Chullin

but if it is found on the back of the lungs, even though it is as small as a myrtle leaf, it is trefah. Rafram said: If the lung was like wood, it is trefah. Some explain, [like wood] in colour; others, [like wood] in touch. The former say: ‘in colour’, meaning thereby that when distended it is pale [like wood]; but the others say: ‘in touch’, meaning thereby that it is hard [like wood], or, as some say, that it is quite smooth and has no fissures marking the lobes.1 Raba said: If [the lung was] blue it is permitted, if black like ink it is trefah; for R. Hanina said: Black [blood] is [in reality] red blood which has turned black by disease.2 If green3 it is permitted, in accordance with R. Nathan; if red it is also permitted, in accordance with R. Nathan. For it was taught: R. Nathan said: ‘I once came to a coastal town and was approached there by a woman who, having circumcised her first son and he died and her second son and he also died, brought her third son to me. I saw that the child was red so I said to her, "My daughter, wait until the blood will become absorbed in him". She accordingly waited and thereafter circumcised her child and he lived and was named Nathan the Babylonian after me. On another occasion when I went to Cappadocia I was approached by a woman who, having circumcised her first son and he died and her second son and he also died, brought her third son to me. I saw that the child had a greenish colour; I examined him and found that he was anaemic, without blood for circumcision. I said to her, "My daughter, wait until the blood will circulate more freely in the child". She accordingly waited and thereafter circumcised her child and he lived and was named Nathan the Babylonian after me’. R. Kahana said: If [the lung] resembles liver4 it is permitted, if it resembles meat5 it is trefah; and in order to remember this, think of the verse: Flesh that is torn of beasts [trefah] in the field. 6 R. Sama, son of Raba, said: If the lung resembles cuscuta or the crocus or [the yolk of] an egg, it is trefah. But what is meant by the statement above, ‘If green it is permitted’? — That it resembles the leek in colour.7 Rabina said: If there is an obstruction8 in the lung, we must fetch a knife and cut open the obstruction. If there is found there an accumulation of pus, then it is clear that the obstruction was caused by the pus, and it is therefore permitted. If there is no pus, we must then place over the obstruction a feather or spittle; if it stirs, it is permitted, 9 otherwise it is trefah. R. Joseph said: A membrane which had formed on the lungs in consequence of a wound is not a proper membrane.10 R. Joseph further 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 it is trefah, otherwise it is permitted. If the source cannot be located, we must then 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 clear 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.11 Ulla said in the name of R. Johanan: If the substance of the lung [decayed so that it] tosses about as [water] in a jug, it is permitted. Evidently he is of the opinion that a deficiency of substance within an organ is not considered a defect. R. Abba raised this objection against Ulla. 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’.12 It must mean therefore a deficiency within, thus proving that a deficiency within is considered a defect! — No; it really means a deficiency from the outside and as for your objection that it would then be identical with pierced, [I say that] it is stated in the Mishnah only on account of R. Simeon's view. For he said: PROVIDED IT WAS PIERCED AS FAR AS THE MAIN BRONCHI. Now this is his view only where there is a hole without any loss of substance, but where there is a hole with loss of substance even R. Simeon would agree.13 Once when R. Hananiah was in R. Nathan and all the great men of that age came to visit him. There was then brought in to him [R. Hananiah] a lung whose substance [had decayed and] was tossing about within as [water] in a jug, and he declared it to be permitted. Raba said: Provided, however, the bronchial tubes within were intact. R. Aha, son of Raba, asked R. Ashi, How would we know it? — He replied: We take a glazed earthen basin, [pierce the lung] and pour it out into the basin, if there are seen any white streaks it is trefah,14 but if not, it is permitted. R. Nahman said: If the substance of the lung decayed15 within but the entire external covering was intact, it is permitted. It was taught likewise: If the substance of the lung decayed within but the entire external covering was intact, it is permitted, even though [the cavity within] would hold a quarter log. If the womb of an animal was gone, other MSS. V. D.S. V. also Alfasi. seem that yellow is intended, for this would very likely be the colour of the anaemic child; but v. p. 255, n. 1. trefah. Rashi, however, distinguishes between the two cases and interprets this statement of R. Nahman thus: If the lung was depleted. i.e., a cavity was formed within but the rest of the pulmonary substance was sound etc.