[47a] And said Raba, “These two cysts [on the lung] that are adjacent to one another are no subject to inspection. [They are definite symptoms of an underlying defect.]
I. “If there is one [cyst] that looks like two, we take a thorn and lance it. If [the fluid] flows from one to the other, it is one [cyst] and it is valid. If not, it is two [cysts] and it is terefah.”
J. And said Raba, “The lung has five lobes. Facing the animal, there are three on the right and two on the left. If there are fewer or more or they are reversed, it is terefah.”
K. These [lungs of an animal with] an added lobe were brought before Meremar [for a ruling]. R. Aha was sitting at the gate. He [Aha] said to him [the one who inquired], “What did he say to you?” He said to him, “He declared them valid.” He said to him, “Take them before him again [for another ruling].” He [Meremar] said to him [the inquirer], “Go tell the one who sits at the gate that the law does not follow in accord with Raba with regard to a case of an additional lobe [in the lung].”
L. And this concern applies where it is found in among the lobes. But if it was found between the lungs, it is terefah. These [lungs of an animal with an added lobe] between the lungs were brought before R. Ashi [for a ruling]. R. Ashi reasoned that he should declare them terefah. Said to him R. Huna mar bar Avya, “All healthy grazing animal have this lobe. And the butchers call it the fragile little rose lobe.”
M. And this concern applies when [the added lobe between the lungs] is found in the front. [47b] But when it is found behind [the lungs], even if it is [as small as] a myrtle leaf, it is terefah.
N. Said Rafram, “This lung that resembles wood is terefah.” Some say [this means like wood] in appearance. Some say, in texture. Some say, pale [like wood]. Some say, hard [like wood]. Some say, smooth [like wood] with no indentations in the lobe.
O. And said Raba, “If it [the lung] is blue, it is valid. But if it is inky black, it is terefah.” For said R. Hanina, “A black [lung is but a] red [lung] that was diseased.”
P. A green [lung] is valid in accord with the view of R. Nathan. A red [lung] is valid in accord with the view of R. Nathan.
Q. As it was taught on Tannaite authority: R. Nathan says, “Once I went to the towns by the sea. A Woman came before me who had circumcised her first son and he died. [She circumcised] her second son, and he died. Her third son she brought before me [for a ruling]. I observed that he was flushed red. I said to her, `My daughter. Wait until his blood is circulating better.' She waited for him [to improve], and then she circumcised him and he lived. And they named him after me, Nathan the Babylonian.
R. “And another time I went to the province of Cappadocia. A woman came before me who had circumcised her first son and he died. [She circumcised] her second son, and he died. Her third son she brought before me [for a ruling]. I observed that he was greenish [anemic (Cashdan)]. I examined him and determined that he did not have blood suitable for circumcision. I said to her, `My daughter. Wait until his blood pressure improves.' She waited for him [to improve], and then she circumcised him and he lived. And they named him after me, Nathan the Babylonian.”
A. Said R. Kahana, “[A lung that looks in its color] like a liver is valid. [If it looks] like flesh, it is terefah.” And a mnemonic for this [rule is the verse where the words flesh and terefah appear together], “Therefore you shall not eat any flesh that is torn by beasts in the field (terefah)” (Ex. 22:31).
B. Said R. Sama the son of Raba, “A lung that looks [in color] like cuscuta or like a crocus or like an egg [yolk] is terefah. Rather what is the definition of the green color that is [for a lung] valid? Green like a leek.
A. Said Rabina, “[If there is] an obstruction in the lung, they take a knife and cut into it. If pus exudes then it is surely on account of the pus [that there was an obstruction, not another defect] and it is valid. And if none exudes then they place upon it a feather or some saliva. If it flutters or bubbles [because air passes through], then it is valid. And if not, it is terefah [because this is a substantive defect of the lung].”
B. Said R. Joseph, “A membrane that forms as a result of an injury to the lung is not [a valid] membrane [and the animal is terefah].”
C. And 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.” [See above XII.1 E.]
D. Said Ulla, said R. Yohanan, “A lung whose tissue flows like liquid [inside of its membranes] is valid. It seems [logical to conclude] that he reasons that a defect inside [the tissue of the lung] does not have the status of a defect [that renders the animal terefah].”
E. R. Abba raised an objection to Ulla, “[The Mishnah says], The lung which is pierced or lacking [any part thereof]. What does lacking mean? If you say it means lacking on the exterior, that is the same as pierced. So does it not mean lacking on the interior. And so we may derive from this that any lack on the interior has the status of a lack [that renders the animal terefah].”
F. No. [This objection does not stand.] It is consistent to say that lacking refers to the exterior. And what [about what] was stated [as an objection that this is redundant because] that is the same as pierced? It is necessary [to state both] in accord with the view of R. Simeon who said, “[It is not terefah] until its bronchial tubes are pierced.” This concern applies to a hole [puncture] that does not lack [any tissue, i.e., that it must go deep.] But with regard to a hole that does lack [tissue] even R. Simeon agrees [that it is terefah even if it does not pierce the bronchial tubes].
G. R. Hanina became infirm. R. Nathan and all of the great rabbis of the generation came up to visit him. They brought before him [for a ruling] a lung whose tissue flowed like liquid [inside of its membranes] and he declared it valid.
H. Said Raba, “And this [is the rule in an instance where] the bronchial tubes are intact.”
I. Said R. Aha the son of Raba to R. Ashi, “How do we determine [whether they are intact]?” He said to him, “They bring a glazed pot and they pour [the liquified lung matter] into it. If there are white streaks in it, it is terefah. And if not, it is valid.”
J. Said R. Nahman, “A lung whose tissue liquified but whose membranes are intact is valid.” It was taught on Tannaite authority also in this regard, A lung whose tissue liquified but whose membranes are intact, even if it [the cavity caused by the change] had the volume of a quarter log, it is valid.