And how much is the deficiency that renders the altar unfit? It is a deficiency that is sufficient for a fingernail to be impeded on it.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: How much is the deficiency that renders the altar unfit? Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: One handbreadth. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: One olive-bulk. The Gemara answers: This apparent contradiction is not difficult. This measure of one handbreadth or one olive-bulk is referring to a deficiency in the limestone coating of the altar; that smaller measure of a fingernail being caught is referring to a deficiency in the stone of the altar.

§ Apropos the obligation to show the knife to a Torah scholar, Rav Huna says: This slaughterer who did not present [sar] the knife before a Torah scholar, we ostracize him. And Rava says: We remove him from his position and we proclaim about meat from an animal that he slaughtered that it is tereifa.

The Gemara notes: And they do not disagree. Here, where Rav Huna says that he is ostracized, it is in a case where his knife was discovered intact, and he is ostracized for treating the scholar with contempt. There, where Rava says that his slaughter is proclaimed tereifa, it is in a case where his knife was discovered not intact, as in that case the meat from all animals that he slaughtered is suspect. Ravina said: In a case where his knife was discovered not to be intact, one spreads excrement on the flesh so that even to a gentile it will not be sold.

There was a certain slaughterer who did not present his knife before Rava bar Ḥinnana. Rava bar Ḥinnana ostracized him, and removed him from his position, and proclaimed about meat from an animal that he slaughtered that it is tereifa. Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi happened before Rava bar Ḥinnana in his place of residence. Rava bar Ḥinnana said to them: Let the Sages examine the matter of the slaughterer, as small children are dependent upon him.

Rav Ashi examined his knife and it was discovered intact, and he deemed his meat fit for consumption. Mar Zutra said to Rav Ashi: And shouldn’t the Master be concerned for the honor of the elder, Rava bar Ḥinnana, who removed him from his position and you restored him? Rav Ashi said to Mar Zutra: We are carrying out his agency, as he requested that we examine the matter of the slaughterer.

§ Rabba bar Huna says: With a detached tooth and a detached fingernail, it is permitted to slaughter ab initio. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna (15b): Except for the harvest sickle, and the saw, and the teeth, and the fingernail, because they strangle?

The Gemara answers that the contradiction between this statement with regard to a tooth and that statement with regard to a tooth is not difficult: This statement of Rava bar Huna that one may slaughter with a tooth is referring to slaughter with one tooth. That mishna that prohibits slaughter with teeth is referring to slaughter with two teeth, as due to the gap between them they rip the simanim. The contradiction between the statement with regard to a fingernail and the statement with regard to a fingernail is not difficult: This statement of Rava bar Huna that one may slaughter with a fingernail is referring to slaughter with a detached fingernail. That mishna that prohibits slaughter with a fingernail is referring to slaughter with an attached fingernail, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi (15b), who invalidates slaughter performed with an item attached to the ground or a living animal.

MISHNA: In the case of one who slaughters an animal with a harvest sickle, which is serrated with its teeth inclined considerably in one direction, in a forward direction, where the serrations do not tear the flesh, Beit Shammai deem the slaughter not valid and Beit Hillel deem it valid. And they both agree that if they smoothed its serrations so that they do not tear the flesh, its halakhic status is like that of a knife and one may slaughter with it.

GEMARA: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even when Beit Hillel deemed the slaughter valid, they deemed it valid only to purify it from the ritual impurity of an unslaughtered carcass; but its consumption is prohibited. Rav Ashi said: The language of the mishna is also precise, as the tanna teaches: Beit Shammai deem the slaughter not valid and Beit Hillel deem it valid, and he does not teach: Beit Shammai prohibit and Beit Hillel permit its consumption. The Gemara objects: But according to your reasoning, let the tanna teach: Beit Shammai deem the carcass ritually impure and Beit Hillel deem it ritually pure. Rather, the terms deem it not valid and deem it valid and the terms prohibit and permit are all one matter, and no inferences may be drawn from that phrasing.

MISHNA: With regard to one who slaughters an animal from within the cricoid cartilage that forms a complete ring at the top of the windpipe and left a thread breadth over the surface of the ring in its entirety intact, as the knife did not go beyond the ring toward the head of the animal, his slaughter is valid. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: It is valid even if he left a thread breadth over the majority of the surface of the ring.

GEMARA: It is Rav and Shmuel who both say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. And even Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says his statement only with regard to the large upper ring, since it encircles the entire windpipe, but with regard to the rest of the rings, which are incomplete and where a strip of flesh connects their edges, he did not state his halakha. Therefore, his slaughter is not valid, as he is required to slaughter in the space between those rings and not in the rings themselves.

The Gemara objects: And with regard to the rest of the rings, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, did not state his halakha; but isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: