Chullin

it is permitted. If the liver of an animal was wormy — this was an actual case about which the people of Assia1 made enquiry when they came up to Jabneh on each of the Three Festivals.2 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;3 if, however, there is an eruption of ulcers [on the lung close to the adhesion] there is grave fear with regard to it.4 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.5 R. Nehemiah b. R. Joseph applied the test of putting it in luke-warm water.6 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.7 But did R. Nahman really say this?8 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. 9 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.10 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,11 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?12 Now what is excluded by ‘this’? presumably such a case as the above?13 — 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.14 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. 15 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’.16 ‘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’?17 He replied: ‘I have no money’. ‘I can get it on credit for you’, he said .18 The other answered: ‘Why should I put you off’?19 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’.20 Raba related, ‘When we were walking behind R. Nahman in the leather dealers’ market are omitted and are obviously superfluous. V. Glos. of Bah. examined by being placed in a basin of luke-warm water; if the water bubbles — a sign that the air was escaping — it would be trefah. reason why the water does not bubble is that a membrane had formed over the perforation. the adhesion — it is trefah even though the chest wall securely and firmly covers up the perforation. though it has grown into the flesh between the ribs; contra R. Nahman. ribs. effective covering to the perforation in the lung.