D. Come and take note: [As to] the smallest [size] of earthenware vessels: their [rimmed] bottoms or their sides [that can] set without supports [are unclean if] [55a] their measure is as much [oil as needed for] anointing a small finger of a child. [And this measurement applies to vessels that, when whole, hold] up to a log [M. Kel. 2:2 A]. Do we not conclude that a log is the same as any amount below this measure? No. [We conclude that] a log is the same as any amount above this measure.
E. Come and take note: [If, when whole, such vessels held] from a log to a seah, [the uncleanness will persist if the remnant may hold] a quarter-log [M. Kel. 2:2 B]. Do we not conclude that a seah is the same as any amount below this measure? No. [We conclude that] a seah is the same as any amount above this measure.
F. Come and take note: From a seah to two seahs, a half-log [M. Kel. 2:2 C]. Do we not conclude that two seahs is the same as any amount below this measure? No. [We conclude that] two seahs is the same as any amount above this measure.
G. But lo it was taught on Tannaite authority, [In rulings regarding the uncleanness of vessels, exactly] a log is the same as any amount below this measure. [Exactly] a seah is the same as any amount below this measure. [Exactly] two seahs is the same as any amount below this measure.
H. There [in ruling regarding the uncleanness of utensils] we judge in accord with the more strict alternative. For said R. Abbahu, said R. Yohanan, “All of the measures specified by the sages are meant to accord with the stricter alternative except for the [measure of] the size of a bean for [blood stains on] test rags [used for determining menstrual uncleanness where the measure is meant] to accord with the more lenient view.”
I. And you may derive this as well from this that was taught on Tannaite authority concerning the matter, [Exactly] five is the same as any amount above this measure... [Exactly] ten is the same as any amount below this measure [T. Kel. B.M. 9:3 C, E, commenting on M. Kel. 19:2, cited above at B].
A. (7) [If] the spleen is removed [M. 3:2 C] [according to Meir, it is valid]. And said R. Avira in the name of Raba, “They taught this rule only in the case where it was removed. But if it was pierced, it is terefah” [see above M. 3:1 I.1 X, b. 42b].
B. R. Yosé bar Abin, and some say it was R. Yosé bar Zabeda, posed a question, [If] one cuts off part of the offspring which is in its womb — it [that which is cut off and left inside the mother when it is slaughtered] is permitted to be eaten. [If he cut off] part of the spleen or kidneys [of the beast itself], it is prohibited to be eaten [M. 4:1 D-F]. Lo [this implies that if he cut from the spleen] the animal itself is permitted. [No.] The law is that even the animal itself is also prohibited. Since the former text taught, it is permitted to be eaten, the latter text taught, it is prohibited to be eaten. [But it does not mean that only the parts of the spleen that cut off are prohibited. The animal is terefah because he cut off from the spleen.]
C. And if you prefer [we could argue that the animal itself is not terefah. The rule for] piercing [the organ] is independent, and [the rule for] cutting [the organ] is independent.
A. (8) [If] the kidneys are removed [M. 3:2 C]. Said Rakhish bar Pappa in the name of Rab, “If the animal was diseased in one kidney, it is terefah.” They said in the West [in Israel], “And this is the case only if the disease reached [55b] the hilum.”
B. And where is the hilum? [Cashdan:] At the white calyces in the middle of the kidney immediately below the loins.
C. Said R. Nehuniah, “I inquired of those who issue rulings from the West [regarding the defects that render an animal] terefah. And they said to me, `The law follows in accord with the view of Rakhish bar Pappa. And the law does no follow in accord with the view of R. Avira.'”
D. We say this only [if the spleen was pierced] in its thin section. But if it was [pierced] in its thick section, it is terefah [in accord with Avira]. And if there remained [in the spleen some thickness not pierced] as much as the thickness of a gold dinar, it is valid.
A. They said in the West [in Israel]: All that renders unfit in regard to the lung is valid in regard to the kidney. For lo, a hole renders unfit in regard to the lung and it is valid in regard to the kidney. And all the more so that which is valid in regard to the lung, is valid in regard to the kidney.
B. R. Tanhuma raised this by way of contradiction: Is this the general rule? But lo, consider the case of pus that is valid in regard to the lung and unfit in regard to the kidney. But lo, [consider on the other hand the case of] clear water that is considered valid in both [if found in either the lung or the kidney].
C. But said R. Ashi, “Can you compare [defects that render animals] terefot to one another? We do not say concerning [defects that render animals] terefot that this one resembles that one. For lo you may cut from this place [on an animal] and it will die. You may cut from here [an identical amount in another place on the animal] and it will live [b. 48b, XIV.1 I].”
D. And in the case of clear water we only say [it is valid] if the water is unclouded. But if it was murky it is unfit. And even if it is unclouded we do not say that it is valid unless it was not foul. But if it was foul, it is unfit.
E. The [rule concerning the] kidney that shrunk — for a small beast [it is valid unless it shrank smaller than] a bean; for a large beast [it is valid unless it shrank smaller than] a medium size grape.
A. [This passage is omitted in some editions.] (9) [If] the lower jaw is removed [M. 3:2 C] [according to Meir, it is valid]. Said R. Zira, “They taught this only where it could survive by force feeding. But where it could not survive by force feeding [such a case is terefah].”
A. (10) [If] the womb is removed [M. 3:2 C] [according to Meir, it is valid]. It was taught, The womb, that is the tarpahat, that is the šlpwhyt [cf. b. 48a above].
A. (10) And one whose [lung] dried naturally [M. 3:2 D]. Our rabbis taught, What is the case of a dried [lung]? Any animal whose lung shrunk [cf. T. 3:12]. [If it] dried naturally it is valid. [If it was dried] by human intervention it is terefah.
B. R. Simeon b. Eleazar says, “Even if it was [dried out] by the intervention of any creature [it is terefah].”
C. They posed a question: Does R. Simeon b. Eleazar's statement apply to the former text and state a lenient rule? Or does it apply to the latter text and state a stricter rule? [We have translated in accord with this second alternative.]
D. Come and take note: It was taught on Tannaite authority, If it dried out by human intervention, it is terefah. R. Simeon b. Eleazar says, “Even if it was [dried out] by the intervention of any creature [cf. T. 3:6 D-E].”
E. Rabbah bar bar Hannah was walking in the wilderness. He found some rams whose lungs were shrunk. He went and ask [for a ruling regarding them] in the house of study. They said to him, “In the summer [this is the procedure to determine if the animals are valid]. Bring white glazed basins and fill them with cold water and put [the lungs] in them for twenty-four hours. If they return to normal [then they were shrunk] by natural causes and they are valid. And if not, they are terefah. In the winter [this is the procedure]. Bring dark glazed basins and fill them with warm water and put [the lungs] in them for twenty-four hours. If they return to normal, they are valid. And if not, they are terefah.”
A. (12) One that has lost its hide [having been flayed] [M. 3:2 E]. Our rabbis taught: One that lost its hide — R. Meir declares valid. And sages declare invalid [M. 3:2 E-G]. And Eleazar the scribe and Yohanan b. Gudguda already testified concerning the animal that lost its hide that it is invalid.
B. Said R. Simeon b. Eleazar, “R. Meir retracted his view on this.” We may derive the conclusion that according to R. Simeon b. Eleazar R. Meir did [earlier] dispute [the view of sages regarding] one that lost its hide.
C. But lo it was taught on Tannaite authority, R. Simeon b. Eleazar said, “R. Meir and sages did not dispute concerning one which has lost its hide, that it is invalid.” R. Oshaia the son of R. Judah [T.: Judah b. Isaiah] the spice maker already testified before R. Aqiba, speaking in the name of R. Tarfon, concerning one which has lost its hide, that it is invalid [T. 3:7 B-C].
D. But if there remained on it [hide] the size of a sela it is valid.
E. Said R. Nahman bar Yitzhak, “What does it mean that they did not dispute? R. Meir did not stand by his [conflicting view] in dispute [with sages].”
A. Said the master: But if there remained on it [hide] the size of a sela it is valid [D above]. Where [must there remain this amount]? Said R. Judah, said Samuel, “All along the backbone [of the animal].”
B. They posed a question: [Does this mean] a long and thin [piece of hide along the backbone] that when combined adds up to the size of a sela? Or perhaps does it mean [there must be a strip of hide] the width of a sela along the entire backbone?
C. Come and take note: R. Nehorai explained in the name of Samuel, “[There must be a strip of hide] the width of a sela along the entire backbone.”
D. Rabbah bar bar Hannah said, “At the top of each joint [there must be hide the size of a sela.]”
E. R. Eleazar b. Antigonus in the name of R. Eleazar b. R. Yannai said, “At the navel [there must be hide the size of a sela].”
F. R. Yannai b. R. Ishmael posed a question: If the [hide] was removed along the length of the backbone and the rest [of the hide] was intact; if the [hide] was removed from the navel and the rest was intact; if the [hide] was removed from the tops of the joints and the rest was intact, what is the law? The question stands unresolved.
G. Said Rab, “All of the hide serves to rescue [the animal] from the status of one that has lost its hide except for the hide on the hooves.” And R. Yohanan said, “Even the hide on the hooves serves to rescue it.”
H. R. Assi posed a question of R. Yohanan, “What is the rule with regard to whether the hide of the hooves rescues it from the status of one that has lost its hide?” He said to him, “It rescues it.” He said to him, “But our master taught us, `These are the places where the hide has the status of the flesh: the hide of the hooves [b. 122a].” He said to them, “Stop annoying me. For I teach this as my personal view.”
I. For it was taught on Tannaite authority, He who slaughters the burnt-offering [with the intention] to eat an olive's bulk of the hide from under the tail outside of its proper place [M. Zeb. 2:2 E], it is unfit and there is for this no punishment of extirpation. [If he did so with intention to eat it] after its proper time, it is refuse. And they are liable on its account to the punishment of extirpation [T. Zeb. 2:3 A-D].
J. Eliezer b. Judah of Eiblayim said in the name of R. Jacob, and so R. Simeon b. Judah of Kefar Akkum says in the name of R. Simeon, “The same applies to the hide of the hooves, or the soft skin of the head of a calf, or the skin under the tail, or all [the places] that were listed by the sages regarding uncleanness whose hide has the same status as the flesh [of those places][cf. T. Zeb. 2:3 F-G].”