R. Huna the son of R. Joshua posed a question: [46a] [Does Samuel in his ruling mean] up to and including [that place in the spinal cord] or perhaps [he means] up to but not including [that place]?
D. R. Pappa posed a question: If you wish to say that [Samuel means] up to but not including [that place], then what is the law with regard to [severing at] the point it branches off? [Cashdan: the point in the cord where the first pair of sacral nerves is given off.]
E. R. Jeremiah posed a question: If you wish to say that [Samuel means] up to and including [that place], then what is the law with regard to [severing in] the point it branches off itself?
F. Come and take note: The branch is judged [to have the same rules] as the meat [of the animal, not as an organ]. Does this not mean the first or the second [point of] branching? No, [it means] the third [point of] branching.
A. In a fowl [up to what point in the spinal cord does severing render it terefah]? R. Yannai says, “[Any place in the cord down to the area] below the wings [i.e., the bottom of the wings].” And Resh Laqish says, “Until [the area of the cord parallel to the area] between the wings [i.e., the top of the wings].”
B. Said Ulla, “I was standing before Ben Pazzi and they brought before him a fowl. And he inspected it [for defects of the spinal cord] up to the area between the wings. And the House of the Patriarch sent for him [before he could inspect any further]. And I did not know if [he stopped inspecting the cord] because held the view that you do not have to inspect [the cord for defects] any further or [whether he stopped inspecting at that point] out of respect to [the summons of] the House of the Patriarch.”
A. [If] the liver is removed [missing], so that nothing whatsoever remains of it [M. 3:1 C]. Lo [this implies] that if any amount [of the liver] remains, it is valid, even if it was not equivalent to the volume of an egg's bulk. But lo, it was taught on Tannaite authority, [It is valid if] the liver is removed, but an olive's bulk of which remains [M. 3:2 C]! Said R. Joseph, “This is not a contradiction. One is the ruling of R. Hiyya and the other is the ruling of R. Simeon bar Rabbi. [Regarding an animal with less than an olives bulk of liver] like this case, R. Hiyya used to discard it [because he ruled it was terefah], and R. Simeon b. Rabbi would dip it [i.e., eat it because he ruled that it was valid. Rashi interprets the views in reverse. R. Hiyya used to discard the liver. Accordingly he was lenient in rules regarding any defects in it. But R. Simeon used to dip the liver and eat it for his health. Accordingly he was stricter in rules regarding defects in the liver. But this is contradicted by the following.]”
B. A mnemonic [for these rulings]: the wealthy are stingy [i.e., R. Simeon b. Rabbi was more lenient even though he could have afforded to discard the animal].
A. There was a regiment that came to Pumbedita. Rabbah and R. Joseph fled. R. Zira met them. He said to them, “You who flee [should remember this teaching]: the olive's bulk about which they spoke [in the Mishnah] refers to [that amount] in the area of the gall-bladder.” [Perhaps this was an indirect chastisement that the rabbis remain in the town where it is bitter because of the occupation by a regiment.]
B. R. Ada bar Ahavah said, “[The olive's bulk referred to in the Mishnah is that amount] in the vital area [of the liver, i.e., by the falciform ligament (Cashdan)].”
C. Said R. Pappa, “Therefore [because of these two rulings] we require [for the animal to be valid both] an olive's bulk in the area of the gall-bladder and an olive's bulk in the vital area [of the liver].”
D. R. Jeremiah posed a question: What is the rule in the case of [an animal that has an olive's bulk of liver, but only] if he collects [smaller portions of liver together]? What is the rule in the case [of an animal that has] an olive's bulk [of liver in the thin shape] of a lace?
E. R. Ashi posed a question: What is the rule in the case of [an animal that has an olive's bulk of liver] that is flattened out? These questions remain unresolved.
A. R. Zeriqa posed a question to R. Ammi: What is the rule in the case of an animal whose liver was dangling, but still attached to the diaphragm? He said to him, “I do not know [what problem there is] concerning this [case of a liver that is] dangling. If we hold in accord with the authority who says [to be valid the animal must have an olive's bulk of liver] in the area of the gall-bladder, lo, you have it. And it we hold in accord with the authority who says [to be valid the animal must have an olive's bulk of liver] in the vital area, lo you have it.”
A. The lung which is pierced... [M. 3:1 D]. Rab and Samuel and R. Assi say, “The exterior membrane [must be pierced to render it invalid].” And others say about this, “The interior membrane [must be pierced].”
B. Said R. Joseph bar Manyomi, said R. Nahman, “A mnemonic: The red coat in which the lungs are situated [i.e., the interior membrane, parenchyma pulmonis (Cashdan)].”
C. It is obvious that if the exterior membrane is pierced and the interior membrane is not pierced, the interior membrane will protect [the lung]. This accords with the rule of Rabbah. For said Raba, “This [animal whose] lung had [its exterior membrane] peeled off so that it looked like [46b] a red date is valid.”
D. If the interior membrane was pierced but the exterior membrane was not pierced, does it protect [the lung] or not? R. Aha and Rabina disputed. One said it does not protect and one said it does protect. And the law follows in accord with the authority who says it does protect [the lung].
E. And this is in accord with the view of R. Joseph. For said R. Joseph, “A lung that hisses [with a leak of air when inflated] — if we know where it is hissing, we put on it a feather or some saliva or straw, and if it bubbles [or wobbles, the animal] is terefah. If it does not, it is valid. And if we do not know where it is hissing, we bring a tub of warm water and we immerse [the lung] in it [to locate the leak]. It cannot be hot water because this would cause contraction [and we could not locate the leak]. It cannot be cold water because this would cause hardening [and the membrane might crack]. But we immerse it in warm water and we inflate it. If it bubbles, it is terefah. If it does not, it is valid. [We conclude in the latter case that] the interior membrane is pierced and the exterior membrane is not pierced. And the hissing sound is air flowing between the membranes.”
A. [A mnemonic is given.] Reverting to the body of the prior text [XII.1 C]: Said Raba, “This [animal whose] lung had [its exterior membrane] peeled off so that it looked like a red date is valid.”
B. And said Raba, “[If an animal's] lung that turned partially red, it is valid. [If it turned] completely red, it is terefah.” Said Rabina to Raba, “On what basis [do we rule that if it turned] partially [red it is valid]? Because [an animal that has such a condition] will [ordinarily] return to health. [An animal with a lung that turned] completely [red] will also [ordinarily] return to health.”
C. Was it not taught on Tannaite authority, “[If one wounded on the Sabbath] other creeping or crawling animals [he is not liable for violating the Sabbath] unless they bleed.” [This implies that if the creature turned red without bleeding it is not considered an injury of any consequence.]
D. But if you maintain that we compare [our issue of a defect in the lung with the Sabbath law for] the eight [kinds of] creeping animals [this will also lead to an inconsistency]. For it was taught on Tannaite authority, If [he caused a wound so that] the blood coalesced [under the skin], even if it did not bleed [he is liable for violating the Sabbath]. If [you compare our case to this one] then [you should conclude] that even if [the lung turned red] partially it also [should be deemed terefah]. Rather [in regard to the status of the animal whose lung turned either partially or completely red] there is no difference. [Some commentators interpret that this means in either case the animal is deemed valid. Some say, terefah.]
A. And Raba said, “An [animal with a] lung that dried up partially is terefah.” And how much [must dry up for it to be deemed terefah]? Said R. Pappi in the name of Raba, “[Dry enough] so that [scraping it with] a fingernail will crack it.”
B. In accord with what authority is this rule? In accord with R. Yosé b. Meshullam. For it was taught on Tannaite authority, What is the meaning of `dried up' [in reference to the ear of a firstling that is deemed a blemish]? Such that if it is pierced it does not produce a drop of blood. R. Yosé b. Meshullam says, “`Dried' means that it crumbles [by scraping it with] a fingernail [M. Bekh. 6:1 C-E].”
C. You can even say [that the rule for a dried lung is consistent with the rule of] the rabbis [regarding a firstling]. [You can argue that] with regard to the ear of a firstling that is exposed to the air, [even a partially dried ear] will not return to health. But a [partially dried] lung that is not exposed to the air will return to health.
D. And Said Raba, “A lung that had scabs all over it, black spots all over it, white spots all over it, it is valid.”
E. Said Amemar in the name of Raba, “We do not make comparison tests of cysts.” [If a burst cyst is found on the lung we do not compare it to another on the lung to determine whether it constitutes a defect.]
F. And said Raba, “[Animals that have] these two lobes of the lung that adhere to one another cannot be inspected [without thereby tearing the tissue].”
G. And we say this only with regard to [lobes that adhered to one another] that were not aligned properly. But concerning those [that adhered to one another] that were in their proper alignment, this is effective [for them to prevent defects].