Talmud Bavli Hullin 48a-b - translation by Tzvee

If its womb was missing [48a], it is valid. If its liver became worm-infested [the law is unclear]. [Regarding] this [case] was an incident where the residents of Asia Minor came up on three occasions to Yavneh [seeking a ruling on the matter]. On the third [occasion a decision was rendered] that permitted [such a case] for them.

XIII.1

A.            Said R. Joseph bar Manyomi, said R. Nahman, “[Regarding] a lung that adjoins the wall [of the chest cavity], we are not concerned [that it is a sign of a terefah]. If ulcerations erupted [on the lung near the place it adjoins the chest], we are concerned [that this indicates it is a terefah].”

B.            Mar Judah in the name of Abimi said, “In both [of the above] cases we are concerned [that the animal is terefah].”

C.            What is the procedure [for determining whether it is a sign of a terefah]? Said Raba, “Rabin bar Sheba explained to me that we bring a sharpened knife [i.e., a scalpel] and we detach it [the lung from the wall of the chest]. If there is a taint on the wall (Cashdan), we then presume that [some secretion from] the chest wall caused [the lung to adhere to the wall]. And if not, then [some secretion] from the lung caused [the adhesion] and it is terefah.”

D.            [And this is the case] even if air does not escape [from the lung after it is detached from the chest wall. Most MSS omit this last phrase.]

XIII.2

A.            R. Nehemiah the son of R. Joseph inspected it [the lung detached from the chest wall] in warm water. Said Mar Zutra, the son of R. Huna, the son of R. Pappi to Rabina, “Do you cite this [procedure] of R. Nehemiah the son of R. Joseph in connection with this case? We cite it in connection with [this case taught by] Raba. For said Raba, ` [Animals that have] these two lobes of the lung that adhere to one another cannot be inspected to render them fit [without thereby tearing the tissue]' [above, XII.3 F].”

B.            [And we cite the teaching:] R. Nehemiah the son of R. Joseph inspected it [the lung with two adhering lobes] in warm water. R. Ashi raised an objection [to citing this teaching in connection with this latter case]. What is the use of applying this rule here? it makes sense [to apply the rule] here [in the case of a lung that adhered to the wall of the chest]. [If we find a hole in the lung] we can attribute its cause to [adhesion resulting from a defect in] the wall and [the animal will be deemed] valid.. But there [in the case of the lung with two adhering lobes], if this one [lobe] has a whole, it is terefah, and if that one [lobe] has a hole, it is terefah.

C.            And did R. Nahman say this? [I.e., If ulcerations erupted [on the lung near the place it adjoins the chest], we are concerned [that this indicates it is a terefah] [XIII.1 A].] Lo, said R. Joseph bar Manyomi, said R. Nahman, “A lung that was pierced and the wall of the chest seals it [the hole], it is valid.”

D.            There is no contradiction. There [where we declare that it is valid, the hole is located] in a place they naturally abut. Here [where we declare that it is terefah, the hole is located in a place they do not naturally abut. [Though the wall seals off the hole in the lung, in this latter circumstance they likely will separate.]

E.            And where is the place that they naturally abut? Where the lobes split off [at the top of the chest].

XIII.3

A.            Reverting to the body of the previous text [C, above]: Said R. Joseph bar Manyomi, said R. Nahman, “A lung that was pierced and the wall of the chest seals it [the hole], it is valid.” Said Rabina, “[And that is so] where it fused into the flesh [and there was a symphysis of the lung and intercostal muscles (Cashdan)].”

B.            Said R. Joseph to Rabina, “And if they did not fuse what is the law? It is terefah. It seems [logical to conclude] that we say it is deemed to be pierced [prior to fusing]. When it has fused it should also [be deemed to be pierced]. For lo, it was taught on Tannaite authority, If [a man's penis] was pierced he is invalid because he is languid [in ejaculating semen]. If it was closed up, he is valid because he can inseminate. And this is a defect [that renders invalid] that can return to validity. [T. Yeb. 10:4 E-G].”

C.            [What does the phrase] “And this is” exclude? Does it not exclude a case like this one [of a defect in the lung of an animal sealed up by contact with the chest wall]? No, it excludes [the case of] a membrane that formed as a result of an injury to the lung. For this is not deemed to be a valid membrane.

D.            R. Uqba bar Hama raised an objection to this, “If it was pierced in the chest wall at that spot, what would be the law? It would be deemed terefah. Let it teach [in the Mishnah the case of] the chest wall that was pierced [as one of the animals that is deemed terefah].”

E.            And according to your view that which R. Yitzhak bar Joseph said in the name of R. Yohanan [cf. II.1 E-F, above], “[If] the gallbladder that was pierced and the liver seals it up, it is valid.” If the liver was pierced at that spot what would be the law? It would be deemed terefah. Let it teach [the case of] the liver that was pierced. Rather it must be that a case where if it was pierced [i.e., in the liver] not in this circumstance [where it seals a hole in another organ, such a hole does not render the animal terefah and accordingly such a case] is not taught. Here as well because it is a case where [if it was pierced in the chest wall] not in this circumstance [where the chest seals a hole in the lung, such a hole does not render the animal terefah and accordingly such a case] is not taught.

XIII.4

A.            Rabbah bar bar Hannah posed a question to Samuel, “If ulcerations erupt [on the lung] what is the law?” He said to him, “It is valid.” He said to him, “I also say this. But the students balked [at the ruling] in this matter.”

B.            For said R. Matna, “If they [the ulcerations] are filled with pus, it is terefah. [If they are filled with] clear water, it is valid.”

C.            He [Samuel] said to him, “This rule was stated with regard to the kidneys.”

XIII.5

A.            R. Yitzhak bar Joseph was following R. Jeremiah through the butcher's market. He saw some lungs that had upon them ulcerations. he said to him, “Does not the master want a fine piece.” He said to him, “I have no money.” He said to him, “I'll vouch for you [that your credit is good].” He said to him, “What will I do with you? [You are so persistent.]” [But he gave no indication of his view on the matter.]

B.            When such [cases of lungs with ulcerations] came before R. Yohanan [for a ruling] he would send them before R. Judah b. R. Simeon who ruled regarding them in the name of R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon to permit them [for consumption]. But he [Yohanan himself] did not reason in accord with that view.

C.            Said Raba, “When we walked behind R. Nahman in the leather market [48b], and some say [this took place] in the scholars' market, we saw those [lungs] that had large growths on them. And he did not say anything to them [to indicate that he deemed these terefah].”

D.            R. Ammi and R. Assi were traversing the market in Tiberias. They saw those [lungs] that had gigantic growths. And they did not say anything to them [to indicate that they deemed these terefah].

XIV.1

A.            It was stated: If a needle was found in the lung, R. Yohanan and R. Eleazar and R. Hanina declared it valid. And R. Simeon b. Laqish and R. Mani bar Patish and R. Simeon b. Eliakim declared it terefah.

B.            Let us say that they disputed this [principle of law]. Those masters [who say it is invalid] reason that a lack internal [to the lung] has the status of a lack [that renders it invalid]. And those masters [who say it is valid] reason that a lack internal [to the organ] does not have the status of a lack [that renders it invalid].

C.            No. All parties agree that a lack internal [to the organ] does not have the status of a lack [that renders it invalid]. And here it is over this [principle] that they dispute. Those masters [who say it is valid] reason it [could have] entered through the bronchial tubes [and not pierce the organ]. And those masters [who say it is invalid] reason it [must have] pierced the organ as it entered [the lung].

D.            A certain needle that was found in a slice of a lung. They brought it before R. Ammi [for a ruling]. He reasoned he could declare it valid. R. Jeremiah objected and some say R. Zeriqa [objected based on the text of the Mishnah]: The lung which is pierced or lacking [any part thereof] [M. 3:1 D]. 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].” [See above XII.5 E.]

E.            They then sent it before R. Yitzhak Nappaha [for a ruling]. He reasoned he could declare it valid. R. Jeremiah objected and some say R. Zeriqa [objected based on the text of the Mishnah]: The lung which is pierced or lacking [any part thereof] [M. 3:1 D]. 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.             They then sent it before R. Ammi and he declared it terefah. They said to him, “But lo the Rabbis have declared it valid.” He said to them, “They who declared it valid know for what reason they declared it valid. On what basis shall we declare it valid? Perhaps if the entire lung was in front of us we would find that it was pierced.”

G.            The basis [for his declaring it terefah] was that it was not there [before him]. Lo [this implies that] if it was there before him and was not pierced, it would be valid. But lo said R. Nahman, “This bronchial tube of the lung that was pierced, it is terefah.” This was stated for [a case of] one next to another [at a branch point].

H.           But lo said R. Nahman, “This colon of an intestine that was pierced where it is next to another, it protects it [and seals the hole and so it is valid.].”

I.              Can you compare [defects that render animals] terefot to one another? We do not say concerning [defects that render animals] terefot that this one resembles that one. For lo you may cut from this place [on an animal] and it will die. You may cut from here [an identical amount in another place on the animal] and it will live.

XIV.2

A.            A certain needle was found in the main bronchial tube of the lung. They brought it before the rabbis who declared terefah [other cases of a needle found in the lung]. They did not declare it prohibited or permitted [in this instance]. They neither declared it permitted in accord with our account [above]. Nor did they declare it prohibited because it was found in the main bronchial tube [and not in the lung]. It made sense to say that it entered through the bronchial tube [and not through the esophagus].

B.            A certain needle was found in a slice of liver. Mar the son of R. Joseph reasoned that he should declare it terefah. Said to him R. Ashi, “If such an object was found lodged in the flesh of the animal would our master declare it terefah? [The same should apply to the liver.]”

C.            Rather said R. Ashi, “Let us take a look. If the head of the needle points toward the exterior [of the liver], then we may say that it pierced [other organs as it entered and the animal is terefah]. If the head of the needle points toward the interior [of the liver], then we may say that it entered through the tube [i.e., the ductus choledocus (Cashdan)]. And this concern applies in the case of a large needle. But in the case of a small needle it makes no difference whether the head points toward the exterior or toward the interior. [We presume that] it pierced [organs] as it entered.”