Explanation #1: Rashi explains that 'Kapa de'Yada' is the wide shoulder-bone that is called 'Ashpaldun' in old French; whereas 'Atma ha'Yerech' is the area next o the intestines, since the lungs and the liver is also called 'B'nei Me'ayim, as we find later (on Daf 56:), with regard to where 'the B'nei Me'ayim were scorched'.

Question: Granted, in the Lashon Mishnah and Beraisa they are considered B'nei Me'ayim, but not according to the Lashon of the Amora'im ...

Source #1 (Part 1): As we find earlier (on daf 51:), where, with regard to 'Nefulah', the Ameimar comments 'Nefulah about which Chazal spoke, the area of the B'nei Me'ayim requires Bedikah, to which Mar Zutra adds 'next to the entire cavity'.

Source #1 (Part 2): This implies that 'B'nei Me'ayim' refers exclusively to the stomach and the intestines, which is why Mar Zutra needed to add right up to the walls - the lungs, the heart, the liver and the stomach.

Source #1 (Part 3): Then Huna bar b'rei de'Rav Nechemyah asks 'What about the area of the Simanim?' To which Rav Ashi replied that the Simanim are hard when it comes to Nefulah'.

Source #2: And similarly the Gemara earlier (Daf 53:), where Shmuel said that when Chazal spoke about D'rusah, the area of the B'nei Me'ayim requires Bedikah, following which Chanan bar Rava in the name of Rav adds the entire cavity.

Explanation #2 (Part 1): It therefore seems that 'Kapa de'Yada' here refers to the end of the wide shoulder-bone up to the thigh, which incorporates only the thigh, but not the stomach and the intestines.

Explanation #2 (Part 2): Hence the Gemara asks that 'this is equivalent to the B'nei Me'ayim' (which is what the previous opinion holds)?

Implied Question: The reason that the Gemara did not establish 'Kapa de'Yada' by the beginning of the Kapa - which would then include the lungs and the liver ...

Answer #1: Is because it understands 'Kapa' with reference to the end of the wide shoulder-bone and not the beginning.

Answer #2: And besides, Rav ought then to have said 'in the area of the entire cavity'.

Answer #3: It also enables him to conclude 'from the Kapa de'Mocha' as Rav said earlier (Ibid.), when he said 'the entire area of the cavity needs Bedikah, even the Simanim').

Clarification: And cuts in another spot the same Siman that was Shechted. If the two cuts appear similar, it is T'reifah. This is because, since the two cuts are similar, this indicates that the first cut too, was made after the Ikur Simanim.

Implied Question: And as for the case in the second Perek (28.), where, after Shechting the esophagus, they discoverer that the wind-pipe had become dislocated, and where they ruled that 'Every Safek in the Shechitah is Pasul!'

Answer (Part 1): There it was not possible to compare by cutting the Veshet in another location ...

Reason (Part 1): Since, even assuming that the wind-pipe became dislocated before the Shechitah, the two cuts will not appear similar ...

Reason (Part 2): This is because at that moment, the Veshet still contained life, whereas now it is dead.

Question #1: Why can one not bring another bird, Shecht the Veshet and then dislocate the Gargeres, to see whether the two dislocated wind-pipes look similar?

Answer: The Din of 'Hakafah' is confined to another location on the same bird or the same animal exclusively.

Repeat Question #2: According to those texts however, that read 'they should bring another animal and compare them', the Kashya remains.

Clarification: All the cases are necessary, as Tosfos has already explained at the beginning of the Perek (42. DH 'Nikav').

Question (Part 1): Here it implies that according to both Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, we only include in 'Zeh ha'Kelal', cases that are similar to those in our Mishnah. In that case, how can we learn from it the case of Rachish bar Papa, where only one kidney was smitten ...

(a) Question (Part 2): Bearing in mind what we said at the beginning of the Perek (43.) that according to Ula, who maintains that 'the Chachamim listed eight T'reifos', this comes to preclude the case of Rachish bar Papa, which is not similar?

Answer #1: Rachish holds that we include in 'Zeh ha'Kelal' even cases that are not similar to our Mishnah, whereas Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish, as well as Ula, disagree with him.

Answer #2: Alternatively, he holds like Resh Lakish, who maintains that 'Eilu Kesheiros' is Davka, and it is from there that he learns it, just as we learn the Din of Rav Masna from there, according to Resh Lakish, even though we do not learn it from 'Zeh ha'Kelal'.

Question (Part 1): Why does the Gemara establish the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish with regard to the case of Rav Masna? Why not with regard to that of Rachish ...

Question (Part 2): Why can we not say that Rebbi Yochanan saw how Rachish learned his Din from 'Zeh ha'Kelal', even though it is not similar to our Mishnah, and he therefore learned from 'Eilu T'reifos' to preclude it; whereas Resh Lakish saw that Rachish declined to learn his Din from 'Zeh ha'Kelal', because it is not similar, but the Mishnah learned 'Eilu Kesheiros', to say that only these are Kasher, but that the case of Rachish is T'reifah?

Answer: The author of Shas had a tradition that they argue over Rav Masna's case (and not over that of Rachish bar Papa).

Explanation #1 (Part 1): Rashi explains professionals as employees who work on behalf of others.

Explanation #1 (Part 2): He does that in order to establish the Lashon 'Rasha'in' (implying 'permitted' [rather than 'Asurim']).

Explanation #2 (Part 1): However it would seem that even if they are working for themselves, they are not obligated to rise, like we learned in the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 33. & 33:) 'Just as rising does not entail any loss of pocket, so too does honoring speak where there is no loss of pocket'.

Explanation #2 (Part 2): In fact, Rebbi Ya'akov bar Shimon reconciles the Lashon 'Rasha'in' with where the workman is working for himself, in that 'Ein Rasha'in is synonymous with 'Ein Chayavin' ...

Proof 1: Like the Mishnah in Perek ha'Makdish Sadeihu (Erchin 28:) which rules that if someone declares his ox an Olah, we assess how much a person would be willing to pay for this ox, to bring as an Olah, 'Af-al-Pi she'Eino Rasha'i' - meaning that he is not Chayav.

Proof 2): Indeed, Unklus translates Lo Tih'yeh lo ke'Nosheh' as 'Lo T'hei leih ke'Rashya'.

Precedent (Part 1): Likewise, we can explain the case in the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 33:) 'Ein Adam Rashai La'amod bi'Fenei Rabo, Ela Shachris ve'Arvis, so that his (Rebbe's) Kavod should not exceed that of Hashem' ...

Precedent (Part 2): This does not mean that he is forbidden to do so, but rather that he is not obligated to.

TwoTexts: Most texts in the Sugya in Erchin (that we cited) read 'Af'al'Pi she'Eino Chayav. Nevertheless, the Seifer quoted by Rabeinu Gershom reads 'Af-al-Pi she'Eino Rashai'.

Conclusion: Also Rashi (himself) proves in a Teshuvah from Rabeinu Gershom that 'Rashai' is synonymous 'Chayav'.

Explanation #1 (Part 1): Rashi explains that it is referring to the Machlokes regarding Shedrah and Gulgoles - where Beis Hillel hold that the Shi'ur (T'reifus) is the amount that one can take from a live animal and it will die.

Explanation #1 (Part 2): And on the Gemara's question in Bechoros (Perek Eilu Mumin, Daf 58:) 'How much must one take from a live animal that will cause it to die?', Shmuel answers 'ke'Sela'; and according to others, it is the Beraisa which says 'ke'Sela'.

Explanation #2: Whilst according to Rabeinu Tam it refers to the case cited shortly (on Daf 55:) with regard to 'a G'ludah' (whose skin has been removed), where the Gemara says that if the Shi'ur ke'Sela remains, it is Kasher.

Question: Both explanations are difficult however, inasmuch as, bearing in mind that the Tana does not say 'Ad' (until), it is obvious that there is no difference between a Sela and more than a Sela?

Answer: We find in many places that the Tana means 'Ad', even though he has not said so specifically.

Precedent #1 (Part 1): In Perek ha'Zahav (Bava Metzi'a Daf 51:) 'How much must be missing for it to be considered Ona'ah (overcharging)? Four Isrin'.

Precedent #1 (Part 2): On which the Gemara asks from a Beraisa 'How much must it be missing for it not to be considered Ona'ah? Four Isrin? And it answers that whereas our Tana is going upwards (from less than four Isrin up to four Isrin), the other Tana is going downwards (from more than four Isrin down to four Isrin [even though neither Tana inserted 'Ad').

Precedent #2: And in Perek ha'Koneis (Bava Kama Daf 61.) where one Tana rules that if a fire swept past a wall of four Amos, he is Patur`; where it asks from another Beraisa, which says Chayav, to which gives the same answer (that whereas our Tana is going downwards (from more than four Amos down to four Amos, the other Tana is going upwards (from less than four Amos up to four Amos).

Question (Part 1): The question remains however, that 'G'ludah is mentioned together with cases that are Kasher, in which case if one is reckoning downwards ... four Sela'im, three and two and down to one is Kasher, it will mean that 'Ad ve'Ad bi'Chelal' (the word 'Ad' is inclusive), seeing as we are saying that 'a Sela is the same as more than a Sela'. And the same will apply to case of 'Gulgoles', since it refers to 'How much must be missing for it to be Tahor?'

Question (Part 2): In that case, what does the Gemara ask from the case of 'the rope of the bed' and 'the small species of earthenware vessels'? Since, even if one reckons by G'ludah and Gulgoles from down and upwards, it will be a case of 'Ad ve'Lo ad bi'Chelal'. That being the case, it is a leniency, whereas in the Gemara's conclusion it is evident that we always go le'Chumra?

Explanation #3 (Part 1): It therefore seems that it is referring to the Din of 'Nikdar ke'Sela' (where the outer stomach has a hole the size of a Sela), about which we learned above (Daf 50:) that it is T'reifah, because, when it is stretched, it reaches the size of a Tefach.

Explanation #3 (Part 2): And Rebbi Chiya bar Aba disagrees there and says 'ke'Sela Kesheirah, Yeser mi'ke'Sela, T'reifah'.

Explanation #3 (Part 3): Rav Nachman is now coming to teach us that a k'Sela is equivalent to more than a Sela' (and is T'reifah), and he is not talking at all about 'Ad ve'Ad bi'Chelal'.

Explanation #4 (Part 4): Whereas in the case of 'k'Isar ... ', he is teaching us that 'Ad ve'Ad bi'Chelal', seeing as, bearing in mind that he is referring to the Mishnah of 'Eilu Kesheros', he must be speaking about from down and upward.

Explanation #1 (Part 1): According to our text 'Hein ... ', it implies that an earthenware vessel is initially not considered a K'li if it cannot hold sufficient to anoint a Katan.

Explanation #1 (Part 2): When it says 'ad Log' however, it cannot refer to 'Hein, only to the broken pieces.

Implied Question: Nowhere do we find that earthenware vessels initially require a Shi'ur.

Support (Part 1): And as for the Mishnah in Mikva'os (Perek 2, Mishnah 3) which states that 'Someone who scratches out a cavity in a pipe to catch the stones: if it is made of wood, the Shi'ur is a Kol Shehu; whereas if it is made of earthenware, it is a Revi'is?

Answer #1: That is specifically to catch stones.

Answer #2: And there too, Rebbi Yossi disagrees, maintaining that the Shi'ur by earthenware ones too, is a Kol Shehu, and that the Shi'ur Revi'is is confined to broken ones.

Conclusion: In the actual Mishnayos in the second Perek of Keilim (Mishnah 2) the text 'Hein' does not appear. The text there is 'ha'Dakin she'bi'Chelei Cheres ve'Karkeroseihen ... ', which is as as if it had written 'Hein', since the text reads 've'Karkeroseihen' (with a 'Vav').