beans lie at the opening of the skull, where the spinal cord exits. From the beans inward, the nerve tissue is considered like the inside, i.e., the brain. Therefore, if its membrane is perforated, even minimally, the animal is a tereifa. From the beans outward, the nerve tissue is considered like the outside, i.e., the spinal cord. A perforation of the membrane in this area renders the animal a tereifa only if the spinal cord is mostly cut. And with regard to the area of the beans themselves, I do not know what the halakha is; but it stands to reason that it is considered like the inside.

The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yirmeya inspected a bird and found protrusions similar to two beans lying on the opening of the skull.

§ The mishna states: If the heart was perforated to its chamber, the animal is a tereifa. Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: Is the mishna referring to the small chamber within the heart or to the large chamber? Abaye said to him: What is your dilemma? Didn’t we learn in the mishna with regard to the lung: Rabbi Shimon says: It is not a tereifa unless it is perforated through to the bronchi? And Rabba bar Taḥlifa says that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says that Rav says: Rabbi Shimon means that it is not a tereifa unless it is perforated through to the large bronchus. If so, it may be presumed that the mishna is referring to the large chamber of the heart as well.

The Gemara responds: How can these cases be compared? There, the mishna teaches: To the bronchi [simponot], in the plural form, i.e., the one bronchus into which all the bronchi [simponot] empty out. But here, with regard to the heart, it teaches: To the chamber. What is it to me if this is a large chamber and what is it to me if it is a small chamber? The language does not indicate one or the other.

§ With regard to the aorta, the chief artery exiting the heart, Rav says: Like the heart itself, if it is perforated in any amount the animal is a tereifa. And Shmuel says: The animal is a tereifa only if the aorta is perforated in its majority.

The Gemara asks: Which blood vessel is the aorta? Rabba bar Yitzḥak says that Rav says: This is the artery found in the fat on the sides. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind to say that this is referring to the sides of the animal, i.e., the ribs, which are not adjacent to the heart? Rather, this is referring to the artery covered in fat that exits the heart and passes on the sides of the lung.

Ameimar says in the name of Rav Naḥman: There are three ducts adjacent to one another in an animal’s chest. One separates to the heart, and one separates to the lung, and one separates to the liver. The duct of the lung is treated like the lung, and renders the animal a tereifa if perforated in any amount. The duct of the liver is treated like the liver, and only if it is completely missing does it render the animal a tereifa, in accordance with the mishna. As for the duct of the heart, the aorta, Rav and Shmuel disagree as to the measure of its perforation, as mentioned above.

Mar bar Ḥiyya teaches the opposite: The duct of the lung is treated like the liver and renders the animal a tereifa only if it is completely missing. The duct of the liver is treated like the lung, and a perforation of any amount renders the animal a tereifa. And with regard to the duct of the heart, Rav and Shmuel disagree.

The Gemara relates that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef went and stated the halakha of Rav, that an aorta perforated in any amount renders an animal a tereifa, before Shmuel. Shmuel said to him: If Abba, i.e., Rav, actually said so, he knows nothing at all about tereifot.

§ The mishna states: If the spinal column was broken and its cord was cut, the animal is a tereifa. With regard to this the Sages taught: If the spinal cord was cut in its majority, the animal is a tereifa. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Ya’akov says: It is a tereifa even if the spinal cord was only perforated.

The Gemara notes: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya’akov that even a small perforation of the spinal cord renders the animal a tereifa. Rav Huna says: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya’akov.

The Gemara asks: And how much is considered a majority of the spinal cord to render the animal a tereifa? Rav says: A majority of the circumference of its surrounding membranes, the meninges. And some say a majority of the nerve tissue of the spinal cord itself. In other words, even if the meninges are intact, the animal is a tereifa if a majority of the nerve tissue is cut.

The Gemara notes: According to the one who says that the animal is a tereifa if a majority of the nerve tissue is severed, all the more so if a majority of the meninges is cut, since if the meninges, the protective membranes, are damaged, the nerve tissue itself will certainly be damaged soon thereafter. But according to the one who says that a tear in a majority of the meninges renders it a tereifa, what is the halakha in a case where only a majority of the nerve tissue was cut? Perhaps the intact membranes will keep the damage from spreading.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof: As Nayyoli says that Rav Huna says: The majority of the spinal cord, which they said renders the animal a tereifa if cut, is the majority of the meninges. But this nerve tissue makes no difference.

The Gemara relates that Rav Natan bar Avin was sitting before Rav. Rav Natan first checked the spinal cord to make sure that a majority of the meninges was intact, and then was checking to see that a majority of its nerve tissue was intact. Rav said to him: If a majority of the meninges is intact, this nerve tissue makes no difference.

§ Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: If the spinal cord was liquefied [nitmareikh], the animal is unfit for consumption. Even if it softened [nitmasmeis], the animal is unfit, i.e., a tereifa. What is liquefaction, and what is softening? Liquefaction is any case in which the nerve tissue becomes liquid, and if the membrane is punctured it can be poured out like water from a jug. Softening is any case in which the nerve tissue cannot stand upright on its own and sags when it is not being supported.

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: In a case where the spinal cord became unusually heavy such that it cannot stand upright due to its weight, but not due to softening or melting, what is the halakha? The Gemara responds: The question shall stand unresolved. In the study hall they say: If the spinal cord softened due to disease, the animal is unfit for consumption. But if some of its tissue softened and was emptied from the spinal cord, the animal remains kosher. The Gemara raises an objection based on a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: An animal whose nerve tissue was emptied [nitmazmez] from the spinal cord is a tereifa. The Gemara responds: That version of the baraita is incorrect. In fact, the word softened [nitmasmes] was stated, not the word emptied.

The Gemara asks: Is that so, that an animal whose nerve tissue has dissolved is kosher? But didn’t it happen that Levi was sitting in the bathhouse, where he saw a certain man who banged his head severely, whereupon he said: This man’s nerve tissue has softened and been emptied? Is it not that Levi meant that the man cannot live? If so, the softening and emptying of the nerve tissue should render an animal a tereifa. Abaye said: No, he intended to say that the man cannot reproduce, since head trauma might lead to infertility.

§ The Gemara asks: Until where does the spinal cord extend downward, such that if it is cut above that point the animal is a tereifa? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Until the point between the branches of the spinal cord that split off behind the thighs.

The Gemara recounts: Rav Dimi bar Yitzḥak wanted to go to Bei Ḥozai. He came before Rabbi Yehuda and said to him: Master, show me, where is the area between the branches to which Shmuel referred? Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Go bring me a kid and I will show you. Rav Dimi bar Yitzḥak brought him a choice kid with much fat. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: The location is buried very deep in the fat and is not recognizable. He brought Rabbi Yehuda a lean kid. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: The bones jut out very far, and the location is not recognizable.

Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Come, I will teach you a tradition without showing you: This is what Shmuel said: There are three successive points around the same bone behind the pelvis at which branches diverge from the spinal cord. If the spinal cord is cut anywhere until the first gap between these branches, the animal is a tereifa. If it is severed anywhere after the third gap, i.e., after the third branch, the animal is kosher. If it was severed within the second gap, i.e., between these areas, I do not know the halakha.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, raises a dilemma: