Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Nachman holds that fat known as d'Ayt'ra must block a hole in the Keivah - since although the B'nei Bavel did not eat it, the B'nei Eretz Yisrael did. So if the latter considered it Kasher to eat, the former must at least consider it Kasher as regards blocking a hole in the Keivah. From here, we determine that bar Chimtza is d'Ayt'ra.

(b) Rav Nachman must be referring to d'Ayt'ra and not to de'Aksh'sa - because that is what the B'nei Eretz Yisrael and the B'nei Bavel are arguing about.

(a) The meaning of...

1. ...de'Aksh'sa is - the fat that lies outside the bow (the Keivah is shaped like a bow).
2. ...d'Ayt'ra is - the fat that lies inside the bow ('Ayt'ra' is a derivative of the word 'Yeser', which means string).

(b) The basis of the Machlokes between the B'nei Eretz Yisrael and the B'nei Bavel, according to the first Lashon (bearing in mind that d'Ayt'ra is K'rum ve'Niklaf, but not Tosav) is - whether we rule like Rebbi Yishmael or Rebbi Akiva.

(c) On the other hand, even the B'nei Eretz Yisrael agree that de'Aksh'sa is forbidden - because it is K'rum, Niklaf ve'Tosav (in which case is Asur even according to Rebbi Akiva.

(a) According to the second Lashon, both the B'nei Eretz Yisrael and the B'nei Bavel permit d'Ayt'ra - because they both hold like Rebbi Akiva.

(b) And they argue over de'Aksh'sa - which is joined to the Keivah and which the B'nei Eretz Yisrael do not therefore consider Tosav, though the B'nei Bavel do.

(c) Rav Nachman must hold like the first Lashon - because according to the second, since he holds that de'Aksh'sa blocks the hole, certainly d'Ayt'ra does, so what is it that does not block the hole according to him?

(d) Rebbi Ami (quoted by Rav Ivya) and Rebbi Yanai were both B'nei Eretz Yisrael. When they said 'Mekamtzin' - they meant that one cuts a little of the top away, since the Cheilev of the Kerev lies on top of it.

(a) Rav Ivya saw Rebbi Ami actually eating a piece of d'Ayt'ra after some of the fat just above it had been removed. When Rebbi Chanina saw his Shames hesitate to remove the fat and serve Him the d'Ayt'ra - he commented that he must be from Bavel, where they forbid the d'Ayt'ra ...

(b) ... so he instructed him to cut it away and throw it out.

(a) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel rules in a Beraisa - that a hole in the intestines which is blocked by internal fluid is considered blocked, and the animal is Kasher. Rav Kahana describes that fluid as - a viscous fluid that is attached to the inside of the intestines, and which is difficult to extract.

(b) Rebbi Zeira the Chaver of Rebbi Aba learned from Rebbi Aba (or Rebbi Aba the son of Rebbi Chiya bar Aba the Chaver of Rebbi Zeira from Rebbi Zeira) - that the Halachah is like Raban Shimon ben Shimon ben Gamliel by a Tereifah.

(c) He also learned from him that the Halachah is like Rebbi Shimon regarding Aveilus. The Tana Kama in the Mishnah in Mo'ed Katan rules - that an Aveil who arrives at the mourner's house from close by, i.e. within a day's (walking) journey, observes the Aveilus together with the other Aveilim, whereas one who arrives from far must observe a full seven days from scratch.

(d) If an Aveil arrives after three days, he says - must keep the full seven days, irrespective of where he arrives from.

(e) According to Rebbi Shimon however - if he comes from close by, then even if he arrives on the seventh day, he counts together with the other Aveilim.

(a) An anonymous Talmid hope that if and when he went to Eretz Yisrael - he would hear directly from the mouth of Rebbi Aba b'rei de'Rebbi Chiya bar Aba exactly what he said regarding the two current rulings.

(b) When the Talmid asked Rebbi Aba b'rei de'Rebbi Chiya bar Aba whether it was true that he said 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Shimon ben Gamliel bi'Tereifos' - he replied that, on the contrary, he ruled 'Ein Halachah ... '.

(c) Whether or not, the Halachah is like Rebbi Shimon be'Avel is a Machlokes Amora'im. We ultimately rule like Rebbi Shimon, based on a principle of Shmuel, who states a principle - 'Halachah ke'Divrei ha'Meikal be'Avel'.

(a) Rav Shimi bar Chiya holds 'Makifin bi'Venei Me'ayim'. After Rava had compared an intestine with a hole to another hole which they cut beside it after the Shechitah, and found them dissimilar, his son, Rav Mesharshaya - handled the area of a Safek (in the way that the Shochet and the examiners would have done), as a result of which it resembled the second hole (which they therefore declared Kasher).

(b) He based this - purely on his own logic.

(c) Rava subsequently declared - that his son was an expert in Tereifos like Rebbi Yochanan (in Tereifos, or in all areas of Halachah).

(a) Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Elazar both hold 'Makifin be'Re'ah' - regarding those parts of the lung that one cannot assume to have been handled by the Shochet (otherwise we would take for granted that this was how the lung became punctured, and declare the animal Kasher anyway).

(b) Rava qualifies his ruling - by confining it to a hole in the same row.

(c) We rule however 'Afilu me'Arugah la'Arugah'. We also rule ...

1. ... 'Makifin mi'Dakah le'Dakah u'mi'Gasah le'Gasah', but ...
2. ... 'Ein Makifin mi'Gasah le'Dakah' or vice-versa.

(d) We interpret 'mi'Dakah le'Gasah' as, from the Una to the Uma. It might also mean - from a small animal to a large one, or vice-versa. However, we reject that interpretation - on the grounds that it is too radical.

(a) Abaye and Rava hold 'Makifin be'Kaneh'. We are talking about - either where Rov is broken or there is a flap in the Kaneh, which one compares to a similar cut that one subsequently makes a little further along (the Safek is Kasher, if it resembles the freshly made one).

(b) Rav Papa qualifies this ruling - by requiring the subsequent cut to be effected on the same Chulya (group of three rings).

(c) We do not however, rule like Rav Papa, only 'Makifin me'Chulya le'Chulya u'mi'bar Chulya le'bar Chulya'. 'bar Chulya' is - the strip of flesh that runs between the Taba'os and underneath them.

(d) And we will concede 'Ein Makifin' - from a Chulya to a bar Chulya, or vice-versa.

(a) Ze'iri holds 'Chalcholes she'Nikvah, Kesheirah'. 'Chalcholes' is - the rectum, and the animal is Kasher - because it is held tight by the thighs (and there is nowhere for the excrement to fall).

(b) In explaining this ruling, Rebbi Ila'i Amar Rebbi Yochanan differentiates between the place where the Chalcholes cleaves to the thighs - permitting even if the majority has been punctured, whereas outside that area, even a hole the size of a Mashehu is Tereifah.

(c) When the Rabbanan cited this ruling to Rava in the name of Rav Nachman, Rava objected to it. When he said 'Lo Tislu bei Buki S'riki'(which means empty vessels), he meant - that they should not (talk nonsense) misquote Rav Nachman.

(d) What Rav Nachman really said was - that in the area where the Chalcholes is held by the thighs, even if it is completely removed, the animal is Kasher ...

(e) ... provided a K'dei Tefisah of the Chalcholes remains. Abaye describes a 'K'dei Tefisah' - as the size of a finger (even by the Chalcholes of an ox).

11)

(a) Our Mishnah lists the inner Keres that has been punctured, among the Tereifos. Rav Yehudah Amar Rav defines this as 'Sanya Divi' (caecus, the large back part of the Keres). Besides the possibly meaning 'the hated stuff drips from there' [because it is the area where the Shochtim cut it open]) it is called by that name - because it is so foul-tasting that even the wolves detest it.

(b) Rav himself cited the testimony of Rav Nasan bar Shilo - the head Shochet in Teverya, in the name of Rebbi Nasan.

(c) Rebbi Yishmael defines the inner Keres as 'Istumchah de'Keres'(the opening of the Keres, which is next to the heart [Aruch]). Rav Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan explains that it is a narrow part of the Keres, but that he did not know where it was. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak commented on this - 'Nafal K'reisa be'Bira' (the Keres fell in the pit), meaning that since he did know where it was, he may as well not have stated his opinion.

(d) Rav Acha bar Rav Iva in the name of Rav Asi defines the narrow part of the Keres as - from the point where the Keres begins to get narrow as it approaches the Veshet.

(a) Rebbi Ya'akov bar Nachmeni Amar Shmuel defines the inner Keres as 'Makom she'Ein bo Milas', and Ravina Amar G'niva as the last Tefach of the Veshet before the Keres (which we already discussed earlier in the Perek). 'Makom she'Ein bo Milas' means - an area that is devoid of the fluff which covers most of the Keres, and which one removes with boiling water.

(b) In Eretz Yisrael, they cited Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, who described the inner Keres as the whole Keres. The Tana considers the outer Keres - the thick membrane that covers most of the Keres (the abdominal wall which runs underneath the majority of the paunch).

(c) According to Rabah Rav Huna, the inner Keres is Mifra'ata, which Rav Ivya explains as - the underside of the Keres which is facing the ground (in fact, at the time that it is cut open, it faces the Shochet [note, that I generally translate Tavcha as 'Shochet', even though it can also mean 'butcher').

(d) The Shochtim of Neherda'a, who ruled like Rabah bar Rav Huna - used to declare a hole anywhere in the Mifra'ata, Tereifah.

(a) Rav Ashi asked Ameimar how all the above opinions compared with the 'Mifra'ata' -because Ameimar lived in Neherda'a.

(b) Four of the above opinions conform with Rabah bar Rav Huna (since they appear the moment the Shochtim cut open the stomach (whilst the animal is hanging by its hind legs. The only two opinions that disagree with him are - that of Rav Avina (alias Ravina ['Tefach be'Veshet ha'Samuch le'Keres']) and the B'nei Ma'arva ('Kol ha'Keres Kulo').

(c) The opinion of Rav Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan ('Makom Tzar Yesh be'Keres') too - conforms with Rabah bar Rav Huna since, even though *he* was unable to pinpoint where it was, Rav Iva Amar Rav Asi defined it as 'min ha'Meitzar u'le'Matah' (which corresponds to the area mentioned by Rabah bar Rav Huna).

(d) The Halachah ...

1. ... in this regard is - that we follow all the opinions le'Chumra, and a hole anywhere in the Keres renders the animal Tereifah.
2. ... regarding examining for Tereifos is - that we do not search for Tereifos (since the majority of animals are not Tereifah), except for the lungs, where Sirchos are common.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah, in our Mishnah (in connection with 'she'Nikra Keres Chitzonah') commented 'ha'Gedolah Tefach, ha'Ketanah be'Rubah'. Rebbi Binyamin bar Yefes Amar Rebbi Elazar establishes ...

1. ... 'ha'Gedolah Tefach' as - an animal whose Keres Chitzonah (Basar ha'Chofeh es Rov ha'Keres) is more than two Tefachim (so that a tear of a Tefach is less than the Rov).
2. ... 'ha'Ketanah be'Rubah' as one - where a tear of Rov is less than a Tefach (which means that the Keres is less than two Tefachim).

(b) The latter statement appears to be obvious - because it conforms with the well-known principle 'Ruba ke'Kula.

(c) We therefore establish the Mishnah ('ha'Ketanah be'Rubah') - where the Rov is only very slightly less than a Tefach, in which case we might have thought that until it is torn a Shi'ur Tefach, it is not a Tereifah.

(a) 'Geniva Amar Rebbi Asi, Nikd'ra ke'Sela Tereifah' (despite the fact that this is less than a Tefach) - because if one were to stretch the skin until it becomes elongated, it would be at least a Tefach long.

(b) Geniva himself explained to Rebbi Chiya bar Aba, whilst they were standing on the bridge of Neherda'a - that when Rebbi Asi said 'a Sela', he meant more than a Sela (but exactly a Sela would be Kasher).

(c) Rav Yosef defined this Shi'ur as three date-pits 'be'Tzipa' - by which he meant that the animal will be Tereifah if it is possible to stick either three date-pits with the remains of the date still stuck to them, albeit with difficulty ...

(d) ... or three smooth date-pits without difficulty.