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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

Rava said: When we would walk after Rav Naḥman in the market