

Contemporary Views

I have also seen the Teshuvas Maharsham, Volume 1, Siman 110, but nothing can be derived from there. On the contrary, the discussion there completely ignores this loop tendon, as it never occurred to him to consider such a thing as one of the sixteen tendons that provide vitality to the bird.

Conclusion

ll the language of the early authorities regarding this tiny tendon, which is distinct in its smallness and simplicity and doesn’t run from bottom to top at all, clearly requires by Torah logic that it is not part of the tendon junction. If one of the sixteen tendons is missing, this is due to lack of expertise, not because the count should be completed by something that isn’t a junction tendon at all. Anyone who wishes to be stringent about this must bring decisive proof to contradict all of the above.

Final Note

My dear friend, the distinguished and complete scholar Rabbi Avraham Rubin of Rehovot, in his precious book Amudei Shesh on the laws of bird tendon junctions, Chapter 1:6, wrote to consider this small tendon as one of the sixteen tendons stringently, and cited my name as if I too was concerned about this.

While this may be so, I have now studied the topic as above and seen that matters clearly lean toward leniency. As long as there is no proof to be stringent, the matter remains in its presumption of kosher status. One who wishes to be stringent for themselves may do so, but should not impose this on others.

 

Rav  Meir Brandsdorfer zt”l  Knei Bosem Vol. II #40

With Hashems help. In the holy city of Jerusalem, may it be built and established, Tuesday when “it is good” was repeated, in the portion “Behold I give him My covenant of peace,” 15th of Tammuz 5739.

Greetings and blessings to my dear friend, the distinguished rabbi and scholar Rabbi Avraham Yisrael Rubin, may he live long and good years, Rabbi and decisor in Rehovot.

The Question

Regarding his question about the small tendon found on the inner side of the shin bone of the fowl near the joint running horizontally across the bone at an angle, lying like a bolt across one of the other tendons that run along the bone lengthwise, whether it should be counted among the sixteen tendons or not.

Analysis Part 1

In my humble opinion, I see no reason to doubt whether this small tendon should be counted among the sixteen tendons any more than the other tendons found there. The characteristics of the tendon junction are explicitly stated in Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah (Section 56:5) that they are white, hard, and thick as stated in the Talmud (Chullin 76a).

It is explained in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch (ibid 56:9) that the characteristics of the tendon junction in fowl are the same as in animals, except that in animals there are only three tendons, while in fowl there are sixteen tendons as explained in Shulchan Aruch (ibid 56:7-8).

The later authorities have already determined that the tendon junction of fowl is universally accepted to be both in front and behind the leg, and experience shows that they also extend to the sides of the leg externally, and somewhat to the inner side of the leg, and among all of them there are only sixteen tendons and no more.

Detailed Analysis of the Tendon Count

One who wishes to understand the fundamentals of these matters and examines carefully the reality and nature of the tendon junction in fowl will see that it is more reasonable to say that this small tendon is indeed part of the tendon junction and completes the count of sixteen tendons, since it has all the characteristics of the tendon junction – being white, hard, and thick – more so than other tendons found there that lack these characteristics.

This is particularly true according to what is written in the Daat Torah (end of subsection 4) that he checked and found in geese and chickens that there are eleven on the outer side and five on the inner side. One who carefully examines the reality of the inner tendons of fowl will find only four tendons there (besides this small tendon) that could reasonably be considered part of the tendon junction: one somewhat wide tendon lying along the sides of the bone which splits into two near the lower joint appearing like a fork, another tendon slightly in front of it, and two other tendons in front of those opposite the middle of the bone, and this small tendon is the fifth one.

Additional Analysis of Other Tendons

Beyond these five tendons, there are several other very thin tendons found there which are not likely to be counted among the tendon junction since they are not hard and thick like the other tendons. There is also one tendon found there that differs in its nature from the other tendons – it is not as thick as the other tendons, is harder than the other tendons, is attached to the shin bone, and does not stretch like the other tendons. It seems reasonable that this too is not part of the tendon junction.

Blood Vessels and Other Considerations

There is also one tendon that is neither white nor hard like the other tendons, and logic suggests that it is merely one of the blood vessels and not part of the tendon junction, as written by the Beit Yosef (beginning of section 56) in the name of the Rashba and Ran, who wrote in the name of the Raavad that among the inner tendons there are other strands which are blood vessels, and they are not white like those called the tendon junction, nor are they strong and hard like them. Although the Raavad was speaking there about the tendon junction of animals, it is possible that the same applies to fowl.

Further Analysis of the Tendon Count

This is what appears to me initially based on the words of the Daat Torah who wrote simply that he checked and found in geese and chickens that there are eleven on the outer side and five on the inner side. According to this, we must say that the other tendons found on the inner side are not counted among the tendon junction.

However, regarding the main point that the Daat Torah wrote simply that there are eleven tendons on the outer side, this requires investigation in my humble opinion, since in reality only nine tendons are found there. It appears he wrote this based on what he wrote there that among those tendons on the outer side, there are two that are wide at their beginning for about a finger’s width and afterward split into two. Thus, each of these two tendons counts as two, making eleven tendons on the outer side.

Discussion of Measurement Standards

In my humble opinion, this requires investigation according to what we hold regarding measuring the tendon junction in fowl within a finger’s width from where they begin, as written by the Rama (ibid section 9), and as he himself wrote (subsection 14). Thus, it follows that in the place where the treifah status of the tendon junction applies, namely within a finger’s width from where they begin, there are only fourteen tendons there, and only after a finger’s width from where they begin, where the treifah status of the tendon junction no longer applies, do they split and become sixteen. This cannot be accepted as stated because it explicitly emerges from the words of the Talmud (ibid 76b) and in the Shulchan Aruch (ibid section 8) that in fowl there are sixteen tendons, and if one of them is severed it is treif. Thus, it is clearly explained that in the place where the treifah status of the tendon junction applies, there must be sixteen tendons.

Analysis of Intertwined Tendons

Furthermore, in my humble opinion this entire matter requires investigation, as it is explained in the Shulchan Aruch (ibid section 6) that those tendons that are absorbed within each other like male into female are not included in the tendon junction. This originates from the words of the Raavad brought by the Beit Yosef (ibid) who explained thus what Abaye said (ibid 71a) that absorbed ones are not part of the tendon junction. It is obvious that this law applies to fowl as well, and so it is explicitly explained in the words of the Meiri.

The Meiri’s Position

The Meiri states: “In fowl there are many tendons, numbering sixteen, and they are all thin. There is no specificity whether they are on the inner or outer side and they are all called tendons, except that some are absorbed into others and are not counted as tendons, neither for completing the count nor for the laws of prohibited tendons.” One can see that this is indeed true, as two of the nine outer tendons in fowl are absorbed throughout their length from their beginning until above the place where the tendon junction’s treifah status applies, within one wide tendon. (However, the Meiri’s words require investigation as they suggest there are several such tendons that are absorbed into each other, while in reality only one such tendon is found containing two other tendons.)

Numerical Analysis

According to this, there are only eight tendons on the outer side of the fowl’s leg, and thus three tendons are missing from the count of sixteen tendons of the tendon junction. Therefore, we must say that the three inner tendons I mentioned above, which seemed unlikely to be part of the tendon junction, do complete the count of sixteen tendons – meaning there are eight outer tendons and eight inner tendons. This contradicts what the Daat Torah wrote that there are eleven tendons on the outer side and five on the inner side, unless we say that these two tendons that split into two count as two even though within the measurement where the treifah status of the tendon junction applies they appear as one, because they can be split into two.

Discussion of Rashi’s Position

This is similar to what we find with Rav Ashi who checked and found fifteen, and there was one that was twice the size of its companions – he split it and found two. Nevertheless, even according to this, one tendon is still missing from the count of sixteen, and therefore one of the three inner tendons mentioned above must complete the count.

Practical Implications

However, in practice there isn’t much of a practical difference for us since we are not anyway expert in checking the tendon junction in fowl, as written by the Rama (ibid section 9). Therefore, even if we assume these tendons are not part of the tendon junction, neither for completing the count nor for the laws of prohibited tendons, certainly this deficiency in these tendons is no less severe than any other complete deficiency in the place of the tendon junction, where we don’t rely on our examination because it is difficult to check and becomes invalid easily, as written by the Rama.

Exception for Large Fowl

Nevertheless, there is practical relevance even for us regarding checking the tendon junction in large fowl like turkey and the like, where we do rely on our examination as written by the Pri Megadim and other later authorities. In these cases, we require all tendons to be complete and intact, including even those tendons mentioned above which seemed unlikely to be part of the tendon junction. This is explained in the Bach’s words that even where we rely on our expertise in checking the tendon junction, this is only when we find all sixteen tendons.

Detailed Requirements

If one checks and finds only fifteen tendons and one appears thick to him, he should not split it and separate it into two. For although we find that Rav Ashi did this, we are not expert in this splitting and separation into two. Even one who is expert in checking the tendon junction should not rely on this to separate them, as written by the Bach. The Beit Yosef wrote similarly in the name of the Rokeach, and so wrote the Daat Torah.

Further Analysis of Expertise Requirements

It has already been explained above that only by combining all the outer and inner tendons together is the count of sixteen tendons completed without needing to rely on splitting. Therefore, we require all tendons to be complete and intact without any deficiency, and without this we do not rely on our expertise in checking the tendon junction even in large fowl, since we don’t rely on splitting.

Conflicting Opinions

Furthermore, it appears that since we have no clear ruling in the words of the authorities regarding which tendons are counted among the sixteen and which are not, and their words contradict each other – for the Daat Torah wrote that he checked and found eleven tendons on the outer side and five on the inner side, while in the name of the Chiddushei HaRazah he wrote that he checked and found three tendons on the outer side and thirteen on the inner side (which seems astonishing as it appears to contradict reality), and I have already shown above that one could argue there are eight tendons on the outer side and eight on the inner side – therefore, for each and every one of the tendons found around the leg in the place where the treifah status of the tendon junction applies, we must be concerned that it is among the sixteen tendons, and we require all of them to be complete and intact without any deficiency.

Variations in Tendon Characteristics

Although there are several tendons among them that differ somewhat in their nature and are not white, hard, and thick like the other tendons, nevertheless, it is not universally agreed that the tendon junction of fowl must exactly resemble in appearance and touch the tendon junction of animals. What is written in the Shulchan Aruch that the characteristics of the tendon junction in fowl are like those in animals, which originates from the Tur in the name of the Rashba in Torat HaBayit, primarily refers to the sign of where the tendons’ extension ends, not to the characteristics of the tendons themselves.

The Ra’ah’s Position

As the Ra’ah wrote in Bedek HaBayit regarding what the Rashba wrote about the characteristics of fowl tendon junction being like those of animals: “This is incorrect, for the characteristics of animal tendon junction do not apply to fowl at all. In animals where there are three that are considered the tendon junction and there are others, these characteristics apply. But in fowl where all are tendon junction, these characteristics don’t apply. Rather, the main point regarding fowl is that once they are absorbed into the flesh, they no longer have the status of tendon junction.”

Resolution of Contradicting Views

The Rashba in Mishmereth HaBayit responded to this that his intention too was only to mark the place where the tendons extend, and the Ra’ah didn’t understand his intention in this. From both their words it is clear that in fowl, all are considered tendon junction.

The Meil Tzedaka’s Analysis

The Meil Tzedaka (Siman 37) has already elaborated on explaining the words of the Rashba and Ra’ah, writing that the Ra’ah had a different version of the Rashba’s words, as brought in the Kesef Mishneh in his name. The version states: “The Rashba further wrote that the measure of tendon junction in fowl is reasonably assumed to have the same characteristics mentioned regarding small cattle, because regarding small cattle no fixed measure was given but rather characteristics were given regarding their body, their thickness, and their appearance, and these are the same characteristics in fowl as well.”

Further Discussion of the Rashba’s View

From this language it is clear that the Rashba held that the characteristics of the tendons themselves in fowl are exactly similar to the characteristics of tendons in animals. The Ra’ah properly objected to this, saying that in fowl all are considered tendon junction. Nevertheless, he concludes there that according to the law, even the Rashba agrees with the Ra’ah that all are considered tendon junction, and he checked and found there are no more than sixteen tendons. Even if perhaps more are found, we still require all of them to be complete and intact, as he explains there with reasoning, and his words are cited in the Daat Torah.

Additional Considerations

See further in Daat Torah where he wrote simply that the sign of whiteness is not effective at all in fowl. He wrote this based on the words of the Darchei Moshe in the name of the Issur V’Heter, who wrote in the name of the Rosh that the tendon junction in fowl are thin and red. Thus it is clear from all this that in fowl all are considered tendon junction even if they differ from the characteristics of animal tendon junction.

The Yad Yehuda’s Position

Indeed, in the Yad Yehuda, he wondered about this regarding the Issur V’Heter who wrote this in the name of the Rosh, as this is not found at all in the Rosh’s words. The Rosh only wrote that there are sixteen tendons. It is evident from his words that he held that the characteristics of fowl tendon junction are like those of animals also regarding the body of the tendons – that they are white, hard, and thick.

Further Analysis of Tendon Characteristics

Nevertheless, regarding the main point, it is clear from his words that he agrees that in fowl all are considered tendon junction and there are only sixteen tendons which surround the entire leg, as written by the Rambam in his Commentary on the Mishnah: “Those tendons that surround the fowl’s leg which are similar to these extra ones (the Rambam’s intention here is that they are similar to the tendon junction of animals) and they are sixteen…” He also brought the above-mentioned language of the Ra’ah, from all of which it is clear that among all of them together there are no more than sixteen tendons and all are considered tendon junction.

The Ra’avan’s View

I saw there that he wrote in the name of the Ra’avan that in fowl there are sixteen tendons and one of them is thick and splits into two and is counted as two if all are intact it is kosher and if one of them is severed it is treif. He wrote about this that it appears from the Ra’avan’s words that Rav Ashi did not check because of any deficiency, but only to know if it is true that sixteen tendons are found, and he saw that one was thick and split it and found that they were indeed two.

Important Distinctions

It appears from the Ra’avan’s words that this is so in all fowl and we don’t actually need to split it, rather this is the way it is – one is thick which typically splits and is counted as two. This is unlike the words of the Daat Torah who wrote that two of the outer tendons split into two.

Further Analysis of Tendon Numbers

According to the Ra’avan’s words, on the outer side of the leg there are only nine tendons besides the tendon that is absorbed within its companion which is not counted among the tendon junction. On the inner side there are seven more tendons that are part of the tendon junction. Thus, according to what was written above that there are eight inner tendons, we must say that one of them is not part of the tendon junction. If we say that the Ra’avan does not accept the Raavad’s position that tendons absorbed within each other are not part of the tendon junction, then we would need to say that two extra tendons on the inner side are not part of the tendon junction.

Practical Application

However, I wrote all this only for theoretical discussion, because we do not have the ability to determine which tendons are part of the tendon junction and which are not. We require all tendons surrounding the leg to be complete and intact without any deficiency at all, as explained above.

Second Major Topic: Blood Clots

Regarding what he further asked about finding a deficiency between the tendons, such as if blood clotted there or rot was found between the tendons – if the deficiency passes after washing with water and no trace of the deficiency remains, is it kosher or treif?

The source of this law is from what the Rama wrote that since we are not expert in checking the tendon junction of fowl because it is difficult to check and becomes invalid easily, therefore in any place where there is a wound in the place of the tendon junction, even if it is only swollen and blood has clotted, since it requires checking and we are not expert in fowl, it is treif.

Analysis of Blood Clots and Defects

The source is from the Issur V’Heter, as explained in the Darchei Moshe. However, the Shach wrote in the name of the Levush that this applies only when the blood has clotted so much that the tendons are almost unrecognizable due to the blood, but for a small amount of clotted blood, why should we declare it treif when we see no deficiency in the tendons? He also wrote similarly in the name of the Maharshal in his commentary on the Issur V’Heter and in his Yam Shel Shlomo that one needs to examine if it appears from the swelling that there is rot and decay and there is concern that one of the tendons was severed, then we should declare it treif.

Implications of These Rulings

It is explicitly clear from their language that even though the deficiency is not visible in the tendons themselves, but is only visible between the tendons, we are still concerned about the severing of one of the tendons, as the Rama wrote in his reasoning because it is difficult to check and becomes invalid easily. Therefore, the Maharshal, Levush, and Shach wrote that only with a significant deficiency where there is concern about tendon severing should we declare it treif, but with a minor deficiency, why should we declare it treif as long as we don’t see any deficiency in the tendons themselves?

Conclusions About Washing Away Defects

Therefore, it seems simple and clear that even if the deficiency passes through washing and no trace of the deficiency remains, it still maintains its treif status even though no deficiency is visible in the tendons themselves. This is because even initially the treif status wasn’t due to visible deficiency in the tendons themselves, but rather due to the deficiency around the tendons we are concerned about the tendons as well. Therefore, what difference does it make if the deficiency passed through washing with water? The original concern about the tendons remains in place, and this is obvious.

Third Major Topic: Partial Severing

Regarding what he further asked about if one of the tendons in fowl is severed or rotted only in its minority, whether it should be declared kosher or treif.

This question is one of the most common in our time, particularly in those fowl where deficiency is clearly visible in the place of the tendon junction, especially in the wide tendon under the skin on the outer side of the leg in the place where tendon junction treifah applies, where it is damaged in its minority and begins to rot and break.

Previous Rulings

I have already written in my work Kneh Bosem (Vol. 1, Section 48) that even though to our eyes the majority of the tendon still appears whole and healthy, nevertheless it is treif, as written by the Daat Torah in the name of the Em L’Binah that if rot has affected even a minority of the tendon junction itself, one should forbid it even in animals according to our practice.

Source of the Em L’Binah’s Ruling

The source of the Em L’Binah’s words comes from the Levushei Serad, as one can see upon examination. However, the Levushei Serad simply stated that when damage reaches the tendon junction itself, it is treif even in animals, without specifying whether he meant even if the damage reaches only a minority of one of the tendons it is treif, or only if it reaches the majority. Similarly, in the Em L’Binah’s Snifei HaShulchan, he left this matter unspecified.

Detailed Analysis of the Law

However, in the Em L’Binah, he analyzes the intention of the Levushei Serad and deduces from what he wrote in his explanation that “when some damage is visible in the tendon junction itself, it is certainly treif even in animals, for we are not expert in tissue deterioration, and whenever we see that damage has affected the place of the tendon junction itself, it is certainly treif.” From this language of “some damage in the tendon junction itself,” it is proven that he means to say that even where the damage has affected only part of the tendon, it is treif.

Different Types of Damage

In the Snifei HaShulchan, he questions whether if part of one of the tendons in an animal is found cut, even in its minority, whether we should declare it kosher according to our practice. He suggests that perhaps the authorities only declared it kosher specifically when it was cut gently and one knows with certainty that no more was touched or damaged, but not when it is found this way and we don’t know how it happened.

Analysis of Expertise Requirements

The Em L’Binah clarified his doubt about this because although we are expert in checking the tendon junction in turkey and certainly in animals, nevertheless the Shach wrote that this leniency applies only when it has reconnected, since according to several authorities no examination is needed. Therefore, the Rama was lenient in considering us expert in examination. However, when it is still broken, since there is such a significant deficiency and examination is required according to most authorities, we should forbid it even in animals.

Practical Implications

Therefore, it seems clear that only in animals where we are expert in examination was this a matter of doubt. But in fowl, where we hold that with a complete deficiency in the place of the tendon junction it is treif because we are concerned that one of the tendons may have been damaged and we are not expert in examination, as written by the Rama, certainly when there is a deficiency in the tendon junction itself that requires examination, since we are not expert, it is treif.

Further Considerations

Nevertheless, he concludes that even in fowl there is room for doubt about this, because one could argue that only with a deficiency in the place of the tendon junction, just as we are not expert in checking the tendon junction, similarly we are not expert in discerning if the disease has affected the tendon junction. Disease is more noticeable in flesh than in the tendon junction itself, and since disease has affected around the tendons, we are also concerned about the tendons themselves.

Distinction Between Types of Damage

However, when there is no deficiency around the tendons but only the tendon is cut in its minority and the cut is clearly visible within the tendon, one could say that if it had spread further it would also be visible within the tendon and we are indeed expert in this. Nevertheless, he concludes that it seems to him more appropriate to be stringent rather than lenient in this matter.

The Daas Torah’s Position

The Daas Torah wrote simply that for us, who are not expert in checking the tendon junction in fowl, even when a minority of the tendon is severed it is forbidden even in cases of significant financial loss. He wrote similarly in the name of the Kanfei Yonah to be stringent in this even regarding animals.

Analysis of Different Types of Damage

It is clear from their words that whether cut or severed, and whether rotted or damaged, even if only a minority of one of the tendons in the tendon junction is affected, it is treif for us who are not expert in checking the tendon junction. One who examines the words of the Em L’Binah will see clearly that although in both of his doubts – namely regarding a cut tendon minority and regarding a rotted tendon minority – he ruled stringently even regarding animals, nevertheless it is clear that in the case of a rotted or damaged minority of the tendon, the matter was more obviously forbidden to him than in the case of a cut minority of the tendon.

Explanation of Different Severities

The distinction between these cases is explained in his words: Where it was severed due to disease and rot that affected the place of the tendon junction and the tendons themselves, even though the deficiency is only visible in a minority of the tendon, since we are not expert in tissue deterioration and flesh that a doctor would scrape away, we are concerned that the damage has spread further even though it’s not yet visible to the eye. This applies even to animals. However, in the case where a minority of the tendon was cut due to some cause not related to disease and rot, there was initially room to say that since the cut is clearly visible within the tendon to the extent it was cut, there is no reason to be concerned about more than this, for if it had spread further it would also be visible. Nevertheless, he ultimately ruled stringently in this case as well, even regarding animals.

Further Opinions

This is also clear in the words of the Daas Torah, who ruled stringently regarding cases where some rot has affected the tendon junction itself, even in animals, following the Em L’Binah’s ruling. However, regarding a cut minority of the tendon, he tended toward leniency at least for animals in cases of significant financial loss when the thick tendon remains intact.

The Minchas Yosef’s View

Similarly, it is clear from the words of the MinchatsYosef that in the case of a cut minority of the tendon, he strongly questioned the fundamental position of the Em L’Binah and elaborated his objections. Since no deficiency is visible except for what was cut from the minority of the tendon, we are indeed expert enough to discern that no more was cut.

Resolution of the Minchat Yosef’s Position

Nevertheless, he ultimately agreed with the Em L’Binah’s ruling, suggesting that perhaps since counting the tendons is difficult and we are not expert, we should be concerned that perhaps one tendon was completely severed and we don’t recognize it. However, when damage has reached the tendon junction itself, he cited the Em L’Binah’s words and simply wrote to distinguish between a cut minority of the tendon and a rotted minority of the tendon, stating that in fowl it is certainly treif, for if we are not expert in checking tendons with rotted flesh, how much more so with rot in the tendon itself. However, regarding animals he remained uncertain.

The Kaf HaChaim’s Unusual Position

I found something puzzling in the Kaf HaChaim regarding the Shulchan Aruch’s ruling that if the majority of one of the tendons in fowl is severed it is treif. He wrote in the name of the Pri Toar that if it is exactly half, it is permitted. Then he wrote in the name of the Zivchei Tzedek that we are not expert in this and our practice is to declare treif any deficiency in the tendon junction of fowl, and even if to our eyes we see “me’ut mi’ze’ir” (very little) we declare it treif. Thus it is explicitly clear from his words that even with the slightest deficiency in the tendon junction of fowl we declare it treif.

Analysis of Terminology

Looking at the Zivchei Tzedek himself, who wrote in abbreviation that even though to our eyes we see “mem ayin mem” (which he interpreted as “me’ut mi’ze’ir” – very little) we declare it treif, this is puzzling because from the flow of his language it appears more likely that he meant “mechtzah al mechtzah” (exactly half), meaning he was addressing the Pri Toar’s words that if it is exactly half it is permitted. He wrote that we are not expert in discerning that it is not more than half and even with exactly half we declare it treif.

Further Analysis of the Kaf HaChaim’s Interpretation

Perhaps the Kaf HaChaim arrived at his understanding of the Zivchei Tzedek because from the flow of his language it appears he wasn’t speaking only about severance through cutting, but rather about any deficiency in the tendon junction, as he wrote “our practice is to declare treif any deficiency in the tendon junction of fowl.” Therefore, it seemed more appropriate to him that the abbreviation meant “me’ut mi’ze’ir” (very little). As explained above, there is a distinction between a cut minority of the tendon and other deficiencies in a minority of the tendon, where in this case everyone agrees that for us who are not expert in checking fowl tendon junction, even a minority makes it treif.

Final Practical Ruling

According to what has been explained, it seems simple in my humble opinion regarding the common deficiency found in our time in the wide tendon, that even with the slightest deficiency where it begins to rot or break, even though to our eyes the majority of the tendon still appears whole and healthy, for us who are not expert in checking fowl tendon junction, it is universally considered treif.

Response to Common Arguments

I have heard many argue that only with a slight deficiency in the thin tendons can we properly say that even though to our eyes it appears to be only a slight deficiency, we are still concerned that the damage may have spread further but is not yet visible. However, with a slight deficiency in the wide tendon where to the eye the majority of the tendon appears whole and healthy without any deficiency at all, particularly where only the slightest deficiency is visible and the entire tendon remains whole and healthy, we can rely on our expertise that the damage has not spread further and declare it kosher.

Conclusion

In my humble opinion, it is not appropriate to rely on this at all. Besides the fact that we don’t find this distinction anywhere and none of the authorities mentioned this distinction, but rather stated simply that when damage reaches the tendon junction itself it is treif, the matter is inherently decisive that a slight deficiency in the wide tendon is more severe than a deficiency in one of the other tendons. This is according to what I brought above from the words of the Ra’avan that the thick tendon splits into two and is counted as two, and therefore with a slight deficiency in the wide tendon, even though the majority is still whole and healthy, there is concern that half or the majority of one of them has already been compromised.

This is what appears to me in clarifying his questions. May the Holy One, blessed be He, help us not to stumble in matters of law and may we merit to arrive at proper legal conclusions, Amen. From me, your friend who seeks your well-being with an eternal love, Meir Brandsdorfer.

The author can be reached at [email protected]