Halacha
הלכה א
כָּל בְּהֵמָה אוֹ עוֹף שֶׁנּוֹלד בָּהֶן סְפֵק טְרֵפוֹת מִטְּרֵפוֹת אֵלּוּ. כְּגוֹן בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה וְלֹא הָלְכָה. אוֹ שֶׁנִּדְרְסָה בִּידֵי חַיָּה וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם הֶאֱדִים בָּשָׂר כְּנֶגֶד בְּנֵי מֵעַיִם אוֹ לֹא הֶאֱדִים. אוֹ שֶׁנֶּחְבְּסָה גֻּלְגָּלְתָּהּ וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם רֻבָּהּ אוֹ מִעוּטָהּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בִּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ. אִם הָיָה זָכָר וְשָׁהָה שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת שְׁלֵמָה כִּשְׁאָר כָּל הַבְּהֵמוֹת. וְאִם הָיְתָה נְקֵבָה עַד שֶׁתֵּלֵד. וּבְעוֹף בְּזָכָר שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. וּבִנְקֵבָה עַד שֶׁתֵּלֵד כָּל הַבֵּיצִים שֶׁל טְעִינָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְתִטְעֹן טְעִינָה שְׁנִיָּה וְתֵלֵד:
כסף משנה
1.
[The following principles apply] whenever a situation arises that creates a doubt that an animal or fowl should be deemed trefe because of one of the above conditions - e.g., an animal that fell and did not walk, it was attacked by a wild beast and we do not know whether the flesh near the intestines turned red or not, its skull was crushed and we do not know if the majority of the skull was crushed or not, or other similar circumstances: If the animal was male and it remained alive for twelve months, we operate on the assumption that it is intact like all other animals. If it was female, [we wait] until it gives birth.1I.e., if it gives birth successfully, that is a sign that it is intact. There is no need for an inspection or waiting twelve months. Even the Rama who maintains that in the present age, we are not knowledgeable with regard to inspections will consider an animal acceptable if it lives this amount of time (Yoreh De'ah 57:18).With regard to a fowl: If it is male, [we wait] twelve months. If it is female, [we wait] until it lays all the eggs that it is carrying, spawns a new load, and lays them.
הלכה ב
וְאָסוּר לִמְכֹּר סְפֵק טְרֵפָה זוֹ לְנָכְרִי בְּתוֹךְ זְמַן זֶה שֶׁמָּא יִמְכְּרֶנָּה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל:
כסף משנה
2.
During this course of time, it is forbidden to sell an animal concerning which doubt has arisen whether it is a trefe to a gentile lest he sell it to a Jew.2Without informing him of the doubt involved.The Rama quotes the Sha'arei Dura who writes that if a condition that renders an animal trefe is obvious, we permit its sale to a gentile. For a Jew who seeks to purchase it will immediately become aware of the difficulty.
The Rama also mentions the ruling of the Terumat HaDeshen that if there is merely a question of whether an animal is trefe, it may be sold to a gentile. The Siftei Cohen 57:51 accepts this leniency only with regard to an animal regarding which there is a question whether or not it was attacked, but not with regard to other conditions.
הלכה ג
כָּל בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹף בְּחֶזְקַת בְּרִיאִים הֵם וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהֶם שֶׁמָּא יֵשׁ בָּהֶן טְרֵפָה. לְפִיכָךְ כְּשֶׁיִּשָׁחֲטוּ שְׁחִיטָה כְּשֵׁרָה אֵינָן צְרִיכִין בְּדִיקָה שֶׁמָּא יֵשׁ בָּהֶן אַחַת מִן הַטְּרֵפוֹת. אֶלָּא הֲרֵי הֵן בְּחֶזְקַת הֶתֵּר עַד שֶׁיִּוָּלֵד לָהֶן דָּבָר שֶׁחוֹשְׁשִׁין לוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ בּוֹדְקִין עַל אוֹתוֹ דָּבָר בִּלְבַד:
כסף משנה
3.
We operate under the presumption that all domesticated animals, wild beasts, or fowl are healthy3Chullin 11b explains that this is based on the principle that we follow the majority. Since most animals are healthy we assume that this is an animal's condition unless there is reason to suspect otherwise. Note, however, Halachah 7. and we do not suspect that they possess conditions that would render them trefe. Therefore when they are slaughtered in the proper manner, they do not require an examination to see whether they possess a condition that would render them trefe. Instead, we operate under the presumption that they are permitted unless a situation arises that arouses suspicion.4Based on Chullin 51a, the Kessef Mishneh goes further and states that even if the animal possesses a condition that is somewhat problematic, if we can find a commonplace explanation for it that will not render an animal trefe and the factor that will render it trefe is uncommon, we do not require an examination. Afterwards, we inspect it with regard to that condition alone.הלכה ד
כֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁנִּשְׁמַט הַגַּף שֶׁל עוֹף בּוֹדְקִין אֶת הָרֵאָה שֶׁמָּא נִקְּבָה. נָפְלָה הַבְּהֵמָה בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתָהּ שֶׁמָּא נִתְרַסְּקוּ אֵיבָרֶיהָ. נִתְרַצֵּץ עֶצֶם הָרֹאשׁ בּוֹדְקִין קְרוּם שֶׁל מֹחַ שֶׁמָּא נִקַּב. הִכָּה אוֹתָהּ קוֹץ אוֹ נִזְרַק בָּהּ חֵץ אוֹ רֹמַח וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן וְנִכְנַס לַחֲלָלָהּ חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ וּצְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה כְּנֶגֶד כָּל הֶחָלָל שֶׁמָּא נִקַּב אֶחָד מִן הָאֵיבָרִין שֶׁתִּטָּרֵף בִּנְקִיבָתָן. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:
כסף משנה
4.
What is implied? For example if the wing of a fowl is displaced, we check the lung to see if it was perforated.5See Chapter 10, Halachah 4. If an animal fell, we check it to see if its organs were crushed.6See Chapter 9, Halachah 17. If the skull was crushed, we check the membrane of the brain to see if it was perforated.7See Chapter 10, Halachah 7. If it was struck by a thorn or shot by an arrow, a javelin, or the like and it entered its inner cavity, our suspicions are aroused and we require an inspection of the entire inner cavity lest it have perforated one of the organs whose perforation renders an animal trefe. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.הלכה ה
לְפִיכָךְ רֵאָה שֶׁהֶעֶלְתָה צְמָחִין אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ סִרְכוֹת כְּמוֹ חוּטִין תְּלוּיִין מִמֶּנָּה וְלַדֹּפֶן אוֹ לַלֵּב אוֹ לְטַרְפַּשׁ הַכָּבֵד חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ שֶׁמָּא נִקְּבָה וּצְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה. וְכֵן אִם נִמְצָא בָּהּ אֲבַעְבּוּעַ מָלֵא לֵחָה חוֹשְׁשִׁין שֶׁמָּא נִקַּב סִמְפּוֹן שֶׁתַּחְתָּיו וּצְרִיכָה בְּדִיקָה:
כסף משנה
5.
Therefore when there are growths on a lung or sirchos upon it - i.e., strands or adhesions - hanging from it to the ribcage, the heart, or the diaphragm, we suspect that it was perforated and require an inspection.8I.e., the strands and similarly, the other conditions the Rambam proceeds to mention, are abnormal factors that lead us to the supposition that there was a perforation in the lung. See Chapter 7, Halachot 5-11 that mention several situations of this nature. Similarly, if a swelling was found that contained fluid, we fear that a bronchiole below it was perforated and [the lung] must be inspected.9The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's ruling, maintaining that even if the swelling is an indication that the bronchiole has been perforated, that does not disqualify the animal, for it is possible that it is sealed by flesh. The Radbaz explains that the Rambam would also accept that ruling and one of the points that one must inspect is whether there is flesh under the swelling or not.הלכה ו
מִן הַדִּין הָיָה עַל דֶּרֶךְ זוֹ שֶׁאִם נִמְצֵאת הָרֵאָה תְּלוּיָה בְּסִרְכוֹת כְּמוֹ חוּטִין. אִם הָיוּ מִן הָאוֹם שֶׁל רֵאָה וְלַדֹּפֶן אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ לַלֵּב אוֹ לְטַרְפַּשׁ הַכָּבֵד שֶׁחוֹתְכִים אֶת הַסִּרְכָא וּמוֹצִיאִין אֶת הָרֵאָה וְנוֹפְחִין אוֹתָהּ בְּפוֹשְׁרִין. אִם נִמְצֵאת נְקוּבָה טְרֵפָה. וְאִם לֹא נִתְבַּעְבֵּעַ הַמַּיִם הֲרֵי הִיא שְׁלֵמָה מִכָּל נֶקֶב וּמֻתֶּרֶת וְסִרְכָא זוֹ לֹא הָיְתָה בִּמְקוֹם נֶקֶב אוֹ שֶׁמָּא נִקַּב קְרוּם הָעֶלְיוֹן בִּלְבַד. וּמֵעוֹלָם לֹא רָאִינוּ מִי שֶׁהוֹרָה כָּךְ וְלֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ מָקוֹם שֶׁעוֹשִׂין בּוֹ כָּךְ:
כסף משנה
6.
[Following the logic] of this law, [the following rules] would apply if it was discovered that sirchos like strands were hanging from the lung, whether they extended from the body of the lung to the ribcage or to the heart or to the diaphragm. We cut the sirchah, take out the lung, and [place it] in lukewarm water, and blow it up.10See Chapter 7, Halachah 8. As mentioned in the notes to that halachah, there is a difference of opinion among the Rishonim concerning this issue.The Ra'avad also mentions that the Rambam's ruling here appears to contradict his ruling in Chapter 7, Halachah 5. For there, the Rambam differentiates between whether or not there is a bruise on the chest, and there he does not speak of inspecting the lung in warm water. In a lengthy discussion in his gloss to Chapter 7, the Kessef Mishneh explains that there is no contradiction between the two rulings. If it is discovered to be perforated,11I.e., if the water bubbles. [the animal] is trefe. If the water does not bubble, it is intact, without any perforations, and [the animal] is permitted. For [the sirchah] was not at the place of a perforation12There is a difference of opinion among the halachic authorities if this situation is possible or not. or perhaps only the outer membrane [of the lung] was perforated. Nevertheless, I never saw anyone who ruled in this manner, nor did I hear of a place that follows such practice.13I.e., as the Rambam proceeds to explain in the following halachah, the common custom is more stringent.
הלכה ז
וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵלּוּ הֵן הַדְּבָרִים הַנִּרְאִין מִדִּבְרֵי חַכְמֵי הַגְּמָרָא. הַמִּנְהָג הַפָּשׁוּט בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל כָּךְ הוּא. כְּשֶׁשּׁוֹחֲטִין אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה אוֹ אֶת הַחַיָּה קוֹרְעִין אֶת הַטַּרְפַּשׁ שֶׁל כָּבֵד וּבוֹדְקִין אֶת הָרֵאָה בִּמְקוֹמָהּ. אִם לֹא נִמְצְאָה תְּלוּיָה בְּסִרְכָא. אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצְאָה סִרְכָא בֵּין אֹזֶן מֵאָזְנֵי הָרֵאָה וְלַבָּשָׂר שֶׁבִּמְקוֹם רְבִיצָתָהּ בֵּין בָּשָׂר שֶׁבֵּין הַצְּלָעוֹת בֵּין בָּשָׂר שֶׁבֶּחָזֶה. אוֹ שֶׁנִּמְצְאָה סִרְכָא מֵאֹזֶן לְאֹזֶן עַל הַסֵּדֶר אוֹ מִן הָאוֹם לָאֹזֶן הַסְּמוּכָה לָהּ. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מַתִּירִין אוֹתָהּ:
כסף משנה
7.
Even though this is what appears [to be the ruling] from the words of the Sages of the Gemara, the widespread custom among the Jewish people is as follows: When a domesticated animal or a wild beast is slaughtered, we tear open the diaphragm and check the lung in its place.14See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 39:1) which states that we must check the lungs for sirchot and concludes: "Whoever breaks ranks and eats without checking [the lung] should be bitten by a snake." If a sirchah is not discovered hanging between the one of the lobes and the flesh where it lies, whether on the flesh that is between the ribs or the flesh on the breastbone,15For as stated in Chapter 7, Halachot 3-4, even a perforation found in this place does not render the animal trefe. or a sirchah was found, extending from one lobe to the other in order,16For as stated in Chapter 8, Halachah 5, an adhesion of such a type does not render the animal trefe. or from the body of the lung to the lobe which is next to it,17See the notes to Halachah 9. Depending on the version of that text, the Rambam's ruling concerning this matter may be questioned. we permit [the animal].18The Rama 39:18 writes that it is common custom in the Ashkenazic community to rule that all sirchot in the lung cause an animal to be deemed forbidden except those extending from a lobe to the lobe next to it or those from the body of the lung to the lobe next to it. He does, however, permit leniency if it is possible to rub out the sirchah and then examine it to see that there is no perforation.הלכה ח
וְאִם נִמְצָא חוּט יוֹצֵא מִן הָאוֹם שֶׁל רֵאָה לְאֵיזֶה מָקוֹם שֶׁיִּמָּשֵׁךְ וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה כְּחוּט הַשַּׂעֲרָה אוֹסְרִין אוֹתָהּ:
כסף משנה
8.
If a strand is discovered leading from the lung to any place which it is extended, even if it is thin as a hair, we forbid [the animal].19I.e., except to the lobe that is near it (Radbaz).הלכה ט
וְכֵן אִם הָיָה מִן הָרֵאָה חוּט מָשׁוּךְ לַלֵּב אוֹ לְטַרְפַּשׁ הַכָּבֵד אוֹ לְכִיס הַלֵּב אוֹ לַוַּרְדָּא. בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה הַחוּט מִן הָאוֹם שֶׁל רֵאָה בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה מִן הָאֹזֶן וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה כְּחוּט הַשַּׂעֲרָה אוֹסְרִין אוֹתָהּ. וְכֵן וַרְדָּא שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת דְּבוּקָה בְּכִיסָהּ אוֹ חוּט יוֹצֵא מִמֶּנָּה לְכִיסָהּ אוֹסְרִין אוֹתָהּ. וְחוּט הַיּוֹצֵא מֵאֹזֶן לְאֹזֶן שֶׁלֹּא עַל הַסֵּדֶר אוֹסְרִין אוֹתָהּ:
כסף משנה
9.
Similarly, if there was a strand extending from the lung to the heart, the diaphragm, the protective covering of the heart, or the rose,20See Chapter 8, Halachah 1, which explains that this is a tiny lobe found on the right side of the lung. we forbid [the animal]. [This applies] whether the strand came from the body of the lung or whether it came from a lobe and [applies regardless of its size], even if it was a hairsbreadth.21For we fear that it will cause a perforation in the lung. See the gloss of the Radbaz to Halachah 6.Similarly, when the rose is attached to its pocket or a strand extends from it to its pocket, we forbid it. And when a strand extends from lobe to lobe in improper order, we forbid [the animal].22The text of the Mishneh Torah which the Ra'avad had seemed to apply that even a strand extending from the body of the lung to the lobe is unacceptable. The Ra'avad therefore protests and maintains it is acceptable. The Migdal Oz states that he also saw texts of the Mishneh Torah with this version, but that the authoritative manuscripts do not follow that reading. This is also the position of the Kessef Mishneh.
הלכה י
יֵשׁ מְקוֹמוֹת שֶׁמִּנְהָגָן אִם מָצְאוּ סִרְכָא מִן הָאֹזֶן לַבָּשָׂר וְלָעֶצֶם שֶׁבַּצְּלָעוֹת וְהַסִּרְכָא דְּבוּקָה בִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן אוֹסְרִין אוֹתָהּ. וְאַבָּא מָרִי מִן הָאוֹסְרִין וַאֲנִי מִן הַמַּתִּירִין. וּמִעוּט מְקוֹמוֹת מַתִּירִין אֲפִלּוּ נִדְבְּקָה בָּעֶצֶם לְבַדּוֹ וַאֲנִי אוֹסֵר:
כסף משנה
10.
There are places where the custom is that if a sirchah is from the lobe to the flesh and the bones of the ribs and the sirchah is attached to both of them, they forbid it.23If the sirchah is attached to the flesh alone, it does not cause an animal to be considered trefe (see Chapter 7, Halachah 4). Here, however, it is attached to both the flesh and the bone and that creates the problem. My father and teacher is from those who forbid it. I, by contrast, am one of those who permit it.24The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 39:18) cites the Rambam's position.Parenthetically, the commentaries have questioned the Rambam's statements here from the standpoint of kibud av, "honoring one's father." Seemingly, after mentioning his father, he should have stated - as he himself rules in Hilchot Mamrim 6:5 - "May he be remembered for the life of the world to come." Also, that same source (Halachah 3) forbids "offering an opinion that outweighs [that of his father]." In a small number of places, they permit it even when it is attached to the bone alone, and I forbid it.25The Ra'avad follows the more lenient view. Here also the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.) cites the Rambam's position.
הלכה יא
וְיֵשׁ מְקוֹמוֹת שֶׁנּוֹפְחִין הָרֵאָה שֶׁמָּא יֵשׁ בָּהּ נֶקֶב. וְרֹב הַמְּקוֹמוֹת אֵין נוֹפְחִין שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא נוֹלַד דָּבָר שֶׁגּוֹרֵם לַחֲשָׁשׁ. וּמֵעוֹלָם לֹא נָפַחְנוּ רֵאָה בִּסְפָרַד וּבַמַּעֲרָב אֶלָּא אִם נוֹלַד לָנוּ דָּבָר שֶׁחוֹשְׁשִׁים לוֹ:
כסף משנה
11.
There are places where a lung is [always] blown up to see whether or not it is perforated. In most places, however, it is not blown up, because there is no factor that raised a suspicion [concerning it]. In Spain and in the West, we never blew up a lung unless there was a factor that caused suspicion.26The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 39:1) mentions both the custom of blowing up the lung in all cases and the Rambam's position that it is not necessary to blow up all lungs. He concludes that the Rambam's position should be given primacy.הלכה יב
וּדְבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ כֻּלָּן אֵינָן עַל פִּי הַדִּין אֶלָּא עַל פִּי הַמִּנְהָג כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. וּמֵעוֹלָם לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ בְּמִי שֶׁבָּדַק עוֹף אֶלָּא אִם נוֹלַד לוֹ חֲשָׁשׁ:
כסף משנה
12.
All of these factors27I.e., the stringencies forbidding an animal because of certain sirchot and requiring the lungs to be blown up. are not dictated by law, but rather are a result of custom, as we explained.28Halachot 6 and 7. I never heard of anyone who had a fowl's lung inspected unless a factor that raised suspicions arose.29At present, there are certain Rabbinic authorities who require that the lungs of a chicken be inspected, because in the present age, since chickens are raised in a manner very different from their natural circumstances, it is common for there to be difficulties with regard to their lungs.הלכה יג
מִי שֶׁשָּׁחַט אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְקָרַע אֶת הַבֶּטֶן. וְקֹדֶם שֶׁיִּבְדֹּק אֶת הָרֵאָה בָּא כֶּלֶב אוֹ עַכּוּ''ם וְנָטַל אֶת הָרֵאָה וְהָלַךְ לוֹ. הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת. וְאֵין אוֹמְרִים שֶׁמָּא נְקוּבָה הָיְתָה אוֹ שֶׁמָּא דְּבוּקָה הָיְתָה. שֶׁאֵין מַחֲזִיקִין אִסּוּר. אֶלָּא הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת הֶתֵּר עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע בַּמֶּה נִטְרְפָה. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לִקְרוּם מֹחַ וְלַשִּׁדְרָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן כָּךְ לֹא נָחוּשׁ לַרֵאָה שֶׁאָבְדָה. וְאֵין בָּזֶה מִנְהָג שֶׁדָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מָצוּי אֵין בּוֹ מִנְהָג:
כסף משנה
13.
If, [after] a person slaughtered an animal and cut open its belly, a dog or a gentile came, took the lung, and departed before [the slaughterer] checked the lung, [the animal] is permitted. We do not say that perhaps it was perforated or perhaps it was attached [to the bone], for we do not presume that [an animal] was forbidden.30If there is no evidence that a factor existed that caused the animal to become trefe, we do not assume that one existed. Even according to the custom that requires an animal to be checked, we are assuming only the possibility that it might have a disqualifying factor. If there is no way to check it, we assume that the animal is kosher.The Ra'avad differs and maintains that since disqualifying factors involving the lung are common, if a lung was not inspected, we cannot consider the animal as kosher. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 39:2) quotes the Rambam's view. The Rama mentions the position of the Ra'avad and states that the Rambam's position may be followed only when there is a possibility of severe financial loss. Instead, we operate under the presumption that the animal is kosher unless we know what factor caused it to become trefe. Just like we do not suspect that the membrane of the brain was perforated, the backbone [was severed], or the like, we do not raise suspicions over a lung that has been lost. There are no customs regarding such a situation, because customs are not instituted with regard to factors that are not commonplace.
הלכה יד
בָּא הָעַכּוּ''ם אוֹ הַיִּשְׂרָאֵל וְהוֹצִיא הָרֵאָה קֹדֶם שֶׁתִּבָּדֵק וַהֲרֵי הִיא קַיֶּמֶת נוֹפְחִין אוֹתָהּ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין אִם הָיוּ שָׁם צְמָחִין אוֹ לֹא הָיוּ. מִפְּנֵי פִּשּׁוּט הַמִּנְהָג:
כסף משנה
14.
If a gentile or a Jew comes and takes out a lung before the lung was inspected, but the lung [still] exists, we blow it up.31Normally, we would not blow up a lung unless there was a factor that aroused suspicion. Nevertheless, in this instance, since we did not see it in its natural situation - and the possibility exists that there were such factors there - we require an examination. The Turei Zahav 39:2 states that, according to our custom [see Rama (Yoreh De'ah 39:4)] that we do not rely on an examination in a situation where there is a clearly problematic situation, we do not rely on an examination in this instance as well. [This applies] even if we do not know whether there were growths or not, because of the widespread custom.הלכה טו
יֵשׁ מְקוֹמוֹת שֶׁאִם נִמְצְאוּ סִרְכוֹת מְדֻלְדָּלוֹת מִן הָרֵאָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן דְּבוּקוֹת לֹא לַדֹּפֶן וְלֹא לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר אוֹסְרִין אוֹתָהּ. וְדָבָר זֶה הֶפְסֵד גָּדוֹל הוּא וְאִבּוּד מָמוֹן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל. וּמֵעוֹלָם לֹא נָהֲגוּ זֶה לֹא בְּצָרְפַת וְלֹא בִּסְפָרַד וְלֹא נִשְׁמַע זֶה בַּמַּעֲרָב. וְאֵין רָאוּי לִנְהֹג בְּמִנְהָג זֶה. אֶלָּא נוֹפְחִין אוֹתָהּ בִּלְבַד. אִם נִמְצֵאת שְׁלֵמָה מִן הַנֶּקֶב הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת:
כסף משנה
15.
There are places who rule that we forbid [an animal] if there are sirchot hanging from the lung, even if they are not attached to the chest or to another place. This practice causes great loss and the forfeit of Jewish money. This was never the custom in France or in Spain and it was never heard in the West. It is not proper to follow this custom. Instead, all that is necessary is to blow up [the lung]. If it is discovered to be intact without a perforation, [the animal] is permitted.32The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 39:8) rules that such an animal is permitted without the lung being inspected. The Turei Zahav 39:12 states that an examination must be conducted to see whether the lung is perforated or not.This represents the difference between glatt meat and meat that is not glatt. Glatt means "smooth," i.e., i.e., there are no sirchot, adhesions, or growths, extending from the animal's lungs. Thus there is no need to inspect it. When meat is not glatt, there were sirchot and/or the like extending from the lungs. They were inspected and no perforation was discovered. Hence, the meat is kosher. Nevertheless, there are many who follow the stringency of not partaking of it.
(It must be emphasized that, at present, glatt is sometimes used as a general term to connote a higher level of punctilious observance of the details of kashrus in general without specifically referring to questions concerning the lungs.)