Question: This is difficult, as perhaps he holds like the opinion that the Tzomes ha'Gidin are "d'Agrama uli'Bar," meaning that they start from where they come out of the bone? However, he holds that the animal is not made a Treifah from the area above the Arkuvah due to Tzomes ha'Gidin.

Answer #1: Being that Ula asked this question, it is apparently obvious that he held Tzomes ha'Gidin is "d'Agrama uli'Gav" (by the bone itself).

Answer #2: Additionally, Rav Yehudah says later that it is where the butchers separate the meat from the bone. This is the same opinion as that of Rava the son of Rabah bar Rav Huna who says it is from the joint and up which is even more.

Explanation: According to Ula it is understandable, as he can explain that this is immediately below the Arkuvah.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that not in every place will it be kosher, as it will be invalid opposite the Tzomes ha'Gidin. (How, then, can he say this?)

Answer: Even so, being that it is immediately below and immediately above, the Mishnah's terminology is understandable.

Opinion #1: Rashi explains that we hold like Mar bar Rav Ashi in every case besides from an Odisa (an admission) document and reversing an oath. This is also stated by the Seder Tanaim v'Amoraim.

Opinion #2: Rabeinu Chananel explains that we hold like Mar bar Rav Ashi in every situation besides reversing an oath and white. The way to remember this is "he totally turned (i.e. reversing an oath) white. "White" refers to the case of our Gemara. This is also the opinion of Rabeinu Tam.

Implied Question: This type of Treifah was not able to be listed amongst the types of Treifos that apply to birds but do not apply to animals (56a). (Why not?)

Answer: This is because when one of them snaps, all of them will end up snapping (it therefore cannot be considered as only one being snapped).

Implied Question: While the first part of the Mishnah states a case where its legs were cut off above the Arkuvah, the same law would apply to a case where the bone was broken and there was not a majority of meat in that area. (Why, then, did the Mishnah state a drastic case of being totally cut off when it could have stated a less drastic case of a bone being broken without the leg being totally cut off?)

Answer: The first case was stated this way to match the terminology of the case where it was cut below the Arkuvah. In the second part of the Mishnah, even if the legs were totally cut off under the Arkuvah it is still kosher.

Explanation: Sometimes we find one without the other, where the one is not totally round but rather is wide on one side and narrow on the other.

Observation: Rashi explains the case differently.

Question: This is difficult. Regarding Korban Pesach, one opinion is that we look at its current status, and the other opinion is that we look at its eventual status, as explained in Pesachim (84a). What does this have to do with our argument which hinges on whether or not the skin protects the animal?

Answer: The Beraisa states, "If skin and meat cover most of it." This indicates that if it is considered meat, it protects.

Explanation #1: In Pesachim (84a), Rashi explains that this refers to the sinews of the neck.

Question #1: This does not seem to be correct, as the Gemara here understands it is referring to the sinews in the foot.

Question #2: Additionally, the sinews of the neck are always hard, and people do not normally eat them just as they do not eat bone. This is as the Gemara says in Pesachim (83b) that sinews, leftover Korban meat, and bones should be burned on the sixteenth of Nisan. The Gemara asks, what is the case of sinews? If they are sinews that are meaty, they should be eaten! If they are leftover, they are Nosar! It must be that they are sinews from the neck. This indicates that sinews from the neck are never eaten and are always leftover.