![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Masechet Chullin Daf 47
Jan. 13th, 2019 08:14 pmDaf 47
The first topic of discussion is the sircha, or adhesion on the lung. I am not a biologist, I don't have the clearest idea what this is. It's some sort of fibrous material that grows on the outside of a section of the lung for some reason. In some cases it makes the animal a treifa, in others it doesn't. My understanding is that the idea of 'glatt' kosher is that it's a stringency in seeking animals whose lungs do not have sirchas even if b'halakha the animal with sirchas might truly be kosher.
What exactly is the problem with a sircha? It's not explicitly one of the eighteen treifas discussed at the start of the Mishna, but it seems to in some way be a version of n'keva, a puncture in the lung. Rashi's explanation is that the sircha is a fibrous material that forms over a puncture, and in certain circumstances it's capable of completely plugging the whole and therefore the animal is kosher, and in other circumstances it's a sign of an incomplete plugging and so the animal is still a treifa. Tosfos's explanation is that the sircha grows on its own regardless of a puncture, but because it's an adherent material that connects various parts of the lung that move on their own, it is likely to break and become a puncture, and therefore it is a sign of a treifa even though there is no actual puncture on the animal.
In any case, Gemara here explains that the lung consists of two main lobes on the left and right side of the animal, and each of those lobes has several smaller lobes attached to it- typically two and three. According to Rava, if the sircha connects two adjacent smaller lobes, the animal is kosher, but if it connects two non-adjacent lobes, the animal is a treifa. Rashi's explanation based on his overall explanation of sircha is that a sircha connecting two adjacent lobes is likely to stay intact as a plug of the puncture, but a sircha connecting two non-adjacent lobes will pull apart and re-open the puncture. You can extrapolate Tosfos's explanation from this- they hold the same thing but with respect to opening up a new hole, not covering up an existing puncture.
I'm given to understand there's more about sirchas on the next daf, but the Gemara moves on to various other diseases and symptoms of the lungs and whether they are treifas or not.
A discussion of what blueish, blackish, and greenish discoloration of the lungs signifies takes us briefly to an interesting story about bris milah.
Rabbi Nosson traveled and met with a woman who had had two sons both die after bris milah.
Since even without a gene theory, the Rabbis were able to realize that it was common where two sons died from bris milah, further children were more commonly susceptible, the rule is that because of sakanah, after two deaths, further children are not obligated for bris milah.
The modern presumption is that this was a family of hemophiliacs, but Rabbi Elefant points out that this is not the p'shat of the Gemara. Who knows, it could be some disease that doesn't exist anymore, or some spiritual affliction God doesn't inflict in our modern days. His point is, I think, that we don't necessarily take our halakha about hemophiliacs from passages in the Talmud like this one, we ideally look to the actual medical facts as much as possible.
Anyway, Rabbi Nosson looked at the baby and saw that he was reddish. He said to wait for the baby to lose that color as the blood absorbed into him, and then circumcise. She did so and the baby was fine. Similarly, in a different case, Rabbi Nosson met with a woman whose first two sons had died from bris milah, and the third son was greenish. He told her to wait for the blood to circulate and remove the greenish color, and then circumcise. She did so and the baby was fine.
I have no idea what medical conditions might have caused this, and if Rabbi Nosson's medical advice was good or if he was lucky.
This is my experience with most of this page. I can read the words and understand what they're saying, but I have no idea if it's reasonable medical advice or not, no idea if it's reasonable animal anatomy and pathology or not.
The first topic of discussion is the sircha, or adhesion on the lung. I am not a biologist, I don't have the clearest idea what this is. It's some sort of fibrous material that grows on the outside of a section of the lung for some reason. In some cases it makes the animal a treifa, in others it doesn't. My understanding is that the idea of 'glatt' kosher is that it's a stringency in seeking animals whose lungs do not have sirchas even if b'halakha the animal with sirchas might truly be kosher.
What exactly is the problem with a sircha? It's not explicitly one of the eighteen treifas discussed at the start of the Mishna, but it seems to in some way be a version of n'keva, a puncture in the lung. Rashi's explanation is that the sircha is a fibrous material that forms over a puncture, and in certain circumstances it's capable of completely plugging the whole and therefore the animal is kosher, and in other circumstances it's a sign of an incomplete plugging and so the animal is still a treifa. Tosfos's explanation is that the sircha grows on its own regardless of a puncture, but because it's an adherent material that connects various parts of the lung that move on their own, it is likely to break and become a puncture, and therefore it is a sign of a treifa even though there is no actual puncture on the animal.
In any case, Gemara here explains that the lung consists of two main lobes on the left and right side of the animal, and each of those lobes has several smaller lobes attached to it- typically two and three. According to Rava, if the sircha connects two adjacent smaller lobes, the animal is kosher, but if it connects two non-adjacent lobes, the animal is a treifa. Rashi's explanation based on his overall explanation of sircha is that a sircha connecting two adjacent lobes is likely to stay intact as a plug of the puncture, but a sircha connecting two non-adjacent lobes will pull apart and re-open the puncture. You can extrapolate Tosfos's explanation from this- they hold the same thing but with respect to opening up a new hole, not covering up an existing puncture.
I'm given to understand there's more about sirchas on the next daf, but the Gemara moves on to various other diseases and symptoms of the lungs and whether they are treifas or not.
A discussion of what blueish, blackish, and greenish discoloration of the lungs signifies takes us briefly to an interesting story about bris milah.
Rabbi Nosson traveled and met with a woman who had had two sons both die after bris milah.
Since even without a gene theory, the Rabbis were able to realize that it was common where two sons died from bris milah, further children were more commonly susceptible, the rule is that because of sakanah, after two deaths, further children are not obligated for bris milah.
The modern presumption is that this was a family of hemophiliacs, but Rabbi Elefant points out that this is not the p'shat of the Gemara. Who knows, it could be some disease that doesn't exist anymore, or some spiritual affliction God doesn't inflict in our modern days. His point is, I think, that we don't necessarily take our halakha about hemophiliacs from passages in the Talmud like this one, we ideally look to the actual medical facts as much as possible.
Anyway, Rabbi Nosson looked at the baby and saw that he was reddish. He said to wait for the baby to lose that color as the blood absorbed into him, and then circumcise. She did so and the baby was fine. Similarly, in a different case, Rabbi Nosson met with a woman whose first two sons had died from bris milah, and the third son was greenish. He told her to wait for the blood to circulate and remove the greenish color, and then circumcise. She did so and the baby was fine.
I have no idea what medical conditions might have caused this, and if Rabbi Nosson's medical advice was good or if he was lucky.
This is my experience with most of this page. I can read the words and understand what they're saying, but I have no idea if it's reasonable medical advice or not, no idea if it's reasonable animal anatomy and pathology or not.