Chullin 94
איכא דאמרי
The former say: 'in colour', meaning thereby that when distended it is pale [like wood]; but the others say: 'in touch', meaning thereby that it is hard [like wood], or, as some say, that it is quite smoot and has no fissures marking the lobes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There are many variants in the text of this passage; the translation, however, follows the text as found in MS.M. and other MSS. V. D.S. V. also Alfasi.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
בחזותא ואיכא דאמרי
Raba said: If [the lung was] blue it is permitted, if black like ink it is trefah; for R'Hanina said: Black [blood] is [in reality] red blood which has turned black by disease.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Nid. 19a. Hence black is a symptom of decay and disease. veurh');"><sup>2</sup></span>
בגישתא איכא דאמרי
If green<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. This may mean either green or yellow. From the second anecdote of R. Nathan (v. infra) it would seem that yellow is intended, for this would very likely be the colour of the anaemic child; but v. p. 255, n. 1.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
אדומה כשרה מדרבי נתן
R'Kahana said: If [the lung] resembles liver<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., hepatization - a consolidation of the lungs resulting in a liver-like solidification; this occurs in pneumonia.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
פעם אחת הלכתי לכרכי הים באתה אשה אחת לפני שמלה בנה ראשון ומת שני ומת שלישי הביאתו לפני
it is trefah; and in orde to remember this, think of the verse: Flesh that is torn of beasts [trefah] in the field.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 30. Suggesting that if it is like flesh it is trefah. veurh');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ראיתיו שהיה אדום אמרתי לה
R'Sama, son of Raba, said: If the lung resembles cuscuta or the crocus or [the yolk of] an egg, it is trefa But what is meant by the statement above, 'If green it is permitted'? - That it resembles the leek in colour.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' therefore means green and not the various shades of yellow, for these are trefah. V. p. 254, n. 3.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ושוב פעם אחת הלכתי למדינת קפוטקיא באתה אשה לפני שמלה בנה ראשון ומת שני ומת שלישי הביאתו לפני ראיתיו שהיה ירוק הצצתי בו ולא היה בו דם ברית
If there is found there an accumulation of pus, then it is clear that the obstruction was caused by the pus, and it is therefore permitted.
המתינה לו ומלה אותו וחיה והיו קורין אותו נתן הבבלי על שמי
R'Joseph said: A membrane which had formed on the lungs in consequence of a wound is not a proper membrane.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It does not form a strong and effective protection over the wound; it will most certainly break and it is therefore trefah.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
(שמות כב, ל) ובשר בשדה טרפה
We then inflate the lung; if it bubbles it is trefah, otherwise it is permitted, for then it is clear that the inner membrane only has been perforated, but not the outer one, and the sound is caused merely by the air vibrating between the two membranes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 46b.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
אטום בריאה מייתינן סכינא וקרעינן לה אי אית בה מוגלא ודאי מחמת מוגלא הוא וכשרה
Should you say it means a deficiency from the outside, but that would be identical with 'pierced'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And in that case it would be unnecessary to state it expressly in the MISHNAH:');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ואי לא מותבינן עלה גדפא או רוקא אי מבצבצא כשרה ואי לא טרפה
It must mean therefore a deficiency within, thus proving that a deficiency within is considered a defect! - No; it really means a deficiency from the outside and as for your objection that it would then be identical with pierced, [I say that] it is stated in the Mishnah only on account of R'Simeon's view.
קרום שעלה מחמת מכה בריאה אינו קרום
Now this is his view only where there is a hole without any loss of substance, but where there is a hole with loss of substance even R'Simeon would agree.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it is trefah even though the perforation does not extend as far as the main bronchi.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
האי ריאה דאוושא אי ידעינן היכא אוושא מנחינן עלה גדפא או גילא או רוקא אי מבצבצא טרפה ואי לא כשרה
There was then brought in to him [R'Hananiah] a lung whose substance [had decayed and] was tossing about within as [water] in a jug, and he declared it to be permitted.
בחמימי לא דכווצי בקרירי לא דמטרשי
R'Aha, son of Raba, asked R'Ashi, How would we know it? - He replied: We take a glazed earthen basin, [pierce the lung] and pour it out into the basin, if there are seen any white streaks it is trefah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The white streaks are particles of the bronchial tubes which have been destroyed within.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
תתאה אינקיב עילאה לא אינקיב והאי דאוושא זיקא דביני וביני הוא
R'Nahman said: If the substance of the lung decayed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is difficult to distinguish this case from that of Ulla supra, and indeed Maim, regards both statements as one. Rashi, however, distinguishes between the two cases and interprets this statement of R. Nahman thus: If the lung was depleted. i.e., a cavity was formed within but the rest of the pulmonary substance was sound etc.');"><sup>15</sup></span>