Parallel
חולין 46
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Is ‘up to’ inclusive or not? R. Papa raised the point: If you say that ‘up to’ is not inclusive, what is the law then [if the spinal cord was severed] at the point where the nerves branch off? R. Jeremiah raised the point: If you say that ‘up to’ is inclusive, what is the law then if the branch nerve itself [was severed]? — Come and hear: ‘The branch nerve is accounted as flesh.’ Presumably this refers to the first and second branch nerves, does it not? — No, it refers to the third. In a bird, says R. Jannai, [the vitality of] the cord extends as far as [the point opposite] the lower extremity of the wings. R. Simeon b. Lakish says: As far as the point opposite the [beginning of the] wings. Ulla said: I was once standing before Ben pazzi when a bird was brought to him for examination. He had examined [the spinal cord] as far as the point opposite the [beginning of the] wings when he was sent for by the Nasi, whereupon he arose and went away. Now I did not know whether [his leaving at this point was] because he did not consider it necessary to examine it any further or only out of respect for the Nasi. IF THE LIVER WAS GONE AND NAUGHT REMAINED. It follows, however, that if aught remained, even though less than an olive's bulk, it is permitted; but we have learnt: If the liver was gone, provided there remained an olive's bulk thereof, it is permitted! — R. Joseph said: There is no contradiction; the one [Mishnah] represents the view of R. Hiyya and the other the view of R. Simeon b. Rabbi. For R. Hiyya used to throw it away, whilst R. Simeon b. Rabbi would eat it. And in order to remember this, think of the saying: ‘the rich are parsimonious’. An army once was stationed at pumbeditha. Rabbah and R. Joseph fled the town and were met on the way by R. Zera, who said to them, ‘Fugitives! Remember the olive's bulk of which the Rabbis spoke must be found in the region of the gall-bladder’. R. Adda b. Ahaba said: It must be found in the most vital place. Therefore, said R. Papa, there must be one olive's bulk in the region of the gall-bladder and another in the most vital place. R. Jeremiah enquired: What is the law if the olive's bulk was [not found in one place but was] obtained by collecting it? or if there only remained of the liver a long, thin strip? R. Ashi asked: What is the law if that which remained of the liver was flattened? These questions remain undecided. R. Zerika enquired of R. Ammi, What is the law if the liver was [for the most part] torn away from its connections though [in parts] it was still attached to the diaphragm? — He replied: In this case of the liver being torn loose I see no difficulty at all, for as to the one who says, there must be an olive's bulk in the region of the gall-bladder, it is so here, and as to the one who says there must be an olive's bulk in the most vital part, that, too, is here. IF THE LUNG WAS PIERCED. Rab, Samuel and R. Assi say: The outer membrane [must be pierced]; others say [that they said], The inner membrane. R. Joseph b. Manyomi said in the name of R. Nahman, In order to remember this think of the rose-coloured coat in which the lungs lie. It is clear that if the outer membrane was pierced, but not the inner one, [the animal is permitted, for] the inner membrane is a sufficient protection; this being in accordance with Raba's decision, for Raba ruled: That if the outer membrane of the lung was peeled off
—
, so that now the lung resembles a red date, it is permitted. [The only question is,] if the inner membrane was pierced, but not the outer one, will the latter afford sufficient protection or not? R. Aha and Rabina disagree, one maintains that it does not afford sufficient protection, the other that it does. The law is that it does afford sufficient protection, and this is in agreement with the decision of R. Joseph. For R. Joseph said: If the lung produces a sound [when inflated] and the source of the sound can be located, we must place over that spot a feather or a straw or spittle; if it stirs the animal is trefah, otherwise it is permitted. If the source cannot be located, we must take a basin of luke warm water and put the lung therein. (The water must not be too hot, for then the lungs would shrivel up, nor too cold, for then they would harden; but it must be luke-warm.) We then inflate the lung; if it bubbles it is trefah, otherwise it is permitted, for then it is certain that the inner membrane only has been perforated, but not the outer one, and the sound is caused merely by the air vibrating between the two membranes. (Mnemonic: A date. Red. Dry. Scabs.) The text [stated above]: ‘Raba said: If the outer membrane of the lung was peeled off, so that now the lung resembles a red date, the animal is permitted’. Raba further said: If a portion of the lungs turned red, the animal is permitted, but if the whole turned red, it is trefah. Rabina said to Raba, Why is it that where a portion only turned red it is permitted? It is, is it not, because it will eventually recover [its normal colour]? Then surely where the whole turned red it should also be permitted because it will eventually recover [its normal colour]. For it was taught: With regard to other creeping and crawling things [one would not be liable for causing them an injury on the Sabbath] unless the wound bled. Should you argue and say that we ought to compare our case with the case of the ‘Eight species of creeping things’, about which it has been taught: [One is liable for desecrating the Sabbath by injuring these creatures] if only the blood collected in one spot, though there was no bleeding at all, then I would contend that even if only a portion of the lungs had turned red the animal should be trefah. There is therefore no difference. Raba further said: If a portion of the lungs became dry [the animal] is trefah. To what extent? — R. Papi said in the name of Raba, [It is so dry] that it crumbles with the nail. Is this view only in accord with the opinion of R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam? For we have learnt: What is meant by ‘dried’? That is does not bleed when pierced. R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam says, [It is so dry] that it crumbles with the nail! — You can even say that our view is in accord with the opinion of the Rabbis, [but there is, however, this distinction to be drawn]. In the case of the ear of a firstling, inasmuch as it is constantly exposed to wind, it will not recover; whilst in the case of the lungs, since they are not exposed to wind, they will recover. Raba further said: If the lungs were covered with scabs or with black patches or with patches of various colours, it is permitted. Amemar said in the name of Raba, We may not compare cysts with each other. Raba further said: If two lobes of the lungs adhere to each other [by fibrous tissue], no examination thereof can avail [to render the animal permitted]. This is so, however, only if the lobes were not adjacent, but if they were adjacent [it is permitted, for] this is their natural position.14
—