and to us, the residents of Babylonia, not only is it forbidden but it also does not seal a perforation? It cannot be that this fat is forbidden by Torah law if they permit it for consumption. Even though we are stringent with regard to its consumption, we may still maintain that it effectively seals a perforation.

The Gemara explains: The abomasum is shaped like a bow. The side facing outward is curved like the bow itself, while the side facing inward is flat and straight like the bowstring. With regard to the fat that is on the bow, everyone agrees, even the residents of Eretz Yisrael, that it is forbidden for consumption. This fat, then, is the ḥimtza, which does not seal a perforation according to Rav Naḥman. When they disagree, it is with regard to the fat that is on the bowstring. The residents of Eretz Yisrael permit it for consumption, while those of Babylonia prohibit it. According to Rav Naḥman, the residents of Babylonia should concede that it is nevertheless an effective seal. This, then, is the bar ḥimtza.

There are those who say that with regard to the fat that is on the bowstring, everyone agrees that it is permitted. This, then, is the bar ḥimtza. When they disagree, it is with regard to the fat that is on the bow. The residents of Eretz Yisrael permit it, but the residents of Babylonia prohibit it. This, then, is the ḥimtza.

The Gemara adds: When it was stated that only the residents of Eretz Yisrael permit the fat on the bowstring for consumption, this means that they would eat it in a manner like that which Rav Avya says that Rabbi Ami says: One takes a handful of the fat that lies above the fat on the bowstring, since this is the fat prohibited by the verse: “And all the fat that is upon the innards” (Leviticus 3:3), and the rest is permitted for consumption. And so says Rabbi Yannai, also a resident of Eretz Yisrael, in the name of a certain elder: One takes a handful. Rav Avya said: I was standing before Rabbi Ami. The people there took a handful of the fat on the bowstring and gave him the remaining fat, and he ate from it.

The Gemara relates: The attendant of Rabbi Ḥanina was standing before Rabbi Ḥanina, a resident of Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Ḥanina said to him: Take off a handful from that fat on the bowstring and give me the rest so that I will eat from it. Rabbi Ḥanina saw that the attendant was hesitating, so he said to him: You are a Babylonian and usually consider all of this fat forbidden. If so, cut off all the fat and throw it away.

§ The mishna states that if the small intestines are perforated, the animal is a tereifa. With regard to this, it is taught in a baraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If the intestines were perforated but mucus seals the perforated intestines, the animal is kosher. The Gemara asks: What is this mucus? Rav Kahana said: It is the mucus of the intestines that comes out under pressure, when one scrapes with a knife.

The Gemara relates: The colleagues of Rabbi Abba learned a tradition from Rabbi Abba. And who are they? The phrase: Colleagues of Rabbi Abba, is referring to Rabbi Zeira. And some say the colleagues of Rabbi Zeira learned it from Rabbi Zeira. And who are they? Rabbi Abba. This is the tradition: Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, said that this is what Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to a tereifa, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to the halakhot of mourning.

The Gemara elaborates: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to a tereifa; this is the halakha that we stated above, that mucus forms an effective seal in the intestines. The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to mourning; what is this halakha? As we learned in a baraita: If one learns of the death of an immediate relative after other relatives have already begun their period of mourning, the halakha is as follows: During the entire first three days of mourning, if a mourner comes to the house of mourning from a nearby place, he counts his days of mourning with the other mourners and completes his mourning with them.

The baraita continues: If he came from a distant place, he counts seven days on his own from the time that he was informed of the death. From this point forward, i.e., after the first three days, even if he comes from a nearby place, he counts seven days on his own. Rabbi Shimon says: Even on the seventh day, if he comes from a nearby place, he counts and completes his mourning with the other mourners.

Someone whose name was not given said: May I merit to go up to Eretz Yisrael and learn this halakha from the mouth of its Master. When he went up from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he found Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, and said to him: Is it true that the Master said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to a tereifa? Rabbi Abba said to him: This is not true. Rather, I said just the opposite, that the halakha is not in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and even if mucus seals the perforation of the intestine, the animal is a tereifa.

The anonymous man asked Rabbi Abba again: What about the other ruling reported in your name, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to mourning; is this accurate? Rabbi Abba said to him: There are conflicting opinions with regard to this matter, as it was stated that Rav Ḥisda says that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and so says Rabbi Yoḥanan: That is the halakha. But Rav Naḥman says: That is not the halakha.

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to a tereifa, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon with regard to mourning, in accordance with the statement of Shmuel, who says: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the more lenient authority in matters relating to mourning.

§ Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya says: One may compare perforations in the intestines. If one is unsure whether a perforation occurred before or after slaughter, one may make an additional perforation and compare the two. If their appearance is similar, one may conclude that the perforation occurred after slaughter, and the animal is kosher.

The Gemara relates: There were certain perforated intestines that came before Rava. Rava made other perforations and compared them, but they were not similar. Rav Mesharshiyya, his son, came and rubbed the new perforations, and they were similar. Rav Mesharshiyya therefore deemed the animal kosher. Rava said to him: From where did you know to do this? Rav Mesharshiyya said to him: I reasoned: How many hands rubbed these earlier perforations before they came before the Master? Therefore, I thought that if I handled the new ones, perhaps they would look similar. Rava said to him: My son is as wise in matters of tereifot as Rabbi Yoḥanan.

Similarly, Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar both say: One may compare perforations in the lung to determine whether they occurred after slaughter. Rava said: We said this only when the two perforations are on the same side of the lungs. But one may not compare perforations from one side to the other side. The Gemara rules: And the halakha is: One may compare even from one side to the other side, and even from a small animal to another small animal, or from a large animal to another large animal, but not from a large animal to a small animal, and not from a small animal to a large animal.

Similarly, Abaye and Rava both say: One may compare severed or perforated areas in the windpipe. Rav Pappa said: We said this only when the two areas are in the same segment of the windpipe. But one may not compare from one segment to another segment. The Gemara rules: And the halakha is: One may even compare from one segment to another segment, and from one subsegment, i.e., a thin segment between the main segments, to another subsegment, but not from a segment to a subsegment, and not from a subsegment to a segment.

§ Ze’eiri says: If the rectum was perforated, the animal is kosher, since the hips hold it up and seal the perforation. And to how much of the rectum does this apply? Rabbi Ilai says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If the rectum was perforated in the place where it is attached to the hips, even if it was perforated in its majority, the animal is kosher. If the perforation was not in the place where it is attached to the hips, the animal is a tereifa if it was perforated in any amount.

The Sages said this halakha before Rava in the name of Rav Naḥman. Rava said to them: Have I not told you not to hang on Rav Naḥman