Chullin 48b — the Talmud in English

Rava said: When we would walk after Rav Naḥman in the marketplace ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

of tanners,

shoemakers,

and some say, in the marketplace of the Sages, he would see these

lungs

standing

growths, growths, large ones,

like bowls, bowls,

bowls,

and he would say nothing to them.

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi would pass

by

in the marketplace of Tiberias. They would see these

lungs

standing

with

stones, stones,

and these were large growths, larger than “bowls, bowls,” which had already hardened like a rock,

and they would say nothing to them!

It was stated: A needle that is found in a lung,

and the lung is not perforated from the outside, and no air emerges from it—

Rabbi Yohanan, Rabbi Elazar, and Rabbi Hanina deem it fit.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, Rabbi Mani bar Pattish, and Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim deem it unfit.

And we raised the matter:

Let us say that they disagree about this: One Master holds that an inner deficiency

in the perforation by the needle in the lung

is called a deficiency, and one Master holds that it is not called a deficiency.

And we reject this:

No. Everyone holds that an inner deficiency is not called a deficiency. And here they disagree about this: One Master holds—

it entered through the bronchus and came.

We assume that it entered the bronchus of the lung through the windpipe, even though it is not the way of an animal for a needle to enter it through the windpipe. And because we do not see a perforation in the lung, one cannot attribute it to the needle having penetrated from the esophagus into the windpipe and the lung.

And one Master holds: It perforated,

for the needle first entered the esophagus, in the manner of eating, and from there it perforated the intestines and emerged, and perforated the membrane of the lung and entered it,

and came.

That needle which was found in the cut section of the lung,

after the lung had been cut into pieces.

They brought it before Rabbi Ami. He considered deeming it fit,

for he held that it entered the lung through the windpipe, and an inner deficiency is not a deficiency.

Rabbi Yirmeya—and some say Rabbi Zerika—raised an objection to him:

Behold, we learned in our Mishna among the eighteen tereifot:

“The lung that was perforated or deficient.”

And Rabbi Yirmeya infers:

What is meant by “deficient”? If we say from the outside, that is perforated?!

Rather, is it not

that it is deficient

from the inside? And learn from it: An inner deficiency is called a deficiency.

Afterward, they sent it before Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaḥa.

He considered deeming it fit.

Rabbi Yirmeya—and some say Rabbi Zerika—raised an objection to him,

from the Mishna that counts among the tereifot

“the lung that was perforated or deficient.”

What is meant by “deficient”? If we say

deficient

from the outside, that is perforated?!

Rather, is it not from the inside? And learn from it: An inner deficiency is called a deficiency.

Afterward, they sent it before Rabbi Ami, and he deemed it unfit.

They said to him: But the Sages deem it fit?!

He said to them: They deemed it fit

because

they know

they

the reason for which they deemed it fit.

They deemed fit a lung that had not yet been cut into pieces, and therefore attributed it to the needle having entered through the windpipe. But

we,

before whom the lung came when it was

cut—

for what reason should we deem it fit?

For

perhaps, if the lung had been before us, it would have been perforated.

For most things that enter the body of an animal enter through the esophagus, and if the needle entered through the esophagus into the lung, it certainly perforated the lung.

And we raised the matter:

The reason is that it is absent

from the lung in its entirety;

but

if

it is present

with the lung intact

and it was not perforated—

it is fit.

But Rav Naḥman said: This bronchus of the lung, if it is perforated—

it is unfit.

And if so, this is difficult: Why, if the needle is found in the flesh of the lung, is it fit? For even if the needle passed through the windpipe into the bronchi, now it is found in the flesh of the lung and not in the bronchi, and in order to reach from the bronchi to the flesh of the lung it perforates the bronchus on its way. And since Rav Naḥman said that a perforated bronchus is tereifa, why do we not deem it unfit when the needle is found inside the lung, because the bronchus was perforated?!

And we answer:

That

which Rav Naḥman said—that a perforated bronchus is tereifa—was stated regarding a bronchus adjacent

to its fellow.

Since it is adjacent to its fellow, its fellow does not block the perforation. But in the case of a bronchus adjacent to the flesh of the lung, the soft flesh of the lung closes the perforation in the bronchus.

But Rav Naḥman said: This hadura de-kanta,

the large intestine, which is called this because it surrounds the “kanta,” which is a mass of fat around which the large intestine is wrapped,

if it is perforated alongside its fellow,

where the intestine was perforated near another part of the intestine attached to it—behold, its fellow

protects it!

That is, we say that the other part of the intestine protects the perforated part and closes the perforation. If so, why should we not say this with regard to two bronchi adjacent to one another, that one should close the perforation of its fellow?!

Rav Ashi said:

And is it so that

we compare tereifot to one another? With regard to tereifot, one does not say—

this resembles that. For if he cuts it here, it dies.

For example, if he cuts the animal’s legs at the place of the junction of the sinews, whereas if he

cuts it here,

at a place higher than the junction of the sinews,

it lives.

That needle which was found in the large bronchus [

the large bronchus ]

of the lung. They brought it before the Sages who deem unfit,

before those Sages above, who deemed a needle found in the lung unfit.

They

the aforementioned Sages

said neither prohibition nor fitness concerning it.

And the Gemara explains:

They did not say fitness concerning it, in accordance with their teaching,

for they deemed it unfit because they were concerned that perhaps the needle entered through the esophagus.

They likewise did not say prohibition concerning it, since it was found in the large bronchus—

say: It entered through the bronchus and came.

That is, since the needle was not found embedded in the flesh of the lung but was found inside the large bronchus, it is evident that it entered through the windpipe and not through the esophagus. For if it entered through the esophagus, we would have to wonder: Who directed it in such a way that it would enter into the hollow of the large bronchus?

That needle which was found in a piece of liver.

Mar, the son of Rav Yosef, considered deeming it unfit.

Rav Ashi said to him: If it had been found in flesh in this manner,

would

the Master have deemed it unfit?!

That is, is a perforated liver tereifa? Behold, only if the entire liver is removed is it tereifa?!

Rather, Rav Ashi said: We see: If the thick end,

the thick head of the needle, is found

outward,

facing the cavity of the animal, and the sharp tip of the needle is embedded in the liver, we attribute it to the needle certainly having entered through the esophagus, and

it perforated

the intestines

and came,

and emerged from the intestines, and its sharp tip entered into the liver. Therefore it is tereifa, because of the perforation of the intestines, which is enough by any amount.

But

if the thick end

is embedded

inward,

in the liver, and its sharp tip is directed toward the cavity of the animal, we attribute it to

it entered through the bronchus and came,

for it entered through the windpipe, passed into the bronchus, and perforated it at a place where the perforation does not render it tereifa, and from there emerged and became embedded in the liver; and it is fit.

And this applies with regard to a

needle

that is thick,

which is thick and cannot perforate through its width from above.

But

with a

small

needle, which can perforate from both of its sides,

it makes no difference whether its thick end is inward or whether its thick end is outward—

it perforated

the intestines

, and came,

and it is tereifa.