Chullin Daf 48 (חולין דף מ״ח)
Daf: 48 | Amudim: 48a – 48b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (48a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא ומעשה
The worm-infested liver and the three festivals at Yavne
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שַׁלְפּוּחִית שֶׁלָּהּ – כְּשֵׁרָה. הִתְלִיעַ כָּבֵד שֶׁלָּהּ – זֶה הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה, וְעָלוּ עָלֶיהָ בְּנֵי עַסְיָא שְׁלֹשָׁה רְגָלִים לְיַבְנֶה, לְרֶגֶל שְׁלִישִׁי הִתִּירוּהָ לָהֶם.
English Translation:
If its womb was removed, the animal is kosher. If its liver became infested by worms, with regard to this there was an incident, and the residents of Asia Minor went up on three occasions to the great Sanhedrin in Yavne to inquire with regard to the halakha. On the first two occasions they did not receive an answer; on the third occasion, after the Sanhedrin had deliberated, they permitted the animal to them.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf opens mid-list, completing the catchword from 47b: organs whose removal does not render the animal a tereifa. Then comes a remarkable precedent: when a liver was found infested with worms, the Jews of Asia Minor travelled to the Sanhedrin at Yavne on three successive festivals before receiving a ruling — and on the third festival the Sages permitted the animal. The story preserves both the halakha (worms in the liver do not make a tereifa, since they are presumed to have entered after slaughter or without perforating outward) and a picture of how hard cases moved from the diaspora to the central court.
Key Terms:
- הִתְלִיעַ (hitlia) = became infested with worms
- בְּנֵי עַסְיָא (benei Asya) = the Jews of Asia Minor
- יַבְנֶה (Yavne) = seat of the great Sanhedrin after the destruction of the Temple
Segment 2
TYPE: מימרא ומחלוקת
A lung attached to the chest wall — Rav Nachman vs. Avimi
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: רֵיאָה הַסְּמוּכָה לַדּוֹפֶן – אֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ, הֶעֶלְתָה צְמָחִים – חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ. מָר יְהוּדָה מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דַּאֲבִימִי אָמַר: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה – חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ.
English Translation:
§ Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Naḥman says: With regard to a lung that is adjacent, i.e., attached, to the ribs in the chest wall, one need not be concerned about the possibility that it became attached as a result of a perforation in the lung as opposed to some injury to the chest wall. But if cysts full of pus sprouted on the lung itself in the area of its attachment to the chest wall, one must be concerned about the possibility that it was perforated, and that this gave rise to the cysts. Mar Yehuda says in the name of Avimi: In both this case and that case, whether or not there are cysts on the lung, one must be concerned about the possibility that the lung was perforated.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf turns to its central topic: adhesions between the lung and the dofen, the chest wall. Rav Nachman rules that a lung attached to the chest wall raises no concern — the adhesion is attributed to an injury in the wall, not a perforation in the lung. But if pus-filled cysts sprouted on the lung at the point of attachment, the lung itself is implicated and we must be concerned. Mar Yehuda in Avimi’s name is stricter: either way we are concerned. This dispute is the seed of the laws of sirkhot — the lung adhesions that dominate practical kashrut inspection to this day.
Key Terms:
- סְמוּכָה לַדּוֹפֶן (semucha la-dofen) = attached to the chest wall
- צְמָחִים (tzemachim) = growths or cysts, here filled with pus
- חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ (chosheshin lah) = we are concerned for it — the lung may be perforated
Segment 3
TYPE: גמרא (בדיקה)
Ravin bar Sheva’s knife test
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֵיכִי עָבְדִינַן? אָמַר רָבָא: רָבִין בַּר שְׁבָא אַסְבְּרַהּ לִי, מַיְיתִינַן סַכִּינָא דַּחֲלִישׁ פּוּמֵּיהּ וּמְפָרְקִינַן לַהּ; אִי אִיכָּא רֵיעוּתָא בְּדוֹפֶן – תָּלֵינַן בָּתַר דּוֹפֶן, וְאִי לָא – מֵחֲמַת רֵיאָה הִיא, וּטְרֵפָה, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא קָא מַפְּקָא זִיקָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: How do we perform an examination to determine whether the injury is in the chest wall or the lung? Rava said: Ravin bar Sheva explained the procedure to me: We bring a knife whose edge is sharp and thin, and we separate the lung from the chest wall. If there is a defect, a wound or disease, in the chest wall, we attribute the attachment to the defect in the chest wall. And if not, we presume that the attachment is due to a defect in the lung, and the animal is a tereifa. And this is the halakha even though the lung does not expel air when inflated, since it is assumed that a scab covered the perforation, and a scab does not prevent the animal from being rendered a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
How do we act on Rav Nachman’s concern? Rava transmits the procedure he learned from Ravin bar Sheva: take a knife with a thin, sharp edge and gently separate the lung from the chest wall. If the wall shows a defect — a wound or lesion — the adhesion is attributed to the wall and the animal is kosher. If the wall is clean, the adhesion must have come from the lung, and the animal is a tereifa even though no air escapes when the lung is inflated: a scab is presumed to be covering the perforation, and a scab is not a halachic seal (as taught on 47b).
Key Terms:
- סַכִּינָא דַּחֲלִישׁ פּוּמֵּיהּ = a knife whose edge is thin and sharp
- רֵיעוּתָא (re’uta) = a defect or weakness — grounds to attribute the problem elsewhere
- תָּלֵינַן (talinan) = we attribute — assigning the adhesion to its likelier source
Segment 4
TYPE: עובדא וגרסאות
Rav Nechemya’s tepid-water test — but on which case?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב נְחֶמְיָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף בָּדֵיק לַהּ בְּפָשׁוֹרֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָר זוּטְרָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב פַּפֵּי לְרָבִינָא: הָא דְּרַב נְחֶמְיָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף, אַתּוּן אַהָא מַתְנִיתוּ לַהּ, אֲנַן אַדְּרָבָא מַתְנֵינַן לַהּ, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי אוּנֵּי דְּרֵיאָה דִּסְרִיכָן לַהֲדָדֵי לֵית לְהוּ בְּדִיקוּתָא לְאַכְשׁוֹרֵי. רַב נְחֶמְיָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף בָּדֵיק לַהּ בְּפָשׁוֹרֵי.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates that Rav Neḥemya, son of Rav Yosef, examined such a lung by inflating it in tepid water to see if bubbles would appear. Mar Zutra, son of Rav Huna, son of Rav Pappi, said to Ravina: Concerning this episode of Rav Neḥemya, son of Rav Yosef, you teach it as being about this case of a lung attached to the chest wall. But we teach it as being about the case of Rava, as Rava says: These two lobes of the lung that adhere to one another have no means of inspection to deem them kosher. Still, Rav Neḥemya, son of Rav Yosef, examined such a lung by inflating it in tepid water. If no bubbles appeared he would deem the lung kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Nechemya son of Rav Yosef would test such a lung by inflating it in tepid water and watching for bubbles — the technique from 47b. Mar Zutra reports to Ravina a difference in transmission: you teach this practice on the chest-wall case, but we teach it on Rava’s ruling that two lobes adhering to one another have no inspection at all — and Rav Nechemya tested even that case in tepid water, deeming it kosher when no bubbles rose. The variant traditions matter, because applying the water test to Rava’s case effectively overturns Rava.
Key Terms:
- בָּדֵיק בְּפָשׁוֹרֵי (badeik bi-feshorei) = tested in tepid water — the bubble test for perforations
- סְרִיכָן לַהֲדָדֵי (serichan lahadadei) = adhere to one another — the source of the term sirkha
- מַתְנֵינַן לַהּ (matninan lah) = we teach it — on which ruling the practice was transmitted
Segment 5
TYPE: מתקיף
Rav Ashi: no water test can save adhering lobes
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: הַאי מַאי? בִּשְׁלָמָא הָכָא תָּלֵינַן בְּדוֹפֶן, וּכְשֵׁרָה, אֲבָל הָתָם – אִי הַאי נְקִיב – טְרֵפָה, וְאִי הַאי נְקִיב – טְרֵפָה.
English Translation:
Rav Ashi objects to this: What is this? How can an animal with a lung whose lobes adhered to one another be permitted by means of such an inspection? Granted, here, in the case of a lung attached to the chest wall, we attribute the attachment to an injury in the chest wall rather than the lung, and the animal is kosher. But there, in the case of an adhesion between two lobes, what can be said? If this lobe was perforated the animal is a tereifa, and if that lobe was perforated the animal is a tereifa. Even if a scab covers the perforation and prevents bubbles from appearing, the animal is still a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ashi attacks the second version. In the chest-wall case the water test makes sense: a clean result lets us attribute the adhesion to the wall, and the animal is kosher. But when two lobes adhere to one another, there is no innocent party — if this lobe is perforated it is a tereifa, and if that lobe is perforated it is a tereifa. A silent water test proves nothing, since a scab can suppress the bubbles while the underlying perforation remains. Rav Ashi thus defends Rava’s rule that adhering lobes have no bedika.
Key Terms:
- מַתְקֵיף לַהּ (matkif lah) = objects strongly — an attack on the logic of a ruling
- בִּשְׁלָמָא… אֲבָל (bishlama… aval) = granted here… but there — conceding one case to attack another
Segment 6
TYPE: רמינהו ותירוץ
A contradiction in Rav Nachman: makom revita
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמִי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: רֵיאָה שֶׁנִּקְּבָה וְדוֹפֶן סוֹתַמְתָּהּ – כְּשֵׁרָה! לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָתָם בִּמְקוֹם רְבִיתָא, הָכָא שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם רְבִיתָא.
English Translation:
Rav Naḥman stated that if there are cysts on the lung in the area of its attachment to the chest wall, one must be concerned about the possibility that the lung was perforated. Evidently, if the lung was perforated, the animal is a tereifa. The Gemara asks: And did Rav Naḥman really say this? But doesn’t Rav Yosef bar Minyumi say that Rav Naḥman says: If the lung was perforated but the chest wall seals the perforation, the animal is kosher? The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. There, Rav Naḥman is referring to a lung attached to the chest wall in the place that it grows [revita] naturally. In that case, if the chest wall seals the perforation it will remain sealed, and the animal can live. But here, Rav Naḥman is referring to a lung attached to the chest wall not in the place that it grows.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Nachman’s concern over cysts at the attachment point implies that a perforated lung there is a tereifa. But Rav Nachman himself rules elsewhere that a lung perforated where the chest wall seals it is kosher! The Gemara resolves: where the lung sits in its natural growing place (makom revita), the wall’s seal is stable and the animal lives — kosher. Where the adhesion is outside the growing place, the seal is not natural and will not hold — tereifa. Location determines whether the chest wall is a cure or a symptom.
Key Terms:
- מְקוֹם רְבִיתָא (mekom revita) = the place where it grows — the lung’s natural seat against the chest wall
- דּוֹפֶן סוֹתַמְתָּהּ (dofen sotamtah) = the chest wall seals it — a perforation closed by the body wall
- לָא קַשְׁיָא (la kashya) = it is not difficult — the standard formula resolving two statements
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא (ביאור)
Defining the growing place
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהֵיכָא מְקוֹם רְבִיתָא? חִיתּוּכֵי דְּאוּנֵּי.
English Translation:
The Gemara clarifies: And where is the place that it grows? It is the area of the sectioning of the lobes, i.e., the front of the lung where the lobes are adjacent to the chest wall on all sides.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara pins down the geography: the makom revita is chitukhei de’unei — the area of the sectioning of the lobes, where the front of the lung naturally nestles against the chest wall on all sides. Only there does the wall function as a reliable, permanent seal. This one-line definition became the operative boundary in the Shulchan Aruch’s laws of sirkhot.
Key Terms:
- חִיתּוּכֵי דְּאוּנֵּי (chitukhei de’unei) = the sectioning of the lobes — where the lobes face the chest wall
Segment 8
TYPE: גופא ושקלא וטריא
The ruling itself: Ravina requires the lung be tangled in the flesh
Hebrew/Aramaic:
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: רֵיאָה שֶׁנִּקְּבָה וְדוֹפֶן סוֹתַמְתָּהּ – כְּשֵׁרָה. אָמַר רָבִינָא: וְהוּא דִּסְבִיךְ בְּבִשְׂרָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף לְרָבִינָא: וְאִי לָא סְבִיךְ מַאי? טְרֵפָה, אַלְמָא אָמְרִינַן נְקוּבָה הִיא. אִי הָכִי, כִּי סְבִיךְ נָמֵי!
English Translation:
§ Since the Gemara cited the statement of Rav Naḥman, the Gemara turns to the matter itself: Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Naḥman says: If the lung was perforated but the chest wall sealed the perforation, the animal is kosher. With regard to this statement, Ravina said: And this is the halakha only when the lung is tangled in the flesh of the chest wall, between the ribs. Rav Yosef said to Ravina: And if it is not tangled, what is the halakha? The animal is a tereifa. Evidently, we say that the lung is perforated. But if so, when it is tangled as well, it should be deemed a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to examine Rav Nachman’s leniency directly. Ravina qualifies: the chest wall’s seal works only when the lung is actually tangled (savikh) in the flesh between the ribs — enmeshed tissue makes a lasting closure. Rav Yosef presses the logic: if an untangled lung is a tereifa, we are evidently treating the lung as perforated; then even when tangled it should be a tereifa, for a seal that arrives after the perforation should not undo the tereifa status!
Key Terms:
- גּוּפָא (gufa) = the matter itself — returning to analyze a quoted ruling
- סְבִיךְ בְּבִשְׂרָא (savikh be-visra) = tangled in the flesh — enmeshed in the chest-wall tissue between the ribs
Segment 9
TYPE: ברייתא וקושיא
Proof from the baraita of the sealed perforation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּהָא תַּנְיָא: נִיקַּב – פָּסוּל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא שׁוֹתֵת; נִסְתַּם – כָּשֵׁר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מוֹלִיד, וְזֶהוּ פְּסוּל שֶׁחוֹזֵר לְהֶכְשֵׁירוֹ. וְזֶהוּ לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? לָאו לְמַעוֹטֵי כְּהַאי גַוְונָא.
English Translation:
As isn’t it taught in a baraita: If a man’s penis was perforated, he is unfit to marry a Jewish woman of fit lineage, because his semen is discharged gently and he cannot procreate, in accordance with the verse: “He that is crushed or maimed in his private parts shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:2). But if the perforation was later sealed with flesh, he is fit, because now he can procreate. And this is an instance of someone who is unfit who returns to his previous state of fitness. Rav Yosef continues: When the baraita states: And this is, what does it serve to exclude? Does it not serve to exclude a case like this, where the lung was perforated and then sealed by the chest wall, in which case the animal would not become kosher again?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yosef grounds his challenge in a baraita from a different realm of halakha: a man whose member was perforated is unfit to marry into the congregation (Devarim 23:2), but if the perforation sealed itself with flesh he returns to fitness — ‘and this is a disqualification that returns to fitness.’ The restrictive phrase ‘and this is’ must exclude something: surely it excludes a case like ours, teaching that a perforated lung sealed by the chest wall does not return to fitness.
Key Terms:
- נִיקַּב… נִסְתַּם (nikkav… nistam) = perforated… sealed — the baraita’s two states
- וְזֶהוּ (ve-zehu) = and this is — restrictive language implying an exclusion
- פְּסוּל שֶׁחוֹזֵר לְהֶכְשֵׁירוֹ = a disqualification that returns to fitness
Segment 10
TYPE: תירוץ
The answer: the exclusion is the scab, not the chest wall
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לָא, לְמַעוֹטֵי קְרוּם שֶׁעָלָה מֵחֲמַת מַכָּה בָּרֵיאָה, דְּאֵינוֹ קְרוּם.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: No, the phrase serves to exclude a membrane that appeared due to a wound in the lung, which is not considered a membrane that can seal a perforation, because it is temporary. By contrast, the flesh of the chest wall is considered a permanent seal on the lungs and renders the animal kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara deflects: the baraita’s restrictive phrase excludes a membrane that grows over a wound in the lung — the scab of 47b, which is temporary and is no seal at all. The flesh of the chest wall, by contrast, is a permanent, living closure, and it does render the animal kosher. The line between a temporary crust and a permanent organic seal is what separates a tereifa from a kosher animal.
Key Terms:
- קְרוּם שֶׁעָלָה מֵחֲמַת מַכָּה = a membrane that arose from a wound — a scab, not a true seal
- לְמַעוֹטֵי (le-ma’utei) = to exclude — what the restrictive phrase rules out
Segment 11
TYPE: מתקיף
Rav Ukva bar Chama: then the mishna should list the chest wall!
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב עוּקְבָא בַּר חָמָא: אִילּוּ אִינְּקִיב דּוֹפֶן לַהֲדַהּ, מַאי? טְרֵפָה! לִיתְנֵי נְקוּבַת הַדּוֹפֶן!
English Translation:
Rav Ukva bar Ḥama objects to the ruling of Rav Naḥman that if a lung was perforated but the chest wall sealed the perforation, the animal is kosher: If flesh in the chest wall was perforated against the perforation in the lung, what would the halakha be? The animal would be a tereifa, since air can now escape from the lung. Evidently, the question of whether the animal is permitted is dependent on the state of the chest wall. If so, let the mishna teach, in addition to the given list of tereifot: An animal whose chest wall was perforated.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ukva bar Chama attacks from the structure of the mishna. If a lung perforation sealed by the chest wall is kosher, then everything depends on the wall: were the wall itself perforated opposite the lung’s hole, the animal would be a tereifa, since air now escapes. If so, the mishna’s list of tereifot should include ‘an animal whose chest wall was perforated’ — yet it does not.
Key Terms:
- אִינְּקִיב דּוֹפֶן לַהֲדַהּ = the chest wall was perforated opposite it — aligned with the lung’s hole
- לִיתְנֵי (litnei) = let it teach — why does the mishna omit this case?
Segment 12
TYPE: וליטעמיך
The parallel of the gallbladder sealed by the liver
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, הָא דְּאָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מָרָה שֶׁנִּיקְּבָה וְכָבֵד סוֹתַמְתָּהּ – כְּשֵׁרָה, אִילּוּ אִינְּקִיב כָּבֵד לַהֲדַהּ, מַאי? טְרֵפָה! לִיתְנֵי: נְקוּבַת הַכָּבֵד.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: And according to your reasoning, one can also ask: The mishna states that if the gallbladder was perforated, the animal is a tereifa. That which Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says with regard to this, that if the gallbladder was perforated but the liver sealed the perforation the animal is kosher, is difficult. If the liver were perforated against the perforation in the gallbladder, what would the halakha be? The animal would be a tereifa. If so, let the mishna also teach: An animal whose liver was perforated.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara turns the question back on the questioner: by your reasoning, consider Rabbi Yochanan’s ruling (reported by Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef) that a perforated gallbladder sealed by the liver is kosher. There too, if the liver were perforated opposite the gallbladder’s hole the animal would be a tereifa — so let the mishna teach ‘an animal whose liver was perforated’! Since the mishna omits that as well, the omission cannot be a refutation of Rav Nachman.
Key Terms:
- וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ (u-le-ta’amich) = and according to your reasoning — turning an objection against itself
- מָרָה (marah) = the gallbladder
- כָּבֵד סוֹתַמְתָּהּ (kaved sotamtah) = the liver seals it — a perforation closed by the adjacent organ
Segment 13
TYPE: תירוץ (כללא)
The mishna’s editorial principle
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, כִּי נִיקְּבָה דְּלָאו מִינֵּיהּ מִיטַּרְפָא – לָא קָתָנֵי; הָכָא נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּלָאו מִינֵּיהּ מִיטַּרְפָא – לָא קָתָנֵי.
English Translation:
Rather, one must say that the mishna does not teach cases where the perforated organ is not the one by which the animal is rendered a tereifa. Here, too, in the case of a lung sealed by the chest wall, since the perforated organ, i.e., the chest wall, is not the one by which the animal is rendered a tereifa, the mishna does not teach it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The resolution is a rule about how the mishna is written: it lists only organs whose own perforation renders the animal a tereifa. The chest wall and the liver are not on the list because the animal is never rendered a tereifa by them as such — their perforation matters only derivatively, when it exposes a hole in the lung or the gallbladder. The mishna codifies causes, not circumstances.
Key Terms:
- לָאו מִינֵּיהּ מִיטַּרְפָא (lav mineih mitarpa) = it is not rendered a tereifa by it — the organ is not itself a cause of tereifa
- לָא קָתָנֵי (la katanei) = it does not teach — the mishna’s deliberate omission
Segment 14
TYPE: בעיא ומימרא
Shmuel: cysts on the lung are kosher; Rav Mattana spoke of the kidney
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה מִשְּׁמוּאֵל: הֶעֶלְתָה צְמָחִין, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּשֵׁרָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַף אֲנִי אוֹמֵר כֵּן, אֶלָּא שֶׁהַתַּלְמִידִים מִזְדַּנְּזִין בַּדָּבָר, דְּאָמַר רַב מַתְנָא: מַלְיָא מוּגְלָא – טְרֵפָה, מַיִם זַכִּים – כְּשֵׁרָה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָהִיא בְּכוּלְיָא אִתְּמַר.
English Translation:
§ Rabba bar bar Ḥana asked Shmuel: If the lung grew cysts full of pus, what is the halakha? Shmuel said to him: The animal is kosher. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said to him in reply: I also say so, that the animal is kosher, except that the students doubt the matter, as Rav Mattana says: If the cyst was full of pus, the animal is a tereifa; if it was full of clear fluid, it is kosher. Shmuel said to him: That halakha of Rav Mattana was stated with regard to a cyst on the kidney, not on the lung.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabba bar bar Chana asks Shmuel directly: a lung that grew cysts — what is the halakha? Kosher, answers Shmuel. Rabba bar bar Chana agrees but reports that the students hesitate, because Rav Mattana distinguished: full of pus, a tereifa; clear fluid, kosher. Shmuel removes the difficulty: Rav Mattana’s distinction was stated about a cyst on the kidney, not on the lung. Lung cysts as such — without adhesion or perforation — do not render the animal a tereifa.
Key Terms:
- מִזְדַּנְּזִין (mizdanzin) = hesitate, waver — the students’ doubt
- מוּגְלָא / מַיִם זַכִּים = pus / clear fluid — Rav Mattana’s distinction
- כּוּלְיָא (kulya) = the kidney — where the pus distinction does apply
Segment 15
TYPE: מעשה
Rabbi Yirmeya is cornered in the butchers’ market
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר יוֹסֵף הֲוָה קָאָזֵיל בָּתְרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְּשׁוּקָא דְּטַבָּחֵי, חֲזָנְהוּ לְהָנָךְ דְּקָיְימִין צִמְחֵי צִמְחֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא בָּעֵי מָר אוּמְצָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לֵית לִי פְּרִיטֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַקְּפַן אֲנָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מָה אֶעֱבֵיד לָךְ, דְּכִי אָתוּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מְשַׁדַּר לְהוּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּמוֹרֵי בַּהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְהֶיתֵּירָא, וְלֵיהּ לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef was walking after Rabbi Yirmeya in the butchers’ market. He saw these lungs that were full of cysts, and he wished to determine the halakha with regard to them. He said to Rabbi Yirmeya: Doesn’t the Master desire a piece of meat? If so, meat from those animals is for sale. Rabbi Yirmeya, not wanting to issue a ruling with regard to the meat, said to him: I have no money. Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yosef said to him: I will buy them for you on credit. Rabbi Yirmeya realized that he could not avoid issuing a ruling, so he said to him: What can I do for you? As when people came before Rabbi Yoḥanan with such lungs, he would send them before Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon, who would instruct them in such cases in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, to permit the meat for consumption. But Rabbi Yoḥanan himself does not hold accordingly, and does not permit the meat. I practice stringency in accordance with his opinion.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yitzchak bar Yosef, walking behind Rabbi Yirmeya through the butchers’ market, sees lungs covered in cysts and engineers a ruling: would the Master not like some meat? Rabbi Yirmeya dodges — ‘I have no money’ — and when offered credit, must answer. He reports Rabbi Yochanan’s practice: such cases he would send to Rabbi Yehuda son of Rabbi Shimon, who permitted them in the name of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon — but Rabbi Yochanan himself did not hold that way, and Rabbi Yirmeya follows his stringency. A ruling delivered by referral allows leniency for others without violating one’s own stringency.
Key Terms:
- שׁוּקָא דְּטַבָּחֵי (shuka de-tabachei) = the butchers’ market
- אוּמְצָא (umtza) = a piece of meat
- אַקְּפַן אֲנָא (akkfan ana) = I will buy on credit — removing the last excuse
- מוֹרֵי לְהֶיתֵּירָא (morei le-heteira) = instructs toward leniency — issuing a permissive ruling
Segment 16
TYPE: מעשה (נמשך)
Rava walks behind Rav Nachman in the market…
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רָבָא: כִּי הֲוָה מְסַגֵּינַן בָּתְרֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן בְּשׁוּקָא
English Translation:
Rava said: When we would walk after Rav Naḥman in the market
קלאוד על הדף:
Rava begins his own market testimony: when we would walk behind Rav Nachman in the market — the sentence breaks at the amud and concludes on 48b. Such eyewitness reports of what a great authority tolerated in practice (and what he protested) are themselves halachic evidence: silence in the marketplace is a ruling.
Key Terms:
- מְסַגֵּינַן בָּתְרֵיהּ (mesaginan batreih) = we would walk after him — accompanying the master in public
Amud Bet (48b)
Segment 1
TYPE: מעשה (המשך)
Rav Nachman’s silence over jug-like cysts
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּגִלְדָּאֵי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ בְּשׁוּקָא דְּרַבָּנַן, חָזֵי הָנָךְ דְּקָיְימָן כַּנְדֵי כַּנְדֵי, וְלָא אָמַר לְהוּ וְלָא מִידֵּי.
English Translation:
of the skinners, and some say in the market of the Sages, he would see these lungs that were full of jugs, i.e., they were covered in large cysts full of liquid, and he would not say anything to the butchers. Evidently, he held that the animals were kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
The sentence completes: in the market of the skinners (or, some say, the market of the Sages), Rav Nachman would see lungs covered in cysts as large as jugs (kandei kandei) — and said nothing to the butchers. His silence is taken as a ruling in practice: lungs bearing even large fluid-filled cysts are kosher, in line with Shmuel’s answer above.
Key Terms:
- שׁוּקָא דְּגִלְדָּאֵי (shuka de-gildaei) = the market of the skinners — leather workers
- כַּנְדֵי כַּנְדֵי (kandei kandei) = jugs upon jugs — cysts as large as pitchers
- וְלָא אָמַר וְלָא מִידֵּי = and he said nothing at all — tacit approval
Segment 2
TYPE: מעשה
Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi in Tiberias
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי אַסִּי הֲווֹ חָלְפִי בְּשׁוּקָא דִּטְבֶרְיָא, (חָזֵי) [חֲזֹנְהוּ] הָנָךְ דְּקָיְימִי טִינָּרֵי טִינָּרֵי, וְלָא אָמְרִי לְהוּ וְלָא מִידֵּי.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates that Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi were passing through the market of Tiberias. They saw these lungs that were full of rocks, i.e., large, hard growths, and they did not say anything to the butchers. Evidently, they held that the animals were kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
A parallel testimony from Eretz Yisrael: Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi passed through the market of Tiberias and saw lungs covered in rock-like growths (tinarei tinarei) — hard protrusions — and said nothing to the butchers. Hard growths, like fluid cysts, do not in themselves render the animal a tereifa. Together the two stories close the tzemachim discussion with consistent practice in both Bavel and Eretz Yisrael.
Key Terms:
- טִינָּרֵי (tinarei) = rocks — hard, stone-like growths on the lung
- שׁוּקָא דִּטְבֶרְיָא = the market of Tiberias
Segment 3
TYPE: איתמר (מחלוקת)
A needle found in the lung — three against three
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִתְּמַר: מַחַט שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בָּרֵיאָה – רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא מַכְשְׁרִי, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ וְרַבִּי מָנִי בַּר פַּטִּישׁ וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְיָקִים טָרְפִי.
English Translation:
§ It was stated that the amora’im disagree with regard to a needle that was found in the lung of a slaughtered animal: Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Ḥanina deem the animal kosher, while Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish and Rabbi Mani bar Pattish and Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim deem it a tereifa.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new sugya: a needle is discovered inside the lung of a slaughtered animal. Rabbi Yochanan, Rabbi Elazar, and Rabbi Chanina deem the animal kosher; Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, Rabbi Mani bar Pattish, and Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim deem it a tereifa. The needle itself is harmless — the question is its history: how did a needle get inside a lung, and did it perforate anything on the way?
Key Terms:
- אִתְּמַר (itmar) = it was stated — introducing an amoraic dispute
- מַחַט (machat) = a needle — swallowed with fodder and migrating through the body
- מַכְשְׁרִי / טָרְפִי (machsheri / tarfei) = deem kosher / deem tereifa
Segment 4
TYPE: שקלא וטריא
What the dispute is really about: the needle’s route
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לֵימָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר: חִסָּרוֹן מִבִּפְנִים – שְׁמֵיהּ חִסָּרוֹן, וּמָר סָבַר: לָא שְׁמֵיהּ חִסָּרוֹן? לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא חִסָּרוֹן מִבִּפְנִים – לָא שְׁמֵיהּ חִסָּרוֹן, וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר: סִמְפּוֹנָא נְקַט וַאֲתַאי, וּמָר סָבַר: נַקּוֹבֵי נַקֵּיב וַאֲתַאי.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about this: That one Sage, i.e., those who deem it a tereifa, holds that a deficiency on the inside of the lung, created by the needle, is considered a deficiency, rendering the animal a tereifa; and one Sage, i.e., those who deem it kosher, holds that it is not considered a deficiency. The Gemara responds: No, everyone holds that a deficiency on the inside is not considered a deficiency. And here, in the case of a needle, the Sages disagree with regard to this: One Sage, i.e., those who deem it kosher, holds that the needle took the respiratory route and came into the lung without perforating the membrane; and one Sage, i.e., those who deem it a tereifa, holds that it perforated its way out of the digestive system and came through to the lung by perforating its membrane.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara first proposes that the sides dispute yesterday’s principle — whether an internal deficiency is a deficiency — and rejects it: all agree it is not (as Rabbi Yochanan ruled on 47b). The real question is probability: the lenient side says the needle was inhaled — it took the airway (simpona nakat va-atai) and slid in without piercing anything; the strict side says it was swallowed and bored its way (nakkovei nakkiv va-atai) from the digestive tract through the lung’s membrane. The machloket is a dispute about which history we presume.
Key Terms:
- סִמְפּוֹנָא נְקַט וַאֲתַאי = it took the bronchus and came — entered harmlessly via the airway
- נַקּוֹבֵי נַקֵּיב וַאֲתַאי = it perforated and came — bored through from the digestive system
- דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא (de-chulei alma) = all agree — the rejected basis is common ground
Segment 5
TYPE: עובדא וקושיא
A needle in a cut piece of lung before Rabbi Ami
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָהִיא מַחְטָא דְּאִשְׁתְּכַח בְּחִיתּוּכָא דְּרֵיאָה, אַיְיתוּהָ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי, סְבַר לְאַכְשׁוֹרַהּ. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי זְרִיקָא: ״הָרֵיאָה שֶׁנִּיקְּבָה אוֹ שֶׁחָסְרָה״. מַאי חָסְרָה? אִילֵימָא מִבַּחוּץ – הַיְינוּ נִיקְּבָה! אֶלָּא לָאו מִבִּפְנִים, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: חִסָּרוֹן מִבִּפְנִים – שְׁמֵיהּ חִסָּרוֹן.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates that a certain needle was found in a piece of lung after it had been cut into pieces. People there brought it before Rabbi Ami, and he thought to deem it kosher. Rabbi Yirmeya, and some say Rabbi Zerika, raised an objection to this possible ruling from the mishna: The lung that was perforated or that was missing a piece renders the animal a tereifa. Now, what is the case of a lung that was missing a piece? If we say that it was missing a piece on the outside, this is the same as if it was perforated, since any missing piece of the lung wall constitutes a perforation. Rather, is it not referring to a missing piece on the inside? If so, learn from the mishna that a deficiency on the inside of an organ is considered a deficiency, and the needle certainly caused a deficiency inside the lung.
קלאוד על הדף:
A needle turns up in a piece of lung that had already been cut up. Rabbi Ami inclines to permit it, following his teacher Rabbi Yochanan. Rabbi Yirmeya (some say Rabbi Zerika) objects from our mishna: ‘the lung that was perforated or that was missing’ — and ‘missing’ must mean missing on the inside (otherwise it is just ‘perforated’), proving that an internal deficiency is a deficiency, and the needle certainly carved out an internal deficiency. This is the same dialectic as 47b, now wielded against a live ruling.
Key Terms:
- חִיתּוּכָא דְּרֵיאָה (chittucha de-re’ah) = a cut piece of lung — the whole organ is no longer before us
- אֵיתִיבֵיהּ (eitiveih) = he objected to him — from a tannaitic source
Segment 6
TYPE: עובדא (המשך)
The same objection stops Rabbi Yitzchak Nappacha
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֲדַר שַׁדְּרוּהָ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא, סְבַר לְאַכְשׁוֹרַהּ, אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי זְרִיקָא: ״הָרֵיאָה שֶׁנִּיקְּבָה אוֹ שֶׁחָסְרָה״. מַאי חָסְרָה? אִילֵימָא מִבַּחוּץ – הַיְינוּ נִיקְּבָה! אֶלָּא לָאו מִבִּפְנִים? וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: חִסָּרוֹן מִבִּפְנִים – שְׁמֵיהּ חִסָּרוֹן!
English Translation:
Rabbi Ami did not decide the matter, so they then sent the lung before Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa. He, too, thought to deem it kosher. Rabbi Yirmeya, and some say Rabbi Zerika, raised an objection to this from the mishna: The lung that was perforated or that was missing a piece renders the animal a tereifa. Now, what is the case of a lung that was missing a piece? If we say that it was missing a piece on the outside, this is the same as if it was perforated. Rather, is it not referring to a missing piece on the inside? If so, learn from the mishna that a deficiency on the inside of an organ is considered a deficiency.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Ami does not decide, and the lung is sent to Rabbi Yitzchak Nappacha. He too inclines to permit — and the same objector raises the identical mishnaic difficulty. The repetition is the point: the proposed leniency keeps colliding with the same tannaitic text, and no one is willing to rule against it on the spot.
Key Terms:
- שַׁדְּרוּהָ (shadruha) = they sent it — the lung circulating between authorities
- נַפָּחָא (nappacha) = the smith — Rabbi Yitzchak Nappacha’s byname
Segment 7
TYPE: עובדא והכרעה
Rabbi Ami rules tereifa: we cannot see the whole lung
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֲדַר שַׁדְּרוּהָ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי וְטַרְפַהּ. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: וְהָא רַבָּנַן מַכְשְׁרִי? אָמַר לָהֶן: הֵן הִכְשִׁירוּ, שֶׁיּוֹדְעִים מֵאֵיזֶה טַעַם הִכְשִׁירוּ, אָנוּ מֵאֵיזֶה טַעַם נַכְשִׁיר? דִּלְמָא אִי הֲוָה רֵיאָה קַמַּן מִינַּקְבָה.
English Translation:
They then sent the lung back before Rabbi Ami, and he deemed the animal a tereifa. They said to him: But don’t the Rabbis, i.e., Rabbi Yoḥanan, Rabbi Elazar, and Rabbi Ḥanina, deem it kosher? Rabbi Ami said to them: They deemed it kosher since they knew for which reason they deemed it kosher. They were confronted with a whole lung and could see that it had no perforation. But we, for which reason shall we deem it kosher? We see only part of the lung. Perhaps if the whole lung was before us we would see that its membrane was perforated.
קלאוד על הדף:
The lung returns to Rabbi Ami and he declares it a tereifa. To the protest ‘but the Rabbis permit a needle in the lung!’ he answers with a methodological principle: they permitted because they knew why — the whole lung lay before them and they could verify the membrane was intact. We have only a piece; perhaps, were the whole lung before us, it would show a perforation. A precedent of leniency cannot be applied when the factual basis for the leniency cannot be checked.
Key Terms:
- מֵאֵיזֶה טַעַם (me-eizeh ta’am) = for what reason — leniency requires a verifiable basis
- אִי הֲוָה רֵיאָה קַמַּן = if the lung were before us — the missing evidence
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
A perforated bronchus — when does it matter?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
טַעְמָא דְּלֵיתַהּ, הָא אִיתַהּ וְלָא מִינַּקְבָה – כְּשֵׁרָה, וְהָאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הַאי סִמְפּוֹנָא דְּרֵיאָה דְּאִינְּקִיב – טְרֵפָה, הָהוּא לַחֲבֵירוֹ אִתְּמַר.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: One can infer that the reason he deemed it a tereifa is that the entire lung was not before him, but if it had been before him and the membrane had not been perforated, then he would have deemed the animal kosher. But doesn’t Rav Naḥman say: This bronchus of the lung that was perforated renders the animal a tereifa? Accordingly, even if the needle entered the lung through a bronchus the animal ought to be a tereifa. The Gemara responds: That statement of Rav Naḥman was stated in reference to a case where a needle pierced from one bronchus into another. Since the bronchi are hard, one bronchus cannot seal a perforation in another. By contrast, when a needle perforates the bronchi and continues into the flesh of the lung, soft tissue left behind can seal the perforation.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara draws the inference: had the whole lung been present and unperforated, Rabbi Ami would have permitted. But Rav Nachman says a perforated bronchus renders the animal a tereifa — and a needle in the lung surely passed through bronchi! The answer: Rav Nachman spoke of a bronchus perforated into its neighbor — bronchus walls are hard, and one cannot seal the other. A needle that passes from a bronchus into the soft flesh of the lung is different: the soft tissue closes behind it.
Key Terms:
- סִמְפּוֹנָא דְּרֵיאָה (simpona de-re’ah) = a bronchus of the lung — the rigid airway
- לַחֲבֵירוֹ (la-chaveiro) = into its neighbor — bronchus piercing bronchus, with no soft seal
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא וכללא דרב אשי
Do not compare tereifot to one another
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הַאי הֲדוֹרָא דְּכַנְתָּא דְּאִינְּקִיב לַהֲדֵי חַבְרֵיהּ – מַגֵּין עֲלֵיהּ, אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: טְרֵפוֹת קָא מְדַמֵּי לַהֲדָדֵי? אֵין אוֹמְרִין בִּטְרֵפוֹת זוֹ דּוֹמָה לָזוֹ, שֶׁהֲרֵי חוֹתְכָהּ מִכָּאן וּמֵתָה, חוֹתְכָהּ מִכָּאן וְחַיָּה!
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rav Naḥman say: If this spiral colon was perforated against another coil of the intestine, the other coil protects it by sealing the perforation? If so, why does a bronchus not seal a perforation in another bronchus? Rav Ashi said: Are you comparing tereifot to one another? One cannot say with regard to tereifot: This is similar to that, as one cuts an animal from here, in one place, and it dies, while one cuts it from there, in another place, and it lives.
קלאוד על הדף:
But Rav Nachman also says that a coil of the spiral colon perforated against its neighbor is protected — the neighboring coil seals it. Why should a bronchus not likewise seal its neighbor? Rav Ashi answers with one of the great methodological rules of this perek: are you comparing tereifot to each other? One cannot say in tereifot ‘this is like that’ — cut an animal in one place and it dies, in another and it lives. Tereifot are received laws tied to specific anatomy, not a system to be extended by analogy.
Key Terms:
- הֲדוֹרָא דְּכַנְתָּא (hadora de-kanta) = the spiral colon — the coiled intestine
- מַגֵּין עֲלֵיהּ (magein aleih) = protects it — the neighboring coil seals the perforation
- אֵין אוֹמְרִין בִּטְרֵפוֹת זוֹ דּוֹמָה לָזוֹ = one does not say of tereifot that this resembles that — Rav Ashi’s anti-analogy principle
Segment 10
TYPE: עובדא
A needle in the main bronchus: the strict camp falls silent
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָהִיא מַחְטָא דְּאִישְׁתְּכַח בְּסִמְפּוֹנָא רַבָּה דְּרֵיאָה, אַתְיוּהָ לְקַמֵּיה דְּרַבָּנַן טָרוֹפָאֵי, לָא אֲמַרוּ בָּהּ לָא אִיסּוּר וְלָא הֶיתֵּר. הֶיתֵּר לָא אָמְרִי בַּהּ – כִּשְׁמַעְתַּיְיהוּ, אִיסּוּר נָמֵי לָא אָמְרִי בַּהּ – כֵּיוָן דִּבְסִמְפּוֹנָא רַבָּה אִישְׁתְּכַח, אֵימָא סִמְפּוֹנָא נְקַט וַאֲתַאי.
English Translation:
The Gemara recounts the case of a certain needle that was found in the large, i.e., main, bronchus of the lung. They brought it before the Rabbis who deem an animal tereifa if a needle is found in the lungs, i.e., Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, Rabbi Mani bar Pattish, and Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim. They did not say that it was prohibited, nor that it was permitted. They did not say it was permitted, in accordance with their ruling, but they also did not say it was prohibited since the needle was found in the large bronchus, and one can therefore say that it likely took the respiratory route and came into the lung rather than perforating through from the digestive system.
קלאוד על הדף:
A needle is found in the simpona rabba — the main bronchus. It is brought before ‘the treifing Rabbis’ — the camp of Reish Lakish that declares needle-in-lung a tereifa — and they say nothing, neither prohibition nor permission. Permission would contradict their own position; but prohibition is also impossible, for a needle sitting in the main airway most plausibly arrived by simply being inhaled. Even the strict opinion concedes that location can testify to an innocent route.
Key Terms:
- סִמְפּוֹנָא רַבָּה (simpona rabba) = the great (main) bronchus
- רַבָּנַן טָרוֹפָאֵי (rabbanan tarofa’ei) = the treifing Rabbis — the strict camp in the needle dispute
Segment 11
TYPE: עובדא והכרעת רב אשי
A needle in the liver: which way does the eye face?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָהִיא מַחְטָא דְּאִישְׁתְּכַח בַּחֲתִיכָה דְּכַבְדָּא, סְבַר מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף לְמִיטְרְפַהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: אִילּוּ אִשְׁתְּכַח בְּבִשְׂרָא כְּהַאי גַוְונָא הֲוָה טָרֵיף מָר? אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: חָזֵינָא, אִי קוֹפָא לְבַר – נַקּוֹבֵי נַקֵּיב וַאֲתַאי, אִי קוֹפָא לְגָיו – סִמְפּוֹנָא נְקַט וַאֲתַאי.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara relates that there was a certain needle that was found in a piece of liver. Mar, son of Rav Yosef, thought to deem the animal a tereifa. Rav Ashi said to him: If a needle had been found in the flesh, like this case where it was found in the liver, would the Master have deemed it a tereifa? A perforated liver, like perforated flesh, does not in itself render the animal a tereifa, as is evident from the mishna (42a). Rather, Rav Ashi said that we see: If the eye of the needle faces outward, toward the stomach cavity, one must presume that it perforated its way out of the gullet, rendering the animal a tereifa, and thereby came to the liver. If the eye of the needle faces inward, buried in the liver, and the sharp end of the needle is facing outward, one may presume that it took hold of a blood vessel and came to the liver through it, rather than through the gullet, and the animal is kosher.
קלאוד על הדף:
A needle is found in a piece of liver, and Mar son of Rav Yosef inclines to declare the animal a tereifa. Rav Ashi corrects him: a perforated liver does not render an animal a tereifa any more than perforated flesh does — the needle is a problem only for what it pierced on the way. His test: if the kufa, the eye of the needle, faces outward, the needle must have bored its way out of the gullet — tereifa; if the eye faces inward with the point outward, it travelled harmlessly along the blood vessels into the liver — kosher. The needle’s orientation is read as a record of its journey.
Key Terms:
- קוֹפָא (kufa) = the eye of the needle — the blunt, pierced end
- לְבַר / לְגָיו (le-var / le-gav) = outward / inward — the orientation of the needle’s eye
- חֲתִיכָה דְּכַבְדָּא = a piece of liver
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא (אוקימתא)
The limit: only a thick needle
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּאַלִּימְתָּא, אֲבָל קַטִּינְתָּא, לָא שְׁנָא קוֹפָא לְגָיו, לָא שְׁנָא קוֹפָא לְבַר, נַקּוֹבֵי נַקֵּיב וַאֲתַאי.
English Translation:
The Gemara adds: And this statement applies only to a thick needle, the eye of which is not sharp enough to cause a perforation by itself. But if the needle is thin, it is no different if the eye faces inward and it is no different if the eye faces outward, and one must presume that it perforated its way out of the gullet and thereby came to the liver.
קלאוד על הדף:
The orientation test works only for a thick needle, whose blunt eye cannot pierce tissue — so an inward-facing eye proves a gentle route. A thin needle’s eye is itself sharp enough to bore through; its orientation proves nothing, and whichever way it faces we presume it perforated its way from the gullet, and the animal is a tereifa.
Key Terms:
- אַלִּימְתָּא (alimta) = a thick needle — blunt-eyed
- קַטִּינְתָּא (katinta) = a thin needle — sharp at both ends, orientation proves nothing
Segment 13
TYPE: קושיא (נמשכת לדף הבא)
And how is this different from a needle found in…
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמַאי שְׁנָא מִמַּחַט שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from that of a needle that is found
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara begins to test Rav Ashi’s liver ruling against a parallel case: and in what way is this different from a needle that is found — the daf ends mid-question, with the comparison case (the needle found in the wall of the second stomach) opening 49a. The catchword keeps the sugya’s momentum: every presumption about a needle’s route must survive comparison with its neighbors.
Key Terms:
- וּמַאי שְׁנָא (u-mai shena) = and in what way is it different — the formula demanding consistency between cases