Chullin

(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 within1 [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,2 whereas the latter assume that it pierced [some organ] before it entered.3 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.4 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 Rabbis5 have declared it permitted. He replied: They permitted it because they saw good grounds for permitting it,6 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?7 — That is so only where the perforation [in the bronchial tube] lies next to another [bronchial tube].8 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 Rabbis9 who in the previous case10 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 probably11 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?12 Rather, said R. Ashi, We must see: if the head13 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!14 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,15 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 and entered directly, via the bronchus, into the lungs. the alimentary passages. The needle therefore must have pierced one of these, either the oesophagus or one of the stomachs, and made its way into the lungs. only have entered via the bronchus. bronchial tubes to be found, as indeed it was, in the tissue of the lungs. hole in this tube as its wall is hard and cartilaginous, whereas elsewhere the tissue of the lung would stop up the perforation. therefore if the point is turned inwards within an organ it must have entered that organ from the outside. intestines, and thence into the liver via this duct, without piercing any organ. V. Katzenelsohn, pp. 180-183.