Chullin 49a — the Talmud in English

And we objected:

And what

is different about the law of a needle found in the liver

from a needle found ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

in the thickness of the beit ha-kosot,

which has two walls, an inner one and an outer one, for we say that if the wall of the beit ha-kosot was perforated

on one side,

meaning that the needle perforated the inner wall but did not perforate the outer one, it is

fit

in every respect, because the outer wall protects it and closes the perforation. And if it perforated

on both sides -

it is terefa.

And do we not

say that

that

we should see whether its thick end is outward or whether its thick end is inward?!

That is, if the law of a needle in the beit ha-kosot were like the law of a needle in the liver, we would have to see how the needle is inserted into the inner wall of the beit ha-kosot.

For if the thick part of the needle were embedded in the inner wall and the point of the needle were found inside the beit ha-kosot, meaning that its thick end was “outward,” toward the outside of the beit ha-kosot, and its point toward the inside of the beit ha-kosot, then we should attribute [as we attribute in the case of a needle found in the liver when its thick end is outward] that the needle entered, in the manner of things that enter, into the esophagus. And from there it emerged into the body cavity by perforating the esophagus or the intestines.

And from the body cavity, it reached the beit ha-kosot and perforated both walls.

And now its sharp point has already entered the beit ha-kosot, and only its thick side remains inserted in the inner wall.

And on account of this, we should declare it terefa, since it perforated the esophagus or the intestines, and the beit ha-kosot.

And one cannot say that the needle entered through the esophagus and descended to the beit ha-kosot, and now began to perforate the inner wall on its way out, because it is not the way of the “thick end,” which is the thickness of the needle, to perforate.

And from the fact that we do not say this, but rather deem it fit in every respect, it is proven that in every case in which we can say, “It took the simfona and rose,” in order to deem it fit—we say so.

And therefore, the same law applies here: we attribute that the needle entered through the esophagus and reached the beit ha-kosot, and only now began to perforate. For this is the way by which it can be deemed fit, even though in this way we attribute that the thick side of the needle is what began to perforate the wall, and we do not see whether its thick end is outward or whether its thick end is inward. And if so, we must clarify: what is different about a needle found in the beit ha-kosot from a needle found in the liver

And we answer:

They said

to resolve it,

There, since there are food and drink

in the beit ha-kosot,

say that the food and drink pushed it

the needle into the wall, and therefore its thick head became embedded in the wall; but in a place where there is no food and drink pushing the needle, we see whether its thick end is outward or whether its thick end is inward.

There was a certain needle that was found in the large bronchus of the liver.

Huna Mar, son of Rav Idi -

declared it terefa!

For he held that it had perforated: it entered through the esophagus and reached the liver by perforating the esophagus or the intestines.

Rav Adda bar Minyumi -

deemed it fit!

Since the needle was found in the large bronchus, we say: Would it have been directed to enter this bronchus?! Rather, from the fact that it reached the large bronchus precisely, we attribute that it entered through the windpipe; and the windpipe, at its branching near the lung, is near the windpipe of the liver. Therefore, we attribute that it entered from the bronchi of the windpipe into the bronchi of the windpipe of the liver, and from there ascended to the liver through the windpipe of the liver and reached the bronchus of the liver.

They came and asked Ravina. He said to them: Take the garment of the one who declared [the animal] terefa!

That is, the one who declares [an animal] terefa is obligated to pay, even from the garment [the robe] on his shoulders, for the damage he caused, since he declared it terefa unlawfully, and as a result they fed it to the dogs.

A certain date pit,

a date pit,

that was found in the gallbladder,

which was found inside the gallbladder.

Rav Ashi said: When we were in the academy of Rav Kahana, he said:

In a case such as this,

certainly

by way of

the bronchus

of the liver

it took and came.

Certainly the pit entered through the windpipe, and from there it reached the gallbladder through the bronchus of the liver. For it is impossible for the pit to perforate the esophagus or the intestines and emerge from there, and then perforate the gallbladder and enter it through the perforation.

Even though it does not emerge,

meaning that when one tries to remove the pit from the bronchus, it is impossible to remove it because the bronchus is constricted

— it was merely rolled into it,

through the animal’s movements over many days, it was pushed into the bronchus!

And this matter applies

to a pit

of a date palm.

But with a pit

of an olive -

it perforates.

For it perforates like a needle, and one who declares an animal terefa because of a needle also declares it terefa because of an olive pit.

Rabbi Yohanan said: Why was its name called

of the lung

“re’iya”?

Because

it

it

illuminates the eyes.

They raised a difficulty before them:

with regard to that which we say, that the lung assists sight, is the meaning

for eating,

that one who eats lung meat has improved vision,

or through medicines,

meaning that one who takes medicines that illuminate the eyes and mixes them with lung meat, the lung too assists, through its mixture with the medicines, in improving sight

Come and hear: For Rav Huna bar Yehuda said: A goose

is sold

for one zuz, and its lung,

when mixed with medicines, is sold

for four

zuz.

And if it enters your mind that it is for eating

of the lung itself, for we say that it illuminates the eyes, why is it necessary to buy the lung for four zuz

Let him take

a whole goose

for one zuz and eat it?! Rather,

it is proven that only

through

the mixing of the lung with

medicines

does it illuminate the eyes, and therefore, when it is mixed with the medicines, its value is four zuz.

They again raised a difficulty before them:

If a lung was perforated -

where,

in a place

where the butcher’s hand handles it.

Is

the perforation attributed

to the butcher’s handling, and do we deem it fit,

or do we not attribute it?

Rav Aha bar Natan said: We attribute it.

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said: We do not attribute it.

And the halakha -

we attribute it.

Rav Shmuel, son of Rabbi Abbahu, said: My father was among the foremost of the instruments [

from among the foremost preachers who announce his words to the public]

of Rafram, and he said -

We attribute it!

They said this

matter

before Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari -

and he did not accept it!

Rav Mesharsheya said: In accordance with the view of the father of my father,

Rav Aha,

it is reasonable. For we attribute it to a wolf

that came and took the entrails and returned them perforated—the wolf perforated them. And we are not concerned that perhaps the perforations were in them before slaughter, and the wolf perforated them at the places of the perforations. And the same law applies here: when the butcher handled the lung, and the perforation can be attributed to the butcher’s handling, we are not concerned that perhaps there was a perforation in the lung before slaughter.

A morna,

a worm that emerges from the lung and perforates it -

Rav Yosef bar Dosai and the Sages disagree about it.

One said: It separated before slaughter

the worm from the lung and perforated it, and [the animal] became terefa.

And one said: It separated after slaughter

from the lung and perforated it after slaughter, and [the animal] is fit.

And the halakha is: It separated after slaughter.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon says: Until it is perforated

into the house of the bronchi:

Rabba bar Tahlifa said in the name of Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba: Until it is perforated into a large bronchus.

Rav Aha bar Abba sat before Rav Huna, and he sat and said: Rabbi Malukh said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi -

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.

Rav Huna said to Rav Aha:

And are you

in the name of Rabbi Malukh the Arab,

who dwells in the place of the Arabs,

saying

that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon?

But he said the opposite,

he said: The halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.

When Rabbi Zeira ascended

to the Land of Israel from Babylonia,

he found Rav Bibi sitting and saying: Rabbi Malukh said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi -

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.

He said to him,

Rabbi Zeira:

By the life of my master! I, Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba, and Rav Assi happened to come to the place

we came to the place

of Rabbi Malukh. And we said to him: Did

whether

the master say, “The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon”?! And he said to us: “I said: The halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.”

Rav Bibi asked Rabbi Zeira:

And you, what do you have?

That is, how is it decided for you whether to rule in accordance with Rabbi Shimon or not

Rabbi Zeira said to him:

Rabbi Zeira:

This is what Rabbi Yitzhak bar Ami said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon!

And the Gemara’s conclusion is:

And the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon!

We learned in the Mishna:

If the abomasum was perforated:

Rabbi Yitzhak bar Nahmani said in the name of Rabbi Oshaya: The milk that is upon the abomasum -

the priests,

who would receive the priestly gifts—the foreleg, the cheeks, and the abomasum—

practiced permissiveness with regard to it

to eat it,

in accordance with Rabbi Yishmael, who said in the name of his fathers

that it is permitted to eat it. And he mentioned priests incidentally to Rabbi Yishmael’s words, since he was a priest; and the same law applies: Israelites also ate it.

And your mnemonic

for the permission, and that Rabbi Yishmael said it, is:

Yishmael the priest -

assists the priests.

And the Gemara explains:

What is it?

Where do we find that Rabbi Yishmael assists the priests

For it was taught [

Numbers 6] “ Thus shall you bless

the children of Israel.”

Rabbi Yishmael says: We have learned

from here

a blessing for Israel from the mouths of the priests.

But,

for the priests themselves

who are also blessed

we have not learned.

When it says, “And I will bless them,” you must say: The priests bless Israel, and the Almighty blesses the priests.

Rabbi Akiva says: We have learned a blessing for Israel from the mouths of the priests. From the mouth of the Almighty we have not learned. When it says, “And I will bless them,” you must say: The priests bless Israel, and the Almighty agrees through them.

That is, according to Rabbi Akiva, “And I will bless them” is the blessing with which the Almighty blesses Israel.

And we raise an objection concerning this:

But Rabbi Akiva, from where does he derive a blessing for the priests?

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said [

Genesis 12]

from “And I will bless those who bless you.”

And what

is this that we say, Rabbi Yishmael

assists the priests,

when Rabbi Akiva too has a blessing for the priests

For he establishes it

meaning that he establishes

the priestly blessing ["

And I will bless them"]

in place of the blessing of Israel,

and he does not learn it from “I will bless those who bless you,” as Rabbi Akiva learns it. And such a blessing is preferable, because the priests are blessed together with Israel.

And the Gemara discusses:

Rabbi Yishmael, who said in the name of his fathers

that the milk upon the abomasum is permitted -

what is it?