Chullin 49a (מט.) — the Talmud in English

And we challenge this:

And what

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

from a needle found

in the thickness of the reticulum,

which has two walls, an inner one and an outer one? For we say that if the wall of the reticulum was perforated

on one side,

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

kosher

in every case, because the outer wall protects it and seals the perforation. But if it perforated

both sides—

it is tereifa.

And we do not

say

that

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

That is to say: If the law of a needle in the reticulum were the same as that of a needle in the liver, we should examine how the needle is embedded in the inner wall of the reticulum.

For if the thick part of the needle was embedded in the inner wall, while its point was found inside the reticulum—that is, its thick end was “outward,” toward the outside of the reticulum, and its point was directed into the reticulum—we should attribute the matter [as we attribute it in the case of a needle found in the liver when its thick end is outward] to the needle having entered, in the usual direction of things entering, through the esophagus. From there it emerged into the body cavity by perforating the esophagus or the intestines.

And from the body cavity it reached the reticulum and perforated both walls.

By this point, the sharp point of the needle had already entered the reticulum, while only its thick end remained embedded in the inner wall.

Consequently, we should deem the animal tereifa, since the needle perforated the esophagus or the intestines, as well as the reticulum.

Nor can we say that the needle entered through the esophagus and descended into the reticulum, and that it is now beginning to perforate the inner wall on its way out, because the “thick end,” meaning the thick part of the needle, does not ordinarily perforate.

And from the fact that we do not say this, but declare the animal kosher in every case, it is evident that whenever we can say, “It took the passage and emerged,” in order to declare it kosher, we say so.

Therefore, the same applies here: We attribute the matter to the needle having entered through the esophagus and reached the reticulum, and only now beginning to perforate it, since this is the way in which the animal can be declared kosher. Although by this explanation we attribute the initial perforation of the wall to the thick end of the needle, we do not see whether its thick end is outward or its sharp end is inward. If so, what is the difference between a needle found in the reticulum and a needle found in the liver?!

And we answer:

They said

to resolve the difficulty:

There, since there are food and drink

in the reticulum,

say that the food and drink forced it

into the wall; therefore, the thick head of the needle became embedded in the wall. But wherever there is no food or drink forcing the needle, we do see whether its thick end is outward or its sharp end is inward.

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

Huna Mar, son of Rav Idi—

declared it tereifa!

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

Rav Adda bar Minyomi—

declared it kosher!

Since the needle was found in the large bronchus, we say: Is it possible that it was precisely directed to enter this bronchus?! Rather, since it reached the large bronchus precisely, we attribute the matter to its having entered through the trachea. At the point where the trachea branches near the lung, it is adjacent to the hepatic duct; therefore, we attribute the matter to its having entered from the bronchi of the trachea into the bronchi of the hepatic duct, and from there ascended into the liver through the hepatic duct and reached the liver’s bronchus.

They came and asked Ravina. He said to them: Take the cloak of the one who declared it tereifa!

That is to say, the one who declared it tereifa is obligated to pay, even from the garment [the cloak] on his shoulders, for the damage he caused: He declared the animal tereifa unlawfully, and as a result they fed it to the dogs.

There was a certain date pit,

a date seed,

that was found in the gallbladder,

meaning that it was found inside the gallbladder.

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

In a case such as

this, certainly

by way of the

bronchus

of the liver

it took its course and came.

Certainly, the pit entered through the trachea, and from there reached the gallbladder through the hepatic bronchus. There is no possibility that the pit perforated the esophagus or the intestines and emerged from there, then perforated the gallbladder and entered it through the perforation.

Although it does not come out,

since when one attempts to remove the pit from the bronchus, it is impossible to remove it because the bronchus is constricted—

it is merely that it was gradually driven in,

because of the animal’s movements over many days it was pushed into the bronchus!

And this applies

to a pit

of a date.

But a pit

of an olive—

it perforates.

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

Rabbi Yohanan said: Why was it called

the lung

“re’iya”?

Because

it

is

a source of light to the eyes.

They raised a dilemma:

When we say that the lung assists vision, does this mean

through eating,

that one who eats lung meat has improved vision,

or through medicinal substances,

meaning that one who takes substances that brighten the eyes and mixes them with lung meat benefits from the lung’s assistance, through its mixture with those substances, in improving vision?!

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

is sold

for one zuz, while its lung

when mixed with medicinal substances is sold

for four

zuz.

And if it enters your mind that this is through eating

the lung itself, since we say that it is a source of light to 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 evident that only

through

mixing the lung with

medicinal substances

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

They raised another dilemma:

If a lung was perforated—

where,

in the place

where the butcher’s hand handles it:

Do we

attribute

the perforation to the butcher’s handling and declare it kosher,

or do we not attribute it to that?

Rav Aha bar Natan said: We attribute it to that.

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

And the halakha—

we attribute it to that.

Rav Shmuel, son of Rabbi Abbahu, said: My father was one of the principal transmitters [

among the foremost preachers who publicly delivered his teachings]

of Rafram, and he said—

We attribute it to that!

They presented this

statement

before Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari—

but he did not accept it!

Rav Mesharsheya said: The view of my father’s father,

Rav Aha,

is more reasonable. For we attribute it to a wolf

that came and took the intestines and returned them perforated—that the wolf perforated them. We are not concerned that perhaps the perforations were present before slaughter and that the wolf perforated them at the sites of the existing perforations. The same 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 the lung was perforated before slaughter.

As for a morana,

a worm that emerges from the lung and perforates it—

Rav Yosef bar Dosa’i and the Rabbis disagree about it.

One says: It emerged before slaughter,

from the lung and perforated it, rendering the animal tereifa.

And one says: It emerged after slaughter,

from the lung and perforated it after slaughter, and the animal is kosher.

And the halakha is: It emerged after slaughter.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon says: Until it is perforated

to the bronchial tubes:

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

Rav Aha bar Abba was sitting before Rav Huna, and he was sitting and saying: Rabbi Mallukh said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi—

The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.

Rav Huna said to Rav Aha:

Are you saying in the name of Rabbi

Mallukh the Arab,

who lives among the Arabs,

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 Eretz Yisrael from Babylonia,

he found Rav Beivai sitting and saying: Rabbi Mallukh 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 Asi happened to come to the place

where he lived,

of Rabbi Mallukh. And we said to him: Did

the Master

say that 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 Beivai asked Rabbi Zeira:

And what do you have to say?

That is to say, how is the matter resolved for you—whether to rule in accordance with Rabbi Shimon or not?!

He 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!

The Gemara concludes:

And the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon!

We learned in the Mishna:

If the abomasum was perforated:

Rabbi Yitzhak bar Naḥmani said in the name of Rabbi Oshaya: The milk found on the abomasum—

the kohanim,

who received the priestly gifts—the foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum—

customarily treated it as permitted

to eat it,

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

that it is permitted to eat it. The mention of kohanim is incidental to Rabbi Yishmael’s statement, since he was a kohen; the same law applies to Israelites, who also ate it.

And your mnemonic

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

Yishmael the kohen—

assists the kohanim.

The Gemara explains:

What is it?

Where do we find that Rabbi Yishmael assists the kohanim?!

As it is taught [Numbers 6]: “

Thus shall you bless

the children of Israel.”

Rabbi Yishmael says: We learn

from here

a blessing for Israel from the mouths of the kohanim.

But

for the kohanim themselves,

who are also blessed,

we have not learned

it. When it says, “And I shall bless them,” you must say: The kohanim bless Israel, and the Holy One, blessed be He, blesses the kohanim.

Rabbi Akiva says: We learn a blessing for Israel from the mouths of the kohanim. From the mouth of the Almighty we have not learned it. When it says, “And I shall bless them,” you must say: The kohanim bless Israel, and the Holy One, blessed be He, concurs through them.

That is to say, according to Rabbi Akiva, “And I shall bless them” refers to the blessing with which the Holy One, blessed be He, blesses Israel.

And we inquire into the matter:

But Rabbi Akiva—regarding a blessing for the kohanim, from where does he derive it?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzhak said [Genesis 12]:

from

“And I shall bless those who bless you.”

And what

is the meaning of the statement that Rabbi Yishmael

assists the kohanim,

when Rabbi Akiva also has a source for a blessing for the kohanim?!

He interprets it

as establishing

the priestly blessing [“

And I shall bless them”]

, in place of the blessing for Israel,

rather than deriving it from “And I shall bless those who bless you,” as Rabbi Akiva does. Such a blessing is preferable, because the kohanim are blessed together with Israel.

The Gemara discusses:

Rabbi Yishmael, who said it in the name of his forebears,

that the milk found on the abomasum is permitted—

what is it?