Source 1 Introduction
The preparation of kosher meat was central to Jewish self-identity and religious life in the early modern period. While the ritual slaughter of fowl was relatively simple and was often done by individuals in isolated communities, butchering large animals was another matter. Even after a steer or heifer had been hoisted and correctly slaughtered, its lungs had to be examined for adhesions (sirkot). The concern was that an adhesion covered a hole in the lung, and it was assumed that an animal with a perforation in the lung would not survive. If so, the animal was a tereyfah, an animal with a terminal sickness, and prohibited. This made probing the lungs contentious, for even a small perforation rendered an entire animal unfit for consumption and caused substantial financial loss. Moreover, in an age in which food was seasonal and sometimes scarce, it prevented people from finding sustenance.
The entire matter of rubbing, detaching, and dissolving adhesions in the lungs of large animals is arguably one of the most significant allowances in the canon of Jewish law. This was not a new development, for it was said to have been the widespread practice among Jewish communities in the German lands in the late thirteenth century. However, it stood in stark contrast to the views of Sephardic authorities throughout the ages. Caro and Isserles present different opinions on the practice. Isserles himself describes local customs that differed from his thoughts. This leniency offers a prism to reconsider the paradigm of Ashkenazic Jewry not maximizing legal allowances.
Bibliography
Giancarlo Bozzo, Angela Di Pinto, Elisabetta Bonerba, Edmondo Ceci, Anna Mottola, Rocco Roma, Paolo Capozza, Giorgio Samoilis, Giuseppina Tantillo, and Gaetano Vitale Celano, “Kosher slaughter paradigms: Evaluation of slaughterhouse inspection procedures,” Meat Science 128 (2017): 30–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.01.013
Edward Fram, The Codification of Jewish Law on the Cusp of Modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022.
Haym Soloveitchik, “Religious Law and Change: The Medieval Ashkenazic Example.” AJS Review 12.2 (1987): 205–221. doi:10.1017/S0364009400002014 (An updated version of the article appears in H. Soloveitchik, Collected Essays. Vol. 1. Oxford: Littman, 2013, pp. 239–257. Also see there, “‘Religious Law and Change’ Revisited,” pp. 258–277.
Source 1 Translation
Shulḥan `aruk, Yoreh de`ah 39.10–13, with Rabbi Moses Isserles’s Gloss to section 13.
10. Whenever the rabbis prohibited adhesions on the lungs, there is no difference whether the adhesion is the width of a hair or is as thick, solid, and wide as a thumb. And unlike those who mash it in their hands and are lenient if it dissolves. And anyone who does this is as if he feeds forbidden food (tereyfot) to other Jews.
11. Some have written that one may place one’s finger under the adhesion and raise it slightly. If it breaks off because of being raised, it must be an adhesion that is less than a day old, and the animal is kosher. And one should only be lenient in this way if the animal belongs to a Jew, and we do not rely on this allowance unless the examiner is trustworthy and is truly God fearing.
12. It is good to give the animal water to drink close to the time of ritual slaughter.
13. There is an opinion that the examiner should put their hand into the animal quickly without any slack in the hand. If any adhesion breaks off when the examiner places his hand in the animal, he must extract the lungs and examine them. If it is (a prohibited) adhesion, he will find the head of it in the lung or the walls of the lung; if not, it is simply a discharge, and the animal is permitted. And one should only be lenient in this if the animal belongs to a Jew, and we do not rely on this allowance unless the examiner is trustworthy and is truly God fearing
Isserles’s gloss to 39.13.
Some allow one to mash and dissolve adhesions, and they say that if one tries to dissolve an adhesion for an entire day, a real adhesion will not separate from the lung. Therefore, whenever an adhesion dissolves, we are lenient and say it was not an adhesion but only a discharge. And even though this is a great lenience, all the people of these regions are already accustomed to doing so, and one should not prevent them from doing so because they have whom to rely on. However, the examiner must be a God-fearing person who knows how to rub an adhesion carefully and not detach it through force. And there are places where they are not accustomed to handling and rubbing adhesions of the rose [i.e., the intermediate lobe of the right lung] if it has attached to other areas, and any area it may have spread to render it a tereyfah. And there are locales where they are lenient regarding this, too. And it seems to me [i.e., Isserles] that the first opinion is correct. One should not rub an adhesion in the rose or any irregular adhesions, since the Talmud mentions that irregular adhesions render an animal a tereyfah, and no one disagrees with this; therefore, one should not rely on the opinion of those who are lenient regarding handling and rubbing. However, the custom in our town [i.e., Krakow] is to handle and rub all adhesions. And there is no difference between adhesions. And it is appropriate to follow what I have written unless it is a case of significant loss. In addition, in our town, it is the custom to declare all adhesions in kids, lambs, and calves as rendering the animal a tereyfah, and not to rub them at all, for there is a tradition to prohibit them because the adhesion is still soft and breaks off with rubbing.
Source 2 Translation
Comment of Rabbi Shabbetay ben Me’ir Ha-Kohen to Isserles’s gloss on Shulḥan `aruk, Yoreh de`ah 39.13 (note 33).
And this is the language of Rabbi Solomon Luria (Maharshal) in tractate Hullin, chapter 3, section 25 [of Luria’s Yam shel Shelomoh]: “And the custom in all of Ashkenaz is to rub adhesions with one’s fingers, even though Rabbi Solomon ibn Aderet wrote that we have never heard about this from scholars anywhere, and anyone who does this, it is as if he has fed tereyfot to Israel. So it is according to his opinion. However, not hearing is not proof! As for the words of those who allow this, I say regarding them, Blessed be He who chose them and their words! For it makes both rational and physiological sense that this is so! And since Rabbi Asher ben Yehi’el wrote that they are accustomed in all the land of Ashkenaz that all adhesions that detach when the butcher gently inserts his hand to examine the lungs, we say this is not an adhesion but rather a discharge that has spread due to fluid in the lungs, and it is kosher. And an adhesion will get harder if one rubs it between their fingers for a whole day. Until here are his [Asher ben Yehi’el’s] words. Therefore, if it detaches, it is proof that it is kosher. However, I have heard that in a few communities that are not meticulous in their observance (beney Torah), they take a thick, wet cloth and rub it [i.e., the adhesion]. People like these certainly feed Israel tereyfot. And it is appropriate to warn the examiners [lit., “butchers”] that they should not rub so hard but rather roll it between their fingers in a gentle way.” Until here is the language of Luria. And Rabbeynu Yeruham also wrote as Rabbi Asher did, and this is his language: “and similarly, those [adhesions that] dissolve when the butcher inserts his hand are not adhesions but rather fluids from the lung. And so they are accustomed to doing in Ashkenaz and most places, etc. And this is indeed so, for every adhesion which detaches when the butcher gently inserts his hand is a discharge of fluids in the lungs. It is kosher for an adhesion, if one tries to detach it with one’s fingers for an entire day, will become harder and harder.” Until here are his [Rabbeynu Yeruham’s words]. And in [Joseph Caro’s] Beyt Yosef, other lenient authorities are cited. See there.