חולין מח

חולין מח

שלפוחית שלה כשרה התליע כבד שלה זה היה מעשה ועלו עליה בני עסיא ג’ רגלים ליבנה לרגל שלישי התירוה להם:

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.

אמר רב יוסף בר מניומי אמר רב נחמן ריאה הסמוכה לדופן אין חוששין לה העלתה צמחים חוששין לה מר יהודה משמיה דאבימי אמר אחד זה ואחד זה חוששין לה

§ 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.

היכי עבדינן אמר רבא רבין בר שבא אסברה לי מייתינן סכינא דחליש פומיה ומפרקינן לה אי איכא ריעותא בדופן תלינן בתר דופן ואי לא מחמת ריאה הוא וטרפה ואע”ג דלא קא מפקא זיקא

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.

רב נחמיה בריה דרב יוסף בדיק לה בפשורי אמר ליה מר זוטרא בריה דרב הונא בריה דרב פפי לרבינא הא דרב נחמיה בריה דרב יוסף אתון אהא מתניתו לה אנן אדרבא מתנינן לה דאמר רבא הני תרתי אוני דריאה דסריכן להדדי לית להו בדיקותא לאכשורי רב נחמיה בריה דרב יוסף בדיק לה בפשורי

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.

מתקיף לה רב אשי האי מאי בשלמא הכא תלינן בדופן וכשרה אבל התם אי האי נקיב טרפה ואי האי נקיב טרפה

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.

ומי אמר רב נחמן הכי והאמר רב יוסף בר מניומי אמר רב נחמן ריאה שנקבה ודופן סותמתה כשרה לא קשיא התם במקום רביתא הכא שלא במקום רביתא

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.

והיכא מקום רביתא חיתוכי דאוני

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.

גופא אמר רב יוסף בר מניומי אמר רב נחמן ריאה שנקבה ודופן סותמתה כשרה אמר רבינא והוא דסביך בבשרא אמר ליה רב יוסף לרבינא ואי לא סביך מאי טרפה אלמא אמרינן נקובה היא אי הכי כי סביך נמי

§ 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.

דהא תניא ניקב פסול מפני שהוא שותת נסתם כשר מפני שהוא מוליד וזהו פסול שחוזר להכשירו וזהו למעוטי מאי לאו למעוטי כה”ג

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?

לא למעוטי קרום שעלה מחמת מכה בריאה דאינו קרום

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.

מתקיף לה רב עוקבא בר חמא אילו אינקיב בדופן להדה מאי טרפה ליתני נקובת הדופן

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.

וליטעמיך הא דאמר רב יצחק בר יוסף אמר רבי יוחנן מרה שניקבה וכבד סותמתה כשרה אילו אינקיב כבד להדה מאי טרפה ליתני נקובת הכבד

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.

אלא כי ניקבה דלאו מיניה מיטרפא לא קתני ה”נ כיון דלאו מיניה מיטרפא לא קתני

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.

בעא מיניה רבה בר בר חנה משמואל העלתה צמחין מהו א”ל כשרה א”ל אף אני אומר כן אלא שהתלמידים מזדנזין בדבר דאמר רב מתנא מליא מוגלא טרפה מים זכים כשרה אמר ליה ההיא בכוליא אתמר

§ 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.

רבי יצחק בר יוסף הוה קאזיל בתריה דרבי ירמיה בשוקא דטבחי חזנהו להנך דקיימין צמחי צמחי אמר ליה לא בעי מר אומצא אמר ליה לית לי פריטי אמר ליה אקפן אנא אמר ליה מה אעביד לך דכי אתו לקמיה דרבי יוחנן משדר להו לקמיה דרבי יהודה ברבי שמעון דמורי בה משמיה דרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון להיתירא וליה לא סבירא ליה

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.

אמר רבא כי הוה מסגינן בתריה דרב נחמן בשוקא

Rava said: When we would walk after Rav Naḥman in the market

דגלדאי ואמרי לה בשוקא דרבנן חזי הנך דקיימן כנדי כנדי ולא אמר להו ולא מידי

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.

רבי אמי ורבי אסי הוו חלפי בשוקא דטבריא חזי הנך דקיימי טינרי טינרי ולא אמרי להו ולא מידי:

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.

אתמר מחט שנמצאת בריאה רבי יוחנן ורבי אלעזר ורבי חנינא מכשרי רבי שמעון בן לקיש ורבי מני בר פטיש ורבי שמעון בן אליקים טרפי

§ 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.

לימא בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר חסרון מבפנים שמיה חסרון ומר סבר לא שמיה חסרון לא דכולי עלמא חסרון מבפנים לא שמיה חסרון והכא בהא קמיפלגי מר סבר סמפונא נקט ואתאי ומר סבר נקובי נקיב ואתאי

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.

ההיא מחטא דאשתכח בחיתוכא דריאה אייתוה לקמיה דרבי אמי סבר לאכשורה איתיביה רבי ירמיה ואיתימא רבי זריקא הריאה שניקבה או שחסרה מאי חסרה אילימא מבחוץ היינו ניקבה אלא לאו מבפנים וש”מ חסרון מבפנים שמיה חסרון

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.

הדר שדרוה לקמיה דרבי יצחק נפחא סבר לאכשורה איתיביה רבי ירמיה ואיתימא ר’ זריקה הריאה שניקבה או שחסרה מאי חסרה אילימא מבחוץ היינו ניקבה אלא לאו מבפנים וש”מ חסרון מבפנים שמיה חסרון

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.

הדר שדרוה לקמיה דר’ אמי וטרפה אמרי ליה והא רבנן מכשרי אמר להן הן הכשירו שיודעים מאיזה טעם הכשירו אנן מאיזה טעם נכשיר דלמא אי הוה ריאה קמן מינקבה

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.

טעמא דליתא הא איתא ולא מינקבה כשרה והאמר רב נחמן האי סמפונא דריאה דאינקיב טרפה ההוא לחבירו אתמר

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.

והאמר רב נחמן האי הדורא דכנתא דאינקיב להדי חבריה מגין עליה אמר רב אשי טרפות קא מדמי להדדי אין אומרין בטרפות זו דומה לזו שהרי חותכה מכאן ומתה חותכה מכאן וחיה

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.

ההיא מחטא דאישתכח בסמפונא רבה דריאה אתיוה לקמיה דרבנן טרופאי לא אמרו בה לא איסור ולא היתר היתר לא אמרי בה כשמעתייהו איסור נמי לא אמרי בה כיון דבסמפונא רבה אישתכח אימא סמפונא נקט ואתאי

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.

ההיא מחטא דאישתכח בחתיכה דכבדא סבר מר בריה דרב יוסף למיטרפה אמר ליה רב אשי אילו אשתכח בבשרא כה”ג הוה טריף מר אלא אמר רב אשי חזינא אי קופא לבר נקובי נקיב ואתאי אי קופא לגיו סמפונא נקט ואתאי

§ 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.

וה”מ באלימתא אבל קטינתא לא שנא קופא לגיו לא שנא קופא לבר נקובי נקיב ואתאי

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.

ומאי שנא ממחט שנמצאת

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