Chullin

in the thick wall of the reticulum, where it is held that if [it protruded only] on one side1 it is permitted, but if [it protruded] on both sides it is trefah? [Why do we not suggest the test,] ‘Let us see whether the head of the needle is on the outside or on the inside [of the reticulum]’?2 — I will tell you: in that case since [the reticulum] contains food and drink, it is likely that the food and the drink drove it in.3 A needle was once found in the portal vein of the liver. Huna Mar the son of R. Idi declared the animal trefah, whilst R. Adda b. Manyomi permitted it. The case was taken to Rabina for his opinion and he said: ‘Take away the cloaks of those who declare it trefah’. 4 A date stone was found in the gall-bladder. Said R. Ashi, ‘When we were at the school of R. Kahana he told us that in such a case it is certain that it entered via the portal vein, for although it cannot pass through [easily], it is likely that it was forced through by the movements [of the animal]’. This is so, however, only in the case of a date stone, but an olive stone would most certainly pierce5 [an internal organ]. R. Johanan said: Why is the lung called reah? — Because it makes the eyes bright.6 It was asked: Is this so when one eats it [as it is], or only when one uses it medicinally?7 — Come and hear: R. Huna b. Judah stated that the price of a goose was one zuz, but a goose's lung was four zuzim. Now should you say that when one eats it as it is [it makes the eyes bright], why then should not one buy [the goose] for a zuz and eat also the lungs thereof? It obviously means that when used medicinally [it has this effect]. If the lung was found perforated in a part which is usually handled by the butcher, do we attribute it [to the handling] or not? R. Aha8 b. Nathan says we do; Mar Zutra the son of R. Mari says we do not. The law is that we do attribute it.9 R. Samuel the son of R. Abbahu said: ‘My father, one of the heads of the Assemblies10 under Rafram, said that we do attribute it [to the handling]’. This was reported to Mar Zutra the son of R. Mari, but he would not accept it; whereupon R. Mesharsheya said: It is reasonable to accept the view of my grandfather,11 since we also attribute a perforation to a wolf.12 With regard to a worm13 [found on the lung],there is a difference of opinion between R. Joseph b. Dosai and the Rabbis. One holds that it wormed its way through [the lung] before the slaughtering,14 the other that it wormed its way through after the slaughtering. The law is that it wormed its way through after the slaughtering[and so it is permitted]. R. SIMEON SAYS, PROVIDED IT WAS PIERCED AS FAR AS THE MAIN BRONCHI. Rabbah b. Tahlifa explained in the name of R. Jeremiah b. Abba, provided it was pierced as far as the large bronchus. R. Aha b. Abba was sitting before R. Huna and recited: R. Maluk said — in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi, The halachah is in accordance with R. Simeon. Whereupon he [R. Huna] said to him, You are quoting Maluk of Arabia, are you not? But he said that the halachah was not in accordance with R. Simeon! When R. Zera went up [to palestine] he found R. Bibi sitting and reciting as follows: R. Maluk said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi, The halachah is in accordance with R. Simeon. Whereupon he [R. Zera] said to him, ‘By your life! I, R. Hiyya b. Abba and R. Assi happened to be in the town where R. Maluk lived and we asked him, "Did the Master say that the halachah was in accordance with R. Simeon"? And he replied: "I said that the halachah was not in accordance with R. Simeon"’. He [R. Bibi] then said to him [R. Zera], And what tradition have you got in the matter? He replied: Thus said R. Isaac b. Ammi on the authority of R. Joshua b. Levi, The halachah is in accordance with the view of R. Simeon. The halachah, however, is not in accordance with the view of R. Simeon.15 IF THE ABOMASUM WAS PIERCED. R. Isaac b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Oshaia, It was the practice of the priests to permit the fat which is on the abomasum [to be eaten], thus agreeing with the view of R. Ishmael which he reported in the name of his ancestors. And in order to remember this,16 [think of the saying], ‘Ishmael the priest favours the priests’.17 Where do we see this?18 — For it was taught; [it is written], On this wise ye shall bless the children of Israel.19 R. Ishmael said: We observe here a blessing for Israel at the mouth of the priests, but we know of no blessing for the priests themselves; when the verse adds: And I will bless them,20 it means to say that, the priests bless Israel, and the Holy One, blessed be He, blesses the priests. R. Akiba said: We observe here a blessing for Israel at the mouth of the priests but not from the Almighty; when the verse therefore adds: And I will bless them, it means to say that the priests bless Israel, and the Holy One, blessed be He, approves of it. But whence does R. Akiba derive that the priests also receive a blessing? — R. Nahman b. Isaac said: From the verse: And I will bless them that bless thee.21 In what respect then does R. Ishmael favour the priests? — In that he establishes in the one verse the blessing of the priests side by side with the blessing of Israel. What is this opinion of R. Ishmael which he reported in the name of his ancestors? — It was taught: The fat that covereth the inwards22 the reticulum, according to the foregoing argument it should also be trefah, for in all probability the pin entered from outside having first pierced some internal organ. teeth of the wolf and the animal is permitted.