Implied Question: Why can one not resolve the She'eilah from the Gemara later (Daf 55.) 'Every Shi'ur that the Chachamim presented is Lehachmir'?

Answer: Because that pertains specifically to a Mishnah or a Beraisa, whereas the current statement is referring to a 'Meimra' (a statement of Amora'im).

Implied Question: Even though Shmuel said 'until between the Parshos' ...

Answer #1 (Part 1): Nevertheless, he is in doubt as to whether from the beginning of the thickness of the first branch up until the second branch that is below it is all classified as the first branch, and since he holds 'Ad ve'Lo Ad bi'Chelal', it is included in the area which he 'didn't know'

Answer #1 (Part 2): Or perhaps from the thickness of the branch is called 'between the Parshos', since that is what it really is; whereas what is next to the thickness of the cord that branches off is not called 'between the Parshos', and is T'reifah.

Answer #2: Alternatively, his (Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua's doubt is because perhaps the Pi Parshos to which Shmuel referred was actually the first branch where the two cords branch off, since it is the area between the cord that branches off to the left and the which branches off to the right.

Implied Question: And the reason that Shmuel then mentioned 'until between the Parshos', and not 'until the Parshos' ...

Answer: Is because one of them begins to branch off before the other one.

Observation: And it is specifically if 'Ad ve'Lo Ad bi'Chelal' that the Gemara asks what the Din will be regarding the first 'Pi Parshah'; because if we hold 'Ad ve'Ad bi'Chelal, he could not ask what the Din will be regarding the second Pi Parshah ...

Reason (Part 1): Because 'Mah Nafshach' it will be included in the area of 'Eini Yode'a', just like the second 'between the Parshos' - Because up to the first 'between the Parshos' he says is T'reifah, and no further. Now if 'Pi Parshah' is not included in 'between the Parshos', then we will only declare T'reifah up to 'between the Parshos', and this is not 'between the Parshos'.

Reason (Part 2): Whereas if it is called 'between the Parshos', then seeing as Shmuel said that he did not know the status of the second one, then that will apply to the second Pi Parshah as well.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains 'If the branch became severed from the spinal cord what will the Din be?'

Consequently (Part 1): It seems that even if we say 'Ad ve'Lo Ad bi'Chelal', the Gemara could have asked what the Din will be by the Parshah itself, assuming that 'Pi Parshah' is T'reifah.

Consequently (Part 2): But not if 'Pi Parshah' is Kasher, in which case there is nothing to ask, since Kol she'Kein the Parshah itself is Kasher.

Explanation #2: Furthermore, the She'eilah may well be where the branch breaks at a distance from where it is joined to the spinal cord, at a point where it corresponds to the area in the spinal cord that is situated between the first and second branch.

Consequently: According to this explanation, the She'eilah is confined to if we say 'Ad ve'Ad bi'Chelal'.

Implied Question: Why does he mention the second one?

Answer: Because in the event that the Halachah is that it is T'reifah, all the She'eilos that the Gemara asks with regard to the first Parshah will also apply to the second one.

Query: It is not certain whether this means below the point where the wings are joined to the body, or below the point where they lie on the body, which is below the location of the lowest point of the bone of the wing that is joined to the body.

Observation: Rebbi Zeira did not need to run away (like Rabah and Rav Yosef), since his father was the King's Gabai, a position that he held for thirteen years ...

Source: Like we learned in Perek Zeh Borer (Sanhedrin 25:) that when the head of the river arrived in town, when he (Rebbi Zeira's father) saw the Rabbanan, he would said to them 'Go my people, Enter your rooms!'

Halachah: This is how we Pasken, as we ruled earlier (in Daf 43.) like the opinion that holds a k'Zayis'.

Clarification: This means together with the top one ...

Reason (Part 1): Because if it was the bottom one alone, we Pasken shortly that we need both skins to be holed ...

Reason (Part 2): Which means that we would be Paskening neither like Rav nor like Shmuel.

Implied Question: Earlier (on Daf 45.) in connection with the membrane of the brain, the Gemara did not ask this She'eilah ...

Answer: Since it is obvious that the upper membrane, which is thick and strong, shields.

Implied Question: In fact, we always Pasken like Ravina to the lenient side ...

Answer: And the only reason that it is necessary to Pasken here like him, is as an excuse to insert Rav Yosef's ruling.

Explanation #1: Rabeinu Tam explains that 'There is no difference, and it is T'reifah.

Consequently: According to his explanation, when the Gemara says later that 'If it is red, it is Kasher', it must be speaking where it turns white when it is blown up.

Halachah: And this is also implied in the Hilchos T'reifos of Rabeinu Gershon, and in the Halachos of Rabeinu Tam.

Explanation #2: Rashi however, explains that 'There is no difference, and it is Kasher', in accordance with the Gemara later.

Halachah: And this is also how the B'hag and the Rif Pasken. And Rabeinu Ya'akov b'Rebbi Even too, Paskened like that.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this means a stain which has on it black marks.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara will shortly say that 'black is T'reifah' ... .

Answer: One can establish that Gemara where the majority of the lung is black. Indeed, a case came before Rabeinu Tam, and he declared it Kasher because the majority of it was not black.

Question: Since the Gemara will say later (in Daf 47:) that it is T'reifah because black is really red that has been 'smitten', what difference does it make whether most of it is black or only part of it; either way, it ought to be T'reifah, seeing as it has been smitten?

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that 'Uchma' here means dark blue, which the Gemara says later is Kasher. And this is how it is explained in the Halachos Gedolos of Rabeinu Tam.

Clarification (Part 1): This refers to where it has a hole which the Shochet's hand cannot reach, as Rashi explains.

Clarification (Part 2): Because if there is no hole it is Kasher, except for where there are two Bu'os (absesces) that are next to each other, as we will learn shortly.

Explanation #1 (Part 1): It seems that 'ke'Sidran' refers specifically to where the lobes are lying the way they normally do, one beside the other..

Explanation #1 (Part 2): But if they are lying one on top of the other (see Maharsha), even though they are next to each other, it is T'reifah, because this is not called 'ke'Sidran'.

Explanation #2: Furthermore, the Aruch cites Rabeinu Chananel who cites an old tradition that regarding 'she'Lo ke'Sidran', even if the two lobes are stuck only in the middle, but their main sections are separate, it is T'reifah; and certainly there where one of them is completely stuck on top of the other, or if the first one is stuck with the third one, it is T'reifah.

Clarification: Our Rebbes the Ga'onim explain that since the one flap is lying next to the one next to it, it protects it (next Dibur). Therefore, we don't care about such a Sircha.

Question: Rabeinu Yehudah queries the tradition of Rabeinu Chananel however, inasmuch as in all Hilchos T'reifos of 'Raboseinu', he did not find any distinction made between whether their main sections are separate or not (i.e. either way, the animal is not T'reifah).

Opinion#1: Rashi maintains that a Sircha (adhesion) is the result of a hole.

Question: The Ri has difficulty with this explanation. Why, then, is 'ke'Sidran' (where the adjoining lobes are stuck together with a Sircha) Kasher? Even though they are not drawn apart, it should not be better than a membrane that grows on a lung as the result of a wound, which is not considered an independent membrane, even if it is not sticking to another location! All the more so here, where the one lobe is sticking to another lobe!