Previous daf

1)

(a) What does Rav Yosef bar Minyumi Amar Rav Nachman say about a lung which is stuck to the wall of the chest?

(b) Under which circumstances does he consider it Tereifah?

(c) What does Mar Yehudah in the name of Avimi say?

(d) According to Mar Yehudah, how does one check the lung in the case where there are no ulcers (see Tosfos DH 'Maysinan'), based on what Ravin bar Sh'va told Rava?

(a) Even if no wound was found on the chest-wall, Rav Nechemyah b'rei de'Rav Yosef would still examine the lung.
How would he do that?

(b) According to Mar Zutra b'rei de'Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Papi, it was not on this case that Rav Nechemyah b'rei de'Rav Yosef prescribed the warm water test, but on a case cited by Rava that we learned earlier. Which case?

(c) On what grounds does Rav Ashi object to Mar Zutra b'rei de'Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Papi's version?

(d) According to Rav Ashi, why might the test prove negative, even though one of the lobes must have had a hole?

(a) What does Rav Yosef bar Minyumi Amar Rav Nachman say about an animal with a lung that has a hole which is blocked by the wall of the chest?

(b) Then why is there a problem with the animal in the previous case?

(c) What is considered the lung's usual location.

(d) Which ruling of Rav Nachman is Halachah, and which is not?

(a) How does Ravina qualify Rav Nachman's ruling, permitting an animal whose punctured Una is blocked by the chest wall.
Under which circumstances will we declare it Tereifah?

(b) Rav Yosef queries Ravina from a Beraisa.
On what grounds does the Tana declare someone who has a hole in his penis, Pasul (to marry a regular Jewess)?

(c) And what will be the Din if the hole becomes sealed?

(d) The Beraisa concludes 've'Zehu P'sul she'Chozer le'Hechshero'.
What can we extrapolate from there? How does Rav Yosef ask from there on Ravina?

(a) Ravina counters however, that 've'Zehu' comes to preclude another similar case, concerning a hole in the lung, which we have already discussed.
Which case?

(b) Rav Ukva bar Chama queries Ravina from his own case, if the corresponding chest wall were to subsequently become punctured.
What problem does he have with that? What ought our Mishnah to have inserted?

(c) To which Ravina retorts that Rav Ukva bar Chama might just as well have asked on our Mishnah from a ruling by Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef Amar Rebbi Yochanan. What does Rebbi Yochanan say about a gall-bladder that became punctured and that was subsequently blocked by the liver?

(d) Why is this a Kashya on our Mishnah?

(e) So why in fact, *does* our Mishnah omit the case of ...

1. ... 'Nekuvas ha'Kaved'?
2. ... 'Nekuvas ha'Dofen'?

(a) What did Shmuel reply, when Rabah bar bar Chanah asked him what the Din will be regarding an animal that has ulcers on its lung?

(b) If Rabah bar bar Chanah thought so too, why did he ask Shmuel for his opinion?

(c) The Talmidim's doubts were based on a statement by Rav Masna.
What did Rav Masna say about a lung that is full of ...

1. ... pus?
2. ... clear water?

(d) If the Talmidim were correct in equating 'Malya Mugla' with 'He'elsah Tzemachin', what was their mistake? If Rav Masna was not talking about the lungs, then what was he talking about?

(a) Rebbi Yitzchak bar Yosef was walking behind Rebbi Yirmiyah in the butcher's market.
What did they see that prompted him to ask Rebbi Yirmiyah whether he would not like to purchase a nice piece of meat?

(b) What did Rebbi Yirmiyah really mean when he replied that he had no money on him?

(c) Accepting the answer at surface value, how did Rebbi Yitzchak bar Yosef offer to solve that problem?

(d) Rebbi Yirmiyah then cited Rebbi Yochanan, who had sent lungs with ulcers to Rebbi Yehudah b'Rebbi Shimon, who had in turn, declared them Kasher in the name of his brother Rebbi Elazar.
Then why was Rebbi Yirmiyah hesitant to issue a ruling in the matter?

(e) So why did Rebbi Yochanan not declare them Tereifah?

(a) Rava was walking behind Rav Nachman in the tanners market (or in the market of the Rabbanan [see Rabeinu Gershom]), when they came across some lungs with large ulcers.
Why did Rava relate this episode? What is he coming to teach us?

(b) How did Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi react, when walking through the market place in Teverya, they came across 'Tinri Tinri'? What are 'Tinri'?

(c) Besides the fact that the 'Tinri' are hard and an Atum (a stopped up lung) is not, how else can one distinguish between them?

9)

(a) Rebbi Yochanan and his colleagues declare an animal in whose lungs a needle is found, Tereifah.
What do Resh Lakish and his colleagues say?

(b) We initially assume that their argument is based on whether an internal Chesaron is considered a Chesaron or not.
On what grounds do we consider our case a Chesaron at all?

(c) But we conclude that in fact, they are arguing over how the needle arrived in the lung.
On what basis does ...

1. ... Resh Lakish assume that the needle must have pierced the lung, after arriving there via the Veshet (despite the fact that we did not find the hole in the lung through which it must have entered)?
2. ... Rebbi Yochanan assume that it arrived there directly via the Kaneh (without puncturing the lung), in spite of the fact that an animal does not generally swallow needles (or anything else) via its Kaneh?

(a) Both opinions agree we conclude, that an internal Chesaron is not considered a Chesaron.
On what grounds do we reject the version that reads that it is?

(b) By what principle do we rule like those who declare the animal Kasher?

(c) In which case will even Rebbi Yochanan agree that the animal is Tereifah?

(a) When an animal was brought, first before Rebbi Ami and later before Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha, what did each one in turn, want to rule?

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah (or Rebbi Zerikah) queried their ruling from our Mishnah 'Re'ah she'Nikvah O she'Chasrah, Tereifah'? How did he interpret 'Chasrah'?

(c) After ruling that the animal was Kasher, Rebbi Ami sent the animal to Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha, because he had reservations about his ruling (which will be clarified shortly).
How do we know that his Safek was not based on Rebbi Yirmiyah's Kashya?

(a) When the She'eilah was sent back to Rebbi Ami, he declared the animal Tereifah.
How did he reconcile this ruling with Rebbi Yochanan and his colleagues, who declared such an animal Kasher?

(b) What does Rav Nachman rule in a case of a Simpon of the lung that is found to have a hole in it?

(c) Why is that?

(d) How do we then reconcile Rav Yochanan's ruling with that of Rav Nachman?

(a) What does Rav Nachman rule in a case where a hole is found in a part of the Hadura de'Kanta (the large intestines surrounding the fatty part of the bowels) where it lies against another part of the intestines?

(b) How does Rav Ashi reconcile this with Rav Nachman's previous ruling, regarding a hole that is found in a Simpon, in a location where it borders on another Simpon?

(c) And he compares it to an animal whose legs are cut off at one point and it is Kasher, whereas if they are cut off another point, they are Tereifah, even though this appears to be a contradiction.
What is he referring to?

(a) When the case of a lung with a needle in the large Simpon was brought before Resh Lakish and his colleagues, they declined to rule either Isur or Heter.
We understand why they did not permit the animal. But why did they decline to forbid it?

(b) When a piece of liver was brought before Mar b'rei de'Rav Yosef containing a needle, what objection did Rav Ashi raise, when Mar b'rei de'Ravina wanted to declare the animal a Tereifah?

(a) So what ruling did Rav Ashi issue depending on which way the needle was facing?

(b) Why is that?

(c) In which case would it make no difference which way the needle is facing?

Next daf