Chullin 46b (מו:) — the Talmud in English

And the lung remained with the lower red membrane, which is

like a red date—

a red date—

it is kosher.

However, this matter is uncertain: if

the lower membrane was perforated, while

the upper membrane

was not perforated—

does

the upper membrane protect

the lower membrane

or does it not protect it?

Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree about this: One says: It does not protect it. And one says: It protects it.

And the halakha is: It protects it, in accordance with the ruling of Rav Yosef.

As Rav Yosef said: In the case of this lung that makes a sound,

when it produces a sound when one inflates it,

if we know where it makes the sound,

from which place it is producing the sound,

we place

we set down

a feather

a feather

or saliva

saliva

or straw

straw. And we observe:

If it bubbles,

meaning that the feather, saliva, or straw rises when the lung is inflated, then it has the status of a lung that was perforated, and it is

a tereifa. But if it does not—

it is kosher!

And if we do not know where it makes the sound, we bring a vessel of lukewarm water,

a bowl filled with lukewarm water,

and place it

we place the entire lung

inside it,

and wherever there is a perforation, the water will bubble through it.

In hot water,

in hot water,

no,

we do not place it there because

the perforations contract.

The perforation contracts because of the heat of the water, and this is not a reliable examination.

In cold water

also

no,

because

they become torn.

That is, perhaps we will also be stringent in a case where the perforation is only in the lower membrane and not in the upper one. For the cold water causes the upper membrane to tear above the perforation in the lower membrane, since the upper membrane is thin; the cold water stretches the tissue until it hardens and tears at the place where the perforation [in the lower membrane] lies beneath it.

Rather, we place it in lukewarm water and inflate it. If it bubbles—

it is a tereifa. But if it does not—

it is kosher!

For from the fact that it did not bubble, we have proof that

only the lower membrane

alone

was perforated, whereas

the

upper membrane was not perforated. And the fact that it makes a sound

is because

air,

the air from the inflation that entered

between them,

between the upper and lower membranes,

is what

produces the sound.

“These, red, dry, scaly

—a mnemonic.”

The essential matter. Rava said: In the case of this lung whose upper membrane was peeled away,

meaning that the upper membrane was removed and the lung was stripped and appeared

like a red date,

like a red date,

it is kosher.

And Rava said: A lung whose part became red—

it is kosher. If all of it became red—

it is a tereifa!

Ravina said to Rava:

If it became red

in part, for what reason

is it kosher? It is because

it will recover,

since it will return to health. If so, even if

all of it as well

should be deemed kosher, because

it will recover!?

Was it not taught

in tractate Shabbat, with regard to the eight creeping animals whose skin is hard, that one who wounds them on Shabbat is liable once the blood has pooled beneath the skin, even if it did not emerge?

But with regard to other creeping animals and reptiles,

small ones, if one wounds them and the blood pools beneath the skin, he is not

liable until blood emerges from them.

And it is demonstrated that although the skin became red, this is not considered an injury in the case of soft skin. The same applies to a lung that became red: its redness should not be considered equivalent to a perforation.

And if you would say

that the lung that became red

is compared to the eight creeping animals,

as it was taught with regard to them that if

the blood pools

beneath the skin,

even though it did not emerge,

one is liable for wounding on Shabbat,

if so,

even if it became red

in part as well,

it should be a tereifa, analogous to wounding part of the skin of one of the eight creeping animals on Shabbat!?

Ravina concludes:

Rather, it makes no difference

whether the entire lung became red or whether only part of it became red: it is kosher because it will recover.

And Rava said: A lung whose part has dried out—

it is a tereifa.

And how much

is the measure of dryness?

Rav Pappi said in the name of Rava:

To the extent

that it crumbles beneath a fingernail.

In accordance with whom—

in accordance with Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam.

As it was taught:

What is an ear that is

“dry,”

which is considered a blemish in a firstborn animal?

If it is pierced and does not emit a drop of blood.

Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam says: It is dry to the extent that it crumbles beneath a fingernail.

And we reject this proof:

You may even say that it is in accordance with the Rabbis.

For there is a difference there,

with regard to the ear of a firstborn,

since

the wind acts upon it,

as the wind blows upon it; therefore

it will not recover. But in the case of a lung, upon which the air does not act—

it will recover!

And Rava said: In the case of this lung that stands in layers,

like successive shells—if those layers are

black layers,

black layers, or if they are

layers of different shades,

shades of different colors [provided that they are shades that do not render the lung a tereifa, as will be explained below]—

it is kosher.

Ameimar said in the name of Rava: One may not compare perforations in blisters.

In the case of a lung that contained a blister, and the blister was perforated, and it is unknown whether it was perforated before slaughter or afterward [and this is referring to a case in which the slaughterer did not examine it by touch, so the perforation cannot be attributed to the slaughterer’s handling], although it is stated below that one can “compare” perforations in a lung [that is, when perforations are found in a lung and we are uncertain whether they were present before slaughter or developed afterward, we may take another lung and perforate it, then bring the perforations close together and compare them; if they are similar, this is evidence that the perforations developed after slaughter], nevertheless, when there was a blister in the lung that became perforated, one does not bring another blister and perforate it in order to compare the perforations, because the appearance of a perforation in a blister changes from moment to moment, and perhaps previously the perforation had a different appearance.

And Rava said: With regard to these two lobes that are attached to one another,

meaning that a membrane called a sircha was found between them, joining two lobes of one lung to each other,

there is no examination for them.

Because such an attachment is formed by a perforation in the lung, from which fluid emerges and forms the membrane. And although the perforation is not visible because the membrane covers and seals it, we say that a seal formed by a membrane is not considered a seal, since it will eventually open when the membrane is removed.

And we said this only when they are not arranged in their proper order,

meaning that the two outermost lobes became attached to each other [by means of a sircha passing above the middle lobe between the two outermost lobes, or with the sircha passing beneath it].

But when they are arranged in their proper order—

this is their natural state,

this is their normal manner. For if two adjacent lobes become attached to each other by means of the sircha, each protects the other, and it will recover.