Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua asks whether 'ad (bein ha'Parshos)' is inclusive or exclusive - whether the Tereifus of the spinal cord extends as far as the second 'Pi Parshah' or only as far as the first.

(b) Assuming that Rav Yehudah meant 'ad ve'Lo ad bi'Chelal', we will have to explain his statement 'Sheniyah Eini Yode'a' - to incorporate 'Rishonah', which he did not know either (seeing as the area between the first and the second Pi Parshos is not included in the Bein ha'Parshos that is definitely Tereifah).

(c) And he made a point of mentioning the second - to prevent us from thinking that the Safek is confined to the first bein ha'Parshos, and that the second is Kosher like the third).

(d) The She'eilah ...

1. ... Rav Papa asks, assuming that 'ad ve'Lo ad bi'Chelal' is - whether the first Pi Parshah at least, will be Tereifah.
2. ... Rebbi Yirmiyah asks, assuming that 'ad ve'ad bi'Chelal' is - whether the Parshos themselves will also be included in the Din of Bein ha'Parshos, or not.

(a) We try to resolve Rebbi Yirmiyah's She'eilah from the Beraisa 'ha'Parshah Teidan ke'Basar' (meaning that it is not subject to Tereifus) - based on the assumption that the Tana is referring to the first and second Parshos (obviously presuming that 'ad ve'ad bi'Chelal')

(b) To refute this proof, we establish the Beraisa - with reference to the third Parshah (but the first two will definitely be subject to Tereifus. In any event, the Tana must hold 'ad ve'ad bi'Chelal').

(c) Alternatively, we interpret 'bein ha'Parshos' as the small ribs of the tail, and the 'Parshos', as the strip of flesh that separates them. As for the area on the spinal cord to which we referred until now - is definitely considered part of the Chut ha'Shedrah.

(d) The Halachos Gedolos however, supports the first explanation.

(a) According to Rebbi Yanai, the spinal cord of a bird is subject to Tereifus up to a point beyond the wings. Resh Lakish says - up to between the wings and no further.

(b) Ula was once standing before ben Pazi who was inspecting the spinal cord of a bird. When the Nasi called for him - he had inspected as far as between the wings.

(c) At that point, he got up and left. Ula's Safek was - whether he left because he had finished the inspection (and the bird was Kosher, like Resh Lakish), or whether it was in deference to the Nasi who had called him (in which case the bird still required inspection [like Rebbi Yanai], and was still a Safek Tereifah).

(a) The Din in our Mishnah 'Nitlah ha'Kaved ve'Lo Nishtayar Heimenu K'lum' implies that if even a Mashehu of the liver remains, the animal is Kosher. The problem with this is - the Mishnah later, which declares the animal Kosher only if at least a k'Zayis of the liver remains.

(b) Rav Yosef reconciles the two Mishnahs - by establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Chiya, and the following Mishnah like Shimon bar Rebbi.

(c) When an animal came to hand, whose liver was missing, and of which less than a k'Zayis remained ...

1. ... Rebbi Chiya - would throw it away.
2. ... Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi - would eat it.

(d) The significance of the 'Si'man' 'Ashirim Mekamtzin' is - that Rebbi Shimon bar Rebbi, who was the son of the Nasi was the one to scrimp (as it were) and avoid throwing the animal away.

(a) We reject the current interpretation of Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Shimon b'Rebbi's actions on the grounds that if, as we just explained, we been referring to a liver with a piece missing - then we ought to have said (not 'Zarik Lah' and 'Matbil Lah', but) 'Tarif Lah' and 'Machshir Lah'.

(b) So we must be referring to what they used to do with the liver of a Kosher animal - Rebbi Chiya would throw it away (because it is not considered meat), whilst Rebbi Shimon bar Rebbi would retain and eat it.

(c) Even though liver is not considered meat, Rebbi Shimon bar Rebbi would eat it - because it is a life-giving part of the animal, and as such, it is extremely healthy.

(d) Consequently - Rebbi Shimon bar Rebbi would require a k'Zayis of liver to remain, to save the animal from dying, whereas Rebbi Chiya (who did not consider liver to be life-giving), did not require a k'Zayis to remain (only a Mashehu).

(a) Rabah and Rav Yosef ran away from Pumbedisa - because a royal army arrived in the city (whose soldiers were known to have no respect for lives or property).

(b) When Rebbi Zeira met them, he told them that the k'Zayis of liver that must remain for the animal to be Kosher had to be located in the vicinity of the gall-bladder. According to Rav Ada bar Ahavah - it has to be in a location where the liver receives its vitality.

(c) Rav Papa concludes from these two statements - that two k'Zeisim are requires, one Rebbi Zeira's statement that a 'k'Zayis that is joined to the gall bladder, the other, to the location from which the liver receives its vitality ...

(d) ... meaning in its regular location, either underneath the kidneys, or where it is attached to the diaphragm (a thin muscle that forms a wall between the chest cavity and the abdominal cavity).

(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah asked whether the animal will be Kosher if the k'Zayis of liver is Mislaket or is shaped like a strap. 'Mislaket' means - that the k'Zayis is in two places.

(b) Rav Ashi - who assumed that in the two previous cases the animal is Kosher, asked what the Din will be if the k'Zayis has been flattened (which is worse than the previous cases).

(c) Rebbi Zerika asked Rebbi Ami about 'Nidaldelah Kaved u'me'Avrah be'Tarpesha' (the diaphragm), meaning - that the liver is torn from the diaphragm in many places, but still attached to it here and there.

(d) Rebbi Ami did not understand the She'eilah however. As long as a k'Zayis remains in the location of the gall-bladder according to one opinion, or where it receives its vitality (as we explained) according to the other opinion, it is Kosher as we already learned.

(a) Our Mishnah lists a hole in the lung among the Tereifos. According to Rav, Shmuel and Rav Asi, this pertains to the lung's the upper membrane (even though the lower membrane remains intact. Others say - that the lower membrane must be punctured as well, for the animal to be a Tereifah (see Tosfos DH 've'Amri Lah' and Maharam).

(b) 'A red (like a rose) shirt which encases the lungs' - is Rav Yosef bar Minyumi Amar Rav Nachman's description of the lower membrane (he holds like the 'others'), which is red.

9)

(a) Rava compares a lung whose upper membrane has been peeled off to - a red date ...

(b) ... a proof - that the lower membrane protects the lungs (even if the upper one has been punctured).

(c) This prompts us to ask - whether, in the reverse case (where it is the lower membrane that has been punctured), the upper membrane will do the same job (see Tosfos DH 'Inkiv').

(d) We reply that Rav Acha and Ravina argue over this point. The Halachah is - that it does (and the animal is Kosher).

(a) The previous ruling is based on a statement by Rav Yosef, who discusses a lung that emits a noise as if air is escaping from it. Rav Yosef rules that if one is ...

1. ... able to pinpoint the exact location of the noise - one places a feather, spittle or a straw at that point. If the spittle bubbles and the feather or the straw flutters, that indicates a hole. If not, the animal is Kosher.
2. ... unable to pinpoint it - then one makes the same test by placing the lung into a tub of water, and watching for bubbles.

(b) One should not use ...

1. ... hot water - because it will cause the lung to contract and the hole to close, rendering the test useless.
2. ... cold water - because it will cause the lung to become hard like a stone, causing the upper membrane (which is weak) to tear.

(c) In the cases where we declare the animal Kosher - we attribute the noise to the air escaping from the hole in the inner membrane, and circulating between the two membranes.

(d) We have proved from there - that if the upper membrane of the lung is still intact, the animal is Kosher even though the lower membrane is punctured.

(a) Rava declares Kosher a lung that has been peeled, as we learned earlier. He also rules - that if a lung has turned partially red it is Kosher, whereas if it has turned completely red, it is Tereifah.

(b) Ravina objects to Rava's distinction, based on a Beraisa which rules - that someone who wounds on Shabbos, small vermin not of the eight Sheratzim that are Tamei (such as a frog) - is Patur, as long as no blood has emerged (because their skin is soft, and bruises easily, even though it is not really a wound).

(c) Likewise in our case - as long as the blood has not actually emerged, it ought not to be considered a wound, and the animal should not be Tereifah.

(d) We try to counter this by comparing the skin of the lung to the eight Sheratzim - which the Beraisa declares Chayav for bruising, even though no blood actually emerged.

(a) We reject the equation of the lung to the eight Sheratzim however - by arguing that in that case, we ought to declare the animal a Tereifah even if only part of it turns red (as is the case with the Shemonah Sheratzim on Shabbos).

(b) We therefore conclude - that even a liver that has turned completely red is Kosher.

(a) Rava also declares a lung part of which has dried, a Tereifah. Rav Papi citing Rava himself, defines 'dried' as - one that snaps easily when one handles it.

(b) This is the opinion of Rebbi Yossi ben Hameshulam in a Beraisa that discusses the ear - of a Bechor.

(c) The Tana Kama is more stringent. He defines 'dried' - as one that does not bleed when it is pierced.

(d) The Tana Kama might well concede however, that a dry lung is not Tereifah until it reaches the stage that it snaps easily - because before that stage, it heals nicely (whereas a wound in the ear deteriorates more quickly, since it is open to the elements.

(a) Rava rules that a lung which is full of ulcers or black or colored spots - is Kosher.

(b) The basis of the Safek Tereifus, caused by a punctured blister on a lung (provided it has not been handled by the Shochet) is - whether the puncture occurred before the Shechitah, in which case it is Tereifah, or after it.

(c) When, citing Rava, Ameimar says 'Ein Makifin be'Bu'i', he means - that we cannot determine the Halachah by comparing it to a punctured blister of another lung ...

(d) ... (despite the fact that one does compare two defected lungs to determine whether the Safek is Tereifah or not) - because blisters tend to change their appearance with the passing of time.

(a) A adhesion (a Sircha) on the lung is caused - by viscous (thick) liquids (that are drawn into the lungs) escaping through a hole and forming a crust (see also Tosfos DH 'Haynu Revisaihu').

(b) In spite of the fact that the hole is now blocked, the animal is Tereifah - because the blockage is not permanent.

(c) Rava rules that if two lobes of the lung have fused, it cannot be examined - because the fusion (known as a Sircha) is the result of a hole, as we just explained.

(d) He qualifies this however, by confining it to two lobes that are not next to each other (e.g. the first and the third lobes), since the two lobes naturally pull in opposite directions and they stand to tear apart, before the crust has properly fused with the skin. It does not however, apply to the first and the second, or the second and third lobes - because then, the adjoining lobe will block the hole, enabling the crust to grow until it becomes permanent.

(a) Rava only mentions a Sircha between two Unos (the cranial lobes), but not one between an Unah and the Umah (the large, outer caudal lobe), which might be Tereifah even if the adhesion is between it and the adjoining lobe - because a. Rava does not mention it, and b. because its position in the chest cavity allows it more movement, so that it is more like to come apart (like two non-adjoining Unos)

(b) We have a support for this opinion - in the Sugya later, which declares Kosher a Sircha between the Una and the wall of the chest, but not the Uma and the wall of the chest.

(c) If on the other hand, despite the fact that, due to the fact that Rava's reason for being Machshir a Sircha between two adjoining Unos applies equally to the Umos (and the reasoning by the Sircha between the Una or the Uma and wall of the chest is slightly different), Rava refers only to the former and not the latter - because his principle Chidush is the Din of non-adjoining Sirchos, to negate the S'vara that the wall of the chest holds the Unos in place, which is not the case by the Umos (and is therefore obvious).

(d) A Sircha between the Inunisa de'Varda (the intermediate [central] lobe) and any of the other lobes - is considered a Sircha between two non-adjoining lobes, and is therefore Tereifah.