Clarification: The case in Perek Makom she'Nahagu (Pesachim 51.) When Rabah bar bar Chanah came from Eretz Yisrael) he ate 'D'ayt'ra' goes according to this Lashon.

Clarification: According to this Lashon, we will explain the statement of Rav Nachman straight (not in the form of a Kashya) - They eat it; but according to us, who do not, it does not even stop up the hole!'

Refutation: Not like Rashi, who explains that according to this latter Lashon, wse cannot establish Rav Nachman's statement.

Explanation #1: Initially it would seem that the seventh day is La'av Davka, but rather the night of the seventh - seeing as the Aveilus has not yet ceased.

Proof: Because, if it meant the seventh day, we rule that 'a part of the day is like the day!' So how can we say that he counts with them?

Explanation #2: However it may well be speaking on the seventh day itself, bearing in mind the Gemara in Mo'ed Katan (22.) which establises the Mishnah where the people who came to comfort him are still there, in which case, the Aveilus still remains intact until they have left.

Clarification: Rabeinu Chananel explains 'from one small animal to another small animal to be lenient ...

Proof: because if it (Dakah and Gasah respectively) were referring to an Una and an Uma, then the Gemara ought to have rather said 'Small and large', as Rebbi Yehudah says with regard to 'Keres'.

Question: In that case, we will be short of the eighteen T'reifos, since 'Flesh that covers the majority of the stomach' is one of the Shev Sh'ma'ta' listed at the beginning of the Perek.

See Earlier: However, Tosfos has already dealt with this problem earlier in the Perek (on Daf 43. DH 'Hanach ... '.)

Explanation #1: This means that it is obvious that the majority is effective according to everybody?

Question (Part 1): What does the Gemara mean when it answers that it is talking where it is a Mashehu less than a Tefach, and that we would otherwise have thought that until it tears up to the length of a Tefach it is not a T'reifah'.

Question (Part 2): Why would we have thought that?

Explanation #2 (Part 1): Rabeinu Chananel therefore has the text 'that there is a Tefach plus a Mashehu' ...

Explanation #2 (Part 2): And what the Gemara means is that it is speaks about a majority that is less that a Tefach, meaning that the entire stomach (rumen) measures less than a Tefach, which explains why the Gemara asks 'It is obvious that one does not need a Tefach', seeing there is not a Tefach in the entire stomach?'

Explanation #2 (Part 3):And it answers that it speaks where it measures a Tefach plus a Mashehu, and where one might have thought that since there is in total, more than a Tefach, it does not become a T'reifah until at least a Tefach is torn.

Clarification: When one stretches the thread with which one surrounds the Sela-gap with a thread and it measures a Tefach.

Explanation #1: Rashi elsewhere (in Kesuvos 76. ... ) maintains that the Messes, on the other hand, is T'reifah, even if the hole is only on one side, and did not pierce from one side to the other.

Implied Question: And even if one argues that it is illogical to declare the animal T'reifah, seeing as only half of one skin is pierced?

Answer: It is possible to say that in reality, the entire skin has been pierced, and we suspect that it healed ...

Precedent: Just as we say with regard to the Veshet, at the beginning of the Perek (43.) - according to those who contend that by Safek D'rusah.

Implied Question: Then why does our Mishnah speak about 'the Messes and the Beis ha'Kosos which have been holed to the outside', implying that the hole needs to pierce all the way through?

Answer: It does not mean specifically that the hole pierced all the way through, but that it went towards the outside (to preclude where it merely went from one skin into the other.

Implied Question: And when it says with regard to the thickness of the Beis-ha'Kosos - that on one side only, it is Kasher ...

Answer: One is forced to explain that this means that side that is on the inside, towards the dung ...

Proof: Because if it meant on the outside, towards the body cavity, it would be T'reifah even if the needle was actually found in the body cavity, since we would say that it must have arrived there via the hole that it made through the Beis-ha'Kosos.

Explanation #2: According to Rabeinu Tam however, it does not appear correct to declare it T'reifah when the needle only pierced half the skin of the Messes ...

Implied Question: Then why does the Tana say that a hole on one side of the Uvei Beis-ha'Kosos is Kasher?

Answer #1 (Part 1): It is teaching us a Chidush - that even if one of its two skins is entirely pierced, it is still Kasher, until both of them have been pierced.

Answer #1 (Part 2): And it is because he needs to say 'mi'Tzad Echad Kesheirah', that he needs to then add 'mi'Shenei Tzedadim, T'reifah', even though this is obvious.

Answer #2: Alternatively however, Rabeinu Tam learns that this ('mi'Shenei Tzedadim, T'reifah') is a Chidush, too - since we might otherwise have thought that even on both sides, the Beis ha'Kosos is Kasher too (i.e if both skins are pierced), because it is lying on top of the Messes, and it is stuck there with fat. So we might have thought that that fusion prevents the dung from oozing out ...

Precedent: Much in the same way as where the rectum is holed, which is nevertheless Kasher because the thighs block it up.

Conclusion: Therefore the Tana needs to teach us that it is in fact T'reifah.

Question (Part 1): We learned in 'Bameh madlikin' (Shabbos 36.) regarding 'The three things whose names were changed - "Huvlila" became "bei Kasi" and "Bei Kasi", "Huvlila". What difference does it make? A needle that is found in the wall of the Beis ha'Kosos'.

Question (Part 2): The question now remains - What difference does it make, seeing as in both cases we say that 'on one side, it is Kasher, and on two sides, it is T'reifah (also by Huvlila)?

Answer #1 (Part 1): The difference is that one should not make the mistake of establishing 'one side is Kasher' by Huvlila (i.e. the Messes, which they now call 'Beis ha'Kosos') ...

Answer #1 (Part 2): But what they now call 'Huvlila' (which they used to call 'Beis ha'Kosos', even on one side it is T'reifah, since one entire skin has been pierced).

Answer #2 (Part 1): Alternatively, we should also not make the mistake of explaining 'On two sides, it is T'reifah' with reference to what they now call 'Beis ha'Kosos' (which is the Messes) ...

Answer #2 (Part 2): But what they now call 'Huvlila' (which was initially called 'Beis ha'Kosos', it is Kasher even on both sides - like 'the Chalcholes which is holed, and the thighs block it up'.