Question: Those who do not concur with Rav Masna's ruling (Daf 54.) that declares T'reifah an animal whose spoon of the thigh became dislocated, where are there eighteen T'reifos?

Answer: Everybody agrees that it is T'reifah if the sinews that connect it have been consumed, it is T'reifah.

Question: According to Ula who just said that there are eight kinds of T'reifah, and who does not hold (the Lekusa) of Rachish bar Papa, where are there eighteen?

Answer (Part 1 [Explanation #1]): He counts the removal of the junction of nerves as one. Note that this is not the wording of Tosfos, but of the Gilyon Maharsha).

Answer (Part 2): Whereas according to Rachish, that is included in 'an animal whose legs have been cut off,

Question: Furthermore, according to the opinion that equates 'Nikra Rov Chitzonah' (where the majority of the outer membrane of the stomach) with 'Basar ha'Chofeh es Rov ha'Keres' (the flesh which covers the majority of the stomach) too, one of the eighteen is missing?

Answer (Part 1 [Explanation #2]): It would therefore seem that Ula and the Gemara later both hold like our Mishnah - according to the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan who says that 'Eilu T'reifos is Davka'; and 'Eilu comes to preclude the Din of Rav Masna, in spite of its similarity to 'Netulah' in our Mishnah ...

Answer (Part 2 [Explanation #2, Part 1]): And all the more so from the Din of Rachish, which bears no resemblance to our Mishnah.

Explanation #2 (Part 2): In fact, they do not hold that eighteen T'reifos were said to Moshe at Har Sinai.

Answer (Part 3): We can also now reckon 'Nikra Rov Chitzonah' and 'Basar ha'Chofeh es Rov ha'Keres' as two separate T'reifos.

Question: In the same way as we consider two breakages as one, why do we not also consider a Chesaron in the lung and a Chesaron on the spinal cord as one?

Answer #1: This is because their Shi'urim are not the same; Since the Shi'ur of Chesaron that renders a lung T'reifah is a Kolshehu; whereas the Shi'ur that renders a spinal cord T'reifah is a Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel.

Answer #2: Alternatively, because the former is a Chesaron in the flesh, whilst the latter is a Chesaron in the bone.

Question: Why do we not then also reckon 'Nikra Rov Chitzonah' and 'Basar ha'Chofeh es Rov ha'Keres' as one?

Answer: Because whereas 'Rov Chitzonah' refers to the majority of the stomach, 'Basar ha'Chofeh es Rov ha'Keres' refers, not to the Basar (of the stomach) at all, but to the section that is next to the stomach.

Question: Why does the Gemara not include a Chesaron in the Gargeres, whose Shi'ur is that of an Isar?

Answer: Because the reason for that T'reifus is because in the end, most of it will break.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this is considered a Lekusa (a disease).

Question (Part 1): How does Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah know that the Lekusa of Iyov was one that made him a T'reifah, bearing in mind that there are cases of Lekusa that are Kasher ...

Precedent: Like we say later (on Daf 55:) 'If it is full of puss, it is T'reifah; if it is full of pure water, it is Kasher'?

Explanation #2: What he therefore means to ask is - "Yiflach Kilyosai" Is it possible to survive without a cure? Do we not say later (on Daf 54.) 'If they strike an animal with an arrow on his kidneys it will die, but that applying an ointment can enable it to live. And we do not find that they did anything to cure Iyov?

Implied Question: Even though the Seifa of the Mishnah (Eilu Kesheiros') supports him ...

Answer (Explanation #1): The Gemara queries him on the basis of why the one S'tam should override the other?

Implied Question: And if the reason is because the latter S'tam is the main one, there where the Mishnahs follow one another chronologically - such as when they are in the same Masechta ...

Answer: This Mishnah of 'Eilu T'reifos' and 'Eilu Kesheiros' are considered like one, and are not necessarily written chronologically.

Explanation #2: Rebbi Ya'akov from Orleans therefore explains the Gemara's Kashya as follows: 'Did Rebbi Yochanan not rule "Halachah ki'S'tam Mishnah?" And you are forced to admit that the S'tam of 'Eilu Kesheiros' is not a genuine S'tam; because if it was, why would Rebbi Yochanan find it necessary to state that it is Halachah, seeing as has already ruled that the Halachah is always like a S'tam Mishnah?

Clarification: Rashi explains that by an animal too, there is a Takanah ...

Reason: Because whereas in the case of a hole, it is feasible to say that the Shochet Shechted precisely in the location of the hole, in that of D'rusah, seeing as the location turns red, even if he did Shecht on that exact spot, it will be partially discernible.

Objection: According to Tosfos' explanation in the second Perek (Daf 28.) establishing the case of a goose (where, in response to the Kashya 'Let us Shecht the Veshet', the Gemara replies that perhaps he Shechted in the location of the hole) by a Safek D'rusah, we cannot explain it like Rashi does.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that there is not a drop of blood on the inside.

Explanation #2: It seems however, that even if there would be, it would not matter as long as there is none on the outside ...

Reason: Seeing as we do not suspect that it may have healed.

Clarification: Later (on Daf 43:) we Pasken 'Chaishinan le'Safek D'rusah', in which case, there where a thorn lodged in the esophagus, we will also suspect that perhaps it healed.

Question: Why is that? Why do we not say that once it has been Shechted, it becomes permitted, like we said in the first Perek (9.) in the case where a wolf came, took away the intestines, and returned them with a hole?

Suggested Answer: And if you will suggest that here is different, since the Safek occurred during the animal's lifetime?

Refutation (Part 1): We say in Perek Arba'ah Achin (Yevamos 30: and 31.) ' ... whereas the Tana does not mention a case of divorce, where it is not sure whether the Get was closer to him (in which case she is not divorced) or to her (where she is)' - meaning that the Tzaras Ervah (the Ervah's rival wife) is permitted to marry without Chalitzah ...

Refutation (Part 2): And the Gemara explains that this is because 'she has a Chezkas Heter le'Shuk, so that we cannot forbid her to get married on account of a mere Safek' ...

Refutation (Part 3): So we see that now that her husband has died, we place her on the Chazakah that she had before he threw her the Get ...

Refutation (Part 4): Here too, once the animal has been Shechted, let us place it on the Chazakah that it had before the Safek D'rusah occurred; namely, on the Chazakah that it is not a D'rusah?

Answer: This case is different inasmuch as D'rusah is common.

Question: And that what we say later (on Daf 53.) in the case of a lion that entered a herd of oxen, and a claw is subsequently found on the back of one of the oxen, that since there are two conflicting ways of explaining the loose claw, we place the ox on its Chezkas Kashrus?

Answer (Part 1): (The author of that statement is Rav, and) Rav follows his own reasoning that 'Ein Choshs'shin le'Safek D'rusah.

Answer (Part 2): Whereas according to the opinion that holds 'Chosh'shin' (and) we do not place the animal on its Chazakah, there too, we will attribute the claw more to the fact that is is 'D'rasas Ari', like a regular case of Safek D'rusah.

Implied Question: And regarding a piece which is a Safek Cheilev, Safek Shuman (for which he is Chayav) ...

Answer (Part 1): Granted there is Chezkas Isur, but there is no Chezkas Heter either ...

Answer (Part 2): Whereas in our case, the animal originally had a Chezkas Kashrus.

Clarification (Part 1): Even according to those who declare Kasher there where one performed Hagramah on a third and a Kasher Shechitah on the remaining two thirds ...

Clarification (Part 2): The wind-pipe is different, in that it does not become T'reifah via a Mashehu, until it reaches a majority.

Implied Question: Even though Shmuel disqualifies a Shechitah there where one performed Hagramah on a third and a Kasher Shechitah on the remaining two thirds ...

Answer: Here the Gemara wants to say that Rava did not disqualify the Shechitah for that reason, but because of the combined Chumros of Rav and Shmuel.

Implied Question: Even though someone who errs in a D'var Mishnah is able to retract his ruling, on the grounds that we do not rule like two Chumros that contradict one another ...

Answer: Rava had already fed it to the dogs with his hands, and was therefore Chayav to pay.