Question (Part 1): How did they build the Mizbe'ach? Where would they find stones without niches? ...

Question (Part 2): ... And if they would file them with metal, they would contravene the Isur of "waving metal on them"?

Suggested Answer: Nor would it help to use the Shamir (worm)' ...

Refutation: ... since the Shamir worm did not render the stones smooth in a way that the nail would not get caught in them ...

Reasoning (Part 1): ... since the Gemara states in Perek Rebbi Yishmael (Avodah-Zarah 52b) regarding the stones of the Mizbe'ach that the Greeks contaminated and that the Chashmona'im hid 'What should we do? If we fix them to the Mizbe'ach, the Torah said "complete stones"? Shall we saw them (to remove the niches)? The Torah writes "Do not wave metal over them?

Reasoning (Part 2): ... Now why did they not use the Shamir? ... unless we say that the Shamir does not achieve that degree of smoothness, as we explained.

Answer: In Perek Eizehu Mekoman (Zevachim 54a) it is implied that they built it with small smooth stones, which contained no niches, such as pebbles from the brook.

Question: That is difficult however, since, regarding the Beis-Hamikdash the Torah also writes "complete quarried stones", and Rebbi Yehudah learns in Sotah (48b) that it was built by means of the Shamir?

Implied Question: Why did the Gemara not give the same answer regarding the Mishnah of Shein (tooth)?

Answer: Because the Mishnah mentions 'Shinayim' (in the plural), implying two teeth - which is why the Gemara establishes it by detached teeth, which are Pasul because they strangle the animal.

Implied Question: In a number of places, the Tana says 'Kasher', yet it is permitted to eat? ...

Answer: ... But here it is different, since one could easily err.

Explanation #1 (Part 1): Rashi explains that the Shechitah is not Kasher at all inside the other Taba'os, only in between them; and Rebbi Yossi only said 'Rubo ke'Kulo' within the location of the Shechitah, but not with regard to rendering a location Kasher.

Explanation #1 (Part 2): In that case, how much more so, according to his explanation, will the Rabbanan (who do not hold 'Rubo ke'Kulo') declare not Kasher a Shechitah inside the other Taba'os!

Question: And the reason that we are not fussy about Shechting inside the other Taba'os is ...

Answer: ... because the above is not Halachah (as Rashi explains) ...

Clarifying Beraisa (Part 1): ... and the Beraisa in the Tosefta cited by Rashi, which describes the Mitzvah of Shechitah as being 'from the Taba'as down to the lung', we will have to establish it according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who validates the Shechitah even inside the other Taba'os, as we will conclude shortly.

Clarifying Beraisa (Part 2): Alternatively, what the Tana means is from the large Taba'as until (the flaps of) the lungs which are in the location of the wind-pipe, and the other Taba'os are not called the wind-pipe, as Rashi himself explains.

Clarifying Beraisa (Part 2): Also, Rashi extrapolates from the Seifa of the Beraisa 'If he left over a thread all the way round close to the head', that the Tana is not concerned if it goes out below the Taba'as, only above it.

Inference: As a result, Rashi rejects the opinion of those who maintain that according to both the Rabbanan and Rebbi Yossi, Hagramah extends to all the Taba'os, because once one begins to Shecht inside a Taba'as, one is obligated to complete it there.

Refutation #1: In fact however, there is no Kashya from there on Rashi's explanation, because, even though it is perhaps Pasul below too, had it left the large Taba'as and entered the other Taba'os, it is nevertheless not necessary to leave over a full-thread underneath, since to the contrary, it would be better not to Shecht at all inside the other Taba'os, only between one Taba'as and the next.

Refutation #2: In any event, Rashi's explanation is a Dochek (forced).

Explanation #2 (Part 1): It therefore seems that what the Gemara means is - that even Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah only says that 'Shiyer M'lo ha'Chut al-P'nei Rubo' only helps on the Taba'as ha'Gedolah, since, by virtue of the fact that it surrounds the entire Kaneh, a majority of it incorporates the majority of the Kaneh ...

Explanation #2 (Part 2): Whereas by the other Taba'os, it does not help to leave Rov Taba'as, because, bearing in mind the fact that they do not surround the entire Kaneh, a majority of them does not incorporate the majority of the Kaneh.

Clarification (Part 1): In other words, he did not hear it from Rav and Shmuel.

Clarification (Part 2): And it is not eaten in one's home city only as a Chumra, an added stringency, and not based on the ruling of Rav and Shmuel.

Clarification (Part 3): The Gemara nevertheless asks whether Rebbi Zeira does not hold 'Nosnin Alav Chumrei Makom ... '?, because even if Rav and Shmuel did not forbid it, it was forbidden, since the Minhag in his town was to forbid it.

Implied Question: In the first Perek of Sanhedrin (5a) the Gemara seems to say the reverse, regarding receiving permission to judge and being Patur from paying in the event that one errs - since it says there from here (Bavel) to there (Eretz Yisrael) it helps; What will be the Din from there to here?'

Answer: Rabeinu Tam explains that regarding Isur ve'Heter (which is the case in our Sugya) the B'nei Eretz Yisrael are superior, since they are more knowledgeable; but when it comes to extracting money, the Resh Galusa (head of Bavel) is superior, as the Gemara there explains 'because here it is termed 'Sheivet' (a staff)', whereas there it is termed 'Mechokek' (legislator).

Proof #1: We also say (to explain the Pasuk in Vayechi) "The 'Sheivet will not depart from Yehudah - these are the heads of the Galuyos in Bavel, who rule the people with their staff; "and the 'Mechokek' from between his legs" - these are the grandsons of Hillel, who taught Torah in public.

Proof #2: And we also say in the second Perek of Hori'os (11b) that the Nasi in Eretz Yisrael does not bring a goat, since there is the Resh Galusa in Bavel, and he was richer than he was.

Implication: This answer implies that one places on him the Chumros of the place he has arrived at, even though it is his intention to return.

Refutation: It is impossible to say this however, since Rav Ashi himself, who answers the question here, in Perek Makom she'Nahagu (Pesachim 51a) establishes it where he has no intention of returning, in the case where Rabah bar bar Chanah ate d'Ayatra (the fat on the string section of an animal's stomach).

Implied Question: Nor need one worry about establishing the Mishnah in two cases (the Reisha where he has in mind to return, and the Seifa, where he doesn't) ...

Answer #1: ... since we always place on him the Chumros of the town where he intends to remain.

Answer #2 (Part 1): Alternatively, the distinction that he makes between whether one intends to return or not is confined to where one is traveling from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael or from Eretz Yisrael to Bavel ...

Answer #2 (Part 2): ... but from Bavel to Bavel or from Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael - one places on him the Chumros of the place where he came from and those of the place where he is going to, irrespective of whether it is his intention to return or not.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that one Shechted below the Chiti (the vocal chords).

Question #1 (Part 1): In that case, the Gemara should have remained with a 'Teiku', seeing as Rav Papa, who validates the Shechitah if one left over some of the Chiti towards the head ...

Question #1 (Part 2): ... seeing as he validates even 'Paga ve'Naga', how much more so 'Paga ve'Lo Naga'?

Question #3: Moreover, since he (Rav Papa) is coming to argue, the Gemara should not have said 'Itmar', but 'Rav Papa says'? (cont.)