Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 14, 2019 | 讞壮 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Chullin 48

Additional cases of treifot are discussed as well as several actual cases that were brought before rabbis and聽how they did, or in some cases, did not pasken.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

砖诇驻讜讞讬转 砖诇讛 讻砖专讛 讛转诇讬注 讻讘讚 砖诇讛 讝讛 讛讬讛 诪注砖讛 讜注诇讜 注诇讬讛 讘谞讬 注住讬讗 砖诇砖讛 专讙诇讬诐 诇讬讘谞讛 诇专讙诇 砖诇讬砖讬 讛转讬专讜讛 诇讛诐

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 专讬讗讛 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇讚讜驻谉 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讛 讛注诇转讛 爪诪讞讬诐 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讛 诪专 讬讛讜讚讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬诪讬 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讛

Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Na岣an 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.

讛讬讻讬 注讘讚讬谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讗 专讘讬谉 讘专 砖讘讗 讗住讘专讛 诇讬 诪讬讬转讬谞谉 住讻讬谞讗 讚讞诇讬砖 驻讜诪讬讛 讜诪驻专拽讬谞谉 诇讛 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 专讬注讜转讗 讘讚讜驻谉 转诇讬谞谉 讘转专 讚讜驻谉 讜讗讬 诇讗 诪讞诪转 专讬讗讛 讛讬讗 讜讟专驻讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 拽讗 诪驻拽讗 讝讬拽讗

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.

专讘 谞讞诪讬讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讚讬拽 诇讛 讘驻砖讜专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讛讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪讬讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗转讜谉 讗讛讗 诪转谞讬转讜 诇讛 讗谞谉 讗讚专讘讗 诪转谞讬谞谉 诇讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛谞讬 转专转讬 讗讜谞讬 讚专讬讗讛 讚住专讬讻谉 诇讛讚讚讬 诇讬转 诇讛讜 讘讚讬拽讜转讗 诇讗讻砖讜专讬 专讘 谞讞诪讬讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讚讬拽 诇讛 讘驻砖讜专讬

The Gemara relates that Rav Ne岣mya, 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 Ne岣mya, 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 Ne岣mya, son of Rav Yosef, examined such a lung by inflating it in tepid water. If no bubbles appeared he would deem the lung kosher.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讘砖诇诪讗 讛讻讗 转诇讬谞谉 讘讚讜驻谉 讜讻砖专讛 讗讘诇 讛转诐 讗讬 讛讗讬 谞拽讬讘 讟专驻讛 讜讗讬 讛讗讬 谞拽讬讘 讟专驻讛

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.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 专讬讗讛 砖谞拽讘讛 讜讚讜驻谉 住讜转诪转讛 讻砖专讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛转诐 讘诪拽讜诐 专讘讬转讗 讛讻讗 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 专讘讬转讗

Rav Na岣an 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 Na岣an really say this? But doesn鈥檛 Rav Yosef bar Minyumi say that Rav Na岣an 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 Na岣an 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 Na岣an is referring to a lung attached to the chest wall not in the place that it grows.

讜讛讬讻讗 诪拽讜诐 专讘讬转讗 讞讬转讜讻讬 讚讗讜谞讬

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.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 专讬讗讛 砖谞拽讘讛 讜讚讜驻谉 住讜转诪转讛 讻砖专讛 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讜讛讜讗 讚住讘讬讱 讘讘砖专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇专讘讬谞讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 住讘讬讱 诪讗讬 讟专驻讛 讗诇诪讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 谞拽讜讘讛 讛讬讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讻讬 住讘讬讱 谞诪讬

搂 Since the Gemara cited the statement of Rav Na岣an, the Gemara turns to the matter itself: Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Na岣an 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.

讚讛讗 转谞讬讗 谞讬拽讘 驻住讜诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 砖讜转转 谞住转诐 讻砖专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪讜诇讬讚 讜讝讛讜 驻住讜诇 砖讞讜讝专 诇讛讻砖讬专讜 讜讝讛讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 讻讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗

As isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If a man鈥檚 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: 鈥淗e that is crushed or maimed in his private parts shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord鈥 (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?

诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 拽专讜诐 砖注诇讛 诪讞诪转 诪讻讛 讘专讬讗讛 讚讗讬谞讜 拽专讜诐

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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 讗讬诇讜 讗讬谞拽讬讘 讘讚讜驻谉 诇讛讚讛 诪讗讬 讟专驻讛 诇讬转谞讬 谞拽讜讘转 讛讚讜驻谉

Rav Ukva bar 岣ma objects to the ruling of Rav Na岣an 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.

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪专讛 砖谞讬拽讘讛 讜讻讘讚 住讜转诪转讛 讻砖专讛 讗讬诇讜 讗讬谞拽讬讘 讻讘讚 诇讛讚讛 诪讗讬 讟专驻讛 诇讬转谞讬 谞拽讜讘转 讛讻讘讚

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 Yitz岣k bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诇讗 讻讬 谞讬拽讘讛 讚诇讗讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讬讟专驻讗 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讬讟专驻讗 诇讗 拽转谞讬

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.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 诪砖诪讜讗诇 讛注诇转讛 爪诪讞讬谉 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻砖专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讻谉 讗诇讗 砖讛转诇诪讬讚讬诐 诪讝讚谞讝讬谉 讘讚讘专 讚讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讗 诪诇讬讗 诪讜讙诇讗 讟专驻讛 诪讬诐 讝讻讬诐 讻砖专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讬讗 讘讻讜诇讬讗 讗转诪专

Rabba bar bar 岣na 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 岣na 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.

专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讛讜讛 拽讗讝讬诇 讘转专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘砖讜拽讗 讚讟讘讞讬 讞讝谞讛讜 诇讛谞讱 讚拽讬讬诪讬谉 爪诪讞讬 爪诪讞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讘注讬 诪专 讗讜诪爪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬转 诇讬 驻专讬讟讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗拽驻谉 讗谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛 讗注讘讬讚 诇讱 讚讻讬 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讚专 诇讛讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚诪讜专讬 讘讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讛讬转讬专讗 讜诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Yosef was walking after Rabbi Yirmeya in the butchers鈥 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鈥檛 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 Yitz岣k 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 Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan himself does not hold accordingly, and does not permit the meat. I practice stringency in accordance with his opinion.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讬 讛讜讛 诪住讙讬谞谉 讘转专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘砖讜拽讗

Rava said: When we would walk after Rav Na岣an in the market

讚讙诇讚讗讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讘砖讜拽讗 讚专讘谞谉 讞讝讬 讛谞讱 讚拽讬讬诪谉 讻谞讚讬 讻谞讚讬 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬

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.

专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讛讜讜 讞诇驻讬 讘砖讜拽讗 讚讟讘专讬讗 讞讝讬 讛谞讱 讚拽讬讬诪讬 讟讬谞专讬 讟讬谞专讬 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬

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.

讗转诪专 诪讞讟 砖谞诪爪讗转 讘专讬讗讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讻砖专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讜专讘讬 诪谞讬 讘专 驻讟讬砖 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇讬拽讬诐 讟专驻讬

搂 It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagree with regard to a needle that was found in the lung of a slaughtered animal: Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi 岣nina deem the animal kosher, while Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish and Rabbi Mani bar Pattish and Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim deem it a tereifa.

诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讞住专讜谉 诪讘驻谞讬诐 砖诪讬讛 讞住专讜谉 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讞住专讜谉 诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讞住专讜谉 诪讘驻谞讬诐 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讞住专讜谉 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 住诪驻讜谞讗 谞拽讟 讜讗转讗讬 讜诪专 住讘专 谞拽讜讘讬 谞拽讬讘 讜讗转讗讬

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.

讛讛讬讗 诪讞讟讗 讚讗砖转讻讞 讘讞讬转讜讻讗 讚专讬讗讛 讗讬讬转讜讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 住讘专 诇讗讻砖讜专讛 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讝专讬拽讗 讛专讬讗讛 砖谞讬拽讘讛 讗讜 砖讞住专讛 诪讗讬 讞住专讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讘讞讜抓 讛讬讬谞讜 谞讬拽讘讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讞住专讜谉 诪讘驻谞讬诐 砖诪讬讛 讞住专讜谉

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.

讛讚专 砖讚专讜讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 住讘专 诇讗讻砖讜专讛 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讝专讬拽讗 讛专讬讗讛 砖谞讬拽讘讛 讗讜 砖讞住专讛 诪讗讬 讞住专讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讘讞讜抓 讛讬讬谞讜 谞讬拽讘讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讞住专讜谉 诪讘驻谞讬诐 砖诪讬讛 讞住专讜谉

Rabbi Ami did not decide the matter, so they then sent the lung before Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣. 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.

讛讚专 砖讚专讜讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜讟专驻讛 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉 诪讻砖专讬 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讛谉 讛讻砖讬专讜 砖讬讜讚注讬诐 诪讗讬讝讛 讟注诐 讛讻砖讬专讜 讗谞谉 诪讗讬讝讛 讟注诐 谞讻砖讬专 讚诇诪讗 讗讬 讛讜讛 专讬讗讛 拽诪谉 诪讬谞拽讘讛

They then sent the lung back before Rabbi Ami, and he deemed the animal a tereifa. They said to him: But don鈥檛 the Rabbis, i.e., Rabbi Yo岣nan, Rabbi Elazar, and Rabbi 岣nina, 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.

讟注诪讗 讚诇讬转讗 讛讗 讗讬转讗 讜诇讗 诪讬谞拽讘讛 讻砖专讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗讬 住诪驻讜谞讗 讚专讬讗讛 讚讗讬谞拽讬讘 讟专驻讛 讛讛讜讗 诇讞讘讬专讜 讗转诪专

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鈥檛 Rav Na岣an 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 Na岣an 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.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗讬 讛讚讜专讗 讚讻谞转讗 讚讗讬谞拽讬讘 诇讛讚讬 讞讘专讬讛 诪讙讬谉 注诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讟专驻讜转 拽讗 诪讚诪讬 诇讛讚讚讬 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬谉 讘讟专驻讜转 讝讜 讚讜诪讛 诇讝讜 砖讛专讬 讞讜转讻讛 诪讻讗谉 讜诪转讛 讞讜转讻讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讞讬讛

The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an 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.

讛讛讬讗 诪讞讟讗 讚讗讬砖转讻讞 讘住诪驻讜谞讗 专讘讛 讚专讬讗讛 讗转讬讜讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘谞谉 讟专讜驻讗讬 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讘讛 诇讗 讗讬住讜专 讜诇讗 讛讬转专 讛讬转专 诇讗 讗诪专讬 讘讛 讻砖诪注转讬讬讛讜 讗讬住讜专 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬 讘讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讘住诪驻讜谞讗 专讘讛 讗讬砖转讻讞 讗讬诪讗 住诪驻讜谞讗 谞拽讟 讜讗转讗讬

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.

讛讛讬讗 诪讞讟讗 讚讗讬砖转讻讞 讘讞转讬讻讛 讚讻讘讚讗 住讘专 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诇诪讬讟专驻讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬诇讜 讗砖转讻讞 讘讘砖专讗 讻讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讛讜讛 讟专讬祝 诪专 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讞讝讬谞讗 讗讬 拽讜驻讗 诇讘专 谞拽讜讘讬 谞拽讬讘 讜讗转讗讬 讗讬 拽讜驻讗 诇讙讬讜 住诪驻讜谞讗 谞拽讟 讜讗转讗讬

搂 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.

讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讗诇讬诪转讗 讗讘诇 拽讟讬谞转讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 拽讜驻讗 诇讙讬讜 诇讗 砖谞讗 拽讜驻讗 诇讘专 谞拽讜讘讬 谞拽讬讘 讜讗转讗讬

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.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪诪讞讟 砖谞诪爪讗转

The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from that of a needle that is found

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 48

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 48

砖诇驻讜讞讬转 砖诇讛 讻砖专讛 讛转诇讬注 讻讘讚 砖诇讛 讝讛 讛讬讛 诪注砖讛 讜注诇讜 注诇讬讛 讘谞讬 注住讬讗 砖诇砖讛 专讙诇讬诐 诇讬讘谞讛 诇专讙诇 砖诇讬砖讬 讛转讬专讜讛 诇讛诐

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 专讬讗讛 讛住诪讜讻讛 诇讚讜驻谉 讗讬谉 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讛 讛注诇转讛 爪诪讞讬诐 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讛 诪专 讬讛讜讚讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬诪讬 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 讞讜砖砖讬谉 诇讛

Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Na岣an 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.

讛讬讻讬 注讘讚讬谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讗 专讘讬谉 讘专 砖讘讗 讗住讘专讛 诇讬 诪讬讬转讬谞谉 住讻讬谞讗 讚讞诇讬砖 驻讜诪讬讛 讜诪驻专拽讬谞谉 诇讛 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 专讬注讜转讗 讘讚讜驻谉 转诇讬谞谉 讘转专 讚讜驻谉 讜讗讬 诇讗 诪讞诪转 专讬讗讛 讛讬讗 讜讟专驻讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 拽讗 诪驻拽讗 讝讬拽讗

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.

专讘 谞讞诪讬讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讚讬拽 诇讛 讘驻砖讜专讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讛讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪讬讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗转讜谉 讗讛讗 诪转谞讬转讜 诇讛 讗谞谉 讗讚专讘讗 诪转谞讬谞谉 诇讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛谞讬 转专转讬 讗讜谞讬 讚专讬讗讛 讚住专讬讻谉 诇讛讚讚讬 诇讬转 诇讛讜 讘讚讬拽讜转讗 诇讗讻砖讜专讬 专讘 谞讞诪讬讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讚讬拽 诇讛 讘驻砖讜专讬

The Gemara relates that Rav Ne岣mya, 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 Ne岣mya, 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 Ne岣mya, son of Rav Yosef, examined such a lung by inflating it in tepid water. If no bubbles appeared he would deem the lung kosher.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讘砖诇诪讗 讛讻讗 转诇讬谞谉 讘讚讜驻谉 讜讻砖专讛 讗讘诇 讛转诐 讗讬 讛讗讬 谞拽讬讘 讟专驻讛 讜讗讬 讛讗讬 谞拽讬讘 讟专驻讛

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.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 专讬讗讛 砖谞拽讘讛 讜讚讜驻谉 住讜转诪转讛 讻砖专讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛转诐 讘诪拽讜诐 专讘讬转讗 讛讻讗 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 专讘讬转讗

Rav Na岣an 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 Na岣an really say this? But doesn鈥檛 Rav Yosef bar Minyumi say that Rav Na岣an 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 Na岣an 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 Na岣an is referring to a lung attached to the chest wall not in the place that it grows.

讜讛讬讻讗 诪拽讜诐 专讘讬转讗 讞讬转讜讻讬 讚讗讜谞讬

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.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 专讬讗讛 砖谞拽讘讛 讜讚讜驻谉 住讜转诪转讛 讻砖专讛 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讜讛讜讗 讚住讘讬讱 讘讘砖专讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇专讘讬谞讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 住讘讬讱 诪讗讬 讟专驻讛 讗诇诪讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 谞拽讜讘讛 讛讬讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讻讬 住讘讬讱 谞诪讬

搂 Since the Gemara cited the statement of Rav Na岣an, the Gemara turns to the matter itself: Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Na岣an 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.

讚讛讗 转谞讬讗 谞讬拽讘 驻住讜诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 砖讜转转 谞住转诐 讻砖专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪讜诇讬讚 讜讝讛讜 驻住讜诇 砖讞讜讝专 诇讛讻砖讬专讜 讜讝讛讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 讻讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗

As isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If a man鈥檚 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: 鈥淗e that is crushed or maimed in his private parts shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord鈥 (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?

诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 拽专讜诐 砖注诇讛 诪讞诪转 诪讻讛 讘专讬讗讛 讚讗讬谞讜 拽专讜诐

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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 讗讬诇讜 讗讬谞拽讬讘 讘讚讜驻谉 诇讛讚讛 诪讗讬 讟专驻讛 诇讬转谞讬 谞拽讜讘转 讛讚讜驻谉

Rav Ukva bar 岣ma objects to the ruling of Rav Na岣an 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.

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪专讛 砖谞讬拽讘讛 讜讻讘讚 住讜转诪转讛 讻砖专讛 讗讬诇讜 讗讬谞拽讬讘 讻讘讚 诇讛讚讛 诪讗讬 讟专驻讛 诇讬转谞讬 谞拽讜讘转 讛讻讘讚

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 Yitz岣k bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诇讗 讻讬 谞讬拽讘讛 讚诇讗讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讬讟专驻讗 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讬讟专驻讗 诇讗 拽转谞讬

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.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 诪砖诪讜讗诇 讛注诇转讛 爪诪讞讬谉 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻砖专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讻谉 讗诇讗 砖讛转诇诪讬讚讬诐 诪讝讚谞讝讬谉 讘讚讘专 讚讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讗 诪诇讬讗 诪讜讙诇讗 讟专驻讛 诪讬诐 讝讻讬诐 讻砖专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讬讗 讘讻讜诇讬讗 讗转诪专

Rabba bar bar 岣na 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 岣na 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.

专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讛讜讛 拽讗讝讬诇 讘转专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘砖讜拽讗 讚讟讘讞讬 讞讝谞讛讜 诇讛谞讱 讚拽讬讬诪讬谉 爪诪讞讬 爪诪讞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讘注讬 诪专 讗讜诪爪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬转 诇讬 驻专讬讟讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗拽驻谉 讗谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛 讗注讘讬讚 诇讱 讚讻讬 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讚专 诇讛讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚诪讜专讬 讘讛 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讛讬转讬专讗 讜诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yitz岣k bar Yosef was walking after Rabbi Yirmeya in the butchers鈥 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鈥檛 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 Yitz岣k 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 Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan himself does not hold accordingly, and does not permit the meat. I practice stringency in accordance with his opinion.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讬 讛讜讛 诪住讙讬谞谉 讘转专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘砖讜拽讗

Rava said: When we would walk after Rav Na岣an in the market

讚讙诇讚讗讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讘砖讜拽讗 讚专讘谞谉 讞讝讬 讛谞讱 讚拽讬讬诪谉 讻谞讚讬 讻谞讚讬 讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬

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.

专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讛讜讜 讞诇驻讬 讘砖讜拽讗 讚讟讘专讬讗 讞讝讬 讛谞讱 讚拽讬讬诪讬 讟讬谞专讬 讟讬谞专讬 讜诇讗 讗诪专讬 诇讛讜 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬

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.

讗转诪专 诪讞讟 砖谞诪爪讗转 讘专讬讗讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讻砖专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讜专讘讬 诪谞讬 讘专 驻讟讬砖 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇讬拽讬诐 讟专驻讬

搂 It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagree with regard to a needle that was found in the lung of a slaughtered animal: Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi 岣nina deem the animal kosher, while Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish and Rabbi Mani bar Pattish and Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim deem it a tereifa.

诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讞住专讜谉 诪讘驻谞讬诐 砖诪讬讛 讞住专讜谉 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讞住专讜谉 诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讞住专讜谉 诪讘驻谞讬诐 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讞住专讜谉 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 住诪驻讜谞讗 谞拽讟 讜讗转讗讬 讜诪专 住讘专 谞拽讜讘讬 谞拽讬讘 讜讗转讗讬

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.

讛讛讬讗 诪讞讟讗 讚讗砖转讻讞 讘讞讬转讜讻讗 讚专讬讗讛 讗讬讬转讜讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 住讘专 诇讗讻砖讜专讛 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讝专讬拽讗 讛专讬讗讛 砖谞讬拽讘讛 讗讜 砖讞住专讛 诪讗讬 讞住专讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讘讞讜抓 讛讬讬谞讜 谞讬拽讘讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讞住专讜谉 诪讘驻谞讬诐 砖诪讬讛 讞住专讜谉

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.

讛讚专 砖讚专讜讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 住讘专 诇讗讻砖讜专讛 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讝专讬拽讗 讛专讬讗讛 砖谞讬拽讘讛 讗讜 砖讞住专讛 诪讗讬 讞住专讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讘讞讜抓 讛讬讬谞讜 谞讬拽讘讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讞住专讜谉 诪讘驻谞讬诐 砖诪讬讛 讞住专讜谉

Rabbi Ami did not decide the matter, so they then sent the lung before Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣. 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.

讛讚专 砖讚专讜讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜讟专驻讛 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉 诪讻砖专讬 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讛谉 讛讻砖讬专讜 砖讬讜讚注讬诐 诪讗讬讝讛 讟注诐 讛讻砖讬专讜 讗谞谉 诪讗讬讝讛 讟注诐 谞讻砖讬专 讚诇诪讗 讗讬 讛讜讛 专讬讗讛 拽诪谉 诪讬谞拽讘讛

They then sent the lung back before Rabbi Ami, and he deemed the animal a tereifa. They said to him: But don鈥檛 the Rabbis, i.e., Rabbi Yo岣nan, Rabbi Elazar, and Rabbi 岣nina, 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.

讟注诪讗 讚诇讬转讗 讛讗 讗讬转讗 讜诇讗 诪讬谞拽讘讛 讻砖专讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗讬 住诪驻讜谞讗 讚专讬讗讛 讚讗讬谞拽讬讘 讟专驻讛 讛讛讜讗 诇讞讘讬专讜 讗转诪专

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鈥檛 Rav Na岣an 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 Na岣an 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.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗讬 讛讚讜专讗 讚讻谞转讗 讚讗讬谞拽讬讘 诇讛讚讬 讞讘专讬讛 诪讙讬谉 注诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讟专驻讜转 拽讗 诪讚诪讬 诇讛讚讚讬 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬谉 讘讟专驻讜转 讝讜 讚讜诪讛 诇讝讜 砖讛专讬 讞讜转讻讛 诪讻讗谉 讜诪转讛 讞讜转讻讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讞讬讛

The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an 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.

讛讛讬讗 诪讞讟讗 讚讗讬砖转讻讞 讘住诪驻讜谞讗 专讘讛 讚专讬讗讛 讗转讬讜讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘谞谉 讟专讜驻讗讬 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讘讛 诇讗 讗讬住讜专 讜诇讗 讛讬转专 讛讬转专 诇讗 讗诪专讬 讘讛 讻砖诪注转讬讬讛讜 讗讬住讜专 谞诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬 讘讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讘住诪驻讜谞讗 专讘讛 讗讬砖转讻讞 讗讬诪讗 住诪驻讜谞讗 谞拽讟 讜讗转讗讬

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.

讛讛讬讗 诪讞讟讗 讚讗讬砖转讻讞 讘讞转讬讻讛 讚讻讘讚讗 住讘专 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诇诪讬讟专驻讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬诇讜 讗砖转讻讞 讘讘砖专讗 讻讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讛讜讛 讟专讬祝 诪专 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讞讝讬谞讗 讗讬 拽讜驻讗 诇讘专 谞拽讜讘讬 谞拽讬讘 讜讗转讗讬 讗讬 拽讜驻讗 诇讙讬讜 住诪驻讜谞讗 谞拽讟 讜讗转讗讬

搂 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.

讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讗诇讬诪转讗 讗讘诇 拽讟讬谞转讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 拽讜驻讗 诇讙讬讜 诇讗 砖谞讗 拽讜驻讗 诇讘专 谞拽讜讘讬 谞拽讬讘 讜讗转讗讬

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.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪诪讞讟 砖谞诪爪讗转

The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from that of a needle that is found

Scroll To Top