Chullin 48b (מח:) — the Talmud in English

Rava said: When we would walk behind Rav Naḥman in the marketplace

of tanners,

shoemakers,

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

lungs

standing

with growths, growths, large ones,

like kandei kandei,

rounded growths,

and he would say nothing to them.

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi were passing

by

in the marketplace of Tiberias. They saw these

lungs

that had

in them

growths, growths,

that is, large growths like kandei kandei, which had already hardened like a rock,

and they said nothing to them!

It was stated: In the case of a needle found in a lung,

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

Rabbi Yoḥanan, Rabbi Elazar, and Rabbi Ḥanina deem it permitted.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, Rabbi Mani bar Patis, and Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim deem it forbidden.

We raised a difficulty concerning this:

Shall we say that this is the issue over which they disagree: One Sage holds that an internal deficiency

caused by the needle’s perforating the lung

is called a deficiency, while the other Sage holds that it is not called a deficiency.

We reject this:

No. Everyone agrees that an internal deficiency is not called a deficiency. Here, they disagree about the following: One Sage holds—

the needle entered through a bronchus and came.

That is, we assume that it entered the lung’s bronchus through the trachea, even though it is not the usual way for a needle to enter an animal through the trachea. And since we do not see a perforation in the lung on which to attribute the needle’s penetration from the esophagus into the trachea and lung, this is the explanation.

And the other Sage holds: It perforated,

that the needle first entered the esophagus in the ordinary course of eating; from there it perforated the intestines and emerged, then perforated the lung’s membrane and entered it,

and came.

In the case of that needle that was found in a cut section of the lung,

after the lung had been cut into pieces,

they brought it before Rabbi Ami. He thought to deem it permitted,

as he held that it had entered the lung through the trachea, and that an internal deficiency is not considered a deficiency.

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

we learned in our Mishna, among the eighteen conditions that render an animal a terefa,

“A lung that was perforated or deficient.”

Rabbi Yirmeya infers:

What is the meaning of “deficient”? If you say it means deficient on the outside, that is identical to “perforated”!

Rather, is it not

deficient

on the inside? And conclude from this that an internal deficiency is called a deficiency.

They then sent it before Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa.

He thought to deem it permitted.

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

from the Mishna, which lists among the conditions rendering an animal a terefa

“A lung that was perforated or deficient.”

What is the meaning of “deficient”? If you say

deficient

on the outside, that is identical to “perforated”!

Rather, is it not deficient on the inside? And conclude from this that an internal deficiency is called a deficiency.

They then sent it back before Rabbi Ami, and he deemed it forbidden.

They said to him: But the Sages deem it permitted!

He said to them: They deemed it permitted

because

they know

the reason

for which they deemed it permitted.

They deemed permitted a lung that had not yet been cut into pieces, and therefore they attributed the needle’s presence to its having entered through the trachea. But

we,

who have a lung brought before us already

cut—

for what reason should we deem it permitted?

For

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

For most objects that enter the animal’s body enter through the esophagus; and if the needle entered through the esophagus and penetrated into the lung, it certainly perforated the lung.

We raised a difficulty concerning this:

The reason is that the lung is absent

as an intact lung,

but

if

it is present

as an intact lung

and it is not perforated—

it is permitted.

But Rav Naḥman said: In the case of this bronchus of the lung that was perforated—

the animal is a terefa.

And if so, this is difficult: Why, if the needle is found in the flesh of the lung, is the animal permitted? Even if the needle passed through the trachea into the bronchi, it is now found in the flesh of the lung and not in the bronchi; and in order to reach the lung tissue from the bronchi, it must perforate the bronchus on its way. Since Rav Naḥman said that a perforated bronchus renders the animal a terefa, why do we not deem the animal a terefa when the needle is found inside the lung, on account of the perforation of the bronchus?!

We answer:

That statement

in which Rav Naḥman said that a perforated bronchus renders the animal a terefa was stated with regard to a bronchus adjacent

to another bronchus.

Since it is adjacent to another bronchus, the other bronchus does not block the perforation. But in the case of a bronchus adjacent to the lung tissue, the soft lung tissue seals the perforation in the bronchus.

But Rav Naḥman said: In the case of this hadura de-kanta,

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

that was perforated adjacent to another part of the intestine

that is, the intestine was perforated near another section of intestine attached to it—then its other section

protects it!

That is, we say that the other section of intestine protects the perforated section and seals the perforation. If so, why should we not say the same with regard to two bronchi adjacent to one another, that one seals the perforation of the other?!

Rav Ashi said:

Do you think

the conditions rendering an animal a terefa are comparable to one another? With regard to the conditions rendering an animal a terefa, one does not say—

this one is comparable to that one. For if one cuts it here, the animal dies,

for example, if one cuts the animal’s legs at the juncture of the tendons, whereas if one

cuts it here,

at a point above the juncture of the tendons,

it lives.

In the case of that needle that was found in the large bronchus [the large bronchus]

the large bronchus ]

of the lung, they brought it before the Sages who deem such cases a terefa,

before those Sages mentioned above, who deemed an animal a terefa when a needle was found in its lung.

Those Sages

said nothing about it,

neither a prohibition nor a permission.

The Gemara explains:

They did not say that it was permitted, in accordance with their ruling,

who had deemed such a case a terefa because they were concerned that the needle might have entered through the esophagus.

Nor did they say that it was prohibited, since it was found in a large bronchus—

say that it entered through a bronchus and came.

That is, since the needle was not found embedded in the lung tissue but was found inside the large bronchus, it is evident that it entered through the trachea and not through the esophagus. For if it had entered through the esophagus, we would have to ask: Who directed it so that it entered into the cavity of the large bronchus?

In the case of that needle that was found in a piece of liver.

Mar, the son of Rav Yosef, thought to deem the animal a terefa.

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

would

you have deemed the animal a terefa?!

That is, is a perforated liver a condition rendering the animal a terefa? The animal is a terefa only if the entire liver has been removed!

Rather, Rav Ashi said: We examine it. If the blunt end

the thick end of the needle is found

facing outward

toward the cavity of the animal, while the sharp end of the needle is embedded in the liver, we attribute it to the likelihood that the needle entered through the esophagus and

perforated

the intestines

and came,

emerging from the intestines, with its sharp end entering the liver. Therefore, the animal is a terefa, because perforation of the intestines, even by the slightest amount, renders it so.

Whereas

if the blunt end

is embedded

inward

in the liver, with its sharp end facing the cavity of the animal, we attribute it to the possibility that through

a bronchus it entered and came,

having entered through the trachea, passed into a bronchus, and perforated it at a place where such a perforation does not render the animal a terefa. From there it emerged and became embedded in the liver, and the animal is therefore permitted.

And this applies only with regard to a

needle

that is thick,

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

But

with regard to a needle

that is thin,

which can perforate from either side,

whether its blunt end is facing inward or whether its blunt end is facing outward—

it perforated

the intestines

, and came,

and the animal is a terefa.