the location of the crevice. And where is the location of the crevice? This is a reference to the white matter under the loins. Rav Neḥunya said: I asked all the authorities on tereifot of the West, and they said to me: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rakhish bar Pappa in the name of Rav that a diseased kidney renders an animal a tereifa, but the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rav Avira that a perforated spleen renders the animal a tereifa.

The Gemara adds: And even with regard to the opinion of Rav Avira, we said that the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion only if the spleen was perforated in its narrow, lower end, but if it was perforated in its thick, upper end, the animal is a tereifa. And even if it was perforated in its thick end, if it was not perforated completely and a layer of the spleen as thick as a gold dinar remains intact, the animal is kosher.

§ They say in the West, Eretz Yisrael: Any injury that renders an animal unfit for consumption when occurring in the lung is kosher when occurring in the kidney. For example, a perforation renders an animal unfit when occurring in the lung (see 42a), but the animal is kosher if it occurs in the kidney. And it follows that all the more so, where an animal is kosher despite an injury in the lung, it will remain kosher despite a similar injury in the kidney.

Rabbi Tanḥuma objects to this: And is this an established principle? But what about a case of pus, where the animal is kosher if it occurs in the lung and unfit for consumption if it occurs in the kidney? And what about clear fluid, which is kosher both here and there, i.e., whether occurring in the lungs or the kidney? Rather, Rav Ashi said: Are you comparing tereifot to one another? One cannot say with regard to tereifot: This is similar to that, as one cuts an animal from here, in one place, and it dies, while one cuts it from there, in another place, and it lives. Certain injuries may compromise the kidney but not the lung, or vice versa.

The Gemara notes: And with regard to clear fluid found in the lungs or kidney, which is kosher, we said so only in a case where the fluid was unclouded, but if it was clouded, the animal is a tereifa. And even when the fluid was unclouded, we said the animal is kosher only if the fluid is not fetid, but if it is fetid, the animal is a tereifa.

The Gemara continues to discuss cases of tereifot due to the kidneys: With regard to a kidney that shrank, in small animals, such as sheep, the animal is a tereifa if it shrank until the size of a bean; in large animals, such as cattle, the animal is a tereifa if it shrank until the size of an intermediate-sized grape.

§ The mishna states: If the animal’s lower jaw was removed, it remains kosher. With regard to this, Rabbi Zeira says: The Sages taught this only when the animal is able to live by placing food in its mouth or stuffing it down its throat. But if it cannot live by placing or stuffing food into it, it is a tereifa.

§ The mishna states: If its womb [em] was removed, the animal remains kosher. A Sage taught: The em is synonymous with the tarpaḥat, and it is synonymous with the shalpuḥit.

§ The mishna states: Or if its lung shriveled [ḥaruta] by the hand of Heaven, the animal is kosher. The Sages taught in a baraita: Which is a ḥaruta? It is any animal whose lung shriveled. If this occurred by the hand of Heaven, e.g., if the lung shriveled from fright of thunder and lightning, the animal is kosher. But if it happened by the hands of a person who frightened it, e.g., if it witnessed another animal being slaughtered, it is a tereifa. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even if the lung shriveled by the hands of any creature, e.g., if it was frightened by a lion’s roar.

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar referring to the first clause of the baraita, in which case the statement is a leniency, and even the roar of a lion is considered by the hand of Heaven? Or perhaps it is referring to the latter clause, and the statement is a stringency, and a lung shriveled by the hand of any creature renders the animal a tereifa?

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof, as it is taught in the above baraita: A lung that was shriveled by the hands of a person renders the animal a tereifa. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even by the hands of any creature. Evidently, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is referring to the latter clause.

The Gemara recounts: Rabba bar bar Ḥana was walking in the desert, and he found certain rams whose lungs were shriveled. He came and asked in the study hall how one can determine the cause of the shriveling. The Sages said to him: In the summer, bring white vessels and fill them with cold water and set the lungs in them for a twenty-four-hour period. If they go back to appearing healthy, i.e., if they expand, one knows that it was by the hand of Heaven and the animals are kosher; but if they do not expand, the animals are tereifa. In the winter, bring dark vessels and fill them with tepid water, and set the lungs in them for a twenty-four-hour period. If they go back to appearing healthy, they are kosher; but if not, they are tereifa.

§ The mishna states: In the case of an animal whose hide was removed, Rabbi Meir deems it kosher, and the Rabbis deem it a tereifa. With regard to this, the Sages taught: In the case of an animal whose hide was removed, Rabbi Meir deems it kosher, and the Rabbis deem it a tereifa and unfit for consumption. And Elazar the scribe and Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda already testified before the Sages with regard to an animal whose hide was removed that it is unfit for consumption. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Rabbi Meir retracted his statement.

The Gemara objects: By inference, one may conclude that according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, Rabbi Meir initially disagreed with regard to an animal whose hide was removed. But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Rabbi Meir and the Sages did not disagree with regard to an animal whose hide was removed, and all agree that it is unfit for consumption. And Rabbi Oshaya, son of Rabbi Yehuda the spice merchant, already testified before Rabbi Akiva in the name of Rabbi Tarfon with regard to an animal whose hide was removed that it is unfit for consumption. And if a piece of hide the same size as a sela remained intact, the animal is kosher. The Gemara explains the objection: The phrase: Did not disagree, indicates that Rabbi Meir never disagreed with the Sages. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: What is the meaning of the phrase: Did not disagree? It means that Rabbi Meir did not stand firm in his disagreement and retracted.

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: The Master said: If a piece of hide the same size as a sela remained intact in the animal, it is kosher. The Gemara asks: Where must this piece of hide be? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The piece of hide must be along the entire spine.

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does Shmuel mean that it is kosher if a long and thin strip of hide remains along the spine, such that when one combines its area, it will constitute the same size as a sela? Or perhaps it is kosher only if the remaining hide is the width of a sela along the entire spine? The Gemara responds: Come and hear proof from that which Rabbi Nehorai explained in the name of Shmuel: It must be the width of a sela along the entire spine.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: There must be a piece of hide the size of a sela on the tips of all segments of the spine and on the tips of the femur and tibia. Rabbi Elazar ben Antigonus says in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yannai: The piece of hide must be the width of a sela at the place of its navel.

Rabbi Yannai, son of Rabbi Yishmael, raises a dilemma: If all the hide covering the place of the spine was removed, but all of the remaining hide was intact, or if the hide covering the place of its navel was removed but all of the remaining hide was intact, or if the hide covering all the tips of the segments were removed but all of the remaining hide was intact, what is the halakha? The Gemara responds: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

Rav says: Any portion of the hide that is the size of a sela saves an animal whose hide was removed from becoming a tereifa, except for the hide of the hooves, which is not considered hide. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even the hide of the hooves saves it.

The Gemara recounts: Rabbi Asi asked Rabbi Yoḥanan: With regard to the hide of the hooves, what is the halakha? Does it save an animal whose hide was removed if a piece of it the size of a sela remains? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: It saves the animal. Rabbi Asi said to him: But didn’t you teach us, our teacher, the following mishna (122a): These are the entities whose hide is like their flesh in terms of halakhic status, in that it transmits ritual impurity…the skin of a head of a young calf, and the hide of the hooves? Evidently, the hide of the hooves is considered like flesh and not true skin. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Do not trouble me by invoking that mishna, as I teach it in the singular. Only according to one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, is the hide of the hooves not true skin; according to the Rabbis, it is considered true skin.

As it is taught in a baraita: One who slaughters a burnt offering with intent to burn an olive-bulk of the hide beneath the tail outside its designated area, i.e., outside the Temple courtyard, renders the offering unfit, but there is no liability for excision from the World-to-Come [karet] for one who partakes of the offering. If he had intent to burn it beyond its designated time, then it is rendered piggul, and one is liable to receive karet for partaking of it. This halakha usually applies to an offering’s flesh but not its hide. Since the hide beneath the tail is soft, it is treated like part of the flesh. This is the opinion of the Rabbis.

Eliezer ben Yehuda of Evlayim said in the name of Rabbi Ya’akov, and so says Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda of Ikos in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Whether the hide of the hooves, or the hide of the head of a young calf, or the hide beneath the tail, or any hide that the Sages listed with regard to ritual impurity under the heading: These are the entities whose hide is like their flesh in terms of halakhic status,