Talking Talmud

If the head of an offering is buried in hot ash to singe off the hair, and if that was in the place of the slaughtering in an upright position, the blood flows out (yes, very gory) and after it is removed, the meat can be eaten. Plus, attention to the inner and outer sinews of the animal's thigh, and the difference between a rabbinic vs. a Torah-level prohibition (the inner one being the gid ha-nasheh). But can the butchers be trusted in what they have to say about the kashrut of the meat, about the removal of the sciatic nerve? In the end, the conclusion is that they are trustworthy. But it's a complicated process and with more and less taxing elements, which might influence their credibility.

First, housekeeping note... Also, 7 interpretations of Yosef and the gifts God gave to the Jewish people. Plus, the 15 pieces of silver that God acquired for the people, i an allusion to the 15th day of Nisan and the exodus from Egypt and another allusion to 45 (or 30...) righteous people, without whom the world would not exist. Or understand the 30 as the commandments that the Noachides apparently took upon themselves - that many more than the 7. But they keep only 3, including not writing a marriage contract for males -- a difficult passage for modern ears. Plus, more on the gid ha-nasheh, and the surprising notion that one shouldn't be culpable for eating it to begin with.

The discussion of the gid ha-nasheh leads into some lovely aggadic passages. First of all, did the sciatic nerve have to be in the right thigh to be prohibited at the Torah level or not? (Hint: It's a machloket). The Gemara breaks down the wrestling between Jacob and the angel from Genesis, to ensure that the injury would be in the right leg. But, again, not everyone thought that was necessary, and for that view, the sciatic nerve in each leg is equally prohibited. With further details about keeping a non-Jew, with whom one might be expected to spar, on the right side, and conversely, one must stay clear of the right side of the Torah scholar. Also, other midrashim/aggadot about Jacob -- how the stones became one larger stone to be his pillow, as it were (solving for a contradiction in the text). Plus, going back to that fight with the angel, and the ambiguities in that text. And the hint to exile and the leadership in both exile and the land of Israel.

More on the sciatic nerve -- the prohibition against the "gid ha-nasheh" applies only to the sacrificial animals that are consumed (not a burnt-offering, but a peace-offering, for example). Though there are those who note that if you eat from a sacrificial animal that shouldn't be eaten from - that will still be lashes, as compared to a fully-burnt offering, which would not levy a penalty for not removing the gid ha-nasheh. And note that a removed gid ha-nasheh would not be brought on the altar. Also, the gid ha-nasheh from the peace-offering -- it should be swept to the drain, while the burnt-offering would entail putting it on the pile of ash in the middle of the altar. Which leads into a discussion of exaggeration in the Torah, by the prophets, and by the sages. But this was not the norm, and the Gemara provides the specific list of the exaggerations from these three sources.

Beginning with some aggadic material - with Abraham claiming about himself that he is nothing but dust and ashes, and that he and his descendants have 2 mitzvot. Which 2 mitzvot is a matter of discussion. The discussion leads to the color of "tekhelet" -- the blue thread in tzitzit, the ritual fringes, and what makes them distinctive. Plus, an encounter with Nimrod. Also, chapter 7! With a new mishnah, and the wrestling between Jacob and the angel, which leads to the prohibition of the sciatic nerve, the "gid ha-nasheh," and the many details pertaining to it.

Blood that splatters and blood that's left on the knife also need to be covered, with a verse to make that point. As long as there's no other blood there at the same time. But if the life-blood was covered, then these other extra locations of blood do not to be covered. Also, a new mishnah - with a long list of substances that can be used for covering the blood, including that which can make plants grow. Plus, defining "fine sand," as a possible blood-coverer. Also, what do you use if you're in a situation where there's no material that will support the sprouting of seeds after covering the blood?

2 mishnayot! 1 - What if one is obligated to cover the blood after the slaughter of a non-domesticated animal or a bird and does not do it? A passerby who sees it should then cover the blood, but if the blood had been covered and it became uncovered, then there's no longer an obligation to cover. If the wind covered it, the obligation remains. But in a story of someone who covered the blood before the slaughterer had a chance to do so, the person who covered the blood had to pay (in gold) the slaughterer -- with a question as to why exactly he's penalized. Plus, another story of Sadducees and the dynamic in Rome between Jewish sects and the drama of Birkat HaMazon. 2 - If the blood that is supposed to be covered is mixed with water or wine or the blood of an animal that doesn't need to be covered -- if the mixture has the appearance of blood, it still needs to be covered, for example. And the solution itself, including the proportion of blood therein matters less than the appearance.

A new mishnah! If a deaf-mute, someone with cognitive impairment, or a minor slaughtered an animal with supervision, then the slaughtering is kosher shechitah - and there's an obligation to cover the blood, if the animal were a non-domesticated animal or a bird. But not if there was no supervisor there. Likewise, when it comes to slaughtering an animal and its offspring on the same day. Also, Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi on covering the blood, and how far the requirement for taking care of this goes -- how did they figure out the halakhah? And another new mishnah! Slaughtering 100 animals in 1 place requires only 1 act of covering the blood.

A new mishnah! Does the mitzvah of covering the blood apply to an animal that is discovered to be unfit for consumption? Whether because the animal is a treyfa or because the slaughtering was done in the name of idolatry, for example. With sources, and machloket (of course) in the Gemara on the mishnah, with a focus on the rabbis and Rabbi Shimon, and then, eventually, the view of Rabbi Meir as well. Plus, Rabbi Meir's opinion and Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi's opinion line up for some of the cases, in any case.

More on covering the blood of non-domesticated animals and birds, and how it applies to those animals that are prepared for it -- which itself requires some measure of investigation. Bottom line, only trap an animal when you truly need it for meat. Better to eat vegetables or grain, with specific advice per the money one might have to spend on food. Also, Rabbi Eina was teaching at the entrance to the house of the exilarch. Which leads into the timing of covering the blood of the non-domesticated animal. Apparently, Rabbi Eina's brother jumps in, and the parallel to brit milah (circumcision) is introduced, though the holiday may actually "win" depending on the parameters of when it would be done. Likewise, Rosh Hashanah --

4 events of proclaiming the slaughtering of an animal that was sold as well as the offspring, to help the buyers keep the dates straight. All the dates are connected to holidays, when festive meals would be prepared. Note that the calendar follows the Jewish day. Also, the mitzvah of covering the blood of a non-domestic sacrificial animal.

3 mishnayot on the daf! But first, on Rabbi Yochanan's position, in contrast to that of Resh Lakish, on the "eglah arufah," as listed in the mishnah -- where the position is that this case is not in the mishnah at all -- a bold statement, if nothing else. The first new mishnah! When 2 people purchase the animal and its offspring respectively, they need to be apprised of when the other animal is being slaughtered. Also, one who slaughters an animal and its offspring on the same day would be punished with 40 lashes -- depending on the time period of that slaughtering. And all the more so if the offspring and the offspring's offspring -- that might well entail two sets of lashes (namely, 80). Which raises the question of how many punishments can be visited upon the person who violates multiple prohibitions, and the Gemara introduces all kinds of other, potentially parallel cases, including that of the nazir. Also, the specificity of the Mishnah in general, and the fact that once it teaches a point in one place, it would not need to teach it elsewhere, as the first place is sufficient. Which means the other place must be teaching something else.

More on the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its offspring on the same day -- in an effort to determine Rav Hamnuna's take on Rabbi Shimon's approach. Note that the slaughtering of the parent animal makes the slaughtering of the offspring a prohibition, but if the offspring weren't slaughtered, then there's no prohibition in slaughtering the parent animal either. Also, slaughter of an animal that is not fit for consumption independent of the kosher shechitah - such that the kosher slaughtering fundamentally doesn't work - isn't considered "shechitah." And that which is not suitable for kosher shechitah is not eligible for the category of prohibition of "the animal and its offspring," as that depends on the shechitah being shechitah.

More on the koy -- whether a male goat and a female deer or a male deer and a female goat. With all the concomitant ramifications. Also, the biblical passage that prohibits slaughtering an animal and its offspring on the same day, and the practical implications for the one who violates the prohibition.

The permutations of when a horse and a donkey (male and female and the reverse) mate -- and whether their progeny is allowed to mate. Or are their progeny in violation of "kilayim" -- even the generation later? Also, the "koy" -- is it a creation unto itself or is it kilayim?

Chapter 5! With a focus on the prohibition against slaughtering an animal and its offspring on the same day, and with a new mishnah. The mishnah goes through the variables of whether the animal is consecrated and the location of slaughtering, but once the offspring is also slaughtered on the same day, it's going to involve lashes for violating the halakhah. Plus, the sages open the question as to whether this is the mother and her offspring only, or also a father and his offspring (and clearly it is the case for male and female offspring, regardless of the above question). And the answer depends on the language in the verse about this case -- and comes to include both male and female animal parents .

In the case of a bone fracture, as long as the greater portion of the bone is covered by flesh and skin, it is acceptable for consumption. With an apparent treatment of regeneration of an animal's limb via another animal's bone, which seems to have been a serious treatment at the time, with consult between the sages and veterinarians. Also, a new mishnah! One who can manage it can each the following potentially stomach-turning delicacies -- including the amniotic sac. Though the partial emergence of the amniotic sac would render all of it not-kosher. Note the practices of the Amorites that were prohibited. Also, when it comes to the idea of giving the placenta to the dogs -- what is the rationale to specify this? Note that the question is based on the potential sanctity of a potential "bekhor" -- first-born -- of the animal. Which leads to the math of how many animals would be first-borns in sanctity.

A new mishnah! Handling the back legs of an animal, if a bone is broken, if the leg is intact... then kosher slaughtering renders the animal permitted for consumption. But where is the severing, with regard to the leg joint? And then the Gemara dives in, raising dispute on those same details -- whether the bone is broken, but the limb is not severed, how much flesh remains? Again, where is the break with regard to the leg joint?

The odd case of the entirety of an animal fetus that is permitted for food after its mother is slaughtered in a kosher way - and the entire fetus is permitted, even though some animal parts are usually prohibited, even with proper slaughtering. The Gemara presents two versions of the passage addressing the different opinions on this case. Also, the case of finding the fetus alive in the womb after kosher shechitah - it doesn't need shechitah, but what's the difference between that and the original case? Whether the ben pakuah (fetus, under these terms) steps on the ground. Also, is the offspring considered the ben pakuah of its father as well as of its mother? But at the rabbinic level, the ben pakuah should be slaughtered anyway. And also the decree was made for the future generations of the ben pakuah. Plus, the informative case of terumah and demai and the possibility of asking whether even an ignoramus has separated properly. [Who's Who: Rabbi Shimon Shazuri]

Several cases: One who eats the extended limb from the fetus -- with that person get lashes or not, for eating the limb of a live animal? And a source for the halakhah. And the difference between "animals" vs. creepy crawlies and impurity (and susceptibility to impurity). Also, a new mishnah! On an 8-month fetus vs. a 9-month fetus, as found in the womb. And when the forbidden fat becomes permitted to eat -- and also the "gid ha-nasheh"/sciatic nerve.

Does a slaughtered animal that is a treyfa transmit impurity? It seems so. For a consecrated animal. At least at the rabbinic level of prohibition. Plus, the difference between a fetus, even with a protruding limb, as compared to other organs of the animal that might be detached from within and would lead to more complex prohibition -- it's a treyfa! Also, in the case of an animal that dies by other causes aside from kosher slaughtering, then what are the implications for the impurity of the animal, for a hanging limb, and more?

NOTE: Another difficult episode, including mention of fetal death. Rava's understanding of the mishnah - specifically recognizing a different tradition coming from Pompedita regarding the impurity at a rabbinic level and not the level of a Torah prohibition. Including the impurity of a midwife who attends to a woman in travail. Also, a long mishnah - specifically with an eye to the purity and impurity of the animals in the fetal cases. And the impact of kosher slaughtering on the cases -- depending on the order of operations.

NOTE: This episode may be emotionally difficult, including the topic of still-births -- animal and human (not together). On the transfer of impurity from the carcass of a domesticated vs. non-domesticated animal, including that of a fetus. How does each category include the other categories (of domesticated including non-domesticated, pure including impure, etc.). With credit to Rabbi Yishmael and his methodology of learning these halakhot. Also, a new mishnah! On how the midwife becomes impure in removing the fetus. Plus, a question on how something that is fully enclosed and ritually impure can give off impurity, because it should not be able to. Nor to become impure. Plus, the question of impurity of food - as determined by whether it is fit for consumption by a dog.

More on case of the fetus -- when does the principle of "majority" apply to limbs emerging? Or does it ever? When is it considered as if it was born? What if half of the fetus has emerged, but a majority of a particular limb? A nuanced, and likely boundary-pushing case. Also, what if the fetus were wrapped while it was still internal? Is that a barrier to the sanctity of the first-born? What about its amniotic sac? What about shenanigans by a weasel that removes and replaces the fetus? Also - a new mishnah about whether the fetus is pure or impure, as per the parent, or (as the main view in the mishnah stipulates), the fetus is inherently pure and won't convey impurity. The Gemara probes this rationale. Plus, an important distinction between animals' feet - when they are paws as compared to cloven hooves.

More on a fetus that extends a limb from its mother's womb and brings it back inside. What if that takes place in between the severing of the first "siman" and the second "siman" in slaughtering the mother. Will the progeny of that fetus (after it grows up) need slaughtering, though that animal itself does not require slaughtering? Also, complications of this kind of animal when it comes to exchange (temurah) for another animal that was not born with the same unusual status. Plus, the first-born (bekhor) - when it's the fetus in these kinds of cases, where it might even be dismembered to help it out of the womb (and then it isn't a bekhor after all, unless the majority of it came out whole).

Chapter 4! With a new mishnah. On the case of a female animal that is slaughtered with a fetus in her womb, whether it is discovered after slaughtering or in the case that she is slaughtered during the birth. If the fetus is inside the mother at the time of the slaughtering of the mother, the fetus is considered slaughtered as well. Also, one view on a limb from the fetus that emerges from the mother's body is not kosher. And another challenges that. Plus, meat "outside the field" cannot be eaten, in contrast to the fetus that remains in the bounds of the mother.

Rav Huna says not to pour beer in the night with a filter, lest a creepy crawlie comes outside of the filter and into the beer, which would be a problem to drink. How does one distinguish between that which is just the normal manner of growth, which would be acceptable, and when there's a problem of unusual bug activity. Also, an investigation into the question of worms - in that they come from outside of the animal, as compared to internal "spontaneous generation." What about larvae? And what about fish larvae? Also, again, "according to its kind" - for a worm and a scorpion and a beetle and a centipede. That is, those creepy crawlies that are not considered kosher. Plus, the Leviathan, which doesn't reproduce, is a kosher fish -- and it will be the feast for the righteous in the future.

Fish that have scales for part of their lives -- are likely to be kosher. But fish that have fins and no scales are not kosher. But if scales are all that matters, why doesn't the Torah just say scales? Why mention fins at all? The Gemara gives several answers. Also, the Gemara focuses on the language of the permitted and prohibited -- both of which forms are stated. Plus, eating that which grow in water is permitted, say, pits and ditches, but what about vessels? How did these creatures emerge from the water?!

Birds that claw their prey are not kosher, though there are other signs too, of course. Plus, how the bird sits on a line with its "toes" divided across the line is an indication of a possibly kosher bird. A bird that catches another bird in the air - not kosher. Also, which birds does the bird under question dwell among? Plus - grasshoppers! To be kosher, the legs, the hopping, and the name of the creature need to be in line with the kosher requirements. Each type of kosher grasshopper is described as "according to its kind," in the Torah's presentation of them. Plus, the organization of the generalizations and specifications in the Torah makes a difference as well -- regarding the traits that are required for a grasshopper to be kosher. The common traits matter - even in comparison to the specifics that might apply to a given species.

Eggs! They can bought from anyone, including idolators, without concern that they came via a nevilah or treyfa. The eggs themselves are identifiable as coming from a kosher species (or not) -- in terms of the shape of the egg itself, and more other ways of distinguishing one from another. But not if the egg itself is mixed. Also, if eggs are cooked together -- kosher and non-kosher -- the kosher eggs are still allowed. Unfertilized eggs are also acceptable, even if the hen sat on the egg for a long time. A droplet of blood on the egg won't invalidate it either - as long as you discard that droplet of blood. But if the blood was in the yolk area of the egg, then the entirety needs to be discarded.

There are 24 non-kosher birds, and there's a long chain of transmission to that effect, but if you count the birds in the Torah, the list in Leviticus has 20 birds and the comparable list in Deuteronomy has 21 birds. So where is the count of 24 to be found? The Gemara explains. By including those birds that come along with the other ones (a few times), the count works. Also, a hundred varieties of one particular kind of bird -- from within the 24. Plus, in the lists of kosher animals vs. non-kosher animals, the Torah includes the shorter one, whether kosher or non-kosher. Also, the Gemara acknowledges that one can have halakhic expertise or animal expertise or both, but they are not the same bodies of knowledge, and the one studying Jewish law must draw on other arenas of knowledge.

The Torah's list of the non-kosher birds includes some modification, "along with its kind." This is true of the "orev," a crow. And also the white "s'nunit." Which seems to have one sign that it's a kosher bird, but Rabbi Eliezer takes a more stringent view, saying that those who treat the bird as kosher (and eat it) will pay for that. Note also the distinction between a white-bellied white snunit and a yellow-bellied white snunit. Plus, a sign of a kosher bird (like a gizzard that can be peeled) does not present in the same way in every bird that has it.

The Gemara says that the signs for a bird to be kosher aren't explicit in the Torah - except that the Gemara also says that the signs for a bird to be not-kosher are explicit in the Torah -- via the "nesher" -- so the signs are identifiable. But does the nesher provide rules of thumb or is it specifically and only itself as a non-kosher bird? Plus, naming some non-kosher birds that are listed specifically, but that don't have all 4 signs of being a non-kosher bird that a nesher has. But these two named birds become significant in terms of representing which single kosher signs render the birds into examples for the kosher-ness of other birds too.

A series of stories about Rabbi Yehoshua ben Haninah interacting with Roman officers, conversing with the Caesar, etc. Some of these stories need unpacking and investigation: including God as described as a lion (Amos). Plus, the lion whose roar pulled down the walls of Rome (and caused its women to miscarry). All of which points to the power residing with God, and not the Caesar. Also, how God controls the events of the world via nature -- another question by the Caesar, and Rabbi Yehoshua has a demonstration for him. Fundamentally, the series of stories provide some measure of comfort for a Jewish audience. Also, an investigation into the verses that describe the creation of the world in Genesis -- specifically, the story of the moon as a diminished light in comparison to the sun, and God's ostensible regret in how He handled the moon. Plus, the production of the world's vegetation in creation.

What are kosher animals? What are non-kosher animals? That is, from the signs listed in the Torah for domesticated and non-domesticated animals -- such as split cloven hooves and chewing its cud (for the former category). Ditto re birds -- excluding predator birds, where the forbidden ones are listed explicitly (or perhaps for the sake of deriving a general rule). Likewise for the few kosher creepy-crawlies. And fish (fins and scales). Plus, what if there is no tradition with regard to a certain animal (eg: duck; turkey). Also, the signs of the undomesticated - which might seem superfluous, but they permit the special fat, which might appear to be incorrect, so it's explicit. Plus, a unicorn. With caveats on the horns making various goats and their cousins

What is the status of a treyfa animal after it has been declared a treyfa? For example if a hen is deemed a treyfa, what is the story with her eggs, for example? It will depend on whether the "father" of the eggs was also a treyfa, if the eggs were unfertilized, and the timing of when the eggs began growing (before or after the treyfa status). Also, worms in a melon when it grows from the ground or in dates that are stored in a jar -- when is that a problem of kashrut or not? Based on the presumption that invertebrates don't survive 12 months. Plus, mosquitos who officially lasted 7 years, but, apparently, that's not a real issue for the count.

If a bird has a dislocated femur, the bird is nonetheless kosher. But it seems that the same sage said that it was not kosher - in Pompedita, leading to an observation that different stringencies applied in different communities. One element of the decision being where the break occurs in the bird's leg. [Who's Who: Rabbi Shimon bar Halafta] Also, efforts to demonstrate that an animal that had been dubbed a treyfa is really not a treyfa - experiments by R. Shimon bar Halafta to disprove Rabbi Yehudah, including the shenanigans at an ant hill that apparently has no king.

2 mishanyot! 1 - A list of injuries or damage that render birds to be treyfot -- including a weasel that hits the bird on its head. With an apparent 24-hour testing ground to see if the animal will recover, at which point, it will be considered kosher. Also, how much of the bird would turn green in the internal organs if it were scorched for it to be a treyfa? Plus, the story of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi's bird that was scorched in a fire, and a color change from red to green (or green to red) being a problem.

What happens when there are injuries or defects in the lung can be benign when it's in the kidney. But when it's fine in the lung, does that mean it's automatically find in the kidney? But really, each kind of ailment or injury is specific to that same organ, because there's no guarantee that it won't be a problem in a different one. Also, the case of a "shriveled lung" - at the hands of heaven, and not as a result of an animal's attack, per se. Maybe it shrunk in fear... Well, in that case, the animal would either be kosher or a treyfa, depending on how the text is to be read. Plus, a method of figuring out whether the lung can be expanded, which tells you that the animal would have recovered from the shriveled lung(s). And if they don't, then the indication is that the animal was treyfa.

Investigating (final?) details about what makes an animal a treyfa - in terms of injuries. Is there a rule of thumb, or is the list of what makes an animal a treyfa complete, in terms of listing all the possibilities? But then the Gemara walks back the question... Also, a new mishnah! On how much damage can be done to the trachea (and other body parts), and the animal remains kosher. Plus, a comparison between two mishnayot that seem to contradict each other in methodology. Also, more on the perforation of a trachea -- and how the measure that keeps the animal kosher is less than an Italian issar - but that wasn't helpful in Babylonia, where they weren't familiar with the coin. Plus, the job of the money-changer who tried to stand up in honor of Rabbi Yochanan, who declined the honor because of the job at hand. Plus, the time the tradesmen stood up to honor those bringing their first fruits (bikkurim) to Jerusalem.

When a kosher animal is clawed by a non-kosher animal - when do we take it as a given that it will be considered a treyfa -- or really to the contrary? What if the animal is a cat? Or a fox? Or a hawk? Why is the question what animal did the clawing, as compared to asking what damage has been caused? Plus, determining what happened to the clawed animal, when nothing was really seen. Where the clawing animal's claws poisonous? If so, doesn't that harm lead to the animal becoming a treyfa? The sages are establishing rules of thumb so that they can make assumptions about the clawed animal, rather then investigating every case.

A majority of broken ribs -- seems to be a treyfa. But what is the way in which they were broken? Does having been attached to the vertabrae make the process that much more challenging? If the ribs are dislocated and the spine is not damaged. Also, an animal that is clawed by a wolf (or a predator of that size or larger) will render the victim animal a treyfa (and predator birds from a "netz." But what about a small animal, like a cat?

If/when an animal falls from a roof -- if it breaks its limbs, the question shifts to focus on whether the injury is common (like rheumatism) or unusual, like a broken spine. And the concern here is only for the common case. Also, a bird that fundamentally crashes on water is considered fine if it can swim the length of its body -- upstream. Plus, what if a bird falls into all kinds of other substances?

Perforated intestines are likely to be sealed by internal mucous, which would leave the animal kosher. The Gemara then traces Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel's statement on this point - namely, that it would be kosher. And Rabbi Shimon's view on mourning -- that a mourner who first hears about the death late will join the count with the family that is sitting shiva if he is close enough to join them (and then continue his own count afterwards). Until the end of the discussion, when Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel's approach is rejected, and Rabbi Shimon's is upheld. Also, the inner and outer paunch - with a lot of detail regarding what needs to be intact to be able to call the animal kosher. But the sages themselves have a lot of questions here.

If there's a perforation in the 4th stomach of a cow, the kohanim were accustomed to treat it as permitted. Which leads to lots of discussion and tracing back. With a mnemonic about the blessing of the kohanim. And that blessing pertaining specifically to the meat. Also, the implications of the forbidden fat -- in contrast to the permitted fat. Plus, what if the impetus to be lenient puts others at risk, for example? Also, unguarded honey, and the possible kashrut issues, as compared to a risk in ancient honey..

The unusual kashrut halakhic question that was brought from Asia Minor to the land of Israel for an answer. And they repeated the question: whether an animal that had worms in its liver would be kosher or not. Finally, they were told that it was kosher. What about if a needle was found in a lung? Doesn't that render the animal not-kosher/a treyfa? A case of this is brought to explain why it's not a simple answer.

Rulings by Rava: Issues of the lungs, specifically with regard to the lobes. Plus, Meimar, who answers the halakhic questions differently from Rava. Until the Gemara establishes that their answers pertain to different cases -- regarding the lobes. The sages are very precise here in their examination of the different concerns. Also, the implications of various colors -- dark grey (kosher) vs. black (not kosher) vs. green (kosher) vs. red (kosher) vs. Black being the shift from the red of blood, as it deteriorates, which means there's a problem in the lung that would lead to the color black. Plus, the stories of Rabbi Natan, who saves a couple of babies by advising their mothers to let the children's blood to be reabsorbed before brit milah (circumcision).

The Gemara moves on to the mishnah''s case of an animal that was missing a liver -- which is surely a treyfa -- but what if an olive's worth remained? That seems to define the animal as a kosher animal. But less than a "kezayit" amount of the liver seems that it would get that treyfa distinction. Also, 4 rulings - listed with a mnemonic. Including the case of creepy crawlies - and the question of them not bleeding, with implications for Shabbat -- all as a parallel to a punctured (or not!) lung. But note throughout here the lack of attack among the sages, despite all the differences of opinion, and with practical implications.

A review of injuries to various body parts and the implications for a kosher shechitah. Note the sages' awareness of the animals' anatomy. After all, they did open these animals up and were able to discern their inner workings. Note also the sages' verbal descriptions of the visual/physical. Also, a deeper dive into the potential perforation of the heart -- and which chamber of the heart was (presumably necessarily) perforated? And, of course, note the big loss that a treyfa discovery would mean. It wasn't a simple thing to render the meat before the shochet into non-kosher food.

An investigation into an acceptance of the stringencies of Rav and the stringencies of Shmuel when it comes to the details of shechitah, including the location of where one begins the process of slaughtering. But taking the stringencies of both sages, instead of following either of them for the full gamut of their respective views, seems incongruous in its inconsistency. Plus, the bat kol (heavenly voice) that establishes halakhah as per Beit Hillel, though it seems a contradiction here -- and also as against the statement that we do not determine practice from a bat kol! Also, what is the "majority" of the trachea? Is it the thickness of the trachea wall or is it the majority of the hollowness of the tube itself? Plus, the case of Yehezkel (Ezekiel), who never personally ate from the meat of an animal that had been called into question, even though it was subsequently declared fine. Also, the decision to offer the prime cut.

Ulla says that there 8 groups of treyfot that were told to Moses at Sinai - that is, the categories. Plus a focus on a punctured gallbladder, among other potential issues, where the animal may actually not die (but isn't that a miraculous event, and therefore not a proof for anything?). Also, a focus on some kind of injury for an animal that might or might not make the animal a treyfa -- with the example of a thorn in the animal's esophagus. And 4 cases that argue against Ulla's positions.