Additional cases of treifot are discussed as well as several actual cases that were brought before rabbis and how they did, or in some cases, did not pasken.
Chullin 48
January 14, 2019 | ח׳ בשבט תשע״ט
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Chullin 48
שַׁלְפּוּחִית שֶׁלָּהּ – כְּשֵׁרָה. הִתְלִיעַ כָּבֵד שֶׁלָּהּ – זֶה הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה, וְעָלוּ עָלֶיהָ בְּנֵי עַסְיָא שְׁלֹשָׁה רְגָלִים לְיַבְנֶה, לְרֶגֶל שְׁלִישִׁי הִתִּירוּהָ לָהֶם.
If its womb was removed, the animal is kosher. If its liver became infested by worms, with regard to this there was an incident, and the residents of Asia Minor went up on three occasions to the great Sanhedrin in Yavne to inquire with regard to the halakha. On the first two occasions they did not receive an answer; on the third occasion, after the Sanhedrin had deliberated, they permitted the animal to them.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: רֵיאָה הַסְּמוּכָה לַדּוֹפֶן – אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ, הֶעֶלְתָה צְמָחִים – חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ. מָר יְהוּדָה מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דַּאֲבִימִי אָמַר: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה – חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ.
§ Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Naḥman says: With regard to a lung that is adjacent, i.e., attached, to the ribs in the chest wall, one need not be concerned about the possibility that it became attached as a result of a perforation in the lung as opposed to some injury to the chest wall. But if cysts full of pus sprouted on the lung itself in the area of its attachment to the chest wall, one must be concerned about the possibility that it was perforated, and that this gave rise to the cysts. Mar Yehuda says in the name of Avimi: In both this case and that case, whether or not there are cysts on the lung, one must be concerned about the possibility that the lung was perforated.
הֵיכִי עָבְדִינַן? אָמַר רָבָא: רָבִין בַּר שְׁבָא אַסְבְּרַהּ לִי, מַיְיתִינַן סַכִּינָא דַּחֲלִישׁ פּוּמֵּיהּ וּמְפָרְקִינַן לַהּ; אִי אִיכָּא רֵיעוּתָא בְּדוֹפֶן – תָּלֵינַן בָּתַר דּוֹפֶן, וְאִי לָא – מֵחֲמַת רֵיאָה הִיא, וּטְרֵפָה, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא קָא מַפְּקָא זִיקָא.
The Gemara asks: How do we perform an examination to determine whether the injury is in the chest wall or the lung? Rava said: Ravin bar Sheva explained the procedure to me: We bring a knife whose edge is sharp and thin, and we separate the lung from the chest wall. If there is a defect, a wound or disease, in the chest wall, we attribute the attachment to the defect in the chest wall. And if not, we presume that the attachment is due to a defect in the lung, and the animal is a tereifa. And this is the halakha even though the lung does not expel air when inflated, since it is assumed that a scab covered the perforation, and a scab does not prevent the animal from being rendered a tereifa.
רַב נְחֶמְיָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף בָּדֵיק לַהּ בְּפָשׁוֹרֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָר זוּטְרָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב פַּפֵּי לְרָבִינָא: הָא דְּרַב נְחֶמְיָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף, אַתּוּן אַהָא מַתְנִיתוּ לַהּ, אֲנַן אַדְּרָבָא מַתְנֵינַן לַהּ, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי אוּנֵּי דְּרֵיאָה דִּסְרִיכָן לַהֲדָדֵי לֵית לְהוּ בְּדִיקוּתָא לְאַכְשׁוֹרֵי. רַב נְחֶמְיָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף בָּדֵיק לַהּ בְּפָשׁוֹרֵי.
The Gemara relates that Rav Neḥemya, son of Rav Yosef, examined such a lung by inflating it in tepid water to see if bubbles would appear. Mar Zutra, son of Rav Huna, son of Rav Pappi, said to Ravina: Concerning this episode of Rav Neḥemya, son of Rav Yosef, you teach it as being about this case of a lung attached to the chest wall. But we teach it as being about the case of Rava, as Rava says: These two lobes of the lung that adhere to one another have no means of inspection to deem them kosher. Still, Rav Neḥemya, son of Rav Yosef, examined such a lung by inflating it in tepid water. If no bubbles appeared he would deem the lung kosher.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: הַאי מַאי? בִּשְׁלָמָא הָכָא תָּלֵינַן בְּדוֹפֶן, וּכְשֵׁרָה, אֲבָל הָתָם – אִי הַאי נְקִיב – טְרֵפָה, וְאִי הַאי נְקִיב – טְרֵפָה.
Rav Ashi objects to this: What is this? How can an animal with a lung whose lobes adhered to one another be permitted by means of such an inspection? Granted, here, in the case of a lung attached to the chest wall, we attribute the attachment to an injury in the chest wall rather than the lung, and the animal is kosher. But there, in the case of an adhesion between two lobes, what can be said? If this lobe was perforated the animal is a tereifa, and if that lobe was perforated the animal is a tereifa. Even if a scab covers the perforation and prevents bubbles from appearing, the animal is still a tereifa.
וּמִי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: רֵיאָה שֶׁנִּקְּבָה וְדוֹפֶן סוֹתַמְתָּהּ – כְּשֵׁרָה! לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָתָם בִּמְקוֹם רְבִיתָא, הָכָא שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם רְבִיתָא.
Rav Naḥman stated that if there are cysts on the lung in the area of its attachment to the chest wall, one must be concerned about the possibility that the lung was perforated. Evidently, if the lung was perforated, the animal is a tereifa. The Gemara asks: And did Rav Naḥman really say this? But doesn’t Rav Yosef bar Minyumi say that Rav Naḥman says: If the lung was perforated but the chest wall seals the perforation, the animal is kosher? The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. There, Rav Naḥman is referring to a lung attached to the chest wall in the place that it grows [revita] naturally. In that case, if the chest wall seals the perforation it will remain sealed, and the animal can live. But here, Rav Naḥman is referring to a lung attached to the chest wall not in the place that it grows.
וְהֵיכָא מְקוֹם רְבִיתָא? חִיתּוּכֵי דְּאוּנֵּי.
The Gemara clarifies: And where is the place that it grows? It is the area of the sectioning of the lobes, i.e., the front of the lung where the lobes are adjacent to the chest wall on all sides.
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: רֵיאָה שֶׁנִּקְּבָה וְדוֹפֶן סוֹתַמְתָּהּ – כְּשֵׁרָה. אָמַר רָבִינָא: וְהוּא דִּסְבִיךְ בְּבִשְׂרָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף לְרָבִינָא: וְאִי לָא סְבִיךְ מַאי? טְרֵפָה, אַלְמָא אָמְרִינַן נְקוּבָה הִיא. אִי הָכִי, כִּי סְבִיךְ נָמֵי!
§ Since the Gemara cited the statement of Rav Naḥman, the Gemara turns to the matter itself: Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Naḥman says: If the lung was perforated but the chest wall sealed the perforation, the animal is kosher. With regard to this statement, Ravina said: And this is the halakha only when the lung is tangled in the flesh of the chest wall, between the ribs. Rav Yosef said to Ravina: And if it is not tangled, what is the halakha? The animal is a tereifa. Evidently, we say that the lung is perforated. But if so, when it is tangled as well, it should be deemed a tereifa.
דְּהָא תַּנְיָא: נִיקַּב – פָּסוּל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא שׁוֹתֵת; נִסְתַּם – כָּשֵׁר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מוֹלִיד, וְזֶהוּ פְּסוּל שֶׁחוֹזֵר לְהֶכְשֵׁירוֹ. וְזֶהוּ לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? לָאו לְמַעוֹטֵי כְּהַאי גַוְונָא.
As isn’t it taught in a baraita: If a man’s penis was perforated, he is unfit to marry a Jewish woman of fit lineage, because his semen is discharged gently and he cannot procreate, in accordance with the verse: “He that is crushed or maimed in his private parts shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:2). But if the perforation was later sealed with flesh, he is fit, because now he can procreate. And this is an instance of someone who is unfit who returns to his previous state of fitness. Rav Yosef continues: When the baraita states: And this is, what does it serve to exclude? Does it not serve to exclude a case like this, where the lung was perforated and then sealed by the chest wall, in which case the animal would not become kosher again?
לָא, לְמַעוֹטֵי קְרוּם שֶׁעָלָה מֵחֲמַת מַכָּה בָּרֵיאָה, דְּאֵינוֹ קְרוּם.
The Gemara responds: No, the phrase serves to exclude a membrane that appeared due to a wound in the lung, which is not considered a membrane that can seal a perforation, because it is temporary. By contrast, the flesh of the chest wall is considered a permanent seal on the lungs and renders the animal kosher.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב עוּקְבָא בַּר חָמָא: אִילּוּ אִינְּקִיב דּוֹפֶן לַהֲדַהּ, מַאי? טְרֵפָה! לִיתְנֵי נְקוּבַת הַדּוֹפֶן!
Rav Ukva bar Ḥama objects to the ruling of Rav Naḥman that if a lung was perforated but the chest wall sealed the perforation, the animal is kosher: If flesh in the chest wall was perforated against the perforation in the lung, what would the halakha be? The animal would be a tereifa, since air can now escape from the lung. Evidently, the question of whether the animal is permitted is dependent on the state of the chest wall. If so, let the mishna teach, in addition to the given list of tereifot: An animal whose chest wall was perforated.
וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, הָא דְּאָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מָרָה שֶׁנִּיקְּבָה וְכָבֵד סוֹתַמְתָּהּ – כְּשֵׁרָה, אִילּוּ אִינְּקִיב כָּבֵד לַהֲדַהּ, מַאי? טְרֵפָה! לִיתְנֵי: נְקוּבַת הַכָּבֵד.
The Gemara responds: And according to your reasoning, one can also ask: The mishna states that if the gallbladder was perforated, the animal is a tereifa. That which Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says with regard to this, that if the gallbladder was perforated but the liver sealed the perforation the animal is kosher, is difficult. If the liver were perforated against the perforation in the gallbladder, what would the halakha be? The animal would be a tereifa. If so, let the mishna also teach: An animal whose liver was perforated.
אֶלָּא, כִּי נִיקְּבָה דְּלָאו מִינֵּיהּ מִיטַּרְפָא – לָא קָתָנֵי; הָכָא נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּלָאו מִינֵּיהּ מִיטַּרְפָא – לָא קָתָנֵי.
Rather, one must say that the mishna does not teach cases where the perforated organ is not the one by which the animal is rendered a tereifa. Here, too, in the case of a lung sealed by the chest wall, since the perforated organ, i.e., the chest wall, is not the one by which the animal is rendered a tereifa, the mishna does not teach it.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה מִשְּׁמוּאֵל: הֶעֶלְתָה צְמָחִין, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּשֵׁרָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַף אֲנִי אוֹמֵר כֵּן, אֶלָּא שֶׁהַתַּלְמִידִים מִזְדַּנְּזִין בַּדָּבָר, דְּאָמַר רַב מַתְנָא: מַלְיָא מוּגְלָא – טְרֵפָה, מַיִם זַכִּים – כְּשֵׁרָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָהִיא בְּכוּלְיָא אִתְּמַר.
§ Rabba bar bar Ḥana asked Shmuel: If the lung grew cysts full of pus, what is the halakha? Shmuel said to him: The animal is kosher. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said to him in reply: I also say so, that the animal is kosher, except that the students doubt the matter, as Rav Mattana says: If the cyst was full of pus, the animal is a tereifa; if it was full of clear fluid, it is kosher. Shmuel said to him: That halakha of Rav Mattana was stated with regard to a cyst on the kidney, not on the lung.
רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף הֲוָה קָאָזֵיל בָּתְרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְּשׁוּקָא דְּטַבָּחֵי, חֲזָנְהוּ לְהָנָךְ דְּקָיְימִין צִמְחֵי צִמְחֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא בָּעֵי מָר אוּמְצָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לֵית לִי פְּרִיטֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַקְּפַן אֲנָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מָה אֶעֱבֵיד לָךְ, דְּכִי אָתוּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מְשַׁדַּר לְהוּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּמוֹרֵי בַּהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְהֶיתֵּירָא, וְלֵיהּ לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.
The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef was walking after Rabbi Yirmeya in the butchers’ market. He saw these lungs that were full of cysts, and he wished to determine the halakha with regard to them. He said to Rabbi Yirmeya: Doesn’t the Master desire a piece of meat? If so, meat from those animals is for sale. Rabbi Yirmeya, not wanting to issue a ruling with regard to the meat, said to him: I have no money. Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef said to him: I will buy them for you on credit. Rabbi Yirmeya realized that he could not avoid issuing a ruling, so he said to him: What can I do for you? As when people came before Rabbi Yoḥanan with such lungs, he would send them before Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon, who would instruct them in such cases in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, to permit the meat for consumption. But Rabbi Yoḥanan himself does not hold accordingly, and does not permit the meat. I practice stringency in accordance with his opinion.
אָמַר רָבָא: כִּי הֲוָה מְסַגֵּינַן בָּתְרֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן בְּשׁוּקָא
Rava said: When we would walk after Rav Naḥman in the market
דְּגִלְדָּאֵי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ בְּשׁוּקָא דְּרַבָּנַן, חָזֵי הָנָךְ דְּקָיְימָן כַּנְדֵי כַּנְדֵי, וְלָא אָמַר לְהוּ וְלָא מִידֵּי.
of the skinners, and some say in the market of the Sages, he would see these lungs that were full of jugs, i.e., they were covered in large cysts full of liquid, and he would not say anything to the butchers. Evidently, he held that the animals were kosher.
רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי אַסִּי הֲווֹ חָלְפִי בְּשׁוּקָא דִּטְבֶרְיָא, (חָזֵי) [חֲזֹנְהוּ] הָנָךְ דְּקָיְימִי טִינָּרֵי טִינָּרֵי, וְלָא אָמְרִי לְהוּ וְלָא מִידֵּי.
The Gemara relates that Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi were passing through the market of Tiberias. They saw these lungs that were full of rocks, i.e., large, hard growths, and they did not say anything to the butchers. Evidently, they held that the animals were kosher.
אִתְּמַר: מַחַט שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בָּרֵיאָה – רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא מַכְשְׁרִי, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ וְרַבִּי מָנִי בַּר פַּטִּישׁ וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְיָקִים טָרְפִי.
§ It was stated that the amora’im disagree with regard to a needle that was found in the lung of a slaughtered animal: Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Ḥanina deem the animal kosher, while Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish and Rabbi Mani bar Pattish and Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim deem it a tereifa.
לֵימָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר: חִסָּרוֹן מִבִּפְנִים – שְׁמֵיהּ חִסָּרוֹן, וּמָר סָבַר: לָא שְׁמֵיהּ חִסָּרוֹן? לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא חִסָּרוֹן מִבִּפְנִים – לָא שְׁמֵיהּ חִסָּרוֹן, וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר: סִמְפּוֹנָא נְקַט וַאֲתַאי, וּמָר סָבַר: נַקּוֹבֵי נַקֵּיב וַאֲתַאי.
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about this: That one Sage, i.e., those who deem it a tereifa, holds that a deficiency on the inside of the lung, created by the needle, is considered a deficiency, rendering the animal a tereifa; and one Sage, i.e., those who deem it kosher, holds that it is not considered a deficiency. The Gemara responds: No, everyone holds that a deficiency on the inside is not considered a deficiency. And here, in the case of a needle, the Sages disagree with regard to this: One Sage, i.e., those who deem it kosher, holds that the needle took the respiratory route and came into the lung without perforating the membrane; and one Sage, i.e., those who deem it a tereifa, holds that it perforated its way out of the digestive system and came through to the lung by perforating its membrane.
הָהִיא מַחְטָא דְּאִשְׁתְּכַח בְּחִיתּוּכָא דְּרֵיאָה, אַיְיתוּהָ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי, סְבַר לְאַכְשׁוֹרַהּ. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי זְרִיקָא: ״הָרֵיאָה שֶׁנִּיקְּבָה אוֹ שֶׁחָסְרָה״. מַאי חָסְרָה? אִילֵימָא מִבַּחוּץ – הַיְינוּ נִיקְּבָה! אֶלָּא לָאו מִבִּפְנִים, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: חִסָּרוֹן מִבִּפְנִים – שְׁמֵיהּ חִסָּרוֹן.
The Gemara relates that a certain needle was found in a piece of lung after it had been cut into pieces. People there brought it before Rabbi Ami, and he thought to deem it kosher. Rabbi Yirmeya, and some say Rabbi Zerika, raised an objection to this possible ruling from the mishna: The lung that was perforated or that was missing a piece renders the animal a tereifa. Now, what is the case of a lung that was missing a piece? If we say that it was missing a piece on the outside, this is the same as if it was perforated, since any missing piece of the lung wall constitutes a perforation. Rather, is it not referring to a missing piece on the inside? If so, learn from the mishna that a deficiency on the inside of an organ is considered a deficiency, and the needle certainly caused a deficiency inside the lung.
הֲדַר שַׁדְּרוּהָ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא, סְבַר לְאַכְשׁוֹרַהּ, אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי זְרִיקָא: ״הָרֵיאָה שֶׁנִּיקְּבָה אוֹ שֶׁחָסְרָה״. מַאי חָסְרָה? אִילֵימָא מִבַּחוּץ – הַיְינוּ נִיקְּבָה! אֶלָּא לָאו מִבִּפְנִים? וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: חִסָּרוֹן מִבִּפְנִים – שְׁמֵיהּ חִסָּרוֹן!
Rabbi Ami did not decide the matter, so they then sent the lung before Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa. He, too, thought to deem it kosher. Rabbi Yirmeya, and some say Rabbi Zerika, raised an objection to this from the mishna: The lung that was perforated or that was missing a piece renders the animal a tereifa. Now, what is the case of a lung that was missing a piece? If we say that it was missing a piece on the outside, this is the same as if it was perforated. Rather, is it not referring to a missing piece on the inside? If so, learn from the mishna that a deficiency on the inside of an organ is considered a deficiency.
הֲדַר שַׁדְּרוּהָ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי וְטַרְפַהּ. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: וְהָא רַבָּנַן מַכְשְׁרִי? אָמַר לָהֶן: הֵן הִכְשִׁירוּ, שֶׁיּוֹדְעִים מֵאֵיזֶה טַעַם הִכְשִׁירוּ, אָנוּ מֵאֵיזֶה טַעַם נַכְשִׁיר? דִּלְמָא אִי הֲוָה רֵיאָה קַמַּן מִינַּקְבָה.
They then sent the lung back before Rabbi Ami, and he deemed the animal a tereifa. They said to him: But don’t the Rabbis, i.e., Rabbi Yoḥanan, Rabbi Elazar, and Rabbi Ḥanina, deem it kosher? Rabbi Ami said to them: They deemed it kosher since they knew for which reason they deemed it kosher. They were confronted with a whole lung and could see that it had no perforation. But we, for which reason shall we deem it kosher? We see only part of the lung. Perhaps if the whole lung was before us we would see that its membrane was perforated.
טַעְמָא דְּלֵיתַהּ, הָא אִיתַהּ וְלָא מִינַּקְבָה – כְּשֵׁרָה, וְהָאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הַאי סִמְפּוֹנָא דְּרֵיאָה דְּאִינְּקִיב – טְרֵפָה, הָהוּא לַחֲבֵירוֹ אִתְּמַר.
The Gemara asks: One can infer that the reason he deemed it a tereifa is that the entire lung was not before him, but if it had been before him and the membrane had not been perforated, then he would have deemed the animal kosher. But doesn’t Rav Naḥman say: This bronchus of the lung that was perforated renders the animal a tereifa? Accordingly, even if the needle entered the lung through a bronchus the animal ought to be a tereifa. The Gemara responds: That statement of Rav Naḥman was stated in reference to a case where a needle pierced from one bronchus into another. Since the bronchi are hard, one bronchus cannot seal a perforation in another. By contrast, when a needle perforates the bronchi and continues into the flesh of the lung, soft tissue left behind can seal the perforation.
וְהָאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הַאי הֲדוֹרָא דְּכַנְתָּא דְּאִינְּקִיב לַהֲדֵי חַבְרֵיהּ – מַגֵּין עֲלֵיהּ, אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: טְרֵפוֹת קָא מְדַמֵּי לַהֲדָדֵי? אֵין אוֹמְרִין בִּטְרֵפוֹת זוֹ דּוֹמָה לָזוֹ, שֶׁהֲרֵי חוֹתְכָהּ מִכָּאן וּמֵתָה, חוֹתְכָהּ מִכָּאן וְחַיָּה!
The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rav Naḥman say: If this spiral colon was perforated against another coil of the intestine, the other coil protects it by sealing the perforation? If so, why does a bronchus not seal a perforation in another bronchus? Rav Ashi said: Are you comparing tereifot to one another? One cannot say with regard to tereifot: This is similar to that, as one cuts an animal from here, in one place, and it dies, while one cuts it from there, in another place, and it lives.
הָהִיא מַחְטָא דְּאִישְׁתְּכַח בְּסִמְפּוֹנָא רַבָּה דְּרֵיאָה, אַתְיוּהָ לְקַמֵּיה דְּרַבָּנַן טָרוֹפָאֵי, לָא אֲמַרוּ בָּהּ לָא אִיסּוּר וְלָא הֶיתֵּר. הֶיתֵּר לָא אָמְרִי בַּהּ – כִּשְׁמַעְתַּיְיהוּ, אִיסּוּר נָמֵי לָא אָמְרִי בַּהּ – כֵּיוָן דִּבְסִמְפּוֹנָא רַבָּה אִישְׁתְּכַח, אֵימָא סִמְפּוֹנָא נְקַט וַאֲתַאי.
The Gemara recounts the case of a certain needle that was found in the large, i.e., main, bronchus of the lung. They brought it before the Rabbis who deem an animal tereifa if a needle is found in the lungs, i.e., Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, Rabbi Mani bar Pattish, and Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim. They did not say that it was prohibited, nor that it was permitted. They did not say it was permitted, in accordance with their ruling, but they also did not say it was prohibited since the needle was found in the large bronchus, and one can therefore say that it likely took the respiratory route and came into the lung rather than perforating through from the digestive system.
הָהִיא מַחְטָא דְּאִישְׁתְּכַח בַּחֲתִיכָה דְּכַבְדָּא, סְבַר מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף לְמִיטְרְפַהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: אִילּוּ אִשְׁתְּכַח בְּבִשְׂרָא כְּהַאי גַוְונָא הֲוָה טָרֵיף מָר? אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: חָזֵינָא, אִי קוֹפָא לְבַר – נַקּוֹבֵי נַקֵּיב וַאֲתַאי, אִי קוֹפָא לְגָיו – סִמְפּוֹנָא נְקַט וַאֲתַאי.
§ The Gemara relates that there was a certain needle that was found in a piece of liver. Mar, son of Rav Yosef, thought to deem the animal a tereifa. Rav Ashi said to him: If a needle had been found in the flesh, like this case where it was found in the liver, would the Master have deemed it a tereifa? A perforated liver, like perforated flesh, does not in itself render the animal a tereifa, as is evident from the mishna (42a). Rather, Rav Ashi said that we see: If the eye of the needle faces outward, toward the stomach cavity, one must presume that it perforated its way out of the gullet, rendering the animal a tereifa, and thereby came to the liver. If the eye of the needle faces inward, buried in the liver, and the sharp end of the needle is facing outward, one may presume that it took hold of a blood vessel and came to the liver through it, rather than through the gullet, and the animal is kosher.
וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּאַלִּימְתָּא, אֲבָל קַטִּינְתָּא, לָא שְׁנָא קוֹפָא לְגָיו, לָא שְׁנָא קוֹפָא לְבַר, נַקּוֹבֵי נַקֵּיב וַאֲתַאי.
The Gemara adds: And this statement applies only to a thick needle, the eye of which is not sharp enough to cause a perforation by itself. But if the needle is thin, it is no different if the eye faces inward and it is no different if the eye faces outward, and one must presume that it perforated its way out of the gullet and thereby came to the liver.
וּמַאי שְׁנָא מִמַּחַט שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת
The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from that of a needle that is found
Follow 
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Jenifer Nech
Houston, United States
Jill Shames
Jerusalem, Israel
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Shira Jacobowitz
Jerusalem, Israel
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
Vitti Kones
מיתר, ישראל
See video
Susan Fisher
Raanana, Israel
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I saw an elderly man at the shul kiddush in early March 2020, celebrating the siyyum of masechet brachot which he had been learning with a young yeshiva student. I thought, if he can do it, I can do it! I began to learn masechet Shabbat the next day, Making up masechet brachot myself, which I had missed. I haven’t missed a day since, thanks to the ease of listening to Hadran’s podcast!
Judith Shapiro
Minnesota, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Patti Evans
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Laura Shechter
Lexington, MA, United States
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Marsha Wasserman
Jerusalem, Israel
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Goldie Gilad
Kfar Saba, Israel
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Anne Mirsky
Maale Adumim, Israel
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Linda Brownstein
Mitspe, Israel
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
Rhona Fink
San Diego, United States
At almost 70 I am just beginning my journey with Talmud and Hadran. I began not late, but right when I was called to learn. It is never too late to begin! The understanding patience of staff and participants with more experience and knowledge has been fabulous. The joy of learning never stops and for me. It is a new life, a new light, a new depth of love of The Holy One, Blessed be He.
Deborah Hoffman-Wade
Richmond, CA, United States
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ruth Leah Kahan
Ra’anana, Israel
Jill Shames
Jerusalem, Israel
See video
Susan Fisher
Raanana, Israel
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Shoshana Shinnar
Jerusalem, Israel
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Lisa S. Malik
Wynnewood, United States
Chullin 48
שַׁלְפּוּחִית שֶׁלָּהּ – כְּשֵׁרָה. הִתְלִיעַ כָּבֵד שֶׁלָּהּ – זֶה הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה, וְעָלוּ עָלֶיהָ בְּנֵי עַסְיָא שְׁלֹשָׁה רְגָלִים לְיַבְנֶה, לְרֶגֶל שְׁלִישִׁי הִתִּירוּהָ לָהֶם.
If its womb was removed, the animal is kosher. If its liver became infested by worms, with regard to this there was an incident, and the residents of Asia Minor went up on three occasions to the great Sanhedrin in Yavne to inquire with regard to the halakha. On the first two occasions they did not receive an answer; on the third occasion, after the Sanhedrin had deliberated, they permitted the animal to them.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: רֵיאָה הַסְּמוּכָה לַדּוֹפֶן – אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ, הֶעֶלְתָה צְמָחִים – חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ. מָר יְהוּדָה מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דַּאֲבִימִי אָמַר: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה – חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ.
§ Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Naḥman says: With regard to a lung that is adjacent, i.e., attached, to the ribs in the chest wall, one need not be concerned about the possibility that it became attached as a result of a perforation in the lung as opposed to some injury to the chest wall. But if cysts full of pus sprouted on the lung itself in the area of its attachment to the chest wall, one must be concerned about the possibility that it was perforated, and that this gave rise to the cysts. Mar Yehuda says in the name of Avimi: In both this case and that case, whether or not there are cysts on the lung, one must be concerned about the possibility that the lung was perforated.
הֵיכִי עָבְדִינַן? אָמַר רָבָא: רָבִין בַּר שְׁבָא אַסְבְּרַהּ לִי, מַיְיתִינַן סַכִּינָא דַּחֲלִישׁ פּוּמֵּיהּ וּמְפָרְקִינַן לַהּ; אִי אִיכָּא רֵיעוּתָא בְּדוֹפֶן – תָּלֵינַן בָּתַר דּוֹפֶן, וְאִי לָא – מֵחֲמַת רֵיאָה הִיא, וּטְרֵפָה, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא קָא מַפְּקָא זִיקָא.
The Gemara asks: How do we perform an examination to determine whether the injury is in the chest wall or the lung? Rava said: Ravin bar Sheva explained the procedure to me: We bring a knife whose edge is sharp and thin, and we separate the lung from the chest wall. If there is a defect, a wound or disease, in the chest wall, we attribute the attachment to the defect in the chest wall. And if not, we presume that the attachment is due to a defect in the lung, and the animal is a tereifa. And this is the halakha even though the lung does not expel air when inflated, since it is assumed that a scab covered the perforation, and a scab does not prevent the animal from being rendered a tereifa.
רַב נְחֶמְיָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף בָּדֵיק לַהּ בְּפָשׁוֹרֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָר זוּטְרָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב פַּפֵּי לְרָבִינָא: הָא דְּרַב נְחֶמְיָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף, אַתּוּן אַהָא מַתְנִיתוּ לַהּ, אֲנַן אַדְּרָבָא מַתְנֵינַן לַהּ, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי אוּנֵּי דְּרֵיאָה דִּסְרִיכָן לַהֲדָדֵי לֵית לְהוּ בְּדִיקוּתָא לְאַכְשׁוֹרֵי. רַב נְחֶמְיָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף בָּדֵיק לַהּ בְּפָשׁוֹרֵי.
The Gemara relates that Rav Neḥemya, son of Rav Yosef, examined such a lung by inflating it in tepid water to see if bubbles would appear. Mar Zutra, son of Rav Huna, son of Rav Pappi, said to Ravina: Concerning this episode of Rav Neḥemya, son of Rav Yosef, you teach it as being about this case of a lung attached to the chest wall. But we teach it as being about the case of Rava, as Rava says: These two lobes of the lung that adhere to one another have no means of inspection to deem them kosher. Still, Rav Neḥemya, son of Rav Yosef, examined such a lung by inflating it in tepid water. If no bubbles appeared he would deem the lung kosher.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: הַאי מַאי? בִּשְׁלָמָא הָכָא תָּלֵינַן בְּדוֹפֶן, וּכְשֵׁרָה, אֲבָל הָתָם – אִי הַאי נְקִיב – טְרֵפָה, וְאִי הַאי נְקִיב – טְרֵפָה.
Rav Ashi objects to this: What is this? How can an animal with a lung whose lobes adhered to one another be permitted by means of such an inspection? Granted, here, in the case of a lung attached to the chest wall, we attribute the attachment to an injury in the chest wall rather than the lung, and the animal is kosher. But there, in the case of an adhesion between two lobes, what can be said? If this lobe was perforated the animal is a tereifa, and if that lobe was perforated the animal is a tereifa. Even if a scab covers the perforation and prevents bubbles from appearing, the animal is still a tereifa.
וּמִי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: רֵיאָה שֶׁנִּקְּבָה וְדוֹפֶן סוֹתַמְתָּהּ – כְּשֵׁרָה! לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָתָם בִּמְקוֹם רְבִיתָא, הָכָא שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם רְבִיתָא.
Rav Naḥman stated that if there are cysts on the lung in the area of its attachment to the chest wall, one must be concerned about the possibility that the lung was perforated. Evidently, if the lung was perforated, the animal is a tereifa. The Gemara asks: And did Rav Naḥman really say this? But doesn’t Rav Yosef bar Minyumi say that Rav Naḥman says: If the lung was perforated but the chest wall seals the perforation, the animal is kosher? The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. There, Rav Naḥman is referring to a lung attached to the chest wall in the place that it grows [revita] naturally. In that case, if the chest wall seals the perforation it will remain sealed, and the animal can live. But here, Rav Naḥman is referring to a lung attached to the chest wall not in the place that it grows.
וְהֵיכָא מְקוֹם רְבִיתָא? חִיתּוּכֵי דְּאוּנֵּי.
The Gemara clarifies: And where is the place that it grows? It is the area of the sectioning of the lobes, i.e., the front of the lung where the lobes are adjacent to the chest wall on all sides.
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: רֵיאָה שֶׁנִּקְּבָה וְדוֹפֶן סוֹתַמְתָּהּ – כְּשֵׁרָה. אָמַר רָבִינָא: וְהוּא דִּסְבִיךְ בְּבִשְׂרָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף לְרָבִינָא: וְאִי לָא סְבִיךְ מַאי? טְרֵפָה, אַלְמָא אָמְרִינַן נְקוּבָה הִיא. אִי הָכִי, כִּי סְבִיךְ נָמֵי!
§ Since the Gemara cited the statement of Rav Naḥman, the Gemara turns to the matter itself: Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Naḥman says: If the lung was perforated but the chest wall sealed the perforation, the animal is kosher. With regard to this statement, Ravina said: And this is the halakha only when the lung is tangled in the flesh of the chest wall, between the ribs. Rav Yosef said to Ravina: And if it is not tangled, what is the halakha? The animal is a tereifa. Evidently, we say that the lung is perforated. But if so, when it is tangled as well, it should be deemed a tereifa.
דְּהָא תַּנְיָא: נִיקַּב – פָּסוּל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא שׁוֹתֵת; נִסְתַּם – כָּשֵׁר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מוֹלִיד, וְזֶהוּ פְּסוּל שֶׁחוֹזֵר לְהֶכְשֵׁירוֹ. וְזֶהוּ לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? לָאו לְמַעוֹטֵי כְּהַאי גַוְונָא.
As isn’t it taught in a baraita: If a man’s penis was perforated, he is unfit to marry a Jewish woman of fit lineage, because his semen is discharged gently and he cannot procreate, in accordance with the verse: “He that is crushed or maimed in his private parts shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:2). But if the perforation was later sealed with flesh, he is fit, because now he can procreate. And this is an instance of someone who is unfit who returns to his previous state of fitness. Rav Yosef continues: When the baraita states: And this is, what does it serve to exclude? Does it not serve to exclude a case like this, where the lung was perforated and then sealed by the chest wall, in which case the animal would not become kosher again?
לָא, לְמַעוֹטֵי קְרוּם שֶׁעָלָה מֵחֲמַת מַכָּה בָּרֵיאָה, דְּאֵינוֹ קְרוּם.
The Gemara responds: No, the phrase serves to exclude a membrane that appeared due to a wound in the lung, which is not considered a membrane that can seal a perforation, because it is temporary. By contrast, the flesh of the chest wall is considered a permanent seal on the lungs and renders the animal kosher.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב עוּקְבָא בַּר חָמָא: אִילּוּ אִינְּקִיב דּוֹפֶן לַהֲדַהּ, מַאי? טְרֵפָה! לִיתְנֵי נְקוּבַת הַדּוֹפֶן!
Rav Ukva bar Ḥama objects to the ruling of Rav Naḥman that if a lung was perforated but the chest wall sealed the perforation, the animal is kosher: If flesh in the chest wall was perforated against the perforation in the lung, what would the halakha be? The animal would be a tereifa, since air can now escape from the lung. Evidently, the question of whether the animal is permitted is dependent on the state of the chest wall. If so, let the mishna teach, in addition to the given list of tereifot: An animal whose chest wall was perforated.
וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, הָא דְּאָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מָרָה שֶׁנִּיקְּבָה וְכָבֵד סוֹתַמְתָּהּ – כְּשֵׁרָה, אִילּוּ אִינְּקִיב כָּבֵד לַהֲדַהּ, מַאי? טְרֵפָה! לִיתְנֵי: נְקוּבַת הַכָּבֵד.
The Gemara responds: And according to your reasoning, one can also ask: The mishna states that if the gallbladder was perforated, the animal is a tereifa. That which Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says with regard to this, that if the gallbladder was perforated but the liver sealed the perforation the animal is kosher, is difficult. If the liver were perforated against the perforation in the gallbladder, what would the halakha be? The animal would be a tereifa. If so, let the mishna also teach: An animal whose liver was perforated.
אֶלָּא, כִּי נִיקְּבָה דְּלָאו מִינֵּיהּ מִיטַּרְפָא – לָא קָתָנֵי; הָכָא נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּלָאו מִינֵּיהּ מִיטַּרְפָא – לָא קָתָנֵי.
Rather, one must say that the mishna does not teach cases where the perforated organ is not the one by which the animal is rendered a tereifa. Here, too, in the case of a lung sealed by the chest wall, since the perforated organ, i.e., the chest wall, is not the one by which the animal is rendered a tereifa, the mishna does not teach it.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה מִשְּׁמוּאֵל: הֶעֶלְתָה צְמָחִין, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּשֵׁרָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַף אֲנִי אוֹמֵר כֵּן, אֶלָּא שֶׁהַתַּלְמִידִים מִזְדַּנְּזִין בַּדָּבָר, דְּאָמַר רַב מַתְנָא: מַלְיָא מוּגְלָא – טְרֵפָה, מַיִם זַכִּים – כְּשֵׁרָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָהִיא בְּכוּלְיָא אִתְּמַר.
§ Rabba bar bar Ḥana asked Shmuel: If the lung grew cysts full of pus, what is the halakha? Shmuel said to him: The animal is kosher. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said to him in reply: I also say so, that the animal is kosher, except that the students doubt the matter, as Rav Mattana says: If the cyst was full of pus, the animal is a tereifa; if it was full of clear fluid, it is kosher. Shmuel said to him: That halakha of Rav Mattana was stated with regard to a cyst on the kidney, not on the lung.
רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף הֲוָה קָאָזֵיל בָּתְרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְּשׁוּקָא דְּטַבָּחֵי, חֲזָנְהוּ לְהָנָךְ דְּקָיְימִין צִמְחֵי צִמְחֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא בָּעֵי מָר אוּמְצָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לֵית לִי פְּרִיטֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַקְּפַן אֲנָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מָה אֶעֱבֵיד לָךְ, דְּכִי אָתוּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מְשַׁדַּר לְהוּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּמוֹרֵי בַּהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְהֶיתֵּירָא, וְלֵיהּ לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.
The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef was walking after Rabbi Yirmeya in the butchers’ market. He saw these lungs that were full of cysts, and he wished to determine the halakha with regard to them. He said to Rabbi Yirmeya: Doesn’t the Master desire a piece of meat? If so, meat from those animals is for sale. Rabbi Yirmeya, not wanting to issue a ruling with regard to the meat, said to him: I have no money. Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef said to him: I will buy them for you on credit. Rabbi Yirmeya realized that he could not avoid issuing a ruling, so he said to him: What can I do for you? As when people came before Rabbi Yoḥanan with such lungs, he would send them before Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon, who would instruct them in such cases in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, to permit the meat for consumption. But Rabbi Yoḥanan himself does not hold accordingly, and does not permit the meat. I practice stringency in accordance with his opinion.
אָמַר רָבָא: כִּי הֲוָה מְסַגֵּינַן בָּתְרֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן בְּשׁוּקָא
Rava said: When we would walk after Rav Naḥman in the market
דְּגִלְדָּאֵי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ בְּשׁוּקָא דְּרַבָּנַן, חָזֵי הָנָךְ דְּקָיְימָן כַּנְדֵי כַּנְדֵי, וְלָא אָמַר לְהוּ וְלָא מִידֵּי.
of the skinners, and some say in the market of the Sages, he would see these lungs that were full of jugs, i.e., they were covered in large cysts full of liquid, and he would not say anything to the butchers. Evidently, he held that the animals were kosher.
רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי אַסִּי הֲווֹ חָלְפִי בְּשׁוּקָא דִּטְבֶרְיָא, (חָזֵי) [חֲזֹנְהוּ] הָנָךְ דְּקָיְימִי טִינָּרֵי טִינָּרֵי, וְלָא אָמְרִי לְהוּ וְלָא מִידֵּי.
The Gemara relates that Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi were passing through the market of Tiberias. They saw these lungs that were full of rocks, i.e., large, hard growths, and they did not say anything to the butchers. Evidently, they held that the animals were kosher.
אִתְּמַר: מַחַט שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בָּרֵיאָה – רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא מַכְשְׁרִי, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ וְרַבִּי מָנִי בַּר פַּטִּישׁ וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְיָקִים טָרְפִי.
§ It was stated that the amora’im disagree with regard to a needle that was found in the lung of a slaughtered animal: Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Ḥanina deem the animal kosher, while Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish and Rabbi Mani bar Pattish and Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim deem it a tereifa.
לֵימָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר: חִסָּרוֹן מִבִּפְנִים – שְׁמֵיהּ חִסָּרוֹן, וּמָר סָבַר: לָא שְׁמֵיהּ חִסָּרוֹן? לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא חִסָּרוֹן מִבִּפְנִים – לָא שְׁמֵיהּ חִסָּרוֹן, וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר: סִמְפּוֹנָא נְקַט וַאֲתַאי, וּמָר סָבַר: נַקּוֹבֵי נַקֵּיב וַאֲתַאי.
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about this: That one Sage, i.e., those who deem it a tereifa, holds that a deficiency on the inside of the lung, created by the needle, is considered a deficiency, rendering the animal a tereifa; and one Sage, i.e., those who deem it kosher, holds that it is not considered a deficiency. The Gemara responds: No, everyone holds that a deficiency on the inside is not considered a deficiency. And here, in the case of a needle, the Sages disagree with regard to this: One Sage, i.e., those who deem it kosher, holds that the needle took the respiratory route and came into the lung without perforating the membrane; and one Sage, i.e., those who deem it a tereifa, holds that it perforated its way out of the digestive system and came through to the lung by perforating its membrane.
הָהִיא מַחְטָא דְּאִשְׁתְּכַח בְּחִיתּוּכָא דְּרֵיאָה, אַיְיתוּהָ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי, סְבַר לְאַכְשׁוֹרַהּ. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי זְרִיקָא: ״הָרֵיאָה שֶׁנִּיקְּבָה אוֹ שֶׁחָסְרָה״. מַאי חָסְרָה? אִילֵימָא מִבַּחוּץ – הַיְינוּ נִיקְּבָה! אֶלָּא לָאו מִבִּפְנִים, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: חִסָּרוֹן מִבִּפְנִים – שְׁמֵיהּ חִסָּרוֹן.
The Gemara relates that a certain needle was found in a piece of lung after it had been cut into pieces. People there brought it before Rabbi Ami, and he thought to deem it kosher. Rabbi Yirmeya, and some say Rabbi Zerika, raised an objection to this possible ruling from the mishna: The lung that was perforated or that was missing a piece renders the animal a tereifa. Now, what is the case of a lung that was missing a piece? If we say that it was missing a piece on the outside, this is the same as if it was perforated, since any missing piece of the lung wall constitutes a perforation. Rather, is it not referring to a missing piece on the inside? If so, learn from the mishna that a deficiency on the inside of an organ is considered a deficiency, and the needle certainly caused a deficiency inside the lung.
הֲדַר שַׁדְּרוּהָ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא, סְבַר לְאַכְשׁוֹרַהּ, אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי זְרִיקָא: ״הָרֵיאָה שֶׁנִּיקְּבָה אוֹ שֶׁחָסְרָה״. מַאי חָסְרָה? אִילֵימָא מִבַּחוּץ – הַיְינוּ נִיקְּבָה! אֶלָּא לָאו מִבִּפְנִים? וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: חִסָּרוֹן מִבִּפְנִים – שְׁמֵיהּ חִסָּרוֹן!
Rabbi Ami did not decide the matter, so they then sent the lung before Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa. He, too, thought to deem it kosher. Rabbi Yirmeya, and some say Rabbi Zerika, raised an objection to this from the mishna: The lung that was perforated or that was missing a piece renders the animal a tereifa. Now, what is the case of a lung that was missing a piece? If we say that it was missing a piece on the outside, this is the same as if it was perforated. Rather, is it not referring to a missing piece on the inside? If so, learn from the mishna that a deficiency on the inside of an organ is considered a deficiency.
הֲדַר שַׁדְּרוּהָ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי וְטַרְפַהּ. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: וְהָא רַבָּנַן מַכְשְׁרִי? אָמַר לָהֶן: הֵן הִכְשִׁירוּ, שֶׁיּוֹדְעִים מֵאֵיזֶה טַעַם הִכְשִׁירוּ, אָנוּ מֵאֵיזֶה טַעַם נַכְשִׁיר? דִּלְמָא אִי הֲוָה רֵיאָה קַמַּן מִינַּקְבָה.
They then sent the lung back before Rabbi Ami, and he deemed the animal a tereifa. They said to him: But don’t the Rabbis, i.e., Rabbi Yoḥanan, Rabbi Elazar, and Rabbi Ḥanina, deem it kosher? Rabbi Ami said to them: They deemed it kosher since they knew for which reason they deemed it kosher. They were confronted with a whole lung and could see that it had no perforation. But we, for which reason shall we deem it kosher? We see only part of the lung. Perhaps if the whole lung was before us we would see that its membrane was perforated.
טַעְמָא דְּלֵיתַהּ, הָא אִיתַהּ וְלָא מִינַּקְבָה – כְּשֵׁרָה, וְהָאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הַאי סִמְפּוֹנָא דְּרֵיאָה דְּאִינְּקִיב – טְרֵפָה, הָהוּא לַחֲבֵירוֹ אִתְּמַר.
The Gemara asks: One can infer that the reason he deemed it a tereifa is that the entire lung was not before him, but if it had been before him and the membrane had not been perforated, then he would have deemed the animal kosher. But doesn’t Rav Naḥman say: This bronchus of the lung that was perforated renders the animal a tereifa? Accordingly, even if the needle entered the lung through a bronchus the animal ought to be a tereifa. The Gemara responds: That statement of Rav Naḥman was stated in reference to a case where a needle pierced from one bronchus into another. Since the bronchi are hard, one bronchus cannot seal a perforation in another. By contrast, when a needle perforates the bronchi and continues into the flesh of the lung, soft tissue left behind can seal the perforation.
וְהָאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הַאי הֲדוֹרָא דְּכַנְתָּא דְּאִינְּקִיב לַהֲדֵי חַבְרֵיהּ – מַגֵּין עֲלֵיהּ, אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: טְרֵפוֹת קָא מְדַמֵּי לַהֲדָדֵי? אֵין אוֹמְרִין בִּטְרֵפוֹת זוֹ דּוֹמָה לָזוֹ, שֶׁהֲרֵי חוֹתְכָהּ מִכָּאן וּמֵתָה, חוֹתְכָהּ מִכָּאן וְחַיָּה!
The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rav Naḥman say: If this spiral colon was perforated against another coil of the intestine, the other coil protects it by sealing the perforation? If so, why does a bronchus not seal a perforation in another bronchus? Rav Ashi said: Are you comparing tereifot to one another? One cannot say with regard to tereifot: This is similar to that, as one cuts an animal from here, in one place, and it dies, while one cuts it from there, in another place, and it lives.
הָהִיא מַחְטָא דְּאִישְׁתְּכַח בְּסִמְפּוֹנָא רַבָּה דְּרֵיאָה, אַתְיוּהָ לְקַמֵּיה דְּרַבָּנַן טָרוֹפָאֵי, לָא אֲמַרוּ בָּהּ לָא אִיסּוּר וְלָא הֶיתֵּר. הֶיתֵּר לָא אָמְרִי בַּהּ – כִּשְׁמַעְתַּיְיהוּ, אִיסּוּר נָמֵי לָא אָמְרִי בַּהּ – כֵּיוָן דִּבְסִמְפּוֹנָא רַבָּה אִישְׁתְּכַח, אֵימָא סִמְפּוֹנָא נְקַט וַאֲתַאי.
The Gemara recounts the case of a certain needle that was found in the large, i.e., main, bronchus of the lung. They brought it before the Rabbis who deem an animal tereifa if a needle is found in the lungs, i.e., Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, Rabbi Mani bar Pattish, and Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim. They did not say that it was prohibited, nor that it was permitted. They did not say it was permitted, in accordance with their ruling, but they also did not say it was prohibited since the needle was found in the large bronchus, and one can therefore say that it likely took the respiratory route and came into the lung rather than perforating through from the digestive system.
הָהִיא מַחְטָא דְּאִישְׁתְּכַח בַּחֲתִיכָה דְּכַבְדָּא, סְבַר מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף לְמִיטְרְפַהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: אִילּוּ אִשְׁתְּכַח בְּבִשְׂרָא כְּהַאי גַוְונָא הֲוָה טָרֵיף מָר? אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: חָזֵינָא, אִי קוֹפָא לְבַר – נַקּוֹבֵי נַקֵּיב וַאֲתַאי, אִי קוֹפָא לְגָיו – סִמְפּוֹנָא נְקַט וַאֲתַאי.
§ The Gemara relates that there was a certain needle that was found in a piece of liver. Mar, son of Rav Yosef, thought to deem the animal a tereifa. Rav Ashi said to him: If a needle had been found in the flesh, like this case where it was found in the liver, would the Master have deemed it a tereifa? A perforated liver, like perforated flesh, does not in itself render the animal a tereifa, as is evident from the mishna (42a). Rather, Rav Ashi said that we see: If the eye of the needle faces outward, toward the stomach cavity, one must presume that it perforated its way out of the gullet, rendering the animal a tereifa, and thereby came to the liver. If the eye of the needle faces inward, buried in the liver, and the sharp end of the needle is facing outward, one may presume that it took hold of a blood vessel and came to the liver through it, rather than through the gullet, and the animal is kosher.
וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּאַלִּימְתָּא, אֲבָל קַטִּינְתָּא, לָא שְׁנָא קוֹפָא לְגָיו, לָא שְׁנָא קוֹפָא לְבַר, נַקּוֹבֵי נַקֵּיב וַאֲתַאי.
The Gemara adds: And this statement applies only to a thick needle, the eye of which is not sharp enough to cause a perforation by itself. But if the needle is thin, it is no different if the eye faces inward and it is no different if the eye faces outward, and one must presume that it perforated its way out of the gullet and thereby came to the liver.
וּמַאי שְׁנָא מִמַּחַט שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת
The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from that of a needle that is found
Follow
