Parallel
חולין 48
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
it is permitted. If the liver of an animal was wormy — this was an actual case about which the people of Assia made enquiry when they came up to Jabneh on each of the Three Festivals. On the third time the Rabbis declared it to be permitted. R. Joseph b. Manyomi said in the name of R. Nahman: If the lung adheres to the chest wall there is nothing to be feared; if, however, there is an eruption of ulcers [on the lung close to the adhesion] there is grave fear with regard to it. Mar Judah said in the name of Abimi, In either case there is grave fear with regard to it. What must we do about it? — Said Raba, Rabin b. Shaba explained it to me that we must take a knife with a fine edge and separate [the lung from the chest wall]; if there is a taint upon the wall then we assume that the adhesion was caused by the wall [and the animal is permitted], but if not, we assume that it was caused by the lung and it is trefah. R. Nehemiah b. R. Joseph applied the test of putting it in luke-warm water. Mar Zutra, son of R. Huna the son of R. Papi, said to Rabina, Do you report the test of R. Nehemiah the son of R. Joseph in connection with the above case? We report it in connection with Raba's case, for Raba said: If two lobes of the lungs adhere to each other [by fibrous tissue], no examination thereof can avail to render the animal permitted. R. Nehemiah the son of R. Joseph, however, used to apply the test of putting the lungs in luke-warm water. R. Ashi demurred: But what is the point of it? In our case the test is reasonable, for we could thereby assume that the disorder was caused by the wall, in which case the animal would be permitted; but in that case [of Raba, what is the point of the test?] If this lobe is found to be perforated the animal is trefah, and if the other lobe is found to be perforated it is also trefah. But did R. Nahman really say this? R. Joseph b. Manyomi surely said in the name of R. Nahman, If the lung was pierced but the perforation was covered up by the [chest] wall, it is permitted! — There is no contradiction: in the latter case the adhesion was formed in that part where by natural development they [sc. the lung and the chest wall] are in contact with each other, whereas in the former case the adhesion was not formed in that part where they are in contact by nature. And at what point is it that by natural development they are in contact with each other? — At the point where the lung is divided into lobes. The text [above stated]: ‘R. Joseph b. Manyomi said in the name of R. Nahman, If the lung was pierced but the perforation was covered up by the [chest] wall, it is permitted’. Rabina added, provided it had grown into the flesh. R. Joseph asked Rabina, And what would be the law if they had not intergrown? It would [presumably] be trefah, and obviously because we assume that the lung is perforated. But if this be so, even where they had intergrown it should also [be trefah]; for it has been taught: [A man whose privy member] is pierced is unfit, because the flow [of semen] is sluggish [and it does not fertilize]. If the hole had closed up he is fit, for he can procreate. This is an instance where the unfit can in the course of time return to fitness? Now what is excluded by ‘this’? presumably such a case as the above? — No. It only excludes the case of a membrane which had formed on the lungs in consequence of a wound, for it is not a [sound] membrane. R. ‘Ukba b. Hama demurred: Had the wall above [the perforation of the lung] also been pierced it would be trefah, [would it not]? Why then does not the Tanna of our Mishnah include [in the list of defects] ‘the perforation of the wall’? — But even as you will have it, [you are also faced with this type of question]. For R. Isaac b. Joseph said in the name of R. Johanan that if the gall-bladder had been pierced and the liver had completely closed up [the hole] it was permitted. [Now you should ask:] Had the liver above [the hole in the gall-bladder] also been pierced it would be trefah, [would it not]? Why then does not the Tanna of our Mishnah include also ‘the perforation of the liver’? It is obvious, however, that the Tanna does not include the perforation of an organ which is not trefah per se. Here, too, the Tanna does not include that which is not trefah per se. Rabbah b. Bar Hana enquired of Samuel, ‘What is the law if there was an eruption of ulcers [on the lungs]’? — He replied: ‘It is permitted’. ‘I also said so’, said the other, ‘but the students were hesitant about it,for R. Mattena stated, [If the boils are] full of pus it is trefah; if full of clear water it is permitted’. ‘That statement’, replied Samuel, ‘was made with regard to the kidneys’. R. Isaac b. Joseph was walking behind R. Jeremiah in the butchers’ market and they noticed certain lungs with ulcers. Thereupon he [R. Isaac] said to R. Jeremiah, ‘Master, would you care to buy of this meat’? He replied: ‘I have no money’. ‘I can get it on credit for you’, he said . The other answered: ‘Why should I put you off’? Whenever such a case as this came before R. Johanan he would always send it to R. Judah son of R. Simeon, and the latter on the authority of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon always ruled that it was permitted; though he [R. Johanan] himself did not hold that view’. Raba related, ‘When we were walking behind R. Nahman in the leather dealers’ market
—
(others say: In the public place of the scholars), we noticed lungs covered with large tumors and he [R. Nahman] said nothing about it’. R. Ammi and R. Assi were once passing through the market place of Tiberias when they saw lungs covered with large and hard lumps, and they said nothing to them [the butchers] about it. It was stated: If a needle was found in the lungs, R. Johanan, R. Eleazar and R. Hanina declare the animal permitted; R. Simeon b. Lakish, R. Mani b. Patish and R. Simeon b. Eliakim declare it trefah. Shall we say that they disagree upon the following law viz., The latter hold that a deficiency within [the lung] is considered to be a defect, whereas the former hold that it is not a defect? — No. All hold that a deficiency within is not a defect, but they disagree in this: the former assume that it entered [the lung] via the bronchus, whereas the latter assume that it pierced [some organ] before it entered. A needle was once found in a portion of the lung and it was brought before R. Ammi. He was about to declare it permitted when R. Jeremiah (others say: R. Zerika) raised the following objection against him: [We have learnt:] IF THE LUNG WAS PIERCED OR WAS DEFICIENT. Now what does deficient mean? Should you say it means a deficiency from the outside, but that would be identical with ‘pierced’. It must mean therefore a deficiency within, thus proving that a deficiency within is considered a defect. The case was then sent to R. Isaac Nappaha, who was also about to declare it permitted when R. Jeremiah (others say: R. Zerika) raised the following objection against him: [We have learnt:] IF THE LUNG WAS PIERCED OR WAS DEFICIENT. Now what does ‘deficient’ mean? Should you say it means a deficiency from the outside, but that would be identical with ‘pierced’. It must therefore mean a deficiency within, thus proving that a deficiency within is considered a defect. The case was then sent back to R. Ammi and he now declared it trefah; whereupon his students said to him, But the Rabbis have declared it permitted. He replied: They permitted it because they saw good grounds for permitting it, but what grounds have we for permitting it? perhaps if the entire lung was before us we should have found it perforated! Now the reason [for declaring it trefah] was that the entire lung was not before us, but if it were before us and was without perforation it would be permitted. But has not R. Nahman stated that if one of the bronchial tubes was perforated it is trefah? — That is so only where the perforation [in the bronchial tube] lies next to another [bronchial tube]. But has not R. Nahman taught that if in the colon an intestine was perforated in that part where it lies next to another [intestine, it is permitted, for] the latter affords a covering? — R. Ashi replied: Are you comparing defects with each other? Amongst the various defects we cannot say that this resembles that; for an animal may be cut in one place and die, and in another place and live. A needle was once found in the large bronchus. The case was brought before those Rabbis who in the previous case ruled that it was trefah; but they neither forbade nor permitted it. They did not permit it, by reason of their aforementioned view; yet they did not forbid it, because, since it was found in the large bronchus, it most probably entered it [via the windpipe]. A needle was once found in a portion of the liver. Mar, son of R. Joseph, was about to declare [the animal] trefah when R. Ashi said to him, Sir, and if it were found in the flesh [of the animal] would you also declare it trefah? Rather, said R. Ashi, We must see: if the head of the needle is outside [the liver it is trefah, for] it must have pierced [the internal organs] and entered; but if the head is inside [it is permitted, for] it must have entered via the vein! This is the rule, however, only in the case of a large needle, but in the case of a fine needle there is no difference whether the head was outside [the liver] or inside, for it is always to be assumed that it pierced [the internal organs] before it entered. And why is this case different from that of a needle which was found
—