Talking Talmud

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.