Chullin 48a — the Talmud in English

Was removed ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

the bladder

of the mother

belonging to it,

in which the offspring is placed—

it is kosher.

Her liver became worm-eaten; this was an incident, and the people of Asia went up concerning it for three pilgrimage festivals to Yavneh.

And they deliberated concerning the matter, and during the first two pilgrimage festivals they did not say anything to them.

For the third pilgrimage festival,

the Sages took a count, and those who permitted were the majority, and then

they permitted it to them.

Rav Yosef bar Minyomi said that Rav Nahman said: A lung that is adjacent

that is attached

to the wall, we are not concerned about it

lest it was perforated; rather, we attribute it to having become attached to the wall because of a wound that was in the wall, and when the wound healed, it attached the lung to the wall.

But if

the lung raised

the lung

growths

around its attachment to the wall [wounds or blisters],

we are concerned about it,

and we attribute the wound to the lung.

Mar Yehuda said in the name of Avimi: In both this case and that case—

we are concerned about it.

How do we act,

how do they examine the lung that became attached?

Rava said: Ravin bar Sheva explained it to me

how they examine it:

We bring a knife whose edge is thin,

whose edge is sharp,

and we separate it

the lung from the wall of the animal to which it became attached. And we see:

if there is a defect in the wall, we attribute it to the wall,

and it is kosher.

And if not,

if they do not find a defect in the wall, we attribute it

to the lung, and it is terefa.

Rav Nehemiah, son of Rav Yosef, examined it,

after they separated the lung and found that the wound was in the wall,

with lukewarm water,

by inflating the lung inside a bowl of water, and if it bubbles, that is a sign that it was perforated, and it is terefa.

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Huna, son of Rav Pappi, said to Ravina: This teaching of Rav Nehemiah, son of Rav Yosef—you, you teach it concerning this.

But

we, on the contrary, teach it concerning the following.

For Rava said: These two lobes of the lung that are attached to one another,

by a membrane that grew between them,

have no examination by which to render them kosher.

Rav Nehemiah, son of Rav Yosef, examined it,

the two lobes that became attached to one another,

with lukewarm water.

Rav Ashi objected to this: This

examination with lukewarm water concerning attached lobes—

what

is it?!

Granted, here,

when the lung became attached to the wall, there is room for an examination, for if it does not bubble,

we attribute

the wound

to the wall,

and we do not say that the lung was perforated and became sealed,

and it is kosher.

But there,

what is the reason for an examination? For this attachment is a membrane that grew because of a wound and became sealed, and what difference does it make to us in which lobe it was perforated and became sealed?! For

if this one was perforated, it is terefa, and if that one was perforated, it is terefa.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

And did Rav Nahman say this,

that only if it raised growths are we concerned about it, and from this you learn that if it is obvious that the lung was perforated, a sealing does not benefit it?!

But Rav Yosef bar Minyomi said that Rav Nahman said: A lung that was perforated, and the wall seals it—

it is kosher?!

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

There,

where Rav Nahman said that if the wall seals it, the sealing is effective, he was speaking

in a place of growth,

namely, in a place where the lung and the wall grow together, adjacent to one another; for that attachment that grew between them never comes apart, and the perforation is thoroughly sealed, and therefore it is kosher.

Here,

where Rav Nahman is concerned, it is in a case where the attachment grew

not in a place of growth,

above, across the width of the cavity, opposite the large lobe, where the lung is distant from the wall, and there is concern that the sealing will come apart.

And where

is

the place of growth?

In the place of

the cuts of the lobes,

which is adjacent to the neck.

The body of the matter: Rav Yosef bar Minyomi said that Rav Nahman said: A lung that was perforated, and the wall seals it—

it is kosher.

Ravina said: And that is when it is entangled in flesh.

For the lung becomes entangled and grasped in the flesh between the two ribs, which is a strong sealing that does not come apart; but if the lung became attached to the ribs themselves, this is not a lasting attachment.

Rav Yosef said to Ravina: And if it is not entangled

in flesh,

what

would it be?

It is terefa. Thus, we say—

trefa. Thus, we say—

It is perforated.

If so, when it is likewise entangled

in flesh, its sealing should also not be effective.

For it was taught in a beraita: If

a man's organ was perforated,

that man is disqualified

from entering the congregation because of a severed organ,

because it drips,

for his semen does not shoot like an arrow, but drips, and is not fit to produce offspring.

If it became sealed,

the organ—

he is fit

to enter the congregation

because he produces offspring. And this is a disqualification that returns to render him fit!

And Rav Yosef infers:

“And this”—what does it exclude? Is it not to exclude a case such as this,

that if the lung was perforated, the sealing will not be effective to render it kosher, even if the sealing was in flesh, analogous to the organ?! Ravina said to him:

No! It excludes a membrane that grew because of a wound, in a lung, for it is not a membrane.

But the sealing of the wall in flesh is a proper sealing.

Rav Ukva bar Hama objected to this: If the wall itself were perforated along with it,

opposite the perforation in the lung,

what would it be? It would be terefa.

Because from now the sealing of the lung has been nullified.

If so,

let him teach

in the Mishna

“A perforated wall”?!

And we answer:

And according to your reasoning, this that Rav Yitzhak bar Yosef said that Rabbi Yohanan said: A gallbladder that was perforated, and the liver seals it, is kosher.

Behold,

if the liver were perforated along with the gallbladder, what would it be?

Behold, it is

terefa.

And if so

, let him teach

in the Mishna

“A perforated liver”?!

Rather,

what can you say?—

when it was perforated

with a perforation

by which it does not become terefa, he does not teach it.

For once the liver is perforated, it does not render [the animal] terefa by its perforation; rather, it is terefa because the sealing of the gallbladder was nullified when the liver was perforated. And if so, with regard to a perforated wall,

here too, since it does not become terefa through it,

but through the nullification of the sealing of the lung’s perforation, therefore

he does not teach it.

Rabba bar bar Hana asked Shmuel: If it raised

the lung adjacent to the wall

growths—

what is the law?

He said to him: It is kosher.

He said to him: I too say so! But the students stammer

stammer

concerning the matter. For Rav Mattana said: A lung

that is

full of pus

that is, growths—

it is terefa. Clear water—

it is kosher. He said to him,

Shmuel:

that—

was said concerning a kidney,

in a kidney

it was stated.

Rabbi Yitzhak bar Yosef was walking after Rabbi Yirmeya in the market of the slaughterers. He saw those lungs that stood with growth after growth.

Rabbi Yitzhak said to Rabbi Yirmeya:

Does the Master not want a piece of meat?!

For he wanted to know whether he would declare it kosher.

Rabbi Yirmeya said to him:

Rabbi Yirmeya:

I do not have small coins!

Rabbi Yirmeya evaded answering his question.

Rabbi Yitzhak said to him:

Rabbi Yitzḥak

I will have them surround me!

So that the slaughterers would extend credit to me, for they rely on me.

Rabbi Yirmeya said to him:

Rabbi Yirmeya:

What can I do for you? For when they come before Rabbi Yohanan

to ask concerning lungs that raised growths,

he sends them before Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon, who rules concerning it in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, to permit it. But he himself,

Rabbi Yohanan himself,

does not hold this opinion.

For he would not declare them kosher, but he also would not declare them terefa, because he had not heard this from his teacher.