1)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Acharei Rabim Lehatos" - the principle Zil Basar Ruba (that we go after the majority).

(b)We are surprised that this Pasuk is quoted as its source - because we already know this D'rashah from other sources, which pertains to Ruba de'Iysa Kaman (a visible Rov), and our She'eilah Minalan pertains to a Ruba de'Leisa Kaman (an invisible Rov, based on what the majority of people do or what happens to them).

(c)We give examples of Ruba de'Iysa Kaman as Tesha Chanuyos and Sanhedrin, and of Ruba de'Leisa Kaman as Katan u'Ketanah. By ...

1. ... Tesha Chanuyos we are referring to the case where - nine shops sell Kasher meat, and one shop, Tereifah meat, in which case we assume that a piece of meat that is found in the street was purchased in one of the Kasher shops.

2. ... Sanhedrin we are referring to - where, for example, twelve Dayanim rule that a man is innocent, and eleven rule that he is guilty, we go after the majority, and declare him innocent.

3. ... Katan u'Ketanah we are referring to - a Katan who acquires his Yevamah who is a Ketanah, in which case we allow them to live together until they grow up, despite the possibility that the Yavam is a Saris or the Yevamah, an Aylonis (neither of whom can have children). If they are, the Yibum is invalid, and they will be Chayav Kareis (on account of Eishes Ach she'Lo be'Makom Mitzvah).

(d)The reason for the latter ruing is - because only a minority of men and women are Sarisim or Ayloniyos, and we go after the majority.

2)

(a)Rebbi Elazar tries to learn it (Ruba de'Leisa le'Kaman) from the head of the Olah. Given that the Pasuk prohibits cutting it into pieces ("Venitach osah li'Nesachehah", "osah li'Nesachehah" 've'Lo Nesachehah li'Nesachehah' , he tries to prove Zil Basar Ruba' from the fact that - since it is forbidden to cut it into pieces, there is no way of knowing whether the K'rum shel Mo'ach (the membrane covering the brain) is holed (which will render the animal a T'reifah) or not, and it can only be Kasher because we go after the majority of cases, where it is not.

(b)We counter his proof however, by suggesting Dilma Pali leih - even though we cannot cut the head of the Olah into more pieces, we can however, cut it open, without dividing it into two.

(c)Mar b'rei de'Ravina brings exactly the same proof from the Korban Pesach, only based on the Pasuk "ve'Etzem Lo Sishberu bo". And we counter his proof - by suggesting that one examines the K'rum shel Mo'ach by burning the bone of the skull, without actually breaking it.

(d)We know that burning the bone is permitted - from the Beraisa ... ha'Soref ba'Atzamos, Ein bo Mishum Sheviras Etzem.

3)

(a)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak tries to prove the Din of Rov from the Alyah (the fat-tail of a lamb) which must be brought whole. The problem in doing so is that - maybe the spinal cord is broken, in which case, the animal is a T'reifah.

(b)If, as we suggest, one were to cut off the Alyah beyond the bein ha'Parshos (the point where the spinal cord branches into three) - there would be no problem, because from that point on, even if it is broken, it does not render the animal a T'reifah, since it can support itself on its thighs, and does not need the spinal cord to support it.

(c)The Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with the Alyah) "le'Umas he'Atzeh (the kidneys, which are the source of advice) Yesirenah" however, dispenses with this suggestion - since the kidneys are located before the bein ha'Parshos, in which case the animal will indeed be a T'reifah if the spinal cord is broken at that point.

(d)We nevertheless reject Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak's proof from there - like we did earlier, by incorporating cutting open the Alyah (without actually dividing it in two) in "Temimah".

4)

(a)Rav Sheishes b'rei de'Rav Idi learns the Din of Rov from Eglah Arufah. We learn from the Lashon "ha'Arufah" - that the calf must remain whole ...

(b)... a proof that we go after the majority of animals which are not T'reifah. Otherwise, how do we know that it is whole?

(c)Rabah bar Rav Shilo learns Rov from Parah Adumah. We learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Veshachat ... Vesaraf" - that just as when it is Shechted, it is whole, so too, must it be whole when it is burned. Here too, the only way of now knowing that the animal is not a T'reifah, is by going after the majority of animals.

(d)Despite the fact that neither the Eglah Arufah nor the Parah Adumah is brought on the Mizbe'ach, if ...

1. ... the Eglah Arufah is a T'reifah, it will be Pasul, because, as Rebbi Yanai points out - the Torah writes Kaparah in connection with it (just like it does by Kodshim).

2. ... the Parah Adumah is a T'reifah, it too, will be Pasul - because the Torah refers to is as a Chatas.

5)

(a)Rav Acha bar Ya'akov brings the same proof for Rov from the Sa'ir ha'Mishtale'ach. We learn from the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "Velakach es Sh'nei ha'Se'irim" that - they must both be equal.

(b)He proves from here that we go after Rov - because otherwise, how will we know that the one which will eventually go to Az'azel (which there will be no way of examining) is not a T'reifah (since if it is they will not be equal)?

(c)Even though the Sa'ir la'Az'azel is not brought on the Mizbe'ach - the Torah is particular that it should not be a T'reifah, because a goat which cannot become the Sa'ir la'Hashem, is not eligible for Az'azel either.

(d)It is not possible to examine the Sa'ir la'Az'azel after it has been pushed down from the rock - because, as we learned in the Mishnah in Yoma, by the time the goat reaches half way to the valley below, it is broken up into many pieces, and there is no way of recognizing whether any particular limb was broken in its lifetime or after its death.

6)

(a)Rav Mari learns Rov from the Din of someone who strikes his father - for which he is Chayav Misah, and if not for the principle that Rov Be'ilos Achar ha'Ba'al, how can we know that the man he struck was his father?

(b)Even in a case where both his parents where alone in prison when he was conceived there is no guarantee that his mother's husband was his father - because, due to the principle of Ein Apotropos la'Arayos, it is possble thyat the woman's captors committed adultery with her.

7)

(a)Rav Kahana learns Rov from a murderer, who is subsequently sentenced to death at the hand of Beis-Din - even though there is always a Safek that, perhaps the victim was a T'reifah (for whose murder one is not Chayav Misah).

(b)We object to the suggestion that we should ...

1. ... examine the victim (see Tosfos DH 've'Chi Teima') on the grounds that - it is not Kavod ha'Meis, to cut up his body.

2. ... nevertheless examine him in order to save the murderer's life - on the grounds that, even if we did, how would we know that the murderer did not pierce the victim in a location where there was already a hole (rendering him a T'reifah).

(c)Ravina cites the equivalent proof from witnesses who testify that Reuven killed someone, and then become Eidim Zomemin. We do not even raise the issue of examining the victim to see, whether or not, he is a T'reifah (like we did in the previous case) - because it is speaking where he is still alive (otherwise, the witnesses would not be Eidim Zom'min (as we learned in a Beraisa 'Hargu, Ein Neheragin').

8)

(a)Rav Ashi learns Rov from Shechitah itself - from the fact that we do not suspect that the Shochet Shechted in the exact location where there was a hole ...

(b)... in the esophagus (because the trachea only renders the animal a Tereifah if the majority of the pipe is split, but not with a small hole).

(c)Rav Kahana (or Rav Shimi) objects to all these proofs - in that perhaps we only go after the Rov in cases where it is impossible to check, but wherever it is, we do.

(d)Consequently, we ought to ...

1. ... examine an animal for all eighteen T'reifos.

2. ... instruct a Katan and Ketanah who performed Yibum, to wait until they grow up, and it is proved that the one is not a Saris, and the other, an Aylonis.

9)

(a)Rav Kahana (or Rav Shimi) proves his point from Rebbi Meir, who holds Chosh'shin le'Mi'uta - who, if not for the distinction that we just made, would never have eaten meat.

(b)The problem in saying that according to Rebbi Meir, one is forbidden to eat meat (in case the Shochet Shechted in the exact location of a hole) is - concerning Pesach and Kodshim, both of which one is obligated to eat (the former, based on the Pasuk in Bo "Ve'achlu es ha'Basar ba'Laylah ha'Zeh", the latter, based on the Pasuk in Tetzaveh "Ve'achlu Osam asher Kupar bahem").

(c)This proves that - even Rebbi Meir only takes the minority into account when there is no choice, but relies on the majority, where it is unavoidable.

(d)Since we see that even Rebbi Meir does not suspect (min ha'Torah) that maybe the Shochet Shechted in the location of a hole - there must be a source that overrides that suspicion (as we will now see) with which the Rabbanan will certainly agree.

10)

(a)It appears that, at the end of the day, Zil Basar Ruba even in cases where it is possible to check, is either Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai - or learned from "Acharei Rabim Lehatos", negating our previous objection distinguishing between a Ruba de'Iysa Kaman and a Ruba de'Leisa Kaman (see also Rabeinu Gershom and Tosfos DH 'Pesach ve'Kodshsim').

(b)Nevertheless, we customarily examine an animal's lungs - (mi'de'Rabbanan) because defects are common among them.

(c)If however, the lungs got lost before being examined - the animal is nevertheless Kasher.