Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Yosef bar Minyumi Amar Rav Nachman rules that a lung which is stuck to the wall of the chest - is Kosher (because we attribute the fusion to a wound in the wall of the chest) ...

(b) ... unless sores developed on that area of the lung (indicating that the lung is at fault).

(c) Mar Yehudah in the name of Avimi declares the animal Tereifah - either way.

(d) According to Mar Yehudah, based on what Ravin bar Sh'va told Rava, one can checks the lung (in the case where it does not have ulcers [Tosfos DH 'Maysinan']) - by severing it from the wall of the chest with a very sharp knife, (so as not to tear the skin of the lung) and examining the wall of the chest for wounds, as Ravin bar Sh'va explained to Rava. If there are, then we declare the animal Kosher; and if there are not, it is Tereifah.

(a) If he found no wound on the chest-wall, Rav Nechemyah b'rei de'Rav Yosef would still examine the lung - by placing it in warm water, and then blowing it up and testing for bubbles.

(b) According to Mar Zutra b'rei de'Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Papi it was not on this case Ravin bar Sh'va prescribed the warm water test, but on a case cited by Rava that we learned earlier - namely, that of two lobes of the liver that were joined.

(c) Rav Ashi objects to Mar Zutra b'rei de'Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Papi's version - on the grounds that whereas in our case, if the test proves negative, one can attribute the fusion to the chest-wall, in Rava's case of the two lungs, Mah Nafshach one of the lobes has a hole, so what is the point of the test?

(d) According to Rav Ashi, even though one of the lobes must have a hole, the test might prove negative - because of a crust that grew over it.

(a) Rav Yosef bar Minyumi Amar Rav Nachman rules that an animal with a lung that has a hole which is blocked by the wall of the chest - is Kosher.

(b) And the problem with the animal in the previous case - is based on the fact that Rav Nachman there is speaking about where the lung became stuck to the wall of the chest in a location where they do not generally grow together (i.e. if it is the Uma, which is not situated close to the chest wall, nevertheless became stuck to it), in which case the Uma and the chest wall stand to tear apart, whereas Rav Yosef bar Minyumi is speaking where the lung got stuck to the chest wall in a location where they generally grow together ...

(c) ... i.e. where it is the Unos (which lie beside the wall of the chest) that became fused with the wall.

(d) We follow Rav Nachman's ruling regarding a lung that sticks to the chest wall in its location (an Una), since nobody argues with him; but not like his ruling permitting one that sticks to the chest wall not in its location (an Uma), since Avimi argues with him, and we always go le'Chumra in cases that are d'Oraysa.

(a) Ravina qualifies Rav Nachman's ruling permitting an animal whose punctured Una is blocked by the chest wall - by confining it to where it is firmly stuck to the flesh, but if it is stuck to the ribs, he maintains, the animal will be Tereifah (from which it is clear that Rav Nachman considers the animal to have a hole, though it is unclear how else one might have interpreted Rav Nachman).

(b) Rav Yosef queries Ravina from a Beraisa, which declares someone who has a hole in his penis, Pasul (to marry a regular Jewess) - because the Zera is no longer able to shoot like an arrow, in which case, it cannot form a baby.

(c) If the hole becomes sealed - then the prohibition falls away.

(d) The Beraisa concludes 've'Zehu P'sul she'Chozer le'Hechshero' - implying that there is another case where the P'sul is irreversible (which Rav Yosef assumes to be Rav Nachman's case of a lung that became punctured and was then sealed by the chest wall (a Kashya on Ravina).

(a) Ravina counters however, that 've'Zehu' comes to preclude another similar case - namely that of a hole in the lung which became sealed with a crust (as we have already learned).

(b) Rav Ukva bar Chama queries Ravina from his own case, if the corresponding chest wall were to subsequently become punctured - then the animal would be Tereifah once more. In that case, why does our Mishnah not insert 'Nekuvas ha'Dofen' in the list of Tereifos?

(c) To which Ravina retorted that Rav Ukva bar Chama might just as well have asked on our Mishnah from Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef Amar Rebbi Yochanan, who ruled that if a gall-bladder that became punctured and that was subsequently blocked by the liver - the animal is Kosher ...

(d) ... posing a Kashya - why our Mishnah does not insert 'Nekuvas ha'Kaved' (seeing as if the liver were to then become punctured at the same point, the animal would be Tereifah).

(e) In fact, our Mishnah omits the case of ...

1. ... 'Nekuvas ha'Kaved' - because it is on account of the hole in the Marah that the animal reverts to being a Tereifah, and not the hole in the liver.
2. ... 'Nekuvas ha'Dofen' - because it is on account of the hole in lung that the animal reverts to being a Tereifah, and not the hole in the chest wall.

(a) When Rabah bar bar Chanah asked Shmuel what the Din will be regarding an animal that has ulcers on its lung, he replied - that that it is Kosher.

(b) Even though Rabah bar bar Chanah thought so too, he nevertheless asked Shmuel for his opinion - because of a problem the Talmidim had with that, based on a statement by Rav Masna ...

(c) ... who declared a lung that is full of ...

1. ... pus - Tereifah.
2. ... clear water - Kosher.

(d) Even though the Talmidim were correct in equating 'Malya Mugla' with 'He'elsah Tzemachin' - they erred in that Rav Masna was talking (not about the lungs, but) about the kidneys.

(a) Rebbi Yitzchak bar Yosef was walking behind Rebbi Yirmiyah in the butcher's market - when they saw lungs with ulcers. Curious to know Rebbi Yirmiyah's view in the matter, Rebbi Yitzchak bar Yosef asked him whether he would not like to purchase a nice piece of meat?

(b) When Rebbi Yirmiyah replied that he had no money on him - he really meant to put Rebbi Yitzchak bar Yosef off.

(c) Accepting the answer at surface value, Rebbi Yitzchak bar Yosef offered to solve that problem - by using his 'protectzia' with the butchers and arrange credit on Rebbi Yirmiyah's behalf.

(d) Rebbi Yirmiyah then cited Rebbi Yochanan, who had sent lungs with ulcers to Rebbi Yehudah b'Rebbi Shimon, who had in turn, declared them Kosher in the name of his brother, Rebbi Elazar. Nevertheless, Rebbi Yirmiyah was hesitant to issue a ruling in the matter - because Rebbi Yochanan himself was not sure that they were Kosher?

(e) He (Rebbi Yochanan) did not on the other hand, declare them Tereifah, since the only reason that he did not declare them Kosher was because he did not have a tradition from his Rebbes that they were Kosher.

(a) Rava was walking behind Rav Nachman in the tanners market (or in the market of the Rabbanan [see Rabeinu Gershom]), when they came across some lungs with large ulcers. Rava related this episode - to inform us that Rav Nachman said nothing to the butchers concerned, from which we can infer that he considers them Kosher.

(b) When walking through the market place in Teverya, Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi came across 'Tinri Tinri' (meaning very large, dry ulcers) - they too, remained silent, a proof that they consider them Kosher.

(c) Besides the fact that the 'Tinri' are hard and an Atum (a stopped up lung) is not, one can also distinguish between them - in that unlike Tinri, which resemble ulcers full of pus, an Atum does not differ in appearance from a healthy lung, only it cannot be inflated, in the way that a healthy lung can.

9)

(a) Rebbi Yochanan and his colleagues declare an animal in whose lungs a needle is found, Tereifah. Resh Lakish and his colleagues - declare it Tereifah.

(b) We initially assume that their argument is based on whether an internal Chisaron is considered a Chisaron or not - on the grounds that metal tends to corrode the flesh that surrounds it.

(c) But we conclude that in fact, they are arguing over how the needle arrived in the lungs:

1. Resh Lakish assumes that the needle pierced hem after arriving there via the Veshet (despite the fact that we did not find the hole in the lung through which it must have entered) - because an animal does not generally swallow needles (or anything else) via its Kaneh.
2. Rebbi Yochanan assumes that it arrived there directly via the Kaneh (without puncturing the lung), in spite of the fact that an animal does not generally swallow needles (or anything else) down its Kaneh - due to the fact that no hole was found in the lung (and we do not assume something to have happened if we cannot see any sign that it did, as long as we have something else on which to attribute it).

(a) Both opinions agree we conclude, that an internal Chisaron is not considered a Chisaron, rejecting the version that reads that it is - a. because we already concluded (in the case of 'Re'ah she'Nishpechah ke'Kiton') that 'Lo Sh'mah Chisaron', and b. because if it was considered a Chisaron, then we would have no way of justifying Rebbi Yochanan's ruling.

(b) We rule like those who declare the animal Kosher - due to the principle that the Halachah is always like Rebbi Yochanan whenever he argues with Resh Lakish.

(c) Even Rebbi Yochanan will agree however, that the animal is Tereifah if even part of the lung is missing and is not therefore subject to inspection. Perhaps, he maintains, had they been able to inspect the entire lung, they would have discovered a hole.

(a) When a lung with a needle in one of the Unos was brought before first before Rebbi Ami and later before Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha - each one in turn, wanted to declare the animal Kosher.

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah (or Rebbi Zerikah) however, queried their ruling from our Mishnah 'Re'ah she'Nikvah O she'Chasrah, Tereifah' - which he interpreted as Chasrah mi'bi'Fenim (as we attempted to do earlier).

(c) After ruling that the animal was Kosher, Rebbi Ami sent the animal to Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha - because he had reservations about his ruling (which will be clarified shortly). His Safek cannot have based on Rebbi Yirmiyah's Kashya - firstly, because we already refuted that Kashya earlier ('Le'olam mi'ba'Chutza, u'le'Rebbi Shimon') and secondly, because when the She'eilah was sent back to him, he declared it Tereifah for a different reason, as we shall now see.

(a) When the She'eilah was sent back to Rebbi Ami, he declared the animal Tereifah - because the lung was no longer available for inspection, since if it had been, maybe they would have discovered a hole in it (as we explained earlier); whereas Rebbi Yochanan and his colleagues, who declared it Kosher, did so only on condition that the lung was available for inspection.

(b) In a case where a Simpon of the lung is found to have a hole in it, Rav Nachman rules - that the animal is Tereifah ...

(c) ... because he is speaking where the hole was found in the Simpon (an indication that the needle arrived in the lung via the Simpon), where it adjoins another Simpon (which is hard and will not therefore seal the hole) ...

(d) ... whereas Rebbi Yochanan is speaking when, even if a hole is found in the Simpon, it is found in one that is located further down the Kaneh, where it is blocked by the flesh of the lung.

(a) In a case where a hole is found in a part of the Hadura de'Kanta (the large intestines surrounding the fatty part of the bowels) where it lies against another part of the intestines, Rav Nachman rules - that it is Kosher.

(b) Rav Ashi reconciles this with Rav Nachman's previous ruling, regarding a hole that is found in a Simpon, in a location where it borders on another Simpon - with the statement that one cannot compare one case of Tereifah with another.

(c) And he compares it to an animal whose legs are cut at one point and it is Kosher, whereas if they are cut at another point, they are Tereifah, even though this appears to be a contradiction. He is referring to - where the former is cut off above the nerve-junction (but without the bone being broken), and the latter, below the nerve-junction (but where the bone is broken).

(a) When the case of a lung with a needle in the large Simpon was brought before Resh Lakish and his colleagues, they declined to rule either Isur or Heter. We understand why they did not permit the animal. The reason that they declined to forbid it is - because the fact that the needle was found in the Simpon ha'Gadol indicates that it entered the lung via the Kaneh and not the Veshet (otherwise, how did it get to the Simpon ha'Gadol?)

(b) When a piece of liver was brought before Mar b'rei de'Rav Yosef containing a needle, Rav Ashi objected when Mar b'rei de'Ravina wanted to declare the animal a Tereifah - on the grounds that a hole in the liver is not Tereifah (so why should the needle be?).

(a) Rav Ashi therefore ruled that - if the blunt end of the needle is pointing towards the animal's abdominal cavity and the point towards its head, the animal is Tereifah. But if the blunt end is facing the animal's head, it is Kosher ...

(b) ... because in the former case, we assume that the needle entered the liver via the Veshet and the stomach, puncturing the wall of the intestines in the process, whereas in the latter case, it is unlikely to have entered the liver via the abdominal cavity, and we assume that it entered the liver via the Simpon of the Kaneh.

(c) It will make no difference which way the needle is facing however - in the case of a fine needle, such as the ones we use (which are sharp at both ends, and could well have entered the liver from the stomach and) which is Tereifah whichever way the needle is pointing.