1656-1718, Rabbi in Hamburg and Amsterdam
The following occurred: a young girl had opened the stomach of a [properly slaughtered] chicken in order to clean it out, on the edge of a table. A cat stood below, anticipating that it might eat whatever would fall to the ground. Afterwards, the girl claimed that she did not find the chicken's heart. The mother of the girl said it was possible - in fact, almost certain - that the heart had been [accidentally] thrown to the ground and eaten by the cat, which was excited to eat whatever came close to it. The girl insisted that she did not give the heart to the cat. The chicken was fat, healthy, and good; there was nothing abnormal, nor was anything torn in its innards. There was no indication that its heart had shrunk or melted - nothing at all was abnormal in all of its innards. While it had been alive, it was strong, healthy, and had all its normal koach, eating and drinking, walking and flying. It had all of its normal function, was at full strength: in short, it was as healthy as all other healthy chickens. However, the girl insisted that she did not find the heart.
(2) This case came before the sages, and they deemed the chicken treif, for the reason that it was missing its heart. We would ask of the Teacher, what is the ruling regarding this chicken?
(3) Answer: All those who claim that the chicken was treif are in error. For it is clear to all whose hearts are wise, and whose brains are sharp, that it is impossible for any animal in the world to live, for even a moment, without a heart, as if they were healthy. One cannot imagine such a situation. Rather, as soon as the heart is cut out of a creature, they have been slaughtered. All the life and power of the body are dependent upon the heart. And what about the possibility that there had been sickness? It is impossible to say that the heart had shrunk, or melted, without the creature having been incredibly sickly. And yet this chicken wasn't sickly or ill; on the contrary - it was fat, healthy, good, and normally functioning! The matter is clear, that the heart fell out of the opening in the stomach, and that the cat ate it. This is indeed so obvious, that it does not require proof.
(4) However, to silence the mouths of the idiots who are so eager to rule in this case, I cite the ruling of the Kessef Mishna, the Laws of Slaughter (10), who gives a reason why Maimonides did not list "missing heart" or "born without a heart": limbs which, were they to be removed, the animal could not live for even a moment, [Maimonides] did not list them.
MISHNA: These wounds constitute tereifot in an animal, rendering them prohibited for consumption: A perforated gullet, where the perforation goes through the wall of the gullet, or a cut windpipe. If the membrane of the brain was perforated, or if the heart was perforated to its chamber; if the spinal column was broken and its cord was cut; if the liver was removed and nothing remained of it, any of these render the animal a tereifa. Additionally, a lung that was perforated or that was missing a piece renders the animal a tereifa.... Likewise, if an animal fell from the roof, or if the majority of its ribs were fractured, or if it was clawed by a wolf, it is a tereifa. Rabbi Yehuda says: If it was clawed by a wolf in the case of a small animal, i.e., a sheep or goat; or clawed by a lion in the case of a large animal...This is the principle: Any animal that was injured such that an animal in a similar condition could not live for an extended period is a tereifa, the consumption of which is forbidden by Torah law.
§ Ulla says: Eight types of tereifot were stated to Moses at Sinai, and all the cases mentioned in the Mishna and elsewhere fall into these categories: An animal whose organ was perforated or severed, removed or missing a piece, one that was torn or clawed by wild animals, or that fell or was broken.
While a missing heart did not make the list, it is nevertheless considered a treifa...
(יב) וְאֵין לְהוֹסִיף עַל טְרֵפוֹת אֵלּוּ כְּלָל. שֶׁכָּל שֶׁאֵרַע לִבְהֵמָה אוֹ לְחַיָּה אוֹ לְעוֹף חוּץ מֵאֵלּוּ שֶׁמָּנוּ חַכְמֵי דּוֹרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנִים וְהִסְכִּימוּ עֲלֵיהֶן בְּבָתֵּי דִּינֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּחְיֶה. וַאֲפִלּוּ נוֹדַע לָנוּ מִדֶּרֶךְ הָרְפוּאָה שֶׁאֵין סוֹפָהּ לִחְיוֹת:
(יג) וְכֵן אֵלּוּ שֶׁמָּנוּ וְאָמְרוּ שֶׁהֵן טְרֵפָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה בְּדַרְכֵי הָרְפוּאָה שֶׁבְּיָדֵינוּ שֶׁמִּקְצָתָן אֵינָן מְמִיתִין וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּחְיֶה מֵהֶן אֵין לְךָ אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁמָּנוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יז יא) "עַל פִּי הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ":
12. And we may not add to this list of treifot at all. Whatever might befall an animal or a bird - other than these categories that our earliest sages compiled, and was agreed upon by the courts of Israel - it is possible that the animal might live. And this is even if we might medically know that they cannot survive such an occurrence.
13. Similarly, these categories of treifot, even if we see through contemporary medicine that some of them may not in fact be fatal - we may only go by what the sages instituted. As the verse states, "according to the Torah which they will rule for you."
(ב) ויש לשאול לפי דעת הפילוסופים בזה הענין ולאמר אין ספק שאילו אמרנו שתכלית אלו הגלגלים הנהגת איש מבני אדם או אנשים רבים על דרך משל היה זה שקר לפי העיון הפילוסופי; אבל בהיותנו חושבים שתכליתם - הנהגת מין האדם אין הרחקה בהיות תכלית אלו הגרמים העצומים האישיים - מציאות אישי מינים אשר לפי דעתם אין תכלית למספרם לעולם. ואין המשל בזה אלא משל אומן שעשה כלים שמשקלם ככר ברזל - לעשות מחט קטן שמשקלו גרגיר; ואילו היה זה בעבור מחט אחד היה זה מהפסד ההנהגה לפי עיון מה גם כן ולא היה מהפסד ההנהגה לגמרי; אבל אחר שהוא עושה באלו הכלים הכבדים מחט אחר מחט וכן ככרים רבים ממחטים יהיה מעשה הכלים ההם חכמה ותיקון הנהגה על כל פנים. וכן יהיה תכלית הגלגלים - המשך ההויה וההפסד ותכלית ההויה וההפסד - מציאות מין האדם כאשר נאמר כבר ונמצא כתובים ודברים עוזרים לזה הדמיון. והפילוסוף מתרץ זאת הקושיה ואומר אילו לא היה החילוף בין הגרמים הגלגליים ובין אישי המינים ההוים הנפסדים אלא בגדלות ובקטנות היה אפשר שיאמר זה; אמנם מאשר ההפרש ביניהם - מעלת העצם הוא רחוק מאד שיהיה המעולה כלי למציאות הפחות השפל: סוף דבר שזאת השאלה יעזר בה במה שנאמינהו מחידוש העולם. ורוב מה שכונתי בזה הפרק היה זה הענין. וגם כן היותי שומע תמיד מכל מי שידע דבר מחכמת התכונה שהוא חושב לגוזמה מה שזכרוהו ה'חכמים ז"ל' מן הרחקים - שהם אמרו שעבי כל גלגל מהלך חמש מאות שנה ובין כל גלגל וגלגל מהלך חמש מאות שנה - והם שבעה גלגלים - יהיה רוחק הגלגל השביעי - רצוני לומר גבנינותו ממרכז הארץ - מהלך שבעת אלפים שנה! ויחשוב כל מי שישמע זאת שיש בדבריהם גוזמה גדולה ושלא יגיע המרחק אל זה השיעור. וממה שהתבאר ברחקים במופת וידע לך שהרוחק בין מרכז הארץ ובין קיבוב שבתי והוא הגלגל השביעי מהלך שבעת אלפים שנה וארבע ועשרים שנה בקרוב. אבל הרוחק אשר זכרנו והוא מהלך שמונת אלפים ושבע מאות שנה הוא עד חלל קיבוב הגלגל השמיני. וזה אשר תמצאם אומרים בין גלגל וגלגל רוחק כך ענינו - עבי הגרם אשר בין הגלגלים לא שיש שם ריקות: ולא תבקש ממני שיסכים כל מה שזכרוהו מענין התכונה למה שהענין נמצא - כי החכמות הלימודיות היו בזמנים ההם חסרות ולא דברו בהם על דרך קבלה מן הנביאים אבל מאשר הם חכמי הדורות ההם בענינים ההם או מאשר שמעום מחכמי הדורות ההם. ולא מפני זה אומר בדברים שנמצא להם שהם מסכימים לאמת - שהם בלתי אמיתיים או נפלו במקרה; אבל כל מה שאפשר לפרש דברי האדם עד שיסכימו למציאות אשר התבאר מציאותו במופת הוא יותר ראוי באדם המעולה המודה על האמת - לעשותו:
...You must, however, not expect that everything our Sages say respecting astronomical matters should agree with observation, for mathematics were not fully developed in those days: and their statements were not based on the authority of the Prophets, but on the knowledge which they either themselves possessed or derived from contemporary men of science. But I will not on that account denounce what they say correctly in accordance with real fact, as untrue or accidentally true. On the contrary, whenever the words of a person can be interpreted in such a manner that they agree with fully established facts, it is the duty of every educated and honest man to do so.
Responsa of the Rashba 1:94 (13th cent. Spain)
...Regarding the question of an animal which suffers a wound which would be considered a treifa, and behold, it lives more than 12 months, should we say that since it lived more than a year, the wound was not in fact a treifa - and thus the animal should be considered kosher? My answer is, if you have seen or heard of someone who is lenient in such a case, do not listen to them! Anyone who is would claim that this animal is kosher is, in my eyes, as one who is insulting the words of the Sages.... everyone who is truly God-fearing must be as a firm wall against this, and not to make the words of the Sages like a broken and pierced wall, through which the fox enters...
..And if you will reply, "what can we do? We have seen with our own eyes a wounded animal in this manner who nevertheless lived 12 months?!" We consider this as one who testifies on the impossible. We would ask them, "how do you know for certain that this is the same animal? Perhaps you forgot or made a mistake?" For it is impossible that the same animal would live for 12 months with a treifa.
The gemara states that a cow younger than three years old cannot give birth. But this does not make sense - we see every day that cows even two years old give birth? One must answer that nature has changed from what it was during the generations of the early Sages....
Responsa of R. Moshe Rothenburg (18th cent. Hamburg)
...According to Rambam, we don’t have the right to add or subtract from the list of treifos based on modern science. If so, how can we possibly invoke science (i.e. the fact that one cannot live without a heart) to remove one of the treifos from the list? Rather, perhaps something else might have happened. Perhaps the heart of the chicken was starting to wither away, getting smaller and smaller prior to its being slaughtered. The heart disappeared a moment before slaughtered and therefore, the chicken is a treifa...
Yonatan Eybeshutz, Kreiti U'Pleiti (18th cent. Altona)
It is possible that another organ took on the functions of the heart and was circulating the blood throughout the body. That is how the chicken was able to survive without a heart. But if the actual heart is missing, the chicken is a treifa. That is the case that Tosafot are referring to when they say that a missing heart is a treifa....
Regarding scientific principles based on experimentation, today the hypothesis is one way, and when others observe the opposite phenomenon, they retract the initial hypothesis and replace it with another. And such is always the case. Even now, based on experimentation, scientists have actually retracted all the assumptions and conclusions of Galen and Aristotle. Therefore, how can we contradict our Sages based on a scientific claim that one cannot live without a heart?
In order to help clarify these things, and as not to make the Torah a disgrace, I wrote an inquiry to the scholars at Halle.
Response from University of Halle to Rabbi Yonatan Eybeshutz
We have received two questions for which we do not know the reason. It has been requested of us to provide our expert medical opinion from this institution based on the principles of medicine and anatomy. We convened together and after analysis and discussion we agreed upon the following response, which we present before you. The substance of the first question- Is it possible for an animal to live for any period of time after the heart has been removed either through sickness or through any other means? First of all, you should know that there is no possibility whatsoever for a heart to disintegrate through sickness. It is true that there are illnesses that affect the heart directly and experience has shown that these can weaken and diminish the heart’s function. The animal stricken with this cardiac illness will struggle to survive as long as the disease does not overcome him and the heart, the source of life, does not cease to beat entirely. But if the disease progresses to the extent that cardiac motion ceases, then certainly the creature stricken with this disease will die. It is evident from this that if it was conceivable for the heart to somehow be completely removed (through disease) surely the creature would succumb. For it is impossible for a creature to live even one moment, just as it is impossible for any being to live if the heart is physically removed or cut out. Such a creature would die immediately or within a brief time once the heart is removed... Regarding your second query- If a chicken or similar bird is opened and no heart is found, is it possible that there is another structure that serves the function of the heart? We preface our response with this principle- It is physiologically impossible for any living creature, whether bird or animal, to live without a heart or some analogous structure which serves the same function. Such a structure must have a cavity with connected vessels, which serve to transmit and circulate the blood to the rest of the body. Therefore, if there is such an analogous organ with the required specifications for the physiological function usually required for the heart, it is certainly possible for a bird to live for a prolonged period of time, even if the organ does not bear external resemblance to the heart, even if the organ is found in a different anatomical location than the heart, either above or below. All this we have agreed upon.
Rav Moshe Feinstein, Choshen Mishpat, 2:73:4
...Maimonides writes "even if we know from contemporary medicine that the animal will live"; he does not write, "even if the doctors say it will live". This is a language of certainty; and yet, the law does not change. This is the meaning of "Law of Moshe at Sinai", to teach us that though the understanding of nature may change, the law does not....
[F]or we find in many other cases that the Torah relied on the Rabbis' assessment of reality, regarding absorption and transfer of taste [of foods in vessels], and when a planting takes root, and similar issues....[And when it comes to matters other than treifah,] the determination is based on the assessment of the doctors of any given time....We thus see that unless we are compelled otherwise, we should assume that matters that are dependent on nature should be based on the assessment of the rabbis of every given time....
And even the Rashba, were he living today - and I believe this applies to him now, in the Garden of Eden - would agree that some of the treifot that the Sages listed could in fact be endured by the animal....
Halachic Organ Donation Society
Rav Tzvi Hirsch ben Yaakov Ashkenazi, also known as the Chacham Tzvi, was born in 1660 and died in 1718. His responsa states that a beating heart is a requirement for life. But clearly the Chacham Tzvi was not talking about a case of brain death where the person (or chicken as in this case) can’t breathe. Those who claim that brain-stem death is not halachic death, quote this responsa to support their position because it put emphasis on the heart. But those who accept brain-stem death as halachic death point out that while the Chacham Tzvi writes one needs a beating heart to live, and it necessary for life, he does not write that a beating heart alone is sufficient in and of itself. When he writes the “soul is in the heart” it is rhetorical flourish to indicate that without a beating heart a person or animal can’t live. But again, that is not say it is sufficient for human life. A analogy would be that an airplane needs an engine to fly and to be called an airplane. But that does not mean if you have a working engine that you have an airplane.