Chullin

, 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 stirs1 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 things2 [one would not be liable for causing them an injury on the Sabbath] unless the wound bled.3 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.4 There is therefore no difference.5 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’?6 That is does not bleed when pierced. R. Jose b. ha-Meshullam says, [It is so dry] that it crumbles with the nail!7 — 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;8 whilst in the case of the lungs, since they are not exposed to wind, they will recover.9 Raba further said: If the lungs were covered with scabs or with black patches or with patches of various colours,10 it is permitted. Amemar said in the name of Raba, We may not compare cysts with each other.11 Raba further said: If two lobes of the lungs adhere to each other [by fibrous tissue], no examination thereof can avail12 [to render the animal permitted]. This is so, however, only if the lobes were not adjacent,13 but if they were adjacent [it is permitted, for] this is their natural position.14 meaning is: if the straw or feather flutters, or the water bubbles, the animal is trefah, for this is an indication that there is here a perforation and the air is escaping through it. liability for causing such a wound on the Sabbath. Likewise the fact that the lungs have turned red, even completely red, is not to be regarded as an injury or trauma; accordingly it should not render the animal trefah. who inflicts such a blow desecrates the Sabbath, the reason can only be because in all probability the skin will break, and eventually the blood will flow. It should then likewise be held in our case that the animal is trefah even though only a portion of the lung turned red, for the skin will break eventually and there will be a perforation of the lungs. Hananel and R. Tam hold that in either case it is trefah. the term ‘dried’. general opinion of the Rabbis. by the slaughterer) but it is not known whether the cyst had burst before the slaughtering, in which case the animal would be trefah, or after the slaughtering, in which case the animal would be permitted, we may not lance another cyst which happens to be on the same lung and compare the two, with the object that if they now resemble each other the animal will be permitted, for it is held that a burst cyst would present a different condition both in colour and in general appearance at different times. adhesion will ultimately cause a perforation when it breaks away (Tosaf.). permitted; so according to Rashi. The view of Tosaf. is that, the lobes being adjacent, there is no apprehension that the adhesion will snap and cause a perforation.