Observation: This is the expression of the Torah, but regarding a Chacham, the expression of Hatarah applies.

Note: The Torah mentioned Hafarah only regarding a father or husband. Tosfos connotes that the Gemara uses the expression that the Torah used for permitting vows and oaths, even though a Chacham must permit with an expression of Hatarah. If he said an expression of Hafarah, it is not permitted - Nedarim 77b.)

Support: Also in Bava Basra (74a) regarding the Bas Kol, it said "now that I (Hash-m) swore, who will be Mefer for Me?"

Alternative text: This is the text in most Seforim. In some Seforim the text says "like whom? Rav Nachman said, like me." Rashi's words connote that this is his text.

Question: How does [the Gemara] ask "may the others be anyone?" We can say no (not anyone is Kosher), but they can be less than Rav Nachman!

Question: Also according to the other text, what is [the Makshan's] source to say anyone? Perhaps we infer that they are less than an expert, but not anyone!

Answer: It is obvious to [the Makshan] that the Chacham that R. Yehudah [requires] is not the Chacham above, which discusses an expert, for even R. Yehudah agrees that a lone expert permits a vow;

Here that we do not discuss an expert, he properly asks what level is required for the others [with him].

Question: If so, what is the source that [R. Chiya bar Aba] comes to teach unlike R. Yehudah? Since R. Yehudah does not discuss an expert, perhaps R. Chiya bar Aba agrees that we require one of them to be like the Chacham of R. Yehudah!

Poor Answer: It is difficult to say that "three annul" connotes to [the Gemara] that all three are the same [required level of Chachmah].

Implied question: In Horiyos (11a), we say that Stam, one is considered an Apikoros (Mumar) if he drinks Yayin Nesech, just like Neveilos!

Answer #1: Even so, it is not considered [physically] revolting to a person.

Answer #2: Here we conclude that [the Yayin Nesech] was in a mixture. (One who drinks a mixture is not considered an Apikoros.)

Explanation: This is an expression of Tenuch (cartilage), like Roshei Kenafayim and ha'Sechusin, in Pesachim (84a).

Support: The Targum of "b'Dal ha'Ozen" is Chaschus d'Udna.

Observation: We expound like this in Kidushin (24b) regarding [an Eved Kena'ani goes free if his master knocks out his] tooth or eye.

Question: Why is it not a Mum here when its tooth fell, since it is considered an exposed Mum and it does not return (heal)?

Below (44a) we disqualify when a person's teeth were removed only due to Mar'is ha'Ayin. This implies that regarding an animal, it is Kosher!

And even regarding people, he is not disqualified due to [loss of] one tooth, and only if the outer Chutin (teeth) were chipped or cracked, or if the inner ones were uprooted, it says below about an animal that it is a Mum, but if teeth were removed, no!

Answer: It is different regarding a slave, for the Torah revealed [that he goes free due to a tooth]. Here, it is normal that teeth fall out due to old age. It is not like lame or blind.

Question: We need another reason, for also eyes weaken due to age!

Question: What is the difference when one hit him on the ear and deafened him? It is considered a Mum, and a slave goes free due to it, for it is an exposed Mum and it does not return;

And below (45b) a Mishnah teaches that deaf and lunatic are Pasul in people, and Kosher in animals!

And even in people, it is Pasul only because he is unlike other descendants of Aharon, like it explains below, and it does not distinguish between deaf due to man or deaf due to Shamayim!

Answer: The Torah revealed about a slave that something minor is considered a Mum to go free due to it, that he is freed for his tooth.

Implied question: We could have brought from the [Mishnah] below (41a), which explicitly lists among those for which one may not slaughter [the animal], not in the Mikdash and not outside the Mikdash, inner Chutin that are chipped or cracked!

Answer: [The Gemara] prefers to bring from a proven inference from the Reisha. Even though regarding the outer Chutin it is an exposed Mum, regarding the inner Chutin it is not a Mum.

Question: According to the first answer, that learns a temporary Mum from a Kal v'Chomer, what do we learn from "Pise'ach v'Iver"?

Answer: Now [the Tartzan] holds that had the Torah not written Pise'ach v'Iver, we would include a temporary Mum from "Kol Mum Ra", and I would think that it comes to override the Kal v'Chomer, and also we do not exclude hidden Mumim from "Mum Ra."

Reference: In Kidushin (21b) it explains that this is because he expounds Ribuyim and Mi'utin. "V'Lakachta" is a Ribuy. "Martze'a" is a Mi'ut. "V'Nasata b'Ozen" is another Ribuy. What does this include? It includes everything. What is excluded? A potion is excluded.

Question: We include from "v'Lakachta" everything taken in the hand. If a potion is not considered to be taken in the hand, why do we need Ribuy u'Mi'ut v'Ribuy? From "v'Lakachta" alone we include only something taken in the hand!

Answer: He does not expound the expression "v'Lakachta". Rather, he says as follows. We include everything taken in the hand because we expound Ribuyim and Mi'utin.

Implied question: Since it disqualifies a Kohen, this shows that it is a Pesul mid'Oraisa!

Answer #1: Perhaps we do not slaughter because it is not recognized well, and we decree due to concealed Mumim.

Answer #2: A Kohen is disqualified because he is unlike other descendants of Aharon.

Answer #3: It is a temporary Mum, and [we cannot do so to a Kohen, for] we require that he is not disqualified even temporarily, for it says "v'Shav El Mishpachto" - he returns to what his family is permitted (Avodah, if he is a Kohen).

Implied question: Also through a hole the size of a (standard) drill-hole it would die according to Beis Shamai, since it says in Eruvin (7a) "and similarly for a Tereifah." This implies that it refers to both the spine and skull, since it says there "two stringencies that contradict each other, like the spine and skull."

Answer: Rather, Beis Hillel come to say that the Shi'ur of a drill-hole is more than enough to take from a live person and he would die, according to them.

Assertion: Also according to R. Tam, who explained that "and similarly for a Tereifah" does not apply to the skull...

Source - Implied question: In Chulin (42b), why did [the Gemara] not ask "there is Chisaron in the skull!" (why did the Mishnah omit this Tereifah?), like it asks about Chisaron in the spine?

Answer #1: A puncture in the membrane [of the brain] is Tereifah without Chisaron.

Implied question: In Eruvin (7a), why does it call the spine and skull "two stringencies that contradict each other"?

Answer #1: It is because they argue about Tereifos of a person, who has Mazal, and he has more life [than an animal], and he does not become Tereifah through a puncture in the membrane without Chisaron. (Only an animal is Tereifah due to a puncture alone.)

Assertion (cont.): Also according to [R. Tam] we must say like we explained, that in the Shi'ur of Beis Shamai, he dies according to Beis Shamai, just like Beis Hillel [hold that he dies due to Chisaron] of their Shi'ur.

Objection #1 (and Answer #2 to Question c:1): R. Tam's inference, from this that in Chulin (42b) it did not ask from Chisaron in the skull, is not difficult. We can say that it is Tereifah due to Chisaron only because the membrane is destined to be punctured (and the Mishnah already taught a puncture in the membrane), just like lungs that are black or blue (Chulin 47b. The former is Tereifah, for it is destined to be punctured.)

Objection #2: R. Tam distinguished between Tereifus of people and animals. This is difficult, for in Chulin (43a) the Gemara compares them! It asks from Iyov, who said "my gall bladder spills to the ground", yet he lived!

Answer #2 (to Question c:3): R. Tam could explain that it is not due to Mazal that something is Tereifah in animals more than in people. It is only in a case like a puncture in the upper membrane of the brain, and there is puncture in the lower membrane;

In an animal, the lower membrane is soft, and it does not protect the brain. However, in a person, the lower [membrane] is hard, and it protects. Therefore we require Chisaron with a puncture in the upper membrane;

Distinction: However, in something that they are the same, we do not distinguish between them at all.