1)

(a)Mar b'rei de'Ravina queries Rava from a Beraisa, referring to him as the enemy of Rava - because he is going to refer to him by the derogatory title of 'a fool who walks in the dark'.

(b)The Tana there states that someone who ...

1. ... wishes to rule either like Beis Shamai or Beis Hillel - may do so.

2. ... adopts all the leniencies of both Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel - is a Rasha.

3. ... adopts all the stringencies of both Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel - is "a fool who walks in the dark" (a Pasuk in Mishlei).

(c)One is called a fool for adopting all the Chumros of two Poskim - only if the Chumros clash, as they do in our case.

(d)This applies to Shedrah and Gulgoles, over which Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue (as we learned a little earlier) inasmuch as - Beis Hillel (who considers one vertebra as significant both as regards Tum'as Meis and as regards T'reifah, is more stringent than Beis Shamai (who requires two) regarding the former, but more lenient regarding the latter.

(e)What one should do - is either follow the opinion of the one in both case, or that of the other.

2)

(a)When the Tana first ruled Hilch'sa ke'Divrei Beis Hillel - he was referring to after the Bas-Kol, whereas when he continued 've'ha'Rotze La'asos ke'Divrei Beis Shamai, Oseh ... ' - he was referring to before it.

(b)The bas-Kol announced - 'Halachah ke'Beis Hillel'.

(c)Alternatively, we establish even the second statement after the Bas-Kol - and it goes like the opinion of Rebbi Yehoshua, who holds that we do not follow a Bas Kol ...

(d)... due to the principle Lo ba'Shamayim Hi (see Tosfos DH 've'Rebbi Yehoshua Hi').

3)

(a)To answer the Kashya on Rava, we cite Rami bar Yechezkel, who declares the statement of Yehudah his brother citing Rav - who ruled earlier that - 'Turbatz ha'Veshetz be'Mashehu' because it is part of the Makom Shechitah.

(b)Yehudah his brother - is Rav Yehudah who throughout Shas, is generally the one who cites Rav (even when his name is not specifically mentioned).

(c)In fact, Rav said that the Chachamim gave the Veshet a Shi'ur - implying that the Turbatz ha'Veshet is not included in the Shechitah (like Shmuel).

(d)This alters our understanding of Rav's ruling Turbatz ha'Veshet be'Chol-she'Hu in that - he now says this even though it is not part of the location of the Shechitah, thereby vindicating Rava, who declared Pasul the ox whose Shechitah began on the Turbatz ha'Veshet).

4)

(a)Rav Nachman gives as the Shi'ur Veshet at the top end of the Veshet - K'dei Tefisas Yad (three or four finger-breadths), that one should leave before Shechting it.

(b)It cannot mean the amount that one holds between the tips of one's fingers - because that is not the translation of Tefisas Yad.

(c)The Shi'ur that Rav Nachman citing Rabah bar Avuhah, gives at the bottom end of the Veshet is - up to the point where it joins the inner Keres and where it becomes hairy.

(d)We query this however, from a statement by Ravina, who said in the name of ... Rav 'Tefach be'Veshet Samuch le'Keres Zehu Keres ha'Penimi' (the last Tefach of the Veshet before the Keres is considered to be part of the inner Keres) - even though hair does not begin to grow for another Tefach (a Kashya on Rav Nachman's previous ruling).

5)

(a)To reconcile Ravina's statement with Rav Nachman, we amend it to - 'Tefach be'Keres Samuch le'Veshet (one Tefach after where the hair begins to grow) Zehu Keres ha'Penimi'.

(b)Alternatively, we establish Rav (cited by Ravina) by an ox - whose hair begins to grow higher up on the Veshet.

6)

(a)Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel rules that even if the entire Turbatz ha'Veshet has been removed from the jaw - the animal is nevertheless Kasher.

(b)And we support this from a Mishnah later, which states - 'Nital Lechi ha'Tachton, Kasher'.

(c)Rav Papa asks why, according to Shmuel, the animal is not T'reifah because of Ikur Simanin. It is not a Kashya from the Mishnah ('Nital Lechi ha'Tachton, Kasher') - because the Mishnah is speaking where the lower jaw is only bent out of place, but both Simanim are still firmly in place.

(d)To answer Rav Papa's Kashya, we amend Rav Nachman's statement to read (not 'she'Nital Kulo, but) - she'Nital Rubo' (and since it is still partially joined, the animal is Kasher).

(e)And we reconcile Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel with Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Shmuel, who rules 'Simanim she'Nidaldelu be'Ruban, T'reifah' - by establishing that where the Simanim were torn out by force, as a result of which the minority that remains in place is insecurely attached, and unable to re-grow.

7)

(a)Our Mishnah rules Pesukas ha'Gargeres be'Rubah. Rav defines this as Rov Uvyah - the majority of the neck starting from the top and including the wall (bear in mind that the wall of the neck is thick at the top and narrow at the bottom).

(b)Rav cannot mean that the animal becomes a T'reifah if the majority of the thickness of the wall of the neck breaks, even before it reaches the hollow - because that would render the Kaneh more stringent than the Veshet (which a hole does not render T'reifah unless it penetrates the wall through to the cavity).

(c)Others quote Rav as saying - Rov Chalalah, meaning that it only becomes T'reifah if the majority of the neck corresponding to the hollow is broken.

8)

(a)When Rav Kahana and Rav Asi found Rav examining Rov Uvyah of a Pesukas ha'Gargeres - they reminded him that - he had taught them Rov Chalalah, and not Rov Uvyah.

(b)When Rav sent the animal to Rabah bar bar Chanah for inspection - he examined Rov Chalalah, and found it to be Kasher.

(c)He purchased meat from it to the value of thirteen Istiri P'shiti. If an Istira is a Sela (four Dinrim) - then thirteen Istiri P'shiti (thirteen Sela Medinah [which is one eighth of a Sela Tzuri]) equals six and a half Dinrim (which are fixed).

9)

(a)The problem with Rabah bar bar Chanah ...

1. ... declaring the animal Kasher is - how he could permit something once Rav had forbidden it.

2. ... purchasing the meat and eating it is - how a Tzadik like him could eat from an animal that had a She'eilah on it (as we already learned from Yechezkel in the previous Perek).

(b)In reply, we justify the fact that he ...

1. ... declared it Kasher - because in fact, Rav had not yet declared it T'reifah. He was prevented from doing so by his Talmidim Rav Kahana and Rav Asi, as we explained.

2. ... purchased meat from the animal and ate it - by restricting the Chumra of Yechezkel to a She'eilah that depends on a S'vara, where there is always a chance that, despite the lenient ruling, the Halachah is like the more stringent opinion, but in a case such as ours, where Rabah bar bar Chanah's ruling was based on a Kabalah that Rov means Rov Chalalah, there is no reason to be strict.

(c)We also query Rabah bar bar Chanah from another Beraisa, where the Tana rules that - a judge should not purchase the field or the Talis over which he has just issued a ruling (Zikah Vechiyev, Timei Vetiher, Asar Vehitir) or testified, in order to keep far from things that do not look right.

(d)That problem did not exist in the case of Rabah bar bar Chanah - because we confine this stringency to a case where the sale is transacted by assessment, but not where it is sold by weight, as it was here.

10)

(a)We cite a precedent for the previous ruling from a case where Rava purchased and ate from a Safek T'reifah that he had permitted, and where bas Rav Chisda - his wife, queried him from her father, who would not purchase meat from a B'chor that he had permitted.

(b)Rav Chisda was permitted to eat from a B'chor - since he was a Kohen.

(c)Rava answered his wife that there was no problem with his purchasing from the T'reifah that he had permitted - because it was sold by weight (unlike a B'chor, which may only be sold by assessment),as we just explained.

(d)Nor was he afraid that they might offer him a nice portion for having permitted the animal - since they were accustomed to doing so anyway, as a mark of Kavod.

11)

(a)Rav Chisda defines a Talmid-Chacham - as one who is able to declare his own animal a T'reifah, even though there is an equally good reason to permit it.

(b)He also defines - "Son'ei Matanos Yichyeh" (Mishlei [meaning that someone who hates gifts will live long]) in the same way.

(c)To someone who learned Chumash, Mishnah, declared Asur his own Safek T'reifah and studied Gemara, he ascribed the Pasuk - "Yegi'a Kapecha ki Sochel, Ashrecha ve'Tov lach".

(d)Rav Z'vid interprets the Pasuk "Ashrecha ve'Tov lach" - to mean both in this world and in the World to Come.

12)

(a)Rebbi Elazar would neither accept gifts from the Nasi's house nor accept any invitation to dine with him - due to the Pasuk "Son'ei Matanos Yichyeh".

(b)Rebbi Zeira differed - in that he would accept invitations to dine with the Nasi, because he argued, since they felt honored that he joined them, it was he who was giving them more than they were giving him.