And why is this different from the case of a needle that was found [49a] in the thick wall of the reticulum. [With regard to that we say if it protrudes] from one side it is valid; from two sides it is terefah. And we do not say let us take a look to see whether the head points toward the exterior or toward the interior. We may say there that because food an drink pass through, it makes sense to say that the food or drink pushed it [into the wall of the reticulum and it is not of any use to inspect to see whether the head points inward or outward. It is terefah only if it pierced all the way through].
E. A certain needle was found in the large portal vein of the liver [of an animal]. Huna the master the son of R. Idi declared it terefah. R. Ada bar Manyomi declared it valid. They went and asked Rabina [which view to follow]. He said to them, “Take the mantles [of authority] off those who declared it terefah.”
F. A certain [date] pit was found in the gallbladder [of an animal]. Said R. Ashi, “When I was in the house of R. Kahana he said this [object] certainly came in through the portal vein. Even though it cannot exit [naturally from the vein], the movements [of the animal as it walks] move it along [in the vein]. And this case applies to the pit of a date. But the pit of an olive surely can pierce [organs and lodge in the vein like a needle (Rashi)].”
A. Said R. Yohanan, “Why do they call [the lung] ry'h? Because [of the play on the Hebrew words]: it lights up [m'yrh, from the same root] the eyes [of the person who eats it].”
B. They posed a question: [Does the statement that the lung lights up the eyes mean] eating [the lung] or [applying it to the eyes along] with medications.
C. Come and take note: For said R. Huna bar Judah, “A whole goose [may sell for] one zuz. But its lung [alone may sell for] four zuz.” And if you wish to conclude that [a lung helps the eyes] through eating, then buy it [the whole goose] for a zuz and eat it! Rather it must be that [it helps the eyes if applied] with medications.
A. If the lung was pierced in a place where the butcher [normally] handles it, do we impute [the defect to his handling] or not. R. Ada bar R. Nathan says, “We impute it [to him].” Mar Zutra the son of R. Mari said, “We do not impute it [to him].” And the law is that we do impute it [to him].
B. Said R. Samuel the son of R. Abahu, “My father was one of the head [spokesmen] of Rafram's seminars. And he said [the law is] that we do impute it [to the butcher].”
C. They stated this before Mar Zutra the son of R. Mari and he would not accept this [as binding]. Said R. Mesharshayya, “It makes sense to accept the view of my father's father. For we [hold the view that we may] impute [damage to intestines that are dragged away] to a wolf [cf. M. 1:1, I.17 C, vol. I, p. 51].”
A. A worm [that bored a hole in the lung of an animal] — there is a dispute over this matter between R. Joseph bar Dostai and the rabbis. One said [we may presume that] it bored through before the animal was slaughtered [and so the defect is of consequence]. And the other said [we may presume that] it bored through after the animal was slaughtered [and so the defect is of no consequence]. And the law follows the view [that we presume] it bored through after the animal was slaughtered.
A. R. Simeon says, “[It is not terefah] until its bronchial tubes are pierced [M. 3:1 E].” Said Rabbah bar Tahlifa, said R. Jeremiah bar Abba, “[This means] until the major bronchial tube is pierced.”
B. R. Aha bar Abba sat before R. Huna. He sat and said, “Said R. Malokh, said R. Joshua b. Levi, `The law is in accord with the view of R. Simeon.' He said to him, `You are stating the view of Malokh of Arabia. He has stated that the law is not in accord with R. Simeon.'”
C. When R. Zira departed [to Israel] he found R. Bibi sitting and stating, “Said R. Malokh, said R. Joshua b. Levi, `The law is in accord with R. Simeon.'” He said to him, “By the master's life! For I and R. Hiyya bar Abba and R. Assi came to R. Malokh's place and we said to him, `Did the master say that the law followed in accord with the view of R. Simeon?' And he said to us, `The law does not follow in accord with the view of R. Simeon.' And we [Bibi] said [to Zira], `And what [tradition] do you have in your hand?' And he said to him as follows: `Said R. Yitzhak bar Ammi, said R. Joshua b. Levi, `The law follows in accord with R. Simeon.'”
D. And the law does not follow in accord with R. Simeon.
A. [If] the belly [abomasum] is pierced [M. 3:1 F]. Said R. Yitzhak bar Nahmani, said R. Oshaia, “The fat attached to the abomasum, the priests were accustomed to treating it as permitted [for eating] in accord with the view of R. Ishmael, who stated the matter in the name of his ancestors.”
B. And your mnemonic [for this teaching] is, “Ishmael the priest helps support the priests.” What makes you say this? [We see that Ishmael supports the priests from the following.] For it was taught on Tannaite authority, “Thus you shall bless the people of Israel” (Num 6:23). R. Ishmael says, “We learned [from this phrase in the verse] of a blessing for Israel from the mouths of the priests. [A blessing] for the priests themselves we do not learn about [from this phrase]. When the verse states, `And I will bless them' (Num. 6:27) you could say [that means] that the priests bless Israel and the Holy One blessed be He blesses the priests.”
C. R. Aqiba says, “[From the first verse] we derived that there was a blessing for Israel from the mouths of the priests. We did not derive that there was a blessing for Israel from the mouth of the Almighty [from that verse]. When the verse states, `And I will bless them,' you could say [that means] the priests bless Israel and the Holy One blessed be He concurs with them.”
D. Then where [in Scripture] according to the view of R. Aqiba do we find that there is a blessing for the priests? Said R. Nahman bar Yitzhak, “From `I will bless those who bless you' (Gen. 12:3).”
E. [If there is support according to both for a blessing for the priests, then] in what way does R. Ishmael support the priests? In that he upholds the view that the [evidence for the] blessing for the priests is in the same place [in Scripture] as the blessing for Israel.
F. What is the point of [the teaching of] R. Ishmael who stated the matter in the name of his ancestors? As was taught on Tannaite authority, “And all the fat that is on the entrails” (Lev. 3:3): [49b] “This is the fat which is on the abomasum,” the words of R. Aqiba. R. Ishmael says, “The fat which is on the maw.” [And sages did not concur with him.] [T. 9:14 E-G].
G. And they raised a contradiction: “And all the fat that is on the entrails” (Lev. 3:3): R. Simeon [var. Ishmael] says, “Just as that fat that is on the entrails is encased in a membrane and easily peeled away, likewise any [fat that is prohibited is] encased in a membrane and is easily peeled away.” [This includes as prohibited the fat that is on the abomasum in contradiction to Ishmael's teaching at F.]
H. R. Aqiba says, “Just as that fat that is on the entrails is layered [across the organ], encased in a membrane and easily peeled away, likewise any [fat that is prohibited is] layered, encased in a membrane and is easily peeled away.”
I. Sent Rabin in the name of R. Yohanan, “This is the correct presentation of the [views in the] Mishnah [i.e., the teachings of G-H]. And you must reverse the [attributions of the views] in the first [teachings, in F].”
J. Why is it more fitting to reverse [the attributions of the views] in the first [text]? Reverse [them in] the last [i.e., the second text]? That one is different because it teaches [more fully, spelling out the rule using the language], “Just as...” [hence] it is [more] specific.
K. If so [why does it say above at A that they ruled leniently] in accord with the view of R. Ishmael, it is in accord with the view of R. Aqiba! Said R. Nahman bar Yitzhak, “[The pericope in A hedges the attribution by saying] he stated the matter in the name of his ancestors. [This implies that] he himself did not reason in accord with this view.”
A. Said Rab, “Clean [i.e., permitted] fat can seal [a hole in an organ]. Unclean [i.e., forbidden] fat cannot.” And R. Sheshet, “Both can seal [a hole].”
B. R. Zira posed a question: What about fat from a wild beast? [Can it seal a hole?] Did it state specifically that clean fat can seal up a hole and this too is clean fat? Or perhaps [clean fat can seal up a hole] because it is sticky. And this [fat from a wild beast] is not sticky [enough to seal a hole].
C. Said Abayye, “What is his question? [Even] if it is permitted for eating, [if] it is not sticky [then it is not effective in sealing a hole].”
D. There was [an organ with] a hole that had been sealed up by unclean [forbidden] fat that was brought before Raba [for a ruling]. Said Raba, “What shall we be concerned with. First, lo R. Sheshet [at A] said that unclean fat also can serve to seal a hole. And furthermore [we have a principle that] the Torah had mercy on the money of an Israelite.”
E. Said R. Pappa to Raba, “[We should be concerned with two things. First there is the contrary view of] Rab. [And furthermore this is a case that involves] a prohibition based on the authority of the Torah. And yet you say [we should invoke the principle that] the Torah had mercy on the money of an Israelite!”
A. Manyomin, the pot merchant, left a pot of honey uncovered. They brought it before Raba [for a ruling]. He said, “What shall we be concerned with. First, it was taught in the Mishnah on Tannaite authority, Three [kinds of] liquids are forbidden [for consumption] on account of [danger of poisoning in an instance of being discovered in a vessel that is] uncovered: (1) water, (2) wine, and (3) milk. [But all other liquids are permitted for consumption, even if left uncovered] [M. Ter. 8:4]. And furthermore, [we should invoke the principle that] the Torah had mercy on the money of an Israelite.”
B. Said R. Nahman bar Yitzhak to Raba, “[We should be concerned. First there is the contrary view of] R. Simeon. [And furthermore this is a case that involves] a life threatening danger. And yet you say [we should invoke the principle that] the Torah had mercy on the money of an Israelite!”
C. What [contrary view] of R. Simeon [do they refer to above]? That which was taught on Tannaite authority, Five [liquids] are not subject to [the prohibition of consumption on account of danger of poisoning in an instance of being discovered in a vessel that is] uncovered: brine, vinegar, oil, honey and muries. And R. Simeon says, “Even among these there are those [instances] when they are [prohibited for consumption on account of being discovered] uncovered [T. Ter. 7:12, variant version].”
D. And said R. Simeon, “I saw a serpent drink brine in Sidon.” They said to him, “That snake was a blockhead. And you cannot adduce proof from the actions of blockheads.”
E. He [Raba] said to him [Nahman], “Admit I am right at least with regard to brine [that a serpent cannot poison it]. For lo R. Pappa and R. Huna the son of R. Joshua and the rabbis when they had [an instance of liquid that was uncovered] they would pour into it brine [to neutralize any poisons].”
F. He [Nahman] said to him [Raba], “Admit I am right at least with regard to honey [that a serpent can poison it]. For R. Simeon b. Eleazar upholds his [i.e., Simeon's] view. For it was taught on Tannaite authority: And likewise R. Simeon b. Eleazar used to prohibit honey [that was left uncovered].”
A. Said R. Nahman, “Forbidden fat [on an organ] in the shape of a hat does not serve to seal up [a hole].” What is this [fat]? Some say this is the fat nodules of the rectum. And some say that this is the pericardium (Cashdan).
B. Said Raba, “I heard two rulings from R. Nahman regarding the himsa-fat and the bar-himsa-fat [on the abomasum]. [He rules that] one sealed [up a hole] and the other did not seal. And I do not know which is which.”
C. R. Huna bar Hinnena and R. Huna the son of R. Nahman said, “Bar-himsa-fat seals and himsa-fat does not seal.”
D. Said R. Tabot, “And the mnemonic for this is: `The strength of the son [i.e., bar-himsa-fat] is superior to that of the father.'”