חולין מח

חולין מח

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