Suggested Answer #1: Now if we were to say that 'k'Sidran is Kasher' - refers to a case where the (cranial) lobes are right next to each other, since its neighbor covers the hole...

Refutation: ... there would be no reason to differentiate between the adjoining lobe and another lobe, since we will end up differentiating even in a case where it is the adjoining lobe.

Opinion #2: And if we would explain that when the Gemara says, "Haynu Ribi'seihu" it means that this is natural, and a Sircha sometimes occurs between two adjoining lobes even without a hole being present (unlike Rashi's explanation), it would be understandable. (The Maharsha points out that the Ra'avad indeed holds that Sirchos occur in adjoining lobes without a hole, but when they connect lobes that are not adjoining, there is a hole).

Question: However, Rabeinu Chananel explains that "Ribi'sayhu" here is similar to the word "Marbi'sayhu," meaning that in this way the hole will be filled up (and heal). (The Maharsha explains that Tosfos is noting that Rashi's explanation fits well with the explanation of Rabeinu Chananel, unlike the Ra'avad.)

Opinion#3 (Part 1): It appears that the explanation is that these Sirchos can happen in any place on the lung, even without a puncture, due to the lung taking in all types of liquids.

Implied Question: The animal is considered a Treifah if the Sirchos are not on adjoining lobes. (If the Sirchos are generally not caused by punctures, why should there ever be a reason for an animal to be considered a Treifah, even if the Sircha connects lobes that are not next to each other?)

Answer: The animal is considered a Treifah because the Sircha will end up breaking away from the lobes. It is therefore considered as if the lobes already have a hole, since they will eventually get a hole.

Question: However, there is a difficulty with this explanation from the Gemara later (48a). The Gemara states regarding a lung that is stuck to the rib-cage that Rav Nechemyah the son of Rav Yosef used to check it with water. How is it possible to check in this fashion? The water will never come through a hole, seeing as the Sircha grew without being caused by a hole!

Counter-Question: Even without this, there is a difficulty. If we say that a Sircha occurs due to a hole, how did Rav Nechemyah know that if the water did not come through a hole in the lung, that the Sircha is due to the rib cage? Even if there would be a hole in the lung, the water would not necessarily come through the lung, as the membrane fills the hole. This causes it to be a Treifah, as eventually, the Sircha will fall off when it is no longer attached in the chest area where the lung and rib-cage meet, as stated later (in 48a).

Answer: It must therefore be that the case there is different, as it is a mere stringency that Rav Nechemyah checked in this fashion. According to the letter of the law, one can say that there is a problem with the rib-cage. Rav Nechemyah was stringent to check the lung as well in this fashion, as if the water would come out of the lung it would clearly indicate that the animal was a Treifah.

Question (Part 1): This is difficult owever, as Mar Zutra said (to Ravina), "Did you understand that the fact that Rav Nechemyah checked these lungs in water was said regarding a lung stuck to a rib cage? We understand Rav Nechemyah checked Rava's case of two lungs that were not next to each other that had a Sircha connecting them." This means that Rav Nechemyah checked these lungs in this fashion in order to rule them Kosher if the water did not come out, as opposed to the regular ruling that such lungs are a sign the animal is a Treifah.

Question (Part 2): However, according to what we just said, the lungs will never have water coming out! (This effectively means that such a Sircha will always be ruled Kosher, as opposed to the simple explanation of our Gemara!)

Answer (Part 1): The Gemara (48a) indeed asks that it is understandable to say that the rib-cage must be the problem. However, if the case is a Sircha connecting lobes that are not next to each other, if either lobe has a hole it, is a Treifah!

Answer (Part 2): Rashi (in 48a, DH "Bishlama" "Ela") explains that in the case of the rib-cage, if he checks the lung and the water does not come out, we do not assume that there was a hole which became filled. Being that we can say the problem is in the rib-cage, we do, and therefore it is a Kosher animal. However, in the case of the two lobes, it is clear that the Sircha was due to a wound. One of the lungs therefore had a hole, and renders the animal a Treifah. And the reason that wind does not come through the lung is because a membrane grew over it and plugged up the hole. (In other words, Tosfos is answering that the Gemara itself is bothered by a similar question).

Question: However, according to Rashi's explanation that a membrane can grow without a hole being present, the terminology is difficult. The Gemara should not have said, "Iy Hai Inkiv" -- "If this one is punctured" but rather, "Iy Hai Minkiv" -- "If this one will be punctured."

Answer #1: Perhaps the term "Inkiv" is synonymous with "Minkiv."

Answer #2: It is possible to explain that Rashi understands that even though a membrane that develops due to a wound is not a membrane, this is only when it is not attached well to any part of the animal. However, if it is attached well in a place where it is not going to come off, it closes off and protects the area as the membrane grows further and gets stronger.

Implied Question: However, Rav Yosef queried Ravina regarding a lung that was punctured and subsequently sealed off by the rib- cage. He asked, if the lung is not tangled with the meat of the rib cage, why is it forbidden? It is because it is a Treifah ... . He could have also asked regarding Rava's permitting an animal with a Sircha connecting two adjoining lobes. Being that they are punctured, why does it become Kosher if the Sircha seals off the hole? (Why didn't he ask his question on Rava's Din as well?)

Answer: We must say that Rav Yosef heard Ravina's Din, and therefore asked his question. If he would have heard Rava's Din, he would have queried that as well.

Opinion#4: The implication of the laws of Treifos written by Rabeinu Gershom and the Teshuvos of the Gaonim written by Rav Yosef Tav Ilem is that a Sircha is due to a hole. We require blowing up the lung when the adjoining lobes are connected to each other with a Sircha, or they are close to a rib or the meat of a rib and connected to it with a Sircha.

Implied Question: If Sirchos develop without a hole, why should we require blowing up the lungs when the adjoining lobes are connected, being that the Sircha will not come off? Similarly, when there is a lung that is attached with a Sircha to the rib-cage where the lobes press against it, why should we require blowing up the lung?

Answer: It must be that he holds that a Sircha must be the product of a hole. This then becomes understandable, as we check by blowing up the lung whether or not the hole has been sealed.

Opinion#1: If there is a Sircha from a cranial lobe to a caudal lobe that is immediately above it, Rashi states that when he received this question he asked Rabeinu Ya'akov ben Yakar who permitted the animal. Rashi continues that Rabeinu Ya'akov explained to him the reason why he permitted it, and the reason why there are those who forbid it. Rashi concludes that it seemed to him that it is permitted.

Opinion#2: Rabeinu Tam ruled that it was forbidden, and that whoever allows an animal with such a Sircha to be eaten is feeding Treifos to Jews.

Opinion#2 (cont.): It appears that the reason of those who forbid such an animal is that Rava only permitted a case where the Sircha is connected to two "Unos" (known as cranial lobes). An Uma (known as a caudal lobe) is not halachically classified as an Una, but is rather classified as part of the lung. This is as Rava states that there are five Unos in the lung. If the Umos have the same Din as the Unos, he should have said that there are seven! This is why the early sages gave the Umos a separate name, since they held they are not lobes, but rather they are a main part of the lung. Rava only permitted a Sircha between two Unos as it is in the area of the chest (and rib-cage) and will not fall apart, as Rashi explained. However, Rava did not permit a Sircha connected to an Uma, which is part of the lung itself. One who wants to permit this must prove that it is indeed permitted.

Opinion#2 (cont.): The Bahag, Teshuvos Ha'Gaonim, Rabeinu Moshe from Fontaisa whose opinion is mentioned in the Aruch as being that of the Gaonim, and the custom in all places - is to forbid such an animal.

Opinion#2 (cont.): This is aside from the area of Rashi, where the custom is to be lenient. All of the teachers of Rashi forbade it, aside from his Rebbi (Rabeinu Ya'akov), and we live in a place where the leniency of Rashi is accepted.

Opinion#2 (cont.): The Ri writes that Rabeinu Gershom, Rabeinu Nachshon Gaon, Rabeinu Chananel, Rabeinu Shmuel, and Rabeinu Yitzchak ben Rabeinu Yehudah all permit it. In Tosfos Rabeinu Yehudah, I found that he quotes this leniency in the name of the Riva. If an Uma was not included in an Una, you would not have a case where the Sircha is between two Unos on the left side of the lung - whereas Rava implies that this case can apply both on the right and left part of the lung. (This indicates that an Uma is an Una) ...

Implied Question: ... and the reason that Rava did not say that there are seven lobes to the lung is ...

Answer#1: ... because he wanted this to apply to cases of missing lobes, or lobes that are on the wrong sides. (There are supposed to be three lobes on the right and two on the left. If there are three on the left and two on the right, it is T'reifah, see Rambam Hilchos Shechitah 8:3) - and it normal for Unos to be missing or switched (but not Umos).

Answer#2: It is also apparent that even if an Uma is not called an Una, Rava still said Unos to teach us that even if the Sircha connects two Unos that are not adjoining, the animal is a Treifah, as explained by Rashi, and If he would have discussed a case of an Una that is connected by a Sircha to an Uma, one would think that if two Unos are connected by a Sircha, even if they are not next to each other, the animal is Kosher.

Ruling: The Ba'al Halachos Gedolos writes that blisters on the extremity of the lung - on the extremity of the Unos (the upper- lobes) or the Umos (the lower-lobes), renders the animal T'reifah ...

Reason: ... And he explains that this is due to the principle 'Kol Yeser ke'Natul Dami' (Whatever is excessive is as if it has been removed).

Question (Part 1): What has the one to do with the other?

Question (Part 2): If it is considered 'excessive' at the end of the lung, so too, is it excessive in the middle?

Refuted Suggestion: Nor can we forbid it because it looks like two blisters ...

Refutation: ... seeing as we declare Kasher there where two blisters pour into one another.

Answer: Maybe the reason is because when it is situated at the end, it stands to break and develop a hole.

Conclusion (Part 1): It is correct to be stringent, since all the words of the B'hag are embedded in tradition.

Conclusion (Part 2): ... and this is also the opinion of Rabeinu Chananel, who also writes that if it turns back into regular flesh, it is Kasher.

Clarification: It is written in Hilchos T'reifos of Rabeinu Gershom - that even if the space between them is as thin as a hair's-breadth, it is T'reifah.

Extrapolation: This implies that if the distance that separates them is as much as two hairs-breadth, they are not considered next to each other, and the animal is Kasher. And this is also the opinion of Rabeinu Shmuel.

Qualification: Rabeinu Yehudah writes that the above is confined to where the blisters contain pus, but if they are hard scabs, even if they are next to one another, the animal remains Kasher.

Implied Question: Then why did the Gemara say earlier that in the middle is T'reifah?

Answer: That is where it is very large, and does not resemble the middle Una.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that if one discovers two middle Unos, it is T'reifah ...

Reason: ... because an extra Una in the middle is not common, and the only reason that we declare it Kasher is because all wild goats have them ...

Ruling: ... and an animal that doesn't even have one is Kasher.

Explanation #2 (Part 1): Rabeinu Efrayim however, states that on one alone the Gemara would not have said that 'All wild goats have them'; nor would Rav Ashi have even thought that they are T'reifah, since all (our) animals have them.

Explanation #2 (Part 2): It is therefore clear that it is with regard to the second one that the Gemara declares them Kasher.

Explanation #2 (Part 3): Consequently, if it does not possess even one, it is T'reifah.

Refutation: One cannot however, bring a proof from our animals, which are perhaps different than theirs ...

Precedent: ... like we find in Perek ha'Loke'ach Beheimah (Bechoros 10b), which rules that if a cow in its third year gives birth, the baby definitely belongs to the Kohen.; whereas our cows sometimes give birth in their second year ...

Refutation: ... unless we say that a cow that gave birth in the second year is too weak to give birth again before the fourth year.

Conclusion (Part 1): The accepted ruling however, is like Rashi ...

Proof: ... since the Gemara stated 'and the butchers called it "Inunisa de'Varda" ', implying that there was only one (like Rashi), since it is illogical to ascribe it to the second one. Which will be T'reifah wherever it is attached.

Conclusion (Part 2): ... and in the event that one of the Unos is missing, the Inunisa will not make up for it.

Clarification: It would seem that if the Inunissa is situated on the left side, where it is not normally found, it is T'reifah ...

Source: ... seeing as the Gemara gives the reason as 'Wild goats usually have them'.

Implied Question: ... and the Gemara precludes 'on its back' (from the status of Kasher), and not 'on the left side' ...

Answer: ... becausee 'on its back' is T'reifah even if it is on the right side ...

Qualification Explanation #1: ... and if it changed its location it is apparently permitted, seeing as the Gemara precludes specifically its back.

Implied Question: Even though Rashi declares T'reifah one with two small Unos, despite the fact that one of them is not in its correct location ...

Answer: ... he would not have forbidden if there hadn't been two of them.

Explanation #2: The Ba'al Tosfos' uncle however, maintains that it is Asur.

Reason: Perhaps the reason for this is because it is unusual.

Clarification #1: The Ba'al ha'Tosfos' Rebbe, ha'R. R. Yitzchak, quoting the Avi ha'Ezri and ha'R. Ibn writes in his Seifer that it is specifically by the other Unos and on the back of the lung that it is T'reifah; But on the lower Una on the right-hand side (which is the upper one that is closest to the neck), it is Kasher, since it is its way to split.

Clarification #2: And in a Teshuvah he wrote that even if it only attains the size of a myrtle-leaf after it is blown up, it is T'reifah.

Conclusion: Whereas if, even after it has been blown up it is not the size of a myrtle-leaf, it seems to the Avi ha'Ezri that it is Kasher.

Clarification: This means that it is completely smooth, but if there is the slightest recognition, the animal is Kasher,

Clarification: From the fact that he told her to wait, it seems that he holds that two times is already a Chazakah, like Rebbi in Yevamos.

Alternative Text: There are some who have the text 'ke'Karsan' - which is the same thing.

Explanation #1: The Aruch writes that it is a greenish color. Indeed, Unklus translates "Chatzir" (leek) as 'Karsan' because it is green.

Explanation #2: It would appear however, that it is indigo (a dark shade of blue), which is similar to the color of the sky, since it implies that it resembles somewhat the color 'Techeiles' ...

Source #1: ... like we say in B'rachos (9b) 'in order to distinguish between Techeiles and Karsi' ...

Source #2: ... and like the Gemara will say later (on Daf 89a) 'Techeiles resembles the sea, and the sea resembles the sky.'

Inference: Consequently, Rabeinu Tam says, when the Gemara in Perek Lulav ha'Gazul (Succah 34b) disqualifies an Esrog that is 'Yarok like Karsan', it refers specifically to blue.

Reservation: It seems however, that on the basis of this alone, we cannot declare Kasher other Esrogim that are termed 'Yarok', since the Gemara did not say 'ke'Karsan' to preclude other shades of Yarok.

Precedence: ... just like when we learned above 'ke'Karsan' (in connection with 'Yerokah Kesheirah mi'de'Rebbi Nasan') where Rashi explained 'green like grass'; So we see that 'ke'Karsan' is not exclusive.

Conclusion: And this is correct - that the Gemara is only coming to preclude those that resemble hops, crocuses and eggs (shades of yellow) ...

Proof #1: ... like we learned in the first Perek of Maseches Nega'im "Yerakrak" 'like the wing of a peacock'; whereas others say 'like wax'.

Proof #2: And the Gemara also states in Perek Arba'ah Nedarim (Daf 32a) "Vayarek es Chanichav" - 'she'Horikan be'Zahav' (that he gave them lots of yellow gold') ...

Proof #3: And this is also evident in the Pasuk (regarding the wings of a dove) "ve'Evrosehah bi'Yerakrak Charutz" - (' ... and her pinions with a bright gold').

Explanation #1: Some commentaries want to declare T'reifah a lung that appears to be Chaser (incorporating where there is a fold or a fissure), even if, when one blows it up, the skin and flesh remain intact.

Refutation: The Riva however, pointed out to them that they erred, because if that was the case, the Gemara ought to have answered like that here, according to everybody, rather than establishing it like Rebbi Shimon.

Explanation #2: Clearly therefore, if it can be blown up, it is Kasher.

Conclusion: And this is also the opinion of Rebbi K'lonymus the elder.