Chullin 46b — the Talmud in English

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

like a red date,

a red date—

kosher.

But here it is uncertain: if

the lower membrane was perforated

the membrane,

but the upper one was not perforated—

does

the upper membrane protect

the upper membrane

or does it not protect?

Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree about it: One said, it does not protect. And one said, it protects.

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

For Rav Yosef said: This lung that makes a noise,

which makes a sound when one blows into it,

if we know where it makes the noise,

from where it is emitting the sound,

we place

we put

a feather

a feather

or saliva

saliva

or straw

straw. And we see:

if it bubbles,

so that the feather, saliva, or straw rises when one blows into the lung, it has the status of a lung that was perforated, and it is

a tereifa. But if not—

it is kosher!

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

a bowl full of lukewarm water,

and place it

we place the entire lung

within it,

and wherever there is a perforation in it, the water will bubble out from it.

With hot water,

with hot water,

no,

we do not place it because

it contracts.

For the perforation contracts because of the heat of the water, and this is not a superior examination.

With cold water

also

not,

because

it tears.

That is, perhaps we will also be stringent 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, because the upper membrane is thin, and the cold water stretches the tissue until it hardens and tears, at the place where the perforation [in the lower membrane] is located beneath it.

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

it is a tereifa. But if 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 this, that it makes a noise,

is because

the air,

the air from the blowing that entered

between them,

between the upper and lower membranes,

is

what makes the noise.

(Red date, dry, scabs

—a mnemonic)

The matter itself. Rava said: This lung from which the upper membrane has been peeled off

so that the upper membrane was removed and it was stripped and appears

like a red date,

like a red date,

is kosher.

And Rava said: A lung whose part became red—

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,

for it returns to health; if so, even if it became red

in all of it also,

it should be made kosher, because

it will recover!?

Was it not taught

in tractate Shabbat concerning the eight creeping creatures whose skin is hard: One who wounds them on Shabbat is liable once the blood is gathered under the skin, even when it did not emerge outside.

But with regard to the other creeping creatures

small ones, if one wounded them and the blood gathered under the skin, he is not

liable until blood emerges from them.

And it is demonstrated that even though the skin became red, this is not considered an injury in soft skin. And the same applies to a lung that became red: its redness is not to be considered a perforation.

And if you would say

that this lung that became red

we compare it to the eight creeping creatures,

as it was taught concerning them:

the blood gathered

under the skin

even though it did not emerge,

he is liable because of wounding on Shabbat.

If so,

even if it became red

in part also,

let it be a tereifa, analogous to wounding part of the skin of the eight creeping creatures on Shabbat!?

And Ravina concludes:

Rather, it makes no difference

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

And Rava said: A lung part of which became dry—

it is a tereifa.

And how much

is the measure of dryness?

Rav Pappi said in the name of Rava: It is enough

for

it to crumble under a fingernail.

In accordance with whom—

in accordance with Rabbi Yosei ben Ha-Meshullam.

As it was taught: What is an ear

“

dry

” that is considered a blemish in a firstborn animal?

That if it is perforated, it does not emit a drop of blood.

Rabbi Yosei ben Ha-Meshullam says: Dry means that it crumbles under a fingernail.

And we reject this:

You may even say it is the Rabbis.

For there it is different,

with regard to the ear of a firstborn animal,

since

the wind rules over it,

the wind blows upon it; therefore

it does not recover. But a lung, over which the air does not rule—

it recovers!

And Rava said: This lung that stands in scabs, scabs,

like layers, layers—if those layers are

black, black,

black, black, or if they are

colored, colored,

hues, hues [and on condition that they are hues with which it does not become a tereifa, as will be explained below]—

it is kosher.

Ameimar said in the name of Rava: One does not compare with regard to blisters.

If there was a blister in a lung, and the blister was perforated, and it is not known whether it was perforated before slaughter or afterward [and this is speaking where the slaughterer did not handle it, so that the perforation cannot be attributed to the handling of the slaughterer’s hands], then even though they say below that it is possible to “compare” in a lung [that is, when perforations are found in a lung and we are uncertain whether the perforations were in it before slaughter or came to be after slaughter, we may take another lung and perforate it, and bring it close [compare] and match the perforations against one another; if they resemble one another, this is proof that they were perforated after slaughter], nevertheless, if there was a blister in the lung that was perforated, we do not bring another blister and perforate it in order to compare the perforations, because the appearance of the perforation in a blister changes from moment to moment, and perhaps previously the appearance of the perforation was different.

And Rava said: These two lobes that are joined to one another,

such that a membrane called a sircha is found between them, joining two of the lobes of one lung to one another,

have no examination.

Because such an adhesion is formed because of a perforation in the lung, from which a secretion emerges, and from it the membrane is formed. And even though the perforation is not visible, because the membrane covers it and seals it, we say that the sealing of a membrane is not a sealing, because in the end it will open when the membrane is torn apart.

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

that is, when the two outermost lobes became attached to one another, [illustration in the book Sihat Chullin] by means of an adhesion passing above the middle lobe between the two outermost lobes, or when the adhesion passes beneath it.

But when they are in their order—

that is their natural growth,

this is their manner. For if two lobes that are adjacent to one another became attached by means of the adhesion, each one protects the other, and it recovers.