Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav rules that many tiny holes (resembling a sieve) on the circumference of the Gargeres - combine to make up a Shi'ur of Rov.

(b) Rav Yirmiyah queries Rav Yehudah from a Beraisa which discusses the Shiur of holes on a skull. The Shiur of a hole that negates the Tum'as Ohel of a skull is - the size of the head of a doctor's awl.

(c) The Shi'ur the Tana now gives if ...

1. ... the hole is elongated instead of round - is if the missing flesh would be the size of a doctor's awl if it was round.
2. ... there are many small holes is - that they combine to make up the size of the head of a doctor's awl.

(d) This a Kashya on Rav Yehudah - because by the same token, he ought to combine the holes if they are the size of an Isar (which is the size that renders Chesaron ha'Gargeres Tereifah), and not the Shi'ur of Rov, like Rav Yehudah learns.

(a) Rav Yirmiyah it seems, forgot the ruling of Rebbi Chelbo ... Amar Rav - who gave the Shi'ur of holes with a Chesaron (flesh missing) as the size of an Isar, and holes without a Chesaron as Rov.

(b) Since the tiny holes in the case that Rav Yehudah is talking about do not have a Chesaron, Rav Yirmiyah's Kashya is not really a Kashya at all.

(c) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi rules - that a thin strip of flesh that has been removed from the length of the Gargeres (leaving a Chesaron) - combines to make the animal Tereifah, if, rolled up, it has the Shi'ur of an Isar.

(d) Rebbi Yitzchal bar Nachmeini asked Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi what the Din will be if the Gargeres was punctured like a sieve round the circumference, to which he replied - with the distinction between holes with a Chesaron (whose Shi'ur is an Isar) and holes without a Chesaron (whose Shi'ur is Rov), made by Rebbi Chelbo.

(a) Regarding the equivalent case by a bird ('Nikvah ke'Nafah'), Rebbi Yitzchak bar Nachmeni explained - that if after cutting round the area containing the holes and turning it inside the neck at ninety degrees, it covers the majority of the hole, the bird is Tereifah. If not, it is Kasher.

(b) The Si'man Rav Papa gave by which to remember that this is the Shi'ur (and not that of an Isar or of Rov) is - that the holes resemble a sieve, so one now places it inside the neck like a sieve.

(a) And the Shi'ur Rav ...

1. ... Nachman gives in a case where the Kaneh is cut on three sides in the form of a door is - that an Isar (coin) fits on to the 'door'. A more lenient ruling than a case of a hole with a Chesaron - because in this case, there is no Chesaron.
2. ... gives in a case where the Kaneh is split lengthwise is - if not even a Chulya (three rings [or one, according to some]) at either end remains intact.

(b) The Halachah is more lenient when the split is lengthwise than when it is widthwise - because when the animal breathes, and the neck stretch one way and the lungs draw the other way, a split widthwise tends to open more (preventing it from healing), whereas a split lengthwise tends to narrow (pulling it together).

(c) Rebbi Yochanan queries - why Rav requires a Chulya at each end to prevent the animal from becoming a Tereifah, when a Mashehu will suffice.

(d) When they told him that Rebbi Yonasan echoed his own opinio - he praised the 'Babylonian' (Rebbi Yonasan, who moved to Eretz Yisrael from Bavel), for knowing how to explain this ruling properly.

(a) Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef quoting a Beraisa in front of Rebbi Yochanan, gave the location of Shechitah as from the Taba'as ha'Gedolah right down to the lower lobe of the lung. This ruling is not Halachah however - because it follows the opinion of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, whereas we rule like Rebbi Chanina ben Antignos, who permits Shechting beyond that point, as far as the Shipuy Kova.

(b) Rava explains 'lower' in this case to mean - when the animal is hanging with its head downwards (which in fact, would be on top if one was holding the Kaneh).

(c) This does not constitute the end of the Kaneh - which extends up to the point where the lobes join.

(a) Rava explains 'lower' in this way, and not when one is holding the Kaneh in one's hand - because he only permits Shechting the part of the Kaneh that becomes exposed when the animal grazes (incorporating the part that runs between the first lobes), but not the rest (i.e. the part of the Kaneh that runs beyond the first lobes).

(b) He warns the Shochet - not to pull the head manually, to extend the Kaneh still further (in order to Shecht it at that point).

(c) Regarding the part of the Kaneh that is exposed when the animal stretches its neck whilst it is being Shechted (see also Tosfos DH 'Ansah Atzmah') - Rebbi Chanina (or Rebbi Chananya) asks whether that extra section is included or not, and we remain with 'Teiku' (which, like all Sefeikos min ha'Torah, we rule Lechumra).

(d) Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish between them arrive at the conclusion that ...

1. ... in a case where the Shochet stretches the Kaneh before Shechitah - the animal is Tereifah.
2. ... the Shi'ur Tereifus regarding a hole in the area of the Kaneh beyond the chest is (not be'Rov like a hole [which is not Chaser] in the Gargeres, but) - be'Mashehu.

(a) A Beraisa defining the Chazah (the chest), gives as the lowest part, the section that 'sees the ground'. One extremity is the neck, the other - the Keres.

(b) What are the ramifications of this definition?

(c) Before giving it to the Kohen - one cuts of the first two ribs on either side of the Kaneh and gives it to him together with the Chazeh.

(a) Rav and Shmuel both confine Nikav K'rum shel Mo'ach (which our Mishnah lists as Tereifah), to the upper membrane (that is attached to the inside of the skull), even though the soft, lower membrane is still whole. According to others however - the animal is only a Tereifah if both membranes are holed.

(b) To remind us that the lower membrane exists, even though it is extremely thin, Rav Shmuel bar Nachmeni gives, as a Siman - 'the sack which encases the brain'.

(c) Bearing this in mind, Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi cites - the membranes of the testicles with which to compare the two membranes of the brain.

(d) The major distinction between the two membranes of the brain and the two membranes of the testicles is - that the latter excludes the sack that encases them both, whereas in the former, the upper membrane is itself the sack.

(a) The difference between the Shi'ur Tereifus of the brain and that of the spinal corn is - that whereas in the case of the former, a hole the size of a Mashehu renders it a Tereifah, in the case of the latter, it only becomes a Tereifah if the majority breaks.

(b) Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi ... in the name of bar Kaparah, defines the border between the two as - where it begins to flow from the 'dish' (shaped brain).

(c) Rebbi Yitzchak bar Nachmeni quoting Rebbi Yehoshua ban Levi, cites the two glands that divides between the brain and the spinal cord - because what is within the glands is considered brain, and what is without, spinal cord.

(d) He is not at first sure to which of the two the actual glands pertain. He concludes however - that they have the Din of the brain, and he bases his conclusion on logic.

(e) When (presumably for the first time), Rebbi Yirmiyah examined a bird, he discovered the two glands on top of the 'dish'.

10)

(a) Our Mishnah includes a hole in the heart that reaches the cavity. Abaye tries to resolve Rebbi Zeira's She'eilah (whether this refers to the large cavity or to one of the smaller cavities), from a statement by Rabah bar Tachlifa ... Amar Rav, who established Rebbi Shimon's ruling in our Mishnah 'ad she'Tinakev (ha'Rei'ah) le'Beis ha'Simponos' - specifically by the large bronchi (air-tube).

(b) Rebbi Zeira refutes Abaye's proof however - on the grounds that whereas 'le'Beis ha'Simponos' of Rebbi Shimon implies the main central bronchi (into which all other bronchi pour), 'le'Beis Chalalo' in our case implies any of the cavities (otherwise, the Tana ought to have said 'le'Beis ha'Chalalim').

(c) Rav renders an animal with the smallest hole in the 'Kaneh ha'Leiv' a Tereifah - Shmuel requires Rov.

(d) Rabah bar Yitzchak Amar Rav interprets Kaneh ha'Leiv as the Cheilev on the walls. He cannot be referring to the sides of the animal - because life is not dependent upon them, in which case a hole there would not render the animal Tereifah.

(e) What he therefore refers to is - the fat-covered 'pipe' that runs between the walls (i.e. the two sides) of lungs.

(a) Ameimar citing Rav Nachman lists three such Kanim that branch off from the Kaneh after it enters the chest area. One of them runs into the heart, another into the lungs, and the third - into the liver.

(b) We just learned that Rav and Shmuel argue over the Shi'ur Tereifus of a hole in the Kaneh ha'Leiv. The difference between the Shi'ur Tereifus of a hole in the Kaneh ha'Rei'ah and that of a hole in the Kaneh ha'Kaved, according to ...

1. ... the first Lashon is - that the former is like the lung itself (a Mashehu), whereas the latter is like the Shi'ur of the liver (which is only Tereifah if the entire organ is missing).
2. ... the second Lashon is - that the Kaneh ha'Rei'ah has the same Din as the liver, and the Kaneh ha'Kaved, as that of the lung.

(c) The proof that the Halachah is like the first Lashon lies in the fact - that Rebbi Yochanan concurs with it, when he rules (in connection with the Kaneh ha'Rei'ah) 'Nikvah le'Matah min ha'Chazeh, Nidon ke'Rei'ah' (as we learned on the previous Amud).

(a) When they first told Shmuel of Rav's ruling regarding a hole in the Kaneh ha'Leiv - he exclaimed that if that is what Rav held, then he knew nothing about Tereifus. He had previously been unaware of Rav's opinion - because whereas Rav was Rosh Yeshivah in Sura, he was Rosh Yeshivah in Neherda'a.

(b) According to some texts, Shmuel referred to Rav as 'Aba Chaveri' (in which case, Aba was Rav's name). According to the version that reads just 'Aba' (which besides being a name is also a respectful title), Shmuel referred to him by that name - out of respect, because Rav was greater than him.

(a) Rebbi in a Beraisa, gives the Shi'ur Tereifus of the Chut ha'Shedrah as 'Nifsak be'Rubo'. Rebbi Ya'akov says - that even a small hole renders the animal a Tereifah.

(b) When an animal was brought before Rebbi with a spinal cord that had a hole in it - he ruled that it was Tereifah (like Rebbi Ya'akov).

(c) Rav Huna nevertheless rules - like Rebbi that it is Kasher).

(a) Rav Huna interprets 'Rubo' as Rov Oro (the majority of the circumference of the skin). Others interpret it as - Rov Mocho (the majority of the marrow that runs along it).

(b)

1. The second opinion holds - that if Rov Mocho renders the animal Tereifah, how much more so Rov Oro (since ultimately, all the marrow will leak out).
2. The first opinion holds - that Rov Mocho does not render the animal a Tereifah (as Nivli specifically cited on the name of Rav).

(c) When Rav Nasan bar Avin saw Rav check first for Rov Oro and then, when he found the skin intact, for Rov Mocho, he commented - that if Rov Oro is intact, the spinal cord requires no further examination.

(a) Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi declares an animal whose spinal cord is either Nismarech or Nismasmes, Tereifah.

1. 'Nismarech' means - where the marrow has liquefied to the point that, if there was a hole in the skin, it would leak out.
2. ... 'Nismasmes' means - where it has become sufficiently soft that if one were to hold it in one's hand in a vertical position, the small part that protrudes would bend and fold over (even though it would not leak, if there was a hole).

(b) Rabah bar bar Chanah could not just present the case of Nismasmes, and allow us to extrapolate Mismarech from a 'Kal va'Chomer' - because we would then translate Nismasmes as Nismarech (and declare what we now call Nismasmes, Kasher).

(c) Rebbi Yirmiyah asks about an animal with a heavy spinal cord, and remains with a 'Teiku'. His She'eilah is - whether, assuming that the spinal cord could not stand vertically (as we just explained regarding a soft spinal cord), due to its heaviness, that is an illness that renders the animal a Tereifah, or not.

(d) The current cases (assuming that they are Tereifah) belong - to the category of 'Nifsak ha'Chut' (either because in the end, Chazal anticipate that this is what is going to happen, or because it itself is considered 'Nifsak ha'Chut').

(a) Bei Rav rules 'Nismasmes Pasul, Nismazmez Kasher'. 'Nismazmez' means - that some of the marrow has emptied from the spinal cord.

(b) Bei Rav needs to repeat 'Nismasmes, Pasul' - to avoid the misconception that 'Nismazmez' is equivalent to 'Mismasmes', and that Bei Rav is coming to argue with Rabah bar bar Chanah.

(c) Bei Rav amend the Beraisa 'Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar Omer, Nismazmez Mochah, Tereifah' to read - 'Mismasmes Mochah Tereifah'.

(a) When Levi saw someone bang his head violently in the bathhouse, he commented - 'Nismazmez Mocho de'Dein' (this man's head is Nismazmez).

(b) According to Bei Rav, he did not mean that the man was Tereifah - but that he was unable to conceive children.

(c) The spinal cord extends - as far as the tail.

(d) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel explains that the Din Tereifus applies only up to the Bein ha'Parshos - comprising an area towards the back of the spinal cord from which pairs of nerves branch off on either side.

(e) The first pair of nerves branch off - to the thighs.

(a) When Rav Dimi bar Yitzchak brought Rav Yehudah a fat goat (Shechted and cut open) to demonstrate the location of Bein ha'Parshos, he was unable to do so - because the animal was so fat, that the fat covered over the cord, which, due to its whiteness, would otherwise have been visible through the animal's skin.

(b) Rav Yehudah was too busy to cut the animal open and show Rav Dimi what he needed to know on the inside.

(c) So Rav Dimi bar Yitzchak - brought Rav Yehudah another goat, but this time, a particularly scrawny one ...

(d) ... so that Rav Yehudah was still unable to show him the Beis ha'Parshos - because the sciatic nerve pressing against the flesh caused it to press against the marrow, making the branches very thin and indiscernible from the outside.

(a) So he taught him the principle 'ad Achas, Tereifah, Shelishis, Tereifah ... ' by which he meant - that at the point where the first pair of nerves branch off it is definitely subject to Tereifus, whereas at the point of the third pair, it is definitely not.

(b) And he concluded 'Sheniyah Eini Yode'a'.