OPINIONS: Rabah states that when an animal had a hole in the esophagus that rendered it a Tereifah, and the hole later healed and became sealed with a membrane ("Kerum"), the animal remains a Tereifah. Such a membrane is not considered an effective seal. RASHI (DH Eino Kerum) explains that even when thick flesh sealed the hole, the animal remains a Tereifah, because the seal will not last ("Einah Miskayemes") and the hole will open up again.

Rashi cites the Gemara in Yevamos (76a, and as cited later on 48a) that states that a hole in a lung renders an animal a Tereifah, and the animal does not become Kosher when a membrane seals the hole.

However, a number of cases seem to contradict the ruling of Rabah and the ruling of the Gemara in Yevamos. The Gemara earlier says that when there is a hole in the gall bladder that is sealed by the liver, the animal is Kosher. Similarly, the Gemara later (48a) says that when there is a hole in the lung that becomes sealed by the chest, the animal is Kosher. The Gemara later (50a) says that a hole in the wall of the rectum (Chalcholes) does not render an animal a Tereifah, because the thighs block the hole. What is the difference between those cases, in which holes that become closed up do not render the animal a Tereifah, and the case of the Gemara here and in Yevamos, in which a hole in the esophagus and a hole in the lung render an animal a Tereifah even when it is sealed?

(a) RASHI explains that the cases in which a hole can effectively be sealed are all cases in which the "sealing was from the beginning" ("Setimah me'Ikara"). The SHACH (YD 36:6) explains that Rashi means that when the hole first develops, there is something present that blocks it up immediately. Consequently, the hole never had the status of a hole that renders the animal a Tereifah (see TAZ YD 36:4). Thus, in the cases of the chest that seals the hole in the lung, the liver that seals the hole in the gall bladder, and the thighs that seal the hole in the rectum, something sealed the hole from the beginning of the hole's development. In contrast, in the case of the hole in the esophagus, the membrane that seals the hole develops only later, and thus the hole still renders the animal a Tereifah. (This is either because, as Rashi says, the membrane is not considered to be a strong, permanent sealant for the hole, or because, as the Gemara later (68b) says, once an animal becomes a Tereifah it remains forbidden and can never become permitted again. See PRI MEGADIM in his "Introduction to the Checking of the Lung" (DH Od Ra'isi) who cites this reason in the name of the RASHBA in MISHMERES HA'BAYIS.)

The Shach cites the DERISHAH who understands Rashi's words differently. When Rashi says that the other cases involve a "Setimah me'Ikara," this means that the limb that seals the hole was present when the animal was first created.

The TEVU'OS SHOR (36:14) cites support for the Derishah's understanding of Rashi from the words of Rashi himself later (48a, DH d'Eino Kerum). Rashi there says that the reason why the chest is effective in sealing the hole in the lung is that it is a "Setimah Ma'alyasa" -- a good sealing. The Tevu'os Shor points out that this implies that according to Rashi's words there, even if the sealing did not appear immediately when the hole began to develop, the animal still would be Kosher (in contrast to the Shach's understanding of Rashi). The reason why the sealing is valid is that the hole is blocked up with a part of the animal that was created in order to make a permanent sealing. In contrast, the membrane that forms over a hole in the esophagus or lung was created only to be a temporary sealant and it will not endure. (See SIMLAH CHADASHAH there, #6.)

The PRI MEGADIM (ibid., and in MISHBETZOS ZAHAV YD 36:4) points out that Rashi's words here seem to support the approach of the Derishah and Tevu'os Shor. Rashi here first writes that the reason why the membrane covering the hole in the esophagus is not effective is that the membrane does not last ("Einah Miskayemes"). Rashi then writes, however, that the reason why the other forms of sealants of holes are valid is that they are a "Setimah me'Ikara." Why does Rashi not say that they are effective because they do last? Moreover, Rashi implies here that even if the membrane over the hole in the esophagus would last, it still would not be effective because it is not a "Setimah me'Ikara"! Why, then, does Rashi earlier say that the reason why it is not effective is that it does not last?

According to the Derishah and Tevu'os Shor, Rashi's words are clear. The reason why the membrane covering the hole in the esophagus does not last is that it was not created naturally with the animal, when the animal was created.

According to the Shach's understanding of Rashi, however, Rashi's words seem contradictory. The Pri Megadim suggests that in order to reconcile the apparent contradiction in the words of Rashi according to the Shach, it must be that Rashi's intention when he says "Einah Miskayemes" is not that the skin will not last, but rather that the animal will not survive for twelve months because it acquired the status of a Tereifah.

(b) The RE'AH, cited by the Pri Megadim (ibid.), argues with Rashi and says that only a hole in the lung and esophagus cannot be sealed. Holes in other organs can effectively be sealed, preventing the animal from becoming a Tereifah. The Pri Megadim says, however, that the Halachah follows the view of Rashi. (D. BLOOM)

QUESTIONS: Ula rules that when a thorn is found in an animal's esophagus, the animal is Kosher and we are not concerned that perhaps it was "Hivri."

(a) What exactly is the case in which Ula permits an animal when a thorn is found in its esophagus?

(b) What is the meaning of "Hivri"?

(a) RASHI and TOSFOS disagree about the case that Ula is discussing.

1. RASHI (DH Yashav) explains that Ula's case involves an animal that ate a thorn that became lodged in the esophagus. It is not visible from the outside of the esophagus, and there is no sign of blood on the inside of the esophagus.

2. TOSFOS (DH Yashav) disagrees with Rashi and maintains that even if there is a spot of blood on the inside of the esophagus, the animal is still Kosher according to Ula, as long as there is no blood on the outer side of the esophagus. We are not concerned that the thorn penetrated to the other side. Blood on the inside of the esophagus is a sign of a Tereifah only when the esophagus was pierced with a hole from the outer side to the inner side (43a).

The RASHBA explains why Tosfos disagrees with Rashi and explains that Ula permits the animal even when there is a spot of blood on the inside of the esophagus. It is evident from the continuation of the Gemara that the Halachah does not follow Ula's ruling, but rather the Halachah is that we must suspect that the animal might be a Tereifah. If Ula permits the animal only when there is no blood on the inside of the esophagus, then this means that according to the Halachah (which is more stringent that Ula's ruling) the animal would be a Tereifah if a thorn was stuck in the esophagus even if no blood was present at all. This, however, is inconsistent with the ruling of the Gemara later (50b, 51a). The Gemara there says that if a needle was found in the wall of the reticulum (Beis ha'Kosos) and there was no blood on the needle, the animal is Kosher, because had there been blood there some of it would have remained on the needle. Similarly, if the thorn pierced the esophagus before the Shechitah, then we would have found blood on the thorn. The absence of blood is clear proof that there was no hole before the Shechitah, and thus the animal is Kosher. Since Ula is more lenient that the Halachic opinion, it must be that Ula permits the animal even when blood was found on the inside of the esophagus.

(b) There are a number of explanations for the word "Hivri."

1. In his first explanation, RASHI (DH Ein Chosheshin) writes that there is no concern that the thorn made a hole in the esophagus and the hole later healed (and is no longer visible). Such a hole would render the animal a Tereifah (see previous Insight). According to this explanation of Rashi, the word "Hivri" means "it healed" (from the word "Bari," or "healthy").

The RASHBA questions this explanation. It is evident from the continuation of the Gemara that the Halachah does not follow Ula's ruling, but rather the Halachah is that we must suspect that the animal might be a Tereifah. According to Rashi, this means that the Halachah is that we are concerned that the thorn made a hole in the esophagus and that the hole later healed. However, this conclusion is not consistent with the ruling of the Gemara later (48b) that says that when a needle is found in the lung of an animal, the animal is Kosher if, when we blow up the lung, we see that no air comes out of any punctures in the lung. The Gemara there rules that we are not concerned that there was a hole in the lung that later healed!

The Rashba therefore sides with Rashi's second explanation, as follows.

2. In his second explanation, Rashi writes that there is no concern that the thorn made a hole in the esophagus and the hole is still present (but is not discernible because of its small size). Rashi explains that the word "Hivri" means "it made a hole," as in the verse, "... and pierce (u'Varei) them with their swords" (Yechezkel 23:47).

3. The ARUCH explains that there is no concern that the thorn penetrated to the outside of the wall of the esophagus. The word "Hivri" means "went through to the outside" (from the word "Bera," or "outside" in Aramaic). This also seems to be the understanding of Tosfos (DH Yashav), who writes that there is no concern that the thorn penetrated to the outer side of the esophagus, and blood on the inside of the esophagus is a sign of a Tereifah only when the esophagus was pierced with a hole from the outer side to the inner side (43a). (D. BLOOM)