When Shmuel says that the animal is certainly a tereifa if the spinal cord is cut anywhere until the first gap, does he mean until and including the first gap, in which case if it is cut within the first gap the animal is a tereifa? Or perhaps he means until and not including the length of the gap itself?

Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: If you say that Shmuel means until and not including the length of the first gap, and if the spinal cord is cut in the first gap the halakha is unknown, then if the spinal cord was cut in the mouth of the first branch, exactly where it branches off, what is the halakha? Is it considered to be within the first gap, in which case the halakha is unknown? Or is it considered before the gap, in which case a tear in the mouth renders the animal a tereifa?

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If you say that Shmuel means until and including the measure of the first gap, and if the spinal cord is cut in the first gap the animal is a tereifa, then if the first branch itself, i.e., the first pair of branching nerves, was cut from the spinal cord, what is the halakha?

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: The branch of the spine that was cut shall be considered as normal flesh, not as the spine. Therefore, it does not render the animal a tereifa, unlike the spinal cord itself. What, is it not referring even to the first or second branch? The Gemara responds: No, the baraita is referring only to the third branch. But if either of the first two pairs of nerves that branch off from the spinal cord are cut, the animal is a tereifa.

With regard to a bird, the Sages disagreed as to the lower boundary of the spinal cord, above which if it is cut, the bird will be rendered a tereifa. Rabbi Yannai says: The spinal cord extends until below the level of the wings. And Reish Lakish says: Until the point between the wings, not below them.

Ulla says: I was standing before Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, and they brought before him a bird whose spine had been injured, and he checked until the point between the wings. And at that point a messenger of the house of the Nasi sent for him, and he got up and went, and I do not know if he left because one does not need to check beyond that point, or if due to the honor of the Nasi he left without completing the inspection.

§ The mishna states: If the liver was removed and nothing remained of it, the animal is a tereifa. The Gemara asks: It follows, therefore, that if anything remained of it, the animal is kosher, even if the remaining piece does not constitute an olive-bulk. But didn’t we learn in a mishna on 54a: If the liver was removed and an olive-bulk of it remained, it is kosher? One can infer that if less remained, it is a tereifa.

Rav Yosef said: This is not difficult. This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya, while that mishna later in the chapter is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. This is like that incident in which an amount smaller than an olive-bulk remained of the liver, and Rabbi Ḥiyya discarded it, as he holds that the animal is a tereifa, but Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, dipped it in a seasoning and ate it. And your mnemonic to remember which Sage maintained which opinion is: The rich are stingy. Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, was wealthy, but he nevertheless did not allow the meat to go to waste.

The Gemara relates that a certain royal army came to Pumbedita, and Rabba and Rav Yosef fled the city, whereupon Rabbi Zeira met them. Rabbi Zeira said to them: Refugees, hear this halakha: The olive-bulk that the Sages said must remain of the liver so the animal will remain kosher must be in the place where the liver connects to the gallbladder. Rav Adda bar Ahava says: The olive-bulk must be in the place that the liver lives, i.e., is connected to the other organs, under the right kidney. Rav Pappa said: Therefore, in order to satisfy both opinions, we require an olive-bulk in the place of the gallbladder, and we also require an olive-bulk in the place that it lives. Otherwise, the animal is a tereifa.

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If the olive-bulk that remained was not all in one piece, but rather small pieces that could be gathered together to form the requisite measure, what is the halakha? Alternatively, if it was long and thin like a strip, what is the halakha? Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: If the olive-bulk was flat, broad but thinner than an olive, what is the halakha? To all these questions the Gemara responds: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

Rabbi Zerika asked Rabbi Ami: If the liver was detached from the other organs in numerous places and was attached only to its membranes [betarpasheha], but the liver itself remained intact, what is the halakha? Rabbi Ami said to him: With regard to the halakha, I do not know what the significance is of this detachment that you mentioned. If you rule according to the one who says that an olive-bulk must remain in the place of the gallbladder, that is the case here. And if you rule according to the one who says that it must be in the place that it lives, that is the case here as well. Consequently, there is no doubt that the animal is kosher.

§ The mishna states: The lung that was perforated renders the animal a tereifa. The Gemara quotes Rav and Shmuel and Rav Asi, who all say: The mishna is referring specifically to the outer membrane. And some say that they said that the mishna is referring specifically to the inner membrane. Rav Yosef bar Minyumi said that Rav Naḥman said: And your mnemonic should be: The red robe in which the lung rests. The inner membrane is red, while the outer membrane is white, and according to Rav Naḥman, the mishna is referring to the inner membrane.

The Gemara comments: It is obvious that if the outer membrane is perforated but the inner membrane is not perforated, the inner membrane protects the lung, and the animal is kosher. This is in accordance with the statement of Rabba, as Rabba says: This animal with a lung whose outer membrane was removed,