Clarification #1: If the text reads 'Eilu' that is fine.

Clarification #2 (Part 1): If it reads 've'Eilu', we will need to explains that it refers to the Machlokes between Rebbi Yesheivav and Rebbï Akiva (on Daf 32.) and Rebbi Akiva regarding Neveilah concedes here, or it refers to all the cases of 'Shechitasan Pesulah' that we learned earlier are Pasul due to the fact that they are Pesulim that occurred during the Shechitah and are therefore considered Neveilah.

Clarification #2 (Part 2): Therefore it needs to learn here that 'these cases are T'reifah' (and the Shechitah is therefore Kasher).

Clarification (Part 1): By other cases of 'Nikav' it is not necessary to specify that the hole goes all the way through to the cavity, since there the walls are thin, and it is obvious that a hole that does not go all the way through to the cavity, is of no significance.

Clarification (Part 2): And because the heart on the other hand, is thick, we might otherwise have thought that if the hole is deep it is considered a hole even if it does go all the way through.

Implied Question: The reason that the Tana not see fit to insert where the heart and the intestines have been removed ...

Answer: Since that is included in 'Nekuvim'.

Implied Question: Even though with regard to the spleen the Gemara declares Kasher if it is missing, yet if it has a hole it is T'reifah ...

Answer (Part 1): Nevertheless, regarding the Nekuvim of the Mishnah, it is obvious that if they are removed, all the more so they are Pasul.

Answer (Part 2): And in the case of Nikvah ha'Marah (the gall-bladder) too it seems that if it is removed, that it is all the more so T'reifah.

Implied Question: Yet the Tana needs to add the case of where the liver has been removed and nothing remains ...

Answer: Since it is possible for the entire liver to be removed but not the gall-bladder, there where all the flesh of the liver has been removed, but the gall-bladder is attached to the to the sinews of the liver and its air-passages.

Implied Question: Why did the Mishnah (Daf 54:) find it necessary to insert in the list of those that are Kasher the case of 'Nikav ha'Leiv ve'Lo le'Beis Chalalo' ...

Answer: This is because we cannot extrapolate it from our Mishnah, since we may have otherwise thought that the P'sul extends to where the hole penetrates almost to the cavity, since it stands to pierce through automatically.

Implied Question: And the reason that Tana sees fit to add 'Nikvah ha'Gergeres Kesheirah ...'

Answer #1 (Part 1): That is because it intends to insert the case of where the spine split, but where the cord did not break ...

Answer #1 (Part 2): Because as far as our Sugya is concerned, we would have thought that either one or the other is Pasul.

Answer #2: Alternatively, we would have thought that both need to break, therefore the Mishnah later teaches us that it all depends upon the spinal cord (and not the spine).

Conclusion: And as for the case of where the Kaveid has been removed and a 'k'Zayis remains, the Gemara will later ask a contradiction between the Reisha and the Seifa.

Clarification (Part 1): The Gemara explains this to mean 'Or something is missing on the inside' (see Maharam).

Clarification (Part 2): And those who hold that what is missing on the inside is not considered a Chesaron ...

Clarification (Part 3): Will hold that 'Nikvah' according to the Rabbanan and Chasrah according to Rebbi Shimon, who explains that the hole must reach the air-passages, but who agrees that if even smallest amount is missing, it is T'reifah.

Question: It would have been more appropriate to insert this together with the T'reifos of a bird ...

Answer: And it inserts it here because of Rebbi Yehudah (See Maharam).

Observation: The text in the Tosefta (Perek 3) and in the Aruch (Erech Getz 4) reads 'Tocheles Yisrael Medras ha'Gez ve'ha'Netz, Efrochim K'rutzim', and is also what the Paytan wrote in S'lichos.

Refuted Explanation: And the reason is not because it will ultimately become punctured ...

Refutation: Because in that case, it is synonymous with 'Nekuvah'.

Precedent: And it is for the same reason that the Tana does not insert in the Mishnah 'a lung that resembles dried ink or regular flesh.

Reason: But the reason of Derusah is because the venom, which burns, will eventually cause the bird to die.

Implied Question: The Gemara in ha'Kometz Rabah (Menachos 29.) does not add this to the three things that Moshe found difficult - the Menorah, Rosh-Chodesh and Sheratzim ...

Answer: Because it only lists those things where the Torah writes 'Zeh".

Question: What is however difficult is why the Gemara does not include the case mentioned in the Medrash where Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu showed Moshe a sort of coin made of fire, as the Torah writes "Zeh Yitnu!"?

Answer (Part 1): Perhaps the Gemara only lists cases where Moshe had a Kashya; whereas these cases, even though Hash-m showed them to him, he did not have a problem with them.

Answer (Part 2): He merely wondered as to how much a person would be expected to give to atone for his soul. So Hash-m demonstrated to him and told him to take note and to inform Yisrasel (that half a Shekel sufficed).

Answer (Part 3): And here too, Hash-m showed him so that he should inform Yisrael which animals are forbidden and which are permitted.

Question: Why does the Gemara not ask from where the nerve-junction has been removed, in connection with which the Mishnah in Perek Beheimah ha'Makshah (Daf 76.) specifically rules that it is T'reifah.

Answer: Because that is included in 'Beheimah she'Necht'chah Raglehah'.

Clarification (1): Rav Yehudah extrapolates this from the Seifa, which states (with regard to the Gulgoles) 'What is considered a Chesaron by a Gulgoles? Beis Shamai say "A borer-full"; Beis Hillel, "As much as one needs to remove from a living animal that causes it to die". From which we can see that a Chesaron is gauged by the Shi'ur Misah.

Clarification (2): And this explains why the Gemara reckons that of Rav Yehudah together with the Mishnahs 'Basgar', since he extrapolates it from the Mishnah, rather than together with the Gemaros, like it does with that of Rav Avira, even though he too, makes his statement on the Mishnah.

Question: In that case, why does the Gemara not also ask (on Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael) from the case of Gulgoles, seeing as Rav Yehudah refers to all the cases?

Answer (Explanation #1): Rabeinu Tam explains that Rav Yehudah does not refer to Gulgoles, since he holds that the Chesaron of Gulgoles includes the membrane, and an animal becomes a T'reifah even if only the membrane becomes holed. And it is Adam, who has a Mazal, who requires a Chesaron in the Membrane as well as in the Gulgoles itself (see Tosfos ha'Rosh).

Implied Question: On what grounds does the Gemara in Eruvin (7:) then say that that it reckons two Chumros that contradict each other - Shedrah and Gulgoles (see Maharam).

Answer #1: It mentions Gulgoles on account of Shedrah.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is in connection with T'reifus Adam, that Rav Yehudah says 've'Chein li'Tereifah' also in connection with Gulgoles, where we find both a Chumra and a Kula ...

Clarification: We find a Chumra regarding Tum'ah, and a Kula in connection with the Din of Pidyon Petter Chamor - in that if it becomes a T'reifah within thirty days of its birth, the Kohen does not need to return the money once he has already received it.

Question #1: The Gemara will shortly query Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah's ruling which declared T'reifah, an animal whose gall-bladder becomes holed from Iyov, implying that whatever renders an animal T'reifah, will also render T'reifah a person?

Question #2: Furthermore, the Gemara later (on Daf 47:) in connection with 'A red or green (lung) is Kasher', cites the case of a woman who circumcised her son who came before Rebbi Nasan ... , from which we can extrapolate that whatever will live by Adam will also live by Beheimah?

Answer: It therefore seems that the Chesaron by a skull without the membrane (even of Adam) is a T'reifah, seeing as the membrane is bound to break.

Explanation #2: And the reason that the Gemara does not ask here from Gulgoles is because it is included in 'Nikav ha'Kerum shel Mo'ach' (which is mentioned in the Mishnah).

Refutation: This explanation is unacceptable however, seeing as there are many people whose Gulgoles is missing more than a borer-full, yet they survive.

Explanation #3 (Part 1): It therefore seems that the Chesaron of Gulgoles includes a hole in the upper-membrane, since the lower-membrane is bound to break. But without some of the bone missing, a hole in the upper-membrane will not necessarily result in the lower-membrane breaking.

Explanation #3 (Part 2): Likewise with regard to Beheimah, there is an opinion (on Daf 45.) that the lower-membrane protects the Gulgoles.

Question: Whereas according to the opinion that declares the animal T'reifah if the upper-membrane becomes holed, even though the lower-membrane is still intact ...

Answer: We will have to differentiate between Adam and Beheimah.

Explanation #3 (Part 3): Though not because of the reason given by Rabeinu Tam, but rather because the lower-membrane of a man is harder and tougher than than that of an animal, which explains why it also requires a Chesaron of the bone together with a hole in the upper-membrane; whereas the lower-membrane of an animal is soft, and does therefore not require a Chesaron of the bone as well.

Explanation #3 (Part 4): But there where there man and animal are (physically) equal, one cannot differentiate between them (Halachically).

Clarification (Part 1): According to the opinion that an internal Chesaron is not considered a Chesaron, in which case the Chesaron in our Mishnah goes accordiong to Rebbi Shimon; whereas according to the Rabbanan, it (Chesaron) is included in 'Nekuvah'.

Clarification (Part 2): We will have to establish our Sugya according to Rebbi Shimon, because according to the Rabbanan, there are only seventeen (categories of T'reifah).

Clarification: Rabeinu Chananel explains that according to the conclusion of the Gemara later (Daf 44.) which establishes the case (of Ikur Simanim) by where the Simanim were torn out by force, 'Nedald'lu' means that they simply came apart.

Clarification (Part 1): Later on Daf (52.) bar Zakai, who argues with Shmuel, will explain that 'Ne'ekru be'Rov' refers to one side, whereas Nishtabru be'Rov, means on both sides.

Clarification (Part 2): And the reason that the Gemara cites Shmuel's explanation is on account of the other cases that he mentions 'Gulgoles she'Nechb'sah' and 'Basar ha'Chofeh es Rov ha'Keres'.

Question: According to Rebbi Yochanan, who says there that whether they are torn out or whether they are broken, one requires the majority of both sides, we are short of the eighteen T'reifos ...

Refuted Answer: Since, due to the fact that both cases require the majority of both sides, one cannot count them as two cases?

Answer: They are nevertheless counted as two cases, seeing as one of them is uprooted, and the other one, broken.