Which is the himsa and which is the bar-himsa? Come and take note: For said R. Nahman, “They [in Israel] eat it. [50a] For us, should it not serve to seal [a hole]?”
F. [The fat of the abomasum] on the greater curvature, everyone agrees that it is forbidden [to eat it]. Concerning what do they dispute? [Concerning the fat] on the lesser curvature. [See above, the dispute at XVII.1 F.]
G. There are those that state [another version of the tradition]: [Concerning the fat] on the lesser curvature, everyone agrees that it is permitted [to eat it]. Concerning what did they dispute? [Concerning the fat] on the greater curvature.
H. This [F] follows in accord with that which was said by R. Avya, said R Ammi, “They pare [away a thin layer of the fat and may eat the rest].” And so said R. Yannai in the name of one elder, “They pare [away a layer].”
I. Said R. Avya, “I was attending before R. Ammi. They pared away [a layer] and gave him [from the remaining fat] and he ate it.”
J. The attendant of R. Hanina was attending R. Hanina. He said to him, “Pare away [a layer]. Bring me [from the remaining fat] so that I may eat it.” He saw that [the attendant] was balking. He said to him, “You are a Babylonian [and hold the view that it is all forbidden fat].” Carve it all away and toss it out.
A. It was taught on Tannaite authority: Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, “The intestines which were perforated, but which the fluid stops up — it is valid [T. 3:11 A]. What is the fluid? Said R. Kahana, “[It is] the liquid that can be squeezed out of the intestines.”
B. The associate of R. Abba learned from R. Abba. And who was this? R. Zira. And some say the associate of R. Zira learned from R. Zira. And who was this? R. Abba. Said R. Abba the son of R. Hiyya bar Abba, “This was said by R. Hiyya bar Abba, said R. Yohanan, `The law follows in accord with the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel with regard to terefah [i.e., declaring a perforated intestine valid if the fluid sealed the hole]. And [the law follows] R. Simeon with regard to mourning.'”
C. The law follows in accord with the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel with regard to terefah as we stated [in A that a perforated intestine is valid if the fluid sealed the hole].
D. And what is [the case where the law follows] R. Simeon with regard to mourning? As it was taught on Tannaite authority, During the first three days [of mourning] he who came from a nearby place counts [the days of mourning] with them [the other mourners]. [If he came] from a distant place he counts [the days] for himself. From that point onward [after the third day] even if he came from a nearby place, he counts for himself. R. Simeon says, “Even [if he comes] on the seventh day, he who came from a nearby place counts with them [b. M.Q. 21b].”
E. Someone once said, “May I merit that I may go [to Israel] and learn the tradition from the mouth of the master.” When he did go [to Israel] he found R. Abba the son of R. Hiyya bar Abba. He said to him, “Did the master say that the law follows in accord with the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel with regard to terefah?” He said to him, “Lo, the law does not follow [in accord with the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel].” [He said], “They say, `[The law follows] in accord with R. Simeon with regard to mourning.' What about that?” He said to him, “That is a matter of dispute. For it was stated, `R. Hisda said the law follows [in accord with R. Simeon]. And likewise R. Yohanan said the law follows [in accord with R. Simeon]. But R. Nahman said the law does not follow [in accord with R. Simeon].”
F. And the law does not follow in accord with the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel with regard to terefah. But the law does follow in accord with the view of R. Simeon with regard to mourning. For said Samuel, “The law follows in accord with the lenient view in matters of mourning.”
A. [The Talmud now continues a matter taken up at the end of XIV.1.] Said R. Shimi bar Hiyya, “They may compare [defects] of the intestines [to determine if the defect arose before or after the animal was slaughtered].”
B. There were intestines brought before Raba [for a ruling]. He compared them [with others] and they were not similar. R. Mesharshayya his son came and manipulated them until they were similar. He [Raba] said to him, “Where do you get [the idea that you may manipulate them to make them appear similar]?” He said to him, “How many hands manipulated these before they came before the master [for a ruling]?” He said to him, “My son is as learned in [the laws of] terefot as R. Yohanan.” [See b. 28b, M. 2:1, VI.3 N.]
A. R. Yohanan and R. Eleazar both said, “They may compare [defects of] the lung.” Said Raba, “They said this only [for defects in lungs] of the same side [right or left]. But from one side to the other they may not [compare defects].”
B. And the law is [that they may compare defects] even from one side to the other [in the same animal], from one small animal to another, or from one large animal to another. But they may not [compare defects of the lung] neither from a large animal to a small animal, nor from a small animal to a large animal.
C. Abayye and Raba both said, “They may compare [defects of] the windpipe.” Said R. Pappa, “They said this only [for defects in the windpipe] of the same cartilage-region. But from one region to another they may not [compare defects].”
D. And the law is [that they may compare defects] even from one cartilage-region to another and from one membrane-region to another. But they may not [compare defects of the windpipe] from a cartilage-region to a membrane-region or from a membrane-region to a cartilage-region.
A. Said Ziri, “If the rectum was pierced it is valid because the hips support it.”
B. And how much [must be pierced before it is deemed terefah]? Said R. Ilai, said R. Yohanan, “In the part [of the rectum] that is attached [to the hip it must be torn in] a major portion. In a part that is not attached, any amount [that is torn renders it terefah].”
C. The rabbis stated this before Raba in the name of R. Nahman. He said, “Has not someone told you not to attribute [50b] nonsensical views to him?” This is what R. Nahman said, “In the part that is attached [to the hip] even if it is entirely torn away, it is valid as long as there remained a part that can be grasped.”
D. And how much is this? Said Abayye, “As [much as] the size of a finger [suffices even in the largest] ox.”
A. [If] the innermost belly [rumen] is pierced [M. 3:1 F]. Said R. Judah, said Rab, “Nathan Ben Shila, head of the butchers of Sepphoris, testified before Rabbi in the name of R. Nathan, `This is the mucal sieve' [cf. T. 3:2 E].”
B. And so said R. Joshua b. Levi, “This is the mucal sieve.” R. Ishmael said, “It is the stomach [entrance] of the rumen.”
C. R. Assi said R. Yohanan, “This is a narrow part of the rumen. But I do not know which one.” Said R. Nahman bar Yitzhak, “The rumen might as well have fallen into a well. [This last statement clarifies nothing.]”
D. Said R. Aha bar R. Ava, said R. Assi, “From where it narrows and below [that is the innermost belly].” R. Jacob bar Nahmani, said Samuel, “In the part that has no furry lining.” R. Abina, said Geniba in the name of Rab, “The part of the windpipe within a handbreadth of the rumen is the inner rumen.”
E. They said in the West in the name of R. Yosé bar Hanina, “The entire rumen is called the inner rumen. And what then is the outer rumen? The fleshy membrane that covers the major part of the rumen.” Rabbah bar R. Huna said, “[The outer rumen is] the exposed part.” What is the exposed part? Said R. Avya, “That part which is exposed by the butcher [when he slits open the abdomen to remove the intestines].”
F. In Nehardea they acted in accord with Rabbah bar R. Huna. R. Ashi said to Amemar, “What do we do with all the other views?” He said to him, “They are all subsumed in the view of Rabbah bar R. Huna.” [He said], “But [what about the view] of R. Assi said R. Yohanan [in C]?” He said to him, “That was explained by R. Aha bar Ava [in D].” [He said], “[But what about the views] of R. Abina [D] and the people of the West [E]?” he said to him, “These views are certainly in dispute [with Rabbah bar R. Huna].”
A. R. Judah says, “In the case of a large animal, a handbreadth, and in the case of a small one, its greater part [M. 3:1 H].” Said R. Benjamin bar Yapet, said R. Eleazar, “Neither does large mean actually in a large animal. Nor does small mean actually in a small animal. But in any case where if the size of a handbreadth was torn and this did not constitute the major part, this is what we meant by, In the case of a large animal, a handbreadth. [And in any case where if] a major part was torn and this did not constitute the size of a handbreadth, this is what we meant by, In the case of a small one, its greater part.”
B. [The case where if] a major part was torn and this did not constitute the size of a handbreadth, this is obvious [that it is terefah]! It is necessary to state it. For this is where it was [torn through a major part and would have been torn through] a handbreadth with just a small amount more. What might you have said? Until it is torn a handbreadth it is not terefah. It makes the point [that even so it is terefah].
A. Said R. Assi, “If it [a circular part of the rumen] was cut out in the size of a large coin, it is terefah. For it you stretch it out [the circumference] will equal a handbreadth.”
B. Said R. Hiyya bar Abba, “The teaching of Geniba was explained to me on the bridge of Nehardea: [If a hole was found] as large as a large coin, it is valid. Larger than a large coin, it is terefah.” And how much is more than a large coin? Said R. Joseph, “Big enough for three date pits with fruit on them to pass through with pressure, or without fruit on them to pass through with space.”
A. The omasum or the second stomach [reticulum] which are pierced on the outer edge [M. 3:1 H]. The rabbis taught, A needle which is found in the thick wall of the reticulum [M. Hul. 3:2 C6], when it protrudes from one side, it [the animal] is valid. [When it protrudes] on both sides, it is invalid. If there is in its place a coagulated drop of blood, [51a] one may be certain that [the needle was in place] before slaughter. [If] there is not in its place a coagulated drop of blood, one may be certain that [the needle was in place] after slaughter. [If] the surface of a wound formed a scab, one may be certain that [it was there] three days before slaughter. [If] the surface of a wound did not form a scab, [then] he who makes a claim against his fellow must bring proof [that the animal is invalid] [T. 3:11 B-D].