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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from that of a needle that is found