1)

(a)Ula lists eight categories of T'reifah (Nekuvah, Pesukah, Netulah, Chasurah, Keru'ah, Derusah, Nefulah and Shevurah). His source for this is - Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai.

(b)He is coming to preclude - Lekusah de'Kulya (infected kidneys) of Rachish bar Papa, with which he disagrees.

(c)We will later consider infected lungs, T'reifah - because an infection eventually turns into a hole.

(d)Nevertheless, we cannot incorporate infected kidneys in Nekuvah - because a hole in the kidneys does not render the animal a T'reifah.

2)

(a)Netulah means - entirely removed, whereas Chasurah means that - part of it is missing.

(b)We reckon ...

1. ... G'ludah, Shaf mi'Duchteih (dislocated) and Nedald'lu Simanim in the category of - Netulah.

2. ... Nechtechah Raglehah - as Chasurah.

3. ... Akiras Tzela and Chavisas Gulgoles - as Shevurah.

(c)Chiya bar Rabah incorporates eight T'reifos in Nekuvah. He does not count ...

1. ... Nekuvas ha'Marah (like our Mishnah does) - because it is the individual opinion of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah.

2. ... Nekuvas ha'Techol, like Rav Avira Amar Rava - because he disagrees with him.

(d)He accounts for the nine Nekuvos listed in our Mishnah (besides Nekuvas ha'Marah) - by considering Nekuvas ha'Messes and Nekuvas Beis-ha'Kosos as one (as we explained earlier).

3)

(a)Rebbi Yitzchak b'Rav Yosef Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules that Nekuvas ha'Marah is - T'reifah (like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah).

(b)The Rabbanan query Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah from the Pasuk "Yishpoch la'Aretz Mereirasi" - which is the result of a puncture in the gall-bladder, to which Iyov referred as a wound which he would survive, and not to it being a death-stroke.

(c)According to Rebbi Yitzchak b'Rav Yosef, Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah replied that - one cannot bring a proof from miracles.

(d)He supported his answer from a phrase from the same Pasuk "Yefalach Kilyosai ve'Lo Yachmol" that - it was a miracle (since even the Rabbanan will agree that an animal with a split kidney is normally T'reifah).

(e)The source of his answer lies in the Pasuk there (where Hash-m caused the Satan terrible anguish by instructing him to do with Iyov as he pleased, concluding) - 'only guard his soul', as a result of which the Satan dealt Iyov blows that under normal circumstances, he would not have been able to survive).

4)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that if the entire liver is removed and nothing remains, the animal is T'reifah. Bearing in mind a contradiction between this Mishnah and the following one (which we will discuss later), Rebbi Yitzchak b'Rav Yosef Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules that - for the animal not to be a T'reifah, at least a k'Zayis must remain.

(b)We can extrapolate from our Mishnah however - that even if only a Mashehu remains, the animal is Kasher.

(c)Rabah bar bar Chanah citing Rebbi Yochanan - stated 'Halachah ki'S'tam Mishnah', posing a Kashya on Yitzchak b'Rav Yosef Amar Rebbi Yochanan's previous ruling.

(d)We answer that - Rebbi Yochanan's opinion is subject to a Machlokes Amora'im, as we see here.

(e)In spite of the fact that both Mishnahs involved are S'tam Mishnahs, Rabah bar bar Chanah will not concede to Rebbi Yitzchak b'Rav Yosef in this case - because, whenever there is a contradiction of this nature, Rebbi Yochanan remains non-committal, unless he has an indication that the Halachah is like one of them.

5)

(a)Rebbi Yitzchak b'Rav Yosef Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules that ...

1. ... a punctured gall-bladder which is blocked by the liver is - Kasher.

2. ... the stomach of a bird that is punctured but the inner sac is not is - Kasher, too.

(b)They ask what the Halachah will be in the reverse case, where the sac is punctured but not the stomach. And they resolve it with a statement by Rav Nachman, who said that - if either one of them was punctured but not the other, or even if both of them were punctured, but not at the same spot, the bird is Kasher.

(c)Rabah rules that, in a case where only one of the two skins of the Veshet is punctured - the animal is Kasher.

(d)He finds it necessary to add that the outer one is red and the inner one, white - to teach us that if they are reversed, the animal is T'reifah.

6)

(a)Mar Zutra quoting Rav Papa, declares the animal Kasher, even if both skins of the Veshet are punctured, as long as they are not punctured at the same spot, but that a bird whose stomach and inner sac are both punctured, even at different spots - is T'reifah.

(b)Rav Ashi objects to Mar Zutra's distinction, because, he argues, the opposite is true - it is the Veshet (which contracts and expands as one eats, and together with the Kaneh as one talks), sometimes causing the two holes to arrive at the same spot, thereby allowing the food to exit the Veshet, rendering the animal T'reifah; whereas this cannot occur with the food in the bird's stomach, which remains static, rendering it Kasher.

(c)Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Yosef assured him that - this was how they actually quoted Mar Zutra in the name of Rav Papa.

(d)Rabah rules that if a membrane grows on the Veshet as a result of a wound, blocking the wound and preventing the food from escaping - the animal is nevertheless T'reifah, because the membrane is only temporary.

7)

(a)We already cited Rabah's ruling that one cannot examine a Veshet from the outside - because the outer skin is red, against which a drop of blood is indiscernible.

(b)The ramifications of this ruling concern - a Safek D'rusah (as we will discuss later in the Perek).

(c)When Abaye found Rabah examining the outer skin of the Veshet in a case of Safek D'rusah, he exclaimed that - Rabah himself was the one to prohibit it.

8)

(a)Rabah's reaction to that was - to promptly cut the Veshet and to inspect the inner skin , where he discovered two specks of blood (where the poison had penetrated the skin ...

(b)... and he initially examined it from the outside - to test Abaye.

(c)Assuming that it was a bird, Rabah probably examined it by first examining and Shechting the Kaneh (as we explained in the previous Perek). Had it been an animal - he would have had to Shecht both Simanim and examine the Kaneh (either before or after the Shechitah, and the Veshet after Shechting it, before removing the outer skin (in order to examine the inner one, as we learned on the previous Amud).

(d)We dismissed that possibility in the second Perek - because we were afraid that he may have Shechted the Veshet in the location of a hole (which cannot then be examined), whereas here, where it is not a hole that we afraid of but poison, it is possible to examine the inner Veshet, even after the Shechitah, since the red around the poisoned area is wider than the cut of the Shechitah.

9)

(a)Ula rules that an animal in whose throat a thorn is lodged - is Kasher (and may be eaten after it has been Shechted).

(b)The Chidush is that we are not afraid Shema Hivri, meaning either that - the thorn may have punctured the Veshet right through (rendering the animal a T'reifah) and then healed, or simply that it punctured right through without leaving a drop of blood on the inside, and which cannot therefore be examined on the outside (as Rabah just taught us).

(c)We ask on what grounds Ula will differentiate between this case and Safek D'rusah (if Safek D'rusah is T'reifah, why is this case Kasher)? We are referring to a case - where a lion was seen in the herd, and we suspect that it may have clawed one of the animals.

(d)And we answer that - Ula permits Safek D'rusah just like he permits the case of a thorn.

10)

(a)The difference between Ula's case and that of someone who ...

1. ... eats one of two pieces of fat, one Cheilev and the other, Shuman, for which he is Chayav to bring an Asham Taluy is that - in the latter case, we know for sure that there was a piece of Isur (Ischazek Isura), which is not so in Ula's case (see Tosfos DH 'Sha'ani Hasam').

2. ... Shechts with a knife, which turns out to have a defect on it - is the fact that the knife with its defect is like a Chezkas Isur.

(b)We also query him from a case of Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Yachid (which is Tamei), which we counter - by asking that by the same token, one could support him from the case of Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim, which is Tahor.

(c)We therefore reconcile Ula with the two rulings of Safek Tum'ah - by classifying both Safek bi'Reshus ha'Yachid and Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Rabim as a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai, instructing us to learn them from Sotah (who is Tamei in a R'shus ha'Yachid, but Tahor, in a R'shus ha'Rabim). And we cannot learn from a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai.

11)

(a)A certain Talmid-Chacham learned before Rav Kahana that Ula's previous ruling is confined to where the thorn is found loose in the throat, but that if it is lodged there - Ula will agree that the animal is T'reifah

(b)Rav Kahana instructed the people present - not to listen to the Talmid-Chacham, because, on the contrary, Ula was speaking where the thorn is lodged in the animal's throat. If it was loose, then it would go without saying that the animal is Kasher.

(c)He disagreed with the Talmid-Chacham - on the grounds that all the animals that graze in the meadow and in the forests eat thorns, and that, according to the Talmid-Chacham, they should all be T'reifah.

12)

(a)According to Rav, a small hole in the Turbatz ha'Veshet - the top of the Veshet, where it is joined to the jaw, like a hole in the Veshet, renders the animal a T'reifah.

(b)Shmuel maintains that - the Shi'ur T'reifus of the Turbatz ha'Veshet is the majority of the Veshet.

(c)The basis of their Machlokes is whether the Turbatz ha'Veshet is included in the location of Shechitah (Rav) or not (Shmuel).

(d)According to Rav - the P'sul of Hagramah pertains only to the Veshet, but not to the Kaneh.

13)

(a)According to Mari bar Mar Ukva Amar Shmuel, wherever one makes a cut (in the neck area) and it stretches, is considered the Turbatz ha'Veshet. One gauges the Veshet itself - by wherever the sides of the cut remain as they were.

(b)Rav Papi, quoting Rav Bibi bar Abaye, defines the latter as Turbatz ha'Veshet, and the Veshet, as - whatever contracts after it has been Shechted.

(c)Rebbi Yonah Amar Rebbi Zeira (see also Mesores ha'Shas) is the most radical of all. He defines the Turbatz ha'Veshet as - the point where the animal swallows (which is right next to the head ...

(d)... less than a barley-length away from that point, says Rav Ivya, but more than a wheat-length.

14)

(a)Rava placed the Chumros of Rav and the Chumros of Shmuel on an ox belonging to the sons of Rav Ukva - because the Shechitah began on the Turbatz ha'Veshet but ended on the Veshet.

(b)The Chumros of ...

1. ... Rav - constituted rendering it T'reifah with a Mashehu.

2. ... Shmuel - constituted not considering the Turbatz ha'Veshet a location that is subject to Shechitah.

(c)When the case came before Rebbi Aba, he ruled that the animal was Kasher (because according to Rav it was subject to Shechitah, and according to Shmuel a hole less that Rubo didn't render it T'reifah.

(d)He instructed the sons of Rav Ukva to tell, the son of Rav Yosef bar Chama (Rava) that - he was obligated to pay for the ox.

15)

(a)Rebbi Aba ordered Rava to pay - because he had applied two conflicting Chumros to render the ox forbidden, when really it was permitted.

(b)And he ordered him to pay, based on the principle - Ta'ah bi'Devar Mishnah, Choze (someone who errs in a specified Halachah, must retract).

(c)What makes this a D'var Mishnah is - a Beraisa which explicitly forbids adopting the Chumros of two Tana'im even in different cases (as we will see shortly), certainly when they both apply to one and the same case.

(d)Rava could have simply retracted, had the ox still been available, and the reason that he had to pay was - because the owner had fed it to the dogs.